Bike Ironbound

BIKEIRONBOUND

BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF NEWARK prepared by WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff and the New Jersey Department of Transportation

and the Municipal Council Ras J. Baraka

Mayor

Mildred C. Crump

President, Council Member At-Large

Agusto Amador Carlos M. Gonzalez John Sharpe James Gayle Chaneyfield Jenkins Joseph A. McCallum, JR.

Council Member, East Ward Council Member, At-Large Council Member, South Ward Council Member, Central Ward Council Member, West Ward

Eddie Osborne

Council Member, At-Large

Luis A. Quintana

Council Member, At-Large

Anibal Ramos, JR.

Phillip Scott, P.E., C.M.E. Jack M. Nata

Council Member, North Ward

Director, Department of Engineering Manager, Division of Traffic and Signals

Division of Traffic and Signals 255 Central Avenue Newark, NJ 07103 (973) 733 - 3985

BIKEIRONBOUND BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF NEWARK

Contributors City of Newark Division of Traffic and Signals Jack M. Nata, Manager Jordan Kocak, Principal Planner, Transportation Isaac Ojeda, Principal Engineer

New Jersey Department of Transportation William Riviere, Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs

Steering Committee / Stakeholders Newark City Council

NJ Bike & Walk Coalition

City of Newark, Police Department

Newark Community Economic Development

Augusto Amador, Council Member, East Ward Benito Torres, Police Office Efrem Gonzalez, Sergeant Brian O’Hara, Lieutenant

City of Newark, Department of Economic and Housing Development Mark G. Barksdale, PP, AIA, JD, Director of Planning, Zoning & Sustainability

Ironbound Business Improvement District (IBID) Seth A. Grossman, Executive Director

Ironbound Community Corporation

Drew Curtis, Director of Community Development and Environmental Justice

Tri-State Transportation Campaign

Janna Chemetz, Senior NJ Policy Analyst

Cyndi Steiner, Executive Director Cesar A. Vizcaino, Senior Director, Economic Development

New Jersey Transit

Mike Viscardi, Assistant Director Federal Projects Planning

Residents

Aimee Jefferson Christopher Kok Christopher Rodriguez Madeline Ruiz Anker West

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Peter Kremer, AICP/PP Stephen Chiaramonte, AICP/PP Reed Sibley, AICP/LEED AP Daniel Turner, AICP

We would like to thank the many people who contributed their time, expertise, and support to the BIKEIRONBOUND project. In particular, we would like to thank: the Ironbound Business Improvement District, the Ironbound Community Corporation, the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, the NJ Bike & Walk Coalition, Newark Community Economic Development, New Jersey Transit, the Brick City Bicycle Collective, and the many members of the community who participated in this project.

01 Project Background

1 3

05 Bicycle Facilities

41

5.1 Bicycle Lane

42

5.2 Buffered Bicycle Lane

46

1.1 The Ironbound

4

5.3 Separated Bicycle Lane

50

1.2 Goals and Strategies

7

5.4 Two-Way Separated Bicycle Lane

54

1.3 Why Cycling Matters

8

5.5 Shared-Lane Markings

56

1.4 Connection to Previous Plans

14

5.6 Bicycle Boulevard

58

1.5 Projects Underway

16

5.7 General Design Considerations

62

19

5.8 Design Resources

65

02 Public Involvement 2.1 Local Steering Committee

20

06 Proposed Network

2.2 Public Meetings

20

6.1 Proposed Bicycle Network

68

2.3 Focus Groups

21

6.2 Raymond Boulevard Gateway

72

2.4 Wikimap

22

6.3 Additional Improvements

74

25

6.4 Bicycle Parking

76

6.5 Impact of Improvements on Stress

78

03 Bicycle Demand

67

3.1 Population Density

26

3.2 Job Density

26

07 Pilot Projects

3.3 Key Destinations

27

7.1 McWhorter Street

82

3.4 Equity Factors

27

7.2 Adams Street

83

3.5 Composite Bicycle Demand

28

7.3 Van Buren Street (Seg 1)

84

31

7.4 Van Buren Street (Seg 2)

85

7.5 Ferry Street (Seg 1)

86

7.6 Ferry Street (Seg 2)

87

7.7 Raymond Boulevard

88

7.8 Bike Corral Locations

89

04 Existing Network 4.1 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress

32

4.2 Roadway Cross Sections

36

81

Table of Contents

Introduction

I

Introduction The BIKEIRONBOUND Plan presents a vision of a comfortable, convenient, and safe environment in Newark’s Ironbound neighborhood for cyclists of all ages and abilities, and puts forward a framework to advance this vision.

The City of Newark, guided by the Mobility Element of the Newark Master Plan, has set a goal to increase bicycle ridership in the Ironbound and foster more widespread bicycle usage citywide. In support of this effort, BIKEIRONBOUND provides a roadmap for improving bicycle circulation in the Ironbound by enhancing access and linkages throughout the neighborhood, improving connectivity to key destinations beyond the neighborhood’s boundaries, while developing design guidelines that can be replicated throughout the City.

The BIKEIRONBOUND Plan was developed as part of the New Jersey Department of Transportation’s (NJDOT) Local Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning Assistance Program, which seeks to foster the development of non-motorized transportation modes in accordance with statewide goals and local needs.

The BIKEIRONBOUND plan establishes a framework for improving the bicycling environment in the Ironbound. The infrastructure improvements and bicycle network recommended in this plan are the result of extensive community outreach and technical analysis. These improvements will not only make the Ironbound a more attractive place to ride a bike, but will also improve the quality of life for residents and visitors by making the neighborhood more accessible for everyone.

1

01

Project Background The City of Newark has demonstrated their commitment to improving conditions for nonmotorized traffic through their Complete Streets policy and several recent and on-going initiatives, including the Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan. Based on previous studies and local support, the City identified the Ironbound as a priority neighborhood for a comprehensive bicycle master plan and development of design templates that can ultimately be replicated throughout the City.

Improving conditions for cyclists and spurring higher rates of ridership can have significant benefits for the neighborhood. Cycling has a demonstrated positive impact on safety, health, the economy and local businesses, equity, transportation, and other aspects of daily life. These benefits can help further enrich the quality of life in the Ironbound for residents, visitors, and workers alike.

The BIKEIRONBOUND Plan identifies a series of goals, objectives, and strategies to help the City and the neighborhood realize these benefits. Through previous planning work, Newark has already begun to integrate cycling as a key component of the City’s transportation system, and several projects to provide dedicated bicycle facilities within the Ironbound are already in the pipeline. This Plan will build upon the previous work and planned facilities to create a comprehensive vision for cycling in the Ironbound.

3

01 Project Background 4

1.1 The Ironbound The Ironbound, shown on the maps on pages 5 and 6, is a four square-mile neighborhood in Newark’s East Ward. It is generally bounded by Miller, Parkhurst, Thomas, and South Streets to the south; U.S. Route 1&9 and Lockwood Street to the east; Lister Avenue and the Passaic River to the north; and the Amtrak/NJ TRANSIT Northeast Corridor rail line to the west.

The Ironbound is a vibrant, densely populated, mixed-use district with a blend of residential enclaves; bustling commercial corridors, anchored by Ferry Street, with numerous shops, bars, and restaurants; parks and riverfront public open space; and local businesses and employment hubs.

Historically, the center of Newark’s manufacturing sectors was located in the North Ironbound, particularly to the east near U.S. Route 1&9, and the neighborhood’s industrial heritage is apparent today. Many industrial businesses still operate within the

Ironbound, with concentrations along the eastern and southern periphery.

The neighborhood has traditionally been a melting pot of people and cultures. Home to a variety of ethnic communities over the past century, the Ironbound has long attracted new immigrants looking to settle in the City, and continues to do so today.

Portuguese and Spanish immigrants began to arrive in the Ironbound in the 1920s, adding to the mix of Polish, Lithuanian, Italian, Irish, and German residents already settled in the City. The Portuguese population continued to grow through the 1960s and 1970s, soon followed by the Portuguese-speaking Brazilian immigrant community, and, more recently, a growing number of residents from Central and South America.

Today, the Ironbound is home to approximately 53,681 residents (2013 American Community Survey, 5 Year Estimates), with a population density of approximately 11,140 residents/square mile (nearly identical to the 11,458 residents/square mile population density of Newark overall). The neighborhood has

continued to grow significantly over recent years, gaining 7,696 residents (16.7%) between 2000 and 2013 (U.S. Census data).

Among the neighborhood’s key assets are its strong regional linkages and access to several transit services, including commuter rail, PATH, Newark light rail, and local and regional bus routes. With Newark Penn Station located at its northwestern edge, the Ironbound is within a 20-minute, single seat trip to New York City, and the ease of access to downtown Manhattan has increased the desire to live in the Ironbound.

Though regional linkages are a significant asset for the Ironbound, internal travel, especially by bicycle, is challenging.

The neighborhood has a well-connected internal street grid, with a mix of oneway and two-way streets. However, the same features that create the selfcontained urban neighborhood also limit external connections. Access to downtown Newark to the west is limited by the Northeast Corridor rail line and the congested arterial of NJ Route 21, and

connections to the north are limited to one crossing of the Passaic River. Raymond Boulevard and Market Street, busy, multilane, high-speed arterials, are barriers to the neighborhood’s riverfront and make access to Newark Penn Station challenging, notably at intersections with NJ Railroad Avenue, adjacent to the station.

Although dedicated bicycle facilities have been implemented throughout Newark, no on-road facilities have been installed in the Ironbound. The lack of existing bicycle facilities, while currently a detriment to the neighborhood, represents a unique opportunity to create a circulation plan that is well connected to local and regional destinations and integrated into the urban fabric of the Ironbound, serving the needs of residents, commuters, and visitors alike.

The BIKEIRONBOUND Plan aims to aid the City in focusing its limited resources on roadways where improvements will have the greatest positive impact, while allowing the City to standardize improvements through the use of design templates for the most commonly found roadway cross sections and surrounding context.

Where is the Ironbound?

Kearny East Newark

Ironbound City of Newark

Harrison

5

Po lk

e St Som m

St

M

tS t an rch Me

t

nS

St

Van B

ms Ada

t

nS

la

l ra

Pu

e

rlin Gen

Be

St

M

Ba

rb

a ar

St

St

th su

s

Ko

e

St

m Ro

ki S t

rP

oin

tR

d

Pul as

W

he

ele

C Ave

Sk

Jeff erso

t

ific S

Pac

St

ure

St on

rm

He

t eC

Gob le

Illag oV

Read St

St ad is M on S on ro t e Ja St ck so nS t

ss re ng Co

ue cW nS t ho Un ion rte rS St t Pro sp ec tS t

Br

M

dA ve ro a Ra il ey rs Je w Ne

wy cc ar t St er H

M

erry Mulb

t Foundry S

Sum

t

Ave A

ood S Lockw

Waydell St

wk

BIKEIRONBOUND

lan

St

6

l rs P ure act nuf Ma nt St e ce Vin tz Av Len St d St ins

rt Co

Ha tie ris Ch

St

0

BIKEIRONBOUND

r St

Chapel St

St

St les ar Ch int St Sa cis an Fr St t in eS zin

n

An

e

n ar

t nS t o t e nS ol n S o p s t Na usto arri Oliv tS er S o G rd H C t a M hes De t alv tth lan St tnu ern nS cey tS Go bez St iso r t St r a Ja Clif St G ford Sou ver o n th S St Ha t St

Ironbound Recreation Center

ga

n

La

St

St

t

ick

t gS

r Da

aS

cy

Wa rw

wy

i sk

ar

ag

Ni

Independence Park

St

Ma

Ma

St all W St a e Av on

Tho ma sS khu t rst S Ha t rpe rS t

Par

ye

or S t Em me tt S Wr t igh t St Mil ler St

t St

St

ils

Ast

Wa lnu ick

t

Ferry

Al

Ve se Joh y St Pe nso nni Tic ng nS hen t or S ton S t t

Ave Wa rw

er S

W

St

Yor k

t

St

m Fle

Rd

rray

Ga rd E K en S t inn ey Oli St ver St

eS

Elm

Mu

New

Clov

Ave

Euclid Ave

St

Elm

ett

ing

t

fay

tt S

Riverbank

MarkPark et St

Mo

La

Fillmore St

Raymond Blvd

Schalk St

St

Bril

sey

n Pl

ford Ox

Jer

Ediso

Richards St l St

Newark Penn Station Prudential Center

Riverview Pl

Project Background

Riverfront Park

h St

Albert Ave

Esthe

Red Bull Arena

Ave Josep

MAP 1

ter

Lis

Points of Interest Bus Route

Industrial Building

Bus Stop

School

Commercial Building

Place of Worship

0.25

0.5 Miles

The following goals and strategies outline the intended outcomes of the BIKEIRONBOUND Plan and the strategies for achieving those outcomes.

Goal #1: Develop a safe, convenient, and continuous network of bicycle facilities that serves the needs of bicyclists of all abilities Strategies Develop a neighborhood-wide system of designated bicycle facilities that serves both experienced and casual bicyclists. The network should facilitate travel to a wide variety of destinations, particularly employment centers, schools, commercial districts, transit stations, and recreational facilities.

Provide adequate bicycle parking along the bicycle network and at key destinations Ensure that dedicated facilities provide linkages to low-stress roadways Provide bicycle facilities that are appropriate to the street classification, traffic volume, traffic speed, and surrounding land use context Adjust street cross sections as appropriate to properly accommodate bicycle facilities Ensure that bicycle facilities are clear of obstructions by enforcing parking rules and restrictions

Goal #2: Increase bicycle mode share

Goal #4: Promote the Ironbound as a destination

Strategies

Strategies

Construct separated bicycle facilities that are attractive to most bicyclists

Expand and promote city-wide wayfinding system to more clearly help residents and visitors navigate to key destinations along a dedicated bicycle facility

Provide up-to-date and easily accessible information about the bicycle network, bicycle program and bicycle parking Increase public awareness of the benefits of bicycling through education programs and events such as Ciclovia

Goal #3: Improve the safety of bicyclists through education and enforcement programs Strategies Support and expand safety education programs for all levels of bicyclists Reinforce education of motorists on the rights of cyclists Work with law enforcement to better understand and enforce safe bicycling laws Implement targeted enforcement programs that focus on motorist and bicyclist violations that are most likely to cause safety issues, such as running red lights, speeding, and wrong-way riding

Project Background

1.2 Goals and Strategies

Coordinate efforts to brand cycling in the Ironbound neighborhood in a clearly identifiable manner

Goal #5: Implement pilot bicycle improvements Strategies Select two proposed facilities that can be implemented in 2016 In addition to these goals and strategies, the BIKEIRONBOUND Plan provides a roadmap for a city-wide bicycle plan. The strategies and recommendations contained in the plan are relevant and replaceable throughout the city.

Measuring Success

One vital component of any successful plan is tracking to what extent the plan has been implemented. To this end, the city shall revisit the BIKEIRONBOUND plan every five years, measuring how many lane miles of bicycle facilities have been installed, whether there has been a reduction of crashes involving cyclists, and whether there has been an increase in the number of cyclists in the neighborhood.

BIKEIRONBOUND

7

Project Background

1.3 Why Cycling Matters

Bicycle infrastructure also has a traffic calming effect on vehicle traffic. It creates either a real or visual narrowing of the travel lane, and adds “friction” alongside the travel lanes, similar to the effect of on-street parking.

