Collingswood Bike Lane

Feasibility Study:
for Haddon and Collings Avenues

An Independent Study for Dr. Dunn

By Stella Bonaparte
Rutgers University- Camden
Tuesday, September 15th, 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Overview1
Why Bike Lanes.1
Needs Assessment..4
NJ DOT Guidelines....6
Figure 1: NJ DOT Guidelines Table.6
Haddon Avenue Current Conditions..6
Crash Data. 8
Figure 2: Bicycle / Motor Vehicle Crashes- Haddon / Maple...9
Recommendation: Haddon Avenue9
Figure 3: Diagram of Proposed Haddon Avenue Lane Striping...10
The Parking Lane...10
The Bike Lane10
Figure 4: Cross-Hatched Pavement Markings11
The Motor Vehicle Lane....12
Collings Avenue Current Conditions.14
Crash Data..14
Figure 5: Bicycle / Motor Vehicle Crashes- Collings15
Recommendation: Collings Avenue...15
Figure 6: Diagram of Proposed Collings Avenue Lane Striping ...16
Prohibit Parking..16
The Bike Lane.16
Figure 7:Pedestrian Island that Can Accommodate Cyclists..17
The Motor Vehicle Lane.17
Dealing with Problem Areas...18
Uneven Pavement...18
Obstructions18
Intersections19
Turning Lanes.19
Complete Streets Concept...20
Cost Analysis Tool..21
Sources of Funding.22
Private Sources...22
Planning Grants..22
Project Grants.23
Federal Funding..23
State Funding..24
Conclusion..24
Appendix 1: Cyclist Passing Parked Cars...25
Appendix 2: Bollards..26
Appendix 3: Curb Extension .27
Appendix 4: Dotted and Colored Intersection Lanes.28
Appendix 5: Sharrow.29

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Appendix 6: Haddon Avenue Bicycle Facilities Cost Worksheet30
Appendix 7: Collings Avenue Bicycle Facilities Cost Worksheet31
Appendix 8: Map of Collingswood Streets...32
Bibliography..33
Bicycle Parking Facilities Study
Overview.1
Recommended Destinations for Bicycle Parking...1
Strategic Placement of Post-and-Loop Bike Racks2
Discussion...3
Destinations:
PATCO High Speed Line...4
PATCO and Transit Oriented Development...5
Curb Extensions..6
Collingswood Post Office...7
Collingswood Public Library..8
Commercial Destinations9
Haddon Avenue Convenience Store/Pharmacy.10
Collings Avenue Convenience Store/Pharmacy11
West Collingswood Shopping Plaza..12
Haddon Avenue Food Markets..13
Casual Eateries...14
Bicycle Parking Worksheet15

Overview
The Borough of Collingswood, New Jersey is a first ring suburb of Camden. It is
within biking distance of both Camden, NJ and Philadelphia, PA and has a public transit
station and a bike-share program for residents. Collingswoods downtown has returned
from near abandonment to become a fashionable local destination in recent years. With a
size of 1.5 by 1.5 miles and a population of about 15,000 Collingswood is densely
populated. The borough actively supports the creation of new town houses in the
downtown district as a means to increase density, and therefore business, in the
downtown. Collingswood markets itself as very walkable and bikeable as a selling point
to attract new residents who commute to work in Philadelphia and who may not drive a
car.
As an older town, built to the human scale, Collingswood began as very walkable
and bikable; however, the heavy amount of motor vehicle traffic it receives has
diminished this amenity. As a result, the town is exploring adjustments to the physical
streetscape in order to improve conditions for people using non-motorized and motorized
forms of transportation. Collingswood Commissioner Joan Leonard will review this
study and has requested that it include an assessment of the Boroughs need for bicycle
parking facilities.

Why Bike Lanes?

A municipality may wonder, what is the benefit of creating bike lanes? First, it is
important to recognize that bicyclists use the roads, whether or not they are considered at

the time roads are designed or re-designed. Bicyclists are, and should be treated as equal
users of the road.
Studies, such as one in Cambridge, Massachusetts, have shown that bike lanes
increase the visibility of bicyclists to motor vehicle users (Van Houten and Seiderman,
2004, p. 10); however, striping a bike lane is no guarantee that safety will increase,
because bike lanes are not a cure for underlying roadway design flaws. For example, a
dangerous intersection will remain a problem area until it is redesigned. Every road has
its trouble areas; therefore this should not become an excuse to ignore the needs of
cyclists.
On a heavily traveled principal arterial roadway, such as Haddon Avenue, the
outer line of a bike lane serves as a guideline to motor vehicle traffic, enabling them to
proceed steadily in a clearly delineated lane when driving beside a cyclist.

Bike lanes have been found to provide more consistent separation between bicyclists and passing
motorists than shared travel lanes. The presence of the bike lane stripe has also been shown from
research to result in fewer erratic motor vehicle driver maneuvers, more predictable bicyclist
riding behavior, and enhanced comfort levels for both motorists and bicyclists. (BIKESAFE,

2009)

The greatest benefit provided by bike lanes is their attraction of a greater number
of cyclists to the route. Safety for cyclists increases when more cyclists are present on
the road. The adage that there is safety in numbers applies here. Therefore, a bike lane
improves safety conditions by encouraging more bicycling. Between 1950 and 1975,
the number of cycling trips in a sample of Dutch, Danish and German cities fell from

50%-85% to only 14%-35%. However, after these cities implemented bicycle and
pedestrian supportive policies and infrastructure between 1975 and 1995, the trend
reversed. This same study goes on to cite a strong correlation between increased cycling
and increased safety for cyclists. (Pucher and Buehler, 2008, pp. 502, 505-6)
One of Collingswoods goals is to increase the patronage of its central business
district without increasing traffic congestion or diminishing the options for parking. By
encouraging cycling for errands, commuting and short trips, a number of cars may be
removed from the daily motor vehicle traffic and parking struggle. The value of
substituting car with cycle trips is higher in areas of greater congestion, creating greater
savings for cycling investment. (Valuing the Benefits of Cycling, 2007, p. 4)
Finally, bike lanes are commonly used, in conjunction with other measures, as
traffic calming devices. Bike lanes reduce motor vehicle speeds and volume by
narrowing the motor vehicle traffic lane and drawing attention to the presence of cyclists.
(Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center, 2009, Fig. 13)

To summarize, bike lanes benefit transportation infrastructure by:

Encouraging more cyclists / Removing motor vehicle trips

Increasing the visibility of cyclists to motorists

Calming traffic

These benefits fit Collingswoods overall plan to promote its business districts yet
maintain a small town level of comfort in a densely populated area.

