Check out PACTS latest outreach effort on You Tube.
PACTS Regional Bike and Pedestrian Plan Update: Final Report
June 1st, 2010 5 comments »
Final Report Section Index
- Complete Report (15 MB PDF)
- Table of Contents (Final PDF)
A. Introduction (Final, PDF)
B. On-road Bikeway, Trail and Pathway Networks (Final, PDF)
C. The Pedestrian Environment and Regional Commercial Centers (Final, PDF)
D. Top Cost and Time Effective Regional Improvements (Final, PDF)
E. Top Areas/ Issues of Concern for Follow Up (Final, PDF)
F. Design Guidelines (Final, PDF)Supporting Maps:
- Map B-1 Original 36″ x 48″ / Smaller 11 x 17 version
- Map B-2 Original 36″ x 48″ / Smaller 11 x 17 version
- Map B-3 Original 36″ x 48″ / Smaller 11 x 17 version
- Map B-4 Original 36″ x 48″ / Smaller 11 x 17 version
- Map B-5 Original 36″ x 48″ / Smaller 11 x 17 version
- Map C-1 Original 36″ x 48″
- Map D-1 Original 36″ x 48″
NEITE Annual Conference in Portland, ME
February 24th, 2010 No comments »
The 1,800 members of the Northeastern District of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (New England, New York, and northern New Jersey) are holding their 2010 Annual Meeting in Portland. The Maine Chapter of ITE is hosting the event that will take place May 19-21 at the Portland Regency.
Between 150 and 200 delegates are expected to attend the technical workshops and lectures, technical tours, and various social events. Information on registration and the meeting schedule can be obtained from Tom Errico (Thomas.errico@tylin.com) or by visiting the ITE Maine Chapter website (www.maineite.org).
Bicycle Approaches to Tukeys Bridge: Portland, Maine
January 8th, 2010 No comments »Bicycle Approaches to Tukeys Bridge: Portland, Maine
This report focuses on bicycle connections for both the north and south connections to the shared use trail across Tukeys Bridge. The report includes recommendations for both short and long term improvements to the existing connections.
Here is a link to the 24 page 5mb PDF.
PACTS Regional Bike and Pedestrian Plan Update: Section A, Final Draft
December 8th, 2009 1 comment »
Note to Reader: This DRAFT report has been broken into four sections on this website to make it easier to read. Near the top of each section is a link to the PDF version of that section.
THE FINAL REPORT IS AVAILABLE HERE.
Below is an index of all the sections and links to them. Several maps are referenced in this site and are linked where appropriate within the website. Also on this page, below the index, is a comprehensive list of links to all sections as PDF’s and all the supporting maps.
Draft Report Section Index
A. Introduction – Draft
B. On-road Bikeway, Trail and Pathway Networks – Draft
C. The Pedestrian Environment and Regional Commercial Centers – Draft
D. Top Cost and Time Effective Regional Improvements – Draft
E. Top Areas/ Issues of Concern for Follow Up – Draft
F. Design Guidelines – DraftDownload the entire DRAFT report here:
PDFs: Sections A, B, C, D, E, F
Supporting Maps: Map B-1, Map B-2, Map B-3, Map B-4, Map B-5, Map C-1, Map D-1, All Maps
Download this section as a PDF here.
A. Introduction
Purpose and Scope of the Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan Update
The purpose of the Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update is to selectively update sections of the PACTS Regional Bicycle and Interim Pedestrian Plan from 1995. Eight communities have been added to the PACTS region since 1995. Much has changed within the region from a planning perspective as well as from the amount of bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure that has been constructed. Significant portions of the on-road bicycle network from the 1995 Plan are beginning to emerge. Many miles of trails and pathways have been built in the intervening years, with many more planned.
Since 1995 there is certainly a heightened awareness of the importance of bicycling and walking to the sustainability of the region’s multimodal transportation system and to the region’s livability. Nationally, increasing the amount of adult and youth physical activity is a major strategy to decrease chronic illness such as diabetes and rising obesity rates. Bicycling and walking are integral to these strategies.
The Plan Update is principally an update and expansion of the infrastructure and facility inventory map of the 1995 Plan to include the new 8 communities that have joined PACTS since 2000 (Freeport, North Yarmouth, Yarmouth, Cumberland, Windham, Old Orchard Beach, Saco and Biddeford). The On-road Bikeway, Trail and Pathway Networks section (B) contains a map inventory of the existing and planned on-road bicycle facility, trail and pathway networks in the 15 PACTS municipalities.
Additional elements that are part of the Plan Update document are:
- Pedestrian Environment Analysis, C – an assessment of the relative pedestrian orientation of regional commercial mixed use centers
- Top Most Cost and Time Effective Regional Pedestrian-Bicycle Improvements, D – a listing of important regional initiatives and projects to improve bicyclist and pedestrian safety, increase the amount of walking and bicycling, and to increase multimodal efficiency
- Top Areas/Issues of Most Concern, E – distillation of items that were raised during project meetings and suggested for follow-up action by PACTS
- Design Guidelines, F – selective additions and updates to the design guidelines contained in the 1995 Plan.
Overview of the Process
The heart of the Plan Update process was a series of meetings held with municipal representatives and bicycling, pedestrian and transit stakeholders within the region.
The process included the following elements
- An initial series of kick-off meetings (June 2009), with towns and cities grouped by the Plan Update’s four sub-regions, was held at the beginning of the project with municipal staff. Staff provided information, plans and data to be considered during the course of the project.
- Three monthly meetings were held with stakeholders and advocates/advocacy organizations to review the plan’s progress and get invaluable input into the project’s direction.
- A second series of meetings (August 2009) with municipal staff was held to review the draft network maps and other plan update materials.
- Periodic project updates to the PACTS Planning, Transit and Technical Committees and consultations with PACTS staff.
Next section:
B. On-road Bikeway, Trail and Pathway Networks
PACTS Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update: Section B, Final Draft
December 7th, 2009 No comments »
Note to reader: This is section B of a 6 part report. To see the entire report click here.
THE FINAL REPORT IS AVAILABLE HERE.
Download this section as a PDF here.
B. On-road Bikeway, Trail and Pathway Networks
Overview of the Networks and Maps
The inventory and maps of the Bikeway, Trail and Pathway networks are the heart of the Plan Update project. The maps are a snapshot of the existing and desired future networks of facilities to provide bicycle and pedestrian access to destinations within and to the PACTS region as of October 2009. The bicycle and pedestrian-related facilities identified on the network maps are:
- On-road Bikeways – Bicycle lanes, Paved shoulders and Shared lanes
- Trails – Regional and Local
- Shared Use Pathways – some within their own right of way and some shared with rail and utility rights of way.
Facilities are shown as ‘Existing’ (solid line) or ‘Future’ (dashed line). Trails that are local in nature are thin green lines; those that provide regional connections are thicker green lines.
The maps also provide information important to the context of the bicycling and walking networks within the region. This information includes:
- Conservation, Recreation Facilities and Open Space areas – these are often key destinations for cyclists and walkers
- Rail lines – active and inactive, that may be important trail or pathway corridor opportunities, with or with out active rail service sharing the corridor
- Bus routes – transit services require quality pedestrian access to be successful and bicycling can extend the effective range of transit services where coordinated
- Intermodal centers – are important destinations for bicyclists and pedestrians
- Park and Ride Lots – can serve bicyclists and pedestrians as transfer points for transit services or carpools/vanpools
- Municipal Growth Areas from approved Comprehensive Plans – bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure is important to support municipal growth management and travel demand management strategies
- Schools – important bicycling and pedestrian destinations for students and the broader community.
The facilities comprising the networks come from a number of sources. The starting point was the 1995 PACTS Plan and the bicycle and trail plans several PACTS towns and cities have undertaken. New facilities were suggested to be added to the networks at the meetings with municipal staff, trails organizations and advocates over the course of the project. Once they were compiled, additional facilities were added to ensure connectivity of the networks between municipalities and broadly within the region. For instance, planned on-road bikeways sometimes did not align at municipal boundaries and some regional destinations, such as state parks, did not have connections.
The network maps are provided at two scales: a regional map (Map B-1) showing the entire PACTS region and sub-regional maps that provide improved legibility. PACTS communities were grouped into four sub-regions:
- North: Falmouth, Cumberland, Yarmouth, Freeport, North Yarmouth (Map B-2)
- Central: Westbrook, Portland, South Portland, Cape Elizabeth (Map B-3)
- South: Scarborough, Old Orchard Beach, Saco, Biddeford (Map B-4)
- West: Windham, Gorham (Map B-5).
On-road Bikeways
Different on-road bicycle facilities provide distinct levels of accommodation and perceived safety for cyclists. Their application is dependent upon a roadway’s characteristics and its context. Three types of on-road bikeway facilities are included on the inventory: Bicycle lanes, Paved shoulders and Shared lanes.
