B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
P l a n
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................1
Why Have a Plan?........................................................................................................... 1 Approach Used................................................................................................................ 2 Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................................... 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS......................................................................................5
Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI)................................................................................. 5 Crash Locations ............................................................................................................ 13 Land Use and Demand for Facilities ............................................................................ 17 Topography ................................................................................................................... 21
Environmental and Recreation Factors......................................................................... 23 Pedestrian Compatibility............................................................................................... 24 HIGH PRIORITY AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENTS .............................................27
NEXT STEPS FOR COMMUNITIES...................................................................36
PROGRESS REPORT ON BRPC ACTIVITIES..................................................38
CONTACTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ..............................................42
CONTACTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ..............................................43
END NOTES .......................................................................................................44
APPENDICES
A: Methodology
B: Results of Analysis
C: Approximate Costs of a Sample of Improvements
D: Potential Funding Sources
E: MassHighway Policy on Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
F: Planning Issues and Model Bylaw
G: Annotated Bibliography
This document was prepared with funding from the Massachusetts Highway Department and the
U.S. Department of Transportation.
1
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
1
P l a n
Bicycling and Walking Plan for the Berkshires
Introduction
Many residents of the Berkshires have expressed interest in walking and bicycling lately,
both for transportation and recreation. This plan presents information on a range of
existing conditions, analyzes the data, and proposes a prioritized list of areas for
communities to further evaluate for possible improvements.
Why Have a Plan?
Being able to safely walk or bicycle to get places is important for the present and for the
future of the Berkshires. There are benefits at a personal, community, and regional
level, as briefly summarized below:
• Staying in good health and reducing healthcare costs – People who live near
sidewalks, bike paths, and exercise facilities are twice as likely to be more physically
active.1 Exercise is recommended for a variety of physical and mental reasons, and
it also reduces medical bills. For example, people who get at least 30 minutes of
moderate physical activity three or more times a week had average savings of over
$330 in medical bills per year.2
• Saving money and time – Being able to get by without another car or cutting time
spent driving children from one place to another is of value to many people. It is
even more important in households without a vehicle, for any of a variety of financial,
physical, or other reasons. The 2000 Census found that 11% of Berkshire
households had zero vehicles.3
• Reducing crashes – There were over 400 police reports of vehicles colliding with
pedestrians or bicyclists between 1990 and 1999 in Berkshire County. Reducing the
number of people hurt or killed matters to us all emotionally. Traffic crashes are also
expensive taking into account medical costs, property damage, lost earnings, and
other factors
• Supporting quality of life - Bicycling and walking facilities rank as highly important
in community surveys here (for example in the Lee/Lenox Master Plan Survey and
the Clarksburg Community Development Plan Survey) and throughout the nation.
• Protecting the environment - Approximately 75% of trips under 1 mile nationally
are made by motor vehicle.4 The emissions produced in the first few minutes of
“cold start” conditions account for most of the pollution produced on a five mile trip.5
• Preparing for the future – The consensus of residents of the Berkshires is that we
want to preserve sensitive environments and open space, enhance community and
quality of life, foster economic development and fiscal responsibility, and support
efficient land use development and management (Regional Plan for the Berkshires).
This plan moves us toward all of those goals.
• Responding to support at all levels – In addition to support in most local master
plans, open space and recreation plans and the Berkshire Regional Transportation
Plan, the Commonwealth and federal government support bicycling and walking for
transportation by regulation and through financial support.
1
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
P l a n
Approach Used
The first step was to gather data on the existing resources and to identify problem areas
for bicyclists and pedestrians. This provides an overview of the supply of resources
(although it includes both positive and negative features). This report includes
preliminary analysis of basic conditions that relate to using these modes of
transportation.
Eight key factors as to how bicyclists experience roadways were combined together into
one measure, a Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI). The methodology used was
published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)6. This is a convenient, though
not perfect, overview of conditions. Maps of the results are included in the body of this
report and the methodology is described in Appendix A-1.
The next step was to identify where there is demand or potential for a significant amount
of use of bicycling or walking facilities. Facilities in this report refers mainly to road
shoulders and sidewalks. It can also refer to increased maintenance of existing
sidewalks and shoulders or new facilities. Various ways to make it safer to bicycle and
walk for everyday transportation are included in the Next Steps section. The following
factors were considered useful indicators of demand:
• Dense residential areas
• Commercial land uses
• Roads within 1 mile of a school, neighborhood park, or major destination
• Households without a vehicle (evaluated in terms of density per Census block group)
The supply and demand factors were combined to develop draft priorities. These are
the places where conditions are moderately low or worse and there are many potential
users. These would seem to be the most efficient places to invest public transportation
dollars. This may be visualized as shown in the following figure.
Figure 1: Prioritization Concept
Lack of Compatibility of Supply Low compatibility
Low demand
Low compatibility
High demand
High compatibility
Low demand
High compatibility
High demand
Amount of Current or Potential
Demand
2
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
P l a n
This methodology is useful for identifying road segments for further consideration (those
in the top right quadrant in Figure 1). However local input becomes essential at this
point for the following reasons:
1. Local people and their representatives will want to consider how segments fit
together to form a useful bicycling and walking network and add any additional
projects of local interest
2. Communities need to come to consensus on their policy priorities. The
information in this report is supplied to assist in that process, but actual decisions
depend on policy makers and available funds
3. The best available data were used, but they still should be reviewed by knowledgeable people. Funding is likely to play a significant role in shaping what projects are feasible and the
likely time frames. Approximate cost figures are included in Appendix C to assist
communities. These are approximate numbers for sketch planning purposes.
BRPC is available to assist local boards and their designated committees in their next
steps. The data and computer files used in this report are available to communities and
are designed so they can be modified to reflect local priorities, features, or information.
The results of this report will be incorporated into the next update of the multi-modal
Regional Transportation Plan and periodically updated. BRPC provides technical
assistance to communities as resources allow and through work tasks and contracts.
