2006 Regional Bicycle Transportation Facilities Plan - Morpc

2006 Regional Bicycle Transportation Facilities Plan

Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission 285 East Main Street Columbus, OH 43215

2006 REGIONAL BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES PLAN of the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission

Prepared by: Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission 285 East Main Street Columbus, Ohio 43215 Bernice Cage, Principal Planner Ahmad Al-Akhras, Assistant Director of Transportation Robert E. Lawler, Director of Transportation June 2007

Preparation of this document was financed by appropriations from Franklin, Delaware, Licking and Fairfield counties, and municipalities in Delaware and Franklin counties, together with planning funds from the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration with the Ohio Department of Transportation.

2006 Regional Bicycle Transportation Facilities Plan Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................... 3 Purpose of the Plan Update ................................................................................ 4 Transportation Vision, Goals and Objectives ...................................................... 4 Organization of the Report .................................................................................. 6 Policy Issues .................................................................................................................. 7 Routine Accommodation ..................................................................................... 7 SAFETEA-LU ..................................................................................................... 8 MORPC-Attributable Funding Programs ............................................................. 9 State and Local Laws and Regulations ............................................................... 9 Assessment of Current Conditions and Needs ............................................................. 10 Growth and Land Development ........................................................................ 10 Users of the Bicycle Transportation System...................................................... 12 Potential Demand ............................................................................................. 16 Bicycle Parking Needs ...................................................................................... 20 COTA Bike Lockers .......................................................................................... 21 Bike and Bus .................................................................................................... 22 Safety Assessment ........................................................................................... 26 Crash Analysis Software ....................................................................... 27 Crash Analysis ...................................................................................... 28 Bicycle Crashes .................................................................................... 31 High Street ................................................................................ 33 Broad Street .............................................................................. 36 Cleveland Avenue ..................................................................... 37 Main Street ................................................................................ 39 Parsons Avenue ........................................................................ 40 Mound Street ............................................................................. 41 Sullivant Avenue ........................................................................ 42 Livingston Avenue ..................................................................... 43 Champion Avenue ..................................................................... 44 Fifth Avenue .............................................................................. 45 Bikeway Characteristics ............................................................................................... 46 Roadway Suitability Evaluation Tools ............................................................... 46 The Bicycle Transportation System .............................................................................. 56 Performance Criteria for the Bicycle Transportation Network ............................ 57 Design and Location Criteria ............................................................................. 58 Desired Travel Corridors ....................................................................... 59 River Corridors ...................................................................................... 62 Rail Corridors ........................................................................................ 64 Utility Corridors...................................................................................... 66 Barriers and Bridges ............................................................................. 66 Regional Connections ........................................................................... 67 Regional Activity Centers ........................................................... 67 Proposed Bikeway Functional Classifications ................................................... 71 Regional Bikeway Network ............................................................................... 74 Bicycle Facilities Estimated Costs..................................................................... 77

1


Bibliography Appendix A Bicycle Safety Education Appendix B Ohio Revised Code – Bicycle Laws Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Policy, Routine Accommodations, 2004 Policy on Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel on ODOT-Owned and Maintained Facilities Principles for Allocation and Management of MORPC-Attributable Federal Funding Bikeability Checklist Bicycle Level-of-Service Model Description FHWA Treatment Tables Estimating Potential Bike Trips Appendix C Federal Funding Sources Appendix D Sample Parking Ordinances Appendix E Breaking Barriers to Bicycling: Bicycle Lanes Best Practices and Pilot Treatments Shared-Use Paths Best Practices and Pilot Treatments

2


Introduction The Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) as the metropolitan planning organization in central Ohio is required to plan for the “development and integrated management and operation of transportation systems and facilities (including bicycle transportation facilities) that will function as an intermodal transportation system.” The planning process for metropolitan areas is further required to: consider a range of projects and strategies including those that will increase the safety and security of the transportation system for non-motorized users increase accessibility and mobility options available to people improve the quality of life enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system for people Public interest for more bicycle facilities prompted MORPC and the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) to develop policy requiring the accommodation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in transportation improvement projects. In 2004, the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) created a routine accommodations policy on the use of federal attributable funds; “Accommodating Bicycles and Pedestrians in Transportation Projects - a Policy Statement.” In 2005, ODOT adopted its first routine accommodations policy; “Policy on Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel on ODOTOwned and Maintained Facilities.”

