proposed bike routes in raleigh

8/14/2019 Proposed bike routes in Raleigh

1/14


2/14

4-2 | CHAPTER 4: BICYCLE FACILITY NETWORK

JAN 2009 | DRAFT | THE CITY OF RALEIGH | NORTH CAROLINA

K e y F a c t o r s f o r N e t w o r k D e s i g n

Online Survey/Comment Forms - Locations most in need oimprovements or bicyclists (intersections and high speed/highvolume roadways) were identied by over 700 people through theonline survey and were discussed during public meetings (see Chapter

2 and Appendix A: Public Input Summary or more inormation).

Existing Facilities and Current Recommendations - Locations o existingand planned acilities were veried both in the eld and by City oRaleigh Transportation sta and Steering Committee members.Current recommendations were also taken into consideration, suchas matching recommendations or Raleighs Green Streets (see theComprehensive Plan Update) and the uture plans HillsboroughStreet.

Connectivity/Gap Analysis - Gaps in existing acilities or deciencies

in acilities were highlighted by participants in public workshops andanalyzed by project consultants.

Trip Attractors/Destinations - Places which are likely to attractbicyclists were identied and ranked through the online survey andduring meetings with the public and project committees (see Map2.4 Trip Attractors). The drat network was analyzed to ensure thatit served local and regional trip attractors.

Sta and Committee Work-Sessions - City sta met with the

Steering Committee and consultants several times throughout theplanning process to discuss progress on the development o theplan, the overall bicycle acility network, and to oer critical inputto its design.

Public Workshops / Input Maps- Participants at two public open-house Bicycle Plan workshops (with over 200 people in attendance),a Southeast Raleigh Assembly meeting, a Downtown RaleighAlliance meeting, and a meeting or Raleigh Bike Plan Volunteers,provided suggestions, comments, and concerns about Raleighscurrent conditions or bicyclists and potential improvements. Most

input rom these meetings was recorded through public input maps(see Appendix A Public Input Summary or more inormation)

Analysis o Current Conditions - Field analysis by project consultantsand project volunteers was also used to assess bicycling conditionson roads and intersections throughout Raleigh. Further analysiso current conditions was conducted through research and datacollection rom secondary sources (see Chapter 2 or moreinormation).


3/14

4CHAPTER 4 : BICYCLE FACILITY NETWORK |

BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | DRAFT | JAN 2009

recOMMeNded facility types

A variety o bicycle acilities are recommended due to 1) the range o skill and comort levels involved in bicycling,and 2) the range o conditions or bicycling on dierent roadway environments. These recommendations are at aplanning level only and will require urther analysis beore implementation.

Raleighs bicycle route network is made up seven core types o bicycle acilities. Descriptions and standards oreach type are described in Chapter 4: Bicycle Facility Standards. The images and descriptions below are provided

or a quick reerence when viewing the Bicycle Facility Network Maps (pages 4-15 through 4-19).

A bicycle lane is a portion o the roadway that hasbeen designated by striping, signing, and pavementmarkings or the preerential and exclusive use o

bicyclists. Bicycle lanes are always located on bothsides o the road (except one way streets), and carrybicyclists in the same direction as adjacent motorvehicle trac. The minimum width or a bicycle laneis our eet; ve- and six-oot bike lanes are typical orcollector and arterial roads.

B i c y c l e L a n eSee pages 7-12 to 7-16 or details.

It is recommended that bicycle shared lane markings(or sharrows) be approached incrementally as anew acility treatment. Shared lane markings areused on roadways where dedicated bicycle lanes aredesirable but are not possible due to physical or otherconstraints. Placed in a linear pattern along a corridor(typically every 100-250 eet), shared lane markingsmake motorists more aware o the potential presenceo cyclists; direct cyclists to ride in the proper direction;and remind cyclists to ride urther rom parked carsto avoid dooring collisions.

S h a r e d L a n e M a r k i n g ( S h a r r o w )See page 7-11 or details.

W i d e O u t s i d e L a n e s

See page 7-8 and 7-10 or details.A wide outside lane reers to the through lane closestto the curb and gutter o a roadway. The AmericanAssociation o State Highway and TransportationOcials (AASHTO) standard lane width toaccommodate both motorists and bicyclists is 14.This acility type allows motorists to more saely passslower moving bicyclists without changing lanes.Wide outside lanes are intended or bicyclists withtrac-handling skills.

Note: Bicycle lanes are the preerred type o on-road bicycle acility as determined by the Bicycle Plan SteeringCommittee and supported by the public input into this process. It was judged that bicycle lanes create clearlydesignated separated spaces that would encourage more bicycling among all user groups.


