Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBike Lanes (2)EPARATED BIKE LANE PLAN ING & DESIGN GUIDE 201& It is my sincere pleasure to present the Massachusetts Department of Transportation's Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide. MassDOT is committed to providing Massachusetts residents and visitors with a variety of safe and convenient transportation choices; for us, incorporating facilities that encourage walking and bicycling trips into projects is no longer the exception but the rule. Many people-including me-are reluctant to bicycle adjacent to busy roadways alongside fast-moving traffic. That's where separated bicycle facilities come in. Separated bike lanes are a key ingredient in the development of safe, comfortable and connected bicycle networks that will attract bicyclists of all ages and abilities. This pioneering Guide will significantly advance bicycle facility design in the Commonwealth and, we hope, set new precedents for design in the United States. This Guide gives planners and engineers the tools to create facilities that will appeal to a broad range of potential bicyclists. As more separated bicycle facilities are built, people who would otherwise be unwilling to bicycle will hopefully choose to turn a short drive into a bike trip to work or school, to do an errand or visit friends. I particularly want to thank the experts and advocates both inside and outside MassDOT whose expertise and willingness to share that knowledge made this Guide possible. Because of their hard work, this is the first statewide guide to provide specific guidance on planning, design and operations for separated bike lanes. It includes innovative safety features, such as the 'protected intersection' which minimizes conflicts between road users and improves visibility between people bicycling and driving. The Guide provides the tools and design flexibility that will enable both MassDOT and our partners in cities and towns throughout the Commonwealth to create protected intersections and other separated bike lane treatments as part of Complete Streets and other sustainable transportation initiatives. This Guide builds on years of work at MassDOT to make our statewide transportation system more sustainable, encourage residents to make more use of transit, walking and biking options, and promote construction of Complete Streets that are safe and convenient for motorists, pedestrians, cyclists and transit riders alike. Our 2006 Project Development & Design Guide ensured that the safety and mobility of bicyclists and pedestrians would be considered equally throughout all phases of project development and design. In 2010, the GreenDOT Policy Initiative outlined key sustainability goals such as tripling bicycle, walking and transit trips by 2030. And the Healthy Transportation Policy Directive issued in 2013 committed MassDOT to ensuring that new projects increase and encourage bicycle, walking and transit trips. The Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide represents the next-but not the last-step in MassDOT's continuing commitment to Complete Streets, sustainable transportation, and creating more safe and convenient transportation options for our residents. Stephanie Pollack Secretary of Transportation and Chief Executive Officer Massachusetts Department of Transportation ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Massachusetts Department of Transportation would like to acknowledge the people who contributed to the successful development of this Guide. Through their combined efforts and expertise, we were able to provide a responsive, comprehensive, contemporary Guide that will ultimately help to make Massachusetts a better place to be with safe multimodal choices for transportation. PROJECT TEAM Mass DOT Luciano Rabito, P.E., Complete Streets Engineer and Project Manager Thomas DiPaolo, P.E., Assistant Chief Engineer Jim Danila, P.E., Assistant State Traffic Engineer Bonnie Polin, Chief Safety Analyst Courtney Dwyer, District 6 Bicycle & Pedestrian Coordinator Henry Barbaro, Environmental Division Wetlands Unit Supervisor George Batchelor, Landscaping Unit Supervisor Toole Design Group Nick Jackson Jennifer Toole, AICP, ASLA Bill Schultheiss, P.E. Jeremy Chrzan, P.E., PTOE, LEED AP Nick Schmidt, AICP Michelle Danila, P.E., PTOE Patrick Baxter, P.E., PTOE John Dempsey, RLA Pete Robie Nathaniel Fink WalkBoston Wendy Landman, Executive Director Bob Sloane, Senior Project Manager MassBike Richard Fries, Executive Director Barbara Jacobson, Program Director LivableStreets Alliance Charlie Denison, Advocacy Director Additional Experts Peter G. Furth, Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Northeastern University Clinton L. Wood, M.S. mass DOT Mauctlr..-ttl.,._...,.of~ ... Massachusetts Department of Transportation 10 Park Plaza, Suite 4160 Boston, MA 02116 www.massdot.state.ma.us The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Charlie Baker, Governor Karyn Polito, Lieutenant Governor Stephanie Pollack, Secretary of Transportation and Chief Executive Officer Thomas J. Tinlin, Highway Administrator Patricia A. Leavenworth, P.E., Chief Engineer mass DOT Massachusetts Department of Transportation CONTENTS Chapter 1: Overview_········--··········-··---------··· ····-··-·-··· ··················--··---··-··-·------·--··-··························-·-----·-····-···---1 1.1 Separated Bike Lane Definition...... . ...... ·-····-·-·-·--··-·------·-··-···-·-··-··-··-··-·-........................ 2 1.2 Purpose of the Guide ____ -----···---·--···---------·--------. -··---···--···----3 1.3 Design Users·---···---·--------·-·-----·---·····----··-·-·-·------------···--···--·---·--· -·-·----··--4 1.4 Role of Separated Bike Lanes in Low-stress Networks···-····--··-········--...... ········--···-4 1.5 Basis of Design Guidance ·-···-·-···-··--··----··-··········----··-······-··--········-·-·----·-··················-······-··-··· .. 6 1.6 Using this Guide ____ ··--·--··-·-·----·······--·-··--··---·-···--··--6 1.7 Endnotes·--·-······-····-·······--··----·········-·-·--··-········-··--·---·-···---····---·--············-··-···-···········--··-···--·-· ........................ 8 Chapter 2: Planning_··········--··--··--··-···-···-----------··-··-····-·-··-·----·-···-···············--·---·-·---·-······--······---·-·-··---· 9 2.1 Principles of Low-Stress Networks·---······----···········-·-·····-···-··-·-·-·-··-·-·····-.... --·-·-···········----10 2.2 Network Connectivity Considerations __________ . ··---------····----------·-·-······-··-···--··-·-··----·-··_, 1 2.3 Planning Process.---·--·-·--------··-·-··---···-·--····-·------··-·-·-···-·-·-·-------·-··-·-·-·--··-···-----···-.... _______ 11 2.4 A Framework for Selecting Separated Bike Lanes··-··----··----·-··--·--······---··--·-············---·----·----··-·-12 2.5 Feasibility·---··-·---·····-··---··---···-····---··---·-··-··-··-·--······-······---··-····--· ·····-·-··-··-···---·-···--···-··· _ -·--_. _________________ 18 2.6 Public Process -··-··-· ····-·--··--------------··--··· . -··----·----·-··--------·-------------··-·-·-19 2.7 Endnotes ·······-·-·-----------------·-----·--····--··------------·--·-·· -----·---·-·-··-·-.......... 19 \1assDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gulde Chapter 3: General Design Considerations ___________________________________ 21 3.1 Separated Bike Lane Zones ____________________________ _ _ ______ 22 3.2 Bike Lane Elevation ____________________ ··-···-·------·---------------24 3.3 Bike Lane Zone ----·----··-----------------------·-·-··---··--·-·-.. ---··---------·-··-----------------·---··-.. --------------·--............ _29 3.4 Street Buffer Zone........................................ ... ---·-·-··-···--···-··-··-·-····--·--··-· .... ---·--·-·····--·-----··-·-··--····· ......... 34 3.5 Sidewalk Buffer Zone ................... ·--··-···-·--··---·-·-·-·--··-······· .. ---·-·-----·-------··---··--·····-··---·· ..... 39 3.6 Determining Zone Widths in Constrained Corridors __ ·----------·----·----·-··---··----··-------··---...40 3.7 Pavement Markings and Signs ____________________ ··---------··-·-·------_______________________ 41 3.8 Drainage and Stormwater Management ______________________________________ 42 3.9 Landscaping _____________________________________ _45 3.1 O Lighti ng ____________________________ ·-·--·--·------------------·-·-··-·---·-------------4 7 3.11 Utility Placement. ............ ···---------·--···-·----·····-·--··--·--···-·-··---··-··-·····----·-------·-------·-------------··-----·-----·-· 48 3.12 Other Policies and Guidelines ____ ··----·····-·····-·····----·---·-----------··-··--··-·····-······-··· ..................... ...48 3.13 Endnotes ____ ··-··-··-··--------------------·---------···-···-------·-·-------·---·-···-···--··---·--··--··--·-·---------49 Chapter 4: Intersection Design _________________________________________________ 51 4.1 Context _______________________________________________________________ 52 4. 2 Design Principles ------·---··-··-····-······-·---····-··--·-·---·-·--·----·---··-··---····----··--·-··----··-··--··--·-·---·---------····---··--········-···-··---··-·-~ 4.3 Common Intersection Design Treatments ................................. -····----····--·-···-···-·-·---····-··-··-·-· ___ 68 4.4 Pavement Marking and Traffic Sign Guidance_··-·-··-··-·-·-··-··-·-··--·-·---·-·---·--·---··-···---·-·-··-·--··----80 4.5 Examples of Transitions Between Bikeway Types _______________________________________________ 85 4.6 Endnotes. __________________________________________________ 89 II MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gulde CONTENTS Chapter 5: Curbside Activity Design_·--·-·-·--·-·-·-····--··-·-·-·----·-·------------------·---------··---91 5.1 On-street Motor Vehicle Parking _______ ·-------···-----··-··-----·-·-----·-----------.92 5.2 Loading Zones ------------------------------------·-··-·-----------95 5.3 On-street Bike Parking ________________________________________________________________________________ 97 5.4 Bus Stops_··----------··--------····--··-··--·-··-----··-··-·····--.. --··-··--··-··---·---------··---··---····------------------98 Chapter 6: Signals __________ .. ____________ .. __________________________________________________ ....... ___ .. ____________ 105 6.1 Guida nee for Signalization _________________ .. _____________________ .. __ ...... ____ .. _______ .. __________________ 1 06 6.2 Signal Design _____________________________________________________ J 08 6.3 Signal Operations ___________________ .. _______________________ 112 6.4 Bicycle Detection. _____________________________________________________________ 115 Chapter 7: Maintenance .... _ .. __ .. _ ..... ---·-----.. --·-·-·-·---.... -.... -........................ _ .. _______ .. ____ ... _ .. ______ ......... -.. -..... -........... ________ 123 7 .1 Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ 124 7.2 Maintenance Plans and Agreements _________________________________________________ _124 7.3 Seasonal Maintenance _________________________________________________ 125 7.4 Repair and Replacement _________ .. __________ _ _________________ 129 7. 5 Construction Zones ____________________________________________________________________ 130 7. 6 End notes ................................. --------··-··----····---····-.. ---------··--··---· .. ·-····-----------.. ·-·-·--------------------·------------.. -·----·---1 30 'JlassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gulde This page left blank intentionally The Massachusetts Department of Transportation's (MassDOT) Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide (the Guide) presents considerations and strategies for the development of separated bike lanes. The Guide provides a framework for determining when separated bike lanes are appropriate and feasible. It presents design guidance for separation strategies, bike lane configuration, and considerations for transit stops, loading zones, utilities, drainage, parking and landscaping. The Guide defines separated bike lane design principles for intersections, introduces intersection design treatments and provides examples of typical intersection configurations. It clarifies when to consider signalization and provides guidance on signal phasing and timing as well as location of signal equipment. The Guide concludes with maintenance strategies, including seasonal operations and maintenance considerations. 1.1 SEPARATED BIKE LANE DEFINITION A separated bike lane is an exclusive space for bicyclists along or within a roadway that is physically separated from motor vehicles and pedestrians by vertical and horizontal elements. Just as a sidewalk creates a separate space for pedestrians, a separated bike lane creates an exclusive space for people bicycling along or within the roadway. Separated bike lanes include two fundamental elements: • Separation from motor vehicles both a) horizontally, with a separated space for bicycling along the street and at intersection crossings, and b) vertically, with a physical object and/or a change in elevation from the street surface. • Separation from pedestrians with a vertical object, a change in elevation or visual delineation. Where separation from motor vehicles is appropriate but volumes of pedestrians and bicyclists are relatively low, a shared use path can be provided. Designers have flexibility in determining the type of separation. Depending on the context, separated bike lanes may be designed for one-way or two-way operation and may be constructed at street level, sidewalk level or at an intermediate level between the street and the sidewalk. The method of separation can be achieved with a variety of vertical elements including raised medians, flexible delineator posts, parked vehicles, or by a change in elevation between the bike lane and the roadway. 2 Cambridge, MA MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide 1.2 ~ I RPOSE OF THE GUIDE This Guide is a supplement to MassDOT's existing bicycle facility design guidance (Chapters 5 and 6 of the Project Development & Design Guide), providing direction on where to implement and how to design separated bike lanes as part of a safe and comfortable network of bicycle facilities. 1.2.1 POLICY CONTEXT As part of a complete streets approach, MassDOT is committed to providing safe and comfortable travel for residents and visitors who bicycle on the Commonwealth's roads and paths. This commitment was formalized in 2006 with the release of the agency's award-winning context-sensitive design manual, the Project Development & Design Guide (PD&DG). By 2013 MassDOT further refined its complete streets guidance and released the Healthy Transportation Policy Directive P-13-0001, also known as the GreenDOT policy. "All MassDOT funded and/or designed projects shall seek to increase and encourage more pedestrian, bicycle and transit trips." MassDOT Healthy Transportation Policy Directive, September 9, 2013 MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide A component of the GreenDOT Policy requires that all MassDOT projects be designed and implemented in such a way that all customers have access to safe, comfortable and healthy transportation options including walking, bicycling and transit. This Guide is an important element in MassDOT's efforts to encourage more walking, bicycling and transit trips in the Commonwealth by 2030. Growth in bicycling will also help MassDOT meet its goals of reducing transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions. Bicycling can also play a role in the Commonwealth's efforts to improve public health. As of 2014, approximately 66 percent of adults and 25 percent of children in Massachusetts were categorized as overweight or obese.3 The Massachusetts Department of Public Health has launched Mass in Motion, a statewide obesity prevention initiative that promotes better eating habits and increased physical activity. Encouraging more daily bicycle trips can help to reduce rates of chronic diseases and rising health care costs related to physical inactivity. MassDOT recognizes that implementing separated bike lanes is a critical strategy toward achieving many statewide goals. As stated in the 2014 Healthy Transportation Engineering Directive E-14-006, separated bike lanes are an appropriate substitution for other types of accommodation, and if provided, it is BICYCLING FOR SHORT TRIPS: THE UNTAPPED POTENTIAL Commonwealth residents make 26.5 million trips per day.1 About half of those trips are less than 4 miles in length2 -a distance that can, in many cases, be accomplished by bicycle in about the same amount of time as a motor vehicle trip. Safe, comfortable and convenient bicycle facilities make it possible to convert some short trips to bicycling, reducing traffic congestion and improving health. not necessary to provide any additional accommodations (e.g., conventional bike lanes). Similar policies and guidance are provided at the federal level. The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDon is promoting connected and convenient multimodal networks, including high quality bicycle networks that appeal to people of all ages and abilities. As part of this initiative, the Federal Highway Administration released its Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (FHWA Guide) in May 2015. The FHWA Guide is based on national best practices and provides a series of case studies. 3 1.3 DESIGN USERS Many people are interested in bicycling for transportation purposes but are dissuaded by stressful interactions with motor vehicles.4 These "interested but concerned" individuals vary by age and bicycling ability and account for a majority of the general population. While some bicyclists (i.e., the "casual 1.4 ROLE OF SEPARATED BIKE LANES IN LOW- STRESS NETWORKS A majority of people have serious safety concerns when bicycling in close proximity to motor vehicles, especially on higher speed, higher volume roadways (e.g., collectors and arterials) or where conflicts with and somewhat confident" or the "experienced and confident") are more traffic tolerant, they account for a significantly smaller share of the population. By designing for those who are "interested but Differences in mass and speed between bicycles and motor vehicles creates hazards and leads to stress for both bicyclists and motorists. parking, loading and buses are common. Only a small percentage of the population is willing to bicycle in these high- stress environments. 4 Furthermore, research concerned," separated bike lanes enhance the quality, safety and comfort of the bicycling environment for all design users. EXHIBIT 1A compares design users with their various tolerances for stress caused by interactions with motor vehicles. EXHIBIT 1A: I Potential Bicycling 8 Population by Level ~ ~ of Bicycle Network • ,.. Stress 4 Source:4 * Approximately 32 percent of the population is either unable to or chooses not to ride bicycles. has shown that motorists also experience stress in conditions where they are sharing lanes or operating in close proximity to bicyclists. 5 Providing some degree of separation between bicyclists and motorists in locations with higher traffic speeds and volumes is therefore an important element in improving perceptions of safety and comfort for both groups. Bicycling becomes more appealing to a broader segment of the population as the stress of riding a bicycle decreases (see EXHIBIT 1B). Bicycle networks can only expect to attract a modest percentage of people without direct and convenient low- stress routes.4 Low-stress bicycle networks are comprised of interconnected bicycle facilities that vary by roadway context. Shared lanes and conventional or buffered bike lanes may WHAT DOES RESEARCH SAY ABOUT SEPARATED BIKE LANES? Separated bike lanes have been in use for many years in some European countries, however they are relatively new in the United States. Initial research on their use in North America has shown that: • Separated bike lanes attract more people to bicycling.6·7·8 • Separated bike lanes improve safety for all road users.9•10•11 • Motorists and bicyclists prefer separated bike lanes over shared lanes or conventional bike lanes. 5•12•13 • Women express a preference for separated bike lanes.14•15•16 create low-stress environments for most people on low-volume, low-speed streets where curbside conflicts are low. However, on busy streets with higher speeds, physical separation from motor vehicles via separated bike lanes or shared use paths is desirable to maintain a low-stress bicycling environment. Some vulnerable users, such as children and seniors, may only feel comfortable bicycling on physically separated facilities, even in locations with low traffic speeds and volumes. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide EXHIBI DESIGN USERS Sourr.e 4 1 c .. cu u c 0 CJ .. :s .a -a cu .. ! ! c Whoarether'I A mother and daughter In Wntem Mau.who enjoy Saturday rldee to th• library along the trall that rune near their hou•. The need to crou a buey road prevente them from rtdlng together to elementary echool durtng the week. LOWER STRESS TOLERANCE A 45-year-old father of two on the South Coaet who was just dlagnOMd with pre-diabetes. His doctor encouraged him to be more active. He doesn't think he h .. time to go to the gym, eo he'• been thinking about commuting to work by bike. Aa a motorlet he feels uncomfortable passing blcycllata, ao he Isn't sure he'd t.el comfortable as a blcycllet sharing th• road with care. A Boeton-area resident who Juet moved to the US. He's UMd Hubway bike share a few tlmH to rtde home from the train etatlon. He enjoys riding u long H he ataya on quiet streets or the aldewalk. He'd llke to be able to ride to the grocary store, but there are buey roads and Intersections along th• way. .... c cu .,, \i= c 0 (.) .... ca .c :c cu E 0 (I) .,, c ca -ca :s en ca (.) Who are they? Awomanon the North Shore who rides her bike downtown every morning to her job at the hospital. She prefers to ride on neighborhood streets, but doesn't mind riding the last few blocks on a busy street since there's a bike lane. A lower-income Cape resident who rides a bicycle to save money for other household expenses. He's comfortable riding on Main Street without a conventional bike lane because it's a two-lane road and motorists usually don't pass him. .... c cu .,, \i= c 0 Who are they? (.) A 60-year-old, -a life-long, daily-C commuting ca bicyclist. He ..,. prefers direct _.., routes to his CU destinations to U save time. He is C confident riding CU in mixed traffic •c and knows to be CU wary of opening Q. car doors and ~ turning trucks. He enjoys riding on shared use paths, but typically avoids them during congested periods. Separated bike lanes minimize conflicts with motor vehicles and heighten visibility between people bicycling and driving at intersections. Pedestrians benefit, too, from reductions in sidewalk riding and, depending on intersection design, shorter crossing distances. 1.5 BASIS OF DESIGN GUIDANCE In developing separated bike lane guidance, MassDOT considered the design strategies from cities, states and countries that have successfully achieved a high percentage of trips by bicycle. While crucial to the overall bicycle network in these locations, separated bike lanes along busy and high speed streets are just one component. Communities with high levels of bicycle use typically provide a network of separated bike lanes, off-road paths, and shared streets where low traffic speeds and volumes enable bicyclists and drivers to coexist comfortably. Section 2.4 presents a flexible approach to selecting the most appropriate bicycle facility. This Guide draws upon experience and lessons learned from North American cities that have successfully increased bicycling while reducing crash rates through the implementation of separated bike lanes and other bicycle facilities. 6 The following guidelines and resources were primary sources for the development of this Guide: • National Association of City Transportation Officials Urban Bikeway Design Guide, Second Edition, 2014 (NACTO UBDG) • American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, Fourth Edition, 2012 (AASHTO Bike Guide) • Massachusetts Project Development & Design Guide, 2006 (PD&DG) • Federal Highway Administration Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, 2015 (FHWA Guide) • Federal Highway Administration Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Flexibility memorandum, 2013 • Dutch Centre for Research and Contract Standardization in Civil and Traffic Engineering (CROW)17 Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic, 2007 (CROW Manual) • Peer reviewed academic research All design guidance conforms to the 2009 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the PD&DG, unless otherwise stated. Design guidance for other bike facilities- shared lanes, conventional bike lanes, buffered bike lanes and shared use paths- is provided in the PD&DG, AASHTO Bike Guide, MUTCD, NACTO UBDG and other local guidance and standards. 1.6 USING THIS GUIDE MassDOT has created the Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide for local officials, planners, designers and other project proponents to supplement the agency's current guidance and reflect recent advancements in bike facility design. The Guide supplements the eight-step project development process as outlined in the PD&DG. This eight-step process formalizes the agency's commitment to a multimodal, context sensitive approach to improving and developing the transportation network throughout the Commonwealth. The information in this Guide applies to all projects where separated bike lanes are considered and when: • MassDOT is the proponent; • MassDOT is responsible for project funding (state or federal-aid projects); or • MassDOT controls the infrastructure (projects on state highways). EXHIBIT 1C highlights the relationship between this Guide and the relevant steps of the project development process. This Guide does not provide further considerations for project initiation (Step 3), programming (Step 5), procurement (Step 6) and construction (Step 7) because these processes remain similar with or without separated bike lanes. Project proponents should review Appendix D (Project Evaluation Checklist) and E (Recommended Separated Bike Lane Data Collection Protocol) of the FHWA Separated Bike Lane Guide for useful MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide evaluation measures and data collection methods that support project assessment (Step 8). This Guide is also intended to be a useful resource for projects without MassDOT involvement, including those that are locally sponsored, funded, and reviewed, or under the jurisdiction of other Massachusetts authorities. Proponents of these projects are encouraged to consider this design guidance to ensure consistent and uniform design elements are used throughout the Commonwealth's bicycle network. Readers of this Guide will find both recommended and minimum dimensions for separated bike lanes. Roadway designers should strive to incorporate recommended guidance where possible to attract bicyclists of all ages and abilities. The guidance in this document is based on the premise that roadway design is contextual, and that design flexibility is needed to enhance safety and comfort for all users, particularly vulnerable users. This Guide includes recommended and minimum criteria to provide this flexibility. However, minimum criteria should be reserved for constrained areas only. If a design cannot meet these minimums, a Design Exception Report (DER) shall be prepared to document the site analysis and the reasons for not meeting minimum criteria (see Section 2.11 of the PD&DG). See Section 3.12 for design exceptions, Requests for Experimentation, accessibility, and shoulder requirements. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide I Separated Bike Lane Guide Chapter 1 Overview 2 Planning 3 General Design 5 Curbside Activity Design 6 Signals Relationship to Project Development Process Presents an overview of MassDOT and Federal policies and initiatives that create the need for separated bike lanes as part of low-stress bicycle networks. (Step 1: Problem/Need/Opportunity) Clarifies when separated bike lanes are appropriate and feasible. (Step 2: Planning) Presents design guidance for horizontal and vertical separation strategies, bike lane configuration, and considerations for utilities, drainage and landscaping. (Step 4: Environmental/Design/ROW Process) Defines separated bike lane design principles for intersections, introduces intersection design treatments and provides examples of typical intersection configurations. (Step 4: Environmental/Design/ROW Process) Presents design guidance to reduce conflicts between separated bike lanes and curbside activities such as parking, loading and bus stops. (Step 4: Environmental/Design/ROW Process) Clarifies when to consider signalization in conjunction with separated bike lanes, and provides guidance on signal phasing and timing as well as location of signal equipment. (Step 4: Environmental/Design/ROW Process) Highlights maintenance and repair strategies for elements of separated bike lanes. Seasonal operations and maintenance are discussed as well, with a particular emphasis on winter maintenance. (Chapter 7 is beyond the scope of the project development process.) EXHIBIT 1C: Relationship between the Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide and the Project Development Process 7 1.7 ENDNOTES Massachusetts Department of Transportation (2012). Massachusetts Travel Survey. Retrieved from: htto://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/17/ docs/TrayelSurvey/MTSFjnalReport.pdf 2 2009 National Household Travel Survey Data accessed at http://ohts.ornl.goy/tables09/ fatcat/2009/vt TRPMILES.html 3 Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Municipal Wellness and Leadership Program, Retrieved from: http'//www.mass.goy/eohhs/docs/ dph/mass-jn-motjon/mjm-communjty-overvjew,pdf 4 Dill, J ., McNeil, N. (2012). Four Types of Cyclists? Examining a Typology to Better Understand Bicycling Behavior and Potential. Transportation Research Board. Bicycles 2013: Planning, Design, Operations, and Infrastructure, 01514640, 129- 138. 5 Sanders, R. (201 3). Examining the Cycle: How Perceived and Actual Bicycling Risk Influence Cycling Frequency, Roadway Design Preferences, and Support for Cycling Among Bay Area Residents, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 218 pp. 6 !TE Pedestrian and Bicycle Council. (2013). Separated Bikeways. Institute of Transportation Engineers. 7 Parks J., Ryus P., Tanaka A., Monsere c .. 8 McNeil M., Dill J., Schultheiss W. (2012). District Department of Transportation Bicycle Facility Evaluation. Project No. 11404. Retrieved from http://ddot.dc.gov/oode/477212. 8 NYCDOT (2011). Prospect Park West: Bicycle Path and Traffic Calming Update. (Presentation, 20 Jan 2011). Retrieved from http://www,nyc.goy/ htmlldot/downloads/pdf/2012 ppw trb2012.pdf. 9 Pucher, J., and Buehler, R. (2012). Promoting Safe Walking and Cycling: Lessons from Europe and North America. (Presentation to Harvard Graduate School of Design, 17 Oct 2012). Retrieved from http://tram,mcgill.ca/Teachjnglsemjnar/ presentatjons/Pucher talk McGill comp.pdf. Also Pucher, J., & Buehler, R. (2012). City Cycling. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10 Thomas, B .. & DeRobertis, M. (2013). The safety of urban cycle tracks: A review of the literature. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 52, 219-227. 11 NYCDOT (2011). Prospect Park West: Bicycle Path and Traffic Calming Update. (Presentation, 20 Jan 2011). Retrieved from http://www.nyc.goy/ html/dot/dowoloads/pdf/2012 ppw trb2012,pdf. 12 McNeil N., Monsere C., Dill J. (2014). The Influence of Bike Lane Buffer Types on Perceived Comfort and Safety of Bicyclists and Potential Bicyclists. Transportation Research Board, 15-3701 . 13 Monsere, C.M., Dill, J., McNeil, N., et al. (2014). Lessons from the Green Lanes: evaluating protected bike lanes in the U.S. National Institute for Transportation and Communities, report no. NITC-RR-583, Portland, OR. 14 Garrard, J., Handy, S., & Dill, J. (2012) Women and Cycling, in Pucher, J., & Buehler, R. (eds.), City Cycling. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. 15 Monsere, C. M., McNeil, N., & Dill, J. (2012). Multiuser perspectives on separated, on-street bicycle infrastructure. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2314(1), 22-30. 16 Winters, M., & Teschke, K. (2010). Route preferences among adults in the near market for bicycling: Findings of the cycling in cities study. American Journal of Health Promotion, 25(1), 40-47. 17 CROW is a Dutch non-profit organization that develops and publishes design guidelines, manuals and other documents through a collaboration with external professionals in business, government and other research organizations. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide This chapter introduces various configurations and dimensions of separated bike lanes. It explains design treatments and other considerations that impact the safety and functionality of separated bike lanes. Refer to Chapter 4 for design considerations at intersections and Chapter 5 for design considerations adjacent to curbside activities such as loading, parking and bus stops. 3.1 SEPARATED BIKE LANE ZONES The cross section of a separated bike lane is composed of three separate zones (see EXHIBIT 3A and EXHIBIT 3B): • Bike lane -the bike lane is the space in which the bicyclist operates. It is located between the street buffer and the sidewalk buffer. • Street buffer -the street buffer separates the bike lane from motor vehicle traffic. • Sidewalk buffer -the sidewalk buffer separates the bike lane from the sidewalk. While each zone has unique considerations, design choices in one often affects the others and may result in trade- offs that alter the utility and attractiveness of the separated bike lane cross section (see Section 3.6 for evaluating trade-offs Sidewalk EXHIBIT 3A: Separated Bike Lane Zones 22 Sidewalk Buffer by zone). The following general design principles should be followed with respect to the design of the zones to appeal to those who are interested in bicycling but concerned about their safety on the roadway: • Changes in the bike lane elevation and horizontal alignment should be smooth and minimized (see Section 3.2). • The bike lane should be wide enough to accommodate existing and anticipated bicycle volumes (see Section 3.3.2). • The bike lane should allow passing of slower bicyclists and side by side travel, where feasible (see Section 3.3.2). • The bike lane edges should be free from pedal and handlebar hazards (see Section 3.3.3). • The street buffer should provide adequate horizontal and vertical separation from motor vehicles, including curbside activities like parking, loading and transit (see Section 3.4). • The sidewalk buffer should discourage pedestrians from walking in the separated bike lane and discourage bicyclists from operating on the sidewalk (see Section 3.5). • The sidewalk should accommodate pedestrian demand (see Section 3.5). Additional considerations that should be evaluated for their effect on the separated bike lane cross section include drainage and stormwater management, lighting, utilities, curbside activities, landscaping and maintenance. Bike Lane Street Buffer Street MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide 3.2 BIKE LANE ELEVATION Separated bike lanes may be flush with the sidewalk or street, or located at an intermediate elevation in between (see EXHIBIT 3C). Providing vertical separation between people walking and bicycling is the primary consideration for separated bike lane elevation. A separated bike lane flush with the sidewalk may encourage pedestrian and bicyclist encroachment unless discouraged with a continuous sidewalk buffer. Where used, a 2 in. minimum change in elevation between the sidewalk and separated bike lane should be used to provide a detectable edge for the visually impaired. The bike lane elevation may vary within a single corridor via bicycle transition ramps, rising or sinking as needed at pedestrian crossings, bus stops and intersections. It is important that a network and corridor-wide perspective is maintained during the design process, as frequent elevation changes may result in an uncomfortable bicycling environment. Often the decision about elevation is based on physical constraints and feasibility, especially in retrofit situations where the separated bike lane is incorporated into the existing cross section. However, for new construction or substantial reconstruction, there are a number of factors to consider when deciding whether the bike lane should be at street level, sidewalk level or a level in between. Reasons to place the bike lane at a lower elevation than the adjacent sidewalk: 24 • Minimizes pedestrian encroachment in the bike lane and vice versa. • May simplify design of accessible on- street parking and loading zones (see Chapter 5). • May enable the use of existing drainage infrastructure (see Section 3.8). Reasons to place the bike lane at the same elevation as the adjacent sidewalk: • Allows separation from motor vehicles in locations where the street buffer width is constrained. I I Sidewalk :sidewalk: , Buffer , I Sidewalk Level SBL ...__ ___ __.. __ _ • Maximizes the usable bike lane width (see Section 3.3.3). • Makes it easier to create raised bicycle crossings at driveways, alleys or streets (see Section 4.2.2). • May provide level landing areas for ·parking, loading or bus stops along the street buffer (see Chapter 5). • May reduce maintenance needs by prohibiting debris build up from roadway run-off (see Section 7.3.2). • May simplify plowing operations (see Section 7 .3.4). Bike Lane Street , Buffer , Street Intermediate Level SBL '--~~~~-'-~-I · .· .· I Street Level SBL Raised Bike Lane I I I I I I EXHIBIT 3C: Bike Lane Elevation MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide EXHIBIT 30: Sidewalk Level Separated Bike Lane MassOOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gulde 3.2.1 SIDEWALK LEVEL SEPARATED BIKE LANE Sidewalk level separated bike lanes are typically separated from the roadway by a standard vertical curb (see EXHIBIT 30). The design of sidewalk level bikes lanes should provide a sidewalk buffer that discourages pedestrian encroachment into the bike lane and bicyclist encroachment onto the sidewalk. This can be achieved by providing a wide buffer, a sidewalk buffer with frequent vertical elements, or a significant visual contrast between the sidewalk and bike lane. In constrained corridors, the sidewalk level separated bike lanes may help facilitate passing maneuvers in areas of low bicycle or pedestrian volumes if a portion of either the sidewalk or street buffer space is usable by bicyclists. 25 EXHIBIT 3E: Street Level Separated Bike Lane 3.2.2 STREET LEVEL SEPARATED BIKE LANE Street level separated bike lanes are common in retrofit situations where a separated bike lane is incorporated into the existing cross section of the street (see EXHIBIT 3E). They are also used for new construction where there is a desire to provide a strong delineation between the sidewalk and the bike lane in order to reduce pedestrian encroachment in the bike lane. Street level separated bike lanes are usually compatible with accessible on-street parking and loading zones. Street level separated bike lanes may also minimize the need to relocate or reconfigure existing drainage infrastructure. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide 3.2.3 ERMEDIATE LEVEL EPARATED BIKE LANE Intermediate level separated bike lanes provide greater design flexibility for curb reveal and drainage (see EXHIBIT 3F). They provide many of the safety and comfort benefits of sidewalk and street level separated bike lanes, and require smaller transitions when changing elevation to and from street or sidewalk level bicycle crossings at intersections. A curb reveal of 2-3 in. below sidewalk level is recommended to provide vertical separation to the adjacent sidewalk or sidewalk buffer, and to provide a detectable edge for visually impaired pedestrians. Where the curb reveal is greater than 3 in., a beveled or mountable curb is recommended to minimize pedal strikes (see Section 3.3.4). Stormwater may drain either toward the street buffer, or to existing catch basins along the sidewalk buffer. EXHIBIT 3F: Intermediate Level Separated Bike Lane MassOOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide 27 3.2.4 RAISED BIKE LANE Like intermediate level separated bike lanes, raised bike lanes may be built at any level between the sidewalk and the street (see EXHIBIT 3G). They are directly adjacent to motor vehicle travel lanes at locations where provision of a street buffer is not feasible. Their street-facing curbs are flush with the bike lane surface and may be mountable to motorists and bicyclists. Mountable curbs are preferred if encroachment is desired, otherwise vertical curbs should be used to prohibit encroachment (see Section 3.3.4). Stormwater may drain either toward the street buffer, or to existing catch basins along the sidewalk buffer. Raised bike lanes are only appropriate in constrained locations where the combined bike lane and street buffer width is less than 7 ft. and sidewalks are narrow or the sidewalk buffer is eliminated (see Section 3.6). Because of their narrow street buffer, raised bike lanes are not recommended for two-way operation or adjacent to on-street parking. Their narrow street buffer also presents snow storage challenges. EXHIBIT 3G: Raised Bike Lane 28 < 1' combined bike lane and street buffer MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide ----------------------------------------------~~~~~~~~ - 3.3 &-LANE ZONE 3.3.1 BIKE LANE SURFACE Bicyclists are sensitive to pavement defects. Asphalt is generally recommended for the surface of the bike lane zone because it provides a smooth, stable and slip resistant riding surface. If concrete is chosen, joints should be saw-cut to maintain a smooth riding surface. Subsurface preparation is critical to avoid future surface irregularities. The use of unit pavers should generally be avoided, as they require extensive subsurface preparation and are more susceptible to MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide becoming dislodged over time, creating hazards for people bicycling and long-term maintenance challenges. In some cases, a permeable surface is desired. More information on permeable surfaces is found in Section 3.8.2. The bike lane should provide a smooth, continuous bicycling path and must be free from obstructions. Refer to Section 3.8.1 for preferred drainage grate type and placement, and Section 3.11 for recommended placement of utility covers. In general, people operating two-wheel bicycles are not affected by the cross slope of a street. However, to maintain comfort for people bicycling with more than two wheels (e.g., cargo bike or tricycle) or with a trailer, bike lane cross slopes should not exceed 2 percent. Gentler cross slopes are recommended where these bicycles are more common. Steeper cross slopes of up to 8 percent are acceptable for limited distances in retrofit conditions. 29 3.3.2 BIKE LANE WIDTH The decision regarding the width of the bike lane zone is impacted by the elevation of the bike lane and the volume of users. Separated bike lanes generally attract a wider spectrum of bicyclists, some of whom operate at slower speeds, such as children or seniors. Because of the elements used to separate the bike lane from the adjacent motor vehicle lane, bicyclists usually do not have the option to pass each other by moving out of the separated bike lane. The bike lane zone should therefore be sufficiently wide to enable passing maneuvers between bicyclists. On constrained corridors with steep grades for example, it may be more desirable to provide wider bike lanes on the uphill portion of the roadway than the downhill portion to enable a faster moving bicyclist to pass a slower moving bicyclist. 30 The bike lane zone should also be wide enough to accommodate the volume of users. For one-way separated bike lanes with low volumes of bicyclists (less than 150 per peak hour), the recommended width of the bike lane zone is 6.5 ft. (see EXHIBIT 3H). This is the width needed to enable passing movements between bicyclists. In constrained conditions where the recommended width cannot be achieved, the bike lane zone can be a minimum of 5 ft. wide. Where additional space is available, 6.5 ft. wide passing zones should be provided. In locations with higher volumes of bicyclists, a wider bike lane zone should be provided, as shown in EXHIBIT 3H. When considering the volume of users, the designer should be aware that peak hour volumes for bicycling may not correspond to the parallel roadway motorized traffic volumes. For example, peak bicycle activity may occur during the mid -day on a weekend if the separated bike lane connects to a popular regional trail. There may also be significant land use driven (e.g., university or school) or seasonal (e.g., summer vs. winter) variability in bicycling activity that should be considered when evaluating volume counts or projections. Lastly, when estimating future volumes of bicyclists, the designer should be aware that separated bike lanes have been documented to significantly increase bicycling once constructed over baseline conditions w ith shared lanes or on-road bicycle lanes. There is more flexibility with respect to the width of the bike lane zone when it is not separated from adjacent zones with vertical curbs. When the bike lane zone is located at the same elevation as the adjacent buffer zones, the bicyclist can operate more closely to the edges of the bike lane during passing movements. Beveled or short curbs (2-3 in.) are recommended for separated bike lanes <6.5 ft. wide (see Section 3.3.3). Separated bike lanes <5 ft. wide and between two curbs must be raised to sidewalk level. A bike lane width narrower than 5 ft. requires a design exception. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide Narro /.idths are not recommended in locations where there are higher volumes of pedestrians or bicyclists during peak hours. In extremely constrained conditions where the recommended or minimum width cannot be achieved, it may be acceptable to reduce the bike lane width to 4 ft. for short distances such as around bus stops or accessible parking spaces (see Chapter 5). Separated bike lanes narrower than 5 ft. at least 6.5 ft. recommended to enable passing movements and between two curbs must sidewalk level. aised to Two-way bike lanes are wider than one-way bike lanes to reduce the risk of collisions between opposing directions of travel. For two-way bike lanes with low volumes of bicyclists (less than 150 per peak hour), the recommended width of the bike lane zone between two curbs is 10 ft. In constrained conditions where the recommended width cannot be achieved, the bike lane zone should be a minimum of 8 ft. wide. In locations with higher volumes of bicyclists, wider two-way bike lanes should be provided to accommodate passing in the same and opposing directions of travel simultaneously, as shown in EXHIBIT 31. at least 10 ft. recommended to enable passing movements Same Direction Bicyclists/ Peak Hour Bike Lane Width {ft.) Bidirectional Bicyclists/ Peak Hour Bike Lane Width {ft.) --<150 <150 150-750 150-400 >750 >400 • A design exception is required for designs below the minimum width. •A design exception is required for designs below the minimum width. EXHIBIT 3H: Bike Lane Widths for One-way Operation EXHIBIT 31: Bike Lane Widths for Two-way Operation MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gulde 31 3.3.3 SHY DISTANCE Proximity to objects or vertical curbs along the bike lane edge can affect the operation of a separated bike lane. Bicyclists shy away from vertical obstructions to avoid handlebar or pedal strikes. The rideable surface of the bike lane is reduced when vertical objects are adjacent to the bike lane zone. For this reason, the type of curbs adjacent to the bike lane zone is an important factor. Section 3.3.4 on the following page discusses various types of curbs and their appropriate use. Any object that is less than 36 in. in height from the bike lane surface does not require an offset and can be directly adjacent to the separated bike lane. Any object that is greater than or equal to 36 in. in height from the bike lane surface should be offset from the bike lane zone. Where a curb separates the bike lane zone from the adjacent buffer zones, there should be a minimum 6 in. offset between the face of curb and the edge of a vertical object such as a sign post or parking meter. Where there is no curb, a minimum 12 in. offset is needed between the edge of the bike lane zone and a vertical object. A 100 in. vertical clearance should be maintained over the bike lane surface. 32 MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide 3.3.4 BS The selection of appropriate curb angle and height is an important design consideration for separated bike lane zone buffers. CURB ANGLE The curb angle-vertical, beveled or mountable-influences the crash risk to bicyclists and ease of encroachment: • Vertical curbs are designed to prohibit encroachment by motor vehicles and bicycles. They present a crash risk to people bicycling if their wheels or pedals strike the curb. They may be granite or concrete. • Beveled curbs are angled to reduce pedal strike hazards for bicyclists and to ease access to the sidewalk for dismounted bicyclists. They may be granite or concrete. • Mountable curbs are designed to be encroached by motor vehicles and bicycles. Their forgiving angle allows safe traversal for bicyclists and eliminates pedal strike hazards, but consumes more cross-section width that may otherwise be allocated to the bike lane or a buffer. Mountable curbs help bicyclists safely exit the bike lane without impeding other bicyclists. They may be concrete or asphalt, or constructed as a berm. CURB HEIGHT Curbs may be constructed at heights between 2-6 in. from the roadway surface. Short curbs (2-3 in. from the roadway) of any angle eliminate pedal strike risk, MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide increasing the usable bike lane width by permitting bicyclists to safely ride closer to the edge of the bike lane. Note that even short vertical curbs may be unforgiving if struck by a bicycle wheel. Tall vertical or beveled curbs (6 in. from the roadway) discourage encroachment by motor vehicles. Mountable curbs at any height encourage encroachment. SELECTING CURBS BY PROJECT TYPE In retrofit situations, separated bike lanes are typically incorporated into the existing cross section of a street with standard vertical curbs. However, designers should consider curb angle and height in tandem for new construction or substantial reconstruction, as these characteristics are directly related to the safety and comfort of the separated bike lane. • Short curbs (2-3 in.) are recommended adjacent to the bike lane zone to increase usable width of the bike lane and reduce pedal strike crash risks. Beveled or mountable curbs are recommended adjacent to shops and other destinations to ease access to the adjacent sidewalk. Where a taller curb along the bike lane is unavoidable (e.g., to accommodate drainage patterns), a beveled curb is recommended to somewhat mitigate pedal strike hazards. • Standard 6 in. vertical curbs are recommended adjacent to motor vehicle travel lanes and on-street parking to discourage encroachment into the separated bike lane. Vertical Beveled slope= 1V:1H Mountable slope = 1 V:4H maximum EXHIBIT 3J: Curb Profiles 33 3.4 STREET BUFFER ZONE The street buffer zone is one of the most important elements of separated bike lane design. The goal of the street buffer is to maximize the safety and comfort of people bicycling and driving by physically separating these roadway users with a vertical object or a raised median. The width of the street buffer also influences intersection operations and bicyclists safety, particularly at locations where motorists may turn across the bike lane (see Chapter 4). Many factors influence design decisions for the street buffer, including number of travel lanes, motor 34 vehicle speeds and volumes, bike lane elevation, right-of-way constraints, drainage patterns and maintenance activities. Aesthetics, durability, cost, and long-term maintenance needs should be considered as well. The street buffer can consist of parked cars, vertical objects, raised medians, landscaped medians, and a variety of other elements. Elements that must be accessed from the street (e.g., mailboxes) should be located in the street buffer. The minimum width of the street buffer is directly related to the type of buffer. 3.4.1 STREET BUFFER WIDTH Central to the design of the street buffer is its width. Appropriate street buffer widths vary greatly depending on the degree of separation desired, right-of-way constraints, and the types of structures or uses that must be accommodated within the buffer. In general, the recommended width of a street buffer is 6 ft., regardless of the type of street buffer. Street buffers may be narrowed to a minimum of 2 ft. in constrained conditions, or a minimum of 1 ft. alongside a raised bike lane. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide A wider street buffer may be desirable to improve bicyclists' comfort on multi- lane, higher speed roadways. Clear zone requirements for higher speed roadways may also impose additional requirements for street buffer width that should be considered (see Section 5.6.1 of the PD&DG for clear zone guidance). In addition to providing increased physical separation mid-block, street buffers also affect bicyclists' safety at intersections, including driveways and alley crossings. Street buffer widths that result in a recessed crossing between 6 ft. and 16.5 ft. from the motor vehicle travel lane have been shown to significantly reduce crashes at uncontrolled separated bike lane crossings1 (see EXHIBIT 3K). This offset improves visibility between bicyclists and motorists who are turning across their path, and creates space for motorists to yield (this is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4). It is important that a corridor-wide perspective be maintained during the evaluation and design process, as excessive lateral changes between midblock sections and intersections may result in an uncomfortable bicycling environment. The designer will need to carefully consider intersection operations as the horizontal alignment is determined. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide EXHIBIT 3K: Recessed Crossing at Shared Use Path Intersection 3.4.2 VERTICAL OBJECTS For street level separated bike lanes without a raised median, vertical objects are needed in the street buffer to provide separation. Examples of vertical objects include flexible delineator posts, parking stops, planter boxes, concrete barriers or rigid bollards (see EXHIBIT 3L). They must be supplemented with a painted median to mark the buffer (see Section 3.7). The horizontal placement of vertical objects within the buffer should consider the need for shy distance to the bike lane and to the travel lane. Preference should be given to locating the vertical object to maximize the width of the bicycle lane. It may be necessary to utilize more frequently spaced vertical objects where motor vehicle encroachment in the bike lane is observed or anticipated. Where on-street parking is located adjacent to the street buffer, it may not be necessary to provide vertical objects to improve separation, except in locations where parking is absent, such as near intersections. Exceptions include locations where on-street parking is prohibited for portions of the day, commercial areas where on-street parking turnover is high, or locations where parking demand is low. 35 Capital costs for vertical objects are typically lower than raised medians, making them ideal for retrofit projects. However, vertical objects may require routine maintenance and replacement, increasing long-term costs. Some vertical objects may be temporarily removed to accommodate standard sweeping and snow clearance (see Section 7.3). Most vertical objects are non-continuous, which facilitates positive drainage along the established roadway crown to existing catch basins. Ensuring the vertical separation is visible to approaching bicyclists and motorists should be considered. Vertical objects in the street buffer are considered delineators and must be retroreflective, per the MUTCD. 36 exH1e1r 3L: VERTICAL OBJECTS IN THE STREET BUFFER ZONE 6' rec. (2'mln.) .... ' ' ' ' ' Flexible Delineator Posts • Removable • Lowest initial capital costs • May require closer spacing where parking encroachment is likely • Small footprint compatible with variety of buffer designs • Low durability • May need routine replacement, increasing long-term maintenance costs. Parking Stops 6' rec. (2' min.) .... ' ' ' • Maintain consistent spacing between parking stops • Removable • Highly durable • May need supplemental vertical objects or on-street parking to increase visibility MassDOT Separateij Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide Planter Boxes • Removable • May be closely 6' rec. (3' min.)* .... ' ' ' • Buffer may need to be wider when adjacent to on-street parking to accommodate an open motor vehicle door. spaced for near-continuous vertical separation • Can be used to enhance community aesthetics • May serve as a gateway treatment • May be incompatible with clear zone requirements for roadways with higher motor vehicle speeds • Plants require routine care, increasing long-term maintenance costs MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide Concrete Barriers 6' rec. (3' min.) • Provides continuous vertical separation • Highly durable • Recommended for locations where physical protection from motor vehicles is needed, for example on bridges with high speed traffic • May need crash cushion at barrier ends • Incompatible with on-street parking Rigid Bollards • Typically permanent • Higher capital cost 6' rec. (2'mln.) • May require closer spacing where parking encroachment is likely • May be incompatible with clear zone requirements for roadways with higher motor vehicle speeds • Refer to MUTCD 3H.01 for color and retroreflectivity specifications • Removable rigid bollards may require substantial maintenance 37 3.4.3 RAISED MEDIANS A raised median provides curb separation from motor vehicles (see EXHIBIT 3M). Raised medians offer a high degree of design flexibility: they are compatible with street, intermediate and sidewalk level separated bike lanes as well as a variety of street furniture and landscaping treatments. They are typically continuous but may include curb cuts for drainage gaps. Capital costs for raised medians are often higher than vertical objects, but their high durability requires less long-term maintenance. A 2-3 in. curb is recommended along the bike lane zone to reduce pedal strike hazards and encourage full use of the bike lane width; where a taller curb is required along the bike lane, a beveled curb is recommended to mitigate pedal strike hazards (see Section 3.3.4). A standard 6 in. vertical curb facing the street is recommended to discourage motor vehicle encroachment in the bike lane. 38 EXHIBIT 3M: Raised Median Width 4 .. 6' rec. (2' min.*) * Minimum 1 ft. street buffer when adjacent to a raised bike lane only. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide 3.5 ~ EWALK BUFFER ZONE The sidewalk buffer zone separates the bike lane from the sidewalk. It communicates that the sidewalk and the bike lane are distinct spaces. By separating people walking and bicycling, encroachment into these spaces is minimized and the safety and comfort is enhanced for both users. Design strategies for the sidewalk buffer include object separation (e.g., street furniture or landscaping), curb separation or visual separation (i.e., variation of surface materials). The design team may use a combination of these strategies, for example supplementing street furniture with brick or unit pavers. Physical separation with street furniture, landscaping or other objects is recommended for the sidewalk buffer provided that an accessible path of travel and sufficient sidewalk width is maintained for unobstructed pedestrian flow. In constrained locations where physical separation is desirable because of moderate to high pedestrian demand, for example town centers and urban areas, curb separation is preferable to ensure pedestrians do not walk in the bike lane, and bicyclists do not ride on the sidewalk. However it is also possible to achieve the desired separation when the sidewalk and bike lane are at the same elevation and are directly adjacent to each other by providing a high degree of visual contrast between the two. This can be accomplished through the utilization of different materials for each zone, stained surfaces, or applied surface colorization materials. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide • Sidewalks must provide a 4 ft. minimum continuous and unobstructed clear width, excluding the width of the curb. • A sidewalk width narrower than 5 ft. excluding the width of the curb requires a design exception. Wider sidewalks ranging from 6 ft. to 20+ ft. are recommended for town centers and urban areas (see Section 5.3.1 of the PD&DG). • Shy distances to objects and curbs may impact the usable width of the bike lane (see Section 3.3.3) and the sidewalk (see Section 5.3.1 of the PD&DG). • Maintain adequate offsets between objects (e.g., trees, streetlights, hydrants, etc.) and locations (e.g., driveways, loading zones, transit stops and intersections). • Refer to local streetscape and historic district guidelines for recommended sidewalk buffer materials. • Sidewalk buffer may utilize penneable pavers to assist with on-site stonnwater management (see Section 3.8.2). 39 3.6 DETERMINING ZONE WIDTHS IN CONSTRAINED CORRIDORS When designing separated bike lanes in constrained corridors, designers may need to minimize some portions of the cross section, including separated bike lane zones, to achieve a context-sensitive design that safely and comfortably accommodates all users. 3.6.1 CONSIDERATIONS FOR MINIMIZING ZONE WIDTHS Designers should initially consider reducing the number of travel lanes, narrowing existing lanes or adjusting on-street parking. 0 Space captured from these uses can be allocated to separated bike lane zones. If needed, designers should then consider minimizing the width of the separated bike lane and associated buffer and sidewalk zones. The sidewalk f} should accommodate pedestrian demand (see Section 3.5 for minimum and recommended sidewalk widths). All sidewalks must meet accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (AAB). When narrowing the sidewalk buffer, e appropriate separation between the sidewalk and the bike lane should be provided, preferably through vertical separation (see Section 3.5). Where pedestrian demand is low, consider a shared use path in lieu of a separated bike lane (see Section 2.4.2). The street buffer 0 is critical to the safety of separated bike lanes, therefore narrowing or eliminating it should be avoided wherever possible. Providing a larger buffer at intersections can be achieved by tapering the bike lane toward the sidewalk as it approaches the intersection. In this case, sidewalk buffer width is transferred to the street buffer as the bike lane shifts toward the sidewalk. For example, a cross section with a 4 ft. sidewalk buffer and a 2 ft. street buffer at mid-block can transition to a cross section with no sidewalk buffer and 6 ft. street buffer at the intersection (see Section 4.3.2). If appropriate, designers may consider a raised bike lane to further reduce the street buffer width (see Section 3.2.4). If necessary, designers may also use the minimum bike lane width 0 for the appropriate bicycle volume threshold (see Section 3.3.2). Sidewalk Sidewalk Buffer Bike Lane Street Buffer Street EXHIBIT 3N: Considerations for Minimizing Zone Widths 40 MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide 3.7 ~-EMENT MARKINGS AND SIGNS Standard bike lane symbols and arrows may be provided in separated bike lanes (see EXHIBIT 30). In some cases, the size of the symbols and arrows may be reduced to fit within the lane. Two-way separated bike lanes should have yellow centerlines: dotted to indicate where passing is permitted and solid to indicate where passing is undesirable. Green markings or surface colors should be reserved for conflict points including driveways and intersections, which are further detailed in Chapter 4. It may be desirable to demarcate the edges of vertical curbs or other objects with solid white edge lines on either side of the bike lane to improve night time visibility. Street level painted medians must be marked with diagonal cross hatching or, if 3 ft. or wider, chevrons. See Section 5.4 of the AASHTO Bike Guide, Chapter 5 of the FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide and Chapter 9 of the MUTCD for additional guidance on the use of pavement markings for midblock locations. Standard bike lane signage is not required to identify the separated bike lane; however, the R9-7 sign may be considered for locations with sidewalk level separated bike lanes to further communicate the appropriate use of each space. Wayfinding signage should be provided in accordance with MUTCD and local standards. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide Cross Hatching I I .~. :<3': Two-way SBL/Path Passing Prohibited Chevrons 1:3' : ............. : Two-way SBL/Path Passing Permitted 3' -_]·· MUTCD R9-7 KEEP LEFT RIGHT Raised Bike Lane Edge Line EXHIBIT30: Mid-block Pavement Markings and Signs 41 3.8 DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Providing proper drainage as part of separated bike lane projects enhances the safety and comfort of all users by reducing water ponding and the accumulation of debris. Proper drainage also protects the longevity of the roadway infrastructure and ensures that drainage features are adequate to accommodate MassDOT requirements to manage stormwater and minimize erosion. Sidewalk Level Runoff from bike lanes must also be properly managed to minimize the environmental impacts associated with urban runoff and to meet current regulatory requirements, including applicable Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards to the maximum extent practicable (see MassDOT's drainage design guidelines in Chapter 8 of the PD&DG, and in MassDOT's Stormwater Handbook for Highways and Bridges). 3.8.1 DRAINAGE PATTERNS Many factors influence the decision to manage the flow of stormwater from paved bike lanes. In urban areas, stormwater may Intermediate Level EXHIBIT 3P: Examples of Separated Bike Lane Drainage Options 42 need to be directed toward the sidewalk buffer, street buffer or both, depending on the elevation of the separated bike lane (see Section 3.2), the presence of a raised median in the street buffer (see Section 3.4.3), the locations of existing catch basins and utilities, and the project budget. Illustrative separated bike lane drainage patterns for urban areas are shown in EXHIBIT 3P. In suburban and rural areas, the preferred practice would be to direct runoff onto adjacent vegetated areas, where soils and slopes allow for runoff to naturally infiltrate (a practice known as 'pavement disconnection'). Alternatively, other 'green infrastructure' practices can be considered (see Section 3.8.2). Intermediate or Street Level - MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide Wher h green infrastructure designs are impracticable, it is recommended to connect into closed drainage systems where they exist. For sidewalk and intermediate level separated bike lanes, new catch basins and/or trunk conveyance systems Drainage design for separated bike lanes should follow general design principles outlined in the PD&DG and the MassDOT Stormwater Handbook. buffer. Thes tlian cuts may be open channels or covered with steel plates. Steel plates should be considered in areas where parallel parking is proposed and should meet AASHTO HS20 loading conditions to accommodate traversing people. in the street or sidewalk buffers may be required to connect to existing trunk lines. For street level separated bike lanes, gaps between vertical objects or openings in raised medians may be used to channelize stormwater across the street buffer towards existing catch basins along the sidewalk Where the roadway will drain across the bike lane, the design team should consider supplementary catch basins in the street buffer or more frequent raised median curb cuts to control the speed and spread of flow of water along the roadway and Street Level Raised Bike Lane EXHIBIT 3P: Examples of Separated Bike Lane Drainage Options (Continued) MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide within the separated bike lane. Spread of flow within the roadway should follow the guidance provided in Chapter 8 of the PD&DG; however, spread of flow (and velocity) within the bike lane should consider the volume of bicyclists, the depth of flow within the bike lane, and the potential for the accumulation of debris or ice associated with larger stormwater spreads. Low points should be specifically considered for curbed street-level facilities to address safety and drainage issues associated with the spread of flow within the bike lane. Drainage grates should be located outside of the bike lane whenever feasible to maintain a comfortable riding surface. However, grate location will largely be determined by the location of existing catch basins. When their placement in the bike lane cannot be avoided, drainage grates must be bicycle-friendly (e.g., hook lock cascade grates as noted in Engineering Design Directive E-09-002). Designers should consider narrower grates in the bike lane, as illustrated in EXHIBIT 3P, or eliminating bike lane grates in favor of trench grates in buffer areas or curb inlets. 43 3.8.2 GREEN STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE Green stormwater infrastructure increases infiltration of water back into the ground, which improves water quality and reduces flooding. The addition of separated bike lanes to a roadway presents an opportunity to introduce stormwater management strategies, including continuous treatments (e.g., permeable hardscape surfaces, linear bioretention areas, and linear water quality swales) and those that may only be implemented at spot locations (e.g., bioretention areas, bioretention curb extension area, and tree boxes) (see EXHIBIT 3Q). Their inclusion into the design of separated bike lanes is both a functional use of buffer areas and a sustainable way to enhance corridor aesthetics. The design team should consider project objectives, regulatory requirements, maintenance requirements, cost-effectiveness of treatments, and the location of existing utilities, buildings and other physical features when screening and selecting stormwater treatments. The opportunities to include green stormwater infrastructure will largely be determined by the available street buffer or sidewalk buffer width; as such, the widths of these buffers 44 should be a significant consideration during the design of the separated bike lane and the stormwater management planning. In addition to buffer areas, the use of permeable asphalt or concrete may be considered for the bike lane zone. By facilitating gradual absorption of water into the ground, permeable pavement can increase bike lane traction and reduce icing by providing an outlet for standing water, provided that the surface is vacuumed periodically to remove dirt and debris. It is preferred to maintain natural drainage patterns through the use of vegetated swales and medians in rural and lower- density suburban areas that lack curbing or drainage systems (see Section 3.9.2). EXHIBIT3Q: Green Stormwater Infrastructure Options MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide 3.9 ~DSCAPING Well-designed landscaping-trees, shrubs and grasses-alongside separated bike lanes creates a more pleasant bicycling environment, improves community aesthetics and provides a traffic calming benefit by visually narrowing the roadway. Buffer designs should incorporate native species whenever possible. Landscaping, including defining maintenance roles, should be coordinated during preliminary design stages. Refer to Chapter 13 of the PD&DG for comprehensive landscape design guidance. 3.9.1 LANDSCAPING ON ROADWAYS THROUGH DEVELOPED AREAS Street trees are the primary considerations for landscape design along separated bike lanes in urban and well-developed suburban environments. With respect to the separated bike lane cross section, trees may be located in the street or sidewalk buffers. The street buffer is the recommended tree planting location to preserve usable sidewalk width and enhance separation, but the sidewalk buffer may be considered to provide shade for the sidewalk or where the street buffer is too narrow (see EXHIBIT 3R). EXHIBIT 3R: Landscaping on Roadways through Developed Areas MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide • When selecting tree species, ensure compatibility with the bicyclist operating height (100 in. from bike lane surface to tree branches). Avoid shallow rooted species and species that produce an abundance of fruits, nuts and leaf litter. Proper1y designed tree trenches, tree pits or raised tree beds can support root growth to preserve pavement quality of the adjacent separated bike lane. • Where on-street parking is present, intermittent curb extensions with street trees between parking spaces can preserve sidewalk space and visually narrow the roadway for traffic calming. • Integrate tree plantings with stormwater management techniques, including permeable surface treatments (see Section 3.8.2). 45 3.9.2 LANDSCAPING ON ROADWAYS THROUGH SUBURBAN AND RURAL AREAS The design of separated bike lanes and shared use paths in rural and low-density suburban communities should follow natural roadside design considerations. Natural roadside corridors are bound by the limits of the right-of-way and are relatively undisturbed beyond basic EXHIBIT 35: Landscaping on Roadways through Suburban and Rural Areas roadway infrastructure, open drainage systems and minimal utilities (see EXHIBIT 3S). Motor vehicle speeds in these corridors are typically higher than urban environments, so the design team may need to consider clear zone requirements with regard to the design of the street buffer (see Section 5.6.1 of the PD&DG) and should be mindful of sight lines at curves and intersections. • Fit the separated bike lane or sidepath to the natural terrain, but maintain grades that are comfortable for bicycling. • Avoid and minimize impacts to wetland resources or other natural environments. • Maintain all natural drainage patterns and minimize erosion through the use of vegetated drainage channels in the street buffer. • Maintain access for periodic mowing and other maintenance activities. • Where available right-of-way is sufficient, consider directing runoff from the separated bike lane or shared use path onto adjacent vegetated surfaces where topography and soils are suitable for managing runoff using 'pavement disconnection' practices. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide 3.10 -GHTING The type, spacing and location of streetlights are important considerations for the safety and comfort of separated bike lanes. Sufficient and even illumination of the roadway, separated bike lane and sidewalk should be the primary considerations when deciding where to locate streetlights. Streetlights may be located in the street buffer, sidewalk buffer or both, depending on the available width of the buffer areas. Pedestrian-scale acorn fixtures (between 11 ft. and 16 ft. in height) are recommended for their ability to enhance the attractiveness of the street. They may be used in combination with pendant or contemporary fixtures (up to 25 ft. in height) to further illuminate intersections and areas of conflict. In constrained corridors taller fixtures may be sufficient on their own. Motor vehicle headlights may pose a blinding hazard for contra-flow bicyclists where ambient light is low. Designers should consider increased lighting along two-way or contra-flow separated bike lanes to reduce this risk. Streetlight design for separated bike lanes should follow local streetscape and historic district guidelines as well as guidance from FHWA and the Illumination Engineering Society. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide Cambridge, MA 47 3.11 UTILITY PLACEMENT The placement of utilities and utility covers should also be considered during the design of separated bike lanes. Because bicyclists are sensitive to surface irregularities and shy away from nearby vertical objects, awkward placement of utilities may reduce the comfort and attractiveness of separated bike lanes. Implementing separated bike lanes may present an opportunity to perform utility work in a corridor. Designers should coordinate with utility companies in advance of construction in order to minimize disruption. Addressing utility location may not be practical in retrofit situations where minimal reconstruction is anticipated. However, new construction or substantial reconstruction presents opportunities to proactively address utility placement. • The usable width of the bike lane is reduced if utility poles are located too closely to the separated bike lane. Designers should locate utility poles and all other vertical objects at least 6 in. from the face of the curb adjacent to the bike lane zone, and at least 18 in. from the face of the curb adjacent to the motor vehicle lane. • It is preferable to locate fire hydrants in the sidewalk buffer to avoid proximity to on-street parking. Hydrants should be located at least 6 in. from the face of the curb adjacent to the bike lane zone. Designers should coordinate with the local fire department to determine final placement. 48 • Utility covers should be located outside of the bike lane zone and in the street buffer or sidewalk buffer, where feasible, to maintain a level bicycling surface and minimize detours during utility work. Where unavoidable, utility covers in the bike lane should be smooth and flush with the bike lane surface, and placed in a manner that minimizes the need for avoidance maneuvering by bicyclists. 3.12 OTHER POLICIES AND GUIDELINES 3.12.1 DESIGN EXCEPTIONS A Design Exception Report (DER) is required when any of FHWA's applicable controlling criteria are not met (http:// safety.fhwa.dot.govl. Additionally, there are requirements for pedestrian and bicycle accommodations under the Healthy Transportation Compact and Engineering Directive E-14-006. 3.12.2 REQUEST FOR EXPERIMENTATION While the decision to provide separated bike lanes in federally funded projects does not require a Request for Experimentation (RFE) from FHWA, some traffic control devices and treatments, such as non- standard pavement markings, may require an approved RFE from FHWA. FHWA must approve the RFE prior to the 100 percent design submittal. The designer should consult the FHWA website section on bicycle facilities and the MUTCD to determine the current approval status of potential treatments. 3.12.3 ACCESSIBILITY Separated bike lanes, like all MassDOT designs and projects, shall maintain equal access for disabled individuals, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Design guidance in this document is consistent with all applicable accessibility standards and guidelines, including 521 CMR (Rules and Regulations of the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board) and proposed PROWAG guidelines to the extent possible, given the fact that separated bike lanes are a relatively new facility type and are not specifically addressed in existing standards and guidelines. 3.12.4 SHOULDER REQUIREMENTS MassDOT requires an analysis of applicable design criteria for outside shoulder width for all projects. In urban areas with constrained right-of-way, separated bike lanes with or without on-street parking fulfill some shoulder functions including bicycle use, drainage, lateral support of pavement, and, in street and sidewalk buffer areas, snow storage. Therefore, an additional shoulder is not required provided that a design exception is obtained. However, in suburban and rural areas with fewer MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide right-of-way constraints and higher motor vehicle speeds, a paved shoulder may be necessary in addition to a separated bike lane. For shoulder function and width criteria, refer to Section 5.3.3.1 of the PD&DG. 3.13 ENDNOTES J.P. Schepers, P.A. Kroeze,W. Sweers, J.C. Wust. (2011) Road factors and bicycle-motor vehicle crashes at unsignalized priority intersections. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Volume 43. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide 49 This page left blank intentionally This chapter provides key principles that should be used to develop and evaluate design approaches and treatments that will result in intersections that support all ages and abilities of bicyclists. This chapter illustrates the application of these principles for common intersection configurations which include protected intersections, roundabouts, mixing zones and driveway crossings. Intersection design also requires consideration of parking, loading and bus stops (see Chapter 5), and signal operations (see Chapter 6). 4.1 CONTEXT Safe and comfortable intersections minimize delays, reduce conflicts and reduce the risk of injury for all users in the event of a crash. Intersections include not only bicycle crossings of streets, but also crossings with driveways, alleys, sidewalks, shared use paths and other separated bike lanes. Intersections are likely to be locations where bicyclists transition into and out of separated bike lanes to other types of bikeway accommodations. These transitions should be intuitive to all users of the intersection. The following variables have an impact on intersection design: VOLUMES User volumes affect the widths of separated bike lanes and sidewalks, as well as the required number of lanes for motorized traffic. USER DELAY A careful balance is needed to minimize delay for all users without favoring one travel mode at the expense of all others. DESIGN SPEED Key elements such as sight distance and geometric design at intersections are dependent on the approach speed of the motorist and bicyclist and the crossing speed of a pedestrian. The speed at which motorists merge, weave or turn across a bicyclist's path significantly affects bicyclists' safety and comfort. Intersection geometry and corner radius design affects the merging or turning speed of the motorist. Bicyclists have operating characteristics that are quite different from pedestrians. The approach speed of a bicyclist operating in a separated bike lane is typically between 10 and 15 mph on flat ground. This speed can be three to eight times higher than the typical walking speed of a pedestrian entering an intersection, thus additional measures are needed to reduce conflicts between bicyclists and motorists at street crossings. BIKE LANE OPERATION The operation of one-way separated bike lanes is similar to normal motor vehicle operations on the street, which can simplify signalized intersection operations. Where a two-way separated bike lane is installed on one side of a street, the contra-flow direction of bicycle travel introduces an unexpected movement at the intersection. The contra-flow movement requires special consideration at intersections and at terminus points. BUS STOPS The location of bus stops adjacent to a separated bike lane can potentially introduce conflicts between bus patrons and through-moving bicyclists. The availability of right-of-way and stopping location of the bus (in-lane versus bus bay; as well as near-side, far-side and mid- block stop location) are factors that impact the design of separated bike lanes (see Chapter 5). TERRAIN The existing terrain and sight conditions will affect available sight lines and approach speeds of bicyclists and motorists. ON-STREET PARKING The presence of on-street parking increases the degree of separation between bicyclists and motor vehicle traffic. This generally improves the comfort of both bicyclist and motorist. However, this will also increase the frequency at which pedestrians have to cross the separated bike lane to access cars in the parking lane. This is a particular concern in areas with high parking turnover. The presence of on-street parking can also reduce sight distances at intersections and driveways; this may require parking restrictions or the removal of parking spaces on the approach to intersections. LAND USE Adjacent land uses impact the volume of bicyclists and pedestrians in the corridor. Higher density land uses are likely to have higher volumes of pedestrians and bicyclists with closely spaced intersections MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gu' and less frequent driveways. Lower- density land uses may have low volumes of pedestrian and bicycle activity but frequent driveway access points for each property and increased distances between street intersections. Separated bike lanes are easier to implement in locations with fewer driveway crossings. STREET BUFFER The space available between the motor vehicle travel lane and the separated bike lane affects bicyclist comfort and has a significant impact on geometric design options at intersections. AVAILABLE RIGHT-OF-WAY The availability of right-of-way and the placement of utilities may create significant constraints on geometric design options, bike lane widths, buffer widths and sidewalk widths. Where right-of-way is being acquired for roadway projects, sufficient right-of-way should be secured for separated bike lanes. TYPE OF PROJECT Reconstruction projects provide the greatest opportunity to achieve preferred design dimensions and intersection treatments. Retrofit projects, which frequently are limited to repaving and restriping, are often constrained by existing street widths. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide Copenhagen, Denmark 53 4.2 DESIGN PRINCIPLES As separated bike lanes approach an intersection, the designer must determine whether to maintain separation through the intersection or to reintegrate the bicyclist into the street. Bicycles, pedestrians and motor vehicles inevitably cross paths at intersections (unless their movements are grade separated). Intersections with separated bike lanes should be designed to minimize bicyclist exposure to motorized traffic and should minimize the speed differential at the points where travel movements intersect. The goal is to provide clear messages regarding right of way to all users moving through the intersection in conjunction with geometric features that result in higher compliance where users are expected to yield. The following principles should be applied to the design of intersections with separated bike lanes to maximize safety and comfort for all users: 1. MINIMIZE EXPOSURE TO CONFLICTS 2. REDUCE SPEEDS AT CONFLICT POINTS 3. COMMUNICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY PRIORITY 4. PROVIDE ADEQUATE SIGHT DISTANCE 4.2.1 MINIMIZE EXPOSURE TO CONFLICTS In urban areas, the majority of crashes between bicyclists and motorists occur at intersections and driveways and are often related to turning or merging movements. EXHIBIT 4A provides a comparison of bicyclist exposure at various types of intersections. While they do occasionally occur, crashes between bicyclists and pedestrians are comparatively rare. It is important to enable pedestrians to see approaching bicyclists at locations where they cross a separated bike lane. Care should be taken to avoid the placement of infrastructure that may block a pedestrian's view of approaching bicyclists. It is also important to provide clear and direct paths for pedestrians to reduce the likelihood that they use the bike lane as a walkway. For this reason, strategies for accommodating pedestrians on streets with separated bike lanes are provided throughout this guide. The majority of conflicts and crashes in urban areas between bicyclists and motorists are related to motor vehicle turning movements at intersections. While they do occasionally occur, crashes between bicyclists and pedestrians are comparatively rare. To improve bicyclist comfort and safety, it is preferable to maintain separation within intersections to reduce exposure to merging motor vehicles. Where merging areas, crossings and locations with shared operating spaces are required, they should be designed to minimize exposure. This can be accomplished by: • Shortening crossing distance with curb extensions. • Providing two-stage turn queuing areas which allow bicyclists to avoid merging across multiple lanes of traffic during turning movements. • Providing median refuge areas for two- stage crossings. • Providing wider street buffers for bicycle queuing and pedestrian storage to shorten crossing distances. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design G EXHIBIT 4A: COMPARISON OF BICYCLIST EXPOSURE AT INTERSECTIONS The diagrams on this page provide a comparison of the levels of exposure associated with various types of intersection designs. Exposure Level: High CONVENTIONAL BIKE LANES AND SHARED LANES Bike lanes and shared lanes require bicyclists to share and negotiate space with motor vehicles as they move through intersections. Motorists have a large advantage in this negotiation as they are driving a vehicle with significantly more mass and are usually operating at a higher speed than bicyclists. This creates a stressful environment for bicyclists, particularly as the speed differential between bicyclists and motorists increases. For these reasons, it is preferable to provide separation through the intersection. Exposure Level: High to Medium SEPARATED BIKE LANES WITH MIXING ZONES One strategy that has been used in the U.S. at constrained intersections on streets with separated bike lanes is to reintroduce the bicyclist into motor vehicle travel lanes (and turn lanes) at intersections, removing the separation between the two modes of travel. This design is less preferable to providing a protected intersection for the same reasons as discussed under conventional bike lanes and shared lanes. Where provided, mixing zones should be designed to reduce motor vehicle speeds and minimize the area of exposure for bicyclists. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gulde Exposure Level: Medium to Low SEPARATED BIKE LANES THROUGH ROUNDABOUTS Separated bike lanes can be continued through roundabouts, with crossings that are similar to, and typically adjacent to, pedestrian crosswalks. Motorists approach the bicycle crossings at a perpendicular angle, maximizing visibility of approaching bicyclists. Bicyclists must travel a more circuitous route if turning left and must cross four separate motor vehicle path approaches. Yielding rates are higher at single-lane roundabouts.1 Exposure Level: Low PROTECTED INTERSECTIONS A protected intersection maintains the physical separation through the intersection, thereby eliminating the merging and weaving movements inherent in conventional bike lane and shared lane designs. This reduces the conflicts to a single location where turning traffic crosses the bike lane. This single conflict point can be eliminated by providing a separate signal phase for turning traffic bicycle --. motor vehicle __. conflict area • 55 Where conflicts with motor vehicles are more significant due to high traffic volumes, high speed turns across the separated bike lane, or at locations with limited sight distance, steps should be taken to reduce or eliminate conflicts with other strategies, such as restricting turn movements (see Section 4.3.7), providing traffic signal phasing that allows for fully protected bicycle movements (see Section 6.4), or providing grade separation (see Section 4.3.8). 4.2.2 REDUCE SPEEDS AT CONFLICT POINTS Reducing motor vehicle speeds at intersections improves the motorist's ability to appropriately react to and yield to bicyclists and pedestrians. Slower motor vehicle speeds reduce stopping sight distance requirements and reduce the likelihood of severe injuries and fatalities for bicyclists and pedestrians in the event of a crash. Intersections with separated bike lanes should be designed to ensure slow-speed turning movements (10 mph or less) and weaving movements (20 mph or less in the area where weaving movements occur). Mixing zones should be designed to encourage the weaving movement to occur in close proximity to the corner at a location where motorists have slowed their speed in anticipation of the turn so they are more likely to yield to bicyclists (see Section 4.3.3). MINIMIZE CURB RADIUS The smallest feasible curb radius should be selected for corner designs based upon the design vehicle's effective turning radius. A small curb radius requires motorists to slow down, which improves yielding and reduces stopping distance requirements. This strategy can also help to increase the size of bicycle and pedestrian queuing areas, thereby enabling greater flexibility in the placement of curb ramps and reducing crossing distances. Many factors influence corner design, and a flexible approach is necessary depending on the type of street, the number and configuration of travel lanes, and characteristics of the design vehicle. The design vehicle should be selected according to the types of vehicles using the intersection with consideration given to relative volumes and frequencies under normal traffic conditions. Further information on selecting the appropriate design vehicle can be found in Section 6.3.3 of the PD&DG. At locations where the accommodation of trucks and buses is required, consideration should be given to allowing encroachment into approaching and/or departure lanes to reduce the design curb radius to the minimum (see Section 6.7.2 of the PD&DG). Where encroachment is not desirable a compound curve may be used in place of a simple curve to minimize the effective curb radius to slow turns while still accommodating larger vehicles. At signalized intersections where additional space is needed to accommodate turning vehicles, consideration can be given to recessing the stop line on the receiving street to enable a large vehicle to use a portion of or the entire width of the receiving roadway (encroaching on the opposing travel lane) as shown in EXHIBIT 48. EXHIBIT 48: Recessed Stop Line for Large Vehicle Turn with Mountable Truck Apron MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design G MOUNTABLE TRUCK APRONS While bicyclist and pedestrian safety is negatively impacted by wide crossings, bicyclists and pedestrians are also at risk if the curb radius is too small. This can result in the rear wheels of a truck tracking over queuing areas at the corner. Maintenance problems are also caused when trucks must regularly drive over street corners to make turns. Mountable truck aprons are a solution that can reduce turning speeds for passenger vehicles while accommodating the off- tracking of larger vehicles where a larger corner radius is necessary (see EXHIBIT 4C). Mountable truck aprons are part of the traveled way and as such should be designed to discourage pedestrian or bicycle refuge. Bicycle stop bars, EXHIBIT 4C: MOUNTABLE TRUCK APRON MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide detectable warning panels, traffic signal equipment and other intersection features must be located behind the mountable surface area. The mountable surface should be visually distinct from the adjacent travel lane, sidewalk and separated bike lane. The heights of mountable areas and curbs should be a maximum of 3 in. above the travel lane to accommodate lowboy trailers. 57 RAISED CROSSINGS Raised crossings are an effective strategy for reducing crashes between motorists and bicyclists because they slow the turning speed of motor vehicles, increase visibility of vulnerable street users, and increase yielding behavior of motorists.2•3•4 Raised crossings should be considered for separated bike lane crossings where motorists are required to yield the right-of- way to bicyclists while turning or crossing. Examples where this treatment may be particularly beneficial are at the following types of crossings: • Collector and local street crossings (see Section 16.3 of the PD&DG). • Crossings of driveways and alleys. • Crossings of channelized right turn lanes and roundabouts. • Intersections where a large corner radius is required to accommodate heavy vehicles. Raised crossings are usually appropriate only on minor road crossings. Raised crossings across an arterial roadway require a design exception. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gui Raised crossings should have the following design characteristics (see EXHIBIT 40, EXHIBIT 4E, and EXHIBIT 4F): • They should be elevated 4-6 in. above the street. • Motor vehicle approach ramps should be sloped as follows: • Streets: 5-8 percent slope • Driveways and alleys: 5-15 percent slope • Yield lines or speed hump markings should be used on uncontrolled motor vehicle approaches. • The surface materials, color and texture of the separated bike lane and adjacent sidewalk should extend through the crossing, maintaining visual continuity to encourage motorists to yield at the crossing. 0 • Intersection design must meet the accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (MAAB). Special attention should be given to ensuring people with vision impairments are given sufficient cues at intersections to prevent them from unintentionally moving into the street. See Section 4.4 for additional traffic control considerations. Where the bike lane is not at the same elevation as the raised crossing, it is necessary to provide transition ramps for bicyclists. The ramp should provide a smooth vertical transition with a maximum slope of 10 percent. To allow bicyclists to Street Buffer e Street Approach Ramp Bicycle Crossing (Bike Lane) Raised 5-8\ Side 4-6· Street o· Crossing Street Buffer Street 0 Approach Ramp : Raised I 5·15\ I 4-6· I I Driveway Crossing o· MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide focus their attention on the crossing, the transition ramp should generally not be located within a lateral shift or curve in the bike lane alignment. Speed hump markings on the transition ramp should be provided for ramps 6 ft. or more in length with slopes that exceed 5 percent, otherwise they are optional. Designers should consider raising the entire separated bike lane to intermediate or sidewalk level where the density of bus stops, driveways, alleys or minor street crossings would otherwise result in a relatively quick succession of transition ramps. Too many transition ramps in close proximity can result in an uncomfortable bicycling environment. e Pedestrian Crossing (Sidewalk) Departure Ramp Driveway EXHIBIT 40: Raised Crossing Elevations (Profile View) 59 ' EXHIBIT 4E: RAISED SIDE STREET CROSSING I 0 See Exhibit 4D: Raised Crossing Elevations MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design G EXHIBIT4F: RAISED DRIVEWAY CROSSING MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide See Exhibit 4D: Raised Crossing Elevations * Speed hump markings are typical for ramps 6 ft. or more in length with slopes that exceed 5 percent; otherwise they are optional. 61 4.2.3 COMMUNICATE RIGHT-OF- WAY PRIORITY In general, the separated bike lane should be provided the same right-of-way priority as through traffic on the parallel street. Exceptions to this practice may be considered at: • Locations with high volumes of conflicting turning traffic (see Section 6.1.3) • Locations where bicyclist must cross high speed (greater than 30 mph) traffic All street users should be provided with visual cues that clearly establish which users have the right of way and consistently communicate expected yielding behavior (see EXHIBIT 4G). The priority right-of-way should be communicated through the provision of: • Marked bicycle crossings 0 (see Section 4.4.1) • Marked pedestrian crossings of separated bike lanes e (see Section 4.4.6) • Regulatory signs, if appropriate, for merging or turning traffic (see Section 4.4.4) • Regulatory signs, if appropriate, for side street or driveway traffic (STOP or YIELD) (see Section 4.4.5) e • Protection from high volume traffic conflicts (see Section 4.3.n 0 Locations with two-way separated bike lanes may benefit from placement of warning signs that indicate two-way bicycle travel in advance of the crossing. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gu 4.2.4 PROVIDE ADEQUATE SIGHT DISTANCE Under Massachusetts General Law (M.G.L. c.90 §14), a turning motorist must yield to a through bicyclist unless the motorist is at a safe distance from the bicyclist and making the turn at a reasonable speed. Bicyclists must yield to motorists that are within the intersection or so close thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard. Bicyclists and motorists must yield to pedestrians within a crosswalk at uncontrolled locations. To comply with this law, it is necessary to provide adequate sight distances between bicyclists, motorists and pedestrians as they approach intersections with streets, alleys, and driveways. In general, sight distances that conform to standard street design principles established in the AASHTO Green Book and AASHTO Bike Guide are sufficient for streets with separated bike lanes. When a separated bike lane is located behind a parking lane, it may be necessary to restrict parking and other vertical obstructions in the vicinity of a crossing to ensure adequate sight distances are provided. To determine parking restrictions near the crossing, it is necessary to know the approach speed of the bicyclist and the turning speed of the motorist. The overall objective of the design is to provide adequate sight distances for each user to detect a conflicting movement of another user and to react appropriately. The approach to the conflict point is comprised by these three zones: MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL LAW (M.G.L. CHAPTER 90, SECTION 14) "No person operating a vehicle that overtakes and passes a bicyclist proceeding in the same direction shall make a right turn at an intersection or driveway unless the turn can be made at a safe distance from the bicyclist at a speed that is reasonable and proper ... When turning to the left within an intersection or into an alley, private road or driveway an operator shall yield the right of way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction, including a bicycle on the right of the other approaching vehicles, which is within the intersection or so close thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard ... " • Recognition zone -the approaching bicyclist and motorist have an opportunity to see each other and evaluate their respective approach speeds. • Decision zone -the bicyclist or motorist identifies who is likely to arrive at the intersection first and adjust their speed to yield or stop if necessary. • Yield/stop zone -space for the motorist or bicyclist to stop if needed. At intersections with permissive turning movements where bicyclists and motorists are traveling in the same direction, there are two yielding scenarios that occur depending upon who arrives at the crossing first. 63 RIGHT TURNING MOTORIST YIELDS TO THROUGH BICYCLIST This scenario occurs when a through moving bicyclist arrives at the crossing prior to a turning motorist, who must stop or yield to the through bicyclist. Parking must be set back sufficiently for the motorist to see the approaching bicyclist (see EXHIBIT 4H). GI u yield/ ftll Cl. stop en c: .. zone ::I - decision zone GI u ftll Cl. en .. ftll GI u .c u ftll 0 .. Cl. recognition Cl. ftll zone EXHIBIT 4H: Right Turning Motorist Yields to Through Bicyclist THROUGH BICYCLIST YIELDS TO TURNING MOTORIST This scenario occurs when a turning motorist arrives at the crossing prior to a through moving bicyclist. Again, parking must be set back sufficiently to enable bicyclists and motorists to see and react to each other (see EXHIBIT 41). ---------- GI u yield/ ftll Cl. stop en c: .. zone ::I - decision zone GI u ftll Cl. en ---------.. ftll GI u .c u ftll 0 .. Cl. recognition Cl. ftll zone EXHIBIT 41: Through Bicyclist Yields to Right Turning Motorist 4.2.5 APPROACH CLEAR SPACE The following provides sight distance considerations for situations where motorists turn right, left, or cross separated bike lanes. The recommended approach clear space assumes the bicyclist is approaching the intersection at a constant speed of 15 mph. Clear space recommendations are provided for various turning speeds of motorists which may vary from 10 to 20 mph based on the geometric design of the corner and the travel path of the motorist. The recommended clear space allows one second of reaction time for both parties as they approach the intersection. If bicyclists' speeds are slower (such as on an uphill approach) or motorists' turning speeds are slower than 10 mph, the clear space can be reduced. Where either party may be traveling faster, such as on downhill grades, the clear space may benefit from an extension. EXHIBIT 4J provides various examples of how to determine the approach clear space for different turning movements. Vehicular Turning Design Speed 10 mph 15 mph 20 mph Approach Clear Space 40 ft. 50 ft. 60 ft. EXHIBIT 4J: Approach Clear Space Distance by Vehicular Turning Design Speed5 MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design G CASE A -RIGHT TURNING MOTORIST This case applies when a motorist is making a permissive right turn at a traffic signal or from an uncontrolled approach (e.g., a right turn from an arterial onto a local street or driveway), and a parking lane is present on the approach (see EXHIBIT 4H and EXHIBIT 41 on the previous page). In this case the motorist will be decelerating for the right turn in advance of the intersection. The motorist's turning speed will be controlled by the corner geometry and width of the receiving roadway. EXHIBIT 4J identifies the minimum approach clear space measured from the start of the point of curvature (PC) of the curb or pavement edge. This table applies to intersections with streets or higher volume commercial driveways and alleys. For locations with two-way separated bike lanes additional approach clear space will not be required as the recognition zone between the contra-flow movement bicyclist and right turning motorists exceeds the recommended clear space. Low volume driveways and alleys where motorist turning speeds can be anticipated to be less than 10 mph should provide a minimum clear space of 20 ft. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide CASE B -LEFT TURNING MOTORIST This case applies when a motorist is making a permissive left turn at a traffic signal or from an uncontrolled approach (e.g., a left turn from an arterial onto a local street or driveway) (see EXHIBIT 4K). On one-way streets with a left side separated bike lane, this case has the same operational dynamics and approach clear space requirements as Case A since the left turning motorist will be turning adjacent to the separated bike lane. For locations with two-way separated bike lanes on the left side, additional approach clear space will not be required as the recognition zone between the contra- flow movement bicyclist and left turning motorist exceeds the recommended clear space. Low volume driveways and alleys where motorists' turning speeds can be anticipated to be less than 10 mph should provide a minimum clear space of 20 ft. On streets with two-way traffic flow, the operational dynamic of a motorist looking for gaps in traffic creates unique challenges that cannot be resolved strictly through the provision of parking restrictions to improve sight distance. This is a challenging maneuver because the motorist is primarily looking for gaps in oncoming traffic, and is less likely to scan for bicyclists approaching from behind. Unlike for Case A or Case B on one-way streets where the motorist is decelerating towards the crossing, the motorist in this instance will be accelerating towards the crossing once they perceive a gap in traffic. This creates a higher potential for conflict on streets with: • High traffic volumes and multiple lanes • Higher operating speeds • Heavy left turn volumes EXHIBIT 4K: Left Turning Motorist Yields to Through Bicyclist yield/ stop zone decision zone Cl> u ftl a. Ill E :::J - Cl> u :!. Ill ... ftl Cl> u .c u ftl e a. a. ftl 65 For this reason, one or more of the following design elements should be considered to mitigate conflicts: • Implement a protected left turn phase for motorists that does not conflict with the bicycle crossing movement (see Chapter 6). • Install a TURNING VEHICLES YIELD TO BICYCLES AND PEDESTRIANS sign (R10-15 alt.) (see Section 4.4.4). • Supplement the bicycle crossing with green surfacing. • Raise the crossing (see Section 4.2.2). • Recess the crossing (see Section 4.3.6). • Restrict left turns (see Section 4.3. 7). Where these measures prove ineffective, or where it is not feasible to eliminate the conflict, it may be necessary to reevaluate whether a two-way separated bike lane is appropriate at the location. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gu CASE C1 -MOTORIST CROSSES NEAR SIDE SEPARATED BIKE LANE This case applies when a motorist exits a non-signal controlled street, alley or driveway to cross a near side separated bike lane (see EXHIBIT 4L). These intersections are commonly stop controlled. Providing a minimum clear space of 20 ft. between the stop line and the bicycle crossing will typically provide an approaching motorist with the ability to see approaching bicyclists in the separated bike lane. In many locations, the effective clear space will be larger than 20 ft. to accommodate pedestrian crosswalks. At locations where the motorist must pull into the crossing to view traffic gaps and is likely to block the separated bike lane, other treatments such as signalizing the crossing (see Chapter 6), raising the crossing (see Section 4.2.2), or recessing the bicycle crossing (see Section 4.3.6) should be considered. EXHIBIT 4L: Case C1 and C2 -Motorist Crossing Near-and Far-side Separated Bike Lane MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide CASE C2 -MOTORIST CROSSES FAR SIDE SEPARATED BIKE LANE This case applies when a motorist exits a non-signal controlled street, alley or driveway to cross a far side separated bike lane (see EXHIBIT 4L). These intersections are commonly stop controlled. As with Case B, this case creates a challenging dynamic that is difficult to resolve with additional parking restrictions on the cross street. It may be difficult to restrict parking enough to provide the required sight distance to judge gaps that allow a crossing of all the travel lanes and the separated bike lane on the opposite side of the street. As such, designers should consider the frequency of through movements at these types of intersections and provide adequate sight distance for bicyclists to perceive a crossing vehicle and stop if necessary. For this reason these potential mitigations should be considered: • Install a traffic signal (see Chapter 6). • Raise the crossing (see Section 4.2.2). • Recess the crossing (see Section 4.3.6). • Restrict crossing movements (see Section 4.3.7). 67 4.3 COMMON INTERSECTION DESIGN TREATMENTS This section provides guidance for the design of separated bike lanes at common intersection configurations to improve comfort, efficiency and safety for bicyclists. Each configuration includes examples of the application of signs and markings. Signal design is discussed in Chapter 6. 4.3.1 ELEMENTS OF PROTECTED INTERSECTIONS Well-designed protected intersections are intuitive and comfortable, provide clear right-of-way assignment, promote predictability of movement, and allow eye contact between motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians. They also clearly define pedestrian and bicyclist operating spaces within the intersection and minimize potential conflicts between users. The following discussion focuses on design guidance for the geometric elements of a protected intersection (see EXHIBIT 4M and EXHIBIT 4N). EXHIBIT 4M: Protected Intersection Design Note: Refer to the following page for number key. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gui , I I -I ...... ·· .. "" EXHIBIT 4N: ELEMENTS OF PROTECTED INTERSECTIONS . · • J1( ,,,.. ·~ ..... 1 ~ . 1~ ' 1. CORNER REFUGE ISLAND The corner refuge island allows the bike lane to be physically separated up to the intersection crossing point where potential conflicts with turning motorists can be controlled more easily. It serves an important purpose in protecting the bicyclist from right-turning motor vehicle traffic. The corner island also provides the following benefits: • Creates space for a forward bicycle queuing area. • Creates additional space for vehicles to wait while yielding to bicyclists and pedestrians who are crossing the road. • Reduces crossing distances. • Controls motorist turning speeds. The corner island geometry will vary greatly depending upon available space, location and width of buffers, and the corner radius. The corner island should be constructed with a standard vertical curb to discourage motor vehicle encroachment. Where the design vehicle exceeds an SU-30, a mountable truck apron should be considered to supplement the corner refuge island (see Section 4.2.2). 2. FORWARD BICYCLE QUEUING AREA The forward bicycle queuing area provides space for stopped bicyclists to wait that is fully within the view of motorists who are waiting at the stop bar, thus improving bicyclist visibility. This design enables bicyclists to enter the intersection prior to turning motorists, enabling them to establish the right-of-way in a similar manner as a leading bicycle interval. Ideally, the bicycle queuing area should be at least 6 ft. long to accommodate a typical bicycle length. The opening at the entrance and exit of the crossing to the street should typically be the same width as the bike zone, but no less than 6 ft. wide. Where stops are required, a stop line should be placed near the edge of the crossing roadway. Where feasible, the designer should consider providing additional queuing space on streets with high volumes of bicyclists. 3. MOTORIST YIELD ZONE Bicycle and pedestrian crossings set back from the intersection create space for turning motorists to yield to bicyclists and pedestrians. Research has found crash reduction benefits at locations where bicycle crossings are set back from the motorist travel way by a distance of 6 ft. to 16.5 ft.11•7•8•9 As shown in EXHIBIT 4U in Section 4.3.6, this offset provides the following benefits: • Improves motorist view of approaching bicyclists by reducing need for motorists to turn their head. • Eliminates the need to rely on the use of mirrors to look behind for bicyclists. • Creates space for a motorist to yield to bicyclists and pedestrians without blocking traffic and to stop prior to the crossing. • Provides additional time for bicyclists and pedestrians to react to turning motorists. • Bicycle and pedestrian crossings should be separate but parallel to consolidate conflicts for motorists unless the crossing is a shared use path. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design G 4. PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ISLAND The pedestrian crossing island is a space within the street buffer where pedestrians may wait between the street and the separated bike lane. It should be a minimum of 6 ft. wide and should include detectable warning panels. Pedestrian islands provide the following benefits: • Enable pedestrians to negotiate potential bicycle and motor vehicle conflicts separately. • Shortens pedestrian crossing distance of the street. • Reduce the likelihood that pedestrians will block the bike lane while waiting for the walk signal. The crossing island path may be directly adjacent to the forward bicycle queuing area, but these spaces should not overlap unless the facility is a shared use path. Separation via a raised median improves comfort and compliance among pedestrians and bicyclists (pedestrians are less likely to wander into the bike lane zone, and vice versa). The opening in the crossing island should match the width of the pedestrian crosswalk. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide 5. PEDESTRIAN CROSSING OF SEPARATED BIKE LANE Pedestrian crossings should be provided to indicate a preferred crossing of the separated bike lane and to communicate a clear message to bicyclists that pedestrians have the right-of-way. The crossing should typically align with crosswalks in the street. Yield lines in the bike lane in advance of the pedestrian crosswalk are typically used to emphasize pedestrian priority. It is also important to provide clear and direct paths for pedestrians to reduce the likelihood that they will step into or walk within the bike lane except at designated crossings. 6. PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP Pedestrian curb ramps may be required to transition pedestrians from the sidewalk to the street where there is a change in elevation between the two. It is preferable to use perpendicular or parallel curb ramps. The ramp must comply with ADA and MassDOT guidelines. Detectable warning panels must be provided at the edges of all street and bike zone crossings. 71 4.3.2 DESIGN STRATEGIES FOR CONSTRAINED LOCATIONS At constrained locations, it may not be feasible to maintain the preferred widths of motor vehicle lanes, buffers, bike lanes, and sidewalks to the corner. (However, sidewalk widths cannot be reduced below the required ADA minimums.) As discussed in Section 3.6 it may be necessary to narrow a zone to the minimum dimensions or to eliminate the sidewalk buffer to achieve the desired design. At locations where there are no conflicts with turning vehicles, the street buffer can be minimized and the motorist yield zone can be reduced or eliminated. See EXHIBIT 4N for an illustration of the motorist yield zone. Where conflicts remain, it is preferable to maintain a motorist yield zone. Where it is necessary to laterally shift the separated bike lane within a constrained intersection, the shift should generally occur gradually, at no greater than a taper of 3:1. Additionally alternative curb ramp designs, spot sidewalk widening, or modifications to the sidewalk and/or bike lane elevation may be required to provide a satisfactory design solution. The minimum width of a raised street buffer zone is 2 ft. The following strategies may be considered to maintain a protected intersection design in a constrained location. I. Bend-out Deflection It may be desirable to bend-out the separated bike lane as it approaches the intersection (see EXHIBIT 40). This creates: • A larger yielding zone for motorists. • Larger queuing areas for bicyclists and pedestrians within the street buffer. This may be particularly beneficial at locations with permissive left turn conflicts where turning motorists are focused on identifying gaps in opposing traffic, as it can be used to provide a place for a left-turning vehicle to wait while yielding to bicyclists. Bend-out deflection may also be desirable where it is necessary to create a pedestrian platform for transit stops, queueing space for loading or parking activities (see Chapter 5). II. Bend-in Deflection In general, it is not desirable to bend-in the separated bike lane unless it is to maintain minimum sidewalk widths in constrained corridors that require elimination of sidewalk buffers and narrowing of street buffers. The provision of a motorist yield zone should be provided by increasing the size of the corner island as shown in EXHIBIT4P. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gu' EXHIBIT 40: Bend-out Example EXHIBIT 4P: Bend-in Constrained Example MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide 73 4.3.3 MIXING ZONE TRANSITIONS Mixing zones create a defined merge point for a motorist to yield and cross paths with a bicyclist in advance of an intersection. They require removal of the physical separation between the bike lane and the motor vehicle travel lane. This allow motorists and bicyclists to cross paths within a travel lane to either reach a conventional bike lane near the stop bar (see EXHIBIT 4Q), or to share a motor vehicle lane (see EXHIBIT 4R). For both situations, a clearly defined, slow speed merging area increases the predictability and safety of all users. Protected intersections are preferable to mixing zones. Mixing zones are generally appropriate as an interim solution or in situations where severe right-of-way constraints make it infeasible to provide a protected intersection. Mixing zones are only appropriate on street segments with one-way separated bike lanes. They are not appropriate for two-way separated bike lanes due to the contra-flow bicycle movement. The following design principals should be applied to mixing zones: • Locate the merge point where the entering speeds of motor vehicles will be 20 mph or less by: • Minimizing the length of the merge area (50 ft. minimum to 100 ft. maximum). • Locating the merge point as close as practical to the inter- section. • Minimize the length of the storage portion of the turn lane. • Provide a buffer and physical separation (e.g., flexible delineator posts) from the adjacent through lane after the merge area, if feasible. • Highlight the conflict area with a green surface coloring and dashed bike lane markings, as necessary, or shared lane markings placed on a green box. • Provide a BEGIN RIGHT {or LEFT) TURN LANE YIELD TO BIKES sign {R4-4) at the beginning of the merge area. • Restrict parking within the merge area. • At locations where raised separated bike lanes are approaching the intersection, the bike lane should transition to street elevation at the point where parking terminates. Where posted speeds are 35 mph or higher, or at locations where it is necessary to provide storage for queued vehicles, it may be necessary to provide a deceleration/storage lane in advance of the merge point. -MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design G 0 -:;::; I! a; a. J! ':"': ... -0 0 ... ' 0 ... .. ! .. .. fl .. E BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE • YIELD TO BIKES EXHIBIT 4Q: Angled Crossing Mixing EXHIBIT 4R: Angled Crossing Mixing Zone with Bike Lane Zone with Shared Lane 0 -:;::; I! i. .. J! ! .. ':"': .. ... fl -.. 0 E 0 ... ' 0 ... MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide 75 4.3.4 ROUNDABOUT DESIGN WITH SEPARATED BIKE LANES When separated bike lanes are provided at roundabouts, they should be continuous around the intersection, parallel to the sidewalk (see EXHIBIT 4S). Separated bike lanes should generally follow the contour of the circular intersection. The design of the street crossings should include the following features (see EXHIBIT 4T): • The bicycle crossing should be immediately adjacent to and parallel with the pedestrian crossing, and both should be at the same elevation. O • Consider providing supplemental yield lines at roundabout exits to indicate priority at these crossings. e • The decision of whether to use yield control or stop control at the bicycle crossing should be based on available sight distance. e • The separated bike lane approach to the bicycle crossing should result in bicyclists arriving at the queuing area at a perpendicular angle to approaching motorists. • Curb radius should be a minimum of 5 ft. to enable bicyclists to turn into the queuing area. O • Channelizing islands are preferred to maintain separation between bicyclists and pedestrians, but may be eliminated if different surface materials are used. O • Place BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN WARNING signs (W11-15) as close as practical to the bicycle and pedestrian crossings (see Section 4.4.9). G At crossing locations of multi-lane roundabouts or roundabouts where the exit geometry will result in faster exiting speeds by motorists (thus reducing the likelihood that they will yield to bicyclists and pedestrians), additional measures should be considered to induce yielding such as providing an actuated device such as a Rapid Flashing Beacon or Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon. EXHIBIT 4$: Design for Roundabout with Separated Bi ' ~mes MUTCD W11-15 MUJCD W16-7P 4.3.5 DRIVEWAY CROSSINGS The design of driveways will follow the PD&DG, which has design criteria based on the primary use of the driveway: residential, commercial or industrial (see Chapter 15 of the PD&DG). In general, the width of the driveway crossing should be minimized and access management strategies should be considered along separated bike lane routes to minimize the frequency of driveway crossings. Where separated bike lanes cross driveways, the design should clearly communicate that bicyclists have the right- of-way by continuing the surface treatment of the bike lane across the driveway. Per Section 4.2.2, raised crossings should be considered to improve bicyclist safety. For low volume residential driveways, the driveway crossing should be clearly marked with a bicycle crossing. It does not need stop or yield signs for motorists exiting the driveway unless an engineering study indicates a need. At crossings (both controlled and uncontrolled) of high volume residential or commercial driveways, or any industrial driveway, a protected intersection design is preferred. If a protected intersection is not feasible, the driveway should provide a raised crossing with green conflict zone pavement markings. At uncontrolled high volume driveways where a protected intersection is not feasible, a raised crossing with green conflict zone markings should be provided along with a BICYCLE WARNING sign (W11-1) or BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN WARNING sign (W11-15) (see Section 4.4.8 and Section 4.4.9). At locations with two-way separated bike lanes, the W11-1 or W11-15 sign should be supplemented with a two-directional arrow (W1-7 alt.) supplemental plaque (see Section 4.4.8). If parking is allowed parallel to the separated bike lane, it should be restricted in advance of the driveway crossing to achieve adequate approach sight distance (see EXHIBIT 4J). A clear line of sight should be provided between motorists exiting and entering the driveway and approaching bicyclists. Sight lines should be examined before major reconstruction projects to identify strategies to further improve visibility while balancing on- street parking availability (e.g., relocating streetscape elements, lengthening curb extensions, etc.). MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gui 4.3.6 RECESSED (SET BACK) CROSSINGS Recessed bicycle and pedestrian crossings are a central element of the protected intersection discussed in Section 4.3.1 . The benefits of a recessed crossing apply equally to shared use path intersections with streets, driveways or alleys where permissive motorist turns are allowed. Similar to roundabouts, a recessed Rotterdam, Netherlands MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide crossing can reduce conflicts at crossings by creating space for the motorist to yield to approaching bicyclists followed by an additional space of approximately one car length to wait at the edge of the roadway to look for a gap in traffic without blocking the path. Raised crosswalks and refuge islands can be incorporated into the treatment to provide additional safety benefits. EXHIBIT 4U provides an example of a recessed crossing at a shared use path intersection. EXHIBIT 4U: Recessed Crossing at Shared Use Path Intersection 79 4.3.7 ACCESS MANAGEMENT It may be feasible or desirable in some locations to implement access management principles to improve overall traffic flow and safety within a corridor as well as to eliminate motorist conflicts with bicyclists in the separated bike lane. Specific strategies that should be considered include: • Restrict left turns and/or through crossings of a separated bike lane. • Construct medians. • Introduce regulatory sign restrictions. • Consolidate driveways to reduce potential frequency of conflicts. • Restrict turn-on-red to maintain integrity of crossings and bicycle queuing areas. EXHIBIT 4V provides an example of a recessed crossing combined with a median refuge to restrict through crossings and left turns across a shared use path intersection. EXHIBIT 4V: Recessed Crossing at a Shared Use Path Intersection with Left Tum and Through Crossing Restrictions 4.3.8 GRADE SEPARATION Grade separation is achieved through the provision of a bridge or underpass. This is likely to be a relatively rare design strategy due to cost and space constraints. It may be a desirable solution for crossing limited access highways or other high volume (more than 20,000 vehicles/day}, high speed (more than 45 mph) streets where motorists are not likely to yield, gaps in traffic are infrequent, and provision of a signalized crossing is not viable. The structure should be constructed to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians. The design of a bridge or tunnel for a separated bike lane should follow the guidance provided for shared use paths in Chapter 11 of the PD&DG and Section 5.2.10 of the AASHTO Bike Guide. In areas where pedestrian and bicycle volumes are higher, it is recommended that separate treadways for bicyclists and pedestrians be maintained across the structure. 4.4 PAVEMENT MARKING AND TRAFFIC SIGN GUIDANCE The design of traffic control devices is controlled by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) as adopted with amendments by MassDOT and the Standard Municipal Traffic Code. The following discussion provides an overview of key traffic control markings and signs that are frequently required at separated bike lane crossings. Traffic signals are discussed in Chapter 6. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design G 4.4.1 BICYCLE CROSSING A bicycle crossing is a marked crossing of an intersection with a street, driveway or alley. The purpose of the crossing is to • Delineate a preferred path for people bicycling through the intersection. • Encourage motorist yielding behavior, where applicable. : 2': 2': 2' il- l! :2i - EXHIBIT 4W: One-way Bicycle Crossing : 2': 2': EXHIBIT 4X: l\vo-way Bicycle Crossing MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide EXHIBIT 4W and EXHIBIT 4X indicate the standard dimensions of marked bicycle crossings. It is preferable, if adequate space exists, to place the markings on the outside of the bike lane width (i.e., maintaining the clear width of the bike lane through the intersection with the markings placed on the outside). If this is not feasible due to space constraints, the markings can be placed on the inside of the bike lane. The bicycle crossing may be supplemented with a green colored surface to improve contrast with the surrounding roadway and adjacent pedestrian crossing, if present. Green surfacing may be desirable at crossings where concurrent vehicle crossing movements are allowed. 