• No results found

Evidenced-based_Bicycle_Facilities_Map_of_the_University_of_North_Carolina_at_Chapel_Hill_Campus.pdf

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2020

Share "Evidenced-based_Bicycle_Facilities_Map_of_the_University_of_North_Carolina_at_Chapel_Hill_Campus.pdf"

Copied!
34
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Evidenced-based Bicycle Facilities Map

of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Campus

by Jeffrey R. Grim

A Masters Project submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Regional Planning in the Department of City and Regional Planning.

Chapel Hill 2005

Approved by:

(2)

Table of Contents...i

Abstract ... ii

1. Introduction... 1

2. Study Area... 2

2.1 Bicycling Trends... 3

2.2 Single Occupancy Vehicles and Parking ... 3

2.3 Alternative Transportation Modes and Related Plans/Programs ... 4

2.4 Existing Bicycle Maps of Study Area... 5

3. Previous Research... 8

3.1 Types of Bicycle Maps ... 8

3.2 Bicyclist Skill Level... 9

3.3 Travel time vs. Safety ... 10

3.4 Quantitative Indices ... 11

4. Results ... 14

4.1 Types of Bicycle Facilities... 14

4.1.1 Shared lanes ... 14

4.1.2 Wide outside lanes or wide curb lanes... 15

4.1.3 Bike lanes ... 15

4.1.4 Wide shoulders... 16

4.1.5 Separate bike paths (paved off-road paths)... 17

4.1.6 Greenways ... 18

4.1.7 Sidewalks ... 18

4.2 Factors Affecting Bicycle Facilities... 19

4.2.1 Speed Limits, AADT and roadway classifications ... 19

4.2.2 On-street parking... 21

4.2.3 Steep topography... 21

4.2.4 Other factors included on map ... 21

4.2.5 Other factors not included on map ... 22

4.3 Bicycling Amenities... 22

4.4 Accompanying Text ... 22

5. Summary and Conclusions ... 24

Acknowledgements ... 26

(3)
(4)

Funding for bicycling and bicycle use has been growing. In addition to building new facilities, information is another way of promoting and inducing use. A map is a useful tool for

distributing information about bicycling, because it graphically displays facilities so users can visualize their location relative to landmarks. To be “useful”, the map must show facilities and amenities that are useful to the target audience. The limitation for most entities creating the maps are first, knowing the facilities and amenities that are useful to their target audience, and second, having the available data to display them on a map.

Indices such as the Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI) or Bicycle Level of Service (B-LOS) are data intensive. These methods require fieldwork and data gathering that in many municipalities has not been completed. Therefore, for the time being, these indices are more practically used to look at individual segments rather than entire street networks, which would be needed to create a map. Municipalities need a method to distribute bicycle information, such as location of bicycle facilities and amenities, in a way that is financially feasible, yet not time consuming.

(5)

2. Study Area

The study area focuses on the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a growing university of approximately 24,000 students. Its location within the Town of Chapel Hill and in close proximity to the Town of Carrboro totals a combined population for the study area of approximately 65,000 people in 2000 [1]. Figure 1 shows the location of Chapel Hill and Carrboro on a regional scale. The University is located approximately ten miles southwest of Durham and less than thirty miles west of the state capital Raleigh in the area of North Carolina known as the Triangle.

The Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro have inherent advantages that encourage bicycle use, including the presence of a university, fair weather, relatively short trips and generally flat to rolling terrain (although some places are hilly) [2]. The following sections describe the bicycling trends, scarcity of automobile parking, programs and plans related to alternative transportation modes and existing bicycle maps of the study area.

(6)

2.1 Bicycling Trends

According to the University’s 2001 commuting survey, only nine percent of students and three percent of employees commute to campus by bicycle [3]. Table 1 shows the percentage of journey-to-work trips by mode from the 2000 Census for Chapel Hill, Carrboro, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area combined, and other towns across the United States1 [1]. Twenty-two percent of commuters in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area used “green” transportation modes2. This compares favorably with its peers and shows that the area is fairly successful at promoting alternatives to automobile transportation. However, only 3.2 percent of all commuting trips in the entire area were made by bicycle, with Carrboro at 5.2 percent and Chapel Hill at 2.4 percent3. This

difference was appreciably less than university towns like Davis, CA, Boulder, CO and Berkeley, CA, but with similar results to College Station, TX, Madison, WI, Urbana-Champaign, IL and Ann Arbor, MI. Furthermore, with the implementation of the fa re-free transit system in January of 2002, this number is estimated to have decreased, although by how much has yet to be quantified [3].

2.2 Single Occupancy Vehicles and Parking

One of the major factors discouraging the use of single occupancy vehicles in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area is the scarcity of parking on campus and in the downtowns. The Towns and University have made a deliberate and concerted effort to limit the amount of parking available and to keep the cost of parking high, relative to other areas. One example of such a policy is that “students living

1

The other towns used in this comparison all host a major university and have between 20,000 and 120,000 workers aged 16 and older. Carrboro had the fewest workers with 10,066, and Chapel Hill was near the minimum with 23,543. However, the study area combined was closer to the middle of the pack.

2

“Green” transportation modes consist of public transit, bicycling and walking.

3

(7)

Table 1: Journey-to-Work Mode Choice Data for Selected U.S. Cities (SOURCE: U.S. Census 2000)

Drove

alone Carpooled

Public

transportation Bicycle Walked

“Green” Modes

Walk + Bicycle Davis 60.7 8.9 6.9 14.4 4.6 25.9 19.0 Boulder 59.8 8.7 8.3 6.9 9 24.2 15.9 Berkeley 43.2 9.6 18.6 5.6 14.9 39.1 20.5 Eugene 66.8 11.2 4.9 5.5 6.1 16.5 11.6 Gainesville 69.8 12.2 3.2 5.3 5.6 14.1 10.9

Carrboro 66 11.7 9.1 5.2 3.9 18.2 9.1

College Station 76.8 9.5 1.2 3.4 5.5 10.1 8.9

Chapel Hill Area 62.8 10.0 7.3 3.2 11.8 22.3 15.0

Madison 65.7 9.6 7.2 3.2 10.7 21.1 13.9 Urbana-Champaign 60.7 10.7 7.8 3.0 13.9 24.6 16.9

Chapel Hill 61.5 9.3 6.5 2.4 15.1 24.0 17.5

Ann Arbor 62.6 7.9 6.6 2.3 15.8 24.7 18.1 off campus but within a two- mile radius of the Bell Tower are not eligible to receive a campus parking permit”4 [3]. This, in turn, has made commuting to campus by automobile an

unattractive or impossible option for many. The 2004 Transportation Impact Analysis of the University’s Development Plan reports that 2,715 people would be diverted to alternative modes (expected to be mainly transit and ridesharing) due to the University’s decision to decrease the ratio of new parking spaces relative to new students and employees [3].

