bicycle/pedestrian planbicycle/pedestrian plan for the calhoun county urbanized area “when i see...

A

Bicycle/Pedestrian Planfor the

Calhoun County Urbanized Area

“When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of thehuman race.”

H. G. Wells

Funded in part by the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, the Alabama Department of Transportation(ALDoT), the East Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission and Section 112 Planning funds of the Calhoun AreaMetropolitan Planning Organization (MPO); Anniston, Oxford, Hobson City, Weaver, Jacksonville, and the Calhoun County Commission.

A street must accommodate many uses, to design for only one mode of travel is an inherently inefficientuse of valuable public right of way.

Michael Ronkin, Oregon Bike/Ped Program Manager

Everyone is a pedestrian. Walking at a comfortable speed improves heart-lung function. It is also goodfor general fitness as well as being safe cheap and convenient. It can be enjoyed alone or with friends.

Take a few minutes each day for pleasure walking. Even low-intensity activities for as little as 30 minutesa day can bring health benefits; including reducing tension and stress, preventing bone loss, heart disease

and high blood pressure.

American Heart Association Website

“The bicycle is a curious vehicle. It’s passenger is also its engine.”John Howard, US Olympic Cyclist

“Ithought of that while riding my bicycle.”

Albert Einstein - (When asked about E=mc2. )

Prepared by the staff of the

Calhoun Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)and the

East Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Study Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Bicycle and Pedestrian Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Accident Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Definitions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Bikeway Facility Signing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

CHAPTER 2 - BIKEWAY SURVEYS AND FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92002 Bikeways Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Chief Ladiga Adjacent Resident Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Bicycle Facilities Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Telephone Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Survey of Current Ordinances and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Summary of Surveys and Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

CHAPTER 3 - IDENTIFICATION OF BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS . . . . . . . 21Current Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Projects Identified by the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee . . . . . . . . 22

CHAPTER 4 - RECOMMENDED BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS . . . . . 25Education Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Policy Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Current Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27New Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

CHAPTER 5 - PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE AND ADA SAFETY ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Pedestrian Safety and Sidewalk Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43ADA Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Safety Tips for Pedestrians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Bicycle Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Safety Tips for Bicyclists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Appendix A - Public Comments On Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan UpdateAppendix B - Surveys and CommentsAppendix C - Calhoun Area Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee and Mailing ListAppendix D - Overview of Funding Sources

LIST OF TABLES

Transportation to Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Accident Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42002 Bikeways Survey Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92002 Bikeways Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10CLT Adjacent Resident Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122002 Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142002 Telephone Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

LIST OF MAPS

Map #1 - Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Projects - Calhoun Urban Area . . . . 31Map #2 - Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Projects - Jacksonville & JSU . . . . . . 35Map #3 - Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Projects - Hobson City . . . . . . . . . . . 39

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The transportation staff of the Calhoun Area MPO and the East Alabama Regional Planningand Development Commission is indebted to all of the citizens who participated in the mailsurveys.

In addition, the MPO recognizes the efforts of the Calhoun Area Bicycle/PedestrianAdvisory Committee toward the betterment of bicycling and pedestrian facilities in theregion. The Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee served as the primary sounding boardfor the staff preparing the study.

This report summarizes the work efforts and ideas of the Calhoun Area Bicycle/PedestrianAdvisory Committee and makes recommendations for augmentation and improvementsfor bicycle and pedestrians in the urban circulation system.

PREFACE

Bicycle usage has been increasing over the past several years and continues to increasein popularity. Today, the Bicycle Manufacturers Association of America estimates that overone-half of all Americans are bicycle users. Furthermore, the number of bicycles sold inthe US is increasing rapidly. This means there are more bicycles sold annually than newcars. With this growth in bicycling, there is a greatly increased need and demand forbikeways and bicycle facilities.

Previous experiences by cities such as Homestead, Florida, Savannah, Georgia, Seattle,Washington and Denver, Colorado have clearly demonstrated that bikeways are utilizedby bike riders to a great degree when proper facilities are provided. Bicycling is rapidlybecoming a mode of transportation as well as recreation, and provisions should be madeto accommodate these uses and increase safety. This study for the Calhoun urbanizedarea evolved from a recognition of the increasing importance of bicycling and thedesirability of providing for the needs of bicycling.

Likewise, the US Dept. of Health and Human Services reports that physical in-activity andunhealthy eating contribute to at least 300,000 preventable deaths every year. In addition,29% of adults get little or no exercise and 73% are not active enough. Data forAlabamians is even more discouraging. Some experts claim that the US is suffering froman obesity crisis. Of course, walking is an easy way to recreate and exercise with littleexpense on the individual. In addition, urban and suburban sprawl have made pedestrianand bicycle trips less effective and more difficult to make. The provision of well designedpedestrian and bicycle facilities can help to lessen demand for inefficient surface parking,lead to healthier citizens and help to improve the vitality and quality-of-life in a community.Given the problems with urban sprawl and an unhealthy populace, governments must placemore emphasis on sidewalks and pedestrian needs. It is important to assure thatpedestrian and bicycle trips are encouraged in order provide safe, healthy, non-pollutingalternatives to travel by automobile.

CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION

1

The first paved roads in the United States were built in part because an organization calledthe League of American Wheelmen demanded good roads. The League was organizedat a time when riding bicycles was necessary for transportation, and members were bicycleriders, not automobile owners. The automobile had not yet been invented and it wasimpractical to own horses in the cities. Some of the first bicycles were called velocipedes.The velocipede had one huge front wheel and two tiny wheels in the rear. If the velocipedecollided with a large rock or other object in its path, the chance of injury was quite high.This is one reason that paved roads became a necessity, for bicycle safety.

Today, automobiles dominate the highways and crowd out both bicycles and pedestrians.However, automobile congestion and the high cost of road building have once again madebicycles and pedestrian improvements necessary and cost effective. Public rights-of-waymust be designed to accommodate a variety of competing uses including; vehicle travellanes, sidewalks, on street parking, street trees and landscaping, street vendors and streetside dining, public art, transit stops and utilities. Because it costs considerably less toaccommodate bicycles and pedestrians compared to automobiles, theeconomics of encouraging bicycle and pedestrian uses as a viabletransportation alternative should be seriously considered. Bicycle andpedestrian improvements should be viewed as a cost effective responseto reducing roadway capacity constraints brought on by increasingdevelopment in the community. Increased bicycle and pedestrian activityalso helps to reduce: air pollution, the need for parking spaces and trafficcongestion. These significant benefits should be seriously consideredwhen making transportation decisions.

Bicycling and walking are both forms of utilitarian transportation. According to an MITstudy, “bicycling is the most energy efficient form of transportation ever devised, getting theenergy equivalent of up to 1,500 miles per gallon!” (Charlier, 1996)

Bicycling and walking are important elements of an integrated, intermodaltransportation system. Constructing sidewalks, installing bicycle parking at transit(stations), teaching children to ride and walk safely, installing curb cuts and rampsfor wheelchairs, striping bike lanes and building trails all contribute to our nationaltransportation goals of safety, mobility, economic growth and trade, enhancementof communities and the natural environment and national security.

All of these activities and many more are eligible for funding as part of the Federal-aid Highway Program. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)confirms the place of bicycling and walking in the mainstream of transportationdecision making at the State and local level and enables communities to encouragemore people to bicycle and walk safely.

(Excerpts from USDoT/FHWA - Bicycle and Pedestrian Provisions of the Federal-aid Program,www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/BP-broch.htm)

2

The update of the 1981 Bikeway Plan in the Calhoun County Urbanized Area has beeninitiated as part of the Calhoun Area Transportation Study’s (CATS) FY 01-02 UnifiedPlanning Work Program (UPWP) Task 14. The work program identified the need for theupdate of the 1981Bikeways Plan which will have the following objectives: 1) determine theneeds and opinions of potential bikeways users in the urbanized area, 2) determine theperceptions of landowners adjacent to the existing Chief Ladiga rail-trail project, 3) identifyroutes where bikeways or routes and connections to the CLT would be feasible, and 4)outline funding sources and implementation strategies for the proposed bikeway system.

In order to facilitate these objectives, the staff of the Calhoun Area Metropolitan PlanningOrganization (MPO) housed in the offices of the East Alabama Regional Planning andDevelopment Commission (EARPDC) assisted in organizing a Calhoun Area Bicycle andPedestrian Advisory Committee. A survey was developed to collect input from the generalpublic regarding community needs to facilitate bicycle travel. In addition, a targeted surveywas developed to gauge perceptions of residents adjacent to the existing rails -to-trailsconversion project, the Chief Ladiga Trail. Sample survey forms and survey results areincluded in this document. A public meeting was held in Jan. / Feb. 03 at whichthe interested persons were invited to review the draft plan and provide comments andinput. The Anniston area provides excellent opportunities forwalking and bicycling, having numerous level areas andmany scenic natural areas. The climate is agreeablemost of the year and lends itself to these modes oftransportation. There is an increasing recognition of theneed for a system of designated and properly markedpedestrian and bicycle facilities providing an opportunityto commute within the Anniston area in a safe and securemanner. Previously, skepticism regarding the amount of demand and the lack of fundshave been deterrents to the construction of bicycle facilities. With the ever increasing costof vehicle oriented transportation projects, bicycle and pedestrian facilities have becomemore feasible. In addition, the federal government has provided more funding opportunitiesfor bicycle and pedestrian facilities. For this reason, it is important to develop a rationalbicycle and pedestrian plan and construct it incrementally as funding can be identified andsecured.

Study Organization

This study presents a bicycle and pedestrian facility improvement plan for the Calhounurban area and is considered to be the planning phase of a continuing program forbikeways in the area. The second phase will be funding and construction, sometimes themost difficult but by far the most important phase. The structure to be followed in this planupdate is: introduction, common definitions, results of both the random and targeted surveyresults, identification of proposed routes, projects and connections, and a discussion ofselected projects and recommendations for funding and construction, and finally safetyissues and tips.

Children under 16 MUSTwear a helmet!

It’s the law!

AL CoL §§32-5A-283

3

Study Area

The Calhoun County urbanized area includes the municipalities of Oxford, Hobson City,Anniston, Weaver and Jacksonville. In addition, the unincorporated communities ofAlexandria, Saks, Lenlock, DeArmanville, Eulaton, Wellborn, Plainview, and Cobb Townare included as parts of the county which are considered urbanized. The urban area isapproximately 284 square miles and the estimated 2000 US Census population in theurbanized area is 75,840.

