1 16 draft for review by Garrett Town Planner

Chapel Hill is a community where biking is a safe and convenient everyday choice.

w T e i F v A e 0 R R 2 l D a 2n 1 r e 3 t 1 n I 20 2

01 Plan Process | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

Acknowledgements Special thanks to all who made this plan possible. Town of Chapel Hill: Garrett Davis, (Project Manager) David Bonk Mike Taylor, P.E. Jay Gibson, P.E Kumar Nepalli Brian Litchfield Matt Cecil Bill Webster Catherine Lazorko Donnie Roads Len Cone J.B Culpepper Kay Pearlstien Liz Jones Jay Heikes Mike Rempson Consultant Team: Bill Schultheiss, Toole Design Group Jessica Zdeb, Toole Design Group Ken Ray, Toole Design Group Steering Committee Members Jim Huegerich, Town of Chapel Hill Nathan Huening, Chapel Hill Chamber of Commerce George Wayson, UNC Health Care Jill Coleman, UNC Chapel Hill Rich Giorgi, The ReCYLCEry Tom White, Carrboro Bicycle Coalition John Vine-Hodge, NCDOT Jeffrey Brubaker, Town of Carrboro Bergen Waterson, Triangle J Council of Governments Deborah Fulghieri, Planning Board Angelica Pura, Greenways Commission Jeffrey Charles, Bicycle and Pedestrian Board Max Bushell, Chapel Hill Transportation Board Jason Merrill, Back Alley Bikes Tamara Sanders, The Clean Machine

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 01 Plan Process

Table of Contents Introduction 7 01 Plan Process

02 Existing Conditions

03 Bicycle Network 37 04 Bicycle Policies And Programs 53 05 Implementation Strategies

Cut Sheets 80 Appendicies Appendix A: Public Engagement 96 Appendix B: Facility Design Approach Appendix C: Cost Estimates Appendix D: Bike Share

102

118

133

Appendix E: Funding Scan 140

01 Plan Process | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

CHAPEL HILL BIKE PLAN VISION

“Chapel Hill is a community where biking is a safe and convenient everyday choice.”

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 01 Plan Process

Plan Vision

“Chapel Hill is a community where biking is a safe and convenient everyday choice.” This vision for bicycling in Chapel Hill is where the town would like to be in 15 years. It touches on the three key themes used to develop this plan. safety

convenience

choice

The majority of people who participated in this planning process do not think Chapel Hill is a safe place to ride a bike. They want that to change and they believe that it can. They are not alone and we believe that this plan, the 2020 plan, and the results of the Town’s bi-annual survey indicate that the vast majority of residents desire a safer, more bikable future. Convienence is strongly related to the level of connectivity in the street network. Due to physical geogrpahy and certain transportation decisions of the past, Chapel Hill’s street network has a low level of connectivity. This plan studied the street networks of Chapel Hill’s peer communities where bicycling is more convienent and they have higher levels of street connectivity. They also have more more bicycle facilities. Chapel Hill can become a more connected community and build more bicycle facilities but it is important to note that Chapel Hill is not starting from square one. To that end, this plan recommends that exsiting assets be leveraged and “win-win” opportunies for multiple modes be pursued. Greater connectivity is important to making biking more convienient because it affects travel time. In the diagrams on page XX, two locations and two different street networks are shown. In each diagram, location A and B are located the same distance from each other. However, the street networks are different and network #1 is more “connected” than network #2. Consequently, the trip distance to get from point A to point B is greater in network # 2 than #1. Trip distance is directly related to travel time and thus convenience . Since the majority of bikes are human powered, this additional trip distance increases the physical effort required to ride a bike,. This additional effort decreases the appeal of traveling by bike in Chapel Hill, where summer temperatures

01 Plan Process | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

and a hilly terrain present a physical challenge for some people who wish to bike. A low level of street connectivity also results in the following situation; that is, the streets that do connect must have higher traffic volumes. To accomodate higher volumes, these streets are designed to permit higher vehicle speeds. It is this combination of volume and speed on streets that creates the most stressful situations for cyclists. Also, when there are no bicycle facilities present on streets like this, cyclist stress is increased substantially. The recommended bicycle facilties for streets all over Town is a major component of this plan. The notion of cyclist stress is also a major aspect fo this plan. Consider this local example of a stressful cycling situation. To get from Southern Village to the UNC Botanical Garden by bike, one would have to ride their bike down an exit ramp onto a divided highway with no bike or pedestrian facility where the speed limit is 45 miles per hour. This plan refers to situations like this as “high-stress” and roads like this are refered to as “barriers” to biking. In this type of situation, the stress experienced by cyclists could be decresed by constructing a bicycle facility such as a greenway, or a paralell off-road path that separates bicyclists from motor vehicles. Improvements like these might also decrease the levels of stress experienced by motorists as they minimize the potential for conflict and collision with cyclists and pedestrians. The town can help increase safety, convieninece and transportation choice by focuing on strategies that decrease travel time, effort, and stress for bicyclists. That is the essesnce of this plan, to make biking a more acceptable choice for residents, employees and visitors of Chapel Hill.

The Town recieved a bronze level Bicycle Friendly Community designation from the League of American Bicyclists in 2011. Local leaders accept the award at University Mall in this photo.

GOALS Four plan goals that are the result of community input frame the recommendations in this plan. To realize the vision of this plan and the 2020 Big Idea “Connected Community” these goals must be actively pursued and achieved:

1. Improve the safety of bicycling for all types of riders. Safety was the number one concern raised by people during the development of this plan and any suggested that percieved safety was the primary factor that prevented people from bicycling.1 Though the number of reported bicycle crashes in town remains relatively low with an average of approximately 14 per year, a fall 2013 crash with two bicyclist fatalities drew significant attention to the issue of safety.1

2. Foster the development of a culture where bicycling is an accepted and viable mode choice in Chapel Hill. Though people routinely bicycle in town now, it is still not considered to be the most reasonable or attractive mode by many in the community. Research has shown that awareness of the bicycle a good way to get around is the first step toward making it a routine mode of travel. Moving towards a culture where bicycling is accepted and viable will start with this awareness.

3. Develop a connected network of bicycle facilities throughout Chapel Hill. Low connectivity is a major barrier to making bicycling an easy choice today in Chapel Hill. The implementation of a network of low-stress facilities will be a major factor in making this mode more appealing to a wider group of Chapel Hill residents and visitors.

PLAN PURPOSE The main purpose of this Plan is to provide the Town with a set of prioritized physical infrastructure improvements, policy actions and program recommendations that will guide Town decisions and investments in the future.Physical network recommendations are complemented by policy actions and programs. This Plan is the latest in a history of bike related plans dating back to 1977 Bikeway Concept Plan. The most recent bike plan for the Town was the 2004 Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan. This plan provided general guidance on which streets to improve for cycling but lacked specific facility recommendations on how to improve those streets. That plan also relied heavily on signed bicycle routes and wide travel lanes, two facility types that provide the lowest levels of comfort as they provide cyclists little to no separation from traffic.

WHO THIS PLAN IS FOR This plan focuses on providing a network that will function for all types of bicyclists: •

utilitarian cyclists

•

recreational cyclists

•

those who ride frequently and are comfortable sharing the road with traffic

•

those who ride occasionally but would like to do so more

•

those who do not ride currently but want to.

Many people bike for both transportation (utilitarian) and recreational purposes. See next page for greater detail of the graphic below.

CATEGORIES AND TYPES OF CYCLISTS

youth cyclis

4. Increase bicycle use for all types of trips. People in Chapel Hill make many types of trips in town— commuting to work, running errands, visiting friends and family—that are short enough to be made by bicycle. By achieving the other three goals, bicycle useage for these types of trips will increase.

2 1

mountain bikers

commuters

primary means

RECREATION road bikers

youth cyclists

fitness riders

road bikers

UTILITARIAN

lifestyle riders

fitness riders

mountain bikers

Youth cyclists s major categori bike usage may recreational an (school, practi friends, etc).

commuters

1 Research Cititation on saftey and ridership from around nation, Europe

Reported bicycle crash numbers are widely believed to be an undercount of actual crashes by nearly 50%. Minor and 1

Ride geared bikes suitable Prefer bikes that allow them to Ride “fat-tire” bikes that provide for traveling at higher speeds maintain an upright position and traction and stability on natufor long distances alone or in riding distances fewer than 10-20 ral surface trails which vary in | Chapel | 01 December Bicycle Master Planmay Plannatural Process groups. Experience and fitness miles2013 on paved paths Hill or smooth width and contain levels range and these cyclists are natural surfaces. They seek routes obstacles such as rocks, roots, comfortable riding mixed traffic. where there is good separation and steep inclines. Maintain-

These experienc comfortable rid traffic and often 7 to thei fications bicycles to impr comfort and saf

THE 2020 PLAN The need for a bike plan was stated by the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. That plan’s major themes were Connections. Choices. Community. Each of these themes speak directly to the necessary elements of a robust bicycle transportation network and culture. There is a clear community interest in having more diverse transportation choices in Town, especially modes with lower environmental impact than automobiles. This bike plan also complements and integrates with the 2012 Greenways Master Plan

THE TOWN’S EXISTING CYCLING ADVANTAGES The Town already has advantages which contribute to community bikability. The commuting and recreational cycling rates are relatively high compared to other North Carolina cities. Most major destinations and neighborhoods are close to each other and the climate is mild. Plus, there is a growing community of dedicated bicyling advocates. The Town has bike infrastructure policies and programs in place today and was recognized a “Bicycle Friendly Community in 2011. Communities are ranked either Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum and now “Diamond” based on the presence of infrastructure, policies and programs that support bicycling. This designation lasts until 2014 at which point the Town may re-apply to maintain or improve its ranking.

CATEGORIES AND TYPES OF CYCLISTS youth cyclists

2 1

mountain bikers

lifestyle riders

commuters

primary means

RECREATION road bikers

fitness riders

UTILITARIAN

youth cyclists

lifestyle riders

road bikers

fitness riders

mountain bikers

Ride geared bikes suitable for traveling at higher speeds for long distances alone or in groups. Experience and fitness levels range and these cyclists are comfortable riding mixed traffic. Urban areas with good greenway networks and access to rural secenic roads attract these cyclists.

Prefer bikes that allow them to maintain an upright position and riding distances fewer than 10-20 miles on paved paths or smooth natural surfaces. They seek routes where there is good separation from vehicular traffic. Fitness, natural attractions, and family outings are the primary reasons these people ride bikes.

Ride “fat-tire” bikes that provide traction and stability on natural surface trails which vary in width and may contain natural obstacles such as rocks, roots, and steep inclines. Maintaining fitness is usually a secondary motivation to adventure for these riders.

01 Plan Process | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

Youth cyclists straddle the two major categories as their daily bike usage may include multiple recreational and utilitarian trips (school, practice, riding with friends, etc).

These riders value the journey as much as the destination. Bicycles ridden by this group vary widely in form and function and their designs are often a reflection of the rider’s individuality. Trips to the farmers market, local pub, or other public spaces are common but these riders may also commute to work as well via bike.

commuters

primary means

These experienced cyclists are comfortable riding with mixed traffic and often make modifications to their clothing and bicycles to improve efficiency comfort and safety while riding in inclement weather for example. Primary motivators for these riders include cost savings, personal values, and fitness.

These people ride out of economic necessity, do not own automobiles or are unable to acquire a driver’s license. Work trips to employment locations that are too far away to walk to or are not served adequately by public transit are some of the primary trip motivations for these cyclists.

THE BENEFITS OF BICYCLING Nationwide, interest in bicycling is growing because bicycling provides distinct benefits to people and communities.

QUALITY OF LIFE BENEFITS Chapel Hill is a great place to live, work, and play. This high quality of community life is possible for many reasons including; • • • • • • • •

Employment Access Recreation Opportunities Outstanding Public Facilities and Amenties Great Schools Low-Crime Rates Responsive Government Community Involvement Dedicated funding sources

The 2012 Town survey asked residents what they were most dissatisfied with and traffic and congestion were the top responses. The survey also asked which priorities should be the highest for Town leaders during the next two years. Residents overwhelmingly chose fixing traffic congestion as the number one priority. This plan adresses these community concerns directly and recommends street improvements that can simultaneously create bike facilities and improve traffic flow. This balanced approach to Transportation Planning is commonly referred to as the Complete Streets Approach.

The 2012 survey results also indicate that residents have a strong desire for more bicyle facilities. In response to quesitons about Capital Improvement priorities. additional bike lanes and off-road paths were the second most highlyrated capital improvement project, only preceeded by the redevelopment of Downtown. Now is the right time to make progress on the bicycle transportation network.

ECONOMIC BENEFITS Attracting residents The Town’s desire to retain young, tech-savvy residents is clear through its support of the development of LaUNCh. Since these residents are likely to be interested in urban features like bicycle facilities and bicycle culture, improving bicycling in Chapel Hill can help attract and retain the type of resident that LaUNCh is targeting. Residential developers in town are already getting this message, as evidenced by: the Bicycle Apartments, which will open in 2014 and include secure indoor parking for 400 bicycles; Shortbread Lofts which also highlights its secure, indoor bike parking in its marketing; and Greenbridge Condominiums, which in addition to secure bicycle parking will also have a loaner fleet of bicycles for tenants. Increasingly, members of the Millennial generation (those born 1982-2003) are choosing not to drive. A 2013 survey found that this age group choose transportation choices that save money, are convenient, and can provide exercise. Respondents also identified affordability, environmental benefits and flexibility of travel as benefits of bicycling.

Futher, by building a safe, convenient bicycle network , peole can shift from the car to the bicycle for a number of in-town trips. Over time, this shift will help the Town minimize congestion and maximize existing transportation assests.

Clifton, K. et al. (2013, January) Consumer Behavior and Travel Choices: A Focus on Cyclists and Pedestrians. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. 6

Rowe, K. Bikenomics: Measuring the Economic Impact of Bicycle Facilities on Neighborhood Business Districts, 2013; NYC DOT, Measuring the Street: New Metrics for 21st Century Streets, 2012. 7

USDOT Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Pocket Guide to Transportation 2013. 8

The League of American Bicyclists, and the Sierra Club, The New Majority: Pedaling Towards Equity, 2013. 9

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Biking to the Farmers Market.jpg

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 01 Plan Process

In addition to attracting these young residents, improved bicycle infrastructure can benefit families who want accessible, family-friendly activities or a way to keep their children active and healthy. Building a strong network of bicycle facilities can also support home sales and property values. National surveys of prospective homebuyers have identified a desire to live in walkable communities with destinations close to one another, and also show a preference toward single-family homes on medium-sized lots. Much housing in Chapel Hill fits this description, and the new development patterns of mixed-use centers will bring commercial destinations even closer to residences. With these new land use patterns, and improved bikeability, the Town is poised to become an even more attractive high quality of life community. The same national survey showed that nearly half of respondents placed high priority on providing convenient alternatives to driving. Additionally, residential properties located near bicycle paths have been shown to have increased home values which can make them popular among residents.5

ATTRACTING AND SUPPORTING BUSINESS In addition to attracting and retaining residents, a robust bicycle network also attracts businesses. Employers and commercial property developers are recognizing that employees will want to work in locations that are bikeable. In an effort to retain a competivie advantage, major businesses who traditionally locate in suburban office parks are moving their offices from these auto-dependent locations into cities to offer employees more transportation choices. The locations also offer the amenties of a more urban environment which improve employee creativity and morale. For example, the Citirix, a high-tech computing company, is moving over 300 employees into a downtown Raleigh location. Local leaders expect that this move will â&#x20AC;&#x153;fuel further investment and economic growth in the area.â&#x20AC;? 2 Nationwide, there are also many commercial districts benefitting from increased on-bike traffic. A 2012 study from Portland, OR found that shoppers arriving by bicycle may not spend as much per trip as patrons arriving by other modes at bars, restaurants and convenience stores, but the high frequency of their trips results in higher monthly expenditures over all. 6 Studies in Seattle and New York City have also found increases in total retail sales and a lack of along corridors with newly-installed bicycle infrastructure.

PERSONAL FINANCES An average households spend approximatley 16%8 of their income on transportation costs with the average annual cost of car ownership of $8,200.9 An average Chapel Hill household spends $9,600 on transportation annually.10 These households could reduce these expenditures by taking more trips by bicycle thereby reducing fuel and vehicle maintenance costs. For those without access to personal vehicles, bicycling is available as one of the most cost-effective and efficient means of travel. Locally, improved bicycle transportation can provide people with options at times when the fare-free Transit system is not operating.

TOWN FINANCES Cycling is a form of aerobic exercise with wide appeal and value. Cycling may be ideal for individuals who, due to arthritic or other orthopedic problems, are unable to walk for an extended period of time without pain or difficulty. Cycling is also a good choice for people who are greater than 50 pounds overweight.. Source; http:// my.clevelandclinic.org/heart/prevention/exercise/best-typeof-aerobic-exercise.aspx

01 Plan Process | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

Bicycles have a significantly lower impact on roads compared with motor vehicles. The Town roads that need resurfacing and reconstruction most often are those that carry the most auto taffic and the largest percentage of heavy vehicles like buses and dump trucks. Increasing the number of trips taken by bicycle can reduce wear and tear on Town roads. This reduction can decrease the frequency 2 https://www.citrix.com/news/announcements/ jul-2012/on-the-move-citrix-announces-expansion-indowntown-raleigh-north-carolina.html

of town-funded street repair and improve street surface conditions.

HEALTH BENEFITS Active transportation such as biking can help prevent a number of chronic diseases caused, in part, by inactivity. In fact, moderate bike riding is included in the latest Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans from the Centers for Disease Control, as an activity that can fulfill the recommended weekly amount of aerobic exercise. The CDC’s recommended amount of aerobic activity can take place in short bursts, such as a bike trip to the grocery store on the weekend, or riding to a friend’s house for dinner. For children, a bike network that allows them to safely ride to school can start them off on the right foot for learning. A 2012 Dutch study of 20,000 school children ages 5 to 19 found that those who traveled by walking or bicycling performed measurably better on tasks that demand concentration, such as solving puzzles, and that this effect lasted for up to four hours after arrival at school.11 Biking to school has also been demonstrated to raise a child’s overall activity levels which can contribute to a healthier, less sedentary lifestyle.

PLAN UPDATES EVERY 5 YEARS This Plan is a dynamic, living document that should be revisited over time. Updates will be necessary as Chapel Hill implements plan recommendations and the bicycling environment in Town changes. As new facilities are constructed and as policy and programmatic changes are instituted, the number of bicycle trips will likely increase. As bicycling increases, the recommended approaches will need to be reevaluated and updated. It is recommended that updates to the full Bike Plan be undertaken every five years.

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 01 Plan Process

popular growing

challenging

hilly disconnected

OK... dangerous

limited

WHAT ARE THREE WORDS THAT DESCRIBE BIKING IN CHAPEL HILL TODAY?

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 01 Plan Process

Plan Process Stakeholder Involvement

The development of the Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan was a collaborative effort among Town staff, stakeholders, and the public. The outreach effort has reached over 600 residents through in-person open houses and online input opportunities. After the 2020 Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2012, the Town recognized the need to develop a new Bike Plan, one that would clearly identify and prioritize specific projects. In response to this need, Town Staff working with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board applied to the NCDOT Division of Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Planning Grant Program. The Town received $95,0001 grant to support the development of this plan. The timing of this local planning grant was ideal since NCODT had recently completed a statwide bicycle plan. The 2013 NCDOT plan articulates the Stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s commitment to investing in bicycle and pedestrian transportation infrastructure.

A Steering Committee comprised of Town, business and citizen stakeholders was selected to guide the development of the Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan. The 15-member Committee crafted the vision and goal statements, which served as a foundation for the Plan. The committee met four times and provided critical feedback to the Plan process. Jim Huegerich, Town of Chapel Hill Nathan Huening, Chapel Hill Chamber of Commerce George Wayson, UNC Health Care Jill Coleman, UNC Chapel Hill Rich Giorgi, The ReCYLCEry Tom White, Carrboro Bicycle Coalition John Vine-Hodge, NCDOT Jeffrey Brubaker, Town of Carrboro Bergen Waterson, Triangle J Council of Governments Deborah Fulghieri, Planning Board Angelica Pura, Greenways Commission Jeffrey Charles, Bicycle and Pedestrian Board Max Bushell, Chapel Hill Transportation Board Jason Merrill, Back Alley Bikes Tamara Sanders, The Clean Machine

The steering committee helped design the plan logo.

Advisory Board Review

Council Public Hearing

Council Adoption

Final Plan/ Staff/Council/ Public & NCDOT Review

Advisory Board Review

NCDOT Review begins

Draft Plan

Grant award details..local match amount

01 Plan Process | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

Public Meeting 2

2014

Commmittee Meeting 4; Field Work

Data Collection and Draft Network

Online Survey and Map

Commmittee Online Survey Meeting 3; and Map Field Work

Public/Stakeholder Outreach & Involvement

Online Survey and Map

Public Meeting 1

Project Kick-Off

Commmittee Meeting 2; Field Work

2013

Committee Meeting 1

Task

Meetings

Stakeholder Interviews were conducted with the

Meeting 1: Committee members heard an overview of the plan process and brainstormed key themes that the plan needed to address. Meeting 2: Committee members identified strengths and challenges related to expanding the bicycle network and improving the “bicycle culture” in Chapel Hill. Strengths

Challenges

Good number of cyclists today

Topography/disconnected streets

Existing greenway system

Wayfinding is lacking

following individuals to inform the plan’s recommendations. Town staff provided information about existing programs and policies, as well as insight into the decision-making process that will impact implementation of this plan. Outside stakeholders provided insight on the interests of Town residents and the local advocacy community. Jay Gibson, Mike Taylor and Kumar Neppali, Town Engineering staff Bill Webster, Assistant Director, Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Department Sgt. Donnie Rhoads, Chapel Hill Police Department

Mountain biking trails/good No good single source for road riding bicycling information

Len Cone, Coordinator, Go Chapel Hill Transportation Demand Mangement

Moderate climate

Funding is not in place

Manageable distances to destinations

NCDOT partnership can be lacking

Lee Einsweiler, Consultant on the Ephesus-Fordham Focus Area plan, Code Studio

Receptive elected bodies and staff

Lack of effective advocacy community/message

Meg McGuirk, Director, Chapel Hill Downtown Partnership Rainer Dammers, Chair, Chapel Hill Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board

Meeting 3: The Committee developed a vision for the future of bicycle transportation in Chapel Hill. Ideas coalesced around several themes:

Heidi Perry, Co-founder, Carrboro Bicycle Coalition

• •

Community engagement and participation was conducted for the plan in a number of ways.

• • • • • • •

Bicycling is part of Chapel Hill’s identity Bicycling is viewed as a reasonable and available transportation choice Bicycling is safe and appealing to riders of all types and skill levels The bike network is connected and gets you where you need to go Bicycling improvements have dedicated funding sources High-quality on-road bike facilities exist to complement the greenway network All road users are educated about bicyclists’ rights and responsibilities A strong advocacy community exists to move bike improvements forward Information about bicycling facilities, routes and resources exists and is easy to find

In general, they committee felt that there was a the lack of understanding about bicyclists’ rights and this contributed to episodes of uncivil behavior that can lead to unsafe situations, both for cyclists and others. They also dicussed the safety issues cyclists encounter when they ride on major on the major roads that “feel like freeways.” Meeting 4: The Committee reviewed the public input collected during the planning process;identified peer communities that would be used to set benchmarks in the plan; discussed specific facility recommendations made by the consultant team; endorsed the major goals of the plan.

Community engagement

Bike to the Future I Bike to the Future I was a community open house event held May 9, 2013 at the Chapel Hill Public Library. Over 100 community members attended the open house event to provide input on the key issues to be addressed in the Plan. There were also presentations from expert speakers2 and and four interactive stations described below. •

•

Question Wall: Attendees responded via writing on a wall to open-ended questions about biking in Chapel Hill. Bicycle Facility Showcase: Attendees learned about different types of bike facilities and had the opportunity to ask the consultant team about the details of each. Map Tables: Participants gave input on existing conditions and desired improvements by drawing on large maps and talking with facilitators from the consultant team. WikiMap: Attendees used computer stations to share comments and ideas through the project’s online mapping tool (described in greater detail below). Dr. John Pucher footnote

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 01 Plan Process

Bike to the Future II Bike to the Future II was the second open house for the Chapel Hill Bike Plan was held on October 24, 2013. The event, attended by over 120 people, included a presentation of the draft Plan map, reccomendations and a community infrstructure priortization activity. This activity utlized play money(aka bike bucks) and hypothetical projects from around town that particpants were asked to spend their money on. The results of this exercise influenced the prioritization of the plan and can be found in Appendix C.

The project manager and consultant team answer questions at Bike to the Future I.

Steering Committee Meetings and the Public Input Events were held at the newly renovated Chapel Hill Public Library.

The Question Wall and Bike Facility Showcase(on TV monitor) at Bike to the Future I

The Big Map at Bike to the Future II with Bike Bucks attached to priority corridors.

01 Plan Process | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

The WikiMap Another important tool for gathering input for the Chapel Hill Bike Plan was a WikiMap, a crowdsourced map application where bicyclists and non-bicyclists contributed ideas by drawing points and lines and adding comments to a web map. The Bike Plan WikiMap had 300 registered users who made over 1,000 comments, providing the planning team and steering committee with invaluable insight on biking conditions in Chapel Hill. The following sections describe the input gathered by the WikiMap. The registered users on the WikiMap were representative of Chapel Hill in terms of gender and age. Many users, 72%, were students, faculty or staff of UNC. The majority (55%) of WikiMap users live in Chapel Hill, and 27% were from Carrboro. The WikiMap users were not representative of the Town population in terms of bicycling habits, in that people who identified as “frequent cyclists” made up 73% percent of registered users. While this is much higher than the proportion of the Town population who might identify themselves this way, this type of overrepresentation is common in bike plan surveys since frequent cyclists are more likely to have experience, input and interest in the existing conditions and opportunities related to biking.

The majority of the input on the map came from a smaller group of active users, and some of the registered users on the WikiMap simply used the site to become acquainted with the Bike Plan process. • •

• •

Of the 300 registered users, 173 added a point, line or comment to the map. The top 10 heaviest users of the map represented 39% of the points, lines and comments added to the map. All 10 classified themselves as “frequent cyclists.” Six were female, and six were between the ages of 31 and 50. The average user contributed three points, lines or comments. Approximately 25% of commenters added only one point, line or comment to the map.

Users were asked to give feedback in four categories. The following table shows the number of features and comments in each category: As can be seen on the map below, the streets that received the most comments and marks were major thoroughfares through town.

2% 10% 10% 78% Screenshot of the WikiMap user interface.

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 01 Plan Process

High-Stress Routes

Intersections

Overall, users cited high-speed traffic most frequently as the reason that they avoided certain routes or found them to be high-stress places to ride (see table on following page). All of these roads have a speed limit of 35mph or less. Vehicles traveling up to 35mph are typically not considered the cause of undue stress for cyclists; as evidence, this is the upper speed limit of where a shared lane marking is typically used. Based on this input from the WikiMap and on field observations by the consultant team, it appears that the issue may be drivers routinely exceeding the speed limit in town.

The majority of problem intersections identified in the WikiMap were also on major thoroughfares identified as high-stress routes. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Estes Drive, Cameron Avenue at South Columbia Street and Pittsboro Street were recieved the most comments on the WikiMap. The intersections of the sidepaths along NC 54/Raleigh Road with cross streets were also identified as problem areas. Similar to the high-stress route comments, the top issues mentioned by users at intersections were high-speeds and unsafe merging movements and the difficulty cyclists face when making left turns.

What makes this route high-stress?

High-speed traffic

105

Too much traffic

Aggressive drivers

Bad sightlines (curves, hills)

Bad pavement

01 Plan Process | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

The intersection that received the most comments was Cameron Avenue and Merritt Mill Road. Users said that both cyclists and drivers are confused about where cyclists should position themselves to safely enter and exit the Libba Cotton Bikeway from Cameron Ave. The crossing is complicated by the railroad tracks, which can catch wheels and cause cyclists to fall when approached at the wrong angle or at very slow speeds. The intersection of Cameron Avenue and Pittsboro Street was also highlighted as a dangerous intersection.

Images of Cameron Ave- Merritt Mill Rd - Libba Cotton Bikeway intersection

The railroad tracks and undefined bicycle route through the Cameron Ave and Merritt Mill Road and LIbba Cotton Bikeway intersection can create dangerous situations for bicyclists.

The planning team developed a 3-D model of the intersection to better study the feasibility of possible improvements.

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 01 Plan Process

Destinations and Bike Parking

Off-road Routes

Input about destinations and needed bicycle parking was also sought. WikiMap users indictated a need for more bike parking around the major commerical and employment areas in Town.

WikiMap users also identified off-road routes. Some of these were existing greenways that users classified as low-stress parts of their routes, and some were informal unpaved worn paths which provided them with a connection between two areas. This record of informal paths and other inforamation about the shortcuts people take guided fieldwork investigation. These reason people take shortcuts and make informal paths is so they can avoid biking on a high-stress street, or connect two areas not connected by the street network. For example, one user noted a brief section along East Franklin Street near the Eastgate Shopping Center where she recommended riding on the sidewalk to access Dobbins Road, an alternative route to Fordham Boulevard to access Durham County.

To increase the amount of bike parking on West Franklin St., the Town, and the Downtown partnership worked with NCDOT to install a bike corral. A bike corral is a multi-bike parking structure that occupies an on-street parking space.

MAP The Town PLanning Department keeps a dataset with the location of Bicycle racks in Town

01 Plan Process | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

Further detail about comments made on particular corridors is included in the detailed project descriptions in Appendix XX. WikiMap input was essential to the project team and influenced the development of the network and the prioritization of projects.

Online Survey Questionnaire An online survey instrument was used to gauge opinions on current conditions and the future of bicycling in Chapel Hill. It was available for five weeks in the summer of 2013. There were over 600 respondents. The online survey respondents were relatively representative of Chapel Hill in terms of age and gender. Survey respondents included people who ride for transportation as well as those who ride for recreation; nearly 70% of respondents said they do both. Some indicated they did not ride a bike. Overall, concerns about safety were a central theme that recurred throughout the responses. The following pages discusse some common trends found in the responses and provides examples of individual survey questions.

Question: Describe Biking in Chapel Hill The survey first asked: “What three words best describe bicycling in Chapel Hill today,” and “What three words would you like to describe it in the future?” See page XX for more information on this question.

Question: What is the safest city you have ever biked in? Respondents were asked to rate the safety of bicycling in Chapel Hill and the safety of biking in another city or town that they consider to be exceptional for bicycling. Chapel Hill rated an average of 4.1 on a scale of 10, whereas the ideal locations rated 8.1. Most Frequent Responses Count City

Count

City

Portland OR

Seattle

Boulder, CO

Madison, WI

36 26 25 17

Amsterdam Carrboro Davis, CA Chapel Hill

17 12 10 8

Question: Where would you let your kids ride a bike? One question was targeted towards parents with children who are under the age of 18 and ride bikes. The table below summarizes the responses to this question. Greenways

83.4%

In parks

79.0%

Quiet neighborhood streets

73.8%

Sidewalks on quiet streets

49.8%

Sidewalks on any streets

15.6%

Major streets

7.9%

Question: Which factors have prevented you from biking? Safety was also the top concern noted for non-cyclists who were asked to indicate which factors prevent them from biking in Chapel Hill. Respondents identifying as a noncyclist were asked to select all reasons that apply to their decision to not ride a bike. Reason

Count

I don't feel safe riding a bicycle on roads with cars.

77%

Too many barriers (freeways, stream valleys, lack of street connectivity).

52%

It's too hilly.

24%

It would take me too long to bike to the 27 places I need to go.

23%

I don't own a bicycle.

18%

Family travel needs.

17%

There is insufficient bicycle parking at my destination.

11%

My bike is not in good riding condition.

10%

I am physically limited from riding a bicycle.

Chapel Hill Washington D.C. Copenhagen Minneapolis

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 01 Plan Process

Question: What are three words that describe biking in Chapel Hill today and in the future? Biking in Chapel Hill Today

Biking in Chapel Hill in the Future

Middle: South Rd is multi-modal street on UNCâ&#x20AC;?s main campus that experiences high volumes of bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Bottom Left,: Cyclist riding on the Bolin Creek Greenway, in Chapel Hill. Bottom Right: Rendering of potential future facility.

01 Plan Process | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

Question: What is the safest biking city you have ever been to?

Copenhagen (image credit: Dr. John Pucher)

Washington D.C

Boulder, CO.

Davis, CA

Portland, OR

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 01 Plan Process

Question: Where would you rather ride a bike? Respondents were asked to choose between two photographs of roads with different bike facilities, based on where they would rather bike. The road with a bike facility that provided greater separation from motor vehicles was selected most often by cyclists. Respondents who identified themselves as non-cyclists were asked a similar question; â&#x20AC;&#x153;where would prefer cyclists to ride?â&#x20AC;? Non-cyclists also selected the road with facility that provided the greater separation between cyclists and vehicles. Respondents also preferred a green bike lane over one with only white outlines, presumably because green paint is more visible and creates greater awareness of bicyclists on the road.

01 Plan Process | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

Question: What are the good things about biking in Chapel Hill?

BICYCLE ROUTE TIME ANALYSIS

Survey respondents also reported many positive aspects of bicycling in Chapel Hill. Some of the positive words describing current bicycling conditions were: “fun,” “popular,” “convenient” and “growing.”1 The proximity of important destinations was rated highest amongst things people like most about bicycling in Chapel Hill, and many respondents also noted that it is a Thealso following graphic theexercise approximate time for a quick way to get around(see page XX). Many noted the healthillustrates benefits of by bicycling, whether for recreation or bicyclist to travel from downtown to other areas of the Town. transportation. I am within bicycling distance of many important destinations

64.1%

u in

ile

diu Ra

ile

42.7%

I feel like I am helping the environment

di us

It saves me money

Analyzed Bicycle Route Bike Route Contour

The following graphic illustrates the approximate time for a bicyclist to travel from downtown to other areas of the Town.

15 M

It is a quick way to get around

31.8%

inute

5 Minu te

The greenways system

26.1% 5M

25.9% 20 M

16.3%

Road surfaces are well maintained

9.3%

Drivers respect bicyclists on the roadways

5.5%

nu te

e ut

Close proximity of mountain biking

inute

Close proximity of on-road recreational riding

inute

Triangle Off Road cyclists sponsors mountain bike races and trail maintenance workdays in the Carolina North Forest..jpg

4 Mile Radius

Placeholder

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 01 Plan Process

Question: What three streets are vital to biking in Chapel Hill ? The physical street network was also addressed in the survey with the question: â&#x20AC;&#x153;What three streets are vital to making bicycling in Chapel Hill a viable transportation option?â&#x20AC;? This was included to reinforce the data collected via the WikiMap and at Bike to the Future I. Respondents overwhelmingly said that the major thoroughfares in town were the most vital to creating a viable bicycling transportation network. Interestingly, the online survey responses prioritized the same group of streets as the WikiMap users

#1 Franklin St.

#3 Columbia St.

#2 Martin Luther King Blvd.

#5 Fordham Blvd.

#3 Estes Dr

#6 Raleigh Rd.

01 Plan Process | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

Question: What would make you bike more often?

This question provided respondents a list of answers to choose from. More bike lanes More greenways

86.4% 74.0%

Education for motorists on how to respectfully share the road

55.3%

Increased enforcement of traffic laws (including speed limits)

39.6%

More directional on-road bike signage Improved maintenance (street sweeping/ repair of roads) Better bicycle parking/storage Showers and lockers at work More availability of on-bus bike racks A bike sharing program Other (please specify) Education for yourself on how to ride with motor vehicle traffic 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

39.3% 39.0% 32.9% 25.2% 17.6% 14.6%

14.5% 10.5%

Bike Share Station Bike Lane Enforcement Signs Bicycle Signals Wayfinding Markings Covered Bike Parking

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 01 Plan Process

Chapel Hill has the potential to be a great place for people to live, learn, and bicycle.

02 Existing Conditions | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

Existing Conditions Similar to other University communities, Chapel Hill has the potential to be a great place for people to live, learn, and bicycle. The Town’s demographics, economic drivers, the greenway system, and concentration of destinations in close proximity are existing assets that can help make the Town a premier bicycling community. In addition to these advantages, the Town also has challenges that need to be addressed. Between the 1950’s and 1990’s residential land development practices favored cul-de-sacs based street networks over a grid-based ones. Now, Chapel Hill, like many U.S towns and citeis has a street network with low-levels of “connectivity” and in many places it often feels disconnected for those not driving an automobile. Further, environmental constraints such as wetlands and steep slopes serve as physical barriers to to the development streets and contribute to the community’s low level of street connectivity . Poor street connectivity impacts traffic safety, since many of the streets that do connect experience a high volume of high-speed traffic and are less suitable for bicycle travel, especially when they do not have proper infrstructure accomodations.

Demographic Context

Chapel Hill is in North Carolina, which after Texas, is the second fastest growing state in the southern United States. 1 Chapel Hill is also the 4th largest municipality in the growing Research Triangle region. The Triangle region includes the second fastest growing city in the county, Raleigh and the City of Durham, a place that has culturally and economically transformed itself in the past decade.

The North Carolina Office of Management and Budget estimates that the region will add nearly 50 percent to its population by 2035, nearing 2.3 million residents. This growth is signifigant , both from an economic and transportation planning perspecitve, because Chapel Hill is home to a major university and hospital of statewide importance and these institutions are affected by external factors such as population growth.

Population

Chapel Hill’s population was 57,233 in 2010, increasing 15% from 2000. This rate of growth was lower than the growth rate for North Carolina over that same period but not by much. Projections from the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO indicate that the Town’s population could increase to 80,400 by 2035. Enrollment at UNC is projected to increase from 29,000 to 33,000 by 2018. Population growth in Chapel Hill would likely result in an increase in the number of school age children. If the number of school age children increases as projected, two new elementary schools, a middle school, and additions to existing high schools would need to funded and constructed by 2021.

Employment

The number of employees in Chapel Hill is also projected to increase. Current estimates from the Census, Department of Labor and private data sources indicate that there are over 50,000 employees who work within the corporate limits of Town. One effect of this high employment concentration, when combined with a great school system and a college town vibe, is that people want to live here. Chapel Hill is often included in national lists which rank cities using a combination of quality of life metrics2. For these reasons and others, property values and rents are higher than most other North Carolina cities. However, these reasons are also what give Chapel Hill a distinct advantage in its goal to become a more bikeable connected community. In short, since many of these jobs are within a 3 mile radius of most residential neighborhoods, it entirely plausible that over 20% of Chapel Hill residents could ride their bike to work the infrastructure conditions were improved in the future.

Commuting

Attendees of the 2013 North Carolina Bike Summit are gathered in front of the Old Wall on UNC’s main campus after a tour of Chapel Hill’s bicycle facility network. 1 North Carolina’s population increased by 1,486,170 people between 2000 and 2010. This was an 18.5% growth rate.

It will always be the case though that some people live too far away from where they work commute via bicycle and this is true here as well. Many people who work in Chapel Hill live outside Town boundaries, with 78% of employees commuting from other municipalities such as Durham, Apex, and Pittsboro3. Even though many of these workers may 2 Lists footnote 3University employees are more likely to live in Town with 64% commuting from elsewhere, including 18% from Durham.

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Plan Introduction

drive or ride the bus to Town, having a safe and convienient option to bike for errands or recreation during their workday could improve their well-being and the overall quality of life in Town.

Education

Educational levels in the community are relativley high with with 73% of the population over 25 years having a bachelor’s degree or higher, and 45.4% having a graduate or professional degree.

Household Vehicle Access

Directly pertinent to the transportation system in town, households have an average of 1.6 vehicles available, and 9.68% of households have no vehicles available compared with a national average of 4.47%. The non-University neighborhood with the highest percentage of non-vehicle households is Northside where 28.71% do not have access to a vehicle. For community members without access to a vehicle, or for those who make the choice not use one, the bicycle and public transit are the most effiecient modes of transportation for traveling distances that are too far to walk.

