BPMP Master Plan Reduced

TY
O UN
C
NE
A MI
SS
JE
TY
O UN
C
TE
Y ET
FA
RE
MO
IL
W
LLE
SVI
LA
HO
NI
C
e a n
Ar stria
o n e
ON
g t ed n
P Pla
T
XI NG i n
x & r
LE
e
L cle ste
i cy Ma
B 1
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
About the ConnectLex Plan............ 1-2
01
The Plan’s Vision.................................. 1-3
How to Get There................................ 1-3
The Value Of Walkable And
Bicycle-Friendly Communities....... 1-4
CURRENT STATE OF
WALKING AND BIKING
Existing Conditions Analysis........... 2-2
02
Walkway + Bikeway Types and
Mileage in the Region........................ 2-3
Biking in Fayette County Today.....2-4
Biking in Jessamine County
Today........................................................ 2-5
Walking in Fayette County
Today........................................................ 2-6
Walking in Jessamine County
Today.........................................................2-7
Safety Snapshot................................... 2-8
Bike and Pedestrian Crash
Analysis................................................... 2-9
Mode Share Analysis........................2-14
Demand Analysis...............................2-16
Equity Analysis...................................2-18
E-2 l Lexington, KY
WHAT WE HEARD IDENTIFYING PRIORITIES
What We Heard................................... 3-2 Prioritization Methodology............. 6-2
03 06
Prioritization Results.........................6-3
Developing a Strategy.......................6-4
Cost Estimate Summary.................6-12
RECOMMENDATIONS MAKING IT HAPPEN
Introduction........................................... 4-2 How Do we Make it Happen?......... 7-2
04 07
Key Stakeholders.................................4-3 Roles for Implementation................ 7-3
Framework: Policies & Performance Measures.................... 7-4
Programs ................................................4-4
Bike-Friendly and Walk-Friendly
Framework: Design & Community Assessments................. 7-5
Evaluation (Cont.)................................4-5
Funding Sources................................... 7-6
Maintenance........................................4-14
Funding Sources by Budget
What does Maintenance Size and Project Timeline..................7-7
Include?..................................................4-16
Bikeway Program Funding
Maintenance Overview................................................ 7-8
Recommendations............................4-17
Bikeway Program Funding
Scenarios................................................. 7-9
Pedestrian Improvement
DEVELOPING THE NETWORKS
Program Funding Overview..........7-12
Introduction........................................... 5-2 Program Funding Scenarios..........7-13
05
Our Approach.......................................5-3 Project Implementation Flow
Designing Bikeways for Chart....................................................... 7-14
All Users..................................................5-4 Project Cutsheets.............................7-15
Choosing the Right Facility
Type...........................................................5-6
CDeveloping the Bikeway APPENDIX
Network..................................................5-8
Recommended Bikeway A: Equity & Demand Analysis.........A-1
Network.................................................. 5-9 B: Public Input.......................................B-1
Shared Use Trail s..............................5-10 C: Project Identification ...................C-1
Identifying Pedestrian D: Project Prioritization &
Projects.................................................5-12 Timeframe............................................. D-1
Designing Streets for All Ages......5-13 E: Project Cost ..................................... E-1
Recommended Pedestrian
Projects.................................................5-15
Complete Street Projects...............5-16
Identifying Potential Complete
Street Projects....................................5-18
Intersection Improvements......... 5-20
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Lexington Area Metropolitan Planning Organization and project staff would like to
thank the region’s citizens, elected officials, and professional staff who supported this
effort.
In particular, we are indebted to the Project Steering Committee for their commitment
and expertise, as well as to the people who provided their time and vision for a walking-
and bicycling-friendly region.
Prepared for: Prepared by:
E-4 l Lexington, KY
Executive
Summary
An overview of the content of the Lexington Area

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
E-5
Our Vision
“The Greater Lexington Area envisions a network of high quality walkways
and bikeways that connects communities and fosters economic growth
and regional collaboration. People of all ages and abilities will have access
to comfortable and convenient walking and biking routes, resulting in true
mobility choice, improved economic opportunity, and healthier lifestyles.
Across the region, a culture of safety and respect is cultivated for people
traveling by foot or bike, whether for transportation or recreation.”
How Do We Get There?

The goals outlined below build upon the vision statement, relate to key themes from local
plans, and expand upon national best practices.
Enhance Connectivity Improve Health

Create connected walkable and Enhance access to active
bikable streets that allow people of transportation and outdoor
all ages and abilities to safely and recreation for health and wellness.
conveniently get where they want
to go.
Encourage Economic Growth Increase Safety

Recognize the economic benefits Address the safety of the
of walkable and bicycle-friendly transportation system for the most
communities, and capitalize on vulnerable users and aim for zero
increased property values and bicycle and pedestrian fatalities and
opportunities for redevelopment. serious injuries.
Promote Equity Increase Mobility

Ensure that walking and bicycling Provide active transportation
infrastructure is provided in the choices that support healthy,
areas with the greatest need and safe, and walkable/bikable
prioritize these modes as equitable neighborhoods, whether rural,
forms of transportation. urban or suburban.
E-6 l Lexington, KY
Bicycle-Friendly Communities
Health and Environmental Benefits
A Charlotte, NC study found that residents who switched to more walking and
biking for their commute weighed an average of 6.5 pounds less than those who
continued to drive to work.
The average bike commuter reduces their annual carbon emissions by 128 pounds.
$ Economic Benefits
Property assessments within one block of the eight-mile Indianapolis Trail have
increased 148% since it opened in 2008, an increase of $1 billion in assessed
property value.
Building sidewalk and bicycle facilities creates 36% more jobs than constructing
highways.
Accessibility and Mobility Benefits
30% of all trips we make are for a distance of two miles or less—a distance that can
easily be covered by a 10 minute bike ride or a 30 minute walk.
Safety Benefits
Speed limits less than 25 MPH greatly increase pedestrian survival rate if hit by a
car, and the presence of sidewalks can reduce pedestrian crash rates by 86%.
Even relatively small improvements, like pedestrian refuge islands, can reduce crash
rates by 56%.
E-7
What We Heard We Heard that Walking & Biking in
Fayette County is...
As part of the community engagement
• Difficult and dangerous due to driver behavior
process, an advisory committee comprised
(fast speeds, inattention, failure to yield at
of both Jessamine and Fayette County intersections)
representatives was formed to give
strategic direction to the plan and network • Important for transportation and recreation
improvements. • Improving with more recent bike lanes and
projects like the Legacy Trail and the Town
The project team also coordinated closely Branch Trail
with other planning processes, such
as the Lexington Parks and Recreation We Heard that Walking & Biking in
Master Plan Update and the ‘On the Table’ Fayette County should...
community input event. Issues around
cycling and walking were important themes • Connect people to commercial centers, such as
New Circle Road and Nicholasville Road
raised during these community meetings.
• Provide safe pedestrian and bicycle crossings
The graphic below demonstrates the at intersections
various ways public input was collected. • Include facilities like wider sidewalks that are
The maps on pages 11 and 12 highlight the accessible for all users, including people in
corridors that people identified on the on- wheelchairs or pushing strollers
line interactive map that are most in need of
• Have more bike lanes connecting
improvement.
neighborhoods with existing shared use trails
We Heard that Walking & Biking in

Jessamine County is...
Project
Website Public
Comment
GE • Difficult because there are few sidewalks, and
Forms they are not well connected
ST
N
Social
Media • Dangerous on narrow rural roads
ER
Blasts
ST
AK
EE Open On-line
• Lacking bikeway connections between
AL PUB
House Map Lexington, Wilmore, and Nicholasville

EHOLDER
RI
Workshops
NG
Staff &
Committee Focus
COMMIT
Consultant
Coordination
Meetings Groups We Heard that Walking & Biking in
E-mail
Press
Jessamine County should...
and
Releases
TE
E Phone • Be a way for children to get to school

Outreach
Coverage in
S
Local News • Connect existing shared use trails

IC
‘On the Table’ • Provide a way for residents and visitors to

community input explore surrounding farmland
Draft & event
Final Plan • Focus on pedestrian improvements on Main
Presentations
Street in Wilmore and Nicholasville
E-8 l Lexington, KY
Where We Heard Pedestrian
Improvements Are Most Needed
Fra nkl in
Scott C
ounty
C o unty
ty
un ty
Co n
o tt Cou
Sc tte
aye
F
ty
oun
nC y
ou rbo ount
B rk C
Cla
ounty
y
e Count
ford C
Fayett
Wood
LEXINGTON
ty
un
Co nty
te
t Co u
ye
Fa lark
C
ounty
County
Fay
Je s ette
ford C
sam Co
mine
ine unty
Co
unt
Wood
y
Je ssa
y
unt y
Co nt
l ark C ou
C on
a d is
M
NICHOLASVILLE
WILMORE
"Routes that Could be

Improved for Pedestrians"
Support
0 Mercer1.5
County
Boyle County
3
MILES
I High Support
E-9
Where We Heard Bikeway
Improvements Are Most Needed
Fra nkl in
Scott C
ounty
C o unty
y
nt y
ou t
t C oun
ot C
Sc tte
y e
Fa
ty
oun
n C nty
rbo u
Bou rk Co
Cla
ounty
y
e Count
ford C
Fayett
Wood
LEXINGTON
ty
un
Co ty
tte oun
ye C
Fa lark
C
ounty
County
Fay
Je s ette
ford C
sam Co
mine
ine unty
Co
unt
Wood
y
Je ssa
y
unt y
Co nt
ark ou
Cl on
C
d is
Ma
NICHOLASVILLE
WILMORE
"Routes that Could be

Improved for Bicyclists"
Support
0 Mercer1.5
County
Boyle County
3
MILES
I High Support
E-10 l Lexington, KY
Interested but Concerned (60%)
Designing Bikeways For All Users
SOURCE: www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/264746
The last decade has seen an increase in investment in bicycle infrastructure locally and
across the United States. One key realization is shaping how bicycle investments are made:
Different Cyclists Have Different Needs
No Way,
Although some bicyclists will ride on any road, regardless of available bikeway No How
“strong (35%)
and
fearless”, a much larger portion of the population would ride, but only where there is a high-
quality bikeway “interested but concerned.” Understanding this concept has led us to design
more low-stress bikeways that provide the high-quality experience the majority of cyclists
desire.
The chart on this page shows a “typical” distribution of bicyclists while also capturing the
general type of experience they prefer.
Designing for ages

8 to 80 will be the most
effective way to reach
the “Interested but
Concerned” group
Strong and Enthused and Interested but No Way, Strong and

< 2%
Fearless 5%
Confident 60%
Concerned 35%
No How Fearless
Strong
Less than &
1% Enthused
5% & Interested
60% but No35%
Way, Less than 1%
Fearless Confident Concerned No How
E-11
Developing The MAJOR BIKEWAY: MAINLINE ROUTES
Bikeway Network
The proposed bike network was developed
with the goal of creating a network of
well-connected, low-stress facilities. Biking
needs to be a safe, convenient, and pleasant
form of transportation for the broadest
array of people. Aligning with the vision of
this plan of creating safe and comfortable
bikeways, this low-stress network would
be appropriate for people of all ages and
abilities.
The network is organized into three main MINOR BIKEWAY: FEEDER ROUTES
categories: major bikeways (mainline
routes), minor bikeways (feeder routes) and
local bikeways (first/last mile connections).
Bike lanes, trails, and low-speed

neighborhood bikeways all make biking
more comfortable. However, perception
of safety is largely driven by factors like
vehicle speeds and traffic volumes. Not all
routes are the same and therefore design
flexibility is essential to building a low-stress
network. The network approach developed
as part of this plan sets the parameters for
the bikeway network but the project design
process will determine the ultimate cross- LOCAL BIKEWAY: FIRST/LAST MILE
section for each project using national best
practices and engineering judgment.
PROPOSED MILEAGE SUMMARY

FAYETTE JESSAMINE
69 miles Major Bikeways 28 miles
75 miles Minor Bikeways 40 miles
74 miles Local Bikeways 11 miles
218 miles TOTAL 79 miles
Fra nkl in
Scott C
Recommended
ounty
C o unty
Bikeway Network
y
nt
ou nty
tC u
cot e Co
S tt
ye
Fa
ty
oun
nC y
ou rbo ount
B rk C
Cla
ounty
ty
e Coun
ford C
Fayett
Wood
LEXINGTON ty
un
Co ty
tte oun
ye C
Fa lark
C
ounty
County
Fay
Je s ette
ford C
sam Co
mine
ine unty
Co
unt
Wood
y
Je ssa
y
unt y
Co t
ark un
Cl n Co
i s o
d
Ma
NICHOLASVILLE
WILMORE
EXISTING AND PROPOSED

FUNDED
MAJOR BIKEWAY
MINOR BIKEWAY
0 Mercer1.5
County
Boyle County
3
MILES
I LOCAL BIKEWAY
Identifying
Pedestrian Projects STEP 1
Similar to the development of the proposed INVENTORY MISSING

SIDEWALK NETWORK
bikeway network, the proposed sidewalk
network is the result of public input and
Comprehensive inventory of all
review of existing conditions. The proposed
missing sidewalks, including local and
sidewalk network aims to provide a safe private streets within urban areas
and comfortable experience for users
of all ages and abilities. The approach to
developing the pedestrian network intends
to concentrate resources in areas where
improvements are most needed and where STEP 2
people are most likely to walk.
IDENTIFY PROPOSED
Full implementation of all missing sidewalk PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS
segments across both Fayette and
Jessamine counties will take many years. Remove local and private streets.
Remove streets where sidewalk on
With limited funding available, a focused,
one side is adequate.
prioritized approach is necessary. The
3-step process described to the right was
used to identify missing sidewalk segments
that reflect areas with the greatest need.
STEP 3
Streets classified as a major arterial, minor
arterial, or collector street are given priority SORT BY
in this plan due to their regional context and PROJECT TYPE
the increased safety risk these corridors
Identify projects to be completed
pose to pedestrians (higher traffic volumes by new development, roadway
with higher speeds). projects, or as standalone pedestrian
improvement projects.
FAYETTE JESSAMINE
PEDESTRIAN
71 miles Sidewalk 8 miles
IMPROVEMENT
32 miles Shared Use Trails 28 miles PROJECTS
Franklin
Scott C
Recommended
ounty
C o unty
Pedestrian Projects
y
nt
ou nty
tC u
cot e Co
S tt
ye
Fa
ty
oun
nC
ou rbo ounty
B rk C
Cla
ounty
ty
e Coun
ford C
Fayett
Wood
LEXINGTON
ty
un
Co ty
tte oun
ye C
Fa lark
C
ounty
County
Fay
Je s ette
ford C
sam Co
mine
ine unty
Co
unt
Wood
y
Je ssa
ty
un
Co ty
a rk un
Cl n Co
i s o
d
Ma
NICHOLASVILLE
WILMORE
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

PROPOSED SHARED USE TRAIL ALONG ROAD
TO BE IMPLEMENTED THROUGH NEW DEVELOPMENT
0 Mercer1.5
County
Boyle County
3
MILES
I TO BE IMPLEMENTED THROUGH ROADWAY PROJECT
Framework: Policies & Programs
While infrastructure – roads, sidewalks, crossings, bikeways – are critical for improving
walking and bicycling, it takes a comprehensive effort to make communities that are truly
pedestrian and bicycle-friendly. This plan’s framework builds upon existing resources and
community spirit to make walking and bicycling safe, comfortable, and common forms of
transportation in Fayette County and Jessamine County.
POLICIES PROGRAMS
• Develop a Tactical Urbanism Policy • Organize a Safety Campaign Task

• Develop a Bike Parking Program Force
• Expand Education and
SHORT TERM
• Update Existing Sidewalk, Bikeway,

Encouragement Programs
and Trail Maintenance Policies
• Re-brand and Redevelop the Bike Map
• Conduct a Bike Share Assessment
• Develop Process for Citizens to
Report Sidewalk Access Issues
• Implement a Safety Campaign
• Expand Bike Month Activities
• Improve Bike and Pedestrian Access • Host an Annual ConnectLex

MID TERM
in Construction Zones Workshop

• Update the Sidewalk Repair Program • Establish a Safe Routes to School
• Reduce Speed Limits on Residential Program
and Collector Streets • Complete a Vision Zero Action Plan
• Evaluate Program Staffing Needs for • Develop a Transportation Demand

LONG TERM
Plan Implementation Management Action Plan

• Develop an In-House Trail
Maintenance Crew
Framework: Design & Evaluation (Cont.)
DESIGN EVALUATION
• Host a Low-Cost Sidewalk Design • Identify a Program Funding Strategy

and Implementation Workshop • Establish a Bicycle/Pedestrian
• Conduct an Annual Priority Bikeway Count Program
Scoping to Determine Desired • Develop a Public Relations Strategy
SHORT TERM
Facility Type • Develop an Interactive Program

• Complete a Bicycle Boulevard (Local Website
Bikeway) Assessment
• Update the Traffic Calming Program
• Facilitate a Study Visit to an
Aspirational City
• Adopt Bikeway Design Standards
• Host a NACTO (National Association
of City Transportation Officials)
Bikeway Design Training Workshop
• Develop a Bicycle Wayfinding and • Update Traffic Impact Study

Branding Plan Regulations
MID TERM
• Develop Sidewalk Design Standards • Coordinate with Lextran to Improve

• Complete a Safe Routes to School Pedestrian Access to Transit Stops
Prioritization Exercise • Apply for Walk Friendly Community
Status
LONG TERM
• Develop Public Art in the Right-of- • Conduct a Health and Economic

Way design standards and guidelines Impact Assessment
E-17
Developing A Strategy
Implementation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan will require leadership and
dedication to facility and program development on the part of a variety of agencies. Equally
critical, and perhaps more challenging, will be securing a dedicated annual funding source.
This can be done through strategic collaboration with regional and state agencies, the private
sector, non-profit organizations and Fayette County and Jessamine County residents. The
graphic below highlights the project list development process.
The maps to the right sort projects into short-term, mid-term and long-term priorities for both
counties. Key projects within the short-term list identified in both counties are listed below.*
NETWORK CONSTRUCTIBILITY
PRIORITIZATION ASSESSMENT
Right-of-Way
Safety
Utility Conflicts Short-term
Recommended Demand Prioritized
Priority
Networks Project List Environmental
Transit Access Projects
Constraints
Equity
On-Street Parking
Gap Closure
Traffic Impacts
Mode Share
Cost Estimates
Fayette County Key Projects Jessamine County Key Projects
• North Limestone Bike/Ped • Lexington Road (29) Shared Use

Improvements from Vine Street to New Trail Gap from Wilmore “Y” (US68) to
Circle Rd. Veterans Drive
• Town Branch Commons Corridor • US68 Road Shared Use Trail from Old
Access Points (Martin Luther King Higbee Mill Road (Fayette County) to
Boulevard) Golf Club Drive
• Tates Creek Road Sidewalk Gaps and • East Brannon Road Shared Use Trail
Shared Use Trail from Nicholasville Road to Grey Oak Lane
• Alumni Drive Shared Use Trail from • Nicholasville Road (Hwy 27) Shared
Tates Creek Road to Squires Trail Use Trail along the utility corridor from
• Old Vine St/ Central Ave Bicycle existing trail (Fayette County near
Boulevard Waveland Museum Land) to Catnip Hill
• Liberty Road Shared Use Trail from Road/Vince Road
Liberty Elememtary to Winchester Rd. • Wimore Road (29) Shared Use Trail
from Harrodsburg Rd to Downtown
Nicholasville
Sc tte
nty
nty
ye
Fa
nty
ou
C nty
l ark C ou
C on
53 Miles Of Short-Term
M a d is
Priorities In Fayette
unty
unty
Woodford Co
Fay ette Co un
ty
Co nty
LEXINGTON e
tt Co u
ye
Fa lark
C
ounty
County
ford C
mine
Wood
Je ssa
Fay
Je s ette
Fay sam Co
Je s ette ine unty
sam Co Co
ine unty unt
Co y
unt
y
SHORT-TERM
MID-TERM
Ma ette
Fa
dis
y
LONG-TERM
on
Co
Co
un
un
ty
ty
NICHOLASVILLE
2
MILES
I
WILMORE
15 Miles Of Short-Term
Priorities In Jessamine
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Chapter 1:
Introduction
The purpose of the Lexington Area Bicycle and

Pedestrian Master Plan.
About The
ConnectLex Plan
The Lexington Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is the intergovernmental
planning agency for Fayette and Jessamine Counties. Collectively, the MPO sets policies and
allocates federal transportation dollars to local municipalities and counties.
ConnectLex is the bicycle and pedestrian master plan for the Lexington Area MPO. This plan
builds on past efforts and creates a new vision for walking and biking in the region. The plan
will be used by the MPO and local governments to prioritize, fund, and implement high-
quality infrastructure, high-impact programs, and supportive policies for walking and biking.
An Update to the 2007 Plan
ConnectLex is an update to the 2007 Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan. The
2007 Plan provided a blueprint for making Fayette County and Jessamine
County more walkable and bikable and included a means to prioritize projects
across the large two-county region.
A lot has changed in the bicycle and pedestrian planning and design industry
since 2007! This includes:
Separated bikeways and bike share have transformed the way cities and
Americans think about bike commuting;
Placemaking best practices encourage our decision makers to implement
livable streets that are designed for users of all ages and abilities;
Transit Access is more important then ever as communities are improving
frequencies and introducing high-capacity transit; and
Mobility Options are especially important to the fastest growing age
groups in the region, the Boomer generation and Millennials.
1-2 l Lexington, KY
The Plan’s Vision
“The Greater Lexington Area will have a network of high quality walkways
and bikeways that connects communities and fosters economic growth
and regional collaboration. People of all ages and abilities will have access
to comfortable and convenient walking and biking routes, resulting in true
mobility choice, improved economic opportunity, and healthier lifestyles.
Across the region, a culture of safety and respect is cultivated for people
traveling by foot or bike, whether for transportation or recreation.”
How To Get There

The goals outlined below build upon the vision statement, relate to key themes from local
plans, and expand upon national best practices.
Enhance Connectivity Improve Health

Create connected walkable and Enhance access to active
bikable streets that allow people of transportation and outdoor
all ages and abilities to safely and recreation for health and wellness.
conveniently get where they want
to go.
Encourage Economic Growth Increase Safety

Recognize the economic benefits Address the safety of the
of walkable and bicycle-friendly transportation system for the most
communities, and capitalize on vulnerable users and aim for zero
increased property values. bicycle and pedestrian fatalities and
serious injuries.
Promote Equity Increase Mobility

