Pedestrian Walkways and Bikeways

Transcription

1 Appendix F Pedestrian Walkways and Bikeways

2 Table of Contents 1. Introduction Types of Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Standards Categories of Improvement Projects East Coast Greenway Criteria for Greenway Projects Greenway Priority Segments Safe Routes to School Qualification Criteria Schools Meeting Qualifications Priority Criteria Other Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Improvement Projects Level of Service Factors Existing Facilities Multi-Modal Facilities for Construction and Improvement Projects Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Roadway Cross-sections Sidewalks with Bike Lanes or Shared Road Multipurpose Path Bike Lanes or Shared Roads Boardwalk Multipurpose Bridge Typical Bicycle and Pedestrian Enhancement Facilities Minimum Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Improvements Recommended Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Improvements i

3 Lis t of Tables Table 1: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Types... 2 Table 2: East Coast Greenway Evaluation Criteria Table 3: Schools Meeting SRTS Qualification Criteria Table 4: Safe Routes to School Priority Scoring Example Table 5: LOS Study Facilities: Sidewalk with Bike Lane or Shared Road Table 6: LOS Study Facilities: Multipurpose Path Table 7: LOS Study Facilities: Expand to Multipurpose Path Table 8: LOS Study Facilities: Bike Lanes and Shared Road Table 9: LOS Study Facilities: Multipurpose Boardwalk Table 10: LOS Study Facilities: Multipurpose Bridge over US Highway Lis t of Figures Figure 1: Sidewalks... 4 Figure 2: Multi-purpose path... 5 Figure 3: Bike Lane... 5 Figure 4: Shared Roadway... 6 Figure 5: Shoulder... 6 Figure 6: East Coast Greenway Master Plan... 8 Figure 7: ECG Segment US 17 from Atlantic Avenue to County Line Figure 8: ECG Segment US 17 from Farrow Parkway to 16 th Avenue South Figure 9: ECG Segment Water Tower Road to International Drive Figure 10: ECG Segment US 17 from S. Causeway Drive to Hobcaw Barony Figure 11: ECG Segment State Line to Sea Mountain Highway Figure 12: ECG Segment US 17 Over Pee Dee and Waccamaw Rivers Figure 13: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Figure 14: Sidewalks with Bike Lanes or Shared Road Cross-Section Figure 15: Multipurpose Path Cross-Section Figure 16: Bike Lanes or Shared Road Cross-Section Figure 17: Boardwalk Cross-Section Figure 18: Multipurpose Bridge Cross-section Figure 19: Sidewalk Details Figure 20: Curb Ramp Details Figure 21: Crosswalk Details Figure 22: Crosswalk Details ii

4 Figure 23: Driveway Apron Details Figure 24: Pedestrian Signal Details Figure 25: Landscape Buffer Details Figure 26: Median and Pedestrian Refuge Island Details Figure 27: Mid Block Crossing Details Figure 28: Bridge Details Figure 29: Bridge Details Figure 30: Underpass Details Figure 31: Transit Stop Details Figure 32: Access to Adjacent Property Details Figure 33: Street Furniture Figure 34: Signage Details iii

5 1. Introduction LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE National trends for use of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the United States have risen dramatically over the past 15 years. A recent study published by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Information Center provides insight into the frequency of trips taken by cyclists and pedestrians, the funding for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and the safety of bicycle and pedestrian facilities 1. The study compared the percentage of biking and walking transportation trips taken in relation to the number of total transportation trips taken from 1990 to The number of transportation trips increased for cycling and walking, showing that the number of people using non-vehicular forms of transportation is on the rise nationally. Locally, the need for increased bicycle and pedestrian facilities to support walking and cycling trips has been recognized. Numerous planning efforts completed over the last ten years within the GSATS Study Area indicate that citizens are interested in using non-vehicular forms of transportation in their daily lives. Each of the following GSATS Study Area master plans recommends increased pedestrian and/or bicycle facility development: City of Conway Comprehensive Transportation Plan, December 2008 East Coast Greenway Master Plan, September 2003 Georgetown County US 17 Corridor Study, April 2003 Georgetown Countywide Transportation Master Plan, April 2009 GSATS 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, March 2005 Horry County North Myrtle Beach Northeast Area Transportation Plan, July 2008 Kings Highway Corridor Study, March 2008 North Myrtle Beach US 17 Corridor Study, April 2003 South Strand US 17 Corridor Study, December 1999 The bicycle and pedestrian recommendations within the GSATS Long Range Transportation Plan 2035 Update will provide a prioritized list of bicycle and pedestrian transportation improvement projects. These projects will be compiled from recommendations found in past planning efforts and those identified during this study. These recommended projects provide guidance for the development of safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities, promote connectivity for cyclists and pedestrians, and provide realistic choices for transportation within the GSATS Study Area. 1 U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Information Center, The National Bicycling and Walking Study: 15-Year Status Report, May

6 1.1 Types of Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Many transportation facilities are built specifically for bicycle and pedestrian use, each providing dedicated infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians. However, different types of bicycle and pedestrian facilities are better suited for certain users. When planning bicycle and pedestrian facilities, it is important that all user types and their abilities are considered. The various types of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and description of uses, locations, dimensions, and advantages and disadvantages of each facility are shown in Table 1. Table 1: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Types Sidewalk Multi-Purpose Path Greenway Trail Location: Right-of-way Advantages: Dimensions: Minimum 5' wide High connectivity to land uses, easy to integrate into existing right-of-way Supported Uses: Walking, jogging Disadvantages: Users Served: All groups No bicycle accommodation, limited space from travel Location: Right-of-way Advantages: Dimensions: Minimum 10' wide High connectivity to land uses, multiple modes of transportation Supported Uses: Walking, jogging, skating, bicycling Disadvantages: Users Served: All groups Uses additional right-of-way area Location: Off-road Advantages: Dimensions: Minimum 10' wide Multiple modes of transportation, expands connectivity beyond road, provides recreational benefit Supported Uses: Walking, jogging, skating, bicycling, Disadvantages: Users Served: All groups Land acquisition, public opposition 2

7 Trail Bike Lane Shared Roadway Location: Off-road Advantages: Dimensions: Varies Expands connectivity beyond road, provides recreational benefit Supported Uses: Walking, jogging, bicycling Disadvantages: Users Served: All groups Land acquisition, limited uses, best for natural environments Location: Parallel to travel lane Advantages: Dimensions: Minimum 4' wide High visibility, limits conflicts with other modes of transportation Supported Uses: Bicycling Disadvantages: Users Served: On grade with automobiles, limits young and Moderate to inexperienced users, limited to roadways under experienced cyclists 35 mph Location: In travel lane Advantages: Dimensions: 14' wide travel lane High visibility from automobiles Supported Uses: Bicycling Disadvantages: Users Served: Moderate to experienced cyclists On grade with automobiles, limits young and inexperienced users Shoulders Location: Parallel to travel lane Advantages: Dimensions: Varies Provides location for travel Supported Uses: Walking, bicycling Disadvantages: Users Served: Moderate to experienced cyclists On grade with automobiles, limits young and inexperienced users Single Track Location: Off-road Advantages: Dimensions: Maximum 2' wide Expands connectivity beyond road, provides recreational benefit Supported Uses: Bicycling Disadvantages: Users Served: All groups Land acquisition, limited uses, best for natural environments 3

8 1.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Standards The GSATS Long Range Transportation Plan 2035 Update is focused on providing safe, dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the rights-of-way throughout the GSATS Study Area. Though all of the facility types in Table 1 are appropriate for bicycle and/or pedestrian travel, they are not all appropriate for this study area. Recommendations within this plan will focus on sidewalks, multi-purpose paths, bike lanes, shared roadways, and shoulders. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities require certain standards to ensure the safety of users, as shown in Figures 1-5. Design standards are recommended for future construction and improvement projects that include bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Figure 1: Sidewalks A minimum 5 -wide sidewalk allows for side by side walking. Landscape buffers help to create a more comfortable walking environment by providing separation between pedestrians and travel lanes. 4

