University of Maryland - College Park Facilities Master Plan Update Bicycle Summary Report

Transcription

1 University of Maryland - College Park Facilities Master Plan Update Bicycle Summary Report Final November 2011 Toole Design Group 6525 Belcrest Road, Suite 400 Hyattsville, MD Job Number: 5278

2 Table of Contents 1. Introduction a. Purpose b. Planning Process c. Facilities Master Plan (FMP) Transportation Subcommittee Vision, Mission and Values d. FMP Transportation Subcommittee Bicycle-Related Goals and Objectives 2. Previous Plans and Studies a. UMD Campus Bicycle Study b Facilities Master Plan c. Campus Sustainability Report d Campus Transportation Survey e. Other Plans and Studies Reviewed for the FMP 3. Bicycling at the University of Maryland Today a Bike Counts b. Strengths and Challenges c. Crash Data Summary d. Existing Facilities e. Existing Programs 4. Recommendations a. General Principles b. Recommended Bicycle Facility and Bike Parking Types c. Near Term Recommendations (0-10 years) d. Long Term Recommendations (10-20 years) Appendices A. Recommended Bicycle Regulations B. Maps 1. Regional Bicycle Routes: Existing Facilities 2. Regional Bicycle Routes: Proposed Connections 3. Campus Bicycle Routes: Period 1 Enhancements 4. Campus Bicycle Routes: Period 2 Enhancements 5. Bicycle Routes: Campus and Regional Composite C. Recommended Bicycle Facility Types, Bicycle Parking Types, and Bicycle-Related Signage Samples Bicycle Summary Report FMP Update i.

3 D. Shared Use Path Policies at Other Universities (Summary Table) E. Shared Use Path Design Considerations Bicycle Summary Report FMP Update ii.

4 Chapter 1: Introduction Purpose The University of Maryland College Park Facilities Master Plan (FMP) establishes a framework to guide the physical growth and development of the campus. The Update incorporates principles from the previous Facilities Master Plan, which was last updated in It also incorporates other related documents such as the University of Maryland Climate Action Plan and the University of Maryland Campus Bicycle Study. This report summarizes key bicycle-related highlights of the FMP Update planning process. Planning Process Transportation Subcommittee: The project team worked closely with the FMP Transportation Subcommittee in Fall, 2010 and Spring, The Transportation Subcommittee was composed of a diverse group of stakeholders, including students, faculty, staff, and stakeholders from outside of the University, such as the City of College Park and the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC). Background research: The project team reviewed plans and studies such as the Campus Bicycle Study, University of Maryland Facilities Master Plan, and the Campus Sustainability Report. In addition, the project team reviewed results from the 2010 Campus Transportation Survey. Field analysis: The project team conducted field work in late 2010/early 2011 to analyze existing bicycling and road conditions and to develop recommendations for physical improvements on and off campus. Field work and observations were conducted at peak travel times and also at high traffic events on campus. FMP Transportation Subcommittee Vision, Mission, and Values The vision, mission, and values on the following pages were identified by the FMP Transportation Subcommittee and provided the framework for the bicycle recommendations. Vision The University envisions transportation to be purposeful, progressive, innovative, and leading. Bicycle Summary Report FMP Update 1.

5 The purpose of transportation is to facilitate the accomplishment of University s academic, research, and student development mission. Transportation provides accessibility to and from the campus as well as connections on the campus, and as integral part of the campus infrastructure, is effective, efficient, environmentallybenign, safe, and cost-effective. The progressive aspect of transportation is evidenced in its multi-modal model which includes walking, bicycling, transit, scooters/motorcycles, automobiles (singleoccupancy vehicles, carpools, and vanpools), and service/emergency vehicles and which supports the needs of all persons, regardless of ability. Transportation options and offerings are pro-active to anticipate and meet future contexts. Transportation is innovative in that it reflects new technology and responds to new initiatives. Transportation within the sustainability paradigm utilizes various solutions to achieve long term goals including applied technology, creative workschool-life arrangements, and management strategies related to policy, marketing, and the promotion of community. The University s pledge to be carbon-neutral by 2050 provides the opportunity to improve upon the overall transportation model and its various transportation modes, policies, and incentive programs. The University s transportation model is leading in that it is a world-class, replicable model and a source of pride for the institution. The transportation paradigm supports the University s Strategic Plan to be a pre-eminent institution, with principles based in community, technology, entrepreneurial spirit, partnership, and responsibility for the future. Mission The University supports local living (including housing, entertainment, retail, and other activities) which is conducive to optimal connections to the campus. The University embraces walking as an important mode of transportation and provides adequate pathways on-campus and to locations off-campus, engages with neighboring communities to support pedestrians, and promotes walking as a superior, healthy mode to access the campus and campus sites. The University is accessible to all persons (including people with permanent or temporary disabilities). The University embraces bicycling as another superior, healthy mode of transportation, and provides appropriate pathways and parking, offers training and support, supports bicycle use, and advocates regionally for bicycle infrastructure and effective bicycle connections to campus. The University acknowledges some students, faculty, staff, and visitors travel distances greater than comfortably and efficiently accomplished by walking or bicycling. Bicycle Summary Report FMP Update 2.

6 Therefore, the University embraces transit (bus and rail) and facilitates on- and off-campus connections, encourages transit utilization, and influences the availability of transit services. For those who are unable to use transit, the University accommodates individual, personaluse motor-vehicles such as scooters, motorcycles, and automobiles. The University accepts scooters and motorcycles, and welcomes them as low-impact modes of transportation, accommodates needs for parking, and provides safety and security training. The University accepts automobiles (cars, vans, and light-trucks), acknowledging them as ubiquitous and sometimes necessary, while also recognizing their collective impact on congestion, requirements for parking space, and negative impact on the environment due to the burning of fossil-fuels; the University coordinates with regional agencies to direct efficient travel patterns, provides a level of parking consistent with the Transportation Vision, pro-actively engages with the community regarding housing decisions and the environmental impacts of automobiles, and strives to plan new development which does not require access to campus by automobile. The University encourages participation in automobile-share programs (such as carpools, vanpools, and short-term auto rental), as alternatives to single occupancy vehicle operation and to supplement transit use. The University accommodates physical access to all campus facilities as required by commercial, construction, emergency, waste-collection, and maintenance vehicles. Values Access and Connectedness Safety and Security Sustainability: Environmental, Social, and Economic Efficiency in Resources and Personal Time University Culture: Scholarship, Athletics, Traditions, and Community Responsibility and Respect Aesthetics Bicycle Summary Report FMP Update 3.