2.3 Alternative Transportation Modes and Related Plans/Programs

To ameliorate the effects of limited parking, a fare- free bus system and free parking at all park-and-ride lots is provided by Chapel Hill Transit. To help promote multi- modal transportation, each bus has been equipped with a rack capable of holding two bicycles. However, bicycle racks have not been located at any bus stops. Also, due to the linear nature of the bus system, riders must cross the street to reach most bus stops on major arterials, either in the morning or afternoon. Many of these stops lack adequate marked or signaled crossings.

In addition to transit and ridesharing, the Towns and University strongly support bicycling as an alternative means of transportation to lessen congestion, air pollution and the

4

(8)

demand for both parking and road facilities. Both towns have approved plans to build new bicycle facilities that will ultimately develop a network of interconnected bike routes and paths as funding become available [4]. Likewise, the university created a bicycle plan advisory group as part of developing its master plan. The overall goals are “to encourage more cycling, to improve safety for cyclists, and in particular, to cater to the inexperienced or uninitiated cyclist.” The biking mission for main campus is:

“To design efficient bicycle trans it routes which are safe for bicyclists and pedestrians; to develop adequate bicycle parking facilities, educational programs, and enforcement; to implement policies and incentives to support transportation by bicycle; and to develop architectural guidelines for buildings which include attention to showers and clothing storage for bicycling commuters.”

The advisory group also noted improvements and recommendations that emerged from the master plan needed to support bicycle commuting to campus [3]. One recommends the preparation of a bicycling pamphlet, with a map showing routes and locations of racks on one side and bicycle regulations and bicyclist responsibilities on the other.

In addition to providing alternative modes to campus, the University has implemented an incentives program called the Commuter Alternative Program (CAP). The programs goal is to “reduce traffic congestion and the number of vehicles parked on campus” by “reward(ing) UNC faculty, staff and students who do not drive a Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) to commute to campus.” The program is free, and only requires that the CAP registrant commute to school or work and not hold an SOV permit. The program thus encourages all forms of alternative transportation, including bicycling, walking, transit, park and ride, carpool and vanpool [5]. 2.4 Existing Bicycle Maps of Study Area

(9)

displayed on the map. Reviewing the existing maps is one way to determine some of the features that should be shown on an area-wide bicycle map.

Table 2: Facilities and Features Displayed on Existing Bicycle Maps

Creator/Distributor Extent Bicycle Facilities Other Features

Bike lanes Schools

Paved off-road paths Parks

Wide outside lanes Libraries

Wide shoulders University

UNC Hospitals Streets Chapel Hill Planning

Department

Chapel Hill-Carrboro Area

Labels major streets

Bike lanes Streets

Paved off-road paths Labels major and local

streets Carrboro Planning

Department (Ruth Heaton)

Town of Carrboro

Wide shoulders Water bodies

Bike lanes Schools

Paved off-road paths Parks

Bike paths on

sidewalks (uphill only)

University

"Bike friendly" category

Labels major streets

Wide outside lanes Greenways

Wide shoulders Major commercial

establishments Labels schools and public parks

Bicycle laws of North Carolina

Safety tips for motorists Safety tips for bicyclists Reasons to bike Weiss Urban Livability

Fellows

Chapel Hill-Carrboro Area

Web sites for further information

(10)

Weiss Urban Livability Fellows5 [8]. While the first two maps are informative, the final map goes beyond the first two by creating a more user- friendly map. This map includes greenways, major commercial establishments, bike paths on sidewalks (uphill only), labels schools and public parks, and includes a category called “bike friendly”, although the attributes that define this designation are not stated6. The ‘bike paths on sidewalks (uphill only)’ category shows the location of hilly topography on major arterials. Also, labeling schools, public parks, and some major commercial establishments provides identifiable monuments to help users navigate the map. It is worth noting that not all of the streets with wide outside lanes or wide shoulders are designated as bicycle facilities, although how the decision to omit certain facilities was arrived at is unknown. This does show that some criteria were applied to the facilities, as opposed to merely including all of the facilities that met the state guidelines for bicycle facilities. In addition to the map, the pamphlet also includes bicycle laws of North Carolina, safety tips for motorists, safety tips for bicyclists, reasons to bike, and web sites for further information on bicycling. Providing this information makes the map more useful to the target audience.

One of the major drawbacks to all three maps is their size. Each map has been prepared to allow it to be printed at normal paper size (8.5” x 11”). However, this makes identifying some features, such as bicycle racks, extremely difficult. A larger map would allow more details that would make it more user- friendly. Also, the bicycle paths on the Weiss Urban Livability Fellows map are coded in red, which often carries a negative association in map making. Finally,

although the Weiss Urban Livability Fellows map is closest to meeting the requirements set forth by the UNC Development Plan, its lack of availability makes creating a new map a necessity.

5

Weiss Urban Livability Fellows is an interdisciplinary group of graduate students at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill that studies issues of urban livability with private funds as a public service.

6

(11)

3. Previous Research

A review of the existing professional literature was done to determine the factors and amenities of the built environment that influence commuters’ decision of whether or not to bicycle. Several topics and issues related to bicycling were relevant for inclusion in this review. Therefore, the literature review is organized into the following sections: types of bicycle maps, bicyclist skill level, travel time versus safety, quantitative indices, bicycle facilities, bicycle amenities, and bicycle impediments.

3.1 Types of Bicycle Maps

In its course on bicycle and pedestrian safety, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) lists four basic types of bicycle maps7, of which the urban bicycle facility map is most suitable for this task [9]. According to the course, an urban bicycle map is intended to help cyclists choose routes they feel comfortable bicycling on and to encourage first-time riders to make certain trips by bicycle. In addition, one of the overall goals from the University’s Master Plan is “to cater to the inexperienced or uninitiated cyclist”, which parallels the primary audience of an urban bicycle facility map, which includes local utilitarian bicyclists, newcomers and visitors [3].

Facilities or attributes suggested in the report for possible inclusion on the map include streets, bike lanes, multi- use paths, caution areas, enlargements of difficult intersections, steep hills, weather data, parking facilities, bike shops, and important destinations and landmarks. However, the report cautions the use of too much detail, which can create a cluttered effect. In addition, information on the proper use of bikeways, traffic laws and safety tips should be included in accompanying text, as also mentioned in the University development plan. The course also suggests a unified code to create consistency in bicycle maps, where bike lanes are

7

(12)

colored blue, multi- use paths are purple, caution areas are red and local streets and shared roadways are black. However, these are the only facilities given a color code.

