1. Elliot Road Extension design critique and recommendations Petition to the Town of Chapel Hill Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board March 25, 2014 Geoffrey F. Green 1

2. Ephesus-Fordham redevelopment 2

3. Taken from Feb. 10 presentation to Town Council, available: http://chapelhill.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=2029&meta_id=85575 3

4. 4

5. – 40 MPH design speed – 11’ travel lanes – Only 4’ bike lane, no buffering from vehicle traffic – Bus pull off causes conflict with bicyclists Problems with design 5

6. Problem: Design Speed http://nacto.org/usdg/design-speed/ The recommended design will encourage cars to drive fast, subjecting bicyclists and persons on foot to much higher risk of serious injury 6

7. http://nacto.org/usdg/lane-width/ However: “Major truck or transit routes through urban areas may require the use of wider lane widths.” Problem: Vehicle lane width 7

8. Problem: Bike lane width/buffering Four feet is the absolute minimum for a bike lane. For a new road designed from scratch, there is no reason to limit the bike lane width to the bare minimum. “Wider bike lanes (six to seven feet) and/or buffers provide additional operating space and lateral separation from moving and parked vehicles, thus increasing bicyclists’ sense of comfort and perceived safety and reducing the risk of “dooring” from parked vehicles.” http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/planning/facilities _bike_bikelanes.cfm 8

9. Problem: Bike-bus conflict The bus pull-off lane will cause conflict in two ways. First, when buses are waiting to pull in and are in conflict with bicyclists occupying the lane. Second, when buses are ready to pull out and bicyclists are occupying the lane. While the bus driver may be aware, it will cause anxiety on the part of the bicyclist. 9

10. Recommended solution 10

11. Bike lanes are buffered and wider – Safer – Encourages more cautious bicyclists Narrower lanes slow traffic Eliminates bike- bus conflict Model for the rest of the town http://bit.ly/elroad 11

12. US DOT Statement “DOT encourages transportation agencies to go beyond the minimum requirements, and proactively provide convenient, safe, and context-sensitive facilities that foster increased use by bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities, and utilize universal design characteristics when appropriate.” - 2010 US DOT Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations 12

13. Considerations Intersections – Buffered bike lanes will need to rejoin mixed traffic at either end of Elliot Road Extension – Suggestions: Roundabout at Ephesus Church end will allow for controlled integration of bicycle traffic NACTO contains models for intersection design that have been used in Portland, New York, and other urban areas Review guidelines from Dutch “CROW” Design Guide Bus pull off – If there is sufficient width, perhaps make the proposed pull-of an exclusive bus lane along the entire extension 13

14. Conclusion Proposed Elliot Road Extension design is a “complete street” in name only; perhaps acceptable for a retrofit, but not a new road with 85-foot right of way. This is a critical intersection which will provide bicyclists with a safe route away from the Ephesus Church-Fordham Blvd. intersection, which will continue to be challenging for bicyclists even after completion of the recommended improvements. 14

15. Recommendations Petition Town Council to require that Elliot Road extension: – Investigate the use of lanes narrower than 11’ – Have a design speed lower than 30 mph – Contain bicycle lanes at least 6’ wide separated from traffic by a wide buffer – Eliminate conflicts between bicycles and both buses and cars during the entire length of the new road. – Anticipate frequent traffic from bicyclists and persons on foot when evaluating creation of vehicular access points onto adjoining properties 15