BuffaloGroveBikePlanText042114
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE
BICYCLE PLAN
April 21, 2014
Village of Buffalo Grove, Illinois
50 Raupp Boulevard
Buffalo Grove, IL 60089
Approved by Ordinance No. 2014 - 35
Prepared By: League of Illinois Bicyclists
Table of Contents
1 Introduction/ Executive Summary 1
2 Bikeway Types in the Buffalo Grove Plan 3
Standards and Guidelines 3
Trails 3
Sidepaths 3
On-Road Bikeways 5
Bike Lanes 5
Signed Bike Routes 6
Combined Bike/Parking Lanes 6
Shared Lane Markings 7
Signal Activation by Bikes 8
3 Guidelines for Bikeway Recommendations 9
Guiding Principles and Selecting Bikeway Type 10
Generating Public Support 11
“Collector Options” 11
4 Bikeway Network Recommendations 14
Understanding the Maps 14
Understanding the Project List 20
Access Links to Sidepaths 23
Sidepath Crosswalks 23
Mid-Block Trail Crossings 24
Traffic Signals for Bicycle Actuation Study 25
Bikeway Wayfinding Signage System 25
Trail Usage Signing and Striping 27
Trail Maintenance 27
5 Standards for Road Design and Development 28
6 Other Recommendations 33
Bicycle Parking 33
Education 35
Encouragement 36
Enforcement 37
7 Plan Implementation 38
Bike/Ped Advisory Commission & Coordinator 38
Technical Resources and Training 39
Multi-Year Work Plan 40
Implementation Funding 40
Bicycle Friendly Community Designation 41
Annual Evaluation and Long-term Goal 42
Appendices 43
1 – Map of 2011-2013 Car-Bike Crashes 43
2 – Buffalo Grove Plan Steering Committee 44
and Other Plan Participants
3 – Public Brainstorming Workshop Results 45
4 – Road Segment Data 47 5 – Summary of Major Funding Sources 54
6 – Building Blocks of a BFC 57
1
1 Introduction/Executive Summary
The Village of Buffalo Grove is located approximately 33 miles northwest of downtown
Chicago and 20 miles north of O’Hare International Airport. The Village’s land area is 9.3
square miles, with 21.7 percent of the area in Cook County and 78.3 percent in Lake County.
Neighboring communities include Arlington Heights, Lincolnshire, Long Grove, Riverwoods,
Vernon Hills and Wheeling. The Village’s current population is 41,715 (2012 U.S. Census
Bureau estimate).
Buffalo Grove was incorporated in 1958 and experienced strong growth in population and land
area for several decades. The Village’s Comprehensive Plan projects the Village’s land area
could reach approximately 11.2 square miles with a total population of 48,000.
The Village has excellent transportation access for residents, businesses, employees and visitors.
The Village is served by the Metra North Central rail line connecting to downtown Chicago and
O’Hare airport. Pace bus service provides access to adjacent communities, the Metra Milwaukee
District North rail line and the Skokie Swift CTA Yellow Line. The regional road system
serving the Village includes Aptakisic Road, Buffalo Grove Road, Lake Cook Road, and state
routes 21, 22, 45 and 68, with direct links to Route 53 and Interstate 94.
Biking is a popular activity in communities such as Buffalo Grove. Cycling is a moderate form
of exercise within the physical capabilities of most people. However, it need not be limited to
weekend outings on designated trails. Although bicycling is often thought of as just for
recreation and exercise, nearly half (43%) of all bike trips are destination-based1—and many
more would be if better facilities existed.
Biking can be a great form of transportation, especially for short, local trips. National data
indicate that 27% of all car trips are one mile or shorter; 40% are less than two miles. When
cycling conditions are improved, people are more willing to use bikes instead of cars for these
short trips—which benefits their health, pocketbooks and surrounding air quality.
Besides those who bicycle by choice, there are residents – including children, many teenagers,
and some low-income workers – who depend on cycling as a transportation necessity.
For all these reasons and more, the Village of Buffalo Grove has invested in an extensive
bicycle network. The Village’s bike path system includes over 50 miles of off-road multi-use
paths and sidepaths (widened sidewalks) along most major roads.
The positive community response to Buffalo Grove’s bikeways led to a Village Bicycle
Committee and a desire to achieve “Bicycle Friendly Community” (BFC) designation. The
award, from the national League of American Bicyclists, goes to towns with well-developed and
diverse bikeway networks, education and enforcement programs, and more. In 2011, the
1 2001 National Household Travel Survey
2
Bicycle Committee recommended creation of this comprehensive bicycle plan to prioritize the
steps needed to join eight other Illinois cities with BFC designation.
The Village is committed to improving the bike path and pedestrian system. The current
planning effort will offer guidance in making strategic improvements, including safer street
crossings for bicyclists and pedestrians, completion of the path and sidewalk network,
wayfinding signage at key locations, and links to paths and trails in adjacent communities.
Chapter 2 of the plan explains the types of on-road and off-road bicycle facilities needed for a
denser and more complete bikeway network in Buffalo Grove. The primary target audience for
the additions is the “casual adult” bicyclist, although the needs of advanced cyclists and children
are both addressed. A thorough analysis is used to determine which option is appropriate for
each of the “routes to study” suggested by the public. As described in Chapter 3, criteria
include need, cost, technical factors, and strategies to gain public support while avoiding
common bike plan pitfalls.
Chapter 4 details the specific recommendations for the bikeway network. These include
completion of a few major roads’ sidepaths where gaps exist, expansion of some existing trails
on their own rights-of-way, crossing and crosswalk improvements, trail signing and
maintenance, remedying demand-actuated stoplights not triggered by on-road bicycles – and
posting wayfinding signage for the network. However, the main suggestion is to add on-road
bikeways on most of the Village’s residential collector roads, choosing whichever of a menu of
“collector options” is most suitable for each location. The chapter includes maps and tables for
easier viewing of the recommendations.
Chapter 5 suggests changes to the Village’s road standards and development ordinances to
automatically add bikeways as part of future road projects by Buffalo Grove and county/state
road jurisdictions. A “complete streets” policy is recommended.
Chapter 6 identifies easy-to-use (and free) resources and strategies to supplement infrastructure
investment with bicyclist education, motorist education, enforcement, and encouragement
efforts. In addition, recommendations are offered on retrofitting bicycle parking where needed
and adding bike parking requirements to the Village development ordinance.
Chapter 7 focuses on strategies to ensure the plan is implemented after adoption. Primary
recommendations call for naming of a staff Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator and establishment of
an ongoing Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission. The plan recommends a multi-year
implementation work plan with opportunistic and stand-alone projects in the Village’s Capital
Improvement Program. Costs of various bikeway types are listed, along with funding and grant
suggestions. Buffalo Grove’s present and future chances for Bicycle Friendly Community
designation are assessed. Finally, the plan calls for an annual plan implementation report to
track progress.
3
2 Bikeway Types in the Buffalo Grove Plan
Standards and Guidelines
The 2012 Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities by the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) forms the technical basis for the plan’s
recommendations.
The AASHTO guidelines are generally recognized by the industry – and the court system – as
the standard for bicycle facility design. The Illinois Department of Transportation encourages
communities to consult these guidelines and the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) when developing bicycle plans.
A general overview of bicycle facility options follows; more engineering details are in the
publications.
Trails
Multi-use trails are physically separated from motor
vehicle traffic, except at road crossings. Trails
accommodate a variety of users, including pedestrians,
bicyclists, and others, for both recreation and
transportation purposes. Trails away from roads, on
easements or their own rights-of-way, tend to be more
pleasant and popular. Examples in Buffalo Grove
include the Elliott Hartstein Trail, other trails built and
maintained by the Village and the Buffalo Grove Park
District, and the Des Plaines River Trail.
Sidepaths
Sidepaths are trails running immediately parallel to a roadway, essentially a widened sidewalk.
Buffalo Grove has an extensive network of 8’ concrete sidepaths along most of the major roads
in the village. Compared to trails on their own rights-of-way, a larger fraction of sidepath use is
for transportation purposes.
While the physical separation from traffic provides a sense of security to sidepath users,
intersections present inherent conflicts and visibility problems – especially for sidepath cyclists
riding against the flow of adjacent traffic. In fact, all but two of Buffalo Grove’s 34 car-bike
crashes the past three years occurred at intersections, usually on sidepaths along major roads and
involving child or casual adult bicyclists (see map in Appendix 1). Understanding these
inherent conflicts can help in efforts to improve sidepath safety.
Figure 2.1. Multi-use trail on its own
right-of-way
4
Figure 2.2. Right turns
across sidepaths.
Figures 2.2 and 2.3 illustrate the visibility problems leading to the
intersection conflicts. In Figure 2.2, Car B crosses the sidepath to
turn right onto the parallel street. Rarely do motorists stop at the
stopline – usually stops are in the crosswalk or at the street edge.
Many do not fully stop. Many will look only to their left. Cyclist
2 might be seen. Cyclist 1 is much less likely to be seen.
Car A turns right off the parallel
road then crosses the sidepath.
Again, Cyclist 2 might be seen but
Cyclist 1 is less visible.
Particularly where a large turning
radius permits fast turns, many
motorists do not yield to cyclists
entering or already in the crosswalk.
In Figure 2.3, Car C looks ahead, waiting for a traffic gap to turn
left, then accelerates through the turn while crossing the
crosswalk. Cyclist 4 might be seen. Again, the contra-flow
cyclist (3) is less likely to be seen. If the traffic gap is short,
sudden stops would be difficult.
It should be noted that a contributing factor in at least some of these conflicts is disregard of
pedestrian crosswalk laws and possibly traffic controls by bicyclists. Education and
enforcement of both motorists and bicyclists can help somewhat in controlling sidepath
problems. Chapter 6 provides some recommendations.
In addition, sidepath conflicts can be reduced through engineering by:
Bringing the sidepath closer to the road at intersections, for better visibility during all
turning motions and better stopline adherence for right-turners
Using pedestrian refuge islands to break up major crossings and right-in-right-out
entrances – right-turn corner islands (“porkchops”) are particularly effective
Using higher visibility crosswalks – see the recommendations in Chapter 4
Using experimental signs, such as those used in St. Charles and elsewhere
These treatments are illustrated in Figures 2.4 and 2.5.
Figure 2.3. Left-turn across
sidepath.
Figure 2.4. Left: Bringing sidepath crossings closer to the parallel road. Right: Signage.
5
On-road Bikeways
Expanding Buffalo Grove’s bicycle network beyond its sidepath system requires the
determination of appropriate bikeway choices for residential collector roadway corridors having
lower traffic volumes.
Many believe sidepaths or sidewalks are always safer than on-road bicycling. Surprisingly, this
is not the case where there are many side streets, residential driveways, and commercial
entrances – especially for “contra-flow” cyclists biking against the flow of traffic. The
visibility issues described above are a prime reason. Note that for each motorist turning motion
illustrated in Figures 2.2 and 2.3, an on-road cyclist on the right side of the road is within the
motorist’s viewing area. It is fairly rare for a bicyclists to be struck from behind in towns,
especially during the day or when the bicycle is well lit at night.
The AASHTO guide describes the above and other sidepath issues in discouraging their use in
inappropriate locations. In general, sidepaths may be better choices than on-road bikeways for
faster, busier roads without lots of crossings – as seen frequently in Buffalo Grove. Since that is
not the case for the village’s residential collectors and some other roads, various on-road
bikeway options are considered in this plan.
Bike Lanes
Bike lanes are portions of the roadway designated for bicyclist use. Bike lanes are between five
and six feet wide (including gutter pan) on each side of the road with a stripe, signage, and
pavement markings. Cyclists in each bike
lane travel one-way with the flow of traffic.
Sample results around the country for roads
with bike lanes include:
More predictable movements by both
cars and bikes
Better cyclist adherence to laws about
riding on the right side of the road
Dramatic increases in bike usage with
lower car-bike crash rates
Decreased car-car crashes, too –
possibly from a traffic calming effect Figure 2.6. Bike lanes (other side not shown).
Figure 2.5. Right-turn corner island and
high-visibility continental crosswalks,
southeast corner of Deerfield and Weiland
6
Parking is not permitted in designated bicycle lanes. When a road has bike lanes and adjacent
parking, the bike lanes should be striped between the parking space and the travel lanes.
Regular sweeping is important, as bike lanes tend to collect debris.
Signed Bike Routes
Some roads may be identified by signage as preferred bike routes,
because of particular advantages to using these routes compared to
others. These “signed shared roadways” may be appropriate where
there is not enough room or less of a need for dedicated bike lanes.
A road does not require a specific geometry to be signed as a Bike
Route, providing flexibility. A Bike Route may be a striped or
unstriped street, or a road with paved shoulders.
It is recommended to use the updated signage styles available in the
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Some can
also provide wayfinding assistance at intersections with
supplemental destination plates and arrows placed beneath them.
The 2009 version of the MUTCD manual includes signs that
combine bike route designation with wayfinding information. Some
Illinois towns have put two or three destinations on a single sign,
with mileages. Figure 2.7 illustrates some examples.
Wayfinding signs are useful throughout the bikeways network,
whether along a trail, sidepath, bike lane or route. Consult MUTCD
for spacing and placement specifications.
Further recommendations on a bikeway network wayfinding system
for Buffalo Grove are in Chapter 4.
Combined Bike/Parking Lanes
Some residential collector streets with
wide lane widths permit on-street parking,
but parked cars are sparse – under 5% or
10% occupancy – except perhaps on
special occasions (“party-parking”). While
this may be an opportunity for dedicated
bike lanes, removal of parking on even one
side may be politically infeasible – even
though the wider lanes often encourage
faster traffic speeds through
neighborhoods.
Figure 2.7. Bike Route
wayfinding sign options.
Top: D11-1/D1-1
Middle: D11-1c
Bottom: D1-2b
Figure 2.8. Combined Bike/Parking Lanes.
7
A fallback option is to stripe off 7-8 feet (including gutter pan) for the occasional parked car.
This space, essentially an “urban paved shoulder”, may be used by bikes, too. Sign the road as a
Bike Route, but do not include any designated Bike Lane signage or pavement markings.
Cyclists in this space would pass parked cars just as they do on road shoulders and unstriped
roads. Benefits include:
An increased perception of comfort by the cyclist
Lower likelihood of the occasional parked car being hit by another car
The traffic-calming effect of narrower lanes, i.e., slowing car speeds
Westbound Pauline, west of Weiland, is a current example – minus the Bike Route signage.
“Combined Bike/Parking Lanes” (CBPLs) allow parking, but Bike Lanes do not. Steps should
be taken to avoid confusion. Combined Bike/Parking Lanes should use signage indicating
parking permission information. Bike Lanes should use “no parking” signs (where there is no
adjacent on-road parking).
Shared Lane Markings
Pavement markings inform cyclists of optimum lane positioning.
Also, markings are more effective than signage alone in reminding
drivers of the possibility that they will see a bicyclist in the road.
Bicycle positioning on the roadway is important to avoiding crashes
with cars turning at intersections and doors opening on parked cars.
Figure 2.9 shows a Shared Lane Marking (or “sharrow”), approved
in the MUTCD. Elgin and Northbrook are two of several Illinois
cities using these.
The “SLM” marking is used primarily for
streets with speed limits below 40 mph
having insufficient width (or need) for bike
lanes. On such roads with significantly
occupied on-street parallel parking, the
center of the marking shall be 11 feet (or
more) from the curb; with no occupied
parking, the center of the marking shall be 4
feet (or more) from the curb.
The markings should be placed right after an intersection and spaced at intervals of 250 feet
thereafter. See MUTCD chapter 9 for more installation guidance. The shared lane marking
also can be used to indicate correct straight-ahead bicycle position (middle cyclist in Figure
2.10) at intersections with turn lanes, where bike lanes or combined bike/parking lanes have
been temporarily dropped.
SLMs should be supplemented with wayfinding signage.
Figure 2.9. Shared Lane
Marking (or “Sharrow”). Figure 2.10.
8
Signal Activation by Bicycles
Both bicycles and motorcycles have difficulty
activating demand-actuated traffic signals. Cars
may not be present to trip the signal, or cars may
be stopped too far back of a bike. Pedestrian
push-button actuation, if present, is often
inconveniently located for on-road bikes.
Illinois now has a law by which bicyclists and
motorcyclists may treat stoplights like stop
signs, after two minutes of not being detected.
Engineering solutions are safer and preferred.
For existing intersections, the MUTCD-approved Bicycle Detector Pavement Marking
(MUTCD Fig. 9C-7) in Figure 2.11, together with the R10-22 Bicycle Signal Actuation Sign,
can indicate a detector trigger point for actuating the signal. For standard detectors, the
detector’s perimeter – such as its right edge – is more sensitive to bicycles. Correct tuning of
the detector may be needed, too.
For new intersections, quadrupole loop detectors or new camera detection technology could be
used, as they are more sensitive to bikes and motorcycles.
The detector marking also serves to indicate proper bicycle position at an intersection.
Chapter 4 identifies and prioritizes intersections to study and possibly resolve this issue.
Figure 2.11. Signal activation marking and sign.
9
3 Guidelines For Bikeway Recommendations
Introduction
A bikeways network is comprised of routes that are particularly important because they serve
key destinations and facilitate travel across barriers. Although all village streets, except where
prohibited, will be used by cyclists, a designated bikeways network helps direct them to
particularly favorable routes, especially for mid- and long-distance trips. Developing a plan for a
bikeways network establishes priorities for improvements, such as striping for bike lanes or
combined bike/parking lanes, completing sidepaths and trails, adding wayfinding signs and
improving crossings.