Forester offers the opinion that since there are no scientifically valid criteria available for designating safer routes, any map produced with that intent will be incorrect [10]. As an

alternative, he suggests spending more time educating and training cyclists to meet minimum criteria instead of building facilities that have only been shown to be perceived as safer. An orientation program for all incoming students and new employees, similar to Forester’s

suggestion, is included as an additional recommendation in the University’s development plan. Nevertheless, the intent of a bicycling map, as discussed above, would not be to designate safer routes but to help cyclists choose routes they feel comfortable bicycling on and to encourage first-time riders to make certain trips by bicycle. The next section examines the importance of the differences between “experienced” and “inexperienced” bicyclists.

3.2 Bicyclist Skill Level

The preceding section identified that the skill level of the intended bicyclist for an urban bicycling map is inexperienced. The subsequent issue is to determine how experience level impacts which bicycle facilities and attributes should appear on the map, if at all. The Federal Highway Administration produced a report in 2002 that developed the concept of a “design cyclist” and classified bicycle users into three categories; group A – advanced bicyclists, group B – basic bicyclists, and group C – children [11]. Group A bicyclists are “experienced riders who can operate under most traffic conditions”. Group B bicyclists are “casual or new adult and teenage riders who are less confident of their ability to operate in traffic without special

(13)

The classification system was developed with the intention of targeting inexperienced bicyclists to encourage bicycle use, since fewer than 5 percent of the 100 million people in the United States that own bicycles are experienced or highly skilled bicyclists [12]. The report lists comfortable access to destinations, preferably by a direct route, using either low-speed, low traffic-volume streets or designated bicycle facilities, and well-defined separation of bicycles and motor vehicles on arterial and collector streets (bike lanes or shoulders) or separate bike paths as preferences of group B, basic bicyclists. The report also recommends ensuring low speed limits on neighborhood streets, implementing traffic calming strategies, providing a network of

designated bicycle facilities through key travel corridors and providing usable roadway shoulders on rural highways [11]. Further information about the six factors used in this study is available in “Section 3.4 Quantitative Indices”.

Prior to this study, several reports had mentioned classifications of skill level or

distinguished among participants based on cycling experience [13,14,15,16]. Stinson and Bhat (2004) used an Internet-based survey to solicit respondents from bicycle-related Internet sources and from non-bicycle-related listserves to collect primary data to examine the frequency of bicycle commuting [17]. In 2005, Stinson and Bhat used the data to compare the route

preferences of experienced and inexperienced commuters [18]. The segment groups used in the study paralleled the FHWA group A and group B, but not group C, since no children were included in this study. The study found that experienced and inexperienced users are systematically different in their sensitivity to link-level and route- level factors. 3.3 Travel time vs. Safety

(14)

clarify, minimizing travel time is also a high priority for inexperienced users. However, the inexperienced users are more likely to not bicycle or will search for an alternative route if

obstacles, such as steep terrain, risks, such as dangerous intersections, or perceived risks, such as wide curb lanes, are encountered on their route.

3.4 Quantitative Indices

A number of quantitative indices, including bicycle compatibility [14], stress level [15] and level of service [19], have been created to offer a measure of the suitability of roadways for bicycle travel as a function of roadway characteristics [20]. Sorton and Walsh first developed a method to determine a bicyclist’s stress level in relation to different skill levels using three primary traffic variables; peak-hour volume, curb-lane speed and curb-lane width [15].

Mozer, attempting to establish a multi- modal level of service measure, developed the measure known as “Pedestrian, Bicycle, Auto, Transit Level of Access” (P-BAT LOA) [19]. This method used the same primary variables as Sorton and Walsh, and also included four secondary factors; quantity of bicycle traffic using a width-bicycle volume factor, volume of heavy vehicle traffic, outside- lane penetrations and on-street parking.

(15)

percentile speed of traffic, (7) presence of a parking lane with more than thirty percent occupancy, and (8) land use of adjacent roadside development. In addition, the formula has adjustment factors for truck volumes, parking turnover, and right turn volumes. The resulting value from the formula is then equated to a level of service rating. Other variables studied but not included in the formula are the number of travel lanes, number of intersecting driveways, type of street (e.g., arterial, collector), and the presence or absence of gutter pans, sidewalks and medians. Although separate models were created based on skill level, using the model based on all

bicyclists is recommended for real-world applications. FHWA recommends designing for a “better” level of service if the majority of riders will be casual bicyclists.

In 2002, the FHWA produced a manual to state the Federal policy goal for bicycle use and to develop the concept of a “design bicyclist” [11]. Included in this manual are tables that can be used to determine the recommended roadway design treatments and widths to

accommodate bicycles. The tables are separated by skill level for group A and group B/C bicyclists, and then by types of roadway sections for urban8, and rural9. In addition, separate tables are provided for urban sections with and without on-street parking. The result of the tables is to provide recommended bicycle facilities and lane widths based on traffic operations

characteristics, including average motor vehicle operating speed, average annual daily traffic volume, sight distance, and amount of truck and bus traffic.

Table 3 offers a summary of the four methods described above. For each index, the factors used are marked with an ‘X’. All four methods used some form of the following four factors; curb- lane volume, average motor vehicle operating speed, on-street parking, and traffic mix (trucks, buses, etc.).

8

Urban was defined as having a curb and gutter.

9

(16)

Stress Level

(P-BAT LOA) Pedestrian, Bicycle,

Auto, Transit Level of Access

(BCI) Bicycle Compatibility

Index1

Design Bicyclist

Sorton and Walsh Mozer FHWA FHWA

Factor 1994 1994 1998 2002

Curb-lane volume2 X X X X

Average motor vehicle operating speed X X X3 X

Curb (outside) lane width X X X

Commercial driveways X4 X5

On-street parking X6 X X7 X

Traffic mix (trucks, buses) X8 X9 X X

Quantity of bicycle traffic X10

Presence of bike lane (or paved shoulder) X

Bicycle-lane (or paved shoulder) width11 X

Other lane(s) volume (same direction)2 X

Residential roadside development X

Right -turning vehicles X

Sight-distance X

Number of intersections X

1 BCI was developed using mid-block locations that exclude intersections.

2 Lane volume is measured in vehicles per hour in one direction.

3 85th percentile speed of traffic measured in kilometers per hour.

4 Number of commercial driveways per mile.

5 Outside-lane penetrations.

6 Parking turnover.

7 Parking lane with more than 30 percent occupancy.

8 Percentage of heavy vehicles such as trucks, buses and recreational vehicles.

9 Volume of heavy vehicle traffic.

10 Quantity of bicycle traffic using a width-bicycle volume factor.

(17)

4. Results

The development of a bicycle map primarily relied on data from three sources: a review of existing professional literature, examining urban bicycling maps from other cities in the United States, and meetings and conversations with local bicycling informants. The data gathered from these sources has been compiled to determine which attributes and facilities, given constraints from existing data, map scale and legibility, should be included in a bicycle map for the University of North Carolina. Because of the large quantity of attributes discussed in the

literature, a table identifying authors, data sources and selected results by attribute is available in the appendix (see Table X). The following sections focus on critical choices that were either controversial or required a judgment call. The results are ordered in the following categories; types of bicycle facilities, factors affecting bicycle facilities, bicycle amenities, and

accompanying text.

