HomeMy WebLinkAboutMetropolitan bicycle master plan
Page ii JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
Metropolitan Bicycle Master Plan
Submitted to:
City of Coralville
City of Iowa City
City of North Liberty
City of Tiffin
City of University Heights
Johnson County
University of Iowa
Prepared by:
Johnson County Council of Governments
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
www.jccog.org
(319) 356-5230
November 2009
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page i
What is JCCOG?
The Johnson County Council of Governments (JCCOG) is the
metropolitan planning organization for the Iowa City Urbanized Area,
which, under the guidance of a public policy board, provides
leadership, expertise, and services to member communities and
agencies in Johnson County, Iowa. Assistance is provided to JCCOG
member agencies in three specific program areas: transportation,
human services, and assistance to small communities. JCCOG also
coordinates forums for discussion of county-wide planning issues.
Page ii JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
Acknowledgements
The development of the Metro Bicycle Master Plan would not have
been possible without the participation of the following individuals.
JCCOG Regional Trails and Bicycling Committee:
Terry Dahms, Friends of the Iowa River Scenic Trail
Louise From, University Heights Mayor
Brian Loring, Bicyclists of Iowa City
Terrence Neuzil, Johnson County Board of Supervisors
Royce Phillips, Tiffin City Council
Sherri Proud, Parks & Recreation Director, Coralville
Michelle Ribble, Commuter Programs, University of Iowa
Shelly Simpson, Recreation Director, North Liberty
Sally Stutsman, Johnson County Board of Supervisors
Terry Trueblood, Parks & Recreation Director, Iowa City
Coralville staff:
Barry Bedford, Chief of Police
Dan Holderness, City Engineer
Iowa City staff:
Matt Ewers, Web Developer
Matt Johnson, Police Field Operations Commander
Ron Knoche, City Engineer
Sarah Walz, Associate Planner
Johnson County staff:
Josh Busard, Assistant Planner
R.J. Moore, Planning & Zoning Department Assistant Administrator
North Liberty staff:
Jim Warkentin, Chief of Police
Dean Wheatley, Planner
University of Iowa staff:
Robert Brooks, Building & Landscape Services Associate Director
Megan Moeller, University of Iowa Wellness Coordinator
Larry Wilson, Campus & Facilities Planning Associate Director
University Heights:
Josiah D. Bilskemper, Shive-Hattery Group, Inc. Engineer
JCCOG bicycle planning team:
John Yapp, Executive Director
Kristopher Ackerson, Assistant Transportation Planner
Darian Nagle-Gamm, Traffic Engineering Planner
Kent Ralston, Assistant Transportation Planner
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page iii
Table of Contents
What is JCCOG?..................................................................................i
Acknowledgements...........................................................................ii
Table of Contents ............................................................................ iii
Executive Summary..........................................................................1
Chapter One: Introduction..............................................................5
Vision and Principles......................................................................... 6
Previous Bicycle Planning Efforts and Successes............................. 6
Planning Process................................................................................ 8
Chapter Two: Existing Conditions ..............................................11
Benefits and Concerns of Cycling.................................................... 11
Inventory of Bicycle Programs and Facilities................................. 12
Inventory of Existing Bikeways ...................................................... 17
Other Bikeway Enhancements........................................................ 23
Bicycle Collisions............................................................................. 26
Chapter Three: Goals and Objectives .........................................31
Bicycle Participation Trends ........................................................... 31
Community Needs ........................................................................... 33
Goals and Objectives........................................................................ 37
Chapter Four: Recommendations................................................41
System-wide Recommendations...................................................... 41
Community Recommendations........................................................ 53
Recommended Infrastructure Projects............................................ 57
Appendix A: On-Street Facility Criteria.....................................63
Appendix B: Iowa City Bicycle Parking Requirements ..........67
References ........................................................................................73
Page iv JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 1
Executive Summary
Since 1968, six bicycle and trail plans have been created by the
communities in the Iowa City urbanized area: Coralville, Iowa City,
North Liberty, Tiffin, University Heights, and Johnson County. Today,
most of the recommendations identified in those plans have been
implemented.
The JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan outlines strategies to create
an accessible, coordinated, and comfortable bike network bolstered by
targeted education and encouragement programs, and enforcement
and policy recommendations that build upon the existing bicycle
network. The scope of the plan includes the urbanized area and
important linkages to surrounding areas.
This executive summary highlights existing bikeway facilities,
community needs, goals and objectives, and recommendations for the
urbanized area.
Community Needs Assessment
Future bicycle facilities need to reflect identified community needs.
JCCOG engaged community input in a public involvement process,
which included two community workshops and an online survey. The
purpose of the workshops was to identify the most well-liked
programs. Table ES-1 shows the commonly requested on-street
facilities. Residents indicated a need for a number of improvements,
including:
Engineering – Install more on-street accommodations
Education – Publish bike rack location map online, including
sheltered racks and lockers
Encouragement – Continue to offer free operational space to Iowa
Bicycle Coalition and I.C. Bike Library
Enforcement – Enforce headlight/reflector laws during non-daylight
hours
Evaluation – Conduct peak hour counts of bicycle commuting on-
street
Page 2 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
Table ES - 1. Preferred on-street bike facilities at 2008 bike plan public
workshops
On-Street Facilities Count Percent
Bike Lanes (new streets) 118 32%
Bike Lanes (existing streets) 96 26%
Sharrows 65 17%
Way Finding Signs 38 10%
Bike Boulevards 28 7%
Bike Routes 21 6%
Signed "Share the Road" 8 2%
Total 374 100%
Goals and Objectives
The JCCOG Regional Trails and Bicycling Committee assisted in
identifying ten goals to address the findings of this master plan. They
provide a framework to plan for the future of the Urbanized Area’s
bike network. The goals, in non-priority order, are highlighted below.
Goal 1. Implement the Metro Bicycle Master Plan
Goal 2. Increase the number of people bicycling for
transportation and recreation
Goal 3. Improve bicyclist safety
Goal 4. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Goal 5. Improve health and fitness
Goal 6. Education, enforcement, and encouragement
Goal 7. Enhance economic development
Goal 8. Build “Safe Routes to Schools”
Goal 9. Provide bicycle parking
Goal 10. Ensure high quality of service
The plan goals provide objectives that the JCCOG entities should
work towards to meet the communities’ current and future bicycling
needs. Moreover, the goals respond to suggestions and concerns that
arose through the plan development process.
System-wide Recommendations
As the bicycle network evolves, prioritizing improvements is a
challenge. The master plan recommendations synthesize an inventory
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 3
of bicycle facilities, input of 24 local staff and elected officials, and
priorities identified through the public input process (645
participants). The following system-wide recommendations can be
pursued by all communities in the Urbanized Area to become more
bicycle-friendly.
Engineering – Install on-street accommodations, which can include
the following options depending on site conditions:
Shared lanes
Bike lanes
Wide curb lanes
Striped shoulders
Traffic calming
Education – Facilitate bicycle safety through:
Public service announcements targeted at young adults;
Drivers’ education classes; and
Elementary schools’ physical education classes.
Encouragement – Implement a coordinated way-finding system on
trails and roadways across the Urbanized Area to assist route finding.
Enforcement – Implement and publicize bike light enforcement
program during the fall and offer discount bike lights to encourage
safety.
Evaluation – Achieve the platinum “Bicycle Friendly Community”
designation from the League of American Bicyclists.
Summary
Completion of this plan is the next step toward becoming more bicycle
friendly. With careful attention, bicycling will continue to be a viable
option both for recreation and commuting.
Page 4 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 5
Chapter One
Introduction
Since 1968, six bicycle and trail plans have been created by the
communities in the Iowa City Urbanized Area: Coralville, Iowa City,
North Liberty, Tiffin, University Heights, and Johnson County. Today,
most of the recommendations identified in those plans have been
implemented, and trail planning and “Complete Streets” policies have
institutionalized bicycle access for new developments.
The local municipalities and the University of Iowa agreed a new
regional bicycle plan will provide an inventory of existing facilities and
identify new opportunities to improve bicycle access – many stemming
from past enhancements. As the metropolitan planning organization
for the area, the Johnson County Council of Governments (JCCOG)
was asked to develop this plan.
The JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan outlines a strategy to create an
accessible, coordinated, safe, and comfortable bike network that is
bolstered by targeted education and encouragement programs, as well
as enforcement and policy recommendations that expand the bicycle
network. The scope of the plan includes the Urbanized Area and
important links to surrounding areas.
This chapter outlines the vision of the plan, history of local bicycle
planning, the planning process, and an overview of subsequent
chapters.
Plan Overview
This plan is organized into the following four chapters and two
appendices:
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Chapter 3. Goals and Objectives
Chapter 4. Recommendations and Phasing
Appendix A. On-Street Facility Criteria
Appendix B. Sample Bike Parking Ordinance
Page 6 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
Vision and Principles
The JCCOG member entities envision a convenient and efficient
transportation system where people can bike safely to all destinations.
This plan builds upon successful implementation of past bicycle plans
and trail development and is intended to guide future on-street bicycle
facilities in the JCCOG Urbanized Area to create a diverse and
interconnected bicycle system.
The following guiding principles outline the broad perspectives that
created the foundation of this plan i:
Principle #1—All Bicyclists’ Abilities Differ
The Federal Highway Administration identifies three levels of
bicyclists—Advanced, Basic, and Children—but in reality, there is a
continuum in skill level and needs. Residents ride for many different
reasons, including commuting, running errands, recreation, exercise,
and competitive sport.
Principle #2—Anticipate Bicycles on Every Street
Cyclists want to go to the same places motorists want to go; therefore,
cyclists will ride on every street – except the interstate highways – to
some extent. While the bicycle system, once completed, will provide
suggested routes for cyclists that cannot possibly serve every
destination or satisfy every cyclist’s unique needs for directness and
comfort.
Principle #3—It’s More Than Just Getting There
Trails alone will not make the JCCOG Urbanized Area a good
bicycling region. Support facilities such as on-street pavement
markings, bike parking, signage, and programs on enforcement and
safety education are also critical components.
Principle #4—Coordination is Essential
Each community in the Urbanized Area will identify action steps
unique to their community, based on existing conditions and
priorities. This Bicycle Master Plan outlines a long-term strategy that
each community will work toward independently to achieve the vision
of the community as a whole.
Previous Bicycle Planning Efforts and
Successes
1960s – Bicycling planning efforts in the metro area have a long
history. The first plan was developed by Project GREEN in 1968. A
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 7
Figure 1: Mayors' Ride during Bike -
to-Work Week, 2008; photo by
Donald Baxter.
few of the notable recommendations in the Hawkeye Area Bikeway
System that were implemented include: the trail through City Park,
the sidewalk/trail along Rocky Shore Drive, the Coralville Connection
Trail along the river, and the rural sidewalk/trail along Dubuque
Street north of Butler Bridge.
1970s – In 1974, Iowa City hired Stanley Consultants to prepare a
study of the Iowa River. The Iowa River Corridor Study included
numerous recommendations to enhance the corridor, including a trail
from the Coralville Reservoir Dam to Napoleon Park. Approximately
9.5 miles of the proposed 13-mile trail have been constructed to date.
The Iowa City Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission prepared an
update of the trail recommendations of The Iowa River Corridor Study
in 1993 and, with a few minor adjustments, reiterated the
recommendations and set new priorities for trail construction, which
have since been completed.
The cities of Iowa City and Coralville and the University of Iowa
added bicycle facilities in the 1970s: 1) Iowa City and Coralville
installed bike lanes, 2) Iowa City and the University installed bike
racks, and 3) the University built the Finkbine Commuter Bikeway.
1980s – During the 1980s, the Iowa City City Council adopted the
Iowa City Bikeways Report and Plan , which included detailed
recommendations for on- and off-street facilities, cost estimates, and a
schedule for implementation. However, shortly after adoption of the
plan, federal funding for these programs was eliminated and the plan
was not implemented.
No other bicycle planning efforts
were undertaken in the region
during this period. Project GREEN
continued to promote and raise
funds for the Iowa River Corridor
Trail, and the Bicyclists of Iowa
City, Inc. (BIC) – formed in 1976 –
promoted cycling for commuting
and recreation through various
public outreach efforts, including
public service announcements and
local access television programs.
1990s – Bicycle use increased significantly during 1990s, due in large
part to the popularity of mountain bikes. BIC continued to promote
on-street facilities, and trained bicyclists to follow the rules of the road
while using the facilities. The first Bike-To-Work Day was held in
1990 and, with ongoing financial support from the cities of Iowa City
and Coralville, the annual event continued to grow, drawing over
2,000 participants in Spring 2008. The Friends of the Iowa River
Page 8 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
Scenic Trail (FIRST) was also formed in 1990 to promote completion of
the Iowa River Corridor Trail.
