HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-07-29 Board of Selectmen Packet - Part 2 1K MAPC 50 YEARS
METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COUNCIL
SMART GROWTH AND RFG1ONAL COLLABORATION
Town of Reading
Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
July 2014
— 11
• is
Y 1 t y „'� i
_ . lil efis: -.-. '
4171 r ri - _ „..... .
fart
.R .�.. ' ∎ ••
• • 1 ti
. _....� "'�+�►
ss
or
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank The Town of Reading staff who provided input on this project, including the
planning department, engineering department, department of public works, safety officers, Town
Administrator, Walkable Reading, and other stakeholders from the Town of Reading. Professional
technical assistance provided by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council: Sarah Kurpiel Lee,
Transportation Engineer and Planner; Chris Kuschel, Regional Planner; David Loutzenheiser,
Transportation Planner;and Bill Wang, GIS Analyst.
This project was undertaken with funding provided by the Town of Reading and from the Boston
Metropolitan Area Planning Organization (MPO) Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP).
Cover photo:Bicycles parked at the Reading commuter rail station
2
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments 2
List of Figures and Tables 4
Executive Summary 5
Introduction 6
Note on Recommendations 8
Commute Data 8
Complete Streets Policy 9
Town of Reading Bicycle-Pedestrian Accomplishments 9
Pedestrian Recommendations 11
Town of Reading Neighborhood Walking Routes 11
Overview of Pedestrian Facilities 13
Town of Reading High Priority Area Pedestrian Recommendations 18
Bicycle Recommendations 31
Overview of Bicycle Facilities 32
Town of Reading Bicycle Facilities Recommendations 36
Next Steps 41
Appendix A - Pedestrian and Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines and References 42
Appendix B - MassDOT Road Network Functional Classifications 44
Appendix C - List of All Street Segments Analyzed 45
3
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1: Example of existing conditions-West Street(between Oak St. and Woburn City line) 7
Figure 2: Example of proposed conditions-West Street(between Oak St.and Woburn City line) 7
Figure 3:Town of Reading Neighborhood Walking Routes Map 12
Figure 4: Reading Sidewalk Gaps(Local and Non-local Roads)and Sidewalk Priority Locations 30
Figure 5: Cycle track(Source: NACTO) 33
Figure 6: Buffered bicycle lanes(Source: NACTO) 33
Figure 7: Bicycle lanes(Source: NACTO) 34
Figure 8:Shared lane markings(Source: NACTO) 34
Figure 9: Reading Bicycle Network Plan 39
Table 1:Travel to Work Mode Share 8
Table 2: Pedestrian Recommendations,Additional Schools 27
Table 3: Reading Pedestrian Infrastructure Priority Locations 29
Table 4: Reading Bicycle Recommendations 40
4
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
Executive Summary
The Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), a regional planning agency serving the 101 cities
and towns of Metro Boston, collaborated with the Town of Reading to complete a bicycle network
and pedestrian prioritization plan. MAPC conducted fieldwork, analysis, and extensive local outreach
in order to create a short-term and low cost plan aimed to improve bicycle and pedestrian
accommodations within the Town and also connecting to adjacent communities. This study is meant
to prioritize safety, health, and the environment - and complements recent bicycle and pedestrian
improvements within the Town, including the new bicycle lane on Haverhill Street and the many
streetscape improvements in Downtown Reading.
Study area observations were completed during the Fall of 2013, and focused primarily on major
roadways within the Town, as well as some local and residential roads identified by the Town and
local residents. MAPC focused on improving bicycle and pedestrian access to schools, trails, retail
and employment centers,transit, and parks.
MAPC's study revealed:
• There is significant opportunity to install bicycle lanes within the Town without making any
changes to roadway curb locations, travel lanes, and/or parking. When roadways are
repaved as part of normal roadway maintenance, new lane striping can allow for bicycle
accommodations. This study identifies 8.4 miles of roadway for short-term bicycle lane
installation.
• A number of opportunities exist for "shared lanes" and/or signage on roadways that are
currently not wide enough to accommodate bicycle lanes.
• There are numerous opportunities throughout the Town to focus on improving the safety and
comfort of pedestrians, especially around schools and accessing the commuter rail station.
Potential improvements include new crosswalks, curb ramps, curb extensions, and other
potential improvements.
• A number of locations were identified for sidewalk installation. Sidewalk priority areas were
identified on Grove Street, Hopkins Street,and Salem Street.
In this report, MAPC has outlined several recommendations that can improve bicycle and pedestrian
access in the Town of Reading in the short-term, and has also identified several longer-term goals.
MAPC encourages the Town to prioritize these improvements, and allocate funding for
implementation, as well as local education about bicycle lanes, sharing the road, and pedestrian
safety. These improvements will help the residents,employees and patrons who frequent this area.
5
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
Introduction
The Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) is assisting the Town of Reading in advancing
pedestrian and bicycle plans, focusing on short-term and low-cost solutions. The Town has already
taken several proactive steps to prioritize bicycle and pedestrian access, including approximately 2
miles of new bicycle lanes on Haverhill Street, reconstructing the Downtown to make it a more
pedestrian-friendly environment, and advancing a Complete Streets policy. This Bicycle Network and
Pedestrian Priority Plan will supplement these efforts and help create connectivity for non-vehicular
travel throughout the Town. The primary goals of this effort are to 1) develop a bicycle and
pedestrian network plan consisting of town-wide connections; and, 2) begin to institutionalize the
implementation of pedestrian and bicycle accommodation at the local level in all projects. The
recommendations in this report are not intended to supplant or contradict any existing plans in the
communities (open space plans, master plans, etc.). Rather, this document can be used in
conjunction with these other initiatives, as well as in coordination with private development efforts,
and assist in prioritization and identifying opportunities for new pedestrian facilities and bicycle
accommodations during upcoming roadway repaving efforts.
As part of this planning effort, existing conditions and potential opportunities have been identified for
all major roads within the Town.1 This planning effort identifies a network of on- and off-road
connections and routes, including proposed bicycle and pedestrian accommodations, and the
proposed cross-sections(i.e., allocation of the curb-to-curb space).
This report is organized into two sections. First, it provides an overview of pedestrian facilities
followed by a detailed discussion of pedestrian recommendations at high priority sites. Second, it
provides an overview of bicycle facilities followed by a detailed discussion of the bicycle
recommendations.
These recommendations create a network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities based upon existing
roadway configurations with no changes to curb location, existing on-street parking requirements, or
the existing number of vehicular travel lanes. Recommendations are based on highlighting existing,
low-cost opportunities for improvements, generally through roadway restriping for bicycle facilities
and crosswalk or sidewalk improvements or construction of pedestrian facilities. Therefore, the
proposed changes are appropriate for near-term (ranging from immediate to 2-3 year)
implementation.
Beyond the scope of this study, we urge the Town to examine whether rights of way are wide enough
to incorporate bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities when completely redesigning and reconstructing
roads and encourage the Town to examine whether there are opportunities to reduce the number of
travel lanes or remove on-street parking in order to provide bicycle facilities.
An example of a roadway reallocation is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. The first diagram depicts
the existing conditions of West Street in Reading. The second diagram depicts MAPC's proposed
reallocation of the roadway space. Without any changes in the curb-to-curb width, this segment is
able to accommodate bicycle lanes in each direction by slightly narrowing the vehicular travel lanes.
The travel lanes, which are proposed as 10.5' and 11.0' are well within the guidance provided by the
MassDOT Project Development and Design Guide. According to this guidance, travel lanes on non-
local roads should be between 10'and 12'.
1 Major roads were identified by examining the MassDOT functional roadway classification for the Town of Reading(See
Appendix C). In general, local roads were excluded from the analysis unless the Town identified them as an important
connection.
6
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
•
•
Qtit + y _ P.• • ".,.`
JIB ' + .,- 1 k40••••••••• -4
-
Sidewalk• Travel lone Travel lone Side►.vark •
butter I thbo"r`d) (northbound) butter
7•-0- 2.-6. 12.0•• 13•-0" 4'-0- 7.-0.
31. r..
Figure 1:Example of existing conditions-West Street(between Oak St.and Woburn City line)
•
; ;At,•r,
ilw'�*i* .per.. •' `$''r ."
it
g . ____ . , +
•
•
Sidewalk * 8,cycie Travel lane Travel lone bicycle Sidewalk •
butter lane Isouthbound) !northbound) lane butter
7'-0" 5-0'• 10'-6" I I'-0" 5'-0" - 7'-0"
•31'-6"
Figure 2:Example of proposed conditions-West Street(between Oak St.and Woburn City line)
7
•
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
MAPC considered the following for potential bicycle accommodations: exclusive bicycle lanes, cycle
tracks or buffered bicycle lanes, shared lane markings, and shared use paths. As compared with
bicycle lanes and shared lane markings, cycle tracks and buffered bicycle lanes require greater
roadway width to accommodate these facilities. Although MAPC considered opportunities to include
these facilities, under existing roadway widths there were no opportunities within the Town. The
Town may wish to consider incorporating these facilities in the future for any roadway reconstruction
projects.