Safety

Many studies have shown that slower motor vehicle speeds exponentially increase the survival rates for both pedestrians and bicyclists who are involved in a collision with a motor vehicle. Studies have also suggested that not only can bicycle infrastructure help slow motorists down, but increasing the presence of cyclists and pedestrians has a traffic calming effect as well.4 This means that there is a demonstrated safety in numbers that not only makes cycling safer through its traffic calming effect, but will actually encourage even more people to cycle. Marked bicycle facilities contribute to bicyclist safety, which then contributes to increased rates of bicycling,

Safety concerns are a key reason to invest in bicycling infrastructure. Although the incidence of crashes involving bicycles within the Ironbound does not indicate any readily obvious safety-related hot spots, many studies have identified perceptions of safety as the single greatest reason people do not bicycle. A study by the Portland Department of Transportation found that 60 percent of respondents, when asked if they would ride a bicycle, said that they were “interested, but concerned.” The primary cause of this concern was fear over safety and interacting with automobiles on the road.1 Field observations on November 17th and 19th of 2015 revealed that 59% of bicyclists riding in the Ironbound were riding on the sidewalk, an indication that the street is perceived as unsafe.

A 2004 Safe Routes to School survey found that 30% of parents expressed traffic-related danger as the primary barrier to allowing their children to walk or bike to school.2 Allaying safety concerns is essential to increasing bicycle mode share. Providing dedicated bicycle infrastructure can address this issue in several ways. As stated by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), bicycle lanes “facilitate predictable behavior and movements between bicyclists and motorists,” which decreases the likelihood of a crash.3

which in turn further improves safety and increases ridership.

The net impact of traffic calming effects related to bicycle infrastructure is a safer environment for all roadway users. The New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) conducted a corridor analysis of its separated bike lane facilities. The before/after analysis, as illustrated on the following page, found that the number of crashes decreased for all travel modes.

Bicycle crashes in the Ironbound over the past nine years are shown in Map 2 (NJDOT data, 2006-2014).

Overall, there were 54 reported bicycle crashes dispersed throughout the neighborhood. While there are no significant clusters, the data shows that crashes were more common along the more heavily traveled streets in the Ironbound such as Raymond, Ferry, and Market Streets.

60%

Four Types of Cyclists: Portland DOT Study

INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED

33% NO WAY, NO HOW

<1% STRONG AND FEARLESS

8

BIKEIRONBOUND

7% ENTHUSED AND CONFIDENT

e St Som m

St Po lk tS t an

rch Me

t ure Van B

t

nS

St

e

rlin Gen

Be

l ra

i sk

la

Pu

wy

Sk

St

rb

a ar

Ba

St

s

Ko

St

th su

e

m Ro

St

W

he

ele

rP

oin

tR

d

Pul as

ki S t

Jeff erso

BIKEIRONBOUND

Bicycle Crash History Bicycle Crash (2006-2014)

0

0.25

0.5 Miles

54 total crashes from 2006 to 2014 BIKEIRONBOUND

9

Project Background

Read St

St M

St ms Ada

t

ific S

Pac

St

Ave

C

Gob le

nS

St on

rm

He

t eC

Illag

oV

Sum

ad is M on S on ro t e Ja St ck so nS t

ss re ng Co

ue cW nS t ho Un ion rte r St St Pro sp ec tS t

Br

M

dA ve ro a Ra il ey rs Je w Ne

wy rH te ar

St

cc

erry

M

Mulb

t Foundry S

ga

Ave A

t

Waydell St

St St les ar Ch int St Sa cis an Fr St t in eS zin Ma

M

r St

wk

lan

Ha

rt Co

l rs P ure act nuf Ma nt St e ce Vin tz Av Len St d St ins

Schalk St

tie ris Ch

St

n

An

e

n ar

t nS t o t e nS ol n S o p s t Na usto arri Oliv tS er S o G rd H C t a M hes De t alv tth lan St tnu ern nS cey tS Go bez St iso r t St r a Ja Clif St G ford Sou ver o n th S St Ha t St

Chapel St

Riverview Pl

t

La

St

t

ick

St

Ma

n

t gS

St

aS

Wa rw

Ave

ar

cy

r Da

ag

St

Ni

St all W St a e Av on

t St

St

tt S

t

ing

m Fle

Ferry

ye

ick

er S

ils

or S t Em me tt S Wr t igh t St Mil ler St

Wa lnu

W

Ast

Tho ma sS khu t rst S Ha t rpe rS t

Par

t

Clov

Al

St

Ve se Joh y St Pe nso nni Tic ng nS hen t or S ton S t t

Ave Wa rw

et St

Euclid Ave

Rd

rray

Yor k

Mark

eS

Elm

Mu

Ga rd E K en S t inn ey Oli St ver St

St

ett

Mo

fay

New

Raymond Blvd

Fillmore St

La

Elm

St

Bril

sey

n Pl

ford Ox

Jer

Ediso

Richards St l St

Newark Penn Station

h St

Albert Ave

ood S Lockw

Ave

Esthe

ter

Lis

Josep

MAP 2

Project Background

NYC Separated Bicycle Lanes: Before/After Safety Trends 20% (Corridors with 3 Years of Data) 17%

601

514

484 426

25% 221

22% 280

220

2%

166

100 98

Crashes with Injuries

MV Occupant Injuries

Pedestrian Injuries Before

However, the lack of crash clusters does not indicate a lack of a problem. As demonstrated, safety concerns will often deter potential cyclists, thereby reducing the potential for a crash.

The common characteristics of the bicycle crashes in the Ironbound are consistent with trends seen throughout New Jersey and nationally. The vast majority involved males (90%); young people were also frequently involved (33% aged 18-24).

A higher proportion of the crashes occurred at intersections rather than mid-block, compared to the state average (76% vs. 56%). Similarly, a significant proportion of the crashes involved turning vehicles (20% turning left, 9% turning right). This may indicate a need to provide bicycle treatments at intersections to increase awareness and visibility of bicyclists among motorists and guide cyclists through the intersection.

10

BIKEIRONBOUND

After

Cyclists Injuries

Total Injuries

Source: NYC DOT, Protected Bicycle Lanes in NYC, 2014

Affordability Bicycling is a very affordable means of transportation. Nationally, the average annual operating cost of a bicycle is $308, compared to $8,220 for the average car.5 Providing convenient and safe bicycling facilities can help those who cannot afford an automobile and make the choice easier for those who wish to save money by going car free.

Equity Thirty-nine percent of households in the Ironbound do not own a car. This compares to 27% of households in the City of Newark overall, and 6.7% statewide.6 Furthermore, many residents are too young to drive; are unable due to age, illness, or disability; are unable or unwilling to afford the costs of owning and operating a car; or for other reasons are simply unable, unwilling, or choose not to drive.

Transportation choices for these residents may include walking, riding a bicycle, taking transit, or carpooling.

Presently, no dedicated bicycle facilities exist within the Ironbound. The absence of clearly marked bicycle routes, demarcated bicycle lanes, or shared-lane markings contributes to a dearth of bicycling for commuting, local access, and recreation. Recent U.S. Census data show that a large proportion of Ironbound residents take non-motorized transportation or transit to work, but very few residents bicycle. For the journey to work, 19% of residents use public transit, 16% of residents walk, but less than 1% of residents bicycle. Overall, a significantly higher proportion of Ironbound residents, as well as the City of Newark as a whole, choose non-motorized transportation than the statewide average.7 The large population of people in the Ironbound neighborhood who do not drive suggests a significant latent demand for more convenient and accessible transportation options, including cycling.

Other demographic factors also suggest that there is demand for cycling infrastructure in the Ironbound. The Ironbound is a diverse neighborhood, with just over one-half of residents identifying as white. Forty-three percent of Ironbound residents identify as Hispanic and roughly 12% are African American.8 The racial mix has shifted considerably in recent years, with a growing Hispanic community.

Bicycling has recently seen significant growth among non-white groups. From 2001 to 2009, cycling rates rose the fastest among African Americans, Hispanics, and Asian-Americans.

Those three groups account for a growing share

10

Health Benefits Bicycling can have many positive health benefits for a community. The national rise in childhood obesity has been shown to be correlated with declining rates of children walking and bicycling to school.11 In response, programs such as Safe Routes to Schools are seeking to improve the built environment and promote walking and biking to and from schools among students and parents. A bicycling network that is built for all usersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; ages and abilities encourages increased physical activity and healthy lifestyles. In addition to the physical health benefits associated with increased physical activity, children who walk or bike to school have also been found to be more attentive and able to concentrate and have mental alertness that is one-half school year more advanced than their counterparts.12 Among adults, bicycle infrastructure encourages wider bicycle usage for utilitarian and commuter trips, integrating physical activity into daily life.

Data show that places with a higher percentage of people walking and cycling to work also have a higher share of the population meeting the recommended levels of physical activity and lower rates of obesity, high blood pressure, and diabetes.13

Economic Benefits

Project Background

of all bike trips, rising from 16% in 2001 to 21% in 2009.9 Another study found that Hispanics tend to use bicycles at a greater rate for workrelated trips, while whites are more likely to use bicycles for recreation.10 With the marked rise in the Hispanic population in the Ironbound, providing high quality bicycle infrastructure has become even more essential to meet the needs of this growing population.

Based on the growing availability of data, there is an increasing understanding of the positive economic impact that bicycling can have on a community. Numerous studies have shown that while cyclists tend to spend less per trip than drivers, they also tend to make more frequent trips, pumping more money into the local economy over time. For example, an intercept survey conducted in Seattle found that people arriving to retail stores on foot or bicycle visit more frequently than those who drive and spend more money over the course of a month.14 Data from Portland, OR (shown on the next page) revealed a similar trend.

In New York City, NYC DOT found that, after improvement projects, businesses along corridors with new separated bike lanes had stronger growth in retail sales than the surrounding area, by up to 38%. In one district, commercial vacancies fell by 49% after a separated bicycle lane was installed.15 Additionally, a survey of residents on 1st and 2nd Avenues in the East Village, both home to separated bike lanes, found that bicyclists spent $163 per week on average at local businesses, as opposed to $143 for drivers.16 The many economic benefits of cycling are also demonstrated by the comparatively inexpensive nature of cycling infrastructure: an estimated $30 million in government expenditures could buy one mile of street widening, 20 miles of physically separated cycle tracks, 30 miles of high-quality off-road bike trails, 120 miles of bike boulevards, or 100 miles of sidewalk.17

BIKEIRONBOUND

11

Project Background

Average Monthly Customer Expenditures

by Travel Mode in Portland, OR

$76

Notes

Source: Kelly Clifton et al., Business Cycles: Catering to the Bicycling Market

1. Portland DOT, Four Types of Cyclists, 2006

$66

2. Safe Routes to School, The Decline of Walking and Bicycling, 2004 3. National Association of City Transportation Officials, Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2012

$61 $58

4. Jacobsen and Rutter, Cycling Safety, 2012 5. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Pocket Guide to Transportation, 2009 6. U.S. Census, 2013 ACS, 5 year estimates 7. U.S. Census, 2013 ACS, 5 year estimates

Transportation Behavior Parking and congestion are serious issues in the Ironbound neighborhood. Expanding the neighborhoodâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s bicycle infrastructure would provide another transportation choice for residents, visitors, and employees. As an alternative to driving, increasing bicycling ridership could contribute to a reduction in automobile travel and alleviate challenging parking and congestion conditions.

Data from cities throughout the country indicate that the provision of dedicated bicycle facilities can have a significant impact on travel behavior. In New York City, 140 miles of new on-street bicycle facilities, including 30 miles of separated bike lanes, have been added since 2007. This has contributed to a doubling of commuter cycling between 2009 and 2013.18 New separated bicycle lanes on 1st Avenue and Broadway have seen the volumes of cyclists increase by 160% and 108%, respectively.19

12

BIKEIRONBOUND

8. U.S. Census, 2013 ACS, 5 year estimates

Beyond a simple growth in bicycle ridership, installing bicycle facilities has also been shown to have a positive impact on other modes. Cities with high bicycling rates tend to have lower crash rates for all road users. On Stone Way Street in Seattle, a road diet was implemented to reduce the number of travel lanes and install bicycle lanes. After completion of the project, a before/after comparison found that the bicycle volume increased 25%, motor vehicle volume decreased 12-34% on adjacent streets, speeding decreased 80%, and collisions dropped 14%.20 To take advantage of opportunities for future residential and commercial growth, the Ironbound must become more accommodating to all modes of travel. Investments in bicycling infrastructure are necessary for the Ironbound to continue its development as an attractive, safe, and accessible place for newcomers and longtime residents alike.

9. Pucher, J. et al., Bicycling Renaissance in North America? An Update and Re-appraisal of Cycling Trends and Policies, 2011 10. Pucher and Renne, Socioeconomics of Urban Travel: Evidence from the 2001 NHTS, 2003 11. Alliance for Biking and Walking, 2012 Benchmarking Report 12. Egelund, N. et al., Mass Experiment 2012 13. Alliance for Biking and Walking, 2014 Benchmarking Report 14. Seattle Department of Economic Development, Neighborhood Business District Access Survey, 2012 15. NYC DOT, The Economic Benefits of Sustainable Streets, 2013 16. Transportation Alternatives, East Village Shoppers Study, 2012 17. Pucher, Shifting Gears 2013 Lecture Series, 2013 18. U.S. Census, 2013 ACS, 1 year estimates 19. NYC DOT, Protected Bicycle Lanes in NYC, 2014 20. Seattle DOT, Stone Way N Rechannelization: Before and After Study, 2010

BIKEIRONBOUND 13 Project Background

Project Background

05 MOBILITY

NEWARK MASTER PLAN

Newark’s Master Plan

STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS

1.4 Connection to Previous Plans Three planning documents have guided the decision to develop a comprehensive bicycle circulation plan for the Ironbound. These documents include the City of Newark Master Plan Mobility Element, the City of Newark Complete Streets Policy and Guidelines, and the Newark Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan.

Each of these documents stresses the importance of safely accommodating bicycling as part of a comprehensive multi-modal transportation network within Newark. Removing cars from the road will reduce emissions and improve air quality while concurrently reducing parking demand and congestion. Further, encouraging active transportation modes promotes exercise, improving public health.

Formalizing a network of bicycle facilities within the Ironbound will encourage greater use of the bicycle as a mode of transportation as bicycle travel becomes safer, more efficient, and more enjoyable.

14 14

BIKEIRONBOUND

MOBILITY

Our City Our Future

Volume 1 NEWARK MASTER PLAN

City of Newark Master Plan Mobility Element The City of Newark Master Plan Mobility Element includes several goals, objectives, and strategies that seek to integrate bicycling into the city’s planning efforts. Most relevant is the Mobility Element’s goal to: “Ensure that Newark’s transportation system and future improvements meet the needs of its residents, businesses, and visitors; while promoting local, regional, global connectivity, multi-modal travel choices, economic development, and safe and healthy neighborhoods.”

Supportive of this goal are objectives, strategies, and actions to improve conditions for local accessibility, pedestrians, and bicyclists, including: connecting “neighborhoods to one another and to the various employment, recreation, entertainment, and waterfront destinations within the City;” creating “a city-wide bicycle network that connects neighborhoods, parks, and the waterfront;” and developing “a bike facility plan and design guidelines.” This approach clearly defines the importance of local and regional connectivity

97

and the role that bicycles will play in achieving they City’s planning goals.

The Mobility Element also outlines a future Citywide bicycle network, including potential onstreet bicycle routes in the Ironbound.

Several of the bicycle facility actions outlined in the Mobility Element goal have already been accomplished, including completion of the Irvine Turner Boulevard, Mount Prospect Avenue, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard bikes lanes.