JCCOG created an Assistant Transportation Planner position in 1992
to focus on pedestrian and bicycle planning, and in 1993 the JCCOG
Regional Trails and Bicycling Committee was formed to discuss trails
and on-street facilities in the metro area.
In 1993, the City of Coralville adopted a trail plan that called for trails
in developed and undeveloped areas of the city. During the same year,
the University contracted Steve Clark Associates, a bicycle and
pedestrian planning firm, to make recommendations regarding bike
parking on campus, possible street closures, and traffic signals. In
2007, the University conducted a follow-up study and found the
number of bikes on campus increased 5 percent and the number of
improperly parked bicycles decreased 92 percent since 1993.
In 1994, JCCOG created the Urbanized Area Bicycle Plan . Some of the
notable recommendations that have since been implemented include
the Iowa City Bike Patrol Program, annual proclamation of May as
Bicycle Month, the annual JCCOG Trails Map , and the creation of the
Johnson County Trails Plan .
2000 to present – Trail planning has been remarkably successful
since the mid-1990s. Today, over 40 miles of multi-use trails provide
recreation access to unique natural areas in the Urbanized Area. In
2000, Johnson County hired Dunbar-Jones consultants to identify
regional trail opportunities, and in 2006 JCCOG developed the
Johnson County Shared Use Trails Plan to prioritize rural trail
projects.
Bicycle planning efforts were augmented greatly in 2006 and 2007,
when JCCOG and the City of Iowa City, respectively, passed Complete
Streets Policies, which mandate that federal and locally funded
transportation projects be designed to accommodate use by
pedestrians, bicyclists, public transit, and motorists.
In 2007, the City of Iowa City applied to become a Bike-Friendly
Community – a designation bestowed by the League of American
Bicyclists. The subsequent “Honorable Mention” rekindled long-
standing interest in planning a comprehensive, regional bicycle
network.
Planning Process
The JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan builds upon past achievements
in developing a bicycle network for residents and visitors. Staff also
depended on the experience and expertise of community members to
help develop the plan.
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 9
The planning process involved several steps: 1) taking an inventory of
bicycle accommodations and determining the level of service; 2)
undertaking a community needs assessment, which considered factors
such as demographic characteristics, population growth, and cycling
participation trends; and 3) combining information from the needs
assessment with the inventory and level of service analysis to create
the Recommendations and Bicycle Infrastructure Projects (see
Chapter 4). Together, these components make up the Metro Bicycle
Master Plan for communities in the Urbanized Area – giving the
communities direction to accommodate the needs of current and future
cyclists.
Public Involvement
Two community workshops were
held to obtain public input for the
plan (see Chapter 3 for
summaries). One workshop
addressed the assets and
opportunities in Coralville, North
Liberty, Tiffin, and Johnson
County, while the second focused
on Iowa City, University Heights,
and the University of Iowa. An
online survey provided detailed
feedback regarding local cycling
trends.
To identify current issues and potential solutions, the JCCOG
planning team met with staff from the cities of Coralville, Iowa City,
North Liberty, Tiffin, University Heights, the Iowa City Community
School District, the University of Iowa, as well as local bicycle
advocates.
Upon completion of the draft plan in May 2009, JCCOG hosted a
public open house during “Bike-to-Work Week” to obtain feedback and
solicit input.
Steering Committee
The JCCOG Regional Trails and Bicycling Committee (RTBC)
consider the needs of all cyclists when providing recommendations to
the JCCOG Urbanized Area Policy Board. Thus, the RTBC was a
logical choice for steering committee of this plan.
Additionally, JCCOG staff met individually with planners, engineers,
law enforcement officers, and elected officials from all JCCOG entities
to ensure the plan is reasonable given long-term opportunities and
constraints.
Figure 2: Bike planning workshop
participants; photo by Darian
Nagle-Gamm.
Page 10 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
Project Timeline
The following project timeline was developed for the Metro Bicycle
Master Plan planning process:
August 5, 2008 – Kick-off meeting with RTBC
August to November 2008 – Meet with city, county, and school
district representatives
Late September 2008 – Coralville / North Liberty / Tiffin /
Johnson County workshop
Early October 2008 – Iowa City / University Heights /
University of Iowa community workshop
October 2008 – Online survey
November 2008 – Meet with Tiffin, University Heights, and
school districts’ staff
Late November 2008 – Summary of community workshops and
draft chapters reviewed by RTBC
Early February 2009 – Draft plan released including
recommendations submitted to RTBC for review
Early May 2009 – Public open house during Bike-to-Work
Week
May 2009 – Draft plan submitted to JCCOG Transportation
Technical Advisory Committee and Board for consideration
June 2009 – Public comment period on draft
Mid-July 2009 – JCCOG member entities adopt the Metro
Bicycle Master Plan
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 11
Money Facts
The cost of operating a
sedan for one year is
approximately $7,800 (AAA,
Your Driving Costs ).
The cost of operating a
bicycle for a year is just
$120 (League of American
Bicyclists).
According to 2004 data from
AAA estimates and U.S.
Census surveys, ownership
of one motor vehicle
accounts for more than 18
percent of a typical
household's income.
“Nothing compares to the
simple pleasure of a bike
ride.”
~ John F. Kennedy
Chapter Two
Existing Conditions
A critical aspect of planning for the future of the area’s bicycle
network is an inventory and assessment of the existing bicycle
facilities. This chapter provides a summary of the benefits and
challenges of cycling to illustrate why bicycle accommodations are
necessary. The chapter concludes with an inventory of the existing
bicycle programs and enhancements in the Urbanized Area.
Benefits and Concerns of Cycling
People ride bicycles for a multitude of
reasons. For many cyclists, it is not
surprising that the popularity of cycling
has endured since its invention in the
1860s. Many people find that bicycles are
a cheap, fast, healthy, and
environmentally friendly mode of transportation.
The following briefly summarizes some of the most common assets and
benefits of bicycling.
Transportation – Many trips that
Iowans make daily are short enough
to be accomplished by bicycle.
Approximately 40 percent of all trips
are less than two miles in length,
which equates to a 10-minute bike
ride ii . Bicycles are an important mode
of transportation for commuting to
work, school, shopping, and other
destinations. As a result, many
bicycles are equipped with racks,
baskets, and children’s seats. Bicycles
provide virtually door-to-door service
in urban areas, which also reduces
congestion and demand for parking.
Moreover, people who cannot afford a
vehicle, or who are unable to drive, are
often able to purchase a bicycle.
Page 12 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
Health, fitness, and quality of life – Cycling is popular as a form of
recreation, which includes leisurely riding and racing. Yet, the
physiological benefits of cycling are the same for recreational cyclists
as they are for bike commuters. Riding improves muscle tone,
stamina, and as a form of exercise, has been shown to reduce stress iii .
Energy Savings – The bicycle is very efficient. A cyclist uses 2/3 the
amount of energy to reach a destination compared to walking and 1/40
the amount of energy compared to driving the same distance. Thus
energy consumption can be reduced when bicycles are used for regular
commuting and short trips.
Versatility – Bicycles are accessible to people of all ages. Cyclists can
often go where vehicles cannot and parking a bicycle is typically easy.
Thus, the bicycle provides increased mobility and freedom in urban
settings where distances are short.
Despite the benefits, there are also common problems with cycling,
including:
theft;
safety;
conflicts with motorists;
weather; and
topography.
To address concerns, communities often implement programs to help
moderate the challenges associated with cycling. The existing
programs and facilities offered in the Iowa City Urbanized Area are
outlined in the following section.
Inventory of Bicycle Programs and Facilities
The Five E’s of bicycle planning are based on guidance provided by the
League of American Bicyclists (LAB), which recommends assessing
bicycle facilities and programs using these five areas: Engineering,
Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, and Evaluation. If a
community applies for “Bicycle Friendly Community” recognition from
the LAB, the following inventory provides a comprehensive snap-shot
of existing conditions – a key component of the application.
The Urbanized Area is relatively unique among Iowa communities
because the five municipalities and the University of Iowa are
immediate neighbors. Thus, many local programs and facilities serve
residents of all the communities. Communities that are currently
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 13
offering bicycle facilities and services are identified in parentheses,
using abbreviations:
Bicyclists of Iowa City – BIC
Clear Creek/Amana School District – CCA
City of Coralville – CV
Iowa Bicycle Coalition – IBC
City of Iowa City – IC
Johnson County, Iowa – JC
Johnson County Council of Governments – JCCOG
City of North Liberty – NL
City of Tiffin – TF
City of University Heights – UH
University of Iowa – UI
The scope of this inventory focuses on urban areas but includes
popular links between urban and rural areas. The following sections
outline the existing facilities for cyclists.
Engineering
Communities in the Urbanized Area currently offer the following on-
the-ground cycling facilities in the community:
Designing transportation infrastructure with guidance from
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) standards (All).
Offering over 40 miles of trails (All).
Implementing trails and sidewalk connectors on cul-de-sacs
(IC, CV, NL, TF).
Installing warning signs, mile marker stencils, and limited
way-finding signs on trails (CV, IC, NL, TF, UI).
Designing new roads with consideration given to pedestrians,
bicycles, transit, and vehicle access through adoption of a
Complete Streets Policy (IC, JCCOG).
Implementing five-foot-wide paved and striped shoulders on
rural road reconstruction projects; recently completed projects
include portions of Sand Road, Mehaffey Bridge Road, Prairie
Du Chien, and Highway 382 from Solon to Lake McBride (JC).
Maintaining 0.7 miles of bike lanes in Coralville and 0.4 miles
in Iowa City (CV, IC).
Page 14 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
Offering an outdoor “bike elevator” – accessible to cyclists
directly from the sidewalk – on Madison Street at the North
Campus Parking Ramp (UI).
Education
Education can be a powerful tool for changing behavior and improving
safety skills. Bicyclists and motorists alike can benefit from
educational tools and messages that teach them the rules, rights, and
responsibilities of various modes of travel iv .
Promoting safety tips for cycling in 8,000 Metro Trails Maps
distributed for free (All).
Promoting the Johnson County Trails Foundation for bicycle
enhancement funding opportunities (All).
Maintaining trail map signs on portions of the Iowa River
Corridor Trail, Willow Creek Trail, Sycamore Greenway, and
North Ridge/North Liberty Trail (BIC, IC, CV, NL).
Offering three local League of American Bicyclists instructors:
Gregory Kovaciny, Iowa City; Dick & Vicki Siefers, Coralville;
Mark Wyatt, North Liberty (All).
Teaching secondary school children rules of the road by
Community Relations Police Officers (CV, IC, NL, UH).
Distributing bike parking maps (IC, UI, UH).
Providing bike trail riding experience and rules-of-the-road
lessons to youth summer campers (CV, IC, NL).
Offering two “Bike Rodeo” courses each year for 20 years
through the Optimists Club (CCA, CV, IC, NL, UH).
Maintaining bicycle registration service (CV, IC, UI).
Maintaining “Share the Road” signs on select streets (IC).
Offering two “Effective Cycling” courses for adults and children
each year (IBC).
Proclaiming May as “Bicycle Month” annually (CV, IC).
Offering touring and mountain biking classes (UI).
Encouragement
This category concentrates on how the communities promote and
encourage bicycling:
Funding annual production and distribution of 8,000 Metro
Trails Maps (All).
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 15
Figure 3: Bike locker
at Court Street
parking structure;
photo by City of Iowa
City.
Offering helmets, for sale at cost, to residents at Recreation
Centers (CV, IC, NL).
Encouraging provision of bicycle parking at new commercial
and multi-family developments (CV, IC, NL, TF, UH).
Enforcing bike parking ordinance (see Appendix B) requiring
bike racks at new commercial and multi-family developments
(IC).
Installing bike racks at new public
buildings (CV, IC, UI).
Offering covered bike parking spaces at
key destinations (IC, UI).
Providing free operational space to the
Iowa Bicycle Coalition and the Iowa City
Bike Library (CV, IC).
Implementing ongoing downtown bike
parking infill program, which has
installed 98 bike racks to date (IC).
Offering 11 public bike lockers in
downtown (Figure 3) (IC).
Facilitating bike commuting by offering
bike carriers on public buses (Figure 4)
(CV, IC).
Funding Bike-to-Work Week
activities ($1,500 annually per
city), including the Mayor’s Ride;
Bike-Bus-Car Race; two roadside
bicycle breakfasts; and public
forums (IC, CV). In 2008, more
than 2,000 residents participated
in these events.
Providing Health Risk
Assessments and monetary
incentive for employees to
promote healthy lifestyles,
including cycling (UI).
Figure 4: A resident loads
bicycles on a city bus; photo
by City of Iowa City.