Buffalo Grove’s bikeways network was developed with a variety of inputs:
Public Involvement: On May 2, 2013, a “Public Brainstorming Workshop” was
attended by 25 residents. The purposes of the workshop included: a) gather local
resident knowledge on biking needs; b) prioritize road corridors and other routes to study
for potential improvements; c) build community support for the plan and its
implementation. Each attendee marked individual maps with suggestions. A group
exercise followed in which top priorities from three geographic regions of the Village
were discussed and reported. See Appendix 2 for results.
Consultation with Village Staff Steering Committee: In addition to the workshop,
meetings were held with the Steering Committee of the Buffalo Grove Bicycle Plan,
consisting of Village staff (see Appendix 1). The committee guided the project approach
and recommendations, while providing much valuable input on existing conditions, data
collection, and more.
Review of Northwest Municipal Conference and neighboring towns’ plans:
Incorporated were connections to neighboring communities’ existing and planned
bikeways. Recommendations for bikeways along Dundee Road and Deerfield Parkway
were given extra consideration due to their inclusion in the two regional corridors
through Buffalo Grove in the 2010 Northwest Municipal Conference Bicycle Plan.
Bicycle Level of Service Analysis: The Bicycle Level Of Service2 (BLOS) measure
quantifies the “bike-friendliness” of a roadway, helping to remove a wide range of
subjectivity on this issue. The measure indicates adult bicyclist comfort level for specific
roadway geometries and traffic conditions. Roadways with a better (lower) score are
more attractive – and usually safer – for cyclists. BLOS has been used in IDOT’s bicycle
maps for years, and it was recently added to the Highway Capacity Manual. More
information and an on-line calculator is at http://www.bikelib.org/bike-planning/bicycle-
level-of-service/ BLOS is used in the Buffalo Grove Bicycle Plan to measure existing
2 Landis, Bruce, "Real-Time Human Perceptions: Toward a Bicycle Level of Service," Transportation Research
Record 1578 (Washington DC, Transportation Research Board, 1997).
10
and future conditions, to set standards for the bikeway network, and to justify
recommendations.
Review of standards, guidelines and best practices: The plan draws heavily from
AASHTO, MUTCD, FHWA and other nationally recognized resources for bicycle
facility design. See Bikeways Types discussion in the previous section.
Guiding Principles and Selecting Bikeway Type
The following general guiding principles were used for the plan’s recommended improvements
to Buffalo Grove’s bikeway network.
Plan for a target audience of casual adult cyclists. At the same time, address the needs of
those who are more advanced and those who are less traffic-tolerant, including children.
Strive for a network that is continuous, forming a grid of target spacing of ½ to 1 mile to
facilitate bicycle transportation throughout the Village.
As much as possible, choose direct routes with lower traffic, ample width, stoplights for
crossing busy roads – and at least some level of traffic control priority (minor collectors
or higher classification) so that cyclists do not encounter stop signs at every street.
Look for spot improvements, short links, and other small projects that make an impact.
Be opportunistic, implementing improvements during other projects and development.
An example is restriping during resurfacing. Widening a road to add an on-road
bikeway will be considered as part of a major road reconstruction, but not as a
standalone project.
These guidelines were used for making recommendations for specific route segments:
Consider both on-road and off-road improvements, as described in Chapter 2.
Narrowing lane width below 12’ will be considered if necessary to implement an on-
road bikeway on local roads with lower speed and lower truck traffic.
Where on-road bikeways are recommended, try to achieve a BLOS rating of High C
(marginal), B (ideal), or better for designation in the network. This is an appropriate goal
for accommodating the casual adult bicyclist. Depending on the situation, use Bike Lane
or Bike Route signage, plus wayfinding signage to indicate inclusion in the network.
For the on-road segments designated as being in the network, raise the priority of filling
sidewalk or sidepath gaps on at least one side of the road. This recognizes that children
– and more traffic-intolerant adults – will ride on the sidewalk. However, sidewalks with
width under sidepath standards should not be designated or marked as part of the
bikeway network.
Do not recommend sidepaths where there are too many crossing conflicts (driveways,
entrances, cross streets). Where sidepaths are recommended, use the design techniques
described above to somewhat reduce the risks at intersections.
Where there is sufficient width and need, and speeds are moderate to low, use striping to
improve on-road cyclist comfort level. Depending on available width and parking
11
occupancy, the striping may be in the form of either dedicated bike lanes or combined
bike/parking lanes. Where such roads have insufficient width for striping, shared lane
markings or simply Bike Route wayfinding signs are recommended, depending on
parking occupancy and assuming an on-road comfort level meeting the target BLOS.
Use Shared Lane Marking and bike signal actuation pavement markings to indicate
proper on-road bicycle position, especially where heavy bicycle traffic is expected.
Shared Lane Markings should be used in straight-ahead lanes, at intersections where turn
lanes require the interruption of striped bike lanes or Combined Bike/Parking Lanes.
Generating Public Support
To improve public support for plan implementation, these additional approaches are suggested:
Achieve early, easy successes (“low-hanging fruit”) to gather momentum.
Avoid removing on-road parking if at all possible, especially by businesses.
Where appropriate, use road striping to serve not only bicyclists but adjacent residents,
as well. Cite the traffic calming (slowing) and other benefits of striped, narrower roads.
Do not widen 4’-5’ sidewalks to 8’-10’ sidepath widths where at least some residential
front yards would be impacted.
Do not widen residential roads solely for bikeways.
Work with local businesses and media outlets to help promote the plan and highlight
progress.
“Collector Options”
Buffalo Grove’s current bikeway system consists primarily of off-road sidepaths along busier
and arterial roads, plus several trails on their own rights-of-way.
The Village’s network of residential collector roads – including Bernard, Brandywyn,
Farrington, Checker, Highland Grove, Old Checker, Pauline Raupp/Golfview, Thompson,
Weidner – are excellent candidates to add to the network, for the following reasons:
A denser bikeway network of roughly half-mile spacing is usually considered ideal
These roads provide access to most of the neighborhoods in the community
Collector roads generally have stoplights to help in crossing busier roads
Buffalo Grove’s residential collector roads (sample photo, below) are fairly homogeneous:
35’ total width including 16’ lanes and 18” gutter pans
25 mph speed limits
Daily traffic counts between 2000-4400
On-street parking typically permitted, but very sparsely occupied
Little to no truck traffic
Bicycle Level of Service of low B or very high C.
12
Figure 3.1. Typical residential collector street in Buffalo Grove.
The guidelines above are used to present the Village with options on how best to add these roads
to the bikeway network, on a case-by-case basis.
If no parking was allowed on these streets, then a very feasible bikeway option – also having
passive traffic calming benefits to reduce speeding – would be to stripe 5’ bike lanes on each
side, for the exclusive use of bicycles. Since that is not the case, and since residents generally
desire on-street parking for special occasions and other times, other “Collector Options” must be
considered, on a case-by-case basis.
Three options involving striping are illustrated below. A fourth option maintains the current
lane configuration, with no striping. Note that each of the three striping options involves a
“Combined Bike/Parking Lane” (CBPL) – described in Chapter 2, and like an urban paved
shoulder – on at least one side of the road. CBPLs can only function as a bikeway when parking
occupancy is normally very low, as is the case on Buffalo Grove’s residential collectors except
at some times by schools.
Figure 3.2. Collector Options. Left: Option 1 – CBPL + SLM.
Center: Option 2 – CBPL + shoulder. Right: Option 3 – CBPL both sides
13
Option 1: In this case, parking is allowed on one side but prohibited on the other side, where a
Shared Lane Marking is added 4’ from the curb face. BLOS comfort levels would be an “A” on
the side with the CBPL lane and a mid-“C” (below the plan’s target) on the non-parking side.
Option 2: Lanes are narrowed somewhat, leaving room for a striped, no-parking shoulder on the
other side. Signage should clearly indicate that parking is permitted on the CBPL side, but not
the other. Resulting BLOS ratings: an “A” for the CBPL lane, mid-“B” for the shoulder.
Option 3: Here, two CBPLs are striped, thus maintaining parking on both sides. Bicyclists on
both sides would be comfortable (“A” BLOS). While this option may be the best politically,
one consideration is that the parking and travel lanes both would be near or at minimum widths.
Option 4 (“as-is”): Wayfinding “Bike Route” signage would be added – as it would for any of
the other options. However, with no striping added, bicyclist comfort levels would remain at
low-“B” or high-“C” levels – near or below the minimum target of the plan. Shared Lane
Markings would not work well – on-street parking prevents their placement 4’ from the curb,
but the 11’ with-parking minimum would be unreasonable with such a low parking occupancy.
The Village already has experience with Option 1 on Pauline, east of Weiland. There, striping
was added on the north (westbound) side of the road. However, no parking was removed on the
south (eastbound) side, since no houses fronted the road there. Striping was added primarily as
a traffic calming measure. The Buffalo Grove Police Department reports that this narrowing of
traffic lanes was effective at reducing speeding – consistent with results seen in some other
Chicago area communities. The police report that most of the residential collectors listed above
are problem roads for speeding, and so they would support the striping options.
The plan recommends careful consideration of these options on a case-by-case basis.
14
4 Bikeway Network Recommendations
Introduction
The Buffalo Grove Bicycle Plan proposes an expanded network of bicycle routes to facilitate
travel to all sections of the village and beyond. The proposed network builds on the existing
sidepath and trail system developed over the years by the Village. The recommended projects in
this section will help fill gaps, tackle barriers and improve conditions to complete the network.
Most projects are relatively easy, such as striping residential collector roads throughout town.
See the earlier Bikeways Guidelines section for more information on how routes and projects
were selected.
Understanding the Maps
The plan’s maps provide a snapshot of needs and recommendations.
Figure 4.1) Existing Conditions -- Trails and On-Road Comfort Level: Shows existing
on-road conditions for bicyclists on studied roads, including, but not limited to, all routes
studied for the network. It also provides information on existing trails and sidepaths.
Figure 4.2) Bikeway Recommendations – All, with Priorities: Includes recommended
on- and off-road bike facilities. Superimposed on the recommendation type is the suggested
project priority, from high to low. Low priority indicates projects resulting in only a minor
improvement, or routes resulting in a slightly denser network.
Figure 4.3) Bikeway Recommendations – High and Medium Priorities: A subset of the
map above, without the project priority superimposed.
Figure 4.4) Bikeway Recommendations – High Priority Only: A further subset of the
map above.
Figure 4.5) Future Conditions -- Trails and On-Road Comfort Level: Portrays how the
off-road trail system and on-road bicycle level of service will change, if the recommended
projects are implemented (all priorities).
Consider Raupp as an example in using the maps and the spreadsheet in Appendix 3. The
existing conditions map shows an on-road comfort level ranging from low B, high C, and low B
again, in terms of Bicycle Level of Service. A BLOS of C is considered acceptable for
experienced cyclists, as is B for casual adult cyclists – the minimum target of this plan.
The recommended bikeways maps calls for striped bike lanes from Church to Lake-Cook, with
details described in the spreadsheet. Directly south, where the road is narrower, Bike Route
wayfinding signs are suggested. Further south, Raupp is wide with sparse parking – ideal for
whichever of the “Collector Options” is selected for this case. Each segment is a high priority.
The future conditions map and spreadsheet show that bike lane striping would improve north
Raupp to an A, as would the Collector Option of combined bike/parking lanes, with striping, on
each side. The signed segment between Lake-Cook and St. Mary’s remains a High C.
PrairieMain
Port Clinton
Ha l f D ay
Brandywyn PrairieAptakasic
Old Arl HtsDundee
Lake-Cook
Bernard RauppDeerfield
DeerfieldBuffalo GrovePauline
ArmstrongOld CheckerArlington HtsCheckerF a rrin g to n
Thompson ThompsonLexingtonRaphaelNewtown
Highland Gr.Busch
Barclay
Mil
wauk
eeBuffalo GroveMcHenry
Hasti
ngsC o l u m b u s
BrandywynFremont
Ivy HallDunham FoxHill Marie
ChurchGolfviewWeidner
WeidnerExisting Conditions: Trails and On-Road Comfort Level
Legend
TrailBLOS score
A or High B
Low B
High C
Low C
High D
Low D or E
Figure 4.1 15
PrairieMain
Port Clinton
Ha l f D ay
Brandywyn PrairieAptakasic
Old Arl HtsDundee
Lake-Cook
Bernard RauppDeerfield
DeerfieldBuffalo GrovePauline
ArmstrongOld CheckerArlington HtsCheckerF a rrin g to n
Thompson ThompsonLexingtonRaphaelNewtown
Highland Gr.Busch
Barclay
Mil
wauk
eeBuffalo GroveMcHenry
Hasti
ngsC o l u m b u s
BrandywynFremont
Ivy HallDunham FoxHill Marie
ChurchGolfviewWeidner
WeidnerBikeway Recommendations - All, with Priorities
Legend
Priority
High
Medium
LowRecommendations
Bike Route
Shared Lane Markings
Combined Bike/Park Lanes
Bike Lanes
Collector option TBD
Paved Shoulders
Sidepath/other trail
Widen sidewalk
Figure 4.2 16
PrairieMain
Port Clinton
Ha l f D ay
Brandywyn PrairieAptakasic
Old Arl HtsDundee
Lake-Cook
Bernard RauppDeerfield
DeerfieldBuffalo GrovePauline
ArmstrongOld CheckerArlington HtsCheckerF a rrin g to n
Thompson ThompsonLexingtonRaphaelNewtown
Highland Gr.Busch
Barclay
Mil
wauk
eeBuffalo GroveMcHenry
Hasti
ngsC o l u m b u s
BrandywynFremont
Ivy HallDunham FoxHill Marie
ChurchGolfviewWeidner
WeidnerLegend
Bike Route
Shared Lane Markings
Combined Bike/Park Lanes
Bike Lanes
Collector option TBD
Paved Shoulders
Sidepath
Other trail
Widen sidewalk
Bikeway Recommendations - High and Medium Priorities
Figure 4.3 17
PrairieMain
Port Clinton
Ha l f D ay
Brandywyn PrairieAptakasic
Old Arl HtsDundee
Lake-Cook
Bernard RauppDeerfield
DeerfieldBuffalo GrovePauline
ArmstrongOld CheckerArlington HtsCheckerF a rrin g to n
Thompson ThompsonLexingtonRaphaelNewtown
Highland Gr.Busch
Barclay
Mil
wauk
eeBuffalo GroveMcHenry
Hasti
ngsC o l u m b u s
BrandywynFremont
Ivy HallDunham FoxHill Marie
ChurchGolfviewWeidner
WeidnerLegend
Bike Route
Shared Lane Markings
Combined Bike/Park Lanes
Bike Lanes
Collector option TBD
Paved Shoulders
Sidepath
Other trail
Widen sidewalk
Bikeway Recommendations - High Priority Only
Figure 4.4 18
PrairieMain
Port Clinton
Ha l f D ay
Brandywyn PrairieAptakasic
Old Arl HtsDundee
Lake-Cook
Bernard RauppDeerfield
DeerfieldBuffalo GrovePauline
ArmstrongOld CheckerArlington HtsCheckerF a rrin g to n
Thompson ThompsonLexingtonRaphaelNewtown
Highland Gr.Busch
Barclay
Mil
wauk
eeBuffalo GroveMcHenry
Hasti
ngsC o l u m b u s
BrandywynFremont
Ivy HallDunham FoxHill Marie
ChurchGolfviewWeidner
WeidnerFuture Conditions: Trails and On-Road Comfort Level
Legend
TrailFuture BLOS
A or High B
Low B
High C
Low C
High D
Low D or E
Figure 4.5 19
20
Understanding the Project List
Extensive data collection on existing bicycling conditions informed the development of this
plan. Most of this information, such as roadway geometry, traffic conditions, Bicycle Level of
Service scores, sidewalk coverage, recommendation details and implementation notes, is housed
in a spreadsheet that helps generate the maps. See Appendix 3 for the entire dataset by road
segment. The table that follows summarizes recommended projects by road name. Listed at the
end are low priority routes less important to the network. Asterisks (*) indicate: 1) projects
outside the Village; or 2) projects in which the Village is not the lead implementation agency.
Table 4.1. Recommended Projects - High and Medium Priorities
Segment From
(W/N) To (E/S) On Road
Recommendation Off Road Recommendation Priority Lead
Agency
Aptakisic Trail W of
Brandywyn
Buffalo
Grove Paved shoulders Medium LCDOT
Aptakisic ComEd
Trail Prairie Sidepath (south side) High LCDOT
Aptakisic E of
Weiland
W of
Roadway Sidepath (south side) High LCDOT
Aptakisic Bond Industrial Sidepath (south side) High LCDOT
Arlington
Hts. Thompson IL-83
Bike Route wayfinding
signage. Shared Lane
Markings (4-lane segment
only)
High VBG
Barclay Aptakasic Corporate
Grove Bike Lanes Medium VBG
Barclay Corporate
Grove Deerfield Bike Lanes Complete east sidewalk Medium VBG
Bernard Arlington
Hts. Raupp Collector bikeway options High VBG
Bernard Raupp Buffalo
Grove Collector bikeway options Medium VBG
Brandywyn Prairie Deerfield Collector bikeway options Medium VBG
Brandywyn at Buffalo Grove Rapid Rectangular Flashing
Beacon crossing Medium LCDOT
Buffalo
Grove
between railroad and Port
Clinton Better crossing between south,
north sidepath High LCDOT
Buffalo
Grove Brandywyn Aptakisic Sidepath (east side) High LCDOT
Buffalo
Grove
500' S of
Lake-Cook
350' S of
Bernard Sidepath (east side) Medium CCDOTH
Busch Corporate
Grove Milwaukee Sidepath (south side) High VBG
Checker Arlington
Hts. IL-83 Collector bikeway options High VBG
Columbus Chevy
Chase Milwaukee Bike Route wayfinding
signage High VBG
Deerfield IL-83 Brandywyn Widen north sidewalk Medium LCDOT
Farrington Checker Crown Point Collector bikeway options High VBG
21
Segment From
(W/N) To (E/S) On Road
Recommendation Off Road Recommendation Priority
Golfview Raupp Dundee Collector bikeway options High VBG
Golfview Dundee S-end Bike Route wayfinding
signage High VBG
trail link Golfview’s
south end Dun-Lo/Betty Trail link High Wheeling
Twsp.
