Collingswood Bike Lane

Feasibility Study: for Haddon and Collings Avenues

An Independent Study for Dr. Dunn

By Stella Bonaparte

Rutgers University- Camden

Tuesday, September 15th, 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Overview……………………………………………………………………1 Why Bike Lanes…………………………………………………………….1 Needs Assessment…………………………………………………………..4 NJ DOT Guidelines………………………………………………………....6 Figure 1: NJ DOT Guidelines Table……………………………….6 Haddon Avenue Current Conditions………………………………………..6 Crash Data………………………. …………………………………8 Figure 2: Bicycle / Motor Vehicle Crashes- Haddon / Maple……...9 Recommendation: Haddon Avenue…………………………………………9 Figure 3: Diagram of Proposed Haddon Avenue Lane Striping…...10 The Parking Lane…………………………………………...10 The Bike Lane………………………………………………10 Figure 4: Cross-Hatched Pavement Markings………11 The Motor Vehicle Lane…………………………………....12 Collings Avenue Current Conditions……………………………………….14 Crash Data…………………………………………………..14 Figure 5: Bicycle / Motor Vehicle Crashes- Collings………15 Recommendation: Collings Avenue………………………………………...15

Figure 6: Diagram of Proposed Collings Avenue Lane Striping …...16 Prohibit Parking……………………………………………..16 The Bike Lane……………………………………………….16 Figure 7:Pedestrian Island that Can Accommodate Cyclists..17

The Motor Vehicle Lane…………………………………….17 Dealing with Problem Areas………………………………………………...18 Uneven Pavement…………………………………………………...18 Obstructions…………………………………………………………18 Intersections…………………………………………………………19 Turning Lanes……………………………………………………….19 Complete Streets Concept…………………………………………………...20 Cost Analysis Tool…………………………………………………………..21 Sources of Funding………………………………………………………….22 Private Sources……………………………………………………...22 Planning Grants…..…………………………………………………22 Project Grants……………………………………………………….23 Federal Funding……………………………………………..23 State Funding………………………………………………..24 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………..24 Appendix 1: Cyclist Passing Parked Cars.…………………………………..25 Appendix 2: Bollards………………………………………………………..26 Appendix 3: Curb Extension……… ……………………………………….27 Appendix 4: Dotted and Colored Intersection Lanes……………………….28 Appendix 5: Sharrow……………………………………………………….29

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Appendix 6: Haddon Avenue Bicycle Facilities Cost Worksheet…………30 Appendix 7: Collings Avenue Bicycle Facilities Cost Worksheet…………31 Appendix 8: Map of Collingswood Streets………………………………...32 Bibliography………………………………………………………………..33 Bicycle Parking Facilities Study Overview…………………………………………………………….1 Recommended Destinations for Bicycle Parking……………...……1 Strategic Placement of Post-and-Loop Bike Racks…………………2 Discussion…………………………………………………………...3 Destinations: PATCO High Speed Line…………………………………...4 PATCO and Transit Oriented Development………………...5 Curb Extensions……………………………………………..6 Collingswood Post Office…………………………………...7 Collingswood Public Library………………………………..8 Commercial Destinations……………………………………9 Haddon Avenue Convenience Store/Pharmacy…………….10 Collings Avenue Convenience Store/Pharmacy……………11 West Collingswood Shopping Plaza………………………..12 Haddon Avenue Food Markets……………………………..13 Casual Eateries……………………………………………...14 Bicycle Parking Worksheet…………………………………………15

Overview

The Borough of Collingswood, New Jersey is a first ring suburb of Camden. It is

within biking distance of both Camden, NJ and Philadelphia, PA and has a public transit

station and a bike-share program for residents. Collingswood’s downtown has returned

from near abandonment to become a fashionable local destination in recent years. With a

size of 1.5 by 1.5 miles and a population of about 15,000 Collingswood is densely

populated. The borough actively supports the creation of new town houses in the

downtown district as a means to increase density, and therefore business, in the

downtown. Collingswood markets itself as very walkable and bikeable as a selling point

to attract new residents who commute to work in Philadelphia and who may not drive a

car.

As an older town, built to the human scale, Collingswood began as very walkable

and bikable; however, the heavy amount of motor vehicle traffic it receives has

diminished this amenity. As a result, the town is exploring adjustments to the physical

streetscape in order to improve conditions for people using non-motorized and motorized

forms of transportation. Collingswood Commissioner Joan Leonard will review this

study and has requested that it include an assessment of the Borough’s need for bicycle

parking facilities.

Why Bike Lanes?

A municipality may wonder, what is the benefit of creating bike lanes? First, it is

important to recognize that bicyclists use the roads, whether or not they are considered at

the time roads are designed or re-designed. Bicyclists are, and should be treated as equal

users of the road.

Studies, such as one in Cambridge, Massachusetts, have shown that bike lanes

increase the visibility of bicyclists to motor vehicle users (Van Houten and Seiderman,

2004, p. 10); however, striping a bike lane is no guarantee that safety will increase,

because bike lanes are not a cure for underlying roadway design flaws. For example, a

dangerous intersection will remain a problem area until it is redesigned. Every road has

its trouble areas; therefore this should not become an excuse to ignore the needs of

cyclists.

On a heavily traveled principal arterial roadway, such as Haddon Avenue, the

outer line of a bike lane serves as a guideline to motor vehicle traffic, enabling them to

proceed steadily in a clearly delineated lane when driving beside a cyclist.