Page 16 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
Enforcement
The enforcement category highlights
partnerships between the cycling and law
enforcement communities:
Providing emergency response and
security on all public roads and trails
(All).
Enforcing rules of the road by Police
and Sheriff Departments (All).
Encouraging compliance with Iowa
state lawv requiring headlights and
rear reflectors on bicycles during non-
daylight hours (All).
Offering police escorts and traffic
control for organized rides, including
RAGBRAI, Mayor’s Ride, Bicyclists
of Iowa City Old Capitol Criterium, and others (All).
Maintaining Police Department bike patrol units and trained
officers (Figure 5) (IC, CV, NL, UH, UI).
Ticketing mopeds and motorcycles parked at bike racks (UI).
Implementing “I Got Caught” campaign, offering coupons to
youth “caught” obeying the rules of the road while cycling (IC,
UH).
Evaluation
The evaluation category summarizes ways communities are planning
for future bicycle facilities, measure the amount of cycling taking place
in the community, and ways that the community works to improve
these numbers:
Seeking feedback and oversight from participating members of
the JCCOG Regional Trails and Bicycling Committee (All).
Planning and maintaining the coordinated metro area 40-mile
trail network (All).
Seeking feedback and oversight from participating members of
the Johnson County Trails Committee (BIC, JC, JCCOG).
Maintaining the position of Bicycle Coordinator for the
Urbanized Area (JCCOG).
Providing a full-time Director of the Office of Sustainability
who promotes sustainable practices, including cycling (UI).
Figure 5: Bi cycle patrol
officers at University of
Iowa home football game;
photo by JCCOG.
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 17
Coordinating and staffing the JCCOG Regional Trails and
Bicycling Committee (JCCOG).
Responding to spot maintenance requests via downloadable
report form on www.jccog.org and forwarding to controlling
municipality (JCCOG).
Conducting annual trail counts at select locations to monitor
changes in trail usage (JCCOG).
Conducting peak hour bicycle counts at select locations to
monitor bicycle commuting (JCCOG).
Responding to bicycle-related research and data requests from
municipalities (JCCOG).
Inventory of Existing Bikeways
Aside from many of the programs offered by municipalities in the
Urbanized Area, the most visible bicycle facilities to cyclists are often
those on the ground – trails, bike lanes, bike racks, way-finding signs,
and “Share the Road” signs (see map following page). Both JCCOG
municipalities and the University of Iowa inventory these facilities to
assess future need.
This section details existing bikeway facilities in the Urbanized Area.
Page 18 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 19
Bike Routes, Lanes, and
Paths – How are they
different?
Bikeway – A general term for
any street or trail which is
specifically designated for
bicycle travel, regardless of
whether such facilities are
designed for the exclusive use
of bicycles or are to be shared
with other transportation
modes.
Wide Curb Lane – A roadway
travel lane that can
accommodate both bicyclists
and motorists, while allowing
sufficient room for passing.
Bicycle Lane – A bike lane is a
portion of a street that has been
designated by striping, signage,
and pavement markings for
preferential or exclusive use of
bicycles.
Bicycle Route – A system of
roadways signed for the shared
use of automobiles and
bicyclists without striping or
pavement markings.
Trails/Paths – A bikeway that
is physically separated from
motor vehicle traffic by open
space or a barrier and is either
within the road right-of-way or
within an independent right-of-
way. These are also referred to
as a shared-use or multi-use
paths, or recreation trails.
Some definitions courtesy of the
City of Champaign, Illinois
Streets – Cyclists want to go to the
same places motorists want to go, and
can legally ride on every street – except
the interstate highways – to some
extent. According to local survey
respondents, residents prefer riding on
local collector streets (44 percent) over
major boulevards (20 percent).
The bicycle network, once completed,
will provide improved routes for cyclists,
but the network cannot satisfy every
cyclist’s unique needs for directness and
comfort. Moderately skilled and
beginner cyclists are often
uncomfortable riding on busier streets.
Providing enhancements that make
more cyclists comfortable riding on-
street is one of the goals of this plan.
Local cyclists interviewed as part of a
focus group identified loose sand and
gravel on the roadway, especially during
spring months, as the most common
cause of “wipe outs” vi . Street sweeping
schedules could be reviewed to reduce
these types of accidents.
Highway 1, Highway 6, and Highway
965 traverse the Urbanized Area and
are the least bicycle friendly corridors,
according to public input. In the past,
the Iowa Department of Transportation
and cities designed these roadways for
vehicles and created sidewalks for
bicycles. This approach has been successfully implemented in
Coralville, while Iowa City is constrained by right-of-way limitations
in the downtown area. Plans are under development for wide
sidewalks along Highway 965.
Wide Curb Lanes – To facilitate bike commuting, communities in the
Urbanized Area typically construct arterial roads with wide curb lanes
(greater than 12 feet wide) to accommodate both cyclists and motorists
– allowing sufficient room for passing. A partial list of streets with
wide curb lanes includes:
Page 20 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
Figure 6: Bike lane on M elrose
Avenue; by Kris Ackerson.
Iowa City
Dodge Street
First Avenue
Governor Street
Highland Avenue
Jefferson Street
Keokuk Avenue
Market Street
Muscatine Road
Prairie Du Chien Road
Rochester Avenue
Scott Boulevard
Coralville
1st Avenue
5th Street
10 th Street
12 th Avenue
Holiday Road
Oakdale Boulevard
North Liberty
Cherry Street
Forever Green Road
Front Street
Penn Street
University Heights
Melrose Avenue
Bike Lanes – Most of the eight miles
of area bike lanes were removed in the
late 1980s in response to advocates
that argued bicycles should not be
constrained to bike lanes. Today, Iowa
City and Coralville have 0.7 and 0.4
miles of bike lanes, respectively. These
two segments are found on Melrose
Avenue (Figure 6) in Iowa City and 5 th
Street in Coralville.
Signed “Share the Road” – When most bike lanes and bike routes
were removed in Iowa City in the late 1980s, many of those streets
received “Share the Road” signs. The signs, found in Iowa City, are an
effective educational tool but are not regulatory.
Striped Shoulders – This bicycle facility includes a paved portion of
the roadway to the right of the edge stripe designed to serve bicyclists.
A partial list of streets with striped shoulders includes:
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 21
“…we (Oregon DOT) build
wide sidewalks sparingly
because of their operational
problems…”
~ Michael Ronkin, State
Bike/Ped Coordinator,
Oregon DOT
Camp Cardinal Boulevard
Prairie Du Chien Road
Rohret Road
Scott Boulevard
Sunset Street
Sidewalks and Wide-Sidewalks – Most new and reconstructed
roadways in the Urbanized Area offer one wide-sidewalk. In
residential areas, sidewalk riding by young children is common. With
lower bicycle speeds and lower cross street auto speeds, potential
conflicts are lessened, but still exist. Nevertheless, this type of
sidewalk bicycle use is accepted.
It is inappropriate to sign these facilities as bicycle routes. The
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) cautions:
It is important to recognize that the development of extremely wide
sidewalks does not necessarily add to the safety of sidewalk bicycle
travel, since wide sidewalks encourage higher speed bicycle use and
increase potential for conflicts with motor vehicles at driveways, as
well as with pedestrians and fixed objects…Motorists entering
driveways often will not notice bicyclists approaching from their
right; they are not expecting contra-flow vehicles. Even bicyclists
approaching from the left often go unnoticed, especially when sight
distances are limited vii .
Concerns about safety when riding on
sidewalks are based on empirical
research. Two oft-cited comparative
studies of collision rates found that
cyclists on sidewalks are at 1.8 times
greater risk of collisions than when
riding in the street viii , while another
study found cycling on sidewalks
resulted in 2.5 times more collisions
than riding in-street ix . Both of these studies were based on urban
corridors with typical access control for arterial roads.
Multi-Use Trails – Since the mid-1990s, trail development has
flourished in and between the cities in the Urbanized Area. Today,
cyclists can ride from Napoleon Park in south Iowa City to North
Liberty (via the Iowa River Corridor Trail, Clear Creek Trail and
North Ridge/North Liberty Trail) or to West Overlook Road and the
Coralville Reservoir (via the Iowa River Corridor Trail), riding almost
exclusively on multi-use trails (see map on the following page).
The longest trails in the area, which are generally paved, ADA
accessible, and marked with mile markers and warning signs (e.g.,
stop, curve ahead, etc.), include the following:
Page 22 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
Figure 8: Shared lane arrow in Denver.
Iowa River Corridor Trail (9.5 miles)
North Ridge/North Liberty Trail (4.6 miles)
Clear Creek Trail (3.6 miles)
Waterworks Prairie Trail (2.3 miles)
Sycamore Greenway Trail (2.2 miles)
Willow Creek Trail (1.5 miles)
Auburn Hills Trail (1.1 mile)
Court Hill Trail (0.9 mile)
Finkbine Trail (0.9 mile)
Mormon Handcart Trail (0.4 mile)
Mountain Bike Trails – The popularity of
mountain biking has grown significantly in the
past decade, and Sugar Bottom Recreation Area
provides renowned off-road, single-track trail
riding.
The Iowa Coalition of Off-Road Riders (ICORR), a
local non-profit, builds and maintains the trails
through a unique partnership with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, which owns the land.
ICORR logs 600 volunteer hours of trail work and
200 volunteer hours of patrol each year to keep
the 10.6 miles of Sugar Bottom trails open for
bikes (Figure 7).
Shared Lane Arrow –
Roadways are often too narrow
to be safely shared side-by-side
by cyclists and passing
motorists. A shared lane
marking, also known as a
“sharrow” (Figure 8), does not
demarcate a separated bicycle
lane, but instead directs the
bicyclist to travel in the proper
lane position.
Only a couple cities in Iowa currently use sharrows, but they have
been found to improve riding conditions for cyclists on downtown
streets in communities nationwide. A recent study in San Francisco
found that when passing vehicles are present, sharrows cause an
increase of over 2 feet in the distance between cyclists and passing
Figure 7: Volunteers
at Sugar Bottom
Recreation Area;
photo by Pat McKay.
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 23
vehicles. In addition, the markings increase the distance between
cyclists and parked cars by 3-4 inches.
Other Bikeway Enhancements
Bike Elevator – The University of Iowa constructed the North
Campus parking structure with an elevator accessible from the street.
The elevator is gaining popularity among cyclists who use it to avoid
riding up the steep bluff from Madison Street to Clinton Street.
Public Art – Appealing to people of all ages,
some bikeways and trailheads in the area
boast public art installations. The sculpture,
“Wing in Flight,” by Mark LaMair, found on
the Sycamore Greenway Trail, is one example
(Figure 9).
Way-finding Signs – Visual cues are crucial
attributes of a bicycle network because they
enable people to navigate without stopping to
review a map. The trail system has grown
dramatically in recent years and today the
area boasts 70+ trailheads, yet most of these
are not labeled (Figure 10). Serious bike
enthusiasts will search out trails, but casual
riders are less apt to take advantage of our
trail network without improved signage.
Through a public/non-profit partnership, the
Bicyclists of Iowa City helped purchase trail
map signs that are posted on segments of trails
throughout the community. The signs are not
to scale and sometimes lack “You Are Here”
indicators.
Bike Parking – City of Iowa City and the University of Iowa staff
inventory bike racks and bike rack usage annually to ensure adequate
availability for cyclists. A brochure published in 2008 includes a map
of over 400 bike racks and sheltered bike parking in the Iowa City,
Coralville, and University campus areas (see map on the following
page).
Sheltered bike parking is provided at the following locations:
Old Capitol Mall Parking Ramp (Clinton Street entrance)
Iowa City Public Library (north of entrance on Linn Street)
Figure 9: "Wing in
Flight," on Sycamore
Greenway; photo by
City of Iowa City.
Figure 10 : Trail sign
on Willow Creek Trail;
photo by City of Iowa
City.
Page 24 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
University of Iowa Hospital Parking Ramp 2 (east and
southwest entrances) and Ramp 4 (north entrance)
University of Iowa Memorial Union Parking Ramp (Level 4 -
Cleary Walkway entrance)
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 25
Page 26 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
University of Iowa Eckstein Medical Research Building (south
entrance)
University of Iowa Medical Research Center (north entrance)
University of Iowa Nursing Building (south entrance)
Bike lockers are rented for a small fee at the following location:
Court Street Multimodal Transportation Parking Ramp (Court
Street and South Dubuque Street)
Bike corrals are provided in the following location:
University of Iowa Hospital Parking Ramp 2 (east and
southwest entrances) and Ramp 4 (north entrance)
Private/Public Partnerships – The City of Coralville provides free
operational space to the Iowa Bicycle Coalition, which works statewide
to promote cycling as safe and enjoyable recreation and
transportation. The 501(c)(3) nonprofit group was launched by
bicycling advocates from across Iowa and represents road riders,
mountain bikers, recreation riders, and commuters.
