Littleton Pedestrian & Bicycle Infrastructure Improvement ... and Forms/2018... · This plan is a...

Littleton, NH

March 2018

Littleton Pedestrian & Bicycle

Infrastructure Improvement Plan

Volume I - DRAFT FINAL

North Country Council, 2018

DRAFT Table of Contents

Volume I

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Background ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Master Plan ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Benefits of Pedestrian- and Bike-Friendly Towns ........................................................................................................................... 4

Characteristics of Pedestrian- and Bicycle-Friendly Streets ....................................................................................................... 5

Land Use ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 10

Speed Limits .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Traffic Volume ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 12

Existing Bicycling and Pedestrian Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................. 14

Route Directness for Pedestrians ............................................................................................................................................................ 15

Level of Traffic Stress for Bicyclists ........................................................................................................................................................ 17

Plan Area ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18

Potential Walk & Bike Routes in Littleton .......................................................................................................................................... 20

Road Network - Ownership and Function .......................................................................................................................................... 21

Public Input ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22

Resources .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24

Toolkit ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 26

Potential Strategies for Littleton ............................................................................................................................................................ 30

Implementation ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 38

Future Studies .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 39

Level of Traffic Stress for Bicyclists - Potential Results ................................................................................................................ 40

Appendix A: Route Distance and Directness Matrix ....................................................................................................................... 41


DRAFT Table of Contents (continued)

Volume II

Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Town-Owned Roads and Streets: Potential Strategies ................................................................................................................... 2

Riverside-Apthorp Bike Route ............................................................................................................................................................... 3

Riverside Dr. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4

South St. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Grove St. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Highland Ave. .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Brook Rd. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Redington St. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12

Hill Neighborhood Bike Route .............................................................................................................................................................. 14

Farr Hill Rd. .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 15

West Elm St. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 17

Merrill St., Church St., High St. .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 18

Maple St. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19

Oak Hill Ave. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 20

Eustis Hill - Industrial Park Rd. ............................................................................................................................................................ 21

Industrial Park Rd. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 22

Eustis Hill Rd. .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23

Other Roads .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 25

River District ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26

Dells Rd. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28

Pleasant St. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29

Cross St. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30

Bronson St. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31


DRAFT Table of Contents (continued)

Volume II (continued)

State-Owned Roads and Streets: Potential Strategies .................................................................................................................... 32

Meadow St. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 33

West Main St. ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 39

Union St. .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 40

Cottage St. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 42

Main St. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 44

Potential Strategies: Railroad Corridor................................................................................................................................................. 45


DRAFT

North Country Council, 2018 Volume I - Page 1

DRAFT Introduction

In 2017, the Town of Littleton worked with North Country Council (NCC) to develop a Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure Improvement

Plan. This plan documents the existing conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists in Littleton and identifies opportunities for improvement.

This plan is transportation-oriented (rather than recreation-oriented) and focuses on the town’s road network and the abandoned railroad

corridor. The project area that this plan focuses on is Littleton’s town core, where infrastructure improvements would serve the most peo-

ple.

What this plan is:

This plan is a resource for the town administration and residents to improve pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure in Littleton. It identifies

characteristics of Littleton that are good for walking and biking and should be preserved, and it identifies challenges to walking and biking

in Plymouth. It provides the town with a toolkit - a list of strategies that can improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety - and identifies the

roads in Littleton where these strategies would be suitable.

There are two parts of this plan:

Volume I provides background information on the characteristics that make Littleton good or bad for walking and biking, identifies and

explains strategies that are commonly used in other communities, and summarizes where in Littleton these strategies are potentially

suitable.

Volume II takes an in-depth look at individual road segments - their dimensions and characteristics, potential strategies for improving

bicycle and pedestrian safety, and the benefits and challenges of implementing such strategies on that particular segment of road. Vol-

ume II will help the town to incorporate bicycle and pedestrian improvements into planned road work projects; when future road work

is planned for any segment featured in Volume II, this plan will help the town review the costs and benefits of making bicycle and pe-

destrian improvements, rather than maintaining the current road design. Additionally, some of the strategies identified in Volume II

can be done as stand-alone projects if the town appropriates money for them - they do not need to be done as part of routine or

planned road work.

What this plan is not:

Nothing in this plan represents a decision by the town of Littleton to do a project or spend money. The town administration and residents

must ultimately decide which roads are the most important for bicycle and pedestrian improvements and decide how to pay for them.


DRAFT Background

Littleton’s town core is relatively walkable because of its dense, mixed land use and its network of sidewalks, but there is room to make

improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians. There are many challenges that Littleton faces in becoming a more walkable and bike-

friendly town, but there are opportunities to make incremental and cost-effective improvements. North Country Council has evaluated se-

lect roads and streets in Littleton to identify the challenges that bicyclists and pedestrians face and identify strategies to improve these fa-

cilities.

Littleton’s Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure

Littleton has an extensive network of sidewalks in the downtown area and has an unpaved rail trail that runs from Industrial Park Rd. to

Woodsville. Some roads in town have shoulders that meet FHWA and AASHTO’s recommendations for accommodating bicycle lanes, but

none are designated as bicycle lanes with signs or pavement markings. There are no other on- or off-street paved bicycle facilities in Lit-

tleton.

Opportunities to Improve

Many of the roads and streets in Littleton can be improved for bicyclists and pedestrians without widening the paved width or construct-

ing new infrastructure. Some roads can be improved simply through restriping lines and adding pavement markings - things that can be

done for little or no additional cost when they are done in conjunction with normal repaving or restriping work. Other potential solutions

- like paved bike paths, new sidewalks, traffic calming techniques, and intersection re-designs - are more expensive, but there are funding

sources for such projects, and they can have a high return-on-investment if they are done in the right locations.

New Hampshire DOT Bicycle Routes

NH DOT has designated several routes in Littleton as “Recommended Bicycle Routes” in their regional bicycle maps: West Main St. (NH

18), Main St. (US 302), Union St. (NH 116), Cottage St. (US 302), Pleasant St. & Manns Hill Rd., South St., and Industrial Park Rd. These

roads are important linkages in regional bike routes. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements can help these roads to adequately serve bicy-

clists.


DRAFT Littleton’s Master Plan

Littleton’s vision for the future, as identified in the 2013 Mast Plan, is to:

“Make Littleton the preferred White Mountain destination for recreation, services, shopping, and

living by carefully balancing growth and quality of life issues.”

Littleton has made considerable efforts towards this vision, notably with its vibrant and walkable Main Street. Improving the town’s trans-

portation network for the safety and convenience of pedestrians and bicyclists can help Littleton become a destination and improve the

quality of life for residents. This Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan complements, and can help the town to achieve, the following recommenda-

tions from its Master Plan:

Examine roadway improvements and future road construction fully to assure that they control the flow of traffic and the number of access

points to the roadway .

Meet and work with the NHDOT to promote Context Sensitive Solutions for roadway improvements in Littleton.

Explore opportunities to use traffic calming techniques on new roadway projects and on existing roadways.

Regularly examine and evaluate the quality and effectiveness of the existing public signage and wayfinding systems.

Include provisions for bicycle and pedestrian facilities in all zoning and subdivision regulations.

Consider requiring access management along major highways in the zoning and subdivision regulations.

Consider requiring dead end streets to at least provide rights of way to connect them to adjacent developments.

Consider allowing mixed-use development, so as to assure that daily activities are integrated rather than separated.

Consider revising the existing street design standards in a manner that will be consistent with the hierarchy of roads in Littleton.

Consider creating a non-motorized trail network/greenway plan for the entire town.

Apply for Transportation Enhancement Funds, through the NH Department of Transportation for proposed and needed pedestrian improve-

ments.

