Uptown Urban Trails Connection Study by Stewart

JULY 2017

U P TOW N C O N N E C T S UPTOWN URBAN TRAILS CONNECTIVITY STUDY

PUBLIC PARTICIPANTS THANK YOU TO THE MANY CITIZENS, ADVOCATES, AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS OF CHARLOTTE FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY AND FOR PROVIDING INVALUABLE INPUT THROUGHOUT THE PLANNING PROCESS. THE PROJECT TEAM ALSO WISHES TO THANK THE MEMBERS OF THE TECHNICAL OVERSIGHT TEAM FOR THEIR GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT.

STUDY SPONSORS CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Vivian Coleman, RLA, AICP - Project Manager

CHARLOTTE CENTER CITY PARTNERS

P R OJ E C T C O N S U L TA N T S STEWART INC Andrew Hickling, P.E. - Project Manager Todd Delk, P.E. - Principal-In-Charge Kristy Jackson - Planner Iona Thomas, AICP - Planner Randi Gates, AICP - Planner

RAMEY KEMP & ASSOCIATES Jake Carpenter, P.E. - Traffic Engineer

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY

The Charlotte Department of Transportation (CDOT) and Charlotte Center City Partners, in an effort to enhance cycling and walking options through Uptown Charlotte, teamed to sponsor the Uptown Connects Study. The study aimed to evaluate options that connect the Little Sugar, Irwin and Stewart Creek greenways with destinations within Charlotteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s core. The key goals were to 1) identify a comprehensive Uptown network of bike facilities, 2) identify a pilot project to implement as the first step in developing that network, and 3) determine the feasibility of a multi-use or greenway connection along the Belk Freeway on the south side of Uptown. Considering numerous types of bike facilities, the project team followed a step-by-step process to evaluate the impacts of implementing an Uptown bike network. The process included data gathering through mobile tours and stakeholder sessions, evaluation of existing conditions and traffic operations to identify candidate corridors, development of a conceptual bike network, and selection of a pilot project to test implementation. Extensive public involvement efforts included meetings with the Charlotte cycling community, interactive public workshops, installation and demonstration of a pop-up cycle track, and one-on-one coordination with property owners. Based on the combined technical analyses and public input, the study recommends implementation of three key recommendations: Tiered Uptown Bike Network - Creating a true bike network in Uptown Charlotte is based on implementation of a variety of facilities types that provide appropriate protection and comfort for cyclists. Existing bike facilities in Uptown are limited, but provide a clean slate for recommendations that establish a core loop of Tier I separated bike facilities that are then linked and supplemented by the extension of existing bike lanes in Tier II. Tier III facilities (sharrows, bike boulevards, etc.) are recommended as local connections on low-volume neighborhood streets or narrow urban streets where shared use will be prioritized. 5th/6th Street Cycle Track - As the next step to implementing a full bike network, the study recommends the design and construction of a two-way cycle track along 5th St and 6th St from Irwin Ave to McDowell St. Cyclists will be separated from vehicular traffic by barriers for a majority of the corridor. The cycle track can be implemented within the existing curb lines, and has limited effect on congestion and parking as it crosses the city center. The corridor has only a few design challenges in key locations and will serve as a spine for cyclists traveling east/west through Uptown and between the Little Sugar Creek and Irwin Creek greenways. Belk Greenway - Redevelopment along Stonewall St just north of I-277 John Belk Freeway is transforming the south side of Uptown. The study recognizes the importance and the value of providing a premier connection along this corridor to the existing greenways east and west, the Lynx Blue Line, and major sporting venues like Bank of America Stadium and BB&T Ballpark. The proposed Belk Greenway will create that link with a multiuse trail located between the new development and the freeway, from traveling from Mint St to McDowell St with limited street crossings and grade-separated paths across freeway ramps and under overpasses. Although the facility will require extensive coordination with developers and NCDOT to complete, the connection offers a unique opportunity for branding and art installations that could make it an iconic feature for Uptown Charlotte.

CONTENTS Section 1 - Study Purpose

Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3 Study Goals.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................4

Section 2 - Study PROCESS

Tiered Network Approach..............................................................................................................................................................................................................7 Process Overview......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................9 Data Collection........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................11 Existing Conditions Evaluation...............................................................................................................................................................................................17 Functional Evaluation.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................19 Public Workshop #1..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................21 Tier 1 & 2 Concept Development........................................................................................................................................................................................29 Belk Greenway Connector Feasibility Analysis.......................................................................................................................................................33

Section 3 - recommendations

Bike Facility Network & Implementation......................................................................................................................................................................37 5th/6th Street Pilot Project..........................................................................................................................................................................................................41 Public Workshop #2...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................51 Lessons Learned from Other Pilot Projects................................................................................................................................................................53 Pilot Project - Next Steps.................................................................................................................................................................................................................54 Belk Greenway Connector Preferred Alignment ...............................................................................................................................................59 Conclusions...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................61

APPENDICES A B C

Segment Analysis Form Samples Segment analysis Summary Table Priority Corridor Analysis Summaries

S E C T I O N I

S T U D Y P U R P O S E 2

INTRODUCTION The Charlotte Department of Transportation (CDOT) and Charlotte Center City Partners teamed to sponsor the Uptown Connects study. The study seeks to identify challenges to and provide potential solutions for cycling and walking through Uptown Charlotte between existing and future greenways and destinations throughout Uptown. Building the infrastructure to afford Charlotteans active transportation choices provides many benefits to our city, some of which are shown on the following page. This study primarily evaluates cycling connectivity options between the Little Sugar, Irwin and Stewart Creek greenways as well as many other cultural, educational, commercial, recreational, residential and entertainment destinations within and around Uptown.

INCREASE I N C R E A S E STUDY THEMES Evaluations also include linkingAthe SAFETY C CSouth E S S I B I L I T YUPTOWN INCREASE End and Uptown segments of theORail p e n t h e c y c l i n g CONNECTSM a k e t h e c y c l i s t a A C C E S S I B I LpIeTd eYs t r i a n e x p e r i e Trail and connecting Uptown to e xthe perience in Uptown to STUDY THEMES Open the cycling future Mooresville to Charlotte Trail. safe r & more comfor u se rs of all age s and abilitie s.

Uptown Connects recommends a comprehensive, multi-tiered, low-stress bicycle facilities network for Uptown and the adjacent areas just outside the I-277 freeway loop.

The study also evaluates the feasibility of a multi-use pathway along the I-277 John Belk Freeway, connecting Little Sugar Creek Greenway to Irwin Creek Greenway (via Cedar Yards Greenway).

experience in Uptown to u se rs of all age s and

abilitie s.

MAKE CONNECTIONS

MAKE CONNECTIO

C re ate a ne tw ork that

links ke y/me aningfu l C re ate a ne tw ork de stinations in and links ke y/me aning adjace nt to Uptow n. de stinations in a adjace nt to Upto

CYCLING DESTINATIO BALANCE all He lp C harlotte re ac N E E D Sv i s i o n o f b e c o m i n g a transportation

This document details the approach, BALANCE process, and recommendations for N E E D S making these solutions a reality. Balance the ne e ds of modes of

Balance the ne e ds of all and curb space use rs. “City of Bikes”. mode s of transportation v and curb space use rs.

EXISTING GREENWAYS AND TRAILS IN UPTOWN

IR W IN

CR EE K

GR EE NW AY

K EE CR RT AY WA NW STE REE G

INCREASE ACCESSIBILITY

CE GR YA DA EE RD R NW S AY

Open the cycling

INCREASE TeY u s e r sSoA f aFl l Ea g s and

INCREASE ACCESSIBILITY

experience in Uptown to

Open the cycling

M a k e at b h iel i ct iyecsl .i s t a n d

experience in Uptown to

pe de strian e x pe rie nce

u se rs of all age s and

safe r & more comfortable .

abilitie s.

IL RA

L AI TR

MAKE CONNECTIO INCREASE INCREASE C re ate a ne tw ork t SAFETY ACCESSIBILITY MAKE links ke y/me aning M aSk e t h e c y c l i s t a n d O p e n t h e c y c l i nC g ONNECTION de stinations in an G R EE N W AY

pe de strian e x pe rie nce experience in Uptown to C re ate a ne tw ork that adjace nt to Uptow safe r & more comfortable . u se rs of all age s and links ke y/me aningfu l abilitie s. de stinations in and adjace nt to Uptow n.

links ke y/me aningfu l Balance the ne e ds of all He lp C harlotte re ach its de stinations in and mode s of transportation vision of becoming a true adjace nt to Uptow n. and curb space use rs. “City of Bikes”.

LI TT LE

IL RA

L AI TR

SU G A R

CR EE K

BALANCE NEEDS MAKE nce the ne e ds of all C O N N E C T I OB aNl aS CYCLING BALANCE C re ate a ne tw ork m t hoadte s o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n D E STINATION NEEDS and curb space use rs.

BALANCE

CYCLING DESTINATION

PROVIDING ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION CHOICES BENEFITS OUR CITY ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

INCREASES EFFICIENCY

Reduces air, water, and noise pollution.

Provides spatially efficient transportation choice and increases trip efficiency for short trips.

Allows Charlotte to compete with comparable cities for the best talent.

REDUCES CONGESTION

IMPROVES HEALTH

SOCIAL INTERACTION

Even those who choose not to use these facilities can benefit from a reduction in traffic congestion.

Active transportation infrastructure builds healthy communities by encouraging physical activity as part of daily life.

Increases social interactions between citizens.

REDUCES FUEL CONSUMPTION

ECONOMIC STIMULATION Saves money on gas & parking, promotes commercial business development, creates jobs, and increases real estate values.

Reduction in consumption of and dependence on fossil fuels.

ATTRACTS TALENT

SOCIAL EQUITY Provides transportation access for all citizens regardless of socioeconomic status.

AND MORE…

STUDY GOALS 1

Identify Uptown Bike Facilities Network

• Creates connections into Uptown • Balances the needs of users for all modes within existing curb space

• Increases accessibility of cycling to users of all ages and abilities • Increases the safety of cycling options • Serves as the framework to make Charlotte a cycling destination

Identify Pilot Project

• Develop a feasible pilot project along one of the identified

corridors that will allow cyclists to travel through Uptown to link to the Irwin Creek and Little Sugar Creek Greenways

Determine Feasibility of Multi-Use Path Greenway Connector Along Belk Freeway

• Examine the area adjacent to the I-277 Belk Freeway bordering •

the southwestern portion of Uptown for opportunities and constraints Determine the feasibility of constructing a multi-use path primarily within the NCDOT and CDOT right-of-ways

S E C T I O N 2

S T U D Y P R O C E S S 6

TIERED NETWORK APPROACH

Just as there is no “one size fits all” roadway facility for automobiles, there is no single bicycling facility type which satisfies the physical design constraints as well as user safety and comfort needs for every application. Motor vehicle volumes (the number of automobiles using a street) and vehicle speeds have a direct relationship with the road stress experienced by cyclists. Many cyclists on roads with higher vehicle volumes and higher vehicle speeds tend to report feeling less comfortable and less safe than on roads with lower vehicle volumes and lower vehicle speeds. With a wide variety of cycling facility types, designers can prescribe a facility type with an appropriate level of protection between cyclists and motor vehicles to achieve a comfortable, low-stress cycling experience. In many instances, it simply is not feasible to provide facilities with high levels of protection due to the physical and functional design constraints of the roadway or right-ofway in question. Even if it were always feasible, these highly protected facility types usually cost more to design, construct and implement than the facility types which provide lower levels of separation.

tiered network approach to formulating bike network recommendations to allow users to move through and within Uptown.

Strategic investments should be focused on providing high-protection facilities along key corridors complemented by lower protection facilities where appropriate. This gives cities an opportunity to deliver safe, cost-effective, and low-stress bicycle networks in a timely manner for users of all ages and abilities. This study takes a greenways

Not all roadways are envisioned to receive a bike facility. In a tiered system, higher stress roadways (such as thoroughfares and some collectors) are given a “higher tier” infrastructure recommendation such as a Greenway or Tier 1 facility. These types of facilities are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic either by a barrier or by a curb.

grade separated facilities

FOUR TIERS OF BIKE FACILITIES

LEAST PROTECTED

Automobile networks are diverse and consist of facilities that range from high-speed limited access freeways to low-speed service alleys and everywhere in between. Bicycling networks can and should provide an equally diverse network of connected facilities with various levels of protection from automobile traffic.

tier 1 on-street with physical barrier separation

On moderate stress roadways (such as minor thoroughfares and collector streets), a Tier 2 facility providing a buffer or spatial separation may be recommended.

tier 2 on-street with buffer/spatial separation

tier 3 on-street with no separation

Low stress roadways (such as collector streets or neighborhood streets) do not require “top tier” or protected facilities to achieve low stress roadways On these streets, a Tier 3 facility with no physical separation may be a suitable recommendation. These types of facilities could include traditional bike lanes, sharrows, or combination of traffic calming and signing measures to create a bicycle boulevard.

MOST PROTECTED RECOMMENDED FACILITY TYPE / STREET TYPE RELATIONSHIP high traffic Volumes / high vehicle speeds

tier 1 major Thoroughfare

street type

tier 2

minor Thoroughfare

tier 3 tier 3

collector

local / neighborhood sharrows & bike blvd

bike lane

buffered bike lane

facility type

protected BIKE LANE

lowtraffic Volumes / LOW vehicle speeds

P R O C E S S OV E RV I E W 1

Data Collection / Stakeholder Input The study began by reaching out to peer cities who have implemented protected bicycle facilities in downtown environments for insight and lessons learned. Previous City plans were reviewed to gain a better understanding of Charlotteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s vision and previously identified opportunities and challenges. Valuable insight and public input were obtained via 5 stakeholder sessions, 2 stakeholder walking tours, and 2 bike tours. This combination of data sources provided a general foundation and guided the study.

Existing Conditions Inventory / Evaluation Existing conditions were inventoried and analyzed for the 35 corridors which comprise Uptown Charlotte. The corridors were broken into 104 street segments and assessed to give the team a better understanding of the primary uses and characteristics of the streets. This assessment led to the advancement of 16 corridors for functional evaluation of potential Tier 1 & 2 network facilities. Potential alignment alternatives for the multi-use path along the I-277 Belk Freeway were investigated and were shared with NCDOT and developers along the corridor.

Functional Evaluation Intersection capacity and preliminary traffic impact analyses of the 16 corridors were performed to identify the best candidates for Tier 1 & 2 network facilities. Eight corridors advanced and were subject to public voting and comment at the first of two public workshops to help identify the strongest candidates for a protected bike lane pilot project. Functional results for all 16 corridors provided a basis for overall network recommendations. A preliminary concept for the multi-use path along the I-277 Belk Freeway was shared at the public workshop for feedback and comment from citizens.

Pilot Concept Development Specific to the pilot project, the public input on the 8 corridors was summarized and preliminary design concepts were generated. The design concepts were analyzed for physical design constraints, examined for intersection and transitions, subjected to a more detailed traffic impact analysis, and reviewed against the initial study goals. This led to the selection of a preferred corridor for a pilot project. The preliminary design concept for the preferred corridor was further refined as the project team performed outreach with key stakeholders/businesses along that corridor. The refined concept was presented for public review and comment at the second public workshop.