Needs Assessment
(To refer to the Collingswood Street Map, see Appendix 8)
The NJ DOT puts forth a series of questions which are used to assess the need or
potential of an area for bicycle facilities. These questions and their answers pertaining to
Haddon and Collings Avenues are as follows:
Does the highway serve an activity center which could generate bicycle trips?
Yes, Haddon and Collings Avenues, each have their own business district which,
if made attractive to cyclists, could generate a higher number of trips by utility cyclists
(those who use their bicycles rather than cars to run errands and make short trips).
Is the highway facility included on a county or municipal bicycle master plan?
Not currently, however a senior planner with the Camden County Improvement
Authority has indicated that they will review the results of this study as they work on
their master plan.
Will the highway facility provide continuity with or between existing bicycle facilities?
Yes, Haddon and Collings Avenues can act as links on the Greenway,
connecting recreational bicycle facilities at Cooper River Park, Knight Park, and Newton
Lake Park.
Is the highway facility located on a roadway which is part of a mapped bike route
or utilized regularly by local bicycle clubs?
Yes. The Collingswood Bike Share headquarters is located within a municipally
owned public works building roughly at the juncture of Haddon and Collings Avenues.
Participants in the Bike Share program (adults, children and seniors) regularly ride to this
location for tune-ups and repairs. As yet, there are no officially distributed mapped
bicycle routes.
Does the highway facility pass within 3.2 kilometers (two miles) of a transit station?
Haddon Avenue is within one (1) block of the PATCO High Speed Line, while
Collings Avenue is within three (3) blocks of the same station.
Does the highway facility pass within 3.2 kilometers (two miles) of a high school
or college?

Yes, Haddon Avenue passes within one mile of Collingswood High School.
Collingswood High School is located directly on Collings Avenue.
Does the highway facility pass within 0.8 kilometers (1/2 mile) of an elementary
school or middle school?
Yes, Collingswood Middle School is located on the same site as Collingswood
High School, directly on Collings Avenue. James A. Garfield Elementary School is
located on Haddon Avenue and Mark Newbie Elementary School is within one (1) block
of Haddon Avenue. William P. Tatem Elementary School, Zane North Elementary
School, Thomas Sharp Elementary School, and St. Johns Regional Catholic Elementary
School are all within mile of either Haddon Avenue or Collings Avenue.
Does the highway facility pass through an employment center? If so, is there a
significant residential area within a 4.8 kilometer (3 mile) radius?
Yes. Both Haddon and Collings Avenues each have their own business district.
Haddon Avenue has a significant number of commercial/professional offices in addition
to its numerous retail establishments. Residential areas surround the Collings and
Haddon corridors. Additionally, Collings Avenue has a high-rise apartment complex,
The Heights; while Haddon Avenue has a downtown condominium complex, The
Lumberyard, and senior living facility The Collingswood Arms.
Does the highway facility provide access to a recreation area or otherwise serve a
recreation purpose?
Yes. One full side of the triangular Knight Park faces onto Collings Avenue. The
Knight Park can be accessed by driveways and side-streets off of Collings Avenue. At
two points on the triangle which makes up Knight Park, Haddon Avenue is less than
mile away.

NJ DOT guidelines state that:

If any one of these criteria produces a significantly positive response, the
highway facility has the potential of attracting less experienced bicycle
riders and/or large numbers of advanced riders. As a result, it should be
considered as potentially suitable for designation as a bikeway. (Bicycle
Compatible Roadways and Bikeways- Planning and Design Guidelines,
2009, p. 39)

NJ Department of Transportation Guidelines

The New Jersey DOT offers the following guidelines for a roadways compatibility with
bicycle usage:
Figure 1:
Condition I: AADT 1,200-2,000
Speed
Limit
<30 mph
31-40 mph
41-50 mph
>50 mph

Urban w/ Parking
Shared Lane (12 ft.)
Shared Lane (14 ft.)
Shared Lane (15 ft.)
NA

Urban w/o Parking

Shared Lane (11 ft.)
Shared Lane (14 ft.)
Shared Lane (15 ft.)
Shoulder (4ft.)

Rural
Shared Lane (10 ft.)
Shared Lane (12 ft.)
Shoulder (3ft.)
Shoulder (4ft.)

Condition II: AADT 2,000-10,000

Speed
Limit
<30 mph
31-40 mph
41-50 mph
>50 mph

Urban w/ Parking
Shared Lane (14 ft.)
Shared Lane (14 ft.)
Shared Lane (15 ft.)
NA

Urban w/o Parking

Shared Lane (12 ft.)
Shared Lane (14 ft.)
Shared Lane (15 ft.)
Shoulder (6 ft.)

Rural
Shared Lane (12 ft.)
Shoulder (3 ft.)
Shoulder (4 ft.)
Shoulder (6 ft.)

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

Speed
Limit
<30 mph
31-40 mph
41-50 mph
>50 mph

Urban w/ Parking
Shared Lane (14 ft.)
Shared Lane (14 ft.)
Shared Lane (15 ft.)
NA

Urban w/o Parking

Shared Lane (14 ft.)
Shoulder (4 ft.)
Shoulder (6 ft.)
Shoulder (6 ft.)