7 FMP Bicycle-Related Goals and Objectives The project team actively contributed to the development of the FMP Transportation Subcommittee s goals and objectives. These goals cover all modes including pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and motor vehicle. Improving connectivity is a cornerstone principle of the recommendations and is integrated into all aspects of the document. The following goal was established for the bicycle mode: Goal 3: Create a more bicycle-friendly campus: one which encourages and supports efficient, pleasant, and safe biking experiences. Objective 1: Improve connectivity within the bicycling environment. Actions: Install shared roadways, bike lanes, bike paths, and shared-use paths which are multimodal yet segregated by mode and designated with appropriate signage to provide a continuous network of bicycle thoroughfares throughout the campus. Provide wayfinding for bicyclists indicating ways of accessing and traveling through campus. Objective 2: Provide facilities which support bicyclists. Install secure, protected, short- and long-term parking throughout campus, which is accessible to bike routes, convenient to buildings (particularly to those with shower facilities), and respectful of any bicycle dismount zones. Ensure that bicycle thoroughfares include safety and security features, and are continuous, appealing, and comfortable for bicyclists. Objective 3: Partner with adjacent jurisdictions to ensure paths and roads in the surrounding communities facilitate bicycling to campus. Actions: Identify preferred campus access points from the surrounding area for bicyclists. Support the development of bike paths, bike lanes, and shared roadways adjacent to campus and in the region. Support the inclusion of bicycle facilities in the design of the Purple Line. Bicycle Summary Report FMP Update 4.

8 Objective 4: Implement programs to support the growth of a bicycle culture. Actions: Provide and promote bicycle-related programs (for example, bicycle registration, limited-use car parking passes, contingency ride home programs, and initiatives allowing bicycles on transit). Support bicycle rental and bicycle sharing programs. Publicize direct, safe and attractive bicycle routes to and from campus. Publicize services which facilitate bike use (such as Campus Recreation Services pass for use of shower facilities). Many of the other goals, objectives, and actions also include bike-related elements, including: Goal 1: Improve connectivity for all modes of travel. Objective 1: Support a campus-wide network of effective transportation. Sample Action: Ensure a network of well-designed and maintained sidewalks, bike paths, bike lanes, and roads (considering grade, materials, and water run-off) which serve pedestrians, people with mobility-challenges, bicyclists, transit, scooters/motorcycles, cars, and service vehicles. Goal 2: Create a more pedestrian-friendly campus: one which encourages and supports efficient, pleasant, and safe walking experiences. Objective 1: Improve connectivity within the pedestrian environment. Sample Action: Improve intersections (particularly Stadium Drive at parking Lot R) to reduce conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles through signage and traffic control, consistent and uniformly recognized crosswalk and curb ramp design, pedestrian table crossings at high-volume crosswalks, narrowed vehicle lanes, bumpouts to slow the speed of vehicles, dedicated bike lanes, landscaped medians, and street-side treatments. Objective 2: Ensure that campus walkways are appealing and comfortable places. Sample Action: Widen and improve any shared-use paths so that pedestrians and bicycles can utilize them safely. Goal 4: Create a more transit-friendly campus: one which increases the effectiveness of transit and encourages the use of transit. Objective 2: Install infrastructure which supports and enhances the use of transit. Sample Action: Ensure bus shelters complement campus aesthetics, protect from inclement weather, are comfortable and well lit, are pleasantly situated in the landscape, are sufficient in number and location, and have appropriate connections to pedestrian and bicycling routes. Bicycle Summary Report FMP Update 5.

9 Goal 5: Reduce personal vehicle congestion on campus. Objective 1: Reduce the need and ability to park on campus. Sample Action: Encourage traveling to campus using walking, bicycling, or transit. Bicycle Summary Report FMP Update 6.

10 Chapter 2: Previous Plans and Studies This section highlights previous plans and studies that provide the foundation for the recommendations that follow. UMD Campus Bicycle Study The University of Maryland completed a Campus Bicycle Study in The goal of the study was to reduce automobile use by encouraging more bicycling on campus. The study establishes a goal of increasing bicycling on campus from approximately 5% to 9% of all trips by 2012 and to 15% by To accomplish this, the study recommends a variety of physical improvements to enhance the experience of bicycling on campus. It also recommends a set of education, encouragement, and enforcement activities that will build awareness of bicycling and facilitate a culture where students, faculty, and staff consider bicycling to be a viable transportation mode. Vision Statement The study establishes the following vision statement for bicycling on campus: Bicycling is a critical component of the transportation network on campus. The University of Maryland s bicycle planning efforts will be a cornerstone of its commitment to take responsibility for the future, and will contribute to it being widely recognized as a national model for a Green University. Campus-Wide Recommendations The study includes several general recommendations, for example that streets should function for all travel modes, covered bicycle parking should be provided at all residential communities, curb ramps should be added and/or improved throughout campus to improve bicycle access and connectivity, and that bicycle improvements should not be considered in isolation, but rather as part of an integrated network. As discussed in the following pages, it is recommended that these and other broad recommendations be carried forward in the Facilities Master Plan. Bicycle Summary Report FMP Update 7.