4.4.2 BICYCLE STOP LINE Bicycle stop lines indicate the desired place for bicyclists to stop within a separated bike lane in compliance with a stop sign (R1-1) or traffic signal. At locations with bicycle queuing areas, a 1 ft. wide stop line should be placed near the edge of the crossing roadway. In constrained locations where there is no bicycle queuing area, the stop line should be located prior to the pedestrian crosswalk or crossing separated bike lane to prevent queued bicyclists from blocking the path of a crossing pedestrian or bicyclist. 36" 4.4.3 YIELD LINES Yield lines (12 in. by 18 in.) are typically used in advance of pedestrian crossings of separated bike lanes to emphasize pedestrian priority (see EXHIBIT 4Y). Yield lines (24 in. by 36 in.) may be used to in advance of bicycle crossings to emphasize bicyclist priority at the following locations (see EXHIBIT 4Z): • Uncontrolled crossings. • On the exit leg of signalized intersections where motorists turn across a bicycle crossing during a concurrent phase. • Bicycle crossings located within roundabouts. • Motorists yield points at mixing zones with advanced queuing lanes (see Section 4.3.3). 12· 18" '''''' EXHIBIT 4Y: Yield Lines for Use in Separated Bike Lanes I 24", I I I I '''''' EXHIBIT 4Z: Yield Lines for Use In Roadways 81 4.4.4 TURNING VEHICLES YIELD TO BICYCLES AND PEDESTRIANS SIGN The TURNING VEHICLES YIELD TO BICYCLES AND PEDESTRIANS (R10-15 alt.) sign may be used to notify permissive left or right turning motorists of the requirement to yield to bicyclists at the crossing (see EXHIBIT 4AA). If used at a crossing, the sign should be mounted on the far side of the intersection to improve visibility to left turning motorists. If possible, it should be mounted on the vehicle sign face. TURNING .. VEHICLES I ,, R10-15 alt. EXHIBIT 4AA: TURNING VEHICLES YIELD TO BICYCLES AND PEDESTRIANS Sign 4.4.5 YIELD HERE TO BICYCLES SIGNS At locations where yield lines are provided to denote the location for motorists to yield to bicyclists in crossings of separated bike lanes, a YIELD HERE TO BICYCLES (R1-5 alt. A) sign may be used (see EXHIBIT 4AB). If the yield condition includes pedestrians, the YIELD HERE TO BICYCLES AND PEDESTRIANS (R1-5 alt. B) sign may be used (see EXHIBIT 4AC). These signs are not required, and should not be used in locations where sign clutter is an issue. VJ HERE~ At 16 R1-5 alt. A EXHIBIT 4AB: YIELD HERE TO BICYCLES Sign R1-5 alt. B EXHIBIT 4AC: YIELD HERE TO BICYCLES AND PEDESTRIANS Sign Washington, DC MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design G 4.4.6 PEDESTRIAN CROSSING Marked crosswalks delineate the desired crossing point for pedestrians across a separated bike lane. They increase awareness of the crossing point for bicyclists and pedestrians, indicate priority for pedestrians at the crossing, and guide pedestrians across the bike lane in a direct path. Pedestrian crossings of the bike lane should be marked with continental striping. At uncontrolled crossings, yield lines may be provided on the bike lane approach to the crossing to indicate pedestrian priority. Section 4.3.1 provides additional guidance on curb ramps and accessibility I 2' I 2' I EXHIBIT 4AD: Pedestrian Crosswalk In Bike Lane, Option 1 1' 2' EXHIBIT 4AE: Pedestrian Crosswalk In Bike Lane, Option 2 MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gulde considerations, such as detectable warning panels. EXHIBIT 4AD and EXHIBIT 4AE illustrate crosswalk design options for pedestrian crossings of separated bike lanes. Narrower width crosswalks are preferable at locations where separated bike lanes are less than 6 ft. in width. 4.4.7 BEGIN RIGHT TURN YIELD TO BIKES SIGN The BEGIN RIGHT TURN YIELD TO BIKES sign (R4-4) should be placed at locations where the beginning of the right turn lane corresponds with the merge point where motorists cross the separated bike lane (see EXHIBIT 4AF). BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE • YIELD TO BIKES MUTCD R4-4 EXHIBIT 4AF: BEGIN RIGHT TURN YIELD TO BIKES Sign 4.4.8 BICYCLE WARNING SIGN The BICYCLE WARNING sign (W11-1) may be placed at, or in advance of, uncontrolled crossings of separated bike lanes to alert motorists of approaching bicyclists. The use of the sign should be limited to locations where the bike lane may be unexpected to crossing motorists. A TWO-WAY (W1-7 alt.) supplemental plaque should be mounted below the W11-1 where the separated bike lane operates as a two- way facility (see EXHIBIT 4AG). If used at a crossing, the sign should be mounted as close as practical to the crossing. If used in advance of the crossing, the sign should be located a minimum of 100 ft. prior to the crossing in a location visible to the motorist. A NEXT RIGHT or NEXT LEFT supplemental plaque may be mounted below the W11-1 if appropriate. MUTCD W11-1 W1·7 alt. 24" : EXHIBIT 4AG: BICYCLE WARNING Sign and TWO-WAY sub-plaque 83 4.4.9 BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN WARNING SIGN The BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN WARNING sign (W1H5) may be used in lieu of the W11-1 at locations where a sidewalk is parallel to the separated bike lane and motorists may not be expecting to cross either the bicycle or pedestrian crossing (see EXHIBIT 4AH). MUTCD W11-15 EXHIBIT 4AH: BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN WARNING Sign 4.4.10 TWO-STAGE TURN QUEUE BOX A two-stage turn queue box should be considered where separated bike lanes are continued up to an intersection and a protected intersection is not provided. The two-stage turn queue box designates a space for bicyclists to wait while performing a two-stage turn across a street at an intersection outside the path of traffic (see EXHIBIT 4AI). At the present time, two-stage turn queue boxes are considered experimental, therefore FHWA must approve the RFE prior to the 100 percent design submittal. Two-stage turn queue box dimensions will vary based on the street operating conditions, the presence or absence of a parking lane, traffic volumes and speeds, and available street space. The queuing area should be a minimum of 6.5 ft. deep (measured in the longitudinal direction of bicycles sitting in the box). The box should consist of a green box outlined with solid white lines supplemented with a bicycle symbol. A turn arrow may be used to emphasize the crossing direction. NO TURN ON RED MUTCD R10·11 ---- The turn box may be placed in a variety of locations including in front of the pedestrian crossing (the crosswalk location may need to be adjusted), in a 'jug-handle' configuration within a sidewalk, or at the tail end of a parking lane or a median island. The queuing area should be placed to provide clear visibility of bicyclists by motorists. Dashed bike lane extension markings may be used to indicate the path of travel across the intersection. NO TURN ON RED (R10-11) restrictions should be used to prevent vehicles from entering the queuing area. EXHIBIT 4AI: T\No-stage Tum Queue Box and NO TURN ON RED Sign MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gu' 4.5 EXAMPLES OF TRANSITIONS BETWEEN BIKEWAY TYPES Transitions between separated bike lanes and other bikeways types will typically be required for all projects. The actual transition design will vary greatly from location to location depending upon many of the contextual factors discussed in Section 4.1 . The transition design should clearly communicate how bicyclists are intended to enter and exit the separated bike lane minimizing conflicts with other users. Transitions of two-way separated bike lanes to bikeways or shared streets that require one-way bicycle operation require particular attention. Bicyclist operating contra-flow to traffic will be required to cross the roadway. Failure to provide a clear transition to the desired one-way operation may result in wrong way bicycle riding. The use of directional islands can provide positive direction for bicyclists to follow the desired transition route. It may also be desirable to use green crossings and two-stage queue boxes to provide strong visual guidance to all users of the intended path across the intersection. The crossing may warrant bicycle signals at signalized crossings. The signal should be coordinated with the cross street signal phase. EXHIBIT 4AJ to EXHIBIT 4AM provide illustrations of some example transitions. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gulde MUTCD M6-1 EXHIBIT 4AJ: Transition from a Two-way Separated Bike Lane optional NO TURN ON RED MUTCD R10-11 85 EXHIBIT 4AK: TRANSITION INTO A TWO-WAY SEPARATED BIKE LANE NO TURN ON RED. __ MUTCD R10-11 MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gu EXHIBIT 4AL: TRANSITION BETWEEN SEPARATED BIKE LANES AND SHARED USE PATHS MUTCD W11-15 MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide 87 00 MAY USE FULL LANE MUTCD R4-11 MUTCD R1-2 EXHIBIT 4AN: Transition to Shared Lane EXHIBIT 4AM: Transition to Conventional Bike Lane MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gui 4.6 ENDNOTES Salamati et al., 2013. Event-based Modeling of Driver Yielding Behavior to Pedestrians and Two- Lane Roundabout Approaches. Transportation Research Record, 2013(2389): 1-11. Accessed via: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC3947582/ 2 Schepers et al., 2010. Road factors and bicycle- motor vehicle crashes at unsignalised priority intersections 3 Garder et al., 1998. Measuring the safety effect of raised bicycle crossings using a new research methodology 4 Schepers J, Kroeze P, Sweers W, Wust J, 2010. Road factors and bicycle-motor vehicle crashes at unsignalized priority intersections. Accidents Analysis and Preventions 43 (2011) 853-861. 5 Assumes motorists approach turn decelerating at rate of 11.2 ft./sec.2, constant bicycle speed of 14 mph on level terrain, 1 second reaction times for bicyclists and motorists 6 Schepers, J.P., Kroeze, P.A., Sweers, W., & WOst, J. C., 2011. Road factors and bicycle- motor vehicle crashes at unsignalized priority intersections. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(3), 853-861. 7 Brode, Ulf and Jorgan Larsson, 1992. "Road Safety at Urban Junctions." Swedish Road and Traffic Research Institute. Report Vfl Meddelande 685, 1992. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide 8 SchnOll, R., Lange, J., et al., 1992. Cyclist Safety at Urban Intersections , in German (Sicherung von Radfahrern an stadtischen Knotenpunkten). BASt [German Federal Highway Research Institute], Bergisch Gladbach. 9 Welleman, A.G., Dijkstra, A., 1988. Safety Aspects of Urban Cycle Tracks (Veiligheidsaspecten van Stedelijke Fietspaden). Institute for Road Safety Research, Leidschendam. 89 This page left blank intentionally This chapter provides design guidance for separated bike lanes adjacent to curbside activities including parking, loading and bus stops. Typical configurations are presented for mid-block and intersection locations. Curbside activities often present daily challenges for people with disabilities. Design guidance presented in this chapter conforms to federal and state accessibility requirements to ensure that separated bike lane designs adhere to accessibility standards: • Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way, United States Access Board -2011 (or subsequent guidance that may supersede these guidelines in the future) • Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (AAB) Rules and Regulations (521 CMR) -2006 5.1 ON-STREET MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING 5.1.1 CONVENTIONAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING On-street motor vehicle parking increases the comfort of people bicycling in the separated bike lane by providing physical separation (see EXHIBIT 5A). On-street motor vehicle parking can also coexist with contra-flow separated bicycle lanes since risk of injury from dooring to a contra-flow cyclist is much smaller than when riding with the flow of traffic due to the reduced frequency of passenger door openings and the passenger visibility of on-coming cyclists. On-street parking is typically common along roadways through more developed areas such as village and town centers, urban neighborhoods and central business districts. • Compatible with street, intermediate or sidewalk level separated bike lanes. • 3 ft. street buffer recommended (2 ft. minimum) when adjacent to on-street parking to avoid conflicts with motor vehicle doors. 0 • It may not be necessary to provide vertical objects adjacent to on-street parking, except in locations where parking is absent, such as near intersections. • Vertical objects should be provided in all locations where on-street parking is prohibited for portions of the day, commercial areas where on-street parking turnover is high, or locations where parking demand is low. • Locate vertical objects in a manner that minimizes conflicts with motor vehicle doors. 6 • Ensure parking does not encroach into the intersection approach clear space (see Section 4.2.5). • Locate parking meters on a raised median in the street buffer. Where raised median is too narrow, place parking meters in the sidewalk buffer zone near a crosswalk. EXHIBIT SA: CONVENTIONAL ON-STREET MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING {MID-BLOCK) MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gu 5.1.2 ACCESSIBLE MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING PROWAG R214 requires a minimum number of accessible on-street parking spaces on a block perimeter where marked or metered on-street parking is provided. Proximity to key destinations or roadway grades may require locating accessible parking on a block face with separated bike lanes. • Refer to PROWAG R309 for accessible parking guidance and PROWAG R302.7 for surface guidance. • The bike lane may be narrowed to 4 ft. at accessible parking spaces with a design exception. • A 5 ft. minimum street level access aisle is required where sidewalk width exceeds 14 ft. 0 It must be free from obstructions, extend the full length of the parking space and connect to a pedestrian access route via curb ramp or blended transition. 6 • Where an access aisle is not required, signed accessible space must be located at the end of the block face and adjacent sidewalk must be free of obstructions for vehicle lift deployment. • Rear access aisles are recommended for driver side access to the sidewalk. 0 • Place RESERVED PARKING (R7-8) and, if applicable, VAN ACCESSIBLE (R7- 8P) sign at the head of each accessible parking space. 0 0 MID-BLOCK LOCATIONS Locate accessible parking at a mid- block location (see EXHIBIT 58) where intersection locations are infeasible or if proximity to a specific destination is advantageous. EXHIBIT se: ACCESSIBLE ON-STREET MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING (MID-BLOCK) *A bike lane width narrower than 5 ft. requires a design exception. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide 93 EXHIBIT SC: ACCESSIBLE ON-STREET MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING (INTERSECTION) *A bike lane width narrower than 5 ft. requires a design exception. INTERSECTION LOCATIONS Locate accessible parking near an intersection to connect to curb ramps (see EXHIBIT SC). Where feasible, avoid placing accessible spaces in near-side locations to preserve intersection approach clear space (see Section 4.2.5). Consider side street locations for accessible parking where far-side placement conflicts with bus operations. • Pedestrian crossing islands with cut- throughs are recommended to prevent parking encroachment. O • A rear access aisle may abut pedestrian crossing island in constrained situations. fj -,--.--------------" ~·.,.-' - yr. ~ ' b y ' -· .:: : ~ " . *A bike lane width narrower than 5 ft. requires a design exception. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gu 5.2 LOADING ZONES Designated loading zones may accommodate passenger loading (e.g., pick-up and drop-off at schools, hotels, hospitals, taxi stands, etc.), commercial loading (e.g ., goods or parcel deliveries), or both. 5.2.1 COMMERCIAL LOADING Commercial loading zones are often a restricted and managed portion of conventional on-street parking. They are typically longer than a single parking space to accommodate large commercial vehicles. They are not required to be accessible, and designers should follow conventional on-street parking guidance in Section 5.1.1 . 5.2.2 PASSENGER LOADING PROWAG R310 requires at least one accessible loading zone per 100 ft. of continuous loading zone space when passenger loading is provided (see EXHIBIT 50). • Refer to PROWAG R310 for accessible passenger loading guidance and PROWAG R302.7 for surface guidance. • The bike lane may be narrowed to 4 ft. at accessible loading zones with a design exception. EXHIBIT so: ACCESSIBLE LOADING ZONE (MID-BLOCK WITH PARKING) •A bike lane width narrower than 5 ft . requires a design exception. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide • Length of the passenger loading zone should accommodate the length of the typical passenger vehicle that will use the zone. Longer zones may be needed if vehicle queues are anticipated. • The access aisle must be at the same level as the motor vehicle pull-up space. 0 It must be free from obstructions, extend the full length of the accessible loading zone and connect to a pedestrian access route via curb ramp or blended transition. f) • Curb ramps are recommended to accommodate dollies/hand trucks. f) • Place NO PARKING LOADING ZONE (R7- 6) at the rear and head of an accessible loading zone. e 0 95 In locations without on-street parking, a lateral deflection of the separated bike lane may be required to accommodate an accessible loading zone (see EXHIBIT 5E). • Bike lane deflection should occur gradually, but not greater than a 3:1 taper to maintain bicyclist safety and comfort (see Section 4.3.2). 0 • An appropriate sidewalk width, which is often wider than the minimum pedestrian access route, must be maintained. f) INTERSECTION LOCATIONS As demonstrated in EXHIBIT 50, accessible loading zones are nearly identical to accessible on-street parking spaces. Designers should consult EXHIBIT 5C when designing accessible loading zones at intersections. EXHIBIT SE: ACCESSIBLE LOADING ZONE (MID-BLOCK WITHOUT PARKING) * A bike lane width narrower than 5 ft. requires a design exception. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gu 5.3 ON-STREET BIKE PARKING On-street bike parking reduces conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians, helps preserve sidewalk width, provides direct connections to bike lanes, and increases bicycle parking capacity and visibility (see EXHIBIT 5F and EXHIBIT 5G). When converted to space for bicycle parking, a single on-street motor vehicle parking space can store up to 14 bicycles or 10 bike share bicycles, thus increasing overall parking capacity for adjacent businesses. Bike parking should be considered in locations with observed demand, for example where bicycles are locked to trees, signs, parking meters and other streetscape elements. Adjacent businesses may be willing to fund and/or maintain on-street bike parking, including bike share stations. • A 2 ft. street buffer recommended (1 ft. minimum} and should be free of obstructions. 0 • Parking should be flush with the bike lane or accessible by a mountable curb (see Section 3.3.4). • Consider locating vertical objects between bike and motor vehicle parking to increase visibility for motorists and to protect bicycles from motor vehicle encroachment. 6 • Locate bike parking close to destinations or transit connections. • Bike share stations and temporary bike parking corrals may be removed seasonally for snow clearance and removal. e MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide EXHIBIT SF: ON-STREET BIKE PARKING (MID-BLOCK) EXHIBIT SG: ON-STREET BIKE PARKING (INTERSECTION) 97 5.4 BUS STOPS Separated bike lanes can be integrated with a variety of bus stop designs. They are compatible with mid-block, near-side and far-side bus stop locations. Where feasible, separated bike lanes should be routed behind bus stops to eliminate conflicts between buses and bicyclists. This recommended configuration-referred to as "a floating bus stop"-repurposes the street buffer into a dedicated passenger platform between the motor vehicle lane and the bike lane. Bus passengers must cross the separated bike lane when entering and exiting the platform. Designers can communicate expectations for people bicycling and taking transit by following these principles to the maximum extent feasible: • Guide bus passengers across the bike lane at clearly marked locations. • Provide clear direction to people bicycling when they are expected to yield to pedestrians crossing the bike lane at bus stops. Designers should consider in-lane bus stops to preserve space for the street buffer, maintain separated bike lane width, and simplify bus re-entry into traffic. Where on-street parking is present, a curb extension is required to provide an in-lane stop, as shown in EXHIBIT SJ . Bus stops are natural locations for bike parking. Bike racks increase the catchment area of bus stops, providing a longer-range and faster first-and last-mile connection compared to walking. See to Section 5.3 for on-street bike parking. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gu' EXHIBIT SH: BUS STOP DESIGN ELEMENTS •A bike lane width narrower than 5 ft. requires a design exception. 5.4.1 DESIGN ELEMENTS All bus stops should include a common set of required design elements to provide accessible, high-quality transit service (see EXHIBIT SH). Elements that may influence separated bike lane design are highlighted in this section. Designers should consult MBTA or local guidelines for more detail, including for the design of amenities beyond the scope of this Guide (e.g., trash receptacles, informational signage, etc.). • Preserve a clear boarding and alighting area that connects to a pedestrian access route. Advanced lateral deflection of the bike lane may be necessary to accommodate the boarding and alighting area {see Section 4.3.1 ). O MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide • Maintain a pedestrian access route between the sidewalk, the boarding and alighting area, and shelters and benches. Two pedestrian crossings are recommended, but not required. f) • Include a rear door clear zone connected to a pedestrian access route. 6) It is preferable to have a continuous clear zone to connect the boarding and alighting area and the rear door clear zone.() Additional design elements are recommended to improve operations at bus stops. • Transition the bike lane to sidewalk level in constrained situations or to provide level pedestrian crossings. Locate bicycle transition ramps near crosswalks and outside of any lateral shift of the bike lane. 0 • Locate shelters and other vertical objects that are 36 in. or higher a minimum of 6-12 in. from the bike lane edge {see Section 3.3.3). 0 • Place railings or planters (3 ft. maximum height) at the back of the platform for high ridership stops or along two-way separated bike lanes to channelize pedestrians to designated crossings. Ends of railings should be flared inward toward the bus stop and away from the bike lane for a safer bicycling environment. 99 EXHIBIT 51: FLOATING BUS STOP (MID-BLOCK) 5.4.2 EXAMPLE CONFIGURATIONS The following exhibits present examples of separated bike lane and bus stop configurations. Each exhibit incorporates required and recommended design elements described in Section 5.4.1 , and highlights unique considerations of each configuration. FLOATING BUS STOP (MID-BLOCK) EXHIBIT 51 shows a raised separated bike lane alongside a mid-block floating bus stop. This is a typical curbside stop located between parked motor vehicles, which minimizes traffic impacts by requiring the bus driver to pull into and out of the stop. • Where street buffer is less than 8 ft., taper the bike lane to create space for the bus stop. 0 • Maintain an appropriate sidewalk width, which is typically wider than the minimum pedestrian access route. e • Consider railing or planters to channelize pedestrian access to and from busy bus stops. • Narrow the bike lane along the bus stop to maintain an accessible sidewalk and bus stop in constrained areas. Where narrowed to 4 ft. (less than 5 ft. requires a design exception}, elevate the bike lane to sidewalk level to minimize pedal strike risks on curbs. In the case of two- way facilities, a minimum width of 8 ft. should be used. 0 MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gu EXHIBIT SJ: FLOATING BUS STOP (INTERSECTION) FLOATING BUS STOP (INTERSECTION) EXHIBIT 5J shows a street level separated bike lane alongside a far-side floating bus stop. Transit operators generally prefer far- side stops because conflicts with crossing pedestrians and turning motor vehicles are minimized. This stop is located on a curb extension, also known as a bus bulb. Bus bulbs minimize the loss of on-street parking, simplify maneuvers for bus operators and provide more space for passenger amenities. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gulde • Consider bus bulbs adjacent to separated bike lanes to preserve right- of-way for the separated bike lane and sidewalk. 0 @ • Consider railing or planters to channelize pedestrian access to and from busy bus stops. 0 • Integrate bus stop into the pedestrian crossing at the intersection for convenient access. 0 • Ramp to street level pedestrian cut- through must not exceed 8.3 percent. 0 • Provide level landing at curb ramps (4 ft. by 4 ft. minimum). 0 101 EXHIBIT SK: FLOATING BUS STOP (NEAR-SIDE) EXHIBIT SK shows a raised separated bike lane alongside a near-side floating bus stop. When occupied by a bus, near-side stops reduce approach sight distance for right-turning motorists before crossing the separated bike lane (see Section 4.2.3). • Consider raised crossings if near-side bus stop diminishes motorist approach sight distance or increases the effective turning radius for motor vehicles. 0 • Consider railing or planters to channelize pedestrian access to and from busy bus stops. 6 • Locate near-side stop far enough from the cross street to provide space for a forward bicycle queuing area and, if applicable, a corner refuge island. e MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gu" EXHIBIT SL: FLOATING BUS STOP (FAR-SIDE) EXHIBIT 5L shows a two-way raised separated bike lane alongside a far- side floating bus stop. The contra-flow direction of bicycle travel in a two-way separated bike lane introduces a potentially unexpected bicycle movement for bus passengers. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide • Consider railing or planters to channelize pedestrian access to and from bus stops along two-way separated bike lanes. Consider agreements with businesses, community improvement districts or developers for long-term maintenance of planters. 0 • Use solid yellow line to discourage passing along a bus stop. fl • Locate the top level landing in the street buffer, and not within the bike lane, wherever possible. 0 103 EXHIBIT SM : CONSTRAINED BUS STOP CONSTRAINED BUS STOP EXHIBIT 5M shows a constrained bus stop, which elevates the bike lane to sidewalk level to avoid conflicts with buses but utilizes the bike lane as a portion of the bus stop platform. Bicyclists must yield to people boarding and alighting, and must proceed with caution at all other times to avoid conflicts with waiting passengers. Constrained bus stops should only be considered when the introduction of a floating bus stop would do one of the following: • Create non-compliant elements of the public right-of-way according to the most recent accessibility standards. • Narrow the sidewalk below an appropriate width given pedestrian volumes and context of the built environment. • Narrow the bike lane below 4 ft. along the bus stop (less than 5 ft. requires a design exception). Constrained bus stops require additional considerations: • Place crosswalks with blended transitions at the boarding and alighting area and the rear door clear zone to align with bus doors. Coordinate with the local transit agency to identify vehicle type(s) anticipated to serve the stop. O • Provide combined bike lane and sidewalk width equal to at least 8 ft. to qualify as an accessible boarding and alighting area. 0 • Place DO NOT PASS WHEN BUS IS STOPPED sign in advance of the first pedestrian crossing a bicyclist approaches (i.e., the rear door clear zone).€) • When included, place shelter and/or bench at the back of the sidewalk. 0 • Consider optional colored pavement within the constrained bike lane. 0 MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gu SIGNAL Bicyclists have unique needs at signalized intersections. Bicycle movements may be controlled by the same indications that control motor vehicle movements, by pedestrian signals, or by bicycle- specific traffic signals. As discussed in Chapter 1, bicyclists have unique operating characteristics that may be addressed with bike signals. In addition, as discussed in Chapter 4, the introduction of separated bike lanes creates situations that may require leading or protected phases for bicycle traffic, or place bicyclists outside the cone of vision of existing signal equipment. In these situations, provision of signals for bicycle traffic will be required. 6.1 GUIDANCE FOR SIGNALIZATION The designer should review existing traffic volumes, traffic signal equipment, and phasing for any signalized intersection along a separated bike lane. Bike signal control may be achieved through minor modification of existing signal equipment or with installation of a new traffic signal. Consideration should be given to: • Existing signal equipment and visibility • Existing signal timing and phasing • Conflicts between turning vehicles and bicycles • Sight lines between turning vehicles and bicycles • Signal timing and clearances for bicycles • Signal detection for bicycles This chapter discusses the need for bike signals, as well as design controls for signal phasing and equipment. 6.1.1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT In general, the addition of a separated bike lane at an intersection will not require installation of a new traffic control signal at existing unsignalized intersections. The decision to use traffic signals should follow the signal warrants specified in the MUTCD. When evaluating warrants for a potential signal, the designer should be aware that separated bike lanes attract additional users which could result in an intersection meeting warrants for a signal within a short time of the facility opening. Therefore anticipated future volumes of bicyclists should be considered during any warrant analysis effort. The designer should also evaluate the pedestrian hybrid beacon warrant, counting bicyclists as pedestrians, for crossings of high volume (more than 250 vehicles/hour) or high speed (greater than 30 mph) roadways. 6.1.2 BIKE SIGNAL HEAD WARRANT Bike signals should generally be installed at all traffic control signals where separated bike lanes are present to provide a uniform indication for bicyclists. Requiring bicyclists to follow a mixture of pedestrian signal, vehicle signal and bike signal indications may result in confusion and lower signal compliance. While the use of bike signal heads is not required, under the following circumstances bike signal heads shall be provided to ensure safety for bicyclists: • Locations where leading or protected phases are provided for bicyclists • Locations with contra-flow bicycle movements • Locations where existing traffic signal heads are not visible to approaching bicyclists • Locations where bicyclists are physically separated from motorists and pedestrians 6.1.3 CONSIDERATIONS FOR PROVIDING A PROTECTED BICYCLE PHASE Separate bicycle phases are not required at signal controlled intersections. The decision to provide a protected bicycle phase should be based on a need to eliminate conflicts. The provision of protected movements may require the presence of motor vehicle turn lanes on the intersection approach. Scenarios where provision of a separate phase should be considered are discussed on the following page. These include: • Locations with two-way or contra-flow bicycle movements • Locations with unique or high volume bicycle movements • Locations with high volumes of turning traffic MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gui LOCATIONS WITH TWO-WAY OR CONTRA- FLOW BICYCLE MOVEMENTS As discussed in Chapter 4, bicyclists may be exposed to increased conflicts with left turning motorists on two-way streets with two-way separated bike lanes on one or both sides. The conflicts result when the bicyclists traveling in the same direction as the left turning motorist is not seen. While the motorist is scanning for a gap in traffic, they may not detect a bicyclist arriving from behind them and entering the crossing. Depending upon the time of arrival and the size of the intersection, there may be little time for either party to react. Where geometric solutions such as raised crossings or recessed crossings are not feasible or do not mitigate the conflict, the provision of a protected left turn phase or a protected bike phase should be considered to separate this conflict in time. Examples of potential phasing are shown in EXHIBIT 6J, EXHIBIT 6K, and EXHIBIT 6L. LOCATIONS WITH UNIQUE OR HIGH VOLUME BICYCLE MOVEMENTS At locations where bicycle volumes and/ or parallel pedestrian volumes are high, turning vehicles may find it difficult to find a safe gap to turn across. Separating the turning vehicle movements from the through bicycle and pedestrian movements may reduce delays and frustrations for all users. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide LOCATIONS WITH HIGH VOLUMES OF TURNING TRAFFIC Time-separated turning movements should be considered in locations with the motor vehicle turn volumes in EXHIBIT 6A. In locations where the roadway width does not allow for the provision of turn lanes and therefore limits phasing options, the designer should consider access management measures to reduce conflicts (see Section 4.3.7). Where conflicts with permissive turns are necessary, enhanced treatments should be considered to reduce speeds and increase sight distance (see Section 4.3.1). 6.1.4 CONSIDERATIONS FOR PROVIDING A LEADING BICYCLE INTERVAL At locations where bicycle volumes and/or motorist turning volumes are lower than the threshold to provide a protected phase, or at locations where provision of a protected phase is not feasible, there may be benefits to providing a leading bicycle phase. A leading bicycle interval allows a bicyclist to enter the street crossing prior to a turning motorist, thereby improving their visibility. In some cases, a leading bicycle interval may allow bicyclists to clear the conflict point before motor vehicles enter. A parallel leading pedestrian interval should also be provided. An example of potential phasing is shown in EXHIBIT 61. One-way Street Right Turn Left Turn across One Lane Left Turn across Two Lanes Right or Left Turn One-way 100 50 150 ' Two-way 100 50 0 100 EXHIBIT 6A: Considerations for Time-separated Bicycle Movements 107 6.2 SIGNAL DESIGN 6.2.1 TYPES OF BIKE SIGNALS Bike signals take on two typical forms, as illustrated in EXHIBIT 6B. The first is a standard three section head with circular signal faces. A BICYCLE SIGNAL sign (R10-1 Ob) mounted below the signal head designates the signal for the exclusive use of bicyclist movements. It is permitted for general use under the MUTCD. The second form of bike signal provides a three section head with bicycle symbols on each face. The use of bike signal faces has been approved by FHWA (see Interim Approval IA-16 for further details). The application and use of bike signal faces should be designed in accordance with the latest version of the MUTCD and associated interim approvals. If bicycles signals are to be used, the controlling municipality should amend the local traffic code to define their meaning. 6.2.2 BIKE SIGNAL EQUIPMENT The layout of traffic signals is an important task for ensuring the safe operation of a separated bike lane (see EXHIBIT 6C). The MUTCD establishes requirements for where traffic signal displays can be placed in an intersection. The following guidance supplements the MUTCD. EXHIBIT 6B: Typical Fonns of Bike Signals SIZE OF DISPLAYS Standard traffic signals are 12 in. in diameter. The MUTCD permits the use of an 8 in. circular indication for the sole purpose of controlling a bikeway or a bicycle movement (see MUTCD Section 40.07). The interim approval also authorizes the use of 4 in. bicycle faces as a supplemental near-side signal. Standard Signal Faces ~ SIGNAL R10-10b (required) NUMBER OF DISPLAYS The MUTCD prescribes the use of two signal faces for the primary movement. In the case of a separated bike lane, one signal face is sufficient, however supplemental near-side signal may be used for clarifying traffic control at the intersection for bicyclists. Bike Signal Faces ~ SIGNAL R10-10b (optional) MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gu' VISIBILITY OF SIGNAL FACES The designer should take care to ensure traffic signals and bike signal heads are visible for approaching bicyclists. Where existing traffic signals are anticipated to be the sole source of guidance for bicyclists, they should be located within the cone of vision measured from the bike stop bar (see MUTCO Section 40.13 for further detail). This is especially important to consider in locations with contra-flow or two-way bike facilities. If the signals fall outside the cone of vision, supplementary bike signal heads shall be provided. Section 40.12 of the MUTCO states that signals should be designed to "optimize the visibility of signal indications to approaching traffic" and that road users shall be given a clear unmistakable indication of their right-of-way assignment. For separated bike lanes, this may mean that the bicycle traffic signal face should be optically programmed or shielded with louvers to prevent confusion for parallel motor vehicle traffic. Designers should also ensure optically programmed or shielded signals are visible to approaching bicyclists where bicyclists are required to follow traffic signals or pedestrian signals. LATERAL POSITION Sight distance and signal visibility should be considered in design. Wherever possible, the bike signal face should be located at the far side of the intersection within 5 ft. of the edge of the bike lane. This may include signals mounted overhead or side mounted. See EXHIBIT 60 for recommended and optional locations for the installation of signal equipment for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles. The bicycle traffic signal should be mounted to the right of the bike lane where possible for consistency and to reduce the potential for pedestrians to block the view of the signal for approaching bicyclists. The bike signal face should not be placed such that it is located between vehicle signal faces, as this causes confusion for users. The placement of the bicycle traffic signal may make it difficult to meet the lateral signal separation requirement of 8 ft. as indicated by the MUTCD (see MUTCO Section 40.13.03). Several agencies have placed traffic and bike signals closer than 8 ft. to one another (Minneapolis, MN, and Long Beach, CA) without any operational or safety difficulties. Under this scenario, optical programming or shielding should be provided on both signal faces to prevent confusion. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gu· LONGITUDINAL POSITION Assuming a 20 mph approach speed for bicycles, a minimum sight distance is 175 ft. before the stop line for the signal display (based on Table 40-2 in the 2009 MUTCO). The intersection design should allow a continuous view of at least one signal face. If the intersection is more than 120 ft. wide, a supplemental near-side bicycle traffic signal should be installed. MOUNTING HEIGHT The mounting heights are often based on the type of existing poles and the types of traffic signal faces chosen. Bike signal heads should be mounted such that the bottom of the signal housing is no less than 8 ft. above the ground or sidewalk. In locations where far-side bike signals share a pedestal with a pedestrian signal, the bike signal should not be located below the pedestrian signal. See EXHIBIT 60 for recommended and optional locations for installation of traffic signals including vehicle signals, bike signals and pedestrian signals. Designers should minimize the number of mast arms and/or pedestals by combining equipment where possible. This minimizes the number of fixed objects, reduces clutter, and reduces future maintenance costs. Two-way Separated Bike Lane D ff f ~o D MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gulde bike signal • pedestrian signal -4J motor vehicle signal • EXHIBIT6D: Typical Signal Face Locations for Motor Vehicles, Bicycles and Pedestrians 111 6.2.3 PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL EQUIPMENT The designer should carefully consider the placement of pedestrian signal equipment with relation to the separated bike lane. Under all scenarios, designers must ensure that all proposed pedestrian ramps, push buttons, and signals meet current accessibility guidance, including the minimum separation of 10 ft. between accessible pedestrian push buttons (see EXHIBIT 6E). Pedestrian signal timing should include sufficient clearance time for a pedestrian to cross the entire roadway including the bike lanes and street buffers. Pedestrian signal equipment should be located within the sidewalk buffer adjacent to the curb ramp outside of the bike lane. Designers should ensure that pedestrian signals meet all current accessibility guidelines with regards to proximity to the level landing area and reach range for the push button. Designers should minimize the number of mast arms and/or pedestals by combining equipment where possible. This minimizes the number of fixed objects, reduces clutter and minimizes future maintenance costs. 6.3 SIGNAL OPERATIONS 6.3.1 SIGNAL PHASING Traffic signal phasing represents the fundamental method by which a traffic signal accommodates the various users at an intersection in a safe and efficient manner. Under the control of a bicycle- specific traffic signal, bicyclists' movement may occur concurrently with other compatible vehicle phases or exclusively on a separate phase. The signal phasing for bikes may provide concurrent phasing with through vehicle traffic, a leading bicycle interval, a protected bicycle phase, or turning bike phases. As described in Section 6.1 , the designer will have to evaluate the need to provide a protected bicycle phase where left and right turn motor vehicle volumes across the bike lane are high. Designers should consider providing protected-only left turn phasing wherever feasible for signalized approaches where left turning motor vehicle movements cross a separated bike lane. Protected right turn phases are desirable in locations where high volumes of right turning vehicles conflict with a parallel separated bike lane. However, provision of a protected right turn phase carries several challenges, including the need for a right turn lane and impacts to level of service and queueing. In locations where parking lanes are provided, elimination of the parking on the intersection approach can allow for the provision of a right turn lane to accommodate a protected phase. If it is not possible to provide protected turn signal phasing, designers should consider implementing flashing yellow arrow signal phasing for permissive right or left turn movements that conflict with a concurrent bike movement. Further guidance for the installation and operation of flashing yellow arrow indications for permissive left and right turn movements may be found in section 40.18 and 40.22 of the MUTCO, respectively. D EXHIBIT 6E: Minimum Separation between Accessible Pedestrian Push Buttons MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gu· EXHIBIT 6H through EXHIBIT 6L (at the end of this chapter) show five scenarios for bike signal phasing, ranging from fully concurrent to protected phasing that should be considered at intersections with separated bike lanes. 6.3.2 SIGNAL TIMING The updated Traffic Signal Timing Manual (FHWA, 2nd Edition, 2015) has guidance on intervals for accommodating and encouraging bicycle travel. In locations where bike signals are not provided, signal timing for standard traffic signals along a corridor with a separated bike lane must be designed to accommodate bicyclists. The designer must consider the differing operating characteristics of bicyclists which impact parameters such as minimum green time, extension time, and clearance intervals. In locations where bike signals are provided, the designer may provide separate signal timing for bicycles, reducing unnecessary delay for vehicles in the adjacent travel lanes. MINIMUM GREEN TIME Minimum green time is used to allow people to react to the start of the green interval and meet reasonable expectations for how long a signal will be green (see Traffic Signal Timing Manual}. Traffic signal control for a separated bike lane must provide sufficient minimum green time for a bicyclist to clear the intersection from MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide a stopped position. The designer should consider the operating characteristics of a bicycle when calculating the required minimum green time. In locations where bike signals are not provided, the designer should allow for a minimum bicycle green time as a part of the timing for the concurrent vehicle signal phase. In locations where bicycle detection is provided within the separated bike lane, the signal timing should be designed to allow for an actuated minimum bicycle green time, if possible. EXTENSION TIME (PASSAGE GAP) In locations where bike detection is provided for actuated signal phasing, extension time may be provided as appropriate to extend the bicycle green phase up to the maximum green time. Bicycle detectors used for extension purposes should be located at the stop bar. CHANGE AND CLEARANCE INTERVALS The intent of the vehicle phase change and clearance intervals is to provide a safe transition of right-of-way. Traffic signal control for bicyclists should provide adequate clearance time to allow a bicyclist who enters at the end of the green phase to safely cross the intersection prior to the beginning of the conflicting signal phase. Designers should ensure that the combined yellow and all-red intervals for 113 concurrent bicycle and vehicle movements are equal. However, the individual yellow and all-red interval values may vary between modes based on engineering judgement. In calculating the clearance intervals, designers should include any grade differential through the intersection, which may significantly impact bicycle crossing time. In locations where bike signals are not provided, the bicycle crossing time may be accommodated during the combined yellow and all-red vehicle intervals. 6.3.3 NO TURN ON RED RESTRICTIONS Careful consideration should be given to implementing NO TURN ON RED restrictions at locations where right or left turning motorists may cross a separated bike lane. NO TURN ON RED restrictions may be implemented through full time restrictions or part-time restrictions via dynamic signs with bicycle detection. There are five primary scenarios where designers should consider restricting turns on red: • Two-stage turn queue box -At locations where a two-stage tum queue box is provided for turns from the separated bike lane, turns on red should be restricted from the side street, as turning motorists may otherwise obstruct the queue box. • Two-way separated bike lanes -At locations where two-way separated bike lanes are provided, turns on red should be restricted from the side street adjacent to the facility, because motorists may not anticipate conflicts from bicyclists approaching in the contra-flow direction. • Contra-flow separated bike lanes -At locations where contra-flow separated bike lanes are provided, turns on red should be restricted from the side street adjacent to the facility, because motorists may not anticipate conflicts from bicyclists approaching in the contra-flow direction. • Protected bike phase -At locations where traffic signal phasing includes a protected bike phase, the designer should consider restricting turns on red for all movements which would conflict with the protected phase. • Protected right turns -At locations where protected right turns are implemented to separate bicycle and pedestrian movements, turns on red should be restricted for the same movement. • Leading bike phase -At locations where a leading bike phase is provided, designers should consider restricting turns on red for conflicting movements. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gu· 6.4 BICYCLE DETECTION Bicycle detection is used at traffic signals to alert the signal controller to bicycle demand on a particular approach. Properly located detection enables the length of green time to fluctuate based on demand. The addition of a separated bike lane may create a need to add a protected phase to separate turning motorists from through bicyclists. In those situations, it may be desirable to convert a pre- timed intersection into partially actuated intersection to maximize signal efficiency. In those locations, the addition of detection for bicyclists and relevant motorist turn lanes can minimize lost time. Regardless, the designer must consider the need for signal detection for any location where a separated bike lane will interact with a traffic signal. The addition of detection and signal timing ensures that bicycles are provided safe crossing opportunities and reduces the potential for red-light running (provided that the signal timing is responsive to the bike lane). Detection also allows the intersection to operate more efficiently, especially during off-peak periods when traffic volumes are lower. Bicycle detection may also be used to activate variable turn on red restriction signs to further increase safety. Signal detection may be necessary or provide operational improvements under several scenarios: MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide • Actuated signals -Where the bicycle facility is located on any approach where the green phase may not be automatically called during every cycle, bicycle detection must be provided to ensure that bicyclists receive a green signal indication. • Bicycle minimum green -In locations where vehicle minimum green times may be too short for a bicyclist to clear an intersection after starting from a stopped condition, the detection of a bicyclists should trigger an extension of the vehicle minimum green to provide the bicyclist minimum green time. • Protected bicycle phases -In locations where protected bicycle phases are provided or where time-separated turn restrictions exist, bicycle detection should enable the signal to skip phases dynamically when bicyclists are not present. The designer should ensure that detection significantly covers the entire approach. For locations where passive detection is used to capture both motorists and bicyclists, detection zones should be designed to capture approaching vehicles as well as bicycles within the separated bike lane. Where feasible, designers should provide passive detection, as it is more reliable in detecting bicycles and may be designed to limit the number of detectors required for parallel vehicle and bicycle approaches. Designers should ensure that, if used, loop detectors located within the vehicle travel lanes are still capable of functioning for bicyclists in order to accommodate those who approach from outside of the separated bike lane. In addition to bicycle detection at the stop line, advance detection can be used to increase the responsiveness of the traffic signal to the bicycle movement. Advance detection may be used within 100 ft. from the intersection to call a green for an approaching bicyclist or extend the green phase up to the maximum as appropriate in order to reduce unnecessary stops, especially during off-peak periods when demand is light. See EXHIBIT 6F for typical detector locations. • • • O mO I ~ _ D c. Cl ... [I] -----------bicycle detector EXHIBIT 6F: 'fypical Bicycle Detector Locations 115 Phasing Scheme Description Provides a bicycle phase that runs concurrently with the parallel vehicle phase. Provides an advanced green indication for the bike signal. Lead interval may provide 3 to 7 seconds of green time for bicycles prior to the green phase for the concurrent vehicle traffic. Lead bike intervals may typically be provided concurrently with lead pedestrian intervals. Provides a bicycle phase that runs concurrently with the parallel through vehicle phase. Right and left vehicle turns across the bicycle facility operate under protected phases before or after the through phase. Provides a protected bike phase where all motor vehicle traffic is stopped. This may run concurrently with a parallel pedestrian phase. May be appropriate at locations with complex signal phasing for vehicles and/or unusual geometry for a bicycle facility may result in unexpected conflicts between users. EXHIBIT 6G: Bike Signal Phasing Scenarios Pros • Increased compliance when compared to following vehicle signals. • Allows bicyclists to enter the intersection prior to vehicles. • Improved visibility for turning vehicles. • Provides full separation between turning vehicles and bicyclists. • Motorists are not required to yield when turning. • Provides maximum separation between vehicles and bicyclists. • Allows turns from the bike facility across the vehicle lanes. Cons • Not appropriate in locations with high vehicle turning volumes. • Requires vehicles to yield when turning. • Small increase to delay and queueing for vehicles. • Concurrent turns may not be appropriate with higher vehicle or bike volumes. • Additional signal phase may increase delay, require longer cycle length. • Protected right turns require the provision of a right-turn lane. • Increases delay for motor vehicles. • Increases delay for bicyclists . MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design au· EXH1e116H: CONCURRENT BIKE PHASE WITH CONCURRENT PERMISSIVE VEHICLE TURNS 0 ~ pedestrian Movements .. bicycle motor vehicle 0 ' rn --• ~~ ' oo --• --. --! -: ' e ' [I]i----~ 00 :--- ~-: -- dashes denote conflicts -green interval yellow change interval red clearance interval MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide 117 EXHIBIT s1: CONCURRENT BIKE PHASE WITH LEADING INTERVAL 0 I e lt l 0 Movements ......... .. - pedestrian bicycle motor vehicle dashes denote conflicts ~ ' [IJ : [1J ~ e [fJ [;] ~ ~ ' Q ' ' ' ' -green interval yellow change interval red clearance interval -red interval MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gu • EXHIBIT 6J: CONCURRENT PROTECTED BIKE PHASE 0 e 0 Movements ......... .. - pedestrian bicycle motor vehicle MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide dashes denote conflicts 0 ' [U: : ' oo : ' [l] : ' ' ~ : ' e ' ' e ' ' ' ' ' 0 ~-·--- ' ' ' ' ' ' ~-· --' ~-: -l8J : ' ' ~·----- -green interval yellow change interval red clearance interval -red interval 119 EXHIBIT6K: CONCURRENT PROTECTED BIKE PHASE FOR MAJOR AND MINOR STREET INTERSECTION 0 .. pedestrian 0 Movements .. bicycle motor vehicle dashes denote conflicts 0 e [I] 00 ~ ! ' ' ~l : MAJOR STREET e 0 ' ' ' ' ~ ' ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ ' MINOR STREET -green interval yellow change interval red clearance interval -red interval MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gu· EXHIBIT 6L: PROTECTED BIKE PHASE 0 .. pedestrian e 0 Movements ......, .. ~ - bicycle motor vehicle MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide dashes denote conflicts 0 e ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' [I] ' 00 ' ~· : 0 0 ' ' ~ ·• ____ : _. ___ .... ' ~-·--· -green interval yellow change interval red clearance interval -red interval 121 This page left blank intentionally Separated bike lanes require routine maintenance to ensure they provide safe bicycling conditions. Because of their location on the edge of the roadway, separated bike lanes are more likely to accumulate debris in all seasons. During the freeze/thaw cycles of the winter months, separated bike lanes are particularl y susceptible to icing. As bicyclists are typically inhibited from exiting separated bike lanes, they may have no opportunity to avoid obstacles such as debris, obstructions, slippery surfaces, and pavement damage and defects. This chapter provides best practices for the maintenance of separated bike lanes. It addresses typical elements of maintenance plans, seasonal maintenance activities, repair and replacement considerations, and strategies for construction zones. 7.1 INTRODUCTION One challenge to maintaining separated bike lanes is the size of standard street maintenance equipment, which is often wider or less maneuverable than can be accommodated in a separated bike lane. During the planning and design process, it is therefore important to consider the widths and operating constraints of existing maintenance vehicles, as well as vehicles or equipment used by partner agencies or organizations who may be tasked with maintaining the separated bike lane. Some agencies choose to procure new vehicles for the specific purpose of maintaining separated bike lanes. Separated bike lanes are an emerging roadway design treatment in the U.S., therefore maintenance practices are evolving. Those responsible for maintaining separated bike lanes are encouraged to periodically evaluate maintenance practices, identify creative partnerships to ensure they are maintained in a safe and usable condition, and inform designers and managers of ways to improve facilities. Personnel that perform maintenance tasks on a regular basis should be an integral part of the planning and design team. 7.2 MAINTENANCE PLANS AND AGREEMENTS A separated bike lane should be maintained in a similar manner as the adjacent roadway, regardless of whether the separated bike lane is at street level or sidewalk level. Maintenance of separated bike lanes is therefore the responsibility of the public or private agency that is responsible for maintaining the adjacent roadway. This may contrast with responsibility for maintaining the adjacent sidewalk, which in some cases will be that of the abutting landowner. Careful planning and agreement is important in areas where limited space for snow storage may pose a challenge for keeping both sidewalks and bike lanes free of snow. This is particularly true in retrofit situations with attached sidewalks, as those responsible for clearing the sidewalk may tend to move snow to the bike lane, and vice versa. It may be necessary to remove snow to an off-site location in these areas after large snow events. Separated bike lane maintenance plans should address the routine removal of debris as well as long-term maintenance issues, such as repair and replacement of vertical elements, pavement surfaces, and traffic control devices. Plans should also address routine maintenance of landscaping located in the street and sidewalk buffers. While maintenance of separated bike lanes can be integrated into existing operations, these facilities occasionally require amending established maintenance practices and procedures, and purchasing specialized equipment. Maintenance plans for separated bike lanes should be considered during the project development process. Maintenance plans should identify involved parties, outline routine maintenance procedures and frequency, assign responsibilities, estimate annual costs and identify funding sources. Often these plans will be straightforward updates to existing municipal maintenance procedures. Responsible parties may include one or more state agencies and municipalities, as determined by right-of-way ownership, abutting land ownership, or the number of jurisdictions spanned by the separated bike lane. Public authorities may also develop partnerships with business improvement districts, school districts, universities, park agencies, institutions, developers or utility companies to help fund or take part in separated bike lane maintenance activities. Where agreements exist, maintenance plans should address transition areas so there are no sudden gaps in the quality of the bicycling environment. In such partnerships, parties may be able to 'trade' maintenance responsibilities and save mobilization costs and time. For example, a school may agree to clear a bike lane simultaneously with sidewalk along their frontage in exchange for a parks department clearing a nearby path. This also serves to get facilities near critical areas (e.g., schools) open more quickly. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gu' • 7.3 SEASONAL MAINTENANCE An effective seasonal maintenance program requires the right equipment, a well-trained crew, proper execution of strategies and preventative measures, and adequate funding. 7.3.1 VEHICLES Chief among maintenance considerations during design are routine sweeping to remove debris and plowing to clear snow. Generally, separated bike lane widths of 8 ft. or more are compatible with smaller sweepers and plows, but responsible parties may have larger and incompatible maintenance fleets. Narrower sweepers EXHIBIT 7 A: Narrow Maintenance Vehicles MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide and plows (approximately 4 ft. to 5 ft. minimum operating width, as shown in EXHIBIT 7A) may be required to clear one-way separated bike lanes. Some vehicles can serve both as snow clearance equipment during the winter and street sweepers throughout the rest of the year. This versatility is usually accomplished with a system that allows attachment of various machines to the front of the main vehicle, such as plow blades, loaders or brooms. The purchase of narrow sweepers and plows may be avoided by establishing maintenance agreements with partners or ensuring that vertical objects in the street buffer are removable in order to accommodate conventional vehicles that Source: City of Cambridge, MA are already owned. However, the up-front expense of purchasing narrower vehicles may save money over time when factoring in additional time and labor to remove, repair or replace damaged vertical objects. Removal and reinstallation of objects in the roadway also places workers in the street more frequently and increases the risk of crashes and mobilization costs for maintenance crews. Permeable pavements have unique maintenance needs. With respect to vehicle design, permeable pavements should be maintained with plows that are outfitted with rubber edged blades to protect the pavement. Street vacuums may also required to maintain permeable pavement. 125 •. 7.3.2 SWEEPING AND DEBRIS REMOVAL Separated bike lanes should be incorporated into established street sweeping programs. Additional sweeping of the buffer zones may be necessary to remove leaves, gravel, trash and other debris that can create slippery surfaces and increase bicyclists' stopping distance. More frequent street sweeping is usually needed in the fall and spring seasons when trees shed leaves and other organic matter at a faster rate. For street level separated bike lanes without raised medians, debris can collect in the street buffer area between vertical objects and can migrate into the bike lane if not routinely collected. Landscaped areas, including green stormwater infrastructure, can also collect debris and require regular attention. Fine debris can settle into permeable pavement and inhibit surface infiltration unless vacuumed on a routine basis. At a minimum, permeable pavement should be vacuumed several times per year, depending on material type. Permeable pavement may need additional attention along areas where runoff routinely carries sediment, and during winter months because of sand and salt accumulation. There are several types of permeable pavement systems that may be used. This depends on traffic loads and intensity of use, aesthetics, availability of materials, and maintenance capacity. Permeable pavements may be specified in order to meet post-construction stormwater management requirements. They are meant to be used in areas where the contributing drainage areas are stabilized and there are relatively low fine grained, or suspended solids, in the runoff that drains to the pavement. Local regulations may dictate the inspection and maintenance requirements and the maintenance cycle. 