This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
• FHWA & AASHTO
– Oregon – Florida – Washington – Vermont
• Australia • UK
–Bicycle Lanes –Intersections –Pavement Markings –Parking and Storage –Construction and Maintenance
15.2 Width Standards and Cross-Section Design
The following discussion details a planning process for a bicycle network plan. Chapter 1 of the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities contains several suggestions for establishing a bicycle planning program. The following process is but one example. It consists of six steps:(1) 1. Establish performance criteria for the bicycle network. 2. Inventory the existing bicycle facility and roadway system. 3. Identify desired bicycle travel lines and corridors. 4. Evaluate and select specific route alternatives. 5. Select appropriate design treatments. 6. Evaluate the finished plan against the established performance criteria.
13.3 AASHTO Guidance on Selecting Bicycle Facility Type The 1999 AASHTO Guide provides some qualitative guidance on choosing the appropriate facility type, but largely suggests that bicycle facility selection is a policy decision to be made by State and local agencies. The facility selection guidance is largely centered on the skill levels of bicyclists and what types of facilities they prefer. The 1999 AASHTO Guide defines three bicycle user types (these were first defined in a 1994 FHWA report):(2,4) 1. Type A (Advanced). 2. Type B (Basic). 3. Type C (Children). The following descriptions are from the 1999 AASHTO Guide:(2) Advanced or experienced riders are generally using their bicycles as they would a motor vehicle. They are riding for convenience and speed and want direct access to destinations with a minimum of detour or delay. They are typically comfortable riding with motor vehicle traffic; however, they need sufficient operating space on the traveled way or shoulder to eliminate the need for either themselves or a passing motor vehicle to shift position. Basic or less confident adult riders may also be using their bicycles for transportation purposes, e.g., to get to the store or to visit friends, but prefer to avoid roads with fast and busy motor vehicle traffic unless there is ample roadway width to allow easy overtaking by faster motor vehicles. Thus, basic riders are comfortable riding on neighborhood streets and shared-use paths and prefer designated facilities such as bike lanes or wide shoulder lanes on busier streets. Children, riding on their own or with their parents, may not travel as fast as their adult counterparts but still require access to key destinations in their community, such as schools, convenience stores and recreational facilities. Residential streets with low motor vehicle speeds, linked with shared-use paths and busier streets with well-defined pavement markings between bicycles and motor vehicles, can accommodate children without encouraging them to ride in the travel lane of major arterials.
Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI). Used to “evaluate the capability of specific roadways to
accommodate both motorists and bicyclists.”(6) This model was developed as part of an FHWA study and involved data collection from 200 persons in three different States. • Bicycle LOS. Used to evaluate “…the bicycling conditions of shared roadway environments.”(7) This model was developed using 150 persons in Florida; however, the model has been calibrated and extensively tested in numerous other locations. 13.5 Bicycle Compatibility Index A team of researchers developed BCI in the late 1990s to quantify the “bicycle friendliness” of roadways.(6) BCI is calculated as shown in table 13-1. The significant variables include: the presence and width of a paved shoulder or bicycle lane; motor vehicle traffic volume and speed in adjacent lanes; the presence of motor vehicle parking; and the type of roadside developmen
SHARED ROADWAYS 14.1
Width Standards In general, the shoulder widths recommended for rural highways in AASHTO’s Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets serve bicyclists well, since wider shoulders are required on heavily traveled and high-speed roads and on those carrying large numbers of trucks.(3) When providing paved shoulders for bicycle use, a minimum width of 1.2 m (4 ft) is recommended (see figure 14-6); however, even 0.6 m (2 ft) of shoulder width will benefit more experienced bicyclists. A shoulder width of 1.5 m (5 ft) is recommended from the face of guardrail, curb, or other roadside barriers. Figure 14-6. Illustration. Example of a paved shoulder or shoulder bikeway. Source: Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan(1) Certain situations may require a wider paved shoulder. On steep grades, it is desirable to maintain a 1.8-m (6-ft) shoulder (minimum of 1.5 m (5 ft)), as cyclists need more space for maneuvering. A 1.8-m (6-ft) shoulder allows a cyclist to ride far enough from the edge of the pavement to avoid debris, yet far enough from passing vehicles to avoid conflict. If there are physical width limitations, a minimum width of 1.2 m (4 ft) from the longitudinal joint between a monolithic curb and gutter and the edge of travel lane may be adequate. Where high bicycle usage is expected, it is desirable to increase the shoulder width. Additional shoulder width may also be appropriate where vehicle speeds are greater than 80 km/h (50 mi/h), or where there is significant truck, bus, or recreational vehicle