HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/20/2025 Motion to accept the proposal from Civiltech Engineering, Inc. for the Prospect Avenue Limited Boundary Alternatives Analysis Study for an amount not to exceed $114,909.20.M+awn �'xytlts=e
Item Cover Page
Subject Motion to accept the proposal from Civiltech Engineering, Inc.
for the Prospect Avenue Limited Boundary Alternatives
Analysis Study for an amount not to exceed $114,909.20.
Meeting May 20, 2025 - REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT
VILLAGE BOARD
Fiscal Impact (Y/N) Y
Dollar Amount $114,909.20
Budget Source Prospect & Main Tax Increment Financing District Fund
Category VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT
Type Action Item
Information
In recent years, a number of new restaurants along Prospect Avenue have spurred the desire
for outdoor seating in the warmer months. Additionally, multiple residential developments and
a grocery store have been built along Prospect Avenue, leading to considerably more
pedestrian and bicycle activity downtown. The Village last summer trialed on -street dining by
repurposing six on -street parking spots to outdoor dining areas within the 100 block of W.
Prospect Avenue. With the changing environment, the Village wishes to develop long-term
alternatives as part of a planning study that considers outdoor dining, pedestrian access, bike
access, vehicle travel and parking, lighting, street furniture and landscaping to enhance
Prospect Avenue. This study, herein referred to as the Prospect Avenue Alternative Analysis
Study, is identified in this year's Community Investment Program.
Prospect Avenue is a Village -owned street that runs parallel to the Union Pacific railroad tracks
and through downtown Mount Prospect. There is one travel lane in each direction with parallel
parking on both sides and a landscaped center median with lighting. It is currently signed as a
local bike route with sharrow pavement markings. In addition to enhancing the downtown
experience for businesses, the Village desires to improve the bicycle infrastructure on Prospect
Avenue. The Village's recently completed Arterial Bike Network Study identifies Prospect
Avenue and Northwest Highway as needing further study to develop long-term bike facilities.
Staff solicited separate technical and cost proposals for a Limited Boundary Study (Prospect
Avenue from Elmhurst Avenue to IL 83 (Main Street)) and a Corridor Study (Prospect Avenue
from Central Road to Mount Prospect Road). The Limited Boundary Study would develop a
preferred alternative for Prospect Avenue between Elmhurst Avenue and IL 83 (Main Street)
that incorporates outdoor dining, pedestrian access, bike facilities, vehicle travel and parking,
lighting, street furniture and landscaping. The Corridor Study would include all the work
outlined in the Limited Boundary Study while expanding the project limits as indicated. The
cost proposals for the Corridor Study were above the budgeted amount. Therefore, staff chose
to focus on the Limited Boundary Study between Elmhurst Avenue and IL 83 (Main Street), as
this section of Prospect Avenue addresses the primary importance relating to outdoor dining.
Staff is seeking at this time to enter into a contract with a consulting planning/engineering
firm to complete the study. The final product will be a preferred alternative, including concept
plans, renderings, cost estimates and funding opportunities based on public input and current
best design practices to enhance Prospect Avenue within the project limits. It will also take
into consideration the potential impacts to the entire Prospect Avenue corridor and
surrounding area to provide a smooth transition for potential future work. The Village will be
funding this study using the Prospect and Main Tax Increment Financing District Fund. This
study does not need to follow federal guidelines, but future design phases may need to if grant
funding is sought for a construction project.
Completion of this study will position the Village well for continuing into Phase I Engineering
(Preliminary) and Phase II Engineering (Design) for a grant -funded project, or a detailed
engineering design for a Village -funded project.
Reauest for Proposals
The Village solicited Technical and Cost Proposals from planning/engineering consulting firms
to provide services for the Prospect Avenue Alternative Analysis Study. A notice was posted on
the DemandStar bidding website. Firms were asked to submit as part of their proposal the
following information:
1. Resumes of key personnel
2. Related experience on similar type of projects
3. Understanding of the project and deliverables
4. Summary of the firm's approach to the project
5. Project schedule
6. Cost proposal broken down by task
Primary tasks identified in the RFP include the following:
1. Develop at least three alternatives that incorporate village, business, and public priorities
with varying levels of on -street parking retention and vehicle access. Priorities include:
a. Maintaining and/or expanding existing pedestrian space.
b. Providing dedicated space for outdoor dining and/or other business activities.
c. Enhancing bicycle facilities through dedicated space for bikes along the corridor, if
possible.
d. Incorporating street lighting into all alternatives.
e. Providing street furniture and landscaping to beautify the corridor.
f. Evaluating vehicle access along Prospect Avenue.
g. Considering parking impacts compared to other priorities for the study.
h. Developing general wayfinding improvements for the corridor.
2. Engage in stakeholder meetings to solicit input. Stakeholders include:
a. Business owners along Prospect Avenue
b. Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Merchants Association
c. IDOT and Union Pacific Railroad
3. Perform topographic and right-of-way surveys as needed for alternative development.
4. Develop a robust public outreach campaign to collect public input.
5. Develop renderings for each of the alternatives.
6. Develop a comprehensive Alternative Analysis Report.
7. Present the alternatives and preferred alternative to the Transportation Safety Commission
and the Village Board.
8. Prepare preliminary cost estimates and identify potential funding sources.
RFP Evaluations
The consulting firms' Technical Proposals were reviewed on the basis of their understanding of
our goals and their methodology for completing the study. They were rated (with a maximum
score of 100 points) according to these specific categories: firm background, personnel
background, project experience, proposal content, and value. The rankings are:
Technical Proposals
Category
Max
Civiltech
KH*
GHA**
Points
Firm
20
20
20
20
Background
Personnel
25
24
24
23
Background
Project
20
19
17
16
Experience
Proposal
15
15
14
13
Content
Value
20
20
16
18
Total
100
98
91
90
* Kimley-Horn
** Gewalt-Hamilton Associates
Cost Proposals
Firm
Hours
Cost /
Hour
Labor Cost
Direct Cost
Total Cost
Engineer's
Estimate
800
$145.00
$116,000.00
$4,000.00
$120,000.00
Civiltech
804
$139.63
$112,260.40
$2,648.80
$114,909.20
Kimley-Horn
636
$171.15
$108,854.00
$0.00
$108,854.00
GHA
711
$158.54
$112,721.00
$2,600.00
$115,321.00
Discussion
Staff conducted interviews with all three consultants and determined that Civiltech
Engineering, Inc. (Civiltech) is the preferred consultant for the study. They have put together
a very strong project team with similar project experience in Schaumburg, Glen Ellyn,
Naperville, and Joliet. Additionally, they have experience with federal Phase I Engineering
(Preliminary) and Phase II Engineering (Design) as well as transportation planning.
Civiltech has a very experienced professional engineering staff with a thorough understanding
of the project coordination, communication and documentation needed to successfully
accomplish the project within the proposed schedule. Civiltech has previously completed the
Arterial Bike Network Study for the Village and is currently undertaking the Village's Transit
Study. Their work has been acceptable.
Staff supports the cost proposal submitted by Civiltech in the amount of $114,909.20 to
provide planning and preliminary engineering services for the Prospect Avenue Limited
Boundary Alternative Analysis Study. It is staff's opinion that Civiltech is best qualified to
perform the requisite work, has allotted appropriate work effort, and requested a reasonable,
competitive fee for the services requested.
Alternatives
1. Accept the proposal from Civiltech Engineering, Inc., for the Prospect Avenue Limited
Boundary Alternatives Analysis Study.
2. Action at the discretion of the Village Board.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Village Board accept the proposal from Civiltech Engineering, Inc
of Itasca, Illinois, to complete the Prospect Avenue Limited Boundary Alternative Analysis
Study for an amount not to exceed $114,909.20.
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Prospect Avenue RFP
3. Civiltech Technical Proposal
4. Civiltech Cost Proposal
Prospect Avenue Alternative Analysis Study
Location Map
MAYOR
Paul Wm. Hoefert
VILLAGE MANAGER
Michael J. Cassady
TRUSTEES
Vincent J. Dante
Agostino Filippone
Terri Gens
William A. Grossi
John J. Matuszak
Colleen E. Saccotelli
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
Sean Dorsey
u w I # •
1700 W. Central Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
Request for Technical & Cost Proposals
DATE: February 7, 2025
FROM: Matthew Lawrie, P.E.
Village of Mount Prospect
Public Works Department
RE: Request for Technical & Cost Proposals
Prospect Avenue Alternative Analysis Study
Phone:847/870-5640
Fax:847/253-9377
www.mountprospect.org
The Village of Mount Prospect seeks Technical & Cost Proposals from engineering firms for an Alternative
Analysis Study for improvements to Prospect Avenue. Firms shall submit both a technical and cost proposal
for a Limited Boundary Study and a Corridor Study as described in this request to be considered for the
study. The Village, at its own discretion, will award a contract for either the Limited Boundary Study or
Corridor Study. Technical Proposals & Cost Proposals shall be submitted as separate documents.
Attached to this memo are:
1. A list of materials and information that should be included with your Technical & Cost Proposals
(Exhibit A).
2. A general definition of the scope of work and requirements for your submittal (Exhibit B).
3. An aerial map identifying the project limits (Exhibit C).
Your Technical & Cost Proposals should be emailed to the following address and received no later than
5:00 p.m. on Friday, February 28, 2025 to the attention of:
Mr. Jason Leib
Deputy Director of Public Works
Village of Mount Prospect
ileib@mountprospect.org
The Village will conduct interviews with the shortlist firms. Those selected for an interview will be
contacted by the Village to arrange a date/time to meet at the Mount Prospect Public Works Department,
1700 W. Central Road, or via Microsoft Teams.
The Village of Mount Prospect appreciates your interest in this study. Any questions regarding this Request
for Technical & Cost Proposals can be directed to Matthew Lawrie, Village Engineer with the Village of Mount
Prospect, by phone at 847-870-5640 or email at mlawrie@mountprospect.or .
Page 2
Village of Mount Prospect
February 7, 2025
Exhibit A
Requirements for Technical & Cost Proposals
Agency: Village of Mount Prospect
Project: Prospect Avenue Alternative Analysis Study
Location: Limited Boundary Study: Prospect Avenue from Elmhurst Avenue to IL 83 (Main Street)
Corridor Study: Prospect Avenue from Central Road to Mount Prospect Road
Your Technical & Cost Proposals should include the following information:
1. Name, address and brief history of firm.
2. Organizational chart and resumes of key personnel to be assigned to this project.
3. Related experience during the last five (5) years. For example:
a. Providing engineering services for streetscape projects in suburban downtowns, with experience
in creating new outdoor dining or business space.
b. Experience with bicycle and pedestrian corridor planning.
c. Experience with feasibility studies and/or alternative analysis in a suburban environment with a
focus on balancing parking needs with new amenities for pedestrians, bicyclists and business
patrons.
d. Experience working with the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) on roadway,
intersection, traffic signal, and pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure projects.
e. Experience working with multiple interest groups including municipalities, state agencies,
residents and businesses. Emphasis will be placed on effective communication tools and the
ability to build consensus.
f. Identifying state/federal grant opportunities with a history of successfully securing Phase I, Phase
II and Phase III Engineering funds and construction funds.
4. Description of process to accomplish the required tasks of both the Limited Boundary Study and
Corridor Study for the project. This should include:
a. An understanding of the project.
b. Objectives to be met as part of the project.
c. Your approach to completing the project.
d. The projected number of hours to complete the project broken down by task and personnel for
both the Limited Boundary Study and Corridor Study.
e. A project schedule for both the Limited Boundary Study and Corridor Study.
S. A complete cost proposal broken down by task for both the Limited Boundary Study and Corridor
Study as described in the General Scope of Work.
Page 3
Village of Mount Prospect
February 7, 2025
Exhibit B
General Scope of Work
Agency: Village of Mount Prospect
Project: Prospect Avenue Alternative Analysis Study
Location: Limited Boundary Study: Prospect Avenue from Elmhurst Avenue to IL 83 (Main Street)
Corridor Study: Prospect Avenue from Central Road to Mount Prospect Road
The Village is solicitating two separate proposals from consultants to conduct an alternative analysis study
of Prospect Avenue. The Limited Boundary Study focuses on 3 blocks of Prospect Avenue with an
emphasis on accommodating outdoor dining. The Corridor Study includes all the work from the Limited
Boundary Study but expands the study limits to be from Central Road to Mount Prospect Road. Scope of
work is described below.
The Village desires to address competing pedestrian, bicycle, business patron and vehicular needs along
Prospect Avenue to create a more welcoming and economically viable downtown for all. The first step to
modernize Prospect Avenue is an alternative analysis study to set the Village up to advance the preferred
alternative into design and construction.