A large number of variables must be considered and balanced when selecting an on-road bicycle facility for a particular road. These variables include:
- existing road pavement width (and the potential for widening)
- number of travel lanes, their width and their configuration
- traffic volumes – existing and future
- traffic speeds – posted speed limit and actual traffic speed
- composition of the traffic (such as the volume of trucks, buses and RVs)
- the skill level of likely cyclists using the facility
- the presence of on-street parking and its turnover rate
- the continuity of bikeway facility-type that can be achieved (frequent transitions between facility types within short distances should be avoided)
- surrounding land use and environment – urban, suburban, rural and types of activity centers/destinations.
While there is longstanding debate among bicycle planning professionals and advocates about this point, current bicycle facility design guidelines (such as AASHTO’s Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1999) generally call for greater distance separation between cyclists and motorists on roadways, where feasible, as traffic speeds and volumes increase to reduce the amount of interaction between the two. Those that disagree with this general design principle feel that this separation creates a false sense of security for less skilled bicyclists.
Bicycle lanes are designated bikeways that have stenciled bicycle symbol pavement markings and often have accompanying roadside signs. Bicycle lanes are designated for exclusive or preferential use by bicycles. They may be located on streets with or without on-street parking. On streets with parking, the lanes are placed between the travel lane and the parking. An example of urban bicycle lanes with curbing and on-street parking is located on Brighton Avenue in Portland. An example of bicycle lanes on a suburban, uncurbed roadway is Route 88 in Falmouth.
The minimum recommended width for bicycle lanes is 4’ (AASHTO, 1999). Additional width is recommended when the bicycle lane is located next to curbing or next to on-street parking (5’ minimum recommended), or on streets with higher traffic speeds and volumes (possibly up to 6’).
The vast majority of bicycle lanes within the region are being created by reallocating existing pavement width to define the bicycle lanes. Space for bicycle lanes can often found by narrowing travel lanes and parking lanes, or eliminating parking lanes or travel lanes, or a combination.
Paved shoulders are located to the right of the outside travel lane and delineated by a white pavement stripe. They are not designated specifically for use by bicycles but are available for bicycle use and provide room for separation from motor vehicle traffic. Paved shoulders are located on roads with and without curbing. They are distinct from on-street parking lanes.
The minimum recommended width for paved shoulders (AASHTO, 1999) to provide quality accommodation for cyclists is 4’. Additional width is recommended when the paved shoulder is next to curbing or on streets with higher traffic speeds and volumes. In addition to safety benefits for cyclists, paved shoulders also have motorist safety and pavement preservation benefits. Wide paved shoulder widths (over 6’ for instance), especially in combination with larger clear zones along roads, can contribute to increased traffic speeds, diminishing their potential benefits for cyclists.
Local examples of paved shoulders are Route 25 between Gorham and Westbrook and along much of Route 1 in Falmouth, Cumberland and Yarmouth.
Shared Lanes are roadway travel lanes that are shared by motorists and bicyclists. Shared Lanes, as a bicycle facility, are often used where the roadway is not wide enough to provide another facility such as a bike lane. Shared Lane pavement markings, also called Sharrows, may be appropriate if the Shared Lane is part of a designated bicycle route (see F – Design Guidelines). Sharrows are currently an experimental pavement marking and require permission from the FHWA to use. ‘Share the Road’ signs are often placed along roads where an on-road bicycle facility may transition, due to reduced pavement width, from a bicycle lane or paved shoulder to shared lane facility.
Shared lanes may be of two types:
- typical travel lanes 10’ to 12’ wide that require motorists to change lanes or cross the center line to safely pass cyclists with 3’ of clearance
- wide curb lanes that have additional width (13’ to 15’ wide) and allow motorists to overtake and pass cyclists without changing lanes.
Local examples of existing shared lanes are Main Street/Route 1 in Freeport Village, Main Streets in Biddeford and Saco, and West Grand Avenue in Old Orchard Beach. Examples of wide curb lanes are on Broadway south of Millcreek in South Portland and much of Main Street in Westbrook.
Shared Use Pathways are intended for multiple types of path users including bicyclists and pedestrians. They have a firm, compacted surface (paved, stone dust, etc) that serves road bicycles well. Depending upon the type of surface, roller bladers and equestrian users may also use the path. Local examples of paved shared use pathways are the Eastern Promenade Trail (right) in Portland, the South Portland Greenbelt in South Portland, and the Beth Condon Pathway in Yarmouth. An example of a stone dust pathway is the Eastern Trail through the Scarborough Marsh in Scarborough.
Trails are intended primarily for pedestrians. They are distinct from pathways by surface type and width, often with a dirt surface and narrower width. The surface is not generally good for road bicycles but most trails, depending upon topography and where permitted, can be used by mountain bikes. Trails often primarily serve recreation purposes, such as loop trails through conservation lands. Local examples of trails are the Fore River Trail in Portland and the Great Pond Trail in Cape Elizabeth.
On-road Bikeway Network Summary
The regional on-road bikeway network is comprised of approximately 564 miles of bicycle lanes, paved shoulders, and shared lanes. Existing facilities total 224 miles, with 68% paved shoulders. Future facilities total 340 miles, with 82% paved shoulders. Table B-1 describes the distribution of these facilities across the PACTS municipalities.
Table B-1: On-Road Bikeway Network
|
Municipality |
Bicycle Lane |
Paved Shoulder |
Shared Lane |
Total (mi.) |
|||
|
Existing (mi.) |
Future (mi.) |
Existing (mi.) |
Future (mi.) |
Existing (mi.) |
Future (mi.) |
||
|
Biddeford |
0.0 |
0.0 |
18.7 |
10.2 |
5.9 |
3.6 |
38.4 |
|
Cape Elizabeth |
6.3 |
0.0 |
2.4 |
3.8 |
3.7 |
0.0 |
16.2 |
|
Cumberland |
0.0 |
3.2 |
12.7 |
18.6 |
1.6 |
0.0 |
36.1 |
|
Falmouth |
4.0 |
0.0 |
10.9 |
33.5 |
5.1 |
0.0 |
53.5 |
|
Freeport |
0.0 |
0.0 |
16.0 |
9.6 |
21.6 |
0.0 |
47.2 |
|
Gorham |
0.0 |
0.0 |
32.8 |
20.7 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
53.5 |
|
North Yarmouth |
0.0 |
0.0 |
2.0 |
22.5 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
24.5 |
|
Old Orchard Beach |
1.3 |
0.0 |
4.9 |
4.8 |
2.3 |
0.0 |
13.3 |
|
Portland |
8.5 |
15.9 |
0.0 |
9.5 |
3.0 |
22.0 |
58.9 |
|
Saco |
0.0 |
0.0 |
20.4 |
29.3 |
1.2 |
0.0 |
50.9 |
|
Scarborough |
0.0 |
0.6 |
13.4 |
55.3 |
1.0 |
0.0 |
70.3 |
|
South Portland |
2.0 |
6.8 |
6.8 |
7.2 |
4.0 |
1.7 |
28.5 |
|
Westbrook |
0.0 |
3.3 |
11.0 |
16.2 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
30.9 |
|
Windham |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
28.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
28.2 |
|
Yarmouth |
0.0 |
4.4 |
0.0 |
8.5 |
8.3 |
0.0 |
21.2 |
|
Totals (mi.) |
22.1 |
34.2 |
152.0 |
277.9 |
58.1 |
27.3 |
571.6 |
Source: On-road Bikeway Network, Map B-1, dated October 30, 2009.
Significant Regional Pathway and Trail Initiatives
A number of regional-scale pathway project initiatives are underway which would link the PACTS region to other regions. These include:
- Mountain Division Trail with Rail, Portland to Gorham (within PACTS) to Fryeburg
- Eastern Trail, South Portland to Biddeford (within PACTS) to Kittery.
Five miles of the Mountain Division Trail is completed and paved in Windham, Gorham and Standish. A significant portion of the Eastern Trail is completed within the PACTS area including most of South Portland and from the Nonesuch River in Scarborough to near Cascade Road in Old Orchard Beach. New sections are to be constructed soon in Old Orchard Beach/Saco and Biddeford south.
The Mountain Division Trail is a substantial portion of the Sebago to the Sea Trail initiative to link Sebago Lake to Casco Bay. The Sebago to the Sea Trail branches to two distinct urban routes for the Westbrook to Portland section (a Stroudwater River branch and a Presumpscot River branch).
The East Coast Greenway, an urban greenway planned to stretch from Key West, Florida, to Calais, Maine, traverses the region. It is envisioned to be a network of mostly off-road pathways eventually but there is an on-road network that is designated in the interim. The Eastern Trail is the southerly section through the PACTS region. Streets and pathways from Portland to Freeport comprise the northerly section.