7.3.3 TRASH COLLECTION Where separated bike lanes are introduced, the general public, public works staff and contractors should be trained to place garbage bins in the street buffer zone to avoid obstructing the bike lane. Sidewalk buffers may be used to store bins where street buffers are too narrow. Special consideration may be required in separated bike lane design for access to large dumpsters which require the use of automated arms. This may require spot restrictions of on-street parking or curb cuts to dumpster storage in order to accommodate access. Cambridge, MA MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gu EXHIBIT 10: MINIMUM SEPARATED BIKE LANE CLEARANCE 7.3.4 WINTER MAINTENANCE Ice, snow, slush and rain are commonplace during winter months in Massachusetts. Therefore, separated bike lanes should be incorporated into established winter maintenance strategies and practices. SNOW CLEARANCE Snow and ice should be cleared from separated bike lanes to maintain safe and comfortable access by bicycle during winter months. A minimum 4 ft. clearance per direction (i.e., 8 ft. minimum for two-way facilities) should be provided in the bike lane zone as soon as practical after snow events. Snow from the separated bike lane should not be placed in the clear width of the sidewalk or vice versa. MassOOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide Sidewalk and street buffers may be used for snow storage, as shown in EXHIBIT 78, but maintenance crews should avoid piling snow at intersections in order to maintain visibility at conflict points. The width of the separated bike lane can be constrained during a snow event provided that the minimum 4 ft. clearance per direction is maintained. Special attention should be given to clearing 41 • •' min. I clearance snow along the curb as it may block drainage infrastructure and create icy patches of pavement during freeze/thaw cycles. Additional considerations for snow clearance in separated bike lanes include the following: • Street buffer objects, such as flexible delineator posts, should be positioned in a manner that will not interfere with snow plowing operations. • In constrained situations, vertical objects in the street buffer may be removed for the entirety of winter to facilitate snow clearance. Designers should use judgment to ensure that operations will remain safe without vertical separation. • Permeable pavement and/or anti-icing strategies should be considered for separated bike lanes to reduce ice formation during freeze/thaw cycles. 127 SNOW REMOVAL Snow removal, off-site storage, and/ or snow melting may be necessary to maintain safety and access in separated bike lanes during harsh winters and major snow events when buffer zones are insufficient for storing snow. Special equipment or procedures may be needed. Consider inspecting and clearing separated bike lanes after snow events which trigger an on-street parking ban-snow removal is often easier when vehicles are not parked on the street. ANTI-ICING AND DE-ICING STRATEGIES Even a small patch of black ice can cause a serious crash for a bicyclist. Therefore, after a snow event when daytime temperatures rise above freezing, it is particularly important to de-ice separated bike lane surfaces. Where possible, environmentally friendly anti-icing and de-icing strategies should be deployed for separated bike lanes. It is recommended that anti-icing materials be applied prior to snow fall and de-icers applied again while clearing snow to help prevent ice formation. Special equipment may be required for these strategies in separated bike lanes. However, standard anti-icing and de-icing vehicles may be sufficient in the event of an on-street parking ban if they can operate closer to the bike lane zone and adequately cover the separated bike lane from the adjacent travel lane or parking lane. Maintaining proper drainage will help prevent ice formation on surfaces during freeze/thaw conditions and after plowing. Bioretention curb extension areas, tree boxes, linear water quality swales, and linear bioretention areas in the buffer zones may further aid in reducing ice formation by providing additional drainage outlets. It may be desirable to limit the use of evergreen trees or structures which may prevent the sun from melting ice and snow at locations on the bike lane where falls could be particularly hazardous to fall (e.g., near grade changes, WINTER MAINTENANCE ROUTE PRIORITIZATION Snow events can be prolonged, heavy, and unpredictable in both duration and location. Limited budgets ensure that there will always be some delay in clearing snow from transportation facilities, whether for motorists, bicyclists, or pedestrians. Route prioritization is important to ensure that those with greatest need are served first. It is important that this route prioritization information is available to the public so that all road users know where they can expect to find clear routes when the snow does begin to fall. Motor vehicle travel intersections, or lateral shifts in alignment). The use of sands and abrasives on permeable pavement systems will result in clogging of the surface. Separated bike lanes with Consider state and local operating procedures related to anti-icing and de-icing strategies. Consult the Massachusetts Storm Water Handbook Appendix: Operating and Source Control BMPs for further considerations and best practices. lanes normally take precedence for snow clearing in order to maintain access for emergency vehicles. Communities should consider developing a prioritization plan permeable pavement minimize the need for de-icing methods because meltwater naturally drains through the surface instead of refreezing. Permeable pavement can reduce road salt consumption by up to 75 percent compared to impermeable pavement,1 but the potential effects of salt and brine infiltration on tree roots, the permeable surface, and underground utilities should be considered. Permeable concrete surfaces are sensitive to road salts which may cause the degradation of the surface. for clearing bicycle routes, including separated bike lanes and shared use paths. In the event the separated bike lanes are not cleared, it should be anticipated that bicyclists will be operating within the street and/or sidewalk. On high-volume streets, this may result in a degradation of safety for the bicyclist or reduced bicycling. Within a bicycle network, shared use paths and separated bike lanes may be ideal candidates for prioritization as they are likely to be routes with the highest user volumes. Other considerations for route prioritization include routes near schools, equipment MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gu needs, width of facilities, obstacles such as separation methods, and other constraints such as time and location. Route prioritization and responsibilities for snow clearance should be clearly defined in maintenance plans when separated bike lanes span multiple jurisdictions. 7 .4 REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT 7.4.1 INVENTORY AND INSPECTION Components of separated bike lanes will need to be cared for, repaired and replaced and should be incorporated into the responsible jurisdiction's inspection program. Some jurisdictions have encouraged bicyclists to report maintenance needs and have established programs that supplement roadway inspections via call-in telephone numbers, websites or smartphone applications. 7.4.2 CONSIDERATIONS When street maintenance is performed in a separated bike lane, for example during utility or pavement repair operations, maintenance crews should follow standard procedures supplemented with the following considerations. MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide SEPARATED BIKE LANE SURFACE Longitudinal pavement seams, trenches or other surface depressions should not be left in the bike lane because they create hazards for people bicycling. Where trenching must occur, for example to access utilities, consider repaving the full width of a one-way bike lane or to the centerline of a two-way bike lane to place the resulting longitudinal seam outside of bicyclists' paths. Gravel or other maintenance debris should be completely removed from the bike lane because these can puncture tires or lead to bicycle crashes. STREET AND SIDEWALK BUFFERS Repairs to curbs in the street and sidewalk buffers should follow standard repair procedures for damage or cracking. Regular inspection for damaged or displaced vertical objects in the street buffer is recommended. Responsible parties should keep a supply of these objects for quick replacement when needed. Street buffer striping should be inspected and replaced along the same maintenance schedule and per the same retroreflectivity specifications as other roadway striping. Trees and low-growth landscaping in the street and sidewalk buffers should be pruned to ensure proper sight distances at intersection approaches (see Chapter 4). Tree branches should be pruned to within 12 in. from the outside the bike lane and up to 100 in. over the bike lane surface to ensure proper vertical clearance (see Section 3.3.3). Regular inspection for loose or damaged unit pavers in the sidewalk buffer is recommended. PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND SIGNAL EQUIPMENT Separated bike lane pavement markings, including lane markings and intersection markings, should be inspected as part of a routine pavement marking program and restriped as necessary. Bicycle signals and push buttons should be maintained on the same schedule as motor vehicle traffic signals. Maintenance crews should ensure that signal faces remain visible to bicyclists in the separated bike lane, per guidance established in Chapter 6. Bicycle detectors, such as inductive loops or video detectors, should be maintained on the same schedule as in motor vehicle travel lanes. 129 7 .5 CONSTRUCTION ZONES Construction zones can create particular hazards for bicyclists because they may create width constraints, surface irregularities, surface debris, detours, or transitions between bicycle accommodations. These conditions may be in place for long periods of time or may abruptly change. Additionally, increased truck traffic and unfamiliar patterns of motor vehicle operation are of particular concern for bicyclists where operating space must be shared. A Temporary Traffic Control Plan (TTCP) should provide detailed guidance to proactively address bicyclists' safety and operational needs in accordance with the Work Zone Management discussion in the PD&DG. Refer to MassDOT Construction Standard Details for the following examples of work zone bicycle accommodations that may be adapted to separated bike lanes: • Bicycle lane closures • Bicycle lane detours • Temporary path detours ) The TTCP should strive to meet the following objectives: • Educate all responsible parties of the operating characteristics of bicycles and bicyclists. • Maintain separation of bicyclists from pedestrians through the construction zone at all times. • Maintain separation of bicyclists from motor vehicles where feasible. Where not feasible, clearly delineate a preferred route through the construction zone. Where detours are necessary, limit out- of-direction travel for bicyclists. • Avoid placing signs or equipment in the separated bike lane. • Avoid requiring bicyclists to dismount. • Minimize redirection of bicyclists to the opposite side of the roadway. • Inspect the construction zone for compliance with the TICP. • Coordinate with advocates for feedback to improve TICP. • Minimize surface irregularities. • Minimize the accumulation of debris. • Provide smooth vertical and horizontal transitions that can be traversed safely by bicyclists. Where conditions require a deviation from a separated bike lane condition, the distance and duration of this condition should be kept to a minimum. These transitions may require temporary asphalt curb ramps. Transitions should be well signed and include pavement markings for all roadway users to minimize conflicts. 7.6 ENDNOTES http://Wl/ff'/.unh.edu/unhsc/sites/unh,edu,unhsc/ files/oubs soecs info/unhsc houle thesis 9 08. QQf MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Gu· Federal Highway Administration MAY 2015 SEPARATED BIKE LANE I PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDE NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. This document was prepared for the Federal Highway Administration (Task Order DTFH61-11-D-00035-T-13001) by the University of North Carolina (UNC) Highway Safety Research Center, Sam Schwartz Engineering, and Kittelson & Associates, Inc. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of this document. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person or operate to bind the public. Images in the report are intended to serve. as examples of the range of real world existing conditions; they are not limited to best practices or approved designs and in some cases may reflect conditions that are not recommended. COMPLIANCE WITH THE MUTCD Any traffic control devices that are used for separated bike lanes must comply with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The MUTCD is incorporated by reference in 23 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 655, Subpart F, and is approved as the national standard for designing, applying, and planning traffic control devices installed on any street, highway, or bikeway open to public travel. The FHWA issues the MUTCD, which contains all national design, application, and placement standards, guidance, options, and support provisions for traffic control devices used with separated bike lanes. The jurisdiction implementing the bike lane must ensure that the project complies with the MUTCD. Please note that interim approvals (IAs) have been issued by the FHWA for green colored pavement (IA-14) and bicycle signal faces (IA-17). Agencies who desire to use green colored pavement or bicycle signal faces must request specific approval from the FHWA using the procedure outlined in Paragraphs 14 through 22 of Section 1A.10 of the MUTCD. Please also note that bike boxes and two-stage turn boxes are still experimental. Agencies who desire to experiment with bike boxes or two-stage turn boxes must request approval from the FHWA using the procedure outlined in Paragraphs 8 through 11 of Section 1 A.1 O of the MUTCD. The FHWA maintains a web page regarding the MUTCD approval status of various bicycle-related treatments at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environmenU bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/design_guidance/mutcd. Publication Number: FHWA-HEP-15-025 Cover image: L Street separated bike lane in Washington, DC (Source: Alex Baca, Washington Area Bicyclist Association (WABA) •• .. SEPARATED BIKE LANE I PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS FHWA Project Managers and Technical Leads Dan Goodman Christopher Douwes Bruce Friedman Elizabeth Hilton Tamara Redmon Gabriel Rousseau Brooke Struve Technical Work Group Linda Bailey, National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) David Vega-Barachowitz Kristin Bennett, Department of Public Works, Milwaukee, WI Rob Burchfield, Bureau of Transportation, Portland, OR Sean Co, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (Bay Area Metropolitan Planning Organization) Ronald Effland, Missouri Department of Transportation Betsy Jacobsen, Colorado Department of Transportation Dwight Kingsbury Adonia Lugo, League of American Bicyclists (LAB) Equity Initiative Jim McDonnell, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Jamie Parks, Public Works Department, Oakland, CA Paula Reeves, Washington Department of Transportation Ryan Russo, Department of Transportation, New York, NY Mike Sallaberry, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Ed Stollof, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Lisa Fontana Tierney, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Nathan Wilkes, Transportation Department, Austin, TX •• SEPARATED BIKE LANE I PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (CONT INUED) Consultant Team UNC Highway Safety Research Center: Carl Sundstrom Sam Schwartz Engineering: Ben Rosenblatt, Sarah Kellerman, Heather Rothenberg, Richard Retting Kittelson & Associates, Inc.: Con or Semler, Karla Kingsley, Jesse Boudart Consultants: William Hunter, Robert Schneider Special Thanks The projectteamwould liketothankstaff atthefollowing U.S. municipalities for sharing their time, data, designs, and expertise. A special thanks is extended to staff at the District of Columbia Department of Transportation (DDOT) and the New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) for sharing their insights and expertise throughout this project. Alameda, CA Madison, WI Arlington County, VA Miami, FL Atlanta, GA Milwaukee, WI Austin, TX Minneapolis, MN Baltimore, MD Missoula, MT Boston, MA New York, NY Boulder, CO Philadelphia, PA Cambridge, MA Phoenix, AZ Charleston, SC Pittsburgh, PA Chicago, IL Portland, OR Davis, CA Salt Lake City, UT Eugene, OR Sanjose, CA Evanston, IL San Francisco, CA Indianapolis, IN Seattle, WA Jackson, WY Spartanburg, SC Long Beach, CA St. Petersburg, FL Los Angeles, CA Syracuse, NY Washington, DC ·- SEPARATED BIKE LANE I PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDE TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 5 CHAPTER 1: WHAT ARE SEPARATED BIKE LANES? 11 Separated Bike Lanes Defined 7 3 Separated Bike Lanes in the United States 7 5 Separated Bike Lanes in Context 7 6 Separated Bike Lanes and the Community 7 7 CHAPTER 2: OVERVIEW OF THE GUIDE AND PLANNING PROCESS 19 Structure of the Guide 2 7 Background on Planning and Design Recommendations 22 CHAPTER 3: WHY CHOOSE SEPARATED BIKE LANES? 25 Implementing Separated Bike Lanes Using a Flexible Approach 27 Separated Bike Lanes and Connected Low-Stress Bicycle Networks 30 Safety Context 33 CHAPTER 4: PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES 35 Summary of Planning Elements 37 Planning and Design Process Diagram 40 Choosing Locations 41 Identifying a Successful Location 4 7 Consider Users of Separated Bike Lanes 43 Consider Connections with Separated Bike Lanes 44 Consider Context of Separated Bike Lanes 47 Opportunities for Separated Bike Lane Installation 52 Funding, Maintenance, and Outreach 59 Funding Separated Bike Lanes 59 Maintaining Separated Bike Lanes 64 Outreach on Separated Bike Lanes 66 Project Evaluation 69 Holistic Evaluation of Separated Bike Lanes 69 Best Practices on Data Collection 69 CHAPTER 5: MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 73 Four Step Design Process 75 Flexibility in the Planning and Design Process 76 Directional and Width Characteristics 77 Forms Of Separation 83 •• SEPARATED BIKE LANE I PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDE ••• Midblock Considerations Driveways Transit Stops Accessible Parking Loading Zones Intersection Design Turning Movements Intersection Markings Signalization Strategies Signal Phasing Bicycle Turning Movements Other Design Elements Sign Guidance Markings Guidance Separated Bike Lane Transitions Decision Making Process Examples One-Way Street with Left-Side Conflicts Two-Way Separated Bike Lane on One-Way Street Median-Running Two-Way Separated Bike Lane CHAPTER 6: MOVING FORWARD APPENDIX (INCLUDED AS SEPARATE DOCUMENTI Appendix A: Literature Review Appendix B: Lessons Learned Report Appendix C: Crash Analysis Report Appendix D: Project Evaluation Checklist Appendix E: Data Collection Information Appendix P. Future Research Needs 89 89 92 97 99 102 703 773 775 779 722 127 727 729 737 133 735 738 747 145 ·- FIGURES TABLES SEPARATED BIKE LANE I PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDE Figure 7: Elements of Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design 8 Figure 2: Spectrum of Bicycle Facility Types 7 4 Figure 3: Four Types of Transportation Cyclists in Portland 3 7 Figure 4: Planning and Design Process Diagram 40 Figure 5: Number of Complete Streets Projects Nationwide, 2005-2073 57 Figure 6: Outreach Process for Separated Bike Lanes 66 Figure 7: Planning and Design Process Diagram 76 Figure 8: Directional Characteristics: One-Way Design Option 7 77 Figure 9: Directional Characteristics: One-Way Design Option 2 79 Figure 7 0: Directional Characteristics: One-Way Design Option 3 79 Figure 7 7: Directional Characteristics: Two-Way Design Option 7 80 Figure 72: Directional Characteristics: Two-Way Design Option 2 87 Figure 7 3: Directional Characteristics: Two-Way Design Option 3 82 Figure 74: Midblock Considerations: Driveway Design Option 7 90 Figure 7 5: Midblock Considerations: Driveway Design Option 2 9 7 Figure 7 6: Midblock Considerations: Transit Stop Design Option 7 93 Figure 7 7: Midblock Considerations: Transit Stop Design Option 2 94 Figure 7 8: Midblock Considerations: Transit Stop Design Option 3 95 Figure 79: Midblock Considerations: Accessible Parking Design Option 98 Figure 20: Midblock Considerations: Loading Zone Design Option 7 99 Figure 27: Midblock Considerations: Loading Zone Design Option 2 700 Figure 22: Intersection Design: Signalization 7 04 Figure 23: Intersection Design: Lateral Shift 7 05 Figure 24: Intersection Design: Mixing Zone 7 07 Figure 25: Intersection Design: Bend-In 7 7 0 Figure 26: Intersection Design: Bend-Out 7 7 7 Figure 27: Lane Markings: White Chevrons and White Lines 7 7 3 Figure 28: Lane Markings: Use of Green Paint 7 7 4 Figure 29: Signal Phasing Examples 7 7 9 Figure 30: Bicycle Turning Movements: Bike Boxes and Early Exit 7 23 Figure 37: Bicycle Turning Movements: 2-Stage Turn Queue Boxes 725 Figure 32: Decision Making Process Example 7 7 37 Figure 33: Decision Making Process Example 2 7 40 Figure 34: Decision Making Process Example 3 7 43 Table 7: Resources for Bicycle Design Elements Table 2: Planning Elements for Separated Bike Lanes Table 3: Intersection Treatment Options Table 4: Bend-In and Bend-Out Comparison 28 37 703 770 - CHAPTER 5 I .NU OF DESIGN RECOMMEl'llDA '\15. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Four Step Design Process The separated bike lane design process can be categorized into four general categories -Directional and Width Characteristics, Forms of Separation, Midblock Considerations, and Intersection Considerations. These categories form the basis of a four-step design process where the decisions within each step inform future design decisions, resulting in an iterative design process based on available street width, transportation priorities, and other project goals. This chapter groups the design process into these four categories and provides flexible design options to best meet local conditions and the community's goals. When designing these newer types of facilities, it is important to document the numerous decisions made throughout the design process. Documentation should demonstrate that the final design was developed based on the best available data, good engineering judgment, and sound design principles. STEP 1: ESTABLISH DIRECTIONAL AND WIDTH CRITERIA • The decision of one-way and two-way separated bike lanes should be based on traffic lane configurations, turning movement conflicts, parking requirements, and surrounding bicycle route network options and destinations. • Width considerations include expected bicycle volumes, required buffer width, and maintenance req uirements. • Alignment decisions for running the separated bike lane on the right-side, left-side, or in the center of the road, include transit stop conflicts, intersection and driveway conflicts, locations of destinations, and parking placement. STEP 2: SELECT FORMS OF SEPARATION • Separation type decisions should be based on the presence of on-street parking, street width, cost, aesthetics, maintenance, motorized t raffic volumes and speeds. STEP 3: IDENTIFY MIDBLOCK DESIGN CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS • There are several potential conflicts that may occur at midblock locations along a separated bike lane. • Transit stops occurring on the same side of the street as the separated bike lane present a challenge due to interactions among cyclists, transit vehicles, and those accessing transit stops. • Locating accessible parking spaces may require additional design adjustments. • Loading zones should be well-located and designed to minimize conflicts. • Driveways present concerns due to challenges with sight distance and driver expectations that can be minimized through design treatments and driveway consolidation. STEP 4: DEVELOP INTERSECTION DESIGN • Intersection design should focus on the safety of all users with additional consideration on delay, queuing, user expectations, motorized traffic volumes and speeds. • Sufficient sight distance for all street use rs at intersection approaches should be provided. • Designs should protect or provide safe interactions between separated bike lane users and conflicting turning movements. • Signs and markings should be included to appropriately guide and prompt safe behaviors through intersections. w;w CHAPTERS I llENU OF DESIGN RH.OMMfNOATIONS DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Flexibility in the Planning and Design Process .,. The designs presented in this chapter are based on current design guidance and the state of the practice and are intended to be a starting point for a flexible design process that takes into account site conditions, context, and continually evolving design resources. The graphic below highlights the key elements of a successful design process, but the order and exact execution of the steps are flexible. Evaluation and design are iterative processes, with designs evolving as municipalities evaluate how a facility is functioning. Figure 7 Users Connections Context Constraints Installation . opportunities y y PLAN for Potential Separated Bike Lanes Make DESIGN element decisions + . . . . . . . . . . Analyze FUNDING options • • • ~ - --- -- -- -Perform OUTREACH ----- ---->- . Collect DATA for project evaluation I I I IMPLEMENTATION Potential to implement projects via a pilot approach Project EVALUATION CHAPTERS I 111ENU OF D R 0 D DIRECTIONAL AND WIDTH CHARACTERISTICS DIRECTION AND WIDTH One-Way Separated Bike Lane on a One-Way Street The selection of separated bike lane width and directional characteristics depends on a combination of factors that are most often determined by the existing street and surrounding network characteristics. The most critical considerations are to reduce conflicts with turning vehicles, provide sufficient width for safe operations and ease of maintenance, and ensure predictable behavior by the street users. A one-way separated bike lane on a one-way street is the least complicated design. This type of design can most easily be implemented on existing streets through the conversion of a motor vehicle lane or removal of on-street parking. Another advantage of this type of facility is the ability to provide a reasonable signal progression for cyclists, improving travel time and signal compliance. One potential complication of this design may be wrong-way riding by bicyclists. This can occur if there are no suitable and attractive bicycle routes (such as a parallel facility) near this separated bike lane. Figure 8 • 7 ft Preferred~ l See guidance on Forms of Separation page 83 One-way separated bike lanes should have a minimum width of 5 ft. Wider separated bike lanes provide additional comfort and space for bicyclists and should be considered where a high volume of bicyclists is expected. Widths of 7 ft and greater are preferred as they allow for passing or side-by-side riding. Additional care should be taken with wider lanes such that the separated bike lane is not mistaken for an additional motor vehicle lane . • Total clear width between the curb face and vertical element should • be at least the fleet maintenance (sweeping or snowplow) vehicle width. Widths (inclusive of the gutter pan and to the vertical buffer element) narrower than 7 ft will often require specialized equipment. Consultation with a Public Works department is recommended during the planning process. A minimum 3 ft buffer should be used adjacent to parking. For further guidance on buffer selection and installation, see page 83. For further guidance on typical signs and markings for separated bike lanes, see page 127. .,. CHAPTER 5 I 111E"NU OF DESIGN RE OMMENDATIONS One way Separated Bike Lane on a One-Way Street (Left-Side Running) Long Beach, CA, has installed left-side, one-way separated bike lanes along a pair of one-way streets downtown. (Source: City of Long Beach) Consider a left-side running separated bike lane under the following conditions: • The corridor includes a high frequency transit route resulting in potential conflicts with transit vehicles, stops, and transit riders. • There are fewer driveways, intersections, or other conflicts on the left-side of the street. • The most likely destinations for bicyclists are on the left-side of the street. • On-street parking is located on the right-side of the street. DIRECTION AND WIDTH One-Way Separated Bike Lane on a Two-Way Street Central Median Alternative CHAPTER 5 I i/IE-Nll OF DES1ul\J RfCOMMENDA Providing one-way separated bike lanes on each side of a t wo-way street creates a predictable design for managing user expectations. Typically, each separated bike lane will run to the outside of the travel lanes in a design similar to a one-way separated bike lane on a one-way street. A potential challenge with this design is it takes up more roadway space compared to the alternatives of providing a two-way separated bike lane or developing alternate corridors for directional travel. Figure 9 NOTTO SCALE l l 7 ft Preferred See guidance on Forms of Separation page 83. • • Bike symbols should be placed periodically in the lane . Drainage grates and gutter seams should generally not be included in the usable width. CID For further guidance • on buffer selection and installation, see page 83 . For further guidance on typical signs and markings for separated bike lanes, see page 127. An alternative design places separated bike lanes adjacent to a median. This design can be considered when there are significant conflicts due to turning movements, transit activity, or other conflicting curbside uses. Depending on the width of the median, this design may result in intersection design challenges, particularly in how bicyclist right-and left-turns are made. Figure 10 NOTTO SCALE l~l+rl See guidance on ~ Forms of Separation page 83. 7 ft Preferred •• CHAPTER 5 I NU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS DIRECTION AND WIDTH Two-Way Separated Bike Lane on Right-Side of One-Way Street (2 Lanes) Left-Side Running Alternative Providing a two-way separated bike lane on a one-way street may be desirable under certain circumstances. This design couples a separated bike lane with a contraflow bike lane in order to route bicyclists in the most direct or desirable way given the street network and destinations. However, this design can create some challenges for roadway user expectancy at intersections and driveways, which could be mitigated by signage suggesting to look both ways for pedestrians. Additionally, certain intersection designs are not possible. Consider a left-side running separated bike lane under the following conditions: • The corridor includes a high frequency transit route resulting in potential conflicts with transit vehicles, stops, and transit riders. • There are fewer driveways, intersections, or other conflicts on the left-side of the street. • The most likely destinations for bicyclists are on the left side of the street. • On-street parking is located on the right side of the street. Figure 11 CD Two-way separated bike lanes should have a preferred combined width of at least 12 ft. Given this total width, clear signs and markings should be provided such that the separated bike lane is not mistaken for an additional motor vehicle travel lane. For further guidance on buffer selection and installation, see page 83. • A centerline to separate the two-way bicycle traffic marked in accordance with the MUTCD (2009). • For further guidance on typical signs and markings • for separated bike lanes, see page 127. NOTTO SCALE ~ L See guidance on Preferred Forms of Separation page 83. DIRECTION AND WIDTH Two-Way Separated Bike Lane on Right-Side of Two-Way Street CHAPTERS I .!IENU OF DESIGN RE COM ME NOA fll>NS Providing a two-way separated bike lane on a two-way street may be desirable under certain circumstances such as minimizing conflicts on high frequency transit corridors or along corridors with a higher number of intersections or driveways on one side of the street (such as along a waterfront). This design does, however, create some challenges for roadway user expectancy at intersections and driveways. Additionally, the design limits intersection design options. Figure 12 • NOTTO SCALE r l( • See guidance on 12 ft Forms of Separation page 83 Preferred • Due to operational and user expectations, this design is best used when there is no room for separated bike lanes on both sides of the street. CID For further guidance on buffer selection and installation, see page 83 . • A centerline to separate the two-way bicycle traffic marked in accordance with the MUTCD (2009) . • For further guidance on typical signs and markings for separated bike lanes, see page 127 CHAPTER 5 I ~ENU OF-DfSIGN f<ECOMMfl\iDATIONS Center Orientation Alternative An alternative design places a two-way separated bike lane in the center of the street. This design is uncommon and can be considered when there are significant conflicts due to turning movements, transit activity, or other conflicting curbside uses. Depending on the width of the roadway and the amount of space that can be allocated to the separated bike lane and buffer, this design may result in intersection design challenges, particularly on how bicyclist right-and left-turns are made. Figure 13 • NOT TO SCALE ---Ji4"+' 12 ft L See guidance on Preferred Forms of Separation page 83. • A continuously raised buffer is preferred to reduce the chance of U-turns across the separated bike lane. For further guidance on buffer selection and installation, see page 83. Cl A centerline to separate the two-way bicycle traffic marked in accordance with the MUTCD (2009) . • For further guidance on typical signs and markings for separated bike lanes, see page 127. CHAPTER 5 I ~ENU OF DESIGN RECON1MEl\iDATION5 FORMS OF SEPARATION STEP2 Vertical elements in the buffer area are critical to separated bike lane design. These separation types provide the comfort and safety that make separated bike lanes attractive facilities. The selection of separation type(s) should be based on the presence of on-street parking, overall street and buffer width, cost, durability, aesthetics, traffic speeds, emergency vehicle and service access, and maintenance. In certain circumstances, emergency vehicle access may need to be provided through low or mountable curbs or non-rigid means. The spacing and width dimensions that follow are suggestions; narrower buffer widths may be used so long as the vertical elements can be safely accommodated under the conditions of that roadway. To realize the full benefits of several treatments at a potentially lower overall cost, a combination of separation treatments may be used. Cyclists enjoy the greatest level of comfort when buffers provide greater levels of physical separation. The National Institute for Transportation and Communities' (NITC) report, "Lessons from the Green Lanes: Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes in the U.S.," found that planters, curbs, and flexible delineator posts provided the greatest sense of comfort, and that any type of buffer shows a considerable increase in self-reported comfort levels over a striped bike lane. CHAPTER 5 I llENU OF DES G'\I RH.OMME-NDA f10NS FORMS OF SEPARATION Delineator Posts • 10ft-40ft Typical Spacing ~ 3 ft Preferred Bollards • 10ft-40ft Typical , Spacing 1 .5 ft -3 ft Preferred San Francisco, CA. (Source: Dianne Yee) Flexible delineator posts are one of the most popular types of separation elements due to their low cost, visibility, and ease of installation. However, their durability and aesthetic quality can present challenges and agencies may consider converting these types of buffers to a more permanent style when design and budgets allow. Delineators can be placed in the middle of the buffer area or to one side or the other as site conditions dictate (such as street sweeper width or vehicle door opening). Indianapolis, IN (Source: PeopleForBikes) Bollards are a rigid barrier solution that provides a strong vertical element to the buffer space. Depending on how frequently the bollards are placed, this form of separation may result in an increased cost compared to others, and may not be as appropriate on higher speed streets. FORMS OF SEPARATION Concrete Barrier Continuous Spacing ~--3 ft Typical Minimum Raised Median Continuous (Can allow drainage gaps) Planting Strips • (optional) 16 in Preferred Minimum CHAPTER 5 I JlfNU OF Of:SluN REC OM E.NDA flO Seattle, WA. (Source: Seattle DOT) Concrete barriers provide the highest level of crash protection among these separation types. They are less expensive than many of the other treatments and require little maintenance. However, this barrier type may be less attractive and may require additional drainage and service vehicle solutions. A crash cushion should be installed where the barrier end is exposed. Austin, TX (Source: City of Austin) Concrete curbs can either be cast in place or precast. This type of buffer element is more expensive to construct and install but provides a continuous raised buffer that is attractive with little long-term maintenance required. Mountable curbs are an option where emergency vehicle access may be required. CHAPTER 5 I 11ENU Of DES1Gl\J RECOMMENDATIONS FORMS OF SEPARATION Raised Lane ~ 2 ft Preferred Minimum Planters Maintain consistent space • between • planters ~3ftTypical Cambridge, MA. (Source: City of Cambridge) Separated bike lanes may also be designed as ra ised facilities, either at sidewalk grade or at an intermediate grade. If designed at the sidewalk level, the use of different pavement types, markings, or buffers may be necessary to keep bicyclists and pedestrians separated. If placed at an intermediate level, a 3 inch mountable curb may be used to permit access of sweeping equipment. Portland, OR (Source: Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium) This form of separation provides an aesthetic element to the streetscape, a suitable vertical barrier, and is quick to install. However, depending on the placement, this treatment is more expensive than other solutions, requires maintenance of the landscaping, and may not be as appropriate on higher speed streets. FORMS OF SEPARATION Parking Stops • 6 ft Spacing , (variable) . """ ---1 ft-2ftTypical Parked Cars Direction on parking space markings can be found in the MUTCO Figure 38-21 J. CHAPTER 5 I 11ENU OF DE~IGt\i RECO MF A TION'; Baseline Road separated bike lane in Boulder, CO. (Source: City of Boulder) Parking stops and similar low linear barriers are inexpensive buffer solutions that offer several benefits. These barriers have a high level of durability, can provide near continuous separation, and are a good solution when minimal buffer width is available. However, using the minimum width will not provide the same level of comfort and protection due to their low height and bicyclists' proximity to traffic. ~ "' Parked cars provide separation in Seattle, WA. (Source: Seattle DOT) While not a barrier type on its own, parked cars can provide an additional level of protection and comfort for bicyclists. A minimum buffer width of 3 feet is required to allow for the opening of doors and other maneuvers. Additional vertical elements such as periodic delineator posts should be paired with this design. Barrier types that obstruct the opening of car doors or create tripping hazards should be avoided. CHAPTERS I ~ENU OF Of luN Rf OMMfNOATIOl\i<i FORMS OF SEPARATION Combination of Treatments M:f:M Separation types can be used in combination to realize the full benefits of several treatments at a lower overall cost. For example, delineator posts can be alternated with parking stops or other low, linear barriers to provide both horizontal and vertical elements. Planters or rigid barriers and bollards may be used at the start of a block to more clearly identify the separated bike lane and provide an aesthetic treatment, with more inexpensive treatments used midblock. A raised lane combined with curbside bicycle and car parking provide vertical and horizontal separation from vehicular traffic on Higgins Street in Missoula, MT. (Source: City of Missoula) Raised curb islands at intersections combined with flexible delineator posts and parked cars midblock on 9th Avenue in New York City, NY (Source: NYC DOT) MID BLOCK CONSIDERATIONS DRIVEWAYS CHAPTERS I NU OF DE«;,IGN RECOMME NDAT 01\i'i .... 3 Driveways that intersect with separated bike lanes create a potential crash risk due to the conflict between turning motor vehicles and through bicyclists. The risk is increased at locations where there is poor sight distance due to parked cars, landscaping, and other obstructions, or where the design may result in unexpected movements such as the contra-flow direction of travel that occurs on two-way separated bike lanes. Many of these conflicts can be mitigated through good design that improves visibility and expected behaviors. An additional measure beyond separated bike lane design is to consolidate or relocate driveways and access to minimize the number of conflict points along the corridor. CHAPTER 5 I AENU Of Df:SIGN RH OMME-l\IDATIONS DRIVEWAYS One Way Separated Bike Lanes Figure 14 NOT TO SCALE .._______. 20 ft M1ntr1111111 parking restrict100 MliM • • Parking should be prohibited at least 20 ft from the edge of a driveway, dependent on vehicle speeds and volumes. Paint alone may not be enough to keep vehicles from parking in prohibited spaces without frequent enforcement efforts. Additional elements such as delineator posts, parking stops, or concrete curb extensions can be included to ensure that this area remains clear. Landscaping and other street-side elements that obscure sight distance should not be included within 15 ft of a driveway edge. p rking restnct1on • • • • Guidance for parking space markings can be found in MUTCD(2009) Section 3B.19. For further guidance on buffer selection and installation, see page 83. A variety of pavement marking treatments can be used to improve visibility of the separated bike lane and reinforce the expected bicyclist behaviors to motorists. For further guidance on paint and striping in conflict areas, see page 114. A "turning vehicles yield to bikes" sign is often used in this scenario to alert turning vehicles to the presence of the separated bike lane; however, it should be noted that while this sign has been proposed it has not yet been specifically approved by FHWA through either the Interim Approval process or adoption into a new edition of the MUTCD. For further guidance on typical signs and markings for separated bike lanes, see page 127. parlong restr•ctoon parking restr1C11on DRIVEWAYS Two-Way Separated Bike Lanes Figure 15 NOTTO SCALE ..__ __ ... , 20 ft Minimum parking restriction • • CHAPTER 5 I AENu OF-DfS Gl\i EC Parking should be prohibited at least 20 ft from the edge of a driveway, dependent on vehicle speeds and volumes. Paint alone may not be enough to keep vehicles from parking in prohibited spaces without frequent enforcement efforts. Additional elements such as delineator posts, parking stops, or concrete curb extensions can be included to ensure that this area remains clear. To avoid separated bike lane encroachment of vehicles exiting driveways into the street, landscaping and other street-side elements that obscure sight distance should not be included within 15 ft of a driveway edge. Floating parking design downstream of driveways on one-way streets do not require parking restrictions for visibility since no conflicting traffic is approaching. • • • A variety of pavement marking treatments can be used to improve the visibility of the separated bike lane and reinforce expected bicyclist behaviors toward motorists. For further guidance on paint and striping in conflict areas, see page 114. Signs on side streets or driveways can alert drivers to expect two-way bicycle traffic, especially on one-way streets. Given the additional width of a two- way separated bike lane, additional measures may be used to reduce the likelihood of accidental entrance by motor vehicles: A "Do Not Enter" with a supplementary "Except Bicycles" plaque may be used. Or, a BIKE LANE sign (MUTCD R3-17) may be used. A delineator post may be placed on the centerline between the two directions of bicycle travel. Parking restrictions not required on downstream side of driveway for vehicles turning onto one-way streets 15ftM1mmum ___ , 20 tt Minimum parking restrict ion 15 ft Minimum space clear from visual obstructions sp-ce clear from visual obstructions .,. CHAPTER 5 I AENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS TRANSIT STOPS 3 . ,. Ideally, separated bike lanes will not operate along the same side of the roadway as high-frequency transit routes, either by using different sides of the street or different streets. However, on many corridors, this division between transit and bicycles is not possible. In these cases transit stops present a challenge among interactions with cyclists, transit vehicles, and those accessing transit stops. Where possible, separation should continue at transit stops by routing bicyclists behind the bus platform. This type of design avoids conflicts with transit vehicles but does create potential conflicts with pedestrians who must cross the separated bike lane to access the transit stop. This potential pedestrian conflict can be mitigated through design and the provision of discrete crossing locations. Visually impaired pedestrians accessing the bus stop should be directed to the crosswalk using detectable warnings . TRANSIT STOPS Island Platform with No Separated Bike Lane Bend Figure 16 NOTTO SCALE CHAPTER 5 I "1ENU OF Of CiN Rf:CO MEl\DA S This design may be used at locations where the transit vehicle may stop in a travel lane. In this alignment the separated bike lane does not shift, no sidewalk space is removed, and more on-street parking is allowed. Separating bicycles from bus flow also eliminates "leapfrogging" which improves cyclist comfort and bus operating speeds. G The front end of the platform needs 5 ft x 8 ft minimum clear space to accommodate deployment of an accessible ramp from equipped buses. • In circumstances without on-street parking, a narrower transit platform may be used so long as a 5 ft x 8 ft level space can be maintained . • With a minimum crosswalk width of 6 ft, consider a wider crosswalk dependent on transit boardings. Ideally, the crosswalk is placed at the transit vehicle exit point. If this transit stop is at a street crossing, the bike lane crosswalk should be placed at the start (upstream) end of the platform and included with the full street crossing. If a raised crosswalk is not selected, curb ramps with a marked crosswalk should be used. Each curb ramp should have a detectable warning surface in accordance with DOT's regulations implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 at 49 CFR 27.3(b). CID • • Raised Cros walk -Ramp deployment area Minimum 5 ft K 8 It Place yield line pavement marking just prior to the crosswalk. Optional "YIELD" markings may be placed in the bike lane . Place a YIELD HERE TO PEDESTRIANS (MUTCD Rl-5) sign at crosswalk. .,. CHAPTER 5 I /lfl\IU Of DESIGN RECOM'v'IENOATIONS TRANSIT STOPS Island Platform with Separated Bike Lane Bend At locations where it is desired to have the transit vehicle move out of the flow of traffic, a separated bike lane may need to bend around the transit platform. NOTTO SCALE CD This lateral shift of the separated bike lane must be designed based on the offset distance and bicycle design speed . C9 Front end of platform needs 5 ft x 8 ft minimum clear space to accommodate deployment of accessible ramp from equipped vehicles. CID In circumstances without on-street parking or limited sidewalk space, a narrower transit platform may used so long as a 5 ft x 8 ft level space can be maintained. a Minimum crosswalk width is 6 W ft. Consider a wider crosswalk dependent on transit boardings. Ideally, the crosswalk is placed at the transit vehicle exit point. If this transit stop is at a street crossing, the bike lane crosswalk should be placed at the start (upstream) end of the platform and included with the full street crossing. I The term daylighting refers to the removal of on-street parking near intersections or adjacent to curb cuts in order to improve sightlines I for motorists, cyclists. and pedestrians. • To increase awareness between bicyclists and transit users and to emphasize a preferred crossing location, an optional raised crosswalk may be used. Ramp up to raised crosswalk should be 1:10 -1:25 slope. • Yield triangle pavement markings can be placed prior to the crosswalk in accordance with the MUTCD (2009). • Place a YIELD HERE TO PEDESTRIANS (MUTCD Rl-5) sign at crosswalk 8 For further guidance on typical signs and markings for separated bike lanes, see page 127. soft Typical 1 ..,, -------~-'-"''"'"""~~~~"--"'""'"""~-""''------ 2011 Dependent on offset and design speed -Ramp deployment area: Minimum 5 ft x 8 ft TRANSIT STOPS Transit Stop Mixing with Se pa rated Bike Lane NOTTO SCALE CHAPTER 5 I 11El\IU OF DESIGN RE COMM '\IDA 1 Where bus service is sufficiently infrequent (about four buses per hour or fewer), transit stops can be designed in the separated bike lane. When buses are present, cyclists merge left and pass buses boarding and alighting passengers. At all other t imes, at least 55 minutes of every hour, bikes continue through the bus stop uninterrupted . • Transit vehicles pull up to stops along the curb, across the separated bike lane. Vehicles yield to through bicyclists . • Front end of platform needs 5 ft x 8 ft minimum clear space to accommodate deployment of accessible ramp from equipped vehicles . • Optional "YIELD" markings in bike lane. A NO PARKING BUS STOP sign W (MUTCD R7-7). CID Optional BUS ONLY pavement markings (MUTCD Figure 3B-23) . • For further guidance on typical signs and markings for separated bike lanes, see page 127. Shared bus stop/bike lane configuration in Boston, MA (Source: Conor Semler) Curb length dependent on v .hicle length and buffer width Ramp deployment area· Minimum 5 ft x 8 ft .,.. CHAPTER 5 I 11El\JU OF DfSIGN REC0'\11'\llENDATIONS •t• Island bus platform adjacent to a separated bike lane in Austin, TX. (Source: Kelly Blume) Raised crosswalk (under construction) adjacent to a transit stop island platform on Broadway in Seattle, WA. (Source: Seattle DOT) CHAPTER 5 I ~El\iU OF-DE ClN RECOM ENDA ACCESSIBLE PARKING 3 Where designated on-street parking is provided, accessible parking must be provided. Refer to the 2010 ADA Standards and the current Public Rights of Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) published by the U.S. Access Board for more information. These spaces must be provided on the block perimeter where on- street parking is marked or metered. In many cases, the accessible parking may be provided on block faces that do not conflict with separated bike lane alignment. However, a priority for accessibility is locating the parking spaces where the street is most level and, ideally, closest to obvious destinations such as building entrances. Under these circumstances it may be necessary to include accessible parking on the same block face as a separated bike lane. Providing accessible parking spaces at the start of a block often affords the most flexibility in designing around the separated bike lane. A painted access aisle without any vertical elements provides space to deploy a lift and allows a vehicle to park in the buffer to deploy a left-side lift, if necessary. A dedicated accessible parking space with access aisle in Austin, TX. (Source: Kelly Blume) CHAPTER 5 I '1ENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ACCESSIBLE PARKING Located Midblock Within Parking Lane • The design and layout of accessible parking spaces for persons with disabilities is required, and PROWAG provides the best available information on the details. 8 An access aisle shall be provided the full length of the parking space and shall connect to a pedestrian access route. The access aisle shall shall not encroach on the vehicular travel lane. Refer to PROWAG for details. CID A 5 ft wide minimum access aisle shall be provided at street level. For ease of parking, a best practice is to provide 3 foot front and/or rear aisles . • A crosswalk and curb ramp shall connect the access aisle to the sidewalk . • No posts or other obstructions shall be placed in accessible parking space buffer. For further guidance on buffer selection and installation, see page 83 . • Place a YIELD HERE TO PEDESTRIANS (MUTCD Rl-5) sign at crosswalk. • Yield line pavement marking may be placed prior to the crosswalk. Refer to MUTCD(2009) Section 3B.20 for pavement symbols and arrow markings. • For further guidance on typical signs and markings for separated bike lanes, see page 127. • Place an accessible parking sign (MUTCD R?-8) on the sidewalk facing each parking space. A reserved parking sign is placed alongside a floating parking lane in Austin, Texas (Source: Kelly Blume) 8ft Minimum CHAPTER 5 I NU OF DESIGN Rf.COMMENDATI0'\15 LOADING ZONES 3 There are a number of circumstances that require access to the curb along separated bike lane corridors including loading and deliveries, temporary bus parking, and hotel drop-off zones. In some cases, these uses can simply be relocated to an adjacent block face or alley. If not, ideally these zones can be well placed and consolidated to reduce the impacts of pedestrian and vehicle intrusion into the bicycle space. If on -street parking is used in the buffer space, the loading zone design is simpler where parking can be restricted and the pedestrian conflict crossing the bike lane can be managed. When there is not space that can be made available from on-street parking and a loading zone is still required, additional space must be acquired either from the sidewalk, through a roadway widening, through a reduction in vehicle travel lanes, or by creating a vehicle mixing zone with the separated bike lane. Occupying Parking CD Parking is restricted in loading zone. • NO PARKING LOADING ZONE sign placed on the sidewalk near each end of buffer (MUTCD R7-6). Lane Only CD A 5 ft wide minimum access aisle ___________ shall be provided the full length of the accessible loading zone and shall connect to a pedestrian access route. Refer to PROWAG for details. For further guidance on buffer selection and installation, see page 83. No posts or other obstructions in loading zone buffer. • Optional "LOADING ZONE" pavement markings (MUTCD Figure 38-23). Loading zones need to be accessible - refer to PROWAG R310 for guidance. • Green pavement optional. For guidance on green pavement Figure 20 markings, see page 114. NOT TO SCALE 20 ft minimum • Guidance for parking space markings can be found in MUTCD(2009) Section 38.19. • For further guidance on typical signs and markings for separated bike lanes, see page 127. • A crosswalk and curb ramp must connect the loading zone to the sidewalk. • Optional: Yield bar pavement marking may be placed prior to the crosswalk . Refer to MUTCD(2009) Section 38.20 for pavement symbols and arrow markings. ---. ~· ~ I Dependent on loading space requirement wpw CHAPTERS I AENU OF DESIGN RH OMMfNDATIONS LOADING ZONES Bending Separated Bike Lane into Sidewalk Figure 21 NOTTO SCALE • • • • A lateral shift of the separated bike lane into the sidewalk may be necessary to accommodate a required loading or drop-off zone where there is no on-street parking. The shift must be designed based on the offset distance and bicycle design speed. If a lateral shift cannot be accommodated and a loading zone is required, loading and drop-off activities may have to mix with bicycle traffic creating a conflict in high-use areas. Parking is restricted in loading zone. A 5 ft wide minimum access aisle shall be provided the full length of the accessible loading zone and shall connect to a pedestrian access route. Refer to PROWAG for details. For further guidance on buffer selection and installation, see page 83 . Optional LOADING ZONE pavement markings (MUTCD Figure 38-23). No posts or other obstructions in loading zone buffer. Dependent on offset and design speeds Dependent on loading space requirement •M·• • • Green pavement is optional. For guidance on green pavement markings, see page 114. NO PARKING LOADING ZONE sign placed at each end in buffer (MUTCD R7-6). The NO PARKING LOADING ZONE sign can also be placed on the sidewalk, where it may be less likely to be hit by motorists and also may have less of an impact on maintenance operations. • For further guidance on typical signs and markings for separated bike lanes, see page 127 . • • A crosswalk and curb ramp must connect the loading zone to the sidewalk. Optional: Yield bar pavement marking may be placed prior to the crosswalk. Refer to MUTCD(2009) Section 38.20 for pavement symbols and arrow markings. Acceptable sidewalk width (context dependent) must be maintained CHAPTER 5 I '\JU OF DES "J RE A dedicated loading zone along Polk Street in San Francisco, CA. (Source: Alek Pochowski) MMM CHAPTERS I MENU OF DESluN Rf:tOMMfNDAflONS NTERSECTION DESIGN ·~ ••·E• It is not possible to maintain permanent physical separation of bicycles and automobiles through intersections, where cross street and turning movements must cross the path of bicyclists. Intersections are where most bicycle-vehicle collisions occur, and where riders feel the most stress. Designers have implemented a variety of strategies, including both time-and space-separation, for maintaining the benefits of separated bike lanes through intersections. The configurations and geometries for each specific location will dictate which options are most advantageous. Intersection design is often the most challenging separated bike lane design element. Above, an intersection along New York City's 9th Avenue facility. (Source: NYC DOT) CHAPTER 5 I J1E NU OF DESIGN RH OMMfNDA 11v TURNING MOVEMENTS 4 Signalized and Unsignalized Treatments Signalization The movements of automobiles and bicycles at intersections may conflict with each other. Therefore, design elements are needed to increase visibility of bicyclists for motorists. Table 3 Pros Cons Signals: separate through and Potential Increased turning movements in time elimination of signal cycle turn conflict length, possibly with increased wait times Maintain Separation Bend In: position cyclists closer to Greater sense Turning turning vehicles to increase visibility of comfort/ vehicle less traffic conflicts at Bend Out: provide space for stress intersections right-turning vehicles to turn before encountering bicycle conflicts; provide space for queueing Lateral Shift: vehicles cross Organize Greater traffic Shift Bicycles high-visibility bike lane; clear conflicts; stress Across Turning responsibility for yielding reduce right-hook risk Vehicles Mixing Zone: shared lane, requires less space Using signalization to separate the movements of automobiles and bicyclists through an intersection removes potential conflict points which are present with other treatments. A separate signal phase allows bicyclists to proceed without right-turning vehicle conflicts and stops bicyclists at times when right-turning automobiles can proceed. This approach may be selected at intersections with high volumes of right-turning automobiles, or on one-way streets with left- turning automobiles and a left-side running separated bike lane, and where the signal phasing and cycle length can accommodate a bicycle signal phase. Signal phasing, cycle lengths, and traffic progression should all be carefully considered for bicyclists where significant delay frequently results in poor signal compliance . •.. ,. CHAPTER 5 I 11'1ENU OF DESIGN REtOMMrnDATIONS TURNING MOVEMENTS Signalization • A near-side bicycle signal can supplement far-side signals to improve visibility (refer to MUTCD Interim Approval IA-16). Near-side signals are required when the far-side signal is 120 ft or greater from the stop bar, and recommended over 80 ft. Near-side signals can be placed on the pedestrian pushbutton pole, or the bicycle pushbutton pole, if used. • Minimum 1 ft buffer at intersection. For further guidance on buffer selection and installation, see page 83. • If no dedicated right turn lane is present, bicyclists may use pedestrian walk signal. A 'Turning vehicles yield to bikes' sign may be placed on the mast arm. CD NO TURN ON RED (MUTCD Rl0-11) on mast arm near signal head . • Guidance for parking space markings can be found in MUTCD(2009) Section 38.19. • For further guidance on signal phasing, see page 119. • Signal detection for bicyclists is needed if the signal [or signal operation] is actuated. An optional signal detection loop may be placed 60 -120 ft in advance of the intersection. • A bicycle detector symbol marking (MUTCD Fig. 9C-7) should be placed over the loop to alert passing cyclists to the in-ground sensor. For further guidance on typical signs and markings for separated bike lanes, see page 127. NOT TO SCALE 4ftMin .--~~~~~~~~~~--+ .____.. CHAPTERS I u OF OE GI\! RECOMM D IV TURNING MOVEMENTS Lateral Shift A lateral shift moves cyclists to the left of the motor vehicle right turn lane before vehicles can move right. This places the responsibility for yielding clearly on drivers turning right, and brings bicyclists into a highly visible position. In the lateral shift configuration, like the mixing zone (see page 107), potential conflicts between right-turning vehicles and through bicyclists occur before the intersection. A lateral shift treatment is effective for intersections where a separate bicycle signal and signal phasing is not feasible, because bicyclists can proceed in the same signal phase as through and right-turning vehicles . • Provide minimum queue storage length for automobiles needed for operations, depending on right-turn volumes and signal cycle length. Cl For further guidance on bike boxes, see page 122. G Shift bike lane closer to motorized traffic prior to weave area so motorists and bicyclists can see each other better. • For further guidance on buffer selection and installation, see page 83. • Shorter queue storage lengths are preferred because it allows for a longer distance of midblock separation relative to the intersection and slows motor vehicle speeds. • Include BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE YIELD TO BIKES (MUTCD R4-4) at end of parking restrictions. • The weave area should be short to force vehicles to make slow and deliberate turning movements into the right turn lane. A variety of pavement marking treatments can be used to improve visibility of the separated bike lane and reinforce the expected bicyclist behaviors. For further guidance on paint and striping in conflict areas, see page 114. • For further guidance on typical signs and markings for separated bike lanes, see page 127. • Guidance for parking space markings can be found in MUTCD(2009) Section 3B.19 . G For further signal guidance, see page 115. Figure 23 20 ft M1rnmum for v1sib11ity 30 ft Minimum merge area 25 ft Mtntmum NOT TO SCALE Queue storage as needed for operations shorter preferred 4 ft Min +-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-.:u-~~__. ..___.... CHAPTER 5 I AENU OF DE:SIGN RECOMMfNDATIONS CASE STUDY MM# Salt Lake City's Experimental Lateral Shift Salt Lake City, Utah 300 East Corridor separated bike lane. (Source: City of Salt Lake City) Salt Lake City used a pilot project approach to install a temporary separated bike lane along 300 East Corridor. A lane of parked cars provides additional separation between moving vehicles and cyclists; however, the City drops the parking lane in advance of intersections to improve visibility. To manage through-bicycle and right-turning vehicle conflicts at intersections, the City chose to apply an experimental lateral shift approach. Cyclists move to the left of the motor vehicle right-turn lane in advance of any opportunity for vehicles to move right. This approach places the onus of yielding to cyclists squarely on motor vehicles that need to make a right turn. The City has received positive feedback from planners and designers who have observed the facility, and plans to use design for its future separated bike lane intersection approaches where roadway width can accommodate a dedicated right turn lane. TURNING MOVEMENTS Mixing Zone Figure 24 CHAPTER 5 I AE'\IU OF OfSIG'\I RE:tOMM DA u A mixing zone is an area where bicyclists and right-turning automobiles merge into one travel lane approaching an intersection. Mixing zones provide a design option in which the potential conflict between right-turning vehicles and through bicyclists occurs before the intersection, sim ilar to the lateral shift. Mixing zones may provide the best option in locations without on-street parking and/or with a constrained right-of-way where the roadway width will not accommodate both a bicycle lane and a right-turn lane at the intersection . • Mixing zones are often used at intersections with turning vehicle volumes high enough to cause frequent conflicts, but not high enough to require signalization. Mixing zones may be most effective at intersections with 50-150 turning vehicles in the peak hour. Cl Shared lane markings help guide bicyclists to the left side of turning vehicles. ctD For further guidance on buffer selection and installation, see page 83. • Include BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE YIELD TO BIKES (MUTCD R4-4) at end of parking restrictions. Additional mixing zone designs are highlighted in the pictures on pages 50, 102, and 108. 