The Limited Boundary Study will focus on robust streetscape improvements and outdoor dining
opportunities between Elmhurst Avenue and IL 83 (Main Street). The Corridor Study includes all of
Prospect Avenue between Central Road and Mount Prospect Road. Elmhurst Avenue to IL 83 (Main
Street) will focus on providing outdoor dining space while evaluating and balancing space for pedestrians,
bicyclists, travel lanes, parking, lighting and landscaping. Outside of these limits, the Village desires to
better accommodate bikes while maintaining the opportunity for additional streetscape improvements
and outdoor dining space should adjacent land use change.
In recent years, a number of redevelopments and new restaurants along Prospect Avenue have spurred
the desire for outdoor seating in the warmer months. Additionally, hundreds of new apartments and a
grocery store have been built along Prospect Avenue, leading to considerably more pedestrian and bicycle
activity downtown. The Village intends to develop a preferred alternative that considers outdoor dining,
pedestrian access, bike access, vehicle travel and parking, lighting, street furniture and landscaping to
improve Prospect Avenue.
In the summer of 2024, the Village trialed on -street dining by repurposing 6 on -street parking spots to
outdoor dining areas within the 100 block of West Prospect Avenue. The Village is now wishes to explore
opportunities to improve and possibly expand the outdoor dining experience.
The Village desires to meet parking demand in the downtown area. While the Village has ample parking
available to business patrons in public parking garages and the Metra lots, this parking is not directly
adjacent to most businesses leading to a perceived lack of parking in our downtown area. Any changes
proposed along Prospect Avenue should consider impacts to parking immediately adjacent to the
businesses. The study is to investigate ways to direct patrons to available, under-utilized parking facilities.
Page 4
Village of Mount Prospect
February 7, 2025
Prospect Avenue is currently a signed local bike route with sharrow pavement markings. The Village
desires to improve the bicycle infrastructure on Prospect Avenue and designate it part of the Northwest
Municipal Conference's Northwest Bikeway that parallels Northwest Highway as described in their
Multimodal Transportation Plan. The Village's Arterial Bike Network Study identifies Prospect Avenue as
needing more study to develop long-term bike facilities with the intention of designating Prospect Avenue
as part of the Northwest Bikeway. This study will be completed in early 2025.
The Village also prepared a brief Bikeway Evaluation of Prospect Avenue and Emerson Street in 2021. This
report was developed prior to any bike facilities on Prospect Avenue and resulted in the addition of shared
lane markings and signs. The report also included a potential long-term concept for consideration.
Separately, the intersection of Central Road, Northwest Highway, Prospect Avenue and the Union Pacific
Railroad Crossing is currently in a Phase I Engineering Study lead by the Village. The Corridor Study is to
coordinate with this study, the Central Road Railroad Crossing Phase I Study, to determine the preferred
alternative for the western end of Prospect Avenue.
Prospect Avenue is 1.35 miles in length and a local road under Village jurisdiction. It terminates at Central
Road, an unmarked IDOT route, on the west end, intersects with IL 83 (Main Street) a Strategic Regional
Arterial IDOT route, and terminates at Mount Prospect Road, a Cook County route, on the east end. This
entire length encompasses the Corridor Study. The Limited Boundary Study is the 0.25-mile section of
Prospect Avenue between Elmhurst Avenue and IL 83 (Main Street).
Developing a preferred alternative for Prospect Avenue between Elmhurst Avenue and IL 83 (Main Street)
that incorporates outdoor dining, pedestrian access, bike facilities, vehicle travel and parking, lighting,
street furniture and landscaping is the primary goal of the project (Limited Boundary Study). The Corridor
Study expands the study limits to develop a preferred alternative between Central Road and Mount
Prospect Road. With a future contract, the Village will then move forward with a Phase I Engineering
Study for a potentially grant funded project, or will proceed with detailed design for a Village funded
project. At a minimum, the following tasks are to be included in the scope of services. Additional tasks,
at the consultant's recommendation, will be considered by the Village.
Limited Boundary Study (Elmhurst Avenue to IL 83 (Main Street)):
1. Become familiar with the characteristics and function of the entire corridor.
2. Develop at least 3 alternatives that incorporate Village and public priorities with varying levels of on -
street parking retention and vehicle access. Priorities include:
a. Maintaining and/or expanding existing pedestrian space.
b. Providing dedicated outdoor space in the spring, summer and fall for outdoor dining and/or
other business activities.
c. Enhancing bicycle facilities through dedicated space for bikes along the corridor, if possible.
d. Incorporate street lighting into all alternatives.
e. Provide street furniture and landscaping to beautify the corridor.
f. Vehicle access along Prospect Avenue.
g. Consider parking impacts compared to other priorities for the study.
h. Develop general wayfinding improvements for the corridor.
3. Engage in stakeholder meetings to solicit input. Stakeholders include:
a. IDOT (IL 83 intersection) — If changes are considered at this intersection
b. UPRR and ICC (IL 83 railroad crossing) — If changes are considered at this crossing
c. Business owners along Prospect Avenue
4. Collect vehicle & pedestrian counts and crash data along with other pertinent information as
necessary.
Page 5
Village of Mount Prospect
February 7, 2025
5. Evaluate truck movements and possible turn prohibitions at the intersections while maintaining
access for deliveries.
6. Perform topographic and right-of-way surveys as needed for alternative development.
7. Identify any needed right-of-way or construction easements.
8. Develop a robust public outreach campaign to collect public input on the alternatives including at
least one public meeting that meets IDOT Phase I Engineering requirements.
9. Provide information and graphics for a Village hosted and maintained project website.
10. Develop renderings for each of the alternatives, including typical sections and highlights of unique
design elements.
11. Develop a comprehensive Alternative Analysis Report based on the tasks outlined. Each alternative
plan is to include a preliminary estimate of cost (proposal to include up to 3 alternatives). The report
is to include a summary matrix that considers pros and cons for each of the alternatives to help in
determining the preferred alternative.
12. Present the alternatives and preferred alternative to the Transportation Safety Commission and the
Village Board at regularly scheduled meetings.
13. Ensure proposed alternatives are in line with previously completed studies and complement ongoing
development in downtown Mount Prospect.
14. Attend monthly progress meetings with the Village (virtual).
15. Prepare preliminary cost estimates for Phase I, II & III Engineering and construction.
16. Identify potential funding sources for Phase I, II & III Engineering and construction.
Corridor Study (Central Road to Mount Prospect Road):
Includes all tasks described above for the entire corridor, and the following additional items:
1. Incorporate connections to intersecting bike routes, including intersection treatments specifically for
bikes.
2. Engage in stakeholder meetings to solicit input. Stakeholders include:
a. UPRR and ICC (Emerson Street railroad crossing and Mount Prospect Road railroad crossing)
b. Cook County DOTH (Mount Prospect Road intersection)
c. Note — Central Road intersection design will be developed under the Central Road Railroad
Crossing Phase I Study. Stakeholder meetings not required for that intersection.
3. Coordinate with the ongoing Central Road Railroad Crossing Phase I Study to develop preferred
alternative for the intersection of Prospect Avenue and Central Road.
Tentative Schedule
Submit Technical & Cost Proposals
r
February 28, 2025
Select consultants for interview
March 14, 2025
Consultant interviews
Week of March 17, 2025
Select consultant & negotiate contract
March 28, 2025
Award contract to consultant
April 15, 2025
Kick -Off Meeting with Village Staff
May 1, 2025
Complete Alternative Analysis Study
no later than December 31, 2025*
*dependent on scope of work
Page 6
Village of Mount Prospect
February 7, 2025
Exhibit C
Project Location/Limits Map
Agency: Village of Mount Prospect
Project: Prospect Avenue Alternative Analysis Study
Location: Limited Boundary Study: Prospect Avenue from Elmhurst Avenue to IL 83 (Main Street)
Corridor Study: Prospect Avenue from Central Road to Mount Prospect Road
Northwest Hwy / Prospect Ave West Corridor: Waterman Ave to Wille St
Corridor Characteristics
Traffic / Roadway Conditions
• Corridor Length: 2 miles
• Jurisdiction: IDOT
• Posted Speed Limit: 30-40 mph
• Average Daily Traffic: 7,700-10,500 vpd
(2022)
• Right -of -Way: 64' to 88'
• Truck Route: Class II
Legend
li, ,.i, Mount Prospect Boundary
CZ) Focus Arterial Bike Corridor
Traffic Signal
3 At -Grade Railroad Crossing
o Structure
Park
School
Community Destination
Bike Network
Arterial Bike Network
Existing Bike Rack
Existing On -Street Route
Existing Bike Path
I'll,- - Bike Path In Design
Transit
n Pace Bus Route
1 to 49 Average Riders
• Truck Traffic (/o of Total Traffic): 3-5/o //A Floodplain 40 50 to 99Average Riders
• Programmed Improvement: Metra Train Station 100+ Average Riders
» Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge over
Northwest Hwy connecting Melas
Park and Meadows Park (CMAP TIP, 2026)
Parkway Conditions
• Trees in Right -of -Way: 63 total
North - 58 1 South - 5
• ComEd in Right -of -Way:
North - Frequent (Waterman to Central, Elm to
Mount Prospect) / None (Central to Elm)
South - None (Waterman to Elm) / Occasional
(Elm to Mount Prospect)
• Sidewalk Gaps:
South - Village Boundary to Pine St (1-mi)
South - Emerson St to Village Boundary (-4,000')
(continued on the f6 lowing page)
36 Arterial Bike Network Study
East Corridor: Wille St to Mount Prospect Rd Northwest Hwy / Prospect Ave G
1 Mount Prospect Boundary
CD Focus Arterial Bike Corridor
Safety Conditions
• Crashes (2018-22): Bicycle - 4 1 Pedestrian - 3
Traffic Signal
• Potential Conflict Points
��- At -Grade Railroad Crossing
,> Cross Streets: North - 20 1 South - 4
o Structure
» Commercial Driveways: North - 31 1 South - 4
Park
» Residential Driveways: North - None I South - None
School
Community Content/Future Improvements
Community Destination
Key Destinations: Westbrook Elementary School, Fairview Elementary
Floodplain
School, St Raymond School, Melas Park, Meadows Park, Fairview Park,
Metro Train Station
Owens Park, Lions Memorial Park, Central Community Center, Post Office,
Bike Network
Library, Village Hall, Downtown Mount Prospect, Frisbie Senior Center
Arterial Bike Network
• Relevant Insights from Previous Plans/Studies:
Existing Bike Rack
>> Northwest Municipal Conference Multimodal Transportation Plan
(2020): Priority corridor stretching across seven communities,
— Existing On -Street Route
including Mount Prospect. Recommended a combination of a
Existing Bike Path
sidepath, cycle track, bike lane (on Prospect Avenue)
Bike Path In Design
» Rail Crossing Feasibility Study (2020): Five alternatives to improve
Transit
safety and mobility recommended to be evaluated
Pace Bus Route
• Community Feedback
1 to 49Average Riders
» Identified as a corridor where biking is desired but difficult and
50 to 99 Average Riders
unsafe to bike along or cross (including downtown)
100+ Average Riders
Northwest Hwy / Prospect Ave
Typical Mid -Block Cross Sections (on Northwest Hwy)
<-- Southwest
Northeast ---->
1 ' M, 11` 11" 11" 11" 9" 1,5" 5" 7'
parkvday vehicle lane velauclrt [one vehicle lane vehicle Vane parking We sidelNalk ( lxAWay
pave nent wll 5,3 ft �.......,.1
�...._._.. right-of-way 86 ft q
Off »»»»y,,,,.. „rrn»»,, n»»,,,, n»»;»nye »»<,»„.........„rrrnnr.»,rn„y, ,r„rrn»»,,
<-- Southwest Downtown Northeast
(shown between Main St and Emerson St)
" 10" 10, 112" 10, 10" 10, 8"
vehicle lane vehicle Dane left turn lane v�ehidem lame vel'idet We parking lane sidevealk
... .. ........ p averrwilt wid lI: 62 ft I'll 11 11 1 1 ''I'll'," — ' ' I
�._ .... _ _.. right-of-way: 74 ft ........ . m .......... . .. . m.... ............. q
»Pnrnnwnuuo� �rynrniniu»„�e .',;;mow»n,�G ,�Ounnuwun,» �. nu° pnrnon°°iun�r rrvrnomnu»„�, fmo» iyyomrwna»wo ,�/nrrnrniw,�,» ,,rprrian»nu».o� .........
» pnrrrurwnn».r�, ,�rpmrwnai».�, ryyomrwna»wo Arrrnruu.....
°'�.e�' �ir� �,niw✓Y/0`n» w,m,a���' �mi� »� r� ,,,w,u.�ry'' wuenw+� ���r �,niww'' °�i� nrwy�� ���` �,niww'' °mrwrav�
<-- Southwest Southeast of Downtown Northeast
steal (shown just southeast of William St)
10' '' 11' 11' 1'1" 11° 9' 7` 9" 5'
parkway velvucle lane vehicler lane velauclr lane ✓ehicPe Bane parking pane {aarkvmay ( sidewal''k
... ........ right-of-way: 80 ft ..._. . ._.......... ...... ._.......
