Skip to main content

Church Street Complete Street Project

The City of Lancaster is working to make Church Street a safer, more pedestrian-friendly corridor.

Data shows that things like slower speed limits, fewer lanes of motor vehicle traffic, more visible crosswalks, lighting, landscaping, better sidewalks, and bicycle infrastructure can all help reduce crashes and injuries.

The input and ideas you provide will help make the Church Street corridor a place where people of all ages and abilities can safely walk, ride, drive, bike, and get together.

Questions? Want to talk to someone about your ideas? Contact Cindy McCormick, Deputy Director, Right-of-Way at: (717) 291-4729.

Phases

Phases overview

Preliminary Planning & Community Feedback

Concept Plan Development

Public Review of the Concept Plan

Public Review of Final Concept

FINAL CONCEPT

Engineering & Final Design

Construction

Public Review of Final Concept

February 1, 2024 - March 31, 2024

View the final concept design below, and let us know what you think.

Submit a Comment

This plan will narrow Church Street from three to two vehicular travel lanes, while maintaining parking on both sides of the street. A shared use path for pedestrians and bicyclists will run along the north/west side of the street, separated from vehicular traffic by parking and a tree lawn. Two new crosswalks are being added at South Christian Street and between Duke and Lime/Vine. Crosswalk alignments are being shifted at Duke and Church Streets. Significant pedestrian and bicycle improvements are being made at the intersections of Queen/Church/Conestoga and Church/Vine/Lime.

Please note this timeline is subject to change.

View Plan Here

Church Street_Shared Use Path_Tree Lawn.pdf

(4.0 MB)

23 issues

James Mummert2 years ago The pedestrian/bike path I consider unsafe for both the pedestrians and bikers. The bikers I spoke with are not supportive of bikers and pedestrians sharing the same path stating the same reasons I previously mentioned. Also, for me as a former chairperson of Lancaster HARB, a macadam path would be completely out of character for an historic district such as you have along this portion of Church Street. It also would be detrimental for the streetscape/homes in this area. I question the impact it would have on property values. For me, I foresee a traffic jam at the intersection of South Lime Street occurring with this plan; especially during rush hours.Finally, has any review been given as to how this plan will affect the 2nd block of South Duke St. . Right now it is a mess from speeding, switching lanes, traffic backing up etc. basically caused by the intersection at Church St. and South Duke St. I don't see this plan addressing that situation in any way.

Louis Heck2 years ago This project has some good ideas but removing the brick sidewalks for a paved mixed use path that has no exits for 2 blocks is not realistic. Not safe to have bikes and pedestrians on the same path. Old Town likes looking like a old part of the city like it is. The side walks are part of its identity. Plus winter maintenance on these projected side walks is an issue. Please redraft the plans with actual incite from people who live here. Thanks.

Sam Kambesis2 years ago This is a terrible idea, for such a short stretch of a street 3 blocks? With the amount of traffic Church street accumulates on a daily basis, let’s close it down to put in a bike path? Very questionable use of our tax dollars, especially since the SIDEWALK you want to tear up has been well kept and preserved for generations. Shame on the city council. Resident of the South Duke/Church street intersection

Dave Stauffer2 years ago Thank You for your efforts to improve safety and cycling infrastructure. Please do not combine Bikes with Pedestrians for a recreational use path. As President of Lancaster Bicycle Club, we have seen that our cyclists will not use dedicated bike lanes or shared use bike lanes as a substitute for riding in regular traffic. The safest riding is to use the traffic lane. Please add Sharrows and signage about sharing the lanes with bikes to the Church Street plans. Promoting bikes in the traffic lanes will help to slow the traffic. When you designate a separated lane of a mixed use trail the cars assume that is where we belong so they can go faster. It decreases the safety for all. Thank You

Mike Frey2 years ago

Monica Whalen2 years ago

Emily Wilson2 years ago No cyclist is going to enter a bike lane for 2 blocks and then exit it, all while having to navigate crossing streets and moving around pedestrians ("ON YOUR LEFT!"). Please build a wide, welcoming, shaded sidewalk for walking. Build traditional (NO PROTECTED) bike lanes if there's room, otherwise, add sharrows and ample signage. Yes to trees and flowers and benches and art - that's all great stuff and the Towers area deserves lots of love after decades of neglect and red lining.

