HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-116-12/16/2014-APPROVING THE 2014 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN2014
Acknowledgments
Fort Collins City Council
• Karen Weitkunat, Mayor
• Bob Overbeck, District 1
• Lisa Poppaw, District 2
• Gino Campana, District 3
• Wade Troxell, District 4
• Ross Cunniff, District 5
• Gerry Horak, Mayor Pro Tem, District 6
Project Management Team
• Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner
• Amy Lewin, Transportation Planner
• Nancy Nichols, Safe Routes to School
Coordinator
• Paul Sizemore, FC Moves Program Manager
• Tessa Greegor, FC Bikes Program Manager
• Becky Moriarity, FC Bikes Program Specialist
• Nick Heimann, FC Bikes Intern
• Clint Wood, Streets Department Engineering
Technician
• Martina Wilkinson, Civil Engineer II
• Joe Olson, City Traffic Engineer
• Dean Klingner, City Engineer
In collaboration with the public, and:
Members of the Technical Advisory Committee
City of Fort Collins Departments:
• Police Services
• Planning
• FC Moves
• Communications
• Social Sustainability
• Streets
• Engineering
• Parking Services
• Environmental Services
• City Manager’s Office
• Transfort
• Park Planning & Development
• Economic Health Office
• Utilities Services
Other Agencies:
• Colorado Department of Transportation
• North Front Range Metropolitan Planning
Organization
• Larimer County
• Colorado State University
City Boards and Commissions
• Transportation Board
• Planning and Zoning Board
• Senior Advisory Board
• Youth Advisory Board
• Parks and Recreation Board
• Bicycle Advisory Committee
• Air Quality Advisory Board
• Commission on Disability
Stakeholder Organizations
• Bike Fort Collins
• Fort Collins Bike Library
• New Belgium Brewery
• Ciclismo Youth Foundation
• Visit Fort Collins
• Cranknstein
• Bicycle Safety Institute
• Fort Collins Cycling Club
• CanDo Fort Collins Coalition
• Healthier Communities Coalition
• Bicycle Pedestrian Education Coalition
• Coalition for Infrastructure
• Southeast Fort Collins
• Downtown Business Association
• Chamber of Commerce
• Vida Sana
• Trinity Lutheran Church
Consultant Team
Toole Design Group
• Bill Schultheiss, Project Manager
• Jessica Juriga, Deputy Project Manager
• Alia Anderson, Deputy Director of Planning
• Jessica Zdeb, Transportation Planner
• Eli Glazier, Transportation Planner
• Anthony Pratt, Landscape Architect
• Peter Robie, Transportation Planner
• Benjamin Sigrist, GIS Coordinator
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
• Jenny Young, Principal
• Rich Follmer, Associate
• Kelly Leadbetter, Transportation Planner
This page intentionally left blank.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction 2
Goals and Objectives 4
Role of Bicycling in Fort Collins 5
Reasons to Take Action 6
Bicycle Master Plan Development 10
Plan Organization 12
Chapter 2: Bicycle Programs 13
Key Outcomes 14
Existing Programs 14
Future Programs Approach 18
Overall Recommendations 19
Program Expansion Recommendations 20
New Program Recommendations 23
Key Actions Summary 28
Chapter 3: Bicycle Policies 29
Key Outcomes 30
Existing Policies 30
Recommendations 31
Key Actions Summary 37
Chapter 4: Bicycle Network 39
Key Outcomes 41
Bicycle Network Development 41
2020 Low-Stress Network 45
Full Build Network 55
Key Actions Summary 62
Chapter 5: Implementation 63
2020 Network Phasing 65
Priority Intersections 73
Programs Prioritization 76
Funding and Performance Measures 78
Appendices
Appendix A: Summary of Public
Involvement
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort
Collins
Appendix C: Draft Design Guidelines
Appendix D: Wayfinding Guidance
Appendix E: Existing and Planned Bicycle
Programs
Appendix F: Implementation Details
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 1: Introduction
2 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 1: Introduction
The 2014 Plan embraces a forward-thinking and
cost-effective approach to bicycle infrastructure,
route connectivity, policies and programs, and
is oriented around the year 2020 in Fort Collins,
where:
• 20 percent of people will commute by bicycle
• A balance of genders will bicycle
• There will be zero bicycle fatalities
• The number and severity of bicycle-related
crashes will be lower than today
• There will be a 162-mile low-stress bicycle
network
• 80 percent of residents will live within one-
quarter mile of a low-stress bicycle route
• All neighborhoods will have access to a low-
stress bicycle route
• The City will have implemented a protected
bike lane demonstration program
• 8,000 K-12 students will receive bicycle
education annually
• Participation in the City’s bicycle education
and outreach programs will reflect the
demographic and socio-economic
breakdown of the Fort Collins population
• The number of residents participating in the
City’s education and outreach programs will
have doubled
• 55 percent of residents will find it very easy
to travel by bicycle
• Childhood and adult obesity rates will be
lower
• Greenhouse gas emissions will be 20
percent lower than 2005 levels
Chapter 1: Introduction
Bicycling has long been a part of the fabric of life in
Fort Collins. Recognized as one of the best cities
in the United States for bicycling, Fort Collins is
rated a Platinum-level Bicycle Friendly Community
by the League of American Bicyclists, and ranked
among the top 10 best U.S. cities for bicycling
by Bicycling Magazine. Through the efforts of
dedicated citizens, City leaders and staff, and the
business community, Fort Collins has established
a supportive environment for bicycling and a
strong bicycle culture. The 2014 Bicycle Master
Plan (2014 Plan) builds upon the significant
existing investments in bicycling in Fort Collins,
recognizing the importance of bicycling in the
development of a healthy and safe community,
and the opportunity for bicycling to become a
mainstream transportation mode.
The 2014 Bicycle Master Plan envisions Fort
Collins as a world-class city for bicycling.
It is a city where people of all ages and abilities
have access to a comfortable, safe, and connected
network of bicycle facilities, and where bicycling
is an integral part of daily life and the local cultural
experience.
Chapter 1: Introduction Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 3
The City has a real opportunity to increase the
number of people who bicycle and truly make
bicycling “an integral part of daily life and the local
cultural experience.” Estimates show that bicycle
trips currently make up between 7 and 13 percent
of all commute trips, but the analysis and public
feedback from this planning process indicate the
untapped potential for bicycling in Fort Collins.1
Regionwide, the average length of all trips is
around five miles – a reasonable biking distance
for most adults.2
To achieve the 2014 Plan vision, the City must:
• Provide residents, employees and visitors
with world-class bicycle infrastructure
by developing a “comfortable, safe and
connected network” of bicycle facilities
that is accessible to “people of all ages and
abilities.”
• Build on its successful bicycle programs by
emphasizing strong partnerships to increase
safety, ridership and create a culture of
respect and responsibility.
1 The 2012 American Community Survey estimates a 6.4 percent
bicycle mode share for commute trips, and the NFRMPO 2010
Household Travel Survey estimates a 13.3 percent bicycle commute
mode share.
2 NFRMPO 2010 Household Travel Survey. The top 10 trip types
account for 82.2% of trips and have an average length of 4.89 miles.
The overall average length of all trip types was 5.59 miles.
The many faces of Fort Collins bicycling
Low-stress bicycle facilities include
low-speed and low-volume streets with
comfortable crossings, paved trails, and
protected bike lanes.
A connected network of low-stress bicycle
facilities has been shown to attract those who are
interested in bicycling but concerned about their
safety. The 2014 Plan provides a roadmap for
attracting more riders with low-stress facilities.
Credit: Flickr User Paul L Dineen
4 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 1: Introduction
Goals and Objectives
The goals and objectives of the Plan were developed by the City, key stakeholders, and the public within the
context of a Triple Bottom Line—environmental, economic, social sustainability—evaluation. These goals
set the stage for the 2014 Plan recommendations, including how actions are phased and prioritized.
Community input from stakeholder visioning meetings about biking in Fort Collins today (left) and a vision for the future (right).
Goal Objectives
Connectivity
Complete a connected
network of low-stress
bicycle facilities.
• Build and maintain bicycle facilities that form a continuous and dense low-stress
bicycle network with seamless connections to public transit, bike share, schools,
neighborhoods, community destinations, and the regional bicycle network.
• Implement a cohesive wayfinding system directing people to and along the low-
stress bicycle network, and to community destinations.
• Provide high-quality bicycle parking at key destinations across the city.
Safety
Improve safety for all
modes of transportation.
• Reduce the number and severity of bicycle crashes.
• Eliminate bicycle-related fatalities.
• Implement appropriate, well-designed bicycle facilities, education and
enforcement programs.
Ridership
Increase the amount
of bicycling for all trip
purposes.
• Increase the percentage of trips taken by bicycle for commuting, recreation, and
other purposes.
• Increase ridership by creating a welcoming environment for people of all
bicycling levels.
Community
Foster a strong bicycle
community identity
while advancing a
culture of respect and
responsibility for all
transportation system
users.
• Continue bicycle programming that showcases Fort Collins’ local culture and
encourages bicycling.
• Implement programs and initiatives that promote understanding and empathy
among transportation users, and educate all users about rules of the road.
• Support community initiatives that help make bicycling a viable part of daily life.
Equity
Provide equal access to
bicycling for all members
of the community.
• Build high-quality and leading-edge bicycle facilities in all parts of the city.
• Implement inclusive bicycle-related programs and outreach.
Comfort
Increase the level of
comfort experienced by
people when bicycling.
• Increase the amount of low-stress bicycle facilities in Fort Collins and focus
bicycle-related programming on educating and encouraging riders in order to
build confidence.
Health
Increase access to
Chapter 1: Introduction Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 5
The Role of Bicycling in Fort Collins
Bicycling plays a major role in the culture and quality of
life experienced by Fort Collins residents and visitors.
People and businesses choose to locate in Fort Collins
for the bicycling opportunities, the city is home to
world-class cycling events, and Fort Collins now ranks
seventh in the nation for the most bicycle-friendly
businesses (ranked by the LAB). Residents, businesses
and City leaders already recognize the many benefits
of bicycling – including health, social, economic and
environmental – but to truly position bicycle-related
improvements for investment and prioritization, it is
important to demonstrate how bicycling fits into other
citywide goals.
In March 2014, Fort Collins became a certified 3-STAR
Community in the Sustainability Tools for Assessing
& Rating Communities (STAR) system—the only
national sustainability rating system for communities.
The City is one of only seven municipalities nationally
to be recognized for its sustainability leadership at
this level. A robust multimodal transportation system
that enables residents to choose environmentally-
friendly travel modes like bicycling can help Fort Collins
maintain its role as a sustainability leader. Fort Collins
has embraced the globally-recognized three pillars
of sustainability: economic health, environmental
Bicycling plays an important role in all
aspects of Fort Collins’ culture. Because
of how important and valuable bicycling
is:
• K-12 schools run their own bicycle programs
• Local tourism centers around bicycling
• Numerous annual citywide events feature
bicycling
• Businesses choose to locate in Fort Collins for
the bicycle culture, lifestyle and infrastructure
S
a
f
e
t
y
R
i
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
6 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 1: Introduction
Bicycling Benefits: Success
Stories
• After the construction of a protected bike
lane in New York City, local businesses saw
a 49 percent increase in retail sales.
• In Minneapolis-St. Paul, for every 400
meters closer a median-priced home is
to an off-street bicycle facility, its value
increases by $510.
• Bicyclists in Philadelphia ride 260,000 miles
daily, saving 47,450 tons of CO2 from being
emitted by cars each year.
• Portland State University researchers found
that customers who arrive by bike spend
24% more per month than those who arrive
by car.
• After New York City installed a protected
green bike lane on Columbus Avenue,
bicycling increased 56% on weekdays,
crashes decreased 34%, speeding
decreased and sidewalk riding decreased.
Source: People for Bikes
Reasons to Take Action
Barriers to bicycling still exist.
The majority of trips in the Fort Collins region are
short enough to be made by bicycle, yet many
of these trips are made by private automobile.
In a survey conducted for this Plan, “gaps in the
existing bicycle network” was the top response
from Fort Collins residents when asked about
physical infrastructure issues that prevent them
from biking or from biking more.3 This may mean
different things to different riders. These gaps
may be short sections of bike lanes missing on
major streets, segments of trail yet to be built, or
difficult intersections along corridors that connect
important destinations. These physical barriers,
no matter how small, impact people’s decisions
about whether to make bicycling a part of their
transportation routine.
3 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Online Survey, question 9.
Bicycling’s Triple Bottom Line
Economic
• A bicycle-friendly
community attracts
residents and businesses
• Bicycling supports tourism
• Improving bicycling is
a relatively low-cost
investment
• Bicycling contributes to
the local economy
Environmental
• Increasing bicycling can
reduce single occupancy
vehicle trips and
greenhouse gas emissions
• Bicycle projects have
relatively low construction
Chapter 1: Introduction Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 7
Investing in bicycling can improve safety.
Along with overcoming physical barriers, the safety
of bicycling in Fort Collins can improve. Annual
bicycle-related crashes in Fort Collins rose 13
percent during the past five years, compared to an
approximately 11 percent increase in population.4
Almost all crashes occur at intersections and
access points, and the most common types of
crashes involve sidewalk riding. This suggests that,
along with intersections, insufficient or lacking
on-street bicycle facilities, which could influence
a person’s decision to bicycle on the sidewalk,
are barriers to safe bicycling. Infrastructure
improvements, as recommended in this plan,
can address these issues, along with targeted
education and enforcement programs.
There is an untapped audience for bicycling
in Fort Collins.
Fort Collins already has high bicycle ridership
for an American city. The close proximity of
destinations, temperate climate, flat terrain, strong
bicycle culture, along with the general acceptance
of bicycling as a viable mode of transportation,
have contributed to the relatively high ridership
that exists today. But there is a large segment
of the population who choose not to ride today
because they are concerned about safety and
comfort; this population is commonly referred to
as the Interested but Concerned. Women, youth,
and seniors are the primary members of this
underrepresented group. Given the right bicycle
facilities, education and encouragement, these
residents might choose to ride a bicycle for their
next trip.
There is another audience of residents and visitors
who may not ride today because they don’t have
access to a bicycle. The Fort Collins Bike Library
addresses some of this need through low-cost
bicycle rentals, but a more widespread bike share
system offers the potential to significantly increase
the accessibility and availability of bicycling, by
providing a system of public bicycles available on-
demand. A fully automated bike share system is
outlined in the accompanying Bike Share Business
Plan that was completed to complement the 2014
Plan.
4 Crash statistics refer to all police-reported bicycle-automobile
crashes from 2009-2013.
Enthused and Confident bicyclists ride in a bicycle lane.
Bicyclists generally fall into one of four
categories and are distributed among the
population as shown above. Strong and Fearless
bicyclists will ride in any road conditions or
environment. Enthused and Confident bicyclists
will ride ably on most types of streets, but
may be uncomfortable in certain situations
or road conditions. Interested but Concerned
bicyclists require physical bicycle infrastructure
improvements before they will want to ride.
8 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 1: Introduction
Existing plans and policies guide the City to
continue planning for bicycles.
The City’s guiding document for development, City
Plan, called for an update to the 2008 Bicycle Plan.
Each of City Plan’s main themes—innovate, sustain,
connect—is addressed inherently in the 2014 Plan.
Innovation is presented in the form of leading-edge
bicycle facility types and programs. Sustainability
will be advanced through the environmental
benefits of bicycling investments. Connections
will be formed as more people have a convenient,
safe and inexpensive way to travel through the City
and as a growing bicycle culture supports vibrant
neighborhoods and business districts.
One of the major goals of City Plan is community
and neighborhood livability. The goals and
principles related to bicycling include a “complete
streets” approach to commercial districts and the
promotion of bicycling along Enhanced Travel
Corridors (ETCs).
City Plan is accompanied by the Transportation
Master Plan (TMP), updated in 2011. The TMP
aims to implement the themes of City Plan within
the transportation network. Goals to enhance the
bicycling environment appear throughout the TMP:
increasing awareness of healthy transportation;
promoting bicycle safety and enforcement;
designing high-quality and environmentally
sustainable trails and streets; making bicycling
safe, easy, and convenient for all; and encouraging
land use planning and development to support
bicycling.5
5 City of Fort Collins, City Plan, 2011, pp 144, 146, and 153.
Fort Collins stakeholders attend an open house about the Bicycle Master Plan.
The City Plan and TMP goals and actions were
considered in the development of this 2014 Plan
and helped guide program, policy and network
recommendations.
Other City plans and policies, such as the Climate
Action Plan (CAP), also guide the City to plan
for and invest in bicycling. The City is currently
updating its CAP, which calls for visionary
community greenhouse gas emissions reduction
targets, for example, a 20 percent reduction below
2005 levels by 2020 and an 80 percent reduction
by 2030. As the City strives to achieve bold climate
protection goals, providing access to bicycling as
a sustainable form of transportation presents a
unique opportunity for mitigating and adapting to
a changing climate. As Fort Collins continues its
leadership role in environmental sustainability and
stewardship, bicycling should play a major role in
the City’s future transportation options.
City Plan and the TMP include the
following near-term action items
related to bicycling.5
Evaluate the existing on-street bicycle system
and update the LOS criteria (On-street network has
been addressed through the 2014 Plan)
Chapter 1: Introduction Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 9
Strategic investments can make bicycling
better.
Fort Collins’ existing bicycle-related programming
serves as a national model. Partnerships with
Bike Fort Collins, the Fort Collins Bicycle Co-
op and other organizations help execute some
programs, although many are led by the City. The
City’s Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program
educates thousands of children every year about
safe bicycling and walking. Bicycle Ambassadors
encourage and educate at the neighborhood
level, holding “open garage” events, distributing
bicycling information at farmer’s markets and
other community events, teaching Traffic Skills
101 and other bicycle safety classes, and modeling
good bicycling behavior when using the City’s
transportation system. Meanwhile, Summer and
Winter Bike to Work Month and Day events attract
thousands of enthusiastic new and long-time
riders, and new initiatives like Open Streets and
Women on a Roll introduce new audiences to
bicycling.
The 2014 Plan recommends a strategic and
focused approach to future bicycle programs.
Making bicycling a viable choice and attractive
for people of all ages and abilities will require
the City to focus primarily on implementing the
network recommendations presented in Chapter
4. Residents indicated in the 2014 Plan survey
that improvements related to infrastructure
are the most important elements to increase
bicycling and improve safety, specifically better
bike routes, additional grade-separated crossings
(underpasses or overpasses) and improved
intersections.6
Chapter 3 outlines a focused approach to bicycle
programs in alignment with the 2014 Plan goals.
Existing and new programs are recommended
for implementation through strong community
partnerships.
6 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Online Survey, question 16.
A Fort Collins Safe Routes to School Bicycle Safety class in action.
In 2013, the SRTS program educated
nearly 6,000 K-12 students and
reached an additional 8,000 with
encouragement activities.
10 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 1: Introduction
Fort Collins can become a world-class city
for bicycling.
Fort Collins is one of only four Platinum-level
Bicycle Friendly Communities (BFC) in the country,
as rated by the League of American Bicyclists
(LAB). Since the city attained this designation,
the LAB has added a higher rating to its system:
Diamond.
Diamond BFCs will be world-class bicycling cities
where, among other metrics, at least 20 percent
of residents commute by bike, 90 percent of all
arterial streets have bike lanes, and excellent
bicycle-friendly laws and ordinances are in place.
Bicycle Master Plan Development
Over 3,000 Fort Collins residents and stakeholders
helped shape the 2014 Plan. The project process
included collaborative engagement focused on
the general public, community stakeholders, the
project Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), the
Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC), City Boards and
Commissions, and City Council.
The 2014 Plan included the following community
engagement:
• Regular electronic communication. Project
updates were available through FC Bikes’
monthly newsletter, Momentum, reaching
nearly 3,000 people, and through website and
social media communication.
• Online survey and interactive map. The City
conducted an online survey in late 2013 with
over 1,000 respondents, and launched an
online WikiMap in early 2014. Both gave the
public an opportunity to give input on existing
bicycling habits, barriers to bicycling, locations
where bicycle parking is needed, and potential
bike share locations.
• FC Rides! The City hosted four community
bicycle audits with nearly 50 participants to
gain on-the-ground feedback about bicycling
conditions across the community.
• Public open houses. Two open houses were
held during the course of the project, reaching
Stakeholders examine draft bicycle network maps.
Young Fort Collins stakeholder at July Open Streets event.
The 2014 Plan establishes a
strategic path for Fort Collins to
achieve the metrics set by the LAB,
but most importantly, to establish
a world-class cycling environment
that is safe and comfortable for
people of all ages and abilities.
Chapter 1: Introduction Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 11
hundreds of residents. Each open house was
both informative and interactive.
• Focused group events. To reach groups
typically underrepresented in bicycling, the
City participated in the Lesher Middle School
Tour de Fit held during the school’s Bike
Week and National Bike to School Day, and
a meeting with Vida Sana, a community
coalition addressing health issues in Fort
Collins’ Hispanic community.
• Formal participation in key citywide events
and open houses. The City presented
information and solicited input at multiple
events and public meetings including
Summer Bike to Work Day, Open Streets, a
Community Issues Forum, the Air Quality
Forum, and the Citywide Planning Projects
Open House.
• Stakeholder meetings. A total of four
Technical Advisory Committee meetings
were held to gain input on the 2014
Plan goals, existing conditions, and
recommendations. Additionally, a workshop
was held with approximately 40 stakeholders
to define a vision and goals for bicycling in
Fort Collins.
• Partnerships. Concurrent with the City’s
2014 Plan, Colorado State University (CSU)
Fort Collins residents and planners discuss specific improvements to the Fort Collins bicycle network.
developed a Bicycle Master Plan. Enhanced
stakeholder coordination occurred as the
plans were developed.
• Boards and Commissions Presentations.
The City solicited input through the: Youth
Advisory Board, Transportation Board,
Bicycle Advisory Committee, Planning and
Zoning Board, Air Quality Advisory Board,
Commission on Disability, Senior Advisory
Board, and Parks and Recreation Board.
• Other stakeholder presentations, including:
Downtown Business Association, Chamber
of Commerce, Trinity Lutheran Church,
Coalition for Infrastructure, Fort Collins
Cycling Club, and ClimateWise’s Business
Education Series.
FC Rides! in action.
12 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 1: Introduction
network, which focuses on bicycle wayfinding,
intersection treatments, and on maximizing
existing streets that are already comfortable for
bicycling; and, the proposed Full Build Network,
which proposes a dense network of bicycle
facilities to be built over time.
Chapter 5: Implementation
This chapter presents a prioritized list of the 2020
low-stress network recommendations and bicycle
programs, and discusses funding strategies
that will help the City implement the 2014 Plan
recommendations in a focused, data-driven and
strategic manner. This chapter also includes
performance measures to track progress over
time.
Appendices
A. Summary of Public Involvement
B. State of Bicycling in Fort Collins
C. Draft Design Guidelines
D. Wayfinding Guidance
E. Existing and Planned Bicycle Programs
F. Implementation Details
CF
SA
RD
CT
CO
HE
EQ
Connectivity
Safety
Ridership
Community
Equity
Comfort
Health
Bicycle Master Plan Goal Icons.
Plan Organization
The 2014 Bicycle Master Plan is a strategic and
focused summary of key recommendations
designed to increase the safety, connectivity and
comfort of bicycling for people of all ages and
abilities. The recommendations were informed by
technical analysis, best practices, community input
and local policy guidance. The Plan is organized
around recommendations for bicycling in three key
areas: programs, policies and the bicycle network,
and concludes with a chapter on implementation.
Chapters begin with a summary of existing
conditions followed by relevant key outcomes.
Comprehensive details on existing conditions,
public engagement, design and wayfinding
guidelines, and recommendations can be found in
the Appendices.
The Plan goals are referenced in each chapter.
In Chapters 2 and 3, the goals most specifically
addressed by each recommendation are noted
with the icons shown in the table to right. Since the
bicycle network plan (Chapter 4) comprehensively
Chapter 2: Bicycle Programs
Photo Courtesy of Fort Collins Bike Library.
14 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 2: Bicycle Programs
FC Bikes’ Women on a Roll event.
Key Outcomes
By 2020, a comprehensive and focused set of
bicycle programs, implemented through strong
partnerships, will support the following key
outcomes:
• 20 percent of people will commute by bicycle
• There will be zero bicycle fatalities
• The number and severity of bicycle-related
crashes will be lower than today
• A balance of genders will bicycle
• The number of residents participating in the
City’s education and outreach programs will
have doubled
• 8,000 K-12 students will receive bicycle
education annually
• Participation in the City’s bicycle education
and outreach programs will reflect the
demographic and socio-economic
breakdown of the Fort Collins population
Existing Programs
There are over 40 existing and planned efforts
related to bicycle programming in Fort Collins
today. City departments such as FC Bikes and
the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) lead many of
the existing programs. Others are run by local
Chapter 2: Bicycle Programs
Fort Collins has become an exemplary bicycle-
friendly community due in part to the many
education, encouragement, enforcement and
evaluation programs that are operated by the
City and community partners. In addition to the
numerous programs that exist today, the City has
additional programs in the planning stages (e.g.,
level of comfort bicycle map and bike share). Many
of the City’s programs were recommendations in
the 2011 Bicycle Safety Education Plan (BSEP),
a comprehensive plan focused on safety-related
education initiatives.
This chapter presents recommendations for new
and expanded programs, focusing on those which
will be most effective at helping achieve the 2014
Plan goals. Because resources are limited, this plan
recommends a limited number of new programs,
and recommends that the City conduct ongoing
and comprehensive evaluation of its programs to
evaluate efficacy, consolidate where necessary,
and partner where opportunities exist. Chapter 5
presents an evaluation framework that the City
can use to conduct this evaluation, in addition to
program-specific data collection and evaluation.
The League of American Bicyclists
categorizes non-engineering
aspects of a bicycle friendly
community as follows:
Education: Gives people of all ages and ability
levels the skills and confidence to ride
Encouragement: Creates a strong bike culture that
welcomes and celebrates bicycling
Chapter 2: Bicycle Programs Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 15
Program Type Audience Existing Programs
Encouragement
Youth
Boltage incentive program
Bike clubs, bike rodeos and other Safe Routes to School initiatives
National Bike to School Day
Bike and Walk to School Weeks
Others/All
Bike to Work Days
Bike Summer and Bike Winter
FC Bikes marketing and outreach
Open Streets initiative
Women on a Roll initiative
Comfort-based bicycle map
Automated bike share system, complementing the Fort Collins Bike
Library
Fort Collins Bike Library
Bicycle parking program (grants, sidewalk racks, on-street bike corrals)
Education
Youth
Walking and bicycling education (Pre-K through 12th grade)
Helmet fittings, distribution and education to low-income students and
parents
High School and Middle School Bicycle Ambassador Program
SRTS Train-the-Trainer program (teachers)
Summer youth bike camps
Bicycle and pedestrian safety town (in planning)
College Students Bicycle safety education and outreach programs and CSU partnership
All
Bicycle Ambassador Program
Education classes including Traffic Skills 101, League Cycling Instructor
Training, winter bike commuting courses, Learn-to-Ride classes
Bicycle safety education and outreach to underserved populations
Family Bike Rodeos and education at community events
Motorist awareness and education
Share the Road collaborative recommendations and messaging
Bicycle light, helmet and safety items distribution
Enforcement All
Bicycle enforcement program (police unit operating on bicycles)
Bicycle registration program
Enforcement at high-crash areas and times year
Trainings of law enforcement officers
Traffic citation safety diversion program
Evaluation/Planning All
Bicycle count program
Bicycle totem counter (planned)
Individual program evaluation (e.g. Open Streets)
City of Fort Collins Bicycle Advisory Committee
Table 1. Examples of Current City-led Bicycle Programs and In-Process Initiatives
16 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 2: Bicycle Programs
organizations, such as Bike Fort Collins and the
Fort Collins Bike Co-op, or by individual schools.
Table 1 provides a summary of some of the
existing and planned programs for which the City
has a lead role in implementing.
Key Program Partnerships
Community organizations and partner entities
have helped shaped the bicycle culture that exists
today in Fort Collins. Continued partnership with
these organizations, coalitions and committees
will be necessary to improve safety and ridership
across the community.
Partners of FC Bikes and the SRTS program
include:
• Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC)
The BAC is a key entity in supporting
bicycling and advising on bicycle-related
improvements in Fort Collins. The BAC is a
subcommittee of the City’s Transportation
Board and was formed in 2009 to review and
recommend bicycle projects, policies, and aid
in implementing the Bicycle Plan. Members of
this committee are drawn from other bicycle-
related organizations in Fort Collins, related
advisory boards, CSU, Poudre School District,
and the business community; there are also
three at-large members from the community.
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Education Coalition
(BPEC)
This coalition consists of 17 bicycle- and
pedestrian-related groups from throughout
Larimer County, including Fort Collins.
BPEC’s mission is to “reduce the number of
motor vehicle/bicycle/pedestrian crashes
in our community, and increase knowledge
and awareness about how to safely share
roads.” BPEC has been critical to creating
the successful foundation of the Bicycle
Ambassador Program, which is now
coordinated by FC Bikes.
• Fort Collins Police Services
Police Services employs eight bicycle officers
who are typically responsible for enforcing
bicycle-related traffic laws in Fort Collins.
In addition to their enforcement function,
Police Services operates the City’s bicycle
registration program and provides outreach
regarding such topics as proper bicycle
locking techniques.
• Poudre School District (PSD)
SRTS programs are operated in direct
partnership with schools throughout PSD.
While City SRTS staff oversee, guide and
coordinate these programs, many are
executed in the school setting either by
teachers or parent volunteers. School-based
programs that reach thousands of students
annually would not be possible without
cooperation from PSD. The school district is
Chapter 2: Bicycle Programs Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 17
• Bike Fort Collins
Bike Fort Collins is a member-based nonprofit
organization started in 2005 to encourage
safe and enjoyable cycling. It operates the
Bike Library and a SRTS program, conducts
adult education classes, runs marketing
campaigns, coordinates encouragement
events, and advocates for bicycle projects in
Fort Collins. The Bike Library was launched
by the City in 2008 and offers free bicycle
checkout for the first day of rental. The fleet of
170 bicycles includes a wide range of bicycle
types available at four locations. The Bike
Library has been a boon for bicycling in Fort
Collins as it enables more people to ride a
bicycle without needing to own one.
• Fort Collins Bike Co-op (Co-op)
The Co-op began in 2003 with the goal
of enabling more Fort Collins residents to
ride a bicycle. It operates a volunteer-run
community bike shop that accepts donated
bicycles and parts and gives refurbished
bicycles to lower-income residents. The Co-op
operates the abandoned bicycle program for
Fort Collins, refurbishing or recycling bicycles
after attempting to contact the owner if the
bicycle is registered. The Co-op also runs
A Bicycle Ambassador helps fasten a woman’s helmet.
maintenance classes, an earn-a-bike program,
mountain biking trips for underserved youth,
and a number of other initiatives.
• Colorado State University (CSU)
Transportation Planning
In 2013, CSU hired a staff member to
oversee “Alternative Transportation” with the
goal of reducing single-occupancy vehicle
trips to campus. This goal has led to the
development of a campus bike plan in 2014
that is coordinated with the City’s plan. The
University and City collaborate to advance
programs as well as projects adjacent and
connecting to campus.
• Colorado State University Enforcement
CSU police officers are empowered to enforce
traffic laws on and off campus since they are
state police officers, and they may also write
University-specific citations and warnings on
campus. Student employees in the Bicycle
Education and Enforcement Program (BEEP)
write bicycle citations on campus as well.
As of 2014, the Bicycle Ambassador Program has 43 volunteer ambassadors, who
have helped reach thousands of community members with bicycle education.
18 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 2: Bicycle Programs
Future Programs Approach
As the City looks to significantly expand
bicycling and improve bicycle safety, the 2014
Plan recommends focusing its resources on
implementing infrastructure improvements,
complemented by a select number of City-led
bicycle programs. This, in addition to building
strong community partnerships in order to
continue to grow bicycle programs in Fort
Collins, offers a successful community model for
achieving the goals of the 2014 Plan.
Community organizations, such as Bike Fort
Collins or the Fort Collins Bike Co-op, may be
positioned to assume operations of some existing
or future programs with support and partnership
from the City. Many bicycle-friendly communities
around the country successfully partner with local
nonprofits to run a wide array of education and
encouragement programs, and very few cities
run a substantial number of bicycle programs
themselves.
The Plan includes recommendations to help the
City focus its bicycle programming, align with the
2014 Plan goals, and fill in gaps where necessary.
The following framework was used to develop the
recommendations presented in this Chapter.
City bicycle programs should:
• Support the key goals of the 2014 Plan
• Integrate recommendations of the 2011
BSEP, as appropriate
• Rely on strong community partnerships
• Continue and strengthen existing programs
that have proven effective
• Include new programs that address existing
program gaps or opportunities
• Complement the network recommendations
and attract Interested but Concerned riders
• Be financially sustainable as part of an
overall 2014 Plan approach
Members of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Education Coalition.
Chapter 2: Bicycle Programs Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 19
Recommendations
Throughout this section, each of the Plan goals
addressed by a recommendation is indicated using
the icons below.
2.3 Consult peer cities with successful community
partnerships that support and execute bicycle
programming
CF SA RD CT CO HE EQ
The City may benefit from conducting a set of
focused interviews with other municipalities where
local governments have partnered with community
organizations for bicycle program implementation.
Savannah, Ga., Carrboro, N.C., Spartanburg, N.C.
and Burlington, Vt. are other small cities where
successful bicycle-related programs are led by
community groups.
2.4 Monitor best practices and consider
innovative approaches to bicycle programs,
infrastructure design and policies.
CF SA RD CT CO HE EQ
The state of the practice for bicycle planning,
design, programming and technology is evolving. It
is recommended that the City stay abreast of best
practices and research in all areas related to
creating a welcoming environment for people on
bicycles, and implement new strategies as
appropriate. For example, the City of Boulder has
implemented a series of bicycle innovations called
“living laboratory” projects, including piloting
electric-assisted bikes on trails, advisory bike lanes,
protected bike lanes, and back-in angled parking.
Monitoring the results of these projects and others
can help Fort Collins in its efforts to continue to
design and implement state-of-the-art bicycle
friendly strategies.
Comfort Safety Ridership Connectivity Community Health Equity
CF SA RD CT CO HE EQ
Overall Recommendations
2.1 Perform a comprehensive evaluation of
bicycle programs to focus the City on the ones
that provide the most benefits and achieve the
2014 Plan goals
CF SA RD CT CO HE EQ
A full evaluation of the City’s bicycle programming
is needed and should include new programs,
existing programs and those in development.
Appendix E includes a full list of these programs.
The City should undertake an effort to evaluate the
efficacy of programs and consolidate where
necessary. The Triple Bottom Line evaluation tool
developed as part of this planning process can
help guide this effort. The tool is explained further
in Chapter 5, where it is used to evaluate a sample
of the proposed new programs presented in this
chapter.
2.2 Begin dialogues with community partners
regarding additional program support and/or
operation
CF SA RD CT CO HE EQ
20 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 2: Bicycle Programs
Program Expansions
The following City-led programs have been
recommended for continuation and ongoing
expansion and refinement, as resources are
available. It is recommended that the City pursue
strong partnerships with stakeholder organizations
in order to effectively implement all programs
and, in the future, consider opportunities for
community organizations to take the lead on
program implementation as appropriate. Support
for the continuation and expansion of the following
programs has been demonstrated throughout this
planning process, and the programs have shown
alignment with the 2014 Plan goals. However, as
with all existing and recommended programs,
the City is encouraged to conduct ongoing
evaluation to determine overall effectiveness and
benefits in relation to the costs associated with
implementation.
2.5 Bicycle Ambassador Program (BAP)
CF SA RD CO HE EQ
The BAP was launched through BPEC in 2012.
Today the program is managed by FC Bikes
and has 43 volunteer ambassadors helping to
implement bicycle education and outreach across
the city. BAP roles include teaching Traffic Skills
101 classes and Learn-2-Ride classes, hosting
Open Garage events, serving as community
ambassadors on the trails and streets, and offering
in-the-field bicycle infrastructure education.
It is recommended that the City continue to grow
the BAP in order to provide bicycle education to a
wider audience throughout the city. The program
should continue to explore new and innovative
ways to effectively message bicycle safety to
people across the community. In conjunction
with the implementation of the network
recommendations, BAP efforts should tie directly
to the low-stress network, new infrastructure and
reaching people of all ages and abilities. Specific
recommendations for BAP expansions include:
• Increased collaboration with ClimateWise
and community organizations to implement
Bicycle Friendly Business outreach
• Implementation of neighborhood-based
bicycle education outreach
• Partnerships with organizations like Vida
Sana to provide bicycle safety education to a
wider, more inclusive audience
• Additional in-the-field, infrastructure-based
education and outreach in conjunction
with implementation of the network
recommendations
• Increased collaboration with CSU to partner
on education and outreach initiatives
• Increased education opportunities to reach
users of all transportation modes
2.6 High School and Middle School Bicycle
Ambassador Program
Chapter 2: Bicycle Programs Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 21
SRTS program is administered by a coordinator
housed alongside the FC Bikes program. An
overarching program goal is to get at least 50
percent of K–12 school children safely biking
or walking to school on a regular basis. To
accomplish this, the SRTS program focuses on
Five E’s: Education, Encouragement, Engineering,
Enforcement, and Evaluation.
With the assistance of Bike Fort Collins and
other local advocacy organizations, the program
educates about 6,000 K-12 students annually
in bike-ped safety, with a goal of educating at
least 8,000 annually by 2020. An additional 8,000
students are reached through encouragement
programming each year. The following innovations
have occurred over the past few years and are
recommended for further development in coming
years:
• School-sponsored bike field trips
• After-school bike clubs
• Satellite SRTS bike fleets housed at schools
(including a mobile fleet trailered between
several elementary schools)
• Bike-ped safety education ingrained in
some schools’ PE curriculum and taught
by teachers who are also League Cycling
Instructors
• SRTS instructors leading summer B.I.K.E.
camps
• Strategic traffic infrastructure at high-priority
school locations
• School-rotation schedule ensuring regular
bike-ped educational opportunities for all
students at public schools
• Robust middle school “Bike PE” curriculum
• SRTS Resource Notebooks at all public
schools
• Bike fix-it stations at all major high schools
• New bike racks at many schools
• Boltage Demonstration Project
2.8 Open Streets (Car-free initiatives)
RD CO HE EQ
In 2014, the City launched its Open Streets
initiative, as originally recommended in the 2008
Bike Plan. An estimated 2,000 people participated
in the City’s first car-free event, of which a large
proportion was women and families. Event
goals included increasing physical activity, active
transportation, and supporting community health.
Car-free initiatives have gained popularity in the
United States as innovative ways for cities to
achieve environmental-, public and social health-,
and economic-related goals. It is recommended
that the City continue its efforts to implement
Open Streets initiatives and seek ways to ensure all
neighborhoods have the opportunity to participate
in these events.
2.9 Bike Month initiatives
FC Bikes’ signature event, Bike to Work Day,
22 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 2: Bicycle Programs
among women, known as the “5 Cs” — Comfort,
Convenience, Confidence, Community, and
Consumer Products, Fort Collins’ 2014 Women
on a Roll initiative included a women’s bicycling
expo, women’s learn-to-ride classes, community
rides, and bicycle safety education training for
Vida Sana’s Promotoras. It is recommended that
the City continue this initiative to achieve its goals
of increasing ridership as well as the comfort
and confidence of bicycling among women. This
initiative is recommended for implementation
through strong community partnerships, for
example with Vida Sana and University of Colorado
Health.
2.11 Enforcement initiatives
CF SA CO
The 2014 Plan places an emphasis on the
importance of improving and expanding the
City’s bicycle infrastructure; these recommended
investments can play a significant role in
improving bicycle safety while also modifying
bicyclists’ behaviors. For example, where
bicycle infrastructure can help people feel more
comfortable bicycling in streets, the prevalence of
sidewalk riding and related bicycle crashes may
decrease. These infrastructure improvements are
part of an overall enforcement strategy, however,
direct enforcement initiatives will be important in
creating a safe community for all transportation
system users.
It is recommended that the City continue to
expand and refine its bicycle-related enforcement
initiatives to target behaviors and locations
that have a higher incidence of bicycle-related
crashes and opportunities for education for all
modes. Specific recommendations for ongoing
enforcement initiatives include:
• Work with Police Services and Traffic
Operations annually to develop high-priority
enforcement and education locations based
on crash data (for all modes)
• Partner with the City and CSU’s police
departments to implement education and
enforcement initiatives at key times of year
(e.g., September, when schools and colleges
are back in session)
• Conduct annual workshops with Police
Services and other community stakeholders
to collaborate on key messages and safety
priorities, and develop a mutual awareness
of bicycle-related laws.
• Conduct annual community safety
discussions
• Partner with Police Services to distribute
safety items as part of an overall bicycle
enforcement strategy (e.g., lights)
• Communicate enforcement campaigns to
the public through website and social media
• Expand the City’s traffic safety diversion
Chapter 2: Bicycle Programs Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 23
• Work with the Bicycle Ambassador Program
to evaluate existing marketing campaigns
and develop new campaigns targeted at
specific groups (e.g., women, families,
Latino/Latina populations) to effectively
increase bicycling among a wider audience
• Continue to utilize fcgov.com/bicycling
website and update with current events,
news, and educational offerings
• Add more social media avenues to
communications. For example, create
Facebook and Twitter accounts.
• Update existing video content on FC Bikes
website and develop new videos that
address safety issues and infrastructure
changes. Also utilize videos to market events
and to make educational offerings easily
accessible to a wider population
• Research individualized marketing
campaigns to encourage bicycling across
the community
2.13 CSU Coordination: Education and Outreach
CF SA RD CO HE EQ
FC Bikes currently partners with CSU on a number
of initiatives, including offering education and
outreach events, participating in the Campus
Bicycle Advisory Committee, organizing
light giveaways, and partnering on funding
opportunities. As an importance audience in the
Fort Collins community, it is recommended that
the City continue to grow its partnership with
CSU to implement new and innovative ways
to collectively reach students, staff and faculty
members. The 2014 Plan was developed in
alignment with the Campus Bicycle Plan; the City
and CSU should seek opportunities to collaborate
on implementing the shared recommendations of
each Plan.
New Recommended Programs
Recommendations for a select number of new
bicycle programs are discussed below. For each
program, the recommended lead entity (City
versus non-City) is indicated. A full list of existing
and previously planned programs and initiatives is
available in Appendix E.
Education Programs
2.14 Develop a safe driving pledge program
CF SA RD CT CO EQ
In a safe driving pledge program, drivers promise
to obey the speed limit and avoid distracted
driving. Even a few cars driving at or below the
speed limit help to decrease overall speeds in
areas with speed enforcement issues. The speed
at which people drive influences the overall
comfort and safety of people bicycling and
walking; fostering a low-speed environment is
important to the overarching goals of this Plan.
Wide streets, such as many of the neighborhood
streets in Fort Collins, encourage speeding.
24 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 2: Bicycle Programs
2.15 Support a modified driver’s education
curriculum to include bicycle education
CF SA RD CO HE EQ
An effort should be launched to modify the driver's
education curriculum to include instruction on
bicycle-related laws. Questions regarding bicycle-
related laws and bicyclists’ rights and
responsibilities on the road should be added to the
driver's education exam to increase awareness
among all roadway users.
There is a concern and perception among many
in the city that both bicyclists and motorists do
not know the rules of the road as they relate to
bicycles. Public comments heard throughout
this planning process noted that some motorists
ignore the “3-feet to pass” law and that police
officers do not enforce the law.
This program could be led by a statewide
organization such as Bicycle Colorado or the
Colorado Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The
City could work with the DMV to modify the driver’s
education curriculum to include instruction on
bicycle laws, and modify the driver’s license exam
to include questions related to these laws.
Who: Non-City lead
Example: Minnesota, Louisiana, Washington
2.16 Coordinate with Transfort to implement
education and outreach to support bicycle and
transit integration
CF RD CO
Bicycling works well to expand the reach of transit
by providing first-mile and last-mile transportation
options to and from transit services. Transfort’s
services offer the ability for people to seamlessly
combine bicycling with transit through on-board
bicycle storage, bicycle storage options at stops
and stations, and direct connections to the City’s
bicycle infrastructure (such as the Mason Trail).
These services have already proven to be in high
demand; however, as the City continues to expand
bicycle infrastructure connections to transit
and develop additional options for combining
these complementary modes, FC Bikes should
coordinate with Transfort to launch an education
and outreach campaign to further communicate
the opportunities for residents, visitors and
students to combine bicycling with transit.
Who: City lead
Example: Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation
Authority
Encouragement Programs
In addition to the City’s existing encouragement
programs, the following programs are proposed to
help increase ridership, comfort, connectivity, and
equity.
2.17 Establish an automated bike share system
RD CT CO EQ
The 2014 Plan process included a discrete effort to
define the scope and operations for a modern,
Chapter 2: Bicycle Programs Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 25
2.18 Create a Community Neighborhood
Greenway Program
CF RD CO
This program works in conjunction with the
network recommendations and the City’s current
neighborhood traffic calming program to create
traffic-calmed, neighborhood greenway streets.
The proposed Full Build Network plan calls for
approximately 19 miles of neighborhood
greenways, which include traffic calming
measures to make them more inviting for people
bicycling and walking, while offering community-
wide benefits. Traffic calming measures could
include a variety of design treatments such as lane
narrowing, mini circles, curb extensions, signage,
gateway treatments, speed humps, chicanes and
street diversions, further described in Appendix C.
As part of the Community Neighborhood
Greenway Program, it is recommended that the
City provide materials and information online
related to the Program, proposed locations,
benefits of neighborhood greenways, and work
with individual neighborhoods to support outreach,
design, community events, and maintenance
of neighborhood greenway treatments where
appropriate.
In some cities, such as Seattle, nonprofit
organizations have developed around the concept
of neighborhood greenways, helping to champion
these improvements within neighborhoods across
the city. Residents’ sense of ownership of these
streets can help enhance neighborhood pride,
vibrancy and cohesion.
Who: City lead
Example: Portland, Or., Seattle, Wa., Berkeley, Ca.
2.19 Enhance end-of-trip facilities and develop a
comprehensive bicycle parking plan
RD HE EQ
It is recommended that the City create a bicycle
parking plan, subsequent to this Plan, to determine
opportunities for increased bicycle parking
and other end-of-trip facilities in key locations
across the city. This bicycle parking plan should
incorporate specific recommendations for future
bicycle parking in downtown, near transit facilities,
along bicycle routes, and in other business districts.
The plan should recommend best practices for
bicycle parking and site design (in connection to
recommendation 3.12), as well as information
regarding bicycle repair stations, and commuter
facilities like showers and lockers.
The ongoing expansion and improvement of end-
of-trip facilities such as bicycle parking will increase
the accessibility and attractiveness of bicycling in
Fort Collins. The City should continue to implement
sidewalk bicycle racks in response to requests, but
efforts should focus on adding bicycle parking near
priority bicycle routes, transit stops and stations,
and within the city’s business districts. The City
26 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 2: Bicycle Programs
2.21 Conduct regular rides of new bicycle facilities
and low-stress routes
CF SA RD CT CO
Many new bicycle facilities and routes are
recommended in Chapter 4. Rides of these newly
implemented facilities and routes should be
conducted to highlight and familiarize residents
with the low-stress network and how new facility
types should function for all users. The City could
partner with a non-profit organization, such as Bike
Fort Collins, to initiate this program.
Who: Non-City lead
Enforcement Programs
Enforcement programs require a commitment of
resources from the Fort Collins Police Services
(FCPS). As resources are limited, the 2014 Plan
recommends that enforcement primarily be
enhanced by infrastructure design; that is, high-
quality bicycle facilities should be designed and
constructed so that safe and legal use of these
facilities is inherent. FC Bikes should continue
to strengthen its partnership and existing
enforcement initiatives with FCPS and CSU
Police, as discussed in recommendation 2.11.
Additionally, one new enforcement-related program
is recommended.
2.22 Work with Department of Revenue to amend
crash form
SA
A number of elements on the state’s standard
crash reporting form do not adequately capture
data necessary to assess and understand bicycle
crashes. Further information about bicyclists’
movements and the presence or absence of
bicycle facilities at the crash site is critical to
understanding how to best reduce crashes in the
future. The City’s Traffic Operations Department
(Traffic Operations) today collects that data from
narrative sections on crash reports, but changes
to the state reporting form would make officers’
reports more consistent and lower the burden on
Traffic Operations staff to comb through narratives
for information. Specifically:
• A box should be added to indicate whether
the bicyclist was riding on the sidewalk,
and if so, whether they were riding with or
against traffic.
• Forms should more clearly indicate which
street each of the involved parties was
traveling on. This will enable the City to
analyze the impact of bicycle facilities on
specific types of crashes.
The City could partner with Bicycle Colorado and
other bicycle friendly municipalities in the state to
undertake this effort.
Who: City lead
Evaluation and Planning Programs
2.23 Expand bicycle data collection program
SA RD HE EQ
Chapter 2: Bicycle Programs Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 27
tracking of gender and helmet use, metrics which
can help gauge the impact of outreach activities
and infrastructure improvements.
The City should expand this program to include a
network of permanent counters at key locations
throughout Fort Collins. Counters should
be installed in conjunction with new bicycle
infrastructure and along key bicycle routes. This will
help assess the impact of new facilities on ridership.
Who: City lead
Example: City of Boulder Bicycle Count Program
2.24 Conduct pre- and post-studies of new bicycle
infrastructure projects
CF SA RD CT CO
Building on recommendation 2.23, the City should
conduct pre- and post-data collection for new
bicycle infrastructure projects. Aligning with
the Protected Bike Lane Pilot Project Program,
as discussed in Chapter 4, this program would
incorporate evaluation for other projects, such as
neighborhood greenways, buffered bike lanes, and
green paint treatments to determine the safety and
ridership impacts for all modes, associated with
new bicycle facilities.
2.25 Coordinate assessment between Police
Services and hospital-collected crash data
SA
Crash data is collected both by Fort Collins police
officers responding to crashes and by local
hospitals who treat bicyclists for injury. To date,
these two data sources have not been coordinated
to create a full picture of the state of bicycle-
involved crashes in Fort Collins. Coordination with
hospital data will enable the City to fully understand
the extent of bicycle crash issues, particularly since
not all bicycle-automobile crashes are reported to
the police. Even data on hospital crashes that do
not involve automobile conflicts could help the City
evaluate needed engineering solutions or tailor
education and outreach materials about safe
bicycling.
Who: Non-City lead
Example: Boston, Ma.
2.26 Create an annual FC Bikes report on 2014
Plan implementation and ongoing activities
CO
Fort Collins citizens have been a driving force in
the development of the 2014 Plan. To remain
accountable to all stakeholders involved in the
process, as well as to track progress toward the
goals identified in this Plan, the City should
produce an annual progress report on the
implementation of the Plan and highlight ongoing
efforts. This report should include, for example,
coordinated bicycle crash data, a catalog of
infrastructure projects implemented, numbers of
citizens reached at FC Bikes events, results of pilot
project studies, and progress toward the
performance metrics established in Chapter 5.
28 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 2: Bicycle Programs
Category Key Action
Overall
2.1 Perform a comprehensive evaluation of bicycle programs to focus the City on the ones that provide the
most benefits and achieve the 2014 Plan goals
2.2 Begin dialogues with community partners regarding additional program support and/or operation
2.3 Consult with peer cities with successful community partnerships that support and execute bicycle
programming
2.4 Monitor best practices and consider innovative approaches to bicycle programs, infrastructure design and
policies.
Program Expansions
2.5 Bicycle Ambassador Program (BAP)
2.6 High School and Middle School Bicycle Ambassador Program
2.7 Safe Routes to School
2.8 Open Streets (Car-free initiatives)
2.9 Bike Month initiatives
2.10 Women on a Roll
2.11 Enforcement initiatives
2.12 Marketing and outreach
2.13 CSU Coordination: Education and Outreach
New Programs
Education
2.14 Develop a safe driving pledge program
2.15 Support a modified driver’s education curriculum to include bicycle education
2.16 Coordinate with Transfort to implement education and outreach to support bicycle and transit integration
Encouragement
2.17 Establish an automated bike share system
2.18 Create a Community Neighborhood Greenway Program
2.19 Enhance End-of-Trip Facilities and develop a comprehensive bicycle parking plan
2.20 Update the City bicycle map annually to reflect low-stress routes and distribute widely
2.21 Conduct regular rides of new bicycle facilities and low-stress routes
Enforcement 2.22 Work with Department of Revenue to develop bicycle-specific crash form
Evaluation and
Planning
2.23 Expand bicycle data collection program
2.24 Conduct pre- and post-studies of new bicycle infrastructure projects
2.25 Coordinate assessment between Police Services and hospital-collected crash data
2.26 Create an annual FC Bikes report on 2014 Plan implementation and ongoing activities
2.27 Amend the Fort Collins Citizen Survey to include recommendations from the LAB
Table 2. Key Actions
Chapter 3: Bicycle Policies
30 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 3: Bicycle Policies
Chapter 3: Bicycle Policies
The policy recommendations presented in
this chapter are an important part of the City’s
progress toward becoming a world-class bicycle-
friendly community. While these changes may
not be as visible as new bicycle infrastructure and
programs, they underpin the implementation of the
recommendations in Chapters 2 and 4.
