The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSeperated Bike Lanes• Oblong Low Bumps (Armadillos) • Planter Boxes • Bollards Concrete Barriers • Concrete Median/Curbs • Priorities • Within a mile of campus • On-Street High Priorities Corridors • George Bush Drive • College Main? • Anderson? • Walton? • Off-Street -reconstruction • ROW • Shared-use • • Things to Consider • Removal of Parking • • Resources Needed • Street sweeper for on-street • Increased maintenance for green paint at conflict points • Staff needed? (_on.- p~---~7 - Cost fo r street sweepers https://www.bortekpwx.com/bike-path-lane-cleaning-sweeping/ https://sf.streetsblog.org/2018/06/13/san-francisco-gets-vision-zero-street-sweepers/ $150,000 Denver -$210,000 non-electric bike lane sweeper https://www.govtech.com/transportation/Denver-Goes-Electric-to-Keep-lts-Bike-Lanes- Clear.html https://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2013/11 /20/seattle-will-purchase-skin ny-bike-lane- sweeper-mach ine/ https://bikeportland .org/2013/11 /18/meet-portlands-new-bike-path-sized-street-sweeper- 97302 Kyle , I've been maintaining my own list of protected intersections both in spreadsheet format and in map format. There are probably locations I am not aware of, but I think the list is pretty complete. Happy to collaborate on this. Spreadsheet: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... Map: www.google.com/maps/d/ ... Matt Johnson Project Manager Montgomery County Department of Transportation Gaithersburg MD (240) 777-7237 Higgins Ave in Missoula, MT www .google.com/maps/. .. Concrete median Chicago - https://goo.gl/maps/aDproDffyPn The City of Tempe, where I live, built a raised bike lane on Hardy Drive a neighborhood collector street, between -16th Street and Howe: (https://www.google.com/r,1aps/@33.4145429,-111.9501554,872m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en) North and south of that segment, the bike lanes are regular ones in the street. Some of the raised lanes have a landscape buffer between the bike lane and the vertical curb, and in some sections the bike lane is adjacent to the curb. In Google street view, the bike lanes at driveways appear to ramp down with a running slope, but might have a slight cross slope (I'd have to look at it in the field). The sidewalks seem to be the same, but it's possible they lengthened the driveway aprons for the project to minimize the cross slope. I believe the city has removed the metal bollards on the corners with blended transitions (in place of curb ramps) due to complai.1ts and other issues, but they still show up in Google street view from 2015. https://i. pin i mg.com/7 36x/97/fe/f5/97fef56139d1cf8f26f483 961a8431ba. jpg http://lp40p3gwj70rhpc423s8rzjaz.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/11/Cha pter4 Intersections-raised. jpg http:// ed mo nto n bikes.ca/up loads/post/before-a nd-after-tra nsfo rm i ng-a-15-la ne-pedestria n- crossi ng/Bu rra rd-a nd-Cornwa 11-afte r. jpg http:// ed mo nton bikes.ca/before-a nd-after-tra nsfo rm i ng-a-15-la ne-pedestria n-crossi ng/ https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2723651,- 123.1455516,3a,75y,181.97\65.45t/data= !3m6! lel !3m4! 1svJJbaWWSxl46ZZMEDvnWCg !2e0 !7i13312 ! 8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3645141,- 71.1137783.3a,75y,265.53h,78.33t/data=!3m6!1e1 !3m4!1sGa- s075tQeeYZJrYmvVQ5A ! 2e0 !7i13312 !8i6656 ?hl=en Here are a few more NE Veterans Drive in Hillsboro, OR: qoo.ql/maps/ys 78LhqSPMsEWMad7 Reed Market Road, Bend OR goo.ql/maps/xuNCKkzrqb7pU 13g9 The NACTO guide lists a few other cities and photos: nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/ ... >¥-?~~~ ·. (01'(;1 p.,~/(;;11('1V\v JA~~~ Connectivity with Texas A&M i'-& eM-~~ _ ~ft..~ity Council Workshop ~ "\ ~loo ~~ July 23, 2020 ~~ sw...f...-t.L Brick • Line pa inted on street not safe, separated bike lane are preferred. Can we use in new areas being developed? • Wish there was a way to apply separated lanes in older areas Harvell • Believes cyclists on BPG Board prefer on-street separated over off-street Crompton • Stipes on street don't make it safe. Why can't we mak~~n-street separation our policy?) Venessa-more costly-additional equipment needed for maintenance and design/drainage an issue . Crompton-worthwhile for city management to explore-develop a 5 to 10-year plan to implement • Roads around A&M can't be expanded, A&M is going to grow. We need to explore doing this in the future, explore making it a standard rule to add to UDO to require for future roadways. Capps • Can look at what it would cost to implement on-street separated bike lanes. rompton-present it in a year. Nichols • • • Purpose of this discussion was for ingress/egress from campus and compatibility with the campus mobility plan . Glad we're a stakeholder in -:ampus mobility discussions and wants us to remain involved. City needs to offer feasible ideas of where we can meet and connect at points from the campus t:b. . We need to look at using the existing ROW . ~ Likes alternatives such as the shared use path on TAMU land on South College, and that it ties into shared use path in Bryan, funded by Transportation Alternatives federal grant. • Seek ou t programs and opportunities for projects and funding to fund one or more of these projects to tie in with A&M . 