Ensure that walking and bicycling Provide active transportation
infrastructure is provided in the choices that support healthy,
areas with the greatest need. safe, and walkable/bikable
neighborhoods, whether rural,
urban or suburban.
1-3
Bicycle-Friendly Communities
Health and Environmental Benefits
RESIDENTS WHO
SWITCH TO MORE
WALKING AND
BIKING FOR THEIR
COMMUTE WEIGH
AN AVERAGE OF
-6.5 6.5 POUNDS LESS
THAN THOSE WHO
CONTINUE TO DRIVE
TO WORK. REPLACING AUTOMOBILE TRIPS
Source: MacDonald, J.M., Stokes, R.J., WITH BIKING/WALKING TRIPS
Cohen, D.A., Kofner, A., & G.K. Ridgeway.
(2010). The effect of light rail transit on body
IMPROVES AIR QUALITY AND
mass index and physical activity. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine 39(2):
DECREASES PUBLIC HEALTH
105-112. CONCERNS SUCH AS ASTHMA.
Sources: Frank, L., et al. (2006). Many pathways from land use to
health: Associations between neighborhood walkability and active
transportation, body mass index, and air quality. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 72, 75-8.; Friedman, M., et al. (2001) Impact of
Changes in Transportation and Commuting Behaviors During the 1996
Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta on Air Quality and Childhood Asthma.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 285(7): 897
THE AVERAGE BIKE COMMUTER REDUCES

THEIR ANNUAL CARBON EMISSIONS BY 128
POUNDS.
Sources: European Cyclists’ Federations. (2016). Cycle More Often 2 Cool Down the Planet! Quantifying CO2 savings of cycling.
1-4 l Lexington, KY
$ Economic Benefits
PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS WITHIN ONE BLOCK OF THE EIGHT-

MILE INDIANAPOLIS TRAIL HAVE INCREASED 148% SINCE IT
OPENED IN 2008, AN INCREASE OF $1BILLION IN ASSESSED
PROPERTY VALUE.
Source: IU Public Policy Institute. Cultural Trail Issue Brief 15-C23: Reasons to Love the Indianapolis Cultural Trail: A Legacy of Gene and Marilyn
Glick. http://policyinstitute.iu.edu
HOUSES IN HIGHLY WALKABLE

NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE
PROPERTY VALUES $4,000 TO
$34,000 HIGHER THAN HOUSES
IN AREAS WITH AVERAGE
WALKABILITY.
BUILDING SIDEWALK AND BICYCLE FACILITIES CREATES 36%

MORE JOBS THAN BUILDING HIGHWAYS AND ALMOST 100%
MORE JOBS THAN PAVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS.
Sources: Cortright, J. (2009). Walking the Walk: How Walkability Raises Housing Values in U.S Cities. CEO for Cities; American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Average Direct Jobs by Project Type (2012); Job in terms of full-time equivalents (FTE).
1-5
Accessibility and Mobility Benefits
TRAVEL SHEDS
ON AVERAGE, 30% OF ALL TRIPS WE MAKE ARE FOR A DISTANCE OF TWO

MILES OR LESS—A DISTANCE THAT CAN EASILY BE COVERED BY A 10
MINUTE BIKE RIDE OR A 30 MINUTE WALK.
COMPLETE STREETS DESIGN RESULTS IN INCREASED MOBILITY OPTIONS
PEDESTRIANS CYCLISTS PASSENGERS MOTORISTS CYCLISTS PEDESTRIANS
1-6 l Lexington, KY
Safety Benefits
SPEED + SURVIVABILITY IN CRASHES

A pedestrian hit by a A pedestrian hit by a A pedestrian hit by a
vehicle traveling at vehicle traveling at vehicle traveling at
25 MPH 35 MPH 45 MPH

30 30 30
20 40 20 40 20 40
10 50 10 50 10 50
0 SURVIVABILIT Y
60 0 SURVIVABILIT Y
60 0 SURVIVABILIT Y
60
has an
89% chance of
survival
has a
68% chance of
survival
has a
35% chance of
survival
Source: Rosén, E., & Sander, U. (2009). Pedestrian fatality risk as a function of car impact speed. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41(3), 536-542.
Install sidewalk
to avoid walking 65-89
along roadway
Increase enforcement
to reduce speed
70
Install pedestrian
refuge islands 56
Provide CRASH REDUCTION FACTORS
bike lanes 36 Source: Federal Highway Administration. (2008).
“Desktop reference for crash reduction factors.”
Add exclusive
pedestrian phasing to 34
signalized intersection
%
DECREASE
IN CRASHES
1-7
Chapter 2:
Current State
of Walking and
Biking
The existing state of walking and biking in
the Lexington area with a series of analyses
conducted to understand areas of need in the
study area.
Existing Conditions
Analysis
An existing conditions analysis was performed to better understand bicyclist and pedestrian
trends and issues. The following pages feature different types of analyses that were
conducted to take a closer look at current walking and biking conditions in the Lexington
region. Results of these analyses illustrate areas where improvements to safety and
connectivity could be made.
The chart below provides an overview of the analyses conducted and how they relate to
existing conditions in the region.
Type of Analysis... To Understand...
Review of Current Bikeway Opportunities and barriers to

Network bicycle travel
Review of Current Pedestrian Opportunities and barriers to
Network pedestrian travel
Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes Where bicycle and pedestrian
crashes are occurring and any
Mode Share Analysis trends or patterns related to
Demand Analysis where the crashes occur
Equity Analysis Where people are currently

walking and biking
Expected pedestrian and
bicyclist activity
Where there are
concentrations of higher need
populations
2-2 l Lexington, KY
Walkway + Bikeway Types And
Mileage In The Region
2,103 miles of 39 miles

existing facilities bike lanes
5 miles
sharrows
9 miles
buffered bike
lanes
30 miles
shared use trail
+ 16 miles
funded but
unbuilt shared
use trail
2,004 miles
sidewalk
2-3
Biking In Fayette County Today...
Opportunities
In downtown Lexington, the dense street grid provides alternatives to high-traffic
and high-speed corridors. Where they have been installed, green pavement markings,
buffered bike lanes, and shared-use trails provide low-stress bikeways for users of all
ages and abilities. The University of Kentucky and other key downtown destinations
attract cyclists from across the county and increase the likelihood of bicycle commuting
trips.
Challenges
Narrow roadways and limited right-of-way make it challenging to implement

separated bikeways. High traffic corridors, such as Man O’ War Boulevard and New
Circle Road, are intimidating to all but the strong and fearless type of cyclist. Gaps
in the bikeway network make it difficult to choose biking as a safe and efficient
commute choice. Lack of bikeways through intersections pose a significant safety risk.
2-4 l Lexington, KY
Biking In Jessamine County Today...
Opportunities
The rural setting and natural resources like the Kentucky River provide prime
opportunities for long-distance bike riding and bicycle tourism. Opportunities for shared
use trails along rail lines, utility corridors, and riparian corridors exist throughout the
county.
Challenges
The land use patterns throughout the county and rural and suburban setting make it
difficult for biking to be a viable form of transportation for longer distances. Cyclists
have a hard time avoiding high-speed and high-volume roadways to reach key
destinations. There isn’t a direct and safe route for riders of all ages and abilities to
commute between counties, especially with challenging corridors like Highway 27
and 68.
2-5
Walking In Fayette County Today...
Opportunities
Many streets within the Urban Service Boundary have sidewalks on at least one
side of the street. Recent efforts to bring more awareness at intersections include
artistic crosswalks, rapid-flashing beacons, high-visibility crosswalks, and educational
campaigns. In addition, street trees, wayfinding signs, and transit amenities help to
increase walkability.
Challenges
While sidewalks may be present, many of them don’t meet today’s ADA standards
due to narrow widths or lack of curb ramps meeting ADA specifications. While
street lights and trees increase pedestrian comfort, when space is limited, they can
become obstacles. Long crossing times and intimidating intersections, particularly
along arterials, make it difficult for pedestrians to access key destinations across the
county.
2-6 l Lexington, KY
Walking In Jessamine County Today...
Opportunities
Downtown Nicholasville and Wilmore serve as the primary pedestrian destinations and
most downtown streets have existing sidewalks. The future Nicholasville Bypass will
include a shared use trail and Centennial Park boasts an active trail network.
Challenges
Aging infrastructure and damaged sidewalks can create safety hazards and
prevent people from having safe access. Lack of street trees or separation
between street traffic can make it uncomfortable for pedestrians. High speed
limits in neighborhoods and commercial zones increase the risk of serious injury to
pedestrians.
2-7
Safety Snapshot
1,006 420
PEDESTRIAN-INVOLVED COLLISIONS BICYCLE-INVOLVED COLLISIONS
FROM 2012 TO 2016 FROM 2012 TO 2016
29 4
PEOPLE WERE KILLED WHILE PEOPLE WERE KILLED WHILE
WALKING DURING THIS PERIOD BICYCLING DURING THIS PERIOD
TOP 5 UNSAFE CORRIDORS: TOP 5 UNSAFE CORRIDORS:

SOUTH BROADWAY, LEXINGTON EUCLID AVENUE, LEXINGTON
NORTH BROADWAY, LEXINGTON ROSE STREET, LEXINGTON
MAIN STREET, LEXINGTON SOUTH LIMESTONE, LEXINGTON
SOUTH LIMESTONE, LEXINGTON NICHOLASVILLE ROAD, LEXINGTON
MAIN STREET, NICHOLASVILLE MAIN STREET, NICHOLASVILLE
2-8 l Lexington, KY
Bike And Pedestrian
Crash Analysis
“Lexington needs to consider safe ways to offer walking and
cycling.”
- LEXINGTON RESIDENT
FAYETTE COUNTY FAYETTE COUNTY

BICYCLE-INVOLVED CRASHES PEDESTRIAN-INVOLVED CRASHES
100 250
80 200
60 150
40 100
20 50
0 0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
JESSAMINE COUNTY JESSAMINE COUNTY

BICYCLE-INVOLVED CRASHES PEDESTRIAN-INVOLVED CRASHES
10 20
8 16
6 12
4 8
2 4
0 0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Key Takeaway
Year after year, crash rates are steady for bikes. The majority of walking and
biking crashes occur on major roadways and arterials. Crashes are concentrated
at intersections where multiple roadways converge.
2-9
IRO
NW
ORK
NE W
S PIK
E
TOW
GE
OR
N PI
GE T
KE
OW
RD
M
RD
UI
N
SP U
VE
R
RR
LE
RD
RD
ST
CA
LE TI
SANDERSV IL
A
O
E
ES N
L
PI K
TO
SE L
W RD
JAGGI F O
N
RUS
LLTO
RD
C
IT
AT
E
A
IO
RD
RN
NB D
YA
LV D
N
RD
R
X WAY
IO
S
AT
FFE
ALE
ST
OLD
FRA YAN
VD RA BR
ND
LI
NK INO D C
BL
FO ND
D
BRI
E
ME R NA R H ILL RD
R
RT A
GRE
IS
PI K E R RD
R
E
R
PA
D
LD
RIA
ANNIS
O
RD
ND
TO
E
XA
N
IC
N
PR
ALE
TO
RD
DR P
ES
M
FORBE S
LI
MAN E
KW
CH SE E L
Y
E ST V OU
DU
NKIRK ER EN D ND
DR ST TH ON LA
NE D R AST
S
S
AVE
E
RED MI
SI
R WI NCHESTER RD
BA
MA
ST
SE
SO
RT
LE N
RO
R TU
HE RD
ON WAY
DEL ADL L
B
PO
LA E Y R CK
A
FO
L
LAN DR D
LIB
O
EA
FO
LLEN LEXINGTON FO ER
R
RD
CLUB
NT TY
R
RD DP
LL D
CO AI
L O NE LE K
IL PE
P
M R RD PA RD AS BL
A
WY
E
S D LU N
ER
COD
R
VD
M
RK B
T R ID
PA
O
CHINOE R D
DR
GE DR
F
HAR PAS
O RE S T
FT R AD A
REG ENCY RD
A ZA L BAN
RD
RRO EN
O
ND
A AL Y RD
D
DR
O
S
E HILL
W AD DR
R
D
TAB
D
HE
DR
PEP
M TODDS
RD
P
DR
R
W E LLINGTO N LA RD
MT
E RH
A
WAY BU E
OWN ES
MIL SD
D
IL
L RD V
U IR
ITAR BL
Y PI R
LAN
D
KE RE P KWY
ESWAY D
Q
DDING S
ICO
YS
FI
R
D
LV
IN
HA
DR
LAR E
R GA
RE
RD
L
KB
IM
WIL
CE
RO
B
O SO
P
Y
ND D
O RD
KW
NT
DR
RE
N
O OW DR R
P
O
W NI
ST
H
G
NG B C K
ON
AR U
BO
RD
OP
YN
M
DEL
D
H
WINTHR
TRENT
ST R
FayAM H
NC
Je s ette ILLS D R ON
BL
VD G
CL
Co
RG RD
sam
ine unty R
MI
LL
EA
Co RTL A D
OL
unt RW HA ND W RD
y
RD
DR
SA
HARRODSBU
SO
AT
UT E
H ARRODSBU RG RD
Y N
PK
HP INT D R WA
I CH
O OD
E
KE
BRAN
WY
O
NON
TA
R
SA
MO
RD ABB
TE
O EY W
R
SC
N
N
N RD
DR
RE
RD
E
GTO
K
RD
IN
LEX
E
PIK
C ATN AS
IP H HG
I LL RO
EK
RD VE
RD
CRE
KS
JAC
MILES
0 0.5 1
BIKE CRASH ANALYSIS

CRASH FREQUENCY
Fayette County
1
2012 - 2016
2
3
4-5
6 - 13
2-10 l Lexington, KY
BRAN
NON Fa
D
RD Je s yette
R
sam C
ine ounty
RN
Co
HO
unt
N RD
y
ELK
KE
E
GTO
NE VE
TH
RSAIL
LE S
IN
RD ASH
SO
GRO
LEX
VE
RD
NE
C ATN
C
IP H
E
KE
I LL
N
RD
RD
RG
SBU
ounty
County
D
RO
R
A
ford C
H
KE
mine
PI
OY
Wood
TR
Je ssa
KEEN
E
E
EN
RD
KE
URG RD
O D SB
RR
SS
HA
A
YP
RD
MILL
ION
EB
IN ST
UN
VILL
W
N MA
IL
LAS
N 3R
M
O
C HO
RE
DS
RD
NI
T
AV E
RIC HMOND
E M
APL
E
ST
NICHOLAS V
NICHOLASVILLE
PEKIN
P IK
E
I LL
SU
W
M
EB
LP
A
I
HU
ATION RD C HR
YP
E ST I SM
N
IN ST
JESSA MIN
R
AN
AS
ST
MIL
WE
S
LR
WILMORE D
S MA
LL
NC
P IK
M AIN
E
ST
GL
ASS
HO
OV
E
RD
IL RP
M
L I KE
BE
TH
EL
RD
RD
GE
NC
ID
RD
BR
H
H IG
LE L
DANVI
SU
G
AR
CR
EEK
RD
Jessa mine County

LE
P IKE
DANVIL
Ga rra rd County
MILES
0 0.5 1
BIKE CRASH ANALYSIS CRASH FREQUENCY
Jessamine County
1
2012 - 2016
2
3
4-5
6 - 13
2-11
IRO
NW
ORK
NE W
S PIK
E
TOW
GE
OR
N PI
GE T
KE
OW
RD
M
RD
UI
N
SP U
VE
R
RR
LE
RD
RD
ST
CA
LE TI
SANDERSV IL
A
O
E
ES N
L
PI K
TO
SE L
W RD
JAGGI F O
N
RUS
LLTO
RD
C
IT
AT
E
A
IO
RD
RN
NB D
YA
LV D
N
RD
R
X WAY
IO
S
AT
FFE
ALE
ST
OLD
FRA YAN
VD RA BR
ND
LI
NK INO D C
BL
FO ND
D
BRI
E
ME R NA R H ILL RD
R
RT A
GRE
IS
PI K E R RD
R
E
R
PA
D
LD
RIA
ANNIS
O
RD
ND
TO
E
XA
N
IC
N
PR
ALE
TO
RD
DR P
ES
M
FORBE S
LI
MAN E
KW
CH SE E L
Y
E ST V OU
DU
NKIRK ER EN D ND
DR ST TH ON LA
NE D R AST
S
S
AVE
E
RED MI
SI
R WI NCHESTER RD
BA
MA
ST
SE
SO
RT
N LE
RO
R TU
HE RD
ON WAY
DEL ADL L
B
PO
LA E Y R CK
A
FO
L
LAN DR D
LIB
O
EA
FO
R
RD
CLUB
NT TY
R
RD DP
LL D
CO AI
L O NE LE K
IL PE
P
M R RD PA RD AS BL
A
WY
E
RS D LU N
COD
R
KE
VD
M
P AR B
T R ID
O
CHINOE R D
DR
GE DR
F
HAR PAS
O RE S T
FT R AD A
REG ENCY RD
A ZA L BAN
RD
RRO EN
O
ND
A AL Y RD
D
DR
O
S
E HILL
W AD DR
R
D
TAB
D
HE
DR
PEP
M TODDS
RD
P
DR
R
W E LLINGTO N LA RD
MT
E RH
A
WAY BU NE
MIL OW ES
SD
D
IL
L RD V
U IR
ITAR BL
Y PI R
LAN
D
KE RE P KWY
ESWAY
Q
DDING S
ICO
DR
YS
FI
LV
IN
HA
DR
LAR E
R GA
RE
RD
L
KB
IM
WIL
CE
RO
B
O SO
P
Y
ND D
O RD
KW
NT
DR
RE
N
O OW DR R
P
O
W NI
ST
H
G
NG B UCK
ON
AR
BO
RD
OP
YN
M
DEL
D
H
WINTHR
TRENT
ST R
FayAM H
NC
BL
VD G
CL
Co
RG RD
sam
ine unty R
MI
LL
EA
Co RTLAN D
OL
unt
y
RW HA D W RD
RD
DR
SA
HARRODSBU
SO
AT
UT E
H ARRODSBU RG RD
Y N
PK
INT R
I CH
WA
O OD
HP
E
KE
BRAN D
WY
O
NON
TA
R
SA
MO
RD ABB
TE
O EY W
R
SC
N
N
N RD
DR
RE
RD
E
GTO
K
RD
IN
LEX
E
PIK
C ATN AS
IP H HG
I LL RO
EK
RD VE
RD
CRE
KS
JAC
MILES
0 0.5 1
PEDESTRIAN CRASH ANALYSIS CRASH FREQUENCY
Fayette County
1
2012 - 2016
2
3-4
5-6
7-9
BRAN
NON Fa
D
RD Je s yette
R
sam C
ine ounty
RN
Co
HO
unt
N RD
y
ELK
KE
E
GTO
NE VE
TH
RSAIL
LE S
IN
RD ASH
SO
GRO
LEX
VE
RD
NE
C ATN
C
IP H
E
KE
I LL
N
RD
RD
RG
SBU
ounty
County
D
RO
R
A
ford C
H
KE
mine
PI
OY
Wood
TR
Je ssa
KEEN
E
E
EN
RD
KE
URG RD
O D SB
RR
SS
HA
A
YP
RD
MILL
ION
EB
IN ST
UN
VILL
W
N MA
IL
LAS
N 3R
M
O
C HO
RE
DS
RD
NI
T
AV E
RIC HMOND
E M
APL
E
ST
NICHOLAS V
NICHOLASVILLE
PEKIN
P IK
E
I LL
SU
W
M
EB
LP
A
I
HU
ATION RD C HR
YP
E ST I SM
N
IN ST
JESSA MIN
R
AN
AS
ST
MIL
WE
S
L RD
WILMORE
S MA
LL
NC
P IK
M AIN
E
ST
GL
ASS
HO
OV
E
RD
IL RP
M
L I KE
BE
TH
EL
RD
RD
GE
NC
ID
RD
BR
H
H IG
LE L
DANVI
SU
G
AR
CR
EEK
RD
Jessa mine County

LE
P IKE
DANVIL
Ga rra rd County
MILES
0 0.5 1
PEDESTRIAN CRASH ANALYSIS CRASH FREQUENCY
Jessamine County
1
2012 - 2016
2
3-4
5-6
7-9
2-13
Mode Share Analysis
The 2015 American Community Survey found that 1% of commuters in Lexington bike to
work and 4% of commuters walk to work. The charts below show the active commute mode
shares for Lexington compared to two peer cities (Louisville, KY and Durham, NC), and two
aspirational cities (Minneapolis, MN and Boulder, CO). The size of the dot indicates the total
number of commuters in each city.
The map on the following page shows the active mode share of commuters in Fayette
County, based on Census block group data. This analysis provides insight into the locations
where people are currently biking and walking.
BICYCLE COMMUTE SHARE

12% BOULDER
10%
8%
MINNEAPOLIS
6%
4%
LOUISVILLE DURHAM LEXINGTON
2%
0%
-2%
WALK COMMUTE SHARE

12% BOULDER
10%
MINNEAPOLIS
8%
6% LEXINGTON
LOUISVILLE DURHAM
4%
2%
0%
-2%
Key Takeaway
The core downtown area and the University of Kentucky have the highest portion
of active commuters, with the share of active mode commuters decreasing as
distance from downtown increases.
IRO
NW
ORK
NE W
S PIK
E
TOW
GE
OR
N PI
GE T
KE
OW
RD
M
RD
UI
N
SP U
VE
R
RR
LE
RD
RD
ST
CA
LE TI
SANDERSV IL
A
O
E
ES N
L
PI K
TO
SE L
W RD
JAGGI F O
N
RUS
LLTO
RD
C
IT
AT
E
A
IO
RD
RN
NB D
YA
LV D
N
RD
R
X WAY
IO
S
AT
FFE
ALE
ST
OLD
FRA YAN
VD RA BR
ND
LI
NK INO D C
BL
FO ND
D
BRI
E
ME R NA R H ILL RD
R
RT A
GRE
IS
PI K E R RD
R
E
R
PA
D
LD
RIA
ANNIS
O
RD
ND
TO
E
XA
N
IC
N
PR
ALE
TO
RD
DR P
ES
M
FORBE S
LI
MAN E
KW
CH SE E L
Y
E ST V OU
DU
NKIRK ER EN D ND
DR ST TH ON LA
NE D R AST
S
S
AVE
E
RED MI
SI
R WI NCHESTER RD
BA
MA
ST
SE
SO
RT
LE N
RO
R TU
HE RD
ON WAY
DEL ADL L
B
PO
LA E Y R CK
A
FO
L
LAN DR D
LIB
O
EA
FO
R
RD
CLUB
NT TY
R
RD DP
LL D
CO AI
L OP NE LE K
IL
P
M ER RD PA RD AS BL
A
WY
E
S D LU N
ER
COD
R
VD
M
RK B
T R ID
PA
O
CHINOE R D
DR
GE DR
F
HAR PAS
O RE S T
FT R AD A
REG ENCY RD
A ZA L BAN
RD
RRO EN
O
ND
A AL Y RD
D
DR
O
S
E HILL
W AD DR
R
D
TAB
D
HE
DR
PEP
M TODDS
RD
P
DR
R
W E LLINGTO N LA RD
MT
E RH
A
WAY BU E
OWN ES
MIL SD
D
IL
L RD V
U IR
ITAR BL
Y PI R
LAN
D
KE RE P KWY
ESWAY D
Q
DDING S
ICO
YS
FI
R
D
LV
IN
HA
DR
LAR E
R GA
RE
RD
L
KB
IM
WIL
CE
RO
B
O SO
P
Y
ND D
O RD
KW
NT
DR
RE
N
O OW DR R
P
O
W NI
ST
H
G
NG B C K
ON
AR U
BO
RD
OP
YN
M
DEL
D
H
WINTHR
TRENT
ST R
FayAM H
NC
BL
VD G
CL
Co
RG RD
sam
ine unty R
MI
LL
EA
Co RTL A D
OL
unt RW HA ND W RD
y
RD
DR
SA
HARRODSBU
SO
AT
UT E
H ARRODSBU RG RD
Y N
PK
HP INT D R WA
I CH
O OD
E
KE
BRAN
WY
O
NON
TA
R
SA
MO
RD ABB
TE
O EY W
R
SC
N
N
N RD
DR
RE
RD
E
GTO
K
RD
IN
LEX
E
PIK
C ATN AS
IP H HG
I LL RO
EK
RD VE
RD
CRE
KS
JAC
MILES
0 0.5 1
MODE SHARE ANALYSIS