Study Recommendations Data, results, and public input from previous phases of the study culminated in recommendations for a network of cycling facilities, a protected bike lane pilot project, and the Belk Greenway Connector.

Data Collection / Stakeholder Input Uptown & Surrounding Neighborhoods

Existing Conditions: Inventory / Evaluation 35 Corridors / 104 Segments

Functional Evaluation 16 Corridors

Concept Development 8 Corridors

Pilot Study Recommendations 10

DATA COLLECTION Peer Cities Outreach

CALGARY

Though each community is unique in addressing urban challenges, much can be learned from the experience of other cities who have taken on similar tasks. It is common practice to look to peer cities and exchange ideas to assist with achieving greater ambitions, avoiding missteps, and crafting strategies that can ease implementation. At the outset of the project, the study team reached out to a number of municipalities who shared pertinent information and lessons learned regarding protected bicycle lanes in downtown environments. In addition to Tallahassee, Atlanta, Memphis, and Indianapolis, the team looked to learn from the experience of Calgary’s Downtown Cycletrack Pilot Project as they evaluated its success.

Questions for Peer Cities Questions asked of the peer cities centered around three key subjects: • Determining criteria for on-street cycling facilities that go beyond

Review of Previous Plans With Uptown Charlotte experiencing increasing growth and redevelopment, the review of many site development plans was critical in the assessment of constraints and opportunities as the project team was determining the location for the protected bike lane pilot project and assessing the feasibility of the Belk Greenway Connector Concept along I-277. The team reviewed many previous planning documents to determine

• •

a traditional bike lane in terms of separation/protection from traffic Consensus building and assessing public support Defining/measuring success

Key Findings / Takeaways Several key takeaways emerged from communication with peer cities which the project team employed throughout the planning process and used when developing the study recommendations:

• Address concerns in both the

•

design and implementation phases of the project (pilot projects allow minor changes to the design during implementation) Do not expect overnight success, but rather measure success over the long term, as it will take time for the network to build out and ridership growth to reach its potential

• Develop a hierarchy of facility • •

•

types and select the appropriate facility based on the street type Start with separated bike lanes on thoroughfare and arterial street types Consider facility type continuity in the system as important in keeping the stress-level of the cyclist in mind and paying special attention to connectivity between varying facility types Assess legitimate concerns about safety, speed, and impact to motor vehicles

existing and future network connections both within and outside of Uptown. For the on-roadway network, these plans included the 2020 Center City Vision Plan, 2008 Charlotte Bicycle Plan, Center City Transportation Plan, CDOT’s Curb Lane Management Study, CDOT’s street resurfacing plans, I-77/I-277 Loop Strategic Plan, CATS 2030 Transit Corridor System Plan, Gold Line Streetcar Phase 2 construction plans, 3rd St Cycletrack Study and previous urban design

INDIANAPOLIS

MEMPHIS ATLANTA

TALLAHASSEE

analyses for Stonewall and Church Streets. Off-roadway network planning was examined from the Cross Charlotte Trail Master Plan, Mecklenburg County Greenways Master Plan, Little Sugar Creek Greenway/US74 Connectivity Study, Mooresville to Charlotte Trail plans, Charlotte Rail Trail Framework Plan, and the Carolina Thread Trail Master Plan.

Field Observations Uptownâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s streets perform differently at different times of the day, week or year. The team performed a variety of field observations to gain a more in-depth knowledge of the behaviors of bicyclists, pedestrians, drivers, transit, and the interactions between all modes of transportation. Streets were observed at peak times, off-

peak times, sporting/entertainment events, street festivals, and on weekends. General roadway grades were noted and commuter traffic patterns in and out of parking decks were examined. Gateways through the I-77 / I-277 loop were examined for bicycle and pedestrian traffic, roadway widths, bridge widths, and the interaction with highway space,

This examination helped determine the most popular ways in and out of Uptown and which gateways have opportunities for improvements for cyclists and pedestrians.

TECHNICAL OVERSIGHT TEAM BIKE TOURS Two bike tours were conducted to assess existing conditions and opportunities on Uptown Streets and along the I-277 greenway connector route. Route diagrams and key tour findings were published on the CDOT project website for access by citizens. A condensed summary of the takeaways are provided here.

Uptown Streets Tour Conditions that simulate repurposing a travel lane were assessed. Several streets were functioning with lane closures during large-scale construction of several Uptown blocks without significant impacts to traffic. Parking decks create challenging conflict zones and egress points along Church St, 3rd St, and College St, making them less feasible from an implementation perspective. Tryon St and Davidson St provide shade and lower traffic volumes. While not currently a comfortable cycling experience, the 7th Street Bridge over I-277 provides great views of the Charlotte skyline. MLK Jr Blvd has lower traffic volumes, underutilized on-street parking, and good connectivity to the Convention Center.

Belk Greenway Connector Tour

Uptown Tour Route Belk Greenway Tour Route

It is necessary to get out in front of redevelopment to incorporate a trail along the backside of parcels. The Brooklyn Village redevelopment presents great opportunities to incorporate the trail into the design from the early planning stages of the project and can make a key connection to the redeveloped Second Ward Park in the process.. Opportunities exist to widen sidewalks/paths through Pearl Park. Wayfinding will be key to making connections at both ends to Cedar Yards/Irwin Creek and Little Sugar Creek Greenway.

Tour Stops

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: STAKEHOLDER INPUT

A series of stakeholder interview sessions and walking tours were held June 14-16, 2016 to obtain public input. These small group sessions provided an opportunity to review public support for additional bicycle facilities and educate stakeholders on the study process. They were also given a chance to receive additional background information for the project and help shape the study goals. The four types of cyclists (additional details shown below) were discussed

and consensus was reached that the recommendations from the study should be bold enough to attract “Interested, but Concerned” cyclists to Uptown Charlotte to help it reach its 2020 Center City Vision Plan goal of becoming a “True City of Bikes”. Facilitated discussions took place on a wide variety of study topics, including: 1. stakeholder’s relationship with walking and biking; 2. cities who are building bicycle-friendly environments

successfully; 3. increased need for separation between cyclists and automobiles; 4. general speeds of traffic in Uptown, and 5. what success looks like. Key takeaways from these discussions are shown to the right. Participants also engaged in two interactive exercises dealing with bike facility type preferences and bicycle trip origin/destination mapping.

FOUR TYPES OF CYCLISTS Portland Office of Transportation Study

Strong & Fearless - <1%

Interested, but Concerned - 60%

Individuals who bike regardless of roadway conditions and take a strong part of their identify from cycling. They are unlikely to be deterred by weather, terrain, or traffic.

This group is generally curious and positive-minded about riding a bike. They enjoy cycling, mostly for recreation, but are uncomfortable riding in traffic. They would ride more often (for short trips or commutes) if provided with lowstress facilities with physical separation from cars.

Enthusiastic & Confident - 7% Cyclists who appreciate the benefits of bicycling and ride for commuting and short trips. They are comfortable sharing the roadway with automobiles when necessary, but they prefer dedicated bike facilities.

No Way, No How - 33% Members of this group are not potential transportation cyclists. Key factors are lack of bicycling experience, physical/ health condition, or lack of interest.

FACILITATED DISCUSSION TOPICS

YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH WALKING & BIKING The stakeholders covered a wide cross-section of over 20 advocacy groups, business interests, and neighborhood associations, showing varying organizational connection and levels of interest for bicycling connections in Uptown Charlotte. Participants were asked to share how biking and walking impacts the various aspects of their daily lives, from recreation and health impacts to the operation of their professional/business life (commuting, deliveries, etc.)

CITIES DOING IT RIGHT Aspirational projects mean looking to cities that are viewed as ahead of the curve on building out their bike-friendly network. They are using new outreach strategies, and implementing facilities with new design treatments that go beyond conventional bike lanes. Participants were asked to share experiences and insight from their own travels that could be implemented in Charlotte.

SEPARATION The relationship of separation between cyclists and automobiles and cyclist safety and comfort were explored. The diversity of bike facility types and their application on various roadway types to achieve low-stress cycling environments was discussed at length. The tiered network approach (as previously described in Section 1 of this report) was presented and participants were given the opportunity to provide their thoughts and opinions.

INTERACTIVE EXERCISES

SPEEDS Participants stated that consistent speeds, around 20 mph are a good target for roadways in Uptown â&#x20AC;&#x201C; where traffic capacity impacts are minimal and safety and mobility are not compromised. Increased edge friction from separated bike facilities and enforcement can accomplish this. Many vehicles enter the city from I-77 and I-277 high-speed freeways and must adjust driving behavior as they enter surface streets. Participants were asked for their observations and thoughts on vehicle speeds within Uptown.

SUCCESS Project success for implementing bike facilities can be defined and measured in many ways including length of facilities installed, increased ridership, greater variety of user types, increased safety, increased mode share percentage, and acceptable impacts to automobile traffic among others. Participants were asked which definitions/measures they believe should be used in Charlotte for evaluating the success of cycling facilities.

Speeds Edge Friction Levels

Intersection Turning Movement Conflicts

Roadway Typical Section # Lanes / Width & Continuity

Interaction with Transit Stops Track Placement

Parking Decks Access Points

Shade Presence & Location

Two walking tours were held as part of the stakeholder workshops. The team capitalized on these unique opportunities with stakeholders to bring to light implementation challenges and share an understanding of specific issues. The images below illustrate several of the design and implementation issues that were discussed on the tours.

5 SESSIONS

S TA K E H O L

WALKING TOURS

A wrap-up summary from the stakeholder session was presented to participants and published on the CDOT project website. Condensed highlights of the summary documentation are provided below.

Stakeholder Vision One key outcome was consensus that stakeholders wanted to see a highly visible, iconic project recommendation from the study to set the bar high for future projects. The hope is that this project would serve as the backbone for a network that will help facilitate a mode-shift to cycling as a viable alternative transportation option and advance a shift in culture and mentality for both drivers and cyclists.

What Have Stakeholders Seen in Other Cities? Cities â&#x20AC;&#x153;doing it rightâ&#x20AC;? identified by stakeholders included Austin, Seattle, Vancouver, Copenhagen, Indianapolis, Barcelona, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, Portland, and Madison to name a few. The shared attributes between the cities identified are embracing users of all ages and abilities, providing dedicated cycling facilities that provide separation, incorporating placemaking, and encouraging a driving/cycling culture that respects and promotes both modes.

Stakeholder Observations on Speeds

dispersed around all sides of the City, clusters formed from the mapping at the following areas:

WRAP-UP SESSION

60+ ATTENDEES

2 WALKING TOURS

DER INPUT RESULTS SUMMARY

South Blvd/Caldwell St, 7th St, Trade St/Elizabeth St, E 10th St, and the Irwin Creek/Cedar Yards Greenways.

Stakeholders noted uncomfortable • Southwest of the City on the Rail speeds on wide one-way streets Stakeholder Identified Trail and in South End used by commuters (such as Church Corridors • South of the City along St and College St). A need was Kenilworth Avenue and the Little identified for a clear transition for Facilitated discussion led to the Sugar Creek Greenway drivers to move from the highway identification of desirable corridors • East of the City along Hawthorne space surrounding Uptown to the for further analysis. Terrain and safety Lane and Central Avenue public space within Uptown. A were important considerations, with • North of the City in the 4th Ward general consensus emerged that stakeholders noting that an indirect and along Statesville Avenue a “20 is Plenty” philosophy route may be more desirable would be welcomed in by all user types if it is safer Charlotte and an associated and avoids hilly areas. Uptown-wide speed limit “There are always trade-offs in could be implemented and Streets identified as desirable anything worthwhile. I think it is enforced. included Tryon St, Trade St, 6th/7th St, Davidson St, necessary to push the boundaries South Blvd/Caldwell St, S Facility Preference of what is possible so that we can Church St, Stonewall St, and Exercise Results achieve something meaningful.” W 5th St. Not surprisingly, protected bike facility types are - Comment from Corridors that were found to overwhelmingly preferred be less desirable included Stakeholder Questionnaire as they use a physical Graham St, College St, and separation such as planters, Church St. curbs, bollards or parked cars between bicyclists and motor Destinations were clustered amongst Stakeholder Definition of vehicles, Stakeholders believe the various points of interest Success providing protected facility types are including the Bland St and East/West key to building a network of bikeStakeholders believe a successful LRT Stations, BB&T Ballpark, Romare friendly streets. project is one where the types of Bearden Park, Latta Arcade, 7th St users on a connected Uptown bike Market, ImaginOn, Discovery Place, network mirror those on existing Plaza Midwood, the Metropolitan Origin / Destination Mapping greenway facilities by designing shopping area, and the CharlotteExercise Results for users from ages 8 to 80. It Mecklenburg Government Center. In this exercise, stakeholders was understood that the cycling identified origin, destinations, and modeshare will increase over time as Ingress/Egress points through ingress/egress points in the Uptown culture and minds shift away from the I-77/I-277 freeway loop were study area. While origins were single-mode mentality. primarily clustered at S Tryon St,

EXISTING CONDITIONS EVALUATION Segments Analysis Approach

The 35 corridors in Uptown were further broken into segments based on the number of travel lanes (roadway typical section) and whether the street segment allowed one-way or two-way traffic. Over 100 segments were evaluated for their general feasibility in order to identify those with key issues or constraints to help further refine the corridor candidates for Tier 1 and 2 facilities that would be subject to a more detailed analysis.

Segment Analysis Criteria Forms, as shown in the example to the right, were created and populated using the following criteria related to traffic operations. These were used to evaluate general feasibility for each segment: Directional Travel, Existing Roadway Cross Section, Vehicle Speeds, Vehicular Capacity, On-Street Parking, Off-Street Parking (Parking Decks), Turning Volumes and Transit. Other criteria examined from an issues and opportunities perspective include whether segments make up an Event Street (streets commonly used for festivals or subject to high volumes of traffic related to events), are on the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s High Accident List (HAL), or are a part of an Emergency Evacuation Route.

(more information in Appendix A)

Evaluation Summaries Summary tables were created to summarize the street segment data by category and color coded to denote the ease of Tier 1 or Tier 2 facility implementation. Green was used to denote criteria that posed little challenge to implementation. Yellow was used to denote challenges to implementation that could likely be overcome with mitigation strategies. Orange was used to denote challenges that would likely need significant mitigation and public outreach for implementation. Red was used to denote challenges which could not be overcome without a significant changes to the street system. Corridors containing segments with criteria shown in red were removed from further analysis at this time.