60 ft 11 O ft Typical •.. ,. CHAPTER 5 I AEl\iU OF DESIGN RECOMMEl\IDATIONS A mixing zone along New York City's 2nd Avenue separated bike lane. (Source: NYC DOT) TURNING MOVEMENTS Bend-In and Bend-Out CHAPTER 5 I i/IENU OF DfSIG RE: COMM l\JUA I'll') When the separated bike lane approaches an intersection with right-turning vehicles st ill positioned to the left of the separated bike lane, the designer may choose to either "bend-in " or "bend-out" the separated bike lane at the intersection to reduce the likelihood of conflicts with right-turning vehicles. The decision to bend-in or bend-out depends on a number of factors, including buffer type and width, available right-of-way, sight distance, side-street characteristics, and other contextual factors. Considerations for selecting bend-in or bend-out are highlighted in Table 5 on the following page. A bend-in design approaching an intersection in St. Petersburg, FL. (Source: Rory Rowan) CHAPTER 5 I "1fNU OF DES r:-r"lMIVIE"NDATIONS Table 4 Advantages Disadvantages . Motorists on a side street can see . Parking spaces close to bicycles and vehicles in a similar field of the intersection may be vision. lost Bend -In Bicyclists may perceive less Requires less space than . . bending out separation due to proximity of through vehicles . Allows vehicle traffic turning across . Requires more space separated bike lane to queue out of the way of through traffic and before . Less familiar design the separated bike lane. . Adequate sight distance . Allows a queuing location for may be difficult for vehicles Bend-Out cyclists wanting to turn left. approaching on the side Raised crossing provides traffic street. . calming for automobiles and can also slow bicyclists. TURNING MOVEMENTS Figure 25 NOT TO SCALE Mli1M Bend-In To increase the visibility of bicyclists for turning vehicles, the bend-in design positions bicyclists adjacent to the vehicle turn lane. • Shift bicycle lane closer to motorized traffic so motorists and bicyclists can see each other better. • Bend-in design creates opportunity to build a curb extension to reduce pedestrian crossing distance. • For further guidance on buffer selection and installation, see page 83. 20ft-40ft CD A 'Turning vehicles yield to bikes' sign may be placed on the mast arm. • Guidance for parking space markings can be found in MUTCD(2009) Section 3B.19. Cl For further guidance on typical signs and markings for separated bike lanes, see page 127. ~•------~~-------....• _____ 2o __ ft_M_in_i_m_um ____ ~ Alternative option to build raised curb extent1on 40 ft -60 ft CHAPTER 5 I El\il.. OF DE DA TURNING MOVEMENTS Figure 26 NOTTO SCALE Bend-Out The bend-out design positions bicyclists downstream on the side street away from the intersection, allowing vehicles to complete turning movements before interacting with bicyclists. This design, which could be used on lower-volume side streets or driveways, provides space for a vehicle to yield to crossing bicycles without blocking through traffic on the main street. A Bicycle/Pedestrian Warning (Wll-15) sign may be used as driveways approach separated bike lanes to alert drivers to be aware for bikes and pedestrians. • Bend-out design provides opportunity • A 'Turning vehicles yield to bikes' for an ample pedestrian refuge between sign may be placed on the the separated bike lane crossing and the mast arm. roadway crossing. • For further guidance on typical • Separated bike lane and crosswalk may signs and markings for separated be raised to sidewalk level through the bike lanes, see page 127. intersection, providing a traffic calming • For further guidance on signal effect. • phasing, see page 119 . For further guidance on buffer selection and installation, see page 83. Ramp up to sidewalk lev I MHM CHAPTER 5 I AENU Of DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS TURNING MOVEMENTS Opportunities for Space Created by Bend-In MifW A bend-in design creates the opportunity to construct a curb extension to reduce pedestrian crossing distances. The design can create public space which could be used for: Bike parking corrals Bikeshare stations Parklets Public art exhibits Bioswales/rain gardens Boulder, CO uses some of the sidewalk space created by the bend-in intersection design for bike parking. (Source: Kevin Zolkiewicz) CHAPTER 5 I J1ENU or DESIGll. RECOM'vl N A ON<; INTERSECTION MARKINGS 4 White Chevrons and White Lines White dashed lines may be used to mark extensions of the separated bike lane through intersections or other traffic conflict areas. These dotted lines are intended to increase awareness of where bicyclists may be positioned. White chevrons should be used in wider painted buffers with a width of 4 feet and above. Bike lane symbols should be placed periodically to reduce the intrusion of pedestrians and motorists into the separated bike lanes. The words BIKE LANE may be used as an alternative to the bike symbol. Periodic maintenance will be required to ensure markings remain visible. Seattle's first downtown separated bike lane on Second Avenue between Pike Street and Yes/er Way. (Source: SOOT) Figure 27 ';;I~, Minimum (applies to au ---three eKamples 8 ft · 12 ft abovo) Recommended 17rt'~I 8ft-12ft Recommended 17rt'~I 8 ft -12 ft Recommended Diagonal crosshatch markings are often used in narrower buffers (i.e. 3-4 feet wide) and given their typical dimensions white chevrons are generally used in buffers with a width of 4 feet and above. ..,. CHAPTER 5 I AENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATION~ INTERSECTION MARKINGS Use of Green Colored Pavement MHM Green pavement increases awareness of bicycles and can be used t o indicate an area of potential conflict with mot or vehicles. The green colored pavement is an additional treatment and shall not be used instead of dotted lines to extend a bicycle lane across an intersection, driveway, ramp, or at the beginning of a turn bay. Green paint across a mixing zone opening on M Street NW in Washington, DC (Source: Jason Broehm) The pattern of the green colored pavement may be in a manner matching t he pattern of the dotted lines; filling in only the areas directly between a pair of dotted line segments (MUTCD Interim Approval IA-14) as shown in the diagram above. The green pavement and other conflict zone markings in the designs below are non-standard but currently in use by many U.S. municipalities. Figure 28 ' >., •. CHAPTER 5 I AE"NU OF-DE G"4 R SIGNALIZATION STRATEGIES 4 Bike Signals Bicycle signals may be used to separate bicycle through movements from vehicle right turning movements for increased safety. They can also be used to facilitate complex bicycle movements or help people on bicycles navigate complex intersections safely. A leading bicycle interval, which uses a bicycle signal lens to provide three to five seconds of green time before the corresponding vehicle green indication, can be used to increase the visibility of bicyclists to motorists. The yellow change interval and all-red clearance interval may need to be adjusted to provide for passage of bicyclists t hrough an intersection. The yellow change interval is when t he steady yellow sign al indication is displayed preceding the red signal interval. The Urban Bikeway Design Guide (NACTO) uses the following equation to calculate the total clearance interval (i.e. the time that all signals are red that follows a yellow change interval and precedes t he next green interval): C(i) = 3 + W /V • C (i) =Total Clearance Interva l • W = Intersection Width • V =Cyclist Speed (9.5 mph can be used as a default if no speed is known) Dedicated bicycle signalization along New York City's 9th Avenue separated bike lane. (Source: NYC DOT) ••i• CHAPTER 5 I 11ENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS SIGNALIZATION Signal Phasing and Coordination .... Bicyclists exert the most energy when starting from a stopped position. Decreasing the number of stops at traffic signals in a corridor will increase the comfort for people on bikes and improve bicyclist compliance with the signals. Bicycle Progression Speed • The bicycle progression speed should be set to minimize the chance of stopping at each intersection based on the average bicycling speed. • The average bicycle speed on a corridor may vary depending on roadway grades and typical speeds of bicyclists. A bicycle speed study may be conducted to find the actual progression speed. 10 mph is a comfortable speed for the general population; more confident cyclists may travel around 15 mph. • Bicycle progression speed is largely dependent on street grade. • Two-way separated bike lanes on a one-way street can cause significant challenges with signal progression for bicyclists in the contra-flow direction and may lead to poor compliance with the traffic signals. Average Bicycle Delay at Intersections • Related to the progression speed, bicyclists are less willing to wait at red traffic signals than motorists. Cycle lengths should be short to minimize the average bicyclist delay. A maximum 90 second cycle length is recommended. Signal Detection • Automatic detection by loops and/or video are important devices to give bicyclists green lights. • Other detector feedback devices should be considered to provide information for bicyclists to receive a green light. Examples include the TO REQUEST GREEN WAIT ON SYMBOL sign (MUTCD Rl0-22), blue light detector device, and others. For sign and markings guidance, see page 127. • Detection across the entire separated bike lane is preferred to call a green light for the user. Bicycle detection 60 or 120 feet in advance of the intersection could be used to call a green light for the bicyclist to minimize the chance of stopping and thereby increasing cycling comfort . CHAPTER 5 I '\JU OF DE5 u Rf:CO E. DA ON A bicycle detector pavement marking (MUTCD Figure 9C-7) communicates to bicyclists where to position themselves for signal detection in Portland, Oregon (Source: Jesse Boudart) A blue light detector feedback device along NE Multnomah Street in Portland, OR. (Source: Jesse Boudart) MUM CHAPTER 5 I 11ENU OF DESIGN RECOM'V'IENDATIONS SIGNALIZATION Additional Guidance on Bicycle Signals SIGNALIZATION MUM Bike Signal Alternatives The California MUTCD contains thresholds for when to use a bicycle signal. The thresholds below, in particular, relate to separated bike lanes: Volume: • W = B x V and W > 50,000 and B > 50. • W is volume warrant, B is the number of bicycles at the peak hour entering the intersection.Vis the number of vehicles at the peak hour entering the intersection. B & V shall use the same peak hour. Collision: • When 2 or more bicycle/vehicle collisions of the types susceptible to correction by a bicycle signal have occurred over a 12-month period and the responsible public works official determines that a bicycle signal will reduce the number of collisions. Geometric: • Where a separated bike lane or multi-use path intersects a roadway. • At other locations to facilitate a bicycle movement that is not permitted for a motor vehicle. When bicycle signals cannot be used, active detection, such as a blue indicator light, inform cyclists that they have been detected by the signal and will be receiving a green signal during the cycle. Active detection may decrease frustration and improve red light compliance among cyclists. CHAPTER 5 I ~ENU OF DES GN RECO'v1ME DA TION~ SIGNAL PHASING 4 Considerations: • A bicycle green signal shall not be used with coinciding vehicle green signal faces which allow permitted turning movements across bicycle movements. • Bicycle signal faces should be placed such that visibility is maximized for bicyclists and minimized for adjacent or conflicting motor vehicle movements. If drivers could be confused by viewing bicycle signal indications, such as when the start or end of a bicycle green indication occurs at different times than concurrent motor vehicle movements, consideration should be given to using visibility-limited bicycle signal faces. • If bicycle signals are used, NO RIGHT ON RED (or left for one way roads) signs (MUTCD Rl0-11) should be used. Optional: • The interim approval (MUTCD Interim Approval IA-16) specifies the permitted use of bicycle signal phases with arrows in the signal assembly as well as the bicycle icon. The use of arrows in a bicycle signal assembly have not been implemented in the United States. Figure 29 Signal Phase Example 1 A leading bicycle interval can be used to increase the visibility of a bicyclist through the intersection. • BIKE • VEHICLE • PEDESTRIAN Bicycle lead interval allows bikes to advance ahead of automobiles . MIGM CHAPTER 5 I iAENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIOl\iS Signal Phase Example 2 Bicycle movements can be separated from conflicting vehicle movements with automobile right-turn restrictions during the bicycle through movement, and bicycle signals stopping bikes while automobiles turn right . • BIKE • VEHICLE • PEDESTRIAN Signal Phase Example 3 A two-way separated bike lane add s complexity to signal phasing at two-way intersections. Importantly, the separated bike lane movement should be separated from conflicting vehicle turning movements. •H·• CHAPTER 5 I AENU OF DESIGN RECOMMfNDATJONS Signal Phase Example 4 In low vehicle traffic situations with separated bike lanes, a dedicated bicycle movement should be considered. The interim approval for bicycle signals (IA-16) does not permit a "bicycle scramble" (where bicycle movements are permitted from all four directions simultaneously) . • BIKE .VEHICLE .PEDESTRIAN Signal Phase Example 5 One way streets with two-way separated bike lanes have fewer conflict ing vehicle turning movements but should nevertheless be separated in time. Signal Phase Example 6 When all vehicle turning movements must be accommodated, bicycle movements should be completely separated from vehicle movements. CHAPTER 5 I AENU OF DESIGN RECOMMEl\JDATIONS BICYCLE TURNING MOVEMENTS 4 Mf!W Bike Boxes and Early Exit To allow bicyclists to comfortably navigate intersections, intersection design must account for right-turning, through, and left-turning movements where these movements are allowed. Left-turn movements (from right-side or center-running separated bike lanes) create the most potential for conflict with motor vehicles, but specific treatments such as bike boxes or two-stage turn queue boxes can facilitate safe and comfortable turning movements for bicyclists. Bike boxes are designated spaces at signalized intersections that allow bicyclists to queue in front of motor vehicles at red lights. Placed between the stop line and the pedestrian crosswalk, bike boxes increase the visibility of queued bicyclists and provide them with the ability to start up and enter the intersection in front of motor vehicles when the signal turns green. Bike boxes, which have experimental status in accordance with the MUTCD, also provide bicyclists with the opportunity to position for a left turn. For more information on the MUTCD experimentation process, see http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/condexper.htm. On multilane streets, the bike box may extend across all lanes up to the left turn lane to allow for left- turning bicyclists. In locations with few travel lanes or low volumes, an early exit can allow more confident cyclists to weave from the separated bike lane into the travel lane and position themselves to turn with mixed traffic. A cyclist approaches a bike box on M Street, Washingto n DC. Source: DDOT BIKE TURNING MOVEMENTS Bike Boxes and Early Exit CID The bike box should include a minimum depth of 10 ft and minimum combined width of the bike lane, buffer space, and adjacent travel lane. • At signalized intersections, passive bicycle detection (inductive loops) may be used to give bicyclists a green light. For additional information on signal detection, see Page 116. • On multilane streets where left turns are allowed, bike boxes may be extended across the left turning lane. CID A variety of pavement marking treatments can be used to improve the visibility of the separated bike lane and reinforce expected bicyclist behaviors. For further guidance on paint and striping in conflict areas, see page 114. • A 'Turning vehicles yield to bikes' sign may be used. For further guidance on typical signs and markings for separated bike lanes, see page 127 . • Install STOP HERE ON RED sign (MUTCD Rl0-6A) . • Install NO TURN ON RED sign (MUTCD Rl0-11) if turns on red would otherwise be permitted. NOT TO SCALE CHAPTER 5 I l!ENU OF DESIGN RECOMMEl'llDATION ? 4ft Minimum I Bicycle queue storage space typically 1 0 ft -16 ft deep 25 ft 20 ft Minimum Optional bicycle early exit to merge into traffic to make left turn MfJM .. CHAPTERS I 11ENU OF DES GN R COMMENDATIONS TURNING MOVEMENTS 2-Stage Turn Queue Boxes Two-stage turn queue boxes allow bicyclists to make left turns at multilane intersections from a right-side separated bike lane, or right turns from a left-side separated bike lane. Cyclists who arrive on a green light travel into the intersection and pull out into the two-stage turn queue box away from through-moving bicycles and in front of cross-street traffic. They may also be used at unsignalized intersections to simplify turning movements. Various positioning options are possible, depending on the corridor and intersection configuration. The two-stage turn queue box is experimental in accordance with the MUTCD. An example of a left-turn queue box used on a bike lane in San Francisco. (Source: San Francisco Municipa l Transportation Agency) TURNING MOVEMENTS 2-Stage Turn Queue Boxes CD The two-stage turn queue box should be designed in accordance with the MUTCD experimental approval. It should be located out of the way of through bicyclists, usually between the bike lane and crosswalk. The two-stage left-turn box dimensions are about the same size or larger than the dimensions of four ( 4) cyclists standing side by side (10 ft wide X 6.5 ft deep) . • Where on-street parking is located upstream of the intersection, the two-stage turn queue box can be located between the bike lane and vehicle travel lane. CD Include a bicycle symbol and arrow indicating direction of turn in the two-stage queue box . • At signalized intersections, passive bicycle detection (inductive loops) may be used to give bicyclists a green light . • Install a NO TURN ON RED (MUTCD Rl0-11) sign where the two-stage left-turn box is installed in the path of a right turning vehicle . • A variety of pavement marking treatments can be used to improve the visibility of the separated bike lane and reinforce expected bicyclist behaviors. For further guidance on paint and striping in conflict areas, see page 114 . • Guidance for parking space markings can be found in MUTCD (2009) Section 3B.19 . • For further guidance on typical signs and markings for separated bike lanes, see page 127. CHAPTER 5 I .NU OF DES GN RECO M DA u NOT TO SCALE •ti• CHAPTERS I i/IENU OF DES.GN RECOMME:NDATIONS TURNING MOVEMENTS No Bicycle Turning Treatments Geometric constraints may not allow for two-stage left-turn queue boxes, or bike boxes to be located on separated bike lane routes. The provision of BICYCLISTS MAY USE FULL LANE sign (MUTCD R4-11) prior to intersections may help bicyclists cross the roadway to perform left-turns. Excluding areas to comfortably perform left-turns at intersections may discourage bicycling. OTHER DESIGN ELEMENTS I Signs and pavement markings supplement good design and reinforce appropriate behavior for all roadway users. This section provides a summary of the most commonly used signs and pavement markings re lated to separated bike lane installation. SIGN GUIDANCE Bike lane MUTCD Sign R3-17 ~ YI ELD TO PEDS Bicyclists yield to pedestrians M UTCD Sign R9-6 NO TURN ON RED No turn on red MUTCD Sign R10-11 MAY USE FULL LANE Bicyclists may use fu ll lane MUTCD Sign R4-11 TURNING,. VEHICLES Turning vehicles yield to bikes MUTCD Sign R10-15 (Mod.) BIKE LANE No Parking Bike Lane MUTCD Sign R7-9 •ti• CHAPTERS I IV'IENU OF DESIGN REC.OMMENDA TIONS TO REQUEST GREEN I WAIT A ON oro Bicycle signal actuation sign MUTCD Sign R10-22 RESERVED PARKING Reserved parking for persons with disabilities MUTCD Sign R7-8 NO PARKING BUS STOP ~ No parking bus stop M UTCD Sign R7-7 RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT Right lane must turn right MUTCD Sign R3-7R VAN ACCESSIBLE Van accessible MUTCD Sign R7-8P Bicycle/Pedestrian Warning MUTCD Sign W11-15 BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE It YI ELD TO Bl KES Begin right turn lane yield to bikes MUTCD Sign R4-4 NO PARKING LOADING ZONE -~ No parking loading zone MUTCD Sign R7-6 CHAPTER 5 I t1ENU OF DESIG'\I RE ... OMMENDATl0 .) MARKINGS GUIDANCE Standard arrows for pavement markings (example shown) MUTCD Fig. 38-24 Bicycle pavement marking: word legends MUTCD Fig. 9C-3 Bike detector pavement marking MUTCD Fig. 9C-7 Bicycle pavement marking: bike symbol MUTCD Fig. 9C-3 Pavement marking MUTCD Fig. 9C-5 Recommended yield line · pavement markings layout MUTCD Fig. 38-16 Bicycle pavement marking: helmeted bicyclist symbol MUTCD Fig. 9C-3 Shared lane marking MUTCD Fig. 9C-9 CHAPTER 5 I ~ENU OF DESIGN RECO!lllMENDATIOl\I~ Word, symbol & arrow pavement markings for bicycle lanes MUTCD Fig. 9C-3 MFt.M SLOW pavement marking MUTCD, Similar to Fig. 38-23 International symbol of accessibility parking space marking MUTCD Fig. 38-22 Examples of Parking Space Markings MUTCD Section 38.19 CHAPTER 5 I 11ENU OF DESIGN REC OM E.NDA Ul\i SEPARATED BIKE LANE TRANSITIONS Transitions to Off-Street Trails or Sidepaths Transitions to On-Street Bicycle Lanes A separated bike lane should be designed so users do not face uncertainty where the facility begins, ends, or intersects with another bicycle facility. Design treatments at a separated bike lane's terminus can vary significantly depending on the context. In all cases, however, planners and engineers should attempt to minimize bicycle conflicts with vehicular traffic and/or pedestrians and create clear pathways to safely enter and exit the separated facility. These transitions can be loosely categorized into five scenarios. When a separated bike lane terminates at an off-street trail or sidepath, designers should place markings and signage to emphasize the connection and enforce space designations for different user groups (generally differentiating space for cyclists from space for pedestrians or joggers). Green paint can be used at the junction of these facilities in order to alert different path users to the presence of cyclists entering and exiting the trail to and from the separated bike lane. Depending on the nature of the off-street trail, bicycle-specific wayfinding signage should be installed near the end of the separated bike lane to encourage the off-street trail's use. A roadway with a separated bike lane may narrow to the point that there is no longer space for separation. In other cases there may not be funding available to construct a separated lane through an entire corridor, or there may be operational or context related constraints. Designers should seek to continue the bicycle facility through on-street painted lanes (or, if necessary, shared lane markings) on the roadway beyond the end of the separated bike lane segment. Green paint prior to, through, and beyond the intersection where the separated facility terminates is advised. Transition from a buffered bike lane to separated bike lane on 8th Avenue in New York City, NY. (Source: NYC DOT) •Fl• CHAPTER 5 I illENU OF OE51C.N RECOMMENDATIONS Transitions to Roads with No Dedicated Bicycle Facilities Transitions from Two-Way Separated Bike Lanes Intersections with Other Separated Bike Lanes MFfW Situations where a separated bike lane ends with no bicycle facility beyond it should be avoided where possible. Care should be taken to alert both cyclists and motorists to the end of the separated bike lane through green markings and signs. For cyclists approaching the end of a facility, alerts should be provided with enough advance notice to allow for a change in route to side streets or adjacent corridors, especially if the separated bike lane terminates in an area with high vehicular traffic volumes (for example, at highway interchanges or high-volume attractions like stadiums). For transitions that occur in high-volume locations, design flexibility is encouraged to create a safe landing point for cyclists, even if it requires a change in local law to allow cyclists to use sidewalks, or involves other unique treatments. Transitions at the beginning and end of a two-way separated bike lane require special consideration. On two-way streets, bicyclists will have to move across conflicting through vehicle movements to connect between the separated bike lane and the standard bike lane or shared lane. Bicycle signals or two-stage turn queue boxes may be needed to manage conflicts. Two-way separated bike lanes on one-way streets must accommodate contraflow bicycles getting to and exiting from the separated bike lane at either end of the facility. Cross streets or contraflow bike lanes may be used to connect bicyclists to other streets or facilities. Two-way separated bike lanes pose an additional challenge of wrong- way riding after the bike lane terminates. When one separated bike lane intersects with another, practitioners should design intersections to facilitate turns between them. On high-volume corridors, this may be best accomplished through a "protected intersection" design, which includes corner islands to shield through-and turning bicycle traffic from the adjacent roadways. Cyclists turning left from a right-side running separated bike lane should be encouraged to make two-stage left turns and queue in two-stage turning boxes adjacent to corner islands. Depending on the street's existing geometry, pedestrian crosswalks may need to be set back from intersections in order to make room for the turning queue boxes. Bicycle specific wayfinding and directional signage should be installed to simplify cyclists' experience navigating the intersection. The "protected intersection" treatment can be viewed as an expansion of the "bend out" design treatment covered in the turning movements section of this chapter. CHAPTER 5 I nENU OF DES.GN RH.OMMfNDA r 01\J DECISION MAKING PROCESS EXAMPLES The preceding sections highlighted numerous factors that inform the design of separated bike lanes, from the four primary design categories (directional characteristics and width, separation type, midblock considerations and intersection considerations) to secondary areas of focus. Because of space constraints and the complex nature of streets, design is often an iterative process where trade-offs between different design options must be evaluated and a change to one element of the design necessitates changes to other elements. Similarly, trade-offs may continually be made between facility design and planning considerations such as potential ridership, transit access, parking supply and maintenance throughout the design process. This section illustrates the decision-making process for separated bike lane design through three hypothetical examples, underscoring the integrated nature of their designs. •Fi• CHAPTER 5 I /lENU Of DES <:-r-.. RECOM Er-..DA, JON'"> DECISION MAKING PROCESS EXAMPLES ONE-WAY STREET WITH LEFT-SIDE CONFLICTS STEP 1 Design Challenge While one-way separated bike lanes positioned on the left side of a one-way street offer several potential advantages, this scenario illustrates a case where the benefits of a right-side facility are seen as out weighing the drawbacks. Note: This design could also be mirrored on both sides of a two-way street to create one-way separated bike lanes in each direction. DIRECTION AND WIDTH One-way vs Two-way Lane Align ment STEP 2 FORMS OF SEPARATION Buffer Type Because this one-way street is coupled with, and well-connected to, a one-way street in the opposite direction a short block over, significant demand does not exist for a contra-flow bicycle facility. Therefore, a two-way bike lane is not seen as critical on this street. The narrower profile of a one-way lane also ensures that a parking lane can be preserved along with the preferred number of travel lanes. The lane and buffer are sized at 7 ft and 3 ft respectively so as to accommodate t he municipality's street sweepers and snow plows until smaller models can be integrated into the fleet. The land use patterns along the street are such that the left side of the street has many more driveways -which increase potential vehicle conflicts, detracting from the safety and comfort of a separated bike lane -than the right side. A right-side facility is seen as the safer choice. Although this option creates additional conflicts at the bus stops along the right side, the parking lane alongside the separated bike lane creates additional space to mitigate this challenge as described under the Midblock section on the following page. Because this type of bicycle facility and street configuration is a new one for this jurisdiction, an interim design using low-cost and easily modified materials is preferred. Separation from traffic for the bicycle lane is provided using flexible delineator posts. Once the project has been evaluated and funding has been identified, the design can be improved if needed and built-out with more permanent materials such as a raised median with landscaping and bioswales. CHAPTER 5 I MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS TEP3 MID BLOCK Transit Stops Curbside and Accessibility STEP4 INTERSECTIONS Because a bus service runs along this street, with stops along the right side, it is necessary to carefully design the separated bike lane where it interacts with the bus stops. Having buses stop in the travel lane is not desired due to motor vehicle volumes, therefore the width provided by the parking lane along the right side is utilized to create "mixing zones" for bicyclists and stopped buses at bus stops. While not as comfortable for bicyclists as a design that maintains the separated bike lane through the bus stop, in this case it is seen as a reasonable compromise between motor vehicle capacity, bicycle facilities, transit service, and parking needs. To ensure the availability of space for commercial loading and unloading activity, dedicated loading zones are provided at intervals within the parking lane. The removal of parking along the left side of the street creates challenges for some businesses on that side of the street, which are partially mitigated by providing loading zones at the corners of the cross streets. Turning Movements Right-turning volumes at this intersection are low enough that mixing zones are employed at intersections to manage turning conflicts. Markings and Signage Signs and markings require motorists to yield to bicyclists when entering the mixing zones. Shared lane markings within the mixing zones guide bicyclists to the outside of right-turning automobiles, while green paint through the intersection calls attention to the bicycle lane. 2-stage bicycle turn boxes are provided on the far side of the intersections to collect left-turning bicyclists, and NO TURN ON RED signage prevents right-turning motorists from interfering with bicyclists queuing ahead of them to make 2-stage left turns. Figure 32 CHAPTER 5 I AEl\iU OF Df()IGN REc.OM'\t1EN')A I >N BIKE MOVEMENT DIAGRAM (only bicycle phases shown) MICfM • CHAPTER 5 I NU OF DESICJN RE(OMMENDATIONS DECISION MAKING PROCESS EXAMPLES TWO-WAY SEPARATED BIKE LANE ON ONE-WAY STREET Design Challenge Two-way separated bike lanes can be desirable on one-way streets when there is a high level of bicyclist demand in both directions due to limited alternatives for the contra-flow direction. However, they create additional turning conflicts that must be mitigated through careful design. STEP 1 DIRECTION AND WIDTH One -way vs Two-way Lane Alignment STEP2 FORMS OF SEPARATION STEP 3 MIDBLOCK Buffer Type Designing for Driveways Bicyclists have expressed a preference to be able to utilize this street for two-way travel because of its numerous destinations, it is the most direct route and because comfortable bicycle facilities are not feasible on parallel streets. In addition, new developments along the street and related road work provides an opportunity to create an attractive, permanent bicycle facility. A comprehensive redesign of the streetscape is completed, providing a two-way separated bike lane that responds to user preferences and supports the economic development taking place along the street. In this location, the left side is preferred for the two-way bike lane as it puts bicyclists and turning motorists moving in the same direction next to each other, maximizing visibility. Doing so also minimizes impacts on bus stops along the route. It made economic sense to incorporate a permanent bicycle lane design into the road work that is already planned to address utility infrastructure and roadway condition as it would represent only an incremental cost. The bicycle lane is placed at sidewalk grade since cross streets and driveways are widely spaced and to reinforce the bicycle-oriented nature of the street. The bicycle lane is paved in asphalt rather than concrete to reinforce its purpose. A buffer zone along the curb separates the raised bicycle lane from the parking lane while a landscaped buffer separates it from the pedestrian portion of the sidewalk. Driveways are designed to prioritize those on foot and bicycle by bringing crossing motor vehicles up to sidewalk grade rather than vice versa. To ensure that bicyclists are visible to drivers entering and exiting the few driveways along the route, ample visibility is provided through the removal of several parking spaces at each driveway to provide clear sight lines. Furthermore, the asphalt bicycle lane pavement is carried through the driveways and enhanced with green paint and warning signage to call both drivers' and bicyclists' attention to the presence of each other. Curbside and Accessibility STEP4 INTERSECTIONS Turning Movements Markings and Signage CHAPTER 5 I i/1ENU OF DfSIG RE OM'll1fND Much of the loading activity for businesses along the left side of the street takes place off-street, but to minimize conflicts between on-street loading and bicyclists, dedicated loading zones are provided towards the middle of each block. Accessible parking spaces are also located mid-block by narrowing the bike lane and shifting it towards the landscaped buffer to create the necessary width. Two-way separated bike lanes generally require their own protected signal phase at signal-controlled intersections where conflicting turns are allowed. Dedicated left turn bays are included at intersections (in exchange for several parking spaces) with a separate signal phase from that of the bicycle movement, and the northbound bike lane "bends in" at the intersection approach to visibly position bicyclists immediately next to left-turning drivers. In addition, minor cross streets are treated similarly to driveways with a raised pedestrian and bicycle crosswalk that slows motor vehicles while enhancing sidewalk users' visibility. The two-way bicycle lane is painted green through intersections, whether it remains at sidewalk grade or crosses at roadway grade. A bicycle turn queue box facilitates right turns by northbound bicyclists and left turns by southbound bicyclists. •H• • CHAPTER 5 I 11ENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATION5 Figure 33 .,, .• NOT TO SCALE BIKE MOVEMENT DIAGRAM (only bicycle phases shown) ,------ 12 I CHAPTER 5 I ~El\i.J OF DE'SIGl\i RHOMMt:l\iDATION DECISION MAKING PROCESS EXAMPLES MEDIAN-RUNNING TWO-WAY SEPARATED BIKE LANE Design Challenge Some two-way streets lend themselves to two-way bike lanes running down the center rather than one-way bike lanes on the outside edges, particularly on a route oriented to bicycle through traffic. Such a design can create a boulevard- like experience but management of bicycle, motor vehicle and pedestrian interactions at intersections is key. STEP 1 DIRECTION AND WIDTH Lane Align ment STEP 2 FORM OF SEPARATION STEP 3 MIDBLOCK Buffer Type Midblock Considerati ons A two-way separated bicycle lane down the median of t he street may be appropriate when many bicyclists use the street as a commuting "through" route; the outer edges experience a heavy combination of parking, bus stop and commercial loading activity; left turn volumes for motorists are modest; and the neighborhood plan envisioned the street serving as a grand "boulevard" with a tree-lined median. The two-way bike lane is a comfortable 12 ft wide, which also easily accommodates maintenance vehicles. To implement the new design in a short-term, low-cost way, the separated bike lane is primarily separated using interim materials such as markings, flexible delineator posts and landscaped planters (which are maintained by the local merchants association). However, an available grant is sufficient to build out raised islands at intersection approaches to better protect pedestrians at the crossings and move closer to the long-term boulevard vision by including large- canopy trees. Locating the two-way separated bicycle lane within the median of the street generally eliminates midblock design issues such as transit stops, accessibility, parking, loading and driveway conflicts. This configuration concentrates design challenges at the intersections. MHM •' CHAPTER 5 I JIENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS STEP4 NTERSECTION Turning Movements Markings and Signage MifM "Carving out" the left turn bays from the median brings bicyclists and turning motorists directly alongside each other, improving visibility at the intersection approaches. Separate signal phases are necessary for the bike lane and left turning motor vehicles given the multiple conflicts present in this design. A stop bar is provided for bicyclists in advance of the crosswalk so that pedestrians can cross unimpeded during their "walk" phase. The two-way bicycle lane is painted green through the intersections. Bicycle turn queue boxes are provided on the near side of the intersection (in the "shadow" of the median) to facilitate right turns by northbound bicyclists and left turns by southbound bicyclists and on the far side of the intersection for northbound left turns and southbound right turns. Dotted lane line extensions within the intersection help organize drivers' through and turning movements, particularly around the bicycle turn queue boxes. Signs reinforce the designated lanes and stopping locations and alert both motorists and bicyclists to the conflicting movements. CHAPTERS I NU OF-Of 16 RE OMM NOAT Figure 34 •n• (.. . "' CHAPTER 6 I MOVING FORWARD •ee• '. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED February 2019 Final Report 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Sa. FUNDING NUMBERS Bikeway Selection Guide NA 6. AUTHORS Sb. CONTRACT NUMBER Schultheiss, Bill; Goodman, Dan; Blackburn, Lauren; DTFH61-16-D-00005 Wood, Adam; Reed, Dan; Elbech, Mary 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION VHB, 940 Main Campus Drive, Suite 500 REPORT NUMBER Raleigh, NC 27606 NA Toole Design Group, 8484 Georgia Avenue, Suite 800 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Mobycon -North America, Durham, NC 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AND ADDRESS(ES) AGENCY REPORT NUMBER Tamara Redmon FHWA-SA-18-077 Project Manager, Office of Safety Federal Highway Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 11. SUPPLEMENT ARY NOTES 12a. DISTRIBUTION/ AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE This document is available to the public on the FHWA website at: NA htt12s:Llsafet:,'..fhwa.dQt.gQvL12ed bike 13. ABSTRACT This document is a resource to help transportation practitioners consider and make informed decisions about trade- offs relating to the selection of bikeway types. This report highlights linkages between the bikeway selection process and the transportation planning process. This guide presents these factors and considerations in a practical process- oriented way. It draws on research where available and emphasizes engineering judgment, design flexibility, documentation, and experimentation. 14. SUBJECT TERMS 1S. NUMBER OF PAGES Bike, bicycle, bikeway, multimodal, networks, 52 active transportation, low stress networks 16. PRICE CODE NA 17. SECURITY 18. SECURITY 19. SECURITY 20. LIMITATION OF CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION ABSTRACT OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT Unlimited Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified ', '' CONTENTS 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 2 2. Bikeway Selection Policy .......................................................................................................................... 6 3. Bikeway Selection Planning ..................................................................................................................... 10 4. Bikeway Selection .................................................................................................................................. 22 5. Bikeway Selection in Practice ................................................................................................................... 35 6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 48 NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of this document. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Images in the report are intended to serve as examples of the range of real-world existing conditions; they are not limited to best practices or approved designs or behaviors and, in some cases, may reflect conditions that are not recommended. Publication Number: FHWA-SA-18-077 ' . BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 1. INTRODUCTION 1. Introduction This document is a resource to help transportation practitioners consider and make informed trade-off decisions relating to the selection of bikeway types. It is intended to supplement planning and engineering judgment. It incorporates and builds upon the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) support for design flexibility to assist transportation agencies in the development of connected, safe, and comfortable bicycle networks that meet the needs of people of all ages and abilities. This guide references existing national resources from FHWA, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), and others. It is not intended to supplant existing design guides, but rather serve as a decision support tool. It points to relevant sources of design information and focuses on the following question: What type of bikeway1 should be chosen on this particular street or in this plan given real-world context, constraints, and opportunities? Bikeway -A facility intended for bicycle travel which designates space for bicyclists distinct from motor vehicle traffic. A bikeway does not include shared lanes, sidewalks, signed routes, or shared lanes with shared lane markings, but does include bicycle boulevards. 2 ', .. BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 1. INTRODUCTION This guide focuses on safety, but it also emphasizes the importance of comfort to appeal to a broad spectrum of bicyclists. This will encourage more people to choose to bike and in doing so will help FHWA meet its goal to increase the number of short trips made by bicycling and walking to 30 percent by the year 2025 (a 50 percent increase over the 2009 value of 20 percent), as established in its Strategic Agenda for Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation. This guide highlights linkages between the bikeway selection process and the larger transportation planning process. The bikeway type selection decision should be informed by active public involvement and participation that occurs as part of the planning process. Bikeway type selection primarily depends on the traffic volume and operating speed characteristics of the roadway, which are often implied by their functional classification (arterial, collector, local} within various land use contexts. The land use context will likely have a big impact on the available right-of-way, the mix of roadway users, property access, traffic operating speeds, road operations and safety performance, and community goals-all of which will inform trade-off decisions. This guide presents these factors and considerations in a practical, process-oriented way, as outlined in Figure 1 on page 4. It draws on research where available, and it emphasizes the use of engineering judgment, best practices, design flexibility, documentation, and experimentation. A comprehensive assessment of pertinent research and a literature review is available in a separate document entitled Literature Review Resource Guide for Separating Bicyclists from Traffic that can be found here: https· /Jsafety fhwa dot goy/ped bike/tools solve. It also acknowledges that there are often multiple potential solutions, sometimes none of which are ideal. Within this context, this guide reinforces the need to be clear about the design choices a practitioner is making, and to thoroughly understand safety and other trade-offs that those choices entail. This guide documents and highlights common trade-offs and advises transportation agencies on practices to describe the trade-offs associated with bikeway selection. It presents the information in a way that is targeted to practitioners, recognizing real -world constraints and focusing on helping to make day-to-day decisions about whether, and to what extent, to separate bicyclists from motor vehicle traffic. 3 Guide Outline Section 2: The bikeway selection process begins with policy. This section describes ways that policy provides the framework for bikeway selection decision making in the transportation planning, project development, design, and project delivery processes. Section 3: This section focuses on key aspects of the planning process that influence bikeway type selection. This section culminates in a discussion about a project's purpose, or why it is being undertaken and what it is intended to accomplish. Section 4: This section focuses on bikeway selection. It identifies strategies for selecting the desired bikeway type based on the design user and roadway context. It then outlines an approach for assessing and refining options, evaluating their feasibility, and selecting the preferred bikeway type. Section 5: This section highlights real-world decisions on a range of common roadway types. It identifies options and describes how the bikeway choice impacts bicyclists and people traveling by other modes. Bikeway type selection has important safety implications. It also influences other aspects of planning and design of specific projects, whether along a corridor or within a broader bikeway network. The information in this guide is intended to streamline the bikeway selection process, accelerate project delivery, foster the development of connected networks, and improve safety for all users. Traffic Volumes and Safety of Vulnerable Users Over the last few decades, research suggests that bicyclist risk decreases as the number of bicyclists increases. This phenomenon is known as ·safety in numbers: Greater safety attracts more bicyclists, resulting in safer cycling conditions overall. Multiple studies show that the presence of bikeways, particularly low-stress, connected bikeways, positively correlates with increased bicycling. This in tum results in improvements in bicyclists' overall safety. Establish Policy Plan BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 1. INTRODUCTION Figure 1: FHWA Bikeway Selection Process and Guide Outline Section 3: Bikeway Selection Planning Identify Project Purpose F ~ v':! h• l 11 • r Identify Corridor or Project Sections 4 and 5: Bikeway Selection Identify Desired Bikeway Type ' · " Assess and Refine Explore Alternatives ~················································~~.~~.~'.~~~! ............................................... 0 (For Preferred Design User) Downgrade Bikeway Type Downgrade Bikeway Type -AND - -AND - Parallel Route NO Parallel Route 4 (Feasible) O•••••••·············································> Evaluate Feasibility Select Preferred Bikeway Type Design ( t• ~ F r j. ~ 1 J . . ' BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 1. INTRODUCTION , I· 5 '. BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 2. BIKEWAY SELECTION POLICY 2. Bikeway Selection Policy A transportation agency's policies can help to define a vision for the transportation network. They can also support consistent implementation of projects that meet the needs of all users. Policies can address a broad range of topics, such as bikeway selection, funding, project development, planning, design, accessibility, and maintenance. Policies are also useful to guide and prioritize acceptable trade-offs. The following section highlights examples of how policies can provide context and serve as a framework for the bikeway planning and selection process. Policies relating to bikeway selection can: 1. Define specific goals and expectations for the bicycle network. For example, an agency may establish a policy stating that the primary bicycle network should serve the "interested but concerned" user type and/or be designed to support a target bicycle mode share (see page 13}. 2. Make the linkage between bikeway selection and broader goals for multimodal access and safety. Vision Zero policies and related "Road to Zero" or "Toward Zero Deaths" initiatives can specifically reference bikeway selection as a strategy for reducing fatalities and serious injuries. Policies can explain how bikeway selection occurs as part of all transportation activities and funding programs. They can also explain the relationship between broader goals for level of service (LOS} and the project's defined purpose. For example, as part of the long-range planning process, an agency can establish a desired LOS for bicyclists and identify the bikeway types that will achieve the desired LOS. 3. Defme the metrics for success. Complete Streets implementation can be measured by how closely transportation projects match expectations for bikeway selection and achieve desired goals. These metrics can be included and updated in agency policy, and many agencies routinely report on progress toward these goals. Policies can direct the agency to track implementation of the bikeway network and preferred bikeway types. An agency can also evaluate outcomes according to safety and mobility metrics and describe the issues that may have led to a final decision. Tracking and reporting can identify improvements to the agency's bikeway selection policy or implementation strategies. Metrics of success should be tied to performance-instead of using miles of bikeways which may be disconnected, a more effective metric could be low-stress bikeway network connectivity. 6 4. Provide a transparent framework for prioritizing and programming transportation projects, including specific bikeway types. Policies can promote a transparent decision making process for prioritizing and funding transportation projects and bikeways. 5. Defme different planning contexts and design considerations used to select desired bikeways. Roadways pass through a broad range of land use and development contexts, such as rural areas and urban centers. An agency's policies for bikeway selection can clearly describe planning context and highlight relevant factors such as topography, curbside uses, geographic distribution of destinations, local plans, and traffic characteristics. Policies can also address accessibility requirements and guidelines. For example, agency policy can demonstrate how people with disabilities will be able to cross a separated bike lane. 6. Explain a preferred approach to design flexibility and experimentation when selecting bikeway types. Projects often encounter constrained rights-of-way and other factors that influence the selection of a preferred bikeway type or an alternative. Policies can describe how strongly the agency will adhere to its bicycle network plan and to what extent the decision making process will grant exceptions to the preferred bikeway type. .. BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 2. BIKEWAY SELECTION POLICY 7. Direct the agency to prepare project-level feasibility assessments and engage the public on complex bikeway selection decisions. As local officials and the public ask questions about potential impacts and trade-offs associated with bikeway options, agency policy can describe an approach to producing a detailed feasibility study or scoping assessment prior to making a final bikeway selection. A feasibility study can also provide for more public input and opportunities to educate the public about the purpose and benefits of various bikeway types. Policies can also describe an approach to engaging the public. An agency may establish an online portal or process by which the public can submit requests for bikeway improvements or comments about existing facility maintenance and operations. 8. Highlight the linkage between bikeway selection and state or local traffic ordinances and control standards. For example, some states have laws that require cyclists to ride in designated bikeways, but most provide flexibility to the cyclist depending on the bicyclist's experience and roadway conditions. 9. Proactively address bikeway selection as part of maintenance activities. Bikeways can be integrated into routine maintenance activities, such as roadway resurfacing projects. Agency policies can outline a specific process for identifying and capturing opportunities. Figure 2 is an excerpt from FHWA's workbook on Incorporating On-Road Bicycle Networks into Resurfacing Projects, and it highlights numerous points in the planning and design process in which bikeway selection decisions will occur. 7 0 Figure 2: Roadway Resurfacing Inventory road conditions (ongoing) Process data from conditions inventory Produce preliminary resurfacing list (two years or longer) OVERLAY LIST WITH EXISTING & PROPOSED BICYCLE AND COMPLETE STREETS PROJECTS COMPARE TO BIKE PLAN IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES TO ADD BIKEWAYS : .. 0 Cordination with Transportation, Planning, and other divisions Produce final resurfacing list REVIEW FINAL LIST FOR ADDITIONS/EDITS SUGGEST SCHEDULE ADJUSTMENTS REVIEW BIKE PLAN AGAIN FOR ANY ADDITIONS Implementation preparation Conduct fieldwork and public engagement Prepare roadway & pavement marking plans Actual resurfacing completed This chart, from FHWA's resource on Incorporating On-Road Bicycle Networks into Resurfacing Projects. highlights points in the roadway resurfacing planning and design process where bikeway selection occurs. Source: FHWA BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 2. BIKEWAY SELECTION POLICY The Dutch Approach to Safety and Bikeway Selection Between the 1950s and 1970s, the Netherlands and the United States began an intense period of auto-centric planning. The resulting increases in motor vehicle travel led to a steady increase in transportation related fatalities. In 1972 transportation-related fatalities peaked in both countries. Improvements in roadway design, vehicle design, and medical care since the early 1970s have led to decreases in fatalities between 1972 and 2011, and between 1972 and 2017, as shown in Table 1 below. While there may be many explanations for these changes in raw numbers, it is notable that even during the period of increased distracted driving (since 2011 ), fatalities continue to drop in the Netherlands while they have dramatically increased in the United States. How has the Netherlands built one of the safest transportation systems in the world? In the early 1970s the Dutch shifted from the auto-centric approach to a Safe Systems (defined as Sustainable Safety in 1997) approach in response to public protests of the high numbers people killed, particularly children (-400 in 1971 ). The public also opposed the degradation of the public realm, environment, and quality of life resulting that comes with widening roadways through cities. The Dutch Sustainable Safety program has proven to be among the most effective in the world. It is a proactive approach to prevent fatalities and serious injuries through roadway design practices. Because of the program's success, many practitioners look to the Netherlands for inspiration and guidance. The Most Effective Features of Sustainable Safety The Dutch Sustainable Safety program includes traditional reactive strategies to address crashes that have occurred as well as efforts to improve vehicle design. The improved safety outcomes, however, are largely obtained by the preventative approach to roadway design which strives to prevent serious crashes, and where crashes do occur, to minimize the risk of severe injury. This approach assumes human error. This results in roadway design practices which strive to minimize situations where there are likely to be large differences in speed and mass operating together or at conflict points. The Sustainable Safety approach shifts the primary responsibility for safety from the system users (an approach that focues on education and enforcement strategies) to require system designers to accept the primary responsibility to achieve safety goals. The following page explains the five core elements of the Netherlands Sustainable Safety Program. Table 1: Comparison of Transportation-Related Fatalities in the United States and the Netherlands, 1972 to 2017 Fatalities (1972) Fatalities (2011) Fatalities (2017) United States 54,589 32,367 (-40.7%) 40,100 (-26.6%) Netherlands 3,506 661 (-81.1%) 613 (-82.5%) 8 '. '' .. BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 2. BIKEWAY SELECTION POLICY Netherlands Sustainable Safety Design Principles FUNCTIONALITY: Roads can be categorized by three distinct functions within a hierarchical network- through roads, distributor roads, and access roads. Through roads (arterials) are best suited for through traffic and are designed to move vehicles efficiently from A to B. Access roads (local) feature low speeds, allow- ing vehicle traffic to mix with pedestrians and cyclists. Residential streets are the majority of access roads and focus on safe, slow streets that prioritize pedestrians. Distributor roads (collector) connect access and through roads, encouraging traffic flow and providing safe inter- changes, particularly when intersecting a road with a different function. HOMOGENEITY: Roads with vehicles of balanced speeds, directions, and masses are the safest. Reduc- tions in speed can mitigate the risk of serious injury or fatality and can be managed through roadway design. Where speeds are high, and road users of varying mass- es are moving in different directions, separation can prevent conflicts and serious injury. CROW 0 sign Manual for Bicycle Traffic The Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic (CROW Manual) is a resource that informs decisions about creating and maintaining effective cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands. 9 PREDICTABILITY: Roads should be intuitive so that users can recognize and know what to expect. Roadway design can encourage road users to behave in a way that is expected and in line with the posted speed limit. FORGIVENESS: Infrastructure can be designed to ac- commodate human error, minimizing the risk for serious injury or fatality. The layout of a road can significantly influence traffic behavior. Forgiving streets ensure that even when something does go wrong, the risk of severe consequence is mitigated. STATE AWARENESS: Awareness of individual road users is encouraged to improve safety for all users. Fac- tors that contribute to awareness include the condition of the road, weather, driving skills, impairment, stress, and fatigue. For additional related information, see FHWA's report on Bicycle Network Planning and Facility Design Approaches in the Netherlands and the United States at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle pedestrian/publications/network..planning design. '. BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 3. BIKEWAY SELECTION PLANNING 3. Bikeway Selection Planning Bikeway type selection should not be done in isolation. The decision is part of a broader planning process that accounts for roadway and traffic characteristics of all modes, including freight, transit, personal vehicles, emergency access, bicyclists, and pedestrians. It includes community goals and priorities as well as public involvement and feedback from all parts of the community. Vision At the core of the planning process is a vision for a future bicycle network. The vision is developed through a planning process and is typically documented in a local, regional, or state plan. The vision describes desired future characteristics of and outcomes for bicycle transportation and typically defines, explicitly or implicitly, the target bicyclist design user type (as described on page 13}. The vision for the bike network can inform planning- related activities, such as decisions regarding where an agency chooses to pave shoulders and transportation recommendations in a small area plan. It should also be integrated into planning discussions about large scale transportation initiatives and plans for other types of networks, such as transit and freight. To strengthen the vision, an agency may set it into policy. Agencies may consider adoption of the Safe Systems or Sustainable Safety policy, as described in the previous pages, which applies to all transportation decisions. In this case, the agency might prioritize the most vulnerable road users above other transportation objectives. These priorities inform the planned network and specific objectives for each transportation improvement project. The Bicycle Network A bicycle network is a seamless interconnected system of bikeways. The purpose and quality of the network depends on the assumptions, goals, and decisions made during the planning process. Networks should be thoughtfully planned to provide necessary and desired connections and access. The most successful bicycle networks enable people of all ages and abilities to safely and conveniently get where they want to go. The bicycle network informs bikeway type selection by showing where higher quality facilities are needed the most. If a project is planned on a roadway that is a critical link in the bike network, including the appropriate bike infrastructure should be prioritized as a part of that project. A lower quality bikeway such as a regular bike lane on a busy suburban arterial road with high- speed traffic is a missed opportunity to build out a low-stress/ high comfort bike network that serves a greater portion of the population. The opportunity to make a high-quality connection may not occur again for decades. While this bike lane may be an improvement over no bikeway facility, it will not be appealing for most people given the context. Similarly, if a project is planned on a road that is not part of the bike network, a trade-off on the quality of the bike facility might be more acceptable (keeping in mind that bicyclists have a right to travel on all public roads, unless prohibited, whether or not a bicycle facility is present). By influencing bikeway selection in this way, the planned bicycle network helps communities be strategic about investments and implementation, while also helping to balance competing network needs, such as for transit and freight. It helps agency staff and advocates set priorities by recognizing that every individual street or road does not serve the same role in the network and that some are more important than others. The network also helps to determine the extent to which a parallel route (described on page 34) is a feasible alternative. Figure 3: Seven Principles of Bicycle Network Design ft\ ~ Safety The frequency and seventy of er-ashes are minimized and con icts with motor eluc:les a~ limited Comfort Conditions do not delft" bicycling due to stress, anxiety. or conoems over safety Connectlvlty Direetness All destinations can Bicycling isl<lnCH be accessed using and UllP times a • the bK:ychng network nrn.ud and there are no gaps or missing links 10 Cohesion DIStances between pa< -f.