A range of policies can help shape the physical
bicycling environment and encourage people
of all abilities to bike more often. This chapter
provides an overview of existing policies that
impact the bicycling environment and presents
recommendations related to design standards,
traffic, land use, and maintenance. Some of these
recommendations will require changes in ongoing
staff practices while others will require changes to
official City codes and necessitate approval by City
Council.
Key Outcomes
By 2020, revisions to Fort Collins’ bicycle-related
policies will support the following key outcomes:
• Zero bicycle fatalities
• The number and severity of bicycle-related
crashes will be lower than today
• 80 percent of residents will live within one-
quarter mile of a low-stress bicycle route
• There will be a 162-mile low-stress bicycle
network
• 55 percent of residents will find it very easy
to travel by bicycle
Existing Policies
Bicycling in Fort Collins is impacted by a number
of existing City and County policies and by
Colorado state traffic law. The design of on-
street bicycle facilities is governed by Larimer
County’s Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS).
These standards are applied by the City to new
roadway construction and roadway retrofits.
City staff also use a multimodal level of service
(MMLOS) analysis to determine appropriate street
designs, particularly as part of development and
redevelopment projects. This approach, which is
progressive compared with common practices
in most U.S. cities, estimates the impact of a
development on future automobile, transit, bicycle
and pedestrian traffic. If it is determined that a
development will cause a location to fall below an
established minimum MMLOS, improvements will
be required as part of the project.
The majority of Fort Collins’ traffic laws regarding
bicyclists are adopted directly from the Colorado
Vehicle Code (CVC), which are recognized by the
League of American Bicyclists as being bicycle
friendly.1 For instance, both the CVC and Fort
Collins’ code specifically state that bicyclists are
permitted to make a two-stage left turn when
they do not feel comfortable making a traditional
left-turn movement. Fort Collins has the authority
Chapter 3: Bicycle Policies Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 31
Policy Recommendations
Though many of the City’s existing policies are
recognized as being progressive and bicycle
friendly, there is opportunity for improvement in
order to implement new, state-of-the-art facility
types and move toward a world-class bicycling
environment.
In addition to the specific recommendations
outlined below, City staff should stay abreast
of new policy developments in other bicycle-
friendly communities that improve the bicycling
environment.
Street Design Standards and Practices
3.1 Amend Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards
CF SA CT
The 2014 Plan presents new facility types that are
not currently included in Larimer County Urban
Area Street Standards (LCUASS), which govern
street construction in Fort Collins. It is
recommended that these facilities be included for
consideration in an update of the LCUASS. Details
about the specific design of these types of
facilities, as well as how they interface with existing
facility types, should also be explored as part of the
update. It is important to note that this Plan
provides design guidance and recommended
locations for bicycle infrastructure improvements;
however recognizes that design will be context-
sensitive and based on feasibility of each project.
Example of two-stage left turn from NACTO Bikeway Design Guide. |
Graphic courtesy of NACTO.
3.2 Consider a City endorsement of the National
Association of City Traffic Officials (NACTO)
Urban Bikeway Design Guide
CF SA RD CO
The NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide provides
guidance on state-of-the-art solutions to bicycle
infrastructure design. This national resource has
been endorsed by six state departments of
transportation and dozens of municipalities, all of
which are working to make their communities
more bicycle-friendly. The Federal Highway
Administration and Colorado Department of
Transportation have issued memoranda that allow
for design flexibility encompassing facilities
presented in the Urban Bikeway Design Guide. The
Recommendations
Throughout this section, each of the Plan goals
addressed by a recommendation is indicated using
the icons below.
Comfort Safety Ridership Connectivity Community Health Equity
CF SA RD CT CO HE EQ
2014 Plan Goals
32 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 3: Bicycle Policies
NACTO guide can serve as a supplement to the
guidance included in Appendix C of this document.
3.3 Pilot back-in angled parking via ordinance
amendment
CF SA
Many streets in downtown Fort Collins are wide
enough to accommodate angled parking, bike
lanes and two travel lanes, typically 56 feet wide.
Many include front-in angled parking and allow for
bicycle travel in shared travel lanes. With front-in
angled parking, drivers tend to enter spaces at high
speeds and have limited visibility as they back out
of spaces into moving traffic. There is evidence
that back-in angled parking can reduce crash rates
and improve safety, particularly for bicyclists.
A pilot project could be implemented on Magnolia
Street east of College Avenue. Magnolia is
included in the 2020 Network with a facility
recommendation of priority shared lane markings.
By reversing the angled parking, the same number
of spaces could be maintained, but drivers would
need to slow and stop within the travel lane before
they reverse into a parking space. This allows
bicyclists, as well as motorists, time to assess the
situation and react. Upon exiting the space, drivers
have a better view of oncoming traffic, including
bicyclists. This pilot would necessitate a change to
Section 1205.5 of the Fort Collins Traffic Code.
3.4 Amend the City’s Multimodal Level of Service
methodology
CF SA CT
Fort Collins uses a multimodal level of service
(MMLOS) methodology to evaluate projects that
impact streets. This method incorporates factors
that impact the comfort of drivers, transit riders,
bicyclists and pedestrians. The Level of Traffic
Stress (LTS) method used for the 2014 Plan should
be incorporated into the MMLOS and replace the
method used to assess impacts on bicycling. The
LTS method has been a valuable tool throughout
this planning process and can continue to help
Fort Collins identify facilities and assess trade-offs
related to network implementation.
3.5 Evaluate codifying modal hierarchy with a
Complete Streets policy
SA CT EQ
While bicycle travel is the focus of this Plan, it
is recognized that bicycle facilities will not be
implemented in a vacuum. Ideally, all streets would
accommodate the needs of all transportation
systems users equally; however, limited right-of-
way and resources frequently require trade-offs
and compromises.
Some cities such as Portland, Chicago, and San
Francisco have developed a transportation mode
hierarchy to help establish policy-level priorities
for the transportation system and to guide design
decisions on individual projects. The adoption of
a transportation mode hierarchy in Fort Collins
Chapter 3: Bicycle Policies Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 33
3.6 Evaluate traffic signal timing throughout Fort
Collins
CF SA
The 2020 Network emphasizes the use of local
and collector streets as a primary lower-stress
option for bicycle travel to the arterial roadway
network. For this Network to be attractive and
efficient for people bicycling, it is important that
arterial crossings be safe and comfortable, with
delays minimized. The City last assessed signal
timing in 2010 on all arterial corridors. The plan
resulted in:
• The prioritization of key arterial corridors to
move high volumes of traffic
• Use of cycle lengths of up to 120 seconds in
length used to minimize stops and delays on
arterials and emissions from motor vehicles
With the adoption of the 2014 Plan and changes
to transit routes throughout the City, it is
recommended that an updated signal timing study
be conducted that includes strategies to improve
the efficiency of bicycle travel throughout the City.
In particular, this study should seek opportunities
on the 2020 Low-Stress Network to:
• Provide faster signal response time once
detection is actuated by bicyclists
• Shorten traffic signal cycle lengths
• Provide bicycle signals at:
• Trail and sidepath crossings
• Locations where bicyclists transition from
the street to an off-street facility
• Intersection approaches with protected
bicycle lanes
• Locations where it is desired to provide a
leading or protected bicycle phase
• Arterial crossings where bicyclists are
directed to cross with pedestrians such as
at HAWK or Half signal locations
• Provide leading or protected bicycle phases
where conflicts between turning motorists
are a challenge or there is a history of
crashes between turning motorists and
through moving bicyclists
• Provide increased green and clearance time
at locations where groups of bicyclists are
routinely crossing an arterial
3.7 Continue to assess opportunities to improve
signal detection for bicyclists
CF SA
There are many different technologies that cities
use to detect vehicles at traffic signals, some of
which work better for bicyclists. The City has been
working to upgrade signal detection at
intersections, with a preference for the provision of
video detection. The City should continue to work
with vendors to improve detection capabilities for
bicyclists, especially during low-light or shadowed
conditions where bicyclists are often not detected.
As technology improves, detection equipment and/
34 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 3: Bicycle Policies
3.8 Continue to pilot and expand the use of bicycle
detection confirmation lights
CF SA
A bicycle confirmation light, which turns on to
confirm that a bicycle has been detected at a
traffic signal, is being piloted at the intersection of
Lemay Avenue and Stuart Street. It is
recommended that this pilot be extended to
additional intersections near the CSU main
campus for continued evaluation. Information
regarding the purpose and use of the confirmation
lights should also be included in educational
outreach strategies organized by FC Bikes, CSU
and other local organizations.
3.9 Incorporate bicycle counters into new on-
street and trail infrastructure projects
SA CT CO
This policy recommendation supports new
programs identified in Chapter 2 (2.22 and 2.23)
regarding the expansion of bicycle data collection
efforts and the creation of a robust pre- and post-
construction evaluation of new bicycle facilities.
Counters installed at the time of construction
will enable evaluation of usage from day one and
ensure their appropriate integration into facility
design.
Traffic Laws
3.10 Remove College Avenue bicycle restrictions
as corridor improvements are implemented
CT CO
The existing prohibition of bicycle riding on College
Avenue should be removed, in conjunction with
infrastructure improvements, as it is not consistent
with the principles of a bicycle-friendly community.
Bicyclists are using the corridor frequently as
evidenced in count data and crash statistics.
Moving forward, the focus should be implementing
improvements to the bicycling environment as
recommended in the Midtown in Motion Plan. This
change was also recommended by the League of
American Bicyclists as a requirement for achieving
a Diamond-level Bicycle Friendly Community
during its June 2014 audit. Additional focus should
also be placed on creating low-stress parallel
routes with good connectivity and wayfinding to
College Avenue destinations.
Land Use and Development Codes
3.11 Review existing land use codes for bicycle-
friendly development outcomes
SA CT CO HE EQ
A bicycle-friendly development task force should
be developed to evaluate the LCUASS and the
City’s land use and traffic codes, in order to identify
opportunities for further promoting bicycling,
increasing connectivity, and creating shorter trip
options. The City’s Planning and Zoning Board
provides a good venue to initiate this effort.
3.12 Consider revisions to existing bicycle
parking code to offer additional siting and design
Chapter 3: Bicycle Policies Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 35
Maintenance
3.13 Develop a citywide prioritized map for
plowing bicycle routes after snow events
CF SA CT
Current snow plowing priorities for the City focus
on high-traffic arterial streets where clearance
includes both automobile travel lanes and bicycle
lanes. With the implementation of the 2020
network, it will be important to move some local
and collector streets to higher priority levels in
the plowing hierarchy. FC Bikes should work with
the Streets and Parks Departments to create a
plowing map and procedure that will ensure safe
bicycle travel on critical routes throughout the city
on lower-stress corridors. Considerations should
include the demand of the route and potential
impacts on bicyclists’ safety, should the route not
be available for travel for a few days or weeks. In
conjunction with a snow clearing map for priority
bicycle routes, the City should determine the scale
of snow events that will require clearing.
3.14 Develop maintenance and snow removal
procedures for protected bike lanes
CF SA RD
The City should develop a maintenance and snow
removal policy that will be implemented in tandem
with the protected bike lane pilot projects
recommended in Chapter 4. These new facilities
will be implemented gradually with likely no more
than three miles in any year. Other cities around
North America have found creative ways to
maintain protected bike lanes using existing
resources; these cities should be consulted with as
the City moves forward with these new facility
types.
Currently, the Streets Department is responsible
for clearance of on-street bicycle facilities as part
of regular street sweeping and plowing, while the
Parks Department is responsible for sweeping and
snow clearance on most paved trails. Protected
bike lanes may require the use of smaller, sidewalk
scale equipment.
At present, the Streets Department owns several
street sweepers but only one that will fit in the
proposed protected bike lanes. This machine is
nearing the end of its service life and thus requires
frequent repair. The Parks Department owns
additional equipment for its use maintaining the
trail system. Streets and Parks should coordinate
the use of smaller sweeping and snow removal
equipment that will fit within the anticipated
minimum six-foot width of a one-way protected
bike lane. Discussion should also begin on the
possibility of Streets “subcontracting” snow
removal and sweeping of these facilities to
Parks staff. As can be seen from the map on the
following page, some of the proposed protected
bike lane pilot locations could potentially be added
to a loop route for Parks as they clear paved trails.
36 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 3: Bicycle Policies
POWER TRAIL
MASON TRAIL
P
O
U
D
R
E
R
I
V
E
R
T
R
A
I
L
P
L
E
A
S
A
N
T
V
A
L
L
E
Y
T
R
A
I
L
R
E
N
D
E
Z
V
O
U
S
T
R
A
I
L
HICKORY TRAIL
E
A
S
T
S
P
Chapter 3: Bicycle Policies Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 37
Category Key Action
Street Design
Standards and
Practices
3.1 Amend Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards
3.2 Consider a City endorsement of the National Association of City Traffic Officials (NACTO) Urban
Bikeway Design Guide
3.3 Pilot back-in angled parking through an ordinance amendment
3.4 Amend the City’s Multimodal Level of Service methodology
3.5 Evaluate codifying modal hierarchy with a Complete Streets policy
3.6 Evaluate traffic signal timing throughout Fort Collins
3.7 Continue to assess opportunities to improve signal detection for bicyclists
3.8 Continue to pilot and expand the use of bicycle detection confirmation lights
3.9 Incorporate bicycle counters into new on-street and trail infrastructure projects
Traffic Laws 3.10 Remove College Avenue bicycle restrictions as corridor improvements are implemented
Land Use and
Development Codes
3.11 Review existing land use codes for bicycle-friendly development outcomes
3.12 Consider revisions to existing bicycle parking code to offer additional siting and design guidance
Maintenance
3.13 Develop a citywide prioritized map for plowing bike routes after snow events
3.14 Develop maintenance and snow removal procedures for protected bike lanes
3.15 Develop a street sweeping plan for protected bike lanes
3.16 Develop communications and design protocols for bicycle facility closures and detours
Table 1. Key Actions Needed
the FC Bikes page. This model should be replicated
for on-street bike facilities that may be closed as a
result of construction, maintenance and weather
events.
The City should also work to ensure well-
communicated and designed detours are
established for streets and trails when extended
closures of bicycle facilities are necessary. This
protocol should address necessary signage for
communicating closures to bicyclists and drivers,
standards for detours that require comparable or
higher quality bike facilities, and/or the provision
of temporary bike facilities on the street with a
closure. San Francisco and Washington, D.C. have
strong policies in these areas that should be used
as guidance.
In addition, locations where there are frequent
closure, such as the underpass at Spring Creek
Trail and Centre Avenue, should be evaluated for
permanent improvements to ensure high-quality
detour routes.
Key Actions Summary
The following table summarizes the key actions
that Fort Collins will need to take to accomplish
Plan goals through changes to City and County
policies and procedures.
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 4: Bicycle Network
40 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 4: Bicycle Network
Goal Network Design Application
Comfort CF Recommended facilities will provide a low-stress riding environment through the use of trails,
neighborhood greenways, buffered bike lanes, protected bike lanes, and comfortable street
crossings.
Safety SA Recommendations are provided to address the most typical safety issues and to prioritize
improvements along high-crash corridors and intersections. Recognizable bike routes will
alert drivers to be more conscious of bicycle traffic on the street.
Ridership RD Providing an extensive and varied network that includes a range of facility types will enable
more people to use a bicycle for more of their trips.
Connectivity CT Network recommendations create continuous routes throughout the city, connecting
neighborhoods to one another and to major destinations such as schools, trails, commercial
districts and downtown.
Community CO Low-stress bicycle facilities are designed to allow families and other groups of people to ride
together, especially at slower speeds. Streets more active with bicyclists and pedestrians can
also promote the personal interactions that underpin neighborhood livability and vitality.
Health HE The planned network creates an accessible and affordable way for a wide range of people to
incorporate physical activity into their daily lifestyles.
Equity EQ Network recommendations cover the entire geography of Fort Collins, ensuring residents in
all neighborhoods are served by the low-stress network.
Chapter 4: Bicycle Network
Providing a bicycle network that is connected,
safety-focused, convenient and comfortable will
help the City achieve all of the goals set forth in
this plan. Table 1 explains how each of the Plan
goals guided the network design.
Table 1. Relationship of Plan Goal to Network Design
This chapter presents a brief overview of existing
conditions and the network development process,
but the main focus is the presentation of a bicycle
facility network for implementation by 2020. This
network strategically utilizes existing low-stress
streets to create a connected network, accessible
to people of all abilities, throughout the city.
The recommended bicycle facility types as
identified in the 2020 Low Stress and Full Build
Networks should follow the design guidelines
presented in Appendix C. While the network
provides a framework for facility location decisions,
these guidelines provide the detailed instruction
on implementation of facilities and should be
consulted throughout the design process.
The development of a comfortable,
safe and connected bicycle network
is the most important step that Fort
Collins should take to become a
world-class city for bicycling.
Chapter 4: Bicycle Network Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 41
Key Outcomes
Implementation of the 2020 Network is intended to
achieve the following outcomes:
• 20 percent of people will commute by bicycle
• A balance of genders will bicycle
• Zero bicycle fatalities
• The number and severity of bicycle-related
crashes will be lower than today
• 80 percent of residents will live within one-
quarter mile of a low-stress bicycle facility
• There will be a 162-mile low-stress bicycle
network
• The City will have initiated a protected bike
lane pilot program
Additionally, a long-term vision for the City’s bicycle
network, the Full Build Network, is presented and
should be implemented as opportunities arise.
Bicycle Network Development
The future Fort Collins bicycle network is
designed to be a connected and convenient grid
of low-stress facilities. The City should work to
implement recommendations from the 2014 Plan
that coincide with other planned projects, while
striving to implement corridorwide improvements
to create a complete route for people wanting to
bicycle. The overarching strategy must be to create
a connected network where the Interested but
Concerned rider is comfortable.
The bicycle facility network was developed through
an iterative process of existing conditions analysis,
field work, public and agency stakeholder review
and discussion, level of comfort assessment,
safety analysis and demand analysis. Using
these inputs, a draft network was developed and
reviewed by the public and agency stakeholders.
Their input was incorporated into the final
recommended networks presented in this Chapter.
Key elements of the bicycle network development
process are highlighted in the following section.
Full details of the existing conditions assessment
are available in Appendix B.
Level of Comfort Assessment
As a key goal of the 2014 Plan is to serve the
Interested but Concerned rider, all streets in Fort
Collins were assessed for their level of bicycling
comfort to identify those already suitable for
these riders and those needing improvement.
Assessment included: traffic volumes, speed, the
number of lanes, and the presence and quality
of bicycle facilities. Intersections were similarly
assessed. All street segments were assigned a
level of traffic stress (LTS) from 1 to 5, where “low-
stress” streets rate LTS 1 or 2.
The existing low-stress network in Fort Collins
consists primarily of paved trails and low-
volume local streets which have signal-controlled
crossings of major arterial streets. Unfortunately
this system lacks connectivity. The existing local
street grid—including cul-de-sac style development
42 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 4: Bicycle Network
The level of comfort assessment utilized a number of factors to determine the LTS for every road in Fort Collins. The comfort of bicyclists varies based upon whether
they are sharing the roadway, have dedicated space on the roadway (bike lanes), or are completely separated from automobile traffic (protected bike lanes, trails).
Intersections were also assessed based upon the level of exposure a bicyclist would have to conflicts with automobiles. The most stressful intersections surprise the
bicyclist by dropping a bike lane where one was present on the approaching segment. Long right turn lanes also allow for longer exposure to high-speed traffic that
crosses the bicyclist’s path.
Low-Stress Islands
When City streets were assessed for level of stress, it
was discovered that there are a number of low-stress
“islands” in Fort Collins. These are areas, typically in
residential neighborhoods, where a set of low-stress
streets connect to one another but do not connect
across a major street. In the map at right, low-stress
neighborhood streets do not connect across Country
Club Rd.
Thin green lines denote low stress streets. Red and yellow lines
denote higher stress streets.
Chapter 4: Bicycle Network Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 43
B
L
U
E
S
K
Y
T
R
A
I
L
POWER TRAIL
MASON TRAIL
P
O
U
D
R
E
R
I
V
E
R
T
R
A
I
L
P
L
E
A
S
A
N
T
V
A
L
L
E
Y
T
R
A
I
L
R
E
N
D
E
Z
V
O
U
S
44 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 4: Bicycle Network
Network Development
The combination of these analyses helped create a
study network for which facility recommendations
were developed. Streets and intersections with
significant safety challenges were included in the
network. The existing and funded trail system was
included as well, along with a promising subset of
local and collector streets which provide parallel
routes to major thoroughfares.
The demand analysis led to additional streets
being incorporated into the network in order
to increase the density of routes in areas with
potential for high bicycling demand. The bicycle
comfort assessment was carefully evaluated
to identify high-stress areas and intersections
that needed further review. The resulting draft
study network was assessed in the field, and
preliminary recommendations for engineering
improvements were identified for street segments
and intersection crossings.
Recognizing that the transformation of the arterial
roadway system will be a long-term effort, the
development of a short-term, cost-effective
alternative to the arterial network was identified
as a top priority for the 2014 Plan. This short-term
network is presented here as the 2020 Low-Stress
Network (2020 Network), while the longer-term
vision necessary to bring Fort Collins to world-
class level is referred to as the Full Build Network.
Safety Analysis
The safety analysis involved a review of police-
reported crashes from 2009 to 2013. These
crashes were mapped and analyzed to assess
typical crash types and locations. The safety
analysis factored into the network development
and it also plays a large role in the prioritization and
implementation of the 2020 Low-Stress Network
and intersection improvement strategy (Chapter 5).
Demand Analysis
A demand analysis was prepared using available
GIS information to understand the spatial
distribution of various populations, trip generators,
and trip attractors (e.g., schools, transit and
employment centers). The resulting map, shown
below, identifies areas of the community with the
highest potential demand for bicycling.
Results of demand analysis. Yellow areas represent higher
expected demand for bicycle facilities.
Chapter 4: Bicycle Network Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 45
Low-Stress Route Accessibility:
2020 Network Goal
Today, only 17 percent of Fort Collins residents
live within 1/4 mile of a paved trail access
point. While many low-stress streets may also
be nearby, bicyclists cannot be guaranteed a
low-stress trip since they are likely to cross an
arterial through a high-stress intersection.
Facility Type 2020 Network
Mileage
Signed Route 21.8
Priority Shared Lane 1.3
Bike Lane 38.1
(32.1 existing)
Buffered Bike Lane 20.6
(2.9 existing)
Protected Bike Lane*
Mileage estimate based on five
pilot projects by 2020
8.7
On-Street Total 90.6
Paved Trails 71.4
Total Network Mileage 161.9
Table 2. Network Facility Mileage in 2020 Network
2020 Low-Stress Network
The 2020 Network is a 162-mile network
consisting of 91 miles of on-street facilities and
71 miles of paved trails designed to appeal to
the Interested but Concerned rider. The proposed
2020 Network capitalizes on existing local streets,
collector streets, and existing and funded paved
trails as an alternative to potentially expensive
retrofits of arterial streets. It is a cost-effective
approach to develop a comprehensive low-stress
network in the near future.
Implementation of these recommendations will
result in an approximate one-mile low-stress
grid that provides direct connectivity between
neighborhoods, trails, employment, and schools.
With the build-out of the 2020 Network, including
anticipated trail completions, 81.5 percent of Fort
Collins’ population will be within one-quarter mile
of a low-stress network route.
Network Implementation
Nearly all of the local street and collector street
projects identified in the 2020 Network can be
completed without additional traffic engineering
studies, since most facilities are accomplished
through lane narrowing and intersection
improvements that do not significantly impact
traffic operations. These projects are all anticipated
to be completed by 2020. They are shown on the
2020 Network Map as solid yellow lines.
Many of the arterial street projects identified
in the 2020 Network will require additional
traffic analyses and public involvement prior to
implementation as they may require removal of a
turn lane, traffic lane, or parking lane. Additionally,
some spot intersection improvements at
46 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 4: Bicycle Network
S
S SHIELDS ST SHIELDS ST
E VINE DR
S TIMBERLINE RD S TIMBERLINE RD S TIMBERLINE RD S TIMBERLINE RD
S COLLEGE AVE
S LEMAY AVE S LEMAY AVE
ZIEGLER RD
S TAFT HILL RD S TAFT HILL RD
W DRAKE RD
LAPORTE AVE
LAPORTE AVE
E HARMONY RD
E DRAKE RD
W TRILBY RD
E HORSETOOTH RD
TURNBERRY RD
W ELIZABETH ST
W PROSPECT RD
W HORSETOOTH RD
N LEMAY AVE
REMINGTON ST
E PROSPECT RD
W VINE DR
E TRILBY RD
N TIMBERLINE RD
MOUNTAIN VISTA DR
CARPENTER RD
S MASON ST
E WILLOX ST
W LAUREL ST
W MULBERRY ST
W MULBERRY ST E MULBERRY ST
GIDDINGS RD
KECHTER RD
N TAFT HILL RD
N OVERLAND TRL
W MOUNTAIN AVE
S HOWES ST
RICHARDS LAKE RD
N SHIELDS ST
LANDINGS DR
W COUNTY ROAD 38E
N HOWES ST
N MASON ST
COUNTRY CLUB RD
RIVERSIDE AVE
RIVERSIDE AVE
N COLLEGE AVE
E MOUNTAIN AVE
S COLLEGE AVE
W VINE DR
N LEMAY AVE
E TRILBY RD
KECHTER RD
S MASON ST
N TAFT HILL RD
S COLLEGE AVE
BO
ARD
Chapter 4: Bicycle Network Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 47
POWER TRAIL
MASON TRAIL
P
O
U
D
R
E
R
I
V
E
R
T
R
A
I
L
P
L
E
A
S
A
N
T
V
A
L
L
E
Y
T
R
A
I
L
R
E
N
D
E
Z
V
O
U
S
T
R
A
I
L
HICKORY TRAIL
E
A
S
T
S
P
48 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 4: Bicycle Network
of a pilot program to study protected bicycle lanes.
The remaining streets will have protected bicycle
lanes installed as opportunities for additional
funding arise or as a retrofit can be leveraged
with other complementary infrastructure projects.
These major streets are shown on the 2020
Network map as dashed yellow lines.
The implementation and phasing section of
this plan, Chapter 5, offers direction on how the
City should prioritize investments for the 2020
Network. It is understood that not every project
can be built at once, so this prioritization—based
on public input, crash frequency, expected
demand, a Triple Bottom Line analysis, feasibility
and geographic equity—provides a ranked set of
corridor and intersection improvement projects.
Implementation of specific projects and corridors
may be adjusted as opportunities or needs arise.
Paved Trails
4.1 Implement the trail network according to the
2013 Paved Recreational Trail Master Plan
The Trail Plan envisioned a more than 100-mile
network of paved trails spaced approximately two
miles apart. This system forms the backbone of
the 2020 Network. As of 2014, the trail network
was approximately 50 percent complete. Trails
with implementation dates before 2020 were
integrated into the 2020 Network as critical low-
stress connections. These include the Poudre River
Trail connection from Arapahoe Bend Natural area
to the Environmental Learning Center and over
I-25, connector from W Vine Drive to the Poudre
River Trail near Lincoln Middle School, Fossil Creek
Trail from Shields Street to College Avenue, Fossil
Creek Trail near Bacon Elementary School, and the
Longview and Front Range Trails to Loveland.
All other planned trails are represented on network
maps as well but were not assumed to play a
major role in the 2020 Network.
4.2 Coordinate on-street bicycle system with off-
street trail system to ensure an integrated bicycle
transportation network
The City’s recreational trails system also serves
as an important transportation network for
people bicycling in Fort Collins. Managed by the
Parks Department, increased coordination across
departments should ensue to ensure an integrated
system is implemented and communicated for
people wanting to bicycle. Coordination will be
especially important to ensure consistent design
and implementation of a wayfinding system
occurs to guide people bicycling along low-stress
routes, which utilize a combination of trails and
streets.
Local and Collector Streets
4.3 Implement the low-stress network using a
data-driven prioritization process, and with a
focus on connectivity
In the 2020 Network, most local and collector
Chapter 4: Bicycle Network Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 49
the right side where parallel parking exists and
presents the potential for dooring of bicyclists.
Priority Shared Lanes
Priority shared lanes are enhanced shared lane
markings achieved with an underlay of green
paint and the use of closely spaced (< 100
feet) markings. The increased conspicuity and
frequency of the markings reinforce a bicycle
priority message resulting in improved behaviors
by bicyclists and motorists. This treatment
reserved for use on higher volume arterials
or collectors with gaps in the bicycle network
where there is not space for bike lanes, such as
E Mountain Avenue, Linden Street and Magnolia
Street. Addition of these markings will not change
the level of stress of these streets.
The following treatment is recommended on
streets that are already low-stress:
Marked Shared Lanes
Marked shared lanes are where a shared lane
marking on the pavement is used to indicate that
motorists should expect to see and share the
lane with people bicycling, and to indicate the
legal and appropriate line of travel for a bicyclist.
These markings are typically spaced every 250
feet. This treatment is typically used where
Priority shared lane in Long Beach, Calif.
traffic volumes and speeds are low enough to
create a comfortable riding environment, and
where constrained roadways do not allow for the
inclusion of bike lanes. They may be added to
streets indicated as signed routes on the 2020
Network where additional indication of bicyclists’
presence is desired.
Intersection Spot Improvements
4.4 Implement the low-stress network spot
improvements in coordination with prioritized low-
stress corridor improvement projects
Existing low-stress routes are discontinuous in
many parts of the city where they cross high-
traffic, high-speed arterial streets. Challenges with
many arterial intersections include:
• Signalized crossings which do not
adequately detect bicyclists, or which require
bicyclists to wait long periods of time to
cross
• Unsignalized crossings which require a
bicyclist to wait for more than 30 seconds
for a gap in automobile traffic to cross1
• Offset intersections which require a bicyclist
to ride on a stretch of a high-stress arterial
• Network gaps on dead-end streets which will
require a new street or trail connections
Making these crossings comfortable for the
Interested but Concerned rider is the key to creating
a connected network built upon existing low-
stress local and collector streets. Intersection spot
improvements have great potential to increase
safety for bicyclists. While spot improvements may
50 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 4: Bicycle Network
categories. Further engineering analysis
will be required to determine the final design
recommendation. The categories of spot
improvements include:
Two-Way Sidepath
This recommendation suggests the installation
of a short section of two-way sidepath to connect
between two offset intersections. The two-
way sidepath may replace an existing sidewalk
and provide shared space for both bicyclists
and pedestrians. Depending upon the roadway
characteristics, this may also require installation
of a crossing island or signal, to ensure that a safe
crossing of the arterial is feasible.
Median
This recommendation suggests the installation
of a short section of median to act as a crossing
island for pedestrians and bicyclists. These are
typically installed at locations where a left turn lane
is not necessary or where a left turn movements
could potentially be prohibited and redirected to
another intersection. The median may extend
across the intersecting roadway if restricted motor
vehicle access is desired. This treatment would
typically include other engineering treatments
such as an advanced yield line or rectangular rapid
flashing beacon. Median islands are a standard
feature for new roadway construction.
Add Signal
This recommendation indicates that a new traffic
signal may be required to provide a safe crossing.
Regardless of signal type, each location should
be designed to be triggered by a person bicycling
from within the roadway.
Signal Improvement
This recommendation indicates that an existing
signal or half signal needs some additional
improvement, such as a new push button, to help
bicyclists make a comfortable crossing.
Other Crossing Improvements
Other types of crossing improvements may include
the installation of turn queue boxes, crosswalks,
curb extensions, curb radius reductions, or
other treatments which are discussed further in
Appendix C.
Bicyclist waiting in median island.
The existing half signal at Clearview Avenue and Taft Hill Road is
recommended to be upgraded to a HAWK signal with addition of
curb extensions and protected bike lanes on Clearview Avenue
to channelize bicyclists to the crossing.
Two-way sidepath example from NACTO.
Chapter 4: Bicycle Network Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 51
an intersection through the provision of protected
phasing (one-way or two-way operation).
Curb-Protected: This facility provides physical
separation from automobiles with vertical curbing,
bringing bicyclists to the same level as, but
separate from, the sidewalk. These facilities may
be one-way or two-way. They may mix bicyclists
with right turning motorists (one-way operation)
in a short weaving area or maintain separation up
to an intersection through provision of protected
phasing (one-way or two-way operation).
Protected Bike Lane Intersections: These are
characterized by design features which minimize
exposure with merging, weaving, and turning
traffic, and are built to induce yielding and
slow speeds at conflict points. At signalized
intersections with high volumes of conflicting
traffic, bicyclists may be given a dedicated portion
Arterial Street Protected Bike Lane Pilot
Program
While the majority of routes in the 2020 Network
are on local and collector streets that already
provide a low-stress cycling environment, arterial
streets are included where comparable parallel
low-stress routes are not available. To become
low-stress streets, these arterials will need a
heavier level of investment in infrastructure which
offers physical separation from automobiles, such
as protected bike lanes or sidepaths/shared-use
paths.
Arterial streets included in the 2020 Network tend
to be located in areas of Fort Collins where the
street network is discontinuous. For instance, the
recommended protected bike lane on N College
Avenue provides the only direct north-south low-
stress connection in that part of the city. Additional
protected bike lane recommendations come from
other planning processes such as that on W Lake
Street, currently being considered through the
West Central Area Plan.
A set of protected bike lane recommendations are
recommended for implementation through a pilot
program as described below.
Protected Bike Lanes
Protected bike lanes improve comfort and reduce
stress for people bicycling by physically separating
them from automobile and pedestrian traffic. They
may be located at street level or sidewalk level
and the protection may be provided with flexible
delineators, curbing, parking, or other physical
treatments. Designs of protected bike lanes will
generally fall into the following two categories:
Flexible-Post Protected: This facility provides
physical separation from automobiles with
vertical flexible delineators. These are generally
considered an interim treatment to a longer
term, curb-separated protected bike lane. They
are typically implemented with the installation of
tubular markers in a buffer area. These facilities
52 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 4: Bicycle Network
of the signal phase for a partially or fully protected
crossing. Additional design approach details are
provided in Appendix C.
Sidepaths/Shared-use Paths
Sidepaths separate bicyclists from adjacent
automobile traffic, but allow pedestrians to share
the space. Sidepaths should only be utilized where
low volumes of pedestrians or bicyclists are
anticipated. Sidepaths are constructed at sidewalk
level. Sidepaths can be constructed with protected
bike lane intersection features to improve safety.
4.5 Develop and implement a protected bike lane
pilot program
While protected bike lanes have been in
widespread use in Europe for many decades, in
particular the Netherlands, they are a relatively new
design strategy in the United States. Since the first
construction of a protected bike lane in the U.S.
in Cambridge, Mass. in 2004, over 140 protected
bike lane projects (totaling over 120 miles)
have been built in the United States, including
in nearby Denver and Boulder. These projects
have demonstrated that protected bike lanes can
be an effective strategy for improving real and
perceived bicyclist safety, and increasing the rates
of bicycle travel by the Interested but Concerned
demographic.
As this is a new facility to the City of Fort Collins,
it will be important to evaluate their potential
application within different land use and roadway
contexts before they are implemented widely
throughout the City. The evaluation will be
conducted through the recommended Protected
Bike Lane Pilot Program.
The initial pilot projects will evaluate alternative
design, operation, and maintenance approaches
to assess safety, mobility, and cost metrics. Public
opinion will be evaluated throughout the process
as well. Pilot locations should allow a comparison
of a variety of roadway operation and land use
conditions that are typical within the City. It is
anticipated the City will implement approximately
one pilot project per year through 2020.
Corridors for pilots may be selected from two
categories: a prioritized list of protected bike lane
projects in the 2020 Network, and opportunistic
projects that are part of the Full Build Network.
All projects in the 2020 Network were ranked on
a set of factors and are fully presented in Chapter
5. The top five scoring 2020 protected bike lane
projects are:
• S Shields Street
• W Lake Street
• W Elizabeth Street
• W Laurel Street
• W Vine Drive
While projects in the Full Build Network have not
been ranked, some protected bike lane projects
may present themselves as opportunities due
Chapter 4: Bicycle Network Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 53
Harmony Road (Harmony Corridor Plan).
In general, there are three means by which the City
will likely implement protected bike lane projects:
1. Stand-alone projects: These projects will
fall into two categories depending upon the
design of the bike lane. Street-level protected
bike lanes may be implemented as retrofits
of existing buffered bike lanes through the
addition of flexible bollards to the buffer
area. For example, the wide bike lanes on
N College Avenue may be retrofitted with
flexible bollards to create protected bike
lanes.2 Street-level lanes may also be part of
resurfacing projects.
Curb-protected lanes necessitate an edge
reconstruction which could take place
independently of other street improvements.
2. Full street reconstruction: Implementation of
protected bike lanes may be part of a street
reconstruction project. Projects such as this
are more likely to incorporate curb-protected
bike lanes since reconstruction will allow for
the movement of curbs. In the 2020 Network,
W Elizabeth Street is a candidate for this type
of implementation because it will be fully
evaluated through the W Elizabeth Enhanced
Travel Corridor Master Plan.
3. Redevelopment projects: Major
redevelopment projects along arterial
corridors will also present the opportunity
to implement protected bike lane
recommendations. The City may choose
to place requirements on developers to
construct or provide payment in lieu of
construction for protected bike lane projects
along a development’s frontage. Collection of
payments would allow for the creation of a
fund to construct a corridor-length project at
a future date.
4.6 Develop and implement protected bike lane
pilot evaluation program
A key component of the protected bicycle pilot
is the evaluation program. Evaluations should
be conducted at one or more representative
2 This project would require coordination with the Colorado
Department of Transportation as College Avenue is State Route 287.
intersections within the corridor as intersections
will be the primary location of potential conflict.
The following evaluation steps are recommended
for each project:
1. Establish baseline conditions prior to
implementing pilot project
2. Analyze protected bike lane physical
maintenance condition
3. Annual follow-up evaluation of crashes for up
to 5 years
It is recommended each step of the evaluation
assess the following information, as applicable:
1. Automobile and bicycle traffic volumes
54 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 4: Bicycle Network
4.8 Develop protected bike lane design guidance
This process will culminate in the development
of design standards for protected bike lanes and
allow the City to add detail to and refine the Full
Build Network.
After the conclusion of the evaluation effort,
the City will develop detailed guidelines for the
inclusion of protected bike lanes on arterial
streets. These guidelines will provide details for
the selection, design, construction, operations,
and maintenance of protected bike lanes for new
construction and reconstruction projects. The
guidelines will be an update to the design guidance
provided in Appendix C.
Wayfinding
4.9 Develop and implement a citywide wayfinding
system to facilitate navigation of the 2020
Network
Many of the routes included in the 2020 Network
are not currently known or recognizable to Fort
Collins residents. In order to attract riders, this
network must be publicized through a new bike
map, and more directly identified through a
wayfinding and branding system.
Wayfinding consists of signs that direct bicyclists
along routes, providing clarity about turns and
reassuring riders that they are continuing along a
designated bicycle route. As new or novice riders
see wayfinding signage throughout the city, they
may be encouraged to try riding along a new
route where they can be assured a low-stress trip.
Wayfinding is also helpful to visitors and could help
orient newcomers such as CSU students.
A wayfinding system should indicate distance
and destinations. Destinations identified by the
public as important include: parks, transit lines,
neighborhoods, business districts, schools, trails
and CSU. Longer-distance destinations such as
Loveland and Windsor, as well as local and regional
trails, should also be used. Finally, as the bike share
program is implemented, signage directing riders
to nearby docking stations should be added.
Wayfinding should not be limited to on-street
routes. The current signage on trails relates
to distances to major arterials rather than
destinations or connections to other major paved
trails. Wayfinding signs on trails should use the
same destinations as the on-street network and
should indicate the name of cross streets at
access points. Access points can also be marked
with directional wayfinding orienting trail users and
helping them to make decisions about which way
to turn.
4.10 Complete a comprehensive wayfinding plan
for the City with a phased approach to complete
2020 Network signing first
Subsequent to this Plan, the City should develop
a wayfinding master plan to help create system
continuity, legibility, and branding. This system
Chapter 4: Bicycle Network Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 55
Full Build Network
The Full Build Network creates an ambitious
vision for Fort Collins’ future as a world-class
bicycling city. Implementation of this network will
require a significant investment in the design and
construction of facilities. While the 2020 Network
takes advantage of existing low-stress streets,
the Full Build Network focuses on improving
high-stress streets with protected bike lanes.
Implementation of these recommendations should
be carefully considered in light of the results of the
protected bike lane pilot program.
The construction of these facilities, along with
planned paved trails and the improvements of
the 2020 Network, will create a comprehensive
network of low-stress facilities spaced at ½-mile
intervals throughout the city. Implementation of
the protected bike lanes identified in the Full Build
Network is anticipated to be a continuous effort
over the next 25 to 50 years. The design, public
review, funding and construction of the majority
of the protected bike lanes is anticipated to be
opportunity-driven as outlined in the preceding
section. For this reason, the Full Build Network
does not include an implementation schedule.
The Full Build Network enhances and extends the
2020 Network by recommending:
• Additional buffered bike lanes on collector
and lower-speed arterial streets
• Protected bike lanes on a majority of arterials
throughout Fort Collins, with an emphasis
on connecting higher density residential and
commercial areas and major destinations
• Neighborhood greenways to further traffic
calm bike friendly streets
• Intersection improvements for protected bike
lane intersections
• Comprehensive intersection improvements
completed as projects present themselves
through best practice design as outlined in
the Design Guidelines (Appendix C)
Low-Stress Route Accessibility:
Full Build Network Vision
With the implementation of protected bike lanes
on many of Fort Collins’ arterial roadways, nearly
all of the city’s population will be within 1/4 mile
of a low-stress bike route.
95%
of residents live within 1/4 mile
of a low strsss bike facility
Facility Type
Full Build
Network
Mileage
Signed Route 5.1
(5.1 existing)
Priority Shared Lane 0.1
Bike Lane 63.3
(57.2 existing)
56 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 4: Bicycle Network
POWER TRAIL
MASON TRAIL
P
O
U
D
R
E
R
I
V
E
R
T
R
A
I
L
P
L
E
A
S
A
N
T
V
A
L
L
E
Y
T
R
A
I
L
R
E
N
D
E
Z
V
O
U
S
T
R
A
I
L
HICKORY TRAIL
E
A
S
T
S
P
Chapter 4: Bicycle Network Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 57
Network Implementation
Many of the projects in the Full Build Network
will require additional traffic engineering study.
Protected bike lane projects may alter the
operations of intersections requiring decisions to
be made regarding potential trade-offs between
bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and motor vehicle
priority. The findings of the protected bike lane
pilot project program are anticipated to have a
significant influence on the ultimate design and
implementation of protected bike lanes planned in
the Full Build Network.
The following actions are recommended to
implement the most typical facility types in the Full
Build Network:
Bike Lanes
4.11 Widen existing substandard bicycle lanes
to minimum width bicycle lanes as opportunities
present themselves
Most existing bike lanes meet current design
guidelines. In locations where bike lane widths
are substandard, it is recommended that they be
restriped to a minimum of 6 feet wide to allow
side-by-side riding and increased bicyclist comfort
through greater separation from adjacent motor
vehicle traffic. The measurement of bicycle lane
width is exclusive of the gutter pan except where
the gutter pan is integrated across the full width of
the bicycle lane on constrained corridors such as
Shields Street or W Elizabeth Street. Where existing
narrow bicycle lanes cannot be widened due to
constrained roadway cross sections, the gutter
pan should be removed or extended across the full
width of the bicycle lane to maximize its width.
Buffered Bike Lanes
4.12 Upgrade existing bicycle lanes to buffered
bike lanes as opportunities present themselves
Buffered bike lanes are recommended as a default
facility on all streets where space is available,
which includes many collector and arterial streets
in Fort Collins. The city started to implement
buffered bike lanes as part of routine resurfacing
projects on McMurry Avenue, W Stuart Street,
Neighborhood greenways use traffic calming such as mini
circles to further slow automobile traffic
Lochwood Drive and a portion of S Shields Street
during 2014.
Neighborhood Greenways
4.13 Continue implementation of neighborhood
greenways
Neighborhood greenways are located on slow
speed (25 mph speed limit) and low volume
(<3,000 vehicles per day) streets that optimize
bicycle and pedestrian travel. These streets may
require traffic calming or traffic diversion. The
recommended neighborhood greenways can help
guide prioritization of projects in the City’s existing
traffic calming program. All treatments for these
streets should be engineered for a target speed
58 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 4: Bicycle Network
Protected Bike Lanes
4.14 Upgrade existing bicycle lanes to protected
bike lanes as opportunities present themselves
The implementation of protected bike lane
recommendations will vary from street to street
and may be at street level or sidewalk level as
described in the 2020 Network section. Full design
guidance about these facilities is provided in
Appendix C.
It is anticipated that variants of the Dutch
protected intersection will be deployed at protected
bike lane intersections where appropriate and as
space permits.3
High-Priority Intersections
4.15 Improve high-priority intersections as
opportunities present themselves
While the set of intersections on the 2020 Network
is critical for making that network usable, there are
other intersections in Fort Collins with pressing
needs for improvement. To improve opportunities
3 The design of Dutch style protected intersections is addressed in
the Design Guidance, Appendix C.
for people to bicycle throughout the city, there
must be safe places to cross major streets
throughout the City, not only along the identified
2020 Network. The design guidance in Appendix C
will help identify appropriate treatments at these
intersections.
Intersection improvements will be fundamental
to increasing bicyclist safety, as approximately
88 percent of all crashes in Fort Collins
occur at intersections. In addition to high-
crash intersections, the public identified other
intersections that are difficult to navigate.
All intersections with at least one bicycle crash
between 2009 and 2013, as well as those identified
as barriers by public input on the WikiMap,
were scored based on a combination of safety,
demand, and public input to generate a list of high-
priority intersections which should be evaluated
for improvement. A prioritized list of these
intersections is presented in Chapter 5.
The primary challenges related to safety and
comfort at high-priority Intersections that are not
part of the 2020 Network include:
• Extended wait times for bicyclists at high-
volume unsignalized intersections
• Extended wait times for bicyclists at
signalized intersections where breaks in
cross traffic spur bicyclists to cross illegally
on a red signal
• Long right-turn lanes (>150 feet) that create
extended periods of exposure to potential
conflicts for bicyclists in areas where their
path of travel must cross with an automobile
• Bike lanes that are dropped at intersections
to accommodate automobile turn lanes
• Lack of defined space for bicyclists at and
through large, multilane intersections
Chapter 4: Bicycle Network Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 59
including signalization, crossing islands, high
visibility crosswalks, and flashing warning
beacons. The appropriate solution will require site-
specific analysis at each location. In all cases, the
provision of Dutch-style protected intersections
should be considered wherever two protected bike
lanes (existing or proposed) intersect (see image
above).
4.16 Incorporate 2014 Plan recommendations
into existing and future Arterial Intersection
Prioritization studies
Chapter 5 and Appendix F identify intersections
that should be considered for bicycle
improvements during future City planning efforts.
The Design Guidelines provided in Appendix C
should be consulted during this process.
Signage Improvements
4.17 Review streets for potential applications of
regulatory and advisory signs at intersections and
along existing and new bicycle facilities
BICYCLES MAY USE FULL LANE Signs with Shared
Lane Markings
Install BICYCLES MAY USE FULL LANE signs (R4-
11) on arterials or collectors where gaps exist in
MUTCD Signage Examples
the bicycle lane network, lanes are too narrow for
bicyclists and motorists to travel side by side, and
evaluation of conditions shows that the signs will
improve safety and operation.
RIGHT TURNING TRAFFIC YIELD TO BIKES Signs
Install RIGHT TURNING TRAFFIC YIELD TO BIKES
signs (R4-4) at all locations where a right turn lane
develops to the right of a bicycle lane requiring
motor vehicles to merge across a bicycle lane.
60 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 4: Bicycle Network
POWER TRAIL
MASON TRAIL
P
O
U
D
R
E
R
I
V
E
R
T
R
A
I
L
P
L
E
A
S
A
N
T
V
A
L
L
E
Y
T
R
A
I
L
R
E
N
D
E
Z
V
O
U
S
T
R
A
I
L
HICKORY TRAIL
E
A
S
T
S
P
Chapter 4: Bicycle Network Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 61
4.18 Review crash data for streets with prevalent
wrong-way riding and install signage to encourage
riding in the direction of traffic
WRONG WAY Signs
Many crashes reviewed in the Safety Analysis for
this Plan involved bicyclists riding against traffic.
This data should be reviewed to identify corridors
where the installation of WRONG WAY signs (R5-
1b) and RIDE WITH TRAFFIC sub-plaques (R9-
3cP) may encourage bicyclists to ride with traffic
both in the street and on the sidewalk.
Overall
4.19 Prioritize grade-separated crossings that
facilitate bicycle network connections
Other City plans identify a number of potential
underpasses or overpasses that would serve
pedestrian and bicycle trips, so this Plan does not
make additional recommendations. A number of
these grade-separated crossings already exist in
Fort Collins, and additional installations will expand
low-stress options for bicyclists and pedestrians
crossing high-volume arterial streets and railroad
barriers. The projects identified in the map on the
following page should be prioritized because they
provide critical connections in the 2020 Network.
4.20 Consider the 2014 Plan recommendations
through the City’s Development Review process
To aid in implementing the recommendations of
the 2014 Plan, the network recommendations and
design approach included in this Plan should be
considered through the City’s Development Review
process. Where there is a nexus, new development
and redevelopment offers the opportunity to
contribute to the overall buildout of the bicycle
network. In addition, implementation of the Master
Street Plan should consider the design philosophy
and guidelines recommended in this Plan.
4.21 Integrate the 2014 Plan recommendations
and philosophy in future planning and design
efforts
It is recommended that future corridor plans,
neighborhood plans, and citywide planning efforts
consider the recommendations and philosophy
inherent in the 2014 Plan while ensuring
context-appropriate and best practice design to
accommodate the needs of people on bicycles.
As a citywide plan, the 2014 Plan presents high
level recommendations that provide a baseline
from which design adjustments may be made,
as corridors and projects move to the next phase
of planning. Even where the 2014 Plan may not
recommend bicycle facilities, the City should
approach all new and retrofit street projects from
a Complete Streets perspective and consider
opportunities to design for people bicycling where
appropriate.
Key Actions Summary
The table on the following page summarizes the
key actions that Fort Collins will need to take to
62 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 4: Bicycle Network
Network Category Key Action
2020 Network
Trails
4.1 Implement the trail network according to the 2013 Paved Recreational Trails
Plan
4.2 Coordinate on-street bicycle system with off-street trail system to ensure
an integrated bicycle transportation network
Local and Collector
Streets
4.3 Implement the low-stress network using a data-driven prioritization
process, and with a focus on connectivity
4.4 Implement the low-stress network spot improvements in coordination with
prioritized low-stress corridor improvement projects
2020 Protected Bike
Lane Pilot Program
4.5 Develop and implement protected bike lane pilot program
4.6 Develop and implement protected bike lane pilot evaluation
4.7 Produce protected bike lane pilot program report
4.8 Develop protected bike lane pilot design guidance
Wayfinding
4.9 Develop and implement a citywide wayfinding system to facilitate
navigation of the 2020 Network and to provide guidance to community
destinations
4.10 Complete a comprehensive wayfinding plan for the City with a phased
approach to complete 2020 Network signing first.