1 • Need to move people from campus portals to residential off campus • Jones Butler overpass under design to South Holleman-quickly determine if design is compatible with on-street separated bike lanes and can we conceptualize it from Luther south to intersection with S. Holleman at roundabout. Wants to hear staffs ideas on it and see conceptual ideas for it. Wants to do it because it is visible/people will see it. Venessa-it's already desigred. Can look at transitioning. • Possibly connect Thomas Park to Cit Hall • Pebble Creek Parkway/Lick Creek Trail extension to the Business Park -si dewalk and double-st riped bike lane. Double stripe allows for greater buffer for bike lane and easy maintenance. Perhaps this can be used in more areas. Maybe Anderson? Dartmouth? Doesn't cost much. • Only projects that don't require funds are feasible right now. If we would have to hire designers, will have to ~ - c \ t?. rn-ojl.~t> July 23, 2020 Workshop Agenda Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenway Connectivity to Texas A&M University Agenda Caption: Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenway Connectivity to Texas A&M University Reviewed by: None Department: Planning and Development Services Department Sponsor: Venessa Garza Relationship to Strategic Goals: •Core Services and Infrastructure •Improving Mobility •Sustainable City Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council receive the presentation and provide direction as desired. Summary: City Council requested this item at their April 23rd Council meeting. Staff will provide an overview of opportunities to increase bicycle, pedestrian and greenway connectivity around and to Texas A&M University. Budget & Financial Summary: N/A Attachments: N/A College Station, TX Meeting Agenda CrrY OF C OILEGE STATION Home of Texas A&M University' Joint Council Transportation & Mobility Committee and Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Greenways Advisory Board Meeting Phone: *888 475 4499 and Webinar ID: 972 4593 3115 Internet: https://zoom.us/s/97245933115 The City Council may or may not attend this meeting. April 20, 2021 3:30 PM 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77840 *The City uses a third-party vendor to help host the meeting and if the call-in number is not functioning access will be through the internet link only. 1. Call meeting to order and consider absence requests. 2. Hear Visitors. Speaker Protocol: An individual who wishes to address the Committee/Board regarding any item on the Regular Agenda, shall register with the Board Secretary prior to 12 p.m. on the day of the meeting. To register, the individual must provide a name and phone number by calling 979.764.3751 or emailing khejny@cstx.gov prior to 4 p.m. To submit written comments to the Committee/Board , email khejny@cstx.gov and they will be distributed to the Committee and Board. Upon being called to speak, an individual must state their name and city of residence, including the state of residence if the city is located out of state. Speakers are encouraged to identify their College Station neighborhood or geographic location. Each speaker's remarks are limited to three (3) minutes. Any speaker addressing the Committee/Board through the use of a translator may speak for six (6) minutes. At the (3) minute mark, the Secretary will announce that the speaker must conclude their remarks. 3. Agenda Items 3.1. Presentation , discussion , and possible action regarding the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Transportation Alternatives Grant Program. Sponsors: Venessa Garza 3.2. Presentation , discussion , and possible action regarding Separated Bike Lanes. Sponsors: Venessa Garza 3.3. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding National Bike Month. Sponsors: Venessa Garza 3.4. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on traffic operations videos. Sponsors: Troy Rother 3.5. Updates from the Chamber Transportation Committee Chairman. College Station, TX Page 1 0 4. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items. Joint Council Transportation & Mobility Committee and Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Greenways Advisory Board Meeting A member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. 5. Adjourn. Adjournment into Executive Session may occur in order to consider any item listed on the agenda if a matter is raised that is appropriate for Executive Session discussion. I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted on the website and at College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas, on April 13 , 2021 at 5:00 p.m. City Secretary This building is wheelchair accessible. Persons with disabilities who plan to attend th is meeting and who may need accommodations, auxiliary aids, or services such as interpreters, readers, or large print are asked to contact the City Secretary's Office at (979) 764-3541 , TDD at 1-800-735-2989, or email adaassistance@cstx.gov at least two business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made. If the City does not receive notification at least two business days prior to the meeting, the City will make a reasonable attempt to provide the necessary accommodations. Penal Code§ 30.07. Trespass by License Holder with an Openly Carried Handgun. "Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (Trespass by License Holder with an Openly Carried Handgun) A Person Licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (Handgun Licensing Law), may not enter this Property with a Handgun that is Carried Openly." Codigo Penal§ 30.07. Traspasar Portando Armas de Mano al Aire Libre con Licencia. "Conforme a la Seccion 30.07 del codigo penal (traspasar portando armas de mano al aire libre con licencia), personas con licencia bajo del Sub-Capitulo H, Capitulo 411, Codigo de Gobierno (Ley de licencias de arma de mano), no deben entrar a esta propiedad portando arma de mano al aire libre." Page 2 April 20, 2021 Preferred Bicycle Facility 2k Shared Lane or Bike 1k Boulevard 0 20 Separated Bike Lanes • When and Where • Retrofit Existing Pavement • Things to Consider: • Smaller sweeper • Stormwater • Intersections and Driveways • Maintenance • When and Wh ere • Roadway Reconstruction • Things to Consider: • Intersections and Driveways • Conflicts with Utilities and Trees • Right of Way Acquisition • When and Wh ere • Rural areas • Limited Right of Way • Things to Consider: • User conflicts Target Motor Vehicle Speed* Any < 10 mph Target Motor Vehicle Volume {ADT) Less relevant Motor Vehicle Lanes Any Key Operational Considerations Any of the follo wing: high curbside activity, frequent buses, motor vehicle congestion, or t urning conflicts+ Pedestrians share the roadway No centerline, or 1--------------------i single lane one- :S 20 mph :S 1,000 -2,000 1--------------------iway < 50 motor vehicles per hour in the peak direction at peak hour :S 25 mph :S 500 -1,500 :S 1,500 -3,000 1---------~ Single lane each :S 3,000 -6,000 direction, or 1---------~ single lane one- Greater than 6,000 Any way Low curbside activity or low congestion pressure Multiple lanes per direction All Ages & Abilities Bicycle Facility Separated Bicycle Lane Shared Street Bicycle Boulevard Conventional or Buffered Bicycle Lane, or Separated Bicycle Lane Buffered or Separated Bicycle Lane Separated Bicycle Lane Target Motor Vehicle Speed* Target Motor Vehicle Volume (ADT) Motor Vehicle Lanes Single lane each direction Key Operational Considerations ~ 6,000 1----------1 Low curbside activity, or low Greater than 26 mp ht Multiple lanes per direction Greater than 6,000 Any High-speed limited access roadways, natural corridors, or geographic edge Any conditions with limited conflicts congestion pressure Any High pedestrian volume Low pedestrian volume All Ages & Abilities Bicycle Facility Separated Bicycle Lane, or Reduce Speed Separated Bicycle Lane, or Reduce to Single Lane & Reduce Speed Separated Bicycle Lane Bike Path with Separate Walkway or Separated Bicycle Lane Shared-Use Path or Separated Bicycle Lane *While posted or 85th percentile motor vehicle speed are commonly used design speed targets, 95th percentile speed captures high-end speeding, which causes greater stress to bicyclists and more frequent passing events. Setting target speed based on this threshold results in a higher level of bicycling comfort for the full range of riders. t Setting 25 mph as a motor vehicle speed threshold for providing protected bikeways is consistent with many cities' traffic safety and Vision Zero policies. However, some cities use a 30 mph posted speed as a threshold for protected bikeways, consistent with providing Level of Traffic Stress level 2 (LTS 2) that can effectively reduce stress and accommodate more types of riders. :j: Operational factors that lead to bikeway conflicts are reasons to provide protected bike lanes regardless of motor vehicle speed and volume. Types of Separation Plastic Delineator Posts 3' 10' to 40' Low High Parking Stops/Linear Barriers 1' to 2' 2' gaps Moderate Moderate Turtle/Large Bumps 18" 4' Low Moderate Oblong Low Bumps {Armadillos) 18" 4' Low Moderate Planter Boxes 3' 4'gaps High High Permanent Options ~ Bollards 18" 10' to 40' Moderate Low @) Concrete Barriers 3' Continuous Moderate Low (j}) Concrete Median/Curbs 16" Continuous High Low Additional Protection Option @) Parked Cars 3' buffer, 8' parking lane n/a Low n/a Separated Bike Lanes On-Street Off-Street Roadway Reconstruction Shared-use Paths When ROW is limited Protected Intersections Conflict Points -add Green Paint at Driveways and Intersections Priorities Within a mile of campus On-Street High Priorities Corridors -George Bush Drive, College Main, Anderson, Walton • As roads are reconstructed Off-Street Separated Bike Lanes Things to consider to Achieve goals: • Removal of Parking Bike and Ped Priority in Design No right turns on red Reduced speed limit Additional higher costs for projects to move barriers such as poles to achieve cross section Additional resources Street sweeping Staff • Maintenance of green paint 4/5/2021 PBIC Image Library An open-source photo collection of pedestrian and bicycling scenes This site is funded by the lJ.S. Dt.:partmt:nt o -r,-~~:>p0rtiition f,.,.,1c!-a I L;t-1\"='Y ArJ;c :r::~tt .· =--. and Ndlmndl ri1!JllWdV lrdffi<. ;d•i:ly 1\drrn111~l:;.1L1, •ri and maintained by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center within the Un1w!r:-:;it\ 0f N ... ·: • ·v n~ 1-fa;h"..:~\' ~: ~f ty Pr•;; a: · 1tf'r. Please read our USd!JC (..~u1tlthr1e~. www_oedbikeimaaes.ora/details.oho?oicid=2650 Austin TX United States lSAGL ABOUT ~n .. ere e '1.1 crornob11ity "'cwcd 1 frastruc.turc cxas, to support Individual Separated Bike Lane, Sidewalk, Trees Original version Screen version , I ( 1Llx40 !) nc ~At,5) usage guidelines '0 this 1rn ige 1/1 Kimlev-Horn and Associates, Inc. Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Project: E 4th St I E 1st St Buffered Bike Lane • On Street Intersections Date: 4/10/201S imits: Sylvania Ave to Oakland Blvd Prepared By: BRF KHA No.: 61018143 Sheet: 1OF1 Atuiumptlons: Jersey Barrier assumed East of Beach. Signalized intersections updated to include Bike Signal and Detection. Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost 1 4" SLD Pvmt Marking HAS (W) 4SOOO LF $ 1.SO $ 67,500 2 8" SLD Pvmt Marking HAS (W) 4000 LF $ 3.00 $ 12,000 3 8" Raised Pvmt Markers (Turtle Domes) 1400 EA $ 48.00 $ 67,200 4 lane Legend Bike 30 EA $ 255.00 $ 7,650 5 4" DOT Pvmt Marking HAS (W) 1200 lF $ 1.70 $ 2,040 6 Jersey Barrier 15000 LF $ 45.00 $ 675,000 7 6" Saw Cut & Removal 700 SY $ 25.00 $ 17,500 8 Block Sod Placement 700 SY $ 15.00 $ 10,500 9 Remove ADA Ramp 2 EA $ 500.00 $ 1,000 10 Install ADA Ramp 7 EA $ 3,000.00 $ 21,000 11 Concrete Curb & Gutter 400 lF $ 50.00 $ 20,000 12 Install Concrete 350 SF $ 15.00 $ 5,250 13 6" Cone Sidewalk 5400 SF $ 12.00 $ 64,800 14 24" SLD Pvmt Marking HAE (W) 200 LF $ 12.50 $ 2,500 15 Remove lane legend Arrow 2 EA $ 650.00 $ 1,300 16 lane legend Arrow 1 EA $ 150.00 $ 150 17 Remove 4" Pvmt Marking 100 lF $ 1.25 $ 125 18 Remove 24" Pvmt Marking 30 lF $ 3.85 $ 116 19 Relocate Signal Head 4 EA $ 300.00 $ 1,200 20 5/C 14 AWG Multi-Conductor Cable 200 lF $ 1.50 $ 300 21 Bike Signal and Detection 6 EA $ 15,000.00 $ 90,000 22 Mobilization 1 LS $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000 23 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 50 000.00 $ so 000 Basis for Cost Projection: Subtotal: $1,217,000 0 No Design Completed Engineering 10 $122,000 • Preliminary Design Canting.(%,+/-) 10 $122,000 0 Final Design Total: $1,460,000 The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices or over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. IKimle:t-Horn and Associates, Inc. Opinion of Probable Construction Cost I Project: E 4th St I E 1st St Buffered Bike Lane -Off Street Intersections Date: 411012019 Limits: Sylvania Ave to Oakland Blvd Prepared By: BRF KHA No.: 61018143 Sheet: 1 OF1 l4uumotlona: Jerae Barrier anumed East of Beach. Signalized Intersections to be full rebuilds. : .. ~ .. . Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost 1 4" SLD Pvmt Marking HAS (W) 4SOOO LF $ 1.SO $ 67,SOO 2 8" SLD Pvmt Marking HAS (W) 4000 LF $ 3.00 $ 12,000 3 8" Raised Pvmt Markers (Turtle Domes) 1400 EA $ 48.00 $ 67,200 4 Lane Legend Bike 30 EA $ 2SS.OO $ 7,6SO 5 4" DOT Pvmt Marking HAS (W) 1200 LF $ 1.70 $ 2,040 6 Jersey Barrier l SOOO LF $ 4S.OO $ 67S,OOO 7 6" Saw Cut & Removal 700 SY $ 2S.00 $ 17,SOO 8 Block Sod Placement 700 SY $ lS.00 $ 10,SOO 9 Remove ADA Ramp 2 EA $ SOD.OD $ 1,000 10 Install ADA Ramp 7 EA $ 3,000.00 $ 21,000 11 Concrete Curb & Gutter 400 LF $ SO.OD $ 20,000 12 Install Concrete 3SO SF $ lS.00 $ S,2SO 13 6" Cone Sidewalk S400 SF $ 12.00 $ 64,800 14 24" SLD Pvmt Marking HAE (W) 200 LF $ 12.SO $ 2,SOO 15 Remove Lane Legend Arrow 2 EA $ 650.00 $ 1,300 16 Lane Legend Arrow 1 EA $ lS0.00 $ lSO 17 Remove 4" Pvmt Marking 100 LF $ 1.2S $ 12S 18 Remove 24" Pvmt Marking 30 LF $ 3.8S $ 116 19 Signal Modification 3 EA $ 3SO,OOO.OO $ 1,0S0,000 20 Mobilization 1 LS $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000 21 Traffic Control 1 LS $ so 000.00 $ so 000 Basis for Cost Projection: ~ubtotal: $2,176,000 0 No Design Completed Engineering 10 $218,000 • Preliminary Design Conting. (%,+/·) 10 $218,000 0 Final Design Total: $2,610,000 The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices or over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Project: E 4th St IE 1st St Cycle Track Date: 4110/201S Umlta: Sylvanla Ave to Oakland Blvd Prepared By: BRF KHA No.: 61018143 Sheet: 1OF1 Jersey Barrier assumed East of Beach. Sylvania to accommodate Bike Signal and Detection and Beach and Rlverslde to be full Assumptions: rebuilds • ·-· . temNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost 1 4" SLD Pvmt Marking HAS (W) 24000 LF $ l .SO $ 36,000 2 8" SLD Pvmt Marking HAS (W) 2400 LF $ 3.00 $ 7,200 3 8" Raised Pvmt Markers (Turtle Domes) 800 EA $ 48.00 $ 38,400 4 Lane Legend Bike 28 EA $ 2SS.00 $ 7,140 5 4" DOT Pvmt Marking HAS (W) 900 LF $ 1.70 $ 1,S30 6 4" DOT Pvmt Marking HAS (Y) 13000 LF $ 1.70 $ 22,100 7 Green Thermoplastic Pavement 2000 SF $ lS.00 $ 30,000 8 Green Bike Box 2 EA $ S,000.00 $ 10,000 9 Jersey Barrier 6000 LF $ 4S.00 $ 270,000 10 6" Saw Cut & Removal 700 SY $ 2S.00 $ 17,SOO 11 Block Sod Placement 700 SY $ lS.00 $ 10,SOO 12 Remove ADA Ramp 2 EA $ S00.00 $ 1,000 13 Install ADA Ramp 7 EA $ 3,000.00 $ 21,000 14 Concrete Curb & Gutter 400 LF $ S0.00 $ 20,000 15 Install Concrete 3SO SF $ lS.00 $ S,2SO 16 6" Cone Sidewalk S400 SF $ 12.00 $ 64,800 17 24" SLD Pvmt Marking HAE (W) 200 LF $ 12.SO $ 2,SOO 18 Remove Lane Legend Arrow 2 EA $ 6SO.OO $ 1,300 19 Lane Legend Arrow 1 EA $ lS0.00 $ lSO 20 Remove 4" Pvmt Marking 100 LF $ l.2S $ 12S 21 Remove 24" Pvmt Marking 30 LF $ 3.8S $ 116 22 Bike Signal and Detection 2 EA $ lS,000.00 $ 30,000 23 Signal Modification 2 EA $ 3S0,000.00 $ 700,000 24 Mobilization 1 LS $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000 25 Traffic Control 1 LS $ so 000.00 $ so 000 Basis for Cost Projection: Subtotal: $1,447,000 0 No Design Completed Engineering 10 $145,000 • Preliminary Design Canting.(%,+/-) 10 $145,000 0 Final Design Total: $1,740,000 The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices or over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. ·-NACTO •• Prepared by U.S. DOT Volpe Center Downsized Street Maintenance Vehicles CAS E STUDIES As cities look to redesign their streets to provide more safe mobility and transportation options for their constituents, new maintenance and operations challenges and opportunities arise. On streets with higher volumes of vehicular traffic or traffic speeds above 25mph, physical barriers are necessary to protect bike lanes. However, in many places there is insufficient street '<''idth to accommodate a conventional sized street sweeper or snow plow (typically 81'-102' wide). To address this issue, a number of North American cities have begun to deploy smaller vehicles to clear snow and debris from their protected bike lane networks. Where used, cities have found that the smaller vehicles are effective for cleaning and plowing protected bike lanes, as well as sidewalks and multiuse paths and can supplement traditional vehicle capacity on narrow streets, parking lots, and garages. In addition, cities report operating cost savings and reduced emissions stemming from the greater fuel efficiency of smaller vehicles. The following case studies explore downsized street sweeping and snow plow equipment currently in use in Boston, Salt Lake City, Cambridge, MA, and Chicago. These case studies are an addendum to the Optimizing Large Vehicles for Urban Environments reports produced by the U.S. DOT Volpe Center for NACTO in 2018. Boston Salt Lake City Downsized Street Maintenance Vehicles At-A-Glance Model I Ravo Sweeper I I Avant Mini-loader I I Polaris ATV I I Ventrac Tractor I I John Deere Skid Steer I I Trackless Tractors I Kubota RTV-X1100 I Tennant ATLV 636 1 Mathieu MC210 I Holder C992 & C270 I Width Application(s) 86.6-98.4 in '6·'~eeping: protected bike lanes ,. ~.