Rural
Shared Lane (14 ft.)
Shoulder (4 ft.)
Shoulder (6 ft.)
Shoulder (6 ft.)

Key:

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

Current Conditions: Haddon Avenue

As both a destination and a heavily traveled through road, Haddon Avenue is
beset by traffic woes, including morning and afternoon rush hour traffic back-ups, and
the largest concentration of auto-pedestrian and auto-bicycle crashes of any street in
Collingswood. (Orth Rodgers, 2004) (Collingswood Police Department, 2009)

Haddon Avenue has on-street parking on both sides of the street and two shared
travel lanes for motor vehicles and bicycles. The Collingswood Circulation Plan
concludes that Haddon Avenue is compatible as a shared lane (no special provisions
made for bicycles) because the shared lane is 16 ft wide and the speed limit is 25 miles
per hour. (Orth Rodgers, p. 23)
However, the generous width of the motor vehicle lanes coupled with a lack of
visible crosswalks for much of its length means that vehicle speeds on Haddon Avenue
are routinely 5-10 miles per hour over the 25 mile per hour speed limit. The wide lanes
give drivers a feeling that they have a wide buffer from parked cars, which encourages
them to drive faster than the speed limit. The limited number of crosswalks (primarily
concentrated in the central business district) means that drivers speed, in part, because
they are not reminded of the presence of pedestrians. The frequent placement of digital
speed signs on Haddon Avenue is a visual cue that drivers routinely flout the 25 mile per
hour speed limit.
Bicyclists who travel Haddon Avenue must share a 16 foot lane with motor
vehicles, including trucks and buses, traveling 25-35 mile per hour. The observed result
is that most of the cyclists on Haddon Avenue are the most confident Type A advanced
cyclists, with a smaller number of Type B basic cyclists. Type C cyclists, that is,
children, usually ride on the sidewalks. The Type B basic cyclists (less confident adult
cyclists) tend to ride dangerously close to the door zone of parked vehicles in an
attempt to reduce their likelihood of being hit from behind by parallel motor vehicle
traffic. (FHWA University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation, 2009,
Chapter 13.3)

The door zone is the approximately 4 foot area of road into which a parked motor
vehicles door may open. Riding close to the door zone is a dangerous practice as the
cyclist can be thrown from the bike which can result in injury and impact with parallel
traffic.
Cyclists on Haddon have been observed ducking into vacant parking spaces as
they ride, then darting out into the driving lane when they must inevitably pass parked
cars. This is one example of cyclist confusion, which could be reduced by clearly
marked bicycle facilities in conjunction with education. It is also common for cyclists on
Haddon to drive against traffic. This practice is inadvisable because drivers are not
expecting to encounter a cyclist in this way. It also increases the likelihood of collision
with other cyclists and pedestrians. Bicycle lanes with directional arrows as pavement
markings would signal to cyclists that they should be traveling with traffic.

Crash Data
For the period between 1/1/08 through 4/30/09 the Collingswood Police
Department received 10 reports of crashes between motor vehicles and cyclists. Of these
10 crashes, 4 were on Haddon Avenue. (See Figure 2) Of these 4 crashes on Haddon,
two involved a vehicle making a turn and two involved a cyclist hitting a vehicle.
(Collingswood Police Department, 2009)
Another road in Collingswood which had multiple motor vehicle/cyclist crashes
was Maple Avenue. Maple Avenue runs parallel to Haddon one block to the north and is
commonly used by cyclists as an alternative to the busier conditions on Haddon Avenue.
During this same time period, Maple Avenue experienced 3 crashes between motor
vehicles and cyclists. (See Figure 2)

Maple Avenue receives less traffic than Haddon, but its width is not sufficient to
accommodate two lanes of motor vehicle traffic and two passing cyclists. (Orth Rodgers,
2004, Fig. 9) Additionally, there is intermittent parking on Maple which adds to its
incompatibility with heavy cycling use. The improvement of cycling facilities on
Haddon Avenue could reduce the level of overflow onto Maple Avenue. (Collingswood
Police Department, 2009)
Figure 2: Bicycle / Motor Vehicle Crashes- Haddon / Maple
Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Crashes (1/1/08 through 4/30/09)
Date
Location
3/3/2008 2 W. Wayne Terrace
6/13/2008 Maple Ave. & E. Collings
7/16/2008 W. Collings Ave. & Rt. 30
8/11/2008 Haddon Ave. & Lees Ave.
10/21/2008 W. Browning Rd. & Atlantic Ave.
10/31/2008 Haddon Ave. & W. Summerfield Ave.
1/13/2009 Haddon Ave. & Collings Ave.
1/24/2009 Haddon Ave. & Cuthbert Blvd.
2/10/2009 Woodlawn Ave. & Maple Ave.
3/27/2009 Maple Ave. & Pacific Ave.

Recommended Changes: Haddon Avenue

Create bike lanes on both sides of Haddon Avenue for its entire length through the
Borough of Collingswood. (To refer to a Collingswood Street Map, see Appendix 8)

Haddon Avenue should be striped with full bicycle lanes and their associated
markings. These bicycle lanes would be 6 foot in width, delineated by a solid white line
on both sides, and run the full length of Haddon Avenue from its border with Haddon
Township to its border with Camden.

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

classified as a principal arterial road. (Karabashian, 1998) (Orth Rodgers, 2003, Fig.1)
The bicycle lanes would begin 7 feet from the curb to allow for on-street parallel parking.
Each motor vehicle lane would be reduced to a 10 foot width. The resulting lane
configuration is illustrated in the following diagram:

Figure 3: Diagram of Proposed Haddon Avenue Lane Striping

Bike
Lane
6ft
Parking
Lane
7ft


Motor
Vehicle
Lane
10ft

Motor
Vehicle
Lane
10ft

Bike
Lane
6ft

Parking
Lane
7ft

The Parking Lane

The parking lane on Haddon Avenue is currently 7 feet. No alteration is
recommended for the width of the parking lane. Any increase in parking lane width
would encourage drivers to park further from the curb, which would encroach on the
available area for a bike lane.