Pedestrian recommendations focus on local priority areas and include crossing improvements,
sidewalk improvements, and new sidewalk locations. At the conclusion of the planning effort, it will
be the responsibility of the Town to implement the recommendations. MAPC recommends
implementing these bicycle and pedestrian recommendations as roadways are repaved and/or
reconstructed over the next few construction seasons to minimize costs and to ensure optimal
roadway surface conditions for cycling.
Note on Recommendations
MAPC developed the following recommendations for pedestrian and bicycle accommodations based
on current best practices and local conditions.2 MAPC has met with staff members from the Town of
Reading to discuss and finalize the recommendations. The Town should implement these
recommendations based on local priorities, funding and public support. In addition, proper
education for all users of the roadway should be prioritized along with any changes in infrastructure.
Commute Data
The 2010 American Community Survey compiles statistics over a 5 year period about the modes
people use to travel to work. The results are summarized for Reading and compared with regional
and state data in Table 1 below. Note that the ACS survey is given to less than 15% of all
households over a five year period;therefore, margins of error may be significant.
Table 1:Travel to Work Mode Share
Municipality Population Employees Walk Bicycle Drive Transit Other
(h) (%) (A) (M) (A)
Reading 24,747 12,654 1.6 0.4 86.5 6.8 4.3
MAPC 3,066,394 1,820,350 6.6 1.1 66.7 16.7 8.8
Massachusetts 6,587,536 3,304,919 4.8 0.7 75.6 9.4 9.5
Source:2010 American Community Survey,2010 Census.
Percentages may not equal 100%due to rounding.
The Reading commuter rail station is the most highly utilized on the Haverhill line,with approximately
927 daily weekday boardings3. Although the Reading commuter rail station is very popular,given the
current mode shares for Reading residents there is still room for significant increases in non-auto
mode shares including transit, walking, and biking. As shown in Table 1, the percentage of
commuters traveling by private vehicles in Reading is significantly higher than the MAPC region and
state average with approximately 87% of all residents driving to work. In addition, the bicycle and
walking mode share for the Town is lower than the averages for both the MAPC region and the
Commonwealth. Because residents have access to a commuter rail stop, bus line, as well as many
neighborhood walking routes, there is potentially a significant opportunity to increase the
2 Note that MAPC did not undertake detailed intersection design as a part of this plan;rather,these recommendations are
based upon on-site mid-block measurements and observations, and may require additional design at intersections and
other conflict areas. Because roadway widths can be inconsistent, prior to installing bicycle facilities, road segments
should be evaluated by the municipalities to ensure that the roadway is able to incorporate the recommendations.
3 MBTA Ridership and Service Statistics.Thirteenth Edition 2010.
8
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
percentages of these non-vehicular modes of travel. Prioritizing and funding the installation of
additional bicycle and pedestrian facilities may increase the non-vehicular mode share, improve air
quality in the town and increase physical activity of residents.
Complete Streets Policy
Complete streets refer to roadways that are safe, comfortable, and accessible for all users -
including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and bus riders - of the roadway of all ages and abilities.
In conjunction with this bicycle and pedestrian plan project, the Town of Reading has decided to
pursue adoption of a complete streets policy through its Board of Selectmen. The policy is not a
design prescription for required facilities on specific roadways; rather, it directs the Town to consider
and look for opportunities to incorporate the needs of all users during both routine maintenance and
roadway reconstruction projects. This bicycle and pedestrian plan report is intended to provide
specific recommendations to assist with planning and implementation of the complete streets policy.
Working with Reading's Parking-Traffic-Transportation Task Force, MAPC has drafted a complete
streets policy tailored to meet the Town's goals,such as improving the health of its residents through
increased physical activity. MAPC presented the draft policy to the Community Planning and
Development Commission on January 27, 2013. The Commission unanimously voted to support
adoption of the policy by the Board of Selectmen. A vote by the Board of Selectmen is tentatively
scheduled to take place in June 2014.
Town of Reading Bicycle-Pedestrian Accomplishments
This bicycle network and pedestrian priority plan is the latest among a number of initiatives the Town
has engaged in to promote alternative forms of transportation and improve the health and safety of
the community. These multiple initiatives and programs work together and the Town has recently
seen record numbers of both bicycling and walking throughout the community.
Related projects and initiatives include:
• Healthy Communities initiative - this program aims to encourage walking and includes a
public education component of the benefits of everyday physical activity
• Main St. Improvement Project - From 2008-2009, the Town's downtown was reconstructed
with wide sidewalks, brick pavings, pedestrian-scaled street lighting, updated crossing
signals, new crosswalks,and curb extensions
• Parking,Transportation,Traffic,Task Force - This group, comprised of Planning, Department
of Public Works, Town Engineering, Police Safety Officers, and Town Administrator meets
monthly to discuss pedestrian and bicycle planning efforts, new opportunities, and issues
• Update of zoning by-law - the Town is in the process of updating its zoning by-laws. The
updated by-laws will reflect current zoning best practices for creating a sustainable
community with a high quality of life.
• South Main Street Design Best Practices - The Community Planning and Development
Commission has developed a set of Design Best Practices as a way to communicate to
property owners and developers the community's preferences related to development
attributes in this corridor, which aim to improve the quality of site design and improve the
pedestrian environment.
• Main St. Road Diet - the Town worked with the Boston Metropolitan Area Planning
Organization to study the feasibility of reducing the number of travel lanes on a segment of
Main Street from four to three,thus allowing for space for bicycle lanes.
• Main St. Corridor Study - the Town collaborated with MAPC, Wakefield, and Melrose to
develop a transportation plan that focuses on achieving sustainable development and land
use objectives.
9
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
• North Suburban Planning Council Priority Mapping Project - The NSPC Priority Mapping
Project was a 1.5 year-long effort to identify and map local and regional priorities for
development, preservation, and infrastructure investments within the subregion. Reading
was one of eight municipalities that participated in this project.
• Sidewalk along Vine Street - The Town constructed a sidewalk from Mineral Street to High
Street. This is a street heavily used by commuters and the sidewalk has increased the safety
of both commuters and school children.
• Haverhill St. bike lane - the Town's first bicycle lane was constructed, comprising
approximately two miles of roadway.
• Complete streets policy - the Town is working with MAPC to develop a framework complete
streets policy to consider and look for opportunities to incorporate the needs of all users
during both routine maintenance and roadway reconstruction projects.
10
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
Pedestrian Recommendations
Working with Town staff, MAPC identified several high priority areas for pedestrian improvements.
The high priority areas include schools, the commuter rail station, and dense retail districts. These
recommendations include crosswalk striping, curb extension locations, sidewalk improvements, and
new sidewalks.
Areas around schools, in particular, should focus on providing pedestrian amenities in order to
increase the safety of students, parents, and teachers. Providing a safe pedestrian environment for
students to access school is essential and may help reduce the number of vehicular trips in Reading.
Town of Reading Neighborhood Walking Routes
Walkable Reading and the Town have completed a "neighborhood walks" map that contains several
loops throughout the Town, which provide routes to various points of interest, including off-road
trails, parks, conservation areas, sports fields, and playgrounds. See Figure 3 for a map of these
routes. Although it has not yet been formalized, the Town may consider prioritization of sidewalk
projects based upon these key routes. In addition, during the development of the Priority Mapping
Project the Board of Selectmen discussed the importance of creating a neighborhood link to Lake Q.
This would enhance pedestrian and bicycle access to this regional destination. The Town is
examining whether easements could provide a link to this popular area.
11
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
. NEIGHBORHOOD WALKS
1 ,.
1 �•r\
I - 'i' ..." •\
,' i•'
O.
^� rz 4 _ . ., i
1 ..... • s`nw 1
u•r •
Kam i
.... k i
I- _ 1t,- .1r ®.,,...' r , •, -.-,— ,,.oar _. __
% .... ..1.44,..1 boor 1111"wro.) . 'r ligt .:01, ' 4
I
* \V �\ �'
.� '.
Lowe- -° vim~�. 4' ` ./:
`"-- ` Somme Loop _ ° .A, '� •-'l - ,I- g...,
//YTTTyy. ` �•� 'art. /
Loop •:.
.1 ..4 r S.amt•o• Min
, ..
,v.„:1p+ffb \ t, r , '
lbemomou
draw Caw
hive Jowta..Qa1•u.
tart IOW, L mos•
at- .0 *di Illosia
9 Mows grrrq�
No \" igWr flMM low
e l 10C am ' N S -J.r.e tam.Law
* t.trn...r•w
Awn•u+f..Irar forsar Lao
.' $ - 0,, .A•., OM MOAN gllw.
4 - 'glMlrM IrW.w Cyr N.
\ ••••/lrrlt�.Mods Oprr•
um.Uwe MOW ORMOND LIMO ►MS Ow.Y'Y7fft
rrf Own lam•/IVrt Ow OP ream o.1�S WrrO.r `• «••Wtlr Cam An*
MOM/..1100A WrYr_IVrMM •..-Neutral.Cow.Ow. rOV s!