Fayette County
MORE BICYCLISTS FEWER BICYCLISTS
AND PEDESTRIANS AND PEDESTRIANS
COLOR
SIZE
MORE FEWER
COMMUTERS COMMUTERS
Note: As evidenced by the large blue circles on the map, there is greater bicycle and pedestrian activity
around downtown Lexington and the University of Kentucky than in the rest of Fayette County.
2-15
Demand Analysis
A non-motorized demand analysis was completed for Fayette and Jessamine Counties to
determine areas of expected pedestrian and bicyclist activity. The areas of high demand are
focused within the urban areas of the region, where residential and commercial density are
highest. The downtown core and the University of Kentucky have particularly high demand.
The map on the following page shows the composite demand in the region, which was
calculated based on a combination of the following factors:
WHERE PEOPLE PLAY

Trails and parks are attractors and generators of walking
and biking activity.
WHERE PEOPLE SHOP

Retail shopping areas are attractors for walking and
biking. Places where people can complete errands, such
as banks, are also generators of walking and bicycling
trips.
WHERE PEOPLE LIVE

People are likely to walk near their homes for recreation
or to visit nearby friends and family.
WHERE PEOPLE WORK

Higher densities of workers translates to higher
propensity for people to walk or bike.
WHERE PEOPLE LEARN

Schools are a significant source of walking and biking
by populations that either cannot drive because they
are not old enough or are more likely to walk or bike for
economic reasons.
WHERE PEOPLE ACCESS TRANSIT

All transit trips start or end with a walking trip.
F ra nkl i n
Scott
Coun
C o un
ty
ty
y
nt y
ou t
t C oun
cot C
S tte
ye
Fa
y
unt
Co
u rbon ounty
Bo rk C
Cla
LEXINGTON
nty
County
rd C o u
Fayette
Wo odfo
ounty
County
ford C
Fay
Je s ette
mine
sam Co
ine unty
Wood
Co
Je ssa
unt
y
ty
un
Co nty
l ark C ou
C n
di so
Ma
NICHOLASVILLE
WILMORE
MILES
0 1 2
DEMAND ANALYSIS
COMPOSITE DEMAND
Fayette County and

Highest Demand
Jessamine County
Lowest Demand
2-17
Equity Analysis
Transportation facilities are essential The analysis scored the study area using
components in creating communities the following economic and demographic
of opportunity and reducing the indicators:
disproportionate economic and health
burdens on communities of concern. Often, • Vehicle Access: Households with no
traditionally vulnerable populations, such access to a vehicle
as children, older adults, people of color, • Educational Attainment: Population
people with limited English proficiency, with no high school diploma or equivalent
and low-income individuals rely heavily • Income: Individuals of working age who
on affordable transportation options, are living at or below 200% of the Federal
specifically walking, biking, and transit. Poverty Level (FPL)
• Limited English Proficiency (LEP):
Percentage of the population that
The project team conducted an equity identifies as not speaking English well or
analysis using existing demographic at all
information from the US Census Bureau. All • Race: Percentage of the population that
data was obtained from the 2015 American identifies as non-white
Community Survey 5-year estimates and
analysis was conducted at the census block
group level for Fayette and Jessamine
Counties.
Key Takeaway
Areas of higher need include the northern portions within the Lexington Urban
Service Boundary, other dispersed areas of Lexington, and the southern portion
of Nicholasville.
F ra nkl i n
Scott
Coun
C o un
ty
ty
ty
un ty
Co n
o tt Cou
Sc tte
y e
Fa
ty
oun
nC y
ou rbo ount
B rk C
Cla
LEXINGTON
nty
County
rd C o u
Fayette
Wo odfo
ounty
County
ford C
Fay
Je s ette
mine
sam Co
ine unty
Wood
Co
Je ssa
unt
y
ty
un
Co nty
ark ou
Cl n C
s o
di
Ma
NICHOLASVILLE
WILMORE
MILES
0 1 2
EQUITY ANALYSIS
Fayette County and
Blockgroups_FayetteJessamine_
Composite Equity Score
Jessamine County
Highest Concentration of Need
Lowest Concentration of Need
2-19
Chapter 3:
What We Heard
Outreach efforts made throughout the planning

process and summary of the input received.
What We Heard We heard that walking & biking in
Fayette is...
As part of the community engagement • Difficult and dangerous due to driver behavior
process, an advisory committee comprising (fast speeds, inattention, failure to yield at
of both Jessamine and Fayette County intersections)
representatives was formed to give • Important for transportation and recreation
strategic direction to the plan and network
• Improving with more recent bike lanes and
improvements.
projects like the Legacy Trail and the Town
Branch Trail
The project team also coordinated closely
with the public outreach of other planning
We heard that walking & biking in
processes, such as the Lexington Parks and
Fayette should...
Recreation Master Plan and the ‘On the
Table’. Issues around bicycling and walking • Connect people to commercial centers, such as
were important themes raised during these New Circle Road and Nicholasville Road
community meetings. • Provide safe pedestrian and bicycle crossings at
intersections
The graphic below demonstrates the
• Include facilities like wider sidewalks that are
various ways public input was collected. The
accessible for all users, including people in
maps on pages 3-6 through 3-9 highlight
wheelchairs or pushing strollers
the corridors that people identified on the
on-line interactive map that are most in • Have more bike lanes connecting neighborhoods
need of improvement. with existing shared use trails
We heard that walking & biking in

Jessamine is...
Project
Website Public
Comment
GE • Difficult because there are few sidewalks, and
they are not well connected
Forms
ST • Dangerous on narrow rural roads
N
Social
Media
ER
Blasts • Lacking bikeway connections between

ST
AK
EE Open On-line Lexington, Wilmore, and Nicholasville

AL PUB
House Map
EHOLDER
RI
Workshops
NG
Staff +
Committee Focus We heard that walking & biking in
COMMIT
Consultant
Coordination
Meetings Groups Jessamine should...
Email and
Phone Press • Be a way for children to get to school
Releases
TE
E Outreach
• Connect existing shared use trails
Coverage in
S
Local News • Provide a way for residents and visitors to

IC
explore surrounding farmland

‘On the Table’
community input
event
• Focus on pedestrian improvements on Main
Draft +
Final Plan Street in Wilmore and Nicholasville
Presentations
3-2 l Lexington, KY
Outreach Events
• ConnectLex Open House on May 16th,

2017 allowed participants to provide
input and meet with the project team
• Five focus group discussions allowed
key stakeholders to provide input
on the following topics: economic
development, education, programs,
trails, transit, and safety
• An active steering committee and
BPAC provided key input and oversight
throughout the planning process.
3-3
What We Heard...
I would love to see wide, If I had one wish, it’s that there could
stroller accessible sidewalks be an education campaign for drivers
throughout downtown, to keep their eyes out for pedestrians
buffered bike lanes on key and cyclists.
roads that lead to desirable
places, and a network of bike
lines or shared use trails that
connect Lexington’s park Cleaning and maintenance of
system. existing bike lanes and trails should
be prioritized. Cleaning should be
proactive on heavily used lanes. This is
a chronic problem.
There is virtually no way
to start in the city center
of Lexington and bike out
of town without being I am an experienced cyclists and would
in heavy traffic on roads NOT recommend Lexington proper as an
with high speed limits. attractive place for bicycle commuting,
especially for someone new to cycling.
I love riding my bike on the Legacy

I live only five minutes from my
Trail, and I hope more trails are
office and would love to bike or
finished sooner rather than later.
walk to work and to hang out in
places close to my neighborhood.
3-4 l Lexington, KY
Please develop sidewalks, paths, and
trails so that ALL can enjoy, including Far and away the most
those who use wheelchairs, walkers, important improvements
strollers, and bikes. Please find ways are CONNECTIONS. No one
to prioritize foot, bike, and wheelchair will walk/bike even if they’d
safety. like to if they can’t get where
they want to go.
I bike commute to work Reducing neighborhood speed limits

every single day and feel would have a tremendous positive
somewhat comfortable impact to bikers and pedestrians,
biking around certain parts especially with the number of
of town. However, I rarely distracted drivers traveling through
feel it is sufficiently safe for these neighborhoods. Our family
my children to bike. More walks and bikes almost daily, and it is
needs to be done to improve with constant alertness and care that
the overall safety and we move through the neighborhood
infrastructure. (and worry for your children).
There has been significant improvement over the I would like for
past several years. I believe a public education Lexington to be in
campaign could have a very positive impact on the the top tier of bike-
overall acceptance of and participation in a vibrant friendly cities!
pedestrian and cycling culture here.
3-5
F ra nkl i n
Scott
Coun
C o un
ty
ty
y
nt
ou nty
tC u
cot e Co
S tt
ye
Fa
ty
oun
nC y
ou rbo ount
B rk C
Cla
ounty
ty
e Coun
ford C
Fayett
Wood
LEXINGTON
ounty
County
Fay
Je s ette
ford C
sam Co
ine unty
mine
Co
unt
y
Wood
Je ssa
ty
un
Co nty
l ark C ou
C n
o
di s
Ma
NICHOLASVILLE
WILMORE
MILES
0 1 2
BIKE ASSETS
BIKE ROUTES I LIKE AND USE KEY DESTINATIONS
Where People are Currently

Support Support
Biking and Key Destinations

High Support High Support
3-6 l Lexington, KY
F ra nkl i n
Scott
Coun
C o un
ty
ty
y
nt
ou nty
tC u
cot e Co
S tt
ye
Fa
ty
oun
nC y
ou rbo ount
B rk C
Cla
ounty
ty
e Coun
ford C
Fayett
Wood
LEXINGTON
ounty
County
Fay
Je s ette
ford C
sam Co
ine unty
mine
Co
unt
y
Wood
Je ssa
ty
un
Co nty
l ark C ou
C n
o
di s
Ma
NICHOLASVILLE
WILMORE
MILES
0 1 2
BIKE NEEDS
ROUTES THAT COULD BE IMPROVED BARRIERS TO BIKING
Where We Heard Bike

Support Support
Improvements are Most Needed

3-7
F ra nkl i n
Scott
Coun
C o un
ty
ty
ty
un ty
Co n
o tt Cou
Sc tte
y e
Fa
ty
oun
nC y
ou rbo ount
B rk C
Cla
ounty
ty
e Coun
ford C
Fayett
Wood
LEXINGTON
ounty
County
Fay
Je s ette
ford C
sam Co
ine unty
mine
Co
unt
y
Wood
Je ssa
ty
un
Co nty
l ark C ou
C n
di so
Ma
NICHOLASVILLE
WILMORE
MILES
0 1 2
PEDESTRIAN ASSETS
PEDESTRIAN ROUTES I LIKE AND USE KEY DESTINATIONS
Where People are Currently

Support Support
Walking and Key Destinations

3-8 l Lexington, KY
F ra nkl i n
Scott
Coun
C o un
ty
ty
y
nt
ou nty
tC u
cot e Co
S tt
ye
Fa
ty
oun
nC y
ou rbo ount
B rk C
Cla
ounty
ty
e Coun
ford C
Fayett
Wood
LEXINGTON
ounty
County
Fay
Je s ette
ford C
sam Co
ine unty
mine
Co
unt
y
Wood
Je ssa
ty
un
Co ty
l ark o un
C nC
di so
Ma
NICHOLASVILLE
WILMORE
MILES
0 1 2
PEDESTRIAN NEEDS
ROUTES THAT COULD BE IMPROVED BARRIERS TO WALKING
Where We Heard Pedestrian

Support Support
Improvements are Most Needed

3-9
Chapter 4:
Recommendations
Non-infrastructure recommendations to
educate, encourage, and expand the existing
biking and walking culture.
Introduction
While transportation infrastructure – roads, sidewalks, crossings, bikeways – are critical for
improving walking and bicycling, other components must also be used to create communities
that are truly walking- and bicycling-friendly. This plan incorporates these strategies to make
walking and bicycling safe, comfortable, and common forms of transportation. By building on
the region’s existing resources and community spirit, the Lexington MPO can lead the way to
a more livable, multi-modal future.
Non-infrastructure recommendations are organized according to four distinct categories:
Policies Programs
Policies add political backing and Programs can engage the broader
institutionalize recommendations and community to encourage more people to
design guidelines into city codes. Policies walk and bike, educate community members
may be specific to infrastructure elements on rights and responsibilities, and enforce
such as pedestrian routing in construction traffic laws to improve safety for all modes.
zones, or may be broad and include multiple
municipal departments, such as Complete
Streets Policies that may include design
guidelines and evaluation metrics.
Design Evaluation
Design Guidelines are based on best Evaluation assesses facility usage and user
practices in facility design and create perceptions, as well as the progress of
clear and uniform regional standards for implementing infrastructure, program, and
walkways and bikeways. The guidelines policy recommendations. Progress may
provide an explanation of facility types measure benefits for safety, the economy,
and direction for implementing the health, and the environment.
infrastructure recommendations.
4-2 l Lexington, KY
Key Stakeholders
The Lexington Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is a collaborative effort between
regional and local governments. This includes Fayette and Jessamine Counties and local
municipalities such as Lexington, Nicholasville, and Wilmore, which are instrumental in the
plan’s development and implementation.
While the MPO and its agency and jurisdictional partners are responsible for infrastructure
projects, community programs and the non-infrastructure recommendations listed here
can be supported and championed by outside partners such as nonprofits, advocacy groups,
foundations, private sector businesses, and interested citizens.
Potential Partner Organizations
BLUEGRASS CYCLING CLUB

BIKE LEXINGTON
VISIT LEX
THE UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
FAYETTE COUNTY SCHOOLS

JESSAMINE COUNTY SCHOOLS
THE YMCA OF CENTRAL KENTUCKY
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY - KENTUCKY

CHAPTER
THE LEXINGTON ART LEAGUE
DOWNTOWN LEXINGTON PARTNERSHIP
DOWNTOWN LEXINGTON MANAGEMENT

DISTRICT
LEXINGTON DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT

AUTHORITY
NICHOLASVILLE NOW!
KENTUCKY MAINSTREET PROGRAM
LEXINGTON-FAYETTE COUNTY HEALTH
DEPARTMENT
JESSAMINE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
BROKE SPOKE COMMUNITY BIKE SHOP

LEXTRAN
4-3
Framework: Policies & Programs
POLICIES PROGRAMS
• Develop a Tactical Urbanism Policy • Organize a Safety Campaign Task

• Develop a Bike Parking Program Force
• Expand Education and
• Update Existing Sidewalk, Bikeway,
SHORT TERM
Encouragement Programs
and Trail Maintenance Policies
• Re-brand and Redevelop the Bike Map
• Conduct a Bike Share Assessment
• Develop Process for Citizens to
Report Sidewalk Access Issues
• Implement a Safety Campaign
• Expand Bike Month Activities
• Improve Bike and Pedestrian Access • Host an Annual ConnectLex

in Construction Zones Workshop
MID TERM
• Update the Sidewalk Repair Program • Establish a Safe Routes to School

• Reduce Speed Limits on Residential Program
and Collector Streets • Complete a Vision Zero Action Plan
• Evaluate Program Staffing Needs for • Develop a Transportation Demand

LONG TERM
Plan Implementation Management Action Plan

• Develop an In-House Trail
Maintenance Crew
4-4 l Lexington, KY
Framework: Design & Evaluation (Cont.)
DESIGN EVALUATION
• Host a Low-Cost Sidewalk Design • Identify a Program Funding Strategy

and Implementation Workshop • Establish a Bicycle/Pedestrian Count
• Conduct an Annual Priority Bikeway
Program
Scoping to Determine Desired
• Develop a Public Relations Strategy
Facility Type
SHORT TERM
• Develop an Interactive Program

• Complete a Bicycle Boulevard (Local
Bikeway) Assessment Website
• Update the Traffic Calming Program
• Facilitate a Study Visit to an
Aspirational City
• Adopt Bikeway Design Standards
• Host a NACTO (National Association
of City Transportation Officials)
Bikeway Design Training Workshop
• Develop a Bicycle Wayfinding and • Update Traffic Impact Study

Branding Plan Regulations
MID TERM
• Develop Sidewalk Design Standards • Coordinate with Lextran to Improve

• Complete a Safe Routes to School Pedestrian Access to Transit Stops
Prioritization Exercise • Apply for Walk Friendly Community
Status
LONG TERM
• Develop Public Art in the Right-of- • Conduct a Health and Economic

Way design standards and guidelines Impact Assessment
4-5
Policy Spotlight
Policies provide the directive to implement BENEFITS

facilities and improve safety and Streets signed at 25 mph or less decrease
accessibility for people on foot and bike the risk and severity of crashes for all
through ordinances, laws, and standards. modes.
Policies may also address methods for
cutting red-tape and can encourage creative Neighborhood greenways parallel to
ways to efficiently implement effective commercial streets improve access for
projects. “interested but concerned” bicyclists and
complement bike lanes on major roadways.
Spotlight Recommendation RESOURCES
Ewing, Reid and Brown, Steven. U.S. Traffic
SPEED MANAGEMENT Calming Manual. 2009.
NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.
The safety of the streets for people on Alta Planning + Design and IBPI. Bicycle
foot and bike is impacted by the speed Boulevard Planning and Design Handbook.
of vehicles. A combination of traffic 2009.
calming, policies to reduce speed limits,
and enforcement can reduce speeds and
encourage more people to use active BRING IT TO LEXINGTON!
transportation.
STRATEGY
Examples of traffic calming include Set policies to reduce speed limits on
residential and local collector streets
Neighborhood greenways or Bicycle
to less than 25 mph. Speed limits on
Boulevards, which are low-volume, low-
Neighborhood greenways should be
speed streets modified to enhance safety
set lower - between 15 and 20 mph.
for walking and biking by using treatments
Assess pedestrian and bicycle crash
such as signage, pavement markings,
data, demand, and feasibility to identify
traffic calming and/or traffic reduction, and
5 pilot projects. Set goals and work
intersection modifications.
with stakeholders to implement each
project.
Traffic conditions on neighborhood
greenways should be monitored to provide KEY STAKEHOLDERS
guidance on when and where treatments Public Health Departments
should be implemented. When motor Neighborhood Associations
vehicle speeds and volumes exceed the Public Works and Planning
preferred limits, additional treatments Departments
should be considered. Police Departments
4-6 l Lexington, KY
Example: Seattle Vision for Safe Streets
Seattle is often recognized as one of

the safest cities in the country, seeing a
30% decline in traffic fatalities even as
their population grows. Despite this fact,
collisions take the lives of around 20 people
and cause injury to nearly 150 each year.
Vision Zero is Seattle’s strategy for ending
traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2030.
Seattle’s Vision Zero Plan calls for

street designs that emphasize safety,
predictability, and the potential for human like Safe Routes to School, Be Super Safe,
error, coupled with targeted education and Pedestrian Safety for Seniors, and the
data-driven enforcement. Some of Seattle’s overarching Vision Zero campaign.
key implementation strategies include:
Seattle is using Washington State’s Target
SeaStat, a Seattle Police Department Zero program as a model for its Vision Zero
program which uses data to allocate campaign, as traffic fatalities have dropped
police resources, to continually monitor 40 percent across the state since the first
collision trends and to deploy enforcement version of Target Zero was launched in
appropriately. 2000.
Seattle Police Department’s Traffic Through partnerships with the Washington

Collision Investigation Squad and Traffic Safety Commission, the Washington
SDOT engineers review the factors that State Department of Transportation,
contribute to each serious collision that and the Washington State Patrol, Seattle
occurs to learn as much as possible from experienced collision reductions thanks to
each incident. Vision Zero-style tactics employed on busy
urban corridors. The City has attempted
20 MPH Zones, mainly located close to to build on these successes in its Vision
schools and parks, and lowered speed limits Zero implementation, and has already seen
on busier arterial streets. collisions and speeds reduced in some
Coupling Corridor Safety Improvements corridors.
with Enforcement to reduce speed,
impairment, and distraction.
Supporting engineering work through

targeted public outreach and
enforcement through education programs
4-7
Program Spotlight
Programs are an important component BENEFITS

of a bicycle and pedestrian plan, as they Mobile apps and on-line bike maps will allow
provide the framework for Education, users to:
Encouragement, and Enforcement. They • Have easy access to a continually-
also help enhance the culture of walking updated Lexington Bike Map on their
and biking and support the safety of mobile devices.
recommended facilities. • Easily report pedestrian or bike safety
issues using a mobile device.
Programs can be implemented quickly • Zoom into a specific area of the city to
and with minimal investment. Successful identify a bike route of their choosing.
programmatic efforts are flexible and
can demonstrate sustainable long-term RESOURCES/EXAMPLES
infrastructure improvements. Raleigh, NC on-line bike map: http://maps.
raleighnc.gov/bikemap/
Spotlight Recommendation San Diego regional bike map: http://www.
icommutesd.com/Bike/BikeMap.aspx
OUTREACH AND
COMMUNICATION THROUGH
MAPPING BRING IT TO LEXINGTON!
Local maps and guides are an effective STRATEGY

way to encourage more people to bike. Re-brand and re-develop the
The existing Lexington bike map includes Lexington Bike Map and include
bike routes differentiated by facility crowd-sourcing resources and
type, along with information on rights interactive on-line maps. Incorporate
and responsibilities. The map contains a clear process for citizens to report
useful information that can be updated sidewalk access issues or sidewalks
and converted into a more user-friendly, that don’t meet ADA standards.
interactive on-line version. The map can be Communication strategies may
updated to reflect existing and planned bike include interactive maps and
infrastructure, with the ability to comment coordination with the 311 call center.
on proposed bikeways and report existing KEY STAKEHOLDERS
safety issues.
Jessamine County Trail Association
Local cities and counties
An on-line, user-friendly map could
Lextran
also allow residents to report sidewalk
Universities and colleges
maintenance concerns or ADA access
issues.
4-8 l Lexington, KY
Example: Municipal + University Bike & Ped Maps
DURHAM BIKE & HIKE MAP UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY

INTERACTIVE BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN
This user-friendly map depicts the MAP
best routes for bicycling and hiking in
Durham, and features information about The University of Kentucky’s online,
bicycle safety, transit options, and local interactive bicycle and pedestrian map
destinations. The map was well received is a resource for students, visitors, and
by the community with more than employees of the University. This map
20,000 maps printed and in circulation includes bicycle-friendly routes in and
since 2010. An update to the bike map is around campus, shared sidewalks, shared
currently under development, and includes use trails, bicycle racks, bicycle repair
information on local amenities such as stations, and major destinations to guide
the East Coast Greenway, additional employees, students, and visitors to
destinations, walking & hiking trails, and sustainable transportation options for
information on the level of experience that reaching campus destinations.
is appropriate
DURHAM BIKE
D
for&various
R
bike routes.
HIKE MAP A
F
T
2017 This map shows some great places in Durham for bicycling and hiking.
Please share ideas for improvemnts here: https://durhamnc.gov/1031/Durham-Bike-Hike-Map
See Orange County

Points of Interest 7 Dean Smith Center 14 Nasher Museum of Art Bicycling Map for
Trailheads/Parking County Boundaries
routes north and west
1 ATT Access Point 8 Durham Bulls Athletic Park 15 NCCU Art Museum Bicycle Shop Rail Road BIKE & HIKE LEGEND HIKING/WALKING TRAIL (i.e., Eno State Park, ROADS OFTEN USED BY EXPERIENCED CYCLISTS
Mountains-to-Sea Trail); not for bicycling higher speeds and/or volumes - touring routes,
2 R. Kelly Bryant Bike/Ped Bridge 9 Durham City Hall 16 Patterson’s Mill Country Store Library Rivers, Lakes, & Creeks utilitarian routes, or connections not found elsewhere
MULTI-USE PATH (e.g., the American Tobacco
3 Durham Performing Arts Center 10 Durham County Courthouse 17 Primate Center School Parks & Open Space Trail, etc.); closed to motor vehicles SHARED ROADWAY on lower traffic streets or
on streets with shared lane markings (Sharrows) DIFFICULT CONNECTION higher speeds and/
4 Bennett Place State Historic Site 11 Durham County Stadium 18 Golden Belt Studios Major Shopping Research Triangle Park or volumes, combined with narrow lanes or other
BICYCLE LANE or wide shoulder, usually on problems for cyclists
5 Brassfield Station 12 Hayti Heritage Center 19 NC Museum of Life & Science Transportation Center Durham City Limits SHARED ROADWAY WITH WIDER OUTSIDE LANE
higher traffic streets
6 Carolina Theater/Convention Center 13 Historic Durham Athletic Park 20 Durham County Justice Center Parks with Restrooms East Coast Greenway on moderate and higher traffic streets STEEP HILL arrows point in uphill direction
(Apr. 15 - Oct. 15 only)
Shakori Trail
To Little River
Regional Park
Ridge
Trail
To
Eno
Holden
Knight River
Mill Trail
Trail Boat
Ramp
Buckquarter
Creek
Trail
Cox Falls
Mountain Lake
Fanny’s
Trail
Ford
Trail N.C. Wildlife
Eno River er Resources
Riv
River Forest Commission
State Park 157 Park
o
Old Farm En
501 Road Park
UNTY
er
OUNT
v
Eagle Trail
GE CO
Ri
Eno Trace To
AM C
Trail West Point Falls

Laurel Bluffs
Eno
Park On Lake
Trail The Eno Penny’s
ORAN
Bend
DURH
Nature
Preserve
The Mountains-to-Sea Trail

Dunnagan follows Falls Lake and the Neuse
Trail River to the east, and the Eno
River to the west. For more
information visit www.ncmst.org
Pump Station
Trail
N.C. Wildlife
Resources
Bobbit Commission
Hole
Trail
Valley
Springs
Cole Mill Rd Park
Trail
Bike Lanes
Whippoorwill
by 2018
Park
Eno
Quarry
Trail
Eno River Cabelands
State Park Trail
The N
k
ee
ort
Cr
Lakeview Park
h-
ut
o S
h
Gr
ee
ee
Duke nw
ay
erb
Homestead
Ell
West Ellerbee Creek

Trail Extension (2018) Red Maple
Park
See Orange
Rock
County Quarry
Bicycling Park
Map for
routes west
Glendale
Heights
l
rai Park
kT
ree
e eC
Ell erb
American Village W.
Duke Park
ek
Northgate Park
Forest
e
r Cr
Northgate
City Walltown
the
Reservoir Park
Oval
Pa n
Park
r
Gee
147 Duke
Park
Crest Street
Park
Erwin
Duke Forest
For trail routes in Duke Forest, see Morreene Duke
www.nicholas.duke.edu/cgi-bin/ Road Duke University East
s
Park Hospital Campus

Flower
forest/maps_sale.cgi
The University of Kentucky online, interactive bicycle and pedestrian map.

Trinity
Duke
Park
t
University
cui
Cir
Tow Sarah P.
ervi
ew Duke
Duke Gardens Central
Sherwood
pus
Chapel Park
Park
Cam
Cha
pel pus
e
Cam
enc
Sci
East Twin Lakes

Duke Downtown End Park
Forest Durham Park
Dog Park
Duke University
- Al Buehler Long Meadow
Cross Country Trail Maplewood
Park Park
Johnson Mill
Nature Washington
Preserve Duke
Duke
15-501 Golf Course Lyon Orchard 98
Creek
Park Park
Forest
pe
Ho Wrightwood East Durham
ew
Park Park
ATT
Hollow Grant
Hillside Birchwood
Rock Park
Park Park
Access
Cornwallis Forest
Road Hills Park
Park Burton
Park
One-Way
Bike Lane
Durham 70
Tech
NC Central
University
Rockwood C.R.
Park Wood
Park
Sandy
Creek
Park
Unity Village
Park
Elmira
New Hope Ave Park wy
Preserve kG
ree
ky C Campus
Roc Hills Park
A
Mtn Bike
m
er
Trails
ic
k
ree
an
To
C
b ac
Cedar
Fo r k
co
Falls il
Spur Tra
Trail
Park Riddle Road

North New Hope Southern
rd
(ATT)
Forest Preserve Boundaries

Thi
Hills Park
Cook
Park Road
Wind
sor Park
New Hope
55
e Chapel Hill Rd Creek Trail
k Park
a
L
d
o Dove
o l
ai
r
w Tr Bethesda
st k
Lowe
a e Park
E re
C
rB
rk
Fo
oo k
ird
er Cre k Trail
Th
e
N.C. Wildlife
Resources Solite Park
Commission Mtn Bike
Trails
Pritchard
Ephesus
Park
751
Park
Ne
w
H
o
il Woodcroft
Tra
p
Leigh
e
k Trails
AT
ee Farm
Cr
Cr
Community
lin Historic
Bo Center Park
eek
Site
Garrett Road Park

Rainbow
Soccer Fields
Oakwood
Battle Park
Branch
Trail
Chapel Hill Meadowmont
Park
Piney Wood Park
54
Meadowmont
Trail
UNC
Chapel Hill
Southpoint
ATT
15-501 Research
N.C. Wildlife
Resources Triangle
Commission
Park
For trail routes in RTP, see
NC
Botanical www.rtp.org/about-us/
Garden programs/rtpfit-trails/
54
Y
UNTY
Merritt’s
OUNT
Pasture
GE CO
AM C
Am
er
ic
a
ORAN
DURH
n
To
ba
cc
o
Tra
il (A
TT
)
C.M.
Herndon
N.C. Wildlife Park
N.C. Wildlife Resources
Resources Commission Regional
Commission Transit Center
N
The American Tobacco Trail
See Chatham Coun-
0 1 2 MILES
continues south for about
ty Bicycling Map for 11 miles, through Chatham
routes south County and Wake County.
Jordan DURHAM COUNTY

Lake
C H AT H A M C O U N T Y
The Durham Bike & Hike Map
4-9
Design Spotlight
A high-quality bikeway and walkway

network requires design guidelines that BRING IT TO LEXINGTON!
are clear and based on best practices. A
comprehensive list of recommendations is
STRATEGY
summarized on page 4-6 and 4-7.
Conduct an annual Priority
Bikeway Scoping plan for major or
Spotlight Recommendation minor bikeway projects that would
require removal of traffic lanes
or changes to a signal plan. This
PRIORITY rapid-fire style scoping process
BIKEWAY IMPLEMENTATION will identify projects, determine
the ultimate cross-section, provide
Many bikeway projects can be accomplished a public engagement process,
through simple restriping. However, refine cost estimates, and select an
projects that require signal changes or implementation strategy.
major alterations to the roadway, such as
reducing the number of traffic lanes, often KEY STAKEHOLDERS
take much longer between initial planning Local cities and counties
and implementation. Lexington MPO
Public Works and Planning
Four key steps are essential for quick and Departments
strategic implementation: KYTC
1. Constructibility Audit: Review project feasibility by accounting for right-of-way impacts,

design constraints, environmental factors, and a detailed cost analysis.
2. Coordination: Evaluate existing plans, priorities, potential development, and identify all
stakeholders along the corridors.
3. Collaboration: Involve individual stakeholders such as elected officials, advocates,

neighborhood leaders, and business owners to understand their priorities and concerns.
4. Design: Hold an interactive multi-day charrette with internal staff and stakeholders to
identify 1) a plan that fits existing constraints, and 2) the ultimate vision.
Example: Denver rapid implementation project
In April 2016, a new commuter rail opened increase visibility of the intersection,
in Denver, connecting Union Station — a and shorten pedestrian crossing
historic train station that now serves as a distance.
retail destination and transit facility — and
Denver International Airport. • Installed a vehicular wayfinding
system to direct vehicles to designated
In anticipation of the new commuter rail passenger pick-up and drop-off spaces.
opening, Denver Public Works executed a
rapid implementation project to improve • Adjusted the curb lane to be less
the pedestrian environment in front of confusing and accommodated bicycle
Union Station and reduce conflict between parking through a city-installed bicycle
the varying converging uses. corral.
“We heard from constituents that there • Worked with B-cycle, Denver’s bike
were bike parking challenges and bike sharing system, to install a station below
access challenges and that it was hard to the curb on Wynkoop Street.
cross streets in that area,” explained project
• Increased car sharing space.
manager Riley LaMie. “So what we did was
a rapid implementation project to make
“To be able to do this in such a small time
changes within six months (prior to the
frame was really cool,” LaMie reflected.
opening of the rail line and the anticipated
“There are now so many transportation
influx of ridership). We had a consultant
options at the station.”
on board within a month, did a design
charrette with internal staff and hosted a
public meeting within the first month, and
workshopped through different solutions
with mobility issues and station access. We
had something designed and installed by
April.”
The adopted improvements included:

• Installed temporary bulb-outs and
bollards to prevent illegal parking,
4-11
Evaluation Spotlight
Evaluation sets the bar for improving • Help quantify the benefits of walking
walking and biking in Fayette and Jessamine and biking.
Counties, and is critical for assessing and • Make active transportation projects
understanding whether the goals of the more competitive for funding
plan are being achieved over time. opportunities.
Recommendations for evaluation methods RESOURCES

vary from broad-based Walk-Friendly and National Bicycle and Pedestrian
Bike-Friendly Community programming to Documentation Project: http://
tracking the health and economic benefits bikepeddocumentation.org/
of the Legacy Trail. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center:
http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/training/
webinars_PBIC_LC_022117.cfm
Spotlight Recommendation
BRING IT TO LEXINGTON!
BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN COUNTS
STRATEGY
Counts can be conducted manually or with Seek funding for a bicycle and
automatic sensors. Automatic pedestrian pedestrian counts program and
and bike counting technology has advanced assign staff to manage the counts
rapidly in recent years. In-pavement program. Determine locations for
sensors, computer vision, infrared beams, pedestrian and bicycle counts.
radar, and tube counters can all detect Determine schedule for recurring
people who walk and bike. However, devices counts. Regularly review counts
vary considerably in terms of cost, accuracy, data to evaluate trends in bicycle
data collection, and ease of deployment. It is and pedestrian travel.
important to choose counting devices that
are best suited for the type of data needed KEY STAKEHOLDERS
(short term or long term) and the site Local cities and counties
characteristics where counts will take place. Lexington MPO
Public Works and Planning
BENEFITS Departments
Better data on pedestrian and cyclist travel
will:
• Help to determine where investments
are most needed.
Example: Automated Count Technology
The wireless tech-revolution that has occurred over the past 10-15 years has ushered in
new tools to facilitate non-motorized data collection. As these products scale up, their prices
fall, creating a marketplace that is changing the way we can monitor traffic. These tools are
highlighted below and represents a snapshot of the current technology available.
4-13
Maintenance
WHY IT’S IMPORTANT
Just as road and highway facilities are Key Principles
monitored and maintained to ensure safe
and dependable use, the same commitment Similar to streets, the active
to maintenance should be made for transportation network, consisting
active transportation facilities. Proper of sidewalks, bikeways and shared-
maintenance of the existing and expanded use trails in Lexington should be
bicycle and pedestrian network is as integral viewed and maintained as a public
to the initial planning and development of resource, serving generations
the overall network. to come. The following guiding
principles will help assure the
Appropriate and on-going maintenance preservation of a high-quality
of bike lanes, sidewalks, and trails leads to system:
safe, comfortable, reliable, and accessible
1. Develop a management plan
facilities for all active transport users.
that is reviewed and updated
Preventative maintenance of sidewalks annually with tasks, operational
and bike lanes can often be incorporated policies, standards, and routine and
into routine roadway maintenance and remedial maintenance goals.
can serve to reduce hazards for users and
facility life cycle costs. 2. Maintain quality control and
conduct regular inspections.
Furthermore, continual upkeep of 3. Include field crews, police and
active transportation facilities improves fire/rescue personnel in both
community aesthetic and demonstrates the design review and ongoing
an investment and dedication by local management process.
government to bicycle and pedestrian 4. Maintain an effective,
transportation. responsive public feedback
system and promote public
participation.
Maintenance is important for the safety of bike lanes

(left) and crosswalks (right).
Snow & Ice Removal Staffing
MADISON, WI RALEIGH, NC
With over 50 miles of off-road shared- Raleigh, NC is home to a 120-mile trail
use trails and 130 miles of bike paved trail network. This system has
lanes, it is no surprise that Madison developed over time and increases
has developed a comprehensive in the trail network have resulted
procedures guide for snow and ice in dedicated resources towards the
control on bicycle and pedestrian maintenance and rehabilitation of its
facilities during the winter months.
facilities.
The following points from the Madison
Ultimately, the system requires fifteen
Plan provide some guidance for the
Lexington Area: staffers to maintain and restore the
trails after major events, and to sweep
• Madison’s Public Works Streets and perform routine tasks. Having an
Division maintains city-owned in-house maintenance crew increases
sidewalks and school/handicap the cities ability to maintain access
crosswalks during regular business of their greenway network, allows
hours during snow emergencies. for faster response times to critical
• Madison’s Parks and City Engineering maintenance needs, and reduces total
Divisions maintain off-road city bike maintenance costs.
paths starting at 4:00am during/after
a snow emergency on weekdays so
that the paths are clear. Equipment
• On-street bike lanes that occur on
a salt route are cleared as much as DENVER, CO
possible during snow events and then
Denver has purchased equipment
receive a second plowing to ensure
specifically for bikeway maintenance
snow is removed as close to the curb
totaling approximately $230,000
as possible. On-street bike lanes that
($130,000 for a sweeper unit and
are not on salt routes are plowed
$100,000 for a snow removal unit
after general plowing is complete.
fully equipped with a plow, broom,
• The city of Madison has 180 pieces
bucket, snow blower, and liquid deicer
of equipment to employ during snow
tank).
events – 90 private contractors and
90 city-owned and operated plows.
Each operator has a map of which
streets to plow by priority.
• Crosswalk snow removal includes 8
crews across the city, who work for 3
consecutive nights to begin crosswalk
snow removal.
4-15
What Does Maintenance Include?
Routine maintenance tasks include those that should be addressed on a regular basis to keep
all network facilities in good, usable condition. Maintenance tasks should be conducted more
frequently on greenway, bike, and pedestrian facilities where use is the most concentrated.
The table below includes typical maintenance activities associated with bicycle and
pedestrian networks.
Type of Maintenance Frequency Notes

Sweeping and trash pickup Prioritize by facility usage; Shared-use trails typically
routine scheduled activity require the greatest amount of
Tree and shrub trimming effort in landscaping
Landscaping (edging, mowing,

weed, and invasive species
control)
Check, update, and repair Check annually All signs should be checked after
signage Repair every 5-10 years major weather events
Facility repair Repair as needed In instances of limited resources,

(potholes, erosion, etc.) Prioritize by facility usage create prioritization scenarios
Pavement resurfacing and Remedial activities can vary Estimated life-cycle In years:
edges, or facility reconstruction widely depending on surface Granular Stone: 7-10
type, usage, and proper Asphalt: 7-15
construction Concrete: 20+
Boardwalk: 7-10
Bridge/Underpass: 100+
Drainage upgrades and Year-long program, Professional design and

inventory replacement every 20+ years construction should be used for
of culverts, bridges, retaining all hardened surfaces
walls, and stormwater control
devices
Snow and ice removal Seasonal Responsibilities for clearing

vary widely from one facility to
another. Clear communication
and coordination is key to
ensuring successful clearing
after snow events
Maintenance management plan Updated annually for As new facilities are constructed,
operations and maintenance budgets or dedicated man
cost planning; highly used hours should also increase as
facilities should consider maintaining agencies take on
annual operations and new facilities
maintenance plans
Maintenance Recommendations
The action steps below provide guidance for improving and maintaining both existing and
future bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Implementation of these recommendations will require coordination across multiple

departments, including local public works, state road crews, and parks and recreation
agencies.
Action Steps
• Include bicycle and pedestrian projects in the local Capital Improvement

Program (CIP), increasing consistent year-to-year funding levels.
• Fund bicycle and pedestrian facility maintenance and consider funding

additional maintenance equipment needed to adequately maintain a low-
stress bikeway system.
• To increase readiness for grant funding, develop preliminary plans (30%

construction drawings) for priority bicycle and pedestrian projects.
• Leverage private development investment by requiring bicycle and pedestrian

facility implementation as part of high-density and large-scale development.
• Consider a cost-share program for sidewalk maintenance to ensure sidewalk

repair is implemented equitably.
4-17
Chapter 5:
Developing the
Networks
The process to develop new infrastructure

recommendations for a connected bikeway,
trail, and sidewalk network.
Introduction
Developing the bikeway, trail and pedestrian recommendations was a multi-step process
involving ongoing dialogue with various stakeholders. Network recommendations were
informed by both quantitative findings and a qualitative understanding of the Lexington
MPO region.
Chapter Overview
This chapter provides the necessary steps and guidance for delivering the
recommendations of this Plan and is organized into the following sections:
Bikeway Network...........................................page 5-4
Shared Use Trails

& Pedestrian Network.................................page 5-10
Complete Street Projects.......................... page 5-16
Intersection Improvements.......................page 5-20
5-2 l Lexington, KY
Our Approach
The proposed network seeks to:
• Reflect our vision + goals

• Address the needs of all ages and abilities
• Balance the transportation system for all roadway users
• Integrate seamlessly with future development and land uses
Open Houses,
Public Events,
Project Website
and Online Map,
‘On the Table’
Equity, Safety, and
Community
Demand Analysis
Input Event
Recommendations Results
from Previous
Plans and Studies
Bikeway +
Pedestrian
Improvement Fieldwork
Networks
Direction from
Counties,
Municipalities, and
the MPO
Guidance and Stakeholder and

Input from Steering Committee
Kentucky Input
Transportation
Cabinet
5-3
Designing Bikeways For All Users
Interested but Concerned (60%)
Bikeway Network
The last decade has seen tremendous investment in bicycle infrastructure locally and across
the United States. However, one key realization is now shaping how bicycle investments are
made.
Different Cyclists Have Different Needs
Although some bicyclists will ride on any road, regardless of an availableNo Way, No
bikeway How (35%)
(“strong
and fearless”), a much larger portion of the population will ride only where there is a high-
quality bikeway (“interested but concerned” population). Understanding this concept has led
us to design more low-stress bikeways that provide the high-quality experience the majority
of cyclists desire.
The chart on this page shows a “typical” distribution of bicyclists while also capturing the
Pedestrian Network
general type of experience they prefer.
Designing for ages 8

to 80 will be the most
effective way to reach
the “Interested but
Concerned” group
Complete Streets
Intersections
Strong
< 2%and Enthused
5% and Interested
60% but No35%
Way, Strong and E
Fearless
Strong & Confident&
Enthused Concernedbut
Interested No Way,
No How Fearless
Less than 1% 5% 60% 35% Less than 1%
Fearless Confident Concerned No How
5-4 l Lexington, KY
Bikeways With A Broad Appeal
Bikeway Network
Bike lanes, trails, and low speed neighborhood greenways all make biking more comfortable.
Improvements to street, highway, and rail crossings can help drivers learn to expect bicyclists
in these locations and create a safer, more comfortable routes for bicyclists.
The bikeways and road crossing treatments described below are designed to appeal to many
types of riders, creating bikeways that ‘interested but concerned’ bicyclists are willing to use.
Trails and Separated Bikeways

