FINAL RUTHERFORD BOROUGH BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN. Prepared For: The Borough of Rutherford and Rutherford Green Team

FINAL RUTHERFORD BOROUGH BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Prepared For: The Borough of Rutherford and Rutherford Green Team Prepared By: Michael Baker Jr...
Author: Meryl Golden
2 downloads 0 Views 23MB Size
FINAL RUTHERFORD BOROUGH BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN

Prepared For: The Borough of Rutherford and Rutherford Green Team

Prepared By: Michael Baker Jr., Inc.

Sponsored By: New Jersey Department of Transportation

July 2013

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF WORK ..................................................................................................... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 SCOPE OF WORK .............................................................................................................................................. 2 2. DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 REVIEW OF EXISTING POLICIES AND PREVIOUSLY PERFORMED STUDIES ....................................................................... 3 2.1.1 NJDOT Complete Streets Policy ........................................................................................................ 3 2.1.2 Borough of Rutherford Complete Streets Policy ............................................................................... 3 2.1.3 Previously Performed Studies ........................................................................................................... 3 2.2 DEMOGRAPHICS ............................................................................................................................................... 4 2.3 FIELD DATA COLLECTION .................................................................................................................................... 5 3. PUBLIC OUTREACH................................................................................................................................... 8 3.1 STEERING COMMITTEE ...................................................................................................................................... 8 3.2 ONLINE SURVEY ............................................................................................................................................... 8 3.3 COMMUNITY EVENTS ........................................................................................................................................ 9 3.4 PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTER ............................................................................................................................ 9 4. EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 10 4.1 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH DATA ............................................................................................................... 10 4.2 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN NETWORK DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................. 13 4.3 PEDESTRIAN ASSESSMENT................................................................................................................................ 15 4.4 BICYCLE COMPATIBILITY ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................ 17 4.5 INTERSECTION ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................................. 20 4.6 REGIONAL CONNECTIONS ................................................................................................................................. 21 5. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 23 5.1 PEDESTRIAN FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................................... 23 5.2 BICYCLE FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS...................................................................................................................... 26 5.2.1 Bicycle Facility Types ...................................................................................................................... 26 5.2.2 Innovative Bicycle Facilities ............................................................................................................ 27 5.2.3 Rutherford Recommended Bicycle Facilities................................................................................... 28 5.3 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS & CONCEPTUAL SCHEMATICS ................................................................................. 29 6. IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING.......................................................................................................... 43 6.1 COORDINATION EFFORTS ................................................................................................................................. 43 6.2 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ................................................................................................................................... 43 6.3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS .................................................................................................................... 44 6.4 FUNDING IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 44 6.5 IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX ............................................................................................................................... 44 7. ORDINANCE ........................................................................................................................................... 47 7.1 ORDINANCE REVIEW .................................................................................................................................. 47 8. EDUCATION, ENCOURAGEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT............................................................................. 49 8.1 EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................................... 49 8.2 ENCOURAGEMENT AND PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................. 50 8.3 ENFORCEMENT .............................................................................................................................................. 51 9. MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 51

i

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

Figures Figure 1: Bicycle and Pedestrian Trip Generators and Activity Figure 2: Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes (2009-2011) Figure 3: Preliminary Network Figure 4: Existing Sidewalk Condition Figure 5: Existing Bicycle Compatibility Figure 6: Regional Connections Figure 7: Recommended Priority Sidewalk Locations Figure 8: Proposed Bicycle Compatibility Figure 9: Orient Way Proposed Corridor – Typical Cross-Section Shown at Pierrepont Avenue (Concept 1) Figure 10: Orient Way Proposed Corridor – Typical Cross-Section Shown at Pierrepont Avenue (Concept 2) Figure 11: Park Avenue and Ames Avenue Proposed Intersection Figure 12: Park Avenue and Passaic Avenue Proposed Intersection (Concept 1) Figure 13: Park Avenue and Passaic Avenue Proposed Intersection (Concept 2) Figure 14: Erie Avenue and Jackson Avenue Proposed Intersection Tables Table 1: Households Vehicle Ownership, 2000 & 2010 Table 2: Commute to Work, Mode of Travel, 2000 Table 3: Commute to Work, Mode of Travel 2010 Table 4: Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts Table 5: Bicycle and Pedestrian Crash Summary (2009-2011) Table 6: Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes (2009-2011) Table 7: Sidewalk Assessment Table 8: CRSI Sidewalk Condition Classifications Table 9: Existing Sidewalk Condition Percentage Table 10: Bicycle Compatibility Assessment Table 11: Bicycle Compatibility Criteria Table 12: Existing Bicycle Compatibility Percentage Table 13: Existing Bicycle Compatibility Matrix Table 14: Intersection Assessment Table 15: Recommended Priority Sidewalk Implementation/Maintenance Table 16: Proposed Bicycle Compatibility Matrix Table 17: Proposed Bicycle Compatibility Percentage Table 18: Proposed Sidewalk Implementation Matrix Table 19: Proposed Bicycle Implementation Matrix Table 20: Example Ordinances Appendices Appendix A: NJDOT and Rutherford’s Complete Street Policy Appendix B: Public Outreach Meeting Minutes Appendix C: Online Survey Results Appendix D: Bicycle Compatibility Rating Criteria Appendix E: Walking School Bus Appendix F: Bicycle Rodeo Appendix G: Pedestrian Facility Maintenance Requirements Checklist

ii

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

1. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF WORK 1.1 INTRODUCTION The development of the Rutherford Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan was sponsored through the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) Bicycle and Pedestrian Local Technical Assistance Program. Through this program, New Jersey municipalities have an opportunity to identify bicycle and pedestrian issues and review concepts to improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities. At the request of a municipality, NJDOT provides consultant planning services to the community to perform planning studies that evaluate needs and opportunities related to bicycle and pedestrian circulation and safety, but makes no claims, promises, or guarantees about the availability of funding to complete the proposed improvements. The planning study serves as a basis for developing proposals for implementing specific improvements. The studies are locally driven in a partnership arrangement with the municipality and have a strong public outreach component. The study was advanced under the direction of the Borough of Rutherford Green Team to support the Borough’s goal to improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, enhance bicycle and pedestrian accessibility to local and regional destinations, and to develop education initiatives to increase residents’ knowledge of bicycle and pedestrian travel practices. The Green Team is a group committed to spreading environmental awareness and is composed of community volunteers and elected officials working to make Rutherford more sustainable through healthy initiatives. Green Team designation is part of becoming Sustainable Jersey Certified. The primary goal of the Master Plan is to increase bicycle and pedestrian travel in Rutherford, thereby improving personal health, transportation options, and air quality. The plan presents a range of improvements and implementation strategies, outlines recommended policies and practices to increase the safety and mobility of bicyclists and pedestrians, and identifies areas in need of further study to address the complex and constrained characteristics of the Borough. Traffic calming, pedestrian safety and the increase of the number of children who walk and bike to school are some of the important issues the Borough needs to address. The Local Technical Assistance Program is governed by the goals and objectives of the New Jersey Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The Master Plan has the following goals: • Build the Infrastructure: “Create bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure by planning, designing, constructing and managing transportation and recreational facilities that will accommodate and encourage use by bicyclists and pedestrian and be responsive to their needs.” • Improve Access: “Make community destinations, transit facilities and recreation facilities accessible and convenient for use by all types and skill levels of bicyclists and pedestrians.” • Update Policies, Ordinances and Procedures: “Reform land use planning policies, ordinances and procedures to maximize opportunities for walking and bicycling.” • Educate and Enforce: “Develop and implement education and enforcement programs that will result in reduction of crashes and a greater sense of security.” • Foster a Pro-Bicycling and Pro-Walking Ethic: “Increase bicycling and walking by fostering a probicycling and pro-walking ethic in individuals, private sector organizations and all levels of government.”

1

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

The goals are factored into the bicycle and pedestrian planning and concept development process as appropriate. The Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is available online at http://www.bikemap.com/RBA/NJBikePed.pdf.

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK Rutherford requested bicycle and pedestrian planning assistance from the New Jersey Department of Transportation-Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs (NJDOT-OBPP) to develop a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. NJDOT-OBPP contracted with Michael Baker Jr., Inc. (Baker) to assist Rutherford in developing the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan through analysis of existing conditions and recommending locations of bicycle and pedestrian facility conceptual improvements. The Borough of Rutherford Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan included the following tasks: •

Data Collection o Review of Existing Policies and Previously Performed Studies o Demographics o Field Data Collection



Public Outreach o Steering Committee Meetings o Online Community Survey o Community Events o Public Information Centers



Existing Conditions Analysis o Bicycle and Pedestrian Crash Data o Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Development o Pedestrian Assessment o Bicycle Compatibility Assessment o Intersection Assessment o Regional Connections



Recommendations o Pedestrian Facility Improvements o Bicycle Facility Improvements o Intersection Improvements and Conceptual Schematics o Implementation Matrix and Funding Resources o Policies and Programs



Bicycle Route Map

2

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

2. DATA COLLECTION 2.1 REVIEW OF EXISTING POLICIES AND PREVIOUSLY PERFORMED STUDIES 2.1.1 NJDOT Complete Streets Policy The Local Technical Assistance (LTA) Program is also governed by the NJDOT Complete Streets (CS) policy. The policy was finalized in December 2009 and requires that future roadway improvement projects include safe accommodations for all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders, and the mobility-impaired. The NJDOT CS policy is implemented through the planning, design, construction, maintenance, and operation of new or rehabilitated transportation facilities within public right-of-ways that are federally or state funded, including projects undertaken or administered by NJDOT. The recommendations outlined in this study incorporate CS principles. Section 5 - Recommendations discusses the use of CS principles as means of implementing bicycle and pedestrian improvements. 2.1.2 Borough of Rutherford Complete Streets Policy The Borough of Rutherford adopted its own CS policy on March 22, 2011, which states that: “all public street projects, both new construction and reconstruction (excluding maintenance) undertaken by the Borough of Rutherford shall be designed and constructed as “Complete Streets”.” A copy of both the NJDOT and Rutherford’s CS Policy is included in Appendix A. 2.1.3 Previously Performed Studies Several previous planning studies were completed that endorse and support the implementation of safe and accessible bicycle and pedestrian facilities in Rutherford. Below is a summary of the most recent documents: Borough of Rutherford, Bergen County, New Jersey – 2007 Master Plan, December 20, 2007 • • • • •

Provide opportunities for residents, business owners, employees, and shoppers to access multiple modes of transportation including public transportation, bikeways, and pedestrian ways. Utilize traffic calming measures in areas of high pedestrian activity. Create a multi-use trail system that links neighborhoods, community facilities, parks, and open space. Create a “bicycle friendly” environment in Rutherford that provides a safe and viable alternative to driving. Manage traffic and pedestrian issues and ensure adequate parking in the downtown and in adjoining residential neighborhoods.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation o Initiate a program to repair sidewalks. o Continue to work with East Rutherford on the conversion of the Erie railroad bed to a multi-use trail.

3

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

o o o o o

o o o

FINAL July 2013

Use public art and streetscape improvements to create attractive and interesting walking environments. Use trees to provide shelter, shade, and protection from cars along pedestrian routes. Provide secure and accessible bicycle racks or lockers at community facilities, transit stops, parks and schools, and large commercial buildings. Provide appropriate signage to direct walkers and bikers to destination points. Require safe and attractive pedestrian and bicycle circulation systems within all major residential or commercial developments with linkages to surrounding developments and neighborhoods. Utilize traffic calming techniques in areas of high pedestrian activity. Improve pedestrian access from the Kip Garage to the train station. Encourage the intensification and appropriate mix of land use in the downtown district in accordance with the land use plan.

Vision Statement: 2025, December 14, 2004 • Manage traffic and pedestrian issues and ensure adequate parking in the downtown area. • Form a bikeway advocacy group/steering committee to promote bicycling interests in Rutherford. • Design and create a network of biking/pedestrian pathways on local roads and within other appropriate linear public right-of-ways. The Rutherford Green Team, a Borough Committee made up of resident volunteers, drafted plans for the Rutherford Bicycle and Pedestrian Ring based on community needs and the ideas set forth in the Rutherford Vision Statement: 2025. The plans were endorsed and adopted by the Mayor and Council in 2010 and were created with the assistance of the National Park Service Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program. The Ring includes on-road and off-road bicycle and pedestrian facilities stretching 6.75 miles in length throughout the Borough of Rutherford. A summary of additional studies reviewed are included under a separate document titled “Existing Conditions Memorandum” which is included on a CD-ROM at the end of the report.

2.2 DEMOGRAPHICS In 2010, Rutherford had a population of approximately 18,000 people. The Borough consists of a total of 2.9 square miles, where approximately one third of the Borough’s land area, east of Veterans Boulevard, is located within the Meadowlands district (which covers over 30 square miles in parts of 14 municipalities in Bergen and Hudson counties). The Meadowlands district is under the jurisdiction of the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission which serves as the zoning and planning agency for the district. The Borough’s remaining land contains a range of land uses such as residential, commercial, recreational, and industrial. Major regional and interstate roadways that provide access to and from Rutherford include NJ Route 3, NJ Route 17, and several county roads which traverse through the Borough, and Interstate 95/New Jersey Turnpike Western Alignment to the south. Public transportation in Rutherford is available and highly utilized. The Rutherford Train Station is a main destination of the downtown area and was designated as a “transit village” in 1999 by the New Jersey Transit and the NJDOT. Rutherford also operates three transportation services within the Borough; Downtowner Bus, Jitney Bus, and Community Shuttle. Addressed

4

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

The rate of household vehicle ownership increased slightly in Rutherford Borough between 2000 and 2010, Table 1. Table 1: Households Vehicle Ownership, 2000 & 2010 Location 2000 2010 Rutherford Borough 90.0% 91.9% Bergen County 91.1% 92.0% New Jersey 87.3% 88.3%

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Population and Housing 2000, 2010

In 2010, the percentage of commuters walking and/or biking to work decreased by 0.6% as compared to 2000. Public transportation and walked and/or biked to work percentages were higher in Rutherford than the County’s and the State’s. Table 2 and Table 3 summarize those findings. Table 2: Commute to Work, Mode of Travel, 2000 Drove Public Walked/Biked/ Location Carpooled Alone Transportation Others Rutherford Borough 67.1% 8.7% 16.9% 4.3% Bergen County 72.8% 9.7% 11.0% 3.4% New Jersey 73.0% 10.6% 9.6% 4.1%

Worked at Home 3.0% 3.1% 2.7%

Table 3: Commute to Work, Mode of Travel, 2010 Drove Public Walked/Biked/ Location Carpooled Alone Transportation Others Rutherford Borough 66.5% 8.9% 17.1% 3.7% Bergen County 70.6% 7.6% 13.2% 4.5% New Jersey 71.6% 9.0% 10.8% 5.1%

Worked at Home 3.8% 4.1% 3.5%

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Means of Transportation to Work 2000, 2010

2.3 FIELD DATA COLLECTION Activity investigations were completed during the field data collection effort to observe and document existing travel patterns and behaviors of bicyclists and pedestrian in and around the Borough. Key bicycle and pedestrian trip generators such as schools, parks, commercial and municipal buildings, and bicycle and pedestrian travel patterns are illustrated in Figure 1. Bicycle and Pedestrian counts were conducted on Friday September 28, 2012 for two-hour periods to gauge bicycle and pedestrian activity and understand where it is necessary to improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The following four intersection locations were chosen for counts due to their number of bicycle and pedestrian crashes. • Jackson Avenue (CR 507) and Union Avenue • Passaic Avenue and Orient Way • Park Avenue and Ames Avenue • Park Avenue and Passaic Avenue

5

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

Table 4 summarizes the count data results. More detailed bicycle and pedestrian count data is included in a separate document titled “Existing Conditions Memorandum” which is included in on a CD-ROM at the end of the report. Table 4: Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts Jackson Avenue (CR 507) and Union Avenue Time of Count

Total Pedestrians

Total Bicyclists

Dominant Movement

2:00 PM to 4:00 PM

161

3

Crossing Jackson (East to West)

Comment School walking route and bus stop located at intersection

Passaic Avenue and Orient Way Time of Count

Total Pedestrians

Total Bicyclists

Dominant Movement

2:00 PM to 4:00 PM

69

4

Crossing Orient Way (West to East)

Comment Bus stop located just north/south of intersection

Park Avenue and Passaic Avenue Time of Count

Total Pedestrians

Total Bicyclists

Dominant Movement

Comment

4:30 PM to 6:30 PM

338

3

Crossing Park (Chestnut to Passaic)

Highly active intersection

Park Avenue and Ames Avenue Time of Count

Total Pedestrians

Total Bicyclists

Dominant Movement

4:30 PM to 6:30 PM

516

4

Crossing Ames (North to South)

6

Comment One block from train station

´

Wallington Borough

O

Wood-Ridge Borough

Rutherford Memorial Park

MO N

PL

ST

# LA

CR

AC

E

OS S

TE RR

SY LV AN

ST

MI T

TH E RD

BA

RR

ND

CR

EVA N

VA N

OW

S

RI

PE

AV E

R

CR AV E

OS

S

SA VE

NE VI NS ST E AV E

AN

#

OL N

LI NC

GH

O Wall Field

¬ « 17

East Rutherford Borough

BLVD

AV E

HI SU M

ANS

AV E

RD

VETE R

RD

ST

MA P

; G O Lincoln Park

GE

GI N R U AL TH RD ER FO

PL

EL NI

M AR

Pierrepont Middle School

AV E

J

Rutherford Public Library

RID

S30

D

m

ON AV E

7 6 5 4

Tamblyn Field

W HE

W OO O DLAN

VE KA

7 6 5 4

Á Rutherford À Train Station

GL EN US Post Office

30

AV E

DA

# R PA

PO NT

AV E

PL

AT ON

L LE P PRE B

EW

O

D O

RE

m

Rutherford High School

Municipal Building

School

PI ER

HO ME

NA PA LD SS W OO SO AI C DW N AV A AR VE E D AV E Lincoln

m Elementary

Lincoln Woods

G ED

DO

WI LS

RIVE RSID

E AV

E

#

O

MO RT

AV E RM ITA

CA

Clifton

IM ER

k Rutherford Campus Felician College

T

507

NU

7 6 5 4

Washington Elementary School

m

S32 I

ES T

7 6 5 4

RUTHERFORD BOROUGH

NT WA Y EA W AY ST ER NW AY

AV E

ON IA

IC

FE R

SA

AV E

PA S

#

AV E

m

Rutherford Child Care Center

AV E

AV E

CH

Union Elementary School

Carlstadt Borough

OR IE

HI NG TO N

AV E

ST

W OO D

m

T

LE

KS JA C

W AS

7 6 5 4 32

NU

SS

GH UR RB DE

VA N

W AL

RO

AV E

O# NA VE

D AN GR W

AV E

PL

RT

AV E

CT

N

ER IE

MO NT

IO

AV E AV E

SP E

BA

AV E

AV E

UN

A

A

Moonachie Borough

PR O

DA

HO

AR

GR

D

AV E RW

RIV

IN

ER S

W IN

ER IE AV AV E E

CA R AV LTO N E

YA H

IDE

Passaic

W

A

RA YM ON

AV E

ON

O Rutherford Park

¬ « 3

¬ « 3

LEGEND

m

k

School College

;

Municipal

! (

Bus Stops

O À Á J G

Park

Lyndhurst Township

Train Station Library Post Office

Railroads Intersections with High Bike/Ped Acitivity Observed Bicycle and Pedestrian Activity NJ/US/Interstate Routes County Routes Local Routes Schools

§ ¦ ¨

Colleges

95

Industrial Waterway

Secaucus

Commercial Services Parks and Recreation Residential, Multi-Units Residential, Single-Units Rutherford Borough NJ Municipalities

Rutherford Borough Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Figure 1: Bicycle and Pedestrian Trip Generators and Activity

0

0.25

0.5 Miles

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

3. PUBLIC OUTREACH

An active public involvement component was important to the development of this Plan. A Steering Committee (SC) was formed and was instrumental in guiding the study and providing feedback and comments throughout the process. Additional feedback was also received from Public Information Center attendees; 2012 Labor Day Street Fair and West End Festival attendees; and an online community survey. Below is a brief summary of the public outreach elements completed as part of the Borough of Rutherford Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.

3.1 STEERING COMMITTEE Two Steering Committee (SC) meetings were held after a kick-off scoping meeting for the project. The SC meetings took place on October 11th, 2012 and February 13th, 2013. The first meeting was held to present key findings of data collected and assessed, and the second meeting was held to present draft conceptual improvements, and bicycle and pedestrian facility recommendations. The SC is comprised of local and county officials, Rutherford residents, advocacy groups, the Transportation Management Association (TMA), and Metropolitan Planning Organization representatives. Meeting minutes are included in Appendix B.

3.2 ONLINE SURVEY To determine the needs and desires of the community as a whole, an on-line resource, www.surveymonkey.com, was used to develop and administer the survey. A link to the survey was posted on Rutherford’s website, and was accessible for the month of September 2012. A total of 208 responses were received for the survey. Of these, the majority of respondents (85%) were residents of Rutherford, with 10% responding as being visitors. Overall, the survey results indicated that more than 83% of respondents walk and/or bike. Respondents indicated that they would increase their levels of biking and walking if more or improved bicycle lanes, paths, trails, and sidewalks were available. Respondents supported improvements which would provide facilities to make bicycle and pedestrian travel favorable. Many of the comments indicated the desire for bike paths and trails. This reinforces the desire to be separated from traffic and having a place where people can walk and bike with a feeling of safety. Travel Patterns • Eighty-four percent of respondents reported that they bike for recreational purposes and 74% walk for recreational purposes. Social reasons came in second for both biking and walking with 28% and 56%, respectively. • Sixteen percent walk to school and 5% bike to school. • More people indicated that they commuted by foot (31%) with 12% commuting by bike. • Thirty-eight percent reported biking 1 to 5 trips in a typical month and 21% reported biking 6 to 10 trips in a typical month. • For over half of the respondents (52%), the typical bicycle trip was under 3 miles. • Thirty-four percent reported walking 2 to 3 times a week with a similar percentage (30%) reported walking on a daily basis. • Three quarter (75%) of bicycle riders indicated that they share a lane with a motor vehicle when riding. Thirty-three percent said they ride on a paved shoulder and 29% ride on the sidewalk.

8

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

Influences • When asked what would encourage them to ride a bicycle in Rutherford more often, 79% said “more or improved bicycle lanes” and 73% said “more or improved recreational trails and paths”. Smoother pavement came in third with 54%, and 47% would like to see more bicycle racks and/or lockers at destinations. • When asked what would encourage them to walk in Rutherford more often, 60% said “more or improved sidewalks” and 55% said “more or improved recreational trails and paths”. Improved pedestrian accomodations at intersections came in third with 38%, and 37% would like to see improved street lighting. Requests • Provide bike paths and trails that allow for all ages and abilities. • Provide bike lanes and routes that are connected and continuous. • Provide bike racks and/or lockers throughout the town and particularly at schools. • Improve sidewalks and crossing conditions at major intersections. • Enforce the “stop for pedestrian” signs . • Educate bicyclists to the rules of the road, particularly the need to ride in the correct direction and not on the sidewalk. The following locations were consistenlty identified by respondents as being of particular concern for walking and biking: • • • • • • •

Orient Way Park Avenue Jackson Avenue/Riverside Avenue Union Avenue Erie Avenue Ridge Road Traffic circle at the train station

Detailed results of the survey are included in Appendix C.