Full Build Network
Segment
Improvements
4.11 Widen existing substandard bicycle lanes to minimum width bicycle lanes
as opportunities present themselves
4.12 Upgrade existing bicycle lanes to buffered bike lanes as opportunities
present themselves
4.13 Continue implementation of neighborhood greenways
4.14 Upgrade existing bicycle lanes to protected bike lanes as opportunities
present themselves
High-priority
Intersections
4.15 Improve high-priority intersections as opportunities present themselves
4.16 Incorporate the 2014 Plan recommendations into existing and future
Arterial Intersection Prioritization studies
Signage Improvements
4.17 Review streets for potential applications of regulatory and advisory signs
at intersections and along existing and new bicycle facilities
4.18 Review crash data for streets with prevalent wrong-way riding and install
signage to encourage riding in the direction of traffic
Overall
Grade-Separated
Crossings
4.19 Prioritize grade-separated crossings that facilitate bicycle network
connections
Future Planning
4.20 Consider the 2014 Plan recommendations through the City’s
Development Review process
4.21 Integrate the 2014 Plan recommendations and philosophy in future
planning and design efforts
Table 4. Key Actions for Bicycle Network Development
Chapter 5: Implementation
64 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 5: Implementation
Chapter 5: Implementation
The infrastructure and program recommendations
described in Chapters 2 and 4 provide strategies
that will move Fort Collins toward the vision
of becoming a word-class bicycling city. While
improving bicycling is a clear community priority,
implementation of these recommendations
will necessarily occur over time commensurate
with available resources. The purpose of this
chapter is to provide guidance in the phasing
and funding strategies to realize the City’s vision;
however, the adoption of the 2014 Plan does not
commit the City to funding and implementing
the recommendations according to the proposed
phasing. Funding decisions regarding specific
recommendations within this plan will be made by
City Council through the budget process.
The approach to expanding Fort Collins’ bicycle
network must consider what is realistic given
historic and anticipated funding, while also
providing the City with flexibility to respond to
changing conditions and opportunities that may
arise. As described previously, there is a strong
focus on creating a low-stress network that is
comfortable for the Interested but Concerned
rider. The implementation approach focuses on
advancing a citywide low-stress bike network
as quickly as possible, expediting high-priority
improvements and leveraging scheduled
maintenance projects and private funding
opportunities. The majority of the low-stress bike
network is proposed for completion by the year
2020.
A general overview of the process used to
prioritize recommended projects and programs
and develop a phasing plan is found on the
following page. The seven 2014 Plan goals form
the foundation for the implementation plan, which
feed into the three primary inputs used to develop
the phasing plan. Each 2020 project corridor has
been evaluated quantitatively using measures
that address one or more of the goals. The
recommended projects and programs have also
been evaluated qualitatively based on their ability
to make improvements in the areas of economic,
environmental, and social sustainability – which
overlap with the 2014 Plan goals. Community input
makes up the third major component of prioritizing
projects and programs.
To be most useful to the City, the Implementation
Plan allows for some flexibility to respond to
changing conditions and opportunities. Other
considerations that have been used to refine the
phasing plan, and should continually be used to
refine the implementation of the 2014 Plan, include:
• Project cost, feasibility and ease of
implementation
• Opportunities for quick implementation
(combining bike projects with ongoing
Chapter 5: Implementation Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 65
achieving these goals and implementing the
bicycle network vision.
2020 Network Phasing
The recommended 2020 Network improvements
have been grouped and evaluated by corridor.
The corridors include a combination of segment
and intersection improvements. A three-step
evaluation process was applied to the 50 corridors
to establish the corridor phasing plan. A full
description of the prioritization process is included
in Appendix F.
The quantitative analysis is based on four
evaluation criteria, each of which was given a
normalized score ranging from 0 to 10, with 10
being the best. The scores were summed, and
each corridor was given a Quantitative Corridor
Score ranging from 0 to 40, with 40 being the best.
The criteria include demand analysis, crash history,
barrier identification, and public input.
The Triple Bottom Line evaluation of corridors/
projects asked the following questions:
Economic Sustainability
• Does the project connect to a commercial
district?
• Does the project make use of existing
infrastructure (e.g., restriping only)?
• Does the project have high potential for
partnership and/or non-City funding
contributions?
• Does the project enhance connectivity to the
proposed bike share stations?
Environmental Sustainability
• Does the project increase connectivity to
natural resources?
• Does the project limit the need for additional
impervious surfaces?
• Does the project increase access to transit?
Social Sustainability
• Does the project address a safety concern?
• Does the project connect to a community
activity (e.g., school, library, park)?
• Does the project enhance a cultural or
historic district?
• Does the project serve traditionally
underserved populations (e.g., low income,
minority)?
Corridor Prioritization Process
66 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 5: Implementation
Corridor Cost Estimates
The cost to build bicycle projects can vary greatly
depending on the type of facility and the existing
conditions in the project area. Planning-level cost
estimates have been developed for different types
of bicycle facilities based on typical elements that
would need to be added, removed, or modified to
implement the recommended facility. For example,
installation of new pavement markings and signing
are relatively easily installed if other existing
infrastructure is not impacted; those costs are
based on an estimate of bike lane markings and
sign placement of approximately 20 per mile on
each side of the street.
Improvements that require moving existing street
edges can impact the removal and replacement
of curb and gutter, drainage infrastructure,
utilities, landscaping/trees, and it may also
require the purchase of additional right-of-way or
establishment of an easement – all of which can
increase the cost of a bicycle facility improvement
substantially. The methodology and assumptions
used for estimating project costs are detailed in
Appendix F.
There can be great variance in the cost for
protected bike lanes and neighborhood greenways,
depending on the ultimate design decisions
specific to the corridor. Because of this variance,
a broad cost range (low end – high end) has been
provided for these facility types.
Probable Maintenance Costs
The addition of bicycle facilities in Fort Collins will
only increase ridership, safety and comfort if those,
and existing facilities, are maintained properly.
Monetary and staff costs of on-going maintenance
of facilities should be factored into decisions
about project implementation. This will require
coordination between FC Bikes and the Streets
Department.
Recommendations in Chapter 3 regarding
maintenance of protected bike lanes will lead
to increased maintenance costs. The Streets
Department has estimated that the cost per mile
of sweeping a street could increase from $45
to $150 with the implementation of a protected
bike lane, and the cost of snow removal could
increase from $200 to $1,000 per mile. There are a
number of design and implementation options to
streamline maintenance, such as snow emergency
parking bans on streets where parking is used as
the separation between automobiles and bicycles.
Other cities have found creative solutions, such
as reorienting the blades on their existing snow
plows to accommodate a narrower path (such as
protected bike lanes). These options should be part
of the discussion when implementing protected
bike lane pilot projects. Maintenance costs and
strategies will be incorporated into the evaluation
of this pilot program.
Chapter 5: Implementation Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 67
Project Type Planning-Level Cost Estimate
Signed Routes
Signed Route $6,000 per mile
Priority Shared Lane $61,000 per mile
Bike Lanes
Bike Lane without lane re-striping $55,000 per mile
Bike Lane with lane re-striping $108,000 per mile
Bike Lane with roadway widening needed $2,000,000 to $2,500,000 per mile
Green Bike Lane paint $383,000 per mile
Buffered Bike Lanes
Buffered Bike Lane (conversion from bike lane) $40,000 per mile
Buffered Bike Lane (full street re-striping) $188,000 per mile
Protected Bike Lanes
Low End (Street-level conversion from bike lane) $95,000 per mile
High End (Sidewalk-level) $3,000,000 per mile
Neighborhood Greenway
Low End (Striping and Signing) $19,000 per mile
High End (Includes Traffic Calming Measures, Adjacent LID Treatments, etc.) $590,000 per mile
Trails
New Trail Segment $1,000,000 per mile
Crossing Improvements
Two-Way Sidepath $140,000 each location
Signal $250,000 each location
Bicyclist Activated Signal (HAWK) $86,000 each location
Median with Refuge and Crosswalk $26,400 each location
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (assumes 4 installed) $40,000 each location
Bike Signal Head (assumes 2 installed) $1,800 each location
Push Button (assumes 2 installed) $700 each location
Table 1: Planning-Level Costs by Facility Type
68 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 5: Implementation
Priority Corridors
The corridor prioritization, along with an
assessment of the planning-level cost estimates
and network equity resulted in the target
implementation phasing for both local and
collector corridors displayed in Table 2. Table 3
displays rankings for the potential protected bike
lane pilot projects in the 2020 Network. Note
that project numbers for each corridor do not
correspond with its ranking.
The corridor costs listed in Table 2 include
all segment and intersection improvements
necessary to create the low-stress route identified
in the project map. For example, the Ponderosa
Street/Hampshire Road project (corridor #1)
includes two sidepaths, two medians and a
buffered bike lane striping on Hampshire. Signed
route costs are not included for any projects as
it is assumed that these efforts will be part of
implementing a citywide wayfinding system. A
detailed list of the components of each project is
included in Appendix F.
This phasing plan is a tool to guide the City in
planning and programming funding for corridor
improvements. Many of the corridors listed in
Table 2 require a variety of actions, sometimes
over several miles. The City will approach
implementation of corridor improvements
opportunistically: where there are occasions to
leverage ongoing maintenance projects, other
capital improvement projects, or private funding
through development or redevelopment, the City
will be flexible in elevating the priority of corridor
improvements, or implementing stand-alone
projects.
Cyclist navigates a crossing of S Shields Street near W Pitkin Street, a proposed crossing improvement location.
Chapter 5: Implementation Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 69
POWER TRAIL
MASON TRAIL
P
O
U
D
R
E
R
I
V
E
R
T
R
A
I
L
P
L
E
A
S
A
N
T
V
A
L
L
E
Y
T
R
A
I
L
R
E
N
D
E
Z
V
O
U
S
T
R
A
I
L
HICKORY TRAIL
E
A
S
T
S
P
70 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 5: Implementation
Corridor (ID#)
Quantitative
Corridor
Score (0-40)
Triple Bottom Line Alignment
Planning-Level
Economic Environmental Social Cost Estimate
2015 Implementation
Mason Street (45) 22 $64,000
Colony Drive (7)* 16 $18,000
Pitkin Street (38) 16 $1,281,000**
Mountain Avenue (18)* 13 $283,000
Magnolia Street (16)* 13 $98,000
Remington Street (43)* 15 $348,000***
Columbia Road (22)* 11 $100,000
2016 Implementation
Loomis Avenue (5) 22 $50,000
Capitol Drive (3) 16 $261,000
Mulberry Street (52) 12 $328,000
Swallow Road (12)* 11 $677,000**
Rock Creek Drive,
Keenland Drive (42) 7 $23,000
2017 Implementation
Howes Street (31) 14 $182,000
Linden Street (33) 15 $17,000
Raintree Dr (46) 14 $140,000
Wood Street (41) 15 $100,000
W Stuart Street (8) 14 $66,000
Cherry Street, Maple
Street (40) 13 $131,000
Brookwood Drive (15) 10 $598,000
Conifer Street (50) 6 $131,000
Table 2: Priority Local and Collector Street Corridors Target Implementation by Year
Note: The implementation of the 2020 Network will depend on available resources and future City Council funding
decisions. Full funding has not been secured to complete the projects identified in these tables.
* Portions of these projects will be implemented through the 2015 Street Maintenance Program.
** Project costs for Pitkin Street and Swallow Road are taken from the Transportation Alternatives Program applications
submitted for these projects.
*** The Remington Street project cost is based on cost estimates developed for this plan, not estimates developed for
the Remington Greenway project. As such, the cost indicated here may not align with that in the Greenway plan.
Chapter 5: Implementation Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 71
Corridor (ID#)
Quantitative
Corridor
Score (0-40)
Triple Bottom Line Alignment
Planning-Level
Economic Environmental Social Cost Estimate
2018 Implementation
E Elizabeth Street (24) 15 $120,000
Laporte Avenue (4) 17 $144,000
Skyway Drive (37) 7 $50,000
Hampshire Road (1)* 8 $380,000
2019 Implementation
Stover Street (13) 6
$855,000 to
$1,600,000
Nassau Way (48) 1 $50,000
2020 Implementation
Mulberry Street
Frontage (28) 8 $676,000
Troutman Drive,
Breakwater Drive (14) 7 $239,000
Nancy Gray Avenue (32) 6 $58,000
Kingsley Drive,
Corbett Drive (17) 4 $100,000
Table 2 continued: Priority Local and Collector Street Corridors Target Implementation by Year
Note: The implementation of the 2020 Network will depend on available resources and future City Council funding
decisions. Full funding has not been secured to complete the projects identified in these tables.
* Portions of these projects will be implemented through the 2015 Street Maintenance Program.
** Project costs for Pitkin Street and Swallow Road are taken from the Transportation Alternatives Program applications
submitted for these projects.
*** The Remington Street project cost is based on cost estimates developed for this plan, not estimates developed for
the Remington Greenway project. As such, the cost indicated here may not align with that in the Greenway plan.
72 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 5: Implementation
Corridor (ID#)
Quantitative
Corridor
Score (0-40)
Triple Bottom Line Alignment
Planning-Level Cost
Economic Environmental Social Estimate
Shields Street (23) 31 $130,000 to $4,100,000
Laurel Street (10) 19 $95,000 to $2,100,000
N College Avenue (9) 14 $167,000 to $5,200,000
W Elizabeth Street (6) 22 $190,000 to $6,000,000
W Lake Street (54) 24 $95,400 to $3,000,000
N Lemay Avenue (11) 10 $239,000 to $7,500,000
Riverside Avenue (39) 10 $255,000 to $3,325,000
E Lincoln Avenue (44) 8 $138,000 to $4,400,000
E Vine Drive (26) 4 $141,000 to $4,400,000
E Trilby Road (35) 4 $53,000 to $1,685,000
W Vine Drive (2) 16 $188,000 to $5,900,000
E Drake Road (34) 12 $143,000 to $4,500,000
S College Avenue (21) 8 $227,000 to $7,100,000
N Taft Hill Road (29) 10 $118,000 to $3,700,000
Table 3: Protected Bike Lane Pilot Project Options
Chapter 5: Implementation Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 73
Table 4: 2020 Network Top Ten Priority Intersections for Improvement
Priority Intersections
The tables below identify two main categories
of intersection improvements needed to make
bicycling safer and more comfortable: those that
are part of the 2020 Network, and those that
are non-2020 Network. All intersections with
a bicycle-related crash or WikiMap-identified
barrier within 150 feet were used as the subset
of intersections for analysis. The intersections
were scored using demand analysis, crash history,
barrier identification, and public input. All of the
intersections that were evaluated are listed in
Appendix F and shown on the Priority Intersections
map.
Each intersection was given a normalized score
ranging from 0 to 10, with 10 being the best, for
each of the four criteria. The scores were summed,
and each intersection was given a total score
ranging from 0 to 40, with 40 being the highest
priority. Table 4 shows analysis results for the 10
highest scoring intersections that are part of the
2020 Network. Table 5 identifies the 10 highest
scoring non-2020 Network intersections for
improvement.
The improvements needed at each intersection
will vary and should be identified on a case by
case basis. These could range from signal-timing
modifications and lane restriping to more extensive
intersection reconfiguration.
The City is currently evaluating intersections
for potential improvement through an ongoing
Engineering Arterial Intersection Prioritization
Study (AIPS). This is a routine study which
identifies and prioritizes intersections that are
in need of mobility and safety improvements.
Intersections which are included in this study are
denoted with a checkmark in the tables below.
Intersections that are selected for more detailed
design through AIPS should be considered for
improvements to the bicycling environment to
implement the recommendations of the 2014 Plan.
Intersection
Evaluation Criteria Total
Intersection
Analysis
Score (0-40)
Arterial
Intersection
Prioritization
Study
Demand Crashes Barriers Public
Input
College Avenue and Laurel
Street 10.00 5.56 6.67 7.91 30.14 x
Elizabeth Road and
Shields Street 8.65 7.22 3.33 6.40 25.60 x
Elizabeth Road and Taft
Hill Road 5.95 3.89 10.00 2.67 22.51
74 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 5: Implementation
Intersection
Evaluation Criteria Total
Intersection
Analysis
Score (0-40)
Arterial
Intersection
Prioritization
Study
Demand Crashes Barriers Public
Input
College Avenue and
Prospect Road 9.32 3.89 3.33 10.00 26.55 x
College Avenue and Drake
Road 6.49 6.67 0.00 6.63 19.78 x
College Avenue and
Horsetooth Road 6.22 2.78 0.83 6.16 15.99 x
Harmony Road and
Timberline Road 4.19 5.00 0.00 3.37 12.56
College Avenue and
Mulberry Street 7.30 1.67 1.67 3.72 11.36 x
College Avenue and
Harmony Road 4.86 1.11 1.67 3.72 11.36
Mulberry Street and
Shields Street 6.62 1.11 1.67 1.74 11.14
Harmony Road and
Lemay Avenue 5.00 0.56 1.67 1.05 8.27
Drake Road and Lemay
Avenue 5.14 1.67 0.83 0.58 8.22 x
Prospect Road and
Timberline Road 3.78 2.78 0.00 1.16 7.72
Table 5: Non-2020 Network Top Ten Priority Intersections for Improvement
Chapter 5: Implementation Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 75
POWER TRAIL
MASON TRAIL
P
O
U
D
R
E
R
I
V
E
R
T
R
A
I
L
P
L
E
A
S
A
N
T
V
A
L
L
E
Y
T
R
A
I
L
R
E
N
D
E
Z
V
O
U
S
T
R
A
I
L
HICKORY TRAIL
E
A
S
T
S
P
76 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 5: Implementation
Programs Prioritization
Evaluation Methodology
A sample of the recommended new bike programs
(as described in Chapter 2) were scored using
a Triple Bottom Line evaluation to help prioritize
launching of the programs. The proposed
programs were evaluated based on their ability
to make improvements in the areas of economic,
environmental, and social sustainability. The
following questions were answered to determine
each program’s Triple Bottom Line alignment.
Economic Health
• Does the program have high potential
for partnership and/or non-City funding
contributions?
• Does the program have potential for creating
jobs?
• Does the program have potential for
household economic health benefits?
• Does the program have potential economic
benefits to the local business community?
• Does the program attract businesses or
tourism?
Environmental Services
• Does the program have potential for
reducing greenhouse gases?
• Does the program make use of green
products or services?
• Does the program help educate existing
and future generations on environmental
stewardship and health?
• Does the program support connectivity to
transit, bike share and/or major destinations?
Social Sustainability
• Does the program address a safety concern
(e.g., unsafe behavior by drivers and/or
bicyclists)?
• Does the program provide an opportunity for
a community activity and/or engagement?
• Does the program encourage and build
confidence among all levels of bicyclists?
• Does the program serve traditionally
underserved populations (e.g., low income,
minority)?
Each program was given a rating of High, Medium,
or Low for each of the three Triple Bottom Line
categories. As shown here, the Triple Bottom Line
alignment of all recommended programs was
combined to understand the strengths of the
overall mix of programs.
Program Evaluation Results and
Recommendations
The results of the Triple Bottom Line evaluation
of a sample of recommended programs
are summarized in Table 7 on the following
page. These nine recommended programs
in combination provide a reasonable balance
between economic, environmental and social
benefits. Overall, the social benefits are rated the
Chapter 5: Implementation Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 77
Program
Triple Bottom Line Alignment
Environment Economic Social
Develop a Safe Driving Pledge Program
Modified Driver’s Education
Establish a Bike Share System
Create neighborhood greenways through traffic calming and wayfinding
Work with Colorado State Patrol to develop bicycle-specific crash
form
Expand bicycle counter program
Amend bicycle crash typing scheme
Coordinate assessment between Police Services and hospital-
collected crash data
Amend Fort Collins Citizen Survey to include LAB recommendations
Table 7: Sample Program Evaluation Results
High Medium Low
78 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 5: Implementation
federal, and non-governmental funding sources
along with the types of bicycle projects and
programs that are applicable to each funding
source.
Local Funding Sources
Building on Basics (BOB) – Fort Collins voters
approved Building on Basics (BOB), a quarter
cent sales and use tax which extends from
January 2006 through December 2015. The City
currently receives $125,000 each year toward
implementation of the Bike Plan. The City has
a ballot initiative for fall 2015 for BOB 2.0, a tax
renewal. Currently, $500,000 per year is proposed
for allocation to the Bike Plan; this would begin in
2016 if the initiative is approved.
Keep Fort Collins Great (KFCG) – In November
2010, Fort Collins voters passed Keep Fort Collins
Great (KFCG), a 0.85 percent sales tax to fund
critical services for the community (2011–2020).
KFCG has been an important funding source for
FC Bikes in the past and is expected to continue as
source implementation of the 2014 Plan projects
and programs.
Street Oversizing (SOS) Fees – Capital
improvements that are required to serve new
development are constructed by the developer
generating demand are financed with Street
Oversizing (SOS) Fees which are paid by new
development; many of the City’s bike lanes have
been added through developer contributions.
Federal Funding Sources
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program (CMAQ) – Funds may
be used for either the construction of bicycle
transportation facilities or non-construction
projects (e.g., maps, brochures, and public service
announcements) related to safe bicycle use.
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) – This
federal funding program authorized under MAP-21
provides funding for transportation alternatives
programs and projects, including on- and off-road
bicycle facilities, regional trail programs, and Safe
Routes to School.
Funding and Performance
Measures
Funding Strategy
Fort Collins has rigorously and successfully
pursued grant monies for bicycle improvements
from a variety of federal, local, and non-
governmental funding sources in the past.
Implementation of the 2020 and Full Build
Networks and the recommended programs will
require sustained pursuit of funding opportunities.
The Bike Plan funding strategy considers a
range of approaches to obtaining funds for
implementation:
• Leverage planned Street Maintenance
Program (SMP) projects, Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) projects,
Chapter 5: Implementation Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 79
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Grants –
Transit grants such as Urbanized Area Formula
and Capital Investment can be used for improving
bicycle access to transit facilities.
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) – Grants can be
used for bicycle education programs and projects
that provide connections and/or improve the
safety along routes to K-8 schools.
Hazard Elimination and Railway-Highway
Crossing Program – This program is a set-aside
from the Surface Transportation Program (STP)
specifically to correct locations that are unsafe,
and these funds may be used to address bicycle
safety issues.
State Funding Sources
FASTER safety – This state funding source can be
used for adding shoulders when combined with a
surface treatment project.
FASTER Transit – This state funding source can
be used for bicycle amenities such as bike racks,
lockers and bike parking at multimodal stations,
or enhanced modal connections such as trails
and bike lanes providing access to major transit
stations that would enhance transit ridership.
Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) – This state
funding program uses a portion of lottery proceeds
for projects that protect and enhance Colorado’s
trails and open space.
Other Funding Sources
Kaiser Permanente Grants – Kaiser Permanente
offers Walk and Wheel and other grants to help
communities be more bike-friendly by planning
and designing safer, healthier, and more accessible
transportation options.
Green Lane Project – The Green Lane Project
awards grants to help cities expand bicycling
through building innovative facilities.
Performance Measures
The City of Fort Collins uses a Budgeting for
Outcomes (BFO) process that is designed to
create a government that works better, costs less,
and is focused on desired results. Performance
measures are important tools in making informed
and effective budgeting decisions. They can
aid in planning, developing policy, prioritizing
investments, and measuring progress. Several
characteristics are common to good performance
measures:
• Available Data – Measures are often
influenced by the availability of data and the
ease of obtaining the data on a regular basis.
• Trackable over Time – Measures should be
based on consistently tracked data that can
be compared on an annual or semi-annual
basis.
• Relation to Goals – In performance-based
planning, performance measures should
track progress toward stated goals and
objectives.
80 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 5: Implementation
around performance of the system. They
can be an effective communication tool
for requesting funds and garnering public
support.
With these characteristics in mind, a series of
Performance Measures have been identified to
track the City’s process toward meeting the seven
Plan Goals. The performance measures listed are
compatible with the League of American Bicyclists’
Diamond-level Bicycle Friendly Community (BFC)
benchmark guidelines. While the City anticipates
applying for this designation in the future, it is
recognized that scoring of the application will
consider achievements in multiple areas, so
performance measures are not pegged directly to
those of the BFC program.
For each measure, a baseline is provided where
available, along with a target that is compatible
with the 2020 Network recommendations and
achievable by 2020, given the anticipated funding
levels for bicycle projects and programs in Fort
Collins.
Chapter 5: Implementation Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 81
2020 Key Outcomes &
Measures
Plan Goals
Connectivity Safety Ridership Community Equity Comfort Health
Complete 100% of Low-
Stress Network on local and
collector streets
from 57% to 100%
Complete Protected Bike
Lane Pilot Projects
from 0 to 5
Reduce bicycle crashes per
10k bicycle commuters by
5% annually
Eliminate bicyclist fatalities
from 0.68 to 0 per 10k bicycle
commuters
Increase K-12 students
receiving bicycle education
from 6,000 to 8,000
Increase bicycle commute
mode share
from 7.4% to 20%
Increase perceived ease of
travel by bicycle
from 37% to 55%
Increase percentage of
female bicycle commuters
from 35% to 50%
Increase population within
1/4 mile of a low-stress
bicycle route
from 17% to 80%
Double the number of
residents participating in
City education and outreach
events
Table 6: Draft Performance Measures
82 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 5: Implementation
2014
Appendix A
Summary of Public Involvement
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 1
Summary of Public Involvement
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 2
The 2014 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan (Bike Plan) project included high-collaboration public and
stakeholder engagement focused on the following groups:
Bike Plan Technical Advisory Committee (TAC): Representatives from the City and other
agencies.
Stakeholder Committee: Advocates, other City departments, and the business community.
Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC)
City Boards and Commissions
Community Organizations
City Council
General Public, emphasizing the following target audiences.
o Those already biking and engaged in bike culture
o Those interested in bicycling, but concerned
o Senior and youth residents
o Spanish-speaking residents
The project team engaged the aforementioned groups in a variety of ways throughout the course of the
Bike Plan update process: electronic newsletters, articles, surveys, community bike audits, online
mapping tools, TAC meetings, focused stakeholder meetings, public open houses, focused smaller
events, and participation in key citywide events. Since the Bike Plan process officially began, the City has
reached out to the public in a variety of ways, which are summarized in this memorandum. Results from
the City’s online survey (1,004 respondents) and four community bike audits are summarized as
separate components of this document. The City also conducted a Stakeholder Visioning Workshop, four
TAC meetings (January 29, April 25, June 23 and October 9), presented about the Plan multiple City
Boards and Commissions, stakeholder organizations including the Chamber of Commerce and
Downtown Business Association, and attended citywide events with information about the Plan.
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 3
ONLINE INTERACTIVE MAP
The project team developed a WikiMap, an online interactive map that was available for input from
January 29 through March 21. Users were asked to identify routes they already ride, ones they would
like to ride, barriers to bicycling, locations where bike parking is needed, and potential bike share station
locations. The map was available as a link from the fcgov.com/bike plan website, and participation in the
exercise was advertised and encouraged via the Momentum newsletter, social media blasts, several
CSU-affiliated online articles, and at the public open house.
Users
There were 401 registered users, 158 of which contributed at least one point, line, or comment.
Registered users are not representative of the population of Fort Collins: primarily male (64 percent);
older (41 percent over the age of 50); and not typical college ages (only 7.2 percent between the ages of
18 and 25). Nearly all of the users—90 percent—are residents of Fort Collins zip codes.
Bike Plan Project Engagement
City Boards and Commissions
Transportation Board
Planning and Zoning
Board
Senior Advisory Board
Youth Advisory Board
Parks and Recreation
Board
Bicycle Advisory
Committee
Air Quality Advisory
Board
Commission on
Disability
Stakeholder Organizations
Bike Fort Collins
Fort Collins Bike Library
New Belgium Brewery
Ciclismo Youth Foundation
Visit Fort Collins
Cranknstein
Bicycle Safety Institute
Fort Collins Cycling Club
CanDo
Healthier Communities
Coalition
Bicycle Pedestrian Education
Coalition
Coalition for Infrastructure
Southeast Fort Collins
Downtown Business
Association
Chamber of Commerce
Vida Sana
Trinity Lutheran Church
CanDo Fort Collins Coalition
Engagement Events and
Presentations
FC Rides! Community
Bike Audits
Community Issues
Forum
Air Quality Forum
Citywide Planning
Projects Open House
Bicycle Master Plan
Open Houses
As one of the goals of the project is to reach a wide range of cyclists and potential cyclists, users were
asked to self-identify by type of cyclist. Registered users did not represent a typical population
distribution of cyclist types.
Self-Identified Cyclist Type
Percent of
Registered
WikiMap Users
Typical
Population
Percentage*
Strong and fearless
I am willing to ride in mixed traffic with
automobiles on almost any type of street
23.5% 4%
Enthused and confident
I am willing to ride in traffic, but I prefer
dedicated bicycle lanes/routes
60% 9%
Interested in bicycling, but concerned
I would like to bicycle more, but I prefer
not to ride in traffic
16% 56%
I do not ride a bicycle and am unlikely
ever to do so
0.5% 31%
*Dill, J., & McNeil, N. Four Types of Cyclists? Testing a Typology to Better Understand Bicycling Behavior
and Potential.
WikiMap Input
Over 1,100 total points, lines, and comments have been added to the map.
The most utilized category is “Route I Ride” which, in combination with input from the “Route
I’d Like to Ride” category, helped determine where to focus priority projects. Many residents are
riding on existing trails, but many are also using heavy traffic arterials such as Harmony Road
and Elizabeth.
About 350 “Barriers to Biking” were added to the map. Users were asked what physical or traffic
condition creates the barrier. Nearly half of the barriers were identified as crossings that feel
unsafe or gaps in the bicycle network.
Bike parking received the least input. 21 points were added, most in Old Town and along the
MAX line.
Below are highlights of key information received through the WikiMap input.
Where People Bike
Along Trails
o Spring Creek Trail
o Mason Trail
o Poudre Trail
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 5
On-Street
o Harmony Rd.
o Overland Tr.
o W. Elizabeth Rd.
Barriers to Biking
Intersections on large arterials
o W. Horsetooth Rd. at S. College Ave.
o S. Shields St. at W. Prospect Rd.
o W. Horsetooth Rd. at S. Timberline Rd.
Stretches of Arterial roads
o N. Taft Hill Rd.
o W. Vine Dr.
o S. Shields St.
o W. Horsetooth Rd.
o S. College Ave.
Where People Would Like to Bike
Power Trail
North/South Arterials
o College Ave.
o Riverside Ave.
o S. Lemay Ave.
East/West Arterials
o Laporte Ave.
o W. Drake Rd.
Parking and Bike Share
Bicycle Parking
o Throughout Downtown
o Along MAX stations providing connectivity
Bike Share Stations
o Throughout Downtown
o CSU Campus
o MAX stations
PUBLIC OPEN HOUSES
Public Open House #1
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 6
The first public open house was held on March 12 at the Lincoln Center from 4-7 pm. Attendees
registered at the door, and 236 were recorded. Attendees represented a wide range of ages and a
relative balance of genders.
The project team presented information in a number of areas:
Draft vision and goals for the Bike Plan
Public involvement to date
Existing/previous planning efforts: concurrent projects and the 2013 Trails Master Plan
Stress level assessment
Non-infrastructure policies and programs in education, encouragement and enforcement
Bike share system analysis and preliminary station locations
Possible infrastructure treatments: bike lane upgrades, intersection treatments, neighborhood
greenways and protected bike lanes
March 12 Open House March 12 Open House
Attendees gave feedback about a number of items as well:
Voted on the draft goals and “wrote-in” possible additional goals
Commented on existing education, enforcement and encouragement programs and suggested
new ideas for the City to undertake
Agreed/disagreed with the current draft stress assessment of streets in Fort Collins
Agreed/disagreed with proposed bike share locations and suggested alternatives
Provided input on Colorado State University campus bike infrastructure and issues
Identified streets and intersections where the infrastructure treatments presented would help
fix current issues for comfort and safety
Voted on priorities among the areas that the Plan will address: infrastructure improvements
(improved bike lanes, intersection improvements, protected bike lanes and neighborhood
greenways), education programs, enforcement programs, and encouragement programs
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 7
March 12 Open House March 12 Open House
Public Open House #1 Feedback
Feedback from the open house was integrated into the draft Bike Plan. The following summarizes key
elements:
Three Words Question
Attendees were asked the following questions, and the word clouds illustrate the responses and the
relative number of each.
What three words best describe bicycling in Fort Collins today?
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 8
What three words would you like to use to describe bicycling in Fort Collins in the future?
Education, Enforcement, and Encouragement
Attendees were asked to tell us which existing education, enforcement and encouragement programs
are working well, and which ones they would suggest adding. A total of 82 comments were received,
including:
Keep promoting bicycling within schools
Keep teaching Traffic Skills 101 courses and other bicycle training
Enforce the “no bikes on the sidewalk” law in the dismount zone, and explore sidewalk
restrictions in other areas
Encourage helmet and light use
Add a bicycle education component to driver’s education
Ticket bicyclists riding against traffic
Enforce laws about both motorists and bicyclist behavior
Roll out more education campaigns
Priorities
The final station at the open house asked people the following question:
Tell Us Your Priorities!
We want the 2014 Bicycle Master Plan to reflect what you think can make Fort Collins a world-class
bicycling city. Think about everything you’ve read throughout the room and vote for what kinds of
infrastructure and programs you believe will make the biggest impact.
The ranked priorities are:
1. Protected Bike Lanes (222)
2. Improving Existing Bike Lanes (197)
3. Improving Intersections (160)
4. Education Programs (119)
5. Enforcement Programs (70)
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 9
6. Encouragement Programs (49)
7. Neighborhood Greenways (47)
Open house feedback informed Plan recommendations for infrastructure, policies, and programs.
Public Open House #2
The second public open house was held on July 30 at the Lincoln Center from 4-7 pm. Attendees
registered at the door, and 114 were recorded. The purpose of this open house was to present and get
input on draft Plan recommendations.
The project team presented information in a number of areas:
Project goals and performance measures
Public involvement to date
Existing/previous planning efforts: concurrent projects and the 2013 Trails Master Plan
Updated stress level assessment
Non-infrastructure policies and programs in education, encouragement and enforcement,
including existing and proposed
Bike share system analysis, preliminary station locations, and summary of business plan
Information about new types of infrastructure treatments
Proposed bicycle network
o 2020 Low Stress Network
o Full Build Vision including
Proposed implementation strategies including costs per mile of infrastructure recommendations
and a process for developing a phasing plan
July 30 Open House: Bike Share Station July 30 Open House: CSU Station
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 10
At the registration table, attendees were given a survey to complete during the open house. Each
question corresponded to one of the presentation boards. Attendees were encouraged to submit the
completed surveys before they left the open house; 92 did so. Basic information was also collected, and
the table below shows the distribution of bicyclist types that the open house reached. The sections that
follow summarize key responses to the survey questions.
Public Open House #2 Feedback
Which of the following best describes your bicycling habits and comfort level?
Self-Identified Cyclist Type
Percent of
Open House
Attendees
Strong and fearless
I am willing to ride in mixed traffic with automobiles on almost any type of street
32%
Enthused and confident
I am willing to ride in traffic, but I prefer dedicated bicycle lanes/routes
63%
Interested in bicycling, but concerned
I would like to bicycle more, but I prefer not to ride in traffic
5%
I do not ride a bicycle and am unlikely ever to do so
0%
For what purposes do you anticipate using a self-checkout Fort Collins bike share system?
1. I don’t plan to use bike share: 29%
2. Connecting to Transit/MAX: 21%
3. Visitors: 19%
4. Running mid-day errands: 14%
5. Other: 17%
What is the most important intersection to improve for bicycling at the edge of CSU’s campus?
1. Elizabeth & Shields: 43%
2. Elizabeth & College: 19%
3. Lake & Center: 16%
4. Meldrum & Laurel: 15%
5. Others: 7%
Given the proposed improvements to Pitkin, which east-west route would you bicycle on through/along
campus?
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 11
1. Pitkin: 66%
2. Lake: 25%
3. Prospect: 8%
July 30 Open House: Network Feedback July 30 Open House: Network Feedback
Which TWO north-south routes in the 2020 network are most critical and should be created first?
1. Shields: 31%
2. Power Trail: 16%
Which TWO east-west routes in the 2020 network are most critical and should be created first?
1. Pitkin: 29%
2. Swallow: 27%
Which TWO north-south streets in the Protected Bike Lanes Vision should be constructed first?
1. Shields: 44%
2. Lemay: 31%
Which TWO east-west streets in the Protected Bike Lanes Vision should be constructed first?
1. Drake: 38%
2. Harmony: 24%
What destinations in Fort Collins are most important to include in a system of signs to help direct
bicyclists around town?
1. Old Town
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 12
2. CSU
3. Others (Downtown, Libraries, Parks, MAX)
July 30 Open House: Safe Routes Station July 30 Open House: Programs Feedback
The "Programs Spotlight” board identifies several existing and proposed youth-focused bicycle programs.
Which proposed programs would be most successful in increasing bicycling among youth and improving
safety?
1. SRTS Education and Encouragement: 31%
2. Modified Drivers Education: 27%
3. Neighborhood Greenway Reduced Speed Limit: 15%
4. Safe Driving Pledge Program: 13%
5. Others: 14%
Full implementation of the recommended bike network and programs will require choices between the
strategies listed below. We want your input: which TWO strategies do you feel are most appropriate for
the next 5-10 years?
1. Create a citywide low-stress bike network: Focus on non-arterial bike routes, neighborhood
greenways and critical crossing improvements
2. Encourage safer conditions for biking: By enforcing traffic laws
Open house attendees were generally supportive and enthusiastic about the proposals, particularly the
CSU recommendations, the low-stress network and the full build vision.
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 13
LESHER MIDDLE SCHOOL TOUR DE FIT
FC Bikes and the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program had a booth at the Lesher Middle School Tour de
Fit on May 9, 2014, as part of National Bike/Walk to School Week. The goal of the event was to promote
and celebrate fitness activities, including bicycling to school.
The SRTS program utilized their quiz wheel to help educate students on safe riding rules. FC Bikes
presented maps showing a one-mile radius around the school and asked children to mark their route for
bicycling to school. The map exercise was successful with over 50 children marking their route to school.
The most popular routes marked included the arterials around the school: Stover Street and Prospect
Road. The students identified the Prospect Road crossing of College Avenue and the intersection of
Stuart Street and Stover Street as challenging. Additionally, they discussed the Prospect Road and Stover
Street intersection as being difficult to navigate. Though the feedback was specific to Lesher, the
conclusions drawn can be applied to other school locations in the City: arterial modifications are needed
to reduce sidewalk bicycle riding; special focus should be given to trail access to schools; and
staggered/offset intersections need to be retrofitted to safely accommodate bicyclists.
BIKE TO WORK DAY
Fort Collins’ 2014 Bike to Work Day was on Wednesday, June 25. FC
Bikes had a booth at one of the 43 stations—the Oak Street Plaza
station. In addition to receiving general Bicycle Master Plan
updates, visitors to the booth were asked two key questions to help
inform the Plan recommendations.
The first question was about what type of bicycle facility type they
prefer. Two example streets were presented: Horsetooth Road as a
major arterial and Swallow Road as a collector street. The results
are listed below.
Arterials: prefer protected bike lanes over buffered
bike lanes
Neighborhood streets: prefer buffered bike lanes over
traditional bike lanes
Some people chose the buffered bicycle facility for Horsetooth Road due to cost; they expressed
interested in a facility that could be implemented quickly. Some chose the buffered facility for
Horsetooth Road due to perceived safety issues with separated facilities—specifically, intersection fears.
For Swallow Road, some people chose the standard bike lane over the buffered bike lane because they
felt that the bike lane was adequate.
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 14
The second question was open-ended to get at the priorities of bicyclists in Fort Collins. We asked: What
is the one thing we can do to improve bicycling in Fort Collins? A total of 81 responses were received;
their answers are summarized below.
1. Intersection improvements (19 votes)
2. Education/enforcement (11 votes, 3 specific to CSU)
3. Specific route improvements (10 votes)
4. MAX bicycle capacity (10 votes)
5. General bicycle infrastructure improvements (9 votes)
6. More bicycle routes needed (7 votes)
7. Trail improvements (6 votes)
Bike to Work Day 2014
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 15
OPEN STREETS
The City hosted its first Open Streets event on July 20, 2014. Parts of Laurel and Whedbee Streets were
closed to motorized traffic for most of the day, and the streets were filled with activities and
information booths. FC Bikes had a booth at the event, which was adjacent to the Bike Fort Collins
protected bike lane demonstration. The bike lane was approximately one block long and included
planter boxes as the primary physical separation. Bike Fort Collins volunteers performed a five-question
exit survey for those who rode in the lane, the results of which are summarized below.
The FC Bikes booth presented the following information at Open Streets:
A general overview of the Bicycle Master Plan
General information about neighborhood greenways and protected bike lanes
A draft early action 2020 low stress bicycle network plan
A draft protected bike lane vision plan
Booth visitors were asked to choose one street in Fort Collins where they would like to see a protected
bike lane, so that the City can begin to understand priorities and develop an implementation plan. The
top ranked streets as a result of this exercise are shown below.
1. Lemay Avenue (28 votes)
2. Shields Street (13 votes)
3. Horsetooth Road (12 votes)
4. Riverside Avenue (10 votes)
5. Mason Street (9 votes)
6. College Avenue (8 votes)
7. Drake Road (7 votes)
Open Streets Bicycle Plan Feedback Open Streets Protected Bike Lake Demonstration
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 16
VIDA SANA COALITION MEETING
On July 28, 2014, the Project Team presented draft plan recommendations to the Vida Sana Coalition.
The coalition, whose name translates to “uniting for the health equity of Latinos,” addresses health
disparities among Hispanic/Latinos and low-income community members in North Fort Collins.
Attendees were asked to vote on potential bike plan implementation strategies. Responses were:
- Promote bicycling as a viable transportation option: 6
- Create a citywide low-stress bike network: 5
- Encourage safer conditions for biking: 5
- Expand coverage of bike network: 5
- Focus on high visibility signature projects: 1
- Raise the visibility of bicycling: 3
- Improve existing bikeways: 1
- Build as much of the recommended bike network as quickly as possible: 1
Attendees also had general comments about the bike plan recommendations:
- Educate both ways *bicyclists and motorist*
- Expand crowded trails
- Inform community of laws/practices both for bikes and motorists
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY
Each public outreach event held or tool used as part of the 2014 Plan has helped contribute to the draft
recommendations. While each of these has reached a somewhat different audience, together they have
reached a wide variety of the population of Fort Collins. Several common themes were heard
throughout the outreach process:
Bicycling in Fort Collins in the future should be safe, connected, easy, and fun
Enhanced infrastructure such as protected bike lanes and improved intersections should be a
priority
The overall Plan strategy of creating a citywide low-stress bicycle network by initially taking
advantage of existing low stress streets was embraced
The streets that should be improved first include: Shields, Swallow, Pitkin and Power Trail
(2020 Low-Stress Network) and Shields, Drake, Lemay and Harmony (Protected Bike Lanes)
Education and enforcement, particularly with regards to educating about and enforcing traffic
laws, and educating youth, should be a priority
Connecting to the trail network should be a high priority; and completing the trail network
should be a similarly high priority
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 17
FC Rides! Community Bike Audits Summary
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 18
FC Rides!
Community Bike Audits
October 12, 19, 26, and November 2, 2013
Public Outreach
City of Fort Collins, Bicycle Master Plan
DRAFT SUMMARY
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 19
Picture Placeholder
Picture Placeholder
Northeast Fort Collins
October 12, 2013 | 12 Participants
S Shields St
S College Ave
S Taft Hill Rd
E
S Timberline Rd
S Lemay Ave
Laporte Ave
W Drake Rd
E Drake Rd
E Horsetooth Rd
E Trilby Rd
N Shields St
W Mulberry St
S Overland Trl
W Prospect Rd
W Trilby Rd
N Taft Hill Rd
W Horsetooth Rd
E
L
i
n
coln
A
v
e
Riverside Ave
N College Ave
W Elizabeth St
Country Club Rd
W Harmony Rd
N Overland Trl
Remington St
N Lemay Ave
Richa
Mounta
S Mason St
W Vine Dr
County Road 54G
N Timberline Rd
N US Highway 287
E
W
i
l
l
o
x
L
n
Turnberry Rd
W Willox Ln
W Laurel St
S Su
Bo
a
FC Rides! Community Bike Audits
Overview:
Beginning in November of 2013, FC Bikes staff hosted four community bike audits to kick off the Bicycle
Master Plan process and to seek input about bicycling conditions across Fort Collins. Each bike audit featured
a different sector of the city (NE, NW, SE, SW) and each route captured different types of streets, intersections,
bicycle routes and infrastructure. The audits were open to the public and over 50 people partcipated. The input
recieved through the community bike audits will be considered through the Bicycle Master Plan. The following
section provides a summary of the comments received during all four bike audits. A separate document is
available which outlines each comment as received by individual participants.
Northeast Fort Collins (October 12, 2013)
Intersections
(identified for potential improvements):
• Prospect and Stover: intersection jog, difficult
to cross, key connection to school
• Lemay @ Lory/Pitkin: signalized crossing
needed
• Lemay @ railroad tracks (north of Riverside)
• Lincoln @ Lemay: challenging turning
westbound on Lincoln (from northbound
Lemay) – potential two-stage turn box
• Willow @ railroad tracks
• All downtown intersections: enhanced
striping/green paint through intersections
• Mountain @ Lincoln: difficult to turn left from
Mountain heading westbound from Lincoln
• Vine @ College Ave
• Willow @ Lincoln
• Elizabeth @ College Ave: crossing needed
on south side of intersection
Routes
(identified for potential improvements):
• Prospect: road diet + dedicated bicycle
facilities (protected/buffered bike lanes)
• Connection to Spring Creek Trail @
Spring Creek Drive/Remington (confusing/
additional signage and trail widening
needed)
• Stuart: door zone bike lane
• Riverside: road diet + dedicated bicycle
facilities (protected/buffered bike lanes)
Riverside Ave
Lory St and Lemay Ave
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 21
FC Rides! Community Bike Audits
• Neighborhood routes: nice routes - additional
signage and designated as bicycle
boulevards/neighborhood greenways
• Lemay: road diet + dedicated bicycle facilities
(protected/buffered bike lanes)
• Lincoln: multimodal improvements needed
• College Ave (Downtown): dedicated bicycle
facility needed
• N College Ave: improved transitions and
connection to Poudre River Trail needed
• Elizabeth: Dismount zone through CSU
campus prevents consistent east-west
corridor (overall, better through routes
needed through campus)
• Remington: should be a dedicated/improved
bicycle corridor
Other:
• “Bikes may use full lane” vs. “share the road
signage”
• Better wayfinding to trails
• Improved signal timing along Remington
Southwest Fort Collins (October 19,
2013)
Intersections
(identified for potential improvements):
• Shields @ W. Stuart: left-turn pocket or two-
stage turn box needed
• Shields @ Horsetooth + Casa Grande (bike
lane to the right of the right turn lane)
• Horsetooth @ Seneca: left turn on to Seneca
challenging
• Harmony @ Regency: crossing not intuitive
(signal/push button on one side)
• Harmony @ Hinsdale: signalized intersection
+ protected left-turn needed (school crossing)
• Center @ Shields
Harmony Rd and Hinsdale Dr
S Shields St
Lory St
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 22
Routes
(identified for potential improvements):
• Shields: protected or enhanced bicycle facility
needed, existing protected bike lane needs
improved transitions
• W. Stuart: better signage to Spring Creek
Trail, bicycle boulevard/enhanced bikeway
potential
• Connection to Senior Center
• Swallow: better signage to Spring Creek Trail,
bicycle boulevard potential
• Dunbar: bicycle boulevard potential
• Horsetooth: bike lane narrow, speeds too
high, past Seneca bike lane ends (peds use
bike lane)
• Seneca: bicycle boulevard potential
• Regency: bicycle boulevard potential
• Harmony: not a great bike route
• Starflower Dr: bicycle boulevard potential,
consistent signage and bicycle facility needed
• Center/Meadowlark: bicycle boulevard
potential, improved signage and bicycle
facility
• Manhattan: bicycle boulevard potential,
improved signage and bicycle facility
Other:
• Better wayfinding through neighborhoods and
to trails
• Level of comfort map recommended
• Protected bike lanes favorable
• Support for “Merge with Traffic” vs. “Bike Lane
Ends” signage
• Improved signal detection at Drake and
Meadowlark
Southeast Fort Collins (October 26,
2013)
Intersections (identified for potential im-
FC Rides! Community Bike Audits
Harmony Rd
Lemay Ave and Oakridge Dr
W Stuart St and Shields St
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 23
FC Rides! Community Bike Audits
provements):
• Ziegler roundabout: additional signage
needed on the approach (“no passing cyclists
in the roundabout” and/or “bikes merge with
traffic”)
• Harmony @ Power Trail, and all Harmony
crossings (signage, striping, increased signal
length, two-stage turn boxes)
• Corbett @ Harmony: signal length too short
• Curb ramp @ Corbett and Sunstone
• McMurray @ Harmony: difficult crossing,
access to schools
• Swallow @ Lemay: improved signage, striping
Routes (identified for potential improve-
ments):
• Kechter: bike lane terminates
• Stetson: slower speeds, bicycle facility
improvements + signage
• Rock Creek: bike lane in door zone
• Timberline: protected bike lanes
• Harmony: protected bike lanes
• Corbett: improved striping (roundabouts)
• Boardwalk: narrow bike lane, driveways,
conflict points, traffic calming needed
• Oakridge: bicycle boulevard potential
• Stanford: should be improved with mall
development
• E. Swallow: bicycle boulevard potential
• Lemay: bike lanes narrow, protected bike lane
(two-way cycle track at intersection jogs)
• Centennial: bicycle boulevard potential
Other:
• Improved connections to all schools in the
area
• Improved signage to trails (e.g. at Centennial
to Power Trail)
Kechter Rd
Corbett Dr
Harmony Harmony Rd Rd
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 24
FC Rides! Community Bike Audits
• Improved Power Trail connection to Kruse
Elementary
Northwest Fort Collins (November 2,
2013)
Intersections
(identified for potential improvements):
• Mason @ Cherry: difficult to cross, trail
connection, no crosswalk on south side
• Crossings along Shields
• Roundabout @ Vine and Taft: sharrows +
signage
• Laporte @ Taft: protected left-turn needed (to
help northbound cyclists)
• Taft Hill @ Lake (difficult crossing): add signal
or direct cyclists to Springfield
• City Park @ Mulberry: pedestrian crossing
needed on both sides of intersection
• Meldrum @ Laurel: potential location for
scramble/diagonal crossing
• Shields @ Lake: difficult crossing (2-way
protected bike lane to address jog)
• Laurel @ Mason: difficult turning movements,
potential challenges with MAX
Routes
(identified for potential improvements):
• Shields: improved bicycle facility needed/
protected facility to address jogs
• Cherry: sharrows/improved bicycle facility
west of Wood St.
• Taft: bike lane needs to continue south of
Laporte
• Oak/Jackson: bicycle boulevard potential
• Vine: bicycle facilities needed + improved
maintenance
• Laporte: bicycle lanes needed, squeezes
down at bridges (provide curb ramp access to
pedestrian bridges)
• City Park: diagonal parking undesirable for
Lake St and Shields St
Laporte Ave
N Mason St
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 25
FC Rides! Community Bike Audits
cyclists (back-in angle); dedicated bicycle
boulevard/route through City Park
• Springfield: bicycle boulevard potential
• Mulberry: Road diet + dedicated bicycle
facilities
• W. Elizabeth: green lanes/enhanced lanes,
intersection improvements
• Lake: nice route through neighborhoods,
better crossings needed, bike lane in door
zone through CSU
• Plum: prioritized for bike/ped/transit
• Oak St. Plaza: dedicated bike path
• N. Mason St: placement of sharrows not
ideal; bike lane preferred (some would avoid
currently); concerns with bus/bike conflict
• College: back-in angle parking, bicycle facility
needed, additional signage
• Mountain: comfortable but additional
“sharrow” education needed
• Laurel: remove 3-4 parking spaces to
continue dedicated bicycle facility
Other:
• Accessing downtown from southbound Mason
is difficult
• Mixed perspectives about roundabouts
• Additional bike lane maintenance needed
• Increased signage/wayfinding
• Left-hand turns challenging for bicyclists
(consider more 2-point turn opportunities)
• More bike boxes
Meldurm St and Laurel St
Lake St through CSU
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 26
Online Survey Summary (1,004 Responses)
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 27
1. In what zip code do you live?
Count Response
276 80521
224 80526
218 80525
178 80524
54 80528
8 80538
5 80535
4 80547
4 80549
4 80550
3 80512
3 80536
2 80522
2 80537
2. In what zip code do you work/go to school?
Count Response
234 80525
179 80524
159 80523
155 80521
102 80526
60 80528
17 80538
10 80537
9 80522
3 80513
3 80550
3 80631
3 80634
2 80301
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 28
2 82001
3. Do you have a bicycle available for your use on a regular basis?
Value Count Percent
Yes 982 97.9%
No 21 2.1%
4. What is your primary means of travel?
5. Which of the following best describes your bicycling habits and
comfort level?
.5%
2%
2%
4%
5%
40%
47%
Transit Other
Walk Carpool/vanpool
Bicycle-transit combination Bicycle
Drive-alone
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 29
6. On average, how often do you ride a bicycle for the following trip
purposes?
