II. Bicycle Facilities Plan
Introduction and Purpose
This chapter presents a coordinated plan for the establishment of bicycle facilities in the City of O’Fallon. It builds upon the information and analysis provided in Chapter I. It also takes into consideration the comments heard at the public meeting held on August 4, 2004. The purpose of this plan is to recognize and formalize bicycling as an element of transportation, recreation and fitness in the city.
A. Goals and Objectives
1. Develop Bikeways as an Important Element in the City’s Transportation and Recreation System
a. Establish a Bicycle Facilities Committee (BFC) comprised of representatives from the Departments of Public Works, Parks & Recreation, and Planning, to oversee design, development, engineering and ongoing operation of the bikeway system.
b. The BFC should meet regularly and on an ongoing basis to develop and manage the physical components of the bikeway system.
c. Develop appropriate budget levels and an implementation timetable.
d. Selectively modify existing city streets when financially feasible, to include bicycle accommodations that are appropriate to traffic levels and to the type of traffic.
e. Ensure that new local, collector, and arterial roads are designed to include bicycle facilities that are adequate for projected traffic levels as well as the anticipated type of traffic (automobiles, trucks, and buses).
f. Utilize, to the extent feasible, inactive rail corridors as well as utility and drainage corridors, to develop a trail/greenway system that interconnects neighborhoods with institutional, commercial, and retail areas.
g. Strive to ensure that the network of linear trails and on-street bikeways is sufficient to enable bicycle movement between most residential, institutional, and commercial/retail land uses as directly as possible.
h. Adhere to appropriate federal and state design guidelines and standards for bicycle facilities.
2. Establish Programs to Effectively and Safely Use the Bikeway System
a. Establish a Bicycle Task Force (BTF) made up of representatives from the Police Department, local schools, businesses and the community at large, to oversee development of programs to promote effective usage of the Bikeway System. The Mayor’s Office or a designee should make appointments.
b. The BTF should meet regularly to oversee the implementation of all programmatic aspects of the Bicycle Facilities Plan.
c. Support the Police Department in the enforcement of all applicable state laws regarding bicycle operation and road-sharing, and in the development and enforcement of additional local ordinances as appropriate.
d. Educate cyclists on safe bicycle operation.
e. Educate both bicyclists and motorists on how roads can be safely shared.
f. Encourage bicycle usage for transportation, recreation, and fitness purposes.
B. Bicycle Facility Components
1. Introduction
This section addresses the physical aspects of the O’Fallon Bicycle Facilities Plan. The principle component is the plan on the following page (Illustration 17). Key elements of this plan include:
2. Trails
It is proposed that several additional trails be developed and interconnected – through a system of bicycle routes and bicycle lanes – with the three existing facilities in Hesse Rock Springs, and St. Ellen Mine Parks. These trails will become the backbone of O’Fallon’s new interconnected bikeway system, and would ensure the preservation of alternative transportation, recreation, and environmental habitat corridors as residential development continues. They are described below.
North Extension of Hesse Park Trail. The unused rail corridor north of Kyle Road should be developed into a trail. The new trail is approximately 2.8
miles in length, and would be connected to the existing Hesse Park facility by way of a bicycle route on Illini Avenue. This trail will provide important alternative transportation, recreation, and fitness opportunities for residents in the city’s near-northern subdivisions.
Ogles Creek Trail. The Ogles Creek corridor should be designated as an official Greenway under the Park/Open Space provisions of the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the designation would be to recognize a set of unique conditions that further differentiate this corridor from those typically associated with the city’s Riparian Zones X and Y. (A definition of the proposed greenway zone with approximate limits and permitted uses is provided in the Implementation Strategy section.) The trail would be built within the greenway corridor and would encompass approximately 6.5 miles. It would extend from Milburn School Road on the south to a point near the Old Lebanon-Troy Road on the northeast. The Ogles Creek Trail will provide alternative transportation, recreation, and fitness
opportunities to the northwestern, northern, and northeastern portions of the city where significant residential growth is anticipated to occur.