3.3 COMMUNITY EVENTS The Green Team organized and attended two Rutherford community events; the Labor Day Street Fair on September 3rd, 2012 and the West End Festival on September 29th, 2012. Baker worked with the Green Team to prepare displays and handouts to inform residents of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan study and share findings of existing conditions.

3.4 PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTER Two Public Information Center (PIC) events were held during the project. The first PIC was held on November 13, 2012 to gather feedback from the public on bicycle and pedestrian existing conditions in Rutherford. The second PIC was held on May 14, 2013 to solicit feedback from the public on bicycle and pedestrian improvements and recommendations in Rutherford. Both events had over 45 community residents attending. Comment cards were provided to document attendees’ feedback. Meeting minutes are included in Appendix B.

9

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

4. EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS 4.1 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH DATA Bicycle and pedestrian crash reports were provided by the Rutherford Borough Police Department from the period of January 2009 to December 2011. A total of 45 bicycle and pedestrian crashes occurred during this period. Forty of the crashes were pedestrian crashes and five were bicycle crashes. Three pedestrian crashes were fatal. The crash data is summarized in Table 5, listed in Table 6, and illustrated in Figure 2. Crash Year

Table 5: Bicycle and Pedestrian Crash Summary (2009-2011) Total # of # of Ped # of Bike Location of Fatal Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes • None

2009

2010

14

12

12

12

2

0

2011

19

16

3

Total

45

40

5

• Fatal pedestrian crash occurred on West Erie Avenue, 75 feet east of Carmita Avenue. The driver was 67 years old and the pedestrian was 57 years old. • Fatal pedestrian crash occurred on Park Avenue, 5 feet south of Franklin Place. The driver was 87 years old and the pedestrian was 87 years old. • Fatal pedestrian crash occurred on East Erie Avenue, 75 feet west of Feronia Way. The driver was 40 years old and the pedestrian was 56 years old.

The top roadway corridors with the most bicycle and pedestrian crashes from 2009 to 2011 are: 1. Union Avenue (6 crashes) 2. Park Avenue (6 crashes) 3. Passaic Avenue (5 crashes) 4. Orient Way (3 crashes) 5. Jackson Avenue (3 crashes) 6. Erie Avenue (3 crashes)

10

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

Table 6: Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes (2009-2011) DATE

TIME

LOCATION

TYPE

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS

SEVERITY

BIKE/PED MOTORIST LIGHTING ROADWAY ENVIRONMENT AGE AGE CONDITION CONDITION CONDITION 42 26 Daylight Dry Clear

1/8/2009 10:46 Park Ave at W Passaic Ave 1/30/2009 19:24 Ridge Rd at E Passaic Ave

Ped

Vehicle failed to yield to Ped in x-walk

Minor

Ped

Vehicle failed to yield to Ped in x-walk

Moderate

51

58

Streetlights

Dry

Clear

2/18/2009 18:20 Union Ave at Maple St Park Ave at Highland 3/17/2009 14:56 Cross Meadow Rd, 200 ft north 3/17/2009 19:47 of Highland Cross Springfield Ave, 100 ft 5/13/2009 8:20 south of Union Ave 5/19/2009 17:00 Erie Ave at Orient Way Barrows Ave at Orient 7/28/2009 21:37 Way 8/14/2009 15:27 Orient Way at Barrows

Ped

Vehicle failed to yield making left

Minor

53

30

Streetlights

Wet

Rain

Ped

Vehicle failed to yield making left

Minor

80

78

Daylight

Dry

Clear

Ped

Crossing midblock where prohibited

Moderate

17

27

Streetlights

Dry

Clear

Ped

Crossing between cars where prohibited

Minor

12

40

Daylight

Dry

Clear

Bike

Vehicle failed to yield

Minor

12

N/A

Daylight

Dry

Clear

Ped

Vehicle failed to yield (hit/run)

Minor

59

N/A

Streetlights

Dry

Clear

Bike

Bicycle failed to stop at traffic signal

Minor

39

64

Daylight

Dry

Clear

Ped

Vehicle failed to yield making left

Minor

15

35

Daylight

Dry

Clear

Ped

Vehicle failed to yield making left/dark clothing

Minor

54

17

Streetlights

Wet

Rain

Moderate

65

54

Daylight

Dry

Clear

Vehicle failed to yield to Ped in x-walk

Minor

32

58

Streetlights

Dry

Clear

Crossing between cars where prohibited

Minor

27

54

Streetlights

Dry

Clear

Moderate

32

N/A

Daylight

Dry

Clear

Vehicle failed to yield making left

Minor

31

56

Daylight

Dry

Clear

Vehicle failed to yield making left

Minor

55

38

Daylight

Dry

Clear

Vehicle failed to yield making right

Minor

32

48

Daylight

Dry

Clear

Improper Backing of Vehicle

Minor

31,10,6

N/A

Daylight

Dry

Clear

Moderate

52

59

Daylight

Dry

Clear

Vehicle failed to yield making left

Minor

50

60

Daylight

Dry

Clear

Vehicle failure to yield (hit/run)

Minor

54

N/A

Streetlights

Wet

Rain

Vehicle failed to yield making right

Minor

83

49

Daylight

Dry

Overcast

Ped walking in Roadway

Minor

42

42

Daylight

Dry

Clear

Vehicle failed to yield to Ped in x-walk

Minor

34

34

Streetlights

Dry

Clear

Crossing where prohibited in dark clothing

Fatal

57

67

Streetlights

Dry

Overcast

Vehicle failed to yield to Ped in x-walk

Minor

19

46

Daylight

Dry

Clear

Vehicle failed to yield to Ped in x-walk

Minor

18

20

Streetlights

Dry

Clear

Vehicle failed to yield making left

Moderate

85

39

Daylight

Dry

Clear

Vehicle failed to yield making left

Minor

53

72

Streetlights

Dry

Clear

Improper Backing of Vehicle

Minor

62

70

Daylight

Dry

Clear

Ped hanging on vehicle

Minor

16

17

Daylight

Wet

Rain

Ped crossing against traffic signal

Minor

10

32

Daylight

Dry

Clear

Ped loading vehicle

Minor

35

53

Daylight

Dry

Clear

Vehicle failed to yield making left

Minor

11

17

Daylight

Dry

Clear

Bicycle travelling wrong way on one way

Minor

39

44

Streetlights

Dry

Clear

Ped crossing against traffic signal

Fatal

87

87

Streetlights

Dry

Overcast

Vehicle failed to yield making left

Minor

31

57

Streetlights

Dry

Clear

Vehicle failure to yield (hit/run)

Minor

16

N/A

Daylight

Dry

Clear

Moderate

65

48

Daylight

Dry

Clear

Crossing midblock where prohibited

Minor

40

62

Daylight

Dry

Clear

Bicycle failed to stop at stop sign

Minor

15

50

Streetlights

Dry

Clear

Vehicle failed to yield making right /sunglare

Minor

67

71

Daylight

Dry

Clear

Vehicle failed to yield while exitting driveway

Fatal

56

40

Daylight

Dry

Clear

Vehicle failed to yield making left

Minor

45

25

Daylight

Wet

Clear

11/18/2009 7:36 Jackson Ave at Union Ave 11/30/2009 17:39 Jackson Ave at Union Ave

12/4/2009 7:12 Jackson Ave at Union Ave Ped W Passaic Ave, 30 ft west 12/17/2009 17:32 Ped of Park Ave Union Ave, 200 ft west of 12/22/2009 19:41 Ped Carmita Ave Union Ave, 5 ft west of 4/10/2010 17:16 Ped Riverside Ave Ames Ave, 5 ft west of 5/1/2010 12:14 Ped Park Ave W Passaic Ave, 5 ft east of 5/13/2010 15:23 Ped Montross Ave Orient Way at E Passaic 6/20/2010 9:09 Ped Ave 6/20/2010 9:56 lot of 56 Park Ave 3 Peds Union Ave, 65 ft west of 6/23/2010 12:44 Ped Propsect Pl Orient Way, 5 ft north of 7/22/2010 8:07 Ped Highland Cross Marginal Rd at Stuyvesant 9/16/2010 23:25 Ped Ave Park Ave, 3 ft south of 10/15/2010 16:00 Ped Ames Ave 10/16/2010 12:10 Darwin Ave at Clark Ct Ped Park Ave, 5 ft north of The 12/7/2010 18:55 Ped Terrace W Erie Ave, 75 ft east of 12/18/2010 19:06 Ped Carmita Ave Highland Cr, 5 ft east of 2/24/2011 13:44 Ped Lincoln Ave Thomas E Dunn, 3 ft east 2/28/2011 19:49 Ped of Orient Way W Passaic Ave, 5 ft west 3/2/2011 13:16 Ped of Park Ave Ames Ave, 5 ft west of 3/5/2011 22:57 Ped Park Ave 3/28/2011 18:47 Lot of 801 rutherford Ave 3 Peds Mortimer Ave, 150 ft 4/1/2011 15:33 Ped south of Riverview Ave W Pierrepont Ave, 8 ft 5/26/2011 15:07 Ped west of Park Ave Raymond Ave, 80 ft north 6/6/2011 17:08 Ped of Carlton Pl Union Ave, 5 ft east of 6/13/2011 15:20 Ped Vanderburgh Ave Monona Ave at 6/16/2011 21:22 Bike Vanderburgh Ave Park Ave, 5 ft south of 6/24/2011 21:57 Ped Franklin Pl Spring Dell, 5 ft east of 6/29/2011 23:26 Ped Park Ave Chestnut St, 5 ft south of 7/27/2011 12:02 Ped Ames Ave W Passaic Ave, 5 ft east of 7/28/2011 12:42 Ped Mortimer Ave Sylvan St, 40 ft north of 9/5/2011 13:47 Ped The Terrace Highland Cr at Mountain 9/20/2011 22:02 Bike Way E Passaic Ave, 3 ft west of 11/1/2011 15:55 Ped Orient Way E Erie Ave, 75 ft west of 11/30/2011 8:02 Ped Feronia Way 12/7/2011 7:49 Union Ave at Chestnut St Bike

Vehicle failed to yield making left

Vehicle failure to yield (hit/run)

Crossing midblock / dartning into traffic

Vehicle failed to yield making left

11

´

Wallington Borough

O

Wood-Ridge Borough

k

RD

AV E

ST

X

E

BA

RR

HI GH LA

EVA N

VA N

OW

S

RI

PE

AV E

R

CR AV E

ZX

Z

Z

Wall Field

O

ND

OR IE

RD

TH E

Pierrepont Middle School

OS S

NT WA Y ON I AW EA AY ST ER NW AY

CR

ST SY LV AN

m

AV E

MI T

FE R

OL N LI NC

PL

AV E

D

M AR

GI N R U AL TH RD ER FO

AT ON

EL NI DA

Tamblyn Field

SU M

GE

S30

W OO O DLAN

ON AV E

7 6 5 4

VE KA

AV E

Rutherford Z Á Z À Train Station ZZ X GL

Z

US Post Office

7 6 5 4

Z Z

W HE

R PA

Z

AV E

WI LS

LE P PRE B

G ED

O

D O

PL

Z

RID

PI School ER RE PO NT

EW

m

ZX

Z EN RD Z Z JRutherfordZ Municipal ; GZZ Public Library Building Z Z O Lincoln Park 30 Z ZZ Z

m Elementary

Lincoln Woods

AM ES

Rutherford High School

AV E

AV E RM ITA

O

PA S

SA NA IC LD W AV OO SO E DW N A AR VE D AV E Lincoln

L

RIVE RSID E

AVE

CA

Clifton

Rutherford Campus Felician College

Z

AV E

Z

507

DO

Washington Elementary School

m

S32 I

IR VI NG MO RT PL IM ER MA AV PL E E CH HO AV ES ME E TN AV UT E IV ST Y P AY ER L PL

7 6 5 4

RO

7 6 5 4

RUTHERFORD BOROUGH

AC

AV E

W OO D

m Z

Rutherford Child Care Center

Carlstadt Borough

SS

PL

Z

TE RR

ON KS

IC

AV E

CT

Z

JA C

SA

ST

PR O

AV E

UR RB DE

VA N

m

32

T

HI NG TO N

Union Elementary School

7 6 5 4

Z NU

MO NT

GH

W AS

AV E

SP E

W AL

D

RA YM ON

D AN GR PA S

ER IE

Z

ZZ ZZ

AV E

AV E

Z

Moonachie Borough

C AV AR LT E ON

RW DA

RIV

Z

W

X

IN

ER S

AV E

IDE

Passaic

MO NO NA AV YA HA E RA W IN A VE GR A AV HO E BA UN RT IO N AV AV E E

PL

AV E

Rutherford Memorial Park

SA VE

NE VI NS ST E AV E

CR OS S

East Rutherford Borough

¬ « 17

O Rutherford Park

AN

¬ « 3

Z

¬ « 3

Lyndhurst Township

LEGEND

Z Z X m

k ; G

Fatal Pedestrian Crash Injured Pedestrian Crash Injured Bicycle Crash School College

N o rOt h A r l i n g t o n ÀB oTrain r o uStation gh Á

Municipal

Park

J

§ ¦ ¨ 95

Library

Post Office

Secaucus

Railroads NJ/US/Interstate Routes County Routes Local Routes Rutherford Borough NJ Municipalities

Rutherford Borough Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 0

Figure 2: Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes (2009-2011)

0.25

0.5 Miles

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

4.2 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN NETWORK DEVELOPMENT Based on the crash data analysis and input from the Green Team, the Steering Committee, and the community’s feedback through the online survey, a preliminary network of roadways was identified to serve as the first phase of a bicycle and pedestrian network within the Borough. The preliminary network consists of 10 roadways to serve as the preliminary pedestrian network, 11 roadways to serve as the preliminary bicycle network, and seven key intersections. The corridors and intersections were selected as priority corridors based on traffic and crash data, demand and connectivity, and survey results, as well as feedback from the project SC and the general public. The preliminary network was evaluated to assess existing bicycle and pedestrian conditions. Figure 3 highlights the roadways and intersections included as part of the preliminary network.

13

!

AV E

!

!

RM ITA RO

ST W OO D

!

!

!

!

!

BA

RR

MA P

O!R! IE!N! T! W ! ! FE AY RO ! ! ! ! NIA ! ! EA W ! ! AY ST ER ! ! NW ! ! ! AY ! ! !

!

OS S

!

!

!

!

!

VA N

OW

S

!

RI

PE

AV E

R

!

!

C!R

!

AV E !

!

!

!

RD

!

¬ « 3

!

OS S

O Wall Field

East Rutherford Borough

¬ «

SA VE

NE VI NS ! ST E! A!V! E!

A!N

!

!

CR

17

EVA N

!

D

! ! ! ! !

!

Pierrepont Middle School

AV E

LE

IM ER !

GL EN

O

NS BLVD

AV E

!

À Rutherford Á Train Station

PL

LA N

! !

RD

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

TH RD ER FO

!

AV E

GH

CR

TH E

L

!

LI N

AV E

HI

MI T

! !

RU

NA

D

!

RID

GI

!

m

ON AV E

M AR

!

W HE

DA

Tamblyn Field

!

SU M

N

Rutherford Public Library

E

!

NK

AC

!

ST

!

SY LV AN

!

AV E

!

OL N

!

IO

AM ES

!

7 6 5 4

!

W OO O DLAN

VE KA

S30

7 6 5 4 30

AV ! E!

!

LI NC

D O

P! O! N! T!

NI

O

PL

RD

LE P PRE B R PA

G ED

EW

! R E!

J

; G O Lincoln Park

GE

P!I ! ER !

US Post Office

Municipal Building

School !

EL AV AT E ON PL

!

Rutherford High School

TE RR

m Elementary !

MO RT

AV E RM ITA

CA

! Lincoln ! Woods !

WI LS

AVE

O!

!

L

RIVE RSID E

!

FR A

m

NA PA LD SS W OO SO AI C DW N AV A AR VE E D AV E Lincoln

AV E

AV E

!

!

!

DO

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

AV E SS

PL

MO NT

ON AV E KS

JA C

CT

GH

UR RB

CA

AV E

AV E D

DE

SP E

RA YM ON

D

AV E

AV E IN RW

DA

AN

VA N

PR O

AV E IDE ER S RIV

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Rutherford Campus Felician College

UN

Rutherford Park

ER A

! !

Clifton

Washington Elementary School

VE T

!

507

k

Carlstadt Borough

32

m

S32 I

RUTHERFORD BOROUGH

!

GR

!

!

!

7 6 5 4

!

7 6 5 4 !

!

!

m

7 6 5 4

!

AV E

Rutherford Child Care Center

IC! ! A VE

!

!

!

!

Union Elementary School

!

ST

HI NG TO N

!

!

!

m

T

!

W AS

NU

!

!

!

!

!

W! P!A! S!S! A

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

W AL

!

!

!

AV E

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

ER IE !

!

!

Moonachie Borough !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

MO NO NA AV YA HA E RA W IN A VE GR A AV HO E BA RT UN AV IO E N AV E

! !

Passaic

Wood-Ridge Borough

!

O

Rutherford Memorial Park

!

´

Wallington Borough

!

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !

! !

3

!! ! !

¬ « !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

! ! !

! !

!

Lyndhurst Township

LEGEND Preliminary Network Study Intersections !!!!!

m

k ; G

Existing Bike/Ped Trail Rutherford Draft Bike Ring

O

School College

Park

§ ¦ ¨

N o rÀt h Train ington ÁB o Ar or ul Station gh

Municipal

J

95

Library

Post Office

Secaucus

Railroads NJ/US/Interstate Routes County Routes Local Routes Rutherford Borough NJ Municipalities

Rutherford Borough Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Figure 3: Preliminary Network

0

0.25

0.5 Miles

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

4.3 PEDESTRIAN ASSESSMENT An assessment of existing sidewalk conditions was completed to determine their presence and condition. The assessment was completed along 10 priority pedestrian corridors identified to be part of the pedestrian network as listed in Table 7 below. The existing sidewalk conditions data was obtained from the NJDOT County Roadway Sidewalk Inventory (CRSI) for county routes. Field visits were completed to verify the CRSI data, and investigate sidewalk conditions for local roads where CRSI data was not available. The sidewalk conditions were evaluated using the CRSI value rating as described in Table 8 below. Table 7: Sidewalk Assessment Priority Pedestrian Corridors

Table 8: CRSI Sidewalk Condition Classifications Value Description

Riverside Avenue/Jackson Avenue (CR 507)

New or nearly new material is present. No identifiable defects are present. Minor defects are present but are not considered detrimental to bicycle/pedestrian traffic. Major defects are present. Example: Sidewalk is severely cracked or is disintegrating. Bicycle/pedestrian travel could be difficult.

Good

Erie Avenue/Meadow Road (CR 32) Union Avenue (CR S32I)

Fair

Park Avenue (CR 30) Passaic Avenue Pierrepont Avenue

Poor

Carmita Avenue Ridge Road Orient Way

No Sidewalk

Barrows Avenue/Service Road

No sidewalk present

Generally, the majority or most of the sidewalk along the pedestrian network is in good condition. However, the results of the sidewalk assessment indicate that the presence of sidewalks along the preliminary network corridors is inconsistent. Seventy-eight percent of sidewalks within the preliminary network included in the assessment are in fair to good condition, as illustrated in Figure 4 and summarized in Table 9. Eighteen percent of the corridors assessed are missing sidewalks. They include the following locations: • Westbound Erie Avenue/Meadow Road (CR 32) • Eastbound and westbound Service Road • Westbound Pierrepont Avenue between Riverside Avenue and Montross Avenue • Southbound Riverside Avenue between Rutherford Avenue and south of Pierrepont Avenue Table 9: Existing Sidewalk Condition Percentage Condition Miles Percentage 19.32 78% Good/Fair Sidewalk Poor Sidewalk

0.96

4%

No Sidewalk

4.44

18%

Total

24.72

100%

15

´

Wallington Borough

O

Wood-Ridge Borough

Rutherford Memorial Park

MO N

ST

HO ME

AC

E

OS S

TE RR

SY LV AN

ST

CR

TH E

BA

RR

ST

MA P

LA

MI T

ND

CR

EVA N

VA N

OW

S

RI

PE

AV E

R

CR AV E

OS

S

SA VE

NE VI NS ST E AV E

AN

O Wall Field

BO

¬ « 17

RO

UG

H

ST

BLVD

AV E

OL N LI NC

PL

GH

ANS

AV E

HI SU M

VETE R

RD

RD

East Rutherford Borough

RD

L

TH RD ER FO

Pierrepont Middle School

AV E

Rutherford Public Library

GE

RU

NA

m

ON AV E

GI

AT ON

NI

W HE

DA

M AR

D

WI LS

7 6 5 4 S30

Tamblyn Field

J

; G O Lincoln Park

30

W OO O DLAN

VE KA

7 6 5 4

AV E

AV E

D O

ON T

Á Rutherford À Train Station GL EN

US Post Office

RID

PL

EL

LE P PRE B R PA

G ED

EW

EP

m

Rutherford High School

Municipal Building

School

PI ER R

O

MO RT

AV E RM ITA

E E AV

m Elementary

Lincoln Woods

L

RIVE RSID

O

DO

NA PA LD SS W OO SO AI C DW N AV A AR VE E D AV E Lincoln

CA

Clifton

IM ER

k Rutherford Campus Felician College

T

507

NU

7 6 5 4

Washington Elementary School

m

AV E

RUTHERFORD BOROUGH

ES T

AV E

S32 I

CH

IC

NT WA Y ON I EA AW ST AY ER NW AY

SA

AV E

7 6 5 4

Rutherford Child Care Center

OR IE

m

PA S

FE R

AV E

W OO D

Union Elementary School

Carlstadt Borough

AV E

HI NG TO N

LE

JA C

ST

SS

KS

m

T

RO

GH

PL

W AS

7 6 5 4 32

NU

AV E

AV E

UR RB DE

VA N

W AL

PL

AV E

ON AV E

D AN GR W

RT

AV E

CT

N

ER IE

MO NT

IO

AV E AV E

A

SP E

BA

AV E

AV E

UN

A

Moonachie Borough

PR O

DA

HO

AR

GR

D

AV E RW

RIV

IN

ER S

W IN

ER IE AV AV E E

CA R AV LTO N E

YA H

IDE

Passaic

W

A

RA YM ON

AV E

ON

O Rutherford Park

¬ « 3

¬ « 3

Lyndhurst Township

North Arlington Borough

LEGEND

§ ¦ ¨

Good/Fair Sidewalk

95

Poor Sidewalk No Sidewalk

m

k ; G

School College Municipal

O À Á J

Park

Secaucus

Train Station Library

Post Office Railroads Rutherford Borough NJ Municipalities

Rutherford Borough Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Figure 4: Existing Sidewalk Condition

0

0.25

0.5 Miles

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

4.4 BICYCLE COMPATIBILITY ASSESSMENT The bicycle network includes the corridors listed in Table 10 and were evaluated to determine the bicycle compatibility of the existing roadway conditions. The assessment of bicycle compatibility utilizes a new methodology recently developed by NJDOT as part of their Statewide Bicycle Map. The methodology builds on the 1996 NJDOT Bicycle Compatible Roadways and Bikeways, Planning and Design Guidelines. The bicycle compatibility assessment considers several factors, which are listed in Table 11. Each of the factors were inventoried during field investigations, with the exception of traffic volumes. Table 11: Bicycle Compatibility Criteria Factors Evaluated Traffic Volume (AADT) Speed Limit Land Use Type (Urban/Rural) Curb Lane Width Presence of Parking Heavy Vehicle Percentage

Table 10: Bicycle Compatibility Assessment Priority Bike Corridors Riverside Avenue/Jackson Avenue (CR 507) Erie Avenue/Meadow Road (CR 32) Union Avenue (CR S32I) Park Avenue (CR 30) Passaic Avenue Pierrepont Avenue Carmita Avenue Ridge Road Orient Way Barrows Avenue/Service Road Veterans Boulevard/Highland Cross

Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) data was obtained from NJDOT’s Straight Line Diagram (SLD). For locations where traffic volume data was not available, estimates were developed using volumes from nearby roadways with similar functional classification. Estimates were verified with local officials. The Bicycle Compatibility Rating Criteria outlines three ratings of bicycle compatibility as follows: • • •

Most – Most suitable for on-road cycling. A majority of cyclists would find conditions favorable Moderate – Moderately suitable for on-road cycling. Cyclists of lesser skill and experience may find conditions unfavorable Least – Least suitable for on-road cycling. Cyclists of advanced skill and experience riding in traffic may find conditions unfavorable

A copy of the Bicycle Compatibility Rating Criteria chart is included as Part of Appendix D. The results of the bicycle compatibility assessment indicate that most roadways in the network are rated as least suitable (52%) and moderately suitable (31%) for cycling as summarized in Table 12. However, several of the segments that are currently rated as least suitable have the potential to be rated as moderately suitable. The Existing Bicycle Compatibility Matrix in Table 13 outlines a summary of existing conditions for each of the factors considered. Figure 5 illustrates the results of the existing bicycle compatible rating of the network.