9 Figure 2: Multi-purpose path A 10 -wide multi-purpose path is wide enough to allow pedestrians to pass one another without leaving the path and provides adequate space to accommodate multiple non-motorized uses. Landscape buffers help to create a more comfortable walking environment by providing separation between pedestrians and travel lanes. Figure 3: Bike Lane Bike lanes provide a dedicated space on the roadway for more experienced cyclists to ride. Pavement markings and appropriate grates on storm water drains provide a safer and enjoyable experience. 5

10 Figure 4: Shared Roadway Shared roadways allow experienced cyclists to utilize widened vehicle travel lanes. No pavement striping is provided to delineate the vehicle and bicycle spaces. Most shared roadways have low speed limits and lower volumes of traffic. Figure 5: Shoulder Shoulders are located along the side of roads and are often extensions of the roadway. Paved shoulders are separated from travel lanes with a solid line. Unpaved shoulders are graded areas with little cross slope located alongside the paved roadway. 6

11 1.3 Categories of Improvement Projects Bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects can be as simple as adding a sidewalk along an existing roadway or as complicated as integrating a national greenway trail within various natural and developed environments. The variety of scope, scale, service, and cost of bicycle and pedestrian facilities requires that future projects be categorized. The recommendations for bicycle and pedestrian transportation facilities for Long Range Transportation Plan funding are provided in the following five categories: East Coast Greenway; Safe Routes to School; Other Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Improvement Projects; Multi-Modal Facilities for Construction and Improvement Projects, and; Typical Bicycle and Pedestrian Enhancement Facilities. 2. East Coast Greenway The East Coast Greenway is an urban trail system planned to link 25 major U.S. cities from Calais, Maine to Key West, Florida. The main spine of the trail will stretch 3,000 miles along the East Coast, with an additional 2,000 miles of alternate routes to provide connectivity to towns, cities, parks, and natural areas. The trail is designed to accommodate pedestrians, cyclists, and other non-motorized modes of transportation. Each segment of the trail is master planned, designed, constructed, and maintained by local governments. The East Coast Greenway Master Plan for Horry and Georgetown Counties was developed in 2003, detailing a 90-mile route through both counties and many of their municipalities. Since the completion of the master plan, 21.2-miles of trail have been constructed and an additional miles have been designated as East Coast Greenway within the GSATS Study Area. The constructed trail segments, as shown in (Figure 6), include: North Myrtle Beach Greenway, Barefoot Resort segment: 3.1-miles (North Myrtle Beach) Grissom Parkway Trail: 6.2-miles (Myrtle Beach) Harrelson Boulevard Trail: 1.5-miles (Myrtle Beach) Kings Highway Trail: 3.5-miles (Myrtle Beach) Waccamaw Neck Bikeway: 6.9-miles (Murrells Inlet, Pawleys Island) 7

12 Figure 6: East Coast Greenway Master Plan In addition to the above segments, a number of segments have been programmed. Programmed segments of the East Coast Greenway have been planned and funding has been appropriated for their detailed design and development. Approximately 28.2-miles of trail are considered programmed segments of the East Coast Greenway. These trail segments include: S. Ocean Boulevard: 0.44-miles (Atlantic Beach) Water Tower Road: 1.91-miles (North Myrtle Beach) Harrelson Boulevard Extension: 1.51-miles (Myrtle Beach) N. Waccamaw Drive: 1.08-miles (Garden City) Atlantic Avenue: 0.82-miles (Garden City) Meeting Street Extension: 2.07-miles (Georgetown) South Island Road: 6.47-miles (Georgetown) 8

13 The development of the East Coast Greenway segments should remain the top priority for bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects within the GSATS Study Area. Once completed, the East Coast Greenway will provide a continuous, dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facility through local communities within the GSATS Study Area. The momentum created by the use and success of the East Coast Greenway will drive the need for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure expansion in other areas of the GSATS Study Area, building a connected, dedicated, and safe network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 2.1 Criteria for Greenway Projects The following criteria have been developed for the comparison of six previously identified East Coast Greenway segment priority projects: Length of East Coast Greenway segment; Potential for inclusion within roadway improvements projects; Access to mixed land uses and destinations; Provides connection between two built segments/existing infrastructure; Current and projected development potential of adjacent land; and Projected cost of facility development. Since the completion of the East Coast Greenway Master Plan for Horry and Georgetown Counties in 2003, government agencies have been working diligently to construct segments of the greenway trail. Support has also been garnered through the funding of greenway development through numerous sources. The following six East Coast Greenway segments have been identified as priority projects: Segment A: US Highway 17 Bridges over the Pee Dee and Waccamaw Rivers (Winyah Bay) Segment B: US Highway 17 from South Causeway Drive to Hobcaw Barony (Georgetown County) Segment C: US Highway 17 and Highway 17 Business from Atlantic Avenue (Garden City) to Horry/Georgetown County line Segment D: US Highway 17 from Seagate Village to 16th Avenue South (Surfside Beach) Segment E: Water Tower Road to International Drive (Carolina Bays Parkway, Lewis Ocean Bay Heritage Preserve) Segment F: SC/NC state line to Sea Mountain Highway (SC 9) With the evaluation criteria established and the priority segments for the East Coast Greenway identified, the criteria must be applied to each potential greenway segment to help determine a prioritized list based on costs of construction versus the benefit provided by each greenway 9

14 segment to the Study Area. Table 2 depicts how the East Coast Greenway segment priority projects compare using the adopted evaluation criteria. This criteria should serve as a guide for development of the East Coast Greenway segments. This should not limit the consideration of additional factors that may influence trail segment development. For instance, if a jurisdiction located along a segment of the East Coast Greenway is willing to help share costs for the development of a trail segment, it is recommended that this shared cost be added into the evaluation process. Evaluation Criteria Table 2: East Coast Greenway Evaluation Criteria Segment A Segment B Segment C Segment D Segment E Segment F Length of East Coast Greenway segment (miles) Potential for inclusion within roadway High Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate improvements projects Access to mixed land uses and destinations Low Moderate High High Moderate Moderate Provides connection to built segments/existing No No Yes Yes Yes No infrastructure Current and projected development potential Low High Moderate Moderate Moderate Low of adjacent land Projected cost of facility development* $ $2,176,694 $554,821 $1,116,066 $2,410,815 $1,955,228 *- Projected costs include trail related costs only and do not include utility relocation, storm sewer enhancements, curb and gutter, bridges (with the exception of Segment A) 2.2 Greenway Priority Segments Using this comparison to measure the positive impact of bicycle and pedestrian facility development, the East Coast Greenway segment priority projects have been ranked as follows: 10

15 1. US Highway 17 and Highway 17 Business from Atlantic Avenue (Garden City) to Horry/Georgetown County line: Mileage: 1.32 miles (6950 lf). Trail type and location: A multi-purpose path located within public right-of-way on the eastern side of Highway 17. This location will provide connections to existing and planned East Coast Greenway facilities, residential areas, and nearby businesses. Nearby destinations: Murrells Inlet and Garden City Description: The Garden City Area Plan 2, developed by the Horry County Planning Department and Zoning, highlighted this segment of the East Coast Greenway as the highest priority in the Garden City area. Located on the eastern side of US Highway 17, the greenway will navigate through a heavily traveled and highly developed section of the US Highway 17 corridor. This trail segment will provide a dedicated bicycle and pedestrian connection from Garden City to Murrells Inlet (Figure 7). Project Costs: $554, Figure 7: ECG Segment US Hwy 17 Business from Atlantic Avenue to County Line 2 Horry County Planning and Zoning, The Garden City Area Plan, November

