The URL can be used to link to this page

TC 08-27-07 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Transportation Committee FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Transportation Planner i RE: August 27, 2007 Transportation Committee Meeting DATE: August 20, 2007 The Frederick County Transportation Committee will be meeting at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, August 27, 2007 in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. AGENDA 1. WinFred MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan 2. Chapter 527 Regulations 3. Enhancement Grants 4. Access Management 5. Article Review 6. Other Please contact our department if you are unable to attend this meeting. Attachments JAB/bad 107 North Dent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • :> n item 1: Winfred MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan Enclosed please find a copy of the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan. This plan has been recently approved by the WinFred MPO Policy Committee for public comment. As part of that public comment period staff is bringing this draft plan for consideration of a recommendation of endorsement to the Board of Supervisors. This plan, grant funded and under development for more than 18 months, has been drafted in the effort to elevate bicycle and pedestrian planning in the Frederick County, Winchester, and Stephens City area. County staff has been involved in the process since its inception and will be able to address questions the committee may have. Bicycle It Pedestrian Mobility Plan for the Win -Fred MPO Prepared by: 11 /A Toole - July 27, 2007 Acknowledgements Prepared for: Win -Fred Metropolitan Planning Organization 103 East 6t" Street Front Royal, Virginia 22630 Phone: (540) 636-8800 www.winfredmpo.org Prepared by: Toole Design Group, LLC 6525 Belcrest Road, Suite 400 Hyattsville, MD 20782 Phone: (301) 927-1900 www.tooledesign.com The Win -Fred Metropolitan Planning Organization would like to thank the following individuals for serving on the Steering Committee for this Plan: Scott Alexander, VDOT John Bishop, Frederick County Planning Jery Copp, VDOT Alex Gray, Frederick County Planning Brian Henshaw, Town of Stephens City Matthew Hott, Frederick County Parks and Recreation Eric Lawrence, Frederick County Planning Jim Lawrence, Winchester Green Circle, Redbud Run Greenway Ursula Lemanski, NPS RTCA Bob Morris, Frederick County Planning Commission Mike Ruddy, Frederick County Planning Terry Short, VDOT Bernie Suchicital, Frederick County Planning Jon Turkel; Frederick County Parks and Recreation Brad Veach, Winchester Parks and Recreation Tim Youmans, City of Winchester Planning Table of Contents Executive Summary i Chapter 1: Introduction 1-1 Chapter 2: Existing Conditions 2-1 Chapter 3: Facility Recommendations 3-1 Chapter 4: Policy Recommendations 4-1 Chapter 5: Program Recommendations 5-1 Chapter 6: Implementation Plan 6-1 Appendix A: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Guidelines A-1 Appendix B: Ordinance Review B-1 Appendix C: Definitions C-1 Appendix D: Results from the Online Questionnaire D-1 [Executive Summary In recent years, the Winchester - Frederick region has experienced rapid growth and a resulting surge in demand for walking and bicycling facilities. The recent growth has created dramatic changes in transportation and land use. Roadways throughout the region are experiencing heavier volumes of traffic, causing concerns about the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. Efforts should be made now to ensure that pedestrians and bicyclists will be able to use the roadway system in the Winchester - Frederick region in the future. As the transportation system is enhanced to accommodate increased volumes of vehicular traffic, it must also be designed to allow people to safely walk and bicycle to their destinations. The 'vein -Fred WPv Bicycle cis Pedestrian Mobility Planprovides a coordinated and strategic approach to the Pedestrians in downtown Winchester development of a transportation system that accommodates and encourages walking and bicycling throughout the region. The plan identifies a network of walking and bicycling facilities to improve non -motorized access for residents and visitors. Facility design guidelines and policy and program recommendations are provided to support and encourage bicycling and walking. Why is Walking and Bicycling Important in the Winchester - Frederick Region? AN Bicycling and walking is a necessary part of the transportation system in the Winchester - Frederick region. Walking and bicycling are extremely important to the one third of the local population does not have access to or use of an automobile. Over 80% of respondents to the online survey that was conducted as a part of this Plan responded that if a bicycle trail or signed bicycle route were provided near their home, they would ride on it. Ninety-five percent of respondents indicated that if there was a sidewalk or trail near their home, they would walk on it. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan Developing a network of pedestrian and bicycle facilities makes good economic sense for the Winchester -Frederick region. Bicycle tourism has the potential to bring in significant tourism revenue while not generating overwhelming numbers of automobiles. The implementation of this plan may help prevent the area from suffering negative economic effects as a result of being declared in non -attainment of the 8 -hour ozone air quality standard. Increased bicycling and walking for transportation can help to improve air quality and reduce traffic congestion in the Winchester -Frederick region. Substituting a bicycling or walking trip for short automobile trip has the potential to reduce automobile emissions drastically, resulting in improved air quality. Air pollution is a serious health threat, contributing to the deaths of 60,000 people nationwide each year. Bicycling and walking can play a vital role in improving the health of residents of the Winchester -Frederick region. Residents of this region need opportunities to meet the Surgeon General's recommendation of 30 minutes of physical activity per day in order to help avoid becoming obese. Research conducted in 1999 by the Centers for Disease Control found that "obesity and overweight are linked to the nation's number one killer – heart disease—as well as diabetes and other chronic conditions." The report also states that one reason for Americans' sedentary lifestyle is that "walking and cycling have been replaced by automobile travel for all but the shortest distances." Bicycling and walking are fun recreational activities for residents of the Winchester - Frederick region. In the 2006 Virginia Outdoors Survey, the residents of the Northern Shenandoah Valley voted walking for pleasure the most popular outdoor activity. In the same statewide survey, bicycling was ranked the 6t" most popular outdoor activity. Statewide Policy & Planning Context The development of a regional bicycle and pedestrian network is fully supported by state transportation policy goals. On March 18, 2004, the Commonwealth Transportation Board adopted a new state policy for integrating bicycle and pedestrian accommodations into roadway projects (often termed "incidental" improvements – bikeways and sidewalks that are built as part of new roadway construction or roadway reconstruction). This policy essentially reverses previous Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) policies which required substantial public and political support for bikeways and sidewalks to be considered for inclusion in transportation projects. The new policy states that, "VDOT will initiate all highway construction projects with the presumption that the projects shall accommodate bicycling and walking, " and essentially requires bicycle and/or pedestrian accommodations whenever a roadway project occurs in an urban or suburban area. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle 8 Pedestrian Mobility Plan ii Planning Process The planning process for this project involved a number of different activities and outreach efforts. The process is briefly outlined below. • Field Analysis: Analysis of existing conditions • Steering Committee: A series of meetings with City, County and staff and other individuals who do pedestrian and bicycle related work locally • Stakeholder Meeting: A large meeting with organizations affected by this Plan • Outreach Meetings: Small meetings with persons and groups with an interest in the Plan and who were unable to attend the Stakeholder Meeting • Public Involvement: Online questionnaire and public meetings Vision Statement The Winchester -Frederick region will become a place: where bicycle and pedestrian facilities serve a dual purpose as recreation and transportation corridors, and; where people have the convenient and safe option of traveling on foot and by bicycle throughout the region. The following goals build on the strengths of the Winchester -Frederick region, and are designed to help achieve the vision for improving pedestrian and bicycle accommodations in the region. GOAL 1, CONNECTIVITY: Develop a regional walkway, bikeway, and greenway network among residential neighborhoods, workplaces, shopping centers, historic sites and districts, schools, libraries, recreation centers, parks, battlefield sites, and other destinations, including linkages to neighboring jurisdictions. GOAL 2, PRESERVATION OF COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND THE ENVIRONMENT: Preserve the unique character of the Winchester - Frederick region and protect the environment by encouraging pedestrian and bicycle travel and designating greenway and open space corridors. Pedestrians in Winchester Win -Fred MPO Bicycle a Pedestrian Mobility Plan iii GOAL 3, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: Improve pedestrian and bicycle accommodations to support local businesses and to provide more opportunities for recreation -based and heritage tourism. GOAL 4, HEALTH: Provide opportunities and encouragement for the region's residents to walk, bicycle, skate, run, and gain the health benefits of incorporating physical activity into their daily lives. GOAL 5, SAFETY: Minimize the number of pedestrian and bicycle crashes and injuries while increasing the amount of pedestrian and bicycle activity in the region through improved facilities and education targeted at multiple users (motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians). Existing Conditions for Walking and Bicycling in the Winchester - Frederick Region The Winchester -Frederick region offers numerous opportunities for walking and bicycling for both recreation and transportation. Many area residents use non -motorized transportation modes to access local parks, schools, shops, and workplaces in their communities. Residents and visitors walk to experience historic downtown Winchester. Non -motorized transportation and recreation opportunities are provided throughout the Winchester -Frederick area. However, there are also many barriers to pedestrian and bicycle access, including the absence of important facilities, such as sidewalks and bicycle lanes on key roadways, disconnected street networks, and automobile -oriented developments. Low density, single use development in the Winchester -Frederick area is creating a deterrent to walking and bicycling due to long travel distances between origins and destinations. Housing communities are often isolated from services, workplaces and schools, and are divided by wide arterials that are uncomfortable for walking and bicycling. Many of the existing suburban areas in the region will require substantial retrofit to accommodate and encourage walking and bicycling. Measures should be taken now to ensure that newly developed areas are designed to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Fc Pedestrian Mobility Plan Iv Short Term Sidewalk Installation and Reconstruction (including ADA improvements) The table below identifies priorities for sidewalk improvement, reconstruction, and ADA improvements in the next five years. Each location identified for short term sidewalk installation and rehabilitation will require further study to determine the scope of the necessary improvement. This should happen as part of the design process. The short term improvements identified represent an aggressive schedule for improvements. Improvements or portions of improvements that cannot be completed in the short term may become longer-term projects. Opportunities may arise to construct these improvements (or other improvements not listed below) as part of other roadway projects, presenting the opportunity to install new sidewalks, complete ADA improvements, or rehabilitate existing sidewalks at a greatly reduced cost. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan v Short Term Sidewalk Installation, Reconstruction, and ADA Improvements Street Name From ITo jimprovement Length Est. Cost Ci tor E. Cock Street S City of Winchester Eastern or biketwalk path along Border Purcell Ave/Ma le Dr City Park frontage on S. side 0.3 $54,000 Purcell Ave/Maple Dr S. Pleasant Valley Road Reconstructi' Iden sidewalks. Provide ADA improvements on both sides 0.1 $35,000 S. Pleasant Valley Road S. East Lane New sidewalk on N. side and ADA m rovements on S. side 0.4 $74.000 Valley Avenue, Rt. 11 W. Gerrard Street Replace sections damaged by tree roots and provide ADA improvements for Bellview Ave walks on both sides 0.7 $7,000 Bellview Ave Reconstruct/provide.ADA improvements for walks on both sides. New walk in Middle Road front of 2011 Valley Ave 0.8 $280.000 Middle Road City of Winchester Border Infill new sidewalks on both sides 1.4 $336,600 Middle Road Valley Ave Crestview Terrace Install new sidewalk on both sides 2. $840,000 Crestview Terrace Nazarene Drive New sidewalk on east side, Infill missing sidewalk segments on W. side. 0.4 $132,000 Nazarene Drive City of Winchester Border Install sidewalk on west side. Install missing segment of sidewalk or biketwalk path on E. side. 0.2 $38.000 Cedar Crook Grade Valley Avenue City of Winchester Border Provide ADA antl maintenance improvements for sidewalks on both sides (reconstruct and widen portions near tree wells If necessary) 1.5 $15,00 Pleasant Valley Road Papermill Road Berryville Avenue Reconstruct/provide ADA improvements for existing sidewalks on both sides 2.9 $870,000 E. Jubal Early Drive S. Loudoun Street Millwood Avenue Provide ADA and maintenance improvements for existing walks on both sides 0.7 $7,000 Amherst Street N. Braddock Street Entrance to Museum of Shenandoah Valley Provide ADA and maintenance improvements for sidewalks on both sides reconstruct portions if necessary) 0.6 $30,000 Entrance to Museum of City of Winchester Border Install new sidewalk and/or biketwalk Shenandoah Valley path on S. side. Infill missing walk on N. side. 1.2 $312,000 S. Loudoun Street Jubal Early Drive Weems Lane Install new sidewalks on both sides as art of VDOT project CA NIA Piccadilly St North Ave Reconstruct sidewalks on both sides 0.3 $105,000 Cork St Gerrard St Reconstruct sidewalks on both sides 0.4 $140,000 S. Kent St E. Cork St Millwood Avenue Reconstruct sidewalks on both sides 0.4 $140,000 Woodstock Lane N. East Lane N. Pleasant Valley Rd Infill new sidewalk on N. side 0.3 $54,000 National Ave N. East Lane N. Pleasant Vallev Rd Reconstruct sidewalks on hnth sides 0.4 $140,000 install new sidewalks on both sides of Main Street, Rt. 11 Town of Stephens City Barley Drive Northern Border road 0.6 $210,000 Barley Drive Newtown Court Install new sidewalk on E. side of road 0.5 $90,000 Newtown Court Stephens Run Street Reconstruct/provide ADA improvements for existing sidewalks on both sides of the road 0.6 $196,00 Senseny Road Greenwood Road City of Winchester Line/E. Install new sidewalks on Doth sides of Cork Street road 1.6 $550,000 Front Royal Pike, Rt. 522 Millwood Pike, Rt, 50 Clarke County Line Install new sidewalks on both sides of road 7.D $2,450.000 Valley Pike, Rt. 11 City of Winchester Southern Musket Drive Install new sidewalks on both sides of Border road 2.6 $910,000 Middle Road City of Winchester Western Powder Horn Lane Install new sidewalks on both sides of Border road 1.21 00 Cedar Croak Grade City of Winchester Western Rt. 37 Install new sidewalks on both sides of Border road 0.9 $315,000 Greenwood Road Berryville Pike Edmonson Lane Hsieh new sidewalks on both sides of road 2.1 $745,500 Win -Fred MPO Bicycle & Pedestrian Mobility Plan vi Short 1 orm Bicycle Facilities The locations in the Table below have been identified for on -street bicycle facilities in the next five years. Additional traffic analysis will be needed in some cases to determine the optimum design for specific locations. Some locations may be determined, after more detailed analysis, to require different or more costly improvements and therefore may become longer-term projects. Additional opportunities not shown on the map may also arise during repaving and other roadway projects, presenting the opportunity to reallocate roadway space for bicycles. Costs shown in this section may be greatly reduced by incorporating new bicycle facilities into roadway resurfacing and rehabilitation projects as an improvement incidental to the larger project. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan vii Short Term Bicycle Facilities Street Name From To Improvement Length Est. Cost i (miles) ,City of Winchegter City of Winchester Southern Valley Avenue, Rt. 11 S. Braddock Street Border Bike Lanes 2.6 $79,200 S. Loudon Street Jubal Early Drive Weems Lane Bike Lanes 0.6 $18,900 Papermill Road Weems Lane S. Pleasant Valley Road Bike Lanes 0.6 $18,600 City of Winchester Eastern Papermill Road S. Pleasant Valley Road Border Bike Lanes 0.6 1$18,600 Pleasant Valley Road Berryville Ave Papermill Road Bike Lanes 2.9 $85,500 City of Winchester Eastern Cork Street Border S. Washington Street Bike Lanes 1.3 $38,100 City of Winchester Western Amherst Street Border N. Washington Street Bike Lanes 1.6 $49,200 City of Winchester Western Cedar Creek Grade Border Valley Ave Bike Lanes 0.5 $15,900 Juba[ Early Drive S. Pleasant Valley Road Meadow Branch Ave Bike Lanes 1.4 $42,600 City of Wincehster Western Middle Road Valley Ave 113order Bike Lanes 1.0 $30,000 Winchester Medical Campus Boulevard Amherst Street rrentpr/Wppnasg Center Bike Lanes 0.7 $20,400 Town of Stephens City Town of Stephens City Main Street, Rt- 11 Northern Border Southern Border Bike Lanes 1.6 552,504 Town of Stephens City Fairfax Street Main Street -� Eastern Border Bike Lanes 0.1 $4,200 • City of Winchester Southern Town of Stephens City Valley Pike, Rt. 11 Border Northern Border Bike Lanes 2.9 $86,100 Town of Stephens City Valley Pike, Rt. 11 Southern Border MPO Southern Border Bike Lanes 1.5 $43,500 Clarke County Western Front Royal Pike (522) Millwood Pike, Rt. 50 Border Bike Lanes 7.1 $212,400 Proposed Trail north of Front Royal Pike (522) Clydesdale Drive Tasker Road Shared Use Path 1.5 $46,200 City of Winchester Eastern Clarke County Western Senseny Road Border Border Bike Lanes 3.7 $110,438 City of Winchester Western Cedar Creek Grade Border Rt. 37 Bike Lanes 1.0 $30,900 Proposed Trail near Proposed Trail to the east of Cedar Creek Grade Winchester Western Border Rt. 37 Shared Use Path 0.6 $197,200 City of Winchester Western Middle Road Border MPO Western Border Bike Lanes 1.8 $52,500 Apple Valley Road Middle Road Valley Pike Bike Lanes 1.2 $36,898 Greenwood Road Berryville Pike, Rt. 7 Sulphur Spring Road Bike Lanes 3.0 $89,880 City of Winchester Western Northwestern Pike, Rt. 50 Border Round Hill Road Shared Use Path 0.7 $238,000 Northwestern Pike, Rt. 50 Round Hill Road MPO Western Border Bike Lanes 3.9 $117,000 City of Winchester Northern Frederick Pike (Route 522) Border Indian Hollow Road Shared Use Path 2.1 $720,800 Frederick Pike (Route 522) Indian Hollow Road MPO Western Border Bike Lanes 1.7 $49,500 Valley Mill Road Berryville Pike, Rt. 7 Berryville Pike, Rt. 7 Bike Lanes 3.0 $91,320 Proposed Trail near the Rt. 37 Valley Mill Road Greenwood Road extension Shared Use Path 1.9 $646,000 Airport Road Front Royal Pike, Rt. 522 Millwood Pike, Rt. 50 Bike Lanes 3.8 $113,100 Victory Road Millwood Pike Airport Road Bike Lanes 0.8 $22,500 Independence Road Victory Road Millwood Pike, Rt. 50 Bike Lanes 0.5 $15,472 Tasker Road Route 37 Front Royal Pike, Rt. 522 Bike Lanes 4.6 $136,875 Aylor Road Tasker Road Fairfax Pike Share Use Path 2.1 $709,920 Town of Stephens City Clarke County Western Fairfax Pike Eastern Border Border Bike Lanes 4.5 $136,170 Sherando Lane Sherando Park Double Church Road Bike Lanes 0.7 $22,287 Apple Pie Ridge Road Frederick Pike, Rt. 522 Hiatt Road Bike Lanes 3.8 $114,321 City of Winchester Eastern Papermill Road Border Front Royal Pike, Rt. 522 Bike Lanes 1.3 $40,200 Win -Fred MPU Bicycle rt Peaestrlan moomry rtan Short Term Shared -Use Paths The Winchester Green Circle Trail is currently under development. This is a high-priority project and as much of the trail as possible should be completed in the next five years. In the short term, most of the proposed shared use paths shown on the Proposed Bicycle & Pedestrian Network Map should be constructed as part of the development process. Local governments should also begin securing capital budget items for future use as matches for Transportation Enhancement grants. In the medium term, missing trail segments should be identified and this funding can be used to pursue the development of these missing links and new trail construction projects, such as the Rt. 37 Loop Trail. Short Term Roadway Crossing Improvements (Including ADA Improvements) The locations identified below should be prioritized for roadway crossing improvements. Roadway crossing improvements include ADA curb ramps, pedestrian countdown signals, raised medians, and other improvements (as recommended in Appendix A of this plan) to improve the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the roadway. City of Winchester: • N. Pleasant Valley Road and Berryville Avenue/National Avenue • N. Pleasant Valley Road and Woodstock Lane • S. Pleasant Valley Road and E Cork Street • Berryville Avenue near Elm Street/Fort Collier Road • E. Cork Street and N. Purcell Ave • S. Pleasant Valley Road and Lowry Drive/Hollingsworth Drive • S. Pleasant Valley Road and Millwood Avenue • S. Pleasant Valley Road and E. Jubal Early Drive • Apple Blossom Drive and E. Jubal Early Drive • Jubal Early Drive and S. Loudoun Street • W. Jubal Early Drive and Valley Avenue • Millwood Avenue at Shenandoah University (Frontage Road) • Featherbed Lane and S. Loudoun Street • W. Piccadilly Street and N. Braddock Street • Amherst Street and W. Boscawen Street • Amherst Street and Whittier Avenue • Amherst Street and Meadow Branch Avenue Frederick County (Within the WinFred MPO): • Berryville Pike at Eastern border of Frederick County • Berryville Pike and Interstate 81 • Papermill Road at Interstate 81 Win -Fred MPO Bicycle & Pedestrian Mobility Plan ix • Millwood Pike and Inverlee Way • Northwestern Pike, Rt. 50 near Rt. 37 • Rt. 37 and Frederick Pike (522) • Rt. 37 near Winchester Medical Center • Apple Pie Ridge Road and Frederick Pike • Middle Road and Rt. 37 • Cedar Creek Grade and Rt. 37 Short Term Policies The policies identified below are meant to serve as the first step to ensuring that local design guidelines, ordinances, regulations, and other policies are supportive of including facilities for pedestrians and bicycles. • Development Review: The Town, City, County, and VDOT should continue to ensure that transportation and recreation facilities accommodate pedestrians and bicycles during development projects and roadway construction and upgrades. • Pedestrian And Bicycle Liaisons: The City and County should each designate one existing staff person as Pedestrian and Bicycle Liaison. • Pedestrian And Bicycle Advisory Committee: A new ad hoc Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee should be formed to assist the Pedestrian and Bicycle Program liaisons. • Revise Ordinances: Frederick County, City of Winchester, and Town of Stephens City should revise their comprehensive plans, subdivision ordinances, and zoning ordinances to ensure better accommodations for pedestrians and bicycles. Developer -provided pedestrian and bicycle accommodations should meet the new design standards. • Develop A Maintenance Program: The City and County should develop a schedule for maintaining pedestrian and bicycle facilities. • Provide Training And Professional Development: Conduct regional pedestrian and bicycle training periodically, and encourage staff to, attend conferences with educational opportunities on pedestrian and bicycle facility planning and design, and encourage the Pedestrian and Bicycle Liaisons to join the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP). • Pursue Additional Funding: Pursue additional grant sources and capital funding as necessary to supplement developer -financed pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Short Term Programs (Education, Encouragement, Enforcement) The education, encouragement, and enforcement strategies identified below are recommended to be implemented within the next five years. These programs are intended to promote and increase the safety of walking and bicycling locally. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan • Seek Funding To Initiate A Safe Routes To School Program: The Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Liaisons should work with local schools to apply to VDOT for Federal grant funding to establish a SRTS pilot program at local schools. • Unify And Strengthen Existing Education Programs: Groups that are already organizing education/encouragement events such as the Winchester Green Circle Fall Fitness Fair and Valley Health's Community Wellness Festival should coordinate on event dates and themes to reinforce new messages each year. • Walk And Bicycle To School Day: The Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Liaisons should work with local schools to increase participation in International Walk and Bicycle to School Day (held each year in October). • Bicycle And Walking Rodeos: Existing bicycle and walking rodeos should continue and more should be conducted each year. • Pedestrian And Bicycle Safety Education In Schools: The Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Liaisons should work with the schools to incorporate bicycle and pedestrian safety education in elementary and middle schools throughout the area. Grant funding may be needed to support this activity. • Bicycle Safety Education For Adults: The MPO should work with the Winchester Wheelmen to sponsor and promote adult cycling classes offered by the Virginia Bicycling Federation. • Pedestrian And Bicycle Awareness Campaign: The MPO should investigate partnering with the metropolitan Washington Council of Governments on the Street Smart Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Public Awareness Campaign. • Safety Awareness Week: Law Enforcement officers should conduct a "Focus on Pedestrians" safety campaign. • Corridors -To -Campus Initiative: Working with University officials, the PBAC should support a corridors -to -campus initiative designed to identify, and implement strategies to support walking and bicycling to and from Shenandoah University and between the campus locations. Medium Term Sidewalk Installation and Reconstruction (Including ADA Improvements) The locations in the Table below have been identified for sidewalk installation, reconstruction, and ADA improvements in the next ten years. (Refer to the maps in Chapter 5 for project limits) City of Winchester: • Berryville Avenue (S. Pleasant Valley Road to City of Winchester eastern border) • National Avenue (Pleasant Valley Road to N. East Lane) • N. East Lane (National Ave to E. Piccadilly Street) • Piccadilly Street (N. East Lane to Fairmont Ave) • Merrimans Lane (City of Winchester western border to Meadow Branch Ave) • Millwood Avenue (Lowry Drive to City of Winchester eastern border) • Washington Street (W. Fairfax Lane to Handley Boulevard) • Fairmont Avenue (W Piccadilly Street to City of Winchester north border) Win -Fred MPO Bicycle 8 Pedestrian Mobility Plan xi • N. Loudoun Street (N. Cameron Street to City of Winchester north border) • Papermill Road (S. Loudoun Street to S. Pleasant Valley Road) Town of Stephens City: • Fairfax Street (Main Street to Town of Stephens City eastern border) Frederick County (within the WinFred MPO): • Frederick Pike, Rt. 522 (Fairmont Ave to Long Green Lane) • Berryville Pike (City of Winchester eastern border to Greenwood Road) • Merrimans Lane (Orchard Lane to City of Winchester western border) • Millwood Pike (City of Winchester eastern border to Arbor Court) • Warrior Drive (Fairfax Pike to Tasker Road) • Fairfax Pike (Town of Stephens City western border to Line Drive) • Tasker Road (Rutherford Lane to White Oak Road) • Aylor Road (Tasker Road to Village Lane) • Northwestern Pike, Rt. 50 (western border of City or Winchester to Spinning Wheel Lane) • Martinsburg Pike (City of Winchester north border to Park Center Drive) Medium Term Bicycle Facilities The locations in the Table below have been identified for on -street bicycle facilities in the next ten years term. (Refer to the maps in Chapter 5 for project limits) City of Winchester: • Millwood Avenue • Berryville Avenue, Rt. 7 • Merrimans Lane • Loudoun Street (portions not completed during the short term) • Braddock Street • Washington Street • Handley Boulevard • Fox Drive Frederick County (within the WinFred MPO): • Rt. 37 Trail (along existing and proposed bypass) • Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) • Millwood Pike • Berryville Pike, Rt. 7 • Merrimans Lane • Sulphur Spring Road • Fox Drive • Echo Lane • Glentawber Road Win -Fred MPO Bicycle 8 Pedestrian Mobility Plan x' • Old Charles Town Road • Milburn Road • Jordan Springs Road/Stephenson Road • Woods Mill Road • Double Church Road • Brandy Lane • Shady Elm Road • Redbud Road • Indian Hollow Road • Welltown Road • Hiatt Road • Rest Church Road • Hopewell Road • Brucetown Road • Ivory Drive • Macedonia Church Road • White Oak Road • Hudson Hollow Road • Forest Lake Drive • Town Run Lane Medium Term Shared -use Paths As mentioned previously, in the short term, most of the proposed shared use paths shown on the Proposed Bicycle & Pedestrian Network Map should be constructed as part of the development process. In the next ten years term, missing trail segments should be identified and developed. New trail construction projects should also be developed in the medium term, such as the Rt. 37 Loop Trail. The cost for filling gaps in shared -use paths is expected to be approximately $340,000 per mile. Medium Term Roadway Crossing Improvements The locations identified below should be prioritized for roadway crossing improvements in the next ten years term. Roadway crossing improvements include ADA curb ramps, pedestrian countdown signals, raised medians, and other improvements (as recommended in Appendix A of this plan) to improve the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the roadway. (Refer to the maps in Chapter 5 for project limits) Frederick County (within the WinFred MPO): • Interstate 81 crossing at proposed trail to the south of Rt. 37 • Interstate 81 crossing at proposed trail to the south of Martinsburg Pike • Interstate 81 crossing at proposed trail to the north of Papermill Road • Interstate 81 crossing at proposed trail to the south of Papermill Road • Interstate 81 crossing at proposed trail to the north of Stephens City Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan xiii • Rt. 37 crossing at proposed trail coming from Abrams Creek Wetlands Preserve • Rt. 37 crossing at proposed trail near Martinsburg Pike • Proposed crossing of the Rt. 37 trail with Berryville Pike Medium Term Policies and Planning The policies identified below are meant to serve as the second step to ensuring that local design guidelines, ordinances, regulations, and other policies are supportive of including facilities for pedestrians and bicycles. • Revise The Pedestrian & Bicycle Mobility Plan: The Pedestrian & Bicycle Mobility Plan should be updated once every 10 years to respond to changing local conditions. • Maintenance Website And Hotline: Once a regular schedule for pedestrian and bicycle facility maintenance is established, a website and phone hotline should be established to allow residents to report maintenance problems and request spot repairs. • Maintenance Manager: As need arises, the County should identify a lead staff person as a Maintenance Manager to organize and keep track of both regular and remedial inspection and maintenance of the pedestrian and bicycle network. • Trend -Setter Policy: The Town, City, and County can serve as trend-setters by becoming early implementers of some of the recommendations in this plan, such as the provision of bicycle parking racks near their facilities, and offering incentives to people who walk or bike to work. • ADA Transition Plan: The Town, City, and County should complete an Americans Disabilities Act (ADA plan for the elements of the public right of way. Medium Term Programs (Education, Encouragement, Enforcement) The education, encouragement, and enforcement strategies identified below are recommended to be implemented in the next ten years. These programs are intended to promote and increase the safety of walking and bicycling locally. Safety City: The Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Liaisons could apply for grant funding to install and run a permanent "Safety City" program in order to provide pedestrian and bicycle education to children. Media Outreach And Website: The Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PBAC) should develop a media outreach plan to promote bicycling and walking and to educate various constituencies throughout the region. Employee Pedestrian And Bicycle Commute Incentives Program: The City of Winchester and Frederick County should encourage pedestrian and bicycle commuting by providing information about economic benefits, health benefits, and potential commuting routes to employers and employees. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan • Initiate An Adopt -A -Trail Program: In order to support pedestrian and bicycle facilities, the City of Winchester and Frederick County should implement an "Adopt -a -Trail" program. • Bicycle And Walking Maps: The Win -Fred MPO, the Tourism Board, the Convention and Visitors Bureau and/or local agencies should partner with the Chamber of Commerce develop maps of walking and bicycling routes. Existing maps should be updated periodically, and new maps should be developed. • Community Events: The Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Liaisons should work with the PBAC, the Winchester Wheelmen, the Winchester Green Circle and local volunteer groups to sponsor regular rides and events in the Winchester - Frederick area. • Community Advocacy Programs: The Winchester Wheelmen and the Shenandoah Valley Runners can take the lead in developing a community -wide advocacy program to raise awareness of bicycle and pedestrian issues. • Crosswalk Enforcement Programs: Educate law enforcement officers about how to conduct a crosswalk enforcement program. • Involve Law Enforcement In SRTSActivities: Law enforcement officers with the City and County should actively participate in Safe Routes to School (SRTS) programs. Long Term Recommendations Long term recommendations are intended to be implemented in the next 25 years. They include filling additional sidewalk gaps, adding additional on -street bicycle facilities, and constructing much of the off-street trail system that is shown on the maps in Chapter 5. While these recommendations may be included in the long term category, there may be opportunities for implementing them sooner. For example, pedestrian and bicycle facilities could be added as a part of a new roadway project added to the Transportation Improvement Program or a new pedestrian and bicycle program could be provided by applying to a new grant funding source. The Town, City, and County should take advantage of these opportunities for implementation. Programs that began in the first 10 years of implementation should grow in the long term. Refinements should be made based on lessons learned during the first 10 years. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan xv Chapter 1: Introduction j In recent years, the Winchester - Frederick region has experienced rapid growth and a resulting surge in demand for walking and bicycling facilities. The recent growth has created dramatic changes in transportation and land use. Traffic is increasing throughout the region, causing concerns that roads are becoming less safe for bicycling and walking even as the demand for these modes increases. Efforts should be made now to ensure that pedestrians and bicyclists will be able to use the roadway network in the Winchester -Frederick area in the future. As the transportation system is enhanced to accommodate increased volumes of vehicular traffic, it should also be designed to allow people to safely walk and bicycle to their destinations. Pedestrians in downtown Winchester The Win -Fred MPO Bicycle & Pedestrian Mobility Plan provides a coordinated and strategic approach to the development of a transportation system that accommodates and encourages walking and bicycling throughout the region. The plan identifies a network of walking and bicycling facilities to improve non - motorized access for residents and visitors. Facility design guidelines and policy and program recommendations are provided to support and encourage bicycling and walking. Why is Watkins and Bicycling Important in t";e Winchester - Frederick Regions' Bicycling and walking is a necessary part of the transportation system in the Winchester - Frederick region. Walking and bicycling are extremely important to the one third of the local population does not have access to or use of an automobile. Over 80% of respondents to the online survey that was conducted as a part of this Plan Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan 1-1 responded that if a bicycle trail or signed bicycle route were provided near their home, they would ride on it. Ninety-five percent of respondents indicated that if there was a sidewalk or trail near their home, they would walk on it. Developing a network of pedestrian and bicycle facilities makes good economic sense for the Winchester -Frederick region. Bicycle tourism has the potential to bring in significant tourism revenue while not generating overwhelming numbers of automobiles. The implementation of this plan may help prevent the area from suffering negative economic effects as a result of being declared in non -attainment of the 8 -hour ozone air quality standard. Increased bicycling and walking for transportation can help to improve air quality and reduce traffic congestion in the Winchester -Frederick region. Substituting a bicycling or walking trip for short automobile trip has the potential to reduce automobile emissions, resulting in improved air quality. Air pollution is a serious health threat, contributing to the deaths of 60,000 people nationwide each year. Bicycling and walking can play a vital role in improving the health of residents of the Winchester - Frederick region. Residents of this region need opportunities to meet the Surgeon General's recommendation of 30 minutes of physical activity per day in order to help avoid becoming obese. Research conducted in 1999 by the Centers for Disease i f d 4-1-11 b d ' ht r Planning Process this projcc�t im oivc,(, I IlUniber ol; dillIl,r(olit aetiVities and OLIIT�'�IJ! c ffnrts. 'I Lt, pro esti is h1_1QftV OLIHiM'd bal,c,Itiw. • WItII irt.'1!; �: \rltll� sis C)i (xistin�; LoiiditiMIS • titccrii �oi,,i)piiItcc,- A�c,rk, ; of in("c�till.;s c ti it l�1ty, i.oaii Bicycling and walking are fun recreational activities for residents of the Winchester - Frederick region. In the 2006 Virginia Outdoors Survey, the residents of the Northern Shenandoah Valley voted walking for pleasure the most popular outdoor activity. In the same statewide survey, bicycling was ranked the 61h most popular outdoor activity. Statewide Policy Et Planning Context Transportation agencies have provided a tremendous level of support and funding for bikeways, greenways, and sidewalks in recent years. While local jurisdictions play a large role in establishing transportation priorities in Virginia, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is the agency responsible for constructing and maintaining many of the primary and secondary roads throughout the Winchester -Frederick area. The development of a regional bicycle and pedestrian network is fully supported by state transportation policy goals. On March 18, 2004, the Commonwealth Transportation Board adopted a new state policy for integrating bicycle and pedestrian accommodations into roadway projects (often termed "incidental' improvements - bikeways and sidewalks that are built as part of new roadway construction or roadway reconstruction). This policy essentially reverses previous VDOT policies which required substantial public and political support for bikeways and sidewalks to be considered for inclusion in transportation projects. The new policy states that, "VDOT will initiate all highway construction projects with the presumption that the projects shall accommodate bicycling and walking," and essentially requires bicycle and/or pedestrian accommodations whenever a roadway project occurs in an urban or suburban area. The policy provides some exemptions under which facilities may not be provided, such as in situations where: • Scarcity of population, travel, and attractors, both existing and future, indicate an absence of need for such accommodations • Environmental or social impacts outweigh the need for these accommodations • Safety would be compromised Total cost of bicycle and pedestrian accommodations to the appropriate system (Le, interstate, primary, secondary, or urban system) would be excessively disproportionate to the need for the facility • Purpose and scope of the specific projects do not facilitate the provision of such accommodations (e.g., projects for the Rural Rustic Road Program) • Bicycle and pedestrian travel is prohibited by state or federal laws Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan 1-3 VDOT's new policy applies to all projects that reach the scoping phase after the adoption date of March 18, 2004. As with all major policy changes, it will likely take several years before the "on the ground" results of VDOT's new policy will be evident as projects move through the process from initial scoping, through the planning and design phases, and eventually into construction. It is critical that local governments continue to show support for the inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian accommodations in state roadway projects. This includes projects at all levels: maintenance, design and construction, and operations. The level of accommodation provided in VDOT projects is likely to be commensurate with the level of support expressed by local citizens, agency staff, and elected officials. Moreover, for projects occurring along corridors that have been planned to receive bike/ped improvements, VDOT's implementation guidance allows for using up to 20% of the total project cost for the bicycle and/or pedestrian accommodation. For projects not taking place along planned bike/ped corridors, the ceiling is 10% of total project cost. The complete version of VDOT's Policy for Integrating Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations can be found on the VDOT website in the Program section of the website, under Bicycling and Walking. www.virginiadot.org/bikepedpolicy) Federal transportation policies also support the development of a regional bicycle plan. The U.S. Congress has provided a consistent source of funding for these activities for the past ten years through programs such as Transportation Enhancements, the Recreational Trails Program, and Safe Routes to School. Vision, Goals, and Objectives Vision Statement The Winchester -Frederick region mill become a place: Where bicycle and pedestrian facilities serve a dual purpose as recreation and transportation corridors, and, Where people have the convenient and safe option of traveling on foot and by bicycle throughout the region. The following goals build on the strengths of the Winchester -Frederick region, and are designed to help achieve the vision for improving pedestrian and bicycle accommodations in the region. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan 1-4 Goal 1, Connectivity: Develop a regional walkway, bikeway, and greenway network among residential neighborhoods, workplaces, shopping centers, historic sites and districts, schools, libraries, recreation centers, parks, battlefield sites, and other destinations, including linkages to neighboring jurisdictions. Goal 2, Preservation Of Community Character And The Environment: Preserve the unique character of the Winchester -Frederick region and protect the environment by encouraging pedestrian and bicycle travel and designating greenway and open space corridors. Goal 3, Economic Development: Improve pedestrian and bicycle accommodations to support local businesses and to provide more opportunities for recreation - based and heritage tourism. Pedestrians in Winchester Goal 4, Health: Provide opportunities and encouragement for the region's residents to walk, bicycle, skate, run, and gain the health benefits of incorporating physical activity into their daily lives. Goal 5, Safety: Minimize the number of pedestrian and bicycle crashes and injuries while increasing the amount of pedestrian and bicycle activity in the region through improved facilities and education targeted at multiple users (motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians). Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan 1-5 Chapter 2; Existing Conditions for Walking and Rir_vclin ;� the Winchester-Frederick Region The Winchester - Frederick region offers some opportunities for walking and bicycling for both recreation and transportation. Many area residents use non - motorized transportation modes to access local parks, schools, shops, and workplaces. Residents and visitors are attracted to historic downtown Winchester, which provides an excellent example of a high quality walking environment. Lively pedestrian environment in downtown Winchester However, there are also many barriers to pedestrian and bicycle access throughout the Winchester -Frederick region, including the absence of sidewalks and bicycle lanes on key roadways, disconnected street networks that force pedestrians and bicycles onto busy roads, and automobile -oriented developments. Low density, single use development in the Winchester -Frederick area has created a deterrent to walking and bicycling due to long travel distances between origins and destinations. Housing communities are often isolated from services, workplaces and schools, and are divided by wide arterials that are uncomfortable for walking and bicycling. Many of the existing suburban areas in the region will require retrofit to accommodate and encourage walking and bicycling. Measures should be taken now to ensure that newly developed areas are designed to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle 8 Pedestrian Mobility Plan 2-1 icycii _q Conditions High-speed, multi -lane roadway: bicyclists must share the lane with motor vehicles On -road bicycling conditions in the region have a significant impact on riders' ability to get to and from their destinations. Multi -lane intersections, lack of shoulders or bicycle lanes, high speeds, and high traffic volumes all contribute to the perception that bicycling is unsafe on key routes in the region. The area is home to a growing number of trails suitable for bicycling. The Green Circle Trail is currently under development in Winchester. A portion of the trail has already been built and is extremely popular. Interstate 81 divides the community and creates a significant barrier to bicycling. Highway interchanges require bicyclists to share the road with high-speed traffic merging on and off highway ramps. Interchanges also present problems for pedestrian crossings. Bicycle parking is not widespread. Many locations, such as commercial areas, schools, main streets, or public facilities, lack bicycle racks. Where bicycle racks are provided, they are sometimes hidden from view, or are not of a design that supports the frame of the bike (U -racks are preferred to "ladder style" or "wave" racks). Existing "wave" bicycle rack in Sherando Park Win -Fred MPO Bicycle it Pedestrian Mobility Plan Walking Conditions Parts of the Winchester -Frederick area, such as downtown Winchester and the residential neighborhoods located nearby, are very welcoming to pedestrians. These areas have ample sidewalks and mature street trees. The pleasing walking environment draws high levels of pedestrian activity and creates a sense of place. In other areas, pedestrian facilities are deficient. Major roadways, such as the commercial areas along U.S. 522 and U.S. 11, lack continuous sidewalks and other pedestrian facilities. Along many of these routes, visible footpaths worn into the ground demonstrate existing pedestrian demand. Many roadways in the Winchester -Frederick region are wide and carry heavy traffic volumes, making it difficult for pedestrians to cross the street. Existing footpath Unmarked or faded crosswalks or signalized intersections without pedestrian signal heads sometimes compound the problem. Some existing sidewalks do not meet the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), due to intersections without curb ramps, driveways that cross sidewalks with excessive cross -slopes, utility poles that create barriers on sidewalks, or cracked or narrow sidewalks. New developments within the Winchester -Frederick region vary in terms of their accommodation for pedestrians. Some have nice sidewalks on both sides of the street, but others lack sidewalks on one or both sides of the street. Some new residential developments lack a grass buffer zone between the sidewalk and the street, while others include a buffer zone planted with shade trees that provide an appealing pedestrian environment. Many schools within the Winchester -Frederick region are surrounded by high- speed, multi -lane roadways without adequate pedestrian facilities. In many cases, students live close enough to walk to school if there were safe walking conditions. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle 8 Pedestrian Mobility Plan 2-3 �� japt+er 3:.JLcility W.-ol&ndations This chapter recommends new and improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the Winchester -Frederick region. The facilities are intended to create an interconnected network of greenways, sidewalks, bikeways, and safe roadway crossings so that people have the safe and convenient option of bicycling and walking for transportation. The recommended pedestrian and bicycle system consists of a variety of complementary facility types (e.g., shared -use paths, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, etc.). This system of facilities will be developed fully over the next 25 years. Specific locations for improvement and project phasing (short term, medium term, and long term) are identified in the Implementation chapter (Chapter 6). ACTION 1 F`, ovide facilities that allow pedestrians to travel along and across roadways safely. The Win -Fred MPO, Frederick County, the City of Winchester, and the Town of Stephens City should work with VDOT to provide more sidewalks and safer roadway crossings that are accessible to all pedestrians. Nearly all local residents are pedestrians at some time during the day. People are pedestrians when they are walking to school, running on a sidewalk for exercise, crossing the street after parking in a downtown shopping district, or walking to a store entrance through a parking lot. Therefore, it is essential to provide safe, convenient, and accessible facilities for pedestrians. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan 3-1 Sidewalks Sidewalks are recommended along both sides of the street for all roadways within the City of Winchester, the Town of Stephens City, and within Frederick County's Urban Development Area with the exception of roadways where pedestrians are prohibited. To achieve this goal, sidewalks should be included as part of new developments. There are numerous sidewalk gaps in previously -developed areas. In order to make the best use of limited funding, this plan identifies priorities for new and reconstructed sidewalks in order eliminate major gaps. These are the areas with the greatest need for sidewalks, but do not represent all of the locations where sidewalks are missing. In some cases, existing sidewalks are present, but are recommended for reconstruction because they do not meet ADA guidelines or because they are extremely narrow with no buffer between the sidewalk and adjacent traffic. See the Implementation Chapter (Chapter 6) for priority streets for sidewalk improvements. Roadway crossing improvements Roadway crossing improvements are recommended throughout the Winchester - Frederick region. Many pedestrian crashes occur at roadway crossing locations. Large roadways can be barriers to pedestrian travel because they are difficult to cross. See the Implementation Chapter (Chapter 6) of this plan for priority intersections for roadway crossing improvements. ACTIONraad I'Di+ le facilitlgM serve a wide variety of his=hs�� - jurisdictions within the Winchester -Frederick area should work with VDOT to construct on -road bicycle facilities for all types of bicyclists. There are many different types of bicycle accommodations that can be provided on roadways, Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan including bicycle lanes, paved shoulders, and shared roadways. These facility types are appropriate in different situations. See Appendix A for a description of the different types of facilities. The Implementation Chapter (Chapter 6) of this plan identifies specific roadways for new on -road bicycle facilities, such as bicycle lanes, paved shoulders, and shared roadways. The roadways are also shown on the Proposed Bicycle & Pedestrian Network map. The recommended projects will require additional evaluation during the implementation process to determine if there are other factors that may either help or hinder their development. ACT;^,;; 3, EStabIish shored -use ira hs ii at serve the transportation and recreation needs of residents and visitor.41. Shared -use paths are paved or unpaved trails that can serve a wide variety of types of non -motorized users, including bicyclists, runners, walkers, in-line skaters, and wheelchair users. Shared use paths should be a minimum of 10 -feet wide and designed according to the Virginia Bicycle Facility Design Guide and the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999). The Proposed Bicycle & Pedestrian Network map shows a number of proposed shared -use paths, including the Winchester Green Circle near downtown Winchester and a major loop alongside the future Route 37 bypass route. These two pathways will serve as an inner and an outer loop and will provide major bicycle and pedestrian transportation and recreation opportunities throughout the area. Numerous other paths and on -road bicycle routes link these two loops. The Proposed Bicycle & Pedestrian Network map also shows a number of smaller paths that will connect important destinations. Some of these trails have been proferred, that is, they will be provided by a developer as part of another development. Other paths are also under development, such as a series of trails suitable for mountain biking and walking on a 222- acre parcel of the Third Winchester Battlefield. The Winchester -Frederick region should also continue to develop other less formal, unpaved trails that can be used for running, hiking, horseback riding, and mountain biking. These trails are not included on the recommendations map. Unpaved trails have the advantage of not adding impervious surface area to sensitive environmental areas. However, these trails are typically used for recreation rather than transportation. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan 3-3 Many of the other recommended shared -use paths can be provided through future land use development projects (i.e. proffers, roadway development, donations, and land purchase). As a result, the lines on the recommendations map representing long-term trails are very wide and generic in nature. They do not reflect the acquisition of specific properties. Instead, they represent important network connections that should be provided as land is developed. ACTION 4: Install bicycle rack'S at kPy destinations throughout the Winchester -Frederick urea. Bicycle parking is essential in order to support bicycle travel. Bicycle racks should be installed at all parks throughout the area (they should be installed by the jurisdiction that owns the park). Bicycle racks should also be installed at other areas of high demand, such as downtown Winchester, public facilities, shopping areas, and park and ride lots. ACTION 5: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access on bridges. Federal law, as established in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA -21), makes the following statements with respect to bridges: "In any case where a highway bridge deck is being replaced or rehabilitated with Federal financial participation, and bicyclists are permitted on facilities at or near Existing bridge with inadequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities each end of such bridge, and the safe accommodation of bicyclists can be provided at reasonable cost as part of such replacement or rehabilitation, then such bridge shall be so replaced or rehabilitated as to provide such safe accommodations." (23 U.S.C. Section 217) Winchester -Frederick area governments should work with VDOT to ensure this federal transportation policy is implemented on all bridge construction and reconstruction projects. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan Chop _7 Pd# Rec-omme-ndations By far, the most efficient way to improve conditions for walking and bicycling is to incorporate pedestrian and bicycle facilities into community design from the outset. It is much more expensive to retrofit pedestrian and bicycle facilities into communities that were originally designed only for automobile access. The concept of "complete streets" has gained a tremendous amount of support in recent years through Federal, State, and local policies. Complete streets are those that are designed for all users - people who drive automobiles, people who use public transportation, people who bicycle, people with disabilities, and people who travel on foot. One of the keys to achieving this is for the MPO and its localities to ensure that the New Suburban development in Winchester VDOT Policy for Integrating Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations is applied to all projects that involve VDOT right of way or utilize funds that flow through VDOT. A critical step in providing convenient and safe options for pedestrian and bicycle transportation and recreation in the Winchester -Frederick region is to work to ensure supportive design guidelines, ordinances, and other regulations that steer community design and roadway construction (design guidelines are included in Appendix A, suggested changes to ordinances and other regulations are provided in Appendix B). ACTION b: Establish an institutional framework and oversight structure necessary to implement the recommendations of this Plan, This recommendation addresses the need for continued oversight and coordination to ensure successful implementation of this Plan. This Plan serves as a starting point to provide direction for improving walking and bicycling conditions throughout the Winchester -Frederick region. The implementation Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan 4-1 process that comes after this Plan is complete will require additional planning, coordination, design, and funding. A variety of agencies, boards, committees and individuals will play a role in the oversight of future bicycle and pedestrian programs and projects. It is important that these entities provide the appropriate level of oversight and minimize overlap in their responsibilities. The responsibilities of each are described below: County, Town, and City Agency Staff County, Town, and City agency staff are responsible for implementing pedestrian and bicycle -related projects within their jurisdiction. They are also responsible for working with VDOT (where appropriate) on state roadway projects in order to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Agency staff should. work with developers to include bicycle and pedestrian improvements through the rezoning, subdivision, and site planning process. Local Building Officials also have responsibility under the International Building Code to ensure that accessible routes from site arrival points to accessible building entrances are also included. City engineering inspection staff are also responsible for quality control of the system in the City. VDOT has this responsibility for public facilities within public street rights of way in the County and the Town. They must ensure that pedestrian and bicycle facilities are constructed and maintained in compliance with National, State, County, Town, and City standards. In this respect, they have a responsibility for inspecting pedestrian and bicycle facilities that are built by developers for public use. Responsibility for on -street pedestrian and bicilcle facilities: The implementation of the on -street pedestrian and bicycle facilities identified in this plan, such as sidewalks, bike lanes, and shared use paths adjacent to the roadway, is the responsibility of the entity with jurisdiction over the roadway. For state roadways, VDOT is the responsible entity. Local Planning Departments are responsible to work with VDOT to achieve the desired type of pedestrian and bicycle facilities on state roadways and to implement pedestrian and bicycle facilities on roadways under their own control. Responsibility for off-street pedestrian and bicilcle facilities: The off-street pedestrian and bicycle network identified in this plan will largely be built through the development process. Local governments will be responsible for filling gaps left after development is complete. Local governments may also choose to move forward with the development of additional trail projects that would be unlikely to occur as part of new development. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Liaisons As indicated above, the responsibility for implementing this Plan will fall on agency staff. Therefore, it is recommended that one staff person from the City of Winchester and one staff person from Frederick County be assigned to oversee and coordinate the pedestrian and bicycle program. The positions would most likely be filled by someone from either the Planning Department or from the Parks and Recreation Department. In addition to the responsibilities outlined above for agency staff, these staff would be responsible for coordinating their efforts with adjacent jurisdictions and with pursuing grant funding. Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PBAC) A new ad hoc Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PBAC) should be formed to advise the Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Liaisons (see above), in order to provide support for the implementation of this Plan. This committee would not be a formal standing committee, rather it would develop recommendations that the Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Liaisons would bring to the MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The TAC would continue to be the formal venue through which pedestrian and bicycle facilities are addressed. Evidence from around the country shows that successful pedestrian and bicycle programs often result from well -organized advocacy and inter- agency support. The purpose of the PBAC will be to stimulate and coordinate the implementation of this Plan. The PBAC should be comprised of individuals from the Chamber of Commerce, City Planning and Zoning, County Planning and Development, Parks and Recreation, VDOT, representatives of organizations such as the Winchester Medical and Rehabilitation Centers, the Winchester Wheelmen, Physical Education departments in the school districts, and citizens from around the Winchester -Frederick area. A school system representative should also be considered for the Committee. MPO Policy Committee The MPO Policy Committee makes the official decisions of the MPO. The Policy Committee will be responsible for the consideration of pedestrian and bicycle needs in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and other plans and programs as necessary. They should continue to work to ensure that local transportation decisions are balanced and consider all users. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle £t Pedestrian Mobility Plan 4-3 MPO Technical Advisory Committee The Technical Advisory Committee reviews and makes recommendations to the Policy Committee on all plans and programs to be adopted, conducts special studies at the request of the Policy Committee, and generally provides expert transportation advice to the Policy Committee. As mentioned previously, the Technical Advisory Committee would continue to be the formal venue through which pedestrian and bicycle project priorities are addressed within the MPO. ACTInN ?: Ensure that the non -motorized ,transportation and recreation facilities identified in this Plan (and ether local plans) are constructs during development pr-;ec.ts.4 County, City, and Town staff should require future developers to construct the pedestrian, and bicycle facilities that are identified in this Plan as a part of their developments. Over time, this will help address the Winchester -Frederick regions current problem of disconnected sidewalks and bikeways. In addition, new development often creates new opportunities for providing non -motorized transportation and recreation facilities. Therefore, developers should also be required to include other public pedestrian and bicycle facilities to provide both internal and external connectivity. ACTION $; Incorporate new pedestrian and bicycle facility design standards into relevant ordinances. Require that veloper-,provided pedestrian and bicycle accommodations meelift new dq&n star rds. Town, City, and County ordinances should be amended to include more specific standards for the design of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The standards should include requirements for appropriate facility dimensions, surface, cross - slope, location, etc. Developers that have worked in other Virginia localities are accustomed to regulations governing the bicycle and pedestrian facilities within their developments. Appendix A of this Plan provides Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Guidelines that can be incorporated into the ordinances. Generally, bicycles and pedestrians should be considered during the revision of all local plans and ordinances. Local plans and ordinances, including the Comprehensive Plans, Zoning Ordinances, and Subdivision Ordinances, have been examined with regard to policies that encourage pedestrian and bicycle Win -Fred MPO Bicycle 8 Pedestrian Mobility Plan access. Appendix B provides recommendations for how these plans and ordinances could be strengthened. ACTION 9 Develop a ma i„tenance and management progran- that ensures that facilities are maintained in goad repair, hath through routine seasonal maintenance and spot repairs. Since the pedestrian and bicycle facilities proposed in this Plan will be owned by various jurisdictions and entities, ensuring good maintenance will require coordination with a variety of parties. This includes VDOT, the City of Winchester, Frederick County, developers and property managers, Home Owners Associations (HOAs), volunteer groups, and other organizations. VDOT will maintain (e.g., replace and repair) "sidewalks, shared use paths, and bicycle paths built within department right-of-way, built to department standards, and accepted for maintenance" (as per VDOT Policy for Integrating Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations, effective March 18, 2004). This does not include snow and ice removal on sidewalks and shared -use paths and does not preclude previous maintenance agreements. Maintenance Schedule A first step in developing a maintenance program is to identify what tasks need L" be undertaken and who is responsible for these tasks. Responsibility is largely determined by facility ownership. Tasks are largely divided between on -street bikeway maintenance tasks, "off-street" sidewalk tasks, and multi -use trail maintenance tasks. Recommended maintenance practices include: Sweeping trails, bicycle lanes and paved shoulders regularly to remove debris; Repairing trail and roadway surfaces and Downtown Winchester, VA Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan 4-5 sidewalks to ensure a continuous facility and smooth surface that is free of cracks, potholes, bumps and other physical problems; • Repair of utility cuts to prevent rough surfaces for cyclists and sidewalk interruptions for pedestrians; • Cutting back vegetation such as shrubbery, tree limbs and intrusive tree roots to prevent encroachment; • Maintenance of pedestrian and bicycle signs, striping, and markings, especially replacement of signs that are damaged by vehicle crashes and other incidents; • Maintenance of drainage facilities including catch basins and drainage grates; • Snow removal; and • Signal maintenance. Maintenance Website and Hotline Once a regular schedule for pedestrian and bicycle facility maintenance is established, a website and phone hotline should be established to allow residents to report maintenance problems and request spot repairs. City and County should update their websites to include a "Pedestrian and Bicycle Facility Maintenance Action Request Form" and should establish a Pedestrian and Bicycle Maintenance Hotline to give citizens an easy means of reporting maintenance concerns on local trails and bikeways. The City and County should then forward maintenance concerns to the appropriate jurisdiction as appropriate. Maintenance Manager In the future, as there is need, the County should identify a lead staff person as a Maintenance Manager to organize and keep track of both regular and remedial inspection and maintenance of the pedestrian and bicycle network. This staff person would be responsible for coordinating with VDOT, County maintenance crews, and volunteer groups for tasks that they can assist with. The maintenance manager would be responsible for addressing maintenance issues that were raised by residents through the County or City website or Pedestrian and Bicycle Facility Maintenance Hotline. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan ACTION 10 ,provide opportunities for periodic regional training and professional development related to pedestrian and bicycle. planning and design Vis. The Win -Fred MPO should partner with VDOT to provide training to staff from Frederick County, the City of Winchester, the Town of Stephens City, as well as consultants, policy makers, Commissioners and others on pedestrian and bicycle issues. This training will help those who are responsible for development reviews and for coordinating with VDOT on transportation projects to understand the requirements for pedestrian and bicycle accommodation. Providing training on how to incorporate pedestrian and bicycle needs into the planning, design, construction, and maintenance phases of roadway and land development processes is supported by the VDOT Policy for Integrating Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations. Other professional development activities are also recommended for the Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Liaisons. Examples are attendance at Pedestrian and Bicycle related conferences and membership in the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP). APBP membership and conference attendance provide valuable technical advice on the planning and design of pedestrian and bicycle accommodations. ACT!OJWIl: ursue OWjtinnal grant source -5 and cupitai ful?C ing as necessary to supplement eveloper-fin edestriar and icycle fads. Although parts of the proposed network will be built through the development process, there are sizable gaps in already -developed areas of the pedestrian and bicycle network that will likely not be addressed unless funding is secured for these projects. It will be important to establish a mechanism by which to build these connections, otherwise the network will remain incomplete. There are a wide variety of grant sources available (see Implementation Chapter, Chapter 6). The County and City should also establish a yearly capital budget item for new pedestrian and bicycle facilities in order to provide matching funds for future successful grants, and to complete special projects that are not grant -funded. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle l* Pedestrian Mobility Plan 4-7 ACTION 12: Initiate a "Trend-setter" Policy in the Town, City, 4 t, - The Town, City, and County can serve as model employers by incorporating best practices for pedestrian and bicycle into their facilities and policies. This will help encourage others to follow their example. For instance, Town, City, and County buildings would provide bicycle racks that meet the guidelines provided in Appendix A of this Plan. ACTiviv i3: Complete an ADA Transition Plan for the Public Richt of Way Am.. The Town, City, and County should complete an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) transition plan for the elements of the public right of way. A transition plan creates a methodology for identifying, prioritizing, and removing barriers to ADA accessibility. For example, an ADA transition plan for the Public Right of Way might inventory locations of missing curb ramps and prioritize ramp installation projects on a yearly basis. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan [Chapter 5: Pry Recomrr� dationsAL In addition to the facility recommendations presented in Chapter 3 and the policy recommendations in Chapter 4, a complete approach to improving conditions for pedestrians and bicycles includes recommendations for new education, enforcement, and encouragement programs. Pedestrians and bicyclists of all skill levels should be educated on how to use new pedestrian and bicycle facilities safely. Drivers should also be educated to treat pedestrians and bicyclists as legitimate users of the road and to operate safely around these non - motorized modes. Unsafe behavior by motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists should be targeted through law enforcement. At the same time, promotional efforts, such as Walk and Bike to School Day and developing a public walking and bicycling map can help advertise walking and bicycling fun, healthy forms of recreation and transportation in the Winchester -Frederick area. This section presents a number of recommendations that will promote and increase the safety of walking and bicycling. ACTION 14:ducate focal residents about pedestrian and bicycl AL Unifij and Strengthen Existing Edtication Programs Annual or biannual coordination meetings should be held in order to plan and coordinate the various local events that relate to walking and bicycling, such as Valley Health's Community Wellness Festival and the Winchester Green Circle Fall Fitness Fair (which includes a 5K run, a one mile kids run, a bike safety rodeo, helmet fittings, give -a -ways, and interpretive walks in the Abrams Creek Wetlands Preserve). Linking these programs under a broader umbrella would make each program more effective. The meetings would serve to allow the groups to coordinate on event dates and themes and would allow the groups to combine resources. Current partners for the Fall Fitness Fair include the Opequon Watershed, Inc., the Winchester Wheel -nen, Shenendoah Valley Runners, Winchester Parks and Recreation, and the Winchester Medical Center. Additional groups could be invited to the meetings, such as the Red Cross and the police. Bicycling and Walking Rodeos Bicycle rodeos have been held in the past as part of the Green Circle Fall Fitness Fair and they should continue to be held several times a year. The City and County Parks and Recreation Departments should work with the Frederick Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan 5-1 County Sheriff's Office, the Winchester Police Department, the Red Cross, Valley Health, the Winchester Green Circle, The Winchester Wheelmen, and other local organizations to organize walking and bicycling rodeos. These rodeos provide an opportunity for local residents to be taught safe bicycling and walking skills and give children hands-on experience to improve their skills. The rodeo can be set up with mock streets, intersections, and houses/ stores for the walking course and cones, stop signs and play vehicles for the bicycle course. These rodeos should continue to be coordinated with other events such as the Green Circle Fall Fitness Fair, the Community Wellness Festival, running or bicycling races, and community bicycle rides. Safety City The Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Liaisons could apply for grant funding to install and run a permanent "Safety City" program. Safety City is a miniature city of streets, signs, and traffic signals where children can be taught safe walking and bicycling skills. Safety City is effective because it is a fun and memorable way for children to learn. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Education Curriculum in Schools The Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Liaisons should work with the Winchester and Frederick Public Schools to implement a pedestrian and bicycle safety education curriculum in elementary and middle schools throughout the area. Educational programs offered by other entities (for example, Parks and Recreation departments and Valley Health) should also be modified to add pedestrian and bicycle safety material. There are a number of existing sources for funding and assistance in integrating pedestrian and bicycle safety education into schools such as the "Bike Smart, Virginia" program and the Department of Motor Vehicle's Safety Grant. The "Bike Smart, Virginia!" initiative is a collaborative project with the Virginia Departments of Education, Health, Motor Vehicles, and Transportation and the non-profit organization, BikeWalk Virginia. The program aims to prevent bicycle -related injuries and fatalities in communities throughout Virginia. The initiative has several components to educate citizens about bicycle safety and to make safety equipment (such as bicycle helmets) available. The "Bike Smart, Virginia!" program offers training -the -trainer workshops around the state throughout the year. At these workshops, school health and PE teachers receive 2 days of training in methods of teaching bicycle safety and become "Bike Smart Basics" Certified. These trainers can then offer the "BikeSmart, Virginia!" six-week course as a part of the Health and Physical Education curriculum in elementary and middle schools. The course includes on -bike instruction (including: helmet safety, crash avoidance, bike handling Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan 5-L skills, rules of the road, etc.) and other safety tips. Additional information can be found at www.vahealfh.org/civp/bike/schools.asp. The City and County should work with the health and P.E. coordinator for the school systems to conduct additional research into the program and gain the involvement of local schools. Another viable source for pedestrian and bicycle safety education funding in Virginia is the Department of Motor Vehicle's Safety Grant. The Virginia DMV accepts grant applications each year in March that support Virginia's primary transportation safety goal of "reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries that result from traffic crashes," which includes improving pedestrian and bicycle safety. Guidelines for the current year's application can be found at http://www.dmv.state.va.us/webdoc/ general/safety/index.asp. Bicycle Safety Education for Adults The MPO should work with the Winchester Wheelmen to sponsor and promote adult cycling classes offered by the Virginia Bicycle Federation (VBF). The VBF offers several different types of courses, including Bicycling 101; Bicycle Maintenance and Repair; Bicycle Mechanics Workshop; Cycling with Confidence; and Bike Commuting, Bike Touring, and All-weather Cycling. Pedestrian and Bicycle Azaareness Campaign The MPO should investigate partnering with the metropolitan Washington Council of Governments on the Street Smart Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Public Awareness Campaign. This campaign uses a combination of media advertising, increased law enforcement, and educational materials to educate the public about the severity of pedestrian and bicycle safety issues and increases awareness of pedestrian and bicycle safety laws. The focus of the campaign is different each year, so the MPO should ensure that the message will be relevant to the Winchester -Frederick region. �CT°ION 9S: Conduct programs and events that encoura_qe walking and bicycling for fun, health and fitness, and for trans,porta tion. Community -wide encouragement and advocacy for bicycling and walking can be achieved through events, ongoing programs, and city or county sponsored initiatives. An important key to success is having a coordinated approach, a consistent message, and focused activities. Recommended encouragement activities are listed below. Media Outreach and Website Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan 5-3 The Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PBAC) should develop a media outreach plan to promote the Plan and to educate various constituencies throughout the region. This could include the development of a short fact sheet for promoting the plan or a website to encourage walking and bicycling in the Winchester -Frederick area. The website could include maps of on and off road walking and bicycling facilities and recommended touring routes that provide access to battlefields and other historic and cultural sites. Information could also be provided on pedestrian, bicycle, and driver safety tips. It could also include resources such as bicycle shops, running shoe stores, bicycle clubs, a calendar of events with information about organized rides and walking tours, and links to other websites with information about walking, bicycling, and health. Bicycling and Walking Maps The Win -Fred MPO, the Tourism Board, the Convention and Visitors Bureau and/or local agencies should partner with the Chamber of Commerce develop maps of walking and bicycling routes. The non-profit organization "Preservation of Historic Winchester" has already developed two different self -guided walking tours of Winchester. The group distributes brochures showing route maps and historical information. The group also provides guided walking tours. Additional walking and bicycle tour maps should be developed. These brochures would show the bicycle route or walking route in significant detail, including written directions (e.g., cue sheet). They would include information about battlefields and other historic sites, restaurants, shops, and other attractions along or close to the route. This type of brochure would be a great resource for residents or visitors looking to do a half-day or full-day of walking or bicycling in the Winchester -Frederick region. Community Events The Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Liaisons should work with the PBAC, the Winchester Wheelmen, the Winchester Green Circle and local volunteer groups to sponsor regular rides and events in the Winchester -Frederick area. Events could include community bike rides for children, family bicycle tours, walk-a- thons, community trail walks, interactive historic walking tours, and guide walking and cycling tours for elected officials. Employee Pedestrian and Bicycle Commute Incentives Programs The City of Winchester and Frederick County should encourage pedestrian and bicycle commuting by providing information about economic benefits, health benefits, and potential commuting routes to employers and employees. Public agencies within the MPO should be model employers by considering the following actions: Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan 5--+ • Offering monetary incentives for employees who walk, bicycle, or take transit to work • Providing showers and lockers for employees • Establishing "Guaranteed Ride Home" policies for people who do not bring a car to work but need a car in case of emergencies and inclement weather. • Encouraging employees who live in locations that are safe and convenient for walking and bicycling to work to participate in Walk- and Bike -to - Work Day. Walk and Bicycle to School Day The Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Liaisons should work with local schools to increase participation in International Walk and Bicycle to School Day (held each year in October). Walk to school days have been instituted at many of schools throughout Virginia over the past decade. They increase awareness of bicycling and walking as fun, healthy transportation choices that can reduce automobile congestion and pollution near schools. AC71vri 16: Start „�ounity-,based advocacy pra_grams. The Winchester Wheelmen and the Shenandoah Valley Runners can take the lead in developing a community -wide advocacy program. Through activities such as distributing pedestrian and bicycle safety information and developing route maps, the groups can help promote bicycling and walking. ,4CTION 17. Improve enforcement of laws concerning the safe interaction of pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists in shared environments. Crosswalk Enforcement Program Educate law enforcement officers about how to conduct a crosswalk enforcement program. The crosswalk enforcement program should focus on the following: • Motorist not yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks • Motorist speeding • Motorist running red lights • Unsafe pedestrian and bicycle behaviors Conduct a Safety Azoareness Week Law Enforcement officers should conduct a "Focus on Pedestrians" safety campaign. For example, the Laurel, MD Police Department holds an annual Pedestrian Safety Awareness Week in Laurel's downtown each year. Each day, Win -Fred MPO Bicycle 8 Pedestrian Mobility Plan 5-5 they focus on a different theme, culminating in a Safety Saturday event aimed at raising general awareness of pedestrian issues. Weeklong activities include speed trailers on Main Street, targeted enforcement (drivers who do not yield to pedestrians at crosswalks are ticketed), and safety awareness messages. Involve Lazn Enforcement in SRTS Activities Law enforcement officers with the City and County should actively participate in Safe Routes to School (SRTS) programs. Officers can help enforce traffic laws near schools, provide speed trailers, and evaluate local traffic concerns. WITION 18". Seek ffflidirlFto initiate a Sd77P ,Rou' chool The Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Liaisons should work with local schools to apply to VDOT for Federal grant funding to establish a SRTS pilot program at local schools. This grant source provides 100% (no match required) funding for engineering, education, enforcement and encouragement programs within 2 miles of schools that serve Kindergarten though the 8th grade. The program could be based on existing models used in Charlottesville and elsewhere to plan physical improvements (including sidewalk construction and pedestrian crossing improvements) and implement safety education programs at interested schools. Safe Routes to School programs are beneficial because they provide an impetus to improve walking conditions around schools, help to reduce the financial burden of student busing, provide another way for children to get daily exercise, and reduce traffic volumes during the morning peak hours. State and national estimates suggest that up to thirty percent of morning peak hour vehicle trips are school -bound trips or include dropping students at schools. The environmental, social, health, and safety (not to mention direct costs) of a system that delivers most students to school via school buses and personal automobiles is significant. While increasing the numbers of students that bicycle and walk to school can help mitigate the negative impacts of the current system, safe routes to school must be created before parents and school officials will feel comfortable encouraging students to use them. It is likely that SRTS programs will be most successful in schools located within the more urban and suburban areas of the Winchester -Frederick region. However, health -based SRTS programs have also been successfully implemented in rural areas of Virginia by using walking routes on the school campus. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle 8 Pedestrian Mobility Plan 5-o ACTION 19: Develop and Support local programs to build and maintain new pedestrian and bicycle facilities, such as an dopt-a-Trail" program. & :f, In order to support pedestrian and bicycle facilities, the City of Winchester and Frederick County could develop an "Adopt -a -Trail" program. Kiosks or signs would provide recognition to local businesses that sponsor the development and/or beautification of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. This program would supplement, rather than replace, existing maintenance programs. ACTION'20 Launch a corridors -to -campus idWative t walkin and balCtt s„ to henandoah finiversit Working with University officials, the PBAC should launch a corridors -to - campus initiative designed to identify, evaluate, and prioritize the most cost effective strategies to support walking and bicycling to and from Shenandoah University and between the campus locations. Connections between campus and downtown should be included. As an example, the University of Florida, in cooperation with the City of Gainesville, conducted such and effort in 1998 as part of an overall mobility management effort. The study entailed intercept questionnaires and ranking of routes from surrounding neighborhoods and apartment complexes that would benefit from specific bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The results were programmed into the MPO's Transportation Improvement Program as well as University capital investment and program budgets. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan 5-7 This chapter describes how the recommendations for improving the safety and convenience of pedestrian and bicycle transportation and recreation in the Winchester -Frederick area will be achieved over the next 25 years. The first section of this chapter breaks the phasing of recommendations into short-, medium-, and long term categories. The second part of the chapter discusses the groups and organizations that will be responsible for implementing recommended projects and programs. The final section describes potential funding sources for the Plan. The projects and programs recommended in this Plan will be implemented over the next 25 years. Phasing of the plan recommendations is discussed below. Specific short term recommendations are listed. These are the first actions that should be taken to begin implementing this Plan. Refer to Chapters 5 and 6 for more detailed descriptions of facilities and programs. Short Term Recommendations (0 to 5 years) Several key projects and programs should be implemented soon after this Plan is adopted (within 5 years). These short term projects will improve pedestrian and bicycle conditions in specific areas, creating early successes for which can be used to expand public support for future projects. These short term projects, programs, and policies will build momentum for the other recommendations of the plan. For short term recommendations, preliminary cost estimates were developed. The construction cost estimates were developed by identifying pay items and establishing rough per -mile quantities. Unit costs are based on 2007 dollars and were assigned based on historical cost data from the Virginia Department of Transportation and other sources. Because this is a planning level analysis, the costs shown only reflect cost associated with construction of the particular bicycle or pedestrian facility indicated, and do not reflect other costs that may be associated with a larger project. The costs are intended to be general and used for long-range planning purposes. A 25% contingency is applied to the cost for each item. The construction estimates do not include costs for planning, surveying, engineering design, right-of-way acquisition, mobilization, maintenance of traffic during construction, landscaping/ aesthetics, utility adjustments, lighting, drainage, stormwater management, erosion and sediment Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan 6-1 control, significant grading, bridges, retaining walls, significant changes in vehicular traffic patterns, or future maintenance. Construction costs will vary based on the ultimate project scope (i.e. combination with other projects) and economic conditions at the time of construction. Short Term Sidewalk Installation and Reconstruction (including ADA improvements) The table below identifies priorities for sidewalk improvement, reconstruction, and ADA improvements in the short term. Each location identified for short term sidewalk installation and rehabilitation will require further study to determine the scope of the necessary improvement. This should happen as part of the design process. The short term improvements identified represent an aggressive schedule for improvements. Improvements or portions of improvements that cannot be completed in the short term may become longer-term projects. Opportunities may arise to construct these improvements (or other improvements not listed below) as part of other roadway projects, presenting the opportunity to install new sidewalks, complete ADA improvements, or rehabilitate existing sidewalks at a greatly reduced cost. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan 6-2 Short Term Sidewalk Installation, Reconstruction, and ADA Improvements Street Name From ITo lImprovement Length JEst. Cost E. Cork Street City of Winchester Eastern New sidewalk or bike/walk path along Border Purcell Ave/Maple Dr City Park frontage on S. side 0.3 $54,000 Purcell Ave/Maple Dr S. Pleasant Valley Road ReconstructAviden sidewalks. Provide ADA improvements on both sides 0.1 $35,000 S. Pleasant Valley Road S. East Lane New sidewalk on N. side and ADA improvements on S. side 0.4 $74,000 Valley Avenue, Rt. 11 W. Gerrard Street Replace sections damaged by tree roots and provide ADA improvements for Bellview Ave walks on both sides 0.7 $7,000 Bellview Ave Reconstruct/provide ADA improvements for walks on both sides. New walk in Middle Road front of 2011 Valley Ave 0.8 $280,000 Middle Road City of Winchester Border Infill new sidewalks on both sides 1.4 $336,600 Middle Road Valley Ave Crestview Terrace Install new sidewalk on both sides 2A $840,000 Crestview Terrace Nazarene Drive New sidewalk on east side. Infill missing sidewalk segments on W. side. 0.4 $132,000 Nazarene Drive City of Winchester Border Install sidewalk on west side. Install missing segment of sidewalk or bike/walk path on E. side. 0.2 $38,000 Cedar Creek Grade Valley Avenue City of Winchester Border Provide ADA and maintenance improvements for sidewalks on both sides (reconstruct and widen portions near tree wells if necessary) 1.5 $15,000 Pleasant Valley Road Papermill Road Berryville Avenue Reconstruct/provide ADA improvements for existing sidewalks on both sides 2.9 $870,000 E. Jubal Early Drive S. Loudoun Street Millwood Avenue Provide ADA and maintenance improvements for existing walks on both sides 0.7 $7,000 Amherst Street N. Braddock Street Entrance to Museum of Shenandoah Valley Provide ADA and maintenance improvements for sidewalks on both sides reconstruct portions if necessary) 0.6 $30,000 Entrance to Museum of City of Winchester Border Install new sidewalk and/or bike/walk Shenandoah Valley path on S. side. Infill missing walk on N. side. 1.2 $312,000 S. Loudoun Street Juba] Early Drive Weems Lane Install new sidewalks on both sides as art of VDOT project 0.4 N/A Piccadilly St North Ave Reconstruct sidewalks on both sides 0.3 $105,000 Cork St Gerrard St Reconstruct sidewalks on both sides 0.4 $140,000 S. Kent St E. Cork St Millwood Avenue Reconstruct sidewalks on both sides 0.4 $140,000 Woodstock Lane N. East Lane N. Pleasant Valle Rd Infill new sidewalk on N. side 0.3 $54,000 National Ave N. East Lane N. Pleasant Valley Rd RernngrLcr sidewalks eh horh sides - - 0.4 $140,000 7 Install new sidewalks on both sides of Main Street, Rt. 11 Town of Stephens City Barley Drive Northern Border road 0.6 $210,000 Barley Drive Newtown Court Install new sidewalk on E. side of road 0.5 $90,000 Newtown Court Stephens Run Street Reconstruct/provide ADA improvements for existing sidewalks on both sides of the road 06 $196p00 Senseny Road Greenwood Road City of Winchester Line/E. instali new sidewalks on both sides of Cork Street road 1.6 $560,000 Front Royal Pike, Rt. 522 Millwood Pike, Rt. 50 Clarke County Line Install new sidewalks on both sides of road 7.0 $2,450,000 Valley Pike, Rt. 11 City of Winchester Southern Musket Drive Install new sidewalks on both sides of Border road 2.6 $910,000 Middle Road City of Winchester Western Powder Horn Lane Install new sidewalks on both sides of Border road 1.2 $420,000 Cedar Creek Grade City of Winchester Western Rt. 37 Install new sidewalks on both sides of Border road 0.9 $315,000 Greenwood Road Berryville Pike Edmonson Lane Install new sidewalks on both sides of road 2.1 $745,500 Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan 6-3 Short Term Bicycle Facilities The locations in the Table below have been identified for on -street bicycle facilities in the short term. Additional traffic analysis will be needed in some cases to determine the optimum design for specific locations. Some locations may be determined, after more detailed analysis, to require different or more costly improvements and therefore may become longer-term projects. Additional opportunities not shown on the map may also arise during repaving and other roadway projects, presenting the opportunity to reallocate roadway space for bicycles. Costs shown in this section may be greatly reduced by incorporating new bicycle facilities into roadway resurfacing and rehabilitation projects as an improvement incidental to the larger project. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan 6-4 Short Term Bicycle Facilities Street Name City of Winchester From To Improvement Length 1(miles) Est. Cost Valle Avenue, Rt. 11 S. Braddock Street City of Winchester Southern Border Bike Lanes 2.6 $79,200 S. Loudon Street Jubal Early Drive Weems Lane Bike Lanes 0.6 $18,900 Papermill Road Weems Lane S. Pleasant Valley Road Bike Lanes 0.6 $18,600 Papermill Road S. Pleasant Valley Road City of Winchester Eastern Border Bike Lanes 0.6 $18,600 Pleasant Valley Road Berryville Ave Papermill Road Bike Lanes 2.9 $85,500 Cork Street City of Winchester Eastern Border S. Washington Street Bike Lanes 1.3 $38,100 Amherst Street City of Winchester Western Border N. Washington Street Bike Lanes 1.6 $49,200 Cedar Creek Grade City of Winchester Western Border Valley Ave Bike Lanes 0.5 $15,900 Jubal Early Drive S. Pleasant Valley Road Meadow Branch Ave Bike Lanes 1.4 $42,600 Middle Road Valley Ave City of Wincehster Western Border Bike Lanes 11.0 1$30,000 Campus Boulevard Amherst Street Winchester Medical Gented!/Vellness Center I Bike Lanes 0.7 $20.400 Main Street, Rt. 11 Town of Stephens City Town of Stephens City Northern Border Southern Border Bike Lanes 1.8 $52,500 Fairfax Street Valley Pike, Rt. 11 Town of Stephens City Main Street Eastern border MUM .S City of Winchester Southern Town of Stephens City Border Northern Border Bike Lanes 0.1 $4,200 Bike Lanes 2.9$86,100 Town of Stephens City Valley Pike, Rt. 11 Southern Border MPO Southern Border Bike Lanes 1.5 $43,500 Clarke County Western Front Royal Pike (522) Millwood Pike, Rt. 50 Border Bike Lanes 7.1 $212,400 Proposed Trail north of Front Royal Pike (522) Clydesdale Drive Tasker Road Shared Use Path 1.5 $46,200 City of Winchester Eastern Clarke County Western Senseny Road Border Border Bike Lanes 3.7 $110,438 City of Winchester Western Cedar Creek Grade Border Rt. 37 Bike Lanes 1.0 $30,900 Proposed Trail near Proposed Trail to the east of Cedar Creek Grade Winchester Western Border Rt. 37 Shared Use Path 0.6 $197,200 City of Winchester Western Middle Road Border MPO Western Border Bike Lanes 1.8 1$52,500 Apple Valley Road Middle Road Valley Pike Bike Lanes 1.2 $36,898 Greenwood Road Berryville Pike, Rt. 7 Sulphur Spring Road Bike Lanes 3.0 $89,880 City of Winchester Western Northwestern Pike, Rt. 50 Border Round Hill Road Shared Use Path 0.7 $238,000 Northwestern Pike, Rt. 50 Round Hill Road MPO Western Border Bike Lanes 3.9 $117,000 City of Winchester Northern Frederick Pike (Route 522) Border Indian Hollow Road Shared Use Path 2.1 $720,800 Frederick Pike (Route 522) Indian Hollow Road MPO Western Border Bike Lanes 1.7 $49,500 Valley Mill Road Berryville Pike, Rt. 7 Berryville Pike, Rt. 7 Bike Lanes 3.0 $91,320 Proposed Trail near the Rt. 37 Valley Mill Road Greenwood Road extension Shared Use Path 1.9 $646,000 Airport Road Front Royal Pike, Rt. 522 Millwood Pike, Rt. 50 Bike Lanes 3.8 $113,100 Victory Road Millwood Pike Airport Road Bike Lanes 0.8 $22,500 Independence Road Victory Road Millwood Pike, Rt. 50 Bike Lanes 0.5 $15,472 Tasker Road Route 37 Front Royal Pike, Rt. 522 Bike Lanes 4.6 $136,875 Aylor Road Tasker Road Fairfax Pike Share Use Path 2.1 $709,920 Town of Stephens City Clarke County Western Fairfax Pike Eastern Border Border Bike Lanes 4.5 $136,170 Sherando Lane Sherando Park Double Church Road Bike Lanes 10.7 $22,287 Apple Pie Ridge Road Frederick Pike, Rt. 522 Hiatt Road Bike Lanes 13.8 1$114.321 City of Winchester Papermill Papermill Road Border Front Royal Pike, Rt. 522 Bike Lanes 1.3 $40,200 Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan 6-5 Short Term Shared -Use Paths The Winchester Green Circle Trail is currently under development. This is a high-priority project and as much of the trail as possible should be completed in the next five years. In the short term, most of the proposed shared use paths shown on the Proposed Bicycle & Pedestrian Network Map should be constructed as part of the development process. Local governments should also begin securing capital budget items for future use as matches for Transportation Enhancement grants. In the medium term, missing trail segments should be identified and this funding can be used to pursue the development of these missing links and new trail construction projects, such as the Rt. 37 Loop Trail. Short Term Roadway Crossing Improvements (Including ADA Improvements) The locations identified below should be prioritized for roadway crossing improvements. Roadway crossing improvements include ADA curb ramps, pedestrian countdown signals, raised medians, and other improvements (as recommended in Appendix A of this plan) to improve the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the roadway. City of Winchester: • N. Pleasant Valley Road and Berryville Avenue/National Avenue • N. Pleasant Valley Road and Woodstock Lane • S. Pleasant Valley Road and E Cork Street • Berryville Avenue near Elm Street/Fort Collier Road • E. Cork Street and N. Purcell Ave • S. Pleasant Valley Road and Lowry Drive/ Hollingsworth Drive • S. Pleasant Valley Road and Millwood Avenue • S. Pleasant Valley Road and E. Jubal Early Drive • Apple Blossom Drive and E. Jubal Early Drive • Jubal Early Drive and S. Loudoun Street • W. Jubal Early Drive and Valley Avenue • Millwood Avenue at Shenandoah University (Frontage Road) • Featherbed Lane and S. Loudoun Street • W. Piccadilly Street and N. Braddock Street • Amherst Street and W. Boscawen Street • Amherst Street and Whittier Avenue Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan 6-6 • Amherst Street and Meadow Branch Avenue Frederick Coicnhj (Within the WinFred MPO): • Berryville Pike at Eastern border of Frederick County • Berryville Pike and Interstate 81 • Papermill Road at Interstate 81 • Millwood Pike and Inverlee Way • Northwestern Pike, Rt. 50 near Rt. 37 • Rt. 37 and Frederick Pike (522) • Rt. 37 near Winchester Medical Center • Apple Pie Ridge Road and Frederick Pike • Middle Road and Rt. 37 • Cedar Creek Grade and Rt. 37 Short Term Policies The policies identified below are meant to serve as the first step to ensuring that local design guidelines, ordinances, regulations, and other policies are supportive of including facilities for pedestrians and bicycles. • Development Review: The Town, City, County, and VDOT should continue to ensure that transportation and recreation facilities accommodate pedestrians and bicycles during development projects and roadway construction and upgrades. • Pedestrian And Bicycle Liaisons: The City and County should each designate one existing staff person as Pedestrian and Bicycle Liaison. • Pedestrian And Bicycle Advisory Committee: A new ad hoc Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee should be formed to assist the Pedestrian and Bicycle Program liaisons. • Revise Ordinances: Frederick County, City of Winchester, and Town of Stephens City should revise their comprehensive plans, subdivision ordinances, and zoning ordinances to ensure better accommodations for pedestrians and bicycles. Developer -provided pedestrian and bicycle accommodations should meet the new design standards. • Develop A Maintenance Program: The City and County should develop a schedule for maintaining pedestrian and bicycle facilities. • Provide Training And Professional Development: Conduct regional pedestrian and bicycle training periodically, and encourage staff to attend conferences with educational opportunities on pedestrian and bicycle facility planning and design, and encourage the Pedestrian and Bicycle Liaisons to join the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP). Win -Fred MPO Bicycle & Pedestrian Mobility Plan 6-7 Pursue Additional Funding: Pursue additional grant sources and capital funding as necessary to supplement developer -financed pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Short Term Programs (Education, Encouragement, Enforcement) The education, encouragement, and enforcement strategies identified below are recommended to be implemented within the next five years. These programs are intended to promote and increase the safety of walking and bicycling locally. • Seek Funding To Initiate A Safe Routes To School Program: The Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Liaisons should work with local schools to apply to VDOT for Federal grant funding to establish a SRTS pilot program at local schools. • Unifij And Strengthen Existing Education Programs: Groups that are already organizing education/ encouragement events such as the Winchester Green Circle Fall Fitness Fair and Valley Health's Community Wellness Festival should coordinate on event dates and themes to reinforce new messages each year. • Walk And Bicycle To School Day: The Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Liaisons should work with local schools to increase participation in International Walk and Bicycle to School Day (held each year in October). • Bicycle And Walking Rodeos: Existing bicycle and walking rodeos should continue and more should be conducted each year. • Pedestrian And Bicycle Safety Education In Schools: The Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Liaisons should work with the schools to incorporate bicycle and pedestrian safety education in elementary and middle schools throughout the area. Grant funding may be needed to support this activity. • Bicycle Safety Education For Adults: The MPO should work with the Winchester Wheelmen to sponsor and promote adult cycling classes offered by the Virginia Bicycling Federation. • Pedestrian And Bicycle Awareness Campaign: The MPO should investigate partnering with the metropolitan Washington Council of Governments on the Street Smart Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Public Awareness Campaign. • Safety Awareness Week: Law Enforcement officers should conduct a "Focus on Pedestrians" safety campaign. • Corridors -To -Campus Initiative: Working with University officials, the PBAC should support a corridors -to -campus initiative designed to identify, and implement strategies to support walking and bicycling to and from Shenandoah University and between the campus locations. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan 6-8 Medium Term Recommendations (0 to 10 years) There are a number of recommended projects and programs that are very important for improving pedestrian and bicycle conditions in the Winchester - Frederick region, but are likely to take longer to implement than the short term initiatives. These projects and programs are classified as medium term recommendations. Though these recommendations are designed for a 10 -year timeframe, the Town, City, and County should take advantage of opportunities that arise to implement the projects and programs sooner. Medium Term Sidewalk Installation and Reconstruction (Including ADA Improvements) The locations in the Table below have been identified for sidewalk installation, reconstruction, and ADA improvements in the medium term. (Refer to the maps in Chapter 5 for project limits) City of Winchester: • Berryville Avenue (S. Pleasant Valley Road to City of Winchester eastern border) • National Avenue (Pleasant Valley Road to N. East Lane) • N. East Lane (National Ave to E. Piccadilly Street) • Piccadilly Street (N. East Lane to Fairmont Ave) • Merriman Lane (City of Winchester western border to Meadow Branch Ave) • Millwood Avenue (Lowry Drive to City of Winchester eastern border) • Washington Street (W. Fairfax Lane to Handley Boulevard) • Fairmont Avenue (W Piccadilly Street to City of Winchester north border) • N. Loudoun Street (N. Cameron Street to City of Winchester north border) • Papermill Road (S. Loudoun Street to S. Pleasant Valley Road) Tozm of Stephens City: • Fairfax Street (Main Street to Town of Stephens City eastern border) Frederick County (znithin the WinFred MPO): • Frederick Pike, Rt. 522 (Fairmont Ave to Long Green Lane) • Berryville Pike (City of Winchester eastern border to Greenwood Road) • Merrimans Lane (Orchard Lane to City of Winchester western border) • Millwood Pike (City of Winchester eastern border to Arbor Court) • Warrior Drive (Fairfax Pike to Tasker Road) • Fairfax Pike (Town of Stephens City western border to Line Drive) Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan 6-9 ® Tasker Road (Rutherford Lane to White Oak Road) • Aylor Road (Tasker Road to Village Lane) • Northwestern Pike, Rt. 50 (western border of City or Winchester to Spinning Wheel Lane) • Martinsburg Pike (City of Winchester north border to Park Center Drive) Medium Term Bicycle Facilities The locations in the Table below have been identified for on -street bicycle facilities in the medium term. (Refer to the maps in Chapter 5 for project limits) City of Winchester: • Millwood Avenue • Berryville Avenue, Rt. 7 • Merriman Lane • Loudoun Street (portions not completed during the short term) • Braddock Street • Washington Street • Handley Boulevard • Fox Drive Frederick County (zoitliin the WinFred MPO): • Rt. 37 Trail (along existing and proposed bypass) • Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) • Millwood Pike • Berryville Pike, Rt. 7 • Merriman Lane • Sulphur Spring Road • Fox Drive • Echo Lane • Glentawber Road • Old Charles Town Road • Milburn Road • Jordan Springs Road/ Stephenson Road • Woods Mill Road • Double Church Road • Brandy Lane • Shady Elm Road • Redbud Road • Indian Hollow Road • Welltown Road • Hiatt Road Win -Fred MPO Bicycle >:t Pedestrian Mobility Plan 6-10 • Rest Church Road • Hopewell Road • Brucetown Road • Ivory Drive • Macedonia Church Road • White Oak Road • Hudson Hollow Road • Forest Lake Drive • Town Run Lane Medium Term Shared -use Paths As mentioned previously, in the short term, most of the proposed shared use paths shown on the Proposed Bicycle & Pedestrian Network Map should be constructed as part of the development process. In the medium term, missing trail segments should be identified and developed. New trail construction projects should also be developed in the medium term, such as the Rt. 37 Loop Trail. The cost for filling gaps in shared -use paths is expected to be approximately $340,000 per mile. Medium Term Roadway Crossing Improvements The locations identified below should be prioritized for roadway crossing improvements in the medium term. Roadway crossing improvements include ADA curb ramps, pedestrian countdown signals, raised medians, and other improvements (as recommended in Appendix A of this plan) to improve the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the roadway. (Refer to the maps in Chapter 5 for project limits) Frederick County (within the WinFred MPO): • Interstate 81 crossing at proposed trail to the south of Rt. 37 • Interstate 81 crossing at proposed trail to the south of Martinsburg Pike • Interstate 81 crossing at proposed trail to the north of Papermill Road • Interstate 81 crossing at proposed trail to the south of Papermill Road • Interstate 81 crossing at proposed trail to the north of Stephens City • Rt. 37 crossing at proposed trail coming from Abrams Creek Wetlands Preserve • Rt. 37 crossing at proposed trail near Martinsburg Pike • Proposed crossing of the Rt. 37 trail with Berryville Pike Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan 6-11 Medium Term Policies and Planning The policies identified below are meant to serve as the second step to ensuring that local design guidelines, ordinances, regulations, and other policies are supportive of including facilities for pedestrians and bicycles. • Revise The Pedestrian & Bicycle Mobility Plan: The Pedestrian & Bicycle Mobility Plan should be updated once every 10 years to respond to changing local conditions. • Maintenance Website And Hotline: Once a regular schedule for pedestrian and bicycle facility maintenance is established, a website and phone hotline should be established to allow residents to report maintenance problems and request spot repairs. • Maintenance Manager: As need arises, the County should identify a lead staff person as a Maintenance Manager to organize and keep track of both regular and remedial inspection and maintenance of the pedestrian and bicycle network. • Trend -Setter Policy: The Town, City, and County can serve as trend-setters by becoming early implementers of some of the recommendations in this plan, such as the provision of bicycle parking racks near their facilities, and offering incentives to people who walk or bike to work. • ADA Transition Plan: The Town, City, and County should complete an Americans Disabilities Act (ADA_ plan for the elements of the public right of way. Medium Term Programs (Education, Encouragement, Enforcement) The education, encouragement, and enforcement strategies identified below are recommended to be implemented in the medium term. These programs are intended to promote and increase the safety of walking and bicycling locally. Safety City: The Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Liaisons could apply for grant funding to install and run a permanent "Safety City" program in order to provide pedestrian and bicycle education to children. Media Outreach And Website: The Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PBAC) should develop a media outreach plan to promote bicycling and walking and to educate various constituencies throughout the region. Employee Pedestrian And Bicycle Commute Incentives Program: The City of Winchester and Frederick County should encourage pedestrian and bicycle commuting by providing information about economic benefits, health benefits, and potential commuting routes to employers and employees. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan 6-12 • Initiate An Adopt -A -Trail Program: In order to support pedestrian and bicycle facilities, the City of Winchester and Frederick County should implement an "Adopt -a -Trail" program. • Bicycle And Walking Maps: The Win -Fred MPO, the Tourism Board, the Convention and Visitors Bureau and/or local agencies should partner with the Chamber of Commerce develop maps of walking and bicycling routes. Existing maps should be updated periodically, and new maps should be developed. • Community Events: The Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Liaisons should work with the PBAC, the Winchester Wheelmen, the Winchester Green Circle and local volunteer groups to sponsor regular rides and events in the Winchester -Frederick area. • Community Advocacy Programs: The Winchester Wheelmen and the Shenandoah Valley Runners can take the lead in developing a community -wide advocacy program to raise awareness of bicycle and pedestrian issues. • Crosszvalk Enforcement Programs: Educate law enforcement officers about how to conduct a crosswalk enforcement program. • Involve Lau? Enforcement In SRTS Activities: Law enforcement officers with the City and County should actively participate in Safe Routes to School (SRTS) programs. Long Term Recommendations (0 to 25 years) Long term recommendations include filling additional sidewalk gaps, adding additional on -street bicycle facilities, and constructing much of the off-street trail system that is shown on the maps in Chapter 5. While these recommendations may be included in the long term category, there may be opportunities for implementing them sooner. For example, pedestrian and bicycle facilities could be added as a part of a new roadway project added to the Transportation Improvement Program or a new pedestrian and bicycle program could be provided by applying to a new grant funding source. The Town, City, and County should take advantage of these opportunities for implementation. Programs that began in the first 10 years of implementation should grow in the long term. Refinements should be made based on lessons learned during the first 10 years. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle >s Pedestrian Mobility Plan 6-13 Implementation Schedule Below is an implementation schedule that identifies the organizations and agencies responsible for executing the recommendations of the plan during its 25 -year implementation timeframe. Implementation Schedule for the Recommendations in this Plan PB = Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee BS = Board of Supervisors BU = Local Businesses CI = city CO = County CV= Community Volunteer Groups HE= Local Health Organizations MPO = Win -Fred MPO PC = Planning Commission PW = County and Municipal Public Works Departments PD = County and City Police Departments S = Local School Districts SU = Shenendoah University T = Town TR = Local Tourisn Organizations VDOT = Virginia Department of Transportation Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure Projects Responsibility Implementation Schedule Recommendations Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Years 6-10 Years 11-25 Short -Term Projects CI, CO, T, VDOT I Medium -Term Projects Cl, CO, T, VDOT Long -Tenn Projects ICI, CO, T, VDOT Pedestrian and Bicycle Policies Responsibility Implementation Schedule Recommendations Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Years 6-10 Years 11-25 Development Review Cl, CO, T, VDOT Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Liaisons CI, CO Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee CI, CO ! Revise Ordinances CI, CO, PC Develop a Maintenance Program Cl, CO, VDOT Maintenance Website and Hotline CI, CO Designate a Maintenance Manager CO Provide Training and Professional Development MPO, woT, T, C1, CO Pursue Additional Funding T, CI, CO Trend -Setter Policy T, Cl, CO ADA Transition Plan T, CI, CO Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan 6-14 ,a oicyae —grams Recommendations KesponsibUity Year 1 Implementation Schedule Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Years 6-10 Years11-25 Seek Funding to Initiate a Safe Routes to School Program CI, CO, SI -011 Unify and Strenghen Existing Education Programs CV, HEWalk and Bicycle to School Day CI, CO, SBicycle and Walking Rodeos CI, CO, CV, HESafety CityCI, and Bi cle Safe Education in Schools LY COPedestrian CI CO ScY Bicycle Safety Eduction for Adults MPO, CVPedestrian and Bicycle Awareness Campaign MPO 4 1 Media Outreach and Website Bicycling and Walking Maps JPB TR - Community Events Cl, CO, CV, HE ' Employee Pedestrian and Bicycle Commute Incentives Program Cl, CO - - Community Advocacy Programs CV, HE Crosswalk Enfocement Program PD Safety Awareness Week PD e Involve Law Enforcement in SRTS Activities PD --- --- -_ --.t — — Start an Adopt -a -Trail Program CI, CO Corridors -to -Campus Initiative PB, PB = Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee BS = Board of Supervisors BU - Local Businesses Cl = City CO = County CV= Community Volunteer Groups HE= Local Health Organizations MPO = Win -Fred MPO PC = Planning Commission PW = County and Municipal Public Works Departments PD = County and City Police Departments S = Local School Districts SU = Shenendoah University T = Town TR = Local Tourisn Organizations VDOT = Virginia Department of Transportation Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan 6-15 dlrty Development StrateSies J ii us section describes several strategies that can be used to develop "• _ pedestrian and bicycle facilities recommended in this plan. It is essential for the County, City, and Town to implement the most cost-effective strategies in order to have the greatest impact with a finite amount of resources available for pedestrian and bicycle transportation and recreation. The first part of this section describes strategies for the development of pedestrian and on -street bicycle facilities (within the roadway right-of-way), and the second part describes strategies for off-street facility development. On -Street Facility Development Strategies The implementation of on -street pedestrian and bicycle facilities is the responsibility of the jurisdiction with control over the roadway. For state roadways, VDOT is the responsible entity. Local Planning Departments are responsible to work with VDOT to achieve the desired type of pedestrian and bicycle facilities on state roadways and to implement pedestrian and bicycle facilities on roadways under their own control. Roadway construction, re -construction, and maintenance projects offer excellent opportunities to incorporate facility improvements for non -motorized modes. It is much more cost-effective to provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities along with these projects than to initiate the improvements later as "retrofit" projects. The list below includes several types of roadway projects that can incorporate pedestrian and bicycle facilities. • New roadway construction • Roadway reconstruction • Restriping • Repaving • Replacing roadway bridges • Retrofitting roadways with new pedestrian and bicycle facilities • Signage and wayfinding projects Note that VDOT's programmed roadway improvements are a response to requests made by local jurisdictions. Therefore, it will be necessary for Frederick County, the City of Winchester, and the Town of Stephens City to continue to advance high priority pedestrian and bicycle projects by incorporating construction of new sidewalks, trails, and on -road bikeways and retrofit projects for pedestrian and bicycle facilities into regional lists of recommended roadway resurfacing and reconstruction projects. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan 6-16 Off -Street Facility Development Strategies Off-street facilities may be built in numerous ways, as described below, but primarily through the development process. Local governments are responsible to work toward filling gaps left after development is complete. Local governments may also choose to move forward with the development of additional trails that would be unlikely to occur as part of new development. Acquisition of land for multi -use trails is an important part of the off-street trail development process. Strategies for acquisition include: • Government regulation (incentive zoning, negotiated dedications, fee -in - lieu, buffer/ transition zones, overlay zones, subdivision exactions) • Obtaining support from local land trusts and other organizations • Providing educational material to property owners and developers about the benefits of multi -use trails and land donations/ easements • Obtaining easements (conservation, preservation, and public access easements) • Acquisition (donation/ tax incentives, fee simple purchase, easement purchase, purchase/lease back, bargain sale, purchase of development rights) • Eminent Domain (last resort) • Condemnation (last resort) An excellent resource for greenway development strategies is the Virginia Greenways and Trails Toolbox (2000) (http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/prr/docs/toolbox.pdo. This document includes information about greenway funding and development, planning, construction, and maintenance. Once land for the trail has been acquired, it will be necessary to secure funding in order to build it. r C°/.�iir� Funding is essential for implementing the recommendations of this Plan. New trails, on -road bikeways, and sidewalk projects, programs, and maintenance activities will need to be funded through various sources. Because of this, it will be important for the County, City, and Town to: • Establish specific funding sources to use as matching funds for federal, state, and other grants. These funds can be generated through donations from community groups, through the proffer system, and through the capital budget if necessary. • Partner with local governments and adjacent jurisdictions to develop funding sources Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan 6-17 • Look for additional funding opportunities from the public and private sectors This section describes available funding sources for pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Locally, funding priorities are developed for transportation projects by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), by the Frederick County Eastern Road Plan, by the Frederick County Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), and by the VDOT Six -Year Improvement Plan. The TIP is developed by members of the MPO and is regularly updated. The CIP is adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors and recommended by the Frederick County Planning Commission. Several other Frederick County plans list priorities for transportation improvements. These include the Frederick County Interstate Road Improvement Plan, Primary Road Improvement Plan, and Secondary Road Improvement Plan. The Frederick County Road Improvement Plans are developed by the County staff, the County Transportation Committee, the County Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors with assistance from VDOT. The VDOT Policy for Integrating Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations applies to all projects in the TIP, CIP, and County Plans, that involve VDOT right of way or use funds that flow through VDOT. This policy requires that these projects will be initiated with the presumption that they will accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists. However, it will still be important for the County, City, and Town to continue to make specific requests for pedestrian and bicycle facilities to be included in project descriptions within the TIP, CIP, County Plans. In addition, the County, City, and Town should monitor the planning, design, and construction of these projects to ensure that they accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists adequately. There are several other sources of VDOT funding that can be used to develop pedestrian and bicycle facilities (see table below). Most of the funding sources described below require a local match - up to 20% of the project cost, in some cases (with the exception of the Safe Routes to Schools Program, which is 100% Federal funding). Fortunately, in-kind donations of materials, labor, and land can be used as matching funds. Through a creative strategy of volunteer assistance and land donation, other Virginia counties have been able to generate matching funds with very little capital outlay. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan 6-18 VDOT Funding Sources Rural Transportation Planning Program Purpose This program provides funds to planning district commissions to carry out transportation planning for rural areas. Funding ■ Federal funds finance 80% of program activities and grants • A match of at least 20% from a planning district commission or locality is required Eligible a Pedestrian and bicycle planning, greenway planning projects Eligible Planning district commissions applicants Contact i VDOT Staunton District http://www.vdot.virginia.gov/about/staunton quick.asE) Highway Construction Program Purpose This program provides funding for the preliminary engineering, right of way - acquisition, and construction of highway projects. Funding No local match is needed for projects on primary and secondary system roads. A 2% local match is required for projects on urban system roads Eligible 0 Pedestrian and bicycle accommodations can be built as part of highway projects projects • Pedestrian and bicycle accommodations can be built as individual projects, separate from the construction of highways, either on highway l or independent right of way i Contact VDOT Staunton District http://www.vdot.virginia.gov/about/staunton_quick.asp Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program Purpose This program was developed to implement safety projects addressing pedestrian and bicycle crashes or the potential for such crashes, with evaluations based on risk and applications competing with like projects. Funding E Up to 90% of a project can be financed with federal funds • A project must have a minimum 10% match Eligible _ Construction of on -street facilities and shared use paths projects Development of treatments for intersections • Installation of signs and pavement markings Eligible ■ State and local agencies may apply to the program applicants Contact VDOT Mobility Management Division - HSIProgram@vdot.virginia.gov 804-786-9094 Win -Fred MPO Bicycle $ Pedestrian Mobility Plan 6-19 Transportation Enhancement Program Purpose 1 his program is an initiative to focus on enhancing the travel experience and fostering the quality of life in American communities Funding Up to 80% of a project can be financed with federal funds. A local match Funding of at least 20%, from other public or private sources, is required. • Local matches may be in-kind contributions including tangible property, professional services and volunteer labor ■ This is a reimbursable program Eligible Pedestrian and bicycle facilities such as sidewalks, bike lanes and shared projects use paths projects ■ Pedestrian and bicycle safety and educational activities such as Eligible classroom projects, safety handouts and directional signage for trails applicants • Preservation of abandoned railway corridors such as the development of Contact a rails -to -trails facility Eligible Any local government, state agency, group or individual may apply to the applicants program. All projects need to be formally endorsed by a local jurisdiction or public agency. Contact Transportation Enhancement Program Staff, VDOT Local Assistance Division, www.VirQiniaDOT.onR, "Programs" section Safe Routes to Schools Program - NEW PROGRAM Purpose This program provides funding for engineering, education, enforcement, encouragement, and evaluation activities that are aimed at making it safer and more appealing for children to walk and bicycle to school. Funding N 100% of the cost of the program can be financed with Federal funds ■ No match is required. ■ This is a reimbursable program Eligible n Engineering projects such as traffic calming, sidewalk installation, projects intersection improvements, warning signage and crosswalks markings, among others ■ Education programs such as pedestrian and bicycle safety classes, bike rodeos, and motorist education programs ■ Encouragement programs such as Walking School Buses, Bike Trains, Walk to School Day, and other incentives to encourage children and their parents to walk and bicycle to school. • Planning An Eligible government, state agency, g y local g g cy, or non-profit may apply to the applicants program. _ Contact Jakob Helmboldt, VDOT Safe Routes to School Coordinator, Jakob.helmboldt@vdot.virginia.Qov, 804-225-3269 Recreation Access Program Purpose This program provides bicycle access to public recreational facilities or historic sites operated by a state agency, a locality, or a local authority, either with an access road or on a separate bicycle facility. Funding ■ This program uses state funds only. ■ Up to $75,000 may be awarded for bicycle access to a facility operated by a state agency. ■ UP to $60,000 may be awarded for bicycle access to a facility operated by a locality or local authority, with a $15,000 match. Eligible Construction, reconstruction, maintenance, or improvement of bikeways. projects Eligible A governing body of a county, city or town may make an application to this applicants program Contact Hu h Adams, 804-786-2744, hugh.adams@vdot.virginia.gov Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan 6-20 VDOT Local Assistance Division National Scenic Byways Program Purpose This program supports projects to improve the quality and continuitv of the traveler's experience on highways designated as National Scenic Byways, All American Roads, or a state scenic byway. Funding • Up to 80% of a project can be financed with federal funds ■ A project must have a minimum 20% match ■ This is a reimbursable program Eligible Construction of a facility for pedestrian and bicyclists along a scenic projects byway ■ Safety improvements to reduce or eliminate the incidence or likelihood of crashes or conflicts with bicyclists and pedestrian Eligible Any local government, state agency, group or individual may apply to the applicants program. Contact Scenic Byways Program Staff VDOT Local Assistance Division 804-786-2264 h.chenaultCvdot.virginia.gov _ www.bywaysonline.org, "Grants" section Source: Information in the tables above was derived from a VDOT brochure entitled: VDOT Funding for Bicycling and Walking Accommodations. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle £t Pedestrian Mobility Plan 6-21 Appendix A: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Guidelines This chapter includes design guidance for pedestrian, bicycle, and greenway facilities. All non -motorized transportation and recreation facilities in the Winchester -Frederick region should be designed to meet State and Federal design guidance and standards, as defined by the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). If the national standards are revised in the future, the new national standards should be followed. The publications listed below should be consulted for in-depth information on the design of pedestrian and bicycle facilities: • Virginia Bicycle Facility Resource Guide. Virginia Department of Transportation, 2002. • VDOT Policy for Integrating Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations, March 18, 2004. • Guide to the Development of Bicycle Facilities. Updated in 1999 by the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Available from AASHTO. www.aashto.org/bookstore/abs.html • Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, 2004, by the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Available from AASHTO. www.aashto.org/bookstore/abs.html • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Published by the U. S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, 2001 • Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines. U.S. Department of Justice, United States Access Board. Guidelines are available at http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/html/adaag.htm • Designing Sideznalks and Trails for Access: Part Tim - Best Practices Design Guide. Published by U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, 2001 • International Building Code. Published by International Code Council (ICC), 2006. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan q-1 Typical Roadway Cross Sections for Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodo ton Locally, there are a number of different typical roadway cross sections. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities should be incorporated into all of the typical sections. The City of Winchester groups roadways into Category I, Category 1I, and Category III Streets. Common VDOT typical sections, as used in Frederick County and the Town of Stephens City, are U2, U41), U61), and R41). The different roadway types will be described and illustrated below with the inclusion of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. City of Winchester Category II Street and VDOT U2 Roadway ROW Sidewalk Parking Travel Travel Parking Sidewalk Lane Lane Buffer Bike Bike Buffer Zgne Lane Lane Zane VDOT U2 Typical Section / City of Winchester Category 11 Street: Shown with 2 lanes with on -street parking, bike lanes buffer zones, and sidewalks The first two typical sections below represent both a City of Winchester Category II street, and a VDOT U2 roadway. The first section shows the typical section in a non-commercial area, the second is in a commercial area. In Winchester, a Category 11 street is defined as "a street or road that carries a present or anticipated traffic volume from 5,000 to 8,000 vehicles per day, a maximum grade of 9%, a design speed of up to 35 mph, a minimum street width of 36 feet and a minimum right of way width of 50 feet." A VDOT U2 section is an urban two-lane roadway with curb and gutter. Bike lanes, sidewalks, and buffer zones between the sidewalk and the street should be included on streets with these sections. Narrow travel lanes are recommended in order to discourage drivers from exceeding the speed limit, as a result, 11 feet travel lanes are recommended. In a commercial area, the same typical section would be used, but the sidewalks are widened to accommodate increased pedestrian traffic. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan -76'R ��—ip'—.�.J,_.3•....1_-3--1---`' 1 i,--1...-1r_..jj,._S•-,.�,.--Y—=--�-,I,-30'1 Sidewalk Parking Travel Travel Parking Sidewalk Lane Lane Buffer. Bike Bike Buffer Zone Lane Lane Zone VDOT U2 Typical Section / City of Winchester Category ll Street in a Commercial Area: 2 lanes shown with on -street parking, bike lanes buffer zones, and wider sidewalks City of Winchester Category III Street and VDOT U4D Roadway The City of Winchester Category III Street is defined as follows, "a street or road that carries a present or anticipated traffic volume greater than 8,000 vehicles per day; a maximum grade of 9%, a design speed up to 50 miles per hour, a minimum street width of 48 feet, and a minimum right of way width of 70 feet. Buffer Travel Two Way Travel Buffer Zone Lane Left Turn Lane Zone Sidewalk Lane Lane Bike Sidewalk Lane City of Winchester Category Ill Street: Shown with 2 lanes with two-way left turn lane, bike lanes, buffer zones, and sidewalks (widen sidewalks if in a commercial area) Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan A-3 On street parking shall not be allowed. Access shall be limited to intersections with public streets and curb cuts to private property that are no closer than 300 feet. When this type of street is used as the entrance to a subdivision of more than 25 lots, a landscaped median may be required." Two potential typical sections are shown for a Category III street. The first shows a two lane road with a center turn lane, bike lanes, a buffer zone, and sidewalks. Studies suggest that in many cases, streets with a two way left turn lane can accommodate as much vehicular traffic as a four lane roadway. r---36' RoadvraY l I 3Q RihidwaY 5idrwalk a Blke Travel Travel Bike Sidewalk w Shared.Uw Path fart: line Lane lane Shared -Use Path Buffer Travel Traver Buffer Zo Leas Median lane Zone VDOT U4D/City of Winchester Category 111 Street: 4 lane divided roadway shown with bicycle lanes, buffer zones, and sidewalks/shared use path. The second Class III section is a four lane roadway and also serves as an example of the VDOT U41) section, which is an urban 4 -lane roadway with curb and gutter. On wider roads with heavier traffic volumes, it is recommended that more space be dedicated to pedestrian and bicycle facilities, for example 6 feet bicycle lanes and 10 feet sidewalks and shared use paths on one or both sides of the roadway. Shared use paths that are adjacent to the roadway require careful design, particularly when they are placed only on one side of the roadway. In areas where there are frequent driveway and intersection crossings, bicycle riders may be less safe on a shared use path than they would be riding in the roadway. As a result, the Idaho Department of Transportation recommends against installing shared use paths when there are more than 8 driveway or intersection crossings per mile. On -street bicycle facilities are recommended even in locations where there are shared use paths adjacent to the roadway. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan A VDOT U6D Roadway The VDOT U61) typical section is an urban 6 -lane divided roadway with curb and gutter. The example shown below illustrates how bicycle lanes, buffer zones, and sidewalks may be accommodated on this typical section. Again, it is recommended that more space be dedicated to pedestrians and bicycles on wider, higher volume roadways, such as 6 feet bicycle lanes and 10 feet sidewalks and shared use paths on one or both sides of the road. See the previous paragraph for more details on shared use paths adjacent to the street. �2 Ausd a�i j si� � i Es+!tn Pra+F. x -an: Pray-: TrauN 5w!°e: Zax .ar.,^ A.r�e la.'+e ir- Po• 54s9•auv ner P+aur. fraw.. ga^ Shared-u(c PrtR l�r+e r•"'P 6.rrm l""" VDOT U6D: 6 lane divided roadway shown with bicycle lanes, buffer zone, and sidewalks/shared use path VDOT R4D Roadway [------3Z Roadwa 16" 12' t i2' -•--u--1 Paved. Striped Travel I � 2� ' Shoulder Lane Shoulder Shoulder Travel Paved. Stripes! Lane Shouidev Travel Lane Median Travel i arse VDOT R4D: 4 lane divided roadway shown with paved, striped shoulders 5wk-...:t 5"'• U-1 Ja i The VDOT R41) typical section is a rural 4 -lane divided roadway with standard shoulders and ditches. There should be a stripe separating the shoulder from the rightmost travel lane. In areas that are truly rural and without pedestrian demand, the shoulder is shared by pedestrians and bicyclists. In areas that are not rural, sidewalks may be added to this section on either side of the ditches. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle £t Pedestrian Mobility Plan A-5 Ori -Street BzcycWac:rttties - The on -street bicycle facilities recommended in this section are intended to improve bicycling conditions on roadways and provide a visible indication that bicycling is a mode of transportation that is supported in the Winchester - Frederick region. However, it should be noted that bicyclists are not limited to using roadways with designated bicycle facilities: bicyclists have the legal right under Virginia law to travel on all roadways other than limited access roadways. Bicyclists share the same responsibility as drivers to operate safely and respectfully in the roadway environment and obey all traffic laws. To understand the bicycle facilities recommended in this plan, it is important to understand how roadway and traffic characteristics affect bicyclists. Several research studies have identified factors that influence bicyclist safety and comfort when riding on roadwaysl,2,3,4. These factors include: • Effective width of the roadway, which includes the width of the outside lane and paved shoulder/bike lane space • Presence of a bike lane or paved shoulder • Motor vehicle traffic volumes on the roadway • Speed of the traffic on the roadway • Percent heavy vehicles on the roadway • On -street parking • Pavement surface condition In the late 1990s, groundbreaking research was performed to quantify the influence of each of these factors on the perceptions of bicyclists. One research study had bicyclists rate the characteristics of roadways in the fields; another had bicyclists rate roadway segments from video clips6. The former study resulted in the Bicycle Level of Service Model, and the latter resulted in the Bicycle 1 Landis, Bruce W., "The Bicycle Interaction Hazard Score: A Theoretical Model". Transportation Research Record 1438, TRB, Washington, DC, 1994. 2 Sorton, Alex. "Bicycle Stress Level as a Tool to Evaluate Urban and Suburban Bicycle Compatibility". Transportation Research Record 1438, TRB, Washington, DC, 1994. 3 Epperson, Bruce. "Evaluating Suitability of Roadways for Bicycle Use: Toward a Cycling Level - of -Service Standard". Transportation Research Record 1438, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. 1994. 4 Davis, Jeff. Bicycle Safehj Evaluation. Auburn University, 1987. 5 Landis, Bruce W., et al. "Real -Time Human Perceptions: Towards a Bicycle Level of Service". Transportation Research Record 1578, TRB, Washington, DC, 1996. 6 Harkey, D.L., et al. "Development of the Bicycle Compatibility Index: A Level of Service Concept". Final Report, Report No. FHWA-RD-98-072, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, August 1998. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan A Compatibility Index. All of the factors listed above were found to influence bicyclists' sense of comfort and safety in the roadway environment. Both studies identified lateral separation between bicyclists and motor vehicles as one of the most significant factors influencing bicyclist comfort levels. The studies found that bicyclists preferred having wider pavement space to ride on. Further, both studies found that most bicyclists prefer having a shoulder or bike lane stripe provided on roadway segments when compared to the same pavement width without a stripe. In addition, a third study found that motorists give bicyclists more lateral space when bike lanes are striped7. These studies provide the background behind the recommendations to provide bicycle lanes and paved shoulders as preferred bicycle facilities for roadways with higher traffic volumes in the Winchester -Frederick region. Shared Roadways Shared roadways are streets and roads where bicyclists can be served by sharing the travel lanes with motor vehicles. Usually, these are streets with low traffic volumes and/or low speeds, which do not need special bicycle accommodations in order to be bicycle - friendly. There are many low-volume local and rural roadways in the Winchester -Frederick area that are excellent for bicycling in their current condition and need no further improvement to be bicycle compatible. Bicyclist on a shared roadway 7 Hunter, William W., et al. "A Comparative Analysis of Bicycle Lanes Versus Wide Curb Lanes: Final Report". Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-RD-99-034, December 1999. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan A-7 Signed -Shared Roadways A signed -shared - - - - _ ----- _ roadway is shared °11-1 D1 -1c roadway which has s'A been designated by signing as a preferred , route for bicycle use. Bike route signs can p' be posted on key I routes between major destinations in thee"LakefrontD11-1c Winchester -Frederick region to indicate to Example of MUTCD signs for desiQnatinu bicycle routes bicyclists that particular advantages exist to using these routes compared with alternative routes. Bicycle route signs should only be posted on roadways where conditions are favorable. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan A Striped/Paved Shoulders Paved shoulder space improves the safety and comfort of bicyclists. There is no minimum width fvr paved shoulders, however a wi"Ut of at least 4 feet is preferred (see the chart below for recommended widths). While paved shoulders are generally acceptable for roadway sections without frequent intersections, on those where intersections are frequent, appropriate bike lane striping should be applied. As for pedestrians, wider shoulders increase the level of safety and comfort for pedestrians. See the description of striped/paved shoulders under pedestrian facilities for additional benefits. 12' 13' §h-We§houWer Width.. AADT (< 6% HV) - Travel Lane Bicycle Treatment 0-1,500 10'-13' Shared Lane 1,501-2,000 11' 4' Shoulder 2,001-3,000 11' 4' Shoulder 3,001-6,000 12' 4' Shoulder 6,001-13,500 12' 5' Shoulder > 13,501 12' 6' Shoulder Shoulder on roadway with no parking, < 55mph vvm-rieu mry oityue u reuexi IdII muuiuLy rtan A-9 Bicycle Lanes A bicycle lane is a portion of the roadway that has been designated by striping, signing, and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists. Bicycle lanes are always located on both sides of the road (except one way streets), and carry bicyclists in the same direction as adjacent motor vehicle traffic. Bicycle lanes should be at least 4 -feet wide on roadways with open shoulders and 5 -feet wide on roadways with curb and gutter. On curb and gutter roadways, the gutter pan may be included in the 5 -foot bicycle lane width, provided the pavement surface is flush with the gutter pan. While 5 -foot bicycle lanes are typical, 6 -foot bicycle lanes are commonly used on roadways with higher traffic speeds and volumes. Bicyclists retain the right to use the travel lanes on streets with bicycle lanes. fzf 10=17-74S�T�! -� V Bicycle lane on roadway with parking, < 30 mph fr�vonra�s c� V1411 f-101zf-70'12-��6� Bicycle lane on roadway with no parking, < 40 mph Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan A Shared Lane /markings Shared lane markings can be used on roadways where there is not enough space for bicycle lanes. Shared lane markings alert motorists to expect and accept bicyclists as users of the roadway and to encourage bicyclists to ride outside of the "door zone" of parked cars. These markings have the additional benefits of reducing wrong -way bicycling and increasing the distance between overtaking motorists and bicyclists. The shared lane marking should not be placed on roadways with a speed limit above 35 mph. The Shared Lane Marking should be placed immediately after an intersection and spaced at intervals not greater than 250 feet thereafter. "Share the Road" Signs 9 frr�-vaorcr��r T Shared lane marking on constrained roadway with parking and speed limit < 35 mph "Share the Road" signs can be posted on roads that bicyclists use regularly. These signs can increase awareness of bicyclists, especially in areas where bicyclists may not be expected or where many drivers are tourists. A new fluorescent yellow/green color has been is approved in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Deznices and can be used on these signs. Signs should be used judiciously — too many signs can cause visual clutter and lead to non-compliance. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle tx Pedestrian Mobility Plan A-11 Bicycle Racks and Bicycle Lockers ACCEPTABLE DESIGNS UNACCEPTABLE DESIGNS This type of rack can bend the wheel. ii This type of rack does not support the bicycle frame In at least 2 places. RACK ELEMENTS The rack must: - Support the bicycle frame in at least 2 places, allowing the frame and wheel to be locked using a U -lock or cable lock. - Prevent the wheel of the bicycle from tipping over. - Not damage the bicycle. - Be durable and securely anchored. - Allow front -in or back -in parking. Bicycle Rack Designs Dimensions vary by manufacturer and model. Bike parking can be provided in the form of bike racks or bike lockers. Secure bicycle parking located close to building entrances and transit entry points can make bicycling more attractive. It also reduces the risk of bicycle damage or theft. Bike rack design and site location are discussed in detail in the Bicycle Parking Guidelines, developed by the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (available on the resources page at www.apbp.org). Bike lockers Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan provide added protection from theft and weather. Bike parking is important at destinations such as town centers, historic sites, transit stations and park-and- ride lots. It is also important to provide bike parking near business entrances and at employment sites. Railroad Crossings At diagonal at -grade railroad crossings, the gap next to the rail (called the "flangeway") can trap the front wheel of a bicycle, thereby causing a bicyclist to crash. This problem is generally a concern in locations where the rails intersect with the roadway at an angle less than 45 degrees to the direction of travel. ,3.5-45m r I- gt yyclisls ~ } p8th 16 17 1,- i } _Optional striped r .:. r textured arta svtl sIna �1 ( VA radnis lada". mill � y Pali,; ° 1 - "sn 121-1-4�. y Recommended Design Treatment at Diagonal Railroad Crossings (Source: Oregon DOT) Skewed Railroad Crossing in Madison, Wisconsin In locations where this condition is present, the bicycle lane or shoulder should be designed so as to enable the bicyclist to approach the track at an angle closer to 90 degrees, but not less than 60 degrees, without having to swerve into motor vehicle travel lanes. The width of the dimensions of the widened area will be dependent upon the skew of the railroad tracks relative to the bicyclist crossing point. It is important that the bicyclist is given sufficient space on the approach and the departure of the crossing to safely transition back to the traveled way. An example of this widening treatment is shown in the Figures above. In locations where a retrofit may not be feasible or where the retrofit may not occur for a period of time, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) includes the Win -Fred MPO Bicycle 8 Pedestrian Mobility Plan W10-12 A-13 W10-12 warning sign which should be used to warn bicyclists skewed railroad crossings. A filled or rubberized rlangeway can also help to reduce, but not eliminate the risk of a trapped wheel. See above for an example of this sign. Bicycle Friendly Drainage Crates Storm grates pose a hazard for bicyclists when the openings are parallel to the bicyclists' direction of travel. Bicycle tires can get caught between the bars of these grates, and cause bicyclists to crash. Non -bicycle friendly drain grates should be replaced with one of the types shown in the figure below. ACCEPTABLE GRATE DESIGNS TYPE A& P TYPE B TYPE S TYPE L Acceptable Drainage Grate Designs Source: City of Baltimore Bicycle Facility Design Toolkit Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan I/GiiL' 1� fiGLlfiii��iLL �J I,1 -HH UJI TYPE A& P TYPE B TYPE S TYPE L Acceptable Drainage Grate Designs Source: City of Baltimore Bicycle Facility Design Toolkit Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan 1 .v{*' T ✓ q #� 1. i ., Recommended vee placement: dripline does - Min. B (1(Y not overlap trail Recommended) '.rMm. 3`i I Goss Slope I 2% Root Barrer 2' Shoulder Clearance 1 1 (Maximum S:ape 1:5) --- _r_ j _ `__ 10' Min. 12' Rec. Typical shared -use path cross-section Shared Use Paths Min_ 3' (8' Rec.) I Drainage Slope S (mum 3:1) 3 1 '�"�—Subbase Shared Use Paths trails (multi -use trails) serve a wide variety of users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and in-line skaters. Shared use paths should be designed with consideration given to the volumes, various speeds and space requirements of different user groups. According to the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, shared use paths should be designed with a minimum cross section of 10 feet with 2 foot shoulders. This will enable the trail to operate as a two way facility. In areas with high volumes of trail users, 12-14 foot widths are recommended. In extremely constrained conditions, or for neighborhood trail connectors, trail width can be reduced to 8, however this is generally only appropriate for short sections of trails, and according the to AAHSTO Guide, the following conditions should prevail: "(1) bicycle traffic is expected to be low, even on peak days or during peak hours, (2) pedestrian use of the facility is not expected to be more than occasional, (3) there will be good horizontal and vertical alignment providing safe and frequent passing opportunities, and (4) during normal maintenance activities the path will not be subjected to maintenance vehicle loading conditions that would cause pavement edge damage." Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan A-15 Trail users generally co -exist on shared use paths without requiring separate lanes for pedestrian versus bicycle traffic. For trails with extremely high volumes of pedestrians, however, it can be sometimes helpful to provide a center line stripe to minimize conflicts and improve the safety and comfort of the users. Soft surface hiking, mountain biking, and equestrian trails that are not constructed with a paved surface are generally regarded as recreational trails. Since these trails are not intended for transportation use, they may be considerably narrower, and are not required to follow the design guidelines described in this section. Table: Comparison of different trail surface types Surface Types Asphalt or concrete are the preferred surface types for shared use paths. In some circumstances it may be appropriate to construct the path with a soft surface. Soft surface trails are generally not recommended in areas prone to flooding or where steep grades would cause the erosion of the trail surface. The surface should be designed to withstand the loads transferred by the heaviest maintenance vehicle intended to travel along the pathway. The trail surface should be designed with appropriately compacted subgrade, and the correct sub- base and pavement thickness in order to accommodate maintenance and emergency vehicles that will access the trail. Due to the wide variation in soil types and drainage conditions, the pavement structure and subsurface drainage should be designed to the specific conditions of each trail project. Accessibility The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits public entities from designing new facilities or altering existing facilities, including sidewalks and trails, that are not accessible to people with disabilities. Shared use paths should comply with the guidelines set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). The design for accessibility should also be applied to all connections to the shared use path including parking lots, Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan Trail Surface Comparison Trail Surface Relative Cost Relative Durability Permeable ADA Use by Compliant Road Bikes (Narrow Tires) Use by Use by Use by Mt Bikes Walkers Runners (Wide Tires) Use by Skaters Wood/Mulch Low Poor Yes No 1poor Fair Good Fair Very Poor Crushed & Compacted Stone Low Fair Yes Possibly Fair Good Good Very Good Very Poor Porous Asphalt HighGood Yes Yes Good Good Very Good Good Good Asphalt Pavement High Good No Yes Good Good Very Good Good Very Good Concrete Pavement Very High Very Good No Yes Good Good Ivery Good lPoor Good Table: Comparison of different trail surface types Surface Types Asphalt or concrete are the preferred surface types for shared use paths. In some circumstances it may be appropriate to construct the path with a soft surface. Soft surface trails are generally not recommended in areas prone to flooding or where steep grades would cause the erosion of the trail surface. The surface should be designed to withstand the loads transferred by the heaviest maintenance vehicle intended to travel along the pathway. The trail surface should be designed with appropriately compacted subgrade, and the correct sub- base and pavement thickness in order to accommodate maintenance and emergency vehicles that will access the trail. Due to the wide variation in soil types and drainage conditions, the pavement structure and subsurface drainage should be designed to the specific conditions of each trail project. Accessibility The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits public entities from designing new facilities or altering existing facilities, including sidewalks and trails, that are not accessible to people with disabilities. Shared use paths should comply with the guidelines set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). The design for accessibility should also be applied to all connections to the shared use path including parking lots, Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan neighborhood connectors, adjoining roadways, and adjoining facilities (rest stops, buildings, restrooms, etc.) Cross slopes on shared use paths should not exceed 2%. Running grades should be kept to minimum to provide for maximum accessibility. Every effort should be made to ensure running grades are kept within ADA guidelines on shared use paths. In limited circumstances where achieving these grades would be prohibitively expensive or would denigrate a unique natural environment, exceptions can be made to running grade requirements. Making such an exception does eliminate the responsibility to meet ADA guidelines on all other aspects of trail design. The following steps should be taken to mitigate steeper grades in these situations: • Provide flat landings with benches to enable trail users to stop and rest if necessary • Provide hand rails on the sides of the trail • Widen the trail to allow more space for slower users • Provide an alternative accessible route and use signage to direct people with physical disabilities to the route Steep downgrades are not recommended at roadway intersection approaches. Every effort should be made to keep intersection approaches at or below a 5% slope in order to reduce the possibility of a bicyclist or other wheeled user losing control and crashing into the intersection. Shoulders Two -foot wide graded shoulders should be provided along the entire length of the path unless right of way is constrained. The shoulders should typically be of some soft material to serve walkers and runners who prefer soft surfaces. Liability The "Recreational Use Statute" is a Virginia law that offers liability protection for land owners that allow recreation uses, such as shared use paths, on their land. Landowners offering public use of their land are not required to keep their premises safe or to warn visitors of hazardous conditions, structures, or activities on their property. Landowners cannot, however, deliberately endanger people who enter for recreational purposes. Under the law, the landowner can be owner, tenant, lessee, occupant, or person in control of the premises. Both private and public land managers are defended. Those who enter privately owned lands for recreation are responsible for exercising due care in their use of the land. This liability protection is not valid of the landowner collects fees or rent for the use of the land. The exception can be if the land is leased to a government agency that then manages the property. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan A-17 Driveways and intersections create conflicts between bicyclists on sidepaths/sidewalks and motor vehicles Example of an intersection treatment on a sidepath Shared use paths Adjacent to Roadways/ Sidepaths/ Wide Sidewalks Shared use paths adjacent to roadways, also known as sidepaths or wide sidewalks, can provide a more comfortable place for novice bicyclists and other people who are not comfortable riding on the road with traffic. However, shared use paths adjacent to roadways are most appropriate in corridors with few driveways and intersections. This is because these locations present a safety problem due to conflicts between turning motorists and bicyclists. The photo to the left demonstrates such a conflict: the motorist in the driveway is looking to the left for breaks in traffic and does not see the bicyclist approaching from his right. It is recommended that shared use paths not be used adjacent to roadways when there are more than 8 driveway or intersection crossings per mile. Special signing and marking treatments are recommended to warn both motorists and bicyclists about driveways and intersections with sidepaths. An example of a pavement treatment to alert bicyclists of a roadway crossing is shown in the photo to the left. When a shared use path is used on only one side of the roadway, special consideration should also be given to intersection treatments to aid bicyclists into crossing to the other side of the road. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan A Greenway Signage, Trailheads and Other Trail Amenities There are several excellent sources for information on greenway signage, traitheads, and other trail amenities. For more information, refer to the following publications: Greenways: A Guide to Planning, Design and Development. Published by Island Press, 1993. Authors: Charles A. Flink and Robert Searns. www.greenways.com • Trnils for the Twenty -First Century. Published by Island Press, 2001. Authors: Charles A. Flink, Robert Searns, and Kristine 01ka. www.greenways.com Pedest r Fecifides along the Roadway Sidewalks Sidewalks are a central component of the pedestrian network. Decisions on whether to provide a sidewalk should not be based on existing pedestrian volumes because they are not a reliable indication of pedestrian demand. Individuals tend to walk in locations where continuous connections are provided. A lack of pedestrian activity in a location with discontinuous sidewalks is, therefore, not necessarily an indication of a lack of pedestrian demand. All roadways should have some type of walking space outside of the vehicular travelway, whether a sidewalk in urban or suburban areas, Great sidewalks encourage or a paved shoulder in rural areas. When a walking walkway is provided on only one side of the roadway, pedestrians traveling on the opposite side may not cross to the sidewalk, and may instead elect to walk in the roadway. If pedestrians do cross, they increase their exposure to vehicular traffic. Though it may be appropriate for some roadways in developing areas to temporarily have a pedestrian walkway only on one side, walkways on both sides are necessary for pedestrian - compatible roadways. Sidewalk installation should be a routine part of road improvement and new construction projects in urban and suburban areas. Sidewalks should be included on both sides of all roadways (except where pedestrians are prohibited) Win -Fred MPO Bicycle 8 Pedestrian Mobility Plan A-19 in Winchester, the Town of Stephens City and within Frederick County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and should be a minimum of 5 -feet wide. Sidewalks should comply with the most recent Americans with Disabilities Act Guidelines. Development in all three jurisdictions is also subject to compliance with the International Building Code (IBC). Sidewalks serving as Accessible Routes must meet the requirements of IBC Section 1104, as amended, which requires accessible routes on private property between accessible building entrances and public streets or sidewalks in addition to routes between the building entrances and handicap parking spaces. Striped/Paved Shoulders Sidewalks are the preferred facilities for pedestrians walking alongside roadways, but paved shoulders can also help accommodate pedestrians in rural areas where sidewalk installation is prohibitively expensive and pedestrian demand is low. There is no minimum width for paved shoulders, however a width of at least 4 feet is preferred. Greater widths provide better accommodation for pedestrians. On some roadways, motor vehicle travel lanes can be narrowed to provide more shoulder space. According to the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999), "where 4 -foot widths cannot be achieved, any additional shoulder width is better than none at all." Paved shoulders also improve safety for motor vehicles, prevent pavement damage to the travel lanes, and provide space for pedestrians. Buffer Zones A pedestrians safety and comfort in the roadway environment is affected by the width and quality of the buffer between the sidewalk and the roadway. Physical barriers between the sidewalk and roadway (such as street trees, landscaping, bike lanes and parked cars) will increase pedestrian safety and comfort, and therefore encourage higher levels of walking. On -street parking has a very positive effect on pedestrian comfort. Along some arterial and collector streets in areas that are seeking to enhance and/or introduce a commercial core (with stores/ businesses in front and parking lots behind), it may be feasible to add on -street parking lanes. Street trees greatly enhance the pedestrian environment. For narrow landscape buffers less than 5 feet wide, care should be taken to use shade tree species that can survive in a narrower space and have less invasive root systems, such as varieties of maple and oak trees. Large shade trees are preferred to medium and small trees that do not offer as much shade. Street trees should typically be placed no closer than 30 feet on center, and no greater than 60 feet on center, depending on the species of tree. In locations with Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan A no buffer strip, consideration can be given to providing tree planting behind the sidewalk, which may improve aesthetic conditions and provide shade, but will not improve pedestrians' sense of safety in the roadway environment. Planting trees behind the sidewalk should not be done in new developments or retrofits where there is room for a buffered planting strip. Street trees should not be positioned so as to block sight distances at intersections and driveways. Design of Driveways and Commercial Entrances Example of a sidewalk continuing over a driveway in Winchester, VA. Example of a driveway entrance that functions like an intersection (in the Town of Stephens City). In this example, it is recommended that crosswalk markings be added. The detectable warnings do not meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines. In locations where a sidewalk crosses a driveway, it is important that the sidewalk is continuous and meets the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for accessible pedestrian routes. Therefore, the cross slope of the driveway at the sidewalk should not exceed 2%. The concrete sidewalk surface should extend across the driveway to give drivers the expectation that they should yield to pedestrians. Major driveways or commercial entrances may function like street intersections, in which case they should contain the same pedestrian safety features as intersections. In this case, curb ramps, detectable warnings, and crosswalk markings should be used to provide a continuous pedestrian route. A preferred design option is to provide a raised pedestrian crossing over the driveway apron. The raised pedestrian crossing serves to slow traffic as it enters and exits the driveway. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan A-21 Safe and convenient roadway crossings will be essential for pedestrian and bicycle mobility in the Winchester -Frederick region. This section will provide guidelines for the design of pedestrian crosswalks at intersections and midbloc'k locations as well as guidelines for the design of shared use paths where they cross roadways. Note that designating pedestrian and bicycle crossings with marked crosswalks alone does not necessarily provide an adequate level of safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. Roadways with higher motor vehicle speeds and volumes require enhanced pedestrian and bicycle crossing treatments, including appropriate features from the list below. Where to Mark Crosswalks Legally, crosswalks exist where two streets intersect whether or not they are denoted with markings. Crosswalk markings are desirable in certain places because they alert motorists to locations where they should expect pedestrians and show pedestrians a preferred crossing location. Controlled Locations Locations with traffic signals or stop signs are known as controlled locations. Within the Winchester -Frederick region, marked crosswalks shall be provided across all street approaches to signalized intersections (on all legs of the intersection except those legs where a pedestrian crossing is prohibited). Marked crosswalks should also be provided at stop controlled intersections. Uncontrolled Locations A recent national research project completed by the Federal Highway Administration (Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations, 2002) provides specific guidance on the installation of crosswalks and other safety measures at uncontrolled locations. In addition to providing criteria for when to use marked crosswalks, this study clearly indicates the safety value of enhanced pedestrian crossing measures at midblock crossings and other uncontrolled locations (such as T -intersections). Safety measures that are recommended include crossing islands, raised crossings, and other traffic calming techniques, as well as additional warning signs and signal treatments. The flow chart shown in on the next page should be used to determine the appropriate safety treatment for an uncontrolled crossing based on vehicular speeds and volumes. Based on the outcome of the flow chart, further guidance is given in the table on the following page regarding the appropriate type of design treatment, given the amount and speed of traffic at this location. The intent of the flow chart is to provide initial guidance on whether an uncontrolled location Win -Fred MPO Bicycle 8 Pedestrian Mobility Plan t might be a candidate for a marked crosswalk alone and/or whether additional geometric and/or traffic control improvements are needed. As a part of the review process for pedestrian crossings, an engineering study should be used to analyze such other factors, including (but not limited to), gaps in traffic, approach speed, sight distances, illumination, the needs of special populations, and the distance to the nearest traffic signal. The spacing of marked crosswalks in uncontrolled situations should also be considered so that they are not placed too close together. Overuse of marked crosswalks may breed driver disrespect for them, and a more conservative use of crosswalks is generally preferred. Thus, it is recommended that in situations where marked crosswalks alone are acceptable, a higher priority be placed on their use at uncontrolled locations having a minimum of 20 pedestrian crossings per peak hour (or 15 or more elderly and/or child pedestrians per peak hour). In all cases, good engineering judgment must be applied. (Zegeer et. al., 2002). Win -Fred MPO Bicycle & Pedestrian Mobility Plan A-23 t� Staff visits the site to Decision.. is this an gather data appropriate location for an uncontrolled marked crosswalk? Location Ia along a route that selves a padestrian generator, such as a bus stop. business di;trice, school. park, or hospital Y_ I T_J Nearest marked crosswaJk is more Than 300 feet away Yes,v Insufficient need to justify a marked crosswalk 7NO 20 pedestrians per hour at 60 in Yes No It Direct pedestrians to the nearest marked crosswalk Flow Chart: Where to mark crosswalks at uncontrolled locations Win -Fred MPO Bicycle it Pedestrian Mobility Plan A There a; adequate Yes stopping sight No Unsafe location for a dtstatice for marked crosswalk unless Yehcles sigh: distance is approaching the addressed rxogswalk Location t,wation No LAcation No crtuesa No Location Crp3&63 H tour cr four or more All, or more lane two-lane three -lane a tans Street street without at street street with a rd raised median Yes Yes Yes ,les �r r - See Next Page See Next Page See Next Page See Next Page Level t Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Sources: Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations. 2002 and City of Sacramento Public Works Department Flow Chart: Where to mark crosswalks at uncontrolled locations Win -Fred MPO Bicycle it Pedestrian Mobility Plan A lnstruchans= icmp::ete the Rav chart from the prev -Ctrs page arc r.kr to ltn correspond-, level below. Level 1: 2 L=.- 51met Level 3: 4 nor morn t.... with a R.*.d fA dian - Languudinal o Lon3aud nal u orsswalas d�aganal acsswaik d: genal crosswal c 7te'=1 markings pias an narking; phn an anLong: Lcn;:ludinal cr wrg-, Iral nr ergrresring Up to 12 r 9 cars dr agonal crosswalk drag -rat crcx+swalk lmatmam ;see &r day markir s nearirn ' Lwl:nvl betaarr LcrV,fud,nsl or =Lrgaudi^ai a� Pecestna. sigral Lcn-y:tu rnai rr :.agonal crosswalk diagrmal crosswalk i grade separated 12.00 -15:T - markets martins clossinq markings pits an Lc'gitudirul a, LongnAm.at c' engr*eer; g grgi^tz&i'mg diagonal crosswalk drayz*ai crmswaik w grade separa;eri treattelew(see 9 ex -i2 Cri:�f3 markings p.cs an teowf t4owl Lorrd•ttxtinal orang*neenrg Lcngliudmal Pedestnan Signal 16.0ti11 cz rs o- dla onal crc:swalktreatment The (see a• grade separated mare day markings ow, c;assir.Q coon r s ane aiAer Languudinal o orsswalas d�aganal acsswaik drag.^.-^ai crosswalk 7te'=1 markings pias an n•arktrgs plus an anLong: Lnrgitudinal c* udinal or Loragitsd:rai cr 'l.0 d cars _r cam Br dageml crosswa% diagerak Cn$swakkiC fe'.w�rr Lsr tla fawner r da mark" n•.a:kcn betaarr Lcngd::dnral or _crgc�drrai cr Lcn-y:tu rnai rr dtagcnai a_swa:k agcmai cresswaik dagxat ctasswaik dtt�-xai crosswalk markirgs pia; ars markings plus an markngs peas an markings pits an Lc'gitudirul a, Longitudinal Of engr*eer; g grgi^tz&i'mg diagonal crosswalk d+agonal crL551Yat1(•denwt:S'La w grade separa;eri treattelew(see 9 ex -i2 Cri:�f3 marhi s teowf t4owl Longitudinal a' Lcngliudmal sn r..? diagonal crosswalk diagonal Lrc.swvatrc dog -real crrssswalk markings plus an markings pkus an •rai; tngis Gins an engineering ergmeenng ergineerar;g Pecesmaln si'raf treatment ,see treatment (see :reatmervt (see :.r gra-le separated 12':"""-i5,^psi! L+elcxvY r�cw: utx.srn� Pedestr.-ar. s;nal L nqp tuimal a P.desiran signal or g{ode sapar•e7e d dagonal crosswa k or grad. separate. i 5 � or mere erss:n markings plus an c-oss s engineering Pwlestvarsgnal P,,-Iesxaans,gral treat-nent iseea lir grade separated.e grade separated 1$.CC-3 c- mare b€bwr Cre,S'S'.^A =ress nm Lw .l a- A ear mr.m t Ano. u.:rl,...w r taa.ed M—K.a Languudinal o d�aganal acsswaik drag.^.-^ai crosswalk markings pias an n•arktrgs plus an Lnrgitudinal c* Lengil. dwai or engmeenng 'l.0 d cars _r dra,cnal crrnssv-lk diagonal ansswaik treatment ? fe'.w�rr Lsr tla markir-s mantrnas +*eowi Lcngd::dnral or dtagcnai a_swa:k agcmai cresswaik markirgs pia; ars markings plus an Lc'gitudirul a, engineering Pc�str.:an a.gnal diagonal crosswalk Imatment (see w grade separa;eri 2 GCkr markin. below:? erossin Longitudinal a' L.ntriiWinala Pa;^tlnstraan s.gnai diagonal crosswalk d=agonai crosswalk or grade saparaled. markings plus an markings plus an P—csstr.' engineering ng;r _mrg Pedestrian 3 ^,nal treatment ,see laatmeni +see or grade saparaiad 2� }75:3GJ ber_wi belawl cressih Pedestr.-ar. s;nal Pedestnan sorra: P.desiran signal or g{ode sapar•e7e d 3r grade separated or grad. separate. i 5 � or mere erss:n erasure_ c-oss s Lw .l a- A ear mr.m t Ano. u.:rl,...w r taa.ed M—K.a 1Mnu nP En(ti a.+•riae'frralrurrtts ik,;.f 17.t C nri mtn 9s:0nf.. C'um I Nlerl'um, Stop kit-ee.Wma.' waning. 1.1ghts Y.,ic-s nxi Signal, Cir:ul. S"p.a-muf C•wtv.irrg Islu"ukd n•v t•., u,.J i` aenjtra.1r," wen;•. lovg,..luelirA er.FkwOn tl m-iekwg,a Table: Where to mark crosswalks at uncontrolled locations Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan A-25 Languudinal o d�aganal acsswaik markings pias an Lorgitumnal � tacgmetanng Pedes" an s,gnai Lars 3+ drag»"al =osswal: iretliment {^,gene cr grade Separated fewer oer day markt^.is L_law! FLsst-hr dtagcnai a_swa:k cl.a , anal acss :alk markirgs pia; ars mark.ngs plus an angineerr.3 rgineenng Pedestr an s "nal tteatmont •;see I•ea?merl Isee or grade separated L,.e`cw; bei L•.sstna r-destr-an r.Srial PLoapslrtan x -pa' Pa;^tlnstraan s.gnai cr grace separaled nr grade separated or grade saparaled. P—csstr.' Pedesil-•an Sgrial Pedestrran signal Vsdesh-an s;`;nal Gf grad"15 Sep drated Lr grape s.yaarated Qf grade, separa L 1J.r�v.t or ntcr< I. •.seinen c"cSs{n 1Mnu nP En(ti a.+•riae'frralrurrtts ik,;.f 17.t C nri mtn 9s:0nf.. C'um I Nlerl'um, Stop kit-ee.Wma.' waning. 1.1ghts Y.,ic-s nxi Signal, Cir:ul. S"p.a-muf C•wtv.irrg Islu"ukd n•v t•., u,.J i` aenjtra.1r," wen;•. lovg,..luelirA er.FkwOn tl m-iekwg,a Table: Where to mark crosswalks at uncontrolled locations Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan A-25 Crosswalk Marking Types High visibility longitudinal crosswalk markings, as shown below, are the preferred type of crosswalk marking because they are more the most visible marking, especially at night. If marked with thermoplastic, these markings will be extremely durable. Parallel crosswalk markings are suitable for locations are appropriate for many intersections of minor neighborhood streets. Visibility of various types of crosswalk markings: the high -visibility markings shown in the photo to the right are the easiest for motorists to see , / 12" 8' Min. (or width of approaching sidewalk if greater) PARALLEL 8' Min. Decorative crosswalk 2" Min. markings, such as those made from stamped colored asphalt, are generally difficult 2"-24'' to maintain over the long term and have not been 2"-24" proven to increase pedestrian safety. These crosswalks are often provided to improve the aesthetics, but over time their color fades and they become difficult to distinguish from (or width of approaching sidewalk if greater) HIGH VISIBILITY: LONGITUDINAL the asphalt roadway. If decorative crosswalk markings are to be used, the crosswalk should be outlined with two 12 inch parallel reflective white lines. This will make the decorative Parallel and high -visibility crosswalk markings markings more visible, particularly at night. The decorative crosswalk material should have integral color so the color will not wear off over time. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle tt Pedestrian Mobility Plan A Tools to Increase the Safety of Marked Crosswalks at Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossings This section will present a series of tools that can be used in conjunction with the crosswalk flow chart and table presented earlier. These tools should be used in conjunction with marked crosswalks in order to increase the safety of pedestrian crosswalks and bicycle trail crossings. Generally, the tools are appropriate at both controlled and uncontrolled locations. Medians or pedestrian crossing islands Medians or pedestrian crossing islands can be provided at roadway intersections to give pedestrians a refuge area in the middle of the roadway and allow them to negotiate one direction of traffic at a time. Studies show that they reduce pedestrian crashes. Median islands can be particularly beneficial at intersections with high volumes of motor vehicles, high Example of a Pedestrian Crossing Island volumes of pedestrians, and long pedestrian crossing distances. They should be given strong consideration at locations where crossing distance exceeds 60 feet. The desirable minimum width for medians or crossing islands is eight feet. All crossing islands must be accessible to persons with disabilities. Curb extensions Curb extensions (also known as bulb -outs or neckdowns) extend the curb out into the parking lane, which reduces the effective street width. This reduces the pedestrian crossing distance and makes pedestrians more visible to approaching vehicles. Curb extensions also visually narrow the roadway, which can help reduce motor vehicle speeds. They are only appropriate on roadways with on - street parking. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan A-27 EDGE OF EFFECTIVE TURNING RADIUS PARKING Min. ( AASHTO. SETBACK FROM INTERSECTION TO. MUTC0) 1 30' at" iL-ed in Example of curb extensions Reduced turning radii The turning radii at the corners of roadway intersections should be the smallest possible for the circumstances, rather than designed for the largest possible design vehicle. Small curb radii have numerous benefits: when compared to larger turning radii, they improve visibility between pedestrians and drivers, they reduce the distance of roadway that pedestrians must cross, they reduce vehicular speeds during turning movements, they provide space for curb ramps, and they allow more on -street parking spaces to be provided along a street. Raised crosswalks Raised crosswalks provide a continuous route for pedestrians at the same level as the sidewalk. Approaching vehicles must slow down to go over raised crosswalks comfortably. This encourages motorists to yield and makes crossing the street safer for pedestrians. Pedestrians are also positioned slightly higher than the road surface, which makes them more visible to approaching motorists. Pavement markings on the slope of the raised crosswalk can improve the visibility of the raised crosswalk to motorists. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan A In -Roadway Pedestrian Crossing Signs In -roadway pedestrian crossing signs placed in the middle of the road at marked crosswalks. They remind drivers of their responsibility to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. These signs have been used throughout Virginia (the signs read, "Virginia State Law—Yield to Pedestrians in Crosswalk"). In -street pedestrian crossing signs are included in Section 213.12 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). High -visibility advance zvarning signs Advance warning signs can be posted to make drivers more aware of key pedestrian crossings. These signs can increase awareness of pedestrians, especially in areas where pedestrians may not be expected. A new fluorescent yellow/ green color is approved in the national Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and can be used on these signs (the W11-2 Pedestrian Crossing Sign). According to the MUTCD, these signs "should only be used at locations where the crossing activity is unexpected or at locations not readily apparent." Signs may also be accompanied by flashing lights, in appropriate situations, to grab the attention of drivers. Signs should be used judiciously—too many signs can cause visual clutter and lead to non-compliance. Signalized Intersections In some high-speed, high-volume, multi -lane locations, the best way to provide a safe pedestrian crossing may be with a traffic signal. In these locations, and in other locations where traffic signals are warranted, the following tools are recommended to improve the safety and convenience of pedestrians. Pedestrian countdozcm signals Pedestrian signal heads should be provided at all intersections that have traffic signals. Pedestrian countdown signals are recommended for most intersections. Countdown signals provide pedestrians with amount of time that they have available to complete crossing the street. Countdown signals are included in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). They are are especially beneficial at intersections with long crossing distances because they indicate clearance time for pedestrians to complete crossing the street. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle 8 Pedestrian Mobility Plan A-29 Leading Pedestrian Interval At signalized intersections with high crossing volumes, the signals can be programmed to allow pedestrians to begin crossing before the vehicle traffic on the parallel street is given a green light (assuming that signal control systems at particular intersections allow this type of programming). A study of a three - second leading pedestrian interval (LPI) found that the LPI decreased conflicts between turning motor vehicles and increased the percentage of motorists that yielded to pedestrians in the crosswalk$. Roundabouts Roundabouts should be designed to safely accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists. When designing roundabouts, careful application should be made of the requirements specified in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Example of roundabout design Source: MUTCD 8 Van Houten, R., R. A. Retting, C. M. Farmer, J. Vanhouten, and J. E. L. Malenfant. "Field Evaluation of a Leading Pedestrian Interval Signal Phase at Three Urban Intersections," Transportation Research Record 1734, 2000. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan A W Example of Flared Perpendicular Curb Ramps Source: Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Part 2 larding height 76 mm (3 inY� / `1 / Examples of Parallel Curb Ramps Source: Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Part 2 Example of Combined Perpendicular and Parallel Curb Ramps Source: Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Part 2 [an Curb ramps Curb ramps (wheelchair ramps) are required at all pedestrian crossings. The ideal for pedestrian accessibility is for two curb ramps to be provided per corner at all intersections. Curb ramps provide access between the sidewalk and the street for people using wheelchairs, riding scooters, and pushing strollers. Examples of different types of curb ramps are shown to the left (perpendicular, parallel, and combined perpendicular and parallel). Perpendicular curb ramps are preferred, but due to site restraints and the requirement that a level landing be provided at both the top and bottom of the ramp, parallel ramps or combined perpendicular and parallel ramps may be necessary. Curb ramps must meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines. Additional information on the design of curb ramps may be found in Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Part 2, Best Practices Design Guide (Distributed by the U.S. Department of Transportation). A-31 Roadway Lighting Pedestrians are adversely affected by low -light conditions: two-thirds of pedestrian fatalities occur between dusk and dawn. Lighting is important at intersections and midblock crossings, particularly in locations near transit stops. In pedestrian -oriented areas, it is important to provide a higher quality of pedestrian lighting, particularly along sidewalks and walkways with higher volumes of night-time pedestrian activity, specifically in commercial pedestrian districts, in high density residential areas, and near colleges and universities. Preferred pedestrian -scale lighting is characterized by shorter light poles (i.e. 16 - foot tall posts), lower levels of illumination (except at crossings), shorter spacing between lamp posts, and lamps that produce a better color definition and "white light" to areas with higher pedestrian volumes. Distinctive pedestrian lamp posts may be used to improve the appearance of the streetscape. Light poles should be placed either in the buffer zone, or on the other side of the sidewalk - and not within the sidewalk travelway (maintain the required clear width, per current accessibility standards). Light poles should be constructed of durable, corrosion resistant materials. Poles located at the back of the sidewalk or within turf or landscaped areas must be raised six to ten inches above the adjacent ground on concrete pedestals. Attention should be given to placing light fixtures within reach of a maintenance vehicle parked on the adjacent roadway, to avoid damage to the adjacent sidewalk and landscaped areas. Street lampposts, pedestrian lampposts, and landscape plans must be coordinated to assure that the lights are not engulfed in a canopy of trees. Crosswalks should be illuminated at each end by a standard street lamp. Bicycle and Pedestrian Access on Bridges Pedestrian and bicycle accommodations should be provided on bridges. On urban and suburban bridge projects, shoulder width should be based on anticipated (20 year) traffic volumes, as shown in the table below. Sidewalks on bridges should be wider, if possible, than sidewalks on the bridge approaches. Pedestrians should not be forced to walk uncomfortably close to a wall or barrier. In general, a 2 foot shy distance is needed adjacent to a wall or a vertical curb. A barrier between the sidewalk and the curb may be needed on roadways with volumes that exceed 20,000 vehicles per day and/or operating speeds that exceed 45 mph, or in locations with high volumes of heavy vehicles. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan A Projected Traffic Volumes Preferred Shoulder Width Preferred Sidewalk width (20 Year) (min) <15,000 ADT 5 feet 5.5 feet 15,000> ADT 6.5 feet 8 feet* I,VI DIUCI LU111U111111YN JIUCWdIK d11U 511UULUe1 !)Pace oemna a Darner Table: Sidewalk and Shoulder Widths on Urban and Suburban Bridges For bridges that have an existing or proposed shared use path approaching one side, the bridge should be constructed with a 10 foot wide minimum (12 foot wide preferred) shared use path on that side, which will consist of a raised wide sidewalk with a curb. Depending upon the speed and volume of motor vehicle traffic, it may be necessary to separate the path from the adjacent vehicular lanes with a barrier. Transitions at the bridge approaches should enable access to the pathway on the bridge by bicyclists who may be riding on the paved shoulder rather than on the pathway. Barrier and Railing Design Barriers that are used to separate the sidewalk and/or bikeway from adjacent motor vehicle lanes can be constructed of various materials and various heights, depending upon the amount of desired separation (considering the speed and volume of traffic, the amount and mix of pedestrian and bicycle users, etc.) This is an area of design that requires engineering judgment and attention to the overall appearance of the bridge. It is not recommended that barriers be used when they are not needed, as they tend to trap trash and other debris and are difficult to maintain. Bridge railings (on the outside edges of the bridge) should be constructed to a height of 54 from the surface of the pathway. Bridge Retrofit Projects Bridges can be retrofitted to better accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians. There are a variety of ways to accomplish this: • Reduce the width and/or number of travel lanes to create more space for bicycles and/or pedestrians. For example, a narrow sidewalk can be widened to provide for a more comfortable pedestrian environment, while maintaining adequate shoulder width for on -road bicycling. • Adding a new bicycle and pedestrian structure to the existing bridge structure. In some cases, bridge footers may have been constructed in anticipation of a future roadway widening, or it may otherwise be possible to add an additional structure for pedestrians and bicyclists. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan A-33 Bicycle and Pedestrian Access at Interchanges Interchanges and other locations with on -ramps and off -ramps can be among the most difficult locations for pedestrians and bicycles to navigate. The combination of high speed merging traffic and crossings by pedestrians and bicyclists creates inherent conflicts and can be very uncomfortable for non -motorized users. Particularly in urban and suburban locations where pedestrian and bicycle traffic can be expected to use the roadway, interchange design should account for their needs. When an intersection is converted to an interchange, pedestrian and bicycle access should be considered in the design of interchange ramps and all other crossings. The most important principle in designing interchanges that accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists is to reduce motor vehicle speeds at locations where pedestrians and bicyclists either cross the road, or (as in the case with bicyclists operating on -road) merge with traffic. For this reason, urban interchange design with conventional 90 degree intersections (instead of merge lanes) is preferable for pedestrian and bicycle safety. Interchange designs that enable motor vehicles to maintain speeds above 30 mph without stopping are not conducive to pedestrian and bicycle access and should be avoided. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle 8 Pedestrian Mobility Plan iappendix S: Ordinam-e 9%Y I Chapter 4 of this plan recommends that local plans and ordinances be updated to strengthen the requirements for pedestrian and bicycle accommodation. This Appendix provides guidance on how the plans and ordinances could be changed, and includes some example language from model ordinances throughout the United States. Comprehensive Plans Local comprehensive plans should set the vision for walkability and bicycle friendliness. Pedestrian and bicyclist considerations should be incorporated into sections that discuss parks and recreation, transportation, and land use. Parks and Recreation Section The Parks and Recreation components of Comprehensive Plans should incorporate bicycle and pedestrian recommendations for the region from the soon to be released 2007 Virginia Outdoors Plan. Walking and bicycling facilities should continue to be included as potential facilities in neighborhood, community, and regional parks. This section should also include mountain bike trails as a separate facility type for parks. Example Comprehensive Plan Language The 2001 Isle of Wight County, Virginia Comprehensive flan includes tete following objective related to bicycling and walking; Establish methods to acquire, develop, and maintain open space buffea- for development of trail corridors, particularly in greenways adjacent <t, stream, corridors or former rail rights-of-way which offer leisure recreation facilities, protect sensitive environmental resources, and enhance the quality of life for County residents. Where possible, select locations for trail construction that foster use of greenways and provide opporturtities to establish and interconnected system of trails and greenways over time. Transportation Section The Transportation component of Comprehensive Plans should provide a strong vision for interconnected streets with pedestrian and bicycle facilities throughout the City of Winchester, the Town of Stephens City, and the Frederick County Urban Development Area. Narrow streets, short blocks, narrow travel lanes, and an interconnected street system should be encouraged in order to promote pedestrian and bicycle activity. This section should also encourage connectivity Win -Fred MPO Bicycle a Pedestrian Mobility Plan B-1 of the pedestrian and bicycle network. This section should also include a new goal to decrease the need for automobile trips by encouraging mixed-use developments, pedestrian pathways, and bicycle facilities. Lxample Comprehensive Plan Language The Transportation Section of the 2001 Isle of Wight County, Virginia Comprehensive Plan includes the following; text: • Beyond a. Strict capacity -based approach to highway systems evaluation, consideration of the impact of roads and traffic and community character also needs to be considered. Additionally, this Section includes the following implementation strategies related to bicycling and walking: Decrease the need for automobile trips by encouraging mixed-use developments, pedestrian pathways, and bike paths. + Integrate land Uses where appropriate o Integrating Dousing into overall design of large scale employment or commercial service centers will help reduce thF- need to travel. Domes built in proxamity or immediately adjac+�nl. to the workplace or shops not only reduce vehicle utiles of t rav e� 1, but also present opportunities for workers to walk or bike to work. Encourage Proffers o Indicate the need for dedication of rights -cif -way for new road,,. for road extensions, and to widen existing; highways, or establ -,i greenways, bikeways, and trails through the Transportation Min and Capital Improvements Program. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan Land Use Section The ease of bicycle and pedestrian travel is closely linked to land use. The Land Use component of Comprehensive Plans should support development with mixed uses and with adequate density to support pedestrian and bicycle travel. Connected roadway systems (rather than cul-de-sacs) should be encouraged. Exannplc I.—omprehensive Plan Language The Lerul C'sj� Section of the 2001 Isle of tiVil;ht C01-111tV, Ili rl Lunlpri,hi n5itic flail includes the follotti°tng text encu rragulg mixed use a�fwtt�- centers: Mixed Use Activity Centers represent — to cluster future development ro OF -SIGN CONCEPTS into regional centers which serve the: _Houses ser dose to the commercial services and retail shopping ctraot needs of current and future County residents. rant parchas Each Mixed Use Activity Center should Use of fzi ccs and provide opportunities to establish a landscaping to define private space recognizable center of development with its street trees own unique "sense of place" within the County. Future development form within Parking as;a barrier between pedestrians and each Activity Center will vary somewhat street traffic based on the existing pattern of development `Sidewalks and the future development mix which streetscape providing a occurs. However, the County should senze of anelosura encourage, traditional neighborhood development (TND) form within Mixed Use Activity Centers. Characteristics of this form of development are readily apparent in the Town of Smithfield and include: ■ mixed land uses ■ grid street patterns ■ design emphasis on pedestrian circulation ■ intensively used open spaces and often a "village green" to provide orientation and define a village center. IS clearly defined stre-etscapes by virtue of smaller front yards on narrow lots that foster a sense of enclosure and a sense of community ■ architectural character reminiscent of the late 19h and early 201 Century Each Mixed Use Activity Center, however, should generally evolve as a mixed-use regional center for residential, office, retail, and service development. Light industrial development may also be appropriate in some Activity Centers in the form of well-planned business and industrial parks, Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan B-3 Zoning and .3�.rbdivisr'or_,W Dances, Local Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances should be revised to incorporate the requirements set forth in Appendix A, Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Guidelines. These ordinances should require that ADA -accessible sidewalks are provided on both sides of all streets (except those where pedestrians are prohibited) and that they should be a minimum width of 5 feet. It is also recommended that the ordinances be revised to require developers to provide a minimum 5 -feet buffer space between the sidewalk and the street. In the case of subdivisions, the ordinances should be clear that developers are required to provide sidewalks along the existing streets that the subdivision fronts, as well as the new streets within the subdivision. Pedestrian walkways should also be required through parking lots and connecting from the sidewalk along the street to the building entrance. Example subdivision Regulations, Na ille,W, , 3-8 Requirements for Sidewalks and Related pedestrian Facilities 1. Requirements fir Sidewalks on Nein Subdivision Streets. Sidewalks shall be located wi ' the right -of --way on bath sides of new public and private streets, including new extensions of existing streets. All sidewalks and pedestrian ways constructed upon public rights-of-way shall be in accordance with the adopted construction standard= t Metro. Sidewalks shall not be required: 1. On new subdivision streets in industrial zoning districts. 2. On new streets in residential subdivisions where the base zoning district requires a minimum lot area of at least 20,000 square feet and the area of each lot to be platted remains 20,000 square feet or greater. 3. Where all interior lots of an infill development, as defined in section 7-2, are accessed from permanently dead -ended street(s) of no more than 750 feet in length, sidewalk-, are not required along, the dead-end street(s). 4. Where a development regulated by an Urban Design Overlay, or ether district governed by urban design surrdards, sets out special design intentions that exclude sidewalk on a street at the neighborhood edge, if approved by the respective decision-making body, either the Metropolitan Council or the Planning Commission. ?, Requirements for SideujaWs on Existing Streets prording the Properhl Subdivided. 1. Applicability. 1. The requirements and procedures of the Zoning Ordinance shall apply for construction of sidewalks along existing collector or arterial streets in association with non-residential or multi -family developments. The requirements and procedures of the Subdivision Regulations apply fo all other development conditions, � 2. The requirements of Section 3-$.2.b for sidewalk construction shall no apply to any property outside of the Urban Services District where the, Sidewalk Priority Index ('SP1) score is less than 20, as determined by the planning department after consulting the appropriate agencies Metre The Sidewalk Priority Index (SPI) is established bi the Strategic Plan; i;;: Sidewalks and Bikeways, most recent edition adopted by the Plan n j C ommr`.ssinn. anti incornorated hcntin by rtterenre. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle ]t Pedestrian Mobility Plan Example Subdivision Regulations., Nashville, TN, April 2006, Continued 2. Construction of sidety alk, where there is an misting sidt.7valk network- fs required under the comfitions set out in &,ctions 34.2AI to 3-8.2.h.4. New sidewalks sh.!1 comply with the adopted standards of Metro consistent with existing sidewalk development along the black face. Where existing conditions do a,_, t meet an adopted standard, a design compatible with existing conditions rn.: be considered and approved by the Planning Commission, upon the advice the appropriate Metro agencies. 3. Existing sidewalk- wp air or replarcenaent Sidewalks can street(s) frontin,4 the property, that do not comply with a standard of Metro consiste, with existing sidewalk development on the block face, shall be repaired or replaced as part of a new development. 4. N4iv sidtw alk to fill ra gap in the existing network. New sidevvadk shall i <; constructed on street(s) fronting the property wherever installation. would be contiguous to and connect existing sidewalk segments. 5. New sidewalk to exte"d the existing nehvork. New sidewalk shall be constructed on street(s) fronting the property wherever installation would be adjacent to and extend an existing sidewalk. 6. Nett, Sideivralk on the ware Mork face as existing sic elvaalk. New sidewalk shall, be constructed on street(s) fronting the property wherever }rublic sidewalk already exists on the sante block face. I Construction of sidetuatlks orfinancial contribution to the pedestrian nehvork. Wt,- -- the conditions of 1 and 2 of this Section do not apply, the developer remain,,- responsible for sidewalks) along streets) fronting the property being subdivided, but may either construct a sidewalk or make a financial contribution to MetTo in lieu of constructin& in accordance with this Section. When built, now sidewalks shall comply with the standards of Metro; however, a design compatibic with existing conditions may be considered and, approved by the Planning Commission, upon the advice of the appropriate Metra agencies. i. E.xceptian. Ordy these lots ,platted that create a new or additional development right are subject to the sidewalk requirement of this Section. 2. Alternative Pedestrian Trail. When an alternative pedestrian trail or greenway trail meeting Metro Greenways' design standards is proposed to be constructed by the developer, and the trail substantially serves the same purpose as a sidewalk along an existi street required by this Section, then the applicant may construct the trail as a substitute for that sidewalk section, Win -Fred MPO Bicycle 8 Pedestrian Mobility Plan B_5 Example Subdivision Regulations, Nashville, TN, April 2006, Continued 3. Contribution to Ilia Pedestrian Natwork as an Alternative to Sidewalk Installation, Where permitted by Section 3-8.2.b., the developer may make a financial contributior to Metro in lieu of construction. The value of said contribution shall be the average linear foot sidewalk project coast, determined on an annual basis by the Public Works Department review of sidewalk projects contracted for or constructed by Metro. Any such payments received by Metro shall be assigned and designated for implementation of the Strategic Flan for Sidewalk Capital Improvements, as amended from time to time. The fee in lieu of sidewalk construction shall be used to accommodate pedestrian needs within the pedestrian benefit zone in which the development property is located. The applicant's payment shall be allocated within 244 months of receipt of the payment', otherwise, said payment shall be refunded to the subdivision applicant, 1. Fee Deadline. Prior to the recording of a final plat for the applicable phase(',,. of any subdivision, the applicant shall either pay all in-lieu fees with a cashier's check or post a performance agreement with an accompanying security document, as defined in Section 6-1.2 of these regulations. Partial payments of the in-lieu fee (i,e, combinations of cash and surety) shall not b accepted. 2. Security Document. Performance agreements shall be reviewed annually by the planning department in accordance with its established performance agreement procedures. However, in-lieu fee performance agreements are r-D" eligible for reduction. The security document shall be released once full ! payment of the in-lieu fee is made by cashier's check to the Public Works Department. Payment of the in-lieu fee shall be made: 1. Prior to the release of any bond covering roads and drainage or, 2. For projects without a bond for roads and drainage, for the same development phase to which the in-lieu fee applies. 4`Sidewalk Dimensions. The minimum width of public sidewalks shall be five feet. Where concrete curbs are required or constructed, grass or landscaped areas or strips with a minimum width of four feet shall separate all sidewalks from the adjacent street, except within tan feet of a street int ion. (see figure 3-1)- f A_ --- DETAn. Example Subdivision regulations, Nashville, TN, April 2006, Continued 5. Sidewalk EncrrachrnentslObstnictions. Encroachments including, but not limited to utility poles, fire hydrants, parking meters, mailboxes, sign standards, and street furniture shall not be located within the concrete portion of the sidewalk area, unless determined to be compliant by the Public Works Department. However, tree grates, utility grates, and manholes may be permitted within a sidewalk provided five feet of unobstructed clearance is provided on one side, unless less clearance is determined to be ctiacat ib� lo++jo�ls�artment. (sea figure 3-2) I Figure 3-27 Sicowadk Enacachineds ®bstruciio b. Sidewalk Tree Preservation. When specimen quality trees or other natural features exist, that are desired to be preserved or protected, in the path of a sidewalk, the sidewalk may be located so as to preserve those features. Under such conditions, the sidewalk may be located within a pedestrian easement outside of the dedicated public right-of-way. Exceptions to allow a non-contiguous pedestrian easement may be considered by the Planning Commission after obtaining a recommendation from the appropriate Metro agencies. 7. Sidewalk Pedestrian Easements: To facilitate pedestrian access from streets to existing or planned schools, museums, parks, greenways, playgrounds, or other nearby community facilities, major shopping malls, or commercial amusement activities, the Planning Commission or the Executive director of the Planning Department May require perpetual unobstructed easements or dedications of land measuring at least ten feet in width on a subdivision plat. Easements shall be indicated on the plat as a "public pedestrian access easement." Ordinances should also require the provision of street trees and lighting. Full cut-off lighting should be required along streets and placed at all pedestrian crossing locations. Bicycle lanes should be required on all new roadways except local streets. Bicycle parking requirements are also recommended for inclusion for commercial, institutional, and multi -family uses (an example is shown in the table below). Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan B_7 [Xllmp a Miriii-Fium Bicycle Parkingt°��;� r,.::G :t� Jur Zoning Ordiiiacce, Portland, Oregon _-- Type of Establishment Minimum Number of Bicycle Parking Spaces Primary or secondary school 10% of the number of students, plus 3% 6' the number of em to ems. - College or university classrooms 6% of the number of students, plus 3% of number of em to ees. Dor rrs, fraternities and sororities Ones aceper 3 residents, Commercial - retail or office One space per 3,000 sq. ft. of Commercial space or 5-10% of the number of zljU o..r, oo �r 5 aC25. 10-20% of the r,um.bel, of a-itoMobile spaces. —_ 5.10% of the number o` automobile sppces. 2.5% of the umber o, automobl�e spaces. 1 space Pe 1 2 a.9artme s Va_'es, dependin; on usage. SporC and recreation center Movie theater or restaurar?t Industrial Multi-unit housing Public transit stations Preliminary sketches, subdivision design plans, and final plats should be required to show all pedestrian, bicycle, and trail facilities. These drawings should also be required to show pedestrian, bicycle, and trail facilities on adjacent properties. Neither the Winchester Zoning Ordinance nor the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance explicitly require that Site Plans show proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities in context with the existing facilities on adjacent properties. Requiring the location of such facilities on adjacent properties will make it easier to determine whether pedestrian and bicycle facilities will be interconnected. Including overlay districts as part of a Zoning Ordinance, such as the City of Winchester's Corridor Enhancement District, is an effective way to require higher standards for pedestrian and bicycle facilities in certain desirable locations. Consider taking the following language from the Corridor Enhancement District section of the City of Winchester's Zoning Ordinance and placing it in the broader ordinances for both the City, Town, and County, "Site Access: Provisions shall be made for connectivity of sidewalks to adjacent parcels, and inter -parcel access from existing/ proposed off-street parking areas to parking areas on adjacent parcels, where appropriate." This provision would apply to multi -family residential and commercial uses. The Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance currently states, "The Planning Commission may waive the sidewalk requirement along local streets when pedestrian walkways are provided that allow pedestrian access to each lot or use. Such walkways must provide appropriate connections to pedestrian systems on adjoining properties." This statement should be removed. Generally, pedestrians who are walking from one destination to another prefer to walk the most direct route possible and this route is along the roadway. Providing off-road trails Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan B within a subdivision should be encouraged (and in some cases, required), however this does not eliminate the need for sidewalks, as neighborhood residents need a means by which to access the trail system without being forced to walk in the road. In the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, commercial and industrial subdivisions are currently exempt from the requirements for sidewalks and pedestrian walkways. It is recommended that this exemption be removed or clarified (see Nashville example) because it is particularly important that commercial properties have sidewalks along the roadway and leading to the commercial entrance. The recommendations presented above for comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, and subdivision ordinances are useful for establishing basic requirements for pedestrian and bicycle -friendly design. To go a step further, the County, City, and Town could adopt Urban Design standards to require certain zoning districts to meet an even higher standard of pedestrian and bicycle - friendly design. Example Urban resign Guidelines: A Model Ordinance for a Traditional Neighborhood velopment - Wisconsin 4.5 Lot and Block Standards. L Block and lot size diversity. Street layouts should provide for perimeter blocks that at - generally in the range of 200400 feet deep by 400-807 feet long. A variety of lot sizes should 1::: provided to .facilitate housing diversity and choice and meet the ,projected reN rements of peo}:I`' �.J I . +' � f I • 3. building Setback, Front - Mixed Use Area. Structures in the mixed use area have no min -in setback. Commercial and civic or institutional buildings should abut the sidewalks in the nr7 \: d use area - Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan 901 Faure 5. Plan-vievv showing two alternatives A building setbacks from the street right-of-way in rnixec,, -::se areas. Relatively uniform setbacks (a) are prcferabic. —;Anly vmr inn h,OH;nn 4. Building Setback, Front - Areas of 1tixed Residential Uses. din ,e -family detached resit :n 5hal! l;u'. a building stiiiiCio iii. `iiie fAviit _N.t,v, i ) ;t, l rj feet. Single family rt,-�idences and multifamily residences shall have a building setback in the front between t: zl,,wi ts) feet. 5. building Setback, Rear - Areas of Mixed Residential Uses. The principal building c i;tti de. oted to single-family detached residences shall be setback no less than (301 feet from s - ; :.t; lot line. 6. Side Setbacks. Provision for zero lot -line single-family dwellings should be made, that a reciprocal access easement is recorded for both lots and townhouses or other d ngs, provided that all dwellings have pedestrian access to the rear yard through :n } Au - `figure S. Plan -view diagram of the "zsnm-iat line" concept- A large side -yard on each parcel is created ' LLj L,_ by uniform3y eliminating one of the side -yarn! setbacks. 