11 Facilities Master Plan As has been noted, this plan builds on the current FMP. The FMP established principles, goals, and actions intended to guide the University s development through One of the plan s four guiding principles was to Create a campus in which easy movement is facilitated in ways that minimize vehicular traffic and congestion. This principle is supported by related goals and actions. The 2007 Facilities Master Plan Update reiterates goals and actions from the original plan. The recommendations are driven by concerns about campus livability, environmental sustainability, and the need for additional classroom and research space. Campus Sustainability Report The 2010 Campus Sustainability Report documents the University s commitment to meeting its goals for sustainability. It highlights initiatives that UMD is undertaking in order to become a national model for a green university and a showcase for environmental sustainability. As a signatory to the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment, the University committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and achieving carbon neutrality. The University plans to reduce its carbon footprint by addressing all aspects of energy use on campus. According to the latest (2009) greenhouse gas inventory, faculty and staff commuters contribute around 7% of the total campus emissions and student commuters contribute 7.6% of the emissions. As noted in the Campus Sustainability Report, The University needs the cooperation of the entire campus community to reduce energy use in buildings and promote the adoption of more sustainable means of transport Campus Transportation Survey The 2010 Campus Transportation Survey helped to inform bicycle recommendations. It was developed and administered by the University. Key bicycle-related conclusions from the survey are noted below. 1 A relatively large percentage of the campus population living within bicycling distance of campus usually drives to campus in a single occupancy vehicle. Many of these people might be converted to alternative modes, such as bicycling. A single occupancy vehicle is the usual mode to/from campus for 11% of respondents who live less than 1 mile from campus, 45% of respondents who live 1-2 miles from campus, and 63% of respondents who live 3-4 miles from campus. A large percentage of the campus population lives within bicycling distance of the University. 45% of respondents reported living less than 5 miles from campus and 36% reported living less than 3 miles from campus. Students constitute 99% of respondents who 1 It should be noted that students constitute approximately 72% of the campus population but only 54% of transportation survey responses. The results would likely be different had the proportion of survey responses more closely mirrored the proportion of the campus population. Bicycle Summary Report FMP Update 8.

12 reported living on campus, 92% of respondents who reported living within 1 mile of campus, 69% of respondents who reported living 1-2 miles from campus, and 49% of respondents who reported living 3-4 miles from campus. As would be expected, the proportion of the campus population that bicycles on campus at some point during the year is higher than the proportion that usually bicycles. 18% of survey respondents reported bicycling on campus at some point during the year. 5% of survey respondents usually bicycle to/from campus. 74% of respondents who usually travel to campus by bike are students. The distance between home and campus is an important factor affecting bicycle mode share to/from campus. Less than 4% of respondents who reported living 5 or more miles from campus usually travel to campus by bicycle. The percentage of respondents that usually travel to campus by bike is around three times higher for respondents that live four or fewer miles from campus. Adding more bicycle paths is regarded by most respondents as the thing that would most improve the bicycling experience on campus. 51% of respondents chose add more bicycle paths as the thing that would most improve the bicycling experience on campus. The next most frequently cited improvements were reduce traffic congestion (14% of respondents) and add more bicycle parking (11% of respondents). Adding bicycle paths was also the most popular answer to the question, If you could add more of one feature to the campus landscape, what would you add? and was chosen by 19% of survey respondents. Increasing parking rates may be an effective method of shifting members of the campus population to alternative modes. 58% of students reported that they would likely consider alternative modes if parking prices increased even a little. Only 25% of respondents reported that they would pay for a permit at any cost. Conflicts with bicycles seem to be a concern for pedestrians; however, the degree of concern is unclear. Several open ended comments cited concern about bicycles on sidewalks. In addition, 22% of survey respondents reported that the change that would most improve the pedestrian experience on campus would be to improve pedestrian safety by reducing conflicts with wheeled vehicles. But, the degree to which these responses can be attributed to concern about conflicts with bicycles is unclear, since the term wheeled vehicles suggests a wide variety of vehicles, including buses, cars, scooters, bicycles, and skateboards (i.e. any vehicle with wheels). 35% of survey respondents said that vehicles should not be able to cut through campus. 24% said vehicles should only be allowed to cut through at night. Reducing or eliminating cut-through traffic would likely improve conditions for bicyclists. Bicycle Summary Report FMP Update 9.

13 Other Plans and Studies Reviewed for the FMP Approved College Park U.S. Route 1 Corridor Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment, City of College Park Comprehensive Plan, Maryland 20-Year Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Master Plan, Prince George s Countywide Master Plan for Transportation, Prince George s County General Plan, Achieving the Vision: Options for the College Park Route 1 Corridor, Transportation Study of the U.S. Route 1 College Park Corridor, Bicycle Summary Report FMP Update 10.

14 Chapter 3: Bicycling at the University of Maryland Today This chapter summarizes key information regarding current bicycling conditions at the University of Maryland Bike Counts Bicycle counts were conducted by the Department of Transportation Services (DOTS) in Fall Bikes, mopeds and scooters were counted in nine locations in ten minute intervals during peak travel times on October 12 and 13, The peak travel times for the counts were from 8:30am-11:00am, 12:00pm-2:00pm, and 4:00pm-7:00pm. The locations and the total counts, as well as the average of the two days, are noted in the table below. These counts were analyzed and incorporated into the planning process. Table 1: 2010 Bicycle Counts Location 2 October 12, 2010 October 13, 2010 Average Regents Drive at U.S. Route Mowatt Lane Garage Exit at Knox Road McKeldin Mall at Woods Hall Regents Drive at the Main Administration Building Campus Drive at Paint Branch Drive Campus Drive at Stamp Student Union Regents Drive at Stadium Drive Campus Drive at Adelphi Road Paint Branch Drive at MD Route Strengths and Challenges Strengths The University of Maryland has made numerous strides recently to improve bicycle access. The campus pathway network connects all parts of the campus and ample bicycle parking is provided in many locations. The Department of Transportation Services (DOTS) has 2 Note that only one off-road location, McKeldin Mall at Woods Hall, was included in the bike count. Bicycle Summary Report FMP Update 11.