17

Table 12: Existing Bicycle Compatibility Percentage Condition Miles Percentage Most 2.23 17% Moderate 4.04 31% Least 6.68 52% Total 12.95 100%

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

SRI__

00000507__

Road Name Riverside Avenue (CR 507) Jackson Avenue (CR 507)

02000030__ Park Avenue (CR 30)

02000032__

East Erie Avenue (CR 32)

Meadow Road (CR 32)

02000S321_

Union Avenue (CR S32 I)

02321147__ Ridge Road 02561124__ Pierrepont Avenue 02561126__ Carmita Avenue

02561127__ Passaic Avenue 02561132__ Orient Way Barrows Avenue/Service Road Barrows Avenue/Service Road Veterans Boulevard Highland Cross

Table 13: Existing Bicycle Compatibility Matrix Speed Between MP_START And MP_END AADT (year) Limit (mph) Rutherford Ave (CR S30) 6.26 Woodward Ave 6.89 5,000 < x < 10,000 Woodward Ave 6.89 Insley Ave 7.13 5,000 < x < 10,000 35 Insley Ave 7.13 Union Ave (CR S32 I) 7.42 5,000 < x < 10,000 Union Ave (CR S32 I) 7.42 Erie Ave (CR 32) 7.73 5,000 < x < 10,000 NJ Route 3 0.70 W Passaic Ave 1.49 5,000 < x < 10,000 35 W Passaic Ave 1.49 Erie Ave (CR 32) 1.85 5,000 < x < 10,000 25 Jackson Ave (CR 507) 0.00 Maple Ave 0.84 5,000 < x < 10,000 35 Maple Ave 0.84 Agnew Pl 1.07 5,000 < x < 10,000 35 Agnew Pl 1.07 Union Ave (CR S32 I) 1.16 5,000 < x < 10,000 25 Union Ave (CR S32 I) 1.16 Park Ave (CR 30) 1.21 5,000 < x < 10,000 25 Orient Way 1.27 Feronia Way 1.36 5,000 < x < 10,000 25 Feronia Way 1.36 NJ Route 17 1.76 5,000 < x < 10,000 25 Municipal Border 0.00 Jackson Ave 0.43 5,000 < x < 10,000 25 Jackson Ave 0.43 Wells Pl 0.51 5,000 < x < 10,000 25 Wells Pl 0.51 Springfield Ave 0.57 5,000 < x < 10,000 25 Springfield Ave 0.57 Carmita Ave 0.71 5,000 < x < 10,000 25 Carmita Ave 0.71 Home Ave 1.23 5,000 < x < 10,000 25 Home Ave 1.23 Erie Ave (CR 32) 1.41 5,000 < x < 10,000 25 Rutherford Rd (CR S30) 0.00 Passaic Ave 0.77 2,000 < x < 5,000 25 Passaic Ave 0.77 Park Ave (CR 30) 0.86 2,000 < x < 5,000 25 Riverside Ave (CR 507) 0.00 Park Ave (CR 30) 0.45 2,000 < x < 5,000 25 Park Ave (CR 30) 0.45 Ridge Rd 0.74 2,000 < x < 5,000 25 Ridge Rd 0.74 NJ Route 17 1.18 2,000 < x < 5,000 25 Erie Ave (CR 32) 0.00 Union Ave (CR S32 I) 0.35 2,000 < x < 5,000 25 West Pierrepont Union Ave (CR S32 I) 0.35 1.06 2,000 < x < 5,000 25 Ave Jackson Ave/Riverside 0.00 Montross Ave 0.33 2,000 < x < 5,000 25 Ave (CR 507) Montross Ave 0.33 Park Ave (CR 30) 0.77 2,000 < x < 5,000 25 Park Ave (CR 30) 0.77 Meadow Rd (CR 32) 1.19 2,000 < x < 5,000 25 Rutherford Ave (CR S30) 0.00 Erie Ave (CR 32) 1.08 5,000 < x < 10,000 35

Total # of Street Parking Pavement Lanes Permitted (Y/N) (ft)

Shoulder and Lane Width SB // NB (ft)

Shoulder and Lane Width WB // EB (ft)

FINAL July 2013

Existing Suitability (assuming 8' parking)

Y

40'

20'//20'

Least

2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

N(SB)/Y(NB) Y Y N N(WB)/Y(EB) Y Y (EB) Y(WB)/N(EB) N Y N N(WB)/Y(EB) Y N Y(WB)/N(EB) Y Y Y Y Y Y

35' 40' 45' 30' 38' 38' 44' 40' 30' 36' 32' 32' 36' 32' 32' 40' 40' 30' 40' 36' 36'

15'//20' 20'//20' 22.5'//22.5'

Least Least Moderate Moderate Least Least Least Least Moderate Least Moderate Moderate Least Moderate Moderate Least Least Least Least Least Least

2

Y

48'

2

Y

36'

36'

Least

2 2 2

Y Y Y

48' 36' 60'

48' 36'

Most Least Most

2

2

20'//20' 8'/12'//12'/8'

36'

15'//15' 19'//19' 19'//19' 11'/11'//11'/8' 7'/11'//11'/11' 15'//15' 18'//18' 16'//16' 12'//12'/8' 8'/10'//10'/8' 16'//16' 20'//12'

30' 40' 36'

48'

30'//30'

Most

Ridge Rd

-

Orient Way

-

5,000 < x < 10,000

25

2

Y

36'

18'//18'

Least

Orient Way

-

NJ Route 3

-

x > 10,000

40

2

N

44'

10'/12'//12'/10'

Moderate

Service Rd Veterans Blvd

-

Highland Cross NJ Route 17

-

5,000 < x < 10,000 5,000 < x < 10,000

25 25

2 2

N N

59' 36'

18

19'//30' 18'//18'

Moderate Moderate

´

Wallington Borough

O

Wood-Ridge Borough

Rutherford Memorial Park

Moonachie Borough

CA R AV LTO N E

7 6 5 4 32

AV E RO

ST W OO D

AV E

ST T NU

EVA N

VA N

OW

S

RI

PE

AV E

R

CR AV E

SA VE

NE VI NS ST E AV E

AN

O Wall Field

BO

¬ « 17

RO

UG

H

East Rutherford Borough

ST

BLVD

CR OS S

ANS

TH E RD RR

ND

NT WA Y ON I EA AW ST AY ER NW AY

E AC TE RR

SY LV AN

OS S

GE

BA

ES T

HO ME

MA P

CR

ST

MI T

FE R

AV E

HI GH LA

RD

VETE R

AV E

Rutherford Public Library

RID

RD

SU M

OL N

Pierrepont Middle School

AV E

J

; G O Lincoln Park

LI NC

AV E

PL

m

ON AV E

L

TH RD ER FO

AT ON

NI RU

NA

W HE

DA

GI

D

À Rutherford Á Train Station GL EN

US Post Office

30

Tamblyn Field

M AR

7 6 5 4

AV E

WI LS

7 6 5 4

PO NT

W OO O DLAN

VE KA

S30

PL

EL

LE P PRE B R PA

G ED

O

D O

RE

m

Rutherford High School

Municipal Building

School

PI ER

EW

MO RT

AV E RM ITA

AVE

m Elementary

Lincoln Woods

L

RIVE RSID E

O

DO

NA PA LD SS W OO SO AI C DW N AV A AR VE E D AV E Lincoln

CA

Clifton

IM ER

k Rutherford Campus Felician College

AV E

507

CH

7 6 5 4

Washington Elementary School

m

S32 I

RUTHERFORD BOROUGH

OR IE

AV E

LE

IC

SS

PL CT

7 6 5 4

Rutherford Child Care Center

SA

MO NT

m

PA S

SP E

PR O

Union Elementary School

Carlstadt Borough

AV E

W

ON AV E

KS

VA N

DE

JA C

RB

UR

GR

GH

AN

D

AV E

AV E

RA YM ON

D

DA

RW

RIV

IN

ER S

AV E

IDE

Passaic

PL

AV E

MO W NO NA ERI E AV YA AV HA E E RA W IN ER A VE GR IE AV A E AV HO E BA RT W UN AV AL IO E NU N AV T ST E W AS HI NG TO N AV m E

O Rutherford Park

¬ « 3

¬ « 3

Lyndhurst Township

North Arlington Borough

§ ¦ ¨

LEGEND

95

Most Suitable Moderately Suitable Least Suitable

m

k ;

School College Municipal Railroads Rutherford Borough NJ Municipalities

Secaucus

O À Á J G

Park Train Station Library Post Office

Rutherford Borough Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Figure 5: Existing Bicycle Compatibility

0

0.25

0.5 Miles

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

4.5 INTERSECTION ASSESSMENT Three signalized intersections and four unsignalized intersections, listed in Table 14, were evaluated to assess existing bicycle and pedestrian conditions. The intersections were selected based on crash data and feedback from the Steering Committee and the general public. The most common deficiencies at intersections include wide crossings, faded crosswalks, poor sight distance, and high vehicle speeds. A detailed assessment of all seven intersections is included in a separate document titled “Existing Conditions Memorandum” which is included in on a CD-ROM at the end of the report. Table 14: Intersection Assessment Priority Intersection Locations Signalized

Unsignalized

Union Avenue (CR S32I) and Jackson Avenue (CR 507)

Park Avenue (CR 30) and Ames Avenue

Park Avenue (CR 30) and Franklin Place

Erie Avenue (CR 32) and Feronia Way

Orient Way and Barrows Avenue

Park Avenue (CR 30) and Passaic Avenue Erie Avenue (CR 32) and Carmita Avenue

The intersections of Union Avenue and Jackson Avenue, and Park Avenue and Ames Avenue were identified as the top two intersections with the highest frequency of bicycle and pedestrian crashes. Union Avenue and Jackson Avenue The signalized intersection of Union Avenue and Jackson Avenue is a priority for improvement given it is: • A location with the highest number of pedestrian crashes. • A walking route for students to nearby Union Elementary School. • A walking route to Sunset Park. • An intersection with bus stops. • A gateway entry/exit point to/from the Union Avenue Business District, which the Borough would like to revitalize. • An intersection with a high volume of vehicular turning traffic. • An intersection with high pedestrian and bicyclist use, over 160 pedestrians and bicyclists were counted in a 2-hour period (2:00 PM to 4:00 PM). Park Avenue and Ames Avenue The intersection of Park Avenue and Ames Avenue is unique in that it is located one block away from the Rutherford Train Station and is directly impacted by the volume and flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic the train generates. Currently traffic operations at this intersection essentially stopped when NJ Transit trains arrive at the station. Vehicle travel on Park Avenue is blocked by the NJ Transit gates resulting in vehicles queuing in the traffic circle at the intersection of Park Ave, Ames Ave, Erie Ave, and Orient Way, causing gridlock and vehicle spill back onto the approach streets. The unsignalized intersection of Park Avenue and Ames Avenue is a priority for improvement given it is: • A location with the highest number of pedestrian crashes. 20

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

• • • • •

FINAL July 2013

The “Main Street” of the Borough which serves transit users, shoppers, workers, and residents to nearby services. An intersection located one block away from Train Station. An intersection with bus stops and nearby transit corridors. A gateway entry/exit point to/from adjacent communities. An intersection with a high pedestrian use, over 500 pedestrians and bicyclists were counted in a 2-hour period (4:30 PM to 6:30).

4.6 REGIONAL CONNECTIONS Regional connections are an important aspect to consider when planning bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Based on the survey conducted and input from local residents, we are aware of people visiting the Rutherford area. Since some origins and destinations of bicycle and pedestrian trips may be located outside of Rutherford Borough, research of existing and proposed regional facilities was performed. Several proposed and existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities were identified in Rutherford and in adjacent communities, which are highlighted in Figure 6 and listed below. Rutherford • Bike Ring – A preliminary proposed bicycle route. • Off-road existing bicycle/pedestrian trails along Erie Avenue and around Rutherford Memorial Park. New Jersey Meadowlands District • Meadows Path – A pedestrian trail system that includes seven miles of existing trail, and a proposed 25.5 miles trail that will follow the western bank of the Hackensack River from Losen Slote Creek Park in Little Ferry to West Hudson Park in Kearny. • Blue Water Trail – A water-borne canoe trail starts at the Mill Creek in Secaucus within the NJMC District, along the Hackensack River. East Rutherford • Existing bike lane along East Union Avenue between Dubois Street (east of Route 17) and Berrys Creek Canal. • Existing bike lane along Murray Hill Parkway between East Union Avenue and Paterson Plank Road. Lyndhurst • Carducci Pathway - Existing bicycle and pedestrian path through the Riverside County Park. Nutley • Existing bike path that runs through Kingsland Park, Memorial Park, and Booth Park from Kingsland Road to Ravine Avenue.

21

´ Wallington Borough !

!

O

!

! !

JAC KS ON AVE

AV E

!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

507

RUTHERFORD BOROUGH

k AV E

!

7 5 6 4

7 6 5 4

CA RM ITA

Carlstadt Borough

m

S32 I

PA SS DO AI W Clifton NA C OO AV LD DW E W S GL AR ON NE EN D AV W RD ! AV E E LL VR ! E EE AV ! L ! AN E P!I D ER AV !R E 30 E!P O!N T! AV !E E ! VA ! N NE ! SS ! AV ! E ! E V W A ! O K R OD ! S30 PA LA ! ND RU AV TH 17 E ER EVA NS FO AVE RD N EV INS AV BA VAN ST E RR R !C OW IPE R!A R N!E S A AV VE A !V E E!

m

Y X

!

Á À

!

RIVE RSID E AV E ST UY VE SA NT AV E

O m

Y X Y X Y X Y X Y X Y X Y X Y X Y X Y X Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

LI NC OL RID N AV MO GE MO E R RT NT D SY IM RO L VA ER TH SS NS ET H M A ER OM T AP VE AV RA W LE E E CE O CH AV OD GR ! AV ! E !OR ES O S E !IE T ! V T E N!T NU ! FE ST ! W !A RO T ! Y! NIA ST ! ! WA ! ! ! Y EA ! ! ST ! ! ER ! ! NW ! ! AY ! ! !

GR AN D !

!

!

!

!

!

!

32

!

!

!

m

!

!

!

m

7 5 6 4

!

AV E

W AL NU HA T UN W ST !S A TI! I SH ON NG CA IN !S AV GT AV RN E ON E CO EE AV R OP AV IN E E R SL E PL EY AV E

!

!

AV E

!

ER IE

!

DA RW IN

Moonachie Borough !

! !

!

! !

AV E

!

! !

Passaic

Wood-Ridge Borough

!

!

MO NO NA

7 5 6 4

;G O

J

O

¬ «

Y X

Y X

Y X

!

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

!

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X Y X

Y X

Y X

!

Y X

Y X

!

Y X

Y X

VET ERA NS BLV D

m

!

7 5 6 4

O

East Rutherford Borough

O

Y X Y X

!

Y X

Y X

!

Y X

!

Y X

¬ «

Y X Y X

3

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

Y X

Y X

! ! !

! ! !

!

!

!

¬ « 3

!

! ! !

!

!

! ! !

Lyndhurst Township

North Arlington Borough

§ ¦ ¨ 95

Secaucus

LEGEND ! ! !

Rutherford Draft Bike Ring Existing Bike/Ped Trail Existing Bike Lane

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Existing Meadows Path Trail Existing Park Trail Proposed Meadows Path Trail Water Trail

m

k ; G

School College Municipal

O À Á J

Park Train Station Library

Post Office Railroads Rutherford Borough NJ Municipalities

Rutherford Borough Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Figure 6: Regional Connections

0

0.25

0.5 Miles

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

In support of the statewide bicycle and pedestrian master plan, Borough of Rutherford Master Plan, and Rutherford’s 2025 Vision Statement, recommendations have been developed to improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities as part of the bicycle and pedestrian network in Rutherford. The recommendations include priority sidewalk improvement locations, proposed bicycle facilities, and conceptual schematic designs for select locations. The concepts include Complete Streets principles, which serve to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and mobility. Collectively, the recommendations provide Rutherford with a blueprint to guide the development of a comprehensive network for biking and walking. The Borough of Rutherford is aware that it is ultimately responsible for initiating the implementation of future improvements. In the case of roadways under State jurisdiction, NJDOT policy dictates that it is the responsibility of the Borough (applicant) to complete a Problem Statement and submit it to NJDOT Capital Investment Planning and Development. NJDOT makes no guarantee of any kind that recommendations will be advanced for further study. The overall recommendations developed for this study are summarized as follows: 1. Improve pedestrian safety at high crash locations, with a focus on Park Avenue, Passaic Avenue and Union Avenue. 2. Provide exclusive bicycle facilities within the street network using bicycle lanes, shared lanes, and shared lane markings. 3. Develop a consistent and ongoing education and enforcement program to increase motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists’ behaviors to obey the rules of the road. 4. Implement Complete Streets Policy and prioritize bicycle and pedestrian access to major destinations.

5.1 PEDESTRIAN FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS A majority of the corridors evaluated within the pedestrian network include sidewalks that are in Fair to Good condition. However, 18% of the corridors assessed are missing sidewalks including the following locations: • Westbound Erie Avenue/Meadow Road (CR 32). • Eastbound and westbound Service Road. • Westbound Pierrepont Avenue between Riverside Avenue and Montross Avenue. • Southbound Riverside Avenue between Rutherford Avenue and south of Pierrepont Avenue. The installation of sidewalks is recommended to increase pedestrian safety and accessibility. Table 15 outlines a prioritized list of the poor and missing sidewalks. Sidewalk prioritization ratings are listed in order of importance and are based on crash data, public feedback and the ability to: • Complete a critical gap in sidewalk network • Extend existing sidewalk connectivity • Connect to major destinations (schools, transit, employment) Implementing the priority sidewalk locations would provide an additional 5.4 miles to the pedestrian network in Rutherford Borough. Figure 7 illustrates each of the recommended priority sidewalk locations.

23

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

Rating

Road Name

Direction

Table 15: Recommended Priority Sidewalk Implementation/Maintenance Sidewalk Limits MP Major Contributing Factors Condition

1

Orient Way

SB

From Barrows Ave. to Winslow Pl.

0.06 – 0.50

Poor Sidewalk

2

Pierrepont Avenue

WB

From Riverside Ave. to Montross Ave.

0.00 – 0.18

No Sidewalk

From Carmita Ave. to Montross Ave. 3

4

5

Union Avenue Jackson Avenue Barrows Avenue Service Road

0.17 – 0.86 Poor Sidewalk

WB

NB EB WB & EB

From Hackett Pl. to Wood St.

0.95 – 1.00

From Passaic Ave. to Francisco Ave.

7.05 – 7.19

Poor Sidewalk

From Ridge Rd. to Orient Way

Not Available Not Available

No Sidewalk

From Orient Way to Route 3 From Ridge Rd. to Sylvan St.

EB

7

Riverside Avenue

SB

From Rutherford Ave. to Governeur Ave.

6.26 – 6.45

No Sidewalk

8

Erie Avenue

EB

From Chestnut St. to Agnew Pl.

1.01 – 1.07

Poor Sidewalk

9

Pierrepont Avenue

WB & EB

From Eastern Way to Elycroft Pkwy.