A pathway/trail with rail corridor is suggested for future evaluation linking Portland, from the Eastern Promenade Trail, to Freeport Village Center, adjacent to or within two active rail lines.
The proposed Nonesuch River Trail is a planned significant trail and greenway corridor connecting northern and western Scarborough with northwestern Saco/the Saco Heath Preserve.
A series of connected pathways from Yarmouth village center (extending the Beth Condon Pathway) to Freeport village center is suggested adjacent to and within the Route 1 corridor.
Cost Estimates to Implement the Future On-road Bikeway Networ
An order of magnitude cost estimate to establish the Future portion of the on-road bikeway network is approximately $80.2 million and includes:
- $1.4 million to create 34 miles of bicycle lanes comprised of constructing 3.2 miles of bike lanes (the marginal cost only) and to sign and stripe an additional 31 miles of bike lanes
- $78.5 million dollars to add 278 miles of paved shoulder (the marginal cost only)
- $251,000 to sign and stripe 27 miles of shared lane bikeway facilities.
The largest percentage of this cost ($78.5 million) is to add paved shoulders to primarily suburban arterials and collector roads. Paved shoulders are rarely added independently of other road work (such as a pavement overlay or road reconstruction/rehabilitation) nor solely for their bicycle and/or pedestrian benefits. The shoulder costs identified are the marginal costs of adding the paved shoulder to a road (PACTS Collector Road Study). This level of investment in paved shoulders, complementary to the investments recommended in the PACTS Collector Road Study (2008), also increases motorist safety and improves pavement preservation and maintenance efforts.
These network costs do not include annual ongoing maintenance and preservation costs, such as pavement re-striping, pavement markings nor pavement resurfacing to maintain the facilities over the long-term.
Typical unit costs are shown in Table B-2.
Table B-2: On-Road Bikeway Unit Costs
|
Item |
Units |
Unit_Cost |
Notes |
|
Bicycle Lane – Urban |
Mile |
$9,600 |
Significant edge striping, pavement markings, signs (A) |
|
Bicycle Lane – Rural |
Mile |
$4,800 |
Less intensive edge striping, pavement markings, signs (B) |
|
Paved Shoulders – 4′ |
Mile |
$300,000 |
Add 4′ paved shoulders to both sides of road (C) |
|
Paved Shoulders – 5′ |
Mile |
$360,000 |
Add 5′ paved shoulders to both sides of road (C) |
|
Paved Shoulders – Urban |
Mile |
$4,800 |
Striping and route signage only (B), Portland only |
|
Shared Lane Markings/Sharrows – Urban |
Mile |
$9,600 |
Significant edge striping, pavement markings, signs (A) |
|
Shared Lane – Rural/Suburban |
Mile |
$4,800 |
Striping and Share the Road signage |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes |
|
|
|
|
(A). Based upon low bid in 2009 for Forest Avenue, Park Avenue, Deering Avenue bike lane/shared lane project. |
|||
|
(B). Estimated to be one half of (A) to account for lower road striping and signage requirements. |
|||
|
(C). Based upon PACTS Collector Road Study estimate of $6.80/sf for adding paved shoulders. |
|||
Next Section:
C. The Pedestrian Environment and Regional Commercial Centers
PACTS Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update: Section C, Final Draft
December 6th, 2009 No comments »
Note to reader: This is section C of a 6 part report. To see the entire report click here.
THE FINAL REPORT IS AVAILABLE HERE.
Download this section as a PDF here.
C. The Pedestrian Environment and Regional Commercial Centers
Regional commercial centers are areas with a concentration and mix of retail uses as well as office uses. These centers may also have residences in close proximity to or, ideally, well integrated with the commercial uses.
Commercial centers that are more pedestrian-oriented are more compact in character and are more transportation efficient. In compact, mixed use centers, a higher proportion of trips can be made within the center by walking and has the potential for lower rates of automobile trip generation.
An important consideration for the region’s transportation system is the relationship of these centers to each other along the region’s principal transportation corridors. A corridor with numerous compact, pedestrian-oriented commercial centers along it has the potential to be served effectively by bus transit service. Higher intensity mixed use corridors have the potential to be served by passenger rail. Conversely, a proliferation of low density, auto-oriented centers along a corridor makes transit service inefficient and not cost-effective.
The Pedestrian Environment: Rating the Commercial Centers
The Pedestrian Environment map (Map C-1) identifies and rates Regional Commercial Centers for their relative level of pedestrian orientation. These centers vary in scale by community to be representative of commercial areas across the region. The ratings are based upon the degree to which a center in its entirety addresses these functional and design characteristics
Three groups of characteristics are used to derive the composite rating:
- General pedestrian safety and functional needs
- Pedestrian orientation characteristics
- Urban design characteristics.
Safety and functional needs describe many of the most basic requirements for pedestrian accessibility along and across public streets. These attributes include:
- Curb ramps at intersections, street crossings and driveways that meet Americans with Disability Act standards
- Direct, adequately wide and continuous sidewalks along streets
- Well-marked and designed pedestrian crossings at intersections and at appropriate intervals between intersections where longer block lengths exist
- Compact signalized intersections or mid-block crossings with appropriate pedestrian signal equipment and signal phasing.
Pedestrian-oriented characteristics, primarily within the public right of way, make the streetscape a more inviting place to walk, but more importantly also serves a functional role of defining a place. These attributes may include:
- Street trees
- Esplanades/planting strips
- Pedestrian-scaled lighting
- Landscaping
- Access from streets to building entrances
- Pedestrian-scaled signs
- Defined pedestrian circulation in parking lots.
Urban design characteristics outside the public right of way can further enhance the pedestrian environment. These considerations may include:
- Buildings and entrances oriented to the street
- Building design and architecture that relates to surrounding buildings
- Off-street parking oriented to the side and/or rear of buildings
- Buildings organized with block lengths of 200 feet to 400 feet (with a desirable maximum of block length of 600 feet)
- Active building frontages and street activity
- Visual interest and attractiveness
- Good mix of retail, office and residential housing in close proximity to each other.
A Center is rated as Poor if it provides little to none of the basic Safety and Functional Needs attributes. Centers rate as Fair that meet the minimum Safety and Functional Needs. Centers rate as Good that meet Safety and Functional Needs but also consistently incorporate a number of the pedestrian oriented and urban design characteristics. Centers that more fully integrate all three groups of characteristics rate as Very Good.
In many centers, deriving the rating is not clear-cut. A plus (+) or minus (-) is added to the rating for some centers to further distinguish between characteristics that may further positively contribute (+) to or negatively contribute (-) to the center’s general rating. For instance, an area that is ‘Fair’ overall but as it redevelops is adding quality urban design and streetscape characteristics (such as new buildings oriented to the street) merits a ‘Fair (+)’ rating. A center that is a traditional village center but its contemporary development has primarily suburban style single-story, single-use buildings may merit a ‘Good (-)’ to reflect this recent erosion of its urban fabric.
Map C-1 illustrates the location and general geographic extent of the identified regional commercial centers and their ratings.
The following pages provide brief descriptions of each commercial center, its rating related to the quality of the pedestrian environment (Poor, Fair, Good, Very Good), and a ‘birds eye’ aerial photograph that is representative of the entire center. Known recent planning initiatives for each center are referenced as well.
The source for the birds eye view images is Bing Maps.
Regional Commercial Centers: North Sub-region
Freeport Village Center
Rating: Very Good
Freeport Village has a good sidewalk network and well-marked crosswalks. It also has a high degree of pedestrian-oriented design with good quality streetscapes and higher quality urban design considerations such as buildings fronting streets and quality architecture.
Recent initiatives: Village Planning Committee Report (2003) which recommends new mixed use village commercial and high density residential zones.
South Freeport, Route 1
Rating: Poor
South Freeport/Route 1 is a strip highway commercial zone that is highly automobile-oriented characterized by large building setbacks and lot frontages dominated by parking lots. It has little to no accommodation for pedestrians.
Recent initiatives: Vision Plan for Route One South.
Yarmouth, Route 1 North
Rating: Poor
Yarmouth, Route 1 North of the village center is a strip highway commercial zone that is highly automobile-oriented characterized by intermittent pedestrian accommodations with large building setbacks and parking lots dominating the road frontage. The Beth Condon Pathway terminates at the southern end of this center.
Recent initiatives: Route 1 Phase I (2005) & II (2009) Studies have been completed to improve access management, improve traffic flow and safety using multiple roundabouts, and improve pedestrian access along Route 1, including the extension of the pathway. Phase III is funded for 2009. A plan for future extension of the Beth Condon Pathway to Freeport has also been completed.
Yarmouth Village Center
Rating: Good (-)
Yarmouth Village has good, continuous pedestrian facilities and generally good urban design characteristics. Recent strip-style commercial development in a portion of the village center negatively impacts the generally positive pedestrian environment.