Jeanette Arnold2 years ago I live in the city and bike through various sections of the city frequently. Some of the bike paths the city has gotten right like the ones on Mulberrry Street and Hershey Avenue. The bike lanes like the ones on Walnut and Lemon Streets are horrible. I avoid using them. Here is what makes them unsafe, leaves and debris in the bike lane, to narrow and there is no where to get out of the way if someone steps off the curb without looking or opens their car door. Those lanes are also dangerous when crossing intersections since a car cannot see you when you come out from behind the parked cars. These lanes give the illusion of safety but are much more hazardous than riding with traffic. The streets that have the painted bike lines have improved the behavior of drivers over the past several years. Add more of these as it reminds drivers that the streets are shared by other means of transportation. I agree that something needs to be done in the Church street area perhaps additional traffic calming would be more beneficial and be able to reach the desired result of increased safety to bikes and pedestrians.I

Stephen Page Bareuther2 years ago I live in Old Town, a neighborhood that is being affected by the project. As concerned local homeowners we have suggested that there be some semblance of keeping the brick sidewalks to keep the historic character of the area. We all work hard to keep our properties in good shape and many times we are governed as to what we can due by the Historic Commision. I am sure they would vote to keep the historic feeling brick sidewalks. Not even sure why that is a debate/issue. Let's keep the historic feel of the area intact. Thanks.

Joyce Countess2 years ago It’s disheartening that a year after this plan was first introduced to the public on March 23rd, 2023 the plan presented in the January 31st meeting is substantially unchanged despite objections raised at that time as well as a detailed letter submitted by a resident of Old Town summarizing our objections and suggesting changes to the design. The City never replied to that letter and obviously never incorporated any of the suggestions into the “Final” design. It makes us question why do you ask for feedback if you don’t intend to incorporate them or communicate to the resident why you won’t?At this point we STRONGLY object to the plan presented on the 31st. We believe that that the proposed mixed use bike path is unsafe for both bikes and pedestrians, we are concerned about maintenance of the bike path and the proposed 7’–14’ green buffer zone that was added to the latest plans and we are adamantly opposed to removing the brick sidewalks in our historic neighborhood and replacing them with a 12’ wide asphalt path. It’s a slap in the face to all of our residents who work hard to preserve the historic streetscape in our area of the city and comply with the HARB restrictions, which often come at a significantly greater cost.We respectfully ask that the plans be revised to retain the existing brick sidewalks on the north side of Church Street and convert the lane of traffic that you are eliminating into a dedicated bike only lane. This would eliminate our safety and maintenance concerns as the bike lane would be maintained by the current street sweeping and snow plowing schedules.