Shared use trails and separated bikeways separate bicyclists from
automobiles and improve overall safety. Separated bikeways are
Pedestrian Network
especially useful on roads with higher speeds or traffic volumes. The
Legacy Trail is one example of a shared use trail in Lexington, and
there many successful trails in the region.
Bicycle Boulevards
In residential neighborhoods, bicycle boulevards—also known
as neighborhood greenways—improve travel for bicyclists while
calming traffic and greening neighborhoods. Bicycle boulevards are
shared by automobiles and bicycles, but at speeds that make travel
more comfortable for bicyclists.
Complete Streets
Separated Crossings
For major infrastructure—such as freeways, expressways, and
train tracks—separated under- or overcrossings provide an
opportunity for bicyclists to safely connect across barriers. Many
bike commuters must cross New Circle Road each day, improved
crossings are needed to build a high-quality network.
At-Grade Crossings
Intersections
One persistent challenge to building high-quality routes is

accommodating bicyclists at intersections. Providing protected
intersections or, even just marked crossings, can help make
motorists more aware of bicyclists. Oakland, California used this
type of treatment as part of its Telegraph Avenue protected bike
lanes to mark intersection crossings.
5-5
Choosing The Right Facility Type
Bikeway Network
Selecting the best bikeway facility type for a truck traffic, taxi zones, etc), on-street
given roadway can be challenging since the parking, available roadway or roadside
selection must balance traffic conditions, space, intersection density, and surrounding
land use context, and implementation cost. land use all play a role in determining the
For general guidance, the graphic below best low-stress facility type.
highlights the relationship between facility
type and roadway speed and volume Once a facility type is identified, the
situations. reference table on page 5-5 provides
additional high-level information regarding
Selecting a bikeway type is not a the design and implementation for each
prescriptive process and other factors need facility type.
to be considered beyond speed and volume.
Pedestrian Network
For instance, the types of traffic (transit,
12000
Motor Vehicle Volume (ADT)
11000
10000
Separated Bike Bidirectional
9000
Lane Path
8000 or
Barrier
7000
Complete Streets
Context Sensitive
Approach
Separated Bike
6000 Lane
5000
Bike Lane
4000
3000
Context Sensitive
2000 Approach
1000 Bicycle
Boulevard
10 20 30 40 50
Intersections
Motor Vehicle Operating/Posted Speed (MPH)
5-6 l Lexington, KY
Context Sensitive Approach
Bikeway Network
Street type/
Bikeway facility Implementation
Speed/ Design specifications
type strategies
Volume
• •
• Local • Identification signage and • Use access
Bicycle Boulevard
• Residential pavement markings management and speed
collector • 85th percentile speed <25 mph reduction tools to
• ADT <3000 achieve desired motor
• Crossing treatments at vehicle volumes and
local streets, avenues and speeds.
boulevards
Pedestrian Network
• Local • Works best on streets with • Shared lane markings
• Commercial Main speeds of 30 mph or lower. pair well with Bikes May
Shared Roadway Street May be used on streets up to Use Full Lane (R4-11)
35 mph signs.
• Minimum placement of shared • Modifications to signal
lane marking is 11 feet from timing help induce a
curb where on-street parking bicycle-friendly travel
is present (4 feet from edge of speed for all users
curb with no parking)
On-Street Bike Lane • Local • 6’- 7’ preferred bike lane width • Lane narrowing
• Collector • 5’ minimum bike lane width • Travel lane
• Commercial Main (when adjacent to parking) reconfiguration
Street • Parking lane
reconfiguration
Complete Streets
Buffered Bike Lane • Collector • 5’ minimum bicycle travel area • Lane narrowing
• Commercial Main • 18” minimum buffer area • Travel lane
Street reconfiguration
• Parking lane
• Arterial reconfiguration
One-Way Separated • Collector • 7’ travel area • Lane narrowing

• Commercial Main • 3’ or wider buffer • Travel lane
Bike Lane
Street • 18” minimum buffer adjacent to reconfiguration
• Arterial travel lanes • Parking lane
• 3’ minimum buffer adjacent to reconfiguration
parking lanes • Curb reconstruction
Two-Way Separated • Collector • 12’ preferred operating width • Lane narrowing

Intersections
• Commercial Main • 10’ minimum travel width • Travel lane

Bike Lane (8’ width in constrained reconfiguration
Street
conditions) • Parking lane
• Arterial • 3’ minimum buffer adjacent to reconfiguration
parking lanes • Curb reconstruction
5-7
Developing the MAJOR BIKEWAY: MAINLINE ROUTES
Bikeway Network
Bikeway Network
The proposed bike network was developed

with the goal of creating a network of
well-connected, low-stress facilities. Biking
needs to be a safe, convenient, and pleasant
form of transportation for the broadest
array of people. Aligning with the vision of
this plan of creating safe and comfortable
bikeways, this low-stress network would
be appropriate for people of all ages and
abilities.
Pedestrian Network
The network is organized into three main MINOR BIKEWAY: FEEDER ROUTES
categories: major bikeways (mainline
routes), minor bikeways (feeder routes), and
local bikeways (first/last mile connections).
Bike lanes, trails, and low-speed

neighborhood bikeways all make biking
more comfortable. However, perception
of safety is largely driven by factors like
vehicle speeds and traffic volumes. Not all
routes are the same and therefore design
flexibility is essential to building a low-stress
Complete Streets
network. The network approach developed

as part of this plan sets the parameters for
the bikeway network but the project design LOCAL BIKEWAY: FIRST/LAST MILE
process will determine the ultimate cross-
section for each project using national best
practices and engineering judgment.

FAYETTE JESSAMINE
69 miles Major Bikeways 28 miles
75 miles Minor Bikeways 40 miles
Intersections
74 miles Local Bikeways 11 miles
5-8 l Lexington, KY
Fra nkl in
Scott C
Recommended
ounty
C o unty
Bikeway Network
Bikeway Network
y
nt
ou nty
tC u
cot e Co
S tt
ye
Fa
ty
oun
nC y
ou rbo ount
B rk C
Cla
ounty
ty
e Coun
ford C
Pedestrian Network
Fayett
Wood
LEXINGTON ty
un
Co ty
tte oun
ye C
Fa lark
C
ounty
County
Fay
Je s ette
ford C
sam Co
mine
ine unty
Co
unt
Wood
y
Je ssa
y
unt y
Complete Streets
Co t
ark un
Cl n Co
i s o
d
Ma
NICHOLASVILLE
WILMORE
Intersections
See Appendix C for the

network details.
EXISTING AND PROPOSED

FUNDED
MAJOR BIKEWAY
MINOR BIKEWAY
MILES
0 Mercer1.5
County 3 LOCAL BIKEWAY
Boyle County
5-9
Application
Shared Use Trail
(Off-Road) Speed and Volume
Bikeway Network
Paths operating in
independent corridors are
A shared use trail that is off-road provides fully separated from traffic.
a travel area separate from motorized Facility provision is based on
traffic for bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, opportunity and connectivity
wheelchair users, joggers, and other users. rather than roadway
Shared use trails can provide a low-stress context. In some cases, an
experience for a variety of users using the independent corridor may
network for transportation or recreation. offer similar connectivity and
access to destinations as a
Off-road trails follow utility corridors, nearby roadway.
railroad alignments (both active and
abandoned), and greenway/stream
Network
Trails & Pedestrian
corridors.
Serves connections
Network
independently of the street

network. May function as a
network alternative road and
highway connections.
Horizontal Clearance Shared Use Path Shoulder

2 ft 10–12 ft 2 ft
Complete Streets
Width
The geometric design of shared use trails
Land Use
should support the speed and volume of Generally appropriate outside
expected user types. of built-up areas, and also as
a corridor connection within
• 10 ft -12ft width is recommended in urban areas.
most situations and will be adequate for
moderate to heavy use.
• A 2 ft shoulder should be provided

on each side of the path, kept clear of
Intersections
vertical elements or obstructions.
Application
Shared Use Trail
(Along the Roadway)
Bikeway Network
Speed and Volume
For use on roads with high
volumes, and moderate-to
A shared use trail along the roadway is a high-speed motor vehicle traffic.
bidirectional path located immediately Roads with few driveways are
adjacent and parallel to a roadway. These preferred to reduce potential
trails can offer a high-quality experience for conflict points.
users of all ages and abilities as compared
to on-roadway facilities in heavy traffic
environments, allow for reduced roadway
crossing distances, and maintain rural and
small town community character. Network
Trails& Pedestrian
For use on arterial links on the
A shared use trail along the roadway can regional or local biking and
Network
encourage bicycling and walking in areas walking network.
where high-volume and high-speed motor
vehicle traffic would otherwise discourage it.
LOCAL
COLLECTOR
Complete Streets
HIGHWAY
Pathway Roadway Separation

10–12 ft
Roadway Separation Land Use

For use inside of built-up areas
Separation from the roadway should be
to provide a dedicated space for
informed by the speed and configuration of
pedestrians and bicyclists.
the adjacent roadway and available right-of-
way and engineering judgment.
• Preferred minimum separation width is
6.5ft. Minimum separation is 5ft.
• Separation narrower than 5ft is not
Intersections
recommended without the use of a

physical barrier.
• Special consideration at intersections
and driveways.
5-11
Identifying
Pedestrian STEP 1
Bikeway Network
Projects Inventory Missing

Sidewalk Network
Similar to the development of the proposed Comprehensive inventory of all
bikeway network, the proposed sidewalk missing sidewalks, including local and
network is the result of extensive public private streets within urban areas
input and review of existing conditions. The
proposed sidewalk network aims to provide
a safe and comfortable experience for users
of all ages and abilities. The approach to
developing the pedestrian network intends STEP 2
to concentrate resources in areas where
Trails & Pedestrian
improvements are most needed and where Identify Proposed

people are most likely to walk. Pedestrian Project
Network
Remove local and private streets.

Full implementation of all missing sidewalk Remove streets where sidewalk on
segments across both Fayette and one side is adequate.
Jessamine counties will take many years.
With limited funding available, a focused,
prioritized approach is necessary. The
3-step process described to the right was
used to identify missing sidewalk segments STEP 3
that reflect areas with the greatest need.
Sort by
Project Type
Complete Streets
Streets classified as a major arterial, minor

arterial, or collector street are given priority Identify projects to be completed
in this plan due to their regional context and by new development, roadway
the increased safety risk these corridors projects, or as standalone pedestrian
pose to pedestrians (higher traffic volumes improvement projects.
with higher speeds).
FAYETTE JESSAMINE
PEDESTRIAN
71 miles Sidewalk 8 miles
IMPROVEMENT
32 miles Shared Use Trails 28 miles
PROJECTS
Intersections
Designing Streets for All Ages
Bikeway Network
Types of Pedestrians
The transportation network should The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
accommodate pedestrians with a variety of Devices (MUTCD) recommends a normal
needs, abilities, and possible impairments. walking speed of 3.5 feet per second when
Age is one major factor that affects calculating the pedestrian clearance interval
pedestrians’ physical characteristics, at traffic signals. The walking speed can
walking speed, and environmental drop to 3 feet per second for areas with
perception. Children have low eye height older populations and persons with mobility
and walk at slower speeds than adults. impairments. The transportation system
Older adults walk more slowly and may should accommodate these users to the
require assistant devices to help with greatest extent possible.
Trails& Pedestrian
their walking stability, sight, and hearing.
The table below summarizes common
Network
pedestrian characteristics for various age
groups.
AGE CHARACTERISTICS Eye Level
0-4 Learning to walk 4’ 6” - 5’ 10”

(1.3 m - 1.7 m)
Requires constant adult supervision
Developing peripheral vision and depth
perception
5-8 Increasing independence, but still requires
Complete Streets
supervision
Poor depth perception
9-13 Susceptible to “darting out” in
roadways
Insufficient judgment
Sense of invulnerability
14-18 Improved awareness of traffic
environment
Insufficient judgment Shoulders

19-40 Active, aware of traffic environment 1’ 10” (0.5 m)
41-65 Slowing of reflexes Walking

2’ 6” (0.75 m)
65+ Difficulty crossing street
Intersections
Preferred Operating
Vision loss Space
Difficulty hearing vehicles approaching 5’ (1.5 m)
from behind
Source: AASHTO. Guide for the Planning, Design, and

Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, Exhibit 2-1. 2004.
5-13
Crossing Treatment Selection
Bikeway Network
The specific type of treatment at a crossing may range from a simple marked crosswalk
to a full traffic signal or grade separated crossing. Before a marked crosswalk is installed,
appropriate selection of crossing treatments should be evaluated in an engineering study,
which should consider number of lanes, presence of a median, distance from adjacent
signalized intersections, pedestrian volumes and delays, average daily traffic (ADT), speed
limit, geometry of the location, possible consolidation of crossing points, availability of street
lighting, and other appropriate factors.
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING Local Streets Collector Streets Arterial Streets

CONTEXTUAL GUIDANCE 15-25 mph 25-30 mph 30-45 mph
At unsignalized locations
2 lane with 2 lane with 4 lane with 6 lane with
median median median median
FACILITY TYPE 2 lane 3 lane 2 lane refuge 3 lane 2 lane refuge 3 lane 4 lane refuge 5 lane 6 lane refuge
Crosswalk Only
1 (high visibility)   EJ EJ X EJ EJ X X X X X X
Trails & Pedestrian
Crosswalk with warning

2 signage and yield lines EJ     EJ EJ EJ X X X X X
Network
Active Warning Beacon

3 (RRFB) X EJ       X  X X X
4 Hybrid Beacon X X EJ EJ EJ EJ       
5 Full Traffic Signal X X EJ EJ EJ EJ EJ EJ     
6 Grade separation X X EJ EJ EJ X EJ EJ     
LEGEND
Most Desirable 
Engineering Judgement EJ
Not Recommended X
2 CROSSWALKS WITH
Complete Streets
1 MARKED CROSSWALKS WARNING SIGNAGE 3 ACTIVE WARNING BEACON
4 PEDESTRIAN HYBRID
BEACON 5 FULL TRAFFIC SIGNAL 6 GRADE SEPARATION
Midblock Crossings
Midblock crossings can provide legal crossings at locations where pedestrians want to
travel, and can be safer than crossings at intersections because traffic is only moving in two
directions. Locations where midblock crossings should be considered include:
• Long blocks (longer than 600 ft) with destinations on both sides of the street;
Intersections
• Locations with heavy pedestrian traffic, such as schools or shopping centers; and
• Midblock transit stops, where transit riders must cross the street on one leg of their
journey.
Franklin
Scott C
Recommended
ounty
C o unty
Pedestrian Projects
Bikeway Network
y
nt
ou nty
tC u
cot e Co
S tt
ye
Fa
ty
oun
nC
ou rbo ounty
B rk C
Cla
ounty
ty
e Coun
ford C
Fayett
Trails& Pedestrian
Wood
LEXINGTON
Network
ty
un
Co ty
tte oun
ye C
Fa lark
C
ounty
County
Fay
Je s ette
ford C
sam Co
mine
ine unty
Co
unt
Wood
y
Je ssa
ty
un
Complete Streets
Co ty
a rk un
Cl n Co
i s o
d
Ma
NICHOLASVILLE
WILMORE
Intersections

full list of projects.
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

PROPOSED SHARED USE TRAIL ALONG ROAD
TO BE IMPLEMENTED THROUGH NEW DEVELOPMENT
MILES TO BE IMPLEMENTED THROUGH ROADWAY PROJECT
0 Mercer1.5
County 3
Boyle County
5-15
Complete Street
Projects
Bikeway Network
A complete street is a public or private street that is designed with street-fronting land uses,
slow travel speeds, and pedestrian-oriented design features. Several of the complete street
recommendations on page 5-18 are often a portion of a larger, county road or State-owned
highway and may need to balance competing needs and objectives.
The six elements described to the right highlight key principals of a complete street and page
5-17 provides a general overview of supporting policies.
Trails & Pedestrian
Network
Flexible Design Multimodal Design

Complete Streets streets can be constrained Multimodal networks provide mobility Comacce
spaces, with more demand for roadway all users and modes of travel. Complete streets
design features than there is typically space to become connections between modes, as
accommodate. Decisions should be informed by motorists become pedestrians and pedestrians
local context and reflect the community vision. become transit users.
Complete Streets
Placemaking Incrementalism
Complete streets can strengthen community Small projects can make a big difference.
identity by creating enhanced aesthetics, spaces Opportunities such as roadway resurfacing
for civic activities, and creating conditions to or enhancements associated with individual
attract and retain business. Successful places development projects can be the first step in
foster improved community cohesion and a gradual transformation. Corridor studies can
participation in public life. also help the community set a vision and identify
feasible alternatives.
Intersections
Environmental Sustainability Compactness

Street trees and other vegetation can support a No one mode or use should dominate the street.
pleasant environment and are a key component Providing compact, well delineated zones for
of stormwater. each user to create a sense of belonging.
Policies to Support
Complete Streets
Bikeway Network
There are many elements that make a street complete and it’s not always a one size fits all
approach. Rather, complete street principals are context sensitive and require engineering
judgment. However, the elements described below highlight key complete street elements
that should be considered along recommended complete street projects.
4
6
Trails& Pedestrian
2
Network
5
1 3
1 Adopt a Vision Zero Strategy 4 Create Safe Walkways and Bikeways

Vision Zero is the concept that no loss of life in Construction Zones
is acceptable on our roadways. Jurisdictions Walkways in construction zones should
across the nation and across the world are be routed on the same side of the street,
Complete Streets
adopting Vision Zero policies to eliminate run on or parallel to the closed sidewalk,
preventable traffic deaths. and must comply with the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the Manual on
2 Update Land use and Development Codes Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Local codes that encourage or require short 5
block lengths, mixed use developments with
Establish Speed Reduction Policies
Traffic speed disproportionately
street-fronting retail, and a connected network
threatens people walking and biking so
of streets with high-quality sidewalks form the
speed should be managed through speed
bedrock of livable communities.
limit enforcement and traffic calming
where appropriate.
3 Rethink Parking Requirements 6 Adopt a Complete Street Policy

Intersections
Parking policy reform includes better A complete street policy asserts that all
management of existing parking, pricing new street projects should accommodate
that reflects demand, lowering parking all people who use the street, whether
requirements for commercial and residential traveling on foot, bike, transit, or car.
development, and bike parking minimums.
5-17
Identifying Potential
Complete Street Projects
Bikeway Network
The Complete Street projects identified on page 5-19 were primarily selected because
their existing road design currently serves only high-speed, high-volume traffic. However,
fixing their design to accommodate other modes adequately will require a high investment
of funding to retrofit. Many of these projects can benefit from arterial-level traffic calming
(such as refuge islands, lane reductions, bicycle facilities, sidewalks, transit stop safety
features and accommodations, placemaking, landscaping, lighting, etc.)
While there are many considerations that factor into the design of a Complete Street,
placemaking is an important consideration to facilitate a livable design approach that fosters
social interaction and improves the community’s quality of life.
Trails & Pedestrian
Network
Complete Streets
Intersections
Project for Public Spaces has developed several tools to support placemaking including The Place Diagram that helps
communities understand and identify key attributes of a place. Source: http://www/reference/what_is_placemaking/.
Franklin
Scott C
Bikeway Network
ounty
C o unty
y
nt
ou nty
tC u
cot e Co
S tt
ye
Fa
ty
oun
n C ty
rbo un
Bou rk Co
Cla
ounty
ty
e Coun
ford C
Trails& Pedestrian
Fayett
Wood
LEXINGTON
Network
ty
un
Co ty
tte oun
ye C
Fa lark
C
ounty
County
Fay
Je s ette
ford C
sam Co
mine
ine unty
Co
unt
Wood
y
Je ssa
ty
un
Co ty
Complete Streets
a rk un
Cl n Co
i s o
d
Ma
NICHOLASVILLE
WILMORE
Intersections
MILES COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT

0 Mercer1.5
County 3
Boyle County
5-19
Intersection
Improvements
Bikeway Network
Intersections are an important part of the bicycle and pedestrian network. Intersections
have high potential conflict between pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. However,
intersections can be designed to help reduce these conflicts, making them safer for all
users. Based on input from the public and the existing conditions analyses, several proposed
intersection improvement projects have been identified in Fayette County and Jessamine
County. These locations are shown on the maps on page 5-22 and 5-23.
The following guidelines should be considered when designing intersection improvements

for pedestrians and bicyclists:
PEDESTRIAN INTERSECTION DESIGN GUIDELINES

Trails & Pedestrian
The diagram below highlights best practices for pedestrian facility design at intersections.
Network
The crosswalk should be located

to align as closely as possible Continental markings Parallel markings are the
with the through pedestrian provide additional most basic crosswalk
zone of the sidewalk corridor. visibility. marking type.
Complete Streets
Median refuge islands ADA compliant curb The use of a Leading