I.
Figure 3:Town of Reading Neighborhood Walking Routes Map
12
•
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
Overview of Pedestrian Facilities
A number of resources are available that provide detailed information on pedestrian facilities,
including The Boston Region's Pedestrian Transportation Plan.4 The following are brief descriptions
of the facilities considered for Reading's high priority locations. See Appendix A for a list of
additional resources for pedestrian and bicycle facility guidelines.
Sidewalks
Sidewalk availability and accessibility is an important part of transportation infrastructure in every
city and town. Increased levels of activity (including walking and cycling) in a community can
improve health, provide an increase in economic development, and reduce vehicle use, air pollution,
and the cost for maintaining local roadways.
The current regional policy guidelines (The Boston Region's Pedestrian Transportation Plan) call for
the provision of sidewalks or other pedestrian accommodation on both sides of all roadways. The
sidewalks should provide pedestrians with multiple options to access their destination, and to
minimize the need for pedestrians to cross roadways to access a sidewalk. Although limited rights of
way may limit the possible width of sidewalks, The Americans with Disabilities Act mandates a
minimum width of three feet of unobstructed sidewalk passageway. Generally, a sidewalk width of
five feet allows two adults to walk comfortably side-by-side. A grass buffer of one or more feet, often
with planted trees, can separate the pedestrian space from the vehicular travel lanes, adding to the
comfort of pedestrians.
Crosswalks
Crosswalks greatly contribute towards pedestrian safety. Crosswalks should be provided at
intersections or mid-block locations where pedestrians cross the roadway, should be placed at
regular intervals and at convenient locations, and be visible to both the motorist and the pedestrian.
ADA-compliant wheelchair ramps should be provided at all crosswalks.
MAPC recommends utilizing the continental or ladder style crosswalks as opposed to the transverse
marking style(also known as the "standard"style), because they are more visible to motorists.
Crosswalks should ideally consist of non-skid,thermoplastic, retro-reflective material. Although this
material is initially more costly than paint, it is longer lasting and requires less maintenance;
therefore, it is more cost effective in the longer run.
As with sidewalks,crosswalks should be a smooth surface and accessible for wheelchairs and
walkers of all ages and abilities. Brick crosswalks,therefore,should generally be avoided. The Town
may wish, however,to utilize enhanced crosswalk designs that do not impede users'ability to cross.
These designs include different colored pavements and/or bands of decorative paving(e.g., bricks)
or decorative stamps along the outside edges of the crosswalk(i.e., not within the pedestrian path of
travel).
4 Adopted and released by MAPC in June,2010. www.mapc.org/resources/oed-plan
13
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
fil"• IMIPPOP
Ladder crosswalk
Continental sidewalk(High Street,Reading)
Transverse(Standard)crosswalk
14
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
Additional Pedestrian Facilities Considered
ADA compliance - Americans with Disabilities
Act Standards for Accessible Design applies to
all projects involving new or altered
4; ; ;.. pedestrian facilities. While these
1 . `f ,-"'f'% improvements for people with disabilities are
- r ,� mandated, street designs that accommodate
{ ?:f; . people with disabilities, e.g., tactile curb
ramps, create a better walking environment
for all pedestrians.
Advanced yield lines - These markings
1' encourage drivers to stop further back from
crosswalks and, therefore, improve their
visibility of pedestrians in the roadway.
.. v ` i
„saw 1
Illt
_ _ Curb extensions - Extending the sidewalk at
inimp crossings decreases the crossing distance for
r pedestrians and increases their visibility.
Emergency access is often improved because
intersections are kept clear of parked cars.
Curb extensions should only be utilized where
on-street parking is present (i.e., they should
not be used to reduce a travel lane or a
bicycle lane to an unsafe width).
111447V ,
Crossing (refuge) islands -Raised islands
within the roadway have many benefits, such
as allowing pedestrians to cross fewer lanes
of traffic at a time, providing a refuge so that
slower pedestrians can wait for a break in the
V �``�; traffic stream, allowing pedestrians to focus
} on traffic from only one direction at a time,
and reducing the total distance over which
pedestrians are exposed to potential conflicts
with motor vehicles.
15
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
Curb radii - Curb radii is the measurement of
the sharpness of a corner at an intersection.
Generally, a smaller or tighter curb radius is
Tight curb radius moons a shorter crosswalk better for pedestrians because it allows for
more sidewalk space, flexibility in the
placement of curb ramps, shorter street
crossings, requires vehicles to slow as they
turn the corner, and improves sight distance
W,d.curb radius mans a longer crosswalk. between pedestrians and drivers.
LA 1 In-street Stop for Pedestrian Signs - These
signs are placed in the center of the roadway
STATE at crosswalk locations to increase the visibility
LAW
of pedestrians and remind motorists to yield
STOP to them.
FOR
I:
•'- WITHIN
'CROSSWALK
. Lighting - According to the Federal Highway
Administration, effective street lighting can
decrease pedestrian crashes by
approximately 50 percent. Street lighting,
necessary for all modes of transportation,
provides visibility and safety during non-
daylight hours. The height of street lights and
spacing between street lights needs to both
clearly illuminate pedestrians and the
roadway.
.dc
Pedestrian Signals - Signal indications inform
pedestrians when it is safe to cross the
roadway. The timing of walk indications are
determined by the crosswalk length and
should be timed to allow for pedestrians to
safely cross roadways. Traffic signal timings
should be updated with the 2009 Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
�r walking rate of 3.5 feet per second.
Pedestrian countdown timers, indicating the
amount of time remaining for pedestrian
crossings, should be installed where
appropriate.
16
r
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
Raised Crosswalk - A raised crosswalk
provides pedestrians with an elevated
•
roadway crossing, making the pedestrian
more visible than in a standard crosswalk.
The raised crosswalk also works as a traffic
calming device, as the elevation change
* . ' requires the driver to drive more slowly.
•
17
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
Town of Reading High Priority Area Pedestrian Recommendations
The following provide observations and recommendations for Reading's high priority areas.
Commuter Rail Station
The commuter rail station is centrally located in the Town's 40R Smart Growth District and within
easy walking distance of Reading's downtown and numerous residential neighborhoods. The area is
a hub of activity, including high numbers of walkers, bikers, and bus and commuter rail riders. In
general, sidewalks are present and well-maintained throughout the vicinity. The following photos
and associated text highlight specific issues noted.
At several intersections there were
L , no crosswalks, including:
41. t. . rY • Washington St and High St
• (pictured)
• Vine and High Street, including to
Commuter Rail Station
• Minot St and Washington Street
> -- • Green Street and High Street
• Lincoln Street and Woburn Street
In some instances (e.g., Washington
and High Street) the crossing
distance is very wide, which can both
encourage high speeds, as well as
require pedestrians to walk in the
roadway for longer than necessary.
�h', `• i Crosswalk style was inconsistent and
often utilized the less visible
standard crosswalk style. MAPC
i _. recommends striping continental or
ladder style crosswalks.
! ' ,_ Location:High Street
r
18
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
Crossing distances between
'�` 1 Reading's Downtown and the
3 commuter rail station are very
' long and may pose a safety issue
. Ai k for pedestrians. Reading may
wish to consider crossing islands•
• w' , or narrowing the roadway lane
60' 41,4 widths to improve pedestrian
safety.
• �{ Location:High Street
g]
One ramp to the station platform
along High Street is not aligned to
a crosswalk, and thus
pedestrians must jaywalk or walk
;, along the roadway to reach a
crosswalk.
I
III , �,. Location:High Street
19
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
The bus stop on Lincoln Street lacks
amenities, such as a shelter to
protect from inclement weather and
wind. The Town should work with
the MBTA on ways to incorporate this
,, u�� important amenity. For example, the
T ,q +, , Town could examine whether the row
_ " j • —I • of parking in the lot adjacent to the
— sidewalk could be shifted slightly in
order to widen the sidewalk and,
hence, create space for a shelter.
�' Alternatively, one or two on street
parking spaces on Lincoln Street
adjacent to the bus stop could be
removed in order to construct a curb
extension. The shelter could be
located within this space.
Location:Lincoln Street
j1IPF A At the intersection of High Street and
Woburn Street, the crosswalks did
r , iii connect to ramps. MAPC
i ' recommends installing ADA
1., ' - * accessible curb ramps at all
t. ff41:
",. crosswalks.
t 111 . I 'Ii r
Location:High Street
446116 .
i 4
' .; _... , Ile‘
Aor
I
20
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
Schools
Areas around schools, in particular, should focus on providing pedestrian amenities in order to
increase the safety of students, parents, and teachers. Providing a safe pedestrian environment for
students to access school is essential and may help reduce the number of vehicular trips in Reading.
Improvements could include enhanced striping and pedestrian crossing signals. Traffic calming
measures, such as speed tables, curb extensions, flashing beacons, rumble strips, and narrower
travel lanes should also be considered. In general, these roadway improvements result in a higher
compliance rate (i.e., lower speeds), increased pedestrian safety, and have a longer lifespan than
paint or signage improvements.