Highland
Grove Thompson Pauline Collector bikeway options High VBG
IL 53 Old
McHenry McHenry Sidepath (south side) Medium IDOT
IL-83 IL-53 Bristol's
bend Sidepath (south side) Medium IDOT
Lexington Pauline S of Pauline Open access to bicycles, repave
and sign as Bike Route Medium VBG
Lexington S of
Pauline Lake Cook Bike Lanes Medium VBG
Main Park Metra lot Shared Lane Markings Sidewalk (west side, if feasible) Medium VBG
Milwaukee Aptakasic Deerfield Complete, widen west sidewalk Medium IDOT
Old Checker Checker Buffalo
Grove Collector bikeway options High VBG
Pauline Town Place IL-83 Shared Lane Markings Medium VBG
Pauline IL-83 Highland
Grove Shared Lane Markings High VBG
Pauline (E-
bd)
Highland
Grove Weiland Shared Lane Markings High VBG
Pauline (W-
bd)
Highland
Grove Weiland Combined Bike/Parking
Lane High VBG
Pauline Weiland Raphael Collector bikeway options High VBG
Pauline Raphael Carman Bike Route wayfinding
signage Medium VBG
Prairie curve Half Day Sidepath (west side) Medium VBG
Prairie Half Day Olive Hill Paved shoulders Medium LCDOT
Prairie at Brandywyn Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon crossing Medium LCDOT
Prairie
(new) Olive Hill Aptakisic Paved shoulders Sidepath (west side) High LCDOT
Hartstein
Trail
extension
Alcott
Comm.
Center
Emmerich
Pk W (by
Raupp)
Trail Medium VBG
Raupp Church Lake Cook Bike Lanes High VBG
Raupp Lake Cook St. Mary's Bike Route wayfinding
signage High VBG
Raupp St. Mary's Golfview Collector options High VBG
Thompson Arlington
Hts. Weiland Collector options High VBG
Weidner
West edge,
BG golf
course
Lake Cook Bike Lanes Medium VBG
Weidner Lake Cook Dundee Collector options Medium VBG
Weiland Aptakasic Pauline Paved shoulders (Maintain sidepath - west side) Medium LCDOT
Weiland Pauline Woodstone Paved shoulders Sidepath (west side) High LCDOT
Weiland Woodstone Lake Cook Paved shoulders (Maintain sidepath - west side) Medium LCDOT
Weiland
at Newtown and by
Schwaben Center/Grove
Banquets
Rapid Rectangular Flashing
Beacon crossing Medium LCDOT
22
Table 4.2. Recommended Projects - Low Priority
Segment From
(W/N) To (E/S) On Road
Recommendation Off Road Recommendation Priority Lead
Agency
Arlington
Hts At Heritage Link, road Xing to east sidepath Low LCDOT
Arlington
Hts. at Happfield Link, road Xing to east sidepath Low CCDOTH
Armstrong Weiland Lexington Combined Bike/Parking
Lanes Low VBG
Armstrong Lexington Hastings Bike Lanes Low VBG
Buffalo Grove
at Dunstan, Sandalwood,
Birchwood, LaSalle, Larraway, Common Way,
and Manor
Link, road Xing to east sidepath Low LCDOT
Buffalo
Grove Lake Cook 500' S of
Lake-Cook Widen sidewalk (east side) Low VBG &
Wheeling
Buffalo
Grove
350' S of
Bernard
900' N of
Dundee Widen sidewalk (east side) Low Wheeling
Busch Deerfield Corporate
Grove Widen sidewalk (south side) Low VBG
Carlton-
Aspen-Ivy
Hall-Indian
Spring-
Dunham
Arlington Heights Brandywyn Bike Route wayfinding signage Low VBG
Deerfield at Larraway and Old Barn Link, road Xing to south sidepath Low LCDOT
Dundee Buffalo Grove HS
stoplight
Old Arlington
Heights Widen sidewalk (south side) Low IDOT
Half Day at Easton Link, road Xing to south sidepath Low IDOT
Half Day Prairie high school Widen sidewalk (north side) Low IDOT
IL-83 at Ranchview and Devlin Link, road Xing to south sidepath Low IDOT
Lake Cook Raupp Buffalo
Grove Widen sidewalk (north side) Low
Main Metra lot Half Day Shared Lane Markings Low VBG
N Fremont
Way IL-53 Fremont
circle Sidepath (west side) Low VBG
Newtown Highland Grove Weiland Collector options Low VBG
Newtown-
Horatio-
Marie
Weiland Raphael Bike Route wayfinding
signage Low VBG
Northgate Johnson
and trail Lake Cook Bike lane (N-bd), Shared
Lane Marking (S-bd) Low VBG
Old
Arlington
Heights
Dundee Miller Widen sidewalk (east side) Low IDOT
Prairie at Brockman Link, road Xing to south sidepath Low VBG
Raphael trail near
Metra Pauline Bike Route wayfinding
signage Low VBG &
Vernon
Twp
private road
north of
Lake-Cook
Arlington
Heights Weidner Bike lanes Low Property
owner
ComEd trail Aptakasic Thompson Trail Low VBG
DesPlaines
River Trail
link
Riverwalk Des Plaines
River Trail Trail link Low LCFPD
23
Access Links to Sidepaths
In several places in the Village, access is lacking to a sidepath on the far side of a 3-way
intersection. Where a near-side continuous sidewalk (with low pedestrian use) exists both north
and south to the next 4-way intersection or other sidepath access, this is a relatively minor issue.
Fifteen such locations are listed in the
“Recommended Projects – Low Priority” table
above.
Where there is no near-side sidewalk, or it is not
continuous to the next crossing, adding access
increases in priority. Such is the case between the
south and north sidepaths along Buffalo Grove
Road between the railroad and Port Clinton.
Access can be provided with a curb cut and short
trail link. An engineering study would be needed in
each case to determine whether a (high-visibility)
crosswalk, signage, and possibly further crossing
treatments are appropriate.
Sidepath Crosswalks
Buffalo Grove’s system of sidepaths along busier roads is
where most of the Village’s car-bike crashes occur. The
engineering treatments described in Chapter 2 can help in
somewhat alleviating the inherent sidepath conflicts leading
to crashes. So, too, can crosswalks – especially high-
visibility styles such as the continental crosswalk.
Crosswalk striping along the Village’s sidepaths now range
from continental, to standard, to none. In general, county-
maintained roads have more and higher-visibility striping
than state roads. Minor and, especially, major cross roads
had better striping than commercial and other entrances.
The plan recommends consistent use of continental crosswalks, with higher priority given to:
Sidepaths prioritized over sidewalks, due to higher bicycle use
Those sidepath locations with a history of car-bike crashes
Sidepaths along Deerfield and Dundee – regional corridors in the Northwest Municipal
Conference Bike Plan
Locations – including commercial entrances – with higher turning and cross traffic
Other locations suggested by the proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission
Figure 4.6. No access to sidepath [Google]
Figure 4.7. Crosswalk styles. Clockwise,
from top: transverse (standard),
diagonal (“zebra”), and continental
24
Mid-Block Trail Crossings
There are several locations in Buffalo Grove in which a trail (on its own right-of-way) intersects
a road. The recommended design features will vary depending primarily on the width and
traffic level of the road being crossed.
For trail crossings of residential collector streets and even quieter roads, the plan suggests
crosswalks with the MUTCD’s W11-15 Bicycle/Pedestrian warning and W16-7P arrow signs –
both in fluorescent yellow-green background color. Higher-visibility continental crosswalks
should be used, especially for the collector streets. The Village already is using this treatment
for many, but not all, such crossings.
For busier roads, a menu of more effective options exists for various situations:
Crosswalks on raised speed tables, for lower volume and speed roads
Curb extensions, for lower speed roads with significant on-street parallel parking
Median refuge islands, which lower the crash rate by 40%
Advance stoplines, to reduce multiple-threat crashes at multilane
roads
(Where warrants are met) Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (aka “HAWK”)
traffic signals, activated by pedestrians and bicyclists
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) signs, activated by
pedestrians and cyclists, with vehicular stopping rates approaching
that of HAWK signals – at lower cost
Trail grade separations (tunnels or bridges, e.g. under Arlington
Heights Road, south of Old Checker; over IL 83, east of Farrington),
ideal for the busiest roads and trails, but very costly and not feasible
at many locations
The Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon is recommended for Buffalo Grove Road at
Brandywyn, Prairie at Brandywyn, and Weiland at Newtown and north of Woodstone at
Schawben Center/Grove Banquets. The Weiland and Prairie RRFBs are already being planned.
Figure 4.9. Left – median refuge island (courtesy PBIC). Right – Rapid Rectangular
Flashing Beacon (courtesy FHWA).
Figure 4.8.
W11-15 and
W16-7p signs.
25
Traffic Signals for Bicycle Actuation Study
An advantage of using residential collector streets in a bikeway network is that these roads often
have traffic signals to aid in crossing busier, arterial roads. There is a strong possibility that
these stoplights are demand-actuated for those traveling on the collectors. Bicycles must be able
to actuate the traffic signals’ detectors – otherwise the routes become less useful to the network.
It is recommended that the signals below be tested for bicycle actuation. This could be a task of
the proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission, with staff from the Village and/or
county or state agency of jurisdiction then checking those signals found to be unresponsive.
Chapter 2 lists some possible remedies.
The assigned priority below corresponds to the implementation priority for that bikeway
network segment. Stoplight agency of jurisdiction is in parentheses:
High Priority:
Bernard @ Arlington Heights (CCHD)
Checker @ IL83 (IDOT)
Golfview @ Dundee (IDOT)
Highland Grove @ Deerfield (LCDOT)
Old Checker @ Buffalo Grove (LCDOT)
Pauline @ Weiland (LCDOT) and IL83 (IDOT)
Raupp @ Lake-Cook (IDOT)
Thompson @ Buffalo Grove (LCDOT) and Weiland (new signal planned)
Medium Priority:
Brandywyn @ Aptakasic (LCDOT)
Lexington @ Lake-Cook (IDOT)
Weidner @ Lake-Cook (IDOT) and Dundee (IDOT)
Bikeway Wayfinding Signage System
The Northwest Municipal Conference (NWMC) North and Northwest Cook County Bicycle
Signage Plan details signage for its system of regional bikeway corridors. According to that
plan, signage can serve both wayfinding and safety purposes including:
Helping to familiarize users with the bikeway system
Helping users identify the best routes to significant destinations
Helping to overcome a “barrier to entry” for people who do not bicycle much, but who
want to get started
Alerting motorists to expect bicyclists on the route
Figure 3.13. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon. (FHWA)
26
It is recommended that Buffalo Grove follow the conventions of the NWMC signage plan in its
own wayfinding signage system for the local on-road and off-road bikeway network. The
NWMC plan uses national/state
standards, plus other best practices, to
specify sign type (such as Figure 2.7 in
this plan); destination guidance; sign
layout, design, and appropriate
locations.
In general, signs should be placed
where a route turns at an intersection,
crosses another route, and crosses major
intersections. Confirmation signs
should be placed periodically, too.
The NWMC signage plan focuses on
regional bikeway corridors, mileages,
and destinations. It includes signs with
unique logos for NWMC regional
bikeways. While Buffalo Grove should
use the same hierarchy system, its
primary, secondary, and tertiary
destinations will be more local in
nature. For example, a destination on
an on-road bikeway’s sign may be the
major road – and its sidepath – at the
end of that road segment. The proposed
Buffalo Grove Bicycle and Pedestrian
Advisory Commission could assist in
determining appropriate destinations.
Ideally, wayfinding signage would be installed for the entire Buffalo Grove bikeway network,
during the same time period. However, if priorities must be set, or if phasing will be done, then
a suggested order or prioritization is as follows:
1. Trails on their own rights-of way, especially trails with confusing decision points
2. On-road bikeway sections implemented by that time
3. Sidepaths along major roads
Finally, Des Plaines provides an interesting example to
consider: proposed 7.5” X 4” stickers on the backs of their
bikeway wayfinding signs. The city’s bicycle webpage and
corresponding QR code are listed. The webpage has
background information – and bikeway maps.
Figure 4.10. Example of bikeway wayfinding signage.
Figure 4.11
27
Trail Usage Signage and Striping
In 1999, the State’s Interagency Bikeways Council Working Group adopted the following
recommended trail signage text, to encourage better sharing of multi-use trails:
All users keep right
Pass on the left
Announce intentions to pass
Move off trail when stopped.
It is recommended that this standard be used on signs to be installed at a few key trail locations,
particularly along trails on their own rights-of-way.
Centerline striping can further enhance sharing of the trail. The AASHTO bike guide says:
“A 4 to 6 in. wide, yellow centerline stripe may be used to separate opposite directions
of travel where passing is inadvisable. The stripe should be dotted where there is
adequate passing sight distance, and solid in locations where passing by path users
should be discouraged”,
such as:
For pathways with heavy user volumes
On curves with restricted sight distance, or design speeds less than 14 mph
On unlit paths where night-time riding is not prohibited.
Also,
“A solid yellow centerline stripe may be used on the approach to intersections to
discourage passing on the approach and departure of an intersection. If used, the
centerline should be striped solid up to the stopping sight distance from edge of
sidewalk…. A consistent approach to intersection striping can help to raise awareness
of intersections.”
Trail Maintenance
Buffalo Grove’s extensive trail and sidepath network needs ongoing maintenance of its surface
condition. A portion of the Village’s 2014-2018 Capital Improvement Program $325,000/year
“Annual Sidewalk/Bike Path Maintenance” line item is used for this purpose.
In January 2011, Buffalo Grove’s Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Ad Hoc Sub-Committee highlighted
the need for more routine vegetation maintenance of the Village’s off-road bikeway system.
While much has been done on this issue, such maintenance is an ongoing need. It is
recommended that the proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission be tasked with
periodically reviewing conditions and prioritizing maintenance recommendations. In addition
the Village’s website should provide an input form for other residents to submit maintenance
requests.
28
5 Standards for Road Design and Development
Introduction
Complete Streets refers to road designs that
accommodate the safety needs of all the people
who travel along and across them—whether they
are in a car, on a bike, on foot, in a wheelchair, or
pushing a stroller.
In recent years, agencies from all levels of
government have developed policy and planning
tools to ensure that road project designs
accommodate those who walk or bike by choice or
necessity. In 2010, IDOT adopted design policy
changes to implement a new Complete Streets law
for their roads. That same year, the US
Department of Transportation also voiced support
for Complete Streets with a new bicycle and
pedestrian accommodation policy statement:
“Every transportation agency, including DOT, has the responsibility to improve
conditions and opportunities for walking and bicycling and to integrate walking and
bicycling into their transportation systems. Because of the numerous individual and
community benefits that walking and bicycling provide — including health, safety,
environmental, transportation, and quality of life — transportation agencies are
encouraged to go beyond minimum standards to provide safe and convenient facilities
for these modes.”
By developing this Bicycle Plan, the Village of Buffalo Grove has established priorities for road
corridors that need improvement. However, to ensure that all road projects—whether or not they
are addressed specifically in this plan—consider the needs of all potential travelers, the plan
recommends adopting “Complete Streets” policies and favorable road design standards.
Plan Recommendations
Village-Maintained Roads: Pass a Complete Streets Policy to help guide transportation and
development projects in Buffalo Grove. Suggested language:
The Village of Buffalo Grove establishes a “policy statement” to ensure that all streets
shall be designed, built, maintained and operated to enable safe and convenient access
for all users, to the extent practical. Pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists of all ages and
abilities, including people who require mobility aids, must be able to safely move along
and across Buffalo Grove’s streets.
Figure 5.1. Filling in sidewalk gaps and
improving intersections helps complete a street.
29
In addition to passing an overall Complete Streets resolution setting Village philosophy, modify
the Village’s road design standards to implement the policy on a practical level. As a major part
of that, the tables below may be used to specify appropriate bikeway accommodation and
conditions for sidewalk construction.
Table 5.1. Suggested Bicycle Accommodation in Road Designs
Minor urban 25-30 mph roads
No parking Sparse (<10%) parking Heavy (>25%) parking
Local Residential None None None
(Preferred route) SLM-4 CBPL SLM-11
Minor Collector None None None
(Preferred route) SLM-4 (or BL-5*) CBPL SLM-11 (or BL-5*)
Arterial or Major Collector (Urban unless noted)
2000-8000 ADT 8000-15000 ADT Over 15000 ADT
<35 mph BL-5 BL-5 (or BL-6*) BL-6 (or SP) Note A
35-40 mph BL-5 or SP [Note A] SP (or BL-6) Note A SP (or BL-6) Note A
>40 mph SP SP SP
55 mph rural SH-4 (or SH-6*) SH-6 (or SH-8*) SH-8
- (Parentheses) indicate the secondary recommendation, if certain conditions are met.
- An asterisk* indicates the secondary recommendation may be used at the higher ends of a
range and/or where the need is greater.
SLM-4: Shared Lane Markings 4' from curb faces. MUTCD D1 or D11 wayfinding signage
preferred as a supplement.
