Midland Master Trails Plan Public Meeting Presentation - May 19, 2014
-
Upload
city-of-midland -
Category
Government & Nonprofit
-
view
828 -
download
3
description
Transcript of Midland Master Trails Plan Public Meeting Presentation - May 19, 2014
Draft Ide
as fo
r Disc
ussio
nOpen House – May 19, 2014
Draft Ide
as fo
r Disc
ussio
n
ExistingTrailsinMidland
Looped trails within parks:• Up to 15 miles +/‐• Concrete• Width varies ‐ 6’ to 8’
Draft Ide
as fo
r Disc
ussio
n
ExistingTrailsinMidlandUtility Corridor Trail:• Approximately
1.5 miles• Concrete• 8’ width
Draft Ide
as fo
r Disc
ussio
n
ExistingTrailsinMidlandAround Midland College:• Approximately
1.3 miles• Concrete• 6’ width
Draft Ide
as fo
r Disc
ussio
n
Existing Trails in Midland: 22 miles• Approximately 1 mile of trail for every 5,675
residents in the City
Draft Ide
as fo
r Disc
ussio
n
Existing Trails in Midland: 22 milesProposed Spine Network Trails: 64 milesProposed Trails Total: 77 miles
Draft Ide
as fo
r Disc
ussio
n
Before – Jal Draw near Pinemont Dr.
Draft Ide
as fo
r Disc
ussio
n
After – Jal Draw near Pinemont Dr.
Draft Ide
as fo
r Disc
ussio
n
Before – Drainage along Hereford Blvd.
Draft Ide
as fo
r Disc
ussio
n
After– Drainage along Hereford Blvd.
Draft Ide
as fo
r Disc
ussio
n
Before – Jal Draw near Ward St.
Draft Ide
as fo
r Disc
ussio
n
After – Jal Draw near Ward St.
Draft Ide
as fo
r Disc
ussio
n
Before – Utility Corridor Trail at Lancaster Park
Image source: Google Earth
Draft Ide
as fo
r Disc
ussio
n
After – Utility Corridor Trail at Lancaster Park
Image source: Google Earth
Draft Ide
as fo
r Disc
ussio
n
What are Quiet Streets?
Draft Ide
as fo
r Disc
ussio
n
Potential Trailheads
Draft Ide
as fo
r Disc
ussio
n
FacilityTypes/Toolbox
Draft Ide
as fo
r Disc
ussio
n
SHARED‐USEPATH(OFF‐STREETTRAIL)
Where: Drainage, utility, rail or greenbelt corridors
Advantages: Attractive for riders of many skill levels, can enhance connectivity citywide
Disadvantages: High cost, requires suitable corridor, concern at street crossings
Cost: High
Width: 10 ft. preferredUser: pedestrians & bicyclistsWidth: 10 ft. preferredUser: pedestrians & bicyclists
Draft Ide
as fo
r Disc
ussio
n
SIDEPATH(ADJACENTTOROADWAY)
Where: Streets with adequate parkway width
Advantages: More appealing to novice or young riders, for areas with no greenbelts
Disadvantages: Only in areas with very few driveways, less appealing to experienced riders, less predictability at intersections, shared with pedestrians
Cost: High
Width: 8 ft. min. (10’ minimum, 8’ in constrained areas)
User: pedestrians & bicyclists
Width: 8 ft. min. (10’ minimum, 8’ in constrained areas)
User: pedestrians & bicyclists
Draft Ide
as fo
r Disc
ussio
n
BICYCLELANES
Where: Streets with lower traffic volumes and speeds
Advantages: Very inexpensive, easy to implement in many areas with no other option
Disadvantages: Some riders may not be comfortable near cars
Cost: Very low
Width: 5 ft. minimumUser: bicyclistsWidth: 5 ft. minimumUser: bicyclists
Draft Ide
as fo
r Disc
ussio
n
BUFFEREDBIKELANES
Where: Streets with sufficient pavement width
Advantages: Very inexpensive, easy to implement on some streets in Brownsville, appealing to average riders
Disadvantages: Requires wider street pavement width
Cost: Very low
Width: 5 ft. minimum plus striped buffer (min. 24” width)
User: bicyclists
Width: 5 ft. minimum plus striped buffer (min. 24” width)
User: bicyclists
City of Austin
City of Austin
Draft Ide
as fo
r Disc
ussio
n
Draft Ide
as fo
r Disc
ussio
n
Draft Ide
as fo
r Disc
ussio
n
3 – Downtown Pedestrian Corridors
Draft Ide
as fo
r Disc
ussio
n
5, 7, 9 – Separated Bicycle Routes
Draft Ide
as fo
r Disc
ussio
n
5, 7, 9 – Separated Bicycle Routes
Draft Ide
as fo
r Disc
ussio
n
MapDiscussionandQuestions