These completed actions demonstrate Newark’s commitment to improving bicycle accessibility City-wide and achieving the goals, objectives, and actions of the Mobility Element.

The BIKEIRONBOUND Plan will further advance the bicycle network goals of the Newark Master Plan Mobility Element. The plan will enhance bicycle connections within the neighborhood and to key destinations in the City and develop design guidelines that can be adapted City-wide.

Project Background

Template Cross Sections

T

DRAF

CITY OF NEWARK PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SAFETY ACTION PLAN DECEMBER 2015

City of Newark Complete Streets Policy and Guidelines

Newark Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan

The creation of a City of Newark Complete Streets Policy, and corresponding Newark Complete Streets Design Guidelines and Implementation Plan, is the fulfillment of a strategy of the Master Plan. The Complete Streets policy states that Newark is committed to creating streets and intersections that are safe for all users and travel modes. The policy lists as one its goals the need to â&#x20AC;&#x153;create a comprehensive, integrated, connected, multimodal network by facilitating connections to bicycling and walking trip generators such as employment, education, residential, recreational, and public facilities, as well as retail and transit centers.â&#x20AC;?

The Newark Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan has developed recommended corridor and intersection improvements throughout Newark, including the Ironbound.

The NJTPA and the City of Newark completed this federally-funded project because the Federal Highway Administration identified Newark as a Pedestrian Focus City, meaning the city has one of the highest rates of pedestrian fatalities in the country. Given this revelation, the city determined it was imperative to reduce the frequency and severity of pedestrian and bicycle crashes.

BIKEIRONBOUND advances this goal. The plan emphasizes strengthening the connection to important Newark trip generators, including employment centers and transit centers. Safety will be enhanced by designating exclusive onstreet bicycle facilities or clearly marking bicycle routes, which will contribute to increased driver awareness of bicyclists.

The BIKEIRONBOUND plan will advance the overall safety goals and build upon the recommendations of the Newark Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan, while also addressing specific bicycle safety improvements within the Ironbound.

BIKEIRONBOUND

15

Project Background

1.5 Projects Underway Newark Waterfront Park The City of Newark released Newark’s River: Public Access and Redevelopment Plan in 2013. This plan outlines the City’s strategy to construct a park along a five-mile section of the Passaic River from the Ironbound neighborhood to Clay Street, north of the Broad Street Train Station.

The City opened Segment 1 of the park near Brill Street in the Ironbound neighborhood in 2009. In 2013, the City finished and opened Segment 2 of the park in the Ironbound neighborhood from Somme Street to Van Buren Street. This section is shown in the photo above.

16

BIKEIRONBOUND

The Public Access and Redevelopment Plan updated Newark’s municipal development regulations along the river to facilitate the creation of valuable urban public spaces, setting the stage for completion of the park.

Once complete, the full Newark Riverfront Park will not only provide the City’s residents and visitors with a unique recreational

amenity, but the park will also enhance access and mobility within and between the downtown and Ironbound neighborhoods. The BIKEIRONBOUND Plan seeks to maximize this benefit for residents by improving access and wayfinding to the Newark Riverfront Park.

Plan for Segment 2 of the Newark Riverfront Park

Fi l lm or eS t

eS t So mm

er s Ch am b

Fe rg

St

t us on S

St

nt er ch a

Project Background

t

Elm St

Va lsu m

er St

Walnut St

New York Ave

M

Fe rry S

l

St Garden St

(expected completion: 2016)

E Kinney St

Oliver St

Chestnut S t

Vesey St

SEG 2

East Ferry Street

Ma oL

n

r ke tS t

Ferry St St C

t

t es S

St

t

t is S ans

St

harl

Fr St

n Mai

re mo

S ott

t

eS azin Mag

Fill

sc We

ra S Niaga

Wall St

ve on A

St Alyea

Wils

In addition to the McWhorter Street bicycle lane, the City of Newark will also be installing bicycle lanes on East Ferry Street, in both directions of traffic. East Ferry Street is a twoway street. The map to the right indicates the path of the bicycle lanes on East Ferry Street.

The western sections of Ferry Street will have shared-lane markings, establishing a bicycle route to Penn Station.

Bruen St

McWhort

Johnson St

The City of Newark has installed a one-way bicycle lane on McWhorter Street. McWhorter is a one-way street with parking on both sides.

This bicycle lane is the first in the Ironbound neighborhood and sets the stage for future bicycle improvements, as recommended in the BIKEIRONBOUND Plan.

Hamilton

St

Segment 2: Walnut St to Johnson St (expected completion: 2016)

on P Edi s

Green St

ut Waln

Segment 1: Ferry St to Walnut St (completed: December 2015)

Lafayette St

SEG 1

t Elm S

McWhorter Street

BIKEIRONBOUND

17

02

Public Involvement Public involvement is a key component of any successful planning process. The goal of the BIKEIRONBOUND public involvement process is to engage a broad and diverse group of residents, organizations, and leaders in order to develop a plan that reflects the priorities and interests of infrequent and potential riders, as well as avid existing users of the system.

To achieve this goal, the City of Newark developed a multi-tiered strategy for engaging the public.

To guide the planning process, a Local Steering Committee was assembled. The purpose of this committee was to guide and inform the planning process on an on-going basis.

Public meetings provide the opportunity for public input and comment throughout the planning process. One public meeting was held in the existing conditions and data collection phase. Two additional public meetings were held to gather comments on the draft bicycle network and draft final plan. Throughout the planning process, an online interactive mapping tool has given any member of the public the ability to provide comments and feedback.

Finally, additional meetings were held with smaller focus groups, including the Brick City Bicycle Collective and the Ironbound Community Corporation.

19

02 Public Involvement

2.1 Local Steering Committee The steering committee includes representatives from the City of Newark Division of Traffic and Signals, the City Council and Mayorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Office, the Police Department, New Jersey Transit, the Ironbound Community Corporation, the Ironbound Business Improvement District, the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, NJ Bike and Walk Coalition, Newark Community Economic Development Corporation (CEDC), and community leaders. The group met formally on three occasions to discuss the project:

Kick-off Meeting: May 13, 2015 The Steering Committee met at the Ironbound Little City Hall to discuss the goals and objectives of the study and gather preliminary local input on major bicycle issues in the City.

20

Review of Proposed Routes: September 23, 2015 The Steering Committee met at the Ironbound Community Corporation building at 317 Elm Street to review the proposed bicycle network for the Ironbound neighborhood. The Committee provided input on the bicycle network that would be presented to the public.

Review of Draft Final Plan: February 25, 2016 The Steering Committee met at the Ironbound Little City Hall to review the draft final BIKEIRONBOUND plan and discuss coordination of proposed improvements with other ongoing and upcoming planning initiatives in the neighborhood.

2.2 Public Meetings Meeting #1: July 15, 2015 A public meeting was held at the Prospect Street Firestation to gather input from the community on desired bike routes and infrastructure. Approximately 30 people attended the meeting, where there was a lively discussion on what the community expects from the BIKEIRONBOUND plan.

Attendees marked up maps to indicate where separated bicycle facilities are desired as well as problem areas in the neighborhood. There was strong support in the meeting for adding dedicated bicycle facilities in the Ironbound neighborhood as a way to make cycling more comfortable and safe for all users.

Meeting #2: November 16, 2015

Meeting #3: February 25, 2016

A public meeting was held at the Prospect Street Firestation to review the proposed bicycle network. Approximately 35 people attended the meeting. A presentation was given to review the study process and present concepts for bicycle facility types as well as the proposed network.

Following the presentation, there was a question and answer session and then an informal open-house where attendees could discuss and comment on various aspects of the study with members of the project team. Attendees of the meeting demonstrated support for the plan while offering feedback on a few additional routes and locations for bicycle parking. Attendees included residents of the Ironbound neighborhood, and representatives of the City of Newark and the Ironbound Community Corporation, among others.

A public meeting was held at the Prospect Street Firestation to review the draft final BIKEIRONBOUND plan.

Approximately 20 people attended the meeting where a presentation was given to review the outreach and analysis the project team used to develop the planâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s recommendations, as well as the proposed Ironbound bicycle network, connections to downtown and transit, and pilot projects. Following the presentation, attendees asked questions and discussed plan specifics with members of the project team.

2.3 Focus Groups Brick City Bike Collective: June 30, 2015 A focus group meeting was held with the Brick City Bike Collective on June 30, 2015. Approximately 12 people attended the meeting and provided input on desired bicycle routes and outcomes from the BIKEIRONBOUND plan.

Ironbound Community Corporation: August 26, 2015 Members of the project team met with representatives of the Ironbound Community Corporation at their building on 317 Elm Street to review and refine proposed bicycle network recommendations.

21

Public Involvement

Screenshot of WikiMap as seen on November 19, 2015

2.4 WikiMap An online WikiMap was set up to allow members of the community and interested parties the ability to provide input and comment throughout the life of the BIKEIRONBOUND planning process.

The WikiMap asked users to indicate where corridor and spot improvements are needed, where conditions are problematic, where there is existing bike parking and where bike parking is desired, and other comments.

22

BIKEIRONBOUND

The WikiMap was open for comments from June to December 2015. Approximately 90 users logged onto the site and generated 115 comments. The WikiMap results were used throughout the BIKEIRONBOUND planning process to identify locations and issues important to the public.

Among the issues identified via the WikiMap were: Lack of bicycle parking at key destinations (Ferry Street, retail centers, parks, and schools)

Lack of suitable northbound routes Raymond Boulevard and South Street considered problem corridors Lack of quality connections for Newark Penn Station

BIKEIRONBOUND 23 Public Involvement

03

Bicycle Demand The BIKEIRONBOUND Plan aims to develop a bicycle network that serves all of the neighborhood’s residents, efficiently and conveniently connecting people with destinations. Measures of existing bicycle usage, such as bicycle counts, while providing a good baseline to track ridership, do not necessarily fully reflect the potential demand, or latent demand, for bicycle facilities. Counts do not capture those residents, employees, visitors, and customers who would be more interested in bicycling if appropriate facilities were available – the “interested but concerned” cyclists who compose approximately 60% of the population.

Bicycle demand is influenced by a variety of factors, including the locations of population centers, jobs, key destinations, and demographic factors. In order to quantify this latent demand, BIKEIRONBOUND includes a comprehensive bicycle demand analysis.

The analysis helps demonstrate the need for bicycle accommodations, identify potential routes, and guide the development of a bicycle network.

The following sections summarize and illustrate the different components of the analysis, as well as the final output. To account for demand associated with origins and destinations located outside of the Ironbound, the analysis includes the entire city of Newark, as well as the adjacent municipalities of Harrison and East Newark.

25

03 Bicycle Demand

3.1 Population Density

3.2 Job Density

An objective of the bicycle network is to connect residents from where they live to where they need to go. Residential neighborhoods are the origin for many trips, whether by foot, bike, transit, or car. An analysis of population density identifies the most populous neighborhoods of Newark, indicating higher potential bicycle demand. In addition to identifying the greatest concentrations of potential bicyclists, denser neighborhoods and development patterns are also more conducive and more convenient for alternative modes of transportation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; including walking, cycling, or transit.

While residential areas are a generator of trips, employment areas are a major trip attractor, or destination. An analysis of job density data (2012 U.S. Census data) identifies the large employment hubs within Newark, indicative of significant destinations for bicycle trips.

As illustrated above, the Ironbound stands out as one of the denser neighborhoods of Newark (2010 U.S. Census data).

Residential areas appear dispersed throughout the majority of the Ironbound, with lower population densities to the east and around the periphery, which tend to have more industrial land uses.

26

As shown in the map above, the downtown area of Newark has the highest concentration of jobs within the City, suggesting a high demand for bicycle connections from residential areas in the adjacent Ironbound to downtown. Within the Ironbound itself, higher concentrations of jobs are located around Ferry Street, as well as industrial areas to the east and south.

3.3 Key Destinations

3.4 Equity Factors

In addition to employment areas, other major destinations for bicycle trips include: Schools

Socio-economic factors can also indicate areas of higher potential demand or need for bicycle facilities. Using available U.S. Census data, the demand analysis (shown above) included:

Universities

Under 18 population

Parks

Households without automobile access

Commercial areas (shops, restaurants, etc.)

Low-income population (income <125% of poverty level)

Train stations (NJ TRANSIT, PATH, light rail)

Residents who bike to work

Bus stops

Residents who walk or take transit to work

The locations and concentrations of these destinations indicate areas of higher demand for bicycle use (illustrated in the map above).

These socio-economic factors all indicate populations for whom bicycle access may be a preferred or necessary means to travel to work, school, or other destination. They capture residents who cannot afford or choose not to own a car, who may see cycling as a more affordable or accessible means of transportation, who already bike to work, or for whom cycling might be a suitable alternative for getting to work.

27

Bicycle Demand Analysis

3.5 Composite Bicycle Demand The different factors of the bicycle demand analysis were aggregated at the U.S. Census block level, and demographic factors were normalized to the block area to account for differences in block size. As illustrated in the table below, each factor was assigned a weight to give greater heft to different factors and balance factors that represent or are associated with trip generators (origins) and those that represent trip attractors (destinations).

Bicycle Demand Input Weights Factor

28

Weight

Population Density

18%

Job Density

18%

Key Destinations

35%

Schools

4%

Universities

8%

Parks

4%

Commercial

8%

Bus Stops

3%

Train Stations

8%

Equity Factors

29%

Under 18

6%

No Car Access

8%

Income < 125% Poverty

5%

Bike to Work

6%

Walk or Transit to Work

4%

BIKEIRONBOUND

The total bicycle demand including all of Newark and adjacent communities is illustrated in the map to below. Relative to the rest of the City, the Ironbound has a consistently high demand for bicycling throughout much of the neighborhood. The map demonstrates the need for bicycle facilities within the Ironbound and the importance of establishing a robust network both within the neighborhood and connecting to major destinations elsewhere in the City.

Other areas of high demand in Newark include the vicinity of universities (Rutgers-Newark, NJIT), as well as neighborhoods located in the north and far west of the City.

Map 3, on the opposite page, illustrates bicycle demand within the Ironbound itself.

Areas of moderate to high demand are located throughout the neighborhood, and represent important nodes to link with the proposed bicycle network. Areas with high demand include the commercial district surrounding Ferry Street and Five Corners, in the vicinity of East Side High School, surrounding East Kinney and Oliver Streets, a neighborhood to the southeast, and a mixed-use node to the east in the vicinity of Hawkins Street.

