chapter 5 the active mobility network

Bicycle and Pedestr ian Master Plan Update

93

CHAPTER 5

The Active Mobility Network

Town of Normal, I l l inois

94

This page intentionally left blank.


95

Introduction

Recommendations for safe, interconnected, low-stress facilities for walking and bicycling are core elements of the Town’s strategy and vision for walking, biking, and active transportation and recreation. From sidewalks and trails to on-street bikeways, physical improvements to the built environment can have direct, measurable impacts on walking and biking activity, safety, and comfort.

This chapter of the plan presents the Town’s approach to designing facilities for all ages and abilities, describes the various facility types that form the building blocks of the walking and biking networks, and offers a series of pedestrian and bicycle projects that, when combined with existing trails and bikeways, form a continuous system of facilities to support safe and comfortable trips on foot and bike.


96

Designing for All Ages & Abilities

As an essential part of Normal's transportation system, the bicycle and pedestrian network must be designed and maintained to serve people of all ages, abilities, and backgrounds. It is important to consider the wide range of users and their specific transportation needs. Whether traveling by foot, bike, wheelchair, skateboard, inline skates, or other non-motorized means, Normal residents and visitors should expect safe, comfortable, and reliable facilities to support their transportation or recreation mode of choice.

The following pages describe user dimensions and space needs, travel behaviors, and design considerations for multiple network user types. This information will serve as a valuable resource for Town staff and for design and engineering consultants who will implement the Plan.


97

PedestriansNot all pedestrians are alike, and the transportation network should anticipate and accommodate the diversity of pedestrian needs, abilities, and possible cognitive or physical impairments. Age is one major factor that affects pedestrians’ physical characteristics, walking speed, and environmental perception. Children have low eye height and walk at slower speeds than adults. They also perceive the environment differently at various stages of their cognitive development. Older adults walk more slowly and may require assistive devices for walking stability, sight, and hearing. The table below summarizes common pedestrian characteristics for various age groups.

The MUTCD recommends a normal walking speed of 3.5 feet per second when calculating the pedestrian clearance interval at traffic signals. The walking speed can drop to 2.5 feet per second for areas with older populations and persons with mobility impairments. While the type and degree of mobility impairment vary greatly across the population, the transportation system should accommodate these users to the greatest reasonable extent based on expected users and land use adjacent to system segments.

Table 5. Pedestrian Characteristics by Age

Source: AASHTO. Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, Exhibit 2-1. 2004.

Age Characteristics

0-4 Learning to walk

Requires constant adult supervision

Developing peripheral vision and depth perception

5-8 Increasing independence, but still requires supervision

Poor depth perception

9-13 Susceptible to “darting out” in roadways

Insufficient judgment

Sense of invulnerability

14-18 Improved awareness of traffic environment

Insufficient judgment

19-40 Active, aware of traffic environment

41-65 Slowing of reflexes

65+ Difficulty crossing street

Vision loss

Difficulty hearing vehicles approaching from behind

Walking 2’ 6”

Preferred Operating Space5’

Eye Level

4’ 6” - 5’ 10”

Shoulders 1’ 10”


98

Table 6. Design Considerations for Pedestrians with Disabilities

Impairment Effect on Mobility Design Solution

Wheelchair and Scooter Users

Difficulty propelling over uneven or soft surfaces.

Firm, stable surfaces and structures, including ramps or beveled edges.

Cross-slopes cause wheelchairs to veer downhill. Cross-slopes of less than two percent.

Require wider path of travel. Sufficient width and maneuvering space.

Walking Aid Users

Difficulty negotiating steep grades and cross slopes; decreased stability.

Smooth, non-slipperly travel surface.

Slower walking speed and reduced endurance; reduced ability to react.

Longer pedestrian signal cycles, shorter crossing distances, median refuges, and street furniture.

Hearing

Impairment

Less able to detect oncoming hazards at locations with limited sight lines (e.g. driveways, angled intersections, channelized right turn lanes) and complex intersections.

Longer pedestrian signal cycles, clear sight distances, highly visible pedestrian signals and markings.

Vision

Impairment

Limited perception of path ahead and obstacles; reliance on memory; reliance on non-visual indicators (e.g., sound and texture).

Accessible text (larger print and raised text), accessible pedestrian signals (APS), guide strips and detectable warning surfaces, safety barriers, and lighting.

Cognitive Impairment

Varies greatly. Can affect ability to perceive, recognize, understand, interpret, and respond to information.

Signs with pictures, universal symbols, and colors, rather than text.

The table below summarizes common physical and cognitive impairments, how they affect personal mobility, and recommendations for improved pedestrian-friendly design.


99

Design Needs of Wheelchair Users

For a variety of reasons, the number of people using mobility assistive devices (such as manual wheelchairs, powered wheelchairs) is increasing.

Manual wheelchairs are self-propelled devices. Users propel themselves using push rims attached to the rear wheels. Braking is done through resisting wheel movement with the hands or arm. Alternatively, a second individual can control the wheelchair using handles attached to the back of the chair.

Minimum Operating Width 3’

Minimum Operating Width 3’

Minimum to Make a 180 Degree Turn5’

Minimum to Make a 180 Degree Turn5’

Physical Width 2’6”

Physical Width 2’2”

Armrest2’5”

Handle2’9”

Eye Height3’8”

Wheelchair User Typical Speed

UserTypical Speed

Manual Wheelchair

3.6 mph

Power Wheelchair 6.8 mph

Table 7. Wheelchair User Design Considerations

Effect on Mobility Design Solution

Difficulty propelling over uneven or soft surfaces.

Firm, stable surfaces and structures, including ramps or beveled edges.

Cross-slopes cause wheelchairs to veer downhill.

Cross-slopes of less than two percent.

Require wider path of travel. Sufficient width and maneuvering space.

Source: FHWA. Characteristics of Emerging Road and Trail Users and Their Safety. 2004. USDOJ. 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. 2010.

Power wheelchairs user battery power to move the wheelchair. The size and weight of power wheelchairs limit their ability to negotiate obstacles without a ramp. Various control units are available that enable users to control the wheelchair movement, based on their ability (e.g., joystick control, breath controlled, etc).

Maneuvering around a turn requires additional space for wheelchair devices. Providing adequate space for 180 degree turns at appropriate locations is an important element for accessible design.


100

Design Needs of Strollers

Strollers are wheeled devices pushed by pedestrians to transport babies, small children, or even pets. Stroller models vary greatly in their design and capacity. Some strollers are designed to accommodate a single child, others can carry 3 or more. Design needs of strollers depend on the wheel size, geometry, and ability of the adult who is pushing the stroller.

Strollers commonly have small pivoting front wheels for easy maneuverability, but these wheels may limit their use on unpaved surfaces or rough pavement. Curb ramps are valuable to these users. Lateral overturning is one main safety concern for stroller users.

Physical Length 5’

Sweep Width 3’ 6”

Eye Level

3’ 2”

Source: FHWA. Characteristics of Emerging Road and Trail Users and Their Safety. (2004).

Typical Speed

UserTypical Speed

Stroller 3.7 mph

Design Needs of Dog Walkers

Dog walking is a common and anticipated use on shared use paths. Dog sizes vary largely, as do leash length and walking style, leading to wide variation in possible design dimensions.

Shared use paths designed to accommodate wheelchair users are likely to provide the necessary dimensions for the average dog walker. Amenities such as dog waste stations and dog water fountains may enhance conditions for dog walkers.

Sweep WidthVaries

Source: FHWA. Characteristics of Emerging Road and Trail Users and Their Safety. (2004).

Physical Length Up to 5’


101

Preferred Operating Space5’

Shoulders 1’ 10”

Sweep Width4.3’

Eye Level 4’ 6” - 5’ 10”

Typical Speed

UserTypical Speed

Runner 6.2 mph

Design Needs of Runners

Running is an important recreation and fitness activity commonly performed on shared use paths. Many runners prefer softer surfaces (such as rubber, bare earth, or crushed rock) to reduce impact. Runners can change their speed and direction frequently. If high volumes are expected, controlled interaction or separation of different types of users should be considered.


102

Design Needs of People Rolling

Scooters, skateboards, and other micro-mobility devices (MMD) are low-speed mobility devices operated on on-street facilities. MMD can be entirely human-powered, powered by an electric motor, or a hybrid of the two, but typically have a speed of 20 mph or less. Because the speed of these devices is similar to bicycles, they are often operated in bicycle facilities (on-street and off-street).

In general, these devices have the same design and operating envelopes of bicycles (in some cases even narrower), and can be operated by a wide range of users, including those who may not be able to operate a traditional bicycle.

