MAINTENANCE. Infrastructure. Introduction. Safety. Policies & Programs. Summary EXISTING CONDITIONS

Transcription

1 PAGE 2-60 installed in September and October At these locations the City of Greensboro installed Pyro Posts and ZELT Inductive Loops, provided by NCDOT for the program, to differentiate between pedestrians and cyclists by counting pedestrians on sidewalks and bicycles on roads or greenways. In addition, the MPO has also developed its own short term duration count program. The MPO researched methods and technologies to count bicycles from various resources and invested in purchasing two different types of systems: a Pneumatic tube system to count bicycles on streets and greenways, purchased from Eco Counter; and an SDR Radar The MPO s counting program includes getting short-term bicycle counts. Traffic Classifier using an inbuilt microwave sensor to count and differentiate traffic vehicles including bicycles and other automobiles, purchased from Jamar Technologies. The program started in October 2014 and the data collection is ongoing. The data from continuous and short term counting will be combined to calculate the Average Annual Daily Bicycles (AADB) over the MPO-wide area to understand the volumes, trends, and patterns of bicycle traffic. MAINTENANCE Bicyclists, as legal vehicles on the roadway, frequently use the same roads and facilities as motor vehicles. As a result, poor roadway conditions such as pot holes, uneven pavement, debris, and other issues matter to bicyclists as much as they do to motorists. In some ways it is of greater concern, as bicycles have narrower tires than motor vehicles and may tip over or crash more easily than motor vehicles in similar conditions. Maintenance of on-street bicycle facilities is essential to providing bicyclists a smooth and comfortable ride and they deserve to have the same priority as regular travel lanes. Regular roadway maintenance, particularly resurfacing, is also a major tool in implementing on-street bicycle facilities. It provides a cost-effective method to rearrange on-street markings to include bicycle lanes, add bicycle-specific markings like sharrows, and reduce travel lane widths to slow traffic. If resurfacing budgets shrink, the pace of bicycle facility installation becomes delayed as well. This section will discuss resurfacing and roadway maintenance within the City of Greensboro and outside the City in the MPO area. Outside the City of Greensboro, NCDOT maintains the roadways throughout Guilford County and in the incorporated MPO Towns. EXISTING CONDITIONS City of Greensboro Resurfacing and Street Maintenance The City of Greensboro currently maintains approximately 1,030 centerline miles of roadway within its boundary. This number represents all manner of roadways including arterials, collectors, and local streets. State-maintained roads and interstate highways are not included in this number. The Field Operations Department supervises the maintenance of City streets, along with other critical services including sidewalk maintenance, street cleaning, and solid waste disposal. As the City has continued to expand its boundary and build more roadways, the number of citymaintained roadways has steadily increased.

2 2 CH. Resurfacing is a major implementation tool for installing new bicycle facilities. Streets with poor pavement conditions are hazards for bicyclists and other vehicle drivers. The overall pavement condition for the City of Greensboro s street system is poor. In 2012 the City of Greensboro contracted with US of Carolina, Inc. (USI) to develop a Pavement Condition Survey of the street network for Field Operations and update the previous survey from The 2012 survey found that average Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) for the street network is 64.2, a decline of 3.3 PCR points (4.9%) since the 2010 pavement condition survey, and significantly below the estimated weighted PCR for NC municipalities which is approximately Figure 2.3 from the 2012 survey shows the condition of the street system compared to previous surveys (2008 and 2010) broken out by the percentage of the system that falls into each of the five PCR categories. Between 2008 and 2012, the percentage of the system in very poor condition almost doubled from 16.7% to 29.1%. The survey suggested that immediate maintenance of the street network is needed, including the resurfacing of centerline miles of streets (31.9% of the rated street system) within a year of the release of the report. Unfortunately, routine maintenance and resurfacing of City streets has been neglected for many years. More than a decade ago, the City spent around $3.5 to $4 million per year on roadway resurfacing, and was 17 PCR is a quantitative score used to describe the condition of a particular street segment based on various measures of pavement distress. Each street segment begins with a rating of 100 and points are deducted from this rating based on the type and severity of distress, such as alligator cracking, block cracking, rutting, raveling, patching, and other factors. Ratings from are considered in very good condition, is considered good, is considered fair, is poor, and between zero and 50 is very poor. Figure 2.3 Figure Breakdown 2.3 Breakdown of Streets of Streets into into PCR PCR Categories for for Comparison Comparison from from YEAR AMOUNT ($) LANE-MILES RESURFACED Unfortunately, routine maintenance and resurfacing of City streets has been neglected for many years. More than 2005a decade ago, 3,300,000 the City spent around 50.7 $3.5 to $4 million per year on roadway resurfacing, and was able 2006 to resurface between 2,700, lane miles 41.7per year (a lane mile is equal to an average width lane of traffic over one mile). In the past decade the amount of money put towards resurfacing has declined ,000, as funds have been diverted away from maintenance for other projects. See Table 2.4 for the amounts of resurfacing 2008 funds per 2,900,000 year and approximate 35.8 number of lane miles resurfaced per contract over the past decade 2009 in the City 0of Greensboro Table 1,300,000* Resurfacing Amounts 16.5 Per Year in the City of Greensboro 2011 Year 4,000,000** 48.4 Amount ($) Lane-miles resurfaced A 1,700,000*** 3,300, ,700, B 1,900, ,000, ,000,000 2,900, ,200, ,700, Page 56 of 101 * $1,300,00 (100%) Federal Funds from ARRA ** $3,200,000 (80%) Federal Funds from STP-DA *** $1,360,000 (80%) Federal Funds from STP-DA Table 2.4 Resurfacing Amounts Per Year in the City of Greensboro Bicycle BiPed Plan Update PAGE 2-61