Read St

St

e St Som m

M

tS t an rch Me

t Van B

ure

St ms Ada

t

St

e

rlin Gen

Be

l ra

i sk

la

Pu

wy

Sk

St

Ba

rb

a ar

St

s

Ko

St

th su

e

m Ro

St

tR oin rP ele W

he

Ave

BIKEIRONBOUND

d

Pul as

ki S t

Jeff erso

nS

t

ific S

Pac

St

C

Gob le

nS

St on

rm

He

t eC

Illag

oV

Sum

ad is M on S on ro t e St Ja ck so nS t Po lk St

ss re ng Co

ue cW nS t ho Un ion rte r St St Pro sp ec tS t

Br

M

dA ve ro a Ra il ey rs Je w Ne

wy rH te ar

St

cc

erry

M

Mulb

ga

Ave A

t Foundry S

St St les ar Ch int St Sa cis an Fr St t in eS zin Ma

e

n ar

M

t

Waydell St

tie ris Ch

St

St

n

An

r St

wk

lan

Ha

rt Co

l rs P ure act nuf Ma nt St e ce Vin tz Av Len St d St ins

Schalk St

t

La

St

t nS t o Rd t e nS ol n S m o p El s t Na usto arri Oliv tS er S o G rd H C t a M hes De t alv tth lan St tnu ern nS cey tS Go bez St iso r t St r a Ja Clif St G ford Sou ver o n th S St Ha t St

St

tt S

n

t gS

St

t

ick

Chapel St

Riverview Pl

Mo

cy

r Da

aS

Wa rw

Euclid Ave

ar

St

ag

ick

t St

Ave

Ferry

Ni

Wa rw

Wa lnu

ing

m Fle

Ma

Ave

t

St all W St a e Av on

or S t Em me tt S Wr t igh t St Mil ler St

t

er S

ye

Ast

Tho ma sS khu t rst S Ha t rpe rS t

Par

eS

ils

St

Ve se Joh y St Pe nso nni Tic ng nS hen t or S ton S t t

ett

W

rray

Yor k

et St

Al

Mu

Ga rd E K en S t inn ey Oli St ver St

St

Mark

Clov

fay

New

Raymond Blvd

Fillmore St

La

Elm

St

Bril

sey

n Pl

ford Ox

Jer

Ediso

Richards St l St

NEWARK PENN STATION

h St

Albert Ave

ood S Lockw

Ave

Esthe

ter

Lis

Josep

MAP 3

Bicycle Demand High Medium

Low

0

0.25

Bicycle demand includes the following factors: - Population Density - Employment Density - Key Destinations - Schools, Universities, Parks, Businesses - Transit - Demographics and Equity Factors - Young people; low income; no access to a car; commute by bike, foot, or transit

0.5 Miles

04

Existing Network The roadway network in the Ironbound is characterized by a strong grid pattern and numerous one-way streets (particularly running north and south in the neighborhood). All the roads in the Ironbound neighborhood are owned and maintained by the City, with most servicing predominantly local traffic. However, a few roads within the neighborhood (including Raymond Boulevard and Market Street in the north) carry significant volumes of traffic through the neighborhood between highways to the east and downtown Newark and other points west.

The existing roadway network was analyzed to assess what levels of stress or roadway conditions cyclists within the Ironbound neighborhood currently experience, as well as to evaluate the potential application of different bicycle infrastructure treatments. The project team gathered data on all the streets in the Ironbound through a combination of City records, field work, public input, and other means.

The data guided the analysis of the entire roadway network to determine its Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS), a metric used to measure a cyclistâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s comfort level on a given roadway. This analysis helps guide the planning process by demonstrating where focused improvements might have the biggest impact.

The roadway data was also used to determine the typical cross sections of Ironbound streets. These cross sections are a critical factor in determining where and what potential bicycle infrastructure improvements might be appropriate.

31

04 Existing Network

4.1 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) is a metric used to measure a cyclist’s potential comfort level given the current conditions of the roadway. Different bicyclists have different tolerances for stress created by volume, speed, and proximity of automobile traffic. The LTS metric is based on the Dutch concept of low-stress bicycle facilities, which has proven influential in the advancement of bicycle planning in the United States.

In general, lower stress facilities have increased separation between cyclists and vehicular traffic and/or have lower speeds and lower traffic volumes. Higher stress environments generally involve cyclists riding in close proximity to traffic, multi-lane roadways, and higher speeds or traffic volumes.

Four levels of traffic stress were used to evaluate the Ironbound streets:

The level of traffic stress analysis categorizes streets based on four levels. These level of stress categories, discussed below, were determined through significant research in the Netherlands, and adapted for the United States by researchers at Northeastern University.

1 - Most Users

2 - Most Adults

Suitable for almost all cyclists, including children.

On LTS 1 links, cyclists are either physically separated from traffic, in an exclusive bicycling zone next to slow traffic, or on a sharedstreet with a low speed differential.

Suitable for most adults, but demands more attention than might be expected from children. Similar cross sections to LTS 1 but with more likeliness for interaction with motor vehicles.

3 - Enthusiastic Riders

4 - Experienced Riders

Welcoming level for many people currently riding bikes in this country. Cyclists either ride in an exclusive on-street lane next to moderate speed traffic or on shared lanes on non-multilane streets.

Suitable only for the most experienced riders or not suitable for any riders.

Roadway is characterizes by high travel speeds, multiple lanes, and/or are lacking in dedicated bicycle facilities.

Level of Stress 1: the level most users can tolerate (including children and seniors) Level of Stress 2: the level tolerated by most adults Level of Stress 3: the level tolerated by “enthusiastic” riders who might still prefer dedicated space Level of Stress 4: the level tolerated by the most experienced riders A detailed look at the criteria used to determine LTS can be found in Appendix A.

32

Four levels of traffic stress:

The LTS was evaluated for all roads in the Ironbound. The resulting output is shown in Map 4 on the following page As shown in Map 4, there are very few Level of Stress 1 streets, or streets that most users can tolerate (including children and seniors). The vast majority of roads in the Ironbound are classified as Level of Stress 2, which means that most adults would be comfortable riding on these streets.

However, many of the most stressful

roads surround the neighborhood, creating barriers to low stress cycling.

For example, within the Ironbound neighborhood itself, Raymond Boulevard is classified as a Level of Stress 4 roadway, only appropriate for the most experiences riders. Market Street, just south of Raymond, is classified as Level of Stress 3, only tolerated by enthusiastic and more experienced riders. These

Albert Ave

e St Som m

St Po lk tS t an

rch Me

Bur

en

St ms Ada

Van

s

Ko

r

ne

Ge

as

ul

P al

St

h

t su

lin

r Be

St

e

m Ro

St

BIKEIRONBOUND

ler he e W

Av eC

Po

int

Pul

Rd

ask

i St

Jeff

ers

Pac

on

ific

St

St

St

St on

rm

He

Read St

t M

ad is M on on S ro t e Ja S ck t so n St

sS es Co ng r

Br ue n W St ho Un ion rte rS St t Pr os pe ct St c

M

Av e ad lro Ra i y se er cc a rry S rter oV t Hw Illa ge y Ct Gob Ne le S w t J

Sum

Mul be

M

Av eA

t

rb

Ba

St

t Foundry S

Ch

t

St n o t St e ol n S on p s o t Oliv Na ust arri tS er S o G rd C H t a M h De est t alv th lan St ern nu n S Got cey tS ez St iso b t r St r t a Ja Cli rS G ffo So ve rd uth o n St St Ha

a ar

St

t

sS

eS

St

Waydell St

ll S

t

rle ha tC t in S Sa cis an St

S ki

Fr zin

M

in

ga

e

n ar

y

kw

Ma

n

An

St

St

t

La St

St

St Ma

ick

ng

St

cy

r Da

aS

Wa rw

Ave

ar

tor St Em me tt S Wr t igh tS Mil t ler St

t

ing

m Fle

Ferry

ag

As

Tho ma khu sS t rst St Ha rpe rS t

Par

er S

Ni

t

t

Clov

t lS al W St a ye Ave Al on ils W

yS

eS

New Ga rde Yor kA nS EK Wa ve t lnu inn t St e Oli y W St arw ve rS ick t St

Ve s Jo ey St Pe hn nn Tic so nS hen ingto nS t or St t

et St

Euclid Ave

Rd

rra

ett

Elm

Mu

St

Mark

dS

fay

Elm

Raymond Blvd

t

La

St

tt S Mo

l

Bri

sey

on P

for Ox

Jer

Fillmore St

Edis

Pl ers tur fac t nu Ma ent S c ve Vin tz A St Len d an St rtl Chapel St ins Co wk Schalk St Ha Riverview Pl St tie Richards St ris

Newark Penn Station

wood Lock r St Esthe ph St

ve rA

te Lis

Jose

MAP 4

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Level of Stress 1 Level of Stress 2 Level of Stress 3 Level of Stress 4

0

0.25

0.5 Miles

Existing Network

roadways create a barrier and significantly limit east-west cycling and connectivity to Newark Penn Station and prevent LTS 1 or 2 connections to the train station.

Connectivity is further limited by McCarter Highway (NJ-21), which bounds the western border of the neighborhood, paralleling the rail line, and is a Level of Stress 4 roadway. Limited access highways are not included in the stress analysis because they are not suitable (and often not legal) places for cycling. While NJ-21 is given a LTS of 4 in this analysis, the roadway shares many characteristics with a limited access highway and could reasonably be considered an inhospitable place for cycling.

Raymond Boulevard and Market Street are also shown on the map beyond the border of the Ironbound. These are both Level of Stress 4 roadways in downtown Newark.

The LTS metric measures the bicycle network from the perspective of the user. As such, the metric accounts for the ability of a user to move from one point to another unimpeded by higher stress environments. Therefore, the stress analysis accounts for the change in stress level a user might encounter at an intersection. For example, if a user was riding on a road with a stress level of 1 but desired to cross a road with a stress level of 4, the trip would no longer be considered low stress.

High stress roads, often arterials and primary connectors, can reduce bicycle connectivity, impeding a user’s ability to travel to a desired destination, and discouraging wider cycling use. This “intersection” effect can be seen most prominently near Market Street and Raymond Boulevard, where difficult crossings can transform a low stress roadway to a high

34

BIKEIRONBOUND

Level of Traffic Stress Tiers LTS 1 Only

LTS 1 and 2

LTS 1, 2 and 3

All LTS

stress roadway. A traffic signal can help reduce this effect, as it has at a number of these roadway links.

The figure above demonstrates the level of traffic stress for Ironbound roads, starting from LTS 1 and adding each additional level incrementally. This graphic further demonstrates that the majority of the Ironbound might be comfortable for adult users

(not children or seniors), but many destinations within the Ironbound and beyond (particularly Newark Penn Station, downtown Newark, and the connection to Harrison) are not accessible for a level of stress 1 or 2 user. One goal of this plan is to provide low-stress bike connections the destination by addressing key deficiencies on high stress roadways.

Existing Network

4.2 Roadway Cross Sections As part of the analysis of the existing roadway network in the Ironbound, the ten most common roadway cross sections were identified (shown in the table to the right).

These cross sections do not include roadway width, which is too variable to create discrete groupings. The widths, along with the cross section information, helped determine potential bicycle treatments throughout the Ironbound.

The factors that were used to determine typical roadway cross sections included direction of travel, presence and sides of the street with parking, number of lanes, and the land use context. For the context the project team looked at the land use mix on every street (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial, or mixeduse) to determine whether the street could be characterized as residential or non-residential.

Streets were characterized as residential if this was the predominant land use and nonresidential if there was more than a handful of non-residential uses. Streets that could be characterized as residential in one segment and non-residential in another were identified where appropriate.

Map 5 on the following page shows the locations of these typical roadway cross sections in the Ironbound. The three most common cross sections are shown discretely, with the remaining streets categorized as “Other Multi-Lane” and “Other Single-Lane.”

As shown in the table to the right, the most typical roadway cross section in the Ironbound

36

BIKEIRONBOUND

Typical Roadway Cross Sections in the Ironbound Number of Miles

Direction

Parking

Lanes

Context

18.8

Two-Way

Both Sides

Single Lane

Non-Residential

14.1

One-Way

Both Sides

Single Lane

Non-Residential

3.9

One-Way

Both Sides

Single Lane

Residential

1.9

Two-Way

Both Sides

Single Lane

Residential

1.8

Two-Way

No Parking

Single Lane

Residential

1.8

One-Way

Both Sides

Multi Lane

Non-Residential

1.3

One-Way

No Parking

Multi Lane

Non-Residential

1.1

One-Way

No Parking

Single Lane

Residential

0.7

Two-Way

No Parking

Multi Lane

Residential

0.4

One-Way

One Side

Single Lane

Non-Residential

is a non-residential, two-way street with parking on both sides and one lane in either direction. There are 18.8 miles of this street type, which is shown in orange on Map 5 on the following page.

The second most typical cross section is a non-residential, one-way street with parking on both sides and one travel lane. There are 14.1 miles of this street type, which is shown in light blue on Map 5.

These two cross sections are by far the most typical in the Ironbound, accounting for 67% of total roadway miles in the neighborhood.

Read St

St

e St Som m

Po lk

St

M

tS t an rch Me

t Van B

ure

St ms Ada

t

nS

t

ific S

M

St

e

rlin Gen

Be

l ra

i sk

la

Pu

wy

Sk

St

Ba

rb

a ar

St

s

Ko

St

th su

e

m Ro

St

BIKEIRONBOUND

W

he

ele

rP

oin

tR

d

Pul as

ki S t

Jeff erso

Pac

St

Ave

C

Gob le

nS

St on

rm

He

t eC

Illag

oV

Sum

ad is M on S on ro t e Ja St ck so nS t

ss re ng Co

ue cW nS t ho Un ion rte r St St Pro sp ec tS t

Br

M

dA ve ro a Ra il ey rs Je w Ne

wy rH te ar

St

cc

erry

M

t Foundry S

ga

Mulb

t

Waydell St

St St les ar Ch int St Sa cis an Fr St t in eS zin Ma

Ave A

r St

wk

lan

Ha

rt Co

l rs P ure act nuf Ma nt St e ce Vin tz Av Len St d St ins

Schalk St

tie ris Ch

St

n

An

e

n ar

t nS t o t e nS ol n S o p s t Na usto arri Oliv tS er S o G rd H C t a M hes De t alv tth lan St tnu ern nS cey tS Go bez St iso r t St r a Ja Clif St G ford Sou ver o n th S St Ha t St

Chapel St

Riverview Pl

t

La

St

t

n

ick

St

Ma

t gS

St

aS

Wa rw

Ave

ar

cy

r Da

ag

St

Ni

St all W St a e Av on

t St

St

tt S

t

ing

m Fle

Ferry

ye

ick

er S

ils

or S t Em me tt S Wr t igh t St Mil ler St

Wa lnu

W

Ast

Tho ma sS khu t rst S Ha t rpe rS t

Par

t

Clov

Al

St

Ve se Joh y St Pe nso nni Tic ng nS hen t or S ton S t t

Ave Wa rw

et St

Euclid Ave

Rd

rray

Yor k

Mark

eS

Elm

Mu

Ga rd E K en S t inn ey Oli St ver St

St

ett

Mo

fay

New

Raymond Blvd

Fillmore St

La

Elm

St

Bril

sey

n Pl

ford Ox

Jer

Ediso

Richards St l St

Newark Penn Station

h St

Albert Ave

ood S Lockw

Ave

Esthe

ter

Lis

Josep

MAP 5

Roadway Cross Section Parking 2 Sides, 2-Way, Non-Res, 1-Lane Parking 2 Sides, 1-Way, Non-Res, 1-Lane Parking 2 Sides, 1-Way, Res, 1-Lane Other Multi-Lane Other Single-Lane

0

0.25

Newark Buildings Commercial/Industrial

0.5 Miles

Typical Roadway Cross Section Existing Network

Single-Lane, Non-Residential, Two-Way, Parking

This cross section is the most typical in the Ironbound, accounting for about 18.1 miles of roadway. Average width of this cross section is 36' (56’ max/ 29’ min) 

38

BIKEIRONBOUND

Ferry Street

Typical Roadway Cross Section Existing Network

Multi-Lane Non-Residential One-Way No Parking

This cross section is the second most typical in the Ironbound, accounting for about 14.1 miles of roadway. Average width of this cross section is 30’ (52’ max/ 28’ min) Prospect Street 

BIKEIRONBOUND

39

05

Bicycle Facilities The BIKEIRONBOUND Plan seeks to create a standardized program of bicycle treatments that can be implemented throughout the Ironbound neighborhood.