4.1 Types of Bicycle Facilities

The FHWA manual from 2002 defines the five basic types of facilities, including shared lanes, wide outside lanes, bike lanes, shoulder and separate bike path [11]. In addition, greenways and sidewalks are included in this category.

4.1.1 Shared lanes

(18)

high quantities of vehicles, to name a few, are present. These and other factors that improve or lower the quality of bicycle facilities will be discussed at the end of this section.

4.1.2 Wide outside lanes or wide curb lanes

Wide outside lanes or wide curb lanes (WCL) are defined as “an outside travel lane with a width of at least 14 feet (4.2 meters)” [11]. Stinson and Bhat found that the average contribution to utility by WCLs for inexperienced users was 13th out of 17 variables, but did have a positive correlation indicating WCLs encourage bicycling for inexperienced users [18]. A study by Hunter, et al. [21] comparing wide outside lanes with bike lanes (BL) found that both facility types can and sho uld be used to improve the transportation network for bicyclists. However, the study found that wrong-way riding and sidewalk riding were more prevalent at WCL sites compared to BL sites. Although the initial model found no differences in the bike/motor ve hicle conflict rate by bicycle facility type, the higher wrong-way riding indicates that the perception of danger on WCLs may be greater than that for BLs. This may be in part due to the definition of a WCL, which specifies that the width must be at least 14 feet, but does not indicate the condition of the facility. Therefore, the WCL could be rough pavement (ex. East Franklin Street), marked with dangerous drain covers (ex. Martin Luther King Boulevard formerly Airport Rd.) or

encroached on by on-street parking (ex. South Road). Although wide curb lanes will be included on the map, impediments to bicycling will also be included to give the inexperienced user a better idea of what will be encountered.

4.1.3 Bike lanes

(19)

significantly lower crash rates compared with either major or minor streets without any bicycle facilities. Dill and Carr [23] also found that the percentage of people commuting is most significantly correlated with bike lanes per square mile. This indicates that there is a perception of safety associated with bike lanes, rather than actual safety, since the painted lines provide no additional safety [24], and studies have found little to no differences in the bike/motor vehicle conflict rate by bicycle facility type [21, 25]. The Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI) is the only one of the four indices to include presence of a bicycle lane or paved shoulder and bicycle lane width as factors for determining bicyclist comfort [14]. Forester [26] has claimed that bike lanes are unnecessary and dangerous, since they limit where a bicyclist may be at on the road, while Pucher [27] has been an advocate of bike lanes and has attempted to counter some of Forester’s arguments.

In conclusion, the best use of bike lanes on local roads is to use them similarly to truck lanes on highways. When a vehicle cannot maintain speed with the rest of traffic, designated lanes allow faster traffic to pass and slower traffic to continue at pace. Therefore, although no studies exist to prove it conclusively, it seems that bike lanes would be best utilized when

inexperienced bicyclists likely cannot keep pace with vehicular traffic, such as ascending hills or traveling on high-speed arterials. Regardless, bike lanes increase the attractiveness of cycling [25], and as Stinson and Bhat found [18], bicycle lanes have the second highest average

contribution to utility for both experienced and inexperienced users. Therefore, bicycle lanes are included on both the campus and area-wide maps in blue, as suggested by the FHWA’s course on bicycle and pedestrian transportation [9].

4.1.4 Wide shoulders

(20)

and paved shoulders interchangeably [14]. However, as with wide curb lanes, a problem arises with the definition of wide shoulders, since most facilities with shoulder widths greater than three feet are often considered as bicycle facilities. However, this does not take into account traffic speed, traffic volume or the quality of the shoulder, to name a few. Another example of the complexity of these facilities comes from a study by Klop and Khattak that found tha t a shoulder width of any size has no statistically significant effect on severity [28]. However, this finding may have been due to riders avoiding shoulders with small widths, thus reducing the number of accidents only because of the lack of safety. This indicates that the absence of accidents does not necessarily indicate the presence of a safe facility.

The Chapel Hill-Carrboro study area has a wide shoulder on the bypass (US 15-501 and NC-54). However, few bicyclists use the facility, since high speeds, traffic volumes and the hilly topography make the facility intimidating for inexperienced bicyclists. For this map, this wide shoulder is not shown as a bicycle facility and is instead considered to be a shared lane.

4.1.5 Separate bike paths (paved off-road paths)

Separate bike paths or Class I bike facilities are physically separated from motor vehicles and intended for bicycle-only use, although paved off- road paths that accommodate bicycles,

(21)

explanation for this decrease in safety is that younger and less experienced bicyclists are using these facilities.

Nelson and Allen [30] and Dill and Carr [23] found that bike paths are not as strongly associated with commuting as bike lanes. This finding implies that the origin and destinations connected by bike paths will determine if the facility is used for commuting. For example, two bike paths have recently been built near Southern Village and Meadowmont, respectively. However, since neither connects these developments with the University or another major source of jobs, recreational trips are expected on these paths. In contrast, the bike path that connects the Town of Carrboro with the bike lane on Cameron Street leads to the University and is used more heavily by commuters. Regardless, bicycle paths are expected to be of interest to commuting bicyclists whether they use them for utility or recreation, and are therefore included on the area-wide map in purple, as suggested by the FHWA’s course on bicycle and pedestrian

transportation [9].

4.1.6 Greenways

Greenways are similar to separate bike paths in that the facilities are physically separated from traffic. The distinction between them is pavement type, as greenways are defined as being unpaved off- road paths. These facilities are rarely chosen by commuting bicyclists, because the surface of the facility is rarely smooth [14,18]. However, they are useful for recreational

bicyclists, and since many commuting bicyclists also bicycle for recreation, these facilities are included on the area-wide map.

4.1.7 Sidewalks

(22)

can lead to accidents. However, bicycling is allowed on all sidewalks in the study area. This may be acceptable in areas where bicyclists may be traveling very slow, such as up steep grades, but it is up to the bicyclist to be cautious when choosing to bicycle on the sidewalks. Although they provide a separation from motor vehicle traffic, they are the site of many accidents.

4.2 Factors Affecting Bicycle Facilities

Identifying bicycle facilities is the obvious first step when creating an urban bicycle facility map. However, it is not good enough to only show bicycle facilities, as some attributes may make bicycling facilities more or less safe. Special attention is given to conditions or features that influence inexperienced bicyclists’ route choice. The factors included in this analysis are traffic speed, traffic volume, roadway classifications, on-street parking, topography, bus and truck traffic, traffic lights, crosswalks, railroad crossings, street lighting, water bodies, stop signs, intersections, right-turning vehicles, commercial driveways and sight-distance.