3 PAGE 2-62 able to resurface between lane miles per year (a lane mile is equal to an average width lane of traffic over one mile). In the past decade the amount of money put towards resurfacing has declined as funds have been diverted away from maintenance for other projects. See Table 2.4 for the amounts of resurfacing funds per year and approximate number of lane miles resurfaced per contract over the past decade in the City of Greensboro. There were three contracts to provide additional funds for resurfacing in 2010, 2011, and Around this time the resurfacing budget was cut significantly in order to close city-wide budget gaps. The MPO helped to offset these cuts by allocating American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and STP-DA funds to resurfacing. The 2010 contract (U-5157 C) provided $1.3 million for resurfacing from ARRA funds, a 100% federal share. The contract in 2011 (U-5157 D) provided $4 million for resurfacing, 80% of which ($3.2 million) was federally funded, and the rest provided by local funds. Finally, the 2012 contract (U-5157 E) provided $1.7 million for resurfacing, with $1.36 million of the cost paid by federal STP-DA funds. A second separate City-funded contract added $1.9 million in 2012 for resurfacing. Despite this support from the MPO to bolster the resurfacing budget, it is wholly inadequate to solve the issues of immediate and long-term maintenance. In the 2012 Pavement Condition Survey, USI noted that addressing the immediate needs of street maintenance would cost more than $112.1 million, which includes the recommended resurfacing of centerline miles of street segments at a cost of approximately $97.7 million. To deal with long-term street maintenance after these immediate needs are met, USI recommended that the City budget for annual resurfacing of about 72 centerline miles of street segments per year to achieve a desired 15 year resurfacing cycle. They estimated that it would cost $20.5 million annually to reach this goal. Clearly, current funding levels will not meet the needs of street maintenance in the short-term or long-term. Implementation of bicycle facilities is held back by deferred street maintenance. As noted in the section on Existing On-Road Bicycle Facilities, the City has added about 1.5 centerline miles of bicycle lanes per year since the 2006 BiPed Plan. It will be impossible to implement all the recommended bicycle facilities within the timeframe of the plan (20 years) at this rate. Therefore it is critical to meeting the bicycle facility implementation targets that the City significantly increases investment in the annual resurfacing budget. It is also important to note that the City should look to jumpstart its bicycle facility implementation efforts through scratch and remark projects projects that alter existing road markings in between resurfacings. The City should start experimentally, to see where such treatments work best, and then move to a widespread implementation. It should be noted that the resurfacing funds discussed here are used only for regular city-maintained streets in Greensboro. Repaving of asphalt or concrete greenways is not included in these resurfacing contracts even though greenways are essentially streets for nonmotorized traffic. As described later in this document in the Trails and Greenways Chapter, it is recommended that greenways be included as part of resurfacing contracts in part because there is no systematic budgeting for greenway repaving within the Parks and Recreation Department. Besides street resurfacing and other routine maintenance of the physical surface of the road, it is important to address street cleaning and debris removal. Bicyclists will not use bicycle lanes and will be discouraged from traveling by bike if bicycle lanes and shoulders are plagued with debris and roadside hazards such as broken glass. Another significant issue in the Leaves in bike lanes create hazards for bicyclists. City is the placement of loose leaves in bike lanes and in the street in such a way as to obstruct the travel of bicyclists. The City has