7. What is the distance (in miles) of your typical one-way commute to
work or school (if applicable)?
17%
62%
20%
1%
Strong and fearless
Enthused and confident
Interested in bicycling, but
concerned
I do not ride a bicycle and
am unlikely ever to do so.
45.4%
18.4%
25.1%
31.6%
13.9%
27.0%
22.7%
28.9%
9.0%
22.3%
25.9%
23.7%
13.2%
16.4%
16.0%
12.4%
18.5%
16.0%
10.3%
3.4%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0%
Commute to work or
school
Shopping/errands
Visit
friends/social/entert
ainment
Recreational activity
or for
exercise/health
reasons
3+ times per week
1-2 times per week
At least once a
month, but not
weekly
Less than once a
month, but at least
a few times per year
Never
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 30
Count Response
152 3
150 2
106 5
102 1
82 4
55 6
55 7
30 10
24 8
15 9
14 12
13 13
11 15
8 11
3 14
3 50
2 17
2 18
2 19
2 22
2 30
2 40
8. Please tell me if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat
disagree or strongly disagree with the following statement: "I would
like to travel by bike more than I do now."
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 31
9. Which of the following factors prevent you from bicycling more
than you do now in FORT COLLINS? Please select the top three
reasons, if applicable.
Factors Related to Bicycle Routes:
63.8%
30.6%
3.1% 2.5%
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 32
10. Other factors: (Please select the top three reasons, if applicable)
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%
Weather
I have too many things to carry
Distance is too far/it takes too long
Bicycling is less comfortable/convenient than other travel options
Nothing - I ride as much as I want
I travel with children
Lack of bicycle parking and other end-of-trip facilities at my…
Other
Insufficient bicycle gear (clothing, bicycle, lights etc.)
Crime
Hills
I am not physically able to ride more
I don't know the rules of the road for bicycling and/or lack…
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%
Gaps or disconnects in the existing bicycle network
Unlawful/unsafe motorist behavior
I do not feel safe bicycling in mixed traffic
Traffic signals do not detect me or take too long…
Other
Nothing - I ride as much as I want
Poor street pavement conditions/debris
Bike lanes are too narrow
Traffic speeds and/or traffic volumes are too high…
Intersection crossings do not feel safe
Unlawful/unsafe bicycle behavior
Inadequate street lighting
I do not know where the safest routes are in Fort…
Difficult connections to transit or not enough…
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 33
11. Do your children bike to school, or do you bike with children to
school (if applicable)?
12. Please tell us what prevents your child(ren) from bicycling to
school: (for those responding “no” to question 11) (responses
summarized into categories)
Reason Responses
Safety 66
Distance 44
Age 17
Weather 10
Not interested 8
Stuff to carry 7
Yes
12%
No
14%
Not applicable
74%
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 34
Time 7
Too close 7
Homeschooled 2
Bike Security 1
Bus 1
Drives 1
13. Please list the top destinations where you currently ride your bike
to OR where you would like to ride your bike to. (responses
summarized into categories)
Destination Category # of Responses
Old Town 538
CSU 339
Grocery 258
School 99
Trails 97
Park 85
Work 58
Shopping 55
Gym 52
Woodward 52
Indiv. Address 44
Horsetooth Reservoir 41
Harmony 30
Library 29
Breweries 20
Front Range Village 19
Brewery 18
Intel 17
Church 16
Drake 16
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 35
Regional 16
14. Please list the NORTH/SOUTH streets where you CURRENTLY RIDE
A BICYCLE most often in Fort Collins:
North/South # of Responses
Remington 294
Shields 279
Taft Hill 199
Lemay 196
Timberline 172
Overland 163
Mason 145
Howes 102
Loomis 95
College Ave 83
Stover 78
Zeigler 68
Whedbee 50
Center 46
City Park 31
Mason Trail 30
Mathews 24
Meldrum 20
Washington 18
Peterson 17
Power line trail 14
McMurray 12
Meridian 12
Riverside 12
Linden 11
Meadowlark 10
Sherwood 10
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 36
15. Please list the EAST/WEST streets where you CURRENTLY RIDE A
BICYCLE most often in Fort Collins:
East/West # of Responses
Mountain 291
Drake 237
Harmony 183
Laurel 161
Elizabeth 149
Prospect 148
Horsetooth 142
Laporte 136
Swallow 102
Stuart 79
Vine 77
Mulberry 68
Magnolia 44
Pitkin 44
Trilby 39
Cherry 35
Lake 33
Oak 33
Kechter 29
Lincoln 29
Olive 26
Spring Creek
Trail 17
Willox 17
Columbia 16
Maple 15
Springfield 15
Plum 14
Boardwalk 11
Troutman 11
Myrtle 10
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 37
16. What do you think the City's top three priorities should be in order
to increase bicycling and improve safety? Please choose your top
three in order.
18. Top intersections needing improvements/barriers (1,822 entries):
Intersection # of
Responses
College & Prospect 96
College & Laurel 78
College & Drake 67
Elizabeth & Shields 65
College & Horsetooth 63
Prospect & Shields 59
College 56
College & Harmony 42
1661
821
703 696
578
330
276
202 188
153 123
105 84
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 38
Harmony & Timberline 39
Center & Prospect 36
College & Mulberry 35
Elizabeth & Taft Hill 33
Horsetooth & Mason Trail 27
Mulberry & Shields 25
Prospect & Remington 24
Mulberry 23
College & Mountain 22
Prospect & Timberline 20
Harmony & Lemay 19
Mason Trail & Prospect 19
Prospect 19
College & Swallow 17
Harmony 16
Drake & Lemay 15
Drake & Timberline 15
Laporte & Shields 15
Lemay & Riverside 15
Mulberry & Remington 15
Laurel & Shields 14
Mulberry & Taft Hill 14
College & Laporte 13
Harmony & Taft Hill 13
Horsetooth & Lemay 13
Lemay & Prospect 12
City Park & Elizabeth 11
Harmony & Mason Trail 11
Harmony & Ziegler 11
Lemay & Vine 11
Cherry & College 10
Harmony & Shields 10
Lake & Shields 10
Lemay & Mulberry 10
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 39
19. Please list the top EAST/WEST streets you'd like to see improved
for bicycling in Fort Collins:
East/West Streets # of Responses
Prospect 356
Drake 229
Mulberry 207
Horsetooth 194
Laporte 126
Harmony 123
Vine 58
Laurel 57
Elizabeth 49
Lincoln 37
Trilby 35
Riverside 34
Mountain 24
Kechter 19
Cherry 11
Swallow 10
20. Please list the top NORTH/SOUTH streets you'd like to see
improved for bicycling in Fort Collins:
North/South
Streets
# of Responses
Shields 375
College Ave 237
Lemay 226
Taft Hill 200
Timberline 82
Mason 68
Remington 40
Riverside 39
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 40
Overland Trail 35
City Park 17
Whedbee 13
Stover 11
Howes 10
21-27: Facility Preference Questions:
77.9%
72.3%
70.4%
38.2%
30.0%
23.1%
13.5%
13.7%
15.1%
23.2%
36.7%
47.0%
41.6%
35.5%
5.5%
7.6%
4.1%
19.7%
16.3%
28.4%
24.0%
2.6%
4.6%
2.0%
5.4%
6.3%
6.1%
26.6%
Shared-use Trail
Protected Bike Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
Green Bike Lane
Standard Bike Lane
Bicycle Boulevards
Shared Lane/Sharrows
Very appealing Somewhat appealing Neutral Not appealing
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 41
28. Please rank the types of bicycle facilities/improvements you
would like to see focused on in the Bike Plan update: (Rank top 3)
29. Please take this opportunity to provide any additional information
about what you would like to see addressed in the City's Bike Plan:
(summarized into categories)
# of comments Comment category
430 Total
211 infrastructure
60 trails
35 education
28 enforcement
24 Thank you
22 intersections
1198 1174 1172
541
489
410
325 293
148 106
76
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 42
19 signage
13 laws
13 signals
10 maintenance
7 grade separated crossings
6 Safety
6 end of trip facilities
5 detours
5 encouragement
4 opposed
4 pavement
3 education and enforcement
3 funding
2 ebikes
1 abandoned bikes
1 Benefits of bicycling
1 bicycle commuting
1 bike friendliness
1 implementation
1 Local racing
1 low-cost solutions
1 motorists pay more in taxes
1 Planning for all modes
1 programs
1 recreational cyclists
1 regional routes
1 reporting problem areas
1 traffic circles
1 sprinklers on Harmony
1 stop as yield
1 survey concerns
1 traffic speed
1 commute incentives
1 train noise
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 43
30. Gender
Value Count Percent
Male 585 58.8%
Female 393 39.5%
Transgender or identify as other 3 0.3%
Prefer not to answer 14 1.4%
31. Which category below includes your age?
Value Count Percent
19 years & under 11 1.1%
20-29 years 256 25.6%
30-39 years 240 24.0%
40-49 years 200 20.0%
50-59 years 167 16.7%
60 years or older 113 11.3%
Prefer not to answer 15 1.5%
32. Race
Value Count Percent
White 889 89.3%
Hispanic or Latino 15 1.5%
Black or African American 2 0.2%
Asian 7 0.7%
Prefer not to answer 59 5.9%
Other 24 2.4%
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 44
33. Which of the following categories best describes your
employment status?
Value Count Percent
Employed, full-time 619 62.3%
Employed, part-time 112 11.3%
Not employed 21 2.1%
Retired 71 7.2%
Student 146 14.7%
Prefer not to answer 24 2.4%
34. Income-level
Value Count Percent
$10,000 to $24,999 163 16.4%
$25,000 to $49,999 200 20.2%
$50,000 to $99,999 285 28.7%
$100,000 to $199,999 142 14.3%
$200,000 or more 24 2.4%
Prefer not to answer 178 17.9%
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 45
Appendix B
State of Bicycling in Fort Collins
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 1
State of
Bicycling in
Fort Collins
AUGUST 2014
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 2
Acknowledgements
Lead Agency:
City of Fort Collins FC Moves
FC Bikes Program
Final Report
August 2014
(revised October 2014)
Consultant Team:
Toole Design Group
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 3
Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1
History ............................................................................................................... 1
Existing Related Plans .......................................................................................... 2
Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan ................................................................... 2
NFR MPO Regional Bicycle Plan ............................................................................. 3
City Plan & Transportation Master Plan ................................................................... 3
2008 Bicycle Plan ............................................................................................. 4
Land Use and Character ........................................................................................ 1
Ridership & Safety ................................................................................................. 3
Ridership .......................................................................................................... 3
Bicycle Counts................................................................................................. 5
Bicycle Rider Typology ....................................................................................... 7
Safety ............................................................................................................. 8
Typical Crash Types .......................................................................................... 8
Sidewalk Riding ............................................................................................. 10
Crash Locations ............................................................................................. 10
Bicycle Network and Infrastructure ........................................................................... 17
Existing Facilities .............................................................................................. 17
Bicycle Network ............................................................................................. 17
Additional Bicycle Infrastructure ........................................................................ 24
Status of 2008 Bicycle Plan Engineering Recommendations ......................................... 29
Bicycle Comfort ................................................................................................ 30
Bicycle Network Stress Assessment Methodology ...................................................... 30
Stress Assessment Results ................................................................................. 31
Stress Island Effect ......................................................................................... 37
Programs and Policies ........................................................................................... 39
Standards and Policies ........................................................................................ 39
Design Standards ............................................................................................ 39
Bicycle Parking Policy ...................................................................................... 41
Bicycling Programs ............................................................................................ 41
Community Bicycle Organizations ....................................................................... 42
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 4
Education .................................................................................................... 42
Encouragement ............................................................................................. 44
Enforcement ................................................................................................. 47
Evaluation and Planning ................................................................................... 48
Investment ........................................................................................................ 49
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) ............................. 49
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) ............................................................ 49
Building on Basics (BOB) ................................................................................... 49
Keep Fort Collins Great (KFCG) .......................................................................... 49
Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) Process ................................................................. 50
Kaiser Permanente Grant ................................................................................. 50
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Funds ............................................................. 50
Multimodal Roadway Improvement Projects ........................................................... 50
Street Oversizing (SOS) Fees .............................................................................. 50
Trails Funding ............................................................................................... 50
Next Steps ......................................................................................................... 51
Appendices ........................................................................................................ 52
Appendix A: Bicycle Safety Education Plan Progress
List of Figures
Figure 1: Corner of Walnut and Pine, 1890 .................................................................... 1
Figure 2: Bike Library Bikes at the Best Western University Inn ........................................... 2
Figure 3: Planned Bikeway Network from 2008 Plan ......................................................... 4
Figure 4: Proposed Trail-Street Connections from 2013 Trails Plan ....................................... 2
Figure 5: Bicycle Commute Mode Share, 2000-2012 .......................................................... 4
Figure 6: Estimated Daily Bicycle Counts ...................................................................... 6
Figure 7: Typical Bicyclist Typology ............................................................................ 7
Figure 8: Bicycle-Automobile Crashes Relative to Bicyclist Counts and Population, 2000-2013 ...... 9
Figure 9: Sidewalk Dismount Zone on College Avenue in Downtown .................................... 11
Figure 10: Northwest Fort Collins Bicycle Crash Locations, 2009-2013 ................................. 13
Figure 11: Northeast Fort Collins Bicycle Crash Locations, 2009-2013 .................................. 14
Figure 12: Southwest Fort Collins Bicycle Crash Locations, 2009-2013 ................................. 15
Figure 13: Southeast Fort Collins Bicycle Crash Locations, 2009-2013 .................................. 16
Figure 14: Existing Bicycle Facilities by Road Type ........................................................ 17
Figure 15: Northern Fort Collins Bicycle Facilities .......................................................... 18
Figure 16: Southern Fort Collins Bicycle Facilities .......................................................... 19
Figure 17: Harmony Road Green Bike Lane .................................................................. 20
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 5
Figure 18: Gutter Seam within Bike Lane on West Laurel Street at Loomis Avenue .................. 21
Figure 19: Gutter on Edge of Bike Lane on Elizabeth Street .............................................. 21
Figure 20: Sharrow on Mountain Avenue ..................................................................... 21
Figure 21: College Avenue Share the Road Sign ............................................................. 21
Figure 22: Bicycle Route Sign .................................................................................. 22
Figure 23: Trails in Fort Collins ................................................................................ 23
Figure 24: Bike Box at Plum Street and Shields Street ..................................................... 24
Figure 25: On-Street Bicycle Corral ........................................................................... 25
Figure 26: Coordination Zones and Progression Priority Implemented from the 2010 Citywide
Traffic Signal Timing Project ................................................................................... 26
Figure 27: Example screen display showing detection zones provided with video detection
equipment ......................................................................................................... 27
Figure 28: The detection confirmation light is located beneath the pedestrian signal head. ....... 27
Figure 29: Citywide Video Detection Locations ............................................................. 28
Figure 30: Graphical representation of LTS scores by bikeway type .................................... 32
Figure 31: Northeast Fort Collins - Existing Bicycle Level of Comfort Map ............................. 33
Figure 32: Northwest Fort Collins - Existing Bicycle Level of Comfort Map ............................ 34
Figure 33: Southeastern Fort Collins – Existing Bicycle Level of Comfort Map ......................... 35
Figure 34: Southwestern Fort Collins – Existing Bicycle Level of Comfort Map ........................ 36
Figure 33: Stress Island Snapshot - Spring Creek Trail ..................................................... 37
Figure 34: Existing Low-Stress (LTS 1) Street and Trail Map .............................................. 38
Figure 35: Wide Neighborhood Street (Stover Street) ..................................................... 39
Figure 36: BAP Neighborhood Open Garage .................................................................. 43
Figure 37: SRTS In Action ....................................................................................... 43
Figure 38: Fort Collins Bike Library ........................................................................... 44
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Recommendations from the 2008 Bicycle Plan...................................... 1
Table 2: Bicyclist Typology Definitions ......................................................................... 7
Table 3: Most Common Bicycle Crash Types, 2009-2013 ..................................................... 9
Table 4: Top 10 Crash Corridors, 2008-2013 ................................................................. 10
Table 5: Top Intersection Crash Locations, 2008-2013 .................................................... 11
Table 6: Percent of Roadway Types with Bike Lanes....................................................... 20
Table 7: Progress on 2008 Plan ................................................................................ 29
Table 8: Level of Traffic Stress Definition ................................................................... 31
Table 9: Fort Collins LTS Results by Roadway Type ........................................................ 31
Table 10: Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards - Facility Widths by Street Type ........... 40
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 6
Introduction
Fort Collins is a shining example of how to “do
it right” in virtually all aspects of cycling.
- League of American Bicyclists
1
Fort Collins is one of the best places in the
country to ride a bicycle. Because of the
exemplary bicycle-related education,
enforcement and encouragement programs,
and the substantial amount of bicycle
infrastructure, it was awarded the Platinum
Bicycle Friendly Community designation by the
League of American of Bicyclists (LAB) in 2013,
joining only three other cities in the United
States.
The 2008 Bicycle Plan (2008 Plan), 2011 Bicycle
Safety Education Plan (BSEP), and 2013 Paved
Recreational Trail Master Plan (2013 Trails
Plan) helped lay the groundwork for the current
bicycling environment. The City is building on
those previous efforts by developing the 2014
Bicycle Master Plan. The 2014 Master Plan
starts from a place of strength, yet seeks to
create an even safer and more inviting
bicycling environment in Fort Collins—where
people of all ages and abilities can safely and
comfortably ride a bicycle.
One of the first steps of the 2014 Bicycle
Master Plan is to establish a baseline
understanding of the current state of bicycling
in Fort Collins, which will directly inform
recommendations for the Plan.
This report includes information, data, and
analysis about the following:
• History of bicycling in Fort Collins
• Ridership and safety
• Existing bicycle infrastructure/facilities
• Bicycle-related programs and policies
• Investments in bicycling
1 League of American Bicyclists, Fort Collins, CO
Bicycle Friendly Community Feedback Report,
2013.
History
Bicycling in Fort Collins has evolved over the
past several decades. The City began to plan
for and build its infrastructure in the 1970s,
when social awareness caused the City to stripe
its first bike lane and to plan for a paved trail
system. The Transportation Master Plan of
1980, along with subsequent updates,
identified bicycle improvements, and in 1995,
the City developed its first comprehensive
bicycle plan. Since then, the City has
consistently worked to improve its bicycling
environment.
Fort Collins’ environmental awareness,
progressive land use and transportation
leadership, and expanding bicycle
infrastructure and supportive programs have
contributed to the steady growth of bicycling in
Since the early 2000s, the City has made great
strides in adding infrastructure and, most
notably, developing bicycle-related programs.
The City first focused on encouragement
programs, such as citywide events, media
outreach, and partnerships with local
businesses. These efforts led to Fort Collins
now having 15 LAB Bicycle Friendly Businesses,
including New Belgium Brewing Company,
which was awarded the program’s highest
designation of Platinum in 2009.
3
The City
invested in education and safety with the
adoption and early implementation of the
Bicycle Safety Education Plan, the creation of
the Bicycle Ambassador Program, and the Safe
Routes to School position within the City’s FC
Moves department.
The City also added infrastructure during the
2000s, including paving many of the trails and
installing on-street bicycle parking, bike lanes,
underpasses, and a bike box at the Shields and
Plum Streets intersection. Another important
element of the City’s bicycle culture, the Fort
Collins Bike Library, was created in 2008 and
remains an important source of community
pride and a catalyst for increasing bicycling.
4
FIGURE 2: BIKE LIBRARY BIKES AT THE BEST
WESTERN UNIVERSITY INN
3 www.bikeleague.org/bfa#business (visited April
2014). The City, one of the largest employers
with 1,500 employees, was awarded Gold in 2011.
4 Kemp, Dave, Personal Interview, April 7 2014.
Partnerships with organizations such as Bike
Fort Collins, the Bicycle Advisory Committee,
the Fort Collins Bicycle Co-Op, Colorado State
University (CSU), ClimateWise, Bicycle and
Pedestrian Education Coalition (BPEC), and
Bicycle Colorado, among others, have been a
major part of the City’s success.
Finally, the City was able to develop a high-
quality bicycle environment because it and its
partners were strategic in obtaining and
leveraging federal grants and local funding such
as Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement (CMAQ) funds. This is discussed in
more detail in the Investment section of this
report.
The City’s deliberate efforts to create a strong
bicycle culture in Fort Collins have been
nationally recognized. In 2003, the LAB
recognized the City as a Silver Bicycle Friendly
Community, and in 2008, as Gold. In 2013, LAB
awarded Fort Collins Platinum-level
designation, joining only three other cities in
the United States.
Existing Related Plans
The state, region, and City have adopted
• Improve the environment, air quality, and
fossil fuel dependence
• Provide transportation equity
• Maximize transportation investments
• Improve statewide and regional economy
The Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
focuses on what CDOT has jurisdiction over and
therefore, does not make specific
recommendations for facilities or programs in
Fort Collins. The Statewide Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan includes several action items
for CDOT including adopting appropriate
multimodal level of service (LOS) targets and
studying statewide bicycle and pedestrian
crashes.
NFR MPO Regional Bicycle Plan
The North Front Range Metropolitan Planning
Organization (NFRMPO), which includes the City
of Fort Collins, completed a bicycle plan in
2013. The NFR MPO Regional Bicycle Plan
identifies several regional bicycle corridors that
comprise a network. Corridors that connect to
or travel through Fort Collins include: Poudre
River Trail, Front Range Trail (West), and BNSF
Fort Collins/Berthoud. The NFR MPO Regional
Bicycle Plan documents the following planned
or future on-street bicycle projects associated
with these corridors:
• Bike lanes along Harmony Road connecting
to Harmony Park and Ride
• Connection along East Prospect Road from
Timnath to Fort Collins
• Local connection from Front Range Trail
(West) to BNSF Corridor (Mason Trail)
The NFR MPO Regional Bicycle Plan also makes
programmatic recommendations that relate to
Fort Collins. These include the placement of
temporary or permanent bicycle counters (at
Taft/Shields between Fort Collins and Loveland
along the Front Range Trail (West) and BNSF
Fort Collins/Berthoud (Mason Trail), and on the
Poudre River crossing of I-25) and the
exploration of bike sharing locations.
City Plan & Transportation Master Plan
City Plan, Fort Collins’ comprehensive plan,
was updated in 2011, concurrent with the last
Transportation Master Plan (TMP) update. City
Plan is built on a community vision with three
themes: innovate, sustain, and connect; these
themes relate to bicycling in various ways. City
Plan, by its nature, provides broad goals to
support and shape specific recommendations
typically contained in other planning
documents.
One of the major goals of City Plan is
community and neighborhood livability. The
goals and principles related to bicycling include
a “complete streets” approach to commercial
districts and the promotion of bicycling along
Enhanced Travel Corridors (ETCs).
City Plan and the TMP include the following
action items that relate to bicycling.
7
Achievements of these actions are noted,
where applicable.
Near-Term Actions:
• Evaluate the existing on-street bicycle
system and update the LOS criteria
• Implement additional pedestrian and
bicycle safety education programs
(Addressed with early implementation of
BSEP)
• Update the Master Street Plan
Classifications and Larimer County Urban
Area Street Standards to address needs for
context-sensitive elements
• Update bicycle/pedestrian trail design
standards to address use of trails for
commuting/transportation purposes
(Addressed with 2013 Trails Plan)
• Evaluate/improve bicycle wayfinding (In
progress)
• Plan for and design a “green street”
demonstration project (Currently being
addressed for the Remington Corridor)
The only longer-term action that specifically
relates to bicycling is to update the bicycle
plan.
The City’s ultimate goal with City Plan is to
create a world-class city. One of the ways to do
that is to maintain Fort Collins’ high-
performing government and its processes such
as the triple bottom line (TBL) sustainability
approach and the budgeting for outcomes
(BFOs) process. The 2015/2016 BFO process
includes an interdisciplinary process to allocate
project funds based on desired goals and
outcomes.
7 City of Fort Collins, City Plan, 2011, Pages 144,
146, and 153.
2008 Bicycle Plan
The 2008 Plan presents a broad set of
recommendations for on-street engineering
improvements, expanding already-strong
bicycling programs, strengthening the
community’s tie to bicycling, and increasing
connections with other modes of travel.
The primary goals of the 2008 Bicycle Plan
were to:
• Create a community wherein choosing
bicycling as transportation is an easy
choice.
• Expand opportunities for the residents and
visitors to Fort Collins to incorporate
bicycling into their daily lives.
The recommendations of the 2008 Plan are
summarized in Table 1. Many of the
recommended actions have since been taken,
resulting in considerable improvement in the
City’s bicycling environment.
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE 2008 BICYCLE PLAN
Engineering
and the
Proposed
Bikeway
Network
Continued implementation of projects identified on Hot List I
Pursue implementation of projects identified on Hot List II
Identify and implement interim solutions
Continued implementation of the Transportation Master Plan and the Master Street Plan
Continue and improve maintenance of Priority Commuter Routes
Improve signal detection loops
Examine innovative bicycle traffic solutions such as bike boxes and bike boulevards
Promoting
Bicycling
through
Education,
Encouragement
Maintain existing education and encouragement programs and solicit more participation
Continue to develop and implement innovative education and encouragement programs,
campaigns, and events
Continue to foster relationships between non-profits, advocacy, and community groups
and build public-private partnerships
Consider the implementation of car-free events
Reinforce yield and safety education programs pertaining to bicyclists and other bike lane
and trail users
Enforcement
Work closely with local enforcement agencies to create innovative, proactive,
educational campaigns
Bridge the gap of understanding between bicyclists and local enforcement agencies by
providing current and consistent information
Coordinate training sessions to ensure knowledge on current local, regional, and national
bicycle policies and ordinances
Establish enforcement techniques for handling special events and protests
Explore the creation of a Share the Road Safety Class
Establish “sting” operations in coordination with local enforcement agencies to address
bicycle theft and traffic-law evasion by bicyclists
Recognizing
Economic,
Environmental
and
Community
Benefits
Continue to support and encourage infrastructure development, bicycle sporting events,
recreational biking, and bicycle facilities
Use the local bicycle culture to attract employers, new residents, business, and visitors
Encourage bicycle-related businesses and manufacturers
Establish measurement methods for environmental benefits
Coordinate with other City initiatives to measure environmental benefits
Pursue the formation of a Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC)
Pursue the Platinum Level designation with the League of American Bicyclists
Establish performance measures for bicycle programs and facilities
Maintain support for existing programs
Foster communication amongst the public, non-profit, and private sectors to implement
the recommendations in the 2008 Bicycle Plan
Multimodal
Connectivity
Expand opportunities for bicycle–transit/bicycle-pedestrian/bicycle-car auto linkage
Incorporate bicycle parking at transit stops and stations
Improve and expand bicycle parking throughout the City
Though BSEP was a separate effort completed
in 2011, it is considered an additional element
of the 2008 Plan. The BSEP recommends
specific programmatic actions to address safety
and educational needs for the following
entities: youth, college students, commuters,
motorists, and law enforcement. It makes
numerous policy, programmatic, and bike
facility recommendations related to education
and safety improvements. The City’s progress
on implementing BSEP is discussed in the
Policies and Programs Section of this report.
Finally, the 2013 Trails Plan made
recommendations for enhancements to the
City’s paved trail system, including connections
between trails and on-street bicycle facilities
(see Figure 4). Although the focus of that plan
was on recreational trails, it recognized that
those trails are used by a large number of
commuters and for many utilitarian bicyclist
trips. Although the focus of the 2014 Bicycle
Master Plan is on-street bicycle facilities, the
new Plan will incorporate and build upon the
recommendations from the 2013 Trails Plan
regarding trails and trail connections.
Land Use and Character
Fort Collins has a relatively dense grid of
streets in Old Town and the surrounding
neighborhoods. Similarly, the land uses,
population, and employment in this central
part of the city are also dense and mixed use.
In the majority of the city, however, the street
network is sometimes curvilinear and not well
connected, and the land uses have been
developed at a suburban scale. The suburban
nature of much of Fort Collins is reflected in
many of the current transportation issues and
policies, impacting how well the bicycle
facilities function.
However, the city’s transportation and land use
landscape is changing. The introduction of
Colorado’s first bus rapid transit (BRT) service,
MAX, in May of 2014 is anticipated to spur
compact development around stations.
Additionally, MAX and the city’s bicycle
network are intended to work together to
encourage multimodal travel throughout Fort
Collins.
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 12
FIGURE 4: PROPOSED TRAIL-STREET CONNECTIONS FROM 2013 TRAILS PLAN
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 13
Ridership & Safety
In a recent community survey, 83 percent of
Fort Collins residents reported that the ease of
traveling by bicycle is good or very good,
making it the mode of travel with which
residents are most satisfied. Only 20 percent of
residents rated the city’s level of traffic
congestion as good or very good. Forty-nine of
the survey’s write-in responses were related to
bicycle travel or infrastructure.
8
City residents
clearly have bicycling on their minds.
Ridership
Bicycling in Fort Collins has increased over the
past ten years. Anecdotally, residents and
visitors see more riders on the streets and
trails, including a variety of types of bicyclists
from daily commuters to families. Government-
collected data back up these observations. As
shown in Figure 5, data collected by the United
States Census Bureau (Census Bureau) shows an
increase in commute mode share over the past
decade. Using the Census Bureau three-year
estimates, the 2012 bicycle commute mode
share was 6.4 percent. The 2012 Census Bureau
one-year estimates report a 7.9 percent bicycle
commute mode share; however, the data has a
margin of error of +/-1.7. Three-year estimates
are used in this report instead of one-year,
because they typically have a smaller margin of
error. Bicycle commute share was higher for
males than females, which is typical of
American cities.
This data only pertains to work trips and does
not capture other types of trips; therefore,
these numbers may underrepresent the amount
of bicycle trips taken in Fort Collins.
8 City of Fort Collins, Citizen Survey Report of
Results, December 2013, Pages 18 and 64-90. The
survey was completed by 535 people.
All bicycle trips, including non-commute trips,
are evaluated as part of the Household Survey
conducted decennially by the North Front
Range Metropolitan Planning Organization
(NFRMPO). The 2009 survey indicates that 6.7
percent of all trips in Fort Collins were taken
by bicycle, up from 4.4 percent in the 2000.
The average length of these trips was 18
minutes, or about four miles at the speed of a
typical rider. The same survey found that 13.3
percent of commute trips in Fort Collins were
taken by bicycle, which is a much higher rate
than reported in the Census Bureau data.
9
According to the 2009 NFRMPO survey,
households in Fort Collins have higher-than-
average bicycle ownership compared with the
rest of the region, with an average of 2.18
bicycles per household. The average household
based on the availability of resources. Since
2007, these surveys have shown that an
estimated 9 percent of elementary and middle
school students bicycle to school.
FIGURE 5: BICYCLE COMMUTE MODE SHARE, 2000-2012
Note: Data for 2000 is from the Decennial Census, and a breakdown by gender was not available. All other data points
are from the American Community Survey: from 2005-2006 are one-year estimates, and from 2007-2012 are three-year
estimates. All estimates have a margin of error; the 2009 estimate’s is +/- 1.8.
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 15
Bicycle Counts
Fort Collins’ bicycle count data comes from two
sources: the Traffic Department and FC Moves.
The Traffic Department collects bicycle counts
as part of their Intersection Turning Movement
Report program. These counts are done
regularly for all 180 of the city’s signalized
intersections. As part of these counts, the
department notes bicyclists riding on the
sidewalk and whether they traveling with or
against traffic flow as they enter intersection
crosswalks. The department does not currently
count bicyclists riding against traffic flow
within the street, but may begin to do so in the
future.
A review of this data from July 2010 and
November 2013 finds 74.1 percent of bicyclists
were riding in the road compared with 25.9
percent riding on sidewalks.
11
Of the 25.9
percent riding on sidewalks, 59 percent are
riding in the same direction as traffic with 41
percent riding in the opposite direction as
traffic. Due to the overrepresentation of
sidewalk riding in crashes, it is a focus area of
this plan, as discussed in the Safety section of
this report. Sidewalk riding indicates a lack of
comfort with the on-road accommodation or
intersection treatment or a need for education
outreach to modify the behavior.
The City started collecting trail counts in 2012.
FC Moves began conducting manual bicycle
counts in 2013, following the methods of the
National Pedestrian and Bicycle Documentation
Project (NPBDP). These counts are organized by
FC Moves and conducted by trained volunteers.
The count locations were distributed at
intersections throughout the city, specifically
at sites of upcoming projects and important
bicycle corridors. The first counts were
11 A number of intersections with high
percentages of sidewalk riding were located on
the sections of College Avenue where bicycles are
prohibited from riding in the roadway, which may
skew the percentages.
conducted on Saturday, September 21 and
Tuesday, September 24, 2013 at 10 locations
throughout the city.
12
The September counts identified a 65 percent
male to 35 percent female ratio, with 40
percent of riders observed wearing helmets.
13
In the United States, it is typical to see a ratio
of 2 or 3 male per female bicyclists—and Fort
Collins is no exception—while in the
Netherlands the ratio is close to 1 to 1.
14
A
FIGURE 6: ESTIMATED DAILY BICYCLE COUNTS
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 17
Bicycle Rider Typology
Generally, bicycle planning professionals
accept that there is a large percentage of the
American population that is interested in
cycling for transportation purposes but do not
currently cycle for a variety of reasons. People
typically have positive memories of bicycling in
their youth and associate bicycling with
expanded personal freedom and adventure.
But as they have grown older, most have come
to consider bicycling to be a recreational
activity that is safest on trails, or to perceive
riding on the streets as unsafe and
unappealing.
A number of research studies have shown that a
bicyclist’s perception of their personal safety
riding on a roadway is greatly influenced by
their proximity to and interaction with
motorized traffic. At low volumes and speeds
of traffic, many people feel safe and
comfortable sharing the roadway with traffic.
As traffic speed and volumes increase, a
bicyclist’s perceived safety degrades
significantly, resulting in a feeling of increased
stress and discomfort on the roadway.
A seminal 2012 survey in Portland, Oregon
questioned residents about their level of
comfort riding on various street types with and
without bicycle facilities.
15
Respondents were
sorted into four categories, shown in Figure 7
and Table 2, based upon their stated comfort
level riding on various street types and on their
safety concerns. The study found that nearly 60
percent of the population is interested in
bicycling, but concerned for their safety.
The 2014 Bicycle Master Plan is considering the
needs, skills, and desires of a range of
bicyclists, with an emphasis on people who fall
into the Interested but Concerned – those who
15 Dill, Jennifer and McNeil, Nathan, “Four Types
of Cyclists? Examining a Typology to Better
Understand Bicycling Behavior and Potential”
(Transportation Research Board, January 2013).
are concerned about safety and have a low
tolerance for stressful street conditions.
FIGURE 7: TYPICAL BICYCLIST TYPOLOGY
TABLE 2: BICYCLIST TYPOLOGY DEFINITIONS
Bicyclist Definition
No Way, No
How
Not interested in riding for
transportation.
Interested
but
Concerned
Little tolerance for traffic stress
with major concerns for safety.
Prefer separation from traffic on
Safety
Safety is a priority of the City and a focus of
the 2014 Bicycle Master Plan. Figure 8 shows
the bicycle-automobile crash trends for a 13-
year period —overlaid with the rates per
bicyclist and rates per 10,000 people—, using
data obtained from the Traffic Operations
Department.
To gain a detailed understanding of the current
safety environment with respect to bicycling,
crash data for the past five years were
analyzed. The data discussed in this section are
from police-reported crashes from 2009 to
2013. These reports are generated from two
sources: officer reports at the site of the crash
and reports filed by citizens after crashes occur
(counter reports). Police reports are entered
into a database by Traffic Operations staff and
reviewed at the time of entry for accuracy and
consistency. For example, a staff member may
amend the data if s/he reads the crash
narrative and concludes that the incorrect code
was used to catalog a harmful event sequence.
The overall number of bicycle-related crashes
per year in Fort Collins has risen 13 percent
over the past five years, compared to an
approximately 11 percent increase in
population over the same time. There were 178
reported bicycle crashes in 2013 compared to
151 in 2009. The number of bicyclists has also
been increasing; depending on the location, it
is likely that the overall crash rate is
decreasing. Rates are difficult to assess since
each corridor and intersection is a unique case,
and consistent count data is not available for
every location.
The bicyclists involved in crashes are not
evenly distributed throughout the population.
They are more likely to be male (69.9 percent)
and between the ages of 20 and 24 (30.3
percent).
16
This suggests that a significant
portion of the crashes may involve CSU
students.
While crash data provides critical insight into
bicycle safety, it is also important to note that
many crashes go unreported and that many
near-misses do not result in a crash. These
circumstances also represent an important
safety issue.
Crash data is also compiled by local hospitals
when a bicyclist receives treatment for
injuries. These incidents may be solo crashes or
they may involve additional parties such as an
automobile. Counting bicycle crashes at the
hospital level results in a higher total number
than police reported crashes, in some years as
much as three times as many. This data set is
not currently coordinated with Fort Collins
FIGURE 8: BICYCLE-AUTOMOBILE CRASHES RELATIVE TO BICYCLIST COUNTS AND POPULATION, 2000-2013
Source: TDG, with data obtained from the City of Fort Collins Traffic Department. Bicyclist count data is from the
Census Bureau commute mode share estimates.
TABLE 3: MOST COMMON BICYCLE CRASH TYPES, 2009-2013
Crash Type Car Movement – Bicycle Location
Percent of
Total Crashes
1
Bicyclist riding against traffic on sidewalk/right-turning automobile
arriving at right angle
15.0%
2
Bicyclist riding in street with traffic/left-turning automobile
arriving in opposite direction (Left hook)
10.0%
3
Bicyclist riding in street with traffic/right-turning automobile
arriving in same direction (Right hook)
9.0%
4
Bicyclist riding against traffic in street/right turning automobile
arriving at right angle
6.4%
Total 40.4%
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 20
Nearly all (98%) of these most prevalent crash
types occurred at intersections or driveways.
Overall, 87.5% of crashes occurred at
intersections or driveways.
The first most common type of crash (Type 1)
involved a bicyclist riding against traffic on the
sidewalk, and being struck by a right-turning
vehicle while in the crosswalk. In the second
most common type of crash (Type 2), a
bicyclist riding with traffic in the roadway was
struck by an oncoming left-turning vehicle.
Type 3 crashes occurred when a bicyclist rode
with traffic in the roadway, and a vehicle
traveling in the same direction turned right
into the bicyclist’s path of travel. Type 4
crashes were similar to Type 1 except that the
bicyclist was riding in the roadway against
traffic rather than on the sidewalk.
For the entire set of crashes, bicyclists made
errors in 49 percent of crashes and motorists in
68 percent.
18
These numbers total to more than
100 percent because a bicyclist and driver can
both be at fault in a crash.
Sidewalk Riding
Bicyclists commonly ride on the sidewalk
throughout Fort Collins. Sidewalk riding is
prohibited in downtown and within the CSU
campus, but it is legal throughout the rest of
the city. Approximately 32 percent of all
crashes involve sidewalk riding. Of the
sidewalk-riding crashes:
• 2/3 involved a bicyclist riding against
traffic relative to the to the direction of
the turning motorist
• 2/3 included right-turning motor vehicles
o 80 percent of those involved a
vehicle failing to yield the right of
way
o 50 percent involved a bicyclist
failing to yield the right of way
18 These figures reflect the total number of
crashes for which an action was listed on the
police report which is less than the total number
of crashes in both cases.
A review of traffic count data indicates against-
traffic riding occurs more often on the sidewalk
than on the roadway in Fort Collins. Based on
the crash data, the majority of crashes that
involved a bicyclist riding against traffic were
bicyclists riding on the sidewalk.
Reducing bicyclist riding against traffic on the
sidewalk, and on the sidewalk in general, will
be an emphasis of the 2014 Bicycle Master
Plan.
Crash Locations
Bicycle crashes are more common in locations
with more bicycling (e.g., in downtown and
near the CSU campus perimeter), as shown in
against traffic. Nearly half of the crashes that
occurred on Shields Street involved bicyclists
riding on the sidewalk, with 40 percent of
crashes including a bicyclist who was riding the
wrong way on the sidewalk.
Table 5 shows the intersections with 10 or more
crashes during this period. All of the
intersections include bike lanes on either one
or both streets.
TABLE 5: TOP INTERSECTION CRASH LOCATIONS,
2008-2013
Intersection
Total
Crashes
W Elizabeth Street + City Park
Avenue 21
W Elizabeth Street + S Shields Street 14
Drake Road + College Avenue 11
W Prospect Road + S Shields Street 11
Drake Road + S Shields Street 10
Laurel Street + College Avenue 10
FIGURE 9: SIDEWALK DISMOUNT ZONE ON COLLEGE AVENUE IN DOWNTOWN
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 22
Considerations for the Bicycle Plan
To evaluate the impact of infrastructure and
programmatic initiatives to improve bicycling,
the collection of consistent and accurate
bicycle counts and crashes is essential. A
systematic bicycle counting methodology will
allow the City to develop correction factors to
mitigate shortcomings inherent in national or
regional data sources. Year-to-year changes in
counts can also help the City evaluate ridership
and safety impacts at specific locations where
new infrastructure has been built. By
continuing the detailed manual count program,
the City will also be able to track gender and
helmet use over time, which can help gauge
the impact of outreach activities. Finally,
counts will enable Fort Collins to assess its
progress toward the Plan goal of increasing the
amount of bicycling for all trip purposes.
The City should also consider conducting
regular travel behavior surveys as a way to
track behavior over time for all modes.
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 23
FIGURE 10: NORTHWEST FORT COLLINS BICYCLE CRASH LOCATIONS, 2009-2013
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 24
FIGURE 11: NORTHEAST FORT COLLINS BICYCLE CRASH LOCATIONS, 2009-2013
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 25
FIGURE 12: SOUTHWEST FORT COLLINS BICYCLE CRASH LOCATIONS, 2009-2013
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 26
FIGURE 13: SOUTHEAST FORT COLLINS BICYCLE CRASH LOCATIONS, 2009-2013
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 27
Bicycle Network and
Infrastructure
This section describes bicycle facilities in Fort
Collins, including the type, location, and
mileage, as well as prior engineering efforts,
and recent accomplishments. This section
concludes with a discussion of how the
facilities perform with respect to the level of
stress experienced by bicyclists.
Existing Facilities
Bicycle Network
The existing bicycle network consists of on-
street facilities (e.g., bike lanes, shared lane
markings, and signed routes), as well as off-
street trails, creating an approximately 280
mile network. Figure 14 illustrates the types of
facilities by street type, and Figures 15 and 16
show the existing Fort Collins bicycle network.
FIGURE 14: EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES BY ROAD TYPE
Note: Facilities measured include all of those within the Growth Management Area, and are measured by centerline-
miles.
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 28
FIGURE 15: NORTHERN FORT COLLINS BICYCLE FACILITIES
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 29
FIGURE 16: SOUTHERN FORT COLLINS BICYCLE FACILITIES
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 30
Roadway Bicycle Treatments
Bike Lanes
Bicycle lanes have been a part of the Fort
Collins roadway system since 1977. Since then,
the City has continuously retrofitted collector
and arterial streets with bike lanes as
opportunities arose. As a result, the existing
bike lane network covers approximately 166
miles
20
of streets within the city’s Growth
Management Area (GMA).
TABLE 6: PERCENT OF ROADWAY TYPES WITH BIKE
LANES
Roadway
Type
Bike Lane
Mileage
Percent with Bike
Lanes
Arterial21 95.3 58.5%
Collector 54.3 62.0%
Local 16.2 3.0%
As a result of the iterative
nature of roadway
improvements and evolving
design guidance, there are
multiple configurations of
bike lanes throughout the city. These lanes are
typically striped with one four-inch lane line
separating bicycle traffic from motorized
traffic. Bike lane symbols vary; treatments
include a bicycle symbol, bike with rider
symbol, a directional arrow, a diamond, or a
combination of the above spaced every 400 to
500 feet. Some lanes are supplemented with a
bike lane sign (MUTCD R3-17). Where parking is
allowed, a second four-inch parking lane line
20 Since, with rare exception, all streets in Fort
Collins are two-way, the 2014 Bicycle Master Plan
will tally the centerline miles of streets. Using
this method, the 2008 baseline is most likely
closer to 140 miles of bike lanes.
21 Though many of the city’s arterials have bike
lanes, streets such as College Avenue, Mulberry
Street, Riverside Avenue, and parts of Taft Hill
Road and Prospect Road do not.
typically is present, although this is not
consistent throughout the city.
In May 2014, a green bicycle lane was painted
on Harmony Road as a first step in the Harmony
Road Enhanced Travel Corridor Master Plan.
This is the only green bicycle lane in the city.
FIGURE 17: HARMONY ROAD GREEN BIKE LANE
The most typical bike lane configurations are:
• Bike lane with no parking: This is the most
common configuration in Fort Collins. Bike
lane widths range from four to eight feet.
Eight feet is the current standard width.
• Bike lane with parking: These lanes
FIGURE 18: GUTTER SEAM WITHIN BIKE LANE ON
WEST LAUREL STREET AT LOOMIS AVENUE
On W Elizabeth Street and on Taft Hill Road,
the City has implemented a solution to this
issue: the gutter pan is six feet wide and covers
the entire bike lane, leaving the seam at the
left edge of the lane, where a bicyclist is less
likely to be riding.
FIGURE 19: GUTTER ON EDGE OF BIKE LANE ON
ELIZABETH STREET
Shared Lane Markings, or “Sharrows”
Fort Collins has begun to pilot shared lane
markings (sharrows). These markings let
bicyclists know where to position themselves,
and let motorists know to share the road with
bicyclists. Sharrows currently exist only on
Mountain Avenue, East Elizabeth Street, and
Mason Street.
FIGURE 20: SHARROW ON MOUNTAIN AVENUE
Share the Road Signage
Signs indicating that drivers should “Share the
Road” exist in a number of places throughout
the city. On College Avenue in downtown,
these signs advise motorists that bicyclists
should be expected on the roadway.
FIGURE 21: COLLEGE AVENUE SHARE THE ROAD
SIGN
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 32
Bicycle Routes
There are a number of designated bicycle
routes throughout Fort Collins. In some cases,
these routes are marked with signs, and in
other cases, bicyclists only know of their
presence from the City Bike Map. These streets
have been designated as bicycle-friendly
streets, and many run parallel to higher-volume
streets.
FIGURE 22: BICYCLE ROUTE SIGN
Trails
The approximately 50 miles of paved trails in
Fort Collins are a backbone to the bicycle
network, as shown in Figure 23. The city’s
paved trails are primarily managed by the Park
Planning Department, which has overseen their
development since 1980. An updated master
plan for paved trail development was adopted
in 2013 that included projects for trail and
underpass construction. One action item of the
2013 Trails Plan was to construct connections
between trails and streets at no greater than
one-half-mile intervals to improve their
transportation use. The trails are a critical
component of the total bicycle system as they
close street network gaps and provide
alternatives to arterials that do not have
bicycle accommodations.
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 33
FIGURE 23: TRAILS IN FORT COLLINS
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 34
Intersection Bicycle Treatments
Bike Lanes
On streets with bike lanes, there are many
intersection configurations bicyclists
encounter, providing varying levels of bicyclist
accommodation and comfort. The types are
described below.
• Bike lane drop: The bike lane ends prior to
the intersection to accommodate an added
right or left turn lane.
• Bike lane shift: The bike lane shifts from
the rightmost edge of the roadway to the
left of a right-turn lane.
• Bike lane continues: The bike lane
continues through the intersection, but a
right-turn lane is added, through roadway
widening or by dropping a parking lane, to
the right of the bike lane.
In most locations, a dashed
section of striping indicates
where vehicles are intended
to cross the bike lane. In
some cases, a “Begin Right
Turn Lane Yield to Bikes” (MUTCD R4-4, as
shown on the left) sign is located at the
beginning of the right-turn lane.
Roundabouts
There are a number of roundabout
intersections in Fort Collins. Roundabouts are
installed to replace traffic signals and/or stop
signs. They are designed to slow vehicle
speeds, improve safety, and reduce delay to
traffic (including bicycles). Roundabouts at two
intersecting neighborhood streets, such as
Custer Drive and Rigden Parkway, are designed
so that bicycles stay within the travel lanes as
they navigate the roundabout. Roundabouts at
the intersection of two arterial streets are
designed to give bicyclists the option of
traveling on the roadway or diverting to the
sidewalk via curb cuts aligned with the
approaching bike lanes. This option is indicated
with “Alternate Bicycle Route” or “Merge or
Use Path” signs.
Bike Box
A bike box provides riders a head start through
the intersection by allowing them to place
themselves in front of stopped traffic and begin
moving before the vehicles behind them. Fort
Collins is piloting its first bicycle box on the
eastbound approach of Plum Street at Shields
Street.
FIGURE 24: BIKE BOX AT PLUM STREET AND
SHIELDS STREET
Additional Bicycle Infrastructure
Bicycle Parking
Public parking for bicycles is mostly located in
downtown, though there are also public racks
located at schools, bus stops, and commercial
sites throughout the city. Racks are installed by
present at other City facilities such as libraries
and at private properties.
In 2009, the City partnered with New Belgium
Brewery to install six on-street bicycle parking
corrals in Old Town. These corrals fit at least
12 spaces for bicycles within one car parking
space. The City is currently evaluating
potential locations for additional on-street
corrals.
FIGURE 25: ON-STREET BICYCLE CORRAL
Speed Detection
There are a number of locations throughout
Fort Collins with automatic automobile speed
detection with driver feedback signs. These
displays show the posted speed limit and actual
vehicle speed, and are a traffic-calming
measure. Low vehicle speeds increase comfort
and reduce stress for bicyclists who are
adjacent to or sharing the same roadway space.
The average speed on neighborhood streets is
approximately 26 miles per hour (mph), which
is very close to the speed limit of 25 mph.
22
Speeds on other types of streets, where the
majority of bike lanes and bicycle facilities are
present, is unknown.
22 City of Fort Collins, 2011 Community Scorecard,
Page 4.
Signal Timing and Bicycle Detection
Post-World War II suburban development in
Fort Collins favored a grid of arterials designed
to carry high traffic volumes at relatively high
speeds. The street network was supplemented
by a mixture of curvilinear and sometimes
disconnected collector and local streets,
designed to serve lower traffic volumes and
speeds in residential areas. Because suburban
communities are designed around the
automobile, residents do not expect traffic
congestion. The 2013 Fort Collins Citizen
Survey illustrates this expectation but in a
mixed manner: while only 14 percent of
residents think that the ease of driving is bad
or very bad, 34 percent stated that traffic
congestion was bad or very bad.
23
The City has
proactively worked to address traffic
congestion issues, having evaluated and
updated citywide signal timing in 2010.
The City is working hard to balance the need to
move high volumes of traffic with creating a
connected and comfortable bicycle network.
There are inherent challenges in reaching this
balance, as prioritizing traffic flow along major
corridors to reduce delay results in more delay
for those trying to cross the corridors—
motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and buses.
Additionally, arterials with high traffic volumes
and speeds are uncomfortable and stressful
This section of the report discusses current
efforts related to cycle lengths, minimum
green times, and detection.
Cycle Lengths
The signal timing in the city, particularly the
cycle lengths (i.e., the total time for the traffic
light to be green for all approaches), is largely
driven by the need to maintain progression
(i.e., ‘green wave’ or continuous flow) for
motorists along major arterials. Traffic volumes
are higher along major north-south arterials
such as College Avenue and Shields Street, and
progression is generally favored for those
roadways. At most intersections, cycle lengths
during the AM, midday, and PM peak hours are
relatively long (e.g., 110 seconds in the AM and
120 seconds in the midday and PM). While
these cycle lengths are needed to process
traffic during peak commuting hours where two
major roadways cross, they result in relatively
long wait times at other intersections at times
with lower traffic volumes. On the other hand,
numerous intersections near CSU and
downtown, including intersections along and
north of Laurel Street, have shorter cycle
lengths between 70 and 80 seconds.
Longer cycle lengths can increase delay for
crossing traffic and can also result in unused
green time, which can be problematic for
bicyclists for two reasons. First, a bicyclist who
arrives at an intersection may become
inpatient as wait time increases, resulting in an
increased likelihood of risk-taking behavior.
Second, this same bicyclist may believe that
the signal has not detected them because the
signal remains green for the street they are
trying to cross, even though they observe no
conflicting traffic on the roadway. This
frequently leads to risk-taking behavior such as
red-light running. This is partially mitigated
during evening periods when the cycle length is
reduced to 85 seconds. The City is currently
exploring opportunities for reduced or
alternate cycle lengths to further reduce delay
while still maintaining necessary peak period
progression.