Intersections
increase visibility and ramps allow all users to Pedestrian Interval (LPI) to
allow pedestrians to transition from the street to provide additional traffic-
cross one direction of a sidewalk. Perpendicular protected crossing time
traffic at a time. curb ramps are preferred to to pedestrians should be
diagonal curb ramps. considered.
Bikeway Network
BICYCLE INTERSECTION DESIGN GUIDELINES
The design of bicycle facilities is dependent on the surrounding context and environment.
Examples of best practice bikeway intersections treatments and their typical applications are
provided below.
Intersection Crossing
Markings
Bicycle pavement markings
through intersections guide
Trails& Pedestrian
bicycles on a safe and direct
path through the intersection
and provide a clear boundary
Network
between the paths of through
bicyclists and vehicles in the
adjacent lane. Typical applications
include streets with conventional,
buffered, or separated bike lanes,
and streets with high volumes of
adjacent traffic.
Bike Box
A bike box is a designated area
located at the head of a traffic lane at
a signalized intersection the provides
bicyclists with a safe and visible
Complete Streets
space to get in front of queuing traffic
during the red signal phase. Motor
vehicles must queue behind the white
stop line are the rear of the bike box.
On a green signal, all bicyclists can
quickly clear the intersection. Typical
applications includes at signalized
intersections with high bicycle and
vehicle volumes.
Protected Intersection
A protected intersection
maintains physical separation
within the intersection to define
the turning paths of motor
vehicles, slow vehicle turning
speed, and offer a comfortable
Intersections
place for people bicycling to

wait at a red signal. Typical
applications include streets with
separated bikeways, and where
two separated bikeways intersect,
and areas where it is desirable
to create a safety island for
pedestrians.
5-21
IRO
NW
ORK
NE W
S PIK
E
TOW
GE
OR
N PI
GE T
Bikeway Network
KE
OW
RD
M
RD
UI
N
SP U
VE
R
RR
LE
RD
RD
ST
CA
LE TI
SANDERSV IL
A
O
E
ES N
L
PI K
TO
SE L
W RD
JAGGI F O
N
RUS
LLTO
RD
C
IT
AT
E
A
IO
RD
RN
NB D
YA
LV D
N
RD
R
X WAY
IO
S
AT
FFE
ALE
ST
OLD
FRA YAN
VD RA BR
ND
LI
NK INO D C
BL
FO ND
D
BRI
E
ME R NA R H ILL RD
R
RT A
GRE
IS
PI K E R RD
R
E
R
PA
D
LD
RIA
ANNIS
O
RD
ND
TO
E
XA
N
IC
N
PR
ALE
TO
RD
DR P
ES
M
FORBE S
LI
MAN E
KW
CH SE E L
Y
E ST V OU
DU
NKIRK ER EN D ND
DR ST TH ON LA
NE D R AST
S
S
AVE
Trails & Pedestrian
E
RED MI
SI
R WI NCHESTER RD
BA
MA
ST
SE
SO
RT
LE N
RO
R TU
HE RD
ON WAY
DEL ADL L
B
PO
Network
LA E Y R CK
A
FO
L
LAN DR D
LIB
O
EA
FO
LLEN FO ER
R
RD
CLUB
NT TY
R
RD DP
LL D
CO AI
L O NE LE K
IL PE
P
M R RD PA RD AS BL
A
WY
E
RS D LU N
COD
LEXINGTON R
KE
VD
M
P AR B
T R ID
O
CHINOE R D
DR
GE DR
F
HAR PAS
O RE S T
FT R AD A
REG ENCY RD
A ZA L BAN
RD
RRO EN
O
ND
A AL Y RD
D
DR
O
S
E HILL
W AD DR
R
D
TAB
D
HE
DR
PEP
M TODDS
RD
P
DR
R
W E LLINGTO N LA RD
MT
E RH
A
WAY BU E
OWN ES
MIL SD
D
IL
L RD V
U IR
ITAR BL
Y PI R
LAN
D
KE RE P KWY
ESWAY D
Q
DDING S
ICO
YS
FI
R
D
LV
IN
HA
DR
LAR E
R GA
RE
RD
L
KB
IM
WIL
CE
RO
B
O SO
P
Y
ND D
O RD
KW
NT
DR
RE
N
O OW DR R
P
O
W NI
ST
KH
G
NG
Complete Streets
B C
ON
A U
BO
RD
OP
RM
YN
DEL
D
H
WINTHR
TRENT
ST R
FayAM H
NC
BL
VD G
CL
Co
RG RD
sam
ine unty R
MI
LL
EA
Co RTLAN D
OL
unt
y
RW HA D W RD
RD
DR
SA
HARRODSBU
SO
AT
UT E
H ARRODSBU RG RD
Y N
PK
HP INT D R WA
I CH
O OD
E
KE
BRAN
WY
O
NON
TA
R
SA
MO
RD ABB
TE
O EY W
R
SC
N
N
N RD
DR
RE
RD
E
GTO
K
RD

IN
LEX
full list of intersection

PIK
C ATN AS
IP H HG
I LL RO
EK
RD VE
RD improvements.
CRE
KS
JAC
MILES
0 0.5 1
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT
Fayette County
PROPOSED SIDEWALK NETWORK
Intersections
PROPPOSED BIKEWAY NETWORK
EXISTING AND FUNDED BIKEWAY NETWORK
BRAN
NON Fa
D
RD Je s yette
R
sam C
ine ounty
RN
Co
HO
unt
N RD
y
ELK
KE
E
GTO
NE VE
TH
RSAIL
Bikeway Network
LE S
IN
RD ASH
SO
GRO
LEX
VE
RD
NE
C ATN
C
IP H
E
KE
I LL
N
RD
RD
RG
SBU
ounty
County
D
RO
R
A
ford C
H
KE
mine
PI
OY
Wood
TR
Je ssa
KEEN
E
E
EN
RD
KE
URG RD
O D SB
RR
SS
HA
A
YP
RD
Trails& Pedestrian
MILL
ION
EB
IN ST
UN
VILL
W
N MA
IL
LAS
N 3R
M
Network
O
C HO
RE
DS
RD
NI
T
AV E
RIC HMOND
E M
APL
E
ST
NICHOLAS V
PEKIN NICHOLASVILLE
P IK
E
I LL
SU
W
M
EB
LP
A
I
HU
ATION RD C HR
YP
E ST I SM
N
IN ST
JESSA MIN
R
AN
AS
ST
MIL
WE
S
LR
D
S MA
LL
WILMORE
NC
P IK
M AIN
E
ST
Complete Streets
GL
ASS
HO
OV
E
RD
IL RP
M
L I KE
BE
TH
EL
RD
RD
GE
NC
ID
RD
BR
H
H IG
LE L
DANVI
SU
G
AR
full list of intersection
CR
EEK
improvements.
RD
Jessa mine County

LE
P IKE
DANVIL
Ga rra rd County
MILES
0 0.5 1
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Intersections
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Jessamine County
PROPPOSED BIKEWAY NETWORK
5-23
Chapter 6:
Identifying
Priorities
Data driven prioritization and

strategic project development.
Prioritization Methodology
This plan is designed to serve as a short-term call to action document that identifies projects
located in areas with the highest demand and the greatest need. Full implementation of the
recommended bikeways and pedestrian improvements will take many years and require a
significant amount of investment.
In order to identify high priority projects, it was essential to develop a process for selecting
an equitable and realistic prioritization methodology in order to develop short-term priority
projects (see Chapter 7). The specific evaluation criteria are highlighted in the graphic below.
The results, shown on page 6-3, groups projects into four priority tiers based on their score
alone.
Recommended Bikeway +
Pedestrian Improvement Networks
Evaluation Criteria
Safety: Collisions Transit Access Gap Closures
Demand Equity Existing Mode

Share
Prioritized Project List
6-2 l Lexington, KY
Prioritization
Results
PRIOIRTY TIERS
TIER 1
PRIOIRTY TIERS
TIER 1 TIER 2
TIER 2 TIER 3
TIER 3
TIER 4
TIER 4
LEXINGTON
LEXINGTON
Fay Fay
Je s ette Je s ette
sam Co
ine unty sam Co
Co
unt
ine unty
y Co
unt
y
ounty
y
Count
NETWORK PRIORITIES
ford C
NETWORK PRIORITIES
Fayette County
mine
SHORT-TERM PROJECT
Jessamine County
Wood
MID-TERM PROJECT SHORT-TERM

Je ssa
Jessamine County
LONG-TERM PROJECT
MID-TERM PR
LONG-TERM P
NICHOLASVILLE EXISTING AN
PROPOSED S
WILMORE
NETWORK PRIORITIES
Jessamine County
Jessamine County
6-3
Developing a Strategy
Implementation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan will require leadership and
dedication to facility and program development on the part of a variety of agencies. Equally
critical, and perhaps more challenging, will be securing a dedicated annual funding source.
This can be done through strategic collaboration with regional and state agencies, the private
sector, non-profit organizations, and Fayette County and Jessamine County residents. The
graphic below highlights the project list development process.
The maps to the right and following pages sort projects into short-term, mid-term, and long-
term priorities for both counties. Key projects within the short-term list identified in both
counties are listed below.
NETWORK CONSTRUCTIBILITY
PRIORITIZATION ASSESSMENT
Right-of-Way
Safety Short-term
Recommended Prioritized Utility Conflicts
Demand Priority
Networks Project List Environmental
Transit Access Projects
Constraints
Equity
On-Street Parking
Gap Closure
Traffic Impacts
Mode Share
Cost Estimates
Fayette County Key Projects Jessamine County Key Projects
• North Limestone Bike/Ped • Lexington Road (29) Shared Use

Improvements from Vine Street to New Trail Gap from Wilmore “Y” (US68) to
Circle Rd. Veterans Drive
• Town Branch Commons Corridor • US68 Road Shared Use Trail from Old
Access Points (Martin Luther King Higbee Mill Road (Fayette County) to
Boulevard) Golf Club Drive
• Tates Creek Road Sidewalk Gaps and • East Brannon Road Shared Use Trail
Shared Use Trail from Nicholasville Road to Grey Oak Lane
• Alumni Drive Shared Use Trail from • Nicholasville Road (Hwy 27) Shared
Tates Creek Road to Squires Trail Use Trail along the utility corridor from
• Old Vine St/ Central Ave Bicycle existing trail (Fayette County near
Boulevard Waveland Museum Land) to Catnip Hill
• Liberty Road Shared Use Trail from Road/Vince Road
Liberty Elementary to Winchester Rd. • Wimore Road (29) Shared Use Trail
from Harrodsburg Rd to Downtown
Nicholasville
6-4 l Lexington, KY
E
PIK
IC H
NW
EE
GR
NEWTOWN P
Bo urb
Fa yette
on Co
ty
Co u n
un ty IRO
Co n
tt Cou NW
unty
IKE
o OR
Sc tte KS
ty
y e P IK
Fa E
RD
LE
E
E
M
ST SP
AV
UI
OW U GE
R
C
N R
R
RD
ST
RD OR
LL
AT
SE
GE
I O
RD
RD
RUS
TOW
N
N RD
L E
OL
NDA
D
F RA
R
D
NKF
ounty
OR ION
E
BRIA
nty
RD
TP AT R HILL RD
GRE
IK ST
E N
e Cou
R YA
N CLE VELAND RD
ford C
E
E ST BR
AL
H
E
Fayett
E
KC
N
Wood
XAN
TO
AN
EL
TL
ES
DP
DR
M
S
IA
A
LI
E
KW
N
Y
DR
POL O
WINCHESTER RD
LAN LI
E BE
FO
C
A LLE RTY ty
C OO
LU
PA NR NT PA RD un
PE AI
RK Co ty
B
ER D R NE LU BL
RD DR RD M tte oun
CHINOE RD
MILL B ye C
S
VD
Fa lark
O
PA C
SAD RD
EN R DDS
D
LEXINGTON
A
DR TO
MIL W
E
ITA LLING TON W MA
VD
RY
P IKE LA B
AY
U
B
DR Y
HA
S
ounty
County
RD AR
MS RD
OLD
TR
N
ford C
ON
NG
D
TO
DR
N R
mine
D ELO
BOS
RIC
MI
LL
Wood
OR
BRAN SA W
Je ssa
SA
RD
MO
H NO
S BURG RD NC
N
E
RO
E LK
ND
RD
KE
N
Fay D
RD
R
TH
Je s ette
sam Co
SOU
ine unty
RD
Co
unt
C ATN ASH y
NE
ROD
XINGTON
IP H GR
I LL OV
EE
E RD
IK K ER
E
HAR
P IK
D
P
OY
TR
EK
LE
NE
RD
RD
CRE
E
TA
KE
N T
RG
A
KS
ES
KM
J AC
DSBU
KE
IC
RE
EN
H
Ma ette
E
E
Fa
O
IN ST
KR
di
D
RR
RD
so
RD
UN
D
HA
L
L
n C unty
ION MI
N MA
R
Co
ou
EA
nty
SP
E
RD
P IK
IN ST
PE A
TION
N
KI
GA
N
S TA
S MA
LO
MILES
P IK
INE
JES SAM 0 1 2
NETWORK PRIORITIES
E
MID- AND
Fayette County
SHORT-TERM LONG-TERM
BIKEWAY PROJECT
SHARED USE TRAIL PROJECT
PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
COMPLETE STREET PROJECT
More detailed views of Lexington are presented on the following pages: Northwest quadrant (page 6),
Northeast quadrant (page 7), Southwest quadrant (page 8), and Southeast quadrant (page 9).
6-5
NEW
TOW
E
N
PIK
P IK
N
E
TO
LL
NA
SPURR
AR
RD
NY
RD
GE
E
OR
VILL
RD
GET
ERS
ALE
O
LE
WN R
ES
SAND
E ND
TO
W
N
D
GRE
RD
JAGGIE F OX W
R
N D IN
BURN D
TIO R
S TA
W
N
D
SO
V
BL
ER
ST
AY
IO
A
AT
M
C IT
AS
BU
RY
D H LN
O
BLV
NAND LL
OL OW
O
IN
D FR CR
AN ME R EE
KF C ER K
OR
RD
RD RD
T
PI
KE
VE
A
NF C
OR LL
BE E
S SS
RU
GEO
RD
RG
R
E
IC
ETO
LOUDO
PR
W N
WN
E
N
AV
TO
E
ST
W
ES
FO
M
LI
U
RD
N
TH
ST
S FORBES
MA E
W
ST
SE
ST
N CH TH V
R
E
N
STE EN
E
DE A V I
DU O IR
PP
RS
RS
NK T W D TH
U
IRK ST
FE
ST
N
DR SH
U
LN
F
JE
LL O
RT RE
E
E
ST
T
DR
M
ANG
DC
EL
OR
ALEX
E
IR
OXF
E
LI A
SH THI
RED MILE R D
RD
ANDRIA
O
RT
N
ST
A
AV ST
E
AV
E
ST
N
MA
O
SE
LT
DR
SO
E
AV
RO
N
W
HE
D
AD
N
VI
LE
LA
YR
RG
N CO
D
D IA
I
LU
O
D
AV E
O
M EU
LR
B C
IA LI
HIL
LAN AV D
EA DE AV
LLE
N RD ON LL W
AL
E
E
A FO
C
DR L ER A
BEA
NT
R
VE AI
SITY D
RD NE
ILL RD
DR
M
S HAR
ER
GS
ER
CO T
RK GA OP
IN
IV
A RD R ER MILES RD
P
N SP
UN
E 0 0.25 DR 0.5
NETWORK PRIORITIES
MID- AND
Northwest Lexington
BIKEWAY PROJECT
XX. BIKEWAY FACILITY TREATMENT OPTIONS COMPLETE STREET PROJECT
6-6 l Lexington, KY
M
IRO
NEW
UI
NW
R
OR
ST
KS
TOW
AT
IKE
IO
N
N
RD
P IK
E
FA
UL
KN
ER
AV
D
E
ER
DR
C AV
N
SELL
SO
KI
IE R
NG
INBUR
W N
P
RUS
ST
D
DR
R
ON
N
A
P
IO
RK
RD
AT
SI
D
ST
CITA E
TIO D
N
N BLV
YA
D
R
BR
AS
BU
RY RA
DC
RD
H LN L
O IF F E BR
LL IAR
OW D H IL
O L RD
CR V
ER
D
EE
R
K RD
IS
RD
R
PA
LD
O
EA
ST
IN
R
AN
D
NI
ST
DR
E
O
N
N
TO
LL
DR
D
ES
LOU ON
E
W
M
YN
LI
BR
N
E
AV
E
N AV
YA
BR RD
SH
F Y
A
TS
BU R Y
KW
LN
ST
E
AV
E
R
LO
E
DO
PP
PL
U
D
DO AN
U
EA
TL
N
N
M
E AV
S
EA
SE
LN
E
VE
RE
E
N
TH LAND DR
ST
T
ST
M
EA
EL
E E
SH
DR
O THIR WIN
RT D C HE
STE R
E
ST ST RD
FORTU N
E
AV
C
R
E
A
AV
M
O
ER
LT
D
N
Y
VD
A
A
LA
TO N WA
W
V
BL
E
D
O
Y
O
LA
W
O
E
LO
C
AV
RY
BAR
C
D
LU
EN
BL
N
LA
B
H
SIR
AC
SH
Y
BL
LI
KF O
A
BE PK W
VD
OT
S
FO RT
R
NT
O
RD
D
AI Y
SH
T
NE RD
RE
RD P KW
D
R
A
AR
PAL Y
RG
HAR UM
ST
T E
A
CO BO
INO
OP RD MILES
DR
ST
ER
DR
CH
0 0.25 0.5
NETWORK PRIORITIES
MID- AND
Northeast Lexington
BIKEWAY PROJECT
6-7
E
SH
AN
O
RED MILE
RT
G
ST
LI
A
A
N
A
V
ST
E
MA
SE
SO D
E
RO
N
AV
HE
AD
D
VI
LE
N
Y
RG
LA
RD N CO
IA
D
I
D
AVE
O
LU
LR
O
W
M
LAN B
HI L
EA IA
LLE DE AV
N RD ON LL W
AL E
A
C
DR L ER A
BEA
R
VE
SITY D
Y
KW
DR
P
CO
GS
ER
TE
RO OP
S GA ER
ET
IN
IV
RD R
WELL DR
DR
N SP
UN
LAFAY
E
AL
E
PARKERS MILL
X AN
RD RO
SE
NTRE L MO
CE NT
DR
AU MO N T GAR
BE DE N
IA
O
S
D U
TH
R
LA
D
N
D
I EW
D
R
HV
E RD
UT
SO
L
REGE NCY RD
FT H
FF PA
A AR SA AL
DR
N ROW DE ZA BA
A
S ND NY
RR
HE NA AL RD
N
DR ED
O
LYO
R
D
DR
AD
S
DR
DR
BE LEFONT
WE
M
LL ING LA
A
TO N WAY BU
DR DR
TO E
WN
L
ET R
D
M DO
R
AY NS
LD
L
W LA
PA
AN
AL
NW
GLADM
MILIT
ARY W REY
C OR
P IKE NOL
KEI DS
TH RD
AY
OL
D SH W E RE
D HIGB MO I RE
ER VD EE YNO
EN BL
NT L DS RD RE
KE IC E D DI
MI
LLO NG
K
BLV
LL
LA
C
D RD
OO
RO
RD
FI
TW
R
EBR
DR
W
R
ED
IN EL L R
A
WAY O
D
D OG RI WI
WOO LS
ER
D ON
D G DO D
P
E R
ANGL
W
RO
DR NI
TR
RD
NG
WINTH
RD
SP R RD
AC
SP
RD
RN
ING E TIV
ILL
ERTO
E
BLVD
NW
O
C AME L
N
M
AY
LKH
STO
RU
YS
M
N
RD
C LA
IL L
TH E
BO
D RD OT
P ON D
R
SOU
WY
V
ND
IC
HAM H
NE
ILLS
TO RI
D R
KEE
A
WAY
SA R
BURG NC
RD
Fay LE A
C
BRAN Je s ette RW
RG RD
O
NON RD
N
sam Co
ine unty AT
DR
Co ER
unt SO
HARRODSBU
y
HARRODS
UT W AY
HP
OI
NT
DR
D
NR
GTO
AS
IN
HG
LEX
RO
VE
RD
MILES
0 0.25 0.5
NETWORK PRIORITIES
MID- AND
Southwest Lexington
BIKEWAY PROJECT
6-8 l Lexington, KY
E
AV
ST
N
SE
O
E
Y
O
LT
AV
RO
F
VD
WA
RT
A
D
BL
N
UN
LA
Y
CO
LA
PO
ON
D
E
LU
O
C
LO
BL
O
EU
RY
M
ART
DR
W
B C C A
CK
EN
IA LI LU F
AV D B
SIR B
H
AV
OR
E
R
BL
LI
D
E Y
D
FO BE
P KW
ERSITY
V
OT
R
NT RT
D
D
AI Y
PK W
O
NE
T
RD
RE
SH
RD Y
A
U NIV
PI
RG
HAR
AR
NK
CO T
ST
L DR
OP
M
RD
PL
PI
E
ST
RD AS
GE
E
R PA ON A NT R
L
LU ID
CODE
P KW
WOO M Y G
BO E
DH DR
I LL
DR
ON PLAC
HT ED
IG
BR
D
R
D R
OLD TO DD S RD
RR
CHINOE RD
LAKE
MA P
BO LE
TA
SH
LE
M
OR
AF DR
N
BL
ED
PAT
A
FOR E
R
ZE
HE
C
AL N
R
BA ST H
NY ILL
PK
D
ZA RD DR DR
V
W
TODDS RD
D
BL
Y
DA
RR
N
E
MONTAV
LE
IR
ABO
SH
BE AVER JO
RK
R UET
RD
D
CR
YO
P K MT T
T
PE
R RD G
EA
EE K D
ED STA Y ST
E
CREEK
UR
HI
PP
W
WN LL
SB
DO SD
ER
NS
ILE
A R
HI L
R
NE
L DR
CH
D
STO
MA RD VD
L
R
L ABU
BL
LOW
DR
Y DR
S
SWA
RE
S
NE
YEL
UI
Y
PI
HA
SQ
AI
RD
RE
MLI
G
D
AL U MN
DI
NG
O
E
C
LA
RD
RE
PKW
ENT
R
DR
Y
ED
CE
ID
O
E
DR
R
NT
GR
RE
ER
D
Y
R PK W N
ANGL
AY
HOR
W
DR
WI
SP
RD
LS
K
BU C
AN
ON
NG
RK
DO
PI
WN
LO
PA
AP
ING
DR
DE
RD
R
DR
E
RIV
TR
NESAW
E NT BLVD
Y
B
OS
KE
CR
AR
OL
SA R
MS
TR
D
ON
RIC
O
C G
N
MI
HM
LL
LE
RD
RD
DR
AR
ON
D RD
A AY
W
DR
TE R W
E
HA
DG
D
DR
RT
RI
E Y WOO
KB
LAND
SO
UT C
NT
RO
HP AB
OI B
PKW
Y
TAT
ES
PIKE
CR
Fay
EE
Je s ette
EK
K
sam Co
RD
ine unty
CRE
Co
unt
y
KS
MILES
JAC
0 0.25 0.5
NETWORK PRIORITIES
MID- AND
Southeast Lexington
BIKEWAY PROJECT
6-9
W
MIL E LLINGTON W AL
M
ITA AB
RY
PIKE RD
D
AY
U
DR S BL
V
RE
PKW
RE
CO
Y
UI
ounty
County
SQ H AY
S
DDI NG LI
RD
M
R D AR
R
D
ford C
MS
PI
RD
N
TR
mine
TO
WINTHR OP
Fay ON
OL
T R EN
RD
BOS
Je s ette T
Wood
LONG
G
sam Co
Je ssa
B MI
D
ine unty
RD
L LL
RN
RI
Co RD
VD
unt
CH
HO AR TL
HARRODSBURG
DE
BRAN y H AN
SA
NO SO
MO
EL K
N
RO
U
D
TH
TA D
ND
RD P
N
OI D
TE
PKW
TH
N R
RD
SC
T
R
OU
Y
KE
RE E
E S
E NE
RD
VERS
K
EN
AIL
TON
RD
L ES
AS
KE CATNIP HG
RD
LEXI NG
HIL RO
E
L VE
N
RD
PIK
RD
RD
EK
RG
E
PI K
CRE
Y
U
SB
O
OD
KS
TR
NE
H ARR
KEEN
JAC
RD
E RD
E
KE
A
KM
IC
H
E
RD
IN ST
UN
NC
IO N
MI L
L R
S
SS
N 3R
N MA
NICHOLASVILLE R A
YPA
E
SP
D
VE
DS
W
NIC
LM A
OLASVILLE B
E
OR E
I
RD RIC H MOND
T
P IK
HO
D
LASV IL L
N R
PEKIN NA
GA
SU L
PIK
ATIO
LO
E
CH
PH
E
C HR
ST
ISM
WILMOREJE SSAMINE
NI
UR
AIN S
BY
AN
MIL
PA
E L RD
WE
SS
MA
SM
I
LL PIK E
NS
T
BE HO
OV
TH E R
E LR PIKE
D
RD
G E
RID
HB
C
HIG
LE RD N
SU
GA
R
DANVIL
CRE EK PI KE
K MAN RD
RR D
VE
E RD
RI
V ILL
C
HI
DAN
LE
LITT
MILES
0 1 2
NETWORK PRIORITIES
MID- AND
Jessamine County
BIKEWAY PROJECT
BRAN
NON Fa
D
RD Je s yette
R
sam C
ine ounty
RN
Co
HO
unt
N RD
y
ELK
KE
E
GTO
NE VE
TH
RSAIL
LE S
IN
RD ASH
SO
GRO
LEX
VE
RD
NE
C ATN
C
IP H
E
KE
I LL
N
RD
RD
RG
SBU
ounty
County
D
RO
R
A
ford C
H
KE
mine
PI
OY
Wood
TR
Je ssa
KEEN
E
E
EN
RD
KE
URG RD
O D SB
RR
SS
HA
A
YP
RD
MILL
ION
EB
IN ST
UN
VILL
W
N MA
IL
LAS
N 3R
M
O
C HO
RE
DS
RD
NI
T
AV E
RIC HMOND
E M
APL
E
ST
NICHOLAS V
PEKIN NICHOLASVILLE
P IK
E
I LL
SU
W
M
EB
LP
A
I
HU
ATION RD C HR
YP
WILMORE E ST I SM
N
IN ST
JESSA MIN
R
AN
AS
ST
MIL
WE
S
L RD
S MA
LL
NC
P IK
M AIN
E
ST
GL
ASS
HO
OV
E
RD
IL RP
M
L I KE
BE
TH
EL
RD
RD
GE
NC
ID
RD
BR
H
H IG
LE L
DANVI
SU
G
AR
CR
EEK
RD
Jessa mine County