4.2.1 Speed Limits, AADT and roadway classifications

As Table 3 shows, all four quantitative indices used in the comparison use average motor vehicle operating speed as a factor in their methods. Higher traffic speeds impose a greater safety threat than lower traffic speeds. However, average motor vehicle operating speed varies throughout the day depending on time of day and traffic, which also can vary. Although this variable is used in the Towns’ Mobilty Report Card reports, it appears as a morning, midday and afternoon speed [31,32]. Also, it includes both lanes of traffic, instead of only the speed of traffic in the curb lane.

(23)

twenty miles per hour [33], and more precisely between twelve and sixteen, the differential in speed between cars and bicyclists surpasses ten miles per hour when the speed limit is greater than 25 miles per hour. When traffic congestion or gridlock occurs, vehicle speeds will often be less than the speed limit. However, the target audience for the map is students at a university who are not confined to commute during the peak hours like most commuters. Therefore,

indicating a time-dependent speed on the map may only be useful to those commuters that travel in the peak, and may not show high speeds on roadways that are not congested in the off-peak time periods. In addition, Garrick [2] suggests that one of the reasons for the success of bicycling in Davis, California is that speeds are kept below thirty miles per hour on minor arterials and collectors.

Table 4-A-1 in the Town of Chapel Hill’s Design Manual 2005 [34] shows street standards by street classification; local, collector and arterial roads10. Local streets are typically considered safe for bicyclists without bicycle facilities, because of the low speeds and traffic volumes. Collector and arterial streets are more intimidating for inexperienced bicyclists, because of the increasing motor vehicle speeds and volumes [18]. However, these streets are considered shared lane facilities and may be used by bicyclists. Therefore, those streets classified as arterial or collector, with design volume between 1,000 and 40,000 average daily traffic, and design speed between 25 and 45 miles per hour will be displayed on the map as wider facilities. Any streets exceeding these standards (volume greater than 40,000 or design speed greater than 45) will be treated as dangerous for bicyclists and symbolized as hazards.

10

(24)

4.2.2 On-street parking

Stinson and Bhat [18] found that bicyclists avoid links on which parallel parking is permitted. The threat of opening doors from parked cars cause bicyclists to ride in the center of the outside lane or to avoid these areas all together when possible. The comparison of indices in Table 3 shows that all four considered on-street parking in their methods. Sorton and Walsh [15] and the FHWA’s bicycle compatibility index [14] include a more complicated measure of parking based on turnover and occupancy, respectively. Instead, I recommend showing all on-street parking11 that is located on collector roads or arterial streets as hazards, since these locations are likely to serve commercial areas and thus have higher turnover and occupancy rates.

4.2.3 Steep topography

Topography is a factor to be considered for bicycling, especially for mountainous terrain [35,18]. Slope was calculated for 50- foot segments for the entire study area street network using

geographic information systems (GIS). Then, using geometric design standards from Table 4-A-2 in the Town of Chapel Hill’s Design Manual 4-A-2005 [34], the following categories were used based on the percent of slope; level (<8%), rolling (8-15%) and hilly (>15%). Only collector and arterial streets shown on the Weiss Urban Livability map [8] or having a slope classification of hilly will be identified on the area-wide map by using arrows pointing in the descending direction.

4.2.4 Other factors included on map

High volumes of bus traffic identified by bus ridership data provided by the Town of Chapel Hill are shown as hazards on the campus-only map. Also, crosswalks identified using aerial

photography displayed using geographic information systems (GIS) are shown on the

11

(25)

only map, as bicyclists must yield to crossing pedestrians and ma y want to avoid heavy pedestrian traffic around campus.

Railroad crossings have been identified on the area-wide map, since they can be dangerous for inexperienced bicyclists if the tracks are not crossed at an angle sufficient to prevent the bicycle tire from falling into the gap between the rail and the pavement. Also, traffic lights have been displayed on the area-wide map. Stinson and Bhat [18] found that although experienced users dislike routes with many red lights because of the decrease in travel time, inexperienced users prefer routes with red lights because of the added perception of safety.

4.2.5 Other factors not included on map

Factors such as street lighting, water bodies, stop signs, intersections, right-turning vehicles, commercial driveways and sight-distance are not included on the map. Although considered to have an impact on bicyclists, the data were not available for inclusion in the GIS. These factors may be considered for future versions of the map.

4.3 Bicycling Amenities

Bicycling amenities that are included on the area-wide map include schools, parks, major

commercial centers, major destinations, bicycle shops and air stations. Bicycle racks are included on the campus-only map [3,9]. Attributes that are not shown on the map because the data were unavailable, the attributes are not available in the study area or the scale was not large enough to accommodate them include public restrooms, bicycle lockers at work sites, showers, emergency telephones, change rooms, clothes lockers and bicycle enclosures [16,25,23].

4.4 Accompanying Text

(26)
(27)

5. Summary and Conclusions

The results indicate that many factors influence a bicyclist’s route choice. Delineating bicycle facilities is the first step to creating a bicycle map. However, factors that increase or decrease safety must also be included. Examples include traffic volume, traffic speed, on-street parking, and topography, although many other factors can be included. It is important to note that these factors are site specific. Municipalities or other agencies creating urban bicycling facility maps should contact bicycle and transportation planners, bike shop owners and local bicyclists for a listing of the most relevant factors that affect bicyclists in that area.

Bicyclists are also interested in the origins and destinations that are connected by bicycle facilities. Urban bicycle facility maps should show common destinations, such as large

employment centers and major commercial centers. Equally important is the inclusion of bicycle parking options at these locations, such as bike racks, covered parking, shower facilities, public restrooms, air stations, bicycle enclosures, etc. This data may not be readily available, but may be obtained by talking with local experts.

One of the limitations of this research is that connectivity of bicycle facilities was not determined. At present, the Towns have not designated any routes as bicycle routes. Therefore, the map does not suggest routes that users should take. Instead, the facilities and attributes that exist are shown so that users, given this information, can choose the best route for themselves. Also, the map does not offer any suggestions on where facilities should be built, extended or fixed. However, if map users are given a forum to provide information for map updates, they may also suggest where facilities on their route need work.

(28)

work and shop, i.e. will students move near bicycle paths and lanes? In addition, a random sample of students could be conducted before and after the map is distributed to test if the map is succeeding in providing information about bicycling.

Other products could also be made available from this data to further distribute bicycling information to students. A web site showing more detailed sections of the study area could be created to show the multiple paths and shortcuts that exist. Also, a black and white 8.5”x11” map could be created for easy reproduction and distribution for students and businesses.

