__MAIN_TEXT__
feature-image

Page 1

City of Marion

Comprehensive Bicycle Plan MAY 2016


DRAFT MARION BICYCLE PLAN

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks to the local residents, community leaders, and government staff that participated in the development of this plan through meetings, events, comment forms, and plan review. Special thanks to those who participated as steering committee members, listed below. PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE The Steering Committee is made up of local residents, government staff, and community leaders. Heather Cotton

Marion Planning & Development Director

Phillis Davis

McDowell Health Department/McDowell Trails Association/Cyclist

Karyl Fuller

Isothermal Planning and Development Regional Planner

Lt. Jamie Harklerode

Marion Police Department

Steve Jones

Cyclist/Real Estate Agent

Molly Sandfoss

McDowell Extension Service Director/Cyclist

Brant Sikes

Marion Public Works Director

Mary Smith

NC Active Routes to School Coordinator, Region 2

Ryan Smith

Cyclist

Kristina Solberg

NCDOT Senior Planning Engineer

Tim Anderson

NCDOT District Engineer

Gary Suttles

Cyclist

John Vine-Hodge

NCDOT Division of Bcicyle and Pedestrian Transportation

Adopted May 17, 2016

Prepared for the City of Marion, North Carolina Project Contact: Heather Cotton, Planning & Development Director, City of Marion 194 North Main Street, Marion, NC 28752, (828) 652-3551 This project was made possible with a matching grant from the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation (DBPT) and the generous contribution of Kate B. Reynolds Charitable Trust. Prepared by Alta Planning + Design, 111 East Chapel Hill Street, Suite 100, Durham, NC 27701 | www.altaplanning.com 2


CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1-2

Project Background

1-2

Planning Process

1-3

Plan Vision & Goals

1-4

Why This Plan is Important

CURRENT CONDITIONS 2-2

Local Context

2-3

Current Conditions

2-10

Related Plans & Initiatives

2-11

Public Input

NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS 3-2

Overview

3-2

Methodology for Network Design

3-3

Types of Bicyclists

3-4

Bicycle Facility Types

3-9

Overall Recommendations

3-12

Project Cutsheets

3-22 Bike Parking 3-24

Bikes and Public Transit

3-15

Program Recommendations

IMPLEMENTATION 4-2

Implementation Overview

4-2

Organizational Framework for Implementation

4-3

Implementation Action Steps

4-6

Key Action Step Descriptions

4-10

Key Partners in Implementation

4-13

Performance Measures (Evaluation and Monitoring)

4-13

Facility Development Methods

APPENDIX A-1

Design Guidelines

B-1

Funding Resources

C-1

Project List

3


MAY 2016

MARION BICYCLE PLAN

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW Project Background | Planning Process | Plan Vision & Goals | Why this Plan is Important

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW |

1-1


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

PROJECT BACKGROUND

MAY 2016

Aside from the Steering Committee input, the

The Marion Bicycle Plan was made possible

planning process included several other impor-

by joint funding from the City of Marion, the

tant methods of public outreach and involve-

North Carolina Department of Transportation

ment. The project website, public comment

(NCDOT) and the Kate B. Reynolds Charitable

form, press releases, and public workshops

Trust. In 2014, Marion was awarded a matching

were all used to gather input for the plan and

grant from the North Carolina Department of

ask for feedback on the draft plan.

Transportation (NCDOT) Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Grant Initiative. The purpose

Key Steps in the Planning Process:

of the grant is to encourage municipalities to develop comprehensive bicycle plans and pedestrian plans. To date, the initiative has funded planning efforts in more than 160 municipalities across the state. The program is administered through NCDOT’s Division of

APRIL 2015

Kick-off meeting with Steering Committee & Initial Field Review

Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation.

PLANNING PROCESS The planning process began with a Kickoff Meeting in Spring 2015, which was the first of four project Steering Committee meet-

APRIL-MAY 2015

Data Collection, Field Review, Public Workshop #1, Steering Committee #2

ings. The Steering Committee was made up of a combination of local residents, City staff and representatives, health professionals, and regional transportation planners. This Steering Committee guided the plan’s development throughout the planning process. Key steps

MAY-JULY 2015

Begin Developing Recommendations for the Draft Plan

included crafting an overall vision for the plan, communicating existing bicycling conditions to City staff and project consultants, and providing feedback on plan recommendations.

AUGUST 2015

Present Full Draft Plan to Steering Committee & Release Draft Plan Online

AUG-SEPT 2015

Review Period, Collect Feedback from City, NCDOT and Public

OCTOBER 2015

Steering Committee members mark up base maps at the project Kick-Off Meeting.

1-2

| CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW

Complete Final Plan & Presentation for Adoption at Public Hearing


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

PLAN VISION & GOALS Through this plan, the City of Marion aims to: »»

Promote biking as a viable, healthy, safe and efficient mode of transportation.

»»

Encourage youth to bike through education and encouragement activities.

»»

Develop a bike network that connects key destinations, such as the existing Catawba River Greenway to the Peavine Rail Corridor.

»»

Designate neighborhood bike routes that connect local destinations and rural bike routes that connect to regional destinations.

»»

Establish a framework for future City and regional planning and funding opportunities.

»»

Develop a comprehensive bicycle program around the 5 E’s (Engineering, Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, and EvaluaThe Catawba River Greenway was identified as a key destination by the steering committee and general public.

tion) . The following Vision Statement draws upon input from the Steering Committee at the KickOff Meeting, outlining the overall vision for the outcomes of this plan:

VISION STATEMENT “The City of Marion is a bicycle-friendly community connected by a safe, convenient, and enjoyable bicycle network that provides access for users of all skill levels; links neighborhoods to destinations; and promotes healthy living through active transportation.”

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW |

1-3


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

WHY THIS PLAN IS IMPORTANT

»»

During the five-year period from 2008 to 2012, a total of 4,889 bicycle-motor vehicle crashes and 13,186 pedestrian-motor vehicle

In absence of research focused directly on Mar-

crashes were reported to North Carolina au-

ion, the sections that follow highlight national

thorities.

and statewide trends for each topic.

»»

In Marion, from 2007-2012, there were two bicycle-motor vehicle crashes. 2

SAFETY FOR PEDESTRIANS & BICYCLISTS

Improving Safety

Trends

Highway Administration and the University

and

Challenges

Separate studies conducted by the Federal

According to a survey of 16,000 North Carolina

of North Carolina Highway Safety Research

residents for the 2011 North Carolina Bicycle

Center demonstrate that installing pedestrian

and Pedestrian Safety Summit, the most com-

and bicycle facilities directly improves safety by

monly reported safety issue for walking and

reducing the risk and severity of pedestrian-au-

bicycling was inadequate infrastructure (75%).1

tomobile and bicycle-automobile crashes. For

A lack of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, such

example, installing a sidewalk along a roadway

as sidewalks, bike lanes, trails, and safe cross-

reduces the risk of a pedestrian “walking along

ings, lead to unsafe conditions for bicyclists and

roadway” crash by 88 percent. Furthermore,

pedestrians:

according to the aforementioned survey, 70% of respondents said they would walk or bicycle

»»

Each year on average (2008-2012), 168 pe-

more if safety issues were addressed, citing a

destrians and 22 bicyclists are killed in col-

lack of bicycle and pedestrian facilities as the

lisions with motor vehicles on North Caro-

top issues1

lina roads, while many more are seriously »»

injured.2

The following web addresses link to more com-

North Carolina is ranked as one of the least

prehensive research on safety.

safe states for walking (41st) and bicycling (44th).3 »»

»»

walkbikenc/

13% of all traffic fatalities in North Carolina are bicyclists and pedestrians.

http://www.ncdot.gov/bikeped/planning/

»»

http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/ factsheet_crash.cfm

Cyclists are currently using roads like Sugar Hill Road although there are no existing bicycle facilities.

1-4

| CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

HEALTH IMPACTS OF ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

»»

Recent reports have estimated the annual direct medical cost of physical inactivity in North Carolina at $3.67 billion, plus an addi-

Trends

and

Challenges

tional $4.71 billion in lost productivity.6 How-

North Carolina’s transportation system is one of

ever, every dollar invested in pedestrian and

the most important elements of our public envi-

bicycle trails can result in a savings of nearly

ronment. Unfortunately, it includes many streets

$3 in direct medical expenses.7

that are unsafe for walking and bicycling, posing

»»

Of North Carolinians surveyed, 60% would

barriers to healthy living and active transporta-

increase their level of physical activity if they

tion. In 2012, NCDOT’s Board of Transportation

had better access to sidewalks and trails.5

revised its mission statement to include “health tation Policy,” which declares the importance of

Better Health through Active Transportation

a transportation system that supports positive

Using active transportation to and from school,

health outcomes. Below are some key trends

work, parks, restaurants, and other routine

and challenges reated to health and transporta-

destinations is one of the best ways that chil-

tion in North Carolina:

dren and adults can lead measurably healthier

and well-being” and passed a “Healthy Transpor-

lives. Increasing one’s level of physical activity »»

»»

65% of adults in North Carolina are either

through walking and bicycling reduces the risk

overweight or obese. The state is also ranked

and impact of cardiovascular disease, diabetes,

5th worst in the nation for childhood obesity.

chronic disease, and some cancers. It also helps

4

In a 2012 survey, 88% of North Carolinians re-

to control weight, improves mood, and reduces

sponded that they spend no time walking or

the risk of premature death.8

biking as a means of transportation.5

Active Transportation: Pathway to Health

Active Transportation System

Increased Physical Activity (Walking + Bicycling)

Reduced Obesity + Overweight

Better Air Quality

Less Diabetes High Blood Pressure Certain Cancers Depression

Fewer Chronic Disease Deaths Increased Life Expectancy Better Mental Health Quality of Life

Fewer Respiratory Illnesses

Source: Alta Planning + Design; WalkBikeNC

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW |

1-5


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

ECONOMIC BENEFITS Transportation Savings When it comes to transportation costs, bicycling is one of the most affordable forms of transportation available, second only to walking. According to the American Automobile Association, the cost of owning and operating a medium-sized sedan for one year, assuming one drives 10,000 miles per year, is approximately $7,804.90. Owning and operating a bicycle costs just $120 per year, according to the League of American Bicyclists. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center explains how these lower costs help individuals and com-

MAY 2016

To determine your driving costs accurately, keep personal records on all the costs listed below. Use this worksheet to figure your total cost to drive.

Annual Cost Per Mile costs operating costs gas per mile total miles driven total gas maintenance tires

total operating costs ownership costs depreciation insurance taxes license and registration finance charges

total ownership costs other costs

munities as a whole: “When safe facilities are

(washing, accessories, etc.)

provided for pedestrians and bicyclists, more

total driving costs

people are able to be productive, active mem-

total miles driven

bers of society. Car ownership is expensive, and

cost per mile

consumes a major portion of many Americans’ income.”

yearly totals

×

+

+ + = ÷ =

= + + =

+ + + + =

Your Driving Costs 5 Driving Costs Worksheet. AmericanAutomobile Association, Your Driving Costs Report: 2013 Edition.

BIKE TOURISM Bicycle facilities such as bike lanes, paths, and greenway trails are popular community amenities that add value to properties nearby and boost spending at businesses. Trends related to economics and bicycling in North Carolina: »»

North Carolina is the 6th most visited state in the United States and visitors spend as much as $18 billion a year, many of whom partake in activities related to walking or biking.9

»»

The annual return to local businesses and state and local governments on bicycle facility development in the Outer Banks is approximately nine times higher than the initial investment.10

»»

Walking and biking are economically efficient transportation modes. Many North Carolinians cannot afford to own a vehicle and are dependent on walking and biking for transportation (6.6% of occupied housing units in North Carolina do not own a vehicle).11

1-6

| CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW

MOBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY BENEFITS OF ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION Opportunity to Increase Walking and B icycling R ates According to the 2011 Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Survey, at least 70 percent of North Carolinians would walk or bike more for daily trips if walking and bicycling conditions were improved. With appropriate accommodations, walking and bicycling can provide alternatives to driving for commuting to work, running errands, or making other short trips. Commute rates for walking and bicycling in North Carolina currently fall below the national average, with just 0.2% of North Carolina commuters bicycling to work and 1.8% walking to work, compared to 0.6% bicycling and 2.9% walking nationwide. This places North Carolina 42nd for walking commute rates and 41st for


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

bicycling commute rates in nationwide state

an estimated 48% increase in the number of

rankings.3 Charts in Chapter 2 show national

bicycling trips in four pilot communities between

model communities for biking rates, model com-

2007 and 2013.13 These individual changes in

munities in North Carolina, and peer communi-

travel behavior can add up to produce signifi-

ties in the region.

cant societal benefits. Traffic on arterials and other streets can be mitigated as people use

An estimated 40% of all trips (commute and

sidewalks, bike lanes, paths, and other alterna-

non-commute) taken by Americans each day are

tives to get around. Parking lots can also be

less than two miles, equivalent to a bike ride of

made less congested by reducing crowding,

10 minutes or less; however, just 13% of all trips

circling, and waiting for open spots.

are made by walking or bicycling nationwide.

3

To put these numbers into perspective, 34%

The following web addresses link to more com-

of all trips are made by walking or bicycling in

prehensive research on transportation efficiency.

Denmark and Germany, and 51% of all trips in the Netherlands are by foot or by bike.12 Germany,

»»

Denmark, and the Netherlands are wealthy countries with high rates of automobile owner-

http://www.ncdot.gov/bikeped/planning/ walkbikenc/

»»

ship, just like the United States. Yet, an emphasis

http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_ general.cfm

has been placed on providing quality walking and bicycling environments which has alleviated the reliance on motor vehicles for short trips.

Daily Trip Distances of Americans

STEWARDSHIP BENEFITS OF ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION Trends

and

Challenges

Below are some key trends and challenges related to stewardship and transportation in North Carolina: »»

Even a modest increase in walking and bicycling trips (in place of motor vehicle trips) can have significant positive impacts. For example, replacing two miles of driving each day with walking or bicycling will, in one year, prevent 730 pounds of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere.14

Most driving trips are for a distance of five miles or less. Chart from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Information Center website, www.pedbikeinfo.org

»»

According to the National Association of Realtors and Transportation for America, 89% of Americans believe that transportation in-

Reduced Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) & C ongestion Taking short trips by foot or by bike can help to

vestments should support the goal of reducing energy use.15 »»

North

Carolina’s

2009-2013

Statewide

greatly reduce motor vehicle miles driven and

Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan

traffic congestion. Under the Nonmotorized

(SCORP) found “walking for pleasure” to be

Transportation Pilot Program, walking and bicy-

the most common outdoor recreational ac-

cling investments contributed to an estimated 23% increase in the number of walking trips and

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW |

1-7


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

tivity, enjoyed by 82% of respondents, and

(NOx), and benzene. Children and senior citi-

bicycling by 31% of respondents.

zens are particularly sensitive to the harmful

The natural buffer zones that are protected

affects of air pollution, as are individuals with

along greenways and trails, protect streams,

heart or other respiratory illnesses. Increased

rivers, and lakes, prevent soil erosion and

health risks such as asthma and heart problems

filter pollution caused by agricultural and

are associated with vehicle emissions.19

roadway runoff.17

The following web addresses link to more com-

16

»»

prehensive research on active transportation Providing safe accommodations for walking

and stewardship.

and bicycling can help to reduce automobile dependency, which in turn leads to a reduction

»»

in vehicle emissions – a benefit for residents and visitors and the surrounding environment. As of 2003, 27 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas

http://www.ncdot.gov/bikeped/planning/ walkbikenc/

»»

http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/ factsheet_environmental.cfm

emissions are attributed to the transportation sector, and personal vehicles account for

Stewardship addresses the impact that trans-

almost two-thirds (62 percent) of all trans-

portation decisions (both at the government/

portation emissions. Primary emissions that

policy level and individual level) can have on

pose potential health and environmental risks

the land, water and air that Marion residents

are carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, volatile

and visitors enjoy.

18

organic compounds, (VOCs), nitrous oxides

The Catawba River Greenway highlights the unique environmental assets of McDowell County.

1-8

| CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

REFERENCES

12. Pucher, J. and R. Buehler. (2010). Walking and Cycling for Healthy Cities. Built

1.

NCDOT DBPT and the Institute of Transportation Research and Education.

Environment 36(5): 391-414. 13. Federal Highway Administration. (2014).

(2011). 2011 Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety

Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program

Summit Report.

Report: 2014 Report. Retrieved from http://

2. 2008-2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Crash Data. (2014). NCDOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation. 3. Alliance for Biking and Walking. (2012). Biking and Walking in the United States: 2012 benchmarking report. 4. North Carolina DHHS, Physical Activity and Nutrition Branch, Eat Smart, Move More NC. The Obesity Epidemic in North

www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_ pedestrian/ntpp/2014_report/ 14. Bikes Belong. Gas Prices and Bicycling. http://www.bikesbelong.oli.us/Resources/ GasPrices.pdf 15. National Association of Realtors and Transportation for America. (2009). 2009 Growth and Transportation Survey. 16. Division of Parks and Recreation, NC

Carolina. www.eatsmartmovemorenc.com/

Department of Environment and Natural

ObesityInNC/ ObesityInNC.html.

Resources.(2008). 2009-2013 North

5. North Carolina State Center for Health Statistics. (2012). Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2012 Results. www. schs.state.nc.us/SCHS/brfss/2013/index. html 6. Be Active North Carolina. (2012). Tipping

Carolina Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. 17. Arendt, R. (1994). Rural by Design. American Planning Association, Chicago, Illinois. 18. Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency. (2006).

the Scales: The High Cost of Unhealthy

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the U.S.

Behavior in North Carolina.

Transportation Sector: 1990-2003. Report

7. Chenoweth, David. (2012). “Economics, Physical Activity, and Community Design.”

number EPA 420 R 06 003 19. Health Effects Institute (2010). Traffic-

North Carolina Medical Journal 73(4): 293-

Related Air Pollution: A Critical Review of

294.

the Literature on Emissions, Exposure, and

8. National Prevention Council. (2011).

Health Effects. Special Report 17.

National Prevention Strategy: America’s plan for better health and wellness. http:// www.healthcare.gov/prevention/nphpphc/ strategy/report.pdf 9. The North Carolina Department of Commerce reported 37 million visitors to the State in 2011, of which 63 percent came from outside the State. www.visitnc.com 10. Institute of Transportation Research and Education. (2004). “The Economic Impact of Investments in Bicycle Facilities: A Case Study of the Northern Outer Banks.” 11. U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. ACS 2009-2013 5-year data.

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW |

1-9


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

CHAPTER TWO: CURRENT CONDITIONS Local Context | Current Conditions | Related Plans & Initiatives | Public Input

CHAPTER TWO: CURRENT CONDITIONS |

1


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

ma, Linville Caverns, Linville Falls, and the Blue

LOCAL CONTEXT The City of Marion is located in the mountains of Western North Carolina in McDowell County. On the edge of the Blue Ridge Mountains, Marion is a charming small town “Where Main Street Meets the Mountains.” The City was named in honor of Brigadier General Francis

Ridge Parkway are also very close to town, and exhibit the diverse scenery of Western North Carolina. There are also several golf courses outside of town, as well as two waterparks and numerous campgrounds.

Marion, an American Revolutionary War Hero.

While Marion continues to grow and evolve ec-

Marion serves as a gateway from Interstate

City is committed to preserving Marion’s histori-

40 to many nearby attractions and recreation activities in the Blue Ridge Mountains. There are seven parks in Marion operated by the city, the main one being downtown beside the Community Building. In 2010, the City opened the Joseph McDowell Greenway. Named in honor of the county’s namesake, Joseph McDowell, the greenway follows the flow of the Catawba River. Benches, picnic tables, fishing piers, and fitness stations are scattered throughout the Historic Joseph McDowell House, with access from Highway 70 between the intersections of Highway 221/226 By-Pass and Roby Conley

onomically, culturally, and environmentally, the cally significant architecture, cultural and natural resources, and most of all its sense of place . Marion is bound by the Catawba River to the north and US Interstate 40 to the south. The City is situated between the crossroads of three other major transportation corridors including US Highway 70, US Highway 221 and US Highway 226. As of the 2013 U.S. Census estimate, the population of Marion is 7,997. Table 2-1 provides a comparison of demographic data for Marion, McDowell County, and

Road.

the State of North Carolina. The median age in

Historic homes such as the Carson House and

of 37.4 years. The average household income in

Marion is 36.3, which is below the state average

the Joseph McDowell House have kept the history of Marion alive for decades. In downtown Marion, the beautifully restored Marion Depot, the oldest surviving depot on the Western Rail Line, hosts numerous community events each month. Lake James provides fishing, camping,

Marion is $24,509, which is around half of the state average of $46,344. Safe and accessible bikeways will be an essential element of the transportation system for residents without access to a vehicle, for which Marion has double the state average of 6.6%.

and recreation for McDowell and Burke Counties and is just minutes from Marion. Lake Taho-

Marion

McDowell County

North Carolina

Population1

7,997

44,965

9,651,380

Median Age1

36.3

41.4

37.6

Median Household Income1

$24,509

$35,297

$46,344

% Households without a Vehicle1

13.5%

8.3%

6.6%

% Walk to Work1

2.6%

0.8%

1.8%

% Bike to Work

0.0%

0.0%

0.2%

1

2-2

| CHAPTER TWO: CURRENT CONDITIONS

Table 2-1. Demographic Comparison US Census Bureau, 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 1


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Mackinac Island, MI Crested Butte, CO Davis, CA Key West, FL Corvallis, OR Boulder, CO Berkeley, CA “Marion should strive to Eugene, OR match the bike-to-work rates St. Augustine, FL of Morganton, NC� Portland, OR

45.6% 27.1% 20.7% 17.7% 12.5% 10.6% 8.6% 8.4% 8.4% 6.1%

Carrborro, NC Boone, NC Asheville, NC Morganton, NC Black Mountain, NC Hickory, NC Marion, NC

5.3% 1.8% 1.1% 0.5% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0%

NC Average

0.2%

0.0%

Percentage of People Biking to Work Source: US Census Data, 5-year ACS (2009-2013).

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

BICYCLING RATES

cling becomes more popular, Marion should

According to the latest census data, zero

work toward even higher rates to rival Ashville,

percent of Marion residents bike to work. For

NC and Boone, NC in western North Carolina.

those who do live and work in Marion, there is ample opportunity to increase bicycling rates as

CURRENT CONDITIONS

compared to other communities statewide and

Current bicycling conditions in Marion are

nationally.

variable. There are local streets in and around downtown that have low traffic volumes and

The chart above provides bicycle-to-work rates

low speeds that can serve as the foundation of a

for model communities across the country, in

bicycle network. There are several local destina-

North Carolina, and in peer communities for

tions that are within a mile from the downtown

Marion. These numbers show that, with some

core, thus easy to reach for all levels of bicy-

effort to improve infrastructure, policies, and

clists. However, two of the most desirable desti-

programs, high rates of walking and bicycling to

nations to access by bike are further away: the

work are possible in communities of all sizes.

Catawba River Greenway Trail Head is 3 miles and McDowell Technical Community College is

In the short-term, Marion should strive to reach

4 miles from the heart of downtown. Several

the bike-to-work rates of Morganton, NC, which

key transportation corridors carry higher traffic

has a 0.5% bike-to-work percentage. As bicy-

volumes and speeds without dedicated space for bicycles.

CHAPTER TWO: CURRENT CONDITIONS |

2-3


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

OPPORTUNITIES An analysis of existing conditions reveals several opportunities and constraints for bicycle network development in Marion. Opportunities include: »»

Roadway configuration: Several key roadways such as McDowell Ave, Main Street, Henderson Street and Rutherford Road have sections of pavement width and/or right-of-way to add bicycle facilities.

»»

Catawba River Greenway

Catawba Greenway Trail: The existing 1.6 mile trail provides an excellent opportunity for recreation in Marion and McDowell County.

»»

YMCA Trail Network: McDowell County partnered with the Corpening YMCA to develop two greenway loops off of Sugar Hill Road, near McDowell Hospital.

»»

Low volume streets: Several streets such as State Street, Georgia Street and Park Avenue are quiet low traffic volume/speed

City-owned Peavine Rail Corridor

streets that are already safe for bicycling and connect key locations in and across the City. »»

Peavine Rail Corridor: Marion purchased the right-of way of the former Peavine Rail Corridor, the section that extends from State Street to Jacktown Road.

»»

Existing groups: Local efforts from McDowell Trails Association, McDowell County, NCDOT, private businesses, residents, and the City have already had

Downtown Marion

a lasting effect on bicycling in Marion. They serve as a key building block for programmatic and bicycle infrastructure improvements. »»

Downtown Marion: Recent investments in the downtown core have continued to enhance economic activity in the heart of Marion.

»»

Programming: The NCDOT Active Routes to School program has conducted bicycle education and outreach and the City will also be participating in the 2015 Watch for Me, NC education and enforcement campaign.

2-4

| CHAPTER TWO: CURRENT CONDITIONS

YMCA trail system


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

CHALLENGES The following list is an overview of the potential challenges facing the existing bicycle network in Marion. These observations are based on input from the Steering Committee, general public, field review, and available data. »»

Lack of existing bicycle facilities: Besides the Catawba Greenway Trail and the YMCA Trail network, there are no existing bicycle

The underpass of NC 226 and I-40

facilities. »»

High-volume, high-speed roadways: There are several high-volume roadways throughout the City with high speeds and little shoulder with no off-road facility for bicyclists to travel safely. Examples include Court Street, Main Street (including the Five-Lane), Henderson Street, Sugar Hill Road, and Road.

Many

intersections

Rutherford along

these

corridors are difficult to cross, especially intersections along the Peavine Corridor. »»

Narrow, rural roadways in and around downtown

Narrow roadways and lanes: Many roadways do not contain enough space within the existing pavement to add separated facilities for bicyclists. State Street, Garden Street, Madison Street, and Fleming Avenue are examples.

»»

Lack of signage: There is an overall lack of traffic and wayfinding signage for bicyclists. More signage is needed to make drivers aware of bicycle traffic, direct bicyclists to safe routes and crossings, and provide

Steep grades are present on Court Street, headed east to Main Street

directions between popular destinations. »»

Geographical constraints: Steep topography is a limiting factor in encouraging more residents to cycle as a form of transportation and in bicycle facility development.

»»

Peavine

Corridor

Extension

The

City

owned right-of-way terminates near the intersection of Plato Drive and Jacktown Road. Connecting to the college campus will require extensive coordination with Norfolk Southern, CSX, NCDOT and private property

Peavine trestle bridge over NC 226

owners. More details regarding the various route options are discussed in Chapter 3.

CHAPTER TWO: CURRENT CONDITIONS |

2-5


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

R

Map 2.1 - Current Conditions ED WA RD S

HUNT

AV E

FI PANLE R KY A

MA

AV E

A ABLA BA M

CO OP ER

HOLLAND

FA I RV IE W

RAND

F

E

HED G

KU D ZU ON

OF F

OB

OL LE G E

VIE W

AH

D

WOO

R

GLEN

A YA

OL

40 EX RAMP O N IT

WARD CARR AWAY

CR EEK OM INE

G LEN HAV EN

SN

DY GRANTS MOU NTA IN

S

DAW NS

N

W

ANNIE

WHA TA WA Y L OV E

L VA

LE Y

D

N VAL HIDDE LE Y

ERO E MA CA W

226

PP

O AC R N

WI LS ON

221

CH

NC

LE

OLD

M

CHI SIA

E

GAD

CAR R

N

LINE AR

COND RE

IL L

R

ON

AP AC H

TAYL R LAKE

M

A

il

ra

BA

IE O RTH MCIVER GU R LE Y C

LUCKY

EE HILLT O N P

W

TR OY

PLE

O FF

H N SW O

E

TI O

Y T OMHOLLO W

HO PP

KI DYT O WN OO

VI RK

OA K W ST AY AT NE E

DO

RT

GR O

ME M ORIA OL L P TA TE ST IV AR ER ST HURS

YANCE Y

AIR P

SA NT

C

KE

IA

R

ut e

PH EA

W

LD

PA

EC R

PIN

P LI L

BUR

TON

C

O

L IL

RFLY BUTTE

H

AL AV

T

BURLESO N

D OL

II

FF O

R

L EL

ZION HIL L

TA

WILLIS

BEN D

HAN KIN S

ORT

LL

VI

st

HI T T

D

EA CO N IDDLER

TIN

A

RUTH

UT HN

LY AR C

TE Stat RR eB Y ik 70 e R o

IS

W

WILD W

D

BE E C

McDowell Technical

W CK RO

NIX CREE

Oak Grove Cemetery

EY T ON

OL L LH W

OO

D ER

ABRAHA M

ST

O

SG PI

IV Y

IN MA

S

BARNES

IN

KE

GOOSE C RE EK

Pe av i to ne R Tra ai il l

M

LA HI LL

O

M

P ea

40 § ¨ ¦

CH AC TA W

VE LA EL E EW T DO Y S A MC CL

ST

D OW R O A B ILL W

ST AC Y

W LE

D

ST

MI

Y AC ST

EN RD GA

IAM ST PULL

D ING PRST MY ES AD AC

BRO O

NN

40 RIG P OO LE HT LA NE MOU NT AI N

G ST SPRIN

LS

VY

E

BOND

EW ST VI E NE AT PI ST LL ER FA AV RM E

OLPH

EM TH

R IF O

A SH

A

JO

ST ST K E NE OA YN RI BO E WA SC HOO L

0

T VINE S

D

ST

IL SM T

E CH

LE G

1ST

Tra il

NIA

REID

AS

LY

FISH

I LL

M

2-6

1 Miles

DY

OW

I G HT

I

AD HE

ILL

P I NE H

R

W

Base Map

0.5

SE

6

to

VE

70

TUNNEL

Ra il

AL

ER ELM H W R BU MA

D EA

R

ICE

OW

Marion Comprehensive Bicycle Plan 2015

0

NG DI

P

M

ARR

H

GG

DA CE

IDG E

E

I NK

P

Y

ERY EY RL

GAN MOR

Y MB CA

E

TO

N

VI

TO TIP

W

ON

TL LY

ST

£ ¤

Phoenix Academy

R GA SU

E

Y AD FR IN TA UN MO

ST

0.25 Miles

Eastfield Community Park

AN N

HIG

YMCA & Soccer Fields RA

O

F OL S N E LS

C LI N

L

RY

Y JA

T

COOK

Pe avi ne

NG RI SP

Y

D

N

EM

W BE R IM

LAIL 0.125

v in Gazebo e Ra B DAR KTOWN R E il to JAC T FO Trai Crossmill LAIL O AD a XWOO ls P d I D R Community . UT has Mt HE Park e II RF W Mt. OR CATA 221 BYP Ida Nature D West Marion Pe 21 2 Preserve a vine P Community W ha Park O R se G H

VIE

OD TWO DRIF

KE Y

CL AY

W NE

S VE LI EL NA CR CO U OS LE S

DA V IS

K

DAC MA

INT

0

LE

RE

WO OD

DA

G IL

Maple Leaf Downtown Ball Fields Gazebo

L VA

E EX SIST O FL HI D

O

LE E

SHERRI

L WA

Y LE AD

W D F INCH AY CR OS S

O

I

M ST ORG AN

¤ R£

Clinchfield Greenway & Community Park

OOD GW

O

RT ROBE

1 US 22

G OL

BO BC AT

GR EEN

N

CT

BR

CO

D

VI

M VALLEY HIL AIN L

EY

e 0W RE 7

HILL

A INI

KSO N J AC

E AC

J MA

0

West Junior High

T

R TULIP

VIRG

Y LL HO

HT REE

NL

T

AIL

EST

E DUK

Catawba Rvier Greenway

OR

CT

X

ST JU

A EROS POND

TA

IA OR

iver E Catw aba R IC

FO

AGE

ER

LEO

JP

C M H IL LS

P LA

DGETT

PE A

RIV

NICE BER DS OO EK W RE EP SC OS CR

PA

ST

RY HE TC

DE

FOR

S

H HA

R RD SD ME JA Marion Community AMBuilding RA& Y Pad ST E GAO F RESplash Y RT N FO RD GE ISL JO AN McDowell L Rec W INGDowntown D Center & Gazebo Skate Park UP S I L CO EL N U NS AL LAN R T ST Marion Train Depot & Farmer's Market 70 K S U BLUE RIDGE ST

Maple Leaf Ball Fields

A

AKS IN O ST TW ON DIS MA

NN

FI

Downtown

JOSIE

E I BLU N EL YN AM FL TZ N N O

CA

LE

HUN E T S VILL

LEGEND

R

Bicycle Crashes (2007-2012)

Destinations

Existing Trails

College

Proposed Trails

Government Services

Rail Line

Shopping/Grocery

Planning Boundary

Library

City Limits

Medical

Body of Water

Park/Open Space

| CHAPTER TWO: CURRENT CONDITIONS

School

Data obtained from City of Marion. Map created April, 2015.