1.09 – 1.14

Poor Sidewalk

10

Erie Avenue/ Meadow Road

WB

From Jackson Ave. to Route 17

0.00 – 1.76

No Sidewalk

From Mountain Way to Orient Way

Transit Corridor • Connects directly to Train Station Safe Routes to School • Directly adjacent to Lincoln Elementary School • Existing gap in sidewalk network Safe Routes to School and Transit Corridor • In immediate vicinity of Rutherford Child Care Center and Washington Elementary School • Sidewalk network in need of repair Safe Routes to School • In immediate vicinity of Union Elementary School Bus Stop and Access to Major Destinations • Existing gap in sidewalk network • Speed limit is 40 mph • Connection to the Meadowlands

0.84 – 0.91

Passaic Avenue

6

FINAL July 2013

Poor Sidewalk

Access to Major Destinations

0.96 – 1.03

24

Gap in Connectivity • Connection to Lyndhurst Township Train Station and Access to Major Destinations • Sidewalk network in need of repair • Connects directly to train station • Access to parks and fields Gap in Connectivity • Sidewalk network in need of repair Access to Major Destinations • Connects directly to train station • Access to parks and fields

´

Wallington Borough

O

Wood-Ridge Borough

Rutherford Memorial Park

ER

7 6 5 4

AV E

ST

AV E

ITA RM

7 6 5 4 S32 I

OW

S

N IA

AV E

Y KW

RID

5 " RR

¬ «

UG

H

ST

S BL VD

9 " 1 "

BO RO

17

LV AN

GE

RD

ON BA

O Wall Field

O

RAN

LI

WA Y

PL

Rutherford Park

VET E

W

10 "

NT

TA IN LO

Pierrepont Middle School

AV E

WI LS

CH

AV E N

OL NC

PL

AT ON

IN S

East Rutherford Borough

6 "

RO

ND

6 "

FE

LA

W

m

AV E

OO D

; G O Lincoln Park

ST

O Tamblyn Field

S30

AV E

VE KA

W

7 6 5 4

AV E

NI EL

PL

R PA

7 6 5 4 30

NT

HE

PO

W

EW

D O

RE

DA

PL BL E

G

O

ER

À Rutherford Á Train Station

J Rutherford Public Library

WA Y

School

7 "

ED

Municipal Building

SY

2 "

PI

PR E

US Post Office

Lincoln

m Elementary

UN

O

MO

RIVER

m Rutherford R U T H E R F O R D High School BOROUGH

Lincoln Woods

8 "

ES TN AG UT NE ST W PL

Rutherford Campus Felician College

SIDE

Washington Elementary School

WA Y

k

AV E

AV E

FT P

IC

E

CRO

SA

3 " m

AV E

AVE

PA S

RS

NW AY

507

Rutherford Child Care Center

HA CK ET W T OO PL D ST

FR AN CI SC O

3 "

m

" MO

RO

JA C

7 6 5 4

CA

ON

GR A

KS

m

Union Elementary School

Carlstadt Borough

10

OR IE

T

ELY

O RA YM

NU

T ER

ND

32

W AL

AV E

ND

AV E

4 "

Clifton

IE

EA S

AV E

SS

RA

DA

IO N

AV E

UN

Moonachie Borough

AV E

NT

IN G

RW

IN

W

NA

AV E

AV E

Passaic

MO

NO

AV E

MO

5 " SE RV I

CE

RD

¬ « 3

Lyndhurst Township

North Arlington Borough

LEGEND

"#

§ ¦ ¨

Priority Sidewalk Implementation

95

Poor Sidewalk No Sidewalk

m

k ; G

School College Municipal

O À Á J

Park

Secaucus

Train Station Library

Post Office Railroads Rutherford Borough

Rutherford Borough Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Figure 7: Recommended Priority Sidewalk Locations

NJ Municipalities January 2013

0

0.25

0.5 Miles

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

5.2 BICYCLE FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS A bicycle network is proposed to accommodate bicycle trips to major land uses using public roadways. The proposed recommendations enhance roadways for the use by bicyclists through appropriate signing, striping and markings. The following is a description of common bicycle facility types, innovative facilities that can be implemented despite common constraints, and recommended facility improvements specific to Rutherford. 5.2.1 Bicycle Facility Types NJDOT’s Planning and Design Guidelines for Bicycle Compatible Roadways and Bikeways outline the types of on-road bicycle facilities that were considered for Rutherford’s roadway network: Bicycle Lane, Paved Shoulder, and Shared Lane. Specific roadway attributes (pavement width, parking provisions, traffic volumes, posted speed limit, etc.) were assessed to determine the feasibility of each facility under existing conditions. These concepts have been successfully applied on urban and suburban roadway networks in NJ and throughout the US to provide improved bicycle travel. The following is a description of common bicycle facilities: Bike Lane Bicycle lanes are designated travel lanes for exclusive or preferential use by bicyclists, and are typically 5 to 6 feet in width. Bicycle lanes are often located on roadways in urban settings with moderate to high vehicular traffic volumes, moderate to high posted speeds and permitted or designated on-street parking. According to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, bicycle lanes must include the words “bike lane” or the bike lane symbol; they may be accompanied by bike lane signs. They encourage bicyclists to ride in the bicycle lane as opposed to the sidewalk and they increase the compliance of bicyclists with traffic controls. Paved Shoulders A paved shoulder accommodates bicyclists on the roadway shoulder adjacent to vehicular travel lanes. Paved shoulders can be located on urban or rural roadways with moderate to high vehicular traffic volumes and moderate to high posted speeds. Paved shoulders for bicyclists typically range in width from 4 to 6 feet, and are occasionally supplemented with ‘Share the Road’ warning signs. Shoulders are used in a variety of circumstances. Bicyclists appreciate them because they indicate an area of roadway in which motorists normally do not encroach. On roadways where the roadway cross section does not allow for a 5-foot bike lane, 3- to 4-foot shoulders can be striped to provide a visual delineation between the vehicle lane and the shoulder where bicycles may ride. Studies show that on roadways without on-street parking, the effect of shoulders is similar to bike lanes.

26

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

Shared Lane A shared lane accommodates bicyclists and motorists in the same travel lane. Shared lanes can be located on roadways with low vehicular traffic volumes and low posted speeds, and are occasionally supplemented with ‘Share the Road’ warning signs. Wide outside travel lanes (ideally 14+ feet) are often desired for shared lane facilities. Shared Lane Markings Informally referred to as “sharrows,” shared lane markings are a sub-category of shared lanes; bicyclists shared the road with motorists, but markings guide bicyclists with lateral positioning, unlike the typical shared lane. The sharrow markings comprise two chevrons together with a bicyclist symbol, with the center of the chevron marked 11 feet from the curb on streets with parking, and 4 feet from the curb on streets without parking. These markings are placed after intersections and spaced at intervals of at least every 250 feet. They should be accommodated by “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” signs (MUTCD R4-11). They are particularly recommended for use on urban streets with on-street parking where bike lanes cannot be accommodated. Sharrows have been approved for inclusion in the 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Bike Path Bike paths (often referred to as shared use paths, since they accommodate a variety of non-motorized users, especially pedestrians) are bikeways that are physically separated from motorized traffic by an open space or barrier.

5.2.2 Innovative Bicycle Facilities In certain situations, traditional bicycle facilities (e.g., bicycle lanes) may not achieve desired results due to the nature of the existing roadway network. For this reason, the application of innovative facilities can be utilized to make important connections that would otherwise be unavailable through traditional means. The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide provides details for innovative bicycle facility treatments that are not directly referenced in the current versions of the AASHTO Guide to Bikeway Facilities or the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The Federal Highway Administration has recently posted information regarding approval status of various bicycle related treatments not covered in the MUTCD, including many of the treatments provided in the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide. All of the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide treatments are in use internationally and in many cities around the US.

27

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

Three examples of innovative facilities are presented below. The buffered bike lane is a proposed bicycle facility treatment in Rutherford. The others may be applicable for future improvements to bicycle compatibility in Rutherford. Advance Stop Line “Bicycle Box” The Advance Stop Line or “Bicycle Box” is a roadway treatment developed to provide cyclists with the space to position themselves for turning movements at signalized intersections. This treatment marks an area for bicyclists in front of stopped vehicles at signalized intersections. Similar to High Visibility Bicycle Lanes, current applications use a contrasting surface color to mark the entire area occupied by the bicycle box and to enhance visibility. A prominent example of this treatment currently in use and under evaluation is in Portland, Oregon. Bicycle Boulevard A Bicycle Boulevard is a roadway on which bicycle travel receives priority over vehicular traffic. Typical applications are found on local roadways with low volumes, which are intended to serve as low-speed “arterials” for bicycle travel. Bicycle boulevards typically include bicycle route signage and other physical diversions that allow for the passage of bicycles, and discourage or slow vehicular through traffic. Intersecting streets are usually stop controlled, giving full right-of-way to the travelling bicyclist.

Source: BikePortland.org

Source: BIKESAFE

Buffered Bike Lane Buffered bike lanes 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. A buffered bike lane is allowed as per MUTCD guidelines for buffered preferential lanes (section 3D-01).

5.2.3 Rutherford Recommended Bicycle Facilities The recommended bicycle facilities are proposed to improve bicycle compatibility and accessibility in Rutherford. They include a variety of bicycle facility treatments such as bike lanes, bike lanes with buffer, and shared lanes. The recommendations are intended to be implemented within the existing cross-section of the roadway as part of re-surfacing, restriping or other roadway reconstruction projects.

28

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

Bike lanes are the most preferred type of on-road bicycle facility and there are several opportunities to install them on roadways throughout Rutherford. The installation of bike lanes could be integrated by reducing the width of existing travel lanes, striping the parking lane as part of the bike lane, and designating existing shoulders. In locations, where sufficient roadway width is available, a buffer could be included adjacent to a bike lane or parking lane. The buffer provides an added separation between the bike lane and vehicular travel lane or parking lane. A buffer is preferred by less skilled cyclists when higher traffic volumes and speeds are present. When recommended adjacent to on-street parking, the buffer provides added space for cyclists to keep out of the “door zone”. In locations where space is constrained and bike lanes cannot be accommodated, shared lanes are proposed. Shared lanes are used mutually by vehicles and bicycles. Under these conditions, it is recommended that Shared Lane Marking, also referred to as sharrows, be incorporated to reinforce this shared use. The Proposed Bicycle Compatibility Matrix, Table 16, outlines specific details of the recommended cross-section to incorporate bike facilities within the existing cross-section. Figure 8 illustrates the results of the Bicycle Compatibility Analysis. Additional recommendations to improve bicycle compatibility and accessibility are noted in the comments section of the Proposed Bicycle Compatibility Matrix. The recommended bicycle facilities improve bicycle compatibility in Rutherford. Roadways rated as “Moderate” would increase by 15% from 4.04 miles to 5.92 miles. Correspondingly, the roads rated as “Least” compatible would decrease by 15%, while the roads rated as “Most” compatible remain at 17%. Table 17 provides a summary of Bicycle Compatibility Percentage under the proposed conditions.

Table 17: Proposed Bicycle Compatibility Percentage Condition Miles Percentage Most 2.23 17% Moderate 5.92 46% Least 4.80 37% Total 12.95 100%

5.3 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS & CONCEPTUAL SCHEMATICS Specific locations of conceptual plans were selected to illustrate a variety of solutions to address both bicycle and pedestrian deficiencies. It should be noted that additional planning and design is required to fully determine the feasibility of each of the concepts recommended. Figure 9 through Figure 14 illustrate the proposed concept-level layouts at four specific intersections.

29

RUTHERFORD BOROUGH BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

Road Name

Riverside Avenue (CR 507)

Jackson Avenue (CR 507)

Park Avenue (CR 30)

East Erie Avenue (CR 32)

Meadow Road (CR 32)

Union Avenue (CR S32 I)

Ridge Road

Between

And

Speed Limit (mph)

Table 16: Proposed Bicycle Compatibility Matrix Street Parking Shoulder and Shoulder and # of Permitted Lane Width Lane Width Lanes (Y/N) SB // NB (ft) WB // EB (ft)

Rutherford Ave (CR S30)

Woodward Ave

Woodward Ave

Insley Ave

Insley Ave

Union Ave (CR S32 I)

Union Ave (CR S32 I)

Erie Ave (CR 32)

NJ Route 3

W Passaic Ave

35

W Passaic Ave

Erie Ave (CR 32)

25

Jackson Ave (CR 507)

Maple Ave

35

2

N

Maple Ave

Agnew Pl

35

2

Agnew Pl

Union Ave (CR S32 I)

25

Union Ave (CR S32 I)

Park Ave (CR 30)

Orient Way

35

2

Y

20'//20'

Proposed Compatibility

Recommendation

Moderate

5'/11'//11'/5'/8'

Moderate

5'/11'//11'/5'/8'

Moderate

5'/11'//11'/5'/8'

FINAL July 2013

Comments 5’ bike lane, restrict parking to one side (recommend southbound) 5’ bike lane, restrict parking to one side (recommend southbound) 5’ bike lane, restrict parking to one side (recommend southbound)

N(SB)/Y(NB)

15'//20'

Moderate

14'//14'/7'

Y

20'//20'

Least

7’/13’//13’/7’

Y

22.5'//22.5'

Moderate

7’/4.5’/11’//11’/4.5’/7’

15'//15'

Moderate

4’/11’//11’/4’

4’ shoulder, install Share The Road signs

N(WB)/Y(EB)

19'//19'

Moderate

4’/11’//11’/4’/8’

4’ shoulder, install Share The Road signs

2

Y

19'//19'

Moderate

4'/11'//11'/4'/8'

4’ shoulder, install Share The Road signs, restrict parking on Eastbound and stripe edge line of on-street parking

25

3

Y (EB)

11'/11'//11'/8'

Least

Maintain existing cross-section

Install shared lane marking (sharrows)

Feronia Way

25

3

Y(WB)/N(EB)

7'/11'//11'/11'

Moderate

8’/5’/11’//11’/5’

5’ bike lane with removing of SB right turn lane

Feronia Way

NJ Route 17

25

2

N

15'//15'

Moderate

Maintain existing cross-section

Install Share The Road signs

Municipal Border

Jackson Ave

25

2

Y

18'//18'

Least

Maintain existing cross-section

use alternative street for bike route (recommend Riverside to Washington with shared conditions and sharrows)

Jackson Ave

Wells Pl

25

2

N

16'//16'

Moderate

4'/12'//12'/4'

Wells Pl

Springfield Ave

25

2

N(WB)/Y(EB)

12'//12'/8'

Moderate

Maintain existing cross-section

Springfield Ave

Carmita Ave

25

2

Y

8'/10'//10'/8'

Least

Maintain existing cross-section

Carmita Ave

Home Ave

25

2

N

16'//16'

Moderate

4'/12'//12'/4'

Home Ave

Erie Avenue (CR 32)

25

2

Y(WB)/N(EB)

20'//12'

Moderate

8'/12'//12'

Rutherford Rd (CR S30)

Passaic Ave

25

2

Y

20'//20'

Moderate

7’/13’//13’/7’

Passaic Ave

Park Ave (CR 30)

25

2

Y

8'/12'//12'/8'

Moderate

7’/13’//13’/7’

2

30

Shared lane, install Share The Road signs Stripe edge line of on-street parking 4.5’ shoulder, install Share The Road signs

4’ shoulder, install Share The Road signs use alternative street for bike route (recommend Riverside to Washington with shared conditions and sharrows) use alternative street for bike route (recommend Riverside to Washington with shared conditions and sharrows) 4’ shoulder, install Share The Road signs Stripe on-street parking on westbound, install shared lane markings (sharrows) Install Share The Road signs and stripe on-street parking Install Share The Road signs and stripe on-street parking

RUTHERFORD BOROUGH BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

Road Name

Pierrepont Avenue

Carmita Avenue

Passaic Avenue

Between

And

Speed Limit (mph)

# of Lanes

Street Parking Permitted (Y/N)

Shoulder and Lane Width SB // NB (ft)

Shoulder and Lane Width WB // EB (ft)

Proposed Suitability

Recommendation

Riverside Ave (CR 507)

Park Ave (CR 30)

25

2

Y

30'

Least

Maintain existing cross-section

Park Ave (CR 30)

Ridge Rd

25

2

Y

40'

Least

Maintain existing cross-section

Ridge Rd

NJ Route 17

25

2

Y

36'

Least

Maintain existing cross-section

Erie Ave (CR 32) Union Ave (CR S32 I)

Union Ave (CR S32 I) West Pierrepont Ave

25 25

2 2

Y Y

Least Most

Maintain existing cross-section 8'/5'/11'//11'/5'/8'

Jackson Ave/Riverside Ave (CR 507)

Montross Ave

25

2

Y

36'

Least

Maintain existing cross-section

Montross Ave Park Ave (CR 30)

Park Ave (CR 30) Meadow Rd (CR 32)

25 25

2 2

Y Y

48' 36'

Most Least

8'/5'/11'//11'/5'/8' 18'//18'

Most

4'/2'/7'/12'//10'//12'/7'/2'/4' Or 7’/4’/2’/12’//10’//12’/2’/4’/7’

36' 48'

Orient Way

Rutherford Ave (CR S30)

Erie Ave (CR 32)

35

2

Y

30'//30'

Barrows Avenue/Service Road

Ridge Rd

Orient Way

25

2

Y

18'//18'

Least

n/a - under construction

Barrows Avenue/Service Road

Orient Way

NJ Route 3

40

2

N

10'/12'//12'/10'

Moderate

6'/4'/12'//12'/4'/6'

Veterans Boulevard

Service Rd

Highland Cross

25

2

N

19'//30'

Moderate

8'/5'/11'//11'/11'/5'/8'

Highland Cross

Veterans Blvd

NJ Route 17

25

2

N

18'//18'

Moderate

6'/12'//12'/6'

31

FINAL July 2013

Comments Install shared lane markings (sharrows), (conduct parking utilization study and public outreach to determine if parking can be restricted to one side so that bike lanes can be added) Install shared lane markings (sharrows), (conduct parking utilization study and public outreach to determine if parking can be restricted to one side so that bike lanes can be added) Install shared lane markings (sharrows), (conduct parking utilization study and public outreach to determine if parking can be restricted to one side so that bike lanes can be added) Install shared lane markings (sharrows) 5’ bike lane Install shared lane markings (sharrows), (conduct parking utilization study and public outreach to determine if parking can be restricted to one side so that bike lanes can be added) 5’ bike lane Install shared lane markings (sharrows) 4’ bike lane with buffer on the outside (adjacent to curb) or 4’ bike lane with buffer on the inside (adjacent to travel lane) Shared lane markings (sharrows), (conduct parking utilization study and public outreach to determine if parking can be restricted to one side so that bike lanes can be added) 6’ bike lane with buffer 5’ bike lane with parking and center median/turning lane 6’ bike lane

´

Wallington Borough

O

Wood-Ridge Borough

Rutherford Memorial Park

MO NO NA AV YA HA E RA W IN A VE GR A AV HO E BA RT UN AV IO E N AV E

Moonachie Borough AV E D

AV E RO

SS

PL

ST

AV E

S

RI

PE

AV E

T W

R

CR AV E

O Wall Field

SA VE

NE VI NS ST E AV E

17

BLVD

¬ «

East Rutherford Borough

AN S

FE R

TE RR

TH E OW

NE

NT WA Y ON I EA AW ST AY ER NW AY

CR OS S

EVA N

VA N

PL

NU ES T

CH

ND

OR IE

AC

E

OS S

RD RR

ST

AV E

HO ME

CR

ST

MI T

SY LV AN

Lincoln Elementary School

BA

AG

AV E IM ER

AV E

OL N

HI GH LA

RD

VETE R

AV E

SU M

RID

RD

MA P

; G O Lincoln Park

LI NC

m

AV E

J

Rutherford Public Library

GE

D

M AR

GI N R U AL TH RD ER FO

PL

AV E Tamblyn Field

AT ON

EL

W OO O DLAN

W HE

R PA

VE KA

À Rutherford Á Train Station GL EN

US Post Office

30

ON AV E

S30

D O

7 6 5 4

AV E

WI LS

7 6 5 4

O

PL

NI

EW

PO NT

DA

LE P

L

RE

m

Rutherford High School

Municipal Building

School

PI ER

G ED

DO

m Elementary

Lincoln Woods

MO RT

Rutherford Campus Felician College

NA PA LD SS W OO SO AI C DW N AV A AR VE E D AV E Pierrepont

Washington Elementary School

m

S32 I

AV E RM ITA

O

W OO D

IN GF IE L SP R

7 6 5 4

LE

AV E D

m

Rutherford Child Care Center

k

CA

AVE

AV E

Carlstadt Borough

MEAD OW R D

RIVE RSID E

HI NG TO N

RUTHERFORD BOROUGH

507

Clifton

ST

CT

m

7 6 5 4 32

T

MO NT

RA YM ON W AS

NU

SP E

ON AV E

W AL

AV E

PR O

DE VA N

7 6 5 4

PRE B

ER IE

Union Elementary School

JA C

RB

KS

UR

GR

GH

AN

D

AV E

AV E

DA

RW

IN

AV E

Passaic

O Rutherford Park

AN

¬ « 3

¬ « 3

Lyndhurst Township

LEGEND

North Arlington

Most Suitable - most suitable for on-road B o rwould o u gfindh cycling. A majority of cyclists conditions favorable.

Moderately Suitable - moderately suitable for on-road cycling. Cyclists of lesser skill and experience may find conditions unfavorable.

§ ¦ ¨

Least Suitable - least suitable for on-road cycling. Cyclists of advanced skill and experience may find conditions unfavorable.

95

Recommended as most suitable based on feedback from the Rutherford Green Team

m

k ;

School College Municipal Railroads

O À Á J G

Secaucus

Park Train Station Library Post Office

Rutherford Borough Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan

Rutherford Borough

Figure 8: Proposed Bicycle Compatibility

NJ Municipalities January 2013

0

0.25

0.5 Miles

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

Figure 9: Orient Way Proposed Corridor – Typical Cross-Section Shown at Pierrepont Avenue (Concept 1)

N

Pierrepont Ave Stripe bike lane through intersection W11-2 W16-7P

Stripe on-street parking

W11-2 W16-7P

EXISTING BUS STOP

4’ Bike Lane 2’ Buffer 7’ Parking Spaces 12’ Travel Lane

60’

High visibility crosswalks

Orient Way

10’ Median and Turning Lane 12’ Travel Lane 7’ Parking Space

EXISTING BUS STOP

2’ Buffer 4’ Bike Lane

Stripe on-street parking W11-2

W11-2

W16-7P

Curb extension to reduce pedestrian crossing distance

W16-7P

Stripe bike lane through intersection

Scale: NTS June 2013

33

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

Figure 10: Orient Way Proposed Corridor – Typical Cross-Section Shown at Pierrepont Avenue (Concept 2)

N

Pierrepont Ave Stripe bike lane through intersection W11-2 W16-7P

Stripe on-street parking

W11-2 W16-7P

EXISTING BUS STOP

7’ Parking Spaces 4’ Bike Lane 2’ Buffer 12’ Travel Lane

60’

High visibility crosswalks

Orient Way

10’ Median and Turning Lane 12’ Travel Lane 2’ Buffer 4’ Bike Lane

EXISTING BUS STOP

7’ Parking Space

Stripe on-street parking W11-2

W11-2 W16-7P

Curb extension to reduce pedestrian crossing distance

W16-7P

Stripe bike lane through intersection

Scale: NTS June 2013

34

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

Orient Way Proposed Corridor The proposed concept 1 includes a 4’ bike lane adjacent to the curb, 2’ buffer, 7’ parking lane with a bus stop, and one 12’ travel lane in each direction and a 10’ center turn lane/center median. Concept 2 is similar in dimensions but the 4’ bike lane and 2’ buffer are located adjacent to the travel lane. The proposed concepts can be accommodated within the existing 60’ wide roadway. Curb extensions, high visibility crosswalks, and striped on-street parking are also recommended. The buffered bike lane, also known as a protected cycle track, is used in many cities including New York, Denver, Chicago, San Francisco, and Portland.

Example of center turn lane, Charlotte, NC Source: Baker

Benefits: reduce vehicle travel speeds, reduce pedestrian crossing distances, provide formal bicycle facilities.

Example of buffer lane, Denver, CO Source: Denver Urbanism

Example of bike lane through intersection, New York, NY Source: LGRAB

35

Example of raised median Source: Streetswiki

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

Figure 11: Park Avenue and Ames Avenue Proposed Intersection

N

Decorative intersection treatment. W11-2 W16-7P

Curb extension to reduce cross-section

Nail Salon

Chase Bank W11-2 W16-7P

Train Station Stripe on-street parking

General Store Coccia Realty

High visibility crosswalk

W11-2 W16-7P

Scale: NTS June 2013

36

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

Park Avenue and Ames Avenue Proposed Intersection The proposed plan includes curb extensions, high visibility crosswalks, decorative intersection treatment, left turn restrictions, flashing pedestrian warning signs, “stop for pedestrians” in-road bollards, striped on-street parking, and removal of two parking spaces. Left turns from eastbound Park Avenue onto Ames Avenue should be prohibited. This movement can be accommodated by directing a vehicle to turn around via the roundabout and return westbound on Park Avenue to make a right onto Ames Avenue. Additionally, left turns from Ames Avenue onto eastbound Park Avenue should be prohibited during AM & PM peak hours. The “No Left Turn” sign (R3-2, 2009 MUTCD) should be modified to include a sub-plate which outlines the peak hour time restrictions. It is recommended to remove two parking spaces; one from the northeast corner, and one from the northwest corner of Park Avenue at Ames Avenue. Currently these spaces block the visibility of people attempting to cross either Ames Avenue or Park Avenue in the crosswalk.

Example of high visibility crosswalk, Charlotte, NC Source: Baker

Example of curb extension, Kirkland, WA Source: BPIC Carl Sundstrom

The concept intent is to improve pedestrian safety by reducing crossing distance, limiting turning conflicts, and improving the visibility of pedestrians at the intersection.