The Bike Lane

The NJ DOT and the American Association of State Highway Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) both recommend a minimum of 5 foot bike lanes when situated on a
two lane arterial with on-street parking. (Bicycle Compatible Roadways and BikewaysPlanning and Design Guidelines, 2009, pp. 31-2) (Guide for the Development of Bicycle
Facilities, 1999, p.23)

Recent studies (Pein, 2003) have brought to light the dangers inherent in bicycling
in the door zone next to parked vehicles. As the doors of motor vehicles may extend as
much as four feet into the adjacent bicycle lane, Pein argues that a five foot bicycle lane
is not of sufficient width to protect cyclists from being doored since most cyclists ride
in the center of the bike lane. The League of American Bicyclists warns cyclists never to
ride within 3 feet of parked cars. (Rules of the Road, 2009)
In order to encourage cyclists to ride farther from the door zone, it is
recommended that the bike lanes on Haddon Avenue be 6 feet in width. As an additional
safety measure, pavement markings (the bicycle symbol and the directional arrow) can be
offset to the left of the center of the lane. Placing these symbols one foot to the left of
center may encourage cyclists to ride further from the door zone.
Another safety measure that may be considered is the placement of cross-hatched
markings in the bike lane to indicate the door zone. This pavement treatment is not
standard in the MUTCD so those employing it should follow their experimentation
guidelines. (Michigan State University Bike Facilities Plan, 2007, p. 28)

Figure 4: Cross-Hatched Pavement Marking with Offset Bicycle

Symbol and Arrow. (Source: San Francisco Bicycle Plan Design Guidelines)

It is the conclusion of this study that bicycle lanes of 5 feet next to on-street
parking, although allowable by the AASHTO and NJ DOT guidelines, are not of

sufficient width to encourage cyclists to ride clear of the door zone. A bike lane width
of 6 feet, with the aforementioned positional pavement markings is recommended.
It should also be noted that the choice to not implement any bicycle lanes will
maintain the status quo, wherein only cyclists with Advanced skills who ride at high
speeds with motor vehicle traffic are accommodated. Without bike lanes, the majority of
cyclists (those with Basic skills) will continue to be discouraged from riding on
Haddon Avenue and can be expected to proceed with timidity, close to the door zone if
they choose to do so.

The Motor Vehicle Lane

It is recommended that the motor vehicle lanes on Haddon Avenue be narrowed
to 10 feet in width. In addition to allowing room for a 6 foot bicycle lane, reducing the
width of the motor vehicle lane should have a traffic calming effect.
The Federal Highway Administration compiled case studies of several traffic
calming techniques. It found that narrowing motor vehicle lanes reduced speeds by 4%.
It also found that lane narrowing reduced overall traffic volumes by 10%, attributing this
reduction to the rerouting [of] non-local traffic. (FHWA University Course on Bicycle
and Pedestrian Transportation, Lesson 20.5)
If Haddon Avenue followed this trend, a 10% volume reduction would amount to
the removal of 1,727 non-local vehicles per day. For example, a truck may decide that
using Haddon Avenue as a short-cut from Cuthbert Boulevard to Route 130 is no longer
expedient and choose another route.

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

measures, such as more frequent pedestrian crosswalks, as well as (no more than 7 foot)
curb extensions.
The Federal Highway Administration allows for the maximum width of motor
vehicles, including tractor trailers and buses to be 8.5 feet. (Q&A About Vehicle Size and
Weight) A 10 foot lane would allow room for two maximum width vehicles to pass each
other.
A 2007 study titled Relationship of Lane Width to Safety for Urban and Suburban
Arterials found:
no indication that crash frequencies increase as lane width decreases
for arterial roadway segments or arterial intersection approaches. These
findings suggest that the AASHTO Green Book is correct in providing
substantial flexibility for use of lane widths narrower than 3.6 m (12 ft) on
urban and suburban arterials. (Potts et al., 2007, p. 25)
A study by the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center
compared two arterial roads in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Both had 5 foot bike lanes next to
on-street parallel parking. One road had a 12 foot motor vehicle lane and the other had a
10.5 foot motor vehicle lane. The study found that there was no statistically significant
safety difference between the 12 foot and 10.5 foot lane widths regarding the issues of
dooring or passing distance and concluded that the retrofitting of bike lanes at the
narrower site was successful.
The City of Chicago retrofitted arterials with a 44 foot width and on-street
parking to accommodate bike lanes, reducing motor vehicle lanes to 10 feet. The city
found that crashes went down 10 percent overall and 15 percent at intersections.
(Best Practices in Bicycle Facilities Planning, 2008)

In conclusion, the reduction of the Haddon Avenue motor vehicle lanes would
contribute to the Boroughs desire for traffic calming effects by reducing traffic speed
and the volume of non-local traffic.

Current Conditions: Collings Avenue

Collings Avenue has the potential to be an ideal bike lane route due to many
factors. Collings connects the main business district on Haddon Avenue with
Collingswoods secondary business district, known as the Theater District or West
Collingswood. Along this road are the centrally located Knight Park, Collingswood
Middle School and High School, a major apartment complex (The Heights), and side
roads which lead from Collings Avenue to the Patco High Speed Line.
Due to the generous cartway width, infrequent pedestrian crosswalks, and very
little street parking, motor vehicles are able to speed down this road easily at 35+ miles
per hour. The enforcement of the 25 mile per hour speed limit requires constant vigilance
by police officers. Even though the road is wide, less experienced cyclists avoid Collings
Avenue because of the risk inherent in riding next to vehicles driving at 35+ mph.