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Table 2-2. Roadway/Potential Bike Route Inventory

Road

From

To

Approximate Road Width (edge of pavement)

Existing Road Configuration (# of lanes)

Curb/ Gutter (Y/N)

Parking (Y/N)

Speed Limit (mph)

AADT

Nearby Destinations

Catawba River Greenway, 21000 Restaraunts/ Commercial, Downtown City Hall Downtown, Peavine Trail, 6800 Gazebo, Restaurants, Shopping Neighborhoods, Oak Grove 8900 Cemetery, Gazebo, Peavine Trail Downtown, Marion Train 3800Depot, County 11000 Rec Dept, County Library Marion Elementary School, East 13000 Junior High, Clinchfield Greenway, Commercial McDowell High, Catawba River N/A Greenway, Commercial Peavine Trail, Church, East N/A McDowell Jr High School

Main St

US 70

Logan St

47 ft

3-5

Varies

N

35-45

Main St

Logan St

Garden St

38-50 ft

3

Y

Y

20

Rutherford Rd

Garden St

Georgia Ave

30 -35 ft

2

Y

N

35

Court St

Pulliam St

Park Ave

35.5 ft

2-3

Y

Varies

20

Court St

Park Ave

4th C St

32 - 43 ft

2 -3

Varies

N

35

McDowell High School Rd

Main St

US 70

23 ft

2

N

N

35

State St

S Main St

Finley Ave

25 - 40 ft

2

Y

Varies

20 - 25

S Main St

28 - 36 ft

2-3

Y

Varies

20

N/A

Retail, Banks

E Court St

23 ft

2

Y

N

20

N/A

Neighborhoods

Madison St

Crescent Dr Fleming Ave

Fleming Ave

Victory Dr

N Garden St

24 - 34 ft

2 -3

Y

N

25

2400

Henderson St

S Garden St

California Ave

41 - 60 ft

3-5

Y

Varies

20 - 35

11,000

Garden St

Marion Elementary School, Neighborhoods Children’s Center of Marion, Shopping Center

CHAPTER TWO: CURRENT CONDITIONS |

2-7


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Map 2.2 - Crashes W

B

H

HOLLAN D

E

HURS

OL RA ND

W

IRV IE

KI Y OD TO WN

FA HED

F

GE

LL E

H

F ON

E

OF

NCAN 22 S 6

CO

NC

OL D

VIE W

DY D

GA

S G RANTS MO UNT AI N

OF RO CK

ES

226

NEW HO P E

N

EY

M

A

YA

OLD

PP

HUN

T S V ILL

E

ER

YW AY

k

W

SK

LAKEV IEW

OO D

EN

G L EN HAV

WARD C ARR A WAY

EX IT IN E

DEWEY R JO N

OM

DAW N

HOL L O T OM HO P

AR

LP

ORIA ME M AG L

T

UR CO

A

EH

EA D B ALDW IN

BAM

ALA MO R

AH

MCIVER

GU R E C L Y

NS

IE

OLD NEAL

L OVE

LL EG

O TI

VI OA K

E

W AY N ST AT E

PA MAPLER K

GE

RI D

INS

DG

N BE

ET

HU

W

EAR

W

NS

PY

Y

YAN CE F

EY

FINL

EE HILLT O N P

R IE C AR

GR O

HI

TAT E

NT

SA

EA PH

LU CKY

LIN

WA Y

CH I SI

NN

IT N WH

WH ATA

L

TT LE

VA

LI

N

E GL

E N VAL H IDD L

WI LLI

NS HA NK I

70

Y RR TE

D

IL L

I

LE

221

SO

OL D

ON

C H E APAC RO K HE E

R

P

TR O NI X Y

P

N

LI LI AC

CO

TAYL R LAKE

RUTH

RF LY

ZIO N HI LL

D

B U TTE

R

AL AV

ABRAHA M

HI T T

FA I

LY

D

O

DA

AR

A

A

C

TIN

M

Y

Y

W O TE A

WILD W

OO

LE Y

EK

D

L

EL T

k

WIL

OS EC RE

NE

L HO L

O B

BARNES

F

AM

GO

TO

OW

R

S

NC 126

S

TA

40 ¦ ¨ §

TA W

AC ST

D

E

BO N D

A IN

MF

A

Y

0.5

PER

IN

LEGEND

k

Bicycle Crashes (2007-2012) Rail Line Planning Boundary City Limits

I 0

NT

M IT C

WELL

TH OR

Bicycle Crash Map

OR D

T

HILL

Marion Comprehensive Bicycle Plan 2015

RF

IDD LER EA

E

W

GG

B

R O OK SM ITH

AC

E

Y

CH

AD

H

MOU

M

B URMA

KTOWN JA C FO XWOO D

COO

G IS P

S WI

O

MO H UN TE

RD RU FO TH E

AS H

A SH

D

ER

E

ILL

I G HT

R

W

OWH

P INEH

BY

W DO

CA

A ME

M

CE

R DA

E

H A RV

ARR

Y AD FR

IS MO RR E PIN

N YN

L

M

P OO LE

AD

CH

OW

E

E

S

T

AD

ON

UR C C H LI N

E C AD Y C AS LE EP

2-8

ID

IO T

E

EY RL

E CR

CH

LE

L

RU

JO

FIS H

W

S N E LS

X NI EK

NIA

A HL I LL

LS

D

RE

ER

AL

M

OP

E LM

E LL

S

N THER

EVAN

I LL

R GA SU

L MI

AC Y

VY

221

O

COOK

D AR

P 221 B Y

ST

E

R OBER 1S T

HO P

R IF O

LDING AU

RY ME

C

ER

FA RM

SE

E ST AT ST A LD TI MA BO STIC RY P ER 6

AY

70

T

£ ¤

HIG H

PA

S U T IP T

E

CL

MI LL

US

R

SP

k

EM TH

KE

Y JA

N

IDG E

ON

R PA

K EE

DA V IS

M JA EW N RT O T F

C AR S

Y

VIE DA

CR

ES

K

AL

P

70 £ ¤

CH

ES CR

GR

D

LE

LE

OOD

N ER

AN BR 5T H C 7TH

G IN PR LL MO S VE R E GA B LU N NA LEEN LE E BR CR E O AD O R S G S LAIL

R OI RV

L VA

D

E

R

21 US 2

RE

X

HI D

W

IN G

Y LE AD

E SIST O FL

GR E ENL E E

W D F IN C H AY CR O SS

RESE

OL

D QUA L IT Y N

EL FI

C AT

G OL

AN T BRY RE

S VIL BAKE R

BR M VALLEY HIL AI N L

EY BO B

SH ERRI

L

EAC

L WA

N

N KSO

N T AI

J AC

E

N RU

DUK

MOU

IC

C

NL

LAN

NG DI

R TULIP HILL

FLEM

G RIN

N

AIL

SM

MA

JO R O

IA

T

DEER

HT R EE

NS

R TO

IC

X

CO

JU

ST

FO

S

E

P

TA

C

LE O

NICE

H

N

O R A N D F EY GE L W ING

D

SP

LA

BER

IL L

EK RE

AC

S OD

SC

JP

M

U

P

AN

TO

WO

OS

DGETT PE

ISL

Z

RY HE

EP

CR

PA

LE

NT

TC

DE

G

S

H HA

S

FI

Body of Water 1 Miles

| CHAPTER TWO: CURRENT CONDITIONS

Data obtained from City of Marion. Map created April, 2015.


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Map 2.3 - NCDOT Owned Roads HOLL OW T OM

B

E

H RA ND O KI

FA IRV IE W

S HORT

E

GLE N WOO D OL

AYA M

SK YW AY

LAKEVIEW

HED G

ON

NVAL HIDDE LE Y HU NT

EX IT WARD CARR AWAY

CR EEK OM INE

KU D ZU

SCO TT OF F

OL LE G E

AH

VIE W

DAW NS N

W

EN

21 BY P

GRANTS MOU NTA IN

S

O L D NEAL

LOVE

GA BL E

TENNESSEE

DD Y

G

GU R LE Y

IE

MCIVER

CAR R

N

BE N

E

ERO

G LEN HAV

CO UR T A

S PI TAT NE E VI EW

GE

RI D

HU HE DGI N D NS ERS ON

TATE

N IX C REE K

R

T LINEA R

NS E

CON D RE

IL L

E

AP AC H

CH

LITTLE

Y OD T OWN

OA K

MAPLE

CRE

F

HI

GR O

R EE HILLT O N P

LUCKY OOD TRO Y

C

TANGL

IA

LI L

ME M ORI AL PA R

VI

EY

YA NC

O RT A IRP VAL

FINL EY

SA NT

PH EA

TI

WHATA WA Y

K EVINS

E

L

Y

ZION

HUN

IL TSV

R

ER EW BR

HILL

HURS

R

70

TE RR Y

FA I W E

TI O

BEN D

HAN KIN S

PIN EC R

W

M AD AC

P

P

ABRAHA M

O AC R N

IT N WH

ER

E LIST

S

PP

LE

L VA

NN IE

KE R LA

D

OLD

TH ASH W O R

WI LS ON

B UR

TO N

FF O

LE Y

EK

TAYL

WO OD MF EL T

221

CHI S

C

O

22 6

LD

R

HIT T

A

AL AV ON

KE

C EA

NC

BARNES

O

L

LY AR C

ER

RFLY BUTTE

IL

BI

40

GOO SE CR E

AT

ON

TIN

A

E

H

IS

EY T ON

RU

§ ¨ ¦

OT E

SG PI

O

LP

D

WIL D

A IN

CH AC TA W

Y

S

COO P

L

0.5

OR D

T POIN

221

L WE C CK RO

0

R

£ ¤

W LE

KTOWN JAC FO XWOO D

A

I

TA

MOU NT

AC ST

NG DI

A S

S

D

IA M

Road Ownership Map

LL MI

MO HUN TE D R R O UT F HE RF

DY HA

Marion Comprehensive Bicycle Plan 2015

ROBER

DAR E SHOP

IF

FISH

M LA STA CY HI LL

E CH

CA

JO

FA RM

VY

D ER

HT

SMITH H ILL

W RIG

ROOK

R BU MA

0

T

O RNIA

REID

M

H

GG

PI NEH

CE

ILL

BY

WB DO

CA M

R DA CE

ER ELM

I LL

P OO LE

D EA ARR OWH

Y AD FR

A ME

E

BR

N AI E NT CAD OUEY CAS M L LE LYT EP HARV

R GA SU

1ST

A

L

W DO EA M

E CR

COOK

CH UR CH C LI N E

EY RL

F OL

ON S N E LS

X NI EK

W

ER W MB TI

Y

RY EME O

7 US

K

2

IOTT ELL

Y JA

LBORN

OP S U TIPT

ER

HIGH

I ANK EVAN S

E W DAV IS

DA N

MI LL

M HE HEA D

LD

BI HA

G

E GL

SE

N

OOD

CL AY

NG RI MO SP VE RG E U AN BL NA BR LEENLEE CR E O AD OS GR S LAIL

VIE

IE

LAN

70 £ ¤

TUNNEL E ST AT ST K R A CL IC T BOS RRY 6T PE MO RE

C ARS O

E

RF

N ER NT SCE W NE RT FO ST

LE

D

W

ING

E CR LL

ER RK PA

RE

D HI

QUAL D ITY N

IDG E

L

D F IN CR OS S

S VIL BAKE R

CH

SHERRI

L WA

KSO N LE Y

1 US 22

G OL AY W

RIVE PA RS ID R K E

MA

AT

KE Y

AL

D

N

IA

NIA GI

J AC

Y BR LE AD

CO

BO BC

T 5TH C AT

G IL

FLEM

M VALLEY HIL AIN L

Y

R TULIP

HILL

E AC

MA ET AH O

G RIN SP

LA TO R

LEO

Y LL HO

HTR EE

AN T BRY

LA K

NS

TA

C

VIR

E DUK

EST

JO R NL E

UP

E

IC SM CO A EROS POND

N

TO

P

AN D

HO PP Y

LE

RIV

JP

PE AC M H IL LS

NICE BER

DS EK OO W RE EP SC OS CR

DGETT

PA

ISL

NTZ

DE

LEGEND NCDOT Owned Roads Local Roads Rail Line Planning Boundary City Limits

1 Miles

Body of Water

Data obtained from City of Marion. Map created April, 2015.

CHAPTER TWO: CURRENT CONDITIONS |

2-9


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

NCDOT-REPORTED PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CRASHES

MARION SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ACTION PLAN (2009)

Map 2.2 on page 2-8 shows bicycle crashes

In 2008 the City received a technical assistance

in Marion that were reported to the NCDOT

grant from NCDOT to complete a Safe Routes

between 2007 and 2012. During this period,

to School Action Plan for five area schools to

2 crashes were recorded within the City

improve bicycle and pedestrian safety within a

of Marion planning boundary and one just

two-mile radius of each campus. The planning

outside the boundary in McDowell County.

radius for each school essentially allowed for a citywide bicycle and pedestrian plan to be de-

ROADWAY JURISDICTIONS

veloped based on existing roadway conditions

The roadway network in Marion is a combination

to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety.

of City-owned and state-owned roads. Knowl-

recommended along a roadway, the agency in

MCDOWELL COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN (2014)

charge of maintaining the roadway and imple-

The McDowell County Comprehensive Parks

menting bicycle facility recommendations, and

and Recreation Master Plan 2014- 2024 pro-

how improvements are scheduled, funded, and

vides the framework for guiding The County

constructed. Map 2.3 on page 2-9 shows which

Board of Commissioners and Staff in both its

roadways in Marion are state-owned.

current evaluation of/and long-range planning

edge of roadway ownership is important for determining the types of facilities that can be

RELATED PLANS AND INITIATIVES

for the parks and recreation system for McDowell County. This effort was part of the Healthy Places NC initiative, and made possible by a grant from the Kate B. Reynolds Charitable

MARION COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN (2012)

Trust. The framework for this Master Plan is

The Comprehensive Plan is the City’s official

of the existing park system (including trails)

statement of policies for direction growth and

and recording the observations. The assess-

development in Marion for the next 20 years.

ment of these facilities, or lack of facilities,

Several goals and objectives relate directly to

identified the immediate facility needs in the

bicycle transportation. Goal 3.2 reflects the vi-

community and predicted the future needs of

sion statement and goals of this study devel-

residents.

based upon conducting a review and inventory

oped through the bicycle planning process: »»

Goal 3.2: Provide safe and comfortable

A community survey was crucial in developing

routes for walking, bicycling, public trans-

a plan that reflects the needs and desires of

portation to increase use of these modes of

residents. 413 surveys were completed, repre-

transportation, enable convenient and ac-

senting 1,098 individuals. 93% of survey partici-

tive travel as part of daily activities, reduce

pants were in favor of the continued expansion

pollution, and meet the needs of all users,

of the existing greenways throughout McDowell

including children, families, older adults, and

County.

people with disabilities.

2-10

| CHAPTER TWO: CURRENT CONDITIONS


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

PUBLIC INPUT PUBLIC INPUT ON EXISTING CONDITIONS Public input for this plan was collected through the project website, public comment form, and public workshops. Generally, the feedback from residents, visitors, and property owners is that they feel the current bicycling conditions are fair (40%) to poor (57%) and that improving them is very important (45%). Safety, opportunities for recreation and exercise, and increased overall quality of life/livability were the main topics identified by the public through the comment form as being important for this plan to address. 36% of participants were somewhat willing to pay an increase in taxes to fund bicycle improvements. These issues were reflected in the public com-

Screenshot of the Project Website (marionbikeplan.weebly.com)

ments received about the desire to connect safely to the downtown core, grocery/shopping areas, and Catawba River Greenway Trail. Specific insight from the Steering Committee and members of the public from public outreach events is displayed in Map 2.5 on the following page.

Public outreach at the Relay for Life of McDowell County Event on May 8th, 2015

Public outreach at the Marion Cyclovia on May 9th, 2015

CHAPTER TWO: CURRENT CONDITIONS |

2-11


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Map 2.5 - Public Input

OW

E

H

HOLLAN D

HURS

OL

RA ND W

IRV IE KI

Y OD TO WN

FA

HED

F

GE

LL E

H

E

ON

F OF

NCAN 22 S 6

LL EG CO

NC

OL D

VIE W

AH

S G RANTS MO UNT AI N

226

OO D

N

YA

OLD

A

M T S V ILL

E

YW AY

NEW HO P E

HUN

ER

SK

IE

LAKEV IEW

NN

OLD NEAL

EK

Y LE

LE Y

PP

E N VAL

ON

H IDD

CH I SI

EN

WARD C ARR A WAY

EX IT

IN E

DEWEY R JO N

R

Challenging for college students to access downW E town by anything GL other than a car G L EN HAV

ES

OF RO CK

NS DAW N

HOL L PY

HO P

AR

LP

ORIA

ME M

AG L

T

UR

CO

il

Tr a

DY

GAD

MCIVER

GU R E C L Y

R IE

N BE

L OVE WA Y

TAYL R LAKE

IT N WH

WH ATA

T OM

O TI

VI OA K

ST AT E

PA MAPLER K

GE

RI D

INS

DG

HU

W

EAR

LIN ET

AP ERO ACH K E E

I

LE

CH

D

L

RUTH

OL D

TT LE

D

L

LI

B

Y

YAN CE F

EY

FINL

EE HILLT O N P

LU CKY

TR O NI X Y

HI

TAT E

GR O

NT

SA

PH

EA

TE

D

IL L

F

OM

WI LLI

NS

HA NK I

C AR

B RR ike R Y ou te 70

te

W

NS

R

P

LI LI AC

N

OO

221

ZIO N HI LL

CO

eI I

EL T

VA

ABRAHA M

IDD LER EA

D

FA I

HI T T

ha s

O

DA

LY

A

A

AR

TIN

M

C

Y

W

MF

WI LS

OS EC RE

Y

NE

L HO L

IN

avine P

BARNES

WILD W

S

NC 126

TO

OW PER

ON

GO

AC ST

D

S

Pe

COO

M IT C

II

RF LY

Y

| CHAPTER TWO: CURRENT CONDITIONS

Ph ase

B U TTE

1 Miles

OR D

AL AV

I 0.5

¦ ¨ § 40

HILL

Public Input Map

B URMA

N KTOW JA C FO XWOO D

O B

A

AM

Marion Comprehensive Bicycle Plan 2015

0

TA

B

E

SM ITH

O

A

BY

R O OK

E

NT

S WI

WELL

TH OR

ILL

I G HT

R

W

P INEH

UT HE RF

£ ¤

W

Y

R

GG

DA

R OBER

BO N D

AD

MOU

LE

Challenging intersection to cross by bike

L

Tra 1ST MO il P ea v ine D AR Rail E to T rail a s Id R

AS H

A SH

D

ER

ON

W DO

CA

A ME

M

CE

WH

G RIN

NG DI

IS MO RR E PIN

N YN

M

S N E LS

E CR H A RV

RRO

CH

L

OW

EY RL

X NI

Y AD FR

EM TH

T

AD

W

P OO LE

D

E

Commercial shopping is Hdisconnected IN COOK CH R EK AC GA C H from neighborhoods Uand TA Sugar Hill UR W Rd S C E C H LI N is a challenge by bike D E A EA

E C AD Y C AS LE EP

2-12

ID

IO T

E FIS H

O

C

VY

RU JO

L

I LL

RY

ail to

. Mt

M

OP

ER

P

RE

E LM

E LL

S

N THER

EVAN

eR

R IF O

LDING AU

T

P Excitement over the 221 B Y potential paving of the AL G IS P NIAPeavine Trail

HIG H

PA

S U T IP T

E EM

avi n

FA RM

Regional destinations make for 70 US ST AC Y L AM popular recreational bike rides H I LL S starting in Marion LL MI

K

221

R

SP

KE

N

IDG E

R PA

DA V IS

Y JA

DA

CR

K EE

ON

Y

VIE

D

C AR S

LE

D

E

EL FI

Pe

WE L

R OI RV

L VA

RE

HI D

R

ES M JA EW N RT O T F

AL

E

AN SE BR 5T H C 7TH T TE S GR TA A AY S ILD M T CL CD MA BO STIC AY O P ERRY 6

S G RE IN C PR LL MO S VE R E G AN B LU NA LEEN LE E BR CR E O AD OS GR S LAIL

WO Visitor center OD is popular starting point for group bike rides G R

D QUA L IT Y N

IN G

RESE

OL

N ER

70 £ ¤

CH

L

Y LE AD

W D F IN C H AY CR O SS

1 US 2 2

GR E ENL E E

G OL

C AT

LE S VIL BAKE R

BR

CO

ta e st S 70 W

FLEM

M VALLEY HIL AI N L

EY

BO B

SH ERRI

L WA

N

EAC

J

NL

LAN

Schools have participated in R TULIP SRTS programming HILL

N KSO

N T AI

J AC

E

N RU

DUK

MOU

IC

MA

OR

TO

N

SM HT R EE

NS

IA

T

DEER

D

O FRE D Y N GE L W ING

P

R TO

IC

AIL

ST

X

CO

JU

E

N

TA

C

FO

S

LE O

NICE

H

P LA

BER

IL L

EK RE

AC

S OD

SC

JP

M

U

A AN

SP

RY HE

WO

OS

DGETT PE

ISL

Z

Catawba River Greenway is a key destination to connect to downtown

EP

CR

PA

LE

NT

TC

DE

G

S

H HA

S

FI

LEGEND Existing Trails Proposed Trails Rail Line

Destinations College Government Services Shopping/Grocery

Planning Boundary

Library

City Limits

Medical

Body of Water

Park/Open Space School

Data obtained from City of Marion. Map created May, 2015.


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

PUBLIC COMMENT FORM RESULTS The charts below summarize public input collected during this planning process in Spring/Summer 2015. 21 local residents, property owners, employees, and visitors contributed their input.

Marion Bicycle Plan

Q1 How do you rate bicycling conditions in Marion? Answered: 238

Skipped: 3

Excellent

Fair

Poor

0%

Answer Choices

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Responses

Excellent

2.94%

7

Fair

40.34%

96

Poor

56.72%

135

Total

238

CHAPTER TWO: CURRENT CONDITIONS |

2-13


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Marion Bicycle Plan

Q2 How important to you is improving bicycling conditions in Marion? Answered: 241

Skipped: 0

Very Important

Somewhat Important

Not Important

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Answer Choices

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Responses

Very Important

44.81%

108

Somewhat Important

41.91%

101

Not Important

13.28%

32

Total

2-14

241

1/1 | CHAPTER TWO: CURRENT CONDITIONS


MAY 2016

MARION BICYCLE PLAN

Marion Bicycle Plan

Q3 When bicycling in Marion, what is (or would be) the primary purpose of your trip? (check all that apply) Answered: 238

Skipped: 3

Transportation

Recreation

Exercise

To enjoy nature

Socialize

I do not bike

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Answer Choices

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Responses

Transportation

34.03%

81

Recreation

57.14%

136

Exercise

73.11%

174

To enjoy nature

59.24%

141

Socialize

28.15%

67

I do not bike

15.55%

37

Total Respondents: 238

1/1 CHAPTER TWO: CURRENT CONDITIONS |

2-15


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Marion Bicycle Plan

Q4 What should be the most important goals and outcomes of this plan? (check all the apply) Answered: 208

Skipped: 33

Safer conditions f...

More choices for recreati... More choices for...

Increased tourism and... Increased overall qual...

Environmental benefits

None

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Answer Choices

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Responses

Safer conditions for bicycling

89.42%

186

More choices for recreation and exercise

74.04%

154

More choices for transportation between neighborhoods and local destinations

56.73%

118

Increased tourism and property values

35.58%

74

Increased overall quality of life/livability

57.21%

119

Environmental benefits

45.67%

95

None

2.88%

6

Total Respondents: 208

2-16

| CHAPTER TWO: CURRENT CONDITIONS

1/1


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Marion Bicycle Plan

Q5 What destinations would you most like to be able to reach by bicycling? Please rank (1 = most like to reach, 9 = least like to reach) Answered: 198

Skipped: 43

Downtown Marion

Visitor Center

Catawba River Greenway

Peavine Rail Corridor

YMCA

Schools

Marion Community...

Oak Grove Cemetery Regional destinations...

0

Downtown Marion

Visitor Center

Catawba River Greenway

Peavine Rail Corridor

YMCA

Schools

Marion Community Building Park

1

2

3

4

5

5

6

6

7

8

7

9

8

10

1

2

3

4

Total

Score

30.67% 46

10.67% 16

13.33% 20

18.67% 28

8.67% 13

3.33% 5

2.67% 4

5.33% 8

9 6.67% 10

150

6.49

4.96% 7

12.77% 18

9.22% 13

6.38% 9

11.35% 16

14.89% 21

11.35% 16

12.06% 17

17.02% 24

141

4.41

23.97% 35

19.18% 28

16.44% 24

10.96% 16

7.53% 11

8.22% 12

5.48% 8

2.74% 4

5.48% 8

146

6.48

4.23% 6

11.97% 17

14.08% 20

13.38% 19

12.68% 18

10.56% 15

15.49% 22

10.56% 15

7.04% 10

142

4.93

6.25% 9

15.28% 22

17.36% 25

15.28% 22

17.36% 25

11.11% 16

5.56% 8

7.64% 11

4.17% 6

144

5.59

14.48% 21

7.59% 11

10.34% 15

8.97% 13

13.79% 20

11.72% 17

16.55% 24

8.97% 13

7.59% 11

145

5.08

4.32% 6

9.35% 13

2.88% 4

9.35% 13

17.27% 24

21.58% 30

16.55% 23

13.67% 19

5.04% 7

139

4.45

1/2

CHAPTER TWO: CURRENT CONDITIONS |

2-17


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Marion Bicycle Plan

Q6 What do you think are the factors that most DISCOURAGE bicycling in Marion? Please select up to five factors. Answered: 199

Skipped: 42

Lack of bicycle lane...

Lack of information... Unsafe street crossings

Heavy/fast motor vehicl... Aggressive motorist...

Lack of access to bicycles ... Lack of amenities...

Lack of nearby destinations Personal safety conce...

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Answer Choices

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Responses

Lack of bicycle lanes and trails

93.47%

186

Lack of information about local trails and bicycle routes

55.78%

111

Unsafe street crossings

60.30%

120

Heavy/fast motor vehicle traffic

63.32%

126

Aggressive motorist behavior

54.27%

108

Lack of access to bicycles and bicycling equipment

31.16%

62

Lack of amenities (bicycle racks, wayfinding signs, water fountains, etc.)

53.27%

106

Lack of nearby destinations

41.71%

83

Personal safety concerns (other than traffic)

38.69%

77

Total Respondents: 199

1/1

2-18

50%

| CHAPTER TWO: CURRENT CONDITIONS


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Marion Bicycle Plan

Q8 How should bicycle facilities be funded within Marion (Select all that apply) Answered: 174

Skipped: 67

Current Taxes

New Taxes

Fundraising and Donations

Matching Grant Funds

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Answer Choices

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Responses

Current Taxes

44.83%

78

New Taxes

21.26%

37

Fundraising and Donations

75.86%

132

Matching Grant Funds

67.82%

118

Total Respondents: 174

1/1

CHAPTER TWO: CURRENT CONDITIONS |

2-19


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Marion Bicycle Plan

Q9 How willing would you be to pay some increase in taxes to fund bicycle facilities in Marion? Answered: 181

Skipped: 60

Very Willing

Somewhat Willing

Not Sure

Not Willing

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Answer Choices

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Responses

Very Willing

19.34%

35

Somewhat Willing

35.91%

65

Not Sure

24.31%

44

Not Willing

20.44%

37

Total

181

1/1

2-20

50%

| CHAPTER TWO: CURRENT CONDITIONS


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Marion Bicycle Plan

Q10 What is your relationship to Marion? Answered: 181

Skipped: 60

I live here

I work here

I own property here

I visit here (shopping,...

None of the above

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Answer Choices

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Responses

I live here

88.40%

160

I work here

40.88%

74

I own property here

29.28%

53

I visit here (shopping, dining, local services)

13.81%

25

None of the above

1.66%

3

Total Respondents: 181

1/1 CHAPTER TWO: CURRENT CONDITIONS |

2-21


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS Overview | Methodology | Chapter Organization | Types of Bicyclists | Bicycle Facility Types | Recommendations | Project Prioritization | Priority Projects & Investments | Program Recommendations

CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS |

3-1


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Overview This chapter features recommendations for bicycle facilities in the City of Marion, followed by recommendations for related programs and policies. The recommended bicycle network consists of existing and proposed facilities such as trails, sidepaths, bicycle lanes, and shared lanes/routes. Conceptually, these bicycle facilities and the destinations they connect form a network of ‘hubs and spokes’. Downtown Marion, shopping centers, parks, neighborhoods, schools, and other places where people bicycle to and from are the ‘hubs’, whereas bicycle lanes, trails, and other bicycle facilities are the ‘spokes’ that connect them (see diagram to the right).

Methodology for Bicycle Network Design The recommended bicycle network was developed by assembling and analyzing information from several sources: input from the staff and steering committee, public input from comment forms and public events, previous plans and studies, locations of existing facilities and destinations, and the consultant’s field analysis. Field work examined the potential and need for bicycle facilities along key corridors in Marion, with a focus on potential connections between key destinations.

Chapter Organization An overview of recommended bicycle facility descriptions is followed by a series of recommendations maps. Maps 3.1 and 3.2 outline the overall recommendations, representing the comprehensive network of all recommended facilities. A full project list can be found in Append C. Priority recommendations are featured in the pages following the overall recommendations maps, including four high-impact priority projects that can be implemented at relatively low-cost, followed by four priority investments, that will have the greatest positive impact on bicycling, but that are more complex and expensive to implement. Appendix C contains the full project list including both priority and non-priority projects.

McDowell Community College is a key destination

Program recommendations are at the end of this chapter, beginning at page 3-15.

3-2

| CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Types of Bicyclists Bicyclists can be categorized into four distinct groups based on comfort level and riding skills. Bicyclists’ skill levels greatly influence expected speeds and behavior, both in separated bikeways and on shared roadways. Each of these groups has different bicycle facility needs, so it is imporSource: Four Types of Cyclists. (2009). Roger Geller, City of Portland Bureau of Transportation. Supported by data collected nationally since 2005.

tant to consider how a bicycle network will accommodate each type of cyclist when creating a non-motorized plan or project. The bicycle infrastructure should accommodate as many user types as possible, with decisions for separate or parallel facilities based on providing a comfortable experience for the greatest number of people. In the US population, people are generally categorized into one of four cyclist types. The characteristics, attitudes, and infrastructure preferences of each type are described below.

HIGHLY EXPERIENCED (~1% OF POPULATION) Characterized by bicyclists that will typically ride anywhere regardless of roadway conditions or weather. These bicyclists can ride faster than other user types, prefer direct routes and will typically choose roadway connections -- even if shared with vehicles -- over separate bicycle facilities such as shared use paths.

ENTHUSED AND CONFIDENT (~ 5-10% OF POPULATION) This user group encompasses bicyclists who are fairly comfortable riding on all types of bikeways but usually choose low traffic streets or sidepaths when available. These bicyclists may deviate from a more direct route in favor of a preferred facility type. This group includes all kinds of bicyclists such as commuters, recreationalists, racers and utilitarian bicyclists.

INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED (~ 60% OF POPULATION) This user type comprises the bulk of the cycling population and represents bicyclists who typically only ride a bicycle on low traffic streets or trails under favorable weather conditions. These bicyclists perceive significant barriers to their increased use of cycling, specifically traffic and other safety issues. These people may become “Enthused & Confident” with encouragement, education and experience.

NO WAY, NO HOW (~ 30% OF POPULATION) Persons in this category are not bicyclists, and perceive severe safety issues with riding in traffic. Some people in this group may eventually become more regular cyclists with time and education. A significant portion of these people will not ride a bicycle under any circumstances.

CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS |

3-3


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

O CR

GETT

K EE CR

PE

A

CH

AGE

ILL

in Marion should be a minimum of 10’ in

V

width.

K EE SMIC S CR CO OS CR

PA D

City of Marion Legend »» Path facilities can also include amenities 2015 Bicycle Plan

H

GETT

Trail (Independent Right-of-Way)

ILLS

SS

from roadway ROW where there are few DRAFT Recommendations conflicts with motorized vehicles. Trails facility design, please see Appendix A: Design mended in this plan. For more information on Guidelines.

H

PA D

»» These facilities are frequently found City of Marion in parks, along rivers, beaches, and in The descriptions on this page offer a brief 2015 Bicycle Plan greenbelts or utility corridors, away overview of the primary facility types recom-

Bicycle Facility Types

such as lighting,Type signage, and fencing Recommended Facility

ILLS

PO

A trail is a facility that is separated from the

PE

DRAFT (where appropriate). Bike Lanes roadway and designed for a variety of users,Recommendations

A

CH

Proposed trails are symbolized in the Bike Lanes/Sharrow Combo recommendation maps as shown below. wheelchair users, and skaters. Neighborhood Bike Routes Further details on trails are found in the Design »» Trails may be paved or unpaved and Legend Proposed Trailin Appendix A. Guidelines are the preferred facility for novice and MA Road Diet Facility Type JO Recommended average bicyclists. RuralLanes Bike Routes NS Bike KI

AGE

ILL

including bicyclists, walkers, hikers, joggers,

V

70

W es t

St at e

SMIC CO

PO

R

FI

St at e

TE RR Y

W es t 70 70

TE RR Y

O OD

CA

VI

EW

FA IR

W

B

M ES

BO

D

OL

N

GREEN

D

L EE

D

W

O OD

VI

EW

EL

FI FA IR

N

H I D DE

DA

S STATE DE

Planning Boundary Park/Open Space

JAY

L FAIRFIE

City Limits Medical

Body of Water

JA

H I D DE

QUALITY

Rail Line Library

School

te

R

LM PA ER

D

EL

L EE

RE

Body of Water Shopping/Grocery

SISTOF EX L RE

School Government Services

S STATE DE

Park/Open Space College

GREEN

ou ke R e Bi

L FAIRFIE

70

at t St Wes

CA

Y

RE

TA HO IT A MLA Y QU

Library Existing Medical Destinations

70

HA W

HA W

O E

NL E

IE

LA K

LD

NS KI

SS JE

TrailsShopping/Grocery

MA JO

NT BRYA

Government Services Sidepath

M ES

B

College Sharrows

JA

CO

70

ute R

at t St Wes

o ke R e Bi

BO

TA HO MA

IE

E

SISTOF EX L RE

Destinations Rural Bike Routes

LA K

SS JE

Existing Road Diet

Y LM PA ER

NT BRYA

TrailsProposed Trail

CO

Sharrows Bike Lanes/Sharrow Combo Sidepath Bike Routes MapNeighborhood Key:

NL E

D

I

Rail Line

R

N

M A

Planning

0.8 Miles Boundary

W EL BO

0.4

EE CR

COOK

RAH A

C DA

AB

M A

W EL BO

N

E N

R

M

RC H

LI C

| CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS

0.2 0.4 from City of Marion. 0.8 Data obtained Miles Map created August, 2015.

CH U

K

3-4

BE TIM

An upaved trail example (independent ROW) from the Browns Creek trail in Marion (photo from Cape Fear SORBA).

I 0

C DA

LF O RW

X NI

The paved trail above is an example of a facility that is independent of the roadway right-of-way.

City Limits

0.2

JAY

0

BE R TIM

DAY

LF O W

DA

NI


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Sidepaths

»» Families and novice bicyclists are most comfortable on sidepaths. Therefore, a compre-

PA D

network of sidepaths, that includes City ofhensive Marion trails built in open space, is an integral part road traffic. Sidepaths are more transportation2015 Bicycle Plan

O CR

GETT

follows a road corridor but is separated from on-

K EE CR

DRAFT development should be a priority of Marion. Recommendations it is generally preferable to place paths within

A

CH

AGE

ILL

»» The key difference between a sidepath and

V

Legend

SMIC CO

a typical sidewalk is the extra width. A 10’

However, there are situations where existing roads provide the only corridors available.

PE

pedestrians. Because of operational concerns,

independent rights-of-way away from roadways.

wide path, for example, allows for safer

shared use by bicyclists, pedestrians, and »» Sidepaths are most appropriate in corridors Recommended Facility Typethe typical 5’-wide sideother users, whereas with few driveways and intersections.

ILLS

SS

of the overall bicycle facility network, and its

oriented in character and used by bicyclists and

H

A sidepath is a type of shared use path that

PO

walk does not allow for safe passing. Bike Lanes

to direct users to access points with high-

Proposed sidepaths are symbolized in the recomBike Lanes/Sharrow Combo mendation maps as shown below. Further details Neighborhood Bike Routes

St at e

»» Signage should be included along sidepaths

70

W es t

on sidepaths are found in the Design Guidelines Proposed Trail in Appendix A. MA Road Diet JO R NL E

Y

70

HA W

Sharrows Map Key:

NS KI

CO

Rural Bike Routes

LM PA ER

Government Services

JA

M ES

CA

B

College

te

SISTOF EX L RE

70

Destinations

at t St Wes

ou ke R e Bi

BO

Existing

TA HO MA

IE

E

SS JE

LA K

Trails

NT BRYA

Sidepath

TE RR Y

visibility crosswalks.

OL

D

GREEN

L EE

RE

Shopping/Grocery

D

W

QUALITY

O OD

VI

EW

Library

L FAIRFIE

Medical

EL

FA IR

FI

School Body of Water

N

S STATE DE

Park/Open Space

H I D DE

D

Rail Line JAY

City Limits

DA

Planning Boundary

I 0.4 0.8 Miles Sidepath example without curb and gutterNin Conover, AC NC. M A

R

0.2

W EL BO

BE R TIM

D

X NI

EE CR

COOK

K

CH U

RC H

CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS | C

Data obtained from City of Marion.