In 2005 the Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) placed bike racks on buses and offered free rides to those who used the bike racks. That summer the community witnessed first-hand the need for more 3

2006 Regional Bicycle Transportation Facilities Plan bicycle facilities. The increase in bicyclists was phenomenal as they struggled through city streets to reach destinations. Every three years, the Regional Bikeway Plan is updated with new, existing, committed, and proposed bikeway corridors. As communities review opportunities to add bikeways when constructing and reconstructing transportation projects, the issue and challenge of connectivity have emerged.

Purpose of the Plan Update MORPC’s responsibilities and bicyclists’ increased interest have created the necessity for a comprehensive update to the Regional Bikeway Plan. The purpose of the Regional Bikeway Plan is to: Provide a bikeway planning guide for local jurisdictions, considering land development, roadway widenings, and highway improvements or zoning changes. Facilitate development of a transportation system that provides direct and convenient bicycle travel within and between residential areas, places of employment and neighborhood activity centers. Provide for the development of a regional bikeway system meeting the travel needs of the bicycling public. Provide for a regional bikeway system that is integrated with central Ohio’s surface transportation system. The plan continues to respond to the bicycle travel needs of central Ohio by providing a skeletal system of bikeways in the transportation planning area: Delaware and Franklin counties, Etna Township and Pataskala in Licking County and Violet and Bloom townships in Fairfield County. Local jurisdictions should incorporate MORPC’s updated regional bikeway plan into comprehensive or capital improvement plans to assist in the continuity, expansion and extension of the regional bikeway system. Transportation Vision, Goals & Objectives The U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) has two federal policy alternatives: Accommodate current bicycle use and/or Increase the level of use

4

2006 Regional Bicycle Transportation Facilities Plan With regional growth and transportation issues that are occurring in central Ohio, MORPC in early 2005 revisited its transportation goals and objectives to determine if it addressed the current needs of central Ohio. The question was put forward, “how should central Ohio spend its regional transportation money?” A vision of the region and a thoughtful set of goals for transportation were needed to ensure the transportation projects funded would meet our needs and improve the region. The Vision Statement, Goals and Objectives, developed for the next Regional Transportation Plan to be adopted in 2008, are shown below: VISION: A transportation system that enhances environmental, social and economic well being of the region. Goal I: Provide a safe, secure and efficient transportation system Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system. Ensure transportation infrastructure and development are built concurrently. Use technology to better inform the public of real-time travel options. Preserve and acquire rights-of-way for desired volumes of traffic (all modes). Design travel ways for appropriate speeds and desired volumes of traffic (all modes). Prioritize projects that result from a collaborative, interjurisdictional process. Goal II: Provide an accessible transportation system with a range of choices Provide facilities for desired levels of pedestrian, bicycle and transit travel. Ensure connection of facilities to the regional transportation network. Ensure simple and convenient intermodal connections for both passenger travel and freight movement. Prioritize transportation infrastructure that minimizes automobile travel. Goal III: Protect the social, environmental and economic well being of the citizens of the region Prioritize transportation infrastructure for developments that minimize the need for automobile travel. Advance transportation projects that do not shift economic activity away from developed areas, especially between jurisdictions.

5

2006 Regional Bicycle Transportation Facilities Plan Ensure that transportation facilities are accessible by all users. Analyze public information and education programs to determine and improve their effectiveness. Reduce transportation’s contribution to regional air quality problems. Reduce transportation’s contribution to regional water quality problems. Incorporate aesthetic considerations (e.g., landscaping and good design practices) into the development of transportation facilities. Protect habitat, natural areas and cultural resources. Reduce noise impacts of transportation. Reduce the energy demands of the transportation system. To achieve the transportation goals and objectives pertaining to the bicycle as a mode of transportation, MORPC plans to: 1.

Give priority to projects that will close gaps in the bikeway system, eliminate barriers; provide linkage, and/or continuity to any existing facilities when planning and programming improvements.

2.

Identify federal and state funds for eligible projects.

3.

Encourage planners and engineers to include the needs of bicyclists when designing transportation facilities in urban, suburban and rural areas.