4 a loose leaf collection program every fall which allows residents to pile leaves at the curb (but not in the street) for collection without needing to bag them first. Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of the Field Operations Department and local media to educate residents on the rules of the program, leaves inevitably end up in the street or often in bike lanes that are striped next to the curb. Enforcement of the loose leaf collection is also limited. This is an issue that needs to be addressed along with ensuring that other types of obstacles or debris in bike lanes are cleaned up so they are not a hazard to bicyclists. Street Maintenance in Guilford County and MPO Towns NCDOT handles all street maintenance in the unincorporated County and MPO Towns. NCDOT Division 7 has an annual resurfacing program for these roadways. It also handles resurfacing on the portions of the State Highway System within the City of Greensboro. During resurfacing of County roads that do not have curb and gutter, it is sometimes possible to add extra paved shoulders to the roadway to provide additional space for bicyclists and emergency stopping. However, generally no more than one or two feet on either side of the roadway can be added in this manner, which is less than the desired four feet from the edge of the travel lane. Despite this limitation it is still important that extra paved shoulder be considered during routine roadway resurfacing. In recent years the General Assembly has increased the amount of state funding for resurfacings, which has lead to improvements in the condition of NCDOT streets overall. In Guilford County between 2000 and 2010, NCDOT averaged $21.5 million per year on street maintenance (in current-year dollars) while between 2011 and 2015 it averaged $34 million per year (in current-year dollars). RECOMMENDATIONS The budget for resurfacing over the past decade has fallen well short of the needs in the City of Greensboro, especially when considering that while the budget has stayed flat or declined from historical levels, costs have continued to rise. Maintenance costs also increase as roadway conditions continue to deteriorate. As described in the 2012 Pavement Condition Survey and discussion above, it is recommended that 72 miles of roadway be resurfaced each year in order to keep pace with roadway deterioration. Yet this is only after the immediate needs are addressed, specifically the miles of roadways that are in the worst condition. This Plan recommends that the City resurfacing budget be increased to provide for proper annual maintenance of the city-maintained roadways. It is unlikely to be politically feasible to put as much money towards resurfacing as the 2012 survey recommends, but increased annual appropriations can begin to make an impact on the problem and also add bicycle facilities at a faster rate. These funds could be supplemented through the next City of Greensboro transportation bond. Resurfacing of greenways should also be included in the transportation bond, with Field Operations putting priority on keeping greenway pavement maintenance at an equal level to normal streets. It also recommended that the street resurfacing schedule be prioritized for bicycle facility implementation. Thus streets with short-term priority bicycle facilities, when appropriate, would be given extra priority for resurfacing. This would not be intended to supersede considerations of pavement condition a street that was resurfaced recently without including bicycle facilities generally would not be considered for resurfacing again until it is time but to use the bicycle facility recommendations in the Bicycle section as another input. As noted in the bicycle facility recommendations, GDOT will experiment with scratch and remark projects for streets that will not be ready for resurfacing in the short-term timeframe. Different strategies need to be explored considering that street resurfacing is underfunded and cannot always be relied upon for bicycle facility installation. Street cleaning and sweeping, and particularly preventing loose leaves from being dropped in bike lanes, should be a priority for the maintenance of bicycle facilities. GDOT should work with Field Operations, the City Contact Center, and Bicycling in Greensboro to further raise awareness of keeping leaves out of streets, bike lanes, and off of sidewalks. Since enforcement is difficult, keeping the focus on education and communication on the front end will reap the most benefits. Nevertheless, the City should explore ways of properly enforcing loose leaf collection guidelines since leaves in the street impede all forms of traffic, become safety issues, and contribute to flooding by blocking storm drains. 2 CH. Bicycle BiPed Plan Update PAGE 2-63

5 Finally, the Greensboro MPO will continue to review the annual resurfacing contracts of NCDOT Division 7 to provide comments about streets which should be reviewed for the feasibility of adding paved shoulder during resurfacing. The MPO should also encourage NCDOT to restripe rural roadways to include designated shoulder areas after resurfacing where it is possible to do so. Statemaintained roadways within the City of Greensboro should be looked at especially carefully for the inclusion of bicycle facilities and as a way to implement the State s Complete Streets Policy. IMPLEMENTATION Increasing funding for future street maintenance and resurfacing should be appropriated on an annual basis, and if annual appropriations are insufficient, included in the next City of Greensboro transportation bond. It is critical that resurfacing funds be brought up to an appropriate level not only to expedite the development of bicycle facilities but also to address the backlog of street maintenance needs. Greenway resurfacing should be included with this resurfacing budget and added to accordingly. Both types of resurfacing should be administered by Field Operations, with a plan to transfer this responsibility by Bicycle facilities should be included as a priority input for resurfacing streets. After the BiPed Plan Update is completed, staff can use the facility recommendations as part of reviewing future resurfacing contracts in the City. This should begin in 2016 following the adoption of the Plan. GDOT should begin working with Field Ops, the City Contact Center, and Bicycling in Greensboro on future education and enforcement of street cleaning and loose leaf collection with an eye towards keeping bicycle facilities clear. GDOT and BIG can provide additional education to members of the public and expand the reach of Field Ops and the Contact Center. This collaboration should begin in 2016 and be reviewed annually. MPO staff will review the annual NCDOT resurfacing lists and make comments on the roads that are expected to be resurfaced. Some of this began in 2015 and will continue on a regular schedule starting in PAGE 2-64