Environmental context

Chapel Hill is located in on one the most hilly sections of the North Carolina Piedmont lying at the terminus of the Uhwarries, an ancient mountain range. It is called Chapel Hill for a reason and even first-time visitors quickly notice that there are few truly flat areas in Chapel Hill. Slopes exceeding 15-25% are found near several creeks that flow through Town. The Town’s largest creeks— Bolin, Morgan, Little, and Booker Creek —are valued for their scenic beauty and also serve as wildlife corridors and Greenway routes. These creeks are also adjacent to the major sewer easements and lines, which carry wastewater to a treatment facility. Some existing paved and unpaved greenway paths are co-located in these sewer easements5.

Tourism

In addition to in-bound commuters from neighboring areas, Chapel Hill also recieves over one million visitors and tourists every year. Tourism is the fifth largest industry in Orange County, and the Town is actively working to increase its share of the tourism market, in part by creating a more vibrant downtown that will attract and retain tourists who come to the region4. To date, bicycle tourism has not been a major element of the tourism economy but it could be because great road and mountain biking is very close to Town. (MAP OF MOUNTAIN BIKE TRAILS AND KNOWN ROAD RIDES)

Edge of the Triangle footnote

02 Existing Conditions | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

Hillsborough St is one of the steepest streets in Town.

Define easement footnote

Peer Communities

As Chapel Hill begins to implement this Bicycle Master Plan to improve the local conditions for biking, they should learn from the experiences of their peer communities and set benchmarks to track progress toward to the goals of the plan. Chapel Hill’s peer communities were chosen based on the following criteria. • • •

College towns Large public universities (> 20,000 students) Designated as a bicycle-friendly community

CHAPEL HILL’S PEER COMMUNITIES

Boulder Colorado Davis, California

STREET LIGHTING

MID-BLOCK CROSSINGS

6 FOOT BIKE LANES

5 FOOT PLANTING STRIP

Charlottesville, Virginia Athens, Georgia

10-12 FOOT WIDE SHARED-USE SIDEWALKS

Carrboro, North Carolina Charlottesville and Athens are southeastern U.S. peers. Boulder and Davis are national standouts for bicycle infrastructure and commuting rates, and were two of the top five American cities that Chapel Hill residents noted as the most bicycle-friendly in the online survey. Carrboro is included as a local peer city and because people often compare the two places with respect to bicycling.

The majority of aertial streets in Boulder Co. are designed to include bike and pedestrian infrastructure in a way that does not impede the flow of vehicular traffic.

All five peers have adopted bicycle plans that guide the development of physical facilities and programs. Some communities have a staff member who coordinates the implementation of this plan, either as a single full-time staff person or as part of the job description of a staff member. All five peers also have bicycle advocacy groups that encourage the jurisdiction to implement new bike infrastructure and often operate encouragement and education programs and events as well. Chapel Hill is designated as a Bronze Bicycle Friendly Community by The League of American Bicyclists6. Communities are ranked from Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum and now “Diamond” based on the presence of infrastructure, policies and programs that support bicycling. This designation lasts until 2014 at which point the Town may re-apply to maintain or improve its ranking. Charlottesville is undertaking a re-write of their plan in 2014 and converted their bicycle and pedestrian coordinator to a full-time position in fall 2013. The coordinator works with 6 Awarded in 2010

Because biking for transportation is so common in Boulder, Taxi companies equip their fleet with bicycle racks to provide better customer service.

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 02 Existing Conditions

staff to track projects that impact bicycling and walking. Bike Charlottesville, the local advocacy group, organizes rides, provides feedback on City projects and increases awareness of biking through community campaigns.

Land use context

There are over 22,000 residential dwelling units in Chapel Hill with a roughly 50/50 split between single family detached housing and attached housing (e.g. duplex, triplex, apartments and condominiums). Denser housing and commercial development are typically found near Downtown and along the Town’s major roads. Outside of downtown, the primary commercial centers include Chapel Hill North, Eastgate/Rams Plaza/University Mall, Southern Village and the eastern end of US 15-501. The Chapel Hill 2020 Comprehensive Plan provides a vision for the future of the Town and identifies six Future Focus Areas for land use study and redevelopment. Only a few tracts of undeveloped, non-protected land remain inside the existing Corporate Limits. Chapel Hill has seen a recent increase in redevelopment proposals and projects, especially in Downtown and near other commercial areas. Several mixed-use infill projects have recently been completed Downtown and more are in the planning stages. This type of mixed-use development will support increased bicycle travel over time, since these projects often include a cluster of destinations (restaurants, plazas, shops, offices, etc.) colocated with new housing units near residential areas.

Generally, NCDOT owns and maintains arterials as well as some collector roads, while the Town owns and maintains the remaining collectors and the majority of local roads. There are also a small number of local roads that are owned and maintained by private landowners or the University. Most of the through-routes in town are owned and maintained by NCDOT: Franklin Street, Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Raleigh Road, Columbia Street and Estes Drive are all maintained by NCDOT. For state-owned streets, all changes, even minor ones must be approved by NCDOT they are made7. Major improvements such as widening a road to incorporate bicycle lanes must be approved and funded by NCDOT8. Two bus transit systems serve Town: Chapel Hill Transit (CHT) and Triangle Transit (TTA). CHT is a fare-free system supported by and serves the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, and UNC Chapel Hill. TTA is a regional system that serves Raleigh, Durham, the Research Triangle Park, and other Wake County destinations. Many bus riders utilize Park & Ride lots, driving to Town and paying to store their car on the periphery while riding the bus for intra-Town trips. To be clear, there are multiple layers of local and state jurisdiction which affect transportation planning, project funding, and the feasibilty of new bicycle facilities. To better understand this interplay, the history and context of the the Chapel Hill Transportation system is provided in the following sections.

Transportation context

Transportation engineers use a common system called ‘functional classifications’ to categorize streets based on their volume and design. Streets in Chapel Hill fall into three functional classifications: arterials, collectors and local.

Rosemary Street is a collector street owned and maintained by Chapel Hill..JPG

02 Existing Conditions | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

The Town limits of Chapel Hill remain relativley unchanged 7 List minor changes requiring approval from 1859 toof the 1950’s and 60’s. The blue area is the historic 8 Weaver Dairy Rd footnote village core.

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 02 Existing Conditions

History of the roadway network

The Town of Chapel Hill was founded in 1793, when the University of North Carolina Board Of Trustees chose the area around New Hope Chapel (corner of Cameron Avenue and South Columbia Street) as the site for the first state university in the country. For over 150 years, the Town grew modestly in a traditional, gridded street pattern around the periphery of the University. After World War II, the Town began growing more rapidly in both land area and population. Due to the challenges of implementing a grid street network on the local terrain and the national trend towards cul-de-sac neighborhoods that limited through-traffic, the resulting street system outside of the historic village is highly fragmented. Due to this fragmentation, most trips, even short local ones, must be routed to a few major collector and arterial streets. As a result, this arterial and collector system carries a significant portion of the Town’s total traffic. The map above illustrates how the resulting arterial and collector roadway system has developed in a “spoke and wheel” pattern radiating from the center of town. To manage high traffic volumes, “spokes” like Raleigh Road, Franklin Street, and MLK Boulevard and the “wheel,” Fordham Boulevard, have been designed using features commonly found on roads with vehicle speeds exceeding 45 miles per hour. The lack of bicycle facilities further limits the appeal of biking on these roads for most types of riders, with one exception being the sidepaths along a 1.5 mile segment of Raleigh Road near Meadowmont.

markings may not need to be remarked for upwards of five to seven years. Street resurfacing is conducted on a rolling basis according to a pavement conditions survey. Reconstruction occurs only when pavement has degraded to a state where resurfacing would not adequately address Generally, paveme throughout town is in good to very good condition with streets that have transit and truck traffic seeing the greatest wear. Most of those high-volume streets are maintained by NCDOT and have good surface conditions for cycling.

Bicycle network context

Chapel Hill has an existing network of both on- and off-street bicycle facilities in Town that comprise low and high-stress networks. Quiet neighborhood streets, greenways, and streets with traffic calming features, such as speed humps, combine to provide low-stress route options through Town. The majority of bicyclists prefer to ride in these low-stress environments rather than ones where they are mixed with high-volume, high-speed traffic.

Transportation Network and Bike Facility Mileage Local Streets

# Miles

Collector Streets

# Miles

Arterial Streets

# Miles

Miles of Bike Lanes

# Miles

Miles of Paved Greenways

# Miles

Street maintenance

The town has a yearly maintenance plan for restoring pavement markings on certain streets. Each street has markings that are comprised of one or two different paint types: standard paint and the more durable and expensive thermoplastic marking. Town streets with standard paint are marked and restriped annually. Streets with thermoplastic

Existing bicycle facilities

The bike lanes on West Cameron Avenue are the most utilized on-street bicycle facilities in town, with an estimated ridership exceeding 1,000 bicyclists per day. The high bicycle volumes on this street can be attributed to the link it provides between Carrboro’s Libba Cotton Greenway and the UNC campus. South Columbia Street and Weaver Dairy Road, which are the newest bike lanes in Town, were added as part of NCDOTled roadway reconstruction projects from 2011 to 2013. Additional bike lanes are present on a portion of Martin

02 Existing Conditions | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

The “Sharrows” on Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd were added in 2008 as part of an expiremental pilot project. Bicycle safe drainage grates another design feature of this street intended to make cycling safer.

Placeholder Image.

Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Weaver Dairy Road Extension and Seawell School Road. Although not marked as bike lanes, four-foot shoulders exist along portions of Estes Drive and serve some bicyclists. With a few exceptions, most of Chapel Hill’s bike lanes were added to streets where they could be easily installed without removing parking or altering the travel lanes.

Greenway connects neighborhoods in the northeast of Town to Eastgate Shopping Center, but the crossing of Franklin Street is a high-stress point in that trip. At that crossing, there is not adequate space to wait on the sidewalk. The location of curb ramps and the width of sidewalks make turning difficult, and it is unclear where the trail continues once it crosses to the south side of Franklin Street. This problematic crossing creates a barrier along what is otherwise a lowstress route.

The newest lanes on South Columbia Street run south from the UNC campus and end at the on-ramp to Fordham Boulevard. This creates a gap in access to the Morgan Creek or Fan Branch Greenways, which are the only dedicated bike facilities in the southern part of town. Likewise, existing bike lanes on Seawell School Road exist for only a short distance on one side of the roadway, limiting the roadway’s appeal for many cyclists who could potentially ride to the elementary, middle and high school campus there. Shared lane markings, also called sharrows, are present on Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. The markings, which are centered approximately five feet from the curb edge, were repainted after resurfacing in 2012. These markings do indicate to drivers that bikes will be present, but they do not provide a dedicated space for cyclists. This is a particular issue on hilly roads like MLK Boulevard, where cyclists will likely be traveling much slower than automobile traffic on uphill segments. Complementing the on-street network is a greenway system comprising eight miles of paved trails through the Town. Utilizing utility or stream corridors including Bolin, Morgan and Booker Creeks, these paved off-road paths provide quality connections and route choices for some neighborhoods in Town. For instance, the Booker Creek

Off-road paths are also available to cyclists in the form of short connections between cul-de-sac streets such as Cobble Ridge Drive and Gardner Circle in Culbreth Ridge subdivision. Additionally, there is one sidepath in town that runs along both sides of Raleigh Road from Barbee Chapel Road west to Burning Tree Drive, and then along the south side of Raleigh Road to Hamilton Road.

Existing bicycle support facilities

Additional bike infrastructure in town consists of bicycle parking, bike racks on Chapel Hill Transit and Triangle Transit buses, and bicycle loop detectors at intersections. Loop detectors are sensors in the pavement that recognize the presence of a vehicle at an intersection, and bicycle loop detectors are specially calibrated to detect bicycles in addition to automobiles. This allows bicyclists not to wait at a red light for a car to trigger the sensor and change the light. Not all of the bicycle loop detectors in Chapel Hill were observed to provide sufficient time for bicyclists to safely cross the intersection. The provision of new bike parking is currently governed by a town ordinance passed in 2003 which will be discussed in Chapter 4. The highest concentration of bike parking in

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 02 Existing Conditions

Chapel Hill is mostly located in the downtown area and at retail centers elsewhere in Town. Parking is also located throughout the UNC campus. The integration of bicycling with transit is accomplished largely through on-bus bike racks, which residents have reported being full at peak times. Especially for commuters who use Triangle Transit to access Chapel Hill from Durham, having space on the busâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s bike rack can make it possible on either end of the trip to make first- or last-mile connections. Some bike parking exists at Park & Ride lots in town, but it is uncovered and not additionally secured by a cage or locker. Covered and secure bike parking is the most appropriate type for park and ride facilities where cyclists must leave their bike for long periods of time.

Bicycle ridership

Currently in Chapel Hill, there is a core group of residents who bike daily for transportation. These cyclists have mentally and physically adapted to bicycling on high volume, high speed streets at different times of the day. Some utilize specific equipment such as review mirrors, powerful halogen lighting, an even battery powered bike motors to increase their safety and presence on certain streets. Others have found off-road connections on public or private land that link lower volume roads to create more comfortable routes whose increased distance acceptable tradeoff to avoid high-stress routes. Bicycle commuting rates in Chapel Hill are far higher than in North Carolina and the United States, according to the 2012 American Community Survey (ACS)3. Bicycle commuting rates in Chapel Hill have remained relatively steady over the last decade, with a peak of 2.64% of commuters in 2008. Bicycle Commute Mode Share Chapel Hill

UNC Staff4

U.S.A

1.96%

5.80%

0.25%

0.57%

The Town of Chapel Hill also tracks commute modes through the Transportation Management Plan (TMP). All employers who are located in developments which have been approved through special use permits or obtained variances from parking requirements must take part in the TMP. Employees are surveyed biennially about their commutes, and rates of bicycling among these employees have risen from 0.2% in 2003 to 1.6% in 2011, the last year for which data are available. These numbers are lower than the Census data, likely because they do not include employees at the University of North Carolina, who, as shown above, commute by bicycle at a higher rate than the general Town population. Commute trips are not the only type of cycling in Chapel Hill. Residents also use bicycles to run errands or visit friends and

02 Existing Conditions | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

family. Recreational cyclists enjoy greenways and mountain biking trails within town limits, as well as regional mountain biking resources. Many residents also ride recreationally on local roads within and outside of Chapel Hill, but some drive to the starting point of a ride to avoid uncomfortable roads.

Barriers to Bicycling Field observations and feedback from Town residents points to a number of barriers to bicycling. Physical barriers include both natural and man-made obstacles that limit the appeal of bicycling for many people. The most notable of these barriers are the seven bridge crossings over Interstate 40. None of these bridges provide any accommodations for bicyclists nor pedestrians in the norhtern part of Town. In the southern part of Town, Fordham Boulevard has been has been designed to accomodate large volumes of highspeed traffic. Access Managment is a transportaion design strategy to achieve this design objective and there are negative results with regard to bike and pedestrian mobility in the corridor. The Map on page XX shows the limited number of access points or intersections where bicyclists can safely cross the road (MAKE MAP). Like the bridges over Interstate 40, few bridges over Fordham Boulevard provide sidewalks or shoulders, and many intersections do not have a break in the median, which would allow a cyclist to safely cross without getting off their bike. Additionally, most intersections lack a signalized crossing which means bicyclists would need to wait an inordinate amount of time be accommodated by a break in traffic. While 15-501 South provides a major crossing of Fordham Boulevard, the access ramps, similar in design to those used to acccess freeways and interstates, make it an uncomfortable bicycling environment. Furthermore, poor access to the Fan Branch Greenway from South Columbia Street limits a cyclistâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to use this trail as a comfortable alternative to 15-501 South.

This bridge connects Chapel Hill and Durham over Interstate 40. The road is U.S 15-501. There are 8 vehicular travel lanes visible in this photo.

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 02 Existing Conditions

02 Existing Conditions | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

Interstate 40 and Fordham Boulevard effectively create a moat around much of the town, presenting a serious barrier to cyclists traveling between Chapel Hill and Durham or accessing Downtown from the southern part of Town. Bicyclists who choose to ride in this area must either be very comfortable riding in heavy traffic or a take a significant detour, whose additional distance itself may present a barrier to cycling.

Bicycle crashes in Chapel Hill

Within the Town, the arterial roads with higher speeds and voumes, , such as Martin Luther King Boulevard, create additional barriers to bicycling. Riding on these roads is stressful and less safe than riding on a lower-volume alternatives or streets with bicyclie facilities. Additionally, crossing these arterial roads can be a barrier for many since not all of the intersections have traffic signals, the primary means for ensuring intersections safety. Even if a bicyclist can ride on comfortable, low-speed streets or trails for the majority of their route, one required crossing of a wide, highvolume street without a traffic signal can deter that person from choosing to travel by bike.

There were 69 reported bicycle-automobile crashes in Chapel Hill from 2007 to 2011 with no evident trend upward or downward. In that time, only one crash resulted in a disabling injury, and there were no fatalities. More recently, there were two bicyclist fatalities resulting from a crash on 15-501 South in September 2013.

Streams also create natural barriers for bicyclists and complicate the construction of capital improvments such as bridges and trails. Morgan Creek is a barrier for the neighborhoods to the south and other watercourses and their related environmental regulations can prevent new offroad connections from being constructed. Combined, these barriers pose a significant challenge to bicyclists, and to the government agencies charged with improving transportation system for all modes. Designing and implementing solutions to address these barriers will be essential to meet the goals of this plan.

•

It is important to have an understanding of the volume, type and location of recent crashes involving bicyclists in Chapel Hill from a public safety perspecitve.5 Analyzing the location of crashes can help prioritize infrastructure projects to target areas with the most pressing safety issues. Studying the type and cause of a crash in greater detail can help prioritize education efforts for bicyclists and motorists

The majority, 61%, of these reported crashes were in the Downtown, Northside or the UNC main campus. Additionally, the majority of crashes occurred on arterials, and high-crash streets included the following (CRASH MAPS FOR EACH in Appendix. )

• • •

Franklin Street: 14 crashes (10 in Downtown; 4 east of Downtown) Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard: 9 crashes Cameron Avenue: 9 crashes Rosemary Street: 5 crashes

Right Hook Bike Auto Crash. Fault of the Motorist. Most common crash type.

Interchange - NC 54 and U.S 15-501 The merging traffic, higher vehcile speeds, poor lighting, and inadequate bicycle accomodations are reasons this intersection is labled as a barrier to cycling. This area is also the intersection in Town with the highest number of vehicle crashes between 2007 and 2011.

Bicyclist riding through red light crash. Fault of the cyclist.

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 02 Existing Conditions

The majority (62%) of crashes were officially reported to be caused by the motorist involved and 28% were logged as caused by the bicyclist. The most prevalent crash types (10 each) were a motorist turning right across a bicyclist’s path of travel in the same direction, and a motorist turning left across a bicyclist’s path of travel in the opposite direction. These right-turning crashes are commonly the result of a driver not signaling his turn or looking for bicycles, or a bicyclist not paying attention while on the right side of a vehicle near an intersection. Both of these dangerous scenarios can be addressed, in part, through targeted infrastructure improvements and comprehensive education campaigns. BELOW : This image, taken from a “red light camera” captures a motorist running a red light.

Failure to yield at intersections was also a major issue with 23.2% of crashes resulting from motorists’ failure to yield, and 11.6% from bicyclists’ failure to yield. A consistent and comprehensive enforcement strategy for both drivers and bicyclists may address some of these types of crashes. While all crashes should recieve attention, it is important to note that a mere increase in the number of bike crashes in a city does not indicate a lack overall bicycle safety. To the contrary, even the most bicycle friendly places have higher per capita bicycle crash rates than some places most recognize as being less than bikable. Practically speaking, when a greater percentage of people are riding bikes in some area, then there is a greter probablity of user conflict and thus more bicycle crashes. Bike Crashes Per Capita 2010 Selected Cities City

2010 Bike Crashes

Per Capita Crash Rate (per 10,000 residents)

2010 Population

Boulder CO

191

19.6

97,385

Portland OR

321

5.5

583,776

Chapel Hill, NC

2.8

57,233

Wilmington NC 38

3.6

106,476

Durham , NC

.70

228,330

Existing Plans

BELOW : A cyclist commits a moving violation by running a red light at the intersection of Cameron Ave and South Pittsboro St.

This Plan builds upon several existing town, regional and state plans that guide the development of land use and transportation systems in Chapel Hill. Many of these plans contain language, goals and themes that are supportive of an improved bicycling environment in Chapel Hill.

Chapel Hill 2020 (2012) •

The town’s comprehensive plan was adopted in 2012 and, as stated, supports expanding transportation choices, especially those that are more environmentally friendly. Implementing a bikeable, walkable, green communities plan by 2020 is one of the plan’s Big Ideas.

•

The plan themes: A Place for Everyone; Community Prosperity and Engagement; Getting Around; Good Places; New Spaces, Nurturing Our Community; and Town and Gown Collaboration can also all be addressed through the implementation of this bike plan.

Greenways Master Plan (2012) •

02 Existing Conditions | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

The greenways plan was updated in 2012 with a new list of priorities for construction throughout town. Some of these projects are already under construction or are

completed, and others may commence in 2013 pending remaining dollars in the 2003 bond funds. •

Projects in the plan will be prioritized by the Greenways and Parks and Recreation Commissions with their recommendations being presented to Council in January, and this prioritization can be informed by projects’ value to the bicycle transportation network, but this is only one aspect of what is important in deciding which greenways to design and construct first.

connections that could greatly improve the bicycle circulation network in downtown, helping reach the plan objective to “Encourage walking and biking by developing a continuous pedestrian and bicycle system connecting downtown, neighborhoods and the University.” •

Central West Small Area Plan (2013) •

This plan is in development and will be presented to Town Council in ***. The plan details development on parcels north and south of Estes Dr at Martin Luther King Blvd. It includes the recommendation of an off-road path on the north side of Estes Dr from MLK Blvd to the west end of Caswell Rd which would then enter Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools property and continue through to Elliott Dr. A parallel set of bike lanes is recommended on Estes Dr.

Ephesus-Fordham ***** (2013) •

•

The project will propose a redevelopment scheme for the area near the Ephesus Church Rd and Fordham Blvd intersection currently occupied other retail and commercial uses. The overall goal is to create a mixeduse neighborhood center with smaller blocks and a pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly circulation system. This plan also includes a new segment of Legion Rd which would connect from Ephesus Church Rd across Fordham Blvd to the Eastgate Shopping Center. Formbased code is also being developed for this plan which will include recommendations for roadway design and access management to create more bicycle-friendly streets.

•

Downtown Chapel Hill Small Area Plan (2000) •

This effort will shape the Rosemary Street corridor, with a specific eye toward making it an entrepreneurial enterprise hub. This has begun with the opening of LaUNCh, a business incubator, in spring 2013.

•

The effort to retain young graduates of UNC to create their start-up businesses in Chapel Hill also necessitates transforming aspects of the Town to be attractive to this young, urban-seeking demographic.

One of the objectives under the plan’s transportation goal is to improve bicycle access routes and provide additional secure storage facilities for bicycles.

Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (2009) •

•

The LRTP is supportive of bicycle transportation in the region with one of its goals being the development of a pedestrian and bicycle system that provides a safe alternative means of transportation. As part of that goal, the MPO has the objective of including pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the planning, design and construction of every roadway and development project in accordance with local pedestrian and bicycle plans.

WalkBikeNC (2013) •

The recently-adopted statewide bicycle and pedestrian plan reaffirms NCDOT’s commitment to further projects and programs that enable people to walk and bike in North Carolina.

•

Combined with the Department’s Complete Streets Policy and Design Guidelines, the statewide plan will filter down to construction and reconstruction projects on state-maintained roads ensuring that bicycles and pedestrians are considered in designs going forward.

Rosemary Imagined (2013-14) •

Additional linkages between Franklin and Rosemary Streets, and Franklin St and Cameron Ave would take pressure and traffic off South Columbia St which is currently the site of conflicts between bicyclists, buses, delivery vehicles and private automobiles. The Framework also identifies parking as a major concern of downtown visitors and the ability of better bicycle connections to alleviate some parking demand.

Chapel Hill Downtown Development Framework (2010) •

This project identified a number of new street

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 02 Existing Conditions

03 Bicycle Network | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

Bicycle Network This Chapter describes in detail the Town-wide bicycle facility recommendations of this plan. The recommended facilities were chosen to create a robust bicycle transportation network optimized for safety and convenience. If this proposed bicycle network is implemented, the number of people riding bicycles in Chapel Hill increase as will the level of overal road network safety. By building this network that utilizes existing facilities, provides connections between major destinations, and eliminates major safety barriers, bicycling can be an everyday choice for more community members. While physical infrastructure projects are the most visible elements of a bicycle-friendly community, they are only one of the essential components that make up the bicycling environment. The five elements listed below all play a critical role in any effort to increase bicycle use and support a strong bicycle culture. This chapter addresses the engineering recommendations, the remaining four E’s are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5.

The 5 “E”s 1. Engineering: Creates safe and convenient places to ride and park your bike by building new infrastrucutre. 2. Education: Gives people of all ages and ability levels the skills and confidence to ride. 3. Encouragement: Creates a strong bike culture that welcomes and celebrates bicycling. 4. Enforcement: Ensures safe roads for all users. 5. Evaluation and Planning: Plans for bicycling as a safe and viable transportation option. 1 The long term bicycle network proposed in this plan is a 34-mile network comprised on-street bicycle facilities and new greenways. This network integrates and builds upon the recommendations of the 2012 Greenways Master Plan. Also, this plan was also developed concurrently with the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan. Toole Design Group was the lead consultant on the UNC Campus Plan and the Town Plan’s project manager serrved on the Campus Plan steering committee. Doing these two plans at the same time helps ensure Town-Gown collaboration, a major goal of the Chapel Hill 2020 plan. Together, the implementation of these plans will result in a network that will serve existing riders and enable more people to bike safely and convieniently in Chapel Hill.

Bike network user types The planning process for the Town’s future bicycle network considered the needs, skills, and desires of a range of bicyclists. We know that there is a large percentage of the American population interested in cycling but do not currently cycle for a variety of reasons. People have positive 1

Section 03

memories of bicycling in their youth, but may today view biking as soley an activity for kids, spandex-wearing bike racers and aggressive, young urban riders. That said, in addition to safety and convienience, personal identity is an important factor regarding an individual’s transportation mode choices. The fact is that in the United States, many adults simply do not see themselves as bicyclists, so they do not bicycle.

The urban bike messenger who rides a fixed gear bicycle with no brakes (left) and the road bike racer who shaves their legs (above) are common sterotypes in American cycle culture. A seminal 2012 survey in Portland, OR questioned residents about their level of comfort riding on various street types with and without bicycle facilities, signs or pavement markings.2 Respondents were then sorted into four categories based upon their answers, with the distribution between the City and the region shown below: The Interested but Concerned group presents the greatest potential for increasing bicycling. The authors found that bicycle infrastructure that increases physical separation from automobiles, such as bicycle lanes, greenways, and cycle tracks would make these cyclists and potential cyclists more comfortable and thus more likely to bicycle for transportation. The distribution noted in the table is specific to the Portland area, but this breakdown is widely assumed to have relevance to other cities. Based on similar demographics, it is likely that Chapel Hill residents would fall into the same categories at similar proportions. The major trend in bike planning in United States today focuses on building facilities that will attract the Interested but Concerned group and encourage them to ride their bikes more frequently. This plan reflects that current trend and also recommends improvments that will make cycling conditions better for the “Strong and Fearless” and “Enthused and Confident as well. Specific local conditions that create safety risks, real or perceived, are likely to dissuade the 60% of people who are Interested but Concerned from becoming regular cyclists.

Definitions from The League of American Bicyclists, http://

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Plan Introduction

Type of Cyclist

Description

City of Portland

Rest of Region

Strong and Fearless

Very comfortable riding with or without bike lanes on most streets.

Enthused and Confident

Very comfortable riding with bike lanes or on other facilities such as greenways or low-volume local streets. Less comfortable on high-volume high speed streets without bicycle facilities.

Interested but Concerned Uncomfortable riding in most situations they encounter either because of safety concerns or lack of biking experience. Are interested in biking more if safer facilities are present so they can gain experience.

60%

53%

No Way No How

25%

37%

Physically unable to ride a bike or not interested in riding a bike for any number of reasons.

As noted in Chapter 1, safety concerns top the list of reasons that people are not bicycling in Chapel Hill today. The perceived safety of biking in Chapel Hill is very low compared to the places that survey respondents identified as the best place for biking: ideal cities were rated 8.1 out of 10 for safety of the biking environment. Chapel Hill was rated 4.1. Barriers to biking (freeways, lack of connectivity, stream valleys) were the second most common response for why the Interested but Concerned group does not ride regularly. This proposed network addresses both of these issues and reccomends a connected bicycle transportation system with a diversity of facility types. By building these facilities, Town leaders will position Chapel Hill to become a place where any type of cyclist would have safe and comfortable places to ride.

MEASURING BICYCLIST COMFORT

The concept of high-and low-stress streets resonates with most bicyclists: either they feel comfortable riding with mixed traffic on the street, or they do not. For bicycling to be an appealing transportation choice for the 60% of the Chapel Hill region’s Interested but Concerned population, the roads need to be less stressful to bike on, and the bicycle network should get people from point A to point B without significant additional mileage. Both the surveys conducted as part of this plan and national research show that the vast majority of people have a strong preference for riding on facilities that are separate from traffic or, where facilities are shared with traffic, on lower-speed, lower-volume roadways. The measurement of bicyclists’ stress operating on roadways is established through a metric known as Bicycle Level of Service.3 A Level of Service (LOS) “A” means a street is very comfortable for bikes, while LOS “F” indicates a very uncomfortable place

03 Bicycle Network | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

to ride. The research to develop this metric concluded bicyclists’ stress was greatly influenced by motorist speeds, traffic volume, parking, quality of pavement, presence of heavy vehicles, and the bicyclist’s proximity to or separation from motorized traffic. Generally speaking, the provision of designated bicycle lanes provides bicyclists a substantially higher degree of comfort than a shared wide travel lane. This concept is discussed in greater detail in Appendix B under the “Quality of Service Strategy” heading. The following example illustrates an application of the model to compare a wide outside lane to a bicycle lane: (IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE A GRAPHIC?) Example roadway is MLK Boulevard between Estes and South Columbia: 4 undivided travel lane with a center turn lane, 23,500 ADT, 3% heavy vehicles, 35 mph speed limit, good pavement condition, no parking. Existing condition is a 15 foot outside lane with 11 foot inside lanes.

BICYCLE NETWORK STRESS ASSESSMENT The Mineta Transportation Institute developed an evaluation methodology in 2012 that rates a bicycle network based on the level of connectivity among bike facilities of differing stress levels.4 The methodology builds upon the knowledge gained from Bicycle Level of Service research in the United States and also incorporates transportation design practices from the Netherlands, which have been refined over decades of practical implementation. This methodology allows bicycle networks to be evaluated considering newer types of facilities (e.g. cycle tracks) along street segments while also factoring in the quality of street crossings.

Street segments and street crossings are classified into the following four levels of traffic stress (LTS), with “LTS 1” being the least stressful and “LTS 4” being the highest stress situation for a cyclist:

Stress Level

Description

LTS 1

Suitable for children (greenways, cycle tracks, low volume streets)

LTS 2

Interested but Concerned adults (bike lanes, sidepaths, moderate volume streets)

LTS 3

Enthused and Confident adults (climbing lanes, high volume streets & <30mph streets)

LTS 4

Strong and Fearless adults (high volume & >30mph streets, no separation)

Consultants assessed the level of traffic stress on Chapel Hill’s existing street network and indentified low- and high-stress zones. They then used Geographic Information Systems to

the crossing of Fordham Boulevard to get to the Kings Mill Neighborhood is rated the highest-stress level (LTS 4) . A LTS of 4 was assinged to this crossing because there is neither median access or traffic control to assist bicyclists with their crossing. The following map on the next page illustrates the existing level of stress of the bicycle network within Chapel Hill. The map shows the low-stress network in Chapel Hill in COLOR. This network is comprised of low-volume streets with no bike lanes, greenways, and higher volume streets with bike lanes. However, a particular facility may not always have the same level of stress ranking along the entire length of the facility. For example, a when greenway segment intersects a highstress street; and there are no crossing accommodations for bicyclists, that segment is assigned a relativley higher stress ranking than the rest of the greenway. Bicycle planning professionals in Europe and the United States have found that inadequate crossing accommodations for cyclists limits can limit the usefulness and appeal of biking along particular routes. In Chapel Hill, lowering the stress level for cyclists using greenways that cross major roads has been accomplished by constructing greenway underpasses, showing in the image below.

PROPOSED BICYCLE NETWORK The proposed bicycle network comprises fiscally constrained short term network (2014-2024) and an unconstrained long term network. The following principles guided the development of the short- and long-term networks: •

Greenway underpass construction in southern Chapel Hill. The road in this area had to be closed, removed and rebuilt to acommodate construciton. Photo Taken in summer of 2013. Approximate cost = 1.5 million dollars. determine where “gaps” exist between high and low-stress zones. Many of the physical improvements recommended in this network fill in these gaps and will create a more seamless and connected transportation system. For a network to be attractive to the Interested but Concerned population, it must provide a seamless level of stress both along the proposed route and at intersections, which add another element of stress because of turning an merging vehicles. For example, while Oteys Road may be low-stress (LTS 2) to ride along due to low traffic volumes,

• • • •

Provide a continuous network of lower stress routes (LTS 1 or 2) throughout Town that connect major destinations and neighborhoods. Maximize width of bicycle facility and separation from motorized traffic. Maximize utility of existing lower stress routes by improving their intersections with other streets where needed. Minimize stress differential from one route segment or street crossing to the next. Provide focused attention to all bridges /tunnel crossings of highways, streams, and railroads.

The recommended on-street bicycle network is a combination of bike lanes, shared lane markings, cycle tracks, and other striped facilities. It includes lower volume streets with unmarked shared travel lanes and signed bicycle routes as well. Intersections requiring improvement, or “Spot Improvements,” have also been identified to complete the network.

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 03 Bicycle Network

R Millhouse

DURHAM

Eubanks Rd

S u n r i se R d

rB ng J er Ki Luth rtin Ma

lvd

Rd Cedar Fork Tr

Cedar Falls Park

Ne Ken m o r

er Dr Win d

am rdh Fo

or sh

ke La

Euro

eenway eek Gr r Cr oke

N Elliott Rd

g io

Blvd

King Jr

nR d

Luther Curt is Rd

el Hill Rd Chap

nta

Old Durham Rd

rlett

r Bo

Bl v

Old

Sca

Lo we

Martin

ins

ne Dr stow Ea

Sterling Dr Old

rC re

Erwin

in R d

Lake Ellen

Taylor St

Rd ek

Bo o

eR S ag

xw oo

air

d iry R

Da ver

Brookview D r

Ho r a c e W i l l i a m

Seawell School Rd

Honeysuckle Rd

Wea

Homestead Rd

Riggsbee

Sedgefield

d eR

North Forest Hills Park

Stateside Dr

rs Rd

Roge

t e s i de Dr

Partin St

Homestead Park

Erw in Rd

a il

Ln Pine

r ston D King

Pitc h

ir y

d a r Falls Park T r

Old Larkspur Way

We av er

N Estes Dr

Chapel Hill Library

kli

Ephesus Church Rd

E e ll S c h ool Rd

Willow Dr

ro u bo

CARRBORO

Bolin

Gr Cree k

S Est es Dr

Community Park

Pinehurst Dr

Hillview Rd

tes Es

Hills

f Dr Long Lea

Fordham B lvd Hickory D r

Ro os

e lt

St gh

Indian Springs

ra n c h ttle B Ba

Pittsboro

Sta diu m

Ri d g

u rs e R d

lf C o

Old

r r Bowl e s D

ham

Ford

on F arm Rd

Blvd reek Rd nC ga or

rgan Creek Tr a il

a il

Arlen P a r k Dr

ett Rd

Benn

n Fa

e grov igh

ch an Br

Br oo

Parkside Cir

r Kings Mill Rd Pl

Stress Level

Arbore tu

Culbreth

D ine

o Wo

Ashe

a r m Rd

F in

m b ia S

Rd oy ref Pu

so n F

M tC ar m el C hu rc h

rk Ma

Length of Network in Miles

40.67

7.56

9.53

65.08

er R

t et S

Laurel Hill Rd

SC olu

igh

Rale

le y

Hi b

Ski p

r ba

Mead ow

East

Rd el

in D

M a n nin g

ard

Mason Farm R d

ul H

lR Mil

Sprunt St

E Barbee Cha p

ritt er M

rk Rd

il l R rel H au

Ca Mc

y ule

Lana

Arrowhead Rd

am W

Raleigh Rd

Ln ont m

Me ad ow mo nt

South

A ron

Tree Dr Burning

rah

SG ve

Tr a

Coun try Clu b

ron

Hamilton Rd

olu

klin ran

leig

ary

sem

Tr a

Hayes Rd

nklin

ra EF

Ter

N Roberson St

ry S

ose

ich

rr S

Cleland Dr

Christopher Rd

Southern Community Park

Stress Analysis Existing Network

0.5

03 Bicycle Network | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013 Miles

Low Stress

High Stress

HIGH STRESS

Explain this concept in this space provded.

LEVELS OF TRAFFIC STRESS

Strong and Fearless

East Franklin St.

Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd

Fordham Blvd.

Shared Street ADT<6K

Priority Shared Lane

Climbing Lane

Shoulder <4 Feet

Shared Street ADT<2K

Advisory Bike Lane

Bike Lane

Raleigh Rd. Sidewalk

Buffered Bike Lane

Sidepath

Raised Cycle Track

Greenway

3 Enthused and Confident

2 Interested but Concerned

LOW STRESS

Estes Dr.

1 Everyone

INCREASING LEVELS OF CYCLIST PROTECTION

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 03 Bicycle Network

The off-street bicycle network consists of the entire Town Greenways plan and some additional paths that will improve connectivity. The greenway network is an integral component of the the short and long-term bicycle networks. These major trails are critical to the overall bicycle transporatation and they provide connectivity options that allow a cyclist to avoid high-volume streets or other barriers. Establishing connectivity between the on-street and offstreet system will be essential to making biking safe and convienient. Descriptions of the proposed off-street facilities can be found in Appendix B.

Short Term Network

The short-term network is a system of bike lanes, shared lanes, signed routes, and climbing lanes throughout the Town. It also includes greenways vital to establishing connectivity near the center of Town. This network could be built within 10 years if dedicated funding streams1 are put in to place and the Town recieves additional support for some major projects from the state and federal funding sources. The cost estimate for building this short-term network is $16 million dollars. . See Appendix C for details on the development of this estimate. On many major roadways, improvements are limited to

STRESS LEVEL 4

Image of cyclist riding southbound on Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd in the uphill direction. This segment has sharrow markings installed every 250-300 feet.

STRESS LEVEL 3

A 5 foot bicycle lane in the upholl direction on this street is the a short term recommendation of this plan. those which can be constructed/installed within the existing street cross section. This strategy minimizes implemntation costs because the entire road does not have redesigned and re-constructed. •

A bicycle climbing lane in Seattle Washington. In this image, a 6 foot bike lane is installed for cyclists traveling uphill 1 footnote about the amount of money from last bond referedum for bike ped infrastructure

01 Plan Process | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

Roadway widening projects on open sections of roadway (no curb) • Roadway widening projects which are likely to be triggered by land use changes or expansions of motor vehicle capacity • Bridges which presently have no accommodations • Greenway projects Contingent upon funding availability, this plan anticipates the majority of improvements identified as short-term will be implemented by the year 2020, with all recommendations identified as short-term completed by the year 2024, a tenyear horizon.

Long Term Network

The long-term network presents a vision for a future system of low-stress facilities throughout the entire Town. Many of these projects will require roadway reconstruction, right-ofway acquisition, and extensive public process. and would be financially unviable as stand-alone Town projects. Rather, they would be implemented as part of other significant projects, such as adjacent redevelopment or major road reconstruction. There is no timeline associated with this network as these recommendations should be implemented on an ongoing basis, as opportunities present themselves. If all of the facilities in the long-term network were constructed today, it would likely cost over $70 million dollars. See Appendix C for details on the development of the Long-Term network estimate.