Example of pedestrian warning sign, Charlotte, NC Source: Baker

Example of decorative intersection, Ocean City, NJ Source: Baker

Example of in-road bollard, Rutherford, NJ Source: Baker

37

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

Figure 12: Park Avenue and Passaic Avenue Proposed Intersection (Concept 1)

Day Care Center W11-2 W16-7P

Public Library

High visibility crosswalk

N

W11-2 W16-7P

Center turning lane

W11-2

Pedestrian plaza

W16-7P

W11-2 W16-7P

W11-2

Post Office

W16-7P

Monument

Curb extension to reduce cross-section

High visibility crosswalk and median island

Curb extension to reduce cross-section

Stripe on-street parking W11-2 W16-7P

W11-2 W16-7P

Office

W11-2 W16-7P

Median island

Scale: NTS January 2013

38

High visibility crosswalk

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

Figure 13: Park Avenue and Passaic Avenue Proposed Intersection (Concept 2) Public Library

Day Care Center High visibility crosswalk

W11-2 W16-7P

Pedestrian Plaza

N W11-2 W16-7P

W11-2

Center turning lane W16-7P

High visibility crosswalk and median island

W11-2 W16-7P

Median island

W11-2 W16-7P

Post Office

Curb extension to reduce cross-section

Sidewalk

Curb extension to reduce cross-section W11-2 W16-7P W11-2 W16-7P

Office

W11-2 W16-7P

Median island High visibility crosswalk

Scale: NTS January 2013

39

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

Park Avenue and Passaic Avenue Proposed Intersection The proposed plan for Concept 1 includes curb extensions, high visibility crosswalks, center left turn lane, access management, median island, pedestrian plazas, and parking. The intersection was realigned to reduce the number of access points, organize turning traffic, and reduce the number of conflict points between turning vehicles and pedestrians. The intersection realignment provides an opportunity to include pedestrian plazas in the areas of excess asphalt. This intersection is a prime location to include pedestrian plazas given that it is in an area with a high level of pedestrian activity due to the surrounding civic buildings, library, and post office. The addition of the pedestrian plaza will increase the popularity of this location as a gathering place for the community. The proposed plan for Concept 2 includes many of the same improvements as Concept 1, such as curb extensions, high visibility crosswalks, center left turn lane, and median islands. However, Concept 2 utilizes curb extensions and medians to reduce pedestrian exposure and direct turning traffic around the existing monument.

Example of Pedestrian Plaza, Union Square, NYC Source: NYC DOT

Example of Pedestrian Plaza, Painted Asphalt, NYC Source: NYC DOT

As a next step, traffic studies should be conducted at this intersection to consider turning restrictions and a reduction in the number of intersecting streets entering the intersection.

The concept intent is to improve the safety of all users by reducing crossing distance, reducing access points and the number of turning conflicts, improving the visibility of pedestrians at the intersection, and providing a public space for pedestrians.

Example of Painted Center Turn Lane, Orlando, FL Source: Great Streets

Example of Pedestrian Plaza, NYC Source: NYC DOT 40

Example of curb extension, Long Beach, CA Source: studionelevenblog

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

Figure 14: Erie Avenue and Jackson Avenue Proposed Intersection 40’

N Memorial Park

Stripe shoulder

Proposed Sidewalk

Curb extension to reduce crosssection to 40’, and extend existing sidewalk to Erie Avenue

W11-2 W16-7P

W11-2

15’

15’ 10’

Decorative intersection treatment; combined effort by students/residents of Rutherford Borough and Wallington Borough

W16-7P

8’ 14’ 14’

15’ 10’ 15’ 10’

Stripe on-street parking

W11-2

Curb extension to reduce cross-section

W11-2

W16-7P

W16-7P

Extend cross-section to Washington Avenue South

Stripe on-street parking

Scale: NTS January 2013

41

50’ 35’ Erie Avenue

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

Erie Avenue and Jackson Avenue Proposed Intersection The proposed concept includes shared travel lanes, curb extensions, sidewalk, high visibility crosswalks, decorative intersection treatment, striped on-street parking and shoulder, median, and turn lane. The concept includes striping through and turn lanes, on-street parking, shoulder, and median. A shared lane (using Sharrows) of either 14’ or 15’ is incorporated in through lanes to/from the intersection, with the exception of the south leg, which is 13.5’. Curb extensions, a median, and on-street parking are included to reduce the crossing distance and serve as traffic calming features to slow vehicular traffic. A decorative intersection treatment functions as a gateway treatment reinforcing the entry into Rutherford and also serves as a traffic calming feature. The intersection design should be pursued as a mutual effort between Rutherford and Wallington Borough.

Example of raised median, Charlotte, NC Source: Baker

Example of sharrows, Princeton, NJ Source: Baker

The proposed concept will be accommodated within the existing roadway width and is intended to improve pedestrian safety, accommodate bicyclists, and calm traffic.

Erie Avenue Existing Cross-Section 19' Westbound Right Turn Only Lane

16' Westbound Travel Lane

15' Eastbound Travel Lane

50' Roadway

Erie Avenue Proposed Cross-Section 10' Westbound Right Turn Only Lane

15' Westbound Travel Lane

10' Raised Median

15' Eastbound Travel Lane

Example of striped parking edge line, Columbus, OH Source: PBIC, D. Burden

50' Roadway

Sharrow 4'

Example of striped shoulder, Galloway, NJ Source: Baker

Sharrow 4'

42

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

6. IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING

The recommendations outlined as part of this Master Plan provide an opportunity to enhance biking and walking throughout Rutherford. There are multiple opportunities to improve bicycle and pedestrian access and mobility. The following sections provide guidance on coordination, planning, and funding sources that can serve as a resource for advancing and implementing the proposed facilities throughout Rutherford. The Borough of Rutherford is aware that it is ultimately responsible for initiating the implementation of future improvements that are recommended as part of the study. In the case of roadways under State jurisdiction, NJDOT policy dictates that it is the responsibility of the Borough (applicant) to complete a Problem Statement, and submit it to NJDOT Capital Investment Planning and Development. NJDOT makes no guarantee of any kind that recommendations will be advanced for further study.

6.1 COORDINATION EFFORTS Coordination between Rutherford, neighboring communities, and Bergen County should be initiated to advance improvements for bicycle and pedestrian accommodations on roadways in Rutherford. A potential next step could be the formation of a working group (e.g., Bike/Ped Task Force) to pursue opportunities and resources to support the design and implementation of the facilities. The working group could assist with advancing priority recommendations and build upon the preliminary network and regional connections identified in this plan, as well as identify opportunities for improving biking and walking through future development. Representatives from the Green Team, School Board, and general public should be included as part of the working group.

6.2 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Rutherford can also support the implementation of bicycle and pedestrian improvements by ensuring that development and redevelopment plans and proposals are consistent with the recommendations made as part of this plan. Rutherford can strengthen their zoning regulations and development standards by requiring and recommending minimum standards. They may consider adopting one or more of the following 1: • • • • • •

RECOMMEND that bicycle and pedestrian access be included as part of all development proposals. REQUIRE that bicycle and pedestrian access be provided in all new development proposed within specific geographic areas. REQUIRE that bicycle and pedestrian access be provided as part of specific types of new development. PROVIDE general principles to guide facility design. REQUIRE that bicycle and pedestrian access be provided in accordance with specific design standards. REQUIRE that all site plans show existing and proposed bicycle facilities and pedestrian amenities.

1

Maryland Department of Transportation, “Twenty Year Bicycle & Pedestrian Access Master Plan Model Ordinances for the Enhancement of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access to Transportation Facilities”, October, 2002. 43

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

6.3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Rutherford should review their Capital Improvement Projects to determine where bicycle and pedestrian improvements can be integrated. The majority of the bicycle facility recommendations outlined within this plan can be implemented as part of regular roadway resurfacing and/or restriping projects.

6.4 FUNDING IMPROVEMENTS Although costs associated with bicycle and pedestrian improvements can fluctuate, many improvements (e.g., installing “Share the Road” signs or striping a bike lane) can be completed at a relatively low cost. The installation of signing and striping for bicycle and pedestrian facilities to existing or planned projects can be accomplished by utilizing municipal maintenance resources. The recommended concepts for both bicycle and pedestrian projects could be eligible for the following potential funding sources: • Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) • Congestion Mitigation and Air quality (CMAQ) • New Jersey Department of Transportation Local Aid Program for Municipalities and Counties • Transportation Development Districts (TDD) • Smart Future Planning Grants On July 6, 2012, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) was signed into law. MAP21 will reduce funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects by 33%. The Federal Highway Administration provides additional information on their website at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/.

6.5 IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX It is recommended that Rutherford determine a practical means for implementing the recommendations made in this Plan. In an effort to assist Rutherford, this plan includes an Implementation Matrix for both proposed sidewalks and bicycle facilities. The Implementation Matrix is intended to assist the Borough in prioritizing the recommendations for a phased implementation, as well as identifying costs and the appropriate agency to coordinate carrying them out. The Proposed Sidewalk Implementation Matrix, Table 18, is based on the priorities identified earlier in Section 6, Recommendations. The priorities are the same as those listed in Table 12 with the addition of identifying the timeframe of implementation, general cost estimates, priority ranking, and jurisdictional agency. The Proposed Bicycle Implementation Matrix, Table 19, identifies the recommended bicycle facility type, proposed cross-section of the roadway, general cost estimates, and jurisdictional agency. The Proposed Bicycle Implementation Matrix does not include a priority rating. Rutherford should review proposed development, construction and resurfacing projects on roadways within the bicycle network to incorporate the proposed bike facility recommendations as part of these projects. As portions of the bicycle network is on county maintained roadways, Rutherford will need to coordinate with Bergen County prior to implementing potential improvements.

44

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

Table 18: Proposed Sidewalk Implementation Matrix Location

From (MP)

To (MP)

Orient Way (SB)

Barrows Ave. (0.06)

Winslow Pl. (0.50)

Pierrepont Avenue (WB)

Riverside Ave. (0.00)

Montross Ave. (0.18)

Carmita Ave. (0.17)

Montross Ave. (0.86)

Hackett Pl. (0.95)

Wood St. (1.00)

Jackson Avenue (CR 507) (NB)

Passaic Ave. (7.05)

Francisco Ave. (7.19)

Barrows Avenue (EB)

Ridge Rd.

Orient Way

Service Road (WB & EB)

Orient Way

Route 3

Ridge Rd. (0.84)

Sylvan St. (0.91)

Mountain Way (0.96)

Orient Way (1.03)

Riverside Avenue (CR 507) (SB)

Rutherford Ave. (6.26)

Governeur Ave. (6.45)

Erie Avenue (CR 32) (EB)

Chestnut St. (1.01)

Agnew Pl. (1.07)

Union Avenue (CR S32 I) (WB)

Passaic Avenue (EB)

Issue

Improvement

Pedestrian Accommodation Pedestrian Accommodation Pedestrian Accommodation Pedestrian Accommodation Pedestrian Accommodation Pedestrian Accommodation Pedestrian Accommodation Pedestrian Accommodation Pedestrian Accommodation Pedestrian Accommodation Pedestrian Accommodation Pedestrian Accommodation Pedestrian Accommodation

Repair sidewalks with ADA ramps Install sidewalks with ADA ramps Repair sidewalks with ADA ramps Repair sidewalks with ADA ramps Repair sidewalks with ADA ramps Install sidewalks with ADA ramps Install sidewalks with ADA ramps Repair sidewalks with ADA ramps Repair sidewalks with ADA ramps Install sidewalks with ADA ramps Repair sidewalks with ADA ramps Repair sidewalks with ADA ramps Install sidewalks with ADA ramps

Timeframe

Cost

Priority

Jurisdiction

Long

High

High

Rutherford

Medium

Medium

High

Rutherford

Medium

Medium

High

Medium

Medium

High

Medium

Medium

High

Long

High

Medium

Rutherford

Long

High

Medium

Rutherford

Medium

Medium

Medium

Rutherford

Medium

Medium

Medium

Rutherford

Long

High

Medium

Medium

Medium

Low

Rutherford & Bergen County Rutherford & Bergen County Rutherford & Bergen County

Rutherford & Bergen County Rutherford & Bergen County

Pierrepont Avenue (WB & Eastern Way (1.09) Elycroft Pkwy. (1.14) Medium Medium Low Rutherford EB) Erie Avenue/Meadow Rutherford & Jackson Ave. (0.00) Route 17 (1.76) Long High Low Road (CR 32) (WB) Bergen County LEGEND: Timeframe Cost Priority Short = 1-2 years Low = < $25,000 Sidewalk prioritization ratings are listed in order of importance and are based on crash data, public feedback Medium = 3-4 years Medium = $25,000 - $250,000 and the ability to complete a critical gap in sidewalk network, extend existing sidewalk connectivity, and Long = 5+ years High = $250,000+ connect to major destinations (schools, transit, and employment).

45

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

Table 19: Proposed Bicycle Implementation Matrix Road Name Riverside Avenue/Jackson Avenue (CR 507) Park Avenue (CR 30) East Erie Avenue/Meadow Road (CR 32)

Between Rutherford Ave (CR S30) Union Ave (CR S32I) NJ Route 3 W Passaic Ave

MP_START 6.26 7.42 0.70 1.49

And Union Ave (CR S32I) Erie Ave (CR 32) W Passaic Ave Erie Ave (CR 32)

MP_END 7.42 7.73 1.49 1.85

Proposed Bicycle Facility Bike Lane Shared Lane Shared Lane Shoulder

Proposed Cross-Section (ft) 5'/11'//11'/5'/8' 14’//14’/7’ 7'/13'//13'/7' 7'/4.5'/11’//11’/4.5'/7'

Cost Low Low Low Low

Jurisdiction Bergen County Bergen County Bergen County Bergen County

Jackson Ave (CR 507)

0.00

Maple Ave

0.84

Shoulder

4'/11'//11'/4'

Low

Bergen County

Passaic Avenue

Maple Ave Union Ave (CR S32 I) Orient Way Feronia Way Municipal Border Jackson Ave Wells Pl Springfield Ave Carmita Ave Home Ave Chestnut St Rutherford Rd (CR S30) Riverside Ave (CR 507) Park Ave (CR 30) Ridge Rd Erie Ave (CR 32) Union Ave (CR S32 I) Jackson Ave/Riverside Ave (CR 507) Montross Ave Park Ave (CR 30)

0.84 1.16 1.27 1.36 0.00 0.43 0.51 0.57 0.71 1.23 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.74 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.33 0.77

Union Ave (CR S32 I) Park Ave (CR 30) Feronia Way NJ Route 17 Jackson Ave Wells Pl Springfield Ave Carmita Ave Home Ave Chestnut St Erie Ave (CR 32) Park Ave (CR 30) Park Ave (CR 30) Ridge Rd NJ Route 17 Union Ave (CR S32 I) West Pierrepont Ave Montross Ave Park Ave (CR 30) Meadow Rd (CR 32)

1.16 1.21 1.36 1.76 0.43 0.51 0.57 0.71 1.23 1.29 1.41 0.86 0.45 0.74 1.18 0.35 1.06 0.33 0.77 1.19

Shoulder Sharrows Bike Lane Shared Lane Sharrows Shoulder Shared Lane Sharrows Shoulder Shared Lane Shared Lane Shared Lane Sharrows Sharrows Sharrows Sharrows Bike Lane Shared Lane Bike Lane Sharrows

Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

Bergen County Bergen County Bergen County Bergen County Bergen County Bergen County Bergen County Bergen County Bergen County Bergen County Bergen County Rutherford Borough Rutherford Borough Rutherford Borough Rutherford Borough Rutherford Borough Rutherford Borough Rutherford Borough Rutherford Borough Rutherford Borough

Orient Way

Rutherford Ave (CR S30)

0.00

Erie Ave (CR 32)

1.08

Bike Lane with Buffer

Medium

Rutherford Borough

-

Orient Way NJ Route 3 Highland Cross NJ Route 17

-

Sharrows Bike Lane with Buffer Bike Lane Bike Lane

4'/11'//11'/4'/8' 11'/11'//11'/8' 8’/5’/11’//11’/5’ 15'//15' 18'//18' 4'/12'//12'/4' 12'//12'/8' 8'/10'//10'/8' 4'/12'//12'/4' 8'/12'//12' 8'/12'//12' 7'/13'//13'/7' 30' 40' 36' 36' 8'/5'/11'//11'/5'/8' 18'//18' 8'/5'/11'//11'/5'/8' 18'//18' 4'/2'/7'/12'//10'//12'/7'/2'/4' OR 7’/4’/2’/12’//10’//12’/2’/4’/7’ 18'//18' 6'/4'/12'//12'/4'/6' 8'/5'/11'//11'/11'/5'/8' 6'/12'//12'/6'

Low Medium Low Low

Rutherford Borough Rutherford Borough Rutherford Borough Rutherford Borough

Union Avenue (CR S32 I) Meadow Road (CR 32)

Union Avenue (CR S32 I)

Ridge Road Pierrepont Avenue Carmita Avenue Passaic Avenue

Barrows Avenue/Service Road Veterans Boulevard Highland Cross

Ridge Rd Orient Way Service Rd Veterans Blvd

LEGEND Cost Low = < $25,000 Medium = $25,000 - $250,000 High = $250,000+

46

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

7. ORDINANCE 7.1 ORDINANCE REVIEW Upon completing a review of Rutherford ordinances related to biking and walking, there are few ordinances that support these modes, such as the Borough’s bike parking regulations, and regulations to maintain clear rights‐of‐way. However, more ordinances are needed to fully integrate the principles of this plan. Rutherford should consider the following examples as they modify and adopt ordinances to strengthen biking and walking in the Borough. Table 20 outlines leading examples of ordinances and codes that provide for an in depth integration of biking and walking from around the country. The example from Bellingham, WA, provides clear detail regarding the operation and use of a bicycle. The example from Florida Department of Transportation provides clear direction as to when a bike lane should be provided.

Code 11.48.020 Parent or guardian shall not authorize or permit violation by a child or ward 11.48.030 Effect of regulations - penalty 11.48.040 Traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles 11.48.050 Riding on bicycles 11.48.060 Clinging to vehicles

Table 20: Example Ordinances Bellingham, WA - Operation and Use of a Bicycle Description The parent of any child and the guardian of any ward shall not authorize or knowingly permit any such child or ward to violate any of the provisions of this chapter. A. It is a traffic infraction for a person to do any act forbidden or fail to perform any act required in Sections 11.48.030 through 11.48.100 (RCW 46.61.750 through 46.61.780). B. These regulations applicable to bicycles shall apply whenever a bicycle is operated upon any highway or upon any path set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles subject to those exceptions stated herein. Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this title, except as to special regulations in Sections 11.48.030 through 11.48.100 and except as to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application. A. A person propelling a bicycle shall not ride other than upon or astride a permanent and regular seat attached thereto. B. No bicycle shall be used to carry more persons at one time than the number for which it is designed and equipped. No person riding upon any bicycle, coaster, roller skates, sled or toy vehicle shall attach the same or himself to any vehicle upon a roadway.

47

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

Code 11.48.080 Carrying articles

11.48.090 Hand Signals

11.48.00 Lamps and other equipment on bicycles

11.48.120 Bicycles – obedience to traffic control devices

Code Bicycle Lanes

FINAL July 2013

Bellingham, WA - Operation and Use of a Bicycle Description No person operating a bicycle shall carry any package, bundle or article which prevents the driver from keeping at least one hand upon the handle bars. All hand signals required of persons operating bicycles shall be given in the following manner: A. Left turn. Left hand and arm extended horizontally beyond the side of the bicycle; B. Right turn. Left hand and arm extended upward beyond the side of the bicycle, or right hand and arm extended horizontally to the right side of the bicycle; C. Stop or decrease speed. Left hand and arm extended downward beyond the side of the bicycle. The hand signals required by this section shall be given before initiation of a turn. A. Every bicycle when in use during the hour of darkness as defined in Section 11.72.050 (RCW 46.37.020) shall be equipped with a lamp on the front which shall emit a white light visible from a distance of at least 500' to the front and with a red reflector on the rear of a type approved by the state commission on equipment which shall be visible from all distances from 100' to 600' to the rear when directly in front of lawful lower beams of head lamps on a motor vehicle. A lamp emitting a red light visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear may be used in addition to the red reflector. B. Every bicycle shall be equipped with a brake which will enable the operator to make the braked wheels skid on dry, level, clean pavement. A. Any person operating a bicycle shall obey the instructions of official traffic-control devices applicable to vehicles, unless otherwise directed by a police officer. B. Whenever authorized signs are erected indicating that no right or left or U turn is permitted, no person operating a bicycle shall disobey the directions of any such sign, except where such person dismounts from the bicycle at the right-hand curb or as close as is practicable to the right edge of the right-hand shoulder to make any such turn, in which event such person shall then obey the regulations applicable to pedestrians. Florida Department of Transportation 2

Description 1) Bicycle lanes shall be provided on new or reconstructed arterials and major collector roadways within the MMTD in accordance with the FDOT Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Guidelines (Revised April 2002). 2) Restriping of arterial or major collector roadways under [local government] jurisdiction within the MMTD shall be considered any time the facility is scheduled for resurfacing allowing for a safe, dedicated space for bicycle travel.

2

National Center for Transit Research Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida, “Model Regulations and Plan Amendments for Multimodal Transportation Districts”, FDOT Contract Number: BC-137-47, April 2004. 48

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

It is recommended that Rutherford update the Borough’s ordinances to be consistent with national (AASHTO, ADA, MUTCD, ect.) standards and guideline to require improvements, as part of redevelopment, or reconstruction, that improve bicycle and pedestrian mobility as outlined in the master plan. The updates should be completed on a regular basis to address the changing needs of biking and walking. Revisions may include provisions on restricting vehicles from parking in bicycle lanes or addressing new facilities such as bicycle boulevards. “Planning and Policy Models for Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Communities in New York State” http://www.albany.edu/ihi/files/NY_Planning_And_Policy_Models_iHi.pdf is a good example for Rutherford to use as a starting point to determine which types of policies can work best to integrate biking and walking.

Source: NACTO

8. EDUCATION, ENCOURAGEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT

Education, encouragement, and enforcement are three of the often cited 5 “E’s” needed for making a community bicycle and pedestrian friendly. Bicyclists, pedestrians and motorists need education on how to safely share the road and navigate traffic. Widespread education efforts can contribute to safer roadways for all. Encouragement is also needed to promote the spread of bicycling and walking as means of transport, recreation, and physical activity. Enforcement is required to ensure rules of road and traffic laws are observed.

8.1

EDUCATION

To properly plan, design and implement bicycle and pedestrian facilities it is important that an entire community be educated including professionals, local officials, police, residents, and students. Reaching a broad audience with consistent and positive information will help to institutionalize biking and walking within the community. Educational programs should dispel myths, encourage courteous and lawful behavior, promote benefits, and enhance awareness.

