August 6, 2009 Project Update

Changes since the July draft:

• Streamlining the Pedestrian Environment map symbols and language
• Adding narrative & images to describe the Regional Commercial Centers on the Ped Env map
• Revised ‘Top Ten Cost & Time Effective Improvements’ list
• Revised cover memo
• Shows them the Design Guidelines template and two samples – Sharrows and Bike Parking – Short-term.

Section index:

1. On-road Bikeway, Trail and Pathway Maps
2. Pedestrian Environment: Regional Commercial Centers Map
3. Top Ten Most Cost and Time Effective Improvements
4. Design Guidelines Update
5. Next Steps: Maps
6. Pedestrian Environment, Regional Commercial Centers: Overview
7. Sharrow, or Shared Lane Marking
8. Sharrows Video
9. Bicycle Parking: Short-Term
10. Comment Form

---

Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan Update:
Project Update: August 6, 2009

On-road Bikeway, Trail and Pathway Maps

The maps being developed are a compilation of the information collected to date (July
30, 2009). A draft regional on-road bikeway, trail, and pathway network is included in
the packet. The information collected includes:

• On-road Bikeways – Bicycle lane, Paved shoulder, Shared lane
• Trails – Regional and Local
• Shared Use PathwayConservation, Recreation Facilities and Open Space
• Rail lines
• Bus routes
• Intermodal centers
• Park and Ride Lots
• Municipal Growth Areas from approved Comprehensive Plans
• Schools

The PACTS region has been divided into four sub-regions:

• North: Falmouth, Cumberland, Yarmouth, Freeport, North Yarmouth
• Central: Westbrook, Portland, South Portland, Cape Elizabeth
• South: Scarborough, Old Orchard Beach, Saco, Biddeford
• West: Windham, Gorham

Maps have been developed for each sub-region and will be formatted for 24”x36” for display and 11”x17” for the final plan document. A regional map will also be developed for display at 36”x48” and 11”x17” for the final document.
All maps are currently available here as one pdf.

Bikeways, trails and pathways are shown as either ‘Existing’ (solid line) or ‘Envisioned’ (dashed line).

(Email Bruce Hyman at BruceHymanPlanning@gmail.com to request the 36”x48” version of the Draft Regional Bikeway, Trail and Pathway map.)

On-road Bikeways, Trails and Pathways

On-road Bikeways

Three types of on-road bikeways are included on the maps:
Bicycle lanes, Paved shoulders and Shared lanes. For each bikeway, a specific type is coded into the map database (but not yet shown).

Bicycle lanes are designated bikeways that have stenciled pavement markings and can have accompanying roadside signs. Bicycle lanes are designated for exclusive or preferential use by bicycles. Local examples are Baxter Boulevard in Portland and Route 88 in Falmouth.

Paved shoulders are a portion of the right side of the road delineated by a white edge stripe. They are not designated specifically for use by bicycles. Local examples are Route 25 between Gorham and Westbrook and much of Route 1 in Falmouth, Cumberland and Yarmouth.

Shared lanes are roadway travel lanes which are shared by motorists and bicyclists. Often the roadway is not wide enough to provide other facilities such as a bike lane or paved shoulder. Signage (Share the Road) and/or pavement markings (Sharrows, or Shared Lane Markings) may be appropriate if the Shared Lane is part of a designated bikeway network.  Shared lanes may be wider than typical travel lanes (11’-12’) and are called wide curb lanes (13’ to 15’). Local examples of shared lands are Main Street/Route 1 in Freeport Village, the Main Streets in Biddeford and Saco, and West Grand Avenue in Old Orchard Beach. An example of a wide curb lane is Allen Avenue/Route 100 in Portland between Morrill’s and Allen’s Corners and much of Broadway south of Knightville to near Cash Corner.

Shared Use Pathways are intended for multiple types of users including bicyclists and pedestrians. They have a hard surface (paved, stone dust, etc) that serves road bicycles well. Depending upon the type of surface, roller bladers and equestrian users — among others — may also use the pathway. 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 can be used by mountain bikes (where permitted). Trails often serve primarily recreation purposes, such as loop trails through conservation lands. Local examples are the Fore River Trail (right) in Portland, and the Great Pond Trail in Cape Elizabeth.

(back to index)

Pedestrian Environment: Regional Commercial Centers Map

The ‘Pedestrian Environment: Regional Commercial Centers’ map shows a screening of each center against assessment criteria related to how pedestrian-oriented an area is. The criteria are listed on the map. The criteria fall into three general categories:

• Pedestrian Safety and Functional needs (are the sidewalks continuous, sufficient sidewalk width and clear area, and curb ramps at corners?)
• Pedestrian-oriented Design Considerations (are the intersections compact, sidewalks have street trees and pedestrian-scale lighting, and signs are pedestrian-scale?)
• Urban Design Considerations (are buildings and building entrances oriented to the street, parking lots to the side or rear, and streets interconnected at appropriate intervals?).

