Laserfiche WebLink
JUN 2 0 1984 Box 57 rf:j_ 1 <br />501 <br />concrete "bikewalk" on the north side of 16th Street from <br />. 20th Avenue to 29th Avenue to complete that section of the <br />walkway for the children to get to school. It is a sub bike <br />path standard, but it is a sidewalk, i.e., a bike path is 5 <br />feet wide as compared to an 8 -ft. wide sidewalk. Mr. <br />McQueen pointed out that they had put in a bikewalk for the <br />City on 17th Street extension over on the south beach <br />parking lot. A sign was posted listing it as a "bikewalk", <br />and it has worked out pretty well. The reason he is <br />recommending concrete is that grass will grow up through <br />asphalt, the edges would ravel, and it is difficult to <br />create a pleasing appearance with asphalt. <br />Commissioner Bird thought walkers and cyclists could <br />co -exist, but he didn't want to run into any problems with <br />the DOT. <br />Mr. McQueen believed that the book on bike paths was a <br />recommendation only, and not a cut and dried mandated <br />regulation. <br />Chairman Scurlock felt that the asphalt paths that have <br />been built in the past are a mess as far as maintenance <br />goes. <br />Mr. McQueen estimated that the concrete bike path <br />would cost about $2 a sq. yd. more than asphalt with <br />limerock and $3 more for asphalt and coquina. However, he <br />did not recommend that we put in concrete bike paths <br />everywhere. <br />Commissioner Wodtke noted that other communities have <br />been designating bike paths on the right-hand side of <br />streets. While he realized that these paths are not as safe <br />as off the road paths, he wondered if this is something that <br />should be considered as an alternative. <br />Mr. McQueen did not feel it would be a good idea for <br />_ . this path, but was an idea that could be considered for <br />other roads in the future. <br />38 <br />