Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BPMP Master Plan Reduced
BPMP Master Plan Reduced
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
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
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
03 06
Prioritization Results.........................6-3
Developing a Strategy.......................6-4
Cost Estimate Summary.................6-12
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
Pedestrian Improvement
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.
E-4 l Lexington, KY
Executive
Summary
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.”
E-6 l Lexington, KY
The Value Of Walkable And
Bicycle-Friendly Communities
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.
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
Social
Media • Dangerous on narrow rural roads
ER
Blasts
ST
AK
EE Open On-line
• Lacking bikeway connections between
AL PUB
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-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
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
0 Mercer1.5
County
Boyle County
3
MILES
I High Support
E-10 l Lexington, KY
Interested but Concerned (60%)
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.
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).
E-12 l Lexington, KY
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
FAYETTE JESSAMINE
PEDESTRIAN
71 miles Sidewalk 8 miles
IMPROVEMENT
32 miles Shared Use Trails 28 miles PROJECTS
E-14 l Lexington, KY
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
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
E-16 l Lexington, KY
Framework: Design & Evaluation (Cont.)
DESIGN EVALUATION
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
E-18 l Lexington, KY
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
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.
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.”
1-3
The Value Of Walkable And
Bicycle-Friendly Communities
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
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
1-5
Accessibility and Mobility Benefits
TRAVEL SHEDS
1-6 l Lexington, KY
Safety Benefits
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.
2-2 l Lexington, KY
Walkway + Bikeway Types And
Mileage In The Region
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
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
2-8 l Lexington, KY
Bike And Pedestrian
Crash Analysis
“Lexington needs to consider safe ways to offer walking and
cycling.”
- LEXINGTON RESIDENT
80 200
60 150
40 100
20 50
0 0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
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
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
P IKE
DANVIL
Ga rra rd County
MILES
0 0.5 1
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
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
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
Je s ette ILLS D R ON
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
Fayette County
1
2012 - 2016
2
3-4
5-6
7-9
2-12 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
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
P IKE
DANVIL
Ga rra rd County
MILES
0 0.5 1
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.
10%
8%
MINNEAPOLIS
6%
4%
LOUISVILLE DURHAM LEXINGTON
2%
0%
-2%
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.
2-14 l Lexington, KY
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 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
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
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:
2-16 l Lexington, KY
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
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.
2-18 l Lexington, KY
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
2-19
Chapter 3:
What We Heard
Social
Media
ER
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
3-2 l Lexington, KY
Outreach Events
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
4-3
Framework: Policies & Programs
POLICIES PROGRAMS
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
4-4 l Lexington, KY
Framework: Design & Evaluation (Cont.)
DESIGN EVALUATION
4-5
Policy Spotlight
4-6 l Lexington, KY
Example: Seattle Vision for Safe Streets
4-7
Program Spotlight
OUTREACH AND
COMMUNICATION THROUGH
MAPPING BRING IT TO LEXINGTON!
4-8 l Lexington, KY
Example: Municipal + University Bike & Ped Maps
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
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
Park On Lake
Trail The Eno Penny’s
ORAN
Bend
DURH
Nature
Preserve
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
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
forest/maps_sale.cgi
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
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
(ATT)
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
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.
4-9
Design Spotlight
2. Coordination: Evaluate existing plans, priorities, potential development, and identify all
stakeholders along the corridors.
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.
4-10 l Lexington, KY
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.”
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.
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.
4-12 l Lexington, KY
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.
4-14 l Lexington, KY
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.
Check, update, and repair Check annually All signs should be checked after
signage Repair every 5-10 years major weather events
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+
4-16 l Lexington, KY
Maintenance Recommendations
The action steps below provide guidance for improving and maintaining both existing and
future bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Action Steps
4-17
Chapter 5:
Developing the
Networks
Chapter Overview
This chapter provides the necessary steps and guidance for delivering the
recommendations of this Plan and is organized into the following sections:
5-2 l Lexington, KY
Our Approach
The proposed network seeks to:
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
5-3
Designing Bikeways For All Users
Interested but Concerned (60%)
SOURCE: www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/264746
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
SOURCE: www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/264746
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.
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
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
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
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
5-7
Developing the MAJOR BIKEWAY: MAINLINE ROUTES
Bikeway Network
Bikeway 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).
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
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
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.
5-10 l Lexington, KY
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
5-11
Identifying
Pedestrian STEP 1
Bikeway Network
FAYETTE JESSAMINE
PEDESTRIAN
71 miles Sidewalk 8 miles
IMPROVEMENT
32 miles Shared Use Trails 28 miles
PROJECTS
Intersections
5-12 l Lexington, KY
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.
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
Preferred Operating
Vision loss Space
Difficulty hearing vehicles approaching 5’ (1.5 m)
from behind
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.
4 Hybrid Beacon X X 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
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.
5-14 l Lexington, KY
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
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
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
5-16 l Lexington, KY
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
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.
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/.
5-18 l Lexington, KY
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
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 diagram below highlights best practices for pedestrian facility design at intersections.
Network
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.
5-20 l Lexington, KY
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
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
Je s ette ILLS D R ON
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
C ATN AS
IP H HG
I LL RO
EK
RD VE
RD improvements.
CRE
KS
JAC
MILES
0 0.5 1
Fayette County
PROPOSED SIDEWALK NETWORK
Intersections
5-22 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
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
See Appendix C for the
full list of intersection
CR
EEK
improvements.
RD
P IKE
DANVIL
Ga rra rd County
MILES
0 0.5 1
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Intersections
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Jessamine County
PROPOSED SIDEWALK NETWORK
5-23
Chapter 6:
Identifying
Priorities
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
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
Jessamine County
LONG-TERM PROJECT
MID-TERM PR
EXISTING AND FUNDED BIKEWAY NETWORK
LONG-TERM P
PROPOSED SIDEWALK NETWORK
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
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
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
SHORT-TERM LONG-TERM
BIKEWAY 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
SHORT-TERM LONG-TERM
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
SHORT-TERM LONG-TERM
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
SHORT-TERM LONG-TERM
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
SHORT-TERM LONG-TERM
BIKEWAY PROJECT
6-10 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
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
P IKE
DANVIL
Ga rra rd County
MILES
0 0.5 1
NETWORK PRIORITIES
MID- AND
Wilmore and
SHORT-TERM LONG-TERM
BIKEWAY PROJECT
Nicholasville
SHARED USE TRAIL PROJECT
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.
6-12 l Lexington, KY
Planning Level Cost Estimates Per Linear Foot by Facility Type
ADMINISTRATION
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
6-13
Chapter 7:
Making it
Happen
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:
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
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.
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.
BICYCLE-FRIENDLY
WALK-FRIENDLY COMMUNITIES
COMMUNITIES
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.
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.
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
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
Fayette County
HIGH COST MODERATE COST LOW COST
BIKEWAY
7-10 l Lexington, KY
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
7-11
Pedestrian Improvement
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
7-12 l Lexington, KY
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
Years for Short-Term
E
ES N
L
PI K
TO
SE L
Projects and Mileage Year
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
Je s ette ILLS D R ON
BL
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
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.
7-14 l Lexington, KY
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
Harrodsburg Road
Shared Use Trail.................................................page 7-26
7-15
Limestone Cycle Track
An all ages and abilities bikeway through the
heart of downtown Lexington.
Opportunities + Constraints
LOUDON
Opportunity: Wide
travel lanes and
underutilized on-
street parking
BRYA N
ELM TREE CASTLEWOOD
ROSE PARK
VINE
7-16 l Lexington, KY
Proposed Improvements: N Limestone at 4th St
| 11’ | 8’ | 5’ | 12’ |
N
7-17
Town Branch Commons
Access Points
Improving connections to one of the region’s signature
active transportation and recreation projects.
Opportunities + Constraints
GRATZ
CO
Town Branch Commons Access Points
PHOENIX THOROUGH-
N
TRIANGLE CENTRAL
PARK LIBRARY
E
VI
N
N S
MO
WOODLAND
NB
MLK BLVD
W is approximately
TO 8,000 on Rose St. WOODLAND
KASTLE
PARK
SOUTHEND
PARK CARVER
PARK UNIVERSITY
OF KENTUCKY
7-18 l Lexington, KY
Proposed Improvements: Town Branch Commons Access Prioritization
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
Town Branch Commons Access Points
7-20 l Lexington, KY
Martin Luther King Blvd between High Street and Main Street
7-21
Alumni Drive
Shared Use Trail
A wide off-street trail with a landscaped
buffer along Alumni Drive.
• 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
Opportunities + Constraints
ECTON PARK
CH
AADT: Opportunity:
IN
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
approximately
KR
7-22 l Lexington, KY
Proposed Improvements: Alumni Dr near Turkey Foot Rd
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
7-23
Old Vine
Bicycle Boulevard
A low-stress shared roadway, with traffic calming elements
to prioritize people on bike.
Opportunities + Constraints
E
AV
Opportunity:
D
AN
THOROUGH-
MI
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
7-24 l Lexington, KY
Proposed Improvements: Ashland between Central and Fincastle
7-25
Harrodsburg Road
Shared-Use Trail
A regional trail connection southwest of Lexington
between Jessamine and Fayette County.
Opportunities + Constraints
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
PAL
M
E
ETT
ON
O
RD
DR
DR
L
Constraint: Wall along
IL
MA
Fayette
approximately 7’ from edge
County
of pavement on both sides of
Harrodsburg Rd.
7-26 l Lexington, KY
Proposed New Cross Sections for Harrodsburg Road
Jessamine
BRAN
HARRODSBUR
G
FEET
N
0 750 1,500
7-27