Crash Data
Of the 10 reported bicycle/motor vehicle crashes between between 1/1/08 through
4/30/09, three (3) involved W. or E. Collings Avenue. One was at W. Collings Avenue
and Route 30. One of the crashes was on E. Collings Avenue at Maple Avenue. The
other was at the corner of Haddon and Collings Avenue. (See Figure 5)

Figure 5: Bicycle / Motor Vehicle Crashes- Collings

Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Crashes (1/1/08 through 4/30/09)
Date
Location
3/3/2008 2 W. Wayne Terrace
6/13/2008 Maple Ave. & E. Collings
7/16/2008 W. Collings Ave. & Rt. 30
8/11/2008 Haddon Ave. & Lees Ave.
10/21/2008 W. Browning Rd. & Atlantic Ave.
10/31/2008 Haddon Ave. & W. Summerfield Ave.
1/13/2009 Haddon Ave. & Collings Ave.
1/24/2009 Haddon Ave. & Cuthbert Blvd.
2/10/2009 Woodlawn Ave. & Maple Ave.
3/27/2009 Maple Ave. & Pacific Ave.

Recommended Changes: Collings Avenue

Create bike lanes on both sides of Collings Avenue from its intersection with Haddon
Avenue to the Collingswood/ Haddon Township border. (To refer to a Collingswood
street map, see Appendix 8)

Collings Avenue should be striped with full bicycle lanes and their associated markings.
These bicycle lanes would begin at the curb and have a 7 foot width, delineated by a solid
white line and run the full length of Collings Avenue from its intersection with Haddon
Avenue to its border with Haddon Township.
Collings Avenue has a cartway width of 36 feet, an AADT of 9,321, and is
classified as a minor arterial road. (Karabashian, 1998) (Orth Rodgers, 2003, Fig.1)
Each motor vehicle lane would be reduced to 11 foot width. The resulting lane
configuration is illustrated in the following diagram:

Figure 6: Diagram of Proposed Collings Avenue Lane Striping:

Bike
Lane
(7 ft)

Motor
Vehicle
Lane
(11 ft)

Motor
Vehicle
Lane
(11 ft)

Bike
Lane
(7 ft)

Prohibit Parking
In order to create bike lanes on Collings Avenue, it will be necessary to remove
some isolated spots of on-street parking. For the most part, parking is not permitted on
Collings Avenue. The few areas of parking that are permitted tend to be underutilized as
there is ample driveway and side-street parking available.

The Bike Lane

With the removal of on-street parking, there will be fewer instances of conflict
between cyclists and motorists. Cyclists will no longer have to pass parked cars while
being passed closely on their left by speeding motor vehicle traffic. (See Appendix 1)
Because impacts on pedestrians must also be taken into account, it is
recommended that bike lane widths be 7 feet, rather than the minimum recommended 5 ft
in this situation. (Bicycle Compatible Roadways and Bikeways- Planning and Design
Guidelines, 2009, p. 32) If a pedestrian curb extension is deemed necessary in the future,
the bike lane could be narrowed at pedestrian crossing points and redirected around a
pedestrian island, in a manner similar to the photo in Figure 7:

Figure 7: Pedestrian Island that Can Accommodate Cyclists

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

The Motor Vehicle Lane

The Motor Vehicle Lane on Collings Avenue would be reduced to an 11 foot
width. The attraction of more cyclists to the route, in conjunction with the narrowing of
the motor vehicle lane and the striping of pedestrian crosswalks would act as traffic
calming measures. The fact that there is a middle/high school, a centrally located park,
sports fields, and residential homes on Collings Avenue mean that the presence of
children on this arterial road is constant. Therefore the reduction of lane width and motor
vehicle speeds on Collings Avenue is highly desirable.
Additionally, 7 foot wide bike lanes on Collings Avenue will provide a greater
buffer from traffic for children, who are less confident cyclists and who need more room
for error. Again, because of the proximity of the middle/high school and the Knight Park,
Collings Avenue bike lanes should be designed to maximize the safety of children who
will use them. (FHWA University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation,
2009, Chapter 13.3)

Dealing with Problem Areas

There are conditions on both Haddon and Collings Avenues that will require
careful consideration in the placement of bicycle facilities. These include: uneven
pavement, obstructions, intersections, and turning lanes.

Uneven Pavement
Both roads should be assessed for the condition of the pavement with
consideration given to the proposed bike lane area. Collings Avenue was recently
repaved and will be smoother and in better condition.
Haddon Avenue is an older road paved and patched with concrete. Over time the
concrete has cracked and settled in places, causing unevenness and potholes which make
for a rough bicycle ride in spots. Additionally, Haddon Avenue has a concrete expansion
joint which would be within the bike lane. Haddon also has manhole covers which are
not level with the pavement, causing a significant impediment to travel in a straight line.
Before bike lanes are striped these uneven road conditions should be remedied. All storm
grates should be compliant with current bicycle compatibility standards. (Bicycle
Compatible Roadways and Bikeways- Planning and Design Guidelines, 2009, pp. 10, 12)

Obstructions
Haddon Avenue has some obstructions that currently endanger cyclist safety.
These are mainly related to attempted pedestrian safety accommodations. One such
obstruction is the placement of bollards at some pedestrian crosswalks. The purpose of
these bollards is to shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians, make them more visible
to motorists, and reduce the threat that a motorist passing a stopped car on the right will

hit a pedestrian. This could be better accomplished by building curb extensions that do
not extend into the bike lane. Currently, cyclists must navigate the narrow space between
bollards or veer into motor vehicle traffic to avoid them. (See Appendix 2)
At another site, the intersection of Powell Lane with Haddon Avenue, curb
extensions have been extended too far into the road, with the result that cyclists must
merge into traffic at this point. The lack of a striped pedestrian crosswalk means that
cyclists have little indication that they are rapidly approaching an obstruction. The
problem is exacerbated by uneven pavement. (See Appendix 3) It would be advisable to
redesign this curb extension to accommodate cyclists.