The Calhoun urbanized area contains a variety of landscapes due to its location in the ridgeand valley topography of Alabama. The area is bordered on the east by the ChoccoloccoValley which flows south through the DeArmanville community and through the City ofOxford. Snow Creek drains the south portion of the study area and empties intoChoccolocco Creek near the Grace St./Friendship Road area of Oxford. Cave,Tallaseehatchee and Weaver Creeks drain the central portion of the study area flowing eastto west. To the west of the urban area, Coldwater Creek flows from under ColdwaterMountain and is the fresh water source for much of the area. Mountains dissect the areaon the east, running from the Choccolocco Road area north through Fort McClellan to eastof Jacksonville. Undeveloped Coldwater Mountain lies just north of Oxford and has beenslated for future off road trail development.

The climate of the study area ranges from mild during winter months to hot during thesummer. Wintertime average temperatures range from highs of 53 - 60 degreesFahrenheit to lows of 33 - 40 degrees Fahrenheit. Freezing temperatures, although notuncommon, are infrequent and seldom last for more than 48 hours. Summertime averagetemperatures range from highs of 88 - 94 degrees Fahrenheit to lows of 68 - 75 degreesFahrenheit. Dew point temperatures range from 30-40 degrees Fahrenheit during thewinter to 65 -70 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer. The average rainfall is approximately53 inches annually.

Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

According to the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) the definition ofa bike facility includes lanes, paths, shoulders, traffic control devices and parking facilitiesdesigned for bicycle transportation. Of these, the Calhoun area has several bicycle racksat area post offices, the Anniston YMCA, Jacksonville State University (JSU), the ChiefLadiga multi-use rail trail which extends from north Anniston, through Weaver andJacksonville to Piedmont, and bicycle carriers on the Anniston Express fixed route buses.Coldwater Mountain and LaGarde Park both have existing mountain bike trails and thereare round bike/walking tracks at several local parks, but these are all used exclusively forrecreation. Except for the Chief Ladiga Trail, those who use bicycles for transportationmust utilize the local street network. None of the bicycle routes identified in the 1981Bikeway Plan have been developed.

Sidewalk coverage in the Calhoun urbanized area is usually limited to the older residential

4

and downtown districts. Downtown Oxford along west Snow Street has sidewalks, M.L.King, Jr. Drive in Hobson City has a deteriorating sidewalk, Weaver has a few hundred feetof sidewalks along and near its downtown and Jacksonville has limited sidewalks in thedowntown and JSU areas. Anniston has the most extensive sidewalk network in andadjacent to downtown and its older neighborhoods both west and east of Noble Street.Sidewalks extend east across the Quintard Ave./AL 21 corridor and some of theseintersections have ADA curb cuts, crosswalk striping and cross walk signals. In mostjurisdictions, sidewalks end when elevation changes are encountered and sidewalks havenot been constructed in any of the new subdivisions developed over the last fifty years. Nosidewalks exist in Golden Springs (except for the Robertson Road sidewalk built in 2001),Saks, Lenlock, south of US 78 or west of McPherson St. in Oxford, or any of the outlyingneighborhoods surrounding the member municipalities.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Patterns

Most of the bicycle and pedestrian activity in the urbanized area of Calhoun County occursaround the downtown areas, Jacksonville State University and along the Chief Ladiga Trail.Of the approximately 8,400 JSU students around 1500 students live on campus. Most ofthe remainder reside in apartment complexes and rental units throughout Jacksonville andsome commute from Gadsden, Anniston, or Oxford. With the exception of the recreationalbicycle and walking tracks in local parks, there are no other concentrated areas of bicycleuse or pedestrian activity.

A small bit of estimated work trip commuting data was included in the 1990 US Census.This data was provided for the County and several municipal subdivisions.

Transportation to Work (1990 US Census - Social and Economic Characteristics CP 2-2)

CalhounCounty

Anniston J’ville Ft. Mc. Oxford Weaver

Bicycles 27 - - 27 - -

Walking 1976 333 280 987 24 5

Accident Information

Data was provided from the Anniston Police Department regarding accidents involvingbicycles and pedestrians.

1998 1999 2000 2001

Bicycles 1 N/A 4 4

Pedestrians 7 N/A 7 4

5

Definitions and Bicycle Design Terminology

Class 1: A bikeway physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by open space orbarrier either within the highway right-of-way or an independent right-of-way.

Class 2: (Bicycle Lanes) A portion of a roadway which has been designated for preferentialor exclusive use of bicycles and adjacent to motorized lanes.

Class 3: (Bicycle Route) A roadway designated for bicycle by signing only and shared withmotor vehicles.

Note: “Roadway” as used above is defined as “the portion of the highway, includingshoulders, for motor vehicle use.”

Bicycle - A vehicle having two tandem wheels, either of which is more than 16" in diameteror having three wheels in contact with the ground any of which is at least 16" in diameter,propelled solely by human power, upon which any person or persons may ride.

Bicycle Facilities - A general term denoting improvements and provisions made by publicagencies to accommodate or encourage bicycling, including parking facilities, mappingbikeways, and shared roadways not specifically designated for bicycle use.

Bicycle Lane (Bike Lane) - A portion of a roadway which has been designated by striping,signing, and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists.

Bicycle Path (Bike Path) - A bikeway physically separated from motorized vehicular trafficby an open space or barrier and either within the highway right of way or within anindependent right of way.

Bicycle Route - These facilities are located on roads where no provision is made forphysical separation of bicyclists and vehicles and are marked only by bicycle routedesignation signs. Grade - A measure of the steepness of a roadway, bikeway or roadway, expressed in aratio of vertical rise per horizontal distance (rise over run), usually expressed as a percent.

Highway - A general term denoting a public way for purposes of vehicular travel, includingthe entire area within the right of way.

ISTEA - The Inter-modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.

Multi-Use Path - A path physically separated from the roadway designed to accommodateboth bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Generally used for recreational purposes these pathsare most often located in greenways.

Pavement Markings - Painted or applied lines or legends placed on a roadway surface forregulating, guiding or warning traffic.

6

Pedestrian - A person on foot, wheelchair or walking a bicycle.

Recreational Bicyclist - This bicyclists objective is not necessarily reaching a specificdestination, but instead to exercise and enjoy the scenery.

Right-of-Way (ROW) - A general term denoting land, property, or interest therein, usuallya strip, acquired for or devoted to transportation purposes.

Roadway - The portion of the highway, including shoulders, for vehicle use.

Shared Roadway - Any roadway upon which a bicycle lane is not designated and whichmay be legally used by bicycles regardless of whether such facility is specificallydesignated as a bikeway.

Shoulder Bikeway - A type of bikeway where bicyclists travel on a paved shoulder.Essentially a bike lane if designated by striping, signing, and pavement markings, but ona roadway without curb and gutter.

Sidewalk - The portion of a highway designed for preferential or exclusive use bypedestrians. TEA-21 - The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Replaces the ISTEAlegislation of 1991.

Utilitarian Bicyclist - This type of bicyclist’s objective is to reach a specific destination suchas work or school. This type of bicyclist places importance on the directness of bikeways,acceptable grades and minimization of delays.

Wide Outside Lane - A wider than normal curbside travel lane that is provided for ease ofbicycle operation where there is insufficient room for a bike lane or shoulder bikeway. Thisoption seems to be preferred by the most skilled and experienced bicyclists.

Bikeway Signing

Adequate signing and marking installations are necessary to insure the safe and efficientoperation of all classes of bikeways. Signs and markings warn bicyclists of hazardousconditions or obstacles, delineate rights-of-way, exclude undesired vehicles from the route,and warn motorists and pedestrians of the bicyclist’s presence. The following is a list ofbikeway sign guidelines.

1. Adequate signing should be provided at all decision points along the route. Such signsmight indicate upcoming directional changes or confirm that the route direction has beenproperly comprehended.

2. Guide signs should be spaced at regular intervals so that bicyclists unfamiliar with theroute are informed that they are on an officially designated route.

3. Adequate motorists signs should be posted at all intersections and at the beginning and

7

the end of the route.

4. In urban areas, warning signs directed to the motorist should beplaced at least one-half block in advance of a point where bicycles willbe encountered.

5. Warning signs informing the bicyclist of any potential hazard shouldbe placed 50 feet in advance.

Standard signs which are included in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices(MUTCD) consist of the following:

BIKE ROUTE (D11-1) - Used for marking an officially designated bicycle route, this24 x 18 inch guide sign has a white legend consisting of a bicycle symbol, the wordsBIKE ROUTE in three inch Series C letters, and a border in white on an interstate

green background. This sign is intended to guide cyclists along apredetermined route. The bikeway route may consist of Class I, ClassII or Class III bikeway elements.

To indicate a turn, a supplementary sign with a directional arrowmay be placed below the BIKE ROUTE sign. This supplementary signis a horizontal rectangle 24 x 6 inches with a white arrow and borderon a green background.

BIKE XING (W11-1) - Used for warning motorists in advance ofa point where an officially designated bike route crosses a roadway. This 30 x 30 inchdiamond shaped sign has a black bicycle symbol on a yellow background. Beneath it, ayellow horizontal rectangle, 24 x 18 inches bears the legend BIKE XING in six-inch blackSeries D letters. Both plaques have a black border and have reflective lettering.

NO BICYCLES (R5-6), NO MOTOR VEHICLES (R5-3) - Areselective exclusion signs that regulate types of traffic which may or maynot enter a particular right-of-way. The “NO BICYCLES” sign consistsof a square upper plaque measuring 24 x 24 inches with a black bicyclesymbol circumscribed by a slashed red prohibitory circle. The lowerplaque, 24 x 18 inches reads “NO BICYCLES” in black letters. Both

signs have a black border on a white background.

Additional standard signs may be particularly relevant to ClassI bikeways include the “Curve”, “Winding Road”, “Stop Ahead”,“Stop”, “Yield Ahead”, “Yield”, and “Slide Area” designations.According to the California Traffic Planning Manual these signsare available in several different sizes. Although 30 x 30 inchesare the standard dimensions, reducing this size by a multiple ofsix inches (to 24 x 24 inches) may be desirable for placementalong Class III bikeways.