SEGMENT ANALYSIS FORMS & SUMMARY TABLE

16 Corridors Advance The following corridors from the analysis advanced and were recommended for further study for a Tier 1 or Tier 2 facility type: East-West Corridors: MLK Jr. Blvd 3rd St 4th St 5th St Trade St 6th St 7th St 11th St

• • • • • • • •

North-South Corridors: • Mint St / Pine St • Church St • Tryon St • College St • Brevard St • Caldwell St • Davidson St • McDowell St

CORRIDORS ADVANCING FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: ADVOCATES MEETING UPDATE Overview After the initial evaluation of corridor segments, the project team met with advocates on August 23, 2016, to bring them up to date on the evaluation process. The meeting included a review of the Tiered Network Approach, introduced the 16 corridors moving forward for functional evaluation, shared information and insight on the

removal of streets from further study for Tier 1 & 2 facilities. The meeting also provided an opportunity to ask questions and voice concerns.

Corridor Walkthroughs Virtual walkthroughs were conducted for 3rd, 6th, and College Sts at the meeting to give attendees insight into design constraints and gain a level of comfort with

the process of determining which corridors move forward for further analysis as a potential pilot project.

Next Steps Attendees were also briefed on the next phase of analysis which includes evaluation of existing intersection capacity and a preliminary traffic impact analysis.

FUNCTIONAL TRAFFIC EVALUATION Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis A cursory evaluation of existing intersection approach capacity levels (as measured by the ratio of traffic volume over total capacity, V/C) was used to identify the corridors in the Uptown street network where the reallocation of a travel lane to a bicycle facility could create traffic bottlenecks. This evaluation was done for both the AM and PM peak periods. No adjustments to signal timing were considered in the analysis, with the understanding that adjustments to signal timing could be reserved as a potential mitigation measure.

ersection Approach Peak V-C Analysis

Findings

sting

AM PEAK

Five corridors were found to have intersection impacts at key segments where vehicle capacity may exceed acceptable levels should a lane of travel be reallocated. These segments were primarily located in close proximity to I-277 and carry Intersection Approach Peak V-C Analysis a significant volume of commuter traffic. Corridors containing these segments (Caldwell St, McDowell St, 4th St, 5th St, and Trade St) were withheld from further study at this time.

EXISTING PEAK INTERSECTION CAPACITY

“Under Capaci “Near/At Capa “Over Capacity

Three corridors (College St, 3rd St, and 7th St) were reserved for further study should there be compelling reasons to do so after reviewing the results of the next phase of analysis.

LEGEND “Under Capacity” (V/C < 0.75) “Near/At Capacity” (0.75< V/C <0.9) “Over Capacity” (V/C > 0.9)

PM PEAK

Modeling Impacts

Classifying Outcomes Overall outcomes from this analysis were defined in terms of:

• Impact Severity (minimal • •

^ 31

AVERAGE DELAY/VEHICLE

Installing a separated facility for cycling on an existing roadway corridor requires repurposing a travel lane on a given corridor. This was tested (where applicable) in the City’s traffic simulation model to determine the impact on overall corridor delay and average speed, relative to the existing conditions.

impact, some impact, considerable impact) Time of day of the impact: AM Peak or PM Peak Impact Mitigation Potential

IMPACT OF TRAVEL LANE REDUCTIONS

 Most Potential for Separated Bike Facility / Minimal Impacts to Traffic ̶ Potential for Separated Bike Facility / Some Impacts, but Compelling Reasons to Hold at this Time  Least Potential for Separated Bike Facility / Considerable Impacts to Traffic Likely

ity” (V/C < 0.75) * Tryon St reported no increased delay or speed reduction as on-street parking would be acity” (0.75< V/C <0.9) removed rather than a travel lane. y” (V/C > 0.9)

AVERAGE SPEED

Results of the traffic analysis were classified as follows:

8 Corridors Advance Based on the results of the Network Traffic Evaluation, the following eight corridors advanced for further study:

• • • • • • • •

Mint St / Pine St Church St Tryon St Brevard St Davidson St MLK Jr. Blvd 5th St / 6th St 10th St / 11th St

These corridors were presented at a public workshop for community input to determine comfort with and desirability of the presented corridors, prior to moving into the Concept Development phase of the study.

PUBLIC WORKSHOP #1 SEPTEMBER 20TH, 2016 More than 140 people attended the public workshop at the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center with over 90% of those in attendance completing the meeting wrap-up survey. The workshop was a highly interactive open house with 10 stations (described in greater detail on the following pages) where citizens could interact and provide feedback on inspirations, opportunities, challenges, gateways, connections, and facility types, as well as vote on their most preferred onstreet corridor. In addition, attendees were able to ride a B-Cycle and experience a pop-up protected bike lane on Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard.

why are you here?  Public Meeting Overview Participants received an introduction to the Uptown Connects Study, its goals, benefits of active transportation, and an overview of the topics at each of the interactive stations that followed.

what inspires you? Gaining Inspiration  Participants viewed boards containing images from Charlotte and around the world showing different public space, genders, ages, cycling styles. and motivations for using bike facilities (commuting/ recreation/shopping/etc). They were asked to contribute thoughts and ideas on what inspires them.

what do you see?  Opportunities and Challenges There are a variety of challenges related to cycling and walking in and around Uptown for different user types. Participants were asked to share specific and general thoughts and ideas on issues and opportunities in Uptown and surrounding areas.

where do you want to go? Gateways and Connections  Participants interacted with a large-scale map to contribute location information on where they start their trip, locations where they access Uptown, and destinations where they would want to travel by bike.

What Types of Facilities Would you Use?  Determining Comfort Levels Using a scale of various bike facilities, from least to most protected, participants contributed a marker where they would feel comfortable cycling on a busy street. They then indicated their preference from images of different types of protected/separated bike facilities that they would use in Uptown.

how do we decide?  Study Process Overview The steps taken to refine the corridors in Uptown that would be considered for top tier facilities were shown on a process funnel diagram to the 8 corridors that were selected for public input prior to concept development..

which corridors would you use?

On-Street Facility Corridor Voting Exercise 

Corridors being considered for conceptual development into top tier facilities were shown on a large-scale map of Uptown with popular points of interest. Participants used markers to indicate their preferences on the 8 corridors. The ability to write-in additional corridors was also made available.

Belk greenway connector  Greenway Connector Concept Along I-277 Belk Freeway The concept for the greenway connector was introduced to participants via a large-scale map. Attendees were given the opportunity to ask questions and give feedback on the general alignment and connections.

wrap-up survey Closing Thoughts & Questions  Attendees had the option of completing a survey to self-identify their cycling user type, give primary motivations for using a protected bike lane in Uptown, and provide feedback on the meeting format. There was also an opportunity to give openended comments on the project.

How does it feel?  Pop-Up Protected Bike Lane A temporary two-way protected bike lane was set up Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard for participants to experience what it felt like to cycle on this facility type and to give feedback on their experience.

Interested, but Concerned 21%

Strong and Fearless 23%

PUBLIC WORKSHOP #1 - INPUT SUMMARY No Way, No How 0%

TYPES OF CYCLISTS - TYPICAL VS. WORKSHOP #1

Comparison: Portland Citywide Survey of Bicyclist Types

Typical (Portland Citywide Survey, 2006)

Interested, but Concerned 60%

No Way, No How 33%

Strong and Fearless <1%

Enthused and Confident, 7% 1

Charlotte Public Meeting: Which best describes you as a bicyclist? Enthused and Confident 56%

Uptown Connects Workshop #1

Strong and Fearless 23%

 Attendee Cyclist Types A 2006 citywide survey in Portland, OR (and similar studies in London and Melbourne) have shown that the typical distribution of cyclists includes a relatively small percentage of confident riders, with a large percentage of the population concerned about or unwilling to ride a bicycle on streets. The public workshop had a larger proportion of attendees selfidentifying as more confident/strong cyclists than would be expected of the city’s overall population.

 Comfort on Busy Streets Interested, but Concerned 21%

+49%

+22%

-39%

-33% No Way, No How 0%

Even as most cyclists attending the workshop identified as confident or strong, the majority felt that buffered bike lanes represent the minimum level of separation where they feel comfortable riding on busy streets. Nearly all attendees indicate comfort on facilities with higher levels of separation.

Comparison: Portland Citywide Survey of Bicyclist Types

A T WHA T LE V E L O F "Interested, P R O T E CTED F A C ILIT Y" WO U LD YO U F E E L C O M F OR T ABLE E NO U Gbut H T O B IC YC LE A LO NG A B U S Y S T R E E T ? Concerned 60%

Most Protected

Least Protected No Way, No How 33%

Strong and Fearless <1%

Enthused and Confident, 7%

97%

99%

Cycle Track with Physical Barrier

Off-Street Shared Use Path

Greenways

83% 1

69%

47% 26% 14%

With Traffic / No Accomodation

Sharrows

Striped Bike Lanes

Buffered Bike Lanes

Buffered Bike Lanes & Flexible Bollards

Inspiration 

Several themes emerged from the public input with the most common being tied to desired lifestyle as shown on the adjacent figure. Individuals cited the desire to ride as a part of everyday life for both transportation, recreation, and mental health benefits. Many are inspired by a city that affords them the freedom to experience their environment outside of a motor vehicle.

Experience from Other Cities Physical Separation / Safety

Design & Setting

Environment and Nature

DESIRED LIFESTYLE

 Opportunities & Challenges Noted by Participants Connections to Uptown: • Greenway Connections (25 Comments) • 7th St Issues/Transition/Bridge (17 Comments) • Rail Trail Connection from Morehead (15 Comments) • I-277 On and Exit Ramps (14 Comments) Traffic / Safety Issues:: • Cell Phone Usage / Distracted Motorists • Hostility from Drivers • Bike Lanes to Nowhere / Lack of Continuity Education & Enforcement:

• Buses/Parked Vehicles Blocking Path or Bike Lane • High Speeds in Uptown on certain streets Irwin Creek GW / Music Factory South Blvd / Stewart Creek GW

Trade & Tryon (CBD) 4th St Extension BB&T Ballpark

Health

Cost and Equity

 Connections The public placed adhesive dots on a map to show where they begin their trips, where they access Uptown through the I-77/I-277 freeway loop, and desired destinations once in Uptown. Mapping of this data is shown in the figure below with the most popular destinations, access points, and origin points listed on either side. The diameter of the color coded overlays corresponds to the number of responses identifying these areas.

Romare Bearden Park / Latta Arcade Rail Trail / Caldwell St ImaginOn, 7th St Market

NoDa / Parkwood

1st Ward Park

4th Ward

10th St

Mint Museum

UNCC

S Tryon St

Central Ave

BOA Stadium

South End CMGC / Metropolitan Note: Destinations / Access Points Indicated Are Not Entirely Representative. This Study Considers Additional Inputs.

Little Sugar Creek Greenway 7th St / Elizabeth Ave

CPCC / TWC Arena

Destinations Access Points Origin Points

W H AT I S Y O U R P R I MARY M O T I VAT IO N F O R U S I N G A P R O T EC TED BI K E L AN E?

H O W I M P O RTAN T I S H AV I N G A P R O T EC TED BI K E L AN E I N U P T O W N C H AR L OT TE T O Y O U ?

Commuting 52%

Not Important 1%

Events, Shopping, Restaurants 23%

Recreation 23%

Very Important 84%

Somewhat Important 15% Other 1%

 Motivations

The vast majority of attendees indicated it was very important to have a protected bike lane facility in Uptown to support their primary motivation of commuting as well as secondary motivations such as recreation, shopping, attending events and getting to restaurants.

 Separation Type Preferences Attendees examined photos of a wide variety of separation types used in separated/protected bike lanes across the nation. Using adhesive dots, they indicated their top three preferences which were scored and summarized as shown in the results graph below.

Cycle track protected by row planter boxes was the highest scoring category and garnered 40% of first choice votes. Staff at this station also explained these separation/protection types carry a range of implementation costs and maintenance obligations.

TY P E OF /PSEP ROTECTION / SEP ARATION WOULD WHAT TY PWHAT E OF P ROTECTION ARATION WOULD Y OU LIKE TO SEELIKE IMP LEMENTED IN UP TOWN? Y OU TO SEE IMP LEMENTED IN UP TOWN? 300

Attendees ranked “cycle tracks protected by planters” as #1 preferred facility to see implemented in Uptown.

250

Score

200

150

100

Cycle Track 50 Protected by Row Planter Boxes

Raised Cycle Track

CycleTrack Protected by Concrete Curb

Cycle Track Protected by "Armadillos"

Cycle Track Buffered Bike Proteced by Lane with Concrete Barrier Flexible Bollards

Cycle Track Proteced by Parked Cars

Score Based onTrack 3 pts forRaised 1st Choice, for 2nd Choice, pt for 3rdCycle Choice Cycle Cycle 2 pts CycleTrack Cycle1Track Track Protected by Row Planter Boxes

Track

Protected by Concrete Curb

Protected by "Armadillos"

Buffered Bike Lane

Buffered Bike Proteced by Lane with Concrete Barrier Flexible Bollards

Cycle Track Proteced by Parked Cars

Score Based on 3 pts for 1st Choice, 2 pts for 2nd Choice, 1 pt for 3rd Choice

Buffered Bike Lane

V O T ING E X E R CISE : WHIC H C O R R IDO RS WO U LD YO U U S E ? 0

100

150

200

250

East-West Streets

5th/6th MLK Jr. 7th St (Write-In) Trade St (Write-In) 10th/11th 4th St (Write-In)

North-South Streets

Morehead (Write-In) Tryon Davidson Brevard Mint Church

Score Based on 3 pts for 1st Choice, 2 pts for 2nd Choice, 1 pt for 3rd Choice  Corridor Preferences

5th/6th Street and Tryon Street were the highest scoring corridors for protected bike facilities based on the corridor voting exercise. Write-in options were allowed and are shown in the results graph above.

 Wrap-Up Survey

124 attendees completed the wrapup survey (92% completion rate) and provided valuable insight and comments related to the study and the meeting format. Those who completed the survey received a free day-pass from B-Cycle, the City’s bikeshare system.

“The Greenway Concept would attract tourism with the bike lanes; cycling city tours bring great revenue and interest from groups. Corporate travelers are always interested in healthy living. This would be great for locals and travelers; which could boost the economy”

“The interactive format brings great clarity to what is being proposed. Provides approach for meaningful feedback and stimulates analytical decision-making.”

 Pop-Up Protected Bike Lane

Many attendees took advantage of the opportunity to experience the pop-up two-way protected bike lane on Martin Luther King Jr Blvd. 36 cyclists completed an additional survey and provided written feedback on the protected bike lane.

“It felt much safer to ride with a barrier between me and the cars. Especially since I’m a slow cyclist.”

“The physical separation makes the ride comfortable even when facing traffic.”

CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT FOR TIER 1 & 2 FACILITIES COMPREHENSIVE CRITERIA EVALUATION

DETAILED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

INTERSECTIONS & TRANSITIONS EXAMINATION

Two-way cycle tracks are generally preferred on the left-hand side of one-way streets for user experience and safety reasons including the following:

• Eliminates the occurrence of right-hook conflicts

• US drivers are used to looking for oncoming traffic to their left

CONSTRAINT ANALYSIS & FACILITY TYPE EVALUATION

• Separates the contraflow cyclists; cyclists adjacent to the street go “with traffic”

Intersections & Transitions PUBLIC INPUT ON 8 CORRIDORS (WORKSHOP VOTING EXERCISE)

Prioritization Approach Corridors were prioritized for concept development for a Tier 1 or 2 facility based on the public preferences identified at the public workshop. Cycle track concepts were developed for two North-South corridors and two East-West corridors through Uptown. A primary goal of this phase was to identify one corridor for a pilot project for implementation and evaluation. The remaining corridors would be evaluated for inclusion in the long-term network recommendations. Based on the results from the first public meeting, the ability to provide network coverage, and also provide access to key destinations, the corridors were prioritized as follows:

• • • • • • • •

5th/6th St Davidson St MLK Jr. Blvd Brevard St Mint/Pine St Tryon St Church St 10th/11th St

East-West corridors were favored over North-South corridors for the initial pilot as a primary goal of the study is to connect Irwin Creek and Little Sugar Creek Greenways.

Constraint Analysis & Facility Type Evaluation Selection of a protected bike lane facility occurred on streets in which traditional bike lanes would cause many cyclists to feel stress because of factors that include, but are not limited to:

• • • •

Multiple lanes High traffic volumes High traffic speeds High parking turnover

Corridor constraints were examined to determine if changes could be made to reduce stress. This included addressing access at parking lots/ decks and the identification and treatment of conflict zones. The team also evaluated and determined what type of bike facility was appropriate given the configuration of lanes and presence of one-way vs. two-way traffic. For the pilot project and other Tier 1 or 2 corridors, a two-way protected bicycle facility was chosen due to the fact that in most cases the number of travel lanes to be reallocated for a one-way or two-way bike facility was the same. Two-way bike facilities proved to typically be easier and more cost-effective to install.

Facility type continuity along corridors in the bike network is very important and is striven for where possible. However, diverse networks contain many different facility types. Therefore it is necessary to have clear and safe facility type transitions, especially at intersections or where cyclists transition from or enter a two-way facility from a one-way facility. Intersections involve special consideration in relation to twoway cycling facilities, therefore intersections were assessed to determine signalization requirements, markings and additional traffic control devices. In addition, turn lanes were examined to determine whether or not space reallocation or reconfiguration was necessary to accommodate the cycling facility. It was also necessary to look at the best places to transition the end of the two-way protected cycling facility and tie it back into the existing network. Various treatment types exist to accomplish this and are used in the conceptual designs including:

• Bike signals • Bike boxes and two-stage turn queue boxes

• Green paint through conflict areas • Advance green signal phases • Pavement markings through intersections (including bike stencils, chevrons, guidelines and/ or colored pavement)

EXISTING AM PEAK PERIOD

AM PEAK PERIOD WITH 8 CORRIDORS

TRAFFIC IMPACT OF TIER 1 BIKE NETWORK Detailed Traffic Impact Analysis CDOT evaluated the impact of accommodating protected bicycle facilities on all eight corridors. To assess the corridors’ performances, CDOT evaluated operations at signalized intersections. The analysis assessed repurposing a travel or parking lane on each corridor (build scenario) to a protected bicycle facility. It estimates the impact on AM and PM peak period vehicular operations by measuring the delay (sec/veh) and volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio at each signalized intersection along these corridors. The analysis forecasts minimal increase in delay and v/c at most intersections in the Build scenario, especially considering that it evaluated repurposing a lane on all eight corridors.

The figures at the top of this and the following page summarize delay and v/c along the corridors for AM and PM peak periods for both existing and build conditions. CDOT used its findings from this traffic analysis and along with other measures, listed below, to advance four corridors and eliminate four others from consideration.

Mint/Pine

• This is a possible candidate for

• •

Key findings that advanced the four corridors are outlined below. 5th/6th Street

• There is more than adequate • • •

capacity for operations. This street acts as a two-lane street for most of the day as many on-street parking spaces exist. There is minimal impact to travel time as modeled. A new traffic signal is necessary at Irwin Avenue & 5th Street and will help provide access to greenway.

a future north-south route after completion of the proposed 5th/6th Street protected bicycle lane. This corridor is under capacity to the south of 5th Street This corridor would likely require a new signal at Pine and 5th Street intersection. There is very light traffic on Pine Street (two-lane from 5th to 6th) making the installation of sharrows acceptable.

Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard

• There is more than adequate •

•

capacity for operations east of College Street. A varying number of lanes and changes from one-way to twoway may prove challenging to provide a continuous two-way protected bike lane. The two-way protected bicycle lane would likely need to be

EXISTING PM PEAK PERIOD

PM PEAK PERIOD WITH 8 CORRIDORS

TRAFFIC IMPACT OF TIER 1 BIKE NETWORK terminated at Church Street due to current one-way operations. Davidson Street

• A protected bicycle lane could

•

• •

not run the entire length of the street due to the varying number of lanes per block resulting in a non-continuous facility. Currently the street is under capacity except for the southbound approach at 6th Street during AM peak. The street may have significant impact to travel time during the PM peak. A separated facility would require moving curbs on the 100 block of S Davidson and curb extensions on certain blocks.

The four corridors which did not advance were eliminated from consideration due to the following reasons.

• Currently the street is heavily

Church Street

Brevard Street

• This street has many curb lanes

• Brevard has long existing

• •

uses and parking deck ingress and ingress points. There are too many conflicts to consider this further for a two-way protected bike facility. There are heavy PM peak traffic flows as this is a main commuter and event route. Mint/Pine could be the alternative route providing a more comfortable cyclist experience.

•

Uptown and has on-street parking throughout the corridor on both sides. A number of businesses count on this parking for their businesses.

southbound AM peak queues at 6th Street. Spectrum Arena breaks the continuous flow along the corridor.

10th/11th Streets

• There are high observed speeds •

Tryon Street

• Tryon is a signature street in

used by cyclists as traffic speeds and signal progression are comfortable.

•

as freeway traffic transitions to lower speeds Uptown. The I-277 freeway on/off-ramp interactions could lead to cyclist discomfort. The corridor has a steep grade for the westbound direction near McDowell St.

Comprehensive Criteria Evaluation In addition to the traffic impact analysis, the corridors were also subject to an evaluation of comprehensive criteria centered around balancing the needs of all corridor users and asking key questions as follows:

BALANCING THE NEEDS OF ALL USERS Low

High

All-Mode Safety - Will the recommended corridors enhance safety for all user types and modes? Bicycle Mobility - Will the recommended corridors enhance use of bikes for a variety of user types for both residents and visitors? Pedestrian Mobility - Will the recommended corridors have positive impact to the walking environment? Transit Rider Access / Mobility - Will the recommended corridors enhance and/or complement transit use for residents and visitors? Vehicular Mobility - Will the recommended corridors create unacceptable impacts to traffic? (delay, level of service, etc) Parking Access - Will the corridors create unacceptable impacts to on-street parking and to the operation of parking decks used by commuters and visitors? Placemaking / Identity / Economic Development - Will the corridors increase the identity/recognition of the corridor and support economic development in the area? Maintenance - Will the recommended corridors impact maintenance obligations or create new maintenance obligations that cannot be met?

4 Corridors Advance Based on the results of the concepts developed, detailed traffic impact analysis and comprehensive criteria evaluation, four primary corridors emerged for Tier 1or 2 facilities and pilot project consideration as follows:

4 CORRIDORS MAP

East-West Routes: • 5th St / 6th St • Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd North-South Routes:

• Mint St / Pine St • Davidson St

These four corridors all present opportunities to add separated bike facilities without significant impact to traffic operations. Problem areas can be targeted for spot improvements to overcome impacts. They also create a ring connecting all sections of Uptown and what has been long discussed as a “Ward Loop.”

brevard

college

church

graham

cedar

existing shared use path at BOA stadium to cedar yards greenway

Alternative alignment under investigation with redevelopment projects

potential traffic signals

AT GRADE options

access paths Access Paths

at-grade options

cedar yards greenway with connection to irwin creek greenway

grade separated options

morehead Mint

potential connection to rail trail

tryon

carson

B E L K G R E E N WAY C O N N E C T O R Redevelopment Momentum The south side of Stonewall Street just north of I-277 John Belk Freeway is undergoing an extensive transformation. Redevelopment projects in various stages of planning and construction are moving forward on every block between Mint St and McDowell Street. These projects will bring thousands of new residents to Uptown along with a considerable amount of office space, retail space, and hotel rooms. Additionally, the Brooklyn Village redevelopment project holds great potential for further reactivation of Uptown’s Second Ward. Based on the proposed uses along the Stonewall corridor and in Brooklyn Village, the study recognizes the importance and

the value of providing premier connections/access along this corridor to the existing greenway system flanking the east and west sides of Uptown, Lynx Blue Line, and major sporting venues like Bank of America Stadium and BB&T Ballpark.

Urban Greenway Connector Concept CDOT’s previous examination of the Stonewall corridor found that right-of-way, setback, and other physical constraints precluded a premier off-street facility along the corridor. Traffic impact studies showed that Stonewall St does not have the capacity to function at an acceptable level of service if one travel lane was reallocated for a protected on-street bike facility (such as a two-way cycle track), especially

when considering the projected increases in traffic associated with the redevelopment projects. With on-street and off-street options within the Stonewall St right-of-way precluded, the project team was tasked with analyzing the feasibility of a 16’ wide multi-use path along the south side of the parcels between the development projects and the I-277 John Belk Freeway.

Evaluation To evaluate the feasibility of a greenway connector concept, the project team used field investigations (such as the Technical Oversight Team Bike Tour previously described on page 17), site redevelopment plans, future transportation plans (such as the Alexander Euclid bridge

mcdowell

davidson

3rd

ne ow t e tt lo r a ch

mlk jr.

Alternative alignments under investigation with redevelopment project

grade separated Shared Use Path

PO pote TEaN nti lT aIA LEdX leLxA AN an er RdEbUCLID euDcEli ridge BRIDG

stonewall connection to little sugar creek greenway potential shared use path

potential two-way cycle track & sidewalk potential traffic signal

myrtle

morehead caldwell

r baxte

F E A S I B I L I T Y A N A LY S I S over I-277) and GIS planimetric and topographic data to check vertical clearances, clear widths, and potential profile grades. In areas where a grade-separated path is proposed, access paths to the development projects and LYNX Blue Line Station were investigated. For the section between Mint St and College Ave, both at-grade and grade-separated options were explored as depicted above. At-grade street crossings along the alignment were investigated for traffic signalization with pedestrian signals at the crosswalks to ensure safe crossings by trail users. Several of the potential traffic signals shown above will be required as part of the redevelopment projects and are not required solely for the Greenway Connector Concept.

Coordination with Developers The project team coordinated with many of the developers along the corridor and their design teams to gain a better understanding of the proposed uses and function of their sites and get initial feedback on the Greenway Connector Concept. Coordination with the redevelopment of the Charlotte Regional Realtors Association property and the Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Pearl Park Renovation Project on Kenilworth Ave showed that Pearl Park Way and Baxter St will be connected to allow through traffic between Kenilworth Ave and McDowell St. Coordinating with this important street connection early in the process was vital and yielded a great opportunity to propose a two-way cycle track on the street to make

the connection to the Little Sugar Creek Greenway. This alternative gives users a safer, more comfortable and appealing facility that avoids the busy intersection of Stonewall St/ Kenilworth Ave/Charlottetowne Ave and interaction with I-277 freeway ramps.

NCDOT Coordination Much of the proposed alignment for the Greenway Connector Concept is within the NCDOT right-of-way and control-of-access limits for I-277. Coordination with NCDOT occurred at throughout the study period. NCDOT reviewed and is generally accepting of the concept, with final acceptance subject to additional design details and coordination.

S E C T I O N 3

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S 36

BIKE NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS & IMPLEMENTATION Existing Network Facilities CDOT has already begun building a bicycle network in Uptown, which consists primarily of traditional bike lanes. To make informed recommendations for a long-term bike network, the project team performed field observations to become familiar with the locations and functionality of these existing facilities.

grey where there is no or prohibited use. The Uptown map shows that S Tryon St, W 4th St, N Caldwell St, and E 7th St are the most preferred ingress/egress points into and out of the city’s core. While east-west rides are distributed fairly across the street system, cyclists riding across the City north-south clearly prefer a route along S Tryon St, E 7th St, and the N Caldwell/Brevard one-way pair. Outside the I-77/277 loop, STRAVA

Existing Ridership Data To better understand existing ridership patterns on Uptown’s streets and primary ingress/ egress points currently being used, the team used heat map data available from STRAVA Labs website. STRAVA collects data from runners and cyclists worldwide who log their physical activity using a mobile application and the GPS functionality of their mobile phone. STRAVA then processes this enormous volume of data to create heat maps which provide users with a visual representation of the data using colors of varying shades to indicate the level of activity. The graphic shown here is an excerpt of STRAVA’s global heat map showing Uptown Charlotte using the cycling data from 2015. By its nature, the data is not all encompassing given there are cyclists who do not use STRAVA but does provide valuable insight into the behavior of those who have used the mobile application.

pavement markings help encourage riders, the terrain along 4th St makes it challenging for users to ride from the Charlotte Transportation Center up to Tryon St. 4th St Extension Bike Lanes These facilities are well-used as the buffered lanes have helped increase cycling in the corridor. Stonewall St/ Kenilworth Ave Bike Lanes - Ridership is low compared to other parts of Uptown. They do not appeal to cyclists of all ages and abilities based on a high stress environment where cyclists have to interact with freeway ramps and the busy Charlottetowne Ave intersection. S Tryon St Bridge Bike Lanes - One of the most popular ingress/ egress points to Uptown, these bike lanes provide riders with a comfortable, low-stress environment and the wide sidewalks are equally inviting for pedestrians.

users travel to and from the Dilworth, NoDa, and Ashley Park neighborhoods, as well as along the Little Sugar Creek Greenway primarily to the south.

Existing Network Components & Observations

The field observations on existing bike facilities yielded important insights into cycling patterns and trip behavior.

Patterns on the STRAVA heat map show heavily-traveled corridors in red to lesser traveled in green and

4th St Bike Lane - Vehicles consistently park in the bike lane. While it was evident that green

South Blvd Bridge MultiUse Path - While there is good separation and comfort on and south of the bridge, the north end is high stress for cyclists due to the interaction with the I-277 ramps. Several stakeholders stated that they would ride with traffic rather than deal with those ramps. 12th St Cycle Track - Even though it only runs for one block east-west, the track primarily serves a north-south connection. It is a useful connection for those coming to and from NoDa down N Brevard and the Rail Trail. Rail Trail - The trail through Uptown is narrow and disconnected and therefore does not provide the same level of comfort/service as the segments located in South End.