“Bike lanes have been found to provide more consistent separation between bicyclists and passing

motorists than shared travel lanes. The presence of the bike lane stripe has also been shown from

research to result in fewer erratic motor vehicle driver maneuvers, more predictable bicyclist

riding behavior, and enhanced comfort levels for both motorists and bicyclists.” (BIKESAFE,

2009)

The greatest benefit provided by bike lanes is their attraction of a greater number

of cyclists to the route. Safety for cyclists increases when more cyclists are present on

the road. The adage that there is “safety in numbers” applies here. Therefore, a bike lane

improves safety conditions by encouraging more bicycling. “Between 1950 and 1975,

the number of cycling trips in a sample of Dutch, Danish and German cities fell from

50%-85% to only 14%-35%. However, after these cities implemented bicycle and

pedestrian supportive policies and infrastructure between 1975 and 1995, the trend

reversed.” This same study goes on to cite a strong correlation between increased cycling

and increased safety for cyclists. (Pucher and Buehler, 2008, pp. 502, 505-6)

One of Collingswood’s goals is to increase the patronage of its central business

district without increasing traffic congestion or diminishing the options for parking. By

encouraging cycling for errands, commuting and short trips, a number of cars may be

removed from the daily motor vehicle traffic and parking struggle. “The value of

substituting car with cycle trips is higher in areas of greater congestion, creating greater

savings for cycling investment….” (Valuing the Benefits of Cycling, 2007, p. 4)

Finally, bike lanes are commonly used, in conjunction with other measures, as

traffic calming devices. Bike lanes reduce motor vehicle speeds and volume by

narrowing the motor vehicle traffic lane and drawing attention to the presence of cyclists.

(Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center, 2009, Fig. 13)

To summarize, bike lanes benefit transportation infrastructure by:

• Encouraging more cyclists / Removing motor vehicle trips

• Increasing the visibility of cyclists to motorists

• Calming traffic

These benefits fit Collingswood’s overall plan to promote its business districts yet

maintain a “small town” level of comfort in a densely populated area.

Needs Assessment

(To refer to the Collingswood Street Map, see Appendix 8)

The NJ DOT puts forth a series of questions which are used to assess the need or

potential of an area for bicycle facilities. These questions and their answers pertaining to

Haddon and Collings Avenues are as follows:

• Does the highway serve an activity center which could generate bicycle trips?

Yes, Haddon and Collings Avenues, each have their own business district which, if made attractive to cyclists, could generate a higher number of trips by “utility cyclists” (those who use their bicycles rather than cars to run errands and make short trips). • Is the highway facility included on a county or municipal bicycle master plan?

Not currently, however a senior planner with the Camden County Improvement Authority has indicated that they will review the results of this study as they work on their master plan. • Will the highway facility provide continuity with or between existing bicycle facilities?

Yes, Haddon and Collings Avenues can act as links on the “Greenway,” connecting recreational bicycle facilities at Cooper River Park, Knight Park, and Newton Lake Park. • Is the highway facility located on a roadway which is part of a mapped bike route or utilized regularly by local bicycle clubs?

Yes. The Collingswood Bike Share headquarters is located within a municipally owned public works building roughly at the juncture of Haddon and Collings Avenues. Participants in the Bike Share program (adults, children and seniors) regularly ride to this location for tune-ups and repairs. As yet, there are no officially distributed mapped bicycle routes. • Does the highway facility pass within 3.2 kilometers (two miles) of a transit station?

Haddon Avenue is within one (1) block of the PATCO High Speed Line, while Collings Avenue is within three (3) blocks of the same station. • Does the highway facility pass within 3.2 kilometers (two miles) of a high school or college?

Yes, Haddon Avenue passes within one mile of Collingswood High School. Collingswood High School is located directly on Collings Avenue. • Does the highway facility pass within 0.8 kilometers (1/2 mile) of an elementary school or middle school?

Yes, Collingswood Middle School is located on the same site as Collingswood High School, directly on Collings Avenue. James A. Garfield Elementary School is located on Haddon Avenue and Mark Newbie Elementary School is within one (1) block of Haddon Avenue. William P. Tatem Elementary School, Zane North Elementary School, Thomas Sharp Elementary School, and St. John’s Regional Catholic Elementary School are all within ½ mile of either Haddon Avenue or Collings Avenue. • Does the highway facility pass through an employment center? If so, is there a significant residential area within a 4.8 kilometer (3 mile) radius?

Yes. Both Haddon and Collings Avenues each have their own business district. Haddon Avenue has a significant number of commercial/professional offices in addition to its numerous retail establishments. Residential areas surround the Collings and Haddon corridors. Additionally, Collings Avenue has a high-rise apartment complex, “The Heights;” while Haddon Avenue has a downtown condominium complex, “The Lumberyard,” and senior living facility “The Collingswood Arms.” • Does the highway facility provide access to a recreation area or otherwise serve a recreation purpose?

Yes. One full side of the triangular Knight Park faces onto Collings Avenue. The Knight Park can be accessed by driveways and side-streets off of Collings Avenue. At two points on the “triangle” which makes up Knight Park, Haddon Avenue is less than ½ mile away.

NJ DOT guidelines state that:

“If any one of these criteria produces a significantly positive response, the

highway facility has the potential of attracting less experienced bicycle

riders and/or large numbers of advanced riders. As a result, it should be

considered as potentially suitable for designation as a bikeway.” (Bicycle

Compatible Roadways and Bikeways- Planning and Design Guidelines,

2009, p. 39)

NJ Department of Transportation Guidelines

The New Jersey DOT offers the following guidelines for a roadway’s compatibility with

bicycle usage:

Figure 1:

Condition I: AADT 1,200-2,000 Speed Limit Urban w/ Parking Urban w/o Parking Rural

<30 mph Shared Lane (12 ft.) Shared Lane (11 ft.) Shared Lane (10 ft.) 31-40 mph Shared Lane (14 ft.) Shared Lane (14 ft.) Shared Lane (12 ft.) 41-50 mph Shared Lane (15 ft.) Shared Lane (15 ft.) Shoulder (3ft.) >50 mph NA Shoulder (4ft.) Shoulder (4ft.)

Condition II: AADT 2,000-10,000

Speed Limit Urban w/ Parking Urban w/o Parking Rural

<30 mph Shared Lane (14 ft.) Shared Lane (12 ft.) Shared Lane (12 ft.) 31-40 mph Shared Lane (14 ft.) Shared Lane (14 ft.) Shoulder (3 ft.) 41-50 mph Shared Lane (15 ft.) Shared Lane (15 ft.) Shoulder (4 ft.) >50 mph NA Shoulder (6 ft.) Shoulder (6 ft.)

