Rochester Downtown Bicycle Study 2009
Relationship of ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan to Rochester Comprehensive Plan Regional Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) is prepared under the auspices of ROCOG LRTP is adopted by the city as the Transportation Element of the City s Comprehensive Plan; Downtown Bicycle Study is a refinement of the LRTP focusing on on-street bicycle needs To adopt as part of Comprehensive Plan the Study Report & Recommendations need to be considered at a public hearing by Commission & Council.
2005 Adoption of LRTP
Relationship of LRTP to Council Work Chapter 4 of the LRTP provides guidelines and policy on roadway development including issues such as right of way width, access spacing, need for auxiliary lanes such turn lanes, where residential collector roads should be considered, etc Chapter 6 of the LRTP provides system development guidance for future bikeways in the urban area, primarily in the form of Map 6-1.
Rochester Bikeway System 2007 Source: City Park & Recreation Dept.
Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) ROCOG established BPAC in 2006 BPAC focus is implementation of the recommendations in the Long Range Plan including Providing input to the City & other jurisdictions regarding the programming of bicycle and pedestrian projects Promoting bicycling and walking in Rochester and Olmsted County Outreach to local and regional trail groups, bicycle clubs, youth organizations, and major employers in Rochester and Olmsted County. Lead or participate in Bike/Ped planning studies
Downtown Study Scope Highest priority planning study identified in the LRTP was to investigate potential on-road bicycle facilities in downtown Rochester. Initial elements of this project included: Distribution of a Questionnaire targeting current cyclists who use downtown streets Evaluating the bicycle friendliness of street corridors using the Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI) and Bicycle Level of Service Index developed by FHWA. Focus of study recommendations was to identify a subset of street corridors where bike lanes or bike routes meeting state design standards could be developed that would serve needs of users
Key User needs Identified Provide safe bicycle route connections into key destinations in downtown area, such as Mayo bike parking facility Develop routes that would provide for north-south and east-west bicycle travel through the downtown Improve connections from downtown to the existing bike trail network in Rochester.
Project dovetails with Other Community Planning Efforts Active Community Planning project partnership between the City of Rochester and Blue Cross / Blue Shield Minnesota Identifying ways to remove barriers and encourage people to increase level of physical activity The 2 nd St Corridor Plan Joint Rochester Area Foundation / City study Considered multi-modal travel opportunities in corridor Resolution adopted by the Rochester City Council in 2005 under the Governor s Fit City Program.
Study Report Outline Chapter 1 - Key goals & objectives of the study Chapter 2: Estimates of recreational and nonrecreational bicycle ridership in downtown area of Rochester Chapter 3: Results of Bicycle Compatibility Assessment Chapter 4: Results of Downtown Bicycle Survey
Study Report Outline Chapter 5: Review of Design Standards for on-road bikeways Chapter 6: Assessment of Individual Corridor Needs and Feasibility of Improvements Chapter 7: Actions / improvements that could enhance accessibility or increase attractiveness for bike users Chapter 8: Recommended Downtown Bicycle Facility Plan Chapter 9: Implementation costs and Funding sources
Census Data on Bike Ridership 68% increase as reported in Place of Work results and a 27% increase reported in Place of Residence results for commuters who bike to work However, less than 1% of workers reported using the bicycle as their mode of travel to work Walking as a mode of travel to work suffered a significant decline between 1990 and 2000.
Residence of Workers Biking to Jobs Downtown
CBD Bicycle Counts 2008 (Area Bounded By 6 th Ave west, Broadway east, 6 th St SW south & Civic Center Dr. north) Source: Rochester City Public Works Department
Share of the Estimated Daily Bike Trips In CBD Share of the total estimated daily bike trips In/Out of CBD 32% Share of the total estimated Bike Trips outside of the CBD 68%
Distribution of CBD/Non-CBD Bike Crashes Source: Rochester City Public Works 2002-2008
1 st Ave. SW Broadway
Responses came from actual bicyclists Not a random survey Not necessarily representative of those who bike outside of Downtown Rochester
No of Responses Corridors used PRIMARY for BICYCLE Bicycling ROUTE IN DOWNTOWN In Downtown ROCHESTER Rochester 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 11th Ave 9th Ave 6th Ave 3rd/4th Ave 1st Ave Bdwy 2nd/3rd Ave E ZR Trail North Zumbro Trail South Bear Creek Trail Cascade trail 7th St CC Dr 2nd N Center 1st SW 2nd St SE/SW 3rd St SE/SW 4t St SE/SW 6th St SW Bike Routes