The cost of these devices continues to decrease, making them more accessible. Beyond personal ownership, MMD for public use continues to expand with scooter-share systems being implemented in many cities across the country.

Design Needs of Skaters

Inline skates are commonly used for recreational and transportation purposes. They typically have three to five wheels of 3 to 4 inches diameter, aligned in a straight line. Inline skate design allows for more efficient and higher-speed travel than quad wheel skates.

Operational characteristics vary by skill level of the operator. Novice skaters travel more slowly and have a narrower sweep width than advanced skaters. Novice users may also have trouble making sharp turns and stopping quickly, particularly on steep grades.

Inline skates are nearly impossible to use on unpaved surfaces and can be uncomfortable and difficult to operate on rough pavements such as chip seal and asphalt with large aggregate.

Typical Speed

User Typical Speed

Inline Skates 9.9 mph

Sweep Width 4’ 11”

Physical Width 2’

Eye Height5’ 6”

Eye Height5’ 10”

Preferred Operating Width 5'

Physical Width 2’


103

Operating Envelope

8’ 4”

Eye Level5’

Handlebar Height3’8”

Preferred Operating Width 5'

Minimum Operating Width

4’

Physical Operating Width 2’6”

BicyclistsSimilar to motor vehicles, bicyclists and their bicycles exist in a variety of sizes and configurations. These variations occur in the types of vehicle (such as a conventional bicycle, a recumbent bicycle, or a tricycle) and behavioral characteristics (such as the comfort level of the bicyclist). The design of a bikeway should consider reasonably expected bicycle types on the facility and utilize the appropriate dimensions.

Bicycle Dimensions

The figure below illustrates the operating space and physical dimensions of a typical adult bicyclist, which are the basis for typical facility design. Bicyclists require clear space to operate within a facility. This is why the minimum operating width is greater than the physical dimensions of the bicyclist. Bicyclists prefer five feet or more operating width, although four feet may be minimally acceptable.

Source: AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition. 2012.

Standard Bicycle Rider Dimensions


104

Bicycle Type Feature Typical Speed

Upright Adult Bicyclist Paved level surfacing 15 mph

Crossing Intersections 10 mph

Downhill 30 mph

Uphill 5 -12 mph

Recumbent Bicyclist Paved level surfacing 18 mph

Table 8. Bicycle as Design Vehicle - Typical Dimensions

*Tandem bicycles and bicyclists with trailers have typical speeds equal to or less than upright adult bicyclists.

Bicycle Type FeatureTypical Dimensions

Upright Adult Bicyclist

Physical width 2 ft 6 in

Operating width (Minimum) 4 ft

Operating width (Preferred) 5 ft

Physical length 5 ft 10 in

Physical height of handlebars 3 ft 8 in

Operating height 8 ft 4 in

Eye height 5 ft

Vertical clearance to obstructions (tunnel height, lighting, etc)

10 ft

Approximate center of gravity 2 ft 9 in - 3 ft 4 in

Recumbent Bicyclist

Physical length 8 ft

Eye height 3 ft 10 in

Tandem Bicyclist


Bicyclist with Child Trailer


Physical width 2 ft 6 in

In addition to the design dimensions of a typical bicycle, there are many other commonly used pedal-driven cycles and accessories to consider when planning and designing bicycle facilities. The most common types include tandem bicycles, recumbent bicycles, and trailer accessories. The figure and table below summarize the typical dimensions for bicycle types.

Design Speed Expectations

The expected speed that different types of bicyclists can maintain under various conditions also influences the design of facilities such as shared use paths.

Source: AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition *AASHTO does not provide typical dimensions for tricycles.

3’ 11” 2’ 6”

3’ 9”

6’10”

8’

5’ 10”

Table 9. Bicycle Design Speed Expectations


105

Types of Bicyclists

Bicyclist skill level greatly influences expected speeds and behavior, both in separated bikeways and on shared roadways. Bicycle infrastructure should accommodate as many user types as possible, with decisions for separate or parallel facilities based on providing a comfortable experience for the greatest number of people.

The bicycle planning and engineering professions currently use several systems to classify the population, which can assist in understanding the characteristics and infrastructure preferences of different bicyclists. The current AASHTO Guide to the Development of Bicycle Facilities encourages designers to identify their rider type based on the trip purpose (Recreational vs Transportation) and on the level of comfort and skill of the rider (Casual vs Experienced). A more detailed framework for understanding the United States population’s relationship to transportation-focused bicycling is illustrated in the figure below. Developed by planners in Portland, Oregon, and supported by research, this classification provides the following alternative categories to address varying attitudes towards bicycling in the United States.

ENTHUSIASTIC & CONFIDENT

Very comfortable riding but prefer streets with designated bike lanes

5-10%

NOT CURRENTLY INTERESTED

Physically unable or very uncomfortable biking even on streets with separated

bikeways

30%

STRONG & FEARLESS

Very comfortable and willing to ride on streets

with no designated bike facilities

1-3%

INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED

Comfortable on trails and streets with buffered or separated bikeways and interested in biking more

50-60%


106

Signed Connection Shared Travel Lane

Bicycle Boulevard Advisory Bike Lane

Facility Design Guidance

This section serves as an inventory of pedestrian, bicycle, and trail facility types recommended in the plan and provides guidelines for their development. Design guidance and considerations are sourced from design manuals and standards from agencies at the forefront of pedestrian and bicycle facility design and implementation, including NACTO, AASHTO, and FHWA.

These treatments and design guidelines are important because they represent the tools

for creating a safe and accessible community. The guidelines are not, however, a substitute for a more thorough evaluation by a landscape architect or engineer upon implementation of facility improvements.

In addition to the facility types listed in this section of the plan, the appendix provides a more comprehensive set of facility design guidelines for use by Town staff and design consultants.


107

Separated Bike Lane Shared Use Path (Trail)

Sidepath (Trail Adjacent to Roadway) Sidewalk

Conventional Bike Lane Buffered Bike Lane


108

Signed Shared Roadways (Signed Connection)Signed shared roadways are not formal facilities for bicycling, but are on roadway segments to be shared with motor vehicles. They are typically used on roads with low speeds and traffic volumes, however can be used on higher volume roads with wide outside lanes or shoulders. A motor vehicle driver will usually have to cross over into the adjacent travel lane to pass a bicyclist, unless a wide outside lane or shoulder is provided.

Typical Application

• Signed shared roadways serve either to provide continuity with other bicycle facilities (usually bike lanes) or to designate preferred routes through high-demand corridors.

• This configuration differs from a bike boulevard due to a lack of traffic calming, wayfinding, pavement markings, and other enhancements designed to provide a higher level of comfort for a broad spectrum of users.

Design Features

• Lane width varies depending on roadway configuration.

• Bike route signage (D11-1) should be applied at intervals frequent enough to keep bicyclists informed of changes in route direction and to remind motorists of the presence of bicyclists. Commonly, this includes placement at:

◦ Beginning or end of a bicycle route.

◦ Major changes in direction or at intersections with other bicycle routes.

◦ Intervals along bicycle routes not to exceed ½ mile.

MUTCD D11-1


109

Marked Shared Roadway (Shared Travel Lane)A marked shared roadway is a general-purpose travel lane marked with shared lane markings (SLM) used to encourage bicycle travel and proper positioning within the lane.

MUTCD R4-11 (optional)

MUTCD D11-1 (optional)

Typical Application

◦ In constrained conditions, the SLMs are placed in the middle of the lane. On a wide outside lane, the SLMs can be used to promote bicycle travel to the right of motor vehicles.

◦ In all conditions, SLMs should be placed outside of the door zone of parked cars.

Design Features

• May be used on streets with a speed limit of 35 mph or under. Lower than 30 mph speed limit preferred.

• In constrained conditions, preferred placement is in the center of the travel lane to minimize wear and promote single file travel.

• Minimum placement of SLM marking centerline is 11 feet from edge of curb where on-street parking is present, 4 feet from edge of curb with no parking. If parking lane is wider than 7.5 feet, the SLM should be moved further out accordingly.

A

B

B

A


110

Bicycle BoulevardsBicycle boulevards are low-volume, low-speed streets modified to enhance bicyclist comfort by using treatments such as signage, pavement markings, traffic calming and/or traffic reduction, and intersection modifications. These treatments allow through movements of bicyclists while discouraging similar through-trips by non-local motorized traffic.

Typical Application

• Parallel with and in close proximity to major thoroughfares (1/4 mile or less).

• Follow a desire line for bicycle travel that is ideally long and relatively continuous (2-5 miles).

• Avoid alignments with excessive zigzag or circuitous routing. The bikeway should have less than 10 percent out-of-direction travel compared to shortest path of primary corridor.