\ID. . . 39.0-55.9 in Sweeping +clearing snow: protected bike lanes, narrow streets, and alleys 62.5 in 5. 2k\-· Sweeping + clearing light snow: protected bike lanes ~· 48.5 in 4;-, t\;~ Snow clearing: weight-restricted bridges, parking lots and gara es 62 .9 in S .'2/\ • Snow clearing: protected bike lanes 50.5 in 4.v Snow clearing: alleys 65.4 in 5."'\ c; . Snow clearing: protected bike lanes . I.,~ 51-81 1n "'. Sweeping: protected bike lanes 50.9 in; sweeping range Sweeping: protected bike lanes 50.4-96.5 in L\ ) . "\ C992: 51-65 in Snow clearing: protected Cambridge C270: 45-60 in bike lanes, pedestrian areas Chicago I Multihog I I Wacker Neuson 50-65 in 55.7 in Sweeping, snow clearing, snow treating; pavement patching Snow plowing and salting I Multihog I 50_65 in treating, clearing pedestrian areas of bridges over the river and protected bike lanes ,• " Features Based on the 500 series Different attachments, snow brush, brooms Based on the 4500 series Based on the 312 GR without a bucket Based on the MT7 Width excluding mirrors; sweeping range up to 114.8 in with 3rd optional brush Push and blow snow, salt spreading, dump bed on back Based on the MXC model Articulated; Based on the WL32 Model Based on the MXC model { Sweeping, snow clearing, snow '------ Downsized Street Maintenance Vehicles Case Studies 2 Boston I , \_, -L In 2016, the Boston Public Works Department {PWD) began purchasing downsized vehicles to maintain newly built protected bike lanes, in support of Vision Zero. The two agencies coordinate to ensure that PWD can maintain the infrastructure that Boston Transportation Department (BTD) builds. The PWD currently maintains a fhet of 17 (soon to be 21) compact sweeping and plowin g vehicles from 6 different vendors. Each vehicle in the city's fleet has multiple uses, leveraging the initial investment. For example, Ventrac tractors can be used to clear parking lots and garages, while other sweeping and plowing vehicles are used for narrow streets and lanes, such as multiuse paths and protected bike lanes. To ensure a strong, smooth roll-out and integration of the new vehicles in the fleet, Boston PWD prioritizes staff buy-in. Before the acquisition process begins, maintenance staff demo the equipment t hemselves in order to familiarize themse lves with the new vehicles and gain understanding for the benefits of compact equipment. Downsized Street Maintenan ce Vehicles DepkJyed John Deere Skid Steer. Source: Boston Dept. of Public Works Contact Matthew Bradley Public Works Central Fleet Management Division City of Boston Tel: (617) 635-1272 Email: matthew.bradley@boston.gov Case Studies 3 Boston (cont;n"ed 1 '' We have a little bit of everything and just send whatever's needed. '' Matt Bradley, Central Fleet Manager, Boston DPW Downsized Street Maintenance Vehicles Case Studies 4 Salt Lake City • Salt Lake City built its first protected bike lane downtown in 2014, and now has 3 miles of protected lanes. With this mileage of lanes, and an average of 60 inches of snow every year, sweeping and snow clearing are of significant concern. For sweeping operations in protected bike lanes, the City originally tried blowers and roll brushes to push 02bris into the vehicle travel lane for sweeper pick up, but found that these were inefficient and resulted in too much dirt being kicked up. The City also tried using ATVs with hose attachments, ultimately deeming this insufficient as well. In response, the Streets Division procured a new addition to the fleet. Salt Lake City now has a Tennant ATLV 636a "stadium- style" sweeper. This vehicle can clear all the City's protected bike lanes in 2 hours, with a weekly recurring sweeping schedule. Under current conditions, the City estimates their Tennant vehicle will be able to support up to 20 times more protected bike lane miles before a second unit is needed. Contact H. Cabot Jennings Operations Manager Streets Division Department of Public Services Salt Lake City Corporation Downsized Street Maintenance Vehicles Kubota RT\tXI 100 in operation. Source: Salt Lake City, Public Services. For keeping up with annual snow fall, Operations Manager H. Cabot Jennings noted that larger width bike lanes of 7-feet can be cleared by existing equipment, such as a plow-equipped Ford F550. This gives the City additional operational flexibility. For the majority of the City's existing and planned protected