Facility Type

Miles of Recommended Facility

Buffered Bicycle Lane

1.56

Bicycle Lane

2.91

Climbing Bicycle Lane

5.55

Fix Sidewalk Add Lights

3.98

Priority Shared Lane

2.67

Sharrows

5.65

Signed Route

4.94

Striped Shoulder

0.97

Shared Use Path

5.12

Sidewalk Bicycle Path

0.87

Total

34.22

Long Term Cycle Track Alternative

Weaver Dairy Road was redsigned ot include bike lanes, sidewalks, and bus pull outs. This project, led by the NCDOT, cost approximately $18 million dollars to build and was primarly funded via state funding sources

The long-term network also includes a cycle track alternative for portions of Martin Luther King Boulevard, South Columbia Street, Cameron Avenue, South Road, McCauley Street, Pittsboro Street and Rosemary Street. These cycle tracks would complement the greenway system through the core of Chapel Hill and the University campus. Cycle tracks will provide the highest level of service to bicyclists through areas of Town that have the fewest greenway opportunities and the most intense traffic. The cycle tracks are intended to supersede the long-term network recommendations should an engineering feasibility study determine they meet construction feasibility, traffic operations, financial feasibility, and safety criteria.

What is a cycle track?

STRESS LEVEL 1

A cycle track is physically separated from both the roadway and the sidewalk intended for the exclusive use of bicyclists. It may be provided in one-way configurations on both sides of the roadway, or as a two-way facility on one side of a roadway.

Town of Chapel Hill Greenways Master Plan, September

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 03 Bicycle Network

Considerations for implementation To implement the recommendations in this plan, it will be necessary to balance the competing spatial needs of various roadway users and modes

resurfacing projects, the Town should consider reallocating street space to better accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit. Since the location of the existing curb and drainage system is typically fixed, design solutions for resurfacing projects will require reallocating existing street space to implement Plan recommendations. Lane diets, which reduce the width of vehicle travel lanes to add bike lanes are one strategy.

Simple pavement marking retrofits will be the easiest to implement since they do not require right-of-way acquisition or pavement reconstruction. Implementation will become more difficult from a cost and engineering standpoint as the project delivery method changes (new construction, reconstruction, resurfacing). A number of design features we see on our streets today were included to minimize delay to motor vehicles and improve driver comfort. In the past, these auto-oriented design strategies, such as large lane widths and turning radii, took precedent over human scaled design features which better accomodate bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit. Today, despite a more widespread acceptance of the need for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in urban areas, the tension between auto-oriented and human-scaled street design remains. It will up to transporation planners, engineers, citizens and progressive local leaders to resolve this tension and build infrastructure that accomodates vulnerable street users, which everyone is at some point in time. They will need to ensure that the safety of cyclists is not compromised in favor of automobile capacity in constrained environments. Since a balanced approach is required to build a more equitable transportation network for the future, this plan recommends that the Town continue to take a Complete Streets approach which considers all usersâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders and drivers.

propriate exceptional d to:

These on-street parking spaces would have to be removed to add bike lanes on Rosemary Street. Reconstruction projects will likely require property acquisition, utility relocation, earth moving, government collaboration and public outreach. Appendix B offers additional discussion of implementation strategies. Short-term recommendations should not be viewed as a necessary precursor to Long-term recommendations and; neither the short or long-term recommendations preclude future planning processes from recommending a different facility on a particular street so long as that new facility would provide a greater level of service for bicylists than the facility recommended in this plan. For example, a future feasibility study may recommend wider bicycle lanes, buffered bicycle lanes or off-road options,such as cycle tracks, paralell to streets that already have bicycle lanes.

The North Carolina Department of Transportation adopted Complete Streets Guidelines in 2012.

ility does not justify the

The configuration and width of automobile travel lanes and parking lanes has the largest impact on determining the space available for bike lanes or other non-motorized facilities. Therefore, during street reconstruction and

priate in all new and improved

is. Each exception must be

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 03 Bicycle Network

DURHAM R Millhouse d East Chapel Hill High School

Cedar Falls Park

Curtis Rd

Pop e

g io nR d

St in kl EF ra n

Fordham Blvd Hickory D r

Pinehurst Dr

St lt Dr

Ro o

Christopher Rd Hayes Rd Hamilton Rd

t lS

Meado w

il ae ich

E Barbee Cha p

ic k

Sprun tS

nt Ln mo

Me ad ow mo n t Tra il

E Franklin

h Rd

Pr es tw

h Rd

ig Rale

Cours e Rd

G o lf

o n Farm Rd

rm Rd

e Dr

bin ood

r ke

Ashe

Rd ek Cre

MERRITTâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S PASTURE

Kings Mill Rd Pl

ORANGE COUNTY DURHAM COUNTY

Fin

ley

East

us to

m b i a St

rk Rd

Glenwood Elementary School

Old M

Laurel Hill Rd

SC ol u

Lana

m bia St lu

Pittsboro

Hillview Rd

N Roberson St

Connector ampus

yM ne Pi

tor nnec

s Dr te

Ski p

M o r ga n

u rc

Rashkis Elementary School

d n er Cir

Fox wo o

re D ho ke s

in R d nta ou

Seawell School Rd

il l

rdin

on Fa

Rd el

el H aur

h Rd

Rd oy ref

ga or

nC reek Tra i

E Lakeview Dr

Eph es us

Dr Long Leaf

Ga r

Fan Br an

l ai Tr rlen Pa r k Dr

d ett R

Benn

Parkside Cir

er gr ee

M ar

St ket

Long Term Plan

Arbore tu

rov e

Culbreth Middle School

Mt Ca rm el

ur ch

Existing Facilities

Pa r

ke r

Scroggs Elementary School

Southern Community Park

ORANGE COUNTY CHATHAM COUNTY

Ephesus Church Rd

ree Dr Burning T

d Rd

Ma r nnin pe r Bowl e s D g

Mas

Arro w h ead Rd

l Pau

Culbret

rlett Sca

igh

d eR S ag

dar

Rale

M a n ning

el Hill Rd Chap

Cleland Dr

Raleig h

Old

r pa D

oun

Mason Farm Rd

Ri d g

Old Durham Rd

Ephesus Elementary School

Indian S pring

n rso

rch

a rah

Cobble Rid g

e Dr

bike lanes with redevelopment

bin

b Do

d e ve l o p

S Es tes Dr

Community Park

ra ran c h T Battl e B

South Stad ium

ill

Carrboro High School

Coun try Clu bR

Ave

UNC Main Campus

St ley Cau Mc

Fo rd h

lvd

Euro

nde

Chu

n ero

Cam

ve nA ero

e Cr

y nwa ee Gr

Restrict Northbound Left Turn

t ry S ma ose St ER klin ran F E

B am rdh Fo

s Rd

H il l s b o r o u g h

St ry ma ose St WR klin ran WF

E Main St

y wit h facilit ke

He rth

eD stown r Ea

terling Dr Old S

Willow Dr

r St

N Elliott Rd

Car

tion nnec ent ay co pm nw velo gree h rede wit

Erwin

Blvd

iry

d iry R

King Jr

Win d

Chapel Hill Library

Carrboro Elementary School

Frank Porter Graham Elementary

Cre

N Estes Dr

Bo l i n

tM rit er M

r dD

Estes Elementary School

Phillips Middle School

CARRBORO

re L

Rd ek

Luther

us mp Ca

School R d

Bo o

Martin

Future Carolina North Campus

w e ll

ke s

Lake Ellen Dr

Taylor St

Seawell Elementary School

Sea

r Da

Brookview D r

k er

ail

Smith Middle School

Honeysuckle Rd

ea ve r

Sedgefiel d

ve Wea

T ms H o ra ce W i l l i a

Chapel Hill High School

Riggsbee Rd

Homestead Rd

North Forest Hills Park

Stateside Dr

Kenmor

Partin St

Rogers

Homestead Park

Erw in Rd

Tr a i l

airy Rd er D

ston D King

ine Ln hP

Cedar Fork Tr

Pitc

ai r

er Dr

Old Larkspur Way

Wea ve rD

d a r Falls Park

Sunrise Rd

ORANGE COUNTY DURHAM COUNTY

Eubanks Rd Rd ks an

Greenway/Side Path

Natural Surface Path

Fix Sidewalk & Add Lighting

Bike Lane

Buffered Bike Lane

Shared-Lane Marking

Bike Lane

Signed Route

Advisory Bike Lane

Spot Improvements

0.5 Miles

Proposed Facilities

Greenway/Side Path

Climbing Lane

Signal Operations

Striped Shoulder

Intersection Design

Shared-Lane Marking

Trail Intersection Design

Priority Shared Lane

Bridge Accomodation

Shared Street

Highway Transition

Signed Route

Stair Rail

ADDITIONAL NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS Provide the maximum bicycle quality of service for bicycle facilities. Maximize the space provided to bicyclists via wider shared travel lanes, shoulders, bicycle lanes, or greenways. This can be accomplished by narrowing vehicle travel lanes to the maximum extent feasible, typically 10 to 11 feet. Eleven foot lanes are preferred on roadways with high transit or heavy vehicle use. Projects on NCDOT roadways or funded with State or Federal funding may require design exceptions to user lane widths narrower than 12 feet.

Provide a minimum green signal clearance interval for bicyclists at all intersections. It is recommended the Town revise its signal timing to provide sufficient minimum green time for a bicyclist to safely enter and clear an intersection prior to the onset of the yellow phase. It is recommended the Town develop a protocol timing intersections for bicyclists and for assessing concerns from bicyclists regarding detection or additional time to cross at locations. It is anticipated that this will be an iterative process that will result in signalized intersections being slowly upgraded over time, and on a case-by-case basis as routine maintenance projects are implemented.

Initiate greenway lighting pilot project The greenways are an integral component of the bikeway network. It is recommended that a lighting pilot project be implemented on the Bolin Creek Greenway between MLK Boulevard and Franklin Avenue. This portion of the Priority

Bridge

Greenway System provides a critical east-west alternative to East Franklin Street, serving an important transportation function. Light fixtures should be chosen that are designed to provide adequate light for trail users while minimizing spillover light to the surrounding woods and sky.

Provide pedestrian-scale lighting on roadways with frequent sidewalk riding, and on street segments with sidepaths or cycle tracks It is recommended that pedestrian scale lighting be provided on all roadways where bicyclists routinely ride on sidewalks, sidepaths, or cycle tracks alongside roadways. Initial projects should prioritize Raleigh Road, Franklin Street, and Martin Luther King Boulevard from UNC to Bolin Creek. The lighting should be designed to adequately light the trail, minimizing spillover light to the surrounding woods and sky.

Provide bicyclist accommodations on all bridges All bridge crossings should be upgraded over time to provide a minimum of a 6-8 foot bicycle lane or shoulder on each side of the bridge. Further separation is desirable on bridges to provide a more comfortable facility which vertically separates motorized traffic from non-motorized traffic. At locations where pedestrian volumes are anticipated to be low or infrequent, a shared facility is sufficient. At locations where pedestrians will routinely be present, provision of separate cycle tracks is recommended. For some bridge locations, it may be more feasible or costeffective to construct a parallel non-motorized crossing than to widen an existing bridge. The following crossings are shown in ranked preference for improvements to the network:

ADT

Curb to Curb: Lanes

Bicycle Lane/ Shoulder

Sidewalk

Raleigh Road under Fordham

46,000

35 Feet: 3 Lanes

None

5 Feet

15/501over I-40

37,000

112 Feet: 10 Lanes

None

Old Chapel Hill Road over I-40

9,900

26 Feet: 2 Lanes

None

Farrington Road over I-40

9,900

30 Feet: 2 Lanes

None

S. Columbia over Fordham

32,000

64 Feet: 5 Lanes

4.5 Feet

4 Feet

Fordham over Raleigh Road (southbound)

14,000*

28 Feet: 2 Lanes

None

MLK over I-40

28,000

60 Feet: 2 Lanes

None

Millhouse Road under I-40

4,999*

20 Feet: 2 Lanes

None

Sunrise Road over I-40

4,999*

20 Feet: 2 Lanes

None

Erwin Road over I-40

7,600

22 Feet: 2 Lanes

None

Fordham over Raleigh Road (northbound)

14,000*

33 Feet: 2 Lanes

8 Feet

None

E. Franklin over Fordham

20,999*

27 Feet: 1 Lane

None

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 03 Bicycle Network

er Dr

Curtis Rd

g io nR d

EF ra nk lin

tor nnec

Hickory D r

Fordham Bl

St se

lt Dr

E Franklin

Ro o

Christopher Rd Hayes Rd

il ae l

Glenwood Elementary School

ich

Pr es tw

ic k

Cours e Rd

o n Farm Rd

Fin

G o lf

Old M

ley

on Fa

Ma r nnin g

r Bowl e s D

Spru

Ca rm

mp us to

Dr East

Hamilton Rd

m bia St

Pittsboro St

rm Rd

Rd foy ure

Rd ek Cre

r ke

MERRITTâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S PASTURE

Woo

ne D

dbi

Ashe

N Roberson St

m b i a St

rk Rd

Kings Mill Rd

Laurel Hill Rd

SC ol u

il l

el H aur

M o r ga n

Lana

Ski p

ree Dr Burning T

Arro w h ead Rd

nC reek Tra i

Raleig h

n rdi

M a n ning

Mas

Hillview Rd

s Dr

te tor

Mason Farm Rd

Cleland Dr

l Ha Pau

Fox wo o

re D

ke s

in R d

nta

Seawell School Rd

Connec ampus

Dr Long Leaf

bike lanes with redevelopment

Ri d g

ga or

l ai Tr h c

Fan Br an

rov e

rlen Pa r k Dr

d ett R

Benn

Arbore tu

Culbreth Middle School

Cobble Rid g

d n er Cir

Ephesus Elementary School

Ga r

Parkside Cir

er gr ee

Mt Ca rm el

h 03 Bicycle Network | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013 urch R M ar

Indian S pring

igh

South Stad ium

ill

Community Park

ra ran c h T Battl e B

dar

e Ral

rch

UNC Main Campus

St ley Cau Mc

d eR S ag

oun

Chu

a rah

ro me

d e ve l o p

S Es tes Dr

Coun try Clu bR

ve nA

ro me

ve nA

e Dr

n rso

t ry S ma ose t R S E klin ran EF

ins

Dr opa Eur

nde

St ry ma ose St n i WR l k ran F W

Fo rd h

Culbre th

s Rd

H il l s b o r o u g h

rth

y nwa ee Gr

Restrict Northbound Left Turn

Willow Dr

Car

E Main St

ion ect t onn en ay c lopm enw eve gre h red wit

N Elliott Rd

y wit h facilit ke

Erwin

Blvd King Jr Luther

a oC

Win d

Chapel Hill Library

Carrboro Elementary School

Frank Porter Graham Elementary

Cre

b Do

N Estes Dr

e Cr Bo l i n

tM rit er M

r dD

Estes Elementary School

Phillips Middle School

ORO

re L

Rd ek

Martin

ail

us mp Ca

School R d

Bo o

Lake Ellen Dr

Taylor St

Future Carolina North Campus

w e ll

ke s

k er

Seawell Elementary School

Sea

Smith Middle School

Brookview D r

Honeysuckle Rd

T ms H o ra ce W i l l i a

Chapel Hill High School

Riggsbee Rd

d iry R r Da eave

Forest Hills Park

Homestead Rd

St ket

Lon

R Millhouse

DURHAM

Eubanks Rd

S u n r i se R d

rB ng J er Ki Luth rtin Ma

lvd

Rd Cedar Fork Tr

Cedar Falls Park

Ne Ken m o r

er Dr Win d

am rdh Fo

or sh

ke La

Euro

eenway eek Gr r Cr oke

N Elliott Rd

g io

Blvd

King Jr

nR d

Luther Curt is Rd

el Hill Rd Chap

nta

Old Durham Rd

rlett

r Bo

Bl v

Old

Sca

Lo we

Martin

ins

ne Dr stow Ea

Sterling Dr Old

rC re

Erwin

in R d

Lake Ellen

Taylor St

Rd ek

Bo o

eR S ag

xw oo

air

d iry R

Da ver

Brookview D r

Ho r a c e W i l l i a m

Seawell School Rd

Honeysuckle Rd

Wea

Homestead Rd

Riggsbee

Sedgefield

d eR

North Forest Hills Park

Stateside Dr

rs Rd

Roge

t e s i de Dr

Partin St

Homestead Park

Erw in Rd

a il

Ln Pine

r ston D King

Pitc h

ir y

d a r Falls Park T r

Old Larkspur Way

We av er

N Estes Dr

Chapel Hill Library

kli

Ephesus Church Rd

E e ll S c h ool Rd

Willow Dr

ro u bo

CARRBORO

Bolin

Gr Cree k

S Est es Dr

Community Park

Pinehurst Dr

Hillview Rd

tes Es

Hills

f Dr Long Lea

Fordham B lvd Hickory D r

Ro os

e lt

St gh

Indian Springs

ra n c h ttle B Ba

Pittsboro

Sta diu m

Ri d g

t rm Ca

SC olu

ham

Ford

u rs e R d

Blvd reek Rd nC ga or

rgan Creek Tr a il

Tra

r Kings Mill Rd Pl

ett Rd

Benn

Br oo

Parkside Cir

on F arm Rd

Arlen P a r k Dr

ch an Br

Arbore tu

n Fa

e grov igh

D ine

o Wo

Ashe

a r m Rd

Laurel Hill Rd

Rd oy ref Pu

so n F

F in

m b ia S

Old

lf C o

r r Bowl e s D

Ski p

igh

Rale

le y

Dr East

r ba

Hi b

Culbreth

Rd el

in D

M a n nin g

ard

Mason Farm R d

ul H

lR Mil

Sprunt St

E Barbee Cha p

ritt er M

rk Rd

il l rel H au

Ca Mc

y ule

Lana

Arrowhead Rd

ich

am W

Raleigh Rd

Ln ont m

Me ad ow mo nt

South

A ron

Tree Dr Burning

rah

SG ve

Mead ow

Coun try Clu b

ron

Tr a

olu

klin ran

leig

ary

sem

Tr a

Hamilton Rd

nklin

ra EF

Ter

N Roberson St

ry S

ose

Hayes Rd

rr S

Cleland Dr

Christopher Rd

M tC ar m el C hu rc h

rk Ma

er R

t et S

Southern Community Park

Stress Analysis Short Term Network

0.5 Miles

Low High Stress December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 03 BicycleStress Network

R Millhouse

DURHAM

Eubanks Rd

S u n r i se R d

rB ng J er Ki Luth rtin Ma

lvd

Rd Cedar Fork Tr

Cedar Falls Park

Ne Ken m o r

er Dr Win d

am rdh Fo

or sh

ke La

Euro

eenway eek Gr r Cr oke

N Elliott Rd

g io

Blvd

King Jr

nR d

Luther Curt is Rd

el Hill Rd Chap

nta

Old Durham Rd

rlett

r Bo

Bl v

Old

Sca

Lo we

Martin

ins

ne Dr stow Ea

Sterling Dr Old

rC re

Erwin

in R d

Lake Ellen

Taylor St

Rd ek

Bo o

eR S ag

xw oo

air

d iry R

Da ver

Brookview D r

Ho r a c e W i l l i a m

Seawell School Rd

Honeysuckle Rd

Wea

Homestead Rd

Riggsbee

Sedgefield

d eR

North Forest Hills Park

Stateside Dr

rs Rd

Roge

t e s i de Dr

Partin St

Homestead Park

Erw in Rd

a il

Ln Pine

r ston D King

Pitc h

ir y

d a r Falls Park T r

Old Larkspur Way

We av er

N Estes Dr

Chapel Hill Library

kli

Ephesus Church Rd

E e ll S c h ool Rd

Willow Dr

ro u bo

CARRBORO

Bolin

Gr Cree k

S Est es Dr

Community Park

Pinehurst Dr

Hillview Rd

tes Es

Hills

f Dr Long Lea

Fordham B lvd Hickory D r

Ro os

e lt

St gh

Indian Springs

ra n c h ttle B Ba

Pittsboro

Sta diu m

Ri d g

SC olu

ham

Ford

u rs e R d

Blvd reek Rd nC ga or

rgan Creek Tr a il

Tra

r Kings Mill Rd

lf C o

ett Rd

Benn

Br oo

Parkside Cir

on F arm Rd

Arlen P a r k Dr

ch an Br

Arbore tu

n Fa

e grov igh

D ine

o Wo

Ashe

a r m Rd

F in

m b ia S

Old

r r Bowl e s D

Laurel Hill Rd

Rd oy ref Pu

so n F

igh

Rale

le y

Ski p

Mead ow

rm Ca

Dr East

r ba

Hi b

Culbreth

Rd el

in D

M a n nin g

ard

Mason Farm R d

ul H

lR Mil

Sprunt St

E Barbee Cha p

ritt er M

rk Rd

il l R rel H au

Ca Mc

y ule

Lana

Arrowhead Rd

am W

Raleigh Rd

Ln ont m

Me ad ow mo nt

South

A ron

Tree Dr Burning

rah

SG ve

Tr a

Coun try Clu b

ron

Hamilton Rd

olu

klin ran

leig

ary

sem

Tr a

Hayes Rd

nklin

ra EF

Ter

N Roberson St

ry S

ose

ich

rr S

Cleland Dr

Christopher Rd

rk Ma

er R

t et S

M tC ar m el C hu rc h

Southern Community Park

Stress Analysis

Long Term Network

0 | 0.5 03 Bicycle Network | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan December 2013 Miles

Low Stress

High Stress

Policies and Programs Implementing engineering solutions without a complement of bike-focused programs and policy approaches would keep the Town from realizing the vision of this plan. To make significant strides towards becoming a more connected community, where bicycles are part of everyday life, these policies and programs must go hand-in-hand with the physical improvements discussed in Chapter 3. This chapter presents recommended strategies related to the remaining 4 E’s of bicycle planning. Education, Encouragement, Enforcement and Evaluation/Planning. The goal of these strategies is to increase bicycle use by supporting a stronger culture of bicycling in the community at large. Also, each of the following strategies may address multiple goals of this bike plan. For example, revising elements of the Town’s Design Manual will help the Town build safer facilities (Goal 1) and this revision will make it easier for town staff to implement the bicycle network when new development applications are reviewed (Goal 3). We reccommend that the Town begin pursuing a number of these recommendations while recognizing that when, and if a Chapel Hill Bicycle Coalition becomes fully established, that group would be a valuable community partner in the implementation of all strategies in this chapter.

EXISTING POLICIES AND CODES Chapel Hill already has a number of policies in place that are favorable toward improved bicycling in Town.

which were issued in 2012. Complete Streets policies have been adopted by over 500 communities throughout the U.S. They are the starting point for a process that involves staff training and subsequent implementation of projects that result in streets which “enable safe access for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities.” 1 North Carolina’s statewide policy requires that NCDOT’s planners and designers consider and incorporate multimodal alternatives in the design and improvement of all appropriate transportation projects within a growth area of a town or city unless exceptional circumstances exist.For more information visit the following websites. http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/completestreets http://www.completestreetsnc.org/

WHAT IS A BICYCLE CULTURE? Building a stronger bicycle culture in Chapel Hill is goal two of this Plan. But what does a strong bicycle culture look like? Elements are already present in Town: diverse people biking to work, nonprofits promoting bicycling, bike-focused events. What is Chapel Hill working toward?

Complete Streets In 2011, the Town Council adopted a Complete Streets policy stating: “The Town of Chapel Hill is committed to a Complete Streets policy that promotes healthy and active neighborhoods, which entails providing adequate access to pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motorists of differing abilities on roadways throughout the community.”

In 2011, the Town Manager presented a memo to Council about Complete Streets, noting the need for cooperation and collaboration between all of the various town departments that work on transportation issues. For this reason, he established a workgroup comprised of senior staff from multiple departments called the Transportation Management Team. Chapel Hill’s Complete Streets policy has guided some recent transportation decisions but the Town has not explicitly pursued implementation of the policy as it was waiting for NCDOT to finish the statewide Complete Streets Guidelines

A community where biking for any kind of trip—to school, to work, on errands—is a reasonable choice for all residents. A community where drivers expect bicyclists on roads throughout the town. A community where group rides promote biking and get more people invested in improved infrastructure and policies. Simply put, a community with strong bicycle culture is one where bicycles and bicyclists are an everyday part of life.

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 04 Policies and Programs

Access and Circulation Code

Bicycle Parking Requirements

The Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) should continue to be a tool used by the Town to develop bicycle infrastructure in coordination with new develolpment. Today, a number of requirements under Article 5.8 of the LUMO perform this function. These requirements include:

Another relevant policy is the bicycle parking requirements, which were updated in 2010. The requirements are part of Article 5.9.7 of the LUMO, and set a minimum number of required bicycle parking spaces for development projects. Some guidance on the design and placement of bicycle parking structures is included in the town Design Manual.

• • • • • •

Bicycle and pedestrian accessibility specifications for new site development plans. Requirements for the construction of bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the new development sites. Coordination with existing and future bicycle facilities (????) Provision of routes that are “safe and convenient” and need not be limited to the vicinity of motor vehicle access points Safe intersection of bicycle routes with adjacent vehicular routes with heavy current or future traffic flows (REWORK LAST 3)

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board

Design Manual The purpose of the Town’s Design Manual is to prescribe physical and dimensional standards for the roads, trails, parking and other types of infrastructure. The Design Manual includes a specific section related to transportation infrastructure, and this section sets minimum standards for bicycle facilities. The Town’s current standard for bike lane width is four feet. This standard is below the standard width recommended by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the most widely regarding Transporation infrasturucture standards organization. 1

Like many other Town advisory boards, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Board (Bike-Ped) reviews development applications to ensure that bike and pedestrian infrasturture is properly included project site plans. Since all mixed-use and non-residential development are required to submit a transportation management plan (TMP), the board also reviews these documents to ensure that new developments applications meet the requirments of the TMP. The Bike-Ped Board is scheduled to sunset in the summer of 2014 and their functions will then be carried out by a new advisory board focused on a holistic approach to transportation planning that examines the role of all modes in Chapel Hill’s transportation system.

In urban areas where underground parking structures are common in new developments, bicycle racks are required to be installed above and below ground.. Definition from the Complete Streets Coalition, http:// www.smartgrowthamerica.org/complete-streets/complete1

04 Policies and Programs | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

The Chapel Hill Bike Plan reccomends a number of 1 Need to anthe AASHTO maybe appendix modifications Town’sfootnote, Engineering Design Standards inclusion.

Traffic Code The Town’s traffic code governs vehicle movements and parking within the Corporate Limits of Chapel Hill. State vehicle statutes also govern traffic in town and supersede the local code. Vehicle position on the roadway, priority at intersections, speed limits and other aspects of traffic are governed in these codes. While the traffic code does not have much impact on bicyclists’ daily experience, it is a place where municipalities can define bicyclists’ rights and responsibilities. This type of clarity can be helpful in the case of conflicts and crashes.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS The following are policy recommendations for specific changes to the Design Manual, the Traffic Code and the Zoning Code. Some of these changes may undertaken by town staff alone. To amend legislative ordinaces, such as the traffic and zoning codes,public input and Council approval would be necessary.

Update Design Manual bicycle parking standards Providing functional and convenient bicycle parking at all destinations throughout town creates the expectation among cyclists that they will have a place to secure their bicycle when they reach their destination. The provision of bicycle parking structures also decreases the likelihood that a cyclist will lock their bike another fixed object like a bench or trashcan, potentially damaging that feature or obstructing others’ access. Additionally, as bicycle parking demand appears to exceed available supply in the downtown, special overlay zones should be put in place to require additional bicycle parking in high-volume parking areas. Additionally, the town should officially adopt the national bike parking standards developed by the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals to guide all future parking installation and possible retrofits of existing parking. (Include current standard in Plan)

Update and Revise Design Manual The existing standards for bicycle facility design in the Design Manual does not proscribe optimal on-road bicycle conditions for new facilities. Specifically, the following changes should be made to improve safety for bicyclists. •

The minimum width of bike lanes should be changed to five feet from four feet. This width may include a gutter, but optimally, a bike lane with a two-foot gutter will be seven feet in total width.

•

A shared 14 to 15 foot travel lane, or wide outside lane, should not be considered adequate bicycle accommodation. In neither of the two national bicyle facility guidelines2 is a wide outside lane considered to be a bicycle facility. Language in the Design Manual stating that extra width in the outside travel lane may “function as an unstriped bike lane” should be removed because it is contradicts itself from a legal perspective. It is impossible to have a bike lane without a stripe.

•

New standards should be developed that require roadway designs that minimize bicycle-automobile conflicts at street intersections and where greenways and streets intersect. See Appendix 3 for guidance. (ENSURE THIS GUIDANCE EXISTS IN THE PLAN)

•

Design specifications for other bicycle facilities (shared lane markings, priority shared lanes, bike boxes, etc.) should reference existing national guidance from the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide.

Both the AASHTO bike guide (2012) and the NACTO guide (2013) are officially supported by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), but some treatments in the NACTO 2

The wave rack has inherent design flaws that cause bikes to fall to the ground or lean on other bicycles.jpg

Bike parking is at a premium downtown on West Franklin Street causing riders to lock up to a trash can.

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 04 Policies and Programs

Revise traffic code to ensure laws are equitable for cyclists Amending traffic code will put bicycle transportation on equal footing with driving as a mode choice.

“Bikeways” Current code defines bikeways as “thoroughfares suitable for bicycles” and goes on to enumerate the bikeways throughout town. Both of these elements effectively restrict bicycle travel since this language could be interpreted to restrict bicyclists to these few roads that are “suitable” for them. The list of bikeways and the term “bikeways” should be struck from the code.

Sidewalk riding restrictions The current restriction on riding bicycles on MLK Boulevard sidewalks should be struck from code and the

FRANKLIN BICYCLE PARKING CORRAL

accompanying signs removed. These regulations are a legacy from prior years, when pedestrian traffic was higher because Chapel Hill Transit’s free and frequent service along this corridor did not exist. Today, pedestrian traffic volume is low and few conflicts are likely to occur between pedestrians and bicyclists. Although the general practice should always remain that pedestrians have the first right-of-way, riding on sidewalks can be an important option for cyclists who do not feel comfortable riding in mixed traffic.

Automobile placement on roadway Bicycle-automobile crashes can occur at intersections in a number of ways. One of the more common and more preventable types is a “right hook” which occurs when a driver making a right turn does not see a bicyclist to his right, in a bike lane or otherwise, and executes his turn directly into the travel path of the bicyclist. According to state statute, a bike lane is part of the roadway, and drivers are required to be “as far to the right as practicable” on the roadway to make a right hand turn. Current town code (Sec. 21-52) should be amended to help avoid this potential crash type as well. Text should be added that permits a driver to operate in the bicycle lane within 200 feet of an intersection in preparation for making a right turn after having given right-of-way to any bicyclist already in the lane.

Bicycle placement on roadway Current Town code requires bicyclists to ride “as far to the right as practicable” on the roadway. As noted above, intersection conflicts between right-side bicyclists and drivers are a common cause of crashes; they were particularly noted on W. Cameron Avenue on the Wikimap. Sec. 21-43(c) should be revised to further refine the exceptions to riding as far to the right as practicable. Add language permitting exceptions to this requirement such as: debris or other hazards in the right-hand portion of the lane, and proximity of parked cars along the right-hand portion of the lane. This project was installed in September 2013 and provides 12 bike parking spaces in the footprint of one automobile parking space. This project, which was the first bike corral on an NCDOT street in North Carolina, came about after the town and the Downtown Partnership recognized the need for increased bike parking on this section of West Franklin St. Formerly, bicyclists often locked to railings, benches and garbage cans, creating hazards for pedestrians. The corral design and resulting collaboration between the planning and transportation departments, plus the local NCDOT Division is a great example of the type of working arrangements that will be vital to implementing this bike plan.

04 Policies and Programs | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

[pic: no bikes on sidewalk sign from MLK: from Garrett?]

Automobile driver penalties

Equipment

Parking a vehicle in a travel lane is currently prohibited by the code. Sec. 21-20 should be expanded to explicitly note that a bike lane is a travel lane and parking there incurs the same penalty as parking in an automobile travel lane. Additionally, a specific penalty should be added for “dooring” a bicyclist, that is, opening a car door into a cyclist’s line of travel and causing a crash. This will act as a strong incentive for drivers to carefully check for bicyclists before opening their doors and causing a serious and sometimes fatal traffic accident.

Section 21-53.1(b) of Town code currently restricts any child less than four years old or forty pounds in weight from riding as a passenger on a bicycle unless s/he is in a restraining seat or on the regular seat of a tandem bicycle. Given the bicycle styles available today, including ExtraCycles and trail-a-bikes, and the variety among the abilities of children of different ages and sizes, this regulation should be struck. Even without this town law, an existing state law (G.S. Sec. 20-171.9(b)(3)) which states that it is unlawful for any parents or guardian to knowingly permit a child of less than four years of age or forty pounds in weight to ride as a passenger on a bicycle other than in a restrained seat.

Include bicycle considerations in new form-based code For some areas of Town, Chapel Hill may be implementing a form-based zoning code to regulate the development of these areas. Bicycle infrastructure should be incorporated direclty into the part of the code pertaining to streets and streetscape features. Consideration must be given to both on- and off-road bicyclists. Access management strategies must be part of the code toolkit as they will enable the construction uninterrupted sidepath facilities and reduce potential conflicts between bicycles and automobiles at driveways.

ABOVE: Dooring is a bicycle crash type caused when the door of a vehcile is opened and obstructs the cyclist’s path of travel. BELOW: What is this type of child bike seat called?

RAMS’S PLAZA AFTER

Along with redevelopment, the above rendering shows that the addition of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the Ephesus Fordham planning area was a primary recommendation of the of the Ephesus -Fordham Small Area Plan of 2011. Image Source: Ephesus Fordham Small Area Plan

The Ram’s Plaza concept illustrates what the on street feel of the space may be within the Preferred Development Plan. The image to the right is the existing condition at Ram’s Plaza, an image dominated by surface parking spaces and non-programmed greenspace, while the after image above shows the addition of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and infill development within existing parking areas including a hotel off in the distance, multi-family dwellings and commercial/retail in the foreground.

BEFORE

3.40

Ephesus Church Road/Fordham Boulevard Small Area Planning/Traffic Analysis Prepared for the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina - by Urban Collage, Inc., Development Concepts, Inc. and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 04 Policies and Programs

PROGRAM STRATEGIES EXISTING PROGRAMS Bicycle programs can accomplish a number of important benefits for the public and Town staff.

•

Increase awareness of bicycling as a mode choice

•

Educate cyclists and drivers about bicycle operations and new facilities

•

Ensure that traffic laws are enforced

Many bicycle programs already exist and are overseen by community groups and the Town. These provide a foundation for building a broad bicycle culture. This plan’s recommended additions will require continued coordination among these parties to implement new programs get more people on bikes more often in Chapel Hill.

Education Currently, only a few programs exist in Town that provide bicycle specific education. Every mixed-use and nonresidential development in town takes part in the Transportation Management Plan (TMP) whose goal is to

A Bike Rodeo is an on bike education program for children.

Between 100 and 200 participants have attended the annual Spring Roll held during bike month..jpg

Kidical Mass ride in Chapel Hill, Fall 2013. Event staged by the ReCyclery

Bike Fest, staged by the Carolina Tarwheels, is another community cycling event held in the area.

04 Policies and Programs | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips. Educational classes about bicycling have occurred are part of TMP annual training conference. For example, transit agency staff drive an extra bus to the training conference to show attendeess the proper method for loading a bicycle onto a the bike racks each bus in Chapel Hill’s transit fleet is equipped with. Some bicycle education programs for children are also in place. Chapel Hill schools are not eligible for programing funds through the state’s Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program, so these educational programs are funded through the Town’s Parks and Recreation Department. Chapel Hill received a significant kickstarting grant to spur SRTS education programs in 2005, but this grant ended in 2009. On-bike education for youth in Chapel Hill typically takes the form of one to two bike rodeos per year, offered by the Town through a partnership of the Recreation and Parks Department and the Police Department. In-school education happens at the request of the principal, not as a district or town policy. At least one other bike rodeo was organized by a bicycle advocate in 2013, though the process of doing was difficult owing to the lack of a defined process and policies about a volunteer-run rodeo. Additional education efforts are led by local nonprofits. The ReCYCLEry teaches mechanics classes and trains youth volunteers on bicycle maintenance. They also lead the annual “Kidical Mass” community bike ride, an event for children and families that promotes safe, fun, youth cycling. The Carrboro Bicycle Coalition has also run cycling education classes available to Chapel Hill residents, both in classroom and on bikes. To make these classes more effective, leaders of the Coalition are becoming certified Instructors with the League of American Bicyclists.

Encouragement

The Carrboro Bicycle Coalition has also established a local bicycle-friendly business program. Twelve businesses have been awarded bicycle-friendly business status, and the coalition provides information on how to become bicycle-friendly to all businesses they communicate with. Overall, the Coalition has been a strong and positive force for bicycling in both towns, but their primary focus is on Carrboro and their leaders indicate that this Carrboro centered focus will continue in the future. The town has also begun efforts to brand itself as a bicyclefriendly place, by gaining official recognition as a Bicycle Friendly Community from the League of American Bicyclists. The Town recieved a Bronze Level award in 2011. This is a positive step for the Town, since peer communities attest to the postive impact this award has on bicycle infrastructure and programatic efforts.

Enforcement/Safety The Chapel Hill Police Department (CHPD) annually attends NCODT’s Watch For Me NC campaign trainings. These trainings provide education about traffic laws relevant to the interactions of drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians on the roadway. By increasing their legal knowledge, officers leave the trainings with more confidence to enforce these laws correctly. RIGHT:Watch for Me NC provides marketing materials, free of charge to municipalities.

Make room for bikes.

BELOW : A cyclist commits a moving violation by running a red light at the intersection of Cameron Ave and South Pittsboro St. WatchForMeNC.org

1,400 copies of this public document were printed at a cost of $410.20, or $0.293 per copy. (07/13)

Typically, bicycling encouragement efforts take the form of marketing campaigns and events. In Chapel Hill, the Transportation Demand Management coordinator organizes some encouragement campaign activities as part overall Town efforts increase bicycling rates in the community. The town participates in Bike Month every May through a number of events, this year including the Spring Roll cruiser ride and Bike to Work Day breakfast. Schools participate in Bike to School Day annually as well as “Walking [and Rolling] Wednesdays,” but participation is at the discretion of the school principal and/or parent teacher association. Additionally, the Carolina Tarwheels are a longstanding presence organizing recreational road rides for exercise, and also contributing small donations annually to local bicycle advocacy causes.

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 04 Policies and Programs

In October 2013, as part of the campaign to ensure that all road users are obeying traffic laws, the CHPD conducted targeted enforcement operations. These enforcement efforts including notifying cyclists that moving violations committed while riding a bicycle incur the same penalties as moving violations commited while driving motor vehicle. One of the main concerns expressed during this plan with respect to bicyclist safety was motor vehicle speed on many roads in Town. While the posted speed limits on most roads in Chapel Hill is 35mph, many motorists often exceed this. To enforce speed limits and encourage drivers to obey them, the CHPD conducts speed saturation patrols in specific areas of town where speeding is common. The Department announces these partrols, commonly known

as “speed-traps,” via Twitter and Facebook. The rationale behind their transparency assumes that those who see the announcements will be more likley to drive their vehicle at a speed under the posted limit in order to avoid a traffic citation and the associated finanicial penalty. Safe Routes to School (SRTS)is a state and federal program that provides funding for infrastructure improvements that improve bicycle and pedestrian safety around schools Chapel Hill is eligible for funding through this program and has recieved funding in the past . Currently, there are no existing school travel plans for K-8 schools in Chapel Hill. To increase Chapel Hill’s ability to recieve funds through this program, these plans should be developed.

Why Traffic Calming Saves Lives

Speed Speed kills! kills!

peed Sign Source: World Health Organization (2008) and OECD Transport Research Centre (2006)

Chart provided courtesty of Dr. John Pucher.pdf

“Your Speed” signs can decrease speeds on roads by providing drivers with feedback based on their travel speed.

ws of text andCarolina 18”Bicycle digits 63 customizable 04 Policies and Programs | Chapel Hill North Master Plan | December 2013 ed

Fordham Boulevard, MLK Boulevard and Raleigh Road are the three roads with the most speeding citations issued annually. (GET LOCAL IMAGE )

Image of Local Safe Routes to School Project.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS Coordination and leadership among Town departments and community stakeholders will be essential to implement the following program recommendations.