.
38 Arterial Bike Network Study
Northwest Hwy / Prospect Ave G
MountProsPttr.
\�V
Arterial Bike Network Study 39
I
North fry
DOWNYOWN
MOUNT
Community Context
• Key Destinations: St Raymond School, St
P IL th S h I L' P k C t l
r Fcrq
Oo�I jjj,
Legend
'Lm--m " Mount Prospect Boundary
CmFocus Arterial Bike Corridor
Traffic Signal
At -Grade Railroad Crossing
o Structure
Park
School
Community Destination
%//) Floodplain
Metro Train Station
au u eran c oo , ions ar , en ra Pace Bus Stop
Community Center, Post Office, Library,
Village Hall, Downtown Mount Prospect
• Connectivity
>> Local bike routes on Elmhurst Ave and Owen St
>> Future sidepaths on Central Ave and Mount
Prospect Rd
Corridor Recommendations
• Future Study: Prospect Ave is a future bike corridor
through the downtown area between Central Rd
and Mount Prospect Rd. A separate future study
will be undertaken to recommend a bike facility
best suited for this corridor.
Recommended Bike Network
— On -Street Bike Lanes
Sidepath
— — Signed On -Street Bike Route
efilwavow Multiple Options
Existing Bike Network
Existing Bike Rack
Existing On -Street Route
Existing Trail or Sidepath
®® � Sidepath In Design
Arterial Bike Network Study 73
Union Pacific Rai/roan'
March 2, 2021
n
In its 2021 CIP, the Village of Mount Prospect allocated funding for bikeway projects on Emerson
Street between Central Road and Prospect Avenue and Prospect Avenue between Central Road
and Mount Prospect Road. These two routes will fill in gaps in the existing bike network and
provide access to downtown Mount Prospect and the Metra Stations.
Though they will provide crucial linkages in the Village's network, space constraints limit the
bikeway design options and a low -stress option is not feasible with the current street
configurations. Both corridors are too narrow to accommodate a high -quality bikeway without
adjustments to the on -street geometry or off-street right-of-way. Any proposed modifications on
Prospect Avenue are complicated by railroad coordination, grade issues on the north side,
existing streetscaping elements, parking configurations, street trees, and storm sewers.
Additionally, these corridors will see changes in the coming years that may further impact design
decisions, including recently completed intersection improvements at Emerson Street and
Central Road, and planned improvements for Prospect Avenue/Mount Prospect Road/Northwest
Highway. Finally, several new development projects along Prospect Avenue will change traffic
patterns and may impact the level of cycling comfort.
This memo includes a review of the existing and proposed conditions along the two corridors,
provides an assessment of alternative treatments, and includes options for future consideration.
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS ��
�llM�d4Gp I'dk'i:IfIM
r' March 2, 2021
Prospect Ave
EXISTING CONDITIONS SIB CHALLENGES
Prospect Avenue between Central Road and Mount Prospect Road is a two-way street with
varying conditions. Several factors should be considered when evaluating bikeway options on
Prospect Avenue:
• Vehicle Width: Existing design manuals do not include guidance on the minimum
lane width for shared streets; though some sources suggest that 12' is the narrowest
recommended lane width. The lanes vary in size along the corridor, ranging from 12' to
13' between Central and Main, 10-11' between Main and Edward, and 14' between
Edward and Mount Prospect Road.
•On -Street Parking: Back -out angle parking is not desirable in conjunction with shared
lanes. On Prospect Avenue there is back -out angle parking in one location - the
eastbound lane between Main Street and Emerson Street.
•Median presence: There is no guidance available on the presence of medians on shared
streets. The median between Central Road and Emerson Street and Edward Street to
Mount Prospect Road provides additional traffic calming but will also limit passing
movements on a shared street.
• Speed Limit: NACTO recommends speed limits of <25 MPH on shared streets. The speed
limit is 25 MPH between Central and Maple and 30 MPH from Maple to Mount Prospect.
• Average it is )® Recommended AADT for shared lanes is 3,000
vehicles per day or less. Prospect Avenue currently meets these criteria along several
segments but planned development may result in an increase in traffic throughout the
corridor.
Additional factors to consider:
Crash• is ® There is limited crash history to examine on Prospect Avenue. Between
2016 and 2020, one cyclist was injured in a crash at Prospect Avenue and Main Street.
This intersection should be examined for additional bikeway upgrades, such as adding
shared lanes through the intersection.
Mount• os ect Road Reconstruction: IDOT has developed a preliminary pavement
marking plan at Mount Prospect Road and Prospect Avenue as a part of an upcoming
project. The proposed bikeway will need to provide a connection to this facility.
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
March 2, 2021
LoftsMaple Street Development: A new development is proposed for an empty lot at the
corner of Maple Street and Prospect Avenue. The development proposal includes back -
out angle parking, which is not desirable in conjunction with a shared street.
Table e Existing Conditions on ProspectAve
Central Rd
Pine St
7'. Parallel, 2-hour limit
9'
12-13'
25*
2000
none
Pine St
Main St
7'. Parallel, 2-hour limit
9'
12'-13"
25*
2400
none
Main St
Emerson St
45-degree angle EB, parallel
9'
13.5' EB,
25*
3400*
B-injury in
WB, 2-hour limit*
10' WB*
2020
Emerson St
Maple St
7, Parallel, 2-hour limit
none
11'*
25*
3400*
none
Maple St
School St
7, Parallel, 2-hour limit
none
11'*
30*
3400*
none
(future angle) *
School St
Edward St
7, Parallel, 2-hour limit
none
11'*
30*
2800
none
Edward St
Mount Prospect
none
9'
14'
30*
2700
none
Rd
*Indicates a condition that may not be conducive to installing a
marked shared
lane.
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
Four options were evaluated for Prospect from
Central Road to Main Street/Route 83:
Current Proposed- includes sharrows placed 3'
from the parking lane, various bike route signs,
and share the road signs.
Alternative A:has nopavement markings and
replaces the proposed
iDthe Gii-7in nUnlbers POF)VVith Bikes M3VUGe Full
as studies have
shown these are more easily understood by
drivers than Share the Road sides. Green
wayfincling signage is recommended as proposed.
Alternative B: includes sh8rroVVS placed in the
center ofthe lane, various green bike route signs,
and Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs.
Alternative C (preferred): includes sharrovvs
placed 3'from the parking lane, various green
bike route signs, and Bicycles May Use Full Lane
signs placed every 2SO/and after major
intersections. This alternative will increase driver
awareness ofcyclists and is, therefore, the
preferred alternative.
March2, 2021
piguiez�oeslgp All teniauvesfurpmspeoAve hnmcenh all tomouteeo
Sh.rr. Share the Read Sgq.a
m=.. live^ . Route m
47,
Alternative B Prospe�t Ave from Central Is Route 83
Sits— —la, of travel Inne R4-11 signs
47
P'e+redmte—m Ave from C.t1sl~Route m
Sharrows,rfrom =k,mg line R4�1`Signs
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
'MEN
March 2, 2021
Design Alternative Benefits to Proposed Design
Drawbacks to Proposed Design
Current Proposed a Lane width acceptable for shared lanes
® Traffic volume and speed limit do not
• Offer an additional cue to drivers to
conform to recommended standards for
expect cyclists on road that is more
shared lanes
visible than signage alone
s Share the Road signs less effective than
• Help cyclists identify appropriate lane
new alternatives
position to reduce dooring incidences
® Potential conflicts with the truck route,
® Provide an additional wayfinding element
and drivers parking
in a cyclist's field of vision
® Median narrows the lane, making it
Reduce the incidence of sidewalk riding
difficult for drivers to pass cyclists
® Reduce instances of wrong -way riding
Alternative A ® Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs are more
` Cyclists may not be aware of lane position
easily understood by drivers
to avoid doorings
® Enables cyclists to take the lane to avoid
®
Fewer visual cues for drivers and cyclists
dooring or other conflicts
® May not influence sidewalk or wrong -way
riding
i Less comfortable for people of all ages and
abilities because of the speed, traffic
volume, and lane width
Alternative B
Alternative C (preferred)
11
l
3
0
Lane width acceptable for shared lanes
Offer an additional cue to drivers to
expect cyclists in the middle of the lane
that is more visible than signage alone
Help cyclists identify appropriate lane
position to reduce dooring incidences
Provide an additional wayfinding element
in a cyclist's field of vision
Reduce the incidence of sidewalk riding
Reduce instances of wrong -way riding
Reduces conflicts with parking drivers
Lane width acceptable for shared lanes
Offer an additional cue to drivers to
expect cyclists on road that is more
visible than signage alone
Help cyclists identify appropriate lane
position to reduce dooring incidences
Provide an additional wayfinding element
in a cyclist's field of vision
Reduce the incidence of sidewalk riding
Reduce instances of wrong -way riding
Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs are more
easily understood by drivers
® Traffic volume and speed limit do not
conform to recommended standards for
shared lanes
• It will likely prevent drivers from passing
cyclists
• Less experienced cyclists may not be
comfortable with lane position
® Traffic volume and speed limit do not
conform to recommended standards for
shared lanes
• Potential conflicts with the truck route,
and parking turnover
® Median narrows the lane, making it
difficult for drivers to pass cyclists
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENT2/1
S
I ogwru„ I II'iiaua;�p:°ou ctt ru0u 1i Mahn (IIlRouu�te 83) to II!I um�u;^u°ss��pu'�u
Current Proposed: includes sharrows placed 3'
from the parking lane, various bike route signs,
and share the road signs.
Alternative A (preferred): includes eastbound
sharrows in the center of the lane and WB
March 2, 2021
V uguun: 4 F1i o j'.)e ~t hoin Mahn, (IIttouute 83) to IlDiivueu°son
Current Proposed: Prospect Ave from Route 83 to Emerson
Sharrows, Share the Road Signs
sharrows 3' from the parking line. Bicyclists
May Use Full Lane signs should be installed
every 250' and after busy intersections. This is
the preferred alternative because it makes cyclists
more visible to drivers pulling out of angled spaces
and provides a continuous facility along the route.
Additional Considerations: At the intersection of
Main Street, consider installing s.t'�g..[..d...Iar]..e.
i...li:.......r'i.g to make bicycle movements through the
intersection more visible (pictured right).
Alternative A (preferred). Prospect Ave from Route 83 to Emerson
Ed center lane sharrows, WEf sharrows 3' from parking line, R4-11 signs
ev"wd Unre Owed Lame CAAu'"a hdOeAxBnanirpPareeat
Extervaw ifoole riAlmr40'as C
eiWBfdfM.
. I1131 : clluz Crosshig ai ll hi ouurce III �;ttu:"
n
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
'M
Design Alternative
Current Proposed
Benefits to Proposed Design
• Offer an additional cue to drivers to
expect cyclists on road that is more
visible than signage alone
• Help cyclists identify appropriate lane
position to reduce dooring incidences
® Provide an additional wayfinding element
in a cyclist's field of vision
® Reduce the incidence of sidewalk riding
Reduce instances of wrong -way riding
March 2, 2021
Drawbacks to Proposed Design
® WB lane width, traffic volume, and speed
limit and EB traffic volume and speed limit
do not conform to recommended
standards for shared lanes
• Angle parking creates additional conflicts
for cyclists
® Share the Road signs less effective than
new alternatives
® Potential conflicts with the truck route,
and drivers parking
® Median narrows the lane, making it
difficult for drivers to pass cyclists
Alternative A (preferred) ® Placing sharrows in the center of the EB ®
WB lane is narrow for sharrows
®
lane with angle parking increases cyclist
Less experienced cyclists may not be
visibility for drivers backing out of parking
comfortable with narrow Wb lanes
spaces
Wb Drivers may not be able to pass
® WB lanes are narrow for sharrows but
cyclists
allow continuous treatment along the
route
® Offer an additional cue to drivers to
expect cyclists on road that is more
visible than signage alone
• Help cyclists identify appropriate lane
position to reduce dooring incidences
® Provide an additional wayfinding element
in a cyclist's field of vision
® Reduce the incidence of sidewalk riding
• Reduce instances of wrong -way riding
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
I guire 6II'u+u5pved Ave horn Il:uxnn,^o°SN'11 to Il:Avnraird
Current Proposed- includes sharrows placed 3' from
the parking lane, various bike route signs, and share
the road signs.
Alternative : has no pavement markings and
re Oar; :as th :a �Iro .� ;sed s�nalrave the road si Iris CIS JI.3 In
p.......................................................................................K........................................................................................................................................................i...t.....................(...................................................
the sfl�-7n Ir uirnbelrs 1::1Dl1:::) wflth Bikes Mav Use 1:::0 Lalre
..if".lr1�.....(.II'0L:j:.1.:.....l.irk...11° IL_��....�...C.[),).:.. Green wayfinding signage
is recommended as proposed.