3
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
P l a n
Goals and Objectives
The goals, objectives, and performance measures of this plan are as follows:
Goal
Make it safer and more convenient for people who want or need to bicycle or walk to get places, especially to common destinations such as downtowns or schools Encourage use of each mode of transportation for its most efficient uses and integrate
all modes together for a more seamless intermodal transportation system
• Reduce the mileage of the county that is Extremely or Very Incompatible for
bicycling or walking based on the FHWA Bicycle Compatibility Index
• Reduce the number of crashes (accidents) of vehicles with bicyclists or pedestrians
• Reduce gaps in the compatible network in developed areas for bicycling and
walking as cost-effective ways to encourage use of these modes
Support the community centers and quality of life of the Berkshires
• Prioritize bicycling and/or walking problem areas for potential projects based on the
amount of use they are likely to get and community demand for them, in
coordination with local and regional input and evaluate by the number of projects
that get done
• Assist interested communities in enhancing bicycling and walking facilities overall
(BRPC staff hours invested per year).
These goals and objectives are based on and intended to help implement the Regional
Plan for the Berkshires and the Regional Transportation Plan. Berkshire Regional
Planning Commission (BRPC) is established as the official regional planning agency for
Berkshire County, Massachusetts. All 32 cities and towns in the region are members.
This plan is prepared as part of the transportation program within the mission to “provide
technical assistance, maintain a forum for the discussion of regional issues and deliver
regional planning services”.
4
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
P l a n
Existing Conditions
Individual communities with their officials, citizens, and organizations for the most part
govern what projects are done and control most roads. However, a transportation
system inherently requires coordination across borders and across a region. As a
starting point, this plan begins at the Berkshire County level and focuses on roads of
regional importance (non-local roads). More data, such as for local roads, is available
upon request.
The maps in this report present large amounts of information. In an effort to keep them
from becoming cluttered, town names and some other common features are not
displayed. On the next page is an orientation map of Berkshire County for reference.
Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI)
The main factors that account for whether an average mix of bicyclists feel comfortable
using a road were gathered together into one rating. This was done in accordance with
a methodology developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and
described further in Appendix A-1. This included reviewing where there are:
• Road shoulders that are paved and/or sidewalks (minimum of an average of 3’ of
paved surface on each side of the road)
• High traffic volumes, looking at both all traffic and also percent trucks
• Multi-lane roads with high numbers of turning vehicles
• Roads with on-street parking, and whether there are often cars pulling in and out of
spaces (high turnover rates)
• Residential land uses along roads (this is reported to be positive for bicyclists)
The focus of the BCI methodology is bicycling, however compatible conditions for
bicycling are likely to apply to walking as well. One of the few modifications made to the
federal methodology to adapt it to Berkshire conditions was to recognize that outside of
central business districts, some casual bicyclists use sidewalks (when available) as a
safer alternative to the road shoulder. This is legal unless posted otherwise. Again, the
focus of this plan is transportation, so there is little discussion of activities more
commonly done for recreation or health such as roller blading, skating or jogging.
Making transportation safer and more convenient for people with disabilities is important
and required under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Doing more on this
subject will be part of implementing projects and may be part of future planning work.
The BCI results were converted to a rating system similar to letter grades used in
schools. These are comparable to the Level of Service (LOS) system used in a variety
of transportation settings and explained below.
Table 1: BCI Level of Service Definitions
LOS
A
B
C
D
E
F
Compatibility Level for the Average Adult Bicyclist
Extremely High
Very High
Moderately High
Moderately Low
Very Low
Extremely Low
5
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
Orientation Map
6
P l a n
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
P l a n
On the pages that follow are a table of the links where the LOS was E or F and maps
showing all the results, at the county-wide level and then for the two Berkshire County
cities, Pittsfield and North Adams. Note that roads where bicyclists and pedestrians are
prohibited are not evaluated. These are the MassPike and the Lenox Bypass (Route
7/20 from the northern end of Route 7A south along Route 7 to just past the southern
end of Route 7A).
The federal study developing the BCI methodology found the result explained 89% of the
variance of the representative range of hundreds of cyclists who participated. However,
it has two key weaknesses. Following are how these concerns were addressed:
• Hilliness of terrain - Willingness to deal with steep slopes is a personal decision, but
knowing the location of hills is helpful. The steepest hills are shown on the BCI map
as solid gray areas. The hilliness of the terrain at a more everyday scale is
illustrated in the Topography section and incorporated into the priority methodology.
• High crash (accident) locations or problems with intersections – Crash information
involving bicyclists and pedestrians is analyzed in its own section and also
incorporated into the priorities methodology.
Figure 2: LOS of Berkshire County Roads (by miles of non-local roads)
400
363
350
277
300
250
200
138
150
100
50
23
4
1
E
F
0
A
B
C
7
D
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
P l a n
Table 2: Locations Where Bicycle Compatibility is Very Low (E) or Extremely Low (F)
(in order from least compatible)
Road
Junction Road
Community
Pittsfield
LOS
F
Lenox Pittsfield
Road
(Rt. 7/20)
Lenox
F and
E
Main Street
(Rt. 7/23/41)
Great Barrington
E
State Road
(Rt. 7/23)
Great Barrington
E
South St.
(Rt. 7/20)
Pittsfield
E
Stockbridge Rd.
(Rt. 7)
Great Barrington
E
Laurel St.
(Rt. 20)
Lee
E
Washington
Mountain Rd.
Dalton
E
First St
(Rt. 7)
Pittsfield
E
Mill St
Lenox
(Lenoxdale)
E
Grove St.
