Pedestrian, Bicycle and Traffic Calming Strategic Implementation Plan. January 18, 2011

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Pedestrian, Bicycle and Traffic Calming Strategic Implementation Plan. January 18, 2011"

Brian Skinner
5 years ago
Views:

1 Pedestrian, Bicycle and Traffic Calming Strategic Implementation Plan January 18, 2011

2 Tonight s Agenda Receive update on project Provide feedback on two policy issues Complete Streets Policy Project Prioritization Methodology

3 Project Overview Assessment of pedestrian and bicycle network throughout the City Evaluating overall network connectivity and ADA compliance issues Identifying routes to school, parks, library, bus stops, transit, W&OD trail, commercial corridors Evaluating every City street for opportunities for improvement and deficiencies

4 Project Team Working with KLS Engineering Internal staff team led by Planning with close working relationship with Engineering, Parks and Recreation Supported by Pedestrian, Bicycle and Traffic Calming Advisory Committee and Safe Routes to School Committee

5 Project Deliverables Pedestrian, Bicycle and Traffic Calming Strategic Implementation Plan ADA Compliance Plan Safe Routes to School Plan

6 Public Involvement Three public meetings Interactive web tool Pedestrian, Bicycle and Traffic Calming Advisory Committee Safe Routes to School Committee

7 60 people attended Held walk/bike tours Noted obstacles, areas for improved connections Public Meetings

8 Interactive Web Tool Allowed users to pinpoint areas requiring improvement for pedestrians and bicyclists over 700 comments

9 Interactive Tool Sample Results

10 Pedestrian, Bicycle and Traffic Calming Advisory Committee Established by Council Resolution 9 members 4 representatives from City Boards/Commissions 4 at-large members 1 SRTS committee representative Purpose is to advise study team, provide feedback on draft policies, recommendations

11 Safe Routes To School (SRTS) Committee City of Falls Church Safe Routes To School SRTS component of overall project SRTS Committee focused solely on SRTS Plan Comprised of teachers, school administrators, student, parent, school resource officer

Data Collection Summary 6 person field crew

Reviewed all points for positional accuracy

12 Data Collection Summary 6 person field crew in teams of 2 visited all locations Collected field data using an electronic hand-held GPS Device Database updated daily using Arc View Reviewed all points for positional accuracy Integration of multiple datasets 15 week effort

13 Data Collection Land use / activity centers Signage Pedestrian crossings (intersections and mid-block) Trails Biking facilities Traffic calming Roadway classifications / roadway characteristics Parking Transit Crash data Truck routes

14 Data Collection Preliminary Results Total sidewalk deficiencies = 2,250 (24,943 ) No. of non-compliant driveways = 655 (12,431 ) Narrow sidewalk (<3 ) locations = 143 (544 ) Damaged/uneven locations = 1307 (9,022 ) No. of unprotected guide wires = 37 Maintenance (overgrown shrubs) locations = 57 (1,115 )

16 Curb Ramp Attributes RAMP TYPE: Record the type of curb ramp SURFACE CONDITION: Good, uneven, cracked, debris, water ponding CURB RAMP WITHIN CROSSWALK: Yes / No REPLACEMENT: Curb ramps with the following properties are not ADA compliant and should be replaced; no further attributes are recorded Width less than 36 in Slope greater than 12% Damaged RAMP WIDTH: Less than 36 inches, inches, and greater than or equal to 48 inches RAMP SLOPE: 8.3% or less, 8.3 to 10%, and 10 to 12% RAMP CROSS SLOPE: 2% or less, 2 to 4%, and greater than 4% 4 ft x 4 ft; CLEAR SPACE AT BOTTOM: Yes / No GUTTER RUNNING SLOPE: 5% or less and greater than 5% GUTTER CROSS SLOPE: 5% or less and greater than 5% TRANSITION: Yes / No DETECTABLE WARNING: Yes / No DETECTABLE WARNING COLOR: grey, red, yellow, other LANDING PANEL: 48 inches or greater, inches, less than 36 inches, and none LANDING RUNNING SLOPE: 2% or less, 2 to 4%, greater than 4%

none RETURNED CURBS: Yes / No PROTECTED FLARES: Yes / No PHOTO: For each

17 Curb Ramp Attributes (cont d) LANDING CROSS SLOPE: 2% or less, 2 to 4%, greater than 4% RAMP FLARES: 10% or less, 10 to 12%, greater than 12%, and none RETURNED CURBS: Yes / No PROTECTED FLARES: Yes / No PHOTO: For each ramp COMMENTS: For notes in the field Compliant Curb Ramp Non-Compliant Curb Ramp

18 Data Collection Preliminary Results No. of curb ramps inventoried = 622 Majority are diagonal curb ramps (371) Number of curb ramps to be replaced = 173 estimated