Jim Zink2 years ago

David Labeda2 years ago My wife and I are former residents of Old Town (137 South Duke Street) and we are dismayed, but not at all surprised, by Lancaster City’s total lack of consideration regarding the concerns voiced by the current residents impacted by the changes that you are proposing for Church Street in the SE Street Project. I have personally commented at least twice before on the Engage website regarding the negative aspects of the proposed ‘improvements’ and I am aware that other residents provided similar comments. It appears to me that your outreach on for public comment is largely a farce since it appears that you have already decided to proceed with your present design regardless of negative public opinion. This follows other recent actions by the City administration, such as eliminating the mounted police and the New Year’s rose drop, that removes things that have made Lancaster a charming place to visit and to reside. Old Town is one of the architectural and historical highlights of the city and it’s brick sidewalks are a major contributor to the character of the neighborhood. During our 4 years in Old Town, we would frequently talk with tourists walking through our neighborhood to enjoy the ambiance. The brick sidewalks were designed and installed during the renewal of Old Town in the late 1970’s so I wondered if the plan to remove them has been approved by the HARB? Residents in Old Town must get approval from HARB for most of the outside maintenance on their properties (at their own expense), including street trees. Our former property on South Duke Street also had a back sidewalk along Church Street and the only garage in Old Town entering onto Church Street. It was always difficult to back out of our driveway onto Church Street because of the parked cars, but the proposed “improvement” will make this even more difficult for the current owners. We always dealt with snow and leaf removal on our Church Street sidewalks, as did the other Old Town property owners. Who will be responsible for this on the even wider mixed use pathway that you propose?Noise continues to be the biggest ever increasing issue in this neighborhood, both on South Duke Street and on Church Street, something that the proposed changes will not reduce and will likely make far worse. We dealt with loud and often vulgar music from vehicles on South Duke Street and Church Street at all hours of the day and night as well as from purposely loud exhaust noise on motorcycles and cars during the 4 years that we lived on South Duke. Although there are ordinances on the books in Lancaster City regarding noise levels, complaints by our neighbors or us were always dismissed with the excuse that there was no way to enforce them. Frankly this was the major deciding factor for us to sell our home and move to East Hempfield because we really liked Old Town and being within walking distance to all of center city. The lane reductions that you are proposing will certainly slow traffic as you hope, but this will result in even longer exposure of the neighborhood residents to roaring exhaust noise and blaring music while vehicles are stopped in traffic for multiple light changes. We observed that the noise level became increasingly worse each year that we lived in Old Town and this had an extremely detrimental effect on the quality of life in our neighborhood.We are aware that a letter summarizing the objections to the project as it is currently planned from 39 current residents of Old Town was sent to the appropriate Lancaster City officials. Having seen the “boiler-plate” letter of response from the Director of Public Works, we suspect that once again the City will disregard the valid concerns and suggestions from its taxpaying citizens, which is a big reason why we no longer reside in the city. Please show us that we are wrong in this opinion!

Joella Gamon2 years ago I hope this email finds you well. I love parts of the final plans the city submitted for the Church Street Revitalization plan and have serious concerns.I live and work from home on the 400 block of Church and my desk overlooks the intersection of Church and Christian and believe the street will look much better assuming that the planned rain gardens are tended. I also applaud the plan to reduce the number of lanes on Church street and hope this leads to slower traffic. That said, I do have concerns about the current plan. These are the change in the planned lighting for Church Street (changed between the most recent draft and the Jan 31 plan) and the unchanged the plan for a shared bike/pedestrian path. In regards to the plan change from historic lights and buried power lines. These were in plans prior to Jan 31 while the latest plan shows the current street lights. This is out of step with city zoning requirements affecting Church Street residents as part of the Historic Architectural Review Board (HARB). As a resident who had seen the plans to finally address the lighting situation to make it match that on the Duke Street section of HARB, I have gladly complied with the stringent standards for property remodeling and repair. This meant that repairing ironwork, a gate, and fascia on my house required negotiations, extra inspections and specialized materials making finding a builder difficult. I love the historic nature of downtown Lancaster and have had no issues living under HARB guidelines when I thought the city would also comply when updating the block. My recent repairs required that I use milled mahagony instead of an environmentally friendly, no maintenance material to acheive the exact same result. I also needed to find and commision handwork from an artisan blacksmith. Seeing the city plan for the lights, made those extra costs as well as the signifcantly more expensive home owners insurance make sense. Striking the lights highlights a noticeable disconnect between the city's expectations of homeowners and its commitments to the overall streetscape. My other major area of concern is the proposed shared bike and pedestrian path. I am excited about the idea of a bikeable city and am comfortable that this will require growing pains. I also believe that we need to be realistic about the safety implications of adding a shared path a town without many cyclists, drivers or pedestrians who understand the rules of shared paths. This is a safety risk that can and should be avoided. I wholeheartedly agree with the suggestions among the other comments that advocate for clear signs and separation of bike and pedestrian lanes. Personally, I’m also a fan of a citywide (or better yet , countywide) education campaign as well as working with cycling experts, such as Adriana and the team at Common Wheel, to ensure that the city bike paths are consistent and well marked. I remain optimistic about the positive changes that the revitalization plan can bring to our neighborhood, I urge the city to address these concerns and ensure that the implementation aligns with both the historic character of Church Street and the safety of all residents.Thank you for considering my feedback. I look forward to seeing how these concerns will be addressed moving forward.