lanes, smaller vehicles are necessary. Salt Lake City spent their first year using Jeep Wranglers from the Golf Department equipped with cut-down plow blades to fit into the lanes. After that, they purchased two Kubota RTVX1100 units with V-plows. These vehicle can clear all the City's protected bike lanes within 2 hours of a storm event. Jennings notes that the Kubotas include heated cabs with windshield wipers, meaning the maintenance crew is happier using them. Salt Lake City provides annual vehicle training for operators. Keeping those doing the work safe and comfortable is key to ensuring a smooth deployment. Tel : (801) 535-6994 Email: cabot.jennings@slcgov.com Case Studies 5 Cambridge Cambridge, MA features many pedestrian squares. To maintain these areas, the city began utilizing downsized sweeping and plowing vehicles in the 2000s, well before the first protected bike lane was implemented. These Holder sweepers and plows grew to a fleet of seven to maintain 25 miles of sidewalk including the full length of Massachusetts Ave: along with usage in the summer for watering trees and landscape areas. While the Holder equipment was initially adequate to meet Cambridge's needs, over the years, the city has found that routine maintenance has made it challenging to ke ep all of them running at the same time. In 2016, Cambridge acquired one additional 48-52" wide Mathieu street sweeper and one 45" wide Tennant unit to clear and maintain their protected bike lanes. The Mathieu sweepers are narrow enough to fit into the lanes, complete with articulating brooms that can be manipulated to squeeze into tighter spaces. Cambridge DPW uses the sweepers in recreational areas like basketball and tennis courts, as well as parking lots. In addition to the Holder equipment, DPW also uses a Wacker Neuson articulated plower and salter, and since 2018, a Multihog plow with brine attachment to de-ice protected bike lanes. DPW first rented the Multihog in 2018 to test its reliability and ease of maintenance, Contact John Nardone Deputy Commissioner of Operations Department of Public Works City of Cambridge and based on that experience, ordered one in 2019. The City cites the "try before you buy" strategy as a good w_ay to ~ake sure the vehicles meet particular ne:ds,_ includ1ng maneuverability, traction, capacity, rel1abil1ty, and garner the support of public works crew members. Like Salt Lake City and Boston, Cambridge has to deal with severe snow often on short notice. With a fleet of nine compact snow plows, the city can deploy vehicles with the same speed as the traditional plows. Equipped with dump bddies and salt spreaders in the back, they're able to treat the sidewalks and bike lanes as they push or in some cases blow the snow. All of the compact units include blowers to be able to blow snow into an adjacent dump truck or into park areas for higher volume snows. As for all new vehicles, Cambridge needed to cal ibrate expectations for maintenance, sourcing parts and accessories, and training operators. Nardone noted that larger drivers are more comfortable on long shifts in units with roomier cabs, such as on the larger Holders and Multihogs, compared with the smaller Holders or Wacker. Tel: (617) 349-4853 Email : jnardone@cambridgema.gov Downsized Street Maintenance Vehicles Case Studies 6 Cambridge (continued .... ) '' If you're going to ... go all in, make sure you have a plan.'' Downsizr d Street Maintenance Vehicles John Nardone, Deputy Commissioner, Cambridge DPW Case Studies 7 Chicago Chicago's rollout of a large, citywide protected bike lane network has also been enabled by investment in compact maintenance equipment. The Chicago Department of Transportation initially used old tracked SW48 Bombardiers from 1997 and 2001 to clear snow from bike lanes; however, these vehicles could not adequately clear snow on all the sidewalks and bridges in the city. In 2018, Chicago procured two Multihogs specifically for bike lane winter maintenance. These vehicles include a number of attachments such as drop spreaders for sand and salt, plows, rotary sweepers for bike lanes, and a power washer for cleaning green alleys, which will promote their usage for maintenance year- round. Ordering these with enough lead time is important, as Chicago discovered when customs delays kept the units from arriving until spring 2019, too late to place them into service for the winter season. David Pertuz, Senior Automotive Equipment Analyst at the Chicago Department of Fleet and Facility Management, notes that Chicago's fleet purchasing contracts are written such that other local agencies can join the procurement. This can be very