Condition III: AADT over 10,000 or Trucks over 5%

Speed Limit Urban w/ Parking Urban w/o Parking Rural

<30 mph Shared Lane (14 ft.) Shared Lane (14 ft.) Shared Lane (14 ft.) 31-40 mph Shared Lane (14 ft.) Shoulder (4 ft.) Shoulder (4 ft.) 41-50 mph Shared Lane (15 ft.) Shoulder (6 ft.) Shoulder (6 ft.) >50 mph NA Shoulder (6 ft.) Shoulder (6 ft.)

Key: Conditions on Haddon Conditions on Collings

(Bicycle Compatible Roadways and Bikeways- Planning and Design Guidelines, 2009, p. 38)

Current Conditions: Haddon Avenue

As both a destination and a heavily traveled through road, Haddon Avenue is

beset by traffic woes, including morning and afternoon rush hour traffic back-ups, and

the largest concentration of auto-pedestrian and auto-bicycle crashes of any street in

Collingswood. (Orth Rodgers, 2004) (Collingswood Police Department, 2009)

Haddon Avenue has on-street parking on both sides of the street and two shared

travel lanes for motor vehicles and bicycles. The Collingswood Circulation Plan

concludes that Haddon Avenue is compatible as a shared lane (no special provisions

made for bicycles) because the shared lane is 16 ft wide and the speed limit is 25 miles

per hour. (Orth Rodgers, p. 23)

However, the generous width of the motor vehicle lanes coupled with a lack of

visible crosswalks for much of its length means that vehicle speeds on Haddon Avenue

are routinely 5-10 miles per hour over the 25 mile per hour speed limit. The wide lanes

give drivers a feeling that they have a wide buffer from parked cars, which encourages

them to drive faster than the speed limit. The limited number of crosswalks (primarily

concentrated in the central business district) means that drivers speed, in part, because

they are not reminded of the presence of pedestrians. The frequent placement of digital

speed signs on Haddon Avenue is a visual cue that drivers routinely flout the 25 mile per

hour speed limit.

Bicyclists who travel Haddon Avenue must share a 16 foot lane with motor

vehicles, including trucks and buses, traveling 25-35 mile per hour. The observed result

is that most of the cyclists on Haddon Avenue are the most confident “Type A” advanced

cyclists, with a smaller number of “Type B” basic cyclists. “Type C” cyclists, that is,

children, usually ride on the sidewalks. The “Type B” basic cyclists (less confident adult

cyclists) tend to ride dangerously close to the “door zone” of parked vehicles in an

attempt to reduce their likelihood of being hit from behind by parallel motor vehicle

traffic. (FHWA University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation, 2009,

Chapter 13.3)

The door zone is the approximately 4 foot area of road into which a parked motor

vehicle’s door may open. Riding close to the door zone is a dangerous practice as the

cyclist can be thrown from the bike which can result in injury and impact with parallel

traffic.

Cyclists on Haddon have been observed ducking into vacant parking spaces as

they ride, then darting out into the driving lane when they must inevitably pass parked

cars. This is one example of cyclist confusion, which could be reduced by clearly

marked bicycle facilities in conjunction with education. It is also common for cyclists on

Haddon to drive against traffic. This practice is inadvisable because drivers are not

expecting to encounter a cyclist in this way. It also increases the likelihood of collision

with other cyclists and pedestrians. Bicycle lanes with directional arrows as pavement

markings would signal to cyclists that they should be traveling with traffic.

Crash Data

For the period between 1/1/08 through 4/30/09 the Collingswood Police

Department received 10 reports of crashes between motor vehicles and cyclists. Of these

10 crashes, 4 were on Haddon Avenue. (See Figure 2) Of these 4 crashes on Haddon,

two involved a vehicle making a turn and two involved a cyclist hitting a vehicle.

(Collingswood Police Department, 2009)

Another road in Collingswood which had multiple motor vehicle/cyclist crashes

was Maple Avenue. Maple Avenue runs parallel to Haddon one block to the north and is

commonly used by cyclists as an alternative to the busier conditions on Haddon Avenue.

During this same time period, Maple Avenue experienced 3 crashes between motor

vehicles and cyclists. (See Figure 2)

Maple Avenue receives less traffic than Haddon, but its width is not sufficient to

accommodate two lanes of motor vehicle traffic and two passing cyclists. (Orth Rodgers,

2004, Fig. 9) Additionally, there is intermittent parking on Maple which adds to its

incompatibility with heavy cycling use. The improvement of cycling facilities on

Haddon Avenue could reduce the level of overflow onto Maple Avenue. (Collingswood

Police Department, 2009)

Figure 2: Bicycle / Motor Vehicle Crashes- Haddon / Maple

Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Crashes (1/1/08 through 4/30/09) Date Location

3/3/2008 2 W. Wayne Terrace 6/13/2008 Maple Ave. & E. Collings 7/16/2008 W. Collings Ave. & Rt. 30 8/11/2008 Haddon Ave. & Lees Ave.

10/21/2008 W. Browning Rd. & Atlantic Ave. 10/31/2008 Haddon Ave. & W. Summerfield Ave.

1/13/2009 Haddon Ave. & Collings Ave. 1/24/2009 Haddon Ave. & Cuthbert Blvd. 2/10/2009 Woodlawn Ave. & Maple Ave. 3/27/2009 Maple Ave. & Pacific Ave.

Recommended Changes: Haddon Avenue

Create bike lanes on both sides of Haddon Avenue for its entire length through the

Borough of Collingswood. (To refer to a Collingswood Street Map, see Appendix 8)

Haddon Avenue should be striped with full bicycle lanes and their associated

markings. These bicycle lanes would be 6 foot in width, delineated by a solid white line

on both sides, and run the full length of Haddon Avenue from its border with Haddon

Township to its border with Camden.

Haddon Avenue has a cartway width of 46 feet, an AADT of 17,277, and is

classified as a principal arterial road. (Karabashian, 1998) (Orth Rodgers, 2003, Fig.1)

The bicycle lanes would begin 7 feet from the curb to allow for on-street parallel parking.