15 demonstrated a commitment to bicycling by leading bicycle-friendly programs and outreach efforts. The University also benefits from an extensive regional trail network in close proximity to campus, including the Northwest and Northeast Branch Trails, Paint Branch Trail, Indian Creek Trail, and Rhode Island Avenue Trolley Trail. In many cases, neighborhood connectors already provide access to these trails. For these and other reasons, UMD received Bronze level recognition in the League of American Bicyclist s Bicycle-Friendly University Category in March The University community also benefits from accessible transit options, which will be enhanced by planned improvements such as a cycle track facility on U.S. Route 1 and a Bike & Ride center at the College Park Metrorail station. Current plans to expand bike sharing options further enhance the university s connection to transit. Challenges Bicycling is an appealing form of transportation in a campus setting because it is a vehicle that can move fairly easily from campus streets to the pathway system, and vice versa. At the University of Maryland, students, faculty and staff ride bicycles to get from door to door quickly. It is faster than walking, and often much faster than driving, parking and walking. For these reasons, time is a major impetus in the decision to ride a bicycle at UMD. However, there are many aspects of the University of Maryland s campus that present barriers and/or gaps for bicyclists. Campus roads are often too narrow to provide dedicated space for bicyclists, especially during peak traffic periods. Furthermore, campus roads are designed to quickly and efficiently convey traffic towards parking lots and major campus drop-off points, and do not connect directly to many campus buildings and destinations. Therefore, bicycle desire lines are often different from the roadway network. This is accentuated by the fact that many roads on campus, for example Stadium Drive, have steep grades. In contrast, campus pathways often provide a more comfortable, flatter, and more direct route to campus destinations, and consequently are an important part of the university s de facto bicycle network. However, campus pathways are at times heavily traveled by pedestrians and are sometimes narrow, which creates concern about the potential for crashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians. The following areas of campus were identified as locations where a large number of pedestrians and bicyclists interact. There are limited available data to quantify the character and extent of potential conflicts between pedestrians and bicyclists on campus. This limitation is discussed in more detail below. Bicycle Summary Report FMP Update 12.

16 Selected Bicycle and Pedestrian Interaction Areas Chapel Drive (in the vicinity of the Skinner Building) McKeldin Mall (especially on the south side and in front of the library) Campus Drive (especially on the sidewalk on the north side between Stamp Student Union and Paint Branch Drive) Intersection of Stadium Drive and Regents Drive Intersection of Stadium Drive and Paint Branch Drive (road and sidewalk) Parking Lot #1 Off campus roads are also a significant challenge to bicycling at UMD. Unfriendly roads such as Baltimore Avenue (U.S. Route 1), University Boulevard (MD Route 193), and Adelphi Road (MD Route 500) surround campus. Additionally, there are limited amounts of covered long-term bike parking on campus. Crash Data Summary In Fall 2010, DOTS established an online form for reporting crashes involving bicycles and scooters. DOTS asked University Health Center staff members to encourage patients that were involved in bike or scooter crashes to fill out the form. The form is also available to the public on the bike page of the DOTS website. As of March 2011, 19 crash reports were submitted using the online bicycle and scooter crash form. Sixteen of the reports were for on-campus crashes, one report was for an off-campus crash, and two reports were for close calls. The most common crash type involved a bicycle and vehicle and the most common crash location was at an intersection or crosswalk. Only one crash involved a pedestrian and bicyclist. This crash took place in the roadway and appears to have been minor. Three crashes took place on University pathways. One involved a bicyclist hitting another bicyclist due to poor visibility. The other two involved cyclists who lost control of their bicycles but did not crash into others. These results suggest that countermeasures and safety education may be needed to improve the safety of bicyclists and users of other modes at intersections. Since the form is oriented to injuries and crashes involving bicyclists and scooters, it may not fully capture pedestrian crashes. These would be especially relevant, obviously, if they involved or were caused by bicycles. It also does not incorporate crash data tracked by emergency response personnel or at local hospitals. The University should consider revising the form to better capture pedestrian/bicycle crashes on campus. Bicycle Summary Report FMP Update 13.

17 Existing Facilities Bicyclists can share travel lanes with motor vehicles on all roads on campus; however, there are very few existing on-road bicycle facilities on and around campus today. Off campus, there are intermittent bike lanes and paved shoulders on sections of University Boulevard. Recent improvements to the Rhode Island Avenue Trolley Trail provide bike lanes and sidepaths along Rhode Island Avenue, and, as has been noted, there are many trails in the area that provide connections to regional and national trail networks such as the NW and NE Branch Trails and, upon completion, the East Coast Greenway. Bicycle parking facilities are the most tangible feature of UMD s existing bicycle infrastructure. As noted in the table below, there are more than 1,700 Inverted-U racks on campus, providing capacity for nearly 3,500 parked bikes. Most of the racks are uncovered; however, the University has installed covered bike parking in selected locations. Table 2: Existing Bike Parking Type Count Uncovered Inverted-U Racks 1,602 Uncovered Bike Parking Capacity 3,204 Covered Inverted-U Rack Sites 6 Covered Inverted-U Racks 123 Covered Bike Parking Capacity 246 Total Inverted-U Rack Sites 285 Total Inverted-U Racks on Campus 1,725 Total Bike Parking Capacity 3,450 Existing Programs Existing bike-related programs and resources at UMD include the following: The Bike Program within DOTS includes a bicycle coordinator staff position, bike parking program, and bicycle transportation web page. The Bike Program also assists with many of the initiatives below. Social media outlets include a bikeumd Facebook page, blog, and bicycling listserve. Bicycle Summary Report FMP Update 14.

18 Bicycle registration program. 3 Bicycle on bus program. 4 University of Maryland Bicycle Advisory Group (BAG). University of Maryland Bike Shop. Bike commuter access to discount bundle packs for parking on bad weather days and sign-up for guaranteed ride home. Bike safety material and other information are provided to incoming students, at resource fairs, new employee orientations, and other venues. Bike leasing is available through the Outdoor Recreation Center and bike sharing is being considered. 3 As of March 2011, 1,624 bikes were registered on campus. This number increased from around 200 in June 2009 and around 800 in June All but three of the shuttle bus fleet (62 buses) is equipped with bike racks. Note that bikes are also allowed on Metro during off-peak hours. Bicycle Summary Report FMP Update 15.

