1 WALK WILMINGTON A Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan Wilmington City Council Final Plan Presentation July 7, 2009

2 Vision The City of Wilmington will become a pedestrian- friendly environment where citizens and visitors have safe and attractive alternatives for walking in and around the city.

3 Research & background data

4 Public Survey Survey respondents and interviewees totaled 332 Pedestrian crossings most critical issue (online 67%, in-person 29%) Factors making it unpleasant to walk –Missing sidewalks and sidewalk gaps –Drivers not stopping for pedestrians –Heavy traffic and fast moving vehicles Areas where improvements are needed –On major corridors – 80% –Near highway intersections – 65% –Near parks and recreation areas – 50% 76% would accept roadway delay if it made it safer to walk

5 Public Comments “The existing built environment does not support pedestrian travel” “There are very few places that one does not require a car to get to” “Over 50% of bus stops do not have sidewalks” “Very few kids walk or bike to school” “At most major intersections, there are no pedestrian crosswalks or walk lights - cars rule”

6 Staff and Agency Interviews City Departments –Engineering –Traffic Engineering –Police –Parks, Recreation & Downtown Services –Planning NCDOT –Division 3 –Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Cape Fear Public Transportation Authority (WAVE Transit) New Hanover County Public Schools

7 Pedestrian Crash Statistics Wilmington second for number of crashes per capita Top 10 North Carolina Cities for Pedestrian Crashes ( ) Number of Crashes Percent of NC TotalPopulation Crashes per 10,000 People Asheville , Wilmington , Gastonia , Charlotte , Greensboro , Durham , Raleigh , Fayetteville , High Point , Winston-Salem ,

8 Pedestrian Crash Statistics Cost of pedestrian crashes to Wilmington’s economy –Includes medical costs, public services, loss of productivity, employer cost, property damage and change in quality of life Cost of Pedestrian Crashes ( ) Injury Type Cumulative Injuries Cost per Injury 1 Total K Type Injury (fatality)20 $4,200,000 $ 84,000,000 A Type Injury (disabling)45 $240,000 $ 10,800,000 B Type Injury (evident)207 $71,000 $ 14,697,000 C Type Injury (possible)240 $35,000 $ 8,400,000 O Type Injury (property damage only)29 $4,800 $ 139,200 Unknown26 Total567 $ 118,036,200 1 Estimate in 2007 dollars

9 Identify Areas of Highest Demand for Pedestrian Facilities Population Density + School Proximity + Park Proximity + Allowable zoning density Demand for Pedestrian Facilities

10 pedestrian facility recommendations

11 Recommended Improvements 450 miles of new sidewalks (publicly- and privately- funded) 182 signal improvements (funded by NCDOT and the City) –Retrofit pedestrian signals and crosswalks to existing traffic signals –Install new traffic signals with pedestrian signals –Install pedestrian hybrid signals and rectangular rapid flash beacons Phased over 20 years Prioritized areas with highest pedestrian demand Identified implementation and funding strategies –Grants (state, federal, non-profit) –Public-private partnerships –Concurrent with development –Capital improvement plan –Concurrent with road improvement projects

12 Project Phasing Improvements Short (0-5 Years) Medium (5-10 years) Long (10-20 years) Sidewalks26 miles206 mi.240 mi. Cost (approx.)$3.5 mil.$27 mil.$31 mil. Signal/crossings Cost (approx.)$4.1 mil.$1.9 mil.$1 mil. Where (generally) Downtown, older suburbs, along major arterials Older suburbs, newer areas, arterials and major collectors Newer suburbs, minor collectors

13 Map of Recommended Improvements [Sample]

14 policy recommendations

15 Policy Recommendations Amend Land Development Code Payment-in-lieu of constructing sidewalks Crosswalks and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections New pedestrian signal types –Hybrid Pedestrian Signal (HAWK) –Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB) Reduce vehicle speeds

16 Questions?

17 END OF SHOW

18 APPENDICES

19 planning inputs

20 Planning Context –Choices: Wilmington Future Land Use Plan –Wilmington Vision 2020: Downtown Waterfront Plan –WMPO Long Range Transportation Plan –Cape Fear Historic Byway Corridor Management Plan Several complementary goals, priorities and strategies in other plans. Sidewalk Priority Areas Map from Choices: Wilmington Future Land Use Plan

21 Planning Context –Choices: Wilmington Future Land Use Plan Level of Service for Sidewalks (Strategy 1.1.2) –Wilmington Vision 2020: Downtown Waterfront Plan Improve access to the Riverwalk along key pedestrian routes (Strategy 2, Action 1) Several complementary goals, priorities and strategies in other plans. Sidewalk Priority Areas Map from Choices: Wilmington Future Land Use Plan

22 Planning Context WMPO Long Range Transportation Plan –Recommends corridor improvements to better accommodate pedestrians Independence Blvd. Oleander Drive North and South Kerr Ave. Cape Fear Historic Byway Corridor Management Plan –Multiple recommendations to enhance the pedestrian experience and promote tourism and economic development “Encourage visitors to get out of their cars and safely explore the corridor…” “Increase pedestrian and biking safety along the byway corridor…”

23 Planning Context NCDOT Board of Transportation Strategic Plan –“Provide a safe and well-maintained interconnected transportation system that offers modal choices for the movement of all people and goods.” NCDOT Board of Transportation Resolution: Bicycling and Walking in North Carolina, a Critical Part of the Transportation System (2000) –“Bicycling and walking shall be a routine part of the NCDOT’s planning, design, construction, and operations activities…” –“North Carolina cities and towns are encouraged to make bicycling and walking improvements an integral part of their transportation planning and programming.”