SLM-11: Shared Lane Markings 11' from curb faces (on-street parking present). D1 or D11
wayfinding signage preferred as a supplement.
CBPL: Combined Bike/Parking Lanes, solid stripes 7'-8’ from curb faces. Parking permission
indicated with signage. D1 or D11 wayfinding signage preferred as a supplement.
BL-5 or BL-6: Bike Lanes of width 5 or 6 ft, respectively, with pavement stencils and signage
per AASHTO. Where there is no parallel on-road parking next to the bike lane, indicate
through signage that parking is not permitted in the bike lane.
SP: Off-road sidepath trail designed per AASHTO, on at least one side of road.
SH-4, SH-6, or SH-8: Paved shoulders of width 4, 6, or 8 ft, respectively. Any rumble strips
should have longitudinal breaks and a minimum 4 ft clear zone for bikes.
Note A: As the frequency of crossings (side streets, commercial entrances, driveways) increase,
the choice of bike lanes or sidepath moves closer to bike lanes.
30
Table 5.2. Federal Highway Administration’s Guidelines for New Sidewalk Installation
Note: d.u. stands for dwelling unit
Development Ordinances: Create development guidelines to help new developments
contribute to Buffalo Grove’s efforts to become more pedestrian and bicycle friendly. Suggested
content:
Developments shall contribute to the Village of Buffalo Grove’s efforts to become more
pedestrian and bicycle friendly. This includes:
Considering bicycle and pedestrian traffic and facilities during the traffic impact
analysis process.
Installing bikeways as part of any required roadway improvements, per the table above,
and consulting Buffalo Grove’s Bicycle Plan for specifically-defined bikeway
improvements.
Installing sidewalks (with a minimum preferred width of 5 ft.) according to FHWA New
Sidewalk installation guidelines, above.
Considering pedestrian and bicycle access within the development as well as
connections to adjacent properties.
Considering connectivity between developments for pedestrians and bicyclists to
minimize short-distance trips by motor vehicles. These can be provided as “cut through”
easements in suburban cul-de-sac developments, and as part of connected street grids in
traditional neighborhood development.
Building out pedestrian and bicycle facilities concurrent with road construction, or in an
otherwise timely manner, to prevent gaps due to undeveloped parcels.
Roadway Classification and
Land Use Sidewalk Requirements Future Phasing
Highway (rural) Min. of 1.525 m (60 in) shoulders
required. Secure/preserve ROW for future sidewalks.
Highway (rural/suburban - less than
2.5 d.u./hectare (1 d.u./acre))
One side preferred. Min. of 1.525 m (60
in) shoulders required. Secure/preserve ROW for future sidewalks.
Suburban Highway (2.5 to 10
d.u./hectare (1 to 4 d.u./acre)) Both sides preferred. One side required. Second side required if density becomes
greater than 10 d.u./hectare (4 d.u./acre).
Major Arterial (residential) Both sides required.
Collector and Minor Arterial
(residential) Both sides required. 1.525 m (60 in)
Local Street (Residential - less than
2.5 d.u./hectare (1 d.u./acre))
One side preferred. Min. of 1.525 m (60
in) shoulders required. Secure/preserve ROW for future sidewalks.
Local Street (Residential - 2.5 to 10
d.u./hectare (1 to 4 d.u./acre)) Both sides preferred. One side required. Second side required if density becomes
greater than 10 d.u./hectare (4 d.u./acre).
Local Street (Residential - more
than 10 d.u./hectare (4 d.u./acre)) Both sides required.
All Streets (commercial areas) Both sides required.
All Streets (industrial areas) Both sides preferred. One side required.
31
IDOT and Other Agency Roadways: Work closely with IDOT, Lake County Division of
Transportation, and the Cook County Highway Department to identify opportunities to improve
roadways as part of new, reconstruction and maintenance projects. Each road occasionally has
to be maintained, and sometimes intersection or expansion projects are done. These are the most
cost-efficient opportunities to also make improvements (as needed) for those walking and
biking. The Complete Streets philosophy is that a roadway’s condition should not only be
measured by motorist level-of-service and pavement condition, but also by safe accommodation
of other users. Suggested policy content:
Resurfacing: When Buffalo Grove works with other agencies (IDOT, LCDOT, or CCHD) to do
a simple resurfacing (overlay) of an arterial road through Buffalo Grove, with no widening of
the asphalt, seek opportunities to include bicycle and pedestrian improvements, such as:
For multilane roads, installing 5-ft (with gutter pan) bike lanes. If needed, travel lanes
can be narrowed, particularly inside lanes. If there is not sufficient width for striping a
bike lane, stripe a wide outside curb lane, with no less than 14 usable feet, or a narrow
shoulder of 3 feet or more (without seams), to at least accommodate more advanced
cyclists. These treatments also provide larger turning radii for right-lane trucks.
Filling sidewalk or sidepath gaps wherever a sidewalk exists but is incomplete. If no
sidewalk exists on either side of the road, consider at least one side in the project scope.
The preferred minimum width for sidewalks is five feet. Consult the FHWA “New
Sidewalk Installation” guidance on the number of sides with sidewalks as a function of
various roadway classifications and land uses. (see table above).
Improving crossings: Examples at signalized intersections include ADA retrofits,
pedestrian signalization and crosswalks, and (if possible at larger intersections) right-
turn corner islands. Priority mid-block crossings may also be improved through raised
median islands, pedestrian hybrid beacons, pavement markings and/or other treatments.
Reconstruction/Expansion: When Buffalo Grove works with another agency (IDOT, LCDOT,
or CCHD) to do a reconstruction or expansion of an arterial road through Buffalo Grove,
include bicycle and pedestrian improvements such as:
Fill sidewalk or sidepath gaps wherever a sidewalk exists but is incomplete.
If sidewalks are lacking on one or both sides, add sidewalks as part of the project
consulting the FHWA “New Sidewalk Installation” guidance (as a function of roadway
classification and land use). The preferred minimum width for sidewalks is five feet.
Include crossing improvements in scope. Examples at signalized intersections include
ADA retrofits, pedestrian signalization and crosswalks, and (if possible at larger
intersections) right-turn corner islands. Priority mid-block crossings may also be
improved through raised median islands, pedestrian hybrid beacons, Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacons, and/or other treatments.
Consult AASHTO bicycle facility guidelines and either IDOT’s bikeway selection table
or the table above for the appropriate bikeway treatment for the situation. For sidepath
trails separate but parallel to the road, design to reduce the inherent conflicts at
intersections and entrances. For bike lanes, either reconfigure and narrow travel lanes
or widen pavement to allow the 5 or 6-ft (with gutter pan) for bike lanes. If there is not
sufficient width for striping a bike lane, stripe a wide outside curb lane, with no less than
32
14 usable feet, to at least accommodate more advanced cyclists. These treatments also
provide larger turning radii for right-lane trucks.
Additional Policies and Ordinances: Other policies and ordinances may be adopted by the
Village of Buffalo Grove to make adequate bicycle and pedestrian accommodation part of
standard practice for any improvement in town.
Appropriate topics and documents may include:
The Village comprehensive plan
Subdivision regulations and site plan review
Zoning laws
School board policy on Safe Routes to School
The bicycle parking section of this plan suggests modifying the parking development ordinance
to include bicycle racks.
33
6 Other Recommendations
Introduction
Engineering improvements to the physical environment for cycling should be accompanied by
work in the “other E’s”: Education, Encouragement and Enforcement. The recommendations
below will raise awareness of new facilities and motivate more people to safely and comfortably
bike in Buffalo Grove. Bicycle Parking is treated as a separate category, given the breadth of
the topic and its relationship to both engineering and encouragement.
Bicycle Parking
Secure bicycle parking is a necessary part of a bikeway
network, allowing people to use their bikes for transportation
and reducing parking in undesirable places. Successful
bicycle parking requires a solid bike rack in a prime location.
It is recommended that the Village address bike parking by
adopting a development ordinance requirement and by
retrofitting racks at strategic locations in town.
General bicycle parking considerations are covered below.
For more details, consult Bicycle Parking Guidelines, 2nd
Edition: A Set of Recommendations from the Association of
Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, at www.apbp.org.
Style: A good bicycle rack provides support for the bike
frame and allows both the frame and wheels to be secured
with one lock. The most common styles include the inverted
“U” (two bikes, around $150-300) and “post and loop”. The
preferred option for multiple spaces is a series of inverted “U”
racks, situated parallel to one another. These can be installed
as individual racks, or as a series of racks connected at the
base, which is less expensive and easier to install and move, if
needed. See Figure 6.1.
Old-fashioned “school racks,” which secure only one wheel,
are a poor choice for today’s bicycles (Figure 6.2). Securing
both the wheel and frame is difficult, and bicycles are not
well supported, sometimes resulting in bent rims.
Locations: The best locations for bike parking are near main building entrances, conveniently
located, highly visible, lit at night, and—when possible—protected from the weather. When
Figure 6.1. Inverted U, single (top)
and in a series (bottom).
Figure 6.2. “Schoolyard” rack, not
recommended.
34
placing a bicycle rack in the public right-of-way or in a parking lot, it should be removed from
the natural flow of pedestrians, avoiding the curb and area adjacent to crosswalks. Racks should
be installed a minimum of 6 feet from other street furniture and placed at least 15 feet away
from other features, such as fire hydrants or bus stop shelters.
The installation recommendations below are from the Kane County Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan:
Anchor racks into a hard surface
Install racks a minimum of 24” from a parallel wall
Install 30” from a perpendicular wall (as measured to the closest inverted U.)
Allow at least 24” beside each parked bicycle for user access, although adjacent bicycles
may share this access.
Provide a 6 feet aisle from the front or rear of a bicycle parked for access to the facility.
Ordinances: Ideally, all multi-family and non-residential buildings should provide bike
parking. A simple ordinance may call for one bike parking space for every 10 or 20 required car
spaces, with a minimum of two spaces. The City of Naperville has a very good ordinance
(Section 6-9-7) specifying bike rack standards and a detailed list of required spaces per land use.
Most uses call for 5% of car spaces, with higher amounts for multi-family dwellings, schools,
recreation facilities, etc. For suggestions on bike parking requirements according to land use
type, consult the APBP bicycle parking guide referenced above.
The bicycle parking section in the City of Champaign’s zoning ordinance (Section 37-376 to 37-
379) not only specifies amount of bike parking per land use, but also bike rack type and general
requirements for on-site location.
Metra Station: Due in large part to the cost and scarcity of parking a car, suburban Metra
stations often have high existing and latent demand for bicycling. Recent Metra station bicycle
parking inventories3 have found a steady growth in parked bikes at the Buffalo Grove Metra
Station: 3 in 1998, 10 in 2003, 13 in 2008, and 15 in 2013. Over the same time, Prairie View
bike parking has risen from 2 and peaked at 7. While the 2008 inventory found enough parking
capacity at both stations, the racks at the Buffalo Grove station are either easily broken (22
“Bike Bank” racks) or substandard (“school rack” space for 12). It is recommended that racks
meeting current standards be installed.
Particularly as this plan is implemented, it is important to keep ahead of the demand for secure
bike parking. Plan ahead before a bike rack is at capacity. It is recommended to annually
examine bike rack parking usage, adding more racks where needed around the station. Also, as
several Metra towns have done, consider installing bike lockers, rented daily or by the year.
Other Retrofits: Retrofit bike parking is recommended in places of latent demand, including
public buildings, recreation facilities, and commercial centers. The Buffalo Grove Bicycle Task
Force – or a permanent Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission recommended in Chapter
3 1998 by Metra; 2003 and 2008 by Metra, League of Illinois Bicyclists and Active Transportation Alliance; 2013
by League of Illinois Bicyclists
35
7 – should be tasked with providing suggestions. Note that retrofitting racks on commercial
properties and other private property will require cooperation from the property managers.
Education
There is a big educational gap – for both bicyclists and motorists – on how to legally and
properly share the road. The result: avoidable crashes, too many people afraid to bike, and lots
of anger and resentment. Education of both road user types is crucial to improving real and
perceived bicycling safety in Buffalo Grove. Investing some resources on public outreach and
education would greatly leverage the Village’s infrastructure investment.
Many of the safety resources listed below are free, except for the time to get and use them.
Much of this time could come from the proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory commission
and other volunteers.
Bicyclists: Many people are afraid to bike, or bike only on off-road trails, because of their
concern about safety. Improving education can lessen these concerns and instill the skills and
confidence to bike to more places around town, more safely.
The following safety materials could be distributed through schools and PTAs; at public places
such as Village Hall and the library; and on the Village’s and park districts’ websites:
Bicycle Rules of the Road, a free guide from the Illinois Secretary of State:
www.cyberdriveillinois.com/publications/pdf_publications/dsd_a143.pdf
Bike Safety, a free brochure from the Illinois State Police:
www.isp.state.il.us/docs/5-035.pdf
League of Illinois Bicyclists’ (LIB) single-page summaries for children and their
parents. www.bikelib.org/safety-education/kids/bike-safety-sheet
Illinois Bicycle Law cards, free from LIB. Relevant state laws, folds to business-card
size. www.bikelib.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/BikeLawCard2013.pdf
Kids on Bikes in Illinois (www.dot.state.il.us/bikemap/kidsonbikes/cover.pdf), a
pamphlet for ages 9-11, from IDOT’s Division of Traffic Safety. Now online-only.
Safe Bicycling in Illinois (www.dot.state.il.us/bikemap/safekids/cover.pdf), a booklet
directed to teens and adults, from IDOT Traffic Safety. Now online-only.
LIB offers free bike safety articles for newspapers, village newsletters and websites,
and other municipal outreach. www.bikelib.org/other-advocacy/news-columns
In addition, the region has a network of bicycle safety instructors, nationally-certified by the
League of American Bicyclists to teach a menu of classes for children and adults. These classes
– or training of new instructors – could be conducted in Buffalo Grove. Details are at
www.chicagobicycle.org and www.bikeleague.org/bfa/search/list?bfaq=illinois#education.
A new, online interactive resource on relevant laws and safety techniques is LIB’s
www.bikesafetyquiz.com. Concise quiz-based lessons are freely available for Adult Bicyclists,
Child Bicyclists, and Motorists. Besides individual use, the application has functionality for
easy use by schools, driver education programs, scouts, YMCAs, and more.
36
If needed, grant funding for grades K-8 education programs may be available from the Illinois
Safe Routes to School program. See Appendix 4 for details.
Motorists: Drivers not trained on car-bike interactions are much more likely to make mistakes
that are dangerous to people on bikes. The following safety resources are available from LIB,
for driver education programs and existing motorists:
“Share the Road: Same Road, Same Rights, Same Rules”, a 7-minute video seen at
www.bikelib.org/safety-education/motorists/driver-education and available as a DVD
The “Motorist Quiz” in the www.bikesafetyquiz.com resource mentioned above.
Motorist-relevant articles among the bike safety articles mentioned above.
The plan recommends that local high schools and private driver education programs be
encouraged to use www.bikesafetyquiz.com and/or the video and its accompanying lesson.
Both resources could be added to the Village website. During warmer months, the video could
be shown on the local cable channel and the articles could be published for residents.
Enforcement
A vital component of a safe bicycling environment is enforcement with education, to reduce
common car-bike collision types.
According to Illinois law, bicyclists have both the rights and responsibilities of other vehicle
users. Many cyclists do not know about the law as it applies to bikes, and how following the law
leads to safe cycling. Other cyclists ignore the law while riding in traffic, not only creating
dangerous situations but also causing motorist resentment toward other cyclists trying to share
the road safely.
Police are encouraged to stop cyclists if the situation dictates, to educate, issue warning
citations, or issue tickets. Changing their behavior could save their lives. The aforementioned
Illinois bike law cards are available from LIB. Also, LIB has piloted a bicycle ticket diversion
program in Champaign, Urbana, and Highland Park. To reduce a ticket to a warning, offenders
take the Adult Bicyclist quiz at www.bikesafetyquiz.com, emailing their completion certificate
to the police department. This has been received well, and is suitable for Buffalo Grove, too.
In a car-bike crash, the motor vehicle does the most damage. Some aggressive motorists
intentionally harass cyclists, while others simply don’t know how to avoid common crash types.
As with cyclists, police are encouraged to stop motorists if needed, to educate, issue warnings,
or issue tickets.
The Police Department was receptive to a suggestion of an annually-conducted, brief but well-
publicized targeted enforcement campaign (aka “sting) meant to raise community awareness.
Since the vast majority of Buffalo Grove car-bike crashes occur at sidepath intersections along
busy streets (see map in Appendix 1), the focus would be motorist and bicyclist actions leading
to this type of crash. Warning tickets would be issued, along with instructions to complete the
appropriate www.bikesafetyquiz.com lesson.
37
Officers are encouraged to learn or refresh their own knowledge on the common crash types,
through completion of the Motorist and Adult Bicyclist quiz lessons.
Finally, Police Chief Casstevens suggested a plan recommendation for a “bike safety kit”, citing
his experience with this from Hoffman Estates. There, the police regularly noticed 50-60 mostly
low-income workers, relying on their bicycles for year-round transportation to their jobs. These
residents, riding at dark on busy roads, were often at risk due to a lack of bike lights and
reflective clothing. Officers distributed a kit of these items when they witnessed a cyclist in
that situation. This low-cost program was a much-appreciated success that could be duplicated
in Buffalo Grove.
Encouragement
Suggestions for encouraging visitors or residents to explore Buffalo Grove by bicycle include:
Distribute the Village’s new Bike to Metra guide at the two Metra stations, at public
buildings, and during events.
Proclaim the Village’s observance of National Bike Month, Week, or Day. As part of
the event, challenge residents to do the www.bikesafetyquiz.com. Have the Village
President lead by example, holding his own certificates of completion from the Adult
Bicyclist and Motorist quizzes in a press release photo publicizing the event.
On Bike to Work day, encourage bicycling to work, errands, or other destinations. Offer
token incentives, such as refreshments at Village Hall or coupons for ice cream, for
example.
Work with the school district to observe National Bike to School Day, in early May.
Promote Buffalo Grove as a bicycle-friendly community in the Village’s advertising.
38
7 Plan Implementation
Introduction
A key recommendation of this plan is to develop a way to ensure its implementation. Continued
progress will require a commitment of time and financial resources over many years. Little by
little, project by project, the Village of Buffalo Grove will become even more bike-friendly.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission and Coordinator
Perhaps the most important implementation tool is time. The plan recommends dedicating some
fraction of a staff member’s time as the Village’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator. This
individual would work on plan implementation and other active transportation issues. Also, the
coordinator would regularly collaborate with other Village staff and relevant agencies to ensure
their work conforms to the goals of the plan. Routine review of development plans and road
project designs is a prime example.
In addition, the plan recommends the establishment of an ongoing Buffalo Grove Bicycle and
Pedestrian Advisory Commission (BPAC), reporting to the Plan Commission or directly to the
Village Administrator/President’s Office. Volunteer involvement by a few energetic,
knowledgeable, and dedicated residents can greatly leverage the staff time investment of the
Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator, who would serve as the lead staff liaison to the BPAC.
Usually, BPACs focus more heavily on bicycle than pedestrian issues. However, there is much
overlap in Buffalo Grove, particularly with its extensive off-road multi-use bikeway system.
BPAC membership should be limited to roughly 8 residents, consisting of at least 4-5 bicyclists
ranging in experience. Some may come from the Buffalo Grove Bicycle Task Force, the bike
plan’s May 2, 2013 public brainstorming meeting, and/or local bicycling clubs or advocacy
organizations. If these individuals lack interest in pedestrian-only issues, too, then at least 1-2
members should specifically represent these topics. Ideally, the residents who volunteer for
BPAC should have some relevant, specialized expertise – and/or be willing to work on tasks
outside of the meetings.
Other BPAC members may come from other Village departments (Police, Public Works,
Planning and Economic Development) or relevant agencies (such as the Park District and
School District). However, it may be best for these departments and agencies to name
representatives as “ex-officio” members, attending only when relevant topics are discussed.
Meetings should be held every one, two, or three months, depending on level of activity.
The BPAC should routinely be given the opportunity to provide input into these Village
processes:
Capital Improvement Program – How can designs of the CIP’s road projects and other
capital projects implement bicycle plan recommendations or otherwise impact bicycling
39
(and walking) positively? For example, the 2014 resurfacing of much of Raupp and
Golfview can be a cost-efficient opportunity to implement one of the “collector options”
recommended for these roads. Also, the BPAC should propose stand-alone bike and/or
pedestrian projects as priorities for the next CIP, each year.
Site design and other development review – Provide bicycle and pedestrian perspective
to the Plan Commission’s review of new development or re-development projects.
Maintenance – The BPAC should periodically review conditions on the Village’s
bikeway system and make prioritized maintenance recommendations.
In addition, the BPAC members should be empowered to work on several one-time and ongoing
recommendations from this plan and other efforts. Examples include:
Prioritize specific locations where bicycle parking is needed.
Prioritize Buffalo Grove bikeways needing wayfinding signage, and specifying
destination content for each sign based on general guidelines from this plan.
“Field test” demand-actuated traffic signals listed earlier in the plan to determine and
prioritize where bicycle-actuation improvements are needed.
Bring or apply a variety of available education, enforcement, and outreach resources –
such as those detailed earlier in the plan – to Buffalo Grove.
Act as volunteer “bicycle ambassadors” at community events.
Lead bike-related events, such as Bike to Work Day/Week/Month or Bike to School
Day.
Put together Safe Routes to School programming and grant applications
Head the effort to win national Bicycle Friendly Community designation, including
filling out the application, and strategizing which areas need improvement.
It is strongly recommended that each commission member should have “ownership” of at least
one topic or effort. This will keep members energized and ensure the commission is a net
positive in Village time investment.
Technical Resources and Training
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator should have access to up to date resources to help with
the details of design and implementation. In addition to adding the printed resources below to
the village planner’s and engineer’s library, seek out opportunities to participate in webinars and
workshops on best practices. Not only do these events provide useful information, they are an
opportunity to interact with other planners and engineers grappling with similar issues.
Manuals and Guidelines:
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition, 2012. Available
at www.transportation.org
Bicycle Parking Guidelines, 2nd Edition: A Set of Recommendations from the
Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, 2010, available at www.apbp.org.
40
Websites and Professional Organizations:
The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center: Offers a wealth of information on
engineering, encouragement, education and enforcement, including archived webinars
and quarterly newsletters: www.pedbikeinfo.org
The Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals: provides continuing education,
technical resources and an online forum for exchanging questions and ideas.
www.apbp.org
League of Illinois Bicyclists: A planning and advocacy resource, with many on-line
materials focused on best practices nationally as well as issues unique to Illinois:
www.bikelib.org
Multi-Year Work Plan
This plan recommends a variety of strategies, from adopting policies to coordinating with other
agencies, to quickly implementing “high priority, ready to go” projects. One of the first steps of
plan implementation should be to go through the listed recommendations and draft a five year
work plan. Some projects may be components of larger road projects in Buffalo Grove’s
Capital Improvement Program, others may be stand-alone retrofit projects. Projects that do not
get completed on a given year move into a future year’s work plan. Dividing plan
implementation across a span of years makes it more manageable, especially in terms of
funding.
Implementation Funding
Recommendations in this plan range from low-cost or no-cost improvements to major capital
investments. Project costs depend on myriad factors. It is usually most cost effective to address
bicycling improvements as part of larger projects, instead of retrofitting. Estimates for projects
are below.
Trail or Sidepath: The cost of developing trails varies according to land acquisition
costs, new structures needed, the type of trail surface, the width of the trail, and the
facilities that are provided for trail users. Construction costs alone can run $40,000 per
mile for a soft surface trail to more than $1,000,000 per mile in an urban area for a paved
trail.
Bike Lanes (and Combined Bike/Parking Lanes): The cost of installing a bike lane is
approximately $5,000 to $50,000 per mile, depending on the condition of the pavement,
the need to remove and repaint the lane lines, the need to adjust signalization, and other
factors. It is most cost efficient to create bicycle lanes during street reconstruction, street
resurfacing, or at the time of original construction.
41
Signed Bike Routes and Shared Lane Markings: Signs and pavement stencils are
even less expensive than designated bike lanes. Again, shared lane markings can be
done with other roadwork, while sign installation can be done at any time.
These may be funded in a number of ways. First, the Village of Buffalo Grove may dedicate an
annual budget for a bicycle implementation program. If needed, one strategy may entail a
smaller first year budget for the highest priority projects, as a way to build momentum for
following years. Additional funding may come from Buffalo Grove Park District and other
relevant agencies.
Another major builder of bikeways is developers. Plan recommendations may be implemented
opportunistically when a new subdivision or commercial development is added.
Other opportunities include road projects by the Village, Lake or Cook County, or State.
Addressing intersection improvements, bikeways, and sidewalks as part of a larger road project
is substantially cheaper and easier than retrofitting. Even resurfacing work can be used to add
on-road bikeway striping, sometimes at no additional cost. Chapter 5 has policy suggestions to
ensure these opportunities are seized.
Finally, outside government funding sources can be used for bikeway retrofit projects. A
number of state and federal grant programs are available and summarized in Appendix 4.
Bicycle-Friendly Community Designation
A goal of plan implementation should be official designation as a “Bicycle Friendly
Community” (BFC). This national League of American Bicyclists award program has
Honorable Mention, Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum, and Diamond gradations. The program
comprehensively assesses a community based on Engineering, Education, Enforcement,
Encouragement, and Evaluation. Appendix 5 is an infographic summarizing how Bronze and
higher communities have fared in key criteria.
Winning designation is not easy, in fact, the only Bronze or higher BFCs in Illinois are
Schaumburg, Naperville, Urbana, Champaign, Batavia and Elmhurst (Bronze); and Chicago and
Evanston (Silver). However, the recommendations in this plan encompass most of the award
criteria.
The League of Illinois Bicyclists, a longtime observer of and “local reviewer” for the BFC
program, believes that Buffalo Grove could achieve the Bronze level relatively soon. Buffalo
Grove already has an impressive system of off-road sidepaths and trails, as the highlight of its
bicycle-related accomplishments. However, this alone historically has not been enough to win
Bronze or higher. LIB suggests that Bronze status could be achieved with steps such as:
Adopting this plan, officially naming a Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator, and creating a
Bicycle (or Bicycle/Pedestrian) Advisory Commission – described later.
42
Implementing one of the “Collector Options” having striping and signage, for at least
one or two of the collector streets where this is a high priority recommendation.
Distributing Buffalo Grove’s new “Bike-to-Metra” guides at Metra stations, Village
Hall, and community buildings.
Implementing at least two of the Education recommendations from this plan.
Implementing at least one of the Enforcement recommendations from this plan.
Proclaiming Bike to Work Day, Week, or Month, with some accompanying public
educational outreach.
As suggested later, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission members could lead several
of these efforts.
Annual Evaluation
Another way to keep up momentum and public support is to plan for a yearly evaluation (often
called the fifth “E”) and celebration of plan progress. For example, work with the proposed
Buffalo Grove Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission to publish a yearly plan status
report in conjunction with a ribbon cutting ceremony or community event, Bike to Work Day or
Bike to School Day, a community bike ride, or other event. This keeps local stakeholders
focused on the progress that has been made and energizes everyone to keep moving forward.
Also, consider updating this plan every 5-10 years to reflect progress and reevaluate priorities.
PrairieMain
Port Clinton
Ha l f D ay
Brandywyn PrairieAptakasic
Old Arl HtsDundee
Lake-Cook
Bernard RauppDeerfield
DeerfieldBuffalo GrovePauline
ArmstrongOld CheckerArlington HtsCheckerF a rrin g to n
Thompson ThompsonLexingtonRaphaelNewtown
Highland Gr.Busch
Barclay
Mil
wauk
eeBuffalo GroveMcHenry
Hasti
ngsC o l u m b u s
BrandywynFremont
Ivy HallDunham FoxHill Marie
ChurchGolfviewWeidner
WeidnerLegend
Crashes
1
2
3
Appendix 1: Car-Bicycle Crashes 2011-2013
43
44
Appendix 2
Buffalo Grove Bicycle Plan
Steering Committee and Other Plan Participants
STEERING COMMITTEE
Jenny Maltas, Deputy Village Manager Robert Pfeil, Village Planner
Mike Rodriguez, Police Sergeant, Traffic Unit Nidhi Vaid, Associate Planner
Darren Monico, Village Engineer Mark Biederwolf, Civil Engineer
Michael Reynolds, Director of Public Works
Ed Barsotti, Consultant – League of Illinois Bicyclists
PARTICIPANTS AT FEBRUARY 25, 2014 PUBLIC REVIEW OF DRAFT PLAN
* serves on Ad Hoc Bicycle Committee
Steve Attenberg John A. Barr Jim Boyer
Betsy Burtelow Mike Jeschke Craig Lane*
Robert Malinowski* Jerry Meyerhoff* John Naylor
Lynne Schneider* Jason Star Jamie Susal-Barr
Stan Zoller
Steve Trilling, Village Trustee Bob Pfeil, Village Planner
Darren Monico, Village Engineer
PARTICIPANTS AT MAY 2, 2013 PUBLIC INPUT WORKSHOP
* serves on Ad Hoc Bicycle Committee
John Barr Joe Beemster Frank Bing
Jim Boyer Betsy Burtelow Steven Flack*
Theresa Kotecki* Craig Lane* Robert Malinowski*
Bruce D. Matthews Jerry Meyerhoff* Marjorie McKee
Sandy Mills John Naylor Sheri Rosenbaum*
Elizabeth Schiele Lynn Schneider* Dave Simmons
Lee Skinner Jason Star Jamie Susal
Sean Zoller*
Steve Trilling, Village Trustee Bob Pfeil, Village Planner
Mike Skibbe, Deputy Director, Public Works Mark Biederwolf, Village Civil Engineer
Nidhi Vaid, Associate Village Planner
VILLAGE AD HOC BICYCLE COMMITTEE
Steven Flack Richard Hoffman Theresa Kotecki
Craig Lane Robert Malinowski Larry Meyer
Jerry Meyerhoff Sheri Rosenbaum Lynn Schneider
Eric Scott Marc Stookal Stan Zoller
45
Appendix 3
Public Brainstorming Workshop Results
On May 2, 2013 a “Public Brainstorming Workshop” was attended by 25 Buffalo Grove and
nearby residents. The purposes of the workshop included: a) gather local resident knowledge
on biking needs; b) prioritize road corridors and other routes to study for potential
improvements; c) build community support for the plan and its implementation.
Each attendee marked individual maps with suggested
“routes to study” for improvements. The map on the
following page shows the results of this input, with each
recommended segment color-coded by the number of
participants suggesting that it be considered. A group
exercise followed in which top priorities of two tables
each from three geographic regions of the Village were
discussed and reported. These include, in priority order:
Region 1 (North of an IL83/Deerfield/Buffalo
Grove/Aptakisic line):
1. Access along Buffalo Grove Rd., from Thompson
north to Vernon Hills
2. Bike lanes on Thompson, Arlington Heights Rd.
to Weiland
3. Improve access at the Brandywyn/Aptakasic
4. Deerfield Pkwy. crossing at Green Lake Park/Green Knolls
Region 2 (South and west of an IL83/Deerfield/Buffalo Grove/Lake-Cook line):
1. On-demand pedestrian crossing signal, at Arlington Heights Rd. and Heritage
2. Bike lanes on Brandywyn, Old Checker to Prairie
3. Bike lanes on Thompson, Arlington Heights Rd. to Weiland (same as Region 1)
4. Sidepath along west side of Arlington Heights Rd., Old Checker to south of Heritage
5. Bike lanes on Raupp (Village Hall to Dundee) and Bernard (Arlington Heights Rd. to
Buffalo Green Rd.)
6. Bicycle actuation of Weidner traffic signals at Dundee and Lake-Cook
Region 3 (South of Aptakasic, East of Buffalo Grove, North of Lake-Cook):
Fill sidepath gaps along Weiland Rd.
Aptakasic’s sidepath from Buffalo Grove Rd. to Barclay – fill gaps, improve condition
Improve bicycle actuation at traffic signals – e.g., eastbound Pauline at IL83
Improve access on Lake-Cook’s sidepath to Milwaukee, for the Des Plaines River Trail
46
47
Appendix 4: Road Segment Data
Extensive data collection on existing bicycling conditions informed the development of this
plan. Most of this information, such as roadway geometry, traffic conditions, Bicycle Level of
Service scores, sidewalk coverage, recommendation details and implementation notes, is
housed in the spreadsheet beginning on the next page. The legend for the spreadsheet is below:
Segment Definition Street Street name of road segment
From (W/N) West or North segment end
To (E/S) East or South segment end
Existing Conditions Lanes Number of through lanes (excludes center/other turn lanes)
Traffic ADT Traffic count in vehicles/day. Gray or blue indicate estimates.
Speed Limit Posted speed limit
Lane Width Width from lane edge (often the gutter seam/pavement edge) to next lane, in feet
Extra Width Pavement width from outer lane edge to gutter seam/pavement edge. May include paved
shoulders, parking areas, bike lanes.
Gutter Pan Width of cement gutter pan in feet
Parking Occ% Estimated % occupancy rate of on-street parking - excludes driveway areas. Averaged
over 2-sides unless noted.
% Truck Estimated % of heavy truck traffic
BLOS score Bicycle Level of Service score of road segment - measure of on-road comfort level for a
range of adult cyclists, as a function of geometry and traffic conditions
BLOS grade BLOS converted to a grade range. B (or better) might be considered "comfortable" for
casual adult cyclists, C (or better) for experienced cyclists
Comments Further details
Sidewalk Status Are there sidewalks (SW) or sidepaths (SP) on each side (N-north, S-south, E-east, W-
west)
Recommendations Primary
Recommendation Description of the recommendation (if any) considered best for this segment.
Other options and
notes
Either further detail on the primary recommendation, or "fallback" recommendation(s) if
the primary cannot be achieved.
Recommendation Description of any off-road or on-road recommendation
New BLOS score Shown only if an on-road, primary recommendation bikeway is implemented.