Hundreds of schools across Massachusetts have adopted programs to encourage students and their
parents to choose walking, biking and other non-auto modes for commutes to and from school. The
effectiveness of such programs largely depends on the number of students who are living within
walking distance from school, but are currently being driven.
The Massachusetts Safe Routes to School program partners with schools throughout the
Commonwealth to help plan and implement programs that increase student walking and biking
activities. The program's goals are to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution near schools while
increasing the health,safety,and physical activity of students.
Evaluating trends in how students and families choose to travel to school is a key component to
building a successful Safe Routes to School program. Safe Routes to School staff will assist partner
schools with the administration of a 3-minute online survey. Reading is a Safe Routes to School
partner district so therefore has access to these resources. If the Town is interested in better
understanding how students and families travel to school it should consider conducting the survey.
For information on beginning this process or for additional information, please visit
http://masaferoutessurvey.org.
Informational and marketing materials are available for schools to make parents aware of the online
survey tool and provide them with a link to the survey. Paper versions of the survey are also available
and Safe Routes to School program staff can assist with the survey collection process. Both the
online and paper versions are available in multiple languages. School administrators can have direct
access to survey results and reports through an administrative login on the website and program
staff can also assist with report generation and the presentation of results. School and district level
reports include a summary of the results accompanied by maps, tables, and charts. The reports are
available to school and community officials. With this survey information, communities can target
their sidewalk and bicycle investments near schools that have the most potential for change.
21
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
Arthur B Lord Drive/Birch Meadow Drive Area
Along Arthur B Lord Drive and Birch Meadow Drive there are a number of pedestrian destinations,
including an elementary school, middle school, high school,YMCA,and sports fields. Because of this
concentration of students,this area is especially important to ensure safe and adequate facilities for
pedestrians and bicyclists. Many of the crosswalks in this area were faded and in poor condition,
and should be repainted to ensure pedestrian visibility.
The presence of an in-street
"yield to pedestrian" sign
assists with alerting motorists
to pedestrians. However, the
a-typical crosswalk treatment
may confuse drivers. For
N .r. ' consistency and to avoid
Ng yr . confusion, MAPC recommends
"— — striping a continental or ladder
style crosswalk when the
existing crosswalk needs to be
replaced.
Location:Birch Meadow Drive
inipr
°"mow.
t 4 Continental or ladder style
crosswalks are more highly
visible than the transverse
style (shown to the left), and
are recommended especially
near schools and popular
pedestrian destinations.
In addition, the Town should
examine whether curb radii
can be reduced at the
intersection of Arthur B Lord
Drive and Birch Meadow
Drive and at the entrance to
the high school. Reducing
curb radii can slow turning
vehicles and thus improve
pedestrian safety.
Location:Birch Meadow Drive
22
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
s
7.111114 .h4 Parts of the northbound side
:4 i- •r„� . ?� ; of Arthur B Lord Drive lack a
�� sidewalk. If the necessary
, i ` -ti a` "`,k right-of-way exists, MAPC
b ;, 1� � ,;, .1 . recommends installing a
° * {, . 44't • • ". _ . x 't.,7 s sidewalk to ensure a
continuous route for
. .._ Y~' J pedestrians.
a •
Location:Arthur B Lord Drive
_
s,
i.
Joshua Eaton School
The Joshua Eaton School is an elementary school located at 365 Summer Avenue. The area has
sidewalks in varying conditions, as well as crosswalks at all intersections. The following are several
opportunities for improvements.
The crosswalks along
Summer Avenue and Oak
Y: " ► et' Street are in the standard
�• 4
;i:E style. In some
y can be difficult
1fi} , sts to see, which
•
__ c an pose a safety threat for
- ._.� pedestrians. In this area,
MAPC recommends striping
continental or ladder style
`� crosswalks.
a
Location:Summer Avenue
23
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
r \ The accompanying photo is
' another example of a
''p'w a transverse style crosswalk
," "` .�. that may be difficult for
. - - vehicles to see. Continental
or ladder style crosswalks
0 ' r� . i!` r
• 4 +` are strongly recommended.
Location:Oak Street
i
Parts of the sidewalk along
w °: Oak Street are in poor
` ., • t condition with cracked and
uneven surfaces. MAPC
recommends installing
concrete sidewalks, which
are a more durable material
than asphalt.
Location:Oak Street
t.
24
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
A. M.Barrows School
A. M. Barrows School is an elementary school located at 16 Edgemont Avenue, off of West Street.
There are several opportunities, near term and longer term to improve the safety of pedestrians in
this area, listed below.
-
Crosswalks are present in the
t,i '' area, but are in the ate• transverse style. Continental
111r� or ladder style crosswalks
z, can be more visible to
•
motorists, which can improve
pedestrian safety.
Location:Edgemont Avenue
=.41‘ 11.
The crosswalk in front of the
entrance to the school is full
,- - of parked cars, resulting in
..� poor sight lines for motorists
trying to observe pedestrians
•
crossing the road. The
location of the crosswalk and
•
the black car in the
accompanying photo could
be switched so that the
crosswalk is not between two
parked vehicles (behind the
" black car is a driveway).
Alternatively, a curb
extension would dramatically
increase visibility and reduce
the crossing distance of
pedestrians.
Location:Edgemont Avenue
25
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
A curb cut with ADA compliant
ramps should be present at
all crosswalks.
w Location:Edgemont Avenue
•
• Due to parked cars it can be
difficult to see pedestrians
1140 crossing Edgemont Avenue at
West Street. Continental or
• • ladder style crosswalks and
curb extensions can improve
-- visibility and reduce crossing
distances.
Location:Edgemont Avenue
26
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
Other Schools
In addition to the locations above, MAPC observed the conditions at the other schools located in the
Town. In these cases there were fewer opportunities for improvement. A summary of observations
and recommendations is Table 2 below.
Table 2:Pedestrian Recommendations,Additional Schools
Location Positive elements Recommendations for
improvement
Austin Preparatory • Secluded campus setting • Stripe crosswalk at Willow
School Street entrance
101 Willow Street • Consider whether entrance
requires two lanes in each
direction
• Consider reducing curb radii to
slow turning vehicles
Killam School • Flashing sign • Consider curb extensions
333 Charles Street along Charles Street
Walter Parker Middle • Located off quiet, low-speed • Sidewalk buffer is in poor
School street condition and at a steep grade
45 Temple Street • Restripe crosswalks along
Summer Ave in continental or
ladder style
Wood End Elementary • Located off quiet, low-speed • Restripe crosswalks at
School street Franklin Street in continental
85 Sunset Rock Lane or ladder style
27
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
Walkers Brook Drive
Walkers Brook Drive is a busy commercial district with "big box" chain retailers, grocery stores, and
offices. The area is primarily auto-centric with multiple vehicular lanes in each direction; however,
there is also a highly utilized bus stop for the Route 137 which travels from Reading to Malden. In
addition, the route provides direct access to Lake Quinnapowitt in Wakefield. Both pedestrians and
bicyclists travel along this roadway to the Lake. Improving this corridor to limit the width of crossings
through a lane diet and lowering vehicular speeds would add to the comfort of non-auto users.
The intersection design at New Crossing Road is an issue for local residents and pedestrians. The
intersection currently lacks a crosswalk on the western leg of the intersection and thus requires
pedestrians traveling from the grocery store and nearby residential neighborhood to cross three legs
of the intersection in order to access the sidewalk located on New Crossing Road. MAPC
recommends either striping a fourth crosswalk on the western leg of the intersection across Walkers
Brook Drive, or installing a sidewalk on the eastern side of New Crossing Road, in order to improve
access for local pedestrians crossing this roadway.
• The bus stop on Walkers Brook
i`41 Drive at New Crossing Road
• currently lacks amenities that
��✓ ''+ could improve the comfort for bus
\-kt riders. The Town, however, is in
» , the process of purchasing a
shelter and finalizing an
•
easement agreement with
s ^° abutting land owners to place this
amenity. The new shelter is
scheduled to be installed in 2014
and will greatly improve the
comfort of riders waiting for the
bus at this popular stop.
Bus stop(Walkers Brook Drive)
Reading Downtown District
MAPC examined Main Street in the downtown retail district. This area has been recently
reconstructed and contains wide, buffered sidewalks, highly visible crosswalks, audible crossing
signals, and a well-designed streetscape. Because the crosswalks are constructed of brick, which
can become uneven over time, MAPC recommends monitoring the condition of these crosswalks to
ensure that they remain in good condition.
Off-Road Trails
Rail Line Right of Way
MAPC examined whether there was sufficient right-of-way along the existing commuter rail line to
allow for a multi-use path. The commuter rail extends throughout the Town and south into Wakefield
near Lake Quannapowitt. After a site visit and speaking with MBTA staff, MAPC determined that a
rail trail is not feasible due to limited right of way and planned expanded use of the existing railway
lines. MAPC recommends two alternatives for access the Lake:
• Traveling from Ash Street, a quiet road in Reading to Parker Road in Wakefield, continuing
along Elm Street to Winn Street, which provides access to the Lake. •
• Traveling along Walkers Brook Drive to Northern Avenue in Wakefield. Walkers Brook Drive
would benefit from improvements to the pedestrian experience including improved sidewalk,
landscaping,crossings, and reduced vehicular speeds on the roadway.