Minimum Green Times
Because bicyclists travel at lower speeds and
are slower to accelerate compared to
automobiles, they often require longer
minimum green times. The City is currently
updating all controllers at signalized
intersections to allow bicycle-specific timing
when a bicyclist is detected. This includes
providing a bicycle minimum green and bicycle
extension time, which allows bicyclists to
safely cross the roadway and allows more
bicyclists to cross during a signal phase. To
date, approximately 80 percent of the signals
are completed.
Bicycle Detection
Loop detectors are being phased out in favor of
video detection. Video detection locations are
unmarked except at the intersection of Shields
Street and Elizabeth Street. Figure 29 shows
the locations of video detection throughout the
city, and shows that a substantial number of
signalized intersections have this technology.
Approximately half of the video detection
locations have detection in all four cardinal
directions; the remainder cover one to three
approaches.
When the video detection senses a bicyclist, a
message is relayed to the traffic signal to
extend the length of the green indication, in
some cases to allow a slower-moving bicyclist
to clear the intersection before the signal
change. In other cases, the detection merely
indicates that the light should change. Cameras
are quite accurate in detecting bicyclists, but
they are sometimes compromised in low-angle
sun conditions where shadows are long, and
they do not always detect in low light
situations.
The City is working with their detection vendor
to explore technologies than can overcome
these challenges and also differentiate
between a motorist and a bicyclist in a shared-
lane situation.
The City is also investigating the use of infrared
detection as an alternative or supplement to
the camera detection system.
An additional challenge in detection for
bicyclists is communicating that the detection
has been activated. In response to concerns
from bicyclists that they are not getting
detected, the City has piloted a detection
confirmation light at the intersection of Lemay
and Stuart that is illuminated once a bicyclist is
sensed by the detector.
FIGURE 27: EXAMPLE SCREEN DISPLAY SHOWING
DETECTION ZONES PROVIDED WITH VIDEO DETECTION
EQUIPMENT
The bicycle lane is at the far left of the photo. The
green highlights successful detection.
FIGURE 28: THE DETECTION CONFIRMATION LIGHT
IS LOCATED BENEATH THE PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL
HEAD.
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 38
FIGURE 29: CITYWIDE VIDEO DETECTION LOCATIONS
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 39
Status of 2008 Bicycle Plan Engineering
Recommendations
The 2008 Plan recommended many key
engineering projects, shown in Table 7. The
City has made significant progress on the 2008
Plan, and continues to work on some of the
projects. The 2014 Bicycle Master Plan will
provide updated recommendations along with
an implementation framework, including
prioritization strategies.
TABLE 7: PROGRESS ON 2008 PLAN
Recommendation
2014
Status
Implement Hot List I projects
Not
complete
Implement Hot List II projects
Partially
complete
Provide interim routes for key
corridor gaps
Not
complete
Continue implementation of
Transportation and Street Master
Plans
Ongoing
Maintain priority commuter routes Ongoing
Improve signal detection loops Underway
Examine bike boulevards and bike
boxes
Underway
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 40
Bicycle Comfort
As stated in the Ridership & Safety section of
this report, the 2014 Bicycle Master Plan will
address the needs, skills, and desires of a range
of bicyclists, with a special focus on the
Interested but Concerned population—those
who would like to ride a bicycle more but who
have concerns about their personal safety. A
bicyclist’s perception of their personal safety
riding on a roadway is greatly influenced by
their proximity to and interaction with
motorized traffic. At low volumes and speeds
of traffic, many people feel safe and
comfortable sharing the roadway with traffic.
As traffic speed and volumes increase, their
perception of safety degrades significantly,
resulting in a feeling of increased stress and
discomfort on the roadway.
Bicycle Network Stress Assessment
Methodology
The Mineta Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)
methodology
24
(hereinafter referred to as “LTS
assessment”) was chosen as a planning tool to
analyze existing and potential future conditions
because it measures bicyclist stress with
factors such as intersection crossings, traffic
speeds, traffic volumes, and separation from
vehicle lanes. The methodology is described in
more detail in a separate memorandum, an
Appendix to the 2014 Bicycle Plan.
The low-stress bicycling concept is premised on
the experience of the Dutch, who have focused
on building a connected bicycle network that
minimizes bicyclist interaction with motorized
traffic.
24 Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity.
Mekuria, Furth, and Nixon. Report 11-19. May
2012. Mineta Transportation Institute. San Jose
State University, San Jose, California.
Their approach targets mainstream adult
bicyclists as a design user (the equivalent of
the Interested but Concerned population) by
providing the following types of facilities:
• Shared lanes on low-volume, low-speed,
local streets (sometimes requiring traffic
calming)
• Bike lanes on moderate-volume and
moderate-speed streets
• Protected bike lanes (also known as cycle
tracks) on high-volume or high-speed
streets
• Comfortable intersection crossings which
minimize bicyclist stress and clarify right-
of-way
This low-stress approach results in
approximately 80 percent of the Dutch
population riding at least once per week and
normal bicycle commute mode shares ranging
The stress assessment requires collection of the
following data:
• Posted traffic speed
• Number and widths of travel lanes
• Location and widths of bike and parking
lanes
25
• Length of right-turn lanes
• Right-turn lane configuration at
intersections
• Locations of controlled and uncontrolled
crossings
• Location and width of medians
The LTS score is used in this report is classified
into five levels of traffic stress, shown in Table
8, with “LTS 1” being the least stressful and
“LTS 5” being the highest stress situation for a
bicyclist.
26
TABLE 8: LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS DEFINITION
Level of Traffic
Stress
U.S. Bicyclist Typology
LTS 1 (Low Stress) Suitable for children
LTS 2 (Low Stress) Interested but Concerned
adults
LTS 3 Enthused and Confident
adults
LTS 4 (High Stress) Strong and Fearless adults
LTS 5 (High Stress) Strong and Fearless adults
25 For this analysis, roads with hard shoulders
were assessed in the same manner as those with
bike lanes.
26 The method used here is an amendment of that
in the Mineta Institute’s study. In response to
feedback from the 2014 Bicycle Plan Technical
Advisory Committee, a factor was added to more
accurately reflect the experience of bicyclists on
arterial roadways. This factor decreased the
stress level of arterials by 1 with bike lanes 7 feet
or wider, and increased the stress level by 1 of
arterials with bike lanes less than 4 feet.
Most of the data inputs required for the LTS
assessment were available in the City’s existing
GIS database. Key missing features such as lane
widths and presence of right turn lanes were
gathered through a desktop review of Google
Earth satellite imagery, dated 2012. Additional
data on facilities implemented after 2012 was
gathered through field visits and conversations
with City staff and subsequently incorporated
into the analysis.
Stress Assessment Results
The existing low-stress network (LTS 1 or 2) in
Fort Collins currently consists primarily of
paved trails and low-volume local streets which
have signal-controlled crossings of arterial
streets. Despite the fact approximately 50
percent of Fort Collins arterial and collector
streets have bicycle lanes on them, almost all
FIGURE 30: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF LTS SCORES BY BIKEWAY TYPE
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 43
FIGURE 31: NORTHEAST FORT COLLINS - EXISTING BICYCLE LEVEL OF COMFORT MAP
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 44
FIGURE 32: NORTHWEST FORT COLLINS - EXISTING BICYCLE LEVEL OF COMFORT MAP
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 45
Figure 33: Southeastern Fort Collins – Existing Bicycle Level of Comfort Map
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 46
Figure 34: Southwestern Fort Collins – Existing Bicycle Level of Comfort Map
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 47
Stress Island Effect
By displaying only the existing network of
LTS 1 streets and greenways, it is possible to
visualize the low-stress islands throughout
the city that the 2014 Bicycle Master Plan
will seek to connect. For a network to be
attractive to the Interested but Concerned
(LTS 1 or 2) population, it must provide a
seamless level of stress not only along the
proposed route, but also at each street
crossing. Figure 33 shows the importance of
the trail system to connect various
neighborhoods throughout Fort Collins and
the importance of the local street system. It
also highlights the fragmented nature of the
local street grid and the cul-de-sac style
development pattern which is predominant
outside of downtown Fort Collins. A lack of
continuity in the street grid funnels more
traffic – automobile and bicycle – onto those
few streets that provide cross-city
connections.
FIGURE 35: STRESS ISLAND SNAPSHOT - SPRING
CREEK TRAIL
Most LTS 1 or 2 facilities do not connect.
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 48
FIGURE 36: EXISTING LOW-STRESS (LTS 1) STREET AND TRAIL MAP
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 49
Programs and Policies
Standards and Policies
Design Standards
The primary design standard for the City is
the Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards (Standards). There are three parts
of the Standards that pertain to bicycle
facilities: bike lane width, travel lane width,
and parking width. The required widths for
each are shown in Table 10.
The Standards provide adequate or generous
space for bike lanes in all scenarios, and
specify wider bike lanes than the AASHTO
Guide for the Development of Bicycle
Facilities minimum recommendation.
27
Much of the street infrastructure in Fort
Collins was developed before these Standards
existed. If a new local neighborhood street
were to be constructed using the Standards,
it would be built to be 30’ wide. Many
roadways in the older part of the city are 58’
to 60’ wide, including local and collector
neighborhood streets. This dimension is much
larger than most other American or European
cities. While wide streets allow space for
generous bicycle, parking, pedestrian, and
streetscape elements, if not managed well,
they can encourage high vehicular travel
speeds.
28
In areas of the city that were developed
more recently, many residential roadways
are approximately 40’ wide.
27 AASHTO, Guide for Development of Bicycle
Facilities, 2012.
28 Along with transportation impacts, wide
paved streets include impervious surfaces and
corresponding stormwater runoff.
FIGURE 37: WIDE NEIGHBORHOOD STREET
(STOVER STREET)
Many Fort Collins streets include front-in
angled parking. Front-in angled parking is
convenient for drivers and is a good way to
maximize the capacity of parking on streets.
However, it can create safety problems due
to poor visibility for drivers. In this
configuration, when a driver begins to pull
out of a parking space, it is difficult to see
behind the car—including whether bicyclists,
pedestrians, or other vehicles are present—
until a driver has already pulled out. To
improve safety, many cities have
implemented back-in angled parking. For
example, Boulder, Colorado, is currently
piloting the treatment in one of its
multimodal corridors and has used education
and enforcement techniques to encourage
compliance with the new design.
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 50
TABLE 10: LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS - FACILITY WIDTHS BY STREET TYPE
6-Lane
Arterial
4-Lane
Arterial
2-Lane
Arterial
Major
Collector
(without
parking)
Minor
Collector
(with parking)
Commercial
Local
Connector
Local
Travel
Lane
Width
12’ 12’ 12’ 12’* 11’
11’ or 12’
w/ left
10’
Bike
Lane
Width
8' 8' 8' 8'
6' w/parking
8' w/LT turn
6' or 7' ** 0' or 6' ***
Parking
Lane
Width
None None None None 8’ or None****
8’ or
None****
8’ or
None****
Source: Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, 2007
* To provide left-turn lanes at intersections, 10’ additional roadway width is required to provide an 11’
wide left turn lane with 6’ bike lane and 11’ travel lanes.
** A 7’ wide bike lane is provided when parking is removed for a left turn lane.
*** If bike lanes are required, additional street width will be required to provide 6' wide bike lanes.
**** To provide left turn lanes at intersections, parking shall be removed.
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 51
Bicycle Parking Policy
Fort Collins has bicycle parking requirements
for all new building developments. The City
of Fort Collins Land Use Code, Article 3.2,
Section C specifies bicycle parking space
requirements based on land use and indicates
the percent of parking that should be
enclosed (e.g., indoors or bicycle lockers) as
well as the percent that can be provided by
fixed bicycle racks. For example, developers
of multifamily housing are to provide one
bicycle parking space per bedroom, with 60
percent of the total enclosed and 40 percent
via bicycle rack. For most land uses, a
minimum of four bicycle parking spaces is
required.
There is no guidance provided in the code
regarding the physical location of the bicycle
parking on the property, for example
recommending a location with adequate
lighting and convenient to the building
entrance. While there is no regulation
governing the design of the bicycle racks
provided, the City of Fort Collins’ website
recommends following the Association of
Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP)
Bicycle Parking Guidelines, 2
nd
Edition.
29
29 Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle
Professionals, Bicycle Parking Guidelines, 2nd
Edition.
Bicycling Programs
Fort Collins has become an exemplary
bicycle-friendly community owing in large
part to the programs and policies that have
helped build a strong bicycle culture. These
non-engineering elements of a bicycle-
friendly community are typically broken
down into four “E’s”: encouragement,
education, enforcement, and evaluation.
Engineering, discussed in the Bicycle Network
and Infrastructure section of this report, is
the fifth “E” typically included in bicycle
planning.
The LAB defines non-engineering E’s as
follows:
• Encouragement: Creates a strong bike
culture that welcomes and celebrates
bicycling.
• Education: Gives people of all ages and
ability levels the skills and confidence to
ride.
• Enforcement: Ensures safe roads for all
users.
• Evaluation and Planning: Plans for
bicycling as a safe and viable
transportation option.
30
Community Bicycle Organizations
Fort Collins Bicycle Co-op
The Co-op began in 2003 with the goal of
enabling more Fort Collins residents to ride a
bicycle. They operate a volunteer-run
community bike shop that accepts donated
bicycles and parts and gives refurbished
bicycles to lower-income residents. The Co-
op also runs maintenance classes, an earn-a-
bike program, mountain biking trips for
underserved youth, and a number of other
initiatives.
Bike Fort Collins
Bike Fort Collins is a member-based nonprofit
organization begun in 2005 to encourage safe
and enjoyable cycling. They operate the Bike
Library, conduct adult education classes, run
marketing campaigns, coordinate
encouragement events, and advocate for
bicycle projects in Fort Collins.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Education
Coalition
This coalition consists of 17 bicycle- and
pedestrian-related groups from throughout
Larimer County, including Fort Collins.
BPEC’s mission is to “reduce the number of
motor vehicle/bicycle/pedestrian crashes in
our community, and increase knowledge and
awareness about how to safely share roads.”
BPEC currently operates the Bicycle
Ambassador Program (BAP) discussed in the
section that follows.
Education
Education is broadly defined in this report, to
include everything from skills classes for
youth to elevating awareness and
responsibility among all transportation
system users, including bicyclists. The
majority of bicycle education classes,
events, campaigns, and other activities are
run by the City, or by other organizations
such as Bike Fort Collins. Education has
always been a part of the FC Bikes program,
but a renewed effort to focus on education
has taken place since the development of the
BSEP in 2011.
Bicycle Safety Education Plan
Many of the City’s current education efforts
are a direct result of recommendations in the
Bicycle Safety Education Plan (BSEP). The
creation of the BSEP was spurred by three
bicyclist fatalities and by a wider recognition
that with more bicyclists on the road, there
was a greater need for concerted education
efforts related to the safety of all road users.
Overall, the BSEP vision is to see a decrease
in reported bicycle crashes. In the long term,
the City committed to Vision Zero: reducing
citywide bicyclist deaths and serious injuries
to zero. The plan’s program
may result in more and safer bicycling among
youth.
FIGURE 38: BAP NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN GARAGE
Source: FC Bikes
Adult Bicycling Education
FC Bikes sponsors monthly 7.5-hour Traffic
Skills 101 classes for any Fort Collins adult
resident. Classes equip attendees with
information on bicyclists’ rights and
responsibilities on the road, bicycle safety
checks, riding skills, and crash-avoidance
maneuvers. Participants also practice riding
skills on their bike. Starting in 2014, the City
will offer Learn to Ride classes for adults,
which are two hours in length and will teach
the basics of riding a bike.
The Women on a Roll program provides
classes on bicycle skills and maintenance,
rides, and events that focus on reducing
barriers to bicycling for women.
Together with the BAC, the City offers
diverse education options by request such as
Lunch and Learn presentations and outreach
to businesses.
Finally, the City hosts one League Cycling
Instructor (LCI) course per year, and together
with CSU offers scholarships to train
community members to be safe-cycling
instructors.
Youth Bicycling Education
Youth bicycling education falls largely under
the Fort Collins Safe Routes to School (SRTS)
program, which provides walking and
bicycling education to as many Pre-K through
12
th
grade students as possible every year.
Trained educators teach bicycle-pedestrian
safety during physical education classes and
after-school programs that cover bike-
handling skills, rules of the road, and helmet
fitting, among other topics.
SRTS also organizes bicycle skills rodeos with
curriculum specific to elementary and middle
school students. This type of high-quality
educational contact reached 5,828 students
in 2013. Overall, the program had contact
with a total of approximately 14,000 people
in 2013. The SRTS program has a goal of a
three-year rotation schedule for educational
activities which will enable them to reach
every student at each level: elementary,
middle, and high school.
FIGURE 39: SRTS IN ACTION
Source: FC Bikes
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 54
Law Enforcement Education
The BSEP made a recommendation to assist
Fort Collins Police Services with training for
officers to help them understand typical
behaviors, as well as rights and
responsibilities of bicyclists on the road.
Currently, Police Services offers a two-hour
course on these topics every two years,
required of all new recruits and optional for
others. Additionally, Police Services uses the
spring and fall increase in bicycling as an
opportunity to educate its officers about
rules of the road and how to cite bicycle
infractions. The City is planning to launch a
diversion program in 2014, where bicyclists
who get infractions would be able to get
their fine reduced by participating in a
traffic skills training course.
Encouragement
The first six years of the FC Bikes program
focused mostly on encouragement programs,
and succeeded in building a strong bicycle
culture in Fort Collins, where residents and
visitors welcome and celebrate bicycling.
Encouragement programs consist of special
programs like the Fort Collins Bike Library,
events, and marketing.
FC Bike Library
The Bike Library was launched by the City in
2008 and is operated by Bike Fort Collins.
Bicycles are available from April to
December annually for free checkout for the
first day; a $10 charge is applied each day
after. The fleet of 170 bicycles includes a
wide range of bicycle types, with 40 of those
bicycles housed at the main Library location
at the Downtown Transit Center. Other
bicycles are available for checkout at one
hotel, and a second hotel location is being
planned, as well as a location at CSU.
The Bike Library has been a boon for
bicycling in Fort Collins as it enables more
people to take part in bike culture without
owning a bicycle. While the majority (75
percent) of Bike Library users are visitors,
the Bike Library is an important source of
community pride. The facility itself gives a
large, public presence to bicycling in the
downtown area. With its move to the
Downtown Transit Center in 2014, it will be
visible to many local and regional transit
users and more accessible to those riders for
combining bike and bus trips. The City is
currently planning to expand its Bike Library
with automated, self-checkout bike share
stations.
FIGURE 40: FORT COLLINS BIKE LIBRARY
Source: FC Bike Library
Boltage Incentive Program
This pilot program is being implemented at
Events
The City acts as an umbrella organization to
coordinate community groups and develop a
regular calendar of bicycling events. Some of
the major annual events that the City leads
include:
• Bike to Work Day: Part of Colorado’s Bike
to Work Month, this event works with
individuals and employers to encourage
people to bike for transportation,
experience the benefits of riding a bike,
highlight Fort Collins' extensive bike
routes, and demonstrate that bicycling is
an easy, fun and healthy means of
traveling around the city. BTWD is held
twice a year in June and December. The
2013 Summer BTWD, the 26
th
annual, had
108 sponsors and 3,551 total
participants—and over 1,000 bicyclists
and 20 businesses were new participants.
The 2013 Winter BTWD was the 7
th
annual
and despite cold temperatures, had 63
hosts and over 600 bicyclists—200 of
which were new participants.
31
• Bike Winter: This month-long series
encourages riders to bike year-round and
helps disseminate information about how
to do this successfully with classes like
Winter Cycling 101, as well as bike light
giveaways.
• International Walk to School Day and
National Bike to School Day: The City’s
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program
works with local schools to encourage
student participation in these annual
events. An estimated 5,000 K-12 students
participated in these events during the
2013-14 school year.
• B.I.K.E. Camp: The City’s SRTS program
co-sponsors (with the City’s Recreation
Dept.) several weeklong bike camps for
children ages 6-11 over the summer.
• Family Bike Rodeos: The SRTS program
sets up bike-safety skills trainings, known
as “bike rodeos” year-round at venues
throughout the community.
31 www.fcgov.com/bicycling (visited April
2014).
The City helps lead or supports many other
regular events. These include:
• Tour de Fit, Tour de Cat, Tour de
Olander, Kruse Bike Day: Many local
schools have created their own signature
events to celebrate bicycling, some of
which play off the “Tour de Fat” theme.
Business, community organization, and
school partners are vital to making all of
these events happen.
Marketing
Posters, bus advertisements, stickers, fliers,
the FC Bikes website, newsletters like
Momentum, the CoExist campaign, articles in
the Coloradoan, publications like Ride, and
other materials are used to communicate a
positive message about bicycling in Fort
Collins. Marketing is supported by groups like
Bike Fort Collins who developed the
nationally-recognized “You Know Me, I Ride a
Bike” campaign.
The City has also encouraged local media
outlets to cover bicycle events, programs,
and infrastructure improvements. This
coverage raises awareness of bicycling and
bicyclists among community members who
might not otherwise have exposure to this
part of Fort Collins.
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 57
Enforcement
Enforcement of traffic laws in Fort Collins is
done by a number of overlapping police
forces: Fort Collins Police Services, Larimer
County Sheriff’s Office, CSU Police
Department, Colorado State Patrol, School
Resource Officers, and, to a small extent,
Federal Protective Services. The majority of
traffic enforcement is done by Fort Collins
and CSU officers within the City boundaries.
CSU officers are empowered to enforce
traffic laws on and off campus, since they
are state police officers, and they may also
write University-specific citations and
warnings on campus.
Bicycle Laws
Bicyclists’ actions on roadways are subject to
the same traffic laws as other vehicles in the
state of Colorado. Bicyclists are required to
obey all posted signs and signals and ride
with traffic. Sidewalk and crosswalk riding is
allowed under Colorado Revised Statutes §
42-4-1412.10, except in marked dismount
zones. However, bicyclists are required to
yield the right-of-way to pedestrians in these
situations and to give an audible signal when
passing. When riding in a crosswalk, the
bicyclist has all of the same rights and
responsibilities as a pedestrian and is not
required to dismount.
In general, Colorado laws pertaining to
bicyclists are considered to be among the
friendliest to bicyclists in the country. For
instance, a bicyclist’s ability to take a lane
to avoid hazards in the roadway is spelled
out in code, as is the requirement for any
vehicle to pass at least three feet from a
bicyclist.
The Fort Collins Traffic Code includes the
following key provisions related to bicyclists:
• Requirement for a headlight and rear
reflector in low light or low visibility,
along with other equipment requirements
• Prohibition for vehicles within bicycle
lanes, except for merging or parking
movements
• Requirements for bicycle placement
(right hand lane except when turning
left, when avoiding a right-turn lane, or
when otherwise unsafe)
• Prohibition of bicyclists riding more than
two abreast on streets
• Requirement to signal
• Prohibition of bicycles along sidewalks,
roadways, and crosswalks where official
traffic control devices or local ordinances
prohibit their presence (e.g. College
Avenue and on downtown sidewalks)
Many other bicyclist-related laws are also
included in the Traffic Code.
officers. The Code change is reportedly
simple, and is being discussed with City
officials.
32
Bicycle Registration
Bicycle owners in Fort Collins can register
their bicycles with the City or with CSU.
These registrations are used in the event of a
stolen bicycle, to aid in recovery and return
of the bicycle to its owner. The City works
with local bicycle shops to distribute bicycle
registration cards to the public.
Evaluation and Planning
City staff implements programs and policies
related to evaluation and planning. The
evaluation of existing programs takes place
through annual documentation such as the
SRTS Annual Report and Traffic Safety
Summary. The SRTS Program also collects
data through the National Center for SRTS
(NCSRTS) parent surveys and student travel
tallies.
FC Bikes staff conduct regular surveys and
monitor regional and national data sources
such as those mentioned related to ridership
earlier in this report. The count program is
also a form of evaluation and tracking of
bicycle trends in the city.
Planning for bicycle infrastructure and
programs is done by the FC Bikes staff and
other staff within Planning, Development and
Transportation, and Park Planning. Updates
to the City Plan, TMP, Master Street Plan,
Pedestrian Plan, Transfort Strategic
Operating Plan, and the Capital
Improvement Plan can all have an impact on
the bicycling environment in Fort Collins.
Bicycle Advisory Committee
The Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) is a
key entity in planning for and implementing
improvements to bicycling in Fort Collins.
32 Trombley, Michael, Personal Interview,
March 11, 2014.
The BAC is a subcommittee of the
Transportation Board and was formed in 2009
to review and recommend bicycle projects,
policies, and to aid in implementing the
Bicycle Master Plan. Members of this
committee are drawn from other bicycle-
related organizations in Fort Collins, related
advisory boards, CSU, Poudre School District,
and the business community; there are also
three at-large members from the community.
The overall goal of the BAC is to promote
safe, efficient bicycling in Fort Collins and
the surrounding region.
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 59
Investment
Fort Collins has funded its bicycle program
through grants, City funds, state and federal
funds, and development fees.
Fort Collins has rigorously pursued grant
monies for bicycle improvements from
sources such as Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality (CMAQ), Transportation
Enhancements (TE), and Great Outdoors
Colorado (GOCO) lottery funds. Between
1995 and 2008, the City secured over $20
million in federal grants.
In response to 1995 Bicycle Plan, the City
hired a Bicycle Coordinator in 1996.
Beginning in 2003, due to budget cuts the
position remained unstaffed. In 2006, City
Council responded to a tremendous
outpouring of public support for the position
and once again funded a Bicycle Coordinator
for the City. The implementation component
of the 1995 Plan and the 2008 Bicycle Plan is
known as FC Bikes and is overseen by a
program manager. The FC Bikes Program and
the Bike Library have historically been
primarily funded by a Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality (CMAQ) Grant administered
by the NFRMPO.
The FC Bikes Program is funded through a
combination of City funds, federal funding
sources, and other grants.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program (CMAQ)
The City was recently awarded an $850,500
CMAQ grant (including the required 17.21
percent local match) that will fund 75
percent of two FC Bikes positions along with
other bike programs over a three-year period
beginning in the spring of 2014. The grant
includes funding for education and
encouragement programs, training for the FC
Bikes Program staff, regional bike
coordination, end-of-trip facilities, a
business and implementation plan for a new
bike share system, bike counters, and a
portion of the 2014 Bicycle Plan.
Transportation Alternatives Program
(TAP)
The TAP (formerly the TE Program) is a
federal funding source that is also
administered by the NFRMPO. In recent
years, Fort Collins has been awarded TE/TAP
grants for bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure projects on SH 14 (a
bicycle/pedestrian bridge relocation), North
College (US 287), and a Mason Trail railroad
crossing.
Building on Basics (BOB)
Fort Collins voters approved Building on
Basics (BOB), a quarter-cent sales and use
tax which extends from January 2006 through
Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) Process
Fort Collins has a two-year budgeting
process—Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO)—that
is designed to create a government that
works better, costs less, and is focused on
desired results. Budget offers are developed
by City departments and work teams and
subsequently vetted and ranked according to
organizational and community priorities. In
addition to the annual allocation to the FC
Bikes program, the Remington Greenway
project was also funded through the
2013/2014 BFO process ($450,000), and
construction is planned to begin in 2014.
Kaiser Permanente Grant
The City of Fort Collins was recently awarded
a $94,100 Walk and Wheel grant from Kaiser
Permanente which will be used over the next
two years (2014–2015) for several FC Bikes
programs including the bike share business
plan, an open streets event, education
programs, an update to the bike map based
on level of comfort, and a new Eco-Totem
bike counter.
Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Funds
Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
expenditures for roads and bridges and
bicycle and pedestrian services are funded
with Transportation Services Fund revenues.
The primary sources of revenue are the State
Highway User Tax Fund, County Road and
Bridge Fund, motor vehicle registration fees,
and transfers from the General Fund. Fort
Collins has successfully added bike facilities
on many city streets as a part of regularly
scheduled pavement overlay projects.
Multimodal Roadway Improvement
Projects
Bicycle facilities in Fort Collins have also
been added as a part of larger multimodal
roadway improvement projects; the funding
sources vary (federal, state, local, and other
grants) and the bicycle facilities often
represent a small portion of the overall
project costs.
Street Oversizing (SOS) Fees
When land development causes a need for
transportation improvements, the developer
is required to finance those improvements.
This financing, called Street Oversizing (SOS)
Fees, has funded many of the city’s existing
bike lanes.
Trails Funding
The City received about $50,000 in Lottery
revenue (Conservation Trust Fund) in 1984
and today receives about $1,200,000
annually. The Conservation Trust Fund has
funded the majority of the paved trail
system. Historical records indicate the
Next Steps
The City will use the momentum and
progress made from previous bicycling-
related efforts, the data and information
contained in this report, community input,
and the project goals to develop a blueprint
for the future of bicycling in Fort Collins. The
City has the following vision:
The Bicycle Master Plan envisions Fort
Collins as a world-class city for bicycling.
It is a city where people of all ages and
abilities have access to a comfortable,
safe, and connected network of bicycle
facilities, and where bicycling is an
integral part of daily life and the local
cultural experience.
The 2014 Bicycle Master Plan will build upon
the City’s past and current efforts and create
a blueprint for an even safer and more
inviting bicycling environment in Fort Collins.
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 62
Appendices
Appendix A: Bicycle Safety Education Plan
Progress
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 63
2011 BICYCLE SAFETY EDUCATION PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
COMPLETED
ONGOING/
UNDERWAY
PROVIDE WALKING AND BICYCLING EDUCATION TO AT LEAST
11,000 STUDENTS FROM KINDERGARTEN THROUGH HIGH SCHOOL
STUDENTS ANNUALLY
x x
ENCOURAGE FORT COLLINS’ SCHOOLS TO REVIEW AND ADOPT
STATEWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EDUCATION URRICULUM
UNDER DEVELOPMENT BY THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (CDOT)
x
EXPAND BICYCLE SAFETY EDUCATION TO HIGH SCHOOLS WITHIN
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS x
DEVELOP A SUSTAINABLE WALKING AND BICYCLING SCHOOL BUS
PROGRAM FOR INTERESTED SCHOOLS x
ENCOURAGE ONE TEACHER PER SCHOOL TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL TRAIN THE TRAINERS PROGRAM
x
DEVELOP A BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY TOWN TO SERVE
CHILDREN x
HIRE FULL TIME EQUIVALENT SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL
COORDINATOR x
IMPLEMENT A COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITY APPROACH TO
OFFERING BIKE CAMPS TO CHILDREN DURING THE SUMMER
MONTHS
x x
EDUCATE COLLEGE STUDENTS ON BICYCLE SAFETY AND
AWARENESS x
PROVIDE BICYCLE SAFETY EDUCATION TO FAMILIES x
TEACH RECREATIONAL & COMPETITIVE CYCLISTS HOW TO
RESPECTFULLY SHARE THE ROAD AND TRAILS x
PROVIDE BICYCLE COMMUTERS BICYCLE SAFETY EDUCATION AND
INCENTIVES x
ENGAGE SENIOR CITIZENS IN BICYCLING ACTIVITIES x
TRANSLATE BICYCLE SAFETY EDUCATION INTO SPANISH x x
ASSIST FORT COLLINS POLICE SERVICES IN PROVIDING ON-GOING
BICYCLE TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES FOR OFFICERS x x
COMMUNITY POLICING AGREEMENT
DIVERSION PROGRAMS x
ENCOURAGE FORT COLLINS POLICE SERVICES TO CONDUCT
TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT AT THE HIGH CRASH AREAS AND TYPES OF
CRASHES IDENTIFIED IN SECTION VI
x
ENFORCEMENT
ADULT EDUCATION
YOUTH EDUCATION
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 64
2011 BICYCLE SAFETY EDUCATION PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
COMPLETED
ONGOING/
UNDERWAY
UPDATE TO THE FORT COLLINS BIKE ROUTE NETWORK (BIKE WAYS) x
INSTALL BIKE BOXES WHERE APPROPRIATE x x
INSTALL SHARED LANE MARKINGS x x
EXPLORE CONTINUED USE OF BUFFERED BIKE LANES x
EXPLORE USE OF CYCLE TRACKS ALONG SPECIFIC CORRIDORS x
EXPLORE THE USE OF BICYCLE BOULEVARDS AND COMMUNITY
GREENWAYS x
EXPLORE USE OF SCRAMBLE CROSSINGS AT SPECIFIC
INTERSECTIONS
INSTALL SIGNAL ACTUATION FOR CYCLISTS x x
IMPLEMENT SHARE THE ROAD COLLABORATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS x x
DISSEMINATE UNIVERSAL BICYCLE SAFETY MESSAGES AND CRASH
TERMINOLOGY x x
REVIEW THE FORT COLLINS TRAFFIC CODE - AMENDMENT TO
SECTION 1412 (10) (A)
DISCOURAGE IRRESPONSIBLE USE OF ALCOHOL WHILE CYCLING x x
MAINTAIN DATABASE OF HIGH PROFILE BICYCLE CRASHES x x
IMPLEMENT THE NEIGHBORHOOD BICYCLE AMBASSADOR PROGRAM x x
DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A MASTER CYCLIST PROGRAM x x
INSTILL A SENSE OF SECURITY FOR ALL CYCLISTS x
ADDRESS ELECTRIC BIKE USE ON BIKE TRAILS x x
INFRASTRUCTURE
GENERAL
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 65
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 1
Appendix C
City of Fort Collins
Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 2
This appendix provides general design considerations for implementation of bicycle facilities recommended in the
2014 Bicycle Master Plan (2014 Plan). The appendix begins with an overview of the national, state, and local
guidelines and standards (baseline guidance) which form the basis for design in Fort Collins. In some cases the
design guidance for a treatment will deviate or expand on the baseline guidance. Discussion is focused on
treatments recommended (Chapter 4) for implementation by this 2014 Plan.
This document is not a design standard, and should not be used as such. Application of guidance provided in this
document requires the use of engineering judgment. The detailed design considerations for each major treatment
are intended to inform a future update to the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan Classifications and Larimer
County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) as appropriate.
1 National Guidelines and Standards
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (AASHTO Bicycle Guide).
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) is a not-for-profit, nonpartisan
association representing state highway and transportation departments. It publishes a variety of planning and
design guides, including the AASHTO Bicycle Guide.
The AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012) is not intended to set absolute standards, but
rather to present sound guidelines that will be valuable in attaining good design sensitive to the needs of both
bicyclists and other roadway users. The provisions in the Guide are consistent with and similar to normal roadway
engineering practices. Signs, signals, and pavement markings for bicycle facilities should be used in conjunction
with the MUTCD.
Key provisions in the AASHTO Bicycle Guide include:
Bicycle planning, including types of planning processes, technical analysis tools, and integrating bicycle
facilities with transit
Bicycle operation and safety, including traffic principles for bicyclists and causes of bicycle crashes
Design of on-road facilities
Design of shared-use paths
Bicycle parking facilities
Maintenance and operations
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2009
The 2009 MUTCD is a document issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the U.S. Department of
Transportation (USDOT) to specify the standards by which traffic signs, road surface markings, and signals are
designed, installed, and used. These specifications include the shapes, colors, fonts, sizes, etc., used in road
markings and signs. In the United States, all traffic control devices must generally conform to these standards. The
manual is used by state and local agencies and private design and construction firms to ensure that the traffic
control devices they use conform to the national standard.
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 3
The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) advises the FHWA on additions, revisions,
and changes to the MUTCD. The committee also evaluates research reports for experimental traffic control
treatments to determine the suitability or need for developing changes to the MUTCD.
Key provisions of the 2009 MUTCD related to bicycling include:
Bicycle-related regulatory and warning signs
Bicycle destination guide and route signs
Pavement markings such as bicycle lane symbols and striping
Shared-use path signs
Shared-lane pavement markings
The FHWA recognizes new traffic control treatments may be required to provide for the safe use of the
transportation system by all types of travelers. FHWA has established an experimentation process to study the
operational and safety effects of new treatments which are not included in the MUTCD. This process is described
in Chapter 1, section 1A.10 of the MUTCD. They also explain this process further on their webpage:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/condexper.htm
FHWA maintains a webpage that provides frequent updates on the status of on-going bicycle facility treatments
which are under experimentation and consideration for inclusion into the MUTCD. This can be viewed here:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/design_guidance/mutcd/
A major revision of the 2009 MUTCD is anticipated to be published in the federal register in May 2015. Public
agencies and the general public will have approximately 6 months to provide comments. It is anticipated a revised
draft of the MUTCD will be ready for final rulemaking in May or June of 2017.
Since the publishing of the 2009 MUTCD, the NCUTCD has approved draft language for the following items which
are likely to be incorporated into the 2017 MUTCD:
Green bicycle lanes (issued interim approval by FHWA April 2011, expanded guidance approved by
NCUTCD June 2014)
Bicycle signal faces (issued interim approval by FHWA for protected uses December 2014, expanded
guidance approved by NCUTCD June 2014)
Except Bicycles Regulatory Plaque (approved by NCUTCD June 2010)
Except Bicycles Warning Plaque (approved by NCUTCD June 2014)
Bicycle boxes (approved by NCUTCD June 2014)
Buffered bicycle lanes (approved by NCUTCD June 2014)
Contra-flow bicycle lanes (approved by NCUTCD June 2014)
Two-stage turn queue box (Approved by NCUTCD June 2014)
Turning vehicles yield to bicycles sign (modified R10-15, Approved by NCUTCD June 2014)
Extension lines of bicycle lanes through intersections (Approved by NCUTCD June 2014)
Barrier separated lanes/protected bicycle lanes (approved by BTC August 2014)
Additional information can be found here: http://www.ncutcdbtc.org/
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 4
National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Street Design Guide and
Urban Bikeway Design Guide
The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) has developed Urban Street and Bikeway design
guidelines which are tailored to the unique constraints and needs of urban areas. The guidelines are a
compendium of state-of-the practice techniques designed to result in high quality, multimodal communities. The
guidelines are based on current research and applied experiential practice of urban design professionals from
around North America. The guidelines are freely available and regularly updated through their respective websites:
Urban Street Design Guide:
Urban Bikeway Design Guide:
http://nacto.org/usdg/
http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/
2 State Guidelines and Standards
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) establishes state guidelines and standards for the design of
transportation facilities. These guidelines and standards must be followed on State Owned and maintained
roadways. Local agencies may also adopt or follow CDOT standards where they do not have their own.
Bicycle & Pedestrian Project Development & Design Guidance
The CDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program manage and oversee bicycle, pedestrian, and safe routes to school
efforts on behalf of the Department. The program seeks to integrate bicycle and pedestrian safety, mobility and
accessibility into the overall transportation program through engineering, planning, education and training. CDOT
updated the bicycle facility design guideline in 2013. Pertinent to this bicycle plan, the guide includes discussion of
bicycle lanes, buffered bicycle lanes, shared lane markings, neighborhood greenways (bicycle boulevards), cycle
tracks (protected bicycle lanes), and signal detection. The guide can be downloaded here:
http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/bikeped/documents/DesignGuide-Ch14/view
2011 Colorado Supplement to the 2009 MUTCD
State agencies are required by federal law to develop a State level MUTCD that substantially conforms to the
federal MUTCD. Colorado supplement explains which provisions of the Federal MUTCD have been modified by
Colorado statute.
http://www.coloradodot.info/library/traffic/traffic-manuals-guidelines/fed-state-co-traffic-
manuals/mutcd/MUTCD_2003_Colorado_Supplement.pdf/view
CDOT Non-motorized Travel Policy
The CDOT adopted a policy in October 2009 supporting transportation mode choice through the enhancement of
safety and mobility for pedestrian and bicycle travel. The policy directs the Department to consider and
incorporate non-motorized modes of transportation when building new projects or making improvements to
existing infrastructure as a routine activity for all planning, design, and operation projects and processes.
3 Local Guidelines and Standards
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LUCASS)
Larimer County, City of Loveland, and City of Fort Collins have adopted the Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards. These Standards apply to the design and construction of new and reconstructed streets within the two
cities and within the Growth Management Areas for Fort Collins and Loveland within Larimer County.
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 5
The Standards went into effect on March 1, 2001 and were revised October 1, 2002, April 1, 2007 and March 1,
20131
http://www.larimer.org/engineering/gmardstds/urbanst.htm
4 Midblock Bicycle Facility Treatments
The 2014 Plan envisions an on-street network of buffered bicycle lanes, protected bicycle lanes, neighborhood
greenways, and to a limited extent shared travel lanes to complement the off-street trail network. The following
section describes key design criteria and considerations for recommendations which are currently not described in
existing Fort Collins or LCUASS guidance for midblock scenarios with the exception of neighborhood greenways.
Neighborhood greenways are described in their own section due to the fact they are essentially combinations of a
wide variety of midblock and intersection treatments.
Buffered Bicycle Lanes
Buffered bicycle lanes are created by striping a buffer zone between a bicycle lane and the adjacent travel lane
and/or parking lane. The buffer creates a more comfortable operating environment for bicyclists by creating
additional space between bicyclists and passing traffic or parked vehicles. It typically creates sufficient space for
bicyclists to operate side by side if desired or to pass slower moving bicyclists without having to encroach on
adjacent travel lanes.
Additional Design Considerations
Widths of buffered bicycle lanes are the same as those for bicycle lanes without buffers.
The minimum width for the buffer area is 2 feet. There is no maximum.
Buffer striping will require additional time and materials for installation and maintenance when compared to
conventional bicycle lanes.
Consider placing the buffer next to the parking lane where there is high parking turnover.
Consider placing the buffer next to the travel lane where speeds are 35 mph or greater or when traffic volume
exceeds 8,000 vehicles per day.
The space between cross-hatching is flexible, but typically varies between 5 and 40 feet. Wider spacing is
sufficient for locations with no on-street parking and higher speed roadways. More frequent spacing may be
desired in areas with on-street parking.
1 Text copied from http://www.larimer.org/engineering/gmardstds/GMARdStds.htm
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 6
Traffic Buffered Bike Lane
Parking Buffered Bike Lane
Buffer: minimum width 2’
Buffered on travel lane side when speeds are 35 mph or higher and traffic volume exceeds 3,000 ADT
Buffer on parking lane side when parking turnover is high
Bike lane: minimum width 6’
Cross-hatches typically spaced 5’-40’ apart
Shared Lane Markings
A Shared Lane Marking is a pavement symbol consisting of a bicycle with two chevron markings above it that is
placed in the roadway lane indicating that motorists should expect to see and share the lane with bicycles, and
indicating the legal and appropriate line of travel for a bicyclist. Unlike bicycle lanes, they do not designate a
particular part of the roadway for the exclusive use of bicyclists.
Additional Design Considerations
The revised 2009 Edition of the MUTCD includes provisions for installing Shared Lane
Markings. The following is taken directly from the 2009 Edition of the MUTCD.
The Shared Lane Marking may be used to:
Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in a shared lane with on-street parallel
parking in order to reduce the chance of a bicyclist’s impacting the open door of
a parked vehicle,
Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in lanes that are too narrow for a motor
vehicle and a bicycle to travel side by side within the same traffic lane,
Alert road users of the lateral location bicyclists are likely to occupy within the
traveled way,
Encourage safe passing of bicyclists by motorists, and
Reduce the incidence of wrong-way bicycling,
Serve as wayfinding along bicycle routes,
May be placed within roundabouts to provide guidance to bicyclists
Shared lane markings should be placed a minimum of 11 feet from the curb,
when a parking lane is present, and a minimum of 4 feet from the curb when on-street parking is not present.
Shared Lane Marking Source:
2009 MUTCD
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 7
Placement Where Travel Lanes Are Less than 13 Feet in Width
Shared lane markings should be placed in the center of the travel lane where travel lanes are less than 13 feet to
encourage bicyclists to occupy the full lane and not ride too close to parked vehicles or the edge of the roadway. A
BICYCLES MAY USE FULL LANE (R4-11) sign may be used to supplement the marking. Travel lanes of this dimension
are too narrow for sharing side by side with vehicles.
Placement Where Travel Lanes Are Greater than or Equal to 13 Feet in Width
Where travel lanes are 13 feet or wider, motorists will generally be able to pass bicyclists within the same lane or
will only need to slightly encroach on adjacent lanes to pass bicyclists. The Shared Lane Marking should generally
be located in the right portion of the lane (per the MUTCD minimum requirements) with exceptions for locations
adjacent to parking where it is desirable to encourage riding further from parked vehicles. A Share the Road sign
(W11-1 AND W16-1P) may be used to supplement the marking.
Shared lane markings should generally be used on arterial and non-arterial roadways with motor vehicle speeds 35
mph or less. Research has shown placing the marking in the center of travel lanes wider than 13 feet will likely
result in poor compliance by bicyclists who will travel in the right portion of the lane which may undermine the
effectiveness of shared lane markings in narrower lanes.
Placement within Right Turn Lanes
In situations where a bicycle lane drops to accommodate a right turn lane, a Shared Lane Marking may be placed
within the center or left hand edge of the right turn lane. A BICYCLES MAY USE FULL LANE (R4-11) sign may be used
to supplement the marking. An EXCEPT BICYCLES plaque should be placed beneath any RIGHT TURN MUST TURN
RIGHT regulator signs.
Considerations for Symbol Placement Frequency
Shared Lane Markings should be placed at the far side of an uncontrolled intersection, at both sides of an arterial
intersection with traffic control, and at mid-block locations where block faces are more than 250 feet long.
When placing mid-block Shared Lane markings, they should be placed in such a manner that the first Shared Lane
marking a bicyclist or motorist would come upon would be the Shared Lane marking in their direction of travel.
Where there are mid-block marked crosswalks, the tip of the chevron should be placed 25 feet beyond the far side
of the marked crosswalk. Where markings are placed in close proximity to each other, the markings should be
separated by at least 10 feet.
On streets with posted speed limits of 25 mph or lower:
The NACTO Design Guide suggests placement of the shared lane marking in the center of the travel lane to
encourage bicyclists to use the full lane.
Where speed limits equal 35 mph or greater
The NACTO Design Guide indicates that on streets with posted speed limits of 35 mph or higher, or
where vehicle volumes exceed 3,000 vehicles per day, shared lane markings are not the preferred
treatment.
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 8
Priority Shared Lane Markings
A Priority Shared Lane Marking is and enhanced Shared Lane Marking. It is located within a rectangular green
colored pavement box and spaced at 100 foot intervals to simulate the effect of a bicycle lane within a shared
travel lane. A BIKES MAY USE FULL LANE (R4-11) sign should be used to supplement the marking.
Shared Lane Marking and Priority Shared Lane Marking Placement Examples:
Travel Lane <13’ with BMUFL sign Close Spacing of SLM
Priority Shared Lane Marking SLM Placed within Right Turn Lane
Protected Bicycle Lanes
This plan calls for an extensive network of “protected bicycle lanes” which are physically separated from
automobile and pedestrian traffic. Protected bicycle lanes are also frequently referred to as cycle tracks, separated
bicycle lanes, or bicycle only sidepaths. Protected bike lanes improve comfort and reduce stress for bicyclists by
physically separating them from automobile and pedestrian traffic. They may be located at street level or sidewalk
level and the protection may be provided with flexible delineators, curbing, parking, or other physical treatments.
A key reason for providing separated bike lanes at intersections is to reduce the number of conflict points between
bicyclists and motorists at intersections. On roadways with traditional bike lanes or shared lanes, bicyclists often
must merge, weave and otherwise cross paths with motor vehicles that are traveling at a greater speed. These
maneuvers are uncomfortable for most bicyclists due to the combination of the speed differential and bicyclists’
vulnerability. In contrast, separated bike lanes at intersections reduce bicyclists’ exposure by reducing multiple
merging and crossing movements to a single predictable crossing point.
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 9
Conflict Points Diagram:
Shared Lane or Bike Lane Protected Bike Lane
Protected Bike Lane Mid-block Design
Designs of protected bike lanes will generally fall into the following two categories:
Flexible Post Protected: This bike lane is street level, and provides physical separation from parallel vehicle travel
lanes with vertical flexible delineators. This may be considered an interim treatment, as it is significantly cheaper,
and easier to implement than a curb-protected bike lane. This design can lead to an increase in roadway debris within
the protected bike lane as debris from the roadway can easily deposit within the buffer and bike lane area. The flexible
delineators may require repair or replacement if struck by vehicles or if damaged during routine winter plowing. On
streets with parking, parking will located between the bike lane and travel lane increasing the level of protection and
comfort.
Curb Protected: This bike lane may be street level or sidewalk level. It provides physical separation from parallel
vehicle travel lanes with vertical curbing. If the bike lane is street level, the barrier will form narrow medians
between the vehicle travel lanes and the bike lane. The curbing can reduce the spread of debris from the roadway
and offers a higher degree of protection than flexible delineators. On streets with parking, parking will be located
between the bike lane and travel lane.
Protected Bike Lane Examples:
Flexible Post Protected Curb Protected Street Level Curb Protected Sidewalk Level
The cross section of a separated bike lanes includes three basic zones:
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 10
Street Buffer Zone – separates bike lane from travel lanes or parking lanes
Bike Lane Zone – dedicated travel lane for bicyclists
Sidewalk Buffer Zone – separates bike lane from sidewalks or pedestrian zones
Street Buffer Zone Widths
Bike Lane Elevation
Relative to Street
With On-Street Parking Without On-Street Parking
Minimum Desirable Minimum Desirable
Sidewalk level 3 feet 5 feet+ 2 feet
Increased width
as vehicle speeds
increase
Street level, curb
separated
3 feet1 5 feet 2 feet
Street level, object
separated
3 feet 5 feet 2 feet
Protected Bike Lane Zone Widths
In corridors with higher volumes of pedestrians, it is recommended the bike lane be at a different elevation than
the sidewalk, typically street level, to reduce the likelihood pedestrians will walk in the bike lane. If the bike lane
must be sidewalk level, the bike lane should have a contrasting appearance to the sidewalk. The following
provides guidance for determining one-way vs two-way bike lane widths:
One-Way Two-Way
Peak hour volume in
one direction
(bicycles/hour)
Minimum
Width1
Desirable
Width
Peak hour volume in
two directions
(bicycles/hour)
Minimum
Width2
Desirable
width
0-150 5 feet 8 feet 0-150 8 feet 10 feet
150-750 6.5 feet3 10 feet >150 11 feet 14 feet
>750 10 feet 12 feet
NOTES:
1. The minimum width should not be used for street level curb separated bike lanes. The minimum width for a separated
bike lane between two curbs is six feet.
2. Passing may occur in the opposing lane.
3. The minimum width to accommodate a passing movement within the bike lane is 6.5 feet. If the width is constrained,
designers should consider options that allow bicyclists to use buffer space for passing.
Sidewalk Buffer Zone Widths
There is a wide range of potential treatments for the sidewalk buffer zone. The buffer zone should promote
separation between pedestrians and bicyclists to improve comfort for both users. For sidewalk level bike lanes, it
is desirable to provide vertical elements such as street furniture or vegetation to promote separation.
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 11
Protected Bike Lane Intersection Design
The design of intersections should ensure visibility between approaching and departing motorists, bicyclists and
pedestrians. All users should be provided visual cues that clearly indicate right-of-way priority and expected
yielding behavior. The following strategies can be used to accomplish this:
Clearly delineate crossings: marked crossings should indicate the preferred crossing location for bicyclists and
pedestrians across all potential conflict points.
Clearly indicate right-of-way priority: signs and markings should reinforce correct yielding behaviors.
Provide yielding geometry: intersection geometry should not require users to turn their head more than 90
degrees to see a potential conflict. The angle of conflict between through moving bicyclists and turning traffic
should be between 60 and 90 degrees.
Reduce speeds: Reducing motorist turning speeds improves the ability of motorists to appropriately yield to
bicyclists, which is particularly important at intersections, driveways and alleys. Slower bicyclist approach
speeds reduce the likelihood a turning motorist cannot see an approaching bicyclist and improves the ability
of the motorist to yield to the through moving bicyclist. Reduced speeds at conflict points reduce conflicts
between all users, reduce stopping sight distance requirements, and reduce severity of injuries in the event a
crash occurs. Speed reduction is achieved primarily through horizontal and vertical deflection.
o Vertical deflection: Raising the conflict point can slow motor vehicles and bicyclists on the
approach.
o Horizontal deflection: Reducing the turning radius where vehicles turn right across
separated bike lanes can reduce speeds. Horizontal deflection can also be utilized to slow
bicyclists on the approach to an intersection.
A typical protected bike lane intersection should have the following elements:
Elements of a Protected Bike Lane Intersection, Source: Toole Design Group
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 12
Additional Design Considerations
Standard bicycle lanes symbols, signs, and markings should be utilized to designate protected bicycle lanes per
the MUTCD, Chapter 9.
Corner deflection islands should be provided at all corners to slow approaching bicyclists and to create
queuing space for waiting bicyclists. It should deflect bicyclists the full width of the protected bike lane.