Recent initiatives: Beginning the exploration of form-based codes for the village (2009).
Yarmouth, Route 1 South
Rating: Poor (+)
Yarmouth, Route 1 South, like the North, is a strip highway commercial zone that is highly automobile-oriented with large building setbacks and parking lots dominating road frontage. The Beth Condon Pathway provides a quality, continuous pedestrian and bicycle connection along Route 1 in this section.
Recent initiatives:
No. Falmouth/So. Cumberland, Route 1
Rating: Poor
The northern portion of Falmouth Route 1 and southern Route 1 in Cumberland is an evolving regional commercial center with primarily office and retail uses that is developing in a strip, highway commercial fashion.
Recent initiatives: Adoption of Route 1 Design Guidelines in Cumberland.
Falmouth Village Center, Route 1
Rating: Fair (+)
Falmouth, Route 1 is a much more visually attractive strip, highway commercial center than is typical. It has a much higher quality of pedestrian connections along portions of Route 1 and within parking lots. The overall orientation of the development within the center, though, still makes it highly automobile-oriented.
Recent initiatives: The town is currently reassessing redevelopment options at the Shaw’s
Plaza.
Cumberland Center
Rating: Good (-)
Cumberland Center is a small, primarily residential village center that is slowly adding commercial uses and has the opportunity to continue as a pedestrian oriented center. Some recent commercial uses have developed in an auto-oriented fashion.
Recent initiatives: Completion of a Pedestrian Access Study (2006).
West Cumberland, Route 26/100
Rating: Poor (+)
West Cumberland is evolving in a strip highway commercial/automobile oriented fashion that will include pedestrian facilities and landscaping along Route 26/100. Buildings have large setbacks oriented to parking lots.
Recent initiatives: Route 100 Design Guidelines seek to improve the visual quality of development and provide some level of pedestrian facilities.
West Falmouth, Route 26/100
Rating: Poor (+)
West Falmouth is a strip, highway commercial center located at Maine Turnpike Exit 53 at Route 100/26. The center has a large shopping center, major banking back office operations center as well as smaller medical and child care services. It is highly automobile access oriented.
Recent initiatives: Exit 10 Design Guidelines.
Regional Commercial Centers: West Sub-region
North Windham, Route 302
Rating: Poor (+)
North Windham is a large, sprawling highway commercial regional center along Route 302 at the gateway to the Lakes Region of Cumberland County. It has a number of large shopping centers and many single-story, single-use buildings abutting the roadway. The center is highly auto-access oriented. Portions of Route 302 have sidewalks along it.
Recent initiatives: No. Windham/ Route 302 Traffic Study (underway, 2009).
Little Falls, Gorham / South Windham, Windham
Rating: Good (-)
Little Falls/South Windham is a small village center on the Presumpscot River between Sebago Lake and downtown Westbrook. The center abuts the Mountain Division rail line and rail-trail. Most buildings are oriented to the street. Some pedestrian facilities rate closer to Fair than Good.
Recent initiatives:
Moshers Corner, Gorham
Rating: Poor
Moshers Corner is a highway strip, automobile-oriented center along Route 25 between Gorham Village and downtown Westbrook at Route 237. There are little to no pedestrian facilities along Route 25. Buildings have large setbacks and are oriented to parking lots.
Recent initiatives:
Gorham Village, Gorham
Rating: Good (-)
Gorham Village is centered upon Routes 25 and 114. A good portion of the historic structures remain which help create a quality streetscape. Quality sidewalks along Route 25 have been built in conjunction with recent road improvements. Several contemporary automobile-oriented shopping center developments near the intersection with New Portland Road have degraded the village center’s pedestrian quality and orientation.
Recent initiatives: The Route 112 bypass was completed in 2009 and has reduced automobile and truck traffic from the 25/114 intersection. Several Village Master Plans have been completed and portions implemented.
Regional Commercial Centers: Central Sub-region
Allen’s Corner/Northgate, Portland
Rating: Fair (-)
Allen’s Corner/Northgate is located around the intersections of Routes 26 and 100. It is highly auto- access oriented with strip commercial style development. Buildings have large setbacks and are oriented to parking lots. There are gaps in the sidewalk network along streets. Allen’s Corner is a very large intersection that has audible pedestrian signals to assist the blind/visually impaired. Few recent buildings are oriented to the street; most others are not.
Recent initiatives:
Morrill’s Corner, Portland
Rating: Fair (-)
Morrill’s Corner, centered on Route 302, is one of the most heavily traveled crossroads in the state with multiple intersections in close proximity to each other. Several historic buildings remain that establish a strong relationship to the street but the vast majority of contemporary development has strongly degraded the pedestrian environment, having poor urban design characteristics. The streetscape quality is generally poor.
Recent initiatives: Striping and signing of on-road bike facilities through Morrill’s Corner in the Fall 2009. This will connect the existing bike lanes on outer Forest Ave to the downtown. PACTS funding for a corridor redevelopment/transportation study along Forest Avenue has been secured for fiscal year 2010.
Woodfords Corner/Forest Avenue, Portland
Rating: Good (-)
Woodfords Corner is a busy crossroads on Route 302 midway between Morrill’s Corner and the downtown. Smaller scale businesses are in buildings primarily oriented to street. Contemporary development has degraded the urban design quality of the center with single-story, single use design and building orientation to parking lots, not streets.
Recent initiatives: PACTS funding for a corridor redevelopment/ transportation study along Forest Avenue has been secured for fiscal year 2010.
Back Cove Shopping Plaza, Portland
Rating: Fair (-)
Back Cove center is dominated by a large suburban style shopping center bounded by the Preble Street Extension, Baxter Boulevard, I-295 and Forest Avenue. Sidewalks are provided along street frontages. Buildings are oriented to parking lots. The proximity to USM and the Back Cove Trail provides an opportunity for more pedestrian activity.
Recent initiatives: PACTS funding for a corridor redevelopment/ transportation study along Forest Avenue has been secured for fiscal year 2010.
Bayside, Portland
Rating:Fair (+)
Bayside is a redeveloping, up and coming mixed use area on the Portland peninsula bounded by the Franklin Arterial, Forest Avenue and Cumberland Avenue. The commercial portion of Bayside is centered on Marginal Way. The most recent infill buildings are multiple stories, oriented to the street, and create a very high quality streetscape. Numerous sidewalk gaps remain and street crossings are difficult in many areas.
Recent initiatives: A New Vision for Bayside (2000) and subsequent implementation call for Bayside to emerge as a Transit Oriented Development area. Forest Avenue and the Franklin Arterial are undergoing roadway redesign and redevelopment planning. The Bayside Trail (Phase 1 under construction in 2009) will provide a high quality pedestrian and bicycle connection through the redevelopment area linking Deering Oaks Park with the Eastern Promenade Trail.
Downtown Portland, Portland, Maine
Rating: Very Good
Downtown Portland is Maine’s largest urban downtown center. Overall, it is characterized by its highly developed sidewalk network and streetscapes, pedestrian-scaled development, and buildings predominantly oriented to streets. Some items detract from the quality of the pedestrian environment and include: numerous large surface parking lots devoid of landscaping along their street frontage that also create large gaps in the building ‘street wall’; several arterial roadways that have poor pedestrian design and orientation; and, spot locations with poor ADA accessibility. New pedestrian wayfinding signage has been recently installed (2009).
Recent initiatives: Peninsula Transit Study (2008), Franklin Street Arterial Redesign Study (2009), Eastern Waterfront Design Guidelines (2002), Portland Peninsula ADA Access Gaps (2008) and Wayfinding System Study (2008).
Libbytown, Portland
Rating: Fair
Libbytown is a neighborhood on the western edge of the Portland peninsula centered on Congress Streets and Park Avenue, including St. John Street/Union Station Plaza area, the Portland Sports Complex to Deering Oaks Park and extending to Sewall Street. It includes the Portland Transportation Center where the Downeaster Amtrak service and Concord Trailways bus service share an auto-access oriented facility. The Greyhound bus station is located at St. John Street and Congress Street. Roadway expansions and neglect of the streetscape over recent decades have resulted in a generally fair to poor pedestrian environment.
Recent initiatives: Connecting Libbytown: Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements for a Dynamic Neighborhood (2009) prescribes a short and long term strategy for pedestrian and bicycle improvements to re-knit together much of this currently fragmented neighborhood and commercial center.
Westgate, Portland
Rating: Fair
Westgate is a neighborhood commercial center along Congress Street at Stevens Avenue. The Westgate Shopping Center, a strip commercial shopping plaza set back far from the street, dominates the area. Residential structures converted to commercial uses on the north side maintain the future opportunity for a quality streetscape. Additional ‘Pad’ buildings within the shopping center along Congress could re-create a stronger street edge on the south side.