28
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
Potential Ash Street to Walkers Brook Trail
A sewer easement from a residential area on Ash Street could potentially provide an off-road trail
connection to Walkers Brook Drive. MAPC examined this area to analyze the feasibility of this
project. The trail would require an at-grade crossing of the existing commuter rail line, something
that in practice is extremely difficult and expensive to implement. While this could be implemented
in the long term, MAPC recommends that the Town focus its priorities in other areas that can be
more easily implemented.
Sidewalk Gaps
MAPC reviewed all of the sidewalk gaps for both local and -non-local roads in Reading. Figure 4
illustrates the areas that lack pedestrian facilities, highlighting priority locations. MAPC recommends
providing pedestrian facilities (sidewalks, shared use paths, etc.) on at least one side of all
roadways. In addition, Table 3 provides a list of the top priority recommendations (in alphabetical
order) for pedestrian facilities in Reading, based on key connections (these locations are also
highlighted on the map). While the Town should direct its priorities to fixing these gaps, it should not
preclude construction of sidewalks or other pedestrian facilities in other areas. Note that these
recommendations reflect priorities based on gaps and network continuity, and do not reflect the cost
of construction, right of way,or ownership issues.
Table 3:Reading Pedestrian Infrastructure Priority Locations
Street Limits Comments
Grove Street Franklin Street to Strout Avenue Provides connection to Town Forest and trails
Hopkins Street Main Street to Wakefield Town line Provides connection to Wakefield
Salem Street Torre Street to Reading-Wakefield Important connection to Wakefield near Lake
Rotary Quinnapowitt and other sites including a
senior housing complex and fitness center
29
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
Figure 4:Reading Sidewalk Gaps(Local and Non-local Roads)and Sidewalk Priority Locations
Reading .'Non-local roads with no sidewalks ■ Town nail o 1.000 rail .
Local roads with no s,dewaan j SN,od
Sidewalk Priority Locations T Commuter rail station
Sidewalk Gaps 41 School parcel Commuter rail line WIC 16.1.,a,1ii00tk•"'1.0°I0;
and Higrleenslty residential °^7014
.•- Municipal boundary
Sidewalk Priority Locations water bocry
Ooen specs MA
,1 r �. .
I \ r ; . t
- r t t 1 t —" f
` i :/1 / I
/ —
1
i L '�
NORTH ( ,. — /
._ ; READING/ ) i '''r
I !,) 7
1 !
t'..• t t �� i ,
r
1 t , i ( `
J r
,
r-- "t
rr -•--
. 1 '+ .t, t /\ i it �. L _.
WIL M1NG'JC Al ' _ �y
``` `'c
1 ■
,f; l
-, .. f1 •..� ` �ti 1 �` f`� 4 ^LYNNFIELD• N.
■ - i',,, +, ,T,` �'- : i'tit 1 /�
` . 1 .% ' ti / N /
I.
\ ; ���� J' \ ' ,` r
WOBURN �, f.. �• �•\. �•�
cr •• X;., 1 r•r.. i .\t :` •/ -ter
1, 1 % i,...• l i`v } _
/ 1 Ty •1 it
7 ,2\ • _ � ` I L fys
r ■
4. ti
t
a. '` t (STONE NA Al t t< <• i ;`.�
_..... __.._ ,mac
30
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
Bicycle Recommendations
The Town of Reading has been proactive in providing bicycle lanes on Haverhill Street, and has
requested assistance in identifying additional opportunities for bicycle facilities to create a Town-
wide network of bicycle facilities. MAPC examined the entire street network of non-local roads for
the Town of Reading, collecting street width and existing condition data, and identifying opportunities
and constraints for providing bicycle accommodation in those areas. The focus of this effort has
been to identify, based on the existing street widths, curb locations, and parking locations, the
opportunity to provide bicycle facilities on these roads in the next roadway repaving cycle. The
recommendations detail the proposed roadway layout, including bicycle lane, parking, and travel
lane widths. For roadways owned by the municipality, MAPC recommends striping the recommended
bicycle lanes or shared lanes when repaving roadways identified in the network plan. Restriping
after repaving is a cost saving measure and provides a better surface for cycling, although
communities are encouraged to install bicycle facilities at any time. In some cases MAPC proposes
bicycle facilities on roads not owned by the municipalities, but rather the State (i.e., MassDOT) or
private ownership. In these cases the process for implementation on these roads will differ from
municipality-owned roads, and MAPC encourages active engagement with the appropriate state
offices to implement the recommendations.
In addition, MAPC has examined previous bicycle planning efforts conducted for the Town. This
includes:
1. Community Transportation Technical Assistance Program: Main Street (Route 28)from South
Street to Washington Street, Reading memorandums
This study, conducted by the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization, studied the
feasibility of reducing the existing configuration of two travel lanes in each direction to one
lane in each direction plus a center turning lane along Main Street from South Street to
Washington Street. This reconfiguration, known as a "road diet", would provide space for
bicycle lanes in each direction. The study divided the study area into three sections and
recommended the road diet from Hopkins Street to the railroad tracks near Ash Street.
MAPC has incorporated these recommendations as part of its bicycle network plan for the
Town.
2. Main Street Corridor Study: Prepared for the Towns of Reading, Wakefield, and the City of
Melrose6
MAPC collaborated with Reading, Wakefield and Melrose to develop a coherent, forward-
' looking transportation plan. The Main Street Corridor Study looks at ways to improve upon
the existing transportation network by reducing automobile traffic while promoting commuter
rail, walking, bicycling and bus transportation. This study addresses a full range of transit
options and focuses on achieving sustainable development and land use objectives.
3. North Suburban Regional Bicycle Transportation Plan - Reading section?
This study, conducted by Weston & Sampson, examined the creation of a multi-municipality
on-road bicycle network that included the Town of Reading. The study identified 5 potential
routes through the Town. MAPC has incorporated these routes as part of its bicycle network
plan for the Town; however, MAPC relies on the most up-to-date guidance for widths of travel
and bicycle lanes, which may differ from the recommendations in the Weston & Sampson
report.
5 Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization. December 19,2013.
6 Metropolitan Area Planning Council. January,2012.
Weston and Sampson. 2005.
31
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
Overview of Bicycle Facilities
The on-road bicycle accommodations that were considered in this network plan include bicycle lanes,
•
shared lane markings, and shared paths. Complementing bicycle facilities should be campaigns
(e.g., driver education, mailings, signage) to educate both motorists and cyclists on the meaning of
the new pavement markings and the laws governing how these modes of transport interact with
each other. In addition, ensuring that bicycle lanes are free from debris such as sand and trash is
important to allow cyclists to safely use the bicycle facilities.
In general, MAPC based its recommendations upon the design guidelines specified in the AASHTO
Guide for Planning, Design. and Operation of Bicycle Facilities8. Following the established guidance
MAPC recommends on-street parking lanes of 7-8' and travel lanes of 10-12'. Eleven feet is often
ideal. Travel lanes greater than 12' may encourage vehicles to speed, whereas 10' is adequate on
many roads but may be less than optimal for bus routes and roadways with heavy or wide vehicles.
The following are brief descriptions of different types of bicycle facilities. The list is ordered by
desirability, with facilities providing the highest separation between vehicles and bicycles listed first.
Please see Appendix A - Pedestrian and Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines and References for
resources containing complete descriptions, photos, and design guidance for these bicycles
facilities.9
8 See Chapter 4:Design of On-Road Facilities:
httq://www.rai lstotrai Is.org/resources/documents/ou rWork/trailBu i Iding/DraftBikeG uideFeb2010.odf
9 The illustrations below depicting the various bicycle facilities are from the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide,accessible
online at httq://nacto.orgicities-for-cycling/design-guide/
32
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
Cycle Track - A cycle track, illustrated in Figure 5, is an exclusive bicycle facility that combines the
user experience of a separated path with the on-street infrastructure of a conventional bicycle lane.
A cycle track is physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and is distinct from the sidewalk. A
cycle track may be placed at the street level,sidewalk level, or in between.
. • is s
t .
NN.. 4. 6,..,,,..,......: _ . _
1
u
Figure 5:Cycle track(Source:NACTO) \\
Buffered Bicycle Lane-Buffered bicycle lanes, illustrated in Figure 6,are conventional bicycle lanes
paired with a designated buffer space separating the bicycle lane from the adjacent motor vehicle
travel lane and/or parking lane. Pavement markings usually provide this buffer, and there is
generally no physical separation between vehicles and cyclists.