These treatments fit various contexts and purposes and aim to make bicycling in the Ironbound safer, more comfortable, and more desirable. The design treatments recommended in this chapter utilize guidance from NACTO’s Urban Bikeway Design Guide, NACTO’s Urban Streets Design Guide, and FHWA’s Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. Design treatments were chosen that are easily implementable and fit the context of the Ironbound neighborhood. These guides provide more detailed information that might be necessary to implement the preferred bicycle treatments outlined in this chapter, and should be consulted if needed.

This chapter features six design treatments, with additional guidance given for one-way and two-way streets: Bicycle Lane Buffered Bicycle Lane Separated Bicycle Lane Two-way Separated Bicycle Lane Shared-Lane Markings Bicycle Boulevard

41

Bicycle Lane Bicycle Facilities

(Two-Way Street) Description Bicycle lanes are used to provide an exclusive space for bicyclists through the use of pavement markings and signage. Bicycle lanes are intended for one-way travel and are typically used on both sides of a two-way street (see below) and on one side of a one-way street (see following page). Bicycle lanes enable bicyclists to ride at their preferred speed, free from interference from motorists. Bicycle lanes help facilitate predictable behavior between bicyclists and motorists. Bicyclists may leave the bicycle lane to pass other bicyclists, make left turns, or avoid obstacles and conflicts. Motorists may pass through the bicycle lane to access parking or make other turning movements, but they may not stand or park in the lane.

Dimensions

Design and Use

A The desirable bike lane width adjacent to

Bicycle lanes are recommended on streets with a posted speed limit of 25 or 30 MPH

B When placed next to a parking lane, the

Where additional space is available, consider providing a buffered bicycle lane (see page 46)

parking is 7’. The minimum width permitted is 5’ desirable reach from the curb face to the edge of the bike lane is 14.5’ Wherever possible, minimize parking width in favor of increased bike lane width.

On constrained corridors with high parking turnover, consider including pavement markings to guide bicyclists out of the door zone of parked vehicles

C The desired width for parking lanes in the

Bicycle lane striping should use the following standards: 6- to 8-inch solid white line next to the travel lane, and 4-inch solid white line next to the parking lane

Ironbound is 8’ (9’ maximum)

D The desired width for travel lanes is 10’ – 11’

A B D

C

Minimum Cartway Widths Without parking: 30’ With parking on one side: 38’

42

BIKEIRONBOUND

With parking on two sides: 46’

Bicycle Facilities Bicycle Lane on Two-Way Street, Irvine Turner Boulevard, Newark, NJ

BIKEIRONBOUND

43

Bicycle Lane Bicycle Facilities

(One-Way Street) Description The preferred location for bicycle lanes on a one-way street is on the left-side of the roadway. Left-side bicycle lanes can result in fewer conflicts between bicyclists and motor vehicles, particularly on streets with heavy right-turn volumes or frequent bus stops. Left-side bicycle lanes can also increase the visibility of bicyclists to motorists at intersections. On one-way streets with parking on the right side, a left-side bicycle lane will result in fewer conflicts with parked cars. Additionally, on one-way streets with parking on both sides, bicyclists riding on the left will have fewer conflicts with car doors opening on the passenger side.

Dimensions

Design and Use

The desirable bike lane width adjacent to

Left-side bicycle lanes have the same design requirements as right-side bicycle lanes

When placed next to a parking lane, the

Left-side bicycle lanes are recommended on most one-way streets

of the bike lane is 14.5’. Wherever possible, minimize parking width in favor of increase bike lane width.

On one-way streets where there is a dramatically higher frequency of left turns to right turns, a rightside bicycle lane might be the appropriate treatment

The desired width for parking lanes in the

Left-side placement might not be appropriate on streets that transition from one-way to two-way

A parking is 7’. The minimum width permitted is 5’.

B desirable reach from the curb face to the edge

C Ironbound is 8’ (9’ maximum)

D The desired width for travel lanes is 10’ – 11’

A

B

D

C

Minimum Cartway Widths Without parking: 15’ With parking on one side: 23’

44

BIKEIRONBOUND

With parking on two sides: 31’

Bicycle Facilities Bicycle Lane on Two-Way Street, Dr MLK Jr. Boulevard, Newark, NJ

BIKEIRONBOUND

45

Buffered Bicycle Lane Bicycle Facilities

(Two-Way Street) Description Buffered bicycle lanes are conventional bicycle lanes that are paired with a marked buffer space separating the bicycle lane from the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane. While buffers are typically used between bicycle lanes and travel lanes to increase bicyclist comfort, they can also be used between bicycle lanes and parking lanes where there is high parking turnover to discourage cyclists from riding too close to parked vehicles, decreasing the risk of conflicts with drivers opening their car door.

Dimensions

Design and Use

A The preferred (and minimum) width of a

Buffered bicycle lanes are appropriate on streets with a posted speed limit between 25 - 35 MPH

buffered bicycle lane adjacent to parking is 5’ The preferred width of a buffer is 3’ (minimum

Where only one buffer can be installed on a constrained corridor with on-street parking, the buffer should typically be placed between the bicycle lane and travel lane

B 1.5’)

The desired width for parking lanes in the

C Ironbound is 8’ (9’ maximum)

Buffer striping should use the following standards: 6to 8-inch solid white line next to the travel lane, and 4-inch solid white line next to the parking lane

D The desired width for travel lanes is 10’ – 11’

Buffer striping should have interior diagonal cross hatching or chevron markings if 3-feet in width or wider

A

D B

C

Minimum Cartway Widths Without parking: 33’ With parking on one side: 41’

46

BIKEIRONBOUND

With parking on two sides: 48’

Buffer Types - Striping

Benefits

Option 1: Cross Hatching (preferred)

Buffer Width

Buffered bicycle lanes provide additional separation between bicyclists and motor vehicles. Buffers provide space for bicyclists to pass one another without encroaching into the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane. The buffer encourages bicyclists to ride outside of the door zone when the buffer is placed between the bicycle lane and the parking lane.

Buffer Width

Buffered bicycle lanes increase the perception of safety on the roadway and therefore encourage increased bicycle use. According to a 2011 Portland State University Study, cyclists indicated that they feel a lower risk of being â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;dooredâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; in a buffered bicycle lane, nearly nine in ten cyclists preferred a buffered lane over a conventional lane, and seven in ten indicated that they would go out of their way to ride in a buffered lane rather than a conventional lane.

Travel Lane Side 6 to 8 inches

Cross Hatch Distance 10 to 40 ft

3 ft min

Bike Lane Side 4 inches

Option 2: Chevron

Striping Angle

30 to 45 degrees

3 ft min

Option 3: Parallel Lines

Applications

6 to 8 inches

Buffer Width

1.5 ft min

6 to 8 inches

Bicycle Facilities

Other Design Considerations

Where existing cartway width allows, buffered bicycle lanes should be considered anywhere a conventional bicycle lane is recommended, particularly on streets with high travel speeds and volumes or on-street parking. On streets with extra width and on-street parking, a second buffer should be considered between the bicycle lane and the parking lane.

BIKEIRONBOUND

47

Buffered Bicycle Lane Bicycle Facilities

(One-Way Street) Description Buffered bicycle lanes on a one-way street should follow the same guidelines as one-way conventional bike lanes.

Buffered bicycle lanes on a one-way street should be placed on the left-side of the roadway when possible and follow the same guidelines for right-side buffered bicycle lanes.

Dimensions

Design and Use

A The preferred (and minimum) width of a

On wide one-way streets with a buffered bicycle lane, consider adding a buffer to the opposite side parking lane to further narrow the motor vehicle lanes and encourage lower travel speeds

buffered bicycle lane adjacent to parking is 5’ The preferred width of a buffer is 3’ (minimum

B 1.5’)

The desired width for parking lanes in the

C Ironbound is 8’ (9’ maximum)

D The desired width for travel lanes is 10’ – 11’

C A D B

Minimum Cartway Widths Without parking: 16.5’ With parking on one side: 24.5’

48

BIKEIRONBOUND

With parking on two sides: 32.5’

Bicycle Facilities Buffered Bicycle Lane on One-Way Street, Washington Street, Newark, NJ

BIKEIRONBOUND

49

Separated Bicycle Lane Bicycle Facilities

(Two-Way Street) Description

Dimensions

Separated bicycle lanes are bikeways that are at street level and use a variety of methods for physical separation from passing traffic. Unlike a conventional or buffered bike lane, a separated bicycle lane provides vertical separation to prevent encroachment, improve safety, and deter double-parking. The separation of the bicycle lane from motor vehicle traffic makes a separated bicycle lane more attractive for bicyclists of all levels and ages. Separated bicycle lanes also have a reduced risk of “dooring” compared to conventional bicycle lanes.

Design and Use

The preferred width of a separated bicycle lane

A is 6’. The minimum width permitted is 5’.

Separated bicycle lanes should be used along streets with high motor vehicle volumes and/or speeds

B The preferred and minimum width of the

Separated bicycle lanes should be designed to allow bicyclists to pass other bicyclists

C The minimum width between any vertical

Typical forms of separation include removable or permanent bollards, raised curb, or planters (see following page)

designated buffer is 3’

separation and the curb is 7’

D The desired width for parking lanes in the Ironbound is 8’ (9’ maximum)

Where on-street parking is present, the parking lanes should be located adjacent to the travel lane, creating a physical separation for the bicycle lane

E The desired width for travel lanes is 10’ – 11’

Parking should be prohibited near intersections to increase the visibility of bicyclists

A B

E

C D Minimum Cartway Widths Without parking: 36’ With parking on one side: 44’

50

BIKEIRONBOUND

With parking on two sides: 52’

Other Design Considerations Tubular Markers / Bollards

Movable Planters

Benefits

Bicycle Facilities

Vertical Separation Options

Separated bicycle lanes encourage increased bicycle use among users who do not like riding with traffic. According to a 2015 study

by Portland State University, protected (or separated) bike lanes increase the number of American adults who say they would be “very comfortable” biking on the road from 9 percent to 29 percent. This compares to 12 percent of adults who say they’d be “very comfortable” biking on a street with a painted bike lane, but no physical separation.

Percent of U.S. adults who feel “very comfortable” biking on a four-lane street with parking no bike lane

painted bike lane

protected bike lane 0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Source: Portland State University, 2015

Applications Raised Curb

Separated bicycle lanes are preferred treatments on streets with on-street parking, frequent parking turnover, high traffic volumes or speeds, and along streets with high bicycle volumes. Separated bicycle lanes might not be feasible on streets with frequent intersections or driveways. Where separated bicycle lanes are feasible, they are the preferred design option.

BIKEIRONBOUND

51

Separated Bicycle Lane Bicycle Facilities

(One-Way Street) Description A separated bicycle lane on a one-way street should follow the same guidance for a buffered bicycle lane on a two-way street. Separated bicycle lanes on a one-way street should be placed on the left-side of the roadway when possible and follow the same guidelines for rightside buffered bicycle lanes.

Dimensions

Design and Use

A The preferred width of a separated bicycle lane

Similar to guidance for conventional bicycle lanes and buffered bicycle lanes on one-way streets, separated bicycle lanes on one-way streets should typically be placed on the left side of the road because of the increased visibility of cyclists to drivers

is 6’. The minimum width permitted is 5’.

B The preferred and minimum width of the designated buffer is 3’

C The minimum width between any vertical separation and the curb is 7’

The desired width for parking lanes in the

D Ironbound is 8’ (9’ maximum)

E The desired width for travel lanes is 10’ – 11’

A C B

E

D

Minimum Cartway Widths Without parking: 18’ With parking on one side: 26’

52

BIKEIRONBOUND

With parking on two sides: 34’

Bicycle Facilities Simulation of potential one-way separated bike lane on Adams Street, Newark, NJ, looking north

BIKEIRONBOUND

53

Two-Way Separated Bicycle Lanes Bicycle Facilities

(One-Way OR Two-Way Street) Description Two-way separated bicycle lanes are physically separated bicycle lanes that allow bicycle movement in both directions on one side of the road. Two-way separated bicycle lanes share many of the same design characteristics as one-way separated bicycle lanes, but might require additional considerations at driveway and side-street crossings. Two-way separated bicycle lanes reduce the detour length for bicyclists by providing contra-flow movement, permitting more convenient and direct routes. Research indicates that two-way separated bicycle lanes are more attractive to bicyclists of all ages and abilities.

Dimensions

Design and Use

A The preferred width of 2-way separated bicycle

Two-way separated bicycle lanes are typically located on:

B The preferred and minimum width of the buffer

streets with few driveway or cross street conflicts

lanes is 12’. The minimum width permitted is 10’. is 3’. The minimum width permitted without parking is 1.5’.

C

streets where there is not enough room for one-way separated bicycle lanes on both sides of the street

The desired width for parking lanes in the Ironbound is 8’ (9’ maximum)

D The desired width for travel lanes is 10’ – 11’

one-way streets where contra-flow bicycle travel is desired streets with extra cartway width streets where high traffic speeds and/or volumes might create high levels of stress for bicyclists Physical separation for two-way separated lanes is discussed on page 51

C A

D

B Minimum Cartway Widths (one travel lane) Without parking: 21.5’ With parking on one side: 31’

54

BIKEIRONBOUND

With parking on two sides: 39’

Bicycle Facilities Simulation of potential two-way separated bike lanes on Raymond Boulevard, Newark, NJ, looking west

BIKEIRONBOUND

55

Shared-Lane Markings Bicycle Facilities

(One-Way OR Two-Way Street) Description On roadways where it is not feasible or appropriate to provide dedicated bicycle facilities, shared-lane markings may be used to indicate a shared environment for bicycles and automobiles. Shared-lane markings should be used to connect and provide a designated route to dedicated bicycle facilities. A shared-lane marking is not a facility type, but can be used to assert the legitimacy of bicyclists on the roadway, and offer directional and wayfinding guidance. Shared-lane markings help direct bicyclists to ride in the most appropriate location on the roadway and provide motorists visual cues to anticipate the presence of bicyclists.

Dimensions

Design and Use

A When adjacent to parking, shared-lane markings

should be placed a minimum of 11’ from the curb (4’ without parking)

B The preferred placement of a shared-lane marking is at the center of the travel lane

Shared-lane markings should only be used on streets with a posted speed of 25 MPH or less, and where traffic volumes are low enough that it is desirable for bicyclists to ride in traffic Shared-lane markings may be used at intersections where the roadway is too constrained for a continuous dedicated facility Shared-lane markings are more appropriate on singlelane, rather than multi-lane roadways

B

A

*no minimum cartway width

56

BIKEIRONBOUND

Bicycle Facilities Shared-lane markings on Warren Street, Newark, NJ

Other Design Considerations The MUTCD outlines guidance for shared-lane markings in section 9C.07.

Frequent, visible placement of the markings is essential to their efficacy.

Shared-lane markings along busy streets, or those used to bridge a gap in dedicated bicycle facilities, should be placed 50 to 100 feet apart. Those on lower traffic streets may be placed up to 250 feet apart.

Color may be used to enhance the visibility of the shared-lane marking (as seen in above photo).

The graphic to the right provides guidance on shared-lane marking dimensions.