«H!Cting ei routes are mNruzed Attncttveneu Rou1n direct blcychS1!1 ltw'ou9'1 ivelyausond pe<sona I safety is.pno1 a~ © Unbroken Row Stops. auch as lof19 waits at u a tie tights. a1e limited and &11eet ligl>tng Is eons.ment BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 3. BIKEWAY SELECTION PLANNING Bicycle Network Vision Statements Massachusetts Department of Transportation Statewide Bike Plan Vision Massachusetts' integrated and multimodal transportation system will provide a safe and well- connected bicycle network that will increase access for both transportation and recreational purposes. The Plan will advance bicycling statewide as a viable travel option -particularly for short trips of three miles or less -to the broadest base of users and free of geographic inequities. Network Principles Effective bicycle networks lead to more people bicycling by creating bicycling routes that are efficient, seamless, and easy to use. Seven key principles for bicycle network design are highlighted in Figure 3. Of these seven principles, three have particular importance in guiding bikeway selection: Safety: Roadway and bikeway designs should be selected to reduce the frequency and severity of crashes and minimize conflicts between users. Comfort: Bikeway facilities should be selected to minimize stress, anxiety, and safety concerns for the target design user. Comfort and safety are closely related. Connectivity: Trips within a bicycle network should be direct and convenient and offer access to all destinations served by the roadway network. Transitions between roadways and bikeways should be seamless and clear. Louisiana Complete Streets Policy Update The intent of this policy is to create a comprehensive, integrated, connected transportation network for Louisiana that balances access, mobility and safety needs of motorists, transit users, bicyclists, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities, which includes users of wheelchairs and mobility aids. Bicycle Network Planning Resources Numerous resources are available to communities that are planning bicycle networks. As shown in Figure 4, two key FHWA resources include Measuring Multimodal Network Connectivity and the Bike Network Mapping Idea Book. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center also recently published a white paper on Defining Connected Bike Networks. Other resources include the planning chapter of the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and the ITE Transportation Planning Handbook. Network Form Bike networks take on many forms based on community vision, planning horizon, preferred bikeway type, and-most importantly-geographical and physical context. Some bike networks follow an established street grid, while others are primarily comprised of shared use paths following waterways, railroads, and utility easements. Some bike networks emphasize local circulation within neighborhoods and a challenge in the planning process is to connect these districts to each other. Figure 5 on page 12 shows examples of how bike network form can impact bikeway selection. Figure 4: National Bike Network Resources Defining Connected Bike Networks -------___ ..,,_.,,,. ----·· ·--·------------··--··---.. --· ------§="--:E:~ Eallirimiiliil Source: Federal Highway Administration and Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center 11 / I , ' BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE Figure 5: Examples of Bicycle Network Forms II / I/ The level to which the preferred bikeway type should be compromised, if compromise is necessary, should be informed by the relative importance of the segment within the larger network and the availability of alternative routes. For example, if the form of the bike network is a grid, a compromise on one segment may be acceptable given that a high-quality parallel route may be available. In contrast, if there is only one roadway that provides access for bicyclists, for example to a downtown center, compromising on the bikeway type is less desirable. Common Network Considerations Relating to Bikeway Selection The following are common questions to ask when selecting a bikeway that will be compatible with the bicycle network. • Where does this route fit within the bicycle network hierarchy? Does the route have a viable parallel alternative? The land use context and transit access along the parallel route should appeal to and attract bicyclists from the primary route while offering a more comfortable bikeway type. Does this route connect regional trails or other networks that are frequented by younger, older, or disabled cyclists? The bikeway type should match the needs of users of all ages and abilities. • Is the route along a road that already supports low-stress bicycling and does not improve connectivity to the network? The roadway may not need to be further improved for bicycling. • What are the safety implications and potential safety-related trade-offs for different bikeway types along this route? .. 3. BIKEWAY SELECTION PLANNING 12 User Types Understanding the characteristics of different types of bicyclists helps to inform bikeway selection. Characteristics commonly used to classify user profiles are comfort level, bicycling skill and experience, age, and trip purpose. However, people may not fit into a single user profile, and a bicyclist's profile may change in a single day. For example, a commuter bicyclist who is comfortable bicycling within a bicycle lane when traveling alone may prefer to bicycle on a quiet residential street or shared use path when traveling with children. In addition to other factors, people who bicycle are influenced by their relative comfort operating in close proximity to motor vehicle traffic. Many people are interested in bicycling for transportation but are dissuaded by the potential for stressful interactions with motor vehicles. The following sections examine how comfort, skill, and age may affect bicyclist behavior and preference for different types of bikeways. When used to inform bikeway design, the bicyclist user profile becomes the "design user profile." Selecting a design user profile is often the first step in assessing a street's compatibility for bicycling. The design user profile should be used to select a preferred type of bikeway treatment for different contexts. Of adults who have stated an interest in bicycling, research has identified three types of potential and existing bicyclists.2 Children were not included in the research and require special consideration in the design of bikeways. There is some overlap between these groups and the goal, as it pertains to the planning process, is to better understand and account for the general needs of different types of bicyclists. The three types are highlighted below. Highly Confident Bicyclist Highly Confident Bicyclists are the smallest group identified by research. While some of these individuals bicycle less frequently, when they do, they prefer direct routes and do not avoid operating in mixed traffic, even on roadways with higher motor vehicle operating speeds and volumes. Many also enjoy bikeways separated from traffic; however, they may avoid bikeways which they perceive to be less safe or too crowded with pedestrians or other slower moving bicyclists, or which require deviation from their preferred route. 2 Dill, D. and N. McNeil. Revisiting the Four Types of Cyclists. In Transportation Research Record 2587. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2016. .. BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE Somewhat Confident Bicyclist Somewhat Confident Bicyclists, also known as Enthused and Confident Bicyclists, are the next-smallest group. They are comfortable on most types of bicycle facilities. They have a lower tolerance for traffic stress than the Highly Confident Bicyclist and generally prefer low-volume residential streets and striped or separated bike lanes on major streets, but they are willing to tolerate higher levels of traffic stress for short distances to complete trips to destinations or to avoid out-of-direction travel. Interested but Concerned Bicyclist Interested but Concerned Bicyclists are the largest group identified by the research and have the lowest tolerance for traffic stress. Those who fit into this group tend to avoid bicycling except where they have access to networks of separated bikeways or very low-volume streets with safe roadway crossings. To maximize the potential for bicycling as a viable transportation option, it is important to design bicycle facilities to meet the needs of the Interested but Concerned Bicyclist category. This is generally the recommended design 3. BIKEWAY SELECTION PLANNING user profile as the resulting bikeway network will serve bicyclists of all ages and abilities, which includes Highly Confident and Somewhat Confident Bicyclists. Target Design User The target design user influences the safety, comfort, connectivity, and cohesion of the bicycle network. Communities establish a target design user by selecting a target comfort level for the bicycle network. Comfort and stress are inversely correlated. Exposure to high motor vehicle traffic speeds and volumes is the primary contributor of stress. High-comfort/low- stress networks serve the most people while low-comfort/high- stress networks serve the least. While the target design user and target comfort level should be selected based on the vision, this critical decision is often overlooked. In such cases, the network typically defaults to serving Highly Confident and Somewhat Confident users in a Basic Bikeway Network (as described on page 14). Communities seeking to serve all ages and abilities will need to establish low- stress bicycle networks. Figure 6: Bicyclist Design User Profiles BICYCLIST D!SIGN US!R PROFILES Interested but Concerned 51 0/ 560/ of the total Jo• JO population Often not comfortable with bike lanes, may bike on sidewalks even if bike lanes ant provided; prefer off-street or separated bicycle facities or quiet or traflic..calmed residential roads. May not bike at all if bicycle facilities do not meet needs for perceived oomfort. Note: the percentages above reflect only adults who have stated an interest in bicycling. Somewhat Confident 5 9 0/ of the total • 10 population Generally prefer more separated facilities, but are comfortable riding in bicycle lanes or on paved shoulders if need be. 13 Highly Confident 4 7 0/ of the total • 10 population Comfortable riding with traffic; will use roads without bike lanes. BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE Low-Stress Bicycle Network A Low-Stress Bicycle Network (also referred to as an "all ages and abilities network" or a "high comfort network") is one that is designed to be safe and comfortable for all users. The emphasis is on the quality of the bikeway, not just the presence of a bikeway. Depending on roadway conditions, a given street or bikeway may not be sufficient to provide a safe and comfortable experience for all bicyclists. For example, an adult new to bicycling or a parent pulling their child in a bike trailer may not be willing to use a traditional bike lane on a multi-lane road with high speeds and volumes of traffic. Low-Stress Networks rely on separating bicyclists from traffic using separated bike lanes and shared use paths.3 Low-speed and low-volume streets with the operating characteristics of bicycle boulevards also support these networks if safe crossings of busy roads are provided. Low-Stress Networks can also adequately serve confident bicyclists. By serving a broad audience of existing and potential bicyclists, Low-Stress Networks maximize system use by serving high percentages of shorter distance transportation and utilitarian trips for all types of bicyclists. Low-Stress Networks have resulted in bicycling rates of 5-15 percent in the United States, and of 15-50 percent in countries that have robust low-stress networks complemented by supportive transit, land use, and other policies. Mode shares will likely vary based on the wide range of contexts found in the U.S. Interim bikeway network types include: • Basic Bikeway Network: Completing a bikeway network will take time and investment. Many existing bicycle networks rely on bikeways that do not provide separation. These can be improved for bicycling by slowing motor vehicle speeds and implementing other speed management measures. For additional information on current traffic calming practice, visit https://safety fhwa dot goy/speedmgt/traffic calm .ctm. Bicycle networks that consist primarily of bicycle lanes and shoulders may be called Basic Bikeway Networks. These networks support Highly Confident Bicyclists and some Somewhat Confident Bicyclists. There are several examples of cities in the United States with Basic Bikeway Networks and these networks generally have bicycle mode shares of 2 to 3 percent. Traffic-Tolerant Bicycle Network: A network that relies primarily on roadways without specific bicycle improvements may be referred to as a Traffic-Tolerant Network to indicate that it serves only those Highly Confident Bicyclists who are likely already riding. This type of network will likely not meet .. 3. BIKEWAY SELECTION PLANNING the needs of Somewhat Confident Bicyclists or Interested but Concerned Bicyclists-including children and young adults- because they may find it to be uncomfortable. As a result, the amount of people bicycling will likely remain below 2% over time. Proximity to motor vehicle traffic is a significant source of stress and discomfort for bicyclists: crash and fatality risks sharply rise for vulnerable users when motor vehicle speeds exceed 25 mph. Further, as motorized traffic volumes increase above 6,000 vehicles/day, it becomes increasingly difficult for motorists and bicyclists to share roadway space. For example, on a roadway with 10,000 vehicles/ day, a bicyclist traveling at 10 mph will be passed approximately every four seconds by a motor vehicle during the peak hour. Research indicates motorists also feel more comfortable operating on streets where bicyclists are separated from motor vehicle traffic. Blended Networks Many communities take a hybrid approach to network planning. A common practice is to plan a focused low-stress network (sometimes referred to as a ·spine network") that creates the most important connections, and then augment it with a basic bikeway that creates additional connections to less popular destinations. In these cases, the importance of selecting appropriate bikeway facilities is greatly increased. If a high-stress bicycle facility type is selected for a project on the low-stress subset network, the integrity of the network is compromised. 3 City of Austin. 2014 Austin Bicycle Plan. Austin Transportation Department, Austin, TX. November 2014. 14 BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE Bikeway Types With evidence of the "safety in numbers" effect growing stronger, the development of connected networks of comfortable bikeways that are attractive to the widest range of bicyclists (e.g. the "Interested but Concerned" bicyclist profile) would have the greatest potential to increase bicycle use, and thereby increase individual bicyclist safety. The efficacy of each treatment below requires consideration of many contextual factors such as traffic volume, traffic speed, intersection design, and land use, among other factors. Generally, bikeways have a more positive impact on safety outcomes for bicyclists than shared lanes. The following discussion provides an overview of shared lanes and bikeways. In general, the bikeway design should be consistent and continuous from mid-block locations through intersections. For example, it is not best practice to design 3. BIKEWAY SELECTION PLANNING mid-block bike lanes and transition to shared lanes at each intersection. A key consideration for Sustainable Safety is to minimize bicyclists exposure to motor vehicle traffic, which is best accomplished by providing continuous bikeways. Figure 7 provides an overview of bicyclist comfort and safety under the four common intersection configurations: shared lanes, bike lanes/shoulders, mixing zones, and protected intersections. The table on the following pages highlights intersection considerations and performance characteristics for the bikeway types highlighted in this section. These intersection considerations are organized by the elements of the Netherlands Sustainable Safety Program presented on page 9. This information is intended to build on the information in Figure 7, which compares bicyclist safety and exposure to potential motor vehicle conflict at intersections by bikeway type. Figure 7: Comparison of Bicyclist Comfort and Safety at Intersections Exposure Level: Exposure Level: Exposure Level: Exposure Level: High High to Medium Medium to Low Low CONVENTIONAL BIKE LANES SEPARATED BIKE LANES WITH SEPARATED BIKE LANES PROTECTED INTERSECTIONS I AND SHARED LANES MIXING ZONES THROUGH ROUNDABOUTS A protected intersection Bike lanes and shared lanes One strategy that has been Separated bike lanes can be maintains the physical require bicyclists to share and used in the U.S. at constrained continued through roundabouts, separation through the negotiate space with motor intersections on streets with with crossings that are similar intersection, thereby eliminating vehicles as they move through separated bike lanes is to to, and typically adjacent the merging and weaving intersections. Motorists have reintroduce the bicyclist into to, pedestrian crosswalks. movements inherent in a large advantage in this motor vehicle travel lanes (and Motorists approach the bicycle conventional bike lane and negotiation as they are driving turn lanes) at intersections, crossings at a perpendicular shared lane designs. This a vehicle with significantly removing the separation angle, maximizing visibility reduces the conflicts to a more mass and are usually between the two modes of of approaching bicyclists. single location where turning operating at a higher speed travel. This design is less Bicyclists must travel a more traffic crosses the bike lane. than bicyclists. This creates preferable to providing a circuitous route if turning left This single conflict point can a stressful environment for protected intersection for the and must cross four separate be eliminated by providing bicyclists, particularly as the same reasons as discussed motor vehicle path approaches. a separate signal phase for speed differential between under conventional bike lanes Yielding rates are higher at turning traffic bicyclists and motorists and shared lanes. Where single-lane roundabouts. increases. For these reasons, provided, mixing zones should bicycle ...,. it is preferable to provide be designed to reduce motor separation through the vehicle speeds and minimize the motor vehicle ...,. intersection. area of exposure for bicyclists. conflict area • Source: MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide 15 BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 3. BIKEWAY SELECTION PLANNING Table 2: Intersection Performance Characteristics by Bikeway Type Shared Lanes Boulevards Shoulders Bike Lanes Functionality (Comfort) -Roads can be categorized by their function lowest at higher vehicle speeds and volumes Highest at lower vehicle speeds and volumes Moderate to High due to separation from traffic and constrained entry point High due to separation from traffic and constrained conflict point • • • • • • • • One-Way Separated Bike Lanes with Mixing Zones ' . Separated Bike Lanes and Sidepaths with Protected Intersections • Homogeneity -Roads with vehicles of balanced speeds, directions, and masses are the safest Intersection flf.proach exposure to potential motorist con ict is high • • • Turning conflict eiosure correlates with vehicle speeds an volumes • • • • • Turning conflict exposure generally lower due to lower vehicle speeds and volumes • Constrained entrl point reduces approach exposure if visibi ity is good • Constrained conflict point eliminates approach • exposure, and constrains conflicts to a single point Predictability (Right-of-Way) -Roads should be intuitive No ability to imply right-of-way priority to • • bicyclists Right-of-wa~ ciority can be clarified by providing a i eway on the approach or restricting through-vehicle access • Right-of-way priority is clarified to require • • • motorists to yield Conflicts may occur anywhere within the facility • • • • Conflict point is constrained to one location increasing predictability • • 16 18 BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 3. BIKEWAY SELECTION PLANNING Table 2 (continued): Intersection Performance Characteristics by Bikeway Type Relies upon perfect user (driver and bicyclist) behavior to avoid crashes Minimal: bicyclists operating in shared space with vehicles Moderate: application of traffic calming treatments and lower operating speeds can improve safety Moderate: bicyclists operate in separated space from vehicles, however vehicles can encroach into the facility at any location Moderate: bicyclists operate in separated space from vehicles except for defined entry point, followed by shared operating space High: bi~clists operate in separated space from vehicles except for defined conflict point which can be designed to reduce motorist speed, but contraflow movement from two-way operation can increase risk Awareness (Visibility) -Awareness improves safety for all users Visibility may be restricted by parking necessitating parking restrictions Visibility is typically unrestricted • • • Requires high level of motorists scanni!'tl to • • • identi!Y bicyclists approaching from behmd or operating beside them Requires moderate level of motorists scanning to identify bicyclists approaching or within the conflict point Key Crash Types Associated with Bikeway Type Right and left hooks • • • Sideswipes • • • Overtaking • • • Hit from behind • • • Merging • • • Failure to yield at conflict point • • • 17 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 3. BIKEWAY SELECTION PLANNING Shared Lanes In shared lanes, bicyclists ride in mixed traffic, therefore their comfort and safety varies widely based on traffic operating speeds and volumes. Shared lanes can be a positive and affordable solution when designed correctly and used in the correct context; however, the vast majority of bike/car crashes in the U.S. occur in shared lanes that are applied to inappropriate contexts and environments. While operating conditions vary widely, research has shown that the presence of on-street parking can have a significant impact on bicyclist safety operating in shared lanes. While parked vehicles may calm traffic in some scenarios, bicyclists riding alongside parked vehicles in shared lane scenarios are more exposed to being injured or killed when a vehicle operator opens their car door into their operating path. To improve operations in shared lanes, shared lane markings (SLM) and signs can be added to inform people driving that bicyclists may operate in the lane and to show where to expect cyclists. Research consistently indicates SLMs decrease the prevalence of sidewalk riding, but the majority of bicyclists (current or potential) and drivers do not feel comfortable on multi-lane or higher-speed roadways with SLMs. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices therefore suggests SLMs be restricted to roadways with operating speeds of 35 miles per hour or less. Another type of shared lane is the wide outside lane, or wide curb lane. Research on wide outside lanes has generally found safety performance to be diminished as bicyclists tend to ride closer to the edge of the pavement, curb, or parking. Wide outside lanes are also associated with higher rates of wrong-way bicycling than streets with bikeways or SLMs. Bicyclists are exposed to all crash types within shared lanes at intersections. The lack of a bikeway can reduce the predictability of a bicyclist's operating location. This can be exacerbated in locations where bicyclists operate in the wrong direction or on adjacent sidewalks to avoid uncomfortable traffic conditions. Bicycle Boulevards Bicycle boulevards are low-stress bikeways primarily located on low-volume, low-speed local streets. Treatments such as shared lane markings, wayfinding signs, and traffic calming features are implemented to prioritize bicycle travel, including at crossings with higher volume arterials. Bicycle boulevards have a lower incidence of bicycle-involved crashes than parallel arterial routes. This may be because the parallel arterial routes often don't have context-appropriate bicycle infrastructure. On most bicycle boulevards, bicyclists are likely to approach intersections in shared lanes. Due to the lower volume and operating speeds associated with bicycle boulevards, shared lane approaches are likely to have better performance characteristics 18 than shared lanes. A key aspect of bicycle boulevard design is to ensure comfortable and safe crossings of intersecting arterials so that travel along the bicycle boulevard can be maintained. At approaches to higher speed and volume streets, many bicycle boulevards transition to bike lanes, separated bike lanes, or shared use paths. Advisory Bike Lanes Advisory bike lanes demarcate a preferred space for bicyclists and motorists to operate on narrow streets that would otherwise be shared lanes. Unlike dedicated bicycle lanes, motor vehicle use is not prohibited in the advisory bike lane and is expected on occasion. Advisory bike lanes are a relatively new treatment in North America. Dutch research has found this treatment has been effective at reducing motor vehicle operating speeds; however, consideration should be given to the bikeway type's general intuitiveness and to the potential need for education around its proper use. In order to install advisory bike lanes, an approved Request to Experiment is required as detailed in Section 1A.10 of the MUTCD. Intersection approaches with advisory bike lanes should transition to shared lanes or bike lanes to avoid right-of-way confusion and potential for conflicts between motorists operating in opposite directions within the intersection. Shoulders Research shows that continuous paved shoulders and bicycle lanes act essentially the same in terms of operations as bike lanes. A major factor in the safety of shoulders for bicyclists is the presence and design of rumble strips, which can present a crash hazard or render a shoulder un-rideable for bicyclists. It should be noted that shoulders may not have any intersection treatments and the comfort of both bikeway types is influenced by maintenance considerations. For more information on rumble strip best practices, visit https-Usafety fhwa dot gov/roadway dept/pavement/rumble strips. On intersection approaches with shoulders, the shoulder will typically taper to the intersection, implying motorist priority, or transition to a bike lane design to signify that turning and crossing motorists should yield. Shoulders may also transition to one-way separated bike lanes. Bike Lanes and Buffered Bike Lanes Conventional and buffered bike lanes designate an exclusive space for bicyclists to operate one-way on the roadway through the use of pavement markings and signs. A research review of the safety impacts of bicycle infrastructure generally finds that they improve BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 3. BIKEWAY SELECTION PLANNING bicyclist safety; however, mixed results regarding collision reduction are documented because many studies do not account for factors such as exposure, maintenance, or differences in implementation (i.e., bike lanes that actually terminate to shared lanes at intersections, bike lanes that are narrower than recommended, or blocked bike lanes which require bicyclists to exit). Intersection approaches with bike lanes require motorists to yield to bicyclists within the bike lane before entering or crossing the bike lane. This clarity can be further enhanced with bicycle lane extensions through the intersections, green colored pavement, and regulatory signs. Bike lanes may also transition to shared lanes or one-way separated bike lanes. One-Way Separated Bike Lanes One-way separated bike lanes are physically separated from adjacent travel lanes with a vertical element, such as a curb, flex posts, or on-street parking. One-way separated bike lanes, especially those with a physical curb, have been shown to reduce injury risk and increase bicycle ridership due to their greater actual and perceived safety and comfort. Intersection designs should promote visibility of bicyclists and raise awareness of potential conflicts. The provision of sufficient sight distance is particularly important at locations where the on-street parking is located between the bike lane and travel lane. One-way separated bike lanes may transition to shared lanes, bike lanes, mixing zones, or protected intersections. Intersection approaches with mixing zones require motorists to yield to bicyclists before entering or crossing the bike lane. This clarity can be further enhanced with bicycle lane extensions through the intersections, green colored pavement, and regulatory signs. Research shows protected intersections have fewer conflicts and are therefore preferable. Two-Way Separated Bikes Lanes and Sidepaths Two-way separated bike lanes and sidepaths are physically separated from adjacent travel lanes using elements such as a curb, flex posts, or on-street parking. They may be located on one side of a street or both sides. Unlike two-way separated bike lanes, which provide for the exclusive travel of bicyclists, sidepaths are designed to support and encourage pedestrian use. Conflicts between path users are a primary source of injuries and can result in a degraded experience for all users where paths are not wide enough to handle the mixture and volume of diverse users. Care should be taken at intersections and driveways which intersect two-way separated bike lanes and side paths due to the two-way operation of bicycles in these locations. Crash patterns consistently 19 show contra-flow movement of bicyclists are a main factor in crashes due to motorists failing to yield or look for approaching bicyclists. Where two-way separated bike lanes are implemented on one-way streets, siting these facilities to the right of automobile lanes has resulted in safer intersections for bicyclists by reducing conflicts. All intersections should be designed with protected intersections due to the two-way operation; transitions to other bikeway types should occur after the intersection. To mitigate these conflicts, research suggests the following potential solutions: • The application of separate phases at signals with high volumes of turning motorists • Slow turning drivers with reduced corner radii or raised crossings • Improve sight lines • Raise awareness with marked crossings and regulatory signs For more information, see the FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE 3. BIKEWAY SELECTION PLANNING Road Context Project Type The selection of a preferred bikeway type requires a balance of community priorities with data analysis and engineering judgment working within relevant constraints for the project. The bikeway selection process will be influenced by the type of project pursued and the construction methods inherent in that project type. The AASHTO Green Book categorizes the following three general project types based on the extent of construction: The land use context is an important consideration when determining the need for and type of separation between users (bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists). This will influence decisions such as whether to provide a sidepath or a separated bike lane or whether and to what extent to separate bicyclists from pedestrians. Another consideration is the volume, speed, and mass of motor vehicle traffic. • New construction -Roadway projects constructed on a new alignment Reconstruction -Projects on existing alignments that change the basic road type Construction on existing roads -Projects that retain the existing roadway alignment (except for minor changes) and do not change the basic roadway type Table 3 shows Context Classifications for Geometric Design from the latest version of AASHTO's Green Book. These context classifications take into account land use, density, setbacks, and other factors. Combined with the existing functional classifications, they are intended to help practitioners balance user needs and safety. Documenting and accounting for context is an important part of the planning process. Context also informs bikeway selection, as described in the following section. For new construction and reconstruction projects, there are usually fewer constraints and the preferred bikeway type can be implemented. However, projects on existing roads and reconstruction projects involve right-of-way and other constraints that should be taken into consideration and may result in a modification to the preferred bikeway. The decision to modify the design should consider allowable design flexibility and trade-offs as 1§(1.ij Rural Rural Town Suburban Urban Urban Core Table 3: Context Classification for Geometric Design Description The rural context applies to roads in rural areas that are not within a developed community. These include areas with the lowest development density; few houses or structures; widely dispersed or no residential, commercial, and industrial land uses; and usually large building setbacks. The rural context may include undeveloped land, farms, outdoor recreation areas, or low densities of other types of development. The rural town context applies to roads in rural areas located within developed communities. Rural towns generally have low development densities with diverse land uses, on-street parking, and sidewalks in some locations, and small building setbacks. Rural towns may include residential neighborhoods, schools, industrial facilities, and commercial main street business districts, each of which present differing design challenges and differing levels of pedestrian and bicycle activity. The rural town context recognizes that rural highways change character where they enter a small town, or other rural community, and that design should meet the needs of not only through travelers, but also the residents of the community. The suburban context applies to roads and streets, typically within the outlying portions of urban areas, with low to medium development density and mixed land uses (with single-family residences, some multi-family residential structures, and nonresidential development including mixed town centers, commercial corridors, big box commercial stores, light industrial development). Building setbacks are varied with mostly off-street parking. The suburban context generally has lower development densities and drivers have higher speed expectations than the urban and urban core contexts. Pedestrians and bicyclist flows are higher than in the rural context, but may not be as high as found in urban and urban core areas. The urban context has high-density development, mixed land uses, and prominent destinations. On-street parking and sidewalks are generally more common than in the suburban context, and building setbacks are mixed. Urban locations often include multi- story and low-to medium-rise structures for residential, commercial, and educational uses. Many structures accommodate mixed uses: commercial, residential, and parking. The urban context includes light industrial, and sometimes heavy industrial, land use. The urban context also includes prominent destinations with specialized structures for entertainment, including athletic and social events, as well as conference centers. In small-and medium-sized communities, the central business district may be more an urban context than an urban core context. Driver speed expectations are generally lower and pedestrian and bicyclist flows higher than in suburban areas. The density of transit routes is generally greater in the urban context than the suburban context, including in-street rail transit in larger communities and transit terminals in small-and medium-sized communities. The urban core context includes areas of the highest density, with mixed land uses within and among predominantly high-rise structures, and with small building setbacks. The urban core context is found predominantly in the central business districts and adjoining portions of major metropolitan areas. On-street parking is often more limited and time restricted than in the urban context. Substantial parking is in multi-level structures attached to or integrated with other structures. The area is accessible to automobiles, commercial delivery vehicles, and public transit. Sidewalks are present nearly continuously, with pedestrian plazas and multi-level pedestrian bridges connecting commercial and parking structures in some locations. Transit corridors, including bus and rail transit, are typically common and major transit terminals may be present. Driver speed expectations are low and pedestrian and bicycle flows are high. Source: AASHTO Green Book: A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition, 2018. 20 .. BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE described in detail in the following section. If the preferred facility type is not feasible, the next-best facility should be considered, as described on page 33. Regardless of the project type, the resulting design solution should include measures intended to result in motor vehicle operating speeds that are in line with desired operating speeds necessary to improve the safety of all users. Intersection Considerations In 2016, 58 percent of cyclist fatalities occurred outside of intersection locations, in both urban and rural areas, and 30 percent occurred at intersections.4 Research has determined that the following behaviors are most commonly associated with bicyclist crashes, including fatal and non-fatal crashes, on U.S. roadways:5 • Cyclists operating in shared lanes • Cyclists riding against traffic on roadways • Motorists or cyclists failing to yield or stop at intersections • Right-hook crashes: motorists pass a cyclist (traveling the same direction) and crash into the cyclist while making a right turn • Left-hook crashes: motorists crash into the cyclist when making a left turn Intersection treatments that connect separated bikeways, or roadway designs that minimize vehicle operating speed and volume, may improve safety outcomes for bicyclists compared to operating in shared lanes.6 However, the practitioner should also consider research that found that bicyclists traveling contra-flow to motor vehicle traffic are at an elevated risk of a crash due to reduced awareness of motorists across all types of facilities.7 Additional research is needed to understand how poor design or user error may have led to these contra-flow crashes. More research to develop or improve crash modification factors for specific bicycle facility types will improve bikeway selection in the future. Identify Project Purpose The design of roadways-and therefore the selection of bikeways-often happens within a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive planning process that uses a performance- 3. BIKEWAY SELECTION PLANNING driven approach for decision making. Public agencies that are responsible for the operation, maintenance, and development of transportation systems and facilities work cooperatively to determine long and short-range investments. Public agencies at all scales, from small towns, transit authorities, and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to State Departments of Transportation, carry out planning, with active involvement from the traveling public, the business community, community groups, environmental organizations, and freight operators. Factors that can inform the identification of a specific project include: • Project Limits: Project limits should enhance network continuity and user safety. Where transitions are necessary, their design should be logical and intuitive for bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists. Logical project limits should be established to meet the desired connectivity and safety objectives of the project for bicyclists. • Land Use Context: Differences in land use can impact the distances between destinations and the expected number and types of bicyclists. Land use is therefore an important consideration in determining the preferred bikeway type. • Types of Bicyclists the Bikeway is Expected to Serve: Most of the population falls into the Interested but Concerned category, who, along with children, are typically the default design users in urban and suburban contexts. Rural roadways are more likely to serve more confident adult bicyclists, and the default design user profile is typically the Highly Confident or Somewhat Confident categories. However, some rural roadways, for example those near resort and vacation areas or in areas with Amish or Mennonite populations, also attract young bicyclists. Potential latent demand should also be considered. • Key Safety and Performance Criteria: The planning process should address how the proposed bikeway fits within the larger framework of the bicycle network. For example, is this facility a key connection in a regional network of bikeways? Does it connect two off-road shared use paths? It can also highlight important safety issues for bicyclists as well as other modes of travel. The bikeway selection process is initiated once a corridor or project has been identified. This process is outlined in the following section. 4 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) National Center for Statistics and Analysis. "2016 Traffic Safety Facts: Bicyclists and Other Cyclists" https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812507 5 Portland Office of Transportation. (2007). Improving Bicycle Safety in Portland. Thomas, L., Levitt, D .. and Farley, E. (2014). North Carolina Bicycle Crash Types: 2008-2012. North Carolina Department of Transportation Division of Bicycle Transportation. 6 Mead, J .. McGrane, A .. Zegeer, C .. Thomas, L. (2014) Evaluation of Bicycle-Related Roadway Measures: A Summary of Available Research. Federal Highway Administration. 7 Wachtel, A .. and Lewiston, D. (1994). Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions at Intersections. ITE Journal, pp. 30-35. Petrisch, T .. Landis, B .. Huang, H .. and Challa, S. (2014). Sidepath Safety Model: Bicycle Sidepath Design Factors Affecting Crash Rates. Transportation Research Record 1982, pp. 194-201. 21 BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION 4. Bikeway Selection Bikeway selection is a context-sensitive decision that involves a planning and engineering based analytical process. This process accounts for the broader network and roadway context and then drills down on a specific corridor. It starts with the identification of a desired facility and then gets refined based on real-world conditions such as available right-of-way and budget. The quality of the bikeway selected will impact the level of comfort and by extension the amount of people in the community that will benefit from it. A generalized version of this process is mapped out in the chart below, and the following pages provide detailed information on how each step of the process plays out on different roadway types. Establish Policy Plan Figure 8: FHWA Bikeway Selection Process and Guide Outline Section 3: Bikeway Selection Planning Identify Project Purpose ::> :::-::--e D»' 'J •I' •·r ":= Desired Bikeway Type Streets in Urban, Urban Core, Suburban, and Rural Town Contexts The typical bicyclist user type for the urban, urban core, suburban, and rural town land use contexts is the Interested but Concerned category because of the development and density of destinations in these areas. Figure 9 provides guidance for how motor vehicle volume and speed can be taken into consideration to determine a preferred bikeway type. Generally, the higher the speed and volume of a road, the more protective the recommended bikeway. Shared lanes or bicycle boulevards are recommended for the lowest speeds and volumes; bike lanes for low speeds and low to moderate volumes; and separated bike lanes or shared use paths for moderate to high speeds and high volumes. Because the design user is the Interested but Concerned cyclist, the most appropriate recommendation may be a more protective facility than necessary for a Highly Confident or Somewhat Confident design user. ____ (, __________ .... ____ O···lf Identify Corridor or Project Identify Desired Bikeway Type F r, . .,., 1:-~ ;·c I O···> ' Assess and Refine Evaluate Feasibility Explore Alternatives ~················································~~!~~.~'.~~! ............................................... 0 (For Preferred Design User) Downgrade Bikeway Type Downgrade Bikeway Type -AND - -AND - Parallel Route NO Parallel Route 22 (Feasible) O••••••·••••••••••········••••••••••••••••••••••·••-> I Select Preferred Bikeway Type Design I • ( ·1 ~ -[ ~. I Notes 3k BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION Figure 9: Preferred Bikeway Type for Urban, Urban Core, Suburban and Rural Town Contexts 2k Shared Lane or Bike 1 k Boulevard 0 15 20 25 1 Chart assumes operating speeds are similar to posted speeds. If they differ, use operating speed rather than posted speed. 2 Advisory bike lanes may be an option where traffic volume is <3K ADT. 3 See page 32 for a discussion of alternatives if the preferred bikeway type is not feasible. 23 BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION Rural Context The typical bicyclist type on roadways in rural areas is the recreational bicyclist, who often fits the Highly Confident or Somewhat Confident category. Shared lanes, paved shoulders, and shared use paths are appropriate bikeway types on rural roadways. Shoulder width is an important consideration to accommodate these bicyclists based on traffic volumes and posted speeds in the rural context. Figure 10 provides guidance for selecting a preferred shoulder width to accommodate bicyclists based on volumes and posted speeds in the rural context. It is often desirable to provide shared use paths along rural roads with higher speeds {45 mph or greater). This is especially true for locations that attract larger volumes of bicyclists due to scenic views or for routes that serve as key bicycle connections between destinations. Paths are also an important consideration for families and children making connections in rural areas. Shared use paths are also generally preferred on rural roads with Average Daily Traffic above a certain threshold (e.g. above 6,000 or 7,000 ADT depending on context). In highly constrained conditions where sufficient shoulder width cannot be achieved, it is preferable to provide a narrow shoulder rather than no shoulder. Assessing and Refining the Desired Bikeway Type On many projects, especially new construction and reconstruction, the bikeway selection process only needs to reference Figures 9 and 10; however, on retrofit projects and on projects with other constraints, the bikeway selection process will become more complex. The remainder of this section highlights a variety of other considerations that will arise in the bikeway selection process, for example by indicating the need for greater separation (such as additional buffer width, additional vertical buffer elements, or other measures) between bicyclists and motor vehicles. These factors include: • Unusual motor vehicle peak hour volumes -On roadways that regularly experience unusually high peak hour volumes, more separation can be beneficial, particularly when the peak hour also coincides with peak volumes of bicyclists. Traffic vehicle mix -Higher percentages of trucks and buses increase risks and discomfort for bicyclists due to vehicle size and weight, and the potential for motorists to not see bicyclists due to blind spots. This is a particular concern for right turns, where large vehicles may appear to be proceeding straight or even turning left as they position to make a wide right turn movement. In addition, designated emergency 24 vehicle routes may influence bikeway selection and design. Additional buffer width between a separated bike lane and the travel lane at an intersection can improve visibility and safety in these locations. Additional separation between bicyclists and motorists is pa rticularly important on moderate to high- volume streets where heavy vehicles are more than 5 percent of traffic. • Parking turnover and curbside activity -Conflicts with parked or temporarily stopped motor vehicles present a risk to bicyclists-high parking turnover and curbside loading (commercial and passenger) may expose bicyclists to being struck by opening vehicle doors or people walking in their travel path. Vehicles stopped within bicycle lanes or travel lanes may require bicyclists to merge into an adjacent travel lane. In locations with high parking turnover, or curbside loading needs, wider bike lanes or separated bike lanes in lieu of bike lanes can help to alleviate conflicts. This issue also encompasses locations where transit vehicles load and unload passengers within a bicycle lane or shared curb lane. • Driveway/intersection frequency -The frequency of driveways and intersections also impacts decisions regarding the amount of separation needed between the street and the separated bike lane. Motorists need adequate sight distance and space to yield to bicyclists. This is particularly important for two-way separated bike lanes located on one side of two-way streets and for sidepaths. Wider buffers and clear sight lines can improve bicyclist safety. Frequently spaced driveways may require elimination of on-street parking adjacent to separated bike lanes and raising of the bike lane to provide separation from traffic. • Direction of operation -With regards to separated bikeways, a determination must be made as to whether the bikeway will be provided as a one-way facility on each side of the road, a two-way facility on one side of the road, or as two-way facilities on both sides of the road. This decision requires engineering judgment based on the bikeway's role in the broader bike network, the locations of destinations within the corridor, physical constraints within the right-of-way, and an assessment of intersection operations. Vulnerable populations -The presence of high concentrations of children and older adults should be considered during project planning. These groups may only feel comfortable bicycling on physically separated facilities, even where motor vehicle speeds and volumes are relatively low. Typically, these populations are less confident in their bicycling abilities and, in the case of children, may be less visible to motorists and lack both roadway experience as well as sufficient cognitive or physical maturity to recognize and anticipate potential conflicts. They can also create more conflicts with pedestrians when they are expected to share the same space. 5k 2k 1k Notes BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION Figure 10: Preferred Shoulder Widths for Rural Roadways S25 30 Shared Lanes 35 40 5' Shoulder 45 50 55 This chart assumes the project involves reconstruction or retrofit in constrained conditions. For new construction, follow recommended shoulder widths in the AASHTO Green Book. 2 A separated shared use pathway is a suitable alternative to providing paved shoulders. 3 Chart assumes operating speeds are similar to posted speeds. If they differ, use operating speed rather than posted speed. 4 If the percentage of heavy vehicles is greater than 5%, consider providing a wider shoulder or a separated pathway. 25 60 BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION Network connectivity gaps -Separated facilities can help close gaps in a low-stress network. Examples include on - street connections between two major shared use paths, or where routes connect to parks or other recreational opportunities. • Transit Considerations for Selecting Bikeways -Biking offers a valuable "first-mile" and "last-mile" connection to transit systems, effectively expanding the transit shed around a station or stop. It is important to ensure accessibility of transit boarding areas, pedestrian crossings, and parking spaces, while also integrating the bicycle network with transit systems. Traffic laws and agency policy often address transit vehicles and bicycles in the right most lane or right side of the roadway. Some agencies have designated shared "transit lanes" for bicycle riding, but frequent bus stops or roadway design may create delay or less safe conditions for bicyclists sharing a lane with heavy transit traffic. If the preferred bikeway type for a roadway is a bike lane or separated bike lane, the placement of the bike lane with respect to where pedestrians may wait or travel when boarding or alighting transit vehicles should be considered, as should the extent to which transit operations impact bicyclists' level of comfort and safety. As noted in FHWA's Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, options for minimizing conflicts with transit include installing signs, pavement markings, and/or bus bulbs to provide for shared space, placing a separated bike lane on the left side of a one-way street (out of the way of transit stops along the right side), or choosing to install a separated bike lane on a nearby parallel corridor away from transit. Evaluating Feasibility Meeting safety and mobility goals are typical objectives for roadway designers. Designers have an ethical obligation to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the public, which may require a careful evaluation of mobility goals where they have the potential to degrade safety. One user's convenience or mobility should not be prioritized over another user's safety. Most roadway and bikeway design projects can be designed to improve safety for all modes. When evaluating safety trade- offs, options that reduce serious injuries and fatalities should be prioritized over options that may reduce property damage or minor injuries. Options for Reallocating Roadway Space When building new roadways, preferred bikeways should be built to preferred dimensions. When retrofitting existing roadways, it will often be necessary to evaluate options that reallocate space and options that require the use of constrained dimensions for motor vehicle lanes and bikeways. The following options are common strategies for reallocating roadway space to provide a preferred bikeway. Narrowing Travel Lanes: In some cases, the width needed for bikeways can be obtained by narrowing travel lanes. Lane widths on many roads are greater than the minimum values described by the AASHTO Green Book, and lanes as narrow as 10 feet do not result in an increase in crashes or reduce vehicle capacity on roads with speeds of 45 mph or less.8 Narrower lane widths can contribute to lower vehicle operating speeds, which can increase safety for all roadway users. The AASHTO Green Book provides flexibility to use travel lanes as narrow as 10 feet in a variety of situations depending on operating speeds, volumes, traffic mix, horizontal curvature, use of on-street parking, and street context. Travel lanes are not required to be of equal width. For example, some agencies use an 11-foot-wide outer lane to accommodate buses, with the remainder of the travel lanes being 10 feet wide. Removing Travel Lanes: Removing travel lanes and reconfiguring the resulting roadway space (commonly known as a "road diet") are frequently the result of efforts to improve the safety performance of a roadway segment. Streets that were designed based on forecasts that were unrealized or where conditions may have changed often have excess capacity, encouraging fast speeds that can increase crash risk for all roadway users. Road diets can improve safety for all roadway users by reducing travel speeds, providing space for bikeways, shortening street crossings, adding turn lanes, or by providing wider sidewalks. Road diet conversions have potential operational benefits as well, particularly on streets with high numbers of left-turning vehicles, which impede traffic in the leftmost through lane of an undivided street. Figure 11 : FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide 8 Potts, I. B., D.W., Harwood, and K.R., Richard. Relationship of Lane Width to Safety on Urban and Suburban Arterials. Presented at the 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2007. 26 BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE Four-to three-lane conversions are the most common road diets, but there are numerous other types. Four-lane undivided streets with traffic volumes of less than 15,000 vehicles/day are candidates for conversions, though there are many examples of conversions on roads with up to 20,000 vehicles/day. Four- lane streets with higher volumes usually need a more detailed engineering study that includes recommendations for signal timing changes and other enhancements at intersections. The FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide provides detailed information about this strategy.9 One-way streets: Many one-way couplets were originally two-way streets, and in the conversion, all available space was converted to one-way travel lanes, resulting in excess capacity. These streets may offer opportunities to install bike lanes, separated bike lanes, or shared use paths through lane removal or narrowing. Where bikeways replace a vehicle travel lane, there is frequently additional space that can be allocated to other purposes such as on-street parking, wider street buffers, or wider sidewalks. Reorganizing Street Space: There may be opportunities to create bikeways or upgrade existing facilities by reorganizing street space without removing travel lanes. For instance, in some cases curbside on-street parking can be shifted away from the curb face to create parking-protected separated bike lanes. This type of project requires changes to pavement markings and attention to intersection design treatments. Pre-cast concrete curb sections can be used to augment pavement markings to physically separate parking stalls from the bike lanes. Making Changes to On-Street Parking: On-street parking may serve residents or street-oriented businesses. On-street parking provides a buffer for pedestrians, improving their comfort and safety; it may also reduce automobile traffic speeds on the street. On-street parking can also provide a physical separation between a separated bike lane and moving traffic. However, on- street parking introduces potential conflicts for bicyclists and motorists and uses road width that might otherwise be used as a travel lane or to create a higher-quality bikeway. Removing or reducing on-street parking involves working with the affected businesses and residents. It may be possible to accommodate more parking on side streets, or to consolidate it in newly created parking bays or in shared (off-street) parking surface lots or parking structures. Parking consolidation or reconfiguration can take many different forms. Some examples are provided below. When parking is modified, it is important to consider requirements to provide accessible parking spaces for individuals with disabilities. A parking utilization study is often useful in determining if these (and other) solutions are feasible. 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION Figure 12: Roadway Reconfiguration Opportunities i ;'", \~ ~ '\;. iv.'~ f ~~ ' .~ i1!< .,._ ."'~ ' < Source: Florence, SC Neighborhood Revitilization Plan • Removing Parking on One Side: On streets with parking on both sides, adding bikeways may not require the removal of all on-street parking if the parking is not being used efficiently. Deciding where to remove parking may depend on which side of the street has fewer or no businesses. For streets with steep grades, removal of parking on the downhill side may be preferable to minimize conflicts between faster moving bicyclists and parked vehicles. Parking does not need to be retained on the same side of the street through an entire corridor; alternating parking from one side to the other can provide a traffic calming benefit. 9 FHWA. Road Diet Informational Guide. FHWA-SA-14-028. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, November 2014. 27 BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE Figure 13: Roadway Reconfiguration Opportunities Source: Active Tyler: Active Transportation Plan for the Tyler, TX Area MPO • Converting Diagonal Parking to Parallel Parking: Converting diagonal parking to parallel parking can generate road width for the creation of bikeways and improve bicyclist safety. Front-in, diagonal parking creates conflicts with bicycle travel. Motorists backing out of spaces have poor visibility of approaching traffic, which includes bicyclists, and it can be difficult for bicyclists to see vehicles backing out due to other parked vehicles.10 Diagonal parking also takes up more roadway width compared to parallel parking spaces. Where diagonal parking is to be provided or retained, it is preferable to require backing into the space (also called "reverse-angle parking"). This design improves a parked motorist's visual field to their left and right as they depart the 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION space, and therefore can enhance safety for bicyclists and motorists approaching the vehicle. Reverse-angle parking also has other benefits to motorists, such as better access for loading and unloading. • Converting Parallel Parking to Reverse-Angle Parking on One Side: Another possibility is to convert a street with parallel parking on both sides to reverse-angled parking on just one side. This can result in a lower net parking loss and provide additional width for the placement of bicycle facilities. • Pilot Projects: Some of the strategies identified above can be implemented as temporary, or pilot projects to test measures to determine if they meet the needs of all users. This can be an effective strategy to engage community members and build long-term support for more permanent solutions. Approach to Traffic Bikeways can often be implemented with minimal reductions of motor vehicle capacity or travel times. However, if such impacts are anticipated, they should be evaluated alongside community goals and the safety, comfort, and connectivity benefits to bicyclists. They should also be considered within the context of an agency's policies and evaluated through a project's performance measures. Increasingly, projects have a wider range of performance measures that may include safety, health, equity, quality-of-life, economic vitality, multimodal level of service, and the reduction of vehicle miles traveled. To determine the design of a roadway, it is common practice to project traffic volumes 10-30 years into the future. When evaluating trade-offs, care should be taken to ensure that the traffic projection adequately considers community goals, agency mode split targets, changes in land uses, improvements to other modal networks (e.g., transit and bicycle), shifts in modal preferences (such as increases in bicycling), and transportation investments. It is also a common practice to analyze the peak 15 minutes of the peak hour to conduct traffic analysis. Alternatives analyses should take a broader view of traffic impacts, as some delay for this very short period of time may be worth the safety benefits gained from an alternative street design or proposed bikeway design. Intersections are a focus area for evaluating impacts on vehicle operation. The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual includes planning levels of service (PLOS) tools that consider relative impacts to cars, bicyclists, pedestrians, and other traffic while not requiring detailed or extensive traffic counts. 10 FHWA. Lesson 19: Bicycle Lanes, Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation. FHWA-RD-99-198. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington DC, 1999. 28 BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE Preferred Bikeway Type is Feasible with Preferred Design Values If an existing space reallocation strategy results in sufficient space for the preferred bikeway to be installed with preferred design values, the bikeway can be installed. There is no need to consider other bikeway types or parallel routes. Preferred Bikeway Type is Not Feasible with Preferred Design Values If sufficient space is not available to provide the preferred bikeway type at the preferred design values, it will be necessary to consider other options, several of which are highlighted below. Reducing Bicycle Facility Widths Where preferred design values cannot be achieved, reduced or minimum widths can be used to preserve the preferred bikeway type in the design. However, the use of minimum width bikeways should be limited to constrained roadways where desirable or preferred bikeway widths cannot be achieved after all other travel lanes have been narrowed to minimum widths appropriate for the context of the roadway. Where it is necessary to go below minimum widths, the preferred bikeway is infeasible and it will be necessary to select another bikeway type. Wide Outside Lane or Bike Lane? In some instances, it may be necessary to choose between the provision of a 10-11-foot-wide travel lane with a bike lane or a 15-16-foot-wide outside travel lane. In the past, it was common practice to provide wide outside lanes under the assumption that motorists in such a lane could pass a person riding a bicycle without encroaching into the adjacent lane and that this practice would improve operating conditions and safety for both bicyclists and motorists. 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION Figure 14: Roadway Reconfiguration Opportunities Source: Longview, TX Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan However, experience and research find that this configuration does not adequately provide safe passing distance and that motorists generally do not recognize that this additional space is intended for bicyclists.11• 12• 13 Also, wider travel lanes are associated with increases in motor vehicle speeds, which reduce comfort and safety for bicyclists.14• 15 Wide curb lanes are therefore not recommended as a strategy to accommodate 11 Hunter, W. W., J. R. Feaganes, and R. Srinivasan. Conversions of Wide Curb Lanes: The Effect on Bicycle and Motor Vehicle Interactions. In Transportation Research Record 1939, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, 2005, pp. 37-44. 