This map shows that creating an urban bicycling map can be done without first

(29)

Acknowledgements

Thank you to the following people, without whom this project would not have been possible: Daniel A. Rodriguez - Assistant Professor, Department of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina Tim Saunders - Assistant Director for Transportation, Department of Public Safety, University of North Carolina Paula Gee Davis - Mapping Manager, Engineering Information Services, University of North Carolina

Dale McKeel - Transportation Planner, Town of Carrboro

Alison Carpenter - Bicycle & Pedestrian Planner, City of Durham/DCHC-MPO Gordon Sutherland - Long Range Planner, Town of Chapel Hill

Chancellor James Moeser - University of North Carolina Student Advisory Committee to the Chancellor

Herb Bryant - Department of Public Safety, University of North Carolina Carrboro Transportation Advisory Board

Brian Decker - Manager, Franklin Street Cycles

Austin Brown - Graduate Student, Departments of City and Regional Planning and Department of Health Behavior and Education, UNC

(30)

References

1. American Fact Finder Detailed Tables. Means of Transportation to Work for Workers 16 Years and Over. Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) - Sample Data. Retrieved January 15, 2005, from U.S. Census Web site: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&- mt_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_P030&-CONTEXT=dt&-tree_id=403&-all_geo_types=N&- geo_id=16000US3710620&-geo_id=16000US3711800&-search_results=16000US3710620&-format=&-_lang=en. 2. Garrick, N. Land Use Planning and Transportation Network Design in a Bicycle Friendly

American City. 84th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board Preprint CD-ROM, TRB, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 1-19.

3. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Development Plan: Traffic Impact Analysis, January 2004, pp. 3-16 to 3-22.

4. Town of Chapel Hill. Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan. 2003. Retrieved May 15, 2005, from Town of Chapel Hill Web site:

http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/planning/bikeped/BikePedPlan.htm.

5. Department of Public Safety at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The

Commuter Alternatives Program. 2004. Retrieved May 15, 2005, from UNC DPS Web site:

http://main.psafety.unc.edu/dps/alternatives/commuter_alternatives_program.htm. 6. Chapel Hill Planning Department. Bicycling in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. July 2002.

Retrieved March 27, 2005, from Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department Web site:

http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/planning/Bikemap-2003.pdf.

7. Heaton, R. Bikeways in the Town of Carrboro, NC. August 17, 2004. Retrieved March 27, 2005, from Town of Carrboro Planning, Zoning & Inspections Department Web site:

http://www.ci.carrboro.nc.us/GIS/downloads/printmap/bikeway.pdf. 8. Weiss Urban Livability Fellows.

9. Federal Highway Administration. FHWA Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation. 2004. Retrieved March 27, 2005, from U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/univcourse/swless03.htm. 10.Forester, J. Bicycle Transportation: A Handbook for Cycling Transportation Engineers

Second Edition. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1994, pp. 1-5, 26-38, 181-185.

11.Federal Highway Administration. Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles. 2002. Retrieved March 28, 2005, from U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Web site: http://www.bikewalk.org/assets/pdf/select.PDF.

12.Bicycling Reference Book, 1992-1993. Bicycle Institute of America, Washington, D.C., May 1992.

(31)

14.Harkey, D., D. Reinfurt, and M. Knuiman. Development of the Bicycle Compatibility Index. In Transportation Research Record 1636, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998, pp. 13-20.

15.Sorton, A., and T. Walsh. Bicycle Stress Level as a Tool to Evaluate Urban and Suburban Bicycle Compatibility. In Transportation Research Record 1438, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 17-24.

16.Jackson, M.E., and E.O. Ruehr. Let the People Be Heard: The San Diego County Bicycle Use and Attitude Survey. 77th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board Preprint CD-ROM, TRB, Washington, D.C., 1998, pp. 1-11.

17.Stinson, M., and C. Bhat. An Analysis of the Frequency of Bicycle Commuting Using an Internet-Based Survey. 83th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board Preprint CD-ROM, TRB, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 1-11.

18.Stinson, M., and C. Bhat. A Comparison of the Route Preferences of Experienced and Inexperienced Bicycle Commuters. 84th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board Preprint CD-ROM, TRB, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 1-18.

19.Mozer, D. Calculating Multi-Mode Levels-of-Service. 1994. Retrieved April 15, 2005, from International Bicycle Fund Web site: http://www.halcyon.com/fkroger/bike/los.htm.

20.Federal Highway Administration. Guidebook on Method to Estimate Non-Motorized Travel: Supporting Documentation. 1998. Retrieved March 28, 2005, from U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Web site:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tfhrc/safety/pubs/vol2/sec2.15.htm.

21.Hunter, W., J. Stewart, and J. Stutts. A Study of Bicycle Lanes Versus Wide Curb Lanes. 78th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board Preprint CD-ROM, TRB, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 1-14.

22.Moritz, W. Adult Bicyclists in the United States – Characteristics and Riding Experience in 1996. 77th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board Preprint CD-ROM, TRB, Washington, D.C., 1998, pp. 1-15.

23.Dill, J., and T. Carr. Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in Major U.S. Cities: If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them. In Transportation Research Record 1828, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2003.

24.Hunter, W., J. Feaganes, and R. Srinivasan. Wide Curb Lane Conversions: Effect on Bicycle and Motor Vehicle Interactions. 84th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board Preprint CD-ROM, TRB, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 1-20.

25.Abraham, J., S. McMillan, A. Brownlee, and J.D. Hunt. Investigation of Cycling Sensitivities. 81st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board Preprint CD-ROM, TRB,

Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 1-12.

26.Forester, J. The Bikeway Controversy. Transportation Quarterly, vol. 55, no.2, Spring 2001. 27.Pucher, J. Cycling Safety on Bikeways vs. Roads. Transportation Quarterly, vol. 55, no.4,

(32)

28.Klop, J., and A. Khattak. Factors Influencing Bicycle Crash Severity on Two- lane, Undivided Roadways in North Carolina. In Transportation Research Record 1674, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999. 29.Pucher, J., C. Komanoff, and P. Schimek. Bicycling Renaissance in North America? Recent

Trends and Alternative Policies to Promote Bicycling. In Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 33, Nos. 7/8, 1999, pp. 625-654, Pergamon, 1999.

30.Nelson, A., and D. Allen. If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them: Association Between Bicycle Facilities and Bicycle Commuting. In Transportation Research Record 1578, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 79-83.

31.Chapel Hill 2003 Mobility Report Card. LSA Consulting, 2004. 32.Carrboro 2003 Mobility Report Card. LSA Consulting, 2004.

33.Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Bicycle. Retrieved March 28, 2005, from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia Web site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle#Performance.

34.Design Manual 2005. Town of Chapel Hill, 2005.

(33)
(34)

BATTLE PARK

N.C. BOTANICAL GARDENS PHILLIPS PARK

PRITCHARD PARK

UMSTEAD PARK HANK ANDERSON COMM. PARK

LINCOLN CTR.

JONES PARK

EPHESUS PARK

CARRBORO ELEM. SCH.

