Tr o y Bi c y c l eCo nne c t i o ns Pl a n Ag ui def o rma k i ng s a f e ,e nj o y a bl e ,a nde f f i c i e nt bi c y c l i ngar e a l i t yf o rTr o y Troy Bicycle Connections Plan January 2018 Prepared by Parks & Trails New York for the City of Troy and the Capital District Transportation Committee Acknowledgements PTNY would like to acknowledge the following individuals who served on the Study Advisory Committee: Karl Beard, National Park Service Jennifer Ceponis, Capital District Transportation Committee Dan Harp, Capital District Regional Planning Commission Joe Fama, Troy Rehabilitation and Improvement Program Brent Irving, Capital District Transportation Authority Andrew Kreshik, City of Troy Department of Planning Jim Lewis, Collar City Ramble / Transport Troy Andrew Lynn, Troy Bike Rescue Will Malcolm, Capital Roots / Transport Troy Steve Strichman, City of Troy – Department of Planning Linda von der Heide, Rensselaer County Planning Lindsay Zefting, Troy Resident PTNY is particularly grateful to Transport Troy for promoting the Troy Bicycle Connections Plan and survey to their members and providing feedback at their monthly meetings. Parks & Trails New York PTNY is a non-profit organization working since 1985 to expand, protect, and promote a network of parks, trails, and open spaces throughout New York State for the use and enjoyment by all. PTNY’s project team includes: Robin Dropkin Gregory Francese Fran Gotcsik James Meerdink For more information about our work visit ptny.org. About the Troy Bicycle Connections Plan This plan was funded in part through a grant from the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. The views and opinions of the authors [or agency] expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Department of Transportation. This report was prepared in cooperation with the City of Troy, the Capital District Transportation Committee, the Capital District Regional Planning Commission, the Capital District Transportation Authority, Rensselaer County, and the New York State Department of Transportation. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of these government agencies. The recommendations are conceptual in nature and are presented to characterize the types of improvements that are desirable, and that may be implemented as part of future land use and transportation improvement projects. All transportation concepts will require further engineering evaluation and review. Undertaking additional engineering or other follow up work will be based upon funding availability. The Troy Bicycle Connections Plan will have a positive impact on the affected Environmental Justice populations, as documented in the Appendix. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................. 3 Previous Planning ..................................................................................................................................12 Public Engagement and Participation ................................................................................................... 17 Survey Results .................................................................................................................................. 19 Urban Bikeway Demonstration Project ............................................................................................. 21 Recommended Bikeway Network ......................................................................................................... 23 Primary Bikeways ............................................................................................................................. 27 Secondary Bikeways ......................................................................................................................... 33 Neighborhood Bikeways ................................................................................................................... 37 Intersection Treatments ................................................................................................................... 44 Bicycle Route Signage ...................................................................................................................... 49 Bicycle Parking ................................................................................................................................. 51 Implementation .................................................................................................................................... 55 Priority Projects ................................................................................................................................ 57 Policy Recommendations & Other Next Steps .................................................................................. 60 Recommended Bikeway Decision Matrix .......................................................................................... 61 A La Carte Facility Costs ................................................................................................................... 63 Potential Funding Sources ................................................................................................................ 64 Bicycle Parking Ordinances............................................................................................................... 51 Fix-It Bicycle Repair Stations............................................................................................................. 66 Maintenance and Snow Removal ...................................................................................................... 67 Post-installation Education ............................................................................................................... 69 Glossary of Terms ................................................................................................................................. 70 Photo Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... 73 Appendix A: Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................... 74 Appendix B: Community Feedback Summary ....................................................................................... 78 Appendix C: Environmental Justice ....................................................................................................... 84 The Troy Bicycle Connections Plan is a guide for making safe, enjoyable, and efficient bicycling a reality for Troy. It is a guide for city officials, advocates, and interested residents and business owners. As the name implies, a major focus of the plan is to connect existing bicycle facilities, such as bike lanes and the Uncle Sam Bikeway, to create a viable transportation network for bicyclists. The Troy Bicycle Connections Plan uses best practices from across the United States to assemble a bikeway network that accommodates the comfort level and abilities of all current and future bicyclists. The network outlined in the following pages consists of three bikeway types - primary, secondary, and neighborhood bikeways. Each bikeway type responds to roadway characteristics, such as traffic volumes, speeds, and connectivity to parks, trails, schools, workplaces, and business districts, that help appropriately categorize it. Primary Bikeways have the highest levels of traffic, oftentimes because they are the most direct routes to important destinations. Secondary Bikeways, too, can have high traffic volumes and high connectivity, though they usually serve important destinations less directly. Neighborhood Bikeways, which are usually residential streets, are the least connected and therefore have the lowest traffic volumes. The recommended bicycle facility for each bikeway type takes into account the level of comfort and safety of bicyclists; so Primary Bikeways will have more protection recommended than Secondary and Neighborhood Bikeways. To accommodate flexibility and encourage innovative solutions, there is no single recommendation for each bikeway type. The plan also includes a matrix the City of Troy should use to determine the appropriate treatment for each street. In addition to bikeway treatments, the Troy Bicycle Connections Plan makes recommendations for bicycle parking, which is a necessary component of any well-developed cycling network. The final section of the Troy Bicycle Connections Plan prioritizes ten projects that the City of Troy should undertake within the next 3-5 years to jumpstart the network. Facility recommendations and corresponding cost estimates are available for each priority project. The Troy Bicycle Connections Plan recognizes that creating a world-class cycling city is a challenging undertaking, requiring continued community involvement and political will. By creating a shared community vision and identifying short- and long-term priorities for improving bicycle connectivity, this guide gives Troy the necessary framework and tools to become a place where bicycling is safe, enjoyable, and efficient for all ages and abilities. Cities and towns across the United States are embracing bicycling as a viable form of transportation. Some cities started this process decades ago, while many, including the City of Troy, are only just beginning. In addition to providing residents with low-cost transportation options, planning for bicycling leads to reduced costs related to roadway wear and tear, congestion pollution, and health issues caused by sedentary lifestyles. In addition to lowering these costs to residents and society, bicycling is a proven engine of economic development. Studies from cities large and small show that the installation of bicycling infrastructure leads to increased revenue for shops and restaurants and higher property values for adjacent landowners. Bicycling can have positive effects on mental health, leading to happier and more productive residents. The Troy Bicycle Connections Plan will help the City of Troy achieve a network of bikeways that fit the city’s budget and a comfort level that accommodates people of all ages and abilities. The plan is pragmatic, with multiple alternatives offered for each bikeway. Thanks to multiple opportunities for feedback along the way, it has been informed by residents and visitors. The treatments outlined in the Troy Bicycle Connections Plan are largely influenced by the National Association of City Transportation Official’s (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide. NACTO’s treatments are based on the experience of the best cycling cities in the world and almost all are permitted under the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Treatment examples can be found in cities across the United States, and increasingly, elsewhere in the Capital District. 1 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan The City of Troy is one of the principle cities of the Albany-Schenectady-Troy metropolitan area, a region that is home to almost 1 million people and is more commonly referred to as the Capital District. Troy is also the county seat for Rensselaer County. Despite its separation from much of the region by the Hudson River, Troy is well-integrated into the Capital District, with many residents and visitors traveling between the city and neighboring municipalities for work, recreation, and shopping. Troy is known as the home of "Uncle Sam" Wilson, a local butcher whose likeness came to personify the U.S. government. Troy is also referred to as the "Collar City", after resident Hannah Lord Montague's innovation of the removable shirt collar. A long period of disinvestment followed the deindustrialization of the Northeast in the middle of the 20th century, resulting in a higher than average percentage of the city’s population living in poverty. While the city continues to rebound from this period of economic decline and stagnation, Troy’s thriving downtown, waterfront access to the Hudson River, and the presence of world-class educational institutions point to a bright future. Much of Troy was developed before the arrival of the automobile, leaving a legacy of dense, walkable neighborhoods. Many residents rely on public transit, walking, and biking to travel throughout the city and region. A growing demand for accommodating more sustainable transportation modes, such as bicycling, among city residents, elected officials, and the Capital District Transportation Committee means that retrofitting the existing, welldeveloped on- and off-road transportation network and identifying new opportunities in Troy has become a priority, leading to the development of the Troy Bicycle Connections Plan. CDTC’s Community and Transportation Linkage Planning Program (the Linkage Program) is an integrated land use and transportation planning program created to implement the regional transportation plan known as New Visions 2040. The program has been recognized as a national best practice in livability planning and is the cornerstone of CDTC’s public outreach efforts. The program provides financial and technical assistance to local communities for planning, with particular emphasis on projects that support implementation of innovative transportation and land use concepts. Examples include strategic zoning code changes/zoning code overlays, the development of complete streets design guidelines, strategic master plans, etc. The Linkage Program is one of the most significant cooperative regional efforts in the nation to reflect, in practice, what representatives of the region’s counties, cities, towns and villages as well as state and local transportation providers have adopted as policy. In recognition of this regional 2 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan achievement, the Linkage Program received a 2010 National Planning Excellence Award from the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration and the American Planning Association. As of March 2017, CDTC has funded a total of 86 collaborative, jointly-funded studies over the past sixteen years. Study sponsors have included 40 separate urban, suburban and rural municipalities and counties as well as not-forprofits and other public entities. Roughly $6.0 million in federal, state and local funds have been committed to the Linkage Program since its inception in 2000. Throughout the development of the Troy Bicycle Connections Plan, PTNY regularly informed and sought feedback from a diverse stakeholder group of planning professionals, community leaders and activists, and city residents who served as a Study Advisory Committee (SAC). The group was convened by the Capital District Transportation Committee and the City of Troy, the project leaders. Many members of the SAC performed community outreach to their constituencies on behalf of the plan. Existing Conditions 3 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan oy Bicycle Connec?ons Existing Conditions January 2018 Bike Infrast ucture Striped bike lane Climbing lane Shared lane mark'ngs, ?sharrows? Multi-use trail Bicycle Amenities Fix-it Bicycle Repair Station Bike Rack Cycle! Bike Share Hub Trail comedian Schenechdy 15% Waterford ?a . 3? ?l I ?7an ?08 Brunswick Alma Court Grace ecu? ?st Street I I I I "With MN a Green . Island . Colonle 5 . - - a Islam :1 ?Nyvoyorive a :3 I a fear a; a rumour: 5 Meme+? Park Samaritan Joseph snug -. g: v? f. Watervliet #0 3 5? i 14?, Street 5' 4 mm" Magus Shaw Bunk Street Brunswick Road 3 0 I 0 4e Central 3 a ?a a Id.- sh" 5 u. . 3' clna I ?Vmu. Street ?d .7: ah,? i Pm I: t? "and '5 ?00d; Ava,? 13: 3 Emma ?Mctlella .107?)? mum Tro 50" so," 4' My, 94y,? 9. 3? - 4 3 Tile, 3 Avenu?"so.? goo . Mill sneer 2? 5 0 c- 917% .. ?d . 3 ?99? TM 5 rd? 8 ?96 Menands 95 1* 5 Tull tn Mary.? Dr?. 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Mg North Greenbush As a relatively old and prosperous city, Troy has a diverse land-use development pattern. While the city previously hosted large manufacturing areas, today, the land-use pattern is dominated by institutional uses such as hospitals and colleges and universities. Many of the city’s neighborhoods are mixed-use, with varying levels of density and uses. These characteristics of Troy’s land-use development pattern mean that most residents are located close to services, schools, parks and recreation, and business and employment centers. According to the 2010 Census, the City of Troy has 50,129 residents. Compared to the wider Capital District, which encompasses the Albany-Schenectady-Troy Metropolitan Area, Troy is more racially and ethnically diverse. A higher percentage of the city’s residents live below the poverty line compared to the rest of the Capital District. Troy is included within the boundaries of the Capital District Transportation Committee’s Environmental Justice impact area. An analysis of how this study relates to this designation is included in Appendix C. See Appendix A for information and analysis of Troy’s land use, demographics including population, race, poverty and educational attainment. Appendix A also presents background information on Troy’s existing transportation network, including public transportation, walkability, mode share, safety, and housing and transportation affordability. The City of Troy is already a multi-modal city, with a well-developed transit system, network of streets with sidewalks, and bicycle infrastructure that includes some painted lanes and a growing bike share system. 5 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan The Census Bureau estimates that 22% of residents had access to no vehicle, a figure that is more than double that of the rest of the Capital District Metropolitan Area. According to the Capital District Regional Planning Commission (CDRPC), 0.2% of employed residents of Troy commuted by bicycle. Since this figure is only measuring work trips, it’s likely that it misses many other trips that occur by bicycle, such as errands, trips to school, and recreational rides. The primary public transportation service in Troy and the surrounding areas is Capital District Transportation Authority (CDTA) bus service. CDTA serves Troy with 10 routes, half of which connect Troy to the greater Capital District. All CDTA buses are equipped with front bike racks. CDTA plans to introduce bus rapid transit (BRT) service in Troy and upgrade the existing Uncle Sam Garage into a major transit hub, complete with bicycle friendly amenities that include long- and short-term parking options. CDTA launched the bike share service, CDPHP Cycle!, in 2017. In the system’s first year Troy hosted seven docking stations. These stations were concentrated primarily Downtown, though there were two stations outside of Downtown at Sage College and at the intersection of Liberty and Hill Streets; CDTA reported that the latter location was the busiest in Troy. Unlike many bike share systems, the CDTA system allows users to lock bikes to any bike rack, extending the usable range of the system outside of the areas immediately adjacent to the docking stations. CDTA anticipates approximately doubling the number of CDPHP Cycle! station locations in Troy for the 2018 riding season, with expansion to North Central, Lansingburgh, South Troy, and the Hill neighborhoods. As of the writing of this plan, these specific locations of these new docking stations were unavailable. Crash Density Analysis, 2012-2017 Maps display relative crash density, not speci?c crash locations MP 2 All MAP 1 All) PEDESTRIAI-IIVIILVEII 0 mu?; unnum??" '1 7 My . :3 DDRBURGH Sig/\? 