Develop “Bicycling is for Everyone” communcations campaign. A campaign that promotes Chapel Hill as a bicycle-friendly town should be undertaken. To do this, the Town should leverage its Bicycle-Friendly Community designation more than it has to date. The images used in this campaign should feature many different types of people and bicyclists, such as commuters wearing business attire, families enjoying a slow ride together, or older residents getting groceries on bike. Images like these can help counter negative stereotypes about bicyclists. Featuring bicyclists of varying ages, genders and races, as well as those with and without children, will help more people identify with bicycling. The overall objective of this type of communication is to confront the common misperception that riding bicycles is only for certain types of people when in fact the types of people who ride bikes come from all walks of life.

Bike PGH’s “Care” campaign gives a human face to bicyclists and reminds residents that they represent many different types of fellow Pittsburgh residents.

In addition, bicycle-related messaging should be included whenever possible in the following types of marketing materials (not meant to be an all inclusive list). •

tourism brochures

•

ads on websites

•

chamber of commerce information

•

newspager advertisements

•

ads in real estate magazines

Create and maintain town bicycling webpage The town should develop and maintain a web resource for bicycling that will provide cyclists and non-cyclists with essential information. Information included on this webpage should include, but is not limited to: •

Bike Facilities Map

•

Greenway Locations

•

How to Put a Bike on a Bus Bike Rack

•

Schedules of events and classes

•

Safety information for all road users

•

Links to bicycle related organizations and resources

This website design concept illustrates the type of information that could be included on a Town bicycling webpage.

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 04 Policies and Programs

Support bicycle-friendly business program As mentioned, the Carrboro Bicycle Coalition started a bicycle-friendly business program in 2013. The town can lend its support to this project through including recognition of these Chapel Hill businesses in newsletters and other communications. The Carrboro Bike Coalition launched a Bicylcle Friendly Business program in 2013. This program this program helps people and businesses in both Carrboro and Chapel Hill. Businesses offer discounts to customers with a card or who ride their bike to shop (FIND OUT HOW THIS WORKS).

deficineices in the driver education system. For example, most teens are provided some form of driver education whether or not they indicate an intent to acquire a drivers license. The “drivers ed” curriculum in most states is virtually absent of bicyle related instruction(this is becoming recognized as a problem.) So, if there is no other bicycle education program in place to fill this void, then how could one expect a 16 year old cyclist to know, let alone obey, the rules of the road applicable to bicycling. By instituing alternative enforcement, police interventions can educate cyclists about their responsibilities while operating a bicycle in the roadway when those cyclists do something illegal. RIGHT: Boston University has worked with the City of Boston to conduct enforcement efforts where warning “violations” are given to bicyclists. BELOW: Bike patrol officers are the best options for bicycle traffic law enforcment.

Continue enforcement of traffic laws The town police department already conducts enforcement actions to ensure traffic laws are followed. Continuing these programs will increase the actual and perceived safety of all road users. Existing and potential bicyclists are less likely to ride on a road where they believe traffic travels too fast to be safe or comfortable. Nearly all roads in Chapel Hill have a speed limit of 35 mph or less, generally considered to be a comfortable speed for most cyclists to share the road. However, the current design of many streets enable drivers to comfortably exceed the speed limit. In cases like these, speed limit enforcement becomes central to keeping the public safe. Officers should continue to educate themselves and properly enforce traffic laws that related to bicyclists and pedestrians. The consistent enforcement of traffic laws for bicyclists and other users will create an expectation that citations are likely when people break laws. This expectation will ensure more greater compliance with traffic laws in the community and increase public safety.

Consider alternative enforcement actions The Town should adopt an alternative system of enforcement for bicyclist infractions. For example, some communities have instituted warnings in lieu of fines for first-time offenses. The rationale behind alternative enforcement recognizes that there is uncertainty among many cyclists with regard to their their legal obligations in the roadway. Their lack of knowledge is normally no fault of their own and is more often the result of systemic

04 Policies and Programs | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

This image, taken from a German Driver Education book, shows a situation in which drivers are required to yield to bicylists when making a right turn.

Create an annual report on bicycle crashes

Create a bicyclist’s crash resource

Using data from the Highway Safety Research Center at UNC, the town should publish an analysis of bike crashes yearly and track trends over time. Current reported bicycle crash numbers are low, but bringing attention to those that are reported may make more riders and drivers aware of a problematic road or intersection and raise their awareness of potential conflicts there.

Bicycle crashes are different from motor vehicle crashes and people don’t always know how or whether to report them. People may not be inclined to report a crash if there is little damage. However, the reporting of all crashes will provide the Town with data about where and how crashes occur and this data can help better prioritize bicycle improvements. Chapel Hill should create an online form where residents can report crashes or incidents that do not necessitate a police report.

Develop road safety campaign for all modes The need for a better understanding among all road users as to their rights and those of others is neccessary today and will continue as bicycle usage increases in the future. Chapel Hill should continue to develop materials specific to the local context of the Town.For example, a printed or web graphic could spotlight how a bicyclists and motorists should operate in the section of MLK Boulevard that has shared-lane markings or “sharrows.” The Town campaign could utilize bus ads, variable message boards, hang tags on bikes, and other forms of media. Bicycle Related Crashes by Month Chapel Hill 2000-2010

15% 10%

5% D

Bicycle Related Crashes by Nightime or Daylight Conditions Chapel Hill 2000-2010

MONTH

80%

20%

During the 1980’s, the Town produced an annual Traffic Accident report (top). The graphics below show the percentage of bicycle crashes in Chapel HIll between 2000 and 2010 by the month of occurance and by night and day.

TOP:The mid-block pedestrian crossings along Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd have been the be the focus of recent Town led saftey campaigns. BOTTOM: Example text on variable message sign on Raleigh Rd. near Glen Lennox and East 54.

Efforts are underway to add messages about safely driving around bicyclists and pedestrians to the North Carolina 2

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 04 Policies and Programs

Develop greenway safety campaign for bicyclists and pedestrians Greenways are heavily used by residents for recreation, and as transportation use increases by bicyclists, greenway users will need to be even more conscious of safely sharing these facilities. Chapel Hill should launch a public campaign encouraging respect amongst trail users and should install signs at greenway entrances, reminding users to keep right except when passing and to give an audible signal when passing.

Education The following education programs can be coordinated by town departments and the school district, but as a Chapel Hill-focused advocacy group grows, that organization can take over the cycling skills class portions of these recommendations.

Hold regular adult cycling skills classes In Chapel Hill today, many non-cyclists identify the lack of feeling safe on roads as the reason that they do not ride. Gaining confidence in one’s abilities to operate a bicycle can lead to an improved feeling of safety , since the rider will have more knowledge about how to maneuver in different traffic situations. The Town should expand its current cycling skills classes, provided through the Transportation Management Plan, to be available to any town residents or commuters. Holding these classes regularly will make them available to the widest number of bicyclists. There are at least two instructors who have been certified to teach the League of American Bicyclists cycling skills curriculum and who currently live in Chapel Hill. These individuals are a great resource for the Town and could lead skills trainings locally. These courses have both classroom segments which cover rules of the road and on-bike segments which teach practical riding skills, preparing a bicyclist to safely react to traffic situations, ride predictably, and share the road/trail with other users.

Host more youth bike rodeos Educating young bike riders about the rules of the road and trail, and about how to effectively handle their bike will make both them and their parents more confident about their ability and may encourage younger people and families to bike more. Bicycle rodeos and other youth-oriented events should include a safety check of both the helmet and the bicycle. This service may be provided by a local bike shop, which may also provide discounts on equipment or labor for families whose children need a safety upgrade. The town already hosts one to two bike rodeos a year, but this number should be increased to at least eight. Rodeos should

04 Policies and Programs | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

be held at all K-8 schools in the town. These can also be held as part of larger events: the recommended Open Streets day (recommendation X below), annual town festivals and block parties. The most cost-effective way to hold the rodeos would be to cultivate a group of volunteer instructors who are trained on how to conduct the event.

Encourage CHCS to review and adopt Let’s Go NC! statewide bicycle and pedestrian safety curriculum The town should work with Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools to integrate this new statewide curriculum for bicycle and pedestrian safety into K-5 instruction. The curriculum was developed for the NCDOT Division of Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation and Safe Routes to School Program by NC State University’s Institute for Transportation Research and Education. It is designed to integrate with state learning objectives, and provides instruction on safely assessing situations and interacting with other modes.

Expand bicycle safety education to high school level Fewer and fewer teenagers are obtaining driver licenses when eligible. Because there are a lot of popular destinations in Chapel Hill located within bicycling distance of one another, teenagers have the opportunity to use bikes as an alternative to driving. Bicycle safety messages can also be integrated into health or driver education curriculum, in addition to the formal State-designated courses offered to high school students. 2

Educate about new bike facilities This plan recommends some bicycle facilities (advisory bike lanes, priority shared lanes, etc.) that will be new to residents of and visitors to Chapel Hill. Both drivers and bicyclists will need an introduction to how they should drive and ride on or near these facilities. One way the Chapel Hill could distribute this information is through utility bills, at transit stops and on transit vehicle advertisements.

Encouragement Events Like the education recommendations above, the following encouragement events can be coordinated by the Town at first, though they may be run in the future by a new or expanded advocacy organization that works in partnership with the Town.

Host a public bike ride series By having a regular series of public bike rides, the Town will reinforce the idea that bicycling is an everyday part of

the fabric of Chapel Hill. This is a strategy used around the country to encourage and attract new riders. These rides should be slow-paced, occur at least every other month, and should be on a family-friendly route. One model that occurs in other U.S. cities is Bike Party, a group ride that specifically seeks to instill mutual respect between bicyclists and drivers rather than reinforcing an antagonistic relationship. Police direction and support would improve safety on these rides if they become large and require more space in the roadway. A series of public bike rides should be implemented in coordination with Carrboro and UNC advocacy groups, in order to attract more riders and foster coordination among the jurisdictions. This strategy will be best accomplished by the new advocacy group rather than the town itself, but coordination with the town will be needed.

Chapel Hill/Carrboro Ciclovia and/or Better Block

community “imagine” the possibilities on Rosemary Street for example.

Develop resources specific to bicycling for transportation Many potential bicyclists in Chapel Hill would be more likely to use a bicycle for transportation if they have access to better information. In addition to education programs that teach cycling skills, information about the equipment, accessories and approaches that make bicycling to work a viable transportation mode. For example, many bike commuters find on-bike baskets or bags better for transporting items rather than a backpack that creates issues with sweat or wrinkled clothes. .Develop a Bicycle Ambassadors program in

cooperation with UNC

Bicycle Ambassadors are trained volunteers who promote bicycling at stand-alone events like health fairs, back-toschool nights, or community festivals. They also agree to model legal and predictable riding behavior, setting an example for other bicyclists. Cities and campuses have found this to be a cost-effective way to build bicycle culture and community. Partnering with UNC would help reach the large student population who may be interested in volunteering for the program and could benefit from positive peer role models.

Evaluate the feasibility of a bike share system

Chapel Hill should partner with Carrboro beginning in 2014 for an annual “open streets” event. Carrboro hosted its first open streets event on April 13, 2013. By closing a street or a number of streets for a day, residents can see that the street is truly public space available for the use of everyone and celebrate that notion. The Carrboro event closed a small portion of East Main Street, and it would be a natural extension of this event to continue the closure along either Rosemary Street or West Franklin Street. Carrboro has already included funding for a 2014 open streets event in its budget. These events have proven to be strong catalysts for bicycle and pedestrian improvements in cities and towns.

The town should, in tandem with UNC, evaluate the feasibility of a bike share system. Bike sharing systems have evolved as a means to make bicycle travel in urban areas available to a wider range of people. A bike sharing service makes both spontaneous and planned urban trips possible by bike and can be an ideal complement to transit trips as it provides first-mile and last-mile connections. A bike share system in Chapel Hill could be especially effective for employees who commute into town via car or transit to make short trips during the work day. The City of Raleigh is evaluating the feasibility of a system there and may launch one within the next two years. A full description of the elements to consider in this evaluation is provided in Appendix XX.

Another event that is growing in popularity around the country is a “Better Block” project. Better Block projects are one-day events where the streetscape is transformed temporarily to demonstrate what could be possible through traffic calming, extended sidewalks, new bicycle infrastructure, play spaces, outdoor cafes or greening. Better Blocks may be particularly effective in helping the

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 04 Policies and Programs

Implementation Strategies This chapter outlines ithe strategies and actions that need to be taken to implement the plan.

Increase coordination among Town departments

Adopting the Plan

Implementation and planning of bicycle facilities and programs is currently conducted by multiple departments within the town. While it is not feasible or necessary to consolidate this work, effective implementation of this plan will require increased coordination among these departments. Currently, projects such as restriping and resurfacing are managed entirely by the Public Works department. While these programs are effectively and thoughtfully administered here, there has not been consistent coordination with the Planning Department regarding potential changes to roadway configurations that may improve conditions for bicyclists and all modes. During the course of developing this plan, increased interdepartmental coordination has begun, as evidenced by the discussion about how to include and design bicycle facilities as part of NCDOT’s repaving of MLK Boulevard. With this plan as a guide, the bicycle coordinator, in concert with the Transportation Advisory Board, will be able to monitor road work throughout town and given informed input on the accommodation of bicycles.

Official Town Council adoption of this Plan should be seen as the first step toward implementation. Through the adoption process, the Council, Advisory Boards and Town residents will have further opportunities to learn about the Plan and support its recommendations. Also, adoption of the plan is critical to securing funding from NCDOT and other state and federal agencies.

ORGANIZATIONAL STRATEGIES Hire Town bicycle coordinator To ensure that plan implementation takes place in a coordinated,timely manner, the town must designate a staff member to be responsible for shepherding the development of bicycle infrastructure, policies and programs. The majority of cities and towns where bicycling has become a safe, convenient, everyday mode choice have a designated bicycle coordinator on staff. The bicycle coordinator position may also include responsibilities related to pedestrian improvements. The bicycle coordinator position should be included in an existing department that possesses the capacity to oversee bicycle infrastructure and program development and also facilitate interdepartmental collaboration. This staff person will be the lynchpin of coordination among all departments, ensuring that communication lines are open and that information is shared at the appropriate times. The planning and construction of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure near schools, as well as school-based programming, should be coordinated through the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program . By ensuring that this program is integrated into the bicycle coordinator role, children biking and walking to school in Chapel Hill will have more opportunities for safe, active travel to school. Consolidating SRTS duties into one position will help solidify the program’s importance to the town and make coordination with Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District and parent groups easier. One option is to include the bicycle coordinator position in the Town Manager’s office. By placing this position outside of one of the implementing departments, the coordinator will be able to more easily work between departments and will be viewed as a coordinator rather than a planner, engineer or designer. Placement in the Manager’s office will also give the position the authority needed to convene all the disciplines and successfully move initiatives and projects forward.

01 Plan Process | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

There is already a venue in place for much of this coordination to occur. The Transportation Management Team consists of representatives from the departments whose work impacts bicycle infrastructure. This group should have a standing bicycle section on every agenda at all meetings to ensure that planning for bicycle facilities remains present in its work.

Ensure new Advisory Board representation With the integration of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board into the over-arching transportation Board, planned to take place in 2014, the interests of bicyclists in Chapel Hill are more likely to be represented in transportation decisionmaking. Traditionally, the Bike/Ped Board has consisted of 10 members representing the Town, Carrboro, Orange County, Durham or Chatham County, and UNC. While it is still undecided if all of the current representation is to remain, it is essential that bicyclists’ interests continue to be strongly represented on the Board. While residents who are wellinformed about transportation issues may be able to speak to bicyclists’ concerns, there is great value in ensuring at least two members of the board are frequent bicyclists with experience riding in Chapel Hill.

Support advocacy group As mentioned in Chapter 2, cities and towns that are great places for bicycling nearly all have a strong bicycle advocacy group. If Chapel Hill is going to be one of the best college towns in the country for bicycling, there will need to be

strong involvement from citizens to help it get there. The existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board does not replace the need for an independent advocacy group because it is an official town body. A stronger advocacy presence may come from the Chapel Hill Bicycle Coalition, a newly formed organization. This group can help support the implementation of this Plan by keeping the Town accountable to goals and timelines set forth here. Partnering on events and campaigns can help build momentum for both the plan and the advocacy organization, and eventually the Coalition can lead some of the Plan’s strategies, such as developing a regular series of rides, hosting cycling skills education classes for adults and children, doing outreach events in the community around safety and maintenance, and partnering with Carrboro on an open streets event. Maintaining a respectful and valued relationship between this group and the Town will be critical.

Host staff bicycle rides Town staff who work on bicycle facilities and programs should have an understanding of the experience of riding a bicycle in Chapel Hill. Simply talking about bicycling conditions on a busy arterial may not be as impactful as experiencing them firsthand. Coordinating a bicycle ride for staff from planning, public works, engineering, transit, public information, police and traffic operations will allow the entire team to gain a better understanding of what it is like to ride a bike in Chapel Hill. This experience will help them communicate with one another and externally about the need for improved facilities. It may also build support amongst the staff critical to implementing the plan. This ride, which should take place twice per year, should highlight different types of streets in town and focus first on the priority project areas in this plan. Rides can revisit streets with newly implemented facilities as bike lanes are striped and sidewalks revamped.

Produce annual report on Bike Plan implementation The development of the bicycle facility network and program will only be accomplished if the town is held accountable to its goals. An annual report should be produced that outlines the town’s goals for construction of facilities in that year and reviews progress made in the prior year. This report will detail the type of facility and its function in the bicycle network: what important origins and destinations it connects and how it improves bicyclists’ access and safety.

Conduct annual bicycle counts Having data on the changing number of bicyclists is vital to continuing the conversation about implementing this Bike Plan. The Town should conduct annual bicycle counts and the same locations every year under the standards articulated by the National Pedestrian and Bicycle Documentation Project and in cooperation with the Department of City and Regional Planning at UNC. Locations should be selected based upon the understanding of existing demand and planned bicycle infrastructure projects. Counts can be staffed by volunteers who attend a short training session; UNC Planning students are a likely volunteer pool, as are members of the local advocacy groups.

FUNDING STRATEGIES New bicycle facilities will be the most visible and concrete outcome of implementing this plan, but they will not get built without dedicated funding. Currently, on-road bicycle facilities have been funded through existing roadway striping and paving funds. The new bicycle parking corral on Franklin Street was a one-time capital outlay from discretionary funds. Support for active transportation infrastructure and programs at the Federal level is stagnating, and the recent alteration of NCDOT’s pedestrian and bicycle funding requirements means that stand-alone projects can no longer be funded from state coffers. Given these financial realities, implementation of both physical and programmatic recommendations will require a creative and persistent approach to funding. Identifying and pursuing bicycle-specific funding should be part of the job of the bicycle coordinator, both for infrastructure and programs. This person can also work with existing staff members who manage grant applications and other funding processes to ensure that bicycle projects are included in larger roadway project applications. Carrboro has found that having a bonds/capital projects manager whose time is divided between planning and public works has been a driving force to getting bike plan projects implemented. Chapel Hill’s new “Priority Budgeting” system may be a positive step toward implementing this plan. Beginning with the fiscal year 2012-2013, Chapel Hill began developing this new process for decision making for annual budgets. “Priority budgeting” is a mechanism for making choices where the relative value to the community of services and investments guides decisions about allocation of scarce resources. Based on the 2013 Council budget priorities, bicycle infrastructure and programs should be well positioned to compete for Town funding.1

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 01 Plan Process

Incorporate bicycle projects into routine maintenance Bicycle infrastructure can be incorporated into annual restriping and marking plans. Resurfacing projects also provide the opportunity to integrate new on-street bicycle infrastructure through changing pavement markings. These implementation actions will take advantage of existing dedicated funds for maintenance rather than needing additional capital outlays. To make sure this happens, all project lists and plans important need to be shared and updated regularly.

Position Plan projects for Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funding The Capital Improvement Program is created via an yearly solicitation of projects from all departments within Town government. Projects submitted are considered to be included a 15-year list of capital needs which includes cost estimates and expected funding sources. The program emphasizes projects at Town facilities, with the goal of addressing capital-related problems as they arise in order to avoid more costly repairs in the future. These projects are selected based on a number of factors set forth by the Town Manager. The 2014-2029 factors are: Capital Improvement Program Priority Levels

The adoption of this Bike Plan and the implementation of a few high-visibility infrastructure projects can lay a foundation for the inclusion of bicycle infrastructure in a major bond referendum in 2015. By that time, residents will have begun to see physical and cultural improvements related to bicycling in town and may be more willing to support further development of infrastructure. The items included in the 2003 bond all related to core town values: education, environment, active recreation and safety. A new bond to fund bicycle infrastructure recommendations in this plan and those in the 2012 Greenways Master Plan would align with the same set of Town values and the goals of the 2020 Plan.

Include bicycle infrastructure in Downtown Planning and Streetscape Improvments Property and business owners may share in the cost of improvements located in the downtown area. Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) are responsible for bicycle infrastructure in many cities. This group of businesses elects to tax itself to pay for physical improvements or programs that benefit the business district through attracting more customers in various ways. Bicycle parking is the most common piece of infrastructure paid for in this manner. Chapel Hill already has a special tax and service district overlay for Downtown and the Chapel Hill Downtown Partnership was vital in the installation of Downtownâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first Bike Corral.

Priority 1

Projects that we have a legal requirement to perform or complete.

Priority 2

Projects that have a Council mandate.

Priority 3

Projects directly impacting public safety.

Utilize tax increment financing

Priority 4

Projects that would repair or maintain existing Town facilities/infrastructure above and beyond ordinary maintenance.

Priority 5

Projects that are part of a strategic plan or related to other /existing projects

The Town is beginning to explore tax increment financing (TIF) with the Ephesus-Fordham redevelopment area. Including bicycle infrastructure in the public projects funded by a TIF can be an effective way to build new bike and pedestrian infrastructure that borders or routes through these new redevelopment areas in town.

In recent years, the Capital Improvements fund has been used to repair off-road bike infrastructure, to conduct engineering studies of transportation projects and to replace bridges. Many projects recommended in this Plan meet the criteria above for the CIP. The Town should review the priority projects in this plan and make a short list of priorities for CIP funding. This should be an annual task as CIP funding criteria change. Results of Council Budget Objective Ranking, January 9, 2013. 1

Issue bicycle bond in 2015

01 Plan Process | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

State and Federal Funding The State of North Carolina is important to the implementation of this Plan, because investments by the NCDOT and other agencies can help speed up construction of infrastructure and operation of programs. As mentioned, stand-alone bicycle infrastructure projects are not eligible for state funding at this point in time, but the state does disburse federal funds that can be used toward the construction of these stand-alone projects. Bicycle projects can also be part of more extensive roadway projects that secure funding through a variety of sources.

The current federal transportation authorization, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) includes dedicated funding for bicycle projects in a number of different programs. Some of this funding is available through NCDOT, and some is available through the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization. A scan of state and federal funding opportunities is presented in Appendix D.

Repaving is also a primary method for adding new facilities recommended in this plan to the network. Striping new lane configurations at the time of repaving rather than grinding out existing markings at some other time is more cost effective and efficient.

Physical Network Strategies

Maintenance can be particularly important to the safely of bicyclists, since these users are subject to additional discomfort and safety risks when pavement is cracked, road striping is not visible, etc. For this reason, providing well-maintained facilities is essential to increasing bicycle use. As the bicycle network is expanded, protocols should be developed regarding the frequency, process, roles and responsibilities for bicycle facility maintenance.

The following strategies focus on the organizational steps needed to implement the physical improvements detailed in Chapter 3. This section also addresses strategies that need to be undertaken to keep facilities safe and functional after they are built.

Assess and repair/replace existing facilities Chapel Hill Public Works, as well as NCDOT perform much of the roadway and trail maintenance in Chapel Hill. Bicycle facilities that were installed prior to development of this Plan should be assessed to determine if they require maintenance or upgrading based on their condition and according to updated standards and guidelines from AASHTO and MUTCD. Responsible entities should refer to this Plan to determine if existing facilities have any design deficiencies that should be addressed to improve safety and to ensure consistency with facilities that will be installed as part of the recommended bicycle network. This assessment should include both striping and signs. Missing or damaged warning, regulatory or wayfinding signs should be replaced based on manufacturer recommendations related to reflectivity and readability (1520 years). The Town also needs to replace faded or damaged pavement markings and should include bicycle pavement markings in the annual restriping program. Last, bicycle pavement markings must be replaced when roadways are repaved.

Test and maintain bicycle detection loops These in-pavement loops are a critical piece of infrastructure for making bicycling easier throughout Town. Many have been installed in the last five years, and they should be periodically tested to ensure that bicycles can be detected.

Add bicycle considerations to repaving schedule

Alter maintenance schedules/procedures to keep bike facilities functional

As this plan is implemented, the number of bike lanes in Chapel Hill will grow. Since bike lanes are located at the edge of the roadway, they often become filled with debris such as tree limbs, gravel, and glass. This happens because over time, the force of motor vehicles pushes debris out of their travel lanes to the edge of the roadway where it collects and can present a major safety hazard for cyclists who ride there. To avoid colliding with the debris or puncturing a tire, a cyclists may need to swerve into the automobile travel lanes and this increases the chance for user conflict. Street sweeping is necessary to keep bike lanes clear from debris and should be performed a minimum of 4 times per year on streets with bike lanes and bicycle traffic. The Town may also need to perform spot sweeping if sand is left in bike lanes after a snow or ice event.

Develop hazard reporting tool The town should also develop a reporting system for bicyclists to inform Public Works of additional hazards in the bike lane, such as debris or potholes. For example, the City of Oakland California instituted a pothole hotline and advertised the number specifically to bicyclists. The Town can also use the same WikiMap application used during this plan to create web based system where citizens can report transportation related complaints. Whatever mechanism Chapel Hill uses to collect feedback, responses to these requests should be swift in order to maintain safe and inviting conditions for bicyclists in Town.

The townâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s repaving schedule currently relies on the pavement conditions survey for prioritizing roads and road segments. The presence of existing or planned bicycle facilities should be incorporated into this prioritization so existing facilities are ensured of being in good condition.

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 01 Plan Process

TOP 10 PRIORITY PROJECTS

This plan is ambitious in scope and scale as it sets a vision for a comprehensive physical bicycle network. Where opportunities do not exist to implement the bicycle plan through planned projects, maintenance or road rehabilitation projects, or redevelopment opportunities, it will be necessary to prioritize implementation of projects on an individual basis. Projects in this plan have been prioritized into a short term network and a prioritized list of the top 10 projects using the following factors: • Assumed constrained budget, based on existing funding streams over 10 years totaling 16 million dollars: - $1,200,000 annual MPO contribution (12 million over 10 years) - $200,000 annual Town match to MPO funding (2 million over 10 years) - Award of up to $4 million in grants over 10 years • Anticipated high demand for bicycle improvement due • Closure of critical gap in greenway system • Public priority • Overall network connectivity #

Facility

Limits

Action

Franklin Main Street Connectivity

Carrboro to to Boundary St

Priority Shared Lanes

East Franklin Sidewalk Safety

Boundary St to Booker Creek

East Franklin Greenway Booker Creek to Bolin Creek Connector

Martin Luther King Boulvard Safety

West Rosemary Connector

Total Price

1.3

$106,500

$138,450

Fix Sidewalks

1.1

$165,900

$182,490

Sidepath

0.8

$1,377,100 $1,101,680

0.2

$132,300

$26,460

0.4

$33,300

$13,320

Library Dr to Halifax Rd

Shared Lane Markings Climbing Lanes

Halifax Rd to Cumberland Rd

Bike Lanes

0.2

$3,990,100 $798,020

Cumberland Rd to MLK Estes Elementary and Philips Middle School S. Columbia to Estes Dr S. Columbia to Estes Dr S. Columbia to Estes Dr

Bike Lanes

0.6

$1,227,700 $736,620

Greenway

0.4

$576,700

Add Lighting Climbing Lanes Fix Sidewalks Priority Shared Lanes Buffered Bike Lanes

1.4 1.4 1.4

$1,555,000 $2,177,000 $132,300 $185,220 $766,300 $1,072,820

0.1

$106,500

$10,650

0.5

$99,500

$49,750

Franklin to Library Dr Estes Drive Connectivity

Price per Mile

Carrboro to Graham St Graham St to MLK

$230,680

West Cameron Connector

Carrboro to S. Columbia St

Wide Bike Lanes 0.6

$69,900

$41,940

Raleigh Road

Fordham Blvd to Country Club Fordham Blvd to Country Club

Fix Sidewalks Climbing Lanes

0.7 0.7

$165,900 $132,300

$116,130 $92,610

Bolin Creek Lighting Pilot Project

MLK to Franklin St

Add Lighting

1.6

$1,555,000 $2,488,000

South Columbia Priority Shared Lanes

MLK to Cameron St

Priority Shared Lanes

0.3

$106,500

01 Plan Process | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

$31,950

POLICIES, PROGRAMS AND STRATEGIES

The tables on the following pages detail the departments and individuals, within the Town government and elsewhere, which will be responsible for implementing each of the recommendations. A priority has been given to each recommendation based on the impact it can have on reaching the four goals of this bike plan. The ease of implementation ranking incorporates political feasibility and required coordination, and is meant to estimate the level of the effort needed to accomplish each recommendation. There are also some programs shown below that may become the responsibility of the Chapel Hill Bicycle Coalition. Implementation Strategies Action Item

Description

Responsibility

Priority

Difficulty

Outcome

Create bicycle coordinator position

Coordinator will drive implementation of the bike plan through working across Town departments, with the new transportation advisory board, and Town residents.

Planning

HIGH

MED

Bike plan implementation

Increase coordination among Town departments

Create a Bike Plan Team to oversee implementation of the bike plan.

Planning; Public Works; Parks and Recreation; as needed: CHT; Police; Go Chapel Hill

HIGH

MED

Bike plan implementation

New Advisory Board bicyclist representation

Require that at least two members of the board are regular bicylists.

Manager; Council; Bicycle coordinator

HIGH

LOW

Maintain official bicycle advisory function

Support advocacy group

The new Chapel Hill Bicycle Coalition has the possibility of growing into Manager; a strong partner for the Council; Bicycle Town and operating many coordinator important education and encouragement programs.

MED

Building bicycle culture; bike plan implementation

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 01 Plan Process

Implementation Strategies Action Item

Description

Responsibility

Hold staff bicycle rides

Town staff working on implementation of facilities and programs should have an understanding of the experience of bicycling in Chapel Hill. Guided rides can highlight different types of roads in Town and should first focus on priority project corridors.

Bicycle coordinator

Annual report on bicycle plan implementation

An annual public report will catalog successes in the past year and goals for Bicycle the upcoming. It should coordinator cover both physical network implementation and programs/policies.

Priority

HIGH

MED

Difficulty

Outcome

LOW

Create understanding of bicycle issues among staff

LOW

Bike plan implementation; awareness of Town successes

Policy Strategies Action Item

Description

Responsibility

Revise Design Manual

Revisions to standards for bicycle facility design are needed to ensure that newlyimplemented facilities and all street designs are accommodating and safe for bicyclists.

Engineering; Council

Page XX

Planning; City Attorney; Council

Current code implies that bicycles only belong on certain Town roads. Strike term bikeways and specification of Town roads as bikeways.

Planning; City Attorney; Council

Remove Sec. 21-53.1(b) from code.

Planning; City Attorney; Council

Revise traffic code â&#x20AC;&#x153;Bikewaysâ&#x20AC;?

Equipment

01 Plan Process | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

Priority

Difficulty

Outcome Safe facilities implementation

HIGH

LOW

HIGH

LOW

HIGH

LOW

HIGH

LOW

Safer bikeautomobile interactions

Clarity in bikerelated code

Policy Strategies Action Item

Description

Responsibility

Sidewalk riding restrictions

Remove restrictions on MLK Blvd; DON’T EXIST IN CODE, BUT THERE ARE STILL SIGNS; CLARIFY STATUS

Planning; City Attorney; Council

Automobile placement on roadway

Priority

Difficulty

Outcome

HIGH

LOW

Make bicycling available to all cyclist types

Revise Sec. 21-52 to Planning; City explictly state that drivers Attorney; Council are permitted to merge into the bike lane within 200 feet of an intersection before making a right turn and after yielding rightof-way to bicyclists as specified in Sec. 21-50.

HIGH

LOW

Safer bikeautomobile interactions

Revise Sec. 21-43(c) to further refine the exceptions to riding as far to the right as practicable. Add lanugage permitting exceptions to this requirement such as: debris or other hazards in the righthand portion of the lane, and proximity of parked cars along the righthand portion of the lane.

Planning; City Attorney; Council

HIGH

MED

Safer bikeautomobile interactions

Automobile parking restrictions

Clarify Sec. 21-20 to include specific reference to parking in bike lanes as being a form of “interfering with traffic” which also incurs a parking violation

Planning; City Attorney; Council

HIGH

LOW

Guarantee of unobstructed bicycle route

Driver dooring penalty

Add a specific driver penalty to code for “dooring” a bicyclist. (see Raleigh example)

Planning; City Attorney; Council

HIGH

MED

Decreased bicyclist hazards

Bike lane overlay zones Include bike considerations in form-based code

Remove Sec. 21-27.3 from code.

Planning; City Attorney; Council

HIGH

LOW

Clarity in bikerelated code

MED

LOW

Safe facilities implementation

Bicycle placement on roadway

Ensure that new Town Planning; Council code(s) that impact streets and access management are favorable to bicycle travel.

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 01 Plan Process

Safety programs

Action Item

Description

Responsibility

Create annual report on bicycle crashes

Use local data to publish an annual analysis of bike crashes. Benchmark to historical crash data from NCDOT.

Chapel Hill Police Department; Bicycle coordinator

MED

Raising crash awareness

Create a bicyclistâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s crash resource

Develop a how-to for bicyclists and motorists to deal with a bicycle/vehicle crash to ensure complete reporting of bicycle crashes.

Chapel Hill Police Department; Bicycle coordinator; UNC DPS

MED

LOW

Raising crash awareness

Develop a hazard reporting tool

Physical hazards such as potholes and roadway debris can force bicyclists to ride unpredictably with sudden movements. An online tool can be used for all citiznes to report roadway hazards.

Bicycle coordinator; Public Works

HIGH

Safer roads. Community engagement.

Road safety campaign for all modes

Develop specific traffic safety messages to Include in varied media such as: newsletters, social media, bus ads, variable message boards.

Chapel Hill Police Department; Public Information Office; Bicycle coordinator

LOW

Safer bikeautomobile interactions; raising crash awareness

Develop a Bicycle Ambassadors program in cooperation with UNC

Bicycle ambassadors educate the public at events, encourage bicycling, and model correct bicycling behavior every time they ride.

LOW

MED

Safer bikeautomobile interactions; building bicycle culture

Ensure enforcement of bicycle parking ordinance

Empower Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board to review and amend bike parking plans for new Council; Bike/Ped construction. Board

MED

LOW

Provision of support facilities

Bicycle coordinator

01 Plan Process | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

Priority

HIGH

Difficulty

Outcome

Encouragement programs Action Item

Description

Responsibility

Market/brand Chapel Hill as a bicycle-friendly town

Include references to bike-friendliness in Town marketing materials, tourism guides, real estate and Chamber of Commerce materials.

Public Information Office; Chamber of Commerce

Develop and Maintain a Town bicycling webpage

Create a clearinghouse Public for Chapel Hill bicycle Information resources to equip cyclists Office and cyclists-to-be with the information to make riding safe and convenient

Support bicycle-friendly business program

Support the Carrboro Bicycle Coalition’s bicyclefriendly business program through highlighting such businesses in Town newsletters and other communications.

Public Information Office; Downtown Chapel Hill Business Partnership; Carrboro Bicycle Coalition

Develop “all types of bicyclists” campaign

Develop a public information campaign that highlights the many different types of bicyclists who ride in Chapel Hill to help residents identify with the bicycling population. Model on BikePGH “Care” campaign.

Public Information Office; Bicycle coordinator

Host a public bike ride series

Expand on the Spring Roll and winter ride to have a regular (monthly) fun ride around Town.

Bicycle coordinator

Priority

Difficulty

Outcome

LOW

Building bicycle culture

HIGH

LOW

Make bicycling available to all cyclist types

LOW

Building bicycle culture

HIGH

LOW

Building bicycle culture

MED

LOW

Building bicycle culture

MED

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 01 Plan Process

Encouragement programs Action Item

Description

Responsibility

Partner with Carrboro to expand Open Street event

Build on the successful 2013 event in Carrboro by expanding street closure into Chapel Hill. Include bike safety education, a bike rodeo, tune-ups and other bike-focused activities.

Bicycle coordinator; Public Information Office; Chapel Hill Police Department

Develop utilitarian bicycling resources

Bicycling for transportation is different than for recreation or sport. Building print or web resources along with classes that introduce bicyclists and nonbicyclists to tactics and equipment for utilitarian biking can make it more accessible for all.

Bicycle coordinator; Local bike shops

Action Item

Description

Responsibility

Hold regular adult cycling skills classes

Expand existing periodic classes offered by TMP to be a regular series available to all residents. Utilize League Certified Instructors for classes (at least two live in Chapel Hill).

Parks and Recreation; TDM Program; Bicycle coordinator

Host more youth bike rodeos

Hold at least one rodeo per year at all CHCS K-8 schools. Hold rodeos at child-appropriate Town festivals.

Parks and Recreation; SRTS staff; Bicycle coordinator; residents

Encourage CHCS to review and adopt Letsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Go NC! Curriculum

Partner with the school system to review this NCDOT-developed K-5 curriculum teaching bicycle and pedestrian safety.

CHCS; Bicycle coordinator; SRTS staff

Priority

MED

LOW

Difficulty

Outcome

MED

Building bicycle culture

LOW

Make bicycling available to all cyclist types

Education programs

01 Plan Process | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

Priority

Difficulty

Outcome

LOW

Building bicycle culture; make bicycling available to all cyclist types

MED

LOW

Building bicycle culture; start kids off right

MED

HIGH

Start kids off right

MED

Education programs Action Item

Description

Responsibility

Expand bicycle safety education to the high school level

Integrate with health CHCS; Bicycle and/or drivers education coordinator curriculum to ensure teenage bicyclists understand their rights and responsibilities on the roadway.

Educate about new bicycle facilities

As new facility types are added (buffered bike lane, etc), ensure that all roadway users understand how they should approach them. Use utility mailers to reach all Town residents. Partner with UNC to reach University community.

Bicycle coordinator; Public Information Office

Priority

Difficulty

MED

Outcome

Make bicycling available to all cyclist types

Safer bikeautomobile interactions

HIGH

LOW

Physical Network Strategies Action Item

Description

Responsibility

Coordinate with annual restriping schedule

Take advantage of yearly opportunity in road restriping to add bicycle facilities.

Engineering; Public Works

Add bicycle considerations to repaving schedule

In addition to pavement conditions, consider the presence or future presence of bicycle facillties in prioritizing streets for repaving.

Public Works

Alter maintenance schedules/ procedures to keep bike facilities clear

As more bike lanes are Public Works implemented, ensure that they remain safe for riding by prioritizing these roads for street sweeping.

Implement bicycle facilities network

See prioritized list of projects for implementation scheme.

Priority

Difficulty

HIGH

Bicycle coordinator; Engineering; Public Works; Council; Manager

MED

HIGH

LOW

HIGH

MED

Varies

Outcome Implementation of bike facilities

Safer riding conditions for bicyclists

Implementation of bike facilities; Safer riding conditions for bicyclists; Make bicycling available to all cyclist types

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | 01 Plan Process

PERFORMANCE MEASURES Performance measures are used to track progress toward implementing the Plan and accomplishing its vision and goals. The most useful performance measures are quantitative and able to be tracked over time. These measures are intended to gauge progress on the implementation of all plan elements and may be expanded over time as data and resources become available. Chapel Hill may need to institute new data collection systems for some of the recommended performance measures, and should establish a clear chain of responsibility for tracking these metrics over time.