112 inches

Shared-lane marking dimensions (per MUTCD 9C.07)

72 inches

40 inches

Shared-lane markings on Warren Street, Newark, NJ

BIKEIRONBOUND

57

Bicycle Boulevards Bicycle Facilities

Description Bicycle boulevards are traffic calmed streets where bicyclists are afforded an enhanced level of safety and comfort. Many local streets that have existing low motorist travel speeds and volumes create the basic components of a safe and comfortable bicycling environment. These streets can be enhanced by a variety of design treatments that discourage high vehicle speeds and volumes to create a bicycle boulevard. Many of these treatments benefit not only bicyclists, but by creating a safe and quiet environment, they benefit all users of the street.

Bicycle boulevard treatments include signs, pavement markings, and other traffic calming measures to discourage through trips by motor vehicles while accommodating local access.

Intersection crossing treatments are crucial to creating more comfortable streets for users of all ages and abilities.

Application According to NACTO’s Urban Bikeway Design Guide, streets developed as bicycle boulevards should have 85th percentile speeds at 25 mph or less (20 mph preferred). A variety of tools are available to help manage vehicle travel speeds and create a comfortable environment for bicyclists and pedestrians.

Bicycle boulevard on Haven Avenue in Ocean City, NJ uses signage, curb extensions, painted intersections, and limits to vehicular through access to limit vehicle volumes and speeds

Toolkit The following treatment types can be used (where applicable) to create a bicycle boulevard: Reduced Speed Limits Signage and markings Speed Management Volume Management

Reduced Speed Limits Bicycle boulevards should have a maximum posted speed limit of 25 MPH. Speed limits below 25 MPH should be considered. Speed limits alone will do little to reduce vehicle travel speeds and

58

BIKEIRONBOUND

should be considered in conjunction with physical infrastructure improvements as a method for reducing vehicle travel speeds.

Signage and Markings Signs and pavement markings are important elements of a bicycle boulevard. While signs and markings alone do not create a safe and effective environment, they indicate and reinforce that a roadway is intended as a shared, slow street. The NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide provides additional guidance on sign and marking types and applications.

Horizontal Deflection

Speed management treatments aim to reduce motor vehicle speeds, bringing them closer to those of bicyclists. Reducing vehicle speeds is a critical feature of the bicycle boulevard. Lower speeds improve the bicycling environment by reducing instances of vehicles overtaking bicyclists, enhancing the drivers’ ability to see and react to bicyclists, and reducing the severity of crashes, if they occur. Speed management treatments can be divided into two types: horizontal and vertical deflection. These treatments can be implemented individually or in combination to increase their effectiveness.

Horizontal speed control devices are used to slow motorists by either visually narrowing the roadway or deflecting motorists through an artificial curve.

Where possible, sufficient space should be provided for bicyclists to pass around the outside of the elements.

Benefits of speed management techniques include: Decreased motor vehicle speeds Decreased crash likelihood Decreased chance of injury resulting from crash Improved bicyclist comfort Benefits pedestrians and residents by reducing vehicle speeds Establishes and reinforces bicycle priority on bicycle boulevard

Chicanes

Bicycle Facilities

Speed Management

Chicanes are a series of raised or delineated curb extensions, edge islands, or parking bays, that are placed on alternating sides of a street to form an S-shaped bend in the roadway. Chicanes reduce vehicle speeds by requiring drivers to shift laterally through narrow travel lanes.

The following are examples of horizontal deflection: Curb Extensions Chicanes Neighborhood Traffic Circles

Curb Extensions

Curb extensions, or bulb-outs, extend the sidewalk or curbface into the parking lane at an intersection.

Curb extensions narrow the roadway at intersections, contributing to lower motor vehicle speeds, as well as reducing the crossing distance for pedestrians and increasing the amount of space available for street furniture and green stormwater management features.

Neighborhood Traffic Circles

Neighborhood traffic circles are raised or delineated islands used at minor street crossings to reduce vehicle travel speeds by reducing turning radii, narrowing the travel lanes, and, if planted, obscuring the visual corridor along the roadway.

Provides opportunity for landscaping and other community features such as benches, communal space, and artistic painted intersections, benefiting all roadway users and residents

BIKEIRONBOUND

59

Bicycle Boulevards Bicycle Facilities

Vertical Deflection Vertical speed control measures are composed of wide, slight pavement elevations that selfenforce a slower speed for motorists. Narrow and abrupt speed bumps that are often used in private driveways and parking lots are not recommended for public streets and are hazardous to bicyclists.

The following are examples of vertical deflection: Speed Humps

Speed Cushions

Speed cushions are speed humps or speed tables that include wheel cutouts that allow larger vehicles to pass unaffected, but reduce passenger vehicle speeds. They are often used on key emergency response routes to allow emergency vehicles to pass unimpeded. Speed cushions should be used with caution, however, as drivers will often seek out the space in between the humps.

Raised Crosswalk

A raised crosswalk is a speed table that is signed and marked as a pedestrian crossing. It extends the full width of the street and is typically 3 inches high. At minor intersections the entire intersection can be raised to reduce motor vehicle speeds in all directions.

Speed Tables Speed Cushions Raised Crosswalk

Speed Humps

Speed humps are 3 to 4 inches high and 12 to 14 feet long, with an intended vehicle speed of 15 to 20 mph. Humps are often referred to as “bumps” on signage and by the general public.

Volume Management Speed Tables

Speed tables are longer than speed humps and have a flat top, with a height of 3 to 3.5 inches and a length of 22 feet. Intended vehicle operating speeds range from 25 to 35 mph, depending on the spacing. Speed tables may be used on collector streets, transit, and/or emergency responder routes.

60

BIKEIRONBOUND

Volume management techniques reduce or discourage through traffic on designated bicycle boulevards by physically reconfiguring select intersections. Bicycle boulevards should be designed for motor vehicle volumes under 1,500 vehicles per day.

Additional Guidance The design guidance provided here includes a sample of the tools that planners and engineers have at their disposal to create a bicycle boulevard. Further guidance can be found in NACTO’s Urban Bikeway Design Guide.

Bicycle Facilities

Bicycle boulevard in Portland, Oregon uses curb extensions and speed cushions to discourage vehicle through traffic and high speeds (photo courtesy of “The Oregonian”)

Mountable median along bicycle boulevard in Ocean City, NJ restricts vehicle through traffic

Bicycle boulevard sign in Berkeley, CA (photo courtesy of The City of Berkeley, CA)

BIKEIRONBOUND

61

Bicycle Facilities

General Design Considerations Additional design elements, markings, and materials can further enhance the bicycle facilities described in the previous sections.

Based on the context of the bicycle facility or user needs, consideration and application of additional design details can help make the bicycle facilities more visible, more convenient, and more inviting for bicyclists of all abilities.

Several design considerations that are particularly relevant to the Ironbound are highlighted in this section, including:

Colored Pavement Colored pavement is an optional design treatment that can be applied to any of the bike facility typologies. Colored pavement improves the visibility of the bicycle facility and has several benefits: Increases the visibility of bicyclists Identifies and increases awareness of potential conflict areas between bicyclists and motorists Reinforces the priority of bicyclists and increases motorist yielding behavior Improves bicyclist comfort by more clearly delineating and prioritizing the space

Application

Colored pavement has a variety of applications.

It can be used as a corridor-wide treatment within bike lanes or accompanying sharedlane markings. Corridor-wide use of colored pavement helps create a clearly delineated bicycle facility. Alternatively, colored pavement can be used cost effectively as a spot-treatment to improve awareness and emphasize bicycle priority at conflict areas, such as at intersections and driveways.

In either case, a colored pavement treatment should be applied consistently across a corridor.

Discourages illegal parking in the bike lane

Colored Pavement Intersection Markings Wayfinding Bicycle signals

62 62

BIKEIRONBOUND

Example Colored Pavement Corridor Treatments

This treatment has several benefits:

Intersections can be a confusing and stressful environment for bicyclists. There is an inherent mixing of traffic that often occurs at intersections, creating conflicts between vehicular traffic and bicycle traffic. The stress can be exacerbated when bicycle lanes appear to temporarily end at intersections and intersection approaches, or the roadway widens to provide turning lanes for vehicles.

Increases the visibility of bicyclists

Bicycle markings may be extended through intersections and major driveways to enhance the continuity of the bicycle facility, guide bicyclists through the intersection, and mitigate bicyclist stress.

Improves driver awareness of bicycle activity and movement through a high conflict area

Dotted Line Extensions

Pavement Markings

Reduces bicyclist stress by clearly delineating roadway space for bicyclists and guiding them through the intersection in a direct path Reinforces that through bicyclists have priority over turning vehicles or vehicles entering the roadway Helps bicyclists position themselves within the intersection

Makes bicyclist movement at intersections more predictable to motorists

Colored Bicycle Lane

Application There are several common treatment types for intersection markings. The standard treatment is a white dotted line extension of the bicycle lane, which maintains the continuity of the bicycle lane through the intersection. The MUTCD contains guidance on this treatment in Section 3B.08.

Bicycle Facilities

Intersection Markings

This treatment may be enhanced to improve the visibility of the bicycle facility through various combinations of pavement markings, colored pavement, or higher visibility striping.

Several treatment options are illustrated below.

Dashed Colored Bicycle Lane

Elephant’s Feet Markings

BIKEIRONBOUND

63

A Confirmation Signs: Indicate to bicyclists

and other roadway users that they are on a preferred bicycle route

B Decision Signs: Mark the junction of two

or more bicycle facilities; inform bicyclists of access to key destinations

Bicycle wayfinding can be integrated with the Ironbound’s existing wayfinding system, creating a consistent look and branding for the neighborhood.

Improves awareness of the bicycle network and the presence of bicyclists among motorists

A

B

Makes bicycling and the bicycle network more accessible and convenient for visitors and casual users

BIKE ROUTE

C

BIKE ROUTE Penn Station 0.5 miles 0.25 miles

Indp. Park

0.5 miles

BIKEIRONBOUND

ey

t nS

so

ck Ja

BIKEIRONBOUND

nt Me rc t

nS

s St

ure

Ada m

ng

Wa rw

ick

St

La

St

Rd

a

ar

rb

Ba

St

e

m

Ro

e

rlin Gen

Be

l ra

ki

las

Pu

wy

Sk

St

uth

ss

Ko

St

St

he

ele

rP

oin

tR

d

Pula ski

W

C

St

Jeff erso n

St

St

St

ne t ar M nS An t nS St leo St n o Elm Nap ton riso Oliv St us Gar er S dt Ho Ch t ar Ma De estn tth lve St lan St rn S ut S cey on Go bez t t St rris a a J Cliff St G Sou ord ver no th S St a H t

Van B

rm

He

Pac ific

ha

ad ilro Ra rs ey

St

Je

on

M cc Mulb ar erry t St er H oV Illag wy eC t Ne le S w t

Sum

Gob Ave

A Ave

Ha

BIKEIRONBOUND

64

St

St

t Em me tt S Wri t ght St Mil ler St

Tho m hurs as St t St rpe rS t

Park

cy

r Da

Ironbound Recreation Center

ra

rS

Independence Park

ga

Asto

t St

St

St

ga

St

Ferry

Nia

rray

r St

Ma

Mu

Clove

St

t

St all W St ea e Aly n Av o ils W

Ve se Joh y St Pe nso nnin nS gto eno nS t rS t t

Tic h

Read St

St es s gr

Br ue M cW nS t ho Un ion rte rS St t Pro sp ec tS t

Co n

eS

Wa lnu

min

Fle

St les ar Ch int St Sa cis an Fr St St in St Ma zine

Av e

ett

t tt S

fay

ve gA

St

Riverbank

Park Marke t St

ford

Raymond Blvd

Mo

La

Elm

St New Ga rd York E K en S Ave t inn e Oli yS Wa ver t rwic St k

St

Fillmore St

n Pl

Foundry St

Jers

Ediso

Ox

Prudential Center

Euclid Ave

Riverfront 0.5 miles Park

Waydell St

NEWARK PENN STATION

Benefits to other roadway users as well, including pedestrians and motorists

0.25 miles

Independence Park

Ave

Albert Ave

St

Ferry Street

ter

Lis

0.5 miles

Red Bull Arena

ood Lockw r St Esthe St Joseph

Newark Penn Station

Pl rers ctu nufa Ma nt St e ce Vin tz Av Len St nd St rtla Chapel St ins Co wk Schalk St Ha Riverview Pl St tie Richards St ris Ch St Brill

Encourages higher bicycle ridership by passively marketing the bicycle network and making the public more aware of bicycle facilities

Ferry Street

M ad is M on S on ro t e St

Signage that includes mileage and/or travel time to destinations helps minimize the tendency to overestimate the amount of time it takes to travel by bicycle

t

Identifies the preferred routes to key destinations

me S

Familiarizes cyclists with the bicycle network

Located at intersections, major destinations, or bike parking corrals, map signs illustrate the location of major destinations and preferred bicycle routes in the surrounding area. These signs are useful for pedestrians as well as bicyclists, and help users navigate the surrounding neighborhood.

Som

Benefits include:

C Network/Points of Interest Maps

Wayfinding systems may include a combination of signage and pavement markings. There are three typical types of signs:

St

A wayfinding system helps establish a cohesive bicycle network and create a sense of place within the community. It helps residents and visitors navigate between points of interests and major destinations along preferred bicycle routes.

Application

Po lk

Bicycle Facilities

Wayfinding

0

Points of Interest Bus Route

Industrial Building

Bus Stop

School

Commercial Building

Place of Worship

0.25

0.5 Miles

Benefits of bicycle signals include:

A bicycle signal is a traffic control device that should be used in combination with a conventional traffic signal. Bicycle signals may be a necessary addition to a bicycle network when bicyclists have different needs than other roadway users. Bicycle signals can be used to provide a leading signal phase for cyclists or bicycle only movements. Commonly, bicycle signals are used where bicyclists are traveling in the opposing direction of vehicular traffic (e.g., on a contra flow bicycle lane).

Separation of bicycle movements from conflicting motors vehicle and pedestrian movements

Bicycle Facilities

Bicycle Signals

Priority to bicyclists at intersections Accommodation of bicycle-only movements, including contra-flow movements where there would not otherwise be a phase Clear information for bicyclists (and other users) on expected behavior Helps simplify movements through complex intersections by reducing conflicts between various modes

Application At intersections with contra-flow bicycle movements that would otherwise have no signal phase (or signal head is pointing in the wrong direction) To split signal phases at intersections where a predominant bicycle movement conflicts with primary motor vehicle movements during the same phase To give bicyclists an advanced green, or to facilitate turning movements where bicyclist demand is high

Additional Features Bicycle signals shall be placed in a location clearly visible to oncoming bicyclists If the bicycle signal phase is not automatic, detection and actuation treatments may be necessary, including, but not limited to: inductive loops, video detection or accessible push button

Design Resources Created by Rigo Peter from the Noun Project

The demand for improved bicycle facilities has risen rapidly over the past decade. In response, the state-of-the-practice has evolved and several design guides have been created that reflect current best practices for bicycle facility design: NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide NACTO Urban Street Design Guide FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities These design guides and resources provide additional details on the topics covered in this section, as well as detailed information on other design considerations related to bicycle facilities.

BIKEIRONBOUND

65

06

Proposed Network The principal goal of the BIKEIRONBOUND Plan is to provide a bicycle network in the Ironbound neighborhood that is comfortable, connected, accessible and convenient for people of all ages and abilities. The bicycle network and accompanying recommendations aim to achieve that goal. The recommended network is the result of extensive community outreach and data analysis efforts, as outlined in Chapters 1-4 of this report.

The improvements composing the recommended network take the form of on-road bicycle lanes that increase the separation of bicyclists from motor vehicle traffic, streets with reduced vehicle speeds and/or volumes, and strategically placed shared-lane markings to connect these facilities.