Implementation
Public priority points Number of 5-2-13 public brainstorming workshop attendees suggesting this segment
Priority Recommended implementation priority of segment
Street From (N/W) Lanes Traffic
ADT
Speed
Limit
Lane
Width
Extra
Width
Gutter
Pan
Park
Occ %
%
Truck
BLOS
score
BLOS
grade Comments Sidewalk
Status Primary recommendation Other options and notes
New
BLOS
score
Public
priority
points
Priority
Port Clinton Buffalo Grove Prairie 2 8000 35 12 3.5 0 0 1.5 2.77 C Turn lanes.Both SPs none 0
Half Day Acacia Buffalo Grove 4 20300 45 12 0 1.5 0 3 4.46 D Separated road. Std Xwalks @lights, some others Both SPs none 1
Half Day Buffalo Grove Prairie 4 20300 45 12 0 1.5 0 3 4.46 D Separated road. Std Xwalks @lights, some others S-SP, N-SW Consider south sidepath link and road
Xing @Easton 1 Low
Half Day Prairie Railroad 4 22900 45 12 0 1.5 0 3 4.52 E Separated road. Std Xwalks @lights, some others. N-
SW W of Easton only
S-SP, some N-
SW Widen north sidewalk to sidepath width 1 Low
Half Day Railroad Millbrook 4 22900 35 12 0 1.5 0 3 4.32 D Separated road. Std Xwalks @lights, some others S-SP, most N-
SW
Widen north sidewalk to sidepath width,
Prairie to high school 1 Low
Aptakisic Trail Brandywyn 2 12000 45 12 2 0 0 1.5 3.65 D Turn lanes. Extra stone shoulder width. Continental Xwalk all 4 legs @Brandywyn.N-SP, S-SW Pave 4' shoulders during LCDOT's IL83-BG Rd project, matching its endpoints.2.93 3 Medium
Aptakisic Brandywyn W. of Buffalo Gr 2 12000 45 12 2 0 0 1.5 3.65 D Extra stone shoulder width N-SP, S-SW Pave 4' shoulders during LCDOT's IL83-
BG Rd project, matching its endpoints.2.93 3 Medium
Aptakisic W. of Buffalo Gr Buffalo Grove 4 12000 45 12 5 0 0 1.5 2.16 B Shoulders transition into 2' gutter @BG Rd. Continental
Xwalk all 4 legs @BG Rd.Both SPs During LCDOT project, add paved
shoulders at BG Rd intersection.3 Medium
Aptakisic Buffalo Grove ComEd Trail 4 18000 45 12 0 1.5 0 1.5 4.06 D Left turn lanes S-SP none Add north sidewalk when area is
incorporated 4
Aptakisic ComEd Trail Prairie 4 18000 45 12 0 1.5 0 1.5 4.06 D Painted median, turn lanes. W,N continental Xwalks at
Prairie.None Add south sidepath (partnering with
township/county, if needed)
Add north sidewalk when area is
incorporated 4 High
Aptakisic Prairie E of Weiland 4 19400 45 12 0 1.5 0 2 4.21 D Continental Xwalks at intersections S-SP none Add north sidewalk when area is
incorporated 4
Aptakisic E of Weiland W of Roadway 4 19400 45 12 0 1.5 0 2 4.21 D Railroad crossing. LCDOT intends to close sidepath gap
in 2014.None Add south sidepath LCDOT intends to construct in
2014 4 High
Aptakisic W of Roadway Bond 4 19400 45 12 0 1.5 0 2 4.21 D Industrial S-SP none 4
Aptakisic Bond Industrial 4 19400 45 12 0 1.5 0 2 4.21 D Industrial None Add south sidepath 4 High
Aptakisic Industrial Barclay 4 19400 45 12 0 1.5 0 2 4.21 D Continental Xwalks at intersections S-SP none 4
Aptakisic Barclay Milwaukee 4 18700 45 12 0 1.5 0 3 4.42 D Industrial. Continental Xwalks at intersections. Red brick
pavers at S-leg at Parkway.S-SP none 3
Knollwood Larchmont Thompson 2 400 25 12 0 1 5 0 1.89 B Residential. Knollwood to SW link through park not too
useful/feasible.Both SWs none 1
Kingsbridge Sidewalk Brandywyn 2 400 25 12 0 1 5 0 1.89 B Residential. Knollwood to SW link through park not too
useful/feasible.Both SWs none 2
Thompson Arlington Heights Larchmont 2 4400 25 16 0 1.5 3 0.25 2.56 C Residential.Both SWs Collector bikeway options 1.34 6 High
Thompson Larchmont Knollwood 2 4400 25 16 0 1.5 3 0.25 2.56 C Residential.Both SWs Collector bikeway options 1.34 6 High
Thompson Knollwood Brandywyn 2 4400 25 16 0 1.5 3 0.25 2.56 C Residential.Both SWs Collector bikeway options 1.34 3 High
Thompson Brandywyn Trail 2 4400 25 16 0 1.5 3 0.25 2.56 C Residential. No N parking allowed. Standard Xwalk at
trail Xing.Both SWs Collector bikeway options 1.34 4 High
Thompson Trail Buffalo Grove 2 4400 25 16 0 1.5 3 0.25 2.56 C Residential. (Demand-actuated?) light at BG Rd. No N
parking allowed.Both SWs Collector bikeway options 1.34 4 High
Thompson Buffalo Grove Highland Grove 2 4400 25 16 0 1.5 3 0.25 2.56 C Residential. Bike Route sign to trail by Copperwood, but
no link to road (only to SW). Stop @Highland Grove.Both SWs Collector bikeway options 1.34 5 High
Thompson Highland Grove ComEd Trail 2 4400 25 16 0 1.5 3 0.25 2.56 C Residential. Bike Route sign to Com Ed trail, but no link to road (only to SW).Both SWs Collector bikeway options 1.34 5 High
Thompson ComEd Trail Weiland 2 4400 25 16 0 1.5 3 0.25 2.56 C Residential. Stops @Madison, Weiland (check LCDOT
Weiland plan).Both SWs Collector bikeway options 1.34 5 High
Chaucer Thompson Brandywyn 2 400 25 12 0 1 5 0 1.89 B Residential.Both SWs none 1
IL 53 Old McHenry McHenry 4 17200 45 12 0 1.5 0 3 4.37 D Turn lanes.None Add south sidepath 2 Medium
Busch Deerfield Corporate Grove 4 10000 40 12 0 1 0 3 4.01 D Light industrial. Both SWs Widen S sidewalk to sidepath width 2 Low
Busch Corporate Grove Barclay 2 10000 40 17.7 0 1 0 3 3.52 D Light industrial, many driveways.None Add south sidepath
Or, if other Busch segments reconfigured similarly: add south sidewalk, and bike lanes 5.5-13-13-5.5
2 High
Busch Barclay 500' W of
Milwaukee 4 13000 40 12 0 1 0 3 4.15 D One lane W-bd Some N-SW Add south sidepath 2 High
Busch 500' W of
Milwaukee Milwaukee 4 13000 40 12 0 1 0 3 4.15 D Separated road. Two lanes E-bd becomes turn lanes.
One wider W-bd lane.None Add south sidepath 2 High
Deerfield IL-83 Brandywyn 4 13700 35 12 0 1.5 0 1.5 3.77 D No Xwalks along this stretch, including IL 83. S-SP, N-SW Widen N sidewalk to sidepath width Deerfield is a NWMC bike plan
"Tier 1" corridor, in BG 7 Medium
Deerfield Brandywyn Green Knolls 4 13700 35 12 0 1.5 0 1.5 3.77 D N-SW Laraway continental Xwalk.S-SP, N-SW RRFB crossing @Green Knolls 7 High
Deerfield Green Knolls Buffalo Grove 4 13700 35 12 0 1.5 0 1.5 3.77 D Continental Xwalks all 4 legs @Buffalo Grove.S-SP, N-SW Consider S sidepath link and road Xing @
Larraway 7 Low
Deerfield Buffalo Grove Highland Grove 4 14700 40 12 0 1.5 0 1.5 3.89 D Continental Xwalks all 4 legs @Highland Grove, but no
other Xwalks.S-SP, N-SW Consider S sidepath link and road Xing @
Old Barn 5 Low
Deerfield Highland Grove Weiland 4 14700 40 12 0 1.5 0 1.5 3.89 D Lake Co. Hwy. Median, turn lanes. Continental Xwalks
all 4 legs @Weiland, but no other Xwalks.S-SP, N-SW none 5
Deerfield Weiland Busch 4 18300 40 12 0 1.5 0 1.5 4.00 D Weiland has SE corner island for S-SP. Median, turn
lanes. New B/P sign for trail Xing (need RRFB)S-SP, N-SW none 6
Deerfield Busch Barclay 4 18300 40 12 0 1.5 0 1.5 4.00 D Continental Xwalk across, std Xwalk along @Barclay;
otherwise almost none S-SP, N-SW none 6
Deerfield Barclay Milwaukee 4 15600 40 12 0 1.5 0 2 4.02 D S-SP, N-SW none
LCDOT's sidepath extension IL21-
DesPlaines River Trail is high
priority
5
48
Street From (N/W) Lanes Traffic
ADT
Speed
Limit
Lane
Width
Extra
Width
Gutter
Pan
Park
Occ %
%
Truck
BLOS
score
BLOS
grade Comments Sidewalk
Status Primary recommendation Other options and notes
New
BLOS
score
Public
priority
points
Priority
Heritage Fremont Arlington Heights 2 1000 25 16 0 1 0 0.5 1.79 B Separated road.N-SP, S-SW Add E sidepath link and road Xing @ Heritage 1 High
Ivy Hall Aspen Indian Spring 2 800 25 12 0 1 3 0 2.22 B Residential, except Ivy Hall School. No S parking. Same
on jog S on Aspen, Carlton to AH Rd.Both SWs Add Bike Route wayfinding signage 2 Low
Dunham Indian Spring Checker 2 1000 25 12 0 1 3 0 2.33 B Residential. No S parking.Both SWs Add Bike Route wayfinding signage 2 Low
link Railroad Deerfield Did not appear to be feasible (easement, RR Xing)none 1
Farrington Checker Crown Point 2 1000 25 16 0 1.5 2 0 1.77 B Residential. No parking S? Swimming pool S. New B/P
trail Xing signs. Checker, Woodhollow stop.Both SWs Collector bikeway options 0.54 2 High
Fox Hill Buffalo Grove Highland Grove 2 1500 25 12 0 1 1 0.5 2.57 C Residential. Off-road trail nearby to the north.Both SWs none
Signing as a Bike Route could
save some distance for some of
the nearby trail's users 0
Newtown Highland Grove Weiland 2 2000 25 16 0 1.5 2 0.5 2.18 B Residential. Future Weiland stoplight makes for better route to Metra than trail to north Both SWs Collector bikeway options More feasible after Weiland RRFB Xing added. Other routes are relatively close.0.95 0 Low
Newtown (and
Horatio)Weiland Marie 2 800 25 16 0 1 2 0.5 1.71 B Residential. Could be part of route to Metra, but this
would require unincorporated segment.Both SWs Add Bike Route wayfinding signage
More feasible after Weiland RRFB
Xing added. Other routes are
relatively close.
0 Low
Marie Horatio Raphael 2 400 25 11 0 1 2 0.5 2.02 B Unincorporated residential, requires township
partnership. Could be part of route to Metra.none Add Bike Route wayfinding signage
More feasible after Weiland RRFB
Xing added. Other routes are
relatively close.
0 Low
Old Checker Checker Springside 2 3000 35 16 0 1.5 2 0.5 2.65 C Residential N, multi-family S. No S parking. No
driveways.N-SW, S-SP Collector bikeway options 1.42 10 High
Old Checker Springside Trail 2 3000 35 16 0 1.5 2 0.5 2.65 C Residential N, multi-family S. No S parking. No S-SP
Xwalks. New B/P signs at Xings. No driveways.N-SW, S-SP Collector bikeway options 1.42 10 High
Old Checker Trail Buffalo Grove 2 3000 35 16 0 1.5 2 0.5 2.65 C Parks W, multi-family E. No S parking. No driveways.N-SP, some S-SW Collector bikeway options 1.42 9 High
Old Checker Buffalo Grove post office back entrance 2 2500 25 11.8 0 1 0 2 3.02 C Private road. Post office north side.Some S-SW, some N-SW
none - from Old Checker/BG Rd, use and possibly sign east sidewalk, trails through Village Green, and sidepath to Pauline/IL 83.
Provide a continuous sidewalk, with Xing between sides. Shared Lane Markings (4' from curb) feasible, but use paths through Village Green instead
3
Old Checker post office back
entrance IL-83 2 2000 25 16 0 0 0 2 2.32 B Mostly separated road through shopping center (private road). Turn lanes, width varies.none none 0
Alley (S-bd only)post office east
entrance Town Place 1 400 25 12 0 0 0 1 2.30 B
One-way S-bd in back of shopping (private property?).
Much of the segment has lightly-used perpendicular
parking. Stop signs. 10mph officially.Most E-SP
None. Instead, add wayfinding on E-SP,
through Village Green and Buffalo Grove
E-SP, to Old Checker stoplight.
Completing E-SP not feasible -
use wayfinding 3
Pauline Town Place IL-83 2 800 25 12 0 1 2 1 2.32 B Short segment, median. E-bd turn lane. Various widths. N-SP Add Shared Lane Markings 4' from curbs,
plus Bike Route wayfinding signage
Better to transition to SP at Town
Place, not IL83 3 Medium
Pauline IL-83 Highland Grove 2 4000 25 12 0 1 2 0.5 3.08 C Residential. No driveways. W-bd turn lane. Light @83
(demand-actuated?, bad button access)Both SWs Add Shared Lane Markings 4' from curbs,
plus Bike Route wayfinding signage 5 High
Pauline (W-bd)Highland Grove Weiland 2 2000 25 12 8 1.5 2 0.5 0.36 A Residential. Striped parking lane. No stops.Both SWs
Striped area is a combined bike/parking
lane (CBPL). Supplement with Bike Route
wayfinding signage
With above: 7' CBPL, 11' travel
lanes, 3' E-bd shoulder (not
including 1' gutter pans)
5 High
Pauline (E-bd)Highland Grove Weiland 2 2000 25 12 0 1.5 2 0.5 2.73 C Residential. No S-driveways. By Woodbury, trail Xing
has new B/P Xing sign but standard Xwalk.Both SWs Add Shared Lane Markings 4' from curbs,
plus Bike Route wayfinding signage
Another option: restripe for 1'
gutter, 3' shoulder, 11' lane 5 High
Pauline Weiland Raphael 2 2000 25 16 0 1.5 2 0.5 2.18 B Residential. No driveways, S-SP width, left-turn lane near Weiland; stoplight (demand-actuated?, poor button access).S-SW Collector bikeway options 0.95 4 High
Pauline Raphael Carman 2 300 25 16 0 1.5 2 0.5 1.21 A Residential N, light industrial S, no driveways. East end Bike Route sign to trail.Both SWs Add Bike Route wayfinding signage -0.02 4 Medium
Columbus Chevy Chase Milwaukee 2 300 25 12 0 1 2 0.5 1.77 B Residential. Estimates due to construction.Add Bike Route wayfinding signage 1 High
Riverwalk Milwaukee S-end of 2-way 2 3000 30 18.2 0 1 1 0.5 2.16 B Office buildings. S-bd dead ends. Link to DesPlaines
River Trail planned.N/E-SP Work with Cook Co Forest Preserve to link
to DesPlaines River Trail See segment 3130 0 Low
Linden Chevy Chase Milwaukee 2 300 Not a realistic route.1
Church Raupp Buffalo Grove 2 1500 25 12 0 1.5 0 1 2.62 C Non-residential. No parking.N-SP,S-SW none 2
Armstrong Weiland Le Jardine 2 3000 25 18.2 0 1 1 0.5 1.99 B Mostly residential, includes driveways (mostly N).
Recently paved.N-SW
Stripe combined bike/parking lanes, 7.5-
11.7-11.7-7.5. Supplement with Bike
Route wayfinding signage.
On Bike Route sign posts, indicate
in some way that parking is
permitted
0.73 0 Low
Armstrong Le Jardine Lexington 2 3000 25 18.2 0 1 1 0.5 1.99 B Mostly residential, no driveways. Recently paved.Both SWs
Stripe combined bike/parking lanes, 7.5-
11.7-11.7-7.5. Supplement with Bike
Route wayfinding signage.
On Bike Route sign posts, indicate
in some way that parking is
permitted
0.73 0 Low
Armstrong Lexington Hastings 2 2500 25 18.2 0 1 0 3 2.20 B Light industrial. No parking.N-SW Add bike lanes, 5.5-13.7-13.7-5.5 Include No Parking signs on Bike
Lane sign posts 0.92 0 Low
Lake Cook Arlington Heights Weidner 4 36600 45 12 0 1.5 0 2.5 4.64 E N,W continental Xwalks @Arl Hts, otherwise none N-SP,S-SW none 2
Lake Cook Weidner Trail 4 36600 45 12 0 1.5 0 2.5 4.64 E Lake-Cook separated except left turn lanes N-SP,S-SW none 2
Lake Cook Trail Raupp 4 36600 45 12 0 1.5 0 2.5 4.64 E Continental Xwalks across @Lake-Cook N-SP,S-SW none 2
Lake Cook Raupp Buffalo Grove 4 36600 45 12 0 1.5 0 2.5 4.64 E N,W continental Xwalks @BG Rd, otherwise none Both SWs Widen north sidewalk to sidepath width 2 Low
Lake Cook Buffalo Grove Weiland 4 36600 45 12 0 1.5 0 2.5 4.64 E N,E std Xwalks @83, otherwise none N-SP, S-SW none 2
Bernard Arlington Heights Estate 2 3500 25 16 0 1.5 4 0.25 2.46 B Residential. Light @Arl Hts (demand-actuated?), stop @Weidner.Both SWs Collector bikeway options 1.26 4 High
49
Street From (N/W) Lanes Traffic
ADT
Speed
Limit
Lane
Width
Extra
Width
Gutter
Pan
Park
Occ %
%
Truck
BLOS
score
BLOS
grade Comments Sidewalk
Status Primary recommendation Other options and notes
New
BLOS
score
Public
priority
points
Priority
Bernard Estate Hartstein Trail 2 3500 25 16 0 1.5 4 0.25 2.46 B Residential. Striped.Both SWs Collector bikeway options 1.26 4 High
Bernard Hartstein Trail White Pine 2 3500 25 16 0 1.5 4 0.25 2.46 B Residential.Both SWs Collector bikeway options 1.26 4 High
Bernard White Pine Raupp 2 3500 25 16 0 1.5 4 0.25 2.46 B Residential. Stop @Raupp.Both SWs Collector bikeway options 1.26 4 High
Bernard Raupp Buffalo Grove 2 4000 25 16 0 1.5 5 0.25 2.55 C Residential. 3-way light @BG Rd.Both SWs Collector bikeway options Higher priority if Buffalo Grove Rd east sidepath built 1.35 2 Medium
Beechwood Arlington Heights Weidner 2 1500 25 12 0 1 2 0.25 2.55 C Residential. Only stop @Weidner. Continental Xwalk
@Arl Hts. School parking restrictions.Both SWs none 1
Hapsfield Weidner White Pine 2 1200 25 12 0 1 4 0.25 2.46 B Duplexes. No parking N-side, none seen S-side.Both SWs none 1
Dundee Arlington Heights Buffalo Grove
HS stoplight 4 30700 35 12 0 2 0 3 4.47 D
Divided road. High School N, commercial S. SP
standard Xwalk @HS entrance. 4 continental Xwalks
@AH. Cont Xwalk across @HS.