M

0 Sidepath example with curb and gutter in Wilmington, NC, along Museum Dr.

3-5

LF O W


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Bike Lanes

»» Buffered bike lanes are conventional bi-

Bike lanes are described as a portion of the

cycle lanes paired with a designated buffer

roadway that has been designated by striping,

space, separating the bike lane from the

signing, and pavement markings for the prefer-

adjacent motor vehicle travel lane and/

ential and exclusive use of bicyclists.

or parking lane. Buffered bike lanes are allowed as per MUTCD guidelines for buff-

»» Bike lanes always carry bicyclists in the

ered preferential lanes (section 3D-01).

same direction as adjacent motor vehicle traffic.

»» Buffered bike lanes are designed to increase the space between the bike lane

»» While bike lanes on both sides of the road-

and the travel lane or parked cars. This

way are preferred. However, when space

treatment is appropriate for bike lanes on O CR

GETT

K EE CR

O CR

A

K EE CR AGE

ILL

DRAFT

V

SMIC CO

PE

mendations maps as shown below. Further ing bike lane recommendations. A roadRecommendations Legend details on bike lanes are found in the Design diet removes excess travel lanes or narrows Guidelines in Appendix A. existing lanes to install bicycle facilities. Recommended Facility Type

A

CH

ILL

AGE V

SMIC CO

Legend Bike Lanes

MapBike Key:Lanes/Sharrow Combo Recommended Facility Type

i B St at e R

FI FA IR

i B

W es t 70

70 TE RR Y TE RR Y

PH

HA W

VI

N

H I D DE

W

O OD

VI

EW

FI

EW

FA IR

O OD

L EE

N

H I D DE

DA N

JAY

City Limits

W

GREEN

JAY

| CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS

D

B

3-6

Planning Rail Line Boundary

EL

BO

City BodyLimits of Water

D

C AT

L EE

D

Rail Line School

EL

M ES

RE

Body of Water Park/Open Space

S TES STATE ESTA DE LD FAIRFIE

School Medical Buffered bike lane example.

L FAIRFIE

Bike lanes on Salisbury Street in Raleigh, NC were installed during a resurfacing project.

QUALITY

JA

D

O

LD

GREEN

R C ATO

RE

QUALITY

D

te

M ES ALMER P

B

OL

Medical Shopping/Grocery Park/Open Space Library

ou ke R e Bi

Y

BO

at t St Wes

oute

JA

IE

70

TA HO MA

NL E

SS JE

E

R ike

T NIS TO IST S BRYA F L EXRES OF L EX RE

eB Stat est LA 70 W K

C O SI E S JE

TA HO MA

NS KI

RO

LM PA ER

R

E

NT BRYA

LA K

Existing College

Library Government Services

Y

MA JO

Sidepath Rural Bike Routes

Shopping/Grocery College

NL E

70

HA W

Sharrows Road Diet

NS KI

CO

Rural BikeTrail Routes Proposed

Government Services Destinations

St at e

MA JO

PH

Road Diet Neighborhood Bike Routes

70

W es t

Proposed Trail Bike Lanes/Sharrow Combo

Destinations Trails

POND

POND

Neighborhood Bike Routes Bike Lanes

Sidepath Existing

ILLS

SS

PE

CH

and road diets are symbolized in the recom-

TrailsSharrows

ILLS

SS

PA D

GETT

»» Road diets are one method of implement-

PA D

H

roadways with high motor vehicle traffic

City of Marion volumes and speed, adjacent to parking Bicycle Plan lanes, or a high volume of truck or over»» The minimum width for a bike lane is2015 four sized vehicle traffic. feet; five- and six-foot bike lanes are typical City DRAFT of Marion for collector and arterial roads. Recommendations Proposed bike lanes, bike lane/sharrow combo, 2015 Bicycle Plan shared lane markings are an option.

H

is limited, uphill bike lanes and downhill

DA N


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Marked Shared Roadways (Sharrows)/Bike Routes

»» Shared roadways employ a large variety of treatments from simple signage and shared lane markings to more complex treatments including

Marked shared roadways (also known as

O CR

GETT

K EE CR

PE

A

CH

AGE

ILL

avoid heavy maintenance costs, sharrows were

V

»» On shared roadways, bicyclists and motor

SMIC CO

recommended on a limited basis. Perhaps in the

vehicles use the same roadway space.

Legendfuture, roadways such as Garden Street, Madison

»» These facilities are typically used on roads

Street, Fleming Avenue and Robert Street could be Facility Type with low speeds and/or traffic volumes,Recommended considered marked as shared roadways. However, they can be used on higher volume Bike Lanes roads with wide outside lanes. Further details onCombo shared roadways/routes are Bike Lanes/Sharrow found in the Design Guidelines in Appendix A. Neighborhood Bike Routes »» A motor vehicle driver will usually have to

Road Diet

St at e 70

W es t

Proposed Trail MA JO

R

HA W

Sharrows

NS KI

CO

Map Rural Key: Bike Routes

NL E

Y

70

pass a bicyclist.

PO

R

LM PA ER

College Government Services

JA

M ES

CA

SISTOF EX L RE

70

Destinations

at t St Wes

te

B

Existing

ou ke R e Bi

BO

TA HO MA

IE

E

SS JE

LA K

Trails

NT BRYA

Sidepath

TE RR Y

cross over into the adjacent travel lane to

ILLS

SS

DRAFT shared roadways/routes are symbolized Proposed Recommendations in the recommendation maps as shown below. To

landscapes that may feature on-street parking, a variety of lane widths, and other factors.

H

PA D

signage, traffic diverters, chicanes, City ofdirectional Marion chokers, and/or other traffic calming devices to a pavement marking treatment to help align Planspeeds or volumes. reduce vehicle bicyclists properly in both urban and rural 2015 Bicycle “sharrows”) have become more popular as

OL

D

GREEN

L EE

RE

Shopping/Grocery

D

W

QUALITY

O OD

VI

EW

Library

L FAIRFIE

Medical

EL

FA IR

FI

School Body of Water

N

S STATE DE

Park/Open Space

H I D DE

D

Rail Line JAY

City Limits

DA N

Planning Boundary

I

0.4

0.8 Miles

N

M A

0.2

R

0

Bike route signage example, with distances

W EL BO

Marked shared roadway (sharrow) example in Downtown Wilmington, NC, on Front Street.

C DA

BE R TIM

LF O W

X NI

EE CR

CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS | K

CH U

RC H

3-7 COOK

S


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Typically found in less-dense areas, bike routes

vary based on road conditions, traffic volumes,

highlight a particular route that connects

and project opportunities. Ideally, bike routes

people to key destinations. In Marion, sev-

are paved roadways with striped shoulders

eral local roadways provide direct access to

(4’+) wide enough for bicycle travel.

schools, parks, community centers, and shop-

»» Bike routes should include signage alerting

PA D

O CR

GETT

motorists to expect bicycle travel along the City of Marion a network that connects cyclists to the many roadway. 2015 Bicycle Plan regional destinations in and around Marion and City of Marion »» As roadways are widened to accommoprovide opportunities for group rides and long, DRAFT date increasing Recommendations recreational rides. 2015 Bicycle Plan traffic volumes, upgrades ping. Similarly, the Rural Bike Routes create

K EE CR

O CR

A

K EE CR AGE

ILL

to dedicated bicycle facilities, such as a

V

SMIC CO

PE

A

CH

sidepaths should be considered.

ILL

AGE

labeling the network as Neighborhood or Rural

V

SMIC CO

Proposed neighborhood and rural bike routes Recommended Facility Type Bike Routes can be a great short-term improveare symbolized in the recommendations maps Legend Bikeas Lanes ment. The addition of signage will help cyclists shown below. find their way as well as alert motorists toRecommended Facility Type Bike Lanes/Sharrow Combo

i B St at e R

FA IR FA IR

i

W es t 70

TE RR Y TE RR Y

PH

HA W

VI

O OD

N

H I D DE

W

O OD

VI

H I D DE

JAY

BodyLimits of Water City

W

L EE

N

D

FI

EL

FI

School Rail Line

L EE

EW

Paved shoulder examples Park/Open Space Body of Water

GREEN

EW

D

DA N

Rail Line Boundary Planning

JAY

City Limits

DA N

0.2

0.4

0.8

C DA

X NI

0

N

M A

| CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS

0.8 Miles

W EL BO

3-8

I I

0.4

R

Planning Boundary

0.2

C AT

B

EL

BO

Medical School

S TES STATE ESTA DE LD FAIRFIE

Library Park/Open Space

M ES

D

QUALITY

R C ATO

RE

L FAIRFIE

Shopping/Grocery Medical

D OL

JA

D

QUALITY

Government Services Library

GREEN

M ESPALMER

RE

College Shopping/Grocery

D

oute

Y

B

OL

JA

IE

Destinations Government Services

Stat est 70 W

ke R e Bi

te

SS JE

Existing College

TA HO MA

Ro u

NT BRYAESISTOF EX ESISTOF EX L R L R

LA 0 K7E

Trails Destinations

Bike ate t St Wes

NL E

BO

TA HO MA

C O SI E S JE

E

NS KI

RO

LM PA ER

R

LA K

NT BRYA

Rural Bike Routes Sidepath Sidepath Existing

Y

70

NL E

MA JO

70

HA W

Road Diet Sharrows

NS KI

CO

Proposed Rural BikeTrail Routes

B St at e

MA JO

PH

Neighborhood Bike Routes Road Diet

70

W es t

MapProposed Key: Bike Lanes/Sharrow Combo Trail

TrailsSharrows

POND

POND

Bike Lanes Neighborhood Bike Routes

0

ILLS

SS

PE

GETT

CH

DRAFT shoulder, a bike lane or a road-separated While the cost of improving these roads with Recommendations

expect bicycle traffic.

ILLS

SS

PA D

dedicated bicycle facilities may be prohibitive, Legend

H

Facility types along the bike route network will

H

Bike Routes

BE R TIM

LF O W

LF


Map 3.1 - Overall Recommendations

May 2016

MARION BICYCLE PLAN

CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS |

3-9


Map 3.2 - Recommendations - Downtown

NA RO CA E NU AV E

RE O

O

W

LE CI RC

ay

G

VI LE N

EW

E

SH O P

il Tr a Ida Mt.

HUN

ET H

D AR

MO

CLA R E

N E R SO

ND

B

Oak Grove Cemetery

GL E N

TE R

W OO

D RD FO

UNGS C YO

F

LL

O

W

EM

ail

NC

IS

N

O DY

M

t o Tr

GEORG IA

TENNESSEE

e R ail

O YT

OOD M

HE A

D

MA

Peav in

NT NS GI HU D BA

R

K

HI

ATW OOD

LD M AT I

VI EW PI NE

T

CR GE

CE

ES

ST AT E

BV AN ZE

R ID

1ST

E RE

CATAW

HE

N

H EN D ER SO

AM S

OLD WEST

LI WI L

LAIL

KA TH

Y

DA

A

MA PLE

PA RK

nw

LI

UR T

C

4T H

AR M

ER

TU RN R

FO

AW CR

FIN

ST

HO

LR R AI OAD

ee

ALABA

IN T PO

P O

OA K

N NO

LO

MO N TEV IS TA

ON NS

BI RO

LE

Y

D

N

2ND

RLAND GA

GA

Gr

Y

TAT

EV

R ENA

CH

ork

3RD

TA

OL E 21

4TH EM

ER

US 2

sF

IS MO RR

| CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS

TH

Data obtained from City of Marion. Map created July, 2015.

T

EST H E IG OR HT S

AN E

W

L LY HO

RAM P TATE

BY

S

W D E EB B N

ng

MO R

BR O AD

RO

ON

Crossmill Community Park

G L

GR A N

AD

LO

Yo u

PINE

LE

E

OS

W IL

NG RI

RK T PA

C

AY MUR R

CR

ON

EM

S

NN A PI

0.2 Miles

ID G E

ER

5 TH EM

T

SN I

MI L L

EM

RY

E

ID

TR

H

PER

HU N

S

CL

Eastfield Community Park

TIC

LE A C

East Junior High School

MC DO W

BO S

DW IN

LI

R

M SU

Marion Train Depot & Farmer's Market

IA M

EL

N

EL NN

H 6T

NE

R BLUE

T MI

Y

L

PE

ES ER E E VO L N EE IR GR A LE N

AN

EL W

SP

LL PU

OODV

I

W

G ROVE

R LC

E

McDowell Rec Center & Skate Park

EM

H IL

G

AD

T

L

RK

BAL

LO

Planning Boundary

AC

R

ES

C LA

AY

CE

RT

D FO

Maple Leaf Ball Fields

City Limits

3-10

FO

R WA

Rail Line

OL

AY

EU

LE

R EN

Marion Community Building & Splash Pad

HO

Body of Water

RR

AN

LL

ES

ZIO N

School

CL

E

N E SH

GR

CA

N

HI

Park/Open Space

EY

AN

O S

C

K

A Z A LE

I AD

A

A

G IL

M

Library

M

E W M HI L LS ID VIE JA

N

MA IN

VA L LEY

DE

Shopping/Grocery

Marion Elementary School T

R GA

Government Services

RT

M AR TI N

AG

TU

E ST AT ST

VIN

Destinations

C EN

OO D

F LO

C R ES

Proposed Trails

W

Y LE

N

R TH C

DO

ERS V ILL E

R FE

FO U

7T H

FO R ES

A HL

R O BE

RD

SE

CH

G

D

Y R

RIC HA

K BA

Existing Trails

EE N

C

HI

TO

OO

FLEMING

Trails

0.05 0.1

6T H

ND

Sidepath

C

LA

Rural Bike Routes Sharrows

5T H

IA

OD

KW

AT

ay CHUR

C VI

Road Diet

WIST ER

GR

OA

T BI

RT

Neighborhood Bike Routes

WO

nw

CH

PO

G DO

re e

AN

D

G

BR

OO

N

LW

ie ld

NO RTO

RE

AI R

Bike Lanes/Sharrow Combo

S H ERR I

Bike Lanes

LL WA

LA U

hf

Y

Legend Recommended Facility Type

lin c

HA

CE

C

MA T IL

ON YA N

SHEH

A NI

CO

KS

V

GI IR

RIDGE

HILL

J AC

DRAFT Recommendations

0

70 £ ¤

LE C RC CI

ME R ID

City of Marion 2015 Bicycle Plan

I

MARION BICYCLE PLAN

May 2016

221 BYP

FR A

221 £ ¤

Peav in

e Ra i l to RU

TH

Tr ail s

ER

FO

RD

Pha s

e II


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

JULY 2015 DRAFT

Project Prioritization

Priority investments are typically higher cost, complex implementation projects that may require more study and coordination. These projects have the ability to yield a greater return on investment by generating more bicycle traffic in Marion.

The prioritization process began with input from City staff and steering committee members on high priority areas and corridors during the third steering committee meeting. During fieldwork investigations, the consultant team evaluated and ground-truthed the high priority areas and corridors to identify the most appropriate facility type for each corridor. Priority projects were then reviewed and discussed with the steering committee, public, City staff, and NCDOT staff.

Any recommendations along a NCDOTmaintained roadway will require review and approval by NCDOT Highway Division 13 prior to implementation.

G

OO K

IO N

LAND

0

HO

M LA

RST

A

ME

R GAN

RAN DO LP H

S

Y KAT H

POI N T

SG AH V IEW

BARNES

Pe SC av OTT in eP ha se I

I

E LA N HT

K R LA

L

FF

ES

AY

CARR AW

G LENH AVE N

RO MI

NE

A RD

R EEK

LL

DEWEYR JO N

CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS |

3-11 YAPP

L IN D UST RIA

LITT

NO B

ER TY

LIB

DVIEW

SN AK

CH ER O

EW HIT M E AC AW

E

AP AC HE

EK

RE

SNELSON

M RAH A

NE

AB

OLD

FLY BUTTER

C

M A

R W EL BO

W

ALON AV

I CL

DAY

KE

40 § ¨ ¦

C

HI

PATH

L HIL

NT AIN

Y

R GA SU

OU

G AC

K

G

OLE M

LE

EE CR

RIN SP

RC H

PO

SH AD Y

TH OR

X NI

CH U

COOK

Y

BE TIM

GR A N

HW AS

C DA

SU L N LA E N D

W O

E RL

N

LF O RW

ER ISH

Priority Projects: 5) Main St; 6) Court St; 7) Rutherford Rd; 8) Wayfinding Signage.

OLD G LE

ROCK

O

A

EX IT

BI

BO ND

CON DRE

ON

DE V

LL E Y

OPEN V A

W

F

CO

MI

N YN N

L

DA

LAMP

NWO OD

WEL

OW D EA M

LAWN D A

LL

E

40

ANTS MO

UNT A

TAY

McDowell Technical

GR

D

AW

RI G

OD

WIL D WO RU MF ELT

IN

L

O

Priority Investments: 1) Peavine Trail, Phase 1; 2) Peavine Trail, Phase 2; 3) Main St; 4) Henderson St. Y

DG E

TC H ELL

FI DD

KU DZ U

2 5

E UR NAT

A

MI

OF F ON

FO

KE ROO

B

CH RIS T OP H E 40W RIG HT LA NE FA IR V IE W

GA BL E

DY

GEORGIA

BY P DD Y

PI

DE AC ON

A

CO LL EG E

OA K

W AY NE

ST AT E PI NE V ORTH

STR OUD CAR R IE

MCIVE R

G

S

TT

EN

H

O

CO UR T CA RO LI

CIR

MAR

LA

D

IE W

SH ER R

I

OF

AY

R

KI N

GU R Y LE

RE E K

S

E RA IL R OA

R

GREE N

NIX C

H ILLTOP

PARK MAPLE

DO C RES

FIN LE Y

TATE

IL

HU DG IN S

RO G BERT

SA NT

SL

LU CK Y

TE RR Y

EW

V IS

ER COOP

RE

TIN

LO

IO ELL

JO E

OD WO

BI N

G

IA RN

ZE

W O SN

O

BURMA

WATKINS POTE AT

RO

RE E

OR

E

O

S SON JOHN

NS

TA IN

W es t 70 70

HA W

PA R

G

A

LIF

TRO Y

1

OWN JACKT

PLATO

1 22

CA

REID

S AN TER VE

LIL BUD IAC CA SU LVA NS R ET Y LI NE AR

ANCIS

T ACH

MOU N

P INE

e ut Ro Bi ke St at e

PE

PH EA

A

OD

221

22

R

X

EY

HITT

vine DAR E G Ra LE N WOO il to T D rails RU Pha TH se II ER FO RD

LG KI

1

HUN Pea TER

D Y WO O

VI

W LO

N

H

RO

Y RL CA

L

da

IS W

OW

LL

.I Mt

il Tra

TO N L

O W

HI

SH OP

O

RY ET E REV IS CEM

DS

W

O

RION MA

Tra il

O

ND LA AR G TA R BE

7 5

LLY

FI

B

VY

3R D 2N D 1ST

£ ¤

ay

B STEPPE

E CH

ail to

LE

KI

8

LS NICHO

E B RE COOL LU KI N

IS MORR PINE

eR

Y HILL

E E CH

WIN BALD HUNT

EN RD GA

Pea vin

LE

H LEAC ERRY P

ILL ER

NG RI SP

RK CLA

F

EVAN S

P TO

T ES AT ST

Y LE DO

E VIN

ULDING PA

G EA

7TH

MO RG AN BR OAD LAIL HO I EW GL ENV

K BEC

FA IR

ET

PL

RI

NG

W

TIP

CH CHUR H NC A A BIT R HA

L

enw Gre

PANTHER

R

NA

T

4 5

KE R

R

IE

JAY

R EC TO

M

5

70 £ ¤

6TH C

CL AY

ST AC

L MI

O LD M TULIP

E CL C

B

6

RID G

HIGH

G

DA

DA N

W

IAM LL PU S

D

TV

8

NE

N SO

N RA

RI VE

IA IN G

M AR TI N

ROBERT

N GA LO

R

PA

N

TE

ES W

S AN

STATES DE

VE

D EL

BLUE CRO SS

BY HOY LE

CA YM

ER ND SO N

ES

RT ST FO RE CS LL N HI IS IPE L EL

KLI FRAN

D

L FAIRFIE

H I D DE

8

E CL NA PIN R

8

O OD

FLEMI

M JA N ZIO

R OI

NA LE

A EN A R N

RE

QUALITY

VE

GR EE NL G EE

L EE W

M AI N

V ER

GREEN

RES

N CH W AY C R OSS

E

ILL

LLE Y VA

1 US 22

D

FI

Y

OL

G O LD

C AT

B

te

M ES

B Y CO NLE Y

D OO GW

RN FE ENT C

VALLEY H RO

BO

Ro u

L WA

Y

SISTOF EX L RE

70

Bike ate t St Wes

JA

IE

TA HO MA

SS JE

NT BRYA

E

Y TOR LE S V IL BAK ER

VI C

3 5

LM PA ER LA K

N YA

ORC HAR D

CO

NL E

HILL

RE EK MO

R

NS KI

EY

R VI

Y LE B RA D

MA JO

C

ON KS J AC

E DUK

REE

Y LL HO

GA RD EN

C

mbo

tes

TO N

DG E

CREST

A EROS POND

Type

E

SMIC CO

SOM ERSE T AP

A

V

Map 3.7 Priority Project & Priority Investment Locations (see following pages for details)

B

HE

V

AM

7 US

OU N

CA ND EE

HU

ILL

A

BL

K

E DAL

T

W

VE

MORIA LP AR BE N

HA N

KIN

G IN

S

IN

H

R SP

NS

DES CO CA

IC

IA TO R

L OS I N DR RD IL CA

RPORT AI

iver

LEO

NICE BER

K EE CR

A

AGE

PT

SS

D

O

T AT

N

EN

OVER L

Catwaba R

PE

CH

U P LA

ILLS

D

O CR

GET T

n

A DE

PA D

LS

Projects were split into two groups: priority projects and priority investments. Priority projects are low-cost, easy-to-install projects.

MHOL L OW P P Y TO

The eight priority project segments are displayed in the map below, with more details on the following pages.

M

LE


MAY 2016

IN A

CO UR T

AT

CA RO L

re en w ay

BI T

G

HA

MARION BICYCLE PLAN

ie ld

RIDGE

lin ch f

CHUR

N NORTO

A SE

FIE LD

C

I RG VI

E GL

AV EN UE

N CH

LI

4TH C

Y EV CH

MA TIL DA

IE W PI NE V

CLAR EMO NT

KA TH Y

WN DYT O

O DY

O

W EM

MAR IO N

CI RC LE

DAR E

Road Crossing Improvement Improvements at each intersection may include the EW NVI GLE following after further design study: 1. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon 2. High Visibility Crosswalk 3. Trail Crossing Warning Signs 4. Trail Wayfinding Signage

B

SHOP

il Tra Ida Mt.

See page A-6 of Appendix A: Design Guidelines for further detail on trail design.

HUN TER GLE NWO OD

RD FO

NGS C YOU

E RE

K

EST HEIG OR H TS

3-12

RO

Oak Grove Cemetery

Gazebo

F

MOO

Baldwin Ave

OR EH EA D M

o Tra il GEORGIA

Rail t

1ST

RLAND GA

St Vale

e Av

2N D

TA ER

Peav ine

Virginia Ave

ZE B

R ID GE CR AL ES AB T AM A

ST AT E

VA NC E

St te St a

ER

EM

H EM

5T Proposed trailheads would include the following: 1. Benches 2. Bike4TParking H EM 3. Signage 3R D

TR EM ON T

T HU N

rk Gr ee MO nw RG ay AN

PROPOSED TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS

D

NG RI SP

Fo

6T H WIN BALD

MIL L

Destinations Served • Downtown Marion • Joseph McDowell House • Oak Grove Cemetery • Proposed Mt. Ida Trail Corridor

E

TENNESSEE

MAPLE

M CD OW

PE

LL

E VIN

$1.2 MILLION

PROJECT LOCATION

T IC BOS H LEAC

East Junior High School

LA Y

EU CL I

NCE

CA RR OL L

ATWOOD

RE FLO

AN N

Y LE DO

PARK

RK CLA

GR AY

EXISTING CONDITIONS

PINE

OA K

ST ATE ST

KE Y

IS MORR

G IL

MER IDET H

M

OO D

EA AZAL

ln co n i L

Project Description Phase One of the Peavine Trail links L east of residents who live in the far NNE TU Marion to downtown. Recommended width is 12-foot paved asphalt trail E with proposed centerline striping to DG RI H IT SM encourage safe bicycle and pedestrian traffic. This trail project also includes crossing improvements at each of the Eastfield seven road crossings. Trailheads are Community Park recommended at each end of Phase 1 (State Street and Ford Way). Y RR PARK

LA H

TURN ER

TH C

T FO RES

G HI

M ND A R TI N

F OU R

7TH

MA T IL DA

AR

6TH C

PLANNING-LEVEL COST ESTIMATE: C

HI LL

C

Phase 1: State Street to Ford Way: 1.3 Miles GR EE NW

OAD

CH

5TH C

LA

un gs

CH AN BR

1. Priority Investment: Peavine Trail

RI A

| CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS 1B

Peav in

e Ra il

RU T


LS

M BE

A

ME

L MI

N

MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

2. Priority Investment: Peavine Trail

70 £ ¤ LE

K

DS

KI

C

OW

RRY

LE

IS W

IS MORR PINE

KAT H

Y

VY

G EA

Project Description Phase Two of the Peavine Trail makes the critical connection to McDowell Technical Community College. This phase is much more challenging to implement and will require coordination with both rail road companies (Norfolk Southern and CSX). The preferred trail alignment follows the rail corridor and provides a consistent off-road trail experience. However, further analysis is needed in order to determine the trail location. Trail design and amenities should be consistent with Phase One (details on previous page). Because this section is an active rail corridor and approval for rail-with-trails are often difficult to obtain, an on-road connection is also recommended as an alternative.

E CH

S

NA

RA

Phase 2: Ford Way to College Ave: 1.82 Miles

L

TO N

BI N

ER COOP

AN E FAI RV IEW

RIG HT L

40W

H

POI N T

POTE AT

Pe SC O av in TT eP ha se I

BARNES

TIN

KU D ZU

Modifications to the existing bridge O structure will be RE needed to extend sidepath through the I-40 underpass. Engineering analysis needed to determine feasibility.

A

MI

TC H ELL

OF F ON

FO

1. Solar-Powered actuated warning beacon system (needed if crossing NC226) 2. Curb Extensions (Across Jacktown Rd) 3. High-Visibility Marked Crosswalks. (NC226 and Jacktown Rd crossings).

I

CO LL EG E

RO

RU M

D WO

TAY

CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS |

K 3-13 R LA

LO

WIL

OD R IG H T LA N

E

Road/Trail Crossing Improvement (See page 3-12 for details). E UR T A N

0

SG AH V IEW

A

PLATO

1 22

PI

WATKINS

LG KI

D Y WO O

should be considered with further design study:

21

PROJECT LOCATION

8’ - 10’ wide paved sidepath. (May TOWN K JAC O Dretaining wall with require railing). Curb and gutter improvements needed. Preliminary design work is needed to determine a feasible route under the railroad bridge near Poteat Road.

O W

vine DAR E G Rai LENW OOD l to Tr ails RU Pha TH se I I ER F OR At Jacktown Rd and NC226, D the following improvements

$1.2 Million

CH RI

»» RAIL ALIGNMENT (1.77 Miles): $1.8 Million

HUN»» ON-ROAD ALIGNMENT (1.24 Miles): Pea TER X

£ ¤

ST O PH E

GA BL E

PLANNING-LEVEL COST ESTIMATES:

EY

The active rail line and challenging road crossings make both alignment options challenging and costly.

R

DY

W LO

O

RION MA

O

H

RD ND 1ST

O Trail Peavine L Brochure

ND LA AR G TA R BE

While the cost of implementing the entire Peavine Trail is high, the project has the potential to significantly increase Marion’s bicycle mode share and bicyclefriendliness. A brochure was created as part of this process to energize the public, stakeholders, and potential ROfunding partners around the Peavine Trail concept.

E


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

3. Priority Investment: Main Street Viewpoint Dr to US 70: 2 Miles Project Description The long term vision for Main Street, headed north from downtown, is to install a sidepath to integrate bicycle and pedestrian traffic safely along the corridor. There are several pinch points that will make construction challenging, such as limited right-of-way, driveway crossings, and steep slopes. These constraints will require the path to alternate along both sides of the corridor. A thorough engineering assessment will be needed to determine the feasibility of the project.

OVER L

RE E

I SH ER R

LA

RO

AD

E RA IL

CIS

CIR

OA K

ST AT E

PARK MAPLE

DO

C RES

EY

FIN L

DG IN S

HI

LL

TATE

G

BERT

MAR

E

OR IL

SL PA R

W AY NE IE W

TA IN

R O

SA NT

NG RI SP

OAD I EW GL ENV

LLY

F

BY HOY LE

LAIL HO

ILL E

Pea vin e

MO

BR

7T H

PI NE V

ET

PL

T ACH

MOU N

P INE

te ou

R

ik e B PH EA

N DE AR G

NA RE AN

BLUE CRO SS

6T H C

CL AY M

R PROPOSED BIKE G LANE GAN RID

NA LE

G

St at e W es t

PE

70

V

S

ILL

V

70

MA RT IN

B

R

E VIN

W

N GA

IA M LL PU S

GR EE NL G EE

ROBERT

NE

LO

TE RR Y

IA IN G R VI

BIT HA

NG

M AI N

E CL NA PIN R

| CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS

ILL

R OI

3-14

Y

E

FLEMI

ES M A J LLE Y N A O I V and existing Z Elevation RT guard RESrail creates ST FO E severe challenges on CSR the north side of the IL L NIP H corridor. S E LI VE EL

feasibility of the project.

IA TO R

L

VALLEY H

V ER

B

C AT Challenging F I Areas N CH Further engineering analysis W and AY the SS design is needed to understand CR O

VI C

D OO W G

RN FE CENT

1 US 2 2

LEY

G O LD

M ES

L WA

B Y CO N

E CL

HILL

Y TOR LE S V IL BAK ER

Y LE B RA D

RO

BO

E

JA

See page A-7 of Appendix A: Design Guidelines for further detail on sidepaths along a roadway.

Appears to be limited right-of-way.

L PA MER

N YA

ORC HAR D

Y

Y

RE EK MO

CO

NL E

CE

ON KS J AC

REE

Y LL O H

GA RD EN

C

Catwaba River Greenway Trail

Challenging topography southbound and multiple driveways northbound.

CREST

E DUK

Install pedestrian OSA NDER refuge islands, signals PO and high-visibility crosswalks.

A

E

SMIC CO

PROJECT LOCATION

W

IC

Destinations Served • Downtown • Catwaba River Greenway Trail • 70 West State Bike Route • Marion City Square (Retail)

PLANNING-LEVEL COST ESTIMATE: $2.10 MILLION SOM ERSE T AP

L OS I N DR RD IL CA

iver C at wab a R

RPORT AI

A

AGE

As the corridor develops, the City should take the opportunity to partner with the development community and NCDOT to implement this project.

LEO

E

NICE BER

K EE CR

D

KIN

SS

P

EXISTING CONDITIONS

CH

EN

HA N

H

ILLS

D

O CR

GE

A DE

D

OO K

EXISTING CONDITIONS

R

Rai l

S


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

U

PT

IO N

P LA

ON

N

T AT

S

LAND

G IN

4. Priority Investment: Henderson Street DES CO CA

ME OR M IA LP AR BE N

RE E

R GAN

ET

PL

O

CIR

Y

S

KAT H

LA

making improvements to intersections for pedestrians along West Morehead Road.

H LEAC ERRY P

ST AT E PI NE V

W AY NE IE W

PARK MAPLE

CO UR T CA RO LI

MAR

I

OA K

DO

ST TEThe City of Charlotte worked with NCDOT to reduce travel A ST lanes from four RK CLA to three while adding bicycle facilities and

W IN BALD HUNT

E VIN

C RES

VY

SH ER R

E

OR

LE

IS MORR PINE

H

Y LE DO

EY DL

W

S

G EA

E CH

CH CH

FLEMI

NG

RA

Y TOR LE S V IL BAK ER

M AR TI N

NA

CHUR

N A A BIT R HA

L

G

Downtown T Hendley Trail Bill ROB• ER McDowell County Senior Center • McDowell County Health RN YMCA Department FE CENT CL AY George Hutchins Trail • McDowell Hospital M AI N

HU

V

RI

L WA

VI C Destinations Served

ILL

OU N

70 £ ¤

T owners, residents, City officials, NCDOT officials, Isothermal B RPO staff and McDowell County staff. The City should work with 6T H to NCDOT and the Isothermal RPO to investigate funding sources C D O O complete the study. 7 T W

VALLEY H

BL

K

The Town of Mills River RST study developed a corridor A M for A NC 280 that brought property owners, residents, business owners, NCDOT, and town officials together to create a bicycle-friendly concept for the corridor

E

N YA

ON KS J AC

HILL

IA INbusiness Project stakeholders include adjacent property owners, G R VI

• • • •

VE

T

IA TO R

LEO

W A Project Description A corridor study is recommended for Henderson Street to bring various stakeholders together and develop a vision for the corridor. Henderson Street serves as a key connection between the YMCA TO N and downtown, both significant bicycle destinations. Today, the corridor lacks consistent facilities to safely integrate non-motorized D GE O traffic. A thorough traffic analysis is needed to determine the LD M TULIP feasibility of reducing the number of travel lanes to add streetscape CE E amenities without Ywidening the roadway. CL C

RPORT AI

ERSE T AP

L OS I N DR RD IL CA

IC Miles Rankin Dr to Main Street: 1.4

E NE ESTIMATE: $20,000 - $40,000 (DEPENDING ON SCOPE) PLANNING-LEVELAMCOST

HUN

DY

Pea TER vine DAR E G Rai LE NWO OD

l to

X

Tra

DD Y

A

G

BI N

PI

Near McDowell Hospital, the corridor carries higher traffic volumes and higher speed.

NTA

IN CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS |

E COOP

RO

OW N S

SG AH V IEW

ROO B

1

KE

BY P

221

ORTH OF G

GU R Y LE

OO

FO

GEORGIA

D RO A

E RA IL

ANCIS

der

STR OUD CAR R IE

KI N

IA RN

ZE

O

S

SH OP

22

LIF

EE L BR

E

A TER VE

EVAN S

S SON JOHN

D REI

PANTHER

K BEC

ULDING PA

W

£ ¤

The character of the corridor significantly changes after the US 221 underpass.

CA

RO

ils P RU has T e II ER Mt In Downtown, the corridor varies between two toHthree FO RD lanes of traffic.