Each motor vehicle lane would be reduced to a 10 foot width. The resulting lane

configuration is illustrated in the following diagram:

Figure 3: Diagram of Proposed Haddon Avenue Lane Striping

Parking Lane 7ft

Bike Lane

6ft ↓

Motor Vehicle

Lane 10ft

Motor Vehicle

Lane 10ft

���� Bike Lane 6ft

Parking Lane 7ft

The Parking Lane

The parking lane on Haddon Avenue is currently 7 feet. No alteration is

recommended for the width of the parking lane. Any increase in parking lane width

would encourage drivers to park further from the curb, which would encroach on the

available area for a bike lane.

The Bike Lane

The NJ DOT and the American Association of State Highway Transportation

Officials (AASHTO) both recommend a minimum of 5 foot bike lanes when situated on a

two lane arterial with on-street parking. (Bicycle Compatible Roadways and Bikeways-

Planning and Design Guidelines, 2009, pp. 31-2) (Guide for the Development of Bicycle

Facilities, 1999, p.23)

Recent studies (Pein, 2003) have brought to light the dangers inherent in bicycling

in the “door zone” next to parked vehicles. As the doors of motor vehicles may extend as

much as four feet into the adjacent bicycle lane, Pein argues that a five foot bicycle lane

is not of sufficient width to protect cyclists from being “doored” since most cyclists ride

in the center of the bike lane. The League of American Bicyclists warns cyclists never to

ride within 3 feet of parked cars. (Rules of the Road, 2009)

In order to encourage cyclists to ride farther from the door zone, it is

recommended that the bike lanes on Haddon Avenue be 6 feet in width. As an additional

safety measure, pavement markings (the bicycle symbol and the directional arrow) can be

offset to the left of the center of the lane. Placing these symbols one foot to the left of

center may encourage cyclists to ride further from the door zone.

Another safety measure that may be considered is the placement of cross-hatched markings in the bike lane to indicate the door zone. This pavement treatment is not standard in the MUTCD so those employing it should follow their experimentation guidelines. (Michigan State University Bike Facilities Plan, 2007, p. 28)

Figure 4: Cross-Hatched Pavement Marking with Offset Bicycle Symbol and Arrow. (Source: San Francisco Bicycle Plan Design Guidelines)

It is the conclusion of this study that bicycle lanes of 5 feet next to on-street

parking, although allowable by the AASHTO and NJ DOT guidelines, are not of

sufficient width to encourage cyclists to ride clear of the “door zone.” A bike lane width

of 6 feet, with the aforementioned positional pavement markings is recommended.

It should also be noted that the choice to not implement any bicycle lanes will

maintain the status quo, wherein only cyclists with “Advanced” skills who ride at high

speeds with motor vehicle traffic are accommodated. Without bike lanes, the majority of

cyclists (those with “Basic” skills) will continue to be discouraged from riding on

Haddon Avenue and can be expected to proceed with timidity, close to the “door zone” if

they choose to do so.

The Motor Vehicle Lane

It is recommended that the motor vehicle lanes on Haddon Avenue be narrowed

to 10 feet in width. In addition to allowing room for a 6 foot bicycle lane, reducing the

width of the motor vehicle lane should have a traffic calming effect.

The Federal Highway Administration compiled case studies of several traffic

calming techniques. It found that narrowing motor vehicle lanes reduced speeds by 4%.

It also found that lane narrowing reduced overall traffic volumes by 10%, attributing this

reduction to the “rerouting [of] non-local traffic.” (FHWA University Course on Bicycle

and Pedestrian Transportation, Lesson 20.5)

If Haddon Avenue followed this trend, a 10% volume reduction would amount to

the removal of 1,727 non-local vehicles per day. For example, a truck may decide that

using Haddon Avenue as a short-cut from Cuthbert Boulevard to Route 130 is no longer

expedient and choose another route.

It should be noted that traffic calming effects would be maximized by additional

measures, such as more frequent pedestrian crosswalks, as well as (no more than 7 foot)

curb extensions.

The Federal Highway Administration allows for the maximum width of motor

vehicles, including tractor trailers and buses to be 8.5 feet. (Q&A About Vehicle Size and

Weight) A 10 foot lane would allow room for two maximum width vehicles to pass each

other.

A 2007 study titled Relationship of Lane Width to Safety for Urban and Suburban

Arterials found:

“…no indication that crash frequencies increase as lane width decreases for arterial roadway segments or arterial intersection approaches. These findings suggest that the AASHTO Green Book is correct in providing substantial flexibility for use of lane widths narrower than 3.6 m (12 ft) on urban and suburban arterials.” (Potts et al., 2007, p. 25)

A study by the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center

compared two arterial roads in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Both had 5 foot bike lanes next to

on-street parallel parking. One road had a 12 foot motor vehicle lane and the other had a

10.5 foot motor vehicle lane. The study found that there was no statistically significant

safety difference between the 12 foot and 10.5 foot lane widths regarding the issues of

“dooring” or passing distance and concluded that the retrofitting of bike lanes at the

narrower site was successful.

The City of Chicago retrofitted arterials with a 44 foot width and on-street

parking to accommodate bike lanes, reducing motor vehicle lanes to 10 feet. The city

found that “…crashes went down 10 percent overall and 15 percent at intersections.”

(Best Practices in Bicycle Facilities Planning, 2008)

In conclusion, the reduction of the Haddon Avenue motor vehicle lanes would

contribute to the Borough’s desire for traffic calming effects by reducing traffic speed

and the volume of non-local traffic.

Current Conditions: Collings Avenue

Collings Avenue has the potential to be an ideal bike lane route due to many

factors. Collings connects the main business district on Haddon Avenue with

Collingswood’s secondary business district, known as the “Theater District” or West

Collingswood. Along this road are the centrally located Knight Park, Collingswood

Middle School and High School, a major apartment complex (The Heights), and side

roads which lead from Collings Avenue to the Patco High Speed Line.

Due to the generous cartway width, infrequent pedestrian crosswalks, and very

little street parking, motor vehicles are able to speed down this road easily at 35+ miles

per hour. The enforcement of the 25 mile per hour speed limit requires constant vigilance

by police officers. Even though the road is wide, less experienced cyclists avoid Collings

Avenue because of the risk inherent in riding next to vehicles driving at 35+ mph.