4/14



This designation reers to the City o Raleighs originalsigned bicycle routes. Rather than a specic a bicycle

acility type, these routes contain combinations oacilities, i any. This Plan recommends discardingthe current system (the reasoning behind thisrecommendation is outlined on page 4-11). In theuture, signed bicycle routes may emerge rom thenewly developed bicycle acility network or the Citythat have greater unction, utility, and saety.

S i g n e d B i c y c l e R o u t e sSee pages 4-11 and 7-10 or details.

P a v e d S h o u l d e r sSee page 7-17 or details.

S i d e p a t h sSee page 7-18 or details.

M u l t i - U s e P a t h s / G r e e n w a y sSee pages 7-32 to 7-34 or details.

Multi-use paths are completely separated rommotorized vehicular trac and are constructed intheir own corridor, oten within an open-space area.Multi-use paths include bicycle paths, rail-trails orother acilities built or bicycle and pedestrian trac.The term greenway is used only or those multi-usepaths and sidepaths that are indicated on the CapitalArea Greenway map and included in the CitysComprehensive Plan.

Multi-use paths located within the roadwaycorridor right-o-way, or adjacent to roads, arecalled Sidepaths. Sidepaths are most appropriatein corridors with ew driveways and intersections.Bicycle routes where side paths are recommendedshould also have adequate on-road bicycle acilities(such as paved shoulders or bicycle lanes) whereverpossible.

Paved shoulders are the part o a roadway which iscontiguous and on the same level as the regularlytraveled portion o the roadway. There is no

minimum width or paved shoulders, however awidth o at least our eet is preerred. Ideally, pavedshoulders should be include in the constructiono new roadways and/or the upgrade o existingroadways, especially where there is a need to moresaely accommodate bicycles.


5/14



N e t w o r k M a p S u b - C a t e g o r y D e f i n i t i o n sAs indicated in the legend o the Bicycle Facility Network Map, someacilities are broken down into sub-categories or method o developmentThose or bicycle lanes are explained below:

Bicycle Lane - Road Diet: Road diets typically involve reducing the

number o travel lanes (rom a our-lane road to a two-lane roadwith center turn lane, or example) allowing adequate space orbicycle lanes. Road diets also have trac calming benets.

Bicycle Lane - Stripe: Reers to projects that require only the stripingo a bicycle lane, with no other changes needed to the roadway orexisting roadway striping.

Bicycle Lane - Restripe: Reers to projects that require restripingtravel lanes (oten to a more narrow width) allowing adequatespace or bicycle lanes. Narrowing the widths o travel lanes hasbeen demonstrated to have no aect on overall roadway capacity(or more on this topic, reer to the ollowing page, 4-6).

Bicycle Lane - New Construction: Reers to projects that requireadding additional pavement width to the roadway to allowadequate space or bicycle lanes. These were determined basedon uture roadway reconstruction schedules and/or lack oopportunity with the current roadway environment.

Other acilities also have sub categories shown on the maps, indicating

whether they are existing, planned, or proposed. These are dened asollows:

Proposed: Bicycle acilities labeled as proposed arerecommendations that came out o the Bicycle Plan planningprocess.

Planned: Bicycle acilities labeled as planned already appear inpreviously adopted City o Raleigh plans.

Existing: Bicycle acilities labeled as existing are already

constructed and in use.


6/14



Table 4.1 Mileage o Recommended Bicycle Facilities

Recommended Facility Method Mileage

Bicycle Lane Stripe 37Bicycle Lane Restripe 101Bicycle Lane New Construction 164Bicycle Lane Road Diet 30Shared Lane Markings Stripe 30Paved Shoulder New Construction 7Wide Outside Lane New Construction 78

Total 447Recommended Method MileageO-Road Facilities

Greenways New Construction 65Sidepath New Construction 9

Total 94

Signed Bicycle Routes N/A

Grand Total 541 miles

Bicycle Lane Development Through Travel Lane NarrowingOne means o developing bicycle lanes is through restriping or travel lanenarrowing. In laying out the bicycle network acility recommendations andmethods, it was determined that 10 travel lanes were acceptable in orderto t bicycle lanes into the existing roadway environment. For example, anexisting ve lane cross section with 12 lanes (Total roadway width o 60)could be altered to 10 lanes with 5 bicycle lanes (Total roadway width o60). This methodology used in developing recommendations is supportedby research in both automobile trac saety and bicycle level o serviceimprovements.