Evaluate the potential for creating a satellite parking system to assist in relieving downtown congestion.

Continue efforts to keep cultural facilities and the Town Offices in the downtown.

Continue efforts to keep the Town Offices in the downtown.

Utilize the format of the local “Road Improvement Plan” for the purpose of evaluating the location and condition of existing sidewalks, paths and

trails.

Work on further development of the Town’s Parking Management Plan.

Examine opportunities for better coordination of existing public transportation services within the community.


DRAFT Benefits of Pedestrian- and Bike-Friendly Towns Walkable and bicycle-friendly communities provide opportunities for residents to be active and healthy and reduce the burden on individ-

uals who cannot drive. Replacing automobile trips with bicycling and walking trips can help to ease congestion, parking availability con-

cerns, and pavement wear. Among the Potential Actions listed in the Transportation Chapter of Littleton’s 2004 Master Plan are improving

bicycle and pedestrian facilities, calming traffic, and incorporating Context Sensitive Solutions in road design. The potential improvements

outlined in this plan could help Littleton achieve those goals.

Safety

Considering all road users in road design improves safety for everyone. Pedestrian and bicyclists - particularly children, seniors, and per-

sons with disabilities - are vulnerable to serious injury or death in collisions with cars.

Health

Physical activity is important for both physical and mental health. A road network that is friendly to walking and biking makes active liv-

ing an easy option. Walking or biking to school or to work is a great way to get regular exercise, as long as that trip is safe and convenient.

Economic Development and Tourism

Littleton is the Main Street of the Mountains and part of its appeal is the walkable nature of the Downtown area. Any visitor to Main Street

becomes a pedestrian as soon as they park their car, so it is critical to the shops on Main Street that their customers can safely and con-

veniently access their businesses. Making the neighborhoods more connected to Main Street can increase property values and attract new

investment in the neighborhoods and downtown.

A FHWA white paper, Evaluating the Economic Benefits of Nonmotorized Transportation, is a good resource for more information on the

financial and economic benefits that Littleton could achieve by making their roads more bike– and pedestrian-friendly.

Environment

Taking cars off of the road can reduce emissions and improve the local air quality around busy roads. Furthermore, it can reduce the foot-

print of impervious surfaces like roads and parking lots, which can improve water quality.

Infrastructure Costs

Bicycles and pedestrians cause less wear on the pavement and generally need less infrastructure than vehicles. Making the downtown ar-

ea more attractive for future residential and commercial growth can control sprawl, reducing the cost of services and infrastructure that

the town provides.

http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/downloads/NTPP_Economic_Benefits_White_Paper.pdf


DRAFT Characteristics of Pedestrian- and Bicycle-Friendly Streets There are many factors that influence the safety and comfort of pedestrians and bicyclists. Some of these factors cannot be changed, like

Littleton’s hilly terrain and snowy winters, and some factors that can be controlled are easier to change than others. This plan focuses on

infrastructure within public rights-of-way, but it is important to consider all of the characteristics of Littleton that make it pedestrian- and

bicycle-friendly:

Community-Level Characteristics

Community Attitudes

Driver behavior, such as yielding to pedestrians at crosswalks and giving bicyclists safe passing distance, is critical to

safety. Driver behavior is not only influenced by laws and enforcement - street design and land use can send the mes-

sage that all users are welcome on roads. Walking has historically been a viable means of transportation on Main

Street and to schools in Littleton and it is important that the community continues to recognize this.

Terrain and Climate

The town of Littleton has no control over its terrain and climate, but it does address these factors in its infrastructure.

Plowing and treating sidewalks in the winter is critical to making walking safe and convenient. The steep nature of

some of Littleton’s streets make them less attractive to cyclists, so road improvements for bicyclists should be priori-

tized on roads where the terrain is relatively suitable for bicyclists.

Trip Distance

Littleton’s town core has a high concentration of destinations, making for shorter trips to school, to work, or for er-

rands. Most walking trips are less than a mile (i.e., from the Post Office to Lakeway Elementary School). If future

growth follows a linear (a.k.a. strip) pattern of development, walking distance to destinations will get longer and Lit-

tleton will get less walkable.


DRAFT Characteristics of Pedestrian and Bicycle-Friendly Streets (cont’d)

Roadside Characteristics

Sidewalks

Sidewalks are the most basic element of pedestrian infrastructure and should be made as safe and comfortable as

possible. A five-foot sidewalk allows two pedestrians to comfortably pass each, but an even wider sidewalk is prefera-

ble in the downtown areas where there are more people and objects in the sidewalk.

Sidewalks throughout town should be constructed and maintained to be as comfortable as possible for persons with

disabilities and limited mobility. Things such as steep cross-slopes, steep curb ramps, sharp or uneven slope transi-

tions, and cracking pavement can present obstacle for those with poor mobility or visual impairments.

Bus Stops

Signage, information, lighting, and rain shelters can go a long way towards making residents feel safe and comfortable

using public transit. Littleton has 6 weekday stops on Tri County Transit’s Tri-Town Route and has a twice-daily stop

on Concord Coach’s Littleton to Boston-Logan route. Gaps where the sidewalk network does not extend to bus stops

should be considered when prioritizing new sidewalk construction.

Lighting

Street lighting can provide a sense of safety for pedestrians, which is important in high-activity areas like Main Street

and the River District and at busy crosswalks. Pedestrian scale lighting (i.e. 10-16 feet tall) should be prioritized in

places with high pedestrian activity.

Destinations

Storefronts, public buildings, and parks give people reasons to visit downtown Littleton on foot. Keeping public build-

ings like schools and the post office in central, walkable locations, makes the town more walkable. Maintaining and

increasing access to public spaces, like the area around the Ammonoosuc River, is important in attracting people to

downtown Littleton.

Conversely, vacant lots, long stretches of roads without any buildings, and surface parking lots that have frontage on

the road (instead of behind buildings) make a road less appealing to pedestrians.



Roadside Characteristics (cont’d)

Furniture and Landscaping

Green buffers between the road and the sidewalk can provide a safe buffer between pedestrians and vehicles, can

help to keep snowbanks off of the sidewalks, and can provide a space for street trees and other attractive landscaping.

Street trees can make streets more attractive to pedestrians by providing shade and by narrowing the perceived

width of streets. Street trees can also raise nearby property values, provide shade to parked cars, and reduce local air

pollution. Where there is space available in the right of way, “Green Street” landscaping, such as rain gardens could

help the town manage stormwater in areas with extensive paved surfaces.

Wayfinding

Pedestrian-scale signage that provides navigational information could make the downtown area more accessible to

visitors. Pedestrian signage and maps could be placed at public parking lots that helps non-local visitors find their

way to the commercial district, to public facilities, and other destinations.

Roadway Characteristics

Traffic Volume

High volumes of traffic make it more difficult for pedestrians to cross streets (or to walk in the shoulder), so roads

with high traffic volumes should be prioritized for crosswalk and sidewalk construction and maintenance. High vol-

umes of traffic increase the risk for bicyclists in the roadway, so higher volume roadways should be prioritized for

bike lanes, sidepaths, and traffic calming measures.

Traffic Speed

As shown in the infographic on page 11, the risk of a pedestrian fatality from a collision rapidly increases with vehicle

speed. Not only does stopping distance increase with speed, the force of a collision does too. Traffic speed is influ-

enced not just by the posted speed limit; road dimensions like lane widths, the presence of on-street parking, block

length, and turn radius can influence traffic speed.



Roadway Characteristics (cont’d)

Travel Lanes

The width of the travel lane influences vehicle speeds - narrower streets promote slower driving and reduce the

severity of collisions. Generally, 10 feet travel lanes are adequate for vehicles, but are narrow enough to discour-

age speeding, but 11 foot lanes may be more appropriate for large trucks. On low-volume and low-speed streets, 9

foot lanes (or narrow streets with no centerline at all) may be appropriate.