8

In general, standard signs are recommended wherever applicable along the bikeway route.However, since it is recognized that the few uniform signs outlined above may not applyequally well to all situations, certain additional sign messages are suggested for furtherstudy. These include:

“Watch for Bikes” - This warning sign would be the standard yellow 30 x 30 inchesdiamond shape. Since the “Begin” or “End Bike Route” designation may not beadequately comprehended by motorists, the “Watch for Bikes” sign may be asupplement to it.

“Begin” or “End Bike Route” - This would consist of the standard “BIKE ROUTE”sign with an above mounted supplemental “Begin” or “End” plaque.

9

CHAPTER 2SURVEYS AND FINDINGS

METHODOLOGY

As an element of the bicycle and pedestrian plan update effort for the Calhoun MPOurbanized area, several surveys were conducted to gauge attitudes toward bicycle andpedestrian facilities. The 2002 Bikeways Survey was a duplication of the survey developedin 1981 so a comparison could be made between the 1981 data and 2002 data. The ChiefLadiga Adjacent Resident Survey was developed to obtain input regarding attitudes ofresidents adjacent to the Chief Ladiga rails-to-trails project. Also, a Bicycle/PedestrianFacilities survey was developed to evaluate support for and potential use of proposedbicycle and pedestrian facilities. Finally, a telephone interview was conducted with theowners/managers of local bicycle shops in order to determine changes in bicycle sales overthe last several years.

Both the 2002 Bikeways Survey andthe Bicycle/Pedestrian FacilitiesSurvey were mailed to over 500randomly selected local residentialaddresses. The number of surveyforms sent to any particularjurisdiction was held at roughly thesame as that of 1981. However,2002 US Census Data indicated slightpopulation declines in CalhounCounty municipalities, with theexception of Oxford. If was felt that holding the number of surveys at 500 or more wouldinsure representation from each jurisdiction and provide reliable, comparable data. TheChief Ladiga Adjacent Resident Survey was distributed to 210 households, mostly inWeaver and Jacksonville, in November 2001. The 2002 Bikeways Survey was mailedalong with a self addressed, stamped return envelope on February 4, 2002. The BicyclePedestrian Facilities survey was mailed in April 2002.

By jurisdiction, distribution and response for the 2002 Bikeways survey was:

Mailed Returned Mailed Returned1981 1981 2002 2002

JurisdictionAnniston/Calhoun County 350 84 391 40Oxford/Hobson City 75 31 76 12Jacksonville 50 21 50 5Weaver 25 18 26 4Total 500 154 543 61

10

2002 Bikeways Survey

This survey is a duplicate of the 1981 survey which asked questions regarding the numberof bicycles in the family, problems that prevent the use of bicycles, projects that wouldencourage the use of bicycles, facilities which are most needed and the number of timesa family member rides to various locations or activities. The MPO transportation staffmailed 543 surveys to urban area residents picked at random from the local telephonebook. The original 1981 survey was modified only slightly. As of March 11, 2002, 61 or11.2% had been returned. Results of both the 1981 survey (also included in the 1981Bikeway Plan) and the 2002 survey are included here. The complete survey form andunsolicited comments are included in Appendix A.

1981 and 2002 Bikeways Survey Results1981 2002

1. Number of bicycles in family.None 40.9% 43.3%One 20.7% 16.6%Two 22.7% 11.6%Three 9.7% 6.0%Four or more 5.8% 21.6%

99.8 99.12. Problems that prevent bicycle riding or walking.

Lack of safe, identified bike lanes or paths 45% 37.7%The lack of smooth wide sidewalks N/A 30.6%Confusion regarding bicycle/traffic laws 9% 7.1%Lack of bicycle parking racks at destinations 8% 7.1%Cost of bicycle 12% 1.0%Possible theft of bicycle 2% 6.1%Physical exertion, too far, time consuming 17% 10.2%Other responses: Not able, handicapped, no sidewalks, too old, no interest, need sidewalks

down AL 78 & Snow Street, distrust of car traffic, no interest, not enough time, dogs & traffic, roads not safe.

3. Which type facility would encourage bicycle uses in your neighborhood?Designated bike routes on regular streets and highways 46% 29.1%Designated bike lanes on streets with warning signs 30% 21.5%Bike/pedestrian paths separate from auto traffic 24% 49.3%

4. Which type of facility is most needed in your community?Sidewalks and crosswalks N/A 31.4%Bike lanes on existing streets (striped lanes/signs) 30% 13.4%Bike routes on existing streets (signs only) 24% 6.7%Bike/pedestrian paths separate from auto traffic 46% 37.0%Bike parking at major destinations N/A 11.2%Other: None of the above, widen main streets to accommodate bikes and cars

5. Number of times each week a family member rides bikes to destinations:Work/Shopping 27-38 27-78School 17-27 15-40Rec. Area 40-48 90-154Others N/A 55-115

11

Chief Ladiga Trail Adjacent Resident Survey

The goal of the survey was to measure and document attitudes of landowners adjacent tothe rails-to-trails project. Target households were defined as residences within 2 blockseither side of the trail within the urbanized area, generally defined as Weaver andJacksonville. Two hundred and ten (210) surveys were delivered to adjacent residences,including a group of randomly selected apartmentswithin several multi-family complexes within the Cityof Jacksonville. Surveys included a memo ofexplanation, the survey form, and a stamped selfaddressed envelope in which to return thecompleted form.

The survey consisted of 14 questions. Questions 1-4 were related to trail use, questions 5-8 wererelated to the perceived effects of the trail on thesale of home, questions 9-12 were related to crime,and questions 13 and 14 were related to quality-of-life and support for future non-motorized trailprojects.

Surveys were distributed on November 13, 2001 and the last responses were received onDecember 14th. The response rate for this survey was 36.6% or 77 returned surveys. Thenumber of responses varies by question since some households did not answer everyquestion. A copy of the survey form, detailed results and unsolicited comments areattached in Appendix A.

In general, responses from the survey of residents adjacent to the Chief Ladiga Trail projectindicate that it has been well received by neighbors. In one way, the lack of numerousnegative responses from the 133 survey forms not returned, may indicate that thesehouseholds are at best, supportive and at worst, neutral towards the trail.

Seventy seven percent of responses indicate that one or more persons in the householdutilize the trail frequently. Eighty one percent of households responding have one or moretrail users. Eighty six percent of households use the trail for walking and or bicycling, withwalking being the most popular use. Fifty nine percent of responses indicated that havingno time was the most discouraging factor in trail use. Of course, having no time is notrelated to the physical design, safety or attractiveness of the project itself. Only 8% ofresponses thought the trail would decrease the selling price of their home. All otherresponses were positive or neutral for this question. Most responses indicated that the trailwas constructed after their location adjacent to it. Ninety eight percent of all responsessaid the trail had a positive or neutral effect on any decision to locate adjacent to it.Although 9% and 6.8% of responses indicated that a trail user had stolen or vandalizedproperty, a check with the Weaver Police Dept., indicated that none of these crimes hadbeen reported. On the other hand, 91% and 93.2% of responses indicated that no theft or

12

vandalism had occurred. Thirteen percent of responses say they had made additionalefforts to keep trail users off their property, however 87% of responses say they have madenone. Ninety four percent indicate that they have not considered moving because of thetrail project and 68% of responses say the trail project has improved community quality-of-life. Finally, 71% of responses say they would support additional non-motorized trailprojects.

CLT Adjacent Resident Survey Responses Percent

1. How many persons in your household are trail users?None 17 22%One 25 32%Two 24 31%Three or more 12 15%

2. How frequently does someone in your household use the trail?Daily 10 13%Weekly 18 23%Monthly 7 9%Occasionally 26 34%None 16 21%

3. What is the most frequent type of use in your household?Walking 46 60%Bicycling 22 28%Jog/Running 5 6%Skate/Blade 1 1%Stroll/Children 3 4%

4. What factors discourage trail use in your household?No time 41 56%No interest 4 5%Not safe 17 23%Poor access 9 12%Unattractive 2 3%

5. What effect would the trail have on the sale of your home?Easier to sell 20 25%More difficult 5 6%No effect 20 25%Don’t know 33 42%

6. How would the trail effect the selling price of your home?Increase 13 17%Decrease 7 9%No effect 18 23%Don’t know 39 51%

13

Bicycle/ Pedestrian Facilities Survey

An additional survey was developed to help gauge support for and potential use of variousfacilities. Again, just over 500 surveys were mailed along with a self-addressed, postagepaid return envelope. This survey consisted of eight questions regarding the potential useof facilities, the types of trips or trip purposes, preferences and positive effects of additionalwalking or bicycling. Fifty five or 11% of surveys were returned during March 2002.Results of this survey indicated that citizens would most likely use additional pedestrian and

CLT Adjacent Resident Survey (continued) Responses Percent

7. Did the trail exist before your decision to move here? Yes 18 23%No 59 77%

8. What influence did the trail have on your decision to move here?Positive 11 17%Negative 1 1.5%No influence 52 81%

9. Has a trail user ever stolen anything from your property?Yes 8 10%No 70 90%

10. Has a trail user ever vandalized your property?Yes 6 8%No 72 92%

11. Have made additional efforts to keep trail users off your property?Yes 10 13%No 68 87%

12. Have you ever considered moving because of the trail?Yes 4 5%No 73 95%

13. In your opinion, how has the trail influenced quality of life in thecommunity?

Improved 54 69%Degraded 3 3.8%No Impact 6 7.6%Don’t Know 15 19.2%Don’t Know 15 19%

14

bicycle facilities if available, to perform recreational and social trips. Results from thisportion of the survey indicate somewhat the conditions of sprawl in the area since is wasdifficult for respondents to imaging walking or bicycling to shop, work or even schoolpurposes. However, results indicate that citizens would pay a little more to live inneighborhoods with bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Also, citizens seem to preferneighborhoods where they could safely walk or bicycle to a neighborhood shop, school orstore. Finally, respondents believed that more opportunities to walk and bicycle wouldmake it easier to stay fit, reduce stress, make a few less trips by car, communicate withneighbors, get around the community and spend more quality time with the family. Acomplete copy of the survey form, results and comments can be found in Appendix A.