INTERIM PRIORITY BIKE NETWORK

EXISTING UPTOWN BIKE FACILITIES

EXISTING NETWORK

LONG-TERM UPTOWN BIKE NETWORK

Long-Term Network Build-Out & Recommendations Just as with other surface transportation networks, bicycle networks take time to fully develop and implement. Facility type factors greatly in determining how quickly a facility can be implemented. For example, a traditional bike lane on an existing street may be as simple as a restriping exercise and take very little time to implement. (Note there are considerable value and cost savings when accomplished during regularly scheduled street resurfacing operations.) On the other hand, off-street facilities such as multi-use paths may need additional time for right-of-way acquisition and construction. Most on-street facilities that provide higher levels of protection between cyclists and automobiles also require substantial time to design and implement safely, even if the pavement width necessary already exists within the street section. For example, when implementing a two-way cycle track through a heavily signalized corridor, designers will likely need to incorporate dedicated bike signals and coordinate them with the existing traffic signals to provide a safe and functional facility

for the contraflow cyclists (those traveling in the opposite direction of automobile traffic). Other aspects which affect the time required to implement bike facilities include funding, political will of elected officials, stakeholder/property owner/business owner buy-in, etc. A key feature of the long-term Tier I network is the establishment of the Ward Loop from 2020 Vision Plan on the 6th, Mint, MLK Jr., and Davidson corridors. This loop is intended provide accessible/ attractive cycling circulation opportunities between Uptown’s four wards. While there are pinch points that may prohibit full Tier 1 facility implementation, the Ward Loop is critical to the development of a true bike-friendly network in Uptown. It will be important to reassess the recommended facility types on the long-term map as Uptown continues to develop. Existing patterns and attitudes may shift, affected by population density and bike ridership. Assessing the need to add B-Cycle stations outside the I-277 Loop to promote bike commuting will also play a role in developing the long-term Uptown network.

In order to begin to gain traction in Uptown for cycling, key initial facilities like 5th/6th St must be implemented. While facilities should not be prioritized based on their tier, establishing the first Tier I facility is a first step in connecting destinations across the core of the city to its surrounding neighborhoods. Pilot Project: As part of the initial network facilities identifications, the project team recommends a twoway cycle track on the 5th St/6th St corridor as a Tier 1pilot project, providing an exclusive bikeway with lanes in both directions on the same side of the street and separated from traffic lanes. The corridor meets the intent of the study to link the greenways on either side of Downtown to numerous destinations and neighborhoods. The corridor has minimal impacts on congestion and travel times based on analysis, and relatively few design obstacles. Interim Network: The Ward Loop network presents the optimal interim system for Tier 1 facilities, providing great connections to sporting venues, parks, museums, and municipal facilities.

Priority Corridors

Interim (3-5 yrs)

5th/6th Streets Irwin Ave to McDowell St.

Tier I - Two-way separated/protected cycle track

Spine of Uptown bike network, connects Little Sugar & Irwin Creek Greenways

Mint/Pine Streets Morehead St to 6th St

Tier I – Two-way separated cycle track

MLK Jr. Boulevard Tryon St to McDowell St.

Tier III – Bike lanes

Tier I – Two-way cycle track

Combined with 5th/6th creates “The Ward Loop” as core network Tier I network connecting all four wards to Uptown destinations and 5th/6th spine

Davidson Street MLK Jr. Blvd to 11th St

Tier III – Bike lanes and sharrows

Tier I – One-/two-way cycle track

10th/11th Street Graham St to McDowell St

Tier I – Two-way protected cycle track

Coordinate with Brookshire Freeway Interchange projects. Includes Graham St. connection to Music Factory Rd.

College Street 6th St to Tryon St

Tier I - Two-way protected cycle track

Provides connection north to NoDa and offers opportunities to address High Accident List (HAL) intersections

Tryon Street Morehead St to 12th St

Tier III - signage and sharrows

Tier I - TBD

Re-evaluation for Tier 1 as population density increases and loss of parking becomes more acceptable

Belk Greenway Connector McDowell St to Mint St.

Greenway w/ atgrade crossings

Greenway w/ gradeseparated crossings

Functions as primary bike/ped connection on south side of Uptown.

Levine Avenue of the Arts

Tier III – Bike Boulevards

Poplar Street

Long Term (5-10 yrs)

Interim Facilities Identification & Recommendations

Notes

Key low-volume, slow lo-cal streets linking residents to Tier I facilities

9th Street Cedar Street

5 TH/ 6 TH S T C YC L E T R A C K P I S E G M E N T

W 6TH ST W 6TH ST IRWIN AVE rayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s splash planet

W 5TH ST

IRWIN AVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

crest gateway apartments

Transition between cycle track and bicycle lanes on 5th st

N IRWIN AVE

IN IRW

WAY EEN GR K E CRE

On-Street Connection to Irwin Creek Greenway Via Irwin St with sharrows

TWO STAGE left-turn queue box

gateway village plaza

MCDOWELL ST

I LOT P RO J EC T S EG M E N T 1 E 7TH ST

E 6TH ST

Segment 1 - Irwin Creek Greenway to 5th St to 6th St Shared lane markings will lead cyclists from the end of the greenway at Ray’s Splash Planet water park and Irwin Ave Elementary School to the street network and around the Crest Gateway Apartments. The route along three streets - Sycamore St, 6th St, and Irwin Ave - has little traffic traveling at slow speeds. Sharrows are appropriate on these local streets. The intersection of 5th and Irwin has already been slated for the installation of a new traffic signal, based on new development in the area. The addition of bike signals is recommended to help cyclists transition from the local street network and the 5th St bike lanes to the west. Those riding into Uptown will be able ride to the far side of Irwin Ave and pause in a two-stage queue box, turning and waiting to cross 5th with the new bike signal.

of the street. Separated from traffic by concrete barriers, the cycle track will be nine feet wide with 4.5-foot bike lanes. Unlike on 6th St, cyclists on the inside lane will ride counter to oncoming traffic. 5th St will have 10foot travel lanes, with two westbound out of Uptown since 5th Street is an event street. The reallocation would leave one consistent eastbound lane from I-77 to 6th St. In order to install the cycle track, several parking spaces on the south side of 5th St west of the Gateway Village Plaza will be repurposed as a travel lane. Off-peak parking can be maintained on the north side if needed, but strategic breaks in the

concrete barriers with crosswalks would have to be provided. Cyclists will be directed to use the pedestrian signals to cross Cedar St. SEGMENT 1 DESIGN SUMMARY • Sharrows from Irwin Creek Greenway to 5th Street @ Irwin Avenue • Protected Cycle Track - North side of 5th Street from Irwin Avenue to 6th Street • New traffic signal with bike signal at 5th/Irwin • Two-stage queue box on Irwin Avenue northbound Impacts: 16 parking spaces (1 block), one eastbound lane from Irwin Ave to 6th St (3 blocks)

TYPICAL SECTION - 5TH STREET CYCLE TRACK WITHOUT PARKING

The protected cycle track will start east of Irwin Ave on 5th St and continue east along the north side

5 TH/ 6 TH S T C YC L E T R A C K P I S E G M E N T

W 6TH ST W 6TH ST IRWIN AVE

W 5TH ST

n 7th st

ELMWOOD CEMETERY

VUE CHARLOTTE

5TH & POPLAR CONDOS

E 5th St

5th and 6th street Bicycle queuing area at corner (Detailed Design, Bicycle signal required)

W Trade St

N Poplar St

cycle track configured with left turn lane (Detailed design, bike signal required)

N Pine St

CAMDEN COTTON MILL APTS

N Graham St

FOURTH WARD PARK

MCDOWELL ST

I LOT P RO J EC T S EG M E N T 2 E 7TH ST

E 6TH ST

Segment 2 - 5th St to Church St The intersection of 5th and 6th Sts

from traffic by concrete barriers in most cases. The facility will be separated with a painted buffer and bollards for areas with numerous curb cuts, particularly near parking decks.

h/6th transitions cycle track from theTypical Pilotthe Concept north side of the street to the south side. The bikeway will be marked across both the channelized right turn lanes and the main intersection, with bike boxes on each side to allow for queuing. A bike signal will be added to direct cyclists when to cross traffic. The track remains on the south side of 6th St to Tryon St with 4.5-foot lanes in both directions, separated

Sections

Design of the pilot project will need to be coordinated with the design of the proposed Uptown Police Station to be located at 5th and 6th Sts. At the westbound approach to Graham St, the traffic analysis showed that the left turn lane is needed to maintain acceptable levels of service at the intersection.

CROSS-SECTION - 6TH STREET APPROACH AT GRAHAM STREET

This means that cyclists will have to share space with vehicles for a short space, but only in one direction. By reducing the three full width lanes by two feet each, users going with traffic will emerge from the cycle track to share the left turn lane with traffic. The eastbound bike lane will remain separated from traffic by a small buffer with bollards. Cyclists will have bike signals directing the crossing at Graham St, and use ped signals to cross streets to the east. SEGMENT 2 DESIGN SUMMARY

• Bike signals with queuing areas at 5th/6th intersection

• Protected cycle track on south • •

6’ COUNTERFLOW BIKE C&G LANE

10’ Turn lane w/ 10’ Sharrow SHARED

LEFT TURN & BIKE LANE

10’ TRAVEL LANES C&G

Buffer

side of 6th Street from 5th St to Church St Bike signals at 6th/Graham intersection Shared westbound bike/left turn lanes with separated eastbound bike lane at Graham St approach

Impacts: 29 on-street parking spaces (2 blocks), approximately 275’ off-peak parking (1 block), one westbound travel lanes (2 blocks), 1 driveway closure

5 TH/ 6 TH S T C YC L E T R A C K P I S E

W 6TH ST W 6TH ST IRWIN AVE

W 5TH ST

charlotteMecklenburg public library

discovery Place

W 6th St

LYNX Blue Line

N College St

hearst tower

IMAGINON

E 6th St

cycle track configured with carolina theater renovation (Detailed design required)

N Tryon St

N Church St

Charlotte Rail Trail

n 7th st

E 5th St

spectrum center

I LOT P RO J EC T S EG M E N T 3 3 MCDOWELL ST

G M E N T

E 7TH ST

E 6TH ST

Segment 3: Church St to Rail Trail The segment through central Uptown travels past three separate parking decks with seven entrances or exits, one on each block. Closelyspaced access points will limit the effectiveness and ease of installing concrete barriers as protection

for the cycle track. The design for these areas incorporates a cycle track buffered and separated from traffic by bollards. Green pavement markings will show motorists where the facility crosses the access points and discourage them from turning into the bike lanes.

RENDERING OF SEPARATED CYCLE TRACK AT 100 W 6TH ST

Specific design details will also be determined considering the section adjacent to the Carolina Theatre site. The site plan calls the ticket box office and a loading and valet zone where the existing on-street parking areas are located. Sidewalk space has been allocated for queues at the ticket windows and for patron drop-offs. The cycle track will have to share space with pedestrians, exiting vehicles, and those waiting to purchase tickets. Further design and coordination with the developers and their representatives will occur in the design phase. No bike signals are planned for this segment, so cyclists will be directed to use ped signals to cross streets. SEGMENT 3 DESIGN SUMMARY

â&#x20AC;˘ Protected or separated cycle â&#x20AC;˘

track on south side of 6th St from Church St to Rail Trail Shared pedestrian/bike/valet zone along side Carolina Theatre redevelopment site

Impacts: 5 loading/unloading zone/ taxi stand spaces, one westbound travel lanes (2.5 blocks)

5 TH/ 6 TH S T C YC L E T R A C K P I

W 6TH ST W 6TH ST IRWIN AVE

W 5TH ST

Segment 4: Rail Trail to McDowell St With the addition of eastbound cycling traffic, rail crossing signals and arms will need to be installed on the west side of the Lynx light rail line to prevent bike/rail crashes. East of the Rail Trail, 6th St primarily provides access to parking decks and lots near Spectrum Arena. Onstreet parking is provided near the residential developments further east. The cycle track design will use the typical section east of Caldwell St. Lane reduction at the Center City Green deck are likely to cause minor delays during the morning rush as commuters are entering the deck.

TYPICAL SECTION - 6TH ST WITH CONCRETE BARRIER

10’ CYCLE TRACK SEPARATED WITH 2’ BUFFER & BARRIER

10’ TRAVEL LANES

TYPICAL SECTION ADJACENT TO PARKING DECKS

SEGMENT 4 DESIGN SUMMARY

• Protected or separated cycle track •

on south side of 6th St from Rail Trail to McDowell St Rail crossing signals and arm on west side of Lynx light rail line

Impacts: 42 on-street parking spaces (3.5 blocks), one westbound travel lane (2.5 blocks), one driveway closure

10’ CYCLE TRACK SEPARATED WITH 2’ BUFFER & BOLLARD

10’ TRAVEL LANES

I LOT P RO J EC T S EG M E N T 4 4 MCDOWELL ST

S E G M E N T

E 7TH ST

E 6TH ST

ALTERNATIV to Little Gr

(Design feasibil furth

first ward place apts

INSTALL RR CROSSING SIGNALS AND ARMS FOR WEST OF RAIL LINE

n 7th st

IMAGINON

N Davidson St

N Caldwell St

LYNX Blue Line

E 6th St center city green

N Myers St

hoefener center

N Brevard St

Charlotte Rail Trail

n 7th st

E 5th St

spectrum center

E Trade St

5 TH/ 6 TH S T C YC L E T R A C K P I

W 6TH ST W 6TH ST IRWIN AVE

W 5TH ST

Segment 5: McDowell St to Little Sugar Creek Greenway An important goal of the Uptown Connects Study is identify a link between the Little Sugar and Irwin Creek greenways. The ability to meet that goal requires overcoming obstacles to creating the final link to Little Sugar Creek Greenway on the east side of the project. Three options were developed as alternatives for further investigation in the design phase. The alternatives focus on creating connections near either the 7th St/Kings Dr or 10th St/12th St intersection. 7th St Bridge: The most direct connection using existing infrastructure would be to use the 7th St bridge, but peak hour traffic volumes make it an issue to reallocate a lane for a cycle track. Charlotte and NCDOT are coordinating to develop feasible options for adding bike facilities across the bridge. Cyclists will be able to access the bridge along either a greenway

connection paralleling the US 74 exit ramp in the NCDOT right-of-way or along McDowell St with a separated cycle track or multi-use path. McDowell St Cycle Track: Based on traffic analyses, McDowell St experiences minor and less intersection delay southbound during rush hours and could be reduced to one lane to provide a cycle track link between 6th and 10th Sts. The facility would link to Little Sugar Creek Greenway through Alexander St Park and to Tier I facilities proposed along 11th St. Charlotte Park and Rec has already begun design work to improve bike/ ped facilities between 11th and 12th Sts and the path into First Ward. Alternatively, the cycle track could use an alignment on N Myers and 7th Sts to create the connection. Pedestrian/Bicycle Crossing of I-277: A long-term solution could be to construct a separated ped/bike crossing of I-277 and the US 74 ramps. The link would connect directly to the Little Sugar Creek Greenway and provide access

to the Grady Cole Center, the Memorial Stadium Complex, and Independence Park. The topography, configuration of the US 74 ramps, and crossing of Little Sugar Creek itself are significant impediments to creating reasonable and feasible alternatives for this route. SEGMENT 5 DESIGN SUMMARY

â&#x20AC;˘ Needs further study; dependent on selection of alternative

I LOT P RO J EC T S EG M E N T 5 MCDOWELL ST

SEGMENT 5 E 7TH ST

E 6TH ST

ALTERNATIVE CONNECTIONS to Little Sugar Creek Greenway (Design/alignment/ feasibility requires further study)

n 7th st

7TH STREET BRIDGE LOOKING WEST

N Myers St

Connection to Little Sugar Creek Greenway (Design/alignment/feasibility requires further study)

Green w Little Su ga r Creek ay

n 7th st bridge

E 6th St Intersection design depends on connection to Little Sugar Creek Greenway potential for bike boxes on mcdowell st to facilitate turns into cycle track

E 5th St

PUBLIC WORKSHOP #2 FEBRUARY 23RD, 2017 Over 125 attendees participated in the Public Workshop #2 held at the 7th Street Public Market. Those in attendance received an update on the process of selecting a pilot corridor, were able to comment on a large format preliminary design concept of the proposed pilot project along 5th/6th Street, and give feedback on connection alternatives to the Little Sugar Creek Greenway. In addition, visualizations showed what the protected cycletrack would look like at various locations through the corridor The visualizations and diagrams gave attendees an overall feel for the project through depicted details including proposed materials, green markings in transition areas, intersection treatments, and typical cross-sections.