Corner Deflection Island Pedestrian Crossings Queuing Area
For street level bike lanes where corner deflection islands are not provided, two-stage turn queue boxes
should be provided to assist bicyclists in making left turns from the protected bicycle lane facility.
Leading or protected phasing should be considered at intersections with more than 150 vehicles turning in a
peak hour across the bike lane
Driveways and street crossings are a unique challenge to protected bicycle lane design. The following
guidance may improve safety at crossings:
o The bicycle crossing should be marked with bicycle lane extensions
o The conflict area can be enhanced with green color.
o A modified R10-15 sign which incorporates a bicycle symbol may be used to notify motorists of their
requirement to yield to bicyclists while turning. These signs may be supplemented with yield lines
o If the protected bicycle lane is parking-protected, vehicle parking should be prohibited near the
intersection to improve visibility. The desirable no-parking area is a minimum of 30 feet from each
side of the crossing.
o Motor vehicle traffic crossing the protected bicycle lane should be constrained or channelized to make
turns at sharp angles to reduce turning speeds to 10 mph or less at the crossing.
At transit stops along protected bicycle lanes, special consideration should be given to manage bicyclist,
pedestrian and transit operator interactions.
o The bike lane should be located behind the transit stop.
o A 6 foot minimum width median should be provided for pedestrians to access the transit vehicle.
Modified R10-15 sign
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 13
Example Transit Stop with Protected Bike Lane, Source: Toole Design Group
Example Driveway Design with Protected Bike Lane, Source: Toole Design Group
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 14
Examples of Protected Intersection Bike Lane Retrofits
The following examples depict two strategies for potential arterial protected intersection retrofits. They conform
to typical Fort Collins intersection geometry for the intersection of two arterial streets with existing buffered bike
lanes. Actual designs will vary from location to location based on street widths and travel lane allocation needs. It
is likely pedestrian curb ramps and detection would require relocation from existing conditions.
Arterial Intersection Retrofit Painted and Post Protecting Island Example
The following is an example arterial protected bike lane intersection retrofit. The midblock cross section could be a
buffered bike lane or a flexible post protected bike lane. As the right turn lane develops, the flexible posts spacing
can be reduced to simulate a protecting island. A corner deflection island can be created with closely spaced
flexible posts and pavement markings to slow right turning vehicles and to deflect the approaching bicyclists. The
bicycle and pedestrian crossings would be set back from the intersection to improve the sight line between the
turning motorists and the approaching bicyclist and pedestrians.
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 15
Arterial Retrofit Painted and Curb Protecting Island Example
The following is an example arterial protected bike lane intersection retrofit. The midblock cross section could be a
buffered bike lane or a flexible post protected bike lane. As the right turn lane develops, the street buffer would
transition from flexible post protection to curbed median protection. A corner deflection island slows right turning
vehicles and to deflect the approaching bicyclists. The bicycle and pedestrian crossings would be set back from the
intersection to improve the sight line between the turning motorists and the approaching bicyclist and pedestrians.
5 Transitions between Different Bicycle Facility Types
It is often necessary to use different bicycle facilities to provide bicycle access within the same roadway corridor
due to existing roadway conditions, surrounding land uses, available right-of-way, and other characteristics. Where
this condition occurs, it is important to provide transitions between different facilities. These transitions can be
made safer and more understandable for bicyclists and motorists with appropriate and consistent treatments such
as spot directional signs, warning signs, pavement markings, curb cuts, etc. Transitions should be provided as a
part of the bicycle facility design process.
Transitions from Bike Lanes to Shared Lanes
At locations where bicycle lanes terminate to become shared lanes it may be desirable to provide a transition to a
marked shared lane for a brief distance, even if it is not desirable to mark a continuous shared lane for the
remainder of the roadway. The placement of the shared lane marking should conform to guidance provided
previously. The taper terminating the bicycle lane should conform to the MUTCD.
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 16
Example Bike Lane to Shared Lane Transition, Source: Toole Design Group
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 17
Transitions from Protected Bike Lanes to Bike Lanes
At locations where protected bicycle lanes terminate to become bike lanes the protected bike lane should
generally terminate on the far side of the intersection. Where it is determined necessary to terminate the
protection prior to the intersection, a mixing zone design which identifies a clear merging area should be used such
as the following example.
Example Right Turn Mixing Zone with Protected Bike Lane, Source: NACTO
Two-Stage Left Turn Queue Box, Transitions from Protected Bike Lanes and Bike Lanes to Cross
Streets
At locations where it is difficult for bicyclists to turn left across multiple travel lanes or at location where protected
bicycle lanes channelize bicyclists to the right side of the roadway, two-stage left turn queue boxes should be used.
Example Right Turn Mixing Zone with Protected Bike Lane, Source: NACTO
Design Guidance:
Right Turns on Red should be prohibited where there is potential for conflict between right turning motorists
and waiting bicyclists.
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 18
The box should be located outside the turning path of left turning vehicles.
The box should have green coloring, a bicycle symbol, and a left turn arrow.
The dimensions of the box may vary, but should be no less than 4 feet wide by 6 feet long to hold one bicyclist.
Trail System and the On-Street Bicycle Network Transition
Where a shared use path crosses or terminates at an existing road, it is important to transition the path into the
system of on-street bicycle facilities and sidewalks. Care should be taken to properly design the terminus to
transition the bicycle traffic into a safe merging of intersecting facilities. Appropriate signing is necessary to warn
and direct both bicyclists and motorists regarding these transition areas. Each roadway crossing is also an access
point, and should, therefore be designed to facilitate movements of path users who either enter the path from the
road, or plan to exit the path and use the roadway. Where possible, provide additional space where trails intersect
roadways, particularly at signalized locations where multiple trail users are likely to be waiting to cross the street.
Curb ramps at trail crossings and other on-street access points should be assessed and widened where they are
narrower than the trail width and/or where the volume of trail users is high.
6 Intersection and Street Crossing Treatments
Intersection improvements can enhance cyclist safety by eliminating or raising awareness of potential areas of
conflict between motorists and bicyclists, and by reducing the delay bicyclists experience at intersections.
Intersection design must also consider the positioning of bicyclists, particularly longer bicycles or bicycles with
trailers, queueing of groups of bicyclists, and related crossing times to design a crossing that can get bicyclists
across a busy roadway safely and comfortably. Improvements to the bicycling network are of limited utility if
bicyclists cannot safely and comfortably cross streets.
Of particular challenge are intersections with collector and arterial streets, particularly during peak travel periods.
While approaching an intersection along the arterial street, bicyclists are regularly exposed to high volumes of
higher speed traffic merging across the bicyclists to turn right. Within the intersection bicyclists may exposed to
right or left turning traffic across their path. Merging right turning traffic is uncomfortable and is a leading cause of
sideswipe and right-hook crashes with bicyclists. Left turning motorists generally have poor visibility to
approaching bicyclists contributing to left hook crashes.
The following sections describe types of treatments that are recommended to help bicyclists approach and cross
intersections. The selection of the appropriate street crossing treatment depends on a number of factors which
must be evaluated at each specific location to determine an appropriate treatment:
Roadway width/number of lanes
Presence and length of turning lanes
Type of bicycle accommodation
Land use and pedestrian activity
Signal phasing
Motor vehicle traffic volumes
Motor vehicle operating speed
Sight-distance
On-street parking
Presence of traffic signals at the intersection or at nearby intersections
Satisfaction of necessary and relevant traffic warrants
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 19
Bike Lane Extensions through Crossings
Bicycle lane extensions delineate a safe and direct bicycle crossing through an intersection, or driveway, providing
a clear boundary between the paths of through bicyclists and either through or crossing motor vehicles in the
adjacent lane. Within intersections, these are often parallel with pedestrian crosswalks. At two-way protected bike
lane crossings, a dashed centerline should be used within the crossing to separate the two directions of bicycle
traffic.
They may include bicycle lane markings and be highlighted with green colored pavement. The use of contrasting
green color is used primarily to highlight areas with a potential for bicycle-vehicle conflicts, such as bicycle lane
extensions through crossings where a bicyclists is susceptible to conflicting left or right turning traffic or merge
areas where right turning vehicles must cross a through bicycle movement to enter a right turn lane. If a pair of
dotted lines is used to extend a bicycle lane across an intersection or driveway, or a ramp, green colored pavement
should be installed in the same dotted pattern as the white edge lines.
Intersection Crossing Approach Merging Area
Advanced Yield Markings
Advanced yield markings in conjunction with YIELD HERE TO PEDESTRIANS signs have proven to be effective at
reducing multiple threat crashes at uncontrolled, marked crosswalk locations. A multiple threat crash results when
a car in one lane stops to let the pedestrian cross, blocking the sight lines of the vehicle in the other lane of a multi-
lane approach which advances through the crosswalk and hits the crossing pedestrian(s). The MUTCD (2009)
requires the use of YIELD HERE TO PEDESTRIANS (R1-5, R1-5a) sign if yield lines (shark’s teeth) are used in advance
of a marked crosswalk that crosses an uncontrolled multi-lane approach. If yield lines and YIELD HERE TO
PEDESTRIANS signs are used in advance of a crosswalk, they should be placed together and 20 to 50 feet before
the nearest crosswalk line; parking should be prohibited in the area between the yield line and the crosswalk.
At trail crossings or locations with parallel bicycle and pedestrian crossings, the YIELD HERE TO PEDESTRIANS sign
may be include a bicycle symbol. It is recommended to use the W11-15 warning sign in advance of the crossing.
This application should be considered at all unsignalized crossings of multi-lane streets.
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 20
Example Crossing with Crossing Island and Advanced Stop Line, Source NACTO
Crossing Islands
Crossing islands facilitate crossings of multiple lane and/or high-volume arterials by providing space in the center
of the roadway, allowing the pedestrian or bicyclist to focus on one direction of traffic at a time (two-stage
crossing). Median islands (or crossing islands) are constructed at the center of a road to physically separate the
directional flow of traffic, and to provide pedestrians and bicyclists with a place of refuge while reducing the
crossing distance between safety points.
Arterial roadway intersections that have low demand for left-turn movements can be potential candidates for
adding crossing islands. Crossing islands can be constructed on these roadways by using the available center turn
lane area. On streets with on-street parking, they can be installed by removing parking from one side of the street
and shifting the travel lanes creating chicane around the island.
The 2012 AASHTO Bicycle Guidelines outline design considerations for crossing islands:
Minimum width for storage on the crossing island is 6 feet. Ten feet accommodates a bicycle with trailer
Island should be large enough for multiple people to be on the island at once e.g. strollers, bicyclists,
pedestrians etc.
Angling the refuge area at approximately 45 degrees is recommended to direct those crossing to face
towards on-coming traffic.
Curb Extensions
Curb extensions are a section of sidewalk extending into the roadway at an intersection or midblock crossing that
reduces the crossing width for pedestrians and increases their visibility, and may help reduce traffic speeds. Curb
extensions shorten bicyclist and pedestrian exposure time in traffic and increase the visibility of non-motorized
users at roadway crossings. By narrowing the curb-to-curb width of a roadway, curb extensions may also help
reduce motor vehicle speeds and improve bicyclist and pedestrian safety. Curb extensions are appropriate only for
locations that have full time, on-street parking.
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 21
Design considerations:
No wider than parking lane e.g., 7 feet
Curb radius can be tightened to slow right turning vehicles
Curb bulbs can provide additional space for curb ramp construction if there is limited right-of-way
Crossings at Off-Set Intersections
Several designs have been developed to facilitate crossing of intersections with “legs” that do not line up directly
across from one another. These include bicycle left-turn lanes that create a designated space for two-way left
turns using pavement markings, left-turn with raised median that creates a single protected left turn using a raised
curb median, and a sidepath. Left turn lanes should be a minimum six feet wide and 8 feet in length so that
bicyclists can be completely separated from the travel lanes.
Median with Bicycle Left Turn Pocket Sidepath Connecting Offset
T- Intersections
Median Bicycle Left Turn Lanes
Greater detail on all of these design treatments can be found in the documents mentioned above, as well as other
sources such as PedSafe and the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) website.
Right Turn Lane Design with Bicycle Lanes
Long right-turn lanes on high-speed, high-traffic arterials with existing bicycle lanes currently create the potential
for conflicts between bicyclists and automobiles. These designs cause high stress for bicyclists due to the long
length of exposure to higher speed merging traffic. Reconfigurations of right-turn lanes will have to consider
potential impacts on intersection capacity and motorist safety in balance with bicyclist safety and comfort needs.
Each intersection will require additional engineering study to determine the proper design treatment. The
following design options to improve the comfort and safety of the approach for bicyclists include:
Remove right turn lane and convert to protected intersection: Protection for the bicycle lane continues to
the stop line eliminating exposure to merging or weaving traffic.
Reduced merge area for right turn lane: Traffic entering this lane would have a limited zone where it may
cross the protected bicycle lane. This would be demarcated with a conspicuous pavement treatment and
potentially flexible delineators or curbing.
Traffic Signals Warrants
Signalized intersections allow bicyclists to cross arterial streets without needing to select a gap in moving traffic.
Traffic signals make it easier to cross the street, though it is important to make improvements to reduce conflicts
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 22
between bicyclists and turning vehicles. It is important to note that bicyclists may be counted as pedestrians or
vehicles when evaluating MUTCD warrants.
Additional Design Considerations
MUTCD warrants justifying installation of traffic signals may be hard to meet at arterial crossings which may be
difficult for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross without a signal. For purposes of this plan, the warrant criteria can
be waived by the City Traffic Engineer if it is determined a signal is the most suitable way to accommodate a non-
motorized crossing identified in the 2020 Low-Stress Bicycle Network. This is essentially a Low-Stress Bicycle
Network Warrant to ensure the Low-Stress Network is a viable alternative to parallel arterial roadways.
Bicycle Signal Faces
Bicycle signal faces provide clearer direction to bicyclists crossing signalized intersections that they may enter an
intersection. At locations (typically trail crossings) where it is expected bicyclists should follow pedestrian signals,
under present law and timing practices, bicyclists are only “legal” when they enter the crosswalk during the solid
WALK portion of the signal which is significantly shorter than the provided walk plus clearance time. This
frequently results in bicyclists disobeying the flashing don’t walk portion of the cycle which can lead to them being
caught in the intersection during the change interval. Providing bicycle signal faces allows for a longer display of
green as compared to the walk, which significantly improves the compliance with the traffic control. Further, the
MUTCD states explicitly that pedestrian signals are for the “exclusive use of pedestrians”. Bicycle signal faces can
be designed to call a green signal phase through the use of loop detectors (or other passive detection such as video
or radar) or push button. Bicycle signal faces and a separate bicycle signal phase should be considered at
intersections and trail crossings with very high volumes of bicyclists or locations where it is desirable to provide
separate phasing for the bicyclists to improve their safety and reduce conflicts with turning motorists.
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons
Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) are installed at unsignalized street crossings or mid-block crossing to
assist pedestrians and bicyclists in crossing the street. Rectangular rapid flashing beacons have proven to be
effective devices at uncontrolled intersections for increasing motorist yielding rates and reducing pedestrian-
vehicle crashes at crosswalk locations. The rapid flashing beacon device consists of a pair of rectangular, yellow
LED beacons that employ a stutter-flash pattern similar to that used on emergency vehicles. The beacons are often
mounted below a standard W11-15 crossing warning sign and above the arrow plaque. The beacons are
pushbutton or passive detection activated and placed on both sides of the street. If a median exists at the crossing
location across a multi-lane street, a third and fourth beacon may be placed in the median, which, studies show,
significantly increases motorist yield rates. Advanced W11-15 warning signs can also be used with the rapid
flashing beacon at locations with poor sight lines or high speed traffic.
Half Signal
This signal is intended to allow pedestrians and bicyclists to stop traffic to cross high volume arterial streets. The
signal provides a completely protected crossing of the street. The signal may be used in lieu of a full signal that
meets any of the 9 warrants in the MUTCD as well as at locations which do not meet traffic signal warrants where
it is necessary to provide assistance to cross a high volume arterial. Pushbuttons should be relatively “hot” (stop
traffic within 30 seconds), be placed in convenient locations for bicyclist actuation in addition to pedestrians, and
abide by other ADA standards. Passive signal activation, such as video or infrared may also be considered. While
this type of signal is intended for pedestrians, it would be beneficial to retrofit it as the City of Portland, Oregon
has with bicycle detection and bicycle signal heads on major cycling networks to provide adequate guidance.
Depending upon the detection design, the city may have the option to provide different clearance intervals for
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 23
bicyclists and pedestrians. The provision of bicycle signal heads would require permission to experiment from
FHWA.
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (a.k.a: HAWK Signal - High Intensity Activated Crosswalk)
This signal is intended to allow pedestrians and bicyclists to stop traffic to cross high volume arterial streets. The
signal allows traffic to stop and go while pedestrians and bicyclists may still be the street by flashing red (motorists
must remain stopped if the pedestrian or bicyclist is on their half of the roadway). The signal may be used in lieu of
a full signal that meets any of the 9 warrants in the MUTCD as well as at locations which do not meet traffic signal
warrants where it is necessary to provide assistance to cross a high volume arterial. The MUTCD provides
suggested minimum volumes of 20 pedestrians or bicyclists an hour for major arterial crossings (excess of 2,000
vehicles/hour). Pushbuttons should be relatively "hot" (stop traffic within 30 seconds), be placed in convenient
locations for bicyclist actuation in addition to pedestrians, and abide by other ADA standards. Passive signal
activation, such as video or infrared may also be considered. While this type of signal is intended for pedestrians, it
would be beneficial to retrofit it as the City of Portland, Oregon has with bicycle detection and bicycle signal heads
on major cycling networks to provide adequate guidance. Depending upon the detection design, the city may have
the option to provide different clearance intervals for bicyclists and pedestrians. The provision of bicycle signal
heads would require permission to experiment from FHWA.
Curbside Push Button for Cyclist Bicycle and Pedestrian Signals HAWK Signal across Arterial with
Bicycle/Ped Crossing Warning Sign
7 Neighborhood Greenway Guidance
Neighborhood greenways are low-volume and low-speed streets that have been optimized for bicycle and
pedestrian travel through treatments such as traffic calming and traffic reduction, signage and pavement markings,
and intersection crossing treatments. Neighborhood greenways have been implemented in cities across the
country, including Columbia (MD), Minneapolis, Berkeley, and Portland. Neighborhood greenways are garnering
more attention as cities look to strategies for attracting more people that are “curious, but cautious” about riding
their bicycles in an urban context. Neighborhood greenways allow bicyclists to avoid higher volume, higher speed
roadways, offering a more comfortable and leisurely riding experience. For this reason, neighborhood greenways
are more likely to attract families, and other more cautious or less confident bicyclists that are less likely to use
bicycle facilities on roadways where interaction with higher vehicle volumes and speeds are likely. The primary
characteristics of a neighborhood greenway are:
low motor vehicle volumes (generally less than 3,000 vehicles/ day)
low motor vehicle speeds (generally less than 25 mph)
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 24
logical, direct, and continuous routes that are well marked and signed
convenient access routes to desired destinations (typically parallel routes to higher speed, higher volume
arterial or collector streets)
minimal bicyclist delay
comfortable and safe crossings for bicyclists at intersections
There are several resources available that provide a thorough introduction to the fundamentals of neighborhoods
greenways, addressing the planning, design, and maintenance of these facilities. These resources include:
Fundamentals of Bicycle Boulevard Planning and Design, Portland State University and Alta
Planning+Design, 2009.
Bicycle Boulevard Design Tools and Guidelines, City of Berkeley, 2000.
Traffic Calming State of the Practice, ITE, 1999, http://www.ite.org/traffic/tcdevices.asp
Traffic Calming: Roadway Design to Reduce Traffic Speeds and Volumes, Victoria Transport Policy
Institute, updated 12/26/11, http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm4.htm
Because these resources provide a good background on neighborhood greenways, this section will not focus on
the fundamentals of neighborhood greenways, but rather, on key steps in the planning process, how
neighborhood greenways might work in the City of Fort Collins context, and the specific design considerations that
are most applicable to City of Fort Collins.
Bicycle Boulevards in City of Fort Collins
Neighborhood greenways have the potential to play an important role in City of Fort Collins’s bicycle network. Fort
Collins has an extensive trail network that forms the backbone of the City’s bicycle network. A primary objective of
the 2014 Plan is to extend that network by supplementing trails via a low-stress, on-street bicycling network. The
types of riders that are attracted to trails will feel comfortable using neighborhood greenways that are properly
designed.
There are several areas in the city where it is possible to connect trails by way of a neighborhood greenway, which
could significantly expand the reach of the trail system. Additionally, there are numerous high volume, high speed
arterial roadways in City of Fort Collins where retrofit of on-street bicycle lanes to protected lanes are not feasible
due to right-of-way or funding constraints. Developing neighborhood greenway facilities parallel to these streets
may be an ideal solution for expanding the bicycle network into these areas of the city.
Bicycle Boulevard Design Considerations
There are a number of design considerations that should be made before implementing a neighborhood greenway,
including how best to manage the speed and volume of motor vehicles and establish bicycle priority, how to
minimize impacts to nearby residential streets, how to maintain reasonable access for emergency and service
vehicles, how to guide bicyclists along the route and get them safely across arterial streets. Streets with existing
low volumes (less than 1,000 ADT) are good neighborhood greenway candidates as they typically require minimal
or no traffic diversion treatments. These streets may only require traffic calming measures to get speeds down to
20-25 MPH and increase the comfort and safety of bicyclists. Where traffic volumes exceed 1,000 ADT, traffic
reduction measures should be considered where reasonable alternative routes exist for motorists in addition to
traffic calming measures. Lastly, creating arterial street crossings that are accessible, safe, comfortable, and
provide quality level of service are essential to a successful neighborhood greenway route.
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 25
Prominent Markings Can Brand the Boulevard
and Provide Wayfinding
Example Sign Branding the Bicycle
Boulevard
Bicycle Priority/Advantage
Design elements that prioritize travel on the neighborhood greenway are intended to raise awareness of the route
as a bicycle priority thoroughfare and create conditions that reduce unnecessary delay for bicyclists. Design
treatments include pavement markings and wayfinding signage, adjustments to stop/yield control, and arterial
crossing enhancements.
Employing distinctive symbols and/or colors to distinguish the neighborhood greenway from other roadway signs
provides visual cues to motorists and bicyclists that this is a different type of roadway. Supplementing wayfinding
signage with pavement markings helps to further establish bicycle priority, and also encourages proper positioning
by bicyclists while sharing the lane with motor vehicles. Unique neighborhood greenway pavement markings such
as “bicycle dots” or extra-large “bicycle blvd” lettering with bicycle symbol may be developed. Shared lane
markings are being used more commonly in places like Portland and Seattle.
Because stop signs increase cycling time and energy expenditure due to frequent starting and stopping, they tend
to result in non-compliance by bicyclists. Bicyclists should be able to travel continuously for the entire length of the
neighborhood greenway with a minimum of stops. Assigning stop or yield signs to control cross traffic is one way
to minimize stops for bicyclists. Mini traffic circles may be an alternative to stop and yield controlled intersections.
Parking may need to be removed near the intersection to improve sight distance of bicyclists and motorists
approaching the intersection. After stop or yield signs are reoriented to cross streets to provide bicycle priority, an
increase in motor vehicle volume or speed along the route may occur – this should be mitigated using traffic
calming treatments.
Traffic Calming Strategies on Local Streets and Collectors
There are numerous traffic calming treatments that may be integrated into a neighborhood greenway. Brief
definitions are provided below for treatments which are likely to create the highest quality Bicycle Boulevards in
City of Fort Collins – for more detailed information on each treatment, or to review additional treatments please
refer to the resources cited below.
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 26
Mini traffic circles at 4-way intersections- raised
circular islands located in the center of
intersections of local streets, intended to reduce
speed of vehicles approaching the intersection
while minimizing delay. Stop and yield signs may
be eliminated when mini traffic circles are used.
Signage indicating counter-clockwise circulation
should be installed in advance and/or on the
traffic circle.
Mini traffic circles with Neckdowns at T-
Intersection. T-intersections require the use of
smaller circles, limited parking restrictions within
the circle, and approach neckdowns to deflect the
movement across the top of the tee which
otherwise could not be deflected by the circle.
Chicanes – raised curb features in the middle of
the road (pedestrian refuge) or along the edge
(chokers or curb extensions) that create
horizontal shifting of travel lanes, which reduces
vehicles speeds. Chicanes are typically used on
long stretches of straight roadway and are ideal
for approaches to signalized intersections where
motorists may be inclined to accelerate towards
the signal. A “chicaning” effect may also be
achieved by alternating the location of on-street
parking (on one side of the street) from one block
to the next.
Speed tables or raised crosswalk - long and
broad, flat-topped sections of raised roadway (3-4
inches high and 22 feet wide) that slow traffic by
requiring motorists to reduce their speed. Speed
tables are more comfortable than speed humps
for bicyclists to ride over without reducing their
speed. A 22 foot table has a motor vehicle design
speed of 25 miles per hour.
Speed cushions – Similar in design to speed
humps, speed cushions are rounded raised areas
placed in the center of travel lanes to reduce
vehicle speeds. They are generally 10 to 14 feet
long (in the direction of travel) with. These are
designed to allow free passage of larger chassis
vehicles such as fire trucks through the flattened
area.
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 27
Speed humps – Speed humps are rounded raised
areas placed across the roadway to reduce vehicle
speeds. They are generally 10 to 14 feet long (in
the direction of travel).
Speed humps with raised islands are an effective
combination on streets with low parking demand.
Traffic Reduction Strategies
Traffic reduction design elements are intended to maintain existing low volumes or reduce the overall volume of
motor vehicle through trips on the neighborhood greenway, while allowing continuous through travel by bicyclists
and other non-motorized users. Impacts on nearby local streets and emergency response should be analyzed
before implementing traffic reduction elements.
Partial Diverters - restrict motor vehicle access
while allowing bicycle and pedestrian access,
typically restricting through movements or left
turns. This type of treatment is typically placed on
minor streets at an intersection with an arterial
street to manage motor vehicle volumes on the
minor street.
Diagonal Diverters – restrict through motor
vehicle access completely at standard 4-way
intersections while allowing bicycle and
pedestrian access. This type of treatment is
typically placed on minor streets at an
intersection with an arterial street to manage
motor vehicle volumes on the minor street.
Median Closures – restrict through motor vehicle
access completely at standard 4-way intersections
while allowing bicycle and pedestrian access
requiring right in and right out motor vehicle
movements. This type of treatment is typically
placed on minor streets at an intersection with an
arterial street to manage motor vehicle volumes
on the minor street. This treatment can be used
to facilitate bicycles crossing the arterial or
transitioning from the arterial to the
neighborhood greenway.
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 28
The above traffic calming and traffic reduction design elements have been in use in several communities for many
years. However, concerns regarding traffic calming and reduction that occur on the neighborhood greenway are
likely to be similar to concerns that are raised when these improvements are implemented anywhere else in the
community. Most commonly, residents and officials will raise concerns about four potential issues related to traffic
reduction and calming:
Access to property;
Impact on traffic patterns;
Enforcement issues with motorcycles and mopeds; and
Emergency response.
These are all legitimate concerns that need to be addressed, and can be addressed through a combination of good
design and enforcement, if needed. It is important to keep in mind that eliminating or modifying traffic diversion
and calming design elements that are part of a larger system may reduce their effectiveness. Poorly designed
traffic diversion and calming elements on so-called neighborhood greenways may create new traffic problems,
such as attracting through motor-vehicle traffic to a neighborhood greenway with fewer stops. This reduces the
comfort and safety of bicyclists, may negatively impact the neighborhood, and negatively influences opinions
regarding the utility of neighborhood greenways in general.
To address each of these concerns it is important to involve stakeholders early. For residents living along a planned
neighborhood greenway street, and concerned about accessing their property, presenting the design so that they
can see how their access is affected is an important first step. Trial installations of design elements can alleviate
resident concerns regarding access by allowing them to “try out” design features and allow any necessary
modifications to be made before the city commits to a permanent installation. It is also very important during the
initiation and conceptual planning phases to highlight the positive attributes of neighborhood greenways and the
benefits residents can expect, including fewer cars on their street, fewer speeders, less noise, and generally, a
more livable street.
When motor vehicle traffic is restricted or calmed on the neighborhood greenway it may induce an increase in
motor vehicle traffic on adjacent streets. It is important to examine the impacts of traffic calming diversion
elements both on the proposed neighborhood greenway and nearby streets, and include mitigation (e.g.,
additional traffic calming on adjacent streets) for any impact in their designs. Again, trial installations can allow
residents to “try out” the design features and allow the city to evaluate and address impacts on traffic patterns.
Where traffic diversion is used, enforcing restrictions to motorcycles and mopeds may be needed. However,
experiences in other communities have shown such violations to be seldom-it is likely that motorcyclists, like
motorists, prefer to use the higher speed parallel streets when they are available nearby.
Traffic-calming elements can be a concern to fire and police personnel if the design substantially increases
response times to properties along the neighborhood greenway. Having the support of the fire and police
department is critical-without it development of a neighborhood greenway may be delayed or permanently
deferred. Emergency services need to be engaged early in the planning process in order to identify acceptable
design elements. Traffic reduction and calming design elements may be designed in such a way that allows a wide-
chassis vehicle, such as a fire truck, to pass over, while preventing a similar movement of most passenger vehicles.
Again, trial installations of street closures, medians, chicanes, or other design elements that may present an access
concern to emergency services may be used to evaluate impacts on emergency responses.
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 29
8 Bicycle Parking
The Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) Bicycle Parking Guidelines, 2nd Edition covers
virtually everything related to bicycle parking, including recommended racks, site layout, security, aesthetics,
weather protection, lighting maintenance etc. Model legislation for determining required parking for new
developments is also provided.
The APBP guidelines are applicable in both urban and suburban contexts. The only significant difference will be
scale. The number of bicycle parking racks needed at a particular location may be less in suburban and semi-rural
areas. This difference in demand will immediately be captured if parking requirements are based on density and
distance (addressed in APBP Guidelines). Lower densities and longer distances from population centers will
generally result in lower demand for bicycle parking.
9 Maintenance
Maintaining bicycle facilities is important to bicycle safety. As vulnerable users, bicyclists are subject to additional
discomfort when maintenance is not performed on dedicated bicycle facilities. Providing well maintained facilities
can generate more interest and comfort in bicycling. The maintenance quality of roadways and trails in City of Fort
Collins is high. As the bicycle network is expanded, protocols for bicycle facility maintenance should be developed.
In many cases these protocols can be incorporated into existing maintenance protocols. Written maintenance
protocols that are budgeted and funded are required in order to maintain a safe bicycle network. Bicycle facilities
that were installed prior to development of this Plan should be assessed to determine if they require maintenance
or upgrading based on their condition and according to updated standards and guidelines from AASHTO and
MUTCD. Responsible entities should refer to this Plan to determine if existing facilities have any design deficiencies
that should be addressed to improve safety and to ensure consistency with facilities that will be installed as part of
the recommended bicycle network. For ongoing maintenance needs, establish a system for routine evaluation of
bicycle facility maintenance needs, as well as a system for citizen reporting.
Where inductive loops and push buttons have been installed for bicycle detection, they should be periodically
tested to ensure that the signal can be actuated by bicyclists.
Bicycle lanes and key roadways in the bicycle network that experience a large amount of debris should be
given consideration for higher frequency sweeping. If adjacent travel lanes are swept mechanically, sweepers
should reach as close to the curb as possible and make sure material is not deposited in the bicycle lanes.
Perform spot sweeping if sand is left in bicycle lanes after a snow or ice event.
Repave bicycle facilities as part of street repaving projects. Consider repaving streets with bicycle facilities
more often and include bicycle facilities as a factor in determining the city repaving schedule.
City of Fort Collins has a detailed snow removal plan which includes removal of snow from important regional
trails. The plan should be updated to identify priority, on-street bicycle routes that serve as both connections
between important regional trails and important on-street connections to employment centers. When streets
with bicycle lanes are plowed, snow should be removed from the bicycle lane as well as motor vehicle travel
lanes. As protected bicycle lanes are installed, consideration should be given to adding these to the priority
snow removal routes to maintain their functionality.
Replace missing or damaged warning, regulatory or wayfinding signs. Replace signs based on manufacturer
recommendations related to reflectivity and readability (15-20 years).
Replace faded or damaged pavement markings. Conduct annual replacement program to replace bicycle
pavement markings based on a regular basis as needed. Replace bicycle pavement markings when roadways
are repaved.
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 30
Arterials with flexible post protected bike lanes will require special attention as snow piles within the buffer
zones are not likely to be cleared. This snow is likely to melt and run across the bike lane where it may
refreeze creating icy conditions. Porous bike lanes or pre-treatment strategies may be required to keep the
protected bike lanes ice free. Smaller equipment and additional snow clearing passes will be required to
remove snow.
Protected bike lanes should be designed to accommodate street sweepers. Debris will collect in the buffer
area between delineators thus debris will continually shed into the bike lane, causing hazards and flat tires if
not kept clear. Increased street sweeping of the protected bike lanes may be necessary. Smaller equipment
will be required to sweep protected bike lanes.
10 Approach to Facility Selection
The 2014 Plan recommends short-term and long-term bicycle facilities on a majority of roadways with the City of
Fort Collins. In some circumstances, there may be a need to revisit the recommendation due to changes in land
use, traffic volume, or limitations in funding. It may also be necessary to consider improvements on existing streets
that do not have specific bicycle facility recommendations within the 2014 Plan or as new streets are constructed.
For those situations, this guidance was developed to assist City staff in the preliminary selection of a preferred bike
facility to accommodate the Interested but Concerned bicyclist. This guidance is based on the principles of the 2014
Plan to provide low-stress bicycle facilities comprehensively throughout the City.
Selecting the appropriate bicycle facility requires an understanding of the roadway characteristics, expected users
and trip types. The following flow chart outlines a process for evaluating new corridors or for reassessing
recommendations from the 2014 Plan. The use of the corridor evaluation flow chart in conjunction with the
Interested but Concerned facility preference matrix will result in the identification of a preferred facility. If the
preferred facility for the Interested but Concerned cannot be accomplished, this process recommends the
identification of an alternative, parallel route.
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 31
Corridor Evaluation Flow Chart
Flow Chart Notes:
1. Use the “Designing for Interested but Concerned” chart to pre-select bikeway facility type.
2. Use the “Level of Traffic Stress” methodology to refine the facility type.
3. Determine engineering and cost feasibility.
4. If the facility is not feasible, determine a secondary option for the Interested but Concerned population on
a parallel corridor while continuing to evaluate the necessary facility for the Enthused and Confident
population on the primary corridor.
5. The Interested but Concerned population is unlikely to be served if their trip length increases by more
than 30 percent.
Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Design Guidelines 32
Designing for the Interested but Concerned Facility Selection Chart
Facility Selection Chart Notes:
1. A physically separated facility may be either a protected bicycle lane or a sidepath/shared-use path.
a. Sidepaths/shared-use paths are only appropriate where pedestrian volumes or bicycle volumes
are low
b. Protected bicycle lanes should be at a different elevation than sidewalks where pedestrian
volumes are high
c. The use of the FHWA Shared Use Path Level of Service Calculator can be used to inform the
selection of this facility type and to analyze the quality of service provided
2. A wide bicycle lane may include a buffer. The total minimum width should be seven feet.
3. Traffic volumes below 3,000 vehicles/day and speeds less than 25mph are ideal for neighborhood
greenways
Appendix D
City of Fort Collins
Bicycle Wayfinding System Guidance
Appendix D: Bicycle Wayfinding System Guidance Final Draft 11/20/2014 1
1 -- Introduction
A network of signed bicycle routes will contribute toward Fort Collins’ three pillars of sustainability by
increasing the comfort of new residents and visitors as they bicycle in the city, by reducing single
occupancy vehicle trips, and by building community through neighborhood connectivity. The interested
but concerned bicyclist is the primary untapped audience that will be served by features of this Bicycle
Master Plan. Signed low-stress bicycle routes are among the key features that target and serve this
group of cyclists. Specific objectives for development of a citywide network of signed bike routes are
listed below.
1. Provide higher level of comfort for people choosing to travel by bike:
a. For those who are new to bicycling for transportation purposes.
b. For those who are new to Fort Collins.
c. For those who are unfamiliar with a neighborhood where they want to travel.
2. Aid the following user groups:
a. City residents and CSU faculty, staff and students making local trips.
b. New CSU students, faculty and staff.
c. Visitors to the City.
d. Bicycle commuters who come to Fort Collins from surrounding areas.
e. Recreational bicyclists.
3. Provide guidance along routes which are not intuitive or are different from those followed
by motorists.
4. Provide navigational assistance (e.g. distances to destinations) for which bicyclists and trail
users, in particular, need wayfinding guidance.
5. Support bicycle encouragement efforts by:
a. Providing a discrete element of bicycle infrastructure that can be promoted and
marketed to new audiences;
6. Support bicycle safety by:
a. Helping cyclists find routes that are appropriate for their skill and comfort level.
b. Providing a widespread and systematic visual indicator for motorists that bicyclists
should be expected on the streets of Fort Collins.
This Appendix provides guidance for establishing a comprehensive bicycle wayfinding system for on-
street routes and shared use paths (trails) in Fort Collins. The guidance is based upon the protocols set
forth in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for bicycle wayfinding (MUTCD-Part 9), and
draws from best practices employed by Toole Design Group in various communities, including
Washington, DC; Arlington, Virginia; Montgomery County, Maryland and Seattle, Washington.
Appendix D: Bicycle Wayfinding System Guidance Final Draft 11/20/2014 2
2 -- Policy and Regulatory Framework
The following national manuals provide guidance on specific aspects of bicycle wayfinding, but do not
provide detailed information on how to design and implement a wayfinding system within a
municipality. A summary of the guidance provided in each manual follows.
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Guidelines
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD 2009 edition) includes standards for:
Bicycle Route designation signs
Sign panel design options for directional bicycle route signs, including colors and retro-
reflectivity of sign faces.
Standards for arrangement of arrows, legend, distance and other symbols.
Standards for arrangement of multiple panels in an assembly.
Guidance regarding sign panel sizes and font sizes.
Protocols for font type, symbol graphics, distance measures and abbreviations.
Sign installation standards such as minimum clearance height and horizontal placement from
edge of the roadway or trail.
The AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design and Operation of Bicycle Facilities
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide provides
supplemental information to the MUTCD. The guide explains the use and benefits of different sign types
for bicycle wayfinding. It also provides general guidance on where to use signs: on what types of routes
and how to place signs at intersections.
The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide
The NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide provides guidance based on current best practices in large
cities. It has short chapters on route planning, Bicycle Boulevards and bike route wayfinding.
3 -- Current National Practices
As of 2014, an increasing number of cities and urban counties are installing jurisdiction-wide signed
route systems. Some are upgrading old sign systems dating to the 1970s, others are rolling out their
first network of signed bicycle routes. The protocols and practices recommended for Fort Collins are
drawn from the experiences of these cities, as well as the guidance provided in the national guidance
documents.
Branding: Many cities start with the green and white BIKE ROUTE sign (D11-1) in the MUTCD, and
customize its design to create a unique local brand. Other communities observe the national standards
more strictly, making only technical modifications like varying the placement of the bicycle symbol or
using an alternate bicycle symbol graphic.
Appendix D: Bicycle Wayfinding System Guidance Final Draft 11/20/2014 3
As noted, the MUTCD provides a set of acceptable bicycle route
sign panels and a variety of supplemental panels, but does not
go into detail about how to create a system of routes or establish
a hierarchy of route classifications that is understandable and
helpful for cyclists. For example, the MUTCD provides three sign
types as options for standard bike route blazes, however local
and state transportation agencies must select which option or
set of options they want to use, and how to use them.
Ultimately, every community must develop their own application
of MUTDC signs to create a coherent system of routes.
Two examples of wayfinding sign systems for cyclists are
described below--Arlington, Virginia and Seattle, Washington.
Arlington County has adopted an approach for signing bicycle
routes that uses three primary sign styles (See Figures 2-4): A)
the On-Road Blaze, B) the Trail Blaze, and C) the Fingerboards,
based upon sign panel design options provided in the MUTCD. On all Fingerboards (D1 series signs), they
decided to place the bicycle symbol on the right of the destination text, rather than on the left, as
recommended in the MUTCD.
Figure 1: Takoma Park, Maryland inserted
the city seal into the front wheel of the
bicycle.
Appendix D: Bicycle Wayfinding System Guidance Final Draft 11/20/2014 4
Arlington, Virginia
On-Road Blaze
with Fingerboards
This blaze uses the MUTCD (D11-1c), a
modification of the D11-1. The legend is
customized for the direction of travel along
the route by replacing the term BIKE ROUTE
with a specific route destination; i.e.
CHAINBRIDGE, ROSSLYN, BALLSTON, etc.,
based on the ultimate route ending point.
Related destinations or additional
information are subordinate to the primary
destination and appear as Fingerboards as
shown above.
Fingerboard
Up to four fingerboards (D1 series) signs
may be used on one sign assembly; a
small bicycle symbol is used on each
panel or set of panels. This approach to
route blazing is effective in areas where
many important destinations are
clustered together and/or there are
multiple possible routes to a destination,
and one is not necessarily preferred over
another.
Trail Blaze
with Fingerboards
This blaze is a modification of the
D11-1. It uses both the bicycle and
pedestrian symbols, and includes a
Trail Name, i.e. CUSTIS TRAIL,
W&OD TRAIL, FOUR MILE RUN
TRAIL, etc. This blaze is used
primarily at every access point to
the trail for users entering the trail
system. Only two destinations (the
trail endpoints) are provided at
each entry point.
Figures 2-4
Appendix D: Bicycle Wayfinding System Guidance Final Draft 11/20/2014 5
Seattle, WA
The Seattle sign system uses three types of signs: 1) the D11-1c, 2) the D1-1 series, and 3) the M1-8 series, to help brand their regional routes
and off-road trail (see Figure 5). In order to include the colloquial route name on the M1-8a sign, adjustments were made to the standard sign.
The route number was replaced with route name within the main body of the sign. The space at the top of the sign, reserved for a logo, includes
an image of a pedestrian and bicycle to indicate that the facility is a shared use path. Use of all three route signing options does create
situations where the width of a single sign assembly will vary considerably (see Figure 6).
Figures 5 and 6
Appendix D: Bicycle Wayfinding System Guidance Final Draft 11/20/2014 6
4 -- Wayfinding Framework for Fort Collins
The Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan recommends development of a bikeway network consisting of three
primary bikeway classifications:
Low Stress Bikeways (consisting of primarily collector and local streets (with low traffic
volumes) with bike lanes and buffered bike lanes, shared lane markings, enhanced arterial
crossings, and connector trails.
Shared Use Paths (consisting of park trails and greenways, and other major off-road bikeways).
Arterial Road Routes (consisting of bike lanes, shoulders, wide outside lanes, buffered bike
lanes and protected bike lanes).
This network is designed to improve the comfort and safety of less-confident cyclists, including children
and the elderly, to serve the broadest possible population with bicycle transportation infrastructure.
This large subset of existing and potential cyclists is the same group for which signed bicycle routes are
most helpful.
For this reason, a bicycle route sign system similar to Arlington, Virginia is recommended to provide
continuous wayfinding throughout the bicycle network. This type of system is well-suited for bicyclists
who maybe familiar with the city’s landmarks and districts, but unfamiliar with what may be the low-
stress route to their desired destination(s).
To serve all types of bicyclists, but with a strong orientation to the Interested but concerned, three
slightly different sign designs are recommended for the three basic classes of bikeway (see Figures 7-9).
Appendix D: Bicycle Wayfinding System Guidance Final Draft 11/20/2014 7
Fort Collins, Colorado – Framework for Signed Bike Routes
Named Route Sign Assembly
for
Low Stress Bikeways
This design uses the MUTCD (D11-1c), a
modification of the D11-1. The legend is
customized for each direction of travel along
the route by replacing the term BIKE ROUTE
with a specific route destination. These routes
are named in one of two ways:
1) using a landmark at the end of the route, or
2) where no obvious landmark exists, using
the name of the most prominent street upon
which the route runs.
Related destinations or additional information
are subordinate to the primary destination and
appear as D1-a series Fingerboards as shown
above.
Destination, Distance and
Direction (D3) Panels
for
Arterial Road Routes
This approach uses the D1-c series which
has a less prominent presence in the
landscape. Reduced prominence
underscores 1) cyclists using arterials are
likely to be more experienced and less
likely to need navigational aids; 2)
arterials typically have existing guide
signs for motorists that cyclists can also
sue, and. These signs can be used as well
on short connecting routes and in other
locations where spot wayfinding is
needed independent of a major
preferred route
Named Trail Sign Assembly
for
Shared Use Paths
This blaze is a modification of the
D11-1. It uses both the bicycle and
pedestrian symbols, and includes a
Trail Name. It is used at trail access
points at the actual point of entry.
Only two destinations (the trail
endpoints) are provided at each
entry point (D1-a series).These
signs can be placed along the trail
as well, if the trail system does not
already have an adopted sign style
or brand.
Figures 7-9
Appendix D: Bicycle Wayfinding System Guidance Final Draft 11/20/2014 8
Named Route Signs for Low Stress Bikeways
The Named Route panel is a modification of the MUTCD - D11-1 sign. It is customized for each route by
replacing the term BIKE ROUTE with a specific route destination based on the route’s ultimate end point.
(i.e. DOWNTOWN, CSU MAIN CAMPUS, POUDRE TRAIL, FOSSIL CK PK, etc.).
This style of sign is recommended on routes where the repeated use of the primary or ultimate
destination provides highly recognized and unambiguous navigational guidance. Assigning a “name” for
the route is useful because it provides more information than just BIKE ROUTE, i.e. “the POUDRE TRAIL
bike route will take me to the paved path along the Poudre River greenway.” Typically, these routes are
longer in distance, represent a preferred route to the destination that is appropriate for intermediate to
beginner cyclists, and may have a number of turns which could easily be missed if signs are not
provided.
Selecting a primary destination for each direction of travel on the Named Routes is an early step in the
signed route implementation process. The 18” x 24” sign panel provides a large visual presence in a
roadway or trail landscape. Use of the D11-1c panel is suggested on almost every sign assembly along a
route, in order to regularly inform cyclists of the ultimate route destination.
A potential drawback to use of “named” routes is that the same route (line on the map) has different
“names” depending on which direction the cyclist is going.
Sign Specs: Size: 18” x 24”, white on green and retro-reflective. The legend should be in all caps,
2” high for best visibility. When destinations are long, the bicycle symbol can be reduced in size
and two lines of text can be used, or letters can be reduced to 1.75” or 1.5”in height.
Sign Placement in the Right-of-Way:
1. In vegetated buffer strips between the curb and sidewalk, or in the sidewalk.
2. At decision points (i.e. turns or intersections with crossing routes).
3. 30’-50’ after every stop-controlled or signalized intersection.
4. At transitional locations (such as trail-to-road and road-to-trail transitions) or in cases
where bicyclists will be transitioning to/from sidewalks.
5. Every ¼ mile to ½ mile if criteria 2-4 create a gap in signage. Spacing will depend on the
density of the street network, and layout of street geometry.
Confirmation
The D11-1c is also used as a confirmation sign on the route. A confirmation sign reassures the
bicyclist that they are still on the correct route. The confirmation sign assembly is used in three
ways:
1. Route Confirmation signs are placed on the far side of an intersection with an arterial or
collector road. This acts as a confirmation to the cyclist already on the route that they
Appendix D: Bicycle Wayfinding System Guidance Final Draft 11/20/2014 9
were not supposed to turn at the intersection, and it confirms to the cyclist entering the
route at this intersection that they are on the right route.
2. Route Confirmation signs are also used after any turn that the route takes, to confirm that
the bicyclist is still on the correct route.
3. Where the route makes a left turn, Route Confirmation signs can also be used on the left
side of the intersection in conjunction with the advanced route turn sign provided before
the turn on the right side of the road. Both of these assemblies would use the D11-1c
with an arrow plaque from the M series.
As shown in Figures 10 and 11, route confirmation sign can include a subordinate plaque providing
directional and/or distance information on a D1-1 or D1-1a panel.
Named Trail Signs
The Named Trail sign is used to mark trails, such as the Poudre Trail, the Spring Creek Trail, the Fossil
Creek Trail, the Mason Trail, and other off-road shared use paths, as appropriate. This sign is a
modification of the MUTCD D11-1 sign, as well. It includes the bicycle and pedestrian symbols, as well
as the trail name. These signs are used almost exclusively at trail entrance points and along
entrance/exit spurs. This sign should be used with D3 panels: either two D1-1a panels or the combined 2
destination panel (D1-2a) that indicate the ultimate trail destinations (end points) to the right and left.
A legend such as “To POUDRE TRAIL” and an arrow plaque can be used to guide trail users from an on-
road route, along a spur trail to the actual named trail, which may be some distance away at the end of
the spur. In conjunction with an arrow plaque, this sign can also be used at a “Y” or “T” in the trail, to
highlight which way trail users should go in order to stay on the main path.
Because most trails in urban areas provide access to a large number of important destinations, providing
guidance upon entry to only one destination to the right and one to the left is limiting. Use of the D1-2a
and D1-3a (no bicycle symbol) is recommended for periodic use along the trail to provide supplemental
destination and distance information. These sign types provide guidance regarding destinations,
distances and direction of travel and will enable more effective use of the trail system for
transportation. These signs are also used at junctions with spur trails and at the end of spur trails to
inform exiting trail users of the key destinations that can be reached upon leaving the trail system.
Figure 10 Figure 11
Appendix D: Bicycle Wayfinding System Guidance Final Draft 11/20/2014 10
Destination, Direction and Distance (D3
) Fingerboards for Arterial Road Routes
D3 signs (D1-1c, D1-2c, D1-3c, see Figure 12 and 13) can be used in three ways:
1) Along arterial road routes that have bicycle facilities (bike lanes, protected bike lanes, consistent
shoulders, etc.) and provide direct access to popular cycling destinations and major community
assets. Due to the nature of Ft Collins’ grid street system, as new residents and visitors get to
know the city it becomes clear where most arterials go, and how they may be useful for direct
travel by cyclists who are comfortable with the traffic speeds and volumes. Minimal signage is
needed to further guide cyclists using these routes.
2) In areas where Named Routes overlap or provide access to the same destinations, such as the
downtown area. Unlike the D3 signs that are placed under a Named Route panel or Named Trail
panel, it is important for these signs to include the bicycle symbol, to clarify to all who may view
them that the guidance is intended for cyclists.
3) As spot signs which provide guidance to a destination that is off of the signed route but none-
the-less served by the route. To guide cyclists effectively, up to four spot signs may be needed.
References such as “To” and “Via” can
be used where necessary. Distances
may not be needed or best expressed
in blocks rather than miles. Spot signs
may be used to provide guidance to
signed bicycle routes from adjacent
roadways, side paths etc., or access to
important facilities such as a trail at a
location where users tend to get lost
or make wrong turns.
Sign Placement in the Right-of-Way: Where D3 signs inform cyclists of destinations to the right
and/or left, they are installed on the approach to an intersection. Where located on wide multi-lane
arterials these signs may also be used on the far left side of the intersection as a confirmation or second
opportunity for the cyclist to be informed of a left turn in the route.
Place 50-150+ feet on the approach to a decision point or intersection of another signed bicycle route,
based upon the speed of bicycle traffic and maneuvers that may be required to make a right or left turn.
To allow for comfortable left turns, place the decision sign at the appropriate distance from the
intersection based on the number of lanes that a bicyclist must merge across:
No merge: 50 feet
One lane merge: 100+ feet
Two lane merge: 300+ feet
Figure 12 Figure 13
Appendix D: Bicycle Wayfinding System Guidance Final Draft 11/20/2014 11
Where D3 signs are used to inform users of supplemental through destinations, they should be placed
200-400 feet after a major intersection, at a location where street trees and parked cars will not block
their view and there are no or few potential conflicts such as vehicles entering the road from driveways
or parking lots.
Sign Specs: “30 x 6”, 30” x 9”, 36” x 6”, or 36” x 9”, white on green, title case (capital, and retro-
reflective.
Sign placement on post: Directional sign organization at a given decision point will be based on
the following guidelines:
1. The number of destinations provided on a given post is not to exceed four (three is
preferred). This allows for proper vertical clearance to be maintained. Four signs per post
is the maximum amount of information that can be read by a passing bicyclist.
2. The number of signs on a given post that point in the same direction is not to exceed two.
This guideline is based on the fact that D3 signs will be installed at intersecting bike routes,
and there should be at least one sign indicating a destination in each direction.
3. The through destination(s) should go at the top of the assembly ordered (from top to
bottom) by nearest to farthest. The left destination(s) follow, in the same order, nearest
to farthest; the right destinations should be at the bottom, nearest to farthest.