beneficial for smaller cities in Illinois, allowing them to order off CDOT's vehicle contracts thereby avoiding the burden of specification development and from scratch procurement. Downsized Street Maintenance Vehicles Image of Chicago Department of Transportation Multihog Unit (Backside). Source: David Pertuz/City of Chicago, Contact David Pertuz Senior Automotive Equipment Analyst Department of Fleet and Facility Management (2FM) City of Chicago Tel: (312) 743-3589 Email: David.Pertuz@cityofchicago.org Case Studies 8 • October 2019 DOT-VNTSC-NACT0-19-01 Prepared for: National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) New York, New York U.S. Department of Transportation John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 55 Broadway Cambridge, MA 02142-1093 617-494-2000 www.volpe.dot.gov DOT-VNTSC-NACT0-19-01 Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportatirin in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. These recommendations represent the best technical judgement of U.S . DOT Volpe Center staff based on their independent and objective technical analysis and expertise, and are not to be misconstrued as statements of U.S. DOT policy or guidance. Downsized Street Maintenance Vehicles Case Studies 9 ~I ~I J_ I .. SIDEWALK 1% I OLD t MUNSON AVE.NUE I EXIST ROW (VARIES 41' -59' : so· USUALI EXISTING CEMENT STABILIZEO BASE COURSE VARIES 6" TO 14" 110" AVERAGEl EXISTING TYPICAL SECTION (. MUNSON AVENUE I EXIST ROW (VARIES 41' -59' : so· USUALI I 23' F C TO F C I .J. I t 3% USUAL v--PGL I -3% USUAL I 24' LIMITS OF PAY FOR 8" JPCC I I 28' L!MlTS OF PAY FOR 6" CHEMICALLY STABILIZED SUBGRADE PROPOSED TYP [CAI SEC T ION STA 10•42.0 TO STA 44•16.03 t INTERSE.CTING STREET I EXIST ROW VARIES I F.C. TO F.C. lVARIES 25'-37': 27' USUALI I .J. I MATCH EXISTING 2<1' -38' LIMITS OF PAY FOR <I" HMAC SEE DETAI L 8 PROPOSED ASPHAI T TRANS l T ION IYP [CAI SECT ION •TO BE USED AT INTERSECTIONS WHERE PROPOSED CONCRETE APRONS TIE TO EX ISTING ASPHALT PAVING NOTES: 8" JOINTED PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE IJPCCl 6" CHEMICALLY STABILIZED SUBGRADE COMBINED CURB ANO GUTTER 4" HMAC SURFACE COURSE DETAIL A N, T. S DETAIL B N. T, S I, INSTALL •<I BARS• 12" O.C.E.W. FOR 8" PORTLAND CEME:NT REINFORCING. 2. DOWEL PROPOSED SIDEWALK TO PROPOSED BACK OF CURB PER DETAIL SWl-02, NOTE 3. 3. TYPE "DM LONGITUDINAL JO[NT SHALL BE PLACED ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF THE PAVEMENT, WITH DEFORMED TIE BARS •4x18", 12" O.C. 4, TYPE "G" EXPANSION & CONTRACTION JOINT SHALL BE PLACED AT A MAXIMUM OF 120 L.F. SPACING W(TH SMOOTM DOWEL BARS 3/4" DIAMETER IC 18", 12" O.C., COATED WITH HEAVY CREASE. 5. TYPE MB" CONTRACTION JOINTS SHALL BE PLACED AT A MAXIWM OF 15 L.F. SPACING. THESE DOCLMENTS ARE FOR INTERIM REVIEW ANO NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION, BIDDING OR PERMIT PURPOSES. RESPONS ISLE ENC !NEER: BRANDON M. BOATCALLIE, P. E. TEXAS REGCSTRATION NO_. 97<119 11125/2015 CrrY OF CrnJY.GE STATION {) Blnkle & Barfield Inc consulting engineers TbasRegilnb\N~F-257 MUNSON AVENUE REHABILITATION TYPICAL SECTIONS PROJECT Nl.lrotBER SMEET Nl.lrotBER STI 402 Southside Separated Bike Lanes on a Minor Collector • On-street One-way separated bike lane -38 feet • On-street Two-way separated bike lane -35 fe et • Off-Street One-way separated bike lane -54 feet • Off-Street Two-way separated bike lane -54 feet Minor Collector Fairview Avenue Major Collector Anderson Street 44 ~ ~ Lf6 1 ;s-~ s' ~~ ~"' 2k Shared Lane or Bike 1k Boulevard 0-5,000 5,001-15,000 35 e lj>.F<fl..(~ t/yv 'f-~' ;::-c._, SI~~ /If i/(}})1 /.]I if/.;W fi--(6 ( ;:L-.::,~. 5 I~~ Yes -portion? Yes Yes Eastgate Separated Bike Lanes on a Minor Collector • On-street One-way separated bike lane -38 feet • On-street Two-way separated bike lane -35 feet • Off-Street One-way separated bike lane -54 feet • Off-Street Two-way separated bike lane -54 feet Minor Collector Francis Drive 0-5,000 30 Minor Collector Munson (Dominik to Harvey Road) 34-35 70 5,001-15,000 30 ~-lt:::,.'1.o.'-\. ~ts 3 31 F< ~ Jr:' VJJ.JY. ofdJ..l 3{1 F~ Yes -portion to be removed No Northgate Separated Bike Lanes on a Minor Collector • On-street One-way separated bike lane -38 feet • On-street Two-way separated bike lane -35 feet • Off-Street One-way separated bike lane -54 feet • Off-Street Two-way separated bike lane -54 feet Typical Section 2k Shared lane or Bike • Sidewalks 1k Boulevard • Trees • Light poles • Utility poles Type Road Pavement ROW Est. Traffic Speed On-Street Volumes Parking College Main Minor Collector College Main 33 45-60 0 -5,000 25 No Minor Collector Nagle Street 33 50-60 0 -5,000 25 Yes