• Streets with travel speeds at 25 mph or less and with traffic volumes of fewer than 3,000 vehicles per day.

Design Features

• Signs and pavement markings are the minimum treatments necessary to designate a street as a bicycle boulevard.

• Implement volume-control treatments based on the context of the bicycle boulevard, using engineering judgment. Target motor vehicle volumes range from 1,000 to 3,000 vehicles per day.

• Intersection crossings should be designed to enhance safety and minimize delay for bicyclists.

C

B

A

C

B

A


111

Bicycle boulevards are established on streets that improve connectivity to key destinations and provide a direct, low-stress route for bicyclists, with low motorized traffic volumes and speeds, designated and designed to give bicycle travel priority over other modes.

Streets along classified neighborhood bikeways may require additional traffic calming measures to discourage through trips by motor vehicles.

Further Considerations

Bicycle boulevard retrofits to local streets are typically located on streets without existing signalized accommodation at crossings of collector and arterial roadways. Without treatments for bicyclists, these intersections can become major barriers along the bicycle boulevard and compromise safety.

Traffic calming can deter motorists from driving on a street. Anticipate and monitor vehicle volumes on adjacent streets to determine whether traffic calming results in inappropriate volumes. Traffic calming can be implemented on a trial basis.

Crash Reduction

In a comparison of vehicle/cyclist collision rates on traffic-calmed side streets signed and improved for cyclist use, compared to parallel and adjacent arterials with higher speeds and volumes, the bicycle boulevard is found to have a crash reduction factor of 63 percent, with rates two to eight times lower when controlling for volume (CMF ID: 3092).

Construction Costs

Costs vary depending on the types of treatments proposed for the corridor. Simple treatments such as wayfinding signage and markings are most cost-effective, but more intensive treatments will have greater impact at lowering speeds and volumes, at a higher cost.


112

Advisory Bike LanesAdvisory bike lanes are a type of shared roadway that clarify operating positions for bicyclists and motorists to minimize conflicts and increase comfort. Similar in appearance to bike lanes, advisory bike lanes are distinct in that they are temporarily shared with motor vehicles during turning, approaching, and passing. Currently this facility is an experimental treatment in the Manual of Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and requires a request to experiment from FHWA.

Typical Application

• Most appropriate on streets where motor vehicle traffic volumes are low-moderate (500 - 4,500 ADT) and where there is insufficient room for conventional bicycle lanes. Traffic speeds of 20 mph to 30 mph are possible with advisory bike lanes but additional design features may be needed at higher speed levels, e.g., traffic calming, lower vehicular volumes, etc.

• If on-street parking is permitted, high parking utilization is desirable to support lane definition and visual continuity. Where utilization is low, consider adding curb extensions.

Design Features

• No centerline on roadway.

• Advisory bike lane width of 5 - 7 feet.

• Minimum center travel lane width of 8 - 20 feet. When center travel lane width allows 2 vehicles to pass without use of bike lanes, additional traffic calming should be considered. Center travel lane widths which make it unclear whether two vehicles can pass without use of the bike lane should be avoided – use obviously narrow or obviously wide center travel lanes.

A

B

A

B

C

C


113

Construction Costs

The cost for installing advisory bike lanes will depend on the implementation approach.


• Consider the use of colored pavement within the advisory bike lanes to discourage unnecessary encroachment by motorists or parked vehicles.

• It is important to consider the needs of various road users when implementing an advisory bike lane. Required passing widths for truck or emergency vehicles should be considered on routes where such vehicles are anticipated.

• This treatment can be used on both urban and rural roads with appropriate speeds and volumes. Curves, hills, and dips should be assessed for sufficient sight distance to ensure safe operation.

• Channelizing islands may be useful in areas where drivers need to be encouraged to return to the center travel lane.

Bike lane symbols and lane striping tell motorists and cyclists where to position themselves.

Crash Reduction

Short-term engineering evaluation studies have been performed on five advisory bike lane installations in the US. All of them have found the facilities to be safe and operating as intended.

One English study found a reduction in accidents from 17 injury accidents per year to 11 injury accidents per year (a 35% reduction) after removal of a centerline from a road in Wiltshire County.


114

On-Street Bicycle Lanes On-street bike lanes designate an exclusive space for bicyclists through the use of pavement markings and signs. The bike lane is located directly adjacent to motor vehicle travel lanes and is used in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic. Bike lanes are typically on the right side of the street, between the adjacent travel lane and curb, road edge or parking lane.

Typical Application

• Bike lanes may be used on any street with adequate space, but are most effective on streets with moderate traffic volumes greater than or equal to 6,000 ADT (with a greater than 3,000 ADT min.).

• Bike lanes are most appropriate on streets with moderate speeds (at or exceeding 25 mph).

• Appropriate for skilled adult riders on most streets.

• May be appropriate for children when configured as 6+ feet wide lanes on lower-speed, lower-volume streets with one lane in each direction.

Design Features

• Mark inside line with 6-inch stripe. Mark 4-inch parking lane line or “Ts”.

• Include a bicycle lane marking (MUTCD Figure 9C-3) at the beginning of blocks and at regular intervals along the route (MUTCD 9C.04).

• 6-foot width preferred adjacent to on-street parking (5-foot minimum).

• 5–6 feet preferred adjacent to curb and gutter (3-foot minimum) or 4 feet more than the gutter pan width.

A

A

B

B

D

D

C

C

Additional References and Guidelines

FHWA. Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System. 2006.

FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2009.


115


• On high speed streets (≥ 40 mph) the minimum bike lane should be 6 feet. (HDM 301.2)

• On streets where bicyclists passing each other is to be expected, where high volumes of bicyclists are present, or where added comfort is desired, consider providing extra-wide bike lanes up to 7 feet in width, or configure as a buffered bicycle lane.

• It may be desirable to reduce the width of general-purpose travel lanes in order to add or widen bicycle lanes. (HDM 301.2 3)

• On multi-lane streets, the most appropriate bicycle facility to provide for user comfort may be buffered bicycle lanes or physically separated bicycle lanes.

Manhole Covers and Grates:

• Manhole surfaces should be manufactured with a shallow surface texture in the form of a tight, nonlinear pattern

• If manholes or other utility access boxes are to be located in bike lanes within 50 feet of intersections or within 20 feet of driveways or other bicycle access points, special manufactured permanent nonstick surfaces will be required to ensure a controlled travel surface for cyclists breaking or turning.

• Manholes, drainage grates, or other obstacles should be set flush with the paved roadway. Roadway surface inconsistencies pose a threat to safe riding conditions for bicyclists. Construction of manholes, access panels or other drainage elements will be constructed with no variation in the surface. The maximum allowable tolerance in vertical roadway surface will be 1/4 of an inch.

Crash Reduction

Before and after studies of bicycle lane installations show a wide range of crash reduction factors. Some studies show a crash reduction of 35% (CMF ID: 1719) for vehicle/bicycle collisions after bike lane installation.

Bike lane word, symbol, and/or arrow markings (MUTCD Figure 9C-3) shall be placed outside of the motor vehicle tread path in order to minimize wear from the motor vehicle path (NACTO 2012).

Bike lanes provide an exclusive space, but may be subject to unwanted encroachment by motor vehicles.


116

Design Features

• The minimum bicycle travel area (not including buffer) is 5 feet wide.

• Buffers should be at least 2 feet wide. If buffer area is 2.5 feet or wider, white chevron or diagonal markings should be used.

• For clarity at driveways or minor street crossings, consider a dotted line.

• There is no standard for whether the buffer is configured on the parking side, the travel side, or a combination of both.

Typical Application

• Anywhere a conventional bike lane is being considered.

• On streets with high speeds and high volumes or high truck volumes.

• On streets with extra lanes or lane width.

• Appropriate for skilled adult riders on most streets.

Buffered Bicycle Lanes Buffered bike lanes are conventional bike lanes paired with a designated buffer space, separating the bike lane from the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane and/or parking lane.

A

A

B

B


117

Additional References and Guidelines

Monsere, C.; McNeil, N.; and Dill, J., “Evaluation of Innovative Bicycle Facilities: SW Broadway Cycle Track and SW Stark/Oak Street Buffered Bike Lanes. Final Report” (2011). Urban Studies and Planning Faculty Publications and Presentations.

National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Report #766: Recommended Bicycle Lane Widths for Various Roadway Characteristics.


• Color may be used within the lane to discourage motorists from entering the buffered lane.

• A study of buffered bicycle lanes found that, in order to make the facilities successful, there needs to also be driver education, improved signage, and proper pavement markings.

• On multi-lane streets with high vehicle speeds, the most appropriate bicycle facility to provide for user comfort may be physically separated bike lanes.