Engle Creek Trail. A 6.5 mile trail along Engle Creek should be developed from its western terminus at the Hesse Park Trail to Reider Road at the east edge of city’s Facility Planning Area (FPA). The entire Engle corridor should be designated as an official Greenway. The trail will provide important alternative transportation, recreation, and fitness opportunities for the residents on the east side of the city, and to students at the Oak Hill, Moye, and Hinchcliffe Schools.
Rock Springs Branch Trail. The Rock Springs Branch offers another unique trail/greenway opportunity for residents in the southeastern portion of the city. Here, a trail should be developed within an officially -designated greenway corridor from Edgewood Drive on the southwest to its terminus at the Engle Creek trail on the northeast. This facility would be approximately 4.5 miles in length, and would provide critical connections to the Rock Springs Park and its trail system. The Rock Springs Branch corridor should be designated as a greenway. The corridor is also close to O’Fallon Township High School and to the Laverna Evans Elementary School, which will provide important alternative transportation opportunities for students.
Silver Creek Trail. Silver Creek provides the fourth trail/greenway opportunity for O’Fallon. It should also be designated as a greenway. This facility will serve residents on the eastern portion of O’Fallon and could also represent a strong partnering opportunity with the city of Lebanon and Scott Air Force Base. Within the corridor, a trail is feasible from the northern FPA limit to the point south of I-64 and east of Air Force base where the creek corridor exits the FPA. The Silver Creek Greenway would result in a trail corridor of more than 9.5 miles. It would be the longest of the four greenways proposed in this plan. Because of its proximity to the three jurisdictions, it represents an ideal joint development opportunity.
Trail on Proposed Gateway Connector Alignment. IDOT’s proposed new Gateway Connector will result in extensive property acquisition to and the establishment of a major new roadway. It is intended to increase lane capacity to handle projected traffic demand in this growing portion of the region. Although this project is important and necessary, it will also have a major environmental impact on O’Fallon. The incorporation of a Class I Bicycle path within the project right-of-way could help to mitigate this impact and would result in the creation of a 7.5-mile long alternative transportation facility within a rapidly-growing development corridor. It would also establish a major new amenity for this portion of the region.
3. On-Street Bikeways
An extensive on-street system of bikeways should be developed to provide alternative transportation facilities for all areas of the city, as well as interconnections to activity generators and to the trail system described above. For each street segment, one of the bikeway treatment types identified on the following page (Illustration 16) is recommended.
The typology is based on guidance developed by the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) for certain roads under its jurisdiction and described in its Bureau of Design and Environment Manual (BDM). It is also based on information provided by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (PBIC). Selected design sections and plan views from IDOT’s BDE manual which illustrate the typology, along with other design elements, can be found in Appendix C. Selected speed-volume matrices and charts from the PBIC which form the basis of the typology have been included in Appendix D.
Considerable portions of the IDOT and PBIC material reflect guidelines found in the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). They are also supported by bikeway signage standards defined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
All of this source material constitutes a substantial and growing body of data establishing acceptable on-street bikeway design practices.
Illustration 16. On-Street Treatment Typology
Treatment Type |
Applicability |
Design Treatment |
a. Accommodation – Signed Shared Roadway |
For busier roads with physical limitations that do not allow for widening in conformance with an official bicycle facility (such as a signed bike route or bike lane). They are intended for use by experienced bicyclists who are comfortable traveling on roadways. |
Urban Section: Wide outside lanes – 14’ recommended, not including gutter pan. (A 13’ wide outside lane would provide some level of accommodation when the preferred widths are not available.) 15’ is preferred where extra space is required for maneuvering such as on steep grades or at railroad crossings which are not perpendicular to the direction of travel. Widening can often be accomplished through lane re-striping, and by reducing the width of the inside lane or left turn lane. Rural Section: A paved shoulder of any width up to 4’ is better than none at all; however, it cannot be signed as a bicycle facility. A width greater than 4’ is preferred, excluding gutter pans and rumble strips. 5’ is recommended from obstructions such as guard rails, signs, etc. Additional width is also recommended for higher bicycle traffic, motor vehicle speeds above 45 mph, and for higher truck/bus traffic. Warning Signage: “Share the Road with Bicycles” signs every 1/4-mile. |
Illustration 16. On-Street Treatment Typology (cont’d.)