.� ` ` #
Tot
:
Ili
T
, It _ _,, Nil,Figure 6:Buffered bicycle lanes(Source:NACTO)
33
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
Bicycle Lane -A bicycle lane, illustrated in Figure 7, is defined as a portion of the roadway that has
been designated by striping, signage, and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of
bicyclists.
- i 4 .
• I
e-ii ll'''''''' lb ' .
\-.. Y \ I
'C
A 1..
Ill I
• 11 '
AIL i
A
11
Figure 7:Bicycle lanes(Source:NACTO)
Shared Lane-Shared lane markings(SLMs), or"sharrows," illustrated in Figure 8, are road markings
that indicate a shared lane environment for bicycles and automobiles. Among other benefits,shared
lane markings reinforce the legitimacy of bicycle traffic on the street and mark the recommended
position within the roadway for bicyclists. Sharrows should be marked as frequently as 100' apart
and not greater than 250'apart, as well as immediately after intersections.
,'ri
•
, 4 4
N
' ,-, ipSIK
i. \ # .
tit
Figure 8:Shared lane markings(Source:NACTO)
34
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
Signage - Signs can complement the pavement markings, further alerting motorists to the presence
of bicyclists and encouraging all users to share the road. On quiet residential streets with good
connections and low traffic volumes or low speeds, signs can be used as a means of connecting the
bicycle network through these areas without the need to install pavement markings. Signs can also
be used for wayfinding purposes to direct cyclists to off-road paths and various points of interest.
(INE)
SHARE
BIKE ROUTE . �
Examples of bicycle signage
35
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
Town of Reading Bicycle Facilities Recommendations
There are a number of streets in Reading identified on the Reading Bicycle Network Map (Figure 9)
and Reading Bicycle Recommendations Table (Table 4)with potential for bicycle facilities in the short
term. The bicycle network creates connections to schools, the commuter rail station, downtown,
residential areas, and to the adjacent communities. Providing safe and comfortable bicycle facilities
to these important connections can improve the health of the Town's residents, and reduce reliance
on automobiles for shorter trips,which in turn can reduce congestion in the Town.
The table provides details on the recommendations for proposed striping. There is often flexibility in
the recommendations regarding the allocation of roadway space while still following the guidance
from MassDOT. For non-local roads, MassDOT recommends travel lane widths between 10-12 feet.
For local roads, MassDOT recommends travel lane widths of 9-11 feet. For example, a 30' foot road
with no on-street parking could be configured with:
• Two 5' bicycle lanes and two 10'travel lanes;
• Two 4.5' bicycle lanes and two 10.5'travel lanes;or,
• Two 4' bicycle lanes and two 11'travel lanes
Working within the established guidance presented in this document, the Town has the ability to
make adjustments to the recommendations where appropriate to meet Town approval.
The Network Plan proposes approximately 8.4 miles of new bicycles lanes throughout the Town of
Reading. Many miles of shared lanes (sharrows) are also proposed on roadways that cannot
accommodate bicycle lanes within their current geometric configuration. These recommendations
are based upon existing roadway configurations and widths with the exception of a segment of Main
Street, which was previously identified for a "road diet" in order to accommodate bicycle lanes. In a
recent analysis, the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization recommends changing the
roadway configuration from two travel lanes in each direction to one lane in each direction plus a
center turning lane between Hopkins Street and the railroad crossing near Ash Street.
In addition to the segment of Main Street discussed above, MAPC recommends the Town analyze
two additional roadway segments for suitability of a road diet:
1. Main Street from Salem Street to North Reading Town line
Main Street north of the downtown has two travel lanes in each direction and lacks adequate
width to stripe bicycle lanes. This segment of Main Street is a busy roadway with vehicles often
traveling at high speeds. In its current configuration, MAPC recommends routing bicycle traffic
along Charles Street to Pearl Street, which runs approximately parallel to Main Street. The
segment of Main Street from Salem Street to Charles Street is a gap in this connection and in the
short term could be partially addressed through shared lane markings. The Town has begun
considering whether Main Street from Salem Street to the North Reading Town line would be
appropriate for a road diet. Specifically, it has had preliminary conversations with MassDOT to
examine the potential for converting the four travel lanes to two travel lanes plus wide bicycle
lanes. MassDOT will perform additional analysis during a roadway construction project in
summer 2014 to determine whether a lane diet is appropriate.
2. Walkers Brook Drive from John Street to Wakefield Town line
Walkers Brook Drive is a high-speed roadway with two to three travel lanes in each direction and
direct access to 1-95. It also provides an important connection to the popular Lake
Quannapowitt, located directly south of Reading/Wakefield town line. The existing space allows
for four foot bicycle lanes, which meets the minimum standards set forth by MassDOT. In order
to provide additional safety and comfort for bicyclists MAPC recommends the Town analyze
whether a road diet is appropriate or whether there is adequate right-of-way to create a multiuse
side-path adjacent to the roadway for both pedestrians and cyclists.
36
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
The Reading Bicycle Network Plan also identifies several locations as "conflict points." These points
are potentially dangerous intersections for cyclists and/or pedestrians to navigate. These areas may
require design changes,traffic calming treatments,or signals to improve safety.
The conflict points MAPC identified are located at the following intersections:
• Main Street at Pearl Street. As illustrated on the Reading Bicycle Network Plan, Pearl Street
is proposed as a bicycle route heading north through the Town as an alternative to Main
Street. The intersection where Pearl Street crosses Main Street has poor sight lines and
lacks crosswalks. These attributes, along with the high speeds of vehicles driving along Main
Street, as well as the four travel lanes,can create a potentially dangerous situation.
• Main Street at Franklin Street. As with the intersection described above, the intersection of
Main Street and Franklin Street provides a potentially dangerous crossing. The Town of
Reading is currently working with MassDOT on both near term and longer term
improvements. The near-term improvements for summer/fall 2014 will include:
o ADA compliant sidewalk improvements
o Left turn lanes on Main Street, so that queued opposing left turn vehicles do not
obscure oncoming through traffic
o Protected-only left turn phasing on Main Street and provide far-side post-mounted
signals on Main Street northbound and southbound to improve signal visibility
o Extending the length of exclusive left-turn phase on Main Street southbound to allow
more vehicles to turn left without conflict
o Evaluating signal timing on all approaches and adjusting the timing to improve
intersection efficiency, if possible
o Installing new pavement markings and traffic signage to support the creation of the
dedicated left-turn lane on Main Street
In addition to the improvements listed above, MassDOT plans to undertake a resurfacing
project that may include a lane diet and allow for bicycle facilities.
• Main at Ash Street. This area contains several aspects that create a potentially dangerous
situation for bicyclists. Main Street crosses the commuter rail tracks and then intersects Ash
Street at a non-right angle. The roadway configuration at this intersection results in an
extremely long crossing at Ash Street and the wide turning radii allow cars to turn onto Main
Street at high speeds. In addition, auto-oriented businesses, such as a McDonald's drive-
through area and a gas station result in many turning vehicles.
• Entrances to rotary at Haverhill Street and Salem Streets. Rotaries designed for high speed
vehicles, such as the one Reading shares with Wakefield, pose a challenge for bicyclists and
pedestrians. Over the long term this rotary should be reconstructed in a way that safely
accommodates all users. In the shorter term, the Town should explore ways to increase the
safety and comfort, such as widening the sidewalk to accommodate both bicyclists and
pedestrians, striping highly visible crosswalks, and installing signs altering motorists to
cyclists and pedestrians.
A section of Lincoln Street (between Washington Street
and Prescott Street) contains pull-in angled parking. This
roadway segment contains adequate width for bicycle — -Olt!'" On
lanes; however, pull-in angled parking located to the right
of a bicycle lane is dangerous for cyclists as visibility is - ,, --
•
severely limited while backing out of the space. An
alternative configuration reverses the angle of the -
parking, requiring drivers to back-in rather than pull-in.
The rear of the vehicle is adjacent to the sidewalk rather
than the vehicle lane. Since back-in angled parking
37 Example of reverse Angled Parking
Location:Akron,Ohio
Source:Downtown Akron Partnership
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
increases driver visibility, there are fewer conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists. This parking
configuration also allows for safer loading and unloading of passengers and goods. This parking
alternative would retain the existing number of parking spaces and increase bicyclist safety. In
addition, a segment of High Street (between Washington Street and Woburn Street) contains head-
on parking. Requiring vehicles to back in to these spaces would increase bicyclist safety and would
not require any changes to the roadway configuration.
There are a number of roadways that were considered for bicycle facilities but either lacked
sufficient curb-to-curb space, did not support an important connection, or an alternative connection
exists. Of note, based upon feedback at a community meeting, MAPC examined Middlesex Avenue
which provides a connection to the Town Library. Because of limited right-of-way, however, the
roadway does not currently have sufficient space for the inclusion of bicycle lanes; in addition,
because the roadway is unstriped, it would not be appropriate to stripe shared lane markings at this
time. If, in the future, the Town decides to repave and stripe the road, shared lane markings should
be considered. See Appendix C for a list of all the street segments and their associated widths
analyzed by MAPC.