Alternative : includes sharrows placed in the
center of the lane, various bike route signs, and
Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs.
Alternative C (preferred): includes sharrows placed
3' from the parking lane, various bike route signs,
and Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs (R4-11) every
250' and after busy intersections. This is the
preferred alternative because it allows continuous
treatment throughout the network.
Current Proposed: Prospect Ave from Emerson to Edward
Sharrows 3' from the parking lane. Share the Road signs
March 2, 2021
'i
h-
%��%�!.
„r.
Alternative A: Prospect Ave from Emerson to Edward
No pavement markings. R4-11 signs
Alternative B: Prospect Ave from Emerson to Edward
Sharrows 5.5from the parking lane, R4-11 signs
Alternative C (preferred), Prospect Ave from Emerson to Edward
Sharrows T from the parking lane. R4-11 signs
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
Design Alternative Benefits to Proposed Design
Current Proposed
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative C
(preferred)
Offer an additional cue to drivers to
expect cyclists on road that is more
visible than signage alone
Help cyclists identify appropriate lane
position to reduce dooring incidences
Provide an additional wayfinding element
in a cyclist's field of vision
Reduce the incidence of sidewalk riding
Reduce instances of wrong -way riding
Conforms to recommended standards for
11' lanes and other constraints
Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs are more
easily understood by drivers
Enables cyclists to take the lane to avoid
dooring or other conflicts
Reduces conflicts with parking drivers
Offer an additional cue to drivers to
expect cyclists in the middle of the lane
that is more visible than signage alone
Help cyclists identify appropriate lane
position to reduce dooring incidences
Provide an additional wayfinding element
in a cyclist's field of vision
Reduce the incidence of sidewalk riding
Reduce instances of wrong -way riding
Lanes are narrow for sharrows, but the
recommendation allows continuous
treatment along the route
Offer an additional cue to drivers to
expect cyclists on road that is more
visible than signage alone
Help cyclists identify appropriate lane
position to reduce dooring incidences
Provide an additional wayfinding element
in a cyclist's field of vision
Reduce the incidence of sidewalk riding
Reduce instances of wrong -way riding
Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs are more
easily understood by drivers
Provide an additional wayfinding element
in a cyclist's field of vision
March 2, 2021
Drawbacks to Proposed Design
Lane width, traffic volume, and speed limit
do not conform to recommended standards
for shared lanes
Share the Road signs less effective than new
alternatives
Increase in volume expected with Maple
Street Lofts project
Potential conflicts with the truck route, and
parking turnover
Median narrows the lane, making it difficult
for drivers to pass cyclists
Cyclists may not be aware of lane position to
avoid doorings
Fewer visual cues for drivers and cyclists
May not influence sidewalk or wrong -way
riding
Less comfortable for people of all ages and
abilities because of the speed, traffic volume,
and lane width
Traffic volume and speed limit do not
conform to recommended standards for
shared lanes
It will likely prevent drivers from passing
cyclists
Less experienced cyclists may not be
comfortable with lane position
Lane width, traffic volume, and speed limit
do not conform to recommended standards
for shared lanes
Increase in volume expected with Maple
Street Lofts project
Potential conflicts with the truck route, and
parking turnover
Median narrows the lane, making it difficult
for drivers to pass cyclists
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS i
4OF ALTERNATIVES FOR
PROSPECT ,3
f i uuue,s ff, II°u u411:te ti Ave f on Almud to Mount yuausipe,uv4
Current Proposed: includes sharrows
placed 3' from the curb, various bike
route signs, and share the road signs.
Alternative A (preferred): includes
sharrows placed 3' from the curb, various
bike route signs, and . i. "/.�:.0..es........M... _`�.....�:1..`'2
I::ia..�..�......L..p_e.....s].girr..°.....�..II��::::::.�:.:�.:..�.. Place R4-11 signs
every 250' and after busy intersections.
Alternative : includes a „" id rac��r„f ;.r.
0aarr_e. and various bike route signs.
I gauiie9D dvV:rs4oyBlIkd,.LallKaoujua:n Alta Pllvuuuuiiiigi D4t.ign
March 2, 2021
f u„itiiie 10Desigiiu AlllfeuuWives fou., f1ii ospect Ave h og in I11:ud4vau d tO ilrfuuuunit II'll i
Current Proposed: Prospect Ave from Edward to Mount Prospect
Sharrows 3' from curb. Share the Road signs
40,.
Alternative A: Prospect Ave from Edward to Mount Prospect
Sharrows 3' from curb. R4-11 signs
410
Alternative B: Prospect Ave from Edward to Mount Prospect
Advisory lanes 4' from curb, bike route signs
40'
n�EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
�ll��M�d4Gp I'dk'i:IfIM
r' March 2, 2021
Design Alternative Benefits to Proposed Design
Drawbacks to Proposed Design
Current Proposed 0
Lane width and traffic volume conform to
®
Speed limit higher than recommended for
recommended standards for shared lanes
a shared street
®
Offer an additional cue to drivers to
0
Share the Road signs less effective than
expect cyclists on road that is more
new alternatives
visible than signage alone
®
Help cyclists identify appropriate lane
position to reduce dooring incidences
®
Provide an additional wayfinding element
in a cyclist's field of vision
Reduce the incidence of sidewalk riding
®
Reduce instances of wrong -way riding
Alternative A (preferred) ®
Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs are more
i
Less experienced cyclists may not be
easily understood by drivers
comfortable with lane position
®
Lane width and traffic volume conform to
®
Future traffic volumes may reduce cyclists'
recommended standards for shared lanes
comfort
®
Offer an additional cue to drivers to
Speed limit higher than recommended for
expect cyclists road that is more
a shared street
visible than signage alone
0
Share the Road signs less effective than
®
Help cyclists identify appropriate lane
new alternatives
position to reduce dooring incidences
®
Provide an additional wayfinding element
in a cyclist's field of vision
Reduce the incidence of sidewalk riding
Reduce instances of wrong -way riding
Alternative B ®
Provide a more defined space for cyclists
®
Less experienced cyclists may not be
®
Enable drivers to merge into bike lane if
comfortable with lane position
needed
®
May not be accepted by MOT
a
Provide additional traffic calming by
narrowing the lane
®
A good alternative to bike lanes when
space is constrained
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
i " �40' '01-11,1110 "IN,
Long-term, the available right-of-way of
66' still presents challenges for designing
a low -stress bikeway on Prospect
Avenue. The options include:
Alternative : Remove the center
median and construct a sidepath on the
north side of Prospect Avenue from
Central to Mount Prospect Road (see
Figure 11 for potential configuration for
each segment):
• Opportunities: The Village can
borrow from the median and use
existing off-street ROW to create
a sidepath.
• Challenges: Because ROW is tight
between Emerson and Maple, it
may be more realistic to consider
Alternative B between Central
and Maple. The project would
take several years to approve
due to its proximity to the Union
Pacific Railroad. Cyclists may
come into conflict with people
exiting parked cars.
March 2, 2021
I gin vr'11: Alternative A, II1II°lira, e Mlle IPo°osp>'ed: Ave firo in Cen�tralll IRd to IImount
Prospect If d
Alternative A: Prospect Ave from Genlral to Route 83
Remove median and replace with yellow canter line, reduce on -street ROW to 38', install 9' sidepath on south side
gel
VIM
:t9
Alternative A: Prosped Ave from Route 83 to Emerson
Remove median and replace with yellow center line. reduce curb to curb width to 40', iustall9'sidepath on north side
Aherm ivo A: Prospecl Ave from Emerson to Edward
Get railroad easement to construct 9' sldepalh on north side
M
n,m�o�
5 I'll M p ,
l r NO
...............................................................................................................
19'
Alternative A: Prospect Ave from Edward to Mount Prospect
Remove median and add yellow center Ilne, reduce curb to curb width to 25'.'insla119sidepath on north .side
�
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
Alternative B (preferred): Remove the
center median and provide 5' bike lanes in
each direction (see Figure 11 for potential
configuration for each segment):
• Opportunities: This option would be
the most appropriate for the
surrounding context and would be
preferred to shared lanes or signage.
• Challenges: The existing medians
were recently installed, and it would
likely be unpopular to remove them.
The segment between Main Street
and Emerson street is too narrow to
accommodate a bike lane. Here,
sharrows could be used to provide a
continuous bike route.
March 2, 2021
V uguui e 12'. Plhase II II, Aitel inadve B, II'l osIlaeact Ave fl of in Caantirrall Rd tO IlNA afM I I'o"aa:,ll' act
FW
Alternative B: Prospect Ave from Central to Route 03
Remove median and replace with yellow center (ims. narrow vehicle lanes to I I' add 5' bike lanes on each side of street
47'
Alternative B: prospect Ave from Route 03 to Emerson
Remove median and replace with yellow center tine. narrow vehicle lanes to 10', add 5' bike lanes on each side of street
Alternative B: Prospect Ave from Emerson to Edward
3 sharrows, I1'vehlcle lanes
Ci
....... ...... _ _ _.._.._, .___._._._._._._._.-
3ar
Alternative BProspect Ave from Edward to Mount Prospect
Remmove median and add yellow center Ilne. Increase vehicle lane width to 12. add 5bike lanes
M
'f EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
�ll��M�d4Gp I'dk'i:IfIM
r' March 2, 2021
In coordination with IDOT's proposed intersection improvement at Mount Prospect Road and
Northwest Highway, the Village is looking to identify a bikeway connection to a planned sidepath
on the east side of Mount Prospect Road between Warrington Road and Northwest Highway.
The following design is recommended:
1. Widen the sidewalk on the south side of the street to 8' to create a sidepath. Cyclists
traveling eastbound will use this to connect to the sidepath on Mount Prospect Road
2. Install a bike ramp to connect to the sidepath
3. Install a right -turn sharrow at the bike ramp to indicate to cyclists to exit the street
4. Install a straight-sharrow on the westbound lane. Cyclists traveling in this direction will
enter the street from Mount Prospect Road.
Fu, uo e 11 Piolllj osed coinii)i i:tli� l� to Mount fli o.,ll ect Rd .,udelpath
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
A I vV
MA 611,91TA I ON
All XINO
March 2, 2021
► ,l,t� 00 ► L.
Emerson Street between Central Road and Northwest Highway is a two-way street that runs
through the heart of downtown Mount Prospect. It connects to many key destinations, including
the Metra Station. Several factors should be considered when evaluating bikeway options on
Emerson Street:
• Vehicle Lane Width: Existing design manuals do not provide guidance on the minimum
lane width for shared streets; though some sources suggest that 12' is the narrowest
recommended lane width. The lanes on Emerson Street range from 10-13' at
intersections and 12-15' wide mid -block.
•On -Street Parking: Back -out angle parking is not desirable in conjunction with shared
lanes. There is back -out angle parking on portions of the west side of Emerson between
Central and Northwest Highway.
Speed• i i® NACTO recommends speed limits of <25 MPH on shared streets. The speed
limit on Emerson is 20 MPH and is suitable for shared lanes.
• AverageAnnual DailyTraffic ® Recommended AADT for shared lanes is 3,000
vehicles per day or less. The AADT on Emerson is 3500 vehicles per day, which is above
the recommended limit.
Central Rd
E Busse Ave
E Busse Ave
Northwest
Highway
Northwest Hwy Prospect Ave
16' angle to west, 7'
parallel east*
16' angle to west, 7'
parallel east*
none
10*-
13',
12'-15' 20
10*-
13',
12'-15' 20
11' SB,
10.5
NB LT,
10.5
NB*
20
*Indicates a condition that may not be conducive to installing a marked shared lane.
3500* n/a
3500* n/a
3500* n/a
'1 EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS ��
Current Proposed: includes sharrows Flfpnp JAEi,neicon,Sti etfioinrentiiallto:liosipectAvenue
placed 3' from the parallel parking lane, ,
3' from the edge of pavement where there
is no on -street parking and 5.5' from the
angled parking lane, various bike route
signs, and share the road signs.
Alternative A (preferred): includes
sharrows placed 5.5' from the parking
lane, replaces Share the Road signs with
Bicycles May Use Full Lane (114-11) signs,
as studies have shown them to be more
understood by drivers and perceived to be
safer by bicyclists.. This is the preferred
alternative because it makes cyclists more
visible to drivers pulling out of angled
spaces and provides a continuous facility
along the route.
Alternative : has no pavement marking,
replaces Share the Road signs with
Bicycles May Use Full Lane (R4-11) signs.