16 2. US Highway 17 from Seagate Village to 16 th Avenue South (Surfside Beach): Mileage: 3.41 miles (17,990 lf). Approximately 1.1 miles (5,831 lf) of this trail is constructed. Trail type and location: A multi-purpose path located within public right-of-way and, if possible, a permanent greenway easement. The trail will be located on the eastern and western side of Highway 17 connecting to Myrtle Beach State Park, campgrounds, residential areas, and businesses. Nearby destinations: Myrtle Beach State Park, Surfside Beach, and campgrounds. Description: This segment of East Coast Greenway connects completed trail at Mallard Lake Drive on the western side of US Highway 17 Business with the northern end of Surfside Beach. The trail will cross US Highway 17 Business to access several large residential areas, link to destinations, and connect into the proposed East Coast Greenway route through Surfside Beach. Potential locations for the trail to cross US Highway 17 Business include Myrtle Beach State Park, the intersection at Carlton Drive (existing traffic light), the intersection at Salt Works Road (existing traffic light), or the intersection at US Highway 544 (existing traffic light) (Figure 8). Project Costs: $1,116, Figure 8: ECG Segment US Hwy 17 Business from Farrow Parkway to 16 th Avenue South 12

17 3. Water Tower Road to International Drive (Carolina Bays Parkway, Lewis Ocean Bay Heritage Preserve): Mileage: 7.62 miles (40,250 lf). Trail type and location: A multi-purpose path located within public right-of-way and/or a permanent greenway easement. Locating the trail on the western side of Highway 31 will provide connectivity to Lewis Ocean Bay Heritage Preserve, residential communities, and existing East Coast Greenway facilities. Nearby destinations: Lewis Ocean Bay Heritage Preserve and western side of Intracoastal Waterway Description: This lengthy stretch of East Coast Greenway provides a unique, experience for cyclists and pedestrians. The trail will move along the western side of Highway 31, also known as Carolina Bays Parkway. Though this trail segment provides minimal connectivity to residential areas, it moves through a protected natural environment, connects to Lewis Ocean Bay Heritage Preserve, showcases the natural beauty of the Grand Strand area, and closes a crucial gap in the East Coast Greenway trail between North Myrtle Beach and Myrtle Beach (Figure 9). Project Costs: $2,410, Figure 9: ECG Segment Water Tower Road to International Drive 13

18 4. US Highway 17 from South Causeway Drive to Hobcaw Barony: Mileage: 6.88 miles (36,300 lf). Trail type and location: A multi-purpose path located within the public right-of-way and a permanent greenway easement. The trail should be located on the eastern side of Highway 17 for connection to residential communities and existing East Coast Greenway facilities. Nearby destinations: Pawleys Island, and numerous residential communities. Description: This segment of East Coast Greenway will provide a lengthy connection between existing trail at South Causeway Drive in Pawley s Island to the future bridge connection across the Pee Dee and Waccamaw Rivers at Hobcaw Barony. It is recommended that the trail be located on the eastern side of US Highway 17 in an effort to better serve existing development within the area (Figure 10). Project Costs: $2,176, Figure 10: ECG Segment US 17 from S. Causeway Drive to Hobcaw Barony 14

19 5. SC/NC state line to Sea Mountain Highway (SC 9): Mileage: 6.18 miles (32,640 lf). Trail type and location: A multi-purpose path located within public right-of-way and permanent greenway easement. To avoid potential conflicts with heavy traffic areas, the greenway trail should follow the eastern side of US Highway 17, Morgan Avenue, 6 th Avenue North, and SC Highway 90 before returning to the eastern side of US Highway 17. From there, the greenway will enter Little River by way of Baldwin Avenue, Watson Avenue, Waterfront Drive, Mineola Drive, Riverview Drive, and Lakeside Drive. The greenway trail returns to the eastern side of US Highway 17, then to SC Highway 179. This route connects residential communities, the waterfront in Little River, and planned East Coast Greenway segments in North Carolina. Nearby destinations: Little River, Vereen Memorial Historical Gardens Description: This segment of East Coast Greenway provides connectivity between North and South Carolina. Moving south to north, the majority of the route will be located along the eastern side of US Highway 17 with a short segment through Little River. The trail will follow Highway 179 into North Carolina. This segment will provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities for a number of residential communities within the immediate vicinity (Figure 11). Project Costs: $1,955, Figure 11: ECG Segment State Line to Sea Mountain Highway 15

20 6. US Highway 17 Bridges over the Pee Dee and Waccamaw Rivers (Winyah Bay): Trail type and location: A multi-purpose path located within public right-of-way and as a dedicated bridge lane. A permanent greenway easement may be necessary on the Waccamaw Neck end of the bridge. The trail should be located on the southern side of the bridge to provide connectivity to Hobcaw Barony and downtown Georgetown. Nearby destinations: Downtown Georgetown, Hobcaw Barony, and Winyah Bay Description: The East Coast Greenway will cross the Pee Dee and Waccamaw Rivers via the US Highway 17 bridges. This segment of the East Coast Greenway will complete a critical connection from downtown Georgetown to Hobcaw Barony and the Waccamaw Neck (Figure 12). Given the age, functionality, and safety of these bridges, the addition of bicycle and pedestrian facilities will need to be included in a bridge overhaul or bridge replacement project. However, the Pee Dee or Waccamaw bridges are not on SCDOT s replacement priority list. The bridges, built in 1966 and 1967, score a sufficiency rating of approximately 70% in the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) database. Given this information, it is prudent to explore available options for providing dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities across the Pee Dee and Waccamaw Rivers. Each option will need to consider the following design constraints: Figure 12: ECG Segment US 17 Over Pee Dee and Waccamaw Rivers 16

21 Replacement of the existing bridges will occur, though the time table for replacement is unknown. The proposals and final solution should be located in the existing SCDOT right-of-way. The bridges are located in a significant seismic zone. Alternate 1: Total Replacement Incorporating the multi-use path as part of a total bridge replacement by SCDOT would be the most economical solution. However, the existing US 17 bridges are not deficient and SCDOT has not programmed the structures for replacement. Selecting this option could delay the multi-use path at this location for a number of decades. Moreover, this option will place the cyclists and pedestrians in relatively close proximity to traffic. Although protected by a barrier, this may not be the most aesthetically pleasing option compared to others. Alternative 2: Attachment to Existing Structure By extending the existing pier caps to support widening the existing bridge deck, the multi-use path could be attached to the existing bridges. This method would require additional foundation work and additional beam lines to carry the new deck. The FHWA and SCDOT are usually unwilling to allow attachments to their bridges. Bridge attachments can be detrimental to the structural integrity of the existing bridges as well as make bridge inspection operations more difficult. The investment to attach a dedicated bicycle and pedestrian structure to the existing bridges would limit the life of the improved structures to the remaining life of the existing bridges. Alternative 3: Freestanding Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge Constructing new freestanding bridges on the Waccamaw and Pee Dee Rivers strictly for bicycle and pedestrian travel offers many advantages as a solution. The choices could range from a utilitarian slab-beam bridge to a signature structure type bridge like a cable-stayed or a suspension bridge. A more expensive, signature structure type bridge carries the advantage of serving as a major showcase for the East Coast Greenway and could attract many visitors to the facility. In each case, the structure would provide a more pleasing greenway experience with scenic views and separation from vehicular traffic. The structures would be designed to current codes, so concerns of earthquake resistance would be minimized. The freedom of choice of structure type is limited only by requirements to promote river flow and satisfy clearance requirements for the rivers channels. Project Costs: Alternate 1: $3,975, Alternate 2: $6,075, Alternate 3: $7,075, to $9,775,

22 3. Safe Routes to School LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE Congress approved funding in 2005 for each state to establish a Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program. The program encourages school children to walk and bike to school. SRTS assists community groups and schools with planning and developing safe, dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the direct vicinity of schools. Projects eligible for SRTS funding must show that planned facilities and programs will improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians, reduce traffic around schools, and promote healthy lifestyles for school children and their parents. Organizations eligible to apply for SRTS funding include K-8 schools, school districts, municipalities, and other government agencies. 3.1 Qualification Criteria This section of the GSATS Long Range Transportation Plan 2035 Update focuses on identifying elementary and middle schools within the GSATS Study Area that are eligible for SRTS funding. This funding, if awarded, will be used to connect elementary and middle schools to surrounding neighborhoods with safe, dedicated pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities. The following qualifier and prioritization criteria have been developed to assist GSATS and local school districts in preparing a prioritized list of schools for SRTS funding. In order to qualify for SRTS funding, the school must meet the following criteria: Qualifier #1: School must be an elementary or middle school. Qualifier #2: School must have a minimum of 200 dwelling units within a 1.5 mile radius of the school. Qualifier #3: School must have not previously received funding from the Safe Routes to School program. 3.2 Schools Meeting Qualifications The schools meeting the qualification criteria in the GSATS area are listed in Table 3. Table 3: Schools Meeting SRTS Qualification Criteria Georgetown County Schools Elementary Schools Andrews Elementary Kensington Elementary Maryville Elementary McDonald Elementary Intermediate Schools Waccamaw Intermediate Middle Schools Rosemary Middle Waccamaw Middle 18