Crash Data

Of the 10 reported bicycle/motor vehicle crashes between between 1/1/08 through

4/30/09, three (3) involved W. or E. Collings Avenue. One was at W. Collings Avenue

and Route 30. One of the crashes was on E. Collings Avenue at Maple Avenue. The

other was at the corner of Haddon and Collings Avenue. (See Figure 5)

Figure 5: Bicycle / Motor Vehicle Crashes- Collings

Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Crashes (1/1/08 through 4/30/09) Date Location

3/3/2008 2 W. Wayne Terrace 6/13/2008 Maple Ave. & E. Collings 7/16/2008 W. Collings Ave. & Rt. 30 8/11/2008 Haddon Ave. & Lees Ave.

10/21/2008 W. Browning Rd. & Atlantic Ave. 10/31/2008 Haddon Ave. & W. Summerfield Ave.

1/13/2009 Haddon Ave. & Collings Ave. 1/24/2009 Haddon Ave. & Cuthbert Blvd. 2/10/2009 Woodlawn Ave. & Maple Ave. 3/27/2009 Maple Ave. & Pacific Ave.

Recommended Changes: Collings Avenue

Create bike lanes on both sides of Collings Avenue from its intersection with Haddon

Avenue to the Collingswood/ Haddon Township border. (To refer to a Collingswood

street map, see Appendix 8)

Collings Avenue should be striped with full bicycle lanes and their associated markings.

These bicycle lanes would begin at the curb and have a 7 foot width, delineated by a solid

white line and run the full length of Collings Avenue from its intersection with Haddon

Avenue to its border with Haddon Township.

Collings Avenue has a cartway width of 36 feet, an AADT of 9,321, and is

classified as a minor arterial road. (Karabashian, 1998) (Orth Rodgers, 2003, Fig.1)

Each motor vehicle lane would be reduced to 11 foot width. The resulting lane

configuration is illustrated in the following diagram:

Figure 6: Diagram of Proposed Collings Avenue Lane Striping:

Bike Lane (7 ft)

Motor Vehicle Lane (11 ft)

Motor Vehicle Lane (11 ft)

Bike Lane (7 ft)

Prohibit Parking

In order to create bike lanes on Collings Avenue, it will be necessary to remove

some isolated spots of on-street parking. For the most part, parking is not permitted on

Collings Avenue. The few areas of parking that are permitted tend to be underutilized as

there is ample driveway and side-street parking available.

The Bike Lane

With the removal of on-street parking, there will be fewer instances of conflict

between cyclists and motorists. Cyclists will no longer have to pass parked cars while

being passed closely on their left by speeding motor vehicle traffic. (See Appendix 1)

Because impacts on pedestrians must also be taken into account, it is

recommended that bike lane widths be 7 feet, rather than the minimum recommended 5 ft

in this situation. (Bicycle Compatible Roadways and Bikeways- Planning and Design

Guidelines, 2009, p. 32) If a pedestrian curb extension is deemed necessary in the future,

the bike lane could be narrowed at pedestrian crossing points and redirected around a

pedestrian island, in a manner similar to the photo in Figure 7:

Figure 7: Pedestrian Island that Can Accommodate Cyclists

(Bicycle Compatible Roadways and Bikeways- Planning and Design Guidelines, 2009, p. 24)

The Motor Vehicle Lane

The Motor Vehicle Lane on Collings Avenue would be reduced to an 11 foot

width. The attraction of more cyclists to the route, in conjunction with the narrowing of

the motor vehicle lane and the striping of pedestrian crosswalks would act as traffic

calming measures. The fact that there is a middle/high school, a centrally located park,

sports fields, and residential homes on Collings Avenue mean that the presence of

children on this arterial road is constant. Therefore the reduction of lane width and motor

vehicle speeds on Collings Avenue is highly desirable.

Additionally, 7 foot wide bike lanes on Collings Avenue will provide a greater

buffer from traffic for children, who are less confident cyclists and who need more room

for error. Again, because of the proximity of the middle/high school and the Knight Park,

Collings Avenue bike lanes should be designed to maximize the safety of children who

will use them. (FHWA University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation,

2009, Chapter 13.3)

Dealing with Problem Areas

There are conditions on both Haddon and Collings Avenues that will require

careful consideration in the placement of bicycle facilities. These include: uneven

pavement, obstructions, intersections, and turning lanes.

Uneven Pavement

Both roads should be assessed for the condition of the pavement with

consideration given to the proposed bike lane area. Collings Avenue was recently

repaved and will be smoother and in better condition.

Haddon Avenue is an older road paved and patched with concrete. Over time the

concrete has cracked and settled in places, causing unevenness and potholes which make

for a rough bicycle ride in spots. Additionally, Haddon Avenue has a concrete expansion

joint which would be within the bike lane. Haddon also has manhole covers which are

not level with the pavement, causing a significant impediment to travel in a straight line.

Before bike lanes are striped these uneven road conditions should be remedied. All storm

grates should be compliant with current bicycle compatibility standards. (Bicycle

Compatible Roadways and Bikeways- Planning and Design Guidelines, 2009, pp. 10, 12)

Obstructions

Haddon Avenue has some obstructions that currently endanger cyclist safety.

These are mainly related to attempted pedestrian safety accommodations. One such

obstruction is the placement of bollards at some pedestrian crosswalks. The purpose of

these bollards is to shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians, make them more visible

to motorists, and reduce the threat that a motorist passing a stopped car on the right will

hit a pedestrian. This could be better accomplished by building curb extensions that do

not extend into the bike lane. Currently, cyclists must navigate the narrow space between

bollards or veer into motor vehicle traffic to avoid them. (See Appendix 2)

At another site, the intersection of Powell Lane with Haddon Avenue, curb

extensions have been extended too far into the road, with the result that cyclists must

merge into traffic at this point. The lack of a striped pedestrian crosswalk means that

cyclists have little indication that they are rapidly approaching an obstruction. The

problem is exacerbated by uneven pavement. (See Appendix 3) It would be advisable to

redesign this curb extension to accommodate cyclists.

