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 – Draft

Download 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

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

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

Next Section:

C. The Pedestrian Environment and Regional Commercial Centers

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.

1. 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.’)
2. 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.
3. Bicycle Access on the Amtrak Downeaster. The Downeaster service currently limits the stations where riders can board with bicycles.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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?
9. 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?
10. 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

F:  Design Guidelines