MAPC also discussed potential off-road trails with the Town. There are currently a number of trails
throughout the Town, most of which are located in the Town Forest and Bare Meadow. There is a
proposal from the Northern Area Greenway Task Force to connect these two large areas of open
space into a connected trail known as the Ipswich River Greenway, identified on Bicycle Network
Plan as a Regional Greenway.l° The Town should also explore whether a trail through the wetlands
on the east side of the Town parallel to Haverhill Street is feasible. Finally, a trail through
conservation land at the end of Vine Street to Willow Street (parallel to the tracks) would create an
alternative route for commuters to avoid heavily trafficked routes.
4
10 See htto://readingma.virtualtownhall.net/Pages/ReadingMA Conservation/IRG for additional information.
38
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
Figure 9:Reading Bicycle Network Plan
On.road Wks facility + Hlghdens,ty residential
7 (Arcing bike lane T School parcel
Reading Proposed bike lane = Town hall :, School Fes,
Proposed snared lane T Commuter rail station
markings or signs
Walk ftrcnrtr - - Commuter rail line
Bicycle My
Walk Trail ' Municipal boundary
Network Plan "
Proposed Welk Oratl Water body
// Regional t;reenwa, Open space IK MAPC 50
Oconflict point
• tt ` ` t 1 ��- N ` i ,
t
4.. /
I i ,
`1 .,
r 1 / /
r
rr NORTH
{�,� �, READING/� ` 1 rf � i.i4` ;� _ — ' •_ _ _ ,i
«+4 e..+r..w din I
I J r L p•apo..•.+.) I■
,� t r ` r i
I S t j '
i
k ` r i i i '
• 1 jolleIli .........- / 1
WlLM1NG•TON �. \--e {--- �% `` '•
r.-• `,-., ••✓'• t\\\IA1 1!'.dy/ r,• ✓1 ALYNNFIELDi,
\ I' •��. 1 t;gyp f �• �•‘
tV
r �./ \ •%ems . f 40.� // ,•
✓ ..-•-. .-
\ �� / ~�
WOBUR'ti ■ / j •�..,�� f p.rr.rro so.�srry
\ I r../ j •. I ��• ••, WAKEFIELD .-�
• 1 • � ••• / i •
••
�. / `` ,i �( � t STOIJEHAIi 1 •.‘j i _.- ` ■►:
• 39
.
- j
is
j
fl .i 7. Il .,.. 9.2 .7 . .- - . .. - ., ?27 7 -7 ?
PL 1 ' - -
Z
gas=ata23*3 332 ?3ay a a3 3 = l3.] a a 3:$3il3a3aaiaain#a33a
w ,
z
1 l3a3ay*2313033322 ;is: adao .1 :aiy1 d 3a Z3na3a3aaia33afa33$a
m
d 7.
i, . 279 22 -7 1 . .- - - - - - 727 . -7 7
O
11
I - a
# if # Il1 1III 1
1 Ii 1 f 11
11111111111111111!1111!1111111 1111$ !111 1111111111111111111
i ;i diiiiiiii.iii'iliiiri7iin i iih1iiliiliYtiniiii, iniinii,
a 1lJV -- -2 9 9- 7 7 9 9 2-3-- •99-
0
m
IL ... a .
1 !L �+ 22222;12;22% 333 ;11 .; 2223 ljdd1 i 77:i. . 2.3321122
N Il; 32312232322 23303 32 a Rang =ajj.( e 3 2 2222322 222722123
N
g
m ii -, - 2
m
T
a-
m
E0 ;alta*2alfa 2a(a33aa .Ian; aar0 a ;ass ; a a 3d11ta1L1 a12aa3a313122
EEE I E! E • I II 1
. . I
II 1 IIIIIIII I I i
i I 1 1:111 1 1 1. . k 3
11 III 1
VIII II III I 11 1 11111 1 1 1 11 I IIIIIIII
111111 1tI tttfl I##. tilt DHHH t i t i t ttIli/ i 1 UH II1#ItHH i
6
!
I1tt'iIi1IBuiit 11l1 n 11 1 h 111 It i 0 1111 14 1 11 t #1
i
11111111111111311 ' 1 11111111 1)0111111Itttl uII IJIL flit jj
111111111.'.111111 1 1111 ff11111 1flhIfflIll g 11111111111111 ttil till 1 mi l 1 1 !,J
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
Next Steps
This report provides a number of opportunities for constructing bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Implementation of the plan requires a multi-prong approach. Below is a summary of next steps to
further the Town of Reading's efforts to increase walking and bicycling and to improve the quality of
life and health of the community. Action steps include:
• Incorporate bicycle facilities as a matter of routine - most bicycle facilities, such as bicycle
lanes and shared lane markings are relatively low cost solutions. Incorporating these facilities
when a road is repaved/restriped will lead to incremental change in a cost-effective manner.
• Prioritize sidewalk investments proactively - the Town should review its approach to
prioritizing sidewalk construction and repairs. One consideration for prioritizing sidewalk
construction and improvements could be the Neighborhood Walks Map.
• Seek out additional funding sources - Reading typically allocates approximately $50,000 per
year to sidewalk improvements. The Town should proactively seek out additional funding
sources and grants. An example of potential funding is the pending Complete Streets
Certification program. This program will allocate $10,000,000 per year for five years to be
distributed among certified communities to plan and implement complete streets.
• Adopt a complete streets policy - The Town is in the process of adopting a complete streets
policy, which aims to make incorporate pedestrian and bicycle facilities and amenities a part
of both routine projects, as well as larger ones.
• Work with adjacent communities - As Reading prioritizes and begins to install pedestrian and
bicycle facilities, Planning, DPW, and Engineering should communicate with their counterparts
in the adjacent communities of Lynnfield, North Reading, Stoneham, Wakefield, Wilmington,
and Woburn, to ensure continuous facilities beyond municipal borders, especially when there
are important destinations for Reading residents, including access to Lake Quinnapowitt.
• Work with community partners - the Town may wish to engage relevant community partners
involved in increasing physical activity to explore ways to improve the pedestrian and bicycle
experience. For example, the Town of Lexington worked with a local bicycle shop to increase
the number and quality of bicycle parking near its shop.
• Continue to promote walking and bicycling - in addition to providing new and improved
pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure and amenities, the Town can advertise its walking routes
and trails through the Town's website and through other media.
41
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
Appendix A - Pedestrian and Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines and
References
MassDOT's Development and Design Guidebookll
The primary resource that should be adhered to is the MassDOT ,�
Project Development and Design Guidebook.
...._ ....r._.,........1 Multimodal accommodation that encourages and supports safe .. .�- •ti ►w°
travel for pedestrians, bicyclists and other modes of travel is a key
I
feature of the MassDOT Guidebook. The MassDOT Guidebook 0:..,--:--' f
directs the designer to begin at the edge with the pedestrian and ___,-,0'-)i
work their way in, to ensure that the needs of non-motorized users
remain integral to project planning and design. This approach
facilitates the use of context-sensitive design, environmental
protection and the careful consideration of the safety and BMW
accessibility needs of pedestrians, bicyclists and non-motorized
facility users.
NACTO's Urban Street Design Guide
The NACTO Urban Street Design Guide shows how streets of every size
can be reimagined and reoriented to prioritize safe driving and transit, _
biking, walking, and public activity. Unlike older, more conservative -- — —
engineering manuals, this design guide emphasizes the core principle
that urban streets are public places and have a larger role to play in
communities than solely being conduits for traffic. In April 2014
MassDOT officially endorsed the Urban Street Design Guide.
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices(MUTCD)12
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, or MUTCD defines the
standards used by road managers nationwide to install and maintain traffic
control devices on all public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads
open to public traffic. States must adopt the 2009 National MUTCD as
their legal State standard for traffic control devices within two years.
t The MUTCD gives guidelines regarding the location and frequency of
crosswalk installation, how long a pedestrian should wait at an intersection
;y before crossing, how much time a pedestrian has to cross a street as well
0 as the design and placement of signals and striping.
11 www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/DoingBusinessWithUs/ManualsPublicationsForms/ProjectDevelopmentDesignGuide.aspx
12 http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/pdf_index.htm
42
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
Creating Design Standards for 40R Districts13
Prepared jointly by the Massachusetts Department of Housing and
Community Development and the Cecil Group in 2008, this Guidebook
serves as a resource for communities and citizens in Massachusetts �`= •---•
working to establish special design standards in conjunction with Smart -Zips
Growth Zoning Districts enabled by M.G.L. Chapter 40R.
It provides practical information and references for crafting workable
standards that will apply to the land uses and development within Smart p�
Growth Zoning Districts. Accommodations for pedestrians such as walkway
and sidewalk width, provision of benches, lighting fixtures and other street
furniture elements are addressed in this Guidebook.