Treatment Type |
Applicability |
Design Treatment |
b. Bicycle Lane |
For busier roads with higher speeds and traffic volumes, including collectors and arterials with an urban or rural section. (Where roads may not be of sufficient width to enable the installation of bicycle lanes, consider reductions in vehicle speeds and/or traffic volumes to accommodate bicycles as per Type a treatment.)
“: Busier road” is defined as either a road with permitted speed s of up to 35 mph and volumes of 10,000 + vehicles per day, or permitted speeds of 40 mph+ and volumes of 1200+ vehicles per day. |
2-lane Rural Section: Min. 5’ + shoulders with 5’ striped bicycle lanes (5’, 12’, 12’, 5’). Widen shoulder on busier roads to provide more separation between motor vehicle lane and bike lane. 4-lane rural section: Min. 8’+ shoulders with 5’ striped bicycle lanes (5’, 3’, 12;, 12’, 12’, 12’, 3’, 5’). Widen shoulder to provide more separation between motor vehicle lane and bike lane. 2-Lane Urban Section: Min. 5’ striped bike lane, excluding gutter pan. With curb parking, add 5’ bike lane between parking and motor vehicle lane. (Min. 13’ between curb and motor vehicle lane, including gutter pan.) 4-lane Urban Section: Min. 5’ striped bike lane, excluding gutter pan. With curb parking, add 5’ for bike lane between parking and motor vehicle lane. (Min. 13’ between curb lane and motor vehicle lane, including gutter pan.) |
c. Bicycle Route (Signed Shared Roadway) |
Bicycle routes should be so-marked if they are continuous and meet standards identified in the AASHTO publication, “Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities,” and if they are at least one mile long. Shorter bike routes may be marked if they connect with other bike routes. |
14’ outside lanes “Bicycle Route” and “Share the Road with Bicycles” Signs |
The full listing of O’Fallon street segments and recommended treatments keyed to the previous typology is provided below (Illustration 17). Also refer to attached map, Illustration 18.
Illustration 17. On-Street Bikeways
Street From To Type Dist. (mi.)
Thouvenot/ Drake Rds |
Ill. Rt. 159 |
Cross Rd. |
c. |
3.4 |
Wherry Rd. |
Ill. Rt. 158 |
Reider Rd. |
b. |
1.5 |
Ashland Ave. |
Old Collinsville |
Central Park |
a. Ashland does not have continuity. It will require a linear connecting trail through St. Ellen Mine Park, and “Share the Road with Bicycles” signs on either Booster Rd. or Friese Ln., to Hartmann and back to Ashland. |
1.6 |
Cambridge Blvd. |
Greenmount Rd. |
Third St. |
a. |
0.6
|
Third St. |
Cambridge Blvd. |
Rock Springs Park trailhead |
c. |
2.0 |
W 5th St/ U.S. 50 |
Old Collinsville Rd. |
Reider Rd. |
a. |
6.9 |
State St./Old Vincennes Tr./ Borcher’s Ln |
U.S. 50 |
Rock Springs Greenway |
c. |
4.4 |
Illustration 17 (cont’d.). On-Street Bikeways
Street From To Type Dist. (mi.)
Central Park/ Green Mount Crossing |
Hartman Ln. |
Greenmount Rd. |
b. |
1.7 |
New Road |
Carr |
Greenmount Rd. |
b. |
.7 |
E. Wesley |
White Oak |
Seven HIlls |
a. |
1.1 |
White Oak |
E Wesley |
Mace’s Grove |
a. |
.1 |
Mace’s Grove |
White Oak |
Engle Creek Greenway Trailhead |
a. |
.1 |
Porter Rd |
Simmons Rd |
Oberneufemann /Schwagel |
c. |
.4 |
Ogle Rd |
Oberneufemann/ Schwagel |
Hinchcliffe School |
c. |
.2 |
Hinchecliffe School road |
Ogle |
Hesse Park Trailhead |
c. |
.4 |
Milburn School |
Ill. Rt. 159 |
Simmons |
b. |
3.3 |
Milburn School/Fairwood Hills Rd |
Simmons |
N. Lincoln/ Engle Creek Greenway trailhead |
c. |
1 |
West Deer Creek |
Fairwood Hills Rd |
Smiley St |
c. |
.7 |
Bethel Mine/Bethel School Rd. |
Ill. Rt. 159 |
Bowler Rd. (extension of Lincoln) |
b. |
4.7 |
Lemen/Lemen Settlement |
Bethel School Rd |
Rail-Trail adj to Wiitte |
a. |
2.0 |
Witte/County LIne |
Witte |
Bowler Rd |
a. |
2.4 |
Haury Rd |
Bowler Rd |
Greenway |
a. |
.8 |
Haury Rd. |
Greenway |
Weil Rd. |
|
.3 |
Weil Rd |
Haury Rd |
Scott-Troy Rd. |
c. |
.9 |
Ill. Rt. 159 |
Milburn School Rd. |
Bethel Mine Rd. |
b. |
1.8 |
Old Collinsville Rd. |
Drake/ Thouvenot Ln |
Bethel School Rd. |
a. |
4.8 |
Illustration 17 (cont’d.). On-Street Bikeways
Street From To Type Dist. (mi.)