Strategy Implement bicycle facility network

Performance Measure Miles of on-street bicycle network complete

Performance Target

Data Collection Frequency

Install minimum of XXXX miles Miles implemented per year in 2014

Annually

Prioritize and fund bicycle Existing bicycle facility maintenance facilities maintained

Bike lanes swept 4 times/year Test and repair bicycle detection loops

2014 record of sweeping and loop testing/repair

Annually

Develop hazard reporting Response to citizentool for bicycle facilities reported hazards

All hazards cleared/repaired within 1 week of reporting

Response rate to 2014 requests

Annually

Prioritize and fund bicycle Existing bicycle facility maintenance facilities maintained

Bike lanes swept 4 times/year Test and repair bicycle detection loops

2013

Annually

Educate Town staff about bicycling experience in Chapel Hill

Number of staff rides Minimum of 2 staff rides per held each year year

Number of 2014 rides

Annually

Produce annual crash report

Number of crashes per year

Annual reduction in crashes OR lower rate of increase than rate of increase in number of bicyclists

2014 crash totals

Annually

Conduct annual bicycle counts

Number of bicyclists per year Gender breakdown of bicyclists

Increasing number of bicyclists at each location Increasing parity in gender balance

2014 counts

Annually

Achieve LABâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Bicycle Move from bronze to Silver-winning application in Friendly Community silver silver status 2015 status designation

Baseline Measurement

01 Plan Process | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

Bronze status

Class: Arterial AADT: 20,000 to 30,000 Maintenance: NCDOT Road Footprint: 65 Feet DURHAM Speed Limit: 35 MPH Right-of-Way Width: 100-115 feet

Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. R Millhouse

(State Route 86) Limits: S. Columbia to Homestead Drive, 1.4 Miles d

d sR nk

East Chapel Hill High School

Fox wo o

r re D

ke s N

in R d nta

ou yM

Curtis Rd

el Hill Rd Chap

t Dr

Old

rlet

Old Durham Rd

Sca

lvd

d e ve l o p

u rc

h Rd

Pinehurst Dr

Fordham Blvd Hickory D r

Indian S pring

lt Dr

Ro o

Cleland Dr

oun

rso

r ran c h T Battl e B

dary

igh

Rale

Christopher Rd Hayes Rd

nde t ry S ma ose St ER klin ran EF

Pop e

Eph es us Dr Long Leaf

E Franklin

Hillview Rd

s Dr

S Es tes Dr

Community Park

g io nR d

in kl EF ra n

Ephesus Church Rd

tor nnec

Ephesus Elementary School

s Rd

Coun try Clu bR

N Roberson St

B am rdh Fo

e Cr

y nwa ee Gr

Restrict Northbound Left Turn

rch

eD stown r Ea

pa D

y wit h facilit ke

H il l s b o r o u g h

rth

ins

Willow Dr

Chu

tor

tion nnec ent ay co pm nw velo gree rede with

N Elliott Rd

Carr

t terling Dr Old S

Win d

Chapel Hill Library

Carrboro Elementary School

E Lakeview Dr

Cre

N Estes Dr

Bo l i n

Connec ampus

Euro

Blvd

iry

King Jr

d eR S ag

Seawell School Rd

r dD

Estes Elementary School

Phillips Middle School

CARRBORO

re L

Erwin

Luther

ea ve r

Rd ek

Martin

ail

us mp Ca

School R d

Bo o

Lake Ellen Dr

Taylor St

Future Carolina North Campus

w e ll

ke s

k er

Seawell Elementary School

Sea

Smith Middle School

Brookview D r

Sedgefiel d

Honeysuckle Rd

iry Rd ver Da Wea

T ms H o ra ce W i l l i a

Chapel Hill High School

Riggsbee Rd

Homestead Rd

North Forest Hills Park

Stateside Dr

Kenmor

Partin St

Rd Rogers

Homestead Park

Erw in Rd

Tr a i l

Cedar Falls Park

d a r Falls Park

ston D King

ine Ln hP

er D

Pitc

ai r

Cedar Fork Tr

airy Rd

Wea ve rD

er Dr

Old Larkspur Way

Sunrise Rd

ORANGE COUNTY DURHAM COUNTY

Eubanks Rd

Rashkis Elementary School

nt Ln mo

Meado w

M ea do w mo n t Tra il

Hamilton Rd

E Barbee Cha p

Cours e Rd

Ma r nnin g

r Bowl e s D

Old M

o n Farm Rd

e dbin

d kR ee M o r g a n Cr

r ke

MERRITT’S PASTURE

Woo

Kings Mill Rd

Laurel Hill Rd

rm Rd

ORANGE COUNTY DURHAM COUNTY

Fin

on Fa

G o lf

Sprun tS

ley

East

us to

Ski p

m b i a St

ic k

SC ol u

ich

m bia St

Pittsboro

il l

rdin

d n er Cir

Glenwood Elementary School

Pr es tw

Rd el

el H aur

Rd foy ure

ga or

Ga r

Fan Br an

l ai Tr

rlen Pa r k Dr

ett Rd

Benn

rov e

Parkside Cir

er gr ee

M ar

St ket

Mt Ca rm el

ur ch

Pa r

Scroggs Elementary School

Long Term Plan

Arbore tu

ke rR d

Culbreth Middle School

Cobble Rid g

l Pau

M a n ning

Mas

Ashe

Mason Farm Rd

nC reek Tra i

Ri d g

ill

Culbreth

rk Rd

tM rit er M

Stad ium

e Dr

Lana

rah

Arro w h ead Rd

St ley Cau Mc

Frank Porter Graham Elementary

Carrboro High School

bike lanes with redevelopment

ero

Cam

ree Dr Burning T

ve nA

E Main St

Purpose and need for improvements d Main Raleig uth R hhigh Rd • Online survey identified rMLK asUNC one of Sothe top three stress corridors in the Town for bicyclists, especially south of Estes Drive due ve Campus nA eo Cam W to the lack of dedicated space and traffic speeds that routinely exceed the 35-mph speed limit. • The Chapel Hill 2020 plan called for “enhanced connectivity for bicycles, transit, pedestrians, and vehicles using the complete streets Co approach.” Rd igh Rale • Existing conditionsFordha m Bl vd • 14 foot wide outside lanes with shared lane markings and signed “SHARE THE ROAD” • 8 foot sidewalks with a 2 foot planter strip on the east side of MLK from Booker Creek Trail to Estes Drive designated for bicycle travel (red tint) • Sidewalks south of Estes are generally 5 feet in width with a 2 foot planting strip on both sides • Four 11-foot by 60-foot pedestrian refuge islands are located in the center of the roadway • Land Use: • The Chapel Hill 2020 plan envisions a mixture of land uses consisting of medium to high density residential, commercial, office and institutional uses along MLK Boulevard Existing Facilities Proposed Facilities Greenway/Sidelimiting Path Greenway/Side Path • Curb cuts between intersections are relatively limited with a continuous median left turns north of Homestead to I-40 Natural Surface Path Fix Sidewalk & Add Lighting • Bike Lane Buffered Bike Lane NCDOT complete streets potential classification: Suburban Boulevard or Parkway Shared-Lane Marking Bike Lane Signed Route Advisory Bike Lane Under NCDOT’s classification scheme for Complete Streets, considering the adjoining land use, roadway characteristics, existing traffic Climbing Lane Spot Improvements volume and access management this roadway should be classified as a hybrid ofSignal the Urban/Suburban Boulevard and Parkway. The key Striped Shoulder Operations Shared-Lane Marking Intersectionrecommends Design difference between the two treatments is the treatment of bicyclists. The boulevard 5-6 foot bicycle lanes (exclusive of Priority Shared Lane Trail Intersection Design gutter), 6-8 foot planter zone, and 6-8 foot sidewalks, while the parkway recommends removal of the bike lanes for 10-20 foot shared use Shared Street Bridge Accomodation paths on both sides of the roadway with a 8-30 foot planter zone. Signed Route Highway Transition 0 ry ma ose St WR klin ran WF

Southern Community Park

ORANGE COUNTY CHATHAM COUNTY

0.5

Miles

Cut Sheet | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

Stair Rail

5’

11’

10’

13’

11’

15’

5’

Short term –Bicycle Climbing Lanes (LTS 3) In the short term, it is recommended the roadway be reconfigured to provide a minimum 6 foot climbing bicycle lane with downhill shared lane marked with shared lane markings. The shared lane marking should be located a minimum of six feet from face of curb to guide faster moving bicyclists away from drainage grates. The existing center turn lane and wide lanes create opportunities to reconfigure the space within the existing curb lines to add the climbing bicycle lanes. The continuous center turn lane provides additional buffering for the 10 foot inside lanes. The travel lanes should taper to 11 feet and the bicycle lanes to 6 feet on either side of the refuge island. It is also recommended that the existing sidewalks be targeted for spot repair and maintenance to provide a facility for those bicyclists who do not feel comfortable sharing the roadway with motor vehicles. The full width of the sidewalk should be usable, and smooth. Additionally, pedestrian-scale lighting is recommended to improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. Implementation challenges: • Should it be undesirable to taper the lane widths approaching the median, the median would be required to be narrowed up to 3 feet to provide continuous 11 foot travel lanes and a 6 foot bicycle lane. Probable construction cost: $1,258,040 without pedestrian scale lighting, $3,435,040 with pedestrian scale lighting.

6’

4’

7’

3’ 5’

11’

10’

13’

11’

15’

3’

7’

4’

6’

Long term –Bicycle Climbing Lanes with (LTS 3) Cycle Tracks (LTS 1) In the longer term, it is recommended the roadway edges be reconstructed with a one-way pair of cycle tracks with separate sidewalks to complement the on-road bicycle climbing lane. The cycle track is potentially a more appropriate match for this type of roadway which is a hybrid between a suburban boulevard (bike lane) and parkway (shared use path) via NCDOT complete streets classification scheme. The parkway classification assumes a lower volume of pedestrian use than is likely given the adjacent land uses and transit activity, along with close proximity to downtown Chapel Hill which generate steady volume of pedestrian activity. Maintaining the climbing lane would provide an on-road option for those cyclists traveling at higher speeds through past the limits of the cycle track and reduce construction impacts within the roadway. Implementation challenges: • Reconstruction of the roadway edges between the curb and the right-of-way line will require: - Utility pole relocations - Significant re-grading which may require retaining walls in spot locations - Tree removal - Spot bridge widening or construction of new parallel bridges may be required at the Booker Creek crossing or adjacent to • Right-of-way acquisition may be desirable to provide wider planter zones between the roadway and cycle track and the cycle track and sidewalk • The roadway foot print could be narrowed by removing the on-road bicycle accommodations and narrowing or eliminating the center turn lane to create the necessary space for the cycle tracks. Probable construction cost: $3,425,660 without pedestrian scale lighting, $5,602,380 with pedestrian scale lighting.

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Cut Sheet

lt Dr ve se

Ro o

Cleland Dr

t yS

Rd South Dr

Arro w h ead Rd

Ri d g

t lS ich

Old M

o n Farm Rd

rm Rd

Ashe

Rd ek e r C

r ke

ne D

dbi

Woo

Kings Mill Rd

ORANGE COUNTY DURHAM COUNTY

Fin

Laurel Hill Rd

on Fa

Ma r nnin g

r Bowl e s D

d gh R

ei Ral

Cours e Rd

Ca pe

Mas

E Barbee Cha p

ic k

G o lf

r dD ar

Ski p

M o r ga n

Pr es tw

st Dr

n rdi

il l

Glenwood Elementary School

Sprun tS

Rd el

el H aur

l Pau

M a n ning

rk Rd

Stad ium

Raleig h

Hamilton Rd

Main pus

ree Dr Burning T

bike lanes with redevelopment

Lana

nt L mo

ley

Ave

da r ou n

igh

e Ral

ntry Clu bR

Meado w

(State Route 86) Limits: Country Club Road to BurningaTree Drive, r ran c h T 0.7 Miles Battl e B Class: Arterial AADT: 21,000 to 40,000 Cou

Maintenance: NCDOT Road Footprint: 50-70 Feet west of Fordham 90100 Feet east of Fordham Speed Limit: 35 MPH Rashkis Right-of-Way Width: 100 Feet west of FordhamElementary 120 School Feet east of Fordham n

Christopher Rd Hayes Rd

Raleigh Road

Me ad ow mo n t Tra il

E Frankli

s Rd

Restrict Northbound Left Turn

S pring

Arbore tu

Purpose and need for improvements • Residents identified Raleigh Road in the online survey as one of the top corridors in the Town to improve to create a viable bicycle transportation network and improve bicyclist safety. Users of the online WikiMap also frequently called out this segment of Raleigh Road as a “Route I’d Like to Ride.” • The Chapel Hill 2020 plan called for “additional efforts, in partnership with property owners in the area, to identify sections to rezone and to provide enhanced connectivity for bicycles, transit, pedestrians, and vehicles using the complete streets approach.” Existing conditions (LTS 4) • 15-foot wide outside lanes west of Fordham with 12-13 foot wide outside lanes east of Fordham • 10-foot, two-way sidepaths exists west of Burning Tree on the north side and Hamilton Road on the south side • Sidewalks east of Burning Tree are generally 5-feet in width with a 2 foot planting strip on both sides m • Cloverleaf intersection design at Fordham is a high stress location for bicyclist Land Use: • The Chapel Hill 2020 plan envisions no changes west of Fordham Boulevard and designates the corridor east of Fordham as a focus area envisioning a mix of land uses consisting of medium to high density residential, commercial, office and institutional uses • There are limited curb cuts between intersections and left turns are restricted by a continuous median NCDOT complete streets potential classification: Suburban Boulevard or Parkway Under NCDOT’s classification scheme for Complete Streets, considering the adjoining land use, roadway characteristics, existing traffic volume and access management this roadway should be classified as a hybrid of the Urban/Suburban Boulevard and Parkway. The key difference between the two treatments is the treatment of bicyclists. The boulevard recommends 5-6 foot bicycle lanes (exclusive of gutter), 6-8 foot planter zone, and 6-8 foot sidewalks, while the parkway recommends removal of the bike lanes for 10-20 foot shared use paths on both sides of the roadway with a 8-30 foot planter zone. Raleigh Road is being constructed to Parkway standards east of Burning Greenway/Side Path Tree Drive.

Long Term

Pa r

ke r

Existing Facilities Natural Surface Path Bike Lane

Cut Sheet | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

Shared-Lane Marking

5’

14’

12’

13’

4’

10’

6’

5’

Short-term – Bicycle Climbing Lanes (LTS 3) and Sidewalk improvement (LTS 2) In the near term, it is recommended the roadway be reconfigured to provide a minimum 6 foot climbing bicycle lane with downhill shared lane marked with shared lane markings west of the UNC Spangler Center. The shared lane marking should be located a minimum of six feet from face of curb to guide faster moving bicyclists away from drainage grates. It is also recommended that the existing sidewalks be targeted for spot repair and maintenance to provide a facility for those bicyclists who do not feel comfortable sharing the roadway with motor vehicles. The full width of the sidewalk should be usable, and the pavement should be smooth. To the east of the UNC Spangler Center, and through the Fordham Boulevard interchange, construction of a sidepath is recommended on the south side of the road to continue the existing path at Hamilton Road. Consideration should be given to the removal of the eastbound right turn lane from Fordham Boulevard to the Exxon Gas Station at Hamilton Road to create space for the path extension. Implementation challenges: • To maintain 11 foot travel lanes west of the interchange, the continuous median would require narrowing • Extending the sidepaths through and east of the interchange may require travel lane narrowing to 10 feet to allow existing sidewalks to be widened to 8 or 10 feet. Probable construction cost: $208,740. Right-of-way is not impacted if eastbound right turn lane is removed otherwise an additional 10-15 feet of land may be required.

10’

5’ 3’ 6’

11’

10’

11’

10’

11’

6’

5’

10’

Long term – Bicycle Climbing Lanes (LTS 3) and Sidepaths ( LTS 1) In the longer term, it is recommended sidepaths be completed on both sides of the roadway as a complement to the on-road bicycle climbing lane. Portions of the sidepath could be developed in partnership with the redevelopment of the Glen Lennox property. The intersection of Fordham Boulevard should also be reconfigured to improve non-motorized safety. Additionally, pedestrian-scale lighting is recommended to improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. Implementation challenges: • Reconstruction of the roadway edges between the curb and the right-of-way line will require: - Tree removal and utility pole relocations - Significant re-grading which may require retaining walls in spot locations west of Fordham Boulevard - Potential median reconstruction - Interchange reconstruction •

Right-of-way acquisition may be desirable to provide wider planter zones between the roadway and sidewalk or sidepaths.

Probable construction cost: $807,380 without pedestrian scale lighting, $2,984,380 with pedestrian scale lighting.

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Cut Sheet

Lake Ellen D

nta

in R d

Maintenance: NCDOT Road Footprint: 22 feet west of Caswell Road, 28 to 35 feet east of Caswell Road Speed Limit: 35 MPH Right-of-Way Width: 60 to 80 feet

Kin Luther

North Estes Dr d g Jr Blv

Estes Elementary School

tor nnec

Phillips Middle School

N Elliott Rd

N Estes Dr

d e ve l o p

Fordham B lvd Hickory D r

Community Park

Indian S pring lt Dr

E Franklin

S Es tes Dr

s Rd

H il l s b o r o u g h

Restrict Northbound Left Turn

Ro o

Cleland Dr

Christopher Rd Hayes Rd

e Ral

dar

n rso

oun

nde

Purpose and need for improvements • Residents identified Estes Drive as one of the top three most important streets to making bicycling better in Chapel Hill. It is the only through street in this middle section of Town. • Estes Drive was also identified as a high-stress route that many residents who ride feel is unsafe, and residents who do not ride, believe St ra St to be unsafe. rth o ary ran c h T N t m B S Existing conditions e r os Battl e St Carfacilities are present E R in this • No bicycle lin section of Estes Drive. Bicyclists share the roadway with motor vehicles in lanes that vary from 11 k n ra feet to 17 feet in width. EF • In the 22-foot segment, there is a four-foot sidewalk present Counon the south side of the roadway. There are five-foot sidewalks present on St try ryof the roadway for the rest of the segment. a both esides Clu e Av s m bR t o n bike lanes with redevelopment S R o LandWUse: r n i e kl anNorth Camby single family homes that are far set back from the roadway. • MuchFrof Estes Drive is bordered Lana W rk Rd • The Chapel Hill Public Library is at the eastern end of this segment, and the Phillips Middle School and Estes HillA Elementary d Rd School are a e r d r h o w R R aleigh located near the intersections with Caswell Road. South Rd the Central West e • A large, undeveloped parcel at the western end of the segment will be developed over the next decade through v A n development ero plan. Stad NCDOTCcomplete streets potential classification: am ium St y W Dr Under NCDOT’s classification the adjoining land use, roadway characteristics, existing traffic ule scheme for Complete Streets, considering a C c volume and access M management this roadway should be classified as an Urban/Suburban Residential Avenue. The Avenue recommends e Ri d g L widening to 20 feet where mixed use development Pr 5-6 foot bicycle lanes (exclusive of gutter), 6-8 foot planter zone, and 6-8 foot sidewalks es tw adjacent. Glenwood St

rch

igh

Chu

ae l rm Ca

Dr East

Ski p

Cut Sheet | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

Elementary School

ich

M a n ning

n rdi

Mason Farm Rd

il l

Pittsboro

el H aur

l Pau

m bia St

a rah

UNC Main Campus

Hamilton Rd

N Roberson St

Hillview Rd

ay enw e Gr

e Cr n i l o B

Willow Dr

EF ra nk

lin

Chapel Hill Library

y wit h facilit ke

pus am

b Do

ion ect t onn en ay c lopm enw eve gre th red wi

Future Carolina North Campus

Curtis Rd

Limits: Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to East Franklin Street, 1.8 miles Class: Arterial AADT: 15,000 to 17,000

Martin

ail

ke s

Taylor St

re D

Rd ek

Ma n D r nin

Old

ic k

Cross section is between Library Drive to Halifax Road

15’

11’

7’

5’

Short-term – Bicycle Lanes (LTS 2), Climbing Lanes (LTS 3) and Shared Use Path (LTS 1) on Phillips Middle School and Estes Hill Elementary School property In the near term, it is recommended that the 22-foot segment of Estes Drive be widened to provide bicycle lanes from the eastern intersection with Caswell Road to accommodate the addition of six-foot bike lanes. To the east of this facility, climbing lanes are recommended from Franklin Street to the west through adding markings. Additionally, a shared use path across the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools property that connects the front of Phillips Middle School to Elliott Road. This path will formalize an informal trail that exists on the property today. Implementation challenges: • Widening the roadway may involve significant grading and filling, utility relocation and tree removal. Probable construction cost: $1,805,100

6’

11’

10’

11’

6’

8’

10’

Long term – Bike lanes (LTS 2) and Sidepath (LTS 1) In the longer term, it is recommended to install bike lanes from East Franklin Street to the eastern intersection with Caswell Road to create a continuous facility for the length of this segment. This will require roadway widening in some segments. Additionally, a sidepath is recommended on the north side of the roadway that will connect the CHCS property through the Central West development to Martin Luther King Boulevard. This provides a separated facility for those riders who do not feel comfortable on the roadway and connects the schools with new mixed-use development. Implementation challenges: • Road widening to accommodate bike lanes may require right-of-way acquisition. • Construction of the sidepath on the north side of the roadway may necessitate significant grading and a retaining wall. Probable construction cost: $2,208,260.

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Cut Sheet

te Es

e Cr n i l o B

Rosemary Street

H il l s b o r o u g h

Maintenance: Town Road Footprint: 40 Feet Restrict Speed Limit: 25 MPH Northbound Right-of-Way Width: 44-50 Feet

dD ar

Ski p

m b i a St

on Fa

rm Rd

Rd foy e r u

M o r ga n

MERRITT’S PASTURE

Ma r nnin D r Bowl e s g

Rd ek e r C

r ke Co

Ashe

Dr East

M a n ning

N Roberson St

r Connecto ampus

pu s to C

SC ol u

m bia St

Pittsboro

il l

el H aur

n rdi

d ett R

Ri d g

Mas

l Pau

rov e

ra n

Stad ium

b Hi

d n er Cir

South

ga or

l ai Tr ch Cut Sheet | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

yS dar oun

UNC Main Campus

Mason Farm Rd

Culbreth Middle School

Coun try Clu bR

ve nA

ero

t yS u le a C Mc

hS eig Ral

rch Chu

a rah

Cobble Rid g

e Dr

Cam

Ave n ro

Purpose and need for improvements me abicycle • In the Rosemary Imagined planning process, improved C W residents access and infrastructure is one of the top five items want to see on Rosemary Street. Existing conditions (LTS 3) • Wide outside lanes (20 feet) mean that bicyclists and motor vehicles share an undefined space which can lead to unpredictable behavior by both parties. • Intermittent parking causes many bicyclists to weave in and out of the parking lane, creating situations that can lead to ill M conflicts between bicyclists and drivers. t rit to enter businesses, • Many driveways cross sidewalks er M residences and parking lots along Rosemary Street. • No designated bicycle facilities or markings exist. Land Use: • There are a number of small retail and office uses along Rosemary Street today, plus some multi-unit housing, both Frank Porter apartments and condominiums. Shortbread Lofts, an 85-unit Fo Graham apartment building with rground dh floor retail, is scheduled to openElementary in June 2014. am • Surface parking is present throughout the corridor in the form Bl of private and University-owned lots. vd is developing a • The Rosemary Imagined planning process future vision for the corridor which will guide its development M corridor to over the next 20 years into a vibrant, parallel Franklin Street. NCDOT Complete Streets potential classification: n Streets, Under NCDOT’s classification scheme for Complete C ree kT considering the adjoining land use, roadway characteristics, existing traffic volume and access management this roadway rai should be classified as an Urban/Suburban Main Street. The main Cu re th R street recommends a lowlbspeed environment with 6 foot bicycle d lanes (exclusive of gutter) and 10 foot motor vehicle lanes or a wide shared curb lane. r

ry ma

ose St ER klin n a r EF

ose St WR lin k n ra WF

E Main St

r St

n rso nde He

rth

Car

ry ma

Left Turn

Limits: South Columbia Street to East Main Street, 0.6 Miles Class: Collector AADT: 8,500-9,000

Woo

5’ 3’

6’ 3’

10’

3’ 6’

3’ 5’

Short term – Buffered Bicycle Lane (LTS 1) In the short term, buffered bicycle lanes are recommended to create more consistent traffic patterns for bicyclists and motor vehicles. The 40-foot roadway allows for buffered bike lanes in each direction which will provide a comfortably separated facility for bicyclists creating a high quality and comfortable alternative to Franklin Street. At intersections requiring left turn lanes, the bicycle lane can be narrowed to 5 feet. Implementation challenges: • This design necessitates removal of 8-15 existing on-street parking spaces. • Provisions for large vehicle loading within the bicycle lane or on side streets may be required for some properties Probable construction cost: $60,400

5’ 3’

6’ 3’

10’

3’ 6’

3’ 5’

Long-term – Cycle Track (LTS 1) In the long term, Rosemary Street can become part of the downtown cycle track network. By providing a fully separated, low-stress bike facility, a wider range of riders will be drawn to ride on Rosemary Street. This design with one-way cycle tracks on either side of the road would narrow the roadway to 22 feet, maintaining 11-foot motor vehicle travel lanes. Implementation challenges: • If a grade-separated design is desired, reconstruction of the roadway edges to extend into the current roadway will require: - Utility pole relocations - Street tree relocation • It would be desirable to consolidate some driveway entrances along the corridor to decrease the number of opportunities of interrupting the protected bicycle facility. • Provisions for large vehicle loading may be required for some properties Probable construction cost: $1,468,140

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Cut Sheet

Maintenance: Town Road Footprint: 46 Feet St y Speed ar Limit: 25 MPH m e Right-of-Way s t Width: 85 Feet

lin k n ra WF

SG a rah

ro e m

Pittsboro

St y e l Cau c M

NCDOT complete streets potential classification:

C a m Rd

Cut Sheet | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

Culbre

nC reek Tra i

Rd y fo ure

ga or

m b i a St

b Hi

SC ol u

Mason Farm Rd

M ann

East

pu s t o C S

Fo rd h

UNC Main Campus

t mS

Mi t t ri er M

Cam

ve A n

a C W

Purpose and need for improvements • This segment of Cameron Avenue is already the most highly traveled street by bicyclists in Town, and it provides a vital connection between the Libba Cotton Bikeway and the UNC campus. • Users of the online interactive WikiMap called out West Cameron Avenue as a street that they already ride, but users were divided over whether it is high- or low-stress. • The intersections with Pittsboro Street and Merritt Mill Road were some of the most-frequently commented upon dangerous intersections on the WikiMap. Right-turning vehicles create conflicts for eastbound bicyclists at Pittsboro Street, and there is no direction given to bicyclists and drivers about how to interact in the Merritt Mill/Cameron intersection. Existing conditions (LTS 3) • Five-foot bike lanes are provided on both sides of the street from Pittsboro Street to Merritt Mill Road bordering a ten-foot parking lane on the north side of the street, and the curb on the south side. k Porter• No bicycle facilities exist on the block from South Columbia Street to Pittsboro Street. aham • Motor vehicle travel lanes are 13 feet wide. mentary• Pavement conditions along the south side bike lane are not good. Land Use: • Single-family housing lines much of West Cameron Ave. Most of these homes have parking in driveways and garages. Some larger homes are fraternities. • The 123 West Franklin property backs up on West Cameron Ave which is slated for redevelopment within the next 10 years which may include the addition of a north-south roadway connection along the Pritchard Avenue alignment. • The UNC Cogeneration Plant is located at the west end of the street, and a UNC faculty/staff parking lot is located across the street.

Ave n ro

m bia St

E Main St

Limits: South Columbia Street to Merritt Mill Road, 0.6 Miles Class: Collector Ro W AADT: 7,500-9,500

N Roberson St

tor c e n n o C s ampu

West Cameron Street

S rch Chu

Car

ary m ose R St E n i nkl a r EF

h eig Ral

r St

M o r ga n

MERRITT’S

8’

10’

6’ 18”

11’

6’ 18” 8’

10’

8’

Short-term – Buffered Bicycle Lane (LTS 1) In the short term, buffered bicycle lanes are recommended to create a more comfortable facility for the high volume of bicycle traffic that travels this corridor daily. With this type of facility, groups of students will be able to ride together more safely two abreast. It is also recommended that the intersection at Merritt Mill Road be redesigned in the short term to facilitate a safe, predictable connection to the Libba Cotton Bikeway. Implementation challenges: • Completing the missing block between Pittsboro Street and South Columbia Street will require removal of a travel lane, which will require further study. Probable construction cost: $41,940

8’

10’

11’

10’

6’

10’

6’

8’

Long-term – Cycle Track (LTS 1) In the long term, Cameron Avenue can become part of the downtown cycle track network. By providing a fully separated, low-stress bike facility, a wider range of riders will be drawn to ride on Cameron Avenue, and the current dangerous intersection conflicts at Pittsboro Street will be eliminated. This design recommends a two-way cycle track on the north side of the street for the full length of the segment from South Columbia Street to Merritt Mill Road. Implementation challenges: • Reconstruction of the roadway edges between the curb and the right-of-way line will require: - Utility pole relocations - Street tree relocation - Grading and possible retaining walls in the block from South Columbia Street to Pittsboro Street. • The design necessitates the relocation of all on-street parking from the north side of the street to the south side of the street. Probable construction cost: $848,520

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Cut Sheet

Potential long term reconfiguration of the intersection of Merritt Mill Road and West Cameron to connect Libba Cotten Greenway to West Cameron Cycle Track.

The existing brick sidewalk at this intersection becomes a paved cycle track and is realigned to intersect more safely with the Libba Cotton Bikeway.

100

Cut Sheet | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Cut Sheet

101

Bo l i n H il l s b o r o u g h

West and East Franklin Street

AADT: 13,000 to 14,000 Restrict Maintenance: NCDOT Northbound Road Footprint: 56 Feet Speed Limit: 20 MPH Left Turn Right-of-Way Width: 100 Feet

d n er Cir

r dD ar

Culbreth

m b i a St

SC ol u

m bia St

Ga r

Cut Sheet | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

Ski p

102

M a n ning

e Dr

Culbre th

nC reek Tra i

Mason Farm Rd

Mas

Ri d g

on Fa

M o r ga n

MERRITT’S PASTURE

r Bowl e s

rm Rd

d yR o f ure

ga or

Stad ium

n rdi

South

pu s to C

Pittsboro

St ley u a C Mc

East

N Roberson St

r Connecto s u p m a

UNC Main Campus

Cam

Ave

l Pau

Fo rd h

t yS

a rah

Purpose and need for improvements • Residents identified this segment of Franklin Street as one the most important streets to improve to create a viable bicycle transportation network and improve bicyclist safety • Online map users also called it out as a high-stress route due to riding along parked cars and sharing a narrow lane with motor vehicle traffic. • Over the years for which bicycle ill rash data is available, 2007 to 2011, this segment of rFranklin tt M Street had the highest density i of crashes with 10 *** er M Existing conditions (LTS 4) • No bicycle facilities exist in this segment today. • Four ten-foot travel lanes with eight-foot full- or part-time onstreet parallel parking also available west of Raleigh Street on one or both sides. Land Use: Frank Porter • This is one of the busiest commercial corridors in Town from Graham approximately Henderson Street to the Carrboro border with Elementary many small retail businesses. • In the eastern end of this segment, the UNC campus adjoins the south side of the road which a number of fraternities and sororities are located on the north. NCDOT complete streets potential classification: Under NCDOT’s classification scheme for Complete Streets, considering the adjoining land use, roadway characteristics, existing traffic volume and access management this roadway should be classified as an Urban/Suburban Main Street. The main street recommends a low speed environment with 6 foot bicycle lanes (exclusive of gutter) and 10 foot motor vehicle lanes or a wide shared curb lane.

n ero

Ave n ero

am WC

Coun try Clu bR

S rch Chu

ose t ER in S l k ran EF

ose St R W lin k n ra WF

E Main St

ry ma

dar

r St

Car

ry ma

h eig Ral

h ort

o un SB

n rso nde He

Limits: Boundary Street to Merritt Mill Road, 1.3 Miles Class: Arterial

d kR e Cre

r ke

5’

11’

10’-6”

11’

5’

8’

Short-term – Priority Shared Lane (LTS 3) In the short term, priority shared lane markings are recommended in the curb lane in both directions. These markings encourage bicyclists to “take the lane” which is important in this segment where parallel parked cars create the danger of bicyclists being hit by opening car doors. The recommended green paint backing the shared lane markings will make a highly visible shared facility for bicyclists. Implementation challenges: • The Town will need to apply for an experimentation permit from the Federal highway Administration to use green paint to back the shared lane markings. FHWA has granted a number of these in the last five years to communities throughout the country, and examples are available here: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/orsearch.asp Probable construction cost: $138,450

Conceptual renderings of Priority Shared Lane

5’

11’

5’

8’

Long-term – Bicycle Lanes (LTS 2) In the long term, the Town should investigate the feasibility of completing a road diet for this segment of Franklin Street to provide enough space for bike lanes on both sides of the street. The road diet would remove one travel lane in either direction and add a center left turn lane. Parking would be maintained in most locations where it is currently in place. Implementation challenges: • The Town will need to complete a full traffic study of this corridor to assess whether a road diet is a feasible treatment here. Probable construction cost: $213,200

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Cut Sheet

103

Ephesus Church Rd

EF ra nk lin

g io nR d

Curtis Rd

Ephesus Elementary School

d e ve l o p

lt Dr ve

Ro o

Cleland Dr

Christopher Rd Hayes Rd

oun

SB dar yS t

e Ral igh St

Coun try Clu bR

Rashkis Elementary School

bike lanes with redevelopment

ree Dr Burning T

ve nA

ero

Cam

ra ran c h T Battl e B

Meado w

t ry S ma ose St klin ran EF

Fordham Bl vd Hickory D r

Indian S pring

s Rd

H il l s b o r o u g h

Restrict Northbound Left Turn

S Es tes Dr

Community Park

Dr Long Leaf

Pinehurst Dr

e Cr

E Franklin

Bo l i n

y nwa ee r G

Hillview Rd

Willow Dr

nt Ln mo

Me ad ow mo n t Tra il

in R d nta

ou yM ne Pi

Dr opa Eur

ion ect t onn en ay c lopm enw eve gre th red wi

Hill Library

Hamilton Rd

m bia St

Purpose and need for improvements Lana rk Rd • Residents identified this segment of Franklin Street asArone the important streets to improve to create a viable bicycle ad Rmost d e d UNC Main r h o w R R h a t l eighsafety. transportation Sou network and improve bicyclist Rd Campus • Online map users called it out as a high-stress route due to high-speed, high-volume traffic, and large curves in the road. Sprun tS • ThisStasegment provides access from downtown to important destinations such as the Town Library and Community Park. diu t m Dr Existing conditions (LTS 4) e • No bicycle facilities segment today. Ri d gexist in this L • Four 10 – 14 foot travel lanes are present for motor vehicle traffic throughout thePresegment with a 10 – 13 foot center existing st E Bturn arbeelane Cha w Glenwood p ick turn lane. from Deming Road to the east. Several pedestrian refuge islandsElementary exist within the center o Rd School • Five-foot sidewalks are present Ron both sides of the roadway. Obstructions and lack of maintenance make the effective width as little d as two feet in some sections. Dr • ManThere ning is a significant grade change over this segment with the western end being approximately 140 feet of elevation lost from Rd igh e l Boundary Street to Bolin Creek. a Rd R Land Use: Ma • bb The western end homes set back from the roadway, some of which front on side r nnin is bordered by large-lot single-family p e of this segment Old r Bowl e s D Hi gD M streets. Multi-family residential exists at Deming Road. as r o n Farm Rd • There are a few small businesses toward the eastern end of the segment. Mascomplete streets potential classification: NCDOT on Fa rm R r d Under NCDOT’s classification schemebifor ne DComplete Streets, considering the adjoining land use, roadway characteristics, existing traffic ood roadway should be classified as an Urban/Suburban Boulevard. The boulevard recommends 5-6 foot d Wthis R volume and access management y o Dr bicycle lanes (exclusive of gutter), 6-8 foot planter zone, and 6-8 foot sidewalks with a median. er t

il l

ich

G o lf

104

Ashe

Kings Mill Rd

Laurel Hill Rd

TT’S URE

Cut Sheet | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

ORANGE COUNTY DURHAM COUNTY

Fin

ley

Ski p

Cours e Rd

n rdi

East

Rd el

el H aur

l Pau

M o r ga n C

d kR ree

Lane, 65 Feet from Howell Road to Bolin Creek feet Do Speed Limit: 30 mph from Boundary Street to Deming Road; 35 mph from Deming to the east Right-of-Way Width: 70 Feet Boundary to Howell Lane, 100 Feet from Howell Road to Bolin Creek y wit h facilit ke

Limits: Bolin Creek Trail to Boundary Street, 1.1 Miles Phillips Estes Elementary Middle Class: School Arterial School N Elliott Rd AADT: 16,000-18,000 N Estes Dr Maintenance: NCDOT Road Footprint: 43-50 Feet Chapel Boundary to Howell

Old

East Franklin Street

Old Durham Rd

t rlet

Rd ns

i bb

r sD

Sca

n Erwi

ke s

Lake Ellen Dr

5’

11’

10’-6”

11’

5’

8’

Short-term – Improved Sidewalks (LTS 4) In the short term, it is recommended that the existing sidewalks be targeted for spot repair and maintenance to provide a facility for those bicyclists who do not feel comfortable sharing the roadway with motor vehicles. The full width of the sidewalk should be usable, and the pavement should be smooth. Where feasible, the sidewalk should be widened to 8 feet to meet minimum AASHTO standards for sidepaths. Implementation challenges: • Installation of lighting may require full replacement of sidewalks. Should reconstruction be required, a feasibility study should determine the viability of widening the sidewalks to 8 -10 feet throughout the corridor or relocate the curb line to provide 6 foot bicycle lanes throughout if a road diet is deemed infeasible. • The roadway is not centered within the right-of-way resulting in some right-of-way lines aligning with the back edge of sidewalk which may limit sidewalk widening opportunities in some locations. Probable construction cost: $182,490

5’

11’

11’ 5’

5’

8’

Long-term – Bicycle Lanes (LTS 2) In the long term, the Town should investigate the feasibility of completing a road diet for this segment of Franklin Street to provide enough space for bike lanes on both sides of the street. The road diet could remove one travel lane in either direction, maintain the center turn lane and bike lanes. Buffered bike lanes are feasible where the roadway exceeds 48 feet in width. Additionally, pedestrian-scale lighting is recommended to improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. Implementation challenges: • The Town will need to complete a full traffic study of this corridor to assess whether a road diet is a feasible treatment here. Probable construction cost: $180,400

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Cut Sheet

105

e ov

Cre

ke s

re D

Rd ek

Win d

rd Fo

d eR

k er

n Rd

Erwi

Maintenance: NCDOT Dr Road Footprint: 65 Feet bbins o Speed Limit: 35 MPH D Right-of-Way Width: 100 Feet s in

Curtis Rd

Old Durham Rd

opa Eur

Limits: Booker Creek Trail crossing to Bolin Creek Trail crossing, 0.8 Miles Class: Arterial AADT: 20,000 to 22,000

t Dr rlet Sca

East Franklin Street

g io nR d

ion ect t onn en ay c lopm enw eve gre th red wi

N Elliott Rd

Ephesus Elementary School

Ephesus Church Rd

St in kl EF ra n

y wit h facilit ke

Chapel Hill Library

ary

d e ve l o p

Willow Dr Fordham B lvd Hickory D r

Community Park

S Es tes Dr

Pinehurst Dr

Hillview Rd

ay enw

Dr Long Leaf

lt Dr

106

Cut Sheet | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

rk Rd

Meado w

Sprun tS

ea do w mo n t T ra il

Raleig h

Lana

amilton Rd

Arro w h ead Rd

ree Dr Burning T

Christopher Rd Hayes Rd

Ro o

E Franklin

s Rd

Purpose and need for improvements Indian S pring • Residents identified this segment of Franklin Street as one the most important streets to improve to create a viable bicycle transportation network and improve bicyclist safety. • This segment connects two of the premier bicycle facilities in Town: the Booker Creek Greenway and the Bolin Creek Greenway. There is no existing connection between the two of them. Existing conditions (LTS 4) Cleland Dr • No bicycle facilities exist along this segment today. • Four 11 – 14 foot travel lanes are present for motor vehicle traffic throughout the segment with a 13 foot center left turn lane. Several pedestrian refuge islands exist in the center turn lane. • Five-foot sidewalks are present on both sides of the roadway. Land Use: • Land uses are mixed throughout this corridor. Most adjacent properties are commercial with a few multi-family residences located near the intersection with Conner Drive on the north side of the roadway. • The Chapel Hill 2020 plan calls for redevelopment near the eastern end of this corridor in the Ephesus-Fordham plan which will bring ra more residential uses an ctohtheT area. r Rashkis NCDOT complete streets potential classification: Battl e B Elementary Under NCDOT’s classification scheme for Complete Streets, considering the adjoining land use, roadway characteristics, existing traffic School volume and access management this roadway should be classified as a hybrid of the Urban/Suburban Boulevard and Parkway cross n sections. The key difference between the two treatments is the treatment of bicyclists. The boulevard recommends 5-6 foot bicycle lanes ont L m (exclusive of gutter), 6-8 foot planter zone, and 6-8 foot sidewalks, while the parkway recommends removal of the bike lanes for 10-20 foot shared use paths on both sides of the roadway with a 8-30 foot planter zone. Franklin Street transitions to a more limited access roadway at bike lanes with redevelopm Durham Chapel Hill Boulevard where the Chapel Hill Bicycle Plan envisions bicycleent accommodations on adjacent service roads.

