AGENDA#8

MEMORANDUM

TO:                  Mayor and Town Council

FROM:            W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

SUBJECT:            Response to Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Petition to Remove Bicycle Path Designation from Shared Bicycle/Sidewalk Facilities

DATE:             October 11, 2000

This memorandum responds to the petition submitted to the Town Council on July 5, 2000 by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board to remove the bicycle path designation from the shared bicycle/sidewalk facilities.  We recommend that the Council adopt Resolution A which would remove the bicycle path designation from the shared bicycle/sidewalk facilities, and direct staff to remove signage that directs riders onto the brown sidewalks, as well as the stenciled bicycles and arrows on the bicycle paths.  It would also direct staff to place additional “Share the Road” signs in these locations.

PETITION

The July 5th petition (Attachment 1) from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board asks the Town Council to decommission the shared bicycle/sidewalk facilities which would remove the bicycle component from these facilities.  These six facilities would thus revert to sidewalks whose primary users would be pedestrians.  (Please see Attachment 2 for a map with locations.)  The petition suggests doing this by removing signage directing riders onto the bicycle paths.  The board also suggests that “Share the Road” signs could be placed in these areas to alert the public to the change.

BACKGROUND

This petition relates to the off-road bicycle paths (Class I Facilities) in the following locations:

1.      Airport Road (west side), from Umstead Drive to N. Columbia Street. (5 ft wide)

2.      Airport Road (east side), from Hillsborough Street to Estes Drive. (7 ft wide)

3.      East Franklin Street (north side), from Estes Drive to Hillsborough St. (5 ft wide)

4.      Raleigh Rd (north side), from US 15-501 By-Pass to Country Club Rd. (3 ft wide)

5.      US 15-501 By-Pass, from Cleland Drive to Ridgefield.  (9 ft wide)

6.      Airport Road (east side), from Estes Drive just past Timber Hollow Apartments frontage.  (8 ft. wide)

These bicycle paths are shared with pedestrians.  The first five projects listed were installed pursuant to the 1977 Bikeways Concept Plan, adopted by the Chapel Hill Board of Aldermen in February 1977.  The intent of the Concept Plan was to establish a radial/circumferential system to link residential areas with major destination points (for example, the University and UNC Hospitals, central business district, and University Mall).  The sixth segment was installed later since no widening of Airport Road to accommodate bike lanes was anticipated, and since the placement of a facility in that location would provide a necessary link for uninterrupted bicycle facilities from Hillsborough Road to Weaver Dairy Road.

These particular segments were given high priority because they would provide safe facilities for bicyclists on the uphill side of the major arterials leading into and out of central Chapel Hill.  The bicycle paths were to allow slow moving bicyclists to be separated from higher speed automobile traffic.  It was hoped that the bicyclists’ slow speeds would reduce the possibility of conflict with pedestrians.  There is one two-way segment located in front of the YMCA at the intersection of Airport Road and Estes Drive.  The 15-501 segment originally was included to accommodate the large number of children desiring access to the Rainbow soccer field on Cleland Drive.  Not all elements of the 1977 Concept Plan were completed. 

Our Public Works Department’s schedule of maintenance for sweeping, cleaning and edging these bicycle paths is approximately every other month during the mowing season.  Any hazards are reported and marked, if serious, and repairs are made as soon as reasonably possible after being reported.

DISCUSSION

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Manual gives standard specifications for off-road shared bicycle facilities:  5-foot wide for one-way use, and 10-foot wide for two-way use.  A Council Member has asked the staff to include a discussion of four items as part of the staff report in response to the petition.  (Please see Attachment 3.)  The items and our comments are as follows:

1.      AASHTO’s Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999):

This guide states, “in general, the designated use of sidewalks (as a signed shared facility) for bicycle travel is unsatisfactory.”  The guide notes that sidewalks are typically designed for pedestrian speeds and are not safe for bicycles traveling at higher speeds.  However, the guide does describe exceptions to this general rule.  The guide also points out that when sidewalk bikeways are created, obstacles that might interfere with usage (such as parking meters, utility poles, sign posts, bus benches, fire hydrants, mail boxes, etc.) should be removed.  The guide notes, in cases where bikeways are intended to be used for one-way travel only, they will often be used as two-way facilities, unless measures are taken to prevent it.  Finally, the guide stresses that provision of the shared bicycle path should not prohibit bicyclists from using an alternate facility if they so desire.