Hartmann Ln. |
Thouvenot Ln. |
U.S. 50 |
a. |
1.5 |
N. Greenmount |
Southern edge of FPA |
State St. |
c. |
1.6 |
N. Greenmount |
Thouvenot |
State St. |
a. |
1.5 |
Porter / Vinita Rd |
State St. |
Oberneufemann |
c. |
1.3 |
Oberneufemann |
State St. |
Porter |
a. |
0.6 |
Illini Dr |
Hesse Park Trail |
Kyle Rd. |
c. |
1.0 |
Lincoln Ave |
Thouvenot Ln |
Bethel School Rd. |
c. |
4.0 |
Simmons / Witte |
Porter Rd |
Kyle |
b. |
1.1 |
Simmons/Witte |
Kyle |
Lemen Settlement |
a. |
2.8 |
Clarendon/ Tazwell Dr. |
Fairwood Hills Rd. |
Kyle Rd |
a. |
0.6 |
Vine St |
5th Street |
E. Wesley |
a. |
0.8 |
Smiley St. |
U.S. 50 |
Deer Creek |
a. |
1.9 |
Timber Cr. |
Dartmouth |
U.S. 50 |
c. |
.3 |
Seven Hills Rd. |
U.S. 50 |
Haury/Weil Rd. |
c. |
4.6 |
Reider Rd. |
Wherry Rd |
Hagemann Rd |
b. |
3.1 |
Pierce/ Dartmouth |
Greenmount Rd. |
Timber Creek Lane |
c. |
1.9 |
5th Street |
U.S. 50 |
O’Fallon Comm. Park |
a. |
0.4 |
6th Street |
Smiley St |
O’Fallon Comm. Park |
a. |
0.1 |
Seibert Rd. |
Ill. Rt. 158 |
S. Old State |
a. |
0.5 |
S. Old State |
Seibert Rd |
Wherry Rd |
a. |
0.9 |
Deer Creek Rd. |
Lincoln Ave. |
Seven Hills Rd. |
c. |
1.0 |
Lincoln Farm Rd. |
Kyle Rd. |
Summerlin Ridge |
a. |
0.4 |
Summerlin Ridge Dr |
Simmons Rd |
Lincoln Ave |
a. |
0.7 |
O’Fallon/Troy Rd. |
Lincoln Ave |
Hagemann Rd. |
b. |
2.0 |
Rutherford Ridge |
O’Fallon/Troy |
Ogles Cr. Green. |
a. |
0.9 |
In addition to the bikeway improvements identified above, the city should promote and encourage bicycle accommodation s on connecting state and county-maintained roads. It should also promote cooperation with Collinsville, Lebanon, Mascoutah, and Scott Air Force Base to establish connections to bordering bikeways in those communities. Bikeway connections to St. Clair County Transit and Metrobus lines are also very important in terms of further encouraging bicycle usage and supporting transit-oriented development (TOD).
Purpose and Intended Users. The On-Street Bikeway System consists primarily of accommodations intended to facilitate travel connections for bicyclists, including movement between city parks, downtown commercial establishments, and other activity centers. The primary intended users of this system are experienced and casual adult cyclists, and teenage riders who could most appropriately use an on-street bikeway system. The arterials and collectors within this system are not intended for child riders who, under the supervision of their parents, might most appropriately use other elements of the system including trails, sidewalks (in accordance with AASHTO bikeway guidance), and low volume residential streets.