GREENDALE PARK WILSON PARK HARGRAVES PARK BALDWIN PARK OAKWOOD PARK ESTES DR HW Y 54 E

HWY 54 W MAIN ST

A IR P O R T R D

JONES F

ERRY RD ELLIOT RD H ILL SB O R O U G H R D POPLAR AVE O L D F A Y E T T E V IL LE R D

E. F RA NK LIN ST P IN E H U R S T D R G R E EN S B O RO S T R A Y R D WILLOW DR PA THW AY D

R

MA NN

ING DR

S. C

OL

UM

BIA

ST

RALEIGH RD

SM

ITH

LE

VE

L R

D HA Y ES R D JA M E S S T D A V IE R D NC 54 EAS

T O A KW O OD D R

SOUTH R D UM STE AD DR R OG ER SO N D R

CULBR ETH RD

S. F OR DH AM BL VD CAROL ST BAYBERRY DR H A MIL T ON RD HWY 54

E

MO

R

Y D

R

M ASO

N F ARM

RD

BARC

LAY RD

T IN K ER B E L

L R

D COKER DR A R B O R E T U M D R GR EE NW OO

D R D R ID GE R D C H U R C H IL L D R

SEVERIN

ST O A K A VE L IS A S T PARKE

R RD

OA K ST

McCA ULEY ST C H U R C H S T PIN

E ST

C H R IST O P HE R R D LO NG LE AF DR HW Y 5

4 EAS T B U R N IN G TR E E D R B R O A D S T

PUREFOY RD

S E A W E L L S C H O O L R D LECLAIR ST H ILL S B O R O U G H S T

S FO RD

H AM

B LVD

KINGS MILL RD MT. BOLU

S RD B O U N D A R Y S T R A LE IG H S T G A R Y R D RO OS EV ELT DR B A R N E S S T C LE LAN D DR SHELTON ST

W. RO

SEMA

RY ST

W. FR

ANKL

IN ST

SIM PS ON ST B IM S T OLD M

ASON FARM RD O

LD NC

86

AZALEA DR

L Y S T R A R D G LE ND AL

E DR

C O B B L E S T O N E D R

FIDELITY ST

L L O Y D S T WEAVER ST CLAYTON RD ES TE

S D R E

XT CO UN TR Y C LU B RD JA

Y S T

W. CA

MERO

N AVE

RAINBOW DR PIT T SB OR O S T LA U R E L A V E HIG

H ST STROWD LN

DOGWOOD ACRES DR CHEE

K ST

LE GIO

N R D

S ER VIC E R D RO BE RT HU NT DR LO RR AIN E S

T US 1 5-501 SO UT H GR OV

E S T R A N S O M S T R H O D O D E N D R O N D R ABER DEEN DR E L M S T JUSTICE ST C A T E S F A R M R D V IL LA G E D R

GRANVILLE RD

F LE M IN G T ON R D

BLUERIDGE RD

CLELAND RD WINSOME LN

E. RO

SEMA

RY ST

HIG HG

RO VE D

R PO

IN S E T T A D R STADIU M DR

MADERA LN

LANIER DR

MARI

N DR

M IT C H E LL LN N. FO RD HA

M B LV

D BR

AD LE

Y R D MIC HA UX R D W A R D S T

E. CA

MERO

N AVE

BENNET T RD O LD M IL L R D H IB B A R D D R FER N L

N

SWAN

SEA L

N

BPW CLUB RD

CA SW ELL RD IR IS LN CHIMENEAS PL CARLTON DR LA UR EL HIL

L R D

EPHESUS CHURCH RD

COBB DR S Y K E S S T DEMING RD R EA D E R D KE ND A LL D R VE LM

A R

D LONG VIEW ST PR ES TW IC

K RD WESL

EY DR

CEDA R ST

GIMGHOUL RD

CARR ST

W ES

TB UR

Y DR

MA XW

ELL RD

KILDA

IRE RD

NORT H ST

DAM ASC

US CH UR CH RD BO LIN WO OD DR

NC 54 P R IN C E S T WE ST BR OO

K D R

US H W Y 1 5-5 01 SO UT H FIN EL EY G OL F C

OU RS

E R D GREE

NE S T

SP RIN

G V AL

LE Y R

D D A W E S S T A D A M S W A Y CR ES T ST M AR Y S

T

PIN E L

N B A T T LE LN K E N A N S T D E E R S T HA NN A S T O L D P IT T S B O R O R D BURLAGE CR MORG

AN CR

EEK R

D A L LE N S T PLE AS AN T D

R

OLD G REEN

SB OR

O RD

O L D F A Y E T T V IL LE R D NORTHS IDE DR

GR E Y BL U F

F T

R OLEA NDER RD STA GEC

OACH R D

FERRELL RD

CYPRES S RD

LINDS

AY ST

SURRY RD

McDA DE ST RUSSELL'S FORD HIC KO RY D R S U N S E T D R EVERGREEN LN AS H E ST M T. C

AR M

EL C HU

RC H R

D

CLOVER D R H ILL V IE W R D CHESTNUT RD KING ST P R IT C H A R D A V E KNOLLS ST

AIRPORT DR

WO OD LE AF D R ELIZ ABE TH ST IR ON WO OD S D R BO LIN FO RE ST D R P LU M L N MONT EREY VALLE

Y DR

L A N D E R W O O D LN SMITH AVE SO ME RS ET D R GLAD E ST

McMA

STER

S ST

BARYBERRY DR

BO LIN

CR EE

K D R

CO L E S T BRUTON DR

KAY ST

CATH Y RD

M A P LE A V E

N. C OLU

MBI A ST

CIR CA

DIA N W

AY

ROCK HAVEN RD

PA RK VIEW C RE SC ENT BU RR

IS PL

VANCE ST DILL ARD ST S K IP P E R B O W L E S D R S UG A RB E R RY R D

LYONS RD

D A V IE C R

SPRUNT ST

FRAN

CIS ST

BREW ER LN

P A RK P L RID GE F IEL D R D TRINITY CT RO S SB U RN W A Y HOWE LL ST ISLEY

ST

BROOKSIDE DR

B A R TR A M D R MANLY ST WE ST DR

S FORDAHM BLVD AB

BE Y L N

CO PP

ER LIN

E D R PINE

HIL L DR

TOD D S

T

DO GW

OO D D

R

EDGE

WAT

ER C

R H IL LSP R ING LN LIB RA RA Y D

R PARKSIDE CR KEITH RD O R C H A R D L N MA PL

E D R

WALNU T ST

GLENHILL LN O T E Y S R D BR IGHAM RD NUTTREE LN F R ID A Y C E N T E R D R . WOOD BINE D

R DOVE ST HILLC REST RD FA LK NE R D

R

WESTWOOD DR

MA LL

AR D C

T

BU TT

ON S L

N M ILT O N AV E

BRASWELL R D C A M E LO T D R DEERWOOD CT T R IP P F A R M R D BROO

KS ST

MILL RACE DR

BA RB EE C HA PE

L R D IV Y B R O O K L N S. F RODHAM BLVD OVERLAKE DR SE RR AN O W

AY

HOW ELL LN

B E EC H R ID G E C T G R AY LY N D R WA TT ER S R D ANTLER POINT RD N O R T H H A V E N D R AL LA RD R D B A N B U R Y LN TE NN EY CR S. FO

RDAHM BLV D

GRAVELY DR

CALD

WEL

L ST.