Since 2004, approximately 700 people have checked out bicycles at the
Iowa City Bike Library, which seeks to increase ridership through
education. The City of Iowa City provides free operational space in
the John Wilson Building, and Environmental Advocates, a local
nonprofit, acts as a fiscal agent for the Bike Library. The Bicyclists of
Iowa City (BIC) contributed money for a second fully equipped self-
serve bike maintenance workbench.
The Bike Library depends on volunteer labor for all operations,
including repairs, salvage, education courses, and rental bench work,
for a total of 1,092 volunteer hours in 2008.
In addition to its core mission, the Iowa City Bike Library also seeks
to divert bicycles from the landfill. In 2007, over 7000 pounds of metal
were recycled at a local scrap yard and 660 pounds of bike tires and
tubes were recycled through the City of Iowa City’s tire recycling
program.
Bicycle Collisions
Analysis of the 273 documented on-street collisions in Johnson County
between 2001 and 2007 revealed several trends. First, more than half
of all on-street collisions involved cyclists 22 years old or younger,
which suggests that education efforts could be focused on this
demographic (Figure 11). Second, of the on-street collisions where
safety equipment was checked, only 25 percent of cyclists were
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 27
wearing helmets (not required by law) and none had lights on their
bicycles (required by state and local code).
Figure 11: Age of cyclists in collisions in Johnson County, 2001-2007
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 U n der 6 6-10 1 1-15 16-20 2 1-2 5 2 6-30 31 -3 5 3 6-4 0 41-45 4 6-5 0 5 1-55 56 -6 0 6 1-6 5 66-70 7 1-7 5 7 6-80 Ove r 81
Age of Cyclist
Bic
y
c
l
e
C
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n
s
Source: Iowa Department of Transportation data, 2001-2007; Analysis from “Bicycle Collisions in
Johnson County,” by P. Knapp, S. Knoploh-Odole, L. Levy, J. Rosenberg, and S. Snyder; University
of Iowa Department of Urban & Regional Planning; 2008.
Of the bike collisions that occur on-street, a substantial number of
collisions occur in the fall when students return to school (Figure 12).
These statistics suggest that educational outreach should be targeted
toward young adults and that enhanced education of bike light and
reflector laws could reduce collision rates.
Figure 12: Age of cyclists in collisions in Johnson County, 2001-2007
0
10
20
30
40
50
60 Ja nu ary F e brua r y M arch April M a y Jun e J ul y Augus t September October Nov em b e r D e c e mb e r Bic
y
c
l
e
C
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n
s
Source: Iowa Department of Transportation data, 2001-2007; Analysis from “Bicycle Collisions in
Johnson County,” by P. Knapp, S. Knoploh-Odole, L. Levy, J. Rosenberg, and S. Snyder; University
of Iowa Department of Urban & Regional Planning; 2008.
Not surprisingly, streets with high numbers of cyclists traveling with
medium to high volumes of vehicles tend to experience higher rates of
bike collisions. Burlington Street, Gilbert Street, and Dodge Street are
the most common corridors with collisions (Table 1). On-street
pavement markings, such as bike lanes and sharrows, are a common
Half of all bicycle collisions
involve cyclists under the
age of 22.
Collisions increase when students
begin the school year.
Page 28 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
tool on roadways where traffic volumes and speeds lead to conflicts
between vehicles and bicycles (see map below).
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 29
Table 1: Street segments with highest bicycle collisions (includes
collisions from 1998 – 2007)
Streets Termini Bike Collisions
Burlington St. Madison St. & Muscatine Ave. 20
Gilbert St. Ronalds St. & Hwy 6 & beyond 15
Dodge St. Brown St. & Kirkwood St. 12
First Ave. Court St. & Hwy 6 9
Dubuque St. Park Rd. & Washington St. 7
Lakeside Dr. Whispering Prairie Ave & Regal Lane 5
Source: Iowa Department of Transportation data, 2001-2007; Analysis from “Bicycle Collisions in
Johnson County,” by P. Knapp, S. Knoploh-Odole, L. Levy, J. Rosenberg, and S. Snyder; University
of Iowa Department of Urban & Regional Planning; 2008.
Of collisions that occur on-road, bicycle collisions occur more
frequently during the week (84 percent), rather than on weekend days
(Figure 13).
Figure 13: Distribution of collisions by day of week in Johnson County,
2001-2007
0
10
20
30
40
50
60 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thurs da y Fr i day Sat urda y Su n day Bic
y
c
l
e
C
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n
s
Source: Iowa Department of Transportation data, 2001-2007; Analysis from “Bicycle Collisions in
Johnson County,” by P. Knapp, S. Knoploh-Odole, L. Levy, J. Rosenberg, and S. Snyder; University
of Iowa Department of Urban & Regional Planning; 2008.
To limit collisions with bicycles, cities must realize that no “silver
bullet” solution exists. The skill levels of cyclists vary dramatically,
from the experienced cyclists who ride daily and prefer safe, direct
routes to inexperienced youth who ride to school, parks, and close-to-
home destinations. Depending on their experience, cyclists use various
combinations of bikeways to reach their destinations, and therefore no
one facility will meet all cyclists’ needs.
However, a large segment of the cycling population fall somewhere in-
between these two extremes, including many more potential cyclists
who do not ride regularly now, but would likely do so if a safer system
existed.
84 percent of collisions occur
during commuting.
Page 30 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 31
Chapter Three
Goals and Objectives
This chapter provides a framework for the development of bicycle-
related facilities in the Urbanized Area through 2019 and describes
the communities’ needs, goals, and objectives for the bicycle network.
The bicycle network needs have been determined based on
demographic trends, evaluation of the location and facilities in the
communities’ network, input from residents during the community
workshops, completed online surveys, and from the JCCOG Regional
Trails and Bicycling Committee. The League of American Bicyclists
(LAB) provided a framework for evaluating bicycle network adequacy.
This framework emphasizes locally identified needs when determining
network adequacy.
The goals found herein offer a broad vision of what citizens in
Coralville, Iowa City, North Liberty, Tiffin, University Heights,
Johnson County, and the University of Iowa would like to achieve
with the bicycle network. The objectives help focus the overarching
goals and priorities identified by residents. By implementing the
recommendations in Chapter 4, the communities will achieve the goals
and vision set forth in this plan.
Bicycle Participation Trends
Identifying bicycling trends is relevant to bicycle planning because it
allows a community to anticipate demand for facilities. Both the
National Sporting Goods Association (NSGA) and the Iowa
Department of Transportation have compiled bicycling participation
data, which show trends at the national, state, and regional level. An
analysis of these trends establishes a context for evaluating the
Urbanized Area’s bicycle network.
National, State, and Regional Trends
The National Sporting Goods Association publishes annual data at the
state and national level. Participation trends outlined in this data
may be useful in determining the need for certain bicycle facilities in
the Urbanized Area. According to the 2007 NSGA survey data, out of
46 sports, bicycling has the sixth highest participation level
nationwide:
Exercise walking: 89.8 million participants
Page 32 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
Exercising with equipment: 52.8 million participants
Swimming 52.3: million participants
Camping (vacation/overnight): 47.5 million participants
Bowling: 43.5 million participants
Bicycle riding: 37.4 million participants x
Forty less popular sports…
In 2000, the Iowa Department of Transportation updated the Iowa
Trails Plan . A household survey found that the trail activities most
often undertaken by respondents was “walking near home for
recreation and exercise,” followed by “bicycling near home xi .”
In 2002, a survey of over 500 randomly selected Coralville households
found that residents agree that existing recreational facilities improve
physical health, improve their quality of life, and reduce stress. The
majority of respondents indicated that bike trails are the most
important recreation facility to their household, and more than half
(53.7 percent) requested the city add more multipurpose trails xii .
A similar random household survey
of over 700 Iowa City residents in
2008 found substantial support for
linking bikeways and trails. The
Parks and Recreation projects that
respondents would be most willing
to fund with their tax dollars
include: developing new walking and
biking trails and connecting existing
trails (55 percent), using greenways
to develop trails and recreational
facilities (50 percent), and
purchasing land to preserve open
space and green space (44 percent)xiii .
Additionally, the American Association of Retired People analyzed
U.S. Census data from 2005 and found that Iowa City ranked sixth
nationwide in terms of percentage of residents (9.7 percent) who
commute by bike or walkxiv .
Bicycling is popular at the state and national level. Taking local, state,
and national trends into consideration, the communities in the
Urbanized Area should consider providing additional opportunities for
cycling, walking, hiking, and trail development.
Figure 14: Waterworks Prairie
Trail; photo by City of Iowa City.
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 33
Figure 15 : Pedestrian bridge
at Iowa River Power Dam;
photo by Scott Larson.
Community Needs
The Iowa River Corridor Trail acts as
the backbone of the bicycle network in
the Urbanized Area. Its central
location and high quality amenities
(e.g., street under-passes, signage, and
trailhead parking) attract many
community members. This 40-mile
plus trail network will continue to
expand as planned.
As a result of the growing trail network, there is a need for route-
finding aids and links between trailheads and popular destinations.
Many trails begin and end in neighborhoods without trailhead signs,
directions to nearby destinations (i.e. parks, trails, shopping, schools,
etc.), or trailhead parking.
Although trails are popular, land acquisition and trail construction
costs limit trails in developed areas. Therefore, families and
individuals can be expected to ride on roadways to trailheads, schools,
shopping areas, and employment centers.
Since bikeways include streets, education and enforcement will be
essential to facilitating in-town cycling. In addition, on-street facilities
and maps should be maintained to increase cyclists’ comfort level and
to aid with route-finding.
With the development of the bicycle network, the communities in the
Urbanized Area will be able to improve opportunities for recreation,
running errands, and commuting to work via bicycle.
Public Input
Three sources of input were used for this plan:
Staff Meetings
First, the JCCOG planning team met with staff from each JCCOG
entity, including planners, engineers, chiefs of police, and elected
officials. These staff meetings helped ensure the goals and
recommendations are realistic.
Online Survey
The purpose of the online survey and two bike planning workshops
was to identify common priorities among residents to improve bicycle
safety and efficiency. The large numbers of participants representing
different age groups and skill levels suggest that the Metro Bicycle
Page 34 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
Figure 17: Participants at
local bike workshop.
Master Plan will address the needs of current and future residents,
not just experienced cyclists.
Approximately 495 residents completed the online survey between
September 30 th and November 10 th , 2008. The following key findings
were obtained (visit www.jccog.org for complete survey results).
Respondents rated bicycle
facilities in the community as
Average (54 percent), Poor (40
percent), or Excellent (4 percent).
Bike lanes are the most
commonly requested bicycle
facility (39 percent).
Approximately 1/3 of
respondents ride for recreation or
transportation just once a week
or less.
Forty-five percent of the respondents are over 40 years old.
According to respondents, more bike racks are needed at
grocery stores, shopping centers, and restaurants.
The top two factors that discourage respondents from bicycling
are “Too many cars/cars drive too fast” and “Drivers don’t share
the road.” Seventy-five percent of survey respondents were
from Iowa City and Coralville and approximately half of the
respondents live on the east side of Iowa City.
Bike Workshop Findings
Staff obtained public input at two bike
planning workshops held on September
30 th and October 8th in Coralville and
Iowa City, respectively. The purpose of
the workshops was to identify the most
popular programs, policies, and facilities
within each of the five E’s –
engineering, education, encouragement,
enforcement, and evaluation. The
following list highlights the most
popular items as identified by 160
participants (visit www.jccog.org for
complete results):
Engineering – Install more on-
street accommodations
Figure 16 : Participants
prioritize bike facilities at the
Coralville bike workshop.
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 35
On-Street Facilities – Bike lanes on new or existing roads (58
percent) or shared-lane-arrows (a.k.a., “sharrows”)
Education – Publish bike rack location map online, including
sheltered racks and lockers
Encouragement – Continue to offer free operational space to
Iowa Bicycle Coalition and I.C. Bike Library
Enforcement – Enforce headlight/reflector laws during non-
daylight hours
Evaluation – Conduct peak hour counts of bicycle commuting
on-street
The following map shows the consensus among attendees regarding
streets bicycle facilities could be improved. The map shows the
number of times each street segment was selected as a street in need
of improvement by workshop participants. “High Priority” roadway
segments were selected by at least half of all participants; “Medium
Priority” roadways were selected by 20 percent to 50 percent of
participants; and “Lower Priority” segments were selected by less than
20 percent.