C. Implementation Strategy
1. Pre-Engineering Opinion of Cost to Develop the O’Fallon Bikeway System
This section provides a preliminary opinion of cost to develop the bicycle facility system identified in the previous section. This is essentially a rough-order-of-magnitude (ROM) estimate that has been developed based on experience with other bikeway projects in the St. Louis Metropolitan region. The level of estimation is considered to be typical for a planning study. At this planning stage, it cannot reflect the more precise estimates that would be developed during the design/engineering phase of work. Moreover, it cannot account for future conditions in the construction market, which would determine actual price outcomes during the bid phase of work.
Plan Element |
Length (Mi.) |
ROM Estimate |
North Extension of Hesse Park Trail |
2.8 |
$770,000 |
Ogles Creek Greenway and Trail |
6.5 |
$1,787,500 |
Engle Creek Greenway and Trail |
6.5 |
$1,787,500 |
Rock Springs Greenway and Trail |
4.5 |
$1,237,500 |
Silver Creek Greenway and Trail |
9.5 |
$2,612,500 |
Trail on Gateway Connector Alignment |
7.5 |
$2,062,500 |
On-Street Bikeway System |
73.5 |
$6,289.680 |
|
|
|
Total Bikeway Mileage & ROM Cost Est. |
110.8 |
$14,484,680 |
2. Funding Sources, Uses, and Project Phasing
The estimated costs to construct O’Fallon’s proposed bikeway system are substantial, yet achievable with an appropriate funding and phasing strategy. The following is a listing of potential funding sources to implement this plan.
TEA-21 Enhancements. The primary funding resource for bikeways has been through the Enhancements provisions of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), administered by the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), and, in this region, the Metro East Transportation Planning Committee and East West Gateway Council of Governments (EWGCOG). If patterned after its predecessor programs, the new Enhancements program could fund up to 70-80% of the costs to build O’Fallon’s system.
A substantial amount of funds is expected to be available over the next few years, if the program is re-authorized. Upon reauthorization, IDOT should begin to solicit applications within 4-6 months, through a series of funding rounds, and would continue to do so until all of the allotted funds have been programmed. The program will be highly competitive, and will prioritize carefully planned projects that emphasize bicycling as a mode of transportation.
The City of O’Fallon can maximize opportunities to obtain the greatest share of these funds by committing to a multi-year application effort, closely coordinated with its fiscal capabilities to provide the local match. An important criterion for successful applications will be the degree to which Class II and III (on-street) bicycle facilities are integrated with Class I (separate) bicycle paths, which will be emphasized. Therefore, the City should carefully coordinate these efforts between the Parks Department and the Street Department, so that funding for both trails, and on-street facilities, is sought in any given round.
Surface Transportation Program Funds. The Surface Transportation Program (STP) can also be used by the city to underwrite bicycle facilities. Although it’s primary purpose is to build roads for motor vehicles, provisions for bicycles can also be funded. Significantly, some work, such as adding paved shoulders, striping or signage to facilitate bicycle movement, can also facilitate motor vehicle movement. In addition, shoulders have been shown to extend the service life of motor vehicle lanes. To the extent that this is financially feasible, the city should consider STP funds as a supplement to Enhancements funds to develop the on-street portion of the plan.
Open Space Land Acquisition and Development Program. The Open Space Land Acquisition and Development Program (OSLAD) is another potential source of funding that can be used to underwrite land acquisition and development of green space. OSLAD funds should be sought to develop portions of this plan.
Illinois Bicycle Path. Like the OSLAD program, this program is administered by the Department of Natural Resources and offers financial assistance up to 50% (up to $200,000) for approved bike path projects.
Metro East Park and Recreation District. The City of O’Fallon has already been successful in tapping this funding resource for local parks. Local trails, especially those that link communities, are good candidates for MEPRD funding.