(Rt. 8)
Adams
E
Notes
Junction Rd traffic is lessening with the new Merrill
Rd open. Note: this area is under construction and
the rating is likely to change. CSN: 302100
This is south of Holmeswood Terrace and north of the
Lenox Bypass. Several sections of this road have
very low compatibility. Factors include the 2’
shoulders, high curbing and no sidewalk on a multi­
lane, high traffic (over 20,000 vehicles per day)
highway. CSN: 168400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900
This is the section of Main St. north of downtown
between Gas House Ln and the junction with State
Rd. There is parking in the shoulders, sidewalk on
only one side, and heavy traffic. CSN: 92200
This is the Brown Bridge area between Main St and
East St. There is a shoulder, but the vehicle travel
lanes are narrow with high traffic. There is an
assumption of parking in the shoulder (though not on
the bridge). CSN: 90510
This is the section between South Mountain Rd to the
Housatonic River bridge near Crofut St. There is
heavy traffic (over 20,000 vehicles/day) transitioning
from highway driving approaching downtown Pittsfield
from the south. CSN: 241700
This is the section between Chrissy Rd and the
Bridlewood Home Furnishings store about ½ mile to
the north. There are mostly no sidewalks and just a
one foot shoulder, with many vehicles turning into
parking lots. CSN: 88100
This is from the Lenox town line just south of Bramble
Ln by the north side of Laurel Lake to south of Golden
Hill Rd. There is an average of a 2’ shoulder on each
side of this highway with a posted speed limit of 45
MPH and faster operating speeds. CSN: 138400
The name may be confusing: it is the curving area
where Williams, Dalton Division, and Washington
Mountain come together by Burgner’s Farm Market.
This is a confusing intersection area. Washington
Mountain Rd is being redesigned. CSN: 62490
This is the section between Tyler St and Stoddard
Ave (where First and North streets meet). It is an
area of frequent traffic congestion with sidewalk on
one side. CSN: 281300
Mill St. is between Walker St. and Greylock St., from
near the intersection with Crystal St.. It is a Rural
Major Collector. The travel lanes are 9’ wide and
there is an average of a 2’ shoulder. CSN: 166000
This is where Rt. 8 enters Adams from the south
before Leonard St/Alger St.. The highway shoulders
average 2’ wide. Phase 2 of the Ashuwillticook Trail
may offer a safer alternative route. CSN: 26400
8
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
P l a n
Level of Service (LOS) for Bicycling
Methodology: "The Bicycle Compatibility Index" (FHWA, 1998)
A: Extremely High
B: Very High
C: Moderately High
D: Moderately Low
E: Very Low
F: Extremely Low
Other
BClv17 (7/12/02), MassHighway RIF 2000, BRPC Land Use 1997
Slope > 25 %
Town Boundary
This map was created by the Berkshire Regional Planning
Commission and is intended for general planning purposes
only. This map shall not be used for engineering, survey,
legal, or regulatory purposes.
MassGIS, Massachusetts
Highway Department, or BRPC may have supplied portions of
this data.
Funding provided by the Massachusetts Highway Department,
the Federal Highway Administration, and the Federal Transit
Administration.
/Berkshire/Projects/BikePed/BCI.mxd
July 16, 2002
®
2
1
0
2
4
6
Miles
Massachusetts State Plane Meters
North American Datum 1983
Note: Regulations prohibit bicycling
on the MassPike and Lenox Bypass
Bicycling Compatibility & Steep Slopes
Berkshire County, MA
9
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
[page intentionally left blank]
10
P l a n
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
11
P l a n
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
12
P l a n
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
P l a n
Crash Locations
An important category of data not included in the BCI measure is crashes. The current
way to refer to accidents is crashes, to reinforce that there are often identifiable and
potentially reducible reasons for injuries and deaths. The locations of crashes may
represent places where specific conditions, such as dangerous intersections or curves
with limited sight distances, may be present. They may also indicate broader problems
with the transportation system, such as drivers using local roads as short cuts or to
bypass congested areas. Bicycle and pedestrian planning will be most effective as a
part of multi-modal transportation and land use planning efforts.
The map that follows shows locations of reported crashes involving bicyclists or
pedestrians. It includes both crashes at intersections and those on sections of road, as
reported to the police between 1990 and 1999. As of February, 2002 it included just the
general section of road where a vehicle hit a bicyclist or pedestrian. It has been reported
that the State Police are working on a more specific way of tracking locations.
The table that follows provides further information regarding intersections with the
highest numbers of reported crashes involving bicyclists or pedestrians. This
information is also shown as a map. There are a variety of studies available that further
investigate the causes of crashes as the basis and recommend how to make
transportation safer. One source of such information is the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Table 3: Dangerous Intersections for Bicyclists and Pedestrians, 1990-1999
Community
Intersection
Pittsfield
Pittsfield
Pittsfield
Pittsfield
Pittsfield
Pittsfield
Pittsfield
Pittsfield
Pittsfield
Pittsfield
Pittsfield
Pittsfield
Pittsfield
Pittsfield
Pittsfield
Pittsfield
North Adams
North Adams
First St (Rt 7) and Fenn St
North St and Union St
North St and Linden St
North St and School St
Francis Av and Linden St
North St and Fenn St
Tyler St (Rt 9) and Parker St
North St and Orchard St
East St and Wendell Av
Cherry St and Burbank St
Madison Av and Seymour St
Elm St and Livingston Av
East St and Fourth St
Columbus Av and Dewey Av
Cherry St and Lincoln St
Center St and Government Dr
River St and Holden St
Veterans Memorial HW (Rt 2)
and Brown St
Ashland St (Rt 8A) and
Summer St
Park St (Rt 20) and High St
North Adams
Lee
Number of
Reported
Crashes
13
Rate of
Crashes*
7
6
6
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
.86
.75
.72
.63
3.04
.58
.62
.34
.59
4.57
2.42
1.71
.34
2.42
1.39
6.85
1.91
.49
3
.67
3
.45
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
Great Barrington Main St (Rt 7) and Railroad St
Adams
Park St/Columbia St (Rt 8) and
Maple St
Adams
Depot St and E Maple St
Adams
Commercial St (Rt 8) and Elm
St
Adams
Commercial St (Rt 8) and
Edmund St
P l a n
3
3
.32
.43
3
3
3.57
.45
3
.45
*Rate of accidents per million vehicles entering the intersection per year
Safety is important to everyone, but may have special importance to two large
subgroups of the population, senior citizens and children (and their parents). There is
more discussion relating to children’s safety in the next section, Land Use and Demand
for Facilities.
The issue of senior citizen safety is of growing importance as this population group is
expected to greatly expand over the next thirty years, and people stay active longer. An
issue in helping senior citizens remain independent in more developed areas is
assistance crossing busy roads. This can be done with comfortable sized pedestrian
refuge areas in the middle of crossings and making the green time longer where there
are pedestrian signals.7 Another related issue is that having more elderly drivers is
leading to recommendations nationally for clearer road markings, larger signs, and
longer distances for necessary reactions such as for stopping for pedestrians in
crosswalks.