5 ?3 .57 I . ?5575 . NH aw; 4 "Ill" Map produced by Park: 6- Trails New York. lane 23, 2017 6 I WWEQEW Committee and New York State Department of Transportation Thanks to a well-developed and connected street grid, the City of Troy offers significant potential to develop a robust cycling network that will help make cycling across the city more efficient, enjoyable, and safer. Downtown streets that run north-south are primarily numbered streets, with evennumbered streets generally moving traffic northbound and odd-numbered streets generally moving traffic southbound. This pattern is broken by Sixth Avenue, which is bidirectional for its entire length, and River Street, which is bi-directional for two blocks between Fulton Street and Broadway. Cross streets, which run east-west, alternate in direction for eight blocks between Federal and Liberty Streets. Narrow bi-directional alleys run north to south throughout Downtown Troy. Primary Downtown north-south streets include River Street, Third Street, Fourth Street, Fifth Avenue, and Sixth Avenue. Federal Street, Fulton Street, Broadway, State Street, and Congress Street, and Ferry Street are the primary east-west streets. The completeness of the City’s street grid from North Central to South Troy yields a dense pattern of one-ways that run primarily northsouth and two-ways that run east-west. The general rule in South Troy is that oddnumbered streets run south, while evennumbered streets run north. Most cross-streets in this neighborhood run both ways (east and west). South of Downtown, Third and Fourth Streets complement each other as a primary north-south one-ways. North Central Troy’s streets are more complicated, though the north-south streets generally alternate in direction. North of Downtown Troy, River Street and Sixth Avenue are the primary north-south streets. A network of narrow bi-directional alleys run through both of these neighborhoods. 7 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan In Lansingburgh, city streets conform to a grid that includes a mixture of one-ways and twoways that as a whole, mesh together for efficient wayfinding for pedestrians and drivers. River Street / Second Avenue and Sixth Avenue / Fifth Avenue serve as the primary two-way north-south routes through this section of Troy. The eastern boundary of this neighborhood also includes the Uncle Sam Bikeway, which serves as a completely vehicle-free route for just over three miles between Middleburgh Street and Northern Drive. In the neighborhood on the hill between Hoosick Street and the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Campus, the streets largely follow a grid that while disconnected from the downtown grid, follows a similar pattern of one-ways and two-ways intersecting each other to form an easily understandable wayfinding network. In this neighborhood, numbered two-way north-south streets run for ten blocks from Eighth Street through 17th Street and two blocks of complementing oneway east-west streets (Jacob and Eagle Streets) are supplemented by two-way east west streets near the neighborhood boundaries (Peoples Avenue and Hutton Street). In this neighborhood, 15th Street is the primary northsouth route and connects the RPI campus with Hoosick Street. The remainder of the City of Troy consists primarily of two-way streets. Major streets south of Downtown include High Street, Mill Street, Morrison Avenue, Vandenburgh Avenue, and Pawling Avenue. East of Downtown, major streets include Spring Avenue, Congress Street, Brunswick Road, and Pawling Avenue. East of Lansingburgh, major streets include Oakwood Avenue and Northern Drive. Hoosick Street, is a major east-west street, with almost 50,000 vehicles per day using the street along the stretch between the Collar City Bridge and the Town of Brunswick. While this street is an important corridor home to shops, restaurants, grocery stores, and employment centers, it has long served as a barrier between adjacent neighborhoods and the rest of the city. Moreover, the street sees major vehicle congestion during rush hour periods. Due to the scale of interventions needed on Hoosick Street, and fact that it is outside of City jurisdiction, bikeway treatments were not considered for this stretch of roadway. Future planning regarding Hoosick St. should include consideration for cyclists and maintaining the continuity of bikeways crossing the busy roadway. Two public school districts, Lansingburgh and Troy City, educate thousands of children at seven elementary schools, two middle schools, two high schools, one charter school, and an alternative learning program. These schools are dispersed throughout the city, oftentimes serving as an important neighborhood gathering area. Troy is also home to several private schools that draw students from surrounding neighborhoods and in many cases, from other states and countries. For public elementary school students who live less than 0.6 miles and for public middle and high school students who live less than one mile from the school, school bus service is not provided. This transportation policy, combined with the important resources these schools offer neighborhood residents, demonstrates the importance of providing safe bicycling facilities in areas around schools. In addition to a diverse mix of private and public schools, Troy is home to three colleges 8 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan and universities that vary in student composition and size. The largest of these colleges is Hudson Valley Community College. While this school primarily serves a commuter population from around the region, many students and faculty live close enough to the campus to arrive by bicycle. The remaining two colleges, Russell Sage College and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) are primarily residential schools, with many students living either on campus or in nearby apartments. Therefore, students of these schools, and many faculty and staff, are more likely to arrive to campus by active transportation and public transportation. This plan will focus on prioritizing improvements to bicycling connections between universities and colleges and surrounding neighborhoods and commercial areas. The City of Troy is home to three major parks, two memorial parks, and 18 neighborhood parks. The three major parks - Frear, Knickerbacker, and Prospect – are important community recreational assets due to the fact that they offer residents nature trails, pools, skating and hockey rinks, tennis and basketball courts, playgrounds, picnic areas, baseball and soccer fields, an outdoor track, and a golf course. The neighborhood parks are much smaller and are more limited in the facilities they offer residents; however, they are still important community gathering places and host basketball and tennis courts and playgrounds. These 23 parks are spread throughout the City of Troy, and since most offer no dedicated parking areas, connecting them is a high priority of the Troy Bicycle Connections Plan. While Troy currently lacks a developed network of bicycling facilities, amenities traditionally found in cities with a more substantial bicycle network provide a good foundation for future bicycle infrastructure investments. The City of Troy began expanding striped bicycle lanes after the passing a complete streets ordinance in 2014. As of the writing of this plan, the following streets have striped bicycle lanes: Middleburgh Street, between River Street and the Uncle Sam Bikeway: eastbound bicycle lane and westbound shared lane markings; Burdett Avenue, between Tibbits Avenue and Peoples Avenue: bicycle lanes on both sides of the street; Tibbits Avenue, between Orchard Avenue and S. Lake Avenue: alternating bicycle lanes on the uphill and shared lane markings on the downhill; Vandenburgh Avenue, between North Greenbush and Mill Street / Campbell Avenue: bicycle lanes on both sides of the street. 9 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Northbound shared lane markings are located on 1st Street between Main Street and Polk Street. Their primary purpose is to direct bicyclists into Downtown Troy. Most of these markings have faded beyond recognition, however. Wayfinding signage supplements these faded pavement markings. In addition to striped bike lanes and shared lane markings, several streets in Troy have wayfinding signage. The current wayfinding signage guides bicyclists between the TroyMenands Bridge and Downtown Troy and along River and Middleburgh Streets to the Uncle Sam Bikeway. In Lansingburgh and South Troy, old route signage directs travelers to the Mohawk Hudson Heritage Trail. The existing conditions map displays known bike parking locations. In general, bike parking is more readily available in the downtown area than in other neighborhoods. However, municipal facilities such as schools, libraries and parks throughout Troy were observed to have reasonable amounts of bicycle parking. Bicycle fix-it stations, which provide bicyclists with a public stand and attached tools to make bicycle repairs, are currently located at the following four locations:  Capital Roots, 594 River Street  Troy Public Library, 100 2nd Street  Troy Bike Rescue, 3280 6th Avenue  338 Congress Street These fix-it stations are a particularly important amenity for bicyclists in Troy since the city lacks a retail bicycle repair shop. A non-profit, community-run organization that offers bicycle repair workshops twice a week, adopt-a-bike, and donate-a-bike programs. Troy Bicycle Rescue is currently the only bicycle shop operational in Troy. The workshop is located on 6th Avenue in the Lansingburgh neighborhood. The 3.1-mile Uncle Sam Bikeway is the only multi-use trail that exists within the City of Troy. This paved rail trail primarily serves Lansingburgh and connects Northern Drive and Middleburgh Street. Trailheads for the Uncle Sam Bikeway are located (south-north) at Middleburgh Street, Ingalls Avenue, Garden Court, 114th Street / Gurley Avenue, Cemetery Road, and Northern Drive. 10 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan In 2016, Parks & Trails New York and the Capital District Transportation Committee conducted trail user counts at 114th Street and Garden Court as part of CDTC’s Trail Perspectives Update. Data from counts conducted at Garden Court estimate that 33,150 uses occur annually, while annual estimates for 114th Street are 20,358 uses. These usage estimates are among the lowest compared to other trails across the Capital District. In the same study, CDTC surveyed adjacent land owners. Among those surveyed, the majority did not feel very enthusiastic about living adjacent to the Uncle Sam Bikeway, with almost one third (31.8%) saying they never use the trail. The underlying causes of lower than expected levels of usage along the Uncle Sam Bikeway may be numerous, though recent planning, such as the Uncle Sam Bikeway Improvement Action Plan, Transport Troy’s Sustainable Transportation Plan, and this bicycle master plan, recommend ways to raise the profile and usage of this trail by providing amenities and enhancements to the trail and strengthening connections between the trail and adjacent city streets. The creation of the South Troy Riverfront Bikeway in 2018 will extend the Uncle Sam Bikeway four miles south to Burden Avenue through a mix of on- and off-road bicycle infrastructure. Troy is located adjacent to the growing network of multi-use trails located across the Capital District. These trails not only serve the recreational needs of residents, but they are also important transportation corridors for bicycle commuters. Improving the connections to these trails requires the participation of multiple local governments and state agencies due to the fact that accessing these trails is currently only possible by crossing one of the five Hudson River bridges that allow bicyclists: Troy-Menands / High Street, Congress Street, Green Island, 112th Street, and 126th Street Bridges. DELAWARE AVENUE / BLACK BRIDGE TRAIL MOHAWK HUDSON BIKEHIKE / ERIE CANALWAY TRAIL LOCATION Cohoes, Waterford Waterford LENGTH 2.1 miles Cohoes, Green Island, Watervliet 35 miles (part of the 360mile Erie Canalway Trail and future 750-mile Empire State Trail) SURFACE Paved Paved Stonedust CONNECTIONS Mohawk Hudson BikeHike / Erie Canalway Trail (and future Empire State Trail) and Peebles Island State Park 112th Street and 126th Street Bridges Numerous employment centers, including Downtown Albany and Schenectady Peebles Island State Park and Mohawk Hudson BikeHike Trail Troy-Menands, Congress Street, and Green Island Bridges 126th Street BRIDGE CROSSING 11 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan CHAMPLAIN CANALWAY TRAIL 5.9 miles (62 miles planned between Waterford and Whitehall and part of the future 750mile Empire State Trail) Street -- lley 4' 2nd Street 1 - IF rear Aly 4th Street 3 Church Street 47:7 .Ig?m?ulugpnr . 6th Ar v55: 5? 8 North 1:3 Street Street President St 7th 3 0, 5th Avenu 8 gee 0 Allen" <5 Earl Street 9 8? 6th 5 '0 Avenue Eith'Ienue 8th Street ua.? 9' to: 3 8th Street ?g Orr S?eet 9th SMet 5 UM 10th Street .. ??u4 Prospect Avenue Previous 2 12 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Planning Troy’s Complete Streets Ordinance (Ord. No. 35) was adopted by the City Council in June, 2014. The Ordinance defines Complete Streets as those “designed and operated to enable safe access for all users, in that pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and public transportation users of all ages and abilities are able to safely move through the transportation network.” The Ordinance explicitly mentions improved health, economic growth, public safety, recreational opportunity and social equality as benefits of improved roadway and transportation network design. Troy’s policy applies to both City-owned and privatelyconstructed streets within Troy’s boundaries, and establishes a Complete Streets Advisory Board, composed of both City employees and citizen appointees, to regularly review progress toward the stated goals and review any proposed exceptions to full Complete Streets consideration. as well as the existence of the multi-use Uncle Sam Bikeway in Lansingburgh. The Plan maps pedestrian conflict areas, as well as opportunity locations for improving the biking network. Important recommendations from the Plan include the following:     Immediately after its passage, Troy’s policy achieved acclaim, being ranked the nation’s second best Complete Streets policy by The National Complete Streets Coalition, a program of Smart Growth America. In 2013 then-Mayor Lou Rosamilia appointed a volunteer citizen work group to study the conditions of Troy’s transportation network and to suggest improvements. The assembled group released the Sustainable Transportation Plan, and has continued to meet with a goal of pursuing recommendations found in the Plan and general improvements in walkability and bikeability. The Plan summarizes existing conditions of the bicycle and pedestrian network, and also list the projects undertaken as of 2013 to address the network. The Plan juxtaposes the current challenges and needs in the non-motorized transportation network with the great opportunity for walkability presented by Troy’s dense neighborhoods and downtown, 13 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Adopt a municipal Complete Streets Policy, and establish a citizen-run Complete Streets Advisory Board to monitor progress and report to City leaders (implemented in 2014); Create a Troy Bike Master Plan that outlines a network of suggested routes and safe biking infrastructure and enhancements such as bike racks (implemented in 2018); Enhanced connection to the Hudson River (ongoing, although the South Troy Riverfront Bikeway will partly achieve this in 2018); Safe Routes to School programming and street enhancements to complement school bussing efforts (ongoing). In 2016, the City of Troy received funding to undertake the Uncle Sam Bikeway Improvement Action Plan, an assessment of the needs and opportunities for the multi-use trail, and recommendations for improving the trail and promoting its use to local and regional audiences. Alta Planning + Design served as the consultant on the Plan, with funding from the Hudson River Valley Greenway Grant Program, and the New York State Department of Health’s Creating Healthy Schools & Communities program by way of Capital Roots, a local non-profit organization. Important recommendations from the Plan include the following:  Specific design recommendations for each of three trailheads and street approaches, including the use of shared lane markings,       buffered bike lanes, and construction of separated multi-use trail at various points Enhancements to improve connections to nearby community destinations such as schools and parks at each trail access point Lighting and other “comfort and safety” recommendations that respond to documented trail user concerns Wayfinding throughout the trail corridor and on streets that provide access to the trail Techniques to limit vehicular access to the trail, addressing another issue often cited by trail users Creation of a trail maintenance organization and regular trail patrols by Troy Police Continued programming to highlight the trail and other Complete Streets initiatives in Troy Realize Troy is the City of Troy’s first comprehensive plan update in over 50 years. This ongoing planning project will introduce new zoning policies, a Downtown Economic Development Strategy, and a Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan. City Council has developed eight principles to guide the formulation of the Comprehensive Plan, DEDS and LWRP. In general, these principles will focus on:     The importance of maintaining the stability and attractiveness of all neighborhoods; expanding downtown reinvestment to include the entire central business district; the need for a fully transparent and inclusive consultation and planning process that creates multiple opportunities to participate in the process including through the use of social media; large scale revitalization of the riverfront transforming underutilized brownfields into publically accessible waterfront amenities and redevelopment projects; 14 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan     the importance of considering tax implications associated with plan development; the desire for ecological benefits and reduced burdens on municipal infrastructure and the natural environment; plan adoption and implementation, and; Consideration of form based code as an alternative to traditional Euclidean zoning. At the time of writing the Troy Bicycle Connections Plan, Realize Troy was in the late stages of the planning process. Watervliet is located directly across the Hudson River from Troy, providing an important link between Downtown Troy and the Mohawk Hudson Bike-Hike / Erie Canalway Trail and future Empire State Trail via the Congress Street Bridge. Additionally, for many residents of Troy, the closest grocery store is located in Downtown Watervliet. Developed by Alta Planning + Design, the City of Watervliet Bicycle Master Plan guides development of a network of bicycle routes linking activity centers within the City, as well as to the larger regional network. The Plan was developed in two parts: an initial report that focuses on an intra-city bicycle network, and another report that focuses on completing the Mohawk Hudson Bike Hike Trail through the City of Watervliet (final report yet to be published). On the Congress Street Bridge, the Watervliet Bicycle Master Plan recommends converting the eastbound outside travel lane to a two-way cycle track or provide one-way cycle tracks in either direction. The cities of Troy and Watervliet should coordinate any striping on the bridge to ensure there is continuity along the bike network between the two downtowns. The Plan proposes a system of north-south and east-west routes that cover the entire city, providing access to each residential neighborhood and key destinations. In addition to the infrastructure/engineering improvements proposed, several program recommendations are included in the Plan related to the other 4 E’s – education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation. These include adoption of the Bike Master Plan, adoption of a local Complete Streets policy, and encouragement of programs such as a Bike to Work Day and Safe Routes to School. In 2017, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo announced the creation of the $200-million, 750-mile Empire State Trail. This mega trail will complete and connect the existing Erie Canalway Trail, Champlain Canalway, Hudson River Greenway, and add enhancements to NY Bike Route 9 by 2020. The impact on communities adjacent to the Empire State Trail, such as Troy, will be enormous. According to a 2014 study by Parks & Trails New York, the 1.6 million annual visits to the 360-mile Erie Canalway Trail, which serves as the east-west spine, have an estimated economic impact of more than $250 million on adjacent communities. Providing a safe reliable connection to this trail will not only improve recreational opportunities for residents of Troy, but it will also encourage economic development through increased tourism. . 