Local Funds. Looking at this from the perspective of return-on-investment, the city can maximize citizens’ investment of tax dollars by utilizing local revenue as a match to obtain Enhancement, OSLAD, and other funds. At the very least, for every three dollars of local investment from the city, the community would receive seven dollars of additional, external, investment to build the bikeway system. Another important measure of return-on-investment relates to the fact that the city will not only gain major infrastructure improvements to its park system, but some road improvements for the benefit of automobiles would also be obtained. The net return to the O’Fallon taxpayer will be a more efficient parks and roads system.
Finally bond issues should also be considered as a supplement to the city’s funding strategy, to the extent that this is feasible.
Developer Contributions. Contributions from the developer community, as described in Section 3 below, should also comprise a portion of this funding strategy.
All of these resources have been applied to specific facility improvements in the following phasing matrix (Illustration 18).
3. Plan Adoption and Regulatory Actions
The following steps should be taken to implement the O’Fallon Bicycle Facilities Plan:
a. Local adoption by the O’Fallon Parks Board and the City Council. Adoption of the plan as a guide for local policy development will ensure its implementation.
b. Regulatory Actions. A number of regulatory actions should be implemented.
The city’s Parkland Dedication Code will be a key element in the implementation of the trail/greenway portion of O’Fallon’s Bikeway System. Greenways are essentially linear parks, and have long been recognized as an important element in the improvement of property values. They are in fact a type of infrastructure, which directly supports the health, and vitality of people and the residential and commercial environment in which they exist.
There is also considerable documented and anecdotal evidence that trails and greenways are good for the real estate development industry in that they positively affect property values. Examples include the following:
§ Positive economic effects of a greenway corridor arise because of an increase in the value of taxable properties adjacent to the greenway. In an urban setting, this is almost beyond argument since the value of land for office buildings and apartment houses or condominiums will be enhanced to some degree by adjacency to any public amenity of this sort.
§ (Burke Gilman Trail, Seattle, WA.) … today, agents routinely advertise properties as being on or near the trail. According to the report (by the Seattle Engineering Department), ‘property near … the Burke-Gilman Trail is significantly easier to sell and, according to real estate agents, sells for an average of 6 percent more as a result of its proximity to the trail. Property….’
§ ….In suburban areas of Chicago, Tampa, Washington D.C. Seattle, and elsewhere, home-sale advertisements promote the properties’ proximity to trails as a selling point.
§ (Greenways in general) …increased tax revenues are usually generated by an increase in property values on land near the greenway….
§ Downtown Minneapolis Central Riverfront is coming back, and it’s parkland that’s helping to make it happen. The $40 million we’ve spent on parkland acquisition and development in the central river area is leveraging nearly ten times that amount in private expenditures for housing, office space, and commercial development.
§ ‘I strongly believe that the development of Downtown Park (Belleview, Washington) was a catalyst for the residential development around it,’ said Matthew Terry, director of the Bellevue Department of Community Development. Developers confirmed this view. One property owner said that the close proximity of Downtown Park to his parcel was critical to his decision to buy the land. When Kevin Lynch bought his parcel in 1980, he thought he was lucky to be close to a major regional shopping mall. Then when Downtown Park was developed next to his site, ‘that was like winning a lotto ticket,’ said Lynch. ‘It’s a blue-ribbon location to be next to a regional mall and a park.’
§ (Pinellas Trail/Greenway, Pinellas County, Florida) ….In Oldona, adjacent to the trail, an upscale townhome community was developed that uses the word trail in its name…. In addition, although firm figures on the trail’s impact on nearby property values are not yet available, anecdotal evidence points to higher prices, which would yield higher tax receipts for the county. “Both houses and commercial property along the trail are certainly more marketable,’ said Scott Daniels, president of Pinellas Trails, Inc. ‘Real estate ads mention proximity to the trail as one of the selling points.’
It is clear that, if homeowners gain, then so do the industries that develop and market homes. Therefore, it is appropriate for the development community to participate in the creation of this infrastructure in O’Fallon, as it does in other communities.
Street specifications in the city’s Subdivision Code should also be modified to conform to the typology in Illustration 16 above.
4. Encouragement, Education and Enforcement
Bicycling has been one of the most popular forms of recreation in the United States for some time. Well over 35 million American adults ride regularly, and this number has been steadily increasing since 1983. Many of these riders use public streets for recreational, and some utilitarian/commuting activity.