Intersections

Most cyclists tend to move to the right as they proceed through an intersection.

This can be a dangerous practice as it removes the cyclist from the field of vision of a

driver, increasing the possibility of a conflict when the cyclist returns to their prior

position. Bike lane lines traditionally do not continue through intersections. The

AASHTO allows the continuance of the bike lane as a “dotted guideline” through

difficult intersections. (Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1999, p. 25)

More recently, cities have used solid colored bike lanes to show the continued path

through the intersection. (See Appendix 4) (Portland’s Blue Bike Lanes: Improved

Safety through Enhanced Visibility, 1999)

Turning Lanes

Turning lanes can present problems where cars and bicyclists come into conflict

as they merge. One such area is near the intersection of Collings Avenue with the White

Horse Pike. As one travels down Collings toward the White Horse Pike, the lanes narrow

at Franklin Avenue where a left hand turn lane has been inserted. In this one to two-

block area where a full bike lane would not fit, a sharrow could take the place of the bike

lane. (Von Hagen, 2009) Sharrow is a term combining the words “share” and “arrow”

and denotes a shared motor vehicle/bicycle lane when there is not enough space for

separate facilities. This would denote the shared use of the lane as well as be a smooth

connection from the full bike lane on one side of the intersection to the full bike lane on

the other side. (See Appendix 5)

Another common problem with turning lanes is that cyclists and cars are unsure

when or if they are supposed to merge. The AASHTO recommends that a dotted line

take the place of the solid white line where merging in anticipation of a turn will take

place. (Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1999, p. 29)

The ‘Complete Streets’ Concept

The concept of “complete streets” is one where relevant authorities look at both

new and old transportation infrastructure with a fresh perspective, one in which cars are

only part of the larger picture. A town with complete streets would be safely and easily

accessible by people of all abilities. This means pedestrians, the disabled, children,

seniors, cyclists, and those who take public transportation would have their modes of

transportation planned with the same level of thoughtfulness as motor vehicle drivers.

A town or authority which adopts a “complete streets” program is agreeing to take

all of the above groups into consideration so that “every street project takes all road users

into account.” The recommendations of this study are made with multiple modes of

transportation and people of all types and abilities in mind. (Complete Streets FAQ)

Cost Analysis Tool

An online bicycle facilities cost analysis tool was used to estimate the cost of

standard bike lane pavement markings and signage for Haddon and Collings Avenues

(See Appendices 6 and 7 for the breakdown of costs). (Benefit Cost-Analysis of Bicycle

Facilities: costs-demands-benefits analysis tool, 2009)

The cost for bike lane striping on Haddon Avenue was significantly higher than

striping on Collings Avenue ($102,000 vs. $41,000). This is because Haddon Avenue

would require two bike lane stripes per lane while Collings Avenue would only require

one stripe per lane (due to the right side being defined by the curb). Additionally,

Collingswood’s portion of Haddon Avenue is longer, at approximately 1.69 miles, while

Collings Avenue is approximately 1.29 miles (Levecchia, 2009).

The amount of bicycle symbol and bicycle arrow pavement markings were

estimated to be placed after every cross street, or if there was no cross street, at evenly

spaced intervals. The “Bike Route” signposts were estimated to be placed approximately

every .25 miles. (Part 9: Traffic Controls for Bicycle Facilities, MUTCD, 2003)

A yearly maintenance line-item was included in the estimate for each road. Cost

estimates for initial road repairs or resurfacing prior to the striping of a bike lane was

considered to be beyond the capabilities of this study.

All costs were given by the online cost analysis tool in 2002 dollars, therefore the

build year and base year capital costs were adjusted for inflation to reflect 2009 dollars.

Sources of Funding

Private Sources

The “Bikes Belong Coalition” gives grants to municipalities/public agencies that

are partnered with a bicycle advocacy group. They also help leverage state and federal

financing. Bike lanes are one type of project for which they award grant money. (Bikes

Belong Grants Program, 2009)

Planning Grants

Federal planning assistance at the regional and county level is available through

the “Subregional Studies Program” and “Supportive Task Grants.” Entities such as the

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) and Camden County would

be eligible for such funds. Federal funds may also be available to Transportation

Management Associations such as this region’s TMA, Cross County Connection.

(Funding Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning […], 2009, p. 1)

The Local Transportation Planning Assistance Program (LTPA) is available

through NJ DOT. Collingswood received local transportation planning assistance for its

2004 Collingswood Circulation Plan. (Funding Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning […],

2009, p. 3)

NJ DOT also provides bicycle/pedestrian planning assistance to municipalities

that meet certain criteria, such as being in a redevelopment center. The municipality is

expected to dedicate staff and resources to work with NJ DOT. (Funding Pedestrian and

Bicycle Planning […], 2009, p. 3)

The Department of Community Affairs, Office of Smart Growth gives Smart

Future Planning Grants to municipalities and counties. (Funding Pedestrian and Bicycle

Planning […], 2009, p. 4)

Project Grants

Federal Funding

Federal project grants for bicycle facilities are funded under the SAFETEA-LU

Act. Federal programs/agencies that this project may be eligible to receive funds under

include the Division of Local Aid and Economic Development and the National Highway

System. (Funding Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning […], 2009, p. 7)

Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds are available as Local

Scoping and Local Lead Projects, which are administered by the regional Metropolitan

Planning Organization. STP funds are also available through the Transportation

Enhancement Program, which is a good fit for a bike lane project as it is meant to

enhance “non-traditional” modes of transportation. The Hazard Elimination Program is

also funded by STP, and focuses on fixing safety problems such as intersections with

high crash rates. (Funding Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning […], 2009, pp. 8-10)

Though not impossible, it would be more difficult for the Borough to take

advantage of Safe Routes to School funding at this time due to the current Collingswood

Board of Education ban on bicycling to school for all children in grade 6 and under.

(Funding Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning […], 2009, p. 11) (Von Hagen, 2009)

As Transit Oriented Development moves forward, it may also be possible to

receive Local Aid for Designated Transit Villages to help defer the cost of bike lanes.