Page 36 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 37
Goals and Objectives
The goals and objectives collectively present a vision that the
Urbanized Area will work toward to meet the communities’ current
and future bicycle network needs. The objectives are broad concepts
for projects or activities that each community should implement to
fulfill the goals. Both the goals and objectives respond to suggestions
and concerns generated by the JCCOG Regional Trails and Bicycling
Committee and by the public during two community workshops and
an online survey. These goals and actions should be implemented
through the recommendations and projects outlined in Chapter 4. The
goals are not listed in priority order:
Goal 1: Implement the Metro Bicycle Master Plan
Objective 1A. All JCCOG member municipalities adopt the Bicycle
Master Plan and incorporate the recommendations
into other plans.
Objective 1B. Complete the projects and programs identified in the
Metro Bicycle Master Plan , based on available funding
and project costs.
Benchmarks : Miles of bikeways established; number of locations
improved; number of bike racks installed; percentage
of projects completed
Goal 2: Increase the number of people bicycling for
transportation and recreation
Objective 2A. Aid cyclists’ route-finding.
Objective 2B. Increase the percentage of trips made by bicycle in the
Urbanized Area to 10 percent of all trips.
Objective 2C. Increase the number of trail system users by 10
percent per year as measured through annual count
data.
Benchmarks : Conduct pedestrian and bicycle travel counts at key
locations on the bikeway system. Integrate bicycle
counts in peak-hour vehicle count programs. Monitor
U.S. Census data for changes in commuting trends
(i.e., car, carpool, bus, bike, or on-foot).
Goal 3: Improve bicyclist safety
Objective 3A. Identify bikeways with high bicycle collision rates and
develop a mitigation plan.
Objective 3B. Facilitate communication to ensure timely reporting
and repair of bikeways.
Page 38 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
Objective 3C. Continue designing all on-street bicycle facilities and
trails according to American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials’ ( AASHTO)
guidelines.
Objective 3D. Reduce the number of reported collisions in the
Urbanized Area involving bicycles by 10 percent.
Benchmarks : Annual collision data reports and mitigation of
priority collision locations.
Goal 4: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Objective 4A. Ensure bicycling is a key focus of all initiatives to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Benchmarks : Calculate annual bicycle commuting rates to identify
the pollution-reducing benefits of bicycle travel.
Goal 5: Improve health and fitness
Objective 5A. Improve the health and fitness of residents by
facilitating bicycle access for recreation and
transportation.
Benchmarks : Calculate the annual number of calories burned by
cyclists using U.S. Census commuting data and
average commute length.
Goal 6: Education, enforcement, and encouragement
Objective 6A. Develop education, encouragement, and enforcement
programs to promote safe cycling and driving habits.
Objective 6B. Educate the public regarding the rights and
responsibilities of cyclists, motorists, and pedestrians.
Objective 6C. Improve bicycle access between residential areas and
parks, schools, and commercial areas.
Objective 6D. Identify and promote links to county roads suitable for
cycling.
Benchmarks : Annual survey results and participation in bike-
related events and programs, including participation
in Bike-to-Work Week, races, club rides, police patrols
on bikes, bicycle registrations, or number of cyclists
trained in “Effective Cycling”.
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 39
Goal 7: Enhance economic development
Objective 7A. Capitalize on the economic benefits of cycling in the
local economy.
Objective 7B. Promote bicycling in economic development, tourism,
and job creation programs. Identify benefits to
businesses including employee health and quality of
life.
Benchmarks : Bike rentals, events (i.e., Bike-to-Work Week, Iowa
City Criterium, RAGBRAI, Jingle Cross Rock, Sugar
Bottom Scramble, etc.), job creation, and new
development along bikeways.
Goal 8: Build “Safe Routes to Schools”
Objective 8A. Increase participation by local school districts in “Safe
Routes to Schools” programs.
Benchmarks : Percentage of schools with active “Safe Routes to
Schools” programs and the rate of children bicycling to
school.
Goal 9: Provide bicycle parking
Objective 9A. Provide bicycle parking as an integrated element of
streetscape and development design.
Objective 9B. Adopt bicycle parking ordinances by all municipalities
in the Urbanized Area.
Benchmarks : Number of bike parking spaces installed annually.
Goal 10: Ensure high quality of service
Objective 10A. Ensure all bikeways are well maintained.
Objective 10B. Provide security, routine litter patrol, annual safety
reporting, and facilities condition management.
Benchmarks : Prepare an annual report for the JCCOG Regional
Trails and Bicycling Committee, including survey
results, summary of bikeway improvements, and other
information.
Page 40 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 41
Chapter Four
Recommendations
Cities in the Urbanized Area and the University of Iowa have a long
history of bicycle planning to improve residents’ quality of life. Over
the past 35 years, communities in the Urbanized Area have been
leaders in bicycle accommodations in the State of Iowa.
As the bicycle network evolves, prioritizing improvements is a
challenge. Trail development has been the highest priority in recent
years and today residents enjoy over 40 miles of trails. The following
recommendations expand the scope of bicycle planning beyond trails
to include the five E’s: engineering, education, encouragement,
enforcement, and evaluation.
This chapter synthesizes an inventory of bicycle facilities, input of 24
local staff and elected officials, and priorities identified through the
public input process (645 participants). The following
recommendations build upon past bike plans and outline priorities for
the Urbanized Area to meet the 10 Goals of this plan – outlined in
Chapter 3.
The following system-wide recommendations highlight actions that all
JCCOG entities can work to achieve. The community-specific
recommendations address unique needs of each JCCOG entity. Except
where otherwise noted, communities should maintain existing
programs and facilities outlined in Chapter 2.
System-wide Recommendations
The success of the metropolitan trail network demonstrates the
potential benefits from coordinated bicycle planning. The following
system-wide recommendations are based on the Goals described in
Chapter 3. City-specific recommendations begin on page 53.
Engineering
System-wide Recommendation:
Install on-street accommodations.
Goal 2 of this plan is to “increase the number of people bicycling for
transportation and recreation.” In terms of infrastructure, on-street
pavement markings are the “next step” in becoming more bicycle-
friendly.
Page 42 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
For the past 15 years, the Urbanized Area has successfully focused
resources on trails, wide curb lanes, and wide-sidewalk development.
Trails are a boon for youth and recreational cyclists, as well as
walkers and joggers. Yet, among residents that completed the bike
survey bike commuting is more common (53 percent) than cycling for
recreation (47 percent), and trails are used by commuters less often
(JCCOG Bicycle Survey, 2008).
Five types of on-street facilities are used locally to facilitate cycling:
Shared lanes
Bike lanes
Wide curb lanes
Striped shoulders
Traffic calming
In part to facilitate on-street cycling, several communities in the
Urbanized Area construct arterial roads with wide curb lanes
(greater than 12 feet) and striped shoulders to accommodate both
cyclists and motorists – allowing sufficient room for passing. Studies
show that wide curb lanes and bike lanes are equally safe for cyclists,
thus either type of facility is recommended to improve riding
conditions xv .
Studies have also found cyclists feel safer riding in bike lanes and
are more apt to ride when bike lanes are available xvi, xvii, xviii . Local
support for bike lanes (Table 2) parallels these national trends.
However, most arterial streets in the area are not wide enough to
accommodate bike lanes. Where the road width is adequate, bike lanes
should be considered to provide a bicycle network attractive to cyclists
of all skill levels.
Table 2. Preferred on-street bike facilities at 2008 bike plan public
workshops
On-Street Facilities Count Percent
Bike Lanes (new streets) 118 32%
Bike Lanes (existing streets) 96 26%
Sharrows 65 17%
Way Finding Signs 38 10%
Bike Boulevards 28 7%
Bike Routes 21 6%
Signed "Share the Road" 8 2%
Total 374 100%
Since bike lanes facilitate increased ridership, the Federal Highway
Administration recommends using bike lanes where adequate width is
available xix and along routes where non-expert cyclists (B/C level) are
common (e.g., school areas, commercial areas, universities, etc.).
Shared lane arrows (or “sharrows”) could prove to be a workable
alternative to bike lanes where road width is inadequate for bike
lanes. The provisional MUTCD provides the following guidance:
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 43
The Shared Lane Arrow may be
used to:
A. 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,
B. 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,
C. Alert road users of the lateral location
bicyclists are likely to occupy within the
traveled way,
D. Encourage safe passing of bicyclists
by motorists, and
E. Reduce the incidence of wrong-way
bicycling.
~ Source: Provisional MUTCD, 2009
If used on a street without on-
street parking that has an
outside travel lane that is less
than 4.3 m (14 ft) wide, the
centers of the Shared Lane
Markings should be at least 1.2
m (4 ft) from the face of the curb,
or from the edge of the pavement
where there is no curb. If used,
the Shared Lane Marking
should be placed immediately
after an intersection and spaced
at intervals not greater than 75
m (250 ft) thereafter.
In general, on-street facilities
should be installed in the
Urbanized Area only where
FHWA criteria (outlined in
Appendix A) are met.
Additionally, consideration
should be given to corridors with
high volumes of bicycle traffic and corridors where cyclists frequently
disobey the rules of the road, such as downtown Iowa City.
Based on roadway width, speed limit, traffic volume, on-street
parking, number of non-expert cyclists, and sight distance, the
following maps highlight opportunities for bike lanes and shared lane
arrows.
Pavement condition contributes to over 50 percent of bike crashes.
Sand, potholes, cracks, and uneven storm drains are roadway hazards
for vehicles and bicycles. Generally, pavement condition is a public
safety concern for all roadway users; but good pavement quality is
critical to cyclists’ safety, particularly with the narrow tires used on
many bicycles.
In addition, biking on poor pavement is an unpleasant experience,
especially for the novice rider. If communities in the Urbanized Area
intend to increase ridership and become more bicycle-friendly, then
good pavement quality should be a priority.
First, seasonal street-sweeping, especially in early spring along
common bike routes, is the most efficient method to improve rider
safety. Second, standard pavement maintenance practices should be
performed as needed. And third, pavement markings (i.e., sharrows
and bike lanes) should be maintained to ensure daytime and
nighttime visibility.
Page 44 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 45
Page 46 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
Education
System-wide Recommendation:
Facilitate bicycle safety through 1) public service announcements
targeted at young adults; 2) drivers’ education classes; and 3)
elementary schools’ physical education classes.
There are major differences in the bicycling abilities, behavioral
patterns, and learning capacities of different bicyclists and other road
users. For example, children have different physical and psychological
abilities than adult bicyclists, young drivers exhibit different
behaviors and driving skills than older drivers, and college age
bicyclists may be reached through educational outlets that differ from
those of other groups. Because of this, educational programs need to
be tailored to the specific audiences they intend to address and to the
behaviors they seek to modify xx .
City staff and residents at both bike plan workshops prioritized two
user groups where bicycle safety education should be focused:
1. Youth cyclists
2. Young adults (as cyclists and motorists)
Local motorists and cyclists expressed the following common bicycle-
related problems should be addressed locally through education:
• Bicyclists ignoring traffic signals and signs.
• Bicyclists riding unpredictably and failing to signal before
turning.
• Motorists don't safely pass bicyclists.
• Motorists cutting bicyclists off or driving too closely.
Numerous resources are available for staff. Local entities should take
advantage of opportunities to partner with local advocacy groups and
education outlets, including the Bicyclists of Iowa City, Downtown
Optimists, Iowa Bicycle Coalition, Iowa City Bike Library, Johnson
County Trails Foundation, and local League of American Bicyclists
certified instructors.
These entities should develop education, encouragement, and
enforcement programs that parallel the development of bikeways and
promote “sharing the road” to educate motorists and bicyclists of their
rights and responsibilities.
The website bicyclinginfo.org , a partnership between the Federal
Highway Administration and University of North Carolina Highway
Safety Research Center, provides curricula and materials for age
specific outreach.
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 47
Figure 3: Trail w ay -
finding sign on Iowa
River Corridor Trail;
photo by Kent
Ralston.
Encouragement
System-wide Recommendation:
Implement a coordinated way-finding system on trails and roadways
across the Urbanized Area to assist route finding.
Trail Signage
An unexpected outcome of the
growing trail network in the
Urbanized Area is the challenge of
navigating nearby communities.
Plotting routes to and from popular
destinations, including trails, is
frustrating for trail users (JCCOG
Bicycle Survey, 2008). Many
neighborhood trailheads, for
example, offer no street signs or
bearing to nearby destinations like
shopping areas, parks, schools, or
other trailheads.
Trails in the Urbanized Area
traverse multiple jurisdictions. The
Iowa River Corridor Trail, for
example, passes through Iowa City,
Coralville, Johnson County, and the
University of Iowa. To aid trail users
and advertize amenities, the JCCOG
entities could pursue a coordinated system of
way-finding signs. For example, the Quad
Cities are installing a creative network of signs
identify the jurisdiction and nearby attractions
(Figure 18).
Alternatively, the existing trail way-finding
signage could be expanded to cover all trails
longer than 0.5 miles (Figure 19).