49

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

When choosing educational programs the needs and resources of each community should be considered. In Rutherford, special interest groups that could benefit most from bicycle and pedestrian safety and education programs might include: •

Professionals, educators and public officials



Bicyclists riding on sidewalks



Young (17 and under) bicyclists and pedestrians



Adult bicyclists and pedestrians



All Motorists



Transit Users

Education and training might include University courses, webinars, and regional and national conferences, which can be obtained from the following organizations: •

Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) – www.apbp.org



Rutgers Center for Advanced Infrastructure and Transportation (CAIT) http://cait.rutgers.edu/cait/designing-accessibility



NJDOT Complete Streets PowerPoint Presentations http://bprc.rutgers.edu/wordpress/?page_id=2279



NJ Bike/Walk Coalition – Statewide advocacy group http://www.newjerseybikewalk.org/



Probike/Prowalk – Biannual national conference http://www.pps.org/pwpb2012/



TransAction – Annual transportation conference based in NJ http://www.njtransactionconf.com/



NJ Highway Traffic Safety - http://www.nj.gov/oag/hts/pedestrian.html



Rutgers Pedestrian Safety Enforcement Training Workshops http://bprc.rutgers.edu/wordpress/index.php/training-workshops/



Adult and Child Bicycle Courses http://www.trafficsafetymarketing.gov/CAMPAIGNS/Bicycle+Safety/Campaign+Materials

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration also distributes a packet called “Getting to School Safely Community Action Kit.” Within the packet there are fact sheets about bicycle and pedestrian safety. Another organization that distributes a guide about how to walk to school is the Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC gives parents fun tips for teaching children the proper way to walk to school. These resources are available online, at the following websites: • •

8.2

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/buses/Getting_to_School/index.html http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/kidswalk/

ENCOURAGEMENT AND PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS

Low-cost programmatic recommendations that encourage biking and walking are recommended to complement educational programs. These include: • Bike to Work Week/Day Events • Promotional Bike Rides/Walking Events • Open Street Initiatives – Car free zones, Block Parties, Neighborhood Celebrations • Walking School Bus 50

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

Walking School Bus A Walking School Bus provides parents with a tool to teach children how to walk to school safely. The concept involves one or more parents walking to school with a group of children, therefore providing a healthy alternative for students where bussing is not available. Walking School Buses are often developed in coordination with the school administrations and local law enforcement. Communities in New Jersey, such as Garwood and Westfield, have successfully implemented Walking School Bus programs. Additional information on developing a Walking School Bus has been provided in Appendix E. Bicycle Rodeos A Bicycle Rodeo provides parents and law enforcement with a tool to teach children how to safely ride a bicycle. This concept involves children attending a class which teaches proper riding techniques by local law enforcement and school administrators or volunteers. Through a series of “real life” riding simulations, students are taught how to safely ride their bicycle. Communities in New Jersey such as Hoboken and Tenafly have successfully implemented Bicycle Rodeos. Additional Information on developing a Bicycle Rodeo has been provided in Appendix F.

8.3

ENFORCEMENT

An important component of a safe and well traveled transportation system is an enforcement program for traffic regulations as they apply to each type of roadway user: motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Rutherford can improve travel habits and behavior through enforcement. This process should include reviewing current ordinances and traffic regulations to identify elements that may unnecessarily affect certain roadway users, such as bicyclists. As bicycle facilities are installed, it is recommended that local ordinances and regulations be developed or revised to clarify items such as: application of vehicle laws to bicyclists, permitted movements on and across bicycle facilities (e.g., permitted motor vehicle movements across bicycle lanes), bicycling on sidewalks, and bicycle parking requirements. In addition, a review of enforcement regulations and practices may assist in identifying opportunities to partner with community, county, or state organizations to inform users about safe bicycle travel behavior, such as the required use of helmets by bicyclists under the age of 17 (N.J.S.A 39:4-10.1), or the N.J.S.A 39: 436 which requires motorists to stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk. Outreach and promotion through community channels and events is a critical piece in reminding motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians of applicable laws and recommended travel practices.

9.

MAINTENANCE

Maintenance of roadways, including on-road bicycle facilities is an important consideration as bicycle ridership and pedestrian volumes increase with the creation of new facilities. The condition, specifically smoothness, of a roadway’s surface is an important factor in bicycle comfort and safety. When a surface is irregular it not only causes an unpleasant ride, but also poses risk to the bicyclist as potholes, cracking, heaving, and other roadway deterioration may cause a bicyclist to swerve into motor vehicle traffic to avoid the obstacle. NJDOT and AASHTO bicycle guidelines recommend the routine maintenance of roadways to provide good riding conditions for bicycle traffic. In addition, efforts should be made to remove and prevent debris from being placed in the 51

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

FINAL July 2013

roadway, especially along the outside edge of roadways where bicyclists often ride. Debris can impact bicycle operations and increase maintenance needs of roadway facilities over time. When facilities are installed, it is important for municipalities to notify residents of the necessity in not placing debris in shoulders and bicycle lanes. Additionally, continued coordination with the appropriate public works departments should also be maintained to identify areas that will need additional street cleaning during the fall and winter months. http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikesafe/case_studies/casestudy.cfm?CS_NUM=403 The City of Seattle Washington outlines the following as example maintenance items to consider when preparing estimates and schedules for on-road and off-road bicycle facilities. They include: • Replace missing and damaged regulatory and directional signs. • Repaint worn pavement markings. • Trim trees, shrubs and grass to maintain sight distances. • Patch holes, fill cracks and feather edges. • Clean drainage systems, make modifications to eliminate the formation of ponds. • Sweep to remove mud, gravel and other debris • Mow bike lane, roadway and trail shoulders (0.8 to 1.5 m (2.5 to 5 ft) back from facility). • Inspect structures for structural deterioration. • Spot pruning to maintain view, enhance aesthetics. • Maintain furniture and other furnishings. • Mow selectively where groomed look is desired. • Install and remove snow fences. • Maintain irrigation lines. • Pick up trash, empty trash cans. • Clean rest rooms and drinking fountains, repair as needed. • Remove graffiti from retaining walls, rocks, etc. • Prune dense understory growth to improve user safety. • Spray for weed control. • Remove snow and ice. • Maintain emergency telephones. Sidewalk conditions also affect pedestrians, especially those with disabilities. Municipalities should include a process to routinely inspect sidewalk conditions, so that cracking, shifting, or deterioration can be addressed quickly. If replacement is necessary, the appropriate notice should be made to the responsible party or parties. The NJDOT Pedestrian Compatible Planning and Design Guidelines, Chapter 4, Operations and Maintenance of Pedestrian Facilities, provides a checklist of Pedestrian Facility Maintenance Requirements http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/publicat/pdf/PedComp/pedintro.pdf. The checklist is also included as Appendix G.

52

APPENDIX A NJDOT and Rutherford’s Complete Street Policy


 
 
 DEPARTMENT
OF
TRANSPORTATION
 POLICY



SUBJECT:


Complete
Streets
Policy


Su
 Commissioner
Approval:


Effective
Date:


Sponsor
Approval:

Robert
Miller




Contact
Telephone
#:
530‐3855


I.

Supersedes:

703
dated










 8/7/89

 Page
1
of
3
 



 
 
 


Policy
No.
703













































 
 


PURPOSE
 To
create
and
implement
a
Complete
Streets
Policy
in
New
Jersey
through
the
planning,
design,
 construction,
maintenance
and
operation
of
new
and
retrofit
transportation
facilities
within
public
rights
of
 way
that
are
federally
or
state
funded,
including
projects
processed
or
administered
through
the
 Department’s
Capital
Program.
 


II.

DEFINITIONS
 A
Complete
Street
is
defined
as
means
to
provide
safe
access
for
all
users
by
designing
and
operating
a
 comprehensive,
integrated,
connected
multi‐modal
network
of
transportation
options.





 III. BACKGROUND

 
















The
benefits
of
Complete
Streets
are
many
and
varied:
 • • • • • •

Complete
Streets
improve
safety
for
pedestrians,
bicyclists,
children,
older
citizens,
non‐drivers
and
 the
mobility
challenged
as
well
as
those
that
cannot
afford
a
car
or
choose
to
live
car
free.
 Provide
connections
to
bicycling
and
walking
trip
generators
such
as
employment,
education,
 residential,
recreation,
retail
centers
and
public
facilities.
 Promote
healthy
lifestyles.
 Create
more
livable
communities.
 Reduce
traffic
congestion
and
reliance
on
carbon
fuels
thereby
reducing
greenhouse
gas
emissions.
 Complete
Streets
make
fiscal
sense
by
incorporating
sidewalks,
bike
lanes,
safe
crossings
and
transit
 amenities
into
the
initial
design
of
a
project,
thus
sparing
the
expense
of
retrofits
later.



IV.
 POLICY
 The
New
Jersey
Department
of
Transportation
shall
implement
a
Complete
Streets
policy
though
the
 planning,
design,
construction,
maintenance
and
operation
of
new
and
retrofit
transportation
facilities,
 enabling
safe
access
and
mobility
of
pedestrians,
bicyclists,
transit
users
of
all
ages
and
abilities.

This
 includes
all
projects
funded
through
the
Department’s
Capital
Program.

The
Department
strongly
 encourages
the
adoption
of
similar
policies
by
regional
and
local
jurisdictions
who
apply
for
funding
through
 Local
Aid
programs.



 
 
 



 



 
 
 DEPARTMENT
OF
TRANSPORTATION
 POLICY

 
 
 


SUBJECT:

NJDOT
Complete
Streets
Policy


Policy
No.

703
 Page
2
of
3




Effective
Date:



 
 1. Create
a
comprehensive,
integrated,
connected
multi‐modal
network
by
providing



















 connections
to
bicycling
and
walking
trip
generators
such
as
employment,
education,
residential,




















 recreational
and
public
facilities,
as
well
as
retail
and
transit
centers.


 
 
 2. Provide
safe
and
accessible
accommodations
for
existing
and
future
pedestrian,

 
bicycle
and
transit
facilities.
 
 3. Establish
a
checklist
of
pedestrian,
bicycle
and
transit
accommodations
such
as

 accessible
sidewalks
curb
ramps,
crosswalks,
countdown
pedestrian
signals,
signs,

 median
refuges,
curb
extensions,
pedestrian
scale
lighting,
bike
lanes,
shoulders
and

 bus
shelters
with
the
presumption
that
they
shall
be
included
in
each
project
unless










 








 supporting
documentation
against
inclusion
is
provided
and
found
to
be
justifiable.
 
 4. 
Additionally,
in
rural
areas,
paved
shoulders
or
a
multi‐use
path
shall
be
included
in
all
new














 construction
and
reconstruction
projects
on
roadways
used
by
more
than
1,000
vehicles
per
day.

 Paved
shoulders
provide
safety
and
operational
advantages
for
all
road
users.

Shoulder



















 rumble
strips
are
not
recommended
when
used
by
bicyclists,
unless
there
is
a
minimum
clear














 path
of
four
feet
in
which
a
bicycle
may
safely
operate.

If
there
is
evidence
of
heavy
pedestrian









 usage
then
sidewalks
shall
be
considered
in
the
project.


 
 5. Establish
a
procedure
to
evaluate
resurfacing
projects
for
complete
streets
inclusion
according
to
length
 of
project,
local
support,
environmental
constraints,
right‐of‐way
limitations,
funding
resources
and
 bicycle
and/or
pedestrian
compatibility.
 
 6. Transportation
facilities
are
long‐term
investments
that
shall
anticipate
likely
future
demand
for
bicycling
 and
walking
facilities
and
not
preclude
the
provision
of
future
improvements.

 
 7. Address
the
need
for
bicyclists
and
pedestrians
to
cross
corridors
as
well
as
travel
along
them.
Even
 where
bicyclists
and
pedestrians
may
not
commonly
use
a
particular
travel
corridor
that
is
being
 improved
or
constructed,
they
will
likely
need
to
be
able
to
cross
that
corridor
safely
and
conveniently.
 Therefore,
the
design
of
intersections,
interchanges
and
bridges
shall
accommodate
bicyclists
and
 pedestrians
in
a
manner
that
is
safe,
accessible
and
convenient.
 
 8. Design
bicycle
and
pedestrian
facilities
to
the
best
currently
available
standards
and
practices
including
 the
New
Jersey
Roadway
Design
Manual,

the
AASHTO
Guide

for
the
Development
of
Bicycle
Facilities,
 AASHTO’s
Guide
for
the
Planning,
Design
and
Operation
of
Pedestrian
Facilities,
the
Manual
of
Uniform
 Traffic
Control
Devices
and
others
as
related.
 
 



 



 



 
 
 DEPARTMENT
OF
TRANSPORTATION
 POLICY

 
 
 


SUBJECT:

NJDOT
Complete
Streets
Policy


Policy
No.

703
 Page
3
of
3


Effective
Date:



 9. Research,
develop
and
support
new
technologies
in
improving
safety
and
mobility.

 
 10. Make
provisions
for
pedestrians
and
bicyclists
when
closing
roads,
bridges
or
sidewalks

for
 
construction
projects
as
outlined
in
NJDOT
Policy
#705
–
Accommodating
Pedestrian
and
Bicycle













 
 Traffic
During
Construction.
 
 11. Improvements
should
also
consider
connections
for
Safe
Routes
to
Schools,
Safe
Routes
to
Transit,
 Transit
Villages,
trail
crossings
and
areas
or
population
groups
with
limited
transportation
options.
 
 12. Establish
an
incentive
within
the
Local
Aid
Program
for
municipalities
and
counties
to
develop
and
 implement
a
Complete
Streets
policy.
 
 13. 
Improvements
must
comply
with
Title
VI/Environmental
Justice,
Americans
with

 Disabilities
Act
(ADA)
and
should
complement
the
context
of
the
surrounding
community.
 
 14. Implement
training
for
Engineers
and
Planners
on
Bicycle/Pedestrian/Transit
policies
and












 integration
of
non‐motorized
travel
options
into
transportation
systems.
 
 15. Establish
Performance
Measures
to
gauge
success.
 



V.




EXEMPTIONS








Exemptions
to
the
Complete
Streets
policy
must
be
presented
for
final
decision
to
the
Capital
Program
 Screening
Committee
in
writing
by
the
appropriate
Assistant
Commissioner
and
documented
with
 supporting
data
that
indicates
the
reason
for
the
decision
and
are
limited
to
the
following:


















































 1) Non‐motorized
users
are
prohibited
on
the
roadway.
 2) Scarcity
of
population,
travel
and
attractors,
both
existing
and
future,
indicate
an
absence
of
need
for
 such
accommodations.
 3)



Detrimental
environmental
or
social
impacts
outweigh
the
need
for
these

















 
 accommodations.











 4)



Cost
of
accommodations
is
excessively
disproportionate
to
cost
of
project,
more
than
twenty

 
 percent
(20%)
of
total
cost.
 5)



The
safety
or
timing
of
a
project
is
compromised
by
the
inclusion
of
Complete
Streets.
 An
exemption
other
than
those
listed
above
must
be
documented
with
supporting
data
and
must
be


approved
by
the
Capital
Program
Committee
along
with
written
approval
by
the
Commissioner
of
 Transportation.

 VI.



AUTHORITY
 





N.J.S.A.

Title
27




APPENDIX B Public Outreach Meeting Minutes

MEMORANDUM OF MEETING Project: Date: Place: Purpose: Attending:

Borough of Rutherford Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan October 11, 2012 Rutherford Borough City Hall Steering Committee Meeting #1

Name Kim Birdsall Corey Gallo Joseph DeSalvo Jr. John Hughes Karen Travellin Adam Krass Don Norbut Donna Orbach Leomar Almanzar Joanne DiLorenzo Andrew Vischio Jerry Willis Nick Olivo Alek Corradini Khalid Shaikh Denise Chaplick Layla Fryc

Representing Borough of Rutherford Borough of Rutherford Borough of Rutherford Rutherford Green Team Rutherford Green Team Rutherford Green Team Borough Engineer/T&M Associates Bergen County-Department of Planning New Jersey Meadowlands Commission New Jersey Meadowlands Commission Stonefield Engineering National Park Service, RTCA Resident of Rutherford Borough Resident of Rutherford Borough New Jersey Department of Transportation Michael Baker Jr., Inc. (Baker) Michael Baker Jr., Inc. (Baker)

S.O. No: Time: By:

2010 SDA787B, T.O. #16 7:00 PM – 9:00 PM Layla Fryc

Email [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

The meeting began with Denise Chaplick welcoming everyone to the Steering Committee (SC) meeting for the Borough of Rutherford Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan – Local Planning Assistance Program. Ms. Chaplick introduced Khalid Shaikh from the New Jersey Department of Transportation – Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs (NJDOT-OBPP). Mr. Shaikh explained that the NJDOT-OBPP has awarded the Borough of Rutherford consultant services through their Local Planning Assistance Program. Ms. Chaplick then asked attendees to introduce themselves and identify what agency or community group they represented. Ms. Chaplick started by giving an overview of the meeting agenda and outlined the meeting purpose, which is to review and document feedback on the results of data collection, network development, as well as potential opportunities for improvements. Denise gave a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the summary of findings to date. The following is a summary of the main discussion points during the presentation and Steering Committee feedback: •

Denise listed the related planning studies that were completed in the past several years that endorse and support the implementation of safe and accessible bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the Borough. o Rutherford Vision Statement: 2025 (2004) o RPA Growing Smart & Healthy (2004) o Rutherford Master Plan (2007) o Bergen County Master Plan o NJ Meadowlands Commission Master Plan

Page 1 of 4

MEMORANDUM OF MEETING •

Bicycle and pedestrian crash summary data was presented, which covered the three-year period 2009-2011. Denise pointed out the number of bicycle and pedestrian crashes per year and the location of the fatal crashes. She also noted the top roadway corridor crashes and top intersection crashes within that period. Bicycle and pedestrian crash data assessment also included a breakdown of the crashes by factors such as age of pedestrian, age of cyclist, environment condition, month of year and time of day the crashes occurred. o





Jerry Willis asked if Baker looked at the age of the driver during the bicycle and pedestrian crashes. Denise responded no, but Baker will document them and include them in the revised Existing Conditions Memo.

Bicycle and pedestrian count summary data was presented, which included two-hour counts at four intersections (Jackson Avenue and Union Avenue, Orient Way and Passaic Avenue, Park Avenue and Ames Avenue, Park Avenue and Passaic Avenue). The counts took place on Friday, September 28, 2012 from 2:00 PM to 6:30 PM. Denise pointed out that the number of pedestrian movements correspond to each time a pedestrian crosses a leg of an intersection. o

Donna Orbach asked when the State of New Jersey passed the law of motorists stopping for pedestrians in a marked crosswalk. Denise said that the law was passed in early 2010, which means that the majority of the bicycle and pedestrian crashes occurred while the law was in effect.

o

Adam Krass said that Baker should have done bicycle and pedestrian counts at the traffic circle near the train station and west end of the Borough. Denise explained that due to the limited scope and budget of the study, Baker is not able to conduct count data on more than four locations. However, the count locations were selected from the bicycle and pedestrian crash results.

o

Jerry Willis asked about the weather condition during the count data collection. Denise said that it was a cloudy day with some rain in the morning.

The Sidewalk Inventory and Assessment results were presented next. A total of ten corridors were assessed. Rutherford has a consistent network of sidewalks that are in fair to good condition (78%). Four percent of the sidewalk assessed were in poor condition and 18% had missing sidewalk. The locations of no sidewalks were along the westbound of Erie Avenue, eastbound and westbound Service Road, westbound Pierrepont Avenue between Riverside Avenue and Montross Avenue, and southbound Riverside Avenue between Rutherford Avenue and south of Pierrepont Avenue. o

Donna Orbach asked if it is appropriate to install a sidewalk where it is not currently present. Denise pointed out the reasons why sidewalks should be installed for instance, along Pierrepont Avenue because of the location of the school.



The Bicycle Compatibility Assessment results were presented with a total of 11 corridors, equivalent to 12.35 miles. All corridors are similar to the sidewalk corridor inventory except for Veterans Boulevard/Highland Cross. Denise explained the bicycle compatibility assessment criteria and the different levels of suitability. The results indicated that 75% of the streets evaluated were rated as “Least Suitable”. Denise indicated that this was a result of narrow roadways which include on-street parking.



Intersection Assessment results were presented. A total of seven intersections were analyzed, three of them were signalized and four un-signalized. Wide crossings, faded crosswalks, low visibility and fast turning traffic were some of the common deficiencies found at the assessed intersections. Page 2 of 4

MEMORANDUM OF MEETING •

Denise presented the results of the online user survey. A total of 208 responses were collected. She pointed out that the majority of respondents bike and walk for recreational and social purposed several times a week. Respondents suggested bicycle improvements should include bike lanes, trails, and smoother pavement, and pedestrian improvements should include sidewalks, trails, and intersection accommodations.



Denise then asked John Hughes to speak about the community events that took place in Rutherford (Labor Day Street Fair and West End Festival). John said that there was a positive vibe from attendees regarding the study. He also mentioned that there was a safety concern for walking and biking in Rutherford, mainly due to fast drivers. Law enforcement, signing, and striping should be present to encourage people to walk and bike in Rutherford.



Leomar Almanzar asked if handicapped ramps were assessed. Denise, said that Baker only looked at the ramps at the seven assessed intersections due to the limited scope and budget. However, during field inventory Baker consultants saw that the Borough was installing new ADA ramps.



Denise then listed the four locations proposed to complete recommendations, which included the intersections of Park Avenue and Ames Avenue, Park Avenue and Passaic Avenue, Jackson Avenue and Erie Avenue, and the corridor of Orient Way. She asked attendees if they agreed with the above mentioned locations. o

Kim Birdsall said that the Borough received a grant to improve the intersection of Park Avenue and Passaic Avenue. She asked Don Norbut to go into more details regarding the improvements. Mr. Norbut said that the intersection improvements include some pedestrian safety measures.

o

Don asked if Service Road could be part of the recommendations to connect to the Meadowlands. Denise said that Service Road is most suitable in its current condition and does not need to be assessed for recommendations. She suggested that way finding signage should be installed for cyclists and pedestrians to know how to connect to major destinations.

o

John Hughes talked about the Route 3 project that is undergoing and was hopeful that the complete streets policy would be enforced and bicycle facilities could be incorporated as part of the project.

o

Kim Birdsall is anxious to see the recommendations on Orient Way because the roadway would be a good connection to Service Road, the Meadowlands, and other roadways.

o

Denise suggested that one of the easiest ways of integrating a bicycle facility by striping only, is through future resurfacing projects.

o

Kim asked when Orient Way will have a bicycle facility. Denise commented by saying that the recommendation on Orient Way is only a concept and not a fully detailed design. There is another step of preparing the preliminary and final design that will have to be completed before restriping takes place. Don Norbut pointed out that the concept recommendations on Orient Way is key to lead them to the final product.

o

Jerry Willis is concerned about the safety issues on Service Road because of high traffic and high speed. Corey Gallo emphasized that the volume of truck traffic is high and Service Road is a bicycle safety issue even though it is considered as most suitable.

o

Donna Orbach said that the municipality has a choice to make and it should set priorities as to which roadway needs a bike lane and which one should keep the parking lane. She also Page 3 of 4

MEMORANDUM OF MEETING added that some municipalities have a speed limit rule of 25 mph on all roadways within the municipality even if it is a county route. John Hughes said that even with 25 mph speed limit on Orient Way, it is too wide and accidents are waiting to happen. Donna pointed out that Orient Way could be easily restriped to calm and slow traffic.





o

Adam Krass mentioned that Union Avenue is a through road and drivers use it to get to highways. It is currently an unsafe road to bike.

o

John Hughes mentioned that the traffic circle at the train station is supposed to slow drivers down. However, because of Orient Way, Park Avenue, and Erie Avenue are major thoroughfares in the Borough, drivers tend to speed as they approach the circle. Signs should be installed at each approach to alert motorists of entering a traffic circle. John also pointed out that Rutherford is a town surrounded by major highways and that drivers carry high speed limit through the town. Donna Orbach suggested that turning the roads to their functional priorities is a must.

o

Denise mentioned that six of the assessed bicycle corridors are county roads and any improvements the Borough is proposing on those roads should get the County Engineer’s final approval.

o

Jerry Willis pointed out that a member from the school and the Police Department should have been present at the Steering Committee meeting.