Bill Hoffman2 years ago ...because bikes and pedestrians have vastly different operating characteristics. A bike's are much closer to a car's than to a ped's. Especially in the block between Duke and Queen, a cyclist traveling downhill (assuming this will be a 2-way path) can go as fast as a car, thus increasing the risk to pedestrians. A better solution for cyclists, if you insist on doing anything at all--often benign neglect is the best option--install a conventional bike lane OUTSIDE THE DOOR ZONE. There is room for this if one travel lane is removed. Another possibility is back-in angle parking on one or both sides of Church, which will slow traffic and add much-needed parking in this neighborhood. However, bike lanes are incompatible with angle parking (as on College Ave.). Did you consider making this part of Church 2-way? That would increase connectivity from the SE to the SW part of the City and slow traffic.

John Mullineaux2 years ago

Tene Darby2 years ago

Susan Hoover2 years ago On May 8, 2023 I sent a letter with my thorough review of the proposed changes on Church Street, with specific changes to the area of Duke Street to South Lime Street. Though I do not live in the affected area, I do walk that area frequently. Attached is a rendering of my proposed changes regarding the city's proposed combined bike/pedestrian lanes: Brick sidewalk can be 5' with a 3' brick trim & curb; a 9' parking lane, 4' protected bike lane and a 2' bike buffer from traffic. My dimensions match those in the City's proposed plan. Frankly, the raised 3' wide concrete divider with lampposts is not practical. Removing the snow from the area of the divider to curb is not practical. It is more practical and safer to have the parking lane along the sidewalk as it has been in the past. The residents of Old Town (Duke to South Lime) have maintained lovely trees, bushes and flowers along the north side of Church Street. The Old Town Commons garden is amazing. It is not advisable to add any additional trees. It is not advisable to add any benches as they may attract individuals and noise at night. No public art...there is really no place for its installation and the neigborhood is historic and very attentive to maintaining its historic look. The area from Queen to Farnum may benefit by boulevard lights on the north side plus trees. I can add that the use of Christian Street for the bike paths is a good idea. It travels from Church to East Vine and north to past James Street. In watching the traffic from Queen to South Lime, my observation is that going from 3 lanes to two lanes of traffic may have a calming affect. From Duke Street to South Lime, traffic appears to jockey into the current two lanes with traffic getting caught in the left third lane that turns onto East Vine Street. It will be beneficial to have street crosswalks at the five points stop light junctures. Currently it is much easier and safer to jaywalk from street to street. NOTATION: In evaluating this proposed project, I used the current Public Bicycle Network Map, not the Map 5.1 Bicycle Network Recommendations.

Mary Fusco2 years ago "Shared use path" for bicycles and pedestrians are called sidewalks, and they are for the pedestrians. Bicycles, the few that there are, should continue to use the street and follow the rules of the road. Reducing driving lanes to two, will only further congest this area....leaving an empty "bike lane" that costs money to maintain and only a few use. This will further keep those of us who drive into the city from coming near, and if that is your plan, then bravo.

Cameron DiSanto2 years ago I am generally positive about the proposed new curb line. Being able to see beyond parked cars *without* stepping into the road (+ fewer lanes of traffic to cross) would make me feel A LOT safer crossing at these intersections, which I do frequently. Additionally, more seating & shade trees are always appreciated! However, I have to agree with other commenters about the path! Gutting a fairly well maintained sidewalk for a macadam path seems both "overkill" & so out of place aesthetically for downtown Lancaster. I believe it would be more practical to create a bike lane via painting over where macadam already exists, by utilizing space gained from the proposed lane reduction.