19 Analysis Data collection complete Pause to develop policies & methodologies to guide analysis Complete Streets Policy Project Prioritization Methodology Lays foundation for all recommendations Developed by project team and Ped Bike Advisory Team

Complete Streets Policy Complete Streets are

of age, ability, or mode Benefits Reduce

Increased mobility and accessibility for all

20 Complete Streets Policy Complete Streets are safe, comfortable, and convenient, regardless of age, ability, or mode Benefits Reduce non-motorized injury and fatality rates Increased mobility and accessibility for all Increased active transportation (health improvements) Increased environmental sustainability (reduced emissions, improved storm water management, etc)

a complete network of roads that serves all users Provides transportation planners

21 Complete Streets Policy Ensures that the right of way is planned, designed, and operated as a whole Integrates the needs of all users into everyday practices Creates a complete network of roads that serves all users Provides transportation planners with the political and community support Saves money Before After 3rd Ave and E 149th St, NY City

22 Complete Streets Policy Over 120 communities have committed as of Nov 2010 Neighboring jurisdictions include: Arlington County, VA District of Columbia, Washington DC City of Rockville, MD City of Roanoke, VA

23 Project Prioritization Methodology Process to identify priority projects Sort streets into categories ADA deficiencies on streets with existing sidewalks Opportunities for new sidewalks on streets without sidewalks Opportunities for corridor treatments on roadways Other projects

24 Community Input Data Collection Step 1 Needs Evaluation Step 2 ADA Transition Plan/Projects New Sidewalk Projects Corridor Projects (Traffic Calming, bike routes, etc) Other Projects Step 3 Prioritized based on: Requests from qualified persons with disabilities ADA Prioritization Prioritized based on: Infrastructure score Constructability score Prioritized based on: Crash History Transit Network Pedestrian Generators Level of Service Step 4 Project Readiness Step 5 Project Tiers Step 6

25 Criteria for Evaluation of Streets for New Sidewalks Evaluate street segments that do not currently have a sidewalk Go through checklist of criteria to determine the need for a sidewalk in that location Criteria and weighting have been developed by staff and Ped Bike Advisory Committee

26 Criteria for Evaluation of Streets for New Sidewalks Is street along Safe Routes to School Route? Is street on a transit route? Is street on a primary route to Metro? Is street on Park Connectivity map? Is street within 1 block of a commercial corridor?

27 Criteria for Evaluation of Streets for New Sidewalks Street segment receives points if is on a priority route Highest number of points = highest sidewalk need

29 Safe Routes To School (SRTS) Committee Identified primary walking/biking routes to school Met with school administrators to discuss MEH walking/biking obstacles

33 Criteria for Evaluation of Streets for New Sidewalks Is street along Safe Routes to School Route? Is street on a transit route? Is street on a primary route to Metro? Is street on Park Connectivity map? Is street within 1 block of a commercial corridor?

34 Criteria for Evaluation of Streets for New Sidewalks Street segment receives points if it is on a priority route Highest number of points = highest sidewalk need

35 Community Input Data Collection Step 1 Needs Evaluation Step 2 ADA Transition Plan/Projects New Sidewalk Projects Corridor Projects (Traffic Calming, bike routes, etc) Other Projects Step 3 Prioritized based on: Requests from qualified persons with disabilities ADA Prioritization Prioritized based on: Infrastructure score Constructability score Prioritized based on: Crash History Transit Network Pedestrian Generators Level of Service Step 4 Project Readiness Step 5 Project Tiers Step 6

36 ADA Projects Evaluation Ranking all projects within this category Using similar scoring/ranking methodology, but different criteria Compliance score (ratio of number of deficiencies to length of sidewalk) Obstacle score (total number of obstacles) Right of way score

37 Community Input Data Collection Step 1 Needs Evaluation Step 2 ADA Transition Plan/Projects New Sidewalk Projects Corridor Projects (Traffic Calming, bike routes, etc) Other Projects Step 3 Prioritized based on: Requests from qualified persons with disabilities ADA Prioritization Prioritized based on: Infrastructure score Constructability score Prioritized based on: Crash History Transit Network Pedestrian Generators Level of Service Step 4 Project Readiness Step 5 Project Tiers Step 6

38 Corridor Projects / Traffic Calming Methodology Two pronged approach Evaluate all Collectors and Minor Arterials for Traffic Calming Strengthen Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program

39 Next Steps Finalize prioritization methodology and other policies Host Public meeting Review data collection effort, prioritization methodology and other policies Develop Draft Document with Project Recommendations Host Public meeting Produce final document

40 Questions / Comments?

Citywide Sidewalk and Crosswalk Programs

Citywide Sidewalk and Crosswalk Programs Council Meeting October 20, 2015 Presented by Rita Hu and Jamal Mahmoud Program Goals Implement the City s comprehensive plan. Provide pedestrian with safe walking