Pedestrian and Transit-Friendly Design: A Primer for
Smart Growth14
PEDESTRIAN 64
Published by the Smart Growth Network, this guide is ""i°"'A'""'`DE N
based on a manual prepared for the Florida A hoot rot 4nrrt GrowOe
Department of Transportation. The publication is a
general guide to and discussion of design concepts
that support pedestrian activity and transit use. _;w•;
The concepts are not presented in the format of design
tits tr
z,• e
standards but they do provide some of the underlying
rationale and strategies around which a community
might develop measurable standards. The guide's
various elements are broken into three categories:
"Essential Features", "Highly Desirable Features", and "Nice Additional Features."
AASHTO's A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets
dl' Frequently referred to as the 'Green Book', this policy manual contains
information about the latest design practices in universal use as the
standard for highway geometric design. The intent of the 'Green Book'
Geometric Design
Highways and Streets is to provide guidance to the designer by referencing a recommended
e
:14,4 range of values for critical dimensions. The pedestrian and pedestrian
facilities are referenced throughout the 'Green Book.'
- Guide for the
Planning.Design.
air
and Operation
_ war of Pedestrian facilities
AASHTO's Guide for the Planning, Design and
Operation of Pedestrian Facilities
The purpose of this guide is to provide guidance on the planning,
design, and operation of pedestrian facilities along streets and
highways. Specifically, the guide focuses on identifying effective I --
measures for accommodating pedestrians on public rights-of-way. The _..r
AASHTO Guide is widely used in the planning and engineering industry.
13 http://www.growsmartn.org/training/Creating%20Design%20Standards%2ofor%20Transit-oriented%20Districts.pdf
14 http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/ptfd_primer.pdfu search='Primer%20on%20Street%20Design%20Guidelines
43
,_
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
Appendix B-MassDOT Road Network Functional Classifications
/ interstate • Town mall
Reading o zoom«. ....0../ Principal Arterial • School
Rural minor arterial or Commuter rad station
urban principal arterial _
__
Road Network Urban collector or rad line `
or WPC V..4.2.*wea'oo•.....r..
Functional Class rural minor collector Municipal boundary P,,.•• ,
Urban minor collector Or Water body MAPC 7�J'.:
rural major collecto Y
Open Space
LDi,I
i
•.-• i --" r i t S �`1 t •
i j t
• • L1. % /
r
I
• `NORTH -1 _ r 1 r`- _ %
I READING/ 7
t — •
•
•
r' / •
z ' 1 s •
i■
I i._.._t---- t / r
t 1---- ° READING '
t 1 \ \ .n
y J -y t •
% `\ r i s i f�
WI MING!T'OI, ,1 t� �� __ . `t •
� t ' •
\ ‘ ,7� \ t 1 ` i '\
\ \
�` »��' lit,, .. �t ..-•' ALYNNFIELD
•t I I // ‘\
t %' 5 \` �� i \•/ ` 1 \\ / /\
\ ■ `
t t i �` 5/
•\ .\1 ��t\\ _T �— % 1 —_ l
\'\ ` i.f / �.'' +\, � li`' / WAKEFIE•LD�t �� �`,i.
//` \
j� / /
\
in\ WOBURN '.. ,__= 1— ` �.— / /. 1..„`•
1 — I >'
t 1 / •\ 1 /� • _
i -1 •• d._— I
1 \ ( i
�. _j / '' .\ ': t ONEHAM t •t y \••
44
Town of Reading Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Priority Plan
Appendix C-List of All Street Segments Analyzed
. . _
. •- .. _ _ .. __ .. ___. _.
-- ..... - - ......
_ ...._ .-. - -- .... ...,„ ....-. own.., wron•lio.“.. ..w.■ ..... s... 00. .^•■MOO .N.UMe. ./.. •a.• 0.M.10 ft•N .
I '''''1111‘PURIFIRIMI 1111FAINI1F4 F....11FR F1FA H
RPM MM. .. , , • • .
. .
7 •■•MI = M/0 ./•1■11•1.,=NM'MO , . T-1- 1 1.11■■.•••■••swimosa
_ MMIIINTE11 ___
--
7__•"'!'l - . •._.,..,a L imwm
L=CMIMMI .__trel._ , ". wriiIiiiirrs .
_
1-==■_ — mimmorm■ . . orrminTriit mow . •
=1.1.1.1 Mr•1.1. ..-.ma. . == V .MNMM MMIIMMIIIMM=111.
/WWII 111M11/101 EMMIMIIIIMIMMEr11. 1.1M111=1.
•
.- -. .- . rimersers■ immirromrurimersm
. . _
_ . 1....... ..-rimm..n...r.
.-..00 %. • ". NI_
IMIFIlm-mMINIlumn11111.... 7 . . ,
. _11...._ _.--i _ _ -
.... miliiirm irimmemmomaim _
will,WAIIPR__- . .... ..Nol■ro.r‘MEMININIMMIIIEFIMIMIll IMMilEr 4-.
7-• - •111=111•111■11M111111•11111■1■.111111111111111111•11rMINIRM IIIMINWEI UM .
.- -_!ANINI . _. __ — _ alamiiili■■•ors Imo=mr■IMMI'TSI SIM
1145111111111--IIM.7_ _.--":- -.. .- irrrsurrnotonsol■mmi ars smialm. or arm .
.... ENIIIRRIPIP=MI NW 4+, -Ili
Er'AtTnIMMI- ___ - •r . 1141 WWI" MI-----11111111111111=
.. .1.1 .m..........r-r.■••■••,...,..m.... —,.......
MI Mill
. .
1111111.1.111111111, ■....4,...........n...,.=•■■•••M'
t-A=s■-......_ , p ansimes■In.•■•-. 1.....sown sworrne ii■---7-1.■ • .
IIE--*- . -., sistnt- . minimmmm■a,li. m.mm nimainr-1•amommtrm■ -1-1.■wil■mnorrirmormi
• fl wrimmrrcni■rnie■ ■Nrrmilmi rn■ __■11■Not"rnmemow■mit
".. ._ gill MIR MEI MO ' '• -moirial
– .--. . Be °41 •IIIIIIRMIIIIIIII • IA.
...... - -
• - arm Issmemummurimmi moms am—.--liew■
■11!!•{'• . .__ . - =WEI 11=:.11.r I r•1.11 I r r11111.11.111....1111=1 .7...1111
M on rrommenimirwrrr lowommis--I■ii
=Elm
summon re orimmemm;:-----r
IPPIPPI=MIN;;.-- Iirri
RIME_ME. . . IMIIINIPPNI PI MUIR=PM-..i.rar-al
=Emu. __ _ EFTS IMI=111=IM■I■MIN —,
• -.. 1•MI 77-InNI■I . •
..1!.-V.II_ MO-.T". 1 . - •• ors m-lomes.--os or l■
■=mit■ . - Miln. sirummem■sormielerra■•■■11 umilmmenimmrnememmaii■
===77c---1.1 f-i_.. . • m 1MM.1 s .m1■1.1...=,....m=•m■ -1 ■•■••■low I IMNI '1=1■11M1•■■■
-..dle.73.!n. .. . _ MIIMMINIMEINEr.Mill IM1r1111111r1r 1=NNW=INIIM• •IrMII■IMINIMINIIIIIIETNINIIIWT 1///■//■///■•■■
.1.5". 19 ....1 1111 WM EMMOIMOIMEN■■
r-1 TIMM= . . ___t ,
__-_, NM IrIllIMMIIMTWIlININNIMMIIIMINI
... :M•Mill-_ -.."."1771=1• . : -.Mr --•
Tr-4MM ImEmm•_ __ •••:_..._._, www-alimmr■Im..milmmwmorsmrwl.wirnesson ■NEmr.mommismi■
PIAMPIRIMUNI__ ...._ _ _ • Pi WWI Mg= .
,- N-TTI arrwarae simosomme■
. _ wry. simmummis mow
. _ . . _ . im-m■Imi simerwo=rim
Uilli - - -'- ' -P..-- .
. . aria wism
MS ...=.9 AM
-,-.:- .--: - ... - .- -...
..-. MIIIIIIIII■ 1.,. T•mssisarwi MIIIIIIIIIIMIN MIMI ----
• 111111•11•1111■1•1 WMISMIMI■1=-711•710=MOW.=■I-±71■IMINON TIMINIIIIIIIIMOINIIM
• •frill ri■r--rtrumnrs■Norive Imo-----■
• mru minirmillIIIIMMINI III■ ••••••- EN:7111=.. •• . -- • 111n11•11111111111111111■1 IWTM■Mill•■1=,711•191111•••11•11111 MIN
. anNIMENISMEN■ar MB mwalemorao sr=amo-i marr,ems=■I
_ • •.-. ■iii■wwww miimiwin■NOriMirmiiiii ■ •
_.-■ -•-. =MUMMER MIN'II OW IN MIIMINIK I 1•1•1■1111,711■9M=1=11■■ . IIMOMI III IIMINF' IIIIIIMIIIIMIFrIM
...■
•••••a•m.o.+=Mum....•••■•■•■•■••••
•■■•••••.•1.....a.•••••••mg..ovia■dm.■■•••••■tp...n•■••■•■••p•■■•NY.ib.m•um••■••••••...re••■•••■•••■•■....
45