2004-12-13 Regular Meeting and Workshop Meeting

Browse Search

Houston-Galveston Area Council DRAFT 2025 Regional Transportation Plan Other Bikeway Planning and Implementation Issues While much has been accomplished since 1996, there are still a number of issues that will need to be addressed to establish an outstanding bikeway network in the TMA. Consistent Terminology and Mapping One obstacle to building a coordinated regional system is the lack of consistency in the methods and terminology used by local entities to develop bikeway plans. Resolving inconsistencies in terminology and mapping conventions will allow for greater information sharing and project coordination, particularly when a facility traverses multiple jurisdictions. H-GAC recommends the use of the following standardized terminology, as identified in the AASHTO Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities, for local bikeway planning purposes: On-Street Bike Lane Signed Shared Roadway Signed Shoulder Bike Route Off-Street Shared-use Path Subsequent updates of the Regional Bikeway Plan will also include additional categories of future projects to allow for better tracking of project status and level of commitment. In addition to using this terminology, H-GAC encourages local governments to adopt standard Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping formats to facilitate electronic data transfer among agencies and local jurisdictions. Design and Maintenance Achieving greater consistency in the design and maintenance of local bikeways will be a crucial step increasing usage and improving safety. Many facilities in the TMA have deficiencies in one or both of these areas. . Guidelines - The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) established guidelines for bikeways, last updated in 1999. Federally funded bikeway projects require TxDOT administration and must be designed and constructed to meet the current AASHTO guide. Utilizing federal funds is often a more costly proposition than communities anticipate. The federal process entails additional procedural requirements which can add time and cost to project development. Additionally, federal aid investments are intended to support long-term heavy use facilities, usually entailing higher design, ROWand construction costs. As a result, smaller projects may not be suitable for federal funding and sponsors may wish to consider using local resources which will afford them greater flexibility . It is important that local project sponsors be aware that the higher costs of building bikeways using AASHTO-guidelines can be offset by reduced maintenance costs over the life of the facility. For example, asphalt trails cost much less build, but will require greater maintenance and have a shorter useful life. It should also be considered that well-designed facilities are safer and will allow higher levels of usage as demand grows. Appendix C Regional Bikeway Plan and Design Guidelines Page 9 of 27