traffic. Pavement Design Many existing gravel shoulders have sufficient width and base to support shoulder bikeways. Minor excavation and the addition of 75 to 100 millimeters (mm) (3 to 4 in) of asphalt pavement is often enough to provide shoulder bikeways. It is best to widen shoulders in conjunction with pavement overlays for several reasons: • The top lift of asphalt adds structural strength. • The final lift provides a smooth, seamless joint. • The cost is less, as greater quantities of materials will be purchased. • Traffic is disrupted only once for both operations. When shoulders are provided as part of new road construction, the pavement structural design should be the same as that of the roadway. On shoulder widening projects, there may be some opportunities to reduce costs by building to a lesser thickness. A total of 50–100 mm (2–4 in) of asphalt and 50–75 mm (2–3 in) of aggregate over existing roadway shoulders may be adequate if the following conditions are met:
There are no planned widening projects for the road section in the foreseeable future. • The existing shoulder area and roadbed are stable and there is adequate drainage, or adequate drainage can be provided without major excavation and grading work. • The existing travel lanes have adequate width and are in stable condition. • The horizontal curvature is not excessive, so the wheels of large vehicles do not track onto the shoulder area (on roads that have generally good horizontal alignment, it may be feasible to build only the insides of curves to full depth). • The existing and projected vehicle and heavy truck traffic is not considered excessive (e.g., heavy truck traffic less than 10 percent of total traffic). The thickness of pavement and base material will depend upon local conditions, and engineering judgment should be used. If there are short sections where the travel lanes must be reconstructed or widened, these areas should be constructed to normal full-depth standards
14.7 Other Design Considerations Rumble Strips
According to the 1999 AASHTO Guide, rumble strips or raised pavement markers, where installed to warn motorists they are driving on the shoulder (or discourage them from doing so), are not recommended where shoulders are used by bicyclists unless there are:(2) • A minimum clear path of 0.3 m (1 ft) from the rumble strip to the traveled way. • 1.2 m (4 ft) from the rumble strip to the outside edge of paved shoulder (or 1.5 m (5 ft) to an adjacent guardrail, curb, or other obstacle). If existing conditions preclude achieving the minimum desirable clearance, the width of the rumble strip may be decreased or other appropriate alternative solutions should be considered.
Rumble strips should only be installed when an adequate unobstructed width of paved surface remains available for bicycle use. To aid a bicyclist's movement to the left of a shoulder rumble strip when needed to avoid debris, make turns, or avoid other shoulder users, some States provide periodic gaps of 3.0 m (10 ft) to 3.6 m (12 ft) between groups of the milled-in elements throughout the length of the shoulder rumble strip. A study by one State recommends a gap of 3.6 m (12 ft) between milled-in elements of 8.5 m (28 ft) to 14.6 m (48 ft) in length. Other States have specified 3.0 m (10 ft) gaps between 3.0-m (10-ft) milled-in elements. • Small stones, sand, and other debris often collect on roadway shoulders. Usually the air turbulence caused by passing traffic will keep the portion of the shoulder closest to traffic relatively clear of such debris. For this reason, most bicyclists prefer to ride on that portion of the shoulder nearest to traffic to avoid debris. To provide a clear area beyond the rumble strip for bicycle travel, highway maintenance agencies should periodically sweep shoulders along identified bicycle routes and other routes with high bicycle usage. • Recent studies by two States attempted to develop modified rumble strip designs that would be more acceptable to bicyclists. The principle adjustments to the milled-in strip elements considered were reduced depth, reduced width, and changes to the center-to-center spacing. Several types of raised elements have also been tested and evaluated. Both studies concluded that a reasonable compromise between maximum warning to errant motorists and tolerable discomfort
In a study for the Pennsylvania DOT, the authors recommended two different “bicycle tolerable” rumble strip patterns:(6) • For nonfreeway facilities with speeds greater than 88 km/h (55 mi/h): o Groove width of 127 mm (5 in). o Flat portion between cuts of 178 mm (7 in). o Depth of 10 mm (0.375 in). • For nonfreeway facilities with speeds near 72 km/h (45 mi/h): o Groove width of 127 mm (5 in). o Flat portion between cuts of 152 mm (6 in). o Depth of 10 mm (0.375 in).
15.3 Retrofitting Bicycle Lanes on Existing Streets
• Reduction of travel lane width. • Reduction of the number of travel lanes. • Removal, narrowing, or reconfiguration of parking. • Other design options.
Reduction of Travel Lane Widths The need for full-width travel lanes decreases with speed (see figure 15-2): • Up to 40 km/h (25 mi/h), travel lanes may be reduced to 3.0 or 3.2 m (10.0 or 10.5 ft). • From 50 to 65 km/h (30 to 40 mi/h), 3.3-m (11-ft) travel lanes and 3.6-m (12-ft) center turn lanes may be acceptable. • At 70 km/h (45 mi/h) or greater, try to maintain a 3.6-m (12-ft) outside travel lane and 4.2-m (14-ft) center turn lane if there are high truck volumes.