19 Chapter 4: Recommendations This chapter provides a brief summary of bicycle recommendations to accomplish the vision identified by the FMP Transportation Subcommittee. There are a number of goals and recommendations from the Campus Bicycle Study that have been advanced in the FMP. General Principles General principles from the Campus Bicycle Study that are recommended for inclusion in the Facilities Master Plan include the following: Streets should function for all travel modes. Covered bicycle parking should be provided at all residential communities. Curb ramps are for everyone; they should be provided at all crosswalks. 5 Bicycle improvements should not be considered in isolation, rather as part of an integrated network. Additional broad level principles identified as part of the FMP planning process include: Provide clear ways of accessing and traveling through the campus by bike for example through dedicated and shared bike facilities, bike related signage, and pavement markings. Add covered bike parking at selected locations throughout campus. Improve access on the periphery of campus and in surrounding off campus neighborhoods, primarily by enhancing intersections, crosswalks, and median refuges; improving safety at uncontrolled crossings; and implementing other accessibility improvements. Establish foot travel lanes as the preferred lane width throughout campus to keep motor vehicle speeds low and enable the campus to incorporate bike lanes without having overly wide roads. Widen and improve selected existing shared use paths, or provide new shared use paths in selected locations, so pedestrians and bicycles can share them safely. Use a consistent MUTCD-approved crosswalk style throughout campus. 5 Note that this principle should be revised to highlight the role that curb ramps play in ensuring smooth transitions between on-road and shared use path networks for non-motorized bikes. The role that curb ramps play in contributing to ADA accessibility could also be emphasized. Bicycle Summary Report FMP Update 16.

20 Use a consistent ADA approved curb ramp design that covers the full width of the path leading to it. Recommended Bicycle Facility and Bicycle Parking Types A range of bicycle facility types are recommended depending on the character of each road and its role in the bicycle network. The facilities below are only the ones that have a special striping pattern or a unique physical design. It should be noted that bikes are allowed and encouraged on all roads, whether or not special bike facilities are present. The recommended facility types include the following: Shared Lane Markings: Shared lane markings (sharrows) are used on roadways where bicyclists and motor vehicles must share the same travel lane. Bike Lane: A bike lane is a pavement marking that designates a portion of a roadway for the preferential or exclusive use of bicycles. Climbing Lane: A climbing lane is a bike lane on the uphill portion of a steep slope and a shared lane marking on the downhill portion. A contra-flow climbing lane allows bicyclists to travel uphill in a bike lane in the opposite direction of downhill traffic on a one way street. Cycle track: A cycle track is a bicycle facility alongside a road that is physically separated from both the road and the sidewalk. Shared-Use Path: A shared-use path is an off-street bicycle and pedestrian facility that is physically separated from motor vehicle traffic. Shared Street: A shared street, also termed a woonerf, is a low volume, low speed (15 mph or less) street that is shared between bicyclists and motor vehicles and sometimes with pedestrians as well. A more detailed description of these facilities, along with graphics and pictures of each, is provided in Appendix C. This plan also recommends the following types of bicycle parking: Covered Inverted-U Rack In Street Bicycle Parking On Demand Bicycle Locker Bicycle Cage Modular Bicycle Parking Unit Bicycle Station Images of each of these facilities are also provided in Appendix C. Near Term Recommendations (0-10 years) This section describes improvements that are recommended in the near term, which encompasses the first ten years after the adoption of the FMP. In the near term, Bicycle Summary Report FMP Update 17.

21 physical improvements and encouragement programs should be implemented to increase the visibility and presence of bicycling on campus. Physical recommendations are shown in the Campus Bicycle Routes: Period 1 Enhancements map in Appendix B. Implement shared lane markings: Shared lane markings help to position bicyclists in the most appropriate location on the road, while providing a visual cue to motorists that bicyclists are allowed and should be expected to be in the road. The shared lane marking is the only feasible facility on many roads on campus because the roads are not wide enough to accommodate bike lanes and are unlikely to be widened in the future. Shared lane markings will encourage bicyclists to ride in the road, as opposed to on sidewalks. In addition, when placed on roads with on-street parking they can potentially have a beneficial safety-related impact by encouraging bicyclists to avoid riding where they are in danger of getting hit by or running into open car doors. They are recommended on portions of Regents Drive, Stadium Drive, Paint Branch Drive, Preinkert Drive and Campus Drive. Implement interim improvements on key routes: Improvements are recommended on key routes to enhance connectivity in Period 1. Selected routes should be resurfaced and widened to safely accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists. Sight line issues, barriers, and obstructions should be addressed and focused design improvements should be implemented at locations where large numbers of pedestrians and bicyclists interact. Additionally, signage should be added in the near term indicating that bikes must yield to pedestrians. In some cases, in Period 1, routes could be distinguished with surface treatments (like a distinctive edge) to highlight that the route provides through access for bikes. Shared-use routes that should be improved in Period 1 are noted on the Campus Bicycle Routes: Period 1 Enhancements map in the appendix and include (but are not limited to) the following paths: - Connecting Field House Drive and Stadium Drive in between Shipley Field and Byrd Stadium. - Connecting Preinkert Drive and Regents Drive and passing by the South Campus Dining Hall. Bicycle Summary Report FMP Update 18.

22 - Connecting from the intersection of Regents Drive and Baltimore Avenue through the outer edge of the Chapel Fields to the southeast corner of McKeldin Mall. - Connecting on routes parallel to the planned Purple Line. - Connecting facilities provided on Stadium Drive and the Paint Branch Trail system. - Connecting Regents Drive and Paint Branch Drive near the Comcast Center. (See map in Appendix B for additional information) Provide bike lanes and climbing lanes on existing roads with available roadway width and on all new roads: Bike lanes should be provided on existing roads with available road width, for example on Campus Drive near Adelphi Road, Paint Branch Drive near University Boulevard, Union Lane near Stamp Student Union, and Knox Road. In addition, new roads or roads that are to be improved should provide bike lanes, including Mowatt Lane, a proposed new road connecting Campus Drive and residential communities on the northwest side of campus through Parking Lot #1, and roads in proximity to the East Campus development. Provide cycle tracks on Campus Drive and Stadium Drive: A cycletrack is a bicycle facility that is physically separated from both the roadway and the sidewalk. A cycle track should be provided, for example, as part of the design for the Purple Line through campus and also on sections of Stadium Drive as noted on the Campus Bicycle Routes map in the appendix. Cycle tracks on these and other roads would provide a premier facility on key routes that would be accessible to riders of all skill and comfort levels. Engage College Park, SHA and WMATA in mutually-beneficial projects: Actively partner with the City of College Park, Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA), Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) and others on projects that benefit the University as well as the surrounding community. Specific projects that are recommended for joint action include: - Add Leading Pedestrian Intervals at selected U.S. Route 1, University Boulevard, and other intersections, for example for cars entering Route 1 and University Boulevard. Additional crossing improvements should also be provided, including expanded center medians, signal timing improvements, and crosswalk and curb ramp upgrades on all four sides of intersections. Bicycle Summary Report FMP Update 19.