March 2, 2021
Current Proposed: Emerson from Central to Northwest Hwy
N8 sharrows 3' from parking lane, SB sharrows in middle of lane. Share the Road signs
teat'
Alternative A (preferred): Emerson from Central to Northwest Hwy
NB sharrows 3' from parking lane. SB sharrows in middle of lane. R4-11 signs
4B
Alternative B: Emerson from Central to Northwest Hwy
No pavement marking. R4-11 signs
_�_ o ..... ..
48
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMOn
ENTS
Design Alternative
Current Proposed
Alternative A (preferred)
Benefits to Proposed Design
• The speed limit is appropriate for a
shared street
• Pavement marking placed in the center
of the lane is appropriate back -out
angled parking
® Offer an additional cue to drivers to
expect cyclists on road that is more
visible than signage alone
® Help cyclists identify appropriate lane
position to reduce dooring incidences
• Provide an additional wayfinding element
in a cyclist's field of vision
® Reduce the incidence of sidewalk riding
® Reduce instances of wrong -way riding
Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs are more
easily understood by drivers
The speed limit is appropriate for a
shared street
Pavement marking placed in the center
of the lane is appropriate back -out
angled parking
Offer an additional cue to drivers to
expect cyclists on road that is more
visible than signage alone
Help cyclists identify appropriate lane
position to reduce dooring incidences
Provide an additional wayfinding element
in a cyclist's field of vision
Reduce the incidence of sidewalk riding
Reduce instances of wrong -way riding
March 2, 2021
Drawbacks to Proposed Design
Lane width and traffic volume do not
conform to recommended standards for
shared lanes
• Share the Road signs less effective than
new alternatives
® Potential conflicts with parking turnover
• Back -out parking on the west side is not
desirable on a shared street
Lane width and traffic volume do not
conform to recommended standards for
shared lanes
Potential conflicts with parking turnover
Back -out parking on the west side is not
desirable on a shared street
Alternative B ® Conforms to recommended standards for ` Cyclists may not be aware of lane position
11' lanes and other constraints to avoid doorings
® Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs are more
® Fewer visual cues for drivers and cyclists
® May not influence sidewalk or wrong -way
easily understood by drivers
® Enables cyclists to take the lane to avoid riding
dooring or other conflicts
Less comfortable for people of all ages and
abilities because of the speed, traffic
volume, and lane width
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
March 2, 2021
Due to the limited right-of-way and high on -street parking utilization, no additional
recommendations are currently feasible. If on -street parking is removed in the future, Emerson
should be evaluated for bikeway improvements.
There are two potential options for this section if parking can be re -configured or eliminated. See
Figure 14 on the following page for details.
Alternative : Eliminate NB parking, convert SB parking to parallel, install 5' protected bike lanes
with 3' buffers on each side.
• Opportunities: Protected bike lanes are the most comfortable facilities for cyclists of all
ages and abilities. This option would enable residents to access downtown Mount
Prospect and the Metra Station more comfortably.
• Challenges: This would result in the removal of many parking spaces and is not
recommended unless parking demand is reduced. Also, protected bike lanes include a
curb or flexible delineators. Curbs are more comfortable for cyclists but require special
equipment for plowing and sweeping. Flexible delineators are less comfortable but can
be removed for maintenance activities.
Alternative : Convert SB parking to parallel, install 5' bike lanes on each side.
• Opportunities: Bike lanes will provide a dedicated space for cyclists, enabling them to
access downtown and the Metra Station. The bike lane could be widened in locations
with wider lanes or a 2' buffer could be provided on the parking side to reduce doorings.
This option would result in a loss of some parking spaces.
• Challenges: This option is not recommended unless parking demand changes in the
future.
/G
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
G
March 2, 2021
Fl,gue 14; Phase 1111 Altematives A a ind 3, 1 memon fioin Centii all to Ncmthwest 11 My
Future Alternative A: Emerson from Central to Northwest Hwy
NB 5' protected bike lane or buffered bike lane with 3' buffer
SIB 5' parking protected bike lane with 3' buffer
48'
Future Alternative B: Emerson from Central to Northwest Hwy
5' bike lane NIB and SB, 7' parallel parking lanes
48'
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
/
MAYOR
Paul Wm. Hoefert
VILLAGE MANAGER
Michael J. Cassady
TRUSTEES
Vincent J. Dante
Agostino Filippone
Terri Gens
William A. Grossi
John J. Matuszak
Colleen E. Saccotelli
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
Sean Dorsey
u w I # •
1700 W. Central Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
Request for Technical & Cost Proposals
DATE: February 7, 2025
FROM: Matthew Lawrie, P.E.
Village of Mount Prospect
Public Works Department
RE: Request for Technical & Cost Proposals
Prospect Avenue Alternative Analysis Study
Phone:847/870-5640
Fax:847/253-9377
www.mountprospect.org
The Village of Mount Prospect seeks Technical & Cost Proposals from engineering firms for an Alternative
Analysis Study for improvements to Prospect Avenue. Firms shall submit both a technical and cost proposal
for a Limited Boundary Study and a Corridor Study as described in this request to be considered for the
study. The Village, at its own discretion, will award a contract for either the Limited Boundary Study or
Corridor Study. Technical Proposals & Cost Proposals shall be submitted as separate documents.
Attached to this memo are:
1. A list of materials and information that should be included with your Technical & Cost Proposals
(Exhibit A).
2. A general definition of the scope of work and requirements for your submittal (Exhibit B).
3. An aerial map identifying the project limits (Exhibit C).
Your Technical & Cost Proposals should be emailed to the following address and received no later than
5:00 p.m. on Friday, February 28, 2025 to the attention of:
Mr. Jason Leib
Deputy Director of Public Works
Village of Mount Prospect
ileib@mountprospect.org
The Village will conduct interviews with the shortlist firms. Those selected for an interview will be
contacted by the Village to arrange a date/time to meet at the Mount Prospect Public Works Department,
1700 W. Central Road, or via Microsoft Teams.
The Village of Mount Prospect appreciates your interest in this study. Any questions regarding this Request
for Technical & Cost Proposals can be directed to Matthew Lawrie, Village Engineer with the Village of Mount
Prospect, by phone at 847-870-5640 or email at mlawrie@mountprospect.or .
Page 2
Village of Mount Prospect
February 7, 2025
Exhibit A
Requirements for Technical & Cost Proposals
Agency: Village of Mount Prospect
Project: Prospect Avenue Alternative Analysis Study
Location: Limited Boundary Study: Prospect Avenue from Elmhurst Avenue to IL 83 (Main Street)
Corridor Study: Prospect Avenue from Central Road to Mount Prospect Road
Your Technical & Cost Proposals should include the following information:
1. Name, address and brief history of firm.
2. Organizational chart and resumes of key personnel to be assigned to this project.
3. Related experience during the last five (5) years. For example:
a. Providing engineering services for streetscape projects in suburban downtowns, with experience
in creating new outdoor dining or business space.
b. Experience with bicycle and pedestrian corridor planning.
c. Experience with feasibility studies and/or alternative analysis in a suburban environment with a
focus on balancing parking needs with new amenities for pedestrians, bicyclists and business
patrons.
d. Experience working with the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) on roadway,
intersection, traffic signal, and pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure projects.
e. Experience working with multiple interest groups including municipalities, state agencies,
residents and businesses. Emphasis will be placed on effective communication tools and the
ability to build consensus.
f. Identifying state/federal grant opportunities with a history of successfully securing Phase I, Phase
II and Phase III Engineering funds and construction funds.
4. Description of process to accomplish the required tasks of both the Limited Boundary Study and
Corridor Study for the project. This should include:
a. An understanding of the project.
b. Objectives to be met as part of the project.
c. Your approach to completing the project.
d. The projected number of hours to complete the project broken down by task and personnel for
both the Limited Boundary Study and Corridor Study.
e. A project schedule for both the Limited Boundary Study and Corridor Study.
S. A complete cost proposal broken down by task for both the Limited Boundary Study and Corridor
Study as described in the General Scope of Work.
Page 3
Village of Mount Prospect
February 7, 2025
Exhibit B
General Scope of Work
Agency: Village of Mount Prospect
Project: Prospect Avenue Alternative Analysis Study
Location: Limited Boundary Study: Prospect Avenue from Elmhurst Avenue to IL 83 (Main Street)
Corridor Study: Prospect Avenue from Central Road to Mount Prospect Road
The Village is solicitating two separate proposals from consultants to conduct an alternative analysis study
of Prospect Avenue. The Limited Boundary Study focuses on 3 blocks of Prospect Avenue with an
emphasis on accommodating outdoor dining. The Corridor Study includes all the work from the Limited
Boundary Study but expands the study limits to be from Central Road to Mount Prospect Road. Scope of
work is described below.
The Village desires to address competing pedestrian, bicycle, business patron and vehicular needs along
Prospect Avenue to create a more welcoming and economically viable downtown for all. The first step to
modernize Prospect Avenue is an alternative analysis study to set the Village up to advance the preferred
alternative into design and construction.
The Limited Boundary Study will focus on robust streetscape improvements and outdoor dining
opportunities between Elmhurst Avenue and IL 83 (Main Street). The Corridor Study includes all of
Prospect Avenue between Central Road and Mount Prospect Road. Elmhurst Avenue to IL 83 (Main
Street) will focus on providing outdoor dining space while evaluating and balancing space for pedestrians,
bicyclists, travel lanes, parking, lighting and landscaping. Outside of these limits, the Village desires to
better accommodate bikes while maintaining the opportunity for additional streetscape improvements
and outdoor dining space should adjacent land use change.
In recent years, a number of redevelopments and new restaurants along Prospect Avenue have spurred
the desire for outdoor seating in the warmer months. Additionally, hundreds of new apartments and a
grocery store have been built along Prospect Avenue, leading to considerably more pedestrian and bicycle
activity downtown. The Village intends to develop a preferred alternative that considers outdoor dining,
pedestrian access, bike access, vehicle travel and parking, lighting, street furniture and landscaping to
improve Prospect Avenue.
In the summer of 2024, the Village trialed on -street dining by repurposing 6 on -street parking spots to
outdoor dining areas within the 100 block of West Prospect Avenue. The Village is now wishes to explore
opportunities to improve and possibly expand the outdoor dining experience.
The Village desires to meet parking demand in the downtown area. While the Village has ample parking
available to business patrons in public parking garages and the Metra lots, this parking is not directly
adjacent to most businesses leading to a perceived lack of parking in our downtown area. Any changes
proposed along Prospect Avenue should consider impacts to parking immediately adjacent to the
businesses. The study is to investigate ways to direct patrons to available, under-utilized parking facilities.
Page 4
Village of Mount Prospect
February 7, 2025
Prospect Avenue is currently a signed local bike route with sharrow pavement markings. The Village
desires to improve the bicycle infrastructure on Prospect Avenue and designate it part of the Northwest
Municipal Conference's Northwest Bikeway that parallels Northwest Highway as described in their
Multimodal Transportation Plan. The Village's Arterial Bike Network Study identifies Prospect Avenue as
needing more study to develop long-term bike facilities with the intention of designating Prospect Avenue
as part of the Northwest Bikeway. This study will be completed in early 2025.
The Village also prepared a brief Bikeway Evaluation of Prospect Avenue and Emerson Street in 2021. This
report was developed prior to any bike facilities on Prospect Avenue and resulted in the addition of shared
lane markings and signs. The report also included a potential long-term concept for consideration.
Separately, the intersection of Central Road, Northwest Highway, Prospect Avenue and the Union Pacific
Railroad Crossing is currently in a Phase I Engineering Study lead by the Village. The Corridor Study is to
coordinate with this study, the Central Road Railroad Crossing Phase I Study, to determine the preferred
alternative for the western end of Prospect Avenue.
Prospect Avenue is 1.35 miles in length and a local road under Village jurisdiction. It terminates at Central
Road, an unmarked IDOT route, on the west end, intersects with IL 83 (Main Street) a Strategic Regional
Arterial IDOT route, and terminates at Mount Prospect Road, a Cook County route, on the east end. This
entire length encompasses the Corridor Study. The Limited Boundary Study is the 0.25-mile section of
Prospect Avenue between Elmhurst Avenue and IL 83 (Main Street).
Developing a preferred alternative for Prospect Avenue between Elmhurst Avenue and IL 83 (Main Street)
that incorporates outdoor dining, pedestrian access, bike facilities, vehicle travel and parking, lighting,
street furniture and landscaping is the primary goal of the project (Limited Boundary Study). The Corridor
Study expands the study limits to develop a preferred alternative between Central Road and Mount
Prospect Road. With a future contract, the Village will then move forward with a Phase I Engineering
Study for a potentially grant funded project, or will proceed with detailed design for a Village funded
project. At a minimum, the following tasks are to be included in the scope of services. Additional tasks,
at the consultant's recommendation, will be considered by the Village.