Removal, Narrowing or Reconfiguration of Parking
Other Design Options Not all existing roadway conditions will be as simple to retrofit as those listed previously. In many instances, unique and creative solutions will have to be found. Width restrictions may only permit a wide curb lane (4.2–4.8 m (14–16 ft)) to accommodate bicycles and motor vehicles (see figure 15-9). Bike lanes must resume where the restriction ends. It is important that every effort be made to ensure bike lane continuity. Practices such as directing bicyclists onto sidewalks or other streets for short distances should be avoided, as they may introduce unsafe conditions.
15.4 Bicycle Lanes at Intersections and Interchanges
Intersections with Right-Turn Lanes
Dual right-turn lanes are particularly difficult for bicyclists. Warrants for dual turn lanes should be used to ensure that such lanes are provided only if absolutely necessary. The design for single right-turn lanes allows bicyclists and motorists to cross paths in a predictable manner, but the addition of a through lane from which cars may also turn adds complexity. Some drivers make a last minute decision to turn right from the center lane without signaling, thus catching bicyclists and pedestrians unaware. Several approaches to bike lane design with dual right-turn lanes are provided in figure 15-12. Design alternative A encourages cyclists to share the optional throughright-turn lane with motorists. Design alternative B guides cyclists up to the intersection in a dedicated bike lane. Design alternative C allows cyclists to choose a path themselves (this design is the AASHTO recommendation—simply dropping the bike lane prior to the intersection). Engineering judgment should be used to determine which design is most appropriate for the situation.
On bike lane retrofit projects where there is insufficient room to mark a minimum 1.2-m (4-ft) bike lane to the left of the right-turn lane, a right-turn lane may be marked and signed as a shared-use lane to encourage through-cyclists to occupy the left portion of the turn lane (see figure 15-13). This has proven to be most effective on slow-speed streets.
15.5 Bicycle Lane Pavement Markings
Section 9C of MUTCD addresses numerous aspects of pavement markings for bicycle facilities.(2) • Solid or broken-edge line lane markings that delineate the vehicle travel lane and the bike lane • Lane symbols that indicate the preferential nature of the bike lane and its direction (see figure • Traffic signal detector symbol to indicate preferred bicyclist stopping location at actuated signals • Pavement markings to warn of road hazards or obstructions.
15.6 Bicycle Lane Signing MUTCD
15.7 Other Design Considerations
Colored Bike Lanes Colored bike lanes have been tested in two U.S. cities (Portland, OR, and Cambridge, MA) as a way to guide bicyclists through complex intersections as well as to make motorists aware that they are crossing a bike lane. The concept of colored bike lanes has been applied and is standard practice in several European countries such as The Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, and France (see lesson 23). A study of blue bike lanes in Portland, OR (see figure 15-20 for example), reached the following conclusions:(8) • Significantly more motorists yielded to bicyclists and slowed or stopped before entering the blue pavement area; • More bicyclists followed the colored bike lane path. • Fewer bicyclists turned their heads to scan for traffic or used hand signals, perhaps signifying an increased comfort level or lower level of caution. Colored bike lanes have issues of maintenance—the paint wears quickly with vehicle traffic. As of 2004, the use of colored bike lanes has not been endorsed by any national design manuals or standards (such as the AASHTO Guide or MUTCD).
Contraflow Bike Lanes
There are, however, special circumstances when this design may be advantageous: • A contraflow bike lane provides a substantial savings in out-ofdirection travel. • The contraflow bike lane provides direct access to high-use destinations. • Improved safety because of reduced conflicts on the longer route. • There are few intersecting driveways, alleys, or streets on the side of the contraflow lane. • Bicyclists can safely and conveniently reenter the traffic stream at either end of the section. • A substantial number of cyclists are already using the street. • There is sufficient street width to accommodate a bike lane.
Diagonal Parking Bike lanes are not usually placed next to diagonal parking. However, should diagonal parking be required on a street planned for bike lanes, the following recommendations can help decrease potential conflicts: • The parking bays must be long enough to accommodate most vehicles. • A 200-mm (8-in) stripe should separate the parking area from the bike lane (see figure 15-22). • Enforcement may be needed to cite or remove vehicles encroaching on the bike lane.
BICYCLE PARKING AND STORAGE Bicycle parking can be provided for these strategies using three types of devices (see figure 17-2): 1. Bicycle racks. These are open-air devices to which a bicycle is locked and work well for short-term parking. 2. Bicycle lockers. These are stand-alone enclosures designed to hold one bicycle per unit and are a good choice at sites that require long-term parking for a variety of potential users. 3. Bicycle lock-ups. These are site-built secure enclosures that hold one or more bicycles and are often used for long-term parking for a limited number of regular and trustworthy users.