14
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
15
P l a n
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
16
P l a n
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
P l a n
Land Use and Demand for Facilities
This plan identifies areas of significant current or potential demand for safe walking or
bicycling as transportation. Demand was defined by the following criteria:
• Densely developed residential or commercial land uses (see map: Overview of Land
Uses Adjacent to Roads)
• Roads within one mile of a school, college, or other major destination (the four
hospitals in the region and the Berkshire Mall), shown on map: Schools, College, and
Common Destinations
• Roads within one mile of a neighborhood park (defined as municipally owned
recreation land, fully open to the public, with additions based on BRPC staff review).
The idea was to capture the playgrounds and parks that might be common
destination for a casual outing, such as after dinner (see Appendix A-2)
• Area where there is a high density of households without a vehicle (see map:
Density of Households without a Vehicle)
• As discussed in the next section, topography was also incorporated.
Access to schools was included, although caveats apply: we all want children to be safe,
and decisions about whether it is appropriate for children to walk or ride bicycles to
school remains up to parents and schools. There are a variety of sources available
regarding improving safety for children walking to school.8
The policy of the Massachusetts Department of Education is to not reimburse schools for
transportation costs of busing students who live within 1.5 miles of a school9. In
addition, it is often an attraction to raise a family where children can walk and bicycle
safely. A related matter is that there is strong concern being expressed from the health
community about rapid increases in obese and out-of-shape children. Approximately
25% of people aged 6-17 are overweight.10 Walking and bicycling on safe streets are an
easy and inexpensive forms of exercise.
17
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
18
P l a n
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
19
P l a n
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
20
P l a n
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
P l a n
Table 4: Distance at Which Two Major School Districts Start Busing
Grade Level
Kindergarten
Elementary (grades 1-5)
Middle (grades 6-8)
High (grades 9-12)
Miles
Pittsfield
.5
1.5
1.5
2
North Adams*
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
*In North Adams, busing is provided if conditions are dangerous, such as along Rt. 2
This information was gathered in 2002 and is subject to change.
Taken all together, the various demand factors form a rough measure of places where
there is current or potential demand for walking or bicycling. The roads where all of
these conditions are true are located in Pittsfield, North Adams (with a few roads
crossing the line into Clarksburg), and Great Barrington. There are areas where most of
these conditions are true in many more Berkshire communities. Among road segments
included in the high priority list (see page 38), the ones where all the factors are true are
shown below.
Table 5: Locations of Highest Demand Among High Priority Roads
Sections of Street
Community
First St (Rt 7)
Tyler St (Rt 9)
South St. (Rt 7/20)
Columbia St (Rt 8)
Dawes Ave
Pittsfield
Pittsfield
Pittsfield
Adams
Pittsfield
Topography
The Berkshire region is known for rolling (and sometimes steep) hills. The map on the
next page shows the topography of the region. The gray contour lines show changes in
elevation. They are recorded by the US Geological Service for every ten meters (32.81
feet) of change. Areas with many closely spaced lines are steep slopes. Also included
on this map are the highway system and town boundaries.
One thing this map shows is that our main (and usually older) roads were built in flatter
areas. Much of the Berkshire road network developed when horses and walking were
major modes of transportation. Development of roads and communities occurred
together, and especially at major crossroads. This map illustrates how geography,
transportation, and land uses interrelate.
One way this data was used was by showing them on the combined BCI and Steep
Slopes map earlier in this report. That map displays the steepest areas in the region. It
also seemed useful to recognize that given two otherwise similar routes, average
bicyclists are often likely to prefer the flatter one. In real life, routes are rarely equal and
people make decisions based on a variety of factors. In this report slope is considered
part of demand—that is to say an aspect that influences whether people are likely to
want to use a facility. See Appendix A-2 for the technical methodology.
21
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
P l a n
This map was created by the Berkshire Regional Planning
Commission and is intended for general planning purposes
only. This map shall not be used for engineering, survey,
legal, or regulatory purposes.
MassGIS, Massachusetts
Highway Department, or BRPC may have supplied portions of
this data.
Funding provided by the Massachusetts Highway Department,
the Federal Highway Administration, and the Federal Transit
Administration.
/Berkshire/Projects/BikePed/topography.mxd
July 15, 2002
Contour - 10 meter (32.81 feet) interval
Major Road
Town Boundary
Topography
®
Berkshire County, MA
22
2
1
0
2
4
Miles
Massachusetts State Plane Meters
North American Datum 1983
6
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
P l a n
Environmental and Recreation Factors
While BRPC coordinates with recreational organizations, this plan focuses on bicycling
and walking for transportation purposes
The Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), the
Massachusetts Highway Department (MassHighway), the Executive Office of
Transportation and Construction (EOTC), and the Berkshire Bike Path Council (BBPC)
have been highly visible organizations working on developing shared-use paths in the
last few years. An example of such an off-road path is the Ashuwillticook Rail Trail, a
multi-purpose path in central and northern Berkshire County. This Trail is managed by
DEM on right-of-way owned by EOTC. The BBPC seeks to have an off-road path from
Vermont to Connecticut. See Contacts for Further Information at the end of this plan.
A Berkshire Bike Touring map was prepared by DCR (then the Department of
Environmental Management) in cooperation with MassHighway and FHWA, during the
summer of 2001. It is currently out of print but may be viewed at DCR (see Contact List)
or BRPC. It illustrates the hilliness of different routes. This map builds upon work done
in the 1995 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Bicycle Facilities Inventory by the Bicycle
Coalition of Massachusetts, funded by MassHighway and USDOT.
Additional recreational trails that are funded in the region are listed below. Please
contact the lead organizations if further information is desired.
Table 6: Funded Multi-Use Paths
Project and Location
River Walk Phase 2 (Great
Barrington)
Crane Trail (Dalton and
Hinsdale)
Extension of
Ashuwillticook Trail north
through Adams and North
Adams to Williamstown
(preliminary design)
Lead Organization
Great Barrington Land
Conservancy
Housatonic Valley
Association
City of North Adams with
an advisory committee
including Adams,
Williamstown, and the
BBPC
Extension of
Ashuwillticook Trail
between North Adams and
Williamstown adjacent to
Rt 2 (construction)
BRPC with the
communities, BBPC, and
MassHighway will work on
the scope. MassHighway
would probably oversee
the construction.
City of Pittsfield with the
BBPC and technical
support from BRPC
First section of a Pittsfield
Bike Path that will connect
to the Ashuwillticook Trail
(Williams Street to outer
East Street)
23
Description
Searles Middle School to
fairground.
Along Housatonic River
behind Crane Paper
As of December, 2003 it
seemed very likely that a
DCR Recreational Trails
grant of $70,000 would
bring the proposal to 25%
designs
As of December, 2003 it
appears that there will be
federal earmark funding
for this project as part of
the Mohawk Trail Scenic
Byway
As of December, 2003 the
City intends to use
Community Development
Program funds to bring
this section to 25% design
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
P l a n
The BCI results may have an additional use for recreation groups and communities. The
results showing where the level of service is Extremely or Very Compatible (LOS A or B)
might be used in considering recreational bicycling routes. In some cases there seem to
be the start of safe, scenic loops that perhaps could be completed with minor
improvements on the less compatible sections and then noted as a community resource
if locally desired.
Pedestrian Compatibility
While many improvements that make it safer and more convenient to ride a bicycle will
also improve conditions for walking, there are aspects of the transportation system that
matter more for pedestrians. Walking is done by a broader range of people than
bicycling, including drivers on their way to and from parked motor vehicles, young and
elderly people, and people with disabilities. A smooth surface, safe crosswalks, and
amenities such as shade seem more important for walking.
Walking conditions are part of whether people choose to use Berkshire Regional Transit
Authority (BRTA) buses. For example, one might choose not to take the bus to a
location on a busy highway if it entailed a dangerous crossing and then a long walk
across a parking lot. Improving all of the aspects that relate to making public transit
feasible and pleasant are sometimes referred to as Transit Oriented Design (TOD).
Some of the common elements of this approach are encouraging clusters of
development rather than sprawl, mixing of uses, and designing employment sites to be
convenient from bus shelters and sidewalks.11
The Massachusetts Pedestrian Plan (1998) also contains sample guidelines and check
lists to aid planners, engineers and citizens in the design and development of pedestrian
facilities and to encourage walking. Appendix A of the Massachusetts Pedestrian Plan
includes: Land Use and Development Check Lists; Pedestrian Walkway System
Assessment; Pedestrian Design Guidelines; Environmental and Site Plan Review Check
List; Design and Engineering Check List; and, Performance Measures for Assessing
Progress Towards Pedestrian Plan Goals and Objectives.
The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (PBIC) is a valuable source for
information on both modes, and they have free materials specific to each. This Center is
sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration, CDC, Institute of Transportation
Engineers, and other organizations. The next two pages are a checklist of theirs, also
downloadable from www.pedbikeinfo.org.
The PBIC recommends taking the attached “Walkability Checklist” and perhaps a child
out for a walk. The instructions are:
1. Look over the checklist in advance
2. Choose a route to a friend’s house or somewhere fun or useful to go
3. Take notes as you walk
4. At the end, give each question a rating
5. Review the page after the checklist, “How to Improve Your Community’s Score”
for additional ideas
6. Follow up
24
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
25
P l a n
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
26
P l a n
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
P l a n
High Priority Areas for Improvements
In a world without financial constraints, a community might review and then use the BCI
results to prepare a list of projects. Realistically, however, this may not be feasible. The
demand factors were developed to bring in additional issues that help determine which
projects may have the greatest effect on making walking or bicycling a reasonable
alternative for people who need or want to use these modes.
High priority road segments based on available data were determined through the
following steps:
1. Use the BCI methodology and reported crashes to assess the supply of places to
walk or bicycle
2. Evaluate demand based on land use, car ownership, and access to community
facilities
3. Determine road segments that are both high in problems with the supply and in
potential demand for use.
It is important to bear in mind that the resulting priorities reflect technical analysis of
large databases and are supplied to assist communities as they make their own
decisions. Some of the questions that should be addressed as communities use this
analysis are:
• Do these priorities make sense?
• Are there additional priorities or issues that should be considered?
• How do these segments fit in the bicycling or walking network (at a local
or regional scale)?
• How much can the community spend?
• What measures does the community wish to take to improve safety and
convenience of walking and bicycling?
In total, twenty-seven segments of regionally significant roads were both in high demand
areas and were not compatible for bicycling or walking. They are presented in the next
few pages in the following manner:
1. The table on the next page briefly describes the very highest priority segments
giving some indication as to what brings them to the top of the list
2. The pages after that offer more detail on these highest priority locations with a
photo and paragraph describing each one.
3. An overall map of the priority areas follows, with more detailed maps on the
pages after it (one for each northern, central, and southern Berkshire County)
4. The final table lists all twenty-seven segments with technical reference data.
In the context of The Regional Plan for the Berkshires, inclusion in this list may simply
imply that the community is a positive example of concentrating its housing, community
services, and recreational opportunities. Communities on this list include Adams,
Cheshire, Dalton, Great Barrington, Lee, North Adams, Pittsfield, Sheffield, Stockbridge
and Williamstown.
27
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
P l a n
Table 7: Explanation of Highest Priority Areas for Investment
Road
First St. (Rt.
7)
Community
Pittsfield
Priority*
11.46
Tyler St. (Rt.
9)
Pittsfield
11.41 &
10.75
North St. (Rt.
7)
Pittsfield
10.22
Main St.
(Rt. 7)
Great
Barrington
10.16
Columbia St.
(Rt. 8)
Adams
10.12
Glendale/
Front St. (Rt.
183)
Stockbridge
9.89
Commercial
St. (Rt. 8)
Adams
9.77
South St. (Rt.
7)
Pittsfield
9.66
State Rd. (Rt.
2)
North Adams
9.52
Notes
This is the section of between Tyler St and
Stoddard (where First and North streets meet). All
the priority factors are at the maximum and the
LOS is E.
These are the sections between North St (crossing
First St) and Burbank St. All the priority factors are
at the maximum and the LOS is D.
This is the section between Tyler St and just south
of Charles St, passing in front of BMC. All the
priority factors are at the maximum. The LOS is D,
near the limit where the LOS is E.**
This the section of Main St between Gas House Ln
and Cottage St. While the BCI is not quite as high
as the adjacent section of Main St north of it, the
potential demand is higher.
This is the section of Rt 8 between Harding Ave
and Cook St, going by the Adams Middle School.
While there is a sidewalk on one side, there is also
high volumes of traffic and many demand factors.
This is a section of Rt. 183 that crosses the
Stockbridge/Great Barrington line in Housatonic.
This dense residential area is near a park and a
school and has a high density of people without
cars.
This is the section of Rt 8 between Leonard St and
Prospect St. This dense residential area has a
LOS of D near the limit for LOS E and a high
density of people without cars.
This section is between the Housatonic River and
Crofut St. Part of what may raise the priority of this
section is the narrow sidewalks over the bridge,
although this is also an area with a high
concentration of households without a car, and is
near a park and a school.
This is the section of Rt 2 between the Hoosic
River and Phelps Ave. The shoulders are 2’ wide
for part of it leading to the Appalachian Trail foot
bridge.***
*Multiple numbers means that road has more than one segment among the highest priorities.
**Bicycles are specifically prohibited on North Street sidewalks between the intersection of Tyler Street on
the north and East and West streets on the south per Pittsfield Ordinance Article XI Section 13-130 (1).
***Field work indicates that the section of Rt 2 between Holden St and Eagle St is a higher priority than by
Phelps St, but there is a problem with serial number coding that has prevented this from coming through in
the analysis to date.
28
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
P l a n
Notes from Field Work Evaluation of Highest Priority Sections
Pittsfield (CSN 281300) First Street
Stoddard Ave ↔ Tyler Street
This section of Rt. 7 is the highest priority in the
county because it is near a hospital, school, park
and other destinations as well having very low
bicycle compatibility. It has a high volume of
traffic, and there is a high percentage of
households that do not have a car in the area.
There is only a sidewalk on
the east side of the road,
Photo 1: First Street,
and a small shoulder
looking south
(approximately 2 feet) on
both sides. It has a LOS of E.
Pittsfield (CSN 276500) Tyler Street
Rt. 7 ↔ Grove Street
This section of Tyler Street is often
busy with car traffic, and is near a
hospital, school, park and other
important destinations. The most
difficult part seems to be at and near
the gas station at the corner. There is
no shoulder and there
are many driveways
Photo 2: Gas
crossing
the sidewalk.
station front,
Rt. 9
Pittsfield (CSN 276499) Tyler Street
First Street ↔ North Street
This very short section of 2-lane road
(approximately 35 yards from corner to corner), is a
high priority because it is in an area near a hospital,
park, school and other destinations. It has high
volumes of traffic, and is
often congested, making it
Photo 3: Sidewalk,
more difficult for bikers and
looking to North Street
pedestrians to cross the
street safely.
29
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
P l a n
Pittsfield (CSN 242450) North Street
Tyler Street ↔ House # 769 (near Berkshire Medical Center)
On this 2-lane section, the posted speed
is 30 mph. There is 90 and 15 minute
parking on the shoulder on the east side
of the street. On the opposite side of the
street there is a small shoulder of under 2
feet. It is unclear whether bicycling is
permitted on sidewalks here. It is a
dangerous area for bicyclists to ride in
the shoulder.
Photo 4: North
Street, looking north
Great Barrington (CSN 92300) Rt. 7
Gas House Ln ↔ Cottage Street
This section of Rt. 7, although not as
incompatible as the section adjacent
to it to the north, has a higher
demand as it is close to various
destinations. There are many
driveways crossing the sidewalk,
which may pose a threat to bicyclists
and pedestrians. There is no
sidewalk on the east side of the
street along the park. Although there
are a few “No Parking” signs posted,
people were parking in the wide
shoulder.
Photo 5: Rt. 7 south, wide shoulder on right
Adams (CSN 5400) Rt. 8
Harding Street ↔ Cook Street
This section is a high priority because it
is adjacent to the Adams Middle School
and near many parks, as well as areas of
dense residential development. It has
high traffic volumes, and although the
speed limit is 25 mph, motorists seem to
drive much faster. There is a sidewalk on
one side of the street only, and a bus
stop on the side without the sidewalk.
Photo 6: Bus stop on side of road with no sidewalk and 3-foot wide shoulder
30
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
31
P l a n
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
32
P l a n
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
33
P l a n
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
34
P l a n
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
35
P l a n
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
P l a n
Next Steps for Communities
A first step in following through on the priorities and issues raised in this plan is starting a
move toward consensus within each community with regard to desired bicycling and
walking facilities. The most effective way to proceed may be to work with the planning
board and select board/mayor or other appropriate local boards. Some communities
already have set up committees on bicycling and walking issues that regularly interact
with these boards, and that is a step that grants legitimacy and involves the people who
are ultimately responsible for public decisions. In some communities the conservation
commission is involved in preparing the open space and recreation plan and may be
interested. In smaller communities, an effective way to proceed may be to participate in
an update of a master plan or open space plan. See Appendix F for a list of
communities with active bicycling and walking committees and status of different
community plans. Coordination with adopted local and regional plans is required for
some funding sources and helpful for others. The BRPC serves as one forum for
discussion of these issues on a regional level and encourages coordination across town
lines.
A planning approach that a community may wish to take is to determine a basic network
connecting common destinations and focus on improvements between them. Multiple
communities or the region overall may wish to do this as well. It was heard while
preparing this report that it is difficult, but desirable, to be able to bicycle safely between
the centers of Lenox and Pittsfield, Great Barrington and Stockbridge, and Adams and
North Adams.12
A natural question may be “What is the view of MassHighway and the Commonwealth
regarding bicycling and walking accommodations?” MassHighway has clearly stated
supportive goals for increasing the use of walking and bicycling for transportation in its
Massachusetts Pedestrian Transportation Plan and the Statewide Bicycle Transportation
Plan. It has followed through with engineering directives mandating reasonable
provisions in project designs. MassHighway has also developed and distributed Building
Better Bicycling: A Manual for Improving Community Bicycling Conditions to all
municipalities. The vision statements and regulations are included in Appendix E.
There is a wide variety of ways to make a road more safe and pleasant for bicycling and
walking. A sampling are listed in the table that follows, and many others are detailed in
Appendix C.
Table 7: A Sample of Techniques
Low Cost/Low Impact
Evaluate high crash locations and take steps such as trimming brush to improve sight
distances or enforcing speed limits
Post “Share the Road” signs in appropriate selected locations
Policy approaches can make a difference in the long run, such as adopting/revising site
review checklists, subdivision guidelines, zoning, and master plans
36
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
P l a n
Moderate Cost
Repave road shoulders and sidewalks that have fallen into disrepair and institute a
regular maintenance program, possibly including repainting stripes at the edge of a road
or snow removal in key locations
If there is a safe pleasant side route around a dangerous section of highway, discuss
with residents and likely users whether to sign a bike route to go that way
Develop, sign, and publicize a bike route between several common destinations with
input by likely users and residents/business owners
High Cost/High Impact
Evaluate widening shoulders or building new sidewalk, especially if a short section would
connect existing parts of a network
Evaluate building an off-road bike path connecting common destinations so it helps
provide transportation as well as recreation opportunities
Evaluate safety improvements and traffic calming measures at high use/high crash
locations, such as crosswalks with reflectors or different paving, raised crosswalk or
speed tables, or pedestrian refuges at major crossings of multi-lane roads.
Information is provided on costs of different types of improvements in Appendix C.
While every project is different and costs need to be evaluated by engineers or public
works staff before a specific amount is budgeted, it can be helpful to have a general
sense of what an approach might cost. The table that follows includes a brief sample of
these costs.
Table 8: A Sample of Costs
Category
Item
Unit
Cost ($)
Notes
General
Striping-4" wide
Linear Foot
1.80
$9,500 per mile
General
Signs
Each
200
varies with size
Road Shoulder Construction-Rural
Mile
102,000
5' per side
Road Shoulder Resurfacing
Mile
25,000
Walk/Don't Walk Signal
System
4 Corners
3,700 ­
250,000
Safety
Speed Tables
Unit plus
signage
1,500 –
2,000
These are a safer version of
speed bumps, roughly 4-6 feet
in travel distance
Safety
Crosswalk Pavement
Treatments
Crosswalk
5,000 20,000
Different paving texture and
color to permanently demarcate
crosswalks
Sidewalk
Construction-Asphalt
Square Foot
1.50
4 feet wide, no curb
Safety
Trail
Maintenance is an important
additional cost with off-road
200-300,000 paths.
Construction-Asphalt paving Mile
37
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
P l a n
BRPC will provide further detail on any of the material in this plan, technical support, or
references to appropriate agencies and organizations upon request by official town or
city boards. Also, several communities are doing projects on their own or as part of the
Community Development Program and may have experience they would share. This
plan will be appended with additional information as requested and updated periodically.
Progress Report on BRPC Activities
This plan was prepared in draft form in 2002 up to and through the point of distribution to
organizations and people who had expressed interest, and integration of their
comments. A summary was distributed to the over nine hundred members of the
Berkshire Transportation Forum and discussed at the July 25, 2002 meeting. At that
point, full copies of the draft plan and appendices were offered to anyone who was
interested in reviewing them.
Many minor comments were incorporated into the current plan from the review process.
Comments from the Berkshire Cycling Association were incorporated in several places,
but they also submitted that they believe Division Road (Dalton) and Holmes Road
(Pittsfield) are great places for wider shoulders. They also believe that chip sealing is
inappropriate for anything but the most remote, dead-end roads.
A major request from several sources was to do more planning for and include more
information about the creation of a north-south bicycle path extending from the ends of
the Ashuwillticook Trail. BRPC was already a technical advisory member of the
Berkshire Bike Path Council Board. In coordination with them and several other
bicycling and environmental organizations, the letter and map on the pages that follow
was mailed out to hundreds of elected and appointed officials and others. The main
response from the process and the mailing is that there is a lot of interest in multi-use
paths, but people are concerned about where they are located and how to find funding
for them.
BRPC has remained in active coordination with the BBPC and interested communities,
especially in terms of technical support for the implementation of a path from the current
end of the Ashuwillticook Trail through Adams to North Adams and on to Williamstown.
BRPC is also working with the communities of Lenox and Lee on their goal of a multi­
use path.
Since 2000, BRPC has been involved in a major undertaking involving 24 Berkshire
communities. Through the Community Development Program (CDP), the
Commonwealth provided $30,000 per community to do transportation, economic
development, open space/resource protection, and housing planning. Nine communities
choose to work on bicycling and walking planning with their transportation funds. These
communities are Becket, Clarksburg, Lee, Monterey, Otis, Pittsfield, Tyringham, West
Stockbridge, and Williamstown. As of December, 2003 a few of these projects are
complete with the rest underway. Further information is available through BRPC or the
specific communities.
38
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
39
P l a n
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
40
P l a n
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
P l a n
Bicycling, walking, and other non-motorized means of travel were extensively discussed
as part of the 2003 update of the Regional Transportation Plan. It includes the objective
of supporting use of walking and bicycling in appropriate locations. The Regional
Transportation Plan, as adopted by the Berkshire Metropolitan Planning Organization on
September 10 2003, includes the following policy recommendation:
Fix/improve existing on-road facilities (shoulders and sidewalks) and build
generally agreed-upon off-road facilities (multi-use paths). Maximize the limited
use of bicycling and walking for transportation, but should be expected to have
environmental impacts on undeveloped land. These recommendations
implement the Berkshire Bicycling and walking Transportation Plan and the
community development plans of various communities. (page 14)
The Regional Transportation Plan is designed to have as much effect of implementing
the agreed upon goals as possible. One approach that was used was the inclusion of an
action table for each recommendation. Some recommendations were specific projects
that could be given a preliminary schedule. Other items were laid out as
recommendations to work on every year. These items will be included each year in the
Unified Planning Work Program that covers federally funded transportation planning
tasks undertaken by BRPC in coordination with Berkshire Regional Transit Authority,
MassHighway, and the Executive Office of Transportation and Construction.
