Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures

8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 1/61

Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures

• FHWA & AASHTO

– Oregon

– Florida

– Washington

– Vermont

• Australia

• UK



FHWA

•Geometrics

–Bicycle Lanes

–Intersections

–Pavement Markings

–Parking and Storage

–Construction and Maintenance





15.2 Width Standards and Cross-Section Design

BICYCLE LANES





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 neighborhoodstreets 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 existingroadway 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 theshoulder 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 errantmotorists 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).



Drainage Grates



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 andmotor 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 diff icult 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 through-

right-turn lane with motorists. Design

alternative B guides cyclists up to the intersection in a dedicatedbike 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



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 thefollowing 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-of-

direction 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 mostvehicles.

• 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)





Bi l I f t t



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.





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.

6.2. Multi-Use Pathways:



Signed On Road Facility:



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-streetcycling 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, drainagegrates, 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

MMDA



MMDA

MARIKINA BIKEWAYS



MARIKINA BIKEWAYS







Documents

Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures