05-21-2018 GIAMPO - Technical Advisory Committee Regular Meeting PacketGIAMPO – Technical Advisory Committee
Monday, May 21, 2018
10:00 am @ City Hall - Community Meeting Room
100 E 1st Street, Grand Island, NE 68801
AGENDA
1.Call to Order
This is a public meeting subject to the open meetings laws of the State of Nebraska.
The requirements for an open meeting are posted on the wall in this room and anyone
that wants to find out what those are is welcome to read through them.
2.Roll Call
3.Approval of Minutes from the April 9, 2018 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
4.Discussion on Long Range Transportation Plan Revisions Relating to Highway Funding
Projections and Fiscally Constrained Projects
5.MPO Financial Update
6.Approval Recommendation of Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
7.Next Meeting
8.Adjournment
Special Accommodations: Please notify the City of Grand Island at 308-385-5444 if you require special
accommodations to attend this meeting (i.e., interpreter services, large print, reader, hearing assistance).
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 1 / 180
Technical Advisory Committee
Monday, May 21, 2018
Regular Session
Item C1
Approval of Minutes from the April 9, 2018 Technical Advisory
Committee Meeting
Staff Contact: Chad Nabity, Regional Planning Director
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 2 / 180
GRAND ISLAND AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (GIAMPO)
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) MINUTES
April 9, 2018 at 10:00 am
Grand Island City Hall – Community Meeting Room
100 E 1st Street, Grand Island, NE 68801
Voting Members in Attendance:
Keith Kurz, City of Grand Island, Assistant Public Works Director Present
John Collins, City of Grand Island, Public Works Director Present
Marlan Ferguson, City of Grand Island, City Administrator Present
Chad Nabity, Hall County Regional Planning Director Present
Steve Riehle, Hall County Public Works Director Present
Mike Meyer, Merrick County Hwy Superintendent Present
Wes Wahlgren, NDOT District 4 Engineer Present
Paul Gavin, NDOT Highway Planning Manager Present
Ramona Schafer, Village of Alda Absent
Mike Olson, Central Nebraska Regional Airport Present
Charley Falmlen, City of Grand Island Transit Program Manager Present
Non-Voting Members in Attendance:
Bentley Tomlin, Burling Northern Santa Fe Railroad Absent
Allan Zafft, City of Grand Island MPO Program Manager Present
Shannon Callahan, City of Grand Island Street Superintendent Absent
VACANT, City of Grand Island Finance Director Absent
William Clingman, City of Grand Island Asst. Finance Director Absent
Catrina DeLosh, City of Grand Island Public Works Admin Assistant Present
Tim Golka, City of Grand Island Project Manager Present
Jerry Janulewicz, City of Grand Island City Attorney Present
VACANT, City of Grand Island Assistant to the City Administrator Absent
Erich Hines, FHWA, Transportation Planner, Realty Civil Rights Absent
Justin Luther, FHWA, Transportation Planner, Realty, Civil Rights Absent
VACANT, FTA Community Planner Absent
Logan Daniels, FTA Transportation Program Specialist Absent
Daniel Nguyen, FTA Community Planner Absent
Cindy Johnson, Grand Island Area Chamber of Commerce Present
Mary Berlie, Grand Island Area Economic Development Corporation Absent
VACANT, NDOT Local Projects Engineer Absent
Kaine McClelland, NDOT State Modeler Absent
Mark Fischer, NDOT Assistant Planning Engineer Present
Jeff Soula, NDOT Local Projects Urban Engineer Absent
Kyle Nodgaard, Union Pacific Railroad Absent
Kelli O’Brien, Union Pacific Railroad Absent
Others in Attendance:
Rashad Moxey, City of Grand Island Planning Technician
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 3 / 180
2 | Page
2018/4/9 TAC Meeting Minutes
Call to Order
Nabity called the meeting to order at 10:00 am. The Nebraska Open Meetings Act was
acknowledged.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken.
Approval of Minutes from the February 12, 2018 Technical Advisory Committee
Motion by Olson to approve the minutes of the February 12, 2018 meeting, seconded by Wahlgren.
Riehle questioned the proper name of the City’s Transit Program Manager; Charlene Falmlen or
Charley Falmlen. Falmlen confirmed Charley Falmlen is the appropriate name to be used for all
purposes. Upon voice vote, all voted aye; with the correction of Charlene Falmlen to Charley
Falmlen. Motion adopted.
Approval Recommendation of Final Draft FY 2019-2023 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
Zafft provided a copy of the Draft FY 2019-2023 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for
review and noted this is updated every year with a thirty (30) day public comment period. Public
outreach consists of publication in the Grand Island Independent, posting on the City of Grand Island
Public Works Facebook, Twitter, and website, and by providing paper copies at Grand Island City Hall.
Projects of note in the TIP are US Highway 30 West Realignment, US Highway 30 Bridges, US Highway
2 Resurfacing Cairo-Grand Island, and 5 Points Intersection Improvements; as well as Transit projects
of Urban Transit Operating Assistance, Rural Transit Operating Assistance, and Transit Facility.
Motion by Wahlgren to approve the Final Draft FY 2019-2023 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP), seconded by Collins. Upon voice vote, all voted aye. Motion adopted.
Approval Recommendation of MPO Self-Certification
Zafft informed TAC that GIAMPO must comply with federal requirements regarding the metropolitan
planning process to continue receiving federal transportation funds. The MPO Self-Certification
confirms that the planning process is being carried out in accordance with all applicable requirements
set forth in 23 CFR 450.336. There is no separate public comment period for this item, as it is
included in the Draft FY 2019-2023 TIP notice.
Motion by Riehle to approve MPO Self-Certification, seconded by Ferguson. Upon voice vote, all vote
aye. Motion adopted.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 4 / 180
3 | Page
2018/4/9 TAC Meeting Minutes
Approval Recommendation Final Draft Long Range Transportation Plan Amendment No. 4
Zafft updated TAC on adjusted total estimates for three (3) NDOT projects, which consist of US
Highway 30 Bridges (increased from $2.924M to $4.648M), US Highway 2 Resurfacing Cairo-Grand
Island (increased from $3.754M to $9.215M) and US Highway 30 West Realignment (increased from
$29.681M to $30.693M). In particular, the increase in the federal-aid amount of the total estimate
for the Hwy 2 resurfacing project triggered an amendment to the Long Range Transportation Plan. In
addition to accounting for project cost increases Amendment No. 4 also addresses modifications in
Chapter 7 – Financial Plan, Chapter 9 – Recommended Plan, and a new section in Chapter 3 (Section
3.4) relating to performance management. There will be a thirty (30) day public comment period for
Amendment No. 4.
Motion by Collins to approve the Final Draft Long Range Transportation Plan Amendment No. 4, with
Olson seconding. Upon voice vote, all voted aye. Motion adopted.
Approval Recommendation of Final Draft FY 2019 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP)
Zafft presented the Draft FY 2019 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), which identifies planning
priorities and activities to be carried out within GIAMPO’s metropolitan planning area. There will be
a fifteen (15) day public comment period.
Motion by Riehle to approve Final Draft FY 2019 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), seconded
by Olson. Upon voice vote, all vote aye. Motion adopted.
Bike/Ped Plan Update
Nabity informed TAC that City staff has reviewed and commented on the initial Bike/Ped Plan, with a
revised plan expected from the consultant by mid-April 2018. A public open house is planned for late
May 2018 at the City Library.
Next Meeting Date
The next Meeting of the TAC will be on June 11, 2018 at 10:00 am.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Nabity adjourned the meeting at 10:44 am.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 5 / 180
Technical Advisory Committee
Monday, May 21, 2018
Regular Session
Item H1
Discussion on Long Range Transportation Plan Revisions Relating to
Highway Funding Projections and Fiscally Constrained Projects
Staff Contact: Allan Zafft, MPO Program Manager
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 6 / 180
DRAFT - May 10, 2018
Existing Long Range Transportation Plan ($Millions)
NDOT
Revenue/
Costs
YearMotor Vehicle Sales TaxWheel TaxStormwater SurchargeProperty TaxRental Car OccupationMiscellaneousMunicipal Highway AllocationNebraska Build ActMotor Vehicle FeeMotor Vehicle Fee Pro-Rate*MiscellaneousFederal Funds Purchase Program (STP)Federal Funds Purchase Program (Bridge)Total Local & State - RevenuesOperations & MaintenanceCIP- Federal/State-RelatedCIP - Non-Regional RelatedCIP - Regional RelatedTotal Local - CostsRemainingNHPPITSHSIPEarmarkTotal - Federal Revenues/CostsNDOT Revenue/CostsGrowth
Rate 3.50%-1.15%---1.10%-2.68%2.35%-1.10%-
2016 $1.46 $0.00 $0.00 $2.00 $0.00 $0.03 $4.47 $0.19 $0.40 $0.00 $0.04 $0.87 $0.02 $9.48 $6.54 $0.15 $1.00 $0.47 $8.15 $1.33 $0.00 $0.00 $1.00 $0.00 $1.00 $0.11
2017 $1.55 $0.00 $0.00 $2.23 $0.00 $0.10 $4.75 $0.19 $0.40 $0.00 $0.05 $0.90 $0.02 $10.20 $6.35 $3.39 $2.07 $0.15 $11.97 -$1.78 $11.45 $0.00 $0.73 $0.36 $12.53 $2.85
2018 $1.60 $1.20 $0.15 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $5.04 $0.19 $0.41 $1.09 $0.04 $0.92 $0.02 $10.82 $5.77 $0.38 $0.48 $3.35 $9.97 $0.84 $12.35 $0.00 $1.12 $0.00 $13.46 $3.56
2019 $1.66 $1.50 $0.30 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $5.35 $0.19 $0.42 $1.12 $0.04 $0.93 $0.02 $11.68 $6.06 $1.68 $1.38 $2.10 $11.22 $0.47 $0.00 $0.00 $0.58 $0.00 $0.58 $26.69
2020 $1.71 $0.00 $0.30 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $5.44 $0.19 $0.44 $1.14 $0.04 $0.94 $0.02 $10.38 $6.37 $0.80 $0.69 $3.00 $10.86 -$0.47 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.01
2021 $1.77 $0.00 $0.31 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $5.50 $0.19 $0.45 $1.17 $0.04 $0.95 $0.02 $10.56 $6.68 $0.62 $0.70 $6.61 $14.61 -$4.06 $7.29 $0.00 $1.12 $0.00 $8.41 $1.67
2022 $1.84 $0.00 $0.31 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $5.56 $0.19 $0.46 $1.20 $0.04 $0.96 $0.02 $10.73 $7.02 $0.08 $0.87 $6.61 $14.57 -$3.84 $3.42 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3.42 $0.94
2023 $1.90 $0.00 $0.31 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $5.62 $0.19 $0.47 $1.23 $0.04 $0.97 $0.02 $10.91 $7.37 $0.00 $0.73 $6.61 $14.70 -$3.79 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2024 $1.97 $0.00 $0.32 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $5.68 $0.19 $0.49 $1.26 $0.04 $0.98 $0.02 $11.10 $7.74 $0.00 $3.04 $6.61 $17.38 -$6.29 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2025 $2.04 $0.00 $0.32 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $5.75 $0.19 $0.50 $1.29 $0.04 $0.99 $0.02 $11.28 $8.12 $0.00 $0.78 $6.61 $15.51 -$4.23 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2026 $2.11 $0.00 $0.32 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $5.81 $0.19 $0.51 $1.32 $0.04 $1.00 $0.02 $11.48 $8.53 $0.00 $0.63 $7.55 $16.71 -$5.23 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2027 $2.18 $0.00 $0.33 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $5.87 $0.19 $0.53 $1.35 $0.04 $1.01 $0.02 $11.67 $8.96 $0.00 $0.64 $7.55 $17.15 -$5.47 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2028 $2.26 $0.00 $0.33 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $5.94 $0.19 $0.54 $1.38 $0.04 $1.02 $0.02 $11.88 $9.41 $0.00 $0.82 $7.55 $17.77 -$5.90 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2029 $2.34 $0.00 $0.34 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $6.00 $0.19 $0.55 $1.41 $0.04 $1.04 $0.02 $12.08 $9.88 $0.00 $0.67 $7.55 $18.09 -$6.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2030 $2.42 $0.00 $0.34 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $6.07 $0.19 $0.57 $1.44 $0.04 $1.05 $0.02 $12.29 $10.37 $0.00 $0.68 $7.55 $18.60 -$6.31 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2031 $2.50 $0.00 $0.34 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $6.14 $0.19 $0.58 $1.48 $0.04 $1.06 $0.02 $12.51 $10.89 $0.00 $0.87 $7.55 $19.30 -$6.79 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2032 $2.59 $0.00 $0.35 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $6.20 $0.19 $0.60 $1.51 $0.04 $1.07 $0.02 $12.73 $11.43 $0.00 $0.71 $7.55 $19.69 -$6.96 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2033 $2.68 $0.00 $0.35 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $6.27 $0.19 $0.62 $1.55 $0.04 $1.08 $0.02 $12.96 $12.00 $0.00 $0.73 $7.55 $20.28 -$7.32 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2034 $2.77 $0.00 $0.36 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $6.34 $0.00 $0.63 $1.58 $0.04 $1.09 $0.02 $12.99 $12.60 $0.00 $0.91 $7.55 $21.06 -$8.07 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2035 $2.87 $0.00 $0.36 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $6.41 $0.00 $0.65 $1.62 $0.04 $1.11 $0.02 $13.23 $13.23 $0.00 $0.76 $7.55 $21.53 -$8.30 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2036 $2.97 $0.00 $0.36 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $6.48 $0.00 $0.67 $1.66 $0.04 $1.12 $0.02 $13.47 $13.90 $0.00 $0.77 $7.55 $22.21 -$8.74 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2037 $3.08 $0.00 $0.37 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $6.55 $0.00 $0.68 $1.70 $0.04 $1.13 $0.02 $13.72 $14.59 $0.00 $0.96 $7.55 $23.10 -$9.38 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2038 $3.18 $0.00 $0.37 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $6.62 $0.00 $0.70 $1.74 $0.04 $1.14 $0.02 $13.98 $15.32 $0.00 $0.80 $7.55 $23.67 -$9.69 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2039 $3.30 $0.00 $0.38 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $6.70 $0.00 $0.72 $1.78 $0.04 $1.16 $0.02 $14.24 $16.09 $0.00 $0.82 $7.55 $24.45 -$10.21 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2040 $3.41 $0.00 $0.38 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $6.77 $0.00 $0.74 $1.82 $0.04 $1.17 $0.02 $14.51 $16.89 $0.00 $1.02 $7.55 $25.45 -$10.95 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Totals $58.15 $2.70 $7.61 $4.23 $2.65 $1.00 $147.33 $3.47 $13.73 $32.84 $1.00 $25.66 $0.49 $300.87 $252.12 $7.10 $23.52 $155.28 $438.02 -$137.14 $34.51 $0.00 $4.54 $0.36 $39.40 $35.82
* In 2016 and 2017, the Motor Vehicle Pro-Rate was spent in Nondepartmental.
Federal NDOT**Local - CIP Federal NDOT Federal NDOT
$39.40 $35.82 $60.92 $39.40 $35.82 $0.00 $0.00
TBD TBD $124.98 TBD TBD TBD TBD
$39.40 $35.82 $185.90 $39.40 $35.82 $0.00 $0.00
* Local revenue and state revenue distributed to the City of Grand Island.
** State revenue distributed to NDOT.
Federal Revenues/Costs
2016-2025
Local/State*
$107.13 -$21.82
Total Revenue
Available New Roadway Revenue
Local/State
Local Revenue State Revenue Local Costs
Time Period Total Costs
Project Costs and Operation & Maintenance Expenditures
$204.17
$309.07
$513.24 Total $300.87
2026-2040 $193.74
Available Roadway Revenue
Total Revenue Local - O & M
-$137.14
-$21.82
-$115.33
-$137.14
$182.36
$193.74
$68.03
$184.09
$376.10 $252.12
-$115.33
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 7 / 180
DRAFT - May 10, 2018
Status Quo ($Millions)
NDOT
Revenue/
Costs
YearMotor Vehicle Sales TaxWheel TaxStormwater SurchargeProperty TaxRental Car OccupationMiscellaneousMunicipal Highway AllocationNebraska Build ActMotor Vehicle FeeMotor Vehicle Fee Pro-Rate*MiscellaneousFederal Funds Purchase Program (STP)Federal Funds Purchase Program (Bridge)Total Local & State - RevenuesOperations & Maintenance ExpendituresCIP- Federal/State-RelatedCIP - Non-Regional RelatedCIP - Regional RelatedTotal Local - CostsRemainingNHPPITSHSIPEarmarkTotal - Federal Revenues/CostsNDOT Revenue/CostsGrowth
Rate 3.50%-1.15%---1.10%-2.68%2.35%-1.10%-
2016 $1.46 $0.00 $0.00 $2.00 $0.00 $0.03 $4.47 $0.19 $0.40 $0.00 $0.04 $0.87 $0.02 $9.48 $6.54 $0.15 $1.00 $0.47 $8.15 $1.33 $0.00 $0.00 $1.00 $0.00 $1.00 $0.11
2017 $1.55 $0.00 $0.00 $2.23 $0.00 $0.10 $4.75 $0.19 $0.40 $0.00 $0.05 $0.90 $0.02 $10.20 $6.35 $3.39 $2.07 $0.15 $11.97 -$1.78 $11.45 $0.00 $0.73 $0.36 $12.53 $2.85
2018 $1.60 $1.20 $0.15 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $5.04 $0.19 $0.41 $1.09 $0.04 $0.92 $0.02 $10.82 $5.77 $0.38 $0.48 $3.35 $9.97 $0.84 $12.35 $0.00 $1.12 $0.00 $13.46 $3.56
2019 $1.66 $1.50 $0.30 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $5.35 $0.19 $0.42 $1.12 $0.04 $0.93 $0.02 $11.68 $6.06 $1.68 $1.38 $2.10 $11.22 $0.47 $0.00 $0.00 $0.58 $0.00 $0.58 $26.69
2020 $1.71 $0.00 $0.30 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $5.44 $0.19 $0.44 $1.14 $0.04 $0.94 $0.02 $10.38 $6.37 $0.80 $0.69 $3.00 $10.86 -$0.47 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.01
2021 $1.77 $0.00 $0.31 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $5.50 $0.19 $0.45 $1.17 $0.04 $0.95 $0.02 $10.56 $6.68 $0.62 $0.70 $3.30 $11.30 -$0.75 $7.29 $0.00 $1.12 $0.00 $8.41 $1.67
2022 $1.84 $0.00 $0.31 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $5.56 $0.19 $0.46 $1.20 $0.04 $0.96 $0.02 $10.73 $7.02 $0.08 $0.87 $3.40 $11.37 -$0.64 $3.42 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3.42 $0.94
2023 $1.90 $0.00 $0.31 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $5.62 $0.19 $0.47 $1.23 $0.04 $0.97 $0.02 $10.91 $7.37 $0.00 $0.73 $3.70 $11.79 -$0.88 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2024 $1.97 $0.00 $0.32 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $5.68 $0.19 $0.49 $1.26 $0.04 $0.98 $0.02 $11.10 $7.74 $0.00 $3.04 $1.47 $12.24 -$1.15 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2025 $2.04 $0.00 $0.32 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $5.75 $0.19 $0.50 $1.29 $0.04 $0.99 $0.02 $11.28 $8.12 $0.00 $0.78 $3.82 $12.72 -$1.44 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2026 $2.11 $0.00 $0.32 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $5.81 $0.19 $0.51 $1.32 $0.04 $1.00 $0.02 $11.48 $8.53 $0.00 $0.63 $4.05 $13.21 -$1.73 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2027 $2.18 $0.00 $0.33 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $5.87 $0.19 $0.53 $1.35 $0.04 $1.01 $0.02 $11.67 $8.96 $0.00 $0.64 $4.14 $13.74 -$2.06 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2028 $2.26 $0.00 $0.33 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $5.94 $0.19 $0.54 $1.38 $0.04 $1.02 $0.02 $11.88 $9.41 $0.00 $0.82 $4.05 $14.28 -$2.41 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2029 $2.34 $0.00 $0.34 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $6.00 $0.19 $0.55 $1.41 $0.04 $1.04 $0.02 $12.08 $9.88 $0.00 $0.67 $4.29 $14.84 -$2.76 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2030 $2.42 $0.00 $0.34 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $6.07 $0.19 $0.57 $1.44 $0.04 $1.05 $0.02 $12.29 $10.37 $0.00 $0.68 $4.39 $15.44 -$3.15 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2031 $2.50 $0.00 $0.34 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $6.14 $0.19 $0.58 $1.48 $0.04 $1.06 $0.02 $12.51 $10.89 $0.00 $0.87 $4.31 $16.06 -$3.55 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2032 $2.59 $0.00 $0.35 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $6.20 $0.19 $0.60 $1.51 $0.04 $1.07 $0.02 $12.73 $11.43 $0.00 $0.71 $4.56 $16.70 -$3.97 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2033 $2.68 $0.00 $0.35 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $6.27 $0.19 $0.62 $1.55 $0.04 $1.08 $0.02 $12.96 $12.00 $0.00 $0.73 $4.66 $17.39 -$4.43 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2034 $2.77 $0.00 $0.36 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $6.34 $0.00 $0.63 $1.58 $0.04 $1.09 $0.02 $12.99 $12.60 $0.00 $0.91 $4.58 $18.10 -$5.10 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2035 $2.87 $0.00 $0.36 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $6.41 $0.00 $0.65 $1.62 $0.04 $1.11 $0.02 $13.23 $13.23 $0.00 $0.76 $4.84 $18.83 -$5.59 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2036 $2.97 $0.00 $0.36 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $6.48 $0.00 $0.67 $1.66 $0.04 $1.12 $0.02 $13.47 $13.90 $0.00 $0.77 $4.94 $19.61 -$6.13 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2037 $3.08 $0.00 $0.37 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $6.55 $0.00 $0.68 $1.70 $0.04 $1.13 $0.02 $13.72 $14.59 $0.00 $0.96 $4.86 $20.42 -$6.69 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2038 $3.18 $0.00 $0.37 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $6.62 $0.00 $0.70 $1.74 $0.04 $1.14 $0.02 $13.98 $15.32 $0.00 $0.80 $5.13 $21.25 -$7.28 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2039 $3.30 $0.00 $0.38 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $6.70 $0.00 $0.72 $1.78 $0.04 $1.16 $0.02 $14.24 $16.09 $0.00 $0.82 $5.25 $22.15 -$7.91 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2040 $3.41 $0.00 $0.38 $0.00 $0.12 $0.04 $6.77 $0.00 $0.74 $1.82 $0.04 $1.17 $0.02 $14.51 $16.89 $0.00 $1.02 $5.17 $23.07 -$8.57 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Totals $58.15 $2.70 $7.61 $4.23 $2.65 $1.00 $147.33 $3.47 $13.73 $32.84 $1.00 $25.66 $0.49 $300.87 $252.12 $7.10 $23.52 $93.96 $376.69 -$75.81 $34.51 $0.00 $4.54 $0.36 $39.40 $35.82
* In 2016 and 2017, the Motor Vehicle Pro-Rate was spent in Nondepartmental.
Federal NDOT**Local - CIP Federal NDOT Federal NDOT
$39.40 $35.82 $43.57 $39.40 $35.82 $0.00 $0.00
TBD TBD $81.00 TBD TBD TBD TBD
$39.40 $35.82 $124.57 $39.40 $35.82 $0.00 $0.00
* Local revenue and state revenue distributed to the City of Grand Island.
** State revenue distributed to NDOT.
$186.83 -$4.47 -$4.47
$193.74 $265.09 -$71.35
$451.91 -$75.81 -$75.81
-$71.35
Time Period
Total
2016-2025
2026-2040
$300.87
$68.03
$184.09
$252.12
$182.36
$193.74
$376.10
$107.13
Local Revenue State Revenue Local Costs Federal Revenues/Costs
Local - O & MTotal Revenue
Available Roadway Revenue Project Costs and Operation & Maintenance Expenditures Available New Roadway Revenue
Local/State*Total Costs Local/State Total Revenue
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 8 / 180
Technical Advisory Committee
Monday, May 21, 2018
Regular Session
Item H2
MPO Financial Update
Staff Contact: Allan Zafft, MPO Program Manager
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 9 / 180
Financial Update
Unified Planning Work Program
State Fiscal Year 2018 – Third Quarter (January 1, 2018 to March 31, 2018)
Work Completed for Third Quarter
Finalized the Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study
Continued work on the GIAMPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (i.e. BPAC meeting, preliminary draft Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan)
Developed the Draft FY 2019-2023 Transportation Improvement Program
Prepared the annual MPO Self-Certification
Prepared Amendment No. 4 for the Long Range Transportation Plan
Developed the Draft FY 2019 Unified Planning Work Program
Approved the MPO Targets for Safety Performance Measures
Prepared materials for and/or held Transportation Advisory Committee meetings in February and April and Policy Board
meeting in February
Participated and attended transportation planning related meetings
Category Total Budget
3rd Quarter
Expenditure
Total
Expenditure
Total Percent
Expenditure
Unified Planning Work Program 9,292$ 5,035$ 5,461$ 59%
Transportation Improvement Program 10,464$ 5,355$ 7,513$ 72%
Public Participation Plan 14,222$ 389$ 4,648$ 33%
Short Range Studies 7,533$ 1,465$ 6,287$ 83%
Long Range Transportation Plan 19,490$ 1,172$ 10,576$ 54%
- Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan (Outside Services)80,000$ 14,224$ 67,283$ 84%
Transit Planning 29,633$ 5,541$ 25,118$ 85%
- Transit Needs Study (Outside Services) 125,000$ 5,163$ 125,000$ 100%
Administration 34,129$ 4,903$ 17,464$ 51%
Total 329,762$ 43,247$ 269,349$ 82%
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 10 / 180
Technical Advisory Committee
Monday, May 21, 2018
Regular Session
Item H3
Approval Recommendation of Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan
Staff Contact: Chad Nabity, Regional Planning Director
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 11 / 180
1
TAC Agenda Report Agenda Item No. H3
May 21, 2018
ISSUE
VOTE: Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
BACKGROUND
In April 2016, GIAMPO adopted the region’s Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). It
indicated that a pedestrian and bicycle study should be conducted for the Grand Island area,
which would identify a walking and biking network.
GIAMPO in coordination with the City of Grand Island initiated the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan in June 2017. RDG Planning and Design was retained by the City to lead the
study efforts.
In May 2018, RDG Planning and Design completed a Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan. This document provides the following information:
Existing conditions evaluations related to walking and biking
Estimation of the existing and potential future pedestrian and bicycling demand and
the results of the pedestrian and bicycle survey
Concepts and locations for support facilities such as trailheads and open space nodes
Active Transportation Network (on-street network, off-street trails, and shared use
paths)
Crossing Barriers and Toolbox of Solutions
Pedestrian Applications
Phasing and Implementation Program
Supporting Programs and Policies
The Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is enclosed in the May 21 Technical Advisory
Committee meeting packet.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS/DISCUSSION
The GIAMPO Public Participation Plan specifies there will be a 15-day public comment period
before adoption of a GIAMPO report/document by the Policy Board.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS
None.
COMMITTEE ACTION
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) met six times during the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan project. At the April 16, 2018 BPAC meeting, RDG Planning and
Design made a presentation that provided an overview of the Preliminary Draft Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan. The BPAC expressed overall support of the draft plan.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 12 / 180
2
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and release this document for public
review and comment.
STAFF CONTACTS
Chad Nabity
Allan Zafft
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 13 / 180
THE GRAND
ISLAND
METROPOLITAN
AREA
DRAFT
5-9-2018
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN
MASTER PLAN
Prepared by RDG Planning & Design,
Alta Planning + Design, and Olsson Associates
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 14 / 180
PLANNING TEAM
RDG Planning & Design
www.RDGUSA.com
Omaha, Nebraska
Des Moines, Iowa
Martin H. Shukert, FAICP
Amy Haase, AICP
Nick Klimek, AICP
Greg Jameson
Alta Planning + Design
www.altaplanning.com
Minneapolis, MN
Paul Wojciechowski, AICP, P.E.
Kristen O’Toole
Olsson Associates
www.olssonassociates.com
Grand Island, NE
Matt Rief, PE
Tom Worker-Braddock, PE
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEEGRAND ISLAND AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 15 / 180
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1: Active Transportation Environment
CHAPTER 2: Markets for Active Transportation
CHAPTER 3: The Active Network: Principles and Framework
CHAPTER 4: Support Facilities
CHAPTER 5: Crossing Barriers
CHAPTER 6: On Foot in the Grand Island Area
CHAPTER 7: Route Details and Sequencing
CHAPTER 8: Support Programs and Policies
4
9
27
41
75
87
99
115
151
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 16 / 180
444
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE MASTER PLAN
INTRODUCTION
We spend a large amount of our lives in motion – commut-
ing to work or school, traveling to the destinations that mark
our lives in cities, and generally going about our lives. How
we move can affect many things, including our own health
and that of our communities.
As humans, we have been blessed with the ability to travel
effectively under our own power. Many of us can walk or run
for great periods of time and cover substantial distances,
all the while thinking and taking delight in the things and
people around us. We can travel even farther and faster by
bicycle, a remarkable vehicle that we can easily lift, travels
at half the speed of a contemporary car in city traffic, does
not use fossil fuels, produces no emissions, makes almost no
noise, can be parked outside the door of our destinations
or even inside our homes or offices, and makes us healthier.
The introduction of new technologies, like the e-bike with
small electric motors that provide pedal assists, can bring
bicycling as an efficient form of transportation, within the
capability of even more number of people. Our ability and
efficiency to transport ourselves is indeed a gift.
It is also a gift that makes economic sense. Infrastructure
for people on foot or bike costs much less per mile than for
motor vehicles. People traveling on-foot or by bike put very
little stress on sidewalks, streets, and trails. And human-
powered transportation is inherently enjoyable, encourag-
ing us to see each other as people and the gardens, houses,
streets, yards, schools, and centers of our cities as a delight.
So now let’s consider Grand Island, Nebraska’s fourth larg-
est city with a population of about 52,000 people and the
state’s newest designated metropolitan area. The city has
very little topography and a generally well connected street
grid. Travel distances to most community destinations are
relatively short and many key features have reasonably
good trail access. Its major trails, including the Beltline, St.
Joe, Shoemaker, and Riverway are very popular with recre-
ational users. These factors create a very friendly environ-
ment for active transportation – travel by foot and bike. The
average cyclist can cover three miles in only 15 to 20 min-
utes.
Grand Island as a community understands these possibilities
and has acted on this understanding by:
• Developing and maintaining the foundation of a strong
trail system, such as the trail wayfinding signs developed
cooperatively by the Central District Health Department,
Central Community College, and the City of Grand Island.
• Establishing the Walk & Bike Grand Island program and
creating a Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee.
• Publishing and updating a trails map that identifies both
on- and off-street routes that serve major community
features.
• Integrating physical wayfinding signage independantly
and in collaboration with local health organizations to
promote active lifestyles.
• Including bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the planning
of new community parks and open spaces, including
Eagle Scout and Veterans Legacy Parks.
Walking and biking are very much parts of life in Grand Is-
land, evidenced by routine observations, such as the large
number of elementary school students who walk or bike to
school along the city’s trails. The Grand Island area’s char-
acteristics provide the opportunity to integrate enjoyable,
healthy, active transportation into the everyday lives of its
citizens. This Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan is dedicated
to encouraging its citizens to make healthy, low-impact, and
intrinsically pleasant transportation a greater part of their
routine lives. While we know that most trips will continue to
be made by car, the region’s transportation system should
offer choices, including the option to feel safe and comfort-
able using the healthy, sustainable, and socially satisfying
means of mobility that the bicycle and walking offer.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 17 / 180
5
| INTRODUCTION
55
WHY ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION?
Goals of this Plan
This plan is designed to help the Grand Island metropolitan
area achieve the following goals:
Goal One: Increase the number of people who use walking
and biking for transportation as well as recreation. Grand
Island’s existing multi-use trails are well utilized and have a
significant transportation function, such as providing access
to important destinations like College Park. However, the
overwhelming majority of users are recreational cyclists and
pedestrians. A measurement of the success of this plan will
be significantly increasing the percentage of trips for a vari-
ety of purposes. Chapter Two includes estimates of current
and future utilization of a bikeway system.
Goal Two: Improve bicycle and pedestrian access to key
community destinations. An active transportation network
should get people comfortably and safely to where they
want to go. Therefore, Grand Island’s system should be des-
tination-based, providing clear and direct connections to
key community features.
Goal Three: Removing or improving barriers that discour-
age people from walking or biking for transportation. Grand
Island’s basically flat topography brings walking or biking
within the physical capabilities of most of the city’s popu-
lation. But other important barriers can be much more dis-
couraging. These include two railroad main lines, major
regional highways like US 281 and US 30, and busy urban
streets. Grand Island’s street pattern, where an ordinal and
railroad-oriented street grid interact, also creates unusual
offset intersections and offsets that people find difficult to
cross safely. Creating more comfortable barrier crossings is
an important objective of this plan.
Goal Four: Improve access to the city’s trail system by pro-
viding connecting links from neighborhoods to trails. Grand
Island’s trails are the main lines of its bikeway system, and
will continue to serve many of its bicycle and pedestrian
trips. Good connections to these trails, and implementing
cost-effective extensions that improve service to major des-
tinations and employment centers can create major benefits
and help direct new development.
Goal Five: Use walking and bicycling as part of an effort to
make the Grand Island area healthier for the community,
and for the individual. Trips made by bicycle promote
health at two levels:
• Community health. Reducing emissions also helps ensure
that Grand Island will maintain its status as a healthy
environment for its citizens. On a social level, bicycling
builds community by enhancing the quality of civic life,
helping us interact with each other as people. Places that
lead in bicycle transportation also tend to attract people
because of their community quality.
• Individual health. This is a very important objective
which promotes community health through better
individual health. Incorporating physical activity into
the normal routine of daily life for everyone from kids
to seniors makes all of us healthier, reduces overweight
and obesity rates, improves wellness, and lowers overall
health care costs.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 18 / 180
666
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE MASTER PLAN
Goal Six: Increase safety on the road for motorists, bicy-
clists, and pedestrians. Improved safety is a critical goal for
any transportation improvement, and is fundamental to ef-
forts to increase the number of people who walk and bike
in the region. Physical safety improvements must also be
supported by education, enforcement, and encouragement
programs, and its effectiveness measured by evaluation.
Goal Seven: Capitalize on the development benefits of a des-
tination-based bicycle transportation system. Better active
transportation facilities can have a significant and desirable
effect on urban design and development patterns. Walk-
able and bikeable neighborhoods and projects are highly
valued by a new generation of homeowners and investors.
The developers of Grand Island’s proposed new hospital and
mixed use project are including trails as an important part
of their development plan, and new city neighborhoods are
enhanced by the Shoemaker Trail and connectivity that it
provides.
MEASURES OF SUCCESS:
Guiding Criteria for an Effective
Transportation Network
The design of bicycle and pedestrian transportation systems
should be guided by criteria that can be used to evaluate
individual components and the effectiveness of the entire
network. We elaborate on these criteria in Chapter Three,
which are based on the work of the Netherlands’ Centre for
Research and Contract Standardization in Civil and Traffic
Engineering (C.R.O.W.), one of the world’s leading authorities
in the design of bicycle-friendly infrastructure. These same
criteria also apply to pedestrian networks. Drawing on
C.R.O.W.’s work in its excellent design manual, Sign Up for
the Bike, the Grand Island bicycle and pedestrian network
should be guided by six basic guiding principles:
• Integrity (or, in C.R.O.W.’s term, Coherence): The network
should, at all points in its evolution, form a coherent
system that links starting points with destinations. The
network should be understandable to its users and fulfill
a responsibility to convey them continuously on their
paths.
• Directness: The active network should offer cyclists
as direct a route as possible, with minimum detours or
misdirections.
• Safety: The bikeway network should maximize the safety
of using the bicycle for transportation, minimize or
improve hazardous conditions and barriers, and in the
process improve safety for pedestrians and motorists.
• Comfort: Most bicyclists should view the network
as being within their capabilities and not imposing
unusual mental or physical stress. As the system grows,
more types of users will find that it meets their needs
comfortably.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 19 / 180
7
| INTRODUCTION
77
• Experience: The active network should offer its users a
pleasant and positive experience that capitalizes on the
region’s built and natural environments.
• Feasibility: The active network should provide a high
ratio of benefits to costs and should be viewed as a wise
investment of resources. It is capable of being developed
in phases and growing over time.
An overriding principle of an active transportation network is
avoidance of hazards or have unnecessary negative impacts
on the overall transportation network.
PLAN METHODOLOGY AND
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
It was extremely important to structure a planning process
that maximized both public involvement and our under-
standing of the physical structure and community character
of the Grand Island area. The Grand Island Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization’s (GIAMPO) Bicycle and Pedestrian
Advisory Committee , representing city and GIAMPO staff,
bicycle and walking community members, health interests, the private sector, and other community
interests met throughout the planning process, with an initial meeting in August, 2017.
Major public involvement events included:
• Field reconnaissance and stakeholder groups. These visits included initial field work on bicycle
and interest/stakeholder group discussions, helping us become familiar with issues and the overall
structure of Grand Island neighborhoods and street system. During this process, we rode most of
the city’s candidate streets and compiled an extensive photographic inventory
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Survey. This survey, explored the characteristics of Grand Island residents
interested in bicycling and measured their level of comfort with different types of facilities. The
survey, available in English and Spanish, attracted 352 responses and produced information to help
frame the direction of this plan.
• Area Workshops. These local sector were a major part of the planning process. The city was
divided into three sections: north, south, and west. Each workshop included extensive field work on
bicycle during the days, and public meetings in the evening to discuss results and concepts.
• Community Workshop. The community workshop was held at the Grand Island Public Library in
September, 2017 to solicit input from stakeholders on the emerging bicycle network and facility
concepts. Participants learned about the project, contributed their ideas, and were invited to
review the proposed network and infrastructure types on the project website.
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commitee (BPAC) and GIAMPO Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC). The BPAC was a client group that met at regular intervals during the course of plan
development. Key milestone presentations were made to the TAC, which also assisted with
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 20 / 180
888
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE MASTER PLAN
setting priorities through a ballot process that rated the
importance and priority of various network segments.
We also held periodic meetings with city staff, including
Planning, Public Works, and Parks Departments.
transportation in the city and identifies different types of
solutions that can be adapted to these contexts.
6. Chapter Six: On Foot in Grand Island. Chapter Six
analyzes pedestrian considerations in Grand Island and
proposes a strategic program for improving the pedestrian
environment, focusing specifically on the areas around
high-density destinations such as schools.
7. Chapter Seven: Route Details and Sequencing. Chapter
Six includes a detailed, route-by-route facility program,
showing proposed conceptual design solutions for each
segment of the system. It discusses criteria for determining
the sequence of development and presents a phased
implementation program, along with probable costs for
different infrastructure types. Finally, it proposes an initial
pilot network, based on serving all parts of the city and
early feasibility.
8. Chapter Eight: Support Programs. The League of American
Bicyclists describes six “E’s” as components of a bicycle-
friendly community (BFC) program and judges BFC
applications accordingly. These program categories are
Engineering, Education, Encouragement, Enforcement,
Evaluation and Equity. Chapters One through Eight largely
address the Engineering component; Chapter Seven
recommends initiatives that support these infrastructure
investments to achieve bicycle transportation’s full
potential as part of Grand Island’s access environment.
ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN
The GIAMPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan presents
its analysis and recommendations in the following
chapters:
1. Chapter One: Active Transportation Environment. Chapter
One examines existing conditions in the city pertinent to
walking and bicycling, including determinants of a future
bikeway system such as destinations, existing facilities, and
opportunities. It includes an atlas of key determinants of
the area’s active transportation network.
2. Chapter Two: The Market for Active Transportation.
Chapter Two estimates current pedestrian and bicycle
demand and the potential future market. It also reviews the
Grand Island Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Survey, which
provides extensive information about people interested
in urban bicycling and walking in Grand Island and their
needs, concerns, and preferences.
3. Chapter Three: The Active Transportation Network:
Principles and Structure. Chapter Three uses the analysis
of Chapters One and Two to establish over-all principles
that guide the proposed Grand Island area network. It
also elaborates on the measurement criteria previously
presented to help guide the system’s components. Finally,
it presents a complete conceptual system of pedestrian
and bicycle facilities.
4. Chapter Four: Support Facilities. Chapter Four investigates
needs and establishes concepts and locations for support
facilities, including trailheads, open space nodes, linkages
to new park facilities, and wayfinding.
5. Chapter Five. Crossing Barriers. Chapter Five locates
and classifies various types of physical barriers to active
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 21 / 180
9
1 | THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT
1CHAPTER
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT
THIS CHAPTER
OUTLINES THE EXISTING
CONDITIONS IN GRAND
ISLAND PERTINENT
TO WALKING AND
BICYCLING. These
conditions include
determinants of a future
bikeway system such as
destinations, existing
facilities, and opportunities
as well as a broader
understanding as to how
the region has developed
and grown from land
use and motor vehicle
transportation aspects.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 22 / 180
10
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Existing Conditions
This section considers factors that can help
determine the structure and character of
the Grand Island area’s active transportation
network. Areas of analysis break into two
general areas:
Demand – Factors that suggest a need for
facilities and can be analyzed together to
suggest the structure of the network. These
factors include both points of origin such as
population density and destinations such as
parks, schools and places of employment.
Area of analysis include
• Current land use
• Future land use
• Population density
• Employment density
• Parks and trails
• Schools and sidewalks
Facilities – These factors analyze aspects of
existing infrastructure and their suitability
for a future active transportation network.
Areas of analysis include
• Functional street classification
• Trails and bike routes
• Average daily traffic
• Crash incidence and traffic control
• Low traffic streets with continuity
• Transit potential
• Barriers
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 23 / 180
11
1 | THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT
£¤34 £¤34
£¤30
£¤30
£¤30
£¤281
£¤281
£¤281
Old Potash Hwy W
Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St
W
Capital Ave W
North Rd SStolley Park Rd W
Husker Hwy
13Th St W Sky Park RdBismark Rd E2nd St W
Locust St SLocust St S1St St WNorth Rd NE
d
d
y
S
t
N
S
y
c
am
o
r
e
S
t
N
Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E
Old Hig
h
wa
y 3
0
W
Old
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
2
W
Stolley
P
a
r
k
R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2
Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program
0 4,000 8,000Feet
Existing Land Use
Agriculture
Park/Open Space
Civic
Medical Commercial
Commercial
Industrial
Residential
Manufactured Homes
Multi-Family Residential
Vacant
Existing Land Use
Land use patterns help determine the structure of an active
transportation network. Major determinants include concen-
trations of higher density housing, major employers, medical
complexes, civic and cultural uses, and commercial concentra-
tions. The streets that serve some of these key areas may not
be fully compatible with bicycle transportation, but all should
accommodate pedestrians and provide secondary accessways
for bicyclists. Key land use factors include:
• Downtown Grand island, including the core district
between Eddy and Sycamore, extended east and west
along the US 30 corridor. Fourth Street north of the UP has
developed as a significant traditional commercial district
with a strong specialization in ethnic Hispanic enterprises.
• The dominant US 281/Webb Road commercial corridor,
with Diers Avenue and Allen Drive providing parallel local
circulation. South Locust, the Five Points cluster are also
important commercial centers.
• The Faidley corridor north to 10th Street between
Broadwell and Webb, including St. Francis Medical Center,
adjacent medical office buildings, and the Grand Island
Housing Authority’s complex of residential developments.
A second major medical and mixed use center is planned
for the southwest quadrant of the US 281 and Husker High-
way intersection.
• Key civic concentrations, including the VA, Fonner Park,
Stuhr Museum, the Central Community College campus,
public and parochial schools, and parks, ranging from Pier
and Stolley Parks to smaller neighborhood open spaces.
• Major industrial employment centers generally along the
UP and BNSF corridors, including JBS with 3,200 employ-
ees. Employees of food processing plants like JBS often
use bicycles for travel to work for economic reasons.
Source: Regional Planning Commission, 2017
£¤34 £¤34
£¤30
£¤30
£¤30
£¤281
£¤281
£¤281
Old Potash Hwy W
Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St
W
Capital Ave W
North Rd SStolley Park Rd W
Husker Hwy
13Th St W Sky Park RdBismark Rd E2nd St
W
Locust St SLocust St S1St St WNorth Rd NE
d
d
y
S
t
N
S
y
c
am
o
r
e
S
t
N
Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E
Old High
way 3
0
W
Old
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
2
W
Stolley
P
ark R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2
Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program
0 4,000 8,000Feet
Existing Land Use
Agriculture
Park/Open Space
Civic
Medical Commercial
Commercial
Industrial
Residential
Manufactured Homes
Multi-Family Residential
Vacant
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 24 / 180
12
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
£¤34 £¤34
£¤30
£¤30
£¤30
£¤281
£¤281
£¤281
Old Potash Hwy W
Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St
W
Capital Ave W
North Rd SStolley Park Rd W
Husker Hwy
13Th St W Sky Park RdBismark Rd E2nd St
W
Locust St SLocust St S1St St WNorth Rd NE
d
d
y
S
t
N
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
S
t
N
Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E
Old Hig
h
way 3
0
W
Old
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
2
W
Stolley
P
ark Rd EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2
Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program
0 4,000 8,000Feet
Future Land Use
Transitional Agriculture
Downtown Commercial Zone
General Commercial Zone
Highway Commercial
M i x e d U s e C o m m e r c i a l Z o n e
Manufacturing
Mixed Use Manufacturing Zone
L o w t o M e d i u m R e s i d e n t i a l Z o n e
M e d i u m R e s i d e n t i a l t o O ffi c e Z o n e
Mobile Home Residential Overlay Zone
P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n Z o n e
Public Zone
£¤34 £¤34
£¤30
£¤30
£¤30
£¤281
£¤281
£¤281
Old Potash Hwy W
Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St
W
Capital Ave W
North Rd SStolley Park Rd W
Husker Hwy
13Th St W Sky Park RdBismark Rd E2nd St W
Locust St SLocust St S1St St WNorth Rd NE
d
d
y
S
t
N
S
y
c
am
o
r
e
S
t
N
Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E
Old High
way 3
0
W
Old
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
2
W
Stolley
P
ark R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2
Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program
0 4,000 8,000Feet
Future Land Use
Transitional Agriculture
Downtown Commercial Zone
General Commercial Zone
Highway Commercial
M i x e d U s e C o m m e r c i a l Z o n e
Manufacturing
Mixed Use Manufacturing Zone
L o w t o M e d i u m R e s i d e n t i a l Z o n e
M e d i u m R e s i d e n t i a l t o O ffi c e Z o n e
Mobile Home Residential Overlay Zone
P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n Z o n e
Public Zone
Future Land Use
An active transportation network should ultimately be master planned to serve
projected growth directions, illustrated by the Future Land Use map on this page.
Key directions include:
• Contiguous residential growth west to Engleman Road and south of Husker
Highway.
• Extension of linear commercial development along South Locust toward I-80
and south along US 281 to and south of Husker Highway.
• Substantial industrial growth west of the airport to Broadwell and along the
US 281 corridor.
Source: Grand Island Comprehensive Plan
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 25 / 180
13
1 | THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT
£¤34 £¤34
£¤30
£¤30
£¤30
£¤281
£¤281
£¤281
Old Potash Hwy W
Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St
W
Capital Ave W
North Rd SStolley Park Rd W
Husker Hwy
13Th St W Sky Park Rd1st St W
Bismark Rd E2nd St W
Locust St SLocust St SNorth Rd NE
d
d
y
S
t
N
S
y
c
am
o
r
e
S
t
N
Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E
Old High
wa
y
3
0
W
Old
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
2
W
Stolley
P
ark R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2
Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program
0 4,000 8,000Feet
Population Density
Value
Low
Low - Moderate
Moderate
Moderate - High
High
Population Density
Population density is correlated to active transportation
demand. As density increases, more destinations are lo-
cated closer to more people, bringing biking and walking
within the capability of a larger population. The map uses
block group data to show population per square mile.
The city displays a smooth concentric gradation, with
the highest density found between Oak and Custer from
about 20th Street to Fonner Park. A second density ring
extends east of Webb and north of Stolley Park, with an
island of higher density in the George Park area of north-
west Grand Island.
£¤34 £¤34
£¤30 £¤30
£¤30
£¤281
£¤281£¤281Old Potash Hwy W Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St WCapital Ave W
North Rd SStolley Park Rd W
Husker Hwy
13Th St W Sky Park Rd1st St W Bismark Rd E2nd St W
Locust St SLocust St SNorth Rd NEddy St NSycamore St N Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave EOld Highway 30 W Old Highway 2W Stoll ey Park R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2
Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program
0 4,000 8,000Feet
Population Density
Value
Low
Low - Moderate
Moderate
Moderate - High
High
0-138/sq mi
139-537/sq mi
538-1,203/sq mi
1,204-2,134/sq mi
2,135-3,333/sq mi
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 26 / 180
14
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Employment Density
Employment density is also correlated to active trans-
portation demand, identifying concentrated job centers.
The map on this page uses census data to illustrate jobs
per square mile in the city. The city’s three most concen-
trated employment areas are the eastside industrial area
with JBS, the city’s largest single employer and some
other industries; the downtown core; and the US 281/
Webb Road corridor, combining major industrial and retail
employment. This underscores the value of providing a
strong bicycle and pedestrian connection to the eastside
industrial area.
£¤34 £¤34
£¤30
£¤30
£¤30
£¤281
£¤281
£¤281
Old Potash Hwy W
Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St
W
Capital Ave W
North Rd SStolley Park Rd W
Husker Hwy
13Th St W Sky Park Rd1st St W
Bismark Rd E2nd St
W
Locust St SLocust St SNorth Rd NE
d
d
y
S
t
N
S
y
c
am
o
r
e
S
t
N
Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E
Old High
wa
y 3
0
W
Old
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
2
W
Stolley
P
a
r
k
R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2
Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program
0 4,000 8,000Feet
Employment Density
Value
Low
Low - Moderate
Moderate
Moderate - High
High
£¤34 £¤34£¤30 £¤30£¤30
£¤281
£¤281£¤281Old Potash Hwy W Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St WCapital Ave WNorth Rd SStolley Park Rd WHusker Hwy 13Th St W Sky Park Rd1st St W Bismark Rd E2nd St W
Locust St SLocust St SNorth Rd NEddy St NSycamore St N Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave EOld Highway 30 W Old Highway 2W Stoll e y P ark R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2
Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program
0 4,000 8,000Feet
Employment Density
Value
Low
Low - Moderate
Moderate
Moderate - High
High
0-312/sq mi
313-1,234/sq mi
1,234-2,770/sq mi
2,771-4,922/sq mi
4,923-7,688/sq mi
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 27 / 180
15
1 | THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT
£¤34 £¤34
£¤30
£¤30
£¤30
£¤281
£¤281
£¤281
Old Potash Hwy W
Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St
W
Capital Ave W
North Rd SStolley Park Rd W
Husker Hwy
13Th St W Sky Park RdBismark Rd E2nd St
W
Locust St SLocust St S1St St WNorth Rd NE
d
d
y
S
t
N
S
y
c
am
o
r
e
S
t
N
Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E
Old High
wa
y 30
W
Old
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
2
W
Stolley
P
a
r
k
R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2
Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program
0 4,000 8,000Feet
Trails
Open Space
Cemetery
Park
Walk Time from Park
5
10
15
Parks and Trails
Parks and trails are among the most important destina-
tions for an active transportation network. Indeed, trails
are uniquely both destinations and means of reaching
destinations such as parks and recreation assets. The
map at left illustrates the distribution of parks and walk
time to neighborhood parks. Ideally, all parks should be
served by the active transportation network and bicycle
connections are especially important to major parks
throughout the city and to neighborhood parks from
areas outside of easy walking distance. Of major com-
munity parks, Pier, Hall County, and Ashley Parks and
the Stuhr Museum grounds are directly served by trails.
Stolley Park and George Park have close trail access
and Stolley is bordered by the multi-modal Stolley Park
Road. Eagle Scout Park has a popular internal trail but is
separated from the rest of the trail network. Other parks
are typically served by sidewalks and local streets, but
not by trails or major bike routes. It is also important to
note that many of Grand Island’s school campuses have
significant neighborhood recreational facilities.
£¤34 £¤34
£¤30
£¤30
£¤30
£¤281
£¤281
£¤281
Old Potash Hwy W
Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St
W
Capital Ave W
North Rd SStolley Park Rd W
Husker Hwy
13Th St W Sky Park RdBismark Rd E2nd St W
Locust St SLocust St S1St St WNorth Rd NE
d
d
y
S
t
N
Sy
c
am
o
r
e
S
t
N
Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E
Old High
way 30
W
Old Highway 2W
Stolley
P
ark R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2
Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program
0 4,000 8,000Feet
Trails
Open Space
Cemetery
Park
Walk Time from Park
5
10
15
£¤34 £¤34
£¤30
£¤30
£¤30
£¤281
£¤281
£¤281
Old Potash Hwy W
Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St
W
Capital Ave W
North Rd SStolley Park Rd W
Husker Hwy
13Th St W Sky Park RdBismark Rd E2nd St W
Locust St SLocust St S1St St WNorth Rd NE
d
d
y
S
t
N
Sycam
o
r
e
S
t
N
Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E
Old High
way 30
W
Old Highway 2W
Stolley
P
ark R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2
Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program
0 4,000 8,000Feet
Trails
Open Space
Cemetery
Park
Walk Time from Park
5
10
15
£¤34 £¤34
£¤30
£¤30
£¤30
£¤281
£¤281
£¤281
Old Potash Hwy W
Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St
W
Capital Ave W
North Rd SStolley Park Rd W
Husker Hwy
13Th St W Sky Park RdBismark Rd E2nd St W
Locust St SLocust St S1St St WNorth Rd NE
d
d
y
S
t
N
S
y
c
am
o
r
e
S
t
N
Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E
Old High
way 30
W
Old Highway 2W
Stolley
P
ark R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2
Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program
0 4,000 8,000Feet
Trails
Open Space
Cemetery
Park
Walk Time from Park
5
10
15
Source: RDG Planning & Design; GIAMPO
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 28 / 180
16
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Schools and Sidewalks
Schools are also primary destinations for the Grand
Island area’s active transportation network, with el-
ementary and junior high students being especially im-
portant constituencies. High school students, many of
whom drive to school, also present a possible growth
market if bicycling is viewed as a contemporary trend.
The map at left overlays the city’s sidewalk system and
school locations, and indicates that:
• Most of school sites have good sidewalk access,
although road barriers interrupt this in some at-
tendance areas.
• Sidewalk access decreases in peripheral or lower
density areas, such as Seedling Mile on the ex-
treme east side of the study area
• A number of schools enjoy good trail access.
These include schools west of US 281 along the
Shoemaker Trail/Independence Avenue corridor;
and Gates and Dodge Elementary Schools along
the John Brownell (Beltline) Trail. These facilities
are used by students, but face obstacles at busy
street crossings.
• A current gap is emerging with service to new
school facilities developing along the Adams
Street corridor north of Stolley Park Road.
• Grand Island’s students are willing to walk and
bike to school when facilities are available.
Source: City of Grand Island; GIAMPO; RDG Planning & Design
£¤34 £¤34
£¤30
£¤30
£¤30
£¤281
£¤281
£¤281
Old Potash Hwy W
Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St
W
Capital Ave W
North Rd SStolley Park Rd W
Husker Hwy
13Th St W Sky Park Rd1st St W
Bismark Rd E2nd St W
Locust St SLocust St SNorth Rd NE
d
d
y
S
t
N
S
y
c
am
o
r
e
S
t
N
Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E
Old High
way 30
W
Old
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
2
W
Stolley
P
ark R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2
Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program
0 4,000 8,000Feet
Sidewalk
Public School
1 / 2 M i l e B u ff e r
£¤34 £¤34
£¤30
£¤30
£¤30
£¤281
£¤281
£¤281
Old Potash Hwy W
Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St
W
Capital Ave W
North Rd SStolley Park Rd W
Husker Hwy
13Th St W Sky Park Rd1st St W
Bismark Rd E2nd St W
Locust St SLocust St SNorth Rd NE
d
d
y
S
t
N
S
y
c
am
o
r
e
S
t
N
Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E
Old High
way
3
0
W
Old
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
2
W
Stolley
P
ark R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2
Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program
0 4,000 8,000Feet
Sidewalk
Public School
1 / 2 M i l e B u ff e r
Schools and
Sidewalks
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 29 / 180
17
1 | THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 30 / 180
18
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Functional Classifications and Existing Facilities
Grand Island’s major street network is the framework of the region’s
transportation system and provides primary access to many of the
city’s key destinations. However, many of the city’s major streets – ex-
pressways, principal arterials, minor arterials, and even major collectors
have traffic volumes that many prospective bicyclists and even pedes-
trians find uncomfortable or them and their families. These same major
streets also present potential barriers, as described more specifically in
the Barrier Map – intersections that are difficult to cross, may not have
traffic controls on secondary streets, or otherwise deter people from
crossing them on foot or bike.
From a trail perspective, Grand Island has assembled the foundation of
an excellent trail network, made up of two systems:
The Beltline/Cemetery/St. Joe/Riverway/South Locust Trails link the
central and southern parts of the city and serve Pier Park, Suck’s Lake,
College Park, Stuhr Museum, Hall County Park, the proposed new
medical center and mixed use project at Husker Highway and US 281,
and the Walmart SuperCenter on South Locust on its continuous 12-
mile path from Cherry and Sutherland to South Locust and US 34. The
Riverway Trail continues east from South Locust to the Hall-Hamilton
County Bridge. Extensions to this system are planned to connect to
Mormon Island State Recreation Area via South Locust and the Platte
River; and the East Lakes Trail along the BNSF and Swift Road.
The Westside system made up of the Capital Avenue, Capitol-State
Connector, State, and Shoemaker Trails, linking Ahley and Shoemaker
Parks, Shoemaker and Engleman Elementary Schools, and Westridge
Middle School between Capital and Broadwell and Old Potash Road.
Future extensions to this system will connect north along Broadwell to
Eagle Scout Park and southeast along Capital and the BNSF elevated
mainline to East 4th Street.
Source: GIAMPO
£¤34 £¤34
£¤30
£¤30
£¤30
£¤281
£¤281
£¤281
Bl
ai
neSt S
Old Potash Hwy W
Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St
W
Capital Ave W
North Rd SStolley Park Rd W
Husker Hwy
13Th St W Sky Park Rd1st St W
Bismark Rd E2nd St W
Locust St SLocust St SNorth Rd NE
d
d
y
S
t
N
S
y
c
am
o
r
e
S
t
N
Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E
Old High
wa
y 3
0
W
Old
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
2
W
Stolley
P
ark Rd EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2
Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency
0 4,000 8,000Feet
National Functional Classification
Interstate
Freeways/Expressways
Other Principal Arterials
Minor Arterial
Major Collector
Minor Collector
Local
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 31 / 180
19
1 | THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT
Cemetery Trail
Eagle Scout Park Trail
Hall County Park Trail
Sucks Lake
Tr
a
il
This portion iscrushed rock,to behard surface at afuture date.
Morman Island Trail inplanning stage forfuture construction.
Eagle Scout Trailin planning stagefor future construction.
Trail EndsHall - Hamilton Co.Bridge
Cedar Hills Park TrailÆP
ÆP
ÆP
ÆP
ÆP
ÆP
ÆP
ÆP
ÆP
ÆP
Burlington Trail
East Lakes Trail
Stuhr Museum
Hall County Park
Stolley Park
Pier Park
Island Oasis Water Park
Shoemaker Park
Locust St SInterstate 80 Stuhr Rd SNorth Rd SBlaine St SWebb Rd NNorth Rd N13th St W
US Highway 281 SCapital Ave E
Wildwood Dr W
Schimmer Dr W
State St W
Bismark Rd E1st St W
Capital Ave W
Broadwell Ave NOa
k
S
t
N
US High
w
a
y
3
0
W
Airport Rd W
US Highw
a
y
3
0
E
4th St ECuster Ave NSky Park RdHusker Hwy
Anna St W
US Highway 34 E
Ed
d
y
S
t
N
Webb Rd SOld Potash Hwy W
Charles St
W
Syc
a
m
o
r
e
S
t
N
Stolley Park Rd E
US Highway 34 W St Paul Rd6th St W
Adams St SNorth Front St W Wal
n
u
t
S
t
N
College St
4th St W
2nd St W Che
r
r
y
S
t
S
Old High
w
a
y 30
W
Airport Rd EUS Highway 281 N
Li
n
c
o
l
n
A
v
e
N
2nd St E
Oak St SKennedy DrHancock AveFonner Park Rd E
Stagecoa
c
h
R
d Sylvan St10th St WIndependence AveStolley Park Rd W
Pioneer BlvdBrentwood BlvdEddy St SFaidley Ave W
17th St E
Cannon Rd
Tech DrPiper St17th St W
Sycamore St SBl
a
i
n
e
S
t
N
Old Lin
c
oln
H
w
y
W
Garland St6th St E
18th St W
Independence Ave.Garland StOak St SStuhr Rd S4th St W
Interstate 80North Rd S17th St W18th St W
US Highway 281 SStolley Park Rd ESt Paul Rd6th St WIndependence AveStolley Park Rd W
Husker HwyUS Highway 34 E
Capital Ave E
Old Hig
h
w
a
y
3
0
W
US Highway 281 S10th St W
2nd St W
Airport Rd E
Eddy St SFaidley Ave W
6th St E
l
Morman Island TrailRiverway TrailSt. Joe TrailJohn Br
ownell / Beltlin
eShoemaker TrailState Street Trail
So. Locust TrailRiverway Trail
O
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
On Stree
t
On Street
Area Trails -------------------- Distance in Miles
ON STREET TRAIL STATE STREET TRAIL 6 TH & OAK to 17 TH & OAK 0.65 NORTH RD to LAWRENCE LN 0.80 17 TH & OAK to CUSTER 1.10 CUSTER & STATE to FAIDLEY 1.00 PIER LAKE TRAIL FAIDLEY to CHARLES 1.00 AROUND LAKE 0.46 CHARLES to STOLLEY PARK RD 0.60 STOLLEY PARK RD to SYLVAN 1.10 RIVERWAY TRAIL SYLVAN to FONNER PARK RD 0.50 St. JOE R.R. CROSSING to BLAINE ST 0.50 FONNER PARK RD to VINE 0.50 BLAINE ST to LOCUST ST 1.00 FONNER PARK RD & VINE to BISMARK 0.50 LOCUST ST to STUHR RD 1.00 VINE & BISMARK to ASHTON & OAK 0.30 STUHR RD to TRAIL END 1.80 ASHTON & OAK to 6 TH & OAK 1.00 TOTAL RIVERWAY TRAIL 4.30TOTAL PERIMETER DISTANCE 8.25 SUCK’S LAKE TRAIL CROSSLINKS:AROUND LAKE 0.50 6 TH & OAK to 6 TH & EDDY 0.60 6 TH & EDDY to 6 TH & BROADWELL 0.50 JOHN BROWNELL/BELT LINE TRAIL 6 TH & BROADWELL to FAIDLEY & CUSTER 0.70 ST JOE R.R. to BLAINE 0.251.80 BLAINE ST to ARTHUR 0.25CROSSLINKS:ARTHUR to HARRISON 0.32 ASHTON & OAK to EDDY & CHARLES 0.60 HARRISON to ADAMS 0.40 CHARLES & EDDY to CHARLES & BLAINE 1.20 ADAMS to LOCUST 0.501.80 LOCUST ST to OAK ST 0.50CEMETERY TRAIL OAK ST to CHERRY 0.50 AROUND CEMETERY 1.25 TOTAL BELT LINE TRAIL 2.72 HALL COUNTY PARK TRAIL ST. JOE TRAIL AROUND PARK 1.00 ADA to STOLLEY PARK RD 0.25 STOLLEY PARK RD to CCC 1.20EAGLE SCOUT TRAIL HWY 34 to ST.JOE R.R. CROSSING 1.46 AROUND LAKE 1.05 TOTAL ST. JOE TRAIL 2.91 SHOEMAKER TRAIL CEDAR HILLS PARK TRAIL SHOEMAKER SCHOOL to NORTH RD 1.94 AROUND PARK 0.45
Legend
Completed Trails
On Street Trails
Trail Under Study
Crushed Rock, Riverway Trail
Park Locations
Railroad
ParkingÆP
While these two trails systems provide both utility and recreation, they
are not connected to each other, and linkages to each other and much
of central Grand Island depend upon on-street routes. East-west des-
ignated “on-street trails” include 17th/State Street, 6th Street, Charles
Street, and Stolley Park/Sylvan/Fonner Park, all between Custer/Blaine
and Oak/Vine. State is a major collector with average daily traffic
(ADT) in the 3,000 to 5,000 vehicles per day (vpd) range, suitable for
experienced riders, That volume rises above 10,000 vpd as the street
approaches Webb Road. Stolley Park Road is minor arterial with ADT
above 10,000 vpd. This is made somewhat more comfortable by the
presence of wide shoulders on this two lane facility. Stolley Park will be
converted to a three-lane section with “multi-use shoulders” usable by
bicyclists in a project scheduled for 2018.
Designated north-south routes include Oak Street/Vine Street from
17th to Fonner Park Road and Custer/Blaine between State and Stolley
Park. Oak Street is a low-volume local street with good continuity. The
Custer/Blaine route is very important in terms of destinations, but its
relatively high ADT, in the 3,000 to 5,000 vpd range along Custer and
5,000 to 10,000 vpd on Blaine are uncomfortable for many cyclists. In
addition to serving major destinations, however, this corridor is signifi-
cant because it includes a grade separated crossing of US 30, a major
east-west barrier.
Source: City of Grand Island
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 32 / 180
20
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Average Daily Traffic
The previous discussion of street classifications and
existing facilities discussed traffic volume related to on-
street routes designated in the city’s Trails Map and bike
route system. The map at left illustrates average daily
traffic (ADT) throughout the street system and helps to
identify opportunities for on-street linkages. Different
ranges of traffic also are associated with different types
on infrastructure treatments for bicycle and pedes-
trian facilities: higher levels require a greater degree of
separation from motor vehicles for many cyclists and
present crossing barriers to pedestrians:
0 to 1,500 vpd: Generally comfortable for most cyclists
without extensive infrastructure, relatively comfortable
and crossable environment for most pedestrians.
1,500-3,000 vpd: May be uncomfortable for inexperienced
cyclists. Shared lane markings and conventional bike
lanes as volumes approach 3,000 vpd may be required
for greater comfort levels. Pedestrian crosswalks may be
required at intersections.
3,000-5,000 vpd: Typical threshold for conventional bike
lanes. Require well-defined crosswalks, caution signs, and
possible traffic controls at key crossings.
5,000-10,000 vpd: Requires substantial experience and
comfort with shared traffic from cyclists. Conventional
bike lanes are typically recommended, with protected bike
lanes at higher levels. Separation of sidewalks from curbs
and well-designed crosswalks with traffic controls and
refuge medians at key crossings are highly desirable.
Over 10,000 vpd: Protected bike lanes, enhanced side-
paths or use of alternative routes for cyclists. Sidewalk
separation from curb and well-designed crosswalks with
traffic controls and refuge medians at key crossings are
highly desirable.
£¤34 £¤34
£¤30
£¤30
£¤30
£¤281
£¤281
£¤281
Old Potash Hwy W
Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St
W
Capital Ave W
North Rd SStolley Park Rd W
Husker Hwy
13Th St W Sky Park Rd1st St W
Bismark Rd E2nd St
W
Locust St SLocust St SNorth Rd NE
d
d
y
S
t
N
S
y
c
am
o
r
e
S
t
N
Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E
Old High
way
3
0
W
Old
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
2
W
Stolley
P
ark R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2
Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program
0 4,000 8,000Feet
T r a ffi c C o u n t s
0 - 1 5 0 0
1 5 0 1 - 3 0 0 0
3001 - 5000
5001 - 10000
10001 - 20857
£¤34 £¤34
£¤30
£¤30
£¤30
£¤281
£¤281
£¤281
Old Potash Hwy W
Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St
W
Capital Ave W
North Rd SStolley Park Rd W
Husker Hwy
13Th St W Sky Park Rd1st St W
Bismark Rd E2nd St W
Locust St SLocust St SNorth Rd NEddy St NSycamore St N
Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E
Old High
way 30
W
Old Highway 2W
Stolley
P
ark R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2
Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program
0 4,000 8,000Feet
T r a ffi c C o u n t s
0 - 1 5 0 0
1 5 0 1 - 3 0 0 0
3001 - 5000
5001 - 10000
10001 - 20857
Source: Nebraska Department of Transportation and City of Grand Island, 2015-16 traffic counts
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 33 / 180
21
1 | THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT
£¤34 £¤34
£¤30
£¤30
£¤30
£¤281
£¤281
£¤281
Old Potash Hwy W
Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St
W
Capital Ave W
North Rd SStolley Park Rd W
Husker Hwy
13Th St W Sky Park RdBismark Rd E2nd St W
Locust St SLocust St S1St St WNorth Rd NE
d
d
y
S
t
N
S
y
c
am
o
r
e
S
t
N
Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E
Old High
w
ay
3
0
W
Old
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
2
W
Stolley
P
ark R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2
Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program
0 4,000 8,000Feet
Trails
Bike Accident
Pedestrian Accident
Traffic Signal
Crash Incidence
Incidence of pedestrian and bicycle crashes pinpoint spe-
cific problems that system planning must strive to address.
The map on this page locates crash history between 2010
and 2015, overlaid on the location of traffic signals. Analysis
of the map indicates that:
• Most crashes recored in these data occur at intersec-
tions without signals.
• Bicycle crashes appear to cluster along certain cor-
ridors including: 2nd Street (US 30), clustering in the
vicinity of the public library; Broadwell Avenue, with
difficult intersections created by the shifting grid; and
Locust Street, especially between Downtown and
Bismark Road.
• Pedestrian crashes are more distributed around the
city, but tend to cluster around Downtown and along
the 2nd Street corridor – because these areas have the
greatest number of pedestrians.
• Bicycle crashes occurred at some difficult trail cross-
ings (Capital Avenue west of US 281, the Shoemaker
Trail at 13th Street, the Beltline Trail at Locust, St. Joe
Trail at US 34), but not at others during this period (St.
Joe Trail at Stolley Park, Beltline Trail at Blaine).
Source: Nebraska Department of Roads, 2010-2015
£¤34 £¤34£¤30 £¤30£¤30
£¤281
£¤281£¤281Old Potash Hwy W Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St WCapital Ave WNorth Rd SStolley Park Rd W
Husker Hwy
13Th St W Sky Park RdBismark Rd E2nd St W
Locust St SLocust St S1St St WNorth Rd NEddy St NSycamore St N Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave EOld Highway 30 W Old Highway 2W Stoll ey P ark R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2
Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program
0 4,000 8,000Feet
Trails
Bike Accident
Pedestrian Accident
Traffic Signal
Crash Incidence, 2010-2015
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 34 / 180
22
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
£¤34 £¤34
£¤30
£¤30
£¤30
£¤281
£¤281
£¤281
Old Potash Hwy W
Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St
W
Capital Ave W
North Rd SStolley Park Rd W
Husker Hwy
13Th St W Sky Park RdBismark Rd E2nd St W
Locust St SLocust St S1St St WNorth Rd NE
d
d
y
S
t
N
S
y
c
am
o
r
e
S
t
N
Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E
Old High
wa
y 3
0
W
Old
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
2
W
Stolley
P
ark R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2
Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program
0 4,000 8,000Feet
Trails
L o w T r a ffi c S t r e e t o v e r 2 0 0 0 f e e t i n L e n g t h
L o w T r a ffi c S t r e e t o v e r 1 m i l e i n L e n g t h
Opportunity Streets: Low Traffic Streets
with Continuity
One way of achieving separation of bicyclists and, to some
degree, pedestrians from high traffic volumes is identifying
streets with low traffic that have continuity – continuous
lengths of at least 1/2 mile and more significantly one mile.
These “opportunity streets” are components of a secondary
street system – corridors that can serve important destina-
tions efficiently but are not “major streets” from a classifi-
cation point of view. These frequently can be incorporated
into a neighborhood greenway” or “bicycle boulevard”
network, using wayfinding and low-capital traffic calming
devices and signage to assemble an effective network.
In Grand Island, these corridors tend to be most prevalent
in an east-west direction south of the UP and in a north-
south direction north of the UP. In some cases, shorter seg-
ments that are offset by short distances can be assembled
to create longer crosstown routes.
Another opportunity presented by Grand Island’s network
is width. Many of the city’s local and collector streets are 36
feet wide – a healthy width for low traffic streets. Streets
of this width can accommodate bike lanes with one-sided
parking or other shared road methods. Sometimes, bike- or
pedestrian-friendly improvements can also slow traffic to
desirable speeds in residential neighborhoods.
£¤34 £¤34
£¤30 £¤30
£¤30
£¤281
£¤281
£¤281Old Potash Hwy W
Webb Rd SStuhr Rd SAnna St
W
Capital Ave W
North Rd SStolley Park Rd W
Husker Hwy
13Th St W Sky Park RdBismark Rd E2nd St W
Locust St SLocust St S1St St WNorth Rd NEddy St NSycamore St N Shady Bend Rd SCapital Ave E
Old High
way 3
0
W
Old Highway 2W
Stoll ey
P
ark R d EWebb Rd NBroadwell Ave N¬«2
Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency, USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program
0 4,000 8,000Feet
Trails
L o w T r a ffi c S t r e e t o v e r 2 0 0 0 f e e t i n L e n g t h
L o w T r a ffi c S t r e e t o v e r 1 m i l e i n L e n g t h
Source: Nebraska Department of Transportation; RDG Planning & Design
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 35 / 180
23
1 | THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT
Opportunity Streets: Transit
Coordination of possible transit service and other active transportation
improvements offers another potential system opportunity. The Grand
Island Area MPO approved the Grand Island Transit Needs Assessment
and Feasibility Study in December, 2017. This study proposed both a Fis-
cally Constrained Plan and an Illustrative Plan. The Fiscally Constrained
Plan proposes continuation with modifications of the existing Demand
Response Service; new vanpool service and a rideshare program; and
several policy and planning initiatives, including improved branding and
marketing, increased transit contract oversight, and planning a tri-city
bus service that includes Hastings and Kearney. This reflects transit op-
erations for the next five years. The Illustrative Plan proposes a Flexible
Route Service concept that could be implemented if and when funding
becomes available. The concept establishes two routes that can divert
within a certain area by passenger request, then returning to the point of
diversion to continue its route. Planning for implementation could begin
in Year 4 of the transit program process pending the availability of fund-
ing.
The map at left displays the Possible Flexible Route Concept contained
in the Illustrative Plan. While implementation of this program is rela-
tively long-term, it represents a clustering of current service requests,
potential destinations, and high demand corridors that assist with identi-
fication of active transportation routes.
Source: GIAMPO, City of Grand Island, Olsson Associates
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 36 / 180
24
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Major Highway Barrier
Other Street Crossing Barrier
Difficult Arterial Crossing
Difficult Trail Intersection
Other Difficult Street Crossings
Railroad Mainline Barrier
Other Railroad Barrier
RR Underpasses without bike/
ped accommodations
Possible grade crossing closings
Areas blocking street continuity
Barriers
The presence of physical barriers poses a major
challenge to bicycle and pedestrian transportation
in the Grand Island area. While topography is not
an issue for pedestrian and bicycle travel in the city,
barriers in the built environment – railroads, major
highways, and arterial streets – pose significant
obstacles. The most important issues include:
US 281. This 4-lane divided highway on the west
side of the city is viewed as a major divider that
discourages east-west active transportation. This
dividing character of the highway is exacerbated
by its great right-of-way width, with both the road
and adjacent drainageways. State and Capital both
include multi-use sidepaths that must cross US 281,
a significant physical and psychological barrier.
Source: RDG Planning & Design
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 37 / 180
25
1 | THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT
Union Pacific Mainline. The triple-track UP carries over
100 trains daily, and presents a barrier that is both per-
ceptual and physical. Two grade separated underpasses
(Sycamore and Eddy) are inaccessible to bicycles and
have undesirable accommodations for pedestrians. The
grade crossing at Broadwell Avenue has been a chronic
traffic bottleneck and may be replaced by a future grade
separation at the potential cost of the one or two most
accessible grade crossings of the mainline, at Lincoln
and/or Walnut. Whole far less busy than the mainline,
the UP south branch to the power plant separates some
south side neighborhoods from the St. Joe Trail. On the
other hand, the elevated east side BNSF mainline is rela-
tively permeable, with four easily accessible crossings
between 4th Street and Capital Avenue.
Other arterial streets, including trail crossings. While
more easily negotiated than US 281, busy arterial streets
present significant challenges. Of special note are
Broadwell Avenue, where the joint between the section
line and rotated street grids create difficult intersections
that break east-west street continuity; and trail crossings
that include the John Brownell Trail at Blaine and Locust,
and the St. Joe Trail at Stolley Park Road.
Breaks in street continuity. Development and land use
patterns or major projects create areas that interrupt the
street grid. Examples are Fonner Park and the VA cam-
pus; lack of development east of Locust between Stolley
Park Road and US 34; and southwest Grand Island.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 38 / 180
26
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 39 / 180
2727
2 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MARKETS
2CHAPTER
MARKETS FOR ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
THIS CHAPTER
INVESTIGATES THE
MARKET FOR BICYCLING
IN THE GRAND ISLAND
REGION – THE NUMBER
OF POTENTIAL CYCLISTS
AND PEDESTRIANS
AND THE PREFERENCES
OF THAT POTENTIAL
MARKET.
It draws heavily on new and
recent census information,
national trends, and the 352
citizens who responded to
the Grand Island Area Bicycle
and Pedestrian Survey.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 40 / 180
2828
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Before building a major shopping center or apartment proj-
ect, a developer usually commissions a market analysis, de-
signed to determine whether enough people will shop or live
there to support the effort and to define the features that
will appeal to customers. Similarly, an active transportation
master plan should also evaluate the size and character of
the potential market. This helps assess the impact of a bicy-
cle and pedestrian transportation program on factors such
as motor vehicle traffic and emissions. It also helps us under-
stand what the existing and potential bicycling community
wants of the program, in turn increasing the chances that
active modes can reach their potential for the Grand Island
area.
This market study uses two major instruments:
• Estimates of existing and future pedestrian and
bicycling demand: Using a demand model developed by
Alta Planning & Design that is clear, straightforward, and
easy to track for future measurement.
• The results of the Grand Island Area Pedestrian and
Bicycle Survey: This survey was completed by 352
people, a very satisfactory participation rate for a
community of this size, and provides valuable information
about the region’s potential active transportation
community.
EXISTING PEDESTRIAN AND
BICYCLE DEMAND
Tables 2.2a and 2.2b use the Alta model to estimate exist-
ing and potential pedestrian and bicycle demand. Primary
sources of information include the 2012-2016 average com-
putations of the American Community Survey (ACS), devel-
oped by the Bureau of the Census, and 2010 Census data.
The model makes certain assumptions about transportation
choices of populations such as K-12 and college students.
The sources of these assumptions are included in the table.
Based on this model, Grand Island has an estimated 11,350
daily pedestrian trips and about 3,900 daily bicycle trips for
all purposes (including recreational activity) in 2016. Bicy-
cling has a 0.7 percent commuter mode share. This is about
the same as Omaha’s current bicycle mode share. Table 2.1
compares the Grand Island’s bicycle mode share with that of
a diverse nationwide sample of cities.
2030 Midpoint and 2040 PotentIal
Demand
Tables 2.2a and 2.2b provide both projections of trips made
by pedestrians and bicyclists at 50 percent and 100 per-
cent completion of the proposed basic system, based on a
20 year implementation schedule between now and 2040.
At the 2030 midpoint, enough infrastructure should be in
place to have a significant impact on transportation choices.
Realistically, this level corresponds to completion of Phase 1
of the Basic System illustrated in Chapter 7. This midpoint
model paints a picture of what Grand Island’s transportation
could be 12 years from now with gradual implementation
of an improved pedestrian and bicycle system. Given cur-
rent fiscal constraints and allocation of existing funds, this
assumes a relatively slow start in program implementation,
accelerating as new funds become available. The Basic Sys-
tem midpoint assumes that:
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 41 / 180
2929
2 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MARKETS
• The city will grow at an average annual rate of 1.22 percent
during the next 20 years, the city’s average annual growth
rate since 1960.
• Walk-to-work commuters increase from about 1.12% to
2.25% of all workers.
• Transit’s share of the modal mix increases from 0% to a
4%, assuming implementation of the Illustrative Plan’s
proposed Flexible Route concept in the 2017 Olsson
transit study. It is important to note that any projection of
transit use is highly speculative, as most existing service
has been highly targeted to seniors.
• Bicycle commuting, encouraged by new infrastructure,
could increase to about 2% by 2030.
• 15 percent of K-8 students could walk to school, about
40% over the current level. This is still far lower than the
60 percent of students who walked to school 30 years
ago.
Applying these changes increases daily pedestrian trips
from about 11,350 in 2016 to about 23,250 in 2030, doubling
over the twelve year period. Bicycle trips could increase
from about 3,900 to about 8,250 daily trips. These changes
could have an overall impact on the overall picture in Grand
Island. This model assumes that by 2030, about 8% of com-
muting trips will eventually be made by “active transporta-
tion” modes – transit, foot, and bicycle.
The 2040 projections suggest that active modes (including
transit) may claim up to a 15 percent mode share by 2040
and that 2% of Grand Island’s residents will cycle to work.
The number of students walking to school will increase to
20 percent, still far below levels experienced twenty years
ago. These assumptions result in an increase of weekday pe-
destrian trips from 11,350 today to about 35,200; and an in-
crease in weekday bicycle trips from about 3,900 to about
14,750.
These projections do not include technological changes
that make bicycling more attractive to more people. For
example, the introduction of e-bikes to the area, which
use a small electric motor to assist pedal-driven bicycles,
may broaden the appeal of bicycling for transportation
and will certainly increase the number of people with the
physical capability to ride by requiring less physical ex-
ertion. On-street infrastructure is particularly well-suited
to accommodating these increasingly popular vehicles.
Table 2.1: Comparative Cities’ Mode Share
City
Total
Number of
Workers
Walk % Bike %
Grand Island 25,985 1.12 0.70
Omaha 204,463 2.84 0.98
Kearney 17,260 3.93 2.05
Cedar Rapids 65,912 2.95 1.76
Bellevue, WA 62,816 4.62 0.52
Bethesda, MD 31,273 6.18 2.00
Burlington, VT 22,102 20.31 4.98
Cedar Falls, IA 20,434 11.80 0.71
Des Moines, IA 100,648 2.75 0.43
Duluth, MN 41,863 5.15 0.82
Edina, MN 22,799 1.95 0.96
Evanston, IL 35,618 11.64 3.01
Fargo, ND 62,074 4.44 1.08
Fitchburg, WI 13,166 1.63 0.90
Gresham, OR 46,692 2.31 0.46
Hopkins, MN 9,595 2.53 0.67
Lee’s Summit,
MO
46,219 0.52 0.02
Lincoln, NE 138,108 3.13 1.54
Montclair, NJ*18,486 4.02 0.34
Shorewood, WI 7,575 9.19 3.60
Sioux Falls, SD 84,504 2.19 0.52
Wauwatosa, WI 24,799 2.31 0.59
Wheat Ridge, CO 14,724 2.00 0.92
Source: 2012-16 ACS 5 Year Estimates
*Source: 2009 ACS 5 Year Estimates
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 42 / 180
3030
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Table 2.2a: Existing and Projected PEDESTRIAN Transportation Trips, 2018-2040
Figure 2.1: Existing and Projected Pedestrian Transportation Trips, 2010-2030Pedestrian Trips in Grand Island 2016Base 2016Share (%)2020 2020 Mode Share (%)2030 2030 Mode Share (%)2040 2040 Mode Share (%)Assumptions/Sources
Population 50,895 53,424 60,312 68,087 2016: ACS; +1.22% historic annual growth rate since
1960
Total Commuting to Work 25,985 51.05%27,276 51.05%30,793 51.05%34,763 51.05%51.05% of Grand Island population in employed
workforce, ACS 2016
Walking to Work (%)1.12%1.5%2.25%3.00%
Walking to Work (#)291 409 693 1,043
Work at Home 594 624 704 795 2.29% of Grand Island workers work at home, ACS
2016
Work at Home Pedestrian Trips 149 25% make
one ped trip
156 25% make
one ped trip
176 25% make
one ped trip
199 25% make
one ped trip
Take Transit to Work (#)178 0.69% take
transit
546 2% take
transit
1,232 4% take
transit
2,086 6% take
transit
Walk to Transit 89 50% walk to
transit
273 50% walk to
transit
616 50% walk to
transit
1,043 50% walk to
transit
School Population (K-8)7,787 15.3%8,174 15.3%9,228 15.3%10,417 15.3%K-8 students = 15.3% of GI population, ACS 2016
School (K-8) Pedestrian Trips 857 11% walk to
school
899 11% walk to
school
1,384 15% walk to
school
2,083 20% walk to
school
Safe Routes to School National Partnership, 2009. 13%
of children walk OR bike to school
School Population (9-12)2,138 2,244 4.2%2,534 4.2%2,860 4.2%9-12 students = 4.2% of GI population, ACS 2016
School (9-12) Pedestrian Trips 118 5.5% walk to
school
135 6.0% walk to
school
203 8% walk to
school
286 10% walk to
school
College 1,730 1,816 2,050 2,314 College Students=3.4% of GI population, ACS 2016
College Pedestrian Trips 19 1.12%27 1.5%46 2.25%69 3.0%Same ratio as walk to work
Total Pedestrian Commuters 1,522 1,899 3,118 4,723
Total Pedestrian Commuter Trips
(Commuters x2)3,044 3,798 6,235 9,447 2 trips for each commuter
Other Trips Ratio
(commuter to non-commuter trips)
2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 U.S. DOT, Federal Highway Administration, 2001
National Household Travel Survey, via Alta Planning
& Design
Other Pedestrian Trips 8,310 10,368 17,022 25,790 Commuter Trips x Other Trips Ratio
Total Daily Pedestrian Trips 11,354 14,165 23,258 35,236 Commuter Trips + Other Trips
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 43 / 180
3131
2 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MARKETS
Table 2.2b: Existing And Projected BICYCLE Transportation Trips, 2010-2040
Pedestrian Trips in Grand Island 2016Base 2016 Share (%)2020 2020 Mode Share (%)2030 2030 Mode Share (%)2040 2040 Mode Share (%)Assumptions/Sources
Population 50,895 53,424 60,312 68,087 2016: ACS; +1.22% historic annual growth rate since
1960
Total Commuting to Work 25,985 51.05%27,276 51.05%30,793 51.05%34,763 51.05%51.05% of Grand Island population in employed
workforce, ACS 2016
Bike to Work (%)0.7%0.8%1.2%2.0%
Bike to Work (#)182 218 370 695
Work at Home 594 624 704 795 2.29% of Grand Island workers work at home, ACS
2016
Work at Home Bike Trips 149 5% make
one bike trip
31 5% make
one bike trip
35 5% make
one bike trip
199 5% make
one bike trip
Take Transit to Work (#)178 0.69% take
transit
546 2% take
transit
1,232 4% take
transit
2,086 6% take
transit
Bike to Transit 0 0% bike to
transit
27 5% bike to
transit
62 5% bike to
transit
104 5% bike to
transit
School Population (K-8)7,787 15.3%8,174 15.3%9,228 15.3%10,417 15.3%K-8 students = 15.3% of GI population, ACS 2016
School (K-8) Bike Trips 156 2% bike to
school
327 4% bike to
school
554 6% bike to
school
833 8% bike to
school
Safe Routes to School National Partnership, 2009. 13%
of children walk OR bike to school
School Population (9-12)2,138 4.2%2,244 4.2%2,534 4.2%2,860 4.2%9-12 students = 4.2% of GI population, ACS 2016
School (9-12) Bike Trips 21 1% bike to
school
34 1.5% bike to
school
63 2.5% bike to
school
100 3.5% bike to
school
College 1,730 1,816 2,051 2,315 College Students=3.4% of GI population, ACS 2016
College Bike Trips 12 1.12%15 1.5%25 2.25%46 3.0%Same ratio as bike to work
Total Bike Commuters 520 652 1,108 1,978
Total Bike Commuter Trips
(Commuters x2)1,039 1,304 2,216 3,956 2 trips for each commuter
Other Trips Ratio
(commuter to non-commuter trips)
2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 U.S. DOT, Federal Highway Administration, 2001
National Household Travel Survey, via Alta Planning
& Design
Other Bike Trips 2,837 3,559 6,049 10,800 Commuter Trips x Other Trips Ratio
Total Daily Bike Trips 3,876 4,863 8,265 14,756 Commuter Trips + Other Trips
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 44 / 180
3232
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
• Survey respondents represent all parts of the region.
This suggests that residents in all parts of the region
are interested in active transportation and that a
complete system will find an audience across all of the
Grand Island area. An almost even number live north
and south of the railroad corridor, with the plurality of
responses coming from the northwest sector. Figure
2.3 illustrates the distribution of responses.
• Destinations are distributed almost in almost exactly
the same percentages as residences. This suggests
both destinations in all parts of the region, supporting
the concept of a citywide network; and the likelihood
of relatively short trips, also supporting an active
transportation framework. (Figure 2.4)
CYCLISTS’ RESPONSES
• Responses were relatively evenly split between regular
and infrequent riders. Only about 40% of respondents
reported being “regular” riders, riding at least once
or twice a week or more; 17% more reported riding
occasionally, and about 42% were at best infrequent
cyclists. The fact that this type of sample were motivated
to complete an extensive survey on pedestrian and bicycle
transportation suggests an interesting opportunity for
growth and relatively high interest outside a traditional
bicycling community. (Figure 2.5)
• Exercise and recreation-related purposes are by far the
most frequent reasons mentioned for bicycling. Regular
exercise is by far the most popular reason for bicycling,
followed by other recreational purposes (trips to parks
or recreation facilities and family outings). “Utilitarian”
bicycling is still relatively uncommon in Grand Island,
although about 15% of respondents (51 of 348) report
commuting as a purpose for their riding. (Figure 2.6)
• The largest group of respondents are cyclists most
interested in improved infrastructure. The largest single
group, about 39 percent, were interested in cycling and
Figure 2.3: Place of Residence of Participants Figure 2.4: Common Destination of Participants
GRAND ISLAND BIKE/PED SURVEY
The estimates discussed above help quantify the size of a potential active transportation market and
also help to assess some of the basic economic and health benefits achieved by reaching this market.
With realistic mode projections, the Grand Island area could reach 49,992 daytime active transporta-
tion trips by 2040. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Survey helps define the preferences and opinions of
these prospective cyclists and pedestrians, and provides important guidance for designing the net-
work.
Who are Grand Island’s Active Transportation Users?
While the survey is not a scientific sample, the number and diversity of responses suggested that it
represents citizens with interest in active transportation. The first questions explored the characteris-
tics of these responses, and found that:
40.3%47.4%
8.4%6.7%
21.0%21.6%
27.4%23.7%
2.9%0.6%
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 45 / 180
3333
2 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MARKETS
Figure 2.5: Frequency of Bicycling Figure 2.7: Self-Characterization
of Participants
Figure 2.6: Purposes of Cycling Trips
comfortable on low-traffic streets, but showed concerns
for safety and see a real need for new facilities to expand
ridership and improve safety. The next largest single
group, 22%, view themselves primarily as trail users and
would like to see additional trails, augmented by interested
non-riders. Just over 17% fall into the “committed urban
cyclist” category – people comfortable with mixed traffic
but support better infrastructure to expand participation.
Very small groups were at the edge of the interest
spectrum – only about 1.3% responded to being
comfortable in every situation and seeing no reason
for infrastructure development, and 8.5% reported
that they were likely to ride under any circumstances.
(Figure 2.7)
PEDESTRIAN RESPONSES
• A majority of survey respondents walk regularly for a
variety of purposes. Roughly 57% of participants reported
walking at least once or twice a week. Only about 20%
report themselves as “infrequent” or non-walkers. (Figure
2.8)
• Exercise and recreation-related purposes are by far the
most frequent reasons mentioned for walking. Purposes
of pedestrian trips are very similar to those of bicycling
trips. About 85% of respondents report walking for
exercise, and the next largest purpose categories (trips
to parks or recreation facilities, family outings, and social
visits) also involve recreational or leisure purposes. A
much smaller group walks for utilitarian purposes such
as commuting, shopping, and community destinations.
Not unexpectedly, these groups are smaller than those of
people who bike for similar purposes. (Figure 2.9)
0%0% 5%5% 10%10% 15%15% 20%20% 25%25% 30%30% 35%35%
17.3%17.3%
14.3 %14.3 %
10.3%10.3%
17.8%17.8%
26.6%26.6%
13.7%13.7%
NeverNever
Very Infrequently
a few times a year
Very Infrequently
a few times a year
Infrequently
every few months
Infrequently
every few months
Occasionally
once or twice a month
Occasionally
once or twice a month
Regularly
once or twice a week
Regularly
once or twice a week
Frequently
several times a week
Frequently
several times a week
COMMITTED AND FEARLESS:
I am a committed bicyclist who
rides in mixed traffic on every
street. I don’t believe that any
significant further action on
bicycle facilities is necessary.
COMMITTED URBAN CYCLIST:
I am a committed bicyclist who
rides in mixed traffic on most
streets, but believes that new
facilities like bike lanes, bike
routes, and trails are needed
to improve Grand Island’s
biking environment for me and
encourage other people to ride
more often.
INTERESTED AND CONCERNED:
I am interested in bicycling and
use low-traffic streets, but am
concerned about the safety
of riding in mixed automobile
traffic. More trails and bike lanes
and routes would increase the
amount of trips that I make by
bicycle.
RECREATIONAL TRAIL USER: I
am a recreational or occasional
bicyclist and ride primarily on
trails. I would like to see more
trails, but am unlikely to ride on
city streets even with bike lanes
INTERESTED NON-RIDER: I do
not ride a bicycle now, but might
be interested if Grand Island
developed facilities that met my
needs better or made me feel
safer.
NON-RIDER UNLIKELY TO RIDE:
I do not ride a bicycle, and am
unlikely ever to do so.
1.3%
17.4%
38.6%
22.4%
11.7%
8.5%
Regular ExerciseRegular Exercise
CommutingCommuting
ShoppingShopping
Routine ErrandsRoutine Errands
Social VisitsSocial Visits
Family OutingsFamily Outings
Bicycle TouringBicycle Touring
OtherOther
Do not Ride a BikeDo not Ride a Bike
Going to Meetings/
Conducting Business
Going to Meetings/
Conducting Business
Trips to Library
or Similar Places
Trips to Library
or Similar Places
Trips to Parks/
Recreational Facilities
Trips to Parks/
Recreational Facilities
06 0 120 180 240 300
225225
5151
66
2323
118118
2727
44
5454
104104
5757
99
5454
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 46 / 180
3434
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
DESTINATIONS
An active transportation network should get people where
they want to go. The survey listed a number of different
community destinations or destination types, and asked re-
spondents to rank them based on the importance of good
bicycle and pedestrian access to them. Figure 2.10 describes
the results, indicating the number of participants who con-
sidered good access important or very important. These in
turn suggest the places that the network should serve.
Top priority destinations include the city’s trails, schools,
parks, neighborhood parks, schools, and the library. Retail
and commuter destinations group at much lower impor-
tance levels, again reinforcing the preponderance of bicy-
cling for fitness and recreational uses in the Grand Island
area.
GRAND ISLAND STREETS
Much of the survey was designed to assess the comfort of
current and prospective bicyclists with different types of
bicycle environments. The survey asked participants to re-
spond to a gallery of photographs of Grand Island streets
and infrastructure installations from other parts of the coun-
try. Through their responses, participants assessed:
• Whether the setting is comfortable for most or all cyclists.
• Whether the setting is comfortable for the respondent,
but not necessarily for less capable cyclists.
The displays in Figure 2.11 group images of various Grand
Island streets on the basis of their combined favorability rat-
ings. Groupings are based on the percent of respondents
who considered the facility comfortable for both other users
and themselves. and show the following results:
• The most comfortable (over 85 percent favorable)
settings include either completely separated paths,
both along roads and on exclusive right-of-way, or quiet
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
2.9%2.9%
9.7%9.7%
8.8%8.8%
21.1%21.1%
31.4%31.4%
26.1%26.1%
NeverNever
Very Infrequently
a few times a year
Very Infrequently
a few times a year
Infrequently
every few months
Infrequently
every few months
Occasionally
once or twice a month
Occasionally
once or twice a month
Regularly
once or twice a week
Regularly
once or twice a week
Frequently
several times a week
Frequently
several times a week
Regular ExerciseRegular Exercise
CommutingCommuting
ShoppingShopping
Routine ErrandsRoutine Errands
Social VisitsSocial Visits
Family OutingsFamily Outings
OtherOther
Do Not WalkDo Not Walk
Going to Meetings/
Conducting Business
Going to Meetings/
Conducting Business
Trips to Library
or Similar Places
Trips to Library
or Similar Places
Trips to Parks/
Recreational Facilities
Trips to Parks/
Recreational Facilities
06 0 120 180 240 300 360
290290
2828
3838
3232
109109
1717
1919
7171
108108
1212
65651414
Figure 2.8: Frequency of Walking
Figure 2.9: Purposes of Walking Trips
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 47 / 180
High Schools
Middle Schools
Elem Schools
Central CC
Downtown
Conestoga Mall
South Locust
281 Corridor
Other Shopping
St Francis Area
Platte Valley Ind Pk
Other Industrial
Public Library
Stolley Park
Pier Park
Eagle Scout Park
Ryder Park
LE Ray Park
Island Oasis
Neighborhood
Parks
Event Center
Trails
76.0
86.2
88.3
86.2
61.6
64.0
41.5
32.4
38.7
30.5
42.6
71.5
71.9
75.7
70.0
67.8
72.8
79.3
42.9
76.7
18.0
17.8
3535
2 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MARKETS
Figure 2.10: Importance of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access to Community Destinations
Table displays % of respondents reporting destinations as “important” or “very important” for pedestrian
and bicycle access.
neighborhood streets such as Oak Street and Stagecoach
Drive. This indicates a reasonable level of user comfort
with quiet streets. given the fact that relatively few of the
respondents characterize themselves as fully comfortable
in mixed traffic.
• The next highest-rated groups (50-85 percent favorable)
include some relatively busy streets, including Custer
Avenue, 13th Street, and Fonner Park Road. This indicates
at least some comfort level with key candidate streets
for a network that could be strengthened by some
infrastructure improvement.
• Most people are uncomfortable with major arterial streets,
two-lane corridors with significant traffic, and several
major pedestrian crossings, including trail crossings of
major streets.
Another level of interpretation is the difference between
settings rated as “comfortable for me” rather than “com-
fortable for most people” by a substantially larger number
of people. These suggest situations that experienced riders
find satisfactory for themselves, but not suitable for less ca-
pable cyclists. One determining factor was the perceived or
indicated amount of traffic for a particular situation. More
experienced bicyclists were more comfortable dealing with-
higher traffic volumes than less experienced riders.
INFRASTRUCTURE APPROACHES
Figure 2.12 displays a series of bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure approaches in use around the country.
These are grouped by the percentage of respondents
rating each image as “comfortable for most or all users” –
a higher standard of comfort than used to evaluate Grand
Island streets in Figure 2.11. This different, stricter measure
is directed toward the goal of expanding the role of active
modes in the overall transportation framework, rather than
simply providing existing bicyclists and pedestrians with
better or more comfortable facilities (a valid goal in itself,
to be sure).
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 48 / 180
3636
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
1st St
4th St
E Stolley Park
Broadwell State & 281
Custer
3rd St 13th St Fonner Park
Faidley
Oklahoma and
Locust
State Trail west of
281
South Locust
S Locust/WalmartUS 281
Stuhr Rd
12th St
Oak Capital Trail
Stagecoach Beltline Trail
State-Capital ConnectorGrand Island Ave
Ped Ped
Ped
Figure 2.11: User Comfort of Various Grand Island Contexts
Percent of participants reporting the facility is comfortable for most users and for themselves
30% and less 30-50% 50-70% 70-85% 85% and over
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 49 / 180
3737
2 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MARKETS
Figure 2.12: User Comfort of Various Infrastructure Solutions
Percent of participants reporting the facility is comfortable for most users
30% and less 30-50% 50-70% 70-85% 85% and over
The results of FIgures 2.11 and 2.12 suggest that:
• The highest level of comfort is associated with physically separated facilities
– trails on exclusive right-of-way or on-street facilities that have a physical
buffer or barrier between the bicycle/pedestrian environment and motor
vehicle travel lanes.
• Views of enhancements to local and neighborhood streets are divided, with
about half of respondents viewing them as comfortable for most users –
a lower percentage than physically separated facilities. However, many of
these respondents viewed these facilities as “comfortable” for themselves.
• Higher visibility facilities (physical separation, vertical bollards, green paint)
appear to make some difference in people’s perception of comfort for most
users.
• Painted conventional bike lanes or shared lane markings on busy streets are
not seen as comfortable for most users.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 50 / 180
3838
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Figure 2.13: Effectiveness of Various BICYCLE Actions
Buffered bike lanes
More trails
Widened sidewalks/
sidepaths on major streets
Bike safety programs for
kids
Better pedestrian and
intersection control of
major streets
More safe routes to
schools projects
More bike parking
Bike lanes
Designated on-street bike
routes to key destinations
Strong advocacy
organization
More special and
community events
Challenges and
promotions for bicycle
commuters
More information about
clubs, events, programs
Bike/ped-friendly project
design
Wayfinding signage
Better pavement
markings at intersections
Better sidewalk ramps
Countdown crossing
signals
Bicyclists May Use Full
Lane signage
Shared lane markings
Motorist education
Better law enforcement
Improved bicycle safety
education
Bike share program
Showers at workplaces
Very Effective or Effective
Over 70%
Very Effective or Effective
50% - 70%
Very Effective or Effective
Less than 50%
IMPORTANCE OF VARIOUS ACTIONS
Responses to a list of possible actions to improve Grand
Island’s bicycle and pedestrian environment indicated a
strong priority for infrastructure programs. Figure 2.13 tabu-
lates the responses to this list. Initiatives that ranked high-
est included protected bike lanes, more trails, and sidepaths.
Highly rated pedestrian initiatives focused on improved pe-
destrian and intersection controls at major streets and safe
routes to schools projects. Bike education programs direct-
ed to children were also considered highly effective.
A variety of other actions were viewed as effective by a ma-
jority of respondents, notably including wayfinding, bike
lanes (presumably on streets with comfortable traffic vol-
umes), events and promotional programs, and a designat-
ed on-street network. From a pedestrian perspective, bet-
ter pavement markings at intersections and sidewalk ramps
were viewed as effective programs.
Less effective actions included shared road signage, shared
lane markings, bike share programs, and bicycle safety edu-
cation for motorists and riders.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 51 / 180
3939
2 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MARKETS
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 52 / 180
4040
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 53 / 180
3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE
4141
3CHAPTER
THE ACTIVE NETWORK
PRINCIPLES AND FRAMEWORK
THIS CHAPTER PRESENTS THE
PERFORMANCE PRINCIPLES
AND FRAMEWORK OF GRAND
ISLAND’S PROPOSED ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK.
These principles, derived from
the analysis of existing conditions
and opportunities, the community
engagement process, and market
preferences generate the overall
system concept. The chapter
describes the framework of the
system and its individual components.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 54 / 180
4242
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
An effective network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities is
based largely on the characteristics of both the individual
community and the nature and preferences of its users. But
its design and operation should also be guided by specif-
ic principles and performance measurements. Some of the
world’s best work in identifying design principles was done
by the Netherlands Centre for Research and Contract Stan-
dardization in Civil and Traffic Engineering. This plan adapts
the Netherlands concepts to the contexts of medium-sized
American cities like Grand Island, identifying six guiding
principles for an effective active transportation network:
• Integrity. The ability of a system to link starting points
continuously to destinations, and to be easily and clearly
understood by users.
• Directness. The capacity to provide direct routes with
minimum misdirection or unnecessary distance.
• Safety. The ability to minimize hazards and improve
safety for users of all transportation modes.
• Comfort. Consistency with the capacities of users and
avoidance of mental or physical stress.
• Experience. The quality of offering users a pleasant and
positive experience.
• Feasibility. The ability to maximize benefits and minimize
costs, including financial cost, inconvenience, and
potential political opposition.
These six principles express the general attributes of a good
system, but must have specific criteria and even measure-
ments that both guide the system’s design and evaluate how
well it works.
Figures 3.1 through 3.6 present criteria for each of the six
guiding principles, and design guides and methods to man-
age performance. Each table includes:
• The performance factors relevant to each guiding
principle. For example, the INTEGRITY principle
addresses the ability of users to understand the system
and use it to get to their destinations. Examples of
performance factors that help satisfy this principle
include clear wayfinding and directional information and
continuity, ensuring that users do not confront dead-
ends as they move along the route.
• The measurements that can be used to evaluate
the success of the system and its ultimate design.
For example, we can measure the effectiveness of a
wayfinding system by its ability to guide users intuitively
without either creating too many signs.
• The performance criteria that establish the design
objectives and guidelines for each of these factors. For
example, a wayfinding system should avoid ambiguities
that confuse users and follow graphic standards that are
immediately and clearly understood.
These attributes help guide network design and evaluation,
but they are clearly aspirational – no network in a real place
can meet all of these criteria all of the time.
ATTRIBUTES OF THE NETWORK
Based on this development of the six guiding principles pre-
sented in the tables, the Grand Island area network design
follows the following major attributes:
Tailored to User Groups. Planning a bicycle network for
Grand Island and the surrounding area requires us to un-
derstand the specific market groups for the system. These
groups include:
• Recreational users, including people traveling to parks
and recreational features, especially the trail system, from
their homes. It is important to understand that travel to
recreational destinations are in fact transportation trips
that substitute for trips by car.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 55 / 180
3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE
4343
Performance Factor Measures Performance Standard
Comprehensiveness Number of connected destinations
on system
Major destination types identified in the survey results and presented in the destinations analysis should all be
accessible by the network. 100 percent of top destination types, 80 percent of all destinations should be served.
New destinations as developed should be developed along the network or served by extensions.
Continuity Number of discontinuities along
individual routes
Users headed on a route to a destination should not be dropped at a terminus without route or directional information.*
Even at incremental levels, route endings should make functional sense.*
Transitions between facility types should be clear to users and well-defined. Transitions from one type of infrastructure.
to another along the same route should avoid leading cyclists of different capabilities into uncomfortable settings.*
Infrastructure should be recognizable and its features (pavement markings, design conventions) consistent throughout
the system.
Wayfinding/directional
information
Completeness and clarity of signage
Economy and efficiency of graphics
Complaints from users
Signs should keep users informed and oriented at all points.
Sign system should avoid ambiguities that cause users to feel lost or require them to carry unnecessary support
materials.
Signs should be clear, simple, consistent, and readable, and should be consistent with the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices. (MUTCD)
Route choice Number of alternative routes of
approximately equal distance
Ultimate system should provide most users with a minimum of two alternatives of approximately equal distance.*
Maximum distance between alternative routes should be about 1/2 mile.*
Consistency Percentage of typical reported trips
accommodated by the ultimate
network.
Typically, a minimum of 50-70 percent of most trips to identified destinations should be accommodated by the bikeways
network.*
Figure 3.1: Development of the INTEGRITY Guiding Principle
Integrity issues.
When paths diverge, directional information
that tells users where each alternative leads is
very important to the user’s peace of mind.
Where streets are designed to discourage
through traffic, users need assurance that a
street that looks like a continuous route con-
nects to other parts of the network.
* Standard applies primarily to bicycle network
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 56 / 180
4444
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Performance Factor Measures Performance Standard
Access Coverage
Access to all parts of the city
The network should provide convenient access to all parts of the city. As a standard, all urban residential areas should
be within one-half mile from one of the system’s routes, and should be connected to those routes by a relatively direct
local street connection.*
Bicycling speed Design and average speed of system The network should permit relatively consistent operation at a steady speed without excessive delays.*
System should be able to deliver an average point to point speed between 12 and 15 mph for users, although a portion
of routes should permit operation in a 15 to 20 mph range.* (CROW adapted to American measurement)
Diversions and misdirections Maximum range of detours or
diversions from a straight line
between destinations.
“Detour ratio:” Ratio of actual versus
direct distance between two points.
Routes should connect points with a minimum amount of misdirections.
Users should perceive that the route is always taking them in the desired direction, without making them reverse
themselves or go out of their way to an unreasonable degree.
Maximum diversion of a straight line connecting two key points on a route should not exceed 0.25 miles on either side
of the line.* (NACTO)
Delays Amount of time spent not moving Routes should minimize unnecessary or frustrating delays, including excessive numbers of stop signs, and delays at
uncontrolled intersections waiting for gaps in cross traffic.*
Routes should maximize use of existing signalized crossings.
Intersections Bicycle direction through
intersections
Bicyclists and pedestrians should have a clear and safe path through intersections. Two-stage crossings are sometimes
necessary but should avoid conflicts between bicycles and pedestrians.
Figure 3.2: Development of the DIRECTNESS Guiding Principle
Directness issues.
Right: Broadwell Avenue marks the seam be-
tween the ordinal grid oriented to true compass
directions and the rotated grid oriented to the
Union Pacific. At this location, approaching the
Five Points intersection, a break in sidewalk con-
tinuity and signage requires pedestrians head-
ing for major commercial destinations on the
east side of the street to cross Broadwell twice.
The back of curb sidewalks along an arterial
street can also be uncomfortable for many pe-
destrian users.
* Standard applies primarily to bicycle network
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 57 / 180
3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE
4545
Performance Factor Measures Performance Standard
Reduced number of crash incidents Number of incidents
Reactions/perceptions of users
The network should reduce the rate of crashes over ten year periods. Data collection should be sufficient to trace
baseline data and measure the impact of improvements.
Appropriate routing: mixing versus
separation of traffic
Average daily traffic (ADT) criteria for
mixed traffic
Traffic speed criteria for mixed traffic
System design should avoid encounters between bicyclists and incompatible motor traffic streams (high volumes and/
or high speeds). Separation and protection of vulnerable users should increase as incompatibilities increase.*
Infrastructure, visibility, signage Pairing of context and infrastructure
solutions
Mutual visibility and awareness of
bicycle and motor vehicles
Infrastructure should be designed for utility by at least 80 percent of the potential market. The Grand Island Bicycle and
Pedestrian Survey indicates that a relatively large number of people are relatively uncomfortable with many streets and
prefer higher levels of separation.
Infrastructure applications should be matched with appropriate contexts.
Warning signage directed to motorists should be sufficient to alert them to the presence of cyclists along the travel
route.
Surfaces and markings should be clearly visible to all users. Obstructions, such as landscaping, road geometry, and
vertical elements, should not block routine visibility of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists.
Trail and pathway geometries should avoid sharp turns and alignments that hide cyclists operating in opposing
directions or create crash hazards for pedestrians. Where these conditions are unavoidable, devices such as mirrors and
advisory signs should be used to reduce hazards.
Door hazards and parking conflicts Number of incidents
Parking configurations
Location of bicycle tracking guides
Component design should track bicycles outside of the door hazard zone.*
Back-out hazards of head-in parking should be avoided or mitigated when diagonal parking is used along streets.*
Intersection conflicts Location and types of pavement
markings
Number of intersections or crossings
per mile
Intersections should provide a clearly defined and visible track through them for cyclists and pedestrians.
Sidepaths should generally be used on continuous segments with a minimum number of interruptions.
Complaints Number of complaints per facility
type
Complaints should be recorded by type of infrastructure and location of facility, to set priorities for remedial action.
Figure 3.3: Development of the SAFETY Guiding Principle
Safety issues.
Left: The Capital Trail displays characteristics of a well-
designed sidepath – separation from the street, adequate
width and good visibility, and infrequent driveway and
street interruptions.
* Standard applies primarily to bicycle network
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 58 / 180
4646
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Performance Factor Measures Performance Standard
Road surface Quality and type of road surface
Materials
Incidence of longitudinal cracking
and expansion joints
The network’s components should provide a reasonably smooth surface with a minimum of potholes and areas of
paving deterioration.*
Roads should be free of hazardous conditions such as settlement and longitudinal cracks and pavement separation.*
All routes in the urban system should be hard-surfaced, unless specifically designated for limited use.*
Sidewalks in the network should be repaired or designed to minimize tripping hazards or obstructions such as
equipment or poles.
Hills Number and length of hills and
inclines
Maximum grades on segments for
both long and short distances
Grades are generally not an issue in the Grand Island area network. However, if possible, grades on approaches to
overpasses and underpasses should not exceed 7 percent over a length not exceeding 400 feet in length; or 5 percent
over the course of a mile.* (AASHTO)
Off-road climbing facilities should be provided where slow-moving bike traffic can obstruct motor vehicles and increase
motorist conflict.*
Traffic stress Average daily traffic (ADT)
Average traffic speed
Volume of truck traffic
Generally, the network should choose paths of lower resistance/incompatibility wherever possible and when the
DIRECTNESS guideline can be reasonably met.*
The network should avoid mixed traffic situations over 5,000 vehicles per day (vpd) without separated facilities, or
should use alternative routes where possible.* (NACTO with modifications)
Stops that interrupt rhythm and
continuity
Number of stop signs/segment Network routes should avoid or redirect frequent stop sign controls. The number of stops between endpoints should not
exceed three (1 per quarter mile average) per mile segment.
Figure 3.4: Development of the COMFORT Guiding Principle
Comfort issues.
The high rankings given to trails and protected
bicycle facilities indicate that Grand Island area
residents are most comfortable with separated
trails, quiet streets, and protected bike lanes.
* Standard applies primarily to bicycle network
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 59 / 180
3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE
4747
Performance Factor Measures Performance Standard
Surrounding land use Neighborhood setting
Adjacent residential or open space
use, including institutional campuses
Adjacent street-oriented commercial
Surrounding land use should provide the network user with an attractive adjacent urban environment.
It is desirable for at least 75 percent of the length of the route should pass through residential, open space, or street-
oriented (main street) commercial environments. However, this guide is advisory and should not be taken to limit
necessary connectivity or service to major employment centers.*
Routes should provide access to commercial and personal support services, such as food places, convenience stores, and
restrooms.
Landscape Location and extent of parks or
maintained open space
Network should maximize exposure or use right-of-ways along or through public parks and open spaces.
Environmental contexts to be maximized include parks, waterways and lakes, and landscaped settings.
Social safety Residential development patterns
Observability: Presence of windows
or visible uses along the route
Population density or number of
users
The network should provide routes with a high degree of observability – street oriented uses, residential frontages,
buildings that provide vantage points that provide security to system users.
Areas that seem insecure, including industrial precincts, areas with few street-oriented businesses, or areas with little
use or visible maintenance should generally be avoided, except where necessary to make connections or serve major
destinations like industrial employment centers.
Furnishings and design On-trail landscaping, supporting
furnishings
Network routes should include landscaping, street furnishings, lighting, rest stops, graphics, and other elements that
promote the overall experience. These features are particularly important along trails.
Figure 3.5: Development of the EXPERIENCE Guiding Principle
Experience issues.
Grand Island’s distinctive trail and street set-
tings (the Cemetery Trail and Grand Island
Avenue pictured here)and attractive neighbor-
hoods create positive experiences for pedestrian
and bicyclists.
* Standard applies primarily to bicycle network
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 60 / 180
4848
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Performance Factor Measures Performance Standard
Cost effectiveness Route cost
Maximum use of low-cost
components
Population/destination density
The network should generate maximum benefit at minimum cost. Where possible, selected routes should favor
segments that can be adapted to bicycle use with economical features rather than requiring major capital investments.
Initial routes should be located in areas with a high probability of use intensity: substantial population density and/or
incidence of destinations.
Initial investments should integrate existing assets, extending their reach into other neighborhoods and increasing
access to them.
Major off-street investments should concentrate on closing gaps in an on-street system.*
Phasing and incremental integrity Self-contained value
Ability to evolve
The network should provide value and integrity at all stages of completion. A first stage should increase access and use
in ways that make future phases logical.
The network should be incremental, capable of building on an initial foundation in gradual phases. Phases should be
affordable, fitting within a modest annual allocation by the city, and complemented by major capital investments
incorporating other sources.
Neighborhood relationships and
friction
Parking patterns
Development and circulation patterns
The network should avoid conflict situations, where a route is likely to encounter intense local opposition. Initial design
should avoid impact on potentially controversial areas, such as parking, without neighborhood agreement.
Involuntary acquisition of right-of-way should be avoided wherever possible.
Detailed planning processes to implement specific routes should include local area or stakeholder participation.
Figure 3.6: Development of the FEASIBILITY Guiding Principle
Feasibility issues.
Taking advantage of opportunities can provide
major connectivity advances at relatively low
cost.
Far right: Use of a pre-existing culvert in Sioux
Falls, South Dakota to extend an important trail
link under a major arterial street.
Right: This creek crossing provides an excellent
and relatively inexpensive way to cross the US
281 barrier south of Husker Highway.
* Standard applies primarily to bicycle network
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 61 / 180
3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE
4949
• Students walking or biking to school.
• Residents who are actively interested in walking or biking
for transportation, but are discouraged by barriers,
including major streets, highways, and railroad crossings.
• Workers at major industries like JBS, an employer of over
3,000, who may find bicycle transportation or walking to
be an attractive and affordable transportation option.
Destination-Based. The Grand Island area network should
direct people of all ages to desitnations, whether they are
parks, trails, schools, business districts, or the library. Desti-
nations identified by the community as important help gen-
erate the structure of the network. The proposed network
is more than a map of streets and trails. It is in fact part of a
transportation system that takes people to specific places.
Function Model. Several reasonable models for network
planning exist, with choices dependent on the nature of the
city. In planning the Grand Island system, we identify a grid
of routes designed to help users “read” the system with a
minimum of supporting materials, To do this, have adapt-
ed a “transit model,” that identifies major destination-based
routes that connect points and destinations, almost as if
they were bus lines.
Incremental Integrity. As shown in Figure 3.6 (Feasibility),
incremental integrity – the ability of the network to provide
a system of value at each step of completion – is an impor-
tant attribute. The first step in completion should be valu-
able and increase bicycle access even if nothing else is done.
Each subsequent phase of completion follows the same
principle of leaving something of clear value and integrity,
even if no further phases were developed.
Evolution. As part of the concept of incremental integrity,
the system is designed to evolve and improve over time. For
example, a relatively low-cost project or design element can
establish a pattern of use that supports something better in
the future. To use a cliché, the perfect should not be the en-
emy of the good.
Conflict Avoidance. Few important actions are completely
without controversy, but successful development of a bi-
cycle transportation system in Grand Island can and should
avoid unnecessary controversy. On most streets, shared
streets and signage can provide satisfactory facilities that
focus on the positive and minimize divisive conflicts. Proj-
ects should demonstrate the multiple benefits of street ad-
aptations. For example, bikeway design can slow motorists
and keep unwanted through traffic out of neighborhoods,
benefiting both cyclists and neighbors.
Use of Existing Facilities. Great existing features like Pier
Park, Stolley Park, College Park and Central Community Col-
lege, the Stuhr Museum, and others are integral to the active
transportation system. Utility easements and drainage cor-
ridors like Moore Creek also offer great opportunities.
Fill Gaps. In some cases, the most important parts of a net-
work involve small projects that make connections rather
than long distance components. Often, these short links knit
longer street or trail segments together into longer routes or
provide access to important destinations. These gaps may
include a short trail segment that connects two continuous
streets together, or an intersection improvement that bridg-
es a barrier. The development of the overall network is stra-
tegic, using manageable initiatives to create a comprehen-
sive system.
Routes of Least Resistance. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Sur-
vey showed that much of the city’s potential urban cycling
market prefers quiet streets or corridors with some separa-
tion from motor traffic. It is not necessary to try to force bi-
cycle access on major streets when more comfortable, lower
cost options exist. For example, bicycle boulevards – lower
volume streets that parallel major arterials – satisfy the com-
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 62 / 180
5050
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
fort principle successfully. However, some important desti-
nations, including major employers and shopping facilities
are served by major arterials. Here, complete street guide-
lines should include bicycle and pedestrian accommoda-
tions in new major street projects. Signage systems can also
be instrumental in guiding users efficiently to their destina-
tions using comfortable routes made up of different street
segments.
Barriers. In many cases, reducing the dividing impact of
barriers such as major highways and streets, can be the
mosty effective way of improving connectivity. Most people
involved in this process view US 281 as an especially difficult
barrier, even where crossed by multiuse paths. In other cas-
es, existing trails cross busy streets, leading to concerns of
parents about their children using the trail to get to school.
Regional Connectivity. Grand Island’s potential network
extends into the surrounding region. This plan’s study area
also includes Alda. The Riverway Trail may eventually ex-
tend east to the Platte River and long-range plans stretch
out to Mormon Island State Recreation Area. Other potential
considerations include the eventual routing of the US Bicy-
cle Route System through Nebraska, probably following the
Lincoln Highway corridor.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 63 / 180
3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE
5151
• Multi-Use Trails. Grand Island’s growing trail system, builds
from two connected systems that ultimately can complete
two major circumferential loops: the John Brownell
Beltline, St. Joe/Stuhr/Riverway Trails in the south half
of the city; and the Capital, Westside Connector, State,
and Shoe maker Trails around the north and west sides
of Grand Island. The most recent addition to the system
is the Capital Avenue Trail, a high quality sidepath that
now extends from Ashley Park to the west side of the city
using the State-Capital Connector and Shoemaker Trails.
Anticipated near-term connections include an extension
of the Beltline to job centers on the east; eastward
continuation of the Capital Trail, and a sidepath along
North Broadwell to popular but isolated Eagle Scout
Park and the Sports Complex. Other priority links include
extension of the State-Capital Connector, which will
provide access to the US 281 corridor; the first stage of the
west circumferential loop with a link from the Stuhr Trail
through the new hospital campus and to Cedar Hiils Park
and south along Moore Creek; and a north extension of
the South Locust Trail to connect with eastside on-street
routes. Clear identification and wayfinding information
will also integrate these trails into the overall network.
These new paths are identified in the Network Map as
Priority Trails.
Later phase trails complete the outer legs of the two
major circumferential loops and extend the system into
other growth areas. Phasing concepts are discussed in
more detail in Chapter Seven.
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
NETWORK
Figures 3.7, 3.7a, 3.8, and 3.8a present the proposed active
transportation network for Grand Island, based on the prin-
ciples described previously in this chapter and possibilities
for infrastructure development. Figures 3.7 and 3.7a focus
on the on-street network, while 3.8 and 3.8a consider the
off-street trail and shared use path components. This map
shows the ultimate build-out by component type, and in-
cludes route designations that are used to describe infra-
structure details. The components of the system include:
• On-Street Network. These corridors make up the primary
on-street route grid. They form the bike and pedestrian
arterials that link the parts of the Grand Island area.
together. They also complement the trail system and in
many ways connect neighborhoods and destinations to
the growing regional pathway system. These routes use
a variety of facility types, including quiet streets, multi-
use shoulders, protected bike lanes, and in some cases
sidepaths and short trail connections. Details of these
routes are presented in Chapter Seven.
Quiet Streets are sometimes referred to as “bicycle
boulevards” or “neighborhood greenways” but function
as a significant and cost-efficient part of an on-street
network. They are typically local or collector streets with
relatively low volumes that have good continuity and in
many cases parallel higher order streets. They are far more
comfortable for most cyclists and pedestrians than the
busy corridors they parallel. Relatively minor adaptations,
such as pavement markings, special graphics, and
wayfinding can make these streets even more comfortable
for a broad range of users. Bicycle boulevards are also
fundamental to the community pedestrian network, and
should ultimately have continuous, barrier-free sidewalk
access along at least one side of the street.
Above: Underpass connection from
Stuhr Trail west to new hospital site, a
part of a priority trail extension to Cedar
Hills Park.
Above: Stagecoach Drive, part of a
southside on-street link between the St
Joe and South Locust Trails
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 64 / 180
5252
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
6th St
L
i
n
c
o
lnWh
e
e
le
r
P
in
e
A
d
am
s14th St17th St
4th St
3rd StFaidley
Stolley Park
10th St
State
Capital
Seedling Mile
CusterHancockIndependenceAdamsBellwoodBrookline
15th St
7th St
10th St
Koenig Che
r
r
yOak
20th St
AshtonGrand IslandSouth LocustSky ParkWhiteBismark
North Front
Stagecoach
US 34
College
On-Street
Network
Existing Trails
Base Network Trails/
Sidepaths
Ultimate Trails
Alda/Cornhusker
Pathways
Study Corridor
Local Connectors
Barrier Projects
Grand Island City Limits
Figure 3.7:
Ultimate Grand Island
Area Active Transportation
Network
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 65 / 180
3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE
5353
W. Camp AugustineSouth LocustUS 34
Figure 3.7a:
Ultimate Grand Island
Area Active Transportation
Network: South Extension
• Alda/Cornhusker Trails. These are long-term routes that
connect Grand Island to Alda and the nearby Cornhusker
plant, available to the city as a potential recreation area
on the site of the former ammunition testing and storage
facility. These paths follow easements and in some cases
county roads.
• Study Corridors. These corridors include a corridor
study for a northeast bypass for US 281 and for eventual
widening of US 34 on the south edge of town. Multi-
modal facilities, specifically a path parallel to the roadway,
are not included as part of the basic network but should
be incorporated into the corridor study and the possible
functional design.
• Neighborhood Connectors. These are short, primarily on-
street routes, usually on low-volume local streets, that
connect through routes and neighborhoods. Most require
minimal infrastructure investment.
Left: Blaine Street underpass of US 30. This is a critical point in a north-south route that connects the
Custer corridor with the St. Joe/Stuhr/Riverway trail system. Right: Right-of-way for a future extension of
the Westside Connector that now links the Capital and State Trails parallel to US 281
On-Street
Network
Existing Trails
Base Network Trails/
Sidepaths
Ultimate Trails
Alda/Cornhusker
Pathways
Study Corridor
Local Connectors
Barrier Projects
Grand Island City Limits
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 66 / 180
5454
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
1 8
3
5
6
7
2
3
4
Shoemaker Extension
Westside Connector
Cedar Hills Trail
South Locust Trail
Beltline Extension
Capital Trail East
Eagle Scout Link
Moore Creek Trail
Southwest Trail
5
6
7
8
9
2
3
4
1
Veterans Legacy/Overpass
Sky Park Trail
Seedling Mile Trail
Wood River Trail
Riverway Trail Extension
Mormon Island (S. Locust)
Stagecoach Connector Trail
Northwest Trail
North Front Path/Overpass
L.E. Ray Park Connector
Alda/Cornhusker Trail
Alda/Husker Highway Trail
Alda Paths
5
5
6
6
7
7 8
12
13
11
2
2
3
3
4
4
1
1
9
8
10
9
11
12
13
10
Capital Tr
State Tr
Riverway Tr
Stuhr TrCemetery Tr
St Joe TrS. Locust TrShoemaker TrCapital-State ConnectorBeltlin
e
Tr
Figure 3.8: Ultimate Grand Island Area Active Transportation Network – Trails Priority Trails
Later Phase Trails
9
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 67 / 180
3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE
5555
6
6
Riverway Tr
Figure 3.8a:
Ultimate Grand Island Area Active
Transportation Network: South
Extension – Trails
Above: John Brownell Beltline Trail at Pier
Park. Left: Route for future south extension
of Capial-State Connector Trail
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 68 / 180
5656
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
MAP KEY NAME /DESCRIPTION LENGTH
(mi)
MAJOR
DESTINATIONS
SERVED
SYSTEM ROLE AND ISSUES
Shoemaker Trail extension, Old
Potash to Moore Creek. Route
continues existing trail alignment
south to Moore Creek at the half
section line between Old Potash
and Stolley Park Road,
.50 Shoemaker ES First stage of link from westside to trail network on
south edge of the city, a major priority of westside
neighborhood residents. Completion of westside
connection (Southwest Trail) may be accelerated,
depending on construction of relocated US 30.
Westside Connector extension,
State to Faidley. Later connection
to potential bike/ped overpass
over US 281 on North Front
alignment
1.00 US 281 commercial
and industrial
corridor
Potentially vital north-south trail spine to major
commercial services and future westside residential
development. Includes spurs trails to major commercial
centers where possible.
Cedar Hills Trail, Stuhr Trail to
Cedar Hills Park
1.80 Stuhr Museum,
new hospital
and mixed use
campus, Cedar
Hills Park
South leg of westide connection of Beltline/St Joe/
Stuhr trail system to Shoemaker Trail. Includes existing
underpass of US 281.
South Locust Trail, Brookline to US
34
0.75 South Locust
corridor, Walmart
Links most of network to South Locust, with Beltline,
Riverway, St. Joe Trails and Pine Street route to create
interconnected loops. Continues Pine Street bikeway
route to form continuous east side connection to Capital
Ave. Requires improved crossing to trail south of US 34.
Belt Line Trail extension to JBS
plant and Stuhr Road, following
city-owned ROW to US 30, and
continuing along perimeter of
Hall County correctional center
property
0.90 JBS and major
eastside industrial
areas
Connects central city neighborhoods to area’s largest
single employment concentration, Important potential
commuter route for workforce needing transportation
choices
Capital Trail East, Capital Ave to
20th Street underpass
0.68 Ashley Park,
Knickrehm ES
Follows Capital Ave and Plum Street. Connects to 17th and
20th Street underpasses of BNSF elevated main line, links
east side of tracks to trail network
1
2
3
4
5
6
Table 3.9: Trail Network Components
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 69 / 180
3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE
5757
Figure 3.9: Trail Network ComponentsMAP KEY NAME /DESCRIPTION LENGTH
(mi)
MAJOR DESTINATIONS
SERVED
SYSTEM ROLE AND ISSUES
Eagle Scout Trail, existing trail to
Capital
0.75 Sports complex,
Veterans Legacy site,
Eagle Scout Park
Sidepath along Broadwell and pathway
connection between sports complex and
Eagle Scout, links major recreation area to
trail network
Moore Creek Trail, Faidley to
Shoemaker Trail extension
1.50 Existing and future
southwest residential
areas
Connects Faidlley corridor and developing
southwest areas via North Rd sidepath and
Moore Creek drainageway. Major link of
westside trail network
Southwest Trail, Moore Creek/
Shoemaker Trail connection to
Cedar Hills Park. Route uses Stolley
Park east to UP mainline crossing,
continues south between Chief plant
and cemetery and Memorial Park
Road alignment to Husker Highway
1.65 Shoemaker
ES, southwest
development
neighborhoods, Cedar
Hills Park
Completes southwest trail connection
from current Shoemaker Trail endpoint to
Stuhr Trail and the rest of the mainline trail
system. Completes a grand trail loop. May
be accelerated with US 30 development,
and uses a culvert as an underpass under
the new road alignment.
Veterans Legacy Trail / Overpass,
Capital Ave Trail to Sports Complex
0.80 Veterans Legacy site,
Sports Complex, Eagle
Scout Park
Connects to Custer bikeway and includes
future overpass over UP. Incorporated as
part of master plan for redevelopment of
Veterans Home site
Sky Park Trail, St Paul to Sky Park Rd
continuing alignment of East 20th
Street
2.05 Airport and future
industrial area
Connects east development areas to
network. Extension to possible path along
US 281 northeast bypass, to be determined
by study corridor plan
Seedling Mile Trail, Stuhr Road to US
30 at Shady Bend
2.07 JSB, eastside industrial
park, Seedling Mile
ES, historic Lincoln
Highway
Connects a relatively isolated eastside
neighborhood to city network and industrial
employment, improves sidewalk access in
neighborhood. Provides good access route
to county road system
7
8
9
1
2
3
Table 3.9: Trail Network Components
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 70 / 180
5858
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Table 3.9: Trail Network Components
MAP KEY NAME /DESCRIPTION LENGTH
(mi)
MAJOR DESTINATIONS
SERVED
SYSTEM ROLE AND ISSUES
Wood River Trail, South Locust to
Fonner Park and Stuhr
1.20 Fonner Park, South
Locust corridor
Extends Stagecoach on-street route to
Fonner Park and Oak St quiet street route,
provides a loop with Stolley Park Rd and
completes southeast network. Links with
S. Locust Trail ann Riverway to Hall County
Park
Riverway Trail Extension, South
Locust to Platte River and US 34
3.00 South Locust corridor,
confluence of channels
that created the “Grand
Island” of the Platte
Regional extension of the trail network
to shouldered highway and paved county
roads to the east. Possible trailhead at US
34
Mormon Island (S. Locust) Trail,
sidepath along South Locust to
Mormon Island State Recreation
Area, Camp Augustine Road,
and segment along abandoned
railbed with new crossing to state
recreation area
4.90 Riverway Trail, Mormon
Island State Recreation
Area, I-80 travel
services
Regional trail connection south to Platte
River corridor and visitor services. Provides
new uses for Mormon Island, including
trailhead for Grand Island system.
Stagecoach Connection Trail,
Stagecoach and Blaine to St. Joe
Trail
.07 Access to main trail
system for south tier
neighborhoods.
Uses sidepath along Blaine between
Stagecoach and Pioneer Blvd and a short
trail segment with branch rail crossing to
St Joe Trail, completing a south crosstown
bikeway with the Wood River Trail proposal.
Northwest Trail, Capital and
Connector Trail to George Park.
Route uses north extension
of Westside (State-Capital
Connector), path around periphery
of high school campus, Northview
Dr, and local streets.
1.65 off-
road
Northwest High School,
Engelman ES, George
Park, northwest
neighborhoods
Connects northwest neighborhoods to
overall city trail system, US 281 corridor,
and major northside destinations east of the
highway
5
6
7
8
4
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 71 / 180
3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE
5959
9
Table 3.9: Trail Network Components
MAP KEY NAME /DESCRIPTION LENGTH
(mi)
MAJOR DESTINATIONS
SERVED
SYSTEM ROLE AND ISSUES
North Front Overpass. Grade
separated bike/ped crossing over
US 281
0.42 Westside Connector
Trail, Ryder Park, North
Front/4th Street route
and business district
Strategic opportunity for grade separated
overpass over US 281 at a location capable
of accommodating ramps. Provides
excellent network linkages.
L.E. Ray Park Connector. College
Park/St. Joe Trail to park. Sidepath
along Highway 34
0.55 St. Joe Trail, College
Park, L.E. Ray Park
Connects park with considerable potential
to citywide network. Future study of US
34 widening should include bike/ped
configurations.
Alda/Cornhusker Trail. Shoemaker
extension to Cornhusker Plant site
and Alma, via Stolley Park Road and
easements
5.75 Cornhusker Plant site,
Alma
Links Alma to city trails system, provides
access for off-road cyclists to Cornhusker Plan
Alda/Husker Highway Trail. Stuhr
Museum to Alda Village Hall via
Husker Highway, S. 60th Rd or joint
use with rail siding, Schimmer Dr and
Mulberry Street
5.63 Stuhr Museum, Alda Links Alda to Grand Island and trail network
Alda Path, Sidewalk to close gaps in
continuity of sidewalks along Myrtle,
Pine, and Vine Streets
1.0 Alda Town Hall, Post
Office, Highway 30
businesses
Local access
10
11
12
13
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 72 / 180
6060
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Table 3.10: On-Street Network Components: North-South
MAP LINE NAME ENDPOINTS AND
ROUTE
MAJOR DESTINATIONS
SERVED
HIGHLIGHTS INFRASTRUCTURE APPROACH
Oak Capital Ave (N)
to Fonner Park
(S)
Knickrehm ES, Lions Park,
YMCA, Pier Park, Dodge
ES, Beltline TrailFonner
Park, Island Oasis
Major north-south route with low
traffic and attractive neighborhoods.
Grade crossing over UP, good
continuity with few turns or
diversions. Interchange with Pine
Route to continue south. Major barrier
is crossing of 1st and 2nd Street (US
30) one-way pair
Shared route/bicycle boulevard.
Upgraded arterial crossings.
Wheeler/
Pine
Ashley Park/
Capital Ave
(N) to Husker
Highway/
Walmart (S)
Route:
Wheeler/17th/
Pine/new
connections
Ashley Park, VA
Hospital, GI Christian
HS, Trinity Lutheran
School, Five Points
(indirect),Downtown, Hall
Co. complex, Pier Park,
Beltline Trail, Fonner
park, Island Oasis, S.
Locust Corridor, Walmart
and S. Locust Trail
Major destination rich, north-south
route. Grade crossing over UP, one
significant jog but otherwise good
continuity from north to south.
Connecting existing street segments
south of Fonner Park with trail
links completes a route to Husker
Highway, Walmart, and Riverway Trail,
completing a grand peripheral loop.
Major barrier is 1st Street (EB US 30)
crossing
Shared route/bicycle boulevard.
Short path segments south of
Fonner Park to complete north-
south route.
Grand
Island/
White
Capital Ave (N)
to North Front
(S)
Route: Grand
Island Ave/9th/
White Ave
Veterans Home/Legacy
Park site, Capital Trail,
GI Catholic HS, Five
Points, Housing Authority
district, Jefferson ES,
Broadwell Park
Quiet street route, including divided
boulevard, that generally parallels
Broadwell Street, providing an active
trans alternative. Major barriers are
Capital and Faidley crossings.
Shared route/bicycle boulevard.
Upgraded arterial crossings.
Possible path with park
development in Grand Island Ave
median
Custer/
Blaine
Capital Ave
and Trail (N) to
Beltline Trail
Route: Custer/
Blaine/1st/
Ingalls/Louise/
Curtis/Gates
Pathway
Veterans site, Grand
Island HS, Walnut MS,
Housing Authority
complex, St Francis
Hospital/Ryder Park/
Gates ES/Beltline and St
Joe Trails
Major north-south link serving largest
secondary school campuses; grade
separation at US 30 crossing unites
north and south sides. Grade crossing
with UP. Major barriers are crossings
at Capital, relatively high traffic
counts on corridor. Currently a route
on GI trail map
Protected bike lanes and sidepath
along Custer to Ryder Park.
Bike lanes or path along Custer
segment because of traffic
volume; protected bike lanes
on US 30 undercrossing; shared
route to Gates School; upgrade
of narrow path to connect to
Beltline Trail
3
3
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 73 / 180
3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE
6161
Table 3.10: On-Street Network Components: North-South
MAP LINE NAME ENDPOINTS AND
ROUTE
MAJOR DESTINATIONS
SERVED
HIGHLIGHTS INFRASTRUCTURE APPROACH
Hancock Capital Ave (N)
to North Front
(S)
Route: Walkway/
utility corridor/
Hancock/
St Francis
campus/Faidley/
Sherman/Ryder
Park paths
Capital Trail, West
Lawn ES, Walnut MS,
Newell ES, St Francis
Hospital, Ryder Park
Quiet street alternative parallel
to Webb Road and Custer Street
corridors.
Path/utility easement ffrom
Capital to State, bicycle
boulevards, Ryder Park paths to
join Custer/Blaine route at Old
Potash
Independence George Park (N)
to Shoemaker
Trail
Route:
Independence/
Mansfield
George Park,
Engleman ES,
Westridge MS,
Shoemaker ES,
Shoemaker Trail
Westside neighborhood route
connecting trail to George Park and
future paths serving the park from
the east. Future extension north
possible with reconstruction of
Independence Ave
Sidepath link along
Independence from Mansfield
to George Park. Possible
southward trail connection to
link to proposed Moore’s Creek
Trail.
Lincoln/
Adams
Greenwich/15th
(N) to Adams/
Stagecoach (S)
Route:
Greenwich/
Cotton/Lincoln/
Koenig/Adams
Jefferson ES, Public
Library, Wasmer ES,
Vocational campus,
Beltline Trail, Barr MS,
New ES
Central north-south route that
serves major bike/ped destinations,
including library. Major school
concentrations and significant traffic
along Adams south of Beltline Trail.
Current surface crossing of UP
mainline, but may be threatened as
part of proposed Broadwell grade
separation. Grade separation for
ped/bike travel will be necessary
between Broadwell and downtown
crossings. Major barriers include 2nd
Street (US 30) crossing and traffic
loads south of Beltline Trail.
Shared route/bicycle boulevard
north of Beltline Trail. Sidepath
along Adams from Beltline to
Stolley Park Rd. Pedestrian
modification needed across 2nd
St at library.
Future Broadwell grade
separation could require
abandonment of other grade
crossings, leaving virtually
no ped/bike access between
Downtown and Broadwell. A
ped/bike accessible overpass
should be included in Broadwell
development plans.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 74 / 180
6262
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
MAP LINE NAME ENDPOINTS AND
ROUTE
MAJOR DESTINATIONS
SERVED
HIGHLIGHTS INFRASTRUCTURE APPROACH
4th/St Paul Capital (NE) to
Webb and North
Front (SW)
Route: St Paul/
White/ 4th St/
North Front
Lincoln ES,
Downtown, 4th St
corridor, Ryder Park
L-shaped route from northeast
to southwest part of city. St Paul
segment parallels east side elevated
BNSF. Continuation serves 4th
Street international district. A future
Broadwell Ave overpass at UP enables
a direct path connection between 4th
and North Front.
Multi-use shoulders on St
Paul and wider parts of 4th
and North Front; shared
lanes elsewhere. Possible
path connection between 4th
and North Front should be
integrated into a Broadwell
grade separation.
20/College St Paul (E)
to Webb and
Capital (W)
Route: 20th/
VA Hospital/
College/Rue de
College
East side, Nickerehm
ES, VA Hospital, Five
Points area, Grand
Island HS, West
Lawn MS, Webb Rd
commercial
Crosstown route for north side of city,
uses 20th Street underpass under
BNSF mainline. Requires path to link
20th and College segments along
south edge of VA Hospital campus.
Designed to provide an active option to
high school students. Major barrier is
Broadwell crossing.
Shared route/bicycle
boulevard. Path through VA
campus between Wheeler and
Broadwell. Use of bike lanes
on busier segments of College
around high school
17th/State 18-St Paul (E)
to Mansfield at
Engleman School
(via State St
Trail)
Route: 18th/
Plum/17th/State/
State St Trail
Five Points, GI
Christian School,
Grand Island HS
fields, Conestoga
Mall, Highway 281
retail, Engleman ES
Long crosstown route when on-street
segments are combined with State
Trail on west side. Uses 17th Street
grade separation at BNSF. Barriers
include moderate ADT on State, gap
in trail coverage and crossing at 281
intersection, navigation through Five
Points area.
Shared route/bicycle
boulevard east of Broadwell;
possible bike lanes to Webb;
trail connection between
Webb and State St Trailhead
west of 281.
14th/15th Oak (E) to
Hancock (W)
Route: 14th/
Greenwich/15th/
16th
Trinity Lutheran
School, Westridge
MS, Conestoga Mall
Crosstown route through central
north side. Major barrier is Broadwell
crossing. Continuity to Hancock
includes path on south edge of
Westridge MS campus
Shared route/bicycle
boulevard. Path thorough
Westridge campus from
Custer to Hancock. Central
east-west route through the
north side
3
3
3
Table 3.11: On-Street Network Components: East-West
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 75 / 180
3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE
6363
MAP LINE NAME ENDPOINTS AND
ROUTE
MAJOR DESTINATIONS
SERVED
HIGHLIGHTS INFRASTRUCTURE APPROACH
10th St St Paul (E) to
Hancock (W)
Route: 10th St
Howard ES, Housing
Authority complex,
St Francis, Central
Catholic campus,
Newell ES
Major east-west route providing
a comfortable norgth access
to medical center and housing
authority facilities than parallel
Faidley route. Relatively high
ADT on eastern end of corridor,
moderating to west. Major but
solvable barrier is Broadwell
crossing. Route would be even
more effective with connection to
Webb, but such a corridor is not
available.
Multiuse shoulder
preferable east of
Broadwell; shared route/
bicycle boulevard west.
Short path segment on
hospital site anticipated
in Hancock route would
provide a direct connection
to center of medical
campus.
Faidley/6th Oak (E) to
Shoemaker Trail
(W)
Route: 6th/
Faidley
Jefferson ES, Housing
Authority complex, St
Francis,
Crosstown route with excellent
continuity, including the arguably
easiest of Highway 281 surface
crossings. Most direct service to
key traffic generators, including
medical offices and facilities and
multifamily concentrations. ADT
on Faidley west of Broadwell
will be uncomfortable for less
experienced cyclists.
Shared route/bicycle
boulevard on 6th.Sidepath
west of Broadwell.
Trail alignment along
drainageway between
Ridgewood and North
Road, returning to
Faidley on-street through
residential area
3rd Street Oak (E) to
Blaine (W)
Route: 3rd
Street
Downtown, YMCA,
Pioneer Park, Public
Library, Memorial
Park
Direct crosstown route, includes
CBD main street district. Use
grade separated crossing under
Highway 30 viaduct
Multiuse shoulder wherever
feasible. Shared lane in
other areas
3
3
3
Table 3.11: On-Street Network Components: East-West
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 76 / 180
6464
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
MAP LINE NAME ENDPOINTS AND
ROUTE
MAJOR DESTINATIONS SERVED HIGHLIGHTS INFRASTRUCTURE
APPROACH
Koenig Cherry and
Bismark (E) to
Ingalls/Gates
School (W)
Route: Cherry/
Ashton/Koenig/
Oak
Schuff Park, Beltline Trail,
Pier Park, Wasmer ES,
Buechler Park, Gates ES,
Augustine Park
Central crosstown route
with excellent neighborhood
character. Major barriers are
Locust/Walnut crossing and
Blaine Street.
Shared route/
bicycle boulevard,
with intersection
enhancements at
arterial crossings.
Stolley Park Fonner Park (E)
to St. Joe Trail
(W)
Route: Stolley
Park Rd/
Cemetery Trail
Fonner Park, Barr MS, Stolley
Park ES, Stolley Park, Grand
Island Cemetery, Cemetery
Trail, St. Joe Trail,
Direct crosstown route
serving one of city’s signature
parks and education district.
Stolley Park Road is being
reconfigured in 2018 with
three travel lanes and multi-
use shoulders, open to bicycle
traffic
Multiuse shoulders
accommodating bikes
to St. Joe Trail
Stagecoach South Locust
(E) to St Joe
Trail (W)
Route:
Stagecoach Dr/
Blaine/Pioneer
Blvd
South Locust corridor, St Joe
Trail
Attractive connector route
with possibility of link to St.
Joe Trail. South Locust ped/
bike crossing and connections
present issues for connectivity.
Continuity to St Joe Trail
requires crossing of UP branch
Shared route/
bicycle boulevard on
Stagecoach, sidepath
on Blaine, shared route
on Pioneer with short
path and new railroad
crossing to complete
link to St Joe Trail.
Table 3.11: On-Street Network Components: East-West
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 77 / 180
3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE
6565
INFRASTRUCTURE TYPES
Table 3.12 summarizes the infrastructure types applicable
to local street contexts and Figure 3.13 applies them to the
to the proposed metro area network. These specific facility
types are divided into off-street and on-street categories as
follows:
Off-Street
• Multi-use Trails
• Sidepaths
On-Street
• Shared Lanes
• Bicycle Boulevards (or quiet streets)
• Multiuse Shoulders
• Advisory Bike Lanes
• Protected Bike Lanes
Multi-Use Trails
The Grand Island area bike and pedestrian network will con-
tinue to make extensive use of multi-use trails on separated
rights-of-way. These trails display the highest level of user
comfort in the survey. They are key recreational resources
and, with strategic extensions, can expand their local and re-
gional transportation functions. In urban settings, trails are
paved, although more rural settings such as the linkages to
Alda and the Riverway Trail east of Locust may utilize granu-
lar stone. Trails should comply with American Association
of Street and Highway Transporta tion Officials (AASHTO)
standards and Uniform Federal Ac cessibility Standards and
the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines.
Based on AASHTO’s Guide for the Development of Bicycle
Facilities (2012), the appropriate paved width for multi-use
trail is dependent on the context, volume, and mix of users.
The minimum paved width for a two-directional trail is 10
feet. Trails that experience a high use and/or a wider variety
user groups may warrant greater width from 10 to 14 feet.
Eight-foot widths are acceptable in circumstances such as
areas with very limited right-of-way. A two-foot minimum
graded shoulder (3-5 feet is more desirable) with a maxi-
mum 6:1 cross-slop should be provided as a recovery zone
adja cent to trails. Grade crossings of arterial streets can
present significant challenges for trails. Techniques for ad-
dressing these potential barriers are addressed in Chapter
Five.
Grand Island’s multi-use trails include the Beltline and St.
Joe Trails (both rail to trail conversions), State-Capital Con-
nector and Riverway Trails (along utility easements and/or
drainage corridors), the Stuhr Trail, on the edge of a civic fa-
cility, and the Eagle Scout Trail in a public park. Future pro-
posed multi-use trails include the Westside Connector ex-
tension, Moore Creek, and Beltline extension.
Sidepaths
Sidepaths (sometimes referred to as widened sidewalks)
are typically two-way paths located adjacent to roadways
and are separated from the stream of traffic by curbs. The
sidepath accommodates pedestrians well and responds to
potential cyclists who are uncomfortable riding in mixed
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 78 / 180
6666
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
traffic. In new projects, the added cost of these facilities is
relatively small, since sidewalks are already required in most
urban street projects. Sidepath widths are similar to those of
multi-use trails.
The actual riding or walking surface should be separated
from the back of the curb by landscaping or a contrasting
pavement material. Research indicates that, to maximize
safety, separation of the sidepath from a roadway should
increase as road speeds increase
Challenges to sidepath safety include driveway and street
intersections, including visibility, motorist awareness,
ambiguities about who has the right of way, and cars that
block the path. As a result, experienced cyclists usually
prefer on-road facilities to roadside facilities. Yet, sidepaths,
despite their shortcomings, are used frequently and remain
popular with many users.
Conventional multi-use sidepaths should ideally be used
in corridors with few driveway or street interruptions, and
should not exclude use of on-road facilities when bike lanes
and shoulders are feasible. They work best along arterial
streets that have long stretches of relatively uninterrupted
frontage. Sidepath crossings should be clearly defined by
high visibility crosswalks and advisory signage to make
motorists aware of the presence of the path.
Examples of sidepaths in the current Grand Island system in-
clude the Capital Avenue Trail. The proposed future system
includes sidepaths along Faidley Avenue west of Broadwell
and a link along North Broadwell to Eagle Scout Park.
Marked and Signed Shared Routes
Shared, low-volume streets make up a large part of
the proposed Grand Island active network. On these
streets, bicycles and motor vehicles operate within the
same area. These streets should also have continuous
sidewalks in good repair with barrier-free access on at
least one side. These streets will typically have average
Top: Capital Avenue Trail. Above: Clayton Road sidepath in St.
Louis County, Missouri. Note the highly visible crosswalk using
high visibility markings and use of the trail crossing stack sign
on intersecting streets.
Sidepath sections. Sidepath width and construc-
tion standards are similar to those for multi-use
trails. Top: Intersection crossing with high vis-
ibility crosswalks. Typically a 6-foot separation
from the curb will provide reasonable visibility for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Above: Two-way sidepath along an arterial,
a typical accommodation on contemporary
streets.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 79 / 180
3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE
6767
daily traffic below 3,000 vehicles per day (preferably
below 1,500 vehicles per day) and require relatively
small infrastructure investment. Methods of identifying
these routes include shared lane markings (sometimes
called “sharrows),” often placed in the center of a travel
lane between motor vehicle tire tracks to reduce wear
and direct bicyclists away from the door zone of parked
cars; wayfinding and/or bike route identification signs,
identified as sign D11-1 by the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD), the nationwide standard for
roadway signage and markings); and motorist advisories
such as the Bicycles May Use Full Lane sign, MUTCD sign
R4-11).
In Grand Island, these local streets have a curb-to-curb
width of 31 to 32 feet and usually (but not always) permit
parking on both sides of the street. Because curbside
parking on residential streets is not fully utilized, these
streets at low volumes generally provide comfortable
bicycling environments for most users.
Bicycle Boulevards (Quiet Streets)
Bicycle boulevards,sometimes called “quiet streets” or
“neighborhood greenways” are something of a misnomer,
because they are shared by pedestrians, bicyclists, and mo-
tor vehicles. They are low-volume, low-speed streets, modi-
fied to create greater comfort for both pedestrians and bi-
cyclists, using treatments such as special signage, pavement
markings (like shared lane markings), traffic calming devices
such as bump-outs, and intersection modifications. Cross-
ings of bicycle boulevards and major streets require special
attention. Bicycle boulevards should have reasonable stop
priority to provide continuity for bicyclists but not so much
to become through routes for motor vehicles. The ideal bi-
cycle boulevard provides both direct routing and good con-
tinuity; has traffic speeds at or below 25 mph, and average
daily traffic below 3,000 vehicle per day. In Grand Island,
bicycle boulevards are typically but not always on two-lane
streets with width of or under 34 feet.
Marked routes. Left: Typical shared lane marking for a Grand
Island street; Above: Shared lane marking installed.
Composite of possible bicycle boulevard treatments. (Alta Planning and Design illustration)
31 feet
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 80 / 180
6868
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Bicycle boulevards in Topeka, KS. Topeka, which like Grand Island has an excellent secondary street
system that lends itself to the bicycle boulevard concept. Topeka’s facilities use shared lane markings and
special street signs to mark the routes.The overall network has significantly increased bicycle travel in the
city.
Top: Typical section of a corridor with multi-use shoulders and
2-sided parking. Above: St Paul Avenue, a potential candidate
street for multi-use shoulders or striped parking shoulders.
The Grand Island street grid is particularly adaptable to the
bicycle boulevard concept. The Grand Island street network
has an excellent grid of streets, many of which are largely
residential in character, that could be favorable to the bicy-
cle boulevard concept. It is important to note that in Grand
Island, bicycle boulevard adaptation should not affect nor-
mal local street operation, including parking.
Parking and Multi-use Shoulders
A number of strategic streets in Grand Island have moder-
ate daily traffic with a width of 37 feet and over. In most cas-
es, these streets usually permit parking on at least one side.
Some are also wide enough to accommodate conventional
bike lanes providing exclusive space for bicycle travel ad-
jacent to motor vehicle travel lanes. However, the exclusive
bike lane concept has generally not received strong support
in Grand Island.
In order to provide comfortable and safe accommodations
for all users of these streets, the active network provides for
two different types of shoulders: striped parking shoulders
and multi-use shoulders.
Striped parking shoulders apply to relatively wide, two- or
three lanes streets with parking on both sides of the street
and inadequate width for bicycle travel outside of shared
travel lanes. On low-volume local streets with on-street
parking, striped parking shoulders appear to manage traf-
fic speeds through residential areas, help bicyclists properly 12 feet12 feet22-24 feetGrand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 81 / 180
3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE
6969
Ralph Rogers Ave in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. An example of
a multi-use shoulder that accommodates but is not restricted
to bicycle travel
Advisory Bike Lanes
track away from car doors, and keep parked cars from en-
croaching into travel lanes. Typical minimum width for local
streets with parking shoulders on both sides and two trav-
el lanes is 40 feet with 12-foot travel lanes. It is important
to note the potential safety hazards of cyclists potentially
weaving in and out of a parking lane and, as in other on-
street settings, the need for cyclists to stay away from the
"door zone" of adjacent parked cars. These hazards are re-
duced by using the Bicycle May Use Full Lane sign (MUTCD
R4-11) and providing shared lane markings.
Multi-use shoulders provide a striped territory outside of
travel lanes large enough to accommodate bicycle travel.
Minimum width of a multi-use shoulder that prohibits park-
ing is five feet; minimum width of a shoulder that also ac-
commodates parking is 12 feet. Thus, typical width of a two-
lane roadway with multi-use shoulders and no parking is 34
feet; with one-sided parking 42 feet; and with two-sided
parking 48 feet. The reconstruction project for Stolley Park
Road, to be implemented in 2018, will develop a three-lane
facility with 5-foot paved shoulders, identified as multi-use
shoulders. This will provide comfortable territory for expe-
rienced adult riders on an arterial street and will not per-
mit parking. However, the shoulders do provide a place for
breakdowns and contingencies.
Advisory Bike Lanes
Advisory bike lanes are a type of shared roadway that clarify
operating positions for bicyclists and motorists to minimize
conflicts and increase comfort. Similar in appearance to bike
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 82 / 180
7070
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
lanes, advisory bike lanes are distinct in that they are tempo-
rarily shared with motor vehicles during turning, approach-
ing, and passing. This experimental treatment is most ap-
propriate where traffic volumes are low to moderate (500 to
3,000 vehicles per day) and where there is insufficient room
for bike lanes or multi-use shoulders. These may have wider
applications in the Grand Island system, but for the purpos-
es of this plan, are proposed in limited situations, including
the continuation of Sycamore Street through Island Oasis on
the Pine Street bikeway. They may also be used on paved rural
roads with light traffic.
Protected Bike Lanes
Protected bike lanes are on-street facilities that provide a
separation or buffer space between bicycle lanes and travel
lanes. The Grand Island survey summarized in Chapter Two
found that existing and prospective bicyclists significantly
preferred the separated facilities over conventional bike lanes.
Protected bike lanes may be provide either one-way direc-
tional movement or two-way movement. Two-way protect-
ed lanes are most effective along street segments with few
driveway interruptions. Desirable minimum width for two-
way facilities is ten feet, although 8 feet is acceptable in very
limited conditions. (NACTO, Urban Bikeway Design Guide,
Two-way protected bike lanes in
Lincoln, Nebraska (with curb) and
Seattle, Washington (painted buffer
with flexible bollards)
2014) On-street bike lane buffers and barriers are covered
in the MUTCD as preferential lane markings (section 3D.01)
and channelizing devices, including flexible delineators
(section 3H.01). Curbs may be used as a channeling device,
see the section on islands (section 3I.01). However, the use
of raised buffers is not anticipated in the Grand Island plan.
In Nebraska protected bike lanes have been used in two
projects – the two-way N Street Bikeway in Lincoln (NE),
developed to very high design standards; and the Leaven-
worth/St. Mary’s Bikeway in Omaha (NE), one-way lanes
on a one-way pair defined by white lines. Adequate street
width is necessary to provide proper buffering. The Grand
Island concept proposes a two-way protected bike lane
along a segment of Custer Street with no required on-street
parking and few interruptions; and along connection be-
tween Custer Street and Blaine Street under Highway 30.
Both applications are illustrated more fully in Chapter Seven.
These facilities both involve a reallocation of existing street
width rather than new, separated construction, and as such
are part of an existing street maintenance program. How-
ever, their use as bicycle travel lanes is likely to require addi-
tional street maintenance in staff and budget to keep them
in good repair and free of debris.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 83 / 180
3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE
7171
FACILITY TYPE DESCRIPTION EXAMPLES IN NETWORK
Multi-use trails Separated trails on exclusive right-of-way. Some segments may be
sidepaths adjacent to roadways.
Extensions of Westside Connector Trail,
Moore Creek Trail, Beltline Trail east
extension
Sidepath Paths separated from but generally parallel to roadways and on
public right-of-way
Capital Trail extension, segments of Custer
Street bikeway, Adams
Shared and Marked Roadways Low-volume, low-speed streets identified by signage, wayfinding,
shared use lane pavement markings, but no major infrastructure
changes. Often used to connect network to specific destinations.
Arthur Street between Beltline Trail and
Stolley Park; Ingalls/Curtis Street from
Blaine St to Beltline Trail
Bicycle boulevards Low-volume, two-lane mixed traffic streets or groups of streets
with direct continuity. May use special identification and wayfinding
signage, traffic calming devices, controlled major intersections,
continuous sidewalks. In Grand Island, typically but not always on
2-lane streets with width below 34 feet.
Pine Street, Oak Street, 14th/15th Street,
Koenig Street, Lincoln Street. Major part of
Grand Island network.
Striped parking shoulder Area within a two- or three-lane street channel explicitly defined
(usually by a white painted line) from travel lanes for parking.
Bicycles are intended to operate in travel lanes. Used in conjunction
with Bicycle May Use Full Lane sign and, optionally, shared lane
markings.
College Street, North Front Street
Multi-use shoulders Area within a two- or three-lane street channel explicitly defined
(usually by a white painted line) from travel lanes, with adequate
space to accommodate bicycle travel. May be used for parking with
adequate width. Minimum shoulder width with parking is 12 feet (14
feet desirable), 5 feet without parking.
Stolley Park Road, parts of Custer Avenue
and 3rd Street.
Advisory bike lanes Shared roadway that clarify operating positions for bicyclists within shared
travel lanes, typically used on segments that need definition of territory
for bikes but are not wide enough for conventional bike lanes or multi-use
shoulders.
Low-volume park roads, Sycamore Street
through Island Oasis, very low-volume
county roads
Protected bike lanes Roadways with specific one- or two-way lanes for exclusive use by
bicycles, separated by a buffer from moving travel lanes. Separation
is accomplished by painted buffers often with vertical definition or a
raised curb.
US 30 underpass connecting Blaine and
Custer, segments of Custer Street
Table 3.12: Summary of Infrastructure Types in Grand Island Network
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 84 / 180
7272
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Shared Marked Roadway
Bicycle Boulevard
Multiuse Shoulders
Striped Parking Lane
Protected Bike Lanes
Advisory Bike Lanes
Shouldered Highways
Existing Trails
Proposed Trails
Gravel Roads/Proposed Trail
Future Local Connections
Study Corridor
Intersection Enhancements
Grand Island City Limits
Figure 3.13: Infrastructure Types Applied to Network: North
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 85 / 180
3 | ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE
7373
Figure 3.13: Infrastructure Types Applied to Network: South
Shared Marked Roadway
Bicycle Boulevard
Multiuse Shoulders
Striped Parking Lane
Protected Bike Lanes
Advisory Bike Lanes
Shouldered Highways
Existing Trails
Proposed Trails
Gravel Roads/Proposed Trail
Future Local Connections
Study Corridor
Intersection Enhancements
Grand Island City Limits
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 86 / 180
7474
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 87 / 180
75
4 | SUPPORT FACILITIES
7575
4CHAPTER
SUPPORT FACILITIES
THIS CHAPTER
PRESENTS OPTIONS
AND LOCATIONS FOR
SUPPORT FACILITIES
including trailheads, nodes
and points of special
interest that can enhance
the experience of using
metropolitan area trails
and active transportation
facilities.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 88 / 180
767676
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
SUPPORT FACILITIES
The planning of bicycle and pedestrian networks begins
with definition of routes, which in the proposed Grand
Island system will consist of a combination of multi-use
paths on right-of-ways both separated from and adja-
cent to streets, a variety of on-street bicycle routes that
share the space between curb lines with motor vehicles;
and sidewalks for pedestrian use. Much of the network
passes through the city, and private or public establish-
ments provide support features for users, typically food,
drink, bathrooms, and support or shelter in emergencies.
However, parts of the proposed Grand Island network pass
through areas that are relatively remote or lack public
places or businesses that routinely serve support functions.
Well-placed support facilities can fill these needs and in-
crease the comfort level of people using the trail and active
transportation network.
But support along the route is not the only key function
that support facilities provide. The destination rated as
“very important” or “important” by the greatest number
of respondents to this plan’s preference survey, with 88%,
was the trail system itself, followed by schools, parks, and
the public library. In many cases, people drive to trails for
recreational walking, running, or biking. Transportation to
a recreational destination is still a transportation trip, and
an objective of a network is to reduce the number of these
trips made by car. Yet, many people will continue to drive
to trails and parks, and these transition points require a
level of support as well.
Finally, support facilities enhance the experience of using
an active transportation network. They can help orient us-
ers and provide milestones and events along a trail.
This chapter identifies criteria, locations, and features of
support facilities related to the current state of the network
plan.
Types of Trailheads and Open Space Nodes
Based on both function and facilities, the Grand Island
network may have three levels of support facilities. We can
refer to these as major trailheads, minor trailheads, and
nodes.
Major trailheads provide essential access to the shared use
path system and include information and amenities for
trail user comfort. Trailheads that serve local and regional
populations that arrive by car, bike, or transit (if flex route
service is implemented in Grand Island) may have a variety
of features.
Minor trailheads provide strategic points of access to the
shared use path system. They typically serve local users.
Trailhead on Prairie Spirit Trail in
Kansas includes information kiosk,
restrooms, benches, and parking
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 89 / 180
77
4 | SUPPORT FACILITIES
7777
While major trailheads are likely to be accessed by car and
are transfer points from car to bike or pedestrian travel,
users are more likely to walk or bike to minor trailheads.
In addition to marking entrances to the system, minor
trailheads should provide users with information and some
amenities, but have a much more limited facility program
than major trailheads.
Nodes are generally focused to people already using a trail,
and may point out points of interest or limited amenities
to be used along the way. They also might provide useful
features that can address contingencies or improve the
experience.
Location Criteria and Features
Because of their different functions, each of the three sup-
port facility types has different location criteria and menus
of features.
Major Trailheads
In the Grand Island area, major trailheads will function
largely as interchanges, where people arrive by car and
become pedestrians or bicyclists. They will also tend to use
these entry points for recreational purposes. Criteria for
sites include:
• Direct adjacency to a major trail. A location that will
require some level of on-street cycling or walking will
not be a successful major trailhead.
• Good access and visibility from a principal street, road,
and bicycle and pedestrian routes. With urban trails,
clear access routes are more important than with rural
trails.
• Possible location at or near the ends of major trails.
This tends to place major trailheads on the periphery
of the city.
• From a practical point of view, sites that provide
adequate space to accommodate the facility program
without requiring land acquisition. Examples are parks,
school sites, and other public lands.
• Reasonable access to major community facilities,
including retailers and food service.
• Presence of existing features or facilities that serve
multiple uses, such as substantial parking areas.
Facilities for a major trailhead may include:
• Motor vehicle parking, including accessible parking
spaces.
• Bicycle parking, such as a sufficient number of inverted
U’s or hitching post designs. Guidelines for bike park-
ing will be provided later in the plan.
• Wayfinding kiosks and signage, with orientation and
interpretive information.
• Drinking water fountains.
• Screened portable toilets if facilities are not provided
elsewhere on site.
• Shelters, benches, tables, trash receptacles, and similar
site furniture.
• Emergency telephone.
• Scenic viewpoints or overlooks if relevant to the site.
• Interpretive information if applicable
• Fix-it station, installations that have secured tire
pumps and tools for light repairs. One such facility is
installed along the Stuhr Trail.
Many of these features are included in parks, and a trail-
head location and trail extension that can use existing facil-
ity clusters is very desirable.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 90 / 180
787878
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Minor Trailheads
Minor trailheads will be primary points of entrance by local
users. Thus, location criteria and the facilites menu will
adjust accordingly. Criteria for minor trailhead sites include:
• As with major trailheads, direct adjacency to a major
trail. A location that will require some level of on-street
cycling or walking should be avoided.
• Location in a park (including a neighborhood park),
school site, or other public space. Other potential loca-
tions include the intersection of a trail and a principal
on-street route.
• Availability of at least a few parking spaces (desirable
but not mandatory).
• Reasonable spacing to permit access and exiting from
the trail. Given the city’s size and configuration, a
reasonable spacing of minor trailheads would be about
two miles apart.
• Nearby commercial convenience services are desirable.
Facilities for a minor trailhead may include:
• A small parking area if available in an adjacent use.
• Bicycle parking for a small number of bicycles, such
as two inverted U’s, hitching posts, or other space ef-
ficient designs.
• Wayfinding signage, with orientation and interpretive
information.
• Bench and trash receptacle.
• Interpretive information if applicable
• Fix-it station, installations that have secured tire
pumps and tools for light repairs.
Nodes
Nodes are points along the trail, generally placed for the
comfort and convenience of trail users, or to emphasize a
special destination or feature. As a result, they need not be
placed at street intersections or other access points. How-
ever, spacing along trails becomes a much more important
factor than it is for trailheads. Possible locations for nodes
include:
• Sites of special interest, such as historic sites, locally
important destinations, or scenic or environmentally
important features.
• Changes in trail direction or places where special guid-
ance to the user is required.
• Junctions between trails or between trails and a major
on-street route.
• Shade trees, green spaces, or other locations that can
add quality to the trail experience.
Nodes should be placed to ensure a typical distance of one
mile between support services or guidance. Trailheads and
publicly available convenience services can fill the same
function as a node and may have an effect on their loca-
tion. Facilities for a node may include:
• Bicycle parking.
• Wayfinding and interpretive signage or kiosks.
• Bench and trash receptacle.
• Fix-it stations at two to three mile intervals.
Proposed Locations
Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 on the following page presents po-
tential trailhead and node locations, based on the current
development of the Grand Island regional network. These
locations are divided into locations on existing trails that
could be implemented if funds are available; and facilities
that require future trail development. Figure 4.4 illustrates
possible locations for various types of nodes.
Trailhead possibilities. From
top: Illustration of a major trail-
head with parking, screened or
structured restrooms or portable
toilets, shelter, and parking; por-
table toilet and shelter on Iowa’s
High Trestle Trail; minor trailhead
with bench, receptacle, and infor-
mation kiosk.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 91 / 180
79
4 | SUPPORT FACILITIES
7979
LOCATION TRAIL CURRENT SITE RESOURCES AND
NEEDS
OTHER COMMENTS
EXISTING POTENTIAL
Eagle Scout Park/Sports Com-
plex, North Broadwell Ave
Eagle Scout Trail Parking, restrooms, shelter Already receives substantial use by pedestrians. For full utiliza-
tion, requires connection to Capital Trail via proposed Broadwell
sidepath. Future development would add wayfinding and inter-
pretive information.
Shoemaker Elementary School,
Sweetwood Drive
Shoemaker Trail Parking, playground area, shelter Future development would add short path connection to main
trail, benches, receptacles, wayfinding graphics, landscape.
Hall County Park, Schimmer Drive
between US 281 and North Rd
Riverway Trail Parking, full camping facilities
including restrooms, picnic shelters,
playground
Already serves major trail loop. Future development may include
dedicated parking area for trail users if necessary, wayfinding
and information graphics.
Pier Park Beltline Trail Parking, full urban park facilities Major in-city park at the eastern end of the city’s most popu-
lar trail. Requires additional wayfinding and park information
graphics.
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
Veterans Legacy Park Eagle Scout and Capital
Trails
New development Legacy Park concepts incorporate Eagle Scout Park and include
a trail bridge over BNSF mainline. A new full-service trail-
head may be incorporated into the eventual plan, replacing or
complementing the existing Eagle Scout facility. Such a trailhead
may be development along the Capital Avenue trail frontage to
serve in-city needs.
Wood River/Fonner Park; ap-
proximate location near Stolley
Park Rd and Stuhr Rd
Proposed Wood River Trail New development Potential east peripheral trailhead with good regional access
from Highway 34. Integrated into Fonner Park and potentially
part of a loop around the periphery of the facility. Takes advan-
tage of abundant existing parking.
Capital Avenue and Sky Park Rd Proposed Capital Trail
extension
New development Provides a northeast point of entry to the future trail network.
Mormon Island State Recreation
Area
Proposed Mormon Island
Trail
Full SRA services include restrooms,
parking, camping and associated fa-
cilities, and wide array of commercial
visitor services
Requires extension of trail along South Locust from Riverway
Trail and east-west connection to the existing SRA. Routing of
east-west connection requires careful environmental study.
Riverway East, Nebraska Highway
2
Proposed Riverway Trail New development Endpoint if current mountain bike quality surface is upgraded to
pavement. Provides excellent access to Highway 2 and Interstate
80 if corridor can be acquired.
Table 4.1: Possible Major Trailhead Locations
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 92 / 180
808080
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
LOCATION TRAIL CURRENT SITE RESOURCES AND
NEEDS
OTHER COMMENTS
EXISTING POTENTIAL
Gates School, Curtis and Anna
Street
Beltline, Cemetery, and St.
Joe Trails
Parking, playground, with substantial
open area on south of site
Strategic site at intersection of several trails and a major part of
the on-street system. Requires upgrade of a narrow paved path
leading to Beltline Trail to full trail standards. Additional facilities
include shelter, benches and receptacles, bike parking, wayfind-
ing and information graphics.
College Park, south edge of park-
ing lots bordering trail and front-
ing along Husker Highway
St. Joe Trail Parking, full Central Community Col-
lege facilities
Requires shelter, limited bike parking, seating, receptacles. Stra-
tegic location near Husker Highway trail crossing.
South Locust, adjacent to
Walmart parking or south drive-
way
South Locust Trail Parking in adjacent commercial lot.
Requires other facilities
Important point along a future South Locust connection north
of US 34 and south to Mormon Island. Could be incorporated
into pad site plans and would benefit from future commercial
development.
Sterling Estates, Norseman
Avenue
Shoemaker and St Joe Trail New neighborhood park under devel-
opment includes full array of features
with connection to trail
Excellent opportunity for northwest gateway to trail system. Will
require additional wayfinding and park information graphics.
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
Cedar Hills Park, Avon and Hamp-
ton Ave
Proposed Shoemaker ex-
tension and Moore’s Creek
Trail
Parking, shelter and existing trail loop With extension of trails, will provide southwest access to the rest
of the system.
George Park, Independence and
Norseman A
Proposed George Park con-
nector
Parking, shelter, full city park fea-
tures, including 8-foot path between
Macron and Independence Ave
Paving of alley east of Macron and developing path to Sterling
Estates Park will connect major northwest park to the trail net-
work. Wayfinding and information graphics should be incorpo-
rated into trailhead.
20th Street Tunnel/Knickrehm
School; edge of school site at
20th and Plum
Proposed Capital Trail ex-
tension along drainageway
School parking available. New devel-
opment
Valuable entry point for east side users to the extended Capital
Trail via the edge of the school site. Requires extension of Capi-
tal Vaenue Trail, eventually to Ashley Park.
Seedling Mile School, Seedling
Mile Rd and Main
Proposed Seedling Mile Trail School parking lot and play areas.
Opportunity for shelter and other
support facilities between west park-
ing lot and playground
Local entrance to trail system to the Shady Bend neighborhood.
Opportunity for Lincoln Highway interpretation.
North Front fields, east of US 281 Proposed ped/bike bridge
over US 281
New development Strategic location with enough room for ramps for a full grade
separated crossing and moderate ramps. Minor trailhead would
be appropriate at eastern landing or proposed bridge.
Table 4.2: Possible Minor Trailhead Locations
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 93 / 180
81
4 | SUPPORT FACILITIES
8181
Table 4.3: Possible Node Locations
LOCATION TRAIL COMMENTS
EXISTING POTENTIAL
Sutherland and Cherry Beltline Trail Existing east terminus of trail. With proposed Beltline extension, will be a significant node, first on
east side of railroad
Suck’s Lake Park Beltline Trail Major scenic feature on trail with adjacent parking. Functions as a minor trailhead
Blaine Cross Beltline Trail Node will enhance visibility at important arterial crossing
St Joe/Beltline Crossing Beltline, St Joe, Cemetery Trails Major junction in trail netwok, requiring wayfinding information and placemaking effort
Stolley Park Crossing St Joe Trail Intersection of trail and on-street bikeway. Connection to major city park on the bikeway network but
off trail
Stuhr Museum site along US 281 St Joe/Stuhr Trail Existing Fix-It installation, upgraded to node
Blaine Crossing Riverway Trail Node at major street crossing marks connection to lake neighborhoods south of US 34
Locust Crossing Riverway Trail West of trail crossing under South Locust
Ashley Park Capital Trail Major park with parking facilities at east end of current Capital Trail. Functions as a minor trailhead
but requires a crossing of Broadwell to the west and Capital to continue east
Capital Ave Crossing Capital Trail Marks existing trail crossing of major arterial, increases visibility of trail users
Westside Connector Westside (State-Capital) Con-
nector, Capital Trail
Major wayfinding point and west end of Capital corridor
State Street Westside Connector, State St
Trail
Major trail junction, ultimately a four point trail intersection with southward connector extension
Engleman School, Mansfield Drive
south of Cannon Rd
State St and Shoemaker Trails Major westside trail intersection and school site, with change of direction and intersection with on-
street route
Westridge Middle School, south
edge of school site
Shoemaker Trail Major community site, possible intersection with future local collector street west of middle school
campus
FUTURE POTENTIAL
Westside Connector north of 13th Connector Trail extended
Westside Connector on North
Front alignment
Connector Trail extended,
North Front overpass
Marks access to proposed ped/bike overpass to North Front and Ryder Park
Shoemaker Trail extended at half-
section south of Old Potash
Shoemaker Trail extension Change in direction, juction with potential Cornhusker Plant Trail
Shoemaker/Stolley Park Sidepath
near North Rd
Shoemaker Trail extension Interval node ahead of North Rd intersection
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 94 / 180
828282
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
B
B
B
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
n
n
n
nn
n
n
nn
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
BB
B
B
B
B
B
B
Oa
k
R
o
u
t
e
Oak
R
o
u
t
e
Oak Route
Pi
n
e
R
o
u
t
e
Pi
n
e
R
o
u
t
e
Pine
RoutePine RouteGrand Is
land
Rou
te
College/20 Route
State/17 Route
15th St Route
4th/St Paul Route
Stolley Route
StagecoachRoute
Koenig R
o
u
t
e
Beltline Tr
ai
l
Riverway Trail St Joe TrailShoemaker TrailKoenigRo
ut
e
4th/St P
a
u
l
R
o
u
t
e
3rd St R
out
e
3rd St Rout
e
1Faidley/6th Route
1Faidley/
6t
h
R
o
u
t
e
10th St Route 10th St R
o
ut
e
College/
2
0
R
o
u
t
e
Grand Island
RouteLincoln
RouteAdams RouteCuster-Blaine RouteCuster-B
laine Rou
te
Kennedy-Hancock Route
Independnence
RouteIndependnence RouteKennedy-Hancock Route
Lin
c
o
l
n
R
o
u
t
e
1
C
D
E
B
A 2
4
4
6
6 8
8
10
12
14
12
12
2
10
1
579 3
11
11
13
5
7
13
14
16
16
18
3
18
20 20
F
J
K
G
H
IA
K
L
M
N
O P
Q
R S
T
3870
4044
3459
1280 3134 4340 9772 8616 3394 5352
3039
7636
9309
7146
7184
19423
20857
11879
11879
8542
11566
2831
5482
6123
4659
5373
5757
5820
1180
711
2337
2582
3441
3381
3776
5111
6459
7287 2500 11802665147534886336
2607
3340
5728
7980
8071
7726
12406
10990
2645
3566
11116
12443
9560
8748
5968
8324
38414271288276087624739196906076
44312350
6061 5068
1905
5316
4400
1889
5061
4795
4142
3707
3874
1917
9388
7728
11339
1080
1772
2126
2214
8372 8727 660172000
0
2402
16273181
1720
2893
1287
878
1682
1202
955
1213
15620
14946
5144
3869
12039
16427
16654
7228
6425
974
1877
1358
3808
2422
8354
5005
11909
10404
15816
2519
3038
5395
5422
3578
3041
4549 6398 10350 9759 7705
2845
1442
2134
3696
1162
1348
1962
1656
1836
1381
2088
2525
4231
5424
6920
4544
5429
5827
4246
3933
4542945111017114591212596393524
3363 13635 11492 7419 6184
10982
2006
1287
3740
9240 9170
2240
4390
5342
128790
14769
10941
8055
1931
1711
1396
3667
4135
3588
7499
9313
631
744
9794
POST PL
9TH ST E
AVON AVEISLE RDGAMMA ST
BOCK AVE
16TH ST W
KRUSE AVEYOST LNWHITE AVEZOLA CTPHOENIX CTORA
N
G
E
R
D
BLAKE STCAREY AVE9TH ST W
KNIG
H
T
S
R
D
6TH ST W
YARROW DR
GEORGE ST
SCHUFF ST
15TH ST W
DELTA ST
23RD ST E
WAGON RDANNA ST W
JOE
H
N
C
K
R
D
15TH ST E
6TH ST E
12TH ST ESUNSIRE AVEROBERTS CTPOST RDOXNARD AVE
BISON CT
14TH ST E
MCN
EL
I
S
PL
GRA
N
T
S
T
N
8TH ST W
11TH AVE W
11TH ST E
9TH ST W
4TH ST E
BOSTON CIR
BISCHELD ST
ART
H
U
R
S
T
N
SOUTH ST W
5TH ST E
8TH ST E
5TH ST W
4TH ST W
16TH ST E
7TH ST W
6TH ST W
14TH ST E
13TH ST W
PLU
M
S
T
N
JOHN ST W
LOUISE ST
W
LOUISE ST W JOHN ST W
6TH ST E
3RD ST E
13TH ST E
YUND ST
11TH ST W
12TH ST E
13TH ST W
4TH ST W
8TH ST E
11TH ST E
1ST ST W
OAK ST S15TH ST E
9TH ST W
9TH ST E
15TH ST W
7TH ST E
6TH ST W
14TH ST W16TH ST W
8TH ST W
8TH ST E
7TH ST W
17TH ST E
4TH ST W
17TH ST W
12TH ST W
5TH ST W
5TH ST W
8TH ST W
MONR
O
E
S
T
N
LAM
B
E
R
T
S
TDALLAS AVECLAY
S
T
N
WILLIAM STLOG
A
N
S
T
N
CED
A
R
S
T
N
DAKOTA DR MAPLE
S
T
AUGUST ST SWHITE AVEBOGGS AVE NGRACE
A
V
E
N
SUP
E
R
I
OR
S
T
WALDO AVETILD
E
N
S
T
NDARR AVE NARTH
U
R
S
T
SRUBY A
V
E WALN
U
T
S
T
NMORRISON DRWALN
U
T
S
T
N
ADA
M
S
S
T
N
OAK
S
T
N
CLAR
K
S
T
N
CLA
R
K
S
T
S
ADA
M
S
S
T
S
MON
R
O
E
S
T
S
INGA
L
L
S
S
T
PINE
S
T
N
CLE
B
U
R
N
S
T
S
VIN
E
S
T
N
TAF
T
A
V
E
VINE
S
T
N
CED
A
R
S
T
N
BEAL
S
T
ADAMS ST S
GRA
N
T
S
T
S
OAK
S
T
N
LOC
U
S
T
S
T
N
ELM S
T
N
ELM
S
T
S
PIN
E
S
T
N
23RD ST W
CLAY
S
T
S
CLAY
S
T
S
LOG
A
N
S
T
S
LOCU
S
T
S
T
N
CEDA
R
S
T
N
ST P
A
U
L
R
D
TILDE
N
S
T
S
CLAR
K
S
T
N
PROSPECT ST
MADI
S
O
N
S
T
S
CLE
B
U
R
N
S
T
N
ELM
S
T
N
CED
A
R
S
T
S
16TH ST W
17TH ST W
18TH ST W
1ST ST W
22ND ST E
PROSPECT ST
MAR
KE
T
S
T
14TH ST W
15TH ST W
9TH ST E
WAUGH ST W
FORREST ST
GROFF ST
CLEB
U
R
N
S
T
S
EDDY
S
T
S
COTTAGE ST
DIVISION ST
E
HAMPTON RD
PLUM
R
D
COURT ST E
OAK
S
T
N
BELFRY BLVDPLUM S
T
N
STUH
R
R
D
S
SHERIDAN AVEWEIS DRKINGSTON CIR
ALLEN CTST PAUL
R
D
WINDSOR RD6TH ST E
HANSEN ST
KIMBALL AVE S
PLUM ST
N
CLE
B
U
R
N
S
T
NSHERMAN PLSHERMAN BLVDCONCO
R
D
A
V
E
BOGGS AVE NDIXIE SQ
KENNEDY CIR
KENNEDY WAY
CHARLES ST E
CENTRE STIDAHO AVESILVER RD LUETH DRMAN
SF
I
ELD
RD
LOCU
S
T
S
T
N
WHITE A
VELARIAT P
L
LAKEWOOD CIRASTER DR ILLINOIS AVERICHMOND CIR
7TH ST W
SPRUCE RDRUBY AVECOLONIAL LN SHERIDAN AVECOTTAGE ST
HANCOCK PL PARK AVE NROSEMONT AVE
ADAM
S
S
T
N
OAK ST SMAIN ST S18TH ST W
BRENTWOOD PLSWEETWOOD DRVINE
S
T
N
HOLCOMB ST
10TH ST W
11TH ST W
11TH AVE W
12TH ST W
HORSESHOE PL
CHURCH RD
SUNSET AVE E
MAGNOLIA CT
O GRADY ST
TRI STKELLY ST
PHOENIX AVE E
BANTAM
S
T
KAREN RDPOPLAR STBRENTWOOD CIR
FIRESTONE STREETEVANS STLAM
B
E
R
T
S
THUSTON AVE NBEAL STWARBLER R
D
CEDAR RIDGE CTPIPER STCHERRY ST NHOPE
S
T
SHERWOOD RD PARK AVE NDEL MAR AVE
INDIANHEAD RD
WAR
R
E
N
L
NLAFAYETTE AVE NWILLOW
S
T
MABEL DR
LAKE STDIERS AVE NKRUSE AVECHURCH RD
HEDDE ST W
5TH ST E
SUN RIDGE LN
SWITCHGRASS ST PLUM ST SMACRON
ST
ELM S
T
S
TAYL
O
R
AVEJAN STINDEPENDENCE AVEDEL MO
NTE AV
EJAY STWEST RIDGE LN
CURRAN AVE
PRAIRIE RIDGE LN SHERIDAN AVESHERMAN BLVDLAFAYETTE AVE NPARK AVE NHUSTON AVE NKRUSE AVE
COVENTRY
L
N
HALL ST
MIDWAY RD
ISLAND CIR
NAVAJO DR
SIOUX AVE
BARBARA AVE
DACK AVE
CHEYENNE RD
PAWNEE PL
SCHEEL RDDAVID AVE
KENNEDY DRWESTGATE RD
STARW
OO
D A
V
E
CAREY AVEGRACE AVE NMEMPHIS PLLEE ST
2ND ST W
ST AN
D
R
EW
S
C
I
R
DE ANN RDOKLAHOMA A
V
E
W
JOHNSON DR
EISENHOW
E
R DRCATFISH AVEWARB
LE
R
C
IR
STAGECOACH RD
ASHTON AVE E
PINE ST SBLAI
NE
S
T
S
EXCHANGE RDCURTIS STCHEROKEE AVE SNORTHWEST AVEORCHARD GRASS DRBROME
G
RASS DR
BIGH
O
R
N
P
L
BAUMAN
N
D
R
VANDERGRIFT AVE
SYCAMORE ST S14TH ST W
PINE ST SSYCAMORE ST SSADDLE HORSE CT
DOREEN STNEW MEXICO AVE
GATEWAY A
VE
SHERIDAN PLLARAM
I
E
D
R
AUGUSTA PARKWAY
IDLEWOOD LN
5TH ST W
4TH ST W
REUTING RD
ANDO AVEOAK ST SCLAUSSEN AVEBEAC
H
WOO
D
DR
FONNER PARK RD E
ROBERTA AVEBRANDING IRON L
N
BRONCO RDVOSS RDLOVEGRASS DR
NEBRASKA AVE
13TH ST E
STOEGE
R
D
RSHERIDAN AVEGRAND AVE
HALL STSHERMAN AVECHEROKE
E
A
V
E
N
GEDD
E
S
S
T
ARAPAH
OE
A
VE
ANNE M
A
R
I
E
A
V
E
SPRING RDNORSEMAN AVE
HOWARD AVE NEUGENE ST SPLUM ST SINDIANHEAD DR
1ST ST W
CIRCLE DR
PLA
NT
AT
IO
N
PL
MEVES AVE
MACARTHUR
A
V
EWEST AVESHERMAN AVE7TH ST E
LAMBCHOP LN
LINC
O
L
N
A
V
E
S
MANCHESTER RD
SHANNA ST
HARTFORD ST ST PAUL RDSEEDLING MILE RD E
19TH ST E
PINE ST SCHARLES ST W
20TH ST E
KOENIG ST
W
MEMORIAL DR
PUBLI
C
S
A
F
ET
Y
D
R
DIVISION ST
W
18TH ST E
21ST ST E
PHOENIX AVE W
SCHROEDER AVEZOLA LNDIVISION ST W
SUN VALLEY PL
GRAHAM AVEAIRPORT RD E
20TH ST W
5TH ST E
BARON LN
18TH ST W
19TH ST W
21ST ST W
4TH ST E
LOUISE ST
W
MIRAGE ST
22ND ST W
KENNEDY DRSOUTH ST E
CRAIG DR SAGEWOOD AVETAYLOR AVEDODGE ST
RIVERVIEW DRCOMMANCHE AVEOLD LINCOLN
H
W
Y
W
NORTHVIEW DR
4TH ST E
SEED
L
ING
M
I
LE
A
CC
ES
S
RD
EDDY ST SPINE
S
T
N
JAMES R
D
NEWCASTLE RD S
WAL
N
U
T
S
T
NARTHUR ST SEBONY LNELM
S
T
N
WOODRIDGE BLVD
BACHMAN ST W
UNION RD
COUGAR DR
FRONTAGE RD
10TH ST WCARLET
ON
A
V
E
ATLANTA STBRENTWOOD BLVDJERRY
DRNASHVILLE STELMWOOD DR
PARKVIEW DRAIRPORT RD W
FORREST ST
GRE
E
N
W
I
C
H
S
T
S
BRENTWOOD BLVDGARLAND STINGALLS ST
LAR
IA
T
L
N
ENTERPRISE AVE
TRUST ST
OKLAHOMA
A
V
E
W
CLAR
K
S
T
SIDAHO AVEO FLANNAGAN STGRETCHEN AVELILLIE DR NEBRASKA AVE
REGAL DR
MARY LN
WESTGATE
R
D
ANDREW AVE
GREGORY AVE E
GREENWOOD DR
WESTSIDE ST
MANSF
I
E
L
D
R
D
18TH ST W
INDU
ST
RI
AL
L
N
JOHN ST W
17TH ST W
ELK DRHAGGE AVE
BELLWOOD DRANTELOPE DRBRIDLE LNWEDGEWOOD DR
ROBERTS ST W
DIER
S
A
V
E
N
BROOKLINE DR WAINWRIGHT ST11TH ST W VILLA MAR DEE AVE10TH ST WHOWARD AVE NSPUR LN
TECH DR
BLAUVELT RD
FLEETWOOD RD
MARIAN RD
VIRGINIA DR19TH ST E
PHOENIX AVE W
KAY AVE
SANDRA RD
ROUSH LN
NORSEMAN AVE
HOWARD PLPALACE D
R
RAMADA RD
SOUTH FRON
T
S
T
W
18TH ST E
HOLLAND DR7TH ST E
VIKING RD
ORLE
A
NS DR
DELAWARE AVE E
TRUMAN ST
RABORN ST
ELDORADO ST
STOLLEY PARK RD W WILLOW STRIVERSIDE DRLESTER ST
SOTHMAN DRSEEDLING MILE RD E
COCHIN STKIMBALL AVE SMEA
DOW
R
D
NORDIC RD
EDDY ST SLINCOLN AVE S
CAMBRIDGE RD
MANCHESTER RD
FREEDOM DRROBERTS ST E
WINDRIDGE AVE
ROTH RD
REED RD
GOLD RDSAGEWOOD AVERIDGEWOOD AVESTONEWOOD AVEINDEPENDENCE AVERAYMOND DR14TH ST W
ARCH AVE DIERS AVE N15TH ST W
16TH ST W
OKLAHOMA AVE E
PHOENIX AVE E
SUNSET AVE E
NORSEMAN AVE
DRIFTWOOD DR
WICKLOW DRMILL RIVER RD
LANGENHEDER STTEXAS AVE
IOWA AVE
20TH ST E
BRAHMA STST PATRICK AVEBUCKING
HA
M
D
R CHANTICLEER STAUGUST ST SALLEN A
V
E
PIPER STEDNA DR
PIONEER BLVD
HENRY
S
T
PENNSYLVANIA AVE
CLAUSSEN RD
NEW YORK AVE
VERMONT AVE
MICHIGAN AVE
UTAH AVE
MASON AVE
KAY AVE
NEVADA AVE
SEEDLING MILE RD E
ARIZONA AVE
ADA ST WETZEL ST NAPACHE RDCHERRY ST SHANCOCK AVELAMAR AVE
BRIARWOOD BLVD
GAR
LA
ND
S
T SYLVAN STWILDWOOD DR WDIERS AVE NNORTH RD NNORWOOD DR
BRONZE RDSWIFT RD E
CLAU
D
E RD
REDWOOD RDSANDALWOOD DRLARIAT LN
SCHIMMER DR W CAPITAL TRAILER CTJOHNSTOWN RDCLAUD
E
R
D 4TH ST E
WILMAR A
VE ALPHA ST NASPEN CIRSTAUSS RD
OLD FAIR RD
REDWOO
D R
D
MEMORIAL PARK RDPARK DR
COMMERCE AVE
SCHIMMER DR W
KENT AVE
ARROWHEAD RD
KAUFMAN AVE SHADY BEND RD NLAKEWOOD DRDIERS AVE NWORTMAN DRSOUTH ST W
COTTONWOOD RDALLEN DRBLAINE ST SBLAINE ST
S
FONNER PARK RD E ACADEMY RD NRAINBOW RD
BASS RD
WILDWOOD DR E MUSEUM D
R
WILDWOOD DR W
SWIFT RD EDIERS AVE N
WEBB
RD NJUERGEN RDSCHIMMER DR W
JUERGEN
R
DNORTH RD NSCHIMMER DR W
PIONEER BLVD
AIRPORT RD E
2ND ST W SHADY BEND RD NSTOLLEY PARK RD W ST PAUL RD
AIRPORT RD E
SEEDLING MIL
E
R
D
E
WILDWOOD DR W
AIRPORT RD W AIRPORT RD E
MIDARO DRWEBB
R
D NBLAINE ST SGOLD CORE DRWILDWOOD DR WNORTH RD SSCHIMMER DR W
ENG
L
E
M
A
N
R
D
S
3RD ST W
1ST ST W
2ND ST W
1ST ST E
1ST ST W
2ND ST E
3RD ST W
2ND ST W
10TH ST W
17TH ST W
2ND ST W
PLUM
S
T
N
EDD
Y
S
T
S
EDD
Y
S
T
N
VINE
S
T
N
PLU
M
S
T
S
13TH ST W
10TH ST W
KOENIG ST E
EDD
Y
S
T
N
WEBB RD SSTATE ST W
VINE ST SWEBB RD NNORTH RD NHUSKER HWY
10TH ST E
FAIDLEY
A
V
E
W
CAPITAL AVE W
BISMARK RD E
CHE
R
R
Y
S
T
S
13TH ST W
NORTH RD SVINE ST S13TH ST W13TH ST W
RUE DE COLLE
G
E
COLLEGE ST
STATE ST W BROADWELL AVE NCUS
T
ER
AV
E
N
OLD POTASH HWY W
KOENIG ST
W
3RD ST W
ANNA ST W
2ND ST WNORTH RD NFAIDLEY AVE W SKY PARK RDLOCUST ST SSTOLLEY PARK RD ECUSTER AVE NCUSTER AVE NEDD
Y
S
T
N
HARRISON ST SOLD HIGH
W
A
Y
3
0
W
STATE ST W
STATE ST W
LOCUST ST SUS HIGHWAY 281 SBLAINE ST SOLD HIG
H
W
A
Y
2
W
BLAI
N
E
S
T
N
WH
E
E
L
E
R
AV
E
N
CUSTER AVE N13TH ST W
STOLLEY PARK RD W
OLD POTASH HWY WINDEPENDENCE AVESTOLLEY PARK RD W
NORTH FRONT ST W
BLAINE ST SNEBRASKA HIG
H
W
A
Y
2
W
WEBB RD SNORTH RD NFONNER PARK RD W
OLD HIGH
W
A
Y
3
0
W
SOUTH FR
O
N
T
S
T
E
NORTH RD S3RD ST W
STUHR RD SUS HIGHWA
Y
3
0
E
SY
C
A
M
OR
E
S
T
N
LOCUST ST SWEBB RD NCOLLEGE ST
OLD POTASH HWY W
US HIGHWAY 34 W
CAPITAL AVE E
US HIGHWAY
3
0
E
ADAMS ST SWEBB RD NCAPITAL AVE W
FAIDLEY AVE W
US HIGHWAY 34 ENORTH RD NUS HIGHWAY 281 SCAPITAL AVE W
CAPITAL AVE W
OLD POTASH HWY W
NORTH RD S13TH ST W
OLD HIG
H
W
A
Y
3
0
W
NEBRASKA HIGHW
A
Y
2
W
LOCU
S
T
S
T
A
C
C
E
S
S
US HIGHWAY 34 W
LOCUST ST SUS HIGHWAY 34 W
13TH ST W
STATE ST W
ENGLEMAN RD SENGLEMAN RD NOLD HIGH
W
A
Y
3
0
W
HUSKER HWY LOCUST ST SSHADY BEND RD NWEBB RD SUS HIGHWAY
3
0
E
SHADY BEND
RD
N
CAPITAL AVE E
US HIGHWAY 34 E
US HIGHWAY 30 W
NEBRASKA HIGHWA
Y
2
W
US H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
2
8
1
N
ENGLEMAN RD SCANNON RD
OLD POTASH HWY W
ENGLEMAN RD SSTOLLEY PARK RD W
US HIGH
W
AY
30
W
US HIGHWA
Y
3
0
E
US HIGHWAY 281 N
US HIGHWAY 34 ENORTH RD SWEBB RD NUS HIGHWAY 281 NSTUHR RD SUS HIGHW
A
Y
3
0
W
STOLLEY PARK RD WENGLEMAN RD NUS HIGHWA
Y
28
1
SUS HIGHWA
Y 2
81
N
CAPITAL AVE E
STOLLEY PARK RD EUS HIGHWAY 281 NWEBB RD NFAIDLEY AVE W
CAPITAL AVE E
LOCUST ST SSKY PARK RDUS HIGH
WA
Y 3
0
E
US HIGHWAY 281 NUS HIGHWAY 281 NSTUHR RD SENGLEM
AN
RD
NUS HIGHWAY 281 SUS HIGHWAY 281 SENGLEMAN RD SUS HIGHWAY 281 SUS HIGHWAY 281 SUS HIGHWAY 281 SUS HIGHWAY
3
0
W STUHR RD SUS HIGHWAY 281 NUS HIGHWAY 281 NBROADWELL AVE NUS HIGHW
A
Y
3
0
W
US H
I
G
H
W
AY
2
8
1
S
HUSKER HWY SHADY BEND RD SUS HIGHWAY 281 N
US HIGHWA
Y
3
0
E
US HIGHWAY 34 W
US HIGHW
A
Y
3
0
W
HUSKER HWY
NEBRASKA HIGH
W
A
Y
2
W
CAPITAL AVE W
OLD HIGHWAY
2
W
BISMARK RD E
CAPITAL AVE E
STUHR RD SLOCUST ST SSKY PARK RDENGLEMAN RD NUS HIGHWAY 34 E
US HI
G
H
W
A
Y
3
4
E
Schu ParkMemorial Park
L. E.Ray Park
EagleScout Park
Pioneer Park
Lions Park
Lincoln Park
GraceAbbottPark
Ashley Park
BroadwellPark
Ryder Park
Wasmer ElementarySchool (Old Site)
Buechler Park
Stolley Park
George Park
Sothman Park
AugustinePark
Pier Park
Howard School
LincolnElementarySchool
JeersonElementarySchool
CentralCatholicHigh School
NewellElementarySchool
WalnutMiddleSchool
KnickrehmElementarySchool
Senior HighSchoolWest LawnElementarySchool
ShoemakerElementarySchool
EnglemanElementarySchool
Old EnglemanElementarySchool
Seedling MileElementarySchool
GatesElementarySchool
StarrElementarySchool
Stolley ParkElementary School
CentralCommunityCollege
Trinity LutheranSchool And Church
NorthwestHigh School
DodgeElementarySchool
Barr MiddleSchool
Grand IslandChristian School
WasmerElementarySchool
HeartlandLutheranHigh School
WestridgeMiddleSchool
B
B
B
B B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
With existing network
With full network
Major Trailheads Minor Trailheads Nodes
Figure 4.4: Possible Support Facility Sites: North
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 95 / 180
83
4 | SUPPORT FACILITIES
8383
Figure 4.5: Possible Support Facility Sites: South
B
B
B
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
n
n
n
nn
n
n
nn
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
BB
B
B
B
B
B
B
Oa
k
R
o
u
t
e
Oa
k
R
o
u
t
e
Oak Route
Pin
e
R
o
u
t
e
Pin
e
R
o
u
t
e
Pine RoutePine RouteGrand Island
Rou
te
College/20 Route
State/17 Route
15th St Route
4th/St Paul Route
Stolley Route
StagecoachRoute
Koenig R
o
ut
e
Beltline Tr
a
il
Riverway Trail St Joe TrailShoemaker TrailKoenigR
o
ut
e
4th/St Pa
ul
R
o
ute
3rd St Ro
u
t
e
3rd St Ro
u
t
e
1Faidley/6th Route
1Faidley/
6t
h
R
o
u
t
e
10th St Route
10th St
R
o
ut
e
College/2
0
R
o
u
t
e
Grand Island
RouteLinco
ln Rou
teAdams RouteCuster-B
laine RouteCuste
r-Blaine
RouteKennedy-Hancock RouteIndependnence Route
Independnence
RouteKennedy-Hancock Route
Lin
c
o
l
n
R
o
u
t
e
1
C
D
E
B
A 2
4
4
6
6 8
8
10
12
14
12
12
2
10
1
579 3
11
11
13
5
7
13
14
16
16
18
3
18
20 20
F
JK
G
H
IA
K L
M
N
O P
Q
R S
T
3870
4044
3459
1280 3134
4340 9772 8616 3394 5352
3039
7636
9309
7146
7184
19423
20857
11879
11879
8542
11566
2831
5482
6123
4659
5373
5757
5820
1180
711
2337
2582
3441
3381
3776
5111
6459
7287 2500 11802665147534886336
2607
3340
5728
7980
8071
7726
12406
10990
26453566
11116
12443
9560
8748
5968
8324
3841427128827608762473919690607644312350
6061 5068
1905
5316
4400
1889
5061
4795
4142
3707
3874
1917
9388
7728
11339
1080
1772
2126
2214
8372 8727 660172000
0
2402
16273181
1720
2893
1287
878
1682
1202
955
1213
15620
14946
5144
3869
12039
16427
16654
7228
6425
974
1877
1358
3808
2422
8354
5005
11909
10404
15816
2519
3038
5395
5422
3578
3041
4549 6398
10350 9759 7705
2845
1442
2134
3696
1162
1348
1962
16561836
1381
2088
2525
4231
5424
6920
4544
5429
5827
4246
3933
4542945111017114591212596393524
3363 13635 11492 7419 6184
10982
2006
1287
3740
9240 9170
2240
4390
5342
128790
14769
10941
8055
1931
1711
1396
3667
4135
3588
7499
9313
631
744
9794
POST PL
9TH ST E
AVON AVEISLE R
D
GAMMA ST
BOCK AVE
16TH ST W
KRUSE AVEYOST LNWHITE AVEZOLA CTPHOENIX CTORANGE RDBLAKE STCAREY AVE9TH ST W
KNIGHT
S
R
D
6TH ST W
YARROW DR
GEORGE ST
SCHUFF ST
15TH ST W
DELTA ST
23RD ST E
WAGON RDANNA ST W
JOEH
N
C
K
R
D
15TH ST E
6TH ST E
12TH ST ESUNSIRE A
V
E ROBERTS CTPOST R
D
OXNARD AVE
BISON CT
14TH ST EMCNELIS PL
GRA
N
T
S
T
N
8TH ST W
11TH AVE W
11TH ST E
9TH ST W
4TH ST E
BOSTON CIR
BISCHELD S
T
ART
H
U
R
S
T
N
SOUTH ST W
5TH ST E
8TH ST E
5TH ST W
4TH ST W
16TH ST E
7TH ST W
6TH ST W
14TH ST E
13TH ST W
PLUM
S
T
N
JOHN ST W
LOUISE ST
W
LOUISE ST W JOHN ST W
6TH ST E
3RD ST E
13TH ST E
YUND ST
11TH ST W
12TH ST E
13TH ST W
4TH ST W
8TH ST E
11TH ST E
1ST ST W
OAK ST S15TH ST E
9TH ST W
9TH ST E
15TH ST W
7TH ST E
6TH ST W14TH ST W
16TH ST W
8TH ST W
8TH ST E
7TH ST W
17TH ST E
4TH ST W
17TH ST W
12TH ST W
5TH ST W
5TH ST W
8TH ST W
MONR
O
E
S
T
N
LAMB
E
R
T
S
TDALLAS AVECLAY
S
T
N
WILLIAM STLOG
A
N
S
T
N
CEDA
R
S
T
N
DAKOTA DR
MAPL
E
S
T
AUGUST ST SWHITE AVEBOGGS AVE NGRACE AVE NSUP
E
R
I
O
R
S
T
WALDO AVETILD
E
N
S
T
NDARR AVE NART
H
U
R
S
T
SRUBY
A
V
E
WALN
U
T
S
T
NMORRISO
N
DR
WAL
N
U
T
S
T
N
ADA
M
S
S
T
N
OAK
S
T
N
CLA
R
K
S
T
N
CLA
R
K
S
T
S
ADAM
S
S
T
S
MON
RO
E
S
T
S
ING
A
L
L
S
S
T
PIN
E
S
T
N
CLEBU
RN
S
T
S
VIN
E
S
T
N
TAFT A
V
E
VINE
S
T
N
CED
A
R
S
T
N
BEA
L
S
T
ADAMS ST SGRAN
T
S
T
S
OAK
S
T
N
LOC
U
S
T
S
T
N
ELM S
T
N
ELM
S
T
S
PINE
S
T
N
23RD ST W
CLAY
S
T
S
CLAY
S
T
S
LOG
A
N
S
T
S
LOCUS
T
S
T
N
CED
A
R
S
T
N
ST PA
U
L
R
D
TILDE
N
S
T
S
CLA
R
K
S
T
N
PROSPECT ST
MAD
I
S
O
N
S
T
S
CLEB
U
R
N
S
T
N
ELM S
T
N
CED
A
R
S
T
S
16TH ST W
17TH ST W
18TH ST W
1ST ST W
22ND ST E
PROSPECT ST
MARK
E
T
ST
14TH ST W
15TH ST W
9TH ST E
WAUGH ST W
FORREST ST
GROFF ST
CLE
B
U
R
N
S
T
S
EDD
Y
S
T
S
COTTAGE ST
DIVISION ST
E
HAMPTON RD PLUM RDCOURT ST E
OAK
S
T
N
BELFRY BLVDPLUM ST
N
STU
H
R
RD
S
SHERIDAN AVEWEIS DR
KINGSTON CIR
ALLEN CTST PAUL
R
D
WINDSOR RD6TH ST E
HANSEN ST
KIMBA
L
L
A
VE S
PLUM ST N
CLE
B
U
R
N
S
T
N
SHERMAN PLSHERMAN BLVDCONCORD
A
V
E
BOGGS AVE NDIXIE SQ
KENNEDY CIR
KENNEDY WAY
CHARLES ST E
CENT
R
E
STIDAHO AVESILVER RD LUETH DRMANS
F
IE
L
D
R
D
LOCU
S
T
S
T
N
WHITE AVELARIAT PL
LAKEWOOD CIRASTER DR ILLINOIS AVERICHMOND CIR
7TH ST W
SPRUCE RDRUBY AVECOLONIAL LN SHERIDAN AVECOTTAGE ST
HANCOCK PL PARK AVE NROSEMONT AVE
ADA
M
S
S
T
N
OAK ST SMAIN ST S18TH ST W
BRENTWOOD PLSWEETWOOD DRVINE
S
T
N
HOLCOMB ST
10TH ST W
11TH ST W
11TH AVE W
12TH ST W
HORSESHOE PL
CHURCH RD
SUNSET AVE E
MAGNOLIA CT
O GRADY ST
TRI STKELLY ST
PHOENIX AVE E
BANTAM S
T
KAREN RDPOPLAR STBRENTWOOD CIR
FIRES
T
O
N
E
S
T
R
E
E
T EVANS STLAMB
E
R
T
S
THUSTON AVE NBEAL STWARBLER RD
CEDAR RIDGE CTPIPER STCHERRY ST NHOPE STSHERWOOD RD PARK AVE NDEL MAR AVE
INDIANHEAD RD
WARR
E
N
L
NLAFAYETTE AVE NWILLOW STMABEL DRLAKE ST
DIERS AVE N
KRUSE AVECHURCH RD
HEDDE ST W
5TH ST E
SUN RIDGE LN
SWI
T
CHGRASS STPLUM ST SMACRON STELM
S
T
STAYLOR AVEJAN
ST
INDE
P
ENDENCE AVEDEL MONT
E
AVEJAY STWEST RIDGE LN
CURRAN AVE
PRAIRIE RIDGE LN SHERIDAN AVESHERMAN BLVDLAFAYETTE AVE NPARK AVE NHUSTON AVE NKRUSE AVECOVENTRY
LN
HALL ST
MIDWAY RD
ISLAND CIR
NAVAJO DR
SIOUX AVE
BARBARA AVE
DACK AVE
CHEYENNE RD
PAWNEE PL
SCHEEL RDDAVID AVE
KENNEDY DR
WESTGATE RD
STARWOO
D
AV
E
CAREY AVEGRACE AVE N
MEMPHIS PLLEE ST2ND ST W
ST A
ND
RE
W
S
C
I
R
DE ANN RDOKLAHOMA AV
E
W
JOHNSON DR
EISENHOW
E
R DRCATFISH AVEWARBL
ER
C
I
R
STAGECOACH RD
ASHTON AVE E
PINE ST SBLA
I
NE
S
T
SEXCHANGE RDCURTIS STCHEROKEE AVE SNORTHWEST AVEORCHARD GRASS DRBROME GRASS DRBIGHO
RN
P
L
BAUMANN D
R
VANDERGRIFT AVE
SYCAMORE ST
S
14TH ST W
PINE ST SSYCAMORE ST SSADDLE HORSE CT
DOREEN STNEW MEXICO AVE
GATEWAY AVESHERIDAN PLLARAMI
E
D
R
AUGUSTA PARKWAY IDLEWOOD LN5TH ST W
4TH ST W
REUTING RD
ANDO AVEOAK ST SCLAUSSEN AVEBEAC
HWO
OD
D
R
FONNER PARK RD E
ROBERTA AVEBRANDIN
G
IRON LN
BRONCO RDVOSS RDLOVEGRASS DR
NEBRASKA AVE
13TH ST E
STOEG
E
R
D
RSHERIDAN AVEGRAND AVE
HALL STSHERMAN AVECHEROK
EE
AVE
N GEDDES STARA
PA
HO
E
AV
E
ANNE MARIE AVE
SPRING RDNORSEMAN AVE
HOWARD AVE NEUGENE ST SPLUM ST SINDIANHEAD DR 1ST ST W
CIRCLE DRPLAN
T
A
T
IO
N
PL
MEVES AVE
MACARTHUR
A
V
EWEST AVE
SHERMAN AVE7TH ST E
LAMBCHOP LN
LINC
O
L
N
A
V
E
S
MANCHESTER RD
SHANNA ST
HARTFORD ST ST PAUL RDSEEDLING MILE RD E
19TH ST E
PINE ST SCHARLES ST
W
20TH ST E
KOENIG ST W
MEMORIAL DR
PUB
L
IC
S
A
F
E
TY
D
R
DIVISION S
T
W
18TH ST E
21ST ST E
PHOENIX AVE
W
SCHROEDER AVEZOL
A
L
N
DIVISION ST
W
SUN VALLEY PL
GRAHAM AVEAIRPORT RD E
20TH ST W
5TH ST E
BARON LN
18TH ST W
19TH ST W
21ST ST W
4TH ST E
LOUISE ST W
MIRAGE ST
22ND ST W
KENNEDY DRSOUTH ST E
CRAIG DR SAGEWOOD AVETAYLOR AVEDODGE ST
RIVER
V
I
E
W
D
RCOMMANCHE AVEOLD LINCOL
N
H
W
Y
W
NORTHVIEW DR
4TH ST E SEEDL
I
N
G
M
IL
E
AC
CE
SS
RD
EDDY ST S
PIN
E
S
T
N
JAMES RD
NEWC
A
S
TLE RD SWALN
U
T
S
T
N
ARTHUR ST SEBONY LNELM S
T
N
WOODRIDGE BLVD
BACHMAN ST W
UNION RD
COUGAR DR
FRONTAGE RD
10TH ST WCARL
ET
ON
A
VE
ATLANTA STBRENTWOOD BLVDJERRY DRNASHVILLE STELMWOOD DR
PARKVIEW DRAIRPORT RD W
FORREST ST
GREEN
W
I
C
H
S
T
S
BRENTWOOD BLVDGARLAND ST
INGALLS STLARIA
T
LN
ENTERPRISE AVE
TRUST ST
OKLAHOMA
A
V
E
W
CLAR
K
S
T
SIDAHO AVEO FLANNA
G
AN STGRETCHEN AVELILLIE DR NEBRASKA AVE
REGAL D
R
MARY LN
WESTGATE R
D
ANDREW AVE
GREGORY AVE E
GREENWOOD DR
WESTSIDE ST
MANSFIE
L
D
R
D
18TH ST W
INDU
ST
RI
AL
LN
JOHN ST W
17TH ST W
ELK DRHAGGE AVE
BELLWOOD DRANTELOPE DRBRIDLE
L
N
WEDGEWOOD DR
ROBERTS ST W
DIER
S AV
E
N
BROOKLINE DR WAINWRIGHT ST11TH ST W
VILLA
M
A
R
D
E
E
A
V
E
10TH ST WHOWARD AVE NSPUR LN
TECH DRBLAUVELT RD
FLEETWOOD RD
MARIAN RD
VIRGINIA DR19TH ST E
PHOENIX AVE
W
KAY AVE
SANDRA RD
ROUSH LN
NORSEMAN AVE
HOWARD PLPALACE DR
RAMADA RD
SOUTH FRON
T
S
T
W
18TH ST E
HOLLAND DR7TH ST E
VIKING RD
ORLEANS DRDELAWARE AVE E
TRUMAN ST
RABORN ST
ELDORADO ST
STOLLEY PARK RD W
WILLOW STRIVERSIDE DRLESTER ST
SOTHMAN DRSEEDLING MILE RD E
COCHIN STKIMBALL AVE SMEAD
OW
RD
NORDIC RD
EDDY ST SLINCOLN AVE SCAMBRIDGE RD
MANCHESTER RD
FREEDOM DRROBERTS ST E
WINDRIDGE AVEROTH RD
REED RD
GOLD RDSAGEWOOD AVERIDGEWOOD AVESTONEWOOD AVEINDEPENDENCE AVERAYMOND DR14TH ST W
ARCH AVE DIERS AVE N15TH ST W
16TH ST W
OKLAHOMA AVE E
PHOENIX AVE E
SUNSET AVE E
NORSEMAN AVE
DRIFTWOOD DR
WICKLOW DRMILL RIVER RD
LAN
G
ENHEDER ST
TEXAS AVEIOWA AVE
20TH ST E
BRAHMA STST PATRICK AVEBUCKINGHA
M D
R CHANTICLEER STAUGUST ST SALLE
N
A
V
E
PIPER STEDNA DR
PIONEER BLVD
HEN
R
Y
S
T
PENNSYLVANIA AVE
CLAUSSEN RD
NEW YORK AVE
VERMONT AVE
MICHIGAN AVE
UTAH AVE
MASON AVE
KAY AVE
NEVADA AVE
SEEDLING MILE RD E
ARIZONA AVE
ADA STWETZEL ST NAPACHE RDCHERRY ST SHANCOCK AVE
LAMAR AVE
BRIARWOOD BLVD
GARLAN
D
S
T SYLVAN STWILDWOOD DR WDIERS AVE NNORTH RD NNORWOOD DR
BRONZE RDSWIFT RD E
CLAUDE RDREDWOOD RDSANDALWOOD DRLARIAT LN
SCHIMMER DR W CAPITAL TR
A
I
L
E
R
CT
JOHNSTOWN RDCLAU
DE
R
D
4TH ST E
WILMAR AVEALPHA ST NASPEN CIRSTAUSS RD
OLD FAIR RDREDWOO
D
RD
MEMORIAL PARK RDPARK DR
COMMERCE AVE
SCHIMMER DR W
KENT AV
E
ARROWHEAD RDKAUFMAN AVE SHADY BEND
R
D
N
LAKEWOOD DRDIERS AVE NWORTMAN DRSOUTH ST W
COTTONWOOD RDALLEN DRBLAINE ST SBLAINE ST S
FONNER PARK RD E ACADEMY RD NRAINBOW RD
BASS RD
WILDWOOD DR E MUSEUM DRWILDWOOD DR W
SWIFT RD EDIERS AVE N WEBB RD NJUERGEN RDSCHIMMER DR W
JUERGEN RDNORTH RD NSCHIMMER DR W
PIONEER BLVD
AIRPORT RD E
2ND ST W SHADY BEND RD NSTOLLEY PARK RD W ST PAUL RDAIRPORT RD E
SEEDLING MILE R
D
E
WILDWOOD DR W
AIRPORT RD W AIRPORT RD E
MIDARO DRWEBB RD NBLAINE ST SGOLD CORE DR
WILDWOOD DR WNORTH RD SSCHIMMER DR WENGLEMAN RD S3RD ST W
1ST ST W
2ND ST W
1ST ST E
1ST ST W
2ND ST E
3RD ST W
2ND ST W 10TH ST W
17TH ST W
2ND ST W
PLU
M
S
T
N
EDD
Y
S
T
S
EDD
Y
S
T
N
VIN
E
S
T
N
PL
U
M
S
T
S
13TH ST W
10TH ST W
KOENIG ST E
ED
D
Y
S
T
NWEBB RD SSTATE ST W
VINE ST SWEBB RD NNORTH RD NHUSKER HWY
10TH ST E
FAIDLE
Y
A
V
E
W
CAPITAL AVE W
BISMARK RD E
CHER
R
Y
S
T
S
13TH ST W
NORTH RD SVINE ST S13TH ST W13TH ST W
RUE DE CO
L
L
E
G
E
COLLEGE ST
STATE ST W BROADWELL AVE NCUST
ER
AV
E
N
OLD POTASH HWY W
KOENIG ST W
3RD ST W
ANNA ST W
2ND ST WNORTH RD NFAIDLEY AVE W SKY PARK RDLOCUST ST SSTOLLEY PARK RD ECUSTER AVE NCUSTER AVE NEDD
Y
S
T
N
HARRISON ST SOLD HIGH
W
A
Y
3
0
W
STATE ST W
STATE ST W
LOCUST ST SUS HIGHWAY 281 SBLAINE ST SOLD HI
G
H
W
A
Y
2
W
BLAI
NE
S
T
N
WHE
E
L
E
R
A
V
E
N
CUSTER AVE N13TH ST W
STOLLEY PARK RD W
OLD POTASH HWY WINDEPENDENCE AVESTOLLEY PARK RD W
NORTH FRONT ST W
BLAINE ST SNEBRASKA HIGHWAY 2 W
WEBB RD SNORTH RD NFONNER PARK RD W
OLD HIGH
W
A
Y
3
0
W
SOUTH FRON
T
S
T
E
NORTH RD S3RD ST W
STUHR RD SUS HIGHWAY
3
0
E
SYC
A
MO
R
E
S
T
N
LOCUST ST SWEBB RD NCOLLEGE ST
OLD POTASH HWY W
US HIGHWAY 34 W
CAPITAL AVE E
US HIGHWAY
3
0
E
ADAMS ST SWEBB RD NCAPITAL AVE W
FAIDLEY AVE W
US HIGHWAY 34 ENORTH RD NUS HIGHWAY 281 SCAPITAL AVE W
CAPITAL AVE W
OLD POTASH HWY W
NORTH RD S13TH ST W
OLD HIG
H
W
A
Y
3
0
W
NEBRASKA HIGHWAY 2 W
LOC
U
S
T
S
T
A
C
C
E
S
S
US HIGHWAY 34 W
LOCUST ST SUS HIGHWAY 34 W
13TH ST W
STATE ST W
ENGLEMAN RD SENGLEMAN RD NOLD HIGH
W
A
Y
3
0
W
HUSKER HWY LOCUST ST SSHADY BEND RD NWEBB RD SUS HIGHWA
Y
3
0
E
SHADY BEND RD
N
CAPITAL AVE E
US HIGHWAY 34 E
US HIGHWAY 30 W
NEBRASKA HIGHWAY 2 W US HIGHWAY 281 N
ENGLEMAN RD SCANNON RD
OLD POTASH HWY W
ENGLEMAN RD SSTOLLEY PARK RD WUS HIGHWA
Y 3
0
W
US HIGHWAY 3
0
E
US HIGHWAY 281 N
US HIGHWAY 34 ENORTH RD SWEBB RD NUS HIGHWAY 281 NSTUHR RD SUS HIGHWAY
3
0
W
STOLLEY PARK RD WENGLEMAN RD NUS HIG
HW
AY
2
8
1
SUS HIGHWAY 281 N
CAPITAL AVE E
STOLLEY PARK RD EUS HIGHWAY 281 NWEBB RD NFAIDLEY AVE W
CAPITAL AVE E
LOCUST ST SSKY PARK RDUS HIGHW
AY
3
0
E
US HIGHWAY 281 NUS HIGHWAY 281 NSTUHR RD SENGLEMAN RD NUS HIGHWAY 281 SUS HIGHWAY 281 SENGLEMAN RD SUS HIGHWAY 281 SUS HIGHWAY 281 SUS HIGHWAY 281 SUS HIGHW
A
Y
3
0
W STUHR RD SUS HIGHWAY 281 NUS HIGHWAY 281 NBROADWELL AVE NUS HIGHWAY
3
0
W
US H
IG
H
W
AY
2
8
1
S
HUSKER HWY SHADY BEND RD SUS HIGHWAY 281 N
US HIGHWA
Y
3
0
E
US HIGHWAY 34 W
US HIGHW
A
Y
3
0
W
HUSKER HWY
NEBRASKA HIGHWAY 2 W
CAPITAL AVE W
OLD HIGHWAY 2 W
BISMARK RD E
CAPITAL AVE E
STUHR RD SLOCUST ST SSKY PARK RDENGLEMAN RD NUS HIGHWAY 34 E
US HIG
H
W
A
Y
3
4
E
Schu ParkMemorial Park
L. E.Ray Park
EagleScout Park
Pioneer Park
Lions Park
Lincoln Park
GraceAbbottPark
Ashley Park
BroadwellPark
Ryder Park
Wasmer ElementarySchool (Old Site)
Buechler Park
Stolley Park
George Park
Sothman Park
AugustinePark
Pier Park
Howard School
LincolnElementarySchool
JeersonElementarySchool
CentralCatholicHigh School
NewellElementarySchool
WalnutMiddleSchool
KnickrehmElementarySchool
Senior HighSchool
West LawnElementarySchool
ShoemakerElementarySchool
EnglemanElementarySchool
Old EnglemanElementarySchool
Seedling MileElementarySchool
GatesElementarySchool
StarrElementarySchool
Stolley ParkElementary School
CentralCommunityCollege
Trinity LutheranSchool And Church
NorthwestHigh School
DodgeElementarySchool
Barr MiddleSchool
Grand IslandChristian School
WasmerElementarySchool
HeartlandLutheranHigh School
WestridgeMiddleSchool
B
B
B
B B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
With existing network
With full network
Major Trailheads Minor Trailheads Nodes
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 96 / 180
848484
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
POINTS OF INTEREST
The proposed network plan was designed to serve ma-
jor destinations and points of interest in the community
through trails, on-street principal routes, and shorter
connectors. Thus, the active transportation network serves
schools at all levels, most parks, the library, many substan-
tial commercial areas, major employment destinations, and
even cemeteries with the help of Grand Island’s Cemetery
Trail.
The network also is designed to extend to new growth
areas and currently planned park and open space projects.
Thus, future projects serve areas identified for new devel-
opment in the future land use plans and identifies proposed
collector streets through these areas, which should be de-
signed to accommodate all modes comfortably. Major park
initiatives identified by the city’s park department include:
• Veterans Legacy Park, now in the planning stage.
• Sterling Estates Park, in the final stages of develop-
ment.
• A new neighborhood park south of 13th Street and
west of US 281
• Eventual recreational reuse of parts of the Cornhusker
Plan, west of the city.
These facilities are also incorporated into the network.
However, one area of concern not fully considered are
historically and/or architecturally significant points of
interest. The National Register of Historic Places provides
an excellent inventory of these resources, some of which
are distinctive. The network, or at least its wayfinding
system to be developed later in this planning process
and part of the supporting facilities program described
in this paper, should direct users to these features, all
of which help tell the story of the Grand Island region.
Table 4.5 lists the study area’s National Register list-
ings, if and how they are served by the network, and
what steps should be taken to provide better access.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 97 / 180
85
4 | SUPPORT FACILITIES
8585
PROPERTY ADDRESS RELATIONSHIP TO NETWORK POSSIBLE STEPS TO CONNECT
Trinity Evangelical Lutheran
Church
512 E 12th One block north of Beltline extension; one block
east of Oak Street route
Wayfinding signage from both approaches via
Plum Street from trail and East 3rd Street from
Oak
Liederkranz 401 W 1st 3 blocks north of Koenig on Cedar, 2 blocks south
of 3rd Street on Walnut
Wayfinding signage using Walnut connector
route
Cathedral of the Nativity 204 W Cedar 1/2 block north of Koenig on Cedar Wayfinding signage
Carnegie Library 321 W 2nd St 1 block south of 3rd on Walnut; on Walnut Con-
nector
Wayfinding signage; on network
Hall County Courthouse 1st and Locust On Pine St bikeway route Directly on network
Burlington Depot 603 Plum At end of 6th Street Route Extension of route from Oak to Plum
Nine Bridges Bridge Near Mormon Island Trail On extended network
Shady Bend Gas Station US 30 and Shady Bend Road On extended Seedling Mile path On extended network
Seedling Mile of Lincoln Highway Seedling Mile west of Stuhr Road Near Seedling Mile Path Wayfinding signage on route crossing US 30 at
signalized Stuhr Road intersection
Hotel Yancey 123 N. Locust 2 blocks south of 3rd Wayfinding signage via Locust
Grand Island Post Office 203 W 2nd 1 block south of 3rd Wayfinding signage via Locust
Hamilton-Donald House 820 W 2nd 1 block south of 3rd Wayfinding signage via Clark
Bartenbach House 720 W Division 1 block north of Koenig Wayfinding signage via Cleyburn and Division
Roeser-Gartner House 721 W Koenig On Koenig route On network
Glade-Donald House 1004 W Division 1 block north of Koenig Wayfinding signage via Greenwich
Hargis House 1109 W 2nd On Lincoln route On network, requires treatment of Lincoln Ave
intersection
Walnut School (GI High School) 500 N Elm On 6th Street route On network
Lee Huff Apartments 213 S. Walnut On Koenig route On network
Heinrich Giese House 2226 S. Blaine 1,000 feet north of Pioneer Blvd route and Stol-
ley Park route
Wayfinding signage or sidewalk use
Table 4.5: National Register Properties in Grand Island Metropolitan Area
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 98 / 180
868686
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 99 / 180
8787
5 | CROSSING BARRIERS
5CHAPTER
CROSSING BARRIERS
THIS CHAPTER
ADDRESSES
VARIOUS PHYSICAL
BARRIERS TO ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION IN
THE REGION. It presents a
toolkit of solutions that can
be adapted to the specific
contexts found in the
Grand Island metropolitan
area with a specific focus
on intersections.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 100 / 180
8888
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Barrier crossing is an extremely important issue in the de-
velopment of Grand Island’s trail system and overall active
transportation network. Key barriers, in general order of
relative importance, include:
• US 281. This four-lane divided highway is viewed by
most participants as the most important barrier in the
study area by virtue of its traffic volume and expanse
(about 90 feet between edge of pavement and about
220 feet between edges of drainage ditches). The
distance of crossing is a formidable barrier to non-
motorized users.
• Union Pacific Mainline. The UP, America’s highest vol-
ume freight railroad mainline, is about 130 feet wide at
various grade crossings. Existing grade separations at
Sycamore and Eddy are inhospitable to active users.
• Arterial and major collector street crossings. Highway
30 (1st/2nd Streets), US 34, Webb Road, and Capital
Avenue are significant crossing barriers. Broadwell
Avenue is a high volume arterial that presents special
challenges as the seam between the city’s two grids
– the traditional orthogonal surveyor’s grid and the ro-
tated railroad grid. Existing trails face significant cross-
ing problems at Capital, State, Stolley Park, Blaine, and
US 34 at College Park.
• Other railroads. The BNSF mainline, on the north-
ern and eastern edges of the city, is elevated along
the eastern edge and is relatively permeable, with a
number of grade separated crossings and a pedestrian
tunnel at 20th Street. Lightly used branches, such as
the remaining portion of the UP’s line to Hastings, are
less hazards than barriers that interrupt street continu-
ity and access to parallel trails.
These general barriers, combined with field inspection and
analysis of several factors, including average daily traffic,
width of corridors, observation of signal cycles, and other
factors, led to a preliminary list of barrier points that should
be addressed as part of the development of details in the
next phase of this planning process. In a November, 2017
workshop, members of the GIAMPO’s Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee (BPAC) were asked to rate the relative impor-
tance of crossing these barriers to the integrity of the over-
all network on a 1 (most important) to 5 (least important)
scale. These barrier sites, in relative order of importance
score and relative priority rank (priority rank follows), are:
1. Capital Ave and US 281 (1.71) (1)
2. 2nd and Lincoln (1.86) (4)
3. State and US 281 (1.93) (6)
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 101 / 180
8989
5 | CROSSING BARRIERS
4. St. Joe Trail and Stolley Park Road (1.93) (2)
5. Capital Ave and Broadwell (2.00) (11)
6. Future US 281 overpass at North Front (2.21) (8)
7. Beltline Trail and Blaine (2.29) (5)
8. Oak and Highway 30 (2.43) (9)
9. 4th/Broadwell (2.64) (7)
10. Koenig crossing Locust and Walnut (2.71) (3)
11. Beltline Trail and Locust (2.93) (10)
Additional significant barriers to future development
emerged during the planning process, but were not listed
in the priority evaluation.
Figure 5.1 lists individual barriers and the specific issues
they present. Figure 5.2 identifies the location of these bar-
riers and places them into overall categories. Figure 5.3 de-
scribes a toolbox of intersection and barrier improvements,
including the types of intersection problems that they
can address. Subsequent illustrations show more detailed
consideration of various potential solutions. Application of
these to specific locations in the Grand Island area will be
determined by further engineering evaluation, including a
traffic study where relevant, and detailed plans that will be
reviewed and approved by a Professional Traffic Operations
Engineer.
BARRIER POINT ISSUE
Capital Avenue and US 281 Sidepath continuity across major arterial highway that acts as a bar-
rier to pedestrians and bicyclists
2nd Avenue and Lincoln Pedestrian crossing of highway at Public Library and intersecting
street with grade crossing of UP, with a history of pedestrian crashes
State Street and US 281 Sidepath continuity across major barrier highway
St Joe Trail and Stolley Park Road Trail crossing of major arterial, to be modified for 3-lane section with
multi-use shoulders
Capital Avenue and Broadwell Arterial intersection with sidepaths on three legs
US 281 Overpass All ped/bike crossings of US 281 are at grade
Beltline Trail and Blaine Street Trail crossing of major 2-lane arterial, heavy school traffic
Oak Street and Highway 30 Marked but unsignalized pedestrian crossing of US 30, a one-way
highway pair with relatively high-speed traffic
4th Street and Broadwell Avenue Offset intersection with arterial, breaks continuity to the west
Koenig at Walnut and Locust
Street
Crossing of two diverging major streets in confusing setting; Walnut
presents more difficult crossing problem
Beltline Trail and Locust Street Confusing crossing and difficulty in reading trail track
St Joe Crossing of Husker High-
way
Major trail crossing of highway
UP Crossings at Oak, Pine, Wal-
nut, and Lincoln Streets
UP Crossing for Shoemaker Trail
extension between Old 30 and
North Road
Railroad mainline grade crossings
Figure 5.1: Barrier Points in the Grand Island Metropolitan Area
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 102 / 180
9090
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Major Highway or Expressway
Other Barrier Streets
Mainline Railroad
Branch Line Railroad
Arterial Street Crossing
Other Major Street Crossings
Trail Crossing of Major Street
Existing Grade Separations
Future Grade Separation
Opportunities
Existing Bike/Ped Accessible
Railroad Grade Crossings
Inaccessible Grade Separations
Areas with Low Street Connectivity
Figure 5.2: Barrier Locations and Categories
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 103 / 180
9191
5 | CROSSING BARRIERS
Figure 5.3: Intersection Safety Enhancement Techniques
TECHNIQUE DESCRIPTION POTENTIAL APPLICATION
Grade separation Overpass or underpass that separates bike/ped traffic from crossing arterials Crossings of major arterials
Pedestrian refuge median Island in middle of a two-way street, allowing pedestrians and bicyclists to address
crossing traffic in one direction at a time from a protected place.
Trail crossings of arterials and major col-
lectors where turning movements are not
necessary
High visibility crosswalks Well-defined crosswalks, using durable reflective materials and typically using Conti-
nental or Zebra/Ladder crosswalk markings
Arterial street crossings with significant
pedestrian and bicycle traffic
Beacons: HAWKS (High Intensi-
ty Activated Crosswalk Beacon)
and flashing beacons.
Pedestrian actuated signals. HAWK signals often used at midblock and for trail
crossings and include flashing yellow and solid red stop sequence. Flashing beacons
typically located at intersections and use flashing lights but no red signal. In January,
2018, one such beacon, Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB’s) were tem-
porarily removed from MUTCD approval because of patent issue, but have received
interim conditional approval as of March, 2018.
Trail crossings, other unsignalized crossings
of major streets
Protected Intersection New intersection design providing a protected, high visibility corner location for
bicyclists and pedestrians.
Crossings of major arterials or the intersec-
tion of primary barriers
Legend
Most Desirable
Engineering Judgement (EJ)
Not Recommended (X)
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 104 / 180
9292
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Neckdowns
Context:
• “Bicycle boulevards” – relatively low volume streets with good continuity
Technique:
• Curb extensions that reduce the curb to curb width at an intersection to 22- to 24-feet
Benefits:
• Reduces average traffic speed
• Reduces distance of pedestrian crossing
• Provides some protection for parked cars
• May provide opportunities for neighborhood plantings and beautification
Problems/Issues:
• Intended result of slowing traffic speeds could cause motorists to divert to other streets
with good continuity
• Potential difficulty with truck turns
• Stewardship of planted areas
Figure 5.4: Intersection Concepts: Neckdowns
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 105 / 180
9393
5 | CROSSING BARRIERS
Intersection Pavement Markings
Context:
• Crossings of major intersecting streets by on-street active network routes
Technique:
• High visibility crosswalks with pavement markings using various methods to define a
bicycle track across an intersection
• May be used in combination with rapid rectangular flashing beacons or hybrid signals
Benefits:
• Increases visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists
• Notifies motorists on intersecting major streets of presence of a significant number of
active users
Problems/Issues:
• Requirement for ongoing maintenance
• Possible initial motorist confusion about unfamiliar markings
Figure 5.5: Intersection Concepts: Pavement Markings
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 106 / 180
9494
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Bike Box
Context:
• Locations (often signalized intersections) where bike routes intersect or other locations that
involve a significant number of left-turning movements for bicyclists otherwise traveling in
a bike facility or “as far to the right as practicable”
Technique:
• Painted area behind the stop bar defined for use by bicyclists
Benefits:
• Reduces incidence of bicyclists turning left across traffic from the right-hand side of a road
• Reduces incidence of crashes at intersections
Problems/Issues:
• Motorist compliance and education
• May restrict motorist visibility of approaching traffic on intersecting street, requiring
expansion of vision clearance zone
Figure 5.6: Intersection Concepts: Bike Boxes
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 107 / 180
9595
5 | CROSSING BARRIERS
Pedestrian Refuge Median
Context:
• Trail crossings of major streets
• Bike/ped crossings of major streets where left-turns are not required
Technique:
• Refuge median in a two-way turn lane. Alternative is removal of parking from crossing area and diverging
lanes slightly to provide space for the median
• High visibility crosswalks and pavement markings
• Used in conjunction with yellow caution signs.
• May include flashing beacons or HAWK protection
Benefits:
• Increases visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists
• Notifies motorists on intersecting major streets of presence of a significant number of active users
Problems/Issues:
• Slows traffic flow, which is an effect but not a problem from a pedestrian safety point of view
• Possible rear-end crashes caused by inattentive motorists in common with other traffic controls
• Installation cost
• Should not be used when obstructing a necessary left turn
Figure 5.7: Intersection Concepts: Pedestrian Refuge Median
ATTN
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 108 / 180
9696
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Reduced Curb Radius
Context:
• Urban street intersections along bicycle and pedestrian routes
Technique:
• Reduce curb radius at intersections. Most appropriate at locations with few vehicles that
require long radius turns such as local street intersections or intersections of local and
collector streets
Benefits:
• Requires drivers of right turning vehicles to slow as they make turns, increasing safety for
users of sidepaths
• Reduces incidence of “right-hook” crashes
Problems/Issues:
• Large vehicles may not be able to make turns without encroaching on curbs
• Potential for pedestrian crashes or conflicts if pedestrians are too close to corner
• Requires truck turn evaluation when used at major street locations
Reduced curb radius. The two tier mountable curb
provides the benefits of a small curb radius but still
provides the larger radius necessary for safe pas-
sage of trucks and other large vehicles.
Figure 5.8: Intersection Concepts: Reduced Curb Radius
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 109 / 180
9797
5 | CROSSING BARRIERS
Top: Protected intersection in Salt Lake City.
Above: Conecpt for an arterial crossing with bike
lanes and paths in Wauwatosa, WI
Protected Intersections
Context:
• Intersections of streets with sidepaths or trails with major arterials and wide highways
Technique:
• New intersection design in frequent use in Europe and beginning to be implemented in US,
providing a visible, protected space for pedestrians and bicycles to cross wide and busy
intersections. Protected space is separated from turning traffic by an island
• Requires a two-stage crossing for bicyclists turning left to an intersecting trail or major street
Benefits:
• Increases visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists
• Reduces the perceptual width of large intersections
• Provides high visibility for vulnerable users, placing them in a setting where they are both
protected and in a preferred position entering an intersection
Problems/Issues:
• Expensive installation cost
• Relatively infrequent use in current American practice
• May require the removal of a right turn lane, leading to longer vehicle queues
• May be difficult for fire trucks and other large vehicles to navigate around without adequate radii
• Requires a learning curve for all users
Figure 5.9: Protected Intersections
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 110 / 180
9898
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Mainline Railroad Crossings
Context:
• Major pedestrian and bicycle grade crossings of railroad mainlines
Technique:
• Special pedestrian crossing gates with escape gate for people with disabilities who may be
trapped behind the gate
• Improved warning signage and signalization
• Clear pedestrian/bicycle track defined across railroad
• Quiet zone treatment with medians
• Railings or fencing to channel pedestrian access
Benefits
• Reduced opportunity for encroaching on tracks when trains are apprpoaching
• Reduced probability of pedestrian/bicyclist and train crashes
• Improved sense of safety crossing tracks
Problems/Issues:
• High installation cost requires railroad participation
Figure 5.10: Mainline Railroad Crossings
Photo: Orange County Register
Photo: Orange County Register
Photo: California Public Utilities Commission
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 111 / 180
999999
6 | ON FOOT IN THE GRAND ISLAND AREA
6CHAPTER
ON-FOOT IN THE GRAND ISLAND AREA
THIS CHAPTER
ADDRESSES PEDESTRIAN
ISSUES IN THE GRAND
ISLAND AREA. Often,
pedestrians and bicyclists
have similar interests and
many projects and policies
are beneficial to both
groups. But pedestrians
have specialized needs as
well.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 112 / 180
100100
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Almost all of us walk outside for a purpose during the course
of most days, and recreational walking almost always rises
to the top of the list of recreational activities. Grand Island,
like most cities, has a large capital investment in its pedes-
trian infrastructure: mainly sidewalks but also trails in Grand
Island. But all too often, pedestrian facilities don’t always re-
ceive the attention they deserve. But incorporating walking
paths (sidewalks, paths, and multi-use trails) into new devel-
opment and areas of existing development are essential to
maintaining a safe, convenient active environment.
While the earlier chapters of this plan may appear to focus
on bicycle transportation, most of its concepts and criteria
also apply to pedestrians. For example:
• The performance criteria that open Chapter Three – in-
tegrity, directness, safety, comfort, experience, and fea-
sibility– apply equally to people on bikes and on foot.
• The active network, incorporating street routes and
trails, provides a framework that applies to both active
modes.
• Pedestrians and bicyclists will both use the support fa-
cilities discussed in Chapter Four.
• Barriers for bicyclists also present barriers for pedestri-
ans and the solutions and practices presented in Chap-
ter Five bridge these obstacles for both groups.
Recent research and surveys indicate that households of all
ages increasingly value “walkability” and the form of the de-
velopment that walkability encourages. In a truly walkable
community, neighborhood commercial services, schools,
and other activity centers are relatively accessible to hous-
ing. Walkable communities encourage pleasant, unplanned
social interaction and expand transportation options.
Decisions regarding vehicular travel also affect a commu-
nity’s walkability. A good transportation network uses spe-
cial design techniques to ensure that street traffic is consis-
tent with pedestrian safety, which is important when linking
neighborhoods to commercial and civic destinations around
the community.
This chapter provides analysis and recommendations that
reflect good current practice but are adapted to conditions
in the Grand Island area. It places a special emphasis on the
traditionally most important pedestrian trip – the walk to
school. The goals of this part of the plan are to:
• Ensure that most areas and key activity centers are
comfortably accessible by a network of pedestrian fa-
cilities.
• Create good linkages between residential neighbor-
hoods and walking distance destinations.
• Reduce barriers that discourage walking and create ob-
stacles to people with or without disabilities.
The specific issue areas discussed here include:
• Sidewalk zones and widths
• Sidewalk infill and improvements
• Pedestrian access to commercial areas
• ADA compliance
• Sidewalk Coverage Near Schools
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 113 / 180
101101101
6 | ON FOOT IN THE GRAND ISLAND AREA
SIDEWALK ZONES AND WIDTHS
Sidewalks are the most fundamental element of the pedestrian
network, providing an area for pedestrians separated from vehicle
traffic. Providing adequate and accessible facilities can lead to in-
creased numbers of people walking, improved safety, comfort, and
places for people to socialize (See Figure 6.1 for sidewalk zone ex-
amples). Current standards for Grand Island sidewalks are found
at http://www.grand-island.com/your-government/public-works/
infrastructure-specifications-and-standard-plans.
Typical Application and Features
• Sidewalks should be provided on both sides of urban commer-
cial streets, and should provide continuity on at least one side
of the street (preferably both sides) in residential areas of ur-
ban density, generally above 2 units per acre.
• When retrofitting gaps in the sidewalk network, locations near
schools, parks, public buildings, and other areas with high con-
centrations of pedestrians should be the highest priority. If
Grand Island implements the flexible route service from the Il-
lustrative Plan of the Regional Transit Study, the sidewalk sys-
tem should also serve timepoints.
• It is important to provide adequate width along a sidewalk cor-
ridor. An unencumbered pedestrian through zone width of five
feet enables two pedestrians (including wheelchair users) to
walk side-by-side, or to pass each other comfortably. It is par-
ticularly important to avoid obstructions in this zone such as
poles, utility boxes, and other obstacles.
• In high demand areas such as Downtown Grand Island and ar-
eas immediately adjacent to schools or sports facilities, side-
walks should be wide enough to accommodate the high vol-
umes and different walking speeds of pedestrians.
• The sidewalk setback zone (sometimes referred to as a “fur-
nishing” zone or tree lawn) provides opportunities for street
trees and also provides a place for storing plowed snow that
maintains pedestrian access.
Figure 6.1: Sidewalk Zone Examples
The furnishing (or side-
walk setback) zone
buffers pedestrians
from the adjacent road-
way, and is also the area where elements
such as street trees,
signal poles, signs, and
other street furniture
are properly located. It also provides a place to
store plowed snow.
The pedestrian through zone
is the area intended for pe-
destrian travel. This zone
should be entirely free of
permanent and temporary
objects or obstructions. Wide
through zones are needed in
downtown or in areas of high
pedestrian flow.
The frontage zone al-
lows pedestrians a
more comfortable “shy”
distance from building
fronts. In commercial
areas, it provides op-
portunities for window
shopping, outdoor din-
ing, sign placement,
planters, or chairs.
The curbside lane
can act as a flexi-
ble space to buffer
the sidewalk from
moving traffic and
may be used as a
multi-use shoulder
for parking and
bikes, depend-
ing on width. Curb
extensions may
occupy this space
where appropri-
ate.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 114 / 180
102102
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
SIDEWALK INFILL AND IMPROVEMENT
This section focuses on opportunities to upgrade short seg-
ments of missing sidewalk or existing sidewalks that were
constructed in Grand Island with sub-standard widths.
The majority of streets in Grand Island have sidewalks on
both sides. However, some residential, commercial, and in-
dustrial areas have missing segments along an otherwise
continuous corridor. Some of these areas have sidewalk on
only one side of the street, making access to both sides dif-
ficult. Figure 6.2 illustrates a method of addressing these
gaps.
In Grand Island, as elsewhere in Nebraska, special assess-
ments on adjacent property are the most common mecha-
nisms for funding sidewalk infill programs. This frequently
leads to opposition from property owners who don’t per-
ceive sidewalks as a benefit to them. Communities have
been able to find other ways of funding sidewalk improve-
ments, including state and federal grant programs such as
Safe Routes to Schools or Safety grants, Food and Bever-
age Tax funding for standalone projects, gas tax funds for
eligible sidewalks constructed with street projects, private
sector funding of trails and sidewalks within their develop-
ments, and general funding through the Capital Improve-
ment Program (CIP) when appropriate.
Funding for projects should be guided by adoption of a Ma-
jor Pedestrian System, analogous to the Major Street Sys-
tem. This plan establishes the framework for such a system
that includes:
• Sidewalks and trails that comprise the Active Network
presented in Chapter Three.
• A web of sidewalks within a quarter mile of elementary
school sites.
• Areas that have an especially high density of pedestrian
use because of their character or concentration of land
uses. Examples include Downtown Grand Island or the
concentration of visitor services along Allen Drive.
Opportunities to Widen Sidewalks
Typical Application and Features
Although some sidewalks in Grand Island have planted buf-
fers and wide sidewalks, other existing sidewalks are too
narrow for comfortable pedestrian travel and are attached
to the curb. When located along high speed and high traf-
fic volume roadways, these conditions may deter people
from walking for routine trips. They are also sometimes too
narrow to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) stan-
dards and may create safety hazards for people who inad-
vertently walk off the sidewalk. These sidewalks are also of-
Figure 6.2: Gap Filling Opportunity
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 115 / 180
103103103
6 | ON FOOT IN THE GRAND ISLAND AREA
ten used by parked cars, completely blocking pedestrian ac-
cess. The techniques illustrated in Figures 6.4 and 6.5 are
potential solutions for narrow sidewalks.
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO COMMERCIAL DESTINATIONS
Connections to Mall Entrances and Internal Circulation
Sidewalk coverage on the west side of Grand Island is
often inconsistent. Although some areas have sidewalks
adjacent to commercial developments, such as shopping
malls, pathways from adjacent streets and commercial
development entrances are often disconnected or
completely absent
Figure 6.3: Narrow Back of Curb Sidewalk Figure 6.4: Outward Widening
Pedestrian connections are needed from existing sidewalks
to mall entrances. Pedestrian access should create safe,
shared use paths or sidewalks that extend from sidewalks
on public streets to commercial area entrances. Examples
of accessible routes from other communities often use
landscaping or artistic features across parking lots.
In commercial areas that already have pedestrian
connections from adjacent sidewalks across parking lots to
the entrance, pedestrian crossings should be appropriately
marked. This practice alerts motorists to the presence of
pedestrians. These criteria should be integrated into site
plan review for new major commercial development.
Major Street Crossings
Major streets in these commercial areas, such as 13th Street,
US 281, Webb Road, Faidley Avenue, and State Street
Widening the sidewalk outward creates addition-
al space for a buffer between the roadway and
the sidewalk, making a more comfortable facility
for people walking. Relocating utilities and other
sidewalk obstructions outside of the sidewalk area
increases the capacity and usefulness of the side-
walk.
Widening the sidewalk inward into the right-of-
way creates more space for a sidewalk. The exist-
ing sidewalk can be cut to create space for land-
scaping and utility poles.
Figure 6.5: Inward Widening
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 116 / 180
104104
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
frequently feature wide pedestrian crossing distances
without marked crosswalks. A variety of potential solutions
were discussed previously in Chapter Five.
A range of other tools can improve pedestrian crossings
at signalized locations. Specific treatments may include
adjusting signal phase walk-time, pedestrian countdown
signals, and prohibition of right turns on red for motor
vehicles. Busier intersections on wider streets may include
pedestrian refuge islands, where slower pedestrians can
safely stop and wait for another signal.
Applications to improve pedestrian crossings at major
street crossings will be determined by further engineering
evaluation, including a traffic study where relevant, and
detailed plans that will be reviewed and approved by a
Professional Traffic Operations Engineer.
Conestoga Mall includes sidewalk to the main entrance. Marked
crossings need improvement as do pedestrian connections to
other entrances (Credit: Google Maps).
Wide corner radii create long pedestrian crossing distances.
Intersections lack marked crosswalks or other crossing features
such as pedestrian refuge islands (Credit: Google Maps).
From top: Safe and attractive paths
from public sidewalk to front door also
help to define areas within parking lots
(Engelwood, CO and Des Moines, IA);
sidewalk development along South
Locust dramatically improved the
street’s business environment
ADA COMPLIANCE
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), enacted on July
26, 1990, provides comprehensive civil rights protections to
persons with disabilities in the areas of employment, state
and local government services, access to public accommo-
dations, transportation, and telecommunications.
Title II of the ADA prohibits state and local governments
from discriminating against persons with disabilities by re-
quiring them to make all programs, services, and activities
accessible to persons with disabilities. Title II requires that a
public entity must evaluate its services, programs, policies,
and practices to determine whether they are in compliance
with the nondiscrimination requirements of the ADA.
The City is responsible for providing ADA-compliant curb
ramps. The City also maintains an inventory of curb ramps
that are not ADA compliant. The City has a curb ramp tran-
sition program with a goal to provide ADA compliant curb
ramps at every street intersection in the city. Property
owners are responsible for maintaining sidewalks adjacent
to their property. The City does not investigate sidewalk
compliance unless the City receives a complaint. Data do
not currently exist regarding mileage of sidewalks that are
non-ADA compliant. In 2016, Grand Island voters rejected a
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 117 / 180
105105105
6 | ON FOOT IN THE GRAND ISLAND AREA
proposal to increase sales tax by a half-cent, part of which
would have created a dedicated ADA funding source. The
City of Grand Island should continue scheduling ADA im-
provements in conjunction with all street resurfacing or re-
construction projects as well as corridor-based “spot” im-
provements. Pursuing other opportunities to create dedi-
cated funding streams would stabilize the City’s ability to
upgrade priority areas that are not ADA compliant.
The City should develop a more complete understanding of
sidewalk compliance issues. A focused study should show
the total mileage of non-compliant sidewalk as well as non-
compliant sidewalk in priority areas, such as streets that
make up the active network.
ACCESS TO SCHOOLS
Walking to elementary and middle school has long been a
traditional part of growing up in America. Yet, it has gone
into decline over the last 50 years. In 1969, 48% of all chil-
dren between ages 5 and 14 walked or biked to school. In
2009, that number had dropped to 13%. A variety of trends
led to this decline, including greater use of school transpor-
tation in urban districts, decentralization of the population,
and perception of traffic-related hazards. About a third of
parents in a 2005 survey by the Centers for Disease Control
cited concern over traffic as the principal obstacle to their
children walking or cycling to school. This, of course, cre-
ates a repetitive cycle: when parents are convinced that it
is unsafe for their kids to walk to school, they drive them
which in turn makes the problem worse. Some communi-
ties programs like Walking School Buses, in which volunteer
parents lead a “busload” of kids walking to school together,
have been effective in many places.
Other reasons exist for the decline in the number of students
walking or riding to school. In Grand island (and other cit-
ies), many students are not required to attend their neigh-
borhood school, and many choose to commute across
town. This creates problems with projecting school traf-
fic, although longer distance school commutes are feasible
by bicycle. Nevertheless, many students do walk and bike
to school in the city, especially where trails directly serve
school sites. Examples are Gates School and the three west-
side schools directly along the Shoemaker Trail.
It is probably impossible to restore the walking and biking to
school levels of the past, but some efforts can help. The city
of Grand Island has been working with the school district
to address transportation issues and provide safe routes to
schools. Progress has been made despite staff constraints,
and these efforts should continue.
From an infrastructure point of view, parents must feel com-
fortable in letting their children walk or ride, and a portion
(although not all) of that comfort is derived from the pres-
ence of safe routes. As a general standard, areas within 1/4
mile of a school site should have a web of continuous side-
walk to serve the school. This should provide continuity on
at least one side of the street to minimize the number of
times children must cross. Figures 6.6 through 6.20 analyze
sidewalk coverage within 1/4 mile of each elementary and
middle school in the Grand Island public school system and
suggest potential options for increasing local area coverage.
The national Safe Routes to Schools Guide (www.guide.saf-
eroutesinfo.org) identifies an elementary school walking
boundary of 1/2 to 1-mile, but notes that states and localities
may establish different standards. For purposes of evaluat-
ing a realistic walking boundary for a continuous system of
sidewalk in Grand Island, this study reduces that “walk zone”
by 50%. Further engineering study may be required to re-
fine these potential options.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 118 / 180
106106
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Figure 6.6: Engleman Elementary School
A more in-depth planning and
visioning process should be con-
ducted to identify which side(s) of
the street to locate sidewalk infill.
Fill sidewalk gap
Consider a shared street or
pedestrian lane
Additional definition of sidewalks
across driveways
1/4 mile from school
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 119 / 180
107107107
6 | ON FOOT IN THE GRAND ISLAND AREA
Figure 6.7: Shoemaker Elementary School
Fill sidewalk gap
Consider a shared street or
pedestrian lane
Additional definition of sidewalks
across driveways
1/4 mile from school
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 120 / 180
108108
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Figure 6.8: Gates Elementary School
The sidewalk network near the
school is nearly complete.
Intersection improvements, such
as curb extensions and marked
crosswalks, should be considered
to alert motorists to the presence
of pedestrians. This is true for the
other schools in Grand Island.
Fill sidewalk gap
Consider a shared street or
pedestrian lane
Additional definition of sidewalks
across driveways
1/4 mile from school
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 121 / 180
109109109
6 | ON FOOT IN THE GRAND ISLAND AREA
Figure 6.9: Stolley Park Elementary School
Fill sidewalk gap
Consider a shared street or
pedestrian lane
Additional definition of sidewalks
across driveways
1/4 mile from school
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 122 / 180
110110
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Figure 6.10: Howard Elementary School
Fill sidewalk gap
Consider a shared street or
pedestrian lane
Additional definition of sidewalks
across driveways
1/4 mile from school
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 123 / 180
111111111
6 | ON FOOT IN THE GRAND ISLAND AREA
Figure 6.11: Starr Elementary School and Barr Middle School
A more in-depth planning and
visioning process should be con-
ducted to identify which side(s) of
the street to locate sidewalk infill.
Fill sidewalk gap
Consider a shared street or
pedestrian lane
Additional definition of sidewalks
across driveways
1/4 mile from school
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 124 / 180
112112
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Figure 6.12: Lincoln Elementary School
Several instances where the side-
walk abruptly terminates.
Improved crossings should be
considered as a transition to the
sidewalk on the other side of the
street. If conditions do not allow
a safe marked crossing, then the
sidewalk should be extended to
the next marked crossing or
intersection.
Fill sidewalk gap
Consider a shared street or
pedestrian lane
Additional definition of sidewalks
across driveways
1/4 mile from school
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 125 / 180
113113113
6 | ON FOOT IN THE GRAND ISLAND AREA
Figure 6.13: Jefferson Elementary School
Fill sidewalk gap
Consider a shared street or
pedestrian lane
Additional definition of sidewalks
across driveways
1/4 mile from school
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 126 / 180
114114
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Figure 6.14: Wasmer Elementary School
Fill sidewalk gap
Consider a shared street or
pedestrian lane
Additional definition of sidewalks
across driveways
1/4 mile from school
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 127 / 180
115115115
6 | ON FOOT IN THE GRAND ISLAND AREA
Figure 6.15: Dodge Elementary School
The sidewalk network near the
school is nearly complete.
Intersection improvements, such
as curb extensions and marked
crosswalks, should be considered
to alert motorists to the presence
of pedestrians. This is true for the
other schools in Grand Island.
Crossing improvements should be
considered where the trail crosses
the roadway.
Fill sidewalk gap
Consider a shared street or
pedestrian lane
Additional definition of sidewalks
across driveways
1/4 mile from school
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 128 / 180
116116
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Figure 6.16: Newell Elementary School and Walnut Middle School
This area features good sidewalk
connectivity within 0.25 mi of
Walnut Middle School and
Newell Elementary School.
However, some sidewalks are
narrow and attached to the back
of curbs. This approach is
acceptable in certain contexts,
but a four foot lawn buffer should
be considered.
Intersection improvements, such
as curb extensions and marked
crosswalks, should be considered
to alert motorists to the presence
of pedestrians. This is true for the
other schools in Grand Island.
Fill sidewalk gap
Consider a shared street or
pedestrian lane
Additional definition of sidewalks
across driveways
1/4 mile from school
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 129 / 180
117117117
6 | ON FOOT IN THE GRAND ISLAND AREA
Figure 6.17: West Lawn Elementary School
This area features good sidewalk
connectivity within 0.25 mi of
West Lawn Elementary School.
However, the existing sidewalk
design is narrow and attached to
the back of curbs. This approach
is acceptable in certain contexts,
but a four foot lawn buffer should
be considered.
Fill sidewalk gap
Consider a shared street or
pedestrian lane
Additional definition of sidewalks
across driveways
1/4 mile from school
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 130 / 180
118118
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Figure 6.18: Knickrehem Elementary School
Fill sidewalk gap
Consider a shared street or
pedestrian lane
Additional definition of sidewalks
across driveways
1/4 mile from school
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 131 / 180
119119119
6 | ON FOOT IN THE GRAND ISLAND AREA
Figure 6.19: Seedling Mile Elementary School
Fill sidewalk gap
Consider a shared street or
pedestrian lane
Additional definition of sidewalks
across driveways
1/4 mile from school
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 132 / 180
120120
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Figure 6.20: West Ridge Middle School
Fill sidewalk gap
Consider a shared street or
pedestrian lane
Additional definition of sidewalks
across driveways
1/4 mile from school
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 133 / 180
121121121
6 | ON FOOT IN THE GRAND ISLAND AREA
PRIORITY CRITERIA
Completing a long-term pedestrian development program
is only accomplished through an incremental process that
requires setting priorities and evaluating new conditions
along the way.
Evaluative criteria apply questions such as the following to
specific sidewalk projects when they are considered.
• Does the sidewalk connect important resources, such as
schools to neighborhoods?
• Does the sidewalk provide continuity and integrity to the
surrounding vicinity and overall system?
• Does the sidewalk create a safer path for pedestrians?
• Does the sidewalk generate community support or
consensus?
• What is the sidewalk’s potential to transform the image
of the area?
• Does the sidewalk respond to a specific need for improved
trail facilities?
• Does the sidewalk incorporate and leverage outside
funding sources, such as state grants or charitable
contributions?
• Is the engineering and cost feasible to construct?
• Does the sidewalk yield economic development
opportunities?
The key to successful implementation will be to establish
priorities based on the specific benefits of the project.
Considering priorities for Grand Island’s system begins with
identifying individual destinations and the quarter-mile area
surrounding the destination. These target areas help estab-
lish a system of priorities that connect residents to amenities
in the community.
• Schools. Access, circulation, and safety to schools is a
critical to ensuring mobility choices. Increased access
reduces traffic congestion.
• Shopping Centers. Providing convenience to major
shopping centers.
• Community Destinations. These include the Public
Library, hospitals and medical facility concentrations, and
recreation and community centers.
• Employment Centers. Providing convenience between
homes and places of employment will encourage people
to travel to work by alternative means.
• Neighborhoods. Connecting residents to businesses and
work places, providing convenient trips by sidewalk.
• Parks and Trails. Completing this plan will connect users
to the city’s parks and open spaces.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 134 / 180
122122
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 135 / 180
7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING
123
7CHAPTER
ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING
THIS CHAPTER
CONSIDERS EACH OF
THE POTENTIAL ROUTES
IN THE PROPOSED
GRAND ISLAND AREA
NETWORK IN DETAIL
AND ALSO PRESENTS
A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE TRAIL SYSTEM.
It provides guidance on the
proposed concept for each
significant segment of each
route. Finally, it presents
methods for staging the
system over time.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 136 / 180
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
124
This chapter divides the network grid into north-south and
east-west components. Each route displays a strip map
illustrating each street or pathway segment, key destinations
along the way, and intersecting routes. These maps are
divided into keyed segments, corresponding to key dividing
points, milestones, or changes in infrastructure treatment.
The number key for each segment corresponds to a row in
the accompanying table.
The tables display:
• The endpoints and length of each segment.
• The nature of the existing facility. Information also includes
number of lanes and approximate width of the street
channel, aerial photography, and field measurements.
• Sidewalk coverage. Streets included in the active network
should provide sidewalk continuity on at least one side.
• Recommended infrastructure. This presents the
recommended infrastructure treatment and other ideas
for adapting a segment for safer and more comfortable
bicycle and pedestrian use. On-street treatments like
marked routes and bicycle boulevards typically use
pavement markings and signage. In some cases, path or
trail segments fill gaps in continuity. All recommendations
are preliminary and may change with detailed design.
Projects should be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer when funding becomes available and may require
additional engineering evaluation, including traffic studies
where relevant.
• Planning level opinions of probable costs. While these are
not based on detailed design, they give an idea of relative
costs for planning purposes. Cost factors used for these
estimates are shown in Table 7.1. These costs do not include
right-of-way, contingencies, design and engineering fees,
major drainage structures, or extraordinary grading
expenses.
These recommendations should be refined further as
individual projects are implemented. However, they provide
a starting point for the more detailed design process, and
provide guidance in determining priorities and costs of
various improvements.
The chapter continues with a phasing and capital
implementation program that includes:
• Criteria for determining priorities.
• An initial network that serves all parts of the city with
strategic routes and path segments. This program includes
statements of probable cost, based on current (2018)
construction costs. The basic network is divided into
two phases to be developed as resources are available.
The first phase of the basic network would be developed
over a ten year period, with the second phase completed
during an additional ten years.
• An ultimate network, which may be realized within an
additional ten years, again given availability of resources.
These schedules may be accelerated and subsequent
opportunities, such as imminent development, may move
some projects forward.
ROUTE DETAILS AND
SEQUENCING
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 137 / 180
7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING
125
On-Street Network
Existing TrailsNew Priority Trails/Sidepaths
Later Trails
Alda/CornhuskerPathways
Study Corridor
INFRASTRUCTURE TYPE COST/MILE TYPICAL FEATURES
Marked and signed route $17,000 Signage, shared lane markings
Bicycle boulevard $60,000 Signage, shared lane markings, routine intersection
enhancements such as crosswalks, stop control modifications, occasional traffic calming features
Multi-use shoulders $60,000 Signage, single white line dividing shoulder from travel lane
Bicycle boulevard with multi-use shoulders. $80,000 Bicycle boulevards that also include multi-use shoulders or advisory bike lanes, appropriate on wider streets
Conventional bike lanes $102,000 Lanes defined by white lines in both directions on a street
Protected bike lanes $64,000 one-way$115,200 two way Painted bike lanes with cross-hatched buffer area between bike lane and travel lane.
Sidepath $316,800 10 foot paved roadside shared use path without major earthwork or modifications
Trails (or shared use
paths)
Type 1: $396,000
Type 2: $448,800
Type 3: $554,400
10-foot paved path on right-of-way separate from roadways.
Range reflects various levels of construction complexity.
Higher cost reflects more complicated construction, such as
additional grading and sitework.
Trails (gravel)$200,000 Gravel on separated right-of-way or parallel to a roadway
Intersections or Barriers (Generic cost points)
Type A: Major Intersection
Construction
$350,000 Major projects such as protected intersections. If used in
the Grand Island system, these would typically address
bicycle/pedestrian facilities on one side of the street only to
accommodate a sidepath or single-sided shared use path
Type B: Arterial Crossing $200,000 Major intersections but requiring less capital work than
protected intersections. May include improved signalization,
improved crosswalks, bumpouts, minor construction
Type C: Median with
HAWK
$150,000 Crossing refuge median with hybrid beacon
Type D: Median with
flashing beacon
$75,000 Crossing refuge median with flashing warning beacons in
place of positive red stop signal
Type E: Enhanced $50,000 High visibility crosswalks, minor construction but normally
without signalization
Table 7.1: Probable cost factors by facility type
NOTE: Cost factors are planning level estimates based on regional experience, do not include right-of-way,
contingencies, design and engineering fees, major drainage structures, or extraordinary grading expenses.
6th StLi
n
c
o
l
nWh
e
e
le
r
Pi
n
e
A
d
am
s14th St17th St
4th St
3rd StFaidley
Stolley Park
10th St
State
Capital
CusterHancockIndependenceAdamsBellwoodBrookline
15th St
7th St
10th St
Koenig Che
r
ryOak
20th St
AshtonGrand IslandSouth LocustSky ParkWhiteBismark
North Front
Stagecoach
US 34
College
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 138 / 180
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
126
SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH(MILES)STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALKCONDITION INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST
1 Oak, Capital to
4th
1.25 2-lane local
street/36 feet
Both sides with
some 1/2 block gaps
Bicycle boulevard, with possible striped parking shoulders $75,000
2 Oak, 4th to 3rd 0.20 2-lane local street/48 feet Both sides. No walkway definition
across UPRR
Multi-use shoulders $12,000
3 Oak, 3rd to
Koenig
0.43 2-lane local, 36 feet Both sides Bicycle boulevard, enhanced bike/ped intersection at 1st and
2nd
$25,800
4 Oak, Koenig to
Fonner Park Rd
0,87 2-lane local, 36 feet Both sides Bicycle boulevard, with possible striped parking shoulders.
Mark intersection jogs at Bismark and Oklahoma
$52,200
5 Fonner Park,
Oak to Sycamore
0.12 2-lane minor arterial,
45 feet
Both sides Sidepath segment $30,000
Total 2.87 $195,000
12
3OAK BICYCLE
BOULEVARD
NORTH-SOUTH
North 4
5
2
3
1
Oak
Oak Fonner Park B
e
l
t
l
i
n
e
T
r
a
i
l
CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 139 / 180
7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING
127
SEGMENT
KEY SEGMENT LENGTH
(MILES)
STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALK
CONDITION
INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST
1 Wheeler, Capital to 17th 0.55 2-lane major collector/30
feet
Both sides Bicycle boulevard. Short sidepath connection on south side
of Capital to Broadwell intersection
$33,000
2 17th, Wheeler to Pine 0.13 2-lane major collector/30
feet
Both sides Bicycle boulevard $7,800
3 Pine, 17th to 4th 0.90 2-lane local/36 feet; 50 feet
south of 8th
Both sides
with frequent
interruptions
Bicycle boulevard. Multi-use shoulders south of 8th Street $72,000
4 Pine, 4th to 1st 0.35 2-lane local/50 feet Both sides.Multi-use shoulders. Defined pedestrian path with paint
across UPRR
$28,000
5 Pine, 1st to Fonner Park 1.10 2-lane local/30-36 feet Both sides Bicycle boulevard; enhanced pedestrian crossing at 1st; .07 mile
sidepath on Fonner Park between Pine and Sycamore
$66,000
6 Sycamore, Fonner Park to
Hedde
0.25 2-lane local/24 feet No sidewalks Advisory bike lanes through Island Oasis $15,000
7 Park site, Hedde to Stolley
Park
0.38 Fonner Park campus NA Multi-use path $150,480
8 Bellwood/Brookline, Stolley
Park to Locust
0.46 Bellwood: 2-lane local/36 feet
Brookline: 2-lane, unpaved
No sidewalks Shared road; Brookline block should be considered for hard-
surfacing.
$7,820
9 Locust, Brookline to Hwy 34 0.75 5-lane arterial Both sides Upgrade east side sidewalk to sidepath; modification of US 34
intersection for path crossing
$237,600
Total 4.87 $617,700
PINE BICYCLE
BOULEVARD
NORTH-SOUTH
North
1
Pine
Wheeler
Pine
SycamoreLocust
Bellwood
2
1
7
t
h
3
4
56
789
CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 140 / 180
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
128
SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH
(MILES)
STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALK
CONDITION
INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE
COST
1 Greenwich/
Lincoln, 15th
to 4th
0.88 2-lane local/36 feet Both sides Bicycle boulevard, route uses 13th to connect Lincoln and
Greenwich
$52,800
2 Lincoln, 4th to
Koenig
0.50 2-lane local/36 feet Both sides with
interruptions
between 4th and UP
Bicycle boulevard, defined path across railroad with painted
multi-use shoulder; connection along Koenig to Adams
$40,000
3 Adams, Koenig
to Brownell Trail
0.41 2-lane collector, 36 feet Both sides with
some gaps north of Anna; one side south
of Anna
Bicycle boulevard. Multi-use shoulders without parking
between Anna and Beltline Trail
$32,800
4 Adams, Beltline
to Stolley Park
0.66 2-lane collector, 24 feet No parking Sidepath $209,088
5 Cottonwood,
Stolley Park to
Stagecoach
0.50 2-lane local/28 feet widening to
divided residential boulevard/50
feet with median
Both sides Bicycle boulevard $30,000
Total 2.95 $364,688
12
3LINCOLN/ADAMS
BIKEWAY
NORTH-SOUTH
North
45
23
1
L incoln
K
o
e
n
i
gBe
l
t
l
i
n
e
T
r
a
i
l
Cottonwood Adams
CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 141 / 180
7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING
129
SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH
(MILES)
STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALK
CONDITION
INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST
1 Grand Island, Capital to
13th
0.55 Divided local residential
boulevard/70 feet with 30
foot median
Both sides Bicycle boulevard, connects to White Ave via 13th $33,000
2 White, 13th to 9th 0.30 2-lane local/35 feet No sidewalks Bicycle boulevard, sidewalk completion on one side
of street; enhanced crosswalk at 10th
$18,000
3 White, 9th to North Front 0.54 2-lane local/36 feet Intermittent on
both sides.
Bicycle boulevard, sidewalk completion on one side
of street; enhanced crosswalk at Faidley
$32,400
Total 1.39 $83,400
GRAND ISLAND/
WHITE BICYCLE
BOULEVARD
NORTH-SOUTH
North 13th9thNorth FrontFaidleyGrand Island Ave
White Ave
CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 142 / 180
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
130
SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH
(MILES)
STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALK
CONDITION
INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST
1 Custer, Capital to State 0.50 2-lane major collector, 42-44
feet
Both sides Two-way protected bike lane on east side, with parking
on west side. Two stage crossing at State
$57,600
2 Custer, State to 13th 0.77 2-lane major collector/44
feet
Both sides Sidepath on west side. Two stage crossing to east side
at 13th
$243,936
3 Custer, 13th to Faidley 0.50 2-lane major collector/45 feet Both sides Two-way protected bike lane on east side, with parking
on west side. Two stage crossing at State
$57,600
4 Custer, Faidley to Old
Potash
0.50 2-lane major collector/45 feet One side north
of George, no
sidewalks south
Multi-use shoulders. Multi-use trail alternative on east
edge of Ryder Park. Sidewalk completion on one side.
$30,000
5 Blaine, Old Potash to 1st
Street
0.30 2-lane arterial, 45 feet to 2nd
St, narrowing to 36 feet south of 2nd
One side (east)Two-way protected bike lane west side from Old Potash to
2nd, transitioning to sidepath on west side between 2nd and 1st
$34,560
6 1st/Ingalls/Louis, Blaine to Curtis 0.34 2 lane local streets, 36-40 feet Both sides Shared marked routes $5,780
7 Curtis, Louise to Anna 0.13 2 lane local, 36 feet One-side (east) continuity Shared marked route adjacent to Gates Elementary $2,210
8 Walkway, Anna to John Brownell Trail 0.13 Walkway parallel to Curtis NA Upgrade to multi-use trail standard $51,480
Total 3.17 $483,166
CUSTER
BIKEWAY
NORTH-SOUTH
North
BlaineCurtis 1234
56
7
8
State13thFaidleyOld PotashCuster AveIngalls
CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 143 / 180
7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING
131
8-10
6
43
8
24
3
8
Possible protected
bike lane at Custer and
College. The buffered
lane is on the east side
of the street, and is used
on blocks where on-
street parking should be
unnecessary because of
adjacent parking lots,
open fields, or houses
oriented to intersecting
residential streets rather
than Custer.
Houses oriented to
Custer south of State
may require on-street
parking at their front
door. Here, the bikeway
shifts to a two-way off-
street sidepath at the
high school. The illus-
tration shows how the
crossing is made in two
stages to the high school
sidepath. This is reversed
at 13th Street.
Custer and College
Custer and State
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 144 / 180
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
132
SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH(MILES)STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALKCONDITION INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST
1 Easement, Capital to State 0.50 Walkway and utility
easement
Two segments
north and south of West Lawn
Elementary School
Multi-use trail, partially on edge of elementary school.
Enhanced crosswalk at State
$224,400
2 Hancock, State to 10th 0.75 2-lane collector/36 feet Both sides Bicycle boulevard $45,000
3 St Francis campus and ring drive, 10th to Faidley 0.25 NA No sidewalks Multi-use trail on line of Hancock Ave, providing pedestrian accommodation to offices along ring drive.
Uses proposed Faidley sidepath to Sherman
$99,000
4 Sherman, Faidley to N.
Front/Ryder Park
0.27 2-lane local/36 feet Both sides Shared marked route $4,590
5 Ryder Park paths and Old
Potash to Custer
0.40 Park path Existing paths Upgrade path to multi-use trail, continue as sidepath along
Old Potash to Custer. Connects with Custer Ave bikeway
$158,400
Total 2.17 $531,390
HANCOCK
BIKEWAY
NORTH-SOUTH
North
123
4
5 State10thN. FrontFaidleyOld PotashHancock
CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 145 / 180
7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING
133
SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH(MILES)STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALKCONDITION INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST
1 Independence, Highway 2
to George Park
1.20 2-lane rural section
collector/25 feet
No sidewalks,
except east side south of Norseman
Sidepath with eventual reconstruction of
Independence Ave. May be incorporated into future street project
$380,160
2 Independence, George Park to Mansfield 0.23 2-lane collector/36 feet One-side (east) sidewalk Sidepath on west side, with pedestrian crossing of Independence at park $72,864
3 Engelman School campus 0.25 NA One side around
campus periphery
Multi-use trail connection to Shoemaker Trail with
three options: sidepath parallel to Manchester and
Mansfield; straight alignment along edge of school
property to existing trail at Shanna St; continuation
of Independence alignment south and east to current
trail turn south of Engelman building.
$99,000
4 Shoemaker Trail 0.84 Existing trail NA Existing trail 0
Total 2.52 $552,024
INDEPENDENCE
BIKEWAY
NORTH-SOUTH
North
1
2
34
Independence
Mansfield
CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 146 / 180
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
134
SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH
(MILES)
STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALK
CONDITION
INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE
COST
1 St. Paul, Capital to 4th 1.0 2-lane minor arterial, 44 feet Both sides from 11th to 5th,
poor coverage
elsewhere
Striped parking shoulder; continuous one-side walkway between 4th and 5th and 11th and 20th. Connects with
4th Street route
$60,000
2 4th, St. Paul to Pine 0.77 2-lane minor arterial/50 feet Both sides with
some interruptions
on industrial use
sites
Multi-use shoulders $46,200
3 4th, Pine to Cedar 0.25 2-lane minor arterial/50-53
feet
Both sides, some
at downtown scale
Marked shared route, with painted parking lane on south
side (EB). Diagonal parking retained on north side
$4,250
4 4th, Cedar to Eddy 0.20 2-lane minor arterial/50 feet Both sides, one
block interruption on south side
Multi-use shoulders $12,000
5 4th, Eddy to Broadwell 0.55 2-lane minor arterial, 38 feet Both sides with
some interruptions
Striped parking shoulders $33,000
6 4th-Broadwell to North
Front-Broadwell
0.09 3-lane minor arterial, 40 feet One side (west) Enhanced crossing at 4th Street, sidepath along Broadwell
to North Front. Ultimate solution will be grade separation of
Broadwell over UPRR. Design should accommodate bike/
ped connection under the structure to link 4th and North Front.
$28,512
ST. PAUL/4TH
BIKEWAY
NORTH-SOUTH/EAST-WEST
North
1 2 4t
h
St. Paul Rd
CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 147 / 180
7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING
135
SEGMENT
KEY SEGMENT LENGTH(MILES)STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALKCONDITION INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST
7 North Front, Broadwell to
Webb
1.0 2-lane major collector, 41 feet Both sides Striped parking shoulders $60,000
8 North Front alignment
west of Webb
0.20 NA NA Future trail to proposed ped/bike overpass over
Highway 281.
$79,200
Total 4.06 $323,162
ST. PAUL/4TH
BIKEWAY
EAST-WEST
North
4th
P
i
n
e
Wa
l
n
u
tBroadwellCuster
North Front
2
3
4
5687
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 148 / 180
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
136
SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH(MILES)STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALKCONDITION INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST
1 Rue de College/College
Ave, Webb to Custer
0.75 2-lane collector/36-38 feet Both sides Striped parking shoulders, with connection to Capital
Sidepath
$45,000
2 College, Custer to
Broadwell
0.50 2-lane local/41 feet from
Custer to Lafayette, 36 feet Lafayette to Broadwell
Both sides Striped parking shoulders, with enhanced pedestrian
crossing at Broadwell
$30,000
3 VA campus, Broadwell to
Wheeler
0.25 NA NA Multi-use path adjacent to VA south parking lots $112,200
4 20th, Wheeler to BNSF 0.43 2-lane local/32 feet Both sides Shared, marked route. Connects to path and tunnel under
BNSF main line
$25,800
5 Walkway and ped tunnel
under BNSF
0.14 NA Existing path Widen path to 6 foot minimum, maintain existing tunnel
width
$55,440
6 20th, BNSF to St Paul 0.27 2-lane local/32 feet Both sides Shared, marked route $16,200
Total 2.34 $284,640
COLLEGE/20TH
BICYCLE
BOULEAVRD
EAST-WEST
North
P
i
n
e Oa
kBroadwellCusterRue de CollegeCollege
2 3 4 5
6
1
CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 149 / 180
7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING
137
SEGMENT
KEY SEGMENT LENGTH
(MILES)
STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALK
CONDITION
INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST
1 State, Hwy 281 to Webb 0.25 5-lane major collector/62
feet
Both sides Extend existing half-block sidepath east of 281
to Webb, Connects to State Trail on west side of
highway. Enhanced multi-modal crossing at State
and 281
$79,200
2 State, Webb to Custer 0.54 2-lane major collector/40-42 feet Both sides Bicycle boulevard with striped parking shoulders $32,400
3 State, Custer to Broadwell 0.50 2-lane major collector/34-36
feet
Both sides Bicycle boulevard. Enhanced pedestrian crossing at
Five Points intersection
$30,000
4 State, Broadwell to 17th 0.43 2-lane collector/50-62 feet.
Wide portion has north side diagonal parking
Both sides Bicycle boulevard with striped parking shoulders $25,800
5 17th, State intersection to Plum 0.50 2-lane major collector to Sycamore, local to Plum/36
feet
Both sides Bicycle boulevard. Connection via Plum to 18th Street underpass at BNSF main line $40,000
6 18th, Plum to St Paul 0.27 2-lane local/36 feet Both sides Bicycle boulevard $4,590
Total 2.49 $211,990
STATE/17TH
BIKEWAY
EAST-WEST
North
P
i
n
eBroadwellCusterWebbState
18th
17th2 3 4 5
6
1
CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 150 / 180
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
138
15TH STREET
BICYCLE
BOULEVARD
EAST-WEST
North
4
321
16th
SEGMENT
KEY SEGMENT LENGTH
(MILES)
STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALK
CONDITION
INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST
1 16th, Webb to Hancock 0.28 2-lane local/34 feet Both sides Bicycle boulevard. Connects to main Conestoga Mall
entrance
$16,800
2 Walnut Middle School campus, Hancock to
Custer
0.31 NA NA Multi-use path on periphery of site, south of main parking lot $122,760
3 15th, Custer to Broadwell 0.50 2-lane local, 36 feet Both sides Bicycle boulevard. Enhanced ped crossing at
Broadwell with short sidepath to negotiate offset
intersection
$61,680
4 15th, Broadwell to Oak 0.80 2-lane local/34 feet Both sides Bicycle boulevard. Use Oak and Pine to connect to 17th
St. Enhanced crosswalk at Eddy
$48,000
Total 2.00 $249,240
15th
HancockBroadwellOa
k
CusterCONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 151 / 180
7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING
139
SEGMENT LENGTH(MILES)STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALKCONDITION INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST
10th, Kennedy to Custer 0.40 2-lane local/36 feet Both sides Striped parking shoulders. Jog at Custer will use
protected bike lane to connect two legs of 10th St
$32,000
10th, Custer to Broadwell 0.50 2-lane local/36 feet Both sides Striped parking shoulders. Enhanced crossing at
Broadwell with curbs cut into Adams Street cul-de-sac from Broadwell crossing and into 10th Street
eastbound
$90,000
15th, Broadwell to St. Paul 1.20 2-lane major collector/ 36
feet
Both sides Striped parking shoulders. Street passes under BNSF
viaduct. Traffic calming treatment in vicinity of
Howard Elementary School
$72,000
Total 2.10 $194,000
10TH STREET
BIKEWAY
EAST-WEST
North
1 2
3
10th 10th 10thKennedyCusterBroadwell S
t
P
a
u
l
CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 152 / 180
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
140
SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH
(MILES)
STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALK
CONDITION
INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE
COST
1 Faidley, Shoemaker Trail
to North Rd
0.54 2-lane major collector/40
feet
Both sides Multi-use shoulders. Enhanced crossing at North Rd $32,400
2 Drainage corridor parallel
to Faidley, North to
Ridgewood
0.50 NA NA Multi-use trail on east and south side of drainage $224,400
3 Faidley, Ridgewood to
Highway 281
0.50 3-lane major collector, 40
feet, widening to 5-lane at
281 intersection
Both sides Sidepath on north side with enhanced crossing at
Highway 281. Connection with proposed Westside
Collector Trail
$158,400
4 Faidley, Highway 281 to
Sherman
0.37 3-lane major collector, 40-42
feet
Both sides Sidepath on north side with enhanced crossing of Webb
Road
$117,216
FAIDLEY/6TH
BIKEWAY (WEST)
EAST-WEST
North
21 3 4
FaidleyShoemaker TrailShermanFai
d
l
e
y
Faidley sidepath concept. In this segment, new
sidepath is located adjacent to the existing
back of curb sidewalk, using the existing facil-
ity as a buffer from the travel lanes. High vis-
ibility crosswalks are used to mark street and
major driveway interruptions.
CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 153 / 180
7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING
141
FAIDLEY/6TH
BIKEWAY (WEST)
EAST-WEST
North
SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH
(MILES)
STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALK
CONDITION
INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE
COST
5 Faidley,Sherman to Custer 0.17 3-lane major collector/ 40 feet Both sides Sidepath on north side. Improve crossing visibility at
St. Francis entrance drive and Custer
$53,856
6 Faidley, Custer to
Broadwell
0.66 3-lane major collector,/40 feet Both sides. Some
discontinuity at
corners on south
side
Sidepath on north side. Move path away from drop-off
areas
$209,088
7 6th, Broadwell to Plum 1.25 2-lane local/36 feet Both sides;
discontinuities and poor sections east
of Walnut
Bicycle boulevard with gap closing and replacement
of dirt or deteriorating sections. Terminus at historic Burlington depot.
$75,000
Total 3.99 $870,360
5 6
7
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 154 / 180
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
142
SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH
(MILES)
STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALK
CONDITION
INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST
1 3rd, Blaine to
Broadwell
0.60 2-lane local/36 feet, 50
feet between Garfield
and Blaine
Both sides with
substantial breaks
on both sides
Multi-use shoulders between Blaine and Garfield; striped
parking shoulders Garfield to Blaine
$36,000
2 3rd, Broadwell to
Lincoln
0.40 2-lane local/36 feet Both sides with
some gaps
Striped parking shoulders $24,000
3 3rd, Lincoln to Elm 0.30 2-lane urban collector/
50 feet
Both sides Multi-use shoulders $18,000
4 3rd, Elm to Sycamore 0.40 2-lane urban local/ 50
feet with diagonal parking
on south side
Both sides No bike-related improvements on 3rd. Transition on shared
route on Elm to south alley paralleling 3rd. Provide markings to
define alley as a bikeway, taking advantage of existing raised and enhanced midblock ped crossings at alleys. Incorporate yellow
diamond bike/ped signage on cross streets, add midblock crossing
treatment at Cedar and Walnut. Transition back to 3rd Street on
Sycamore. Possible conversion of west side on-street parking lane
adjacent to public parking lot to short, two way protected bike lane.
$100,000
3RD STREET
BIKEWAY
EAST-WEST
North
2
1
3
4
5
3rd
CusterBroadwellLin
co
ln Elm
Sycamo
reOak
CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 155 / 180
7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING
143
SEGMENT
KEY SEGMENT LENGTH(MILES)STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALKCONDITION INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST
5 3rd, Sycamore to Oak 0.13 2-lane urban local/50 feet,
diagonal parking on south
side immediately east of
Sycamore
Both sides Multi-use shoulders. Possible path extension to Plum
and proposed Beltline Trail extension. However this
requires crossing of 1st and 2nd dealing with relatively
high speed traffic.
$7,800
Total 1.83 $185,800
3RD STREET
BIKEWAY
EAST-WEST
North
Multi-purpose shoulder
concept plan. Width of 3rd
Street changes at Lincoln
Street as illustrated at
right. East of Lincoln,
shoulder is wide enough
to accommodate both
bikes and parked cars.
Typical street width be-
tween white lines should
be limited to 24 feet maxi-
mum.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 156 / 180
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
144
KOENIG
BICYCLE
BOULEVARD
EAST-WEST
North
SEGMENT KEY SEGMENT LENGTH
(MILES)
STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALK
CONDITION
INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE
COST
1 Koenig, Ingalls to Blaine 0.13 2-lane local/36 feet Both sides Bicycle boulevard $7,800
2 Koenig, Blaine to Walnut 1.43 2-lane major collector/36 feet Both sides with
some gaps
Bicycle boulevard $85,800
3 Koenig, Walnut to Locust 0.07 2-lane major collector/36 feet Both sides Enhanced crossings of both Walnut and Locust.
Crossing of multi-lane Walnut presents greatest
difficulty because of width and traffic volume.
Traffic control should be studied
$70,000
4 Koenig, Locust to Oak 0.28 2-lane major collector/30-32 feet Both sides Bicycle boulevard. Route turns south along Oak
Bicycle Boulevard to Ashton
$22,400
5 Ashton/Memorial Drive, Oak to Cherry 0.40 2-lane local/34 feet on Ashton, transitioning to divided residential boulevard, 51 to 125
feet with wide median
Both sides Bicycle boulevard $32,000
6 Cherry, Ashton to Bismark 0.26 2-lane major collector/36 feet One side (west), Striped parking shoulders $15,600
7 Bismark Connection, Cherry
to Pine
0.73 2-lane major collector/44 feet Both sides Striped parking shoulders $58,400
Total 3.30 $292,000
4
5
6
7
3
2
1 PineAd
am
s Che
r
r
y
Bismark
Ashton/
Memorial
Koenig
CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 157 / 180
7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING
145
21STOLLEY PARK
BIKEWAY
EAST-WEST
North
SEGMENT
KEY SEGMENT LENGTH(MILES)STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALKCONDITION INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE COST
1 St Joe Trail crossing NA In 2018, 3-lane minor
arterial/50 feet
Trail crossing Enhanced crossing. Consideration should be given to
pedestrian refuge median, high visibility crosswalk,
advance warning, and possible HAWK
Included in
barriers
2 Stolley Park Rd, Trail to Locust 1.50 In 2018, 3-lane minor arterial/45 feet with multi-
use shoulders
Both sides Multi-use shoulders provide adequate bike accommodations. Enhanced crossing at Arthur Street
into Stolley Park
Included in 2018 project
3 Arthur, Beltline Trail to Stolley Park 0.33 2-lane local/39 feet Both sides but lacking on Del Mar
to Stolley Park
block
Shared and marked roadway with completion of sidewalk on southern block. Enhanced pedestrian
crossing to link trail to park
$5,610
4 Stolley Park, Locust to
Wood River
1.0 3-lane minor collector,
narrowing east of
Kingswood/36-24 feet
Sidewalks only on
first block east of
Locust
Sidepath on Fonner Park side, addressing lack of
sidewalks
$316,800
Total 2.83 $322,410ArthurSt Joe TrailBrownell
Beltlin
e
Trail3
4
CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 158 / 180
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
146
STAGECOACH
BICYCLE
BOULEVARD
EAST-WEST
North
SEGMENT
KEY SEGMENT LENGTH
(MILES)
STREET TYPE /WIDTH SIDEWALK
CONDITION
INFRASTRUCTURE PROBABLE
COST
1 St. Joe Trail to Pioneer Blvd 0.07 NA NA Trail connection to local street from regional trail, requiring a crossing of a low-use railroad branch line $31,416
2 Pioneer Blvd, Wicklow Drive to Blaine 0.23 2-lane local/30 feet One side Shared and marked roadway $3,910
3 Blaine, Pioneer to
Stagecoach
0.25 2-lane major collector/24 feet
rural section
Sidewalk only on
Evangelical Free Church frontage
Sidepath; enhanced crossing at Blain and Pioneer
intersection
$79,200
4 Stagecoach Rd, Blaine to
Riverside
1.15 Local with varying sections:
2-lane/36 feet to divided 2-lane/50 feet
Both sides Bicycle boulevard $69,000
5 Stagecoach Rd, Riverside
to Locust
0.25 2-lane local/36 feet Both sides Bicycle boulevard; Enhanced crossing at Locust $15,000
Total 1.95 $198,526
Pioneer
Stagecoach
BlaineLocustSt. Joe Trail1 2 3 4
5
CONCEPTUAL TREATMENTS
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 159 / 180
7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING
147
Table 7.2: Probable Costs for Proposed TrailsPRIORITIES AND IMPLEMENTATION
The proposed Grand Island area bikeways network will be
implemented in phases, and will almost certainly evolve over
time. However, this plan establishes both an initial phase that
guides activity during the next ten years, and a concept for
how the network emerges more comprehensively from that
foundation. The sequencing of phases and specific trails and
routes proposed here follows these criteria and principles:
• Response to demands. In every phase, high priority routes
should address existing demand patterns, and serve
destinations that are valuable to users and appropriate
endpoints for bicycle transportation. The survey results
summarized in Chapter 2 provide valuable information on
the importance of various destinations.
• Route integrity. High priority routes and projects should
provide continuity between valid endpoints such as
destinations and trails. When developed incrementally,
routes should not leave users at loose ends.
• Extensions of existing facilities. Projects that make use
of and extend the reach of key existing facilities that need
attention,.
• Gaps. Small projects that fill gaps in current facilities
or tie relatively remote neighborhoods to the overall
system can be especially useful at early stages n the
system’s development. However, two very large projects
are proposed in the high priority system in response to
community preferences: the Faidley and Custer corridors.
• Opportunities. The implementation sequence should
take advantage of street projects, resurfacing and street
rehabilitation projects, and other infrastructure projects
• Safety enhancement. High priority projects should
increase safety and reduce user discomfort for people of
all ages.
• Demographic equity. Projects should provide bicycle
and pedestrian access to underserved populations and
connect people and households without access to a
motor vehicle to destinations important to their lives and
livelihood.
NAME: FUTURE LENGTH
(mi)
TRAIL TYPE (See
Table 7.1)
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Veterans Legacy Trail/Overpass 0.8 1 $1,859,040 (includes RR overpass)
Sky Park Trail 2.05 2 $689,040
Seedling Mile Trail 2.07 3 $655,776
Wood River Trail 1.2 Sidepath $665,280
Riverway Trail Extension 3 3 $1,346,400
Mormon Island/(S. Locust) Trail 4.9 Sidepath/Type 2 trail $2,699,120 (includes channel
bridge)
Stagecoach Connection Trail 0.07 1 Included in route
Northwest Trail 1.65 2 $740,520
L.E. Ray Park Connector 0.55 Sidepath $174,240
Alda/Cornhusker Trail 5.75 Gravel $1,150,000
Alda/ Husker Highway Trail 5.63 Gravel $1,126,000
Future Trails Total 27.67 $11,105,416
GRAND TOTAL 37.20 $15,349,480
NAME : PRIORITY LENGTH
(mi)
TRAIL TYPE
(See Table 7.1)
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Shoemaker Trail extension .50 1 $198,000
Westside Connector extension 1.00 2 $448,800
Cedar Hills Trail 1.80 3 $997,920
South Locust Trail 0.75 Sidepath Included in Route
Belt Line Trail Extension 0.90 3 $498,960
Capital Trail East 0.68 Sidepath/Type 2
trail
$215,424
Eagle Scout Trail 0.75 1 $297,000
Moore Creek Trail 1.50 2 $673,200
Southwest Trail 1.65 3 $914,760
Priority Trails Total 9.53 $4,244,064
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 160 / 180
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
148
• Service to key destinations. These include parks, schools,
the library, and similar destinations.
• Relative ease of development. It is important that the
a useful system be established relatively quickly and at
comparatively low cost. Routes that require major capital
cost or lead to neighborhood controversy should be
deferred to later phases, when precedents are established
and the network becomes part of Grand Island’s urban
landscape. Developability helps determine priorities. The
initial system should serve major destinations and provide
good connectivity while minimizing large scale projects.
Clearly economics and available resources are extremely
important and facilities that meet user demands and
preferences are frequently relatively expensive because they
require a greater degree of separation from motor vehicles.
Table 7.1 identifies typical costs per mile for the different
types of on-street facilities anticipated for the Grand Island
network. The subsequent detailed route tables apply these
cost factors to the individual on-street components of
the active network. Tables 7.2 and 7.3 display opinions of
probable cost the other two key components of the network:
trails and barrier removal projects. Table 7.3 should not be
taken to prescribe a specific solution but rather is designed
to establish an optimal budget for project types that could
substantially reduce the impact of these barrier conditions.
NAME ASSOCIATED
ROUTE
BARRIER
TYPE
(See Table 7.1)
OPINION OF PROBABLE
COST
Capital-281 Capital Trail A $350,000
State-281 State St Trail A $350,000
Faidley-281 Faidley B $200,000
North Rd/RR Moore Creek Trail E $50,000
Westside Trail-State State St Trail D $75,000
Stuhr-Cedar Hills 281
Underpass
Stuhr/Cedar Hills Tr Included in route cost
St Joe Tr/Stolley Park St Joe Trail C $150,000
Beltline/Blaine Beltline Trail D $75,000
Stuhr Tr/Husker Stuhr Trail C $150,000
Capital/Webb Capital Trail C $150,000
Capital Tr east of Webb Capital Trail C $150,000
Capital/Broadwell Capital Trail/Pine D $100,000
20-Broadwell 20th/College D $100,000
15-Broadwell 15th Bike Blvd D $100,000
10-Broadwell 10th Bike Blvd D $100,000
Koenig-Locust/Walnut Koenig Bike Blvd D $200,000
Lincoln-2nd Lincoln/Adams C $200,000
Beltline/Locust Beltline Trail E $50,000
1st Pine Pine Bike Blvd C $150,000
North Front 281 Overpass Network bridge $1,500,000
Lincoln RR Overpass Lincoln/Adams bridge $1,500,000
Stagecoach/Locust Stagecoach/Locust D $75,000
Highway 34/Locust S. Locust/Pine B $200,000
Table 7.3: Probable Budgets for Barrier Removal Projects
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 161 / 180
7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING
149
SEQUENCING
The Sequencing illustrates these guiding criteria to identify
a basic network that would provide a high level of service
to the community even if no further progress is made. The
sequence design divided into a basic network, which must
stand alone even if no further progress is made; and an
ultimate network that provides comprehensive coverage
of the city and rural parts of the metropolitan area. The
basic system is further divided into two implementation
phases, which may be viewed as five to seven-year capital
programs. This overall Basic Network implemented over 20
years translates into a proposed investment of about $10.3
million, or slightly over $500,000 annually in 2018 dollars
over a 20 year period. Clearly implementation depends on
availability of funding and some large projects or overall
efforts could receive federal and state funds that could
advance certain projects. This implementation sequence
represents a suggested scenario that may change over time.
BASIC SYSTEM: THE STARTING POINT
While the City and the user community will help to determine
the order of projects within each phase, the system must
start to emerge with some specific routes and route
segments. This pilot system establishes the foundation of
the ultimate network, and should provide maximum impact,
link all parts of the city, and serve proven destinations and
traffic patterns.
Phase One
Phase One, encompassing development envisioned for the
next ten years, includes the following key elements:
• Completion of three major street-related corridors:
Faidley, Custer, and the Pine/South Locust corridors.
Faidley and Custer both involve separated facilities,
including sidepaths and protected bike lanes. The
importance of these corridors suggests accelerating their
development.
• A new midtown east-west route, using 15th Street
connecting to the State Street route at both east and
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
n
n
n
nn
n
n
nn
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
BB
B
BB
B
B
B
Schu ParkMemorial Park
L. E.Ray Park
EagleScout Park
Pioneer Park
Lions Park
Lincoln Park
GraceAbbottPark
Ashley Park
BroadwellPark
Ryder Park
Wasmer ElementarySchool (Old Site)
Buechler Park
Stolley Park
George Park
Sothman Park
AugustinePark
Pier Park
Howard School
LincolnElementarySchool
JeersonElementarySchool
CentralCatholicHigh SchoolNewellElementarySchool
WalnutMiddleSchool
KnickrehmElementarySchool
Senior HighSchoolWest LawnElementarySchool
ShoemakerElementarySchool
EnglemanElementarySchool
Old EnglemanElementarySchool
Seedling MileElementarySchool
GatesElementarySchool
StarrElementarySchool
Stolley ParkElementary School
CentralCommunityCollege
Trinity LutheranSchool And Church
NorthwestHigh School
DodgeElementarySchool
Barr MiddleSchool
Grand IslandChristian School
WasmerElementarySchool
HeartlandLutheranHigh School
WestridgeMiddleSchool
B
B
B
BB
B
BB
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B Wh
e
e
l
e
r
P
in
e
Adams17th St
3rd St
Faidley
Stolley Park
State
Capital
CusterIndependenceBellwood15th St
South LocustStagecoach
Figure 7.4: Basic Network: Phase 1 Diagram
Barrier Projects
Existing Trails
Proposed Trails
Grand Island City Limits
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 162 / 180
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
150
west ends. This fills the void between the Capital Trail
and Faidley/6th Street Bikeways.
• A new sidepath along Adams, connecting the Beltline
Trail to new schools along Adams Street.