• NCHRP Report #766 recommends, when space in limited, installing a buffer space between the parking lane and bicycle lane where on-street parking is permitted rather than between the bicycle lane and vehicle travel lane.

Crash Reduction

A before and after study of buffered bicycle lane installation in Portland, Oregon, found an overwhelmingly positive response from bicyclists, with 89 percent of bicyclists feeling safer riding after installation and 91 percent expressing that the facility made bicycling easier.

The use of bicycle lane striping and pavement markings delineates space for bicyclists to ride in a comfortable facility.

Another example of a buffered bicycle lane adjacent to on-street parking.


118

Design Features

• Pavement markings, symbols and/or arrow markings must be placed at the beginning of the separated bike lane and at intervals along the facility (MUTCD 9C.04).

• 7-foot width preferred (5-foot minimum).

• 3-foot minimum buffer width adjacent to parking. 18-inch minimum adjacent to travel lanes (NACTO, 2012). Channelizing devices should be placed in the buffer area.

• If buffer area is 4 feet or wider, white chevron or diagonal markings should be used.

Typical Application

• Street retrofit projects with limited funds for relocating curbs and drainage.

• Streets with high motor vehicle volumes and/or speeds and high bicycle volumes.

• Streets for which conflicts at intersections can be effectively mitigated using parking lane setbacks, bicycle markings through the intersection, and other signalized intersection treatments.

• Appropriate for most riders on most streets.

A

B

C

One-Way Separated Bicycle Lanes When retrofitting separated bike lanes onto existing streets, a one-way street-level design may be most appropriate. This design provides protection through physical barriers and can include flexible delineators, curbs, on-street parking or other barriers. A street-level separated bike lane shares the same elevation as adjacent travel lanes.

A

B

C


119


• Separated bike lane buffers and barriers are covered in the MUTCD as preferential lane markings (section 3D.01) and channelizing devices (section 3H.01). Curbs may be used as a channeling device; see the section on islands (section 3I.01).

• A retrofit separated bike lane has a relatively low implementation cost compared to road reconstruction by making use of existing pavement and drainage and by using the parking lane as a barrier.

• Gutters, drainage outlets, and utility covers should be designed and configured as not to impact bicycle travel.

• Special consideration should be given at transit stops to manage bicycle and pedestrian interactions.

Crash Reduction

A before and after study in Montreal of physically separated bicycle lanes shows that this type of facility can result in a crash reduction of 74 percent for collisions between bicyclists and vehicles (CMF ID: 4097). In this study, there was a parking buffer between the bike facility and vehicle travel lanes. Other studies have found a range in crash reductions due to SBL, from 8 percent (CMF ID: 4094) to 94 percent (CMF ID: 4101).

Construction Costs

The implementation cost is low if the project uses existing pavement and drainage, but the cost significantly increases if curb lines need to be moved. A parking lane is the low-cost option for providing a barrier. Other barriers might include concrete medians, bollards, tubular markers, or planters.

Street-level separated bicycle lanes can be separated from the motor vehicle traffic with parking, planters, bollards, or other design elements.


120

Design Features

• 12-foot operating width preferred (10-foot minimum) for two-way facility.

• In constrained areas an 8-foot minimum operating width may be considered.

• Adjacent to on-street parking a 3-foot minimum width channelized buffer or island shall be provided to accommodate opening doors (NACTO, 2012) (MUTCD 3H.01, 3I.01).

• A separation narrower than 5 feet may be permitted if a physical barrier is present (AASHTO, 2013).

• Additional signalization and signs may be necessary to manage conflicts.

Typical Application

• Works best on the left side of one-way streets.

• Streets with high motor vehicle volumes and/or speeds.

• Streets with high bicycle volumes.

• Streets with a high incidence of wrong-way bicycle riding.

• Streets with few conflicts such as driveways or cross-streets on one side of the street.

• Streets that connect to shared use paths.

B

Two-Way Separated Bicycle Lanes Two-way separated bicycle lanes are bicycle facilities that allow bicycle movement in both directions on one side of the road. Two-way separated bicycle lanes share some of the same design characteristics as one-way separated bicycle lanes, but may require additional considerations at driveway and side-street crossings.

A

A

B


121


• On-street bike lane buffers and barriers are covered in the MUTCD as preferential lane markings (section 3D.01) and channelizing devices, including flexible delineators (section 3H.01). Curbs may be used as a channelizing device; see the section on islands (section 3I.01).

• A two-way separated bike lane may be configured at street level or as a raised separated bicycle lane with vertical separation from the adjacent travel lane.

Crash Reduction

A study of bicyclists in two-way separated facilities found that accident probability decreased by 45 percent at intersections where the separated facility approach was deflected between 6 and 16 feet away from the side of the main road and when bicyclists had crossing priority at intersections (CMF ID: 4033). Installation of a two-way separated bike lane within 0 to 6 feet from the side of the main road resulted in an increase in collisions at intersections by 3 percent (CMF ID: 4033).

Construction Costs

The implementation cost is low if the project uses existing pavement and drainage, but the cost significantly increases if curb lines need to be moved. A parking lane is the low-cost option for providing a barrier. Other barriers might include concrete medians, bollards, tubular markers, or planters.

A two-way facility can accommodate cyclists in two directions of travel.


122

Typical Application

• In abandoned rail corridors (commonly referred to as Rails-to-Trails or Rail-Trails).

• In active rail corridors, trails can be built adjacent to active railroads (referred to as Rails-with-Trails).

• In utility corridors, such as powerline and sewer corridors.

• In waterway corridors, such as along canals, drainage ditches, rivers, and beaches.

• Along roadways.

Shared Use PathShared use paths provide a comfortable transportation and recreation experience for people walking, bicycling, skateboarding, inline skating, and using other forms of non-motorized transportation. Shared use paths should generally provide directional travel opportunities not provided by existing roadways.

B

A


123

Design Features

Width

• 8 feet is the minimum allowed for a two-way bicycle path and is only recommended for low-traffic situations or constrained areas.

• 10 feet is recommended in most situations and will be adequate for moderate to heavy use.

• 12 feet is recommended for heavy use situations with high concentrations of multiple users. A separate track (5-foot minimum) can be provided for pedestrian use.

Lateral Clearance

• A 2-foot or greater shoulder on both sides of the path should be provided. An additional foot of lateral clearance (3 feet total) is required by the MUTCD for the installation of signage or other furnishings.

• If bollards are used at intersections and access points, they should be colored brightly and/or supplemented with reflective materials to be visible at night.

Overhead Clearance

• Clearance to overhead obstructions should be a minimum of 8 feet, with 10 feet recommended.

Striping

• When striping is required, use a 4-inch dashed yellow centerline stripe with 4-inch solid white edge lines.

• Solid centerlines can be provided on tight or blind corners, and on the approaches to roadway crossings.

Construction Costs

The cost of a shared use path can vary widely, but typical costs are between $65,000 per mile to $4 million per mile.


The provision of a shared use path adjacent to a road is not a substitute for the provision of on-road accommodation such as paved shoulders or bike lanes, but may be considered in some locations in addition to on-road bicycle facilities.

To reduce potential conflicts in some situations, it may be better to place one-way sidepaths on both sides of the street.

Crash Reduction

Shared use paths reduce injury rates for bicyclists, pedestrians, and other nonmotorized modes by 60 percent compared with on-street facilities.1

1Teschke, Kay. Route Infrastructure and the Risk of Injuries to Bicyclists. American Public Health Association. December 2012.

A

B


124

SidepathShared use paths along roadways, also called sidepaths, are a type of path that run adjacent to a street.

Typical Application

• Along roadways and freeways.

Design Features

• Guidance for sidepaths should follow that for general design practices of shared use paths.

• A high number of driveway crossings and intersections create potential conflicts with turning traffic. Consider alternatives to sidepaths on streets with a high frequency of intersections or heavily used driveways.

• Where a sidepath terminates, special consideration should be given to transitions so as not to encourage unsafe wrong-way riding by bicyclists.

• There should be a minimum of 5 feet of separation between the edge of pavement and sidepath.


125

Crossing Approaches

Adjacent Crossing - A separation of 6 feet emphasizes the conspicuity of riders at the approach to the crossing.

Setback Crossing - A setback of 25 feet separates the path crossing from merging/turning movements that may be competing for a driver’s attention.

Stop bar placed 6’ from crosswalk

Yield line placed 6’ from

crosswalk

Minimum 6’

setback from

roadway

Yield line placed 6’ from crosswalk

Stop bar placed 25’ from crossing

W11-15, W16-7P used in conjunction

with yield lines

W11-15, W16-7P used in

conjunction with yield lines

Crash Reduction

Sidepaths perform similarly to shared use paths, which reduce injury rates for bicyclists, pedestrians, and other nonmotorized modes by 60 percent compared with on-street facilities.1

1Teschke, Kay. Route Infrastructure and the Risk of Injuries to Bicyclists. American Public Health Association. December 2012.