Shoulders

Where shoulders are wider, bicyclists and vehicles have more separation, increasing safety and comfort for both

road users. Drivers are required to give bicyclists a minimum 3 feet of passing space, which often requires crossing

the double yellow line when bicyclists do not have a shoulder to ride in. It is recommended that shoulders should

be at least 4 feet wide (5 feet where there is curb or guardrail) in order to be designated as a bicycle lane. Obsta-

cles like storm drains and parked cars in the shoulders should be considered in road design, because they can

cause bicyclists to move out of the shoulder and into the travel lane.

Block Length

Block sizes influence walkability in a number of ways. For one, shorter blocks and more intersections mean that

cars travel slower and there are more opportunities for pedestrians to cross the street. Shorter block lengths also

mean a denser road network, which serves the dual purposes of providing more route options for pedestrians to

find the most direct route and dispersing vehicle traffic so that streets are less busy.

Crosswalks

Each crosswalk location has a unique situation and setting – for example, crosswalks at schools involve different

considerations than crosswalks on Main Street or on Meadow Street. In some cases, adding a crosswalk without

providing additional enhancements (i.e. signals, signage, traffic calming) can actually increase pedestrian crash

risk. At existing crosswalks, consider painting patterns, textured pavement, and/or raised pavement to make them

more noticeable.



Roadway Characteristics (cont’d)

Driveway Curb Cuts

Unlike road intersections, driveways often do not have a marked crosswalk or stop bar. The more driveways there are

along a road—especially busier commercial driveways—the more opportunities there are for collisions between ve-

hicles and pedestrians or bicycles.

Turn Radius

Wider turns make for longer crosswalks and allow vehicles to drive faster through intersections while making turns.

Both of these characteristics create a dangerous situation for pedestrians in crosswalks. Where turns are wider than

necessary, consider moving curbs to make the radius tighter.

On-Street Parking

On-street parking reduces the need for land-consuming off-street parking, discourages high driving speeds, and cre-

ates a buffer between the sidewalk and drivers. However, drivers opening their car doors without looking can pose a

risk for bicyclists; bike lanes or “sharrows” that direct bicyclists out of the “door zone” can reduce this risk.


DRAFT Land Use

Zoning, Public Rights-of-Way, Building Footprints.

The density and mix of uses around Littleton’s downtown make it a relatively walkable community. Because Littleton’s Zoning Ordinance allows for a

mix of commercial, civic, and residential uses in the Commercial zone, residents can live within walking distance of shopping and employment destina-

tions. Many trips within the town core are less than 3 miles in length and can be made on foot or by bicycle. Because the land use is mixed and is rela-

tively dense in the town core, infrastructure improvements here would have a higher return on investment for bicyclist and pedestrian safety.


DRAFT Speed Limits

Speed limits on Littleton’s streets and roads.

Generally, streets with lower vehicle speeds are safer and more comfortable for bicyclists

riding in the roadway and for pedestrians crossings the roadway. This improvement plan

identifies some streets where “speed management” strategies could be implemented to calm

traffic.

More thorough studies can be done to observe actual vehicle speeds on Littleton’s streets to

support decisions about implementing speed management measures. FHWA (2016): relationship between speed and severity of vehicle-

pedestrian collisions.


DRAFT Traffic Volume

Traffic volumes on select roads and streets in Littleton.

Traffic volume data, measured as vehicles per day for roads and streets in Littleton, adjusted for time of year. Some of these count locations are periodi-

cally measured by NCC staff for NH DOT’s traffic bureau, but most of these count locations were measured specifically for this project in the spring of

2017 by NCC staff. These measurements are the average of at least three weekdays of traffic.

See page 13 for more details on these traffic count data.


DRAFT Traffic Volume

Location Year Vehicles/Day

Meadow St. (US 302) west of I-93 Exit 43 2013 15,000

Meadow St. (US 302) west of Dells Rd. 2017 13,000

Union St. (NH 116) west of Cross St. 2017 9,900

Meadow St. (US 302) east of Industrial Park Rd. 2017 8,900

Cottage St. (US 302) over Ammonoosuc River 2017 7,600

Union St. (NH 116) west of Samson Rd. 2013 6,600

West Main St. (NH 18) west of Dells Rd. 2015 5,700

Dells Rd. over Dells Brook 2015 4,300

Industrial Park Rd. over Ammonoosuc River 2015 3,400

West Main St. (NH 18) east of Farr Hill Rd. 2017 3,400

Redington St. north of Washington St. 2017 2,200

Redington St. over Ammonoosuc River 2017 2,200

Pleasant St. 2017 2,000

Riverside Dr. east of Industrial Park Rd. 2017 1,700

Manns Hill Rd. east of Garys Dr. 2013 1,400

Eustis Hill Rd. west of Cottage St. 2017 1,300

South St. east of Bronson St. 2017 1,300

Pine St. 2017 1,000

Oak Hill Ave. near Remich Park 2017 870

Elm St. 2017 760

Cross St. 2017 650

Eustis Hill Rd. 2017 600

Highland Ave. north of Grove St. 2017 340

Bronson St. 2017 320

Beacon St. over Ammonoosuc River 2017 300

In addition to the traffic volume data that NCC measures periodically for NHDOT, NCC staff measured traffic volume at 13 other roads and streets in Lit-

tleton in 2017 to evaluate their suitability for potential bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The figures in the table below are presented as Annual

Average Daily Traffic (AADT), which is the number of vehicles counted per day, adjusted for the month and the days of the week in which traffic volume

was measured.


DRAFT Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure

Dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Littleton has an extensive network of sidewalks in its town core. Issues with Littleton’s sidewalk network, identified by residents and town officials, in-

clude the lack of sidewalks west of the Mobil gas station on Meadow St., the poor condition of the sidewalk asphalt on some streets, and the presence of

bicyclists who ride on the sidewalk because they are not comfortable riding on the road.

Littleton was recently awarded TAP funding to make sidewalk improvements and construct new sidewalks (orange lines on map).

There is an unpaved multi-use path west of Industrial Park Rd. on an old railroad grade, which is used for recreation, but does not serve an important

network function for bicyclists or pedestrians. There is an extensive network of hiking and mountain bike trails at Pine Hill Park, north of the town core.


DRAFT Route Distance for Pedestrians

Walking Time

(Minutes)*

Percentage of routes (between

these 26 destinations)

0 - 4.9 0.9%

5 - 9.9 7.7%

10 - 14.9 12.6%

15 - 19.9 13.2%

20 - 29.9 23.7%

30+ 41.9%

*Walking time is estimate based on a walking speed of 5

minutes per 1/4 mile.

Walking distance between destinations is one of the primary factors in determining how likely people are to make trips by foot, instead of

by car. A 2012 study of pedestrian travel in the United States estimates that the average pedestrian trip is close to 0.7 miles (and the medi-

an trip being 0.5 miles), with average/median durations of approximately 15 and 10 minutes, respectively. Other factors may influence

the decision to walk instead of drive, such as the presence of a central destination (i.e. Littleton’s Main Street), parking availability, and

weather. A pedestrian may be very willing to walk 0.75 miles to reach Littleton’s Main Street on a pleasant summer day, and unwilling to

walk 0.25 miles to reach another destination on a cold winter night.

The map below shows the location of “significant destinations” identified by NCC staff and Littleton stakeholders: things like civic build-

ings, parks, commercial areas, and residential neighborhoods. The table below presents a breakdown of walking times between these 26

destinations in Littleton.