23 - Pursue Bicycle and Pedestrian Priority Area (PA) designation from SHA for the entire area surrounding campus. - Add a Rapid Flash Beacon at the intersection of Baltimore Avenue and Fraternity Row. Additional information and images of Rapid Flash Beacons is provided at Introduce high capacity, high security bike parking options on campus in locations where there is demand for this type of parking: Bike parking facilities that can meet this need include on demand bike lockers, modular bike parking units, bike cages in parking garages, and bike stations. Locations that should be considered include the area around the South Campus Dining Hall, on Stadium Drive near the Engineering Buildings (as part of the shared street improvement), in proximity to future Purple Line stations oncampus, and near large concentrations of housing on campus. It should be noted that parking needs and requirements may be different for commuters versus residents. In the near term, a bike station should be provided at a prominent location near the center of campus. A bike station can provide needed information and services to bicyclists, while at the same time sending the message that bicycling is welcomed and encouraged. Identify a consistent and approved cover for bike parking: Providing covers for bike parking greatly enhances the comfort and convenience of the facility. The University should identify one or several cover types that have been sanctioned and approved by those with oversight over aesthetic and architectural issues on campus. Examples have been included in the Furnishing Package element of the Facilities Master Plan. Covered bike parking can be provided within parking garages; however, it will need to be dispersed throughout campus so garages are not an adequate solution in and of themselves. Actively support and promote bike-sharing on campus: Bike-sharing has the potential to enhance the convenience of bicycling on campus, increasing the number of bikes on the road, and contributing to a safety in numbers benefit. The University should actively support and promote bike-sharing on campus as a way to provide better connections to the College Park Metrorail station and other destinations in proximity such as University Town Center and the Mall at Prince George s in Hyattsville, MD. Both commuters and Bicycle Summary Report FMP Update 20.

24 residents would likely use a bike share system although a more detailed market analysis would be needed to learn more about potential users. Implement the first phase of the Stadium Drive improvement: Stadium Drive in between Regents Drive and Paint Branch Drive was identified as a location for a shared street improvement. While it is currently designed primarily for motor vehicles, at many times of the day the street functions as a shared street with pedestrians and bicyclists fanning out across the street and cars slowly negotiating past them. This could be formalized by making the section a curbless street and adding other design features such as special pavers, landscaping, and a separated bike facility. Motor vehicles, including delivery trucks, police vehicles and emergency vehicles would still be able to access the street. Additional study may be needed on the shared street concept; however, as noted on the Campus Bicycle Routes map in the appendix, the section of Stadium Drive in between Regents Drive and Paint Branch Drive is recommended to include a shared use path in Period 1. Bicycle Wayfinding: The Campus Bike Study established the framework for a bicycle wayfinding system on campus. This should be updated to reflect the broader wayfining strategies identified as part of the FMP Update planning process. Bicycle wayfinding should be provided throughout campus focusing on locations of bike parking and key destinations within bikeable distance to campus. Wayfinding should also enhance the connection between campus and surrounding regional trail networks, such as the NE and NW Branch Trails and the Rhode Island Avenue Trolley Trail. Sample wayfinding signage is highlighted in Appendix C. Implement key policy revisions: Key policies should be revised and adopted in the near term to clarify rules and regulations and to set the stage for implementation of other recommendations. Regulations for bikes on shared use paths, which govern interactions between bikes and pedestrians, should be issued. Recommendations for this issue are provided in Appendix A. In addition, existing policies on the placement of bike parking should be revised. This is discussed in Appendix A. Bicycle parking placement and quantity considerations are also discussed in more detail in the following pages. Any required new policies needed to implement shared lane markings should be developed. The University should also officially adopt the mode share goals established in the Campus Bike Study. The study proposes increasing bicycling on campus from approximately 5% to 9% of all trips by 2012 and to 15% by Many institutions in the region adopt mode share goals at a policy level to guide decisions made on a day-to-day Bicycle Summary Report FMP Update 21.

25 basis. The University should consider this approach as an effective way to frame discussions about transportation on campus. There are a number of more detailed recommendations in the Campus Bicycle Study. For example, it recommends that the University develop a comprehensive bike and pedestrian facility inventory, engage the campus population in helping to design the bike station and covered bike parking, and provide/promote changing, showering, and locker facilities for bicyclists at multiple locations on campus. UMD should continue to implement these recommendations. Long Term Recommendations (10-20 years) This section describes improvements that are recommended in the long term, which will extend from years after the adoption of the FMP. These recommendations are highlighted below and are shown in the Campus Bicycle Routes: Period 2 Enhancements map in Appendix B. Johns Hopkins University, Homewood Campus Develop a hierarchy of shared-use paths on campus: Improvements that were recommended in the near term should be formalized in the long term as campus buildings are developed. Distinctive paving materials (such as edging) should be used on these paths to indicate their prominence as through routes shared by bicyclists and pedestrians. The images on this page highlight examples of primary paths at other universities. Major shared use paths that should serve as the primary path connections are shown in the Campus Bicycle Routes: Period 2 Enhancements map and include: Swarthmore College - A north/south shared-use path connection from south campus, past McKeldon Library and Stamp Union, connecting Field House Princeton University Drive and Stadium Drive in between Shipley Field and Byrd Stadium and providing direct access to Eppley Recreation Center and residential communities on the northwest side of campus. Bicycle Summary Report FMP Update 22.