Collingswood might also qualify for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality

Improvement Program (CMAQ) funding for projects which mitigate pollution and

improve air quality. (Funding Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning […], 2009, p. 11)

State Funding

State funding programs that a Collingswood bike lane project may be eligible for

include: Local Aid for Centers of Place; the County Aid Program; and the Municipal Aid

Program. In addition, Bikeways Projects are run by the NJ DOT Division of Local

Government Services. (Funding Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning […], 2009, pp. 14-16)

Conclusion

Bicycle lanes are desirable and appropriate on both Haddon and Collings Avenues

in the Borough of Collingswood. The engineering obstacles are greater on Haddon than

on Collings, due to heavier traffic volumes, pavement condition and on-street parking.

Due to the proximity of both roads to public transit, schools, recreational areas, and as

central business districts, every effort should be made to create bike lanes that encourage

cycling while maximizing safety.

Finally, all improvements made for the benefit of motor vehicle users, cyclists,

transit riders, and pedestrians should make every attempt to harmonize all modes in the

planning and implementation of every future project.

Appendix 1

A cyclist moves into the motor vehicle traffic lane while passing a parked car at

the approach to a difficult intersection with poor sight distance. (Intersection of Collings

Avenue with Lakeview Drive, North Atlantic and South Atlantic Avenues.)

Appendix 2

A cyclist must slow down to navigate the bollards at the intersection of Haddon

and Stiles Avenues. The preferable alternative is a 7 foot curb extension, which aids

pedestrian crossing while allowing cyclists ample room to pass.

Appendix 3

A bus passes the curb extension at Haddon and Powell, which extends into the

area where most cyclists ride. Note the rough, uneven pavement.

The other curb extension at Haddon and Powell is unfinished, curb unpainted, and comes to a point in the road. Also note the rough, uneven pavement and the inadequate passing distance for a cyclist between the curb and a motor vehicle.

Appendix 4

Here, the bike lane has both a dotted white line and a colored interior to make it stand out

at the intersection.

Appendix 5: An Example of a Sharrow, “Shared-use Arrow” Pavement Marking.

Appendix 6

Haddon Avenue Bike Facilities Cost Estimate

Worksheet

DESCRIPTION Units Length (Feet)

Default Unit Cost (2002) UNIT

Itemized Cost

Pavement Markings

Bicycle Arrow 64 $53 each $3,417

Bicycle Symbol 64 $71 each $0

Lane Striping 35692 $3,266 mile $22,080

Shared Lane Marking (sharrow) 4 $71 each $285

Construction Estimate $30,337

Location Index 125% $7,584

Construction Contingency 10% $3,792

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $41,714

Equipment

Signs

Sign with Post 12 $200 each $2,400

TOTAL EQUIPMENT COST $2,400

Administration (Construction) 6% $2,647

Planning (Construction) 2% $882

Design/Engineering 10% $4,411

Field Inspection 2% $882

SUBTOTAL PROJECT COST $52,936

Project Contingency 30% $15,881

TOTAL BASE YEAR CAPITAL COST 1 2002 $68,817 Total Base Year Capital Cost (Adj. for Inflation: 2009 Dollars) 1.19 2009 $81,892

TOTAL BUILD YEAR CAPITAL COST 0 0 $85,955 Total Build Year Capital Cost (Adj. for Inflation: 2009 Dollars) 1.19 2009 $102,286

Maintenance 8923 $6,500 mile/yr $10,985

TOTAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE $10,985

(Benefit Cost-Analysis of Bicycle Facilities: costs-demands-benefits analysis tool, 2009)

Appendix 7

Collings Avenue Bike Facilities Cost Estimate

Worksheet

DESCRIPTION Units Length (Feet)

Default Unit Cost (2002) UNIT

Itemized Cost

Pavement Markings

Bicycle Arrow 20 $53 each $1,068

Bicycle Symbol 20 $71 each $0

Lane Striping 13622 $3,266 mile $8,427

Shared Lane Marking (sharrow) 8 $71 each $569

Construction Estimate $11,488

Location Index 125% $2,872

Construction Contingency 10% $1,436

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $15,796

Equipment

Sign with Post 10 $200 each $2,000

TOTAL EQUIPMENT COST $2,000

Administration (Construction) 6% $1,068

Planning (Construction) 2% $356

Design/Engineering 10% $1,780

Field Inspection 2% $356

SUBTOTAL PROJECT COST $21,355

Project Contingency 30% $6,406

TOTAL BASE YEAR CAPITAL COST 1 2002 $27,761 Total Base Year Capital Cost (Adj. for Inflation: 2009 Dollars) 1.19 2009 $33,036

TOTAL BUILD YEAR CAPITAL COST 0 0 $34,675 Total Build Year Capital Cost (Adj. for Inflation: 2009 Dollars) 1.19 2009 $41,263

Maintenance 6811 $6,500 mile/yr $8,385

TOTAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE $8,385

(Benefit Cost-Analysis of Bicycle Facilities: costs-demands-benefits analysis tool, 2009)

Bibliography Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals: Bicycle Parking Guidelines. Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals website. [electronic version]. Retrieved on 8-7-09 from: http://www.apbp.org/resource/resmgr/publications/bicycle_parking_guidelines.pdf

This professional organization was my primary resource for the bicycle parking portion of the study.

Benefit Cost-Analysis of Bicycle Facilities: costs-demands-benefits analysis tool. Active Communities / Transportation Research Group. University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center website. [electronic version]. Retrieved on 8-28-09 from: http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikecost/ Best Practices in Bicycle Facilities Planning. Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program- Peer Exchange Report. FHWA/FTA. (2008). [electronic version] Retrieved on 9-12-09 from: http://www.planning.dot.gov/Peer/Chicago/chicago_2008.htm#devel Bicycle Compatible Roadways and Bikeways- Planning and Design Guidelines. New Jersey Department of Transportation website. [electronic version]. Retrieved 8-5-09 from: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/publicat/pdf/BikeComp/introtofac.pdf

This NJ DOT publication was my primary resource for acceptable bike lane standards in New Jersey.