LS NICHO

HIGH

ay nw e e Gr YMCA CA & YM McDowell Hospital N RA

V IS

son UDGI Stre NS et R

H

AY R G

H en

TATE

REE K

NIX C

N SO

F

KE R

R

H ILLTOP

PA

Tra il

il Tra a d .I

HI

MCIVE R

FIN L

EY

RO G

BERT IL

GREE N

UC KY

G

E

IN

A

Downtown MO RG AN BR OAD LAIL HO I EW GL ENV

RID G

LL

KL FRAN

BY HOY L

Rai l to

3R D 2N D 1ST

W

NA RE AN

NG RI P S

R

ND LA AR G TA R BE

BLUE CRO SS

Pea vin e

LLY

E CL NA PIN R

NA LE

ILL E

RIO MA N

R OI

ER ND SO N

RT ST FO E CSR L L NIP I H IS E L EL

IA M LL PU S

V ER

NL G EE

VE

N DE AR G

LOCATION

M

N GA

RES

J N ZIO

LO

LLE Y VA PROJECT

3-15

NAT

RU M


el d

G

MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAPLE

PI NE V R ID GE CR AL ES AB T AM A

VA NC E

ZE B

RAILROAD

LO

W

ng s

Fo

rk Gr ee MO nw RG ay AN

NN A PI

Gazebo

E CL

AY MUR R

B ROAD PROPOSED

DE R

EN

ENDER SO N

G L

CRO LAIL SS 3-16 | CHAPTER THREE:IAMRECOMMENDATIONS S L WE AD WIL GRA B DE B NB

Rail t

BIKE LANE IMPROVEMENTS GLE

E NVI

W

o Tra il GEORGIA

HO

R

W IL

Yo u

Peav ine

TENNESSEE

T ES

S

RIDGE BLUE

SON

FIN L

AR

ST AT E

PO IN T

IE W

TA

EVIS

MON T

O

P

PE

SN I

NG RI SP

et Marion Train Depot & Farmer's Market

IAM LL

IS

re St ain

I

L EL

M

McDowell Rec Center & Skate Park PU

OODV W NE

ER

3. Show bicyclists proper lane positioning.

Y

L EL W

TR 1. Remind motorists of the EM MIL ON presence of bicyclists. T L 2. Direct bicyclists to ride with traffic.

EM AD AC

CR

RT FO

N GA LO

ST

EY

RE FO

See page A-14 of Appendix A: Design Guidelines for further detail on shared lane markings.

f s LL HI

Marion Community Building & Splash Pad

EU CL I

D Shared lane markings (sharrows) should be placed periodically to:

CLAR EMO NT

NS ON RO BI

N ZIO

High S

LL

E VIN

NE SH

A ST

Destinations Served CA RR • Downtown OL L • Marion City Hall • Retail EastPark Junior • Marion Community Building • McDowell County Register M • Post Office CLA CD Y OW • Marion Police Department E

ON IS AD

ES

TH C

M

M E HI LLSID VIE W JA

EN RD GA

HI

IT MM SU

PARK

CEN CRES

PLANNING-LEVEL COST ESTIMATE: $7,245

F OU R

NN

EXISTING CONDITIONS

PROJECT LOCATION

TATE

TURN ER

RS L KE V IL E BA

Marion Elementary School T

RN FE

M

LA GH HI

D

TORY VIC

RIC HA RD

RT ROBE

7TH

LA

Project Description GR This bicycle improvement project will EE NW lane markings, or “sharrows”, add shared OO D the heart of downtown. A to Main Street, streetscape project was completed within G M IL Main Street. A five years along the N last KE D RTI N Adding the shared lane Ymarkings will complete the corridor and ultimately serve G RA as the spine of the bicycle network. Y A E L A Z A A

OO

FLEMING

6TH C

OA K

OA KW

4T H C

SH E RRI

LO NO N

O GW DO

5TH C

CH

T OR RP AI

Viewpoint Dr to Morgan Street: 0.66 Miles OD

CHUR

EL W OO D

WIST ER IA

CH AN BR

N NORTO

LL WA

LA UR

M A C

AT

MAY 2016

5. Priority Project: Main Street

MAIN

re en w ay

BI T

EY

HA

YA NC


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

70 £ ¤

LE C RC CI

G

CA RO L

CO UR T

MA TIL DA

OR EH EA D

WN

O EM

PLANNING-LEVEL COST ESTIMATE: $146,050

CI RC LE

Oak Grove Cemetery

CLAR EMO NT

SON

DE R

HE N

S

NS HU DG I

W

SHOP

HUN TER GLE NWO OD

RD FO

il Tra Ida Mt.

NGS C YOU

F

K

BA CATAW

DAR E

E NVI

B

W

Trail

E RE

MITCHE

TH

OL E US 2 21

RO

EST HEIG OR H TS

NE

HI LL

GLE

DYT O

1ST

N CI

MS

LLY HO

R

OA

LIA WIL

OLD WEST

G L

WE AD GRA NBY DEN BB

HENDE RS ON

B ROAD

LAIL

MOO

2N D

O DY

M

3R D

MAR IO N

IE W PI NE V AL AB AM A

R ID

ST AT E ZE B

GE CR ES T

Rail to

KA TH Y

AV EN UE

N CHF IE LD

LI

C 4TH

MA TIL DA

M

RAILROAD

Peav ine

GEORGIA

T ES

OA K

MAPLE

VA NC E

PO IN T

PARK

TURN ER

EVIS

MON T

P

O

HO

4TH EM

TENNESSEE

SH E RRI

AR

N NO LO

TA

NS ON RO BI Y FIN LE

E CL

R ENA

NN A PI

TATE

5TH EM

RLAND GA

rk Gr ee MO nw RG ay AN

W

Y EV CH

TR EM ON T

Destinations Served • Clinchfield Community Park • Clinchfield Greenway • New Manna Christian School & Baptist Church • Downtown Marion • McDowell County Public Library • McDowell County Recreation Department TA ER

Fo

6T H

D

ER

IS MORR

MIL L

E

T HU N

ng s

PINE

EU CL I

E G

RY PER

WIN BALD

et

ID

EM

LO

Yo u

M CD OW

SMITH R

TIC BOS H LEAC

East Junior High School CL AY

L NNE TU

NCE

W IL

Project Description This bicycle improvement project will add a combination of bicycle lanes and shared lane markings, or “sharrows”, to Court Street connecting several destinations. Approaching downtown, Court Street narrows significantly. Sharrows are a helpful tool when the roadway Eastfield Community width is too narrow for bicycle lanes. Park

Gazebo Y MUR RA CRO SS

Crossmill Community Park

E E RIDG

RE FLO

S

R

BLU

IT MM SU

Marion Train Depot & Farmer's Market

Y LE DO

PE

SN I

IAM LL

IS

AN N

LL

I

L EL

PU

OODV W NE

RK CLA

GR AY

E VIN

ON IS AD

E W

LL

Y

R

McDowell Rec Center & Skate Park

ST ATE ST

KE Y

See page A-14 of Appendix A: Design NG RI Guidelines SP for further detail on shared lane markings.

EM AD AC

C LL HI

RAMP TATE ON

C

r ou

C

TH C

CA RR OL L

tre tS

N GA LO

ST

Maple Leaf Ball Fields

ES ER E VO IR GREENLE A LEN

RT FO

RE FO

RD WA HO

Marion Community Building & Splash Pad

G IL

EA AZAL

M

NE SH

N ZIO

GROVE

EN RD GA

HI

FOUR

7TH

E GL

PARK

LA H

RS V ILL E KE BA

M AC

6TH C

A SE

FO REST

D

TORY VIC

VALL EY

M ND A R TI N

CH

G HI

OO

The paved gutter pan is included in the bike RIC HA RD FLEMING lane width. Without RT ROBE that width, the bike Marion lanes would not be Elementary feasible. Asphalt N R School FE CENT condition should be CRES monitored due to the potential for cracks along the seam of ES MAIN gutter pan and the M E HI LLSID VIE W JA roadway.

CHUR

D OO GW DO OA KW

5TH C

WIST ER IA

See page A-15 of Appendix A: Design LA GR Guidelines for further EE NW detail on bicycle lane OOD design.

AT

CH AN BR

EL W OO D

BI T

LL WA

RT PO R AI

LA UR

NORTON

PROJECT LOCATION

re en w ay

SHEH AN

IN A

Snipes Street to Church Street: 1.4 Miles EY

ATWOOD

fie ld

HA

YA NC

IA I N Cl in RG ch VI

MER IDET H

ON KS JAC

HILL

RIDGE

6. Priority Project: Court Street

Peav in

e Ra il to

Trail s Ph

ase II

RU TH ER FO RD

221 BYP

LL

FR A

£ ¤ 221

EXISTING CONDITIONS

PROPOSED BIKE LANE IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS |

3-17


VA NC E

T HU N

MIL L

TR EM ON T

GE CR ES T

ST AT E

ON IS AD

RT FO

D

ER

EM

W IN BALD

M

EN

MARION BICYCLE PLAN

y

EU CL I

MAY 2016 5TH EM

3R D

E NVI

W

LLY HO

F

ILL

EST HEIG OR H TS

PLANNING-LEVEL COST ESTIMATE: $89,067 H

O DY

O

W

SHOP

Destinations Served ail • IdDowntown Marion a Tr Mt.• Neighborhoods • Gazebo • Oak Grove Cemetery

£ ¤ 221

EXISTING CONDITIONS

PROPOSED BIKE LANE IMPROVEMENTS

| CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS

GLE

YOU

221 BYP

3-18

B

EM

Oak Grove Cemetery

MER IDET H

CLAR EMO NT

SON

GLE

HE N

DE R

AIL

OR EH EA D

M

See page A-14 of Appendix A: Design Guidelines for further detail on shared lane markings.

Gazebo B ROAD

ord

RO

Project Description This bicycle improvement project will add a combination of bicycle lanes and shared lane markings, or “sharrows”, to Rutherford Road. The roadway width isn’t wide enough to accommodate bicycle lanes in both directions. The bicycle lane should be placed along the uphill portion, as bicycle travel speed will be slower. The sharrows DAR E side, should be placed on the downhill in the center of the travel lane. CI RC LE

et

W

rf Ruthe Road

o Tra il GEORGIA

re

rk Gr ee MO nw RG ay AN

Rail t

1ST

TA ER

St Fo

Eastbound bicycle lanes (uphill) and westbound sharrows (downhill). .

t re e t

in ng s

S Vale

Ma

LO

en rd G a re e t St

W IL

Yo u

Peav ine

TENNESSEE

AN

Marion Train Depot & armer's Market

NG RI SP

2N D

MAR IO N

AL AB AM A

4TH EM

Main Street to Georgia Avenue: 0.5 Miles PROJECT LOCATION

RAILROAD

R ID

ZE B

7. Priority Project: Rutherford Road


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

8. Priority Project: Bicycle Wayfinding Neighborhood Bike Routes Project Description Wayfinding signage, as part of a signage program that also includes warning and regulatory signage, enhances resident and visitor orientation. A clear wayfinding system should contribute to economic development by pointing visitors to key destinations around Marion. The City of Marion should develop a customized wayfinding program that includes directional signage to local destinations. The proposed neighborhood bike routes would be the perfect place to begin implementing a bicycle wayfinding program (see Map 3.3 for proposed sign locations). Materials for signs should reflect the character of Marion and be selected for longevity and ease of maintenance. A wayfinding program could include directional signage, on-road markings, and kiosks with City maps. If funding is not immediately available to develop a complete wayfinding program, a good first step is temporary wayfinding signage that incorperates the newly designed WalkBikeMarion logo. The Marion Chamber of Commerce may be an ideal partner based on the nexus with tourism and economic development.

Brand recognition through logos and programming will help build awareness of Marion’s bicycle and pedestrian efforts.

PLANNING-LEVEL COST ESTIMATE: $13,225 (MAP 3.3)

Bicycle wayfinding example promoting key destinations.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

NCDOT and the Eastern Carolina Council completed the Croatan Regional Bicycle + Trails Plan in 2014. This plan included guidance for bicycle route and trail signage. Marion could take a similar approach along the proposed neighborhood and rural bike routes, using a local logo or symbol in conjunction with the required standards for signage on NCDOT roadways.

Bicycle wayfinding example that shows distance and time.

PROPOSED BIKE

CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS |

3-19


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Map 3.3 - Proposed Sign Locations Note: Each symbol represents sign placement only, not the number of signs needed. For cost estimates, each symbol represents two signs.

When to Sign?

Insert Wayfinding Map

»» Destination Signs: Inform bicyclists of route direction changes and to confirm distance and direction. »» Confirmation Signs: Indicate to cyclists and drivers that the roadway is a designated bikeway. These types of signs do not include directional arrows. »» Decision Signs: Mark the junction of two or more bikeways and inform bicyclists of correct designated bike routes.

Where to Sign? »» Placement should be on the near-side of intersections and should be every 1/4 to 1/2 miles.

What to Sign? »» Parks, Trails, & Greenways »» Schools »» Government Complexes »» Public Spaces (Library, Post Office, etc.) »» Historic Features

3-20

| CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Planning Level Cost Estimates The planning level cost estimates are based on the average per-mile cost of built projects: Sidepaths (10-12’)

$600,000/mile

Signed Bike Route/Sharrows/Shared Roadways

$25,070/mile

Striped Bicycle Lane

$150,000/mile

Per unit cost estimate for additional elements included in select priority projects and priority investments are as follows: Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon

$22,250/each

Median Refuge Island

$13,520/each

High-visibility Crosswalk $2,540/each Curb Extensions $13,000/each Wayfinding Signage $250/each Sharrow Markings

$350/each

The source for the above costs utilizes a combination of recently constructed bicycle and pedestrian projects in North Carolina and the 2013 report, ‘Costs for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Infra-

Insert Cost Table 11 x 17

structure Improvements’ by the UNC Highway Safety Research Center (HSRC), prepared for the Federal Highway Administration. Planning level cost estimates for priority projects include 15% mobility/contingency factor. Priority investments include 20% mobility/contingency due to their complexity.

It is important to note that costs for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure vary greatly from city to city and site to site. The per unit cost information in table 3.1 below is included to aid in future project planning. All cost estimates should be used only for estimating purposes and not necessarily for determining actual bid prices for a specific infrastructure project.

Table 3.1 Per Unit Cost Estimate Summary Per Unit Cost Estimates STRIPING ESTIMATES (per Linear Foot (LF)) $/LF per single line removal $2.00 $/LF per single dashed line removal $0.25 $/LF per single line stripe (Thermo) $1.85 $/LF per single line stripe $0.46 ASPHALT AND AGGREGATE BASE COURSE (ABC) ESTIMATES $/Ton of Asphalt $33.00* $/Ton of ABC $20.00** PAVEMENT MARKINGS, REFLECTOR, SIGNAGE ESTIMATES SHARROW thermoplastic symbol $220.00 $/reflective marker (stick-on) $7.00 $/reflective marker (embedded) $25 .00

CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS |

3-21


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Bike Parking Bike parking can range from a simple bicycle rack to storage in a bicycle locker or cage that protects against weather, vandalism and theft. Marion bicyclists visiting downtown and other popular destinations do not have available bicycle parking and instead may lock their bikes to street fixtures such as parking meters, trees, utility poles and sign poles.

Short-term Bike Parking Bicycle racks are the preferred device for short-term parking (less than two-hours). These racks serve people who leave their bicycles for relatively short periods of time, typically for shopping or errands, eating or recreation. Bicycle racks provide a high level of convenience and moderate level of security. Short-term parking should support the bicycle at two points and have a design that is intuitive to use. A “U-rack� is an example of a standard and accepted bicycle rack and is the recommended standard for many cities across North Carolina. Recommended locations for short-term bike parking are displayed on map 3.3. Below are examples of the standard bike rack design in Marion.

Bike Shaped Rack (Schools)

Penny Farthing Hitch (Downtown)

Hoop Rack (New Development)

Long-term Bike Parking Long-term bike parking includes bike lockers and bike stations and serve people who intend to leave their bicycles for longer periods of time and are typically found at transit stations, multi-family residential buildings and commercial buildings. These facilities provide a high level of security but are less convenient than bicycle racks. Below are examples of long-term bicycle parking. Although this plan does not recommend long-term bike parking locations, they should be considered as part of future transit projects or large scale developments.

The City of Asheville, NC installed bike lockers in the parking deck on Rankin Avenue.

3-22

| CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS

Covered bike parking at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, VA.


O D

RU

MARION BICYCLE PLAN D

D

OO

OO

N

N

EN

OL D

OL D

A YA

M B

SK

W

IRV IE

FA

Y

Y

P

GA B

LE

Y OD TO WN

V IE W

OR

SH

ON

FF

O

E

G

LL E

AH

CO

G

HED

L

GE

D

EA

H EL

GU

OU

DD Y

MCIVER

R LE Y

RIE

D

C AR TR

N BE

D

OO N

EN

OL D

A YA

M

Y LE

E N VAL H IDD

HUN

LL

ER

ER

EW

VI TS

YW AY

ER

SK

Y

BR

HILL

LAKEV IE W

NI E

O L D NEAL

N

K EVIN S

EK

G L EN HAV

EX IT WARD C ARR Y A WA

INE OM

DEWEY R JO N

ES

NS DAW N

W

CHISIA

MA C

AW

E

E AP AC H

ERO CH

TL E WHATA W AY

L O VE

IL L

S G RANTS M O UNTA IN

EK

N IX

EAR

LIN ET

LI LI AC

EH

MO R

HU H E DGI N D NS ER SO N

TAT E

C RE

R EE N HI LLT O P

LUCKY

TA N G L

NS

M

W S AY PI TAT NE NE E AL AB VI A M EW A

E

RI DG

GR O

HI

VAL

FINL EY

NT

SA

EA

PH

T OO D RO Y

LI T

LE

IT N WH

OS EC RE

LIS T

IL L

L VA

ZION H

ON

PP

O AC R N

221

WI LS

W

LE

TH ASH W O R

E GL

OL D

M

GO

FF

RF LY

¦ ¨ §

TA W

O

B U TTE

R

40

ALO N AV

ABRAHA

M APLE

F

CRE

70

Y

RR

TE

FA I

R

AC

T

V IL

D

P

LT

L

S

R TO N

LD O

TAYL R L AKE

O D

O

EL

E

HIT T

A

WIL D

BI A

W

W

LY

TIN

T

O

CK

M A

AR

Y NE

OT E

PO IN

O

B

A IN

RO

Y

Proposed Bike Parking Map

KE

WO

M FE

A

Marion Comprehensive Bicycle Plan 2015

NT

Y

SM ITH

R I DG E

L

B

R OO K

GG

W

R I G HT

D HA

E

P I NEH

BY

L

OW

E

BR

H A RV

EP

EY

M

C

R ED A

OWH

I ILL UA Q

AD

CA

AD E

A RR

DY RA

M OU

A S

D

ER

F

AD

AC

RU

C

M

UR CH C LI N E

ME

C

R

W

E

CH

R GA SU

CH

TA

O P OO LE

H

IN

SG PI

IF

D

EY RL

CR

ON SNE LS

IX EK

COOK

ID

EA

O

N

C AS

F IS H

W

N LBOR

Data obtained from City of Marion. N CData obtained Map created July, 2015. from City of Marion. 22 6 U Map created BJuly, 2015.

JO E

M

I LL

RY ME

AT

Data obtained from City of Marion. RNE S BA Map created July, 2015.

O RN IA

T

OP PT

IO T

S

CA

S

£ ¤Map created July, 2015.

A

L

RE

EVAN

E LL

IS

S U TI

E

LDIN G AU

K

N

P 22 1 BY

HIG H

BEC

Y JA

E W DAV

DA

ON

SP

IN

C AR S

LD

R

1 Miles

KE

Miles 0.5

G

R PA

D

0.5 0

W B A LD HUNT

LE

21 US 2

G O L AY W

IEW

E FI

V

N

R

I 1

RE D

D

1 Miles

Y

C

O

I

ID

0

T O

Y LE AD

C

AN T B RY

0.5

A L IT

Miles

YW AY

A YA

M

EY

E N VAL H IDD L

RA

S

BEN D

HA NK IN

R

L S VI BAKE R

BR

MA

W

N LE Bike Parking H CL EACBike L » » McDowell Technical Community Parking AY College MI Rail Line LL ER Rail ER »» Glenwood Area R OBLine G IN 1S T R Planning Boundary P IV Bike AR S N P M OM E F I Proposed Parking Map Body of Water OR V MO ER B URMA K E G A City Limits U AN HU N Boundary Boundary Planning D AR CPlanning BL SI »» Clinchfield Neighborhood/Park DE RO TE NA E D Bike Parking Map Proposed Bike Parking Map SS AC B E LEENL EE TO WN SHOP ON RO CR AC K City Limits E J D F O AD R R RU SS O XWO G O LAIL Marion Neighborhood F Body of Water Data obtained fromTHCity»»ofEast Marion. OD 0.5 1 City Limits City Limits ER M C T I F Map created July,O2015. Miles Body of Water H »R»D West Marion Neighborhood/Park Body of Water Body of Water W 221obtained Data from City of Marion. 0.5 1 E OO QU

I I I

HUN

E

»» Walmart Shopping Center IS

N

E

LL

ER

EAC

E »» YMCA/McDowell Mission Hospital

SE

LL

ER

EW

LIS T

BR

ER

ER

E

VI TS

ND O SKL YWH AY

HUN

P

»» Cross Mill Neighborhood/Park EW

CR

ER

VI TS

BR

E

LIS T

HUN

LL

N KSO

PI NE

LL MEI R

IT N WH

E

LL

IL L

N HIT W L VA

HUN

»» Downtown Marion

NI E

M

O AC R N

ON

O AC R N

UIL S

221

L

HUN

EY S TA LA »» Eastfield Elementary School/ CY LE HI Y Park LL Neighborhood S

T

PP

LE

PP FA RM

0Memorial Park ON »» McDowell WS7

VI TS

J AC

E

BR

ZION H

W

LE Y

L H WAO

OL D

221 ALO N AV

WI LS

7T H LEGEND VY LEGEND A

OA K

W

W

N

IL L

AC

D

IL L

E GL

AC ST

TH OR

VI TS

L

IC

E

BR

S

RF LY D G BUTTE OIN LD R

SP

AS

L I LL VA TS V

I ILL UA Q

AP AIPL HA A CH LI CABRA WAL C TT H EROLI M E APC E HE LE TT AH CHERMO L LE WHATA CEH IT E A M W E TW RO LEHAACTAW AY MA DAE AW AY WHALTO ZIONS H CA C AW VE MAL O E IL L W AY CA VE L O VE W ABRA HISIAHA M C CHISIA LA CHISIA

E

W

M A

W

E GL

W »» HCatawba River RTH Greenway AS

K

IL TA GG

IL L

L

R

RF LY

FO X

LE O

B

BY

OW

W GG A E DUK IL ILL UA A Q

AD

BY

CA W

B SM OW C O

ME

AD

CA

ME

IL L

FF

Destinations Served:

PP

LAN

B U TTE

PP

D

O AC R N LE O A C ARVANLO N O AC R N LE G IN

HA M

O

EL

LE

AN

D

RIV

EK

NICE

RE

BER

SC

A

DS OO

OS

DGETT

ZION H

BI A

W

L

W

CR

ON SNE LS

E

EP

CR

L

IL L ZION H

C

O

CK

EL

EY RL

Y

ON SNE LS

IX

GG

GG IL ILL UA Q

I ILL UA Q

W

N BRA

W

W

D HA

EY RL

Y

D

ER

N

GG

L

W

£ ¤

RO

CK

RO

W

D HA

M

E

W

Marion prehensive LEGEND Bike Parking Marion ycle Plan HT R EE Marion mprehensive Rail Line Bike Parking FLEM JO Marion MarionLEGEND 2015 R Comprehensive N cycle Plan ER N NT prehensive Comprehensive Planning Boundary LE M SCE Bike Parking d Bike Parking Map Rail Line Y Plan VALLEY H IL A I N Bicycle W L 2015 NE ycle Plan Bicycle Plan RT O City Limits LE Y 2015 BO T F Planning BC Rail Line Boundary ES ed Bike Parking MapLAKE T R AT 2015 2015 C R AH LL D CH ZION H

RO

M

W

ER

O

CR

I ILL UA Q

AD

LEGEND

O

FF

PP

R

40 ¦ ¨ §

N

W

W

ISL

NS

C

D

IX NY E RL

40 § ¦ ¨

E GL

E GL

BI A

G L EN HAV

W

O

E

O

DY HA D

M

EA

W

ON S LS BY ON N E SNE LS BY CA ON SNE LS BY B CA OW CA B D B OW M EA OW AD ME ME

40 § ¦ ¨ 40 ¦ ¨ §

LT

W

E GL

TAYL R L AKE

O D

JO E

FF

Map 3.4 - Proposed Bike Parking ¦ ¨ § 40

M FE

E

R L

WO

HO P P D E N VAHLO H ID Y T O M L L L OW EY

D

M

EY RL EY W RL

N DAW N

LT

LAKEV IE W

O

M FE

G L EN E HAVX EITN WARD C ARR Y A WA

W

IS

RU

KE R LA

O L D NEAL

S U TI

OP PT

O RN IA TAYL

B O P IA O I LL F IS H S U T IP T P OO LE M OU A I LL NT FOIS H F RY A IN R O B E S F IA EM O I LL I LAL F IS H F IS H COOK ERY ERY H O S CH P OO LE M EM LBOR N EM R A A OU A A C G NT S N TA O O U OR S B O P O A R UR S W L LE M IN CH OU TH OK N R C O C O O PO AS TAP O LI H K E CLHE M OU I N LHEWMOOU N A ADR E N NT CH A RR EGA CO OCKTA TMA I N Y A IN N TZ H UR CH R O WSHU W AD D R W E R C K E HK F AC A IL S O TH OOK CO C G C C THA H U CH ASOH HU CH KE E NW O R LI S W R R R CAH K N AC C GA GA E UP CH AD TA R U LE PACL TAW P URM G SKUE W P IANSRERHO W H E DY CED A RCH IN N CH O WI RTH Y RA D OS E L C C F M A S AS E O LI LI E C A RR TA KE DY HE M K H W ON N N RE E O W N D E RA R I HT E A D K EY E F A RR EA NI E DY R OO K D A R A RR G DY M M LE ER E O OWH EHR I DGE P IW NH G ORA Y WI CE RA P LS C F FO EA M ON A R SE P I N EH CH D E SM ITH C RE GO C E HRIL EK A R N C E GM OS L EY I L HT AR N I PTIIN PL P I N EHG ER E CEY R I DG E S EH GO GO CREODO K C ED E RE E OS OSN E JU Y R I G HT M M D K E A L EC EN IC SC R OO K P R I DG A E E C R R SR E EK E EK ERI HT MIITHHT E Y N G HILL G NI LE C AD R OO K R OO K ER R TULIP R G R I DG E EP C AS E H AI D SM ITH EST RV E HILL H A RV SM ITH SM ITH HILL HILL 70 H ILL OP S RUY TIP T E EM

WO

DAW S N DA TSA N G RANTS M O W NS G L ULN IL TG AIRANTSS O G RANTSIA CMNO UNTA IN NS IL L E T LIN AP EAR K EVIN S AC TA N G LI EVIN S C H K L TT H ERO E LE LI K EVIN S T LI WHATA OO D DEWEY R JO N E MA E S DEWEYARCBJO W AY CA ENN E S DEWEY R JO N L O VE W O E M IN IL O M NS E S L E AP INE T LIN E OM A R T RO A CYANCE LI Y INE U H CCHHISIA TT E ERO LE WHATA EX E MA W I E T BE X I AY CA O L D NEAL N T EX WARD W O VE O L D LNEAL IT WARD GU W C ARR O L D NEAL N C T Y WARD A LAKEV IE W ARR AW Y RO U A EV IE W LAK CHISI A WA C ARR D Y LAKEV IE W A WADA G L ENH VI WN S AV E G L EN HAV N S G L EN HAV G RANTSENM O UNTAG EN W INU R L N C OU RT V A N E LL T DAW H IDD V EY I OH IDD E N ALL NS EY E N VAL K EVIN S S H IDD LE R ANT G S MO Y AG UNTA L ME OL D DEWEY R IN M ORI JO OLND AL ES PA NOL D M R A YA N M OM A YA INEO O D OO N M D HURS A YA K EVIN S OO SK D YW SK YW AY S DEWEY R JOEN KY AY XE ITS W O L D NEAL AY WARD OM INE C AR R Y LAKEV IE W A WA

RL

GU

N

D JO EAN

EA

TA N G L LI T LI TO AO ND GL AC LI LI AC NS NS E T LIN E NSEAR E T LIN EA FA BE N BE TR N OU D T

L

WO O D RU OEVA M FE BI NS FF L T JO E O S A

S

M

A S

S E W DAV

Y JA

ER

T IO T W O D

ID D

E LL

O

N

EVAN

O

W

W

MAY 2016

F IS H

FEOL RN T IA

E DA EW JO V IS

O

O

EA MM

N

DA

O RN IA

IL D

D

EVAN E W DAV IS PS I S LL TO ERY S U TIP EM

L

E CH O A TO IS MO RR E PIN N HIT IT N W T N ER WH I Y LE IF LIS T WH N R DO E E LA A IDEG R LIS T A ER DY EW LIS T OL D CH HA D ER BR ID RE EW OL ER RA D I 1 D W B 2 L R 2 E O TO BR 221 ER K L 221 T LAM AR VA IO T E LL AL AL F LY V V U TTE R B DY IL D LY A F W ID UTTEHR LY B ER RI O F H RE S D D U TTE R B EA LM G A LO N IN M EL ER AV LL W CL ALO N WA EL C K L AV ALO N CIO TT W RO EL AV E LL O C K W C LE CK R

EA

S

IF AREID

RE T IO TY EKLL JA

M

N

Y JA

DA

DA EVAN V IS S OP S U T IP T

E

Y JA

DA

E

LEGEND Bike Parking Rail Line Planning Boundary City Limits

I 0

0.5

Body of Water 1 Miles

Data obtained from City of Marion. Map created July, 2015.

CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS |

3-23


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Bikes and Public Transit Coordinating bicycling with public transport is mutually beneficial, enhancing the benefits of both modes and encouraging more bicycling as well as more public transport use. Furthermore, bicycling extends the catchment area of transit stops far beyond the walking range and at a much lower cost than neighborhood feeder buses and park-and-ride facilities. Bicycle services may increase transit ridership by: »» Extending the range that customers can travel to reach transit stops and stations; »» Increasing the flexibility that passengers have to reach destinations at the end of a transit trip; »» Providing “seamless” transportation between bicycle and transit modes; and »» Offering an additional amenity to customers that increases the attractiveness of transit.

Public Transit in Marion The City does not operate or fund any local public transportation services. The McDowell County Transportation Planning Board Inc operates McDowell Transit providing service for three human service agencies that transport people to and from work, medical services, and other select destinations. Currently, there is no public transportation service offered to the general public, and it is most likely to remain so until demand dictates otherwise.

Bike Racks on Transit Vans To fully integrate biking within the current transit system offered in Marion, bicycle racks could be purchased for each van in the McDowell Transit system. The racks can be fitted to the rear of the vehicle and hold up to three vehicles.

All DART vanpools and transit vans are equipped with bike racks in Des Moines, IA.

3-24

| CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS


MAY 2016

MARION BICYCLE PLAN

This page left intentionally blank.

CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS |

3-25


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

3-26

MarionTHREE: Cyclovia |2015 CHAPTER RECOMMENDATIONS

MAY 2016


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Program Recommendations Below are key program recommendations that are essential and complementary to improvements in infrastructure. See Chapter 4: Implementation for more information on program actions related to plan implementation.

Media Campaign to Educate Motorists, Bicyclists, and Pedestrians Watch for Me NC is a comprehensive campaign aimed at reducing the number of bicyclists and pedestrians hit and injured in crashes with vehicles. The campaign consists of educational messages on traffic laws and safety, and an enforcement effort by area police in several Triangle communities. The ongoing grant program, in which local jurisdistions are encouraged to apply, has been expanded statewide and Marion has been selected to participate in the 2015 campaign. As a part of this program, the City could: »» Distribute the educational materials made available by NCDOT at local festivals and other events, at local bike shops and other businesses, and in renters’ information packets and property owners’ guest information books. »» Work with police officers to hand out bicycle lights along with bicycle and pedestrian safety cards. »» Broadcast program promotions and educational videos on the local government access channel. Watch for Me NC website: http://www.watchformenc.org/ Purpose: To educate all road users about their rights and responsibilities, to increase awareness and improve traffic safety Partners: City of Marion Police Department, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, City staff

CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS |

3-27


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

One-Stop Website Many current and potential bicyclists and pedestrians do not know where to find information on traffic laws, events, maps, tips, and recreation groups. The City of Marion could develop a “onestop” website that houses all bicycle- and pedestrian-related information and promotions. A website is not difficult to set up, but it will only be successful if the site is easy to use, easy to find, and updated frequently. The site should be reviewed and updated regularly with the most current information. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (see Chapter 4: Implementation) can assist in keeping the site up to date. Other recommended programs in this chapter could be housed on the website, such as a hike and bike map, Watch for Me NC materials and links, and a calendar of upcoming events. Sample bicycle and pedestrian information websites: »» Portland, OR: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/60164 »» Austin, TX: http://austintexas.gov/bicycle »» Duck, NC: http://www.Cityofduck.com/ducktrail/

Purpose: To provide a single, accessible source of all bicycle- and pedestrian-relevant information for Marion residents and visitors. Partners: Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Marion Public Works Department, Marion Planning & Zoning Department

The City of Duck has a great example website for City trail information. The Duck Trail page presents safety information, route information, and other tips for residents and tourists to enjoy walking and bicycling on the trails in Duck. www.Cityofduck.com/ducktrail/

3-28

| CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Bike Rodeo A Bike Rodeo is an event where children can learn and practice bicycling skills in a controlled, supervised environment. Depending on the age of the children involved, a bike rodeo event can

Purpose: To celebrate bicycling, teach children and their parents traffic laws and safe riding skills, and improve bicycling confidence and awareness Partners: City of Marion Police Department, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, McDowell County Health & Human Services Department

include educational components, such as teaching hand signals, proper helmet fitting, and even basic maintenance skills such as changing and inflating a tire. The highlight of any bike rodeo event is a skills course, where children ride through a designed obstacle course to practice turns, braking, and coasting. Some bike rodeo leaders hand out awards to positively reinforce good bicycling habits. This could be an excellent edition to the events of Kids Appreciation Day. Bike Rodeo resources: »» National Center for Safe Routes to School: http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/programtools/organizers-guide-bicycle-rodeos »» Safe Kids Worldwide: http://www.safekids. org/sites/default/files/documents/Bike-Rodeo-Station-Guide.pdf

Photos from the Holly Springs Bike Rodeo, Holly Springs, NC. Volunteers conducted helmet fittings, bicycle education, and a parking lot obstacle course to provide a safe place for children to practice safe riding skills.

CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS |

3-29


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

Hike & Bike Map One of the most effective ways of encouraging

MAY 2016

Purpose: To encourage bicycling and walking by providing route and facility information and highlighting bicycling and walking destinations.

people to ride a bicycle is through the use of maps and guides to show where you can bike (and hike), and to guide people to enjoyable

Partners: City of Marion, Marion Chamber of Commerce, Marion GIS staff

routes and destinations. The City should create a Marion Hike and Bike Map to reflect the most current public bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in City, with a list of bicycle rental locations, suggestions for self-guided bike rides and walks around City, and recommended routes. A portion of the map could be devoted to bicycle and pedestrian safety education, such as informational graphics that demonstrate bicycle hand signals and how to share the road and the trail safely. The map should be made available online and printed as needed to be actively distributed to residents and visitors. It should also be updated on a regular basis as new facilities are implemented. Durham Hike & Bike Map:  http://durhamnc.gov/ich/op/dot/Pages/ Durham-Bike--Hike-Map.aspx

3-30

| CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS

More than 19,000 Durham Hike & Bike Maps have been distributed since it was first published in 2010. The map also features safety information and tips for safe riding (at left). Produced by Alta Planning & Design.