2002 Bicycle Pedestrian Facilities Survey

This survey is part of the update for the 1981 Bikeway Plan being developed by the Calhoun AreaMetropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the East Alabama Regional Planning Commission. It hasbeen designed to gauge the popularity and potential use of future bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Pleasetake the time to complete the survey and return it using the stamped, addressed envelope enclosed. Youropinion is important so please respond as soon as you can.

1. If facilities were available to permit safe bicycle trips would you use bicycles morefrequently for short trips? 43 Yes 10 No

2. If facilities were available to permit safe pedestrian trips would you decide to walkmore frequently for short trips? 48 Yes 5 No

3. What kind of trips would you prefer to make by bicycle if facilities were available? 14 Shopping 28 Social 8 Church 10 Work/Office 8 School 43 Recreation

4. What kind of trips would you prefer to make by walking if facilities were available? 17 Shopping 18 Social 14 Church 9 Work/Office 7 School 32 Recreation

5. In your opinion, what are the three most dangerous places for bicycles andpedestrians? (Please be specific.)

Responses for Question #5 are in Appendix A.

15

Telephone Interview w/ Local Bicycle Shops

On February 28, 2002 transportation staff conducted a telephone interview with the ownersof the two local bicycle shops. Four questions were asked in order to research changesin bicycle sales since the opening of the Chief Ladiga Trail. Each owner was asked fourquestions regarding the nature of use or the age of the bicycle buyer. In addition, thePiedmont Parks and Recreation Department was contacted regarding any noticeableincrease in bicycle/pedestrian activity after the opening of the CLT in September, 1996.

2002 Bicycle Pedestrian Facilities Survey (Continued)

6. Would you pay a little more to live in a neighborhood that included bicycle facilitiesand sidewalks? 38 Yes 7 No

7. Given a choice, would you prefer to live in an area where you could walk orbicycle (rather than drive) to a neighborhood school, store or shop?

43 Yes 7 No

8. In you opinion, would having more opportunities to walk or bicycle to places makeit easier or more difficult to; (E=easier, D= difficult)

E D E D improve your health/stay fit 51 0 communicate w/neighbors 40 2reduce stress 47 1 spend more time w/family 35

7make fewer car trips 38 6 get around community 42

2

Telephone Interview w/ Bicycle Shops (2/28/02)Fun Wheels Scott’s Bikes

1. When people purchase bicycles do Yes Yesthey indicate they will use them onthe Chief Ladiga Trail or because of Both say ‘comfort’ oriented the CLT? sales have increased in recent

years.

2. Has that trend changed from before the Yes Yes CLT opened?

Both say mountain bike sales have decreased while comfortsales have increased.

16

These signs may cause confusion regarding bicycle accessto store fronts and bicycle parking.

Sur

of Current Ordinances and Policies

Sidewalks

The Calhoun County Commission adopted its Subdivision Regulations in January 1999.Article VII Section 7-1 Sidewalks, requires that sidewalks shall be included at the discretionof the County Commission or the County Engineer. Construction of sidewalks shall be inaccordance with County specifications...and shall include ramps for use by thehandicapped. According to a telephone interview with Wade Morefield, City Planner for the City ofAnniston in February, 2002, the City’s current Sub-Division Ordinance “does not requiresidewalks in either residential or commercial areas.” However, the destruction orobstruction of any portion of an existing sidewalk system is prohibited by the ordinance. The ordinance also requires new buildings to be designed to provide for pedestrian accessfrom existing sidewalks. Finally, in Section 6-1.3 the ordinance indicates that the PlanningCommission may require the installation of sidewalks if excessive pedestrian traffic wouldconstitute a safety issue. The Fort McClellan Traffic Study completed in May 2002,indicated that the unused spur railroad track would be converted into a pedestrian/bicyclemulti-use corridor connecting to the Chief Ladiga Trail. In addition, the plan indicated thatan extensive system of sidewalks and pedestrian paths would be constructed as the areawas redeveloped. Specifically, the plan called for a bicycle/pedestrian facility along IronMt. Road/Coxwell Ave. over or under the Eastern Bypass to connect with LaGarde Park,thus permitting non-motorized access between the residential and institutional land useson the Fort to recreational and museum activities in LaGarde Park.In the downtown area of Anniston, the City has prohibited bicycles from the sidewalks.

Telephone Interview w/ Bicycle Shops (2/28/02) continuedFun Wheels Scott’s Bikes

3. To what degree has the trail increased Comfort sales Important inbicycle sales? have continued remaining in

to increase. business.

4. Do more adults buy bicycle now than Yes. Kids at More adults kids? Christmas but w/children

adults rest of around year. Christmas.

Piedmont Parks and Recreation Dept.Ms. Peggy HamiltonYes, bicycling and walking has increased in community since CLT opening.Yes, the CLT has been a good thing for community.Yes, would personally support more rail trail projects.

17

Share the Road signs are important to educatemotorists.

While this seems like a rational safety condition to enhance the safety of pedestrians alongthe sidewalk it leaves bicyclists confused as to how to get to store fronts and how andwhere to park. This prohibition may need to be revisited in order to clarify that it ispermitted to “walk” the bicycle to the nearest parking spot or store front. This may becorrected by changing these signs to instruct bicyclists accordingly. For instance signscould say “No Riding on Sidewalks” or “Bicycle Permitted on Sidewalks for Parking Only”or “All Bicycles on Sidewalks Must be Walked”, or a combination of the above.

The Sub-Division regulation for Hobson City states that provisions may be made forpedestrian and bicycle traffic in the form of areas provided for a trail system within thesubdivision for pedestrian and bicycle circulation. In addition, Required ImprovementsSection 1.3 states that sidewalks shall be placed on both sides of all streets in commercialsubdivisions, shall be six feet wide and constructed according to city specifications.

An interview with Jacksonville City Planner Lynn Causey in March 2002, indicates thatJacksonville requires sidewalks in commercial areas but variances are usually requested.Amendments have been made but they do not include any mention of sidewalks. Further,the Planning Commission may require sidewalks in residential areas. In Article VI,Required Improvements - Section 1.2 the regulation indicate that sidewalks, when requiredshall be a minimum of 4 ft. wide in residential area and 6 ft. wid in business areas, and shallbe constructed to city specifications. In addition, the Jacksonville Comprehensive Planadopted in August 1993, includes a goal to “link all public parks and community centersthrough a series of walking or bicycle trails.” The Comprehensive Plan also includes astrategy to support and expand the Chief Ladiga Trail within the city and county.A review of the Jacksonville State University (JSU) Master Plan indicates a significantemphasis on pedestrian facilities and circulation. In Site Circulation Systems the planstates that sidewalks shall be designed as part of a system to provide safe and easyaccess to all buildings in high pedestrian use areas. In addition, Section E. BicycleCirculation and Parking, indicates that ingeneral bicycle riding shall be limited tocampus, city streets, parking lots andbikeways. The JSU Master Plan alsoaddresses design requirements for sidewalksand bicycle ways requiring among other things,a smooth well drained riding surface. Sub-Division regulations for the City of Oxfordalso address pedestrian and bicycle facilities.The regulations require provisions to be madefor pedestrian and bicycle circulation in theform of areas for trail systems within thesubdivision. It also requires 6 ft. widesidewalks to be placed on both sides of thestreet in commercial subdivisions. In Section C2 and 3, the ordinance requires safe and

18

convenient pedestrian routes to and from a planned development. It also requirespedestrian crossings to be marked and controlled with fencing or other barriers whenadjacent to substantial vehicular traffic.

Weaver Sub-Division Regulations also require provisions to be made for pedestrian andbicycle circulation in the form of areas for trail systems within the subdivision. It requires6 ft. wide sidewalks to be placed on both sides of the street in commercial subdivisions andconstructed to city specifications. The Weaver Zoning Ordinance adopted in 1980,requires safe and convenient pedestrian routes to and from a planned development. Italso requires pedestrian crossings to be marked and controlled with fencing or otherbarriers when adjacent to substantial vehicular traffic. Finally the Ordinance prohibits thedestruction or obstruction of any existing sidewalk system and requires buildings to bedesigned for pedestrian access from existing sidewalks and from off-street parking lots withclearly designated pedestrian lanes.

The Calhoun Area Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) is a 25 year plan developedby the Calhoun Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The Pedestrian andBicycle portion of the LRTP points out that pedestrian and bicycle projects are relatively lowcost projects that offer great benefit. The plan calls for the future extension of the ChiefLadiga Trail into downtown Anniston utilizing the ‘N’ line segment of the Norfolk Southernrail spur when it can be acquired. The plans also includes the extension of the ChiefLadiga onto Fort McClellan using the spur track across AL 21 and onto the Fort. The LRTPalso includes the potential rails-to-trails conversion of the 10.8 mile Seaboard Coast Linerail corridor between MaxWellborn and Wellington as well as the 9.8 mile Louisville andNashville rail corridor from Blue Mountain to Wellington. The plan calls for sidewalkimprovements in downtown Oxford, Weaver and Jacksonville with additional improvementsto connect the downtown Square in Jacksonville to JSU. In addition, the LRTP calls forthe encouragement of bicycle parking racks at public facilities and major destinations, abicycle network between major destinations,the update of the bicycle/pedestrian plan, abicycle safety program, and accommodatingbicyclists when designing road and streetimprovements. Finally, the Inter-modalsegment of the LRTP calls for bicyclecarriers to be added to the buses used forthe Anniston Express fixed route transitsystem.

Bicycle Helmets

The City of Anniston requires that anyperson riding a bicycle on a public roadway“shall wear a properly fitted and fastened helmet designed for bicycle safety”. Section15.18.2 of the Anniston Code sets out requirements, enforcement responsibility andpenalties for violation of the helmet ordinance. The ordinance explains that the guardian

19

of a minor child without a helmet will be heldresponsible for the violation. In Sec. 15.18.4the ordinance establishes a fine of $25.00 forthe first offense to be increased in incrementsof $25.00 for repeated offences.

Each municipality involved with the ChiefLadiga Trail, (Anniston, Weaver andJacksonville) has passed ordinancesrequiring all users of the project to wear ahelmet . However , enforcementresponsibilities and penalties for violationswere not addressed.