24 Planning Context US DOT’s 2000 Guidance Memorandum- "Due consideration" defined as: –A presumption that bicyclists and pedestrians will be accommodated in the design of new and improved transportation facilities –The decision NOT to accommodate them should be the exception not the rule –Must be exceptional circumstances for denying access through design or prohibition

25 Additional planning inputs Recent developments and ongoing initiatives –Safe Routes to Schools –Neighborhood Traffic Management Program –WAVE Transit route restructuring –Cross-City Trail and River to the Sea Bikeway –Riverwalk expansion Upcoming developments –Traffic signal system upgrade –Pilot scramble intersection –North 3 rd Street streetscape project –Dawson Street and Wooster Street improvements –NCDOT spot safety improvements

26 Research & background data

27 Online and In-Person Surveys Web based survey available from February through June In-person survey conducted at Downtown at Sundown, Saturday Farmer’s Market, Juneteenth Festival

28 Field Analysis The Good –Lots of people walking –Good network downtown The Bad –Missing sidewalks along arterials and in newer areas –Many signals without ped signals or crosswalks –Drivers don’t yield to peds

29 Pedestrian Crash Statistics

30 Pedestrian Crash Statistics –Fatalities and disabling crashes concentrated along arterial roadways –Less severe crashes occurred on all road classifications

31 pedestrian facility recommendations

32 Map Existing Conditions Existing sidewalks –Almost 290 miles Existing signalized intersections Existing pedestrian signal heads Existing trails and multi-use paths

33

34

35

36

37 policy recommendations

38 Modify Land Development Code Current Practice –Sidewalk requirements are currently located in multiple sections of the document –Vague provisions for exemption from requirement to build sidewalk –Unclear requirements for internal pedestrian circulation system design and connections to adjoining sidewalks Recommendations –Consolidate sidewalk provisions into one section –Clarify that pedestrian connections to existing or proposed sidewalks are required for all construction –Provide clear guidance on the design of pedestrian facilities in parking lots

39 Payment-in-Lieu of Constructing Sidewalks Concept Allows applicants to contribute money to sidewalk fund instead of building sidewalk Sidewalk projects can be phased or consolidated Money can be used to build facilities in places where they are most needed- even off- site. Recommendation City would establish fees for pedestrian facilities Similar to park fees City would identify pedestrian benefit zones (next slide) Money must be spent within a defined time period

40 Potential Pedestrian Benefit Zones Concept Complements payment- in-lieu program Funds spent near the development and will benefit pedestrians in that zone Zones should focus on improving continuity and road crossings

41 Policy Requesting Sidewalks along and crossings of NCDOT Roadways Current Practice Neither Wilmington nor WMPO have formal policy requesting sidewalks and crossing facilities on all non limited access NCDOT road projects. Recommendation City and WMPO should adopt policy requesting sidewalks and crossing facilities on all non limited access NCDOT road projects

42 Crosswalk Marking Policies Signalized and Uncontrolled Current Policy or Practice Wilmington does not have a formal policy for when and how to mark crosswalks City is required to ask for crosswalks on NCDOT roadway Research found no NCDOT guidelines for marking crosswalks at signalized intersections NCDOT Std. Practice C-36 addresses midblock crosswalks Shipyard Blvd. and Carolina Beach Rd. Vehicles stopped in the pedestrian crossing area Example of legal marked and unmarked crossings

43 Recommendations Develop crosswalk marking guidelines Adopt NCDOT pedestrian midblock crossing policy Modify design details to show crosswalks Mark crosswalks at signalized intersections across all crossings (legs) Install pedestrian signals on signalized crossings greater than two lanes Crosswalk Marking Policies Signalized and Uncontrolled

44 Signals and Signage Turning Vehicles Yield to Pedestrians

45 Signals and Signage Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) Current Policy or Practice Wilmington does not currently have a policy for using LPI at traffic signals Recommendation City should develop LPI policy City should pilot LPI in high pedestrian demand areas (e.g. North 3 rd St. at Chestnut Street) Wilmington should consider LPI where there is high chance for auto-pedestrian conflicts

46 Signals and Signage Pedestrian actuated signals Current Policy or Practice Many push buttons are not accessible City uses push button activated signals at all pedestrian signals except downtown Recommendation City should adopt 2009 MUTCD policy for button siting and design City should upgrade non compliant buttons City should use concurrent signals in peak ped areas Push button is not accessible