PUBLIC WORKSHOP #2 - INPUT SUMMARY Attendees of the 2nd workshop again skewed towards cycling supporters and advocates, but a larger percentage selfidentified as in Charlotte’s “Interested But Concerned” group. The majority of those surveyed (77%) indicated that they would use the facility once per week or more. Attendees indicated they would primarily use a protected bike lane for commuting (38%), followed by recreation (27%) and commercial activities (17%).

77% attendees would use the 5th/6th cycle track at least once a week

“I am your target audience. I live in a nearby community. I have a bike, and I work Uptown, but I do not commute by bike primarily because of my concerns for safety. I am hopeful for the future of the initiative.” - Public Meeting Attendee

ATTENDEE COMMENT THEMES 1- Build It Sooner: Desire to quickly install a protected facility type for the entirety of the route, including connections with Little Sugar Creek Greenway & Irwin Creek Greenway. 2 - Create a Safe Environment for Cyclists and Pedestrians: Create a safe crossing of the Rail Trail, improve motorist yielding to cyclists and pedestrians, lower vehicle speeds, and make safe/visible driveway crossings. 3 - Use Context-Sensitive Design: Use an aesthetic buffer such as planter boxes in residential areas and add bicycle parking along the route. 4 - Provide Greenway-Like Amenities: Put a strong emphasis on signage/wayfinding and incorporate greenway-style amenities such as resting places, water-bottle refilling station, and a trailhead at the Irwin Creek Greenway connection point. 5 - Consider Additional Connections: Make additional links to Ray’s Splash Planet, the 4th St Extension/ Tuckaseegee Rd, Central Piedmont Community College, and ensure a connection Across I-277.

LESSONS LEARNED FROM OTHER PILOTS Throughout the study, the project team examined and followed pilot projects underway in cities across North America. Of special note was the City of Calgary’s Centre City Cycle Track Pilot which had been implemented and was finishing an 18-month evaluation. The project was evaluated by staff and Council and ultimately approved by a Council vote to become permanent. Many lessons were learned that will help serve Charlotte well as it embarks on its own pilot project.

Understanding Tradeoffs Items to keep in mind when considering tradeoffs and the appropriate criteria for defining success of the pilot project include:

• The study process was designed

•

Defining Success It is important to understand that “success” and “failure” should not be tied to a single facility or corridor. Rather, “success” and “failure” should be measured on a network basis over the long term. The City’s project should consider “interim success,” but ultimate success should be determined at the overall network level and include the project’s connectivity to greenways, bike lanes, shared use paths, bike boulevards, etc. Prior to construction, “interim success” should be defined and communicated to all stakeholders and decision-makers. At the broadest level, success is a measurement of timeliness, budget, facility utilization/ ridership, and the extent to which the goals were met. Monitoring on a regular basis will help the City better understand project’s long term effect on commuting patterns and modes.. The criteria for success should be explicitly stated and sufficiently aligned with the project vision, scope, and work effort. Clear and simple criteria are easier to explain and defend, and should be developed with stakeholders and decisionmakers so they can provide input, challenge assumptions, negotiate, and reach agreement.

to minimize impacts to vehicle traffic while balancing the needs of all modes of transportation. There will be an impact as traffic may shift to adjacent streets in the network and speeds along the corridor will be reduced. To accommodate installation of cycle tracks in urban areas such as Uptown, impacts to parking should be expected and in some cases a net loss of parking

Every project is unique. Though many lessons can be applied from previous experience in other cities, anticipate that modifications will need to be made to increase safety for users after installation. Calgary made over 100 adjustments to improve the experience of users for their cycle track pilot project and impacted motorists. Bike ridership takes time to develop so don’t anticipate that the installation of one highly visible and separated bike lane will increase ridership across Uptown. Riders will increase over time as the network expands, especially when adjacent neighborhood are safely connected to Uptown across I-277. Avoid “analysis paralysis” and use a simple evaluation plan that does not require significant staff and consultant resources. Calgary’s pilot tracked 106 metrics between 9-11 performance measures and required substantial staffing.

•

spaces results. Impacts can be mitigated by selecting corridors where parking utilization is low and spaces can be relocated to adjacent streets and parking decks/lots. Negative feedback and complaints are typically expressed directly, but positive responses may need to be solicited.

Establishing Expectations A project of this limited scope and scale should not be expected to solve all cycling issues or needs. Items to keep in mind to help set reasonable expectations for the pilot project include:

Use substitute safety measures for crash rates in the short-term. Crashes for cycling and walking are typically underreported and changes in crash rates are difficult to establish without sufficient baseline data. An increase of one crash for a small area may have large ramifications in the data. Understand the propensity for modal bias. How often do we try to measure success or failure for roads or infrastructure that supports automobiles? Do we build a road and then wonder if it was a success or failure? We should not place the burden of proof and heightened standards on one mode of transportation that as a community we do not apply to other modes. Be patient. Similar pilot projects have taken multiple years to design and construct.

PILOT PROJECT NEXT STEPS

F U N D I N G S T R AT E G Y

D E TA I L E D D E S I G N

I N S TA L L & P R O G R A M

E VA L U AT E 54

F U N D I N G

Factors Influencing Costs

Design Considerations

Materials selected for the project affect not only user comfort, visibility/safety, and aesthetics, but also are a primary driver of project cost. Cities such as Tallahassee, Austin, Washington D.C. and Memphis have started with lower cost pilots and are now working to transition to more permanent designs for protected bike lanes.

The design of the 5th/6th St cycle track will need to include an alternatives analysis and design to connect to the Little Sugar Creek Greenway, as highlighted in the summary for Section 5. CDOT has begun and will continue to coordinate with NCDOT to assess these options. Without this greenway connection, the project would not meet a primary objective.

The estimated costs for the pilot project were developed using materials that would be considered for long term installation and durability from a host of materials used for other projects in NC and in the nation. Final selection of materials for the pilot will be based on multiple criteria and will impact project costs. Consideration should also be given to city crew experience and available equipment if not using a contractor for construction.

Life-Cycle Costs

S T R A T E G Y 55

During the design and material selection processes, consideration should be given to life-cycle costs to ensure citizens receive the greatest return on their tax dollars. This requires taking into account typical material lifespans and repair/ replacement intervals. Staff and equipment resources required to sweep and maintain proposed facilities should also be investigated.

Estimated Costs & Funding Sources Funding for the next phase of the project includes fees for planning/public relations, design, construction, and staffing. The project is estimated to cost between $4 million (low) to $6 million (high) depending on materials, signals, and impacts. The City of Charlotte has allocated funding for the pilot project design in its FY18 budget and will evaluate options for construction funding using capital funds and potential grants.

Intersections are probably the most significant design concern for cycle tracks since the concept puts all potential conflict points between cyclists and motor vehicles at the intersection. Intersection design guidance for cycle tracks generally focuses on improving the visibility of cyclists, as well as limiting turning movement conflicts via signalization modifications. A configuration and typical design detail for intersections within the pilot will need to be refined, with the following intersections requiring additional design and consideration:

• W 5th St and W 6th St where

•

cycle track transitions from the south side of a one-way street to the north side of a two-way street; W 6th St and N Graham St, where there is currently a high volume left turn lane and right turn slip ramp; E 6th St and N Tryon St, coordinated with Carolina Theater renovation project (valet zone) and Charlotte Mecklenburg Main Library replacement project; and, E 6th St and N McDowell St, pending a selected alternative for the connection to the Little Sugar Creek Greenway.

Other items needing continued coordination include minimizing impacts to parking, accessible parking projects, construction of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department’s Central Division Station (proposed on corner of 5th and 6th Sts), CATS bus stops and operations, and a future 6th St stormwater project.

Barrier Protected Zone

Context Sensitive Design The design for the facility includes considerations for the following three zones: Barrier Protected Zone – Many barrier types can be used in combination along a corridor depending on context of adjacent areas. While they may have a higher installation cost and additional maintenance requirements, aesthetic enhancements such as planter boxes should be considered for the cycle track buffer in key locations. Preference should be given to areas where a maintenance agreement can be reached.

Driveway Zone

Intersection Zone

Barrier selection criteria can include the following:

• • • • • • • • • • •

Level of Protection from Traffic Traffic Calming Visibility / Reflectivity Dimensions (Space Required) Aesthetics / Appearance Product Availability Cost Ease of Installation Stormwater Impacts Environmental Stewardship Durability / Maintenance

Driveway Zone – Colored pavement can be used in conflict areas to increase cyclist and driver awareness. A dashed yellow centerline should be continued through the zone to separate two-way bicycle traffic. Special consideration should be made to ensure a sight triangle of at least 10 feet from driveway crossings. Signage should be used to make it clear that cyclists have priority over entering and exiting traffic. Intersection Zone – Mini-skip lines must bind the bicycle crossing space and the crossing lane width should match the width and positioning of the leading bike facility. Colored pavement may be used in the zone. Delineating the path of travel reduces bicyclist stress. A best practice is to use chevrons to indicate direction of travel on two-way paths and ensure a sight triangle of at least 20 feet from minor street crossings.

D E T A I L E D D E S I G N 56

I N S T A L L & P R O G R A M 57

The project will need adequate staffing and outreach strategies to carry out elements of the pilot and ensure timely, on-budget project delivery. The following implementation steps are recommended for a successful pilot project: Design • Create a final design to move to implementation for the pilot. • Ensure the design considers the material treatments for the different project zones and also considers evaluation sites for the installation of count equipment. Approvals • Request specific approval from the FHWA for Bicycle Signal Faces (1A-17) using the procedure outlined in Paragraphs 14 through 22 of Section 1A.10 of the MUTCD. • No action necessary for the use of Green Colored Pavement (IA-14), Bike Boxes, or Two-Stage Turn Boxes due to CDOT prior approvals. Education Strategy • Build on the partnerships established during the Uptown Connects planning process to establish an outreach strategy that includes the public, local businesses, transit agencies, NCDOT, police and fire, maintenance department,

advocacy groups, and public health. Positive Feedback Strategy • Use signage that draws attention to the project and gives a clear avenue to provide positive feedback for the project. • Work with partners and stakeholders to establish regular programming for the facility during the pilot to encourage use, including a kickoff event. Programming Strategy • Develop fun and inviting events through partnerships to raise awareness of and invite the public to use the pilot. Partners for event programming may include but are not limited to: Charlotte Center City Partners, Sustain Charlotte, Charlotte Area Bicycle Alliance, and B-Cycle. Monitoring • Establish a plan to track and make adjustments to the pilot project for safety and operations of the facility. Maintenance • Determine maintenance requirements materials selected in design on the pilot project, as well as general upkeep of a facility. • Develop operations and maintenance plan for iterative project delivery from pilot to permanent should be considered.

LANTERN PARADE ON ATLANTA BELTLINE

Projects can succeed or fail on any number of levels and can be still considered a success if overall priorities and objectives are met. This indicates room for future improvement. The key is to document issues and then developing a strategy (and budget stream) for making necessary adjustments. In the case of the cycle track, building the project alone meets a City goal to provide transportation options and infrastructure that allow people to make choices about their mobility,

But to measure interim project success, a clear plan for evaluation should be established with criteria, data collection needs, and reporting. The success criteria must be measured either at the end of a project or within a certain time frame after the project has been implemented. The time frame for measurement much depends on the type of criteria. Some evaluations begin directly after the project happens to get a sense of change but must be measured for years afterward to determine the true impact. How will success be evaluated?

Category

Criteria

Data source

Project Delivery

Project Timeliness

Project Schedule

Project completed on-time, with clear explanations for delays to pilot project opening

Project Cost

Budget Estimate

Project completed at or under budget, with clear explanations if under/over budget based on initial estimates

Usage by less confident cyclists

Bicyclist Intercept Survey

Achieving increase in percentage of cyclists self-identifying as “Enthused and Confident” and “Interested, but Concerned”

Bicyclist Volumes

Video/ Automated Counts

Achieving increase in cycling AADT on pilot corridor

Bicyclist Satisfaction

Access to Destinations

Bicyclist Intercept Survey

Majority of cyclists intercepted feel the pilot has increased cycling access to destinations in Uptown Charlotte

Safety

Response to Safety Modifications

Tracked by CDOT

Ability to receive feedback, document and implement modifications that improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians

Reduced Speeds

Speed Study

Reduction in vehicle speeds of at least 10% on the pilot corridor

Pedestrian Perception

Pedestrian Intercept Survey

Majority of intercepted pedestrians feel the pilot has not decreased the safety or satisfaction of their walking experience

Decreased sidewalk riding

Manual/Video Counts

Reduction in overall percentage of cyclists using the sidewalk.

Pedestrian Counts

Video/ Automated Counts

Increase in pedestrian usage on the pilot corridor

Driving Time

Travel-Time Runs, Traffic Models, and Probe Data

Maintaining LOS E or better. Negligible increase in delay and travel time where LOS >= E

Bicycle Ridership

Impacts to Other Modes

E V A L U A T E 58

S. COLLEGE ST

S. TRYON ST

S. CHURCH ST ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT UNDER INVESTIGATION WITH DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

CEDAR YARDS GREENWAY WITH CONNECTION TO IRWIN CREEK GREENWAY

W. STONEWALL ST

ACCESS TO RAIL STATION

POTENTIAL TRAFFIC SIGNALS

S. M INT ST

S. CEDAR ST

EXISTING SHARED USE PATH AT BOA STADIUM TO CEDAR YARDS GREENWAY

hill st

ACCESS

nmen

realig

WAY

REE KF

BEL 7/ 7 I-2

W. MOREHEAD ST

PHASE 3

B E L K G R E E N WAY C O N N E C T O R Preferred Alignment

From east to west, the preferred alternative will connect to Little Sugar Creek Greenway at Kenliworth St as a two-way cycle track and sidewalks along the south side of future Pearl Park Way and Baxter St. Users will cross McDowell St and share a multiuse path across the freeway overpass to potential pathways along either side of the Brooklyn development south of Stonewall St.