15 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Plans for the Rensselaer County Trail were prepared in 2004.When completed, the 4.5mile trail will connect Troy and the City of Rensselaer (and eventually Albany via the Livingston Avenue Bridge), passing through the Town of North Greenbush along the Hudson River. The trail will enter Troy just south of the High Street / Troy-Menands Bridge at River Road. A combination of factors, including unsuccessful funding solicitations and landowner access issues, have prevented the trail from moving beyond the planning phase, however CDTC’s New Visions 2040 long-range transportation plan does list completing the trail as a key recommendation. In 2016 CDTC began updating its regional trails plan. The Capital District Trails Plan consists of two components: a trail user count and survey conducted in 2016 with Parks & Trails New York and a regional trails plan that CDTC began in 2018. The trail user count and survey measured usage and the public’s perceptions of the Capital District’s nine best-known multi-use trails, including Troy’s Uncle Sam Bikeway. The Capital District Trails Plan will identify opportunities for expanding and connecting the Capital District’s multi-use trail network. Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and the City of Troy have prepared designs to connect the Uncle Sam Bikeway to the approach of the TroyMenands Bridge on Burden Avenue, offering improved access to the Hudson Riverfront and the Mohawk Hudson Bike-Hike/Erie Canalway Trail for bicyclists and pedestrians. In addition to improving bicycling and walking connections to the regional trail network along the South Troy Riverfront, this project will lead to quality of life improvements for South Troy residents 16 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan as a result of traffic calming and enhanced transportation alternatives along the streets that are part of the route. The resulting South Troy Riverfront Bikeway will be approximately four miles long and introduce varying levels of protected facilities along the proposed route. The plan calls for bike lanes along Burden Avenue, 1st and 2nd Streets between Mill and Madison Streets, a two-way cycle track along 1st, Adams, River, and Front Streets, shared lane markings along River Street between Vanderheyden and Middleburgh Streets, and a new multi-use trail under the Collar City Bridge. The South Troy Riverfront Bikeway is expected to be complete in 2018. Providing bicycling connections between the South Troy Riverfront Bikeway and schools, parks, and employment areas is a major priority for the Troy Bicycle Connections Plan. Public Engagement and Participation 17 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan PTNY, the City of Troy, and CDTC, along with members of the Study Advisory Committee, conducted a full-featured public engagement campaign in order to inform all phases of the Troy Trail Connections Plan. Outreach was performed across a broad spectrum of stakeholders and community members, with a goal of offering a variety of engagement opportunities requiring various levels of time and effort to facilitate broad participation. Efforts were made to ensure that Troy’s low-income and historicallydisadvantaged residents were able to provide input, supporting CDTC’s equity and environmental justice directives 18 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan  TroyTrailConnections.weebly.com – project website  Community Survey – distributed in hard copy, and linked on TTC website (see results below)  One-pager with background information on the project, and directions for those wanting to provide feedback  Tabling materials including large-format maps  Social media posts – using hashtag #TroyTrailConnections #518Trails #CompleteStreets #CollarCityRamble and tags @MPOCDTC @PTNY @TroyCityHall @CapitalRootsNY @CDPHPCycle @CDTA @TroyBikeRescue @AARPNY @TroyMarket Project partners provided information about the project and collected feedback at various events in Troy:     Tabling at Troy Farmer’s Market, July 29 Troy Bike Breakfast, August 9 Transport Troy monthly meetings Capital Roots’ Veggie Mobile Outreach The primary means of engaging the public regarding Troy’s bike network was the Community Survey (See Appendix B). Although respondents were asked basic demographic information (ZIP code, age, gender, race/ethnicity), entering name and contact information was optional. Beyond this basic data, questions related to their biking and walking experience in Troy, the type of improvements that they feel would most benefit the bicycle and pedestrian network, and familiarity with local biking initiatives and events. All told, nearly 130 people completed the Community Survey. Location A majority of respondents identified their ZIP code as 12180, which corresponds to the City of Troy, but also extends into other parts of Rensselaer County. Walking Nearly 85% of respondents said that they regularly walked to work or school, walk to run errands, or walk for physical activity. Of those who responded that they didn’t walk, safety and convenience were the two most often cited reasons. When asked to prioritize suggested improvements, opinion was divided. However, crossing busy thoroughfares such as Hoosick Street, lighting, and blocked or poorlymaintained sidewalks, including snow clearing, 19 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan  Public Meeting to discuss draft plan, November 8 All events were promoted by the social media pages of PTNY, CDTC, the City of Troy and/or Study Advisory Committee members. These posts generally included a link to the website, along with a quick poll or participation ask. were often mentioned by respondents who chose “Other.” Biking Predictably, a large share of respondents (64%) said they ride a bike in Troy, with the large numbers of these cyclists describing themselves as either intermediate level, “enthused and confident” or novice, “interested but concerned”. A smaller number of respondents described themselves as very experienced, “strong and fearless.” Still, this breakdown skews heavily toward the experienced cyclist, Generally, a majority of cyclists identify as “interested but concerned.” Support for bicycle and pedestrian spending Survey respondents overwhelmingly supported spending public funds on bike and pedestrian safety improvements, 93%. Beyond the survey, feedback was provided on several key questions via a quick poll function on the Troy Trail Connections website, and through Twitter polls. Quick Poll 1: “What improvements would most likely influence you to walk or bike more in Troy? Respondents to the first Quick Poll posted to the website were most likely to choose “More bike lanes and multi-use trails” (47%) or “Maintenance of sidewalks and other surfaces” (29%). There were 34 total responses. Quick Poll 2: “Where would you most like to see bicycle improvements in troy?” The second Quick Poll received fewer responses, 16. Of four locations offered, the Green Island Bridge was the location considered most in need of improvements, with four responses. 20 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Twitter Polls “More protected bike lanes” was selected by the most respondents as a priority in a bicycling-specific Twitter poll. When asked about biking and walking in Troy, Twitter respondents indicated that “enforcement of traffic laws,” “streetscaping,” and “more shade trees/benches” were prioritized. When asked “Where would you most like to see bicycle improvements in Troy?” 10 of 13 Twitter respondents chose the Troy Menands Bridge. Participants of the annual Collar City Ramble bicycle ride and bicyclists from the City of Troy and Capital Region had the chance to experience bicycle-friendly enhancements on three city streets during a pop-up bikeway demonstration. During the demonstration three streets had a specific treatment type proposed by PTNY as part of the Troy Trail Connections Plan. The enhancements included a bike lane, neighborhood bikeway, and two-way cycle track on the following streets. CONVENTIONAL BICYCLE LANE 4th Street between Adams Street and Washington Street: striped bike lane and bicycle wayfinding signage. NEIGHBORHOOD BIKEWAY ENHANCEMENTS Washington Street between 4th Street and Hill Street: neighborhood bikeway enhancements that included shared lane and route markings and bicycle wayfinding signage. TWO-WAY CYCLE TRACK Hill Street between Washington Street and Liberty Street: two-way cycle track that acts like an on-road trail but is protected from traffic by a physical barrier and wayfinding signage. 21 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan These enhancements were part of a larger effort by community partners to improve bicycle connectivity throughout the city. The temporary nature of the pop-up demonstration meant residents and visitors were able to experience innovative bicycle treatments without requiring a large investment of time and money from the City of Troy. On the other hand, PTNY, the City of Troy, and CDTC had the opportunity to use the overwhelming positive feedback in order to propose changes for more permanent bicycle infrastructure. See Appendix B for a full summary of community feedback. 22 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Recommended Bikeway Network 23 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Troy?s Bicycle Network Schaghticoke complementary 25?, Waterford Bikeway Types Primary Bikeways Secondary Bikeways Cohoes Neighborhood Bikeways South Troy Riverfront Bikeway I Uncle Sam Green Island Bikeway Humluo" Brunswick Other Facilities A Colonie Climbing Lane Court rm: Court sun 24? sure! 25"! gnu-W :0 One-way Neighorhood Bikeway Pair Fairlie?! no?, 3? I Industrial Pm" Clem Alena. Blunt-oat] Avon 0.25 0.5 1 Miles North Greenbush The Troy Trail Connections Plan is intended to serve as the guiding document for implementing bicycle route connections that link activity centers within the City of Troy to the Uncle Sam Bikeway and planned South Troy Riverfront Bikeway. The Troy Trail Connections Plan largely uses treatments described in detail in the National Association of City Transportation Officials’ Urban Bikeway Design Guide. These treatments are considered to be state-of-the-art and the varying treatment types laid out in the guide allow for an enormous amount of flexibility for the City of Troy as it considers where available funding levels allow for the best and most visible improvements to bicycling across the City. NACTO’s treatments are also highly compatible with the Federal Government’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Dozens of cities in the United States, including regional neighbor Albany, have already implemented many of these treatments. The Troy Trail Connections Plan recommends on-road treatments based on multiple different street characteristics. The following street characteristics were considered:      Daily traffic volume Traffic speed Street width and number of travel lanes in each direction Surrounding land use Connectivity to existing bikeways and proposed infrastructure The varying characteristics of streets and surrounding land uses across the City resulted in a wide range of proposed bikeways. To make the Troy Trail Connections Plan a more helpful document for city transportation officials, these characteristics were grouped into three major bikeway classifications: Primary Bikeways, Secondary Bikeways, and Neighborhood Bikeways. A range of treatment options accompanies each bikeway classification. However, even within a bikeway classification there will inevitably be variability. Choosing the best option for a specific street should take into account on-the-ground characteristics such as on-street parking, lane width, and the density and uses of surrounding development. Inevitably, funding, political will, and community support may also influence implementation. Section 5 (Implementation) includes a guide that city officials should use when considering the implementation of these treatments 25 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan PRIMARY BIKEWAYS SECONDARY BIKEWAYS NEIGHBORHOOD BIKEWAYS DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME (VEHICLES PER DAY) 5,000 – 50,000+ VPD 3,000 – 5,000 VPD <3,000 VPD TRAFFIC SPEED >30 MPH 30 MPH 30 MPH or less APPROXIMATE STREET WIDTH AND NUMBER OF TRAVEL LANES 17 feet or more, 2 or more lanes 16 feet or less, 2 or fewer 16 feet or less, 2 lanes or fewer SURROUNDING LAND USE Mixed use, though some areas have high densities of single uses Medium density mixed use Low to medium density residential, some mixed use 26 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Primary Bikeways Roadway characteristics: highest level of connectivity between schools, parks, and business districts and have relatively high traffic volumes (usually exceeding 5,000 vehicles per day) and vehicle speeds. Some primary bikeways are on streets with multiple lanes in each direction. Recommended treatments: require the highest level of vehicle-bicycle traffic separation. Where space permits, protected cycle tracks or bike lanes. Intersections will also require pavement markings and other treatments described below. Candidate streets: Congress Street, 6th Avenue (between Vanderheyden Street and Congress Street), Hudson River Bridge Crossings, and Burdett Avenue. Primary Bikeways, as their name implies, serve as the most direct connections between Troy’s activity centers, the Uncle Sam Bikeway, and the South Troy Riverfront Bikeway. A common characteristic of most Primary Bikeways is that their traffic volumes exceed more than 5,000 vehicles per day. Many of these streets are bi-directional and some even include multiple lanes in each direction; however, some are one-way streets with multiple lanes. Therefore, multiple different treatment types are appropriate for Primary Bikeways. Protected cycle tracks offer the greatest level of perceived comfort and safety among onroad bicycle infrastructure. Cycle tracks can be both two-way and one-way and usually consist of a conventional bike lane separated from moving traffic by a curb, bollard, painted buffer, or on-street parking. The benefits of cycle tracks are numerous. In addition to physical separation from moving vehicles, cycle tracks increase safety by lowering the risk of injuries associated with “dooring,” which is caused by an unsuspecting motorist opening their vehicle door into the path of an oncoming cyclist; depending on the method of physical separation, cycle tracks also remove the ability for vehicles to double park in the bike lane. Cycle tracks are also one of the most visible infrastructure investments the City of Troy can 28 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan make to demonstrate its commitment to the complete streets ordinance it passed in 2014. Some cycle tracks are also raised above the street level and are usually at the same level as the sidewalk. Raising the cycle track offers a secondary level of safety since bicyclists are more visible. Cycle tracks are best suited for streets in the City of Troy where traffic volumes exceed 10,000 vehicles per day. These streets include all of the Hudson River crossings, Burden Avenue, Mill Street, Campbell Avenue, Pawling Avenue, Congress Street, Ferry Street, King Street, Fourth Street (between Federal and Ferry Streets), River Street, Second Avenue, and Hoosick Street. Road width is an important characteristic to consider when deciding between the two types of protected cycle tracks. ONE-WAY PROTECTED CYCLE TRACKS Ideal for streets where traffic flows in onedirection or on both sides of a two-way street. They require a minimum of eight feet of roadway width, which includes a three-footwide buffer. On streets where bicycle traffic is high, a minimum width of 10 feet is recommended to give cyclists enough room to safely pass each other. TWO-WAY PROTECTED CYCLE TRACKS Ideal for primary one-way streets on which bicyclists commonly ride against traffic and for two-way streets where one side of the street has fewer driveways, bus stops, and high parking turnover. They require 8-12 feet of roadway space and an additional three feet for a painted buffer. 29 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Buffered bike lanes can offer a compromise between protected cycle tracks and striped bike lane on streets where roadway widths are wide enough to accommodate a 7-foot-wide bicycle lane or when snow-removal procedures would not allow for plows to maneuver around bollards or curbs required for protected cycle tracks. separation between moving vehicle traffic and bicyclists ensures a high level of comfort among bicyclists and reduced stress levels among bicyclists and motorists. Moreover, the additional roadway space gives bicyclists enough room to safely overtake slower riders without riding in the travel lane, improving the flow of bicycle and vehicle traffic along a city street There are many safety benefits to using buffered bike lanes. The relatively wide zone of BUFFERED BIKE LANES 30 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan In the simplest terms, a buffered bike lane, as its name implies, is a conventional bike lane that is separated from roadway traffic by a separation zone that is significantly wider than a bike lane’s line of demarcation. The separation zone can be painted line pattern or a line of parked cars. Each separation zone type requires at least 18 inches of roadway space in addition to 3 to 4 feet of roadway space for the bike lane. If the buffered bike lane is located next to the parking lane, it should be at least 5 feet wide to provide enough space for bicycles to avoid the door zone. Due to their high level of connectivity to regional trails, employment centers, and shops and services, the five Hudson River bridges that allow bicyclists are an important component of the bikeway network. Where possible, protected facilities, such as multi-use paths or cycle tracks, should be considered. When a bridge’s roadway space isn’t wide enough to accommodate protected facilities, the City of Troy should decide whether alternatives, such as allowing bicycles to use sidewalks or proposing complementary treatments along a nearby bridge, exist. The 31 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan rendering below demonstrates this, treating the 112th and 126th Street Bridges as a pair. Cooperation among Troy and neighboring municipalities and New York State DOT is necessary to coordinate any bridge enhancements, ensuring continuity along the bike network between the two cities. For example, any enhancements to the Congress Street Bridge should be coordinated with the Watervliet Bicycle Master Plan’s recommendation for reconfiguring the bridge lanes to accommodate a cycle track. 