For legibility, on the map the centers are labeled as ‘Poor/Fair’ or ‘Good/Great’ for how well they meet the criteria. Brief descriptions of each regional commercial center and an accompanying ‘birds eye’ aerial photo (intended to be representative of it) are also provided. In the descriptions, each center is described more specifically as Poor, Fair Good, or Great. Plus (+) and minus (-) signs are included with the rating to further describe whether or not there are additional positive contributing factors (+) that make it better than the rating may indicate or additional negative contributing factors (-) within the center that detract from the rating.

(A sampling, only, of the commercial center descriptions and ‘birds eyes’ are included.)

(back to index)

‘Top Ten Most Cost and Time Effective Improvements’

The scope of work for the project specifies the identification of the ‘Top ten most cost and time effective improvements.’ The projects listed below are based upon the interviews with the municipalities, discussions at the monthly stakeholder meetings at PACTS, and a review of existing and envisioned bicycle and pedestrian facilities and the region.

The suggested ‘top ten’ list for discussion purposes includes both regional initiatives as well as site and area-specific projects. These are shown on the accompanying map.

Suggested regional initiatives are:

• 1. A pilot regional Bicycle Route and Destination Signage project – the blue dotted lines on the map are potential routes that link key destinations within the region that currently have on-road bikeway facilities and pathways that would meet the needs of moderately skilled cyclists.
• 2. A regional ‘Share the Road’ Signage project – following completion of this project, this would entail a systematic look at the existing Shared lane on-road bikeways for possible additional signage (and possibly Sharrows on urban roadways)
• 3. Arterial Pedestrian Access to Transit project – the orange dots suggest a number of regional arterials that would benefit from low to moderate cost improvements to street crossings to provide access to bus stops, which might include curb extensions, enhanced crosswalk markings and lighting, pedestrian refuge islands, and signage
• 4. Regional Bicycle Parking project – this project would look at bike-park-ride facilities at the terminus of transit routes (for example, Prides Corner in Westbrook), providing covered, secure, mid-to-long term bicycle parking.

Suggested site or area-specific initiatives are:

• 5. Congress Street at High Street Intersection Reconfiguration project, Portland – as recommended in the Portland Peninsula Transit Study to re-orient this complex intersection for improved pedestrian safety and access, and aesthetics
• 6. Libbytown/Portland Transportation Center Bicycle and Pedestrian Access project, Portland – as recommended in the just completed Libbytown study
• 7. Maine Mall Area Pedestrian Signals, Crosswalks, and Sidewalk Gaps project, South Portland – as recommended in the Maine Mall Pedestrian Area Master Plan and part of subsequent traffic signalization efforts in the area
• 8. Route 1 Bicycle Access Re-striping and Signage project, South Portland and Scarborough – there is sufficient width on many sections of Route 1 from Cash Corner to Oak Hill to re-stripe and sign this important arterial to more safely accommodate bicyclists
• 9. Biddeford-Saco Downtowns and Train Station Pedestrian Connection project, Biddeford & Saco – an enhanced, quality sidewalk or trail connection connecting the two downtowns which is part of the East Coast Greenway and Eastern Trail
• 10. Biddeford Crossing Bicycle and Pedestrian Access project – a short-to-mid term fix is needed to safely provide access to this large strip commercial area on Route 111, with some potential to bypass the Route 111 bridge that has inadequate width for cyclists and pedestrians to use safely (a connection option is via Mountain Road/Walmart).

(back to index)

Design Guidelines Update

A series of concise Design Guidelines are being developed to supplement the design guidelines that were included in the PACTS 1995 Regional Bicycle and Interim Pedestrian Plan. Topics suggested are:

• 1. Sharrows, Shared Lane Markings – experimental pavement markings for shared lane on-road bikeways
• 2. Bicycle Parking, short-term – recommended rack types and installation guidelines
• 3. ‘Complete Streets’ / ‘Accessible Streets’ – streets that meet all road users needs, including persons with disabilities
• 4. Bicycle Boulevard – streets that provide priority access to bicyclists while still providing good vehicle access
• 5. Crosswalks – pavement markings and signage for controlled (traffic signal or stop sign) or uncontrolled (mid-block) crossings
• 6. Pedestrian-bicycle connections between existing cul de sacs
• 7. Retro-fitting existing streets to more safely meet bicyclist and pedestrian needs.