5’ 2’

14’

12’

14’

5’

10’

Short-term – Sidepath (LTS 1) In the short term, it is recommended that a sidepath be constructed on the north side of this segment to connect the two greenways at either end. This off-road facility will provide bicyclists with a consistent, low stress facility type for their entire trip if they are traveling on the Town Greenway System. Implementation challenges: • Reconstruction of the roadway edges between the curb and the right-of-way line will require: - Utility pole relocations - Street tree relocation -Right-of-way acquisition • Driveway and intersection crossings of the sidepath will need to be thoughtfully designed to ensure that drivers are aware of potential bicyclists crossing their path of travel. Probable construction cost: $1,101,680

5’ 2’ 6’

11’

10’

11’

6’

5’

10’

Long-term – Sidepath (LTS 1)and Buffered Bike Lanes (LTS 1) Buffered bike lanes should be provided in the long term through narrowing of the travel and center turn lanes in this segment. The buffer will create additional space between bicyclists and high-speed, high-volume traffic here. Bicyclists will also still have the option to ride on the north side sidepath if they choose. Implementation challenges: • The existing pedestrian islands will need to be reconstructed and narrowed to enable narrowing of the center turn lane. Probable construction cost: $105,840

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Cut Sheet

107

Public Engagement Summary Appendix A Chapter 1 of the Bike Plan document provides an overview of the stakeholder and public outreach process. This appendix provides more detail on all of the outreach mechanisms that helped shape the recommendations of the Plan.

Public Open Houses Two public open houses were held for the Plan: Bike to the Future I on May 10, 2013 and Bike to the Future II on October 24, 2013. Outreach was conducted for the first open house through the Plan Facebook group, local bicycle organizations, contacts of the Steering Committee, and the Town Twitter account. The second open house was also advertise to attendees of the first one, plus those respondents to the online survey who elected to be contacted for further involvement in the Plan. Bike to the Future I included a number of interactive stations and also presentations on bicycle planning. Those speakers were: Dr. John Pucher, Professor, Urban Planning and Policy Development Program and Research Associate, Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center (visiting professor at UNC-Chapel Hill, AY 2012-13); Bill Schultheiss, Senior Engineer, Toole Design Group; and Ed Harrison, Councilmember, Town of Chapel Hill. The interactive stations included: •

Question Wall: Attendees responded via writing on a wall to open-ended questions about biking in Chapel Hill.

•

Bicycle Facility Showcase: Attendees learned about different types of bike facilities and had the opportunity to ask the consultant team about the details of each.

•

Map Tables: Participants gave input on existing conditions and desired improvements by drawing on large maps and talking with facilitators from the consultant team.

•

WikiMap: Attendees used computer stations to share comments and ideas through the project’s online mapping tool.

Overall, input received through this event was similar to that received later on the online survey. Attendees were concerned about safety and the disconnected nature of streets and bike facilities in Town. Most comments about improvements that could lead to more biking centered on physical infrastructure recommendations, such as bike lanes and improved sidewalks. Most of the streets noted as the best for riding in town were those with any kind of bicycle infrastructure, and many were actually in Carrboro. The full results of the Question Wall are presented (unedited) in the tables below. Some attendees added check marks next to others’ responses which are included as “Additional votes” in some of the tables. Bike to the Future II was held to present the draft recommendations for public comment. Feedback was requested through a number of exercises. Attendees selected priority program and policy recommendations and potential funding sources with dot voting. [tables: funding sources; programs] An interactive money-based activity was used to prioritize physical network recommendations. Attendees received $200,000 each to “spend” on any one or selection of ten projects. Two options were presented for each corridor, and attendees were given information about the action needed to implement that facility, e.g. lane narrowing or removal. [table: network priorities]

108

Appendices | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

What keeps you from biking more in Chapel Hill? High-speed main routes (40+ mph) without a shoulder or lane Weather Hills NO BIKE LANES!!! lack of connected facilities lack of bike tripped traffic signals fear Disconnected segments Auto traffic and no bike lanes traffic (no room on road) fast traffic not enough room (on Estes especially) lack of sharrow markings and slow speeds nothing - but I go out of my way to avoid some roads car speeds, lack of bike parking, not enough bike lanes separate from cars rough, pot-holey roads The horror that is E. Franklin My age Buses Don't want to leave my children motherless Arthritic knee no shower/locker room facilities for work commuters wider right lanes would help immensely terrain and lack of dedicated bike facilities when utility trucks park in bike "lane" safety immature bike infrastructure distance distracted/aggressive drivers terrible infrastructure motorist attitude towards cyclists (make cycling education part of drivers test) I have to work cannot go with my family/young kids safety on streets lack of good bike parking! traffic, bike unfriendly drivers high speed traffic, safety

Additional votes 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Who do you bike with? alone husband mostly myself alone alone/friends wife teends friends (especially ones visiting from out of town) sometimes w grand kids I did with my sons; they lost interest after being hit by cars on bikes -trashed their bikes and helmet. They now only walk. self, family, friends, group Used to bike with pre-teen daughter. After several frightening and aggressive interactions with car drivers, she will no longer bike with me. The Tarwheels children: 4yrs, 8yrs my family fellow bike commuters groups such as Tarwheels or TORC occasional herds of deer family, wife, self family, friends everyone else on their way to work 2 young boys (3, 5) and my spouse my husband (tandem) Tuesday cruiser rides from Back Alley Bike Shop

Why do you bike?

Additional votes

exercise/fun exercise commuting, recreation, shopping avoids parking problems health, exercise, saves money, good for environments economical road rides -- exercise free! Healthy save planet low carbon -- at least with restpec to fossil fuel tour the area short shopping trips environment, health and it's FUN easy to park a bike downtown and UNC campus efficiency and fun fittness, fun, transportation I'm cheap: don't want to pay for gas, car maintenance or gym commute, fun, green, stylish hooked on endorphins best way to stay fit and save money for the faily commue to work feet up, WHEEE fitness program -- it makesme happy, it's a stress reliever as well fittness, grocery shopping, work fast and convenient prefer it to cars -- keps me healthy, happy, costs less than car, allows me to see more and often is more efficient no marking on campus/no car fun, fitness, enjoy the outdoors and being "car free" fun, fitness, togetherness (tandem), less CO2 cheap, makes me feel good it's my religion! cheaper, built-in exercise, green commute to work Additional errands votes exercise around 3 commute, exercise, fun, environment 2 because it's fun (10 y.o. boy) 2 to go places (everywhere!)

4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

2 2 1

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Appendices

109

How would you prioritize spending public funds to improve biking? More connectivity No straightforward way to get to Durham, and we all go there from time to time (or every day) Bike education -- including courses for teens in Drivers Ed, etc include the consideration of complete streets as a necessary element in approval process for all new roads and resurfacing projects Painting/marking roadways speed camera traps Estes Drive Extension C2C connector More signage More real bike lanes not shared with cars and buses

Additional votes 8 3 2

work with OWASA ROW to speed up greenway/bike path construction more dedicated bike facilities (lanes, tracks, greenways) especially to Durham and Carrboro Traffic calming -- slower speed in town Connectivity to Durham and Jordan Lake: Ephesus Church, Erwin, Farrington, Barbee Chapel -- piggy-back on new road construction build current sidewalks to leave room for bike lanes later make intersections safer for cyclists short greenway connections identify problem areas (like how to get across 501 in order to get to UNC or downtown) and make those areas safer for bikes decrease motor vehicle speeds include cycling education as part of drivers license exam and teach bike safety in school create bike paths away from roads look at the total cost: wider roads have proven to increase traffic and congestion, road diets improve throughput and reduce maintenance costs bike light give-aways/installation = safer cyclists and free education make key connections for desirable parts of town complete greenway connections

110

Appendices | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

What is the worst road to bike on in Town and why? Outer Jones Ferry 15-501 to Durham 15/501 from Manning to Glen Lennox 15/501/54 intersection 15-501 bypass 54 out towards I-40 54/40! Anywhere on UNC campus E Franklin, Estes, MLK: no bike lanes, unsafe East Franklin -- try it. Estes -- hills and too many fast moving cars Estes Dr (esp. extension): very narrow, fast, dangerous! Estes Dr: too narrow and too wide (fast traffic on downhill) Fordham/15-501 FranklinSt FranklinSt Homestead Rd: crazy car drivers Hwy 54; 15-501: too much traffic going too fast for a bike to be next to a spartan bike lane or shoulder Main St in Carrboro near town hall: potholes, etc Manning Drive MLK Blvd and E Franklin St near University Mall/Eastgate -- terrifying with traffic MLK Jr Blvd Rosemary Street -- too many reasons Rosemary: potholes by Lutheran church Rosemary: there should eb a bike lane so you don't have to wait behind fuming cars on the westbound hill toward Columbia. Also the light at Roberson is not long enough. Smith Level in Carrboro, but it's changing!

Additional votes 5 3 2 2 2

What's the best way to get more people on bikes? more bikes lanes! Educate public on how to drive with bikes on the road bike lanes separate bike paths since most people fear traffic/cars bike routes that lead to useful destinations like shops, offices etc increase the price of gas and parking Safe bike lanes/routes easy intuitive connectivity charge more for car parking focus on commuting instead of greenways/recreation train/empower them with "cycling savvy" education less expensive bike shops, middle ground between ReCyclery and highend places Sidewalks on both sides of the road so little children can start biking bike education classes/repair slow down traffic to less than 25 mph make it safer, make it feel safer more bike lanes and trails get the police to stop harrassing legally riding cyclists -- car first mentality host traffic safety 101 classes lack of education about safety skills, lack of safety, more group rides urban density maps! bike lanes set apart from road like in the NL reduce stress level -- separate from high speed traffic bike mentor program geive folks free bikes teach bike maintenance greenways focus on commuting bike lanes that are marked (and colored green) continuing through intersections rebranding Chapel Hill = Bike City make access to businesses more bike friendly and less so for cars have businesses provide incentives for cyclists: coupons for kids riding to school; discounts for cyclists; see 'how to make your town bike mecca' in The Atlantic bike infrastructure share the infrastructure equally between bikes and cars provide infrastructure to make people feel safe enough to ride make biking SAFE

Additional votes 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

Where do you bike to? RTP, Weaver St Mkt, Town Hall Carrboro, community center, dairyland Weaver St Market Community Center on Estes, home and farm near Southpoint New Hope Commons, downtown, Maple View Farm RTP, Weaver St Mkt, Town Hall Pittsboro Hillsboro Culbreth St north of town for fun Farmers' market in Carrboro anywhere I can load up on free firewood in suburbia from UNC facilities complex to UNC main campus Duke Downton CH, Carrboro, UNC, bontanical garden campus, Weaver Dair Rd, Carrboro Town Hall Whole Foods Whole Foods, Harris Teeter, library UNC campus, Carrboro, grocery stores Saxapahaw, Carrboro Saxapahaw, Durham, Carrboro Weaver St Market Carrboro farmers market W Franklin St Timberlyne, Weaver St Market, University Mall Sheps Center, UNC campus, Carrboro library, doctor's office, pharmacy campus, library, NC Botanical Gardens Durham, Carrboro, Morrisville Morrisville, grocery store, restaurants downtown school of dentistry Estes Elementary School, Eastgate shopping center Bolin Trail to MLK Meadowmont to golf course/Botanical Garden UNC campus, Carrboro, Orange County All over town Campus Shopping in Carrboro Downtown/Carrboro Center Everywhere there's a road or path, surrounding towns, etc Downtown Chapel Hill UNC

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Appendices

111

112

What's the best biking city you've visited and what can Chapel Hill learn from them?

Additional What is your favorite road to bike on in town and why? votes

Chicago Yellow Springs, OH Carrboro! DC: slow, respectful traffic & mucho trail systems! Berlin: bike lanes everywhere Vienna: bike lanes between sidewealk and road separated from road by a curb, not a white line Portland, ORâ&#x20AC;Śbiggest hazards are the unleashed hipsters! Davis, CA Portland, Berlin, Amsterdam Fort Collins DC Vancouver DC area Eugene, OR Greensboro, NC -- lots of bike trails Bloomington, IN -- Breaking Away Interlaken, Switzerland The Hague: cycling was fully integrated into traffic fro the 70s. There the bike is'king' and autos not so much Santa Barbara, CA Amsterdam Carrboro! Copenhagen Sunnyside, WA and surrounding small towns Eastern part of Quebec: strong infrastructure realizing the economic benefit of bike tourists Sindelfingen, Germany: bike/ped bridges and underpasses across every arterial; separated cycle tracks; cycle streets where cars are allowed by bike/ped dominate; old Roman roads converted to extensive off road greenway system connecting towns for commuting; street/traffic laws that give bike/ped preference Austin, TX: connectivity and density and awesome buffered bike lanes Barcelona: bike share and tons of lanes

no favorites outside of neighborhood Ephesus Church until Durham Co. Kings Mill/Morgan Creek: lots of trees Laurel Hill Cameron: bike lanes, pretty Carolina North Carrboro only -- none in Chapel Hill Dairyland: beautiful views Elliott: wide and slow traffic Fordham Blvd (N): wide outside lanes and well swept Franklin St Franklin St - 4 lanes Greensboro St Greensboro St: bike lane Libba Cotton Bikeway my driveway N Greensboro in Carrboro N Greensboro St in Carrboro: it's cast, bike friendly (bike lanes and considerate motorists) and fun (sidewalks for on-foot traffic make it interesting to ride on N Greensboro) N. Greensboroâ&#x20AC;Ś and all back streets Pinehurst/Meadowmont: cuts around edge of town w wide lanes, speed bumps, roundabouts and bike lanes Rosemary St sometimes Lakeshore/Honeysuckle is nice the road with the least number of cars Turkey Farm Rd Umstead creek: pretty and smooth Weaver Dairy Ext West Main in Carrboro (good bike lanes)

Appendices | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

2 1 1 1

Online Presence A website and Facebook group were developed for the Bike Plan. The website was part of the Town of Chapel Hill website, linked from the Design Chapel Hill page and available directly at www.townofchapelhill.org/bikeplan. This site provided an overview of the plan process, updates on Plan meetings, and links to the online survey and Wikimap. The Plan Facebook group was used to advertise events and provide follow up to those events. It was also used as an outreach vehicle to advertise the online survey and Wikimap.

WikiMap Online Interactive Map An online interactive map tool, the WikiMap, was available for Town feedback from May through August 2013. The map gathered feedback in a number of point and line categories that users added to the map and made comments on. Chapter 1 details feedback received through the WikiMap and includes information about the characteristics of users. Full results of the WikiMap geographic data and its surveys are available in the GIS and Excel files that accompany this plan.

Online Survey An online survey gathered feedback about current bicycling conditions, visions for the future, and opinions about bicycling infrastructure choices in Chapel Hill from early July to mid-August 2013. Over 600 respondents completed the survey. Full Survey Gizmo results are in the following pages. [insert pdf of survey output]

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Appendices

113

Appendix B

Chapel Hill Bicycle Facility Design Approach This appendix provides an overview of the guidelines and standards applicable to designing bicycle facilities on the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) Campus. Following these standards and guidelines will allow UNC-CH staff to work with Town of Chapel Hill and North Carolina Department of Transportation staff to move forward with confidence that what they are doing is consistent with the latest thinking on safely accommodating bicycles.

B.1 NATIONAL GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS The AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities provides design and construction guidelines, and operation and maintenance recommendations for bicycle facilities. The 1999 Guide has been revised, and the new edition is undergoing final balloting by the AASHTO subcommittee on design, and has an expected release in summer 2012. The MUTCD 2009 edition provides standards for signs, signals, and pavement markings in the United States. These latest guidelines and standards provide clarity and additional guidance for on-street bicycle facilities, addressing many of the issues and questions on which the previous guidance was silent. Supplemental information on standard and experimental treatments can also be found in the National Association of Town Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide. Following these standards and guidelines will allow local agencies to move forward with confidence that what they are doing is consistent with the latest thinking on safely accommodating bicycles. Furthermore, it is important for all departments and agencies involved in implementing this Plan to follow the latest standards and guidelines to ensure that facilities throughout the network are designed in a uniform manner.

Guide to the Development of Bicycle Facilities. AASHTO AASHTO is a not-for-profit, nonpartisan association representing state highway and transportation departments. It publishes a variety of planning and design guides, including the 1999 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, and the recent update to that guide, which is expected to be published in summer 2012. This

114

Appendices | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

guide provides planning and design guidance for on- and off-street bicycle facilities. It is not intended to set absolute standards, but rather to present sound guidelines that will be valuable in attaining good design sensitive to the needs of both bicyclists and other roadway users. The provisions in the Guide are consistent with and similar to normal roadway engineering practices. Signs, signals, and pavement markings for bicycle facilities should be used in conjunction with the MUTCD. Key provisions in the AASHTO Bike Guide include: •

Bicycle planning, including types of planning processes, technical analysis tools, and integrating bicycle facilities with transit

•

Bicycle operation and safety, including traffic principles for bicyclists and causes of bicycle crashes

•

Design of on-road facilities

•

Design of shared-use paths

•

Bicycle parking facilities

•

Maintenance and operations

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2009 The 2009 MUTCD is a document issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) to specify the standards by which traffic signs, road surface markings, and signals are designed, installed, and used. These specifications include the shapes, colors, fonts, sizes, etc., used in road markings and signs. In the United States, all traffic control devices must generally conform to these standards. The manual is used by state and local agencies and private design and construction firms to ensure that the traffic control devices they use conform to the national standard. While some state agencies have developed their own sets of standards, including their own MUTCDs, they must substantially conform to the federal MUTCD, and must be approved by the FHWA. CDOT uses the national MUTCD in accordance with the Colorado Supplement to the Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 2009, Adopted December 15, 2011.

The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) advises the FHWA on additions, revisions, and changes to the MUTCD. Key provisions of the 2009 MUTCD related to bicycling include: •

Bicycle-related regulatory and warning signs

•

Bicycle destination guide and route signs

•

Pavement markings such as bike lane symbols and striping

•

Trail signs

Significant changes in 2009 edition (from the 2003 Edition) include: •

New shared-lane pavement markings

•

Bicycle lane regulatory signs no longer required

•

Type 3 object markers for shared-use paths

•

New bicycle destination guide and route signs

•

New mode-specific guide signs for shared-use paths

The bicycle technical committee of the NCUTCD is currently developing and evaluating research and proposals for the following items:

quality, multi-modal communities. The guidelines are based on current research and applied experiential practice of urban design professionals from around North America. The guidelines are freely available and regularly updated through their respective websites: Urban Street Design Guide: http://nacto.org/usdg/ Urban Bikeway Design Guide: http://nacto.org/cities-forcycling/design-guide/

B.2 STATE GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS NCDOT Bicycle & Pedestrian Project Development & Design Guidance: https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/BikePed/Pages/ Guidance.aspx Supplement to the MUTCD: https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/ TrafficSafetyResources/2009%20NC%20Supplement%20 to%20MUTCD.pdf Complete Streets Policies and Guidelines:

•

Bicycle signals (FHWA interim approval likely December 2014)

•

Bicycle boxes (approved by Bicycle Technical Committee June 2014)

•

Applications of the Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon to Trail Crossings

B.3 LOCAL GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS

•

Combined right turn lane/bike lanes

Town of Chapel Hill

•

Barrier separated lanes/cycle tracks

Bicycle Parking Guidelines

Additional information can be found here: http://www. ncutcdbtc.org/

National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Street Design Guide and Urban Bikeway Guide The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) has developed Urban Street and Bikeway design guidelines which are tailored to the unique constraints and needs of urban areas. The guidelines are compendium of state-of-the practice techniques designed to result in high

http://www.completestreetsnc.org/

The Town of Chapel Hill has adopted the APBP Bicycle Parking Guidelines as a standard reference for the planning, location, and design of bicycle parking. http://www.townofchapelhill.org/Modules/ShowDocument. aspx?documentid=3361 Bicycle Facility Guidelines The Town of Chapel Hill Bicycle Facility Guidelines were developed by Town staff and contain specifications and designs for on-street bike routes, on-street bike lanes, bicycle-related signs, and intersections of shared use paths

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Appendices

115

with public and private streets. They are integrated into the Town Design Manual (2005) and standard details. These Guidelines are fairly comprehensive, however, in some cases, they require updating. This Appendix focuses on the newest standards, guidelines, and best practices in bicycle facility design, which should be used to update the Town’s existing Guidelines.

B.4 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES Design Strategy to Provide High Quality Facilities for Vulnerable Roadway Users To effectively design for the bicyclist, it is important to understand key differences between traveling in a vehicle versus on the bicycle. While the operation of a bicycle is consistent with a vehicle, the operating characteristics and user experience are dramatically different. The motorist operates within a protected, crashworthy shell which is insulated and protected from the outdoor environment. The motor vehicle is capable of rapid acceleration and can maintain constant rates of speed, with suspension systems capable of moving the vehicle over surface irregularities relatively smoothly. The bicycle and the bicyclists function and experience traveling in relatively the opposite manner. In mixed traffic, the bicyclist is particularly sensitive to traffic noise and pollution (generated by the motorized vehicles), speed and acceleration differentials, and poor surface conditions which can create crash hazards and result in increased exposure to injury or death in the event of a crash. Compared to other roadway users, bicyclists (and pedestrians) are the most vulnerable users in the transportation system. Bicyclists also enjoy a number of significant advantages over the motorists in that they operate with greater freedom of movement, are less likely to be distracted while operating the bicycle and are more aware of their surroundings by being in the open environment. Preference surveys and research studies have found widespread support and interest for bicycling with strong preferences given to the provision of high quality bikeways which provide the following elements: •

Separation from high volumes of fast-moving

Bicycle Level of Service is an evaluation of bicyclist perceived safety and comfort with respect to motor vehicle traffic while traveling in a roadway corridor. It has been incorporated into the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. The research is more highly developed for midblock segments than for intersection nodes.

116

Appendices | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

automobiles, •

Maneuverability within the bikeway to operate safely, and

•

Space for cyclists to ride together in a social manner, side-by-side.

These qualities are routinely provided on trails, and are increasingly provided on streets through the provision of bicycle lanes, cycle tracks or the implementation of bicycle boulevards. The quality of provided bicycle facilities has a direct impact on the experience of the bicyclists and will therefore have a tremendous influence on the ability of the facility to sustain use, or to attract increased use. Well-maintained and high quality facilities have been demonstrated to attract higher levels of use than poorly maintained or low quality facilities. Likewise, interconnected systems with minimal gaps or interruptions are essential to a functioning bicycle system that supports and attracts high use as evidenced in cities such as Boulder, Charlottesville, Charlotte, Portland, Seattle, and Washington, DC.

Quality of Service Strategy Research shows that bicyclists consider a wide variety of factors when assessing their quality of service, which focus on their comfort using a facility. For this reason, the 2010 release of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) include “Traveler Perception” methods in addition to the traditional performance measures (e.g. average delay, travel speed) to determine Level of Service for users. The 2010 HCM includes a methodology for bicycle level of service 1, which also considers basic descriptors of the urban street character to determine the overall quality of bicyclist experiences on the roadway. Factors that affect bicycle level of service include space provided (i.e. width of bicycle lane), separation or buffer from adjacent traffic, speed and volume of adjacent traffic and traffic composition (cars/trucks on roadways). While a motor vehicle level of service of “D” indicates the roadway is operating at an acceptable level (capacity relative to delay); a bicycle level of service of “D” indicates a bicyclist is experiencing poor comfort on the facility. As previously discussed, the motorist is relatively comfortable and secure in their vehicle as they are isolated from noise, weather, and are minimally physically engaged in the effort of driving. Their direct experiences with the bicyclists are typically limited to a perception of increased delay if they find themselves operating behind a bicyclist. This is the opposite

for the bicyclist who is very sensitive to motor vehicle speed, volume, composition (trucks, buses, cars) and space due to their inherent exposure and vulnerability. This is a critical distinction which explains why the two levels of service are not directly comparable and why bicycle level of service is very sensitive to motorized traffic characteristics and separation/space. The concept of level of service for bicyclists is relatively new compared to that of vehicle level of service concepts. As such, it is important to note that there are limitations to the existing models which the designer should become familiar. It is anticipated that extensive research will be forthcoming to improve the reliability of the measurements now that the concept has been validated and incorporated into the Highway Capacity Manual and AASHTO Guidelines. An example of Bicycle Level of Service is provided in the table below comparing theoretical retrofit cross sections for a typical 5 lane arterial street (with a continuous center turn lane). This example illustrates the value of a combination of narrower vehicle lanes and wider bicycle lanes in creating a more comfortable bicycling environment; however the ability to provide a high quality level of comfort is limited by the higher traffic speeds and volumes in the adjacent lanes. A similar quality of service exists 3 for trails where bicyclists with varying levels of skill are frequently operating in mixed use with pedestrians, joggers, rollerbladers, and dog walkers. Speed differentials and group behavior dynamics (pedestrians and bicyclists) affect the available operating space of the bicyclist potentially limiting their ability to move at normal desired operating speeds. There are also numerous safety and comfort benefits which can be provided to bicyclists by providing wider bicycle lanes. Wider bicycle lanes create space for bicyclists to pass other bicyclists with more comfort, create additional buffer space to parked vehicles (and opening doors), create additional maneuvering space to avoid surface defects or hazards, and allow bicyclists to operate side by side if desired to engage in conversation. The graphic below illustrates the comparative operating differences.

Example: Existing 6-Lane Arterial Street Retrofit with No Parking 2 Outside Travel Lane Width

Shoulder/Bicycle Lane Width to Left of Gutter Seam

Resulting Bicycle Level of Service (LOS Score)

D (3.52)

D (3.02)

C (2.84)

C (2.44)

Example with Minor Road Widening 10

B(2.44)

B(2.22)

Lane Width/Roadway Retrofitting Strategy for Street Segments Travel lane widths were observed to vary from 10 feet to 15 feet throughout the Town on all classifications of roadways. For bicycle lanes or separated bikeways to be retrofitted onto some Chapel Hill streets, existing travel lanes will have to be narrowed or the roadway will have to be widened. It is recommended the Town consider providing wider bicycle lanes and narrower vehicle lanes in its cross sections that are only providing the AASHTO minimum, i.e. 5-feet, and when retrofitting existing roadways to create a more comfortable and safe experience for bicyclists. For example, on Cameron Avenue, the existing bicycle lanes are 5 feet in width while the adjacent travel lanes are 13 feet in width. Travel lane narrowing is recommended as the primary retrofit method to implement the planned network, with road widening (or median narrowing) reserved only for truly constrained situations where lane narrowing is not advisable or feasible. Nationally, narrowing lanes to add capacity to roadways is a relatively common practice for local and state transportation agencies. Lane narrowing to add vehicle capacity is widely accepted as a cost effective congestion

The following assumptions apply to the roadway operating characteristics: 4 travel lanes, 21,000 ADT, 35 mph, no parking, no gutter pan, good pavement (score 4.0 out of 5.0), 50% directional split of traffic with 3% heavy vehicles.

Chapter 23. Highway Capacity Manual. 2010.

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Appendices

117

mitigation strategy, but historically narrowing lanes to add bicycle facilities has not been as accepted. From a traffic safety standpoint, congestion creates a justification for adjusting lane widths to improve safety (by reducing crashes caused by congestion), which a majority of transportation officials feel comfortable pursuing as a mitigation strategy. However, when it comes to narrowing lanes to add bicycle lanes, agencies are typically concerned that narrowing lanes will reduce safety for motorists, reduce capacity, or in some instances it is believed there is no demand for the bicycle facility to justify adjusting lane widths.

Existing Martin Luther King Jr Blvd

Potential Martin Luther King Jr Blvd

Potts, Ingrid, Harwood, Douglas and Richard Karen, “Relationship of Lane Width to Safety for Urban and Suburban Arterials, TRB 2007 Annual Meeting

2011 AASHTO Green Book, Urban Arterial Travel Lane Widths, page 7-29

Potts, Ingrid, Harwood, Douglas and Richard Karen, “Relationship of Lane Width to Safety for Urban and Suburban Arterials, TRB 2007 Annual Meeting

TRB Special Report 214 – Designing Safer Roads, 1987. It is important to note this report documented research proving wider travel lanes increased safety, but this research was only based on rural, 2 lane highways.

Studies vary on the effectiveness of narrowing travel lanes as a speed reduction strategy. A majority of studies available for review generally find narrower lanes lower average speeds 3-5mph, but a small number of studies have also found no change or slight increases in speeds.

AASHTO. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Washington, D.C. : American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2004.

118

Appendices | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

Providing additional width for the motorist has not proven to provide any safety benefit on low speed urban roadways4, whereas extra space provided to the parked vehicle and the bike lane reduces the potential for a hazardous crash between a bicyclist and an opening vehicle door and creates enough space where a bicyclist could pass another bicyclist without having to encroach into the adjacent travel lane. The resulting bicycle lane is more comfortable and is more likely to attract use. The use of narrower travel lanes as a strategy for improving capacity and safety on urban arterials where posted speeds are 35 mph or lower are consistent with the 2011 AASHTO Green Book which states “lane width of 10 feet may be used in more constrained areas where truck and bus volumes are relatively low and speeds are less than 35 mph 5 ”. This is backed up by recent research 6 focused on the safety of travel lane widths varying between 10 and 12 feet for motorists operating on arterial roadways with posted speeds of 45 mph or less. This research found lane width had no impact on safety or capacity under the majority of urban conditions. The study resulted in a virtual elimination of the capacity reduction formula in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual related to lane widths as it found little difference between 10, 11 and 12 foot lanes. The AASHTO Green Book is vague with regard to defining what percentage of truck and bus volume is “low” however there is guidance in research and pavement design guidelines that suggest 10% as a decision point 7. It should also be noted that wider lane widths may encourage motorist speeding. Adding bike lanes to these streets where there is sufficient right-of-way can reduce speeding and increase safety in residential neighborhoods and near schools 8.

Implementation Strategies The following treatments describe the recommended short term and long term primary actions required to implement the network recommendations of the Town of Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan.

Lane diet

Road diet

A lane diet reduces the width of existing motor vehicle travel lane(s) and redistributes that space for bike lanes or other roadway improvements. Assigning the appropriate width to travel lanes is the most critical decision point for lane diets. Further, this assignment should reflect the effort to balance the safety needs of all street users while at the same time ensuring that public rights-of-way in the Town are used to the utmost efficiency. The AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets allows a flexible approach for selecting lane widths on major streets suggesting a range from 10-12 feet.9

A road diet removes one or two travel lanes in order to provide a bicycle lane, or a buffered bicycle lane, within the existing width of the street. Typically, a center turn lane is provided for left-turn movements. Evaluation studies of resulting three-lane cross sections show they often function more efficiently for motor vehicle traffic (and with fewer crashes10) as well as allowing for bicycle lanes. Implementation of projects by road diet will require grinding of existing pavement markings or a resurfacing with new markings applied.

Implementation of projects by lane diet will require grinding of existing pavement markings or a resurfacing with new markings applied.

Erwin Rd in Durham before road diet

Parking removal Parking removal is often done when bike lanes are desired but there is insufficient street width and other strategies such as lane diets or street diets are not an option. On-street parking is permitted on some arterial segments and along most collector and local streets in Chapel Hill. Demand for on-street parking was generally observed to be limited to locations adjacent to parks, schools, and commercial areas. Service vehicle parking (e.g. construction or landscaping vehicles) was sporadic but somewhat common in the residential neighborhoods. It is anticipated special events such as house parties and athletic events would result in additional parking demand for limited periods where driveways were insufficient to hold the volume of visitors.

Erwin Rd in Durham after road diet 10

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/fhwa_sa_12_013.htm

Parking removal could be intermittent, e.g. at an intersection approach, or segment wide. The decision to remove onstreet parking should be made only after a thorough analysis and stakeholder process. The stakeholder process should

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Appendices

119

emphasize the benefits and trade-offs involved, and put neighborhood parking removal in the context of the whole bicycle network. In addition to understanding neighborhood concerns, an analysis of adjacent land uses and observed parking utilization is necessary for determining where parking may be removed without having negative impacts to businesses and residents. Implementation of projects by parking removal may require grinding of existing pavement markings or a resurfacing with new markings applied. These projects will also require the posting of parking restriction signs.

Street reconstruction and/or widening Street reconstruction projects reconsider all aspects of the street’s design and function and can achieve a better balance between all users. These projects present an opportunity to meet desired standards for all modes through the relocation of curbs or acquisition of additional right-of-way and often incorporate green street elements. Implementation of projects by reconstruction or widening will require development of plans, specifications, and estimate packages (PS&E). These projects are a significant financial and logistical undertaking often requiring public processes, permitting, and property acquisition. In some situations, these improvements may be accomplished through the development or redevelopment of adjacent private property where public right-of-way improvements are required.

Addition of pavement markings with supplemental signs A large number of potential projects will only require the addition of pavement markings which may be supplemented with traffic control signs. The roadways on

120

Appendices | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

which these projects are proposed either have no markings, or they have markings which would not require grinding to relocate. Implementation of projects by the addition of pavement markings would require a basic engineering plan detailing the locations of the proposed markings for installation by agency staff or a private contractor.

Further study A smaller number of projects will require additional study and public consultation to determine the appropriate improvement. It is a baseline assumption that the cycle track projects and all road widening projects will require additional study due to the potential impacts on drainage, right-of-way and cost. Implementation of this action will require either Town staff or a private contractor to perform the study and to conduct the necessary public outreach and agency coordination.

Crossing improvements The Plan has identified crossings where improvements will enhance bicyclist (and pedestrian) safety by providing space for bicyclists or enhancing their ability to safely navigate an intersection. Recommendations for intersections include adjustments to signal timing, addition of traffic signals, flashing beacons, warning signs, pavement markings and crossing islands. These improvements may require additional engineering study before implementation to verify the specific proposal.

Redevelopment Opportunity There are a number of planned or potential redevelopment opportunities throughout the Town which will present opportunities to implement the recommended long term bicycle facility. The extent of the improvement will be a result of a negotiation between the Town and the developer. Opportunities assumed to be implemented through redevelopment in this plan include: •

Ephesus-Fordham Future Focus Area

•

University Square 123 Franklin Redevelopment

•

Glenn Lennox/NC 54 Focus Area

•

Carolina North

•

Estes Drive/South MLK Boulevard Focus Area

•

NC 54 Improvements by NCDOT

•

North and South 15/501 Focus Areas

B.5 BICYCLE FACILITY TREATMENTS The following treatments are referenced throughout the bicycle master plan. This section provides a definition specific to the context of this master plan with suggested minimum and/or typical dimensions where appropriate. It is assumed high volumes of pedestrians are present throughout the campus. Design guidance should be obtained from the references described in sections B.1, B.2, B.3, and B. 4 of this appendix. A campus sidewalk is a two-way facility that is physically separated from motor vehicle traffic located within campus designed primarily for pedestrian traffic. These range in width from 6 feet to 10 feet on campus. Bicyclists routinely operate on all campus sidewalks and are not restricted from these sidewalks.

A greenway or shared-use path is a two-way facility that is physically separated from motor vehicle traffic located within campus designed to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic. A greenway or shared-use path is located in an independent alignment from a roadway generally crossing roadways at right angles. A sidepath has the same characteristics as a shared-use path with the exception that it is located parallel to a roadway. Shared-use paths and sidepaths range in width from 8 to 16 feet on campus. The Shared Use Path Bicycle Level of Service model should be used to determine widths for new paths and projects where existing paths are surfaced, resurfaced or widened. However, shared use paths should be a minimum width of 10 feet with a preferable width of 12 to 16 feet on campus unless they are in an extremely constrained environment and the volume is anticipated to be low. Shared streets are roadways designed to allow pedestrians, bicyclists and motor vehicles to share the roadway. They are typically designed with no curb and gutter and provide visual cues and traffic calming features to promote slow

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Appendices

121

speed motorized traffic. They are appropriate in locations where pedestrian and bicyclist volumes equal or exceed motor vehicle volumes and the available space for separating pedestrians and bicyclists from motorized traffic is limited.

A contra-flow bike lane is a bike lane designed to allow bicyclists to ride in the opposite direction of one-way motor vehicle traffic. They convert a one-way street into a two-way street: one direction for motor vehicles and bikes, and the other for bikes only.

A cycletrack is physically separated from both the roadway and the sidewalk and is intended for the exclusive use of bicyclists. A cycletrack may be constructed at roadway level, sidewalk level, or at an intermediate height. Cycletracks can be provided in either one-way or two-way configurations. One-way cycle tracks typically vary between 5 and 10 feet in total width. Bi-directional cycle tracks typically vary between 8 and 11 feet in total width.

Buffered bike lanes are created by striping a buffer zone between a bike lane and the adjacent travel lane and/ or parking lane. The buffer creates a more comfortable operating environment for bicyclists by creating additional space between bicyclists and passing traffic or parked vehicles. It typically creates sufficient space for bicyclists to operate side by side if desired or to pass slower moving bicyclists without having to encroach on adjacent travel lanes. Buffered bike lanes are typically a minimum of 7 feet in total width inclusive of a 2 foot buffer. The bike lane or buffer may be wider.

A bike lane designates a portion of a roadway with pavement markings and signs for the exclusive use of bicycles. Bike lanes may vary in width, but should never be less than 4 feet in total width, exclusive of a gutter on curbed roadways. Bike lanes may be wider on campus where volumes of bicyclists are higher.

122

Appendices | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

A climbing lane is a bike lane provided only in the uphill direction of a steep street to accommodate slow moving bicyclists. To discourage wrong way riding in the climbing

lane, a shared lane marking is provided in the downhill direction, where bicyclists can typically travel at speeds closer to motor vehicle speeds. Shared lane markings (sharrows) are used on roadways where bicyclists and motor vehicles must share the same travel lane and it where there is a desire to provide visual cues to position bicyclists in the most appropriate location to ride for their safety. Shared lane markings also provide a visual cue to motorists to expect bicyclists to operate within the travel lane. Shared lane markings may be utilized within travel lanes of any width. A priority shared lane is an application of shared lane markings supplemented with dashed longitudinal lines typically bracketing the shared lane marking within a travel lane. Colorized pavement may also be considered to supplement the sharrows. The treatment is currently experimental thus it is recommended to follow the official FHWA experimentation processes where this treatment is deployed. Wide outside lanes are 14 feet or greater in width to allow motorists to pass bicyclists without encroaching into the adjacent lane. These lanes may have shared lane markings present. Bike lanes are the preferred treatments on major roadways when sufficient width is available to provide them (AASHTO). Wide outside travel lanes on arterial roadways are generally acceptable for experienced cyclists, but lessexperienced bicyclists may not feel comfortable on this type of facility11. Signed bicycle routes help bicyclists navigate street networks through the provision of wayfinding signs. Signed routes may be located on any type of roadway or path and Landis, Bruce W. et.al. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Real-Time Human Perceptions: Toward a Bicycle Level of Serviceâ&#x20AC;? Transportation Research Record 1578, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC 1997.

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Appendices

123

are particular beneficial for use on routes which are not intuitive or would generally require a map to follow due to frequent changes of direction.