23 Horry County Schools Elementary / Primary Schools Aynor Elementary Burgess Elementary Carolina Forest Elementary Conway Elementary Daisy Elementary Forestbrook Elementary Green Sea Floyds Elem. Homewood Elementary Kingston Elementary Lakewood Elementary Loris Elementary Midland Elementary Myrtle Beach Elementary Myrtle Beach Primary North Myrtle Beach Elementary North Myrtle Beach Primary Ocean Bay Elementary Palmetto Bays Elementary Pee Dee Elementary Seaside Elementary Elementary Schools Socastee Elementary South Conway Elementary St. James Elementary Waccamaw Elementary Bridgewater Academy - Charter Intermediate Schools Myrtle Beach Intermediate North Myrtle Beach Intermediate Middle Schools Aynor Middle Black Water Middle Conway Middle Forestbrook Middle Loris Middle Myrtle Beach Middle North Myrtle Beach Middle Ocean Bay Middle St. James Middle Whittemore Park Middle Bridgewater Academy 3.3 Priority Criteria Once candidate schools for Safe Routes to School funding have been identified, it is necessary to determine which schools have a greater need for bicycle and pedestrian facility improvement or development. The following priority criteria has been developed to ensure that those schools with the greatest need are given high priority status for the development of bicycle and pedestrian improvements through SRTS funding. Each priority item has been assigned a point value. These criteria include: Priority Item #1: Absence of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities: 6 points Priority Item #2: Gaps in existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities: 3 points Priority Item #3: Unsafe and sub-standard pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities (crosswalks, pedestrian crossing signals, accessible ramps, etc.): 3 points Priority Item #4: Proximity to existing and/or planned bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure- 1-mile radius: 2 points Priority Item #5: Proximity to connectivity barriers- 1-mile radius (major roadways, natural features, etc.): 2 points 19

24 Priority Item #6: Percentage of students who currently walk or bike to school (goal is to increase walking and biking to school above current levels): subtract 0.5 points for every 10 percentage points of current students who walk or bike The point value is applied for each priority item that applies to a given school. A high priority item value indicates a greater need for SRTS funding and bicycle and pedestrian facility development or enhancement. Table 4 is an example for applying priority item values to two fictional schools: Priority Items Table 4: Safe Routes to School Priority Scoring Example Available Points Example Elementary A Example Elementary B Priority Item #1: Absence of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities 7 X Priority Item #2: Gaps in existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities 3 X Priority Item #3: Unsafe and sub-standard pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities (crosswalks, pedestrian crossing 3 X signals, accessible ramps, etc.) Priority Item #4: Proximity to existing and/or planned bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure- 1-mile radius 2 X Priority Item #5: Proximity to connectivity barriers- 1- mile radius (major roadways, natural features, etc.) 2 X Priority Item #6: Percentage of students who currently -5 (100% walk or walk or bike to school (goal is to increase walking and bike to school) biking to school above current levels): -2 (43%) -3 (64%) Points Applicable 7 5 The scoring example provided in Table 4 illustrates that Example Elementary A achieved a higher score and thus a greater need for SRTS assistance. The following bicycle and pedestrian facility construction and improvement items represent the minimum standard improvements that must be addressed for an elementary or middle school receiving SRTS funding. Sidewalks Crosswalks Curb ramps (ADA accessible ramps) School crossing signage The following bicycle and pedestrian facility construction and improvement items represent the recommended standard improvements that may be addressed for an elementary or middle school receiving SRTS funding. 20

25 Multi-purpose paths; High visibility crosswalks; Speed bumps; Pedestrian signals (intersection or mid-block), and; Driveway aprons. More detailed information regarding these improvements, including descriptions and facility dimensions, may be found in Section 6, Typical Bicycle and Pedestrian Enhancement Facilities, of this report. 4. Other Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Improvement Projects Purpose: Fill gaps and increase safety in bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Previous sections have focused on the construction of new facilities to provide additional routes for bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. This section focuses on identifying and closing gaps in existing facilities and improving currently unsafe or underperforming facilities. Existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities have been evaluated to determine each facility s level of service (LOS). This assessment followed a method developed by the Florida Department of Transportation within the 2009 FDOT Quality/Level of Service Handbook 3. The LOS measures a number of factors and, using a series of mathematical equations, determines the safety and effectiveness of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 4.1 Level of Service Factors Existing roadways, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities within the GSATS Study Area were evaluated using LOS evaluation techniques. Factors considered when measuring the LOS for bicycle facilities included. Average width of the outside travel lane; Vehicle volumes; Posted speed limits; Volume of truck traffic, and; Condition of the paved surface. Factors considered when measuring the LOS for pedestrian facilities included: 3 State of Florida Department of Transportation, 2009 FDOT Quality/Level of Service Handbook,

26 Presence of a sidewalk; Separation between the travel lane and sidewalk; Vehicle volumes, and; Posted speed limits. The results of the LOS study provide a list of existing roadways and transportation facilities that are currently considered unsafe or underperforming for cyclists and pedestrians. These lists can be found in this report under Section 5, Multi-Modal Facilities for Construction and Improvements Projects. 4.2 Existing Facilities The project team evaluated the available bicycle and pedestrian data by identifying the existing facilities and mapping the current connectivity provided by those facilities. Bicycle Facilities: Mapping data for bicycle facilities showed the existence of bike lanes, Share the Road roadways, and multi-purpose trails. Pedestrian Facilities: Mapping data for pedestrian facilities showed the existence of sidewalks or multipurpose trails. This data was further categorized into sidewalks that are narrow, standard, and wide. Wide sidewalks are multi-purpose trails. The attached map in Figure 13 depicts the existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the GSATS Study Area. 5. Multi-Modal Facilities for Construction and Improvement Projects Purpose: Include comprehensive and connected bicycle and pedestrian facilities in all future roadway construction and improvement projects. 5.1 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety The need for bicycle and pedestrian facilities has been documented in past planning efforts. However, these facilities need to be developed with the user s safety in mind. Dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities provide citizens a viable choice for transportation. It is important that roadways within the GSATS Study Area provide safe facilities that accommodate multiple 22

27 modes of transportation. The following guidelines provide recommendations to integrate bicycle and pedestrian facilities in all future roadway construction and improvement projects. Figure 13: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 23

28 Dedicated bicycle facilities within the roadway are a rapidly growing trend in transportation. New York City continues to integrate bicycle lanes into city streets, adding approximately 90 miles of bike lanes in 2008 alone. 4 The importance of providing safe, dedicated bicycle facilities along South Carolina s roadways has been recognized by the South Carolina Department of Transportation. 5 It is important to incorporate bicycle facilities in roadway construction and improvement projects to increase multi-modal transportation options and provide a safe, dedicated space for cyclists. Dedicated pedestrian facilities along roadways are very important as well. Walking continues to be America s most popular recreation activity according the National Sporting Goods 6 Association s 2009 National Recreation Participation Survey. Providing well planned dedicated facilities for pedestrians not only provides citizens recreation opportunities, but promotes sustainable options for transportation, and decreases the risk of conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. 5.2 Roadway Cross-sections The following roadway cross-sections are designed and influenced by cross-sections developed by SCDOT. Each cross-section depicts the incorporation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities within roadway construction and improvement projects. These cross-sections are recommended for incorporation on all roadway construction and improvement projects within the GSATS Study Area. The characteristics of the selected cross-sections provide safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities for a range of users, taking into account age and ability Sidewalks with Bike Lanes or Shared Road This cross-section is designed to accommodate both cyclists and pedestrians in medium density development areas of mixed uses. Bike lanes and shared roads provide facilities for moderate to experienced riders, those using their bicycles for transportation, and those participating in longer distance bicycle rides for recreation. Bike lanes are generally restricted to roads with speed limits of 35 miles per hour or less. Sidewalks located on either side of the roadway provide dedicated facilities for pedestrians, but are not designed for bicycle use. Pedestrian facilities must be separated from travel lanes by a landscape buffer along state highway system roadways in accordance with SCDOT policy when curb and gutter is not present. An eight-foot 4Victoria Broadus. Life in the Bike Lane: New York City, July 28, South Carolina Department of Transportation, South Carolina Department of Transportation Engineering Directive Memorandum No. 22, December 16, National Sporting Goods Association, 2009 Sport Participation,