Your ideas?  Please use the Comment Form below.

A sampling (Short-term bicycle parking and Sharrows) is provided.

Next Steps: Maps

• Completion of data collection and development (Conservation, Open Space and Recreation Facilities needed for several towns/cities)
• Labeling of major destinations and activity centers
• Completion/verification of coding for on-road bikeways (‘existing’ vs ‘envisioned’ and recommended facility type)
• Extending the connections to PACTS community neighbors (Brunswick, etc)
• Incorporating your input.

(back to index)

Pedestrian Environment, Regional Commercial Centers: Overview

The Pedestrian Environment map identifies and rates Regional Commercial Centers for their pedestrian orientation. Ratings are provided as Good or Great if they provide a high degree of pedestrian orientation: meet pedestrian safety and functional needs, have numerous pedestrian-oriented attributes, and include a number of urban design considerations. Ratings are Poor or Fair if they are predominantly automobile-oriented. A plus (+) or minus (-) is added to the ratings to further call attention to characteristics that may further contribute to or detract from pedestrian orientation. For instance, an area that is ‘Fair’ overall but has some good quality urban design characteristics such as buildings oriented to the street might merit a ‘Fair (+)’ rating.

Safety and Functional Needs meet the most basic requirements for pedestrian accessibility. These include, at a minimum:

• Americans with Disabilities requirements for curb ramp and sidewalk widths
• Continuity and directness of sidewalks along streets
• Well-marked pedestrian crossings at appropriate intervals
• Compact signalized intersections to cross with appropriate pedestrian signal equipment and signal phasing.

Pedestrian-oriented Considerations within the right of way make the streetscape a more inviting place to walk. These 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 considerations outside the public right of way enhance the pedestrian environment. These considerations may include:

• Building placement oriented to the street
• Building design and architecture that relates to surrounding buildings and is human scaled
• Off-street parking oriented to the side and/or rear of buildings
• Block lengths from 200 feet to 400 feet (with a maximum of 600 feet)
• Active building frontages and street activity
• Visual interest and attractiveness.

Regional commercial centers are typically located along important regional arterials. Commercial enters that are pedestrian-oriented are more compact and transportation efficient. They can be more efficiently and effectively served by bus and passenger rail transit. If they are not currently served by bus transit, they have the potential to be served much more efficiently than auto-oriented centers. An important concept to consider is the relationship of these centers along a corridor. Numerous compact commercial centers along a corridor have the potential for effective transit service.

The following pages provide brief descriptions of each commercial center, its rating related to the quality of the pedestrian environment (Poor, Fair, Good, Great), and a ‘birds eye’ aerial photograph that is representative of the entire center.

Freeport Village Center
Rating: Good (+)

Freeport Village 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.  Image source: Bing Maps.

South Freeport, Route 1

Rating: PoorSouth Freeport/Route 1 is a strip highway commercial zone that is highly automobile-oriented characterized by large building setbacks and lot frontage dominated by parking lots. It has little to no accommodation for pedestrians.  Image source: Bing Maps.

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 road frontage.  Image source: Bing Maps.

Yarmouth Village Center
Rating: Good (-)

Yarmouth Village has good, continuous pedestrian facilities and generally good urban design characteristics but has allowed strip commercial development in a portion of the village center which negatively impacts the generally positive pedestrian environment.

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.

Cumberland, Route 1
Rating: Poor

Cumberland Route 1 is an emerging regional commercial center that is developing in a strip, highway commercial fashion.

 

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. Numerous existing commercial uses have evolved in an auto-oriented fashion.  Image source: Bing Maps.

Falmouth, Route 1
Rating: Fair

Falmouth, Route 1 is a much more visually attractive strip, highway commercial center than is typical and has a much higher quality of pedestrian connections along Route 1 and within parking lots. The overall orientation of the development within the center, though, still makes it highly automobile-oriented.  Image source: Bing Maps.

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.  Image source: Bing Maps.

(back to index)

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 onstreet 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.)

Standard 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.
• 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.

Sharrow, or Shared Lane Marking  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

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RO_p5QFjZo
Optional Embellishment: Long Beach, CA ‘Green Carpet’ Sharrows

(back to index)

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

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

• 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 any change in the occupancy of any new building that results in the need for additional auto parking facilities
• When more than 10 spaces are required, half should be covered parking

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)

Please share your comments below.

• Previous Entry: Draft Regional Bike and Pedestrian Plan July 2009
• Next Entry: PACTS Regional Bike and Pedestrian Plan Update: Section F, Final Draft