4.6 Circulation Standards. The circulation system shall tallow for different modes of transportation, The circulation system shall provide functional and visual links within the residential areas, mixed use area, and open space of the traditional neighborhood development and shall be connected to existing and proposed external development. Thv circulation system shall provide adequate traffic capacity, provide connecter{ pedestrian and bicycle routes (especially off street bicycle or multi -use paths or bicycle lanes on the streets), control through traffic, limit lot access to streets of lower traffic volumes, and promote safe and efficient mobility through the traditional neighborhood development. 1. Pedestrian Circulation. Convenient pedestrian circulation system that minimize pedestrian - motor vehicle conflicts shall be provided continuously throughout the Traditional Neighborhood Development. Where feasible, any existing pedestrian routes through the site shall be preserved and enhanced. All streets, except for alleys, shall be bordered by sidewalks on both sides in accordance with the specifications listed i«, Table 1. `rhe following provisions also apply Win -Fred MPO Bicycle £t Pedestrian Mobility Plan Fa.—sidewalks in residential areas. Clear and well -lighted sidewalks, [3-5 feet) in width, depending Oil projected pedestrian traffic, shall connect all dwelling entrances to the adjacent public sidevviilk. b. Sidewalks in mixed use areas. Clear and well -lighted walkways shall connect building entrances to the adjacent public sidewalk and to associated parking areas. Stich walk -ways shall be [a rninirnum of 5 feet) in width. c. Disabled Accessibility. Sidewalks shall comply with the applicable requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. d. Crosswalks. Intersections of sidewalks with streets shall be desIgned with clearly defined Fdges. Crosswalks shall be well lit and clearly ;marked with contrasting paving materials at th=.g,es or with striping. Bicycle Circulation. Bicycle circulation shall be accommodated on streets and/or on dedica te c (cycle paths. Where feasible, any existing bicycle routes through the site shall be preserved aril rrhanced. Facilities for bicycle travel may include off-street bicycle baths (,generally shared % til edestrians and other nein motorized users) and separate, striped, 4 foot bicycle lanes on strr (>t5.. a bicycle lane is combined with a lane for parking, the combined width should be 14 feet. Public Transit Access. Where public transit service is available or planned, convenient ace k�,,� transit steps shall be provided. Where transit shelters are provided, they shall be placed i ghly visible locations that prornote security through su rveiilance, and shall be well-Iighteci. Motor Vehicle Circulation. Motor vehicle circulation shall be designed to minimize conflict ith pedestrians and bicycles. Traffic calming features such as „queuing streets,•, curb ,tensions, traffic circles, and medians may be used to encourage slow traffic speeds. Street Hierarchy, Each street within a traditional neighborhood development shall by ssified according to the following (arterial streets should not bisect a traditional neighbor: collector. This street provides aces to commercial or mixed -use buildings, but it is also pa of the )city/village)'s major street network. Cin -street parking,, whether diagonal or parallel, hel,P to slaw traffic. Additional parking is provided in lots to the side or rear of buildings. ii. '3ubcollector. This street provides primary access to individual residential properties and connects streets of lower and higher function. Design speed is 25 mph. iii. Local Street. This street provides primary access to individual residential properties. Traffic volumes are relatively low, with a design speed of 20 mph. iv. Alley. These streets provide secondary access to residential properties where street frontages are narrow, where the street is designed with a narrow width to provide limited on -street parking, or where alley access development is desired to increase residential densities. Alleys may also provide delivery access or alternate parking access to commercial propk7 -ties. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle I* Pedestrian Mobitity Plan B-11 T,oi,fp t- Attrihntes of Streets in a Traditional Nciahborhood i)c�clopntcnt Street 'e tra tional neighbor od development should main fain the existing sit grid, where present, and restore any disrupted street -rid where feasible. in addition: i. Intersections shall be at right angles whenever possible, but in no case less than 75 degrees. Low volume streets may form three-way intersmdons creating, an inherent right-of-way assignment (the through street receives precedence) which significantly reduces accidents without the use of traffic can 1 I 11 'i Figure 8. Plan -view diagram of a street intersection. Reducing the radius of street corners slows turning vehicle traffic and shortens pedestrian crosswalks. �I 11. �OI'1?�I' Cc]illl. IIIc 1'C]c'.d1Yd\s C'd ti.' dt �YI'2ct Ilti�:x CLt9s fih.cill }7t" :"i!L 1C1 t`:l 1 + -. C: i;l .L;il ai'�.: 11'Itil d II11X1IIlU l]1 1"il cjlUS Of [15 feet] for I,1c,?', ''3 ' _Q' fc' 'tj for ; vlll Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan CuIIce ior Sulrollector Local Street Alley P.'.era e Ij:iill -;,� or nuorc 'SI:1-I 511 1 Lcrs than _'5Q Not :ll)plia1111' .f rips Ri«ht-of=��'a� '•G-53 1c•_[ 1S-" feet 35-51't reel I Feet Auto trateI lanes Two or three I ' Tuo 10 I'trt lanes IU feet Lines. T3ao E feet I.uv_s for feet lanes or mo-NrIV tralYic. 0 ,-Ile 14 feet rale I' feet Inn,- 1,"•r �. gll •: Lllllt.'i 1911•' !•11c-'h:l'4 Llaill•_ Bicycle hne wo 6 feet hlleti 4 Ieel 1.11le5 '%IIh None Ile coiriblllcd with IT_. pa rkll7L or(, parkin' bne-, ` Ieet lams e.i Il161Iled K'1117 Ilw-king fall s Parkine Both %ides_ Nle l •n.. c -11c. or both ': •n : or one side. None' sides_ 8IeeI faccems k? InLhe ld MII 8 feet drlws & uarlP_,,:i Curb and gLrtter RegUired Rcgiiirecl cd required Planting aril)% -1ininulrn 1: feet Minim int G het NIininlLrnl G feel \ ut SIde.vaIks Both sides. 5 reel 13„th sides. 3-5 Both sides. 3-5 \one 1111111111 L111t feel feet Street 'e tra tional neighbor od development should main fain the existing sit grid, where present, and restore any disrupted street -rid where feasible. in addition: i. Intersections shall be at right angles whenever possible, but in no case less than 75 degrees. Low volume streets may form three-way intersmdons creating, an inherent right-of-way assignment (the through street receives precedence) which significantly reduces accidents without the use of traffic can 1 I 11 'i Figure 8. Plan -view diagram of a street intersection. Reducing the radius of street corners slows turning vehicle traffic and shortens pedestrian crosswalks. �I 11. �OI'1?�I' Cc]illl. IIIc 1'C]c'.d1Yd\s C'd ti.' dt �YI'2ct Ilti�:x CLt9s fih.cill }7t" :"i!L 1C1 t`:l 1 + -. C: i;l .L;il ai'�.: 11'Itil d II11X1IIlU l]1 1"il cjlUS Of [15 feet] for I,1c,?', ''3 ' _Q' fc' 'tj for ; vlll Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan collector or arterial streets. The intersection of a local street and an access lai.e or alley shall be rounded by a tangential arc with a niaximurn radius of 10 feet. iii. Curb cuts for driveways to individual residential lots shall be prohibited along arterial streets. Curti cu is shall be limited to intersections with other streets or access drives to parking areas for commercial, civic or multifamily residential uses. Clear sight triangles shall be maintained at intersections, as specified below, unless controlled by traffic sif;n l devices; intersection of: minimum clear sight distance: local street and collector [120 feet] collector and collector [130 feet] collector and arterial [50 feet] iv. The orientation of streets should enhance the visual i t :,F ;-,-)mmon op spac prominent buildings, create lets that facilitate passive kr i d � r, and minimize rr- ;rzdients. A11 5treet5 shall terminate at other streets or at �).: i,ii, and, except lc I: �t:, � ''jY terminate in stub streets when such streets act as connections t�) future phases of th..c development. Local streets may terminate other than at other s reets or public land vv .-� t''Nere is -, connection to the pedestrian and bicycle path network at tl;.: `erminus. c. Parking requirements. Parking areas for shared or community use should be encou r =,rocs, in a,idition: in the mixed use area, any parking .lot shall be located F1 rear or side of a �-:cated <t {;he side, screening shall be provided as specified in sr n "S, i . A parking lot or garage may not be adjacent to or capf r street interseetic.. , iii. in the mixed use area, a commercial use roust provide one parking space for every [SOC i. ,square feet of gross building area. iv. Parking lots or gs•araaes must provide not less than one bicycle parkin; space for every [10] motor vehicle parking spaces. v. Adjacent on-strc t parking may apply toward the minimum parking requirements. vi, In the mixed residential areas, parking may be provided on-site. [One] off-street parking space with unrestricted ingress and egress shall be provided for each secondary dwelling unit. vii. Multi - family uses must provide one parking; space for every dwetling unit and [0.5] parking space for each additional bedroom, Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Pian B-13 Append N. . De ini -J Is � Bicycle Facilities: General term denoting improvements and provisions made by public agencies to accommodate or encourage bicycling, including parking and storage facilities and bikeways. Bikeway: Bicycle lanes, shared lanes, paved shoulders, wide curb lanes, and shared use paths. These facilities may or may not be marked for preferential or exclusive use for bicyclists. Bicycle: A device propelled solely by human power, upon which a person may ride either on or astride a regular seat attached thereto, having two or more wheels in tandem, including children's bicycles, except a toy vehicle intended for use by young children. For purposes of Chapter 8 (§ 46.2-800 et seq.) of this title, a bicycle shall be a vehicle while operated on the highway (Code of Virginia § 46.2-100). Bicycle Lane (Bike Lane): That portion of a roadway designated by signs and/or pavement markings for the preferential use of bicycles, electric power -assisted bicycles, and mopeds (Code of Virginia § 46.2-100). Bicycle Route: A system of bikeways designated with wayfinding signage, pavement markings, maps or other means. Buffer Zone: The portion of the sidewalk corridor that is between the through pedestrian zone and the street. This area may contain street trees, newspaper boxes, street signs, etc. Countdown Pedestrian Signal: A signal face displaying interval countdown in order to inform pedestrians of the number of seconds remaining in the pedestrian change interval. Cross Slope: The slope that is perpendicular to the direction of travel. Crosswalk: That part of a roadway at an intersection included within the connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs or, in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the traversable roadway; or any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface (Code of Virginia § 46.2-100). Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan C-1 Curb Lane: Outermost travel lane adjacent to the shoulder or gutter. Curb Zone: A portion of the sidewalk corridor, the horizontal surface of the curb. Detectable: A surface having a continuous edge within 150 mm (6 in) of the surface so that pedestrians who have visual disabilities can sense its presence and receive usable guidance information. (Maryland MUTCD, 2006) Frontage Zone: The portion of the sidewalk corridor that is between the through pedestrian zone and the right-of-way line. In downtown areas, this is the shy area next to a building where pedestrians tend not to walk. It is typically two feet in width. Island: A defined area between traffic lanes for control of vehicular movements or for pedestrian refuge. It includes all end protection and approach treatments. Median: The area between two roadways of a divided highway measured from edge of traveled way to edge of traveled way. The median excludes turn lanes. The median width might be different between intersections, interchanges, and at opposite approaches of the same intersection. Marked Crosswalk: Any portion of the roadway that is identified for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings. Midblock Crosswalk: A crossing location, not at an intersection, marked with crosswalk markings. Paved Shoulder: A concrete or asphalt portion of the roadway contiguous with the traveled way marked with an edgehne for accommodation of parking, stopped vehicles, emergency use, pedestrian use, or bicyclist use. The minimum paved shoulder width for vehicle use is four -feet exclusive of the gutter. The minimum shoulder width for vehicular parking is eight -feet inclusive of the gutter. Pedestrian Facilities: A general term denoting improvements and provisions made to accommodate or encourage walking. Right-of-way A general term denoting land, property or interest therein, usually in a strip, acquired for or devoted to transportation purposes. Right -of -Way [Assignment]: The permitting of vehicles, pedestrians, and/or bicycles to proceed in a lawful manner in preference to other vehicles, pedestrians, and or bicyclists by the display of sign or signal indications. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan C Roadway: That portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel and parking lanes, but exclusive of the sidewalk, berm, or shoulder even though such sidewalk, berm, or shoulder is used by persons riding bicycles or other human -powered vehicles. In the event a highway includes two or more separate roadways; the term roadway as used herein shall refer to any such roadway separately, but not to all such roadways collectively. Roadway Network A geographical arrangement of intersecting roadways. Running Slope: The slope that is parallel to the direction of travel. Shared -Use Path: A bikeway that is physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open space or barrier and is located either within the highway right-of-way or within a separate right-of-way. Shared -use paths may also be used by pedestrians, skaters, users of wheel chairs or wheel chair conveyances, joggers, and other nonmotorized users (Code of Virginia § 46.2- 100). Shoulder: That part of a highway between the portion regularly traveled by vehicular traffic and the lateral curbline or ditch (Code of Virginia § 46.2-100). Sidewalk: The portion of a street between the curb lines, or the lateral lines of a roadway, and the adjacent property lines, intended for use by pedestrians (Code of Virginia § 46.2-100). Sidewalk Corridor: The entire sidewalk area made up of the curb zone, buffer zone, through pedestrian zone, and frontage zone. Shoulder: Paved or gravel area located to the right of the curb lane. Through Pedestrian Zone: The portion of the sidewalk corridor where pedestrians walk. Traffic Calming: Physical and other measures used on a highway to reduce the dominance and speed of motor vehicles. Traffic Control Device: A sign, signal, marking, or other device used to regulate, warn, or guide traffic, placed on, over, or adjacent to a street, highway, pedestrian facility, or shared -use path by authority of a public agency having jurisdiction. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle 8 Pedestrian Mobility Plan C-3 Unmarked Crosswalk: A legal pedestrian crossing that is not indicated with lines or other markings (see the definition for Crosswalk). Vehicle: Every device in, on or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a highway, except devices moved by human power or used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks. For the purposes of Chapter 8 (§ 46.2-800 et seq.) of this title, bicycles, electric personal assistive mobility devices, electric power -assisted bicycles, and mopeds shall be vehicles while operated on a highway (Code of Virginia § 46.2-100). Wheel chair or wheel chair conveyance: A chair or seat equipped with wheels, typically used to provide mobility for persons who, by reason of physical disability, are otherwise unable to move about as pedestrians. The term includes both three -wheeled and four -wheeled devices. So long as it is operated only as provided in § 46.2-677, a self-propelled wheel chair or self-propelled wheel chair conveyance shall not be considered a motor vehicle (Code of Virginia § 46.2-100). Wide Curb Lane (Wide Outside Lane): A shared travel lane where motor vehicles can pass bicyclists without changing lanes. The lane is the furthest right travel lane and its minimum width is fourteen -feet exclusive of the gutter. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle E Pedestrian Mobility Man C As part of the planning process for this document, an Online Questionnaire was advertised in order to learn more about existing conditions for walking and bicycling in the Winchester -Frederick area. There were 543 respondents to the questionnaire. More than half (56%) of the respondents indicated that there are no sidewalks or trails near their homes, however 96% responded that if there was a sidewalk or a trail near their home they would walk on it. The top two obstacles preventing respondents from walking more is a lack of greenway paths/ trails and a lack of sidewalks. Dangerous/ difficult road crossings, heavy traffic, and high-speed traffic were also named as top obstacles. Sixty-five percent of respondents indicated that the opportunity to improve health and fitness is the most appealing aspect of walking. The vast majority of respondents (94%) indicated that public funds should be used to improve pedestrian transportation options. Other Reduced Speeding, Increase in Drivers Yielding to Pedestrians in Crosswalks More Education on Pedestrian Safety Narrower Roadway Crossings Nevi Pedestrian Countdown Signals Better Marked/Painted Crosswalks More greenways/Off-road Trails More Paved Roadway Shoulder Areas More Sidewalks More Destinations within Walking Distance 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Which of the following changes would encourage you to walk more often in Frederick County, the City of Winchester, or the Town of Stephens City? The questionnaire had a separate section on bicycling. Eighty-seven percent of respondents said there was no bicycle trail or signed bicycle route near their home. Ninety-five percent of respondents said that if there was a bicycle trail or signed bicycle route near their home they would ride on it. A lack of bicycle facilities was indicated by 80% of respondents as preventing them from bicycling more often. Eighty-eight percent of respondents said that more bicycle facilities would encourage them to bike more often. Respondents were asked about their preferred types of bicycle facilities. Seventy-eight percent said designated bicycle lanes were among their preferred facility and 67% said greenways/off-road trails were among their preferred facilities. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle 8 Pedestrian Mobility Plan D-1 Other it Wide Curb Lanes 1 �! Designated Bicycle Lanes Vehicle Travel Lanes is Greenways/Off-Road Trails Paved Shoulders 0 50 100 950 200 250 300 350 Which type of bicycle facilities do you prefer to ride on? The following roadways are the ones that respondents would most like to see pedestrian and bicycle improvements: • Senseny Road • Valley Avenue (Route 11) • Pleaseant Valley Road • Amherst Street • Middle Road + Greenwood Road • Cedar Creek Grade More details from the online questionnaire results follow: Questionnaire for the Win-Flr ea MPO Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan Welcome! Thank you for your interest in walking and bicycling in Frederick County, the City of Winchester, and the Town of Stephens City, Virginia. Your responses to this questionnaire will provide information that will aid in the development of the WinFred MPO Bicycle & Pedestrian Mobility Plan. The Plan will result in the implementation of projects to improve conditions for walking and bicycling within the WinFred MPO. Even if you don't walk or bike regularly, we would appreciate your feedback. Your responses to this questionnaire will be anonymous. At the end of the questionnaire, you will be invited to provide your e-mail address if you would like to receive updates on the Plan, including the schedule for public meetings. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle It Pedestrian Mobility Plan D-2 This short questionnaire includes three parts: 1) pedestrian questions, 2) bicycle questions, and 3) background information questions. Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan D-3 I fill• I� I I � I i1Y 11 f ib i� K V 1 I I 4 1 Ii ,1 r I rLQ g «: c 1 � I is I fill• I� I I v V y 4 1 Ii r I 0 'o 3 i J . €4 P � b W n p 16 0. I 1 � P Ll a _ •A �y t 8 P � u 0 � yJ S i1 fi i J � g i i v I U1 i ' I ajAoL ®I 0 c .: m m 14 1_ --I O JiJi � I iy E f �i i I � s I I I, I ffi � j 1frj 1 � ( i i r im ; sto t i W { ro Y I f i i I � � C � • ®m w 1 - fd � i o. 0 c .: 0 9 7Lf O. Ory I � _ l + f ; i 0 9 O. Ory 0 9 I I go J, I J, I d I i Y a d K rt a r'.1 e i t I N u ate: e i c e; F I 'f II i I I i Ill e d I i Y a d K rt a r'.1 e i t I N O m I e i t I N e; � � I LL j F P ' I I i 1 4 i i I ' 3)j � O m e; � � I LL j F P ' I I i 1 O m F'7 2 \;/ \ � — . —— -- -— i�� w.\-- y��j�\\�/� -- �� \ \:\\� \\\� I ` ` }}/ ��E � � _. i / Pz�( \ \ !�� !`� � © e \ \�� \--.: /_\ —� � — � �. ... .7 I r4 � /. \/ \. \�\. \.\\� /\\\:� \�§ �. .\ ��~�� |'� � \-\- \--:.\�.~ ��®�� { � � � r4 M D f ! I r t i r � I � � r M D � I � � r rtn I m as u Ji w �- %1 IIII O W la , m r .. - f y I M D d a o o ' I � l I 1 f j F u, Y w � ra ; � 1 1 i4 P!Y e l J Ln ro i � 1 I VS H 1 J i fu w rx rl d a o o ' I � l I 1 f j a � S a yK m 1 L, r ifr r I i d U { I I f i , � e � 7 1 j F 9 .I � r I t y � a a I i U { I f � e � 7 1 j F � r I t y � a i i i E i ` Q I i3- i al d 02 L, 0 ty! cc 10 p ..�>. \!2T.-4 \.. \ ... . - .. , i � . !;< . [ � ' ■ > [ A }J � In 0 m . � } � � � � , : �� \; F -EO m DRAFT Case Studies: Bicycle ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan for the Win -Fred MPO Prepared by: I�. Toole, July 27, 2007 lAcknowledsements Prepared for: Win -Fred Metropolitan Planning Organization 103 East 6th Street Front Royal, Virginia 22630 Phone: (540) 636-8800 www.winfredmpo.org Prepared by: Toole Design Group, LLC 6525 Belcrest Road, Suite 400 Hyattsville, MD 20782 Phone: (301) 927-1900 www.tooledesi ng com The Win -Fred Metropolitan Planning Organization would like to thank the following individuals for serving on the Steering Committee for the Bicycle & Pedestrian Mobility Plan: Scott Alexander, VDOT John Bishop, Frederick County Planning Jery Copp, VDOT Alex Gray, Frederick County Planning Brian Henshaw, Town of Stephens City Matthew Hott, Frederick County Parks and Recreation Eric Lawrence, Frederick County Planning Jim Lawrence, Winchester Green Circle, Redbud Run Greenway Ursula Lemanski, NPS RTCA Bob Morris, Frederick County Planning Commission Mike Ruddy, Frederick County Planning Terry Short, VDOT Bernie Suchicital, Frederick County Planning Jon Turkel, Frederick County Parks and Recreation Brad Veach, Winchester Parks and Recreation Tim Youmans, City of Winchester Planning 7�Ible of Contents Introduction I Case Study A: Senseny Road Elementary School A-1 Case Study B: Daniel Morgan Middle School B-1 Case Study C: Shenandoah University C-1 Case Study D: Rt. 11 / Town of Stephens City D-1 Case Study E: Rt. 11 / Middle Road to Kernstown Commons E-1 Case Studies for the Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan This document presents five case studies that were prepared as part of The Win -Fred MPO Bicycle & Pedestrian Mobility Plan. These case studies are intended to provide design recommendations for specific locations that would otherwise be outside the scope of a regional planning project. Locations for the case studies were chosen by the project Steering Committee. The purpose of the case studies is to show how pedestrian and bicycle facilities could be added to existing roadways. The case studies apply the principles from "Appendix A, Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Guidelines" from the Bicycle & Pedestrian Mobility Plan. The case studies apply general pedestrian and bicycle design principles to real-world, constrained site conditions, and strive to find the safest way to accommodate all roadway users (including motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians). Case Studies: Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan Carse Study A; Senseny Road Elementary School; Carse Stud This case study examines Senseny Road Elementary School in relation to the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program. Currently, there are limited pedestrian or bicycle facilities along Senseny Road that would allow students to walk or bicycle to school. This case study demonstrates how new sidewalks, crosswalks and bicycle lanes could be provided as part of a road -widening project. This would increase vehicular capacity on the roadway while also providing opportunities for physical activity as part of trips to and from school. This proposal calls for adding a two-way left turn lane, bike lanes, and sidewalks to Senseny Road as shown on page A-3 and in the Typical Cross Sections on page A-5. Numerous studies have shown that a three lane road may have comparable vehicular capacity to a four lane road because the inside lanes are often used by turning vehicles. Studies have also shown that three lane roads result in fewer crossing -the -roadway pedestrian crashes than four lane roads. Another advantage of center turn lanes is that they can provide space for pedestrian refuge islands at crosswalks, further improving pedestrian safety. In front of Senseny Road Elementary School, sidewalks, bike lanes, and high visibility crosswalks are proposed as shown on page A-3. School children could choose to ride their bikes on the sidewalk, or parents may choose to ride with their children in the bicycle lanes. Page A-4 shows an existing bridge near Meade Drive that would need to be widened in order to accommodate the widened roadway and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Federal Safe Routes to School funding is available through the Commonwealth of Virginia. Two types of grants are available: program grants to develop SRTS Plans and programs at schools or school divisions, or project grants to provide infrastructure improvements within a two-mile radius of targeted schools. A Safe Routes to School Plan is required to be in place in order to be eligible for project grants. Case Studies: Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan A-1 SENSENY ROAD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: Cl Bicycle ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan for the Win -Fred MPO INTERSECTION DETAIL DRAFT Prepared By: VTooleDesignGroup 7/27/07 Q t MFS n Op .y F P �IMLi�11115�� f A"b k : - I SENSENY ROAD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: CASE STUDY Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan for the Win -Fred MPO INTERSECTION /BRIDGE LOCATION DETAIL Prepared By:�. TooleDesignGroi DRAFT I 9EL[PES7 POLO. SLITS 10 RN 0 I nYLR5VILLE �� 6535. —1—D 2.1.2 W.; 7/27107 I 1� I k I Q ` 1 I Ij L - � ' PHr pt7 n€3i.CUlp - y;�Icalf' ti 1 I' f ` I , Witl n d rl T 60, 0 50' 1001 im SCALE: 1" =50' cheste Country Club = - AS 60, 0 50' 1001 im SCALE: 1" =50' 7 SENSENY ROAD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: CASE STUDY Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan for the Win -Fred MPO TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS DRAFT POTENTIAL R AWING WALL SIDEWALK BUFFER ZONE T m LANE V Z <g VNPAVEp Z S � SHOULDER TW & S ��aCCC'''111 1n BIKE WJE $ R I ® 8 m BUFFER TONE TP SIDEWALK UNPAVED SHOULDER SIDEWALK BUFFER ZONE BIKE LANE � UNPAVED SHOULDER B UNPAVED SHOULDER b F y 8". TONE 4� i BIKE IAN. of Q TURN LANE Y N 1l llll��ddlillJJll $ QAAQQ. II Z� BIKE LINE BUFFET ZONE SIDEWALK POTENTIAL RETAINING WALL I BIKE LANE BUFFER ZONE SIDEWALK � UNPAVED SHOULDER B UNPAVED SHOULDER b F y 8". TONE 4� i BIKE IAN. r3 e UNPAVED SHODUDER q a- I p w PAVED SHOULDER i 'I—EWAYW MEDIAN ISLAND Prepared By: TooleDesignGroup 7/27/07 SIDEWALK BUFFER ZONE BIKE LANE �i O 11JRN LANE z w 6� CA m BIKE ANE BUFFER ZONE SIDEWALK DRTVEWAYW MEDAN ISLAND SIDEWALK }� E 8". TONE BIKE IAN. TVRN LANE d i LL gj 1l llll��ddlillJJll $ QAAQQ. BIKE LINE BUFFET ZONE SIDEWALK POTENTIAL RETAINING WALL SIDEWALK BUFFER ZONE BIKE LANE �i O 11JRN LANE z w 6� CA m BIKE ANE BUFFER ZONE SIDEWALK DRTVEWAYW MEDAN ISLAND I, Case Study B: Daniel Morgan Middle School Case Study J This case study examines Daniel Morgan Middle School, located on Cork Street in the City of Winchester, in the context of the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program. Improvements to Cork Street are proposed in order to provide students and their parents with non -motorized options for getting to and from school. Improvements throughout the Cork Street corridor include the addition of bicycle lanes and proposed sidewalks where there are gaps. Intersection improvements, such as 10 - feet wide high visibility crosswalks and ADA accessible curb ramps (with detectable warnings), are also proposed throughout the corridor. Some of the improvements require roadway widening. As shown on page B-3 and in Typical Cross Sections B -B and C -C on page B-5, bicycle lanes are proposed on Cork Street in front of Daniel Morgan Middle School. A series of 10 -feet wide high visibility crosswalks are also proposed to facilitate pedestrian roadway crossing between Jim Barnett Park and the school. A proposed pedestrian refuge island would improve pedestrian safety for students crossing Cork Street at the driveway in front of the school. A new sidewalk is also proposed in front of Jim Barnett Park. To the north of Daniel Morgan Middle School near N. Purcell Avenue, the existing roadway is proposed to be reconfigured to add bicycle lanes and the existing sidewalks are proposed to be widened as shown in Typical Cross Section D -D. As shown on page B-4 and in Typical Cross Section E -E, a new sidewalk and bicycle lanes are also proposed further down Cork Street, in front of the Mount Hebron Cemetery. At the intersection of S. Pleasant Valley Road and Cork Street, the existing high visibility crosswalk markings are proposed to be widened to 10 -feet in order to make the crosswalks more visible to drivers. Typical Cross Section A -A on page B-5 shows how the existing bridge over I-81 could be modified to include wider sidewalks. Bicyclists would have the ability to transition to the sidewalk in order to cross the street, although more experienced bicyclists would have the choice of riding in the roadway for the length of the bridge. This configuration may require a design exception due to proposed lane widths. There is Federal Safe Routes to School funding available through the Commonwealth of Virginia. Two types of grants are available: program grants to develop SRTS Plans and programs at schools or school divisions, or project grants to provide infrastructure improvements within a two-mile radius of targeted schools. A Safe Routes to School Plan is required to be in place in order to be eligible for project grants. Case Studies: Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan B-1 DANIEL MORGAN MIDDLE SCHOOL: CASE STUDY Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan for the Win -Fred MPO INTERSECTION DETAIL DRAFT h ,It at1lM9 lidllf7�.i9pliG Prepared By: TooleDesignGroup IAL 7/27/07 M m �Aim*_' 1_ - x L 0 IL t m DANIEL MORGAN MIDDLE SCHOOL: CASE STUDY j Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan for the Win -Fred MPO TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS Prepared By: CRAFT A TooleDesignGroup o...,..,..........� "" � .. 787/07 EX STING J[ TRAIL $ Q 9 � Eq I® JIM BNTWETf ! PARK SHOULDER Ids I SHOULDER ESS1iNG TRAIL a Jm TRAIL � I 72 _\ SIDEWALK y Y p� } EXISTING ISHOULDER ®BIKE LANE PARKING BLIRRER ZONE B- V SIDEWALK SHOULDER JIM BARNETT JIM BARNETT PARK / PARK SHOULDER Ids I SHOULDER ESS1iNG TRAIL L —�CEMEfARY j[sT9ajJL� @SME t BIKE LANE Ie SWEIYIVJ( _\ SIDEWALK y Y EXISTING ISIDEWALK ®BIKE LANE PARKING BLIRRER ZONE B- V SIDEWALK JIM BARNETT EXTENSIONS PARK casnNG m �I TFWL F BIID: IANE a � 0 U m I BIKE LANE ', BUFFER ZONE m 91DEWALK JIM BARN T PARI( ISIDEWALK I f� I o I8 I ISIDEWALK -EMETARY SIDEWALK a.— ZONE BITE LANE L —�CEMEfARY j[sT9ajJL� @SME t B Ie SWEIYIVJ( _\ SIDEWALK PARKING EXISTING ISIDEWALK -EMETARY SIDEWALK a.— ZONE BITE LANE v+j LANE j[sT9ajJL� @SME t B EXSTNG I�`III SWEIYIVJ( _\ SIDEWALK W BIKE LANE 115 PARKING U B- V j EXTENSIONS SIDEWALK O=ND SIDEWALK -EMETARY SIDEWALK a.— ZONE BITE LANE m� BWEWAIX v+j LANE j[sT9ajJL� @SME t B b-93mH am WJE SWEIYIVJ( BIKE LANE 115 PARKING B- V OR WIBi EXTENSIONS SIDEWALK m� BWEWAIX v+j LANE j[sT9ajJL� @SME t B b-93mH am WJE SWEIYIVJ( The proposed improvements in this case study are intended to make it easier for students to access the Shenandoah University campus on foot and by bicycle. Roadway crossing improvements are recommended and new sidewalks and bicycle lanes are proposed. Some of the improvements require roadway widening. As shown on page C-3, Bike lanes are proposed on Jubal Early Drive, and a substantial new crosswalk, which passes through a raised median island to improve pedestrian safety, is proposed to connect pedestrians and bicyclists from Jubal Early Drive to the Shenandoah University campus. The crosswalk connects to Millwood Avenue and the campus entrance via a short segment of trail. Bicycle lanes are also proposed on Millwood Avenue. The intersection of Apple Blossom Drive and Jubal Early Drive, as shown on page C-4, has been reconfigured to provide median islands and bicycle lanes. (Typical Section B -B on page C-8 shows the conditions on Jubal Early Drive, and Typical Section C -C shows the conditions on Apple Blossom Drive.) Raised medians have been proven in improve pedestrian safety. 10 -foot wide high visibility crosswalks, and ADA -accessible curb ramps are proposed. The Intersection of Apple Blossom Drive and Millwood Avenue are proposed to be reconfigured, as shown on page C-5. Bike lanes are proposed on both Apple Blossom Drive and Millwood Avenue. The existing median between Millwood Avenue and Apple Blossom Drive is widened. The existing crosswalk is to be removed and replaced with two crosswalks in different locations. The new crosswalks better correspond with existing pedestrian flow patterns and should help reduce pedestrians crossing outside of the crosswalk. As shown on page C-6, the Intersection of S. Pleasant Valley Road and Jubal Early Drive is reconfigured to allow for crosswalks, widened sidewalks, and new bicycle lanes. The existing median is narrowed in order to make room for these improvements. Cross section D -D on page C-8 shows the existing and proposed conditions on S. Pleasant Valley Road. New sidewalks and bike lanes are proposed on Route 50/ Millwood Pike as shown on page C-7 and in Typical Cross Section A -A on page C-8. The existing median is narrowed to provide space for the bike lanes. Case Studies: Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan C-1 i SHENANDOAH UNIVERSITY: CASE STUDY Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan for the Win -Fred MPO LOCATION MAP Prepared By: Dpi �!� TooleDeslgnGroup 7/27/07 fi i JL m E 4{7 VS t L O zt !lr�� . S d L .0 tS Vf ~ a 9 L .. : 4 -�i _ 4 -• r'yq - - _' i F i JL m E 4{7 VS t L O zt !lr�� . S d L .0 tS Vf ~ a 9 SHENANDOAH UNIVERSITY: CASE STUDY Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan for the Win-Fred MPO INTERSECTION DETAIL Prepared By: DRAFT TooleDesignGroup 7/27/07 M A �. - I " ei ri F Y I 1 � U D! u. V C m c,. � s 4 i Iy .t, zZE a w 1 4m LIJ \\ is c u - vl U r � M \ O C C \ v \\ U I SHENANDOAH UNIVERSITY: CASE STUDY Bicycle ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan for the Win -Fred MPO INTERSECTION DETAIL DRAFT . r - Y w. 40 Hampton Inas NIIIIIIIII'" Pargo's Restaurant A# 501 0 501 SCALE. 1" =501 I ' I Prepared By: TooleDesignGroup x525 6ELCNEST •ono. 5 TE 8 o nAeiNwo:e»:.H*Fano L NYARSYILLE. xla TlnNOY120)82 tll$}�pp 7/27/07 1001 Apple Blossom Mali Entrance Toys R Us ti C-4 Channel 3 Television Station L wioo c I n xr, c -.OI , Ruf f er_ Zur s _ , 7 *40 Me4lpn/Pede5tf loft Rei'uQe Pfrpendioulor Romp V rollol Romp 1001 Apple Blossom Mali Entrance Toys R Us ti C-4 SI�.T A �TOAN T TT�,TTTFT�SJTV• CA SF C-TLTDV V 1 rL 11 11 V NATE Ll i t• 1 L L/1 j Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan for the Win -Fred MPO INTERSECTION DETAIL DRAFT t 0 frjwdrds Reside tia! Village offer Zone M Z or is ,Ram in F n ,&AL Prepared By: Toole DedignGroup 6545 E�CRE6l RD ullE R o R,VrHF31 E)aIY94"� xrNttSv �L�E• NN v�.NU 2�i62 a01ffi.1V00 7/27/07 w National Guard Armcary /� �i n nn iyr m i]" 9m y i rypico 41 I {$ a s - N — Pgron i m • _ � � � c� 1 � � r rt SHENANDOAH UNIVERSITY: CASE STUDY Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan for the Win -Fred MPO INTERSECTION DETAIL DRAFT f Ruby Tuesday ! Restaurant q Jfll1l4fl McOcn iI (s P T Pestc ,r- crit ♦ k 50' 0 50' 100' SCALE: 1" =50' Prepared By. °- Toole DestgnGroup J&Ifi5E BEIN- UM, SITE X60 . W. ^J XT ATTEVILLE, -LAND 20T92 -=.I- 7)27 =.I- 7) 27,(07 Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant -_ r C-6 SHENANDOAH UNIVERSITY: CASE STUDY Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan for the Win -Fred MPO INTERSECTION DETAIL DRAFT �a r a a I I I 4 ( r" f .00� T "' 111' 1' 1 1111 R;r0T Prepared By: dd TooleDesignGroup 7/;27/07 n U 10 0 X 8 O 0 I SHENANDOAH UNIVERSITY: CASE STUDY Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan for the Win -Fred MPO TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS DRAFT 9DEwALK BUFFER ZONE rt MEOIW � rt BUFFER ZONE y� I 90EWAW m� 9oswax BIKE LANE t 0 gd I MEDIAN BIKE LANE SIDEWALK h ,G-jj slDEwux rt Prepared By: Toole DesignGroup 7/27/07 00 m r 1� n g 0� sIDEwAuc BINE LPNE S +19, ¢ 'IAF rt y '^ BIKE LANE SIDEWAlI( 1-�1� 9DEwALK �� BIDEWALK �` L`I SMOULDER ie� SOEVfALK :�1 I UFFER LC - 9KE LFNE IMKE LANE BUFFER ZONE rt � I fr MmLWMEDIAN 03 T Y BIKE LANE7.. ,-- BUFFER RINE rt I i w I "�J � ' � sIOEWNJC y' &KE LIWE MERDE VWE 1`- b SIOEwW SHOULDER �I 9DEWAL( b�I , BIOEw.wc Case Study D Route 11/Main Street through the Town of Stephens City: else Study This case study proposes improvements to pedestrian and bicycle facilities on Route 11/Main Street in the Town of Stephens City, Virginia. The proposed improvements include reducing parking to one side of the street in downtown Stephens City in order to provide room for bicycle lanes, adding new sidewalks, improving existing sidewalks, and improving roadway crossings. Curb extensions are proposed at key downtown intersections to improve pedestrian safety. Sidewalks are widened where possible and sidewalks and curb extensions are improved or reconstructed to meet ADA standards. In some places, where existing utility poles are barriers to pedestrians on the sidewalk, it is recommended that utility poles be relocated to curb extensions between on -street parking spaces. At the intersection of Main Street and Fairfax Street, it is recommended that curb extensions be added to the east side of Main Street, and to the north side of Fairfax street, as shown on page D-3. Pedestrian countdown signals are proposed throughout the intersection, as well as 10 -foot wide high visibility crosswalk markings and ADA - compliant curb ramps. Sidewalks on Main Street in this location are proposed to be widened to 6 -feet, as shown in Typical Cross Section D -D on page D-5. By removing parking on the west side of the street, bicycle lanes can be provided. Curb extensions are provided occasionally throughout the parking area to maintain existing trees and utility poles. At the intersection of Main Street and Plymouth Street, a curb extension is recommended to be added to the north side of Plymouth Street. ADA -compliant curb ramps and 10 -foot wide high visibility crosswalk markings are recommended as shown on page D-4. Typical Cross Section B -B on page D-5 shows that in this location the proposed roadway consists of two 12 -foot travel lanes and two 5 -foot bike lanes. A sidewalk and curb and gutter are proposed to be added to the east side of the street, and the existing sidewalk on the west side of the street is proposed to be maintained. Typical Cross Sections A -A, C -C, and E -E are shown on Page D-5 and their locations are indicated on Sheet D-2. Section A -A shows the curb and gutter, bike lanes, and reconstructed/ added sidewalks on this existing open section of roadway. Section C -C shows the removal of the eastern parking lane (with periodic curb extensions for relocated utility poles), the addition of bicycle lanes, relocation of sidewalk obstructions on the western sidewalk, and widening of the eastern sidewalk. Section E -E shows the conversion of existing shoulders to bicycle Ianes and the widening and reconstruction of existing sidewalks. Case Studies: Win -Fred MPO Bicycle & Pedestrian Mobility Plan D-1 I ROUTE 11 TNT 'T' /T■lJ`i..T�`�T OF STFTaT1u��II��. TS CTTV: C' SF TT V A\V 1 LJ 11 it \ A V I • i \ STEPHENS AJ��V SNA A A • t�i�VL .L 1 Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan for the Win -Fred MPO LOCATION MAP Prepared By: DRAFT A TooleDesignGroup 7/27107 1000' 0 1000' 2000' — i N SCALE: 1" =1000' s Mr; . r ~LeA f'" ! - — i, r Hood lemeni�r choorSt a , t ROUTE 11 IN TOWN OF STEPHENS CITY: CASE STUDY Bicycle ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan for the Win -Fred MPO INTERSECTION DETAIL Prepared By: j DRAFT � Toole DestgnGroup ...... Oz L]01➢j�,l� 7ia7/07 c _# X .1t 47 ' c a a IL �. s i tl a F endic:ularRom ,down Signals—, i� ntlicular Romp. Kv Porollel Romp V Y tis 3 m i7 tib •I 50' 0 50' 100' SCALE: 1" =50' f,}f fuer ®nO Culgr Romp, "JII uFb €xtf�nuiC�n o Curb €xlstl Or Tr 1 ROUTE 11 IN TOWN OF STEPHENS CITY: CASE STUDY Bicycle Ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan for the Win -Fred MPO INTERSECTION DETAIL Prepared By: DRAFT TooleTDesignGroup 7/27/07 aIv- All, - yr Lr: C3 �' J4Cli. "M: Per endiculor Rnm�III�I� P€�titat.trirn Countdown Signals—\, '1 -lout Infer SRction \ r gndicular Romp, Parallel Rompy i Y [i 3 � m Q' e i -,= . 50' 0 50' 100' SCALE: 1" = 50' x t ensl 19 lc lar { —Ourb If�P Exist Or Ti D-3 ROUTE 11 IN TOWN OF STEPHENS CITY: CASE STUDY Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan for the Win -Fred MPO INTERSECTION DETAIL Prepared By: A DRAFT -*� Toole Design Group 7/27/07 20' 0 20' 40' SCALE: 1" =20' A,, A� km + OP Perpendicular Ramp Perpendicular Romp C, Ile SP Perpendicular Romp D-4 ROUTE 11 IN STEPHENS CITY: CASE STUDY Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan for the Win -Fred MPO TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS DRAFT q� SIDEWALK euPPER ZKNIFJ UnLMES PNUQJG M SIDEWALK BUFF8A MNb UTILITIES v Y BIKE LANE 6 PAAKWG SIDEWALK M SIDEWALK BUFF8A MNb UTILITIES BIKE LANE 6 q LANE gqBIIKKKEEiI( OR PMIONO SIDEWALK Prepared By: /J.. TooleDesignGroup 7/27/07 DRNFWAYS DWVEWAVS ��IIII SIDEWALKw�yl m SIDEWALK I � m •��II SIDEWALK SHOULDER 'yj f2K BUFFER ZD E &1FpFA ZONE T - BIKE LANE ;o SHOULDER BIKE LANE SHOULDER a BIKE LANE s nuLDEK BUFiFA ZONEI BUFFER ZONE BIKE LANE i DRNEWAYE °' - n DRIVEWAYS SIDEWALK �j SCEWALK SIDEWALKIL• BUFFER ZONE BUF A ZONE - LnLTIE9 Un__41 SIDEWALK m b SIDEWALK - - BUFFER ZONE } UNPAVED v dill eIDEWPLK m SIDEWALK SHCKLDER .y BIKE LANE .b I BUFFER ZONE BUFFER ZONE z I— PARIQNB BIKE UWE �Iyy < LLl � UI 52 gi Z 1 . BIKE LANE UNPA_ BIKE LANE w 4 I OULDER BUFFM ZONE PMKING � PMKING it BUFF'E.R MNE SIDEWALK m� �y 910EW01K &DEWAUK L Case Study 'E: Route 1'1 from Middle Road to Kernstown Commons. Case Study This case study proposes including pedestrian and bicycle facilities on Route 11 from Middle Road to Kernstown Commons. This section of roadway is currently non-uniform with varying roadway cross sections. New typical roadway cross sections are proposed to provide continuous pedestrian and bicycle facilities throughout the corridor. The intersection of Valley Avenue/ Route 11 and Tevis Street is shown on page E-3 as an example of how to include pedestrian and bicycle facilities at intersections along the corridor. The intersection includes 10 -foot wide high visibility crosswalk markings and ADA -accessible curb ramps (including detectable warnings). Signalized intersections throughout the corridor are proposed to have pedestrian countdown signals. Sections A -A and B -B on page E-4 show different cross sections that are present along the corridor and how those cross sections could be altered to include pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Currently this corridor has portions with curb and gutter and portions without curb and gutter (open drainage ditches). Sections A -A and B -B propose adding curb and gutter, sidewalks, and bike lanes throughout the corridor. As shown in Section A -A, portions of the corridor include raised medians. In these locations, the median could be narrowed to provide more space for bicycle lanes and sidewalks. As shown in Section B -B, portions of the corridor have existing shoulders. These shoulders provide space to add designated bike lanes. The roadway would be further widened to add sidewalks. Case Studies: Win -Fred MPO Bicycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan E-9 ROUTE 11 FROM MIDDLE ROAD TO KERNTOWN COMMONS: CASE STUDY 3icycle Et Pedestrian Mobility Plan for the Win -Fred MPO Prepared By: INTERSECTION DETAIL DKAri fi Toc�leDesignGroup w.e a o nnr::r:aivwwcoana 7/27/07 50' 0 50' 100' N SCALE: 1" = 50' 4 Z L in PAfperldloul or Romp 44 • a penriiculor Romer, ---\ s JUNIN fi��rrrrs _ JUNIN, aft �;, s ROUTE 11 FROM MIDDLE ROAD TO KERNSTOWN COMMONS: CASE STUDY Bicycle & Pedestrian Mobility Plan for the Win -Fred MPO TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS Prepared By: D R.A, F -F -*- TooleDesignGroup 7iz7io7 SHDU-11 I I Z CENTER Si ,,,s r �1711d I TURN Ilf1W-IL'I TURN H � ' SIK%1LDER l 1 1 SHOULDER MEDIAN ` SHOULDER 1 b SIDEWALK e Lx1rFFA ZONE >n BIKE LAME CENTER W' 4!' I TURN LANE 91 BIKE LANE IUFFEi ZONE SIbEMfALK I d � TrR ME.M CC BIKE ANE BUFFER ZONE SIDEWALK C • n �. Item 2: Chapter 527 Regulations As staff has noted at previous meetings, VDOT has drafted new regulations regarding the completion of TIAs and also the submission of Comprehensive Plan and other plan updates to VDOT for comment. These new regulations will take effect in the Staunton District on January 1, 2008. Staff has been working through this new package and generally feels there will not be a great impact on county planning operations, though there is the possibility for impact on timelines as VDOT comment is made. In addition, staff will be attending upcoming training sessions on the new regulations. For your information, we have included a copy of the new regulation. 3 Virginia Department of Transportation Page 1 of 42 Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations CHAPTER 155. 24 VAC 30-155-10. Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in this chapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: "Connectivity Index" means the number of street links divided by the number of nodes. "Link" means a segment of street that is between intersections or between an intersection and terminus, such as a cul-de-sac or other dead end. A stub out, consisting of a short street segment that is intended to serve future development but which does not provide service to parcels within the current development shall only constitute a link for the purposes of this chapter if, based upon the adjacent zoning, terrain, and land uses, there is a reasonable expectation that the stub out will provide a connection to future development. "Locality" means any local government, pursuant to § 15.2-2223 of the Code of Virginia, that must prepare and recommend a comprehensive plan for the physical development of the territory within its jurisdiction. "Node" means an intersection of two or more streets or the terminus of a street, such as the end of a cul-de-sac or dead end. The terminus of a stub out and the intersection of a street with only a stub out do not constitute nodes for the purposes of this chapter. Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 2 of 42 "Pedestrian facility coverage" means the ratio of: (length of pedestrian facilities, such as sidewalks, foot paths, and multiuse trails, along both sides of a roadway) divided by (length of roadway multiplied by two). "Redevelopment site" means any existing use that generates traffic and is intended to be developed as a different or more dense land use. "Service Level" means a measure of the quality, level or comfort of a service calculated using methodologies approved by VDOT. "State-controlled highway" means a highway in Virginia that is part of the interstate, primary, or secondary systems of state highways and that is maintained by the state under the direction and supervision of the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner. Highways for which localities receive maintenance payments pursuant to § 33.1-23.5:1 and § 33.1-41.1 of the Code of Virginia are not considered state-controlled highways for the purposes of this regulation. "Traffic impact statement" means the document showing how a proposed development will relate to existing and future transportation facilities. "VDOT" means the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner, or a designee. 24 VAC 30-155-20. Authority. Section 15.2-2222.1 of the Code of Virginia requires localities to submit comprehensive plans and amendments to comprehensive plans that will substantially affect transportation on state- Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 3 of 42 controlled highways to VDOT in order for the agency to review and provide comments on the impact of the item submitted. This section also requires localities to submit traffic impact statements along with proposed rezonings, site plans, subdivision plats, and subdivision development plans that will substantially affect transportation on state-controlled highways to VDOT for comment by the agency. Chapter 527 of the 2006 Acts of Assembly directs VDOT to promulgate regulations for the implementation of these requirements. 24 VAC 30-155-30. Comprehensive plan and comprehensive plan amendment. A. Plan and amendment submittal. Prior to adoption of any comprehensive plan pursuant to § 15.2-2223 of the Code of Virginia, any part of a comprehensive plan pursuant to § 15.2-2228 of the Code of Virginia, or any amendment to any comprehensive plan as described in § 15.2-2229 of the Code of Virginia, if required by this section of this chapter, the locality shall submit such plan or amendment to VDOT for review and comment, such submission should take place at least 100 days prior to anticipated final action by the locality. The Virginia Department of Transportation shall, upon request, provide localities with technical assistance in preparing the transportation plan of the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan or comprehensive plan amendment package shall be submitted to VDOT, if it is reasonably anticipated to result in substantial changes or impacts to the existing transportation network. For the purposes of this section, a substantial impact shall be defined as a change that would allow the generation of 5,000 additional vehicle trips per day on state-controlled highways assuming the highest density of permissible use in accordance with the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 4 of 42 Handbook (see 24 VAC 30-155-100) or, subject to the approval of VDOT, the regional model as adopted by the local Metropolitan Planning Organization, and substantial changes shall include those changes that materially alter future transportation infrastructure, travel patterns, or the ability to improve future transportation facilities on state-controlled highways. B. Required elements. The submission by the locality to VDOT shall contain sufficient information so that VDOT may evaluate the system of new and expanded transportation facilities, outlined in the transportation plan, that are needed to support the current and planned development of the territory covered by the plan. In order to conduct this evaluation, the package submitted to VDOT shall contain the following items: 1. For a comprehensive plan or a transportation plan, the locality shall provide one copy of the following: a. A cover sheet, containing: (1) Contact information for the locality, and (2) Summary of major changes made to the comprehensive plan or transportation plan; b. The proposed comprehensive plan or transportation plan, and the following elements: (1) Inventory — an inventory (written or graphic) of the existing transportation network, which shall include at a minimum all roadways within the Federal Aid system. (2) Assumptions — planning assumptions shall be detailed, since these assumptions directly influence the demand placed on the transportation system. Population Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 5 of 42 growth, employment growth, location of critical infrastructure such as water and sewer facilities, among others, are examples of planning assumptions that may be addressed. (3) Needs assessment — written or graphic evaluation of the transportation system's current and projected performance and conditions. The needs assessment identifies specific deficiencies. (4) Recommendations — proposed improvements or additions to the transportation infrastructure. Recommendations should be specific so that the need, location and nature of the proposed improvements are clear and understandable. Localities are encouraged to include pedestrian, bicycle, transit, rail and other multimodal recommendations as they deem appropriate. The transportation plan shall include a map showing road and transportation improvements, taking into account the current and future needs of residents in the locality while considering the current and future needs of the planning district within which the locality is situated. Recommended improvements shall include cost estimates as available from VDOT. 2. For an amendment to a comprehensive plan or transportation plan, the locality shall provide one copy of the following: a. A cover sheet, containing: (1) Contact information for the locality; Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 6 of 42 (2) Summary of proposed amendment or amendments to the comprehensive plan or transportation plan; and (3) Overview of reasoning and purpose for amendments. b. Application forms and documentation presented to or prepared by the local jurisdiction, c. Associated maps or narratives that depict and detail the amendment under consideration, d. Any changes to the planning assumptions associated with the amendment, e. Local assessment of the potential impacts the amendment may have on the transportation system, and f. Those elements identified in subdivision 1 b of this subsection that VDOT determines are needed in order to review and comment on impacts to state-controlled highways. C. Review process. VDOT may, pursuant to § 15.2-2222.1 of the Code of Virginia, request a meeting with the locality to discuss the plan or amendment. The request must be made within 30 days of receipt of the proposal. VDOT must provide written comments to the locality within 90 days of VDOT's receipt of the plan or plan amendment or by such later deadline as may be agreed to by the parties. VDOT will conduct its review and provide official comments to the locality for inclusion in the official public record of the locality. VDOT shall also make such comments available to the public. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a locality from acting on a comprehensive plan or plan amendment if VDOT's comments on the submission have not been received within the timelines in this section. Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 7 of 42 D. Concurrent consideration. For the purposes of this regulation, when a related comprehensive plan or comprehensive plan amendment and a rezoning proposal that cover the same geographical area are being considered concurrently by a locality, only a rezoning package as required under 24 VAC 30-155-40 shall be prepared and provided to VDOT for review. 24 VAC 30-155-40. Rezoning. A. Proposal submittal. The locality shall submit a package to VDOT within 10 business days of receipt of a complete application for a rezoning proposal if the proposal substantially affects transportation on state-controlled highways. All trip generation calculations used for the purposes of determining if a proposal meets the criteria shall be based upon the rates or equations published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation (see 24 VAC 30-155- 100), and shall not be reduced through internal capture rates. For redevelopment sites, trips currently generated by existing development that will be removed may be deducted from the total site trips that are generated by the proposed land use. 1. For the purposes of this section, a residential rezoning proposal shall substantially affect transportation on state-controlled highways if it meets or exceeds one or more of the following trip generation criteria. a. Within a jurisdiction in which VDOT has maintenance responsibility for the secondary highway system, if the proposal generates more than 100 vehicle trips per peak hour of the generator at the site's connection to a state-controlled highway. For a site that does not have an entrance onto a state-controlled highway, the site's connection is assumed to Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 8 of 42 be wherever the road network that the site connects with attaches to a state-controlled highway. In cases where the site has multiple entrances to highways, volumes on all entrances shall be combined for the purposes of this determination; or b. Within a jurisdiction in which VDOT does not have maintenance responsibility for the local highway system, if the proposal generates more than 100 vehicle trips per peak hour of the generator and whose nearest property line is within 3,000 feet, measured along public roads or streets, of a connection to a state-controlled highway; or c. The proposal generates more than 200 daily vehicle trips on a state-controlled highway, and more than doubles the daily traffic volume the highway presently carries. For the purposes of determining whether a proposal must be submitted to VDOT, the traffic carried on the state-controlled highway shall be assumed to be the most recently published amount measured in the last traffic count conducted by VDOT or the locality on that highway. 2. For the purposes of this section, all other rezoning proposals shall substantially affect transportation on state-controlled highways if they meet or exceed one or more of the following trip generation criteria. Within a jurisdiction in which VDOT has maintenance responsibility for the secondary highway system, if the proposal generates more than 250 vehicle trips per peak hour of the generator or 2,500 vehicle trips per day at the site's connection to a state-controlled highway. For a site that does not have an entrance onto a state-controlled highway, the site's connection is assumed to be wherever the road network that the site connects with Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 9 of 42 attaches to a state-controlled highway. In cases where the site has multiple entrances to highways, volumes on all entrances shall be combined for the purposes of this determination; or b. Within a jurisdiction in which VDOT does not have maintenance responsibility for the local highway system, if the proposal generates more than 250 vehicle trips per peak hour of the generator or 2,500 vehicle trips per day and whose nearest property line is within 3,000 feet, measured along public roads or streets, of a connection to a state-controlled highway. B. Required proposal elements. The package submitted by the locality to VDOT shall contain sufficient information and data so that VDOT may determine the location of the rezoning, its size, its impact on state-controlled highways, and methodology and assumptions used in the analysis of the impact. Submittal of an incomplete package shall be considered deficient in meeting the submission requirements of § 15.2-2222.1 of the Code of Virginia and shall be returned to the locality and the applicant, if applicable, identifying the deficiencies noted. A package submitted to VDOT shall contain the following items: 1. A cover sheet containing: a. Contact information for locality and developer (or owner), if applicable; b. Rezoning location, highways adjacent to site, and parcel number or numbers; c. Proposal summary with development name, size, and proposed zoning; and d. A statement regarding the proposal's compliance with the comprehensive plan. 2. A traffic impact statement prepared in accordance with 24 VAC 30-155-60. Virginia Department of Transportation Page 10 of 42 Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations 3. A concept plan of the proposed development. C. Review process. After formal submission of a rezoning proposal to VDOT for review, VDOT may, pursuant to § 15.2-2222.1 of the Code of Virginia, request a meeting with the locality and rezoning applicant to discuss potential modifications to the proposal to address any concerns or deficiencies. The request must be made within 45 days of receipt by VDOT of the proposal. VDOT must provide written comments to the locality within 45 days of VDOT's receipt of the proposal if no meeting is scheduled or has been requested, or within 120 days of the receipt of the proposal otherwise. VDOT shall conduct its review and provide official comments to the locality for inclusion in the official public record. VDOT shall also make such comments available to the public. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a locality from acting on a rezoning proposal if VDOT's comments on the submission have not been received within the timelines in this section. 24 VAC 30-155-50. Subdivision plat, site plan, plan of development. A. Proposal submittal. The locality must submit a package to VDOT within 10 business days of receipt of a complete development proposal if the proposal substantially affects transportation on state-controlled highways. All trip generation calculations used for the purposes of determining if a proposal meets these requirements shall be based upon the rates or equations published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation (see 24 VAC 30-155-100), and shall not be reduced through internal capture rates. For redevelopment sites, trips currently generated by Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 11 of 42 existing development that will be removed may be deducted from the total site trips that are generated by the proposed land use. 1. For the purposes of this section, a residential development proposal shall substantially affect transportation on state-controlled highways if it meets or exceeds one or more of the following trip generation criteria. a. Within a jurisdiction in which VDOT has maintenance responsibility for the secondary highway system, if the proposal generates more than 100 vehicle trips per peak hour of the generator at the site's connection to a state-controlled highway. For a site that does not have an entrance onto a state-controlled highway, the site's connection is assumed to be wherever the road network that the site connects with attaches to a state-controlled highway. In cases where the site has multiple entrances to highways, volumes on all entrances shall be combined for the purposes of this determination; or b. Within a jurisdiction in which VDOT does not have maintenance responsibility for the local highway system, if the proposal generates more than 100 vehicle trips per peak hour of the generator and has an entrance that is within 3,000 feet, measured along public roads or streets, of a connection to a state-controlled highway; or c. The proposal generates more than 200 daily vehicle trips on a state-controlled highway, and more than doubles the daily traffic volume the highway presently carries. For the purposes of determining whether a proposal must be submitted to VDOT, the traffic carried on the state-controlled highway shall be assumed to be the most recently published amount measured in the last traffic count conducted by VDOT or the locality on that highway. Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 12 of 42 2. For the purposes of this section, all other development proposals shall substantially affect transportation on state-controlled highways if they meet or exceed one or more of the following trip generation criteria. a. Within a jurisdiction in which VDOT has maintenance responsibility for the secondary highway system, if the proposal generates more than 250 vehicle trips per peak hour of the generator or 2,500 vehicle trips per day at the site's connection to a state-controlled highway. For a site that does not have an entrance onto a state-controlled highway, the site's connection is assumed to be wherever the road network that the site connects with attaches to a state-controlled highway. In cases where the site has multiple entrances to highways, volumes on all entrances shall be combined for the purposes of this determination; or b. Within a jurisdiction in which VDOT does not have maintenance responsibility for the local highway system, if the proposal generates more than 250 vehicle trips per peak hour of the generator or 2,500 vehicle trips per day and has an entrance that is within 3,000 feet, measured along public roads or streets, of a connection to a state-controlled highway. B. Required proposal elements. 1. The package submitted by the locality to VDOT shall contain sufficient information and data so that VDOT may determine the location of the development, its size, its impact on state-controlled highways, and methodology and assumptions used in the analysis of the impact. Submittal of an incomplete package shall be considered deficient in meeting the submission requirements of § 15.2-2222.1 of the Code of Virginia and shall be returned to Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 13 of 42 the locality and the applicant, if applicable, identifying the deficiencies noted. A package submitted to VDOT shall contain the following items. a. A cover sheet containing: (1) Contact information for locality and developer (or owner); (2) Development location, highways connected to, and parcel number or numbers; and (3) Proposal summary with development name and size in acres. b. A supplemental traffic analysis, as defined in 24 VAC 30-155-50 C. c. A concept plan of the proposed development. C. Supplemental traffic analysis. For the purposes of this subsection, a supplemental traffic analysis will be defined as follows: 1. In cases where a rezoning traffic impact statement has been submitted to VDOT in accordance with 24 VAC 30-155-40, if all assumptions made in the traffic impact statement prepared for the rezoning remain valid and if the submission of the subdivision plat, site plan, or plan of development to the locality occurs within two years after the locality's approval of the rezoning proposal, the supplemental traffic analysis shall be a letter which provides VDOT with the following information: a. A statement that the impacts analyzed in the development's rezoning traffic impact statement have not materially changed nor have the adverse impacts on state-controlled highways increased. b. The date of the VDOT letter providing the locality comments on the rezoning. Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 14 of 42 2. In cases where a rezoning traffic impact statement has been submitted to VDOT in accordance with 24 VAC 30-155-40, if all assumptions made in the traffic impact statement prepared for the rezoning have not materially changed, the adverse impacts of the proposal on state-controlled highways have not increased and if the submission of the subdivision plat, site plan, or plan of development to the locality occurs more than two years after the locality's approval of the rezoning, the supplemental traffic analysis shall be a letter which provides VDOT with the following information: a. A statement that the impacts analyzed in the development's rezoning traffic impact statement have not materially changed nor have the adverse impacts on state- controlled highways increased; b. The date of the VDOT letter providing the locality comments on the rezoning; c. Documentation supporting the statement that the development's rezoning traffic impact statement is still valid; and d. A copy of the original traffic impact statement. After review of such letter, VDOT may require submission in accordance with subdivision 4 of this subsection. 3. In cases where the rezoning traffic impact statement has not been submitted to VDOT in accordance with 24 VAC 30-155-40, the supplemental traffic analysis shall contain the information required for rezoning traffic impact statements with 100 to 499 peak hour trips. If the subdivision plat, site plan, or plan of development will generate less than 100 peak Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 15 of 42 hour trips then the lowest required elements for the rezoning traffic impact statement shall be used. 4. In cases where a rezoning traffic impact statement has been submitted to VDOT in accordance with 24 VAC 30-155-40 and the conditions analyzed in such traffic impact statement have materially changed such that the adverse impacts of the proposal on state- controlled highways have increased or if required pursuant to subdivision 2 of this subsection, the supplemental traffic analysis shall contain those elements required for rezoning traffic impact statements with 100 to 499 peak hour trips, as determined by VDOT. If the subdivision plat, site plan, or plan of development will generate less than 100 peak hour trips then the lowest required elements for the rezoning traffic impact statement shall be used. D. Review process. After formal submission of a subdivision plat, site plan, or plan of development to VDOT for review, VDOT may, pursuant to § 15.2-2222.1 of the Code of Virginia, request a meeting with the locality to discuss potential modifications to the proposal to address any concerns or deficiencies. The request must be made within 30 days of receipt by VDOT of the proposal. VDOT must provide written comments to the locality within 30 days of VDOT's receipt of the proposal if no meeting is scheduled or within 90 days of the receipt of the proposal otherwise. VDOT will conduct its review and provide official comments to the locality for inclusion in the official public record. VDOT shall also make such comments available to the public. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a locality from acting on a subdivision plat, site Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 16 of 42 plan, or plan of development if VDOT's comments on the submission have not been received within the timelines in this section. 24 VAC 30-155-60. Traffic impact statement. A Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) assesses the impact of a proposed development on the transportation system and recommends improvements to lessen or negate those impacts. It shall (i) identify any traffic issues associated with access from the site to the existing transportation network, (ii) outline solutions to potential problems, (iii) address the sufficiency of the future transportation network, and (iv) present improvements to be incorporated into the proposed development. If a TIS is required, data collection shall be by the locality, developer, or owner, as determined by the locality and the locality shall prepare or have the developer or owner prepare the TIS. If the locality prepares the TIS it shall provide a copy of the complete TIS to the applicant when one is provided to VDOT. The completed TIS shall be submitted to VDOT. The data and analysis contained in the TIS shall be organized and presented in a manner acceptable to VDOT and consistent with this regulation. Submittal of an incomplete TIS or one prepared using unapproved methodology or assumptions shall be considered deficient in meeting the submission requirements of § 15.2-2222.1 of the Code of Virginia and shall be returned to the locality and the applicant, if applicable, identifying the deficiencies noted by VDOT. A. Scope of Work Meeting. 1. For proposals that generate less than 1,000 vehicle trips per peak hour of the generator representatives of the locality, the applicant, or the locality and the applicant may request a Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 17 of 42 Scope of Work Meeting with VDOT to discuss the required elements of a TIS for any project and VDOT shall reply to such request within 30 days of its receipt of such a request and provide a date, time and location for such a Scope of Work Meeting to both the locality and the applicant, if applicable. 2. For proposals that generate 1,000 or more vehicle trips per peak hour of the generator representatives of the locality and applicant, if applicable, shall hold a Scope of Work Meeting with VDOT to discuss the required elements of a TIS. Once a locality or applicant has contacted VDOT regarding the scheduling of a Scope of Work Meeting VDOT shall reply to both the locality and the applicant, if applicable, and provide a date, time and location for such a meeting. At a Scope of Work Meeting pursuant to this section, the locality, the applicant and VDOT shall review the elements, methodology and assumptions to be used in the preparation of the TIS, and identify any other related local requirements adopted pursuant to law. B. Required elements. The required elements and scope of a TIS are dependent upon the scale and potential impact of the specific development proposal being addressed by the TIS as determined by VDOT in its sole discretion. At a minimum, the TIS shall include the elements shown in the table below. The site generated peak hour trips in the table below shall be based upon the gross vehicle trip generation of the site less internal capture and shall take into account bicycle, pedestrian, and transit reductions. When the type of development proposed would indicate significant potential for walking, bike or transit trips either on- or off-site, the TIS shall estimate multimodal trips. All distances in the table below shall be measured along roads or streets. Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 18 of 42 Site Generated Peak Hour Trips Less than 1,000 or Item 100 to 499 500 to 999 100 more Background information List of all non-existent transportation improvements Required Required Required Required assumed in the analysis Map of site location, description of the parcel, general terrain Required Required Required Required features, and location within the jurisdiction and region. Within 2,000 Within 2,000 feet of site feet of site To be and any and any determined by Within roadway on roadway on Description of geographic VDOT in 1,000 ft of which 10% or which 10% or scope / limits of study area. consultation site more of the more of the with the new vehicle new vehicle locality trips trips generated by generated by Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic impact Analysis Regulations the proposal are distributed — not to exceed two miles Page 19 of 42 the proposal are distributed — not to exceed two miles Plan at an engineering scale of the existing and proposed site Required Required Required Required uses. Description and map or diagram of nearby uses, Required Required Required Required including parcel zoning. Description and map or Required Required Required Required diagram of existing roadways. Description and map or diagram of programmed improvements to roadways, intersections, and Required Required Required Required other transportation facilities within the study area. Analysis of Existing Conditions Collected daily and peak hour Only Required Required Required Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 20 of 42 of the generator traffic ms diagra—T7 volumes, tabulated and required presented on diagrams with counts provided in an appendix. Analyses for intersections and roadways identified by VDOT. Only Delay and Level of Service diagrams Required Required Required (LOS) are tabulated and LOS required is presented on diagrams for each lane group. When the type of development proposed would indicate To be significant potential for determined by walking, bike or transit trips At frontage, VDOT in either on- or off-site, analyses only Within 2,000 Within 2,000 consultation of pedestrian and bicycle diagrams feet of site feet of site with the facilities, and bus route or required locality routes and segment or segments, tabulated and presented on diagrams, if Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 21 of 42 facilities or routes exist :4 If requested If requested If requested If requested Speed Study by VDOT by VDOT by VDOT by VDOT If requested If requested if requested If requested Crash history near site by VDOT by VDOT by VDOT by VDOT If requested If requested If requested If requested Sight distance by VDOT by VDOT by VDOT by VDOT Analysis of Future Conditions without Development Description of and justification for the method and Optional Required Required Required assumptions used to forecast future traffic volumes. Analyses for intersections and roadways as identified by VDOT. Delay and Level of Optional Required Required Required Service (LOS) are tabulated and LOS is presented on diagrams for each lane group. When the type of development At frontage, Within 2,000 Within 2,000 To be Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 22 of 42 proposed would indicate only feet of site feet of site by significant potential for walking, diagrams Fdetermined bike or transit trips either on- or required consultation off-site, analyses of pedestrian with the and bicycle facilities, and bus locality at the route or routes and segment or Scope of segments tabulated and presented Work on diagrams, if facilities or routes Meeting exist or are planned. Trip Generation Site trip generation, with tabulated data, broken out by analysis year for multi -phase Required Required Required Required developments, and including justification for deviations from ITE rates, if appropriate. Description and justification of internal capture reductions for mixed use developments and Required Required Required Required pass -by trip reductions, if appropriate, including table of Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 23 of 42 calculations used. Site Traffic Distribution and Assignment Description of methodology used to distribute trips, with Required Required Required Required supporting data. Description of the direction of approach for site generated traffic and diagrams showing the traffic assignment to the Required Required Required Required road network serving the site for the appropriate time periods. Analysis of Future Conditions With Development Forecast daily and peak hour of Future Future At a minimum Current the generator traffic volumes background + background + the future traffic + site on the highway network in the site generated site generated background + si generated study area, site entrances and traffic, at each traffic, at each generated traffic, traffic internal roadways, tabulated expected expected phase, at each expected Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 24 of 42 and presented on diagrams. phase and at at build -out, and phase, at build - build -out or six years after out, and six years six years after build -out, which after build - start, may be extende out; may be whichever is or reduced by extended by later VDOT in VDOT in consultation consultation with with the locality the locality Analyses for intersections and roadways identified by VDOT. Only Delay and Level of Service diagrams Required Required Required (LOS) are tabulated and LOS required presented on diagrams for each lane group. When the type of development To be proposed would indicate At frontage, determined by significant potential for only Within 2,000 Within 2,000 VDOT in walking, bike or transit trips diagrams feet of site feet of site consultation either on- or off-site, analyses required with the of pedestrian and bicycle locality facilities, and bus route or Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 25 of 42 routes and segment or segments tabulated and presented on diagrams, if facilities or routes exist orare planned. Recommended Improvements Description and diagram of the location, nature, and extent of proposed improvements, with Required Required Required Required preliminary cost estimates as available from VDOT. Description of methodology used to calculate the effects of Required if Required if Required if Required if travel demand management TDM TDM TDM TDM (TDM) measures, if proposed, proposed proposed proposed proposed with supporting data. Analyses for all proposed and modified intersections in the Only study area under the forecast and diagrams Required Required Required site traffic. Delay, and Level of required Service (LOS) are tabulated and Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 26 of 42 LOS presented on diagrams for each lane group. For intersections expected to be signalized, MUTCD Signal Warrant analysis or ITE Manual for Traffic Signal Design, as determined by VDOT, presented in tabular form. When the type of development proposed would indicate significant potential for walking, bike or transit trips To be either on- or off-site, analyses At frontage, determined by of pedestrian and bicycle only Within 2,0010 Within 2,000 VDOT in facilities, and bus route or diagrams feet of site feet of site consultation routes and segment or required with the segments tabulated and locality presented on diagrams, if facilities or routes exist or are planned. Conclusions Clear, concise description of Required Required Required Required Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations the study findings. Page 27 of 42 Notwithstanding the geographic scope noted above, the geographic scope of the study noted above may be reduced or enlarged based upon layout of the local transportation network, the geographical size of the development, and the traffic volume on the existing network, as determined by VDOT in consultation with the locality and the applicant, if applicable. Typically, analysis will be conducted for any roadway on which the additional trips generated by the proposal have a materially detrimental impact on traffic conditions. The analysis presented in the TIS need not include all roadway and roadway segments located within the geographic scope of the study as determined by VDOT. C. Methodology and standard assumptions. A TIS shall be prepared based upon methodology and assumptions noted below or as may be agreed upon by VDOT based upon the results of a Scope of Work Meeting held by VDOT pursuant to 24 VAC 30-155-60. 1. Data collection. Preparers shall collect traffic data in accordance with the identified study area. The count data shall include at a minimum, weekday 24-hour counts, and directional turning movement counts during AM and PM peak times of the day. The 24-hour counts shall include vehicle classification counts. With approval of VDOT, data collected by the transportation professional preparer within the last 24 months may be used, likewise for data from the VDOT count program. Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 28 of 42 The preparer shall monitor traffic operations during data collection to ensure extraneous events such as vehicle crashes or special event traffic do not affect integrity of count data. Preparers collecting data for utilization in traffic impact studies shall normally avoid data collection during the following instances: a. Holidays or times of the year when the traffic patterns are deemed to be unrepresentative of typical conditions, unless required by VDOT or the locality, or both. b. Summer months if school or schools in proximity. c. Fridays and weekends unless required by VDOT or the locality, or both. d. Other times of the year contingent upon existing adjacent land use activities. e. During times of inclement weather. 2. Trip generation. Estimates of trip generation by a proposed development shall be prepared using the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation (see 24 VAC 30-155-100), unless VDOT agrees to allow the use of alternate trip generation rates based upon local trip generation studies. Rezoning proposals shall assume the highest vehicle trip generating use allowable under the proposed zoning classification. In determining which trip generation process (equation or rate) may be used, the preparer shall follow the guidance presented in the Trip Generation Handbook — an ITE Proposed Recommended Practice (see 24 VAC 30-155- 100), which is summarized here. Regression equations to calculate trips as a result of development shall be utilized, provided the following is true: a. Independent variable falls within range of data; and Virginia Department of Transportation Page 29 of 42 Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations b. Either the data plot has at least 20 points; or c. R2 greater than 0.75, equation falls within data cluster in plot and standard deviation greater than 110% of weighted average rate. If the above criteria are not met, then the preparer can use average trip rates, provided at least one of the following applies: d. At least three data points exist; e. Standard deviation less than 110% of weighted average rate; f. R2 less than 0.75 or no regression equation provided; or g. Weighted average rate falls within data cluster in plot. 3. Internal capture and pass -by trips. a. Internal capture rates consider site trips "captured" within a multiuse development, recognizing that trips from one land use can access another land use within a site development without having to access the adjacent street system. Multiuse developments include a combination of residential and nonresidential uses or a combination of nonresidential uses only. Internal capture allows reduction of site trips from adjacent intersections and roadways. Unless otherwise approved by VDOT, the following internal capture rates may be used if appropriate: (1) Residential with a mix of nonresidential components—use the smaller of 15% of residential or 15% nonresidential trips generated. (2) Residential with office use—use the smaller of 5.0% of residential or 5.0% of office trips generated. Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 30 of 42 (3) Residential with retail use—for AM peak hour, use the smaller of 5.0% residential or 5.0% retail trips generated; for PM peak hour, use the smaller of 10% residential or 10% retail trips generated; for 24-hour traffic, use the smaller of 15% residential or 15% retail trips generated. (4) Hotel/motel with office use—use 15% of hotel/motel trips, unless the overall volume of the office traffic is more than the overall volume of hotel/motel traffic use in which case use the smaller of 10% of the hotel/motel traffic or the office traffic. (5) Multiuse development with more than five million square feet of office and retail— internal capture rate should be determined in consultation with and approval of VDOT. b. Pass -by trip reductions consider site trips drawn from the existing traffic stream on an adjacent street, recognizing that trips drawn to a site would otherwise already traverse the adjacent street regardless of existence of the site. Pass -by trip reductions allow a percentage reduction in the forecast of trips otherwise added to the adjacent street from the proposed development. The reduction applies only to volumes on adjacent streets, not to ingress or egress volumes at entrances serving the proposed site. Unless otherwise approved by VDOT, the following pass -by trip reductions may be used: (1) Shopping center -25% of trips generated may be considered pass -by. (2) Convenience stores, service stations, fast food restaurants, and similar land uses - 40% of trip generated may be considered pass -by. 4. Trip distribution. In the absence of more detailed information, trip distribution shall be in Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 31 of 42 accordance with logical regional travel patterns as suggested by existing highway directional split and intersection movements or population and destination site distribution. If more detailed information is available from trip origin/destination studies, marketing studies, or regional planning models, this may be used to distribute trips upon approval of VDOT. 5. Planning horizon. In general, the analysis years shall be related to (i) the opening date of the proposed development, (ii) build -out of major phases of a multiyear development, (iii) long range transportation plans, and (iv) other significant transportation network changes. The preparer should establish the planning horizon in consultation with and subject to the acceptance of VDOT. 6. Background traffic growth. Unless directed by VDOT, geometric growth (or compound growth), based upon historical growth rates, shall generally be used for determining future background traffic levels where extensive traffic -count history is available and capacity constraint is not appropriate. This growth rate replicates "natural growth" and is typical for projecting urban growth. 7. Future conditions. For the purpose of the TIS, future conditions shall include background traffic and additional vehicle trips anticipated to be generated by approved but not yet constructed or improved projects. 8. Level of service calculation. Level of service (LOS) analysis of roadways shall utilize the techniques described in the Highway Capacity Manual (see 24 VAC 30-155-100). Neither the intersection capacity utilization method nor the percentile delay method may be used in the traffic impact calculations of delay and level of service. Preparers shall consult with VDOT on Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic I'mipact Analysis Regulations Page 32 of 42 which traffic analysis software package is to be used to conduct the LOS calculations. The results shall be tabulated and displayed graphically, with levels of service provided for each lane group for each peak period. All data used in the calculations must be provided along with the results of the capacity analysis. Any assumptions made that deviate from the programmed defaults must be documented and an explanation provided as to why there was a deviation. Electronic files used for the analysis shall be provided to VDOT as a digital submission (e.g. .hcs, .sy6, .inp, .trf files), along with the printed report. If intersections analyzed are in close proximity to each other so that queuing may be a factor, VDOT may require the inclusion of an analysis with a micro simulation model. Unless actual on -ground conditions dictate otherwise, preparers should use the following defaults when utilizing the Highway Capacity Software (HCS) or other approved programs when evaluating roadway components: a. Terrain — choose the appropriate terrain type. Most of the state will be level or rolling, but some areas may qualify for consideration as mountainous. b. Twelve -foot wide lanes. c. No parking or bus activity unless field conditions include such parking or bus activity or unless the locality has provided VDOT with a written statement of intent for the services to be provided. d. Peak hour factor by approach — calculate from collected traffic counts (requires at least a peak hour count in 15 -minute increments). e. Heavy vehicle factor — calculate from collected traffic (classification) counts or obtain from VDOT count publications. Virginia Department of Transportation Page 33 of 42 Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations f. Area type — noncenter of business district. The TTS shall identify any existing or proposed bicycle and pedestrian accommodation that would be affected by the proposal. For the purposes of this subsection, a bicycle accommodation is defined as on -street bike lanes, paved shoulders Of roadways that are not part of the designated traveled way for vehicles, intersection treatments, or exclusive and shared off-street bicycle paths. For the purposes of this subsection, a pedestrian accommodation is defined as sidewalks, intersection treatments and exclusive, or shared off- street trails or paths. If significant potential for bicycle or pedestrian trips exists, the TIS shall include current and future Service Level analyses at build -out for existing or proposed bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. When the proposal requires or includes improvements or modifications to the roadway, bicycle or pedestrian accommodations the TIS shall analyze the impacts of such improvements and modifications on bicycle and pedestrian accommodations and Service Levels, and provide recommendations for mitigation of adverse impacts. The TIS shall provide analysis for all bus service with routes that have, or will have a station or stop within 2,000 feet of the proposal. The TIS shall evaluate and discuss potential for increased demand for bus use due to the proposal, addressing whether such increases will demand longer dwell time at stops or more buses on a route. The quality of service analysis for bus service shall be determined in accordance with the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (see 24 VAC 30-155-100). The TIS shall provide both route and segment quality of service. The TIS shall provide recommendations for mitigation of adverse impacts Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 34 of 42 where adverse impacts are expected to the quality of service to bus service. If an analysis of pedestrian quality or level of service is required for calculation of the bus quality of service, the preparer shall use a methodology approved by VDOT. 9. Trip reduction, and pedestrian and bicycle accommodations. When a proposal meets the criteria listed below the preparer of the TIS may reduce the number of vehicle trips generated by the proposal in the TIS analysis in accordance with this subsection. Notwithstanding the percentages below, the total number of reductions used by a preparer in accordance with this subsection shall never exceed 500 vehicle trips per peak hour of the generator, unless otherwise approved by VDOT. a. Pedestrian accommodations. For the purposes of this subsection, a pedestrian accommodation is defined as a sidewalk, pedestrian path, or multiuse trail. Where a pedestrian Service Level of A exists vehicle trips per peak hour of the generator may be reduced by 4.0%. Where a pedestrian Service Level of B exists vehicle trips per peak hour of the generator may be reduced by 3.0%; where a pedestrian Service Level of C exists vehicle trips per peak hour of the generator may be reduced by 1.5%. These reductions may only be taken if. (1) Pedestrian facility coverage in a 2,000 -foot radius of the proposal is on or along at least 80% of the road network; and (2) The connectivity index within the 2,000 -foot radius is equal to or higher than 1.4; and Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 35 of 42 (3) There are at least two of the 10 major land use classifications, as defined in ITE Trip Generation (see 24 VAC 30-155-100), within the 2,000 -foot radius. b. Bicycle accommodations. For the purposes of this subsection, a bicycle accommodation is defined as a street with a design speed of 25 MPH or less that carries 400 vehicles per day or less, on - street bike lanes, a pedestrian accommodation, paved shoulders of roadways that are not part of the designated traveled way for vehicles and are at least two feet wide, or exclusive and shared off-street bicycle paths. Where a bicycle Service Level of A exists vehicle trips per day may be reduced by 3.0%. Where a bicycle Service Level of B exists vehicle trips per day may be reduced by 2.0%. Where a bicycle Service Level of C exists vehicle trips per day may be reduced by 1.0%. These reductions may only be taken if: (1) Bicycle accommodations within a 2,000 -foot radius of the proposal exist on or along at least 80% of the road network; and (2) The Connectivity Index within the 2,000 -foot radius is equal to or higher than 1.4; and (3) There are at least two of the 10 major land use classifications, as defined in ITE Trip Generation (see 24 VAC 30-155-100), within the 2,000 -foot radius. Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 36 of 42 10. Modal split and trip reduction. All vehicle trip reductions used in the TIS pursuant to this subsection are subject to the approval of VDOT. a. If a proposal is located within %z mile along roadways, pedestrian or bicycle accommodations of a transit station, excluding bus stops and stations, reasonable vehicle trip reductions of vehicle trips generated by the proposal may be made with approval of VDOT. The preparer shall submit documentation to justify any such vehicle trip reductions used with the TIS. When a proposal is located more than 1/2 mile but less than two miles from a transit stop, excluding bus stops and stations, with parking accommodations transit modal split vehicle trip reductions may be utilized. The analysis of capacity of the parking accommodations shall be included in the TIS when such trip reductions are used. b. If a proposal is located within 1/a mile along roadways, pedestrian or bicycle accommodations of a bus stop or station where the segment and route Service Levels are C or higher reasonable vehicle trip reductions of vehicle trips generated by the proposal may be made with the approval of VDOT. The preparer shall submit documentation to justify any such vehicle trip reductions used with the TIS. c. Transit and bus modal split data from similar developments within the geographic scope of the TIS or one mile of the proposal, whichever is greater, shall be collected if the TIS vehicle trip reductions are used pursuant to this subsection and similar developments exist within the geographic scope of the TIS or one mile of the proposal, whichever is greater. Virginia Department of Transportation T r x111 Impa%t Anaiy'SIS Regu',atiolls Page 37 of 42 11. Signal warrant analysis. Traffic signal warrant analysis shall be performed in accordance with the procedures set out in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (see 24 VAC 30-155-100) or ITE Manual of Traffic Signal Design as determined by VDOT. 12. Recommended improvements. Recommendations made in the TTS for improvements to transportation facilities shall be in accordance with the geometric standards contained within the Road Design Manual (see 24 VAC 30-155-100). 24 VAC 30-155-70. Departmental analysis. After concluding its review of a proposed comprehensive plan or transportation plan or plan amendment, rezoning, or site or subdivision plan, VDOT shall provide the locality and applicant, if applicable, with a written report detailing its analysis and when appropriate recommending transportation improvements to mitigate any potential adverse impacts on state- controlled highways. VDOT shall provide recommendations for facilitating other modes of transportation including but not limited to transit, bus, bicycle and pedestrian facilities or accommodations where such facilities or accommodations are planned or exist, or where such facilities have a significant potential for use. 24 VAC 30-155-80. Fees. Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 38 of 42 A. Locality initiated proposals. No fee shall be charged for review of any comprehensive plan, comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning proposal, subdivision plat, site plan, or plan of development initiated by a locality or other public agency. B. All other proposals. Any package submitted to a locality by an applicant that will be subject to VDOT review pursuant to this chapter shall include any required payment in a form payable directly to VDOT. 1. For initial or second review of all comprehensive plans, comprehensive plan amendments, and transportation plans submitted to VDOT for review, not initiated on behalf of the locality, there shall be a fee of $1,000 charged to the applicant. This fee shall be paid upon submission of a plan to VDOT for review. 2. For initial or second review of rezoning proposals, subdivision plats, site plans, or plans of development accompanied by a traffic impact statement or supplemental traffic analysis, not initiated on behalf of the locality, there shall be a single fee for both reviews determined by the number of adjusted vehicle trips generated per peak hour of the generator, as follows: Up to 100 vehicles per peak hour - $500 Over 100 vehicles per peak hour - $1,000 The fee shall be paid upon submission of a package to VDOT for review. 3. For a third or subsequent submission pursuant to subdivisions 1 or 2 of this subsection, that is requested by VDOT on the basis of the failure of the applicant to address deficiencies previously identified by VDOT, the applicant shall be required to pay an additional fee as though the third or subsequent submission were an initial submission and requiring the fees Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 39 of 42 identified above. An applicant or locality may appeal to the district administrator a determination by VDOT that a submitted package failed to address deficiencies previously identified by VDOT. 24 VAC 30-155-90. Implementation. VDOT shall implement this chapter in phases, beginning on July 1, 2007, so that it is in full effect by January 1, 2009. A. Implementation by VDOT district. For the purposes of this chapter, the nine VDOT construction districts have been divided into three groups. 1. Group 1 consists of Northern Virginia, Richmond, and Salem Districts. Implementation will begin on July 1, 2007 for this group. 2. Group 2 consists of Culpeper, Fredericksburg, and Staunton Districts. Implementation will begin on January 1, 2008 for this group. 3. Group 3 consists of Bristol, Hampton Roads, and Lynchburg Districts. Implementation will begin on July 1, 2008 for this group. B. Phasing by submission type and trip generation. Within each group of construction districts, implementation will be phased by the type of submission and the trip generation that each proposal is expected to generate. 1. Proposal submission that will be required at the start of each group's implementation: a. All comprehensive plan and plan amendments submittals described in 24 VAC 30- 155-30. Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Page 40 of 42 b. Rezoning, subdivision plat, site plan, and plan of development proposals as described in 24 VAC 30-155-40 and 24 VAC 30-155-50 for sites generating 500 vehicle trips per peak hour or more as described in 24 VAC 30-155-60. 2. All remaining proposal submissions subject to this chapter shall be required to be submitted beginning six months after the start of each group's implementation. 24 VAC 30-155-100. Listing of Documents Incorporated by Reference. Requests for information pertaining to the availability and cost of any of these publications should be directed to the address indicated below the specific document. Requests for documents available from VDOT may be obtained from VDOT's division and representative indicated; however, VDOT documents may be available over the Internet at www.vdot.virginia.gov. A. Trip Generation (effective November, 2003 ) Institute of Transportation Engineers 109914 1h Street NW Suite 300 West Washington, DC 20005 B. Trip Generation Handbook — an ITE Proposed Recommended Practice (effective 2004) Institute of Transportation Engineers 1099 14`h Street NW Suite 300 West Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Washington, DC 20005 C. Road Design Manual (effective January 1, 2005) Location and Design Division (VDOT) 1401 E. Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 D. Highway Capacity Manual (effective 2000) Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street NW Washington, DC 20001 E. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (effective December 22, 2003) Federal Highway Administration Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office PO Box 371954 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15250 F. ITE Manual of Traffic Signal Design (effective 1998) Institute of Transportation Engineers 109914 th Street NW Suite 300 West Washington, DC 20005 Page 41 of 42 Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Impact A naly�sis Regulations G. Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Edition (effective 2003) Transportation Research Board of the National Academies Keck Center of the National Academies Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Page 42 of 42 C • • Item 3: Enhancement Grants The November deadline to make application for enhancement grants is approaching. As you will recall from last year, we applied for funds to make improvements to the Senseny Road Corridor. That request was partially funded at $140,000. Staff is preparing a new application for the Senseny Road Corridor to continue to work toward fully funding that project. Additional materials will be presented at the meeting. 2 • CJ • Item 4: Access Management As you may recall, some time ago the Board of Supervisors authorized staff and the Transportation Committee to create an access management plan. In our first of what will be a series of agenda items working toward this goal, please find the attached literature which discusses what access management is and also describes some of the primary techniques used. The basic format that staff plans to follow is to take one or two primary considerations, such as signal or intersection spacing, each month. Staff will bring recommendations to the committee for discussion and refinement. There will be many issues to consider in addition to whether the proposed guidelines are too weak or two harsh. Among these are what if any waiver opportunities should accompany each section and how existing uses can be `grandfathered' in and what would trigger the need for compliance. Once the plan is complete, it would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. Staff would expect that should the Board look favorably upon the plan, it would be adopted and forwarded to the DRRS committee for codification. Introduction and Concepts WHAT IS ACCESS MANAGEMENT? Access management is the systematic control of the location, spacing, design, and oper- ation of driveways, median openings, interchanges, and street connections to a roadway. It also involves roadway design applications, such as median treatments and auxiliary lanes, and the appropriate spacing of traffic signals. The purpose of access management is to provide vehicular access to land develop- ment in a manner that preserves the safety and efficiency of the transportation system. The contemporary practice of access management extends the concept of access design and location control to all roadways—not just limited -access highways or freeways. From a planning perspective, contemporary access management is a systematic way to carry out the roadway functional hierarchy that is implicit in state, regional, and local transportation plans. Roadways are classified by function on the basis of the priority given to land access versus through -traffic movement (Figure 1-1). Access management is particularly important along arterials and other primary roads that are expected to pro- vide safe and efficient movement of traffic, as well as access to property. However, access management is still necessary on lower -level roadways, such as minor collec- tors and residential streets, to address safety considerations, such as sight distance and corner clearance. Complicating access management is the fact that the relationship of roadway type to access and movement functions is not always uniform. For example, a major col- lector roadway in a residential area may exemplify a higher degree of access control and through -traffic movement than an older arterial with commercial strip develop- ment. Thus, the appropriate degree of access control varies according to the functions and traffic characteristics of a roadway, the character of abutting land, and long-term ,planning objectives. It may be desirable to have more restrictive access management standards on one arterial roadway and less restrictive standards on another. In addi- tion, some major roadways may serve a mix of competing functions that are difficult to reconcile and that may require special design, traffic -calming, or access management measures. 