• A shared use path connection between the State Street
Trail and George Park.
Phase 1 of the Basic System also extends several important
trails designed to fill gaps or create strategic new
connections, including
• A connection between the Capital Trail and Eagle Scout
Park.
• An extension of the Capital Trail to the east side of the
BNSF tracks using 20th and 18th Street underpasses.
• Extension of the Beltline Trail to the JBS plant at Stuhr
Road.
• Connection of the new hospital/mixed use
development’s trail loop to the Stuhr Trail under US 281,
using an existing bridge over a drainage swale.
Phase 1 of the Basic System envisions addressing seven key
barrier points:
• The Capital/US 281 intersection.
• The Faidley/US 281 intersection.
• 15th and Broadwell intersection.
• Lincoln Street crossing of 2nd Street at the Library.
• Beltline Trail crossing of Blaine Street.
• St Joe Trail crossing of Stolley Park Road.
• US 281 undercrossing from the Stuhr Trail to the new
hospital site.
Phase Two
Phase 2 expands the on-street transportation improvements
of Phase 1, but focuses more heavily on longer distance trails.
Its major on-steet components include:
• Completion of the Lincoln/Adams bicycle boulevard,
completing a north-south quiet street corridor through
the residential center of the city.
Figure 7.5: Basic Network: Phase 2 Diagram
Barrier Projects
Existing Trails
Proposed Trails
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
n
n
n
nn
n
n
nn
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
BB
B
B
B
B
B
B
Schu ParkMemorial Park
L. E.Ray Park
EagleScout Park
Pioneer Park
Lions Park
Lincoln Park
GraceAbbottPark
Ashley Park
BroadwellPark
Ryder Park
Wasmer ElementarySchool (Old Site)
Buechler Park
Stolley Park
George Park
Sothman Park
AugustinePark
Pier Park
Howard School
LincolnElementarySchool
JeersonElementarySchool
CentralCatholicHigh School
NewellElementarySchool
WalnutMiddleSchool
KnickrehmElementarySchool
Senior HighSchoolWest LawnElementarySchool
ShoemakerElementarySchool
EnglemanElementarySchool
Old EnglemanElementarySchool
Seedling MileElementarySchool
GatesElementarySchool
StarrElementarySchool
Stolley ParkElementary School
CentralCommunityCollege
Trinity LutheranSchool And Church
NorthwestHigh School
DodgeElementarySchool
Barr MiddleSchool
Grand IslandChristian School
WasmerElementarySchool
HeartlandLutheranHigh School
WestridgeMiddleSchool
B
B
B
B B
B
BB
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
L
i
n
c
o
ln
4th St10th StHancock
Westside ConnectorSouthwest TrailGrand Island City Limits
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 163 / 180
7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING
151
• Enhancing 4th Street through the growing north
downtown international district and connecting to the
east side of town.
• Implementing the 10th Street bicycle boulevard,
complementing the busier Faidley corridor and providing
an enhanced connection across Broadwell.
Phase 2 features significant trail projects, including
completing the major loop around the southwestern part
of the city. This project will develop in conjunction with
or after the relocation of US 30. Major trail components
include:
• Extension of the Westside Connector from State to
Faidley, linking up with that primary east-west bikeway.
• The Shoemaker and Moore Creek Trails, connecting
the current end of the Shoemaker Trail with Cedar Hills
Park, the new hospital, and the Stuhr Trail and rest of the
central trail system.
Significant barrier improvement projects primarily address
intersections and upgrades to existing trail crossings. These
include the:
• State and US 281 intersection.
• Existing State/Capital Connector crossing west of the
highway.
• Existing Stuhr Trail crossing of US 34 at College Park.
• Existing Capital Trail crossing east of Webb Road.
• Capital and Broadwell intersection
• 10th and Broadwell
• Minor enhancements of the Beltline Trail crossing of
Locust Street.
• 1st and Pine, the unsignalized intersection of the Pine
Street crossings.
• South Locust crossings at Stagecoach and US 34.
Figure 7.6: Completed Basic Network
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
n
n
n
nn
n
n
nn
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
BB
B
B
B
B
B
B
Schu ParkMemorial Park
L. E.Ray Park
EagleScout Park
Pioneer Park
Lions Park
Lincoln Park
GraceAbbottPark
Ashley Park
BroadwellPark
Ryder Park
Wasmer ElementarySchool (Old Site)
Buechler Park
Stolley Park
George Park
Sothman Park
AugustinePark
Pier Park
Howard School
LincolnElementarySchool
JeersonElementarySchool
CentralCatholicHigh SchoolNewellElementarySchool
WalnutMiddleSchool
KnickrehmElementarySchool
Senior HighSchoolWest LawnElementarySchool
ShoemakerElementarySchool
EnglemanElementarySchool
Old EnglemanElementarySchool
Seedling MileElementarySchool
GatesElementarySchool
StarrElementarySchool
Stolley ParkElementary School
CentralCommunityCollege
Trinity LutheranSchool And Church
NorthwestHigh School
DodgeElementarySchool
Barr MiddleSchool
Grand IslandChristian School
WasmerElementarySchool
HeartlandLutheranHigh School
WestridgeMiddleSchool
B
B
B
B B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Grand Island City Limits
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 164 / 180
17th St
Husker Hwy
State
Seedling Mile
US 281Independence7th St
10th St
KoenigOakGrand IslandSouth LocustSky ParkWhiteNorth Front
Stagecoach
US 34
College
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
152
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
n
n
n
nn
n
n
nn
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
B
B
B
Schu ParkMemorial Park
L. E.Ray Park
EagleScout Park
Pioneer Park
Lions Park
Lincoln Park
GraceAbbottPark
Ashley Park
BroadwellPark
Ryder Park
Wasmer ElementarySchool (Old Site)
Buechler Park
Stolley Park
George Park
Sothman Park
AugustinePark
Pier Park
Howard School
LincolnElementarySchool
JeersonElementarySchool
CentralCatholicHigh School
NewellElementarySchool
WalnutMiddleSchool
KnickrehmElementarySchool
Senior HighSchoolWest LawnElementarySchool
ShoemakerElementarySchool
EnglemanElementarySchool
Old EnglemanElementarySchool
Seedling MileElementarySchool
GatesElementarySchool
StarrElementarySchool
Stolley ParkElementary School
CentralCommunityCollege
Trinity LutheranSchool And Church
NorthwestHigh School
DodgeElementarySchool
Barr MiddleSchool
Grand IslandChristian School
WasmerElementarySchool
HeartlandLutheranHigh School
WestridgeMiddleSchool
B
B
B
BB
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Ultimate Network Completion (Phase Three)
An ultimate network phase completes the on-street grid
with significant east-west routes and expands the trail
system into peripheral areas outside the city, including
connections to Alda, Mormon Island, and Shady Bend.
Major on-street additions include:
• North-south routes the include the Oak Street bicycle
boulevard, paralleling the earlier Pine Street route and
Grand Island/White Avenue parallel to Broadwell.
• Completing east-west bike boulevard corridors along
20th/College, 17th/State, 10th, Koenig, and Stagecoach
with a southern connection to the St. Joe Trail.
• Extending the 4th Street route to North Front, with the
connection occurring under a proposed Broadwell grade
separation over the Union Pacific
• Eventual improvement of north Independence Avenue
including a sidepath in a major road construction project.
• Extensions of 7th Street and Sky Park Road to the airport
and developing industrial areas. A study of a potential US
281 northeast bypass may clarify active transportation
opportunities in this sector.
• Collector street connections with pedestrian and bicycle
accommodations in developing subdivisions.
Long distance regional trails in the periphery of the
metropolitan area are an important part of this ultimate
phase. As a result, several projects are high cost and may
be spread out over a longer time. These projects include
trails to:
• Mormon Island State Recreation Area
• Alda and the Cornhusker Plant
• Veterans Legacy development, including a potential trail
overpass over the BNSF.
• Trails in the northwest part of the city, incuding access to
Northwest High School and the Independence corridor
• Paving of the Riverway Trail to N-2.
• Shady Bend area via Seedling Mile Road.
Figure 7.7: Ultimate Network Completion (Phase Three): Project
Grand Island City Limits
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 165 / 180
7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING
153
Barrier crossings are an important part of the ultimate
phase, Several of these propose crossings are fairly routine,
relating to bicycle boulevard crossings of Broadwell and
Locust. However, three major projects involve substantial
advance planning and financing. These aspirational
projects include:
• A grade separated pedestrian/bike crossing over US
281 on the alignment of North Front. This increases
connectivity between the east and west sides of the city.
• A grade separated pedestrian/bike crossing of the
UPRR at or around Lincoln Street. This may occur
in conjunction with a grade separation project of
the Broadwell crossing. Such a project may require
elimination of existing grade crossing(s). A pedestrian
crossing is essential between Eddy and Broadwell, and
the Lincoln site is particularly important for its access
to the Public Library and the Adams Street educational
corridor.
• A possible trail overpass developed as part of the
Veterans Legacy project.
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Tables 7.9 through 7.12 on the following pages summarize
probable planning level costs for the metropolitan area’s
proposed active network. It is clear that the area is unlikely
to implement the entire system, even over a long period.
For example, trails in the ultimate phase of the program
(beyond 10 to 15 years) account for about 40% of the total
projected cost. However, these calculations and concepts
provide decision-makers with information that can help
select specific future projects that most appropriately meet
community needs.
FUNDING
Given the multi-year nature of this active transportation
program, identifying and sustaining funding sources is crit-
ical. Many projects involving on-street routes could be in-
corporated into normal maintenance activities - thus the
marginal cost of activities such as painting and maintain-
ing multi-use shoulders may be significantly lower than the
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
n
n
n
nn
n
n
nn
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
B
B
B
BB
B
B
B
B
B
B
Schu ParkMemorial Park
L. E.Ray Park
EagleScout Park
Pioneer Park
Lions Park
Lincoln Park
GraceAbbottPark
Ashley Park
BroadwellPark
Ryder Park
Wasmer ElementarySchool (Old Site)
Buechler Park
Stolley Park
George Park
Sothman Park
AugustinePark
Pier Park
Howard School
LincolnElementarySchool
JeersonElementarySchool
CentralCatholicHigh SchoolNewellElementarySchool
WalnutMiddleSchool
KnickrehmElementarySchool
Senior HighSchoolWest LawnElementarySchool
ShoemakerElementarySchool
EnglemanElementarySchool
Old EnglemanElementarySchool
Seedling MileElementarySchool
GatesElementarySchool
StarrElementarySchool
Stolley ParkElementary School
CentralCommunityCollege
Trinity LutheranSchool And Church
NorthwestHigh School
DodgeElementarySchool
Barr MiddleSchool
Grand IslandChristian School
WasmerElementarySchool
HeartlandLutheranHigh School
WestridgeMiddleSchool
B
B
B
BB
B
BB
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Figure 7.8: Complete Ultimate Network
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 166 / 180
ROUTES OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
ON-STREET NETWORK Total Basic Phase 1 Basic Phase 2 Ultimate
Oak Bicycle Boulevard $195,000 $195,000
Pine Bicycle Boulevard $617,700 $617,700
Lincoln/Adams Bikeway $364,688 $239,088 $125,600
Grand Island/White Bicycle
Boulevard
$83,400 $83,400
Custer Bikeway $483,166 $483,166
Hancock Bikeway $531,390 $30,000 $276,990 $224,400
Independence Bikeway $552,024 $171,864 $380,160
St Paul/4th Bikeway $323,162 $62,450 $260,712
College/20th Bicycle Boulevard $284,640 $284,640
State/17th Bikeway $211,990 $156,190 $55,800
15th Street Bicycle Boulevard $249,240 $249,240
10th Street Bikeway $194,000 $122,000 $72,000
Faidley/6th Street Bikeway $870,360 $870,360
3rd Street Bikeway $185,800 $185,800
Koenig Bicycle Boulevard $292,000 $292,000
Stolley Park Road Bikeway $322,410 $5,610 $316,800
Stagecoach Bicycle Bouleavrd $198,526 $15,000 $183,526
TOTAL $5,959,496 $3,024,018 $587,040 $2,348,438
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
154
Table 7.9: Opinion of Probable Cost: On-Street Network by Phasecost factors incorporated here. Bicycle
boulevards and routes could be imple-
mented through relatively inexpen-
sive wayfinding or street signs as well.
But some projects involve substantial
capital cost. Highest among these are
those projects that users like best –
those that offer separation from motor
vehicles.
Many cities set aside a certain annual
allocation for alternative transporta-
tion projects and the Grand Island met-
ropolitan area should also consider this
approach. The basic network’s cost of
about $10 million would require about
$750,000 annually over a fifteen year
implementation period. But many fi-
nancing programs exist that can fund
specific projects and greatly acceler-
ate realization of this network. Many of
these programs involve Federal trans-
portation and recreational funding as-
sistance which may be uncertain in the
future. The following discussion iden-
tifies sources available as of adoption.
FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ACT
PROGRAMS
FAST Act
The FAST (Fixing America’s Surface
Transportation) Act became law in
2015 and remains at present the prima-
ry source of transportation assistance.
FAST programs include:
• The Surface Transportation Pro-
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 167 / 180
ROUTES OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
PRIORITY TRAILS Total Basic Phase 1 Basic Phase 2 Ultimate
Shoemaker Extension $198,000 $198,000
Westside Connector $448,800 $448,800
Cedar Hills $997,920 $498,960 $498,960
South Locust Included in Pine
Route
Included in Pine Route
Beltline Extension $498,960 $498,960
Capital Trail $215,424 $215,424
Eagle Scout $297,000 $297,000
Moore Creek $673,200 $673,200
Southwest $914,760 $914,760
FUTURE TRAILS Total Basic Phase 1 Basic Phase 2 Ultimate
Veterans Legacy Trail/Overpass $1,859,040 $1,859,040
Sky Park Trail $689,040 $689,040
Seedling Mile Trail $655,776 $655,776
Wood River Trail $665,280 $665,280
Riverway Trail Extension $1,346,400 $1,346,400
Mormon Island/(S. Locust) Trail $2,699,120 $2,699,120
Stagecoach Connection Trail In Stagecoach Route
Northwest Trail $740,520 $740,520
L.E. Ray Park Connector $174,240 $174,240
Alda/Cornhusker Trail $1,150,000 $1,150,000
Alda/ Husker Highway Trail $1,126,000 $1,126,000
TOTAL $15,349,480 $1,510,344 $2,733,720 $11,105,416
7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING
155
Table 7.10: Opinion of Probable Cost: Trails Network by Phase gram (STP). This is the primary
source of funding urban road con-
struction projects but can also be
used for bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure. STP funds are fre-
quently used for facilities like side-
paths that are developed in combi-
nation with street projects.
• Surface Transportation Block
Grant for transportation alterna-
tives. This program incorporat-
ed the pre-existing Transporta-
tion Enhancement, Safe Routes to
Schools, and National Scenic By-
ways Program. In Nebraska, TAP
funding, administered by the Ne-
braska Department of Transporta-
tion, have been the primary source
of local trails funding in many cit-
ies, and Grand Island has used this
program in the past.
• Highway Safety Improvement Pro-
gram (HSIP). This program funds
projects consistent with the state’s
Strategic Highway Safety Plan.
Within the context of this plan, it
is most useful for helping to fund
specific safety infrastructure im-
provement projects.
TIGER Discretionary Grants
TIGER (Transportation Investment
Generating Economic Recovery) origi-
nated as part of the American Recov-
ery and Reinvestment Act and has fo-
cused on funding for innovative liv-
ability, sustainability, and safety proj-
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 168 / 180
BARRIERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
PROJECT Total Basic Phase 1 Basic Phase 2 Ultimate
Capital-281 $350,000 $350,000
State-281 $350,000 $350,000
Faidley-281 $200,000 $200,000
North Rd/RR $50,000 $50,000
Westside Trail-State $75,000 $75,000
Stuhr-Cedar Hills 281 Underpass Included in trail
St Joe Tr/Stolley Park $150,000 $150,000
Beltline/Blaine $75,000 $75,000
Stuhr Tr/Husker $150,000 $150,000
Capital/Webb $150,000 $150,000
Capital Tr east of Webb $150,000 $150,000
Capital/Broadwell $100,000 $100,000
20-Broadwell $100,000 $100,000
15-Broadwell $100,000 $100,000
10-Broadwell $100,000 $100,000
Koenig-Locust/Walnut $200,000 $200,000
Lincoln-2nd $200,000 $200,000
Beltline/Locust $50,000 $50,000
1st Pine $150,000 $150,000
North Front 281 Overpass $1,500,000 $1,500000
Lincoln RR Overpass $1,500,000 $1,500,000
Stagecoach/Locust $75,000 $75,000
Highway 34/Locust $200,000 $200,000
Total $5,975,000 $1,075,000 $1,400,000 $3,500,000
Table 7.11: Opinion of Probable Cost: Barrier Projects Network by Phase
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
156
ects. Nebraska has not made extensive
use of this program receiving only one
grant for Omaha’s Bus Rapid Transit
line. An innovative project such as the
Custer Bikeway could be a competitive
TIGER project.
National Recreational Trails
Administered by Nebraska Game and
Parks, this venerable program was
originally established in 1991 and pro-
vides funding assistance for recreation-
al projects, such as park trails. This con-
trasts with TAP funds that must be used
for projects with a significant transpor-
tation component.
LOCAL FUNDING SOURCES
Given uncertainties over Federal funds,
local funding emerges as the most re-
liable option for multi-year programs.
Grand Island’s Capital Improvement
Program can provide a local match for
federal funds. The Food and Beverage
Tax is used to help finance trail projects
for the Parks Department. The current
national administration has proposed
a match program that would provide a
limited percent of federal funding (pos-
sibly 20% of project cost) as seed mon-
ey for local or private funds. An annual
allocation could be financed through a
local option sales tax, as permitted by
LB 840, or general obligation bonds.
PRIVATE FINANCING AND PHILAN-
THROPY
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 169 / 180
ROUTES OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Total Basic Phase 1 Basic Phase 2 Ultimate
ON-STREET NETWORK $ 5,959,496 $ 3,024,018 $ 587,040 $ 2,348,438
TRAIL NETWORK $ 15,349,480 $ 1,510,344 $ 2,733,720 $ 11,105,416
BARRIERS $ 5,975,000 $ 1,050,000 $ 1,400,000 $ 3,500,000
TOTAL $27,283,976 $5,609,362 $4,720,760 $16,953,854
7 | ROUTE DETAILS AND SEQUENCING
157
Table 7.12: Opinion of Probable Cost: Recap by Phase
Private organizations and philanthropic giving can be a sig-
nificant source of financing assistance. In some cases, com-
munities have raised money for popular trail segments
through foundations, avoiding the delays and processes that
typically come attached to private grants. An example of
this on a large scale is Omaha’s South Omaha Trail. Health-
related enterprises such as insurance organizations and hos-
pitals have funded active transportation initiatives and are
also involved in the organizational phases of the Grand Is-
land program. Major industries such as JBS may see the di-
rect benefit to them in a project like the Beltline Trail exten-
sion. Other significant trail and active projects have been
funded by community contributors through fund-raising
drives and even naming rights.
Foundations can also be a significant source of local support.
The Nebraska Trails Foundation (NTF) provides funding for
trail projects in both urban and rural settings. The Grand Is-
land Community Foundation both administers funds and
channels resources into specific fields of interest, includ-
ing health, and may be helpful in setting up a specific fund
around active transportation implementation. State and na-
tional foundations with substantial local interest (such as the
Peter Kiewit Foundation and Union Pacific Foundation) also
have funded related improvements in the past.
DEVELOPMENT FINANCING
Active transportation may also be integrated into new de-
velopment and redevelopment projects. The implementa-
tion phase maps and overall network plan identify future
collector street corridors in potential growth areas. Integrat-
ing infrastructure to support active transportation, such as
adequate width for bike lanes or multi-use shoulders, traf-
fic calming features, proposed trail routes, and pedestrian
paths and connectivity is extremely helpful and should be
part of the financing package for the project. The new hos-
pital and mixed use project proposed at US 281 and 34 is in-
corporating part of the trail network into its project design.
In redevelopment areas, tax increment financing can also be
used to finance active transportation facilities that in turn in-
crease project quality.
SIDEWALK FINANCING
Funding for sidewalk improvements or gap filling projects
can be very challenging. The typical method of financing,
sidewalks uses City Assessment Districts, where sidewalk
costs are repaid through special assessments on properties
within the district. Various other mechanisms may be con-
sidered for maintaining sidewalk continuity on the pedes-
trian system. These include:
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 170 / 180
APPROACHES TO
SIDEWALK FINANCE
SOME APPROACHES TO
SIDEWALK FINANCE
Ann Arbor, MI. In November of 2011,
voters approved a 1/8-percent increase
to the Street Reconstruction Millage for
the purpose of repairing sidewalks in the public right-of-way. Prior to the passage
of this millage, property owners
were required to repair or replace
deficient sidewalks that adjoined their
property. Beginning in 2012, the City assumed responsibility for the repair
of the sidewalk system, which will be
performed through this project over the
course of the next five years.
Missoula, MT spreads a large percentage of the cost of installing
sidewalks to the whole community by
using an insurance model. There will be
a premium, deductible, co-pay, out of
pocket maximum, and city payment cap. The program establishes a deductible of
$300. The city co-pays 70 percent while
the property owner pays 30 percent.
The maximum out-of-pocket for the
homeowner is $2,000 and the city caps out at $15,000. The owner would pay any
amount over the city’s cap. The premium is
the increment in general taxes necessary
to finance the program.
Manchester NH provides a 50-50
match to property owners for sidewalk
and/or curb construction. If the construction of a sidewalk necessitates
the construction of a retaining wall,
the homeowner is responsible for the
cost and construction of said wall
before construction on the sidewalk will commence. The retaining wall is to be
constructed such that no part of said
wall is within the city’s right of way.
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
158158
• Two common funding approaches to generating revenue
for financing sidewalk improvements include (1) special
bond issues, (2) dedications of a portion of local sales
taxes.
• Intersection ramps. The City of Grand Island has an annual
program of installing intersection ramps for access by
people with disabilities, funded through the Public Works
Department’s Capital Improvement Program.
• Street Improvement. As major infrastructure projects
are completed in city right-of-way or curb-replacement
projects are completed, intersections should be brought
to current ADA standards. For streets with higher traffic
volumes, new standards should provide for sidewalks
separated from the curb by a tree lawn or parkway strip.
This provides a safer environment, a more attractive
street, and a place to plow snow that does not block
pedestrian access.
• New Subdivisions. Construction of sidewalks should
occur in all new subdivisions on both sides of the street
as part of the city’s subdivision regulations. Grand Island’s
subdivision regulations do require use of pedestrian
ways to provide access through long blocks. Pedestrian
paths that provide the same level of service as traditional
sidewalks should be permitted as a substitute. Pedestrian
facilities should be integrated into the development
financing structure of the project.
MAINTENANCE COSTS
Like any transportation improvement, active transportation
projects need to be maintained through their life cycle and
will have an impact on operating budgets. Paint must re-
main visible to continue to function as planned and capital
improvements like paths and trails require repairs to con-
tinue to serve their users. Maintenance costs may also vary
from year to year, depending on factor such as weather and
level of use. Table 7.13 presents approximate costs for main-
tenance of different types of facilities, based on current ex-
perience. They can be used as a guide for allocation of re-
sources and do not include staff time.
FACILITY TYPE ANNUALIZED COST/MILE TYPICAL MAINTENANCE TASKS
Shared use trail $10,000 Sweeping, trash removal, mowing, weed abatement, snow removal, crack seal,
sign repair
Sidepath $2,500 Sweeping, trash removal, mowing, weed abatement, snow removal, crack seal,
sign repair
Bike lanes, multi-use
shoulders and advisory
bike lanes
$2,500 Repainting, debris removal/sweeping, snow removal, signage replacement
Bicycle boulevard and
shared routes
$1,500 Sign and shared lane marking stencil replacement
Table 7.13: Opinion of Probable Cost: Recap by Phase
Source: Alta Planning + Design
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 171 / 180
159159
5 | CROSSING BARRIERS
8CHAPTER
SUPPORTING PROGRAMS AND POLICIES
WHILE PREVIOUS
CHAPTERS HAVE
FOCUSED ON THE DESIGN
AND CHARACTER OF A
BIKEWAYS NETWORK,
INFRASTRUCTURE ALONE
DOES NOT CREATE AN
EXCELLENT PEDESTRIAN
AND BICYCLE
TRANSPORTATION
PROGRAM. To guide
communities, the League
of American Bicyclists
(LAB), through its Bicycle
Friendly Communities
(BFC) program, establishes
five components of
design that are used to
determine whether a
city should be awarded
BFC status – the 6 E’s of
Engineering, Education,
Encouragement,
Enforcement, Evaluation
and Equity.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 172 / 180
160160
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Walking and bicycling network recommendations advance
a vision for expanding active transportation in Grand Island.
But supportive education and encouragement programs will
help more Grand Island citizens feel comfortable walking and
bicycling. These programs are designed to support people
of all ages and abilities so that walking and bicycling are
normal, safe, and comfortable ways to travel throughout the
region. Recommended policy items build on and diversify
current policies related to expanding walking and bicycling.
Recommended education/encouragement programs and
policies listed in the table below, and described in greater
detail in this chapter, reflect the needs and values of the
community residents who assisted this planning effort. The
table shows which of the “Six E’s” of bicycle and pedestrian
planning are relevant for each recommendation.
The City should coordinate education/encouragement
programming implementation with local partners in
the Grand Island area. The School District and parent
organizations, local bike shops, wellness groups, and others
are crucial for helping develop successful programs.
Implementation of partnerships and support programs
are of course dependent on community support, available
funding and City Council action (as required).
PROGRAM AND POLICY DESCRIPTIONS
Annual Implementation Agenda
In partnership with the GIAMPO’s existing bicycle and
pedestrian advisory committee, other citizen groups,
GIAMPO and NDOT representatives, and other partners,
Grand Island should develop an annual implementation
agenda and budget that identifies specific projects,
programs, and targets for executing the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan. The annual agenda and budget
should be based upon available staff capacity, funding
resources, and similar considerations.
Adoption of Best Practice Design Guides
Design guidelines are critical to the development of a safe,
consistent bicycle network. In order to support local agencies
in developing bicycle facilities based on sound planning and
engineering principles and best practices from around the
country, the National Association of City Transportation
Officials (NACTO) created the Urban Bikeway Design Guide.
From Omaha and Seattle to Washington, D.C., over fifty cities
have adopted the guide to inform city staff and consultants
during project design and development.
PROGRAM/POLICY EDUCATION ENCOURAGEMENT ENFORCEMENT ENGINEERING EVALUATION
AND PLANNING
EQUITY
Annual Implementation Agenda X X X X X X
Adopt Best Practice Bicycle and Pedestrian Design
Guide
X
Zoning Code and Subdivision Regulations Updates X
Citywide Wayfinding Program X X X X
Youth Bicycle Safety Classes X X X
Public Education and Awareness Campaigns X X X X
Bike Light Campaign X X X X
Project Outreach X X X X X
Crash Monitoring and Evaluation X X
Bicycle Master Plan Updates X X X X X X
League Cycling Instructor Training X
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 173 / 180
161161
5 | CROSSING BARRIERS
The guide expands upon basic facility guidance and
standards included in the AASHTO Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition (2012) and
the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Manual
for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). In 2013, the
FHWA signed a memorandum expressing support for the
Urban Bikeway Design Guide as a valuable resource to “help
communities plan and design safe and convenient facilities”
for bicyclists and actively encourages agencies to use the
guide to go beyond minimum requirements and design
facilities that “foster increased use by bicyclists… of all ages
and abilities.”
The FHWA has developed a number of new resources in
recent years to support bikeway planning and development
as well. In 2016, the agency released the Small Town and
Rural Multimodal Networks Guide to support transportation
practitioners by applying national design guidelines to the
unique settings found in small towns and rural communities.
The guide encourages innovation within the bounds of
MUTCD and AASHTO compliance by providing unique
engineering solutions and design treatments that address
small town and rural needs.
Based on their prominence across the country, Grand Island
should adopt by resolution the NACTO Bikeway Design
Guide and the FHWA Small Town and Rural Multimodal
Networks guide as a supplemental resource to implement
the network recommendations included in this plan.
Resources
NACTO Urban Bike Design Guide: http://nacto.org/
publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/
Sample Endorsement Letters:
Omaha, NE: https://nacto.org/wp-content/
uploads/2015/06/Omaha_Urban-Bikeway-Design-Guide-
endorsement-letter_08.04.11.pdf
Minneapolis, MN: http://nacto.org/wp-content/
uploads/2015/06/Minneapolis_Urban-Bikeway-Design-
Guide-endorsement-letter_08.24.11.pdf
Zoning Code and Land Subdivision Regulations Updates
Land use patterns have significant impact on how people
travel in Grand Island and the surrounding region. Bicycling
and walking are disproportionately affected by land use
patterns when compared to other travel modes, as travel
distances, street connectivity, and other environmental
factors can restrict or deter altogether bicycling and walking
activity.
Zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, building codes,
and other policies create the framework for physical
development. They focus on environmental design
considerations, including aesthetics and safety, street
connectivity, development scale and density, building
setbacks, and mixture (or separation) of land uses. As a result,
these regulations can change the way individuals relate
to the people and places around them by affecting travel
distances, streetscape character, presence of sidewalks and
bicycling facilities, and even trees and landscaping.
An expanding body of scientific research points to the
direct link between land use policies like zoning ordinances
and subdivision regulations, and active transportation.
Zoning regulations can impact the percentage of
population making trips on foot or by bicycle instead of car.
Zoning regulations and supportive land use policies and
infrastructure improvements can increase bicycling trips
and the percentage of the population riding bicycles. As the
walking and bicycling network grows in Grand Island, it will
be important to integrate and codify this value to ensure it
is reflected in future developments. Zoning and subdivision
regulations should provide:
• Medium-to-high densities wherever appropriate
• Fine-grained mix of land uses
• Short-to medium-length blocks
• Street-oriented buildings
• Parking requirements that reflect actual demand,
typically reducing the space committed to auto parking
and require bicycle parking
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 174 / 180
162162
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
• Require street design to be connected to create street
network that supports walking, bicycling and transit
• Move toward implementation of the Grand Island Transit
Study recommendation.
• Provide for safe street crossing at locations where
pedestrians need to cross, such as bus stops, schools,
parks, and other major destinations
• Incorporate bicycle facilities into street and building
design to provide for access and parking that is
convenient and accessible.
• Integrate active transportation within the Grand Island
City Code would provide clarification for the rights
and responsibilities of people who travel in the city by
walking, bicycling and driving. The following changes
are recommended to the City Code:
• Rewrite and reinstate City Code Chapter 6. Bicycles.
Rewriting and reinstating Chapter 6. Bicycles to conform
to national best practice would provide guidance
about these roadway users’ roles and responsibilities
within Grand Island. This chapter should also address
standards for including bicycle accommodation as
standard elements in new development or during
reconstruction projects. Furthermore, codifying bicycle
parking requirements and other facilities would support
Grand Island as the local culture of bicycling develops.
• Increase minimum sidewalk widths. (City Code,
Chapter 32) Sidewalks in Grand Island are classified as
‘conventional’ sidewalks or ‘curb’ sidewalks. Minimum
width for both types of sidewalk are four feet wide.
Grand Island should consider increasing minimum
widths from four feet to six feet on collector roadways.
This increase would more comfortably accommodate
all sidewalk users and would allow them to more easily
pass others on the sidewalk. Arterial streets are more
comfortable for pedestrians when they feature wider
sidewalks than streets with lower traffic volumes.
Increasing minimum widths to eight or ten feet would
increase comfort along busy streets. Grass buffers
should be encouraged or required wherever possible to
increase space between people using the sidewalk and
passing motor traffic. This increases user comfort along
the sidewalk.
Resources
Zoning Regulations for Land Use Policy, Roadmaps to
Health, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: http://www.
countyhealthrankings.org/policies/zoning-regulations-
land-use-policy
Bicycle Parking Zoning Modifications, City of Cambridge, MA
http://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/Projects/Planning/
bicycleparkingzoning
Youth Bicycle Safety Classes
Instilling a love for bicycling in children and young adults
can support long-term gains in cultural acceptance of and
support for bicycling activity. While many children learn
bicycling at a young age, it is not a part of physical education
curriculums in most schools in Grand Island and across the
country, partially due to the lack of access to resources.
Some school districts across the country, however, have
begun to incorporate basic bicycling safety and skills into
physical education curriculums with great success. Schools
often partner with local police departments, non-profits,
and certified bicycling instructors to provide bicycles for
students and encourage safe riding practices. A partnership
between the City and Grand Island Public Schools should
explore opportunities to teach basic bicycling skills to
young students. National resources are available to avoid
the School District starting from scratch to develop bicycle
safety related lessons.
Resources
SHAPE America (Society of Health and Physical Educators)
Bicycle Safety Curriculum: http://www.shapeamerica.org/
publications/resources/teachingtools/qualitype/bicycle_
curriculum.cfm
Bike parking as art. Top to bottom: inverted
U’s at the University of Nebraska at Omaha,
enhanced with the school’s mascot; Edsel bike
parking lot; bicycle-shaped parking sculptures.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 175 / 180
163163
5 | CROSSING BARRIERS
League of American Bicyclists Bicycling Skills 123 Youth and
Safe Routes to Schools courses: http://www.bikeleague.
org/content/find-take-class
Safe Routes to School National Partnership Traffic Safety
Training resources: http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/
state/bestpractices/curriculum
Nebraska Department of Transportation Safe Routes to
School resources: http://dot.nebraska.gov/business-center/
lpa/projects/programs/tap/
Public Education and Awareness Campaigns
A broad public outreach and education campaign can help
normalize bicycling as an accepted and welcomed way
for people to travel in Grand Island through compelling
graphics and messages targeted to motorists, pedestrians
and bicyclists. Campaign materials can use customized
messages to provide safety information for each of
these types of roadway users. Common topics for media
campaigns include safety and awareness; sharing the road
and travel etiquette; light and helmet use; and humanization
of bicyclists as fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters. These
campaigns utilize a variety of media to share their messages,
from buses and bus stop shelters to websites, online ads,
and social media outlets.
Grand Island should develop a public education and
awareness campaign to further establish bicycling as a valued
mode of travel for all community residents. Partnerships
with community leaders are crucial to spreading the word
about such campaigns.
Resources
We’re All Drivers, Bike Cleveland (Cleveland, OH): http://
www.bikecleveland.org/our-work/bike-safety-awareness/
Drive with Care, Bike PGH (Pittsburgh, OH): http://www.
bikepgh.org/care/
Every Lane Is a Bike Lane, Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (Los Angeles, CA): http://
thesource.metro.net/2013/04/11/every-lane-is-a-bike-lane/
Every Day Is a Bike Day, Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (Los Angeles, CA): http://
thesource.metro.net/2014/04/30/l-a-metro-launches-
new-bike-ad-campaign-in-time-for-bike-week-l-a-
may-12-18/
A Metre Matters and It’s a Two-Way Street, Cycle Safe
Communities, Amy Gillett Foundation (Australia): http://
cyclesafe.gofundraise.com.au/cms/home
Bike Light Campaign
Bicycling at night without proper front and rear bike lights
increases crash risk, yet many people bicycling in Grand
Island lack the proper lighting to stay safe and visible at
night. In order to increase bicycling safety and overcome
cost barriers that prohibit many individuals from purchasing
bike lights, Grand Island should coordinate with local law
enforcement and community partners to create a bike light
giveaway campaign. Similar programs across the country
combine catchy names like “Get Lit” or “Light Up” to garner
public and media attention. The City should consider
scheduling the program to coincide with back to school
events for elementary, high school, or college students or
the end of daylight savings. The campaign’s giveaway focus
would eliminate the cost of purchasing new lights for people
who may not otherwise purchase them.
Resources
How to Do a Successful Bike Light Giveaway, League of
American Bicyclists: http://www.bikeleague.org/content/
how-do-successful-bike-light-giveaway
Get Lit, Community Cycling Center (Portland, OR): http://
www.communitycyclingcenter.org/get-lit/
Pop-Up Bike Light Giveaway, BikePGH (Pittsburgh, PA):
http://www.bikepgh.org/2013/09/30/pop-up-bike-light-
giveaway/
Encouragement through events large and small.
From top: a community street festival celebrat-
ing bicycling and healthy living (South Omaha,
NE); a group event for the opening of a new bike
lane project in Bellevue, NE; the world’s largest group ride, Bike New York’s Five Boroughs Bike
Ride, with 32,000 participants.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 176 / 180
164164
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Project Outreach
Public meetings held during this planning effort helped
vet network recommendations with members of the
community. It is crucial that as recommended short- and
long-term projects are developed and installed, the City
continue and increase outreach efforts to discuss the
projects with residents along project corridors. Outreach
should be conducted early and often. Outreach materials
should discuss how to interact with new street designs and
should discuss how to safely drive near people bicycling and
walking. Although there is no substitute for door-to-door
outreach and continued conversations with residents, online
videos, temporary signs, updates through social media,
neighborhood meetings, and other outlets, would build
awareness and support for new and improved elements of
the transportation system. Examples of project outreach via
community meetings and online presence are listed in the
following ‘Resources’ section.
Resources
Seattle DOT Bicycle Program Projects (Seattle, WA): http://
www.seattle.gov/transportation/bikeprojects.htm
Cincinnati Bicycle Transportation Plan Current Projects
(Cincinnati, OH): http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/bikes/bike-
projects/
Denver City and County Current Projects (Denver, CO):
https://www.denvergov.org/content/denvergov/en/
bicycling-in-denver/infrastructure.html
Citywide Wayfinding System
While signs and sign clutter should always be minimized,
a carefully designed identification and directional graphics
system can greatly increase users’ comfort and ease of navi-
gating the street system. The graphic system may have in-
dividual features, but should generally follow the guidelines
of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
Types of signs in the system include:
• The D11-1c Bike Route Guide Sign, identifying a street or
trail as a bike route and describing the route’s end point
or a landmark destination along the way. These are
sometimes used in conjunction with arrows (M6-1 through
M6-7) that indicate changes in direction of the route.
These are located periodically along the route to both
reassure cyclists and advise motorists.
• A version of the D1 family of destination signs (D1-1c, D1-2c,
or D1-3c), identifying the direction and distance to specific
destinations. Sometimes these signs include a time to
destination, based on a standard speed, typically 9 miles
per hour). These are typically located at intersections of
routes or at a short directional connection to a nearby
destination.
• On bicycle boulevards, a special street sign can be used
to help provide additional notification to motorists and
wayfinding information to bicyclists.
• Motorist advisory signs. The R4-11 Bicycles May Use Full
Lane is usually the preferred sign on shared routes.
The graphic system should be modular to provide maximum
flexibility and efficiency in fabrication. Signs should also use
reflective material for night visibility. The Clearview font is
recommended as a standard for text.
Installation of a wayfinding system is an inexpensive way to
implement a major part of the bike network ahead of ma-
jor capital expenditures, especially on streets like shared and
marked routes or bicycle boulevards that do not require ex-
tensive infrastructure to be operational.
Crash Monitoring and Evaluation
Crash reports from collisions involving bicyclists can be
an invaluable resource for learning about the behavior or
motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians, as well as roadway
conditions and characteristics that may lead to collisions.
Regular monitoring and evaluation of crash locations can
help to identify high-risk areas and develop solutions to
Biking Rules. Excerpts from a street code to pro-
mote responsible urban cycling, developed by New York City’s Transportation Alternatives ad-
vocacy organization.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 177 / 180
165165
5 | CROSSING BARRIERS
minimize crash risk. Using a five-year sample of crash
data can help identify trends with regard to crash time,
contributing factors, crash type, location, and other key
details. The City should routinely conduct a detailed analysis
of reported bicycle crashes, including a review of individual
crash report narratives, every two years. In addition, an
online tool on the City’s website can allow those biking to
report concerns about specific areas of the city where they
feel unsafe. This approach can help identify a problem
before a crash occurs.
Resources
Denver Bicycle Crash Analysis: Understanding and Reducing
Bicycle & Motor Vehicle Crashes (Denver, CO):
https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/
Portals/705/documents/denver-bicycle-motor-vehicle-
crash-analysis_2016.pdf
University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research
Center Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool
(PBCAT): http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/pbcat_us/
Cambridge Bicycle Crash Fact Sheet (Cambridge,
MA): https://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/
CDD/Transportation/Bike/Bicycle-Safety-Facts_
FINAL_20140609.pdf
Master Plan Updates
Like all plans, this plan will lose its efficacy and relevance as
the bike network grows, physical development occurs, travel
patterns change, and community needs and values evolve.
Grand Island should plan to revisit the plan every five years
for a comprehensive update, at which point implementation
progress can be measured, new goals and targets can be
established, and bike network and support systems can be
evaluated and updated to reflect current conditions and
opportunities.
Sign concepts for Grand Island. Top: Bicycle boulevard street
sign in Topeka, KS. Above: Bismarck, ND trail gateway sign.
Right: D11-1c (above) and D1-3c (below) basic wayfinding
signs
TO College Park
TO Conestoga Mall
Five Points .3
Eagle Scout Park 1
Webb Rd Retail .7
St. Francis Hosp .3
Historic Depot 1
Gr Is High School .7
TO College Park
TO Conestoga Mall
Five Points .3
Eagle Scout Park 1
Webb Rd Retail .7
St. Francis Hosp .3
Historic Depot 1
Gr Is High School .7
TO College Park
TO Conestoga Mall
Five Points .3
Eagle Scout Park 1
Webb Rd Retail .7
St. Francis Hosp .3
Historic Depot 1
Gr Is High School .7
TO College Park
TO Conestoga Mall
Five Points .3
Eagle Scout Park 1
Webb Rd Retail .7
St. Francis Hosp .3
Historic Depot 1
Gr Is High School .7
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 178 / 180
166166
THE GRAND ISLAND METROPOLITAN AREA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Resources
Bicycle Friendly America, League of American Bicy-
clists: Nebraska: http://bikeleague.org/bfa/search/map/
Nebraska?bfaq=Nebraska
LAB, Smart Cycling: http://bikeleague.org/ridesmart
LAB, Become an Instructor: https://www.bikeleague.org/
content/become-instructor
League Cycling Instructor Training
The League of American Bicyclists (LAB) oversees an
educational program called League Cycling Instructor (LCI)
training that teaches participants how to train others to
become more confident when bicycling in traffic. Participants
who successfully complete the training are then certified
to teach the League’s “Safe Cycling” courses to adults and
children. Other cities, such as Wichita, KS, offer LCI training
to interested City staff and community members. No Grand
Island residents are currently certified through LAB, but 21
residents are registered throughout Nebraska (including
one of the writers of this plan). The City should offer at least
one certification class per year to increase the number of
City staff and residents who can teach others about safe
bicycling. LAB offers resources and coordination to help
courses to communities.
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 179 / 180
167167
5 | CROSSING BARRIERS
Grand Island Regular Session - 5/21/2018 Page 180 / 180