Denise asked if there were any other questions before moving on to the “Next Steps”. o

One attendee suggested to pursue a bike path along the river such as the one in Lyndhurst. Denise agrees that the majority of people feel safer biking and walking on a separate path. The focus of this study is within the existing transportation network.

o

Adam Krass asked if the final Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan will have recommendations for funding resources. Denise said that the Plan will include funding resources. However, because of the new Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) (P.L.112141), the funding programs are consolidated from about 90 programs down to less than 30 programs. This means that bicycle and pedestrian funding is now part of a new core program which includes other transportation projects and has not been entirely classified within NJDOT.

The Steering Committee members were asked for their opinion regarding when and where a Public Meeting could be held for the project. Denise indicated the Public Meeting would be in an openhouse format where boards will be placed throughout the room and attendees can discuss the data collected as they walk around. Comment cards will be handed out during the meeting. Attendees suggested the library or the train station as good locations to attract more people.

Next Steps/Schedule • • • • •

A Public Information Center # 1 is scheduled for Tuesday, November 13, 2012 from 4:30 PM to 7:30 PM at the Rutherford Train Station. Recommendations. Steering Committee Meeting #2 Public Information Center #2 Draft and Final Plan

Page 4 of 4

Borough of Rutherford Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Steering Committee Meeting #1 October 11, 2012 7:00 PM – 9:00 PM Borough Hall Council Chambers Rutherford, NJ

AGENDA 1.

Welcome and Introductions

7:00 PM

2.

NJDOT Local Technical Assistance Program

7:15 PM

• • 3.

Purpose of Meeting • • • • • • •

4.

LTA Program Introduce Project (Scope of Work Overview)

Review Preliminary Network Review Preliminary Results of Data Collection Task Review User Survey Results Summarize feedback from public events (Labor Day/West End Festival) Concurrent efforts & preliminary recommendations Committee’s Feedback & Insight Identify Additional Resources

Next Steps • •

7:30 PM

Public Meeting #1 Recommendations & Report

8:30 PM

Borough of Rutherford and NJDOT cordially invite you to attend a

Tuesday November 13, 2012 4:30 – 7:30 PM Rutherford Train Station Erie Avenue, Rutherford, NJ

Photo Source: Rutherford Library Website

COME TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! A Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is being prepared for the Borough of Rutherford with the assistance of the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT). The purpose of this plan is to promote bicycle and pedestrian safety, accessibility, and mobility in Rutherford. Please join us on Tuesday November 13th, 2012 between 4:30 PM and 7:30 PM to hear about the Plan and provide us with your thoughts. Your input is very important!

Project Memorandum TO:

Khalid Shaikh, Project Manager NJDOT-OBPP

FROM:

Layla Fryc, Michael Baker Jr., Inc.

DATE:

November 20, 2012

RE:

Borough of Rutherford Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Public Information Center (PIC) (held November 13, 2012)

Meeting Attendees Kim Birdsall Carol Hsu Corey Gallo Joseph DeSalvo Jr. Paul Dansbach John Hughes Barbara Bennet Rob Kohler Matt Welch Seth Zubathin John Miceli JoAnn Hughes Paul Cunneen Denise Coradini Alek Coradini Anthony Dovi Jacqueleen Ingram Valky Duran Naneck Adam Szura William Farrell Andrzej Oprych Khalid Shaikh Layla Fryc Denise Chaplick

Borough of Rutherford Resident of Rutherford Borough of Rutherford Borough of Rutherford Borough of Rutherford Green Team Green Team Stonefield Engineering & Design Resident of Rutherford and Stonefield Engineering & Design Resident of Rutherford Resident of Rutherford Resident of Rutherford Resident of Rutherford Resident of Rutherford Resident of Rutherford Resident of Rutherford Resident of Rutherford Resident of Rutherford

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Resident of Rutherford [email protected] NJDOT-OBPP Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Michael Baker Jr., Inc.

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

A Public Information Center (PIC) was held on Tuesday November 13, 2012 from 4:30 PM to 7:30 PM at the Rutherford Borough Train Station to review data collection findings and analysis results of the Rutherford Borough Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, and document the feedback of the general public. The materials presented included a summary of existing conditions which included the preliminary bicycle and pedestrian network,

1

existing sidewalk inventory, existing bicycle compatibility assessment, crash data analysis, and regional connections to neighboring towns. Additionally, a slideshow highlighting facts of the existing conditions were available for viewing during the time of the meeting. Attendees were able to review presentation materials and ask questions of consultants, NJDOT representatives, and Rutherford Borough representatives. They were also able to document their feedback by leaving a comment card behind. Below is a summary of comments received during the PIC: • • • • •



Improve pedestrian access to Train Station particularly along Erie Avenue and Orient Way. It is difficult to cross major corridors. Improvements should include wider sidewalks, crosswalks, signs, and lighting. Improve parking conditions at and near the Train Station. Current parking spaces are not striped and are located too close to walls, traffic, and vegetation making it difficult to get in and out. Parking spaces should be striped. Parking needs to be better organized and signed for people to find it. Students coming to/from Felician College speed through neighborhoods, particularly on West Passaic. Many drivers not from Rutherford are not aware, or not concerned, with obeying speed limits and yielding to pedestrians. Commuters cut-through Rutherford at higher than posted speed. Also, many people from out of town come to the restaurants in Rutherford. The monument restoration project also includes recommendations to improve the intersection of Park Avenue and West Passaic Avenue. The Borough Engineer or Administrator will provide Baker with a copy of the proposed design to build upon these recommendations as part of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The intersection of Park Avenue and West Passaic Avenue is a target intersection for conceptual design recommendations. Target bike shops for future posting of project information and meetings.



A bike trail in Rutherford is a really good idea. Plan to buy old railroad right of way must be pursued. Consider claiming by eminent domain and arguing in court later. Encouraging kids to bike to schools is good. We need new bike racks and disincentives for parents to drive kids.



Need more bike racks at critical spots such as high school, middle schools, Memorial Field, and Lincoln Park. Covered racks are important for schools and train station.



Great respect. We need publicity. Have we reached out to any cycling clubs?



Please hold into account that the intersection of Orient Way and Park Avenue is very busy. Consideration should be made to implement a traffic light. Otherwise, great plan for the bike route. Will there be any bike parking for rent in Rutherford train station? I’m sure there could be some commuters looking to park their bikes at the train station.



When applicable, have more information on how the bike lane will be incorporated into the existing roadway network.



Love it! More bike paths!



Thank you for the information!

The project team will make necessary changes based on the public feedback, and the approval of the Borough and NJDOT. Once approved, preliminary concepts will be prepared as part of a Draft Final Report. The final recommendations will be presented in a public forum prior to concluding the Final Plan.

2

MEMORANDUM OF MEETING Project: Date: Place: Purpose: Attending:

Borough of Rutherford Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan February 13, 2013 Rutherford Borough City Hall Steering Committee Meeting #2

Name Joseph DeSalvo Kim Birdsall Ray Tetro Bill Gumbman Harold Ciser John Hughes Karen Travellin Barbara Bennett Rikita Jodkani Shweta Mehta Sharon DelVecchio Josh Gutehm Patrick Hamna Helene Wetzel Denise Coradini Don Norbut Ken Aloisio Grace Zhan Lisa Van Auken Mark O’Connor Adam Szura Wsyhn Goldstein Elizabeth Thompson Krishna Murthy Nora Shepard Joanne DiLorenzo Cyndi Steiner Jerry Willis Matthew Malysa Khalid Shaikh Denise Chaplick Layla Fryc

Representing Borough of Rutherford Mayor Borough of Rutherford Borough of Rutherford Councilman Rutherford Police Department Rutherford Police Department Rutherford Green Team Rutherford Green Team Rutherford Green Team Rutherford Green Team Rutherford Green Team Rutherford Green Team Rutherford Green Team Rutherford Green Team Rutherford High School Rutherford PTA Borough Engineer/T&M Associates Bergen County-Department of Planning Rutherford resident Rutherford resident Rutherford resident Rutherford resident Rutherford resident NJTPA Meadowlink Meadowlink New Jersey Meadowlands Commission NJ Bike & Walk Coalition National Park Service, RTCA South Bergenite New Jersey Department of Transportation Michael Baker Jr., Inc. (Baker) Michael Baker Jr., Inc. (Baker)

Time: By:

7:00 PM – 9:00 PM Layla Fryc

Email [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Not available [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Not available Not available [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

The meeting began with Khalid Shaikh, the project manager from the New Jersey Department of Transportation – Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs (NJDOT-OBPP), introducing himself and explaining that the NJDOT-OBPP has awarded the Borough of Rutherford consultant services through their Local Technical Assistance Program. Mr. Shaikh introduced Denise Chaplick and Layla Fryc as the consultants from Michael Baker Jr., Inc. (Baker), and handed the meeting to Ms. Chaplick who asked attendees to introduce themselves and identify what agency or community group they represented. Ms. Chaplick started by giving an overview of the meeting agenda and outlined the meeting purpose, which is to review and document feedback on the draft recommendations and improvements. Denise gave a PowerPoint presentation highlighting results of the existing conditions assessment, and outlined Page 1 of 9

MEMORANDUM OF MEETING recommended improvements for individual corridors and intersections. The following is a summary of the main discussion points during the presentation and Steering Committee feedback: •

Denise reviewed the results of the bicycle and pedestrian crashes for the three-year period, 20092011. She noted the location of fatal crashes, the top roadway corridors, and top intersections for bicycle and pedestrian crashes within that period. Further details of the crash data assessment were provided such as contributing factors, age of pedestrian, age of cyclist, age of motorist, environmental condition, month of year and time of day the crashes occurred.



Bicycle and pedestrian count summary data was presented, which included two-hour counts at four intersections (Jackson Avenue and Union Avenue, Orient Way and Passaic Avenue, Park Avenue and Ames Avenue, Park Avenue and Passaic Avenue). The counts took place on Friday, September 28, 2012 from 2:00 PM to 6:30 PM.



Denise discussed the common deficiencies found during the intersection assessment which included; wide crossings, faded crosswalks, low visibility, and fast turning traffic.



Under the public outreach task, two community events, one Steering Committee, and one Public Information Center took place in 2012. Also, an online user survey was created to capture the publics’ feedback on the study. Two hundred and eight responses were received. The majority of responders indicated that they bike and walk for recreational and social purposes several times a week. Participants also indicated that they would like to see bike lanes, trails, smoother pavement, sidewalk, and intersection accommodations. The top 5 corridors identified by the public for improvement include; Orient Way, Park Avenue, Jackson Avenue/Riverside Avenue, Union Avenue, and Erie Avenue.



The Sidewalk Inventory and Assessment results were presented next. A total of ten corridors were assessed. Rutherford has a consistent network of sidewalks that are in fair to good condition (78%). Four percent of the sidewalks assessed were in poor condition and 18% had missing sidewalk. The locations of no sidewalks were along westbound Erie Avenue, eastbound and westbound Service Road, westbound Pierrepont Avenue between Riverside Avenue and Montross Avenue, and southbound Riverside Avenue between Rutherford Avenue and south of Pierrepont Avenue. Ms. Chaplick pointed out on a map the priority locations for the poor and missing sidewalks. She also handed a table summarizing the recommended rating for sidewalk implementation which outlines major contributing factors. This document is attached as a meeting handout.



The Bicycle Compatibility Assessment included a total of 11 corridors, equivalent to 12.95 miles. All corridors are similar to the sidewalk corridor inventory except for Veterans Boulevard/Highland Cross. Denise explained the bicycle compatibility assessment criteria and the different levels of suitability. The results indicated that 52% of the streets evaluated were rated as “Least Suitable”. Denise explained that this was a result of narrow roadways which include on-street parking. She also reviewed the Proposed Bicycle Compatibility map and compared this to existing conditions. The proposed recommendations outlined to improve bicycle compatibility were done by simply restriping the roadway and staying within the right-of-way. This resulted in a 15% increase from “Least Compatible” to “Moderate Compatible”. Further improvements to bicycle compatibility can be achieved with the consolidation of on-street parking. The proposed bicycle compatibility matrix indicates where further assessment is needed.



Ms. Chaplick listed the four locations of the concept-level layout plans, which included: o

Orient Way – Typical cross-section shown at Pierrepont Avenue

o

Intersection of Jackson Avenue and Erie Avenue Page 2 of 9

MEMORANDUM OF MEETING o

Intersection of Park Avenue and Ames Avenue

o

Intersection of Park Avenue and Passaic Avenue

She also mentioned four common improvements needed which include the following: o

Improve pedestrian safety at high crash locations.

o

Provide exclusive bike facilities within the street network.

o

Develop a consistent and ongoing education and enforcement program.

o

Implement Complete Streets Policy.

A copy of the Priority Recommendations is attached as a meeting handout. She then reviewed the concept layout boards as she was explaining the proposed designs. She also passed around the boards. Orient Way at Pierrepont Avenue The proposed design shows a typical cross-section of Orient Way at Pierrepont Avenue. It should be noted that the design at the intersection of Orient Way and Pierrepont Avenue may not necessarily apply throughout the whole corridor and/or at every intersection along Orient Way. The proposed design includes a 5’ bike lane, 2’ buffer, 7’ parking lane with a bus stop, one 11’ travel lane in each direction, and a 10’ center turn lane/center median, all within the existing 60’ wide roadway. Curb extensions, high visibility crosswalks, and striped on-street parking are also recommended. o John Hughes said that Lyndhurst Township introduced a new resolution to reduce the speed limit to 25 mph on their street that becomes Orient Way in Rutherford Borough. He also added that Orient Way is a wide roadway and when drivers slow down and stop for pedestrians to cross, vehicles behind them swerve around to the right and pass in front of the pedestrians which causes a hazardous and unsafe situation. o Kim Birdsall wanted to know the difference between painted and raised medians. Ms. Chaplick stated that the ideal situation is to have a raised median to prevent a vehicle from turning where they are not supposed to which will also create a refuge for pedestrians when crossing. She also added that for a short term design, a painted center turn lane/median could be done, leaving the physical raised median for a long term design. o Jerry Willis added that the physical raised median could also be beneficial for stormwater management to capture more runoff. o Denise Coradini wanted to understand more about curb extensions and how they work. Ms. Chaplick explained that curb extensions help reduce the crossing distance for pedestrians and forces vehicles to reduce their speeds when approaching a narrowed intersection. Intersection of Jackson Avenue and Erie Avenue The proposed design includes shared travel lanes, curb extensions, sidewalk, high visibility crosswalk, decorative intersection treatment, striped on-street parking and shoulder, median and turn lane. o An attendee asked how this concept prevents motorists from speeding as they drive over the hill from East Rutherford on Jackson Avenue heading south. Ms. Chaplick responded that the proposed curb extension captures drivers’ attention and forces them to slow down. o Nora Shepard asked what the speed limit is on Jackson Avenue and Erie Avenue. Denise replied 35 mph.

Page 3 of 9

MEMORANDUM OF MEETING Intersection of Park Avenue and Ames Avenue The proposed design includes curb extensions, high visibility crosswalks, decorative intersection treatment, left turn restrictions, pedestrian warning signs, “stop for pedestrians” in-road bollards, striped on-street parking, and removal of two parking spaces. o Denise Chaplick pointed out that this intersection had a high volume of pedestrians and is a location with a high incidence of left turning crashes. o Jerry Willis mentioned that motorists are unable to keep the flow of traffic moving when a train arrives and causes traffic to back up past Ames Avenue. o John Hughes stated that he never got an answer as to why the flashing lights on the crosswalk, by the roundabout, are still not functioning. Kim Birdsall mentioned it was an electrical problem. Intersection of Park Avenue and Passaic Avenue Denise presented two concept design plans for Park Avenue and Passaic Avenue. “Concept 2”, a less aggressive approach, includes curb extensions, high visibility crosswalks, center left turn lane, access management, and medians to reduce pedestrian exposure and direct turning traffic around the existing monument. o John Hughes said that motorists form three lanes at the west Passaic Avenue approach to either make left or right turn onto Park Avenue or continue straight ahead onto Lincoln Avenue. This becomes unsafe for pedestrians to cross an already long distance between the post office and the library. o An attendee suggested to restrict pedestrians from crossing the straight shot from the post office to the library, and instead cross from the post office to the day care center and then from the day care center to the library. Ms. Chaplick said that pedestrians will still want to cross the shortest and straightest distance which is directly from the post office to the library. o Don Norbut said that this plan puts pedestrian safety first. He also said that Rutherford has the opportunity to temporarily try the proposed concepts by using paint and bollards before making the design permanent. o Denise agrees that by taking “baby steps” and testing the improvements before making them permanent is the best way to go. Although these improvements are targeted for bicycle and pedestrian safety, it does serve all users to also calm traffic. o Ken Aloisio said that the County is restricting left turn center lanes due to possible head on collisions. The second concept design plan “Concept 1” of the proposed intersection, had many attendees expressing positive feedback and were excited at the proposed design concept. “Concept 1” includes many of the same improvements as “Concept 2” with the addition of pedestrian plazas and on-street parking. West Passaic Avenue is recommended to align with Park Avenue, by creating a Tintersection and becoming the dominant street intersection at Park Avenue. This intersection is a prime location to include pedestrian plazas, given that it is in an area with a high level of pedestrian activity due to the surrounding civic buildings, library, and post office. The addition of the pedestrian plaza will increase the popularity of this location as a gathering place for the community. o Cyndi Steiner said that this concept has a greater economic impact in that more people will be utilizing the pedestrian plaza. o Don Norbut said that, at a first glance, the concept looks like a large open space is being taken away, but after looking more at it and visualizing the area with low planting, it will still have that open feel to it. Page 4 of 9

MEMORANDUM OF MEETING o

Kim Birdsall asked Ms. Chaplick what the next steps would be. Should they begin by putting bollards around to create the pedestrian plaza temporarily? Denise replied with the next step is to collect traffic counts and analyze the intersection to find out how many vehicles are turning and where, and whether Chestnut Street and Lincoln Avenue are being heavily used by motorists from Park Avenue. Depending on the results, restricting turns from Park Avenue onto Lincoln Avenue could be an option.



Denise introduced the Rutherford Bike Route map as part of the recommendations. She explained that the map shows existing bicycle compatibility conditions on one side, and the backside illustrates bicycle and pedestrian safety laws and transit information.



Denise explained that, although the intersection of Jackson Avenue and Union Avenue had a high number of crashes, it was not considered as part of the conceptual recommendations because more traffic analysis is needed to possibly upgrade the traffic signals and provide exclusive left turn lanes. The intersection does provide crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and curb ramps.



John Hughes asked what type of bicycle facilities were being recommended on Erie Avenue. He also added that even though Sharrows and bike lanes are striped on roadways, it doesn’t necessarily mean that there won’t be any motorists/bicyclists crashes. However, striping does make motorists aware that bicyclists use the roadway.



Denise Coradini highly doubts that the County will allow 10’ travel lanes on Erie Avenue to accommodate the proposed 5’ bike lanes.



Ms. Chaplick mentioned that the long term plan on Erie Avenue is to install a bike path along the railroad tracks but this could take up to 20 years. Meeting with the County and understanding what could be done to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians on county routes is a must.



Ken Aloisio encourages communities to adopt the Complete Streets Policy. He also added that if enough people raise their voices and persist on having the County accommodate bicycle and pedestrian facilities on their roads, then it is more likely that the County will approve these facilities.



Ms. Chaplick stated that Rutherford needs to keep reminding the County that accommodating for cyclists and pedestrians is a priority for the Borough. She also pointed out that every opportunity should be taken to incorporate restriping of a roadway with bicycle facilities when a resurfacing project is underway.



Ms. Chaplick ended the recommendation section of the meeting and pointed out that the next steps for the project is to have the last Public Information Center (PIC) and prepare the Report. The Green Team is trying to put together an event in May to correspond with Bike Month. The PIC will be scheduled to coincide with this event.



Ms. Chaplick asked if there were any other questions. o

Denise Coradini asked if NJDOT has the ability/power to relocate or remove bus stops and shelters along certain roadways, particularly a bus stop right in front of the school along Union Avenue. Khalid Shaikh said that he is reviewing a report on bus stop inventory but it only addresses bus stops on State routes and not county or local. Ms. Coradini said that they Page 5 of 9

MEMORANDUM OF MEETING reached out to NJ Transit but did not have a response regarding the bus stop. Ken Aloisio said that the Borough identifies the bus stop locations and the County has to approve them. o



An attendee asked how the PIC gets announced. Denise stated that an email will be sent out with the exact date, time, and location and an announcement will be posted on the Borough’s website.

Ms. Chaplick thanked everybody for coming to the meeting.

Next Steps/Schedule • •

Public Information Meeting #2 (May 2013) Draft and Final Plan

Handouts • Agenda • Summary of Recommendations • Recommended Priority Sidewalk Implementation/Maintenance

Page 6 of 9

Borough of Rutherford Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Steering Committee Meeting #2 Wednesday February 13, 2013 7:00 PM – 9:00 PM Borough Hall, 2nd Floor Rutherford, NJ

AGENDA 1.

Welcome and Introductions

7:00 PM

2.

Purpose of Meeting

7:05 PM

Background

7:10 PM

3.

4.

• •

• • •

Review Draft Recommendations Document Steering Committee Feedback

Existing Conditions Crash Data Assessment Bicycle and Pedestrian Count Data Results

7:20 PM

Recommendations

• • •

Recommended Priority Sidewalk Proposed Bicycle Compatibility Conceptual Layouts with Detailed Descriptions o Orient Way Corridor o Park Avenue and Ames Avenue Intersection o Park Avenue and Passaic Avenue Intersection o Erie Avenue and Jackson Avenue Intersection

5.

Bike Route Map Review

8:00 PM

6.

Next Steps • Public Meeting (Date/Location?) • Draft & Final Plan

8:15 PM

7.

Comments/Questions/Discussion

8:30 PM

8.

Adjourn

9:00 PM

Borough of Rutherford and NJDOT cordially invite you to attend a

Tuesday May 14, 2013 4:30 – 7:30 PM Rutherford Public Library, Auditorium 150 Park Avenue, Rutherford, NJ

Photo Source: William Newman

COME TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! A Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is being prepared for the Borough of Rutherford with the assistance of the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT). The purpose of this plan is to promote bicycle and pedestrian safety, accessibility, and mobility in Rutherford. Please join us on Tuesday May 14th, 2013 between 4:30 PM and 7:30 PM to hear about the Plan and provide us with your thoughts. Your input is very important!

MEMORANDUM OF MEETING Project: Date: Place: Purpose:

Borough of Rutherford Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Tuesday May 14, 2013 Rutherford Borough Public Library Public Information Center #2

Time: By:

4:30 PM – 7:30 PM Layla Fryc

Meeting Attendees Kim Birdsall Joseph DeSalvo Bill Gumbman Barbara Bennett John Hughes Karen Travellin Adam Krass Joann Hughes Livio DiRubbo Matthew Malysa Vinnie Laborim Carolyn Haransson Sharon Clancy Peter Hayward Randy Smith Joan Tidena Adam Szura Carol Tantullo John Zacharias Grace Zhan Wayne Narucki William Farrell Rafael Paredes Cyndi Steiner Meeta Patel Khalid Shaikh Layla Fryc Steven Wong

Borough of Rutherford Borough of Rutherford Rutherford Police Department Rutherford Recreation Rutherford Green Team Rutherford Green Team Rutherford Green Team BOE & Aesthetics Com. Grant Writer South Bergenite Resident of Rutherford Resident of Rutherford Resident of Rutherford Resident of Rutherford Resident of Rutherford Resident of Rutherford Resident of Rutherford Resident of Rutherford Resident of Rutherford Resident of Rutherford

Resident of East Rutherford NJ Bike & Walk Coalition Meadowlink NJDOT-OBPP Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Michael Baker Jr., Inc.