Intersections
Most cyclists tend to move to the right as they proceed through an intersection.
This can be a dangerous practice as it removes the cyclist from the field of vision of a
driver, increasing the possibility of a conflict when the cyclist returns to their prior
position. Bike lane lines traditionally do not continue through intersections. The
AASHTO allows the continuance of the bike lane as a dotted guideline through
difficult intersections. (Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1999, p. 25)
More recently, cities have used solid colored bike lanes to show the continued path
through the intersection. (See Appendix 4) (Portlands Blue Bike Lanes: Improved
Safety through Enhanced Visibility, 1999)

Turning Lanes
Turning lanes can present problems where cars and bicyclists come into conflict
as they merge. One such area is near the intersection of Collings Avenue with the White

Horse Pike. As one travels down Collings toward the White Horse Pike, the lanes narrow
at Franklin Avenue where a left hand turn lane has been inserted. In this one to twoblock area where a full bike lane would not fit, a sharrow could take the place of the bike
lane. (Von Hagen, 2009) Sharrow is a term combining the words share and arrow
and denotes a shared motor vehicle/bicycle lane when there is not enough space for
separate facilities. This would denote the shared use of the lane as well as be a smooth
connection from the full bike lane on one side of the intersection to the full bike lane on
the other side. (See Appendix 5)
Another common problem with turning lanes is that cyclists and cars are unsure
when or if they are supposed to merge. The AASHTO recommends that a dotted line
take the place of the solid white line where merging in anticipation of a turn will take
place. (Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1999, p. 29)

The Complete Streets Concept

The concept of complete streets is one where relevant authorities look at both
new and old transportation infrastructure with a fresh perspective, one in which cars are
only part of the larger picture. A town with complete streets would be safely and easily
accessible by people of all abilities. This means pedestrians, the disabled, children,
seniors, cyclists, and those who take public transportation would have their modes of
transportation planned with the same level of thoughtfulness as motor vehicle drivers.
A town or authority which adopts a complete streets program is agreeing to take
all of the above groups into consideration so that every street project takes all road users

into account. The recommendations of this study are made with multiple modes of
transportation and people of all types and abilities in mind. (Complete Streets FAQ)

Cost Analysis Tool

An online bicycle facilities cost analysis tool was used to estimate the cost of
standard bike lane pavement markings and signage for Haddon and Collings Avenues
(See Appendices 6 and 7 for the breakdown of costs). (Benefit Cost-Analysis of Bicycle
Facilities: costs-demands-benefits analysis tool, 2009)
The cost for bike lane striping on Haddon Avenue was significantly higher than
striping on Collings Avenue ($102,000 vs. $41,000). This is because Haddon Avenue
would require two bike lane stripes per lane while Collings Avenue would only require
one stripe per lane (due to the right side being defined by the curb). Additionally,
Collingswoods portion of Haddon Avenue is longer, at approximately 1.69 miles, while
Collings Avenue is approximately 1.29 miles (Levecchia, 2009).
The amount of bicycle symbol and bicycle arrow pavement markings were
estimated to be placed after every cross street, or if there was no cross street, at evenly
spaced intervals. The Bike Route signposts were estimated to be placed approximately
every .25 miles. (Part 9: Traffic Controls for Bicycle Facilities, MUTCD, 2003)
A yearly maintenance line-item was included in the estimate for each road. Cost
estimates for initial road repairs or resurfacing prior to the striping of a bike lane was
considered to be beyond the capabilities of this study.
All costs were given by the online cost analysis tool in 2002 dollars, therefore the
build year and base year capital costs were adjusted for inflation to reflect 2009 dollars.

Sources of Funding
Private Sources
The Bikes Belong Coalition gives grants to municipalities/public agencies that
are partnered with a bicycle advocacy group. They also help leverage state and federal
financing. Bike lanes are one type of project for which they award grant money. (Bikes
Belong Grants Program, 2009)

Planning Grants
Federal planning assistance at the regional and county level is available through
the Subregional Studies Program and Supportive Task Grants. Entities such as the
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) and Camden County would
be eligible for such funds. Federal funds may also be available to Transportation
Management Associations such as this regions TMA, Cross County Connection.
(Funding Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning [], 2009, p. 1)
The Local Transportation Planning Assistance Program (LTPA) is available
through NJ DOT. Collingswood received local transportation planning assistance for its
2004 Collingswood Circulation Plan. (Funding Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning [],
2009, p. 3)
NJ DOT also provides bicycle/pedestrian planning assistance to municipalities
that meet certain criteria, such as being in a redevelopment center. The municipality is
expected to dedicate staff and resources to work with NJ DOT. (Funding Pedestrian and
Bicycle Planning [], 2009, p. 3)

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

Future Planning Grants to municipalities and counties. (Funding Pedestrian and Bicycle
Planning [], 2009, p. 4)

Project Grants
Federal Funding
Federal project grants for bicycle facilities are funded under the SAFETEA-LU
Act. Federal programs/agencies that this project may be eligible to receive funds under
include the Division of Local Aid and Economic Development and the National Highway
System. (Funding Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning [], 2009, p. 7)
Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds are available as Local
Scoping and Local Lead Projects, which are administered by the regional Metropolitan
Planning Organization. STP funds are also available through the Transportation
Enhancement Program, which is a good fit for a bike lane project as it is meant to
enhance non-traditional modes of transportation. The Hazard Elimination Program is
also funded by STP, and focuses on fixing safety problems such as intersections with
high crash rates. (Funding Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning [], 2009, pp. 8-10)
Though not impossible, it would be more difficult for the Borough to take
advantage of Safe Routes to School funding at this time due to the current Collingswood
Board of Education ban on bicycling to school for all children in grade 6 and under.
(Funding Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning [], 2009, p. 11) (Von Hagen, 2009)
As Transit Oriented Development moves forward, it may also be possible to
receive Local Aid for Designated Transit Villages to help defer the cost of bike lanes.