These routes and facility types were determined under the principle discussed earlier in this plan, that the majority of current or would be bicyclists feel the most comfortable on streets that allow for physical separation between bicyclists and motor vehicles or on streets with less motor vehicle traffic.

The proposed network was developed with this principle in mind, but with the additional goal of recommending routes that are implementable and not cost prohibitive.

This chapter outlines the proposed bicycle network, many of the key considerations for implementing the network, roadway improvements to enhance access to Newark Penn Station and beyond, and recommended locations for bicycle parking.

67

06 Proposed Network 68

6.1 Proposed Bicycle Network The proposed bicycle network is displayed on the map on the following page. Overall there are 19.5 miles of recommended bicycle routes. The table to the right displays the number of road miles for each recommended facility type.

As indicated on the page 7 infobox â&#x20AC;&#x153;Measuring Successâ&#x20AC;?, one critical component of a successful plan is to revisit the plan at a future date to determine what has been implemented and whether (and how) conditions have changed so that the plan can remain current and relevant. The table to the right should be revisited in five years to determine what elements of the proposed bicycle network have been implemented.

An implementation table can be found in Appendix D, itemizing each element of the network and order of magnitude costs.

Design Considerations The design guidance in Chapter 5 provides a framework for the design of facility types as well as a toolbox for various components of these facilities.

However, the implementation of the proposed bicycle network will require detailed design decisions to be made for each route that are beyond the ability of this plan to anticipate. For the following cases, specific concerns were identified during the planning process. Additional design considerations are outlined to ensure that these concerns are addressed during implementation.

Total Mileage of Proposed Bicycle Facilities (by type) Facility Type

Length (in miles)

% of Total Network

3.6

18%

Bike Lane One-Way

2.5

Two-Way

1.0

Separated/Buffered Bike Lane

5.8

One-Way

4.4

Two-Way

1.4

2-Way Separated Bike Lane

2.7

One-Way

1.7

Two-Way

1.0

Shared-Lane Markings

5.8

One-Way

1.8

Two-Way

4.0

Bicycle Boulevard

1.5

One-Way

0.3

Two-Way

TOTAL

Jefferson Street Concept: Southbound one-way separated/ buffered bike lane along the left side of the roadway between Raymond Boulevard and Chestnut Street.

Jefferson Street between Ferry Street and Chestnut Street currently features one southbound travel lane and parking lanes on both sides of the roadway. The proposed bicycle facility would consist of either a separated bicycle lane (fivefoot bicycle lane with a three-foot buffer) between the left side curb and the parking lane or a buffered bicycle lane (five-foot bicycle lane with a three-foot buffer) adjacent to the travel lane.

30%

14%

30%

8%

1.2

19.5

100%

Between Raymond Boulevard and Ferry Street, Jefferson Street is a two-way street with one travel lane in each direction and parking on both sides. A continuation of the bicycle lane is not feasible in this segment with the current configuration.

A preliminary observation of the traffic patterns in this area indicates that it is feasible to convert this segment into a one-way southbound roadway with the same proposed configuration as the segment of Jefferson Street between Ferry Street and Chestnut Street. A more detailed traffic study should be conducted to evaluate implementation of this recommendation.

e St Som m

St Po lk tS t an

rch Me

St

en

Bur

St ms Ada

Van

St

St

on

ific

e

m Ro

St

ers

Pac

Read St

t M

St on

rm

He

s

Ko

r

ne

Ge

as

ul

P al

St

h

t su

lin

r Be

St

BIKEIRONBOUND

W

he e

ler

Av eC

Po

int

Pul

Rd

ask

i St

Jeff

Sum

ad is M on on S ro t e Ja S ck t so n St

sS es Co ng r

Br ue n W St ho Un ion rte rS St t Pr os pe ct St c

M

Av e ad lro Ra i y se er cc a rry S rter oV t Hw Illa ge y Ct Gob Ne le S w t J

M

Mul be

t

t

Av eA

Ch

eS

sS

zin

rb

Ba

St

t Foundry S

t

Ironbound Recreation Center

in

ga

St n o t St e ol n S on p s o t Oliv Na ust arri tS er S o G rd C H t a M h De est t alv th lan St ern nu n S Got cey tS ez St iso b t r St r t a Ja Cli rS G ffo So ve rd uth o n St St Ha

a ar

Waydell St

ll S

t

Ma

M

St

y

kw

S ki

Fr

rle ha tC t in S Sa cis an St

St

n

An

e

n ar

t

La St

St

St

aS

ick

ng

St

ar

tor St Em me tt S Wr t igh tS Mil t ler St

Wa rw

St

cy

r Da

ag

As

dence Park

Ma

New Ga rde Yor kA nS EK Wa ve t lnu inn t St e Oli y W St arw ve rS ick Indepent St

Tho ma khu sS t rst St Ha rpe rS t

Par

t

Ave

Ferry

Ni

t

t

er S

t lS al W St a ye Ave Al on ils W

yS

eS

Clov

ing

m Fle

Euclid Ave

Rd

rra

ett

Elm

Mu

St

Riverbank

MarkPark et St

dS

fay

Elm

Raymond Blvd

t

La

St

tt S Mo

l

Gateway Treatment

Bri

sey

on P

for Ox

Jer

Fillmore St

Edis

Ve s Jo ey St Pe hn nn Tic so nS hen ingto nS t or St t

Riverfront Park

Bike Lane Diverts Off Road

Newark Penn Station Prudential Center

Albert Ave

St

Bike Connection to Harrison with Bridge Replacement

Pl ers tur fac t nu Ma ent S c ve Vin tz A St Len d an St rtl Chapel St ins Co wk Schalk St Ha Riverview Pl St tie Richards St ris

Roadway Configuration Changes

Red Bull Arena

wood Lock r St Esthe ph St

ve rA

te Lis

Jose

MAP 6

0

0.25

Proposed Bicycle Improvement 2-Way Separated Bike Lane

Recommended Bike Rack/Corral

Separated/Buffered Bike Lane(s)

Existing Riverfront Park Entrance

Bike Lane

Proposed Dedicated Bike Connection to Newark Broad Street Station

Shared-Lane Markings Bicycle Boulevard One-Way Conversion

0.5 Miles

Proposed Network

New Jersey Railroad Avenue

Concept: Northbound one-way separated/ buffered bike lane on the right side between Tichenor Street and Edison Place.

New Jersey Railroad Avenue has a typical cross section of 20 feet with one northbound travel lane. While the road features low traffic volumes, there are a number of challenges to implementing a comfortable bicycle facility The roadway is bounded by the railroad on the west side. For this reason, the bike facility should be placed along the sidewalk on the east side to provide cyclists with more flexibility and more room for maneuvering.

The corridor is industrial in nature and various businesses currently use the curbside for parking. The City should work with these businesses to ensure that if a bike lane is implemented along this corridor it is not frequently blocked by parked vehicles.

While the railroad tracks bound New Jersey Railroad Avenue on the west side, there are frequent connections underneath the tracks to McCarter Highway (NJ 21) and the neighborhood to the west. Because of the design of the underpasses, the visibility at each cross street intersection is difficult for all users traveling on New Jersey Railroad Avenue. In most instances, the user traveling on New Jersey Railroad Avenue must stop at a stop sign at each intersection, while those traveling on each cross street have the right of way. The addition of curb extensions on the cross streets would allow users on New Jersey Railroad Avenue to extend into the roadway, improving their ability to both see and be seen by on-coming motorists. Additional stop control

70

BIKEIRONBOUND

New Jersey Railroad Avenue looking north measures, such as creating three-way stops on the one-way westbound cross-streets, might also be considered to improve these crossings for users of New Jersey Railroad Avenue.

Pacific Street

Concept: Northbound one-way separated/ buffered bike lane along the left side of the roadway between South Street and Elm Street.

Pacific Street is currently a two-way street with one travel lane in each direction and parking on both sides. Given its current configuration, a bike lane is not feasible on this street. However, there is a lack of northbound streets in the Ironbound that can sufficiently accommodate a dedicated bicycle facility. Given this, it is recommended that a traffic study be conducted to determine the feasibility of converting Pacific Street to a one-way northbound street in order

to accommodate either a separated bicycle lane (five-foot bicycle lane with a three-foot buffer) between the left side curb and the parking lane or a buffered bicycle lane (five-foot bicycle lane with a three-foot buffer) adjacent to the travel lane.

In addition to accommodating a dedicated bicycle facility, members of the community indicated at focus groups and public meetings that many people in the community feel that Pacific Street is difficult to cross and that they do not feel safe interacting with motor vehicles on the street. A one-way conversion with the addition of a bike lane could help make this a more comfortable corridor for residents.

Proposed Network

Raymond Boulevard

Concept: Two-way separated bike lanes along the north side of the roadway between Chapel Street and Newark Penn Station.

Raymond Boulevard varies between two and three travel lanes. The proposed bicycle facility would consist of one 5-foot bike lane in each direction adjacent to the north side of the roadway with a 3-foot wide, 6-inch high curb separating the bicycle facility from the travel lanes. The entire corridor would feature two travel lanes.

The primary challenge for implementing this design is the interaction with the on-and offramps for the Jackson Street bridge to Harrison (shown in the picture at the top-right of this page). Because of the difficulty of negotiating this interaction between the bike facility and the ramps, the bike facility should be routed off-road at each ramp and continue underneath the bridge. The figure on the bottom-right of this page illustrates this concept. With the anticipated extension of the Riverfront Park west of the bridge, this design should be integrated into the Riverfront Park concept.

Connecting Newark Penn Station to Newark Broad Street Station In conjunction with the BIKEIRONBOUND plan, a separate study was conducted to identify the best route for a dedicated bicycle connection between Newark Penn Station and Newark Broad Street rail stations. A section of the proposed routes is shown on Map 6 on page 69.

On ramp to Jackson Street Bridge looking westbound on Raymond Boulevard

Continue path underneath bridge

Connect diverted path to separated bike lanes

Divert bike lanes into extended Riverfront Park

Diversion of Raymond Boulevard bike lanes at Jackson Street Bridge The primary route proposed as part of this study consists of separated bike lanes on Market Street, University Street, Washington Street, and Central Avenue. A secondary route was proposed consisting of separated bike lanes on Center Street and a multi-use path along the waterfront to Newark Penn Station, where it would also connect with the anticipated extension of the Riverfront Park and

provide an additional linkage to the Ironbound.

Details on this plan can be found in Appendix B: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Bicycle Connection: Newark Broad Street to Newark Penn Station.â&#x20AC;?

BIKEIRONBOUND

71

Proposed Network

6.2 Raymond Boulevard Gateway One of the primary concerns expressed by residents of the Ironbound and members of the Steering Committee throughout the BIKEIRONBOUND planning process was high motor vehicle speeds on Raymond Boulevard.

Although the posted speed limit on this road throughout the majority of the neighborhood is 25 MPH, vehicles often travel at far higher speeds. There are a number of factors that contribute to this, including: the proximity and linkages of the roadway to nearby highways to the east (NJTPK, U.S. 1&9, U.S. 1&9T), high motor vehicle volumes (estimated average daily volumes between 17,000 and 21,000 according to 2013-2014 NJDOT traffic counts), the number of lanes, which varies between 2 and 4 in different sections, and the visual nature of the corridor, which has the feel of a highway environment with few constraints to slow down motor vehicle traffic.

The high speed of motor vehicle traffic and wide roadway cross section of Raymond Boulevard creates a barrier for non-motorized users to access the Riverfront Park and other destinations on either side of the roadway.

The two-way separated bicycle lanes that are recommended for Raymond Boulevard serve two purposes: (1) provide a dedicated and separated facility for bicyclists to comfortably travel east-west in the Ironbound, and (2) provide traffic calming by narrowing the roadway to two lanes throughout and altering the character of the roadway, creating

72

BIKEIRONBOUND

additional visual interest throughout the corridor.

While the proposed bike facilities will assist in changing motorist behavior on Raymond Boulevard, additional improvements are needed. As shown in Map 6 on page 69, two “Gateway Treatments” are proposed near the beginning of Raymond Boulevard in the Ironbound. The purpose of these treatments is to visually indicate to motorists that the environment and purpose of the roadway has changed from a highway to a local city street, and therefore travel speeds and expectations of the roadway should adjust as well.

The following improvements are recommended as “Gateway Treatments” at two different locations:

Raymond Boulevard at Waydell Street

This location is the first opportunity to begin to transition Raymond Boulevard to a city street.

Currently, four travel lanes to the east continue through this intersection before narrowing to two lanes at Chapel Street. In addition, an on-ramp from U.S. 1&9 feeds this intersection.

Gateway treatments should include: Narrow roadway beyond this intersection from 4 to 3 lanes until Chapel Street Provide shoulders on either side of the 3-lane cross section Install rumble strips to alert drivers to reduced speed limit

Raymond Boulevard at Chapel Street

Currently, this intersection begins a 2-travel lane segment of Raymond Boulevard. This cross section should be maintained with the following improvements (shown in the simulation on the following page): Provide two-way separated bicycle lanes as

A recommended in the Proposed Bicycle Network B Install curb extensions at SW and NE corners to visually narrow roadway

Restripe crosswalks at all approaches with high-

C visibility continental crosswalks striping

D Install ADA-compliant curb ramps at all approaches Install advanced warning “Bike Lane Ends” signage

E to alert eastbound cyclists to lane termination Install two-stage bike turning box to facilitate

F eastbound cyclists turning right onto Chapel Street Install “Welcome to The Ironbound” sign above

G roadway to create a sense of place and indicate transition from highway to neighborhood street Consider use of radar speed signs throughout

H corridor to indicate current speed to drivers

Install rumble strips across the travel lanes at

I several points between Waydell Street and Chapel Street, as used in other locations in the Ironbound Install streetscaping improvements over time

J to transform corridor (e.g., stylized sidewalks, pedestrian scale street lamps with Ironbound banners, and upgraded crosswalks throughout)

Proposed Network

Simulation of potential gateway treatment at intersection of Raymond Boulevard and Chapel Street, looking west

Existing Conditions

Concept Simulation

BIKEIRONBOUND

73

Proposed Network

6.3 Additional Improvements One of the principle challenges of the BIKEIRONBOUND plan is to improve linkages to Newark Penn Station and downtown Newark. The area directly east of Newark Penn Station is a very difficult environment for bicycles, pedestrians, and automobiles to traverse because of high traffic volumes, wide cartway cross sections, and the complex intersection geometry. The main gateway to the station is at the junction of five roadways, creating a skewed intersection and complicated circulation patterns for all users. The following changes to the configuration of the roadways that approach Penn Station are recommended to provide low stress bicycle connections to this and other destinations:

Extend curb 13’ to provide larger park space and shorten crossing distance for pedestrians Provide separated bicycle lanes in both directions (5’ lane - 3’ separation)

Provide separated bicycle lanes in both directions (5’ lane - 3’ separation) Edison Place

Install Bike Corral

Extend curb to reduce turning radius and shorten crossing distance for pedestrians

Simulation of proposed improvement at Edison Place and Raymond Plaza East (shown in detail on the following page)

A Remove two travel lanes on Edison Place between NJ Railroad Avenue and Ferry Street. Retain one travel lane and provide one separated bicycle lane in each direction. Increase the size of Peter Francisco Park using roadway width recovered through the removal of travel lanes. Stripe continental crosswalk with advanced warning signage to improve pedestrian access to the park.

Reconfigure curbs to realign intersection of

B Edison Place and Ferry Street. Stripe continental crosswalks across Edison Place and McWhorter Street. Maintain sufficient turning radius for buses making right turn onto Edison Place.