The greenway will connect westward as a grade-separated shared use path, weaving under bridges and over freeway ramps. Connectors will provide access to Uptown streets through this segment, while the trail will transition to at-grade with high

visibility crossing at College, Tryon and Church Sts to the west. The Charlotte Observer site redevelopment will foster the last piece of the east-west route and a Mint St connection to the existing greenway along the north side of the Bank of America Stadium and the planned Cedar Creek project linking to the Irwin Creek Greenway.

Potential Phasing Given the scale of the project, varying stages of development along the alignment, and funding constraints, Charlotte DOT has identified this project in three phases in order to design and request funding.

Phase 1 - The route from Kenilworth St to Davidson St utilizes sidewalks on Pearl Park Way bridge to connect to Little Sugar Creek Greenway. The ultimate connection to greenway could be a bridge widening or standalone bike/ped bridge. This phase is funded for design and construction. Design is currently underway. Phase 2 - With the alignment located within the Belk Freeway right of way, the design is dependent on studies by NCDOT and CDOT recommending freeway modifications. The second phase is not funded, but CDOT staff look to request funds as

S. MCDOWELL ST

S. DAVIDSON ST

SOUTH BLVD

FUTURE BROOKLYN VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT

Fr e

ew ay

ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS UNDER INVESTIGATION WITH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

E. STONEWALL ST 77

IAL ALEX ANDER

EUCLID BRIDG

H RT

I-2 PATHS

O W

/B el

A VE

POTENT

POTENTIAL SHARED USE PATH

XT BA POTENTIAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL

POTENTIAL TWO-WAY CYCLE TRACK & SIDEWALK

CONNECTION TO LITTLE SUGAR CREEK GREENWAY

E. MORE HE

AD ST

PHASE 2

PHASE 1

PREFERRED ALIGNMENT part of a future bond request and in collaboration with modifications to the Belk Freeway.

and promoting the symbiotic relationship between trail and development.

Phase 3 - The segment from College to Mint is not funded. Staff is requesting funds through the 2018 Bond request to design and construct this link.

NCDOT Coordination

Coordination with Developers The City will need to continue coordination with developers throughout each other’s planning and construction processes. Designs should encourage trail facing retail/ restaurant opportunities and access trails to and within developments. Inclusion of good wayfinding will be key to activating these connections

CDOT has met with NCDOT to present the Belk Greenway Connector concept. Division 10 is very supportive of this concept. A portion of the trail footprint is located within the control of access and staff will work with NCDOT on the approval process.

A Branding Opportunity Highly visible to both residents as well as commuters and visitors using I-277, the Belk Greenway will be a statement for Charlotte in achieving its 2020 Vision Plan goal

of becoming a “City of Bikes.” The retaining walls along the freeway may provide a canvas for art, similar to locations along the LYNX Blue Line Extension.

Programming Considerations The nature of this Uptown urban greenway connection offers an unique opportunity for features to make it an iconic project. Similar projects across the nation include artificial shade, public art installations and murals, specialized/ changeable lighting, custom design benches, and landscaping. Many separate cyclists and pedestrians in high traffic areas using a variety of ground plane materials or treatments.

CONCLUSIONS Moving Towards a City of Bikes During the development of the Uptown Connects Study, the City of Charlotte adopted an update to its bike plan, entitled Charlotte BIKES. In an effort to move towards becoming a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;City of Bikes,â&#x20AC;&#x2122; one of the main goals of the plan, set forth in both the Equity and Engineering sections, states that:

The City will create a safe, comfortable and convenient network of bicycle facilities that aid and encourage cycling for people of all ages, abilities and interests, in all areas of Charlotte. Development of the longterm Uptown bike network recommended in the study fulfills that goal in the core of the city, as well as meeting a number of goals established in the 2020 Vision Plan, directly addressing Urban Design & Sustainability, Walkable Full-Service Neighborhoods, Interconnected Natural & Recreational Amenities, and a Multidimensional Transportation System. Through technical evaluation during this study, the project team identified several Tier I projects that could be implemented with minimal impact to traffic and parking. This study recommends moving forward with two ambitious projects as priorities as the first step in creating an interim and long-term Uptown bike network. In addition, the City should begin planning for the next projects down the line that will grow the network and complement the initial projects. CDOT must continue to prioritize future projects with significant annual funding and bond revenues targeted for pedestrian/ bike improvements. Continued progress will depend on periodic reexamination of the recommended network, thorough evaluation of success/failures with past projects, and continued public input and support.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Better streets await only those who care & those who dare. Charlotte has everything it needs for bold action on its streets.â&#x20AC;?

F U L L PAG E P H OTO -Janette Sadik-Khan (AND Q U OT E ? )

APPENDICES A SEGMENT ANALYSIS FORM SAMPLES B SEGMENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY TABLE C PRIORITY CORRIDOR ANALYSIS SUMMARIES

APPENDIX A - SEGMENT ANALYSIS FORM SAMPLES Segment ID: 5A

Mint St From: W Trade St To: W 3rd St Length:

Blocks

Route Direction: North-South

Considerations:

Street Segment Map

Response/Comment:

Directional Travel: Is the street one-way or two-way?

Two-Way

Existing Roadway Cross-Section: How many travel lanes exist in the segment?

Will a travel lane be reallocated for a protected bike lane?

Yes

Is the curb and/or right-of-way physically constrained? (i.e. by face of building)

Yes

Speeds: What are the observed speeds on the street segment? Does the street segment interact with 'Highway Space'? (i.e. On-Ramps, Off-Ramps)

Lower Than Speed Limit No

Vehicular Capacity: What are the observed Peak Hour volumes/capacities? (V/C)

Below Capacity

On-Street Parking: Does on-street parking exist on the street segment? Will parking be lost or gained for a protected bike lane? If yes, what is the net impact to parking? (# Spaces/ # Blocks) Parking Usage vs. Parking Capacity

Insert Segment Map Here

Yes Loss (-6+) 17 spaces/2 blocks Over Capacity (85% Use & Higher)

Off Street Parking (Parking Decks): Are parking deck ingress/egress points located within street segment? If yes, how many? (# Points / # Blocks) If yes, on one or both sides? Do these decks serve primarily monthly parkers or public parkers?

Yes 1 Point / 1 Block One Side Monthly Parkers

Turning Volumes: Are there dedicated turn lanes?

Yes

If yes, how many along street segment?

If yes, on both sides?

Transit: Are transit routes present along street segment?

Pros: Yes

If yes, how many routes?

If yes, how many stops are present?

Other: Is this a heavy/major event street?

Yes

Is this an emergency evacuation route?

Yes

Are intersections on this street segment on the High Accident List (HAL)?

Is this an NCDOT maintained road?

Cons:

Segment ID: 13B

Davidson St From: E 6th St To: E 3rd St Length:

Blocks

Route Direction: North-South

Considerations:

Street Segment Map

Response/Comment:

Directional Travel: Is the street one-way or two-way?

Two-Way

Existing Roadway Cross-Section: How many travel lanes exist in the segment?

Will a travel lane be reallocated for a protected bike lane?

Yes

Is the curb and/or right-of-way physically constrained? (i.e. by face of building)

Yes

Speeds: What are the observed speeds on the street segment? Does the street segment interact with 'Highway Space'? (i.e. On-Ramps, Off-Ramps)

At Speed Limit No

Vehicular Capacity: What are the observed Peak Hour volumes/capacities? (V/C)

Below Capacity

On-Street Parking: Does on-street parking exist on the street segment?

Will parking be lost or gained for a protected bike lane?

N/A

If yes, what is the net impact to parking? (# Spaces/ # Blocks)

N/A

Insert Segment Map Here

Parking Usage vs. Parking Capacity

Yes 1 Point / 4 Blocks One Side Public Parkers

Turning Volumes: Are there dedicated turn lanes? If yes, how many along street segment? If yes, on both sides?

Yes 6 Yes

Transit: Are transit routes present along street segment?

Pros: Yes

If yes, how many routes?

If yes, how many stops are present?

Other: Is this a heavy/major event street?

Yes

Is this an emergency evacuation route?

Are intersections on this street segment on the High Accident List (HAL)?

Is this an NCDOT maintained road?

Cons:

Segment ID: 25A

6th St From: N McDowell St To: N Graham St Length: 11 Blocks Route Direction: East-West

Considerations:

Street Segment Map

Response/Comment:

Directional Travel: Is the street one-way or two-way?

One-Way

Existing Roadway Cross-Section: How many travel lanes exist in the segment?

Will a travel lane be reallocated for a protected bike lane?

Yes

Is the curb and/or right-of-way physically constrained? (i.e. by face of building)

Yes

Speeds: What are the observed speeds on the street segment? Does the street segment interact with 'Highway Space'? (i.e. On-Ramps, Off-Ramps)

At Speed Limit Yes

Vehicular Capacity: What are the observed Peak Hour volumes/capacities? (V/C)

Below Capacity

Insert Segment Map Here

Yes Same (+/- 5) 68 spaces/11 blocks Over Capacity (85% Use & Higher)

Yes 11 Points / 11 Blocks Both Sides Public Parkers

Turning Volumes: Are there dedicated turn lanes?

Yes

If yes, how many along street segment?

If yes, on both sides?

Transit: Are transit routes present along street segment?

Pros: Yes

If yes, how many routes?

If yes, how many stops are present?

Other: Is this a heavy/major event street?

Yes

Is this an emergency evacuation route?

Yes

Are intersections on this street segment on the High Accident List (HAL)?

Is this an NCDOT maintained road?

Cons:

Segment ID: 32A

MLK Jr Blvd From: S Graham St To: S Church St Length:

Blocks

Route Direction: East-West

Considerations:

Street Segment Map

Response/Comment:

Directional Travel: Is the street one-way or two-way?

Two-Way

Existing Roadway Cross-Section: How many travel lanes exist in the segment?

Will a travel lane be reallocated for a protected bike lane?

Is the curb and/or right-of-way physically constrained? (i.e. by face of building)

Yes

Speeds: What are the observed speeds on the street segment? Does the street segment interact with 'Highway Space'? (i.e. On-Ramps, Off-Ramps)

Lower Than Speed Limit No

Vehicular Capacity: What are the observed Peak Hour volumes/capacities? (V/C)

Below Capacity

Insert Segment Map Here

Yes Loss (-6+) 21 Spaces / 2 Blocks At Capacity (51% - 84% Use)

Yes 1 Point / 2 Blocks One Side Public Parkers

Turning Volumes: Are there dedicated turn lanes? If yes, how many along street segment? If yes, on both sides?

Yes 2 Yes

Transit:

Pros:

Are transit routes present along street segment?

If yes, how many routes?

N/A

If yes, how many stops are present?

N/A

Other: Is this a heavy/major event street?

Yes

Is this an emergency evacuation route?

Are intersections on this street segment on the High Accident List (HAL)?

Is this an NCDOT maintained road?

Cons:

Highway Space Interaction

On-Street Parking

At Capacity

Yes

Below Capacity

Yes

At Capacity

Travel Lane Reallocation

# Travel Lanes

At Speed Limit

From

Route Direction

Yes

Vehicular Capacity

Street

Directional Travel

Observed Speed

Segment ID

Constrained Right-of-Way

APPENDIX B SEGMENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY TABLE

Cedar St

Cates St

W Morehead St

Two-Way

N-S

Smith St

NC Music Factory Blvd

W 6th St

Two-Way

N-S

Yes

Graham St

Statesville Ave

W 10th St

Two-Way

N-S

Yes

Graham St

W 10th St

S Mint St

Two-Way

N-S

Yes

Pine St

Settlers Ln

W 8th St

Two-Way

N-S

Yes

Pine St

W 7th St

W 5th St

Two-Way

N-S

Yes

At Speed Limit

Pine St

W 5th St

W Trade St

Two-Way

N-S

Yes

At Speed Limit

Mint St

W Trade St

W 3rd St

Two-Way

N-S

Yes

Lower Than Speed Limit

Mint St

W 3rd St

W MLK Jr Blvd

Two-Way

N-S

Yes

At Speed Limit

Mint St

W MLK Jr Blvd

W Morehead St

Two-Way

N-S

Yes

At Speed Limit

Mint St

W Morehead St

W Palmer St

Two-Way

N-S

Yes

At Speed Limit

Poplar St

W 11th St

W 10th St

Two-Way

N-S

Yes

Lower Than Speed Limit

Poplar St

W 10th St

W 6th St

Two-Way

N-S

Yes

At Speed Limit

Poplar St

W 6th St

W 3rd St

Two-Way

N-S

Yes

At Speed Limit

Church St

N Tryon St

W 11th St

One-Way

N-S

Yes

At Speed Limit

Yes

Church St

W 11th St

W 3rd St

One-Way

N-S

Yes

At Speed Limit

Yes

At Capacity

Yes

Church St

W 3rd St

W Morehead St

One-Way

N-S

Yes

Higher Than Speed Limit

Yes

At Capacity

Yes

Church St

W Morehead St

W Carson Blvd

Two-Way

N-S

Yes

At Speed Limit

At Capacity

Tryon St

N Church St

11th St

Two-Way

N-S

Yes

Below Capacity

Tryon St

11th St

Stonewall St

Two-Way

N-S

Yes

At Capacity

Yes

Tryon St

Stonewall St

Hill St

Two-Way

N-S

Yes

At Speed Limit

At Capacity

Yes

Tryon St

Hill St

Carson Blvd

Two-Way

N-S

Yes

At Speed Limit

Below Capacity

Lower Than Speed Limit Higher Than Speed Limit Higher Than Speed Limit Lower Than Speed Limit

Higher Than Speed Limit Lower Than Speed Limit

Below Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity At Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity

Yes Yes

Yes

No Yes

Yes

Parking Usage / Capacity

Parking Deck Ingress/Egress

Primary Parking Deck User Type

Dedicated Turn Lanes

Transit Route Present

Transit Stops Present

Heavy/Major Event Street

Emergency Evacuation Route

High Accident List

NCDOT Maintained

Over Capacity

Yes

Monthly Parkers

Yes

Loss (-6+)

Over Capacity

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

Public Parkers

Yes

N/A

Over Capacity

N/A

ame (+/- 5)

Over Capacity

Yes

Public Parkers

N/A

Loss (-6+)

Over Capacity

N/A

Loss (-6+)

Over Capacity

Yes

Monthly Parkers

Yes

ame (+/- 5)

At Capacity

N/A

Yes

ame (+/- 5)

Under Capacity

Yes

Monthly Parkers

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

Loss (-6+)

At Capacity

N/A

Loss (-6+)

Over Capacity

N/A

Loss (-6+)

Over Capacity

Yes

Monthly Parkers

Yes

N/A

At Capacity

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

Loss (-6+)

At Capacity

Yes

Monthly Parkers

Yes

Loss (-6+)

At Capacity

Yes

Monthly Parkers

Yes

N/A

Yes

Public Parkers

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

Loss (-6+)

Over Capacity

Yes

Public Parkers

Yes

N/A

Over Capacity

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

Tier 1 / 2 Facility Viability

Parking Impact (Net Loss/Gain)