BIKESAFE: Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System. “Bike Lanes.” Federal Highway Administration. US Department of Transportation. [electronic version]. Retrieved on 8-25-09 from: http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikesafe/countermeasure.cfm?CM_maingroup=On-Road%20Bike%20Facilities&CM_NUM=11 Bikes Belong Grants Program. Bikes Belong Coalition. (2009). [electronic version]. Retrieved on 9-14-09 from: http://www.bikesbelong.org/grants

Collingswood Police Department. Captain Richard Sarlo. Motor Vehicle Accidents Table for 1/1/08 through 4/30/09. (2009). [electronic version]. Complete Streets FAQ. National Complete Streets Coalition. (2009). [electronic version] Retrieved on 9-12-09 from: http://www.completestreets.org/complete-streets-fundamentals/complete-streets-faq/ Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation. [electronic version]. Retrieved on 8-8-09 from: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/pubs/05085/index.htm

This U. S. Department of Transportation publication contains the coursework for a semester-long class on bicycle and pedestrian transportation. It was very valuable in its clear and detailed summary of current standards. I would have used it more if I had discovered it sooner in my research.

Funding Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning, Programs, and Projects: A Compilation of Funding Sources. New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource Center. Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center. Rutgers, Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy. (2009). [electronic version]. Retrieved on 9-14-09 from: http://www.njbikeped.org/index.php?module=Downloads&func=sublevel&cid=5006&start=10&sortby=date&cclause=ASC

This publication by Rutgers’ Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource center contained concise, thorough information on available funding and the conditions of eligibility.

Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) task force on geometric design. (1999). [electronic version]. Retrieved on 9-4-09 from: http://www.sccrtc.org/bikes/AASHTO_1999_BikeBook.pdf

The AASHTO’s Guide is one of the most highly regarded resources for a bicycle facilities study. Every publication that I researched referred to the AASHTO’s “Green Book” for guidance.

Hunter, W. & Stewart, J. An Evaluation of Bike Lanes Adjacent to Motor Vehicle Parking. University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center. (1999). [electronic version] Retrieved 9-12-09 from: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/safety/ped_bike/handbooks_and_research/research/ftlaud.pdf Karabashian Associates, Inc. Collingswood Master Plan. (1998) [compact disc]. Sourced from the Camden County Highway Circulation Plan. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. (1993). Lawrie, J., et al. Bikeways to Prosperity: Assessing the Economic Impact of Bicycle Facilities. (2006). Institute for Transportation Research and Education. North Carolina State University, Raleigh. [electronic Version] retrieved on 8-28-09 from: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews242rpo.pdf Levecchia, A., Senior Planner. Camden County Improvement Authority. (2009) (Personal conversations via e-mail). Meggs, J.M. (2008). Hearst Avenue Sidewalk and Bicycle Lane Feasibility Study. [electronic version]. Retrieved on 8-7-09 from: http://www.bclu.org/jasonmeggs-worksample.pdf Michigan State University Bike Facilities Plan. (2007). Michigan State University. The Greenway Collaborative, Inc. [electronic version] retrieved on 9-11-09 from: http://www.bikes.msu.edu/misc-articles-reports-docs/msu_bike_facilities_plan_2012-2021-v2.pdf Orth Rodgers & Associates, Inc. Collingswood Circulation Plan: Collingswood Borough, Camden County, NJ. NJ DOT Local Planning Assistance. (2004). [hard copy] Part 9: Traffic Controls for Bicycle Facilities. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). (2003). Federal Highway Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation website. [electronic version]. Retrieved on 8-28-09 from: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/part9/part9-toc.htm

Pein, W. Bicycling and On-Street Parallel Parking, with critiques of two related documents. Bicycling Matters. (2003). [electronic version] Retrieved on 9-4-09 from: http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/door_zone.pdf Portland’s Blue Bike Lanes: Improved Safety through Enhanced Visibility. City of Portland Office of Transportation. (1999). [electronic version] Retrieved on 9-4-09 from: http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=58842 Potts, I., Harwood, D., & Richard, K. Relationship of Lane Width to Safety for Urban and Suburban Arterials. Midwest Research Institute. (2007). Transportation Research Board. The National Academy of Sciences. Pucher, J. & Buehler, R. Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. (2008). Transport Reviews, 28:4, 495-528. [electronic version]. Retrieved on 9-8-09 from: http://www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Irresistible.pdf

This paper by the leading bicycle transportation policy experts in the field was valuable for the clear connections it made between policy/infrastructure changes and outcome. It illustrated the way that encouragement of cycling leads to greater levels of cycling and greater safety.

Questions and Answers about Vehicle Size and Weight. Freight Management and Operations. US Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. [electronic version]. Retrieved on 8-21-09 from: http://vsw.fhwa.dot.gov/qa/qa.jsp?category=23+CFR+658.15 Rules of the Road. (2009). League of American Bicyclists. [electronic version] Retrieved on 9-11-09 from: http://www.bikeleague.org/resources/better/roadrules.php

Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles, Publication No. FHWA-RD-92-073, FHWA. Washington, DC. (1994) [electronic version]. Retrieved on 9-8-09 from: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/select.pdf

Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Publications. US Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. [Electronic version]. Retrieved on 8-25-09 from: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/pubs/06125/chapt7.htm Valuing the Benefits of Cycling: Executive Summary. Cycling England webpage. UK Department for Transport. (2007). [electronic version]. Retrieved 9-9-09 from: http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingengland/site/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/valuing-the-benefits-of-cycling-exec-summary.pdf Twisler, K. and Staszewski, T. Remington & Vernick Engineers. Haddonfield, NJ. (personal communication via e-mail). Van Houten, R. & Seiderman, C. How Pavement Markings Influence Bicycle and Motor Vehicle Positioning: A Case Study in Cambridge, MA. (2004). Transportation Research Board. The National Academy of Sciences. Von Hagen, L., AICP/PP. Project Manager- New Jersey Bicycle & Pedestrian Resource Center. Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center. Rutgers, Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy. (2009). (Personal communications via e-mail).