This is not an analysis of how walkable Littleton is

compared with other towns. Rather, it illustrates that

while many of these “significant destinations” are

clustered around the town center, a trip between

many of these destinations would stretch the limits of what the average person considers “walking distance.” As the next page discusses,

some of these destinations are close to each other “as the crow flies,” but the actual walking distance is far because the route is not direct.


DRAFT Route Directness for Pedestrians While route distance is the primary determinant of pedestrian travel, route directness is also a factor. Road networks that are dense and

have frequent intersections offer more route options, so that pedestrians can find a relatively direct route to their destination. Additional-

ly, evaluating route directness allows officials to determine where improvements to pedestrian infrastructure would have the greatest im-

pact. Route directness is evaluated using the ratio of the walking distance (along the road, sidewalk, and walking path network) to the

straight-line distance between two points. Appendix A is a matrix that presents route directness values between major destinations in Lit-

tleton. The route directness values presented in this matrix can be used to identify opportunities to improve and to prioritize projects.

Summary of findings:

Most of the “significant” destinations in Littleton have relatively direct routes to other destinations in town. The High School and Middle

School, the Post Office, Remich Park, and the Opera House are all located in very walkable parts of town. There is a mix of residential,

commercial, and civic land uses and a dense network of sidewalks around these destinations. Some residential areas in the vicinity of

downtown (Pine/Pleasant St, Riverside Dr, Apthorp Common) have mostly direct or very direct routes to other destinations in town as

well, while others (Bronson/South St, West Elm, Highland/Grove St) have slightly more indirect routes to other destinations. Highland

Avenue, Bronson Street, and Riverside Drive are proximate to many goods and services north of the Ammonoosuc River, but have to take

somewhat indirect routes due to the Ammonoosuc River.

Areas in Littleton with the worst route directness scores include Meadow Street (particularly the Walmart & Shaw’s plaza), West Main

Street, and the Industrial Park. These areas are far from where people live and do not have the mix of residential and commercial land

uses that exists in the town core. The Walmart and Shaw’s commercial plaza has a particularly indirect route, due to the presence of large

barriers such as I-93, the Ammonoosuc River, and a marsh between Walmart and Meadow St. Furthermore, there is no sidewalk or bike

lane on the driveway from Meadow St. into this plaza.

Recommended Strategies:

There are two types of strategies that can increase the connectivity of the pedestrian network:

Build new infrastructure that addresses barriers to pedestrian movement. This includes extending sidewalks along roads, building new

sidewalks and paths through land where there is not a road, and building pedestrian/bike bridges across the River or the Interstate.

Pages 35-36 discuss specific locations where new sidewalks or paths could increase connectivity.

Encourage land use patterns that site new development in parts of town that are already well-connected and walkable.


DRAFT Level of Traffic Stress for Bicyclists Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) analysis is a method of quantifyng

the level of comfort a bicyclist will on a given segment of road.

Road segments rated as LTS 1 or LTS 2 are considered to be part

of the “low-stress” bicycle network, while segments rated as LTS

3 or LTS 4 are considered to be “gaps” in the low-stress bicycle

network. The analysis is useful for identifying priority areas for

bicycle infrastructure improvements, as well as visualizing the

potential impacts of the strategies and recommendations pre-

sented in this plan on the bicycling network in Littleton.

LTS Category Description

LTS 1 Comfortable for nearly all bicyclists, including children.

LTS 2 Comfortable for most adult bicyclists, but often requiring more

careful attention on the part of the bicyclist. Less suitable for most

children.

LTS 3 Potentially suitable for some adult bicyclists, but typically more

stressful and requiring careful attention.

LTS 4 Potentially suitable for strong, experienced, and/or confident adult

bicyclists, but overly stressful and/or intimidating for the majority

of adult cyclists.

Level of Traffic Stress

December 2017


DRAFT Level of Traffic Stress for Bicyclists

The LTS analysis indicates that the current low-stress bicycling network (road segments scored as LTS 1 or 2) in Littleton consists most-

ly of local roads with low traffic volumes, low speed limits, and/or wide shoulders. Gaps in the low-stress network (road segment scored

as LTS 3 or 4) occur on local or state arterial roads with higher traffic volumes, higher speed limits, on-street parking, narrow or non-

existent shoulders, and/or where steep terrain features are present.

Current low-stress routes in Littleton, consisting primarily of LTS 1 and LTS 2 include:

Grove St - Highland Ave.

Church St - High St.

Eustis Hill Rd - Bronson St - South St .

Notable gaps in the low-stress bicycle network include:

Segments of West Elm St and Church St. These LTS 3 road segments interrupt an otherwise continuous route of LTS 2 road segments

stretching from the Farr Hill Road to High St. These sections of road contain some sections of steep terrain, in addition to experienc-

ing low-to-moderate traffic volumes and lacking striped shoulders.

Union St (west of Cross St) - Cottage St (north of Eustis Hill Rd). This stretch of LTS 4 road segments interrupts what could be a con-

tinuous route of mostly LTS 2 road segments connecting West Elm St and High St with Grove St/Highland St and/or Eustis Hill Rd.

These road segments experience high traffic volumes and contain some on-street parking.

East end of South St/west end of Grove St. These LTS 3 road segments interrupts an otherwise continuous route of LTS 1 and 2 road

segments stretching from the South St/Riverside Dr junction and Eustis Hill Rd to Grove St and Highland Ave. These sections of road

contain some sections of steep terrain, in addition to experiencing low-to-moderate traffic volumes and lacking striped shoulders.

Pleasant St. This LTS 3 road segment interrupts the mostly continuous route of LTS 2 road segments stretching from West Elm St to

Cross St, and prevents a low-stress connection from High St to Main St. Pleasant St currently receives moderately heavy traffic and

permits on-street parking.

Suggested Strategies:

Prioritize infrastructure improvements on road segments that interrupt otherwise continuous low-stress bicycle routes.

Prioritize infrastructure improvements that improve access and connectivity to areas with a high density of destinations, such as

Main Street.

Consider the grade of road segments when prioritizing infrastructure improvements; it would be a waste of resources if bicyclists

avoid using a road with newly constructed bicycle infrastructure because the road is too steep.


DRAFT Plan Area This Plan focuses on the town core - the part of Littleton that is most walkable due to its land use patterns. There are many destinations

within walking distance of each other - residents can walk to school, to the Post Office, and to the downtown businesses. Money spent on

pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements would provide the greatest benefit in this area because it is where most walking and

biking trips take place.

The website Walk Score® measures the walkability of any address in the United States on a scale of 0 to 100 based on factors that affect

pedestrian-friendliness, like population density, block length, and intersection density. Downtown Littleton has a Walk Score of 74 out of

100, making it “Very Walkable - Most errands can be accomplished on foot”. Littleton becomes less walkable as you get further from down-

town and there are large rural areas in town where almost all trips require a car.

The roads and streets covered in this plan extend to the southwest to Walmart and Shaw’s, to the northwest to the intersection of Dells

Road and West Main Street, to the northeast to the White Mountains Community College, and to the southeast to the VA and the Littleton

Food Coop. Within this area, NCC staff and community members identified potential walking and biking routes - a network of roads,

streets, and paths that are most likely to be used by pedestrians and bicyclists.

https://www.walkscore.com/score/littleton-nh


DRAFT Potential Walk & Bike Routes in Littleton

Potential Walk & Bike Routes in Littleton

Roads and streets in Littleton that could be designated as Walk & Bike Routes, to aid in navigation and to help create a connected network of on-road

bicycle facilities. These potential routes were identified by NCC staff, using input from community members, bicycle advocates, town officials.


DRAFT Road Network - Ownership and Function

Function and ownership of roads and streets in Littleton.