32 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Primary Bikeways Recommended Treatments High-visibility intersections Highlight potential conflict zones between motorists and bicyclists Protected or buffered bike lane Offer higher level of protection from vehicle traffic Signage Wayfinding and route marking Rendering location: 2nd Avenue at 1 17th Street Secondary Bikeways 33 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Roadway characteristics: provide direct access to parks, schools, and business districts and see daily traffic volumes between 3,000 and 5,000 vehicles per day, though some streets are busier with volumes exceeding 5,000 vehicles per day. Many of these streets are one ways, so their treatments should focus on finding complementing streets to create a neighborhood and city-wide bicycle network. Recommended treatments: striped bike lanes and intersection pavement markings. Candidate streets: 4th Street, 6th Avenue (between 101st Street and Hoosick Street), 8th Street, 15th Street, Broadway, Brunswick Road, Fulton Street, Oakwood Avenue, and Spring Avenue. Secondary bikeways, similar to primary bikeways, provide direct connections between neighborhoods and schools, parks and recreational areas, business districts, and the Uncle Sam and South Troy Riverfront Bikeways. The biggest difference between secondary bikeways and primary bikeways, however, is the volume of vehicle traffic on a majority of their respective streets: while most primary bikeways see more than 5,000 vehicles per day, many secondary bikeways see between 3,000 and 5,000 vehicles per day. STRIPED BIKE LANES Striped bike lanes provide a basic level of protection that is appropriate for streets with more than 3,000 vehicles per day and have a posted speed of greater than 25 mph. Bike lanes require at least 6 feet of road width, however, for narrower streets, a 3-4-footwide lane may suffice if there is a line of demarcation between traffic that is at least 6 inches wide and vehicle traffic does not exceed 35 mph. Since many city streets have on-street parking, it’s important to consider that in order for a bike lane to feel comfortable enough for riders, the total amount of space between the outer edge of the bike lane and the curb should be at least 12 feet wide, with 14.5 feet considered ideal. This will provide enough space to accommodate a bike lane, parking lane, and a buffer between them to protect cyclists against dooring. If roadways are too narrow to accommodate this width, narrowing the parking lane is the best solution to provide greater protection for cyclists from moving vehicle traffic. 34 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan The nature of Troy’s street network, with a high level of connectivity and a concentration of one-way streets in the neighborhoods along the Hudson River, provides an opportunity for using variations of the conventional bike lane that can improve safety for bicyclists and improve the overall flow of traffic for all roadway users. CONTRAFLOW BIKE LANES Allow bicyclists to move in the opposite direction of vehicle traffic. This variation is best used on streets where there are large numbers of bicycles riding against traffic and using another street is either too unsafe or not practical for some reason. Oftentimes, the contra-flow lane will be separated from traffic by a double yellow line and the bicycle traffic flowing in the direction of vehicle traffic is given full reign of the vehicle lane with shared lane markings. See applicability note below. LEFT-SIDE BIKE LANES Should be used on one-way streets to reduce the likelihood of driver-side dooring and other conflicts common on the right side of the street. They are also ideal on one-way streets that are along bus routes since buses will typically pull into stops on the right side of the street. Lastly, left side bike lanes provide a significant boost in visibility of cyclists to drivers by placing them on the driver’s side of the lane. CLIMBING LANES Troy’s unique topography offers an opportunity to provide cyclists riding on narrow streets up steep hills with a striped bicycle lane on the climb. An advisory bicycle lane or shared lane marking complements the uphill bike lane on the descent. Bicyclists riding down the hill likely do not need the level of protection a dedicated lane offers since they will be able to get up to the speed of vehicle traffic. Climbing lanes may be appropriate for the uphill climbs on following streets: Northern Drive, Cemetery Road, Gurley Avenue, Middleburgh Street, Federal Street, Peoples Avenue, Tibbits Avenue (see rendering above), Ferry Street / Congress Street, Linden Avenue, Spring Avenue, Project Road, Mill Street, Mann Avenue / Lincoln Avenue To determine the suitability of a contra-flow lane, the City of Troy should conduct observational counts along a one-way corridor to determine whether or not there are high numbers of cyclists riding against 35 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan the flow of traffic. In some cases, signage directing cyclists one block over to a more conventional facility can achieve the same result. While cities across New York State, such as New York City, Rochester, Syracuse, have implemented contra-flow bicycle lanes, an additional step may be necessary to ensure that no vehicle traffic codes are violated. The City of Rochester, for example, required approval from the City’s Traffic Control Board to install four contra-flow lanes. In addition to following MUTCD standards, passing an ordinance that explicitly allows contra-flow lanes on streets with known instances of bicyclists riding against the flow of vehicle traffic would be a proactive approach the city may consider before implementing contra-flow lanes. 36 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan eighborhoo Bikeways 37 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Roadway characteristics: low vehicle traffic (fewer than 3,000 vehicles per day) and high connectivity between neighborhood streets and schools and parks. Recommended treatments: traffic and volume management techniques to “calm” streets and prioritize bicycle traffic. There is a high potential to incorporate green stormwater management techniques and public art projects into these treatments. Candidate streets: 6th Avenue (119th Street – Northern Drive) 7th Avenue, 8th Street, 9th Street, Adams Street, Hutton Street, and Uncle Sam Bikeway crossings. Neighborhood bikeways, also known as bicycle boulevards, rely less on physical infrastructure and more on a connected city grid that includes network of low-traffic, low-stress secondary streets. Neighborhood bikeways prioritize bicycle and pedestrian movements over vehicle movements, though they do not restrict local vehicle access. Neighborhood bikeways will have traffic volumes of less than 3,000 vehicles per day, with an ideal volume of less than 1,500 vehicles per day, and the 85th percentile of traffic traveling between 20-25 mph. Neighborhood bikeways do not replace more protected infrastructure such as multi-use trails and protected bike lanes; in fact, neighborhood bikeways should only be used to supplement infrastructure such as protected bike lanes along more direct routes. To ensure that reduced speed conditions exist, bicycle boulevards commonly utilize “horizontal and vertical deflection” techniques. These techniques can complement or eliminate the need for reducing posted speed limits to 20 mph, which may require passing local legislation. Vertical deflection techniques require drivers to slow down to negotiate wide and slight pavement elevations. 38 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Horizontal deflection involves visually narrowing the roadway or adding an obstacle to the path of direct travel that requires drivers to slow down to navigate intersection or roadway. Horizontal deflection techniques should not be used if the travel lane is narrowed to less than 12 feet. In addition to calming traffic, horizontal deflection techniques can improve safety for neighborhood residents, increase the aesthetic appeal of a particular block, and incorporate green storm water technology. SPEED HUMPS Pavement raised 3-4 inches for 12-14 feet. Speed humps are often referred to as speed bumps, but should not be confused with abrupt speed management techniques often found in parking lots or driveways, which are dangerous to bicyclists. SPEED CUSHIONS Speed humps that have cutouts for emergency vehicles’ wheels, making them ideal for key emergency response routes. SPEED TABLES Plateaued pavement raised 3-3.5 inches for 22 feet. They typically reduce speeds to within the 2535 mph range and are best suited for streets that already accommodate buses and emergency response routes. May also incorporate raised crosswalks: speed tables that feature crosswalk markings. 39 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan CURB EXTENSIONS Also called “bulb-outs.” As their name suggests, curb extensions extend the sidewalk into an intersection’s parking lane, narrowing the lane width at an intersection. Curb extensions also benefit pedestrians because they decrease crossing distances and increase pedestrian visibility due the lack of parked cars at the intersection. Curb extensions also provide space for benches, kiosks, public art, and rain gardens. NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CIRCLES Small roundabouts located at intersections that reduce speeds by narrowing turning radii and the travel lane. Neighborhood traffic circles with plants and trees can further reduce traffic speeds by reducing sight lines. On-street parking can also serve as a horizontal deflection technique by reducing travel lane widths and requiring vehicles to queue slowly behind bicycles until there is enough room for them to overtake the cyclist. Most streets in Troy already permit on-street parking, so combining this technique with other horizontal and vertical deflection techniques will achieve major safety and efficiency improvements. 40 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Some stretches of neighborhood bikeways may exceed the required 3,000 vehicles per day to make them low-stress enough for most users to enjoy. There are several volume management techniques that can maintain or reduce vehicle volume to the 1,500 to 3,000 vehicles per day. These techniques may involve physically cutting off vehicle flow at an intersection or a sign that simply restricts vehicle flow through an intersection. It’s important to consider the effect these techniques may have on accessibility for neighborhood residents and the ability of the city to carry out snow removal. Signage warning drivers of limited access at the choke points are also important to include throughout the block. Moreover, these treatments should only be installed where a clear understanding of what, if any, impacts they may have on adjacent streets. MEDIAN ISLANDS/ DIVERTERS Vehicle through movement is prohibited by a concrete median also known as a “snake diverter.” Bicycles can move through the intersection by two separate openings in the snake diverter corresponding to each direction. Each opening must be at least 5 feet wide. This technique can also reasonably accommodate snow removal, especially if removable bollards are used instead of a concrete median. Another alternative, which can also benefit emergency vehicle through movement and snow removal, is to lower curb heights to less than 6 inches. PARTIAL CLOSURES A contra-flow bike lane, at least 4 feet wide, allows bicycle traffic to cross through the intersection but signage and pavement markings require vehicles to turn right or left. Cross-street vehicle traffic must continue straight. This technique best accommodates snow removal. 41 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Signage and pavement markings are an important component that should be included along with any speed or volume management. They not only help guide cyclists through the route, but they also notify vehicles of the presence of bicycles in the roadway. Recommended signage consists of wayfinding and branding signage to help direct cyclists to important destinations and raise the profile of the neighborhood connectors. Other signage, such as reduced speed limit signs and “bicycles in lane” signs, should address drivers. Signage is discussed in more detail in the “Bicycle Route Signage” section of the Troy Bicycle Connections Plan. PAVEMENT MARKINGS Pavement markings are similarly targeted towards bicyclists and drivers. Shared lane markings and advisory bike lanes should not only indicate to drivers the presence of cyclists, but where possible, the chevrons should also guide cyclists along the route. BICYCLE BOULEVARD STREET SIGNS Help bicyclists identify streets that are part of the bicycle boulevard network. They also give the City the chance to “brand” and promote the infrastructure investment. Special accommodations should be made for bicyclists at intersections between neighborhood bikeways and other streets. Since it’s critical that neighborhood bikeways prioritize bicycle through traffic, several treatment types should be considered depending on the type of intersection. Determining factors include daily traffic volume, intersection geometry, and the presence of a signalized crossing. 42 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan 43 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Neighborhood Bikeways Recommended Treatments Bulb-outs at intersections Increase visibility and slow traffic Pavement Markings Wayfinding and route identification Neighborhood Traffic Circle Slows traffic; may also include green stormwater management techniques Signage Wayfinding and route identification Rendering location: 6th Avenue at 124th Street Intersection Treatments 44 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Minor street crossings typically exist where two residential streets intersect, usually warranting either a four-way or two-way stop. In order to accommodate a neighborhood bikeway, these intersections should prioritize bicycle movement and require stops for vehicle traffic at the intersecting cross streets. This allows cyclists using the neighborhood connector route to stop only where necessary. The easiest way to do this is to remove the stop signs at any four-way stops on the section of roadway that is part of the neighborhood bikeway. Installing a partial closure or median diverter at some point along the route would help reduce BIKE BOXES the likelihood of vehicles using the neighborhood bikeway as a short cut. The City of Troy should consider the impact on neighboring streets before making a decision to install a partial closure or median diverter. Major street crossings typically prioritize vehicle traffic, which is usually travelling at higher speeds than it would be on neighborhood bikeways. In many cases, they also require bicyclists to cross multiple lanes of traffic. Ensuring bicyclists can safely cross through these intersections is possible through the following treatments. Reserve space for cyclists at the front of an intersection. Bike boxes are most effective when they are used at intersections where bicyclists and motorists are likely to turn out of the intersection or if vehicles are turning and bicyclists are continuing straight. The benefits of bike boxes include improvements to intersection safety and efficiency. They increase safety by improving cyclists’ visibility to motorists, give space for left-turning cyclists, and reduce the likelihood of a “right-hook” collision caused by a turning vehicle. Bike boxes can also improve safety and efficiency for other road users because they open up intersections and improve visibility for crossing pedestrians and reduce bus delays caused by queuing cyclists. 45 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan BICYCLE SIGNALS Similar to pedestrian crossing signals, bicycle signals give bicyclists priority as part of the traffic signal cycle. A major benefit of bicycle signals is removing the barrier of crossing a major intersection due to either real or perceived safety and comfort concerns, which when overcome, can significantly open up Troy’s bicycle network at critical locations. An ideal location for installing bicycle signals would be at intersections that provide access to the Capital District’s regional bicycle network such as at the Water Street – Burden Avenue – Mill Street Intersection in South Troy and the King Street – Federal Street – 5th Avenue Intersection located at the entrance to the Green Island Bridge. A major goal of treatments installed at unsignalized crossings should be to reduce the physical and mental “gap” between the comfortable riding conditions along the bicycle boulevard caused by the conditions of the major street such as multiple lanes or high vehicle speeds and volumes. CURB EXTENSIONS Reduce the gap distance by decreasing the crossing length at an intersection. Curb extensions require extending the curb at the intersection into the space typically reserved for parking. They also improve safety for pedestrians. BICYCLE FORWARD STOP BARS When used with the curb extension treatment, advances the stopping line for bicyclists to the edge of the intersection, reducing crossing distance and increasing the sight lines of oncoming cross-traffic. The vehicle stop line remains at the same location (typically before the crosswalk), increasing bicyclists’ visibility to waiting motorists. 46 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan HYBRID BEACONS Require motorists to come to a full stop when activated by a cyclist. The hybrid beacons, which are usually a signal head that sits above the traffic lanes, run through a signal phasing similar to a typical traffic signal that first gives motorists warning that they should slow down and prepare to stop. They are ideal for neighborhood bikeways and multi-use trails that cross intersections with traffic volumes too low to justify a traffic signal. Hybrid beacons are sometimes referred to as High-intensity Activated CrossWalks (HAWKs). The intersections of the Uncle Sam Trail at Northern Drive and Middleburgh Street are two ideal locations for hybrid beacons. ACTIVE WARNING BEACONS Alert motorists to the presence of cyclists (or pedestrians) at an intersection through a Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB) that can detect oncoming cyclists or be manually activated by a push button. Active warning beacons, specifically RRFBs, are already used throughout New York State at crosswalks or road-trail intersection crossings. Future enhancements made as part of the South Troy Riverfront Bikeway will include RRFBs along Middleburgh Street. MEDIAN REFUGE ISLANDS 47 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Give cyclists the opportunity to cross a busy street when breaks in traffic moving in one direction allow. Median refuge islands can also be a neighborhood bikeway volume management technique. An ideal use for these would be on busy streets such as Hoosick Street, where high vehicle volumes and multiple lanes for each direction make it difficult for cyclists to cross at unsignalized intersections. Moreover, since they reduce the width of travel lanes, they can also calm traffic, providing safety benefits to all road users. Pavement Markings Pavement markings should be used at all major street crossings to mark roadway space for bicyclists and give notice to motorists that bicycles are likely to be crossing. Pavement markings typically come in four types, though a combination of all or some can be used depending on intersection conditions. DOTTED LINE EXTENSIONS Demarcate space for bicyclists through the intersection. SHARED LANE MARKINGS Help guide bicyclists through the intersection. ELEPHANT’S FEET Increase bicyclist safety with wider, more visible dotted lines COLORED CONFLICT AREAS Increase bicyclist safety by highlighting motorist and bicycle “mixing areas.” Typical applications include areas where vehicles are likely to be making turns such as intersections and highway and bridge ramp entrances and exits. 