4.

Encourage the appointment of bicycle coordinators by local member governments.

5.

Encourage local jurisdictions to incorporate the regional bikeway plan network as part of its comprehensive plan.

Organization of the Report The remainder of this document progresses sequentially through the steps followed to develop the plan. The steps include: policy issues legislation impacting facilities and potential funding assessment of bicycle travel needs description of general bikeway characteristics the bikeway transportation system

6


Policy Issues Routine Accommodation During the 1990’s, Congress spearheaded a movement toward a transportation system that favors people and goods over motor vehicles with passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) (199l) and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) (1998). ISTEA and TEA-21 contained explicit language on providing bicycle and pedestrian provisions. TEA-21 specifically stated, “Bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways shall be considered, where appropriate, in conjunction with all new construction and reconstruction of transportation projects, except where bicycle and pedestrian use are not permitted” (Section 1202). Other federal laws including the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) reinforced the need for bicycle facilities. FHWA prepared in response “Design Guidance: Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach: A US DOT Policy Statement on Integrating Bicycling and Walking into Transportation Infrastructure (Guidance).” The Design Guidance incorporated three key principles: a.

b. c.

a policy statement that bicycle and pedestrian facilities will be incorporated into all transportation projects unless exceptional circumstances exist an approach to achieving this policy that has already worked in state and local agencies a series of action items that a public agency, professional association, or advocacy group can take to achieve the overriding goal of improving conditions for bicycling and walking

While the intent of the Design Guidance was for every transportation agency to make accommodations for bicycling and walking a routine part of their planning, design, construction, operations and maintenance activities, bikeways for transportation in central Ohio were not being constructed. MORPC, recognizing the importance of and encouraging the construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, wanted to put into place a mechanism that would provide the same or similar intent as the noted guidance. In that, MORPC adopted in 2004 Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrians in Transportation Projects - a Policy Statement, a bicycle and pedestrian planning policy for all project sponsors seeking MORPC-attributable federal funds. See Appendix B for the complete policy.

7


Many transportation projects, however, do not use MORPC’s attributable funding and subsequently, are not subject to this policy. As an additional effort to encourage communities to accommodate bicycles and pedestrians, MORPC in 2005 developed Internal Guidelines to Recommending Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. This document directs staff on a standard approach to state and local agencies whose projects, which use some other source of funding, come to the attention of MORPC. ODOT’s Policy on Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel on ODOT-Owned or Maintained Facilities requires that bicycle and pedestrian facilities be considered in new construction or reconstruction projects. See Appendix B for the complete policy.

SAFETEA-LU On August 10, 2005 the President signed into law the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).

With guaranteed funding for highways, highway safety, and public transportation totaling $286.5 billion, SAFETEA-LU represents the largest surface transportation investment in our nation’s history. SAFETEA-LU builds on ISTEA and TEA-21 supplying the funds and refining the programmatic framework for investments needed to maintain and grow our vital transportation infrastructure. See Appendix C for a full description of federal programs that fund eligible bikeways.

8

2006 Regional Bicycle Transportation Facilities Plan MORPC-Attributable Funding Programs Every two years, MORPC solicits funding applications for transportation projects that are located within its transportation planning area. MORPC revised its principles, procedures, and application for the STP, CMAQ and TE programs. The Principles for Allocation and Management of MORPC-Attributable Federal Funding can be found in Appendix B. State and Local Laws and Regulations There are several laws that are important in the planning and construction of bikeways. Ohio Revised Code – Bicycle Laws (see Appendix B) Article XII, section 5a of the Ohio Constitution, § 5735.27. Distribution and use of gasoline excise tax fund and highway operating fund. (See Appendix B.)