47 Signals and Signage Pedestrian Hybrid Signal (HAWK) Current Policy or Practice Wilmington and NCDOT do not have current policy for pedestrian hybrid signals HAWK signals are in use in several areas around the country Recommendation City should adopt 2009 MUTCD policy for the HAWK Recommended locations for the signal include high volume multi-lane arterials with long distances between signalized intersections (e.g. Wooster Street, Market Street)

48 Signals and Signage Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB) Current Policy or Practice Wilmington and NCDOT both use conventional flashing beacons Neither agency has a policy for rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) Recommendation Wilmington should develop RRFB policy based on FHWA interim approval recommendation Wilmington should develop a standard sign detail Wilmington should develop a policy restricting the use of the conventional flashing beacon

49 Intersections and Roadway Design Turning Radius and Intersection Size Wilmington – 35 foot radius NCDOT – large radius with no islands Recommendation: - Use minimum necessary

50 Intersections and Roadway Design Island Channelization Current Policy or Practice Island channelization is used infrequently in Wilmington by NCDOT and the city Recommendation Wilmington and NCDOT should provide island channelization between though and right turning traffic –Provides pedestrians with a place to land and wait for traffic –Reduces crossing times and subsequently signal cycle lengths Island Channelization can shorten pedestrian crossings of wide roadways and minimize high speed right turns and promote motorist yielding for pedestrians. Source: Maryland SHA Raised crosswalk

51 Intersections and Roadway Design Median Refuge Islands Current Policy or Practice Wilmington and NCDOT both install median islands on arterial roadways –However they are frequently very narrow or do not accommodate all types of pedestrians Recommendation Wilmington and NCDOT should provide median islands on all roadways with four or more travel lanes –Should be at least six feet wide –Should provide pavement level cut throughs or ADA compliant curb ramps Must assess impact on intersection and roadway capacity Common median design in Wilmington Desired median width

52 Considerations Higher speeds contribute to increased likelihood of injury or death when hit Reduced speed limits provides opportunity to reduce travel lane widths- Pedestrian median refuges may be provided without increasing overall road width Wilmington may request speed limit reductions/modifications along NCDOT roadways within city limits 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 20 mphm ph 30 mph 40 mph Killing Speed and Saving Lives, UK Department of Transportation Pedestrian Fatality Related to Speed Fatalities based on speed of vehicle. A pedestrian’s chance of death if hit by a motor vehicles traveling at different speeds Intersections and Roadway Design Speed Limit Uniformity

53 Intersections and Roadway Design Speed Limit Uniformity Current Policy or Practice Wilmington does not currently have a policy for setting speed limits along arterial roadways NCDOT establishes speed limits on state roadways using 85 th percentile method –Or “35 mph or lower speed limits should be considered when the overall amount of roadside development is or exceeds 75% for a given roadway length of 0.25 mile. This development may be residential and/or commercial.” - Guidelines for the Establishment of Restrictive Speed Limits policy developed in 1995

54 Intersections and Roadway Design Speed Limit Uniformity Recommendation WMPO Functional Classification Character Zone Local or Neighborhood Collector Urban CollectorArterial Limited Access Arterial or Freeway Central Business District25 85 th percentile Urban Core25 85 th percentile Traditional Suburban th percentile Automobile-Oriented Suburban th percentile Wilmington should consider establishing speed limits based on roadway classification and character zone

55 Intersections and Roadway Design Speed Limit Uniformity Recommendation Speed limits based on road classification and surrounding land-use Lower speeds where pedestrians are likely to be present –Central Business District –Urban Core –Residential neighborhoods Influences NCDOT roadway designs

56 design details

57 Design Details Driveway design Crosswalk marking –Signalized intersections –Non-signalized intersections –Midblock crossings Crossing islands and medians Parking lot design e.g. Proposed Crossing Island Detail

58 programs education, encouragement and enforcement

59 Education, Encouragement and Enforcement Education Safe Routes to Schools –Provides funds to support projects and programs NHTSA Child Pedestrian Safety Curriculum –Develops safe walking skills in elementary school kids Collaboration with Media –Newspapers, web, radio and television Encouragement Walk to School Day –Annual event celebrating kids and parents walking Walking and Running Clubs –Regularly scheduled events –Clubs for all ages and abilities

60 Education, Encouragement and Enforcement Enforcement Police training –Pedestrian laws, rights and responsibilities –Accurate crash reporting –NCDOT officer training curriculum Targeted enforcement –Improve driver and pedestrian behaviors Jaywalking and failure to yield –Crosswalk stings –Speed control

61 Design Study Areas South College Road and New Centre Drive Shipyard Boulevard and Carolina Beach Road Eastwood Road and Military Cutoff Road

62 South College Road and New Centre Drive New Centre Drive and South College Road

63 South College Road and New Centre Drive