48 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan At busier intersections or to link two highly protected facilities, extra ease of use and safety considerations may include the addition of pavement markings that direct cyclists to make two-stage left turns TWO-STAGE TURN QUEUE BOXES Pavement markings that give cyclists space to make a left turn in two-stages – first, a right turn into a green bicycle box at the front of vehicles queuing at the cross street and then at the next green signal, or safe crossing opportunity at unsignalized crossings, continuing straight through the intersection. They should be used at intersections where bicycle traffic is turning from a protected cycle track or bike lane either onto a neighborhood greenway or onto an untreated city street. They can also be used at streets that intersect the Uncle Sam Bikeway or other multi-use trail. In addition to making it more comfortable for cyclists to make left turns at busy intersections, two-stage turn queue boxes reduce the likelihood of conflicts between turning bicyclists and vehicles passing through the intersection and improve traffic flow for bicyclists and vehicles continuing straight. Bicycle route signage is an important component of Troy’s bicycle network since it not only serves as a wayfinding tool but it can also promote the infrastructure investments Troy makes, encouraging bicycle facility usage and improving bicyclist safety. drivers that they will likely encounter bicyclists on the street. They do not include arrows or directional instructions, but they may include distances to upcoming route destinations. There are three main signage types the City of Troy should consider: confirmation signage, turn signs, and decision signs. Using a combination of the three will ensure that bicyclists can safely and conveniently navigate the City’s bicycle network. On multi-use trails such as the Uncle Sam Bikeway, confirmation signs should be installed every 0.25-0.5 miles. On on-street facilities such as neighborhood bikeways, they should be installed more frequently, such as every 2-3 blocks, and soon after every decision sign to indicate to bicyclists which route they are using. Confirmation signs indicate to cyclists the route on which they are riding and give notice to Turn signs notify cyclists that the bikeway is moving onto a different street or multi-use 49 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan trail. Where possible, such as on neighborhood bikeways, turn signs should be used in conjunction with pavement route markings. Turn signs should display important destinations and their distance from the sign location. It’s important to place them far enough in advance before the intersection to ensure that cyclists do not pedal past the turn. Decision signs are located near the point of intersection between bikeways and also indicate what important destinations are accessible from the bikeways. Decision signs should display not only the specific names of destinations, but also their distance – in both miles and minutes – from the route. Arrows should accompany the destination to indicate which direction the bicyclist must turn. It’s CONFIRMATION SIGNS Placement guidelines: For multi-use trails: Every 0.250.5 miles For on-street facilities: Every 23 blocks and after turns 50 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan TURN SIGNS Placement guidelines: In advance of important destination important to place the signs before the intersection, or if the destination is along the route, before the turn-off. Decision signs should prioritize important community destinations, such as schools, parks, hospitals, colleges and universities, and business districts. They can also display important transportation centers, such as the future CDTA Uncle Sam Transit Center, bridge crossings, and multi-use trails, such as the Uncle Sam Bikeway. Decision signs should not include destinations that are more than 5 miles away and the cycling time should assume a cyclist is riding at 10 mph. Decision signs can also benefit motorists and pedestrians, though their focus should be on bicycle route wayfinding. DECISION SIGNS Placement guidelines: At intersection of two bikeways or other important intersection Bicycle Parking 51 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Bicycle parking is an important amenity to consider when making investments in Troy’s city-wide bicycle network. People are more likely to commute to work or run errands if they know there are places to lock their bikes at the end of their trip. Troy should consider both short-term and long-term parking options when planning new bike racks or replacing old ones. The City of Troy and Transport Troy have created a set of guidelines that should inform future bicycle rack installations. These guidelines require at least 9 feet of sidewalk width, so they may not be suitable for all locations across the City.1 Additionally, the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) has created a guide, Essentials of Bike Parking: Selecting and installing bicycle parking that work, to help instruct city officials’ decisions regarding the appropriate bicycle parking needs at each site. The APBP’s guidelines helpfully explain the considerations Troy should make when deciding between short- and long-term parking needs. According to APBP, short-term bicycle SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM PARKING GUIDANCE CITY OF TROY APBP No Yes parking accommodates the needs of cyclists visiting an area for a maximum of two hours at a time. Therefore, decisions made for shortterm parking should depend more on visibility, convenience to destinations, and ease of use. Long-term bicycle parking prioritizes protection from weather and theft over visibility and convenience. Oftentimes, longterm bicycle parking is located inside of a building or parking garage, providing an extra level of security. In order to encourage use, however, it shouldn’t be totally hidden or difficult to find, especially if there is a code or card required for access. Long-term parking facilities should also be able to handle a variety of bikes, that wouldn’t traditionally park at a short-term rack such as large cargo bikes and recumbent bicycles. Encouraging work places and apartment complexes to allow bicyclists to store their bikes inside is another way to accommodate long-term bicycle parking in Troy. Moreover, APBP offers guidance on bike racks Troy should choose from or avoid. Taking this guidance into consideration will ensure that residents and visitors have a convenient and secure place to store their bikes when they reach their destination. A summary of APBP’s guidelines is located in the table below. RACK PREFERENCE Inverted U Universally applicable: inverted U, post & ring, wheelwell-secure High-density parking areas: staggered wheelwell-secure, vertical, two-tier racks 1 http://www.transporttroy.com/resources 52 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan PLACEMENT GUIDANCE Yes Yes It would be helpful for Troy to consider amending their guidelines to include some of the APBP recommendations, especially when space constraints prevent properly adhering to existing requirements. The City of Troy is home to a vibrant Downtown and several neighborhood business districts. Throughout the Spring, Summer, and Fall, the City hosts one of the Capital District’s largest Farmers’ Markets and several festivals. It’s important that the needs of bicycle parking for these attractions do not get overlooked. Much of the business district bicycle parking will fall under the category of short-term bicycle parking. Therefore, a visible location that is less than 50 feet from the entrance to a business or other destination, and a rack that is installed securely, such as mounted into the concrete sidewalk are important considerations. It may be difficult initially to gauge the number of racks the City of Troy or business owners should install, so it’s important to revisit bicycle parking demands periodically either by doing a quick census or observation during peak usage periods or survey residents and business owners regarding their perceptions and realities of bike parking. Another solution is to dedicate an area alongside the road, either a vehicle parking space or area not quite large enough to accommodate parking, to bicycle parking by installing a bicycle corral. One parking spacesized corral can park between 8 and 12 bicycles. Parking garages, such as the Uncle Sam Garage, may also accommodate bicycle parking needs, especially for long-term parking. Future development of CDTA’s Uncle Sam Transit Center should include some kind of enclosed long-term bicycle parking space, such as a bike locker or card/code accessible bicycle shelter. 53 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan The Implementation section of the Troy Bicycle Connections Plan includes zoning ordinance language from other cities, including the City of Albany. The City of Troy should periodically conduct an inventory of bicycle parking availability, especially in business districts or other areas that serve as short-term destinations such as schools, parks, and libraries. The City’s Business-sponsored bicycle rack program, initiated and managed by Capital Roots and Transport Troy should continue to ensure that bicycle parking needs can be met with using public-private partnerships. Another way to address future bicycle parking needs is to require by city code that developers accommodate bicycle parking into new multiunit housing or mixed-use developments. Alternatively, Troy could achieve a similar goal by providing incentives such as reduced parking minimums or additional units if a certain minimum bicycle parking standard is met. The City of Troy hosts many events throughout the Spring, Summer, and Fall that draw hundreds of people to Downtown Troy and along the Hudson River Waterfront. Inevitably, these events strain local parking facilities and vehicles circling the block looking for on-street parking add to congestion problems on narrow Downtown streets. It would be impractical to suggest installing enough bike racks to meet enough of the demand for bicycle parking caused by a likely increase in bicycling to these events attributed to a significant bicycle infrastructure investment. Similarly situated cities such as Burlington, Vermont install temporary racks at these events and allow people to park their bikes for free or a small donation to a local non-profit organization. These bicycle valets, as they are sometimes called, require an insignificant investment but the added visibility they bring can have a big effect on bicycle friendliness. The presence of a few volunteers checking bikes also ensures that there is a relatively high level of security. Implementing this idea in Troy at the weekly Farmers’ Market, even on a small scale by providing bike parking for just 50 bicycles, could be an opportunity for a local non-profit, such as bicycle advocacy organization Transport Troy, to benefit 54 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan financially and the whole city to benefit by reducing road congestion. Additionally, providing incentives to people who arrive to the Famers’ Market by bicycle could have a similar effect. The City of Rochester’s Best Parking at the Market program offers bicyclists credits for purchases made at the Public Market if they arrive by bicycle. More information about Rochester’s program is available here, http://www.cityofrochester.gov/biketomarket/. 55 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Implementation The Troy Bicycle Connections Plan is meant to provide the City with a roadmap that guides development of the cycling network over the next decade, and beyond. However, there are intermediate goals and actions necessary to create a workable network more rapidly. The first goal is to create safe and accessible connections from north to south through the City of Troy, and to provide multiple east west routes to serve the various sectors of the City. Designation of a set of priority routes that should be undertaken within 3-5 years addresses this goal. This priority network also relies heavily on existing and in-progress facilities, including the Uncle Sam Bikeway and the South Troy Riverfront Bikeway; improving access to these facilities and building complementary routes is the most efficient way to build out the system. The priority projects table lists these projects and provides timeframes and estimated costs for each. Full and lean implementation costs are provided for several larger projects. The full estimates should not be viewed as “luxury” implementations. Instead, the City of Troy should view the lean implementation estimate as the cost of a good start for a given route that can be enhanced with features included in the full-cost estimate. Routes where only one estimate is provided can similarly be enhanced after the base-level facility is developed. The priority table is a recommendation that serves the goal of creating a connected system throughout Troy efficiently and quickly. However, it wasn’t created with full knowledge of paving schedules, future funding availability, or future planning or engineering processes. Therefore, the City should remain flexible, promoting projects as opportunities arise. Paving schedules, in particular, may also help the City to prioritize projects or parts of projects within a given timeframe. . 56 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Further embracing flexibility, the City of Troy should continue to promote demonstration projects similar to the pop-up bikeway created as part of the outreach component for preparing the Troy Bicycle Connections Plan. This not only gives residents the opportunity to participate in the implementation of the bikeway network, but it also allows the City to quickly and cost-effectively change a particular configuration if necessary. Oftentimes a major barrier to increasing the numbers of cyclists is that the infrastructure that would most likely encourage more people to ride safely, such as a cycle track, is seen as a luxurious investment at the time. Temporary demonstrations, whether they last a few months or a year, can help show whether or not the benefits associated with increases in cycling can justify these investments. Beyond development of this priority network, the long-term goal of the Troy Bicycle Connections Plan is to build a comprehensive, citywide cycling network, and to give the City a framework for evaluating decisions regarding locations and facility types in order to achieve this. Project lists for each of Troy’s neighborhoods provide recommendations for facilities beyond the 3-5-year timeframe, as well as proposed treatments and the benefits they could provide to the network. Some priority projects, such as the Hudson River Bridge Crossings, may require cooperation from other agencies and municipalities. The Recommended Bikeway Treatment Matrix should bring an extra layer to the process the City of Troy uses to determine what upgrades to make to a street as part of a particular project. An a la carte listing of facility cost estimates can also help with budgeting for future bikeway enhancements. STREETS (MILEAGE) UNCLE SAM BIKEWAY LANSINGBURGH NEIGHBORHOOD BIKEWAY 2ND AVENUE BIKEWAY 4TH ST BIKEWAY CENTRAL TROY EAST – WEST BIKEWAY (SEE RENDERING BELOW) Connection to Knickerbacker Park; access and intersection improvements 6th/7th Avenues between Northern Drive and Middleburgh (3 miles) Between 126TH St Bridge and Middleburgh; River St from Middleburgh to Vanderhyden (3.4 miles) Between South Troy Riverfront Bikeway and Green Island Bridge/Federal St (2 miles) Green Island Bridge; Federal St; Sage Ave to Burdett Ave (1 mile) 57 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan TREATMENTS NETWORK IMPACT See Uncle Sam Bikeway Improvement Plan for details COST ESTIMATE PRIORITY $1,057,000 Ongoing North-South Neighborhood Bikeway connection to South Troy Riverfront Bikeway (STRB) $950,000 3 YEAR  Two-way cycle track with protection  Route and decision signage  Intersection treatments, bike boxes, and/or left hand turn boxes Signal and detectors at major intersections  One way striped lane (left-side)  Route and decision signage  Intersection treatments, bike boxes, and/or left hand turn boxes North-South Primary Bikeway route $1.2 M 3 YEAR North-South route paralleling STRB $70,000 3 YEAR  Striped bike lanes  Route and decision signage  Intersection treatments, bike boxes, and/or left hand turn boxes Primary bikeway / E-W route – connections to regional trail, downtown Troy, RPI, Hill Neighborhood, Troy High and Middle Schools $45,000 3 YEAR      Directional pavement markings Route and decision signage Curb bulb-outs Speed tables Speed and volume management techniques, where necessary PAWLING AVE BIKEWAY NORTHERN DRIVE BIKEWAY BURDETT AVE BIKEWAY Pawling Ave (Brunswick line to Congress Street) (3 miles) Northern Dr between 2ND Ave and Oakwood Ave (1 mile) Burdett Ave between Peoples Ave and Hoosick St; Hoosick St; 21ST St to Troy YMCA HIGH STREET / TROY-MENANDS BRIDGE South Troy Riverfront Bikeway/Water St to MHBHT/EST/ECT LANSINGBURGH BRIDGES 126TH St Bridge 112TH St Bridge TOTAL 58 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan  Striped bike lanes  Route and decision signage  Intersection treatments, bike boxes, and/or left hand turn boxes  Striped bike lanes  Route and decision signage  Intersection treatments, bike boxes, and/or left hand turn boxes  Sidewalk and crossing improvements at Hoosick and 21st  Extend existing bike lane  Intersection treatments, bike boxes, and/or left hand turn boxes Route and decision signage  Convert sidewalk to green multiuse path; remove dismount zone  Signal and detector at intersection  Route and decision signage  Clear overgrown brush along sidewalk on Burden Ave/High St  Install bollards in greenway along High Street  Intersection treatments, bike boxes, and/or left hand turn boxes  Advance stop line on Water Street  Two-way cycle track  Shared lane markings  Route and decision signage Primary Bikeway connection to Albia neighborhood, Downtown Troy, Prospect Park $110,000 3 YEAR Connections to Uncle Sam Bikeway – E-W connection to 126TH St Bridge; northernmost EW route $45,000 3 YEAR Primary Bikeway; extends bike lanes on Burdett; access to recreation, education, employment centers $35,000 3 YEAR Regional trail connection $125,000 5 YEAR Regional trail connections; connections to Cohoes $25,000 5 YEAR $3.7 M eFderal Stetre A I Primary Bikeway South Troy?a Riverfront Bikeway .I 5. A, Green lsla..nd <+Bridgel . .4 . .5 ?am? - .. 2. Buffered bike lanes 59 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan To expedite the implementation of the Troy Bicycle Connections Plan the Troy City Council should pass a resolution in support of the Plan’s recommendations. After 5 years, the recommendations in the Troy Bicycle Connection Plan should be revisited. The introduction of innovative new bicycle facilities and updates to existing treatments should be considered as supplementary to this Plan. Moreover, roadway characteristics may change, necessitating a reevaluation of the treatment recommendations laid out in the Plan. To accommodate this level of flexibility, the City of Troy and its Complete Streets Advisory Group should use the Bikeway and Intersection Decision Matrix included below. Bike counts should be conducted annually, at a minimum, and, ideally, bi-annually. Annual counts should occur in September, with an additional spring count added if possible. Counts involve volunteers and/or City personnel counting cyclist use of important intersections on the bikeway network and several locations on the Uncle Sam and South Troy Riverfront Bikeways. The City may also want to consider utilizing automated counters to monitor trail sections for longer periods of time, as was done on the Uncle Sam Bikeway for the 2016 Capital District Trail User Counts. More information and resources for conducting counts is available from the National Bike and Pedestrian Documentation Project, http://bikepeddocumentation.org/, and from Parks & Trails New York, ptny.org. Bike parking is an issue that will require monitoring and continued investment as the network grows. As described in the Plan text, the City of Troy should periodically conduct an inventory of bicycle parking availability, and continue to operate the business-sponsored bicycle rack program. The City should also consider other ways to regularize the inclusion of bike parking in new development, using the city code to require developers to include bicycle parking into new multi-unit housing or mixed use developments and/or providing incentives such as reduced parking minimums or additional units if a certain minimum bicycle parking standard is met. Contra-flow bike lanes are a facility type included as an option in the Plan, and could be a useful tool for the City considering Troy’s street network includes many one-way streets. In order to move forward with contra-flow lanes, the Plan recommends observational bike counts along a one-way street to determine the amount of cyclists riding against traffic. These counts can be conducted as part of annual or biannual counts, or as a standalone exercise. While not something that has been done in all locations using contra-flow lanes, the Plan also recommends passing an ordinance explicitly endorsing contra-flow lanes as a proactive step. To use the matrix, planners should gather data on a given street or intersection that correspond to the numbered columns on the left of the chart. Traffic speed and traffic volume are important characteristics for both roadways and intersections, and should be considered first. As you move from left to right on the chart, other characteristics and data are considered. The last column contains the facility recommendation based on the input characteristics. A recommended categorization that corresponds to the recommended facility is also displayed. 