1. Walking and Biking the Busiest Roads Around Atlanta: a Bike/Ped Plan that establishes non-motorized transportation among regional-scale priorities Regan Hammond, Principal Planner Atlanta Regional Commission, Atlanta GA Christopher Fellerhoff, Staff Planner Sprinkle Consulting, Inc., Tampa FL PRO WALK PRO BIKE 08 Transforming Communities`

2. Bike/Ped Planning in Metro Atlanta –The Bicycle: A Plan and Program for its Use as a Mode of Transportation and Recreation (1973). –ISTEA (1991)‏ –Bicycle and Pedestrian Taskforce (1992)‏ –Atlanta Region Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Walkways Plan(1993). –Updates: 1995, 2002.

3. Bike/Ped Planning in Metro Atlanta –All provided policy direction and included project lists –Lacked a strategic vision for the prioritization of federal funds for bike/ped in the Atlanta region. –Projects recommended did not come together to form a complete network.

4. Bike/Ped Planning in Metro Atlanta –New Plan developed in 2006-2007 –Established a strategic focus to integrate non-motorized planning with regionally significant transportation issues –Developed a prioritization process for bike/ped funding assistance

5. Regionally Significant Issues in Metro Atlanta Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Environmental Justice Mobility Accessibility Safety Healthy Living “Livability” Initiatives

6. Congestion Mitigation

7. “Livability” Initiatives

8. Plan Goals and Objectives Written to address regionally significant issues, strengthening the link between bike/ped and existing regional priorities

9. Plan Goals and Objectives

10. Priority Corridors and Centers Roadways of the Regionally Strategic Transportation System

11. Priority Corridors and Centers Regionally Significant Nodes LCI study sites Cities with population greater than 5,000 County Seats Major transit facilities Major “activity centers”

13. Priority Corridors and Centers Plan recognizes that full bicycle network includes all streets

14. How to Measure Performance: Conditions that Affect Cyclists Effective Travel Width for Bicyclists On-Street Parking Encroachments Volume of Motor Vehicles Speed of Traffic Proportion of Heavy Vehicles Pavement Surface Condition

15. Photo by Sprinkle Consulting, Inc.

24. Performance Measure: Bicycle Level of Service Model Vol 15 =volume of directional traffic in 15-minute time period L=total number of through lanes SP t =effective speed limit (see below)‏ SP t = 1.12ln(SP P -20) + 0.81 SP P = Posted speed limit HV=percentage of heavy vehicles PC 5 =FHWA’s five point surface condition rating W e =Average effective width of outside through lane Bicycle LOS = a 1 ln(Vol 15 /L) + a 2 SP t (1+10.38HV) 2 + a 3 (1/PC 5 ) 2 - a 4 (W e ) 2 + C

25. Existing Conditions (2006)‏ Bicycle Level of Service Study network of 690 miles in 18 counties Results for 642 miles Distance Weighted Average of 4.54 = Bicycle LOS “E”

26. Existing Conditions (2006)‏

27. Bicycle Level of Service = “E”

28. Existing Conditions (2006)‏ Bicycle Level of Service = “E”

29. Existing Conditions (2006)‏ Bicycle Level of Service = “E”

30. Existing Conditions (2006)‏

31. Latent Demand Method Predicts probability of non-motorized trips based on proximity of generators and attractors... if impedance were removed

32. Latent Demand Method Used 2001 NHTS trip lengths for walking and biking for: Work Trips ( also used for higher ed.)‏ Shopping School Trips Social Recreational Trips Trips to Access Transit

35. Existing Conditions (2006)‏ Pedestrian Conditions Sample analysis of longitudinal conditions at high demand nodes with Pedestrian Level of Service Model Discussion of challenges of crossings, both at intersections and mid-block locations

36. Existing Conditions (2006)‏

38. Pedestrian Policy Review PEDS Survey 2006- 6 of 13 counties had standard sidewalk requirements in place Remaining counties had variable requirements Staff vigilance drives action, rather than policy

39. Bike Policy Review On street facilities may be included overlay districts or other special cases Staff vigilance drives action rather than policy

40. Existing Conditions (2006)‏ Bicycle conditions are very challenging Walking conditions are very challenging Policies are inconsistent across the region

41. Needs Assessment What level of accommodation is appropriate on this class of roadway?

42. Needs Assessment Community workshops to “find the level” Bike/Ped Levels of Service “C” chosen as a general target; Bike Ped LOS “B” for high activity areas

43. Needs Assessment Recommended strategies for improvement LOS met Re-striping Widen shoulder Detailed Corridor Study

44. Needs Assessment Consideration of Alternative Routes

45. Needs Assessment Consideration of Alternative Routes

46. Needs Assessment Strategically evaluating projects’ contributions to regional goals requires prioritization based on those goals

47. Needs Assessment Prioritization Process Magnitude of need

48. Needs Assessment Prioritization Process Latent Demand

49. Needs Assessment Prioritization Process Congestion Measure

50. Needs Assessment Prioritization Process “Votes” from Workshops

51. Needs Assessment Prioritization Process “LCI” Bonus

52. Needs Assessment Prioritization Process “Station Community” Bonus

53. Needs Assessment Prioritization Process “Local Policy” Bonus

54. Needs Assessment Prioritization Process Unit cost per mile of recommended improvements

55. Policy Initiatives and Outcomes Strategic targeting of facility investments Corridors best suited to mode shift Supplement to practices of routine accommodation and “complete streets” Georgia DOT has incorporated bicycle accommodation into design for roadways of the Plan’s study network

56. Policy Initiatives and Outcomes Implement “Complete Streets” Set expectation for all future planning, design, and accommodation Development review regulations to include bike/ped accommodation in new projects Training for planners and design engineers

57. Policy Initiatives and Outcomes Identify re-striping candidates

58. Policy Initiatives and Outcomes Identify re-striping candidates Adopt a protocol for finding “excess pavement” “Free” facilities when coordinated with resurfacing Find opportunities with new construction, reconstruction, and widening projects

59. Policy Initiatives and Outcomes Improve Crossing at un-signalized intersections and mid-block locations

60. Policy Initiatives and Outcomes

61. Increase availability of end-of-trip facilites Parking, lockers, showers, etc. for new development – either required of incentivized End-of-trip facilities are an important piece of the mode-shift puzzle

62. Policy Initiatives and Outcomes Improve Neighborhood Connectivity for Bikes/Peds Figure 4.1 – Sample Atlanta Region Neighborhood with Potential Connecting Pathways

63. Policy Initiatives and Outcomes Improve Neighborhood Connectivity for Bikes/Peds Establish guidelines for ensuring bike/ped connectivity between neighborhoods and among adjacent land uses Typical Metro Atlanta development patterns discourage short trips that can be made by bike ped

64. Policy Initiatives and Outcomes Promote bike/ped planning and implement bike/ped programs

65. Policy Initiatives and Policy Initiatives and Outcomes Promote bike/ped planning and implement bike/ped programs Changing the mindset of planners engineers, elected officials, public Will lead to better implementation of other policies Programs

66. Places bike/ped planning in the context of established regional priorities Applied technical analysis to bike/ped decision making Provides toolkit for local planning Clear framework for evaluating future project funding assistance Going Forward...