No of Responses Primary Purpose PUPOSE OF BICYCLE of TRIPS Bicycle Trips 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Recreation Only Mostly Recreation Recreation / Commute Mostly Non-recreation Non-recreation Trip Purpose Puposes
No of Responses 4.0 Motivation MOTIVATION FACTORS for FOR BICYCLING Bicycling 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Economics Emotional Health Reducing pollution & congestion Physical Health Convenience Energy Conservation
Key Barriers to Bicycling Downtown Lack of bicycle infrastructure including trails or lanes in downtown Rochester Concerns with personal safety Lack of secure bike parking facilities Motorist s aggressive behavior including passing too close to bicyclists Heavy vehicle and bus traffic on arterial roads Snow & Ice conditions in the late fall through early spring Difficulties in navigating intersections (turns) Uneven road surfaces and debris on streets
Ranking How Should HOW Bike TO FINANCE Facilities BIKE FACILITIES be Financed? 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Advertising Endowments Property Tax Surcharge on Parking Corporate Sponsorships Payement Methods Grants Sales Tax Other Ideas
Design Standards Corridors assessed for feasibility /ability to meet recommended facility standards in State Bikeway Facility Design Manual
Sample Corridor Assessment Corridor Information Sheet includes: Travel Lanes BLOS and BCI Analysis Suggested Bikeway Design Facility Implementation Strategy Potential Benefit of Improvements
Bicycle Facility Improvement Options Considered Less intrusive means such as bicycle route designation/ shared lanes Dedicated on-road space such as bike lanes Dedicated on-road space will require reallocation of roadway space impacts travel lane widths Likely to impact on-street parking Shared Travel Lanes Wide Outside Curb Lanes Bike Routes On-Street Bike Lanes
GREEN BOX, PORTLAND, OR
Recommended Downtown Improvement Plan
Estimated Costs Phase I Projects Estimated Costs of Installing Downtown Bicycle Facilities Route Termini Length (Ft) Low cost High Cost PHASE I PROJECTS 1st St SW 3 Av to 7 Av 1360 Shared Pavement Marking 8 signs/$600 $ 4,800 Diagonally Striped Lane $ 40,000 Stripe/mi $ 10,303 20 stencil/$85 $ 1,700 $ 11,440 Sign / mi $ 2,947 Restriping Parking Lane (2) $$ / mile Remove/Add (SAME) $ 4,050 Lane marking $ 2,086 $ 2,086 7 Av to 16 Av 3950 Alternate Route Signing 15 signs/$600 $ 9,000 (SAME) $ 9,000 TOTAL $ 17,586 $ 24,336 2 Av SW Soldier's Field to 2nd St SW 2900 Bike Lane $ 13,300 Stripe/Mi $ 7,305 Diagonally Striped Lane $ 40,000 Stripe/mi $ 21,970 Restriping Parking Lane (2) $ 11,440 Sign/Mi $ 6,283 $ 11,440 Sign / mi $ 6,283 $$ / mile Remove/Add (SAME) $ 4,050 Lane marking $ 4,449 $ 4,449 6th Av NW TOTAL $ 18,037 $ 32,702 Civic Center Dr to 1st St SW 1940 Bike Lane $ 13,300 Stripe/Mi $ 4,887 (SAME) $ 4,887 $ 11,440 Sign/Mi $ 4,203 $ 4,203 TOTAL $ 9,090 $ 9,090 2nd St NW 9 Av to 3 Av 2450 Shared Pavement Marking 16 signs/$600 $ 9,600 Diagonally Striped Lane $ 40,000 Stripe/mi $ 18,561 28 stencil/$85 $ 2,380 $ 11,440 Sign / mi $ 5,308 Restriping Travel & Parking Lanes (3) $ 4,050 $$ / mile Remove/Add Lane marking $ 5,638 TOTAL $ 17,618 $ 29,507 TOTAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PHASE I PROJECTS Low Cost $ 62,331 (SAME) $ 5,638 High Cost $ 95,635
Estimated Costs - Phase II Projects PHASE II PROJECTS 3rd Ave West 4th Ave West 2nd St NW to 4th St SW 2200 Bike Lane One Side $ 12,375 Restriping Travel & Parking Lanes (4) $ 4,050 Stripe + Sign per mile $$ / mile Remove/Add Lane marking $ 6,750 $ 5,156 Diagonally Striped Lane $ 40,000 Stripe/mi $ 16,667 (SAME) $ 11,440 Sign / mi $ 4,767 TOTAL $ 11,906 $ 28,183 2nd St NW to 4th St SW 2200 Bike Lane One Side $ 12,375 Restriping Travel & Parking Lanes (4) $ 4,050 Stripe + Sign per mile $$ / mile Remove/Add Lane marking $ 6,750 $ 6,750 $ 5,156 Diagonally Striped Lane $ 40,000 Stripe/mi $ 16,667 (SAME) $ 11,440 Sign / mi $ 4,767 TOTAL $ 11,906 $ 28,183 4th St SW 2nd Av to 4th Av 600 Bike Lane $ 13,300 Stripe/Mi $ 1,511 (SAME) $ 1,511 $ 11,440 Sign/Mi $ 1,300 $ 1,300 Restriping travel Lanes (3) $$ / mile Remove/Add (SAME) $ 4,050 Lane marking $ 1,381 $ 1,381 TOTAL $ 4,192 $ 4,192 $ 6,750 1st Av NW Civic Center Dr to Center St 1250 Bike Lane $ 13,300 Stripe/Mi $ 3,149 (SAME) $ 3,149 $ 11,440 Sign/Mi $ 2,708 $ 2,708 TOTAL $ 5,857 $ 5,857 TOTAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PHASE II PROJECTS Low Cost $ 33,862 High Cost $ 66,416
PARKING VS COST TO IMPLEMENT PROPOSED BIKE IMPROVEMENTS COST PER SPACE FOR ABOVE GRADE GARAGES = $ 20,000 Comparative Share of Funding needed for Downtown Bike Improvements $162,050 (1.27%) ALL BIKE IMPROVEMENTS = 8 SPACE TOTAL RAMP PARKING = 2832 = $ 56.64 MILLIONS IF WE NEEDED 600 MORE SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE THE CURRENT BICYCLISTS AND 600 FURTURE BICYCLISTS = $ 24 MILLION Funding For Bike Projects in CIP 2009-20014 Total $12,685,000