Recent initiatives: Outer Congress Street Traffic Study (2007).
Route 25 ‘Gateway’/’Pine Tree Shopping Center, Portland and Westbrook
Rating: Poor (+)
This large, sprawling regional commercial center is oriented around Route 25, Riverside Street and Larrabee Road in Portland and Westbrook. It contains several large suburban-style shopping centers and many single-story, single-use commercial buildings. Most all the buildings are oriented to parking lots and have large setbacks from the public street. Most streets have sidewalks on at least one side of the road, but streetscape quality is fair to poor and street crossings are difficult. Some recent buildings have begun to infill parking lots to establish better streetscape conditions.
Recent initiatives: The Brighton Avenue Corridor Study (late 1990s) sought to improve streetscape quality in conjunction with traffic improvements.
Spring/Cummings Road & County Road/Route 22, Westbrook
Rating: Poor
This commercial center contains an office/industrial park and numerous strip-highway style developments. Recent development, including a large cinema complex and roadway changes, have greatly increased the area’s automobile orientation.
Recent initiatives:
Cape Elizabeth Town Center, Cape Elizabeth
Rating: Fair (+)
Cape Elizabeth Town Center is a small commercial center with a good mix of civic, commercial and residential uses in close proximity. Until recently, contemporary development, including a strip shopping center, had eroded the pedestrian environment over time. The most recent development, as well as investment in pedestrian infrastructure including crosswalks and pedestrian signals, has begun to knit the town center together.
Recent initiatives: Town Center Pedestrian Safety Working Group (2009), Town Center Signalization Project (2008).
Knightville, South Portland
Rating: Good
Knightville is a small scale commercial center well integrated with a tightly knit residential neighborhood at the end of the peninsula extending into Portland Harbor. Until recently, development, while oriented to the street, was often single-story uses of lower architectural quality. Recent zoning changes to promote mixed use development allowed increased density, introduced minimum height requirements (24’) and require higher quality design to enhance the pedestrian orientation and vitality of the area.
Recent initiatives: Relocation of Casco Bay Bridge (1990s), Knightville Design District (1997, updated in 2001), Village Commercial Zone established (2004), Knightville Millcreek Neighborhood Master Plan (2005).
Millcreek, South Portland
Rating: Fair
Millcreek is a suburban style commercial district within an urban area next to Knightville and is bounded by the Casco Bay Bridge and Broadway. It is dominated by the Millcreek Shopping Center and surrounded by a large number of single-story, single-use buildings with large setbacks that are oriented to parking lots. The South Portland Greenbelt runs along Millcreek’s edge by Broadway.
Recent initiatives: Relocation of Casco Bay Bridge (1990s), Knightville Millcreek Neighborhood Master Plan (2005).
Maine Mall Area, South Portland
Rating: Poor (+)
The Maine Mall area is one of the largest regional shopping areas in Northern New England. It is anchored by the Maine Mall but has numerous large strip shopping centers, big box retailers, and small to mid-size single-story, single-use buildings, as well as several large non-retail employers such as Fairchild Semiconductor, National Semiconductor and the Portland Newspapers. Most arterials have sidewalks along them but there are many gaps and street crossings are difficult in many locations. While some infill buildings have been built, most all buildings have large setbacks and are oriented to parking lots and driveways, not public streets. A trails group has planned an extensive trail network within the area to link this major retail and employment center to Portland and other portions of South Portland.
Recent initiatives: Maine Mall Area Pedestrian Master Plan (2001), West End Trails Committee Trails Master Plan (2008).
Main Street/Route 1, South Portland
Rating: Fair
Main Street in South Portland has eroded into a strip highway commercial district with an automobile orientation. Sidewalks are provided along the roadway but the streetscape and visual quality are low. Moderate density neighborhoods abut the commercial center creating opportunity to rejuvenate the area.
Recent initiatives:
Regional Commercial Centers: South Sub-region
Payne Road, Scarborough
Rating: Poor
The Payne Road area is an extension of the Maine Mall area to the south. It has multiple large strip shopping centers and big box retail stores. It is highly automobile oriented with buildings set back from the street and oriented to large parking lots along the street. Sidewalks are present along short sections of roadway but many gaps remain and street crossings are difficult with little or no pedestrian signals at intersections. Pedestrian access from streets to businesses is generally poor.
Recent initiatives: Design Standards for Scarborough’s Commercial Districts (2009).
Haigis Parkway, Scarborough
Rating: Fair
Haigis Parkway is an emerging, planned low density commercial center with direct access to the Maine Turnpike. It is just beginning to build out with the first developments recently being completed. It is planned as an automobile-access oriented commercial center. Sidewalks and street crossings are being built along shopping center access roads.
Recent initiatives: Report of the Haigis Parkway Committee (2001), Design Standards for Scarborough’s Commercial Districts (2009).
Dunstan Corner, Scarborough
Rating: Good (-)
Dunstan Corner is a small village center along the southerly portion of Route 1 near the Saco city line. The village has a small commercial center with abutting residential areas. The commercial center, which lines Route 1, has been eroded over time by strip style automobile oriented development. A recent project improved sidewalks and street crossings along much of Route 1 south of Pine Point Road/Broadturn Road. North of Pine Point Road it remains Fair for pedestrians. The Dunstan Crossing mixed use project includes a compact mix of houses with a small retail/commercial center integrated with the development.
Recent initiatives: Dunstan Corner Sidewalk Improvements, Dunstan Crossing Neighborhood, Route 1/Payne Road Road Intersection Design, Comprehensive Plan Update (2006), Design Standards for Scarborough’s Commercial Districts (2009).
Oak Hill, Scarborough
Rating: Poor (+)
The Oak Hill area is one of Scarborough’s largest commercial centers, focused on smaller and mid-size businesses. It is also home to its civic/municipal center as well. It encompasses the Route 1-Route 114/Route 209 intersection and surrounding area. It is comprised of several strip shopping centers and a large number of single-story, single-use buildings with large setbacks and buildings oriented to parking lots. Many street segments lack sidewalks and many street crossings are difficult for pedestrians. Recent changes to design standards require new buildings to be more oriented to the street and development of a more pedestrian scale streetscape. An area located north of Oak Hill has large-scale, automobile-oriented office, research and institutional uses.
Recent initiatives: Comprehensive Plan Update (2006), Design Standards for Scarborough’s Commercial Districts (2009).
Downtown Old Orchard, Old Orchard Beach
Rating: Good (-)
Downtown Old Orchard Beach is traditional Maine summer beach destination that is reinventing itself as a year-round commercial and residential center. Most businesses and buildings are small to mid-size in scale and oriented to the street. Off-street parking lots have eroded the streetscape by creating expanses of parking between buildings and streets and numerous buildings have been replaced by surface parking lots.
Recent initiatives:
Halfway, Old Orchard Beach
Rating: Fair
The Half Way commercial center is a small gateway to the beach areas of Saco and Old Orchard Beach, located at the junction of Route 5/Ocean Park Road/Saco Avenue-Old Orchard Road-Temple Avenue. It is comprised of small retail businesses and lodging. While there are sidewalks located along major streets, the streetscape has been degraded by large curb cuts.
Recent initiatives: Halfway Roundabout Conceptual Design (2008).
Funtown/Route 1, Saco
Rating: Poor
The Funtown/Route 1 commercial center is a highly automobile oriented strip commercial area. It has two large recreational sites (Funtown & Splashtown) that are large summer seasonal destinations. Automobile dealerships also dominate the area. Existing sidewalks are very limited but new sidewalks are planned north of this center as part of new residential development near the Scarborough town line.
Recent initiatives:
Route 1, Saco
Rating: Fair
Route 1, just north of the downtown in Saco, is a highway strip commercial center. Most development is single-story, single use buildings set back from the street with parking or driving lanes between buildings and the street. Sidewalks and street crossings are located along Route 1. Access from Route 1 to building entrances is generally poor.
Recent initiatives: Route 1 Access Management Study.
Downtown Saco, Saco
Rating: Very Good
Downtown Saco, centered on Main Street, has a very high quality, attractive streetscape as well as high quality urban design characteristics. Sidewalks are generous in width and street crossings are well marked. Buildings are typically multi-story, multi-use and are sited at the back of the sidewalk creating a well-defined streetscape. Parking is located on-street and to the side and rear of buildings. A good mix of residential uses is located in close proximity to the downtown.
Recent initiatives: Downtown Sidewalk Improvements (2009).
Downtown Biddeford, Biddeford
Rating: Good
Downtown Biddeford is an historic downtown that has good streetscape and urban design characteristics. Sidewalks are functional but in need of rehabilitation. Street crossings are well-spaced. Buildings are located well at the back of sidewalks but building facades have been degraded with contemporary retrofits over the last 30 years (a municipal program is available to restore these facades).