Comment:  In general, the bicycle paths under discussion were built to provide safe facilities for bicyclists on the uphill side of major arterial roads, and, therefore, to allow slow moving bicyclists to be separated from higher speed automobile traffic.  It was hoped that the bicyclists’ slow speeds would reduce the possibility of conflict with pedestrians.  For users, there seems to be some confusion regarding whether one-way or two-way use is permitted and on which sections.  We note that Chapel Hill’s bicycle paths are an option, not a requirement, for bicyclists.  New signage indicating this to motorists/bicyclists could minimize potential conflicts or misunderstandings. 

2.   North Carolina Department of Transportation Policies:

The North Carolina Department of Transportation does not have guidelines for off-road bicycle facilities.  Their general policy is to follow AASHTO standards for width of facilities. 

Comment:  Most of the bicycle paths currently meet present-day AASHTO standards for off-road, shared use facilities.  Exceptions are: 1) the Airport Road bicycle path segment designated for two-way travel which does not meet the minimum 10-foot wide requirement; and, 2) the Raleigh Road bicycle path designated for one-way travel which does not meet the minimum 5-foot wide requirement.

3.   Effective Cycling, a book authored by John Forester:

This bicycle advocate stresses that bicyclists should share the road in most circumstances. 

Comment:  The bicycle paths provide an option for slow-moving bicyclists on uphill sections of major arterials, and the bicycle paths accommodate the needs of a wide range of bicycling skill levels, including children and novice/inexperienced riders.  However, the existence of the bicycle paths could lead motorists to believe that the bicycle paths are the only appropriate place for bicyclists to be, even though bicyclists have a legal right to be in the road as well.  This could lead to conflict between motorists and bicyclists using the roadway.

4.   Examples of Other Cities’ Responses to Similar Situations:

In general, most cities in North Carolina now follow AASHTO standards for new construction of off-road bicycle facilities, and NCDOT standards for on-road facilities.

Comment:  We were unable to find other localities in North Carolina dealing with the specific issue of facilities built prior to present day AASHTO standards.

EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

We offer the following points for evaluation of advantages and disadvantages of the petition’s proposal to remove the bicycle path designation.

Points in Support of Removing Bicycle Path Designation

·        The usefulness of the existing bicycle paths is limited due to uncertainty about their location, their narrow width, whether one-way or two-way use is permitted, and confusion resulting from simultaneous use by pedestrians and cyclists. 

·        Driveways intersecting the bicycle paths can be hazardous to bicyclists.  Automobile drivers do not always stop to look before crossing the paths/sidewalks, but instead stop at the edge of the roadway pavement.

·        The bicycle paths do not provide a consistent town-wide message for bicyclists or pedestrians regarding usage and availability of facilities.

·        A shared facility can create the potential for conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians.

·        Having the bicycle paths in place could lead motorists to believe that the bicycle paths are the only appropriate place for bicyclists to be, even though bicyclists have a legal right to be in the road as well.  This could lead to conflict between motorists and bicyclists using the roadway.

·        Using the sidewalk remains an option for bicyclists of all skill levels, including children and novice/inexperienced riders, since bicyclists may legally ride on public sidewalks, except in the Central Business District. 

·        Present day AASHTO specifications for shared facilities with two-way travel call for minimum 10-foot wide concrete paths.  The bicycle path segment on Airport Road (near the YMCA) which is designated for two-way travel does not meet present day AASHTO specifications.

Points Against Removing Bicycle Path Designation

·        The bicycle paths provide an option for slow-moving bicyclists on uphill sections of major arterials.

·        No additional widening of these arterials is scheduled to take place to accommodate standard 4-foot bike lanes. 

·        The bicycle paths accommodate the needs of a wide range of bicycling skill levels, including children and novice/inexperienced riders.

·        Increasing the frequency of maintenance could provide more space for users on the bicycle paths.

·        New signage indicating to motorists/bicyclists that the bicycle paths are an option, not a requirement, for bicyclists could minimize potential conflicts.