26 - An east/west connection from Preinkert Drive and Regents Drive, passing near the South Campus Dining Hall. - An east/west trail connection from Regents Drive north of the ERC along the stream valley, providing direct access to University Boulevard and the residential communities to the north and northwest of campus. - Shared-use path connections developed roughly parallel to the alignment of the Purple Line to supplement on-road bikeways and to provide a seamless east/west connection from the Rhode Island Trolley Trail and the NE Branch Trail system to the NW Branch Trail system. Provide bike lanes or cycle tracks on new and realigned roads on campus: Bike lanes or cycle tracks should be provided on new and realigned roads on campus including a realigned Stadium Drive, a new north/south road through Parking Lot #1, and as part of any improvements to Mowatt Lane. These are noted on the Campus Bicycle Routes maps in Appendix B. Continue to provide new bike parking and improve existing bike parking throughout campus: Feedback from students, faculty, and staff should drive decisions about where new bike parking is added. As new buildings are constructed, the placement, quality, and type of bike parking should be incorporated into the planning and design. Recommended locations for bike parking (both covered and uncovered) are included on the Campus Bicycle Routes maps in Appendix B. The Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals recently published the second edition of its Bicycle Parking Guidelines, which provide helpful guidance on the type, placement, and recommended quantities of bike parking. For short term parking, the following placement guidelines are provided: - Convenient to the cyclist destination. - Placed no more than 50 from the door, otherwise cyclists may lock to other street furniture or trees. - Visible from the destination to reassure cyclists about the security of the rack. - Located in a high traffic area with passive surveillance or eyes on the street. - Identified by a sign at the visitor entrance; recommend sign D4-3 in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devises. - Located along the Desire Line from adjacent bikeways; the path the cyclists are most likely to travel. Bicycle Summary Report FMP Update 23.

27 - Weather protected, by siting racks under existing structures or installing free standing structures when possible. These guidelines should inform bike parking placement decisions at the University of Maryland. The Bicycle Parking Guidelines also provide standards for the quantity of bike parking to provide. The recommended standards for campus environments are noted below and should also inform bike parking decisions at UMD. Table 3: AP Bicycle Parking Guidelines, Recommended Quantity of Bike Parking to Provide Land Use Category Long Term Short Term Basic Bike Parking Requirements: Colleges and universities Urbanized or High Mode Share Areas: Colleges and universities 1 space for each 10 employees plus one space for each 10 students of planned capacity; or 1 space for each 20,000 sq. ft. of floor area, whichever is greater. 1.5 space for each 10 employees plus one space for each 10 students of planned capacity; or 1 space for each 20,000 sq. ft. of floor area, whichever is greater. 1 space for each 10 students of planned capacity. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. 1 space for each 10 students of planned capacity. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. Complete the wayfinding route system for bicycles: The university should continue to refine a comprehensive and connected wayfinding system for bicycles. This may include signs and pavement decals. New destinations should be incorporated into the network over time. Sample wayfinding signage types are highlighted in Appendix C. Shared bike program: In the long term, the University should continue to refine and add to shared bike locations developed in the short term, as demand requires. Consider bicycle dismount zones: At the point that alternate routes have been fully developed, the University could consider a bicycle dismount zone in consultation with the Campus Police. Likely locations for a bike dismount zone include McKeldon Mall, in front of the McKeldon Library and/or the Stamp Student Bicycle Summary Report FMP Update 24.

28 Union, and in front of the South Campus Dining Hall. Signage around the dismount zone should clearly state that the dismount policy applies only during peak pedestrian hours, and signs should list those hours where possible. Bicycle Summary Report FMP Update 25.

29 Appendices A. Recommended Bicycle Regulations B. Maps 1. Regional Bicycle Routes: Existing Facilities 2. Regional Bicycle Routes: Proposed Connections 3. Campus Bicycle Routes: Period 1 Enhancements 4. Campus Bicycle Routes: Period 2 Enhancements 5. Bicycle Routes: Campus and Regional Composite C. Recommended Bicycle Facility Types D. Recommended Bicycle Parking Types E. Shared Use Path Policies at Other Universities (Summary Table) Bicycle Summary Report FMP Update 26.

30 Appendix A: Recommended Bicycle Regulations

31 Appendix A: Recommended Bike Regulations and Rack Installation Policy The purpose of this appendix is to recommend regulations to govern bicycle and pedestrian interactions on campus and suggest a modified approach for determining new bicycle rack locations. Policies and regulations at peer institutions, including all ACC institutions, were reviewed in preparing these recommendations. Policies at Virginia Tech, Clemson, and Florida State were especially relevant and noteworthy. Existing Regulations and Information Regarding Bicycle and Pedestrian Interactions and Bike Parking Bicycle and Pedestrian Interactions: UMD has regulations governing bicycle registration and parking but does not have policies or regulations addressing bicycle operation on campus pathways or courtesy rules. These types of regulations and policies are common at other universities. The regulations are currently posted under the parking menu on the DOTS website. A page on Successful Bicycle Commuting, links to three resources: 1) WABA Safe Cycling Tips (link does not work); 2 Share the Road Tip Sheet (produced by Bike UMD); and 3: Safe Bicycling in Maryland (produced by SHA). The Share the Road Tip Sheet is divided into Safety Tips for Bikes and Safety Tips for Drivers. The Safety Tips for Bikes section includes tips; however, none specifically address the behavior of bicyclists toward pedestrians. The SHA document, Safe Bicycling in Maryland, references bicyclerelevant laws in Maryland and includes some information about how bicyclists should behave toward pedestrians in a section on shared use paths. Bike Parking: The 2004 Aesthetic Guidelines for Campus Development established a policy of installing new bicycle racks only at secondary building entrances. Recommended Regulations Regarding Bicycle and Pedestrian Interactions, Bike Parking, and Scooters The regulations listed below are recommended at the University of Maryland. These regulations should be featured on the bike section of the DOTS website and should be promoted on campus. Bicycle and Pedestrian Interactions: Bicyclists should never act in a manner that endangers pedestrians or any members of the campus community. The following considerations provide guidance for ensuring safe interactions between pedestrians and bicyclists: - Bicycles are encouraged on selected campus pathways, which are established as shared use paths as part of the comprehensive network of bike routes throughout campus.