Current AASHTO literature, research, and precedent examples supportthe notion o reducing 12 travel lanes to 10 lanes. The 2004 AASHTOGreen Book states that travel lanes between 10 and 12 eet are adequate orurban collectors and urban arterials. (1) On interrupted- fow operatingconditions at low speeds (45 mph or less), narrow lane widths are normallyadequate and have some advantages. At the 2007 TRB Annual Meeting, aresearch paper using advanced statistical analysis, supported the AASHTOGreen Book in providing fexibility or use o lane widths narrower than

1) American Association o State Highwayand Transportation Ofcials, A Policy onGeometric Design o Highways and Streets,Washington, DC 2004.


7/14



D e c i s i o n T r e e f o r R e c o m m e n d i n g B i c y c l e F a c i l i t i e sIn order to determine what type o acility to recommend or individual roadways, a methodology was devel-oped or the City o Raleigh. Utilizing such inormation as uture roadway reconstruction schedules, existingroadway widths, existing roadway speed limits, and existing trac volumes, the decisions were made througha decision-tree, as presented below.

Does the roadway have curb and gutterthat is either existing or planned?

Yes No

Paved Shoulder(rural area orinside watershed)

Does roadway have multi-lanes,high trac volume, and high speed?(Perception o danger or bicyclists--subjective measure)

Does roadway outside lane have spaceto simply stripe bicycle lane? (In thisstep, speed limit should be under 45mph and preerably under 35 mph)

Is thereROW spaceand limiteddriveway?

Yes No

Sidepath

Yes No

Wide Outside

Lane

Yes No

Is there on-street

parking with spaceor car door zoneand bicycle lanes?

Yes No

Can travel lanes be

narrowed to createspace or bicycle lanes?

Yes No

Bicycle LaneRestripe

Does roadway haveexcess capacity withlower trac volume?

Yes No

Bicycle Lane RoadDiet (Lower speedlimit)

Is roadway slated oruture widening orreconstruction

Yes No

Bicycle Lane NewConstruction

No FacilitySolution

Within the bicycle lane corridor,does the roadway segment con-nect bicycle lanes on either sideand have width or bicycle lanes?

Continue Bicycle Lane Shared Lane

Marking

Yes No

Bicycle LaneRestripe

Shared LaneMarking


8/14



12 eet on urban and suburban arterials. The paper indicates there is nodierence in saety on streets with lanes ranging rom 10 to 12 eet. Theresearch ound no general indication that the use o lanes narrower than12 eet on urban and suburban arterials increases crash requencies. Thisnding suggests that geometric design policies should provide substantialfexibility or use o lane widths narrower than 12 eet. The research

paper goes on to say There are situations in which use o narrower lanesmay provide benets in trac operations, pedestrian saety, and/orreduced intererence with surrounding development, and may providespace or geometric eatures that enhance saety such as medians or turnlanes. The analysis results indicate narrow lanes can generally be used toobtain these benets without compromising saety. and Use o narrowerlanes in appropriate locations can provide other benets to users and thesurrounding community including shorter pedestrian crossing distancesand space or additional through lanes, auxiliary and turning lanes, bicyclelanes, buer areas between travel lanes and sidewalks, and placement oroadside hardware. (2)

Precedent examples also show the large number o communities around theUnited States that have narrowed travel lanes to enable the developmento bicycle lanes. The Missoula Institute or Sustainable Transportationaccumulated a list o these communities by asking members o theAssociation o Pedestrian and Bicycle Proessionals. The webpage titledAccommodating Bike Lanes in Constrained Rights-o-Way (http://www.strans.org/travellanessurvey.htm) lists the community, their methods, andcontact inormation. Cities such as Arlington, VA, Cincinnati, OH, Charlotte,NC, Houston, TX, and Portland, OR have regularly narrowed travel lanes to

10 or even commonly use them in new roadway development. Arlington,VA has been installing bicycle lanes on streets when they are repaved andhave a number o streets with 10 lanes and bicycle lanes that have beenunctioning well without operational issues and complaints. Cincinnati,OH uses a policy that 10 oot lanes on collections and arterials are alwayspermitted. New installations o 10 oot lanes with bicycle lanes require aspeed limit o 35mph or under. By restriping 12 oot lanes to 10 eet, theCity o Houston, TX has converted 30 miles o arterial streets.

Lane narrowing and the addition o bicycle lanes will require urther analysisbeyond this planning eort. Changing the roadway design may also require

a reduction in speed limit and consideration o trac calming designssuch as median islands. For roadways with higher speed limits and tracvolumes, wider bicycle lanes may be warranted. Further analysis o bicyclelane restriping projects is warranted to determine appropriateness o lanenarrowing, bicycle lane widths, and speed limits that impact both motoristsand bicyclists.