9


Assessment of Current Conditions and Needs Growth and Land Development Land use patterns and development are critical to transportation planning.1 The land use and transportation systems are intricately related. The land use system defines the origin and destinations of travel patterns. Transportation planning tools, such as travel demand models, utilize land use data to measure the ability of the transportation infrastructure to meet travel needs and to test impacts from various transportation projects. Central Ohio continues to be the fastest growing area in the state. An additional 430,000 people are forecast between 2000 and 2030. Change in Population, Housing and Employment: 1990-2030

Population (1,000's)

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0 Population 1990

Housing 2000

Employment 2030

Slightly over one-half of the new population is forecast for Franklin County. Delaware County is expected to add more than 150,000 people. The portions of the study area in Fairfield and Licking counties are each projected to add more than 13,000 people. In Franklin County, most growth continues to be forecast at the peripheries of the county. Robust growth is expected in Grove City. Other high growth areas include the area between Hilliard and Dublin on the west side of Franklin County, the New Albany area and the area around Groveport, Canal Winchester and Obetz. Overall, however, it is projected that growth will continue to be strongest in the northern half of the study area. Forecasts for Delaware County, including Delaware City, and the suburban communities across the northern arc of the outerbelt account for nearly one-half of all new population growth.

1

2030 Regional Transportation Plan

10


Change in Population

Change in Households

Change in Jobs

11

2006 Regional Bicycle Transportation Facilities Plan Users of the Bicycle Transportation System Nearly 100 million people in the United States own bicycles. The Bicycle Federation of America estimates that fewer than 5 percent would qualify as experienced or highly skilled bicyclists. Since the federal policy goal is to accommodate existing bicyclists and encourage increased bicycle use (see Policy Issues), there will be more novice riders than advanced bicyclists using the highway system. Therefore, any roadway treatments intended to accommodate bicycle use must address the needs of both experienced and less experienced riders. One solution to this challenge, according to FHWA’s Planning and Design Guidance, is to develop the concept of a “design cyclist” and adopt a classification system for bicycle users such as the following: Group A – Advanced Bicyclists: These are experienced riders who can operate under most traffic conditions. They comprise the majority of the current users of collector and arterial streets and are best served by the following:

www.pedbikeimages.org/Dan Burden

Direct access to destinations usually via the existing street and highway system. The opportunity to operate at maximum speed with minimum delays. Sufficient operating space on the roadway or shoulder to reduce the need for either the bicyclist or the motor vehicle operator to change position when passing.

12


Group B – Basic Bicyclists: These are casual or new adult and teenage riders who are less confident of their ability to operate in traffic without special provisions for bicycles. Some will develop greater skills and progress to the advanced level, but there will always be many millions of basic bicyclists. They prefer:

www.pedbikeimages.org/DanBurden

Comfortable access to destinations, preferably by a direct route, using either low-speed, low traffic-volume streets or designated bicycle facilities. Well-defined separation of bicycles and motor vehicles on arterial and collector streets (bike lanes or shoulders) or separate bike paths.

13

2006 Regional Bicycle Transportation Facilities Plan Group C-Children: These are pre-teen riders whose roadway use is initially monitored by parents. Eventually they are accorded independent access to the system. They and their parents prefer the following:

Access to key destinations surrounding residential areas, including schools, recreation facilities, shopping, or other residential areas. Residential streets with low motor vehicle speed limits and volumes. Well-defined separation of bicycles and motor vehicles on arterial and collector streets or separate bike paths. These lists support combining group B and C bicyclists in most situations. Therefore a “design cyclist” concept is proposed that recognizes two broad classes of bicyclists: Group A riders and Group B/C riders. Group A riders will be best served by making every street “bicycle friendly.” Provide adequate space for bicycles and motor vehicles to share the roadway with minimum need for changing lanes or lane position. The desired outcome is to have sufficient space to accommodate shared use by bicycles and motor vehicles with minimum delays and maximum safety for all users. This can be accomplished by: Establishing and enforcing speed limits to minimize speed differentials between bicycles and motor vehicles on neighborhood streets and/or by implementing “traffic-calming” strategies that do not create barriers/hazards for cyclists. Providing wide curb lanes on collector and arterial streets built with a curb and gutter (urban section). Providing usable shoulders on highways built with no curb and gutter (rural section). Generally, group B/C bicyclists will be best served by a network of neighborhood streets and designated bicycle facilities, which can be provided by:

14

2006 Regional Bicycle Transportation Facilities Plan Ensuring neighborhood streets have low speed limits through effective speed enforcement or controls and/or by implementing “traffic-calming” strategies that do not create barriers/hazards for cyclists. Providing a network of designated bicycle facilities (e.g., bike lanes, bike paths, or side-street bicycle routes) through the key travel corridors typically served by arterial and collector streets. Providing usable roadway shoulders on rural highways. Group B/C riders will be best served by identifying key travel corridors (typically served by arterial and collector streets) and by providing designated bicycle facilities on selected routes through these corridors.