C Stripe bike lane along right side of NJ Railroad Avenue.

Provide separated bicycle lanes in both directions

D of Raymond Plaza East to connect NJ Railroad

Avenue bicycle lane, Edison Place bicycle lanes, and Raymond Boulevard two-way separated bicycle lanes (via Raymond Plaza East shared-lane markings). A bike corral will be installed in this segment.

E Stripe “Bus Only” lane along Ferry Street to provide designated bus storage area.

F Stripe shared-lane markings along Ferry Street.

74

BIKEIRONBOUND

Stripe shared-lane markings along Raymond

G Plaza East, between Market Street and Raymond Boulevard to connect proposed bicycle facilities.

Reconfigure bollards at parking lot entrance to maintain restricted motor vehicle access but accommodate bicycle cross-access.

Remove one travel lane and provide separated

H bicycle lanes in both direction between McCarter Highway (NJ 21) and Mulberry Street (and the Prudential Center) on Edison Place.

Provide separated bicycle lanes in both directions

I along Edison Place between NJ Railroad Avenue

and McCarter Highway (NJ 21). Install bicycle signal at the intersection of Edison Place and McCarter Highway to accommodate westbound contra-flow bicycle lane.

Ra ym on d Pl az a

Ea st

Newark Penn Station + Peter Francisco Park

Proposed Network

Bicycle + Pedestrian Access Improvements

Edison Place - Railroad to Prudential Center Mulberry Street

NJ 21

G I

H

Mark et S t reet

D NLY SO BU

E

ee t Str ry Fer

NLY SO BU

Ediso n Pl a ce

F A

B

NJ Ra ilro ad Av en ue

C

BIKEIRONBOUND

75

Proposed Network

6.4 Bike Parking Bicycle parking facilities are needed to extend bicycle use from an opportunity for recreation to a feasible mode of transportation. Existing bicycle parking in the neighborhood was identified through field work and the public involvement process. Existing bicycle parking can be found at Newark Penn Station and along Ferry Street.

Providing adequate, secure bicycle parking is an important measure to accommodate and encourage cycling as an alternative travel mode. Proper parking facilities increase the convenience of cycling for commuting, utilitarian, or recreational purposes while also alleviating the threat of theft. Parking should be conveniently located, well lit, and easily visible for cyclists arriving at a destination. There are a variety of bicycle parking racks available.

Based on guidelines from the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP), a bicycle rack should meet the following requirements: Support the bicycle upright by its frame in two locations Prevent the wheel of the bicycle from tipping over Enable the frame and one or both wheels to be secured Support bicycles without a diamond shaped frame and horizontal top tube (e.g. step-through frames) Allow both front-in and back-in parking with a U-lock through the frame and front or rear wheel Resist the cutting or detaching of any rack element with hand tools

76

BIKEIRONBOUND

Recommended Bicycle Rack Design Preferred

INVERTED “U”

One rack element supports two bikes

“A”

One rack element supports two bikes

POST AND LOOP

One rack element supports two bikes

Not Recommended

WAVE

COMB

One rack element in a vertical segment of the rack

One rack element in a vertical segment of the rack

TOAST One rack element holds one wheel of a bike

Source: Bicycle Parking Guidelines, Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, 2002 Older style racks, such as the “comb”/ “schoolyard”, “toast”, and “wave” are not recommended because they do not properly support the bicycle frame, generally do not facilitate locking of the frame to the rack, and frequently cause interference between the handlebars of adjacent bikes when the rack is near capacity. Recommended racks include the “inverted U”, “A”, and “post and loop.”

These rack types are illustrated in the figure

above. Bike racks should also be properly spaced to allow easy, independent access to each bike. This includes providing sufficient space between racks and buildings, walls and parked cars, as well as between other bikes.

Additional guidance on bike rack design and placement can be found in the Association of Bicycle and Pedestrian Professionals (APBP) guide: Essentials of Bike Parking (2015).

Bike Corrals

A need for additional bike parking at Newark Penn Station was identified through significant community input as well as the heavy usage of existing parking observed at the station.

Existing bike parking at the station is primarily located near the Market Street entrance.

Bike corral on Halsey Street at intersection with Warren Street in downtown Newark

Bike Parking in the Ironbound The community input process as well as field observations of the neighborhood helped identify a lack of bicycle parking at key destinations as a significant obstacle to biking in the Ironbound. Many members of the community indicated that at various locations nears schools, parks, and Ferry Street, bicyclists frequently chain their bicycles to nearby fences, sign posts, and other objects.

This behavior has been observed throughout the neighborhood.

Recommendations for bicycle parking locations can be found on Map 6 on page 69. These locations were determined based on community input through the Wikimap and public meetings, as well as the desire to locate bicycle parking near destinations, (such as schools, parks, and retail and commercial centers) and/or adjacent to the recommended bicycle network.

Proposed Network

Bike corrals are rows of bike racks installed in the curbside lane of the street instead of on the sidewalk. Bike corrals help provide ample bike parking without occupying sidewalk space. Additionally, bike corrals help “daylight” intersections by preventing motor vehicles from parking close to intersections, beyond designated parking spaces. This helps improve the visibility of all road users at intersections. In the fall of 2015, the City of Newark installed a bike corral on Halsey Street near Warren Street (pictured at right).

accommodate a standard parking space for vehicles, providing an optimal opportunity to use the space for a bike corral.

Existing bike parking at Newark Penn Station

The City of Newark has identified a location for a bike corral along the Peter Francisco Park side of NJ Railroad Avenue that will provide additional parking near Newark Penn Station.

This bike corral is included as a pilot project in Chapter 7 of this report.

The City should continue to work with NJ Transit to identify locations for additional bike parking. It is recommended that parking be located near station entrances in covered areas with good visibility and lighting. Additional consideration should also be given to identify an area for bike parking near a northern station entrance and adjacent to the proposed Raymond Boulevard two-way separated bicycle lanes.

Because Ferry Street is the primary commercial corridor in the Ironbound, it is recommended that bicycle racks be placed frequently along this corridor. Ferry Street is also an ideal location for the installation of bike corrals, which would help provide bicycle parking without using busy sidewalk space. Ferry Street has several intersections with curb extensions.

There is often “dead space” adjacent to curb extensions that is not large enough to

BIKEIRONBOUND

77

Proposed Network

6.5 Impact of Improvements on Stress As stated prior in this plan, one of the principle goals of the BIKEIRONBOUND plan is to increase bicycle mode share by providing low-stress, dedicated bicycle facilities. The Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) method was used to determine the level of traffic stress, or comfort, that cyclists typically feel riding on roads in the Ironbound. In order to determine the impact that the proposed bicycle network might have on cyclist comfort level, the analysis has been re-run assuming full implementation of the proposed network. The result can be seen in Map 7 on the following page.

Level of Traffic Stress Comparison LTS 1 Existing LTS 1

14% Ironbound Road Miles

LTS 1 Proposed Network LTS 1

30%

For the proposed network, buffered bicycle lanes and separated bicycle lanes were displayed using the same symbology. This is because both of these treatments require the same physical space to implement. For the purposes of this revised stress analysis, all of these links were considered to be separated bicycle lanes, which are LTS 1 facilities.

The thumbnails to the right show the impact that the proposed changes would have on the amount of LTS 1 segments. These segments are critical for increasing bicycle mode share as they appeal to the largest group of potential riders. In its existing state, 14% of the Ironbound roadway network can be classified as LTS 1. With the proposed changes, 30% of the Ironbound roadway network would be classified as LTS 1. New LTS 1 segments include key connections to Newark Penn

78

BIKEIRONBOUND

Ironbound Road Miles

Station and other destinations (such as schools and parks), as well as a transformation of Raymond Boulevard, which is currently an LTS 4 facility, to an LTS 1.

Currently, 27% of census blocks in the Ironbound are adjacent to an LTS 1 roadway.

With the proposed network, 55% of census blocks would be adjacent to an LTS 1 roadway.

Not only does the proposed network increase the number of LTS 1 roadways, but these new

segments are interconnected and conveniently accessed throughout the neighborhood, providing low-stress, comfortable connections to key destinations.

Albert Ave

e St Som m

St Po lk tS t an

rch Me

Bur

en

St ms Ada

Van

s

Ko

r

ne

Ge

as

ul

P al

St

h

t su

lin

r Be

St

e

m Ro

St

BIKEIRONBOUND

ler he e W

Av eC

Po

int

Pul

Rd

ask

i St

Jeff

ers

Pac

on

ific

St

St

St

St on

rm

He

Read St

t M

ad is M on on S ro t e Ja S ck t so n St

sS es Co ng r

Br ue n W St ho Un ion rte rS St t Pr os pe ct St c

M

Av e ad lro Ra i y se er cc a rry S rter oV t Hw Illa ge y Ct Gob Ne le S w t J

Sum

Mul be

M

Av eA

t

rb

Ba

St

t Foundry S

Ch

t

M

St n o t St e ol n S on p s o t Oliv Na ust arri tS er S o G rd C H t a M h De est t alv th lan St ern nu n S Got cey tS ez St iso b t r St r t a Ja Cli rS G ffo So ve rd uth o n St St Ha

a ar

St

t

eS

sS

zin

St

Waydell St

ll S

t

rle ha tC t in S Sa cis an St

S ki

Fr in

ga

e

n ar

y

kw

Ma

n

An

St

St

t

La St

St

St Ma

ick

ng

St

cy

r Da

aS

Wa rw

Ave

ar

tor St Em me tt S Wr t igh tS Mil t ler St

t

ing

m Fle

Ferry

ag

As

Tho ma khu sS t rst St Ha rpe rS t

Par

er S

Ni

t

t

Clov

t lS al W St a ye Ave Al on ils W

yS

eS

New Ga rde Yor kA nS EK Wa ve t lnu inn t St e Oli y W St arw ve rS ick t St

Ve s Jo ey St Pe hn nn Tic so nS hen ingto nS t or St t

et St

Euclid Ave

Rd

rra

ett

Elm

Mu

St

Mark

dS

fay

Elm

Raymond Blvd

t

La

St

tt S Mo

l

Bri

sey

on P

for Ox

Jer

Fillmore St

Edis

Pl ers tur fac t nu Ma ent S c ve Vin tz A St Len d an St rtl Chapel St ins Co wk Schalk St Ha Riverview Pl St tie Richards St ris

Newark Penn Station

wood Lock r St Esthe ph St

ve rA

te Lis

Jose

MAP 7

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress with proposed improvements Level of Stress 1 Level of Stress 2 Level of Stress 3 Level of Stress 4

0

0.25

0.5 Miles

07

Pilot Projects In order to support its efforts to create a comprehensive bicycle network in the Ironbound neighborhood, the City of Newark has selected five locations to pilot on-road bicycle facilities and two additional locations for bike corrals. The purpose of these pilot projects is to build on the momentum of BIKEIRONBOUND by choosing locations where the vision of the plan can be implemented quickly and effectively. The selected projects also create a solid inital network of north-south and east-west routes to build upon, and represent a variety of bicycle facility typologies.

The following locations have been chosen as pilot implementation projects: McWhorter Street Adams Street Van Buren Street Ferry Street Raymond Boulevard In the case of Adams Street and Van Buren Street, the pilot recommendations are for buffered bicycle lanes in order to facilitate quick implementation.

In the long term, the facilities may be upgraded to separated bicycle lanes, as indicated in the proposed bicycle network in Chapter 6 and Map 6.

Additionally, locations have been chosen for the implementation of bike corrals: Ferry Street (near Wilson Avenue) Raymond Plaza East (between Ferry Street and Edison Place)

81

Ferry Street to Walnut Street

Treatment: Buffered Bicycle Lane on the Left Side Route Segment

rry S t

Typical Cross Section (Southbound)

Fe

St McWhort

l

Bruen St

on P Edi s

Hamilton

Lafayette St

Green St

t Elm S

ut St Waln

07 Pilot Projects 82

McWhorter Street

er St

Adams Street

Market Street to South Street Treatment: Buffered Bicycle Lane on the Right Side Route Segment

Market

Dow ning S

St

e St

Ferry

Lafayett

Elm St

Walnut Stt

New York Ave

Warwick St

Nichols St

E Kinney St

Oliver St

Chestnut St

Ferdon St

Delancy St

Clifford St

South St

Adams St

St

t

Van Buren St

Typical Cross Section (Northbound)

83

Pilot Projects

Van Buren StreetStreet Van Buren Raymond Boulevard to Ferry Street Raymond Boulevard to Treatment: Shared-Lane Markings

Ferry Street

Treatment: Shared-Lane Markings Route Segment Ra

d on ym d Blv

BIKEIRONBOUND

t St

84

e Mark

Ferry St

Typical Cross Section (Southbound)

Clover St

Van Buren St

Pilot Projects

Van Buren StreetStreet Van Buren

Ferry Street to South Street Ferry Street South Treatment: Bufferedto Bicycle LanesStreet on the Right Side Treatment: Buffered Bicycle Lane on the Right Side Route Segment

Ferry

Lafayet t

Elm St

St

e St

Walnut St

Oliver St

Chestnut S t

Ferdon St

Delancy St

Clifford S t

South St

Van Buren St

New York Ave

Nichols St

E Kinney St

Typical Cross Section (Southbound)

BIKEIRONBOUND

85

Pilot Projects

Ferry Street

NJ Railroad Avenue to Wilson Avenue Treatment: Shared-Lane Markings Route Segment

St` Union

t

S ant

ter McWhor

ch Mer

St

Bruen

Wilso Polk

NJ Railroad Ave`

Van Buen St

BIKEIRONBOUND

Jackson St

86

St Ferry

Adams St

Typical Cross Section (Eastbound)

Monroe St

l

St

nP

n Madiso

iso Ed

St

M

Jefferson

St

s St Congres

t Prospect S

et ark

n Ave

Pilot Projects

Ferry Street

Wilson Avenue to St. Charles Street Treatment: Bicycle Lanes in Both Directions

Fi l lm or eS t

eS t So mm

St

er s Ch am b

M

Fe rg

er ch a

nt

St

us on S

t

Route Segment Va lsu m

Ma oL

n

r ke tS t

Ferry St St C

St

t

t es S

St

is ans

St

harl

Fr St

n Mai

re mo

St

St

eS azin Mag

Fill

ott

sc We

ra Niaga

Wall St

ve on A

St Alyea

Wils

Typical Cross Section (Eastbound)

BIKEIRONBOUND

87

Pilot Projects

Raymond Boulevard

Freeman Street to Mid-Block Crossing Treatment: Two-Way Separated Bicycle Lanes on Right Side Route Segment

Typical Cross Section (Westbound)

88

BIKEIRONBOUND

an St Freem

Sr rd Oxfo

St gton Lexin

t Mott S

Read St St ence Provid

Fillmore St

So mm

eS t

d Blvd

Van

Bu ren St

Raymon

St

Bike Corral r ry Fe

Ea

Bike Corral

st

rry

Me rc ha nt St

Fe

Pilot Projects

Bike Corral Locations

Pl Ra y

m

on d

RAYMOND PLAZA EAST

FERRY STREET

t

St

Ferry S

Edis

on P

l

Pilot Project Locations

Pilot Implementation Project 2-Way Separated Bike Lane

Other Proposed Route

Buffered Bicycle Lane

Existing Riverfront Park Entrance

Bike Lane Shared-Lane Markings Bike Corral

BIKEIRONBOUND

89

BIKEIRONBOUND

Final Report

2016 | City of Newark, NJ