Recent initiatives: Mill District Master Plan (2008), Heart of Biddeford Main Street Program/Heart and Soul Project (On-going).
Five Corners, Biddeford
Rating: Fair
The Five Corners commercial center is located at the intersection of Routes 1 and 111. It has many single-story, single-use buildings primarily oriented to automobile access and parking lots. Sidewalks and street crossings along the arterials provide good connectivity.
Recent initiatives: Recent road and sidewalk project.
Biddeford Crossing/Route 111, Biddeford
Rating: Poor
Biddeford Crossing/Route 111 is a highly automobile oriented highway strip commercial area comprised of several large big box retail developments as well as smaller strip malls and single-story, single-use buildings stretching along Route 111 north and south of the Maine Turnpike Interchange. Pedestrian facilities along and across Route 111 are poor. Recent big box developments do provide for fair internal site pedestrian circulation.
Recent initiatives: The new Turnpike bridge did not include pedestrian facilities to access Biddeford Crossing.
Next Section:
D: Top Cost and Time Effective Regional Improvements
PACTS Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update: Section D, Final Draft
December 5th, 2009 1 comment »
Note to reader: This is section D of a 6 part report. To see the entire report click here.
THE FINAL REPORT IS AVAILABLE HERE.
Download this section as a PDF here.
D. Top Cost and Time Effective Regional Improvements
The regional projects identified here are those that were suggested to meet one or both of the following criteria by project proponents:
- Perceived high relative cost-effectiveness of the project (or ‘bang for the buck’ as it was often described) to improve safety and increase bicycling and walking
- Strategic importance to the region in increasing the amount of bicycling and walking, bicyclist and pedestrian safety, and/or multimodal transportation efficiency
The projects listed below are based upon the interviews with the municipalities, discussions at the monthly stakeholder meetings at PACTS, recommendations from bicycle and pedestrian planning studies, and a review of existing and envisioned bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs in the region. Projects that are from completed planning studies have order of magnitude cost estimates.
The suggested list includes both regional initiatives as well as site and area-specific projects. These are shown (with reference numbers) on Map D-1: Top Cost and Time Effective Regional Improvements.
There are four suggested regional initiatives.
- Name: Regional Bicycle Route and Wayfinding/Destination Signage
Brief Description: Identify quality, longer distance bicycle routes that link key destinations within the region that currently combine on-road bikeway facilities and/or pathways that would meet the needs of moderately skilled cyclists. Develop bicycle-specific wayfinding and destination signage. Potential pilot routes include 1) the Eastern Trail from Biddeford to Portland and 2) Portland to Freeport/Brunswick.
Purpose/Criteria Met: Low cost signage program to potentially increase bicycle tourism within the region.
Source: Plan Update project meetings with stakeholders.
Order of Magnitude Cost: Approximately $1,000 to $5,000 per mile for signage.
- Name: Regional ‘Share the Road’ Signage and Pavement Markings
Brief Description: Systematic evaluation of high-priority areas to add ‘Share the Road’ signs on shared lane bikeways.
Purpose/Criteria Met: Increase bicyclist safety.
Source: Plan Update project meetings with stakeholders.
Order of Magnitude Cost: Approximately $1,000 per mile (signage only) to $9600 per mile (for signs and shared lane pavement markings).
- Name: Arterial Pedestrian Safety and Access to Transit
Brief Description: Design and implement low to moderate cost street crossing improvements to enhance pedestrian safety and access to bus stops. Improvements strategies might include: curb extensions, pedestrian refuge islands/medians, enhanced crosswalk markings and lighting, accessible pedestrian signals, and signage.
Purpose/Criteria Met: Increase pedestrian safety and activity along transit routes; increase transit ridership.
Source: Plan Update project meetings with stakeholders; Portland Peninsula Transit Study (2009).
Order of Magnitude Cost: Not known.
- Name: Regional Bicycle-to-Transit Parking
Brief Description: Add covered bicycle parking at park and ride facilities located along fixed route transit routes to extend the effective range of transit in the PACTS region. Potential locations (shown on Map D-1) include: 1) Route 1 Falmouth 2) West Falmouth Crossing 3) Prides Corner 4) Downtown Westbrook 5) Maine Turnpike Exit 36, Saco and 6) Biddeford Crossing.
Purpose/Criteria Met: Increase bicycling and multimodal efficiency.
Source: Plan Update project meetings with stakeholders.
Order of Magnitude Cost: Approximately $5000 to $10,000 per location.
There are ten suggested project-level initiatives.
- Name: Congress Street-High Street Intersection Reconfiguration
Brief Description: Reconfigure intersection for improved pedestrian safety and access, enhanced streetscape aesthetics, and traffic operations.
Purpose/Criteria Met: Increase pedestrian safety and access along Congress Street.
Source: Portland Peninsula Transit Study (2009); Congress Street Traffic and Streetscape Study.
Order of Magnitude Cost: $50,000 for pedestrian improvements; unknown for traffic signal improvements.
- Name: Libbytown/Portland Transportation Center Bicycle and Pedestrian Access to Oakdale/Deering Oaks Park
Brief Description: Reconfigure roadways to create a bicycle-pedestrian connection across the Libbytown neighborhood to Deering Oaks Park/Oakdale neighborhood.
Purpose/Criteria Met: Increase bicycle and pedestrian safety and access and increase bicycling and walking.
Source: Connecting Libbytown Final Report (2009).
Order of Magnitude Cost: $540,000.
- Name: Maine Mall Area/Payne Road Pedestrian Signals, Crosswalks, and Sidewalk Gaps
Brief Description: Fill sidewalk gaps and provide crosswalks and pedestrian signalization at intersections area-wide.
Purpose/Criteria Met: Increase pedestrian safety and access at this large regional shopping and employment center, increase the amount of walking and increase access to transit to improve multimodal efficiency.
Source: Maine Mall Area Pedestrian Master Plan (2001).
Order of Magnitude Cost: Not known.
- Name: Route 1 Bicycle Access from Cash Corner to Oak Hill
Brief Description: Re-striping, signing and reconfiguration of Route 1 from Cash Corner to Oak Hill to improve bicycle safety and access to regional connections, approximately 3 miles in South Portland and Scarborough.
Purpose/Criteria Met: Improve bicycle safety and access and increase the amount of bicycling.
Source: Windshield survey of Route 1 conditions/opportunities.
Order of Magnitude Cost: Approximately $30,000 for striping, signs and pavement markings.
- Name: Biddeford-Saco Downtowns and Train Station Pedestrian Connection
Brief Description: Create an enhanced, quality sidewalk or trail connection connecting these two downtown Main Streets and the Amtrak Train station. This short section is part of the East Coast Greenway and Eastern Trail and would connect planned Saco River trails in each community. Improvements may include: widened sidewalk/trail, pedestrian lighting, street crossings, street trees and landscaping.
Purpose/Criteria Met: Increase pedestrian safety and access, increase the amount of walking and increase multimodal efficiency.
Source: Field observations.
Order of Magnitude Cost: Not known.
10. Name: Route 1 Downtown to Funtown Pedestrian Access
Brief Description: Extend sidewalks from downtown Saco to Route 1 commercial/ recreation area and connection to Eastern Trail where it crosses Route 1 and to the north with planned sidewalk extensions from Scarborough.
Purpose/Criteria Met: Increase pedestrian safety and access and increase the amount of walking.
Source: Plan Update project meetings with stakeholders.
Order of Magnitude Cost: Not known.
11. Name: Washington Avenue to Tukey’s Bridge/Back Cove Trail/Bayside Trail Access
Brief Description: Reconfigure roadway and I-295 ramp crossing to provide trail along Washington Avenue to connect to Tukey’s Bridge/Back Cove Trail and to/from Bayside Trail.
Purpose/Criteria Met: Increase bicycle and pedestrian safety and access, and increase amount of bicycling and walking.
Source: Tukey’s Bridge Access Study (2009).
Order of Magnitude Cost: Not known /not final.
12. Name: Portland Peninsula ADA Access
Brief Description: Increase pedestrian ADA accessibility along sidewalks and at intersections on the Portland peninsula.
Purpose/Criteria Met: Increase pedestrian safety and access and increase amount of walking.
Source: GPCOG Peninsula ADA Study (2008).
Order of Magnitude Cost: Not known.
13. Name: Long Creek-Veterans Bridge-West Commercial Street Connection
Brief Description: Link the Portland peninsula to the Maine Mall area with an off-road pathway system for cyclists and pedestrians. Major components include: bridge over Long Creek, bridge over I-295 ramp, redesigned Veterans Bridge (not included in cost estimate), and West Commercial Street Trail.
Purpose/Criteria Met: Increase regional bicycle and pedestrian safety and access and increase amount of bicycling and walking; of strategic importance.