Local funding could match grant funds
provided by state and federal DOT
Transportation Enhancements programs.
Primary Bike Routes - Signed
Signed bicycle routes serve two functions: 1)
bike routes help new cyclists find common
routes to/from key destinations throughout the
Urbanized Area (i.e., schools, hospitals, parks, downtown, etc.); and 2)
bike routes funnel cyclists onto popular corridors where motorists
anticipate bicycles.
Figure 18 : Way -finding signs
direct trail users to popular
attractions in the Quad Cities.
Page 48 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
Although bicycles are allowed on all streets, cyclists often use streets
parallel to arterial streets, which are unfamiliar to less experienced
cyclists. The lower traffic volumes and speeds make these parellel
routes popular among cyclists – College Street is a popular alternative
to Burlington Street, for example.
As part of the planning process, JCCOG staff
received input from local cyclists to identify
future bike routes. Based on public input and
cycling patterns, all JCCOG entities could sign
bike routes outlined in the following map to
funnel bicycles onto streets where motorists will
anticipate bicycles. All bike routes signs should:
1. Include the destination, distance, and
direction to landmarks like “North
Liberty Recreation Center, Public
Library, Morrison Park, etc.” (Figure
20);” and
2. Be installed periodically, at all turns,
and at major street intersections to
ensure a continuous route.
Traffic calming measures could be considered where traffic speeds and
volumes along signed bike routes warrant – creating a bicycle
boulevard . The purpose of a bicycle boulevard is to improve bicycle
safety by having or creating one or more of the following conditions:
• Low traffic volumes (or bike lanes where traffic volumes are
moderate);
• Traffic calming to discourage cut-through vehicle traffic, such
as speed humps, rotated stop signs, curb extensions, and
reduced vehicle access;
• Traffic controls to help bicycles cross arterial roads; and
• A distinctive look so cyclists identify the bike boulevard and
motorists realize it is a priority route for bicyclists.
Examples exist in bicycle friendly cities, including Palo Alto,
California; Portland, Oregon; Eugene, Oregon; and Vancouver, British
Columbia.
Secondary Bike Routes - Unsigned
Secondary bike routes are recommended for cycling because of low
traffic volumes and connectivity to key destinations. To help new
cyclists navigate the trail and road network, the following maps
illustrates secondary bike routes, which could be promoted by JCCOG
entities through online and printed maps, including the annual Metro
Area Trails Map.
Fig ure 20 : Bicycle
boulevard signs in
Denver, CO.
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 49
Page 50 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 51
Iowa Code Section 321.397 Lamps
on bicycles
Every bicycle shall be equipped with a
lamp on the front exhibiting a white light,
at the times specified in section 321.384 ,
visible from a distance of at least three
hundred feet to the front and with a lamp
on the rear exhibiting a red light visible
from a distance of three hundred feet to
the rear; except that a red reflector may
be used in lieu of a rear light. A peace
officer riding a police bicycle is not
required to use either front or rear lamps
if duty so requires.
Enforcement
System-wide Recommendation:
Implement and publicize bike light enforcement program during the
fall and offer discount bike lights to encourage safety.
According to collision reports
involving bicycles in Johnson
County, of the collisions where
safety equipment was reported,
only 25 percent of cyclists were
wearing helmets – encouraged but
not required in Iowa – and none
had lights on their bicycles xxi .
While perhaps surprising to some,
local input suggests cyclists agree
with motorists that enhanced
enforcement is needed to make
cyclists more visible and predictable on the road. The two highest
priorities in terms of enforcement at both bike planning workshops
were the following:
1. Enforce headlight/reflector laws during non-daylight
hours xxii .
2. Enforce rules of the road for cyclists and motorists by local
police and sheriff’s departments.
According to local law enforcement officers, ticketing cyclists for not
using headlights and rear reflectors has been limited due to other
issues having high priority. Law enforcement departments at all
JCCOG entities could implement targeted enforcement during the fall
to improve compliance. This could help stem the spike in collisions
occurring when students return to school.
At the same time, JCCOG and member entities could explore grant
opportunities to offer discounted bike lights to qualifying residents.
Page 52 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
Evaluation
System-wide Recommendation:
Achieve the platinum “Bicycle Friendly Community” designation from
the League of American Bicyclists.
In order to evaluate local ‘bicycle friendliness’, it is important that an
outside organization review the policies, programs, and infrastructure
that are provided to the cycling community. To do this, it is
recommended that each of the JCCOG member communities pursue
the Bicycle Friendly Community designation by the League of
American Bicyclists. The existing JCCOG Regional Trails and
Bicycling Committee could serve as the steering committee.
The League of American Bicyclists (LAB) is a nationwide nonprofit
organization that strives to protect the rights of cyclists and promotes
the use of bicycles for fun, fitness and transportation. The Bicycle
Friendly Communities campaign is an awards program that
recognizes municipalities that actively support bicycling. To become a
bicycle friendly community, the LAB reviews municipal applications
for compliance within five categories (Engineering, Education,
Encouragement, Enforcement, and Evaluation), and bestows bronze,
silver, gold, or platinum designations to qualified applicants.
Since each community provides different policies, programs, and
infrastructure to the bicycling community, each municipality would
likely submit an individual bike friendly community application;
rather than one regional application. To complete the application,
JCCOG municipalities should charge a staff member with completing
the application. The application could be reviewed by the JCCOG
Regional Trails and Bicycling Committee prior to submittal.
All ‘bicycle friendly community’ applicants receive feedback from the
LAB regarding strengths and weaknesses of their application. As
such, the application process (regardless of the outcome), is a great
way for communities to evaluate any shortcomings in terms bike
access.
Since LAB designations expire after four years, communities must
exhibit progress to either maintain their designation status or receive
a higher award. Since continual progress must be made, the award
ultimately acts as a catalyst for improvement.
More information on the Bicycle Friendly Community program can be
found at: www.bikeleague.org .
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 53
Community Recommendations
In addition to the preceding system-wide recommendations, which
apply to JCCOG entities, the following individual community
recommendations address unique needs of each JCCOG entity. The
recommendations are not listed in order of priority. Except where
otherwise noted, communities should maintain programs and facilities
outlined in Chapter 2.
City of Coralville
Based on public input and the 5 E’s of bicycle and pedestrian
planning, the City of Coralville could consider implementing the
following recommendations to become more bicycle-friendly:
Consider adopting Complete Streets Policy to ensure newly
constructed roads accommodate vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians,
and transit.
Pursue the Recommended Infrastructure Projects (see next
section), as well as the trails and wide sidewalks in the
approved JCCOG Trails Plan.
Offer public bike lockers and covered bike parking.
Adopt a bicycle parking ordinance requiring bike racks when
properties change use and at new multi-family residential and
commercial developments, (e.g., grocery stores, shopping
centers, and restaurants).
Review street sweeping schedule to ensure high priority bike
corridors are cleaned 3+ times per year.
Consider locating pedestrian/bicyclist push buttons on
sidewalks where cyclists can access them without dismounting.
City of Iowa City
Based on public input and the 5 E’s of bicycle and pedestrian
planning, the City of Iowa City could consider implementing the
following recommendations to become more bicycle-friendly:
Pursue the Recommended Infrastructure Projects (see next
section), as well as the trails and wide sidewalks in the
approved JCCOG Long Range Multi-Modal Transportation
Plan .
Evaluate reverting Washington Street to two-way in the
downtown portion.
Evaluate reducing Madison Street from four lanes to three
lanes and installing bike lanes or wide curb lanes.
Page 54 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
Reduce the number of mopeds parking at bicycle racks in the
downtown area.
Consider amending the bike parking ordinance regarding the
locations, number, and exceptions for downtown properties -
especially grocery stores, shopping centers, and restaurants –
as well as multi-family residential developments.
Consider locating additional sheltered bike racks in visible and
accessible sites in Downtown Iowa City.
Consider implementing bike corrals in the downtown area.
Review street sweeping schedule to ensure high priority bike
corridors are cleaned 3+ times per year.
Consider locating pedestrian/bicyclist push buttons on
sidewalks where cyclists can access them without dismounting.
Cities of North Liberty, Tiffin, and University Heights
Based on public input and the 5 E’s of bicycle and pedestrian
planning, the Cities of North Liberty, Tiffin, and University Heights
could consider implementing the following recommendations to
become more bicycle-friendly:
Consider adopting Complete Streets Policy to ensure newly
constructed roads accommodate vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians,
and transit.
Promote Bike-to-Work Month.
Pursue the Recommended Infrastructure Projects (see next
section), as well as the trails and wide sidewalks in the
approved JCCOG Long Range Multi-Modal Transportation
Plan .
Consider adopting a bicycle parking ordinance requiring bike
racks when properties change use and at new multi-family
residential and commercial developments, (e.g., grocery stores,
shopping centers, and restaurants).
Consider locating pedestrian/bicyclist push buttons on
sidewalks where cyclists can access them without dismounting.
University of Iowa
Based on public input and the 5 E’s of bicycle and pedestrian
planning, the University of Iowa could consider implementing the
following recommendations to become more bicycle-friendly:
Consider developing and adopting a Complete Streets Policy to
ensure newly constructed roads accommodate vehicles,
bicycles, pedestrians, and transit.
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 55
Create and disseminate “Share the Road” public service
announcements.
Promote Bike-to-Work Month.
Explore opportunities to support a bike sharing or bike library
program to increase ridership through provision of discounted
bicycles.
Review on-campus bike parking demand to ensure adequate
facilities for all university buildings.
Offer covered bike parking, bike corrals, and bike lockers
where feasible.
Offer a “commuter cycling clinic” that is open to the public
through Touch the Earth.
Publish a bicycle commuter guide illustrating sheltered racks,
bike lockers, and available shower facilities.
Review street sweeping schedule to ensure high priority bike
corridors are cleaned 3+ times per year.
Johnson County, Iowa
Based on public input and the 5 E’s of bicycle and pedestrian
planning, Johnson County could consider implementing the following
recommendations to become more bicycle-friendly:
Construct paved shoulders for all new road construction or
rehabilitation projects and consider adopting a Complete
Streets Policy in areas contiguous to urbanized areas to ensure
newly constructed roads accommodate anticipated vehicles,
bicycles, and pedestrians.
Pursue the Recommended Infrastructure Projects (see next
section), as well as the trails and wide sidewalks in the
approved JCCOG Trails Plan.
Promote Bike-to-Work Month by proclaiming May “Bike
Month.”
Sign and promote rural bike routes using way-finding signs
that provide the direction, distance, and destinations for
popular routes (e.g., Sugar Bottom Loop, Reservoir Dam Loop,
and Hills Loop).
Install bicycle parking at all public buildings owned by the
County in the urbanized area.
Johnson County Council of Governments
Based on public input and the 5 E’s of bicycle and pedestrian
planning, the Johnson County Council of Governments could consider
Page 56 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
implementing the following recommendations to become more bicycle-
friendly:
Analyze peak hour counts for bicycle commuting on-street.
Implement spot maintenance request form for bike facilities
online.
Distribute articles in local newspapers and newsletters
regarding bicycle related events.
Provide educational materials on the JCCOG website,
including local resources and services.
Create an online trip maker/map quest service that enables
residents to enter their address and destination to identify a
safe route to the destination.
Monitor bike commuting rates at key locations, including but
not limited to College Street and Melrose Avenue in Iowa City.
Promote Bike-to-Work Week events and planning, including
“Share the Road” public service announcements.
Publish a bicycle commuter guide illustrating sheltered racks,
bike lockers, and public shower facilities.
Create “Share the Road” public service announcements for
broadcast on local radio and television stations – focusing
airing during the fall.
Offer personal route finding service online to all residents
through www.JCCOG.org.
Review the Metro Bicycle Master Plan annually to track
progress toward the goals and recommendations outlined in the
plan.
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 57
Recommended Infrastructure Projects
The following projects were identified by the public during the
planning process for the Metro Bicycle Master Plan as high priorities.
The projects described in this section are infrastructure projects staff
believes exhibit merit and should considered in addition to trail
projects outlined in the JCCOG Long Range Multi-modal
Transportation Plan .
Note: JCCOG staff developed cost estimates for planning purposes only
– actual project costs require engineering evaluation.
Coralville
A. 1st Avenue Trail – Construct a trail adjacent to 1st Avenue
(cost estimate - $250,000). Project Justification: north/south
link between Coralville north and south of the Interstate 80.
B. Clear Creek Trail – Trail connection between Coralville and
Tiffin (connection to Kent Park and the Amana Colonies) (cost
estimate - $ 2.5 million). Project Justification: connection to
Tiffin and Kent Park.
Iowa City
C. Washington Street Lane Change – Evaluate changing
Washington Street (between Linn Street and Clinton Street)
from the existing one-way (eastbound) to a two-way street (cost
estimate - $5,000 to 250,000). Project Justification: improve
bicycle access through downtown.