Construction Costs

The cost of a sidepath can vary widely, but typical costs are between $65,000 per mile to $4 million per mile.


• Crossing design should emphasize visibility of users and clarity of expected yielding behavior. Crossings may be STOP or YIELD-controlled depending on sight lines and bicycle motor vehicle volumes and speeds.

• The provision of a shared use path adjacent to a road is not a substitute for the provision of on-road accommodation such as paved shoulders or bike lanes, but may be considered in some locations in addition to on-road bicycle facilities.

• To reduce potential conflicts in some situations, it may be better to place one-way sidepaths on both sides of the street.


126

Sidewalks are the most fundamental element of the walking network, as they provide an area for pedestrian travel separated from vehicle traffic. Providing adequate and accessible facilities can lead to increased numbers of people walking, improved safety, and the creation of social space.

Sidewalks & Sidewalk Zones

Typical Application

• Sidewalks should be provided on both sides of urban commercial streets, and should be required on at least one side of the street in areas of moderate residential density (1-4 dwelling units per acre).

• When retrofitting gaps in the sidewalk network, locations near transit stops, schools, parks, public buildings, and other areas with high concentrations of pedestrians should be the highest priority.

• In rural areas, no curb and gutter is necessary to establish a sidewalk. Instead, the sidewalk should feature a wide furnishing zone, which may be configured as an open ditch for stormwater catchment and infiltration. Ditches can be retrofitted into bioswales or raingardens for filtration and water purification.

Design Features

• It is important to provide adequate width along a sidewalk corridor. A through zone width of 6 feet enables two pedestrians (including wheelchair users) to walk side-by-side or to pass each other comfortably.

• In areas of high demand, sidewalks should contain adequate width to accommodate the high volumes and different walking speeds of pedestrians.

• Appropriate placement of street trees in the furnishing zone (minimum width 4 feet) helps buffer pedestrians from the travel lane and increases facility comfort.

Street ClassificationParking Lane/Enhancement Zone

Furnishing Zone

Pedestrian Through Zone

Frontage Zone

Local Streets Varies 5 - 10 feet 5 - 6 feet N/A

Uptown and Pedestrian

Priority AreasVaries 5 - 8 feet 8 - 12 feet 2.5 - 10 feet

Arterials and Collectors Varies 5 - 10 feet 6 - 8 feet 2.5 - 5 feet


127

The through zone is the area intended for pedestrian travel. This zone should be entirely free of permanent and temporary objects.

Wide through zones are needed in downtown areas or where pedestrian flows are high.

The frontage zone allows pedestrians a comfortable “shy” distance from the building fronts. It provides opportunities for window shopping, place signs, planters, or chairs.

The furnishing zone buffers pedestrians from the adjacent roadway, and is also the area where elements such as street trees, signal poles, signs, and other street furniture are properly located.

The curbside lane can act as a flexible space to further buffer the sidewalk from moving traffic and may be used for a bike lane. Curb extensions and bike corrals may occupy this space where appropriate.

In the edge zone there should be a 6-inch-wide curb.

Frontage ZonePedestrian Thru ZoneFurnishing ZoneCurbside Lane

EDG

E ZO

NE

No Drainage

With Drainage


128

The Pedestrian Network

The pedestrian network in Normal is well-established, but targeted improvements are necessary to realize the Plan's vision of walking as a safe, easy, and routine part of daily life for people of all ages and abilities. This section of the plan presents pedestrian-focused projects recommended to eliminate sidewalk gaps, increase pedestrian safety and comfort at roadway crossings, and set the stage for future investments in pedestrian infrastructure.

RecommendationsThe recommendations included herein build on previous and ongoing planning efforts and capital improvements to support pedestrian activity throughout Normal. These pedestrian recommendations consist of priority corridors for sidewalk and pedestrian improvements, sidewalk infill projects to strategically address gaps in the pedestrian network, shared use paths, and sidepaths that support transportation and recreation activity and increase trail system connectivity, and intersection and mid-block

crossing improvements to enhance safety for all road users.

Pedestrian Priority Corridors

Priority pedestrian corridors represent the major thoroughfares for pedestrian activity. These include trails, arterial and collector roads, and heavily traveled corridors connecting major destinations throughout the community. For many of these corridors, pedestrian facilities already exist but can be improved to better support mobility, comfort, and safety. Other corridors, like new trail corridors, are only conceptual recommendations for which no existing pedestrian facilities are currently present.

While specific projects may not be identified for each pedestrian priority corridor, opportunities will arise in the future to incorporate pedestrian-focused improvements like wider sidewalks, pedestrian-scale lighting, and crossing enhancements into capital projects.


129

Sidewalk Infill

Sidewalk infill projects address specific gaps in the pedestrian network to enhance connectivity.

Shared Use Paths

Shared use path projects expand the reach of the Constitution Trail network into other parts of Normal via riparian corridors and other off-street, independent rights of way.

Sidepaths

Sidepath projects provide a similar function and level of comfort as shared use paths, but their location adjacent to larger roads can also increase access to popular community destinations.

Intersection and Mid-Block Crossing Improvements

Crossing improvement projects help enhance safety and connectivity at trail/road crossings, mid-block pedestrian crossings, and intersections with high volumes of pedestrian and bicycle activity. These projects can be implemented as stand-alone projects or as components of larger corridor projects.

Table 10. Recommended Pedestrian Improvements

Facility TypeProject Count

Mileage

Pedestrian Priority Corridors 41 70.76

Sidewalk Infill 20 2.89

Shared Use Paths 24 16.24

Sidepaths 44 40.73

Intersection Improvements 41 N/A

Mid-Block Crossing Improvements

1 N/A

Trail Crossing Enhancements 11 N/A

Total 182 130.62

Table 10 lists the total number of pedestrian projects by improvement type and includes the total mileage for linear projects like sidewalks and shared use paths. These pedestrian facility recommendations are displayed in Map 17 on page 131.