Melissa Ressler2 years ago I live on Locust and cross Church Street at Duke on my walking commute twice each day. Adjustments to the crosswalks, narrowing of Church Street, and adding trees will all be good for pedestrian safety/slowing traffic. Having seating/places to rest is important for accessibility in our ‘walkable’ city. Having a wide, smooth path is helpful for people pushing strollers, using walkers, and using wheelchairs. (Noting there are two apt buildings for older adults and people with disabilities on this stretch of street.) I hope the shared pathway is also a safe space for pedestrians and bikers to coexist; clear signage and maintenance (including snow/leaf removal) is critical. I ride a cargo e-bike when not walking in this area, so might choose to remain in the traffic lanes depending on direction/concentration of users on the proposed path. Considering alternatives, what the proposed shared pathway might do differently than a protected bike lane (like on Walnut) is offer a transitional space in the neighborhood for my elementary age kids who are still learning how to bike safely in the city - this location is an on ramp to Christian st blvd. This design makes more sense to me if shared use paths will be implemented in other areas of the city as well. I see this proposal as a pocket of recreation space to pass through, instead of just an altered sidewalk/street - many elements here support a safer area for people of all ages, using any means of mobility.

Jean Bednarski2 years ago While I hope the city has every good intention to calm traffic on Church Street and provide for increased safety for pedestrians and bicyclists on Church Street, I suggest revamping the design for the expanded pedestrian way. My understanding is that the sidewalk area will be enlarged to accommodate 2 way bike and pedestrian traffic. Church Street will remain a way way street, and several feeder streets will remain one way as well. I cannot understand why changing the flow for bicycles on these 2 blocks of Church Street is important to safety. Many of the streets feeding into these 2 blocks are one way streets and marked on street for bikes to follow the one way flow of car traffic. It seems that it would be confusing at best for a bike rider to transition from in traffic travel to on sidewalk travel against traffic for these two blocks. Right now there is a confusing variety of travel for bicyclists in downtown Lancaster streets, with no signage for car drivers. There is no consistency and no signage for bikers or car/truck drivers. Even on one street, bike riders "safety" lanes change. I am not at all sure that there is any overall plan for bikers to travel within our city. For me as a driver, I find it confusing block by block as to how to share the road with bikers. Why is yet another two block plan being considered? As a homeowner on Church Street, questions about maintaining the newly proposed sidewalk pedestrian bike way have not been answered. Nor have questions about how the new aesthetics comply with the restrictions of modifications in a designated historic district. I have not heard that the current configuration of Church Street is a safety hazard. What identified issues/problems are being addressed with the proposed new design? It seems that money that would be allocated to pay for these proposed changes might better be put to use to help solve some of the real more pressing issues in our city. Please reconsider reallocating these city funds to address much more worthy problems in Lancaster city.

Ann Cahill2 years ago

adriana atencio2 years ago I think this can be successful if it is treated like the Indianapolis Cultural Trail. With the width of the shared path, having separate areas for cyclists and pedestrians will be a must. Wayfaring must also be an important part of this shared path. I've attached an image of what a shared path could look like. I've spent a lot of time in Indy and have ridden on the trail extensively. It is great and works very well.Cyclists must also act like they are on a shared path and control themselves, much like when on a rail trail.

Filters

Total posts: 23

Search

There are 23 projects available.

No values available.

Selected zero tag filters.

Upcoming and ongoing events

0 events have loaded.

No upcoming or ongoing events are currently scheduled.

Past events

Church Street Project Community Open House
Event date: October 9th, 2024 from 5:30 PM to 6:30 PM.
333 Church Street
2 registrants
Read more
Open House: Southeast Lancaster Street Improvement Projects
Event date: January 31st, 2024 from 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM.
King Elementary School
Read more
Church Street Public Meeting and Open House
Event date: March 28th, 2023 from 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM.
Church Street Towers
Read more

3 events have loaded.