Loss (-6+)

Travel Lane Reallocation

Constrained Right-of-Way

Highway Space Interaction

Higher Than Speed Limit

Yes

At Capacity

Yes

At Speed Limit

Over Capacity

Yes

At Speed Limit

At Capacity

N-S

Yes

At Speed Limit

One-Way

N-S

Yes

At Speed Limit

E 11th St

One-Way

N-S

Yes

At Speed Limit

E 11th St

E 13th St

Two-Way

N-S

Yes

At Speed Limit

Yes

Brevard St

Belmont Ave

E 12th St

Two-Way

N-S

At Speed Limit

10B

Brevard St

E 12th St

E 9th St

One-Way

N-S

Yes

At Speed Limit

Yes

10C

Brevard St

E 9th St

E 6th St

One-Way

N-S

Yes

10D

Brevard St

E 6th St

E 5th St

Two-Way

N-S

Yes

10E

Brevard St

E Trade St

E 3rd St

One-Way

N-S

Yes

At Speed Limit

10F

Brevard St

E 3rd St

E MLK Jr Blvd

One-Way

N-S

Yes

At Speed Limit

10G

Brevard St

E MLK Jr Blvd

E Stonewall St

Two-Way

N-S

Yes

At Speed Limit

11A

Caldwell St

Belmont Ave

E 12th St

Two-Way

N-S

Yes

11B

Caldwell St

E 12th St

E 7th St

One-Way

N-S

Yes

11C

Caldwell St

E 7th St

E 5th St

One-Way

N-S

Yes

11D

Caldwell St

E 5th St

E Stonewall St

Two-Way

N-S

Yes

12A

South Blvd

E Stonewall St

E Carson Blvd

Two-Way

N-S

13A

Davidson St

Belmont Ave

E 6th St

Two-Way

N-S

13B

Davidson St

E 6th St

E 3rd St

Two-Way

13C

Davidson St

E 3rd St

E MLK Jr Blvd

13D

Davidson St

E MLK Jr Blvd

14A

Alexander St

15A

# Travel Lanes

Yes

Route Direction

Yes

From

Directional Travel

Vehicular Capacity

Segment ID

Observed Speed

Street

College St

S Tryon St

E Hill St

One-Way

N-S

College St

E Hill St

E Stonewall St

One-Way

N-S

College St

E Stonewall St

E 3rd St

One-Way

N-S

College St

E 3rd St

E Trade St

One-Way

College St

E Trade St

E 5th St

College St

E 5th St

College St

10A

Lower Than Speed Limit Lower Than Speed Limit

Higher Than Speed Limit Higher Than Speed Limit

No No

Yes

Below Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity At Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity Over Capacity

Yes

At Capacity

At Speed Limit

At Capacity

Yes

At Speed Limit

At Capacity

Yes

Higher Than Speed Limit

Yes

At Capacity

Yes

At Speed Limit

Yes

At Capacity

N-S

Yes

At Speed Limit

Two-Way

N-S

Yes

At Speed Limit

E Stonewall St

Two-Way

N-S

At Speed Limit

E 11th St

E 7th St

Two-Way

N-S

Yes

Myers St

Garden District Dr

E 9th St

Two-Way

N-S

15B

Myers St

E 7th St

E Trade St

Two-Way

N-S

Yes

At Speed Limit

16A

McDowell St

E 10th St

E 6th St

Two-Way

N-S

Yes

At Speed Limit

Yes

16B

McDowell St

E 6th St

E Morehead St

Two-Way

N-S

Yes

At Speed Limit

Yes

Lower Than Speed Limit Lower Than Speed Limit

No No

Below Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity Over Capacity At Capacity

Parking Impact (Net Loss/Gain)

Parking Usage / Capacity

Parking Deck Ingress/Egress

Primary Parking Deck User Type

Dedicated Turn Lanes

Transit Route Present

Transit Stops Present

Heavy/Major Event Street

Emergency Evacuation Route

High Accident List

NCDOT Maintained

N/A

Yes

Public Parkers

Yes

N/A

Yes

Public Parkers

Yes

Same (+/- 5)

At Capacity

Yes

Monthly Parkers

Yes

Same (+/- 5)

At Capacity

Yes

Public Parkers

Yes

N/A

Yes

Public Parkers

Yes

Same (+/- 5)

Over Capacity

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

Loss (-6+)

At Capacity

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

Same (+/- 5)

At Capacity

N/A

Yes

Same (+/- 5)

At Capacity

Yes

Public Parkers

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

Public Parkers

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

Public Parkers

Yes

Loss (-6+)

At Capacity

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

Same (+/- 5)

At Capacity

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

Loss (-6+)

At Capacity

N/A

Yes

Same (+/- 5)

At Capacity

N/A

Yes

Same (+/- 5)

Under Capacity

N/A

Yes

Same (+/- 5)

At Capacity

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

Public Parkers

Yes

Tier 1 / 2 Facility Viability

On-Street Parking No

Directional Travel

Route Direction

# Travel Lanes

Travel Lane Reallocation

Constrained Right-of-Way

Highway Space Interaction

Vehicular Capacity

Two-Way

N-S

Yes

At Speed Limit

At Capacity

Hamilton St

Two-Way E-W

Yes

At Speed Limit

Below Capacity

E 10th St

N Davidson St

One-Way E-W

Yes

At Capacity

12th St

N Davidson St

N Brevard St

One-Way E-W

Yes

At Capacity

19C

12th St

N Brevard St

N Church St

One-Way E-W

Yes

Below Capacity

19D

12th St

N Church St

N Graham St

One-Way E-W

At Speed Limit

Yes

At Capacity

20A

11th St

N Pine St

N Poplar St

Two-Way E-W

Yes

Lower Than Speed Limit

20B

11th St

N Church St

N Caldwell St

One-Way E-W

Yes

At Speed Limit

Yes

20C

11th St

N Caldwell St

N Alexander St

One-Way E-W

Yes

20D

11th St

N Alexander St

E 10th St

One-Way E-W

Yes

21A

10th St

N Smith St

N Graham St

Two-Way E-W

At Speed Limit

At Capacity

21B

10th St

N Graham St

N Church St

Two-Way E-W

Yes

At Speed Limit

Yes

At Capacity

21C

10th St

N Church St

N Tryon St

Two-Way E-W

Yes

Lower Than Speed Limit

22A

9th St

N Smith St

N Pine St

Two-Way E-W

Yes

At Speed Limit

22B

9th St

N Poplar St

N Myers St

Two-Way E-W

Yes

At Speed Limit

23A

8th St

N Smith St

N Graham St

Two-Way E-W

Yes

23B

8th St

N Pine St

N Poplar St

Two-Way E-W

Yes

23C

8th St

N Church St

N McDowell St

Two-Way E-W

Yes

24A

7th St

N Smith St

N Pine St

Two-Way E-W

Yes

24B

7th St

N Poplar St

N Brevard St

Two-Way E-W

Yes

At Speed Limit

24C

7th St

N Brevard St

N Caldwell St

Two-Way E-W

Yes

At Speed Limit

At Capacity

24D

7th St

N Caldwell St

Central Ave

Two-Way E-W

Yes

At Speed Limit

At Capacity

25A

6th St

N McDowell St

N Graham St

One-Way E-W

Yes

At Speed Limit

Yes

Below Capacity

25B

6th St

N Graham St

W 5th St

One-Way E-W

Yes

At Speed Limit

At Capacity

26A

5th St

I-77

W 6th St

Two-Way E-W

Yes

At Speed Limit

Yes

Below Capacity

26B

5th St

W 6th St

N Brevard St

One-Way E-W

Yes

At Speed Limit

At Capacity

26C

5th St

N Brevard St

N Caldwell St

One-Way E-W

Yes

At Speed Limit

26D

5th St

N Caldwell St

N McDowell St

One-Way E-W

Yes

At Speed Limit

Yes

Segment ID

Observed Speed

Street

From

17A

Kings Dr

E 7th St

Pearl Park Way

18A

NC Music Factory Blvd

N Graham St

19A

12th St

19B

Higher Than Speed Limit Higher Than Speed Limit Higher Than Speed Limit

Higher Than Speed Limit Higher Than Speed Limit

Lower Than Speed Limit Lower Than Speed Limit Lower Than Speed Limit Lower Than Speed Limit

Yes No

No No No No

Below Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity

Below Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity

Below Capacity Below Capacity

Parking Impact (Net Loss/Gain)

Parking Usage / Capacity

Parking Deck Ingress/Egress

Primary Parking Deck User Type

Dedicated Turn Lanes

Transit Route Present

Transit Stops Present

Heavy/Major Event Street

Emergency Evacuation Route

High Accident List

NCDOT Maintained

N/A

Yes

Public Parkers

Yes

Loss (-6+)

At Capacity

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

Loss (-6+)

At Capacity

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

Same (+/- 5)

At Capacity

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

Loss (-6+)

At Capacity

N/A

Yes

Loss (-6+)

At Capacity

N/A

Yes

Same (+/- 5)

Over Capacity

Yes

Public Parkers

Yes

N/A

Yes

Loss (-6+)

Over Capacity

N/A

Yes

Loss (-6+)

At Capacity

N/A

Yes

Loss (-6+)

Under Capacity

Yes

Public Parkers

N/A

Yes

Loss (-6+)

Over Capacity

Yes

Public Parkers

N/A

Yes

Public Parkers

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

Public Parkers

Yes

Same (+/- 5)

Over Capacity

Yes

Public Parkers

Yes

Loss (-6+)

Under Capacity

Yes

Public Parkers

Yes

N/A

Yes

Same (+/- 5)

At Capacity

Yes

Public Parkers

Yes

Loss (-6+)

Over Capacity

Yes

Monthly Parkers

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

Same (+/- 5)

At Capacity

Yes

Monthly Parkers

Yes

Tier 1 / 2 Facility Viability

On-Street Parking No

Constrained Right-of-Way

Highway Space Interaction No

Elizabeth Ave

N Kings Dr

McDowell St

Two-Way E-W

Yes

28A

Trade St

McDowell St

Alexander St

Two-Way E-W

Yes

28B

Trade St

Alexander St

Cedar St

Two-Way E-W

Yes

28C

Trade St

Cedar St

Irwin Ave

Two-Way E-W

Yes

28D

Trade St

Irwin Ave

W 5th St

Two-Way E-W

Yes

29A

4th St

S Kings Dr

S Brevard St

One-Way E-W

Yes

29B

4th St

S Brevard St

S College St

One-Way E-W

29C

4th St

S College St

S Mint St

One-Way E-W

29D

4th St

S Mint St

30A

4th St Ext

Johnson & Wales Way

Johnson & Wales Two-Way E-W Way

30B

4th St Ext

Grandin Rd

31A

3rd St

S Mint St

S Church St

31B

3rd St

S Church St

31C

3rd St

31D

Route Direction

27A

Directional Travel

Travel Lane Reallocation

At Speed Limit

From

# Travel Lanes

Yes

Segment ID

Observed Speed

Street

Lower Than Speed Limit Lower Than Speed Limit Lower Than Speed Limit

Vehicular Capacity

Below Capacity Below Capacity

At Capacity

At Speed Limit

Yes

At Capacity

Yes

Higher Than Speed Limit

Yes

At Speed Limit

Yes

At Speed Limit

At Capacity

Yes

At Speed Limit

At Capacity

Two-Way E-W

At Speed Limit

Tuckaseegee Rd Two-Way E-W

One-Way E-W

Yes

S Tryon St

One-Way E-W

Yes

S Tryon St

S Brevard St

One-Way E-W

Yes

3rd St

S Brevard St

S McDowell St

One-Way E-W

31E

3rd St

S McDowell St

S Kings Dr

One-Way E-W

Yes

32A

MLK Jr Blvd

S Graham St

S Church St

Two-Way E-W

Yes

32B

MLK Jr Blvd

S Church St

S College St

One-Way E-W

Yes

32C

MLK Jr Blvd

S College St

S Brevard St

Two-Way E-W

Yes

At Speed Limit

32D

MLK Jr Blvd

S Brevard St

S McDowell St

Two-Way E-W

Yes

At Speed Limit

33A

Stonewall St

S Mint St

S Tryon St

Two-Way E-W

Yes

At Speed Limit

33B

Stonewall St

S Tryon St

S Davidson St

Two-Way E-W

Yes

33C

Stonewall St

S Davidson St

S McDowell St

Two-Way E-W

Yes

34A

Morehead St

Freedom Dr

I-77

Two-Way E-W

Yes

34B

Morehead St

I-77

Kenilworth Ave

Two-Way E-W

Yes

35A

Carson Blvd

S Mint St

South Blvd

Two-Way E-W

Yes

Grandin Rd

Higher Than Speed Limit Lower Than Speed Limit Lower Than Speed Limit At Speed Limit Higher Than Speed Limit Higher Than Speed Limit Lower Than Speed Limit Lower Than Speed Limit

Higher Than Speed Limit Higher Than Speed Limit

No No No No

Over Capacity Below Capacity

Below Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity

At Capacity

Yes

At Capacity

No No

Below Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity Below Capacity

Yes

At Capacity

Yes

At Capacity

At Speed Limit

Yes

At Capacity

Yes

At Speed Limit

Yes

At Capacity

Yes

At Speed Limit

Below Capacity

Parking Impact (Net Loss/Gain)

Parking Usage / Capacity

Parking Deck Ingress/Egress

Primary Parking Deck User Type

Dedicated Turn Lanes

Transit Route Present

Transit Stops Present

Heavy/Major Event Street

Emergency Evacuation Route

High Accident List

NCDOT Maintained

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

Monthly Parkers

Yes

Loss (-6+)

At Capacity

Yes

Monthly Parkers

Yes

Loss (-6+)

At Capacity

Yes

Public Parkers

Yes

N/A

Yes

Public Parkers

Yes

Same (+/- 5)

Over Capacity

Yes

Public Parkers

Yes

N/A

Yes

Public Parkers

Yes

N/A

Yes

Monthly Parkers

Yes

N/A

Yes

Monthly Parkers

Yes

Loss (-6+)

Under Capacity

Yes

Public Parkers

Yes

N/A

Yes

Loss (-6+)

At Capacity

Yes

Monthly Parkers

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

Monthly Parkers

Yes

Loss (-6+)

At Capacity

Yes

Public Parkers

Yes

Loss (-6+)

At Capacity

Yes

Public Parkers

Yes

N/A

Yes

Public Parkers

Yes

Loss (-6+)

At Capacity

Yes

Public Parkers

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

Monthly Parkers

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

Public Parkers

Yes

N/A

Yes

Loss (-6+)

At Capacity

Yes

Public Parkers

Yes

N/A

Yes

Monthly Parkers

Yes

Loss (-6+)

At Capacity

Yes

Public Parkers

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

Monthly Parkers

Yes

Same (+/- 5)

At Capacity

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

Tier 1 / 2 Facility Viability

On-Street Parking No

APPENDIX C PRIORITY CORRIDOR ANALYSIS SUMMARIES