60 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan 1 Posted Traffic Speed >30 MPH 30 MPH 30 MPH or less 2 Traffic Volume >5,000 VPD Street Characteristics 3 4 Street width and Connectivity to number of travel parks, schools, lanes in each and businesses direction 17+ feet 2 lanes 5 Other possible characteristics Bikeway Network type Recommended bikeway treatment elements High CDTA route Both-side on-street parking Primary High CDTA route Primary 17+ feet 1 lane High CDTA route Both-side on-street parking Primary >3,000 VPD <17 feet 1 lane High Both-side on-street parking Primary / Secondary >5,000 VPD <17 feet 1 lane High Primary 3,000-5,000 VPD <17 feet 1 lane Medium Secondary Contra-flow bicycle lane 3,000-5,000 VPD 3,000-5,000 VPD <17 feet 1 lane <17 feet 1 lane Medium One-way CDTA route Both-side on-street parking One-way Both-side on-street parking High volume of wrong-way cycling One-side on-street parking Buffered or protected bicycle lane (cycle track) [Increased bike lane width should be considered for one-way streets] Two-way buffered or protected bicycle lane Left-side protected or buffered bicycle lane [Increased bike lane width should be considerd for one-way streets] Striped bicycle lane [Increased bike lane width should be considered for one-way streets] Left-side striped bicycle lane Secondary Medium Approaching school zone or neighborhood park Secondary 3,000-5,000 VPD <17 feet 1 Lane Medium Hill routes Primary / Secondary 3,000-5,000 VPD <3,000 VPD 17+ feet 1 Lane <17 feet 1 Lane Medium One-way On-street parking On-street parking Neighborhood Protected bicycle lane buffered by onstreet parking Striped bicycle lane Where applicable: speed humps/ cushions/ tables Striped bicycle lane in uphill direction Shared lane marking / advisory bicycle lane in downhill Advisory bicycle lane Neighborhood Advisory bicycle lane 61 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Medium >30 MPH <3,000 VPD <17 feet 1 Lane Medium High incidence of speeding Neighborhood Where applicable: Neighborhood traffic circle Speed humps/cushions/ tables 30 MPH or less <3,000 VPD <17 feet 1 Lane Medium Higher than desirable traffic volumes Neighborhood Where applicable: Partial closures Median diverters 1 Traffic volume of intersecting streets >5,000 VPD 2 Intersection signalization 3,000-5,000 VPD <3,000 VPD Recommended intersection treatments Traffic light Primary Secondary High Traffic light Stop sign Primary Neighborhood High Traffic light Secondary High All-way stop Secondary Neighborhood Secondary Neighborhood Neighborhood Medium Bicycle-priority signalization High-visibility intersection markings Left-turn accommodations Protected intersection Bicycle-priority signalization High-visibility intersection markings Left-turn accommodations Protected intersection Bicycle-priority signalization High visibility intersection markings High-visibility intersection markings Medium High-visibility intersection markings Medium Low Neighborhood traffic circle All -- Intersection treatments should conform to higher order cycling facility (i.e. primary or secondary bikeway treatments should be maintained through intersections with neighborhood bikeways and/or other lower volume streets) Two-way stop All-way / twoway stop Intersecting streets differ significantly in traffic volume Intersection characteristics 3 4 Intersecting Reported level of traffic incidents bikeway types Traffic light Stop sign 62 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Costs for individual bikeway elements are displayed in order to assist the City in decision-making and prioritizing future routes and facilities. FEATURE UNIT COST/SET COST2 (MEDIAN COST USED IF AVAILABLE, INCLUDES INSTALLATION) ADVANCE STOP/YIELD LINE $380 BIKE BOX/LEFT TURN BOX BIKE LANE (STRIPED LANE + MARKINGS, TWOWAY ) BIKE LOCKER BIKE ROUTE SIGNAGE BIKE PARKING CURB EXTENSION CYCLE TRACK DECISION/WAYFINDING SIGNAGE FIXIT STATION FLEXIBLE DELINEATORS (RECOMMENDED SPACING IS 20 FT) HIGH INTENSITY ACTIVATED CROSSWALK (HAWK) INTERSECTION TREATMENT (EXTENDS BIKEWAY THROUGH INTERSECTION) LEFT HAND TURN LANE PEDESTRIAN/BIKE SIGNAL + DETECTOR NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CIRCLE SHARED LANE (PAVEMENT MARKINGS) SPEED TABLE (RECOMMENDED IN SETS OF 3) $350 $23,000 per mile 2 $2,140 $300 w/ post $540 $10,150/$100,000 for 4-way intersection $105,600 per mile $530 w/ post $1100 w/ air pump $50 $50,000 $350 $350 $2,000 $35,000 $13,000 per mile $2,000/$6,000 Costs derived from Alta Planning + Design analysis of New York State Department of Transportation’s Pay Item Catalog, https://www.dot.ny.gov/pic, as well Costs for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Infrastructure Improvements: A Resource for Researchers, Engineers, Planners, and the General Public. Bushnell, Poole, Zegeer, Rodriguez. October 2013. http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/downloads/Countermeasure%20Costs_Report_Nov2013.pdf 63 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Funding & Implementation Sources Transportation Alternatives Program / Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) People for Bikes Community Grant Program Recreational Trails Grant Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Brownfield Opportunity Area Program 64 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Reduce traffic congestion on local streets and improve air quality in places that do not meet air quality standards. Transportation Alternatives Program rolled into CMAQ in 2016. Funds infrastructure improvements related to the goals of the New Visions long-range transportation plan. The City of Troy could use this funding source for resurfacing projects that would help achieve the result of the Bikeway Network. Supports bicycle infrastructure projects and targeted advocacy initiatives that make it easier and safer for people of all ages and abilities to ride. Provides funds to states to develop and maintain recreational trails for both motorized and non-motorized recreational trail use. Funding is available for the maintenance and restoration of existing recreational trails, development and rehabilitation of trailside and trailhead facilities and trail linkages for recreational trails, purchase and lease of recreational trail construction, maintenance equipment, and construction of new recreational trails. Communities that have prepared LWRP plans (Troy will have one at the conclusion of Realize Troy) are eligible for funding to implement the components of that plan. Funding through the LWRP may be used to construct multi-use trails and other bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. For areas that are perceived as environmentally-harmful, such as former industrial areas along the South Troy Riverfront, funding through this program can be used for up to 90% of project costs for multi-use trails and other bicyclerelated infrastructure. Contact CDTC 518-458-2161 to determine appropriate CMAQ staff representative. For TAP eligibility, visit https://www.dot.ny.gov/tap-cmaq Contact CDTC at 518-458-2161 or visit http://www.cdtcmpo.org/docume nts-reports/transportationimprovement-program for more information. http://peopleforbikes.org/grantguidelines/ https://parks.ny.gov/grants/recrea tional-trails/default.aspx https://www.dos.ny.gov/grants .html https://www.dos.ny.gov/fundin g/rfa-16-boa-25/index.html US Department of Transportation - TIGER Hudson River Valley Greenway Grant Program AARP Community Challenge Grant A competitive grant program with funds allocated directly by the U.S. DOT for innovative projects that deliver on five long-term outcomes: safety, economic competitiveness, state of good repair, livability, and environmental sustainability Funds planning for trails and other projects that align with the goals of the Hudson River Valley Greenway. Grants are available for $5,000$10,000 but require 50% community match. Grants to encourage “quick action” projects that help facilitate the development of livable communities. The following examples provide serve to provide inspiration to the City of Troy’s efforts to encourage an expansion of the availability of long- and short-term bicycle parking facilities. It is entirely possible to achieve this result without passing an ordinance, however, with increasing development happening in Downtown Troy and adjacent neighborhoods, it may allow the city to achieve its goal in a more predictable way. Albany requires provision of off-street bicycle parking in multi-unit residences, and many institutional and commercial uses. The ordinance applies to new construction, significant enlargement, and change of use that would increase demand. Albany’s ordinance does not seem to differentiate between shortand long-term parking. Albany’s Bicycle Parking Ordinance: http://rezonealbany.com/sites/rezonealbany.co m/files/media/Albany%20USDO%206month%20review%20edits_w-memo.pdf 65 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan https://www.transportation.gov/ti ger/2017-tiger-application-faqs http://www.hudsongreenway.ny.g ov/GrantFunding/HudsonRiverVall eyGreenwayGrantsProgram.aspx https://www.aarp.org/livablecommunities/about/info2017/aarp-communitychallenge.html Since 1981 Cambridge, Massachusetts' Zoning Ordinance has required new residential and commercial developments, and significant enlargements of existing buildings to include bike parking, both short-term and long-term. The City publishes a guide that explains the ordinance and provides specific guidance as to the number of short- and long-term spaces required for different uses. If a property owner cannot provide the specified amount of bicycle parking, the owner is required to contribute to a Public Bicycle Parking Fund. The City credits its bike parking policies in supporting cycling as a preferred transportation option. More information at http://www.cambridgema.gov/cdd/projects/pla nning/bicycleparkingzoning Bicycle parking requirements were first adopted into San Francisco’s Planning Code in 1996, although at that time, the requirement only applied to City-owned and leased buildings. Over the years, growing rates of cycling have led the City to progressively expand these policies. The latest iteration of the bicycle parking requirement in the Planning Code requires bike parking to be included in both residential and commercial uses, with the number of parking spaces specified based upon the anticipated need for different uses. A residential or office building requires more long-term capacity, for residents and commuters, while a retail store needs more short-term spaces to accommodate shoppers. The law applies to new construction as well as certain renovations, enlargement, or a change of use that would add demand. More on San Francisco's policy at http://sfplanning.org/bicycle-parking-requirements In 1988, the Madison Common Council passed an ordinance requiring the inclusion of offstreet bicycle parking for new developments, expansion of existing developments, and changes in use that would increase bike parking demand. For expansions or changes in use, bicycle parking must be increased in proportion to the extra amount needed by the addition or change in use. The number of bicycle parking spaces allotted for a development is determined based on guidelines included in the ordinance. Bicycle parking facilities are required in all areas of the city. More at https://www.groundcontrolsystems.com/resour ces/tools-assets/city-madison-bicycle-parkingordinance/ The model ordinance provides language to differentiate the difference between short- and long-term parking. It also uses the APBP standards addressed previously in this plan. For every 10 bicycle parking spots a developer provides, they are able to deduct 1 automobile parking space from their proposal. The model ordinance begins on page 17 here: https://www.albany.edu/ihi/files/NY_Planning_ And_Policy_Models_iHi.pdf The City of Troy, as previously mentioned, has Fix-It Bicycle Repair Stations at four prominent locations. In addition to these repair stations, the non-profit organization, Troy Bike Rescue, operates a community bicycle repair workshop. As of the writing of this plan, there is no retail bike shop in within the City. To expand the bicycle-friendliness of the City, it’s important to continue to offer more amenities like bicycle racks and Fix-It stations. High profile locations, such as schools, parks, and business districts are the best places for future installation, since they are likely to be destinations for bicyclists. Examples include Monument Square, RPI’s campus, major trailheads for the Uncle Sam Bikeway, the Lansingburgh Branch of the Troy Public Library, Knickerbacker Park, Frear Park, Prospect Park, in neighborhood business districts such as 15th 66 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Street and Pawling Avenue. Capital Roots installed three of the four Fix-It stations that currently exist. Any future installation should be coordinated with their efforts. The City of Troy should consider adopting a policy that encourages regular maintenance of the bikeway network or roll it into their regular maintenance protocol. The relevant city department should ensure that regular street sweeping removes debris from bicycle lanes, pavement markings are not faded or missing, and that signage is clearly visible and unobstructed by vandalism or overgrown vegetation. The following table displays the average bikeway maintenance unit costs for the City of Minneapolis’ urban bikeway network. These costs are meant to provide a ballpark estimate; actual costs for Troy’s network may vary significantly. . MULTI-USE TRAIL BIKE LANE WITH ENHANCED SWEEPING (per direction) BIKE LANE WITH YEAR-ROUND MAINTENANCE (per direction) ONE-WAY PROTECTED BIKE LANE (per direction) TWO-WAY PROTECTED BIKE LANE ON ONE SIDE MAINTENANCE TYPE ANNUAL COST PER LINEAR FOOT Clear snow and sweep weekly Clear snow and sweep weekly $2.00 $1.00 Remove snow & sweep weekly $3.75 Remove snow & sweep weekly $6.50 Remove snow & sweep weekly $10.00 Snow and ice should not limit the effectiveness of the treatments the Troy Bicycle Connections Plan recommends. Many cities with extensive bikeway networks such as Chicago, Minneapolis, and Montreal experience harsher winter conditions than Troy. These cities continue to maintain their bicycle network throughout the year, ensuring that bicycling remains a viable form of transportation during all four seasons. Identify a priority network: The City should choose which streets it will maintain first during snow and ice storms. It would make sense to start with Primary Bikeways, since these facilities will likely be on the same streets the city already prioritizes. Moreover, winter cyclists tend to be more confident riders in general, so they are more likely to use the most direct routes during their trip. Determine a threshold at which conditions require action: The City of Troy should define under what conditions bikeway-specific winter maintenance is necessary. Many cities use an inch of snow as a threshold. Ensure that snow and ice build-ups do not obstruct the lane: snow removal vehicles should pay close attention to the shoulders on roads and other areas along the side of the road where bicyclists typically ride. Additional de-icing may be necessary in bike lanes due to the fact that they are less likely to break up ice and snow compared to vehicles. 67 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan The Recommendations section of this plan gives many options to achieve the desired bikeway network. To help facilitate snow removal along the bikeway, the City of Troy should avoid using materials and treatments that are not durable enough to withstand the wear and tear winter weather puts on the city’s roadways. For example, for cycle tracks, the city should use flexible delineators with reflectors; for speed and volume management, the city should use curbs or speed humps with gradual slopes to ensure that the plow can thoroughly remove snow and ice. 68 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Since the current bicycle network is underdeveloped, once novel infrastructure such as cycle tracks or new pavement markings, is installed, it is important for community groups, such as neighborhood associations, Capital Roots, and Transport Troy, and the City of Troy to conduct an additional level of community education. The three examples below feature educational signage from Portland, Oregon and Burlington, Vermont that was installed to help drivers and bicyclists navigate unfamiliar infrastructure. INTERSECTION PAVEMENT MARKINGS, Portland 69 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan NEIGHBORHOOD BIKEWAY TREATMENTS, Portland CYCLE TRACK, Burlington Active Warning Beacons – User-actuated flashing light that supplements warning signs at unsignalized intersections or mid-block crosswalks. Beacons can be actuated manually by a push-button or passively through detection. Active warning beacons are used to alert drivers to yield where bicyclists have the right-of-way crossing a road. Bike Boxes – a designated area at the head of a traffic lane at a signalized intersection that provides bicyclists with a safe and visible space to wait for the light. This allows cyclists to get ahead of queuing traffic during the red signal phase. Bike Lane – a bike lane is defined as a portion of the roadway that has been designated by striping, signage, and/or pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists (see also buffered, contra-flow, and conventional bike lanes). Buffered Bike Lanes – a conventional bike lane paired with a designated buffer space separating the bicycle lane from the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane and or parking lane. Buffered bike lanes provide space for bicyclists to pass another bicyclist without encroaching into the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane. Capital District Transportation Authority (CDTA) – a public benefit corporation created by New York State that operates public transportation in the Capital District of New York, serving Albany, Schenectady, Rensselaer and Saratoga counties. CDTA runs local and express buses, as well as a bike share program called CDPHP Cycle! Capital District Regional Planning Commission (CDRPC) – CDRPC is a regional planning and resource center serving the upstate New York counties of Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga and Schenectady. CDRPC provides objective analysis of data, trends, opportunities and challenges relating to the region’s economic development and planning. Confirmation Signs – wayfinding signage that indicates to bicyclists that they are on a designated bikeway. Confirmation signs also make motorists aware of the presence of a bicycle route. Contra-flow Bicycle Lanes – bicycle lanes designed to allow bicyclists to travel in the opposite direction of motor vehicle traffic. Combining two ways of bicycle traffic on one side of the street to accommodate contra-flow movement results in a two-way cycle track. Conventional Bike Lanes – bikes lanes that run curbside when no parking is present, or adjacent to parked cars on the right-hand side of the street when parking is present. Alternately, bike lanes may be placed on the left-hand side of the street on one-way streets. Curb Extensions – Commonly called bulb-outs, curb extensions extend the sidewalk or curb face into the parking lane at an intersection. When used at a crosswalk, curb extensions shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians. They also assist in bringing vehicle speeds down, so are often included as part of a bikeway. 