4. When routes have merged or overlap, the legend(s) that were used on the D11-1c as the
route names should appear on D3 panels, to provide continuity to the destination.
Sign Content (Legends): Destination, distance and directional information will be unique on most
signs. Determining destinations is important to the function of the network. Distance information
will be determined by the spacing of decision points and destination locations.
1. Identify and Rank Destinations:
a. Develop a list of all destinations and rank them in a hierarchy. For example:
i. Primary: Trails, business districts, major and regional parks, major institutions
ii. Secondary: transit stations, community parks, neighborhoods, other
municipalities
iii. Tertiary: schools, community centers, designated bicycle streets
b. The ranking will help determine how often the destination will appear on a sign on any
given route. Primary destinations are typically used as controls and appear most often.
Secondary destinations may appear 2-3 times; tertiary destinations may only appear
once, possibly only at the location where the cyclist leaves the route to get to the
destination.
1. Provide distance measurements in tenth of a mile increment such as 4.3 and 1.2. In areas
such as downtown, use of X Blks (Blocks) may be more helpful for signs that are within one-
Appendix D: Bicycle Wayfinding System Guidance Final Draft 11/20/2014 12
third of a mile. If all mileages on a single assembly are whole numbers, inclusion of a “0” as
a tenth mile placeholder is preferred.
2. If a bike route terminates at a location where there is no destination use the name of the
perpendicular street at the end of the route as the destination.
3. For all D3 signs, use upper case for the first letter of each word, then lower case letters.
4. Use Clearview Series C font. This font is approved for use by the Federal Highway
Administration. It strikes a balance between visibility and maximum characters per sign.
5. Use two-inch high letters. This size is visible from approximately 80 feet away. Consider use
of 2 ½ inch high letters on signs that are placed along 4-6 lane arterial roadways.
6. For destination names that are too long to fit on one line, use two lines or intuitive
abbreviations.
7. Do not use periods in the abbreviations of destination names, unless the abbreviation
might be read as a complete word.
8. Use graffiti film on bicycle route signs that are lower to the ground, particularly on trails.
This will increase the longevity of the signs.
Supplemental Signs
There are three important supplemental signs that will assist with navigation on Fort Collins bikeways,
the Trail Name panel (D3-1), the Street Name panel (D3-1) and the guidance to parking panel (D4-3)
Trail Name and Street Name panels: In locations where streets and trails cross (both at-grade and
grade separated crossings) the facilities should be identified on a sign by name (see Figure 14). At at-
grade crossings road and trail users need to know the name of the facility they are crossing; the street
and trail name should be indicated on perpendicular panels on a standard city street sign pole. At
signalized crossings, trail name panels can also be mounted on overhead mast arms for better visibility.
At grade separations, facility name signs can usually be mounted on the infrastructure itself. On road
cyclists need to know the name of the trail system they are passing over, as well as how to connect from
the road to the trail. On-trail cyclists need to know which road they may be passing over or under as a
measure of progress, or to identify the cross street where they need to leave the trail system to find
their destination.
Figure 14
Appendix D: Bicycle Wayfinding System Guidance Final Draft 11/20/2014 13
Guidance to Bike Parking: The sign will be helpful on approaches to the various CSU campus
entrances, and any other large institutions where bicycle parking may be difficult to locate. They can
also be used to guide users from a bike parking location that may be full to a supplemental set of racks
that are not visible from the first set. Word or symbol plaques can be added to indicate rack style or
locker style parking, or if parking is covered.
Additional Supplemental Plaques
Supplemental sign panels (sometimes called
plaques or subplates) provide additional
information that can be added to D11-1
series signs, See Figure 15.
5 -- Roadway and Shared-Use Trail Sign Placement Guidelines
Guidance on signage placement is important to providing a legible sign system. Predictable and uniform
placement of directional signs at signalized or stop-controlled intersections and at regular intervals helps
to provide proper guidance, particularly if a turn in a route is to occur.
Trails
Horizontal, lateral and vertical installation of bicycle signs differs for shared-use trails and roadways. For
trails, follow the MUTCD guidelines for lateral and vertical signs placed along shared-use trails (see
Figure 16):
1. 8 foot minimum vertical clearance for overhead signs, 10-12 feet is preferred.
2. 2 foot clearance from edge of trail to edge of sign
3. 4 foot minimum distance between ground and bottom edge of sign
Figure 16: Sign placement for trails, MUTCD,
2009 Edition.
Figure 15: Page 800, MUTCD, 2009 Edition.
Appendix D: Bicycle Wayfinding System Guidance Final Draft 11/20/2014 14
Roadways
For bicyclists, a good baseline distance required to read a sign and determine an action is 30-50 feet
from the intersection. Additional engineering judgment is required when placing directional signs to
allow for visibility of the sign with parking, vegetation and other possible obstructions.
Sign mounting height is also outlined in the MUTCD (Section 2A.18); however, due to speed and sight
line differences between bicyclists and motor vehicles, minimum post heights are recommended for
bicycle signs.
Mounting height guidance:
1. Sidewalk Clearance: 7 feet of clearance from the bottom of the sign to the ground should be
allowed. If there are multiple signs per post, and the lowest sign is lower than 7 feet, the lowest
sign cannot stick-out more than 4 inches into the sidewalk. If bicycles use the sidewalk the
clearance height should be 8 feet.
2. If there is no sidewalk and few obstructions such as parked cars, optimum vertical height for
bicycle signs is 7 feet from the bottom of the sign.
6 -- Design and Implementation of the Bicycle Wayfinding Sign System
The 2 Plan outlines a bicycle network that consists of existing and proposed routes on roadways and
trails. Wayfinding is an important component of the recommended bicycle network. While
implementation of the signage improvements in this Plan can begin immediately, in some locations it
must be closely coordinated with implementation of certain physical network recommendations.
Implementation Steps
1. Identify the routes in each of the three bikeway classifications that will be signed.
2. Identify a set of destinations to use in the sign network and organize them in a hierarchy as
described on Page 11 (Sign Content Legends)
3. Using this chapter of the Plan as a base, develop and adopt a protocol that addresses the wide
range of design options discussed in this chapter and includes all the sign panels that are
expected to be used.
4. Conduct in-field feasibility analysis of one or more routes to be signed as a batch. The number
of routes and amount of mileage to study will be determined by funding availability and other
institutional factors. Produce a feasibility report or deficiencies analysis to determine if the
route is sign-ready, i.e. generally safe and fully functional for the type of cyclists that will use the
route based upon its classification. Following are some criteria that can be used for feasibility
analysis.
5. Determine if deficiencies can be mitigated prior to or as part of the sign installation work, or if
the route should be shelved until it is ready for the expected users.
6. Determine if the work will be done in-house by city staff, or bid out to contractors.
Appendix D: Bicycle Wayfinding System Guidance Final Draft 11/20/2014 15
7. Develop a sign plan that includes a map of all sign locations and all necessary details for sign
fabrication and installation, based upon the selected method of procuring the work.
8. Fabricate and install the signs and inspect the work carefully to ensure that all signs are done
correctly.
The following list of potential issues should be reviewed in the
feasibility analysis phase to determine each route’s sign-
readiness:
Directness
One way streets
Signal operations
Crosswalks and curb ramps
Turning restrictions
Public ROW
Permits needed from public agencies
Drainage Grates
Pavement Quality
Lighting and personal security
On-Road / Off-Road Transitions
Appendix D: Bicycle Wayfinding System Guidance Final Draft 11/20/2014 16
Appendix E
Existing and Planned Bicycle Programs
Appendix E: Existing and Planned Bicycle Programs 1
The following summary outlines the City’s current approach to bicycle programming.
This is intended as a supplement to Chapter 2 in the draft Bicycle Master Plan to further
describe the breadth of education and outreach initiatives offered by the City of Fort
Collins. Consistent with the recommendations of the 2014 Plan, future programs will be
evaluated on an ongoing basis to determine effectiveness and alignment with the Plan
goals, and programs may be implemented through partnerships.
Bicycle safety education
Offer a variety of bicycle safety education classes through the City’s Bicycle
Ambassador Program in English and Spanish, including Traffic Skills 101, Winter
Cycling 101, Basics of Bicycling classes, Learn-to-Ride classes, League Cycling
Instructor Trainings, Lunch-n-Learn style presentations, and motorist awareness
trainings.
Distribute up-to-date bicycle safety education materials in English and Spanish.
Partner with other organizations, such as Colorado State University, CanDo and Vida
Sana, and other City Departments, including ClimateWise and the Recreation Program,
to offer bicycle safety education and outreach to students, commuters, businesses and
underrepresented communities.
Implement a Traffic Safety Diversion Program, in partnership with the Municipal Court, to
offer traffic safety education to motorists and bicyclists who have received bicycle-
related citations.
Implement the Safe Routes to School Program, in partnership with community
organizations and the Poudre School District, to provide bicycle safety education to
every student (Kindergarten through 8th Grade) at least once every 3 years, as well as to
High School students on a regular basis.
Offer Safe Routes to School Train the Trainers Program and offer SRTS presentations
to PTOs/PTAs and School Wellness Teams.
Develop a sustainable walking and bicycling school bus program for interested schools.
Develop the City’s High School and Middle School Bicycle Ambassador Program to
increase education and awareness of bicycle safety and to expand education outreach
through youth participation in the program.
Design and construct a Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Town to serve as a teaching
environment for people of all ages and abilities to learn traffic safety skills.
Support women-oriented bicycle education opportunities through the Women on a Roll
initiative.
Wayfinding and trip-planning resources
Design and implement a citywide wayfinding system to support new and existing cyclists
in navigating the low-stress bikeway network and to provide guidance to community
destinations.
Update the City’s Bicycle Map annually to highlight the City’s low-stress bikeway
network, and distribute maps communitywide and online through the FC Bikes webpage.
Promote online bicycle route finding tools, e.g. Ride the City and Google Maps, and
explore the benefits of developing a multimodal application for the City of Fort Collins.
Work cross-departmentally and with community organizations to ensure bicycle facility
closures and detour routes are appropriately communicated and safely designed.
Utilize the FC Bikes website to provide bicycle trip planning resources.
Appendix E: Existing and Planned Bicycle Programs 2
Conduct regular bicycle infrastructure rides to highlight low-stress routes and provide
education on new bicycle infrastructure.
Publish online Safe Routes to School map highlighting safe bicycle and walking
connections to schools.
Bicycle-related initiatives and supporting facilities
Implement Open Streets Initiatives to offer events in different neighborhoods around the
community, promoting active transportation and providing access to temporary car-free
environments.
Implement Summer and Winter Bike Month activities, in partnership with community
organizations and local businesses, to support existing bicycle commuters, encourage
new riders, and promote bicycle-friendly businesses.
Partner with community organizations and local businesses to implement the Women on
a Roll Initiative focused on increasing access to bicycling among women.
Support bicycle-related tourism and economic development opportunities.
Actively seek partnerships with health organizations, Poudre School District, and others
on active transportation initiatives.
All ages and abilities bicycle promotion
Expand the City’s public transportation options and existing Fort Collins Bike Library
through an automated, self-checkout bike share system with conveniently located public
bikes.
Work with community organizations and ClimateWise to promote the League of
American Bicyclists’ Bicycle Friendly Business Program, and offer support to businesses
to increase their level of bicycle friendliness, including offering business-related incentive
programs and promoting the bicycle-commuter federal tax benefit.
Expand the availability and quality of bicycle parking and end-of-trip facilities at
destinations citywide through business outreach, the City’s on-street bike corral
program, non-profit grant program, and sidewalk bike rack program, and provide bicycle
support facilities (e.g. bicycle fix-it stands) at convenient public locations.
Utilize the City’s Website, social media and public campaigns to promote bicycling and
bicycling resources.
Conduct regular bicycle infrastructure rides to highlight low-stress routes and provide
education on new bicycle infrastructure.
Offer targeted bicycle commuting classes focused on the Interested but Concerned
population, including seasonal bicycle commuting workshops and guided rides (e.g.
winter cycling guided rides).
Strengthen neighborhood-level outreach through the Bicycle Ambassador Program and
explore the implementation of individualized, neighborhood-based marketing campaigns
to increase participation in bicycling.
Increase bicycle promotion and outreach to all schools.
Expand the City’s Learn-2-Ride class offerings, and offer support to other organizations
and City departments to implement programs, rides and classes for seniors, women,
youth, and novice bicyclists of all backgrounds.
Conduct women-specific bicycle classes and outreach through the Women on a Roll
Initiative, and support community organizations such as the Fort Collins Bicycle Co-op in
implementing women-focused bicycle education and maintenance programs.
Appendix E: Existing and Planned Bicycle Programs 3
Responsible cycling promotion
Offer a Traffic Safety Diversion Program, in partnership with the Municipal Court, to offer
traffic safety education to motorists and bicyclists who have received a bicycle-related
citation.
Conduct annual workshops with Law Enforcement officials to share resources and
information regarding bicycle laws and safety priorities.
Partner with the Fort Collins Police Department to provide education and resources
regarding bicycle laws.
Distribute helmets, lights and bicycle safety gear at community events (e.g. monthly light
up the night events), through partner organizations and to low-income students and
parents.
Conduct targeted trail-side outreach events to provide education regarding responsible
and safe user behavior along multiuse trails.
Continue to promote the City and CSU’s bicycle registration program.
Utilize BPEC and BAP to educate cyclists and increase compliance with bicycling laws.
Safe travel behavior among all travel modes
Evaluate the City’s current Share the Road Campaign and explore effective messages
and strategies for promoting safe coexisting of all modes.
Implement motorist awareness and educational campaigns.
Incorporate educational signage where appropriate to reinforce roadway sharing among
modes (e.g. Bikes May Use Full Lane).
Regularly assess bicycle crash data to inform design, engineering and enforcement
improvements.
Partner with Fort Collins Police Department and CSU to identify high-risk locations for
targeted multimodal enforcement campaigns.
Develop high-priority bicycle safety locations list annually.
Increase public communication regarding ongoing bicycle enforcement efforts.
Extensive evaluation
Implement the Boltage Demonstration Project.
Implement program-specific evaluation (e.g. Open Streets and Bike Month evaluation)
measures.
Produce annual FC Bikes and Safe Routes to School Reports to communicate progress
toward Bicycle Master Plan goals.
Implement an expanded Manual Count Program to track trends in gender and helmet
use of the City’s bicycling population.
Implement an expanded automated count program to include on-street counters and
Eco-Totem counters.
Conduct Pre- and Post-Infrastructure Implementation Studies to determine effectiveness
of bikeway designs and to refine as needed.
Continue to conduct crash data analysis to determine infrastructure and programming
opportunities.
Appendix E: Existing and Planned Bicycle Programs 4
Appendix F
Implementation Details
Appendix F: Implementation Details 1
2020 Network Phasing
Prioritization Methodology
The recommended low-stress bike network improvements have been grouped and evaluated by corridor, as
shown in Chapter 5 of the 2014 Plan. The corridors include a combination of segment and intersection
improvements. A three-step evaluation process, as detailed in Figure 1 and described below, was applied to the
38 corridors to establish the corridor phasing plan.
Step 1 – The quantitative analysis is based on four evaluation criteria, each of which was given a normalized
score ranging from 0–10, with 10 being the best. The scores were summed, and each corridor was given a
Quantitative Corridor Score ranging from 0–40, with 40 being the best. The four criteria are as follows:
The Demand Analysis results (as described in Chapter 2) identify the areas of Fort Collins with the
highest bicycle demand and relate to many of the Bike Plan Goals/Themes. The demand score is
based on the average demand calculated over the length of the corridor.
The Crash History score accounts for the history of bicycle-related crashes (2009-2013) within a 150
foot buffer of the corridor. Corridors with a higher number of bicycle-related crashes per mile
suggest the need for infrastructure improvements and therefore receive a higher score.
The community was asked to identify barriers to bicycling in Fort Collins on the online interactive
WikiMap. The Barrier Identification score is based on the number of recognized barriers per mile
within a 150 foot buffer of each corridor.
Over the course of the planning process, the community has been asked to identify the highest
priority corridors for bike network improvements. This input was summarized and used to calculate
the Public Input on Corridor Priorities score. In some cases, the public has strongly identified an
arterial route, such as Prospect Road, as needing bike improvements. Because the 2020 Network
focuses on non-arterial routes, these “votes” have been transferred to the nearest parallel low-
stress corridor. For example, the Prospect Road “votes” were applied to the Pitkin and Stuart
corridors.
Step 2 – The recommended corridor projects were evaluated qualitatively based on their ability to make
improvements in the three areas of the Triple Bottom Line (TBL): economic, environmental, and social
sustainability. A series of questions were posed, and each corridor was given a rating of High, Medium, or Low in
each TBL category. The TBL evaluation was used to refine the phasing plan, ensuring a balanced mix of projects
in each time horizon.
Appendix F: Implementation Details 2
Figure 1. Corridor Prioritization Process
Economic Sustainability
Does the project connect to a commercial district?
Does the project make use of existing infrastructure (e.g., restriping only)?
Does the project have high potential for partnership and/or non-City funding contributions?
Does the project enhance connectivity to the proposed bike share stations?
Environmental Sustainability
Does the project increase connectivity to natural resources?
Does the project limit the need for additional impervious surfaces?
Does the project increase access to transit?
Social Sustainability
Does the project address a safety concern?
Does the project connect to a community activity (e.g., school, library, park)?
Does the project enhance a cultural or historic district?
Does the project serve traditionally underserved populations (e.g., low income, minority)?
Appendix F: Implementation Details 3
Step 3 – The refined phasing plan, which accounts for both the Quantitative Evaluation and the Triple
Bottom Line Evaluation, was then cross-checked to consider leveraging planned maintenance and CIP
projects and to ensure geographic equity and logical system connectivity within the immediate and near
term actions. Some projects were given a higher priority based on these considerations.
Appendix F: Implementation Details 4
Planning-Level Cost Estimates
The conceptual cost estimates prepared for the bike plan are based on the basic understanding of
certain roadway infrastructure elements that would need to be added, removed, and/or modified to
implement the proposed bike facility improvement.
For example, the installation of new pavement markings and signing are relatively easily installed if
other existing infrastructure isn’t impacted; those costs are based on an estimate of bike lane markings
and sign placement of approximately 20 per mile on each side of the street. However, improvements
that require moving existing street edges can impact the removal and replacement of curb & gutter,
drainage infrastructure, utilities, and landscaping/trees. These types of improvements may also require
the purchase of additional right-of-way or establishment of an easement – all of which can increase the
cost of a bike facility improvement substantially.
The methodology for estimating project costs includes:
o Identifying project elements that can be readily quantified
o Using existing data for each of these elements to estimate units costs on a linear foot,
square foot, square yard, each, or lump sum basis
o Quantifying project elements to the extent possible and calculating the projected item cost
o Including percentage add-on costs for items that cannot be truly quantified at this time, e.g.,
drainage, landscaping, or utility impacts
o Including a percentage of the base construction cost for maintenance of traffic during
construction
o Adding a percent contingency for unknown project costs
Costs do not include estimates for on-going maintenance such as sweeping and snow removal which
may add to the cost of implementation as indicated in Chapter 5.
Until a specific street is identified for a particular improvement, costs for new infrastructure can only be
estimated at a general level. Considering these factors, the following tables summarize the estimated
cost ranges for several project types that are recommended in the 2014 Plan.
Appendix F: Implementation Details 5
Signed Route
Includes: sign and post
Item
Unit Quantity Unit Cost
Total
Cost
Assumptions
Sign Panel (Class I) EA 20 $120.00 $2,400 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of road
Steel Sign Post (2x2 Inch Tubing) EA 20 $280.00 $5,600
Sharrow EA 40 $275.00 $11,000 1 Symbol every 250 feet each side of road
Subtotal $19,000
Lump Sum Items
Maintenance of Traffic (10%) LS 1.00 $1,900.00 $1,900
Subtotal $20,900
10% Contingency $2,090
Total Estimated Cost $23,000
Per Linear Foot $4.36
Signed Route without Sharrows
Includes: sign and post
Item
Unit Quantity Unit Cost
Total
Cost
Assumptions
Sign Panel (Class I) EA 20 $120.00 $2,400 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of road
Steel Sign Post (2x2 Inch Tubing) EA 20 $280.00 $5,600
Subtotal $8,000
Lump Sum Items
Maintenance of Traffic (10%) LS 1.00 $800.00 $800
Subtotal $8,800
10% Contingency $880
Total Estimated Cost $9,700
Per Linear Foot $1.84
Appendix F: Implementation Details 6
Bike Lanes – Collector
Includes: bicycle lane markings in both directions with bicycle lane signs. No markings on existing roadway require removal.
Item
Unit Quantity Unit Cost
Total
Cost
Assumptions
Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Lines (4") LF 21,120 $2.60 $54,912 4 solid lines entire length
Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol EA 40 $275.00 $11,000 1 Symbol every 250 feet, each side of road
Sign Panel (Class I) EA 20 $120.00 $2,400 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of road
Steel Sign Post (2x2 Inch Tubing) EA 20 $280.00 $5,600
Subtotal $73,912
Lump Sum Items
Maintenance of Traffic (10%) LS 1.00 $7,391.00 $7,391
Subtotal $81,303
20% Contingency $16,261
Total Estimated Cost $97,600
Per Linear Foot $18.48
Appendix F: Implementation Details 7
Bike Lanes – Arterial
Includes: bicycle lane markings in both directions with bicycle lane signs. Up to 2 traffic lane lines removed.
Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Assumptions
Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Lines (4") LF 21,120 $2.60 $54,912 4 solid lines entire length
Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol EA 40 $275.00 $11,000 1 Symbol every 250 feet, each side of road
Sign Panel (Class I) EA 20 $120.00 $2,400 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of road
Steel Sign Post (2x2 Inch Tubing) EA 20 $280.00 $5,600
Eradication (Skip Lines) LF 2,640 $0.50 $1,320 Eradicate 2 skip lines
Replace Skip Lines LF 2,640 $2.60 $6,864
Subtotal $82,096
Lump Sum Items
Maintenance of Traffic (10%) LS 1.00 $8,210.00 $8,210
Subtotal $90,306
20% Contingency $18,061
Total Estimated Cost $108,400
Per Linear Foot $20.53
Appendix F: Implementation Details 8
Buffered Bike Lane – No Marking Removal
Includes: buffered bicycle lane markings in both directions with bicycle lane signs. No markings on existing roadway require removal.
Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Assumptions
Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Lines (4") LF 31,680 $2.60 $82,368 6 solid lines entire length
Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol EA 40 $275.00 $11,000 1 Symbol every 250 feet each side of road
Crosswalk EA 4 $1,000.00 $4,000
4 Crosswalks per mile, 36 Feet x 10 Feet, High
Visibility
Sign Panel (Class I) EA 20 $120.00 $2,400 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of road
Steel Sign Post (2x2 Inch Tubing) EA 20 $280.00 $5,600
Subtotal $105,368
Lump Sum Items
Maintenance of Traffic (10%) LS 1.00 $10,537.00 $10,537
Subtotal $115,905
20% Contingency $23,181
Total Estimated Cost $139,100
Per Foot $26.34
Appendix F: Implementation Details 9
Bike Lanes –Requires Roadway Widening (Outside of Existing Footprint)
Includes: bicycle lane markings in both directions with bicycle lane signs. Requires road widening up to 7' each side, 14' total, with 22' pavement
overlay of existing roadway. Major grading required with curb and gutter. Drainage impacts.
Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Assumptions
Earthwork, Excavation, Grading CY 5,476
$20.00 $109,511
7 feet width and 2 feet depth, each side of
road
Aggregate Base Course CY 2,738
$40.00 $109,511
7 feet width and 1 feet depth, each side of
road
Milling SY 11,733 $7.00 $82,133 22 feet width
Asphalt Base Course TON 2,779
$70.00 $194,526
14 feet width and 0.5 feet depth, 13.3 CF in a
TON
Asphalt Surface Course TON 2,387
$70.00 $167,070
36 feet width and 0.125 feet depth, 13.3 CF in
a TON
Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Lines (4") LF 21,120 $2.60 $54,912 4 solid lines entire length
Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol EA 40
$275.00 $11,000
1 Symbol every 250 feet each side of road
(bike lane)
Crosswalk EA 4
$1,000.00 $4,000
4 Crosswalks per mile, 36 Feet x 10 Feet, High
Visibility
Sign Panel (Class I) EA 20 $120.00 $2,400 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of road
Steel Sign Post (2x2 Inch Tubing) EA 20 $280.00 $5,600
Retaining Wall (up to 6 foot height) LF 528 $360.00 $190,080
Curb & Gutter (Type 2)(II-B) LF 9,504 $20.00 $190,080
Subtotal $1,120,824
Lump Sum Items
Landscaping (10%) LS 1.00 $112,082.00 $112,082
Drainage and E&S (15%) LS 1.00 $168,124.00 $168,124
Maintenance of Traffic (10%) LS 1.00 $112,082.00 $112,082
Utility Adjustments (10%) LS 1.00 $112,082.00 $112,082
Subtotal $1,625,194
30% Contingency $487,558
Appendix F: Implementation Details 10
Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Assumptions
Total Estimated Cost $2,112,800
Per Foot $400.15
Buffered Bike Lane – Road Markings Removal
Includes: buffered bicycle lane markings in both directions with bicycle lane signs. Up to 4 traffic lane lines removed.
Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Assumptions
Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Lines (4") LF 31,680 $2.60 $82,368 6 solid lines entire length
Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol EA 40 $275.00 $11,000 1 Symbol every 250 feet each side of road
Crosswalk
EA 4
$1,000.00 $4,000
4 Crosswalks per mile, 36 Feet x 10 Feet, High
Visibility
Sign Panel (Class I) EA 20 $120.00 $2,400 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of road
Steel Sign Post (2x2 Inch Tubing) EA 20 $280.00 $5,600
Eradication LF 13,200 $0.50 $6,600 Eradicate 2 solid lane lines & 2 skip lines
Replace Solid & Skip Lines LF 13,200 $2.60 $34,320
Subtotal $146,288
Lump Sum Items
Maintenance of Traffic (10%) LS 1.00 $14,629.00 $14,629
Subtotal $160,917
20% Contingency $32,183
Total Estimated Cost $193,200
Per Foot $36.59
Appendix F: Implementation Details 11
Priority Shared Lane Marking Treatment (no color)
Includes: shared lane pavement marking at 125 foot spacing with dotted white lines bracketing symbol. No markings on existing roadway
require removal.
Item
Unit Quantity Unit Cost
Total
Cost
Assumptions
Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Lines (4" to
6")
LF 2,400 $2.60 $6,240
4 dotted lines, 30 foot length either side of
symbol
Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol EA 80 $275.00 $22,000 1 Symbol every 125 feet per side of the road
Sign Panel (Class I) EA 20 $120.00 $2,400 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of road
Steel Sign Post (2x2 Inch Tubing) EA 20 $280.00 $5,600
Lump Sum Items
Maintenance of Traffic (10%) LS 1.00 $0.00 $0
Subtotal $36,240
20% Contingency $7,248
Total Estimated Cost $43,500
Per Foot $8.24
Appendix F: Implementation Details 12
Neighborhood Greenway – Low
Include: bike lane markings; sign and post.
Item
Unit Quantity Unit Cost
Total
Cost
Assumptions
Sign Panel (Class I) EA 20 $120.00 $2,400
Steel Sign Post (2x2 Inch Tubing) EA 20 $280.00 $5,600
Sharrow EA 40 $275.00 $11,000
Subtotal $19,000
Lump Sum Items
Maintenance of Traffic (Fixed) LS 1.00 $1,900.00 $1,900
Subtotal $20,900
10% Contingency $2,090
Total Estimated Cost $23,000
Per Linear Foot $4.36
Appendix F: Implementation Details 13
Neighborhood Greenway – High
Includes: construction of traffic calming devices
Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Assumptions
Earthwork, Excavation, Grading, Fill CY 913 $20.00 $18,252 14 feet width and 1foott depth
Asphalt Surface Course (Overlay) TON 1,989 $67.00 $133,258 10 feet width and 2" depth, 13.3 CF in a TON
Curb & Gutter Removal LF 1,800 $5.00 $9,000 3-300' segments each side
Curb & Gutter (Type 2)(II-B) LF 1,980 $20.00 $39,600 3-300' segments each side x 1.1
Pavement Removal SY 733 $10.00 $7,330 1/2 of (300'x44')
Sign Panel (Class I) EA 10 $120.00 $1,200
Steel Sign Post (2x2 Inch Tubing) EA 10 $280.00 $2,800
Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol EA 10 $275.00 $2,750
Milling SY 17,600 $7.00 $123,200
Subtotal $337,390
Lump Sum Items
Landscaping (10%) LS 1.00 $33,739.00 $33,739
Drainage and E&S (10%) LS 1.00 $33,739.00 $33,739
Maintenance of Traffic (5%) LS 1.00 $16,870.00 $16,870
Utility Adjustments (10%) LS 1.00 $33,739.00 $33,739
Subtotal $455,477
30% Contingency $136,643
Total Estimated Cost $592,200
Per Foot $112.16
Appendix F: Implementation Details 14
Protected Bike Lane – Sidewalk Level (Construct New - 7' asphalt w/ curb & gutter & median)– Both Sides
Includes: relocation of existing 6 foot concrete sidewalk with new 7 foot minimum cycle track alongside a roadway (2' median w/ 5' track).
Requires major grading with some retaining walls along with removal and replacement of existing curb and gutter.
Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Assumptions
Earthwork, Excavation, Grading, Fill CY 9,387 $20.00 $187,733 12 feet disturbance each side and 2 feet depth
Aggregate Base Course CY 2,738 $40.00 $109,511 7 feet width each side and 1 feet depth
Asphalt Surface Course
TON 928
$70.00 $64,972
7 feet width and 2" depth, 13.3 CF in a TON each
side
Asphalt Base Course TON 2,779 $70.00 $194,526 14 feet width and 0.5 feet depth, 13.3 CF in a TON
Retaining Wall (up to 6 foot height) LF 528 $360.00 $190,080 10% of length
Curb and Gutter Removal LF 10,560 $5.00 $52,800 Both sides
Remove 6 Foot Sidewalk SY 7,040 $7.50 $52,800 Both sides
Curb & Gutter (Type 2)(II-B) LF 10,560 $20.00 $211,200 Both sides
Curb & Gutter (Type 2)(I-B) LF 21,120 $15.00 $316,800 Both sides-median C&G
Construct Concrete Sidewalk (4") SY 7,040 $30.00 $211,200 Both sides - 6' Wide
Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol EA 40 $275.00 $11,000 1 symbol every 250 feet (cycle track)
Sign Panel (Class I) EA 20 $120.00 $2,400 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of road
Steel Sign Post (2x2 Inch Tubing) EA 20 $280.00 $5,600
Median Cover Material SF 21120 $5.00 $105,600 Both sides (2' x 5280' x 2)
Subtotal $1,716,223
Lump Sum Items
Landscaping (5%) LS 1.00 $85,811.00 $85,811
Drainage and E&S (10%) LS 1.00 $171,622.00 $171,622
Maintenance of Traffic (10%) LS 1.00 $171,622.00 $171,622
Utility Adjustments (10%) LS 1.00 $171,622.00 $171,622
Subtotal $2,316,900
30% Contingency $695,070
Total Estimated Cost $3,012,000
Per Linear Foot $570.45
Appendix F: Implementation Details 15
Protected Bike Lane (Street Level) – Both Sides
Includes: buffered bicycle lane markings in both directions with bicycle lane signs. No markings on existing roadway require removal; flexible
delineators within the buffered lane markings; 2 bike lane signals heads each direction at each intersection; 2 bike detectors at each intersection;
signal retiming work
Item
Unit Quantity Unit Cost
Total Cost
Assumptions
Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Lines (4") LF 31,680 $2.60 $82,368 6 solid lines entire length
Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol EA 40
$275.00 $11,000
1 Symbol every 250 feet each side of
road
Crosswalk EA 4
$1,000.00 $4,000
4 Crosswalks per mile, 36 Feet x 10 Feet,
High Visibility
Sign Panel (Class I) EA 20 $120.00 $2,400 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of road
Steel Sign Post (2x2 Inch Tubing) EA 20 $280.00 $5,600
Flexible Delineators EA 264 $60.00 $15,840 1 every 40' each side
Bike Signal Head (12-12) EA 16
$400.00 $6,400
2 each direction at each intersection;
assume 4 intersections per mile = 16
Bike Detection EA 8
$5,000.00 $40,000
1 each direction at each intersection;
assume 4 intersections per mile = 8
Signal Retiming LS 1
$5,000.00 $5,000
Assumes contractor work and that
controller and cabinet are OK
Subtotal $172,608
Lump Sum Items
Maintenance of Traffic (10%) LS 1.00 $17,261.00 $17,261
Subtotal $189,869
20% Contingency $37,974
Total Estimated Cost $227,900
Per Foot $43.16
Appendix F: Implementation Details 16
Two Way Cycletrack (Construct New 10' asphalt with curb, gutter and median), One Side
Includes: relocation of existing 6 foot concrete sidewalk with new 7 foot minimum cycle track alongside a roadway (2' median w/ 8' track).
Requires major grading with some retaining walls along with removal and replacement of existing curb and gutter.
Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Assumptions
Earthwork, Excavation, Grading, Fill CY 7,822 $20.00 $156,444 20 feet disturbance one side and 2 feet depth
Aggregate Base Course CY 1,956 $40.00 $78,222 10 feet width, 1 feet depth
Asphalt Surface Course TON 1,985 $70.00 $138,947 10 feet width and 2" depth, 13.3 CF in a TON
Asphalt Base Course TON 663 $70.00 $46,408 10 feet width and 0.5 feet depth, 13.3 CF in a TON
Retaining Wall (up to 6 foot height) LF 528 $360.00 $190,080 10% of length
Curb and Gutter Removal LF 5,280 $5.00 $26,400 One side
Remove 6 Foot Sidewalk SY 3,520 $7.50 $26,400 One side
Curb & Gutter (Type 2)(II-B) LF 5,280 $20.00 $105,600 One side
Curb & Gutter (Type 2)(I-B) LF 10,560 $15.00 $158,400 One side-median C&G
Construct Concrete Sidewalk (4") SY 7,040 $30.00 $211,200 One side - 6' Wide
Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol EA 20 $275.00 $5,500 1 symbol every 250 feet (cycle track)
Sign Panel (Class I) EA 10 $120.00 $1,200 1 Sign every 500 feet, one side of road
Steel Sign Post (2x2 Inch Tubing) EA 10 $280.00 $2,800
Median Cover Material SF 10560 $5.00 $52,800 One side (2' x 5280')
Subtotal $1,200,402
Lump Sum Items
Landscaping (5%) LS 1.00 $60,020.00 $60,020
Drainage and E&S (10%) LS 1.00 $120,040.00 $120,040
Maintenance of Traffic (10%) LS 1.00 $120,040.00 $120,040
Utility Adjustments (10%) LS 1.00 $120,040.00 $120,040
Subtotal $1,620,542
30% Contingency $486,163
Total Estimated Cost $2,106,800
Per Foot $399.02
Appendix F: Implementation Details 17
Intersection Crossing Improvements - Two-Way Cycle Track
Includes: install a raised median in the middle of the street; crosswalk markings; approach and delineator signing. Minor pavement marking
removal.
Item
Unit Quantity Unit Cost
Total Cost
Assumptions
Removal of Pavement Marking LF 585 $0.50 $293 To add bike lane markings
Pavement Removal SY 290 $10.00 $2,900
Remove 6 Foot Sidewalk SY 17 $7.50 $128 150 LF
Curb and Gutter Removal LF 425 $5.00 $2,125
Asphalt Patching SY 775 $80.00 $62,000
Curb & Gutter (Type 2)(I-B) LF 1,305 $20.00 $26,100
Construct Concrete Sidewalk (4") SY 18 $30.00 $540
Median Cover Material SF 1740 $5.00 $8,700
Crosswalk EA 1 $1,000.00 $1,000 30 feet x 10 feet, high visibility
Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Lines (4") LF 290 $2.60 $754
Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol EA 6 $275.00 $1,650
Sign Panel (Class I) EA 8 $120.00 $960
Steel Sign Post (2x2 Inch Tubing) EA 8 $280.00 $2,240
Subtotal $109,389
Lump Sum Items
Landscaping (5%) LS 1.00 $5,469.00 $5,469
Drainage and E&S (10%) LS 1.00 $10,939.00 $10,939
Maintenance of Traffic (10%) LS 1.00 $10,939.00 $10,939
Utility Adjustments (5%) LS 1.00 $5,469.00 $5,469
Subtotal $142,205
20% Contingency $28,441
Total Estimated Cost $170,700
Per Foot $32.33
Appendix F: Implementation Details 18
Intersection Crossing Improvements - Raised Median
Includes: install a raised median in the middle of the street; crosswalk markings; approach and delineator signing. Minor pavement marking
removal.
Item
Unit Quantity Unit Cost
Total
Cost
Assumptions
Removal of Pavement Marking LF 60 $0.50 $30
Pavement Removal SY 14 $10.00 $140
Asphalt Patching SY 5 $80.00 $400
Curb & Gutter (Type 2)(I-B) LF 60 $15.00 $900
Median Cover Material SF 90 $5.00 $450
Crosswalk EA 1 $1,000.00 $1,000
Sign Panel (Class I) EA 4 $120.00 $480
Steel Sign Post (2x2 Inch Tubing) EA 4 $250.00 $1,000
Subtotal $4,400
Lump Sum Items
Maintenance of Traffic (10%) LS 1.00 $440.00 $440
Subtotal $7,320
20% Contingency $1,464
Total Estimated Cost $8,800
Per Foot $1.67
Appendix F: Implementation Details 19
Intersection Crossing Improvements – High
Includes: HAWK Signal
Item
Unit Quantity Unit Cost
Total
Cost
Assumptions
Traffic Signal Head (12-12-12) EA 4 $700.00 $2,800
Pedestrian Signal Head (Countdown) EA 2 $600.00 $1,200
Mast Arm-Light Pole (20') EA 2 $10,000.00 $20,000
Controller & Cabinet EA 1 $20,000.00 $20,000
Conduit (2") LF 50 $12.00 $600
Conduit (3") LF 50 $15.00 $750
Pedestrian Push Button EA 2 $250.00 $500
Pull Box (18" x 30") EA 2 $800.00 $1,600
Sign Panel (Class I) SF 44 $25.00 $1,100
Steel Sign Post (2x2 Inch Tubing) LF 28 $20.00 $560
Luminaire EA 2 $1,500.00 $3,000
Wiring LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000
Subtotal $57,110
Lump Sum Items
Maintenance of Traffic (10%) LS 1.00 $5,711.00 $5,711
Subtotal $62,821
20% Contingency $12,564
Total Estimated Cost $75,400
EACH $100,000 ITE guidance
Appendix F: Implementation Details 20
Bike Signal Head
Includes: Installation of one signal head at one location
Item
Unit Quantity Unit Cost
Total
Cost
Assumptions
Bike Signal Head EA 1 $650.00 $650
Subtotal $650
Lump Sum Items
Maintenance of Traffic (10%) LS 1.00 $65.00 $65
Subtotal $715
30% Contingency $143
Total Estimated Cost $900
Appendix F: Implementation Details 21
Trail through Open Land
Item
Unit Quantity Unit Cost
Total Cost
Assumptions
Earthwork, Excavation, Grading, Fill CY 5,476 $20.00 $109,511 14 feet width and 2 feet depth
6" Concrete Sidewalk SY 2,933 $35.00 $102,667 10 feet width and 0.5 feet depth
Aggregate Base Course for Pavement TON 1,985 $70.00 $138,947 10 feet width and 0.5 feet depth, 13.3 CF in a TON
Sign Panel (Class I) EA 20 $120.00 $2,400 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of road
Steel Sign Post (2x2 Inch Tubing) LF 20 $280.00 $5,600
Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol EA 40 $275.00 $11,000 1 Symbol every 250 feet each side of road
Subtotal $370,125
Lump Sum Items
Maintenance of Traffic (10%) LS 1.00 $37,013.00 $37,013
Drainage and E&S (10%) LS 1.00 $37,013.00 $37,013
Maintenance of Traffic (5%) LS 1.00 $18,506.00 $18,506
Utility Adjustments (10%) LS 1.00 $37,013.00 $37,013
Subtotal $499,670
30% Contingency $99,934
Total Estimated Cost $599,700
Per Foot $113.58
Appendix F: Implementation Details 22
Bike/Ped Push Button
Includes: installation of two push buttons at one location
Item
Unit Quantity Unit Cost
Total
Cost
Assumptions
Pedestrian Push Button EA 2 $250.00 $500
Subtotal $500
Lump Sum Items
Maintenance of Traffic (10%) LS 1.00 $50.00 $50
Subtotal $550
30% Contingency $110
Total Estimated Cost $700
Green Bike Lane Paint
Includes: white edge stripes (one each side); bike lane symbol; green paint 24" wide
Item
Unit Quantity Unit Cost
Total Cost
Assumptions
8" White Edge Stripe LF 21120 $5.20 $109,824
One each side of green paint
Thermoplastic Pavement Marking
Symbol
EA 40
$275.00 $11,000 1 Symbol every 250 feet each side of road
Green Bike Lane Paint SF 42,240 $3.00 $126,720 $325 per gal./100sf per gal. rounded to $3/sf
Subtotal $247,544
Lump Sum Items
Maintenance of Traffic (10%) LS 1.00 $24,754.00 $24,754
Subtotal $272,298
30% Contingency $54,460
Total Estimated Cost $326,800
Per Foot $61.89
Appendix F: Implementation Details 23
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/techsum/fhwasa09009/
Item
Unit Quantity Unit Cost
Total
Cost
Assumptions
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon EA 1 $7,500.00 $7,500
Steel Sign Post (2x2 Inch Tubing) EA 1 $280.00 $280
Subtotal $7,780
Lump Sum Items
Maintenance of Traffic (10%) LS 1.00 $778.00 $778
Subtotal $8,558
30% Contingency $1,712
Total Estimated Cost $10,300
Shared Use Path Bridge (14’)
Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Assumptions
Basic Prefab Bridge (60 foot span) SF 840 $200.00 $168,000
Total Estimated Cost $168,000
Per Foot $840
Appendix F: Implementation Details 24
Sidewalk With Bikes Permitted, Widen Sidewalk
Includes: removal of existing sidewalk. Widening of sidewalk to 8 feet minimum where feasible, minimal grading to avoid property acquisition,
retaining wall relocation or construction.
Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Assumptions
Earthwork, Fill, Excavation, Grading CY 3,129 $17.00 $53,191 4 feet width, up to 2 feet depth, two sides
Aggregate Base Course CY 1,564 $25.00 $39,111 4 feet width and 1 foot depth, both sides
Widen Concrete Sidewalk (4" Thickness) SY 4,693 $58.00 $272,213 Assume 4 feet, both sides
Repair Concrete Sidewalk (4" Thickness) SY 1,760 $58.00 $102,080 Assume 25% of existing sidewalk, both sides
New Sign EA 20 $246.00 $4,920 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of road
Lump Sum Items
Landscaping (5%) LS 1.00 $23,576.00 $23,576
Drainage and E&S (5%) LS 1.00 $23,576.00 $23,576
Maintenance of Traffic (10%) LS 1.00 $47,152.00 $47,152
Utility Adjustments (5%) LS 1.00 $23,576.00 $23,576
Subtotal $589,396
30% Contingency $176,819
Total Estimated Cost $766,300
Per Foot $145.13
Per Side $383,150
Per Foot, Per Side $72.57
Appendix F: Implementation Details 25
2020 Network Project Cost Estimates
Based on the methodology discussed, the following table shows itemized cost estimates for each of the
2020 Network project corridors. The 2020 Network project corridors are presented in Chapter 5 of the
2014 Plan. Each total project cost consists of spot improvement costs as well as striping or construction
needed for segment improvements. All costs are based on the estimates presented above. Full detail on
the facility type and streets included in each project is housed in the GIS database that is part of the
2014 Plan.
Costs for projects that include protected bike lanes are presented as a range using the lowest (flexible
delineator retrofit of bike lane) and highest (one-way, both sides, sidewalk-level) cost estimates per
mile. The final determination of street configuration will be made during the design process and cannot
be accurately portrayed here.
Appendix F: Implementation Details 26
Project Improvement Type Cost
Protected
Bike Lane
Upper
Range
Total
Hampshire Road (1)
Median w/RRFB $66,400
$380,600
Median $26,400
Two-way Sidepath $130,700
Two-way Sidepath $130,700
Median $26,400
W Vine Drive (2) Protected Bike Lane $188,452 $5,926,169
$188,452 to
$5,296,169
Capitol Drive (3)
Two-way Sidepath $130,700
$261,400
Two-way Sidepath $130,700
LaPorte Avenue (4) Bike Lanes $143,920
$143,920
Loomis Avenue (5) Signal Improvement $50,000 $50,000
W Elizabeth Street (6) Protected Bike Lane $190,448 $5,988,930
$190,448 to
$5,988,930
Colony Drive (7) Bike Lanes $18,913 $18,913
W Stuart Street (8) Median w/RRFB $66,400 $66,400
N College Avenue (9) Protected Bike Lane $166,514 $5,236,294
$166,514 to
$5236,294
Laurel Street (10)
Buffered Bike Lanes $47,676
$48,376
Push Button $700
N Lemay Avnue (11) Protected Bike Lane $239,287 $7,524,735
$239,287 to
$7,524,735
Swallow Road (12)
Buffered Bike Lanes $691,269
$896,709
New Connection $8,340
Two-way Sidepath $130,700
Median w/RRFB $66,400
Stover Street (13)
Buffered Bike Lanes $580,417
$854,836 to
$1,600,614
Protected Bike Lane $24,495 $770,272
New Connection $149,925
Half Signal $50,000
Half Signal $50,000
Appendix F: Implementation Details 27
Project Improvement Type Cost
Protected
Bike Lane
Upper
Range
Total
Troutman Drive,
Breakwater Drive (14)
Bike Lanes $19,601
$238,940
Buffered Bike Lanes $5,913
New Connection $34,750
Jughandle $40,000
Jughandle $40,000
New Connection $47,976
Half Signal $50,000
Push Button $700
Brookwood Drive (15)
Buffered Bike Lanes $232,390
$593,790
Two-way Sidepath $130,700
Two-way Sidepath $130,700
Add Signal $100,000
Magnolia Street (16)
Priority Shared Lane $48,489
$98,489
Intersection Improvement $50,000
Kingsley Drive, Corbett
Drive (17)
New Signal $100,000 $100,000
Mountain Avenue (18)
Priority Shared Lane $28,133
$282,901
Buffered Bike Lanes $254,768
S College Avenue (21) Protected Bike Lane $226,751 $7,130,580
$226,751 to
$7,130,580
Columbia Road (22) New Signal $100,000 $100,000
Shields Street (23) Protected Bike Lane $130,027 $4,088,901
$130,027 to
$4,088901
E Elizabeth Street (24)
Bike Lanes $70,401
$120,401
Signal Improvement $50,000
E Vine Drive (26) Protected Bike Lane $140,806 $4,427,910
$140,806 to
$4,427,910
Mulberry Street Frontage
(28)
New Connection $168,000
New Connection $5,250 $303,950
Two-way Sidepath $130,700
N Taft Hill Road (29) Protected Bike Lane $117,662 $3,700,050
$117,662 to
$3,700,050
Howes Street (31) Buffered Bike Lanes $181,737 $181,737
Nancy Gray Avenue (32) New Connection $57,926 $57,926
Linden Street (33) Priority Shared Lane $17,373 $17,373
Appendix F: Implementation Details 28
Project Improvement Type Cost
Protected
Bike Lane
Upper
Range
Total
E Drake Road (34) Protected Bike Lane $142,995 $4,496,687
$142,995 to
$4,496,687
E Trilby Road (35) Protected Bike Lane $53,553 $1,684,042
$53,553 to
$1,684,042
Skyway Drive (37) Half Signal $50,000 $50,000
Pitkin Street (28)
Buffered Bike Lanes $314,740
$676,140
Two-way Sidepath $130,700
Two-way Sidepath $130,700
Add Signal $100,000
Riverside Avenue (39) Protected Bike Lane $105,656 $3,322,518
$105,656 to
$3,322,518
Cherry Street, Maple
Street (40)
Two-way Sidepath $130,700 $130,700
Wood Street (41)
New Connection $22,600
$99,874
Bike Lanes $77,274
Kneeland Drive (42) New Connection $22,716 $22,716
Remington Street (43)
Buffered Bike Lanes $320,625
Add Median $26,400 $347,725
Push Button $700
E Lincoln Avenue (44) Protected Bike Lane $137,981 $4,339,011
$137,981 to
$4,339,011
Raintree Drive (46) Two-way Sidepath $130,700 $130,700
Nassau Way (48) Half Signal $50,000 $50,000
Conifer Street (50) Two-way Sidepath $130,700 $130,700
Appendix F: Implementation Details 29
Priority Intersections
Based on the methodology discussed, the following tables show the priority interaction projects. The
priority corridors are presented in Chapter 5 of the 2014 Plan.
Chart 1: 2020 Low-Stress Network Prioritized Intersections
Intersection
Evaluation Criteria Total
Intersection
Analysis Score
(0-40)
Demand Crashes Barriers
Public
Input
College & Laurel 10.00 5.56 6.67 7.91 30.14
Elizabeth & Shields 8.65 7.22 3.33 6.40 25.60
Elizabeth & Taft Hill 5.95 3.89 10.00 2.67 22.51
Prospect & Shields 7.84 6.11 1.67 5.70 21.31
City Park & Elizabeth 5.95 10.00 0.00 0.12 16.06
Center & Prospect 7.30 2.22 3.33 3.02 15.88
W Prospect Road & Lynnwood Drive* 7.17 8.00 0.00 0.00 15.17
Mason Trail & Prospect 8.38 0.00 5.83 1.05 15.26
College & Mountain 7.57 5.56 0.00 1.40 14.52
Prospect & Remington 7.16 0.56 4.17 1.63 13.51
Lake & Shields* 7.57 3.33 2.50 0.00 13.40
Horsetooth & Mason Trail 6.89 1.67 2.50 1.98 13.04
Mulberry & Remington 7.57 2.22 0.83 0.58 11.20
College & Laporte 6.49 1.67 2.50 0.35 11.00
S College Avenue & E Elizabeth Street* 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00
Laporte Avenue & S Loomis Avenue* 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00
N College Ave & Hickory/Conifer Street* 5.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 9.00
W Mulberry Street & City Park Avenue* 6.50 2.00 0.00 0.00 8.50
S Sherwood Street at Magnolia
Street/Canyon Avenue*
7.50 1.00 0.00 0.00 8.50
College & Swallow* 4.86 0.56 1.67 0.81 7.90
Drake & Timberline 2.84 4.44 0.00 0.58 7.86
N Shields Street between Maple Street &
Cherry Street*
6.83 1.00 0.00 0.00 7.83
Lemay & Vine 2.97 2.22 2.50 0.12 7.81
Laporte & Shields 5.95 1.11 0.00 0.58 7.64
Mulberry & Taft Hill 3.92 0.56 2.50 0.47 7.44
Cherry & College 5.54 1.67 0.00 0.00 7.21
E Prospect Road & Stover Street* 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00
E Swallow Road & S College Avenue
Frontage Road*
6.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 7.00
Lemay & Riverside 4.73 0.00 1.67 0.58 6.98
Tulane Drive & E Drake Road* 5.83 1.00 0.00 0.00 6.83
E Mulberry Street between Cowan Street
and Riverside Avenue*
6.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.83
Appendix F: Implementation Details 30
Intersection Evaluation Criteria Total
Intersection
Analysis Score
(0-40)
Ponderosa Drive & W Elizabeth Street* 3.50 3.00 0.00 0.00 6.50
S Shields Street between W Stuart Street
& Hobbit Street*
6.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.33
Lemay & Mulberry 4.46 1.67 0.00 0.00 6.13
E Prospect Road & Welch Street* 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00
Mulberry Street and Stover Street* 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00
Stanford Road at E Swallow Road* 5.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.67
Ziegler Road & Paddington Road/Gr&
Teton Place*
2.50 3.00 0.00 0.00 5.50
Harmony & Mason Trail 4.73 0.56 0.00 0.12 5.40
S Lemay Avenue between E Swallow
Road & Centennial Road*
5.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.17
S Taft Hill Road between Springfield Drive
& Clearview Avenue*
5.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.17
S Taft Hill Road & W Stuart Street* 3.83 1.00 0.00 0.00 4.83
W Drake Road & Hampshire Road* 3.50 1.00 0.00 0.00 4.50
S Taft Hill Road & Orchard Place* 4.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.33
Keenland Drive* 4.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.17
Boardwalk Drive & E Troutman Parkway* 4.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.17
Boardwalk Drive & Breakwater Drive* 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00
E Horsetooth Road between S Lemay
Street & Lochwood Drive*
4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00
W Mulberry Street & S Impala Drive* 3.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 4.00
W Mulberry Street between S Impala
Drive & Ponderosa Drive*
3.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 4.00
W Troutman Parkway to S Shields Street* 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.67
S Taft Hill Road between Stuart Street &
Sheffield Drive*
3.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.50
S Taft Hill Road north of Hull Street* 3.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.50
W Prospect Road between Hampshire
Road & Fuqua Drive*
3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.33
Caribou Drive* 3.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.17
S Lemay Avenue & Harbor Walk Drive* 3.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.17
S Taft Hill Road and Hull Street* 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00
Wood Street* 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00
W Horsetooth Road between Capitol
Drive & Dunbar Avenue*
3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00
Hull Street west of Hanover Drive* 2.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.67
W Trilby Road & Constellation Drive* 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50
Kingsley Drive & E Horsetooth Road* 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50
Corbett Drive to Kingsley Court* 2.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.33
E Trilby Road & Kyle Ave* 2.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.17
Kyle Avenue south of E Skyway Drive* 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00
Nancy Gray Avenue west of Joseph Allen
Drive*
2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00
Appendix F: Implementation Details 31
Intersection Evaluation Criteria Total
Intersection
Analysis Score
(0-40)
S Lemay Avenue & Province Road/Nass* 1.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67
Mulberry Street Frontage Road between
Dawn Avenue and Greenfields Court*
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mulberry Street Frontage Road & S
Timberline Road*
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Carpenter Road at Allott Avenue* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
* These intersections have been identified for spot improvements
Chart 2: Non-2020 Network Prioritized Intersections
Intersection
Evaluation Criteria Total
Intersection
Analysis Score
(0-40)
Demand Crashes Barriers
Public
Input
College & Prospect 9.32 3.89 3.33 10.00 26.55
College & Drake 6.49 6.67 0.00 6.63 19.78
College & Horsetooth 6.22 2.78 0.83 6.16 15.99
Harmony & Timberline 4.19 5.00 0.00 3.37 12.56
College & Mulberry 7.30 1.67 0.00 2.91 11.87
College & Harmony 4.86 1.11 1.67 3.72 11.36
Mulberry & Shields 6.62 1.11 1.67 1.74 11.14
Harmony & Lemay 5.00 0.56 1.67 1.05 8.27
Drake & Lemay 5.14 1.67 0.83 0.58 8.22
Prospect & Timberline 3.78 2.78 0.00 1.16 7.72
Harmony & Shields 4.05 3.33 0.00 0.00 7.39
Horsetooth & Lemay 3.38 1.11 2.50 0.35 7.34
Lemay & Prospect 6.22 0.56 0.00 0.23 7.00
Harmony & Ziegler 3.11 0.00 0.83 0.12 4.06
* These intersections have been identified for spot improvements
Appendix F: Implementation Details 32
Conservation Trust has contributed about
$18,000,000 since 1984 toward the
development of the trail system.