LE
P IKE
DANVIL
Ga rra rd County
MILES
0 0.5 1
NETWORK PRIORITIES
MID- AND
Wilmore and
BIKEWAY PROJECT
Nicholasville
6-11
Cost Estimate
Summary
Typical unit cost estimates were developed
for the bicycle and pedestrian improvement Behind the Numbers
projects. Estimates include construction,
design, right-of-way, and utilities where
applicable, and assumes a two-way Bikeway Cost Estimates
separated bikeway. The cost estimates shown include
design, right-of-way, utilities,
Unit cost estimates are detailed in the table
construction, and construction
on the following page. Construction costs
administration. Each individual
were estimated based on recent capital
bikeway segment cost will vary due
improvement project costs and national unit
to several elements including, but
prices. Additional costs were extrapolated
not limited to, existing pavement
by percentage:
condition, pavement type, drainage
basin, existing and proposed
• Design = 15%
signals, and the details of bikeway
• Right-of-Way = 50%
design including elements like
• Utilities = 10%
traffic calming for bike boulevards
• Construction Administration = 12%
and vertical separation for
These estimates are for planning purposes separated bikeways.
only. Detailed costing will be needed as part
of the implementation of each individual Sidewalk Cost Estimates
project during the project development and The estimated unit costs for
design phase. sidewalks include construction,
design, construction administration,
and a 20% contingency, assuming
that projects will be within the
public right-of-way with only minor
utility impacts. These planning-
level cost estimates do not account
for right-of-way acquisitions or
significant drainage improvements.
Sidewalk construction to fill gaps in the pedestrian network

on West Loudon Avenue. Source: Lexington Area MPO.
Planning Level Cost Estimates Per Linear Foot by Facility Type
ADMINISTRATION
TOTAL COST PER

CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION
MAINTENANCE
RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONTINGENCY
UTILITIES
DESIGN
20%
OFF-ROAD
$247.00 $37.05 $123.50 $24.70 $29.64 56.81 5% $541.79
GREENWAY
ON-ROAD
$144.00 $21.60 $72.00 $14.40 $17.28 $33.12 5% $315.86
GREENWAY
BIKE BOULEVARD
(STRIPING AND $28.41 $4.26 -- $2.84 $3.41 $6.53 3.5% $46.82
SPEED CONTROL)
BUFFERED OR
STRIPED BIKE
$10.00 $1.50 -- -- $1.20 $2.30 2% $15.25
LANES WITH
GREEN MARKINGS
STRIPED BIKE
$5.00 $0.75 -- -- $0.60 $1.15 3.5% $7.72
LANE
NEIGHBORWAY
$2.00 $0.30 -- -- $0.24 $0.46 3.5% $3.09
STRIPING
RURAL BIKE
$1.00 $0.15 -- -- $0.12 $0.23 -- $1.50
ROUTE
SIDEWALK $50.00 $7.50 -- -- $6.00 $11.50 3.5% $76.91
6-13
Chapter 7:
Making it
Happen
Funding strategies and key action steps to

implement the recommendations in this plan.
How Do we Make it Happen?
The infrastructure, policy, and program recommendations in previous chapters provide
strategies for making Fayette and Jessamine Counties more bicycle and pedestrian friendly.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide guidance and action steps for implementing the
recommendations.
Implementing the recommendations within this plan will require leadership and dedication
to bicycle and pedestrian facility development on the part of a variety of groups and
agencies. Equally critical, and perhaps more challenging, will be meeting the need for a
recurring source of revenue. Even small amounts of local funding could be very useful and
beneficial when matched with outside sources.
Most importantly, the MPO and its local partners need not accomplish the recommendations
of this plan by acting alone; success will be realized through collaboration with regional and
state agencies, the private sector, and non-profit organizations. The org chart on page 7-3
provides a general description of potential partners and their roles in implementation.
Chapter Overview
This chapter provides the necessary steps and guidance for delivering the
recommendations of this Plan and is organized into the following sections:
Performance Measures...............................page 7-4
Funding Strategy.............................................page 7-6
Bikeway Program
Funding Overview..........................................page 7-8
Pedestrian Improvements
Funding Overview..........................................page 7-12
Project Implementation +
Priority Project Cutsheets.......................page 7-14
7-2 l Lexington, KY
Roles for Implementation
Lexington Area MPO

policy, funding, and coordination
for areas within the MPO
boundary of Fayette and
Jessamine County
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC)

advocacy & guidance for Plan implementation
Community Local Government Regional/State
Local Residents, LFUCG Planning

Neighborhood Commission KYTC District 7
Associations, and policy, funding, and facility planning,
construction, and funding
Advocacy Groups coordination within Fayette
prioritization
County and the City of
advocacy, education, and Lexington
program volunteers
Business and Jessamine County Central KY Region

Property Owners policy, funding, and
coordination with
facility construction and coordination within the
neighboring counties
dedication; employee unincorporated areas of
and the BGADD MPO on
encouragement programs Jessamine County
projects and priorities
Joint Planning Commission
City of
Nicholasville Fayette &
Acronym Legend:
policy, funding, and Jessamine County
coordination within city
MPO: Metropolitan Planning limits
Schools
Organization Safe Routes to School
KYTC: Kentucky Transportation programs and projects
Cabinet
LFUCG: Lexington-Fayette City of
Urban County Government Wilmore
BGADD: Bluegrass Area
Development District policy, funding, and
coordination within city
limits
7-3
Performance Measures
Performance measures are critical for assessing and understanding whether the goals of the
plan are being achieved over time. While these measures focus on evaluating progress over
the long-term, data should be collected on a regular basis to track interim progress (5 years).
Frequent tracking will provide the Lexington Area MPO and its partners with feedback on
whether policy adjustments are needed to progress beyond the current baseline.
The performance measures outlined below are generally outcome based and focus on
achieving policy objectives. The intent of outcome-based performance measures is to
prioritize investments that best progress the objectives of the plan.
The key to meeting these measures will be data collection. Relevant data will need to be
collected both now and in the future in order to effectively determine the outcomes of the
performance measures.
Performance Measure Baseline Measurement Performance Target
Increase walk and bike mode share

average by 10% in Fayette County
Number of bicyclists and
between 2018 and 2023
pedestrians counted at Quarterly counts and daily
locations throughout both counts at counter locations
Increase walk and bike mode share
Counties
by 5% average in Jessamine County
between 2018 and 2023
Reduce bicycle and pedestrian collision

Bicycle and pedestrian Average of 2015, 2016, and
rates by half (50%) between 2018 and
collision rates 2017 rates
2023
Total miles of existing low-

Percentage of bikeway, trail
stress bikeways and sidewalks Short-term priority projects constructed
and pedestrian improvement
complete of the priority or funded by 2023
network completed
network
2017 percentage (conduct an

Percentage of intersections
inventory of intersections along
that are bicycle-friendly and 15% of intersection improved by 2023
corridors with high collision
pedestrian-friendly
rates across MPO)
Increase by 50% of households in

Percentage of households 2017 percentage (calculate Lexington USB by 2023
within ¼ mile of an all ages based on network complete in
and abilities bikeway facility 2017) Increase by 25% of households in
Nicholasville and Wilmore by 2023
7-4 l Lexington, KY
Bike-Friendly and Walk-Friendly
Community Assessments
Walk and bike friendly community assessments recognize existing successes in communities
that promote walking and biking, and provide a framework for communities trying to achieve
higher walking and bicycling rates.
Both programs incorporate assessments in their score card that help a community gauge
where they are excelling and where they are falling short.
Comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle plans should address all five E’s to effectively
advance walking and biking activities in a community. Communities seeking status as WFC
and BFC’s must make relevant advances in each of the Five E’s.
In 2015, Lexington-Fayette County was again recognized as a bronze-level bicycle friendly

community, four businesses have achieved silver-level bicycle friendly business status,
and the University of Kentucky is listed as a silver-level bicycle friendly university. There
are currently no recognized bicycle-friendly community or business in Jessamine County.
Neither county has applied for walk-friendly community status to-date.
BICYCLE-FRIENDLY
WALK-FRIENDLY COMMUNITIES
COMMUNITIES
The Walk Friendly Community The Bicycle Friendly Community

(WFC) program is a national initiative (BFC) program led by the League of
led by the Pedestrian and Bicycle American Bicyclists is intended to
Information Center (PBIC) intended assist communities in making bicycling
to encourage communities to improve a viable transportation option.
their local walking environments. • Go to www.bikeleague.org/
• Review best practices and existing community
designated WFCs at: • In Lexington, a team should be
www.walkfriendly.org assembled to evaluate previous
• Download the WFC assessment League feedback and monitor
tool at: http://www.walkfriendly. progress to determine when to
org/WFC_Assessment_Tool_ apply for Silver status
Sept2012.pdf • Nicholasville and Wilmore should
• Submit the application on-line by apply to evaluate current status
either June 15 or December 15 • Check the website www.
bikeleague.org for the next
submission deadline and submit
the application on-line
7-5
Funding Sources
In order to achieve the goals of this plan, the Lexington Area MPO and its local partners will
need to fund improvements from a variety of funding sources and partners. Funding sources
will need to be opportunistic and consistent in order to implement this plan. Five primary
funding sources make up the core funding strategy for this plan:
• Federal Funds. There are several federal funding programs that can be used for
walking and biking projects that are administered by the Kentucky Transportation
Cabinet (KYTC) to the Lexington Area MPO or local jurisdictions. Safety funds,
transportation alternatives (TA), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
Program (CMAQ) funds, and Federal Surface Transportation Program (SLX) funds are
possible federal funding opportunities.
• Capital & Department Budgets. Local jurisdictions can use the concepts and
policies presented in this Plan to implement it through regularly scheduled capital
projects, such as streetscape projects, street resurfacing, or new public or private
property construction. Departments like Public Works or Parks and Recreation can
use their maintenance resources and staff to support programs and infrastructure
maintenance.
• Fees. User fees or development impact fees provide an opportunity to generate
revenue to fund infrastructure projects, such as sidewalk and trail construction, as
well as programs, such as bicycle education classes.
• Grants. Competitive grants through public agencies or through private or non-profit
foundations can generate additional resources for projects and programs.
• Fundraising Campaigns. Fundraising through neighborhood groups, advocacy
groups, or even crowd-funding can help generate additional resources for projects
and programs.
Capital +
Federal Department
Funds Budgets
Funding
sources
Fundraising
Fees
Campaigns
Grants
7-6 l Lexington, KY
Funding Sources by Budget Size
and Project Timeline
Given the constant change in funding availability at local, state, and federal levels, it is
difficult to know what financial resources will be available at different time frames during the
implementation of this plan. The following table highlights funding options to consider for
projects of various sizes.
Small Budget - Small Budget - Large Budget - Large Budget -

Short Term Long Term Short Term Long Term
• Neighborhood • Federal • Foundation grants • Federal
Associations Transportation • Individual donors Transportation
• Business Funds (FAST Act • Community Funds
Improvement programs) Improvement
Districts • HUD and EPA Districts
• Crowdsourcing funds • Public-Private
• Non-Profit Grants • Capital Partnerships
• Impact Fees Improvement • Infrastructure
• Infrastructure budget funds bonds
• Kentucky Office of • Kentucky • Dedicated local tax
Highway Safety Transportation sources
• Lexington Cabinet
MainStreet • Kentucky
Program Department for
• Dedicated local tax Local Government:
sources • Recreational
• Local health Trails Program
departments • Community
• Foundation grants Development
• Individual donors Block Grant
(CDBG)
7-7
Bikeway Program
Funding Overview
Peer and aspirational cities across the country have shown that a broad based approach to
bikeway investment funding for low-stress infrastructure can simultaneously realize marked
increases in bicycle use and safety.
It’s important to remember that the

ConnectLex Plan does not set funding Peer Funding Spotlight
allocations. Instead, the plan identifies the • The City of Raleigh, NC received a $1.1
priority projects and the annual budgets are million federal Congestion Mitigation
approved by elected officials within each and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant to install
local jurisdiction. 27 miles of on-road bikeways (striping
only). The grant required a $225,000
The total cost summaries highlighted below local contribution.
use planning-level cost estimates with an • Louisville’s FY17 executive budget
additional 20% contingency added. Cost included $500,000 for bicycle
estimates will be further refined once infrastructure and $63,500 for a bike
projects enter the preliminary engineering share project (local grant match).
phase.
Bikeway Short-Term Priorities KEY ACTION STEPS

Total Total
Number
Bikeway Bikeway • Include bicycle projects in the local
of
Length Cost Capital Improvement Program
Projects
(Miles) Estimate (CIP), increasing consistent year-to-
Fayette
41 31 $5.4M
year funding levels.
County • Fund bicycle facility maintenance
and consider funding additional
maintenance equipment needed to
adequately maintain a low-stress
Shared Use Trail Short-Term bikeway system.
Priorities • To increase readiness for grant
Total Total funding, develop preliminary plans
Number
Bikeway Bikeway
of (30% construction drawings) for
Length Cost
Projects priority bicycle projects.
(Miles) Estimate
• Leverage private development
Fayette
8 25 $31M investment by requiring bicycle
County
facility implementation as part
Jessamine of high-density and large-scale
12 11 $25.1M
County development.
7-8 l Lexington, KY
Bikeway Program
Funding Scenarios
Fayette County Bikeway Funding Scenarios
Payoff Horizon in
Total Cost of Short-Term Spending and Miles Per
Years for Short-Term
Projects and Mileage Year
Priorities
$250,000 (1.5 Miles) 22
$5.4M (31 Miles) $500,000 (3 Miles) 11
$1.1 Million (6 Miles) 5
Fayette County Shared Use Trail Funding Scenarios

Payoff Horizon in
Priorities
$1 Million (0.8 Miles) 31
$31M (25 Miles) $2 Million (1.5 Miles) 16
$6.5 Million (5 Miles) 5
Jessamine County Bikeway Funding Scenarios

Payoff Horizon in
Priorities
$25.1M (11 Miles) $2 Million (0.8 Miles) 13

Note: The average cost for shared use trails in Jessamine County is higher then in Fayette County due to
limited right-of-way conditions and drainage constraints along roadways.
7-9
E
PIK
IC H
NW
EE
GR
NEWTOWN P
Bo urb
Fa yette
on Co
y
nt y
Co u n
ou t IRO
t C oun NW
unty
ot
IKE
C OR
Sc tte KS
ty
y e P IK
Fa E
RD
LE
E
E
M
ST SP
AV
UI
OW U
GE
R
C
N R
R
RD
ST
RD
OR
LL
AT
SE
GE
I O
RD
RD
RUS
TOW
N
N RD
L E
OL
NDA
D
F RA
R
D
NKF
ounty
OR ION
E
BRIA
nty
RD
TP AT R HILL RD
GRE
IK ST
E N
e Cou
R YA
N CLE VELAND RD
ford C
E
E ST BR
AL
H
E
Fayett
E
KC
N
Wood
XAN
TO
AN
EL
TL
ES
DP
DR
M
S
IA
A
LI
E
KW
N
Y
DR
POL O
WINCHESTER RD
LAN LI
E BE
FO
C
A LLE RTY ty
C OO
LU
PA NR NT PA RD un
PE AI
RK Co nty
B
ER D R NE LU BL
RD DR RD M te
t Co u
CHINOE RD
MILL B ye
S
VD
LEXINGTON Fa lark
O
PA C
SAD RD
EN R DDS
D
A
DR TO
MIL W
E
ITA LLING TON W MA
VD
RY
P IKE LA B
AY
U
B
DR Y
HA
S
ounty
County
RD AR
MS RD
OLD
TR
N
ford C
ON
NG
D
TO
DR
N R
mine
D ELO
BOS
RIC
MI
LL
Wood
OR
BRAN SA W
Je ssa
SA
RD
MO
H NO
S BURG RD NC
N
E
RO
E LK
ND
RD
KE
N
Fay D
RD
R
TH
Je s ette
sam Co
SOU
ine unty
RD
Co
unt
C ATN ASH y
NE
ROD
XINGTON
IP H GR
I LL OV
EE
E RD
IK K ER
E
HAR
P IK
D
P
OY
TR
EK
LE
NE
RD
RD
CRE
E
TA
KE
N T
RG
A
KS
ES
KM
J AC
DSBU
KE
IC
RE
EN
H
Ma ette
E
E
Fa
O
IN ST
KR
di
D
RR
RD
so
RD
UN
D
HA
L
L
n C unty
ION MI
N MA
R
Co
ou
EA
nty
SP
E
RD
P IK
IN ST
PE A
TION
N
KI
GA
N
S TA
S MA
LO
MILES
P IK
INE
JES SAM 0 1 2
SHORT-TERM BIKEWAY AND SHARED USE TRAIL PROJECTS

E
Fayette County
HIGH COST MODERATE COST LOW COST
BIKEWAY
SHARED USE TRAIL
W
MIL E LLINGTON W AL
M
ITA AB
RY
PIKE RD
D
AY
U
DR S BL
V
RE
PKW
RE
CO
Y
UI
ounty
County
SQ H AY
S
DDI NG LI
RD
M
R D AR
R
D
ford C
MS
PI
RD
N
TR
mine
TO
WINTHR OP
Fay ON
OL
T R EN
RD
BOS
Wood Je s ette T
LONG
G
sam Co
Je ssa B MI
D
ine unty
RD
L LL
RN
RI
Co RD
VD
unt
CH
HO HARTLAN
HARRODSBURG
DE
BRAN y
SA
NO SO
MO
EL K
N
RO
U
D
TH
TA D
ND
RD P
N
OI D
TE
PKW
TH
N R
RD
SC
T
R
OU
Y
KE
RE E
E S
E NE
RD
VERS
K
EN
AIL
TON
RD
L ES
AS
KE
CATNIP HG
RD
LEXI NG
HIL RO
E
L VE
N
RD
PIK
RD
RD
EK
RG
E
PI K
CRE
Y
U
SB
O
OD
KS
TR
NE
H ARR
KEEN
JAC
RD
E RD
E
KE
A
KM
IC
H
E
RD
IN ST
UN
NC
IO N
MI L
L R
S
SS
N 3R
N MA
R A
YPA
E
SP
D
VE
DS
W
NIC
LM A
OLASVILLE B
E
OR E
I
RD RIC H MOND
T
P IK
HO
D
LASV IL L
N R
PEKIN NICHOLASVILLE NA
GA
SU L
PIK
ATIO
LO
E
CH
PH
E
C HR
ST
ISM
WILMOREJE SSAMINE
NI
UR
AIN S
BY
AN
MIL
PA
E L RD
WE
SS
MA
SM
I
LL PIK E
NS
T
BE HO
OV
TH E R
E LR PIKE
D
RD
G E
RID
HB
C
HIG
LE RD N
SU
GA
R
DANVIL
CRE EK PI KE
K MAN RD
RR D
VE
E RD
RI
V ILL
C
HI
DAN
LE
LITT
MILES
0 1 2
SHORT-TERM BIKEWAY AND SHARED USE TRAIL PROJECTS