The Alabama Code of Law requires allbicyclists under the age of 16 years to wear approved protective bicycle helmets in Sec.32-5A-282. The state also requires bicycle passengers under 40 pounds to be seated inseparate restraining seats. In Sec. 32-5A-285, the state outlines the penalties for violationof the law. For the first offense the child shall be warned and provided with writteninformation about bicycle helmet safety. The second offense would include a warningcitation to be given to the parent. A third offense would result in a confiscated bicycle anda visit with the child’s parent.

Summary of Surveys and Findings

In general, the combined surveys indicate strong and widespread support for more bicycleand pedestrian facilities. Survey results indicate, that while it seems less households in theurban area have fewer bicycles, those bicycles are being used more frequently. There isclear support for more bicycle and pedestrian facilities which are separated from vehiculartraffic. Also, there is a perception that walking and/or bicycling are not acceptable meansto get to work, shopping or school. This could be an indication of trip distances betweenthese various land uses, or said another way, the amount of sprawl in the area makesbicycle and pedestrian trips more difficult and impractical. This also indicates a need forbicycle safety education to increase the experience and confidence level of these potentialcyclists.

For residents adjacent to (within 2 blocks) the Chief Ladiga Trail, there appears to be muchsupport for and use of, the project. Seventy eight percent of responses had at least onemember who used the trail frequently. Most responses indicate a belief that the trail wouldmake their home value increase and be easier to sell. Ninety percent of responsesindicated no problems with crime or vandalism, and 69% say the trail has improved quality-of-life in the community. Seventy two percent would support additional non-motorized trailprojects. Responses indicate that 78% would use bicycles for short trips and 90% say theywould walk for short trips. Recreation trips were the purpose of choice for walking andbicycling, again perhaps an indicator of the trip distance and time necessary to get to work,

20

shopping or school destinations.

Survey responses indicated that 79% of respondents are willing to pay a little more to livein a neighborhood with walking and bicycling facilities and a surprising 86% say they wouldprefer to live where they could walk or bicycle to neighborhood shopping. In addition, amajority of responses believe that more opportunities to walk and bicycle safely wouldimprove health, reduce stress, make it easier to spend more time with family andcommunicate with neighbors.

All jurisdictions in the urban area have sub-division regulations. Most existing sub-divisionordinances require sidewalk installation to be considered during the subdivision process.However, these were mostly permissive and used the phrase “may be required” rather thanshall be required. Also, most plans required sidewalks in new commercial sub-divisionsand encouraged pedestrian and bicycle facilities within new sub-divisions and planned unitdevelopments. No ordinance addressed the power line/sidewalk and street landscapingconflict and none of the ordinances required the placement of bicycle parking racks inexchange for the reduction in the number of required parking spaces. The Fort McClellanTraffic Study, the Jacksonville State University Master Plan and the Calhoun Area LongRange Transportation Plan seemed to have the most progressive outlook for pedestrianand bicycle facilities, with each identifying and encouraging new projects and improvedpedestrian and bicycle facilities.

The City of Anniston has a separate ordinance requiring bicycle helmets for all bicyclists.The Anniston ordinance applies to all bicyclists of any age and provides for a $25.00 finefor the first offense. The police departments of Jacksonville and Oxford report that theyenforce the state law requiring children under 16 years of age to wear approved helmets. Finally, municipalities with segments of the Chief Ladiga Trail have adopted ordinancesrequiring all trail users to wear helmets.

21

CHAPTER 3IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS

The Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee met on April 9 and April 10th, 2002. The firstmeeting was held in the Anniston City Meeting Center andthe second was held at the Jacksonville CommunityCenter. Eighteen advisory committee members attendedthe meeting held April 9th, and nine committee membersattended on April 10th. Both meetings had the sameagenda and covered the same topics. Each group wasprovided with a quick overview of the 1981 BikewaysPlan, a discussion and review of the results for theseveral bicycle/pedestrian related surveys, an overviewof current and planned bicycle and pedestrian projects.Finally, each group was asked to provide a list of potentialprojects to consider.

Recent survey results show that people would walk andride more often if safe facilities were available, that peoplewould pay a little more and would prefer to live in aneighborhood with bike/ped facilities, that bike/pedfacilities and projects are seen as improvements in neighborhood quality-of-life and thatthey would support additional non-motorized bike/ped trail projects.

Committee members also reviewed the list of 17 current and potential bicycle/pedestrianprojects which have been previously included in various area plans. Only one of these,project (#7), has been retained from the 1981 plan.

In general, the committee members agreed that perhaps bike route identification and signswould not be in the best interest of bicyclists in the area. It was thought that bicycles andpedestrians should be capable of safely utilizing any existing city street or sidewalk toreach a specific destination. Especially since Alabama law (§32-5A-260) indicates that

22

bicycles are legal vehicles when on the roadway and are subject to all the duties andresponsibilities of the driver of a vehicle. The group thought that to try to limit bicycles toonly those specifically identified and signed routes would not serve the many destinations(schools, public buildings, libraries, parks, churches, museums, shops, etc.) and/or themany scattered residential areas and trip origins. Since Alabama law indicates a bicycliston a city street is to act and be treated as a vehicle, it was thought that having only a fewdesignated and signed routes would not be adequate for the many residential areas andmany potential destinations.

In addition, on-street bike lanes were seen as a high cost /low return type of improvementespecially given the fact that, bike lanes require additional sweeping, sometimes eliminateon-street parking, must be on both sides of the road, sometimes require additional right-of-way, and would be too expensive if only serving a few trips oriented to/from residentialareas or destinations along one specific street. Again, bike lanes seem too expensivegiven the potentially low number of users and the fact that in Alabama experiencedbicyclists can legally operate in the street.

Regarding helmets, Alabama state law requires helmets for any bicycle user under the ageof 16, the City of Anniston requires helmets on any bicyclist regardless of age, and theCities of Anniston, Weaver and Jacksonville require helmets on all bicyclists using the ChiefLadiga Trail. In general for those under 16, first offenses require notification of parents andsecond offenses may result in a citation and fine for the parent or guardian.

Both meetings reviewed the following list of current bicycle/pedestrian projects for theCalhoun urbanized area. These projects have been included in the MPO’s Long RangeTransportation Plan (LRTP), the three year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), theFort McClellan Traffic Study or provided by the municipal sponsor.

Current and Potential Bicycle/ Pedestrian Projects1. West Anniston Rail Trail - Blue Mountain to Main NS Line (± 4 miles)

( City of Anniston is attempting acquisition) (CoA)2. Sidewalk Improvements - Downtown Weaver (FY 02-05 TIP & LRTP)3. Ext. of CLT from Ft. McClellan to 4th St. Amtrak Station (Ft. Mc. Traffic Study & (LRTP)4. Connection to Coldwater Mountain from 4th St. Amtrak and CLT. (CoA)5. Sidewalk Improvements on Noble St. - Phase One (8th St to 14th St.) (TEA-21 & CoA)6. Sidewalk Improvements on Noble St. - Phase Two (8th St. to 4th St. Amtrak Station)

(TEA-21 & CoA)7. Thomas Ave. Multi-use Trail to LaGarde Park and Ft. Mc. - Under/Under East Bypass

(1981 Bikeways Plan & Ft. Mc. Traffic Study)8. Sidewalk Improvements in Jacksonville Square (LRTP)9. Rehab of Jacksonville Depot as CLT Welcome Center, Museum and RSVP Office

(TEA-21 Enhancement, State Historic Site Maint./Repair Program, LRTP)10. Sidewalk Construction and Improvement - Multiple Areas on Fort McClellan

(Ft. McClellan Traffic Study)11. Bicycle Carriers on Anniston Express System - (CoA, Section 5307 Urban Transit

Program)12. US 78 and AL 21 Intersection Pedestrian Improvements - (LRTP)

23

13. Signed Route and Lanes, CR 109 through Lenlock to CLT near J’ville (LRTP)14. Signed Route and Lanes, AL 202 from US 78 to Quintard Ave. (LRTP)15. Signed Route and Lanes, Choccolocco Rd./DeArmanville/US 78/Coleman Rd. Loop

(LRTP) 16. Rails to Trails Conversion of L&N Corridor, Blue Mt. To Wellington - (LRTP)17. Rails to Trails Conversion of CSX Corridor, Maxwellborn to Wellington - (LRTP)

Finally, the two meetings produced an additional list of potential bicycle and pedestrianprojects to include in the updated plan. I have listed those projects and ideas below inorder of discussion.

April 9th, Anniston City Meeting Center1. Develop and fund a Bicycle Safety Education Program for FY 032. Noble Street improvements should include pedestrian islands and downtown bicycle

racks3. Convert abandoned NS rail line in Oxford for rails-to-trails project4. Enforce helmet laws with non-traffic warning citations5. Utilize off duty officers to police helmet use on the Chief Ladiga Trail6. Develop education program for teachers and police officers on bicycle laws7. Construct sidewalk connection from Francis St. to Winn Dixie in Jacksonville8. Construct sidewalk on south side of AL 204 at JSU9. Construct full square crosswalks at AL 204 and AL2110. Construct sidewalk on west side of AL 21 from AL 204 to Brewer Hall crosswalk11. Install crosswalk lights/caution lights at Brewer Hall crosswalk12. Re-stripe crosswalks at CE Hanna in Hobson City13. Re-stripe crosswalks at Church St. and ML King, Jr. Drive in Hobson City14. Construct sidewalks on both sides of ML King, Jr. Drive in Hobson City

April 10th, Jacksonville Community Center1. Bicycle Safety Education for kids2. Share the Road w/ bicycles and pedestrians highway signs like in Florida3. Sidewalk connection to Stone Center from rest of JSU campus4. Connect Chief Ladiga Trail with downtown Jacksonville5. Sidewalk improvements on both sides of Mountain St. from AL 21 to Park Ave.6. Install bicycle racks at public destinations and buildings7. Develop public service announcements regarding proper on-street bicycle behavior8. Six foot wide sidewalk requirement should be non-negotiable amenity in new housing

subdivisions9. Re-open Ft. McClellan to bicycles

A few other ideas were received by mail or email. Weaver Boy Scout Troop #111suggests directional signs and more benches along the Chief Ladiga Trail, a bicycle laneon Cedar Springs Road in addition to more bike lanes through out the area. In addition,a representative from the Weaver Cornerstone Church e-mailed to suggest restrooms atthe Mike Tucker Memorial/Chief Ladiga Trail access area and maybe some picnic tables

24

and shelters at various places along the trail.