70 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Cycle Tracks – an exclusive bike facility that combines the user experience of a separated path with the on-street infrastructure of a conventional bike lane. Decision Signs – wayfinding signage that marks the junction of two or more bikes ways. The purpose of decision signs is to direct bicyclists on the designated bike route to key destinations. High-intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) - also called a hybrid beacon; consists of a flashing, lighted signal visible on the major street, and pedestrian and/or bicycle signals for the minor street. Hybrid beacons enhance pedestrian comfort while crossing major streets. Hybrid beacons are used in locations where side-street volumes do not support installation of a conventional traffic signal. Horizontal Deflection – speed control measures that cause motorists to slow down in response to either a visually narrower roadway or a need to navigate a curving travel lane. Examples of horizontal deflections include curb extensions and neighborhood traffic circles. Left-side Bike Lanes – conventional bike lanes placed on the left side of one-way streets or two-way median divided streets. Left-side bike lanes offer advantages along streets with heavy delivery or transit use, frequent parking turnover on the right side, or other potential conflicts that could be associated right-side bicycle lanes. Major Street Crossings – a location where a bicycle boulevard crosses a major street with right-of-way priority. In this case, a variety of measures will improve visibility and reduce delay for bicyclists. These include signs, markings, and signals that enhance crossings, advance stop bars and advance signing, median refuge islands and curb extensions. Minor Street Crossings – The intersection of two residential or local streets, both having low motor vehicle volumes and speeds. At intersections with local streets and minor collectors, bicycle boulevards have right-of-way priority. As a method of reducing delay for cyclists, these intersections may be candidates limiting the number of stop signs along the route. National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) – an organization comprised of transportation officials from North American cities. NACTO's mission is to elevate the state of the practice for street design and transportation by building a common vision, sharing data, peer-to-peer exchange in workshops and conferences, and regular communication among member cities. NACTO Urban Street Design Guide sets the standard for urban bikeway design, and was utilized extensively in preparing this Plan. Neighborhood Traffic Circles – minor street crossing treatments that provide speed management. They are raised or delineated islands places at intersections that reduce vehicle speeds by narrowing turning radii and the travel lane. One-way Protected Cycle Track – a bikeway that are at street level and use a variety of methods for physical protection from passing traffic. It may be combined with a parking lane or other barriers between the cycle track and the motor vehicle travel lane. Sharrows – a combination of the words "share" and "arrow," sharrows are intended to serve as a visual reminder that space on the road is meant to be shared by cyclists and motorists. Sharrows don't provide dedicated space on the street for people biking, meaning motorists can still use a lane with 71 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan sharrows in it. The main function of a sharrow is to indicate a general area on the road in which it should be safe for people to bike. Speed Management Techniques – or traffic calming; measures used on bicycle boulevards or other bikeways to bring motor vehicle speeds closer to those of bicyclists. Reducing speeds along the bicycle boulevards improves the bicycling environment by reducing overtaking events, enhancing drivers’ ability to see and react, and diminishing the severity of crashes if they occur. Speed management measures can be divided into vertical or horizontal features. Striped Bike Lanes - bike lanes that aim to provide a clearer sense of where cyclists should be on the road by creating a lane for bikes. Typically, these lanes are striped with white paint and are often located on far right side of the road. They also may be painted a separate color to draw more attention. Transport Troy – Transport Troy is an active citizens group representing all citizens of Troy who desire more complete access to the City’s streets. Their belief is that in order for Troy to be competitive, to retain current residents and attract newcomers, Troy will need to make a meaningful commitment to walkability. Two-way Cycle Track – also known as protected bike lanes, separated bikeways, and on-street bike paths; physically separated cycle tracks that allow bicycle movement in both directions on one side of the road. Two-way cycle tracks are similar in design characteristics to one-way cycle tracks, but may require additional considerations at driveways and side-street crossings. Two-stage Turn Queue Boxes – a bike facility which offers bicyclists a safe way to make left turns at a multi-lane signalized intersections, from a right-side cycle track or bike lane. Two-stage turn queue boxes may also be used at un-signalized intersections to simplify turns from a bicycle lane or cycle track. Turn signs – indicate where a bikeway turns from one street onto another street. Turn signs generally are used with pavement markings and include destinations and arrows. Vertical Deflection – Speed control measures that are composed of wide, slight pavement elevations that self-enforce a slower speed for motorists. Recommended techniques include speed humps, speed cushions, and speed tables. Volume Management – measures taken to reduce or discourage thru traffic on designated bicycle boulevard corridors by physically or operationally reconfiguring select corridors and intersections alone the route. These measures may include a forced turn at an intersection, partial closures, and median islands. VPD – Commonly referred to as Vehicles per day, a measure of the number of vehicles that pass a particular point on the road during a 24-hour period. 72 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Unless stated below, all photos in this plan are credited to Parks & Trails New York National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO): One-way protected cycle track (Chicago); Contra-flow bike lane; Left-side bike lane; Speed humps; Speed cushions; Speed tables; Curb extensions (Santa Fe, NM); Bicycle traffic light (San Luis Obispo, CA); Bicycle forward stop bars (Seattle); Hybrid beacons; Active warning beacons; Median refuge islands; Dotted line extensions; Shared lane markings; Elephant’s feet; Two-stage turn queue boxes; Turn signs (Chicago) Corey Aldrich / Collar City Ramble: Urban Bikeway Demonstration Project (top L and R) 73 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan The largest land uses by acreage in Troy are Community Services, Residential, and Vacant Land. Within the second largest land use, “Residential”, the look and feel of Troy’s residential blocks differ significantly by neighborhood, but overall the City exhibits high population density. Troy scores a 7.6 in the “Compact Design” metric from the Center for Neighborhood Technology, compared with a regional score of just 1.5. The “compactness” of Troy’s development pattern lends itself to mixed use residential and commercial building, which proliferate along many of Troy’s streets. Constraints imposed on development by geography, including numerous steep hills, gorges, ravines and rock outcroppings also contribute to commercial and residential density in Troy’s downtown and several of its neighborhoods. Table A.1 Land Use by Acreage Land Use Acreage Percentage of Total Total 7496.82 100% Agricultural (Property used for the production 0 of crops or livestock) Residential (Property used for human habitation; Living accommodations such as 1859 hotels, motels, and apartments are in the Commercial category) Vacant Land (Property that is not in use, is in 1655 temporary use, or lacks permanent improvement) Commercial (Property used for the sale of 943 goods and/or services) Recreation & Entertainment (Property used by groups for recreation, amusement, or 658 entertainment) Community Services (Property used for the 1940 well being of the community) Industrial (Property used for the production and fabrication of durable and nondurable 64 man-made goods) Public Services (Property used to provide 346 services to the general public) Wild, Forested, Conservation Lands & Public 32 Parks (Reforested lands, preserves, and private hunting and fishing clubs) Source: PTNY analysis of City of Troy tax parcel data 0.0% 24.8% 22.1% 12.6% 8.8% 25.9% 0.9% 4.6% 0.4% With a population of just over 50,000 as of 2010, Troy is the largest city in Rensselaer County. Conversely, it is the smallest of the Capital District’s three principal cities. 74 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Troy’s household sizes are comparable to Rensselaer County’s and to the wider region, but the City’s age cohorts skew younger, with over 40% of City residents under the age of 25. Troy has significantly higher Black and Hispanic populations, at 16.38% and 7.95% of total population, than its county or region. Troy’s median household income is $38,954, significantly lower than Rensselaer County or the wider Capital District, and a relatively larger share of Troy’s residents live below the poverty line (22.70%). While there is a wealth disparity between Troy and Rensselaer County and the wider region, the city closely resembles Albany and Schenectady in median income and poverty level. Troy’s residents have education attainment levels that are lower than Rensselaer County and the Capital District, and fall between Schenectady and Albany’s educational attainment levels, with 21.1% of Schenectady’s and 36.4% of Albany’s residents having at least a Bachelor’s degree. The following tables summarize how the Troy compares with Rensselaer County, and the wider Albany- TroySchenectady region on a number of important transportation metrics. These metrics give insight into how residents are moving around, how much they are spending on transportation, and how accessibility to infrastructure for biking, driving, and walking may be influencing their transportation choices. Traveling to and from work is often the largest component of a resident’s travel behavior. Table 1.8 and Figure 1.9 show that Troy residents work in an array of communities throughout the region, with 23.5% staying in Troy for employment, and another 18.5% commuting to Albany. Troy also serves as a regional employment center, with over 17,000 workers travelling from elsewhere in the region to work in Troy. Table A.2 – Employment locations of Troy residents, 2014 2014 Total Employed Population* Troy Albany New York City Schenectady City of Cohoes, NY Village of Colonie, NY Village of Menands, NY Village of Green Island, NY City of Saratoga Springs NY City of Watervliet, NY All Other Locations Count Percent 18,856 4,440 3,491 836 462 277 243 212 190 165 138 8,402 100.0% 23.5% 18.5% 4.4% 2.5% 1.5% 1.3% 1.1% 1.0% 0.9% 0.7% 44.6% *Primary jobs include public and private-sector jobs. Primary Jobs represent the highest paying job for an individual worker. Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics. 75 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Figure A.3 – Employment Inflow and Outflow, Troy, 2014 Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, www.lehd.com Mode share indicates what percentage of trips taken are using a specific type of transportation, such as driving alone or transit. While the majority of Troy residents drive alone to work, a significant portion carpool, and another large segment of workers walk to their employment. The number of Troy residents biking to work is currently quite low, at 0.2%. Table A.4 – Mode share, as percentage of work trips Total workers Worked at home Total commuting population* Drive alone Carpool Public Transportation Walked Bicycle Taxicab, motorcycle, or other means Troy Rensselaer County Capital District 21,942 580 78,398 2,525 416,691 15,629 21,362 75,873 401,062 68.6% 11.9% 6.0% 12.2% 0.2% 83.4% 9.0% 2.3% 4.3% 0.1% 83.3% 8.2% 3.6% 3.7% 0.0% 1.1% 0.8% 1.0% *Mode shares are expressed as percentages of the working population that did not work from home. Source: Capital District Regional Planning Commission, based on 2011-2015 American Community Survey figures 76 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Troy’s residents have relatively limited access to automobiles compared with their counterparts in Rensselaer County and the wider region. Therefore it is not surprising that average number of miles driven annually by Troy households is less than those in Rensselaer County, and the wider region. Table A.5 – Access to one or more vehicles, as percentage of occupied housing units Albany Troy Rensselaer Troy Schenectady County Metro Area Occupied housing units 19,808 63,447 347,401 No vehicle available 22.0% 9.7% 9.8% 1 vehicle available 44.2% 35.2% 36.0% 2 vehicle available 25.6% 37.5% 38.3% 3 or more vehicles 8.1% 17.6% 15.9% available Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 - 2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (DP04) Table A.6 – Average annual vehicles miles traveled (VMT) per household Albany Troy Schenectady Troy Rensselaer County Region (CBSA) 17,995 annual miles 22,941 annual miles 22,520 annual miles Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology, calculated for Municipal Energy Profiles, available at “H+T Affordability Index” website: http://htaindex.cnt.org/ The Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) has developed the Housing and Transportation (H+T) Affordability Index which examines the cost of housing as well as the cost of transportation associated with the location of the home. An affordable area, according to CNT, is one that has combined housing and transportation costs that consume no more than 45 percent of the average household income. Troy scores well in both facets, with combined housing and transportation costs of 39%, compared with 49% for Rensselaer County and 50% for the region as a whole. Troy’s transportation costs averaged 18% of household income, also lower than the county or regional figures. Troy neighborhoods have an average Walk Score of 55, which is described as a “somewhat walkable” area. For comparison purposes, Albany’s neighborhoods average a Walk Score of 65, and Schenectady’s 64. Walk Scores are not available for larger areas such as counties or regions. 77 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan The Community Survey generated 129 responses, with respondents coming from a variety of zip codes in and around Troy, and representing a range of ages. 62% of participants (78 responses) indicated a home zip code of 12180, the zip code for the City of Troy. Most participants indicated that they are between of 30 and 42 years of age (34.65%), followed closely by age 50-64 (31.5%). 51% of respondents were female, and 49% of respondents were male. In order to assess Troy as a walking environment, the survey asked respondents to indicate where they walk to work or school, walk to run errands, or walk for physical activity. 85% of participants (104 responses) answered yes. Respondents who answered no were asked to identify the biggest obstacles to walking as a follow-up question. The following answers were given:  Distance  Doesn’t feel safe  Health reasons  Weather  Bad street conditions  Walking is not convenient Question 4 asked respondents to indicate the impact that six suggested improvements would have on their walking behavior, from most important to not important at all. Table B.1 Response to Question 4: “What type of improvements would make you feel more comfortable walking?” What type of improvements would make you feel more comfortable walking? Most Somewhat No opinion Not very Not important important important important at all More **16 *34 17 8 2 sidewalks Better side walk surfaces/ More 65 28 9 4 9 sidewalk maintenance Better signage and 14 42 27 7 9 wayfinding Improved crosswalks and other 36 46 19 7 6 intersection treatments Shade trees, benches or 34 35 21 16 6 other amenities Better access to multi-use 48 44 9 4 8 trails 78 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan ** Green highlighting indicates that more than 40% of respondents chose the specified level of importance (i.e. “Somewhat important”) for suggested improvements, representing statistically significant data. This was determined using a threshold of any percentage greater than 40%. **Yellow highlighting indicates that between 20% and 39% of respondents chose the specified level of importance for a suggested improvement. Question 4 points to the following common concerns amongst pedestrians and other trail users: Safety was the number one concern for walkers in Troy. With improved crossings and intersection. 38% (42 responses) of participants agreed that better signage and directional wayfinding would make them feel more comfortable walking. Accessibility of trails is a growing concern for trail users. 42% (48 responses) agreed that better access to multi-use trails would be somewhat important, while 38% (44 responses) agreed that it was most important. Connectivity is also a cause for concern because it relates to safety issues. Participants commented that a connection throughout the city and to regional parks and trails would increase the amount of walkers. Among respondents ranking “Other” improvements as important, lighting was raised by a large share as a needed improvement in Troy. In order to gain a better understanding of cycling in Troy, Question 5 asked respondents if they ride a bike in Troy. 67% of respondents (56 responses) answered yes, they do bike in Troy, while 33% of respondents (27 responses) answered no they do not bike in Troy. Those answering yes were asked to describe themselves as cyclists. 