A variety of programs related to the encouragement, education and enforcement of proper bicycling behavior has evolved to facilitate usage of bicycles by adults and children. This section will describe and recommend incentives to increase the safety and enjoyment of bicycle usage in O’Fallon. The recommendations are principally derived from several sources including Michael Replogle and the Bicycle Federation of America It provides a framework within which bicycles can be more easily considered as a mode option when transportation choices are made, and provides ways in which their use can be regulated for public safety and protection.
For each of the following areas, recommendations for O’Fallon are listed first, followed by suggestions for other entities. (Suggested lead and other involved agencies are identified in parentheses.)
Encouragement Activities. Encouragement refers to a variety of strategies to invite the use of bicycles. The following specific recommendations are made for O’Fallon:
a. Technical Advisory Committee. Create a Bicycle Technical Advisory Committee to provide ongoing guidance to the Parks and Street departments concerning implementation, safety, education, and promotion, and encourage involvement of other public, institutional and private parties. Wide representation from government and the private sector should be included
b. Brochure. Develop and distribute a brochure, which includes a map of the bicycle system and park system.
c. Special Events. Sponsor special bicycle events designed to use facilities being developed.
d. Bike Lockers, Racks, and Shower Facilities. Encourage larger employers to provide bike lockers or racks, and to install showers to promote commuting.
Education Activities. This category addresses the need to learn the how-to's of bicycling in order to provide cyclists with skills to use trails and streets. Many bicycle education programs are school based. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) as well as the State of Illinois have developed materials for various school-age groups. Pre-school children are not introduced to the traffic environment unless accompanied by an adult. Traffic safety programs begin at the kindergarten through lower grade school levels; they emphasize simple stop and look techniques at mid block and at corners. Programs for older grade school children introduce them to more complex traffic challenges.
The Bicycle Federation and BikeCentennial jointly developed a curriculum titled, Basics of Bicycling that is geared to the fourth grade. Education programs for older students are less prevalent, probably because busing programs prevent widespread use of bicycles as a primary mode of travel to schools, and because of the logistics involved in arranging after school training programs for these students. Many programs place emphasis on the common types of accidents associated with bicyclists: Rideouts from alleys, driveways and other midblock locations, rideout at controlled intersections, motorist driveout and turn/merge at intersections, motorist overtaking and bicyclist unexpected turns/swerves.
Another source of education material is advocacy groups, such as the League of American Bicyclists, which provides information on availability of new training programs, legislative trends, etc.
a. Incorporate basic education/safety language into brochures and maps.
b. Incorporate bicycle education/safety messages into other literature produced by the park department.
c. Stock and distribute copies of bicyclist safety material.
Enforcement Activities. The following enforcement recommendations are related to safety:
a. Establish basic rules and regulations for trails under O’Fallon’s jurisdiction.
b. Obtain and distribute copies of appropriate bicycle safety information produced by one of the referenced sources.
c. Stock supplies of bicycle safety material, maps, and rules of the road at kiosks or other stations within parks.
d. Establish police, park ranger, or volunteer patrol presence on trails. Issue courtesy slips to trail users who are not aware of rules.
e. Establish police presence on streets. Communicate rights and responsibilities to motorists and bicyclists. Issue courtesy slips to road bicyclists who are not aware of the rules of the road. Issue traffic citations to bicyclists as appropriate
d Coordinate enforcement with education programs. Grade schools are an excellent starting point for these programs. Include elements on bicycle registration and lighting.
e. Change the view of bicycle related law enforcement as a "non-essential" program.
f. Consider a bicycle registration law.
g. Establish a police bicycle patrol. Bike patrols enhance neighborhood police visibility and are also a useful adjunct to the non-bicycle related responsibilities.
4. Monitoring and Evaluation
The implementation of the O’Fallon Bicycle Facilities Plan should be monitored by representatives of the Department of Parks & Recreation and the Department of Public Works, working closely with other departments as necessary, and with the Bicycle Task Force.
The utilization of local and external resources as well as the timetable for completion of development should be central elements of this monitoring process. Monitoring of facilities usage should also occur, preferably on an annual basis. Regular progress reports to the Parks Board and to the City Council should be made, including recommendations as to whether program resources, scoping, or its timetable need to be modified.
| 