29 wide landscape buffer is recommended as a minimum. Landscape buffers provide a more desirable walking environment for pedestrians by designating space for landscape improvements and creating greater separation between pedestrians and vehicles. The width of the buffer should be maximized in accordance to the amount of right-of-way available (Figure 14). Figure 14: Sidewalks with Bike Lanes or Shared Road Cross-Section The following roadways, separated by county, were identified in the bicycle and pedestrian LOS evaluation as currently unsafe or underperforming facilities for cyclists and pedestrians. It is recommended that the above detailed cross section for sidewalks with bike lanes or shared roads be applied to each of the listed roadways. The criteria involved in the LOS evaluation paired with the overall planned bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the GSATS Study Area were used to determine the recommended facility improvement (Table 5). 25

30 Table 5: LOS Study Facilities: Sidewalk with Bike Lane or Shared Road Georgetown County Road Name Length (ft.) Road Name Length (ft.) 1 ALEX ALFORD DR 3, KING ST 2, ANTHUAN MAYBANK DR 4, LANDGRAVE ST BAY ST 3, MACKLEN AV 2, BELLAMY AV 2, MARTIN LUTHER KING RD 7, BOURNE ST 1, MARTIN ST BRITT ST 1, MEETING ST 2, BROAD ST 2, MERRIMAN RD 8, BURGESS RD MURRELLS INLET RD 7, BUTTS ST OAK ST 1, CANNON ST 2, OLD KINGS HWY 13, CARSON AV 1, ORANGE ST 1, CHURCH ST 5, PALMETTO ST 2, CLELAND ST 2, PARKERSVILLE RD 3, CONGDON ST 4, PENDERGRASS AV 2, DEKALB ST 1, PETIGRU DR 9, DOZIER ST 2, POPLAR ST DUKE ST 7, PRINCE CREEK PKWY 7, DUNCAN AVE 1, PRINCE ST 6, EMANUEL ST 2, QUEEN ST 2, FRASER ST SCREVEN ST 2, FRONT ST 8, SMITH ST GILBERT ST SOUTH ISLAND RD 11, GREENWICH DR 4, ST JAMES ST 3, HAWKINS ST SUNNYSIDE AV 2, HAZARD ST 2, TURNTABLE RD 5, HIGHMARKET ST 7, VIOLET ST HORRY ST 2, WASHINGTON ST 1, HUGER DR 1, WESLEY RD 10, INDIGO AVE 3, WILKINSON ST JOURNEYS END RD 1, WILLOWBANK RD KAMINSKI ST 3, WINYAH ST 3, KENSINGTON BLVD 4, WOOD ST 2, Total Length (feet) 218,

31 Horry County Road Name Length (ft.) Road Name Length (ft.) 1 10TH AVE EXT N 1, TH AVE S 3, TH AVE S 5, TH AVE S 1, TH AVE S 8, RD AVE N 1, TH AVE N TH AVE N 3, TH AVE S 6, TH AVE S 3, TH AVE N ND AVE N 3, TH AVE S 5, TH AVE N 5, TH AVE S 7, TH AVE N ST AVE S TH AVE 1, TH AVE N TH AVE S 4, TH AVE S 1, TH AVE N ST AVE EXT N 6, ST AVE N ST AVE N 9, ND AVE N ST AVE S 3, RD AVE N ND AVE N TH AVE N RD AVE N 2, TH AVE N TH AVE N 3, TH AVE N 4, TH AVE N TH AVE N TH AVE S 1, TH AVE N 4, TH AVE N TH AVE N 1, TH AVE S 2, ND PKY 11, TH AVE N 1, TH AVE N 7, TH AVE S TH AVE N 1, TH AVE N 7, TH AVE S 2, TH AVE S 3, ALMERIA CT ND AVE N 3, ARUNDEL ND AVE S 4, BALDWIN AVE 1, TH AVE S 1, BAREFOOT RESORT DR 5, ST AVE S 1, BAY RD 13, ND AVE S 2, BEAVER RUN BLVD 3, RD AVE S 3, BIG BLOCK RD TH AVE N BRIARWOOD DR 1, TH AVE S 2, BURCALE RD 9, TH AVE N 6, CALHOUN RD TH AVE N CARVER ST 3, RD AVE N CATENA LN 1, RD AVE S 6, CELEBRITY CIR 10, TH AVE N 1, CHESTER ST 3, TH AVE S 2, CLAYPOND RD 3, TH AVE N 5, CLUB COURSE DR 2, COASTAL GRAND CIR 5, LAKESIDE DR 2, COMPASS POINTE DR LAKEVIEW DR 2, CORTONA DR LEGION ST

32 Horry County Road Name Length (ft.) Road Name Length (ft.) 84 COUNTRY CLUB DR 1, LITTLE RIVER NECK RD 12, COVENTRY RD 1, LITTLE RIVER RD 4, CYPRESS AVE 3, LUMBER ST DRIFTWOOD DR 1, MAIN ST 1, DUFFY ST 4, MALLARD LAKE DR 4, DUNBAR ST 3, MAPLE ST 1, E HWY 9 1, MCCORMICK RD 3, EAST COAST LN MELODY LN 3, ELM AVE MEYERS AVE 3, ENTERPRISE RD 7, MORGAN AVE 2, FARROW PKY MR JOE WHITE AVE 9, FLAGG ST MT ZION RD 7, FREEWOODS RD 8, MYRTLE PL 1, FRONTAGE RD 7, N HIGHLAND WAY 1, FRONTAGE RD S 3, N HOLLYWOOD DR 3, GLENNS BAY RD 8, N HWY 17 3, GREENS BLVD 1, N KINGS HWY 8, HAMPTON CIR N MYRTLE ST 1, HASKELL CIR N OCEAN BLVD 63, HEMINGWAY ST 2, N STRAND PKY 3, HEMLOCK AVE NIXON ST 3, HILLSIDE DR N 4, OAK ST 13, HILLSIDE DR S 13, OCEAN POINTE CT HILTON DR OSCEOLA ST 2, HOWARD AVE PALMETTO POINTE BLVD 7, HWY , PAMPAS DR 3, HWY 15 5, PERRIN DR 1, HWY 396 2, PHILLIS BLVD HWY 501 BUS 9, PINE LAKE DR 3, HWY 544 2, POINSETT RD 1, HWY 73 2, PRIDGEN RD 4, JACKSON ST 1, PRINCE CREEK PKY 4, JORDAN RD 1, RAGIN ST 1, KING ST 3, RIVERVIEW DR 1, KINGS RD S HOLLYWOOD DR 5, KINGSWOOD DR 1, S HWY 17 11, LAKE DR 4, S KINGS HWY 3, S MYRTLE ST ST JOSEPH RD 2, S OAK ST SURFSIDE DR 3, S OCEAN BLVD 39, TOWNSEND RD 1, SALEM RD 4, TRADEWIND CT SANDRIDGE RD 10, UNIVERSITY BLVD 4, SAYEBROOK PKY 2, VERONA DR 1,