33
The
Natural Areas Department has contributed
about $350,000 annually to trail construction
since 2003.The Natural Areas Program
contribution to trails may not to be available
after 2014 due to program funding needs. In
addition to the Conservation Trust Funds, the
City has received 11 grants over the years
totaling $2,731,312, primarily from GOCO
which is also funded by the Lottery.
33 FC Paved Recreational Trails Master Plan
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 61
December 2015. FC Bikes currently receives
$125,000 each year toward implementation
of the Bicycle Plan. The City is considering a
ballot initiative for fall 2015 for the BOB 2; if
the initiative is realized and the voters
approve it, FC Bikes intends to apply for
$200,000 per year beginning in 2016 to be
used toward implementation of Bicycle Plan
projects and programs.
Keep Fort Collins Great (KFCG)
In November 2010, Fort Collins voters passed
Keep Fort Collins Great (KFCG), a 0.85
percent sales tax to fund critical services for
the community (2011–2020). Through KFCG,
the FC Bikes program received $669,917 in
funding for 2013 and 2014, including $50,000
in support of the USA Pro Challenge.
Historically funded through a CMAQ grant, as
of 2013, the Bike Library is funded through
KFCG funds at $80,000 per year.
Additionally, $146,372 in KFCG funds were
used as the local match for the 2014–2016
CMAQ grant.
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 60
Bicycle Officers
The above laws and all traffic laws pertaining
to bicyclists can be enforced by any officer.
However, Fort Collins Police Services
currently have eight bicycle officers who are
typically responsible for bicyclist
enforcement actions. These eight officers
have other duties, too, and thus are not
consistently focused on bicyclist
enforcement. Bicycle officers perform
targeted enforcement actions to capture
bicyclist infractions, typically at the start of
the CSU academic year.
Bicyclist Citation
If an officer sees a bicyclist disobeying traffic
law, and if he/she is able to reach the
bicyclist in time, the officer has discretion as
to whether to issue a citation. Citations carry
the same monetary penalties as motor
vehicle infractions. According to Police
Services, the current City Code makes it
difficult for an officer to process a bicycle
violation citation, which may deter some
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 58
Each of these school events attracts
hundreds of students and are supported
by the SRTS program.
• Walkin’ and Wheelin’ Wednesdays: Many
local schools hold active-transportation
encouragement programs throughout the
school year by giving prizes to students
who walk or bike to school each
Wednesday.
• Bike Field Trips: A growing number of
schools are arranging for students to take
field trips by bike rather than by school
bus. One of the biggest annual events is
the ECO Bike Trip for about 80 fifth-
graders at Traut Elementary, who ride
their bikes to and from the
Environmental Learning Center to learn
about ecology. Another notable field trip
is Olander Elementary’s Bike Field Trip
for 160 fourth- and fifth-graders.
• Meals on Two Wheels and Food Finders:
These two programs are part of an
innovative juvenile diversion program
involving the Center for Family Outreach,
The Growing Project, and SRTS. At-risk
youth participate in these bike-based
community-service programs to deliver
meals to seniors and transport healthful
produce from local farms to a homeless
shelter, all accomplished via bikes and
bike trailers.
• Tour de Fat: This festival is put on each
August by New Belgium Brewery and is a
family-friendly event that raises money
for local bicycle nonprofits. It drew an
estimated 25,000 participants in 2013.
Additional events such as bike-in outdoor
movies, Open Streets events planned for
2014 and 2015, and women-focused bicycling
events are effective ways to get more people
out on bicycles, including groups
underrepresented among typical bicycle
commuters, like women and families.
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 56
Lesher Middle School in 2014 to incentivize
biking and walking to school. The program
uses an RFID reader to log a child’s unique ID
and his or her trip to school. These trips are
tallied and students (or groups of students)
are rewarded based on the number of trips
taken. The program will eventually be in
place at three additional schools in the
Poudre School District.
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 55
recommendations were targeted at four
audiences: youth bicyclists, adult bicyclists,
motorists, and the law enforcement
community. These audiences represent all of
the parties who will need to be educated to
reach the plan’s stated vision. The City has
recently summarized its progress on the
implementation of BSEP; that information is
contained in Appendix A.
Bicycle Ambassador Program (BAP)
The BAP trains citizen volunteers to provide
encouragement and education about
bicycling and road safety. The BAP is run by
FC Bikes and the BPEC. BAP started in 2012
and today has over 40 trained volunteers who
give "Lunch & Learn" presentations, teach
the City’s Traffic Skills 101 courses, provide
information at community events, and serve
as courtesy patrol on roads and trails.
Ambassadors also offer one-hour safety
education presentations for any group of
citizens of six or more people.
A high school BAP is being launched in 2014.
SRTS and FC Bikes are launching the program
because they recognize that peer-to-peer
bicycle education and encouragement (as
compared to messages from adults)
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 53
Encouragement and education programs are
run by both the City, through the FC Bikes
Program, and by the many vital community
groups focused on improving bicycling in Fort
Collins. A few of the most active groups are
profiled below. Enforcement, evaluation and
planning are conducted by many City
departments working together.
30 http://www.bikeleague.org/content/5-es
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 52
considered higher stress (LTS 4 or 5) routes due
to the higher posted speeds (30 to 45 mph
typical), multiple travel lanes, and high traffic
volumes. Arterial crossings without signals or
medians also score as high stress. Arterials with
bike lanes of 4 feet or less, or those without
bike lanes, scored 5 in the analysis. Figures 31
through 34 show the results of the analysis
(maps show results as of August 2014).
Table 9 shows the LTS for all arterial,
collector, and local streets in Fort Collins.
TABLE 9: FORT COLLINS LTS RESULTS BY
ROADWAY TYPE
Level of Traffic Stress
Low-
est
High-
est
1 2 3 4 5
Arterials
(212
miles) 2.4% 5.2% 21.4% 28.2% 42.7%
Collector
(96
miles) 10.1%
59.2
% 26.6% 4.1% 0.0%
Locals
(630
miles) 99.9% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 42
from 25 to 50 percent in larger cities. For
bicycling to be an appealing transportation
choice for the Interested but Concerned
population, there must be an interconnected
system of low-stress bikeways on streets and
trails to get people from point A to B without
significant additional mileage or delay.
The LTS assessment scores individual street
segments and intersection crossings. Segment
scores are influenced by intersection crossing
scores, thus if an intersection is stressful to
cross, the adjacent roadway segment stress will
be considered equally stressful, even if the
individual segment in isolation is less stressful
to ride on. The LTS assessment is also very
sensitive to traffic speeds and volumes. For
example, where traffic speeds equal or exceed
35 mph, the resulting LTS score is lower even if
there is a bike lane.
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 41
FIGURE 26: COORDINATION ZONES AND
PROGRESSION PRIORITY IMPLEMENTED FROM THE
2010 CITYWIDE TRAFFIC SIGNAL TIMING PROJECT
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 37
routes for bicyclists.
Since the completion of the 2008 Bicycle
Master Plan and 2010 Signal Timing Project, the
City has made significant strides to improve the
safety and efficiency of its traffic signal
system, including: upgrading many of its
intersections from in-pavement loop detectors
to video detection; retiming all major corridors
to improve progression; and updating nearly 80
percent of its traffic signal controllers.
23 City of Fort Collins, Citizen Survey Report of
Results, December 2013, Pages 18 and 43.
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 36
the City on public land in the right-of-way and
can be requested through an online form on the
City’s website. City staff maintains the racks.
Bike racks outside of the right-of-way are
currently the purview of the property owner,
but the City is planning to offer grants to
businesses, schools, and organizations to help
fund the placement of racks on their land.
Most bicycle parking in the city is in the form of
long inverted U racks. According to City data,
there are currently 1,279 bicycle racks in
downtown, where most of the racks are
concentrated. These only represent City-owned
racks in this part of town; other racks are
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 35
typically have a parking lane line and range
from five to six feet wide. Six feet is the
current standard width.
• Shared parking/bike lane: These lanes
typically do not have a parking lane line
and range in width from 11 to 13 feet wide.
These do not meet current 14 foot total
minimum width standard.
• Bike lanes adjacent to curb and gutter
The presence of concrete curbing with an 18-
inch concrete gutter is common throughout
Fort Collins. Where bike lanes are adjacent to a
curb with a gutter pan, the width of the bike
lane is effectively narrowed at locations where
the seam is uneven between the asphalt and
concrete surfaces, as shown in Figure 18,
reducing the effective width of the bike lane by
12 to 18 inches.
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 31
Figures 10-13. Table 4 lists the top 10 bicycle
crash locations in the city. The corridors vary in
length, and are defined not by the entire limits
of the street but by the extent of the crash
locations along the street.
TABLE 4: TOP 10 CRASH CORRIDORS, 2008-2013
Corridor Total
Crashes19
Crashes per
Mile
Shields Street 142 27.3
College Avenue 80 10.0
Elizabeth Street 73 24.3
Drake Road 51 11.3
Prospect Road 49 9.4
Horsetooth Road 47 9.4
Timberline Road 46 8.7
Taft Hill Road 38 5.8
Harmony Road 36 8.0
Lemay Avenue 34 4.3
All of these corridors except College Avenue
have bike lanes. Crashes occurring on College
Avenue most often included a bicyclist riding
on the sidewalk/crosswalk either with or
19 Crashes that occur at intersections have been
double counted so that it appears within both
intersecting street corridor’s count.
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 21
Police Services data, but there is an effort
underway to do so.
Typical Crash Types
Four types of crashes represent nearly half of
all bicycle crashes in Fort Collins, as shown in
Table 3. Crashes were categorized by vehicle
movement, bicycle movement, direction and
location prior to the crash, and cardinal
direction of travel by both parties. This typing
method results in similar conclusions to those
gathered by Traffic Operations staff in past
analyses. However, some further details that
are important to understand in crash situations
are gained through the crash typing used in this
report, and may be incorporated into future
City crash analysis.
17
16 Gender data was available for 778 crashes and
age data for 746 bicycle crashes.
17 Crash data were amended for this analysis in
the following manner: All bicycle movements
coded as “Drove Wrong Way” were recoded as
“Going Straight.” The Bikeaction field already
captures direction of travel.
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 19
arterials with protected bike
lanes, trails, & bike lanes.
Enthused
and
Confident
Some tolerance for traffic stress.
Confident riders who prefer
separation on arterials with
protected bike lanes, trails, or
bike lanes.
Strong &
Fearless
High tolerance for traffic stress.
Experienced riders who are
comfortable sharing lanes on
higher speed and volume arterials.
Less interested in protected bike
lanes and trails.
Note: A 2012 Portland survey questioned residents
about their level of comfort riding on various street
types; respondents were sorted into four categories.
Data is specific to Portland, Oregon, and is assumed to
be similar for Fort Collins.
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 18
balance of male to female bicyclists is an
indicator of a bicycle friendly community.
Using the trail counts and the counts conducted
by FC Moves, the consultant team applied
procedures recommended by the NPBDP to
estimate the daily ridership and geographic
distribution of bicycling at selected
intersections, as shown in Figure 6. Estimated
daily counts range from a low of 200 bicyclists
at Ketcher Road and Ziegler Road, to a high of
1,800 bicyclists at East Prospect Road and
Remington Street. It is difficult to draw
conclusions from these counts at this time;
many of the locations were deliberately chosen
because they are high ridership, and the
program is in its infancy.
12 Counts were conducted on Tuesday, Wednesday
or Thursday during fair weather in September
over two-hour periods in the AM and PM peaks.
Fort Collins also conducts a noontime peak count.
13 The data is not scientifically-valid due to the
limited sample size.
14 www.scientificamerican.com/article/getting-
more-bicyclists-on-the-road/ (visited April 2014)
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 16
size is 2.52 people.
Colorado State University (CSU) recently
collected ridership information through a
survey associated with their Parking and
Transportation Master Plan. As the largest
employer in Fort Collins, CSU’s commuter
travel represents a large share of daily trips in
the City. Approximately 8 percent of
respondents—both students and staff—arrive at
CSU on bicycle. There appears to be an
opportunity to increase bicycling to campus, as
nearly 64 percent of respondents live within
five miles of campus
10
and for those who
reported that they typically drive alone to
work, bicycling was their most preferred
second choice.
Fort Collins also collects data on school-based
travel for elementary and middle school
students through parent and student surveys at
schools throughout the Poudre School District.
These surveys are conducted every few years
9 North Front Range Metropolitan Planning
Organization, Front Range Travel Counts: NFRMPO
Household Survey Final Report, 2010.
10 Colorado State University, Parking and
Transportation Study, 2013, Pages 41-50.
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 14
Encourage installation of showers and changing facilities at workplaces
Source: City of Fort Collins, 2008 Bicycle Plan
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 11
FIGURE 3: PLANNED BIKEWAY NETWORK FROM
2008 PLAN
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 10
5
The transportation section of City Plan contains
several goals related to bicycling, including:
• Flexible standards, policies, and
operational strategies to accommodate
innovative modes
• Promotion of transportation that supports
active lifestyles
• Establishment of bicycling as a safe, easy,
and convenient mobility option for all ages
and abilities
• Promotion of transportation safety
awareness.
6
The TMP aims to achieve a variety of outcomes
consistent with the core values discussed in
City Plan. Goals to enhance bicycling appear
throughout the TMP: increasing awareness of
healthy transportation; promoting bicycle
safety and enforcement; designing high-quality
and environmentally sustainable trails and
streets; making bicycling safe, easy, and
convenient for all; and encouraging land use
planning and development to support bicycling.
5 City of Fort Collins, City Plan, 2011, Pages 81
and 95.
6 City of Fort Collins, City Plan, 2011, Pages 126-
144.
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 9
numerous plans that have helped create and
support the current bicycling environment. The
section that follows discusses existing plan
recommendations that will inform the 2014
Bicycle Master Plan.
Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
The Colorado Department of Transportation’s
(CDOT’s) 2012 Statewide Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan outlines an approach to
deciding which bicycle and pedestrian projects
to fund based on the following goals:
• Enhance safety
• Increase bicycling and walking activity
• Expand recreational opportunities and
enhance quality of life
• Improve public health
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 8
the City. Other factors include the temperate
climate, plentiful sunshine, flat terrain, and
relatively wide streets.
2
FIGURE 1: CORNER OF WALNUT AND PINE, 1890
Source: Fort Collins History Connection
2 City of Fort Collins, 2008 Bicycle Plan, 2008,
Page 8.
Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 7
r
d
w
alk
D
r
W
C
ou
n
t
y R
o
a
d 38E
9th St
W Mountain Ave
S Howes St
S County Road 19
Jefferson St
S County Road 11
E County Road 36
N Lemay Ave
S Lemay Ave
W Vine Dr
N Taft Hill Rd
Kechte
0 0.5 1 2
Miles
!"`$
!"`$
S Shields St
S College Ave
S Taft Hill Rd
E Vine Dr
S Timberline Rd
E Prospect Rd
Ziegler Rd
S Lemay Ave
Laporte Ave
E Mulberry St
W Drake Rd
E Drake Rd
E Horsetooth Rd
E Trilby Rd
N Shields St
W Mulberry St
S Overland Trl
W Prospect Rd
W Trilby Rd
E Harmony Rd
N Taft Hill Rd
W Horsetooth Rd
E
L
i
n
coln
A
v
e
Riverside Ave
N College Ave
W Elizabeth St
Country Club Rd
W Harmony Rd
N Overland Trl
Remington St
N Lemay Ave
Richards Lake Rd
Mountain Vista Dr
Strauss Cabin Rd
S Mason St
W Vine Dr
County Road 54G
N Timberline Rd
N US Highway 287
E
W
i
l
l
o
x
L
n
Turnberry Rd
W Willox Ln
W Laurel St
Giddings Rd
Kechter Rd
S Summit View Dr
Bo
a
r
d
w
alk
D
r
W
C
ou
n
t
y R
o
a
d 38E
9th St
W Mountain Ave
S Howes St
E
Cou
S County Road 19
E Coun
Jefferson St
S County Road 11
E County Road 36
N Lemay Ave
S Lemay Ave
W Vine Dr
Ziegler Rd
N Taft Hill Rd
Kechter Rd
0 0.5 1 2
Miles
!"`$
!"`$
S Shields St
S College Ave
S Taft Hill Rd
E Vine Dr
S Timberline Rd
E Prospect Rd
Ziegler Rd
S Lemay Ave
Laporte Ave
E Mulberry St
W Drake Rd
E Drake Rd
E Horsetooth Rd
E Trilby Rd
N Shields St
W Mulberry St
S Overland Trl
W Prospect Rd
W Trilby Rd
E Harmony Rd
N Taft Hill Rd
W Horsetooth Rd
E
L
i
n
coln
A
v
e
Riverside Ave
N College Ave
W Elizabeth St
Country Club Rd
W Harmony Rd
N Overland Trl
Remington St
N Lemay Ave
Richards Lake Rd
Mountain Vista Dr
Strauss Cabin Rd
S Mason St
W Vine Dr
County Road 54G
N Timberline Rd
N US Highway 287
E
W
i
l
l
o
x
L
n
Turnberry Rd
W Willox Ln
W Laurel St
Giddings Rd
Kechter Rd
S Summit View Dr
Bo
a
r
d
w
alk
D
r
W
C
ou
n
t
y R
o
a
d 38E
9th St
W Mountain Ave
S Howes St
E
County
Road 48
S County Road
E County Road 36
Jefferson St
S County Road 11
E County Road 36
N Lemay Ave
S Lemay Ave
W Vine Dr
Ziegler Rd
N Taft Hill Rd
Kechter Rd
!"`$
!"`$
S Shields St
S College Ave
S Taft Hill Rd
E Vine Dr
S Timberline Rd
E Prospect Rd
Ziegler Rd
S Lemay Ave
Laporte Ave
E Mulberry St
W Drake Rd
E Drake Rd
E Horsetooth Rd
E Trilby Rd
N Shields St
W Mulberry St
S Overland Trl
W Prospect Rd
W Trilby Rd
E Harmony Rd
N Taft Hill Rd
W Horsetooth Rd
E
L
i
n
coln
A
v
e
Riverside Ave
N College Ave
W Elizabeth St
Country Club Rd
W Harmony Rd
N Overland Trl
Remington St
N Lemay Ave
Richards Lake Rd
Mountain Vista Dr
Strauss Cabin Rd
S Mason St
W Vine Dr
County Road 54G
N Timberline Rd
N US Highway 287
E
W
i
l
l
o
x
L
n
Turnberry Rd
W Willox Ln
W Laurel St
Giddings Rd
Kechter Rd
S Summit View Dr
Bo
a
r
d
w
alk
D
r
W
C
ou
n
t
y R
o
a
d 38E
9th St
W Mountain Ave
S Howes St
E
County
Road 48
S County Road 19
E County Road 36
Jefferson St
S County Road 11
E County Road 36
N Lemay Ave
S Lemay Ave
W Vine Dr
Ziegler Rd
N Taft Hill Rd
Kechter Rd
0 0.5 1 2
Miles
Southeast Fort Collins
October 26, 2013 | 10 Participants
Northwest Fort Collins
November 2, 2013 | 21 Participants
Southwest Fort Collins
October 19, 2013 | 8 Participants
FC Rides! Community Bike Audits
Start Finish
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 20
Bike to Work Day
Vida Sana Coalition
ClimateWise Biz Ed
Series
Open Streets
Lesher Middle School
Tour De Fit
Appendix A: Summary of Public Involvement 4
• Storytelling Potential – Measures should
be meaningful and help to weave a storyline
Buffered bike lane on Lochwood Drive.
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
projects, and arterial intersection
improvement projects by adding bicycle
facility upgrades at a relatively low
incremental cost.
• Continue local funding of bicycle projects
and programs through the Budgeting for
Outcomes (BFO) two-year cycle.
• Partner with other agencies including
CDOT, the NFRMPO, and Larimer County to
fund and implement bike projects that are
mutually beneficial.
• Partner with private developers, health
organizations, nonprofit organizations, and
public schools (e.g., CSU and Poudre School
District) for funding and implementation of
bike projects and programs.
• Identify those projects that are eligible for
and would compete most successfully for
federal grants.
• Pursue non-governmental grant
opportunities.
Funding Sources
A variety of funding mechanisms are available
for bicycle improvement projects and programs.
Following is a listing of potential local, state,
highest and the environmental benefits are rated
the lowest, indicating potential need for programs
that more specifically address environmental
sustainability.
The City should apply this tool to the existing suite
of bike programs to organize the programs based
on their Triple Bottom Line alignment, help identify
those programs that should be phased out, led
by outside agencies or nonprofit organizations, or
consolidated. The purpose of the tool is to ensure
a balanced mix of programs that target equally the
three Triple Bottom Line principles.
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
W
E
S
T
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
F
O
S
S
I
L
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
P
O
W
E
R
T
R
A
I
L
MASON TRAIL
E
A
S
T
P
O
U
D
R
E
T
R
A
I
L
W
E
S
T
P
O
U
D
R
E
T
R
A
I
L
F
O
S
S
I
L
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
F
O
S
S
I
L
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
E
A
S
T
P
O
U
D
R
E
T
R
A
I
L
1
3 2
4
5
8 6 7
9
1 10
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS
LEGEND 00 11 22
Miles
2020 NETWORK TOP TEN 00 11 22
## PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS
NON-2020 NETWORK
TOP TEN PRIORITY
INTERSECTIONS
##
PAVED TRAILS/SHARED-
USE PATHS
OTHER PRIORITY
INTERSECTIONS
Prospect Road and
Shields Street 7.84 6.11 1.67 5.70 21.31 x
City Park Avenue and
Elizabeth Street 5.95 10.00 0.00 0.12 16.06 x
Center Avenue and
Prospect Road 7.30 2.22 3.33 3.02 15.88 x
Mason Trail and Prospect
Road 8.38 5.83 0.00 0.00 15.26
W Prospect Road and
Lynnwood Drive 7.17 8.00 0.00 0.00 15.17
College Avenue and
Mountain Ave 7.57 5.56 0.00 1.40 14.52
Prospect Road and
Remington Street 7.16 0.56 4.17 1.63 13.51
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
W
E
S
T
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
F
O
S
S
I
L
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
P
O
W
E
R
T
R
A
I
L
MASON TRAIL
E
A
S
T
P
O
U
D
R
E
T
R
A
I
L
W
E
S
T
P
O
U
D
R
E
T
R
A
I
L
F
O
S
S
I
L
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
F
O
S
S
I
L
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
E
A
S
T
P
O
U
D
R
E
T
R
A
I
L
n
n
n
n
n
n
n n
n n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nn
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
2020 LOW-STRESS NETWORK PROJECTS
LEGEND ADD SIGNAL
SIGNAL IMPROVEMENT
ADD MEDIAN
NEW TRAIL/STREET
CONNECTION
NUMBERED PROJECTS OTHER CROSSING
IMPROVEMENT
TWO-WAY SIDEPATH
SEGMENT
SCHOOL
00 11 22
Miles
Note: Project numbers are even for 00 11 22
East-West projects and odd for
North-South projects
PAVED TRAILS/
SHARED-USE PATHS
n
8
7
6
12
26
9
3
1
23
5
11
13
2
21
14
38
10
4
17
34
20
15
28
36
16
22
29
24
32
18
2
32
13
12
3
13
13
22
7 15
3
38
17
28
1
1
14
14
38
7
3
42
42
13
16
41
40
31
33
50
33
44
39
43
46 46
37
37 48
35
35
15
6
8
15
12
4
54
52 45
The Poudre River Trail
maintenance projects, integrating bike
improvements with programmed capital
projects, or leveraging partnership
opportunities)
• Geographic equity (assurance that high-
priority projects are reasonably spread
throughout the community)
The 2014 Plan goals also feed into performance
measures to track the City’s progress toward
Green bicycle lane on Harmony Road
implement the 2020 Network and move toward
the Full Build Vision to transform the city into a
world-class place for bicycling.
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
W
E
S
T
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
F
O
S
S
I
L
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
P
O
W
E
R
T
R
A
I
L
MASON TRAIL
E
A
S
T
P
O
U
D
R
E
T
R
A
I
L
W
E
S
T
P
O
U
D
R
E
T
R
A
I
L
F
O
S
S
I
L
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
F
O
S
S
I
L
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
E
A
S
T
P
O
U
D
R
E
T
R
A
I
L
n
n
n
n
n
n
n n
n n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nn
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
00 11 22
Miles
00 11 22
PROPOSED GRADE-SEPARATED CROSSINGS
ANTICIPATED FOR
COMPLETION BY 2020,
BICYCLE NETWORK PRIORITY
OTHER PROPOSED
LEGEND CROSSING PAVED TRAILS/SHARED-
USE PATHS
• Long crossing distances of multilane streets
• Necessary crossing of multiple lanes of
automobile traffic to make left turns
There are a number of intersection treatments
that can aid cyclists in crossing busy intersections,
Between 2009 and 2013, a large majority of
bicycle-vehicle crashes have taken place at or
near an intersection.
of 20 mph, which will create a comfortable riding
environment for bicyclists sharing the road with
automobiles and a safer environment for adjacent
residents.
Engineering and urban design treatments may
also be provided to enhance the quality of life
of adjacent residents through the provision of
improved street aesthetics, vegetation and other
innovative green street designs. Lessons learned
from the 2015 planned Remington Greenway
project should be applied as these facilities are
implemented.
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
W
E
S
T
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
F
O
S
S
I
L
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
P
O
W
E
R
T
R
A
I
L
MASON TRAIL
E
A
S
T
P
O
U
D
R
E
T
R
A
I
L
W
E
S
T
P
O
U
D
R
E
T
R
A
I
L
F
O
S
S
I
L
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
F
O
S
S
I
L
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
E
A
S
T
P
O
U
D
R
E
T
R
A
I
L
n
n
n
n
n
n
n n
n n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nn
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
FULL BUILD NETWORK
22
BUFFERED BIKE LANE
BIKE LANE
PRIORITY SHARED LANE
NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY
LEGEND
00 11
PLANNED BIKE SHARE STATION
SCHOOL
PAVED TRAILS/SHARED-
USE PATHS
PROTECTED BIKE LANE
n
Assumes full buildout of
the proposed trail
network
22
Buffered Bike Lane 88.1
(20.6 existing)
Protected Bike Lane 92.6
(8.7 existing)
Neighborhood Greenway 18.2
On-Street Total 267.3
Paved Trail 116.4
Total Low-Stress Mileage 383.7
Table 3. Network Facility Mileage in Full Build Network
*Note: Existing mileage in Table 3 assumes implementation of 2020
Network facilities
should focus first on routes within the 2020
Network and be implemented in tandem with
corridor improvements so as to ensure bicyclists
are directed along routes that have mitigated
high-stress arterial crossings. This will be a
major undertaking for the City that can provide
a significant improvement to the bicycling
environment in Fort Collins. Further guidance on
wayfinding is available in Appendix D.
Possible sign assembly for wayfinding on the Spring Creek Trail.
2. Review all crash studies from previous 5
years
3. Document geometric features (lane widths,
curb radii, etc)
4. Document operational features (signal cycle
length, signal phasing)
5. Document traffic capacity (Level of Service,
Level of Traffic Stress)
6. Document traffic control compliance
7. Document user behavior (yielding, avoidance
maneuvers, travel path)
8. Document maintenance and operational
techniques and costs
9. Conduct a multi-modal opinion survey to
evaluate attitudes and understanding of
intersection design
4.7 Produce protected bike lane pilot program
evaluation report
It is recommended that the City issue a final
report in 2020 documenting the findings of the
protected bike lane pilot program. Based on these
findings, the City will reevaluate the protected
bike lane recommendations of the Full Build
Network presented below. The reevaluation
may result in the City expanding or reducing
the network. It is anticipated that the updated
plan will include a prioritization scheme with
specific recommendations for protected bike lane
treatments based on the findings of the 2020
report.
to inclusion in other planning processes such as
Two-way, sidewalk-level, curb-separated
Utrecht, Netherlands
One-way, sidewalk-level, curb-separated
Cambridge, Mass.
may be one-way or two-way, located on one or
both sides of the street. They may mix bicyclists
with right-turning motorists (one-way operation) in
a short weaving area or maintain separation up to
One-way, street-level, flexible-post separated
Chicago, Ill.
Two-way, street-level, curb-separated
Washington, D.C.
be completed as one-off projects as opportunities
arise (for example as part of a routine repaving or
engineering improvement), the ultimate goal
should be completion of a series of intersections
along a low-stress corridor. This coordinated
approach will enable bicyclists to travel along
continuous low-stress routes.
Spot improvements that address these issues
are indicated on the network map under five
1 The Highway Capacity Manual suggests increased risk
taking occurs for people waiting to cross unsignalized crossings after
20 seconds, and after 30 seconds at signalized crossings.
streets do not have recommendations to upgrade
the existing facility. The local streets typically are
already low-stress as a result of low vehicle speeds
and traffic volumes. Many of the identified routes
on collector streets already have bike lanes or
buffered bike lanes and are likewise low-stress.
The following improvements are recommended on
streets that are not yet low-stress:
Buffered Bike Lanes
Buffered bike lanes add a hatched buffer area to
the bike lane, most often on the side adjacent to
automobile travel lanes. This increased separation
provides a more comfortable riding environment,
and the hatched area reinforces the message that
these wide lanes are not for parking or automobile
travel. Buffers will most often appear on the left
side of the bike lane but may be switched to
Buffered bike lane on W Stuart Street.
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
W
E
S
T
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
F
O
S
S
I
L
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
P
O
W
E
R
T
R
A
I
L
MASON TRAIL
E
A
S
T
P
O
U
D
R
E
T
R
A
I
L
W
E
S
T
P
O
U
D
R
E
T
R
A
I
L
F
O
S
S
I
L
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
F
O
S
S
I
L
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
E
A
S
T
P
O
U
D
R
E
T
R
A
I
L
n
n
n
n
n
n
n n
n n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nn
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
2020 LOW-STRESS NETWORK FACILITIES
22
BUFFERED BIKE LANE
BIKE LANE
PRIORITY SHARED LANE
SIGNED ROUTE
LEGEND
Miles
00 11
TWO-WAY SIDEPATH
SEGMENT
ADD SIGNAL
SIGNAL IMPROVEMENT
ADD MEDIAN
NEW TRAIL/STREET CONNECTION
OTHER CROSSING
IMPROVEMENT
PLANNED BIKE SHARE STATION
SCHOOL
PAVED TRAILS/SHARED-
USE PATHS
PROTECTED BIKE LANE
n
Protected bike lanes
are candidates for
the pilot program,
and not necessarily
complete by 2020.
Dashed lines indicate
planned facilities, solid
lines indicate existing.
W
A
L
K
D
R
MELDRUMM ST
E
L
I
NC
OLN
A
VE
S SHIELDS ST
E PROSPECT RD
W OAK ST E OAK ST
PETERSON ST
WHEDBEE ST
MCCLELLAND DR
CITY PARK AVE
12TH ST
SOUTH DR
W MAGNOLIA ST
W PITKIN ST
W PLUM ST
CUSTER DR
SPRINGFIELD DR
ZEPHYR RD
MERIDIAN AVE
EAST DR
CORBETT DR
CAPITOL DR
ROLLINGWOOD DR
WOOD ST
MAPLE ST
FUQUA DR
E OLIVE ST
HARVARD ST
TULANE DR
MCHUGH ST
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
N LOOMIS AVE
SKYLINE DR
ORCHARD PL
LA PLATA AVE
WESTFIELD DR
MATHEWS ST
FRONTAGE RD
BENNETT RD
ROMA VALLEY DR
JACKSON AVE
PINECONE CIR
TIMBERWOOD DR
S MASON ST
MICHENER DR
CLEARVIEW AVE
MAX GUIDEWAY
REMINGTON ST
WEST DR
PONDEROSA DR
N BRYAN AVE
ALEXA CT
MAIL CREEK LN
PETERSON ST
W PITKIN ST
MAPLE ST
C
A
S
A
G
R
A
N
D
E
B
L
V
D
WAY
R
A
I
N
T
R
E
E
D
R
W
O
R
H
T
I
N
G
T
O
N
R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H
B
L
V
D
FRONTAGE RD
HEATHERIDGE RD
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
T
I
C
O
N
D
E
R
O
G
A
D
R
C
E
N
T
E
N
N
I
A
L
R
D
L
Y
N
N
W
O
O
D
DR
POWER TRAIL
MASON TRAIL
P
O
U
D
R
E
R
I
V
E
R
T
R
A
I
L
P
L
E
A
S
A
N
T
V
A
L
L
E
Y
T
R
A
I
L
R
E
N
D
E
Z
V
O
U
S
T
R
A
I
L
HICKORY TRAIL
E
A
S
T
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
W
E
S
T
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
F
O
S
S
I
L
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
P
O
W
E
R
T
R
A
I
L
MASON TRAIL
E
A
S
T
P
O
U
D
R
E
T
R
A
I
L
W
E
S
T
P
O
U
D
R
E
T
R
A
I
L
F
O
S
S
I
L
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
F
O
S
S
I
L
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
E
A
S
T
P
O
U
D
R
E
T
R
A
I
L
n
n
n
n
n
n
n n
n n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nn
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
LEGEND ADD SIGNAL
SIGNAL IMPROVEMENT
ADD MEDIAN
NEW TRAIL/STREET
CONNECTION
LOW-STRESS ROUTE: MINOR
STREET
LOW-STRESS ROUTE: MAJOR
STREET
TWO-WAY SIDEPATH
SEGMENT
OTHER CROSSING
IMPROVEMENT
PLANNED BIKE SHARE
STATION
SCHOOL
Miles
00 11 22
2020 PAVED TRAIL
NETWORK
PLANNED TRAIL/SHARED- n
USE PATH
2020 LOW-STRESS NETWORK
arterial crossings may require changes in traffic
operations, installation of a new traffic signal,
or reconstruction of some portion of the street.
The 2014 Plan recommends the City upgrade a
minimum of five of these streets by 2020 as part
T
R
A
I
L
HICKORY TRAIL
E
A
S
T
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
W
E
S
T
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
F
O
S
S
I
L
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
P
O
W
E
R
T
R
A
I
L
MASON TRAIL
E
A
S
T
P
O
U
D
R
E
T
R
A
I
L
W
E
S
T
P
O
U
D
R
E
T
R
A
I
L
F
O
S
S
I
L
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
F
O
S
S
I
L
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
E
A
S
T
P
O
U
D
R
E
T
R
A
I
L
LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS 1
LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS 2
LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS 3
LEGEND 00 11 22
Miles
00 11 22
LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS 4
LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS 5
FORT COLLINS LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS
and offset intersections—limit the functionality
of the network. Additionally, Fort Collins’ existing
low-stress bicycle network serves some parts of
the city better than others. Recommendations
about the future low-stress network were made
to achieve the goal of “network equity,” that is, to
provide all neighborhoods with access to low-
stress bicycle routes.
Low-Stress Bike Facilities
For the purpose of this plan, low-stress streets and
bicycle facilities, including paved trails, are those
rated with a level of traffic stress (LTS) 1 or 2. On-
street bicycle facilities in these low-stress categories
are those where a bicyclist shares the street with
low-volume, low-speed automobile traffic, is adjacent
to such traffic in a bike lane of adequate width, or is
completely separated from traffic in a protected bike
lane. Comfortable crossings of major streets are also
necessary to complete a low-stress network.
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
W
E
S
T
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
F
O
S
S
I
L
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
P
O
W
E
R
T
R
A
I
L
MASON TRAIL
E
A
S
T
P
O
U
D
R
E
T
R
A
I
L
W
E
S
T
P
O
U
D
R
E
T
R
A
I
L
F
O
S
S
I
L
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
F
O
S
S
I
L
C
R
E
E
K
T
R
A
I
L
E
A
S
T
P
O
U
D
R
E
T
R
A
I
L
n
n
n
n
n
n
n n
n n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nn
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
PROTECTED BICYCLE LANE PILOT PROJECTS WITH
CITY SNOW PLOWING RESPONSIBILITIES
LEGEND
00 11 22
Miles
00 11 22
SCHOOL
STREETS DEPARTMENT
PARKS DEPARTMENT
PROTECTED BIKE LANE
PILOT PROJECT
n
For instance, the S Shields Street pilot project
could be cleared as part of a return loop for the
equipment clearing the Spring Creek Trail.
Arterials with flexible post protected bike lanes will
require special attention as snow piles within the
buffer zones are not likely to be cleared. This snow
is likely to melt and run across the bike lane where
it may refreeze creating icy conditions. Porous
bicycle lanes or pre-treatment strategies may be
required to keep the protected bike lanes ice-free.
3.15 Develop a street sweeping plan for protected
bike lanes
CF SA CT
Protected bike lanes should be designed to
accommodate street sweepers. Debris will collect
in the buffer area between delineators and into the
bike lane, causing potential hazards and flat tires
if not kept clear. Increased street sweeping of the
protected bike lanes may be necessary.
3.16 Develop communications and design
protocols for bicycle facility closures and detours
CF SA CT
Closures and detours of on-street and off-street
bicycle facilities are necessary from time to time
for various reasons. The Parks Department
currently maintains an up-to-date open/closed
status webpage for all trails that is available from
guidance
RD CO HE EQ
The City should consider undertaking an effort
to update bicycle parking standards in the land
use code to provide more specific guidance that
adapts national best practices and guidelines
to City applications. This should include
recommendations for covered and secure bicycle
parking, bicycle rack design, siting, parking
structure design, and amount of required bike
parking by land use type. Specifications should
be included for the increasing number of non-
standard bicycle designs such as Xtracycles®,
Dutch-style front cargo bicycles, and bicycles with
trailers. These bicycles will not necessarily fit in
existing parking spaces, and their riders should be
provided the same accommodation as riders of
standard bicycles. It is recommended that the City
incorporate best practice design guidelines for bike
parking in the City’s Design Manual, as a first step
to updating the City’s bicycle parking code.
or software should be upgraded to improve
detection for all light and weather conditions.
Current coordination zones and signal progression priorities.
could help streamline decision-making and
clarify priorities for different areas of the City
based on the surrounding land use and adopted
transportation plans. The resulting process or
modal hierarchy plan could be codified as part of
an official “complete streets” policy to support the
City’s multimodal transportation planning. The
policy should continue to provide multimodal level
of service metrics to allow evaluation to monitor
the success of the policy.
Modal hierarchy example from Portland, Ore. developed as part
of its 2014 Comprehensive Plan.
to enact local laws that differ from state law to
regulate travel by bicycle (per Section 42-4-111 of
Colorado Code of Regulations), and the City has
used this authority in two instances: to prohibit
riding on sidewalks within a downtown zone and
on the street on College Avenue from Laurel Street
to Harmony Road. In all other cases, bicyclists are
allowed to ride on the sidewalk and are otherwise
required to observe the same traffic laws as
drivers.
1 Colorado is, as of 2014, ranked the 6th most bicycle friendly
state in the country, in part owing to its high score (four out of five)
on legislation. http://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/BFS2014_
Colorado.pdf (Accessed September 12, 2014)
Bicyclist walking in downtown dismount zone.
Who: City lead
Example: San Francisco, Ca.
2.27 Amend the Fort Collins Citizen Survey to
include recommendations from the League of
American Bicyclists (LAB)
CO
The City conducts an annual survey of its residents
about satisfaction in a number of areas, including
transportation. The survey currently asks
respondents to rate their ease of traveling by
bicycle. The LAB recommends a more detailed
survey about bicycle satisfaction, and is planning
to make this a requirement to achieve a Diamond-
level Bicycle Friendly Community status. The
recommended questions would measure quality,
comfort and convenience of bicycling in Fort
Collins.
Who: City lead
Key Actions Summary
The following table summarizes the key actions
that Fort Collins will need to take to accomplish
Plan goals through the use of existing, planned and
new recommended bicycle programs.
EQ
The City should establish a regular and
standardized bicycle data collection program, and
align the program with CDOT statewide efforts and
CSU planned efforts. An expanded bicycle count
program will help the City continue to evaluate
ridership and safety, while supporting future
investments in bicycle infrastructure.
A systematic bicycle counting methodology will
allow the City to develop correction factors to
mitigate shortcomings inherent in national and
regional data sources. Year-to-year changes in
counts can also help the City evaluate ridership
and safety impacts at specific locations where
new infrastructure has been built. Accurate and
systematic counts will enable the City to calculate
crash rates that are more instructive than raw
numbers of crashes.
Fort Collins’ current bicycle count data comes
from four sources: 1) manual counts conducted
annually in September at 14 on-street locations
and 10 trail locations, 2) regular signalized
intersection counts collected as part of Traffic
Operations’ Intersection Turning Movement Report
program, 3) 12 automated trail counters, and 4)
SRTS travel tallies. The City should continue its
detailed manual count program which enables the
should also grow its on-street bike corral program
in partnership with local businesses; the addition
of such racks offers significant community and
economic benefits, and allows sidewalk space to be
utilized for other purposes like sidewalk cafes and
pedestrian walkways.
Who: City lead
Example: Cambridge, Ma., Philadelphia, Pa.
2.20 Update the City bicycle map annually to
reflect low-stress routes and distribute widely
CF RD EQ
The City is currently working to update its citywide
bicycle map to highlight low-stress routes. As the
network recommendations presented in Chapter 4
are implemented, ensuring residents and visitors
have access to an updated bicycle map will enable
safe and comfortable bicycle travel around the
community. This map could also include priority
snow plow routes to aid bicyclists with bicycle route
selection in the winter. This paper map should be
supplemented by an online map on the FC Bikes
website, as well as resources for online bicycle trip
planning (e.g., Google Maps and Ride the City). The
online map should be updated annually, and the
paper map should be updated periodically as major
infrastructure changes occur.
Who: City lead
Example: Austin, Tx.
automated bike share system for the city. The
results are summarized in the Fort Collins Bike
Share Business Plan (Business Plan). An automated
bike share system would increase the accessibility
of bicycling and public transit, introduce new riders
to bicycling, and promote Fort Collins to potential
employers, residents, and visitors. It would augment
existing services provided by the Fort Collins Bike
Library, offering a comprehensive set of travel
options to Fort Collins residents and visitors.
An automated bike share system can extend
the reach of transit, making MAX an even more
attractive option for residents and visitors. Riders
using this rapid bus service could use bike share to
reach the beginning or end of a trip lying outside the
MAX corridor.
The Business Plan proposes an initial bike share
system of approximately 20 stations to serve
Downtown, the CSU campus and the Elizabeth,
Plum, and Lincoln corridors. Station locations
capitalize on connections to MAX. It recommends a
City-owned and managed system with a nonprofit
or private sector operator.
Who: City lead
Example: Madison, Wi., Boulder, Co.
Additionally, distracted driving is a safety problem
in Fort Collins and across the country. This
program would complement the engineering
solutions recommended in Chapter 4 and could be
implemented in the near-term. A pledge program
also serves to communicate to a wide audience of
drivers the importance of safe driving.
The program could be initially advertised through
schools, where an interested audience already
exists, and piloted at one school before a larger
rollout. School parent volunteers could be
responsible for program operation.
Outreach could be continued through public
events, the car registration and inspection process,
and driver’s license exams. Pledge materials could
be paired with information about the relationship
between automobile speed/distracted driving and
crash severity.
Who: Non-City lead
Example: Washington Area Bicyclists Association
Pace Car Program
program (launched in 2014)
2.12 Marketing and outreach
In addition to the programs mentioned above,
FC Bikes has the opportunity to reach more
Interested but Concerned riders by building
on existing marketing and outreach efforts.
Recommendations for ongoing and expanded
marketing and outreach include:
• Develop and refine messaging campaigns to
educate all street and trail users how to co-
exist and travel safely.
As of October, CSU officers issued 2,059 tickets to bicyclists disobeying
traffic laws on campus in 2014.
CSU uses enforcement to provide education. For instance, students cited for a bicycle safety violation have
the option of taking a safety seminar to reduce the applicable fine.
CF SA RD CO HE EQ
has been executed for more than 25 years and
continues to reach more people every year. Along
with Bike to Work Day (summer and winter), the
City’s Bike Month activities include educational
classes, light-up-the-night initiatives, and, most
recently, guided bicycle rides. Initiatives such as
Bike Month help incentivize people to consider
bicycling more often while offering opportunities to
establish strong partnerships with local business
to further promote bicycle friendly workplaces. It is
recommended that the City continue to implement
Bike Month initiatives while focusing efforts on
reaching the Interested but Concerned population
through targeted education, incentives, and
focused marketing.
2.10 Women on a Roll
CF SA RD CO HE EQ
In 2014, FC Bikes launched the Women on a
Roll initiative in partnership with community
organizations and local businesses. Designed
around the League of American Bicyclist’s (LAB)
framework for addressing barriers to bicycling
RD CO
Funding was secured to start the High School
and Middle School Bicycle Ambassador Program
in 2014. The vision of this program is to engage
youth in promoting bicycling at their schools
and educating their peers about bike safety, bike
equipment mechanics and other bike-related
topics. By joining this program, high school and
middle students in Fort Collins will be able to help
with various Safe Routes to School activities,
such as bike rodeos at elementary schools. The
students will be able to earn community service
credit toward their graduation requirements and,
by their senior year in high school, may qualify for
special opportunities such as a free local bike tour
or new equipment. This program, which is in its
infancy, offers tremendous opportunity to grow
bicycling and improve safety among youth. It is
recommended for ongoing implementation and
expansion.
2.7 Safe Routes to School
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) is a nationwide
effort to get more children biking and walking
to school for their health, the environment and
academic achievement. The City of Fort Collins
CF SA RD CO HE EQ
CF SA RD CO HE EQ
Another way to expand the reach and efficiency of
the City’s programming is to maximize
partnerships with other organizations. Key
partners identified previously may be able to
provide support or leadership on some existing
and new programs.
2014 Plan Goals
a key partner in building the High School and
Middle School Bicycle Ambassador Program.
The Bike Library has provided
23,265 bicycle rentals and
signed up 23,136 members since
launching in April 2008.
Photo Credit: Fort Collins Bike Library
Enforcement: Ensures safe roads for all users
Evaluation and Planning: Plans for bicycling as a
safe and viable transportation option
addresses all the Plan goals, their relation to
physical bicycle infrastructure is outlined at the
beginning of the chapter, rather than for each
individual recommendation.
Chapter 2: Bicycle Programs
This chapter includes an overview of existing
bicycle programs, proposed new and expanded
programs and proposed strategies to focus the
City’s bicycle programming.
Chapter 3: Bicycle Policies
This chapter includes a description of
recommendations for City policy changes,
including engineering standards, land use policies,
maintenance standards and parking policies.
Chapter 4: Bicycle Network
This chapter outlines recommendations to
improve the physical infrastructure that makes up
the bicycle network. It includes: a description of
existing bicycle facilities and new proposed facility
types, such as protected bike lanes; a description
of the proposed near-term 2020 low-stress bicycle
Implement additional pedestrian and bicycle
safety education programs (Addressed through
the early implementation of the 2011 Bicycle Safety
Education Plan)
Update the Master Street Plan Classifications
and Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards to address needs for context-
sensitive elements
Update bicycle/pedestrian trail design
standards to address use of trails for
commuting/transportation purposes (Addressed
through the 2013 Trails Plan)
Evaluate/improve bicycle wayfinding (in progress)
Plan for and design a “green street”
demonstration project (Currently planned for
implementation in 2015 along Remington St.)
People who identify as No Way, No How will not
ride a bicycle, no matter the circumstances.
*Note: This data represents accepted national
averages of bicyclist types which are likely similar
to Fort Collins’ population.
impacts given the small
footprint and reduced
impermeable surface
Social
• Bicycling provides
access to an affordable
transportation option
• Bicycling improves
personal and community
health
• Bicycling increases quality
of life and creates vibrant
communities
y
C
o
m
f
o
r
t
P
e
o
p
l
e
c
o
m
m
u
t
i
n
g
b
y
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
i
n
g
t
r
a
v
e
l
b
y
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
a
s
v
e
r
y
g
o
o
d
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
f
e
m
a
l
e
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
r
i
d
e
r
s
F
a
t
a
l
i
t
i
e
s
p
e
r
1
0
k
d
a
i
l
y
c
o
m
m
u
t
e
r
s
K
-
1
2
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
r
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
1
/
4
m
i
l
e
o
f
l
o
w
-
s
t
r
e
s
s
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
i
n
O
n
-
s
t
r
e
e
t
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
m
i
l
e
a
g
e
t
o
t
o
t
a
l
r
o
a
d
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
m
i
l
e
a
g
e
Fort Collins
2020 Goals
Fort Collins
2020 Goals
Fort Collins
Today
Fort Collins
Today
0
1
2
K
8
0
%
3
0
%
5
0
%
2
0
%
5
5
%
3
7
%
7
.
4
%
3
5
%
0
.
6
8
6
K
1
7
%
*
2
6
%
Highlighted 2014 Plan Performance Measures
Inspired by the League of American Bicyclists “The Building Blocks of a Bicycle Friendly Community” graphic
* “Fort Collins Today” is the percentage of the population within 1/4 mile of a trail entrance.
“Fort Collins 2020” is the percentage of the population within 1/4 mile of a trail entrance or on-street low stress route.
New Belgium’s Tour de Fat Parade.
services, and social sustainability. These three elements,
forming the Triple Bottom Line, help guide the City’s
decision-making. An improved bicycling environment
supports all three aspects of the Triple Bottom Line.
bicycling as essential to
a physically active and
environmentally healthy
community.
• Promote recreational and utilitarian bicycling as part of a connected active
transportation system.
• Connect bicycle facilities to parks, neighborhoods, schools, and other key points.
• Incorporate climate adaptation strategies in bicycle infrastructure planning and
design.
• Configure land uses in a way that promotes bicycling.
Table 1. Bicycle Master Plan Goals and Objectives