130



131

¥55

¥39

¥74

Riv

ian

Mtw

y

White Oak Rd

Eagle Rd

Nor

mal

Ave

Park

side

Rd

Ethell P

kwy

Gro

ve S

tWillow St

College Ave

Raab Rd

Northtown Rd

Fort Jesse Rd

Mall LoopRd

Airp

ort R

d

Baugh Dr

Tow

anda

Ave

Jersey Ave

Rena

issance Dr

Virginia Ave

Vernon Ave

Tow

anda

Bar

nes

Rd

Wylie Dr

Gra

ndvie

wD

r

Mulberry St

Cen

ter S

t

Dr Martin

Luther King Jr D

r

Delane Ave

Shelbourne Dr

Cot

tage

Ave

Spear Dr

Ziebarth Rd

Oge

lthor

pe A

ve

Ironwood Cc Dr

Fran

klin

Ave

Adams St

Long

woo

d Ln

Jumer Dr

Pamela Dr

Sheridan Rd

Beec

h S

t

Hovey Ave

Shepard Rd

Us 150 Hwy

A St

Lind

en S

t

Gre

enbr

iar D

r

Scho

ol S

t

Degarmo Dr

Washington St

Main St

SedonaDr

1800 North Rd

1600 North Rd

1500 North Rd

Alle

y

Fell A

ve

Hen

ry S

tBl

airD

r

Beaufo

rt St

Pine St

Arrowhead Dr

Spring Ridge

Dr

Uni

vers

ity S

t

Broa

d C

reek

Rd

Nor

ma

Dr

Susan

Dr

Vete

rans

Pkw

y

Wisteria Ln

Orr

Dr

Hely St

Kerrick Rd

Woo

dfie

ld R

d

Hed

gew

ood

Dr

Crim

son

Ln

Erin Dr

ParkR

idge

RdDillon Dr

Old Route 66

Ris

s D

r

North Poi

nte

Dr

Gregory St

Woo dbine

Rd

Rainbow Ave

Pa

rkview Dr

Keys

tone

Rd

Monterey Rd

Courtland Ave

Wal

nut S

t

Bryan St

Baldocchi Dr

Clearwater Ave

Adel

aide

St

Hanson Dr

Robe rt Dr

Gar

den

Rd

Oak

St

1450 North Rd

Map

le S

t

Seminary Ave

King

sley

St

W hispering Pines Cc L n

Searle Dr

Broa

dway

1900

Eas

t Rd

Rop

p R

d

Land

mar

k D

r

Hac

kber

ryR

d

Emerson St

Iaa

Dr

Locust St

General Electric Rd

Bone

Dr

Armstrong Dr

Old Peoria Ct

Eagle Cres t Rd

Her

shey

Rd

Rave Rd

Ban

deconWay

Me r

cyCr

eek

Dr

Mab

el R

d

Arbo

rw

a lk Dr

Lam

bert

Dr

Haverh

illC

cP

a rk

Taft Dr

Truman DrHoover Dr

Johnson DrJacobssen Dr

Oak

wood

Ave

Ber

ryw

ood

Ln

Lesl

ie D

rMap

le H

ill R

d

Pipe

line

Rd

1700 North Rd

Gill St

Rave

nwoo

dCi

r

Sunset Rd

Ironm

an

Rd

MartinLuther

King Park

Maxwell Park

Fell Park

HiddenCreek Nature

Sanctuary

FransenNature Area

One NormalPlaza

KellyDetention

BasinShepard

Park

UnderwoodPark

Anderson Park

IronwoodPark

Fairview Park

ChampionFields

Savannah Green Park

IronwoodGolf Course

Weibring GolfClub- Illinois

State University

Rosa ParksCommons

Oak StreetBaseball

Field

All Seasons GolfLearning Center

NorthpointSchool/ Park

EagleCrest Park

ClearwaterPark

BittnerPark

SuburbanEast Park

Stevenson School/ Park

WhiteOak Park

TiptonPark (SouthEntrance)

EagleView Park

CardenPark

Calvary AcresRecreation

AreaEast

DetentionBasin

Dawes Park

Evergreen Park

GeneralElectric

Park

HawthorneCommons Park

HedgewoodPark

HungarianPark

People'sPark

BlackstoneTrails

McGrawCommunity

Park

EwingPark I

EwingPark II

EwingPark III

Tipton Park(North Entrance)

HeartlandHead StartPreschool

CentralCatholic

High School

Chiddix JuniorHigh School

CalvaryChristianAcademy

GlennElementary

School

KingsleyJunior

High School

GroveElementarySchool

StevensonElementarySchool

ParksideElementarySchool Northpoint

ElementarySchool

Sugar CreekElementary

School

ParksideJunior

High School

Normal CommunityWest High School

NormalCommunityHigh School

Colene HooseElementary School

EpiphanyElementary

School

FairviewElementarySchool

HammittElementary

School

HammittHigh School

OakdaleElementary

School

PrairielandElementarySchool

TowandaElementarySchool

MulberrySchool

UniversityHigh School

ThomasMetcalfSchool

MidwestChristianAcademy

Shining StarLearningCenter Little Jewels

LearningCenter, Normal

IllinoisState

University

HeartlandCommunityCollege

Collegia te

Bloomer Line

Illinois Central

Oa k

d ale

/Nor

thFo

rkTr

ail

South Fork Tra i l

Route 66

PEDESTRIAN NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONSEXISTING PROPOSED FACILITIES

Sidewalk

Shared Use

Park Trail

Schools

Parks

Commercial and Mixed Land Uses

Town of Normal Limits

DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES

0 0.5 1MILE ¹ 10 MIN 20 MIN WALK

Intersection Improvements

Midblock Crossing Improvements

Trail Crossing Enhancements

Pedestrian Priority Corridors

OTHER IMPROVEMENTS

Map 17. Proposed Pedestrian Network Recommendations


132

The Bicycle Network

To support a culture in which bicycling is valued as a safe, accessible, and viable mode of transportation and recreation, the Town of Normal must invest in bicycle facilities that create meaningful connections to popular community destinations and support people of all ages and abilities.

RecommendationsRecommendations for bicycle facility development presented in this section of the plan build on the existing bicycle facility network and include on-street bikeways, off-street bikeways, and intersection and crossing improvements. These network improvements support safe and comfortable travel for people of all ages and abilities as envisioned by this plan.

There are a number of recommendations included in the bicycle network that support regional connectivity and connect to existing and planned facilities outside Normal. The Town should coordinate with the City of Bloomington, IDOT, and other agencies to synchronize facility development. This applies to both linear facilities and bicycle (and pedestrian) wayfinding.

It should be noted that these recommended facility types represent the ultimate desired facility type for that corridor. Right of way acquisition, project cost, and other factors may limit the Town's ability to pursue a given project. These limited factors should not prevent the Town from developing a lesser bicycle facility that can serve a valuable purpose and represent an incremental step in achieving the desired outcome for bicycle transportation on that corridor.

On-Street Bikeways

The on-street bikeway projects recommended in this plan consist of a variety of facility types carefully selected to address each corridor's opportunities, constraints, and other relevant characteristics. These facilities, described earlier in this chapter of the plan, range from signed connections on local roads to buffered and separated bike lanes on collector and arterial roads.


133

Off-Street Bikeways

Shared Use Paths

Shared use path projects expand the reach of the Constitution Trail network into other parts of Normal via riparian corridors and other off-street, independent rights of way.

Sidepaths

Sidepath projects provide a similar function and level of comfort as shared use paths, but their location adjacent to larger roads can also increase access to popular community destinations.

Intersection and Mid-Block Crossing Improvements

Crossing improvement projects help enhance safety and connectivity at trail/road crossings, mid-block trail crossings, and intersections with high volumes of bicycle activity. These projects can be implemented as stand-alone projects or as components of larger corridor projects.

Table 11 lists the total number of bicycle projects by improvement type and includes the total mileage for linear projects like on- and off-street bikeways. These facility recommendations are presented in Map 18 on page 135.

Table 11. Recommended Bicycle Improvements

Facility TypeProject Count

Mileage

Signed Connection 15 3.12

Shared Lane 17 6.45

Bike Boulevard 26 8.12

Advisory Bike Lane 5 2.22

Bike Lane 19 10.10

Buffered Bike Lane 7 6.87

Separated Bike Lane 6 4.63

Shared Use Path 24 16.24

Sidepath 44 40.73


41 N/A

Mid-Block Crossing Improvements

1 N/A


11 N/A

Total 216 98.48


134



135

¥55

¥39

¥74

Riv

ian

Mtw

y White Oak Rd

Eagle Rd

Nor

mal

Ave

Park

side

Rd

Ethell P

kwy

Gro

ve S

tWillow St

College Ave

Raab Rd

Northtown Rd

Fort Jesse Rd

Mal

lLoo

pR

d

Airp

ort R

d

Baugh Dr

Tow

anda

Ave

Jersey Ave

Rena

issance Dr

Virginia Ave

Vernon Ave

Tow

anda

Bar

nes

Rd

Wylie Dr

Grandview

Dr

Mulberry St

Cen

ter S

tDr Martin

Luther King Jr D

r

Delane Ave

Shelbourne Dr

Cot

tage

Ave

Spear Dr

Ziebarth Rd

Oge

lthor

pe A

ve

Ironwood Cc Dr

Fran

klin

Ave

Adams St

Long

woo

d Ln

Jumer Dr

Pamela Dr

Sheridan Rd

Beec

h S

t

Hovey Ave

Shepard Rd

Us 150 Hwy

A St

Lind

en S

t

Gre

enbr

iar D

r

Scho

ol S

t

Degarmo Dr

Washington St

Main St

SedonaDr

1800 North Rd

1600 North Rd

1500 North Rd

Alle

y

Fell A

ve

Hen

ry S

t

Bla irDr

Beaufo

rt St

Pine St

Arrowhead Dr

Spring Ridge

DrU

nive

rsity

St

Broa

d C

reek

Rd

Nor

ma

Dr

Susan

Dr

Vete

rans

Pkw

y

Wisteria Ln

Orr

Dr

Hely St

Kerrick Rd

Woo

dfie

ld R

d

Hed

gew

ood

Dr

Crimson

Ln

Erin Dr

ParkR

idge

RdDillon Dr

Lincoln St

Old Route 66

Ris

s D

r

North

Poi n

teD

rGregory St

Woo dbine

Rd

Rainbow Ave

Pa

rkview Dr

Keys

tone

Rd

Monterey Rd

Courtland Ave

Wal

nut S

t

Bryan St

Baldocchi Dr

Clearwater Ave

Adel

aide

St

Hanson Dr

Robe

rtD

r

Gar

den

Rd

Oak

St

1450 North Rd

Map

le S

t

Seminary AveK

ings leyS

t

W hispering Pines Cc L n

Searle Dr

Broa

dway

1900

Eas

t Rd

Rop

p R

d

Land

mar

k D

r

Hac

kber

ryR

d

Emerson St

Iaa

Dr

Locust St

General Electric Rd

Bone

Dr

Armstrong Dr

Old Peoria Ct

Eagle Cres t Rd

Hershey

Rd

Rave Rd

Ban

d eco

nWay

Mer

cyCr

eek

Dr

Mab

el R

d

Arbo

rw

a lk Dr

Lam

bert

Dr

Haverh

illC

cP

a rk

Taft Dr

Truman DrHoover Dr

Johnson DrJacobssen Dr

Oak

wood

Ave

Ber

ryw

ood

Ln

Lesl

ie D

rMap

le H

ill R

d

Pipe

line

Rd

1700 North Rd

Gill St

Rave

nwoo

dCi

r

Sunset Rd

Ironman Rd

MartinLuther

King Park

Maxwell Park

Fell Park

HiddenCreek

Nature Sanctuary

FransenNature Area

One NormalPlaza

KellyDetention

Basin ShepardPark

UnderwoodPark

AndersonPark

IronwoodPark

Fairview Park

ChampionFields

Savannah Green Park

IronwoodGolf Course

Weibring GolfClub- Illinois

State University

Rosa ParksCommons

Oak StreetBaseball

Field

All Seasons GolfLearning Center

NorthpointSchool / Park

EagleCrest Park

ClearwaterPark

BittnerPark

SuburbanEast Park

Stevenson School/ Park

WhiteOak Park

TiptonPark (SouthEntrance)