64% (72 responses) indicated that they bike in Troy, and of those 45% (34 responses) said they were “enthused and confident,” 39% (31 responses) described themselves as “interested but concerned,” and 16% described themselves as the “strong and fearless” rider type. Question 6 asked respondents to indicate the impact that six suggested improvements would have on their biking behavior, from most important to not important at all. Table B.2 Responses to Question 6: “What type of improvements would make you feel more comfortable biking in Troy?” What type of improvements would make you feel more comfortable biking in Troy? Most Somewhat No opinion Not very Not important important important important at all Better 14 41** 18 20* 7 signage/wayfinding On road cycling 59 30 13 5 7 infrastructure More protected cycling 70 27 7 3 9 infrastructure Increase maintenance on 57 29 13 7 5 roads Improved street crossings, 28 42 22 13 6 intersection treatments and 79 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan other transition points I need a Bike! Other 14 5 21 5 38 ** Green highlighting indicates that more than 40% of respondents chose the specified level of importance (i.e. “Somewhat important”) for suggested improvements, representing statistically significant data. This was determined using a threshold of any percentage greater than 40%. *Yellow highlighting indicates that between 20% and 39% of respondents chose the specified level of importance for a suggested improvement. Most of the participants in the survey revealed that it was somewhat important to them to have; more on road cycling infrastructure, such as bike lanes or shared road markings, increased protection for cycling infrastructure, such as separate bike lanes and multi-use trails, improved signage, and improved transition points and other intersection treatments. Other concerns involved connectivity and infrastructure. Connectivity matters for participants in order for them to connect to other existing bike paths for flow, but this also means within the city. For many participants, when asked what type of improvements would make them feel more comfortable cycling, 37% (42 responses) responded they felt improved street crossings, intersection treatments and other transition points would help. Infrastructure is also a growing concern for participants, both on road and off road. 51% (59 responses) of participants indicated that an increase of on road cycling infrastructure such as bike lanes or shared road marking would make them feel more comfortable cycling in Troy. Likewise 60% (70 responses) indicated that better protection of cycling infrastructure, such as bike lanes and multi-use trails would make them feel more comfortable cycling in Troy. Respondents ranking “Other” improvements as important suggested the following:  Enforcement of traffic laws, including sharing the road  Bike signals and bike boxes  Bike racks at commercial establishments  More connectivity within the City of Troy and with the regional parks and trails  More multi-use trails, and trailhead and surface improvements for Uncle Sam Trail  Lighting and cameras  Signage to educate drivers about bicyclists rights to the road - “Bicycle May Use Full Lane” and “Bike in Lane” signs are preferred as opposed to "Share the Road"  Wayfinding and connectivity with existing and proposed infrastructure Respondents were also surveyed on their opinion concerning which amenities and improvements would influence them to walk and or bike more in Troy. Of the additional amenities and improvements that would influence people to walk or bike more in Troy, 35% (40 responses) noted that better enforcement of traffic laws that affect biking and walking was the most important influence, followed by an increase in convenient bike parking. Table B.3 Responses to Question 7: “Which additional amenities/ improvements would influence you to walk/bike more in Troy?” Which additional amenities/improvements would influence you to walk and/or bike more in Troy? Most Somewhat No opinion Not very Not important important important important at all 80 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Convenient 29* 39 20 9 9 bike parking Enforcement of traffic laws that 40 37 23 8 6 affect biking and walking Improvement 27 41 20 19 7 of Streetscapes Moving parking away from 18 26 40 24 8 pedestrian and bike areas Increase educations programming that offers 23 33 30 18 5 encouragement and instruction for biking and walking Other ** Green highlighting indicates that more than 40% of respondents chose the specified level of importance (i.e. “Somewhat important”) for suggested improvements, representing statistically significant data. This was determined using a threshold of any percentage greater than 40%. *Yellow highlighting indicates that between 20% and 39% of respondents chose the specified level of importance for a suggested improvement. Respondents who choose “Other” were mainly concerned about connectivity and funding. While others emphasized education as a continuous concern. Connectivity and Funding were also problem areas for respondents. Some felt that a Troy Trail Guide with a map, descriptions, whether the trail is dog friendly and difficulty of terrain would help cure some of the confusion associated with trails. Moreover, neighborhood revitalization and beautification would help with the growing population and a growing economy that is more supportive of walking/biking connectivity Education about cycling would eliminate popular misconceptions that surround cycling among pedestrians and motorists. Some responders told experiences about the dangerous possibilities that can happen when people are not paying attention. 30% of responders noted that if there were more educational programing about cycling and pedestrian safety, it would influence them to walk or bike more, Public transportation in Troy is a valuable resource for the city and its residents. When asked whether they use public transportation, 42% of respondents answered yes. When asked if they supported using public funding for bike and pedestrian safety improvements, an overwhelming amount of participants, 93%, answered yes in support. Question 10 of the survey was an open ended question asking respondents what they thought is the worst location and/or intersection in the City of Troy for biking or walking. It then asked for a description of the location and what they think needs to be done in order to fix this location. Locations respondents disliked included: 81 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan o o o o o o o o o Hoosick Street and its intersections Green Island Bridge Jay Street Pinewoods Ave., Spring Ave. High Street/Sidewalk & Troy-Menands Bridge Streets intersecting and around Ferry/Congress can be perilous Green Island Bridge and Federal St/Hoosick St approach to Troy-Menands Bridge Federal/King/River St. corridor 4th and 3rd Sts – stressful biking environments  Locations cyclists want improved: o Northbound portion of 4th St / River St / King St that crosses Federal St. o I would love to see "biking only" lights that allow bikers for say, 30 seconds, to cross while all other traffic is standstill o Getting from downtown to the Albany bike path, especially the last bit from just north of Mill St. to the other side of the river; crumbling concrete barriers which are part of the sidewalk on the southbound side of the street could be replaced with a wider surface consisting of sidewalk and bike lane  Locations pedestrians want improved: o The intersection of 2nd Street and River o Hoosick St. from 8th to Burdett: enforce snow removal, speed and noise laws; install bollards and street trees; longer-term changes to road design o Hoosick Street and 6th: no walking lights at the intersection or bike lanes The final question in the survey asked participants are they are familiar with any of the existing programs, initiatives, or events that promote biking and walking in Troy. The most popular program that people were familiar with was Troy Bike Rescue. A Quick Poll was completed in order to find what improvements would most likely influence someone to walk or bike more in the City of Troy. Of the options presented, the improvement thought to be most influential in increasing the number of pedestrians and cyclists was more bike lanes and multi-use trails. Additional comments were made, including:  More bike parking/racks  Sidewalk maintenance, bike lanes/trails, and enforcement are all needed  Complete connection through Troy, not on busy roads, and safer crossing of Hoosick St.  I commute by bike from the Emma Willard neighborhood to Peebles Island in Waterford. Second Ave in North Troy scares me to death, but I got a big mirror, which helps. It is so tight and cars go fast. I could go on the Green Island Bike Path but it takes longer and makes me nervous because there are no people to see me if there is a crime. I often see a pickup truck parked along the side of the scheduled road with someone in it. I am sure they are perfectly nice but I don’t like the seclusion of the trail  More bike lanes and multi-use trails, Maintenance of sidewalks and other surfaces, Better signage/wayfinding, enforcement of traffic laws, Better crosswalks and other intersection treatments. Another Quick Poll was conducted in order to find out where respondents would most like to see bicycle improvements in Troy. The most common answer was the Green Island Bridge, followed by Mill Street between Campbell Avenue and Burden Avenue, and Spring Avenue between Campbell Avenue and Adams Avenue. Respondents choosing “Other” listed the following additional locations:  Second Avenue  Downtown to Hoosick St., traffic to Green Island and Watervliet 82 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan In an effort to gain additional feedback and to reach diverse audiences, social media polls were conducted regarding Troy’s biking and walking network. The first polled asked participants what improvements would influence you to walk/bike more in Troy. The majority of responses (38%) answered the enhancement of streetscapes to improve the look and feel of local streets and sidewalks. Another poll with the same questions was posted, but offered different poll resulted in 50% of respondents choosing stricter enforcement of traffic laws including speed limits, right of way at intersections, and other traffic laws that affect biking and walking. PTNY conducted a biking-specific poll, asking which improvement would make respondents feel more comfortable biking in Troy. This yielded 100% of participants answering that protected bike lanes would make them feel more comfortable biking in Troy. PTNY conducted an additional poll that asked participants what improvements would make them feel more comfortable walking in Troy. An overwhelming majority chose (75%) an improvement of shade trees, benches and other amenities. A final social media poll asked where respondents would most like to see bicycle improvements in Troy. 77% of responses answered the Troy-Menands Bridge, while 15% answered the Green Island Bridge. In late September, PTNY and partners from the Steering Advisory Committee created a “Pop-up Bikeway” demonstration in an effort to illustrate to cyclists how several of the proposed bike facilities would look. As part of the demonstration a bike lane was created on 4th Street, a neighborhood bikeway was created on Washington Street, and a protected cycle track was created on Hill Street. The demonstration was timed to coincide with the Collar City Ramble, a large event in Troy which includes a guided bike ride through the City. The route for the Ramble was adjusted to include the Pop-up, with nearly 50 riders using the facilities. In addition to Ramble participants, members of the public were able to use the facility throughout the day on Saturday (9.23.17). PTNY staffed a table at the end of the Hill St. cycle track, and asked participants for feedback on a half-sheet survey. They also posted the same feedback questions on the Weebly site. Users were asked their thoughts on the 4th Street bike lane, with possible answers: “Awesome no problems”, “I don’t like cycling next to parked cars”, “Striping puts Picasso to shame”, and “Other”, with the ability to further explain. In all, 6 people provided feedback. The most frequent feedback was “Awesome, no problems.” There were two additional comments from participants that emphasized the danger for cyclists on 4th street and infrastructure of the road and prioritizing sidewalks for pedestrian use. For the Washington Street facility, users were asked their thoughts on Washington Street where the neighborhood bikeway was located. The possible answers were: “Awesome, no problems”, “Jeesh, I need some kind of protection”, “That stenciling WOW!”, and “Other”. In all, 5 people provided feedback. Washington Street’s facilities elicited similar sentiments as 4th St., with the majority of respondents stating “Awesome, no problems.” However additional comments from participants indicated that they would need some additional level of protection, and better traffic flow. For Hill Street facility, users were asked what their thoughts on the Hill Street Cycle Track. The possible answers were “We need these everywhere!”, “Cycling against traffic was weird”, “Eh, kind of overkill”, and “Other”, with the ability to add a comment. In all 4 people provided feedback. The majority of the Hill St. responses were “We need these everywhere!” Additional comments asserted that protected bike lanes would make biking around Troy a better experience. 83 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Per federal requirements, the Capital District Transportation Committee (CDTC) undertakes an analysis of Environmental Justice in all Community and Transportation Linkage Planning Program (Linkage Program) initiatives to evaluate if transportation concepts and recommendations impact Environmental Justice populations. Impacts may be defined as those that are positive, negative and neutral as described in CDTC’s Environmental Justice Analysis document, published March 2014 (available at http://www.cdtcmpo.org/ej/ej.htm). The goal of this analysis is to ensure that both the positive and negative impacts of transportation planning conducted by CDTC and its member agencies are fairly distributed and that defined Environmental Justice populations do not bear disproportionately high and adverse effects. This goal has been set to:  Ensure CDTC’s compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states that “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance,”  Assist the United State Department of Transportation’s agencies in complying with Executive Order 12898 stating, “Each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.”  Address FTA C 4702.1B TITLE VI REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES FOR FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION RECIPIENTS, which includes requirements for MPOs that are some form of a recipient of FTA, which CDTC is not. In developing a methodology for analysis, CDTC staff created demographic parameters using Summary File 1 data from the 2010 United States Census as well as data from the 2007-2011 American Community Survey (ACS). Threshold values were assigned at the census tract level to identify geographic areas with significant populations of minority or low-income persons. Tracts with higher than the regional average percentage of low-income or minority residents are included on Map 1 as Environmental Justice populations. Minority residents are defined as those who identify themselves as anything but white only, not Hispanic or Latino. Low-income residents are defined as those whose household income falls below the poverty line. 84 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan Map 1 The transportation patterns of low-income and minority populations in CDTC’s planning area are depicted in Table 1, using the commute to work as a proxy for all travel. The greatest absolute difference between the defined minority and non-minority population is in the Drive Alone and Transit categories: The non-minority population is 17.5% more likely to drive alone, slightly more likely to work at home, 10.1% less likely to take transit, and is also less likely to carpool, walk, or use some other method to commute. The greatest absolute difference between the defined low-income 85 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan population and the non-low-income population follows the same trend, with the non-low-income population 20.9% more likely to drive alone and 11.7% less likely to commute via transit. Table 1 -Commute Mode 4-County NY Capital Region Drive By Race Carpool Transit Other Alone All Workers (16+) 80.0% 8.3% 3.2% 1.2% White Alone Not Hispanic or Latino 82.5% 7.8% 1.8% 1.0% Minority 65.0% 11.0% 11.9% 2.1% Walk 3.6% 2.9% 7.4% Work at Home 3.7% 3.9% 2.6% Drive Alone Carpool Transit Other Walk Work at Home All Workers (16+) for whom poverty status is determined 80.7% 8.3% 3.2% 1.2% 3.0% 3.6% At/Above 100% Poverty Level Below 100% Poverty Level 81.7% 60.8% 8.2% 10.2% 2.6% 14.3% 1.1% 3.1% 2.8% 7.7% 3.6% 3.9% By Income Data: American Community Survey 2011 5-year estimates, tables B08105H + B08122. Other incl. taxi, motorcycle, bicycle. The Troy Bicycle Connections Plan area is included in the Environmental Justice area based on the study area Census Tracts having a higher than regional average percentage of minority residents. Consideration for including these populations in the planning process was given in the following ways:  The Internet was used to display and advertise information about the study.  Social media was used to provide information and input opportunities.  Various public participation opportunities were provided, including at city and neighborhood events and in conjunction with the Capital Roots Veggie Mobile. All opportunities were in transit-accessible locations.  Public comment was accepted throughout the study process.  Final products will be posted to CDTC’s website, the City of Troy’s website, PTNY’s website, and on social media. CDTC defines plans and projects with a primary or significant focus on transit, bicycling, walking, or carpool as being “positive”. As the primary purpose of the Troy Bicycle Connections Plan is to develop a citywide bike network, connecting city parks, schools and major institutions, which includes neighborhoods with Environmental Justice populations, it has been determined that the Troy Bicycle Connections Plan will have a positive impact on the affected populations. The Study makes recommendations for new bicycle facilities on roadways and at intersections. These improvements which, if implemented, will provide positive benefits for Environmental Justice populations in the study area. CDTC’s New Visions 2040 regional transportation plan encourages smart growth as well as investment and development in urban areas as a method to protect natural resources. Smart growth policies also help to protect rural character and open space, and protect quality of life in the Capital Region. CDTC has undertaken review of natural and cultural resource mapping, and for the development of the Regional Transportation Plan consulted with federal, state and local agencies on environmental issues as an important part of the environmental mitigation process. Along with evaluating the impacts to environmental systems of candidate transportation projects for federal funds, CDTC documents the environmental systems present in the study areas for Linkage Program planning initiatives. Map 2 provides an overview of the environmental systems present in the Troy Bike Connections Plan area. CDTC uses GIS mapping of the below environmental systems to screen for potential project impacts. Features within 0.25 miles of 86 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan the study area are included in Map 2. The Troy Bicycle Connections Plan recommendations are not expected to impact any identified features since the study area is already developed. Environment features include: • sole source aquifers • aquifers • reservoirs • water features (streams, lakes, rivers and ponds) • wetlands • watersheds • 100 year flood plains • rare animal populations • rare plant populations • significant ecological sites • significant ecological communities • state historic sites • national historic sites • national historic register districts 87 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan • national historic register properties • federal parks and lands • state parks and forests • state unique areas • state wildlife management areas • county forests and preserves • municipal parks and lands • land trust sites • NYS DEC lands • Adirondack Park • agricultural districts • NY Protected Lands • natural community habitats • rare plant habitats • Class I & II soils 1. Troy Bicycle Facilities Guidelines Linkage Project Study Area: 7 l. '5 74", I If/ q? I. 7! .WMA A Rare Animal Populations 0 Rare Plant Populations Roads Streams 0.25 Mile Buffer Project StudyArea Water Features Wetlands - Reservoirs - State Parks and Forests Municipal Parks and Land National Historic Register Districts - Parcels Taxed as Farmland I - Parcels in Farm Use Agricultural Districts - Classl&l Soils - 100YearF oodplain - Aquifers 88 Troy Bicycle Connections Plan