EXT HILLC REST CR W ILD O A K LN CO NN ER DR A IP O R T R

D COUCH RD

SIME RVILLE R

D HILL ST RID GE TR ESTE S D R. E XT N O L E N L N F A IS O N R D S U D B U R Y LN GLOSSON CL HA NF OR

D R

D G R A H A M S T S O U T H W IL D IR IS L N BOU NDARY L

N D A F F O D IL L N AS HE P L STINSO

N ST

CU RT IS RD ARROWHEAD RD LO M B AR D D R ROBERSON ST

N. M EDIC

AL DR

EA ST DT LAYC OCK RD PARKER ST WILSO

N CT

MEETING ST

ES TE

S D R SO

UTH WESTVIEW DR LY N W O O D P L O L D B A R N L N AM BE R C

T D U R H A M L N 15 -5 0 1 S O U T H STE PH EN S S

T S O U R W O O D D R GR EE NV IEW D R ED WA RD S S

T M O RG AN C LIF

F CT LE D G E LN WE AV ER MIN

E T

R

CA RD

IFF PL

HILLCREST A VE R O B E R S O N S T . S O U TH NEVILLE DR

WE AVER R

D E M E R S O N D R CO KE R LN SP RU CE ST

WHITEHEAD CR BRANSOM ST BO LIN H EIG HT S A U D LE Y LN WA TE RS IDE DR NOBL

E ST

DOUGLAS RD W Y N D H A M D R O A K T R E E D R D a v ie L a n e SUE AN

N C T

SHORT ST

GA IL C

T

HA

NO

VE

R P

L CA N TE RB U R Y LN WEB

B DR

LINCOLN LN

FA N B

RA NC

H L N N . C O LU B IA S T OLD BR IDG E L

N ROBERTS ST

CA ME

LO T C

T B IR CH CR ES T PL

LEA CT

CH AT

HA M L

N MU RR AY LN P IC K A R D LN BO YD ST DAPH INE LN L IT T LE S T CAMPBELL LN

IR O N W OO D D R

COBB TE RRACE

BL AC

KW OO

D D R D O WN IN G C T

GOOSENECK RD R

AIN TR E E L N

SIL ER

'S F EN C T HO OT O WL LN E D M IS TE R LN T H E G L E N CHAUCER CT G L E N H A V E N D R ESTE S DR

S. FORD HAM BLV

D MAIN ST

CULBR ETH RD

MAIN ST

E. FR

ANKL

IN ST

MANNIN G DR

G L A D E S T PIN EH UR ST D R HW Y 54 W

NORT

H ST

LA U R E L H ILL R D P IN E H U R S T D R CH RIS TO PH ER R D Me ad ow mo nt Tra il Fan Bra nch Tra il Bol in C

reek Tr.

phas

e 1 Bol

in Cree k Tr. p

hase 2

B a tt le B ran c h T ra il Lo w e r B oo ke r C ree

k T ra

il

Ba tt le B ran ch Tra il

Battle B

ranch Trail

Fa n B ran ch T ra il Bat tle B

ranc h Tr

ail YMCA UNIV. SQ. TOWN HALL TOWN HALL BELL TOWER ARTS CENTER THE STATION SMITH CENTER KENAN STADIUM FOREST THEATER FARMERS' MARKET

ACKLAND ART MUS.

HORACE WILLIAMS HOUSE

CONE-KENFIELD TENNIS CTR.

FRIDAY CONTINUING EDUCATION CTR. Chapel Hill Public Works and Recycling

CARR MILL MALL CARRBORO PLAZA

UNIVERSITY MALL

RAM'S HEAD PLAZA

EASTGATE SHOP. CTR.

MEADOWMONT SHOP. CTR. GLEN LENNOX SHOP. CTR.

WILLOW CREEK SHOP. CTR. CARRBORO PLAZA SHOP. CTR.

GLENWOOD SQUARE SHOP. CTR.

VILLAGE PLAZA & BALLERIA SHOP. CTRS.

Carrboro Branch Library

Chapel Hill Public Library HORACE WILLIAMS AIRPORT

FIRE STAT. #3

UNC HOSPITALS I I H H G G F F E E D D C C B B A A

LEGEND

On-street parking, high turnover

Municipal boundaries

UNC Main Campus

Parks

Railroad

Bike lane

Bike path (paved)

Wide curb lane

Greenways (unpaved)

Traffic lights

UNC Main Campus buildings

Steep hills

(toward descending direction)

Arterial street

Collector road

Local street

BICYCLE FACILITIES

BICYCLE AMENITIES

BICYCLE HAZARDS/OBSTACLES

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

Air station

Bike shop

Railroad crossing

Golf course

Shopping center

Public service/interest

STREET CLASSIFICATIONS

2-mile buffer of Bell Tower

School

Airport

Hospital

Library

Figure

Figure 1: Map of Triangle Area (SOURCE: www.MapBlast.com)
Table 1: Journey-to-Work Mode Choice Data for Selected U.S. Cities (SOURCE: U.S. Census 2000)
Table 2: Facilities and Features Displayed on Existing Bicycle Maps

References

Related documents

This upcoming study will include: an analysis of the current renewable energy equipment supply situation in Africa for wind, solar PV, solar CSP, hydro, biomass combustion,

Buyer Concentration shows statistically significant association with EDI Adoption in the total sample 1.383 in Column 1, partially supporting Hypothesis 6: The greater the

been shown helpful for migraine prevention (some studies average 32-49% reduction in headache scales).  Helpful to minimize use of acute medications and in identifying

Results obtained using WaterMap showed high convergence with the corresponding SZmap data with respect to the role of the buried water molecule (Supporting Information, Figure S1

Chi-square analyses revealed that the percentage of non-suicidal self-injurers engaging in eating disordered behavior, abusive relationships, and risky/reckless behavior was

tracking an object in a video obtains multiple images in multiple poses of the same class (for example, person identity). The objective of the disentanglement task is to learn

To keep up to date with all the new goings-on the ukulele world and get regular new chords and tabs sign up to receive updates from my blog Ukulele Hunt by entering your email

In this thesis, the use of Gaus- sian mixture probability hypothesis density (GM-PHD) filters is investigated for multiple person tracking via ultra-wideband (UWB) radar sensors in