12 McHenry, S. R., and M. J. Wallace. Evaluation of Wide Curb Lanes as Shared Lane Bicycle Facilities. Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore, MD, 1985. 13 Duthie, J., and J. F. Brady, A. F. Mills, and R. B. Machemehl. Effects of On-Street Bicycle Facility Configuration on Bicyclist and Motorist Behavior. In Transportation Research Record 2190, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, 2010, pp. 37-44. 14 Ewing, R. Traffic Calming: State of the Practice. Prepared for the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, 1999. 15 Fitzpatrick, K., P. J. Carlson, M. D. Wooldridge, and M. A. Brewer. Design Factors That Affect Driver Speed on Suburban Arterials. In Transportation Research Record 1751. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2001 . 29 BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE Figure 15: Example Door Zone Biking Space bicycling except as an interim treatment for retrofits where an existing road is being re-striped and all other travel lanes have been narrowed to the minimum widths. Door Zone Bike Lane or No Bike Lane? In some instances, it may be necessary to choose between the provision of a 10-11 -foot-wide travel lane with a bike lane or a 15-16-foot-wide outside travel lane adjacent to a parking lane. In these circumstances, where it is not feasible to eliminate the parking, the designer will have to choose between a narrow bicycle lane or a wide outside lane. Narrow bicycle lanes may direct cyclists into the path of the "door zone" where drivers may open a door into a bike lane unexpectedly. Door zone crashes typically account for 5%-10% of urban bike crashes, most commonly in shared lanes. Despite this seeming increased risk, studies have shown that the provision of a bicycle lane is still likely safer for the bicyclist than the provision of a wide outside lane. A study of bicycle crashes in Seattle found that streets with bicycle lanes had the fewest total dooring crashes compared to streets with shared lanes or marked shared lanes. One-Way Separated Bike Lane on Both Sides or Two-Way Separated Bike Lane? Where it is determined that a separated bike lane is the preferred bikeway type, it will be necessary to determine the most appropriate configuration for the bikeway. On two-way streets, one-way separated bike lanes on each side of the street are typically preferred over a two-way 30 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION Figure 16: Roadway Reconfiguration Opportunities Source: Active Tyler: Active Transportation Plan for the Tyler, TX Area MPO separated bike lane or side path on one side of the street. One- way separated bike lanes in the direction of motorized travel are typically the easiest option to integrate into the existing operation of a roadway. This configuration provides intuitive and direct connections with the surrounding transportation network, including simpler transitions to existing bike lanes and shared travel lanes. It is also the most consistent with driver expectations since bicyclist operation is in the same direction as motor vehicle operation. In circumstances where destinations are concentrated along one side of a street, the bikeway is connecting to other two-way bikeways, or where the bikeway is located on a one-way street for motor vehicle travel, the provision of a two-way separated bike lane may be desirable as wrong-way bicycling is likely in a one-way bike lane configuration. Selecting the appropriate configuration requires an assessment of many factors, including safety, overall connectivity, ease of access, public feedback, available right-of-way, curbside uses, BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE intersection operations, ingress and egress at the termini, maintenance, and feasibility. The analysis should also consider benefits and trade-offs to people bicycling, walking, taking transit, and driving. The primary objectives for determining the appropriate configuration are to: • Provide clear and intuitive transitions to existing or planned links of the bicycle network; • Minimize conflicts between all users -bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists; • Provide convenient access to destinations; and to • Connect to the roadway network in a direct and intuitive manner with a special consideration for the design of queuing and transition space for bicyclists who are entering and exiting the separated bike lane. Providing a two-way separated bike lane or side path on one side of a street introduces a counterflow movement by bicyclists, which can be challenging-but not impossible-to accommodate. This also applies to a counterflow separated bike lane on a one- way street. Care should be given to the design of intersections, driveways, and other conflict points, as people walking and driving may not anticipate bicyclists traveling in the counterflow direction. Motorists entering or crossing the roadway often will not notice bicyclists approaching from their right, and motorists turning from the roadway across the bicycle facility may likewise fail to notice bicyclists traveling the opposite direction. Strategies can be employed to manage or eliminate conflicts between counterflow bicyclists and motorists, who are primarily focused on identifying gaps in oncoming traffic and may be less cognizant of bicyclists approaching the intersection. Where appropriate, signal phasing can be used to eliminate conflicts between turning motorists and bicyclists traveling in the counterflow direction. Geometric treatments to slow turning motorists prior to the conflict point (e.g. raised crossings, parking restrictions, hardened centerlines) can be considered. Traffic control or warning signs, and high visibility bicycle crossing or crosswalk pavement markings, can be installed to alert motorists to the presence of counterflow bicyclists. At the terminus of the bicycle facility, the counterflow bicyclist must be clearly directed back into the traffic mix in the correct direction of travel. This often requires the design of queuing spaces for bicyclists to wait outside the path of other bicyclists, motorists, and pedestrians while they wait to turn or transition from the bikeway. 31 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION Figure 17: Roadway Reconfiguration Opportunities Source: Stamford, CT Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Where space is constrained on two-way streets, and one-way separated bike lanes are not feasible, the designer may choose one of the following options: • Provision of bike lanes or buffered bike lanes • Provision of a two-way separated bike lane • Provision of a shared use path In locations where the counterflow movement can be designed for, the provision of a two-way separated bike lane may be preferable over the provision of bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, or shared use paths. BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION Shared Use Path or Separated Bike Lane? Shared use paths may be an acceptable design solution in lieu of separated bike lanes where space is constrained and the project is in land use contexts where both walking and/or bicycling volumes are relatively low and are expected to remain low. The shared use path may be located on one or both sides of the street, depending upon bicycle and pedestrian network connectivity needs. As volumes increase over time, the need for separation between bicyclists and pedestrians should be revisited. Where land use is anticipated to add density over time, right-of-way should be preserved to allow for future separation of bicyclists and pedestrians. FHWA's Shared Use Path Level of Service Calculator16 can help designers understand potential volume thresholds where passing movements between bicyclists and pedestrians will limit the effectiveness of a shared use path. To improve comfort and safety for bicyclists and pedestrians, and to improve the efficiency of the shared use path for bicycle travel, separation of bicyclists and pedestrians should be considered when: • Shared Use Path Level of Service is projected to be at or below level "C" during peak hours. • Pedestrians can reasonably be anticipated to be 30 percent or more of the volume during peak hours. • Higher volumes of children, older adults, or individuals with disabilities are likely to be present. • Where faster bicycle speed is desired to serve regionally significant bicycle travel. The use of the Shared Use Path Level of Service Calculator requires the following inputs to calculate a LOS score: • Volumes of people walking and running, adult bicyclists, child bicyclists, and in-line skating • Proposed or existing path width • Presence of a center line When volume inputs are not available during the planning process, it may be necessary to estimate activity by using existing volumes on similar streets and shared use paths in the vicinity, allowing for adjustments, as necessary, to account for existing and future land uses adjacent to the facility and regional trends likely to increase shared use path activity.17 Narrow Shoulder or No Shoulder? For any given roadway, the determination of the appropriate shoulder width should be based on the roadway's context and conditions in adjacent lanes. The AASHTO Green Book recommends a preferable shoulder width of 6 to 8 feet on low-volume roads and up to 12 feet on roads with high speeds or large volumes of trucks. This shoulder width may be soft surface or paved in many conditions. For new construction or reconstruction, a paved shoulder at the width recommended in the Green Book will accommodate bicycling activity. For roadways which are being reconstructed or retrofitted where preferred Green Book shoulder widths cannot be provided, designers should provide the recommended shoulder width shown in Figure 10. Where those recommended widths cannot be provided, the following minimum paved shoulder widths can provide a minimum level of bicycle accommodation: • A shoulder width of at least 3 feet on open-section roadways with no vertical obstructions immediately adjacent to the roadway and no rumble strips. • A shoulder width of at least 5 feet is recommended from the face of a guardrail, curb, or other roadside barrier to provide additional operating width, as bicyclists generally shy away from a vertical face. Increasing the width of shoulders is preferable where higher bicycle usage is expected and if motor vehicle speeds exceed 45 mph; if use by heavy trucks, buses, or recreational vehicles exceeds 5% of ADT; or if obstructions exist along the roadside. Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS} may be used to determine the minimum shoulder width to provide a comfortable facility. Figure 10 provides recommended shoulder widths to achieve a Bicycle LOS of "C" or better at the speed and volume thresholds shown. Downgrade Bikeway and Assess Parallel Route Option At locations where the preferred bikeway is determined to not be feasible it will be necessary to consider downgrading the bikeway to the next best facility and/or to provide a parallel facility. The impacts on ridership, comfort, safety, and overall network connectivity should be considered when evaluating bikeway alternatives or parallel routes to ensure the project will still meet the purpose identified at the outset as illustrated by these 16 FHWA. Shared Use Path Level of Service Calculator-A User's Guide. FHWA-HRT-05-138. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington DC, 2006. 17 Ewing, R., and R. Cervero. Travel and the Built Environment -A Meta-Analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 6, No. 3, 2010, pp. 265-294. 32 BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION potential trade-offs: • Reduced or suppressed bicycling activity where: the bikeway comfort does not meet the needs of all ages and abilities bicyclists • a parallel route lengthens the route • failure to provide a bikeway leaves an important gap in the bicycle network • Reduced safety where bicyclists must operate with higher speed and/or higher volume traffic in shared lanes • Reduced safety where bicyclists must operate in narrow bikeways (e.g. narrow bike lanes adjacent to high turnover parking or narrow shared use paths with high volumes of pedestrians or bicyclists) • Reduced safety where bicyclists improperly use facilities (e.g., ride the wrong way on shared lanes, sidewalks, or separated bike lanes) • Increased sidewalk bicycling where bicyclists are avoiding low-comfort conditions All roadways should be safe and accessible by bicycle except where bicycle travel is specifically prohibited by law and clearly 33 signed. Whenever roads are reconstructed or constructed, appropriate bikeways should be included to accommodate bicyclists' needs. However, technical, political, and financial realities may mean that not all roads can be immediately retrofitted or designed with an appropriate bikeway. Further, the project type (reconstruction, resurfacing, restriping, etc.) may limit bikeway options. Thus, choices should be made regarding which improvements receive priority, and what level of accommodation and bikeway each roadway will receive. Making these choices requires an understanding of standards, guidelines, and technical analysis tools as well as local knowledge, engineering judgment, and public input. The Next Best Facility When the preferred bikeway is not feasible, other bikeways which maximize user safety and comfort to the greatest extent practicable should be considered. For example, if the preferred bikeway is a shared use path and the current project is a street resurfacing, it may not be feasible for that project to install the shared use path. The only practical option may be the installation of a shoulder. If a separated bike lane is preferred, but not feasible, and it BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION is also not feasible or desirable (given pedestrian volumes) to provide a sidepath, then a buffered bike lane should be considered, as it maximizes separation to vehicles over other options. The reduction of traffic volumes or speeds, using traffic calming or other strategies, should also be considered in situations where the preferred bikeway is not feasible. The inability to provide the preferred bikeway should not immediately result in dismissal of other options. If the resulting bikeway is not appealing to all ages and abilities, it still may be desirable and beneficial for the comfort and safety of more confident bicyclists. The next best bikeway should be considered, but will often depend on the context and particular constraints of each project. Where project constraints or compromises require a design solution that does not meet the original purpose of the project, it may be necessary to consider alternative parallel routes. It is therefore important to evaluate the project from all angles and consider the impacts on all modes of transportation. Practitioners should document design decisions. Memoranda, engineering studies, and other methods of documentation can be used to capture the engineering judgment behind a design solution. In some cases, depending on the design criteria involved, applying flexibility may trigger the need for a design exception. Documenting design decisions is usually a critical part of the design exception process. Parallel Routes In circumstances where the preferred bikeway is not feasible, and the provision of a lower quality bikeway will not accommodate the target design user on the primary route (e.g. the interested but concerned bicyclist), a parallel route should be evaluated to accommodate the design user to meet the original purpose and need for the project. The land use context and transit access along the parallel route should appeal to and attract bicyclists from the primary route while offering a more comfortable facility type. In grid networks, these parallel routes are often low-volume, low-speed local streets parallel with high-volume, higher- speed streets. These can be designed to operate and function as bicycle boulevards. For the parallel route to be a viable alternative, street crossings should provide a similar level of service as the primary route. This may require careful assessment of major street crossings associated with the parallel route to ensure they can accommodate safe and comfortable crossings. The viability of the parallel route may require improvements at these crossings. This is especially important at crossing locations of high-speed, or high-volume, traffic that do not have traffic signals. Another key determinant of bicycling is trip distance. Research indicates that for an alternative low-stress route to be viable, the increase in trip length should be less than 30 percent.18 Excessive distance is frequently noted as the most powerful deterrent to bicycling.19 This is supported by research in stated preference and revealed preference studies.20 Bicycle network and facility design can provide short cuts for bicyclists to make bicycling more time-competitive with motor vehicle travel by providing short segments of path between cul-de-sacs and across parks or stream valleys. Areas with connected networks of separated facilities and high levels of short trips are most likely to result in significant mode shift toward bicycling. Wrap Up At locations where the preferred bikeway cannot be provided on the primary route and it is necessary to downgrade the bikeway and the design user, and at locations where a parallel route is not feasible or is not provided, it must be recognized that bicycle activity may be suppressed, and the safety of bicyclists operating on this roadway segment may be reduced. This may negatively impact goals established in adopted bicycle master plans, sector plans, corridor plans, or transportation master plans. Where this occurs, efforts should be made to identify potential remedies that will help a community achieve the bicycling goals established in their adopted plans. 18 Broach, J., Dill, J., and J., Gliebe. Where Do Cyclists Ride? A Route Choice Model Developed with Revealed Preference GPS Data. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 46, No. 10, 2012, pp. 1730-1740. 19 FHWA. Reasons Why Bicycling and Walking Are Not Being Used More Extensively as Travel Modes. In National Bicycling and Walking Study. FHWA- PD-92-041 . Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department ofTransportation, Washington, DC, 1994. 20 Broach, J., and J. Dill. Bridging the Gap: Using Network Connectivity and Quality Measures to Predict Bicycle Commuting. Presented at 96th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2017. 34 BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 5. BIKEWAY SELECTION IN PRACTICE 5. Bikeway Selection in Practice This section highlights real-world decisions on bikeway type for a broad range of common roadway types. It shows typical bikeway options and describes how the application of different bikeway choices impact bicyclists and people traveling by other modes. For each context scenario provided in this section, four different bikeway applications are shown, identified as A (baseline), B, C, and D. This section also provides the opportunity to evaluate how the policy and planning frameworks discussed in Sections 2 and 3 can be applied on different types of roads and in different contexts. These examples can also be used to test and apply the bikeway selection process and factors outlined in Section 4. When reviewing this section, it will be helpful to reference factors for assessing and refining the desired bikeway type highlighted in the previous section, such as: • Unusual motor vehicle peak hour volumes • Traffic vehicle mix • Parking turnover and curbside activity • Driveway and intersection frequency • Direction of operation • Vulnerable populations • Network connectivity gaps • Transit considerations for selecting bikeways It will also be important to cross reference this information with Figure 9: Preferred Bikeway Type for Urban, Urban Core, Suburban, and Rural Town Contexts and Figure 10: Preferred Shoulder Widths for Rural Roadways on pages 23 and 25. In addition to these figures, the FHWA Shared Use Path Level of Service Calculator (see page 32} and the following analysis tools can be used to help assess the comfort of the existing roadway conditions and analyze bikeway alternatives. Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS}: BLOS can be used to evaluate the comfort of bike lanes and shared lanes, using an A through F rating with A being the best and F the worst. It is important to consider that this method of evaluation has significant limitations due to the fact that it was developed to analyze a limited set of bicycling conditions within shared lanes, paved shoulders, and bike lanes. It does not allow evaluation of shared use paths, separated bike lanes, or buffered bike lanes.21 Level of Traffic Stress (LTS}: L TS was created to address deficiencies in the Bicycle LOS method. It is a method of classifying road segments and bikeway networks based on how comfortable bicyclists with different levels of confidence (using the user types discussed on page 12} would feel using them. The LTS ratings22 are: • LTS-1: Low Traffic Stress Bikeway comfortable for Interested but Concerned Bicyclists • LTS-2: Moderate Traffic Stress Bikeway comfortable for Somewhat Confident Bicyclists • LTS-3: High Traffic Stress Bikeway comfortable for Highly Confident Bicyclists • LTS-4: Extreme Traffic Stress that is not comfortable for most bicyclists A bikeway that is L TS-1 is appropriate and comfortable for all user types and is known as an all ages and abilities bikeway. 21 TRB. Highway Capacity Manual. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2010 22 Mekuria, M.C., P.G. Furth, and H. Nixon. Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity. MTI Report 11-19. Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, 2012. 35 BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 5. BIKEWAY SELECTION IN PRACTICE 2-Lane Roadway (Base Condition) Bicyclists: The lack of separation from traffic moving at 45-SOmph limits is an unforgiving design that decreases comfort and safety during passing events and while operating in darkness. Fewer driveways and intersections reduce conflict points, but locations with limited sight lines increase crash risk. Interested but concerned bicyclists will not feel comfortable operating on the roadway, feeling the highest Level of Traffic Stress (LTS = 4). Confident cyclists are also moderately uncomfortable (BLOS = 0) due to the 45mph operating speed and relatively high percentage of trucks (4%). Motorists: Motorists do not have safe options for overtaking cyclists except to wait for a break in oncoming traffic and move into the opposing travel lane. This may create motorist discomfort and frustration when bicycle and motor vehicle traffic is heavy, especially at locations with limited sight distance. Pedestrians: No physical separation from traffic moving at 45-50mph limits is an unforgiving design that decreases comfort and safety. Pedestrians must walk in the road. Transit Operators and Riders: Buses may require in-lane stops and riders may have difficulty accessing the stops. Background: This is a rural, two-way, 22-foot-wide undivided road. It is a designated state bicycle route connecting two small towns in a bucolic rural valley with a history of attracting bicycle tourists traveling longer distances. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is 1,500 (with 4% heavy vehicles) and the operating speed is 45 mph. The public right-of-way extends to 10 feet on either side of the roadway. Low traffic volumes create gaps where motorists can easily change lanes to pass; however, there are locations with limited sight lines. Expected pedestrian volumes are to be 15-20 during peak hours, with 100-150 bicyclists on weekend afternoons. Considerations: The designer has the option to select a bikeway based on the rural context (Figure 1 O) or the rural town context. As a popular roadway for touring bicyclists, it would be acceptable to use the rural town context bikeway selection chart (Figure 9) for this roadway. It is recommended that the design user be chosen after consultation with the communities and, if feasible, input from people who bicycle on the route- potentially via a survey of bicycle touring clubs. If it is determined the design user should be the interested but concerned bicyclist to provide an all ages and abilities facility, Figure 9 recommends a shared use path or separated bike lane be considered due to the 45-mph operating speed. FHWA's Shared Use Path Calculator can show volume thresholds where passing movements between pedestrians and bicyclists will limit the effectiveness of the shared use path, warranting a wider path or a separated bike lane with a sidewalk. If confident cyclists are the design users, Figure 10 recommends provision of a shoulder with a minimum width of 5 feet. In both instances, pedestrians are likely to use the bikeway provided, as it creates a place to walk separate from motor vehicles. 36 BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE 2-Lane Roadway (Shared Use Path Option) Bicyclists: Physical separation and a buffer greatly increase comfort and safety for cyclists, resulting in lowest stress conditions (LTS = 1), especially during periods of darkness. Low pedestrian volumes will result in minimal conflicts on the sidepath. A path width of 8 to 10 feet comfortably services volumes of up to 300 users per hour (SUP LOS = C}. A sidepath constructed to a high-quality standard (smooth and level) that is cleared of debris will accommodate touring and recreational bicyclists. A poor-quality sidepath will result in those cyclists continuing to operate in the roadway. Motorists: The lack of shoulders does not improve motorist safety. Motorist discomfort and frustration is reduced when bicycle and motor vehicle traffic is heavy; especially at locations with limited sight distance. However, if confident and faster cyclists feel they must operate in the roadway due to path conditions, this may result in some conflicts with motorists who expect the bicyclists to be operating on the path. Motorists will need to be aware of counterflow bicyclists. Pedestrians: The path creates a comfortable and safe place for people to walk. High pedestrian or cyclist volumes may lead to conflicts on the sidepath. Transit Operators and Riders: Buses may require in-lane stops but riders will have an improved ability to access stops along one side of the roadway. Stops on opposite sides of the path would benefit from the provision of crossings and stop amenities. 5. BIKEWAY SELECTION IN PRACTICE 37 2-Lane Roadway (Wide Shoulder Option) Bicyclists: Wide paved shoulders (>5 feet in width) are operationally similar to bike lanes on rural roads. Paved shoulders 7 feet or more in width result in a highly comfortable route (BLOS = A) for confident cyclists; interested but concerned cyclist traffic stress remains high (LTS = 4). Rumble strips may be located on or near the shoulder line if a minimum of 4 feet of operating space remains for bicyclists. Motorists: Wider shoulders are more forgiving for driver error, increasing their safety. However, if the shoulder is obstructed or rumble strip placement is not correct, bicyclists operating in the lane may result in unexpected conflicts with motorists who expect the bicyclists to be operating on the shoulder. Pedestrians: The wide shoulder creates a more comfortable place for people to walk. High pedestrian or cyclist volumes may lead to conflicts, requiring bicyclists to occasionally operate in the traveled lane. Transit Operators and Riders: Buses may be able to stop fully outside the travel lane within the shoulder. Riders will have an improved ability to access stops on both sides of the roadway. BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 5. BIKEWAY SELECTION IN PRACTICE 2-Lane Roadway (Narrow Shoulder Option) Related Resources 1. AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities 2. FHWA Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks Guide 3. AASHTO Roadside Design Guide 4. FHWA Rumble St rips and Rumble Stripes Website 38 Bicyclists: Narrow paved shoulders (4-5 feet) are operationally similar to bike lanes on rural roads. Paved shoulders 4 feet or more in width result in a very comfortable route (BLOS = B) for confident cyclists; interested but concerned cyclist traffic stress remains high (LTS = 4). Paved shoulders less than 3 feet in width will not accommodate bicyclists. If rumble strips are present, they should be at the edge of the paved surface to maximize the width of the shoulder. Motorists: Narrow shoulders can be forgiving for driver error, increasing their safety. However, if the shoulder is obstructed or rumble strip placement is not correct, bicyclists operating in the lane may result in unexpected conflicts with motorists who expect the bicyclists to be operating on the shoulder. Pedestrians: The narrow shoulder creates a more comfortable place for people to walk. High pedestrian or cyclist volumes may lead to conflicts, requiring bicyclists to occasionally operate in the traveled lane. Transit Operators and Riders: Buses may be able to stop partially outside the travel lane within the shoulder. Riders will have an improved ability to access stops on both sides of the roadway. BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 5. BIKEWAY SELECTION IN PRACTICE 2-Lane Roadway (Base Condition) Source: Stamford. CT Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Bicyclists: The width of the road creates an ambiguous operating space for bicyclists which can lead to motorists driving faster than the speed limit of 30mph decreasing comfort and safety during passing events and while operating in darkness. Interested but concerned bicyclists will feel uncomfortable operating on the roadway feeling a moderately high Level of Traffic Stress {LTS = 3) because of the lack of a defined operating space. Confident cyclists are generally comfortable (BLOS = C) due to the wide operating lane (17 feet) and relatively low percentage of trucks (2%). To bypass stopped or parked vehicles, bicyclists will be required to merge into the traffic lane if they operate within the shoulder area. Motorists: Motorists can easily overtake cyclists on the roadway but may be unsure where bicyclists are expected to operate. Where bicyclists are moving around stopped or parked vehicles, they will be viewed as unpredictable to motorists. Bicyclists who operate in the lane and not the shoulder area to avoid parked vehicles, may be viewed as ·not sharing the roadway." Pedestrians: The lack of a consistent walking space will require pedestrians to walk in the roadway decreasing their comfort and safety. Transit Operators and Riders: Buses may be able to stop partially outside the travel lane within the undefined shoulder area which can create conflicts with bicyclists where transit routes operate with higher frequency. Riders will have difficulty accessing stops on both sides of the roadway depending upon sidewalk and crossing conditions. 39 Background: This is a two-lane, 34-foot-wide street located in a small town. It was originally a farm-to-market road and now is passing from a residential area into the outskirts of the town center. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is 6,000 (with 2% heavy vehicles) and the operating speed is 30 mph. The public right-of-way extends to 10 feet on either side of the roadway, but there are trees and utility poles located within the right-of-way. Portions of the route have a sidewalk on one side of the roadway. Expected pedestrian volumes are 25-50 during peak hours, with 100-150 bicyclists on weekend afternoons. There is sporadic parking along roadway, but all properties have driveways and adequate vehicle storage space. There is relatively long distances between driveways. Considerations: The design user should be the interested but concerned bicyclist to provide an all ages and abilities facility. Based on the traffic context, Figure 9 recommends a bike lane be considered due to the 6,000 vehicles/day. A buffer would improve the comfort for bicyclists. A challenge here is accommodating pedestrians who are likely to use the bikeway if a sidewalk is not provided, as it creates a place to walk separate from motor vehicles. A shared use path could serve both users but may result in conflicts between pedestrians and bicyclists if the path is too narrow to accommodate pedestrians who may desire to walk side-by-side. FHWA's Shared Use Path Calculator can be used to understand volume thresholds where passing movements between pedestrians and bicyclists will limit the effectiveness of the shared use path, warranting a wider path or a bike lane with sidewalk. The presence of occasional parking and the possible need to remove trees presents a need to build community support. BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE 2-Lane Roadway (Bike Lane Option) Source: Stamford, CT Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Bicyclists: Narrow bike lanes (5 feet) can create a very comfortable route (BLOS = B) for confident cyclists as well as interested but concerned cyclists due to the relatively low operating speed and volume of the roadway (LTS = 2) and the provision of dedicated operating space for bicycling. Motorists: Motorists can easily overtake cyclists on the roadway and have decreased stress operating around bicyclists as they have greater awareness for where bicyclists are expected to operate. Pedestrians: If sidewalks are not provided with the bike lanes, pedestrians are likely to walk in the bike lane to improve their safety. This may lead to conflicts, requiring bicyclists to occasionally operate in the traveled lane. Where sidewalks are provided, the bike lanes create a buffer to traffic lanes improving pedestrian comfort and safety. Transit Operators and Riders: Buses may be able to stop partially outside the travel lane but within the bike lane, which can create conflicts with bicyclists where transit routes operate with higher frequency. Riders will have difficulty accessing stops on both sides of the roadway depending upon sidewalk and crossing conditions. 5. BIKEWAY SELECTION IN PRACTICE 40 2-Lane Roadway {Separated Bike Lane Option) Bicyclists: Separated bike lanes (5 feet) with a buffer (2 feet minimum) can create a very comfortable route (BLOS = A) for confident cyclists as well as interest.ed but concerned cyclists due to the relatively low operating speed and volume of the roadway (LTS = 1) and the provision of dedicated operating space for bicycling. While this is a narrow buffer, the effective width of the bike lane can be increased by placing vertical separation close to vehicle travel lane. Vertical separation is relatively constant because of the infrequent driveways. Motorists: Motorists can easily overtake cyclists on the roadway and have decreased stress operating around bicyclists as they have greater awareness for where bicyclists are expected to operate. Pedestrians: If sidewalks are not provided with the separated bike lanes, pedestrians are likely to walk in the bike lane to improve their safety. This may lead to conflicts, requiring bicyclists to occasionally operate in the traveled lane which can be more challenging due to the barriers. Where sidewalks are provided, the separated bike lanes create a buffer to traffic lanes improving pedestrian comfort and safety. Transit Operators and Riders: Buses may be able to stop partially outside the travel lane but within the separated bike lane, which can create conflicts with bicyclists where transit routes operate with higher frequency. Riders may have difficulty accessing stops on both sides of the roadway depending upon sidewalk and crossing conditions. BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 5. BIKEWAY SELECTION IN PRACTICE 2-Lane Roadway (Shared Use Path Option) Related Resources 1. AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities 2. FHWA Shared Use Path Calculator 3. FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide 4. National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Bikeway Design Guide 41 Bicyclists: Physical separation and a buffer greatly increase comfort and safety for cyclists, resulting in lowest stress conditions (LTS = 1), especially during periods of darkness. During periods of heavier pedestrian traffic where pedestrians walk side-by-side, some conflicts are likely on the sidepath. A path width of 10 feet services volumes up to 150 users per hour comfortably (SUP LOS = B). At 200 users or more, a path width of 12 feet is required to maintain a SUP LOS of B. The pedestrian use will likely result in sport and faster cyclists continuing to desire to operate in the roadway. Motorists: The narrowing of the roadway will have a minimal impact on motorist safety given the slower speed nature of the roadway. Motorist discomfort and frustration is reduced when bicycle and motor vehicle traffic is heavy, especially during periods of darkness. The reduction in space to stop or park motor vehicles may generate controversy if there is not sufficient off-street parking available. Motorists need to be aware of counterflow bicyclists, but the elimination of parking may contribute to adequate sight lines. Pedestrians: The path creates a comfortable and safe place for people to walk continuously on one side of the roadway. High pedestrian or cyclist volumes may lead to conflicts on the sidepath. Completing a sidewalk on the opposite side of the road would complete the pedestrian network. Transit Operators and Riders: Buses may require in-lane stops but riders will have an improved ability to access stops along one side of the roadway. Stops on opposite sides of the path would benefit from the provision of crossings and completion of the sidewalk. BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 5. BIKEWAY SELECTION IN PRACTICE 4-Lane Roadway (Base Condition) '--.....__ Source: Active Tyler: Active Transportati on Plan for the Tyler, TX Area MPO Bicyclists: Lower volume, multi-lane roads generally allow for free-flowing traffic and operating speeds in excess of the speed limit. Interested but concerned bicyclists will feel very uncomfortable operating on the roadway with a Level of Traffic Stress (LTS = 4) because of the lack of a defined operating space. Confident cyclists are generally uncomfortable (BLOS = D) as well due to the higher operating speeds in a shared lane. Motorists: Motorists can easily overtake cyclists on the roadway by changing lanes, but they may be tempted to pass bicyclists within the travel lane if they are operating in a platoon and the bicyclists is riding near the edge of the road. Four-lane, undivided roadways without left turn lanes also generally have higher crash rates than other road types. In a suburban area where bicyclists are more frequently merging to turn left, they will not have a safe place to wait, resulting in motorists unexpectedly seeing bicyclists operating or stopped in the left lane, increasing discomfort for motorists. Pedestrians: Pedestrian comfort and safety is degraded by proximity to the adjacent traffic lanes and potential exposure to multiple-threat crashes at crossings. Crossings at unsignalized intersections may be challenging for many pedestrians. Transit Operators and Riders: Buses must stop within the outside travel lane, which can create conflicts with bicyclists where transit routes operate with higher frequency. 42 Background: This is a four-lane, 50-foot-wide street located in a suburban area with various large business and retail parcels. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is 9,000 (with 2% heavy vehicles) and the operating speed is 35 mph. The public right-of-way extends to 10 feet on either side of the roadway with continuous sidewalks that have trees and utility poles located within them. Expected pedestrian volumes are to be 25-50 during peak hours, with 200-250 bicyclists on weekend afternoons. There is no parking along the roadway, as all properties have driveways and adequate vehicle storage space. There are relatively long distances between driveways. Considerations: The design user should be the interested but concerned bicyclist to provide an all ages and abilities facility. Based on the traffic context, Figure 9 recommends a separated bike lane or shared use path be considered due to the 9,000 vehicles/day and 35 mph speed limit. FHWA's Shared Use Path Calculator can be used to understand volume thresholds where passing movements between pedestrians and bicyclists will limit the effectiveness of the shared use path, warranting a wider path or a separated bike lane with sidewalk. If the speed limit can be reduced to 30mph, a buffered bike lane may be sufficient for many users. A challenge here is the built environment will require extensive reconstruction, therefore solutions which do not move curb lines are the most economical option. BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE 4-Lane Roadway (Bike Lane Option) Bicyclists: Bike lanes (6 feet) can create a very comfortable route (BLOS = B) for confident cyclists. The interested but concerned cyclists is still relatively uncomfortable due to the operating speed and volume of the roadway (LTS = 3) despite the provision of bike lanes. Many may still ride on the sidewalk if operating speeds remain over 35mph. If speeds were lowered to 25-30 mph and a buffer was added to the bike lane, their comfort would increase substantially (LTS = 2). Motorists: Motorists can easily overtake cyclists on the roadway and have decreased stress operating around bicyclists as they have greater awareness for where bicyclists are expected to operate. The provision of a turn lane increases motorists safety; however, it likely lowers operating speeds, which may cause some to express frustration. Pedestrians: Pedestrian comfort and safety is greatly improved because the bike lanes create a buffer to traffic lanes. Also, the reduction of through travel lanes eliminates the potential for a multiple-threat crash, and the left turn lane creates opportunities to add pedestrian refuges. Transit Operators and Riders: Buses may be able to stop partially outside the travel lane but within the bike lane, which can create conflicts with bicyclists where transit routes operate with higher frequency. Rider access is improved with safer street crossings. 5. BIKEWAY SELECTION IN PRACTICE 43 4-Lane Roadway (Separated Bike Lane Option) Bicyclists: Separated bike lanes (6 feet) with a buffer (2 feet minimum) can create a very comfortable route (BLOS = A) for confident cyclists as well as interested but concerned cyclists due to the relatively low operating speed and volume of the roadway (LTS = 1) and the provision of dedicated operating space for bicycling. Vertical separation is relatively constant due to infrequent driveways. Motorists: Motorists can easily overtake cyclists on the roadway and have decreased stress operating around bicyclists as they have greater awareness for where bicyclists are expected to operate. Pedestrians: Pedestrian comfort and safety is greatly improved because the bike lanes create a buffer to traffic lanes. Also, the reduction of through travel lanes eliminate the potential for a multiple-threat crash, and the left turn lane creates opportunities to add pedestrian refuges. Transit Operators and Riders: Buses may be able to stop partially outside the travel lane but within the separated bike lane. This can create conflicts with bicyclists where transit routes operate with higher frequency. Rider access is improved with safer street crossings. BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 5. BIKEWAY SELECTION IN PRACTICE 4-Lane Roadway {Shared Use Path Option) Source: Active Tyler: Active Transportation Plan for the Tyler, TX Area MPO Related Resources 1. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Implementing Context Sensitive Design on Multimodal Corridors: A Practitioner's Handbook 2. FHWA Road Diet Information Guide 3. Transportation Research Board (TRB) Highway Capacity Manual 4. USDOT Memorandum on Level of Service 5. ITE Trip Generation Manual 44 Bicyclists: Physical separation and a buffer greatly increase comfort and safety for cyclists resulting in lowest stress conditions (LTS = 1), especially during periods of darkness. During periods of heavier pedestrian traffic where pedestrians walk side-by-side, some conflicts are likely on the sidepath. A path width of 12 feet services volumes of up to 200 users per hour comfortably (SUP LOS = B). At 300 users or more, a path width of 14 feet is required to maintain a SUP LOS of B. The pedestrian use will likely result in sport and faster cyclists continuing to desire to operate in the roadway. This width and the volumes are reaching a point where separating pedestrians and bicyclists may be desirable. Motorists: The narrowing of the roadway will have a minimal impact on motorist safety given the slower speed nature of the roadway. Motorist discomfort and frustration is reduced when bicycle and motor vehicle traffic is heavy, especially during periods of darkness. Motorists will need to be aware of counterflow bicyclists, but the prohibition of parking ensures adequate sight lines. Pedestrians: The path creates a comfortable and safe place for people to walk continuously on one side of the roadway. High pedestrian or cyclist volumes may lead to conflicts on the sidepath. Transit Operators and Riders: Buses will be required to stop within the travel lane. Special care will be required at transit stops to ensure waiting pedestrians are not waiting on the shared use path. Rider access is improved with safer street crossings. BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 5. BIKEWAY SELECTION IN PRACTICE 5-6 Lane Roadway (Base Condition) Source: Active Tyler: Active Transportation Plan for the Tyler, TX Area MPO Bicyclists: Higher volume, multi-lane roads generally allow for free-flowing traffic and operating speeds in excess of the speed limit. Interested but concerned bicyclists will feel very uncomfortable operating on the roadway (L TS = 4) even with the provision of an existing 9-foot shoulder. These bicyclists will avoid this roadway or ride on the sidewalks. Confident cyclists are generally comfortable (BLOS =A) on this roadway operating within the 9-foot shoulder despite the higher operating speeds. Motorists: Motorists can easily overtake cyclists on the roadway, but they may be tempted to pass bicyclists and not yield to bicyclist operating with the shoulder due to the higher operating speeds. In a suburban area where bicyclists are more frequently merging to turn left, they may wait in the provided left turn lane, but they may have difficulty merging across the multiple lanes of high-speed traffic to enter the lane, resulting in motorists unexpectedly seeing bicyclists operating in left lanes on the roadway, increasing discomfort for motorists. Pedestrians: Pedestrian comfort and safety is acceptable along the roadway because of the provided separation from traffic but degraded at street crossings due to their potential exposure to multiple-threat crashes and the higher operating speeds. Crossings at unsignalized intersections may be challenging for many pedestrians. Transit Operators and Riders: Buses can stop within the shoulder, which can create conflicts with bicyclists where transit routes operate with higher frequency. Riders may have challenges crossing the roadway to access stops. 45 Background: This is a five-lane, 70-foot-wide street with an existing 9-foot shoulder located in a suburban area with various large business and retail parcels. The Average Daily Traffic {ADT) is 26,000 {with 2% heavy vehicles) and the operating speed is 45 mph. The public right-of-way extends to 20 feet on either side of the roadway, with continuous sidewalks that have trees and utility poles located within them. Expected pedestrian volumes are to be 25-50 during peak hours, with 200-250 bicyclists on weekend afternoons. There is no parking along the roadway, as all properties have driveways and adequate vehicle storage space. There are relatively long distances between driveways. Considerations: The design user should be the interested but concerned bicyclist to provide an all ages and abilities facility. Based on the traffic context, Figure 9 recommends a separated bike lane or shared use path be considered due to the 26,000 vehicles/day and 45 mph speed limit. FHWA's Shared Use Path Calculator can be used to understand volume thresholds where passing movements between pedestrians and bicyclists will limit the effectiveness of the shared use path, warranting a wider path or a separated bike lane with sidewalk. A challenge here is that the shoulder can provide safety benefits for motorists given the higher operating speeds and volumes. BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 5. BIKEWAY SELECTION IN PRACTICE 5-6 Lane Roadway (Buffered Bike Lane Option) Bicyclists: Buffered bike banes can be created by narrowing the shoulders. The 6-foot bike lane with a 3-foot buffer does not improve comfort from the unmarked shoulder (BLOS =A) for confident cyclists, but does improve motorist awareness of bicyclists operating in the lanes. The interested but concerned cyclists is still relatively uncomfortable due to the operating speed and volume of the roadway (LTS = 3) despite the provision of buffered bike lanes. Many may still ride on the sidewalk or avoid the road. Motorists: Motorists can easily overtake cyclists on the roadway and have decreased stress operating around bicyclists, as they have greater awareness for where bicyclists are expected to operate. Pedestrians: Pedestrian comfort and safety remains unchanged from the existing conditions. Transit Operators and Riders: Buses can stop within the shoulder ,which can create conflicts with bicyclists where transit routes operate with higher frequency. Riders may have challenges crossing the roadway to access stops. 46 5-6 Lane Roadway (Separated Bike Lane Option) Source: Active Tyler: Active Transportation Plan for the Tyler, TX Area MPO Bicyclists: The shoulders and travel lanes can be reduced in width to create a bi-directional separated bike lane (8 feet) with a buffer {6-foot minimum) on one side. It can create a very comfortable route (BLOS = A) for confident cyclists as well as interested but concerned cyclists (LTS = 1) due to the physical separation from the traffic. Motorists: Motorists can easily overtake cyclists on the roadway and have decreased stress operating around bicyclists, as they have greater awareness for where bicyclists are expected to operate. Motorists will need to be aware of counterflow bicyclists, but the elimination of parking ensures adequate sight lines. Pedestrians: Pedestrian comfort and safety remains unchanged from the existing conditions. Transit Operators and Riders: Buses will be required to stop within the travel lane. Special care will be required at transit stops to ensure waiting pedestrians are not waiting on the shared use path. Rider access does not change from existing conditions with the exception of access across the separated bike lane. . . BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 5. BIKEWAY SELECTION IN PRACTICE 5-6 Lane Roadway (Shared Use Path Option) Related Resources 1. FHWA Workbook on Incorporating On-Road Bicycle Networks into Resurfacing Projects 2. FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures 3. Transportation Research Board (TRB) Highway Capacity Manual 4. USDOT Memorandum on Level of Service 5. ITE Trip Generation Manual 47 Bicydists: Instead of narrowing the shoulders, the existing sidewalk can be widened to create a shared use path. Physical separation and a buffer greatly increase comfort and safety for cyclists, resulting in lowest stress conditions (LTS =1), especially during periods of darkness. During periods of heavier pedestrian traffic where pedestrians walk side-by-side, some conflicts are likely on the sidepath. A path width of 12 feet services volumes up to 200 users per hour comfortably (SUP LOS = B). At 300 users or more, a path width of 14 feet is required to maintain a SUP LOS of B. The pedestrian use will likely result in sport and faster cyclists continuing to desire to operate in the roadway. The width and the volumes are reaching a point where separating pedestrians and bicyclists may be preferable. Motorists: The narrowing of the roadway will have a minimal impact on motorist safety given the slower speed nature of the roadway. Motorist discomfort and frustration is reduced when bicycle and motor vehicle traffic is heavy, especially during periods of darkness. Motorists will need to be aware of counterflow bicyclists, but the prohibition of parking ensures adequate sight lines. Pedestrians: The path creates a comfortable and safe place for people to walk continuously on one side of the roadway. High pedestrian or cyclist volumes may lead to conflicts on the sidepath. Transit Operators and Riders: Buses will be required to stop within the travel lane. Special care will be required at transit stops to ensure waiting pedestrians are not waiting on the shared use path. Rider access is improved with safer street crossings. BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE I 6. CONCLUSION 6. Conclusion This document is a resource to help transportation practitioners consider and make informed decisions about trade-offs relating to the selection of bikeway types. It incorporates and builds upon FHWA's active support for design flexibility and connected, safe, and comfortable bicycle networks that meet the needs of people of all ages and abilities. For new construction and reconstruction projects, the bikeway selection process can be relatively straightforward. Figures 9 and 10 in this guide show the desired bikeway type for roads with different characteristics, and this guidance is based, in large part, on motor vehicle traffic volume and speed. However, many of the projects that practitioners design and build are retrofits, or construction projects on existing roadways. These roadways often have more constraints and require trade- offs. This guide outlines a process for balancing these trade-offs by identifying the desired bikeway type, assessing and refining the potential options, and evaluating feasibility. An agency's policies provide the framework for decision making, and the transportation planning process ensures that user types, bicycle networks, road context, and project types are considered. This process is intended to accelerate the delivery of high- quality multimodal projects that improve safety for everyone and meet the transportation needs of people of all ages and abilities. 48 , . THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 49 Streets and TABLE Ill -MINIMUM GEOMETRIC DESIGN CRITERIA FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION NTD Minor Minor Minor Alley Residential Residential Rural4 Rural4 Collector/ Major Arterial Arterial Major Streets1 Residential Collector Commercial Collector Undivided Divided Arterial Street ROW2 24' 50' 50' 70' 100' 60'7 80' 100' 100' 120' Pavement 12' 27' 24' 24' 30' 38' 54' 70' 72' or 78' 96' Width3 Traffic N/A 2 2 2 2 2 or 3 3 or 4 5 4 6 Lanes Lane N/A N/A N/A 12' 15' 1'>' 12' or 12.5'/15'5 12.5'/15 or 12.5'/12'/ Width5 12'/15'5 12.::i'/12'5 15'5 Curb None Laydown or standard Laydown or standard None0 None Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Shoulder N/A N/A N/A 2@ 3' Ea6 2@ 3' Ea6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Width Left Turn None None None None None Permitted Permitted Permitted None None Lane Width (14') (16') (15') One Side Permitted Parking None Permitted Only None None w/out bike None None None None lanes Raised None None None None None None None None 17' 17' Medians Sidewalks None Per local Subdivision Per local Subdivision None None Both/ 6' 8 Both/ 6' 8 Both/ 6' 8 Both/ 6' 8 Both/ 6' 8 Req./Width Ordinance/ 5' Ordinance/ 5' Permitted Permitted Permitted Bike Lanes N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A per bicycle per bicycle N/A per bicycle NIA plan plan plan NOTES: • Cul-de-sacs on residential and rural streets, including streets in the ET J, shall have a 50 ' ROW radius with a 40' pavement radius . All other cul-de-sac streets shall have a min. 60' ROW radius with a min. 50' pavement radius. Temp. T turnarounds, in accordance with the local fire code, will only be allowed under circumstances when no other option is viable and with prior approval. • At all intersecting street rights-of-ways, provide a minimum 25' ROW chamfer. • Additional easements may be required parallel to the street right-of-way for utilities if necessary. 1 No more than 24 lots between cross streets. Allowed in single family developments only. 2 Right of Way widths listed herein are a minimum and additional right of way may be requi red for the City of Bryan. Right-of-Way widths for the City of College Station are provided in Table V. At intersections of collector to collector streets or greater, additional row will be provided for dual left or right turn lanes as required by traffic impact study or requested by the City. 3 Pavement widths are measured from back of curb to back of curb or from the edge of pavement to edge of pavement where there is no curb. 4 Rural sections shall only be used where allowed by local zoning. Rural collector streets will not be required to have 16' easements parallel to right-of-way within ET J limits and will not be allowed within city limits. 5 Wider lanes required on outside lanes only. 6 Rural Residential Shoulders shall be asphalt primed or shall have ribbon curb installed . Ribbon curb applies only to those rural sections located within the city limits. 7 A 5 foot easement will be required on either side of right-of-way. 8 Sidewalk may be 8 feet in width when located adjacent to the back of curb. Effective 8/04/2000 Revised August 2012 Page 12 DESIGN GUIDELINES Streets and TABLE Ill -MINIMUM GEOMETRIC DESIGN CRITERIA FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION NTD Minor Minor Minor Alley Residential Residential Rural4 Rural4 Collector/ Major Arterial Arterial Major Streets1 Residential Collector Commercial Collector Undivided Divided Arterial Street ROW2 24' 50' 50' 70' 100' 60'7 80' 100' 100' 120' Pavement 12' 27' 24' 24' 30' 38' 54' 70' 72' or 78' 96' Width3 Traffic N/A 2 2 2 Lanes 2 2 or 3 3 or 4 5 4 6 Lane N/A N/A N/A 12' 15' 12' 12' or 12.5'/15'5 12.5'/15 or 12.5'/12'/ Width5 12'/15'5 12.5'/12'5 15'5 Curb None Laydown or standard Laydown or standard None" None Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Shoulder N/A NIA N/A 2@ 3' Ea6 2@ 3' Ea6 N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A Width Left Turn None None None None None Permitted Permitted Permitted None None Lane Width (14') (16') (15') One Side Permitted Parking None Permitted Only None None w/out bike None None None None lanes Raised None None None None Medians None None None None 17' 17' Sidewalks None Per local Subdivision Per local Subdivision None None Both/ 6' 8 Both/ 6' 8 Both/ 6' 8 Both/ 6' 8 Both/ 6' 8 Req./Width Ordinance/ 5' Ordinance/ 5' Permitted Permitted Permitted Bike Lanes N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A per bicycle per bicycle N/A per bicycle N/A plan plan plan NOTES: • Cul-de-sacs on residential and rural streets, including streets in the ET J, shall have a 50' ROW radius with a 40' pavement radius. All other cul-de-sac streets shall have a min. 60' ROW radius with a min. 50' pavement radius. Temp. T turnarounds, in accordance with the local fire code, will only be allowed under circumstances when no other option is viable and with prior approval. • At all intersecting street rights-of-ways, provide a minimum 25' ROW chamfer. • Additional easements may be required parallel to the street right-of-way for utilities if necessary. 1 No more than 24 lots between cross streets. Allowed in single family developments only. 2 Right of Way widths listed herein are a minimum and additional right of way may be required for the City of Bryan. Right-of-Way widths for the City of College Station are provided in Table V. At intersections of collector to collector streets or greater, additional row will be provided for dual left or right turn lanes as required by traffic impact study or requested by the City. 3 Pavement widths are measured from back of curb to back of curb or from the edge of pavement to edge of pavement where there is no curb. 4 Rural sections shall only be used where allowed by local zoning. Rural collector streets will not be required to have 16' easements parallel to right-of-way within ET J limits and will not be allowed within city limits. 5 Wider lanes required on outside lanes only. 6 Rural Residential Shoulders shall be asphalt primed or shall have ribbon curb installed. Ribbon curb applies only to those rural sections located within the city limits. 7 A 5 foot easement will be required on either side of right-of-way. 8 Sidewalk may be 8 feet in width when located adjacent to the back of curb. Effective 8/04/2000 Revised August 2012 Page 12 DESIGN GUIDELINES • US. Department of Trcnsportation Federal Highway Administration Memorandum SENT BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Subject: GUIDANCE: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Flexibility Gloria M. Shepherd ~JI/.~ Date: August 20. 2013 From: Associate Administrator for Planning.1 Environment and Realty -~ · , ~1 ·. /7 / Walter C. (Butch) Waidelich. J~. /l'[ I fTJ;tJ (~ Associate Administrator for Infrastructure Jeffrey A. Lindley""!?!- Associate Administ Tony T. Furst Associate Ad /I_/ In Reply Refer To: HEPH-10 To: Division Administrators cc: Directors of field Services This memorandum expresses the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) support for taking a 11exible approach to bicycle and pedestrian facility design. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) bicycle and pedestrian design guides are the primary national resources t<.1r planning. designing. and operating bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The National Asso<.:iation of City Transportation Officials (NACTO ) ( rhu11 /Jike1rll\' Design Ciuide and the I nstit utc or Transportation Engineers ( ITE) l>esii;1 1i11c.: l 'rhun ll'alkah/e Thorough(ar es guide builds upon the flexibilities provided in the AASHTO guides. which can help communities plan and design safe and convenient facilities for pedestrian and bicyclists. Fl IW A supports the use of these resources to fw1her develop nonmotorized transp011ation networks. particularly in urban areas. AASHTO Guides AASHTO publishes two guides that address pedestrian and bi<.:ycle facilities : • Guide for the /1/a1111ill!!. Dnii:11. a11d ( l/JC'Wtion of /1eclestric111 Fucilitie.\ . .Jul y 2004. (AASHTO Pedestrian Guide) provides guidelines for the planning. design. operation. and maintenance of pedestrian facilities. including signals and signing. The guide recommends methods for accommndating pedestrians. which vary among roadway and facility types. and addresses the effet:ts of land use planning and site design on pedestrian mobility. • Ciuide (or the /Jen•lon111e111 of Hic\'('lt! Fucililil'.\ 201 2. Fourrh Edilion (AASHTO Bike Guide) provides detailed planning and design guidelines on how to accommodate bicycle travel and operation in most riding environments. It covers the planning. design. operation. maintenance. and safety of on-road facilities. shared use paths. and parking facilities. Flexibility is provided through ranges in design values to encourage facilities that are sensitive to local context and incorporate the needs of bicyclists. pedestrians. and motorists. NACTO Guide NACTO first released the ( 'rho11 8ike1rn1· Desiun <iuicle ( ACTO Guide) in 2010 to address more recently developed bicycle design treatments and techniques. It provides options that can help create .. complete streets .. that better accommodate bicyclists. While not directly referenced in the AASHTO Bike Guide. many of the treatments in the NACTO Guide are compatible with the AASHTO Bike Guide and demonstrate new and innovative solutions for the varied urban settings m;ross the country. The vast majority of treatments illustrated in the NACTO Guide arc either allowed or not precluded by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices {M UTCD). In addition. non- compliant traffic control devices may be piloted through the MUTCD experimentation process. That process is described in Section I A. I 0 or the MUTCD and a table on the f-H W J\'s bicvcle and pedestrian design guidance Web page is regularly updated (Fl (\A,:"/\ Bicn:k and Pedestrian Dcsi!.!n Gui dance). and explains what bicyck facilities. signs. and markings arc allowed in accordance with the MUTCD. Other elements of the NACTO Guide's nevi and revised provisions will be considered in the rulemaking cycle for the next edition of the MUTCD. ITE Guide 2 In 20 I 0. FHWA suppoiie<l production of the ITE Guide Desi'.!11i11g lt'albhle ( ·rhc111 l'lwm111:/1t£11·es: .-1 ( ·0111e.\'/ Semifil't' .·lm1moch. This guide is useful in gaining an understanding of the flexibility that is inherent in the AASHTO .. Green Book:· .