Generally, the high-volume collector and arterial roads in Littleton are owned by the state and any changes to the roadway would have to be approved

by DOT. Although Littleton has less control over the design of these roads, they are high priorities for bicycle and pedestrian improvements because

they are critical network linkages and most of Littleton’s offices and businesses are located on these roads. Furthermore, arterial roads (like Meadow

Street) are generally the most dangerous type of roadway in America (more than half of all pedestrian deaths in the United States in the last decade

were on arterial roads) and should be priorities for safety improvements.

Littleton’s town-owned roads generally carry lower traffic volumes, but are important because these streets can provide low-stress biking and walking

routes, and many residences and town parks are located on these streets. Town-owned roads could be a good place to experiment with bike and pedes-

trian infrastructure improvements because the impacts to car traffic are lower and the planning, design, and construction process is quicker.


DRAFT Public Input

Between March and early June, NCC staff met with residents, bicycle advocates, and public officials to discuss Littleton’s pedestri-

an and bicycle infrastructure.

Problems that were identified included:

Many sidewalks are in poor condition.

Many bicyclists ride on the sidewalks, especially on the main arteries (Meadow St., Main St., Union St.). They do so because they have

lower skill levels and the road conditions are poor, but they create a hazard for pedestrians.

Cars drive too fast in residential areas.

The intersection of Main St., Cottage St., and Union St. has long crosswalks and is difficult for bicyclists to use.

Priority areas included:

The area around Lakeway Elementary School, which is on a busy state road (Union St.).

Meadow St. - some residents use their bicycles to get to Walmart and the other businesses on Meadow St.

The area around Remich Park - there is a school and many recreational facilities in this neighborhood.

Opportunities for improvements included:

The river district is a great area; pedestrian and bike improvements could make it a bigger attraction.

South St., on the other side of the river, could be used to make walking loops downtown.

The old railroad bed could be made into a rail trail that provides an east-west connection across town for bicyclists, bypassing Main St.

On June 20, 2017, NCC staff held a public forum on Littleton’s Bicycling and Pedestrian Infrastructure.

Problems that were identified included:

The alignment of Grove Street and South Street where they intersect with Cottage Street - poor sight lines for all road users.

Saranac Street and Mill Street have a lot of parking and delivery traffic, which creates problems for bicyclists and pedestrians.

Cars drive too fast in residential areas.

Without some separated bike paths or buffered bike lanes, the downtown area is not accessible to lower-skilled bicyclists.


DRAFT Public Input (continued)

Priority areas included:

The area around Lakeway Elementary School, which is on a busy state road (Union St.).

Cottage Street, especially near the riverfront area and the planned rail trail.

The riverfront area.

Opportunities for improvements included:

Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements could create more construction jobs than similar amount of spending on auto-

oriented infrastructure spending due to lower materials costs for bike/ped projects (UMASS study).

Give Littleton’s State Roads the “Gateway Treatment” with signage and other features to indicate to drivers that they are now entering a

walkable and bike-friendly community.

Create satellite parking so that people park outside downtown and walk or bike into town. This could make the town more walkable

and ease congestion on Main Street.

State roads are the only roads that are wide enough to accommodate a separated bicycle lane.

Integrate on-road network with surrounding recreational areas, like the Parker Mountain trails.

Signage could help to inform motorists about pedestrians and bicyclists and could help pedestrians and bicyclists navigate the town.

Opportunities for follow-up studies to address public input:

It was not feasible, as part of this plan, to conduct studies looking into every concern raised by residents and officials, but there are poten-

tial opportunities to do so in the future. Some concerns that the public raised, like poor sidewalk conditions or excessive speeds in residen-

tial areas, could be further studied town-wide or on select streets, to quantify these problems. Littleton should also consider conducting be-

fore and after studies of traffic movement, operating speeds, and/or bicycle/pedestrian volume for segments of road where it plans to im-

plement some of this plan’s suggestions; this will help to determine the effectiveness of these changes.


DRAFT Resources These next two pages contain links to websites and documents that are good bicycle and pedestrian resources for Littleton’s town admin-

istration, public works department, commissions and boards, and citizens.

NHDOT - Pedestrian and Bicycle Program website

This website is a great repository for bicycle and pedestrian documents and resources. There is a Document Library, Traffic Safety

webpage, News & Events webpage, and a compilation of bicycle- and pedestrian-related maps.

HEAL NH - Complete Streets Policies webpage

This webpage describes what complete streets look like, provides examples of complete streets policies in other New Hampshire towns,

and provides additional complete streets resources.

FHWA - Incorporating On-Road Bicycle Networks into Resurfacing Projects

Every year, miles of roadways in Littleton see some form of road work. The most cost-effective way to make pedestrian and bicycle im-

provements to roads is to do them as part of road maintenance and resurfacing projects that are happening anyways. This document pro-

vides case studies, challenges, and techniques for taking advantage of these opportunities to make pedestrian and bicycle improvements.

Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission - 2012 Livable Walkable Communities Toolkit Update

This document provides planning principles for walkable communities and implementation strategies. This toolkit is user-friendly and out-

lines steps that individuals and coalitions can take to make a community more walkable, in addition to municipalities and planners. It also

features Littleton as an example of a success story for the steps that it has taken to make the downtown area livable and walkable - a good

reminder of the characteristics that Littleton has worked hard to develop and should continue to preserve.

NACTO - Urban Bikeway Design Guide and Urban Street Design Guide

These online guides contain design guidance for bicycle facilities and street design elements in a user-friendly format. Although Littleton is

in a rural area, many of the principles of street design in urban areas are applicable in the densely-populated town core.

https://www.nh.gov/dot/programs/bikeped/maps/index.htm

https://healnh.org/index.php/complete-streets-policies

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/resurfacing/resurfacing_workbook.pdf

https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/livable-communities/act/transportation/new-hampshire-livable-walkable-communities-toolkit-2012-aarp.pdf

https://nacto.org/publications/design-guides/


DRAFT Resources (continued)

FHWA - Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks

Although Littleton is located in a rural area, its compact town core makes it well-suited for walking and bicycling trips. Many of the chal-

lenges that Littleton faces in achieving a multimodal network are common among small towns in America. These challenges include auto-

oriented roadways, terrain constraints, having a highway as a Main Street, and climate. Because many small towns who want to improve

their multimodal transportation network face these challenges, the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) developed this document in

2016.

This FHWA document contains guidelines for on- and off-road multimodal facilities that address challenges specific to small towns and ru-

ral areas. These facilities include:

Mixed-traffic facilities, such as Yield Roadways, Shared Lane Markings, and Advisory Shoulders

Visually separated facilities, such as Paved Shoulders and Bike Lanes

Physically separated facilities, such as Shared Use Paths, Sidepaths, Sidewalks, and Separated Bike Lanes

Speed management strategies, such as Narrowing Wide Travel Lanes, Speed Humps, Mini Roundabouts, Pinch Points, Lateral Shifts, Me-

dian Islands, Speed Feedback Signs, and Pavement Markings.

Web links to these resources: NHDOT, Pedestrian and Bicycle Program. Web: 2018.

https://www.nh.gov/dot/programs/bikeped/index.htm

HEAL NH, Complete Streets Policies. Web: 2018.

https://healnh.org/index.php/complete-streets-policies

FHWA, Incorporating On-Road Bicycle Networks into Resurfacing Projects. 2016.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/resurfacing/resurfacing_workbook.pdf

AARP, 2012 Livable Walkable Communities Toolkit Update. 2012.

https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/livable-communities/act/transportation/new-hampshire-livable-walkable-communities-toolkit-2012-aarp.pdf

NACTO, Urban Bikeway Design Guide. Web: 2018.

https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/

NACTO, Urban Street Design Guide. Web: 2018.

https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/

FHWA, Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks. US DOT FHWA. 2016.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/small_towns/fhwahep17024_lg.pdf

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/small_towns/fhwahep17024_lg.pdf


DRAFT Toolkit - Shared Spaces

Advisory Shoulders

Also known as “Dashed Bicycle Lanes”, advisory shoulders consist of dashed edge

lines and a two-way center travel line. Drivers in the travel lane treat it like a lo-

cal road with no center line, but they can move into the shoulder to pass oncom-

ing traffic, if there are no bicyclists or pedestrians present. FHWA recommends a

minimum of 4 ft. shoulders (6 ft. preferred) and a 10 - 18 ft. two-way wide travel

lane.