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

A Public Information Center (PIC) held on Tuesday May 14, 2013 from 4:30 PM to 7:30 PM at the Rutherford Public Library to present bicycle and pedestrian recommendations and concept-level layouts to the general public. The main purpose of the meeting was to receive and document the public’s feedback on the proposed improvements. Project team members were available to provide descriptions of the concepts and answer questions from attendees. Comment cards were also provided to document the feedback of the general public. The materials presented included a summary of existing conditions which included the preliminary bicycle and pedestrian network, existing sidewalk inventory findings, proposed priority sidewalk recommendations, existing bicycle compatibility assessment, proposed bicycle compatibility, bicycle and pedestrian crash analysis, regional connections to neighboring towns, and four concept – level layout plans. Additionally, a slideshow highlighting facts of the existing conditions and proposed recommendations was running on a laptop in the background during the time of the meeting. 1

MEMORANDUM OF MEETING Below is a summary of comments received through the comment cards during the PIC: • I think having a bicycle and walking paths are both excellent ideas! The more users friendly our town is for pedestrians and cyclists, hopefully the more people will walk and/or ride. Thank you! • Erie Avenue in front of the train station must have 2 lanes, one for traffic crossing the tracks to East Rutherford and one lane for traffic on Erie Avenue. • Passaic Avenue and Park Avenue concept 1 is appealing even though more study is needed. • Recommend security cameras above the bike racks to deter bike theft. • Spoke to Steven Wong (Baker) & Rafael (resident). Have lived in Rutherford for 45 years and on Orient Way for 28 years. Rutherford does not need this project. It will still be the best place to live in South Bergen because of its school system, its liquor laws, the high land values, the low crime. This project has a negative feel to me. The cost should be applied to a constructive project. Orient Way is already crowded and entering from driveways is already difficult. I doubt that anyone living on Orient Way would be supportive. I drive to NYC regularly and everyone I have spoken to (residents) is unhappy with their system. I don’t think this project would make it safer for pedestrians, drivers, and possibly cyclists. (The conversation continued between Steven, Rafael and the concerned resident explaining him the purpose of the study and the steps that will need to be taken to implement the concept on Orient Way). • The Borough should have sent a notice to all residents on Orient Way via U.S. mail, not everyone goes on the Borough website. Orient Way residents are the people that will be impacted the most by the bike lane, therefor every Orient Way resident should have the opportunity to voice an opinion before a decision is made. Maybe we should be more concerned about paving Orient Way to get rid of the potholes and craters that residents must dodge on a daily basis. What percentage of the Rutherford population will benefit from a bike lane? How many people that are pushing for a bike lane live on Orient Way? • It is essential to determine if the residents of Rutherford are in agreement with the plan to develop a bicycle lane. Safety must be the primary consideration! • When it rains, W Passaic Avenue has a very heavy flowing river going down the street, closer to the sidewalk. This has the potential to cause flooding in the “plaza” area. Perhaps a draining system needs to be implemented. Additional comments were expressed during conversations with the project team: • Residents on Orient Way recommended that parking be adjacent to the curb for better sight distances as vehicles pull out of driveways. The Rutherford Traffic Safety Officer concurred with this comment due to the high number of right angle crashes which occur at the unsignalized intersections on Orient Way. • Orient Way is often used as a by-pass when Route 17 is congested. • Bicyclists have been observed travelling on Orient Way, with most believed to be from neighboring towns. • Pedestrian safety is concern because of the long crossing distances on Park Avenue. • Turning restrictions on Park Avenue is not a good idea. Mobility in this area is difficult enough. Traffic restrictions would make this problem worse. • The majority of residents on Orient Way who attended the PIC do not believe the concepts will provide any benefit to them or the Borough. Next Steps: Draft Borough of Rutherford Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Report.

2

APPENDIX C Online Survey Results

Survey Results October 2012

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN

Introduction The Borough of Rutherford is developing a Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, sponsored by NJDOT, with assistance from Michael Baker Jr., Inc. The study will identify bicycle and pedestrian issues and provide recommendations for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. As part of the Public Outreach Task for the Borough of Rutherford, Baker is conducting an online surey to gather public input and assist in identifying deficiencies and opportunities for bicycling and walking in the Borough. A link to the survey was posted on Rutherford Borough’s website. The survey was accessible online for the month of September, 2012. A total of 208 responses were received. Survey Results

1

Survey Results October 2012

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN

2

Survey Results October 2012

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN

3

Survey Results October 2012

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN

4

Survey Results October 2012

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN

5

Survey Results October 2012

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN

Participants were also asked a few open ended questions. Below are the response. On which road(s), if any, would you like to see improvements made with regard to bicycle travel? Top 5 answers are: 1. Orient Way (37 responses) 2. Park Avenue (31 responses) 3. Jackson Avenue/Riverside Avenue (29 responses) 4. Union Avenue (28 responses) 5. Erie Avenue (25 responses) On which road(s) or intersection(s), if any, would you like to see improvements made with regard to pedestrian travel? Top 6 answers are: 1. Park Avenue (16 responses) 2. Union Avenue (15 responses) 3. Orient Way (14 responses) 4. Jackson Avenue/Riverside Avenue (9 responses) 5. Erie Avenue (8 responses) 6. Ridge Road (7 responses) Where do you find it difficult or uncomfortable to cross the road by walking or by bicycle? Top 6 answers are: 6

Survey Results October 2012

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN

Park Avenue (31 responses) Union Avenue (26 responses) Orient Way (23 responses) Jackson Avenue/Riverside Avenue (17 responses) Erie Avenue (10 responses) The circle by the train station (8 responses)

At the end of the survey, participants were asked to list any additional comments or insights that they think might be helpful with the Borough of Rutheford Bicycle and Pedestrian Study. Over 90 comments were received. They are shown below and are listed by category. ENGINEERING Paths and Trails • I think it would be a good idea to build a bike/walking path only if the tax payers are not stuck with the bill • The safest way to have any bike riding would be to have a separate bike path, not having bikes ride in the street with the cars. The streets are not wide enough to accommodate both safely. Riders would be able to listen to their music without fear of not hearing a coming car. At this point, there is no room for bike riders. • I was very excited to hear about the Green Team's plan for a bike path. I am a home owner and if it means paying more taxes to get it down I am okay with that. I hope it gets done within the near future. Thank you. • I work at Felician College and I believe bike paths that include the area of the college would benefit the students living there. • Having a bike/walking Path would make us closer to becoming a sustainable community, would be welcomed by our neighbors, bring in more people to our downtown, lead to a healthier and safer lifestyle for Rutherford residents, increase our home values. • A bicycle path would only benefit the town of Rutherford, both aesthetically and quality of life for its residents. • I think the green team is misplacing its efforts in the bike path. This path doesn't really go anywhere worth going and most streets in town have very little traffic and are just as safe now for a bike as they would be with a separate bike lane. The bike path is only likely to be used infrequently and only by recreational riders. Instead you should focus on work, shopping or eating car trips that could be replaced by bike trips. For example, many people who work in town for the borough also live in town and commute by car very short distances from home to work. There are many ways the town, including some federal tax breaks that could be used to encourage these people to bike to work instead of drive. • I really think the town resources could be better spent on something other than a bike path. I would rather see the former railroad tracks be allowed to go back to nature and be reforested then used as a bike path. Also why not try and reestablish the former "Lake of the Woods/Swan Lake" in the same area. To me these would be much better improvements than a bike path. • I look forward to bicycle paths in Rutherford. • A bike/walk path would be an incredible addition to Rutherford. • I grew up in Rutherford riding my bicycle everywhere. It would be nice if there was a path that everyone could use. It would also be a safe place for children to ride and to appreciate nature while riding.

7

Survey Results October 2012

• •



• • •



• • • •





BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN

Recreational bicycling would be improved and safer with a bike path separate from motor vehicles. Bicycling could be greatly facilitated in Rutherford through a combination of designated bicycle paths, and the designation of bicycle friendly residential streets. Drivers would know that, on those streets, they must be aware of and yield to bicyclists. This is done very well in Germany, and makes for a proliferation of bicycle friendly routes without having to build bicycle paths everywhere. Saddle River Pathway, which extends from Rochelle Pk to Ridgewood & Glen Rock is a model for the way all bike paths should be built. Its creative ways of crossing under highways & over the river could be duplicated on a crossing from E. Rutherford to Secaucus. Would love to have a bike path where I could go with my kids. Would like for there to be rollerblading also. It is a wonderful place to walk and bike, it would be great to have some paths to walk/bike on. We travel as a family to Saddlebrook, Hoboken and other places with our bike rack to ride as a family. Now that the kids are older, the lovely little path around memorial field just isn't doing it for my family. I think it’s a great idea and set a model for other towns. I would visit town more often if I knew a bike path was there. Even the makeshift bike path on River Road has inspired me there. I'd love to see a path created around the perimeter of Rutherford that has been discussed. One that has a designated bike lane where possible. More trails please! And signage being pedestrian and bicycle friendly. Overall it would be great for the borough to have walking/biking trails. I would love to see a bike path in Rutherford safe enough to include even young members of a family. I would walk more in town and use our parks more if leashed dogs were allowed. As it is now, my family goes to neighboring town parks to spend an afternoon walking the dog while letting the kids ride their bikes. Please be sure to include a trail to the MetLife Sports Complex as part of any plan. It is a shame to have to drive to a venue (and pay to park) that is so close to our community. Also would like access to nature trails via bike ring. Bike only lanes are very important for safety. Please make the bike trails accessible to all ages with adequate resources such as markings, lights, paving and traffic flow signs. Thank you!

Bike Lanes • My children are 10 and 8 and need supervising when biking because the drivers are not aware. I think that dedicated bike lanes would help tremendously. • It would be good to have lanes that connect with neighboring towns. Rutherford itself is small. I'd like to be able to bike out of Rutherford, to E.R., Carlstadt, Lyndhurst, etc. • I'm a traffic engineer who lives and works in town. I firmly believe that we need to implement bike lanes and not necessarily bike paths to improve mobility in the borough. NYCDOT has implemented excellent infrastructure at low cost with paint and way finding signage. I highly recommend that as a phase one plan. • Developing bike racks/lanes would improve so much - encourage people to bike more would improve parking and traffic. I would love to be able to ride a bike to the bus stop instead of driving and trying to find parking.

8

Survey Results October 2012



BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN

Would like to see a connection between the local street system and nearby parks.

Bike Parking • More bike 'parking' is needed. Yes to dedicated bike paths for in town riding and recreational trails. • As far as bicycling is concerned, having bike racks around town would be the biggest improvement, although I frequently lock my bike to lampposts. By the way, I realize that my desire for a bike lane on Orient and a median on Orient are mutually exclusive; one or the other would be great. • I love to cycle as do several of my friends. I like to encourage my children as well. My oldest rides to the high school every day. A covered bike rack at the school would enable him to take the bike even if inclement weather was predicted during the school day. My youngest, 11, likes to ride with friends. I do not let him cross at Jackson. It's simply too dangerous. And there are not enough places for him to lock his bike up to do things at the park or around town. • I love to ride with my kids and hope biking becomes friendlier. I think installing bike racks at the lower schools would encourage riding to school. Sidewalks and Crosswalks • I am having a hard time trying to see why Rutherford is venturing out and trying to add bicycling paths to the town when we don’t have decent sidewalks to walk on, five plus years ago I was told that my sidewalk and curb was going to be replaced because of uprooting (the sidewalk was marked with paint) they were never fixed, when I contacted the borough I was told they didn’t have any money left to repair them, now they want to add bicycle paths, I think that their priorities are in the wrong place, my wife is ill she will not be riding a bicycle, nor can she walk on the sidewalks because they are in bad shape. Are they nuts?? Who’s going to benefit from this seasonal if that additional path? Who will be maintaining the path? It will be like everything else, falling apart in a year then what? More money that we don’t have? The existing sidewalks and roads are bad and getting worse by the day put the grant into what we have now that needs fixing and if there is extra monies put it towards the fields which people walk on now. • Sidewalks need to be fixed. Sometimes I have to walk in the streets. • I am actually a runner, and it is very difficult to run on the sidewalks of Rutherford. The pavement is incredibly uneven and dangerous even in the light of day. In the evening, it is impossible to run due to the hazards of those uneven pavements. I am also a mom of an infant, and pushing the stroller is nearly impossible without walking in the road with the traffic. I would welcome improved sidewalks and recreational trails for walking with my child. I consider the future, and allowing my son to ride his bike and I would be concerned about the lack of trails and recreational areas in town to allow him to do so safely. • In addition to walking, I run in Rutherford. I find the sidewalks and roads very difficult to run on. This is due to uneven sidewalks and potholes in the roads. Hopefully they will get fixed in the future. • Too many walkers/joggers walk in wrong direction when walking on roadway. They should be facing traffic so they can see cars coming and the drivers know that they see them too. I walk in the roadway because so many sidewalks are cracked, uneven, broken, etc. That is a tripping hazard. • If possible, can something be done about the bushes, shrubs, and trees that interfere with the sidewalks as well? There are quite a lot of streets that have 9

Survey Results October 2012







BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN

restricted paths because of overgrown bushes and shrubs and trees that have leaves and such hanging in the way. Thank you. Repaint the white grid crosswalks on park ave, dammit! And put back those vertical signs reminding stupid drivers to stop for peds in xwalks !!! simple !! Please do not build hardcurb bike lanes such as in NYC manhattan 8th and 9th ave, they are not helpful and too restrictive. I think it would be helpful to have signage at marked crosswalks, reminding vehicles to yield to pedestrians within the crosswalk, i.e. the yellow reflective signs that are placed directly in the street. It seems like vehicles either forget, or are ignorant that they are supposed to yield to a pedestrian at a crosswalk. It seems even worse when walking along a major street, and crossing the numerous side streets. The vehicles approaching the intersection do not even look for pedestrians. Even though they have a stop condition, they just roll through the stop sign, block the crosswalk, and ONLY look for a gap in the traffic, never even noticing pedestrians. I would also like to see more roads paved correctly and more curbs installed correctly as well as sidewalks. Some of the sidewalks are dangerous and not all home owners can update the walk in front of their houses. Updated curbs would also help with water running on to properties from the sunken curbs now installed.

Other Engineering Comments • This is a small town, not much over a mile long. More people of all ages would bike/walk if there were bike walking paths, better lighting at night, bike racks all along Park Ave , train station , bus stops, schools Memorial and other public areas and intersections that were altered to make crossing safer for all pedestrians, baby carriages, bikers. • Beautiful town with alot of beautiful homes, shops, and development. Council and DPW and all managers MUST do a better job with all aesthetics - train circle, welcome entryways by train trestle, Orient Way by Rt 3, Union Ave, Ridge Rd, and Jackson by Wallington/E. Rutherford, MONIES should be invested into welcome points, then wider opening and trails by W. Erie (old railroad), landscaping and removal of dead trees and garbage up and down Erie, from train station to Jackson, repaving of blacktop path around perimeter of memorial park, CROSSWALK repainting a must around all the town. • Not to take anything away from your current initiative, which I think it’s great, but there should be regional planning to make it easier to travel between communities and to mass transit locations. Safe all-day bike parking is a big component of the latter. In addition to being an avid recreational cyclist, it's getting more and more impossible to park near transit to NYC, and better walking and biking with this in mind is an opportunity to help both situations. • Roads are terrible. All need paving. • I agree with Mr. Hugh's comments in the S Bergenite the curves that cause the rollovers on Orient Way are much too sharp the road definitely should be made straighter. • Need a traffic light at (you guessed it) Highland Cross & Orient Way. • As a pedestrian and father of bicyclists I feel that a few strategically placed traffic lights would reduce speeding on our major roads (Orient, Ridge, Park, Union). Thanks! • I feel safe walking/biking alone in Rutherford at any time. More street lighting would be helpful for nighttime/early evening/early morning walks/rides. • Fix the traffic problems, i.e. Orient Way and the Rutherford circle and bicyclists and pedestrians will be safer

10

Survey Results October 2012



BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN

I would Love to see bike and walking ring in Rutherford. It would be great for families.

ENFORECEMENT • Rutherford is such a beautiful town and I love that you can live almost anywhere and walk to shops and services downtown. But since my daughter was born and I realized that I had to buy a jogging stroller to get over the bumps on the sidewalk and have become more aware of how rarely drivers yield to pedestrians, I think the physical challenges of the town actually discourage walking down the gorgeous tree-lined streets. I think working on ways to change driver behavior would pay off. The town I grew up in spent several months ticketing people who didn't yield to pedestrians rigorously and now drivers slow if they see a pedestrian even close to a crosswalk. It is amazing and great for a pedestrian. • It would be great to put more measures in place to ensure that motorists stop for pedestrians, i.e. more signs, more police ticketing those motorists • Traffic laws need to be enforced. Crossing streets can be very dangerous. • The police should enforce the existing state helmet law. Kids don't wear helmets because they don't want to be singled out by their friends and ridiculed. If the police enforced this state law like they should then everyone would wear them - just like seat belts. • Lack of enforcement by police when vehicles park in crosswalks, or in their driveways and block the sidewalk or even just park across sidewalk because of "No Parking" signs. (This is prevalent on Union Avenue in front of apartments between Hackett Place and Wood Ave). • Rutherford has so much potential as a lovely, pedestrian and bike friendly community. Would love to see strides made to that end. Speed reduced, lovely signs telling people to slow down and be careful of pedestrians, police enforcement of such. • We need more pedestrian friendly community. Low traffic speeds better enforcement. • There is a shameless disregard of the speed limit, other traffic laws and common courtesy. I'm for the police being given the time to ticket offenders. It’s amazing that more people don't get hurt. EDUCATION • Organizing community walking or bicycling days. • A suggestion: Have a walk/bike event sponsored by PD where safe practices can be discussed and reflective safety gear can be provided. I believe AAA will assist in this so it should not cost town too much money. • All towns should encourage exercise and non-motorized transportation. • Love the path in the woods for biking and walking.... not many people know about it... not known as a biking town but signage and bike paths might help folks decide to ride for errands in such a pretty and small town. I love riding to rite aid or to stores. A good promo might be a grant-funded discount off bike baskets or for adding needed gears for Rutherford trekking. SAFETY • Bike riding has become more difficult with the number of sinking conditions of road beds after utility work (gas, water, sewer). These are usually in the parking lane which either forces me onto the sidewalk or into the car lane. • I know that legally, you're not supposed to bicycle on the sidewalk, but often there's no safe alternative, especially if you're bicycling with kids. Kids need bicycling and walking. They need to see it as a way to get around & get fit at the same time. They should not be raised to see exercise as something that requires getting in your SUV and going to a designated

11

Survey Results October 2012







• •

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN

exercise place; it should be a part of life. We need to make bicycling and walking in Rutherford more kid-friendly. For a community with so many children, there are just not enough safe roads for kids to bike on. Schools should be encouraging children to ride, but many don't seem to have any bike racks. Bicycling and walking in Rutherford can be a difficult task to do, especially on the streets with the highest traffic. Drivers speed on almost every street and have little to no concern for those crossing the street. Even though markers are set in most intersections to warn drivers of the law to stop for pedestrians, very rarely do these drivers follow these instructions. I'm so thrilled that this initiative is being considered in my community! Bergen County in general is far too traffic-heavy and pedestrian/bike-unfriendly--as a frequent biker/walker, I feel unnecessarily unsafe in many areas---and I love the idea that Rutherford could be a guiding influence for other Bergen County towns and neighborhood to follow. The Green Team makes me proud to live in Rutherford, and I truly hope that all of the plans you've proposed so far see the light of day. I will be happy to support any effort to make walking and bicycling safer and more enjoyable. Thank you for seeking input into these important issues. For the most part, I think the layout of the town, street light coverage, and speed of drivers really lends itself to bikers and walkers. I bike and walk often, and really love that this is part of the town's culture (many towns even nearby don't have this luxury). With the exception of some badly potholed roads, and the very dangerous crossing at Union/Riverside/Route 21, I find Rutherford to be very safe and accommodating to bikers and walkers.

OTHER GENERAL COMMENTS • Memorial field walking trail is great, but wish dogs were welcome. Wish we weren't trespassing when using the rail trail. • I also wish we had some dog-friendly parks where dogs can run free and get some exercise. I hate adding to car traffic just to drive to the next town to let my dogs be dogs. If it were within walking distance, it would be fabulous! I'd wear a trench in the sidewalk! • We need it badly! • Just get it done. • There is a nice trail at Memorial Park starting at the Community Garden. • Great town to get outside in - lots of people out in the morning and evening. • It's time that everyone got together and realized that it's this sort of project that truly adds to the quality of life in our town. • Get it done. • It’s a great idea. • Rutherford could be an ideal community for walking and biking. Improved facilities, street markings, enforcement and education will go a long way to increase walking and biking in town and will benefit the quality of life through reduced traffic and increased physical activities. The time has come to make this happen. • Everyone should be around and about this beautiful town. • If it is right and helpful to the community then it is a benefit for us all. • Whatever solution Rutherford pursues please do not make it an expensive one. • Would like to see more people biking in town.

12

Survey Results October 2012



• • •

• •

• •

• •

BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN

Add bicycle programs similar to that in Boston, where I can take a bike, ride it to another location and leave on a rack with other similar bikes. There would be no rental fee, no cost to the bike rider. Bikes would be borrowed for short distances as books from a library. Making Rutherford a bike/walking friendly town would just improve our quality of life. Enjoy taking my bike on the NJ Transit train to the city - NYC on weekends. As a Rutherford resident since 1971 I've watched NJ go from the Garden State to the parking lot state. I've seen over a dozen trees removed - and not replaced - on my one block alone. The woods along West Erie Av used to be so dense one could not see East Rutherford. West of Montross Av they used to arch over the roadway. I've seen trees over a hundred years old removed from Lincoln Park, and our street trees pruned to look like distorted telephone poles. We can replace hundred year trees with fifteen footers, but we'll never replace the woods. I purchased my home in Rutherford for the architecture and the trees. Ever wonder why old men become cantankerous? Their football team isn’t as good as Ridgefield parks. We live on Orient Way near a NYC bus stop. With pedestrians, joggers, commuters, walkers, out of town and in town parkers in front of our house, this bike path will be detrimental. The path will be directly in front of our house and parking and opening the car door will be dangerous. This is a terrible idea and should be scrapped. No one cares about the homeowner whose house is in this proposed path. Thank you for your hard work and time. I love going out & about my town, it is very relaxing, & safe my town. On the other hand, there are many other towns that offer what you are trying to have done now, we need something as important as this done for our town. Thank you I will pray all goes our way! Glad we are moving on this. It is important to the growth of the Boro. Other towns have these improvements - why not us? Can't wait for implementation of Bike Ring in Rutherford!

13

APPENDIX D Bicycle Compatibility Rating Criteria

Bicycle Compatibility Rating Criteria (Based on Traffic Volume, Speed and Roadway Geometry) May 10, 2012

One-way Daily Traffic Volumes

Urban No Parking Roadway Geometry Shared