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Public Bicycle Maintenance Stand popular amenity in bicycle friendly communities

Purpose: To provide an easy to use bicycle stand and tool kit that encourages people, particularly youth, to learn bicycle maintenance and fix minor bicycle issues on-the-go, and to make bicycling a visible part of the community.

because they provide bicyclists with access to

Partners: Local businesses, City of Marion

Public maintenance stands have become a

tools on-the-go and encourage people to teach and learn bicycle maintenance in an informal setting. They can also help to reduce the number of abandoned or trashed bikes in a community; bikes are often abandoned by their owners when they have a minor mechanical issue that they do not have the tools or knowledge to fix. Public maintenance stands encourage people to learn bicycling skills from one another and send a message to residents and visitors that bicycling is supported in the community. These fixtures can be placed in a park or in another public place and require little upkeep or oversight, since the tools and stand are designed to be self-contained and theft-resistant. Public bicycle maintenance and tool stand examples.

CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS |

3-31


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Bike Share/Lending Library Program Bike sharing typically refers to a system in which individuals can enjoy the benefits of access to a bicycle on an as-needed basis without the burden of private bike ownership, such as purchase and maintenance costs, storage, and parking. A “lending library” is a bike share model under which a staff member helps the user borrow a fleet of bikes, typically stored in a single location. Users sign up for a membership online or in person, and are then eligible to borrow bikes from the library. Bicycles are typically checked out from and returned to a single location.

ReCYCLERY, in Chapel Hill, NC operates a private Lending Library and Earn-a-Bike program.

There are several examples of successful bike lending libraries across North Carolina and across the country. Chapel Hill, NC is home to ReCYCLERY, who manage several bike lending programs, such as Earn-a-Bike and Balance Bike Lending Library. North Carolina State University has a student-initiated program called Quad Bikes. Fort Collins, CO launched a bike lending program in 2008 and operates with funds from private fundraising efforts. To implement a bike lending program in Marion, the City will need to collaborate with potential partners such as Corpening YMCA, Marion Chamber of Commerce, McDowell County Public

Students at North Carolina State University organized a student initiated bike library in 2013.

Schools, and non-profit organizations.

Purpose: To encourage bicycling by providing access to bicycles to residents or visitors who don’t have own one. Partners: City of Marion, the Marion Chamber of Commerce, Corpening YMCA, private businesses and local non-profits.

Fort Collins, CO has a public bike library.

3-32

| CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

CHAPTER FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION Implementation Overview | Action Steps Table | Key Action Step Descriptions | Key Partners in Implementation | Performance Measures | Facility Development Methods


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEW This chapter defines a structure for managing the implementation of the Marion Bicycle Plan. Implementing the recommendations within this plan will require leadership and dedication to bicycle facility development on the part of a variety of agencies. Equally critical, and perhaps more challenging, will be meeting the need for a recurring source of revenue. Even small amounts of local funding could be very useful and beneficial when matched with outside sources. Most importantly, the City need not accomplish the recommendations of this plan by acting alone; success will be realized through collaboration with regional and state agencies, the private sector, and non-profit organizations. Funding resources that may be available to Marion are presented in Appendix B of this plan.

Given the economic challenges faced by local governments (as well as their state, federal, and private sector partners), it is difficult to know what financial resources will be available at different time frames during the implementation of this plan. However, there are still important actions to take in advance of infrastructure investments, including key organizational steps, the initiation of education and safety programs, and the development of strategic, lower-cost bicycle facilities, trails, and crossing facilities. Following through on these priorities will allow the key stakeholders to prepare for the development of larger bicycle projects over time, while taking advantage of strategic opportunities as they arise. The organizational framework below and Table 4.1 summarize the key players and steps involved in implementation.

Organizational Framework for Implementation Marion City Council

Marion Planning Board

policy & leadership

policy implementation & CIP coordination

4-2

Public Works

Planning & Development

facility construction & maintenance

facility planning & policy implementation

McDowell County

Isothermal RPO

coordinate on regional projects & programs

coordinate on project funding and prioritization

Marion Police Department enforcement & education programs

Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee

advocacy & guidance for implementation

NCDOT Division 13 coordinate on facility development

Developers

Local Residents & Volunteers Groups

facility construction & dedication

advocacy, education and program volunteers (e.g., McDowell Trail Assoc.)

| CHAPTER FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Table 4-1 Implementation Action Steps TASK

LEAD AGENCY

SUPPORT

DETAILS

PHASE

Present Plan to City Council

Project Consultants

City Manager, Bicycle Plan Steering Committee

Presentation to City Council in Fall 2015.

Short-term (2015)

Approve this plan

NCDOT Bike/Ped Division

Project Consultants

Official letter of approval in Fall 2015.

Short-term (2015)

Adopt this plan

City Council

City Manager, Project Consultants

Through adoption, the Plan becomes an official planning document of the City. Adoption shows that Marion has undergone a successful, supported planning process. After adoption, this plan should be incorporated into the 2015 City of Marion CTP.

Short-term (2015)

Designate Staff

City Council

City Manager

Designate staff to oversee the Short-term (2015) implementation of this plan and the proper maintenance of the facilities that are developed. This role is referred to below as “Designated City Staff”

Form a Bicycle and Pedestrian Technical Advisory Committee (BPAC)

City Council

City Manager, Bicycle Plan Steering Committee

Form and confirm the goals of the BPAC, which should focus on implementation of this plan.

Short-term (2015)

Ensure that Priority Projects are Incorporated in NCDOT’s Prioritization Process

Designated City Staff, Planning & Zoning

Isothermal RPO, NCDOT Division 13

Communicate with the RPO and NCDOT Division 13 about the importance of this plan’s top projects.

Short-term (2015)

Begin Annual Meeting With Key Project Partners

Designated City Staff

Public Works, NCDOT, BPAC, and local & regional stakeholders

Key project partners (see org. Short-term/Ongoing chart on page 4-2) should meet on (Beginning 2016) an annual basis to evaluate the implementation of this Plan. Meetings could also include on-site tours of priority project corridors.

Present this plan Designated City to other local and Staff regional groups, to ensure planning efforts are integrated and supported regionally

BPAC, regional partners, NCDOT Planning Branch

Possible groups to receive a preShort-term/Ongoing sentation: The Isothermal RPO, (Beginning 2016) regional transportation planners, McDowell County planners and health department leaders, McDowell Trail Association Board, and the Kate B. Reynolds Charitable Trust Board.

Policy & Law Orientation

NCDOT Bike/Ped Divison, BPAC

Police staff should be familiar with state bicycle and pedestrian policies and laws, including best practices for reporting on accidents involving people walking or bicycling: http://www.ncdot.gov/ bikeped/lawspolicies/policies/

Marion Police

Short-term (2016)

CHAPTER FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION |

4-3


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Table 4-1 Implementation Action Steps (Continued) TASK

LEAD AGENCY

SUPPORT

DETAILS

PHASE

Consider City Council reducing speed limits when new bicycle facilities are added in some locations

NCDOT, BPAC

For example, consider lowering the speed limit when improvements are made on Rutherford Rd. See Priority Project 7 on page 3-18 for more information.

Short-term/Ongoing (2016 onward)

Develop new policies & approaches for implementation

Designated City Staff

City Council

Establish land right-of-way acquisition mechanisms, coordinate development plans, & implement driveway access management. See pages 4-6 and 4-7 for details.

Short-term/Ongoing (2016 onward)

Design Orientation

Public Works and NCDOT Division 13

NCDOT Bike/Ped Division

Become familiar with the guidelines in Short-term/Ongoing Appendix A of this Plan, as well as state (2016 onward) and national standards for bicycle and pedestrian facility design.

Seek Multiple Funding Sources and Facility Development Options

Designated City Staff

City Council, BPAC, Planning & Zoning, Division 13, Isothermal RPO

Chapter 3 contains project cost estimates and Appendix B contains potential funding opportunities.

Short-term/Ongoing (2016 onward)

Launch New Programs

BPAC

Planning & Zoning, Marion Police Department, McDowell County Health Department

These groups should coordinate to launch new programs, such as those described in Chapter 3, including a media campaign, hike & bike map, onestop website, wayfinding program, and a bicycle maintenance stand.

Short-term/Ongoing (2016 onward)

Maintain Bicycle Facilities

Public Works, NCDOT Division 13

BPAC, General Public (for reporting maintenance needs), Planning & Zoning

Public Works and NCDOT should maintain existing and future bicycle facilities and pavement markings

Short-term/Ongoing (2016 onward)

Notify Planning & Zoning of upcoming roadway reconstruction, resurfacing, and restriping projects

Public Works Director, NCDOT Division 13

Isothermal RPO, NCDOT Bike/Ped Division

Provide sufficient time for comments (in advance of the design phase); Incorporate bicycle/pedestrian recommendations from this Plan into future updates to the CTP and into future project design plans.

Short-term/Ongoing (2016 onward)

Develop a LongTerm Funding Strategy

Designated Staff

City Council, City Manager, Isothermal RPO, NCDOT Division 13

To allow continued development of the overall system, capital funds for bicycle and pedestrian facility construction should be set aside every year. Powell Bill funds should be programmed for facility construction. Funding for an ongoing maintenance program should also be included in the City’s operating budget.

Short-term/Ongoing (2016 onward)

Install bike racks throughout City

Public Works, BPAC

Planning & Zoning, local businesses

Install bike racks at parks, public buildings, schools, shopping centers, downtown destinations, and other important destinations. See Map 3.4 for proposed locations

Mid-term (20162018)

Install bike racks on McDowell Transit Vans

McDowell County Planning Dept

Planning & Zoning,

Install and promote bike racks that can hold up to three bikes on all McDowell Transit vans in order to further the reach of the transit system.

Mid-term (20162018)

4-4

| CHAPTER FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Table 4-1 Implementation Action Steps (Continued) TASK

LEAD AGENCY

SUPPORT

DETAILS

PHASE

Provide Enforcement and Education Training for Police Officers Through Free Online Resources

Police Department

Planning & Zoning, NCDOT Bike/Ped Division

Resources are available from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and from webinars by the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals. Continue to implement the WatchForMeNC campaign and take advantage of valuable materials and resources provided by NCDOT.

Mid-term (20162018)

Complete Three Priority Projects

Planning, Public Works, NCDOT Division 13

Isothermal RPO, NCDOT Bike/Ped Division

Chapter 3 provides information on priMid-term (2016ority projects. Aim to complete at least 2018) three of the priority projects by the end of 2017.

Distribute Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Information

BPAC, Designated City Staff

NCDOT Bike/Ped Division, Police Department

NCDOT has print material with safety tips for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians through the WatchForMe program, which are available for download at www.watchforme.org/campaign-materials. Other methods of distribution could include web sites, social media, and ‘on-the-ground’ in trail kiosks.

Communication & Outreach

BPAC, Designated City Staff

Local newspapers, City web site & social media mangers

The BPAC should establish a communi- Mid-term (2016cation campaign to celebrate successes 2018) as facilities are developed and otherwise raise awareness of the overall bicycle network and its benefits. A key first task of this group is to establish a page on the City website dedicated to bike/ ped education and project updates. The page should provide information to residents and visitors on bicycling in the region. To begin, the website can include the maps included in this plan.

Seek designation as a BicycleFriendly Community

Designated City Staff

BPAC

The development and implementation Mid-term (2018of this plan is an essential first step 2020) toward becoming a designated BicycleFriendly Community. With ongoing efforts and the short- term work program recommended here, the City should be in a position to apply for and receive recognition within a few years.

Complete Additional Priority Projects

Planning & Zoning, Public Works + NCDOT Division 13

Isothermal RPO, NCDOT Bike/Ped Division

Chapter 3 provides information on the Priority Projects. Aim to complete at least three of the priority projects by the end of 2020.

Mid- to Long-term (2018-2020)

Plan Update

City Council & BPAC

Planning

This plan should be updated in 2020. If many projects and programs have been completed by then, a new set of priorities should be established. If many projects and programs have not been completed, a new implementation strategy should be established.

Long-Term (2020)

Coordinate with ARTS Coordinator

Designated City Staff

NCDOT

Continue coordinating with the Region 2 Active Routes to School Coordinator to implement programs in Chapter 3.

On-going

Mid-term (20162018)

CHAPTER FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION |

4-5


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

KEY ACTION STEP DESCRIPTIONS

document when assessing the impact for future

POLICY ACTION STEPS

in any projects for future state parks or trails

Several policy steps are crucial to the success of future facility development. These steps will le-

projects and plans. Likewise, NCDENR’s Division of Parks and Recreation should refer to this plan near Marion.

and enable the right-of-way acquisition neces-

Establish Land Right -of -W ay Acquisition Mechanisms

sary to carry out those recommendations.

It is recommended that local zoning and subdi-

gitimize the recommendations found in this plan

vision ordinances be amended to ensure that,

Adopt This Plan

as developments are planned and reviewed, the

Before any other action takes place, the City

bicycle facilities and greenway corridors identi-

of Marion should adopt this plan. This should

fied in this plan are protected. This would entail

be considered the first step in implementation.

amending development regulations to have

Through adoption of this plan and its accom-

developers set aside land for trail infrastructure

panying maps as the City’s official bicycle plan,

whenever a development proposal overlaps

Marion will be better able to shape transporta-

with the proposed routes, as adopted. Marion

tion and development decisions so that they

staff should ensure that an effective review of

fit with the goals of this plan. Most importantly,

all bicycle elements in proposed developments

having an adopted plan is extremely helpful in

takes place.

securing funding from state, federal, and private agencies. Adopting this plan does not commit

In addition, local policies should also be revised

the Marion to dedicate or allocate funds, but

to appropriately address the ROW needs. For

rather indicates intent to implement this plan

example, revising policy language to allow for

over time, starting with these action steps.

public access for trail users, as a matter of right, on all new sewer and utility easements, or to

The Planning Board should review and recom-

mandate the installation of “bicycle-friendly”

mend the plan to the City Council, which in turn

drainage grates on all roadways during future

must consider and officially incorporate the

roadway projects would have a significant im-

recommended infrastructure improvements of

pact on the bicycling environment in Marion.

this plan into its land-use plans. The following entities should adopt this plan:

C oordinate Development Plans The City of Marion should ensure that adopted

»»

The City of Marion

bicycle and multi-use path recommendations

»»

Isothermal RPO

from this plan are included in future residential and commercial developments that connect

This plan and its recommended facilities should be approved by the NCDOT, and they should be

4-6

with such proposed facilities.

included in the future planning of the NCDOT

Implement Driveway Access Management

Planning Branch, the Division of Bicycle and

Marion should consider adding access manage-

Pedestrian Transportation (DBPT), and NC-

ment language to the City ordinances for both

DOT Division 13. This plan’s recommendations

future development and retrofits to existing

should also be integrated into an update to the

development, especially high-volume corridors.

Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) for

The NCDOT’s policy on ‘Street and Driveway Ac-

McDowell County. NCDOT should refer to this

cess to North Carolina Highways’ provides exam-

| CHAPTER FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

ples on how to reduce conflict points between

outreach, marketing, and educational activities

motor vehicles and pedestrians and bicyclists.

recommended by this plan.

For more information: www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/altern/value/manuals/pos.pdf

PROGRAM ACTION STEPS

Become Designated as Friendly Community

a

Bicycle

A goal for Marion should be to seek a “Bicycle

While policies provide support for facility

Friendly Community” (BFC) designation from

development, the program recommendations

the League of American Bicyclists. The BFC

featured at the end of Chapter 3 will build com-

campaign is an award program that recognizes

munity support for the creation of new facilities

municipalities that actively support bicycling

and help establish a stronger bicycling culture.

activities and safety. A Bicycle Friendly Com-

The action steps that follow will support these

munity provides safe accommodation for bi-

programing efforts.

cycling and encourages its residents to bicycle for transportation and recreation. Carrboro and

Designate Staff

Davidson are examples of small North Carolina

Designate staff to oversee the implementation

cities that have become designated as Bicycle

of this plan and the proper maintenance of the

Friendly Communities.

facilities that are developed. It is recommended that a combination of existing planning staff

Becoming designated as a Bicycle-Friendly

and public works staff oversee the day-to-day

Community signals to current residents, po-

implementation of this plan. In many mu-

tential residents, and visitors that the City is a

nicipalities, a full-time bicycle and pedestrian

safe and welcoming place for individuals and

coordinator covers this task, but in smaller Cit-

families to live and recreate. The development

ies, such as Marion, it makes more sense to fold

and implementation of this plan is an essential

these responsibilities into current staff respon-

first step toward becoming a Bicycle Friendly

sibilities.

Community. With ongoing efforts and the short-term work program recommended here,

Form a Bicycle Committee

and

Pedestrian Advisory

the City should be in a position to apply for and receive BFC status within a few years.

The City of Marion should form a bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee (BPAC) out of

C ommunication

the plan’s steering committee to assist in the

The BPAC should lead the effort to establish a

implementation of this plan. The BPAC should

communication campaign to celebrate suc-

have representation from active pedestrians

cesses as facilities are developed and otherwise

and commuting and recreational cyclists and

raise awareness of the overall pedestrian and

should champion the recommendations of this

bicycle network and its benefits. A key first task

plan. The formation of this group would be a

of this group is to design and launch a one-stop

significant step in becoming designated as a

website (or a web page on the City’s current

Bicycle Friendly Community (see section that

website).

and

Outreach

follows). The committee would provide a communications link between the citizens of the

Many current and potential bicyclists do not

community and local government. They should

know where to turn to find out about traf-

also continue to meet periodically, and be

fic laws, events, maps, tips, and groups. De-

tasked with assisting Marion staff in community

veloping a “Bike Central” web page provides information to a wide audience and encour-

CHAPTER FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION |

4-7


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

ages people to walk and bicycle. This would

participants should reconfirm the plan’s goals

be especially useful in attracting visitors who

each year. The meetings could also occasionally

are seeking out a vacation destination where

feature special training sessions on pedestrian,

bicycling is safe and enjoyable. Such a site is

on-road bicycle, and trail issues.

not usually difficult to set up, but it will only be dated frequently. All website content should be

Seek Multiple Funding Sources Facility Development Options

reviewed regularly for accuracy. Walking groups,

Multiple approaches should be taken to sup-

the bicycling community, and volunteer organi-

port bicycle and pedestrian facility development

zations interested in safety and health can assist

and programming. It is important to secure the

in keeping the site up to date.

funding necessary to undertake priority projects

successful if the site is both easy to use and up-

and

but also to develop a long-term funding strategy

Establish

a

Monitoring Program

to allow continued development of the overall

From the beginning, and continuously through

system. Dedicated local funding sources will be

the life of a bicycle facility project, the BPAC

important for the implementation of this plan.

should brainstorm specific benchmarks to track

Capital and local funds for pedestrian facili-

through a monitoring program and honor the

ties and trail construction should be set aside

completion of projects with public events and

every year, even if only for a small amount. Small

media coverage. Benchmarks should be revisited

amounts of local funding can be matched to

and revised periodically as the pedestrian and

outside funding sources or could be used to en-

bicycle facility network evolves.

hance NCDOT projects with bicycle features that may otherwise not be budgeted for by the state.

Begin Annual Meeting With Key Project P artners

A variety of local, state, and federal options and

Coordination between key project partners

funding options are described in Appendix B.

sources exist and should be pursued. These

will establish a system of checks and balances, provide a level of accountability, and ensure that

A priority action is to immediately evaluate the

recommendations are implemented. This meet-

recommendations against transportation proj-

ing should be organized by the designated City

ects that are currently programmed in the Trans-

staff, and should include representatives from

portation Improvement Program (TIP) to see

the Organizational Chart shown on page 4-2.

where projects overlap, compliment, or conflict

The purpose of the meeting should be to ensure

with each other. The City should also evaluate

that this plan’s recommendations are integrated

which of the proposed projects could be added

with other transportation planning efforts in the

to future TIP updates, and should coordinate

region, as well as long-range and current land

closely with NCDOT Division 13 and the Isother-

use planning, economic development planning,

mal RPO on priority projects.

and environmental planning. Attendees should

work, and start working on a funding strategy

Develop Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Designs and Specifications for Proposed P rojects

that will allow the City to incrementally com-

City of Marion staff could prepare these in-house

plete each of the suggested physical improve-

to save resources, using the design guidelines of

ments, policy changes and programs over a 5-10

this plan and the project cut-sheets as starting

year period. A brief progress benchmark memo

points. The public should have an opportunity to

should be a product of these meetings, and

comment on the design of new facilities.

work together to identify and secure funding necessary to immediately begin the first year’s

4-8

| CHAPTER FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Launch New Programs

INFRASTRUCTURE ACTION STEPS

The program recommendations found in Chap-

While establishing the policies and programs

ter 3 provide a set of programmatic resources

described, Marion should move forward with

that will support the goals of the Marion Bicycle

the design and construction of priority projects.

Plan. The City should reference the recommen-

They should also work to identify funding for

dations to develop new programs that promote

long-term, higher-cost projects.

walking and bicycling.

Identify Funding Through cooperation between the City, the

Achieving the vision defined within this plan

BPAC, and groups such as walking and bicy-

will require, among other things, a stable and

cling clubs, strong education, encouragement,

recurring source of funding. Communities

and enforcement campaigns could also occur

across the country that have successfully en-

as new facilities are built. When an improve-

gaged in pedestrian and bicycle programs have

ment has been made, the roadway environment

relied on multiple funding sources to achieve

has changed and proper interaction between

their goals. No single source of funding will

motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians is critical

meet the recommendations identified in this

for the safety of all users. A campaign through

Plan. Instead, stakeholders will need to work

local television, on-site enforcement, education

cooperatively with municipal, state, and federal

events, and other methods will bring attention

partners to generate funds sufficient to imple-

to the new facility, and educate, encourage, and

ment the program.

enforce proper use and behavior. Chapter 3 provides program ideas to choose from, some

A stable and recurring source of revenue is

of which are included in the action steps table

needed that can then be used to leverage grant

starting on page 4-3.

dollars from state, federal, and private sources. The ability of local agencies to generate a

P rovide Enforcement and Education Training for Police Officers

source of funding for pedestrian and bicycle

Law enforcement officers have many important

as taxing capacity, budgetary resources, voter

responsibilities, yet pedestrians and bicyclists

preferences, and political will. It is very impor-

remain the most vulnerable forms of traffic. The

tant that these local agencies explore the abil-

Marion Police Department has been aware of

ity to establish a stable and recurring source of

this planning process, and should be involved

revenue for facilities.

facilities depends on a variety of factors, such

in implementation. In many cases, citizens (and even sometimes officers) are not fully aware

Donations from individuals or companies are

of state and local laws related to bicyclists and

another potential source of funding. The BPAC

pedestrians. Training on this topic can lead to

should establish an “Adopt a Trail” program as

additional education and enforcement pro-

a mechanism to collect these donations for the

grams that promote safety. Training for Mari-

development of the trail and sidepath recom-

on’s officers could be done through free online

mendations discussed in Chapter 3. In addition

resources available from the National Highway

to a formalized program, a website should be

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) (see

set up as an easy way for individuals to donate

links at www.bicyclinginfo.org/enforcement/

smaller amounts.

training.cfm), or through fee-based webinars available through the Association of Pedestrian

Federal and state grants should be pursued

and Bicycle Professionals (APBP).

along with local funds to pay for necessary

CHAPTER FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION |

4-9


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

right-of-way acquisition and project design, con-

MAY 2016

»»

struction, and maintenance expenses. “Shovelready” designed projects should be prepared

Become familiar with the recommendations of this plan, and support its implementation.

»»

Learn about pedestrian- and bicycle-related

in the event that future federal stimulus funds

policies in North Carolina. (see: www.ncdot.

become available. Additional recommended

gov/bikeped/lawspolicies/policies/)

funding sources may be found in Appendix B.

Complete Short-Term Priority Projects

ROLE OF THE MARION PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

By quickly moving forward on priority projects,

The Public Works Department is responsible

Marion will demonstrate its commitment to

for the construction and maintenance of pe-

carrying out this plan and will better sustain mo-

destrian and bicycle facilities on locally owned

mentum generated during the planning process.

and maintained roadways, as well as on NCDOT

Refer to Chapter 3: Network Recommendations

roadways, where encroachment agreements are

for priority projects.

secured. This department should be prepared to:

KEY PARTNERS IN IMPLEMENTATION

»»

ROLE OF THE MARION CITY COUNCIL

»»

Communicate and coordinate with other City departments and the BPAC on priority bicycle and pedestrian projects. in Appendix A of this plan, as well as state and national standards for bicycle and pe-

The City Council will be responsible for adopting

destrian facility design.

this plan. Through adoption, the City’s leadership is further recognizing the value of bicycle

Become familiar with the standards set forth

»»

Secure encroachment agreements for work

and pedestrian transportation and is putting

on NCDOT-owned and maintained road-

forth a well-thought out set of recommenda-

ways.

tions for improving public safety and overall

»»

and bicycle facilities.

quality of life (see the ‘Why This Plan is Important’ section in Chapter 1). By adopting this plan,

»»

partners.

prepared to support the efforts of other key the work of City departments and NCDOT.

Assist the Planning & Zoning Department in communicating with NCDOT and regional

the City Council is also signifying that they are partners in the plan’s implementation, including

Design, construct, and maintain pedestrian

»»

Work with NCDOT Division 13 to ensure that when NCDOT-owned and maintained roadways in Marion are resurfaced or recon-

Adoption of this plan is in line with public sup-

structed, this plan’s adopted recommenda-

port. Marion’s online comment form for the plan-

tions for bicycle and pedestrian facilities are

ning process yielded less than 50 responses, but

included on those streets. If a compromise

showed strong support for improving bicycling

to the original recommendation is needed,

conditions.

then contact NCDOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation for guidance on

ROLE OF THE MARION PLANNING BOARD

appropriate alternatives.

sory board to the City Council on matters of

ROLE OF MARION PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT

planning and zoning. The Planning Board should

Planning & Development staff will take primary

be prepared to:

responsibility for the contact with new devel-

The Marion Planning Board serves as an advi-

opment to implement the plan (with support

4-10

| CHAPTER FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

from the Public Works Department). The staff

ment agreements. Division 13 should be pre-

should be prepared to:

pared to:

»»

»»

Communicate and coordinate with local developers on adopted recommendations for

opted plan of the City of Marion, but also

bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including

as an approved plan of the NCDOT.

paved multi-use trails. »»

»»

»»

Become familiar with the bicycle and pe-

Communicate and coordinate with NCDOT

destrian facility recommendations for NC-

Division 13 on this plan’s recommenda-

DOT roadways in this plan (Chapter 3); take

tions for NCDOT-owned and maintained

initiative in incorporating this plan’s recom-

roadways. Provide comment and reminders

mendations into the Division’s schedule of

about this plan’s recommendations no later

improvements whenever possible.

than the design phase. »»

Recognize this plan as not only as an ad-

»»

Become familiar with the standards set

Communicate and coordinate with McDow-

forth in Appendix A of this plan, as well as

ell County, Isothermal RPO, and neighbor-

state and national standards for facility de-

ing municipalities on regional facilities;

sign; construct and maintain recommended

partner for joint-funding opportunities.

facilities using the highest standards al-

Become experts on bicycle-related policies

lowed by the State (including the use of

in North Carolina. (see: www.ncdot.gov/ bikeped/lawspolicies/policies/)

innovative treatments on a trial basis). »»

Notify the City of Marion Public Works Department of all upcoming roadway recon-

ROLE OF THE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE

struction or resurfacing/restriping projects in City, no later than the design phase. Provide sufficient time for comments from the planning staff.

The Committee should be prepared to: »» »»

If needed, seek guidance and direction

Meet with staff from Planning & Develop-

from the NCDOT Division of Bicycle and

ment and the Public Utilities Department;

Pedestrian Transportation on issues related

evaluate progress of the plan’s implementa-

to this plan and its implementation.

tion and offer input regarding pedestrian,

organizing bicycle- and pedestrian-related

ROLE OF THE ACTIVE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM COORDINATOR (REGION 2)

events and educational activities.

The Active Routes to School Program (ARTS)

Build upon current levels of local support

coordinator should continue to work with

for pedestrian and bicycle issues and advo-

the City of Marion to implement Safe Routes

cate for local project funding.

to School programs and projects. More

bicycle, and trail-related issues; assist Marion staff in applying for grants and

»»

information on the program can be found here:

ROLE OF THE LOCAL NCDOT DIVISION 13

HTTP://WWW.NCDOT.GOV/DOWNLOAD/PRO-

Division 13 of the NCDOT is responsible for the

GRAMS/SRTS/SRTS.PDF

construction and maintenance of pedestrian and bicycle facilities on NCDOT-owned and maintained roadways in Marion, OR is expected to allow for the City to do so with encroach-

CHAPTER FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION |

4-11


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

ROLE OF THE MARION POLICE DEPARTMENT

MAY 2016

ROLE OF LOCAL & REGIONAL STAKEHOLDERS Stakeholders for bicycle and pedestrian facil-

The Marion Police Department is responsible for

ity development and related programs, such as

providing the community the highest quality law

McDowell County, Isothermal RPO, and local

enforcement service and protection to ensure

organizations play important roles in the imple-

the safety of the citizens and visitors. The Police

mentation of this plan. Local and regional stake-

Department should be prepared to:

holders should be prepared to do the following:

»»

»»

»»

Become experts on pedestrian-related

recommendations of this plan as well as

gov/bikeped/lawspolicies/laws/ and www.

communicate & coordinate with the City for

bikelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/

implementation, specifically in relation to

BIKELAW_RG_NC_Web.pdf)

funding opportunities, such as grant writ-

Continue to enforce not only bicycle- and

ing and developing local matches for facility

pedestrian-related laws, but also motorist

construction.

laws that affect walking and bicycling, such

»»

»»

The RPO should work with Marion on popu-

as speeding, running red lights, aggressive

lating the Strategic Transportation Improve-

driving, etc.

ment (STI) list with pedestrian and bicycle

Participate in bicycle- and pedestrian-relat-

infrastructure projects.

ed education programs. »»

The RPO should become familiar with the

laws in North Carolina. (see: www.ncdot.

»»

Review safety considerations with the Public Works Department as projects are imple-

McDowell County should coordinate with the City on trail development.

»»

mented.

Business owners and organizations should look for opportunities to partner on specific projects, such as streetscape improvements,

ROLE OF DEVELOPERS

or comprehensive signage and wayfinding

Developers in Marion can play an important

projects.

role in facility development whenever a project cilities or the dedication and development of on-

ROLE OF LOCAL RESIDENTS, CLUBS AND ADVOCACY GROUPS

road bicycle facilities, sidewalks, trails or cross-

Local residents, clubs, and advocacy groups play

ing facilities. Developers should be prepared to:

a critical role in the success of this plan. They

»»

should be prepared to:

requires the enhancement of transportation fa-

Become familiar with the benefits, both financial and otherwise, of providing amenities for walking and biking (including trails)

»»

in residential and commercial developments. »»

»»

Become familiar with the standards set forth

Continue offering input regarding pedestrian and bicycling issues in Marion.

»»

Assist City staff and the BPAC by volun-

in Appendix A of this plan, as well as state

teering for bicycle- and pedestrian-related

and national standards for facility design.

events and educational activities and/or

Be prepared to account for bicycle and

participate in such activities.

pedestrian circulation and connectivity in future developments.

»»

Assist Marion staff and the BPAC by speaking at City Council meetings and advocating for local pedestrian and bicycle project and program funding.

4-12

| CHAPTER FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Services from volunteers, student labor, and

FACILITY DEVELOPMENT METHODS

seniors, or donations of material and equip-

This section describes different construction

ment may be provided in-kind, to offset con-

methods for the proposed pedestrian and bi-

struction and maintenance costs. Formalized

cycle facilities outlined in Chapter 3. It is much

maintenance agreements, such as adopt-a-trail/

more cost-effective to provide bicycle and pe-

greenway or adopt-a-highway can be used to

destrian facilities during roadway construction

provide a regulated service agreement with

and re-construction projects than to initiate the

volunteers. Other efforts and projects can be

improvements later as “retrofit” projects.

ROLE OF VOLUNTEERS

coordinated as needed with senior class proj-

lined in Chapter 3 of this plan. Advantages of

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (NCDOT) STRATEGIC TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS (STI)

utilizing volunteers include reduced or donated

The NCDOT’s State Transportation Improve-

planning and construction costs, community

ment Program is based on the Strategic Trans-

pride and personal connections to the City’s

portation Investments Bill, signed into law in

greenway, bicycle, and pedestrian networks.

2013. The Strategic Transportation Investments

ects, scout projects, interested organizations, clubs or a neighborhood’s community service to provide for many of the program ideas out-

PERFORMANCE MEASURES (EVALUATION AND MONITORING)

(STI) Initiative introduces the Strategic Mobility Formula, a new way to fund and prioritize transportation projects.

Marion should establish performance measures to benchmark progress towards fulfilling the

The new Strategic Transportation Investments

recommendations of this plan. These perfor-

Initiative was scheduled to be fully implement-

mance measures should be stated in an of-

ed by July 1, 2015. Projects that were slated for

ficial report within two years after the plan is

construction after this date will be ranked and

adopted. Performance measures could address

programed according to the new formula. The

the following aspects of pedestrian and bicycle

new Strategic mobility formula assigns projects

transportation and recreation in Marion:

for all modes into one of three categories: 1)

»»

Safety. Measures of pedestrian- and

Statewide Mobility, 2) Regional Impact, and 3)

bicycle-related crashes and injuries.

Division Needs.

»»

»»

»»

Facilities. Measures of how many pedestrian and bicycle facilities have been funded

All independent bicycle and pedestrian projects

and constructed since the plan’s adoption.

are placed in the “Division Needs” category,

Maintenance. Measures of existing side-

and are ranked based on 50% data (safety, ac-

walk/crosswalk or bicycle facility deficiency

cess, demand, connectivity, and cost effective-

or maintenance needs.

ness) and 50% local input. See Appendix B,

Counts. Measures of pedestrian and/or

page B-8 to B-10 for more information.

bicycle traffic at specific locations. »»

ment. Measures of the number of people

LOCAL ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION OR RECONSTRUCTION

who have participated in part of a pedes-

Pedestrians and bicyclists should be accom-

trian- or bicycle-related program since the

modated any time a new road is constructed or

plan’s adoption.

an existing road is reconstructed. In the longer-

Education, Encouragement and Enforce-

term, all new roads with moderate to heavy

CHAPTER FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION |

4-13


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

motor vehicle traffic should have sidewalks,

side for parking. The stripe would help slow mo-

bicycle facilities, and safe intersections. However,

tor vehicles and provide extra comfort for bicy-

side paths can be an acceptable solution when a

clists, especially during the daytime when fewer

road has few driveways and high-speed, high-

cars would be parked along the curb. On roads

volume traffic.

with outside lane and parking areas that are narrower than 17 feet wide, shared lane markings

More information is available on the following

can be provided every 250 feet on the right side

website:

of the motor vehicle travel lane to increase the

http://www.ada.gov/doj-fhwa-ta.htm.

visibility of the bike route.

RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT

REPAVING

The construction of sidewalks, bicycle facilities,

ing pavement markings. When a road is repaved,

trails, and safe crosswalks should be required

the roadway should be restriped to create nar-

during development. Construction of facili-

rower lanes and provide space for bike lanes and

ties that corresponds with site construction is

shoulders, where feasible. NCDOT has a three-

more cost-effective than retrofitting. In com-

year resurfacing schedule, which can be found

mercial development, emphasis should also be

at https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Asset-

focused on safe pedestrian and bicyclist access

Management/Pages/HMIPDIV.aspx

Repaving projects provide a clean slate for revis-

into, within, and through large parking lots. This ensures the future growth of the pedestrian and

In addition, if the spaces on the sides of non-

bicycle networks and the development of safe

curb and gutter streets have relatively level

communities.

grades and few obstructions, the total pavement width can be widened to include paved shoul-

REMOVING PARKING

ders.

Some neighborhood collector roadways are ities, but they are used by residents for on-street

INSTALLING SHARED LANE MARKINGS

parking, especially in the evening. In locations

Marion should adopt the use of shared lane

like this, removing parking is likely to create con-

markings, or “sharrows,” as one of its bicycle

siderable controversy and is not recommended

facility types. Shared lane markings have been

unless there is no other solution or the parking is

newly incorporated into the Manual on Uniform

rarely used. In the rare case that removing park-

Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). They take the

ing is being considered, the parking should not

place of traditional bicycle lanes where travel

be removed unless there is a great deal of public

lanes cannot be narrowed, where speeds do not

support for the facilities on that particular road-

exceed 35 mph, and/or where there is on-street

way and a full public involvement process with

parking. The intent of the shared lane marking is

adjacent residents and businesses is undertaken

threefold:

wide enough to add pedestrian and bicycle facil-

prior to removing parking. »»

way is accommodating bicycle use and traf-

and shared lane markings may be considered.

fic;

On roads where the outside lane and parking area combined are more than 17 feet wide, 10 foot wide travel lanes can be striped with an edgeline, leaving the rest of the space on either

4-14

They draw attention to the fact that the road-

If it is not practical to add a bike lane, edgelines

| CHAPTER FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION

»»

They clearly define the direction of travel for both bicyclists and motorists; and


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

»»

With proper placement, they remind bicyclists to bike further from parked cars to prevent “dooring” collisions.

SIGNAGE AND WAYFINDING PROJECTS A relatively low-cost, short-term action that

While shared-lane markings are not typically

Marion can pursue immediately is to develop

recommended or needed on local, residential

and adopt a wayfinding signage style policy

streets, they are sometimes used along such

and procedure, to be applied throughout the

streets when part of a signed route or bicycle

entire community, to make it easier for people

boulevard. It should be noted that sharrows are

to find destinations. Bicycle route signs are one

not a replacement for bicycle lanes in their ef-

example of these wayfinding signs, and should

fectiveness or use.

be installed along routes independently of other signage projects or as a part of a more com-

RETROFIT ROADWAYS WITH NEW BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES

prehensive wayfinding improvement project.

There may be critical locations in the pedestri-

increase awareness of the ease and efficiency

an and bicycle network that have safety issues

of bicycle and pedestrian travel. See Appendix

or are essential links to destinations. In these

A: Design Guidelines for more detailed guid-

locations, it may be justifiable to add new pe-

ance on signage and wayfinding improvements.

Posting signage that includes bicycle and walk travel times to major destinations can help to

destrian and bicycle facilities before scheduling a roadway to be repaved or reconstructed. In

For a step-by-step guide to help non-profes-

some other locations, it may be relatively easy

sionals participate in the process of develop-

to add sidewalk or to add extra pavement for

ing and designing a signage system, as well as

shoulders, but other segments may require re-

information on the range of signage types, visit

moving trees, relocating landscaping or fences,

the Project for Public Places website: www.pps.

or re-grading ditches. Retrofitting roadways

org/reference/signage_guide

with side paths creates similar challenges.

BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION OR REPLACEMENT

CITY EASEMENTS Marion should explore opportunities to revise existing easements to accommodate public ac-

Provisions should always be made to include

cess greenway trail facilities. Similarly, as new

a walking and bicycling facility as a part of ve-

easements are acquired in the future, the pos-

hicular bridges. All new or replacement bridges

sibility of public access should be considered.

should accommodate two-way travel for all

Sewer easements are very commonly used

users. Even though bridge construction and

for this purpose, offering cleared and graded

replacement does not occur regularly, it is im-

corridors that easily accommodate trails. This

portant to consider these policies for long-term

approach avoids the difficulties associated with

bicycle and pedestrian planning. Facility de-

acquiring land, and it better utilizes the City’s

sign standards such as widths of facilities and

resources.

heights of handrails are presented in Appendix A: Design Guidelines, providing guidance for facilities that also accommodates bicycles in this context.

CHAPTER FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION |

4-15


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Appendix A: Design Guidelines Overview | Deisgn Needs of Bicyclists | Shared Use Paths | Bicycle Facilities | Retrofitting Existing Streets to Add Bikeways | Intersections | Bicycle Support Facilities & Maintenance

APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES |

A-1


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

OVERVIEW

MAY 2016

Should the national standards be revised in

The sections that follow serve as an inven-

the future and result in discrepancies with this

tory of bicycle design treatments and provides

chapter, the national standards should prevail

guidelines for their development. These treat-

for all design decisions. A qualified engineer or

ments and design guidelines are important

landscape architect should be consulted for the

because they represent the tools for creating a

most up to date and accurate cost estimates.

safe, accessible community. The guidelines are not, however, a substitute for a more thorough evaluation by a landscape architect or engineer upon implementation of facility improvements. Some improvements may also require cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for specific design solutions as well as adherence to NCDOT’s Complete Streets Guidelines (http://www.completestreetsnc.org/). The following standards and guidelines are referred to in this guide: »» The Federal Highway Administration’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is the primary source for guidance on lane striping requirements, signal

Nationally recognized

warrants, and recommended signage and

bikeway standards such

pavement markings.

as NACTO, AASHTO,

»» American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, updated in June 2012 provides guidance on dimensions, use, and layout of specific bicycle facilities. »» The National Association of City Transportation Officials’ (NACTO) 2012 Urban Bikeway Design Guide is the newest publication of nationally recognized bicycle-specific design standards, and offers guidance on the current state of the practice designs. Most NACTO treatments are compatible within AASHTO/MUTCD guidance, though some NACTO endorsed designs may not be permitted on state roads at this time.

Downtown Elizabethtown A-2 | APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES

the MUTCD, along with guidance from the State of North Carolina have all informed the content of this appendix.


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

DESIGN NEEDS OF BICYCLISTS The purpose of this section is to provide the facility designer with an understanding of how bicyclists operate and how their bicycle influences that operation. Bicyclists, by nature, are much more affected by poor facility design, construction and maintenance practices than motor vehicle drivers. Bicyclists lack the protection from the elements and roadway hazards provided by an automobile’s structure and safety features. By understanding the unique characteristics and needs of bicyclists, a facility designer can provide quality facilities and minimize user risk.

Bicycle as a Design Vehicle Similar to motor vehicles, bicyclists and their bicycles exist in a variety of sizes and configurations. These variations occur in the types of vehicle (such as a conventional bicycle, a recumbent bicycle or a tricycle), and behavioral characteristics (such as the comfort level of the bicyclist). The design of a bikeway should consider reasonably expected bicycle types on the facility and utilize the appropriate dimensions. The figure below illustrates the operating space and physical dimensions of a typical adult bicyclist, which are the basis for typical facility design. Bicyclists require clear space to operate within a facility. This is why the minimum operating width is greater than the physical dimensions of the bicyclist. Bicyclists prefer five feet or more operating width, although four feet may be minimally acceptable. In addition to the design dimensions of a typical bicycle, there are many other commonly used pedal-driven cycles and accessories to consider when planning and designing bicycle facilities. The most common types include tandem bicycles, recumbent bicycles, and trailer accessories. The figure and table below summarize the typical dimensions for bicycle types. Operating Envelope 8’ 4”

Standard Bicycle Rider Dimensions

Eye Level 5’

Handlebar Height 3’8”

Physical Operating Width 2’6”

Preferred Operating Width 5’

Minimum Operating Width 4’

Source: AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition. 2012.

APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES |

A-3


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Design Speed Expectations The expected speed that different types of bicyclists can maintain under various conditions also influences the design of facilities such as shared use paved trails. The table to the right provides typical bicyclist speeds for a variety of conditions. Bicycle as Design Vehicle - Typical Dimensions

5’ 10”

Bicycle Type

Feature

Typical Dimensions

Upright Adult

Physical width

2 ft 6 in

Bicyclist

Operating width

4 ft

(Minimum) Operating width

5 ft

(Preferred) Physical length

5 ft 10 in

Physical height of

3 ft 8 in

handlebars

8’

Operating height

8 ft 4 in

Eye height

5 ft

Vertical clearance to

10 ft

obstructions (tunnel height, lighting, etc)

6’10”

Recumbent Bicyclist Tandem

2’ 6”

3’ 11”

Approximate center

2 ft 9 in - 3 ft

of gravity

4 in

Physical length

6 ft 10 in

Eye height

3 ft 10 in

Physical length

8 ft

Physical length

9 ft 9 in

Physical width

2 ft 6 in

Bicyclist Bicyclist with child trailer

Bicycle as Design Vehicle - Design Speed Expectations

3’ 9” Bicycle as Design Vehicle - Typical Dimensions

Source: AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 3rd Edition *AASHTO does not provide typical dimensions for tricycles.

Bicycle Type

Feature

Typical Speed

Upright Adult

Paved level surfacing

8-15 mph

Downhill

20-30+ mph

Uphill

5 -12 mph

Paved level surfacing

11-18 mph

Bicyclist

Recumbent

*Tandem bicycles and bicyclists with trailers have typical speeds equal to or less than upright adult bicyclists.

A-4

| APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

SHARED USE PATHS (GREENWAY TRAILS) A shared use path (also known as a greenway) allows for two-way, off-street bicycle use and also may be used by pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers and other non-motorized users. These facilities are frequently found

General Design Practices

in parks, along rivers, beaches, and in greenbelts or utility corridors where there are few conflicts with motorized vehicles. Trail facilities can also include amenities such as lighting, signage, and fencing (where appropriate). Key features of shared use paved trails include: »» Frequent access points from the local road

Trails Along Roadways

network. »» Directional signs to direct users to and from the trail. »» A limited number of at-grade crossings with streets or driveways. »» Terminating the trail where it is easily acces-

Natural Surface Trail

sible to and from the street system. »» Separate treads for pedestrians and bicyclists when heavy use is expected.

Boardwalks

Trail/Roadway Crossings

Bridges

APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES |

A-5


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

SHARED USE PATHS Description Shared use paths can provide a desirable facility, particularly for recreation, and users of all skill levels preferring separation from traffic. Bicycle trails should generally provide directional travel opportunities not provided by existing roadways.

Guidance Width

»» 8 feet is the minimum allowed for a two-way bicycle trail and is only recommended for low traffic situations. »» 10 feet is recommended in most situations and will be adequate for moderate to heavy use.

8-12’ depending on usage

»» 12 feet is recommended for heavy use situations with high concentrations of multiple users. A separate track (5’ minimum) can be provided for pedestrian use.

Lateral Clearance »» A 2 foot or greater shoulder on both sides of the trail should be provided. An additional foot of lateral clearance (total of 3’) is required by the MUTCD for the installation of signage or other furnishings. »» If bollards are used at intersections and access points, they should be colored brightly and/or supplemented with reflective materials to be visible at night.

Overhead Clearance »» Clearance to overhead obstructions should be 8 feet minimum, with 10 feet recommended.

Striping »» When striping is required, use a 4 inch dashed yellow centerline stripe with 4 inch solid white edge lines. »» Solid centerlines can be provided on tight or blind corners, and on the approaches to roadway crossings.

Discussion Terminate the trail where it is easily accessible to and from the street system, preferably at a controlled intersection or at the beginning of a dead-end street.

Additional References

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012. FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2009. Flink, C. Greenways: A Guide To Planning Design And Development. 1993.

Materials and Maintenance Asphalt is the most common surface for bicycle trails. The use of concrete for trails has proven to be more durable over the long term. Saw cut concrete joints rather than troweled improve the experience of trail users.

A-6

| APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

SHARED USE PATHS ALONG ROADWAYS (SIDEPATHS) Guidance

Description Shared use paths along roadways, also called Sidepaths, are a type of trail that run adjacent to a street.

»» Guidance for sidepaths should follow that for general design practises of shared use trails.

»» Because of operational concerns it is generally preferable to place trails within independent rightsof-way away from roadways. However, there are situations where existing roads provide the only corridors available.

»» A high number of driveway crossings and intersections create potential conflicts with turning traffic. Consider alternatives to sidepaths on streets with a high frequency of intersections or heavily used driveways.

»» Along roadways, these facilities create a situation where a portion of the bicycle traffic rides against the normal flow of motor vehicle traffic and can result in wrong-way riding where bicyclists enter or leave the trail.

»» Where a sidepath terminates special consideration should be given to transitions so as not to encourage unsafe wrong-way riding by bicyclists.

»» The AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities cautions practitioners of the use of two-way sidepaths on urban or suburban streets

»» Crossing design should emphasize visibility of users and clarity of expected yielding behavior. Crossings may be STOP or YIELD controlled depending on sight lines and bicycle motor vehicle volumes and speeds.

with many driveways and street crossings.

In general, there are two approaches to crossings: adjacent crossings and setback crossings, illustrated below.

Setback Crossing - A set back of 25 feet separates the

Adjacent Crossing - A separation of 6 feet emphasizes the conspicuity of riders at the approach to the crossing.

trail crossing from merging/turning movements that may be competing for a driver’s attention.

Yield line placed 6’ from crosswalk

Stop bar placed 6’ from crosswalk

Minimum 6’ setback from roadway

Yield line placed 6’ from crosswalk

W11-15, W16-7P used in conjunction with yield lines

Stop bar placed 25’ from crossing

W11-15, W16-7P used in conjunction with yield lines

Discussion The provision of a shared use paved trail adjacent to a road is not a substitute for the provision of on-road accommodation such as paved shoulders or bike lanes, but may be considered in some locations in addition to on-road bicycle facilities. To reduce potential conflicts in some situations, it may be better to place oneway sidepaths on both sides of the street.

Additional References

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012. NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. See entry on Raised Cycle Tracks. 2012.

Materials and Maintenance Asphalt is the most common surface for bicycle trails. The use of concrete for trails has proven to be more durable over the long term. Saw cut concrete joints rather than troweled improve the experience of trail users. CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS |

A-7


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

NATURAL SURFACE TRAIL Description

Guidance

Sometimes referred to as footpaths, hiking trails or single track trails, the soft surface shared use trail is used along corridors that are environmentallysensitive but can support bare earth, wood chip, or boardwalk trails. Natural surface trails are a low-impact solution and found in areas with limited development or where a more primitive experience is desired.

»» Trails can vary in width from 18 inches to 6 feet or greater; vertical clearance should be maintained at nine-feet above grade. »» Mountain bike trails are typically 18-24 inches wide and have compacted bare earth or leaf litter surfacing. »» Base preparation varies from machine-worked surfaces to those worn only by usage. »» Trail surface can be made of dirt, rock, soil, forest litter, or other native materials. Some trails use crushed stone (a.k.a. “crush and run”) that contains about 4% fines by weight, and compacts with use. »» Provide positive drainage for trail tread without extensive removal of existing vegetation; maximum slope is five percent (typical).

18” to 6’ width

9’ vertical clearance

Discussion Trail erosion control measures include edging along the low side of the trail, steps and terraces to contain surface material, and water bars to direct surface water off the trail; use bedrock surface where possible to reduce erosion. Due to their narrow width and ability to contour with the natural topography, single-track mountain bike trails typically require the least amount of disturbance and support features of all types of trails.

Additional References

IMBA. Managing Mountain Biking. 2007. IMBA. Trail Solutions. 2004. Flink, C. Greenways: A Guide To Planning Design And Development. 1993.

A-8

| APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES

Materials and Maintenance Consider implications for accessibility when weighing options for surface treatments.


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

BOARDWALKS Description

Guidance

Boardwalks are typically required when crossing

»» Boardwalk width should be a minimum of 10 feet when no rail is used. A 12 foot width is preferred in areas with average anticipated use and whenever rails are used.

wetlands or other poorly drained areas. They are usually constructed of wooden planks or recycled material planks that form the top layer of the board-

»» When the height of a boardwalk exceeds 30”, railings are required.

walk. The recycled material has gained popularity in recent years since it lasts much longer than wood,

»» If access by vehicles is desired, boardwalks should be designed to structurally support the weight of a small truck or a light-weight vehicle.

especially in wet conditions. A number of low-impact support systems are also available that reduce the disturbance within wetland areas to the greatest extent possible.

Wetland plants and natural ecological function to be undisturbed

Opportunities exist to build seating and signage into boardwalks Shared-use railings: 48” above the surface Pedestrian railings: 42” above the surface

6” minimum above grade

Pile driven wooden piers or auger piers

10’

Discussion In general, building in wetlands is subject to regulations and should be avoided. The foundation normally consists of wooden posts or auger piers (screw anchors). Screw anchors provide greater support and last much longer.

Additional References

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012. FHWA. Wetland Trail Design and Construction. 2007.

Materials and Maintenance Decking should be either non-toxic treated wood or recycled plastic. Cable rails are attractive and more visually transparent but may require maintenance to tighten the cables if the trail has snow storage requirements.

APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES |

A-9


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

TRAIL/ROADWAY CROSSINGS: ROUTE USERS TO SIGNALIZED CROSSINGS Description Trail crossings within approximately 400 feet of an existing signalized intersection with pedestrian crosswalks are typically diverted to the signalized

Guidance  Trail crossings should not be provided within approximately 400 feet of an existing signalized intersection. If possible, route trail directly to the signal.

intersection to avoid traffic operation problems when located so close to an existing signal. For this restriction to be effective, barriers and signing may be needed to direct trail users to the signalized crossing. If no pedestrian crossing exists at the signal, modifications should be made.

Barriers and signing may be needed to direct shared use paved trail users to the signalized crossings

R9-3bP If possible, route users directly to the signal

Discussion In the US, the minimum distance a marked crossing can be from an existing signalized intersection varies from approximately 250 to 660 feet. Engineering judgement and the context of the location should be taken into account when choosing the appropriate allowable setback. Pedestrians are particularly sensitive to out of direction travel and jaywalking may become prevalent if the distance is too great.

Additional References

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012. AASHTO. Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities. 2004.

A-10

| APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES

Materials and Maintenance If a sidewalk is used for crossing access, it should be kept clear of snow and debris and the surface should be level for wheeled users.


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

TRAIL/ROADWAY CROSSINGS: OVERCROSSINGS Description Bicycle/pedestrian overcrossings provide critical non-motorized system links by joining areas separated by barriers such as deep canyons, waterways or major transportation corridors. In most cases, these structures are built in response to user demand for safe crossings where they previously did not exist. There are no minimum roadway characteristics for considering grade separation. Depending on the type of facility or the desired user group grade separation may be considered in many types of projects. Overcrossings require a minimum of 17 feet of

Guidance »» 8 foot minimum width, 14 feet preferred. If overcrossing has any scenic vistas additional width should be provided to allow for stopping. A separate 5 foot pedestrian area may be provided for facilities with high bicycle and pedestrian use. »» 10 foot headroom on overcrossing; clearance below will vary depending on feature being crossed. »» Roadway: 17 feet Freeway: 18.5 feet Heavy Rail Line: 23 feet »» The overcrossing should have a centerline stripe even if the rest of the trail does not have one.

vertical clearance to the roadway below versus a minimum elevation differential of around 12 feet for an undercrossing. This results in potentially greater elevation differences and much longer ramps for bicycles and pedestrians to negotiate.

Trail width of 14 feet preferred for shared bicycle and pedestrian overcrossings

Center line striping

Railing height of 42 “ min.

ADA generally limits ramp slopes to 1:20

17’ min.

Discussion Overcrossings for bicycles and pedestrians typically fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which strictly limits ramp slopes to 5% (1:20) with landings at 400 foot intervals, or 8.33% (1:12) with landings every 30 feet. Overcrossings pose potential concerns about visual impact and functional appeal, as well as space requirements necessary to meet ADA guidelines for slope.

Additional References

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012. AASHTO. Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities. 2004.

Materials and Maintenance Potential issues with vandalism. Overcrossings can be more difficult to clear of snow than undercrossings.

APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES |

A-11


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

BRIDGES Description

Guidance

Greenway trail bridges are most often used to provide user access over natural features such as streams and rivers, where a culvert is not an option or the span length exceeds 20 feet. The type and size of bridges can vary widely depending on the greenway trail and specific site requirements. Bridges often used for greenway trails include suspension bridges and prefabricated clear span bridges. When determining a bridge design for greenway trails, it is important to consider emergency and maintenance vehicle access. Greenway trails that are poorly designed through water features can impact wetlands and streams, and become conduits for delivering sediments, nutrients, and pathogens to the watershed. Greenway trails that cross streams can exhibit bank and streambed erosion if not properly constructed.

»» The clear span width of the bridge should include 2 feet of clearance on both ends of the bridge approach for the shoulder. »» Bridge deck grade should be flush with adjacent greenway trail tread elevation to provide a smooth transition. »» Railing heights on bridges should include a 42 inch minimum guard rail, and 48 inches where hazardous conditions exist. »» A minimum overhead clearance of 10 feet is desirable for emergency vehicle access. Maximum opening between railing posts is 4 inches. »» A greenway trail bridge should support 10 tons for 10 foot wide greenway trails, and 20 tons for wider than 10 feet for emergency vehicle access. »» Bridges along greenway trails that allow equestrian use should be designed for mounted unit loadings. »» When crossing small headwater streams, align the crossing as far upstream as possible in the narrowest section of stream channel to minimize impact. »» Greenway trail drainage features should be constructed to manage stormwater before the greenway trail crosses the watercourse. »» All abutment and foundation design should be completed and sealed by a professional structural engineer licensed in the State of North Carolina. »» All greenway trail bridges will require local building permits, stormwater and land disturbance permits, floodplain development permits, and FEMA approval. Length and height of the bridge cords are governed by the width of the floodway and impacts to the base flood elevation of streams.

Concrete abutment

Include 2 foot clearance on both sides

Rub rail

2” between decking and toe kick

A-12

| APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

BICYCLE FACILITIES Shared Roadway On shared roadways, bicyclists and motor vehicles use the same roadway space. Sharing may include side-by-side operation, or single lane in-line operation depending on the configuration.

Marked Shared Roadway

These facilities are typically used on roads with low speeds and traffic volumes, however they can be used on higher volume roads with wide outside lanes or shoulders. A motor vehicle driver will usually have to cross over into the adjacent travel lane to pass a bicyclist, unless a wide outside lane or shoulder is provided. Shared roadways employ a large variety of treatments from simple signage and shared lane markings to more complex treatments including directional signage and traffic calming devices to reduce vehicle speeds or volumes.

Separated Bikeways Designated exclusively for bicycle travel, separated bikeways are segregated from vehicle travel lanes by striping, and can include pavement stencils and other treatments. Separated bikeways are most appropriate on arterial and collector streets where higher traffic volumes and speeds warrant greater

Bicycle Lanes

separation. Separated bikeways can increase safety and promote proper riding by: »» Defining road space for bicyclists and motorists, reducing the possibility that motorists will stray into the bicyclists’ path. »» Discouraging bicyclists from riding on the sidewalk.

Buffered Bike Lanes

»» Reducing the incidence of wrong way riding. »» Reminding motorists that bicyclists have a right to the road.

Paved Shoulder

APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES |

A-13


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

MARKED SHARED ROADWAY Description

Guidance

A marked shared roadway is a general purpose travel lane marked with shared lane markings (SLM) used to encourage bicycle travel and proper positioning within the lane. In constrained conditions, the SLMs are placed in the middle of the lane to discourage unsafe passing by motor vehicles. On a wide outside lane, the SLMs can be used to promote bicycle travel to the right of motor vehicles. In all conditions, SLMs should be placed outside of the door zone of parked cars.

»» May be used on streets with a speed limit of 35 mph or under. Lower than 30 mph speed limit preferred. »» In constrained conditions, preferred placement is in the center of the travel lane to minimize wear and promote single file travel. »» Minimum placement of SLM marking centerline is 11 feet from edge of curb where on-street parking is present, 4 feet from edge of curb with no parking. If parking lane is wider than 7.5 feet, the SLM should be moved further out accordingly.

Consider modifications to signal timing to induce a bicycle-friendly travel speed for all users

MUTCD R4-11 (optional)

MUTCD D11-1 (optional)

When placed adjacent to parking, SLMs should be outside of the “Door Zone”. Minimum placement is 11’ from curb

Placement in center of travel lane is preferred in constrained conditions

Regular Lane Adjacent to Parking

Wide Lane without Parking

Discussion If collector or arterial, this should not be a substitute for dedicated bicycle facilities if space is available. Bike Lanes should be considered on roadways with outside travel lanes wider than 15 feet, or where other lane narrowing or removal strategies may provide adequate road space. SLMs shall not be used on shoulders, in designated bike lanes, or to designate bicycle detection at signalized intersections. (MUTCD 9C.07)

Additional References

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012. FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2009. NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012.

A-14

| APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES

Materials and Maintenance Placing SLMs between vehicle tire tracks will increase the life of the markings and minimize the long-term cost of the treatment.


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

BICYCLE LANE Description

Guidance

Bike lanes designate an exclusive space for bicyclists through the use of pavement markings and signage. The bike lane is located adjacent to motor vehicle travel lanes and is used in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic. Bike lanes are typically on the right side of the street, between the adjacent travel lane and curb, road edge or parking lane. Many bicyclists, particularly less experienced riders, are more comfortable riding on a busy street if

»» 4 foot minimum when no curb and gutter is present. »» 5 foot minimum when adjacent to curb and gutter or 3 feet more than the gutter pan width if the gutter pan is wider than 2 feet. »» 14.5 foot preferred from curb face to edge of bike lane. (12 foot minimum). »» 7 foot maximum width for use adjacent to arterials with high travel speeds. Greater widths may encourage motor vehicle use of bike lane.

it has a striped and signed bikeway than if they are expected to share a lane with vehicles.

4” white line or parking “Ts” 3’ minimum ridable surface outside of gutter seam 6” white line

MUTCD R3-17 (optional)

14.5’ preferred

Discussion Wider bicycle lanes are desirable in certain situations such as on higher speed arterials (45 mph+) where use of a wider bicycle lane would increase separation between passing vehicles and bicyclists. Appropriate signing and stenciling is important with wide bicycle lanes to ensure motorists do not mistake the lane for a vehicle lane or parking lane. Consider buffered bike lanes when further separation is desired.

Additional References

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012. FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2009. NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012.

Materials and Maintenance Paint can wear more quickly in high traffic areas or in winter climates. Bicycle lanes should be cleared of snow through routine snow removal operations.

APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES |

A-15


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

BUFFERED BIKE LANE Description

Guidance

Buffered bike lanes are conventional bicycle lanes

»» The minimum bicycle travel area is 5 feet wide.

paired with a designated buffer space, separating

»» Buffers should be at least 2 feet wide. If 3 feet or wider, mark with diagonal or chevron hatching. For clarity at driveways or minor street crossings, consider a dotted line for the inside buffer boundary where cars are expected to cross.

the bicycle lane from the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane and/or parking lane. Buffered bike lanes follow general guidance for buffered preferential vehicle lanes as per MUTCD guidelines (section 3D-01). Buffered bike lanes are designed to increase the space between the bike lane and the travel lane and/ or parked cars. This treatment is appropriate for bike lanes on roadways with high motor vehicle traffic volumes and speed, adjacent to parking lanes, or a high volume of truck or oversized vehicle traffic. Buffered bike lanes can buffer the travel lane only, or parking lane only depending on available space and

MUTCD R3-17 (optional)

the objectives of the design.

Parking side buffer designed to discourage riding in the “door zone” Color may be used at the beginning of each block to discourage motorists from entering the buffered lane

Discussion Frequency of right turns by motor vehicles at major intersections should determine whether continuous or truncated buffer striping should be used approaching the intersection. Commonly configured as a buffer between the bicycle lane and motor vehicle travel lane, a parking side buffer may also be provided to help bicyclists avoid the ‘door zone’ of parked cars.

Additional References

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012. FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. (3D-01). 2009. NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012.

A-16

| APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES

Materials and Maintenance Paint can wear more quickly in high traffic areas or in winter climates. Bicycle lanes should be cleared of snow through routine snow removal operations.


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

SHOULDER BIKEWAYS (PAVED SHOULDER) Description Typically found in less-dense areas, shoulder bikeways are paved roadways with striped shoulders (4’+) wide enough for bicycle travel. Shoulder bikeways often, but not always, include signage alerting motorists to expect bicycle travel along the roadway. Shoulder bikeways should be considered a temporary treatment, with full bike lanes planned for construction when the roadway is widened or completed with curb and gutter. This type of treatment is not typical in urban areas and should only be used

Guidance »» If 4 feet or more is available for bicycle travel, the full bike lane treatment of signs, legends, and an 8” bike lane line would be provided. »» If it is not possible to meet minimum bicycle lane dimensions, a reduced width paved shoulder can still improve conditions for bicyclists on constrained roadways. In these situations, a minimum of 3 feet of operating space should be provided. »» Rumble strips are not recommended on shoulders used by bicyclists unless there is a minimum 4 foot clear path. 12 foot gaps every 40-60 feet should be provided to allow access as needed.

where constraints exist.

MUTCD D11-1 (optional)

MUTCD R3-17 (optional)

Discussion A wide outside lane may be sufficient accommodation for bicyclists on streets with insufficient width for bike lanes but which do have space available to provide a wider (14’-16’) outside travel lane. Consider configuring as a marked shared roadway in these locations. Where feasible, roadway widening should be performed with pavement resurfacing jobs.

Additional References

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012. FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2009.

Materials and Maintenance Paint can wear more quickly in high traffic areas or in winter climates. Shoulder bikeways should be cleared of snow through routine snow removal operations. APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES |

A-17


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

Court Street A-18 | APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES

MAY 2016


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

RETROFITTING EXISTING STREETS TO ADD BIKEWAYS Most major streets are characterized by conditions (e.g., high vehicle speeds and/or volumes) for which dedicated bike lanes are the most appropriate facility to accommodate safe and comfortable riding. Although opportunities to add bike lanes through roadway widening may exist in some

Roadway Widening

locations, many major streets have physical and other constraints that would require street retrofit measures within existing curb-to-curb widths. As a result, much of the guidance provided in this section focuses on effectively reallocating existing street width through striping modifications to accommodate dedicated bike lanes.

Lane Narrowing

Although largely intended for major streets, these measures may be appropriate for any roadway where bike lanes would be the best accommodation for bicyclists.

Lane Reconfiguration

APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES |

A-19


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

ROADWAY WIDENING Description

Guidance

Bike lanes can be accommodated on streets with

»» Guidance on bicycle lanes applies to this treatment.

excess right-of-way through shoulder widening. Although roadway widening incurs higher expenses

»» 4 foot minimum width when no curb and gutter is present.

compared with re-striping projects, bike lanes can be

»» 6 foot width preferred.

added to streets currently lacking curbs, gutters and sidewalks without the high costs of major infrastructure reconstruction.

Before

4 foot minimum

After

Discussion Roadway widening is most appropriate on roads lacking curbs, gutters and sidewalks. If it is not possible to meet minimum bicycle lane dimensions, a reduced width paved shoulder can still improve conditions for bicyclists on constrained roadways. In these situations, a minimum of 3 feet of operating space should be provided.

Additional References

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.

Materials and Maintenance The extended bicycle area should not contain any rough joints where bicyclists ride. Saw or grind a clean cut at the edge of the travel lane, or feather with a fine mix in a non-ridable area of the roadway.

A-20

| APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

LANE NARROWING Description

Guidance

Lane narrowing utilizes roadway space that exceeds

Vehicle lane width:

minimum standards to provide the needed space for

»» Before: 10-15 feet

bike lanes. Many roadways have existing travel lanes that are wider than those prescribed in local and national

»» After: 10-11 feet

Bicycle lane width:

roadway design standards, or which are not marked.

»» Guidance on Bicycle Lanes applies to this treatment.

Most standards allow for the use of 11 foot and sometimes 10 foot wide travel lanes to create space for bike lanes.

24’ Travel/Parking

8’ Parking 6’ Bike

Before

After 10’ Travel

Discussion Special consideration should be given to the amount of heavy vehicle traffic and horizontal curvature before the decision is made to narrow travel lanes. Center turn lanes can also be narrowed in some situations to free up pavement space for bike lanes. AASHTO supports reduced width lanes in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets: “On interrupted-flow operation conditions at low speeds (45 mph or less), narrow lane widths are normally adequate and have some advantages.”

Additional References

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012. AASHTO. Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities. 2004.

Materials and Maintenance Repair rough or uneven pavement surface. Use bicycle compatible drainage grates. Raise or lower existing grates and utility covers so they are flush with the pavement.

APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES |

A-21


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

LANE RECONFIGURATION Description

Guidance

The removal of a single travel lane will generally pro-

Vehicle lane width:

vide sufficient space for bike lanes on both sides of a street. Streets with excess vehicle capacity provide opportunities for bike lane retrofit projects.

»» Width depends on project. No narrowing may be needed if a lane is removed.

Bicycle lane width: »» Guidance on Bicycle Lanes applies to this treatment.

11-12’ Travel

6’ Bike

Before 11’ Travel

10-12’ Travel

After 10-12’ Turn

Discussion Depending on a street’s existing configuration, traffic operations, user needs and safety concerns, various lane reduction configurations may apply. For instance, a four-lane street (with two travel lanes in each direction) could be modified to provide one travel lane in each direction, a center turn lane, and bike lanes. Prior to implementing this measure, a traffic analysis should identify potential impacts.

Additional References

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012. FHWA. Evaluation of Lane Reduction “Road Diet” Measures on Crashes. Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-10-053. 2010.

Materials and Maintenance Repair rough or uneven pavement surface. Use bicycle compatible drainage grates. Raise or lower existing grates and utility covers so they are flush with the pavement.

A-22

| APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

INTERSECTIONS Intersections are junctions at which different modes of transportation meet and facilities overlap. An intersection facilitates the interchange between bicyclists, motorists, pedestrians and other modes in order to advance traffic flow in a safe and efficient manner. Designs for intersections with bicycle facilities should reduce conflict between bicyclists (and other vulnerable road users) and vehicles by height-

Bike Lanes at Right Turn Only Lanes

ening the level of visibility, denoting clear right-ofway and facilitating eye contact and awareness with other modes. Intersection treatments can improve both queuing and merging maneuvers for bicyclists, and are often coordinated with timed or specialized signals. The configuration of a safe intersection for bicy-

Combined Bike Lane/Turn Lane

clists may include elements such as color, signage, medians, signal detection and pavement markings. Intersection design should take into consideration existing and anticipated bicyclist, pedestrian and motorist movements. In all cases, the degree of mixing or separation between bicyclists and other modes is intended to reduce the risk of crashes and increase bicyclist comfort. The level of treatment re-

Intersection Crossing Markings

quired for bicyclists at an intersection will depend on the bicycle facility type used, whether bicycle facilities are intersecting, and the adjacent street function and land use.

Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons

APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES |

A-23


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

BIKE LANES AT RIGHT TURN ONLY LANES Description The appropriate treatment at right-turn lanes is to place the bike lane between the right-turn lane and the right-most through lane or, where right-of-way is insufficient, to use a shared bike lane/turn lane. The design (right) illustrates a bike lane pocket, with signage indicating that motorists should yield to

Colored pavement may be used in the weaving area to increase visibility and awareness of potential conflict

bicyclists through the conflict area.

Guidance At auxiliary right turn only lanes (add lane): »» Continue existing bike lane width; standard width of 5 to 6 feet or 4 feet in constrained locations. »» Use signage to indicate that motorists should yield to bicyclists through the conflict area. »» Consider using colored conflict areas to promote visibility of the mixing zone.

Where a through lane becomes a right turn only

MUTCD R4-4 (optional)

lane: »» Do not define a dotted line merging path for bicyclists. »» Drop the bicycle lane in advance of the merge area. »» Use shared lane markings to indicate shared use of the lane in the merging zone.

Optional dotted lines

Discussion For other potential approaches to providing accommodations for bicyclists at intersections with turn lanes, please see Combined Bike Lane/Turn Lane on the following page.

Additional References

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012. FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. (3D-01). 2009. NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012.

A-24

| APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES

Materials and Maintenance Because the effectiveness of markings depends entirely on their visibility, maintaining markings should be a high priority.


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

COMBINED BIKE LANE/TURN LANE Description The combined bicycle/right turn lane places a standard-width bike lane on the left side of a dedicated right turn lane. A dotted line delineates the space for bicyclists and motorists within the shared lane. This

Short length turn pockets encourage slower motor vehicle speeds

treatment includes signage advising motorists and bicyclists of proper positioning within the lane. This treatment is recommended at intersections lacking sufficient space to accommodate both a standard through bike lane and right turn lane.

Guidance »» Maximum shared turn lane width is 13 feet; narrower is preferable. »» Bike Lane pocket should have a minimum width of 4 feet with 5 feet preferred. »» A dotted 4 inch line and bicycle lane marking should be used to clarify bicyclist positioning within the combined lane, without excluding cars from the suggested bicycle area. »» A “Right Turn Only” sign with an “Except Bicycles” plaque may be needed to make it legal for through bicyclists to use a right turn lane.

Discussion R4-4

Case studies cited by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center indicate that this treatment works best on streets with lower posted speeds (30 MPH or less) and with lower traffic volumes (10,000 ADT or less). May not be appropriate for high-speed arterials or intersections with long right turn lanes. May not be appropriate for intersections with large percentages of right-turning heavy vehicles.

Additional References

NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012. This treatment is currently slated for inclusion in the next edition of the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.

Materials and Maintenance Locate markings out of tire tread to minimize wear. Because the effectiveness of markings depends on their visibility, maintaining markings should be a high priority.

APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES |

A-25


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

INTERSECTION CROSSING MARKINGS Description

Guidance

Bicycle pavement markings through intersections in-

»» See MUTCD Section 3B.08: “dotted line extensions”

dicate the intended path of bicyclists through an in-

»» Crossing striping shall be at least six inches wide when adjacent to motor vehicle travel lanes. Dotted lines should be two-foot lines spaced two to six feet apart.

tersection or across a driveway or ramp. They guide bicyclists on a safe and direct path through the intersection and provide a clear boundary between the paths of through bicyclists and either through or crossing motor vehicles in the adjacent lane.

Chevrons

Shared Lane Markings

Colored Conflict Area

»» Chevrons, shared lane markings, or colored bike lanes may be used to increase visibility within conflict areas or across entire intersections. Elephant’s Feet markings are common in Canada, and in use in Chicago, IL.

Elephant’s Feet

2’ stripe 2-6’ gap

Discussion Additional markings such as chevrons, shared lane markings, or colored bike lanes in conflict areas are strategies currently in use in the United States and Canada. Cities considering the implementation of markings through intersections should standardize future designs to avoid confusion.

Additional References

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012. FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. (3D-01). 2009. NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012.

A-26

| APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES

Materials and Maintenance Because the effectiveness of marked crossings depends entirely on their visibility, maintaining marked crossings should be a high priority.


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASH BEACONS Description

Guidance

Enhanced marked crossings are unsignalized cross-

Guidance for marked/unsignalized crossings applies.

ings with additional treatments designed to increase

»» Warning beacons shall not be used at crosswalks controlled by YIELD signs, STOP signs, or traffic control signals.

motor vehicle yielding compliance on multi-lane or high volume roadways. »» These enhancements include trail user or sensor actuated warning beacons, Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFB) shown below, or in-roadway warning lights. »» Rectangular rapid flash beacons show the most increased compliance of all the warning beacon enhancement options.

Providing secondary installations of RRFBs on median islands improves driver yielding behavior

»» Warning beacons shall initiate operation based on user actuation and shall cease operation at a predetermined time after the user actuation or, with passive detection, after the user clears the crosswalk.

Median refuge islands provide added comfort and should be angled to direct users to face oncoming traffic

Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFB) dramatically increase compliance over conventional warning beacons

W11-15, W16-7P

Discussion An FHWA report presented study results showing of the effectiveness of going from a no-beacon arrangement to a two-beacon RRFB installation increased yielding from 18 percent to 81 percent. A four-beacon arrangement raised compliance to 88%. Additional studies of long term installations show little to no decrease in yielding behavior over time. Additional studies in Oregon reported compliance rates as high as 99% when actuated.

Additional References

FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2009. FHWA. MUTCD - Interim Approval for Optional Use of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (IA-11). 2008. FHWA. Effects of Yellow Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons on Yielding at Multilane Uncontrolled Crosswalks. 2010. Alhajri, F., Carlso, K., Foster, N., Georde, D. A Study on Driver’s Compliance to Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons. 2013.

Materials and Maintenance Locate markings out of wheel tread when possible to minimize wear and maintenance costs. Signing and striping need to be maintained to help users understand any unfamiliar traffic control.

APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES |

A-27


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

Existing Marion Wayfinding A-28 | APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES

MAY 2016


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

BICYCLE SUPPORT FACILITIES AND MAINTENANCE Support facilities such as bicycle parking and repair stations can significantly enhance the bicyclist experience across Elizabethtown. Bicyclists expect a safe, convenient place to secure their bicycle when they reach their destination. Along with increased use and connectivity, bicycle repair

Bicycle Parking

stations will complement not only infrastructure improvements, but a cultural shift that will allow faculty, staff, students, and visitors to engage simple bicycle maintenance and functionality.

Wayfinding The ability to navigate through Elizabethtown is informed by landmarks, natural features and other

Sweeping

visual cues. Signs throughout Town should indicate to bicyclists: »» Direction of travel »» Location of destinations »» Travel time/distance to those destinations These signs will increase users’ comfort and acces-

Bicycle Repair Station

sibility to the bicycle systems. Signage can serve both wayfinding and safety purposes including: »» Helping to familiarize users with the network »» Helping users identify the best routes to destinations »» Helping to address misconceptions about time and distance »» Helping overcome a “barrier to entry” for people who are not frequent bicyclists (e.g., “interested but concerned” bicyclists)

Wayfinding Signage »» Approximate distance and travel time to each destination Wayfinding signs also visually cue motorists that they are driving along a bicycle/pedestrian route and should use caution. Signs are typically placed at key

A community-wide wayfinding signage plan would

locations leading to and along routes, including the

identify:

intersection of multiple routes. Too many road signs

»» Sign locations

tend to clutter the right-of-way, and it is recommend-

»» Sign type – what information should be in-

to bicyclists and pedestrians rather than per vehicle

cluded and design features

ed that these signs be posted at a level most visible signage standards.

»» Destinations to be highlighted on each sign – key destinations for bicyclists

APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES |

A-29


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

BICYCLE PARKING Description Short-term bicycle parking is meant to accommodate visitors, customers, and others expected to depart within two hours. It should have an approved standard rack, appropriate location and placement, and weather protection. Racks should: »» Support the bicycle in at least two places, preventing it from falling over.

Guidance »» 2’ minimum from the curb face to avoid ‘dooring.’ »» Close to destinations; 50’ maximum distance from main building entrance. »» Minimum clear distance of 6’ should be provided between the bicycle rack and the property line. »» Locate racks in areas that cyclists are most likely to travel.

»» Allow locking of the frame and one or both wheels with a U-lock. »» Is securely anchored to ground. »» Resists cutting, rusting and bending or deformation.

Bicycle shelters include structures with a roof that provides weather protection.

A loop may be attached to retired parking meter posts. 4’ min

3’ min

2’ min D4-3

Avoid fire zones, loading zones, bus zones, etc.

SWEEPING Description Bicyclists often avoid shoulders and bike lanes filled with gravel, broken glass and other debris; they will ride in the roadway to avoid these hazards, potentially causing conflicts with motorists. Debris from the roadway should not be swept onto sidewalks (pedestrians need a clean walking surface), nor should debris be swept from the sidewalk onto the roadway. A regularly scheduled inspection and maintenance program helps ensure that roadway debris is regularly picked up or swept.

Guidance »» Establish a seasonal sweeping schedule that prioritizes roadways with major bicycle routes. »» Sweep walkways and bikeways whenever there is an accumulation of debris on the facility. »» In curbed sections, sweepers should pick up debris; on open shoulders, debris can be swept onto gravel shoulders. »» Pave gravel driveway approaches to minimize loose gravel on paved roadway shoulders. »» Perform additional sweeping in the Spring to remove debris from the Winter. »» Perform additional sweeping in the Fall in areas where leaves accumulate.

A-30

| APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

BICYCLE REPAIR STATION Description Bicycle repair stations are small kiosks designed to offer a complete set of tools necessary for routine bicycle maintenance. Bicycle repair stations have become a popular amenity in bicycle friendly places because they provide bicyclists with access to tools on-the-go and encourage people to teach and learn bicycle maintenance in an informal setting. They can also help to reduce the number of abandoned or trashed bikes in a community; bikes are often abandoned by their owners when they have a minor mechanical issue that they do not have the tools or knowledge to fix. Bicycle repair stations encourage people to learn bicycling skills from one another and send a message to residents and visitors that bicycling is supported in the community. These fixtures can be placed in a park or in another public place and require little upkeep or oversight, since the tools and stand are designed to be self-contained and theft-resistant.

Guidance

»» Bicycle repair station tools are secured by high security cables, but will still be an attractive target for theft. Proper placement of kiosks in areas of high activity is one key strategy to reduce potential vandalism. »» Consider grouping repair stations together with other amenities such as bicycle parking, seating, and drinking fountains. Public bicycle maintenance and tool stand examples.

5’ from edge Bicycle repair station

Drinking fountain

APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES |

A-31


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

WAYFINDING SIGNAGE Description A bicycle wayfinding system consists of comprehensive signing and/or pavement markings to guide bicyclists to their destinations along preferred bicycle routes. There are three general types of wayfinding signs:

Guidance

BIKE ROUTE

Confirmation Signs Indicate to bicyclists that they are on a designated bikeway. Make motorists aware of the bicycle route. This signage can

Davis Park

include destinations and distance/time, but does not include arrows.

Turn Signs Indicate where a bikeway turns from one street onto another street. This signage can be used with pavement markings,

BIKE ROUTE

and does include destinations and arrows.

Davis Park

Decision Signs

0.3 miles

2 min

Mark the junction of two or more bikeways and informs

Belmont Elementary

bicyclists of the designated bike route to access key destina-

0.7 miles

5 min

tions. Destinations and arrows, distances and travel times are optional but recommended.

Alternative Designs A customized alternative design may be Town Hall

used to include travel times, local town logos, and sponsorship branding. See

Community Center

examples to the right.

Ferry Landing Park

Discussion There is no standard color for bicycle wayfinding signage. Section 1A.12 of the MUTCD establishes the general meaning for signage colors. Green is the color used for directional guidance and is the most common color of bicycle wayfinding signage in the US, including those in the MUTCD.

Additional References

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012. FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. (3D-01). 2009. NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012.

A-32

| APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES

Materials and Maintenance Maintenance needs for wayfinding signs are similar to other signs and will need periodic replacement due to wear.


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

WAYFINDING: SIGN PLACEMENT Description

Decision Signs

Signs are typically placed at decision points along bicycle routes – typically at the intersection of two or more bikeways and at other key locations leading to and along bicycle routes.

»» Near-side of intersections in advance of a junction with another bicycle route. »» Along a route to indicate a nearby destination.

Turn Signs

Guidance

Confirmation Signs »» Every ¼ to ½ mile on off-street facilities and every 2 to 3 blocks along on-street bicycle facilities, unless another type of sign is used (e.g., within 150 ft of a turn or decision sign).

»» Near-side of intersections where bike routes turn (e.g., where the street ceases to be a bicycle route or does not go through). »» Pavement markings can also indicate the need to turn to the bicyclist.

»» Should be placed soon after turns to confirm destination(s). Pavement markings can also confirm that a bicyclist is on a preferred route.

C

C

D Bike Route

C

D

T T

Bike Route

Belmont Central Elementary

Sacred C Heart College

D

Decision Sign

BIKE ROUTE

BIKE ROUTE

Sacred Heart College 0.3 miles

2 min

Belmont Central Elm

T D

0.7 miles

5 min

Davis Park 1.5 miles

Confirmation Sign

C

T

Turn Sign

12 min

Davis Park

Discussion It can be useful to classify a list of destinations for inclusion on the signs based on their relative importance to users throughout the area. A particular destination’s ranking in the hierarchy can be used to determine the physical distance from which the locations are signed. For example, primary destinations (such as the downtown area) may be included on signage up to five miles away. Secondary destinations (such as a transit station) may be included on signage up to two miles away. Tertiary destinations (such as a park) may be included on signage up to one mile away.

Additional References

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012. FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. (3D-01). 2009. NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012.

Materials and Maintenance Maintenance needs for bicycle wayfinding signs are similar to other signs and will need periodic replacement due to wear.

APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES |

A-33


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

APPENDIX B: FUNDING SOURCES Overview | Federal - MAP-21 | Federal - Other | State | Local | Private | Trail Partnership Case Studies

APPENDIX B: FUNDING SOURCES |

B-1


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

OVERVIEW

MAY 2016

towards the end of 2015, with a similar struc-

When considering possible funding sources for

ture to MAP-21, but with higher local matches

bicycle and pedestrian projects, it is important

required for projects. Therefore, it is not pos-

to remember that not all construction activities

sible to guarantee the continued availability of

or programs will be accomplished with a single

any listed MAP-21 programs, or to predict their

funding source. It will be necessary to con-

future funding levels or policy guidance.

sider several sources of funding that together

Nevertheless, many of these programs have

will support full project completion. Funding

been included in some form since the pas-

sources can be used for a variety of activities,

sage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation

including: programs, planning, design, imple-

Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in 1991, and thus may

mentation, and maintenance. This appendix

continue to provide capital for active transpor-

outlines the most likely sources of funding from

tation projects and programs.

the federal, state, and local government levels as well as from the private and non-profit sec-

In North Carolina, federal monies are adminis-

tors. Note that this reflects the funding avail-

tered through the North Carolina Department

able at the time of writing. Funding amounts,

of Transportation (NCDOT) and Metropolitan

cycles, and the programs themselves may

Planning Organizations (MPOs). Most, but

change over time.

not all, of these programs are oriented toward transportation versus recreation, with an

FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES

emphasis on reducing auto trips and providing

Federal funding is typically directed through

inter-modal connections. Federal funding is

state agencies to local governments either in

intended for capital improvements and safety

the form of grants or direct appropriations.

and education programs, and projects must

Federal funding typically requires a local match

relate to the surface transportation system.

of five percent to 50 percent, but there are

For more information, visit: http://www.fhwa.

sometimes exceptions. The following is a list of

dot.gov/map21/summaryinfo.cfm

possible Federal funding sources that could be used to support construction of pedestrian and

Transportation Alternatives

bicycle improvements.

Transportation Alternatives (TA) is a funding source under MAP-21 that consolidates three

MOVING AHEAD FOR PROGRESS IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY (MAP-21)

formerly separate programs under SAFETEALU: Transportation Enhancements (TE), Safe Routes to School (SRTS), and the Recreational

The largest source of federal funding for pe-

Trails Program (RTP). These funds may be

destrian and bicycle projects is the USDOT’s

used for a variety of pedestrian, bicycle, and

Federal-Aid Highway Program, which Congress

streetscape projects including sidewalks, bike-

has reauthorized roughly every six years since

ways, multi-use paths, and rail-trails. TA funds

the passage of the Federal-Aid Road Act of

may also be used for selected education and

1916. The latest act, Moving Ahead for Prog-

encouragement programming such as Safe

ress in the Twenty-First Century (MAP- 21) was

Routes to School, despite the fact that TA does

enacted in July 2012, and is set to expire in

not provide a guaranteed set-aside for this

October 29, 2015.

activity as SAFETEALU did.

At the time of this writing (October 2015), the

Average annual funds available through TA

most likely scenario is a short-term extension

over the life of MAP-21 equal $814 million nationally, which is based on a two percent

B-2

| APPENDIX B: FUNDING SOURCES


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

set-aside of total MAP- 21 allocations. Note that

H ighway Safety Improvement Program

state DOT’s may elect to transfer up to 50 per-

MAP-21 doubles the amount of funding avail-

cent of TA funds to other highway programs, so

able through the Highway Safety Improvement

the amount listed on the website represents the

Program (HSIP) relative to SAFETEA-LU. HSIP

maximum potential funding. Remaining TA funds

provides $2.4 billion nationally for projects and

(those monies not re-directed to other highway

programs that help communities achieve signifi-

programs) are disbursed through a separate

cant reductions in traffic fatalities and serious

competitive grant program administered by NC-

injuries on all public roads, bikeways, and walk-

DOT. Local governments, school districts, tribal

ways. MAP-21 preserves the Railway-Highway

governments, and public lands agencies are

Crossings Program within HSIP but discontinues

permitted to compete for these funds.

the High-Risk Rural roads set-aside unless safety statistics demonstrate that fatalities are increas-

Each state governor is given the opportunity

ing on these roads. Bicycle and pedestrian safe-

to “opt out” of the Recreational Trails Program.

ty improvements, enforcement activities, traffic

However, as of the writing of this plan, only

calming projects, and crossing treatments for

Florida and Kansas have “opted out” of the RTP.

non-motorized users in school zones are eligible

For all other states, dedicated funds for recre-

for these funds. As part of MAP-21, this program

ational trails continue to be provided as a subset

expires October 29, 2015. For more information:

of TA. MAP-21 provides $85 million nationally

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/hsip.cfm

for the RTP. As part of MAP-21, this program

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/transpor-

Federal Transit Administration Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities

tation_enhancements/ legislation/map21.cfm

This program can be used for capital expenses

For funding levels, visit: http://www.fhwa.dot.

that support transportation to meet the special

gov/MAP21/funding.cfm Funding Resources B-5

needs of older adults and persons with disabili-

expires October 29, 2015. For the complete list of eligible activities, visit:

Surface Transportation Program

ties, including providing access to an eligible public transportation facility when the transpor-

The Surface Transportation Program (STP)

tation service provided is unavailable, insuffi-

provides states with flexible funds which may

cient, or inappropriate to meeting these needs.

be used for a variety of highway, road, bridge,

As part of MAP-21, this program expires October

and transit projects. A wide variety of pedestrian

29, 2015. For more information: http://www.fta.

improvements are eligible, including trails, side-

dot.gov/documents/MAP-21_Fact_ Sheet_-_En-

walks, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and other

hanced_Mobility_of_Seniors_and_Individuals_

ancillary facilities. Modification of sidewalks to

with_Disabilities.pdf

comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is also an eligible ac-

Safe Routes

tivity. Unlike most highway projects, STP-funded

SRTS enables and encourages children to walk

pedestrian facilities may be located on local

and bike to school. The program helps make

and collector roads which are not part of the

walking and bicycling to school a safe and more

Federal-aid Highway System. 50 percent of each

appealing method of transportation for children.

state’s STP funds are allocated by population

SRTS facilitates the planning, development,

to the MPOs; the remaining 50 percent may be

and implementation of projects and activities

spent in any area of the state. As part of MAP-

that will improve safety and reduce traffic, fuel

21, this program expires October 29, 2015.

consumption, and air pollution in the vicinity of

For more information: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

schools.

to

School (SRTS) Program

map21/stp.cfm

APPENDIX B: FUNDING SOURCES |

B-3


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

The North Carolina Safe Routes to School

tion costs while protecting the environment in

Program is supported by federal funds through

communities nationwide.”

SAFETEA-LU and MAP-21 legislation. Please note that all SRTS projects “shall be treated as

The Partnership is based on five Livability

projects on a Federal-aid system under chapter

Principles, one of which explicitly addresses the

1 of title 23, United States Code.” Although no

need for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure

local match is required and all SRTS projects

(“Provide more transportation choices: Develop

are 100% federally funded under the SAFETEA-

safe, reliable, and economical transportation

LU, agencies are encouraged to leverage other

choices to decrease household transportation

funding sources that may be available to them,

costs, reduce our nation’s dependence on for-

including grant awards, local, state, or other

eign oil, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse

federal funding. SRTS funds can be used for

gas emissions, and promote public health”).

proposed projects that are within 2 miles of a

The Partnership is not a formal agency with a

school public or private, K-8, in a municipal-

regular annual grant program. Nevertheless, it

ity or in the county jurisdiction. In response to

is an important effort that has already led to

the Strategic Transportation Investments law

some new grant opportunities (including both

of June 2013, proposed SRTS projects will be

TIGER I and TIGER II grants). North Carolina

considered as part of the Bicycle and Pedes-

jurisdictions should track Partnership communi-

trian project input with Strategic Prioritization

cations and be prepared to respond proactively

Office for funding consideration. Most of the

to announcements of new grant programs.

types of eligible SRTS projects include side-

Initiatives that speak to multiple livability goals

walks or a shared-use path. However, intersec-

are more likely to score well than initiatives that

tion improvements (i.e. signalization, marking/

are narrowly limited in scope to pedestrian im-

upgrading crosswalks, etc.), on street bicycle

provement efforts. PSC 2015 Priorities include:

facilities (bike lanes, wide paved shoulders,

using PSC agency resources to advance Lad-

etc.) or off-street shared-use paths are also

ders of Opportunity for every American and

eligible for SRTS funds. As part of MAP-21, this

every community; helping communities adapt

program expires October 29, 2015. For a more

to a changing climate, while mitigating future

inclusive list, please visit the FHWA SRTS pro-

disaster losses; and supporting implementation

gram at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/

of community-based development priorities.

safe_routes_to_school/overview/

For more information:

Or contact DBPT/NCDOT at 919.707.2604. http://www.sustainablecommunities.gov/

OTHER FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES

http://www2.epa.gov/smart-growth/hud-dotepa-partnership-sustainable-communities

P artnership for Sustainable Communities

Resource for Rural Communities: http://www.

Founded in 2009, the Partnership for Sustain-

sustainablecommunities.gov/sites/sustainable-

able Communities (PSC) is a joint project of the

communities.gov/files/docs/federal_resources_

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the

rural.pdf

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). The partnership aims to “improve access to affordable housing, more transportation options, and lower transporta-

B-4

| APPENDIX B: FUNDING SOURCES


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Federal Land Fund

and

Water Conservation

National Scenic Byways Discretionary Grant Program

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)

The National Scenic Byways Discretionary

provides grants for planning and acquiring

Grants program provides merit-based funding

outdoor recreation areas and facilities, including

for byway-related projects each year, utilizing

trails. Funds can be used for right-of-way acqui-

one or more of eight specific activities for roads

sition and construction. The program is admin-

designated as National Scenic Byways, All-

istered by the Department of Environment and

American Roads, State scenic byways, or Indian

Natural Resources as a grant program for states

tribe scenic byways. The activities are described

and local governments. Maximum annual grant

in 23 USC 162(c). This is a discretionary program;

awards for county governments, incorporated

all projects are selected by the US Secretary of

municipalities, public authorities, and federally

Transportation.

recognized Indian tribes are $250,000. The local match may be provided with in-kind services or

Eligible projects include construction along a

cash. For more information: http://www.ncparks.

scenic byway of a facility for pedestrians and

gov/About/grants/lwcf_main.php

bicyclists and improvements to a scenic byway that will enhance access to an area for the

Rivers , Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program

purpose of recreation. Construction includes the

The Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance

design, engineering, purchase of right-of-way,

Program (RTCA) is a National Parks Service

land, or property, as well as supervising, inspect-

(NPS) program providing technical assistance

ing, and actual construction. For more informa-

via direct NPS staff involvement to establish and

tion: http://www.bywaysonline.org/grants/

development of the environmental documents,

restore greenways, rivers, trails, watersheds and for planning assistance—there are no imple-

Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP)

mentation funds available. Projects are priori-

The FLTP funds projects that improve access

tized for assistance based on criteria including

within federal lands (including national forests,

conserving significant community resources,

national parks, national wildlife refuges, national

fostering cooperation between agencies, serv-

recreation areas, and other Federal public lands)

ing a large number of users, encouraging public

on federally owned and maintained transporta-

involvement in planning and implementation,

tion facilities. $300 million per fiscal year has

and focusing on lasting accomplishments. This

been allocated to the program for 2013 and

program may benefit trail development in North

2014. As part of MAP-21, this program expires

Carolina locales indirectly through technical

October 29, 2015. For more information: http://

assistance, particularly for community organiza-

www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/fltp.cfm

open space. The RTCA program provides only

tions, but is not a capital funding source. Annual information: http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/

Energy Efficiency Block Grants

rtca/ or contact the Southeast Region RTCA

The Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency

Program Manager Deirdre “Dee” Hewitt at (404)

and Conservation Block Grants (EECBG) may be

507- 5691

used to reduce energy consumptions and fossil

application deadline is August 1st. For more

and

Conservation

fuel emissions and for improvements in energy efficiency. Section 7 of the funding announcement states that these grants provide opportunities for the development and implementation

APPENDIX B: FUNDING SOURCES |

B-5


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

of transportation programs to conserve energy

For more information: http://www.eda.gov/

used in transportation including development

funding-opportunities/files/2015-EDAP-FFO-

of infrastructure such as bike lanes and path-

Fact-Sheet.pdf

ways and pedestrian walkways. Although the current grant period has passed, more op-

H istoric Preservation Fund Grants

portunities may arise in the future. For more

The State, Tribal, and Local Plans & Grants

information: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/

(STLPG) division manages several grant pro-

eecbg.html

grams to assist with a variety of historic preservation and community projects focused on

TIGER Discretionary Grants

heritage preservation. For more information on

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT)

the different grant programs visit: http://www.

Transportation Investment Generating Econom-

nps.gov/preservation-grants/

ic Recovery (TIGER) discretionary grants are transportation infrastructure. The grant pro-

Environmental Contamination Cleanup Funding Sources

gram focuses on “capital projects that generate

EPA’s Brownfields Program provides direct

economic development and improve access to

funding for brownfields assessment, cleanup,

reliable, safe, and affordable transportation for

revolving loans, and environmental job training.

disconnected both urban and rural, while em-

EPA’s Brownfields Program collaborates with

phasizing improved connection to employment,

other EPA programs, other federal partners,

education, services and other opportunities,

and state agencies to identify and leverage

workforce development, or community revital-

more resources for brownfields activities. Tech-

ization.” Infrastructure improvement projects

nical assistance relating to brownfields financ-

such as recreational trails and greenways with

ing is an additional service provided.

an emphasis on multi-modal transit qualify for

For more information: http://epa.gov/brown-

this grant. Pre-Application deadlines are typi-

fields/grant_info/index.htm

intended to fund capital investments in surface

cally in May, with final application deadlines in June. For more information: http://www.dot. gov/tiger

National Coastal Wetlands C onservation Grant Program Under the National Coastal Wetlands Conserva-

Economic Development Administration

tion Grant Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-

Under Economic Development Administration’s

vice will provide over $21 million to 25 projects

(EDA) Public Works and Economic Adjustment

in 13 coastal and Great Lakes states with the

Assistance programs, grant applications are

aim to protect, restore or enhance more than

accepted for construction, non-construction,

11,000 acres of coastal wetlands and adjacent

technical assistance, and revolving loan fund

upland habitats. “The Service awards grants of

projects. “Grants and cooperative agreements

up to $1 million to states based on a national

made under these programs are designed to

competition, which enables states to determine

leverage existing regional assets and support

and address their highest conservation priori-

the implementation of economic development

ties in coastal areas. Since 1992, the Service has

strategies that advance new ideas and creative

awarded over $357 million in grants under the

approaches to advance economic prosperity in

program.” For more information: http://www.

distressed communities.” Application deadlines

fws.gov/coastal/CoastalGrants/

are typically in March and June.

B-6

| APPENDIX B: FUNDING SOURCES


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation : Five Star & Urban Waters Restoration Grant Program

training, and engage diverse partners and volunteers. »»

Support visible and accessible demonstra-

The Five Star & Urban Waters Restoration Grant

tion projects that showcase innovative,

Program seeks to develop community capac-

cost-effective and environmentally-friendly

ity to sustain local natural resources for future

approaches to improve environmental con-

generations by providing modest financial assis-

ditions within urban communities by ‘green-

tance to diverse local partnerships for wetland,

ing’ traditional infrastructure and public

riparian, forest and coastal habitat restoration,

projects such as storm water management

urban wildlife conservation, stormwater man-

and flood control, public park enhance-

agement as well as outreach, education and

ments, and renovations to public facilities.

stewardship. Projects should focus on water

»»

Support projects that increase the resiliency

quality, watersheds and the habitats they sup-

of the Nation’s coastal communities and

port. NFWF may use a mix of public and private

ecosystems by restoring coastal habitats, liv-

funding sources to support any grant made

ing resources, and water quality to enhance

through this program. Request for proposals

livelihoods and quality of life in these com-

application are typically due in late January/ear-

munities.

ly February. For more information: http://www.

»»

In North Carolina, strong preference will be

nfwf.org/fivestar/Pages/home.aspx#.VS_eq_nF-

given to projects located in the regions of

Bw

Charlotte, Raleigh, or Winston Salem.

Environmental Solutions for Communities Grant Program

For more information: http://www.nfwf.org/

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

VS-8SPnF-Bw

(NFWF) and Wells Fargo seek to promote sus-

environmentalsolutions/Pages/2015rfp.aspx#.

tainable communities through Environmental

STATE FUNDING SOURCES

Solutions for Communities by supporting highly-

There are multiple sources for state funding of

visible projects that link economic development

bicycle and pedestrian transportation projects.

and community well-being to the stewardship

However, beginning July 1, 2015, state transpor-

and health of the environment. Priority for

tation funds cannot be used to match federally-

grants to projects that successfully address one

funded transportation projects, according to a

or more of the following:

law passed by the North Carolina Legislature.

»»

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (NCDOT) STRATEGIC TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS (STI)

Support innovative, cost-effective programs that enhance stewardship on private agricultural lands to enhance water quality and quantity and/or improve wildlife habitat for species of concern, while maintaining or

»»

increasing agricultural productivity.

The NCDOT’s State Transportation Improvement

Support community-based conservation

Program is based on the Strategic Transporta-

projects that protect and restore local

tion Investments Bill, signed into law in 2013. The

habitats and natural areas, enhance water

Strategic Transportation Investments (STI) Initia-

quality, promote urban forestry, educate

tive introduces the Strategic Mobility Formula,

and train community leaders on sustainable

a new way to fund and prioritize transportation

practices, promote related job creation and

projects.

APPENDIX B: FUNDING SOURCES |

B-7


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

ness) and 50% local input, with a breakdown as The new Strategic Transportation Investments

follows:

Initiative is scheduled to be fully implemented by July 1, 2015. Projects scheduled for construc-

Safety 15%

tion before then will proceed as scheduled un-

»»

Definition: Projects or improvements where

der the current Equity Formula. Projects slated

bicycle or pedestrian accommodations are

for construction after that time will be ranked

non-existent or inadequate for safety of us-

and programed according to the new formula. The new Strategic mobility formula assigns

ers »»

projects for all modes into one of three categories: 1) Statewide Mobility, 2) Regional Impact, and 3) Division Needs.

How it’s measured: Crash history, posted speed limits, and estimated safety benefit

»»

Calculation: »» Bicycle/pedestrian crashes along the corridor within last five years: 40%

All independent bicycle and pedestrian projects are placed in the “Division Needs” category, and are ranked based on 50% data (safety, access, demand, connectivity, and cost effective-

weight »» Posted speed limits, with higher points for higher limits: 40% weight »» Project safety benefit, measured by each specific improvement: 20% weight

H ow the STI Works (Source: NCDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Prioritization, June 2015)

B-8

| APPENDIX B: FUNDING SOURCES


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

Access 10% »»

Additional

project requirements :

ity to destinations that draw or generate high

»»

volumes of users »»

bicycle and pedestrian

Definition: Projects that are in close proxim-

How it’s measured: Type of and distance to

Federal funding typically requires a 20% nonfederal match

»»

destination

State law prohibits state match for bicycle and pedestrian projects (except for Powell Bill)

Demand 10% »»

Definition: Projects serving large resident or employee user groups

»»

»»

MPO/RPO/Division »»

How its measured: # of households and employees per square mile within 1 ½ mile bi-

Limited number of project submittals per Minimum

project

cost

requirement

is

$100,000 »»

Bike/Ped projects typically include: bicycle

cycle or ½ mile pedestrian facility + factor for

lanes, multi-use path/greenway, paved shoul-

unoccupied housing units (second homes)

ders, sidewalks, pedestrian signals, SRTS infrastructure projects, and other streetscape/

Connectivity 10%

multi-site improvements (such as median ref-

»»

uge, signage, etc.)

Definition: Measure impact of project on reliability and quality of network

»»

How it’s measured: Creates score per each

These rankings largely determine which projects

SIT based on degree of bike/ped separation

will be included in NCDOT’s State Transporta-

from roadway and connectivity to similar or

tion Improvement Program (STIP). The STIP is

better project type

a federally mandated transportation planning document that details transportation planning

Cost Effectiveness 5%

improvements prioritized by the stakeholders

»»

Definition: Ratio of calculated user benefit di-

for inclusion in NCDOT’s Work Program over

vided by NCDOT project cost

the next 10 years. “More than 900 non-highway

How it’s measured: (Safety + Demand + Ac-

construction projects were prioritized for years

cess + Connectivity)/Estimated Project Cost

2015-2020, totaling an estimated $9 billion.

to NCDOT

NCDOT will only have an estimated $1.5 billion to

»»

spend during this time period.” The STIP is up-

Local Input 50%

dated every 2 years. The STIP contains funding

»»

Definition: Input from MPO/RPOs and NC-

information for various transportation divisions

DOT Divisions, which comes in the form

of NCDOT, including, highways, rail, bicycle and

points assigned to projects.

pedestrian, public transportation and aviation.