Suitability: Low speed, low volume, within and between built-up areas.

Benefits: Provides a dedicated space in the roadway for bicyclists. Can calm traf-

fic because of the narrower travel lane.

Challenges: An FHWA-approved Request to Experiment is required to implement advisory shoulders. The shoulders are not intended to

replace sidewalks. Cars may encroach on the shoulder; this facility does not provide an exclusive space for bicyclists.

Shared Lane Markings

Also known as “Sharrows”, these are pavement markings in the travelled way. They should be painted in the travel lane, with the center

of the marking at least 4 ft. from any curbs or parked cars. The directional arrows indicate the direction that bicyclists should travel (with

automobile traffic).

Suitability: Low speeds, low volume, local roads. Acceptable to use on roads with moder-

ate volumes, where bike lanes or other facilities are not feasible.

Benefits: Alerts drivers to the presence of slower moving bicyclists in the roadway. Indi-

cates the preferred position of bicyclists in the roadway.

Challenges: Does not provide a dedicated space for bicyclists in the roadway, so lower-

skilled bicyclists may not feel comfortable using this facility.

Source: FHWA (2016).

Image: Edina, MN.


Image: Ennis, MT.


DRAFT Toolkit - Separated Spaces

Bike Lanes, Buffered Bike Lanes

A space separated from the travel lane with a solid stripe, a painted buffer, or a physi-

cal buffer. FHWA and AASHTO recommend a minimum width of 5 ft. when there is a

curb or guardrail on the roadside and 4 ft. when there is no curb or guardrail.

Suitability: Moderate speed, moderate volume, within or between built-up areas.

Benefits: Provides a dedicated space in the roadway for bicyclists. A solid line or paint-

ed buffer creates visual separation between bicyclists and automobiles, and a physical

buffer would create physical separation. Painted buffers can be used between bike lanes and parked

cars to prevent “dooring” incidents.

Challenges: On many roadways, there is currently not enough paved space to create a bike lane without

widening the pavement.

Side paths

Sidepaths are two-way, multi-use paths next to a road. FHWA recommends a minimum width of 8 ft., preferable 12 ft., so that users can

comfortably pass each other.

Suitability: Collector or arterial roads in built up areas, with a combination of high speed and/or high volume, where bike lanes may not

provide enough protection or comfort for bicyclists.

Benefits: Provides a separated space, out of the roadway, for bicyclists. Provides a ded-icated space for both bicyclists and pedestrians, possibly using less total space than other strategies.

Challenges: Mixed uses on one facility can cause user conflicts. Bicyclists’ speeds may

be limited by presence of slower moving bicycle and pedestrian traffic.


Image: South Lake Tahoe, CA.


Image: Lyndonville, VT.

Source: SWRPC

Image: Jaffrey, NH.


DRAFT Toolkit - Traffic Calming

Narrower Travel Lanes

Moving the edge line closer to the center line to create wider shoulders. Communities in

New Hampshire have successfully requested DOT to create travel lanes as narrow as 10

ft. on state-owned highways, such as NH Route 3A in Hebron, Bridgewater, and Plymouth.

Suitability: Any road where the travel lanes are wider than necessary.

Benefits: Reduces vehicle speeds and creates more space for bicyclists and pedestrians on

the edge of the road.

Challenges: Some vehicle operators may not feel comfortable in narrower travel lanes.

Curb Extensions

Also known as “bulb-outs”, extend the curb and/or sidewalk into the roadway. Can be implemented at crosswalks on corners or in the

middle of blocks.

Suitability: Any intersection or road where the pavement can be narrowed.

Benefits: Improves pedestrian safety by increasing their visibility, reducing the cross dis-

tance, and encouraging pedestrians to cross at designated places. Reduces vehicle speeds,

especially at intersections where it reduces the turning radius for vehicles. Prevents cars

from illegally parking close to an intersection.

Challenges: Can affect drainage and plowing. Larger vehicles, which need wider a wider turn-

ing radius, should be considered when installing curb extensions at intersections.

Mini Roundabout

A small roundabout in intersections.

Suitability: Low speed, low-to-medium volume roads where a traffic signal is not warranted.

Benefits: Improves traffic flow, relative to stop signs. At intersections without any stop sign or sig-

nal, mini roundabouts calm traffic.

Challenges: Can affect drainage and plowing. Larger vehicles with wider a turning radius should

be considered.

Source: NH DOT

Image: NH 3A in Hebron, NH.

Source: NACTO

Source: NACTO


DRAFT

Bicycles Yield to Pedestrians

On shared-use paths, bicyclists are responsible for

avoiding collisions with pedestrians and slower-

moving bicyclists. Signs such as these inform users

of the traffic pattern and could help to prevent col-

lisions.

___________ Ahead / ____________ Ends

Can be installed under other signs, such as

bike lane signs, to inform road users when a

certain facility begins and ends.

Bicycles May Use Full Lane

Can be used on roads with Shared Lane

Markings to inform drivers that bicyclists

may use the travel lane.

Toolkit - Signage

Pedestrians On Roadway

For use on low-speed, low-volume roads with-

out sidewalks, where pedestrians may be walk-

ing in the roadway.

Bike Route Way-Finding

For roads that are designated as bike routes

because of their importance and/or suita-

bility for bicyclists and pedestrians. Alerts

bicyclists and drivers to a road’s designa-

tion as a bike route and aids in navigation of

Littleton’s bike routes.

Advisory Shoulder

Where advisory shoulders are implemented, these

signs inform road users of the traffic pattern. This

sign is on an advisory shoulder road in Hanover, NH.

“No Parking” signs inform drivers that the advisory

shoulder is not a parking lane.

Bike Lane

Informs drivers and bicyclists that there is

a bike lane. Along with other strategies,

this signage could prevent drivers from

parking in the bike lane and could prevent

bicyclists from riding on the sidewalk.


DRAFT Potential Strategies for Littleton

The maps on pages 31-35 illustrate the roads in Littleton that are potentially suitable for strategies like bike lanes, advisory shoulders,

shared lane markings, narrower travel lanes, traffic calming, sidewalks, and bike paths. The tables on pages 36-37 identify the “priority”

locations for new pedestrian and bicycle facilities - those that NCC identified as having the greatest potential benefits and/or the lowest

costs.

Volume II of the Littleton Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan provides more details on the individual circumstances of each road in Littleton - the

dimensions and characteristics, potential strategies for improving bicycle and pedestrian safety, and the benefits and challenges of imple-

menting such strategies.

Methodology:

From March to June 2017, NCC staff used field measurements and GIS data to assess the challenges that bicycles and pedestrians face on

Littleton’s roads and streets and the types of strategies that might be appropriate for these roads and streets, based on road geometry, land

use, traffic volume, and speed limit.

Volume II of this plan provides profiles of each segment of roads and streets that were assessed. These profiles include:

A summary of each facility’s road geometry, land use, traffic volume, and speed limit.

Picture(s) of the roadway.

A map showing the location of the facility within the network.

At least two potential strategies for improving the roadway for bicyclists and pedestrians, including the potential action (scope of

work), the reasons that these strategies could be appropriate, the benefits that they would provide, and the challenges to implementing

these strategies.