33 Horry County Road Name Length (ft.) Road Name Length (ft.) 167 SCIPIO LN 3, VISTA DR 4, SEA ISLAND WAY 1, WASHINGTON ST 1, SEA MOUNTAIN HWY WATER FRONT AVE 1, SEA VISTA LN 1, WATSON AVE 1, SEABOARD ST 12, WEST PERRY RD 10, SEAFARER WAY WILD IRIS DR 3, SEVILLE DR 2, WINDY HILL RD 1, SHINE AVE 1, WINDY HILL ROAD EXT 2, SIXTY FIRST AVE WITHERS ALY SOUTH STRAND DR WITHERS DR 2, SPRING ST 1, WITHERS SWASH DR 2, YE OLDE KINGS HWY 1, Total Length (feet) 733, Multipurpose Path This cross-section is designed to accommodate both cyclists and pedestrians in medium to high density mixed use development areas. Multipurpose paths provide an off-road alternative for younger, more inexperienced cyclists not provided by bike lanes or shared roads. The added width of multipurpose paths allows for pedestrians to walk alongside cyclists. The minimum width of a multipurpose path is 8, though 10 width is preferred for most environments. A 12 wide multipurpose path in very high traffic or high density development areas should be considered. A traditional 5 wide sidewalk on the opposite side of the road provides dedicated facilities for pedestrians on either side of the road. A minimum 5 wide (8 preferred) landscape buffer should be located between the sidewalk and back of curb if right-of-way allows. Landscape buffers provide a more desirable walking environment for pedestrians by designating space for landscape improvements and creating greater separation between pedestrians and vehicles. (Figure 15). 29

34 Figure 15: Multipurpose Path Cross-Section The following roadways, separated by county, were identified in the bicycle and pedestrian LOS evaluation as currently unsafe or underperforming facilities for cyclists and pedestrians. It is recommended that the above detailed cross section for multipurpose paths be applied to each of the listed roadways as improvements to the existing infrastructure are warranted. The criteria involved in the LOS evaluation paired with the overall planned bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the GSATS Study Area were used to determine the recommended facility improvement (Table 6). 30

35 Table 6: LOS Study Facilities: Multipurpose Path Georgetown County Road Name Length (ft.) Road Name Length (ft.) 1 ATALAYA RD 3, MARTIN LUTHER KING RD AVIATION BLVD OCEAN HWY 73, BOYLE DR 1, PENDERGRASS AV BROWNS FERRY RD 3, PETIGRU DR BUS 17 10, REUNION DR 4, DUPRE DR S WACCAMAW DR 16, FRASER ST 16, TRACE DR 1, HWY 17 BUSINESS 9, WACHESAW RD KENSINGTON BLVD WAVERLY RD 4, KINGS RIVER RD 12, WILLBROOK BLVD 9, LAKESHORE DR 3, Total Length (feet) 174, Horry County Road Name Length (ft.) Road Name Length (ft.) 1 24TH AVE N INLET SQUARE DR 3, ATLANTIC AVE 4, KINGS RD 6, CLUB COURSE DR LAKE ARROWHEAD RD 5, COX FERRY RD 2, LITTLE RIVER NECK RD 3, DICK POND RD 14, MCDOWELL SHORTCUT RD 13, E COX FERRY RD 3, MYRTLE RIDGE DR 12, E HWY 9 17, N HWY 17 BYP 71, FARROW PKY 3, N KINGS HWY 39, FORESTBROOK RD 7, N OCEAN BLVD FRONTAGE RD 8, N WACCAMAW DR 5, FRONTAGE RD B-2 7, PRESTWICK CLUB DR 6, FRONTAGE RD S RIVER OAKS DR 26, GARDNER LACY RD 9, S HWY 17 9, HARRELSON BLVD 5, S HWY 17 BUS 13, HILL ST 2, S HWY 57 7, HORRY GEORGETOWN BLVD 2, S KINGS HWY 18, HWY 17 9, SEA MOUNTAIN HWY 6, HWY 17 BUS 2, SHORE DR 3, HWY 179 4, SINGLETON RIDGE RD 8, HWY , TECHNOLOGY BLVD 1, HWY , TOURNAMENT BLVD 7, HWY , TPC BLVD 1, HWY 801 1, W COX FERRY RD INDIGO CLUB RD WATER TOWER RD 7, Total Length (feet) 460,

36 A number of roadways with existing sidewalks were identified for expansion into multipurpose paths. The following roadways were identified in the bicycle and pedestrian LOS evaluation as currently unsafe or underperforming facilities for cyclists and pedestrians. It is recommended that the above detailed cross section for multipurpose paths be applied to each of the listed roadways as expansions to the existing infrastructure are warranted. The criteria involved in the LOS evaluation paired with the overall planned bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the GSATS Study Area were used to determine the recommended facility improvement (Table 7). Table 7: LOS Study Facilities: Expand to Multipurpose Path Horry County Road Name Length (feet) 1 CHESTNUT RD 3, DICK POND RD 10, GEORGE BISHOP PKY 2, HWY HWY MAIN ST 6, N KINGS HWY 38, SEA MOUNTAIN HWY 8, SOCASTEE BLVD 11, WACCAMAW BLVD 2, Total Length (feet) 85, Bike Lanes or Shared Roads This cross-section is designed to accommodate only cyclists along roadways with low to medium volumes of traffic. These roadways are located in less populated areas of the study area or within residential areas where traffic speeds and volumes are low. Bike lanes along these roads will provide facilities for moderate and experienced riders. Beginner cyclists may be comfortable using bike lanes in low speed limit areas where the traffic volume is low. Pedestrian facilities are not provided in this cross-section due to the environments in which these roadways exist. The likelihood of someone walking as their form of transportation along these roadways is low when considering the longer distances between destinations (Figure 16). 32

37 Figure 16: Bike Lanes or Shared Road Cross-Section The following roadways were identified in the bicycle and pedestrian LOS evaluation as currently unsafe or underperforming facilities for cyclists. It is recommended that the above detailed cross section for bike lanes or shared roads be applied to each of the listed roadways as improvements to the existing infrastructure are warranted. The criteria involved in the LOS evaluation paired with the overall planned bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the GSATS Study Area were used to determine the recommended facility improvement (Table 8). 33

38 Table 8: LOS Study Facilities: Bike Lanes and Shared Road Georgetown County Road Name Length (ft.) Road Name Length (ft.) 1 ANNA HIOTT CT 3, KINGS RIVER RD 17, ASPEN LP 4, LITCHFIELD DR 2, AVIATION BL 8, MYRTLE AV 7, BLOCKADE DR 9, NORRIS DR 8, BLUESTEM DR 6, NORTH SANTEE RIVER RD 25, BOYLE DR PARKER DR 5, BROOKGREEN DR 3, PAVILLION LN CAUSEWAY RD 8, SANDY ISLAND RD 12, CLEMENCE LP 1, SEASHORE DR 3, COUNTRY CLUB DR SOUTH ISLAND RD 28, CROOKED OAK DR 7, SPRINGS AV 4, ESTERVILLE DR 14, TERRAPIN RD 3, FRASER ST 15, THEODOSIA DR HAGLEY DR 5, TRUE BLUE DR 1, HAWTHORN DR 7, TYSON DR 5, HAZARD ST WACHESAW RD 13, HENRY FLAGG LP 1, WILLETT RD 1, JETTY DR 6, WILLIAM ALSTON LP 6, JOSHUA WARD RD 2, WINDOVER DR 1, Total Length (feet) 263, Boardwalk This cross-section is designed to accommodate both cyclists and pedestrians through areas with difficult site conditions. Like multipurpose paths, boardwalks provide an off-road alternative for younger, more inexperienced cyclists not provided by bike lanes or shared roads. The width of boardwalks allow for pedestrians to walk alongside cyclists on the same facility. The minimum width of a boardwalk is 10. A 12 wide boardwalk may be desired in high traffic areas. Boardwalks differ from multipurpose paths because they are not built on grade, but rather raised off of the ground by posts. Boardwalks should be used in environmentally sensitive areas where connectivity is necessary, but disturbance to the site must be minimized. Boardwalks may also prove to be a more acceptable alternative in areas where grading is necessary but filling within that area is restricted or prohibited (Figure 17). 34