Collingswood might also qualify for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program (CMAQ) funding for projects which mitigate pollution and
improve air quality. (Funding Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning [], 2009, p. 11)

State Funding
State funding programs that a Collingswood bike lane project may be eligible for
include: Local Aid for Centers of Place; the County Aid Program; and the Municipal Aid
Program. In addition, Bikeways Projects are run by the NJ DOT Division of Local
Government Services. (Funding Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning [], 2009, pp. 14-16)

Conclusion
Bicycle lanes are desirable and appropriate on both Haddon and Collings Avenues
in the Borough of Collingswood. The engineering obstacles are greater on Haddon than
on Collings, due to heavier traffic volumes, pavement condition and on-street parking.
Due to the proximity of both roads to public transit, schools, recreational areas, and as
central business districts, every effort should be made to create bike lanes that encourage
cycling while maximizing safety.
Finally, all improvements made for the benefit of motor vehicle users, cyclists,
transit riders, and pedestrians should make every attempt to harmonize all modes in the
planning and implementation of every future project.

Appendix 1

A cyclist moves into the motor vehicle traffic lane while passing a parked car at
the approach to a difficult intersection with poor sight distance. (Intersection of Collings
Avenue with Lakeview Drive, North Atlantic and South Atlantic Avenues.)

Appendix 2

A cyclist must slow down to navigate the bollards at the intersection of Haddon
and Stiles Avenues. The preferable alternative is a 7 foot curb extension, which aids
pedestrian crossing while allowing cyclists ample room to pass.

Appendix 3

A bus passes the curb extension at Haddon and Powell, which extends into the
area where most cyclists ride. Note the rough, uneven pavement.

The other curb extension at Haddon and Powell is unfinished, curb

unpainted, and comes to a point in the road. Also note the rough, uneven pavement and
the inadequate passing distance for a cyclist between the curb and a motor vehicle.

Appendix 4

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

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

Appendix 6
Haddon Avenue Bike Facilities Cost Estimate
Worksheet
DESCRIPTION

Units

Length
(Feet)

Default
Unit Cost
(2002)

Itemized
Cost

UNIT

Pavement Markings
Bicycle Arrow

64

Bicycle Symbol

64

Lane Striping
Shared Lane Marking (sharrow)

35692
4

$53

each

$71

each

$3,266
$71

$3,417
$0

mile

$22,080

each

$285

Construction Estimate

$30,337

Location Index

125%

Construction Contingency

$7,584

10%

$3,792

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST

$41,714

Equipment
Signs
Sign with Post

12

$200

each

$2,400

TOTAL EQUIPMENT COST

$2,400

Administration (Construction)

6%

Planning (Construction)
Design/Engineering
Field Inspection

$2,647

2%

$882

10%

$4,411

2%

$882

SUBTOTAL PROJECT COST

$52,936

Project Contingency

30%

TOTAL BASE YEAR CAPITAL COST

Total Base Year Capital Cost (Adj. for
Inflation: 2009 Dollars)
TOTAL BUILD YEAR CAPITAL COST
Total Build Year Capital Cost (Adj. for
Inflation: 2009 Dollars)
Maintenance
TOTAL OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE

8923

$15,881

2002

$68,817

1.19

2009

$81,892

$85,955

1.19

2009

$102,286

$6,500

mile/yr

$10,985

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

$10,985

Appendix 7
Collings Avenue Bike Facilities Cost Estimate
Worksheet
DESCRIPTION

Units

Length
(Feet)

Default Unit
Cost (2002)

Itemized
Cost

UNIT

Pavement Markings
Bicycle Arrow

20

$53

each

$1,068

Bicycle Symbol

20

$71

each

$0

Lane Striping
Shared Lane Marking (sharrow)

13622
8

$3,266
$71

mile

$8,427

each

$569

Construction Estimate

$11,488

Location Index
Construction Contingency

125%

$2,872

10%

$1,436

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST

$15,796

Equipment
Sign with Post

10

$200

each

$2,000

TOTAL EQUIPMENT COST

$2,000

Administration (Construction)

6%

$1,068

Planning (Construction)

2%

$356

10%

$1,780

2%

$356

Design/Engineering
Field Inspection
SUBTOTAL PROJECT COST

$21,355

Project Contingency

30%

TOTAL BASE YEAR CAPITAL COST

Total Base Year Capital Cost (Adj.
for Inflation: 2009 Dollars)
TOTAL BUILD YEAR CAPITAL COST
Total Build Year Capital Cost (Adj.
for Inflation: 2009 Dollars)
Maintenance
TOTAL OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE

6811

$6,406

2002

$27,761

1.19

2009

$33,036

$34,675

1.19

2009

$41,263

$6,500

mile/yr

$8,385

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

$8,385

Bibliography
Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals: Bicycle Parking Guidelines.
Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals website. [electronic version].
Retrieved on 8-7-09 from:
http://www.apbp.org/resource/resmgr/publications/bicycle_parking_guidelines.pdf
This professional organization was my primary resource for the bicycle parking
portion of the study.

Benefit Cost-Analysis of Bicycle Facilities: costs-demands-benefits analysis tool. Active

Communities / Transportation Research Group. University of North Carolina Highway
Safety Research Center website. [electronic version]. Retrieved on 8-28-09 from:
http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikecost/

Best Practices in Bicycle Facilities Planning. Transportation Planning Capacity Building

Program- Peer Exchange Report. FHWA/FTA. (2008). [electronic version] Retrieved on
9-12-09 from: http://www.planning.dot.gov/Peer/Chicago/chicago_2008.htm#devel

Bicycle Compatible Roadways and Bikeways- Planning and Design Guidelines. New
Jersey Department of Transportation website. [electronic version]. Retrieved 8-5-09
from: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/publicat/pdf/BikeComp/introtofac.pdf
This NJ DOT publication was my primary resource for acceptable bike lane
standards in New Jersey.