D. Linder Road/Waterworks Park Trail Connection – Construct a
direct trail connection from North Dubuque Street (opposite
Linder Road) to the Waterworks Prairie Trail system to the
west (cost estimate - $40,000). Project Justification: east/west
link between Iowa City to Coralville.
Page 58 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 59
E. Peninsula Pedestrian Bridge – Construct pedestrian bridge
from Rocky Shore Drive (opposite River Street) to Peninsula
Park (cost estimate - $1.3 million). Project Justification: access
to the Peninsula Dog Park, Disc Golf Course, and Coralville.
F. Iowa River Corridor Trail Extension – Extend the Iowa River
Corridor Trail south to Oak Crest Hill Road (cost estimate -
$1.0 million); property acquisition could be an obstacle. Project
Justification: link from Iowa City to the municipal airport,
Johnson County Fairgrounds, Sand Lake Park, and nearby
residences.
G. Highway 6 Wide Sidewalk Extension – Extend the existing
Highway 6 wide sidewalk from Taylor Drive east to Lakeside
Drive (cost estimate - $1.2 million). Project Justification: link
southeast neighborhoods to commercial areas.
H. Highway 1 Wide Sidewalk Extension – Construct a wide
sidewalk from the existing Iowa River Corridor Trail (east of S.
Riverside Drive) to Mormon Trek Boulevard (cost estimate -
$1.5 million). Project Justification: currently no
bicycle/pedestrian accommodations exist within the Highway 1
West corridor.
I. North Dubuque Street Pedestrian Bridge – Construction of a
separated bridge adjacent to the Dubuque Street Bridge
crossing Interstate 80 (cost estimate - $1.8 million). Project
Justification: north/south connection between Iowa City and
the residences north of the interstate.
J. Dodge Street Pedestrian Bridge – Construction of a separated
bridge adjacent to the Dodge Street/Hwy 1 Bridge crossing
Interstate 80 (cost estimate - $1.8 million). Project
Justification: north/south connection between Iowa City and
the commercial district north of the interstate.
K. Iowa River Bicycle / Pedestrian Bridge – Construct either a
separated or cantilevered bridge crossing the Iowa River north
of the Burlington Street Bridge (cost estimate - $1.3 million).
Project Justification: east/west link crossing the Iowa River
within downtown Iowa City.
Johnson County
L. North Dubuque Street Trail – Extend the North Dubuque
Street Trail from West Overlook Road to North Liberty City
limits (cost estimate - $1 million dollars). Project justification: a
connection to Iowa City and North Liberty; part of the planned
trail from Iowa City to Cedar Rapids.
Page 60 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
M. North Liberty to Cedar Rapids – Extend the existing paved
shoulder on 180th Street along Mehaffey Bridge Road to the
North Liberty city limits (cost estimate - $1 million dollars) and
the paved shoulder on Ely Road from Hwy 382 to the
Johnson/Linn County line (cost estimate - $1 million dollars).
Project Justification: a complete paved shoulder route from
North Liberty to Solon to Johnson/Linn County line.
N. Mehaffey Bridge Road Trail – Extend a trail from North
Liberty city limits to Sugar Bottom Recreation Area (cost
estimate - $2 million dollars; includes separated trail design on
new bridge to be built over Coralville Reservoir). Project
justification: planned trail from Iowa City to Cedar Rapids.
O. Mehaffey Bridge Road / 180th Street Trail – Extend a trail
from Sugar Bottom Recreation Area to Solon city limits (cost
estimate - $2 million dollars). Project justification: part of the
plan to connect Iowa City to Cedar Rapids.
P. Solon to Ely Trail – Extend a trail from Solon city limits to link
up with Ely Trail (cost estimate - $2 million dollars). Project
justification: part of the plan to connect Iowa City to Cedar
Rapids.
Q. Clear Creek Trail – Trail connection between Tiffin and Kent
Park (cost estimate - $6 million). Project Justification: a
connection to Kent Park from Iowa City and Coralville.
North Liberty
R. North Dubuque Street Trail – Extend the North Dubuque
Street Trail within North Liberty city limits (cost estimate - $2
million dollars). Project justification: planned trail connection
from Iowa City to Cedar Rapids.
S. Cherry Street Trail – Extend a trail within North Liberty city
limits along Cherry Street. Project justification: planned trail
connection in adopted North Liberty Trails Plan.
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 61
So
u
r
c
e
:
J
C
C
O
G
L
o
n
g
R
a
n
g
e
M
u
l
t
i
-
M
o
d
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
2
0
0
7
-
20
3
5
,
p
a
g
e
J
-
3
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
J
C
C
O
G
L
o
n
g
R
a
n
g
e
M
u
l
t
i
-
M
o
d
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
2
0
0
7
-
20
3
5
,
p
a
g
e
J
-
3
.
Page 62 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 63
Appendix A
On-Street Facility Criteria
The following recommendations for bicycle facility design are outlined
in FHWA Report RD-92-073, which presents a set of tables (Tables
A1-A6) that can be used to determine the recommended type of bicycle
facility to be provided in particular roadway situations.
This manual takes its lead from the AASHTO Guide, which states:
To varying extents, bicycles will be ridden on all highways
where they are permitted. All new highways, except those
where bicyclists will be legally prohibited, should be designed
and constructed under the assumption that they will be used
as a bicycle street. 1
Using the concept of two broad types of design bicyclists—group A
and group B/C— the recommendations included in tables 1 through 6
are keyed to the most likely type of user. All streets and highways
where bicycles are permitted to operate should, at a minimum,
incorporate the design treatments recommended in the tables for
group A bicyclists.
Where it is determined that use by group B/C bicyclists is likely, the
tables recommending design treatments for group B/C should be
used. The group B/C design treatments will also accommodate group
A bicyclists.
At a minimum, all streets and highways open to bicycle use should
have roadways incorporating the design treatments recommended for
group A bicyclists. Where a planning process has determined a given
route is the best choice to form part of a network of routes to provide
access to the community for group B/C bicyclists, the recommended
design treatment appropriate to B/C riders should be implemented.
This report, FHWA-RD-92-073, presents a set of tables that can be
used to determine the recommended type of bicycle facility to be
provided in particular roadway situations. In addition, the report
presents a brief discussion of the "design user" for bicycle facilities,
and presents a planning process for bicycle facilities.
Five criteria were used to determine recommended bicycle facilities:
traffic volume; posted vehicle operating speed; traffic mix of
automobiles, trucks, buses, and/or recreational vehicles; on-street
parking; and sight distance. Values for these criteria were
1 Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities , American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Washington, DC, 1991.
Page 64 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
determined and tables were developed for urban and rural roadway
sections for two groups of design users.
Paths are not indicated in any of the tables because of their limited
applicability on most roadways. Paths should be used only where
there are very few intersections and adequate setback from the
roadway. These conditions are usually found only in parks, along
shorelines, and near some controlled-access highways. Paths are
recommended in the JCCOG Trails Map .
Federal Highway Administration recommended roadway design
treatments and widths to accommodate bicycles are presented in
Tables A1through A6. Tables A1through A3 are for group A cyclists
while Tables A4 through A6 are for group B/C bicyclists.
Figure 21: Table cell description
Table A1: Advanced bicyclists, urban area, curb and gutter section, no parking
allowed.
posted motor vehicle
operating speed
less than 30 mi/h sl sl wc wc sl wc wc wc wc wc wc wc
12 12 14 14 12 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
30-40 mi/h wc wc wc wc wc wc wc wc wc wc wc wc
14 14 15 15 14 15 15 15 14 15 15 15
41-50 mi/h wc wc wc wc wc wc sh sh wc wc sh sh
15 15 15 15 15 15 6 6 15 15 6 6
over 50 mi/h sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
truck, bus, rv truck, bus, rv truck, bus, rv
adequate sight
distance
inadequate
sight distance
adequate sight
distance
inadequate
sight distance
average annual daily traffic (AADT) volume
less than 2,000 2,000-10,000 over 10,000
adequate sight
distance
inadequate sight
distance
Source: FHWA Report RD-92-073
WC
14
Type of facility:
bl = bike lane
wc = wide curb lane
sh = striped shoulder
sl = shared lane
Width of facility:
Measurement in feet
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 65
Table A2: Advanced bicyclists, urban area, curb and gutter section, parking
allowed.
posted motor vehicle
operating speed
less than 30 mi/h wc wc wc wc wc wc wc wc wc wc wc wc
14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 14
30-40 mi/h wc wc wc wc wc wc wc wc wc wc wc wc
14 14 15 15 14 15 15 15 14 15 15 15
41-50 mi/h wc wc wc wc wc wc wc wc wc wc wc wc
15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 15 15 16 16
over 50 mi/h na na na na na na na na na na na na
average annual daily traffic (AADT) volume
less than 2,000 2,000-10,000 over 10,000
adequate sight
distance
inadequate sight
distance
truck, bus, rv truck, bus, rv truck, bus, rv
adequate sight
distance
inadequate
sight distance
adequate sight
distance
inadequate
sight distance
Source: FHWA Report RD-92-073
Table A3: Advanced bicyclists, rural area, shoulders or edge stripe.
posted motor vehicle
operating speed
less than 30 mi/h sl sl wc wc sl wc wc wc wc wc sh sh
12 12 14 14 12 14 14 14 14 14 4 4
30-40 mi/h wc wc sh sh wc wc sh sh sh sh sh sh
14 14 4 4 14 15 4 4 4 4 4 4
41-50 mi/h sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh
4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
over 50 mi/h sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
average annual daily traffic (AADT) volume
less than 2,000 2,000-10,000 over 10,000
adequate sight
distance
inadequate sight
distance
truck, bus, rv truck, bus, rv truck, bus, rv
adequate sight
distance
inadequate
sight distance
adequate sight
distance
inadequate
sight distance
Source: FHWA Report RD-92-073
Table A4: Beginning and child bicyclists, urban area, curb and gutter section, no
parking allowed.
posted motor vehicle
operating speed
less than 30 mi/h wc wc wc wc wc wc wc wc bl bl bl bl
14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 5 5 5 5
30-40 mi/h bl bl bl bl bl bl bl bl bl bl bl bl
5 5 5 5 5 6 6 5 5 6 6 5
41-50 mi/h bl bl bl bl bl bl bl bl bl bl bl bl
5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
over 50 mi/h bl bl bl bl bl bl bl bl bl bl bl bl
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
average annual daily traffic (AADT) volume
less than 2,000 2,000-10,000 over 10,000
adequate sight
distance
inadequate sight
distance
truck, bus, rv truck, bus, rv truck, bus, rv
adequate sight
distance
inadequate
sight distance
adequate sight
distance
inadequate
sight distance
Source: FHWA Report RD-92-073
Page 66 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
Table A5: Beginning and child bicyclists, urban area, curb and gutter section,
parking allowed.
posted motor vehicle
operating speed
less than 30 mi/h wc wc wc wc wc wc wc wc bl bl bl bl
14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 5 5 5 5
30-40 mi/h bl bl bl bl bl bl bl bl bl bl bl bl
5 5 5 5 5 6 6 5 6 6 6 6
41-50 mi/h bl bl bl bl bl bl bl bl bl bl bl bl
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
over 50 mi/h na na na na na na na na na na na na
average annual daily traffic (AADT) volume
less than 2,000 2,000-10,000 over 10,000
adequate sight
distance
inadequate sight
distance
truck, bus, rv truck, bus, rv truck, bus, rv
adequate sight
distance
inadequate
sight distance
adequate sight
distance
inadequate
sight distance
Source: FHWA Report RD-92-073
Table A6: Beginning and child bicyclists, rural area, shoulder or edge stripe.
posted motor vehicle
operating speed
less than 30 mi/h sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
30-40 mi/h sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh
4 4 4 4 4 6 6 4 6 6 6 6
41-50 mi/h sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
over 50 mi/h sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
average annual daily traffic (AADT) volume
less than 2,000 2,000-10,000 over 10,000
adequate sight
distance
inadequate sight
distance
truck, bus, rv truck, bus, rv truck, bus, rv
adequate sight
distance
inadequate
sight distance
adequate sight
distance
inadequate
sight distance
Source: FHWA Report RD-92-073
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 67
Appendix B
Iowa City Bicycle Parking
Requirements
The following bicycle parking requirements are found in Title 14: Iowa
City Zoning Code, Chapter 5, Article A.
Rules for Computing Bicycle Parking Requirements
In Tables 5A-1 and 5A-2, the minimum bicycle parking requirements
are expressed as a certain number of spaces per dwelling unit or as a
percentage of the required number of vehicle parking spaces.
In all cases where bicycle parking is required, a minimum of 4 spaces
shall be provided.