Additional Considerations for the Placement of Shared Lane Markings In general, Shared Lane Markings are installed on streets where there is not enough space for bicycle lanes, or there is no desire for a bicycle lane. When bike lanes are desired but space limitations exist, a bike lane can be installed on one side of the street (the up-hill side of the street to provided dedicated space for slower, hill climbing bicyclists) and Shared Lane Markings on the downhill side. Shared Lane Markings may be the first choice (even if there is room for a bicycle lane) on some downhill sections. Consideration for Shared Lane Marking Placement within a Travel Lane The placement of shared lane markings will require engineering judgment as lane widths, quantity of lanes, operating speeds, and presence of parking will vary from street to street. In particular, the width of the shared travel lane and the number of available travel lanes impact typical operating behavior of motorists and bicyclists. Travel lanes with widths less than 13 feet will require motorists to partially or fully change lanes to pass bicyclists. Travel lanes of 13 feet or greater generally allow motorists to pass bicyclists with minimal or no encroachment into adjacent travel lanes (allowing 3 feet of horizontal separation between the motorist and bicyclist). Generally, the center of shared lane markings should be located a minimum of 11 feet from the curb or edge of roadway at locations where parking is permitted adjacent to the travel lane. Generally, the center of shared lane markings should be located a minimum of 4 feet from the curb or edge of roadway at locations where parking is prohibited. It may be appropriate to move the shared lane marking towards the center of the travel lane (exceeding the MUTCD minimums) if engineering judgment determine that this placement will enhance the safety of the bicyclist operating within the travel lane. The shared lane marking may be moved towards the center of the lane regardless of whether it is adjacent to parking or not. In most cases, it will be a combination of two or more of the following factors which will indicate that consideration should be given to moving the Shared Lane Marking towards the center of the travel lane:

124

•

Travel lane is less than 12 feet in width

•

Speed of traffic

Appendices | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

•

Number of travel lanes (it may be desirable to place the shared lane marking towards the center of a narrower outside travel lane when a center turn lane is present or when there are multiple travel lanes in the same direction)

•

Grade of roadway and expected bicyclist speed (center lane placement often works well when going downhill on streets with grade and higher bicycle speeds)

•

Volume of traffic (may or may not be an issue – speed, grade, and number of lanes are more important)

Situations Where Travel Lanes Are Less than or Equal to 12 Feet in Width Shared lane markings should be placed in the center of the travel lane where travel lanes are less than 12 feet to encourage bicyclists to occupy the full lane and not ride too close to parked vehicles or the edge of the roadway. A BIKES MAY USE FULL LANE (R4-11) sign may be used to supplement the marking. Travel lanes of this dimension are too narrow for sharing side by side with vehicles. Situations Where Travel Lanes Are Between 12 Feet and 13 Feet in Width Where travel lanes are 12-13 feet in width, the travel lane can appear shareable to roadway users if bicyclists operate on the right side of the lane resulting in unsafe passing maneuvers. It may be desirable to place the marking in the center, or close to the center of the lane to discourage these behaviors. A BIKES MAY USE FULL LANE (R4-11) sign may be used to supplement the marking. Situations Where Travel Lanes Are Greater than or Equal to 13 Feet in Width Where travel lanes are 13 feet or wider, motorists will generally be able to pass bicyclists within the same lane or will only need to slightly encroach on adjacent lanes to pass bicyclists. The Shared Lane Marking should generally be located in the right portion of the lane (per the MUTCD minimum requirements) with exceptions for locations adjacent to parking where it is desirable to encourage riding further from parked vehicles. A Share the Road sign (W11 1 AND W16-1P) may be used to supplement the marking. Shared lane markings should generally be used on arterial and non-arterial roadways with motor vehicle speeds 35 mph or less. Research has shown placing the marking in the center of travel lanes wider than 13 feet will likely result in poor compliance by bicyclists who will travel in the right portion of the lane which may undermine the effectiveness of shared lane markings in narrower lanes.

B.6 INTERSECTION AND ROADWAY CROSSING TREATMENTS This section provides guidance for intersection and midblock crossing treatments, some of which is not in the AASHTO Guide or the MUTCD.

Crossings at Major Intersections Improvements along bicycle boulevards, collector streets, or local streets for bicycling are of limited utility if cyclists cannot safely and comfortably cross major roadways. Intersection improvements on bicycle boulevards enhance cyclist safety by eliminating or raising awareness of potential areas of conflict between motorists and cyclists, and by reducing the delay cyclists experience at traditional intersections where no accommodations have been made for cyclists. The positioning of the bicyclists, particularly longer bikes or bikes with trailers, and crossing times are important considerations for designing a crossing that can get cyclists across a busy roadway safely and comfortably. There are a number of intersection treatments available that can aid cyclists in crossing busy intersections including signalization, crossing islands, high visibility crosswalks, and flashing warning beacons. Many arterial streets are challenging to cross, particularly during peak travel periods. In order to make it possible for bicyclists to travel throughout Chapel Hill, there must be safe places to cross major streets. The section below describes the types of treatments that are recommended to help bicyclists cross these major roadways. Selection of the appropriate roadway crossing treatment depends on a number of factors: •

Roadway width/number of lanes

•

Motor vehicle traffic volumes

•

Motor vehicle speed

•

Sight-distance

•

On-street parking

•

Presence of traffic signals at the intersection or at nearby intersections

•

Satisfaction of necessary and relevant traffic warrants

Contrasting Green Color Pavement The use of contrasting green color is used primarily to highlight areas with a potential for bicycle-vehicle conflicts, such as intersections or merge areas where turning vehicles must cross a through bike lane. Generally, color has been applied to sections of bike lanes that previously had been delineated by dotted white lines. Examples of the use of color are shown in Figures 4 and 5. Providing clear pathway of travel guidance for bicyclists across wide intersections and at transition areas between shared-use pathways and onstreet facilities can aid in bicyclist comfort and alert motor vehicles about where to expect cyclists in the roadway. MUTCD Status: The use of contrasting color was issued Interim Approval status by FHWA on April 15, 2011. The use of contrasting green color has been shown through experimentation to increase awareness of bicyclist but has thus far not been shown to reduce crash rates in conflict areas. Design guidance and application from the interim approval state: •

The color green is designated as the color for bicycle facilities. The material used for green color can be paint, colored asphalt or concrete, other marking materials with the proper chromaticity and slip resistance

•

Green pavement marking may be used within a bicycle lane or within an extension of a bicycle lane to enhance the conspicuity of the lane or extension

•

If a pair of dotted lines is used to extend a bicycle lane across an intersection or driveway, or a ramp, green colored pavement may be installed between these lines as a supplement to the lines

•

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Appendices

125

SIGNALS

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons

Signalized intersections allow bicyclists to cross arterial streets without needing to select a gap in moving traffic. Traffic signals make it easier to cross the street, though it is important to make improvements to reduce conflicts between bicyclists and turning vehicles. When evaluating warrants for the potential installation of new traffic signals, it is important to note that bicyclists may be counted as pedestrians or vehicles.

Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) are installed at unsignalized street crossings or mid-block crossing to assist pedestrians and bicyclists in crossing the street. Rectangular rapid flashing beacons have proven to be effective devices at uncontrolled intersections for increasing motorist yielding rates and reducing pedestrian-vehicle crashes at crosswalk locations. The rapid flashing beacon device consists of a pair of rectangular, yellow LED beacons that employ a stutterflash pattern similar to that used on emergency vehicles. The beacons are often mounted below a standard pedestrian crossing warning sign and above the arrow plaque. The beacons are pedestrian activated (pushbutton or passive detection) and placed on both sides of the street. If a median exists at the crossing location, a third and fourth beacon may be placed in the median, which, studies show, significantly increases motorist yield rates. Advanced pedestrian warning signs can also be used with the rapid flashing beacon. If traffic volumes are too high, or there are too many lanes (generally more than 4 travel lanes), a pedestrian hybrid beacon or full signal may be warranted. Research has shown higher motorist yielding rates for RRFBs versus standard flashing beacons; since these devices have been granted interim approval by FHWA, they are not included in the 2009 MUTCD due to late approval status, however, request to study is not required with interim approval to install these devices. A written request must be submitted to the FHWA to participate in the Interim Approval.

Bicycle Signal Bicycle signals heads can provide more clear direction to bicyclists crossing signalized intersections that they may enter an intersection. This is particularly important at locations where bicyclists may be provided an advance or exclusive phase. At locations (typically trail crossings) where it is cyclists are expected to follow pedestrian signals, under present law and timing practices, bicyclists are may only “legally” enter the crosswalk during the solid WALK portion of the signal which is significantly shorter than the provided walk + clearance time. This often results in bicyclists disobeying the flashing don’t walk portion of the cycle which can lead to them being caught in the intersection during the change interval. Providing bicycle signals allows for a longer display of green as compared to the walk, which significantly improves the compliance with the traffic control. Further, the MUTCD states explicitly that pedestrian signals are for the “exclusive use of pedestrians”. Bicycle signals can be designed to call a green signal phase through the use of loop detectors (or other passive detection such as video or radar) or push button. Bicycle signal heads and a separate bicycle signal phase should be considered at intersections and trail crossings with very high volumes of cyclists or locations where it is desirable to provide separate phasing for the bicyclists. Presently the MUTCD has no provision for bicycle signals; however bicycle signals are under experimentation in many jurisdictions and are being actively investigated by the National Committee for inclusion into the MUTCD. The use of bicycle signal heads would require permission to experiment from FHWA.

126

Appendices | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (a.k.a: HAWK Signal - High Intensity Activated Crosswalk)

Hybrid Beacon

Source: VS Engineering

This signal is intended to allow pedestrians and bicyclists to stop traffic to cross high volume arterial streets. The signal may be used in lieu of a full signal that meets any of the 9 warrants in the MUTCD as well as at locations which do not meet traffic signal warrants where it is necessary to provide assistance to cross a high volume arterial.

The MUTCD provides suggested minimum volumes of 20 pedestrians or cyclists an hour for major arterial crossings (excess of 2,000 vehicles/hour). It is recommended that this signal be considered for all arterial crossings in the bicycle network and for trail crossings if other engineering measures prove inadequate to create safe crossings. Pushbuttons should be ”hot” (respond immediately), be placed in convenient locations for bicyclists, and abide by other ADA standards. Passive signal activation, such as video or infrared may also be considered. While this type of signal is intended for pedestrians, it would be beneficial to retrofit it as the Town of Portland, Oregon has with bicycle detection and bicycle signal heads on major cycling networks to provide adequate guidance. Depending upon the detection design, the Town may have the option to provide different clearance intervals for bicyclists and pedestrians. The provision of bicycle signal heads would require permission to experiment from FHWA. Signal Timing and Bicycle Detection It was observed that the majority of collector and local street crossings of arterials required actuation. The Town updated all signalized locations to detect bicyclists and marked the sweet spot for bicycle detection with the bike detection pavement marking. Based on email discussions with staff, the minimum green time provided for crossing arterials is typically 5-6 seconds with extension time provided as motor vehicles are detected. Yellow and red times totaling 4-6 seconds is provided at each location to allow a motor vehicle to clear the intersection. Should a bicyclist attempt to cross one of the Town’s 7 lane arterials (approximately 90 feet), they may not clear the intersection within the time provided. Section 9D.02 of the 2009 MUTCD states: “On bikeways, signal timing and actuation shall be reviewed and adjusted to consider the needs of bicyclists.” Accommodating bicyclists at actuated intersections is one relatively costeffective way in which a Town can make significant strides to improve the safety and level of service provided to bicyclists. •

Timings at signalized intersections should be modified on a case-by-case basis to consider the specific needs of bicycles, which have slower acceleration and operating speeds than motor vehicles. A stationary, or “standing”, cyclist entering the intersection at the beginning of the green indication and a moving, or “rolling”, bicyclist approaching the intersection towards the end of the phase should be considered. The needs of standing cyclists can typically be accommodated by increasing the minimum green time on an approach, which is the current state of the practice. The needs of rolling cyclists require increases to the yellow and red times (change and clearance intervals), which may result in a slight loss of capacity at the intersection.

•

The minimum green time should be adjusted such that the total phase duration (minimum green time plus yellow and all red times) are long enough for a bicyclist leaving the stop bar at the beginning of the green indication to clear the far side of the intersection. This time is referred to as the Bicycle Standing Time and is sufficient for a bicyclist to react, accelerate and cross the roadway before the conflicting crossing traffic receives a green indication.

•

At intersections with arterial roads and a side street of lower classification, there may be concern about the impact to delay on the arterial when the side street minimum green time is increased (i.e. by 4 seconds as the worst case scenario) to accommodate the bicycle standing time. However, the changes to the minimum green time should have a small, if any, impact to the delay for motor vehicles on the arterial. During peak periods, the green time allocated for a minor approach typically increases over the minimum green time due to high demand on the minor street. During off peak periods, the loss of green time allocated to an arterial road will have little impact due to the lower traffic volumes on the arterial.

Equation for Bicycle Minimum Green and Crossing Time for a Standing Bicyclist12 • Change and clearance intervals (i.e. yellow and red times) provided for motor vehicles may sometimes be sufficient for bicyclists. Generally, the yellow times used for motorists, typically between 3 and 6 seconds, are suitable for cyclists. However, it may be necessary to consider lengthening the red time depending upon

BMG = BCT s tan ding − Y − Rclear

BMG = PRT +

V (W + L) + − Y − Rclear 2a V

where: = BMG BCTstanding = Y = R clear = W = L = V

PRT a

= =

bicycle minimum green time (s) bicycle crossing time (s) yellow change interval (s) all-red (s) intersection width (ft) typical bicycle length = 6 ft (see chapter 3 for other design users) bicycle speed crossing an intersection (ft/s) perception reaction time = 1 s bicycle acceleration (1.5 ft/s 2 )

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Appendices

127

posted speed limit, intersection width, bicyclist speed, roadway grade and red time used for motorists. The difference in clearance time between faster motorists and slower bicyclists is exaggerated by increased crossing distances and increased motorists speeds; therefore, it is more challenging to accommodate bicycles in the signal timing at wide, high-speed intersections. Additionally bicyclists traveling uphill may have even slower speeds than typical, further increasing their crossing times and requiring longer change and clearance intervals. As indicated above, increasing red times may be challenging due to potential decreases in motor vehicle capacity, increases in red-light running and increases in motor vehicle crashes. If it is determined that increasing the change and clearance interval are not feasible, it is recommended bicycle signal heads be evaluated to stop bicyclists from entering the intersection prior to the onset of the yellow indication which would be intended for motorists. Bicycle Standing Time for various intersections widths Intersection Width*

Bicycle Standing Time**

803

9.7

10.4

11.1

11.8

12.4

100

13.1

110

13.8

120

14.5

DRAFT AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (February 2010) http://design.transportation.org/Documents/DraftBikeGuideFeb2010. pdf

128

AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities 1999.

Appendices | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

Crossing Islands Crossing islands facilitate crossings of multiple lane and/or high-volume arterials by providing space in the center of the roadway, allowing the pedestrian or bicyclist to focus on one direction of traffic at a time (two-stage crossing). Median islands (or crossing islands) are constructed at the center of a road to physically separate the directional flow of traffic, and to provide pedestrians and bicyclists with a place of refuge while reducing the crossing distance between safety points.13 Arterial roadway intersections that have low demand for left-turn movements can be potential candidates for adding median islands. Median islands can be constructed on these roadways by using the available center turn lane area, or by removing parking from one side of the street and shifting the travel lanes. Median islands are likely to be a mediumor long-term improvement on roadways where significant channelization changes are needed to provide enough space for the median island. The newest AASHTO Bicycle Guidelines outline design considerations for median crossing islands: •

Median islands are beneficial to install on roadways that have high traffic volumes, roadways that are too wide for full roadway crossing, and roadways with more than three travel lanes.

•

Minimum width for storage on the median is 6 feet. 10 feet accommodates a bike with trailer

•

Island should be large enough for multiple people to be on the island at once e.g. strollers, bicyclists, pedestrians etc.

•

Angling the refuge area at approximately 45 degrees is recommended to direct those crossing to face towards on-coming traffic.

Crossing Markings The crossing markings used for bicyclists may differ depending on if the crossing is at a signalized or unsignalized location. For signalized locations bicycle pavement markings through intersections indicate the intended path of bicyclists through an intersection or across a driveway or ramp. They guide bicyclists on a safe and direct path through the intersection, and provide a clear boundary between the paths of through bicyclists and either through or crossing motor vehicles in the adjacent lane. MUTCD Section 3B.08 requires dotted lines the same width and color to bind the bicycle crossing space. Other treatments include multiple shared lane markings, chevrons, or colored pavement (green). These treatments may not be applicable for crossings in which bicycles are expected to yield priority, such as when the street with the bicycle route has Stop or Yield control at an intersection. At these types of locations high visibility crosswalks may be used to create a visibly prominent crossing location for pedestrians, which also benefits bicyclists. High visibility crosswalks should be used in combination with advanced pedestrian/bike crossing warning signs. Other treatments that may be used in combination with high visibility crosswalks include curb extensions (to shorten crossing distances, crossing islands, and advanced yield markings. And at mid-block locations they may be used in combination with raised speed tables; however these are not recommended on higher speed and volume arterial streets.

pedestrian(s). The MUTCD (2009) requires the use of “Yield Here To Pedestrians” (R1-5, R1-5a) sign if yield lines (shark’s teeth) are used in advance of a marked crosswalk that crosses an uncontrolled multi-lane approach. “Yield Here To Pedestrians” sign may also be used without the installation of advanced yield lines. If yield lines and “Yield Here To Pedestrians” signs are used in advance of a crosswalk, they should be placed together and 20 to 50 feet before the nearest crosswalk line; parking should be prohibited in the area between the yield line and the crosswalk. “Yield Here To Pedestrian” signs may be used in conjunction with the “Pedestrian Crossing” (W11-2) warning sign but must be on a preceding post and not block the road user’s view of the W11-2 sign. This application should be considered at trail crossings, pedestrian hybrid beacon crossings, and bicycle boulevard crossings of arterials. It is recommended the bicycle symbol be incorporated onto the signs. If a pedestrian hybrid beacon is used at a crossing location, then a “Crosswalk Stop On Red” (R10-23) should be used per Section 2B.53 of the MUTCD. High-visibility Pedestrian/Bicycle Crossing Warning Signs High-visibility bicycle and pedestrian warning signs are recommended at trail crossings. These signs can increase driver awareness of bicyclists and pedestrians, especially at mid-block locations where bicyclists and pedestrians may not be expected. These signs will be most effective when combined with other treatments, such as marked crosswalks, curb extensions, median islands, etc. Signs should be used judiciously—too many signs can cause visual clutter and lead to non compliance. This sign is incorporated into the new MUTCD. Crossings at Off-Set Intersections Several designs have been developed to facilitate crossing of intersections with “legs” that do not line up directly across from one another. These include bicycle left-turn lanes that create a designated space for two-way left turns using pavement markings, left-turn with raised median that creates a single protected left turn using a raised curb median, and a sidepath. Left turn lanes should be a minimum six feet wide and 8 feet in length so that bicyclists can be completely separated from the travel lanes.

Advanced Yield Markings Advanced yield markings in conjunction with “Yield Here To Pedestrian” signs have proven to be effective at reducing multiple threat crashes at uncontrolled, marked crosswalk locations. A multiple threat crash results when a car in one lane stops to let the pedestrian cross, blocking the sight lines of the vehicle in the other lane of a multi-lane approach which advances through the crosswalk and hits the crossing

More Information Greater detail on all of these design treatments can be found in the documents mentioned above, as well as other sources such as PedSafe and the National Association of Town Transportation Officials (NACTO) website.

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Appendices

129

Cost Estimates Appendix C Cost Estimate Disclaimer

The construction cost estimates were developed by identifying pay items and establishing rough per-mile quantities. Unit costs are based on 2013 dollars and were assigned based on historical cost data from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the UNC Highway Safety Research Center - Costs for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Infrastructure Improvements Report, Town of Chapel Hill, and other sources such as RS Means. The costs shown only reflect cost associated with construction of the particular bicycle facility indicated, and do not reflect other costs that may be associated with a larger project. The costs are intended to be general and used for long-range planning purposes. A 10-30% contingency is applied to the cost for each item based on the scale of the project. For example: • 10% contingency applied to signed bicycle routes and shared lane marking projects as they are relatively straightforward. • 20% contingency applied to projects which add bicycle facilities through such actions as lane diets, road diets, or projects which fix existing infrastructure. • 30% contingency is applied to projects which require substantial construction efforts such as widening roadways, construction of greenways or sidepaths or the installation of lighting. • No contingency is applied to bridge projects as these estimates are based on historical pricing for bridges on a square foot basis. The construction estimates do not include costs for planning, surveying, engineering design, right-of-way acquisition, full roadway reconstruction, addition of closed drainage systems, mobilization, or future maintenance. Construction costs will vary based on the ultimate project scope (i.e. combination with other projects) and economic conditions at the time of construction.

130

Appendices | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan - Facility Base 2013 Costs (per mile) Signed Route, SR (Add Signs, SR) Includes: sign and post. Item New Sign

Unit Quantity EA

1.00

Unit Cost

Total Cost

Assumptions 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of $4,920 road

$246.00

Lump Sum Items Maintenance of Traffic (Fixed)

$500.00

$500

Subtotal

$5,420

10% Contingency

$542

Total Estimated Cost

$6,000

$1.14 Per Foot

Sharrows, SH (Add Markings, AM) Includes: shared lane pavement marking. No markings on existing roadway require removal. Item Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol New Sign

Unit Quantity

Unit Cost

$275.00

$246.00

1.00

Total Cost

Assumptions 1 Symbol every 250 feet, each side $11,000 of road 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of $4,920 road

Lump Sum Items Maintenance of Traffic (10%)

$1,592.00

$1,592

Subtotal

$17,512

10% Contingency

$1,751

Total Estimated Cost

$19,300

$3.66 Per Foot

Bike Lanes, BL (Add Markings, AM) Includes: bicycle lane markings in both directions with bicycle lane signs. No markings on existing roadway require removal. Item Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Lines (4" to 6") Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol New Sign

Unit Quantity

Unit Cost $1.75

21,120

$275.00

$246.00

1.00

Total Cost

Assumptions

$36,960 4 solid lines entire length 1 Symbol every 250 feet, each side $11,000 of road 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of $4,920 road

Lump Sum Items Maintenance of Traffic (10%)

$5,288.00

$5,288

Subtotal

$58,168

20% Contingency

$11,634

Total Estimated Cost

$69,900

$13.24 Per Foot

Bike Lanes, BL (Lane Diet, LD) Includes: bicycle lane markings in both directions with bicycle lane signs. Up to 2 traffic lane lines removed. Item Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Lines (4" to 6") Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol

Unit Quantity LF

21,120

Unit Cost $1.75 $275.00

Total Cost

Assumptions

$36,960 4 solid lines entire length December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Appendices 1 Symbol every 250 feet each side $11,000 of road

131

20% Contingency

$11,634

Total Estimated Cost

$69,900

$13.24 Per Foot

Unit Quantity

Unit Cost $1.75

21,120

$275.00

$246.00

21,120

1.00

$2.24

Total Cost

Assumptions

$36,960 4 solid lines entire length 1 Symbol every 250 feet each side $11,000 of road 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of $4,920 road $47,309 eradicate 4 solid lane lines

Lump Sum Items Maintenance of Traffic (10%)

$10,019.00

$10,019

Subtotal

$110,208

20% Contingency

$22,042

Total Estimated Cost

$132,300

$25.06 Per Foot

Bike Lanes, BL (Road Diet, RD) Includes: bicycle lane markings in both directions with bicycle lane signs. Up to 4 traffic lane lines removed. Item Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Lines (4" to 6") Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Bike Lane Symbol Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Arrow Symbol New Sign Eradication

Unit Quantity

Unit Cost

Total Cost

$1.75

$55,440

31,680

$275.00

$11,000

$275.00

$5,500

$246.00

21,120

1.00

$2.24

$4,920

Assumptions 6 solid lines entire length (4-3 road diet) 1 Bike Symbol every 250 feet each side of road 1 Turn Arrows every 500 feet each side of road 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of road

$47,309 4 solid lines entire length

Lump Sum Items Maintenance of Traffic (10%)

$12,417.00

$12,417

Subtotal

$136,586

20% Contingency

$27,317

Total Estimated Cost

$164,000

$31.06 Per Foot

Bike Lanes, BL (Widen Open Section Roadway, WRO) Includes: bicycle lane markings in both directions with bicycle lane signs. Requires road widening up to 7' each side, 14' total, with 22 pavement overlay of existing roadway.Minor grading required with no curb and gutter. Natural ditch drainage provided. Item Earthwork, Excavation, Grading Aggregate Base Course for Pavement Milling Asphalt Base Course Asphalt Surface Course Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Lines (4" to 6") Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol 132

Unit Quantity CY

5,476

$17.00

2,738

$56.00

12,907

$7.00

TON

2,779

$67.00

TON

1,786

$67.00

21,120

$1.75

$275.00

$1,000.00

Appendices | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | DecemberEA 2013

Crosswalk

Unit Cost

Total Cost Assumptions 7 feet width and 2 feet depth, each $93,084 side of road 7 feet width and 1 feet depth, each $153,316 side of road $90,347 22 feet width 14 feet width and 0.5 feet depth, $186,189 13.3 CF in a TON 36 feet width and 0.125 feet depth, $119,693 13.3 CF in a TON $36,960 4 solid lines entire length 1 Symbol every 250 feet each side $11,000 of road (bike lane) 4 Crosswalks per mile, 36 Feet x 10 $4,000 Feet, High Visibility 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of

20% Contingency

$27,317

Total Estimated Cost

$164,000

$31.06 Per Foot

Unit Quantity

Unit Cost

Total Cost Assumptions 7 feet width and 2 feet depth, each $93,084 side of road 7 feet width and 1 feet depth, each $153,316 side of road

5,476

$17.00

2,738

$56.00

12,907

$7.00

TON

2,779

$67.00

TON

1,786

$67.00

21,120

$1.75

$275.00

$1,000.00

$246.00

Landscaping (5%)

1.00

$34,975.00

$34,975

Drainage and E&S (10%)

1.00

$69,951.00

$69,951

Maintenance of Traffic (10%)

1.00

$69,951.00

$69,951

Utility Adjustments (10%)

1.00

$69,951.00

$69,951

Subtotal

$944,337

30% Contingency

$283,301

Total Estimated Cost

$1,227,700

Aggregate Base Course for Pavement Milling Asphalt Base Course Asphalt Surface Course Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Lines (4" to 6") Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol Crosswalk New Sign

$90,347 22 feet width 14 feet width and 0.5 feet depth, $186,189 13.3 CF in a TON 36 feet width and 0.125 feet depth, $119,693 13.3 CF in a TON $36,960 4 solid lines entire length 1 Symbol every 250 feet each side $11,000 of road (bike lane) 4 Crosswalks per mile, 36 Feet x 10 $4,000 Feet, High Visibility 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of $4,920 road

Lump Sum Items

$232.52 Per Foot

Bike Lanes (Widen Closed Section Roadway, WRC) Includes: bicycle lane markings in both directions with bicycle lane signs. Requires road widening up to 14 feet on one side, 14' total, with 22 pavement overlay of existing roadway. Major grading required with retaining walls. Curb and gutter relocation and drainage reconnections. Item

Unit Quantity

Unit Cost

Total Cost Assumptions $531,911 20 feet width up to 8 feet depth

31,289

$17.00

2,738

$56.00

12,907

$7.00

TON

2,779

$67.00

TON

1,786

Remove Curb and Gutter

5,280

$67.00 $7.00

Remove 4 foot sidewalk

4,693

$4.00

$18,773 both sides $211,200 both sides $340,267 both sides

Earthwork, Fill, Excavation, Grading Aggregate Base Course for Pavement Milling Asphalt Base Course Asphalt Surface Course

Curb and Gutter

10,560

$20.00

Construct 5 foot sidewalk

5,867

$58.00

Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Lines (4" to 6")

21,120

$1.75

$275.00

$1,000.00

1,056

$500.00

$246.00

Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol Crosswalk Retaining Wall (up to 6 foot height) New Sign

7 feet width and 1 feet depth, each $153,316 side of road $90,347 22 feet width 14 feet width and 0.5 feet depth, $186,189 13.3 CF in a TON 36 feet width and 0.125 feet depth, $119,693 13.3 CF in a TON $36,960 both sides

$36,960 4 solid lines entire length 1 Symbol every 250 feet each side $11,000 of road (bike lane) 4 Crosswalks per mile, 36 Feet x 10 $4,000 Feet, High Visibility $528,000 10% of length 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of $4,920 road December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Appendices

Lump Sum Items $113,677.00

$113,677

133

30% Contingency

$283,301

Total Estimated Cost

$1,227,700

$232.52 Per Foot

Unit Quantity

Unit Cost

31,289

$17.00

2,738

$56.00

12,907

$7.00

TON

2,779

$67.00

TON

1,786 5,280

$67.00 $7.00

Total Cost Assumptions $531,911 20 feet width up to 8 feet depth 7 feet width and 1 feet depth, each $153,316 side of road $90,347 22 feet width 14 feet width and 0.5 feet depth, $186,189 13.3 CF in a TON 36 feet width and 0.125 feet depth, $119,693 13.3 CF in a TON $36,960 both sides

Remove Curb and Gutter

Remove 4 foot sidewalk

4,693

$4.00

$18,773 both sides

Curb and Gutter

10,560

$20.00

$211,200 both sides

Construct 5 foot sidewalk

5,867

$58.00

$340,267 both sides

Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Lines (4" to 6")

21,120

$1.75

$275.00

$1,000.00

1,056

$500.00

$246.00

Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol Crosswalk Retaining Wall (up to 6 foot height) New Sign

Lump Sum Items Landscaping (5%)

1.00

$113,677.00

$113,677

Drainage and E&S (10%)

1.00

$227,354.00

$227,354

Maintenance of Traffic (10%)

1.00

$227,354.00

$227,354

Utility Adjustments (10%)

1.00

$227,354.00

$227,354

Subtotal

$3,069,275

30% Contingency

$920,783

Total Estimated Cost

$3,990,100

$755.70 Per Foot

Climbing Lane, CL (Add Markings, AM) Includes: bicycle lane marking in uphill direction with shared lanes markings in downhill direction with signs. No markings on existing roadway require removal. Item Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Lines (4" to 6") Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol New Sign

Unit Quantity

Unit Cost $1.75

5,280

$275.00

$246.00

1.00

Total Cost

Assumptions

$9,240 1 solid lines entire length 1 Symbol every 250 feet each side $11,000 of road 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of $4,920 road

Lump Sum Items Maintenance of Traffic (10%)

$2,516.00

$2,516

Subtotal

$27,676

20% Contingency

$5,535

Total Estimated Cost

$33,300

Climbing Lane, CL (Lane Diet, LD) 134

Includes: bicycle lane marking in uphill direction with shared lanes markings in downhill direction Appendices North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013 with signs.| Chapel Up toHill 4 traffic lane lines removed. Unit Quantity

Unit Cost

Total Cost

$6.31 Per Foot

20% Contingency

$5,535

Total Estimated Cost

$33,300

$6.31 Per Foot

Climbing Lane, CL (Lane Diet, LD) Includes: bicycle lane marking in uphill direction with shared lanes markings in downhill direction with signs. Up to 4 traffic lane lines removed. Item Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Lines (4" to 6") Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol New Sign Eradication

Unit Quantity

Unit Cost $1.75

21,120

$275.00

$246.00

21,120

1.00

$2.24

Total Cost

Assumptions

$36,960 4 solid lines entire length 1 Symbol every 250 feet each side $11,000 of road 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of $4,920 road $47,309 4 solid lines entire length

Lump Sum Items Maintenance of Traffic (10%)

$10,019.00

$10,019

Subtotal

$110,208

20% Contingency

$22,042

Total Estimated Cost

$132,300

$25.06 Per Foot

Climbing Lanes, CL (Widen Open Section Roadway - One Side, WRO) Includes: bicycle lane marking in uphill direction with shared lanes markings in downhill direction with signs. Up to 4 traffic lane lines removed. Requires road widening up to 7 feet on one side, 7' total, with 22 pavement overlay of existing roadway. Major grading required with retaining walls. Curb and gutter relocation and drainage reconnections. Item

Unit Quantity

Unit Cost

Total Cost

Assumptions 10 feet width up to 8 feet depth, one $186,169 side of road 7 feet width and 1 feet depth, one $68,444 side of road

Earthwork, Fill, Excavation, Grading

10,951

$17.00

Aggregate Base Course

2,738

$25.00

Milling

12,907

$7.00

TON

2,779

$67.00

TON

1,439

$67.00

$90,347 22 feet width 14 feet width and 0.5 feet depth, $186,189 13.3 CF in a TON 29 feet width and 0.125 feet depth, $96,420 13.3 CF in a TON

Curb and Gutter

5,280

Construct 5 foot sidewalk

2,933

$20.00 $58.00

$105,600 only one side $170,133 only one side

Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Lines (4" to 6")

21,120

$1.75

$275.00

$1,000.00

528

$500.00

$246.00

1.00

$61,209.00

$61,209

$122,418.00

$122,418

Asphalt Base Course Asphalt Surface Course

Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol Crosswalk Retaining Wall (up to 6 foot height) New Sign

$36,960 4 solid lines entire length 1 Symbol every 250 feet each side $11,000 of road (bike lane) 4 Crosswalks per mile, 36 Feet x 10 $4,000 Feet, High Visibility $264,000 10% of length 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of $4,920 road

Lump Sum Items Landscaping (5%) Drainage and E&S (10%)

1.00

Maintenance of Traffic (10%)

1.00

$122,418.00

$122,418

Utility Adjustments (10%)

1.00

$122,418.00

$122,418

Subtotal

$1,652,645

30% Contingency

$495,794

Total Estimated Cost

$2,148,500

Buffered Bike Lane, BBL - (Add Markings, AM)

$406.91 Per Foot

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Appendices

Includes: buffered bicycle lane markings in both directions with bicycle lane signs. No markings on

135

30% Contingency

$495,794

Total Estimated Cost

$2,148,500

$406.91 Per Foot

Buffered Bike Lane, BBL - (Add Markings, AM) Includes: buffered bicycle lane markings in both directions with bicycle lane signs. No markings on existing roadway require removal. Item Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Lines (4" to 6") Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol Crosswalk New Sign

Unit Quantity

Unit Cost $1.75

31,680

$275.00

$1,000.00

$246.00

1.00

Total Cost

Assumptions

$55,440 6 solid lines entire length 1 Symbol every 250 feet each side $11,000 of road 4 Crosswalks per mile, 36 Feet x 10 $4,000 Feet, High Visibility 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of $4,920 road

Lump Sum Items Maintenance of Traffic (10%)

$7,536.00

$7,536

Subtotal

$82,896

20% Contingency

$16,579

Total Estimated Cost

$99,500

$18.84 Per Foot

Buffered Bike Lane, BBL - (Lane Diet, LD) Includes: buffered bicycle lane markings in both directions with bicycle lane signs. Up to 4 traffic lane lines removed. Item

Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Lines (4" to 6") Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol Crosswalk New Sign Eradication

Unit Quantity LF 31,680

Unit Cost $1.75

$275.00

$1,000.00

$246.00

21,120

1.00

$2.24

Total Cost Assumptions $55,440 6 solid lines entire length 1 Symbol every 250 feet each side $11,000 of road 4 Crosswalks per mile, 36 Feet x 10 $4,000 Feet, High Visibility 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of $4,920 road $47,309 4 solid lines entire length

Lump Sum Items Maintenance of Traffic (10%)

$12,267.00

$12,267

Subtotal

$134,936

20% Contingency

$26,987

Total Estimated Cost

$162,000

$30.68 Per Foot

Repair Concrete Sidewalk (4" Thickness) Includes: removal and replacment of existing sidewalk including driveway ramps and curb ramps. Item Repair Concrete Sidewalk (4" Thickness)

Unit Quantity

Unit Cost

1,760

$58.00

1.00

$5,104.00

Total Cost Assumptions Assume 25% of existing sidewalk, $102,080 both sides

Lump Sum Items Landscaping (5%)

136

$5,104

Drainage and E&S (5%)

1.00

$5,104.00

$5,104

Maintenance of Traffic (10%)

1.00

$10,208.00

$10,208

Utility Adjustments (5%)

1.00

$5,104.00

$5,104

Subtotal

$127,600

30% Contingency

$38,280

Total Estimated Cost

$165,900

$31.42 Per Foot

$82,950

$15.71 Per Side

Appendices | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

30% Contingency

$38,280

Total Estimated Cost

$165,900

$31.42 Per Foot

$82,950

$15.71 Per Side

Sidewalk With Bikes Permitted, SWBP (Widen Sidewalk, WS) Includes: removal of existing sidewalk. Widening of sidewalk to 8 feet minimum where feasible, minimal grading to avoid property acquistion, retaining wall relocation or construction. Item

Earthwork, Fill, Excavation, Grading

Unit Quantity

Unit Cost

Total Cost Assumptions 4 feet width, up to 2 feet depth, two $53,191 sides 4 feet width and 1 foot depth, both $39,111 sides

3,129

$17.00

1,564

$25.00

4,693

$58.00

1,760

$58.00

$246.00

Landscaping (5%)

1.00

$23,576.00

$23,576

Drainage and E&S (5%)

1.00

$23,576.00

$23,576

Maintenance of Traffic (10%)

1.00

$47,152.00

$47,152

Utility Adjustments (5%)

1.00

$23,576.00

$23,576

Subtotal

$589,396

30% Contingency

$176,819

Total Estimated Cost

$766,300

$145.13 Per Foot

$383,150

$72.57 Per Side

Aggregate Base Course Widen Concrete Sidewalk (4" Thickness) Repair Concrete Sidewalk (4" Thickness) New Sign

$272,213 Assume 4 feet, both sides Assume 25% of existing sidewalk, $102,080 both sides 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of $4,920 road

Lump Sum Items

Greenway, GWY (Construct) - no curb work Includes: construction of new 10 foot minimum greenway through open land or sewer easement with minimal grading. Item

Unit Quantity

Unit Cost

Total Cost

Assumptions

Earthwork, Excavation, Grading, Fill

8,800

$17.00

$149,600 15 feet width and 3 feet depth

Aggregate Base Course

1,956

$25.00

TON

496

$67.00

TON

1,985

$67.00

$246.00

$48,889 10 feet width and 1 feet depth 10 feet width and 0.125 feet depth, $33,248 13.3 CF in a TON 10 feet width and 0.5 feet depth, $132,992 13.3 CF in a TON 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of $4,920 greenway

Landscaping (5%)

1.00

$18,482.00

$18,482

Drainage and E&S (10%)

1.00

$36,965.00

$36,965

Maintenance of Traffic (5%)

1.00

$18,482.00

$18,482

Utility Adjustments (10%)

1.00

$36,965.00

$36,965

Subtotal

$480,543

30% Contingency

$96,109

Total Estimated Cost

$576,700

Asphalt Surface Course Asphalt Base Course New Sign Lump Sum Items

$109.22 Per Foot

Sidepath, SidePath (Repair) - no curb work Includes: replacement of existing 6 foot concrete sidewalk with new 10 foot minimum shared use path alongside a roadway. Require minimal grading. Item Earthwork, Excavation, Grading, Fill Aggregate Base Course Asphalt Surface Course

Unit Quantity

Unit Cost

Total Cost

Assumptions

1,173

$17.00

$19,947 30%, 10 feet width and 2 feet depth

587

$25.00

TON

496

$14,667 30%, 10 feet width and 1 feet depth December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Appendices 100%, 10 feet width and 0.125 feet $33,248 depth, 13.3 CF in a TON

$67.00

137

30% Contingency

$96,109

Total Estimated Cost

$576,700

$109.22 Per Foot

Unit Quantity

Unit Cost

Total Cost

Assumptions

1,173

$17.00

$19,947 30%, 10 feet width and 2 feet depth

587

$25.00

TON

496

$67.00

TON

595

$67.00

4,107

$7.00

1,760

$4.00

$14,667 30%, 10 feet width and 1 feet depth 100%, 10 feet width and 0.125 feet $33,248 depth, 13.3 CF in a TON 30%, 10 feet width and 0.5 feet $39,898 depth, 13.3 CF in a TON assume 70% requires milling at 10 $28,747 foot width assume 30% requires removal at 10 $7,040 foot width

$275.00

$246.00

$11,000 1 symbol every 250 feet (bike lanes) 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of $4,920 road

Lump Sum Items Landscaping (5%)

1.00

$7,973.00

$7,973

Drainage and E&S (10%)

1.00

$15,947.00

$15,947

Maintenance of Traffic (5%)

1.00

$7,973.00

$7,973

1.00

$7,973.00

$7,973

Subtotal

$199,332

30% Contingency

$59,800

Total Estimated Cost

$259,200

Utility Adjustments (5%)