EagleView Park

CardenPark

Calvary AcresRecreation

AreaEast

DetentionBasin

Dawes Park

Evergreen Park

GeneralElectric

Park

HawthorneCommons Park

HedgewoodPark

Hungarian Park

People'sPark

BlackstoneTrails

McGrawCommunity

Park

EwingPark I

EwingPark II

EwingPark III

Tipton Park(North Entrance)

HeartlandHead StartPreschool

CentralCatholic

High School

ChiddixJuniorHigh School

CalvaryChristianAcademy

GlennElementary

School

KingsleyJunior

High School

Grove Elementary School

StevensonElementary

School

ParksideElementary

SchoolNorthpointElementarySchool

Sugar CreekElementary

School

ParksideJunior

High School

Normal CommunityWest High School

NormalCommunityHigh School

Colene HooseElementary

School

EpiphanyElementarySchool

FairviewElementary School

HammittElementary School

HammittHighSchool

Oakdale ElementarySchool

PrairielandElementary School

TowandaElementarySchool

MulberrySchool

UniversityHigh School

Thomas Metcalf School

MidwestChristianAcademy

Shining StarLearningCenter

Little JewelsLearning

Center, Normal

IllinoisState

University

HeartlandCommunityCollege

Bloomer Line

Collegiate

Illinois Central

Oak

dale

/Nor

thFo

rkTr

ail

South Fork Tra i l

BIKEWAY NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONSEXISTING PROPOSED BIKEWAYS

Shared Use Path/TrailSeparated Bike LaneBuffered Bike LaneBike LaneAdvisory Bike LaneBike BoulevardShared LaneSigned Connection

Schools

Parks

Commercial and Mixed Land Uses

Town of Normal Limits

OTHER IMPROVEMENTS

0 0.5 1MILE¹ 3 MIN 6 MIN BIKE RIDE

DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES


Midblock Crossing Improvements


Map 18. Proposed Bicycle Network Recommendations


136

Community-Wide Improvements

In addition to the recommended facility improvements described earlier in this chapter, there are a variety of more general, community-wide strategies to enhance walking and bicycling. These strategies can be pursued independently of facility development or integrated into the scoping and development of individual projects.

Bicycle Parking

Intersection and Mid-Block CrossingsConstitution Trail Enhancements

Mobility Hubs

Traffic Calming

Wayfinding

Transit Integration


137

WayfindingLandmarks, destinations, neighborhood business districts, natural features, and other visual cues help residents and visitors travel through Normal. However, many of the recommended bicycle routes utilize less familiar, lower-volume roadways that may not be as familiar to many people, who may typically use an alternate route when traveling by bus or car.

The Constitution Trail includes wayfinding signs to direct trail users to adjacent destinations and various branches of the trail. There are also information kiosks in Uptown Normal that include area maps highlighting significant destinations. While these provide a valuable service to trail users and visitors to Uptown Normal, the Town lacks a system-wide wayfinding system to direct residents and visitors to Uptown, the Constitution Trail, ISU, and other destinations.

The Town of Normal should develop a bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding system plan to support the growing active transportation network. Such a plan should take into account the current state of the bicycle and pedestrian network, as well as scheduled improvements that will serve as part of the formal network for biking and walking.

The placement of wayfinding signs throughout Normal will indicate to bicyclists their direction of travel, the location of popular destinations, and the distance (and travel time by bike) to those destinations. This will in turn increase the comfort, convenience and utility of the bicycle network. Wayfinding signs also provide a branding element to raise the visibility of Normal’s growing active transportation network.

Signage can serve both wayfinding and safety purposes, including:

• Helping to familiarize users with the bikeway system

• Helping users identify the best routes to destinations

• Helping to address commonly held perceptions about travel time and distance

• Creating seamless transitions between on-street and off-street bikeways

• Helping overcome a “barrier to entry” for people who do not bicycle often and who fear becoming lost

• Alerting motorists that they are driving along a bicycle route and should use caution

Wayfinding systems increase bicyclist familiarity with active transportation infrastructure and guide people to important community destinations.


138

Signs are typically placed at key locations leading to and along bicycle routes, including the intersection of multiple routes. The Town of Normal should develop a community-wide Bicycle Wayfinding Signage Plan that identifies:

• Sign locations along existing and planned bicycle routes

• Sign type, including sign design and what information should be included

• Destinations to be highlighted on each sign, particularly key destinations for bicyclists

• Approximate distance and riding time to each destination

General cost estimates for wayfinding signage range from standard Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) signage to customized signage with branded elements and posts. Costs of wayfinding signage will depend on the type of signing and materials chosen for fabrication of the signs.

In addition to a town-wide wayfinding system, Normal should add wayfinding signs or pavement markings to guide recreational touring cyclists along the historic Route 66 corridor. Coordination with the City of Bloomington and McLean County could help to identify the historic route's path of travel across the region.

Diagram illustrating best practices for wayfinding sign placement.


139

Traffic CalmingMotor vehicle traffic speeds and volumes have a direct impact on real and perceived safety of road users, especially people walking and bicycling. Traffic calming is an effective strategy to reduce motor vehicle speeds and/or volumes through roadway design that positively influence motor vehicle travel behavior and reaffirm the primacy of pedestrian and bicycle travel modes. Typical traffic-calming design elements to reduce motor vehicle speeds and deter motor vehicle through-traffic include vertical features like speed humps, speed tables, raised pedestrian crossings, and raised intersections, and horizontal features like curb extensions, chicanes, and lane narrowing. Additional traffic-calming measures intended to restrict motor vehicle access include median diverters, diagonal diverters, and even full street closures.

While the Town of Normal has incorporated traffic-calming design elements into a number of roadway projects, including the Bryan Street bicycle boulevard project, there are no formal guidelines or policies to promote consistent processes or design for future traffic-calming projects. The Town of Normal should consider traffic-calming design elements with the implementation of transportation improvements, including complete streets projects, and to address specific safety issues.

Curb extensions at the intersection of Bryan and Grove reduce pedestrian crossing distances and slow motor vehicle traffic.

Pedestrian survivability rates based on motor vehicle speed (Data source: Tefft, B. C. Impact speed and a pedestrian's risk of severe injury or death. Accident Analysis & Prevention 50 (2013) 871-878.).

0

10

20 4050

60

30

SURVIVABILITY SURVIVABILITY

10% 50% 70% 90%30%

89% CHANCE OFSURVIVAL

25 MPH

HAS AN 68% CHANCE OFSURVIVAL

HAS A

SURVIVABILITY

35% CHANCE OFSURVIVAL

HAS A

A PEDESTRIAN HIT BY A VEHICLE TRAVELING AT

0

10

20 4050

60

30

10% 50% 70% 90%30%

35 MPHA PEDESTRIAN HIT BY A VEHICLE TRAVELING AT

0

10

20 4050

60

30

10% 50% 70% 90%30%

45 MPHA PEDESTRIAN HIT BY A VEHICLE TRAVELING AT

Tefft, B. C. Impact speed and a pedestrian's risk of severe injury or death. Accident Analysis & Prevention 50 (2013) 871-878.


140

Bicycle ParkingBicycle parking is an integral component of a successful, functional bicycle network. Without secure, accessible, and convenient bicycle parking, people are less likely to choose to ride a bicycle. The Town of Normal and its community partners like ISU and the McLean County Unit District No. 5 should continue to increase bicycle parking supply with secure, attractive, and highly visible bicycle parking facilities, including short-term bicycle parking solutions like racks and corrals, and long-term solutions like lockers and secure parking areas.