After the first 50 bicycle parking spaces are provided, additional
spaces are required at 50 percent of the number required by this
Section.
Where the expected need for bicycle parking for a particular use is
uncertain due to unknown or unusual operating characteristics of the
use or due to a location that is difficult to access by bicycle, the
Building Official may authorize that the construction of up to 50
percent of the required bicycle parking spaces be deferred. The land
area required for the deferred bicycle parking spaces must be
maintained in reserve. If an enforcement official of the City
determines at some point in the future that the additional parking
spaces are needed, the property owner will be required to install the
parking in the reserved area. The owner of the property on which the
bicycle parking area is reserved must properly execute, sign, and
record a written agreement that is binding upon their successors and
assigns as a covenant running with the land that assures the
installation of bicycle parking within the reserved area by the owner
if so ordered by an enforcement official of the City.
Design of Bicycle Parking Areas
Bicycle parking areas must be constructed of asphaltic cement
concrete, Portland cement concrete or manufactured paving
materials, such as brick. However, the City Building Official may
permit the use of rock or gravel areas for bicycle parking, provided
edging materials are used so that the bicycle parking area is clearly
demarcated and the rock material is contained.
Required bicycle parking racks must be designed to support the
bicycle by its frame and allow the use of either a cable lock or a U-
shaped lock. Bicycle lockers and secure indoor storage facilities are
also allowed.
Bicycle parking facilities shall be located in a clearly designated, safe
and convenient location and shall be located so as not to impede
pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Bicycle parking is allowed in front and
Page 68 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
side building setbacks in all zones, provided that such a parking area
results in no more than 25 percent of the required setback area being
paved.
Table 5A-1: Minimum Parking Requirements in the CB-5
USE
CATEGORIES
SUBGROUPS Parking Requirement Bicycle
Parking
Residential Uses
Household Living Uses Multi-family
Dwellings
CB-5 Zone
Efficiency,1-bedroom, and 2-bedroom units: 1 space
per dwelling unit.
3-bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: 3 spaces per
dwelling unit
Elder Apartments: 1 space for every 2 dwelling units.
1.0 per d.u.
Table 5A-2: Minimum Parking Requirements for all zones, except
the CB-5 and CB-10 Zones
USE
CATEGO
RIES
SUBGROUPS Parking Requirement Bicycle
Parking
Residential Uses
Single Family Uses 1 space per dwelling. However, for a SF use that contains a household with
more than 2 unrelated persons, 1 additional parking space is required for each
additional unrelated person in excess of two. For example, if a Single Family
Use contains 4 unrelated persons, then 3 parking spaces must be provided.
None
required
Two Family Uses 1 space per dwelling unit. For a Two Family dwelling unit that contains a
household with more than 2 unrelated persons, 1 additional parking space is
required for each additional unrelated person in excess of two.
None
required
Group Households 3 spaces None
required
All
zones,
except
PRM
Efficiency & 1-bedroom units: 1 space per dwelling unit
2-bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit
3-bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit
4-bedroom units: 3 spaces per dwelling unit
5-bedroom units: 4 spaces per dwelling unit
0.5 per d.u.
1.0 per d.u.
1.5 per d.u.
1.5 per d.u.
1.5 per d.u.
PRM
Zone
Efficiency, 1- & 2- bedroom units: 1 space per dwelling unit
3-bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: 3 spaces per dwelling unit
1.0 per d.u.
Household
Living
Multi-
family
Dwellings
Elder
Apartme
nts
1 space per dwelling unit for independent living units and 1 space for every 2
dwelling units for assisted living units, except in the PRM and CB-2 Zones.
In the PRM and CB-2 Zones, 1 space for every 2 dwelling units.
5%
Assisted Group Living 1 space for every 3 beds plus 1 space for each staff member determined by the
maximum number of staff present at any one time.
None
required
Independent Group
Living
1 space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area or 0.75 spaces per resident, whichever is
less.
25%
Group Living
Fraternal Group
Living
1 space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area or 0.75 spaces per resident, whichever is
less.
25%
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 69
USE
CATEGORIES
SUBGROUPS Parking Requirement Bicycle
Parking
Commercial Uses
Retail-type 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area 15% Adult Business Uses
Entertainment/night club-type Parking spaces equal to 1/3 the occupant load of the
largest assembly space or seating area in the
building.
10%
General 1 space for each office, examining room, and
treatment/grooming room, but not less than 3
spaces.
None required Animal-related
Commercial
Intensive 3 spaces None required
Spectator-type
(major event facilities,
such as arenas,
stadiums, etc.)
Parking spaces equal to 1/4 the occupant load of the
seating area.
10% Outdoor
Participatory-type (tennis
courts, swimming pools,
archery ranges, sports
fields, etc.)
Parking spaces equal to 2/3 the maximum number of
participants likely at any one time.
10%
Commercial Recreational
Uses
Indoor Parking spaces equal to 1/3 the occupant load of the
area used for the participatory activity.
10%
Commercial Parking Not applicable None required
Eating and Drinking
Establishments
1 space per 150 sq. ft. of floor area, or parking
spaces equal to 1/3 the occupant load of the seating
area, whichever is less. Carry-out/delivery
restaurants that do not have a seating area must
provide at least 4 spaces.
10%
Quick Vehicle Servicing For gas stations, 1 stacking space is required for
every service stall or pump station.
For car washes, 4 stacking spaces are required for
each wash rack, bay, or tunnel.
Parking for convenience retail must be calculated
separately. Parking spaces must be provided in lieu
of stacking spaces in instances where egress from a
facility would require moving a motor vehicle waiting
for entry.
None required
General Office 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area.
In the MU and CB-2 Zones, no additional parking is
required for that floor area exceeding 8,000 square
feet.
15% Office Uses
Medical/Dental Office 1.5 spaces for each office, examining room and
treatment room, provided however, there shall not be
less than 5 spaces.
15%
Page 70 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
USE
CATEGORIES
SUBGROUPS Parking Requirement Bicycle
Parking
Shopping centers, where a mix of
uses, such as retail, office,
restaurants, theaters, commercial
recreational uses, etc., share the
same parking area. This parking
minimum may be used as an optional
alternative to calculating the parking
for each of the uses separately.
1 space per 250 sq. ft. of floor area . Spaces for
residential uses must be calculated separately and
must be provided in addition to the parking spaces
for the commercial uses.
15%
Sales-Oriented 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area 15%
Personal Service-Oriented 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area. 15%
Repair-Oriented 1 space per 500 sq. ft. of floor area None required
Hospitality-Oriented For hotels and motels, 1 space per guest room.
For guest houses, as defined in this Title, 0.75
spaces per guest room.
For meeting facilities and similar, spaces equal to 1/4
the occupant load of the meeting area or 1/4 the
occupant load of the seating area, whichever is most
applicable to the use.
None required
Retail
Outdoor Storage and Display-
Oriented
1 space per 500 sq. ft. of floor area 10%
Surface Passenger
Services
No minimum requirement None required
Vehicle Repair 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area. None required
Industrial Uses
Industrial Service
1 space per 750 sq. ft. of floor area None required
Technical/Light Manufacturing 1 space per 750 sq. ft. of floor area None required
General Manufacturing 1 space per 750 sq. ft. of floor area None required
Manufacturing and
Production
Heavy Manufacturing 1 space per 750 sq. ft. of floor area None required
Salvage Operations 1 space per 750 sq. ft. of floor area None required
Self-Service Storage 2 spaces per leasing office plus 1 space per 100
leasable storage spaces.
None required
For warehouses up to 25,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area up to a
maximum of 5 spaces.
None required Warehouse and Freight
Movement
For warehouses 25,000 sq. ft. or
greater
5 spaces plus 1 space for each 5,000 sq. ft. above
25,000 sq. ft.
None required
Waste-Related Uses 1 space per 750 sq. ft. of floor area None required
Wholesale Sales 1 space per 750 sq. ft. of floor area None required
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 71
USE
CATEGORIES
SUBGROUPS Parking Requirement Bicycle
Parking
Institutional And Civic Uses
Basic Utilities No minimum requirement None required
Public Based on parking demand analysis 25% Colleges and Universities
Private Per special exception review based on parking
demand analysis
25%
General Community Service 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area 10% Community Service
Community Service - Shelter 0.1 space per temporary resident based on the
maximum number of temporary residents staying
at the shelter at any one time plus 1 space per
employee based on the maximum number of
employees at the site at any one time.
25%
Daycare 1 space per employee based on the maximum
number of employees at the site at any one time
plus one parking space for each 10 children or
clients served, based on the maximum number of
children present on the site at any one time, plus
one stacking space for each 20 children or clients
served, based on the maximum number of clients
or children present on the site at any one time.
Additional parking spaces at a ratio of 1/20 clients
or children served may be substituted for the
stacking spaces, if the City determines that such
an arrangement will not cause traffic to stack into
adjacent streets or public rights-of-way.
10%
Detention Facilities No minimum requirement None required
Elementary, middle, junior high
schools, and Specialized Educational
Facilities
2 spaces per classroom 25% Educational Facilities
High schools 10 spaces per classroom 25%
Hospitals 1.75 spaces per hospital bed None required
Parks and Open Space No minimum requirement, except for recreational
uses within private open spaces areas as follows:
For golf courses, 3 spaces for each green (hole).
For other recreational or public assembly-type
uses, parking is required at half the minimum
amount required for the most similar commercial
recreational use.
5%
Religious/Private Group
Assembly
Parking spaces equal to 1/6 the occupant load of
the main auditorium or the largest room in the
building, whichever is greater.
5%
Other Uses
Plant-related No minimum requirement None required Agriculture
Animal-related No minimum requirement None required
Airports No minimum requirement None required Aviation-related Uses
Helicopter Landing Facilities No minimum requirement None required
Extraction No minimum requirement None required
Communication
Transmission Facilities
No minimum requirement None required
Page 72 JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan
JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Page 73
References
i The guiding principles draw from other bicycle plans, including the Knoxville, TN
Regional Bicycle Plan.
ii National Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS), 1995.
iii Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research (MFMER), 2008.
iv Retrieved from www.bicyclinginfo.org/education on December 16, 2008.
v Iowa Code 2007: Title VIII Transportation > Subtitle 2 Vehicles > Chapter 321 Motor Vehicles
and Law of the Road > 321.397 Lamps on bicycles.
vi “Bicycle Collisions in Johnson County,” by P. Knapp, S. Knoploh-Odole, L. Levy, J. Rosenberg,
and S. Snyder; University of Iowa Department of Urban & Regional Planning; 2008.
vii AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999), page 20.
viii Wachtel A.; Lewiston D. “Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions at Intersections,”
Journal of Safety Research , Volume 27, Number 3, Autumn 1996, pp. 195-195(1).
ix Aultman-Hall L, Kaltenecker MG. “Toronto bicycle commuter safety rates,” Accident Analysis
and Prevention , November 31, 1999, (6):675-86.
x Sports Participation 2007, National Sporting Goods Association, www.nsga.org.
xi Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. (in association with Dunbar/Jones Partnership, Kirkham,
Michael & Associates, Inc.), and Zimmerman, Laurent & Richardson, Inc. Iowa Statewide
Recreational Trails Plan. Prepared for the Iowa Department of Transportation. 1990.
xii Coralville Community Survey 2002, prepared by M.J. Klemme, MJ Consulting Associates, Inc.
xiii Iowa City Community Attitude and Interest Survey 2008, prepared by Leisure Vision / ETC
Institute.
xiv American Association of Retired People, The Magazine, September & October 2008.
xv “A Comparative Analysis of Bicycle Lanes Versus Wide Curb Lanes: Final Report,” U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, December 1999.
xvi Harkey, D.L. and Stewart, J.R. “Evaluation of Shared Use Facilities for Bicycles and Motor
Vehicles,” Transportation Research Record 1578, 1997, pp. 111-118.
xvii Kroll, B. and Ramey, M. “Effects of Bike Lanes on Driver and Bicyclists Behavior,”
Transportation Engineering Journal, Volume 103, March 1977.
xviii McHenry, S.R. and Wallace, M.J. Evaluation of Wide Curb Lanes as Shared Lane Bicycle
Facilities, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore Maryland, 1985.
xix “A Comparative Analysis of Bicycle Lanes Versus Wide Curb Lanes: Final Report,” U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, December 1999.
xx Retrieved from www.bicyclinginfo.org/education on December 16, 2008.
xxi “Bicycle Collisions in Johnson County,” by P. Knapp, S. Knoploh-Odole, L. Levy, J. Rosenberg,
and S. Snyder, 2008.
xxii Iowa Code 2007: Title VIII Transportation > Subtitle 2 Vehicles > Chapter 321 Motor
Vehicles and Law of the Road > 321.397 Lamps on bicycles.