A detailed task list was prepared for the bicycling and walking recommendation. If was
condensed somewhat for publication in the Regional Transportation Plan with the
understanding that the more detailed version (below) would be published in the final
Bicycling and Walking Transportation Plan.
On the following page are the specific tasks recommended for action based on the
discussions and analysis that went into the update of the Regional Transportation Plan
41
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
P l a n
Action List
Bicycling, Walking, and Other Modes (Non-auto/Non-transit)
While bicycling, walking and other modes such as rollerblading and use of small mopeds or
scooters are used only for a small percent of trips in the Berkshires, there is strong interest in
making these trips safer and more pleasant. The focus of the tasks is transportation, although
they also serve recreation.
1. Support the extension of the Ashuwillticook Trail towards Vermont and
Connecticut in coordination with communities, organizations, and
offices/departments starting with the sections between Adams and North
Adams, between North Adams and Williamstown in coordination with the
Mohawk Trail Scenic Byway, between Lanesborough and downtown
Pittsfield, and along the Housatonic River in Lee and Lenox.
2. Technical support for communities implementing bicycling and walking
Community Development Plan (CDP) tasks
3. Improvements for safety and convenience in walking or bicycling on high
priority sections of road, such as Glendale/Front Street (Route. 183) in
Housatonic, Berkshire School Road in Sheffield, and other priorities from
the Berkshire Bicycling and Walking Transportation Plan. Additional
priorities areas are: Route 7/20 in South Pittsfield and Lenox, East Street
by PHS, Merrill Rd (new section & previous widenings), Middle Road
(Clarksburg); Route 8/9 between Coltsville and Berkshire Crossing/WalMart (possibly along Hubbard Avenue with a pedestrian/bike bridge
behind TJ Maxx to Barnes & Noble area, but also bike safety
improvements by the turn for Wal-Mart from east-bound Route 8/9).
4. Technical support for communities doing other bicycling and walking
tasks; coordination with related organizations; reviews of new
roads/reconstructions and development proposals regarding
bicycling/walking accommodations; support for policy approaches that
make bicycling and walking more viable in the long term (zoning, bylaws,
enforcement), addressing frequently raised issues such as need for snow
clearing and other issues as requested by communities.
5. Continue to refine and, as needed, update the Berkshire Bicycling and
Walking Transportation Plan
6. Network of multi-use shoulders starting with connecting locations in
Pittsfield such as city parks. In Pittsfield, connected walking paths have
been proposed.
42
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
P l a n
Contacts for Additional Information
Berkshire Bike Path Council
Marjorie Cohan, President
55 South Mountain Rd.
Pittsfield, MA 01201
(413) 442-5223
Info@BerkshireBikePath.org
www.BerkshireBikePath.org
Berkshire Cycling Association
Thomas Lewis, Policy Committee Chair
Berkshire Cycling Association
1122 West Street
Pittsfield, MA 01201
(413) 442-7199
Zoltan@excite.com
Berkshire Regional Transit Authority
Chuck MacNeil, Administrator
67 Downing Parkway
Pittsfield, MA 01201
ChuckM@taconic.net
(800) 292-BRTA
MassBike/Massachusetts Bicycle Coalition
Tim Baldwin, Executive Director
20 Park Plaza, Suite 1028
Boston, MA 02116
(617) 542-BIKE
bikexec@massbike.org
www.massbike.org
Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation-Region V
Bob Mellace, Director
PO Box 1433
Pittsfield, MA 01202
(413) 442-8928
Robert.Mellace@state.ma.us
Massachusetts Highway Department-District 1
Rich Masse, Planning Liaison
270 Main St.
Lenox, MA 01240
(413) 637-1750
Richard.Masse@state.ma.us
Massachusetts Highway Department-Boston
Josh Lehman, Bike/Ped Coordinator
10 Park Plaza, Room 4150
Boston, MA 02116
(617) 973-7329
Josh.Lehman@mhd.state.ma.us
43
B i c y c l i n g
&
W a l k i n g
P l a n
End Notes
1
Stacey Hartmann, “Obesity is rapidly growing into America’s largest preventable health issue,” Nashville
Tennessean, 1 January 2002.
2
“Lower Direct Medical Costs Associated with Physical Activity,” National Center for Chronic Disease
Prevention and Health Promotion (CDC) Press Release, 2002, 1.
(www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/press/archive/lower_cost.htm).
3
Table DP-4: Profile of Selected Household Characteristics (Washington DC: Bureau of the Census, 2002)
4
Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center Fact Sheet “Walking by the Numbers
5
“Transportation Air Quality” Publication Number FHWA-PD-96-006 (FHWA, Washington DC, 1996), P.
13.
6
“The Bicycle Compatibility Index: A Level of Service Concept, Implementation Manual” (FHWA,
Washington DC, 1998)
7
“Insight: Living Longer, Walking Stronger” from www.walkinginfo.org, the web site of the federal
Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. For additional design issues see the USDOT Older Driver
Highway Design Handbook (Publication No. FHWA-RD-97-135).
8
Communities interested in encouraging children near schools to walk may wish to coordinate further with
programs such as KidsWalk-to-School (www.cdc.gov) or consult resources such as the National Strategies
for Advancing Child Pedestrian Safety (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2001). Also consult
“Safe Routes to School”, WalkBoston, 156 Milk Street, Boston, MA 02109, (617)451-1570, and “Getting
Around Without Gasoline”, Northeast Sustainable Energy Association (NESEA), 50 Miles Street,
Greenfield, MA 01301, (413)774-6051.
9
Barbara Dowling, North Adams Superintendent of Schools Office. Phone call, 6/3/02.
10
“What are Active Community Environments” CDC web site
11
For example, see A Toolbox for Alleviating Traffic Congestion and Enhancing Mobility (Washington
DC: Institute of Traffic Engineers, 1997)
12
Allison Lassoe, DEM-Region V. Comments on Draft, 3/13/02
44