CHAPTER 4 RECOMMENDED BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS

These forty potential projects can be sub-divided into construction, policy or educationtypes of projects. Each type of project may have different design approaches, time framesfor completion and potential funding sources.

Education Projects

John Forester, a nationally recognized safety expert, indicates (in a 1994 study) that aproper education program (such as the BikeEd program of the League of AmericanBicyclists and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration) is 1.7 times moreeffective in preventing the death of cyclists than the wearing of helmets. In addition,Forester reported that education is 5 times more effective than intersection improvements.Accordingly, in both meetings of the Calhoun Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committeebicycle safety education was one of the first issues addressed. The proposed educationprojects are listed in the table below.

Description Responsible Agency Funding SourceDevelop Bicycle Safety EducationProgram for schools, phys. ed.teachers, law enforcementofficers and adults

Calhoun Area MPOand 4th Div. ALDoTTraffic SafetyCoordinator

MPO Sec. 112 PlanningFunds, ALDoT SafetyProgram, Municipalities

Place “Share the Road” signs onvarious streets within urban area

ALDoT District Office,4th Div. ALDoT,Calhoun Cty Engineer

ALDoT Safety Program, ALDoT District orDivision, Calhoun Cty.Engineer

Purchase and distribute BicycleSafety Education materials

Calhoun Area MPO MPO Sec. 112 PlanningFunds, ALDoT SafetyProgram,

25

Obtain and distribute PedestrianSafety Education Materials

Calhoun Area MPO FHWA, US DoT

Policy Recommendations

Many pedestrian and bicycle improvements and facilities can be addressed during thePlanning Commission review process and through requirements contained in sub-divisionregulations. This requires a change in perception regarding these facilities. In general,the provision of adequate sidewalks increases transportation options , can help to reducesurface parking demand, reduce traffic congestion, provide an alternative to auto trips,reduce air pollution and improve community health and interaction between neighbors.Some urban designers and city planners argue that a community’s viability and overallquality-of-life can be measured by the amount of or lack of pedestrian and bicycle activity. Smart Growth proponents argue that communities must strive for modal balance providingsafe travel options for pedestrians, bicycles, transit as well as vehicles. In regards to this,municipalities must place more emphasis and importance on pedestrian and bicyclefriendly design in sub-division ordinances and during the Planning Commission reviewprocess. Of course, it is critical to do this before building permits or development plans areapproved. In this regard, the following policies are recommended.

— As highways and streets are resurfaced or constructed they should be designedand provided with a wide outside lane (2 extra feet) and appropriatelyplaced “Share the Road” signs to provide for safe bicycle traffic.

— Modify ordinances and replace signs which prohibit bicycles on downtownsidewalks to clarify that it is permissible to ‘walk’ bicycles to parking areas orstore fronts.

— Requirements for 6 ft. wide connections to existing sidewalks in residential areasshould be maintained. Sub-division sidewalk regulations should be modifiedfrom “may” to “shall”.

— Consider the design and installation of curb extensions for pedestrian safety thenorm when constructing and improving streets in downtown areas.

— Requests for variances from provision of sidewalks should only be approvedwhen there are no existing sidewalks which to connect to or if some physicalcharacteristic of the property-of-record prevents their construction.

— The 4th Division and Calhoun District ALDoT should be urged to includecrosswalk striping during all intersection or signal improvement projects.

— Requirements for street trees (not shrubs) should be improved and enforcedwith clear instructions for a minimum height or caliper with a variety of agesand species.

— Bicycle racks at commercial and retail properties should be required inexchange for a 1 or 2 space reduction in the required minimum number ofparking places. This should be made a part of the plan/plat approvalprocess.

— Developers should be required and given higher density incentives to provideinternal pedestrian and bicycle paths as well as properly designedconnections to any pre-existing pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities.

26

— Train and encourage law enforcement officers on the appropriate enforcementof state and municipal bicycle traffic and helmet laws.

— Encourage municipalities to move forward with ADA curb cut modifications andrequire that all new sidewalks meet ADA accessability design requirements.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Projects

Construction projects which add or provide new facilities for bicycles and pedestrians havebeen divided into two categories. Projects currently identified and included in existingplans have been listed under current projects and those identified in meetings of theCalhoun Area Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee have been included as new projects. Allprojects are displayed in the three maps and each map has an accompanying index ofprojects. In regards to potential funding sources listed below, the TEA-21 EnhancementProgram is part of the Transportation Equity (funding) Act for the 21st Century. The TEA-21funding bill is due to be re-authorized by the US Congress in 2004, its new name may beNEXT TEA or TEA3, however it is expected that the ‘Enhancement’ portion of theauthorization will continue. TEA-21 Enhancement as used here, refers to that futureprogram that eventually replaces TEA-21.

Current Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvement Projects

Description Jurisdiction Funding Source PlanWest Anniston RailTrail

City of Anniston TEA-21 Enhancement,MPO, City of Anniston,RTP

City of Anniston

Ext. of Chief LadigaTrail (Tucker MemorialTo 4th St. Amtrak Sta.)

City of Anniston, TEA-21 Enhancement,City of Anniston, RTPCalhoun MPO

Ft. Mc. Traffic Study,2025 LRTP

Ext. of Chief LadigaTrail (‘N’ line toMcClellan)

City of Anniston,JPA

TEA-21 Enhancement,City of Anniston, RTP

Ft. Mc. Traffic Study,2025 LRTP

Sidewalk Construction& Improvements on Ft.McClellan

City of Anniston, JPA

City of Anniston Ft. Mc. Traffic Study

Multi-Use Connection(from Coldwater Mt. To4th St. Amtrak Station)

City of Anniston City of Anniston, TEA-21 Enhancement

City of Anniston

Bicycle Carriers onAnniston ExpressPublic Transit Vehicles

City of Anniston City of Anniston, Sec.5307 Urban TransitProgram

2025 LRTP

27

Noble St. SidewalkImprovements (8th St. to14th St.) Phase One -Including Ped. Islandsand Bicycle Racks

City of Anniston City of Anniston City of Anniston

Noble St. SidewalkImprovements (8th St. to4th St.) Phase Two -Sidewalks, Lighting &Bicycle Racks

City of Anniston City of Anniston City of Anniston

Thomas Ave. Multi-Use Trail (to LaGardePk./Ft. Mc.)

City of Anniston TEA-21 Enhancement,City of Anniston,Calhoun MPO

1981 Bikeways Plan,Ft. Mc. Traffic Study

Current Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvement Projects (continued)

Description Jurisdiction Funding Source PlanJ’ville SquareSidewalkImprovements(Curb Extensions,Landscaping)

City of Jacksonville TEA-21Enhancement, Cityof Jacksonville,Calhoun MPO

2025 LRTP

Rehab ofJacksonville Depot(Welcome Center andCLT Access)

City of Jacksonville TEA-21Enhancement, Cityof Jacksonville, St.Historic Site RepairProgram, MPO

2025 LRTP, City ofJacksonville

US 78/AL 21 Ped.Improvements

City of Oxford City of Oxford,Calhoun MPO, TEA-21

2025 LRTP

Downtown WeaverSidewalkImprovements

City of Weaver MPO, City ofWeaver, TEA-21Enhancement

MPO FY 02-05 TIP,2025 LRTP

Signed Route andLanes (CR109/Lenlock to CLT)

Calhoun County Calhoun County,ALDoT

2025 LRTP

Signed Route andLanes (AL 202 fromUS78 to AL 21)

Calhoun County, Cityof Anniston

ALDoT, CalhounCounty

2025 LRTP

28

Signed Route andLanes (Choc.Rd./DeAr’le/US78/Coleman Road Loop)

City of Anniston,Calhoun County,ALDoT

City of Anniston,Calhoun County,ALDoT

2025 LRTP

Rails-to-TrailsConversion of L& NCorridor

Calhoun County, Cityof Anniston

TEA-21Enhancement,Calhoun County, Cityof Anniston

2025 LRTP

Rails-to-TrailsConversion of CSXCorridor

Calhoun County TEA-21Enhancement,Calhoun County

2025 LRTP

New Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvement Projects

Description Jurisdiction Funding SourceRails-to-Trails Conversion ofOxford RR Corridors

City of Oxford TEA-21 Enhancement, Cityof Oxford, Calhoun MPO

Crosswalk Construction(AL 21/US 431 and Snow St.)

City of Oxford 4th Div. ALDoT, City ofOxford, ALDoT Traffic SafetyProgram

Crosswalk Improvements(AL 21 and Mountain St.)

City of Jacksonville 4th Div. ALDoT, City ofJacksonville, ALDoT TrafficSafety Program

Sidewalk Construction -West side of AL 21 (CoffeeSt. to Winn Dixie)

City of Jacksonville City of Jacksonville, TEA-21Enhancement, MPO

Improve Sidewalk b/n CLTand AL 21 (along MountainStreet to AL 21)

City of Jacksonville General Fund, TEA-21Enhancement , MPO

Crosswalk Improvements(AL 21 and James St.)

City of Jacksonville 4th Div. ALDoT, City ofJacksonville, ALDoT TrafficSafety Program

Bicycle/PedestrianConnection (CLT to ReynoldsSt.)