»»

How it is measured: Base points + points for population size. A given project is more like-

For more information on STI: www.ncdot.gov/

ly to get funded if it is assigned base points

strategictransportationinvestments/

from both the MPO/RPO and the Division, making the need for communicating the im-

To access the STIP: https://connect.ncdot.gov/

portance of projects to these groups critical.

projects/planning/ Pages/State-Transportation-

Further, projects that have a local match will

Improvement-Program.aspx

score higher.

APPENDIX B: FUNDING SOURCES |

B-9


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

INCIDENTAL PROJECTS

(north of Greensboro and Winston-Salem).

Bicycle and Pedestrian accommodations such

The fund supports science-based, research-

as; bike lanes, wide paved shoulders, sidewalks,

supported projects and programs that provide

intersection improvements, bicycle and pe-

direct benefit to at least one of the following

destrian safe bridge design, etc. are frequently

focus areas:

included as “incidental” features of larger highway/roadway projects. This is increasingly

»»

vation;

common with the adoption of NCDOT’s “Complete Streets” Policy.

»»

Enhance fish and wildlife habitats;

»»

Expand public use and access to waterways; and

In addition, bicycle safe drainage grates and handicapped accessible sidewalk ramps are

Improve water quality, quantity and conser-

»»

Increase citizens’ awareness about their roles in protecting these resources.

now a standard feature of all NCDOT highway construction. Most pedestrian safety accommodations built by NCDOT are included as part

For more information: http://www.duke-energy.

of scheduled highway improvement projects

com/community/foundation/water-resources-

funded with a combination of federal and state

fund.asp

roadway construction funds, and usually with a if warranted, typically do not require a local

CLEAN WATER MANAGEMENT TRUST FUND

match.

The Clean Water Management Trust Fund is

local match. On-road bicycle accommodations,

available to any state agency, local govern“Incidental Projects” are often constructed as

ment, or non-profit whose primary purpose is

part of a larger transportation project, when

the conservation, preservation, and restoration

they are justified by local plans that show these

of North Carolina’s environmental and natural

improvements as part of a larger, multi-modal

resources. Grant assistance is provided to con-

transportation system. Having a local bicycle or

servation projects that:

pedestrian plan is important, because it allows NCDOT to identify where bike and pedestrian

»»

enhance or restore degraded waters;

improvements are needed, and can be included

»»

protect unpolluted waters, and/or

as part of highway or street improvement

»»

contribute toward a network of riparian buf-

project. It also helps local government identify

fers and greenways for environmental, edu-

what their priorities are and how they might be

cational, and recreational benefits;

able to pay for these projects. Under “Complete

»»

protect the military mission;

Streets” local governments may be responsible for a portion of the costs for bicycle and

»»

process/

acquire land that represents the ecological diversity of North Carolina; and

pedestrian projects. For more information: http://www.ncdot.gov/bikeped/funding/

provide buffers around military bases to

»»

acquire land that contributes to the development of a balanced State program of historic properties.

DUKE ENERGY WATER RESOURCES FUND

The application deadline is typically in Febru-

Duke Energy is investing $10 million in a fund

ary. For more information: http://www.cwmtf.

for projects that benefit waterways in the Caro-

net/#appmain.htm

linas. The fund includes a $1.5 million designation for projects in the Dan River Basin Region

B-10

| APPENDIX B: FUNDING SOURCES


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

SPOT SAFETY PROGRAM

POWELL BILL FUNDS

The Spot Safety Program is a state funded pub-

Annually, State street-aid (Powell Bill) alloca-

lic safety investment and improvement program

tions are made to incorporated municipalities

that provides highly effective low cost safety

which establish their eligibility and qualify as

improvements for intersections, and sections

provided by G.S. 136-41.1 through 136-41.4. Powell

of North Carolina’s 79,000 miles of state main-

Bill funds shall be expended only for the pur-

tained roads in all 100 counties of North Caro-

poses of maintaining, repairing, constructing,

lina. The Spot Safety Program is used to develop

reconstructing or widening of local streets that

smaller improvement projects to address safety,

are the responsibility of the municipalities or for

potential safety, and operational issues. The pro-

planning, construction, and maintenance of bike-

gram is funded with state funds and currently

ways or sidewalks along public streets and high-

receives approximately $9 million per state fiscal

ways. Beginning July 1, 2015 under the Strategic

year. Other monetary sources (such as Small

Transportation Investments initiative, Powell Bill

Construction or Contingency funds) can assist

funds may no longer be used to provide a match

in funding Spot Safety projects, however, the

for federal transportation funds such as Trans-

maximum allowable contribution of Spot Safety

portation Alternatives. Certified Statement,

funds per project is $250,000.

street listing, add/delete sheet and certified map from all municipalities are due between July 1st

The Spot Safety Program targets hazardous

and July 21st of each year. Additional docu-

locations for expedited low cost safety im-

mentation is due shortly after. More information:

provements such as traffic signals, turn lanes,

https://connect.ncdot.gov/municipalities/State-

improved shoulders, intersection upgrades,

Street-Aid/Pages/default.aspx

positive guidance enhancements (rumble strips, markers, long life highly visible pavement mark-

HIGHWAY HAZARD ELIMINATION PROGRAM

ings), improved warning and regulatory signing,

The Hazard Elimination Program is used to

roadside safety improvements, school safety

develop larger improvement projects to address

improvements, and safety appurtenances (like

safety and potential safety issues. The program

guardrail and crash attenuators).

is funded with 90 percent federal funds and 10

improved channelization, raised pavement

percent state funds. The cost of Hazard EliminaA Safety Oversight Committee (SOC) reviews

tion Program projects typically ranges between

and recommends Spot Safety projects to the

$400,000 and $1 million. A Safety Oversight

Board of Transportation (BOT) for approval and

Committee (SOC) reviews and recommends

funding. Criteria used by the SOC to select proj-

Hazard Elimination projects to the Board of

ects for recommendation to the BOT include,

Transportation (BOT) for approval and fund-

but are not limited to, the frequency of correct-

ing. These projects are prioritized for funding

able crashes, severity of crashes, delay, conges-

according to a safety benefit to cost (B/C) ratio,

tion, number of signal warrants met, effect on

with the safety benefit being based on crash re-

pedestrians and schools, division and region

duction. Once approved and funded by the BOT,

priorities, and public interest. For more infor-

these projects become part of the department’s

mation: https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/

State Transportation Improvement Program

safety/Pages/NC-Highway-Safety-Program-and-

(STIP). For more information: https://connect.

Projects.aspx

ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Pages/NC-HighwaySafety-Program-and-Projects.aspx

APPENDIX B: FUNDING SOURCES |

B-11


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

GOVERNOR’S HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM

tions and private trail groups for trail projects.

The Governor’s Highway Safety Program

million grant program funded by Congress with

(GHSP) funds safety improvement projects

money from the federal gas taxes paid on fuel

on state highways throughout North Carolina.

used by off-highway vehicles. Grant applicants

All funding is performance-based. Substan-

must be able to contribute 20% of the proj-

tial progress in reducing crashes, injuries, and

ect cost or in-kind contributions. Both grant

fatalities is required as a condition of continued

applications are typically due in January or

funding. This funding source is considered to

February. For more information: http://www.

be “seed money” to get programs started. The

ncparks.gov/About/trails_grants.php

grantee is expected to provide a portion of

The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) is a $1.3

the program after GHSP funding ends. State

NC PARKS AND RECREATION TRUST FUND (PARTF)

Highway Applicants must use the web-based

The Parks and Recreation Trust Fund (PARTF)

grant system to submit applications. For more

provide dollar-for-dollar matching grants to

information: http://www.ncdot.org/programs/

local governments for parks and recreational

ghsp/

projects to serve the general public. Counties,

the project costs and is expected to continue

incorporated municipalities, and public au-

EAT SMART, MOVE MORE NORTH CAROLINA COMMUNITY GRANTS

thorities, as defined by G.S. 159-7, are eligible

The Eat Smart, Move More (ESMM) NC Com-

maximum of $500,000 with each application.

munity Grants program provides funding to

An applicant must match the grant dollar-for-

local communities to support their efforts to

dollar, 50 percent of the total cost of the proj-

develop community-based interventions that

ect, and may contribute more than 50 percent.

encourage, promote, and facilitate physical ac-

The appraised value of land to be donated to

tivity. The current focus of the funds is for proj-

the applicant can be used as part of the match.

ects addressing youth physical activity. Funds

The value of in-kind services, such as volunteer

have been used to construct trails and conduct

work, cannot be used as part of the match.

educational programs. For more information:

Grant applications are typically due in February.

http://www.eatsmartmovemorenc.com/Fund-

For more information: http://www.ncparks.gov/

ing/Funding.html

About/grants/partf_main.php

THE NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION – RECREATIONAL TRAILS AND ADOPT-A-TRAIL GRANTS

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS

The North Carolina Division of Parks and Rec-

governments that qualify for projects to en-

reation and the State Trails Program offer funds

hance the viability of communities by providing

to help citizens, organizations and agencies

decent housing and suitable living environ-

plan, develop and manage all types of trails

ments and by expanding economic opportuni-

ranging from greenways and trails for hiking,

ties, principally for persons of low and moder-

biking, and horseback riding to river trails and

ate income. State CDBG funds are provided

off-highway vehicle trails. “The Adopt-a-Trail

by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Grant Program (AAT) awards $108,000 annual-

Development (HUD) to the state of North Caro-

ly to government agencies, nonprofit organiza-

lina. Some urban counties and cities in North

applicants. A local government can request a

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are available to local municipal or county

Carolina receive CDBG funding directly from

B-12

| APPENDIX B: FUNDING SOURCES


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

HUD. Each year, CDBG provides funding to local

goal is to improve public understanding of the

governments for hundreds of critically-needed

benefits of preserving existing tree cover in

community improvement projects throughout

communities and assist local governments with

the state. These community improvement proj-

projects which will lead to a more effective and

ects are administered by the Division of Com-

efficient management of urban and community

munity Assistance and the Commerce Finance

forests. Grant requests should range between

Center under eight grant categories. Two cat-

$1,000 and $15,000 and must be matched

egories might be of support to pedestrian and

equally with non-federal funds. Grant funds may

bicycle projects in ‘entitlement communities’:

be awarded to any unit of local or state govern-

Infrastructure and Community Revitalization.

ment, public educational institutions, approved

More information: http://portal.hud.gov/hudpor-

non-profit 501(c)(3) organizations, and other

tal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/

tax-exempt organizations. First time municipal

communitydevelopment/programs

applicant and municipalities seeking Tree City USA status are given priority for funding. Grant

CLEAN WATER MANAGEMENT TRUST FUND (CWMTF)

applications are due by March 31 at 5:00 pm and

This fund was established in 1996 and has

For more about Tree City USA status, including

become one of the largest sources of money in

application instructions, visit: http://ncforestser-

North Carolina for land and water protection,

vice.gov/Urban/urban_grant_overview.htm

eligible for application by a state agency, local

recipients are notified by mid-July each year.

year, a minimum of $30 million is placed in the

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING SOURCES

CWMTF. The revenue of this fund is allocated as

Municipalities often plan for the funding of pe-

grants to local governments, state agencies, and

destrian and bicycle facilities or improvements

conservation non-profits to help finance projects

through development of Capital Improvement

that specifically address water pollution prob-

Projects (CIP) or occasionally, through their an-

lems. Funds may be used for planning and land

nual Operating Budgets. In Raleigh, for example,

acquisition to establish a network of riparian

the greenways system has been developed over

buffers and greenways for environmental, edu-

many years through a dedicated source of an-

cational, and recreational benefits. Deadlines

nual funding that has ranged from $100,000 to

are typically in February. For more information:

$500,000, administered through the Recreation

http://www.cwmtf.net/#appmain.htm

and Parks Department. CIPs should include all

government, or non-profit. At the end of each

types of capital improvements (water, sewer,

SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (SRTS)

buildings, streets, etc.) versus programs for

SRTS is managed by NCDOT, but is federally

single purposes. This allows municipal decision-

funded; See Federal Funding Sources above for

makers to balance all capital needs. Typical

more information.

capital funding mechanisms include the capital reserve fund, capital protection ordinances,

URBAN AND COMMUNITY FORESTRY GRANT

municipal service district, tax increment financ-

The North Carolina Division of Forest Resources

described below. A variety of possible funding

Urban and Community Forestry grant can pro-

options available to North Carolina jurisdictions

ing, taxes, fees, and bonds. Each category is

vide funding for a variety of projects that will help toward planning and establishing street trees as well as trees for urban open space. The

APPENDIX B: FUNDING SOURCES |

B-13


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

for implementing pedestrian and bicycle proj-

TAX INCREMENT FINANCING

ects are also described below. However, many

Project Development Financing bonds, also

will require specific local action as a means of

known as Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is a

establishing a program, if not already in place.

relatively new tool in North Carolina, allowing

CAPITAL RESERVE FUND

localities to use future gains in taxes to finance the current improvements that will create those

Municipalities have statutory authority to create

gains. When a public project (e.g., sidewalk im-

capital reserve funds for any capital purpose,

provements) is constructed, surrounding prop-

including pedestrian facilities. The reserve fund

erty values generally increase and encourage

must be created through ordinance or resolu-

surrounding development or redevelopment.

tion that states the purpose of the fund, the

The increased tax revenues are then dedicated

duration of the fund, the approximate amount

to finance the debt created by the original pub-

of the fund, and the source of revenue for the

lic improvement project. Streets, streetscapes,

fund. Sources of revenue can include general

and sidewalk improvements are specifically

fund allocations, fund balance allocations,

authorized for TIF funding in North Carolina.

grants, and donations for the specified use.

Tax Increment Financing typically occurs within

CAPITAL PROJECT ORDINANCES

designated development financing districts that meet certain economic criteria that are ap-

Municipalities can pass Capital Project Ordi-

proved by a local governing body. TIF funds are

nances that are project specific. The ordinance

generally spent inside the boundaries of the TIF

identifies and makes appropriations for the

district, but they can also be spent outside the

project.

district if necessary to encourage development

LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID)

within it.

OTHER LOCAL FUNDING OPTIONS

Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) are most

• Bonds/Loans

often used by cities to construct localized

• Taxes

projects such as streets, sidewalks, or bikeways.

• Impact fees

Through the LID process, the costs of local

• Exactions

improvements are generally spread out among

• Installment purchase financing

a group of property owners within a specified

• In-lieu-of fees

area. The cost can be allocated based on prop-

• Partnerships

erty frontage or other methods such as traffic trip generation.

MUNICIPAL SERVICE DISTRICT

PRIVATE AND NON-PROFIT FUNDING SOURCES Many communities have solicited greenway

Municipalities have statutory authority to estab-

funding assistance from private foundations

lish municipal service districts, to levy a prop-

and other conservation-minded benefactors.

erty tax in the district additional to the town-

Below are several examples of private funding

wide property tax, and to use the proceeds to

opportunities available.

provide services in the district. Downtown revitalization projects are one of the eligible uses of

LAND FOR TOMORROW CAMPAIGN

service districts, and can include projects such

Land for Tomorrow is a diverse partnership of

as street, sidewalk, or bikeway improvements

businesses, conservationists, farmers, envi-

within the downtown taxing district.

ronmental groups, health professionals, and community groups committed to securing support from the public and General Assembly for

B-14

| APPENDIX B: FUNDING SOURCES


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

protecting land, water, and historic places. The

http://www.rwjf.org/en/how-we-work/grants/

campaign was successful in 2013 in asking the

what-we-fund.html

North Carolina General Assembly to continue state budget bill includes about $50 million in

NORTH CAROLINA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION

funds for key conservation efforts in North Caro-

The North Carolina Community Foundation,

lina. Land for Tomorrow works to enable North

established in 1988, is a statewide foundation

Carolina to reach a goal of ensuring that work-

seeking gifts from individuals, corporations, and

ing farms and forests, sanctuaries for wildlife,

other foundations to build endowments and

land bordering streams, parks, and greenways,

ensure financial security for non-profit organi-

land that helps strengthen communities and

zations and institutions throughout the state.

promotes job growth, and historic downtowns

Based in Raleigh, the foundation also manages

and neighborhoods will be there to enhance the

a number of community affiliates throughout

quality of life for generations to come. For more

North Carolina, that make grants in the areas of

information: http://www.land4tomorrow.org/

human services, education, health, arts, religion,

to support conservation efforts in the state. The

civic affairs, and the conservation and preserva-

THE ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION

tion of historical, cultural, and environmental

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation was es-

scholarship programs statewide. For more infor-

tablished as a national philanthropy in 1972 and

mation: http://nccommunityfoundation.org/

resources. The foundation also manages various

today it is the largest U.S. foundation devoted to improving the health and health care of all Americans. Grant making is concentrated in four

WALMART STATE GIVING PROGRAM

areas:

The Walmart Foundation financially supports projects that create opportunities for better

»» »» »» »»

To ensure that all Americans have access to

living. Grants are awarded for projects that

basic health care at a reasonable cost

support and promote education, workforce

To improve care and support for people with

development/economic opportunity, health and

chronic health conditions

wellness, and environmental sustainability. Both

To promote healthy communities and life-

programmatic and infrastructure projects are

styles

eligible for funding. State Giving Program pro-

To reduce the personal, social and economic

vides grants to 501(c)(3) organizations, ranging

harm caused by substance abuse: tobacco,

from $25,000 to $250,000. The program grant

alcohol, and illicit drugs

application deadline is May 1st. Online resource: http://foundation.walmart.com/apply-for-grants/

Projects considered for funding typically are

state-giving

innovative and aim to create meaningful, transformative change. Project examples include:

RITE AID FOUNDATION GRANTS

service demonstrations; gathering and monitor-

The Rite Aid Foundation is a foundation that

ing of health-related statistics; public education;

supports projects that promote health and well-

training and fellowship programs; policy analysis;

ness in the communities that Rite Aid serves.

health services research; technical assistance;

Award amounts vary and grants are awarded on

communications activities; and evaluations. For

a one year basis to communities in which Rite

more specific information about what types

Aid operates. The Rite Aid Foundation focuses

of projects are funded and how to apply, visit

on three core areas for charitable giving: chil-

APPENDIX B: FUNDING SOURCES |

B-15


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

dren’s health and well-being; special commu-

project, the Foundation would support pro-

nity health and wellness needs; and Ride Aid’s

grams that support conservation, training, and

own community of associates during times of

research around environmental and energy ef-

special need. Online resource: https://www.

ficiency initiatives. For more information: http://

riteaid.com/about-us/rite-aid-foundation

www.duke-energy.com/community/foundation. asp

Z. SMITH REYNOLDS FOUNDATION been assisting the environmental projects of lo-

AMERICAN GREENWAYS EASTMAN KODAK AWARDS

cal governments and non-profits in North Caro-

The Conservation Fund’s American Greenways

lina for many years. The Foundation focuses its

Program has teamed with the Eastman Ko-

grant making on five focus areas: Community

dak Corporation and the National Geographic

Economic Development; Environment; Pub-

Society to award small grants ($250 to $2,000)

lic Education; Social Justice and Equity; and

to stimulate the planning, design, and develop-

Strengthening Democracy. Deadline to apply is

ment of greenways. These grants can be used

typically in August. For more information: www.

for activities such as mapping, conducting

zsr.org

ecological assessments, surveying land, holding

This Winston-Salem-based Foundation has

conferences, developing brochures, producing

BANK OF AMERICA CHARITABLE FOUNDATION, INC.

interpretive displays, incorporating land trusts,

The Bank of America Charitable Foundation

academic research, institutional support, lobby-

is one of the largest in the nation. There are

ing, or political activities. For more information:

numerous different initiatives and grant pro-

http://www.rlch.org/funding/kodak-american-

grams, yet the ones most relevant to increased

greenways-grants

and building trails. Grants cannot be used for

recreational opportunities and trails are the Revitalizing Neighborhoods and Environment

NATIONAL TRAILS FUND

Programs. Starting in 2013, a new 10-year, $50

American Hiking Society created the National

billion goal to be a catalyst for climate change

Trails Fund in 1998, the only privately supported

was launched. This initiative aims to spark the

national grants program providing funding to

“innovation economy and advance a transition

grassroots organizations working toward estab-

to a low-carbon future.” For more information:

lishing, protecting and maintaining foot trails

www.bankofamerica.com/foundation

in America. 73 million people enjoy foot trails annually, yet many of our favorite trails need

DUKE ENERGY FOUNDATION

major repairs due to a $200 million backlog

Funded by Duke Energy shareholders, this non-

of badly needed maintenance. National Trails

profit organization makes charitable grants to

Fund grants help give local organizations the

selected non-profits or governmental subdivi-

resources they need to secure access, volun-

sions. Each annual grant must have:

teers, tools and materials to protect America’s

»»

An internal Duke Energy business “sponsor”

cherished public trails. To date, American Hik-

»»

A clear business reason for making the con-

ing has granted more than $588,000 to 192

tribution

different trail projects across the U.S. for land acquisition, constituency building campaigns,

The grant program has several investment

and traditional trail work projects. Awards

priorities: Education; Environment; Economic

range from $500 to $10,000 per project.

and Workforce Development; and Community Impact and Cultural Enrichment. Related to this

B-16

| APPENDIX B: FUNDING SOURCES


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

sider include:

NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION (NFWF)

»»

Securing trail lands, including acquisition of

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

trails and trail corridors, and the costs associ-

(NFWF) is a private, non-profit, tax exempt

ated with acquiring conservation easements.

organization chartered by Congress in 1984. The

Building and maintaining trails which will re-

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation sustains,

sult in visible and substantial ease of access,

restores, and enhances the Nation’s fish, wildlife,

improved hiker safety, and/or avoidance of

plants, and habitats. Through leadership con-

environmental damage.

servation investments with public and private

Constituency building surrounding specific

partners, the Foundation is dedicated to achiev-

trail projects - including volunteer recruit-

ing maximum conservation impact by develop-

ment and support.

ing and applying best practices and innovative

Projects the American Hiking Society will con-

»»

»»

methods for measurable outcomes. For more information: http://www.americanhik-

The Foundation provides grants through more

ing.org/national-trails-fund/

than 70 diverse conservation grant programs.

THE CONSERVATION ALLIANCE

A few of the most relevant programs for bicycle and pedestrian projects include Acres for Amer-

The Conservation Alliance is a non-profit orga-

ica, Conservation Partners Program, and Envi-

nization of outdoor businesses whose collective

ronmental Solutions for Communities. Funding

annual membership dues support grassroots

priorities include bird, fish, marine/coastal, and

citizen-action groups and their efforts to pro-

wildlife and habitat conservation. Other projects

tect wild and natural areas. Grants are typically

that are considered include controlling inva-

about $35,000 each. Since its inception in 1989,

sive species, enhancing delivery of ecosystem

The Conservation Alliance has contributed

services in agricultural systems, minimizing the

$4,775,059 to environmental groups across the

impact on wildlife of emerging energy sources,

nation, saving over 34 million acres of wild lands.

and developing future conservation leaders and professionals.

The Conservation Alliance Funding Criteria:

For more information: http://www.nfwf.org/

»»

whatwedo/grants/Pages/home.aspx

The Project should be focused primarily on direct citizen action to protect and enhance

»»

»»

»»

our natural resources for recreation.

THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND

The Alliance does not look for mainstream

Land conservation is central to the mission of

education or scientific research projects, but

the Trust for Public Land (TPL).

rather for active campaigns.

Founded in 1972, the TPL is the only national

All projects should be quantifiable, with spe-

non-profit working exclusively to protect land

cific goals, objectives, and action plans and

for human enjoyment and well-being. TPL helps

should include a measure for evaluating suc-

acquire land and transfer it to public agencies,

cess.

land trusts, or other groups that have intentions

The project should have a good chance for

to conserve land for recreation and spiritual

closure or significant measurable results over

nourishment and to improve the health and

a fairly short term (within four years).

quality of life of American communities. For more information: http://www.tpl.org

For more information: http://www.conservationalliance.com/grants

APPENDIX B: FUNDING SOURCES |

B-17


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NORTH CAROLINA FOUNDATION (BCBS) Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) focuses on

MAY 2016

at an opening ceremony. Types of gifts other than cash could include donations of services, equipment, labor, or reduced costs for supplies.

programs that use an outcome approach to

CORPORATE DONATIONS

improve the health and well-being of residents.

Corporate donations are often received in the

Healthy Places grant concentrates on increased

form of liquid investments (i.e. cash, stock,

physical activity and active play through sup-

bonds) and in the form of land. Municipalities

port of improved build environment such as

typically create funds to facilitate and simplify

sidewalks, and safe places to bike. Eligible grant

a transaction from a corporation’s donation to

applicants must be located in North Carolina,

the given municipality. Donations are mainly

be able to provide recent tax forms and, de-

received when a widely supported capital im-

pending on the size of the non-profit, provide

provement program is implemented.

an audit. For more information: http://www. bcbsncfoundation.org/

PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL DONATIONS Private individual donations can come in the

ALLIANCE FOR BIKING & WALKING: ADVOCACY ADVANCE GRANTS

form of liquid investments (i.e. cash, stock,

Bicycle and pedestrian advocacy organizations

ate funds to facilitate and simplify a transac-

play the most important role in improving and

tion from an individual’s donation to the given

increasing biking and walking in local communi-

municipality. Donations are mainly received

ties. Rapid Response Grants enable state and

when a widely supported capital improvement

local bicycle and pedestrian advocacy organi-

program is implemented.

bonds) or land. Municipalities typically cre-

zations to develop, transform, and provide innovative strategies in their communities. Since 2011, Rapid Response grant recipients have won

FUNDRAISING/CAMPAIGN DRIVES

$100 million in public funding for biking and

Organizations and individuals can participate in

walking. The Advocacy Advance Partnership

a fundraiser or a campaign drive. It is essential

with the League of American Bicyclists also

to market the purpose of a fundraiser to rally

provides necessary technical assistance, coach-

support and financial backing. Often times fun-

ing, and training to supplement the grants. For

draising satisfies the need for public awareness,

more information, visit www.peoplepowered-

public education, and financial support.

movement.org

LOCAL TRAIL SPONSORS

It is expected that many citizens will be excited

A sponsorship program for trail amenities al-

about the development of a greenway corridor.

lows smaller donations to be received from

Individual volunteers from the community can

both individuals and businesses. Cash dona-

be brought together with groups of volunteers

tions could be placed into a trust fund to be

form church groups, civic groups, scout troops

accessed for certain construction or acquisition

and environmental groups to work on green-

projects associated with the greenways and

way development on special community work-

open space system. Some recognition of the

days. Volunteers can also be used for fund-rais-

donors is appropriate and can be accomplished

ing, maintenance, and programming needs.

through the placement of a plaque, the naming of a trail segment, and/or special recognition

B-18

VOLUNTEER WORK

| APPENDIX B: FUNDING SOURCES


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

MAY 2016

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS

hoods, businesses, restaurants, a school, a bike

Crowdsourcing “is the process of obtaining

shop, the YMCA, a grocery store, and a skate

needed services, ideas, or content by soliciting

park. As the Hub City Connector segment of

contributions from a large group of people, and

the Palmetto Trail through Spartanburg County,

especially from an online community, rather than

the Rail Trail is an outdoor transportation spine

from traditional employees or suppliers.”

for Spartanburg from which other projects are

For some success stories and ideas for innova-

expected to spin off. One great example is the

tive fundraising techniques: http://www.ameri-

first phase of B-cycle bicycle-sharing program

cantrails.org/resources/funding/TipsFund.html

located at the Henry Street trailhead. Project contact: Lisa Bollinger, Spartanburg Area Trans-

TRAIL PARTNERSHIP CASE STUDIES IN THE CAROLINAS

portation Study, 366 North Church Street, Suite 700, Spartanburg, SC 29303; Phone: 864-5963570.

WILMINGTON/NEW HANOVER COUNTY & BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD (BCBS) BCBSNC and their GO NC! program donated

SWAMP RABBIT TRAIL AND GREENVILLE HEALTH SYSTEM, GREENVILLE, SC

funds to complete the final phase of the 15-mile

The Greenville Health System Swamp Rabbit

Gary Shell CrossCity Trail from Wade Park to

Trail is a shared-use-path that runs along the

the drawbridge at Wrightsville Beach. In addi-

Reedy River through Greenville County, connect-

tion to completing the trail, other enhancements

ing parks, schools, and local businesses. The

include mile markers along the 15-mile trail and

GHS Swamp Rabbit has become very popular

five bicycle fix-it stations along the trail. This

among residents and visitors for recreational

partnership came about during development of

and transportation purposes. The Greenville

the WMPO’s Wilmington/New Hanover County

Heath System has become a private sponsor be-

Comprehensive Greenway Plan in 2012. Project

cause of the health benefits offered by the trail

contact: Amy Beatty, Superintendent, City of

as well as the branding opportunity achieved

Wilmington Recreation & Downtown Services,

by having its name and logo on the trail’s signs.

302 Willard Street , Wilmington, NC 28401;

The GHS Swamp Rabbit Trail continues to

Phone: 910. 341.7855.

increase in size and popularity, with communities in neighboring counties making plans to

SPARTANBURG, SC & THE MARY BLACK FOUNDATION

extend the trail into their towns. Project con-

The Mary Black Foundation Rail Trail was a

and Historic Resources, Greenville County Parks,

collaboration between the Mary Black Founda-

Recreation and Tourism. 4806 Old Spartanburg

tion, Palmetto Conservation Foundation, City of

Road, Taylors, SC 29687. Phone: 864-676-2180

Spartanburg, Partners for Active Living, SPATS,

ext. 141.

tact: Ty Houck, Director of Greenways, Natural

and local citizens. It extends from downtown Spartanburg at Henry Street, between Union and Pine Streets, and continues 2 miles to Country Club Road. Since its inception there has been buzz about redeveloping the Rail Trail corridor. The commuter and recreational trail brings together all walks of life, and connects neighbor-

APPENDIX B: FUNDING SOURCES |

B-19


MARION BICYCLE PLAN

APRIL 2016

APPENDIX C: Project List

APPENDIX B: FUNDING SOURCES |

B-1


Appendix C: Project LIst

Roadway(s)

From

To

Length (Miles)

Recommended Facility Type

Destinations Served

Estimated Traffic Volume (High/ Medium/ Low)

US 70 West

City limits (Bryan Dr)

Bus 221 (Main St)

1.71

Bike Lanes

Restaurants, Retail, Mt. Mitchell, Catawba River Trail, West Junior High School

High

McDowell High School Rd

US 70

Bus 221 (Main St)

0.84

Sharrows

West Junior High School

Medium High

Bus 221 (Main St)

US 70

New St

1.9

Sidepath

Commercial, Residential area. Marion Elementary School, Marion Community Building & Splash Pad

Main St

New St

Morganst

0.62

Sharrows

Downtown

Medium

New Street, Garden St, Fleming Ave, Robert St

Main St

N McDowell Ave

0.82

Neighborhood Bike Route

Residential, Marion Elementary School

Low

N. McDowell St

Maple Ave

Oak St

0.1

Sharrows

Residential, Connection between Marion Elementary School and East Junior High School

Low

Road Diet

Residential, Commercial, Connection between Marion Elementary School and East Junior High School

Medium

Low

N. McDowell St

Oak St

State St

0.22

Other Notes

Proposed State Bike Route Narrow roadway, coordination during peak school hours needed Priority Investment #3 (page 3-14).

Priority Project #5 (page 3-16). Narrow roadways. Could consider shared lane markings in the future, after wayfinding signage installed.

Traffic analysis needed to determine feasibility of reducing the existing four lane section to three lanes with bike lanes.

N. McDowell St

State St

Woodland Dr

0.13

Sharrows

Residential, Connection between Marion Elementary School and East Junior High School

Oak St, Lamar St, 5th St, Hill St, Branch St

N. McDowell St

Court St

0.84

Neighborhood Bike Route

Residential area, proposed clinchfield greenway corridor

Low

Narrow roadways. Could consider shared lane markings in the future, after wayfinding signage installed.

Court St

Church St

City Limits

0.71

Rural Bike Route

Commercial retail, Lake James

High

"Bikes May Use Full Lane" signs should be installed.

1.4

Bike Lanes and Sharrows

Clinchfield Community Park and Greenway, Downtown, McDowell Public Library, Retail, Residential

High

Priority Project #6 (page 3-17)

Court St

Snipes St

Church St

Appendix C-1


Appendix C: Project LIst

Roadway(s)

From

To

Length (Miles)

Recommended Facility Type

Destinations Served

Estimated Traffic Volume (High/ Medium/ Low)

Other Notes

Low to Medium

Narrow roadways. Baldwin Ave carries more traffic, but provides a direct link from several neighborhoods to the Peavine Trail. Could consider shared lane markings in the future, after wayfinding signage installed.

Yancey St, Perry St, Baldwin Ave, Morehead Rd

Court St

Peavine Corridor

1.98

Neighborhood Bike Route

Peavine Trail, Residential area, East McDowell Junior High School, Eastfield Community Park, Eastfield Global Magnet School, Oak Grove Cemetary

Peavine Trail

State St

College Ave

3.12

Trail

Downtown, McDowell Technical Community College, Residential, Commercial Retail

State St

Main St

McDowell St

0.66

Sharrows

Downtown, Peavine Trail Head, Residential

Low

Georgia Ave

Rutherford Rd

Peavine Corridor

0.15

Sharrows

Downtown, Peavine Corridor, Oak Grove Cemetary, Residential

Medium

Rutherford Rd

Main St

Georgia Ave

0.5

Bike Lanes/Sharrows Combo

Downtown, Residential, Gazebo, Oak Grove Cemetary

Medium

Crawford St, Morgan St, Railroad St

Henderson St

Main St

0.36

Sharrows

Downtown, Marion Trail Depot & Farmers Market

Low

Downtown, McDowell Senior Center, McDowell Hospital, YMCA, Bill Hendley Trail & George Hutchins Trail

High

Off-road; On-road sections along high Priority Investment #1 and #2 (page 3-12 and 3-13). volume roadways Narrow roadway.

Priority Project #7 (page 3-18).

Henderson St

Rankin Dr

Main St

1.4

Road Diet/Corridor Study

Veterans Dr, Nix Creek Rd, Tate St, Cross St, Carson St, Court St

Snipes St

Sugar Hill Rd

2.95

Neighborhood Bike Route

Downtown, Walmart, Residential, Commercial Retail

Low/Medium

Narrow roadways. Could consider shared lane markings in the future, after wayfinding signage installed.

Nix Creek Rd

Veterans Dr

City Limit/Planning Boundary

1.07

Rural Bike Route

Rural scenery

Low

Narrow roadway. "Bikes May Use Full Lane" signs should be installed.

High

Traffic analysis needed to determine if a five lane section is warranted. Preliminary design is necessary to determin what side of the road is the most feasible for sidepath construction.

Low/Medium

Narrow roadways."Bikes May Use Full Lane" signs should be installed.

Sugar Hill Rd

Worley Rd

Rankin Dr

1.4

Sidepath

Commercial retail, Walmart, McDowell Hospital, YMCA

Fleming Ave, Yancy Rd

Robert St

City Limits/Planning Boundary

1

Rural Bike Route

Rural scenery

Priority Investment #4 (page 3-15).

Appendix C-2

Profile for Alta Planning + Design

Marion Comprehensive Bicycle Plan  

Marion Comprehensive Bicycle Plan  

Advertisement

Recommendations could not be loaded

Recommendations could not be loaded

Recommendations could not be loaded

Recommendations could not be loaded