The potential strategies that are identified as suitable for a street are presented in order by the scale and scope of work. Generally, strate-

gies with larger scopes have larger costs, but provide more accommodations for bicyclists and pedestrians. It is the responsibility of the

town of Littleton and NH DOT to determine if these improvement projects would be financially feasible, if there is public support, and if

they would adequately balance the needs of all road users.

These strategies identified in this plan are suggestions, not engineering judgements; any geometric design dimensions that are suggested

in this report are approximate and should be evaluated by a civil engineer before implementation. Road geometry measurements and geo-

metric design dimensions that are included in this report are rounded to the nearest 1/4 foot because of the precision of the measurement

techniques used by NCC staff.


DRAFT Potential Bike Lanes Some state roads, like Meadow Street, Union Street, West Main Street, and Cottage Street are potential candidates for bike lanes because

the relatively high volume of through-traffic on these streets makes it important to provide more separation between bicyclists and vehi-

cles. Town-owned roads like Industrial Park Road, Riverside Drive, Dells Road, Redington Street, and Brook Road are also relatively busy

and the increased separation provided by bike lanes could increase the comfort of bicyclists on these roads.


DRAFT Potential Advisory Shoulders or Shared Lane Markings On town-owned roads that have lower traffic volumes and speeds, a dedicated bike lane may not be necessary. On these roads, advisory

shoulders or Shared Lane Markings could increase the safety and comfort of bicyclists and help to calm traffic. On some sections of state

roads, like Meadow Street at the I-93 exits or Union Street, Shared lane Markings could help guide bicyclists negotiate intersections and on-

street parking, and could alert motorists to the presence of bicyclists in the travel lane.


DRAFT Potential for Narrower Travel Lanes Some state-owned and town-owned roads in Littleton have generously wide travel lanes, which could be narrowed and still be within

AASHTO guidelines. Even if these lanes are not narrowed enough to allow for a bike lane in the shoulder, the narrower travel lanes could

increase safety by calming traffic and providing more separation between bicyclists and motorists.


DRAFT Potential Traffic Calming Measures Traffic calming measures, like curb extensions and mini roundabouts, could increase pedestrian safety on Farr Hill Road, Union Street, and

Redington Street. Mini roundabouts on Farr Hill Road and Redington Street could calm vehicle traffic and curb extension(s) on one or more

leg(s) adjacent to these roundabouts could complement their function. Curb extensions could also be located at crosswalks along Union

Street and at the Union Street/Redington Street intersection to reduce its turn radius and shorten its crosswalk. Curb extensions with

“parklets” could be built along Redington Street where the pavement is very wide.


DRAFT Potential Sidewalks, Sidepaths, and Bike Paths New sidewalk construction should be prioritized where it would have the greatest safety benefit for pedestrians - on roads with higher pe-

destrian use and with the highest vehicle speeds and traffic volumes. Meadow Street from Dells Road to Walmart is a priority stretch of

road for sidewalks or a sidepath, due to its heavy traffic and commercial destinations. New bike/walk paths could increase pedestrian

route options where there are currently no roads - for example: from West Main Street to Meadows Street, from Tuck Lane to Oak Hill Ave-

nue, and on the old railroad grade.


DRAFT Potential Sidewalks, Sidepaths, and Bike Paths (continued)

The following is a list of new infrastructure that would increase pedestrian connectivity in Littleton by either extending the sidewalk net-

work along existing roads or constructing new paths to increase route options where there is no road.

Note: Littleton has been awarded funding to complete some of these sidewalk projects in the coming years.

*Costs are presented as estimates relative to the other projects on this list by total project cost, rather than per-unit cost.

Action Benefit(s) Cost*

Construct sidewalks in residential areas, like Farr Hill Road, West Main Street, South

Street, Riverside Drive, Bronson Street, Eustis Hill Road, and Highland Avenue.

Connect residential areas with the rest of the town’s

sidewalk network.

$$$

Construct a sidewalk along Mill Street and Ammonoosuc Street in the River District. Connect existing sidewalk networks in a busy area. $$

Extend the sidewalk network west down Meadow Street. Connect Walmart and Shaw’s to the sidewalk network. $$

Extend the sidewalk network from Meadow Street to Walmart and Shaw’s (via a pri-

vate commercial driveway).

Connect Walmart and Shaw’s to the sidewalk network. $$

Extend the sidewalk up Dells Road from Walgreens. Create new route option for pedestrians from West

Main Street to Meadow Street, shortening some walk-

ing trips by up to 0.6 miles

$$

Construct a path from Tuck Lane to Oak Hill Avenue. There appears to already be an

unpaved drive here, but formalizing public access and maintenance would create

more direct pedestrian options in this residential area.

Increase route options in the “Hill Neighborhood”.

Shorten some walking trips by up to 0.7 miles (up to

2.6x more direct).

$

Construct a pedestrian/bike path (a.k.a. “Rail Trail”) on the abandoned railroad

grade from Industrial Park Drive to Redington Street.

Increase west-east route options, replaces the need for

sidewalk construction along some west-east roads, cre-

ates bicyclists bypass around the busy Main Street in-

tersection.

$$$

Secure public access from Lafayette Street to the proposed rail trail, through Little-

ton Light & Power’s property.

Increase route options around the western end of Un-

ion Street.

$

Construct a path between the Glenwood Cemetery on West Main Street and the Na-

tional Guard driveway on Meadow Street.

Shorten walking trips from West Main Street (around

the Police Department) to Meadow Street (around

Walgreens).

$

Construct a pedestrian/bicycle bridge across the Ammonoosuc River from the

Walmart and Shaw’s plaza to the rail trail.

Allow bicyclists and pedestrians to bypass Meadow

Street and the I-93 Exit 42 ramps.

$$$$


DRAFT The following is a list of the potential strategies that would involve changes to the roadway (bike lane, advisory shoulders, sharrows, etc.)

that have the greatest benefits for the lowest costs. Volume II of this plan includes more details on these potential project, and potential

strategies for roads that are not on this list.

Priority On-Road Bicycle Projects

Action Benefit(s) Cost*

“Riverside-to-Apthorp Route”: Address gaps in the “low-

stress” network of roads that make up this route on the

south side of the Ammonoosuc River. See Volume II, pag-

es 3-13 for details.

This route is naturally bike-friendly; it has relatively flat terrain, connects

many destinations on a west-east route, and has low automobile traffic. Minor

projects (lane striping and signage) could make this network even more bike-

friendly.

$$

Construct a paved bike path using the rail corridor from

Riverside Dr. to Redington St. See Volume II, pages 45-46

for details.

Provide a west-east paved route, separate from automobile traffic, that bypass-

es Union Street and Main Street, which are very challenging for bicyclists.

$$$$

“Hill Neighborhood Route”: Address gaps in the “low-

stress” network of roads that make up this route on the

south side of downtown Littleton. See Volume II, pages

14-20 for details.

This route connects many destinations on a west-east route and has low auto-

mobile traffic. Minor projects (lane striping and signage) could make this net-

work even more bike-friendly.

$$

Union Street: curb extensions, bicycle lanes, and signage.

See Volume II pages 40-41 for details.

Union Street carries a lot of through-traffic, but is also an important part of the

residential and commercial areas east of downtown. Minor projects (lane strip-

ing, curb extensions, and signage) could make this street safer for all road us-

ers and build on the efforts of previous projects on Union Street, like the 2017

Safe Routes To School project in front of Lakeway Elementary School.

$$$

Meadow Street: bicycle lanes and signage. See Volume II

pages 33-38 for details.