City of Jacksonville City of Jacksonville

29

Sidewalk Construction W.Side of AL 21 (Trustee Circleto Mt. Street)

City of Jacksonville, JSU City of Jacksonville, JSU,TEA-21 Enhancement, Gen.Funds

JSU Sidewalk Construction -South side of AL 204 (AL 21to Coliseum)

City of Jacksonville, JSU JSU, City of Jacksonville,TEA-21 Enhancement

JSU Sidewalk Construction(Main campus to Stone Ctr)

JSU JSU

JSU Crosswalk Construction(Intersection of AL 21/AL 204)

ALDoT, JSU ALDoT, JSU

JSU Sidewalk Construction(West side of AL 21 from AL204 to Brewer Hall Crosswalk)

JSU, City of Jacksonville, 4th

Div. ALDoTJSU, City of Jacksonville,TEA-21 Enhancement

Install Crosswalk Lights (Brewer Hall Crosswalks)

JSU, 4th Div. ALDoT JSU, 4th Div. ALDoT SafetyProgram

Re-stripe Crosswalks at CEHanna School

Hobson City General Fund, MPO

New Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvement Projects (continued)

Description Jurisdiction Funding SourceRe-stripe Crosswalks(Intersection of Church St. andML King, Jr. Drive)

Hobson City General Fund, MPO

Sidewalk Construction (Bothsides of ML King, Jr. Drive)

Hobson City General Fund

Re-open Ft. McClellan toBicycle Use

City of Anniston, JPA City of Anniston, JPA

Crosswalk Construction(G’brier Rd. and G. Springs)

City of Anniston City of Anniston, MPO,ALDoT Traffic SafetyProgram

Crosswalk Construction(Choccolocco Rd. and GoldenSprings)

City of Anniston MPO, ALDoT Traffic SafetyProgram

Crosswalk Construction (AL21 and Blue Mt. Road)

4th Div. ALDot, City ofAnniston

4th Div. ALDoT SafetyProgram

Crosswalk Construction(AL 21 and Greenbrier Rd.)

4th Div. ALDot, City ofAnniston

4th Div. ALDoT SafetyProgram

Develop Public ServiceAnnouncements For ProperOn-street Bicycle Behavior

MPO, 4th Div. ALDoT TrafficSafety Coordinator, EARPDC

MPO, ALDoT Traffic SafetyProgram

30

Install Bicycle Racks atPublic/GovernmentDestinations

Gov’t Agencies, US PostalService, Municipalities, MPO

Calhoun County Comm.,Gov’t Agencies, USPS,Municipalities

34

Calhoun Urban Area(for Jacksonville and Hobson City projects, see Maps #2 and #3)

Project Number and Description

1. Rails to Trails Conversion of 10.5 mi CSX Corridor (Maxwellborn to Wellington)2. Rails to Trails Conversion of 9.8 L&N Corridor (Blue Mountain to Wellington)3. Rails to Trails Conversion of NS Corridor if Abandoned (Anniston to Oxford)4. Rails to Trails Conversion of 4.5 mi L&N Corridor in W. Anniston (Blue Mt. to EulatonRd.)5. Rails to Trails Conversion of 5.7 mi NS ‘N’ Corridor (Extension of the CLT from Tucker

Memorial To 4th St. Amtrak Multi-modal Station)6. Bicycle Trail Connection from Coldwater Mt. Rec. Area to 4th St. Amtrak Multi-modal

Station7. Multi-use Path Construction from Thomas Ave. along 900 ft. contours to Ft. McClellan8. Bicycle Lanes and Route Signs along CR 109 (AL 202 to US 431)9. Bicycle Lanes and Route Signs along AL 202 (AL 21 to CR 109)10. Bicycle Lanes and Route Signs along Coleman Rd./Choccolocco Rd./AL 9/US

78/DeArmanville Loop (Also identified for “Share the Road” signs).11. Pedestrian and Crosswalk Improvements at AL 21 and Blue Mt. Road Intersection12. Intersection and Crosswalk Improvements at AL 21 and US 78 Intersection13. Rails to Trails Conversion ± 2 mi Ft. Mc. Corridor (CLT to Ft. Mc.)14. Sidewalks, Landscaping and Trail Connection Improvements in Downtown Weaver15. Pedestrian and Crosswalk Improvements at AL 21 and Greenbrier Road16. Pedestrian and Crosswalk Improvements at Greenbrier Rd. and Golden Springs Rd.17. Pedestrian and Crosswalk Improvements at Chocollocco Rd. and Golden Springs Rd.18. Pedestrian and Crosswalk Improvements at AL 21/US 431 and Snow Street

40

Map #2

Jacksonville and Jacksonville St. University


1. Widening and Improve Sidewalks on both sides of Mountain St. (CLT to AL 21)2. Sidewalk Construction from JSU Main Campus to Stone Center3. Crosswalk, Lights and Signals (AL 21 at Brewer Hall)4. Sidewalk Construction on West Side of AL 21 (AL 204 to Brewer Hall)5. Crosswalk Construction and Improvements (AL 21 and AL 204 Intersection)6. Crosswalk Construction and Improvements (AL 21 and Mountain St.)7. Crosswalk Construction and Improvements (AL 21 and James St.)8. Sidewalk Construction on South Side of AL 204 (Park Ave. to AL 21)9. Sidewalk Construction on West Side of AL 21 (Coffee Street to Greenleaf St.)10. Curb Extensions, Crosswalk Improvements and Landscaping (Jacksonville Square)11. Rehab Jacksonville NS Depot (Welcome Center and CLT Access)12. Bicycle/Pedestrian Connection (Reynolds Street to CLT)13. Sidewalk Construction West Side of AL 21 (Trustee Circle to Mt. Street)

43

Map #3

Hobson City


1. Sidewalk Construction and Replacement on both sides of M.L. King, Jr. Drive(Armstrong St. to McPherson St.)

2. Crosswalk and Signs (CE Hanna Elementary School)3. Crosswalk and Signs (M.L. King, Jr. Drive and Church St.)

44

CHAPTER 5PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE AND ADA SAFETY ISSUES

Why are Walking and Bicycling Important?

It is important to provide facilities for pedestrians and bicycles because people who walkor bike don’t: consume petroleum, need expensive parking lots, cause wear and tear onthe roads, cause traffic congestion, noise or air pollution. In addition, people who arewalking and biking are improving their own health and well-being. Well designed facilitiesfor pedestrians and bicyclists also accommodate the poor who are transportationchallenged, the young and elderly, people with disabilities and others who do not drive fora number of reasons.

Pedestrian Safety and Sidewalk Design

Since 1995, the number of pedestrian crashes in Alabama has declined by 32% from 928in 1995 to 623 in 2001. The number of fatalities has declined by 9% from 75 in 1995 to 68in 2001. In Anniston, police records indicate 7 pedestrian accidents occurred in 1998 and7 occurred in 2000. Data for 1999 was unavailable. Declines in pedestrian accidents andfatalities could be explained by a decline in the number of pedestrians. In Alabama, thenumber of households without automobiles has decreased by 7.9% over the last decade.Accordingly, it could be argued that the roads are not safer but that fewer pedestrians exist.The US Dept. of Health and Human Services support this with data which indicates thatone fourth of all trips people make are one mile or less but three-fourths of these short tripsare made with cars. In addition, between 1977 and 1995 trips made by walking declinedwhile trips made by automobile increased. Finally, 2000 Census data ranks Alabama lastbased on the number of commuters who walk to work. In Alabama, only 1.3 percent ofcommuters walk to work while the US average is 2.9 percent.

According to the National Personal TransportationSurvey (NPTS) 34% of those who walk are walkingfor social and recreational purposes. The next mostpopular trip purpose for pedestrians was forpersonal or family business at 32.4 percent of thosewho walk. More and more state health departmentsand physicians are emphasizing the importance andbenefits of walking for personal health. The 1999Alabama Behavior Risk Survey indicates that 78%of adults do not participate in regular sustained physical activity! Accordingly, and notsurprisingly, 23.2% of adults are obese and 35.7% are overweight! With more emphasison walking as a physical activity to combat these statistics, pedestrian safety issuesbecome more important. Data indicate that 60% of pedestrian fatalities occur between 6:00pm and 6:00 am. That is, more than half of pedestrian fatalities occur during twilightor night conditions. Therefore it is critical that pedestrians (and bicyclists) wear lightcolored or reflective clothing at night. White clothing can be seen from approximately 180

The driver of a vehicle shallyield the right-of-way....to a

pedestrian within acrosswalk.

AL CoL §32-5A-211

45

Consider Curb Extensions at Crosswalks and Intersections to Increase Pedestrian Safety

feet away whereas blue, red or dark clothing can only be seen from 55 ft away. New retro-reflective materials can be seen from nearly 500 feet, providing an increased margin ofsafety. (FHWA SA-01-011)

Several critical issues need to be addressed in order to create a safe pedestrianenvironment. Much more emphasisneeds to be placed on street accessmanagement, site design, trafficcalming, street connectivity, land use,parking and building orientation. Access management involvescontrolling and restricting access tothe travel lanes of the street orhighway. For pedestrians everyintersection and driveway is potentialconflict or danger point. Someforethought and improved site designcan reduce the number of potentialpedestrian/auto conflict points byconsolidating driveways, permitting secondary entrances from minor streets, curbextensions and continuous medians. Traffic calming techniques are used to slow trafficand also have the added effect of increased safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. Trafficcalming techniques utilize various physical barriers including: speed bumps, traffic circles,curb extensions, median islands and crosswalk improvements, in order to slow traffic andcreate a pedestrian friendly area. Municipal zoning ordinances should be made flexibleenough to permit some small scale retail in and adjacent to residential neighborhoods.Since the 1950's, traditional Euclidian zoning techniques have segregated land usesincreasing travel distances and creating auto dominated communities, in which it is

impractical to walk or bicycle. Accordingly, it is necessary to re-examine zoning ordinances

46

Continue Sidewalks Through the Cul-de-Sac to Increase Pedestrian Options

to find ways to permit compatible small scale retail which can create destinations worthwalking to. Some mix of uses can enhance and revitalize existing areas. This meansmaking accommodations inthe exis t ing zon ingordinance to permitcompatible in-fill uses inareas where infrastructureis in place. In addition,this means permittinghigher density residentialdevelopment and guidingnew development to keep itclose in to the existingdeveloped areas of thecommunity. In some ways,i t requ i res a neo-traditionalist approachwhich should permit firststory retail with residentialuses above and street level design improvements to encourage pedestrian and bicyclecirculation.