3 Access management is the systematic control of the location, spacing, design, and operation of driveways, median openings, interchanges, and street connections to a roadway. IMPORTANCE OF AcCEss MANAGEMENT An effective access management program can reduce crashes as much as 50%, increase roadway capacity by 23% to 45%, and reduce travel time and delay as much as 40% to 60% (1). ACCESS MANAGEMENT MANUAL Access Function Freeway Major Arterial `o v Minor Arterial C L Major Collector a a, N' \Minor Collector Local Street I Increasinq Access FIGURE 1-1 Conceptual roadway functional hierarchy. Because access management can involve trade-offs between competing objectives, the appropriate amount and type of access are ultimately decided on the basis of policy. Each agency or governing board will need to choose what level of arterial performance, driver safety, and driver comfort it is willing to accept on major roadways in exchange for more frequent and direct site access. ACCESS MANAGEMENT AND MULTIMODAL NEEDS A comprehensive access management pro-. gram supports safe and efficient operations for all modes of transportation. Although the emphasis of access management is on reduc- ing the problems attributable to unmanaged vehicular access, the strategies in the manual reflect consideration of the full range of trans- portation modes. Mixed-use activity centers, improved density of local and collector streets, enhanced network connectivity, nontraversable medians, and bicycle/pedestrian connections at key locations are among the many strate- gies discussed in the manual that advance access management and multimodal needs. WHY IS ACCESS MANAGEMENT IMPORTANT? General Benefits of Access Management ---Koads are an iinpoitd tpublic resource. They are costly to build and to improve or replace. In a revenue -constrained environment, effec- tive management of the transportation system is not an option—it is essential. It is simply not practical to allow major arterial roadways to deteriorate under the assumption that they will be replaced or reconstructed in the future. Yet many areas continue to do just that—by allowing closely spaced curb cuts, median openings across a turn 11ne, driveways in a major intersection, or poorly coordinated traffic signals—thus creating unsafe and con- gested conditions on major roadways (see box, "Importance of Access Management"). By managing roadway access, government agencies can extend the life of roads and high- ways, increase public safety, reduce traffic congestion, and improve the appearance and quality of the built environment. Not only does access management preserve the transportation functions of roadways, it also helps preserve long-term property values and the economic viability of abutting development. From an environmental perspective, improved traffic flow translates into greater fuel efficiency and reduced vehicular emissions. Consolidating access roads is also less damaging to rural land- scapes or environmentally sensitive areas than numerous individual private drives. 1.1ho Benefits ff0,r; Access i%1anage neat? 01 Motorists –Face fewer decision points and traffic conflicts, which simplifies the driving task and increases driver safety –Experience fewer traffic delays and arrive more quickly at their destinations a Cyclists –Face fewer decision points and con- flicts with traffic, which simplifies the cycling task and increases safety for cyclists –Benefit from more predictable motorist travel patterns –Can choose alternative travel routes as local supporting roadway systems are developed s Pedestrians –Face fewer and less frequent access. points where motorists enter and exit the roadway, thereby making it safer to walk along major roadways –Can use medians as a refuge when crossing several lanes of traffic Transit riders –Experience reduced delay and reduced travel times —Benefit from a safer walking environment —Experience more convenient access to transit stops as connectivity of streets, sidewalks, and pedestrian ways is improved Business persons —Are served by a more efficient roadway system that captures a broader market area —Benefit from stable property values due to a well-managed roadway corridor —Experience a more predictable and consistent development environment a The freight industry benefits from reduced delay and increased safety, which -?' results in lower transportation costs and ' shorter delivery times a Government agencies —Benefit from the lower cost of deliv- ering an efficient and safe transportation system —Benefit from improved internal and intergovernmental coordination —Are more effective in accomplishing their transportation objectives r Communities —Receive a safer transportation system —Benefit from less need for road widening, which causes displacement of businesses, homes, and communities —Benefit from more attractive road- way corridors —Help protect and preserve their investment in transportation facilities and may reduce capital improvement costs for new or reconstructed roadways WHAT HAPPENS WHEN ROADWAY "ACCESS IS NOT MANAGED? Adverse Consequences of Lary of Access INIanagement Without access management, the function and character of major roadway corridors can dete- riorate rapidly. Failure to manage access is associated with the following adverse social, economic, and environmental impacts: it An increase in vehicular crashes; ® More collisions involving pedestrians and cyclists; i r Accelerated reduction in roadway Unsightly commercial strip development; Degradation of scenic landscapes; Introduction and Concepts ■ More cut -through traffic in residential areas due to overburdened arterials; ■ Homes and businesses adversely affected by a continuous cycle of widening roads; and a Increased commute times, fuel con- sumption, and vehicular emissions as numer- ous driveways and traffic signals intensify congestion and delays along major roads. Not only is inadequate access management costly for government agencies and the public, but it also adversely affects corridor businesses. Over time, closely spaced and poorly designed driveways make it more difficult for customers to enter and exit businesses safely. Access to corner businesses may be blocked by queuing traffic. Newer businesses seek out locations that are more attractive and have fewer access and congestion problems. Customers begin to patronize businesses with safer, more conven- ient access and avoid businesses in areas of poor access design. Gradually the older devel- oped areas begin to deteriorate because of access and aesthetic problems, and investment moves to newer, better -managed corridors. The Transportation and The access problems noted above are symp- toms of inadequate coordination of transporta- tion and land use decisions. The resulting chain of events can be characterized as a cycle of functional obsolescence along major road- way corridors. The transportation and land use cycle begins as major improvements in the roadway system change the accessibility of land (Figure 1-2). Improved accessibility causes land values to increase and stimulates real estate development. In the absence of effective planning and access management, conflicts typically emerge between transporta- tion and development objectives. s Buildings may block right-of-way needed for future streets or may be constructed too close to the right-of-way to allow for future widening. K Property owners may subdivide road- way frontage into small or narrow lots to maximize the number of properties having direct arterial access. a Local governments may strip zone highway frontage for commercial use or provide utilities in a manner that encourages strip development. V 6 ACCESS MANAGEMENT MANUAL FIGURE 1-2 Transportation and land use cycle. 4 Over time, the closely spaced drive- ways force more local trips onto the arterial, traffic conflicts multiply, and congestion increases. * Roadway improvements are soon needed to restore the safety and capacity of the system, and the cycle begins again. Yet reconstruction of an existing arterial roadway is costly and disruptive to the public and abutting homes and businesses. The shal- low property depth, multiplicity of ownership, and right-of-way limitations generally pre- clude effective redesign of access and site cir- culation, even when substantial expenditures are made for roadway reconstruction. In some cases, a new arterial or bypass must be built to replace the functionally obsolescent roadway, and the process begins again in a new location, unless access is controlled. Access management programs can stop this cycle of functional obsolescence, thereby protecting public and private investment in major roadway corridors. However, the trans- portation and land use cycle . can only be managed effectively by addressing both the transportation system and the adjacent land development. Therefore, participation of both state and local agencies is necessary. HOW IS ACCESS MANAGEMENT ACCOMPLISHED? Access management is achieved through the systematic application of planning, regula- tory, and design strategies. The following are the basic methods of accomplishing access management: L Policies, directives, and guidelines: State and local agencies may adopt specific policies, directives, or guidelines that are directly or indirectly related to access man- agement. A local government typically sets forth public policies in its comprehensive plan. State agencies may establish formal agency policies, procedures, and directives under their general administrative functions. Access management issues are sometimes addressed through guidelines, which do not require specific legislative authority, but which lack the mandatory status and enforceability of regulations. 2. Access management regulations: Access management regulations may address various aspects of access manage- ment, such as the location and spacing of connections, design of access connections, spacing of median openings, spacing of traffic signals, joint and cross access requirements, interchange areas, and access permitting. These regulations may take the form of comprehensive statewide access codes or local access management ordi- nances, and they can be more effectively enforced than guidelines. 3. Acquisition of access rights: State transportation agencies and local govern- ments have the authority to acquire access rights. This is how freeways, expressways, parkways, and in some cases other types of arterial roadways are protected. The acquisi- tion of access rights, while often costly and time consuming, is a strong and long-lasting solution. 4. Land development regulations: In addition to access management and drive- way design requirements, local agencies establish a variety of land development reg- ulations that affect access outcomes. Zoning regulations address lot dimensions (e.g., set- back and lot frontage), lot coverage, park- ing, landscaping, site circulation, development intensity or density, and the permitted use of land. Subdivision regula- tions govern the division of land into lots, blocks, and public ways and can ensure proper street layout in relation to existing or planned roadways, adequate space for emer- gency access and utilities, and internal access to subdivision lots. State agencies rarely have these powers. 5. Development review and impact assessment: Some aspects of access man- agement are addressed at the site review stage, in response to a request for a develop- ment or connection permit. This may be accomplished through the subdivision or site plan review process of local agencies or during the access permitting process of state agencies. Larger developments are often required to submit a traffic impact assess- ment to assist the agency in its review. Comments and requirements are usually based on policies already adopted. 6. Geometric design: Geometric design features, such as interchanges, frontage roads, medians, median openings, auxiliary lanes, driveway design, and intersection channelization are used to manage access and vehicular turning movements. Geometric design criteria are normally included in design manuals and are advanced through the roadway improvement process. State and local agencies are granted the basic authority to engage in access manage- ment to some degree through their general police powers and powers of eminent domain. In addition, transportation agencies are granted the authority under state transportation law to manage all aspects of roadway design to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. However, the specific extent of agency author- ity to regulate land development and access varies considerably from state to state. Thus, a thorough examination of state law is an essen- tial element of developing an access manage- ment program. ELEMENTS OF A COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM Access management programs include both systemwide and corridor -based programs. Systemwide programs involve the develop- ment and implementation of a comprehensive access management program for all roadways under state- or local jurisdiction. Corridor - based programs focus on the development and implementation of corridor access manage- ment plans (see Chapter 6). Corridor -based L Introduction and Concepts 7 programs are useful for retrofitting problem areas or addressing the needs of high-priority corridors and are often combined with a systemwide approach. Some systemwide pro- grams, for example, contain or authorize corridor -based solutions. Comprehensive, systemwide access man- agement programs involve the following key elements: 1. Classifying roadways into a logical hierarchy according to function; 2. Planning, designing, and maintaining roadway systems on the basis of functional classification and road geometry; 3. Defining acceptable levels of access for each class of roadway to preserve its function, including criteria for the spacing of signalized and unsignalized access points; 4. Applying appropriate geometric design criteria and traffic engineering analysis to each allowable access point; and 5. Establishing policies, regulations, and permitting procedures to carry out and support the program. PRINCIPLES OF ACCESS MANAGEMENT Access management programs seek to limit and consolidate access along major roadways, while promoting a supporting street system and unified access and circulation systems for development. The result is a roadway that functions safely and efficiently for its useful life, and a more attractive corridor. The goals of access management are accomplished by applying the following principles: 1. Provide a specialized roadway system. Different types of roadways serve different functions. It is important to design and manage roadways according to the primary functions that they are expected to serve. The desirable relationship between different roadway classifications is discussed in Chapters 5 and 8. 2. Limit direct access to major roadways. Roadways that serve higher volumes of regional through traffic need more access control to preserve their traffic function. Frequent and direct property access is more compatible with the function of local and collector roadways. Traffic conflicts occur when the paths of vehicles intersect and May involve merging, diverging, stopping, weaving, or crossing movements. Each conflict point is a potential collision. As conflicts increase, driving conditions become more complex and drivers are more likely to make mistakes. Access management aims to reduce conflicts between vehicles, vehicles and pedestrians, and vehicles and bicycles. Diverging /" Merging Weaving Crossing ---0.0--* Stopping/Queuing FIGURE 1-3 Types of traffic conflicts. 8 ACCESS MANAGEMENT MANUAL 3. Promote intersection hierarchy. An efficient transportation network provides appropriate transitions from one classifica- tion of roadway to another. For example, freeways connect to arterials through an interchange that is designed for the transi- tion. Extending this concept to surface road- ways results in a series of intersection types that range from the junction of two major arterial roadways, to a residential driveway connecting to a local street. Additional infor- mation on the desirable hierarchy of inter- sections is provided in Chapter 8. 4. Locate signals to favor through movements. Long, uniform spacing of intersections and signals on major roadways enhances the ability to coordinate signals and ensure continuous movement of traffic at the desired speed. Failure to carefully locate access connections, or median open- ings that later become signalized, can cause substantial increases in arterial travel times. In addition, poor signal placement may lead to delays that cannot be overcome by computerized signal -timing systems. 5. Preserve the functional area of intersections and interchanges. The func- tional area of an intersection or interchange is the area that is critical to its function. This is the area where motorists are responding to the intersection or interchange, decelerat- ing, and maneuvering into the appropriate lane to stop or complete a turn. Access con- nections too close to intersections or inter- change ramps can cause serious traffic conflicts that impair the function of the affected facilities. 6. Limit the number of conflict points. Drivers make more mistakes and are more likely to have collisions when they are presented with the complex driving situations created by numerous conflicts (Figure 1-3) (see box, "What Is a Traffic Conflict?"). Conversely, simplifying the driving task contributes to improved traffic operations and fewer collisions. A less complex driving environ- ment is accomplished by limiting the num- ber and type of conflicts between vehicles, vehicles and pedestrians, and vehicles and bicyclists (Figure 1-4). The number of potential conflicts increases substantially when pedestrian and bicycle movements are considered (Figure 1-5). 7. Separate conflict areas. Drivers need sufficient time to address one potential set of conflicts before facing another. The necessary spacing between conflict areas increases as travel speed increases, to provide drivers adequate perception and reaction time. Separating conflict areas helps to simplify the driving task and contributes to improved traffic operations and safety. 8. Remove turning vehicles from through -traffic lanes. Turning lanes allow drivers to decelerate gradually out of the through lane and wait in a protected area for an opportunity to complete a turn, thereby reducing the severity and duration of conflict between turning vehicles and through traffic. They also improve the safety and efficiency of roadway intersections. Q 16 Crossing Q 1 Crossing A 8 Diverge A 3 Diverge O 8 Merge p 4 Merge 32 Total 8 Total FIGURE 1-4 Vehicular conflict points at a typical four-way intersection versus a directional median opening. rrn Introdua-tion and Concepts 9 1 1 f i 1 I { 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I tleft-turnin A 24 Pedestrian -Vehicle (3 24 Bicycle -Vehicle (Excluding 32 conflicts with g conflicts) I 1 48 TOTAL 1 ' a 9, Pedestrian -Vehicle I I I q 5 Bicycle -Vehicle ! I ! I (Excluding 4 that coexist with pedestrian -vehicle conflicts) 14 Total FIGURE 1-5 Bicycle and pedestrian conflict points. 9. Use nontraversable medians to manage left -turn movements. Medians channel turning movements on major road- ways to designated locations. As illustrated in Figure 1-6, the majority of access -related crashes involve left turns (1). Therefore, nontraversable medians and other techniques that minimize left turns or reduce the driver workload can be especially effective in improving roadway safety. Full median openings, which allow left turns from either direction, are best provided at signalized intersections and unsignalized junctions of arterial and collector streets. Full median openings in other unsignalized locations can adversely affect safety and traffic flow, but may be appropriate in some areas where analysis indicates that traffic operations and safety would be improved. 10. Provide a supporting street and circulation system. Well-planned commu- nities provide a supporting network of local 10 ACCESS MANAGEMENT MANUAL Driveway 16% Street FIGURE 1-6 Percentage of driveway crashes by movement (1) and collector streets to accommodate devel- opment, as well as unified property access and circulation systems. Interconnected street and circulation systems provide alternative routes for bicyclists, pedestrians, and drivers alike (Figure 1-7). Alternatively, commercial strip development with separate driveways for each business forces even short trips onto arterial roadways, thereby impeding safety and mobility. Connectivity can be maintained while advancing access management objec- tives for arterial roadways by ensuring that local street connections to the arterial con- form vvith the adopted connection spacing interval, as discussed in Chapter 7. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ACCESS MANAGEMENT? As with most transportation and land use issues, access management has many dimen- sions. It crosses jurisdictions, organizational lines, and professions. The primary professions that guide urban development—planners, en- gineers, and architects—have important roles in determining access outcomes (Table 1-1). Other key players include developers, elected officials, citizens, and attorneys who interact with each other and agency staff to shape urban policy and access decisions. A variety of jurisdictions may also be involved, including local governments that share a transportation corridor, state trans- portation agencies, and environmental agen- cies that address land use and development issues. Because it is multidisciplinary, access management also requires partnerships within n l Jt i L_JL—)k LJIJt t IJUL � � r� n n r—► r—� �—� r—� n n r--� �— Without i access management II , I `l With access management !i I FIGURE 1-7 Supporting street systems provide alternative access and support multimodal needs. Introduction and Concepts TABLE 1-1 Typical Professional Roles and Responsibilities in Access Management Transportation/Urban Transportation Civil/Design Architects/Site Planners Engineers' Engineers ° I Designers' Classify roadways by Establish right-of-way Develop construction function and desired level widths and roadway specifications and Influence roadway design of access control cross sections standards and cross-section criteria Producelans, studies, p Develop standards and guidelines for access Prepare roadway Establish design and and policies that relate to design, location, and construction plans layout of development access spacing and specifications sites Develop regulatory programs for land Review access and Prepare construction plans and p Determine relationship of develo ment and access p signal requests; prepare traffic fic impact analyses specifications for site buildings to internal and management improvements external circulation Review traffic impact Address access issues in analyses and approve Review and approve subdivision and site plan site access and construction plans Prepare site access and review circulation plans; issue and design variances circulation plans access hermits NOTE: These roles and responsibilities are not necessarily discrete, given the overlap across the planning, engineering and architectural professions. ° Have liability for access design decisions under tort claims. organizations and greater awareness of how decisions of one division affect the next. Gov- ernment agencies must collaborate—both internally and with other agencies—if they are to manage access effectively. REFERENCE 1. S&K Transportation Consultants, Inc. Access Man- agement, Location and Design. Participant notebook for NHI Course 133078. National Highway Institute, Federal Highway Administration, April 1998, revised April 2000. Effects of Access Management INTRODUCTION Questions concerning the effects of access management arise in all phases of the decision- making process, from program development to permitting decisions. Government agen- cies need a clear understanding of these effects to address public concerns and to weigh the potential costs and benefits of proposed alternatives. Substantial research concerning the effects of access management has been con- ducted in the past few decades. The most notable study was NCHRP Report 420: Impacts ofAccess Management Techniques (1). Several other studies have been conducted by spe- cific states, either during program development or in response to public concerns. High- lights of studies on the effects of access management in the following areas are presented in this chapter: a Safety, ■ Operations, ■ Economics, and a Land use and the environment. SAFETY The safety benefits of access management have been clearly documented by more than four decades of research (2) (see box, "Access Management Saves Lives"). An early California study, for example, found that the combination of medians and control of access connections reduced crash rates by 42% on rural highways in California (3). Subsequent research has consistently shown that access management increases road- way safety. These safety benefits are attributable to improved access design, fewer traf- fic conflict locations, and increased driver response time to potential conflicts. A synthesis of research on the safety effects of access management provides the following overall conclusions (4): The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that 41,611 people lost their lives in motor vehicle crashes in the United States in 1999—an average of 114 persons per day. Another 3 million people were injured, and 4 million crashes resulted in property damage only. Many of those crashes could have been prevented through access management. 15 3jPg9$ 16 ACCESS MANAGEMENT MANUAL W a) a q U U 02 _ LE 10 20 30 40 50 60 Access Points per Mile FIGURE 2-1 Composite crash rate indices (1). 1. As access density increases, crash rates increase. This relationship is concep- tually summarized in Figure 2-1 (1). The data in Figure 2-1 represent composite crash rate indices that were derived from analysis of 37,500 crashes and compared with a synthesis of the literature to produce a sug- gested value. The indices were developed by correlating crash rates with access density - using the crash rates for 10 access points per mile as a base, and then averaging crash rates for each access density. These indices suggest that an increase from 10 to 20 drive- ways per mile increases crash rates by roughly 30%. However, the specific relation- ship varies with differences in road geometry (lane width, presence or absence of turn lanes and medians), operating speeds, and driveway and intersection traffic volumes. Another study has suggested that crash rates generally increase by the square root of the change in access density, up to about 40 access points per mile. Thus, an increase from 10 to 20 access points per mile would translate into about a 41% increase in the crash rate (5). A more refined procedure for estimating the relative change in crash rates by access density is provided in NCHRP Report 420 (1) (see also Chapter 9). Table 2-1 shows how the relative increases in crash rates are remarkably consistent among the various studies. A few specific studies are summarized below. -A statewide study of the safety effects of access management by the Minnesota Department of Transportation indicated that roadway segments with the highest access density (frequent, closely spaced driveways) have crash rates higher than average, regardless of type of access, speed limit, or volume of traffic. The study revealed a direct and statistically significant correlation between crash rates and access density for all state highway categories -urban and rural (6). -A 3 -year study of access and safety along US -41 in Lee County, Florida, found a direct, positive correlation be- tween access density and crash rates (7). Sections of the roadway with closely TABLE 2-1 Comparison of Accident Rate Indices (2) [UVUUUjj - ,.V 1.V Lu _... 420 7jj�t 1.4 1.4 Square 1.2 Literature 420 Safet y Minnesota Study Indiana Root 'ji Synthesis Analysis 40 11 in It N Ong Urban- 2.0 Urban - 2.8 2.3 2.7 2.5 All Roads Suburban Urban -Suburban Roads Suburban Al] W a 2.8 Roads 2.9 memo; Roads Access NA 2.9 3.1 3.1 3.2 lose, 3.0 2.7 Points 10 20 30 40 50 60 Access Points per Mile FIGURE 2-1 Composite crash rate indices (1). 1. As access density increases, crash rates increase. This relationship is concep- tually summarized in Figure 2-1 (1). The data in Figure 2-1 represent composite crash rate indices that were derived from analysis of 37,500 crashes and compared with a synthesis of the literature to produce a sug- gested value. The indices were developed by correlating crash rates with access density - using the crash rates for 10 access points per mile as a base, and then averaging crash rates for each access density. These indices suggest that an increase from 10 to 20 drive- ways per mile increases crash rates by roughly 30%. However, the specific relation- ship varies with differences in road geometry (lane width, presence or absence of turn lanes and medians), operating speeds, and driveway and intersection traffic volumes. Another study has suggested that crash rates generally increase by the square root of the change in access density, up to about 40 access points per mile. Thus, an increase from 10 to 20 access points per mile would translate into about a 41% increase in the crash rate (5). A more refined procedure for estimating the relative change in crash rates by access density is provided in NCHRP Report 420 (1) (see also Chapter 9). Table 2-1 shows how the relative increases in crash rates are remarkably consistent among the various studies. A few specific studies are summarized below. -A statewide study of the safety effects of access management by the Minnesota Department of Transportation indicated that roadway segments with the highest access density (frequent, closely spaced driveways) have crash rates higher than average, regardless of type of access, speed limit, or volume of traffic. The study revealed a direct and statistically significant correlation between crash rates and access density for all state highway categories -urban and rural (6). -A 3 -year study of access and safety along US -41 in Lee County, Florida, found a direct, positive correlation be- tween access density and crash rates (7). Sections of the roadway with closely TABLE 2-1 Comparison of Accident Rate Indices (2) NCHRP - ,.V 1.V Lu 1.0 420 NCHRP 1.4 1.4 Square 1.2 Literature 420 Safet y Minnesota Study Indiana Root 1.7 Synthesis Analysis 40 Stud y Rule 1.8 2.1 Urban- 2.0 Urban - 2.8 2.3 2.7 2.5 All Roads Suburban Urban -Suburban Roads Suburban Al] 4.1 2.5 2.9 2.8 Roads 2.9 Roads Roads Access NA 2.9 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.7 Points UC 2 UC 4 UC 4 'Two-lane urban arterial, no left -turn lanes. per Mile in NLT' NLTb LT Average - - - ..v - ,.V 1.V Lu 1.0 20 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.4 30 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.7 40 2.1 2.1 2.5 2.0 1.8 2.1 1.8 2.0 50 2.8 2.3 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.1 2.2 60 4.1 2.5 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.5 2.7 70 NA 2.9 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.7 NoTs: UC = urban conventional. 'Two-lane urban arterial, no left -turn lanes. b Four -lane urban arterial, no left -turn lanes. ` Four -lane urban arterial with left -turn lanes. Effects otAcc;ess Management 17 TABLE 2-2 Representative Accident Rates (Crashes per Million Vehicle -Miles Traveled) by Type of Median -Urban and Suburban Areas (1) Includes both signalized and unsignalized access points TABLE 2-3 Representative Accident Rates (Crashes per Million Vehicle -Miles Traveled) by Type of Median -Rural Areas (1) Total Median Type . Total Access Rate Two -Way Non - Points per Intersections Left -Turn Traversable Mile' Undivided Lane Median _< 20 3.8 3.4 2.9 20.01-40 7.3 5.9 5.1 40.01-60 9.4 7.9 6.8 > 60 10.6 9.2 8.2 All 9.0 6.9 5.6 Includes both signalized and unsignalized access points TABLE 2-3 Representative Accident Rates (Crashes per Million Vehicle -Miles Traveled) by Type of Median -Rural Areas (1) 'Includes both signalized and unsignalized access points spaced driveways and median openings had substantially higher crash rates than other segments. 2. Roadways with nontraversable medians are safer than undivided road- ways or those with continuous two-way left -turn lanes (TWLTL). In 1999, NCHRP Report 420 (1) provided an extensive com- parison and evaluation of studies relating to undivided, TWLTL, and divided roadways with a nontraversable median. The evalua- tion concluded that the average crash rate on roadways with a nontraversable median is about 30% less than on those with a TWLTL. Tables 2-2 and 2-3 summarize the representative accident rates by median type for urbanized and rural areas (1). -A before -and -after study of Memorial Drive in the Atlanta, Georgia, metropolitan area found that replacing a TWLTL with a raised median resulted in a substantial reduction in crash experience (8, 9). As shown in Table 2-4, the total crash rate was reduced by 37%, and there was a 48% drop in the injury rate. The crash rate of intersections was reduced by 24%, and midblock crashes (between sig- nalized intersection crashes) were reduced by more than 50%. In the 10 -year period before the project, there had been 15 fatal- ities, of whom 6 were pedestrians. In the 10 -year period after project completion, there were no pedestrian fatalities, despite a high level of pedestrian activity. TABLE 2-4 Percentage Change in Crash Rates After Replacing a Continuous TWLTL with a Raised Median (8) Total Median Type Location Total Access Rate Two -Way Non - Points per Intersections Left -Turn Traversable Mile Undivided Lane Median <_ 15 2.5 1.0 0.9 15.01-30 3.6 1.3 1.2 > 30 4.6 1.7 1.5 All 3.0 1.4 1.2 'Includes both signalized and unsignalized access points spaced driveways and median openings had substantially higher crash rates than other segments. 2. Roadways with nontraversable medians are safer than undivided road- ways or those with continuous two-way left -turn lanes (TWLTL). In 1999, NCHRP Report 420 (1) provided an extensive com- parison and evaluation of studies relating to undivided, TWLTL, and divided roadways with a nontraversable median. The evalua- tion concluded that the average crash rate on roadways with a nontraversable median is about 30% less than on those with a TWLTL. Tables 2-2 and 2-3 summarize the representative accident rates by median type for urbanized and rural areas (1). -A before -and -after study of Memorial Drive in the Atlanta, Georgia, metropolitan area found that replacing a TWLTL with a raised median resulted in a substantial reduction in crash experience (8, 9). As shown in Table 2-4, the total crash rate was reduced by 37%, and there was a 48% drop in the injury rate. The crash rate of intersections was reduced by 24%, and midblock crashes (between sig- nalized intersection crashes) were reduced by more than 50%. In the 10 -year period before the project, there had been 15 fatal- ities, of whom 6 were pedestrians. In the 10 -year period after project completion, there were no pedestrian fatalities, despite a high level of pedestrian activity. TABLE 2-4 Percentage Change in Crash Rates After Replacing a Continuous TWLTL with a Raised Median (8) Total Injury Location Crash Rate Rate Midblock -55 -59 Intersections -24 -40 Total -37 -48 18 Frequent access points and closely spaced traffic signals are a recipe for congestion on major roadways. ACCESS MANAGEMENT MANUAL Although crash rates are now showing a gradual increase, the proportionate increase equals that for the region as a whole, and crash rates remain lower than other non–access managed roadways in the region (9). –A study of US -101 in Oregon found that the section having a nontraversable median had relatively low crash rates despite a high number of driveways per mile. Elsewhere, the number of crashes per mile parallels the number of access connections per mile (Figure 2-2). 3. U-turns are generally safer than direct left turns. A study of the safety and operational implications of U-turns versus direct left turns on multilane arterial road- ways with a nontraversable median was con- ducted in Florida in 2000 (11). The analysis of 250 sites revealed that right -turn plus U-turn maneuvers on six -lane arterials exhibited a 17.8% lower crash rate and 27.3% lower injury/fatality rate than direct left turns. The study also found that U -turning drivers experience less delay than those making a direct left turn from a drive- way under high-volume conditions. The findings were statistically significant at a 95% confidence level. 4. Medians improve pedestrian safety. Properly designed medians can provide a refuge for pedestrians as they cross a roadway—a refuge not found on undivided roadways or those with continuous TWLTL. As a result, arterial roadways with non - traversable medians are generally safer for pedestrians. A study of pedestrian–vehicle crash experience on arterial roadways in Atlanta, Georgia; Phoenix, Arizona; and Los Angeles, California, revealed that pedestrian–vehicle crash rates were much higher on undivided roadways or those with TWLTL than on roadways with a non - traversable median (12). Figure 2-3 illus- trates the total crash rates of the three cities. More recent Georgia research indicated that the raised median design had 78% fewer pedestrian fatalities per 100 mi of road than the TWLTL design (9). 5. Effects of specific techniques: Table 2-5 summarizes the general safety and operational effects of access management techniques. The summary was compiled from a synthesis of research to date. OPERATIONAL EFFECTS Studies of the effects of access management on roadway operations have addressed effects of access spacing on travel time and have simulated traffic performance. Collectively, these studies indicate that access management helps to maintain desired speeds and reduces delays. Increasing the number of access points and signals along a roadway results in increased delay. For example, analysis based on proce- dures in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual FIGURE 2-2 Comparison of access connections per mile with crashes per mile j on a segment of US -101 in Oregon (10). �i l 15 80 i �i 70'A a a� 60 Number of 1 y 1 Access Points n c Per Mile 1 1 / 10 L L 50 ; c g 40 30 � / � 20 Z 10 A Accident � � � r � Q Rate �� F �l 0 % ~ .' 0 City Limit Parkway FIGURE 2-2 Comparison of access connections per mile with crashes per mile j on a segment of US -101 in Oregon (10). �i l Effects of Access Management 1 ___12.32 ❑ Undivided o Intersection2.49 ■ TWLTL ® Nontraversable O O J po" L W —.._. _ 6.69 0 2 4 g 8 FIGURE 2-3 Pedestrian crash rates for suburban arterials (12): intersection (crashes per 100 million entering vehicles) and midblock (crashes per 100 million vehicle -miles). performed for NCHRP Project 3-33 indicates that the typical reduction in free-flow speed (for one direction) is approximately 0. 15 mph per access point and 0.005 mph per right -turning movement per hour per mile of road (14). Table 2-6 provides suggested access density adjustment factors for level -of -service deter- minations on the basis of this analysis, as they appear in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. a A simulation study conducted for the Florida Department of Transportation using TRAF-NETSIM concluded that poor spacing, design, and location of driveways can reduce average travel speeds by up to 5 to 10 mph (I5). Various other studies have also used TRAF-NETSIM to evaluate the impacts of access management. However, findings of these studies have not been verified in practice. TABLE 2-5 Summary of Research on the Effects of Access Management Techniques (13) Treatment _ _ Effects 1. Add continuous TWLTL 35% reduction in total crashes 5. Type of left -tum improvement (a) painted • 30% decrease in delay (b) separator or raised divider 30% increase in capacity 2. Add nontraversable median a 35% reduction in total crashes • 30% decrease in delay 30% increase in capacity 3. Replace TWLTL with a 15%-57% reduction in crashes on 4 -lane nontraversable median roads 8. Visual cue at driveways, driveway • 25%-50% reduction in crashes on 6 -lane illumination roads 4. Add a left -tum bay 25%-50% reduction in crashes on 4 -lane roads • up to 75% reduction in total crashes at unsignalized access • 25% increase in capacity 5. Type of left -tum improvement (a) painted 32% reduction in total crashes (b) separator or raised divider 67% reduction in total crashes 6. Add right -turn bay 20% reduction in total crashes • Limit right -turn interference with platooned flow increased capacity 7. Increase driveway speed from 5 mph 50% reduction in delay per maneu_ver; to 10 mph less exposure time to following vehicles 8. Visual cue at driveways, driveway 42% reduction in crashes illumination 9. Prohibition of on -street parking 30% increase in traffic flow 20%-40% reduction in crashes 10. Long signal spacing with limited 42% reduction in total vehicle -hours of access travel 59% reduction in delay • 57,500 gallons fuel saved per mile per 19 20 ACCESS MANAGEMENT MANUAL Studies to date indicate that median projects generally have little overall adverse impact on business activity. Business owner perceptions of potential impacts of access changes tend to be much worse than actual impacts. TABLE 2-6 Access Points and Free -Flow Speed Access Points per Mile Reductio rr in Free -Flow Speed 0 0.0 10 2.5 20 5.0 30 7.5 40 or more 10 SOURCE: Table 7-5 of the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. w The Colorado Access Control Demonstration Project, a Federal Highway Administration demonstration project autho- rized by the 1978 Highway Transportation Act, compared average travel speeds, average daily traffic volume per lane, total crashes, rear -end crashes, and broadside collisions for various roadways in the Denver metropolitan area (16). The study found that total vehicle - hours of travel per hour decreased by more than 40% on access -controlled roadways compared with those with uncontrolled access and that total delay decreased by about 50%. The "access -controlled" scenario was based on V2 -mi signal spacing, a nontraversa- ble median, and right turns only at t/4 -mi spacing. The "uncontrolled -access" scenario was based on'/4-mi signal spacing, with full median openings at t/ mi. s Other analyses (13, 17, 18) suggest that a four -lane divided major roadway with long, uniform signal spacing, directional openings between signals, and auxiliary lanes could accommodate a volume and a quality of service similar to those of a six - lane divided roadway having traffic signals at %4 -mi intervals, full access between the signals, and no auxiliary lanes. R Minimizing the number of traffic signals and promoting uniform signal spacing significantly improve travel times. Each traf- fic signal per mile added to a roadway reduces speed by 2 to 3 mph (1). Table 2-7 indicates _ percentage increases in travel times that can be expected as signal density increases, using two traffic signals per mile as a base. For example, travel time on a segment with four signals per mile is about 16 percent greater than on a segment with two signals per mile. ECONOMIC EFFECTS Studies Studies of the economic effects of access man- agement on businesses have largely focused on medians and the potential impacts of left - turn restrictions on business activity. Because of the proprietary nature of sales information and the variety of factors that affect business activity, systematic study of this issue has been difficult. Most studies have focused on busi- ness owner perceptions of impacts before and after a median project, or on generalized com- parisons of business activity across corridors. One study assessed the impacts on businesses that had previously filed lawsuits related to access issues. A summary of recent studies on these issues is given below. Kansas: In 1999, the Kansas Department of Transportation studied 15 businesses that had previously filed inverse condemnation lawsuits against the department on access - related issues (19). In nearly every case, the landowners had claimed that the applicable regulation, ranging from driveway consolida- tion to mainline relocation, would have dev- astating effects on their businesses and prevent them from putting their property to the highest and best use. Some had been compensated for potential impacts. Each property was studied to determine whether the economic impacts had, in fact, been realized. Specific economic impact claims of the landowners, "before" and "after" aerial photography of the involved par- cels and roadways, and historical land uses for each parcel were examined. In all but one case the claimant was either still in possession of the property and operat- TABLE 2-7 Percentage Increase in Travel Times as Signalized Density Increases (1) Percent Increase in Travel Time (Compared with 2 Signals per Mile Signals per Mile) 2.0 0 3.0 9 4.0 16 5.0 23 6.0 29 7.0 34 8.0 39 ing the business, the property was being put to the same use by a different operator, or the use of the property had been upgraded. The only exception was where a roadway was re- located with two gasoline stations remaining on the old roadway, which was converted to a frontage road. In this case, drivers had to go about 2 mi out of their way to reach the front- age road, and the gasoline stations went out of business. The results provide strong anecdotal evi- dence that, except in situations where the change resulted in extreme circuity, changes in access or traffic patterns did not cause a change in the highest and best use of abutting properties. Texas: A 1999 study of the economic impacts of left -turn restrictions in Texas found the following (20): a About 93% of business owners reported that their regular customers were at least as likely or more likely to continue patronizing their businesses after the median installations. Business owners reported no change in the number of customers they felt were stopping by on their way to another destination. m Most business types (including specialty retail, fast-food restaurants, and sit-down restaurants) reported increases in the number of customers per day and gross sales. However, gasoline stations and auto - Effects of Ac r_3ess Management motive repair shops reported clecreases in the number of customers per day and gross sales. m Most negative impacts were realized during the construction phages of the median installations. a Perceptions of business owners before a median was installed were more pessimistic than what usually resulted. s Employment within the corridors experienced upward trends overall, with some exceptions during construction phases. a Business owners generally ranked "accessibility to store" lower than customer service, product quality, and product price, and ahead of store hours and distance to travel. ■ Along corridors where property values were studied, the vast majority of land values stayed the same or increased, with very few exceptions. Florida: A survey of merchants on Oakland Park Boulevard in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, was conducted in 1991 after closure of several median openings and reconstruction of the raised median (Table 2-8) (21). Seventy percent of the merchants indicated that the me- dian changes had no adverse effect on truck deliveries, and more than 60% perceived no change in business activity following the proj- ect. In addition, more than half of the mer - TABLE 2-8 Merchant Opinions of Median Changes , Along Oakland Park Boulevard (96 Merchants Responding) (21) Question Percent Response Have the median changes adversely affected truck deliveries? Yes 30 No 70 Have the median changes caused major changes in business? Yes 16 No 84 How have property values changed due to median change? Increased 13 No effect 72 Decreased 15 How has the median change affected profits? Increased 6 No effect 66 Decreased 28 How has the median change affected the number of customers? Increased 10 No effect 61 Decreased 29 21 22 ACCESS MANAGEMENT MANUAL chants (57%) reported that they favored the median changes, and 80% of those traveling on the corridor favored the project. Iowa: A 1997 statewide study of access - managed corridors in Iowa concluded the following (22): a Corridors with completed access man- agement projects performed better in terms of retail sales than the surrounding commu- nities. Business failure rates along access - managed corridors were at or below the statewide average for Iowa. Although this suggests that access management projects generally did not have an adverse effect on the majority of businesses, some businesses may have been negatively affected. Eighty percent of businesses surveyed in Iowa along access -managed corridors reported sales at least as high after the project was in place. Relatively few businesses reported sales declines associated with the access management project, although these business owners clearly believed that they were hurt by the project. The firms perceiv- ing negative impacts were a mixture of business types. Similarly, about 80 percent of businesses reported no customer complaints about access to their businesses after project completion. Businesses that tended to report most complaints were highly oriented toward automobile traffic. In all cases, 90% to 100% of motorists surveyed had a favorable opinion of improvements made to roadways that involved access management. The vast majority of motorists thought that the improved roadways were safer and that traffic flow had improved. NCHRP Report 420: The most extensive national research on the effects of access management techniques, which was com- pleted in 1999, reached the following conclu- sions concerning economic impacts: The economic effects of various median alternatives depend on the extent that access is improved, restricted, or denied. The effects on specific establishments also depend on the type of activity involved and on background economic conditions. Where direct left -turns are prohibited, some motorists will change their driving or shopping patterns to continue patronizing specific establishments. Some repetitive pass -by traffic will use well-designed or conveniently located U-turn facilities. Impacts also will be reduced at locations where direct left -turn access is available. In some cases, retail sales may increase as overall mobility improves. (23) The results of these studies generally indi- cate that median projects have little overall adverse impact on business activity. Some businesses report increases in sales, some report no change, and others report decreases. However, the majority reported no change in business activity following a median project. Destination -type businesses, such as cer- tain restaurants and specialty stores, appear to be less sensitive to access changes than businesses that rely primarily on pass -by traf- fic, such as gasoline stations or convenience stores. However, the likelihood of left turns into a business declines as opposing traffic volumes increase. Therefore, medians will have relatively little effect on the number of customers making left turns into a business on high-volume roadways or during peak travel periods. Effects on 1AAa ket Area and, Property lolaiues Closely spaced and poorly designed access connections result in reduced average travel speeds and increased travel times (I). Market area analysis demonstrates that increases in average travel times translate into longer com- mute times and reduce the market area for businesses (18). Although the average size of market area varies for different types of busi- nesses, the proportionate reduction in market area remains the same. This relationship is illustrated in Figure 2-4. Poorly designed vehicular access not only adversely affects roadway safety and effi- ciency, but it could also reduce the economic vitality of the corridor. Property values tend to increase rapidly during commercial develop- ment, but can decline after the area is built out, if the character and efficiency of that corri- dor have been damaged in the process. This is exemplified by the growing number of older commercial strips across the country that are experiencing economic decline. Although a variety of factors can contribute to this prob- lem, such as excess zoning of arterial frontage Effects of Access Management Reduction in Average Market Area Relative to I Speed Previous Size } 0% 100% 10% 81% .. i 20% 65% Ir Original Trade Area 40% 36% 50% 25% 1j: '::::: X- 4.,4.-.:. . ........ .... .. .. Reduced Trade Area FIGURE 2-4 Effects of travel time on market area (18). for commercial strip development, key among them is inadequate access management. Re- search to date has not systematically examined the potential long-term economic benefits of access management. LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS A.est setic Eiien,,s s Minimizing the number of curb cuts, consolidating access drives, constructing landscaped medians, and buffering parking lots from adjacent thoroughfares can create a visually pleasing and more functional corri- dor that, in turn, can help to attract new investment. These access management strate- gies are a component of many plans to improve the image of streetscapes or gate- ways and attract economic development (24). a Fewer access connections increase the area for landscaping. Landscaping at the margin of the roadway and in the median of divided roadways enhances the appearance of major corridors (Figure 2-5). Proper land- scaping -also helps to provide a visual cue for driveways and median openings. Median reconstruction projects, median landscaping, and median gateway treatments can be used to support commu- nity beautification and economic revitaliza- tion objectives. Vewellwmentl Effects. n Requirements for well-designed road and access systems further the orderly lay- out and use of land and help improve the design of residential subdivisions and commercial circulation systems. 0 Access management can be achieved through land use strategies that discourage strip development and promote clustering of land uses into unified activity centers. This advances local planning and growth management policies aimed at discouraging sprawl by addressing some of the defining characteristics of sprawl—strip develop- ment, poor connectivity among land uses, and poorly planned conversion of rural land to urban uses (24). It also supports multi- modal objectives by promoting a built envi- ronment that enhances bicycle, pedestrian, and transit mobility. a For real estate developers, the impor- tance of well-designed access systems cannot be overstated. The Urban Land Institute's Shopping Center Development Handbook warns that "poorly designed entrances and exits not only present a traffic hazard but also 23 2 ACCESS MANAGEMENT MANUAL HOF i F H 0 L I D A Y . 2 ■ NEEDS .` \ (a) (}b FIGURE 2-5 (a}Ae thele with access maaemem; (b aesthetics wthomaccess maaemet � ?