Jessamine County
HIGH COST MODERATE COST LOW COST
BIKEWAY
SHARED USE TRAIL
7-11
Program Funding Overview
While there is existing sidewalk infrastructure in both Fayette County and Jessamine
County, especially in the downtown centers, there are several streets without sidewalks.
Retrofitting streets with sidewalks can have significant drainage, right-of-way, and
construction costs.
Jessamine County Pedestrian PEER FUNDING SPOTLIGHT
Improvements
Due to the existing sidewalk network • In 2015, Seattle residents voted to
and the aggressive shared use trail approve a nine-year, $930 million
recommendations in Jessamine County, Levy to Seattle, which provides funds
there are no short-term standalone for sidewalk maintenance and repair,
pedestrian improvement projects transit improvements, and Vision
recommended in Jessamine County. Zero safety investments for walking.
A full list of recommended pedestrian • The FY17 CIP in Memphis, TN
improvement projects in Jessamine County allocated $500,000 from general
can be found in Appendix C. obligation bonds for sidewalk
improvements and $2.5M for ADA
Fayette County Pedestrian improvements.
Improvements
Fayette County has significant need for new KEY ACTION STEPS
sidewalk improvements within the Urban
Service Boundary make vital neighborhood • Include pedestrian improvement
connections, increase access to transit, and projects in the local Capital
provide safe access along high-speed and Improvement Program (CIP),
high volume corridors. increasing consistent year-to-
year funding levels.
The total cost summaries highlighted below • Evaluate and rethink a cost-
use planning-level cost estimates with an share program for sidewalk
additional 20% contingency added. Cost maintenance to ensure sidewalk
estimates will be further refined once repair is implemented equitably.
projects enter the preliminary engineering • To increase readiness for grant
phase. funding, develop preliminary
plans (30% construction
Pedestrian Improvement drawings) for priority sidewalk
Short-Term Priorities projects.
Number Total • Leverage private development
Total Sidewalk
of Sidewalk investment by requiring
Cost Estimate
Projects Length pedestrian improvements as part
Fayette of development.
23 9 Miles $3.6M
County
Pedestrian Improvement Program
Funding Scenarios
IRO
NW
ORK
NE W
S PIK
E
TOW
GE
Fayette County Pedestrian Improvement Funding Scenarios
OR
N PI
GE T
KE
OW
RD
M
RD
Payoff Horizon inT
UI
N
SP U
VE
R
RR
Total Cost of Short-Term LE Spending and Miles Per
RD
RD
ST
CA
LE IO
SANDERSV IL
A
E
ES N
L
PI K
TO
SE L
W RD
JAGGI F O
N
N
Priorities
RUS
LLTO
RD
C
IT
AT
E
A
IO
RD
RN
NB D
YA
LV D
N
RD
R
X WAY
$250,000 (0.6 Miles) 14
IO
S
AT
FFE
ALE
ST
OLD
FRA YAN
VD RA BR
ND
LI
NK INO IRO D C
BL
FO ND
D
BRI
E
ME R NA NW R H ILL RD
R
RT A
GRE
C ORK
NE W
IS
PI K E R RD S PIK
R
E
$3.6M (9 Miles) $500,000 (1.3 Miles)ANNIS 7
R
PA
E
D
LD
TOW
RIA
O
GE
RD
ND
TO
OR
N PI
E
XA
N
IC
N
GE T
PR
ALE
TO
KE
RD
DR P
ES
$700,000 (1.8) Miles) 5
OW
RD
M
M
RD
FORBE S
LI
UI
MAN E
KW
E
N
SP U
VE
CH SE L
N
R
RR
LE
RD
Y
E ST V OU
RD ND
ST
DU
CA
LE NKIRK ER EN D TI
LA
SANDERSV IL
A
ST TH ON O
E
ES DR N
L
PI K

TO
NE D R AST
SE L
S RD
S
AVE
JAGGI F O
N
E
RED MI
T
RUS
LLTO
SI
RD R WI NCHESTER RD
C BA
MA
IT
ST
AT
E
A
SE
IO
RD
RN
SO
RT
LEN NB
RO
R TU
HE RD
D
ON WAY
YA
LV D
N
RD
R
X WAY
DEL ADL L
IO
B
PO
S
LA E Y R
AT
CK
FFE
ALE
A
FO
LEXINGTON L
ST
LAN DR D
OLD LIB YAN
O
FRA EA BR
FO
VD RA
ND
LLEN FO ER
LI
NK INO D C
R
RD
CLUB
NT
BL
FO ND
D
TY
R
RLTRD
LL D DP BRI
E
ME R NA CO AI R H ILL RD
R
A
GRE
C E R RD OP NE K
IS
IL PI K LE
P
E AS
R
M E R RD PA RD A BL
R
WY
PA
S D LU N
D
ER
COD
R
LD
VD
M
RIA
RK B
T R ID
PA ANNIS
O
RD
ND
O
ESOE R D
TO
E
DR
XA
N
IC
GE DR
N
PR
ALE
TO
F
RD
HAR
DR P
PAS
O RE S T
FT R
CHIN
A AD
REG ENCY RD
A ZA L BAN
RD
M
RRO EN
O
FORBE S
ND
LI
MAN AL Y RD E
KW
SE E L
A
D
CH
N
DR
O
S
E HILL
W AD DR MA
R
Y
E ST V OU D
ND
TAB
DU D
HE
DR
PEP
NKIRK ER EN D TODDS
M LA RD
P
ST R TH ON
R
D R L D
W E LLINGTO N W RD
MT
E RH
A
AB E S
S
AY N
S
U
EA
AVE
OW ES
RED MI
MIL SD
D
IL
L RD LVI NCHESTER RD
SI
IR
ITAR BW
R
R R
Y PI
LAN
D
U
D
KE P KWY BA
ST
RE
ESWAY D
DR O O R TU Q
DDING S
E
ICO
SE
YS
FI
R
D
N
SO
RT
LV LE
IN
N HA
DR
LAR E
R GA
RO
RD
RE
HD
ON WAY
L
E
KB
R A IM
WIL
CE
RO D D L
B
B
PO
D
O EL L SO
P
Y
LA E Y R N D CK
A
O RD
KW
LEXINGTON
NT
L
DR
DO
N
RE
N
D DR R
F
LAN O DR WN P LIB
O
EA
FO
W
ST
ING FO KH
G
LLEN B C ER
ON
RD AR U
CLUB
NT
BO
R
OP
TY
R
DP
YN
RD CO D AI M
DEL
L OP K
D
NE LE
EL L
IL H
WINTHR
TREN
P
ER
ST R
FayAM H TR AS
NC
M PA RD A BL
WY
S e ILL S D D O L N
BL
J t VD
R Co D R NG
te
COD
e ss R UM
KE
C
RG RD
VD
am
P AR ine unty B
L EA
T R I D I CH M
MI
Co RTLAN R LL
D
OL
O
unt RW HA
CHINOE R D
y D W RD
DR
RD
DR
SA
HARRODSBU
SO
GE DR ON
AT
UT E
H ARRODSBU RG RD
F
Y N
PK
NT R A
O OD
HAR H I
E
P
O RE S T
T A W
KE
F R BRANN SAD P A DR
WY
O
REG ENCY RD
A ZA L BA
TA
ON R E
RD
SA
RRO DN ND NY ABB
O
TE
A AL O EY W
D
E RD
R
DR
O
SC
S
HILL
W AD DR
D
TAB
D
N P E RH IL
N RD
D
HE
DR
PEP
M DR TODDS
RE
RD
RD
R
R
N G L D
W E LLI TO N W RD
MT
A
AB NE
GTO
AY
K
U
OW ES
RD
MIL SD
D
L RD V
U IR
ITAR BL
IN
Y PI R
LAN
D
KE P KWY
LEX
RE
E
ESWAY D
Q
DDINAG S
PIK
ICO
C ATN
YS
FI
R
D
LV SH
IN
IP H HA
DR
LAR E
R R GA
G
RE
I LL D
L
EK
O
KB
R IM
WIL
CE
RO RD VE
B
O SO R
P
Y
D D
CRE
ND O RD
KW
NT
DR
RE
N
O OW DR R
P
O
W NI
ST
KH
KS
G
NG B C
ON
A U
BO
RD
OP
RM
YN
JAC
DEL
D
H MILES
WINTHR
TRENT
ST R
FayAM H
NC
0 1 2
BL
SHORT-TERM PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

VD G
CL
Co
RG RD
sam
ine unty R
MI
LL
EA
Co RTL A D
OL
unt RW H A N D W RD
y
Fayette County
RD
DR
SA
HARRODSBU
SO
AT
UT E
H ARRODSBU RG RD
Y N
PK
HP INT D R
I CH
WA
O OD
E
KE
BRAN
WY
O
NON
TA
R
SA
MO
RD ABB
TE
O EY W
R
SC
N
N
N RD
DR
RE
RD
E
HIGH COST
GTO
K
RD
IN
MODERATE COST
LEX
E
PIK
C ATN AS
IP H LOW COST HG
I LL RO
EK
RD VE
RD
CRE
KS
JAC
MILES
0 1 2
SHORT-TERM PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 7-13
Fayette County
Project Implementation Flow Chart
This plan recommends the creation of a more integrated and strategic Project Delivery
Process to be used by all jurisdictions, especially in regard to public engagement and project
evaluation.
Consistency is critical to provide the public a general understanding of how a project will be
developed, designed, and implemented.
Project Cutsheets
The following pages offer detailed information on each of the selected priority projects,
including individual project maps. These sheets were designed based on the types of
information required by potential funding partners, and feature the following information:
• Project length • Traffic Volumes (AADTs)
• Facility Types • Projected Future Traffic Volumes
• Jurisdiction • Estimated Construction Costs
• Trip Generators • Estimated Land Acquisition Costs
• ROW needs • Annotated Map of Project Corridor
Project Cutsheets
Limestone Cycle Track....................................page 7-16
Town Branch Commons

Access Points.......................................................page 7-18
Alumni Drive Shared Use Trail....................page 7-22
Old Vine Bicycle Boulevard..........................page 7-24
Harrodsburg Road
Shared Use Trail.................................................page 7-26
Man O’ War Boulevard

Intersection Improvement...........................page 7-28
7-15
Limestone Cycle Track
An all ages and abilities bikeway through the
heart of downtown Lexington.
About this project Existing Conditions

• Two-way separated Limestone between Short
bike lane from Vine St and Barr (looking NE)
to Loudon Ave
• Would provide
connections to Town
Branch Commons,
Phoenix Park, the
Central Library, and
the Fayette County
Courthouse
• Opportunity to re-
purpose underutilized 8’ 12’ 12’ 12’
vehicle and parking 44’ Curb to Curb
lanes to create a low-
stress bicycle facility
Opportunities + Constraints
TRIANGLE AADT: TRANSYLVANIA

PARK UNIVERSITY Constraint: 30’ curb-to-
MILL
6,974
curb restricts cycle track and
FOURTH
buffer width to the minimum

GRATZ PARK
recommended dimensions unless
curbs and utilities are moved
LIMESTONE CYCLE TRACK

PHOENIX
SIXTH
PARK LEXINGTON DUNCAN

CENTRAL STEAM
MLK
TRAD MAGNET PARK
LIBRARY ACADEMY
SCHOOL
LOUDON
Opportunity: Wide
travel lanes and
underutilized on-
street parking
BRYA N
ELM TREE CASTLEWOOD
ROSE PARK
VINE
EXISTING + FUNDED THOROUGHBRED

PROPOSED
PARK MAJOR BIKEWAY
MINOR BIKEWAY FEET N
LOCAL BIKEWAY 0 500 1,000
Proposed Improvements: N Limestone at 4th St

Paint and flex posts
can be used as an
Reconfigure Limestone with a alternative to a raised
two-way Cycle Track, planted planted median for a
median, on-street parking, and short-term, low-cost
one standard travel lane pilot project
Bike signals facilitate

contra-flow (SW-
bound) bicycle
Funded movements and create
bike lanes protected signal
on 4th St phases for bicyclists
using the cycle track
Install R10-15 (variant)

signage at SE corner to Green skip striping
remind people driving to identifies potential conflict
yield to people bicycling areas and guides bicyclists
through the intersection
| 11’ | 8’ | 5’ | 12’ |
N
36’ Curb to Curb
Priority Score: 100 Estimated Cost:

$100,000
0 100
7-17
Town Branch Commons
Access Points
Improving connections to one of the region’s signature
active transportation and recreation projects.

• Improvements at Town Branch Commons (Vine St)
Planned bikeway
three key north-south at MLK Blvd (Looking NW)
connections to Town
Branch Commons
•Leverages existing funding
to advance the active
transportation system Funded
two-way
• Prioritize low-stress separated
facility connections for bike lane
users of all ages and

abilities
Providing a connection to from MLK to Town Branch Commons (on Vine St)
requires overcoming a significant grade change from the MLK overcrossing.
TRANSYLVANIA UNIVERSITY CHARLES NS

O
Opportunity: YOUNG
M
M
Opportunity: Topography on MLK PARK

LIMESTONE
JEFFERSON
GRATZ
CO
Town Branch Commons Access Points
Potential for a raised PARK is mostly flat, with

H
cycle track north of low traffic volumes

NC
High St. and speed limits.

A
BR
PHOENIX THOROUGH-
N
PARK BRED PARK

W
TO
TRIANGLE CENTRAL
PARK LIBRARY
E
VI
N
N S
MO
WOODLAND
COM OLD VINE ST

NCH Constraint: AADT
RA
ROSE ST
MILL ST
NB
MLK BLVD
W is approximately
TO 8,000 on Rose St. WOODLAND
KASTLE
PARK
SOUTHEND
PARK CARVER
PARK UNIVERSITY
OF KENTUCKY
EXISTING + FUNDED PROPOSED

MAJOR BIKEWAY
MINOR BIKEWAY FEET
LOCAL BIKEWAY 0 1,000 2,000 N
Proposed Improvements: Town Branch Commons Access Prioritization

TRANSYLVANIA UNIVERSITY CHARLES
YOUNG
PARK
LIMESTONE
JEFFERSON
GRATZ
PARK
PHOENIX THOROUGH-
PARK BRED PARK
TRIANGLE CENTRAL MAIN ST
PARK LIBRARY
VI
E
N
HIGH ST
OLD VINE ST
WOODLAND
ROSE ST
MILL ST
MLK BLVD
WOODLAND
PARK
SOUTHEND
PARK CARVER
PARK UNIVERSITY
OF KENTUCKY
+ FUNDED PROPOSED
1.
MAJOR BIKEWAY
MINOR BIKEWAY FEET
The alley next to MLK
LOCAL BIKEWAY 0 1,000 2,000
Boulevard between
Main Street and the
town branch commons
2. is recommended as
the primary connector
A raised cycle track along between the two
Mill Street, between universities and Town
Vine Street and High Branch Commons.
3.
Street is recommended. Rose Street is to have
While this serves an shared-lane markings, as
important connection, a third route option for
the steep grade makes it those accessing Town
challenging. Branch Commons.
7-19
Town Branch Commons
Access Points (continued)
Improving connections to one of the region’s signature
active transportation and recreation projects.
Proposed Improvement: Alley connection at MLK and Main
BEFORE
MLK Blvd Priority Score: 100

Estimated Cost:
0 100 $127,900
Martin Luther King Blvd between High Street and Main Street

6’ 16’ 11’ 11’ 6’
SIDEWALK TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE TURN LANE SIDEWALK
38’ CURB TO CURB
6’ 11’ 11’ 4’ 12’ 6’

SIDEWALK TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE BUFFER 2-WAY CYCLE TRACK SIDEWALK
38’ CURB TO CURB
7-21
Alumni Drive
Shared Use Trail
A wide off-street trail with a landscaped
buffer along Alumni Drive.

• 12’ paved shared use Alumni Dr near Turkey
trail from Tates Creek Foot Rd (looking NW)
Rd to Chinroe Rd Available ROW
• Connects to existing
trail and bike lanes on
University of Kentucky
campus
• Provides active
transportation
connection to Lextran
Route #3 along Tates
12’
Creek Rd Varies: 50’ Typical; 20’ Min 5’ 12’ 5’
34’ Pavement Width
ECTON PARK
CH
AADT: Opportunity:
IN
Available ROW for

RO
12,469
majority of corridor
E RD
Alumni Drive Shared Use Trail
AL
UNIVERSITY UM SHARE
OF KENTUCKY NI DRIVE D
US
E T
RAIL ALUMNI
TAT
ES
Constraint: Utility
CR
and light poles

EE
approximately
KR
6’ from edge of Constraint: ROW is constrained

D
pavement on both between Old Mt. Tabor Rd and

sides of Alumni Dr Chinroe Rd. Will likely require
ROW acquisition.

MAJOR BIKEWAY
MINOR BIKEWAY FEET
LOCAL BIKEWAY 0 500 1,000 N
Proposed Improvements: Alumni Dr near Turkey Foot Rd
Alumni Drive Shared Use Trail

Minimum
6’ wide
Wayfinding landscaped
signage buffer
12’ wide
shared
use trail
Right-of-Way Analysis
CH
IN
RO
ER
N I D R I V
U M E
D
A L
S I TY
TA
TUCKY
TE
S
CR
EE
KR
Approximately 20-50’ of ROW

D
is available on the SW side of

Alumni Dr. This creates enough
room for a 12’ wide shared use
trail with a 8’ landscaped buffer.
Property lines about 50 feet from edge of roadway

FEET
N
Property lines between 50 and 20 feet from edge of roadway

0 500 1,000
Property lines are less than 20 feet from edge of roadway

$1,425,000
0 100
7-23
Old Vine
Bicycle Boulevard
A low-stress shared roadway, with traffic calming elements
to prioritize people on bike.

• Will provide Central Ave, looking SE
comfortable and safe towards Ashland Ave
connectivity on Central
Ave, Ashland Ave, and
Fincastle Rd
• Adjacent destinations
include the E. Main St
corridor, Woodland
Park, and connections
to downtown Lexington
• Creates all ages and
abilities alternative to E 7’ 10.5’ 10.5’ 7’
Main St and E High St 35’ Curb to Curb
E
AV
Opportunity:
D
AN
Available ROW for Opportunity:

DL
THOROUGH-
MI
connections on Low traffic volumes,

Old Vine Bicycle Boulevard
BRED PARK Ashland. available ROW,

and few busy cross RICHMOND RD
E MAIN ST
ROSE
N
RY C LAY BLVD
VI
streets.
E
CLAYS
SPRING
E/ HEN
EH PARK
IGH WOODLAND
ASHLAND
WOODLAND
ST
PARK
CHINO
E
2 FONTA IN
E MAXWELL ST
UNIVERSITY
OF KENTUCKY

MAJOR BIKEWAY
MINOR BIKEWAY FEET
LOCAL BIKEWAY 0 1,000 2,000 N
Proposed Improvements: Ashland between Central and Fincastle
Old Vine Bicycle Boulevard

Add two-way, separated cycle track
on Ashland to facilitate safe and direct
bicycle connections between Central
and Fincastle.
Precedent: Seattle Bicycle Boulevard
A mini traffic circle slows traffic Bicycle-oriented wayfinding

at intersections and provides an provides distances to
opportunity for beautification. destinations.
Shared lane markings emphasize

priority for cyclists.
Speed humps slow traffic and

improve safety.

$136,300
0 100
7-25
Harrodsburg Road
Shared-Use Trail
A regional trail connection southwest of Lexington
between Jessamine and Fayette County.
• Will create safe walking and Central Ave, looking SE

towards Ashland Ave
biking path through rural,
residential, and commercial
areas of Jessamine and
Fayette Counties, serving as
a connection from Lexington
to Nicholasville and Wilmore
•Forms continuous 3 1/2 mile
recreation and commuter
trail along busy arterial road
• Connects to the existing
23’ median 12’ 12’ 12’
6-mile trail
111’ Edge of Pavement to Edge of Pavement
DOGWOOD
PARK
OD
WO
DOG
KH ORN
Harrodsburg Road Shared-Use Path
SOUTH E L
AY
OA W
Opportunity: Large
DW
SPRING RUN
Y R NE
amount of ROW for

shared-use path
WA
PAL
M
E
ETT
ON
O
RD
DR
DR
L
Constraint: Wall along
IL
MA
M Harrodsburg near Wind Haven

AN RED-USE PATH
W
M Dr.
SHA
BO RG
HA
RRO
D DSBU
SBU O
RG RR
HA Constraint: Light poles
Fayette
approximately 7’ from edge
County
of pavement on both sides of
Harrodsburg Rd.

MAJOR BIKEWAY
MINOR BIKEWAY
LOCAL BIKEWAY
Proposed New Cross Sections for Harrodsburg Road
Short-Term, Low Cost Long-Term, High Cost
Harrodsburg Road Shared-Use Path

Travel 1’ 5’ 5’ Travel 1’ 10’ Varies 12’
Lanes Lanes Paved Shared
Rumble Buffer Bike Rumble Shoulder Use Trail
Strip Lane Strip

(Short-Term): $264,500
0 100 (Long-Term): $7,011,800
N RD
NO
Jessamine
BRAN
County Opportunity: Large

amount of ROW for
shared-use path
HARRODSBUR
G
FEET
N
0 750 1,500
7-27

BPMP Master Plan Reduced

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BPMP Master Plan Reduced

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TY

About the ConnectLex Plan............ 1-2

Existing Conditions Analysis........... 2-2

What We Heard................................... 3-2 Prioritization Methodology............. 6-2

RECOMMENDATIONS MAKING IT HAPPEN

Introduction........................................... 4-2 How Do we Make it Happen?......... 7-2

Prepared for: Prepared by:

An overview of the content of the Lexington Area

How Do We Get There?

Enhance Connectivity Improve Health

Encourage Economic Growth Increase Safety

Promote Equity Increase Mobility

Health and Environmental Benefits

Accessibility and Mobility Benefits

We Heard that Walking & Biking in

House Map Lexington, Wilmore, and Nicholasville

E Phone • Be a way for children to get to school

Local News • Connect existing shared use trails

‘On the Table’ • Provide a way for residents and visitors to

"Routes that Could be

"Routes that Could be

Designing Bikeways For All Users

Designing for ages

Strong and Enthused and Interested but No Way, Strong and

Bike lanes, trails, and low-speed

PROPOSED MILEAGE SUMMARY

218 miles TOTAL 79 miles

EXISTING AND PROPOSED

Similar to the development of the proposed INVENTORY MISSING

PROPOSED MILEAGE SUMMARY

103 miles TOTAL 36 miles

SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

• Develop a Tactical Urbanism Policy • Organize a Safety Campaign Task

• Update Existing Sidewalk, Bikeway,

• Improve Bike and Pedestrian Access • Host an Annual ConnectLex

in Construction Zones Workshop

• Evaluate Program Staffing Needs for • Develop a Transportation Demand

Plan Implementation Management Action Plan

• Host a Low-Cost Sidewalk Design • Identify a Program Funding Strategy

Facility Type • Develop an Interactive Program

• Develop a Bicycle Wayfinding and • Update Traffic Impact Study

• Develop Sidewalk Design Standards • Coordinate with Lextran to Improve

• Develop Public Art in the Right-of- • Conduct a Health and Economic

Fayette County Key Projects Jessamine County Key Projects

• North Limestone Bike/Ped • Lexington Road (29) Shared Use

The purpose of the Lexington Area Bicycle and

An Update to the 2007 Plan

How To Get There

Enhance Connectivity Improve Health

Encourage Economic Growth Increase Safety

Promote Equity Increase Mobility

Health and Environmental Benefits

THE AVERAGE BIKE COMMUTER REDUCES

PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS WITHIN ONE BLOCK OF THE EIGHT-

HOUSES IN HIGHLY WALKABLE

BUILDING SIDEWALK AND BICYCLE FACILITIES CREATES 36%

ON AVERAGE, 30% OF ALL TRIPS WE MAKE ARE FOR A DISTANCE OF TWO

COMPLETE STREETS DESIGN RESULTS IN INCREASED MOBILITY OPTIONS

PEDESTRIANS CYCLISTS PASSENGERS MOTORISTS CYCLISTS PEDESTRIANS

SPEED + SURVIVABILITY IN CRASHES

25 MPH 35 MPH 45 MPH

Type of Analysis... To Understand...

Review of Current Bikeway Opportunities and barriers to