GREENWAYS AND SHARED-USE PATHS The term shared-use path is defined by AASHTO as “a bikeway physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open space or barrier and either within the highway right-of-way or within an independent right-of-way.
Path Design AASHTO’s updated (1999) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities remains the primary design guide for shared-use paths. The MUTCD 2003 edition, “Part 9: Traffic Controls for Bicycle Facilities,” is the primary source for guidance regarding signing and striping of shared-use paths.(6) A number of new publications provide supplementary information, including: • ADAAG.(7) • Accessible Rights-of-way: Sidewalks, Street Crossings, and Other Pedestrian Facilities: A Design Guide.(8) • Characteristics of Emerging Road and Trail Users and Their Safety.(2) • Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access: Parts 1 & 2.(9) • Draft Guidelines for Accessible Public Rights-of-Way.(10) • Evaluation of Safety Design and Operation of Shared Use Paths: Users Guide and Final Report.(11) • Recommendations for Accessibility Guidelines: Outdoor Developed Areas, Final Report.(12) • Trail Intersection Design Guidelines.(13)
Bicycle Infrastructure In the City of London Guidelines The Canadian Institute of Planners; · The American Planning Association; · The Transportation Association of Canada; and, · The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario.
On-Road Bicycle Lanes: London’s cycling network will consist of a series of on-road bicycle lanes that will primarily cater to the commuting cyclist with a moderate to high level of expertise and skill. Onroad bicycle lanes are depicted on Map 1 as a solid red line. On-road bicycle lanes have several advantages over wide shared lanes including the delineation of exclusive space and the perception of a higher level of safety. Bicycle lanes are therefore attractive to both the experienced and moderately skilled cyclist and may encourage more people to cycle. On-Road bicycle lane facilities should, where feasible: · Be one directional with the flow of traffic; · Be located along both sides of an identified on-road route; · Be located between the edge of the vehicular lane and the curb; · Be placed between the parking lane and the adjacent travel lane in those instances where on-street parking is provided; · Be delineated by a painted line on the pavement; · Be 1.5 m in width (1.6 m in those instances where on-street parking is provided); · Be identified by signs along the route and/or bicycle symbols painted on the bicycle lane; and, · Include specific lane markings to denote potential conflict points and routing options.
6.2. Multi-Use Pathways:
London’s multi-use pathway system will be designed to accommodate a variety of user groups including recreational cyclists, pedestrians and roller bladders. Multi-use bicycle pathways are depicted on Map 2 as a solid red line. Being a multi-use pathway primarily located within the City’s Open Space system, safety, aesthetics and environmental considerations carry as much value as technical considerations in determining design standards (and routing options). Design standards therefore will ultimately vary depending on the trails location and the anticipated number of users. The Multi-use pathway should, where feasible: · Be a separate and distinct facility from which all motorized traffic is excluded; · Vary in width from 3 to 6 m depending on anticipated use, abutting infrastructure and natural features, topography, etc.; · Provide connecting pathways to local neighborhoods to ensure convenient access for users and to the on-road bicycle network; · Include access and exit points that provide visibility from an adjacent street every 500 m. This may require small park block frontages and/or widened walkway blocks to ensure safety for users of the system; · View existing vegetation and topography as an asset as they provide buffers between users and adjacent land uses. A minimum setback to adjacent land uses for retro-fit/improvement areas shall be determined based on detailed design. Typical setbacks for the pathway in newly developing areas shall be 6 to 10 m with appropriate screening; · Be a smooth asphalt treatment; · Provide for two-way traffic with the appropriate line marking, directional indicators, and hazard signage; · Be designed such that they do not parallel roadways thus avoiding conflicts with traffic turning movements; and, · Be designed to ensure positive drainage and accessibility requirements.
Signed On-Road Facility: Signed on-road cycling routes will constitute a sizable portion of London’s bicycle network. These facilities serve a secondary connection function linking neighborhoods to the larger commuter and recreational network. Signed on-street cycling routes are depicted on Maps 1 and 2 with dotted lines (commuter and recreational feeders or secondary routes). On-Road signed facilities should, where feasible: · Be located on a local or collector road where wide curb lanes of a minimum width of 4 m exist or can be provided (a greater curb lane width may be required having consideration for vehicle parking, truck and vehicle volumes and speeds, drainage grates, etc.,); and, · Incorporate distinct sign route markers (i.e. commuter vs. recreational connecter) · Minimize and/or identify hazards to bicycle travel.
FACILITY DESIGN STANDARDS 1. ON-ROAD BIKEWAYS 2. RESTRIPING EXISTING ROADS WITH BIKE LANES 3. BICYCLE PARKING 5. STREET CROSSINGS 6. MULTI-USE PATHS 7. INTERSECTIONS