\ cause congestion that can create a negative image of the center" (25, p. 101). Environmental Efflects s Protecting capacity on existing road- ways reduces the need for new major roadways or bypass facilities and their associated adverse environmental impacts. a Individual access roads and driveways can carve up rural landscapes and damage sensitive ecosystems, such as sand dunes or coastal areas. Land division and access controls help to promote shared -access systems, which minimize adverse impacts on the environment and facilitate improved site design. a Access management helps save fuel. A 1998 Texas study concluded that %-mi signal spacing with left -turn and right -turn bays at all intersections can provide sub- stantial fuel savings over''/ -mi signal spacing with left and right turns midway between signals (26). For example, a 10 -mi section of four -lane urban arterial with 700 vehicles per hour per lane in peak direc- tion, a 55/45 direction split, and 2-h morning and evening peak periods would experience fuel savings of 240,000 gal/year from increased speed and 335,000 gal/year from reduced delay, for a total fuel savings of 575,000 gal/year. a Access management techniques, such as long uniform signal spacing, fewer access connections, and auxiliary lanes at access connections, contribute to more efficient traffic progression and reduce the number of vehicles accelerating and decelerating in response to turning vehicles. Efficient traffic progression translates into direct air quality benefits. Maximum fuel efficiency occurs at a constant speed of 35 to 50 mph, minimum emissions for carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds occur at 35 to 55 mph, and minimum emissions of oxides or nitrogen occur at 20 to 45 mph (27). CASE STUDIES In the following examples, access management techniques were applied to existing roadways in an effort to improve safety and increase roadway efficiency: To achieve these goals, new medians were installed along previously undivided thoroughfares, or existing median openings were eliminated or reconstructed. Effects of Aceess Management To determine whether the improvements en- hanced the roadway's safety and efficiency, data were collected concerning crashes, traffic circulation, and traffic flow. With these figures, "before and after" comparisons were made. However, the information collected was not limited strictly to the roadway itself. In two cases, studies of the economic impact to adja- cent property owners were also conducted. A summary of benefits reported in se- lected case studies is provided in Table 2-9. De- tailed information follows on two case studies: Oakland Park Boulevard in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and Telegraph Road in the Detroit, Michigan, metropolitan area. Oakland Park Efouie yard, Fort Lauderdaie� Florida In Fort Lauderdale, Florida, state transporta- tion planners proposed to close several median openings and reconstruct existing raised medi- ans along two major urban arterials during the mid-1980s. One of these was Oakland Park Boulevard, a heavily traveled east—west corri- dor that extends from interior Broward County to the coastal beaches. Strip commercial land use abuts the thor- oughfare, particularly the sections that had been scheduled for improvement. The six -lane divided roadway also had numerous full - median openings spaced approximately 330 ft apart that allowed for all movements (left ingress, left egress, and crossings) to be made (Figure 2-6). With improvements, nearly half of the median openings would be eliminated, thereby increasing the distance between me- dian openings and reducing the number of openings per mile. The remaining openings would be retrofitted to allow left turns from only one direction and U-turns. The median closure and retrofitting plan was fully executed along the 2.4 -mi section of Oakland Park Boulevard. Highlights of the reconstruction included reducing the number of unsignalized median openings from 33 to 16 and limiting turning movements at 15 of the 16 remaining openings to left ingress and U-turns only (Table 2-10). Openings serving left -turning movements would be alternated to serve opposing directions of travel. Only one opening would permit left -turn egress. With these closures, the distance between openings was increased from 330 ft to between 400 and 660 ft. Other characteristics of the projects are also listed in Table 2-10. 25 26 ACCESS MANAGEMENT MANUAL TABLE 2-9 Benefits !deported in Selected Case Studies (28 Location Case Study Description of Improvements Reported Benefits Speeds Safety Arapahoe Road Ft. Lauderdale, FL extended across 17 4 crashes per million Denver, CO Access -managed roads 40 mph iPM peak hour p p VMT on Arapahoe andn declined 28%, and 30% with physical medians, on both roadways, 7 crashes per million Parker Road limited turns, and /:-mi compared comared with 15-20 VMT on Parker compared with up to 13 Denver, CO traffic signal spacing. mph on non -access - on non -access -managed (5.2 mi) Jimmy Carter Blvd. managed arterials. arterials. Oakland Park Blvd. Physical median 30% less delay. Crash rate declined Ft. Lauderdale, FL extended across 17 about 10%, injury rate (2.2 mi) unsignalized driveways. declined 28%, and 30% fewer midblock median maneuvers after improvements. Jimmy Carter Blvd. Two-way left -turn lanes Speeds reportedly 32% drop in crashes Atlanta, GA on 4 -lane road replaced increased. with raised median and (3.0 mi) by physical median, 6 40% drop in crash rate through lanes, and with interim New protected left -turn lanes. Jersey barrier median. Memorial Drive Two-way left -turn lanes 40% drop in crashes Atlanta, GA on six -lane road replaced and 37% drop in overall (4.3 mi) by physical median; six crash rate; 64% drop in through lanes, and left -turn crash rate. protected left -turn lanes. Route 47 Four narrow lanes PM peak -hour speeds 39% decline in total Vineland, NJ replaced by two through declined from 35 to 32 crashes and 86% (1.8 mi) lanes plus protected left- mph. decline in left -tum turn lane. crashes. Route 130 Median openings closed 45% decline in crash New Jersey and left -turn lanes rate. (4.3 mi) installed. Route 23 Jug handles built and 34% decline in crashes_ New Jersey road cut through two (3.9 mi) rotaries. Safety: Along Oakland Park Boulevard, the total number of crashes was reduced by 26% after the improvements were completed (Table 2-11). Although crashes involving injuries were not significantly affected, crashes where property was damaged declined by 41 %. Furthermore, rear -end, angle, left -turn, and sideswipe crashes and their crash rates all declined, particularly in the former two cases. The reductions are partially explained by the decrease in the number of conflict points after the improvements took place. Other factors that may have contributed to the decline in the crash rate include the reduction of median openings per mile and the greater distance between these openings. Operations: Because left -turn egress was no longer allowed at 15 of the 16 nonsignalized median openings, drivers made 29% fewer total midblock maneuvers after the improve- ments were completed. Left turns from Oak- land Park Boulevard to intersecting streets and into access drives decreased by 37%. As expected, the number of U-turns more than doubled. With a decline in the total number of maneuvers, travel speed was increased and turning delays were reduced. Traffic opera- tion in the middle through lane of Oakland Park Boulevard was far superior to that on nearby Sunrise Boulevard, where median openings allowed for all turning movements 330 ft± Effects of Ar -,,cess Management 27 330 ft± 660 ft± -� o FIGURE 2-6 Median design on Oakland Park Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida (13): original median design (top) and redesigned median (bottom). and the distance between the openings was often less than 400 ft. Also, drivers waited less time to make left turns and U-turns on Oakland Park Boulevard, resulting in 62% less delay for left turns and 38% less delay for U-turns compared with Sunrise Boulevard. Specific reasons for the improved efficiency include the following: n A reduction in the number of conflict- ing movements, thereby allowing drivers to concentrate on choosing an acceptable gap to complete a turning movement; Improved sight distance at the median openings due to the absence of opposing turning or crossing vehicles obstructing the driver's view; and a Channelization of the U-turn/left-turn median opening, which guides turning traffic into the respective direction. Public perception: Interest groups consist- ing of motorists, residents, merchants, and cus- tomers frequenting Oakland Park Boulevard favored the newly designed corridor. Of the 354 respondents, 64% were in favor of the median change. Specifically, all groups per- ceived improved safety and better traffic operations. Motorists, including truck drivers, tended to favor the project the most. Those who were familiar with Oakland Park Boulevard before its reconstruction had a more favorable opinion of the change than those who were not familiar with conditions before the retrofit. Economic impact: Property values were not adversely affected by the improvements. More than 70% of businesses along Oakland Park Boulevard reported no change in prop- erty value, and 13% reported some increase in value. The majority of merchants, 68% of the 96 respondents, reported little or no economic TABLE 2-10 Oakland Park Boulevard Characteristics (13) _ Before Improvements After Improvements _ Type of corridor 6 -lane divided 6 -lane divided Vehicles per day (daytime)" 34,670 36,580 No. of signalized intersections 4 4 No. of unsignalized intersections 33 16 (15 with left ingress and U- turn only and 1 with left egress) Street lighting None Yes ° A reduction of crashes at night can also be attributed to the additional lighting that was installed during reconstruction. Therefore, to determine the success of the median plan, the study concentrated on daytime use only. 28 ACCESS MANAGEMENT MANUAL TABLE 2-11 Oakland Park Boulevard Crash Data (13) Average Number of Crashes per Year Crash Rate" Type Before After` %Change Before After` % Change Total 238185 —22.3 7.73 5.69 —26.4 Injury 85 82 —3.7 2.67 2.62 0.0 Property damage 156 97 —37.8 5.07 2.97 —41.4 Crashes per million vehicle miles. b Before: January 1984—April 1985. `After: August 1986—June 1988_ impact to their businesses, although 27% reported some type of loss (see Table 2-12). Teiefigaph Roae®, Detroit, chig � Directional crossovers are often used to control turning movements along roadways with medi- ans. Typically, the crossovers allow for indirect left turns, and in some cases even U-turns. In Michigan, directional crossovers are frequently used in combination with signalized inter- sections where left -turning movements are prohibited. In the 1960s, the Michigan Depart- ment of Transportation began a program of retrofitting arterials by installing directional crossovers near signalized intersections, nor- mally at a distance of 660 ft beyond the signal- ized junction. In the process, all left turns and U-turns were prohibited at the intersection, allowing two-phase signal operations. The crash rate for directional cross- overs is half that associated with continuous TWLTL. When broken down by type of crash, directional crossovers have 15% of the driveway -related crash rate (29). The direc- tional crossover design provides 15% to 20% more capacity than conventional dual left - turn lane designs, and capacity gains of up to 50% have been cited (29). Network travel times have also been reduced, especially under saturated traffic conditions. The directional crossover treatment has been applied on Telegraph Road, a roadway in the Detroit metropolitan area (Figure 2-7). TABLE 2-12 Impact on Business After Median Closure and Retrofit (13) Effect of Improvements on Merchant Business Response (%) r Small loss 14.6 Large loss 12.5 i No effect 62.4 i Small increase 5.2 I No answer 53 This six- to eight -lane facility has traffic vol- umes ranging from 32,600 to 99,000 vehicles per day. Traffic volumes along the heaviest traveled sections are 10,000 to 12,000 vehicles per day. Peak -hour, peak -directional volumes range from 3,400 to 4,400 vehicles per hour— about 850 to 1,100 vehicles per lane per hour. Left turns have been eliminated from signal- ized intersections but are allowed at nearby directional crossovers, which are often signal - controlled. The 30 -mi segment of Telegraph Road with directional crossovers was eval- uated to determine whether the directional crossover design improved roadway efficiency and safety (29). The study found that roadway efficiency was improved. By eliminating left turns at the signalized intersections, signal phasing was simplified, allowing for increased green time and better signal progression for vehicles traveling through intersections. Furthermore, each lane of traffic was treated as a "separate road in terms of driveway and signal spac- ing." Traffic signals normally operate on an 80-s cycle. However, a 120-s cycle is used along the northern section during peak hours. Progressive speeds are set at 45 to 50 mph, and most green times are about 55% of the cycle. Capacity gains of 20% over conventional dual left -turn lane designs have been cited (28, 29). In addition, the study indicated that signal- ized intersections with a pair of nearby direc- tional crossovers were safer than traditional signalized intersections that allow for left turns. By eliminating left turns, the number of conflict points was reduced, resulting in fewer crashes. Crash characteristics and rates for the 30 mi of Telegraph Road with U-turn treat- ments are set forth in Table 2-13. The section south of 8 -Mile Road is six lanes wide, whereas the newer section is generally eight lanes wide. The annual crash rates were based on the crashes reported in the 1988-1991 period and the estimated 1991 average daily traffic. There ® Traffic Signal D C7 C 14' + — 12' •- 5z 12. �. 44' �, 12'-► B4' 12' -► L&24 nELEGRAP" FD) Effects of Access Management 29 LONG LANE PD Z 1 57 +1z - 14' tt )n LCN3 LAIQ ID FACM FACM FACW FACM r::: NCRTH E!b"r 9QfRl WE;ar �j tzizrziziz tt ®sUI14' 1q' Li 14'�-- 1z iz1z �' 12' 64'7®171z �-- 1z 64'+- 14' 14' •-- 17 l)RAP 44.-13- 1 1 . nELEC�IAA 1 fes] 4b' III N 14' 14' ^► --► 14' -► 1z ---► 13' 17-► -►1z eq -+ iz -►1z 59 1z-► -�1' -►14' -+13 14' gmntlty, n q FIGURE 2-7 Telegraph Road—typical crossover (28). were 4.7 crashes per year per million vehicle- SUMMARY miles traveled (VMT) and 0.7 fatalities per year Much of the available research on the safety, per 100 million VMT. These rates include both travel time, and economic effects of access intersection and midblock crashes and were ' management actions has been summarized in therefore influenced by the heavy volumes on this chapter. It has been shown that access intersecting roads. management reduces crashes, improves travel TABLE 2-13 Crash Characteristics and Rates for Telegraph Road Item 8 -Mile Road to Orchard 1-75 Connection to 8- Lake Road Mile Road Total Length (miles) 13.4 16.9 30.3 1991 average daily VMT (thousands) 899.7 927.6 1,827.3 1991 annual VMT (millions) 328.4 338.6 667.0 1988-1991 crashes (3 3,755 years) 5,697 9,452 Crashes/year (million 3.8 5.6 4.7 VMT) Fatalities- - .___ 4 (3 years) 11 15 Fatalities/year (hundred 0.4 1.1 0.7 million VMT) SOURCE: Southeast Michigan Council of Governments. 30 ACCESS MANAGEMENT MANUAL speeds, and has potential economic benefits. The aesthetic and environmental opportuni- ties associated with access management also contribute to a more sustainable transportation system. The various effects have two impor- tant applications: (a) they may be used to esti- mate the benefits and impacts of specific access management techniques or applications, and (b) they may be used as a rationale for specific actions. REFERENCES 1. Gluck, J., H. S. Levinson, and V. Stover. NCHRP Report 420: Impacts of Access Management Tech- niques. TRB, National Research Council, Washing- ton, D.C., 1999. 2. Levinson, H. S., and J. Gluck. Access Spacing and Safety: Recent Research Results. Proc., 4th National Conference on Access Management, Port- land, Oreg., 2000. 3. Moskowitz, K., and W. E. Schaefer. California Median Study: 1958. Bulletin 266, HRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1960, pp. 34-62. 4. Stover, V., S. Tignor, and M. Rosenbaum. Access Control and Driveways. In Synthesis of Safety Re- search Related to Traffic Control and Roadway Elements -Volume 1, FHWA-TS-82-232, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Trans- portation, 1982. 5. Levinson, H. S. Access Spacing and Accidents: A Conceptual Analysis. In Transportation Research Circular E-0019, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000. nationalacademies_o b/trb/ publications/ec019/ ec019_cl.pdf. 6. BRW Consulting Group. Statistical Relationship Between Vehicular Crashes and Highway Access. Minnesota Department of Transportation, 1998. 7. Millard, W. Accident Analysis Relating Crashes to Major Access Management Features. Florida Department of Transportation, 1993. 8. Parsonson, P. S., M. Waters, and J. S. Fincher. Effect on Safety of Replacing an Arterial Two - Way Left -Turn Lane with a Raised Median. Proc., I st National Conference on Access Management, Vail, Colo., 1993. 9. Parsonson, P. S., M. G. Waters Ill, and J. S. Fincher. Georgia Study Confirms the Continuing Safety Advantage of Raised Medians over Two -Way Left - Turn Lanes. Proc., 4th National Conference on Access Management, Portland, Oreg., 2000. 10. Lall, B. K_, A. Eghtedari, T. Simons, P. Taylor, and T. Reynolds. Analysis of Traffic Accidents Within the Functional Area of Intersections and Drive- ways. Technical Report TRANS -1-95. Portland State University, 1995. 11. Lu, J., S. Dissanayake, N. Castillo, and K. Williams. Methodology to Quantify the Effects of Access Man- agement on Roadway Operations and Safety (3 vol- umes). Florida Department of Transportation, 2001. 12. Bowman, B. L., and R. L. Vecellio. Effect of Urban and Suburban Median Types on Both Vehicular and Pedestrian Safety. In Transportation Research Record 1445, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 169-179. 13. S& -K Transportation Consultants, Inc. Access Management, Location and Design. Participant notebook for NHI Course 133078. National High- way Institute, Federal Highway Administration, April 2000. 14. Reilly, W. R., D. W Harwood, J. M. Schoen, R. O. Kuehl, K. Bauer, and A. D. St. John. Capacity and Level -of -Service Procedures forMultilane Rural and Suburban Highways. Final Report, NCHRP Project 3-33. JHK & Associates, May 1989. 15. McShane, W. Access Management and the Relation to Highway Capacity and Level of Service. Florida Department of Transportation, 1996. 16. The Access Control Demonstration Project. Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver, 1985. 17. Access Management Study for Wisconsin State Think Highway 50, Suburban Kenosha, Wisconsin. CH2M Hill and S/K Transportation Consultants, Aug. 1998. 18. Stover, V. G., and F. J. Koepke. Transportation and Land Development. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., 1988. 19. Rees, M., T. Orrick, and R. Marx. Police Power Regulation of Highway Access and Traffic Flow in the State of Kansas. Proc., 4th National Conference on Access Management, Portland, Oreg., 2000. 20. Eisele, W., and W. Frawley. A Methodology for Determining Economic Impacts of Raised Medians: Data Analysis on Additional Case Studies. Research Report 3904-3. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, Oct. 1999. 21. Long, G., and J. Helms. Median Design far Urban Roadways. Transportation Research Center, Uni- versity of Florida, Gainesville, Oct. 1991. 22. Iowa Access Management Research and Awareness Project: Executive Summary. Iowa State University, Ames, 1997. 23. Gluck, J., and H. Levinson. Overview of NCHRP Project 3-52: Impacts of Access Management Tech- niques. Proc., 4th National Conference on Access Management, Portland, Oreg., 2000. 24. Williams, K. M., and J. R. Forester. NCHRP Syn- thesis of Highway Practice 233: Land Development Regulations That Promote Access Management. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996. 25. Shopping Center Development Handbook, 2nd ed. Urban Land Institute, Washington D.C., 1985. 26. An Evaluation of Strategies for Improving Trans- portation Mobility and Energy Efficiency in Urban Areas. Project 60011. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station (in progress). 27. Special Report 245: Expanding Metropolitan High- ways: Implications forAir Quality and Energy Use. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995. 28. Koepke, F., and H. Levinson. Case Studies for Access Management. Prepared for Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1993. 29. Levinson, H., F. Koepke, D. Geiger, D. Allyn, and C. Palumbo. Indirect Left Turns -The Michigan Experience. Proc., 4th National Conference on Access Management, Portland, Oreg., 2000. • C� • Item 5: Article Review See attached news articles for your review. TGV breaks train speed record - CNN.com TGV breaks train speed record France's TGV sets new train speed record • Japan's Maglev train holds the absolute train speed record • Test data is expected to improve passenger security and comfort Pagel of 2 1 :rQ7 PR Powered by f i"01 PARIS, France (AP) -- France broke the world speed record on rails Tuesday with a souped -up fast train, a feat to showcase the technology it is trying to sell to overseas markets including China. A high-speed French train named the V-150, equipped with a modified engine and wheels broke the world speed record today by traveling more than 350 miles -per -hour. The new record is expected to gild France's image in the expanding market for high-speed technology as countries like China turn to bullet trains. The black -and -chrome train with three double-decker cars sped along a new line linking Paris to eastern France, starting in the town of Preny. It broke the 1990 rail record, also held by a French train, of 515.3 kph (320.2 mph). The specially designed train was outfitted to reach up to 540 kph (335.5 mph) -- about the speed of a short -distance freight propeller plane. The TGV, short for "train a grande vitesse," as France's bullet trains are called, is made up of three double-decker cars between two engines. It has been equipped with larger wheels than the usual TGV to cover more ground with each rotation and a stronger, 25,000 -horsepower engine, said Alain Cuccaroni, in charge of the technical aspects of testing. Adjustments have also been made to the new track, which opens June 10, notably the banking on turns. Rails were also treated for perfect contact, Cuccaroni said. The electrical tension in the overhead cable was beefed up, from 25,000 volts to 31,000. Tuesday was the first time that double-decker cars were being used at such a high speed, according to officials of Alstom, which makes TGVs and which crawled back a year ago from the edge of bankruptcy. The double-decker cars were transformed into a laboratory for the event so that technicians from the state-run rail company SNCF and Alstom can gather data during the run. While the V-150 smashed the previous record of just over 320 miles -per -hour it fell just short of the ultimate record set by The Maglev, a Japanese magnetically levitated train that sped to 361 mph in 2003. The Maglev skims over a guideway on powerful magnetic fields without ever touching the track. http: //cnn. worldnews.printthis. clickabi lity.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=TGV%AObreaks+tr... 4/3/2007 TGV breaks train speed record - CNN.com Page 2 of 2 Test data from the V-150 should help improve the security and comfort of passengers in the future, said Cuccaroni. France competes with neighboring Germany and with Japan for rail contracts. Transport Minister Dominique Perben received a California delegation hours before Tuesday's record attempt. California is studying prospects for a high-speed line running from Sacramento in the north to San Diego, in the south, via San Francisco and Los Angeles. China, the biggest potential market, was to start building a high-speed line this year between Beijing and Shanghai to cut travel time from nine hours to five. Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Find this article at: http://www. cn n. com/2007/WOR LD/europe/04/03/TGVspeedrecord. ap/index. htm I Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article. © 2007 Cable News Network. http: //cnn. worldnews.printthis. clickabi lity. comlpt/cpt?action=cpt&title=TGV%AObreaks+tr... 4/3/2007 Bus line appeals to shoestring travelers - CNN.com Pagel of 2 *16 7 PR mxomW Powered by S Esus line appeals to shoestring travelers PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania (AP) -- For Internet -savvy travelers on a budget, Megabus.com claims to offer a service that makes mainstream bus travel seem pricey: rides from Pittsburgh to Chicago for as little as $1. The Chicago -based company, which began operating in a number of Midwestern cities last year, plans to launch new service April 2 in Pittsburgh; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Columbus, Ohio; Kansas City, Missouri, and Louisville, Kentucky. It already offers service between Chicago and Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, St. Louis and Toledo. "We're really trying to get people out of their car," Dale Moser, president and chief operating officer of Coach USA, the domestic subsidiary of Scotland -based Stagecoach Group PLC, which runs Megabus. "We think that's the real big advantage." Megabus uses online ticketing and sidewalk stops instead of ticket counters and bus terminals. Passengers do not buy tickets, but instead give drivers reservation numbers they receive when booking online. The low-cost model was imported from the United Kingdom, where Stagecoach introduced a similar service nearly four years ago. "The demand for this type of service has been outstanding," Moser said before a news conference on a street corner in downtown Pittsburgh. "I don't have a terminal, so I don't have bricks -and -mortar," he said. "I don't have the staff that maintains it. Everything's back room -- it's all computer sales. I have nobody handling cash. I have nobody handling any kind of transactions at the bus. The bus driver is focused on taking care of the customers and driving safely." Advance planning gets you the lowest fares. A limited number of seats are priced at $1, and the fares increase incrementally based on the time between the booking and departure dates, a pricing scheme used by discount airlines. "But I will tell you that the highest -price seat is still cheaper than all the alternatives to get from Pittsburgh to Chicago," Moser said. The most expensive ticket for such a trip, booked 24 hours in advance, would be $43.50, he said. Its top -end fares, he said, are lower than those of Dallas -based Greyhound Lines Inc., the largest intercity bus service in North America. On a recent day at the Megabus stop in Chicago, two University of Minnesota students, Sean Klontz, 21, and Emily Garber, 20, were returning to Minneapolis after participating in a Chicago -area bicycle race. Klontz said he paid $30 for the same round trip several months ago, but only $20 for this one, since he booked well in advance. Garber said it was her first Megabus trip, and it was comparable to Greyhound -- only cheaper. Both said the seats were http://cnn.travel.printthis. clickability.comlpt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Bus+line+aDDeals+to+s... 3/20/2007 Bus line appeals to shoestring travelers - CNN.com Page 2 of 2 narrow, and there was little leg room, but Garber added, "I'll sacrifice the leg room for rnore money in my wallet." Mason Klein, 18, was returning to Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, after visiting friends in Chicago. He paid $37.50 from Cincinnati to Chicago, but only $25 for the return, since it was midweek. "It wasn't bad for the price, though it wasn't too clean," he said. "I used to fly or drive, but I'm not on my parents' buck anymore, so I guess this'll do." Warren and Amy Daigle of Milwaukee, both in their early 50s, got off their first Megabus for a visit to their son in Chicago. Warren called it "safe, pleasant and inexpensive," saying they only paid $10 round-trip apiece. Other low-cost bus lines have also tried to lure passengers away from Greyhound, including Vamoose, which runs a $25 express bus between Manhattan and the Washington suburbs of Bethesda, Maryland, and Arlington, Virginia, and various buses that run from Chinatowns in one city to Chinatowns in other cities. One such company, Fung Wah, has been flagged by government agencies for safety issues, including speeding, which was cited as a factor in an accident that injured 34 passengers on a Fung Wah bus. Anna Folmnsbee, a spokeswoman for Greyhound, said her company still offers "the best value in transportation on every seat." She noted that Greyhound has dropped fares in some cities; offers a variety of discounts like half -off companion fares and breaks for students; and that unlike some of the newer carriers, Greyhound tickets are refundable and are not schedule -specific -- meaning you can buy a ticket and use it for buses leaving at various times. Bert Powell, an analyst who follows Greyhound for BMO Capital Markets -Canada, said bus activity seems to have increased since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and that regional competition among bus companies has intensified. "In select routes, you're going to get guys who cherry -pick," he said. "You're going to have guys with three buses nipping at (Greyhound's) heels." Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/03/20/cheap.bus.ap/index.html Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article. © 2007 Cable News Network. http: //cnn.travel.printthis. clickabi lity. comlpticpt?action=cpt&title=Bus+line+appeals+to+s... 3/20/2007 Printer -friendly article page This is a printer friendly version of an article from the Green Bay Press -Gazette Back uv i proposes more `r c-12 - roundabout plan Three would be constructed along Hwy. 42-57 By Deb Fitzgerald deb@doorcountyadvocate.com June 9, 2007 First, the state Department of Transportation conceived of one roundabout for Door County where highways 42 and 57 split at the Mill Supper Club and C&W Auto in Sevastopol. Now, "my plan is more radical than that," said Steven Noel, DOT district project development supervisor. Pagel of 2 G,'; STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION officials are proposing a expanded installation of roundabouts along the Highway 42-57 bypass around Sturgeon Bay. A second and third would be added, including one at the intersection with Michigan Street. Photo by Christine Nesheim Advertisement During a public information session, June 5, DOT released a proposal for two additional roundabouts on state Highway 42/57: one at Michigan Street and the other at Egg Harbor Road. DOT conceived of the additional roundabouts as an alternative to the planned construction of a frontage road north of Utah along state Highway 42/57, and the planned relocation of County Highway T. A stoplight was also planned for the new, four-way intersection that would have been created once County T was connected with Egg Harbor Road. Both the frontage road and relocation projects are covered in an agreement signed by the city, the county and DOT. That agreement would have to be revised before DOT could proceed with the roundabouts in the areas covered by the agreement: Michigan Street and Egg Harbor Road, Noel said. "DOT will have to sell that to the city and the county," said John Kolodziej, Door County highway commissioner. A roundabout instead of the relocation project, in particular, would eliminate the concerns of County T residents, and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Noel said. "We wouldn't have to cut into valuable wetlands or buy land for right-of-way from people who don't want to sell," Noel said. The small audience at the informational meeting seemed supportive of the three http://www. greenbaypressgazette.comlappslpbcs.dll/article?AID=1200706091ADV O 1 /7060... 6/11/2007 Printer -friendly article page Page 2 of 2 roundabouts. "As much as I don't want to agree with you, you finally make sense," said Leo Zipperer, a county board supervisor and chairman of the Sevastopol Town Board. Noel said DOT has the authority to make the decision on the intersection improvements, but, "our goal is to get acceptance from local governments." Though no one at the meeting expressed concerns, DOT is expecting opposition: roundabouts meet resistance whenever they're planned, said Randy Asman, DOT traffic engineer. "So if you get phone calls like, `what are these people thinking?', it's not unusual," Asman said. "Thirty-four percent of people are not in favor of them, but over time, the majority of those people will start to go to the other side." Currently, on the state highway system, 16 roundabouts are constructed and operating, 175 are planned, and 125 are proposed, Asman said. Roundabouts move traffic efficiently through intersections at low speeds, and provide better turning radii for trucks and better highway aesthetics, Asman said. But the biggest impetus behind DOT's push for roundabouts is safety: DOT considers a roundabout to be the safest type of at -grade intersection, and now considers constructing them whenever an intersection is slated for improvements. For example, Asman explained there are 49,000 intersection crashes annually, which accounts for about 39 percent of all reported crashes. In addition, 26 percent of all fatalities occur during intersection crashes, and 52 percent of all injuries. At locations where roundabouts have replaced stop signs or traffic signals, crashes have decreased 39 percent, injuries 76 percent, and fatalities and/or incapacitating injuries 90 percent, Asman said. "From a safety standpoint, those (traffic signal/sign) statistics should be unacceptable to everyone in the room," said Scott Nelson, DOT traffic engineer. http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID/20070609/AD VO 1/7060... 6/11/2007 Rage on the bikeway - The Boston Globe Page 1 of 3 coir THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING Rage on the bikeway tt,s:4-lob-14,10111be Walkers and cyclists clash on Minuteman path By Matt Viser, Globe Staff I July 1, 2007 LEXINGTON-- Frank Corsino walks nimbly, a cane in his left hand, a transistor radio in his right. He wears a driving cap and a wide grin, and for years along the peaceful, tree -lined Minuteman Bikeway, the 84 -year-old man found solace after his wife and former walking partner died. But these days it is a different story. Instead of the spirit -restoring stroll he used to enjoy, he finds himself going into combat mode, dodging torrents of joggers, cyclists, stroller -pushers, dog -walkers, and roller bladers who have flocked to the 11 -mile trail in mind-boggling numbers. Community leaders who oversee the trail say its popularity is higher now than in any of the 14 years it's been open, and the Washington -based Rails -to -Trails Conservancy estimates that there are 2 million annual users, making it the second -busiest trail of its kind in the country. But as thousands each day compete for space on the trail's 12 -foot -wide strip of asphalt, passing through meadows, suburban town centers, and manicured backyards, confrontations have become increasingly common. Police have been called out so often to resolve angry, and sometimes bizarre, disputes that they have coined a new term. "We have road rage," said Arlington Police Chief Fred Ryan. "And now we have bikeway rage." In a 3 -mile stretch in Arlington , police have filed 18 reports over the past year -- more than the previous two years combined -- that have ranged from bike -on -bike accidents to a woman who received unwanted sexual advances one afternoon while push ing her baby daughter in a stroller. Some men have been spotted running naked, others urinating in the bushes. In one instance several years ago, a bicyclist kicked a Jack Russell terrier and yelled at the dog's owner, "Get the [expletive] over to the right!" as he passed by. Police tracked down the bicyclist and, after he apologized to the dog owner, did not press charges. "It's a good thing that it's used so much," said David Watson, executive director of the Massachusetts Bicycle Coalition. "But in some ways I guess you can call it a victim of its own success." The Minuteman Bikeway -- running from the western edge of Cambridge and through Arlington, Lexington, and Bedford -- was completed in 1993 as part of a rails -to -trails movement that has been converting inactive railroad corridors into leafy recreational paths. There are 28 such trails in Massachusetts, but people flock to the Minuteman because it is one of the few in the Boston area. There are cyclists in full-body spandex suits, aerodynamic helmets, and titanium bikes that go fast enough to leave roadkill in their wake. There are roller bladers, swaying back and forth to music playing on headphones. There are dog -walkers, stroller -pushers, and frequent choruses of "On your left!" screamed by cyclists as they whiz by pedestrians. There's a woman who walks a pet llama on a leash. A man used to ride his bike with a live parrot on his shoulder. Snapping turtles have been known to slow traffic to a standstill. On weekdays, some subway commuters take the trail to Alewife Station in Cambridge. Pedestrians can be seen reading books as they walk, and a few cyclists chat on cellphones, one hand on the phone and another gripping the handlebars. On weekends, recreational users and families pour in from the suburbs, packing the parking lots near the path. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/07/01 /rage_on_the_bikeway... 7/9/2007 Rage on the bikeway - The Boston Globe Page 2 of 3 "My favorite part," said 6 -year-old Jessica Poulin last week, "is stopping for ice cream." Others were less sunny. "The roller bladers are too wide," said Rachel Shanley, a biker, referring to the weaving stride of inline skaters. "They take up the whole path." Similarly, inline skaters complain: "The bikers have this supremacy about them," said Peter Roy as he slid on a pair of roller blades. "They're pushing 30-35 miles per hour. They hit us, we're toast." Other popular rail trails, such as the Washington and Old Dominion Trail in Virginia, have posted speed limits of 15 miles per hour and several dozen volunteers along the trail hand out warnings to speedsters. Newer trails are often wider than the Minuteman, and have separate lanes for walkers and joggers. Construction to revamp the 22 -mile Cape Cod Rail Trail was completed last month , adding amenities and traffic -easing measures including a bicycle round about, seating area, and information kiosks where several trails converge. That trail is now cited as a model trail in Massachusetts, though it has fewer users. The Minuteman trail, which sits on a former MBTA railbed and roughly follows part of the route where Paul Revere rode in 1775 to alert the countryside of the imminent British invasion, is maintained by volunteer committees in each of the four communities the trail passes through. Police departments respond to reports along the path by sending armed officers out on mountain bikes. The committees say they don't have the money to widen the path, create new traffic lanes, or monitor the speed and behavior of the people who use it. Plans are afoot to repave the Lexington section of the path, and officials are considering posting more signs to encourage users to slow down and be more courteous of others. About two years ago, blue and white signs went up saying, "Keep Right, Share the Path," though some of those were stolen, and others tagged with graffiti. The committees also have stuck to a philosophy of ensuring the Minuteman is accessible to all; they'd rather it be crowded than exclusionary, officials say. They have only one hard-and-fast rule, that there can be no motorized vehicles, unless it's a wheelchair. "Basically, stay to the right and be happy," said Jack Johnson, chairman of the Arlington Bicycle Advisory Committee. "If you don't like it, go find another path. It wasn't designed for one person or one type of person. It was designed as a multi use system." Though there are no plans for widening or other improvements to the trail, local officials are hoping to make the Minuteman longer. Lexington residents recently approved funding for a $125,000 master plan to create a 2 -mile connector between the Minuteman Bikeway and the Battle Road Trail. Local officials also hope to one day connect the Minuteman to other paths, such as the Central Mass. Rail Trail and the trails along the Charles and Mystic rivers. Corsino has been trimming the weeds outside his house, which abuts the trail, to encourage people to walk on the grass, out of the way of fast-moving bikers and roller bladers. He said he's seen so many spills that he carries a fistful of bandages in his pocket for first aid. He has had his share of encounters, too. He recalls one day when a troop of Boy Scouts on bicycles came barreling by and he was hit by one. "I went flying," he said. "The boy who hit me fell off the bike, his helmet went flying. He was just spread-eagle out there." Matt Viser can be reached at maviser@globe.com ■ http://www. boston. cominews/locallmassachusetts/articles/2007/07/01 lrage_on_the_bikeway... 7/9/2007 Rage on the bikeway - The Boston Globe ©Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company Page 3 of 3 http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/07/01 /rage_on_the_bikeway... 7/9/2007 Big Dig glue company charged with manslaughter - CNN.com Page 1 of 1 PE /:mxom' CSI mtPowered by Big Dig glue company charged with manslaughter • Story Highlights • Massachusetts indicts company that made epoxy used in Big Dig tunnel • Indictment charges single count of involuntary manslaughter • Milena Del Valle, 39, died when 26 tons of concrete fell on her car • There was no immediate comment from Powers Fasteners, Inc. BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- The company that provided the epoxy blamed in the fatal Big Dig tunnel collapse was indicted Wednesday in the death of a motorist crushed by ceiling panels. Powers Fasteners Inc., was charged with one count of involuntary manslaughter, Attorney General Martha Coakley said. The Brewster, New York -based firm was the only company involved in the construction and design of the tunnel to be indicted by the Suffolk County grand jury, Coakley said. A report from the National Transportation Safety Board released last month found the July 10, 2006, collapse could have been avoided if designers and construction crews had considered that the epoxy holding support anchors for the panels could slowly pull away over time. Milena Del Valle, 39, was killed when 26 tons of concrete panels and hardware came crashing down from a tunnel ceiling onto her car as she and her husband drove through the westbound 1-90 connector tunnel. Her husband crawled out of the rubble with minor injuries. The company did not immediately return a call seeking comment. C __ rnr; Associated Press. nghic-, , . .._ _..F,y .v -I. h-, All AboutCriminal Law • Personal Injury Law • Boston Find this article at: http://www. cn n.com/2007/US/law/08/08/dig. indictment.ap/index. htm I 1 Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article. © 2007 Cable News Network. http://cnn. site.printthis. clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Big+Dig+glue+company+c... 8/8/2007 HAMPTON ROADS News (Printable Version) Page 1 of 3 Roads authority gets an earful on taxes at Hampton forum By TOM HOLDEN, The Virginian -Pilot © August 9, 2007 Last updated: 2:3:.' AI'vi HAMPTON The angry speeches started early and rarely let up. For two hours on Wednesday, the Hampton Roads Transportation Authority endured a withering dose of bile over plans to finance new roads with taxes on automobile ownership and the sale of homes. 2nd forum tonight: 7 p.m., Virginia Beach Convention Center, 1000 19th St. Authority members sat stonefaced while speakers took turns scolding them. The audience of about 200 erupted into loud cheers after each one. One made noises like a chicken. Some shook their fists. Nearly everyone condemned the Virginia General Assembly for creating the authority; most just wanted the authority to disband. "I wish the chairman would stop using the term 'revenue streams,"' said Lisa Guthrie of Hampton, referring to the new taxes. "It makes it sound like a babling brook when it's just you getting your hand in my wallet." She repeatedly threw paper into the trash can that she brought as a prop, calling the law that brought the authority into being "garbage." The meeting was the first of two intended to give the public an opportunity to comment on plans to build some of the region's most long -sought transportation projects, including new tunnels and bridges. The second takes place at 7 p.m. today at the Virginia Beach Convention Center, 1000 19th Street at the Oceanfront. http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/print.cfm?story=129972&ran=147986 8/9/2007 HAMPTON ROADS News (Printable Version) Mickey. Bisiase ofVirgin a Beach was ranitlEig about 2_00 p%eo ,'le wtto aiif-m7de-i W0d11eeSd,aY'd PLibiic hioarorig In il�ilftl3'l'i3V Page 2 of 3 Poquoson Mayor Gordon Helsel, who resigned from the authority Monday in protest, was back at the dais after a highly publicized retreat . He said he was advised the law required him to be there , but he stuck to his position. "I feel the formation of this authority and the powers given it under the law are unfair," he said. The audience burst into applause. "there has got to be a better way, and the General Assembly needs to find it." Not all in attendance were opposed but they were in the distinct minority. Few tried to address the region's long-term transportation needs. Some tried to see the authority members in something of a predicament. "I won't shoot the messenger here," said Jack Pendleton of Hampton. "I admire the work you do ... but it pains me greatly to see you stand there with your arms wrung by the General Assembly, relegated into becoming toll collectors and bagmen." He said the controversy is an opportunity to "stand up to the General Assembly and the governor." The meeting was chaired by Norfolk Mayor Paul Fraim, who tried to steer speakers away from complaints about the projects, saying they were designated by the legislation. "The HRTA does not have the power to change the projects, they're phasing, or raise or lower the funding stream," he said . "We cannot pick and choose which to support." But that only made many in the audience even angrier, , especially some from Hampton who noted that there no plans to expand the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel, one of the region's premier bottlenecks. The six projects are a wider Interstate 64 on the Peninsula and in Chesapeake, a rebuilt U.S. 460, a new Midtown Tunnel, the Hampton Roads third crossing, the South and the Southeastern Parkway and Dominion Boulevard. http://home.hamptonroads. com/stories/print.cfm?story=129972&ran147986 8/9/2007 HAMPTON ROADS News (Printable Version) Page 3 of 3 Portions of the third crossing are expected to ease Hampton tunnel congestion. The form was intended to give residents a chance to comment and ask questions — but authority members did not offer answers, even when some were familiar with the details. Ken Willard, a Portsmouth resident and owner of an antiques store, urged the authority to move forward and brought up a recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis as evidence of the nation's crumbling infrastructure. "Money for new roads is critical," he said. "Please act now to establish funding." He then asked retailers present to stand and show their support and none did. The audience started laughing. Bill Bell, vice chair of Virginia Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of the taxes as the only reasonable means of raising money. He said businesses are increasingly facing problems of getting inventory to stores and employees to their jobs. "We have employees at all these businesses who get stuck every day," he said. "Those workers are frustrated we know there is no such thing as a free lunch." Charlie Brinley ,of Dominion Terminal Associates, said it would be difficult to pass more legislation . "The reason we have this problem is that the western part of Virginia does not want to fund the problems in the eastern part," he said. "I don't think we should take the risk of doing nothing. Let's get moving and try to fix it, however we can." Tom Holden, (757) 446-2331, tom.holden@pilotonline.com © 2007 Hampton Roads.com/PilotOnline.com http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/Print.cfm?story—I 29972&ran-147986 8/9/2007 HAMPTON ROADS Business (Printable Version) Pagel of 2 Qmwrf Pr%r Ali.` m�Y9�I-9r nr%iAI has - la shin, f— lwnuary 1 .+.... ...... ■uv riG1 qu "J111'✓ 1v1 %#allual �/ Qi ��iivell The Virginian -Pilot © August 9, 2007 Last updated: 10:,50 P Cyt VIRGINIA BEACH Smart USA, distributor for the Smart Fortwo minicar in the United States, has confirmed that Checkered Flag Motor Car Corp. will be the exclusive Hampton Roads Smart dealership when the car goes on sale in January. Spokesmen for Checkered Flag and Smart USA expect legal agreements to be completed shortly. The new showroom will be housed two doors east of Checkered Flag's Mini showroom on Virginia Beach Boulevard. Checkered Flag is one of 50 to 75 U.S. dealers to receive the franchise. SmartUSA says about 65 percent of the dealerships will go to current Mercedes-Benz dealerships. This is not expected to be the case in Hampton Roads. Success with its Mini store led Ed Snyder, president of Checkered Flag Motor Car Corp., to investigate Smart. "It seemed like a good fit for us," said Snyder, who introduced Toyota and Honda vehicles to Hampton Roads car buyers. "We've always tried to be on the leading edge of things in the automotive industry." Snyder said the Smart customer is more interested in technological innovation and fuel economy than a Mini buyer. "Mini is a little bigger and more expensive," he said. "Although gas mileage is important for Mini, it's not the thing - performance is." Drivers of tile; Smart Forhvo cart parallel park corivertionally orfit it into a space slde,,vays. The cal' is a little more than 106 inches Move than 770,000" unnis of the t%vvc_seat�e:V have bee:, sold sillce 19t?a. Smart is being distributed in the United States by UnitedAuto Group Inc. of Bloomfield Hills, Mich., one the largest automotive retailers in the country. The company operates 166 dealerships in the United States and Puerto Rico, and 145 overseas. Initially developed as a collaboration between watchmaker Swatch and Mercedes-Benz, the diminutive car measures just over 106 inches - almost 9 feet - long. That's more than 3 feet shorter than BMW's Mini, allowing it to fit sideways in a parking space. The two-seater has sold more than 770,000 units since going on sale in 1998. In the United States, buyers have been able to put down a $99 deposit through the company's Web site since March. This influenced where the company would initially sell the car, said Ken Kettenbeil, Smart's director of communications. To stoke demand, the company is holding ride -and -drive events nationwide. The company has scheduled one at La Promenade Shopping Center on Laskin Road in Virginia Beach on Aug. 25-26. Consumers will be able to test- http://home.hamptonroads. com/stories/print. cfm?story=129969&ran=3 875 8 8/9/2007 HAMPTON ROADS Business (Printable Version) Page 2 of 2 drive the car and put down a deposit. Prices range from $12,000 for the coupe to $17,000 for the convertible. "People think they can't fit in it, especially if they're over 6 feet tall," Kettenbeil said. "But after they try it, they're surprised to find out that they can." Larry Printz, (757) 446-2220, larry.printz�oilotonline.com © 2007 HamptonRoads.com/Pilot0nline.com http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/print.cfm?story=129969&ran=3 8758 8/9/2007 BBC NEWS I Americas I US bridge 'design issue' detected 0 NEWS US bridge 'design issue' detected Pagel of 2 US investigators have found a possible "design issue" in the bridge that gave way over the Mississippi river. The parts causing concern are the steel plates that connect girders. Federal officials have urged states to carefully consider the additional weight placed on bridges during construction or repair projects. Crews were working on the Minneapolis bridge when it collapsed last week, killing six people. Divers are still searching for seven other people. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), whose full investigation is set to take months, has not yet indicated any definitive cause for the collapse of the eight -lane I -35W highway bridge. But safety officials have found a "design issue" with what are known as gusset plates - the steel connectors that tie together the angled steel beams of the bridge's frame - at particular locations on the bridge. Investigators are trying to verify the loads and stresses on the gusset plates and the material used to make them. One possible stress may have been the weight of construction equipment and materials on the bridge at the time of the collapse, the NTSB reported on its website. In response, federal authorities called on all states to take extra care with how much weight is placed on bridges of any design when construction crews are sent to work on them. More than a week on from the collapse, divers are continuing to cut through the tangled debris of the bridge in the search for bodies. Teams of Navy and FBI divers, who were brought in earlier this week, are trying to go deeper than local divers were able to. I -35W BRIDGE 9340 Eight -lane, steel -arch bridge Built in 1967 Used by 140,000 cars a day But the search amid the huge chunks of concrete and mangled wreckage submerged in the Mississippi's swift and murky waters has proved difficult. http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpappslpagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hilamericas16938245.stm 8/9/2007 BBC NEWS I Americas I US bridge 'design issue' detected Divers were carrying out "a very meticulous hand -over -hand search of the scene", their spokesman Dave Nagle said. It will now be at least a week before cranes start regularly hauling out arge pieces of debris, police officials have said. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbr.co.uk/9o/prlfr/-/2/I11/arnericas/6'-33245.stm Put:: ,9, ied: 2007/08/09 19:28:38 GMT +c; BBC MN1VI1 Page 2 of 2 http://newsvote.bbc.co.uklmpappslpagetools/print/news.bbe.co.uk/2/hilamericasl6938245.stm 8/9/2007 r� u • Item 6: Other