Limited Boundary Study (Elmhurst Avenue to IL 83 (Main Street)):
1. Become familiar with the characteristics and function of the entire corridor.
2. Develop at least 3 alternatives that incorporate Village and public priorities with varying levels of on -
street parking retention and vehicle access. Priorities include:
a. Maintaining and/or expanding existing pedestrian space.
b. Providing dedicated outdoor space in the spring, summer and fall for outdoor dining and/or
other business activities.
c. Enhancing bicycle facilities through dedicated space for bikes along the corridor, if possible.
d. Incorporate street lighting into all alternatives.
e. Provide street furniture and landscaping to beautify the corridor.
f. Vehicle access along Prospect Avenue.
g. Consider parking impacts compared to other priorities for the study.
h. Develop general wayfinding improvements for the corridor.
3. Engage in stakeholder meetings to solicit input. Stakeholders include:
a. IDOT (IL 83 intersection) — If changes are considered at this intersection
b. UPRR and ICC (IL 83 railroad crossing) — If changes are considered at this crossing
c. Business owners along Prospect Avenue
4. Collect vehicle & pedestrian counts and crash data along with other pertinent information as
necessary.
Page 5
Village of Mount Prospect
February 7, 2025
5. Evaluate truck movements and possible turn prohibitions at the intersections while maintaining
access for deliveries.
6. Perform topographic and right-of-way surveys as needed for alternative development.
7. Identify any needed right-of-way or construction easements.
8. Develop a robust public outreach campaign to collect public input on the alternatives including at
least one public meeting that meets IDOT Phase I Engineering requirements.
9. Provide information and graphics for a Village hosted and maintained project website.
10. Develop renderings for each of the alternatives, including typical sections and highlights of unique
design elements.
11. Develop a comprehensive Alternative Analysis Report based on the tasks outlined. Each alternative
plan is to include a preliminary estimate of cost (proposal to include up to 3 alternatives). The report
is to include a summary matrix that considers pros and cons for each of the alternatives to help in
determining the preferred alternative.
12. Present the alternatives and preferred alternative to the Transportation Safety Commission and the
Village Board at regularly scheduled meetings.
13. Ensure proposed alternatives are in line with previously completed studies and complement ongoing
development in downtown Mount Prospect.
14. Attend monthly progress meetings with the Village (virtual).
15. Prepare preliminary cost estimates for Phase I, II & III Engineering and construction.
16. Identify potential funding sources for Phase I, II & III Engineering and construction.
Corridor Study (Central Road to Mount Prospect Road):
Includes all tasks described above for the entire corridor, and the following additional items:
1. Incorporate connections to intersecting bike routes, including intersection treatments specifically for
bikes.
2. Engage in stakeholder meetings to solicit input. Stakeholders include:
a. UPRR and ICC (Emerson Street railroad crossing and Mount Prospect Road railroad crossing)
b. Cook County DOTH (Mount Prospect Road intersection)
c. Note — Central Road intersection design will be developed under the Central Road Railroad
Crossing Phase I Study. Stakeholder meetings not required for that intersection.
3. Coordinate with the ongoing Central Road Railroad Crossing Phase I Study to develop preferred
alternative for the intersection of Prospect Avenue and Central Road.
Tentative Schedule
Submit Technical & Cost Proposals
r
February 28, 2025
Select consultants for interview
March 14, 2025
Consultant interviews
Week of March 17, 2025
Select consultant & negotiate contract
March 28, 2025
Award contract to consultant
April 15, 2025
Kick -Off Meeting with Village Staff
May 1, 2025
Complete Alternative Analysis Study
no later than December 31, 2025*
*dependent on scope of work
Page 6
Village of Mount Prospect
February 7, 2025
Exhibit C
Project Location/Limits Map
Agency: Village of Mount Prospect
Project: Prospect Avenue Alternative Analysis Study
Location: Limited Boundary Study: Prospect Avenue from Elmhurst Avenue to IL 83 (Main Street)
Corridor Study: Prospect Avenue from Central Road to Mount Prospect Road
Northwest Hwy / Prospect Ave West Corridor: Waterman Ave to Wille St
Corridor Characteristics
Traffic / Roadway Conditions
• Corridor Length: 2 miles
• Jurisdiction: IDOT
• Posted Speed Limit: 30-40 mph
• Average Daily Traffic: 7,700-10,500 vpd
(2022)
• Right -of -Way: 64' to 88'
• Truck Route: Class II
Legend
li, ,.i, Mount Prospect Boundary
CZ) Focus Arterial Bike Corridor
Traffic Signal
3 At -Grade Railroad Crossing
o Structure
Park
School
Community Destination
Bike Network
Arterial Bike Network
Existing Bike Rack
Existing On -Street Route
Existing Bike Path
I'll,- - Bike Path In Design
Transit
n Pace Bus Route
1 to 49 Average Riders
• Truck Traffic (/o of Total Traffic): 3-5/o //A Floodplain 40 50 to 99Average Riders
• Programmed Improvement: Metra Train Station 100+ Average Riders
» Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge over
Northwest Hwy connecting Melas
Park and Meadows Park (CMAP TIP, 2026)
Parkway Conditions
• Trees in Right -of -Way: 63 total
North - 58 1 South - 5
• ComEd in Right -of -Way:
North - Frequent (Waterman to Central, Elm to
Mount Prospect) / None (Central to Elm)
South - None (Waterman to Elm) / Occasional
(Elm to Mount Prospect)
• Sidewalk Gaps:
South - Village Boundary to Pine St (1-mi)
South - Emerson St to Village Boundary (-4,000')
(continued on the f6 lowing page)
36 Arterial Bike Network Study
East Corridor: Wille St to Mount Prospect Rd Northwest Hwy / Prospect Ave G
1 Mount Prospect Boundary
CD Focus Arterial Bike Corridor
Safety Conditions
• Crashes (2018-22): Bicycle - 4 1 Pedestrian - 3
Traffic Signal
• Potential Conflict Points
��- At -Grade Railroad Crossing
,> Cross Streets: North - 20 1 South - 4
o Structure
» Commercial Driveways: North - 31 1 South - 4
Park
» Residential Driveways: North - None I South - None
School
Community Content/Future Improvements
Community Destination
Key Destinations: Westbrook Elementary School, Fairview Elementary
Floodplain
School, St Raymond School, Melas Park, Meadows Park, Fairview Park,
Metro Train Station
Owens Park, Lions Memorial Park, Central Community Center, Post Office,
Bike Network
Library, Village Hall, Downtown Mount Prospect, Frisbie Senior Center
Arterial Bike Network
• Relevant Insights from Previous Plans/Studies:
Existing Bike Rack
>> Northwest Municipal Conference Multimodal Transportation Plan
(2020): Priority corridor stretching across seven communities,
— Existing On -Street Route
including Mount Prospect. Recommended a combination of a
Existing Bike Path
sidepath, cycle track, bike lane (on Prospect Avenue)
Bike Path In Design
» Rail Crossing Feasibility Study (2020): Five alternatives to improve
Transit
safety and mobility recommended to be evaluated
Pace Bus Route
• Community Feedback
1 to 49Average Riders
» Identified as a corridor where biking is desired but difficult and
50 to 99 Average Riders
unsafe to bike along or cross (including downtown)
100+ Average Riders
Northwest Hwy / Prospect Ave
Typical Mid -Block Cross Sections (on Northwest Hwy)
<-- Southwest
Northeast ---->
1 ' M, 11` 11" 11" 11" 9" 1,5" 5" 7'
parkvday vehicle lane velauclrt [one vehicle lane vehicle Vane parking We sidelNalk ( lxAWay
pave nent wll 5,3 ft �.......,.1
�...._._.. right-of-way 86 ft q
Off »»»»y,,,,.. „rrn»»,, n»»,,,, n»»;»nye »»<,»„.........„rrrnnr.»,rn„y, ,r„rrn»»,,
<-- Southwest Downtown Northeast
(shown between Main St and Emerson St)
" 10" 10, 112" 10, 10" 10, 8"
vehicle lane vehicle Dane left turn lane v�ehidem lame vel'idet We parking lane sidevealk
... .. ........ p averrwilt wid lI: 62 ft I'll 11 11 1 1 ''I'll'," — ' ' I
�._ .... _ _.. right-of-way: 74 ft ........ . m .......... . .. . m.... ............. q
»Pnrnnwnuuo� �rynrniniu»„�e .',;;mow»n,�G ,�Ounnuwun,» �. nu° pnrnon°°iun�r rrvrnomnu»„�, fmo» iyyomrwna»wo ,�/nrrnrniw,�,» ,,rprrian»nu».o� .........
» pnrrrurwnn».r�, ,�rpmrwnai».�, ryyomrwna»wo Arrrnruu.....
°'�.e�' �ir� �,niw✓Y/0`n» w,m,a���' �mi� »� r� ,,,w,u.�ry'' wuenw+� ���r �,niww'' °�i� nrwy�� ���` �,niww'' °mrwrav�
<-- Southwest Southeast of Downtown Northeast
steal (shown just southeast of William St)
10' '' 11' 11' 1'1" 11° 9' 7` 9" 5'
parkway velvucle lane vehicler lane velauclr lane ✓ehicPe Bane parking pane {aarkvmay ( sidewal''k
... ........ right-of-way: 80 ft ..._. . ._.......... ...... ._.......
.
38 Arterial Bike Network Study
Northwest Hwy / Prospect Ave G
MountProsPttr.
\�V
Arterial Bike Network Study 39
I
North fry
DOWNYOWN
MOUNT
Community Context
• Key Destinations: St Raymond School, St
P IL th S h I L' P k C t l
r Fcrq
Oo�I jjj,
Legend
'Lm--m " Mount Prospect Boundary
CmFocus Arterial Bike Corridor
Traffic Signal
At -Grade Railroad Crossing
o Structure
Park
School
Community Destination
%//) Floodplain
Metro Train Station
au u eran c oo , ions ar , en ra Pace Bus Stop
Community Center, Post Office, Library,
Village Hall, Downtown Mount Prospect
• Connectivity
>> Local bike routes on Elmhurst Ave and Owen St
>> Future sidepaths on Central Ave and Mount
Prospect Rd
Corridor Recommendations
• Future Study: Prospect Ave is a future bike corridor
through the downtown area between Central Rd
and Mount Prospect Rd. A separate future study
will be undertaken to recommend a bike facility
best suited for this corridor.
Recommended Bike Network
— On -Street Bike Lanes
Sidepath
— — Signed On -Street Bike Route
efilwavow Multiple Options
Existing Bike Network
Existing Bike Rack
Existing On -Street Route
Existing Trail or Sidepath
®® � Sidepath In Design
Arterial Bike Network Study 73
Union Pacific Rai/roan'
March 2, 2021
n
In its 2021 CIP, the Village of Mount Prospect allocated funding for bikeway projects on Emerson
Street between Central Road and Prospect Avenue and Prospect Avenue between Central Road
and Mount Prospect Road. These two routes will fill in gaps in the existing bike network and
provide access to downtown Mount Prospect and the Metra Stations.
Though they will provide crucial linkages in the Village's network, space constraints limit the
bikeway design options and a low -stress option is not feasible with the current street
configurations. Both corridors are too narrow to accommodate a high -quality bikeway without
adjustments to the on -street geometry or off-street right-of-way. Any proposed modifications on
Prospect Avenue are complicated by railroad coordination, grade issues on the north side,
existing streetscaping elements, parking configurations, street trees, and storm sewers.
Additionally, these corridors will see changes in the coming years that may further impact design
decisions, including recently completed intersection improvements at Emerson Street and
Central Road, and planned improvements for Prospect Avenue/Mount Prospect Road/Northwest
Highway. Finally, several new development projects along Prospect Avenue will change traffic
patterns and may impact the level of cycling comfort.
This memo includes a review of the existing and proposed conditions along the two corridors,
provides an assessment of alternative treatments, and includes options for future consideration.
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS ��
�llM�d4Gp I'dk'i:IfIM
r' March 2, 2021
Prospect Ave
EXISTING CONDITIONS SIB CHALLENGES
Prospect Avenue between Central Road and Mount Prospect Road is a two-way street with
varying conditions. Several factors should be considered when evaluating bikeway options on
Prospect Avenue:
• Vehicle Width: Existing design manuals do not include guidance on the minimum
lane width for shared streets; though some sources suggest that 12' is the narrowest
recommended lane width. The lanes vary in size along the corridor, ranging from 12' to
13' between Central and Main, 10-11' between Main and Edward, and 14' between
Edward and Mount Prospect Road.
•On -Street Parking: Back -out angle parking is not desirable in conjunction with shared
lanes. On Prospect Avenue there is back -out angle parking in one location - the
eastbound lane between Main Street and Emerson Street.
•Median presence: There is no guidance available on the presence of medians on shared
streets. The median between Central Road and Emerson Street and Edward Street to
Mount Prospect Road provides additional traffic calming but will also limit passing
movements on a shared street.