BIKESAFE: Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System. Bike Lanes. Federal

Highway Administration. US Department of Transportation. [electronic version].
Retrieved on 8-25-09 from:
http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikesafe/countermeasure.cfm?CM_maingroup=OnRoad%20Bike%20Facilities&CM_NUM=11

Bikes Belong Grants Program. Bikes Belong Coalition. (2009). [electronic version].
Retrieved on 9-14-09 from: http://www.bikesbelong.org/grants

Collingswood Police Department. Captain Richard Sarlo. Motor Vehicle Accidents

Table for 1/1/08 through 4/30/09. (2009). [electronic version].

Complete Streets FAQ. National Complete Streets Coalition. (2009). [electronic

version] Retrieved on 9-12-09 from: http://www.completestreets.org/complete-streetsfundamentals/complete-streets-faq/

Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian

Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation.
[electronic version]. Retrieved on 8-8-09 from:
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/pubs/05085/index.htm
This U. S. Department of Transportation publication contains the
coursework for a semester-long class on bicycle and pedestrian
transportation. It was very valuable in its clear and detailed summary of
current standards. I would have used it more if I had discovered it sooner
in my research.

Funding Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning, Programs, and Projects: A Compilation of

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

This publication by Rutgers Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource center

contained concise, thorough information on available funding and the
conditions of eligibility.

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

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

Hunter, W. & Stewart, J. An Evaluation of Bike Lanes Adjacent to Motor Vehicle

Parking. University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center. (1999).
[electronic version] Retrieved 9-12-09 from:
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/safety/ped_bike/handbooks_and_research/research/ftlaud.pdf

Karabashian Associates, Inc. Collingswood Master Plan. (1998) [compact disc].

Sourced from the Camden County Highway Circulation Plan. Delaware Valley Regional
Planning Commission. (1993).

Lawrie, J., et al. Bikeways to Prosperity: Assessing the Economic Impact of Bicycle
Facilities. (2006). Institute for Transportation Research and Education. North Carolina
State University, Raleigh. [electronic Version] retrieved on 8-28-09 from:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews242rpo.pdf

Levecchia, A., Senior Planner. Camden County Improvement Authority. (2009)

(Personal conversations via e-mail).

Meggs, J.M. (2008). Hearst Avenue Sidewalk and Bicycle Lane Feasibility Study.
[electronic version]. Retrieved on 8-7-09 from: http://www.bclu.org/jasonmeggsworksample.pdf

Michigan State University Bike Facilities Plan. (2007). Michigan State University. The
Greenway Collaborative, Inc. [electronic version] retrieved on 9-11-09 from:
http://www.bikes.msu.edu/misc-articles-reports-docs/msu_bike_facilities_plan_20122021-v2.pdf

Orth Rodgers & Associates, Inc. Collingswood Circulation Plan: Collingswood

Borough, Camden County, NJ. NJ DOT Local Planning Assistance. (2004). [hard copy]

Part 9: Traffic Controls for Bicycle Facilities. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD). (2003). Federal Highway Administration. U.S. Department of
Transportation website. [electronic version]. Retrieved on 8-28-09 from:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/part9/part9-toc.htm

Pein, W. Bicycling and On-Street Parallel Parking, with critiques of two related
documents. Bicycling Matters. (2003). [electronic version] Retrieved on 9-4-09 from:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/door_zone.pdf

Portlands Blue Bike Lanes: Improved Safety through Enhanced Visibility. City of
Portland Office of Transportation. (1999). [electronic version] Retrieved on 9-4-09
from: http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=58842

Potts, I., Harwood, D., & Richard, K. Relationship of Lane Width to Safety for
Urban and Suburban Arterials. Midwest Research Institute. (2007). Transportation
Research Board. The National Academy of Sciences.

Pucher, J. & Buehler, R. Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands,
Denmark and Germany. (2008). Transport Reviews, 28:4, 495-528. [electronic version].
Retrieved on 9-8-09 from: http://www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Irresistible.pdf
This paper by the leading bicycle transportation policy experts in the field
was valuable for the clear connections it made between
policy/infrastructure changes and outcome. It illustrated the way that
encouragement of cycling leads to greater levels of cycling and greater
safety.

Questions and Answers about Vehicle Size and Weight. Freight Management and
Operations. US Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration.
[electronic version]. Retrieved on 8-21-09 from:
http://vsw.fhwa.dot.gov/qa/qa.jsp?category=23+CFR+658.15

Rules of the Road. (2009). League of American Bicyclists. [electronic version] Retrieved
on 9-11-09 from: http://www.bikeleague.org/resources/better/roadrules.php

Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles, Publication No.

FHWA-RD-92-073, FHWA. Washington, DC. (1994) [electronic version]. Retrieved on
9-8-09 from: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/select.pdf

Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Publications.
US Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. [Electronic
version]. Retrieved on 8-25-09 from:
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/pubs/06125/chapt7.htm

Valuing the Benefits of Cycling: Executive Summary. Cycling England webpage. UK

Department for Transport. (2007). [electronic version]. Retrieved 9-9-09 from:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingengland/site/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/valuing-thebenefits-of-cycling-exec-summary.pdf

Twisler, K. and Staszewski, T. Remington & Vernick Engineers. Haddonfield, NJ.

(personal communication via e-mail).

Van Houten, R. & Seiderman, C. How Pavement Markings Influence Bicycle and Motor
Vehicle Positioning: A Case Study in Cambridge, MA. (2004). Transportation Research
Board. The National Academy of Sciences.

Von Hagen, L., AICP/PP. Project Manager- New Jersey Bicycle & Pedestrian Resource
Center. Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center. Rutgers, Edward J. Bloustein School
of Planning and Public Policy. (2009). (Personal communications via e-mail).