39 Figure 17: Boardwalk Cross-Section The following areas along roadways were identified in the bicycle and pedestrian LOS evaluation as currently unsafe or underperforming facilities for cyclists and pedestrians. It is recommended that the above detailed cross section for boardwalks be applied to each of the listed roadways as improvements to the existing infrastructure are warranted. The criteria involved in the LOS evaluation paired with the overall planned bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the GSATS Study Area were used to determine the recommended facility improvement (Table 9). Table 9: LOS Study Facilities: Multipurpose Boardwalk Georgetown County Road Name Length (feet) 1 Meeting Street Ext Total Length (feet)

40 Multipurpose Bridge This cross-section is designed to accommodate both cyclists and pedestrians across high traffic areas. Multipurpose bridges are designed for bicycle and pedestrian traffic, not vehicular traffic. Like multipurpose paths and boardwalks, multipurpose bridges provide an off-road alternative for younger, more inexperienced cyclists not provided by bike lanes or shared Figure 18: Multipurpose Bridge Cross-section roads. The width of multipurpose bridges allows for pedestrians to walk alongside cyclists on the same facility. The minimum width of a multipurpose bridge is 10. A 12 wide or wider multipurpose bridge may be desired if anticipated use is high by cyclists and pedestrians. Multipurpose bridges are designed to span large expansive areas like roadways, creeks, or environmentally sensitive areas that cannot be disturbed or present unsafe environments for cyclists and pedestrians. When planning for a multipurpose bridge for roadway crossings, it is important to locate and site the bridge where a high volume of crossing is desired. It is also important to design the bridge as an extension of the existing grade. Most pedestrians are not willing to climb stairs to get to a multipurpose bridge and would rather cross the roadway on grade regardless of the traffic volume (Figure 18). The following roadways were identified in the bicycle and pedestrian level of service evaluation as currently unsafe or underperforming facilities for cyclists and pedestrians. It is recommended that the above detailed cross section for multipurpose bridges be applied to each of the listed roadways as improvements to the existing infrastructure are warranted. The 36

41 criteria involved in the LOS evaluation paired with the overall planned bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the GSATS Study Area were used to determine the recommended facility improvement (Table 10). Table 10: LOS Study Facilities: Multipurpose Bridge over US Highway Horry County Road Name Length (feet) 1 UNIVERSITY BLVD 1, Total Length (feet) 1, Typical Bicycle and Pedestrian Enhancement Facilities Purpose: Illustrate typical bicycle and pedestrian facility features to include in future roadway construction and improvement projects. The GSATS Study Area contains miles of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities that have been developed over many years. Some facilities no longer meet the current minimum standards for safety or Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines. These substandard facilities limit users, thereby limiting the transportation choices available to all citizens. It is important to improve aspects of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities that do not meet today s minimum requirements. The improvement of bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the GSATS Study Area will ensure that safe, accessible options for transportation are available to citizens. The following facility improvement recommendations should be used as design standards in assessing and improving existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the GSATS Study Area. 6.1 Minimum Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Improvements Minimum bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements represent the basic criteria required for all facility improvement projects. These improvements provide safe, dedicated facilities for bicycle and pedestrian transportation and should be used in all assessments and improvement projects. Sidewalks: While the vast majority of sidewalks within the GSATS Study Area are 5 wide or greater, many sidewalks are obstructed by utility poles, mailboxes, and other items. These obstructions greatly reduce the usable surface of the sidewalks and, in some cases, prevent the sidewalks from providing the 4 minimum clear width necessary for an accessible route. Sidewalk assessments should observe sidewalk presence, width, obstructions, and surface condition. Priority should be given to areas where no sidewalk exists. 37

42 The minimum sidewalk width required by SCDOT is 5 wide. The maximum cross-slope of a sidewalk is two percent. The grade of the sidewalk must mirror the grade of the road. It is important to maintain a clear line of sight between 2 and 7 off of the ground on both sides of the sidewalk for pedestrian safety and visibility to nearby travel lanes, driveways, and parking areas (Figure 19). Figure 19: Sidewalk Details This corridor enhancement project in Rock Hill, SC provides a safer and enjoyable environment for pedestrians. The new 5 wide sidewalk provides an uninterrupted, designated pedestrian facility. Landscape buffers separate the sidewalk from nearby travel lanes. The landscape improvements allow for clear visibility to the travel lanes and driveways on either side of the sidewalk Curb Ramps: Curb ramps provide an accessible route from the grade of sidewalks to road grades in areas where curbs exist. Most curbs are 6 in height. Ramps provide a smooth transition for wheelchairs and those with visual impairments. It is important to locate curb ramps at all intersections or midblock crossings. The maximum slope for curb ramps is 8.33 percent. Each curb ramp shall be a minimum 4 wide. Flared sides with a maximum slope of ten percent must be provided for each curb ramp unless the ramp is located within a vegetated buffer between the curb and the sidewalk. 38

43 Detectable warnings, also called truncated domes, must be a minimum 2 deep, as wide as the ramp, not including the flared sides, and located at the base of the curb ramp. Truncated domes signify the edge of the ramp where the height of the curb tapers to zero (Figure 20). Diagonal curb ramps are recommended, but both perpendicular and parallel curb ramps may be used if site conditions warrant. Storm drains should be avoided when retrofitting existing sidewalks with curb ramps. Figure 20: Curb Ramp Details Crosswalks: Crosswalks serve as an extension of sidewalks into the roadway. Delineated crosswalks provide motorists a visual boundary of where to expect pedestrians. They also assure pedestrians that crossing at the intersection is allowed. Minimum crosswalk width required by SCDOT is 6 delineated by one 4 wide stripe on either side, or a transverse crosswalk. It is recommended that crosswalks be 10 wide and extend the length of the crossing. Higher visibility of crosswalks is important for high traffic areas and along urban roadways (Figure 21). 39

44 Figure 21: Crosswalk Details Crosswalks in Cambridge, Massachusetts, / Dan Burden It recommended that longitudinal or diagonal crosswalks be used in these areas in favor of transverse crosswalks (Figure 22). Crosswalks should be located at all controlled intersections served by sidewalks and uncontrolled intersections when the speed limit for both roads is 35mph or lower. Crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections of multi-lane roads (roads with four or more lanes) with higher traffic volumes should be evaluated for need and safety before crosswalks are provided. Curb radii at intersections should be evaluated in all roadway and intersection improvement projects. A smaller curb radii reduces the distance a pedestrian must travel across the crosswalk, thereby reducing the time the pedestrian is exposed to potential conflicts with automobiles. 6.2 Recommended Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Improvements Recommended bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements provide additional safety and comfort beyond the minimal bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements. These facility improvements create more predictable bicycle and pedestrian behaviors from an automobile s perspective. Though not necessary for bicycle and pedestrian transportation, these recommended facility improvements should be assessed and considered for all bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects. 40

45 Figure 22: Crosswalk Details Government agencies adopt one or more crosswalk striping patterns according to their needs. While a traverse pattern works well in defining crosswalks, many agencies choose to use diagonal or longitudinal patterns for crosswalks in high traffic areas. Driveway Aprons: Driveway aprons represent a problematic area along sidewalks. The slope of most driveway aprons exceeds the maximum sidewalk cross-slope of two percent. Simply updating the detail used to construct driveway aprons for proposedimprovement projects will result in a more accessible and user friendly environment (Figure 23). Frequency and width of driveway aprons presents another problematic issue. Each driveway apron represents the potential for conflict between cyclists or pedestrians and automobiles. Driveway aprons should be consolidated if connectivity between parking lots can be provided. A maximum width of 24 for two lane driveway aprons should be allowed. Driveways that serve heavily visited shopping centers and other major generators of traffic should be treated like an intersection. 41