$49.09 Per Foot

Sidepath, SUP (ReConstruct) - curb work Includes: replacement of existing 6 foot concrete sidewalk with new 10 foot minimum shared use path alongside a roadway. Requires major grading with some retaining walls along with removal and replacement of existing curb and gutter. Item

Unit Quantity

Unit Cost

Earthwork, Excavation, Grading, Fill

7,822

$17.00

Aggregate Base Course

1,956

$25.00

TON

496

$67.00

TON

1,985

$67.00 $7.00

Asphalt Surface Course Asphalt Base Course

Total Cost

20 feet disturbance one side and 2 $132,978 feet depth $48,889 10 feet width, 1 feet depth 10 feet width and 0.125 feet depth, $33,248 13.3 CF in a TON 10 feet width and 0.5 feet depth, $132,992 13.3 CF in a TON $36,960 both sides

Remove Curb and Gutter

5,280

Remove 6 foot sidewalk

3,520

$4.00

$14,080 both sides

Curb and Gutter

5,280

$20.00

$105,600 both sides

$275.00

528

$500.00

$246.00

Landscaping (5%)

1.00

$39,233.00

$39,233

Drainage and E&S (10%)

1.00

$78,467.00

$78,467

Maintenance of Traffic (10%)

1.00

$78,467.00

$78,467

Utility Adjustments (10%)

1.00

$78,467.00

$78,467

Subtotal

$1,059,301

Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol Retaining Wall (up to 6 foot height) New Sign

$11,000 1 symbol every 250 feet (cycle track) $264,000 10% of length 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of $4,920 road

Lump Sum Items

138

Assumptions

Appendices | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

Subtotal

$199,332

30% Contingency

$59,800

Total Estimated Cost

$259,200

$49.09 Per Foot

Unit Quantity

Unit Cost

Earthwork, Excavation, Grading, Fill

7,822

$17.00

Aggregate Base Course

1,956

$25.00

TON

496

$67.00

TON

1,985

$67.00 $7.00

Asphalt Surface Course Asphalt Base Course

Total Cost

Assumptions

Remove Curb and Gutter

5,280

Remove 6 foot sidewalk

3,520

$4.00

$14,080 both sides

Curb and Gutter

5,280

$20.00

$105,600 both sides

$275.00

528

$500.00

$246.00

1.00

$39,233.00

$39,233 $78,467 $78,467

Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol Retaining Wall (up to 6 foot height) New Sign

$11,000 1 symbol every 250 feet (cycle track) $264,000 10% of length 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of $4,920 road

Lump Sum Items Landscaping (5%) Drainage and E&S (10%)

1.00

$78,467.00

Maintenance of Traffic (10%)

1.00

$78,467.00

Utility Adjustments (10%)

1.00

$78,467.00

$78,467

Subtotal

$1,059,301

30% Contingency

$317,790

Total Estimated Cost

$1,377,100

$260.81 Per Foot

One Way Cycletrack (Construct New - 7' asphalt w/ curb & gutter & median) - both sides Includes: relocation of existing 6 foot concrete sidewalk with new 7 foot minimum cycle track alongside a roadway. Requires major grading with some retaining walls along with removal and replacement of existing curb and gutter. Item Earthwork, Excavation, Grading, Fill

Unit Quantity

Unit Cost

Total Cost

Assumptions

12 feet disturbance each side and 2 $159,573 feet depth 7 feet width each side and 1 feet $68,444 depth

9,387

$17.00

2,738

$25.00

TON

695

TON

2,779

528

Remove Curb and Gutter

10,560

$7.00

Remove 6 foot sidewalk

7,040

$4.00

$28,160 both sides

Curb and Gutter

10,560

$20.00

$211,200 both sides

Construct Concrete Sidewalk (4" Thickness)

5,867

$58.00

$340,267 both sides

$275.00

$246.00

1.00

Aggregate Base Course

Asphalt Surface Course Asphalt Base Course Retaining Wall (up to 6 foot height)

Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol New Sign

$67.00 $67.00 $500.00

Lump Sum Items Landscaping (5%)

$69,711.00

7 feet width and 0.125 feet depth, $46,547 13.3 CF in a TON each side 7 feet width and 0.5 feet depth, 13.3 $186,189 CF in a TON each side $264,000 10% of length $73,920 both sides

$11,000 1 symbol every 250 feet (cycle track) 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of $4,920 road

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Appendices

$69,711

139

30% Contingency

$317,790

Total Estimated Cost

$1,377,100

$260.81 Per Foot

Unit Quantity

Unit Cost

Total Cost

Assumptions

12 feet disturbance each side and 2 $159,573 feet depth 7 feet width each side and 1 feet $68,444 depth

9,387

$17.00

2,738

$25.00

TON

695

TON

2,779

Retaining Wall (up to 6 foot height)

528

Remove Curb and Gutter

10,560

Remove 6 foot sidewalk

7,040

$4.00

$28,160 both sides

Curb and Gutter

10,560

$20.00

$211,200 both sides

Construct Concrete Sidewalk (4" Thickness)

5,867

$58.00

$340,267 both sides

$275.00

$246.00

Landscaping (5%)

1.00

$69,711.00

$69,711

Drainage and E&S (10%)

1.00

$139,422.00

$139,422

Maintenance of Traffic (10%)

1.00

$139,422.00

$139,422

Utility Adjustments (10%)

1.00

$139,422.00

$139,422

Subtotal

$1,882,198

30% Contingency

$564,659

Total Estimated Cost

$2,446,900

Aggregate Base Course

Asphalt Surface Course Asphalt Base Course

Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol New Sign

$67.00 $67.00 $500.00 $7.00

7 feet width and 0.125 feet depth, $46,547 13.3 CF in a TON each side 7 feet width and 0.5 feet depth, 13.3 $186,189 CF in a TON each side $264,000 10% of length $73,920 both sides

$11,000 1 symbol every 250 feet (cycle track) 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of $4,920 road

Lump Sum Items

$463.43 Per Foot

Two Way Cycletrack (Construct New - 10' asphalt w/ curb & gutter & median), one side Includes: relocation of existing 6 foot concrete sidewalk with new 7 foot minimum cycle track alongside a roadway. Requires major grading with some retaining walls along with removal and replacement of existing curb and gutter. Item

Unit Cost

Earthwork, Excavation, Grading, Fill

15,644

$17.00

Aggregate Base Course

1,956

$25.00

TON

496

$67.00

TON

1,985

$67.00

528

$500.00 $7.00

Asphalt Surface Course Asphalt Base Course Retaining Wall (up to 6 foot height)

Total Cost

Assumptions 20 feet disturbance one side and 2 $265,956 feet depth $48,889 10 feet width, 1 feet depth 10 feet width and 0.125 feet depth, $33,248 13.3 CF in a TON 10 feet width and 0.5 feet depth, $132,992 13.3 CF in a TON $264,000 10% of length $36,960 both sides

Remove Curb and Gutter

5,280

Remove 6 foot sidewalk

3,520

$4.00

$14,080 both sides

Curb and Gutter

5,280

$20.00

$105,600 both sides

Construct Concrete Sidewalk (4" Thickness)

2,933

$58.00

$170,133 both sides

$275.00

$246.00

Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol New Sign 140

Unit Quantity

$11,000 1 symbol every 250 feet (cycle track) 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of $4,920 road

Appendices | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

Lump Sum Items

Landscaping & retaining walls (25%)

1.00

$271,945.00

$271,945

30% Contingency

$564,659

Total Estimated Cost

$2,446,900

$463.43 Per Foot

Unit Quantity

Unit Cost

Earthwork, Excavation, Grading, Fill

15,644

$17.00

Aggregate Base Course

1,956

$25.00

TON

496

$67.00

TON

1,985

$67.00

528

$500.00 $7.00

Asphalt Surface Course Asphalt Base Course Retaining Wall (up to 6 foot height)

Total Cost

Remove Curb and Gutter

5,280

Remove 6 foot sidewalk

3,520

$4.00

$14,080 both sides

Curb and Gutter

5,280

$20.00

$105,600 both sides

Construct Concrete Sidewalk (4" Thickness)

2,933

$58.00

$170,133 both sides

$275.00

$246.00

1.00

Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol New Sign

$11,000 1 symbol every 250 feet (cycle track) 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of $4,920 road

Lump Sum Items Landscaping & retaining walls (25%)

$271,945.00

$271,945

Drainage and E&S (10%)

1.00

$108,778.00

$108,778

Maintenance of Traffic (10%)

1.00

$108,778.00

$108,778

Utility Adjustments (30%)

1.00

$326,334.00

$326,334

Subtotal

$1,903,613

30% Contingency

$571,084

Total Estimated Cost

$2,474,700

$468.69 Per Foot

$1,237,350

$234.35 Per Side

Priority Shared Lane Marking Treatment (no color) Includes: shared lane pavement marking at 125 foot spacing with dotted white lines bracketing symbol. No markings on existing roadway require removal. Item Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Lines (4" to 6") Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol New Sign

Unit Quantity

Unit Cost

2,400

$275.00

$246.00

1.00

$1.75

Total Cost

Assumptions 4 dotted lines, 30 foot length either $4,200 side of symbol 1 Symbol every 125 feet per side of $22,000 the road $4,920 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of road

Lump Sum Items Maintenance of Traffic (10%)

$3,112.00

$3,112

Subtotal

$34,232

20% Contingency

$6,846

Total Estimated Cost

$41,100

$7.78 Per Foot

Unit Quantity LF

2,400

Unit Cost

Total Cost

DecemberAssumptions 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Appendices

4 dotted lines, 30 foot length either

141

20% Contingency

$6,846

Total Estimated Cost

$41,100

$7.78 Per Foot

Priority Shared Lane Marking Treatment with 4' color) Includes: shared lane pavement marking at 125 foot spacing with dotted white lines bracketing symbol filled with green color. No markings on existing roadway require removal. Item Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Lines (4" to 6") Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol New Sign Green coloring within sharrow space

Unit Quantity

Unit Cost

Total Cost

$1.75

$4,200

2,400

$275.00

$22,000

$246.00

$4,920

9,600

$6.00

$57,600

1.00

$8,452.00

$8,452

Subtotal

$97,172

20% Contingency

$19,434

Total Estimated Cost

$116,700

Assumptions 4 dotted lines, 30 foot length either side of symbol 1 Symbol every 125 feet per side of the road 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of road 4 feet wide color, 30 foot length either side of symbol

Lump Sum Items Maintenance of Traffic (10%)

$22.10 Per Foot

Striped Shoulder, SS (Add Markings, AM) Includes: shoulder lane line markings in both directions with parking regulation signs. No markings on existing roadway require removal. Item

Unit Quantity

Unit Cost $1.75

Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Lines (4" to 6")

10,560

Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Symbol

$275.00

$246.00

1.00

New Sign

Total Cost

Assumptions

$18,480 2 solid lines entire length $0 No symbols 1 Sign every 500 feet, each side of $4,920 road

Lump Sum Items Maintenance of Traffic (10%)

$2,340.00

$2,340

Subtotal

$25,740

20% Contingency

$5,148

Total Estimated Cost

$30,900

$5.85 Per Foot

Add Pedestrian Scale Lighting, AL (FSWAL) 60 foot spacing, along SUP or one side of roadway Includes: installation of pedestrian scale poles (20 feet) with decorative lamp spaced at 60 foot intervals. Item

Unit Quantity

Unit Cost

Total Cost

Assumptions new pedestrian poles, lights, one $88,000 side, 60 foot spacing

Pedestrian Scale Lighting

$8,500.00

$748,000

Power Hookup

$50,000.00

$50,000

Landscaping (5%)

1.00

$44,300.00

$44,300

Drainage and E&S (10%)

1.00

$88,600.00

$88,600 $88,600

Street Light Pedestal

$1,000.00

Lump Sum Items

142

Maintenance of Traffic (10%)

1.00

$88,600.00

Utility Adjustments (10%)

1.00

$88,600.00

$88,600

Subtotal

$1,196,100

30% Contingency

$358,830

Total Estimated Cost

$1,555,000

Appendices | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

$294.51 Per Foot

Subtotal

$25,740

20% Contingency

$5,148

Total Estimated Cost

$30,900

$5.85 Per Foot

Unit Quantity

Unit Cost

Total Cost

Assumptions new pedestrian poles, lights, one $88,000 side, 60 foot spacing

Pedestrian Scale Lighting

$8,500.00

$748,000

Power Hookup

$50,000.00

$50,000

1.00

$44,300.00

$44,300 $88,600 $88,600

Street Light Pedestal

$1,000.00

Lump Sum Items Landscaping (5%) Drainage and E&S (10%)

1.00

$88,600.00

Maintenance of Traffic (10%)

1.00

$88,600.00

Utility Adjustments (10%)

1.00

$88,600.00

$88,600

Subtotal

$1,196,100

30% Contingency

$358,830

Total Estimated Cost

$1,555,000

$294.51 Per Foot

$3,110,000

$589.02 Two Sides of Ro

Shared Use Path Bridge (14') Item

Unit Quantity

Unit Cost

Total Cost

Basic Prefab Bridge (200 foot span)

2,800

$250.00

$700,000

Public Art Bridge (200 foot span)

2,800

$1,000.00

$2,800,000

Total Estimated Cost

$3,500,000

Assumptions

$17,500.00 Per Foot

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Appendices

143

144

Appendices | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

Bike Share Appendix D

ABOUT BIKE SHARE What is Bike Share? Bike share is an innovative transportation program, whereby system subscribers have access to bicycles through selfservice kiosk locations around the community. The system is accessed through low-cost subscriptions ranging from a few dollars for one-day to annual memberships that generally cost less than a bicycle tune-up. Bike share is ideal for short distance point-to-point trips providing subscribers access to bicycles at any self-serve bike station to use and return to any bike station within the system’s service area. Most existing systems allow subscribers to make as many trips as often as they like without additional charge provided they return the bicycles to a system station within 30 to 60 minutes. Operators generally begin to charge gradually increasing fees after this free period to discourage users from holding onto the bicycles when they are not being used, encouraging turnover and ensuring that bicycles are readily available for other system subscribers. In cities across the US, bike sharing systems have proven very popular and successful by giving residents and visitors alike a fast, affordable, easy to use transportation option that can make getting around town fun. Characteristics of a bike share program: • It is oriented to short-term, point-to-point use: most U.S. operators record the average ride at 15 to 20 minutes and between one-to-three miles long. • The bicycle can be returned to any number of selfserve bike sharing stations, including the original check out location. • Generally, the bicycles are one style and easy to operate with simple components and adjustable seats. • The rental transaction is fully automated and there is no need for on-site staff.

History of Bike Sharing The history of bike sharing implementation can be traced through three generations: 1. Free Bike Programs: The free bikes generation started in the 1960s in Amsterdam with the implementation of the White Bikes program which offered distinctly colored, free unlocked bicycles throughout the city. Unfortunately, due to a variety of issues, including theft and damages to the bicycles, the bike plan failed soon after its launch.

2. Coin Deposit Systems: Coin deposit systems started in the 1970-80’s and offered bikes for hire throughout designated docking stations containing coin slots and small deposit boxes which reimbursed the coins when the bicycles were returned. Although the deposit boxes increased the chances for success of the programs, the programs were still vulnerable to theft and vandalism due to their lack of user accountability and low deposits (which did not guarantee that the bikes would be returned). 3. Automated self-serve kiosks: The third generation of bike share programs promoted the use of bicycles using automated self-service kiosks at every station. These systems have also required a higher level of accountability for the user (through the credit card requirement) as well as robust bicycle re-distribution programs that respond to user patterns and demand. Furthermore, third generation systems have included physically distinct bicycles, advanced radio frequency identification (RFID) technology (i.e. Smartcards, magnetic fobs, etc.) and specialized wireless technology that give users the ability to check out a bike whenever and wherever they find a stocked bike station. Some of the current third generation systems now include GPS technology which allows the tracking of real time ridership patterns in which provide useful data for planning and redistribution purposes

Benefits of Bike Sharing Bike sharing systems have evolved as a means to make bicycle travel in urban areas available to a wider range of people. A bike sharing service makes both spontaneous and planned urban trips possible by bike and can be an ideal complement to transit trips as it provides first mile and last mile connections. This section provides a short summary of some of the economic, transportation/mobility, environmental, and health benefits of bike sharing.

Economic Benefits

Bike sharing is a relatively inexpensive and quick to implement urban transportation option compared to other transportation modes. In cities with existing bike sharing programs, the relative costs of launching and implementing a bike share system have been considerably less than investments in other modes. For users, bike sharing has been known to reduce the personal cost of urban transportation. Jurisdictions have also benefited from the flexibility of bicycle sharing programs as they can be installed and open for business in months rather than years. Previous research on funding for bike sharing programs has indicated that U.S. jurisdictions have allocated only a small part of funding from their local funds to use in bike sharing implementation. To date, a high proportion of the total

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Appendices

145

funding allocated for existing programs has come through State and Federal grants, reducing the local contributions to a minimum. Additional forms of funding have included private donations, corporate sponsorships, and user revenues. Existing U.S. bike share programs have also had a very positive “farebox recovery” (i.e. costs vs revenues), compared to other modes of transportation (i.e. bus, rail), relying less on local subsidies and funding. For example Boulder, CO, a city that has implemented a small system (23 bike share stations) farebox recovery has hovered around 30 to 40%. This compares to Capital Bikeshare in the Washington D.C. area where the farebox recovery is around 90%. In those jurisdictions where cost recovery is not a high, jurisdictions have leveraged their partnerships and sponsorship agreements with various organizations to maintain an optimum level of service. As mentioned above, the cost of utilizing bike share for users can be very low. This cost usually only includes the membership fee (typically between $50 and $100 per year), and ridership fees which may be free if the user utilizes the bicycle within the free period. This compares to the costs of running and maintaining a car which are around $7,000 – $10,000. The implementation of a bike share program also has the potential to bring economic development and increased economic activity to cities. Recent studies indicated that there has been increased economic activity associated with Nice Ride bike sharing stations and increased accessibility to business transactions. Positive attitude towards bike sharing by local businesses has also been observed, as there has been an increase of economic activity in businesses located with close proximity to bike sharing stations. This same phenomenon has been present in Miami Beach, where around 80% of Deco Bike users were more likely to patronize a business with a bike share station close-by.

Transportation / Mobility Benefits

Bike share can provide one of the most affordable public transport options. As bike share represents an additional mobility option providing last mile connections to and from transit, existing programs have reported an increase in the number of transit users. Bike share has also improved connectivity to different parts of the city where transit did not reach (64% of Capital Bikeshare survey respondents reported that they would not have otherwise made the trip if bike share was not available) and has created increased demand for bicycling while helping decrease the number of personal vehicle trips. Bike share can also help introduce people to cycling as a mode of transportation and to people who don’t usually ride. In Minneapolis for example

146

Appendices | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

approximately one-third of system users cycled less than once per month before signing up with Nice Ride.

Health Benefits

In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of sedentary and obese American adults and children. It has been well-documented that engaging in light to moderate physical activity reduces the risk heart disease, stroke, and other chronic and life-threatening illnesses. Physical activity can also improve mental health and even lower health care costs. Throughout many existing U.S. programs in the US including Nice Ride MN, Bcycle Kansas City, San Antonio B-cycle and Denver B-Cycle, the health benefits component has attracted interest from the health care industry, in particular health care providers which have become major sponsors for each of the programs.

Environmental Benefits

Bike share programs have environmental benefits due to auto trips avoided, and also have a minimal environmental footprint. As many bike sharing stations tend to be solar powered, bike sharing offers a transportation alternative that is virtually carbon neutral. Additionally, bike sharing programs have been known to cause a shift in the transportation mode utilized by private individuals, therefore decreasing CO2 emissions. For example Denver B-cycle reported helping avoid 729,783 lbs of CO2 in 2011 .

Safety Benefits

Existing U.S. bike share programs have reported very low crash rates compared to crashes among bicyclists riding their personal bikes. For example, as of March 2012, the largest systems in the U.S. (i.e. Capital Bikeshare, Nice Ride and Deco Bike) only reported 16 crashes overall with no fatalities or major incidents. When compared to the number of rides by the three systems in the same period (around 2.5 million) the accident rate is lower than 0.05 %, which again is lower than the injury rate. Some of the factors contributing to this safety record include: • Heavier bicycles with more robust tires and gearing causing riders to go at slower speeds • Drum brakes in most bikes which make slowing a bicycle easy and efficient • Integrated flashing lights in every bike • Safety in numbers effect and increased driver awareness • Design of the bicycle which comes with low step over height and make it easier for the user to regain their balance quickly. • Regular bicycle inspections by the bike share program operator

Key Issues to consider for Bike Share Feasibility Bike share has become a key aspect of any community thinking about their future plans for cycling. However, understanding how to think about bike share in the context of the community, and considering implementation challenges is an important part of evaluating whether a bike share program is right for Chapel Hill / UNC. There are many ways that UNC / Chapel Hill can undertake a detailed evaluation of bike share. Each has met with successes and challenge in different cities: • Informal evaluation– Some communities choose to do an internal qualitative assessment that is not necessarily a written report, to assess bike share. It may have some aspects of a feasibility study, such as a GIS or policy analysis, and some included a Request for Information (RFI) to get input from the industry prior to undertaking an official procurement. Examples of communities that have followed this path are Boston, Washington DC, Chicago, Des Moines, Fort Lauderdale, Denver and others. Many of these cities were early adopters of bike share, so a feasibility study at that time would not have had much data to back its conclusions. • Feasibility study performed by staff – Some communities have used their own internal resources to undertake a formal feasibility study, or a local nonprofit has undertaken and published the study. Examples of communities that have followed this path are New York City, Minneapolis and New Orleans. • Feasibility study performed by consulting company – Many communities more recently have chosen to undertake a formal feasibility study to evaluate all aspects of bike share feasibility, business modeling and implementation. This document may sometimes be used as a confirmation in writing for politicians as a city is in procurement or implementation mode. Examples of communities that have undertaken this path are Philadelphia, Seattle, Cincinnati, Memphis, Cleveland, Birmingham, Frederick (Maryland), and Raleigh is currently working on one. Whatever path is chosen there are many factors that should be considered with regard to feasibility and implementation of a bike share program.

Existing Conditions

To assess the feasibility of bike share for Chapel Hill and UNC, the first step is to evaluate current conditions in the area. These conditions can roughly be characterized in the categories described below. Typically, GIS data for all these

factors are overlaid to create a bike share heat map and demand analysis, which yields the area, size and potential phasing of a bike share system. Geography, climate and land use Larger scale geography can have an impact on the success or lack thereof of a bike share system. In general, areas that are relatively flat, don’t have extreme climate and have a mix of land uses are more prone to hosting a successful bike share system. Demographics and employment Bike share demand is probably most strongly influenced by the density and mix of land uses. This density and land use in turn impacts the demographics of the area. Some quantitative items that should be analyzed when considering bike share are population density, age, gender and income distribution, and employment density. Bicycle infrastructure Different communities have taken different approaches to the development of bicycle infrastructure – bike lanes, trails, cycle tracks, parking – in relation to the development of a bike share program. Most cities have developed them in parallel. They make improvements during the sometimes long process of procuring and contracting a bike share program, and then continue development after the program has launched and demand for better facilities increases. It is sometimes necessary to use bike share to spark infrastructure development. Nevertheless, analysis of the current state of bicycle infrastructure is important when considering bike share. Public transit Bike share is a great complement to an existing public transit system, and can help attract riders to the system by providing a “last mile” solution. Evaluation of the public transit options for a community and potential synergies between public transit are parameters that can help predict the success of a bike share system. Policies, plans and regulations A review should be undertaken of current local policies, plans and regulations to evaluate whether there are any hidden issues that may cause difficulties in bike share implementation. Such policies can include helmet laws, permitting processes for stations, outdoor advertising current contracts, restrictions and regulations, and plans that may have laid groundwork for implementation to make the political aspect of bike share smoother.

Organizational capacity for management

An agency or organization must ultimately take action and responsibility for implementing a system. This may be a Department of Transportation, an existing non-

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Appendices

147

profit, a regional planning agency, or a newly-created nonprofit organization. A feasibility assessment should undertake an evaluation of the community to recommend an implementing organization that has the desire and the capacity to take on such a responsibility.

Public input

During a feasibility analysis, most communities do some initial outreach to the general public both to educate and to gauge interest in a bike share program. The public outreach includes a general project website with information and resources, a survey and a crowdsourcing map so that people can input desired bike share locations. In addition, at least one public meeting is held to both receive comments, receive input on station locations, and educate. This input should be used in assessing a community’s readiness for bike share.

Stakeholder input

In every community, there are many stakeholders that should have a voice from the very beginning in the sculpting of a bike share system. It is important to engage early them to gauge their interest and/or resistance. These stakeholders may be potential funders, regional partners, real estate owners, institutions, or others. Some examples are: • Potential title and/or station sponsors • Regional neighboring communities • Employers • Colleges and universities • Hospitals • Foundations • Transit agencies • Regional planning organizations • Cycling or transportation advocacy organizations • Large real estate owners • Business improvement districts • Other internal agencies such as planning, preservation, parks, police During the feasibility process, input from these stakeholders should be solicited. When it comes time for implementation, they will already be familiar with the program and will be prepared to act as necessary. They will also help to identify any potential issues or obstacles that may exist.

System size, area and phasing

Using the data collected in the Existing Conditions phase, a GIS analysis should be undertaken to determine the system

148

Appendices | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

area, station density, system size and potential phasing. The demand analysis will be the basis for the business and implementation plan should feasibility be determined.

Potential funding sources

The funding environment must be assessed to understand the potential availability of public (federal, state, city), private (sponsorship, advertising) or other (foundation, institutional or other) funds that may be available to fund a bike share system.

Key issues to consider for bike share implementation

Using all of the above data, it should be determined whether a bike share system is feasible in the UNC / Chapel Hill area. Should the assessment be positive, then this study will be the basis for the business planning and implementation aspects of the system. Similar to the feasibility phase, different communities have chosen to do this in different ways, ranging from informal to delivery of a written business plan. Following are aspects that must be considered in business planning and implementation in all communities:

Goals of system

When creating the business plan and funding structures, there are many points of decision. Therefore, to guide a community in short- and long-term decision making, it is very important to define the goals and objectives for the system from the beginning. These goals may include social equity, financial sustainability, ridership, profitability, or other priorities to be defined during this process. Defining the expected goals by the various stakeholders will help inform the discussion and recommendations for a potential business and operational model for a bike share system.

Impacts

The impacts of a bike share system can also be evaluated and quantified – environmental , health, economic, mode shift. Establishing goals and quantifiable impacts will yield a “measuring stick” for evaluation once a system is launched.

Capital, installation and operating costs

The core of a business plan is to give a community the costs for capital, installation and operating a bike share system over a certain period of time, as well as anticipated revenues for the system. These revenues and expenses are based on the demand analysis, and create the basis for the fundraising goal for either the agency or contractor. These costs should be based on current industry standards for all aspects of the system, as well as account for administration, evaluation and upkeep of the system.

Governance structure

The business plan and the governance structure are intimately related, and a recommendation for governance structure should be based on the initial evaluation of organizational capacity in the community to administrate a system. Governance structures can be city-owned and operated, city-owned and contractor-operated, nonprofit owned and operated, regional authority owned or operated, or others. The goals of the system will also dictate the governance structure – if profitability / financial independence are a major goal, then the structure would be different from a system whose major goal it is to promote ridership and social equity.

Other implementation challenges

Other items are important to be aware of when considering a bike share system. Technology The industry is still new and changing very rapidly. Most systems in the US are solar, wireless and station-based. However, there is some new stationless technology that may be interesting for smaller communities. Although the final technology chosen will not be established until a procurement process is undertaken, it is very important that communities become familiar with the different technologies and advantages and disadvantages to each. Station siting and permitting issues No matter how many stations, two or two-hundred, introducing bike share into a community is difficult. Permitting bike share stations does not fit into the usual types of permits that agencies give out. There are many potential issues that may come up, from historical districts to sponsorship / advertising to taking parking spaces to safety and emergency issues. Therefore, it is important for a community to deeply understand the process that will be undertaken prior to implementation so as not to introduce unforeseen delays in system launch. System branding Branding a system can be a fun and challenging process. It will be guided by stakeholders who are investing in the system, either financial or otherwise, and be raised up to the highest leadership in a community. Branding includes the name of the system (which may include a title sponsor), color scheme for the system, design of the bike, kiosk and other aspects of the system. Again, it is important for the community to understand what agencies and/or people will have an influence (and veto power) on system branding prior to implementation, so as not to introduce unforeseen delays in system launch.

Safety Although the safety record of bike share systems is very strong to date, different cities have adopted different best practices with regard to endorsement ofsafe cycling practices, including language and signage recommending helmet use for bike share riders. A community should evaluate what level of communication is required for a bike share system, and make sure it is integrated into all aspects of the system – the bicycle, the kiosks, the website, public relations and all other communications. Social equity Bike share is the most affordable means of public transportation and a huge opportunity to bring active transportation to communities that are often challenged with public health issues. However, no bike share systems to date have significant uptake in lower income communities. Therefore, if social equity is a central goal of the bike share system, a community must identify that early on in the goals establishment of the system, and take active steps towards implementation. These steps include allocating budget for communication and marketing, personnel to provide active outreach into different communities, station siting to make sure there is an equitable distribution of stations in all communities, programs to offer affordable memberships and other strategies.

Specific issues for Chapel Hill and UNC

The above section outlines considerations for any community evaluating and implementing bike share. There are many issues specific to the Chapel Hill / UNC area which must also be considered.

Summary of survey responses regarding bike share

As part of the UNC online survey, responses were elicited regarding Tar Heel Bikes, the existing bike share system on the UNC campus, as well as the potential of a larger bike share. Following are the main points of the responses: • Most respondents on the UNC campus did not know about (83%) or use (95%) Tar Heel Bikes • 45 to 50% of respondents said they would use a larger bike sharing program that included any and all of the following: campus, Chapel Hill, Carrboro • Only 25% of respondents said they would use a system that also included Durham, Raleigh and Research Triangle Park • Some input as to potential improvements for Tar Heel Bikes was: - The opportunity for one-way trips

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Appendices

149

- Increased awareness and publicity about it - More bikes and locations, not just South Campus - Design of bicycles – inability to adjust seat, odd handlebars, many bikes under repair Following are a summary of responses from people from the Town of Chapel Hill: • 12% said a bike sharing program would cause them to bike more often (compared to 84% saying bike lanes would have that impact) • 30 to 40% of people said that they would use a bike sharing program covering UNC, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Raleigh and Durham. There was a slightly lower number who responded positively to the Raleigh and Durham addition (29%), then UNC / Chapel Hill / Carrboro (40%) As a summary, there is low uptake of the current Tar Heel Bikes program, but openness to a larger bike share program. Survey results are not convincing that a bike share program would cause a big change in mode shift towards bicycling. It must be noted that bike share is a unique opportunity to convert people to cycling, as has been shown in many cities. It is difficult for survey respondents to answer accurately to something they do not know. In other cities, bike share has not yet caused a large mode shift, but has worked to convert non-cyclists to cyclists and to change societal attitudes towards cycling.

Regionalization issues

The Triangle area presents a particular challenge when it comes to establishing a region-wide bike share system because of the many towns and large institutions in the area with different decision-making bodies. Isolated to Chapel Hill, it is clear that for a system to be truly effective requires an organizational setup and collaboration between the Town of Chapel Hill and UNC. The types of collaboration required include: • Establishing common goals for the system • Tapping or establishing a governing organization • Funding a system • Procuring a system • Naming and branding a system • Establishing a decision-making structure so that each stakeholder has a fair say • Potentially establishing revenue- and cost-sharing between the different stakeholders

150

Appendices | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

This list shows that the collaboration and ongoing relationship is a close one. It is possible to establish a new nonprofit that has board representation of stakeholders to undertake such tasks, and that is one of the governance structures that should be considered. However, the potential exists in the Triangle region for a larger system that includes Raleigh, Durham, NC State, Duke and Research Triangle Park, at a minimum. Such a regional system would not necessarily involve people who ride between the towns / cities, but would more likely involve a common key for commuters between these cities. Such a system could be a unique and large system that could have benefits throughout the region and could even be a model established of national import. Implementation with multiple large stakeholders, however, can be challenging, with establishing the appropriate governance structure agreed on by all parties the biggest challenge. The City of Raleigh is undertaking a feasibility study of bike sharing in early 2014.

Topography

Hills in the Chapel Hill / UNC area present some potential issues for bike sharing. Many cities with hills have successfully implemented systems, however. For example, Arlington County has a very large hill towards its largest Metro stop that is nearest Washington DC. Therefore, there will always be a flow of people riding downhill. Bike share operations include a rebalancing component such that bikes are moved from full stations to empty stations. In a small system, significant rebalancing is not always necessary. However, because of the topography of Chapel Hill, it should be taken into account as part of the business plan. Chattanooga has dealt with topography through having bicycles with more gears than a standard bike share bicycle to accommodate the hills in that city.

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Appendices

151

Funding Scan Appendix E STATE FUNDING Most bicycle project funding in North Carolina comes from the Department of Transportation (NCDOT). State funding is cataloged and prioritized through the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) process which Chapel Hill takes part in through submitting projects to the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO). Every two years, the DCHC MPO has the opportunity to submit 20 bicycle/pedestrian projects and multiple highway projects for inclusion in the STIP which outlines transportation projects for the next ten years. Submitted projects, starting in April 2014, are prioritized through the SPOT 3.0 process which is a data-driven ranking process. Highway and bicycle projects are assessed through different metrics, but both processes emphasize serving dense population areas and important destinations, improving safety, and ranking high on MPO funding lists.1

MAP-21 consolidates formerly separate bicycle and pedestrian funding programs under one banner of Transportation Alternatives (TAP). These include Safe Routes to School, the Recreational Trails Program, redevelopment of underused highways into boulevards, and Transportation Enhancements. Bicycle projects are eligible for funding through a range of other federal transportation funding sources detailed in the table below. All of these funding sources are applied for through other vehicles such as the MPO, State or a transit authority, not directly by a local jurisdiction. The acronyms used in the following table3 have the following definitions: •

FTA: Federal Transit Administration Capital Funds

•

ATI: Associated Transit Improvement

•

CMAQ: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program

•

HSIP: Highway Safety Improvement Program

•

NHPP/NHS: National Highway Performance Program (National Highway System)

•

STP: Surface Transportation Program

•

TAP/TE: Transportation Alternatives Program / Transportation Enhancement Activities

•

RTP: Recreational Trails Program

The current federal transportation authorization, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) includes dedicated funding for bicycle projects in a number of different programs. This authorization expires in September 2014, but it may be extended in its current form or may see changes after that date. MAP-21 gives states and regions a large amount of flexibility in the use and disbursement of these federal funds. NCDOT distributes 50% of the funds, and MPOs statewide distribute much of the rest of the funding. The DCHC MPO has not distributed any MAP-21 funds as of December 2013. At the DCHC MPO, all Federal Surface Transportation Project Direct Allocation (STPDA) and

•

SRTS: Safe Routes to School Program

•

PLAN: Statewide or Metropolitan Planning

•

402: State and Community Traffic Safety Program

•

FLH: Federal Lands Highway Program (Federal Lands Access Program, Federal Lands Transportation Program, Tribal Transportation Program)

•

BYW: National Scenic Byways Program

•

TCSP: Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Program

At the time of Plan publication, the SPOT evaluation characteristics were as follows in this presentation from January 2013: https://connect.ncdot.gov/ projects/planning/Planning%20Document%20Library/Prioritization%20 3.0%20Presentation%20-%20January%202013.pdf

There are a few restrictions on use of these funds:4

Other NCDOT funding sources such as Hazard Elimination Program do not need to go through the above process. The Hazard Elimination Program funds improvement projects to address safety and potential safety issues that are typically between $400,000 to $1 million. A Safety Oversight Committee (SOC) reviews and recommends Hazard Elimination projects to the Board of Transportation (BOT) for approval and funding. These projects are prioritized for funding according to a safety benefit to cost ratio, with the safety benefit being based on crash reduction. Once approved and funded by the BOT, these projects become part of the department’s STIP.2

FEDERAL FUNDING

Text from NCDOT: https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Pages/NCHighway-Safety-Program-and-Projects.aspx

152

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds can only be used for bicycle, pedestrian or transit projects, or for enhancements projects.

Appendices | Chapel Hill North Carolina Bicycle Master Plan | December 2013

•

Bicycle projects must be able to serve a transportation purpose, e.g. they cannot be recreational loop trails that do not have a destination. Funds through the

•

Recreational Trails Program are an exception to this rule.

www.peopleforbikes.org/pages/apply-now

Most federal funding is focused on construction activities, but non-construction bicycle activities are also eligible for STP, HSIP and CMAQ funds as demonstrated by a number of eligible activities in the table above.

Public health funding

Funds generally may be used only for projects that are on the Federal-aid highway system -- which typically does not include local or minor collector roads. However, bicycle and pedestrian projects not located on the Federal-aid highway system may be funded under the STP (and therefore also under the Transportation Enhancement Activities, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program) and under the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program.

Increasingly, public health professionals are recognizing the strong role active transportation can plan in preventative medicine. Local health foundations throughout the country are now funding organizations, and in some cases municipalities, to construct bicycle infrastructure or operate bicycle programs. For example, the Mary Black Foundation, a health legacy foundation, funded a 1.9-mile rail trail in Spartanburg, SC, and the Centers for Disease Control’s Healthy Community Design Initiative disbursed a competitive grant to Davidson, NC which was used, in part, to review street design guidelines for their impact on active transportation and health.

Most federal funding programs require a 20% match of funds from state or local sources. Exceptions to this rule include: •

For the Highway Safety Improvement Program, the federal share is 90%, subject to the sliding scale rates, except that the Federal share is 100 percent; for certain safety improvements listed in 23 U.S.C. 120(c).

•

Bicycle-related transit projects are 90 percent Federal and may increase to 95 percent Federal for bicyclerelated transit enhancement projects;

•

Individual Transportation Enhancement and Recreational Trails Program projects may exceed the 80 percent Federal share provided the State program overall matches at the 80/20 level.

OTHER FUNDING Some communities have had success obtaining funding for either infrastructure or programs related to bicycling.

People for Bikes This national nonprofit, formerly known as Bikes Belong, has issued community grants for bicycle infrastructure projects since 1999. These grants totaling $2.5 million have leveraged over $650 million in communities across the country. Projects as diverse as mountain bike parks and intersection improvements have been funded and constructed. Applications are accepted twice a year in spring and fall, and further information is available here: http:// This table is current as of December 2013 and should be considered to be in DRAFT form. Updated, adopted guidance will be available at http://www. fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/bp-guid.cfm

Information for the following eligibility and matching sections is drawn from the FHWA Guidance on bicycle and pedestrian funding.

December 2013 | Chapel Hill Bicycle Master Plan | Appendices

153

* * *

Bicycle storage or service centers

Bridges / overcrossings

* *

Spot improvement programs

Tunnels / undercrossings

Training

Trail/highway intersections

Trail bridges

* Until Expended

Signed bicycle or pedestrian routes

Signs / signals / signal improvements

Traffic calming

Safety education positions Shared use paths / transportation trails Sidewalks (new or retrofit)

Safety brochures, books

Recreational trails

Police patrols

Helmet promotion Historic preservation (bike, ped and transit facilities) Land/streetscaping (bike and/or ped route; transit access) Maps (for bicyclists and/or pedestrians) Paved shoulders

Curb cuts and ramps

Crosswalks (new or retrofit)

Coordinator positions (State or local)

Bus shelters

* *

Bike racks on transit Bicycle share (capital/equipment costs; not operations)

* *

* * *

Bicycle parking

Bicycle lanes on road

* * * *

FTA

ATI

Access enhancements to public transportation Bicycle and/or pedestrian plans

Activity

CMAQ

HSIP

* * * *

* * *

** Until Not Available

* * * *

* * * * * *

* x * x x

* * *

* *

NHPP NHS

* *

* * * *

STP

* *

* * *

TAP TE x As SRTS

* * * * * *

* x * x x

* * x

* *

* * *

RTP

* * * *

* *

SRTS*

* * * * * *

* *

* * *

* *

PLAN

402

* *

FLH

* *

* * * *

BYW**

* *

* * * * * *

* *

* * * *

TCSP**