Source: West End Trails Committee; Portland Trails; Bridging the Gap TIGER Funding Application, City of South Portland (2009)
Order of Magnitude Cost: $8.34 million.
14. Name: Freeport Village Center Connector Path (Phase I)
Brief Description: Connect LL Bean Corporate headquarters to central Freeport village center with pathway along active rail corridor.
Purpose/Criteria Met: Increase bicycle and pedestrian safety and access and increase amount of bicycling and walking.
Source: Plan Update project meetings with stakeholders.
Order of Magnitude Cost: Not known.
Next Section:
PACTS Regional Bike and Pedestrian Plan Update: Section E, Final Draft
December 4th, 2009 No comments »
Note to reader: This is section E of a 6 part report. To see the entire report click here.
THE FINAL REPORT IS AVAILABLE HERE.
Download this section as a PDF here.
E. Top Areas/Issues of Concern for Follow Up
During the series of meetings held as part of the Plan Update, a number of issues were raised that could not be addressed or fully resolved in the context of the project. This is a compilation of those issues that are recommended for PACTS follow-up.
- Regional, systematic approach to deploying ‘Share the Road’ signs. It is felt that these signs could be deployed in a more comprehensive and systematic way. (This item is included in the ‘Top Most Cost and Time Effective Regional Improvements.’)
- Re-visiting Roadway Design Criteria: Travel lane width, paved shoulder width, design speeds, clear zones, etc. The Maine Highway Design Guide and the AASHTO ‘Green Book’ are the most frequently used manuals for defining roadway standards. They also serve as the basis for many municipal road standards. Although flexibility in their application based upon engineering judgment is suggested, in many cases the defined standards do not fully reflect the context of the road (urban, suburban, rural) nor its adjacent land uses, and rely too heavily on functional classification for travel lane and pavement shoulder widths and design speeds. The cumulative effect is often unintended consequences such as inducing higher traffic speeds, higher construction and maintenance costs, physical and visual impacts on community character, etc.
- Bicycle Access on the Amtrak Downeaster. The Downeaster service currently limits the stations where riders can board with bicycles.
- Consideration/Adoption of a Complete Streets Policy. There is not a Complete Streets Policies in effect now to influence roadway design and/or funding decisions/priorities.
- On-road bicycle facility type selection. Recent efforts to implement bicycle facilities locally have sometimes been met with community push-back. A review of options and opportunities for different types of bicycle facilities under various conditions/ situations would be invaluable to avoiding conflict. The issues often revolve around narrowing or removing travel lanes and/or removing one or two sides of on-street parking to create the room for bicycle lanes or shared lanes/wide curb lanes. Impacts on transit operations also need consideration.
- Sharing rail corridors with trails or pathways: information and dialogue. Efforts to share rail corridors are done piecemeal and typically ‘re-fighting the fight’ with every proposal. A more systematic approach is desirable to gain quicker and better outcomes for all.
- The need for bicycle and pedestrian counts. There is no systematic program for counting bicyclists and pedestrians or for gathering, organizing and making available the data. Good data is essential for good decision-making and monitoring success.
- Travel demand management. Portland has recently adopted and implemented its TDM ordinance. Should this be a municipality-by-municipality approach or a more regional approach?
- Bicycle Safety, Education and Promotion. There are consistent calls for more and effective cycling related safety, education and promotion efforts for cyclists and motorists: What types of programs, who takes the lead and where will funding come from?
- More connectivity. Contemporary residential and commercial development in the region has generally done little to create an inter-connected street network. This disproportionately increases traffic on the region’s arterial and collector streets and limits bicycling and walking opportunities – how can we increase connectivity?
Next Section
PACTS Regional Bike and Pedestrian Plan Update: Section F, Final Draft
December 1st, 2009 No comments »
Note to reader: This is section F of a 6 part report. To see the entire report click here
THE FINAL REPORT IS AVAILABLE HERE.
Download this section as a PDF here.
F. Design Guidelines
The 1995 PACTS Regional Bicycle and Interim Pedestrian Plan contained comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian planning and design standards. In this Plan Update, selective guidelines are provided to round out the information provided in the 1995 Plan.
The 1995 Plan’s Standards are comprised of the following areas:
Bicycle Facilities
- The First Step: Understanding the User
- Bicycle Lanes
- Paved Shoulders
- Wide Curb Lanes
- Multi-Use Trails (called Shared Use Pathways in the Plan Update)
- Bicycle Support Facilities (Bicycle Parking/Signage/Lighting/Actuated Signals)
- Bicycle Hazards
- Roadway Maintenance
Pedestrian Facilities
- Planning for Pedestrians
- Local Planning Needs
- Pedestrian Site Plan Checklist
- Pedestrian Planning is Specific Development Types
- Traffic Calming for Pedestrians
- Pedestrian Design Guidelines
- Intersection Design for Pedestrian Safety
- Special Types of Intersections
- Obstacle Countermeasures
- Federal Requirements for Pedestrian Facilities
- Pedestrian Facility Maintenance.
New planning and design guidelines include:
- Sharrows, Shared Lane Marking
- Bicycle Parking, Short-Term
- Complete Streets
- Accessible Streets
- Regional Bicycle Route & Destination Signage
Sharrow, or Shared Lane Marking
Description:
-
Experimental (through 2010) roadway marking used for ‘Shared Lane’ bicycle facilities, when motorists and bicyclists share the travel lane - Markings consist of a chevron and bicycle symbol
Purpose:
- Sharrows assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in a shared lane with on-street parallel parking in order to reduce the chance of a bicyclists impacting the open door of a parked vehicle.
- Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in lanes that are too narrow for a motor vehicle and a bicycle to travel side by side within the same travel lane.
- Alert road users of the lateral location bicyclists are likely to occupy within the traveled way.
- Encourage safe passing of bicyclists by motorists.
- Reduce the incidence of wrong-way bicycling. (Source: MUTCD draft, 2008.)
Application:
- Along street segments when there is not room for other types of on-road bicycle facilities such as paved shoulder or bicycle lanes.
- Note: Until 2010, Sharrows are considered experimental and require approval from the FHWA for their use.
Standards (Source: MUTCD draft, 2008):
- Sharrows shall not be used on shoulders or in designated bicycle lanes.
- Roads with on-street parking – Sharrows shall be placed so that the centers of the markings are at least 11 ft from the face of the curb or edge of pavement.
Guidance (Source: MUTCD draft, 2008):
- Sharrows should not be placed on roads with speed limits over 35 mph.
- If used, Sharrows should be placed immediately after an intersection and spaced at intervals not greater than 250 ft thereafter.
- If used on a street without on-street parking with an outside lane less than 14 ft, the center of the Sharrows should be at least 4 ft from the face of the curb or the edge of the pavement where there is no curb.
Additional Resources:
- http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/proposed_amend/npa_text.pdf (p. 526-527)
- http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/signdel/policy/05-10.pdf
- http://www.iowabicyclecoalition.org/sharrows YouTube video regarding Sharrows
Bicycle Parking: Short-Term
Description:
- Bicycle racks provide for secure, short-term bicycle parking
- Several types of racks are more desirable based upon their design and functionality – racks that provide two points of contact (rather than one) are recommended
Standard Application:
Location and Design of Bicycle Parking Facilities
- Bicycle parking should be located in close proximity to the building’s entrance (ideally within 50’) and clustered in lots not to exceed 16 spaces each.
- Bicycle parking facilities shall support bicycles in a stable position without damage to wheels, frame or other components.
- Bicycle parking facilities should be located in highly visible well-lighted areas to minimize theft and vandalism.
- Bicycle parking facilities shall be securely anchored to the lot surface so they cannot be easily removed and shall be of sufficient strength to resist vandalism and theft.
- Bicycle parking facilities shall not impede pedestrian or vehicular circulation, and should be harmonious with their environment both in color and design. Parking facilities should be incorporated whenever possible into building design or street furniture.
- Racks must not be placed close enough to a wall or other obstruction so as to make use difficult. There must be sufficient space (at least 24 inches) beside each parked bike that allows access. This access may be shared by adjacent bicycles. An aisle or other space shall be provided to bicycles to enter and leave the facility. This aisle shall a minimum width of four (4) feet to the front or rear of a bike parked in the facility.
- Paving is not required, but the outside ground surface shall be finished or planted in a way that avoids mud and dust.
- Bike parking facilities within auto parking areas shall be separated by a physical barrier to protect bicycles from damage by cars, such as curbs, wheel stops, poles or other similar features.
(Source: Adapted from Santa Cruz Bicycle Ordinance.)
Number of Parking Spaces and Signs
- The number of parking spaces provided shall be based upon an anticipated usage but not less than parking for two bicycles
Example: The City of Portland, Maine, requires 1 bicycle parking space for every 10 automobile parking spaces up to the first __ spaces and then __ spaces thereafter, with a minimum of two spaces.
- Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided for any new building, addition or enlargement of an existing building, or for the change in the occupancy of any building that results in the need for additional auto parking facilities
- When more than 10 bicycle parking spaces are required, half should be covered parking
- Signage should clearly indicate the location of bicycle parking if it is not visible from the street or main building entrance.
Additional Resources:
Parking Guidelines
- http://www.cityofmadison.com/trafficEngineering/documents/MadisonBikeParking.pdf
- http://www.massbike.org/bikelaw/parking.htm
Parking Ordinance
- http://www.portlandmaine.gov/planning/bicycleparkingtechnicalstds.pdf
- http://www.cityofmadison.com/trafficEngineering/documents/z2811bik.pdf
- http://www.bikeplan.com/sc-ord.htm (Santa Cruz, CA ordinance)
Complete Streets
Description:
- Complete Streets are streets that safely provide a context appropriate level of access along and across streets for all users of a street — pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders — based upon the roadway and land use context. Complete streets are ‘accessible streets’ in the sense that they provide quality access for persons of all abilities (See ‘Accessible Streets’ Guidelines).
- Each complete street is unique but they are typically comprised of all or many of the following design elements on arterial and collector streets, dependent upon the context:
* for pedestrians – continuous sidewalks (or a paved shoulder in rural settings), frequent safe street crossing opportunities/crosswalks, median islands/pedestrian refuge islands, accessible pedestrian signals, curb extensions
* for bicyclists – on-road bicycle facilities (bike lanes, paved shoulders, wide curb lanes or quiet neighborhood streets), bicycle parking at destinations
* for transit users – convenient, comfortable and accessible transit stops, transit information
* for motorists – clearly defined travel ways and signage, adequate capacity
* for all users – attractive streetscapes.
Standard Application:
- Most all streets should be complete streets in the broadest sense. Based upon the roadway and land use context there will be differing levels of transportation facilities provided and accommodation of each mode, striking a balance appropriate for each situation. Urban complete streets will look and function very differently from rural complete streets.
- Many existing streets can be and will need to be retrofitted to meet the definition of complete streets.
- New streets should be designed to be complete streets.
Typical Elements of an Urban Complete Street:
Retrofitting Existing Streets:
Many existing streets that lack quality facilities for all street users can be readily retrofitted to accommodate them within existing rights-of-way.
A Typical Village Setting
A ‘Road Diet’
Route 1/Veranda Street in Portland, an important bicycle commuter route, was a four lane urban street with no shoulders converted to three lanes to create 5’ paved shoulders and to improve motorist safety in this redeveloping area.
A Best Practice Example (Source: City of Charlotte, NC.):
In 2007 Charlotte, NC, adopted new Urban Street Design Guidelines that prescribe
a planning and design process to result in complete streets. Key to this process is
the definition of street types that are related to but not dependent upon roadway
functional classification.
Guiding Principles of the Urban Street Design Guidelines:
Achieving a “Complete Street” Network
1) Streets are a critical component of public space.
2) Streets play a major role in establishing the image and identity of a city.
3) Streets provide the critical framework for current and future development.
4) Charlotte’s streets will be designed to provide mobility and support livability and
economic development goals.
5) The safety, convenience, and comfort of motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, transit
riders, and neighborhood residents will be considered when planning and
designing Charlotte’s streets.
6) Planning and designing streets must be a collaborative process, to ensure that a
variety of perspectives are considered.
Additional Resources:
- National Complete Streets Coalition, www.completestreets.org
- Charlotte, NC Complete Streets Policy documents:
www.charmeck.org/Departments/Transportation/Urban+Street+Design+Guidelines.htm
- Bicycle Coalition of Maine: www.bikemaine.org/legislation_ld1333.htm.
Accessible Streets
Description:
Accessible Streets provide safe and well-designed access along and across streets for street users of all abilities. Accessible streets in particular meet the access needs of persons with disabilities such as the blind and visually impaired, the deaf, and persons in wheelchairs. (See also, ‘Complete Streets.’)
Along Streets
(source: Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access)
On commercial streets, the frontage zone separates pedestrians from store fronts and provides space for sidewalk cafes, window sills, store entrances, street vendors, and
doorways.
The pedestrian zone is the area of the sidewalk corridor that is specifically reserved for pedestrian travel. It should be a minimum of 5’ but in no instances less than 3’. 8’ is recommended in downtowns.
The planter/furniture zone is the area where any potential obstacles such as trees, parking meters, benches, bus shelters and signs are placed.
The curb zone (approx. 6”) is adjacent to the roadway and is an important cue to the visually impaired to identify the border between the sidewalk and roadway.
The minimum width of cleared area for a sidewalk of 36” is only acceptable when:
- A wider width is impossible
- The narrow width continues for as short a distance as possible
- Passing spaces are provided at intervals of no more than 200’.
At Intersections and Street Crossings
(source: Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access)
Full accessibility at intersections and other street crossing locations is especially important for persons with disabilities.
Important intersection design features –
- curb ramps oriented to crosswalks with detectable warnings [A]
- sufficient level landing width at ramps [B]
- accessible pedestrian signals (APS) [C] with audible beaconing, where warranted
- sufficient crossing time
- minimized crossing distances with pedestrian refuge islands (min. 6’ recommended) for crossings over 60’ [D]
- minimized corner radii [E]
- well-marked crosswalks [F]
- countdown timers
- good sight distance for pedestrians and vehicles
- curb extensions [G] where feasible.
Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) – Purpose and Applications
“Pedestrians who are blind use audible and tactile cues in independent travel. At intersections with fixed-time signal phasing and consistent traffic flow, traffic light changes will be reflected in parallel or perpendicular traffic surges. The sounds of these surges are used by blind pedestrians to identify appropriate crossing intervals.
Intersections that have actuated signal timings, complex traffic patterns, or intermittent or sporadic traffic volumes may pose problems for pedestrians who have vision impairments. At these intersections, the signals for automobile and pedestrian traffic do not automatically correspond. Frequently, a separate WALK signal and phase is provided for pedestrians in response to a pushbutton. At this type of crossing (as well as at several other types, including midblock crossings where there is no parallel flow to rely on), an accessible pedestrian signal (APS) may be desirable to provide blind and low-vision pedestrians with an equivalent to the visual signal provided for other pedestrians.”
(Source: Accessible Rights-of-Way: A Design Guide, 1999.)
An Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS) installation should:
• Provide pedestrian signal information to those who cannot see the pedestrian signal head across the street
• Provide information to pedestrians about the presence and location of pushbuttons, if pressing a button is required to actuate pedestrian timing
• Provide unambiguous information about the WALK indication, as well as which crossing is being signaled
• Use audible beaconing only where necessary
- Put as little additional sound into the environment as possible to avoid disturbing neighbors and to allow pedestrians who are blind or visually impaired to hear the traffic sounds, as well as the APS. (Source: Accessible Pedestrian Signals: Best Practice, NCHRP, 2007.)
Accessible Pedestrian Signals –
Pushbuttons and audible beacons (where necessary)
- no closer than 10’ from each other
- located within 10’ of curb
- located no farther than 5’ from crosswalk.
Additional Resources:
- http://www.access-board.gov/news/sidewalk-videos.htm. Accessible Sidewalks is a four-part video developed by the Access Board to illustrate issues and considerations in the design of sidewalks. The series covers access for pedestrians with mobility impairments, including those who use wheelchairs, and pedestrians who are blind or have low vision. The videos are open captioned and incorporate running descriptive audio.
- Accessible Pedestrian Signals: A Guide to Best Practices, NCHRP, Web-only 117A, 2007.
- Accessible Public Rights-of-Way: Planning and designing for alterations, 2007.
- Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access: Part II, Best Practices, FHWA, 2001.
Regional Bicycle Route & Destination Signage
back to top
Description:
Regional Bicycle Route and Destination Signage is an integrated signage and route designation program to provide enhanced wayfinding to bicyclists to regional destinations such as village centers/downtowns and major tourist/recreation attractions.
Standard Application:
- A route may consist of any combination of on-road (bike lane, paved shoulder, or shared lane) and/or off-road (shared use pathway) bicycle facilities.
- The route should, as a minimum, safely accommodate moderately skilled bicyclists.
- Desirable route characteristics include:
- low to moderate volume roadways (under ~ 8,000 ADT preferred)
- low to moderate speed traffic (posted for 35 mph or lower)
- connections between major destinations and attractions
- visually attractive
- continuity of bicycle facilities – the type of bicycle facility should not change frequently.
- Signage characteristics include:
- meaningful route designation name
- destination information and directional aids at decision points – destination name, distance and directional arrows (where needed)
- attractive icon or logo to ‘brand’ the route
- conformance to the latest Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices manual.
Additional Resources:
- MUTCD, 2003, Part 9B: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/part9/part9b.htm.