46 Figure 23: Driveway Apron Details All new driveway aprons should provide a walking surface, where sidewalks are available, with a minimum two percent cross slope for a minimum width of four feet. Pedestrian Signals: Pedestrian signals, known more commonly as walk/don t walk signs, are an important safety feature at the intersections of high volume roadways. These signals perform a very simple function, yet they make an intersection more predictable for cyclists and pedestrians when using crosswalks. Pedestrian actuated buttons should be provided in areas where continual pedestrian traffic is not anticipated, but traffic speed and volume dictates the need for crossing signalization. Pedestrian signal buttons should be located within close proximity of the intersection and signed to clearly indicate the direction of crossing controlled by that button. Auditory warnings should be incorporated into pedestrian signals in areas of high pedestrian traffic. These warnings provide an indicator to the visually impaired during the walk interval of the pedestrian signal. Signal timing for crossing intersections should be designed to accommodate a person of below average walking speed. A pedestrian walking speed of three feet per second should allow most pedestrians to safely cross the road within the allotted amount of time (Figure 24). 42

47 Figure 24: Pedestrian Signal Details Pedestrian signals should be placed in locations that are easily seen from across an intersection and nearby curb ramps. This location provides access to the pedestrian actuated button (if available) and accurate guidance to the visually impaired for signals with auditory warnings. Landscape Buffers: Landscape buffers provide separation between off-road bicycle and pedestrian facilities and traffic on the roadway. Grass, street trees, small shrubs and groundcover plantings, roadway and pedestrian lighting, street furnishings, and signage are often located within these areas. The minimum width for landscape buffers if street trees are planned is 5 wide, though 8 is recommended. Landscape buffers under 5 in width are not as effective in providing a more comfortable environment for cyclists and pedestrians and create maintenance issues long term (Figure 25). 43

48 Figure 25: Landscape Buffer Details This landscape buffer along Harrelson Boulevard provides separation for cyclists and pedestrians from the travel lane. It is also used as a temporary detention area for storm water runoff during rain events. Medians and Pedestrian Refuge Islands: Most intersections, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals should limit the need for pedestrian refuge islands located within the roadway. Though in instances of long crosswalks, those over 60 in length, or in urban conditions where traffic calming elements are needed, a pedestrian refuge island is recommended. These islands, a minimum of 6 in width with a recommended width of 10, provide pedestrians a safe place to wait if they are unable to cross the entire intersection during the crossing interval. Refuge islands may also be needed at unsignalized crosswalks along roads with lower speed limits and a low to medium volume of cars. The islands allow pedestrians to cross traffic lanes coming from one direction, stop in the refuge island, then negotiate traffic coming from the other direction (Figure 26). 44

49 Figure 26: Median and Pedestrian Refuge Island Details Pedestrian refuge islands allow pedestrians to manage traffic from one direction at a time. Mid-Block Crossings: Long block lengths discourage pedestrians from walking to the nearest signalized intersection to cross a roadway. Instead, many pedestrians simply cross the roadway in their current location despite the volume and speed of traffic. It is not necessary to provide mid-block crossings in the middle of every block within the GSATS Study Area. Mid-block crossings should be located in areas where a high number of pedestrians cross the roadway and there are no signalized intersections with crosswalks nearby. Mid-block crossings should be used on a limited basis and developed near transit stops, hotels, shopping centers, public beach access areas, and other pedestrian traffic generators. It is very important that appropriate sight distances are available where mid-block crossings are developed and that crosswalk striping is used to distinguish the pedestrian zone on the roadway. Some areas of the United States are providing pedestrian actuated signals for mid-block crossings designed to flash, turn red, and stop traffic when a pedestrian is ready to cross the road (Figure 27). 45

50 Figure 27: Mid Block Crossing Details Mid-block crossings with pedestrian accuated signals should be considered when locating these facilities along well-traveled roadways. Bridges: Given the geography of the GSATS Study Area, bridges are essential to providing adequate connectivity within the region. It is important that bridges provide dedicated facilities for bicycles and pedestrians due to the limited number of crossings and the distance between those crossings over any given waterway, wetland, or marsh. Providing a 4 wide paved, ongrade shoulder along bridges should serve as an absolute minimum, though this solution provides little to no protection for bicycles and pedestrians. It is recommended that a 6 wide raised walkway be provided on bridges with low to medium traffic volumes and speeds and where bicycle and pedestrian traffic is light (Figure 28). Bridges that provide crucial connections across waterways with limited crossings, like the Intracoastal Waterway, and/or lie along major bicycle and pedestrian corridors, like the East Coast Greenway, should provide a dedicated bicycle and pedestrian lane with barrier separation from automobile traffic (Figure 29). Barriers for all bridges that provide multi-modal facilities should provide side protection for automobiles, cyclists, and pedestrians. 46

51 Figure 28: Bridge Details Though most pedestrians prefer separation between sidewalks and travel lanes, bridges often create obstacles for pedestrian travel because of a lack of dedicated facilities. Sidewalks located directly adjacent to travel lanes provide a dedicated facility for pedestrian travel along roadways with lower traffic volumes and speeds. Figure 29: Bridge Details Bridges should provide dedicated, multipurpose paths separated from travel lanes with barriers along major bicycle and pedestrian connectivity corridors, like the East Coast Greenway, and heavily traveled roadways. 47

52 Underpasses: Underpasses are uncommon in the GSATS Study Area though several can be found at major roadway interchanges. It is important to provide safety for cyclists and pedestrians through underpasses by providing separation from automobile traffic and ensuring high visibility for personal safety due to the enclosed nature of the structures. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities should be located between the support columns of the bridge above the roadway. This location provides high visibility to and from the travel lanes. In some cases the structure of the bridge requires that bicycle and pedestrian facilities be located behind the support columns. Widened sidewalks or multi-purpose paths and increased lighting within the underpass will help provide a safer environment in these instances (Figure 30). Figure 30: Underpass Details Cyclists and pedestrians have a clear view on both side of the multipurpose path while passing through this underpass. Separation from the travel lanes is also provided. Transit Stops: Transit stops should be located near intersections with crosswalks. Each transit stop should provide route and stop signage, a transit schedule, accessibility to and from nearby bike lanes and sidewalks, and a 5 x 8 paved wheelchair clearance area for wheelchair on and off loading. More heavily used transit stops might provide shelters, lighting, landscape improvements, and trash receptacles (Figure 31). 48

53 Figure 31: Transit Stop Details Transit stops in Austin, Texas are exceptionally elaborate, but do provide an expanded concrete loading area for wheelchairs and bicycles, / Greg Griffin Access to Adjacent Property: When incorporating bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements along roadways, access to and from adjacent properties should be assessed. Though not required, it is common practice to ensure existing connectivity to adjacent parcels from existing and improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities remains. Improvements to connections between adjacent parcels and bicycle and pedestrian facilities may be warranted to increase safety and reduce potential conflicts with automobiles (Figure 32). Street furniture (benches, trash receptacles, and drinking fountains): Though not typically thought of in transportation planning, certain sites may warrant the inclusion of street furniture as part of a bicycle and pedestrian facility improvement project. Gathering spaces and areas along the roadway near public facilities may require the addition of benches, trash receptacles, drinking fountains, public emergency telephones, pedestrian lighting, bike racks, bike lockers, and other furnishings to improve the function of the site, help ensure safety and cleanliness, and increase the curb appeal of an area (Figure 33). 49

54 Figure 32: Access to Adjacent Property Details Connections from sidewalks to the entrances of adjacent businesses were formalized during a corridor enhancement project in Rock Hill, SC. Figure 33: Street Furniture Street furnishings provide desired amenities along sidewalks through urban areas. Benches, trash receptacles, landscape improvements, and appropriate scaled lighting provide a comfortable environment. 50

55 Signage: Signage requirements along roadways with multi-modal facilities are numerous. Though other safety measures have proven to be more effective, appropriate signage is required for every roadway construction and improvement project. It is recommended that the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Handbook guide all roadway signage decisions. The version adopted by SCDOT at the time of project design/construction should be used (Figure 34) 7. Figure 34: Signage Details The Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) provides specific, detailed information for the signs and markings associated with transportation facilities, including bike lanes. 7 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition 51