Cul-de-sacs create private low volume streets but prevent auto and pedestrian circulation. Pedestrian access to and through cul-de-sacs can be dramatically improved by extendingthe sidewalk through to the adjacent street when possible. This creates a pedestrian (andbicycle) access point and short cut to any nearby destination increasing travel options forresidents of the neighborhood, while continuing to limit vehicle access. ADA Issues

Under the Americans WithDisabilities Act (ADA), there arerequirements for all sidewalkconstruction to be accessible fordisabled citizens. Specifically thismeans that sidewalks must beaccessible by wheelchair boundand other citizens with disabilities.One way to accomplish this is tothink ‘universal design’, that is,design the pedestrian environmentso all can use it. Generally, ifsidewalks are wide, smooth, leveland free of obstructions, manyADA requirements will have beenmet. Many cities are replacingsidewalk curbs which prohibit

47

Obstacles for wheel chairs should beremoved.

wheelchair access and replacing them with ADAramps, however more emphasis needs to be placedon removing and preventing obstructions tohandicapped citizens. One overlooked emphasis inthe ADA legislation was a requirement forcommunities to prioritize sidewalk accessibilityprojects with the goal of removing barriers orobstructions which prevent ADA access. Specialattention should be given to un-even surfaces,eliminating obstructions, cross slope, ADArecommendations for maximum slope and levelsmooth landings in order to negotiate changes inelevation. For the most part most of these considerations willalso improve conditions for the visually impaired. Insome cases, audible crosswalk signals, tactile clues orindications of sidewalk changes will be appropriate forvisually impaired citizens.

Generally, smooth concrete is the best surface to accommodate wheel chairs. Texturedconcrete or brick pavers create a rough un-even surface difficult for small tired wheelchairs. Brick pavers and textured surfaces should be limited to border or specific decorativeapplications. Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Parts 1 and 2, (FHWA-EP-01-027and FHWA-HEP-99-006) published by the US Dept. of Transportation are probably the bestreference sources available for ADA sidewalk design.

Safety Tips For Pedestrians

U Always use a marked crosswalk when one is available.U Stop at the curb, then look left-right-left to make sure its safe before crossing.U Continue to scan for vehicles while crossing, especially for vehicles turning right-on-red.U Always use sidewalks when they are available.U At night, wear light colored clothing, reflective material or carry a flashlight.U Never walk along railroad tracks, it is not only unsafe it is also illegal.U On roads or streets without sidewalks, always walk facing traffic.U Be aware of and avoid ‘blind spots’ that large trucks and buses have on the side andrear.U Motorists should always stop while a school bus is un-loading.U When crossing in front of a school bus, make sure the driver can see you and you can

see the driver.

48

Bicycle Safety and Street Design

“Nobody ever died from not knowing how to play flag football. Yet we spendtax money teaching kids its nuances in gym classes, while bicycle safety isstill foreign to most school curriculums.” Don Cuerdon (“The QuotableCyclist”)

In a Federal Highway Works Administration report titled “Injuries to Pedestrians andBicyclists: An Analysis Based on Hospital Emergency Department Data”, data indicate that70% of bicycle injury events did not involve a motor vehicle. In addition, 31% of bicyclistswere injured in non-roadway locations. For bicyclist injuries, 54% occurred in roadways,21% on sidewalks, 9% on trails or other off-road paths,and only 2% in parking lots. Further, in a study titledCrash-Type Manual for Bicyclists (FHWA-RD-96-104) byCarol Tan, data indicate that 5.1% of bicycle crasheswere caused by the bicyclist exiting a driveway in front ofan oncoming vehicle. Only 1.3% of bicycle accidentswere caused by the motorist overtaking a cyclist andfailing to see. Likewise, a 1990 study by Robert Thomin Winnipeg, Canada indicated that 90% of car-bikecollisions are caused by conditions in front of the cyclist,not from the rear. Also Thom’s study indicated that only1% of Canadian car-bike accidents were the result ofcyclists being struck from behind by motorists. In thebook Effective Cycling by John Forester, Forester reportsthat among all car/bike collisions, intersections accountfor 85% while motorist overtaking the cyclist is 9.5%. Ofthe 9.5% accidents caused by overtaking, 6% were dueto swerving (an education problem) and 4% were causedby the motorist. Most of the accidents in which amotorist was overtaking a bicyclist, occurred at night and involved drunk drivers or anunlighted bicyclist. Each study indicates that a bicyclist being hit from behind is the typeof accident least likely to occur! Thus, most car-bike crashes occur as a result ofimproper bicycle operation or failing to signal, and both can be addressed and correctedthrough bicycle safety education and skill building.

In Alabama, both bicycle accidents and fatalities are on a downward trend. Injuries havedecreased by 20% from 306 in 1995 to 242 in 2001. Fatalities have shown a slightreduction as well from 7 in 1995, up to 10 in 1997 but down again to 6 in 2001. ForAnniston, the police department reports 1 accident in 1998 and 4 in 2000. No data wasavailable for 1999. The US Dept. of Health and Human Services (USHHS) reports thatchildren between the ages of 5 and 15 do not walk or ride their bicycles as much as theyused to (40% less from 1977 to 1995). Accordingly, any downward trend in bicycle injuriesand fatalities could be attributed to the fact that fewer people are riding bicycles, rather thanreal improvements in bicycle safety. Again, this theory is enforced by data which indicatethat a third (29%) of adults get little or no exercise and more than 3 in 10 adults are

49

Wider Outside Lanes Can Accommodate Bicyclists

Shoulder Bikeway (No Additional Striping Required)

overweight. The USHHS also reportsthat a third (36%) of young people ingrades 9-12 do not participate invigorous activities and one fourth (25%)of those aged 6-17 are overweight. The 2001 Alabama Traffic Crash Factsfrom the University of Alabama reportsthat, children aged 14 and underaccount for 58% of the bicycle crashinjuries and 50% of the fatalities.

US Census data indicates that of thosebicycle trips made, 55% were for socialor recreational purposes. Again thishigh number for social and recreationaltrips may indicate thedifficulty of making work orshopping trips because ofurban sprawl and greaterd is tances to thesedestinations.

Several types of bicyclefacility types and designshave been considered.They are shared roadways,shoulder bikeways, bike lanes and multi-use paths. Shared roadways would be suitablefor low volume minor streets which constitute around 85% of most municipal streets.These can be made suitable for bicycles at little local expense through the provision ofregular sweeping and theinstallation of ‘Share theRoad’ signs. The nextstep in shared roadwayswould be the design andconstruction of a wideoutside lane with theappropriate ‘Share theRoad’ signs. This doesnot require additionalstriping since the bicyclistwould actually use theedge of the outside lane.A shoulder bikeway wouldrequire a paved shoulderwith increased frequency of sweeping. A paved shoulder would require additional expensewhen rebuilding or resurfacing and in some cases significant fill when there are elevationchanges or changes in topography and slope. Striped bike lanes would require re-

Principles of Design Allow bicyclists to use the road

Provide a smooth riding surface Make room for bicyclists

Make drivers aware of bicycle presence Stripe, mark or sign if needed

Make road inviting to cyclists Slow traffic down Reallocate roadway space

(M. Ronkin, ODoT)

50

Narrowing a Two Way Street - 4 to 2 + Center Turn Lane

allocation of the right-of-way to fit in the bike lane. Also, intersections would requiresignificant reconfiguration and striping to accommodate bike lanes from several directions.

For streets with a confined or limited right-of-way bicycles can be accommodated byeliminating or narrowing traffic lanes. A traffic study can determine if traffic can behandled with fewer lanes.Reducing the number oflanes can eliminate conflictpoints and left turns whichinhibit flow and still handlepeak hour traffic. This‘s t reet nar rowing ’ toaccommodate bicycl istusually acts to calm and slowtraffic, resulting in a decreasein accidents, while at thesame time providing a safearea for bicyclists. Thistechnique is usually done inconjunction with re-surfacingand seems to work becausel e f t t u r n s c a n b eaccommodated with the newcenter turn lane withoutstopping the flow of traffic.Signal timing can be adjustedto shorten the timing sequence at intersections which are now two rather than four lanes.Street narrowing coupled with re-striping also benefits pedestrians in several ways. Re-striping to provide bicycle lanes helps to separate pedestrians from moving traffic, providesa place for wheel chairs, and the addition of a middle turn lane provides space forpedestrian islands at crosswalks.

Finally, multi-use paths are typically grade separatedfrom the roadway and would require its own separateright-of-way. Multi-use paths would provide increasedsafety and is an excellent way to reuse and preserveun-used rail corridors. Many of these corridors alreadyconnect municipalities and public destinations and canprovide a new benefit to the community after the loss ofrail service. These corridors also tend not to have beensevered by urban growth or development, they usuallyhave bridges over natural features or obstructions likewetlands, canyons and rivers and can be acquiredinexpensively when compared to roadside right-of-way.Grade separated multi-use facilities eliminatecar/bicycle conflicts and permit children and adults toride in safety. However, rules of the road like signaling,

51

riding single file in crowded areas and obeying traffic signs must still be observed as ifriding with vehicular traffic. Multi-use trails can act as a training ground providing a safelinear corridor for future on road riders to gain experience and confidence. The TEA-21Transportation Enhancement program provides federal grant funding and can be utilizedfor acquisition and conversion of unused rail corridors making this one of the mostfavorable options, if an unused corridor is available.

In Alabama, state law recognizes the on-road bicyclist as a legal vehicle to be granted allrights and duties applicable to motor vehicles (§ 32-5A-260). The law also states that on-road bicyclists shall always ride on the right side of the road with traffic (§ 32-5A-263).State law goes further to require any person under the age of 16 years or who weighs lessthan 40 pounds to wear an approved protective bicycle helmet (§ 32-5A-282). This is alsoknown as the “Brad Hudson-Alabama Bicycle Safety Act of 1995.” Other sections of theAlabama Code of Law outline a merchants limited liability when a helmet is provided whenrenting bicycles (§ 32-5A-284) and sets out a series of penalties for violations (§ 32-5A-285).

Bicycle Safety Tips

U Always wear a helmet.U Ride with traffic on the right side of the road.U Obey all traffic signs and signals.U At night wear white, bright colors or light reflective clothing.U Always use hand signals to signal your intent when turning.U Scan the road ahead for hazards and behind for traffic.U Never ride with headphones.U Keep both hands on the handlebars at all times.U Make sure any load or package is secure in baskets or a backpack.U Equip your bicycle with a bell or horn.U Never zig-zag or weave in and out of traffic.

bicycle/pedestrian planbicycle/pedestrian plan for the calhoun county urbanized area “when i see...

Documents