32 - Bicyclists must obey Maryland vehicular traffic laws when in the roadway. - If and when a bike dismount zone is established, bicyclists should dismount during peak pedestrian hours (8:30am-11:00am, 12:00pm-2:00pm, and 4:00pm-7:00pm). This will reduce potential conflicts when paths are congested, while still allowing bicyclists access to pathway networks for much of the day when congestion is less of a concern. - Bicyclists should at all times abide by a set of courtesy rules, including: o Bicyclists must at all times yield the right-of-way to pedestrians on campus pathways and at crosswalks. o Bicyclists should advise pedestrians of their intent to pass. o In times of heavy pedestrian traffic when pathways are congested bicyclists should dismount completely and walk. o Bicyclists should avoid excessive speed on campus pathways or streets where line of sight is limited or where there are pedestrians. o Bicyclists should have and use bike lights and bells/signals to ensure that motorists and pedestrians are aware of their presence. - Pedestrians and bicyclists may share paths. Selected shared path design guidance is provided below. o Shared paths should be a minimum of ten feet wide per the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. o In areas with extremely heavy pathway volumes, segregation of pedestrians from wheeled users may be appropriate; however care must be taken to ensure the method of segregation is simple and straightforward, and that it reflects an analysis of travel patterns and compliance issues. o A shared use path Level of Service (LOS) analysis should be used to determine the appropriate width of paths in different settings. o In locations with heavy volumes of pedestrians where a separation of uses is proposed, the width of shared paths should be a minimum of 15 feet. In these cases, pedestrians are typically provided with a bi-directional walking lane on one side of the pathway, while bicyclists are provided with directional lanes of travel. This solution should only be used when a minimum path width of 15 feet (4.6 m) is provided, with at least 10 feet (3 m) for two-way wheeled traffic, and at least 5 feet (1.5 m) for pedestrians. Bike Parking: Bike racks should be provided at locations where deficits have been observed rather than at secondary entrances. Installing racks at secondary entrances does not always address the demand for bicycle parking at a given building. Newly installed racks at secondary entrances often go unused, while racks near main entrances are overflowing, with bikes locked to trees, posts, fences, and railings. Bicyclists may be unaware that racks at side entrances exist, perceive them to be less secure than racks located near main entrances, or find them to be inconvenient. Convenience is likely the

33 key driver of bicycle parking preference and is less susceptible to change, since it depends on where building entrances are located and the most direct routes between those entrances. As such, space permitting, the university should provide additional racks at locations where deficits have been observed rather than attempting to install them at an alternative location, such as a secondary entrance, where demand is uncertain. For similar reasons, it is not recommended that the university remove racks at building locations in favor of a more remote bank of bicycle parking. This has been proposed as a way to discourage bicyclists from using pathways; however, it is likely to fail because of the premium bicyclists place on convenience. A more effective approach would be to designate preferred bicycle routes and then locate high-quality secure and/or covered bicycle parking in close proximity to these paths, where they coincide with building entrances. The Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals recently published the second edition of its Bicycle Parking Guidelines, which provide helpful guidance on the type, placement, and recommended quantities of bike parking. Guidelines for short term parking provided in the Bicycle Parking Guidelines are provided in Chapter 4.

34 Appendix B: Maps 1. Regional Bicycle Routes: Existing Facilities 2. Regional Bicycle Routes: Proposed Connections 3. Campus Bicycle Routes: Period 1 Enhancements 4. Campus Bicycle Routes: Period 2 Enhancements 5. Bicycle Routes: Campus and Regional Composite

35 Existing Regional Bike Routes Proposed Regional Bike Route Connections SCALE: 1 = REGIONAL BICYCLE ROUTES: Existing Facilities UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND FACILITIES MASTER PLAN UPDATE

36 Existing Regional Bike Routes Proposed Regional Bike Route Connections SCALE: 1 = REGIONAL BICYCLE ROUTES: Proposed Connections UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND FACILITIES MASTER PLAN UPDATE

37 Bike parking Covered Bike Parking Shared Lane Marking Bike Lane Contraflow Climbing Lane Shared-Use Path / Cycle Track Purple Line Route Bicycle Dismount Zone SCALE: 1 = CAMPUS BICYCLE ROUTES: Period 1 Enhancements UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND FACILITIES MASTER PLAN UPDATE

38 Bike parking Covered Bike Parking Shared Lane Marking Bike Lane Contraflow Climbing Lane Shared-Use Path / Cycle Track Purple Line Route Bicycle Dismount Zone SCALE: 1 = CAMPUS BICYCLE ROUTES: Period 2 Enhancements UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND FACILITIES MASTER PLAN UPDATE

39 Bike parking Covered Bike Parking Existing Regional Bike Routes Proposed Regional Bike Route Connections Shared Lane Marking Bike Lane Contraflow Climbing Lane Shared-Use Path / Cycle Track Purple Line Route Bicycle Dismount Zone 0 SCALE: 1 = BICYCLE ROUTES: Campus and Regional Composite UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND FACILITIES MASTER PLAN UPDATE 36.

40 Appendix C: Recommended Bicycle Facility and Bicycle Parking Types This appendix includes information, graphics, and photographs on the recommended bicycle facility and bicycle parking types discussed in the report. This is meant to provide a high level overview. For a full description of the facilities and a complete discussion of design considerations, national guidelines should be referenced, including: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 3 rd Edition Available at: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, Review/Comment Draft of the 4 th Edition, February Available at: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Available at: National Association of Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide, Available at: Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (AP) Bicycle Parking Guidelines, 2nd Edition (2010). Available at:

41 Recommended Bicycle Facility Types Inverted-U Rack, UMD--Toole Design Group Bike Cage, Denver, CO U.S. Environmental Protection Agency In-Street Bicycle Parking, Portland, OR Heather Bowden, PBIC Image Library Covered Bicycle Parking, UMD--Duo Gard

42 Bikestation at Union Station, DC Mud On-Demand Bike Locker, San Diego, CA--eLocker Bike Station, Covina, CA--Bikestation

43

44