Providing context-appropriate facilities to enhance Normal's bike network can be as simple as providing short-term bicycle parking outside popular destinations and secure bicycle parking at transit stops. Policies requiring secure long-term bicycle parking in new multi-family residential and commercial buildings, or the retrofit of older buildings with secure bicycle parking and shower/changing rooms in large employment centers, will support a culture of bicycling and encourage residents and employees to integrate bicycling into their daily routines. Recognizing that the plan focuses on people of all ages and abilities, bicycle parking should be designed to accommodate a wide variety of bicycle types.

Table 12. Characteristics of Short- and Long-Term Bicycle Parking

Criteria Short-Term Bicycle Parking Long-Term Bicycle Parking

Parking Duration Less than 2 hours More than 2 hours

Typical Fixture Types Bicycle racks and on-street corrals Lockers or secure bicycle parking (racks provided in a secure area)

Weather Protection Unsheltered or sheltered Sheltered or enclosed

Security High reliance on personal locking devices and passive surveillance (e.g., eyes on the street)

Restricted access and/or active supervision

Unsupervised:

• Bicycle lockers

• Bicycle room or locked enclosure

Supervised:

• Valet bicycle parking

• Video, closed circuit television, or other surveillance

Typical Land Uses Commercial or retail, medical/healthcare, parks and recreation areas, community centers, libraries

Multi-family residential, workplace, transit, schools


141

Constitution Trail EnhancementsThe Constitution Trail is the backbone of the active transportation and recreation network in Normal. While its popularity and high levels of activity reflect its importance as a valued community asset, they also create additional demands and challenges that limit the trail's functionality. For example, high volumes and overcrowding on some segments of the trail push the limits of the trail’s capacity and create safety hazards between trail users often related to high speed differentials and unexpected movements.

Additional safety issues at roadway crossings, particularly uncontrolled crossings of four-lane roads like Vernon Avenue, are also present along the trail and have been raised by many residents during the plan update process. The lack of trail amenities, trailheads, and other enhancements also limit its appeal for some users.

The Town of Normal should continue to invest in the Constitution Trail to further enhance its value as a significant commuter corridor, a beloved recreational amenity, and a major draw for

recreational tourism and economic development. The following investments can support these objectives and help the Town of Normal realize the full potential of the Constitution Trail.

Conflict Reduction

There are a number of means by which the Town of Normal can reduce user and motor vehicle conflicts along busier segments of the Constitution Trail. These include centerline striping, trail widening, separation of uses, and aggregate shoulder surfaces. Each has its own merits and may be most applicable for different segments of the trail, particularly given the variability in right of way width, adjacent slopes and obstructions, and other topographical constraints. The Town of Normal should evaluate these and other relevant design options to reduce user conflict and create a safe, welcoming environment for all trail users.

Centerline striping combined with a separate treadway for pedestrians can reduce trail user conflicts.

The Midtown Greenway in Minneapolis combines centerline striping, a separated pedestrian zone, and a wide trail surface to acommodate high volumes of activity.


142

Roadway Crossing Improvements

Current conditions at roadway crossings along the Constitution Trail, particularly at uncontrolled, four-lane roadways like Vernon Avenue, create challenges for both trail users and motor vehicle drivers. In addition to the trail crossing warning signs and marked crosswalks, the Town of Normal recently installed “Stop for Pedestrians” signs in the middle of the street at numerous crossings on the Constitution Trail to encourage compliance with state and local law. These signs represent an important, incremental step to enhance trail user and motor vehicle driver safety at roadway crossings along the trail.

The Town of Normal should formalize Constitution Trail roadway crossing designs based on trail and roadway characteristics, including trail volumes, roadway volumes, and number of travel lanes. Crossing design should take into account the relative importance of the Constitution Trail as an integral component of the transportation system, particularly in more dense areas like Uptown Normal and the ISU campus, where bicycle and pedestrian volumes may exceed motor vehicle volumes in some instances. Potential design elements may include raised crossings, median refuge islands, rapid rectangular flashing beacons (RRFBs), and HAWK signals.

Trail Beautification and Amenities

Some areas of the Constitution Trail lack amenities, landscaping, and tree canopies that create a comfortable and inviting experience. These features create a sense of place and a unique, memorable experience for trail users. Landscaping and tree canopies in particular provide shade and windbreaks that increase user comfort. The Town of Normal should explore opportunities to integrate these features into future trail improvements.

Recreational Tourism Promotion

The Constitution Trail is on par with other premier linear trails and greenways across the country and should be a heavily promoted as a component of the Town’s strategy to increase tourist activity and spending. The Town should partner with the City of Bloomington, Friends of the Constitution Trail, the McLean County Chamber of Commerce, and the Bloomington-Normal Area Convention and Visitors Bureau to position the region as a competitive destination for recreational and trail-based tourism. The Adventure Cycling Association provides a wealth of resources for communities like Normal to better understand bicycle tourism and how to attract and cater to this rapidly expanding market.

An economic impact study of New York's longest multi-use trail highlights the impact of trail tourism on local economies (source: americantrails.org).

https://www.adventurecycling.org/advocacy/building-bike-tourism/bicycle-tourism-101/


143

Intersection & Mid-Block Crossing ImprovementsThe potential for conflict with motor vehicles at roadway crossings, particularly at intersections with multiple turning movements, can present real and perceived safety issues and barriers to people walking and bicycling. The pedestrian and bicycle network maps presented earlier in this chapter identify locations for intersection, mid-block, and trail crossing improvements. While the recommendations do not provide the level of detail to determine specific design elements for each crossing location, they do provide a starting point for the Town of Normal to address these conflicts and develop solutions that address known crash locations and enhance safety and connectivity for non-motorized transportation.

The Town of Normal should develop a strategy to systematically address these intersections and crossings through traffic studies, conceptual design, and additional public engagement. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, a partnership between the Federal Highway Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, provides a wealth of resources to assist local agencies in developing effective strategies to promote safe mid-block and intersection crossings, including design guidance, best practices, case studies, countermeasures, and crash reduction factors.

On two- and three-lane roads, high visibility crosswalks, pedestrian refuge islands, and rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) support safe crossing movement for trail users.

On multi-lane roadways, full traffic signals provided a dedicated crossing phase for trail users.

http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/resources/topic_resources.cfm?tid=9&auds=1,2&startRow=21


144

Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit IntegrationTransit, walking, and biking are integral components of Normal's multimodal transportation system. Connect Transit relies on the street network to provide transit service throughout the region. Its riders rely on sidewalks, trails, and bikeways to access transit stops.

Through bicycle parking at transit stops, the installation of bicycle racks on all Connect Transit buses, and improved connections from the sidewalk system to transit stops, the Town of Normal and Connect Transit have worked to link these transportation modes and increase first-mile/last-mile connections to destinations along and near transit routes.

As the Town of Normal continues to invest in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, it will be critical that transit considerations are taken into account. These considerations include:

• Pedestrian circulation and access to transit stops

• Secure bicycle parking, including short-term parking at transit stops, and more secure, long-term parking at transit hubs and major transfer centers

• Roadway and bicycle facility design that reduces conflict between bicyclists and pedestrians and bicyclists and transit vehicles at transit stops

Grand opening of the Tri-Met Bike & Ride secure parking area at the Sunset Transit Center in Beaverton, Oregon.

A bus island in Seattle, Washington, separates people bicycling from bus loading and demarcates paths of travel for all road users.


145

Mobility HubsThe growth of active transportation, shared mobility, micromobility, and other emerging transportation solutions are changing the way people move about the community. Communities too must adapt to these new technologies and modes by transforming public spaces to better accommodate and support the diversity of transportation options available. Mobility hubs provide a central location for a variety of transport-related services and amenities and strategic vehicle storage spaces to make it more convenient to combine modes within one trip.

Mobility hubs can be designed to meet specific objectives, cater to a range of targeted user groups (like students, employees, or trail users), and support adjacent land use and development. For example, a mobility hub located along the Constitution Trail could serve as a multimodal hub and gathering space for trail users, bike and walk commuters, and Uptown visitors. A mobility hub location at a transit stop with multiple routes could serve as a multimodal connection point for transit users and improve their wait time and mode transition experience with amenities like wifi, vending machines, long-term bicycle storage, real-time transit information, and wayfinding maps.

A trail-oriented mobility hub could serve as a social gathering and convergence point for multimodal activity.

Diverter islands like these allow for bicycle traffic but restrict motor vehicle access.

A mobility hub in Memphis, Tennessee, combines bike and scootershare, wayfinding maps, shaded seating, and other amenities.


146


chapter 5 the active mobility network

Documents