Design Bicyclists Group Needs A Direct access to destinations (5%) Operate at maximum speed with minimal delays Sufficient operating space - Roadway or Shoulder B/C Comfortable access to key destinations (95%) Low speeds and low volumes Well-defined separation on roadway

Accommodations Enforce speed limits Wide curb lanes (urban) Paved shoulders (rural) Ensure low speeds Bike lanes, paths or routes Paved shoulders

15

2006 Regional Bicycle Transportation Facilities Plan Potential Demand Local agencies and policy makers ask the question of how many people will actually use new or improved bicycle facilities. Where should they spend limited resources to get the most “bang for the buck” and what type of facility should be constructed?

Comparison Studies Aggregate Behavior Studies Sketch Plan Methods Discrete Choice Models Regional Travel Models

There are several ways to estimate future levels of bicycle use including:2 Methods that predict non-motorized travel on a facility by comparing it to usage and to surrounding population and land use characteristics of other similar facilities. Methods that relate non-motorized travel in an area to its local population, land use, and other characteristics, usually through regression analysis. Methods that predict non-motorized travel on a facility or in an area based on simple calculations and rules of thumb about trip lengths, mode shares, and other aspects of travel behavior. Models that predict an individual’s travel decisions based on characteristics of the alternatives available to them. Models that predict total trips by trip purpose, mode, and origin/destination and distribute these trips across a network of transportation facilities, based on land use characteristics such as population and employment and on characteristics of the transportation network.

Attractions

Trip distance Demographics Land use patterns Travel conditions

Topography and climate

Community attitudes Time and geographic scope

Conditions3 that should be included in forecasting bicycle travel: Certain activity centers tend to be major attractors for cycling, including commercial districts, school-college-university campuses, employment centers, recreation centers and parks. Most bicycling trips are less than 5 miles in length, although recreational trips are often much longer. Young (10-20) and low-income people tend to rely on cycling for transportation. Bicycling for transportation tend to increase with density because higher density makes this mode more efficient. Wide roads with heavy, high-speed vehicle traffic can form significant barriers to bicycling. Bikeways and their conditions can have a significant impact on the amount of bicycling that occurs. These factors can affect bicycling, but not as much as might be expected. For example, the cities of Seattle, Portland and Missoula report significantly higher levels of bicycle transportation than many “Sunbelt” cities that are flat and have mild climates. Local attitudes can have a major impact on the level of cycling in a community. More people would bicycle if it were perceived to be more socially acceptable. Time and geographic scope

2

Guidebook on Methods to Estimate Non-Motorized Travel: Overview of Methods, USDOT, Publication No. FHWA-RD-98-165, July 1999. 3 Evaluating Nonmotorized Transportation, Techniques for Measuring Walking and Cycling Activity and Conditions, TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, July 9, 2004.

16

2006 Regional Bicycle Transportation Facilities Plan It may take several years for a community to fully achieve its full bicycle travel potential. Along with the conditions, factors influencing bicycling should be considered including:4 Age Gender Education Students Car and License Having a Driver’s License Size of Town Employment Status Professional Status Household Income Trip Length Parking Fees Facility Conditions Travel Costs Bicycle Parking Community Values

Climate/Weather

4

Bicycle use increase into middle age and then decrease. Cyclists tend to have lower average age than non-cyclists. Men tend to cycle significantly more than women. Bicycle use increases slightly with education. Students are the largest bicycle commuter group. Universities, colleges and schools are major generators of bicycle trips. People who do not have a car available are more likely to cycle. People who cannot drive are more likely to cycle. A population of less than 100,000 appears to offer a better environment for cycling, and so may have higher rates of cycling than larger cities. Higher unemployment is associated with more cycling. Among employed people, professionals and managers appear more likely to cycle than blue collar and sales workers. Utilitarian cyclists tend to have lower average incomes compared with noncyclists. Recreational cyclists tend to have higher than average incomes. Cycling is most common for short (