·        Present day AASHTO specifications for shared facilities with one-way travel call for 5-foot wide concrete paths.  All of the bicycle paths designated for one-way travel, except the Raleigh Road segment meet present day AASHTO specifications.

If the bicycle path designation were removed, we would remove signage that directs riders onto the brown sidewalks, as well as the stenciled bicycles and arrows on the bicycle paths.  In addition, we would provide public notice to alert citizens to the change.  Currently, bicycles are not prohibited on public sidewalks, with the exception of those located downtown.

While bicyclists could still legally use the sidewalks once the bicycle path designation is removed, we believe that it is in the best interests of the public to remove the bicycle path designation to provide a consistent town-wide message for bicyclists and pedestrians regarding usage and availability of facilities.  We would expect bicycle riders and pedestrians to be courteous to each other when sharing the sidewalk.  Also, we believe that additional signage in the form of “Share the Road,” or similar message, are needed to alert motorists that roads are for bikes too. 


RECOMMENDATION

We recommend that the Council adopt Resolution A which would remove the bicycle path designation from the shared bicycle/sidewalk facilities, and direct staff to remove signage that directs riders onto the brown sidewalks, as well as the stenciled bicycles and arrows on the bicycle paths.  It would also direct staff to place additional “Share the Road” signs in these locations.

Alternatively, if the Council wishes to retain the bicycle path designation for the shared bicycle/sidewalk facilities, we attach Resolution B which would direct the Manager to develop signage to clarify that the bicycle paths are an option not a requirement for bicyclists.

ATTACHMENTS

1.      Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Petition, dated July 5, 2000 (p. 8).

2.      Location Map of Existing Off-Road Bicycle/Sidewalk Facilities (p. 9).

RESOLUTION A

A RESOLUTION REMOVING BICYCLE PATH DESIGNATION FROM SHARED FACILITIES AND DIRECTING THE MANAGER TO MAKE APPROPRIATE CHANGES IN SIGNAGE  (2000-10-11/R-8a)

WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill is continuing efforts to address pedestrian and bicycling issues in the Town; and

WHEREAS, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board submitted a request to the Town Council to remove the bicycle path designation from the shared bicycle/sidewalk facilities; and

WHEREAS, the Town Council has considered this request and a set of related comments by the Town Manager; and

WHEREAS, the usefulness of the existing bicycle paths is limited due to uncertainty about their location, their narrow width, whether one-way or two-way use is permitted, and from simultaneous use by pedestrians and cyclists; 

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby removes the bicycle path designation from the shared off-road bicycle/sidewalk facilities, and that the Manager is directed to remove signage that directs riders onto the brown sidewalks, as well as the stenciled bicycles and arrows on the bicycle paths, and to place additional “Share the Road” signs in these locations:

  1. Airport Road, between Umstead Drive and N. Columbia Street.
  2. Airport Road, between Hillsborough Street and Estes Drive.
  3. East Franklin, Street between Estes Drive and Hillsborough St.
  4. Raleigh Rd, between US 15-501 By-Pass and Country Club Rd.
  5. US 15-501 By-Pass, between Cleland Drive and Ridgefield. 
  6. Airport Road, from Estes Drive to just past Timber Hollow Apartments frontage. 

This the 11th day of October, 2000.

RESOLUTION B

A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE MANAGER TO DEVELOP SIGNAGE TO CLARIFY THAT BICYCLE PATHS ARE AN OPTION, NOT A REQUIREMENT, FOR BICYCLISTS  (2000-10-11/R-8b)

WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill is continuing efforts to address pedestrian and bicycling issues in the Town; and

WHEREAS, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board submitted a request to the Town Council to remove the bicycle path designation from the shared bicycle/sidewalk facilities; and

WHEREAS, the Town Council has considered this request and a set of related comments by the Town Manager; and

WHEREAS, additional signage to clarify that the bicycle paths are an option, not a requirement, for bicyclists would be helpful in reducing the potential for motorist/bicyclist conflict. 

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Manager, with input from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, is directed to develop signage to clarify that the bicycle paths are an option, not a requirement, for bicyclists.

This the 11th day of October, 2000.