2) Relationship o Lane Width to Saetyor Urban and Suburban Arterials, IngridB. Potts, Harwood, D., Richard, K, TRB

2007 Annual Meeting


9/14


10/14



Bicycle Parking Downtown Sites

- Moore Square area- Caswell Square- Convention Center- Lane St. (Dawson to Salisbury)

- N.C. Museums - State Capitol area- Morgan/McDowell Parking Deck- Market Plaza - Fayetteville Street

Local colleges and universities Ridgeway Shopping Center

It is recommended that urther analysis be conducted to place bicycle racksat key destinations such as bus stops, shopping centers, and oce complexesacross the city. Bicycle parking should also be made available with newdevelopment. Further inormation about bicycle parking and stations canbe ound in Chapter 7: Design Guidelines.

Below are photos o where some people in Raleigh are currentlylocking their bicycles, demonstrating a need or proper bicycle

parking.


11/14

4-1CHAPTER 4 : BICYCLE FACILITY NETWORK |


raleighs sigNed Bicycle rOutes

Raleighs signed bicycle route system was discussed at public workshopsand was eld-evaluated by a volunteer group o local bicyclists. The resultso these inormal evaluations, in concert with consultant consideration, ledto the recommendation that the current route system be discarded. The

reasoning behind this recommendation is outlined in the ollowing points:

First and oremost, the Plan now denes a Bicycle Level o Serviceor the entire City. Since bicycles are considered vehicles, they areentitled to use the roadways as constructed.

Second, there are many bicyclists that are not going to eecomortable using the Citys roadways as currently constructed. ThePlan recommends a number o improvements that over time wilmake the entire community more bicycle riendly, and this includes

substantial physical improvements to the roadway environment.

Third, the current bicycle route system does not have substantiaunction nor utility. Bicyclists at public workshops, includingcommuter bicyclists, rarely used the existing signed and markedroute system.

Fourth, as the existing system evaluation revealed, many o theroutes are missing essential signage and contain many awkwardturns, street crossings, and directional issues that cause bicyclistsnot to ollow the intended routes. This system o route designation

is an outdated method o accommodating bicyclists.

Fith, a route system may imply alsely where bicyclists can bicyclein the City. It is a goal o this plan to encourage more people tobicycle and that should be done through acility development.

Sixth, the City would be better served to direct its resources intothe production o an updated Bicycle Map that provides currentupdated inormation or bicyclists.

Seventh, in the uture, bicycle commuting routes may emergerom the newly developed bicycle acility network or the City thathave greater unction, utility, and saety. In upcoming years, theCity can explore once again the use and utility o a signed route orcommuters.


12/14



regiONal cONNectiONs

The City o Raleigh should look beyond its city limits and link bicycle acilitiesto neighboring and regional destinations. It is recommended that the Cityo Raleigh coordinate eorts with surrounding communities such as WakeForest, Cary, Durham, Wake County, Johnston County, and others to createlong distance connections or alternative transportation and recreation.

Recently, Wake Forest, Cary, and Durham completed Bicycle Plans. It will becritical to ensure compatibility and connectivity with these planning eortsand actual bicycle acilities that meet at municipality borders.

Regional greenway corridors such as the Mountains-to-Sea Trail, East CoastGreenway, and American Tobacco Trail will encourage and draw users romall over the Triangle into the area and to other locations, boosting tourismand interest in trail expansion (see regional connections in Map 4.1). Long-range eorts should be made to connect Raleigh to this regional network.For instance, the Neuse River Greenway will be a segment o the Mountains-

to-Sea Trail. Also, the City o Raleigh should be positioned to cooperate andassist with uture light-rail/trail corridors such as the potential corridor toWashington DC.

Additionally, NCDOT State Bike Routes #1 and #2 (http://www.ncdot.org/transit/bicycle/maps/ maps_highways .html) already traverse theRaleigh and Triangle area. Connections to these state routes will help bringbicyclists into and out o the Raleigh area.

Bicycle facility NetwOrk Maps

The Bicycle Facility Network Map is too large to be legible on a single pageor this document and is thereore provided in sections. Map 4.2 (on page4-14) shows the general areas in Raleigh covered by the three sectionalmaps on pages 4-15 to 4-19.


13/14

4-1CHAPTER 4 : BICYCLE FACILITY NETWORK |


Map 4.1 Regional Connections


14/14


SectionLoc

atorMap

Map4.3

South

Section

Map4.7

Downtown

Section

Map4.4

Central

Section

Map4.6

Northeast

Section

Map4.5

Northwest

Section

Map4.2

proposed bike routes in raleigh

Documents