• Speed Limit: NACTO recommends speed limits of <25 MPH on shared streets. The speed
limit is 25 MPH between Central and Maple and 30 MPH from Maple to Mount Prospect.
• Average it is )® Recommended AADT for shared lanes is 3,000
vehicles per day or less. Prospect Avenue currently meets these criteria along several
segments but planned development may result in an increase in traffic throughout the
corridor.
Additional factors to consider:
Crash• is ® There is limited crash history to examine on Prospect Avenue. Between
2016 and 2020, one cyclist was injured in a crash at Prospect Avenue and Main Street.
This intersection should be examined for additional bikeway upgrades, such as adding
shared lanes through the intersection.
Mount• os ect Road Reconstruction: IDOT has developed a preliminary pavement
marking plan at Mount Prospect Road and Prospect Avenue as a part of an upcoming
project. The proposed bikeway will need to provide a connection to this facility.
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
March 2, 2021
LoftsMaple Street Development: A new development is proposed for an empty lot at the
corner of Maple Street and Prospect Avenue. The development proposal includes back -
out angle parking, which is not desirable in conjunction with a shared street.
Table e Existing Conditions on ProspectAve
Central Rd
Pine St
7'. Parallel, 2-hour limit
9'
12-13'
25*
2000
none
Pine St
Main St
7'. Parallel, 2-hour limit
9'
12'-13"
25*
2400
none
Main St
Emerson St
45-degree angle EB, parallel
9'
13.5' EB,
25*
3400*
B-injury in
WB, 2-hour limit*
10' WB*
2020
Emerson St
Maple St
7, Parallel, 2-hour limit
none
11'*
25*
3400*
none
Maple St
School St
7, Parallel, 2-hour limit
none
11'*
30*
3400*
none
(future angle) *
School St
Edward St
7, Parallel, 2-hour limit
none
11'*
30*
2800
none
Edward St
Mount Prospect
none
9'
14'
30*
2700
none
Rd
*Indicates a condition that may not be conducive to installing a
marked shared
lane.
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
Four options were evaluated for Prospect from
Central Road to Main Street/Route 83:
Current Proposed- includes sharrows placed 3'
from the parking lane, various bike route signs,
and share the road signs.
Alternative A:has nopavement markings and
replaces the proposed
iDthe Gii-7in nUnlbers POF)VVith Bikes M3VUGe Full
as studies have
shown these are more easily understood by
drivers than Share the Road sides. Green
wayfincling signage is recommended as proposed.
Alternative B: includes sh8rroVVS placed in the
center ofthe lane, various green bike route signs,
and Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs.
Alternative C (preferred): includes sharrovvs
placed 3'from the parking lane, various green
bike route signs, and Bicycles May Use Full Lane
signs placed every 2SO/and after major
intersections. This alternative will increase driver
awareness ofcyclists and is, therefore, the
preferred alternative.
March2, 2021
piguiez�oeslgp All teniauvesfurpmspeoAve hnmcenh all tomouteeo
Sh.rr. Share the Read Sgq.a
m=.. live^ . Route m
47,
Alternative B Prospe�t Ave from Central Is Route 83
Sits— —la, of travel Inne R4-11 signs
47
P'e+redmte—m Ave from C.t1sl~Route m
Sharrows,rfrom =k,mg line R4�1`Signs
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
'MEN
March 2, 2021
Design Alternative Benefits to Proposed Design
Drawbacks to Proposed Design
Current Proposed a Lane width acceptable for shared lanes
® Traffic volume and speed limit do not
• Offer an additional cue to drivers to
conform to recommended standards for
expect cyclists on road that is more
shared lanes
visible than signage alone
s Share the Road signs less effective than
• Help cyclists identify appropriate lane
new alternatives
position to reduce dooring incidences
® Potential conflicts with the truck route,
® Provide an additional wayfinding element
and drivers parking
in a cyclist's field of vision
® Median narrows the lane, making it
Reduce the incidence of sidewalk riding
difficult for drivers to pass cyclists
® Reduce instances of wrong -way riding
Alternative A ® Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs are more
` Cyclists may not be aware of lane position
easily understood by drivers
to avoid doorings
® Enables cyclists to take the lane to avoid
®
Fewer visual cues for drivers and cyclists
dooring or other conflicts
® May not influence sidewalk or wrong -way
riding
i Less comfortable for people of all ages and
abilities because of the speed, traffic
volume, and lane width
Alternative B
Alternative C (preferred)
11
l
3
0
Lane width acceptable for shared lanes
Offer an additional cue to drivers to
expect cyclists in the middle of the lane
that is more visible than signage alone
Help cyclists identify appropriate lane
position to reduce dooring incidences
Provide an additional wayfinding element
in a cyclist's field of vision
Reduce the incidence of sidewalk riding
Reduce instances of wrong -way riding
Reduces conflicts with parking drivers
Lane width acceptable for shared lanes
Offer an additional cue to drivers to
expect cyclists on road that is more
visible than signage alone
Help cyclists identify appropriate lane
position to reduce dooring incidences
Provide an additional wayfinding element
in a cyclist's field of vision
Reduce the incidence of sidewalk riding
Reduce instances of wrong -way riding
Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs are more
easily understood by drivers
® Traffic volume and speed limit do not
conform to recommended standards for
shared lanes
• It will likely prevent drivers from passing
cyclists
• Less experienced cyclists may not be
comfortable with lane position
® Traffic volume and speed limit do not
conform to recommended standards for
shared lanes
• Potential conflicts with the truck route,
and parking turnover
® Median narrows the lane, making it
difficult for drivers to pass cyclists
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENT2/1
S
I ogwru„ I II'iiaua;�p:°ou ctt ru0u 1i Mahn (IIlRouu�te 83) to II!I um�u;^u°ss��pu'�u
Current Proposed: includes sharrows placed 3'
from the parking lane, various bike route signs,
and share the road signs.
Alternative A (preferred): includes eastbound
sharrows in the center of the lane and WB
March 2, 2021
V uguun: 4 F1i o j'.)e ~t hoin Mahn, (IIttouute 83) to IlDiivueu°son
Current Proposed: Prospect Ave from Route 83 to Emerson
Sharrows, Share the Road Signs
sharrows 3' from the parking line. Bicyclists
May Use Full Lane signs should be installed
every 250' and after busy intersections. This is
the preferred alternative because it makes cyclists
more visible to drivers pulling out of angled spaces
and provides a continuous facility along the route.
Additional Considerations: At the intersection of
Main Street, consider installing s.t'�g..[..d...Iar]..e.
i...li:.......r'i.g to make bicycle movements through the
intersection more visible (pictured right).
Alternative A (preferred). Prospect Ave from Route 83 to Emerson
Ed center lane sharrows, WEf sharrows 3' from parking line, R4-11 signs
ev"wd Unre Owed Lame CAAu'"a hdOeAxBnanirpPareeat
Extervaw ifoole riAlmr40'as C
eiWBfdfM.
. I1131 : clluz Crosshig ai ll hi ouurce III �;ttu:"
n
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
'M
Design Alternative
Current Proposed
Benefits to Proposed Design
• Offer an additional cue to drivers to
expect cyclists on road that is more
visible than signage alone
• Help cyclists identify appropriate lane
position to reduce dooring incidences
® Provide an additional wayfinding element
in a cyclist's field of vision
® Reduce the incidence of sidewalk riding
Reduce instances of wrong -way riding
March 2, 2021
Drawbacks to Proposed Design
® WB lane width, traffic volume, and speed
limit and EB traffic volume and speed limit
do not conform to recommended
standards for shared lanes
• Angle parking creates additional conflicts
for cyclists
® Share the Road signs less effective than
new alternatives
® Potential conflicts with the truck route,
and drivers parking
® Median narrows the lane, making it
difficult for drivers to pass cyclists
Alternative A (preferred) ® Placing sharrows in the center of the EB ®
WB lane is narrow for sharrows
®
lane with angle parking increases cyclist
Less experienced cyclists may not be
visibility for drivers backing out of parking
comfortable with narrow Wb lanes
spaces
Wb Drivers may not be able to pass
® WB lanes are narrow for sharrows but
cyclists
allow continuous treatment along the
route
® Offer an additional cue to drivers to
expect cyclists on road that is more
visible than signage alone
• Help cyclists identify appropriate lane
position to reduce dooring incidences
® Provide an additional wayfinding element
in a cyclist's field of vision
® Reduce the incidence of sidewalk riding
• Reduce instances of wrong -way riding
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
I guire 6II'u+u5pved Ave horn Il:uxnn,^o°SN'11 to Il:Avnraird
Current Proposed- includes sharrows placed 3' from
the parking lane, various bike route signs, and share
the road signs.
Alternative : has no pavement markings and
re Oar; :as th :a �Iro .� ;sed s�nalrave the road si Iris CIS JI.3 In
p.......................................................................................K........................................................................................................................................................i...t.....................(...................................................
the sfl�-7n Ir uirnbelrs 1::1Dl1:::) wflth Bikes Mav Use 1:::0 Lalre
..if".lr1�.....(.II'0L:j:.1.:.....l.irk...11° IL_��....�...C.[),).:.. Green wayfinding signage
is recommended as proposed.
Alternative : includes sharrows placed in the
center of the lane, various bike route signs, and
Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs.
Alternative C (preferred): includes sharrows placed
3' from the parking lane, various bike route signs,
and Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs (R4-11) every
250' and after busy intersections. This is the
preferred alternative because it allows continuous
treatment throughout the network.
Current Proposed: Prospect Ave from Emerson to Edward
Sharrows 3' from the parking lane. Share the Road signs
March 2, 2021
'i
h-
%��%�!.
„r.
Alternative A: Prospect Ave from Emerson to Edward
No pavement markings. R4-11 signs
Alternative B: Prospect Ave from Emerson to Edward
Sharrows 5.5from the parking lane, R4-11 signs
Alternative C (preferred), Prospect Ave from Emerson to Edward
Sharrows T from the parking lane. R4-11 signs
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
Design Alternative Benefits to Proposed Design
Current Proposed
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative C
(preferred)
Offer an additional cue to drivers to
expect cyclists on road that is more
visible than signage alone
Help cyclists identify appropriate lane
position to reduce dooring incidences
Provide an additional wayfinding element
in a cyclist's field of vision
Reduce the incidence of sidewalk riding
Reduce instances of wrong -way riding
Conforms to recommended standards for
11' lanes and other constraints
Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs are more
easily understood by drivers
Enables cyclists to take the lane to avoid
dooring or other conflicts
Reduces conflicts with parking drivers
Offer an additional cue to drivers to
expect cyclists in the middle of the lane
that is more visible than signage alone
Help cyclists identify appropriate lane
position to reduce dooring incidences
Provide an additional wayfinding element
in a cyclist's field of vision
Reduce the incidence of sidewalk riding
Reduce instances of wrong -way riding
Lanes are narrow for sharrows, but the
recommendation allows continuous
treatment along the route
Offer an additional cue to drivers to
expect cyclists on road that is more
visible than signage alone
Help cyclists identify appropriate lane
position to reduce dooring incidences
Provide an additional wayfinding element
in a cyclist's field of vision
Reduce the incidence of sidewalk riding
Reduce instances of wrong -way riding
Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs are more
easily understood by drivers
Provide an additional wayfinding element
in a cyclist's field of vision
March 2, 2021
Drawbacks to Proposed Design
Lane width, traffic volume, and speed limit
do not conform to recommended standards
for shared lanes
Share the Road signs less effective than new
alternatives
Increase in volume expected with Maple
Street Lofts project
Potential conflicts with the truck route, and
parking turnover
Median narrows the lane, making it difficult
for drivers to pass cyclists
Cyclists may not be aware of lane position to
avoid doorings
Fewer visual cues for drivers and cyclists
May not influence sidewalk or wrong -way
riding
Less comfortable for people of all ages and
abilities because of the speed, traffic volume,
and lane width
Traffic volume and speed limit do not
conform to recommended standards for
shared lanes
It will likely prevent drivers from passing
cyclists
Less experienced cyclists may not be
comfortable with lane position
Lane width, traffic volume, and speed limit
do not conform to recommended standards
for shared lanes
Increase in volume expected with Maple
Street Lofts project
Potential conflicts with the truck route, and
parking turnover
Median narrows the lane, making it difficult
for drivers to pass cyclists
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS i
4OF ALTERNATIVES FOR
PROSPECT ,3
f i uuue,s ff, II°u u411:te ti Ave f on Almud to Mount yuausipe,uv4
Current Proposed: includes sharrows
placed 3' from the curb, various bike
route signs, and share the road signs.
Alternative A (preferred): includes
sharrows placed 3' from the curb, various
bike route signs, and . i. "/.�:.0..es........M... _`�.....�:1..`'2
I::ia..�..�......L..p_e.....s].girr..°.....�..II��::::::.�:.:�.:..�.. Place R4-11 signs
every 250' and after busy intersections.