N-SP, S-SW none Dundee is a NWMC bike plan
"Tier 2" corridor, in BG 2
Dundee Buffalo Grove
HS stoplight
Old Arlington
Heights 4 30700 35 12 0 2 0 3 4.47 D Divided road. High School N, commercial S. N-SP, S-SW Work with Arlington Heights to widen
south sidewalk to sidepath width
Very low priority: consider link and
road Xing to N sidepath at Old Arl
Hts Rd 2 Low
Dundee Old Arlington
Heights Weidner 4 30700 35 12 0 2 0 3 4.47 D Divided road. SP standard Xwalk @Weidner.N-SP, S-SW Very low priority: consider link and road
Xing to N sidepath at Bison Park 2
Dundee Weidner Golfview 4 30700 35 12 0 1.5 0 3 4.47 D
Commercial. Divided road, w/raised, painted medians,
turn lanes. N-SP narrows E of Vernon. Sparse standard
Xwalks along.N-SP, S-SW Consider link and road Xing to north
sidepath at Carriageway Drive
Proposed is widening north
sidewalk to sidepath width 2
Dundee Golfview Buffalo Grove 4 30700 35 12 0 1.5 0 3 4.47 D Commercial. Divided road, w/raised, painted medians, turn lanes. N-SW widens to SP E of Oak Creek. Sparse standard Xwalks along.Both SWs none Proposed is widening north sidewalk to sidepath width 2
Parkview S-end Golfview 300 Not possible to get an easement south into AH.none 1
Miller Old Arlington
Heights Mill Creek 2 500 Internal road for apartment complex, w/ speed bumps.
No trail connection seen.none 1
N Fremont Way IL-53 Fremont circle 2 2000 25 24.5 0 1 2 0.5 0.47 A Separated road. Stoplight @ IL53.None West sidepath already proposed Bike Route wayfinding signage, or Combined Bike/Parking Lane, both possible if no sidepath.1 Low
Fremont circle N Fremont Way park 2 2000 25 12 0 0 2 0.5 2.73 C Residential. No parking E.Both SWs no recommendation Bike Route wayfinding signage
possible 1
Fremont circle park Heritage 2 2000 25 12 0 0 2 0.5 2.73 C Residential. No parking E.E-SP, W-SW no recommendation Bike Route wayfinding signage
possible 1
IL-83 IL-53 Bristol's bend 4 32500 45 12 0 1.5 0 2 4.47 D No intersections (short stretch).None South sidepath already proposed 2 Medium
IL-83 Bristol's bend Arlington Heights 4 32500 45 12 0 1.5 0 2 4.47 D S-SP link to Bristol. (Faded) std Xwalks, turn lanes, SE & SW corner islands @AH skew intersection.S-SP, N-SW none 2
IL-83 Arlington Heights Deerfield 4 23200 45 12 0 1.5 0 2 4.30 D Only Xwalks @Deerfield.S-SP, N-SW Consider link and road Xing to south
sidepath at Ranchview and Devlin 2 Low
IL-83 Deerfield Trail 4 23200 45 12 0 1.5 0 2 4.30 D Links to trail, Farrington. No Xwalks.Both SPs none 1
IL-83 Trail Buffalo Grove 4 23200 45 12 0 1.5 0 2 4.30 D BG skew intersection: continental Xwalks along, NW &
SE corner islands Both SPs none 1
Arlington Heights Thompson IL-83 2 3250 30 12 7 0 0 0.5 0.96 A Merges from 4L (IL83) to 2L. Residential W, park E. Varying shoulder width in 2L section.E-SW, some W-SW
Add Shared Lane Markings 4' from curbs on 4-Lane part, and Bike Route wayfinding signage for entire segment 4 High
Arlington
Heights IL-83 Heritage 4 18500 45 12 0 1.5 0 2 4.18 D No E-SP Xwalks @strip mall entrances.E-SP, W-SW Add link and road Xing to east sidepath at
Heritage 4 High
Arlington
Heights Heritage Carlton 4 18500 45 12 0 1.5 0 2 4.18 D Heritage Xwalk across and E-SP needed.E-SP, most W-
SW none 4
Arlington Heights Carlton Checker 4 18500 45 12 0 1.5 0 2 4.18 D E-Xwalks: cont (2), std (Auburn). Xwalks across needed @Woodbine, Brittany (link to E-SP, too)E-SP Add link and road Xing to east sidepath at Brittany 5 Medium
Arlington
Heights Checker Lake Cook 4 19400 45 12 0 1.5 0 2 4.21 D Trail off-road on W side. Trail underpass w/ link to E-SP E-SP none 3
Arlington
Heights Lake Cook Bernard 4 18500 35 12 0 1.5 0 2 4.02 D
Raised median, left-turn lanes. Striped gutter pans.
ROW lacking for SP width (fences, etc.). Cont. Xwalks
@Plum Grove (3), along Whitehall (2). Xwalks missing
@entrance S of Lake-Cook.
E-SP, W-SW none 3
Arlington
Heights Bernard Beechwood 4 18500 35 12 0 1.5 0 2 4.02 D Std Xwalks @E entrances. 4 cont Xwalks @Bernard.E-SP, W-SW none 4
Arlington
Heights Beechwood Dundee 4 18500 35 12 0 1.5 0 2 4.02 D
Cont. Xwalks: Dundee (4), across AH @HS, along
sidestreets. No Xwalk at one HS entrance. Needs SP
link @Happfield, Beechwood closer to AH.
E-SP, W-SW Consider link and road Xing to east
sidepath at Happfield 4 Low
Larchmont Knollwood Thompson Residential. Knollwood to SW link through park not too
useful/feasible.none 1
Old Arlington
Heights Dundee Miller 2 4000 40 12 0 0 0 1 3.49 C Proposed E-SP; now E-SW and most W-SW. Various
turn lanes.
E-SW, most
W-SW Widen east sidewalk to sidepath width 0 Low
Old Arlington
Heights Miller Arlington Heights 2 4000 40 12 0 0 0 1 3.49 C Tapers 4 lanes (12' + 2' pans) to 2 lanes (12', no gutters)
N of Arl Hts. Continental Xwalk @Thurston, nothing
@Miller.
E-SP none 1
Indian Springs Dunham Ivy Hall 2 800 25 12 0 1 3 0 2.22 B Residential.Both SWs Add Bike Route wayfinding signage 2 Low
private road N
of Lake-Cook Arlington Heights Weidner 2 3000 25 18.5 0 1 1 1 1.99 B Offices. Parking not banned, but none seen, lots off-
road. Continental Xwalk @Arl Hts.None Add bike lanes, 5-13.5-13.5-5 Include No Parking signs on Bike
Lane sign posts 0.95 0 Low
Weidner Timberhill Lake Cook 2 3000 25 18.5 0 1 0 1 1.98 B
Offices, also hotels, golf course. Median, higher ADT by
Lake-Cook. N-trail by golf course. E-parking not
allowed, none seen W.
S/E-SW,
some N-SP Add bike lanes, 5-13.5-13.5-5 Include No Parking signs on Bike
Lane sign posts 0.93 2 Medium
50
Street From (N/W) Lanes Traffic
ADT
Speed
Limit
Lane
Width
Extra
Width
Gutter
Pan
Park
Occ %
%
Truck
BLOS
score
BLOS
grade Comments Sidewalk
Status Primary recommendation Other options and notes
New
BLOS
score
Public
priority
points
Priority
Weidner Lake Cook Bernard 2 3500 25 16 0 1.5 0 0.5 2.43 B Residential. (Demand-actuated?) light at Lake-Cook,
poor ped button access.Both SWs Collector bikeway options 1.18 3 Medium
Weidner Bernard Beechwood 2 3500 25 16 0 1.5 3 0.5 2.48 B Residential. Very few stops.Both SWs Collector bikeway options 1.26 3 Medium
Weidner Beechwood Hapsfield 2 3500 25 16 0 1.5 0 0.5 2.43 B Duplexes E, apartments W. School parking restrictions.E-SP, W-SW Collector bikeway options 1.18 3 Medium
Weidner Hapsfield Dundee 2 4000 25 24 0 1 0 0.5 0.90 A Divided road, 24'/side. Near Dundee: S-bd turn lanes. Light @Dundee (demand-actuated?). E-SP, W-SW Collector bikeway options 0.00 3 Medium
Brandywyn Prairie Buffalo Grove 2 2000 25 16 0 1.5 2 0.25 2.15 B No driveways. Vacant most S. E-end S-parking by
middle school. No Prairie stoplight.
N-SW, some
S-SW
Collector bikeway options. Also, add
RRFP at Buffalo Gr Rd crossing. 0.92 5 Medium
Brandywyn Buffalo Grove Birchwood 2 2000 25 16 0 1.5 2 0.25 2.15 B Residential. Somewhat tough 2-way stop at Buffalo
Grove Rd.Both SWs Collector bikeway options 0.92 5 Medium
Brandywyn Birchwood Aptakisic 2 2000 25 16 0 1.5 2 0.25 2.15 B Residential. New B/P Xing signs. (Demand-actuated?)
light @Aptakasic, inaccessible button Both SWs Collector bikeway options 0.92 5 Medium
Brandywyn Aptakasic Trail 2 3000 25 16 0 1.5 2 0.25 2.35 B Residential. New B/P Xing signs.Both SWs Collector bikeway options 1.12 5 Medium
Brandywyn Trail Kingsbridge 2 3000 25 16 0 1.5 2 0.25 2.35 B Residential. New B/P Xing signs.Both SWs Collector bikeway options 1.12 4 Medium
Brandywyn Kingsbridge Thompson 2 3000 25 16 0 1.5 2 0.25 2.35 B Residential.Both SWs Collector bikeway options 1.12 4 Medium
Brandywyn Thompson Chaucer 2 3000 25 16 0 1.5 3 0.25 2.37 B Residential. No stops. Signed Bike Route signs
@Chaucer for trail.Both SWs Collector bikeway options 1.15 5 Medium
Brandywyn Chaucer Deerfield 2 3000 25 16 0 1.5 3 0.25 2.37 B Residential. No stops; no light @Deerfield.Both SWs Collector bikeway options 1.15 5 Medium
Checker IL-83 Dunham 2 2200 25 16 0 1.5 3 0.5 2.24 B Residential. No E parking.Both SWs Collector bikeway options 1.02 9 High
Checker Dunham Farrington 2 2200 25 16 0 1.5 3 0.5 2.24 B Residential. No E parking; high W parking by school,
sometimes. No stops.Both SWs Collector bikeway options 1.02 9 High
Checker Farrington Old Checker 2 2200 25 16 0 1.5 3 0.5 2.24 B Residential. No SE parking. No stops.Both SWs Collector bikeway options 1.02 10 High
Checker Arlington Heights Old Checker 2 2550 25 16 0 1.5 3 1 2.37 B Residential N, park S. (Demand-actuated?) light @Arl
Hts. No S-parking. No driveways W of Burnt Ember, 3%
N-parking E of there.
N-SW, most S-
SW/SP Collector bikeway options 1.15 10 High
White Pine Bernard Hapsfield 2 500 25 12 0 1 4 0 1.99 B Residential. No stops.Both SWs none 1
Sheridan Beverly Beverly none 1
Satinwood Buffalo Grove Birchwood none 1
Raupp Church Lake Cook 2 3000 25 16 0 1 0 0.5 2.35 B Civic. Light @Lake-Cook. No parking.Both SWs Add bike lanes, 5-12-12-5 Include No Parking signs on Bike
Lane sign posts 1.21 3 High
Raupp Lake Cook St. Mary's 2 3000 25 12 0 1 4 0.5 2.96 C Residential S, park and etc N. No W parking. Light
@Lake-Cook; stop @St. Mary's.Both SWs Add Bike Route wayfinding signage
If no parking, then can use
Shared Lane Markings 4' from
curbs 6 High
Raupp St. Mary's Bernard 2 2500 25 17.5 0 0 3 0.5 2.06 B Residential. Gutter pans paved over.Both SWs Collector bikeway options 1.09 6 High
Raupp Bernard Golfview 2 2500 25 17.5 0 0 3 0.5 2.06 B Residential. Gutter pans paved over.Both SWs Collector bikeway options 1.09 5 High
Golfview Raupp Dundee 2 2500 25 16 0 1.5 3 0.5 2.30 B Residential. (Demand-actuated) light @Dundee w/ bad push button placement.W-SW, some E-SW Collector bikeway options 1.09 4 High
Golfview Dundee S-end 2 1000 25 16 0 1.5 1 0.5 1.81 B Off-street parking sufficient. S-end: easement link to
Dun-Lo Dr (Arl Hts bike route network) feasible.W-SW Add Bike Route wayfinding signage.
Coordinate with Arl Hts to add
short trail link on easement from S-
end to Dun-Lo/Betty (local
bikeway network)
1 High
trail link Golfview Dun-Lo/Betty Coordinate with Arl Hts to add short trail
link on easement from S-end to Dun-
Lo/Betty (local bikeway network)
0 High
Buffalo Grove US 45 Port Clinton 2 9800 35 12 0 2 0 1.5 3.95 D Median W-SP, E-SW none 1
Buffalo Grove Port Clinton Railroad 2 9800 35 12 4 2 0 1.5 2.67 C Various turn lanes. Awkward Xing from S to N-SP at
church entrance (saw cyclist go through grass)
S-SP, some N-
SP
Add better crossing from S to N-SP at
church entrance.
Add RRFB for that same crossing,
if the road is widened to 4 lanes 0 High
Buffalo Grove Railroad Port Clinton 2 13000 40 12 4 0 0 1.5 2.90 C Buffalo Grove's 4' shoulders drop for turn lanes, 4 Lane
tapers. Extra stone shoulder width.S-SP none 7
Buffalo Grove Port Clinton Sandalwood 2 13000 40 12 4 0 0 1.5 2.90 C S/E-SP, N/W-
SW
Add link and road Xing to south/east
sidepath at Dunstan and Sandalwood 7 Low
Buffalo Grove Sandalwood Half Day 4 13000 40 12 0 2 0 1.5 3.83 D E-SP,W-SW none 7
Buffalo Grove Half Day Satinwood 2 13000 40 12 4 0 0 1.5 2.90 C 4 Lanes at Half Day.E-SP,W-SW Add link and road Xing to east sidepath at Birchwood 9 Low
Buffalo Grove Satinwood Brandywyn 2 13000 40 12 4 0 0 1.5 2.90 C E-SP,W-SW Add RRFP for Brandywyn's crossing 9 Medium
Buffalo Grove Brandywyn Aptakisic 2 13000 40 12 4 0 0 1.5 2.90 C 4 Lanes at Aptakasic.W-SW, some
E-SP
Add (already-proposed) east sidepath during LCDOT road project 10 High
Buffalo Grove Aptakasic Thompson 4 13000 40 12 0 2 0 1.5 3.83 D Tapers from 4 lanes to 2.E-SP,W-SW Add link and road Xing to east sidepath at
LaSalle 8 Low
Buffalo Grove Thompson Deerfield 2 13000 40 12 4 0 0 1.5 2.90 C Tapers from 2 lanes to 4.E-SP,W-SW Add link and road Xing to east sidepath at Larraway 8 Low
Buffalo Grove Deerfield Fox Hill 4 12500 40 12 0 2 0 1.5 3.81 D E-SP, some
W-SP none 8
Buffalo Grove Fox Hill IL-83 4 12500 40 12 0 2 0 1.5 3.81 D E-SP, some
W-SP none 8
Buffalo Grove IL-83 Old Checker 4 15000 40 12 0 2 0 1.5 3.90 D E-SP,W-SW Add link and road Xing to east sidepath at
Common Way, Manor 5 Low
Buffalo Grove Old Checker Church 4 15000 30 12 0 2 0 1.5 3.70 D E-SP,W-SW none 5
Buffalo Grove Church Lake Cook 4 15000 30 12 0 2 0 1.5 3.70 D E-SP,W-SW none 5
Buffalo Grove Lake Cook 500' S of Lake-
Cook 4 20300 35 12 0 2 0 1.5 3.97 D Both SWs Widen east sidewalk to sidepath width 5 Low
Buffalo Grove 500' S of Lake-Cook Bernard 4 20300 40 12 0 2 0 1.5 4.06 D W-SW Add east sidepath 6 Medium
51
Street From (N/W) Lanes Traffic
ADT
Speed
Limit
Lane
Width
Extra
Width
Gutter
Pan
Park
Occ %
%
Truck
BLOS
score
BLOS
grade Comments Sidewalk
Status Primary recommendation Other options and notes
New
BLOS
score
Public
priority
points
Priority
Buffalo Grove Bernard 350' S of Bernard 4 20300 40 12 0 2 0 1.5 4.06 D W-SW Add east sidepath 6 Medium
Buffalo Grove 350' S of
Bernard
900' N of
Dundee 4 20300 40 12 0 2 0 1.5 4.06 D Both SWs Widen east sidewalk to sidepath width 6 Low
Buffalo Grove 900' N of
Dundee Dundee 4 20300 40 12 0 2 0 1.5 4.06 D W-SW, E-SP None 6
Highland Grove Thompson Deerfield 2 2000 25 16 0 1.5 2 0.5 2.18 B Residential, apartments, park W-side. No E-parking or driveways, N of Sandhurst.Both SWs Collector bikeway options 0.95 1 High
Highland Grove Deerfield Pauline 2 3000 25 16 0 1.5 2 0.5 2.38 B
Residential, Tripp School. Stops @Fox Hill, Fabish.