Many popular commercial businesses (Walmart, Shaw’s, etc.) are located on

Meadow Street and are spread out along a “strip.” For those without a car, bicy-

cling is a better option than the long walk down this road. Creating bike lanes

through re-striping could improve safety for these road users, although this

would still be a “high-stress” road for bicyclists due to the high traffic volume

and speed limits.

$$$

$ = Less than $5,000 per road mile $$ = $5,000 - $50,000 per road mile

$$S = $50,000 - $150,000 per road mile $$$$ = Over $150,000 per road mile

*Costs estimated based on FHWA-RD-01-102 (2002) and Bushell, et al. (2013)

**Per-unit projects, such as signage, are estimated based on number of signs expected to be needed, per mile.


DRAFT Implementation

Improvement Cost Implementation Strategies Potential Funding Sources

Shared Lane Markings $$ In conjunction with repaving and/or restriping Town-owned roads: Littleton CIP, TA

State-owned roads: TA, PAVE

Advisory Shoulders $$ In conjunction with repaving and/or restriping Littleton CIP, TA

Bike Lanes $$ - $$$ Town-owned roads: In conjunction with repaving and/or restriping

State-owned roads: Individual project

Town-owned: Littleton CIP, TA

State-owned: TA, PAVE

Buffered Bike Lanes $$$ Individual Project or in conjunction with repaving State-owned : TA, PAVE, TYP

New Sidewalks or

Sidepaths

$$$$ Individual Project, or in conjunction with road reconstructions Town-owned: Littleton CIP, TA

State-owned: TA, TYP, CMAQ

Rail Trail $$$$ Individual Project RTP, TA, CMAQ

Narrower Lanes $ - $$ In conjunction with repaving and/or restriping Town-owned: Littleton CIP, TA


Curb Extensions $ - $$ Town-owned roads: In conjunction with repaving and/or restriping

State-owned roads: Individual project

Town-owned: Littleton CIP, TA


Mini Roundabout $$ Individual Project, or in conjunction with repaving Littleton CIP

Signage $ Immediately, as bicycle/pedestrian improvements are implemented. All of the above

$ = Less than $5,000 per road mile

$$ = $5,000 - $50,000 per road mile

$$S = $50,000 - $150,000 per road mile

$$$$ = Over $150,000 per road mile

*Costs estimated based on FHWA-RD-01-102 (2002) and Bushell, et al. (2013)

**Per-unit projects, such as signage, are estimated based on number of signs expected to be needed, per mile.

Littleton CIP = Littleton’s Capital Improvement Plan

TA = Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside (formerly TAP)

PAVE= NH DOT pavement preservation, rehabilitation, and marking programs

TYP = NH DOT Ten Year Plan

CMAQ = Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality

The town could implement these potential improvements incrementally; many of them could be done in conjunction with normal repaving or restriping

efforts. For improvements that are done as part of repaving or restriping, there may be little or no cost. Other improvements, like new sidewalk con-

struction, might have to be done as individual projects, which would be more costly. The following table identifies potential funding sources which

could be useful for funding these improvements.

Implementation Table: Relative costs (if done as individual projects), implementation strategies, and potential funding sources for potential bicy-

cle and pedestrian improvements.


DRAFT Future Studies

To guide implementation of this plan, future studies could be conducted to help the town prioritize projects and determine the effectiveness of actions

that are implemented.

Speed studies could be conducted on roads where residents and officials have raised concerns about excessive speeds.

Speed studies could also be done before and after a road project, where there is a plan to implement traffic calming measures such as bump-outs,

narrower travel lanes, and mini-roundabouts.

Additional traffic volume counts could be conducted on low volume residential streets that are mentioned in this plan. On some residential streets,

NCC did not measure traffic volume, but suggested actions such as Advisory Shoulders that are suitable for low-volume streets. Before implement-

ing a project, traffic volume should be measured to confirm that it is low enough for the road to be suitable for these actions. Roads where traffic

volume should be measured could include: Brook Rd., Grove St., Farr Hill Rd., West Elm St., High St., and School St.

More measurements of traffic volume in the downtown area would be important to do, because Littleton is constantly planning projects downtown.

Counts at a few locations on Main Street would be useful, along with counts on Saranac St., Ammonoosuc St., and Mill St.

Pedestrian and bicycle counts could be conducted where a proposed action would create new bike/ped infrastructure, such as a before and after

study of pedestrian and bicycle traffic on Meadow Street to determine the effectiveness of a sidewalk or sidepath extension.

Pedestrian and bicycle counts throughout town could also be done to prioritize projects based on how many people the infrastructure would serve.

Pedestrian and bicycle counts along a corridor could help to identify high-use or low-use areas along a corridor and could help to identify areas des-

tination or origin for bicyclists and pedestrians. This could help prioritize segments of road for bike/ped infrastructure improvements. Corridors

that would be good candidates include Meadow Street, Union Street, and Cottage Street.

A sidewalk condition inventory could be conducted in Littleton to help plan repairs and to identify gaps in the sidewalk network. The Statewide As-

set Data Exchange System (SADES) has a system to conduct such an inventory.


DRAFT Level of Traffic Stress for Bicyclists - Potential Results

If the strategies identified in this plan are fully implement-

ed, there would likely be significant improvements to Lit-

tleton’s network of low-stress roads for bicyclists. Long,

continuous routes consisting of LTS 1 and 2 road segments

would make more areas in and around downtown Littleton

accessible via low-stress roads:

North of Main Street, bicyclists would be able to travel

from Farr Hill Road down low-stress road segments as

far Chiswick Avenue and Pine Street. Pleasant Street

and Church Street would provide mostly low-stress

connections to Main Street destinations.

South of Main Street, bicyclists would be able to travel

from Riverside Drive down low-stress road segments or

the paved Rail Trail as far as Brook Road and Redington

Street. Bridge Street and the pedestrian bridge would

provide a low-stress connection to Main Street destina-

tions.

Bicyclists would be able to connect these two low-stress

networks at the intersection of Beacon Street, Chiswick

Avenue, and Union Street.

Notable gaps that would remain in the low-stress bicycle

network include:

Main Street, which features striped on-street parking

and experiences high traffic volumes.

Cottage Street between Main Street and Bethlehem

Road, which experiences high traffic volumes, moderate

vehicle speeds, and occasional on-street parking.

Top: Current Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) in Littleton. Analysis by North Country Council, 2017.

Bottom: Potential Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) in Littleton after full implementation. Analysis by North Country Council, 2017.

Current

Potential


DRAFT Appendix A: Route Distance and Directness Matrix

Route directness describes how direct a particular route of travel is. RDI is calculated using the ratio of the route distance (along the road,

sidewalk, and walking path network) to the straight-line distance between two points. An RDI of 1.0 indicates that the route is perfectly di-

rect, while higher values indicate that the route is less direct. While walking distance is the primary factor in determining a pedestrian’s

willingness to travel by foot, route directness may also be a contributing factor. Looking at the route directness values for individual desti-

nations in Littleton can reveal how accessible these destinations are from other areas of town.

The matrix provided on the next page displays route distances (blue cells) and route directness values (green cells) for pedestrian routes

between identified destinations in Littleton. The matrix can serve as a point of reference for identifying opportunities and prioritizing pro-

jects to improve route directness between destinations. High values for route directness between destinations may indicate opportunities

for infrastructure projects that could significantly improve route directness and decrease walking distance between destinations. The asso-

ciated route distances provide further context as to the level of impact that infrastructure improvements could have on pedestrian connec-

tivity. Route directness values should be analyzed in the context of route distance, as it is possible for a very short route to be very indirect

but still easily “walkable,” or for a very long route to be very direct and not easily “walkable.”


DRAFT Appendix A: Route Distance and Directness Matrix

Littleton Pedestrian & Bicycle Infrastructure Improvement ... and Forms/2018... · This plan is a...

Documents

Transcript of Littleton Pedestrian & Bicycle Infrastructure Improvement ... and Forms/2018... · This plan is a...