Alternative : includes a „" id rac��r„f ;.r.
0aarr_e. and various bike route signs.
I gauiie9D dvV:rs4oyBlIkd,.LallKaoujua:n Alta Pllvuuuuiiiigi D4t.ign
March 2, 2021
f u„itiiie 10Desigiiu AlllfeuuWives fou., f1ii ospect Ave h og in I11:ud4vau d tO ilrfuuuunit II'll i
Current Proposed: Prospect Ave from Edward to Mount Prospect
Sharrows 3' from curb. Share the Road signs
40,.
Alternative A: Prospect Ave from Edward to Mount Prospect
Sharrows 3' from curb. R4-11 signs
410
Alternative B: Prospect Ave from Edward to Mount Prospect
Advisory lanes 4' from curb, bike route signs
40'
n�EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
�ll��M�d4Gp I'dk'i:IfIM
r' March 2, 2021
Design Alternative Benefits to Proposed Design
Drawbacks to Proposed Design
Current Proposed 0
Lane width and traffic volume conform to
®
Speed limit higher than recommended for
recommended standards for shared lanes
a shared street
®
Offer an additional cue to drivers to
0
Share the Road signs less effective than
expect cyclists on road that is more
new alternatives
visible than signage alone
®
Help cyclists identify appropriate lane
position to reduce dooring incidences
®
Provide an additional wayfinding element
in a cyclist's field of vision
Reduce the incidence of sidewalk riding
®
Reduce instances of wrong -way riding
Alternative A (preferred) ®
Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs are more
i
Less experienced cyclists may not be
easily understood by drivers
comfortable with lane position
®
Lane width and traffic volume conform to
®
Future traffic volumes may reduce cyclists'
recommended standards for shared lanes
comfort
®
Offer an additional cue to drivers to
Speed limit higher than recommended for
expect cyclists road that is more
a shared street
visible than signage alone
0
Share the Road signs less effective than
®
Help cyclists identify appropriate lane
new alternatives
position to reduce dooring incidences
®
Provide an additional wayfinding element
in a cyclist's field of vision
Reduce the incidence of sidewalk riding
Reduce instances of wrong -way riding
Alternative B ®
Provide a more defined space for cyclists
®
Less experienced cyclists may not be
®
Enable drivers to merge into bike lane if
comfortable with lane position
needed
®
May not be accepted by MOT
a
Provide additional traffic calming by
narrowing the lane
®
A good alternative to bike lanes when
space is constrained
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
i " �40' '01-11,1110 "IN,
Long-term, the available right-of-way of
66' still presents challenges for designing
a low -stress bikeway on Prospect
Avenue. The options include:
Alternative : Remove the center
median and construct a sidepath on the
north side of Prospect Avenue from
Central to Mount Prospect Road (see
Figure 11 for potential configuration for
each segment):
• Opportunities: The Village can
borrow from the median and use
existing off-street ROW to create
a sidepath.
• Challenges: Because ROW is tight
between Emerson and Maple, it
may be more realistic to consider
Alternative B between Central
and Maple. The project would
take several years to approve
due to its proximity to the Union
Pacific Railroad. Cyclists may
come into conflict with people
exiting parked cars.
March 2, 2021
I gin vr'11: Alternative A, II1II°lira, e Mlle IPo°osp>'ed: Ave firo in Cen�tralll IRd to IImount
Prospect If d
Alternative A: Prospect Ave from Genlral to Route 83
Remove median and replace with yellow canter line, reduce on -street ROW to 38', install 9' sidepath on south side
gel
VIM
:t9
Alternative A: Prosped Ave from Route 83 to Emerson
Remove median and replace with yellow center line. reduce curb to curb width to 40', iustall9'sidepath on north side
Aherm ivo A: Prospecl Ave from Emerson to Edward
Get railroad easement to construct 9' sldepalh on north side
M
n,m�o�
5 I'll M p ,
l r NO
...............................................................................................................
19'
Alternative A: Prospect Ave from Edward to Mount Prospect
Remove median and add yellow center Ilne, reduce curb to curb width to 25'.'insla119sidepath on north .side
�
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
Alternative B (preferred): Remove the
center median and provide 5' bike lanes in
each direction (see Figure 11 for potential
configuration for each segment):
• Opportunities: This option would be
the most appropriate for the
surrounding context and would be
preferred to shared lanes or signage.
• Challenges: The existing medians
were recently installed, and it would
likely be unpopular to remove them.
The segment between Main Street
and Emerson street is too narrow to
accommodate a bike lane. Here,
sharrows could be used to provide a
continuous bike route.
March 2, 2021
V uguui e 12'. Plhase II II, Aitel inadve B, II'l osIlaeact Ave fl of in Caantirrall Rd tO IlNA afM I I'o"aa:,ll' act
FW
Alternative B: Prospect Ave from Central to Route 03
Remove median and replace with yellow center (ims. narrow vehicle lanes to I I' add 5' bike lanes on each side of street
47'
Alternative B: prospect Ave from Route 03 to Emerson
Remove median and replace with yellow center tine. narrow vehicle lanes to 10', add 5' bike lanes on each side of street
Alternative B: Prospect Ave from Emerson to Edward
3 sharrows, I1'vehlcle lanes
Ci
....... ...... _ _ _.._.._, .___._._._._._._._.-
3ar
Alternative BProspect Ave from Edward to Mount Prospect
Remmove median and add yellow center Ilne. Increase vehicle lane width to 12. add 5bike lanes
M
'f EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
�ll��M�d4Gp I'dk'i:IfIM
r' March 2, 2021
In coordination with IDOT's proposed intersection improvement at Mount Prospect Road and
Northwest Highway, the Village is looking to identify a bikeway connection to a planned sidepath
on the east side of Mount Prospect Road between Warrington Road and Northwest Highway.
The following design is recommended:
1. Widen the sidewalk on the south side of the street to 8' to create a sidepath. Cyclists
traveling eastbound will use this to connect to the sidepath on Mount Prospect Road
2. Install a bike ramp to connect to the sidepath
3. Install a right -turn sharrow at the bike ramp to indicate to cyclists to exit the street
4. Install a straight-sharrow on the westbound lane. Cyclists traveling in this direction will
enter the street from Mount Prospect Road.
Fu, uo e 11 Piolllj osed coinii)i i:tli� l� to Mount fli o.,ll ect Rd .,udelpath
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
A I vV
MA 611,91TA I ON
All XINO
March 2, 2021
► ,l,t� 00 ► L.
Emerson Street between Central Road and Northwest Highway is a two-way street that runs
through the heart of downtown Mount Prospect. It connects to many key destinations, including
the Metra Station. Several factors should be considered when evaluating bikeway options on
Emerson Street:
• Vehicle Lane Width: Existing design manuals do not provide guidance on the minimum
lane width for shared streets; though some sources suggest that 12' is the narrowest
recommended lane width. The lanes on Emerson Street range from 10-13' at
intersections and 12-15' wide mid -block.
•On -Street Parking: Back -out angle parking is not desirable in conjunction with shared
lanes. There is back -out angle parking on portions of the west side of Emerson between
Central and Northwest Highway.
Speed• i i® NACTO recommends speed limits of <25 MPH on shared streets. The speed
limit on Emerson is 20 MPH and is suitable for shared lanes.
• AverageAnnual DailyTraffic ® Recommended AADT for shared lanes is 3,000
vehicles per day or less. The AADT on Emerson is 3500 vehicles per day, which is above
the recommended limit.
Central Rd
E Busse Ave
E Busse Ave
Northwest
Highway
Northwest Hwy Prospect Ave
16' angle to west, 7'
parallel east*
16' angle to west, 7'
parallel east*
none
10*-
13',
12'-15' 20
10*-
13',
12'-15' 20
11' SB,
10.5
NB LT,
10.5
NB*
20
*Indicates a condition that may not be conducive to installing a marked shared lane.
3500* n/a
3500* n/a
3500* n/a
'1 EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS ��
Current Proposed: includes sharrows Flfpnp JAEi,neicon,Sti etfioinrentiiallto:liosipectAvenue
placed 3' from the parallel parking lane, ,
3' from the edge of pavement where there
is no on -street parking and 5.5' from the
angled parking lane, various bike route
signs, and share the road signs.
Alternative A (preferred): includes
sharrows placed 5.5' from the parking
lane, replaces Share the Road signs with
Bicycles May Use Full Lane (114-11) signs,
as studies have shown them to be more
understood by drivers and perceived to be
safer by bicyclists.. This is the preferred
alternative because it makes cyclists more
visible to drivers pulling out of angled
spaces and provides a continuous facility
along the route.
Alternative : has no pavement marking,
replaces Share the Road signs with
Bicycles May Use Full Lane (R4-11) signs.
March 2, 2021
Current Proposed: Emerson from Central to Northwest Hwy
N8 sharrows 3' from parking lane, SB sharrows in middle of lane. Share the Road signs
teat'
Alternative A (preferred): Emerson from Central to Northwest Hwy
NB sharrows 3' from parking lane. SB sharrows in middle of lane. R4-11 signs
4B
Alternative B: Emerson from Central to Northwest Hwy
No pavement marking. R4-11 signs
_�_ o ..... ..
48
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMOn
ENTS
Design Alternative
Current Proposed
Alternative A (preferred)
Benefits to Proposed Design
• The speed limit is appropriate for a
shared street
• Pavement marking placed in the center
of the lane is appropriate back -out
angled parking
® Offer an additional cue to drivers to
expect cyclists on road that is more
visible than signage alone
® Help cyclists identify appropriate lane
position to reduce dooring incidences
• Provide an additional wayfinding element
in a cyclist's field of vision
® Reduce the incidence of sidewalk riding
® Reduce instances of wrong -way riding
Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs are more
easily understood by drivers
The speed limit is appropriate for a
shared street
Pavement marking placed in the center
of the lane is appropriate back -out
angled parking
Offer an additional cue to drivers to
expect cyclists on road that is more
visible than signage alone
Help cyclists identify appropriate lane
position to reduce dooring incidences
Provide an additional wayfinding element
in a cyclist's field of vision
Reduce the incidence of sidewalk riding
Reduce instances of wrong -way riding
March 2, 2021
Drawbacks to Proposed Design
Lane width and traffic volume do not
conform to recommended standards for
shared lanes
• Share the Road signs less effective than
new alternatives
® Potential conflicts with parking turnover
• Back -out parking on the west side is not
desirable on a shared street
Lane width and traffic volume do not
conform to recommended standards for
shared lanes
Potential conflicts with parking turnover
Back -out parking on the west side is not
desirable on a shared street
Alternative B ® Conforms to recommended standards for ` Cyclists may not be aware of lane position
11' lanes and other constraints to avoid doorings
® Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs are more
® Fewer visual cues for drivers and cyclists
® May not influence sidewalk or wrong -way
easily understood by drivers
® Enables cyclists to take the lane to avoid riding
dooring or other conflicts
Less comfortable for people of all ages and
abilities because of the speed, traffic
volume, and lane width
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
March 2, 2021
Due to the limited right-of-way and high on -street parking utilization, no additional
recommendations are currently feasible. If on -street parking is removed in the future, Emerson
should be evaluated for bikeway improvements.
There are two potential options for this section if parking can be re -configured or eliminated. See
Figure 14 on the following page for details.
Alternative : Eliminate NB parking, convert SB parking to parallel, install 5' protected bike lanes
with 3' buffers on each side.
• Opportunities: Protected bike lanes are the most comfortable facilities for cyclists of all
ages and abilities. This option would enable residents to access downtown Mount
Prospect and the Metra Station more comfortably.
• Challenges: This would result in the removal of many parking spaces and is not
recommended unless parking demand is reduced. Also, protected bike lanes include a
curb or flexible delineators. Curbs are more comfortable for cyclists but require special
equipment for plowing and sweeping. Flexible delineators are less comfortable but can
be removed for maintenance activities.
Alternative : Convert SB parking to parallel, install 5' bike lanes on each side.
• Opportunities: Bike lanes will provide a dedicated space for cyclists, enabling them to
access downtown and the Metra Station. The bike lane could be widened in locations
with wider lanes or a 2' buffer could be provided on the parking side to reduce doorings.
This option would result in a loss of some parking spaces.
• Challenges: This option is not recommended unless parking demand changes in the
future.
/G
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
G
March 2, 2021
Fl,gue 14; Phase 1111 Altematives A a ind 3, 1 memon fioin Centii all to Ncmthwest 11 My
Future Alternative A: Emerson from Central to Northwest Hwy
NB 5' protected bike lane or buffered bike lane with 3' buffer
SIB 5' parking protected bike lane with 3' buffer
48'
Future Alternative B: Emerson from Central to Northwest Hwy
5' bike lane NIB and SB, 7' parallel parking lanes
48'
EVALUATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND EMERSON STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
/