School Xing sign @trail (diagonal) Xing. Light (demand-
actuated?), turn lanes @Deerfield.
Both SWs Collector bikeway options 1.15 1 High
Main (S-bd)Buffalo Grove Park 2 3500 30 10.5 0 0 0 1 3.40 C Stone shoulders (sloping)W-SP none Shared Lane Markings are
feasible 2
Main (N-bd)Buffalo Grove Park 2 3500 30 11.5 8.7 0 10 1 1.11 A Metra parking stalls marked, but unused except near
station (S).W-SP none Shared Lane Markings are
feasible 2
Main (S-bd)Park Metra lot 2 3500 30 10.5 0 0 0 1 3.40 C Not in Buffalo Grove. Stone shoulders (sloping)None
Add Shared Lane Markings 4' into lane,
plus Bike Route wayfinding signage.
Also, try to fit in west sidewalk.
2 Medium
Main (N-bd)Park Metra lot 2 3500 30 11.5 8.7 0 100 1 3.29 C Not in Buffalo Grove. Metra parking stalls filled near station.None Add Shared Lane Markings 4' into lane, plus Bike Route wayfinding signage.2 Medium
Main Metra lot Half Day 2 3500 30 10 0 0 0 1 3.45 C Parts not in BG. Metra station. Varies: some parallel,
perpendicular parking; curbs, shoulders Wide E-SW Add Shared Lane Markings 4' into lane,
plus Bike Route wayfinding signage.2 Low
Prairie Port Clinton curve 2 5300 40 12 0 0 0 1 3.63 D Various turn lanes, painted median W-SP Add link and road Xing to west sidepath at
Brockman 6 Low
Prairie curve Half Day 2 5300 40 10.5 0 0 0 1 3.80 D Not accessible from E-bd Half Day. Metra station (ramp,
at-grade Xing). Some stone shoulder.
W-SW, some
E-SW Add west sidepath Metra station access - although
west side is primary 6 Medium
Prairie Half Day Brandywyn 2 7200 40 11.5 2 0 0 1 3.31 C Various turn lanes. Shoulder width varies.W-SP, some
E-SW
Planned: complete east sidewalk, add 3'
shoulders, RRFB at Brandywyn 2.89 5 Medium
Prairie Brandywyn Olive Hill 2 7200 40 10.5 1 0 0 1 3.73 D Shoulder width varies, more away from turn lanes.
Usually, plenty of stone shoulder width.W-SP, E-SW Planned: add 3' shoulders 2.89 3 Medium
Prairie (current)Olive Hill Aptakisic 2 7200 40 10.5 1 0 0 1 3.73 D
Shoulder width varies, more away from turn lanes.
Usually, plenty of stone shoulder width. Turn lane at
Aptakasic.
Most E-SW Planned new road to meet Weiland. Old
road: Complete east sidewalk.2.89 3
Prairie (new)Olive Hill Aptakisic Planned new alignment to meet Weiland at Aptakasic Planned: add west sidepath, east
sidewalk, 3' shooulders.2.89 3 High
Weiland Aptakasic Thompson 4 11400 40 12 2 2 0 1.5 3.20 C Frequent turn lanes. Road re-design coming from
Aptakasic to Lake-Cook.
W-SP, some
E-SW
Planned: complete east sidewalk, add 3'
shoulders, new light at Thompson 2.86 1 Medium
Weiland Thompson ComEd Trail 2 11400 40 12 0 1.5 0 1.5 4.12 D Varies from curbed to uncurbed. When uncurbed,
various shoulder width (usually 2') with extra stone width.W-SP, E-SW Planned: add 3' shoulders 3.22 6 Medium
Weiland ComEd Trail Deerfield 4 11400 40 12 0 1.5 0 1.5 3.76 D W-SP, E-SW Planned: add 3' shoulders 2.86 6 Medium
Weiland Deerfield Bentley 4 15400 40 12 0 2 0 1.5 3.92 D E-SP, W-SW Planned: switch to west sidepath and east sidewalk, add 3' shoulders 3.02 7 Medium
Weiland Bentley Pauline 2 15400 40 12 0 2 0 1.5 4.27 D E-SP stops at Newtown.W-SW, some
E-SP
Planned: switch to west sidepath and east sidewalk, add 3' shoulders, add RRFB at Newtown 3.37 7 Medium
Weiland Pauline Woodstone 2 15400 40 12 0 2 0 1.5 4.27 D Fogline incl. gutter and some asphalt.Some E-SP,
most W-SW
Planned: switch to west sidepath and
east sidewalk, add 3' shoulders, add
RRFB at Woodstone
3.37 7 High
Weiland Woodstone Lake Cook 4 15400 40 12 0 1.5 0 1.5 3.92 D W-SW, some
E-SP
Planned: switch to west sidepath and
east sidewalk, add 3' shoulders 3.02 7 Medium
Lexington Pauline S of Pauline Blocked to traffic except authorized vehicles. Bad pavement and narrow.none Open access to bicycles and sign as Bike Route. Consider repaving.0 Medium
Lexington S of Pauline Armstrong 2 1500 25 17.1 0 1 0 3 2.13 B Light industrial. No parking.W-SW Add bike lanes, 5.5 (incl gutters)-12.6-12.6-5.5.
Bike Route signage would suffice, but use bike lanes for consistency further south 0.93 0 Medium
Lexington Armstrong Lake Cook 2 4000 25 17.1 0 1 0 3 2.63 C Light industrial. No parking. L,R turn lanes @Lake-Cook.W-SW Add bike lanes, 5.5 (incl gutters)-12.6-12.6-5.5.1.42 0 Medium
Raphael Railroad Pauline 2 300 25 12 0 1 1 0.5 1.75 B Residential Both SWs Add Bike Route wayfinding signage.More direct, all-season option than the trail west. Requires township(?) participation.1 Low
Carman Raphael Pauline none 1
Hastings trail Xing Lake Cook 2 2500 25 17.7 0 1 0 3 2.29 B Light industrial. No parking.W-SP none Bike lanes 5.5 (incl. gutter pan)-
13.2-13.2-5.5 are feasible 0
Barclay Aptakasic Corporate Grove 2 5300 30 17.7 0 1 0 3 2.93 C Light industrial. No parking. Turn lanes by Aptakisic E-SW Add bike lanes, 5.5 (incl gutters)-13.2-
13.2-5.5.1.69 1 Medium
Barclay Corporate Grove Busch 2 5300 30 17.7 0 1 0 3 2.93 C Light industrial. No parking.Some E-SW Add bike lanes, 5.5 (incl gutters)-13.2-
13.2-5.5. Complete east sidewalk.1.69 1 Medium
Barclay Busch Deerfield 2 5300 30 17.7 0 1 0 3 2.93 C Light industrial. No parking. Turn lanes by Deerfield Some E-SP Add bike lanes, 5.5 (incl gutters)-13.2-
13.2-5.5. Complete east sidewalk.1.69 1 Medium
Northgate Johnson and trail Lake Cook 2 2500 30 18 0 1 0 2 2.32 B Light industrial. 24' N-bd, 12' S-bd w/ turn lanes.
Wheeling-proposed bike lanes S of Lake Cook.E-SP
If Wheeling adds proposed bike lanes
south of Lake-Cook, then add N-bd 5' bike
lane and S-bd shared lane marking in
straight-ahead lane
This would make for a smoother
transition with Wheeling's bike
lanes 0 Low
52
Street From (N/W) Lanes Traffic
ADT
Speed
Limit
Lane
Width
Extra
Width
Gutter
Pan
Park
Occ %
%
Truck
BLOS
score
BLOS
grade Comments Sidewalk
Status Primary recommendation Other options and notes
New
BLOS
score
Public
priority
points
Priority
Milwaukee Aptakasic Busch 4 32200 45 12 0 0 0 3.5 4.81 E Stone shoulders, except curbs near Busch Some W-SW
Where no west sidewalk, add sidepath.
Lower priority is widening existing
sidewalk to sidepath width.
Simply completing west sidewalk
is an alternative 1 Medium
Milwaukee Busch Deerfield 4 34200 40 12 0 0 0 3.5 4.75 E Some W-SW Where no west sidewalk, add sidepath. Lower priority is widening existing sidewalk to sidepath width.
Simply completing west sidewalk is an alternative 1 Medium
Milwaukee Deerfield Columbus 4 34200 40 12 0 1.5 0 3.5 4.75 E Shifts to 6 lanes at Chevy Chase. W-goat path.Some W-SP,
E-SW Complete west sidepath 1 Medium
Milwaukee Columbus Linden 6 34200 40 12 0 1.5 0 3.5 4.54 E W-SP, some
E-SW none 1
Proposed
ComEd trail Aptakasic Thompson Would need LCDOT partnership Construct trail 2 Low
Proposed
Hartstein Tr. N
extension
Alcott Comm.
Center
Emmerich Park
West (by Raupp)Construct trail 1 Medium
Proposed
DesPlaines River Trail link Riverwalk Des Plaines
River Trail
Mostly redundant with link 0.4 miles north. Would need
LCFPD partnership Construct trail link 0 Low
53
54
Appendix 5
Summary of Major Funding Sources
Some of the most commonly used funding sources for bicycle and pedestrian projects are listed
below. The funding landscape is always evolving. Check www.bikelib.org/bike-
planning/bikeway-funding-tips for updates.
Illinois Transportation Enhancements Program (ITEP)
Federal source with 80% federal/state, 20% local cost shares.
ITEP is one component of the federal Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), along
with Safe Routes to School, Recreational Trails Program, and suballocated TAP dollars
administered by Illinois’ five largest MPOs (including CMAP).
Administered by IDOT. Recently moved to annual grant cycles (spring applications).
Less ITEP money administered by IDOT than pre-2013 – estimate $16M/year, compared
to $28M/year – but a higher fraction will go to bicycle-related projects.
Very high funding demand to supply ratio (estimated 15:1 in 2013).
Emphasis on transportation potential and inclusion in a larger, officially-adopted plan.
With more stringent federal engineering standards and review processes, this source is better
suited for significant ($400K to $1M+) bikeway projects and those requiring substantial
engineering work, such as bridges. In part to accommodate the tremendous demand, medium-
sized projects are usually funded more than very large projects.
CMAP Transportation Alternatives Program (CMAP-TAP)
Federal source with 80% federal/state, 20% local cost shares, administered by the
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP).
$17M soon to be awarded for initial two-year (FY13-14) program, all for bicycle-related
projects. Next cycle depends on continued federal funding past September 2014.
Nearly half of applications funded in initial grant cycle.
Emphases on projects implementing the Regional Greenways and Trails Plan, population
and employment density, improvement over current conditions, completed right-of-way
acquisition and engineering.
Five of the proposed eight FY13-14 grants range from $1.6M to $5.9M, indicating a willingness
to fund large, regionally significant projects. Like ITEP, the federal process must be followed.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
Federal source with 80% federal/state, 20% local cost shares, administered by the
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP).
Typically, annual grant cycles with applications due at the end of January.
$18M awarded to 12 bicycle-related projects in 2013, out of 42 applications.
Emphases on having a low cost-per-emission reduction ratio.
55
Emissions reduced per project cost is the priority. This is strongly related to population
density. Projects implementing CMAP’s “Go To 2040” plan are also a priority.
Other eligible categories include bike encouragement programs and bike parking.
Except for regionally-significant projects, low density suburbs like Buffalo Grove are at a
disadvantage in winning large CMAQ grants. However, medium-sized projects ranging from
$150-400K may be good candidates. Again, this is federal money, subject to more stringent
standards and review processes, like ITEP.
Illinois State Bike Grant Program
State source with 50% state, 50% local cost shares and a $200K grant ($400K project)
limit.
Reimbursement grant administered annually (March 1) by IDNR.
Pre-2007 average of $2.5M per year, with a $200K limit (except for land acquisition
projects). After a five year hiatus due to the State’s financial crisis, the program was
reinstated in 2013 with $1M in grants.
Typically a 2:1 ratio of applications to grants.
Only off-road trails and bikeways are eligible.
Much simpler process and standards as these remain local, not IDOT/federal, projects. Good
for simpler projects and those that can easily be phased. Many agencies prefer these over
ITEP/TAP, even though the cost share is higher, due to grant administrative burden and costs.
Recreational Trails Program
Federal source with 80% federal/state, 20% local cost shares.
Administered by IDNR with IDOT. Annual March 1 deadline.
$1.5M per year. About half is dedicated for non-motorized, off-road trails emphasizing
underserved user types. $200K limit (except for land acquisition projects).
Much less competitive, with application demand usually not much more than grant
supply.
This has been an underutilized source. Because of the decline of the Illinois State Bike Path
Grant program, more standard multi-use (bike) trails are getting funded recently. A good
target range is $100-200K.
Illinois Safe Routes to School program
Federal source with 80% federal/state, 20% local cost shares; reimbursable grants.
SRTS is a component of Transportation Alternatives Program funding.
Administered by IDOT.
An application cycle for $6M, or two years of funding, is due January 31, 2013. $5M
will go to for infrastructure projects ($200K limit each) within 2 miles of schools
56
serving any K-8 grades. $500K will go for education and encouragement programs for
the same grades, with an application maximum of $30K.
Demand to supply ratio was 2:1 in 2008 and 2011. Non-infrastructure grants are much
less competitive.
The next cycle depends on continued federal funding past September 2014.
Sidewalk/sidepath, trail link, and road crossing projects fare well under the SRTS program.
Non-Government Sources
Private foundations, local businesses and individual donors can be another resource, especially
for high profile projects. The national focus on public health is also creating more opportunities
for active transportation. Many high profile organizations, such the Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation, are committing resources to projects that promote public health.
THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF A BICYCLE FRIENDLY COMMUNITY
GETTING STARTEDMAKING PROGRESSSETTING THE STANDARD
There’s no single route to becoming a Bicycle Friendly Community. In fact, the beauty of the BFC
program is the recognition that no two communities are the same and each can capitalize on its own
unique strengths to make biking better. But, over the past decade, we’ve pored through nearly 600
applications and identified the key benchmarks that define the BFC award levels. Here’s a glimpse at
the average performance of the BFCs in important categories, like ridership, safety and education.
33
%33%
2
6%
43
%
50
%
60
%
80
%
7
0%90%per 10Kcitizensper 20Kcitizensper 32Kcitizensper 70Kcitizensper 77K citizens78%65%4
5%45%4
3%
3
0%
1.2%
3.5%
5.5%
12%
20%
370
100
180
90
50 0.2
0.5
0.6
1.4
4very
g
o
o
d
goodvery good
very good
ve
r
y
g
o
o
d
v
e
r
y
g
o
o
d
g
o
o
d
go
o
d
excelle
n
t
excellent
e
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
t
excelle
n
t
yes
yes yes yes yes
some
some maybemaybeyes yesyesyesyeslikely very likely very likelygoodyes
yes
yes
yes
goodvery goodexcellentexcellentone
at l
e
a
s
t
t
w
o
at l
e
a
s
t
t
w
o
qua
r
t
e
r
l
y
mo
n
t
h
l
y
BRONZESILVERGOLDPLATINUMDIAMOND
BICYCLEFRIENDLYCOMMUNITY
DIAMOND
BICYCLEFRIENDLYCOMMUNITY
PLATINUM
BICYCLEFRIENDLYCOMMUNITY
GOLD
BICYCLEFRIENDLYCOMMUNITY
SILVER
BICYCLEFRIENDLYCOMMUNITY
BRONZEEDUCATIONENGINEERING E
N
C
O
U
R
A
G
E
ME
N
T
EVALUATION
KEY OUTCOMES
ENFORCEMENTLAW ENFORCEMENT/BICYCLING LIASONBICYCLE-FRIENDLY LAWS/TOTAL BICYCLE NET W O R K p e o p le commuting
BIKE PLAN IS
ACTIVE BIKE CLUBS &
BIKE MONTH & BIK
E
A
C
TIV
E BIC
Y
C
L
E
ACTI
VE MILEAGE TO TOTAL R O A D b y bicycle
CURRENT AND BEING
SIGNATURE EVENTS
TO WORK EVENTS
A
D
VIS
O
R
Y C
O
M
MIT
T
E
EADVOCACY GROUPNETW ORK M ILEA G E
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES LIKE BIKE PARKS & VELODROMESIMPLEMENTED
ORDINANCES IN PLACESPUBLIC EDUCATION ANNUAL OFFERING % OF PRIMARY & SECONDARY SCHOOLS OFFERING BICYCLING EDUCATIONBIKE ACCESS TO AR TE R IA L S T R E E T S
1 BIKE PROGRAM
STAFF PERSON
R I D E RSHIP FATALITIES per 10k daily commuter
CRASHES per 10k daily commuter
W IT H B IK E L A N E S
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATIONOF ADULT BICYCLING SKILLS CLASSESOUTREACHproduced by
Designed by Language Dept.
WWW.BIKELEAGUE.ORG
Appendix 6