·I l'o/in on (it'mnetric Desi<.!11 o(lli1:/nrnn u11d Stred.\. The chapters emphasize thoroughfares in .. walkable communities .. - compact.pedestrian-scaled villages. neighborhoods. town centers. urban centers. urban cores and other areas where walking. bicycling and transit are encouraged. It describes the relationship. compatibility and trade-offs that may be appropriate when balancing the needs of all users. adjoining land uses. environment and community interests when making decisions in the project development process. Summary rHWA encourages agencies to appropriately use these guides and other resources to help fulfill the aims of the 2010 { S /)(){ l'olitT SIUfl'lltt:lll 011 Hind<: um/ l\·d<:.wric111 .l<.u111111u1Cla1io11 Rq!11lc11iom uncl /frco11111n·11cla1io11s -·· ... DOT encourages transportatio.1 agencies to go beyond the minimum requirements. and proactively provide convenient. safe. and context-sensitive facilities that foster increased use by bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities. and utilize universal design characteristics when appropriate:· Accompanying this memo are the latest versions of the: I) AASHTO Bike Guide. 2) NACTO Bike Guide: and 3) the ITE Designing Wa/kahle lk han Thoro11~l?f(1res Guide. • The attachments provide t\.vo examples that demonstrate the use of treatments illustrated in the NACTO Guide (i.e .. buffered bike Janes and green colored pavement for hicycle lanes) by State or local DOTs. and a list or FHWA staff that 1.:an help with questions about pedestrian and bicycle design issues. A flachme111s 3 4 Attachment 1 -Example 1 & 2 Example I: Michigan DOT's Buffered Bike Lanes One of the innovative bicycle facilities discussed in the Aero Urhan Bike1ray Desi~n 0uide is buffered bike lanes. Buffered bike lanes create more space between motor vehicles and bicycles by delineating extra space between the bike lane and parked cars and/or a motor vehicle lane. Buffered bike lanes can be implemented if' the pavement markings and channelizing devices are compliant with the MUTCD (see BiL'Yck FacilitiL': and the Manual nn Uniform Traffic Control De,·ices). Michigan DOT developed a video that describes their efforts to install burtered bike lanes in Oakland County (see j\;ortlmestern Hil.!ll\\i.I\' Bicycle Lane: t\ Sakr Place to Ride). Michigan DOT also developed a brochure that explains buffered bike lanes to the public (see What En.:n Michil.!an Drin.:r Should Kno\\ About Bike Lanes ). Example 2: Missoula's Colored Bike Lanes MUTCD experimentation is a methodology that analyzes innovative trafiic control devices through field deployment for the purpose of testing or evaluating its application or manner of use. An approved request to experiment numbered and titl ed as Official Ruling ··J(09)-3( E) - Colored 1:3ikc Lanes --Missoula. l'vrr·· illustrates a successful experiment. The City of Missoul a submitted a request to experiment in January 2010 in accordance with all Items in Paragraph 11 of Section I/\. IO in the 2009 MUTCD. The experiment was conducted for one year and revealed that approximately 70 percent of motorists noticed the color conspicuity enhancement to the bike lane. This was interpreted as an increased awareness by motorists of the potential presence of bicyclists at intersections where those motorists would be making a right turn. The City also reported ancillary findings that were not anticipated in the original Evaluation Plan of the request to experiment. This included psychological discomfort of the cyclist with the lateral locations or the colored bicycle lane wit h respect to door zones in para! lei parking co1Tidors. In addi tion. the experiment revealed an unintended design weakness where colored bike lanes that achieve high compliance oflittle or no occupation of motorized vehicles can also be attractive to pedestrians who wish to use them to facilitate their travel in lieu of crowded sidewalks or to patronize parking meters. For these reasons. a successful experiment can reveal unanticipated findings. further demonstrating the value of official experimentation. This particular experiment provided two conclusions that supported FHW A ·s decision to issue Interim Apprornl for green colored pavement for bicycle lanes in April 2011. For more information sec http://mutcd. thwa.dol.!.!O\ reqddai ls.asp'.'id= 1135. fl ...... 5 Attachment 2 FHW A Bi cycle and Pedestrian Staff Resources Human Environment -Livability and Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs • Shana Baker. Livability Team Leader. 202-366-4649. shana.bakerr£ydot.gov: Livability. Context Sensitive Solutions • Christopher Douwes. Trails and Enhancements Program Manager 202-366-5013. christopher.douwes@dot.gov: Transportation Alternatives Program/Enhancement Activities: Recreational Trails Program related actiYities: Bicycle and pedestrian policy and guidance • Daniel Goodman. Transportation Specialist. 202-366-9064. daniel.goodmanr~dot.gov: Bicycle and pedestrian activities: Livability • Wesley Blount. Program Manager. 202-366-0799. wcsley.blount(ti)dot.gov: Safe Routes to School. Discretionary programs Planning • Brian Gardner. 202-366-4061. brian.gardnerr~°ldot.goY: Modeling • .Jeremy Raw. 202-366-0986. jcremy.rawr£!~dot.gov: Modeling • llarlan Miller. 202-366-0847. harlan.rnillerrl{"}dot.gov: Planning Oversight • Kenneth Petty. 202-366-6654 kenneth.pettyftj!dot.gov: Planning Capacity Building Policy • Steven Jessbergcr.202-366-5052.steven.jessbcrger@dot.gov. Traffic Monitoring Guide Infrastructure -Design (including accessible design) • Michael Matzke. 202-366-4658. michacl.matzkert!~dot.gov Resource Center-Design (including accessible design) • Brooke Struve. Safety and Design Team. 720-963-3270. brooke.struve~i';dot.gov • Peter Eun. Safety and Design Team. 360-753-955 1. peter.eun1~·1.dot.gov Operations -Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices • Kevin Dunn. Transpottation Specialist. 202-366-6054. kevin.dunnr£J;dot.gov: MUTCD Team Pedestrian and Bicydc Safety • Gabe Rousseau. Safety Operations Team Leader. 202-366-8044. gabc.rousseaur£1),dot.gov: Bicycle and pedestrian safety programs • Tamara Redmon. Pedestrian Safety Program Manager. 202-366-4077. tamara.redmonr£f.'.dot.L ov: Pedestrian safety Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Research • Ann Do. 202-493-3319. ann.do((j!dot.gov • .I im Shurbutt. 202-493-3420. jimmy .shurbutt(t0dot.gov Civil Rights -J\cccssibility Policy and Compliance • Patrick Gomez. Resource Center Civil Rights Team. 720-963-3269. patrick.gomez@dot.gov • Candace Groudine. Director of External Civil Rights Programs. 202-366-4634. candace. groud i ne@dot.gov i I Ser~ta~ 5·,\ee.,, ~; bi ile. I Fn--<--1hfo (t!1.. P~p~'bL SL),Nl ~~ ~ L I. s-ff ~toMAc..(/<-~~u.-i~· s~ ' ut~t-fl&""' II ;).. S' biz..-· tf-1 .. U.:: j 3(,x: 3~ jtf:. f )s . 11 -~ t ~. (. 5" . 11 (. S"· "I - I bit LL ~~'H-- u (I I '-__ ___.__,3~# \fft ~\cl<-~ i~ 1'le~ 11 1 ----____ ..,._ __ V\-<.-tl" --l J-~ t.-L ptt-l t f · ~ ) 3 -----ff------ L\' < \I~ .ff. - gl-A-tl. ~LJ ' i 11 F~ . ~c.{G-p fla..t~ . 1] 11£: ) u.+11·th~ I II ·--II VV\KSSA-Ch K-tf?. • .' /o( -v ___, - \IV'. V'J'• 10\ -P' -I •• - u I z..1 ~ftn--e.J:1~tl-rv -DLJOl 1 :z .... u (~. ~- ---", -vt~~-I ~ --r 1¥.6"3 S7+ ~.~· " - -I c~~· I .) 300. - -__) -' \... -10-13~~ ~U'-}O~. , __ u I I ·F\~ n~l<ti-i 5&-- -3-4 ~'~ I --- - 6-€Nw\\< -~ ____ .....,__--=.. LffW)._lAM., ~" . Po~\A.lA-~ cf%.S! ~~ CO"Y\ t\Lc4vv!:J' BI ovit=-l 61-tsiL p~ ~L~ rzt~ ~~------...1 \N(&\.;~ ------1 ~~4-~· ~L~~ l~~~~cMte - ----------------1 -Co~~~---G-tvn..)~ ~~. -----++--------- r~ )(&«-?· Irr--~/~ ~~w r:J.vl· /J~ ~----~-----------------~ /'1k...-~£_ (2.-m,.J · ---~ -t:l ·-------® = ~-:-U>L --:-,l-----~ ___ ___.....___ - ,... c------------~~ ___ -___,,S~~J..._ Ybitk... ~-~ll · _ _ 31- --i . 0 s~ W\clh-' - ll 3g i 3cgft to4-VY.k l~· . ~ \h-- I \ £.... ( M<- I 0 f+--.I i..ff-wl ()._.(_, -.s~tl.cif ~. - ~ ~"+-~~~r . ~~t:LM-~ \PrkA,.~ -s c,t....rro{ ~k ,,,, fvu..-..... 1~ -~~.t , ... : 5~-- 'I -~-of+~· t'V\. l V\,~ . --[~ ~~ ll'l"\--l.. ~$~. ·--~JLS~ ·~~~~ -- B - ~-~ -----------~ .~t~ rl-~"-Jr!'-~~l-~""-4 J ~ -=f .. -II ~ ~ idle..{ (,.,~ ~ Y..l-UJVt~~c.A..<rh. ) ~ ~;:I ,~ _.J-c L ~{ sfftu-t ·\ - ~~ (p . ~-Pt t" A-/l~ !»1d....L bY s1k 1t1..~c. - t\'\; V\ ~4 .(,,T I 0\ ~Kdi171-V>-~ /)l,AA-c,I-,. pv -· I.~ . I - ~"'-~· --~ i--.eJ-. 5 Cfrh-hR., ~ A IA:nrut -r.. bi~ d-v;f.s -;o ~ d ~-<. - bi ~cJe.. tu ~ ~ Pi1--01'~· -- --. ~fe~ S71tf1-_J13A.CffA-· Mih\~ \,N\ol~ ~~~ ~-· I o 11-sfru-e_:t . - - l.Mt'Ut.... --f1,, ""'-~· tu . Mil( 1('-J._ tN-v-... '""-I I Pt.tL. - ---- ~~~ C4>d" ... pl~~€ ~ O"h ~·-.j, :+ ht5W rh '(f'-1.. hk-~~~ ~ I ---- ty\.-l:Jl'\.C..... ~ ,-..; ~~s. ~ fr!.,~~- (;;df --- ~~-'1 - ---- -r)JJ, IV\'~ ~~ -~~~-. -----G p"'-JD .. ~ ~-fru..J""~---~~ r -------- --~ ----------- -------------------H-------- -------- ----------------- --11~~ ----11]0 ----~ ------- ------- ~ ki ~Y\,c, ~fr " -- ~s ,~ J I ' t ' L ·11~ ---- -- ----------__ ..____.. __ -- II ----..;t---- .-------:..___--~-_::~::_-~r~ ~ r--------------~--~-~--~-~I ~) 0 ------- ___ _.,.___'V'J_Vll~ Rel-~·-~-·--------------! . __., . . ---~-----s_i {.lt, __ -=Of\'\-~\~ 5\cJ..<. <M-~ r---------..•1--. -~-~----------~-~h~~~-1~ ~sh~~ • t)Jvw-(_, ~ . [ 1-;_M~J -- -----r----------~--_[_~~~~~)· ~ ---~----------=-:..Ll.!J~~~..Y!:::..~S J<_ ~-~-· ___ __. ___ ..;i.t_C•ll~~v-v~· al ____________ _J ~(Ati-c ~7- -tM s-hz..u.k m--e. l.LJ~·------ ---~-----. -~_.;._ ~S :7.( 'j-v-~4:>l-~~1e. ---- . ~~-P7 -----....+-~· \P'V ~ ;._Q_ -t"J __ _ ~c: ~-~ \h~~ ~~ ____;:. ____________ _ 0 pt<" eJ: vi J=< lo.,lL J de~i~---------------11 -~Vl~ ~\@ ;~~~~tr-- ~-------------______ _____. ------- -------------:---------l ---------~-~----------~ 2<6 - ____ .....__,,.~---~ -_______ --__ ___._._.....______________ -- -G-t-~';;-~ uvss ~-ec~ __________ ._........ ---------------- ----------- ~~ (fV\ ~tJ_ ,,.:~. ~---~~~c...t ~\LG~~ ~---- tff*'l i &.Mt e.}.,tJVt / 4, p~ . ---lh-e 5ev't)vc. -pr>1 o~-~: . -p~h~- -~~(; )On...ob~---__ ___.. -lire.it~ ~"t"\- -~cAL-Pfl~ ~ O"!J/JO>v~fi~ ~ --~--n------~~ -~ .$-fup(-WI~ ---1 Vr-pn-t-1>Yvvh-~ J\ ___ ~ \3i<ufc_ -~ ~~ l ~ ------ . fi~1-~ -+ ~ ~ h.u.Jed-' -g<Utvt K\LtJ -~~----~ ~ p~· - -,,. fa~. ----------------~--- -----'--------------'"------....-------- ------------------U----- ---------------------------!!--- , . -~/ ---------------------JI;___ __ . ~r- -;;~-4-~~t o.Cc · 1 . ---i ~ -t-,tG~ ~""'< u_~t..>d -----------+!---- ----~'?· {~~v.A . '!l "\ ~~-----I---1---___,___ __ ---i.--~~=-__ ,_ /(J~ -=- ~Y\-Q - c---====~----- - Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use Final Report -June 29, 2018 Prepared for: The Michigan Department of Transportation Prepared by: Toole Design Group, LLC Rebecca Sanders, Ph.D. Hannah Pritchard, P.E., PTOE Wayne State University Steven Remias, Ph.D. Air.. TooleDestgnGroup ~ TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. SPR-1675 NIA NIA ~ 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use June 29, 2018 6. Performing Organization Code NIA 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Rebecca Sanders, Ph.D., Hannah Pritchard, P.E., PTOE, Steven NIA Remias, Ph.D. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. Toole Design Group, LLC NIA 8484 Georgia Ave, Suite 800 11. Contract or Grant No. Silver Spring, MD 20910 2016-0274 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) Final Report, 611/2016 to Research Administration 613012018 8885 Ricks Road 14. Sponsoring Agency Code P.O. Box 33049 NIA Lansing, Michigan 48909 15. Supplementary Notes Conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. MDOT research reports are available at www.michigan.govlmdotresearch. Alternate title: Development of Differential Criteria for Determining Appropriateness of Sidepath Applications for Bicycle Use Project website: www.michigan/govlmdot-Side2athResearch 16. Abstract This project included a crash analysis, resident survey, the development of a practitioner guide titled "Sidepath Intersection and Crossing Treatment Guide," (the Guide) and the development of educational materials for Michigan practitioners and residents. An in-depth crash analysis was performed to understand the impacts of design, land use, traffic volumes, speeds, and other relevant variables on crash risks for bicyclists on sidepaths to characterize bicycle crashes in two Michigan Counties. An address-based survey (n=351) was conducted in fall 2016 to investigate attitudes toward bicycling among drivers and bicyclists, bicycling habits, barriers to bicycling, and roadway design preferences regarding bicycle infrastructure in Michigan. Using the results from the preference survey and the crash analysis, the team developed the Guide to lay out a straight-forward process for integrating best practices in sidepath design into a proposed roadway project. Five informational sheets were developed for distribution to drivers, bicyclists, and practitioners summarizing the findings of the crash analysis and best practices for driving and bicycling behaviors around sidepaths. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Bicycles, bikeways, sidepaths, crosswalks, crash No restrictions. This document is also available analysis, surveys, guidelines to the public through the Michigan Department of Transportation. - 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this 21. No. of Pages 22. Price iJ Unclassified page) 43 NIA Unclassified Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized Side Path Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use Disclaimer This publication is disseminated in the interest of information exchange. The Michigan Department of Transportation (hereinafter referred to as MOOT) expressly disclaims any liability, of any kind, or for any reason, that might otherwise arise out of any use of this publication or the information or data provided in the publication. MOOT further disclaims any responsibility for typographical errors or accuracy of the information provided or contained within this information. MOOT makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding the quality, content, completeness, suitability, adequacy, sequence, accuracy or timeliness of the information and data provided, or that the contents represent standards, specifications, or regulations. Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance and support of the following individuals: Rob Burchfield, P.E., Toole Design Group Bill Schultheiss, P.E., Toole Design Group Belinda Judelman, MURP, Toole Design Group Ashley Haire, Ph.D., P.E., Toole Design Group Darren Flusche, MPP, Toole Design Group Jesse Boudart, P.E., Toole Design Group Carissa McQuiston, P.E., Nonmotorized Safety Engineer Deb Alfonso, Supervisor lntermodal Services Unit Jason Latham, Planning Manager, Southwest Region Suzette Peplinski, P.E., Traffic, Safety and Operations Engineer, Grand Region Tom Pozolo, P.E., Operations Engineer, Oakland TSC Metro Region Brian Pawlik, Bicycle and Pedestrian Planner, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments JA TooleDesignGroup Side Path Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................... I Key Research Findings ........................................................................... 2 Sidepath Intersection and Crossing Treatment Guide .................. 3 Educational Materials ............................................................................. 5 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 5 Chapter I -Introduction and Project Overview .......................................... 6 I. I Report Overview .................................................................................... 6 1.2 About the Research T earn .................................................................... 7 Chapter 2 -Overview of Crash Analysis and Key Findings ........................ 8 2.1 Statewide Bicycle Crash Analys is ........................................................ 8 Data Collection and Methodology ..................................................... 8 2.2 Case-Control Analysis ........................................................................... 8 Data Collection and Methodology ..................................................... 8 2.3 Oakland and Kent Counties Analysis ................................................. 9 Data Collection and Methodology ..................................................... 9 2.4 Key Findings ............................................................................................ I 0 Statewide Analysis ................................................................................ I 0 Case-Control Analysis ......................................................................... 11 Oakland and Kent County Analysis .................................................. I I 2.5 Conclusions ............................................................................................ 13 Chapter 3 -Overview of Survey Methodology and Key Findings ........... 14 3.1 Methodology ........................................................................................... 14 Survey Construction and Recruitment.. .......................................... 14 Respondent Cyclist Typology ............................................................ 14 3.2 Key Findings ............................................................................................ 15 Participant Characteristics .................................................................. 15 Barriers for Bicycling ............................................................................ 15 Factors That Encourage More Bicycling .......................................... 15 Comfort and Roadway Design .......................................................... 16 3.3 Conclusions ............................................................................................ 17 Chapter 4 -Overview of Sidepath Intersection and C rossing Treatment Guide Development Process ............................................................................ 18 ii Alt. TooleDestgnGroup ~~ Side Path Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use 4.1 Development of the Guide ................................................................. 19 4.2 Designing for Conflicts with Turning Vehicles ............................... 19 4.3 Designing for Contra-Flow Bicycle Traffic ...................................... 20 4.4 Guide Application .................................................................................. 20 4.5 Conclusions ............................................................................................ 22 Chapter 5 -Overview of Educational Materials Development Process 23 5.1 Fact Sheet Process ................................................................................ 23 Determining the Content ................................................................... 23 5.2 Video Script Development Process .................................................. 24 Chapter 6 -Conclusion ..................................................................................... 25 Appendix A. Educational Cut-Sheets .............................................................. 26 Appendix B. Sidepath Safety Research Video Script ................................... 27 Figures in Report Figure I. Example Sidepath in Context ........................................................................................................................ I Figure 2. Sidepath Design Process ................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3. Tier I Driveway Intersection Treatment, Medium Usage ..................................................................... .4 Figure 4. Bicycle Crash and Injury Severity by Month ............................................................................................ I 0 Figure 5. Bicycle Crash Severity and Location .......................................................................................................... 11 Figure 6. Injury Severity for Bicycle Crashes on Sidepaths/Sidewalks Compared to Roadways .................. I I Figure 7. Number of Crashes Based on AADT of C rossing Street .................................................................... 12 Figure 8. Crash Type Diagram of a Motorist Drive-Out Crash ........................................................................... 12 Figure 9. Factors That Encourage Bicycling More Often ....................................................................................... 16 Figure I 0. Roadway Design Preferences by Percentage of Respondents Who Would Feel Comfortable Bicycling in Various Scenarios ....................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 11 . Example Sidepath in a Suburban Context .............................................................................................. 18 Figure 12. MUTCD RI 0-15 Turning Vehicles Yield to Pedestrians and Bicyclists Sign .................................. 19 Figure 13. Colorado DOT's Non-MUTCD Sidepath Warning Sign .................................................................... 20 iii hi. TooleDestgnGroup ~ Side Path Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use Figure 14. Tier I Driveway Intersection Treatment, Medium Usage ................................................................. 22 Tables in Report Table I. Tier I Facility -Driveway Intersection, Medium Usage .......................................................................... .4 Table 2. Top Ranked PBCAT Classifications for Bicycle Crashes Traveling Against Traffic on Sidepaths/Sidewalks ......................................................................................................................................................... I 3 Table 3. Top Ranked PBCAT Classifications for Bicycle Crashes Traveling with Traffic on Sidepath/Sidewalks ........................................................................................................................................................... 13 Table 4. Tier I Facility -Driveway Intersection, Medium Usage ......................................................................... 21 iv ~ TooleDestgnGroup ~ Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use Executive Summary Sidepaths are used throughout the state of Figure I. Example Sidepath in Context Michigan to provide a separated pedestrian and bicycle facility for nonmotorized users. These facilities are often constructed adjacent to state or county roads and are generally implemented when roadway modifications are made. Sidepaths provide more separation than on-street bicycle facilities and have the potential to create a comfortable environment for bicyclists when well- designed. However, past research has not been clear on sidepath safety, resulting in some hesitation for building them -regardless of community desires. More recent research by Petritsch et al. (2006) 1 created a sidepath safety model focusing on facility width, distance from roadway, posted roadway speed, and number of road lanes in Florida. The model showed that sidepaths with 7-foot widths were the safest facility design. The model also showed that sidepaths on roadways with speed limits higher than 45 mph should have more separation from the roadway, whereas sidepaths located on roadways with speed limits less than 45 mph can be closer to the roadway. These buffer distances are necessary in order to provide a higher level of safety. Lusk et al. (2013)2 analyzed and compared bicycle facility guidelines from 1972 to 1999 for cities in the United States. They also analyzed cycle track design and crash history for 19 locations. They found that AASHTO guidelines against the use of cycle tracks are not based on in-depth or current research. Through their research, they were able to show that the crash rate for cycle tracks is 2.3 per million bicycle kilometers, far lower than the current published values for on-road cycling crash rates. In addition to a lack of clarity in research findings, no notable studies of sidepath safety have been conducted in Michigan. To fill this existing gap in research and support their sidepath efforts, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) funded the Development of Differential Criteria for Determining the Appropriateness of 'Side-Path' Applications for Bicycle Use in 2016. The purpose of this project is to explore Michigan residents' bicycle facility preferences and attitudes and behaviors 1 Petritsch, T.A., B.W . Landis, H.F. Huang, S.K. Challa. Sidepath safety model -bicycle sidepath design factors affecting crash rates. In Transportation Research Record 1982 , TRB, National Research Council, W ashington, D.C., 2006. pp. 194-20 I. doi: http://dx.doi.org/ I 0.3141I1982-25. 2 Lusk, A. C., P. Morency, L. F. Miranda-Moreno, W . C. Willett, and J. T. Dennerlein. Bicycle guidelines and crash rates on cycle tracks in the United States. American journal of Public Health: July 2013, Vol. I 03, No. 7, pp. 1240- 1248. doi: I 0.2105/AJPH.2012.30 I 043. Ai. TooleDestgnGroup ~ Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use toward bicycling, and to conduct primary research to understand bicycle crash characteristics along sidepaths in the service of better sidepath design guidance. Toole Design Group (TOG) led this effort, with Wayne State University as a key partner in conducting the sidepath safety analysis. Key Research Findings The research team conducted a safety analysis with six years of bicycle-related crashes occurring in Kent and Oakland counties. Due to constraints in crash data report descriptions as well as usage patterns in the area, sidepath crashes and sidewalk crashes were combined into one crash category. Below are the five statistically significant trends found in the data. • Bicyclists riding against traffic are at higher risk than those rid ing with traffic. • In particular: o Bicyclists riding against traffic have a higher risk of crashes with right-turning vehicles. o Bicyclists riding against traffic have a higher crash risk at commercial driveways and signalized intersections. • Bicyclists riding through signalized intersections have a higher risk than at intersections with other types of traffic control, which may be due in part to higher vehicle volumes at those intersections. • At signalized and unsignalized intersections, sidepath/sidewalk bicycle crashes tend to occur with left-or right-turning vehicl es. The research team also conducted a survey of Michigan residents to understand roadway design preferences when bicycling with children, bicycling alone, and driving on multi-lane, commercial streets. The findings overwhelmingly suggested a preference for more bicycle accommodations, and more separated facilities in particular. Seventy-five percent of all survey respondents indicated that the installation of separated bicycle facilities would encourage them to bicycle more, with almost twice as many rare cycl ists (those who bicycle occasionally, but less than once a month) choosing separated bike facilities over more facilities in general. Relatedly, safety concerns, distance, and weather appeared to be the most limiting barriers for all cyclist types. Nearly 89 percent of respondents reported that safety concerns about riding in fast and/or busy traffic at least somewhat limited their ability to bike to work or school, with 68 percent saying that safety concerns limited them "quite a lot" or "absolutely." As expected, frequent cyclists were less likely to indicate barriers than other cyclists. The presence of bicycle facilities also increases respondents' comfort and willingness to try bicycling on a roadway. Most respondents would feel considerably more comfortable bicycling on a roadway with any type of bike facility over one lacking a bicycle facility, and this preference was even stronger when the facility was separated from drivers by a physical barrier. Separation was even more important when considering cycling with children, with comfort levels declining rapidly without separation from cars when children are considered. Respondents were also more likely to indicate comfort while driving with greater separation from bicyclists. While the public clearly prefers separated bicycle facilities, such as sidepaths, bicyclists using these facilities can potentially experience conflicts with motorists, especially with left or right turning motorists at intersections. Armed with these findings , the research team developed the evidence-based Sidepath Intersection and Crossing Treatment Guide in an effort to guide decision-making and mitigate conflicts between sidepath users and motorists. 2 ~ TooleDestgnGroup ~ Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use Sidepath Intersection and Crossing Treatment Guide The Sidepath Intersection and Crossing Treatment Guide assumes that the designers have determined a sidepath is the desired facility to accommodate bicyclists in a given corridor; as such, this guide facilitates a method for selecting and designing appropriate sidepath infrastructure. The method can be replicated and tailored to each sidepath project and allows for the incorporation of sidepaths in primarily three different types of projects: A) New construction B) Reconstruction/expansion projects C) Construction projects within existing right of way The flexible method described in the toolkit is shown in Figure 2 below. Figure 2. Sidepath Design Process ,/' / Identify corridor .. /liJ e Collect data ··~,,,.,,,,,· / ·"' ,/ Select "-/. . f mtersect1on I treatments ~~-e Review crash history Determine J , achievable sidepath.) width ./ 1 In addition to providing a replicable method, the toolkit provides intersection treatment practices that prioritize bicycle safety at the most crucial locations: where sidepath users interact with motorists. The team created a tiered system for intersection treatments, with the highest tier, Tier I, indicating the optimal sidepath intersection treatment. For instance, a Tier I intersection treatment for a driveway intersection with medium usage (I 0-50 vehicles per hour crossing a two-way sidepath) has a selection of elements and addresses the intersection treatment categories shown in Table I and Figure 3. 3 Al TooleDestgnGroup ~ Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use Table I. Tier I Facility -Driveway Intersection, Medium Usage Intersection Treatment Category T tm t . Sidepath rea en Crossing Speed Motorist stop/yield signs -Bicyclists have priority through intersection. Raised crossing • Motorists ramp up to sidepath by at least 6 inches and crossing hump is designed for I 0 mph. Signs -Sidepath user warning signs are provided to alert motorists to their potential presence. Striping -White pavement markings across the intersection crossing increase sidepath user visibility. Figure 3. Tier I Driveway Intersection Treatment, Medium Usage3 ~ . . P . . R d . User nonty e uct1on v· ·b·i· ISi 1 lty di~ [Priority •-~---"-'~·-Signs _: - Optimally, motorist stop/yield signs should be installed at these intersections, which ensures bicyclists have crossing priority. A stop sign warrant should be performed. Raised crossings can also reduce speed and increase the sidepath user visibility. Signs indicating that sidepath users may be crossing an approaching intersection and striping across the intersection also help to increase the sidepath users' visibility. 3 As of June 2018, the use of the RI 0-1 Sb as portrayed in Figure 3 is not consistent with the current MUTCD standards. This sign is currently only suggested for use at signalized intersections, and will require FHWA approval. 4 ~ TooleDestgnGroup ~ Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use The described design process is intended to provide the designer with sufficient information to create an optimal sidepath design. However, no guide can anticipate every context or design situation, and engineering judgment should always be used when considering nonmotorized facilities. Educational Materials The project team also worked to create educational materials that MDOT can use to inform bicyclists and motorists about safe bicycling and driving practices on and around sidepaths. Combined with an educational video that MDOT plans to produce, these materials aim to build on the improvements in sidepath design by instructing and encouraging safe behavior. Conclusion This project used an in-depth crash analysis and survey of Michigan residents to clarify safety problems for sidepath usage and the larger transportation context in which sidepaths are a design option. The Sidepath Intersection and Crossing Treatment Guide and educational materials developed from the research will hopefully improve bicycling safety on these desirable facilities in Michigan and beyond. 5 /, . /A TooleDes1gnGroup Rv:i/J ~ Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use Chapter I -Introduction and Project Overview Sidepaths are used throughout the state of Michigan to provide a separated pedestrian and bicycle facility for nonmotorized users. These facilities are often constructed adjacent to state or county roads and are generally implemented when roadway modifications are made. In an effort to further understand the public's bicycle facility preferences, sidepath safety, and appropriate sidepath design, and to improve the selection of the most appropriate bikeway in conjunction with proposed roadway projects, in 20 16 the Michigan Department of Transportation (MOOT) funded the Development of Differential Criteria for Determining the Appropriateness of 'Side-Path' Applications for Bicycle Use project (the Project). The resulting work supports evidence-based decision-making for the design and implementation of sidepaths and provides a body of educational materials for MOOT and other agencies to use to promote the safety of bicyclists. I. I Report Overview The Project had four key components, each described in the following chapters in this report: Chapter 2 -Sidepath Crash Analysis This chapter provides an overview of the crash analysis conducted to examine bicycle crashes by facility type in Michigan. The crash analysis aimed to understand the impacts of design, land use, traffic volumes, speeds, and other relevant variables on crash risks for bicyclists on sidepaths. There were three components to the analysis: I) A statewide analysis to understand general bicycle crash characteristics; 2) A case-control methodology for eight counties to conduct a bi-and multi-variate analysis to understand characteristics of bicycle crashes on sidepaths; and 3) An in-depth comparison of sidepath crashes to non-sidepath crashes in two high-crash counties in Michigan. Chapter 3 -Residential Survey This chapter gives an overview of the address-based survey (n=35 I) conducted in fall 2016 to provide insight that could inform the development of the ultimate sidepath Guide. In particular, the survey investigated attitudes toward bicycling among drivers and bicyclists, bicycling habits, barriers to bicycling, and roadway design preferences regarding bicycle infrastructure in Michigan. The survey was the first of its kind to explore design preferences while bicycling with children, bicycling by oneself, and driving. Chapter 4 -Sidepath Intersection and Crossing Treatment Guide This chapter provides an overview of the key deliverable of this project, the Sidepath Intersection and Crossing Treatment Guide. Using the results from the preference survey and the crash analysis, the team developed the Guide to lay out a straight-forward process for integrating best practices in sidepath design into a proposed roadway project. Chapter 5 -Educational Materials This chapter describes the process used to develop the fact sheets and a video script about bicycle safety aimed to educate both bicyclists and drivers on safe behavior. The report concludes with a final concluding chapter and appendices for the educational materials. 6 ~ TooleDesignGroup ~ ·, Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use 1.2 About the Research T earn The research team consisted of Toole Design Group (TDG) and Wayne State University (WSU). TDG managed the project, conducted the survey and analyzed the data, and developed the Sidepath Intersection and Crossing Treatment Guide and related educational materials. WSU conducted the crash analysis and supported the survey. All efforts were reviewed and supported by Josh DeBruyn, MDOT's Pedestrian and Bicycle Coordinator, and the Research Advisory Panel. 7 A.. TooleDesignGroup ~ Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use Chapter 2 -Overview of Crash Analysis and Key Findings WSU led a bicycle crash analysis to understand the impacts of design, land use, traffic volumes, speeds and other relevant variables on crash risk, particularly for bicyclists on sidepaths.4 The research had three components: I) A statewide analysis to understand general bicycle crash characteristics; 2) A case-control methodology for eight counties to conduct a bi-and multi-variate analysis to understand characteristics of bicycle crashes on sidepaths; and 3) An in-depth examination of two high-crash counties to compare sidepath crashes to non- sidepath crashes. 2.1 Statewide Bicycle Crash Analysis Data Collection and Methodology To examine general bicycle crash characteristics, WSU obtained data from the Michigan Traffic Crash Facts website (www.michigantrafficcrashfacts.org). The Team aggregated data from the years 20 I 0 through 2015 to understand temporal attributes of bicycle crashes, injury severity, roadway location, and demographics of those involved in crashes. 2.2 Case-Control Analysis Data Collection and Methodology WSU initially applied a simple case-control framework to eight counties with high bicycle-vehicle crash rates: Allegan, Kalamazoo, Kent, Macomb, Oakland, Ottawa, Washtenaw, and Wayne. Case sites were intersections with two or more bicycle crashes and control sites were intersections with one or no bicycle crashes. The team then compared the following characteristics from the case sites to the control sites, collected through state crash records, police crash reports and GPS location: • Number and severity of bike crashes, • Number and severity of car crashes, • Vehicle AADT (annual average daily travel) for intersections, • Bicycle volume (either manually collected or approximated using STRAVA data), • Roadway geometry, • Sidepath geometry, • Crosswalk geometry, • Miscellaneous geometry (e.g., land use and intersection angle for right turns), and • Census data. Each variable was analyzed to determine its relationship to crash outcomes. The team then used multi-variate analysis to analyze the sub-selection of variables that appeared to have a significant correlation with crash outcomes. This closer look at how variables interact between case 4 Please see the final report for additional details, found at www.michigan.gov/mdot-SidepathResearch. r . ' ' 8 ~ TooleDestgnGroup ~ Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use and control sites allowed the team to understand how combinations of variables may result in locations with a higher number of bicycle crashes. The multivariate analysis did not reveal any significant findings, so the team then employed a more in-depth case study approach, discussed further in the following section. 2.3 Oakland and Kent Counties Analysis Data Collection and Methodology Because multi-variate findings had limited significance, the research team implemented a case-study approach to further examine bicycle crashes on sidepaths. Two Michigan counties with high numbers of bicycle crashes and diverse geography were selected for this additional crash analysis: Oakland and Kent counties. Crash Data A total of 2,253 reports and their attendant crash descriptions were reviewed to obtain information on the types of facilities present and the actions involved in the bicycle crashes. The crash itself was given a three-digit coding as described by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT). This coding was selected to best describe the situational aspects surrounding the crash and are listed below: • 111 -Motorist Turning Error -Left Turn • 112 -Motorist Turning Error • 114 -Bicyclist Turning Error -Left Turn • I IS -Bicyclist Turning Error -Right Turn • 120 -Bicyclist Lost Control • 130 -Motorist Lost Control • 141 -Motorist Drive Out -Sign-Controlled Intersection • 142 -Bicyclist Ride Out -Sign-Controlled Intersection • 143-Motorist Drive Through -Sign- Controlled Intersection • 144 -Bicyclist Ride Through -Sign- Controlled Intersection • 147 -Multiple Threat -Sign-Controlled Intersection • I S2 -Motorist Drive Out -Signalized Intersection • I S3 -Bicyclist Rid e Out -Signalized Intersection • I S4 -Motorist Drive Through -Signalized Intersection Geometry data • I SS -Bicyclist Ride Through -Signalized Intersection • I S6 -Bicyclist Failed to Clear -Trapped • I S7 -Bicyclist Failed to Clear -Multiple Threat • 211 -Motorist Left Turn -Same Direction • 212 -Motorist Left Turn -Opposite Direction • 213 -Motorist Right Turn -Same Direction • 214 -Motorist Right Turn -Opposite Direction • 21 S -Motorist Drive-In I Out Parking • 221 -Bicyclist Left Turn -Same Direction • 222 -Bicyclist Left Turn -Opposite Direction • 223 -Bicyclist Right Turn -Same Direction • 224 -Bicyclist Right Turn -Opposite Direction • 22S -Bicyclist Ride Out -Parallel Path • 231 -Motorist Overtaking -Undetected Bicyclist • 232 -Motorist Overtaking -Misjudged Space • 23S -Motorist Overtaking -Bicyclist Swerved • 241 -Bicyclist Overtaking -Passing on Right • 800 -Unusual Circumstances • 242 -Bicyclist Overtaking -Passing on Left • 243 -Bicyclist Overtaking -Parked Vehicle • 244 -Bicyclist Overtaking - Extended Door • 2SO -Head-on Bicyclist I Motorist I Unknown • 3 11 -Bicyclist Ride Out - Residential Driveway • 320 -Motorist Failed to Yield - Midblock • 321 -Motorist Drive Out - Residential Driveway • 3S7 -Multiple Threat -Midblock • 400 -Bicycle Only • 600 - Backing Vehicle • 700 -Play Vehicle-Related The following geometry variables were collected via Google Earth for all 2,253 bicycle crashes: • Control type, • Number of designated left turns, • Total lanes of roadway being crossed, • Number of designated right turns, • Number of through/combined lanes, • Number of entering lanes on crosswalk, 9 I . A I& TooleDes1gnGroup Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use • Whether roadway is one-way or two-• Number of right turns entering way, crosswalk, • Presence of median-buffer lane, • Number of through-lanes on adjacent • Number of lanes entering intersection, roadway, • Number of left turns entering • One-way or two-way adjacent road, crosswalk, and • Presence of opposing bicycle facility . To the extent data was available, traffic volumes were also considered. 2.4 Key Findings Statewide Analysis Over the six-year period from 20 I 0 to 2015 in Michigan, bicycle crashes increased as the months became warmer and decreased as temperatures dropped. Logically, this supports the notion that warmer weather tends to increase the volume of bicyclists and thus their exposure levels. The number of fatalities is dependent on overall crash numbers and ranged from 1.5 to 3 percent of overall crash totals. Higher fatality rates were observed in winter months when increased darkness and poorer weather conditions may contribute to increased crash risk due to visibility and braking issues (Figure 4). Figure 4. Bicycle Crash and Injury Severity by Month 2000 O #of Non-Fatal Crashes 24 1800 lil #of Fatal Crashes ---23-- 1600 18 -19 1400 ~ 1200 18 16 .c Vl ~ 1000 u 1717 12 '+-800 0 14 1527 :it 11 600 .. 1201 . 1151 400 8 4 609 629 200 4 384 186 136 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec The majority of crashes did not result in a severe or fatal injury. Of the I 1,305 crashes that occurred statewide, 1,086 (9.6 percent) resulted in severe injury or death. In terms of the location of the crashes, two-thirds of all crashes occurred at roadway intersections or in driveway areas. Twenty-nine percent of all crashes occurred along the roadways. These values are seen in Figure 5. " 10 I. A ~:r-:!/J /& TooleDes1gnGroup ~ Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use Figure 5. Bicycle Crash Severity and Location Bicycle Crash Severity Bicycle Crash By Roadway Location 1% No Injury Fr.:eway Possib le Injury [ Other ] Evident Injury Intersection/ Driveway Disabling Injury Fatality ( Roadway ) Case-Control Analysis The in itial case-control analysis indicated a significant relationship between an intersection having two o r more bicycle crashes and several variables, including median presence, crosswalk presence, intersection curb presence, facility width, AADT, and multi-unit residential land use. Lack of a curb, the presence of multiple sidepaths, any adjacent land use, facility terminus, and a path distance from the roadway of 21 to 30 feet were found to be attributes of control sites, or safer intersections for bicyclists. However, the multi-variate analysis resulted in limited significant variables to make wide-scale transportation decisions. The lack of strong results from the multivariate analysis prompted a change in approach and supported using Oakland and Kent counties as in-depth case studies. O akland and Kent County Analysis Analyzing Oakland and Kent counties in-depth gave the team an opportunity to understand more detail around bicycle crashes along sidepaths or sidewalks in comparison to roadways. Of the total crashes that occurre·d in both counties between 20 I 0 and 2015, more crashes occurred on sidepaths and sidewalks (65 percent) rather than on roadways (31 percent). However, injury severity was more severe for those that occurred on roadways (Figure 6): 16 percent of roadway crashes resulted in an incapacitating injury or fatal outcome, compared to just 5 percent on sidewalks or sidepaths. Figure 6. Injury Severity for Bicycle Crashes on Sidepaths/Sidewalks Compared lo Roadways No lniurv Possible Injury Evident Injury Disabling Injury Fatal Injuries for Sidewalk/Sidepath Bicycle Crashes 5% 18% 0% 35% 42% 11 Injuries for Roadway Bicycle Crashes 2% 15% ' 35% 37% Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use Another key finding is that the number of bicycle crashes on sidewalks and sidepaths is substantially higher when the bicyclist is traveling against traffic (65 percent) than with traffic (3 I percent). Additionally, more collisions (43 percent) occurred when a bicycle was crossing a low volume roadway* than other facility types. When looking at just the sidewalk/sidepath facilities, the disparity is slightly higher, with 46 percent of crashes occurring when crossing low volume roadways (Figure 7). Figure 7. Number of Crashes Based on AAD T of Crossing Street 1200 1000 VI ~ 800 VI b 600 -;;: 400 200 0 All Crashes Only Sidepath or Sidewalk Crashes 961 409 347 292 1200 1000 "' 1! 800 VI b 600 0 400 ;:: 200 0 623 302 ..r\() ?>°' ,,.o,°> r::,x ,o~ ~'I> 1"~ >:>() ?>°' ?>°' ..r\x 'o~ ~'I> .... ~ ~...,-o,Oi O)' !:)<:j ' ~'I> ~<S o,Oi o,Oi <;;~...,-' ... ~- t> !:)~"'..,, ~"'"' .,,c:s ,_-.;; _(',c§f.... -""~"'"' '>; ._,.c:s '\,CS' ._,....,-,....,- *A low-volume roadway is defined as residential roads and driveways that do not have AADT collected. In terms of crash types, the top crash type in this study was the motorist drive-out, an example of which is pictured in Figure 8. This suggests a need to educate motorists to be more aware of bicyclists and to educate bicyclists to use caution when crossing intersections or driveways. Image source: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT); modified by TDG The prevalence of crash types differed when the cyclist's direction of travel was considered: the top crash type for bicyclists traveling with traffic on sidewalk/sidepaths was motorists turning right while traveling in the same direction ( 19.8 percent), whereas the top crash type for bicyclists traveling against traffic on sidewalk/sidepaths was motorists driving out at signalized intersections (31 percent) (see Table 2 and Table 3). 12 /& TooleDesignGroup ' I Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use Table 2. Top Ranked PBCAT Classifications for Bicycle Crashes Traveling Against Traffic on Sidepaths/Sidewalks Rank PBCAT Crash Type #of Crashes (%) I I S2 -Motorist Drive Out -Signalized Intersection 270 (30.S%) 2 141 -Motorist Drive Out -Sign-Controlled Intersection 227 (2S.6%) 3 321 -Motorist Drive Out -Residential Driveway 86 (9.7%) 4 214 -Motorist Right Turn -Opposite Direction 61 (6.9%) s I S3 -Bicyclist Ride Out -Signalized Intersection S6 (6.3%) 6 I SS -Bicyclist Ride Through -Signalized Intersection 46 (S.2%) 7 14 2 -Bicyclist Ride Out -Sign-Controlled Intersection 40 (4.S%) 8 211 -Motorist Left Turn -Same Direction 37 (4.2%) 9 120 -Bicyclist Lost Control 21 (2.4%) 10 I S6 -Bicyclist Failed to Clear -Traooed 8 (0.9%) Table 3. Top Ranked PBCA T Classifications for Bicycle Crashes Traveling with Traffic on Sidepath/Sidewalks Rank PBCAT Crash Type # of Crashes (%) I 213 -Motorist Right Turn -Same Direction 8S (19.8%) 2 212 -Motorist Left Turn -Opposite Direction 73 (17.0%) 3 I S2 -Motorist Drive Out -Signalized Intersection S9 (13.8%) 4 141 -Motorist Drive Out -Sign-Controlled Intersection SS (12.8%) s I SS -Bicyclist Ride Through -Signalized Intersection 3S (8.2%) 6 I S3 -Bicycl ist Ride Out -Signalized Intersection 2S (S .8%) 7 321 -Motorist Drive Out -Residential Driveway 20 (4.7%) 8 I S6 -Bicyclist Failed to Clear -Trapped 18 (4.2%) 9 142 -Bicyclist Ride Out -Sign-Controlled Intersection 11 (2.6%) 10 120 -Bicyclist Lost Control I 0 (2.3%) 2.5 Conclusions These findings underscore the extent to which direction of travel impacts bicycle safety, provide insight into the safety dynamics of sidepaths and sidewalks versus the roadway, and clarify the top crash types to target when sidepaths are constructed. These insights were incorporated into the Sidepath Intersection and Crossing Treatment Guide described in Chapter 4 and the educational materials described in Chapter 5. The analysis also provided insight into some of the limitations of using bicycle crash data to diagnose bicycle safety issues; in particular, a lack of exposure data to contextualize bicycle crash frequency precludes the development of meaningful crash rates. Additional information collected as part of crash reports could contribute to new crash mitigation techniques and design features. In the future, as these data are collected more regularly, additional research and modeling can improve crash modification factors and help clarify underlying factors that contribute to bicycle crashes. 13 ""TooleDestgnGroup ~ Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use Chapter 3 -Overview of Survey Methodology and Key Findings TDG conducted an address-based sample survey (n=35 I) in fall 2016 to understand the public's bicycle facility preferences, barriers to bicycling, and factors that encourage bicycling.s The purpose of the survey was to help understand and integrate the public's perspective in the development of the sidepath design recommendations. 3.1 Methodology Survey Construction and Recruitment In October 2016, approximately 5,000 letters printed in both English and Spanish were mailed to a random selection of Michigan residents who were in the telephone directory asking them to take the survey. The letter explained the purpose of the survey and directed the recipients to the website www.michdrivebike.org, where there was a link to take the survey in either English or Spanish; recipients could also request a paper copy of the survey. To mitigate potential response bias, the letter requested that only the person in the household whose birthday was most recent and who was at least age 18 take the survey. Privately donated survey incentives of a $5 "gourmet coffee gift card" were offered for participation. Respondent Cyclist Typology To facilitate analysis, respondents were categorized according to how often they bicycled for "work/school," "transportation other than to work or school (e.g., errands)," and recreation or exercise. The categories equated to the following: • Frequent cyclist (n= 116): Respondent who reported bicycling at least once a week for any purpose (transportation, recreation, or exercise), and not being "absolutely limited" by not having a bike or not knowing how to ride a bike. • Occasional cyclist (n=83): Respondent who reported bicycling at least once a month (but less than once a week) for any purpose, or reported biking at least once a week but also reported being "absolutely limited" by not having a bike or not knowing how to bike. • Rare cyclist (n=93): Respondent who reported bicycling occasionally, but less than once a month for any purpose. • Never cyclist (n=54): Respondent who reported never bicycling for any purpose; or who did not indicate how often they bike for a particular purpose but is either "absolutely limited" by not knowing how to ride a bike or not owning a bike, or indicated that they "cannot bike at all." Five respondents were unable to be classified because they did not provide sufficient information about their bicycling frequency and ability. 5 The full report of survey findings can be found at www.michigan.gov/ (insert link for final location) 14 ~ TooleDestgnGroup ~ Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use 3.2 Key Findings Participant C haracteristics The 35 I respondents live in more than 20 different cities and towns across Michigan, ranging in size from less than 3,000 to more than 500,000. The median age range of respondents was 45 to 54. There were more respondents older than age 65 than between th!) ages of 18 and 24, which may be due to the representation of those age groups in a telephone directory-based sample. As seen in the description of the cyclist typology in Section 3.1, the respondents represented a range of cycling frequencies and abilities. Respondents were also asked about their commute habits and how often they bicycle for "transportation other than to work or school," fun/recreation/leisure, and exercise/fitness. Nearly 90 percent of the sample drives alone to work or school at least once a week. However, the sample also includes a fair amount of walking and bicycling, with approximately 26 percent walking to work or school at least once a week, and approximately 14 percent bicycling at least once a week for the same purpose. Barriers for Bicycling Safety concerns, distance, and weather appeared to be the most limiting barriers for all cyclist types. Nearly 89 percent of respondents reported that safety concerns about riding in fast and/or busy traffic at least somewhat limited their ability to bike to work or school, with 68 percent saying that safety concerns limited them "quite a lot" or "absolutely." Frequent cyclists were less likely to indicate barriers than other cyclists but seemed more focused on safety and roadway/infrastructure when they did indicate barriers. Moreover, the large majority (73 percent) of the sample agreed or strongly agreed with the idea that "many drivers don't seem to notice bicyclists," suggesting that people may not feel safe bicycling due to driver behavior. Factors That Encourage More Bicycling The findings overwhelmingly suggest a preference for more bicycle accommodations, and more separated facilities in particular (Figure 9). Seventy-five percent of all respondents indicated that the installation of separated bicycle facilities would encourage them to bicycle more. Rare cyclists were more likely to choose this response than occasional cyclists, corroborating past research finding that separated bicycle facilities are likely key to encouraging more cycling. The fact that about 72 percent of frequent cyclists also chose separated bike facilities suggests that this lack of comfort and safety is experienced even by those who currently bicycle. In comparison, about half of respondents indicated that adding more bicycle facilities/a complete bicycle network would encourage them to bicycle more. Only a minority of respondents suggested that improved law enforcement of motorist and cyclist behavior, easier access to education, and lower speed limits would encourage them to bicycle more. 15 ~ . ~)'('(}) n TooleDes1gnGroup ~ Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use Figure 9. Factors That Encourage Bicycling More O~en Separated bike facilities*** More bike facilities/a complete bike network*** Law enforcement of motorist behavior*** Law enforcement of bicyclist behavior*** Lower speed limits on roads w/ bike facilities*** Lower speed limits on roads w/out bike facilities*** Easy access to bike safety education*** 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percentage of respondents selecting the factor •Frequent cyclist (n = 116) •Occasional cyclist (n = 83) Rare cyclist (n = 93) !::! Never cyclist (n = 54) ***p < 0.001 Notes: Separated bicycle facil ities include those that provide increased separation from traffic (e.g., median, landscape buffer, etc.). Percentages do not add up to I 00 because respondents could choose up to three factors. Comfort and Roadway Design Figure I 0 shows an examination of comfort bicycling alone, bicycling with children, and driving near various types of bicycle facilities. Most respondents felt considerably more comfortable bicycling on a roadway with some type of bike facility over one with no facility; this preference is particularly strong when the facility was separated from drivers by a physical barrier. Separation was even more important when considering cycling with children, with comfort levels declining rapidly without separation from cars when children are considered. Respondents were also more likely to indicate comfort while driving with greater separation from bicyclists. When considering bicycling with children, however, comfort declines rapidly without separation from cars: less than 50 percent of the sample would be comfortable in a buffered bicycle lane; less than 20 percent would be comfortable in a regular bicycle lane on a four-lane roadway; and less than 2 percent would be comfortable on a four-lane roadway with no bicycle facility. These findings underscore the increased perceived vulnerability of bicycling with children and the commensurate need for clear and strong separation from traffic for comfort. 16 Ji. TooleDestgnGroup ~ Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use Figure I 0. Roadway Design Preferences by Percentage of Respondents Who Would Feel Comfortable Bicycling in Various Scenarios Sidepath adjacent to a four-lane roadway Separated bike lane on a four-lane roadway Bi-directional separated bike lane on a four-lane ro adway Buffered bike lane on a four-lane roadway Bike lane on a two-lane roadway Bike lane on a four-lane roadway No bike facility on a four-lane roadway 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Percentage of respondents who agree/completely agree •Comfortable for biking by myself •Comfortable for biking w/ children ISi Comfortable for driving 100% Comfort was also examined by type of bicycling (non-transport cycling compared to all-purpose cycling). The same preference order was found for both groups, although non-transport cyclists were significantly less likely to feel comfortable bicycling alone or with children than all-purpose cyclists on all facilities except the sidepath and separated bike lane designs. 3.3 Conclusions These findings underscore the importance of bicycle facilities -and particularly physically-separated bicycle facilities -on bicyclists' perceptions of comfort and propensity to bicycle. These insights were incorporated into the Sidepath Intersection and Crossing Treatment Guide described in the Chapter 4. 17 ~ TooleDestgnGroup ~ Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use Chapter 4 -Overview of Sidepath Intersection and Crossing Treatment Guide Development Process The initial intent of this task was the development of a tool for use by planners and designers to determine if the use of a sidepath was appropriate on a given corridor, based on the characteristics of that corridor. However, crash analysis findings in this research did not indicate that typical roadway features such as speed, average daily traffic (ADT), or driveway density were significant factors in sidepath crashes. Thus, there was no clear yes or no as to whether or not a sidepath should be built according to surrounding roadway features in conjunction with or in lieu of on-road facilities for bicyclists. Rather, the primary findings -that bicyclists riding against traffic and those experiencing conflicts with turning vehicles are at a greater risk of crash -suggested that a sidepath design guide may be a more useful tool. The decision to incorporate a sidepath into a corridor design therefore becomes a planning decision. The benefits of incorporating sidepaths into certain corridor contexts outweigh the drawbacks. For example, on suburban arterials, destinations, signalized intersections, and crossing opportunities are farther apart. These longer distances mean that crossing to the correct side of the street to ride with the direction of traffic is more challenging. In this context, vehicle speeds and volumes are higher, leading to a greater need for separation between modes. Providing a two-way sidepath along one side of the street allows for a comfortable bikeway to be included, while limiting the amount of right of way needed (see Figure 11 ). Figure I I. Example Sidepath in a Suburban Context Rather than providing guidelines on where not to install sidepaths, the development of this guide assumed that a sidepath had already been selected as the bikeway of choice for a given corridor. The following section provides some discussion of key features of the guide, which can be found at www.michigan.gov/mdot-SidepathResearch. 18 I.it._ TooleDestgnGroup ~ 'I Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use 4.1 Development of the Guide Based on experience designing sidepaths, bikeways at intersections, and trail crossings, TDG developed an eight-step process for designers to use to select and incorporate treatments that would improve bicyclists' safety at sidepath crossings and intersections. The guide provides suggestions such as sidepath offset distances, raised crossings, and signs. These treatment suggestions are based on best practices for designing trail crossings and intersection treatments as described in the Massachusetts DOT Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide and the upcoming revision to the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. The guide was reviewed by MDOT staff, including several engineers. Some of the suggested treatments go beyond MDOT's current standard practices. For example, at the time of this writing, the use of bicycle signals in order to provide exclusive bicycle phases is not currently standard practice in Michigan. However, multiple other states and municipalities have successfully used bicycle signals to separate bicycle and vehicle movements, so this treatment is included for consideration by Michigan designers. 4.2 Designing for Conflicts with Turning Vehicles Sidepath crossings at intersections can be considered crosswalks. The Michigan Vehicle Code defines a crosswalk but does not indicate whether drivers should yield to pedestrians. The Uniform Traffic Code (UTC) indicates that drivers should yield to pedestrians "within a crosswalk;" however, municipal adoption of the UTC is not required. This yield requirement, when in use, can be assumed to apply to bicyclists as well. The guide recommends signs indicating sidepath priority, such as stop or yield signs for the minor street, or the Turning Vehicles Yield to Pedestrians and Bicyclists sign (RI 0-1 Sb, pictured in Figure 12). As of June 2018, the use of the RI 0-1 Sb at unsignalized crossings is not consistent with the current MUTCD standards. This sign is currently only suggested for use at signalized intersections, and will require FHWA approval for this application. Figure 12. MUTCD RI 0-15 Turning Vehicles Yield to Pedestrians and Bicyclists Sign TURNING_. VEHICLES I - V 10 t MUTCD R10-15 In the event that the UTC has not been adopted in a Michigan community, the need to establish priority at a sidepath crossing is even greater. By defaulting to drivers yielding to sidepath users, safety for these users is improved with minimal delay for the driver. Design features that have been shown to improve yielding include stop/yield signs, raised crossings, smaller curb radii, an offset sidepath, warning signs, and striping. 19 AA. TooleDestgnGroup ~ Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use 4.3 Designing for Contra-Flow Bicycle Traffic On two-way streets, one-way bikeways on each side of the street are typically preferred over a two- way bikeway on one side of the street. However, in some situations, one-way bikeways are not practical or desirable. The guidance provided to address safety for contra-flow bicyclists acknowledges that, while contra-flow bicycling is less safe than riding with traffic, it is sometimes unavoidable. The guide provides suggestions on how to warn drivers of two-way bicycle traffic, such as the non-MUTCD sidepath warning sign in use by the Colorado DOT pictured in Figure 13. As of June 2018, this sign is not consistent with the current MUTCD standards, and will require FHWA approval its use. Figure 13. Colorado DOT's Non-MUTCD Sidepath Warning Sign The design treatments that encourage drivers to reduce their speed yield to sidepath users can also address safety for contra-flow bicyclists. 4.4 Guide Application The guide was developed based on trends established from crash data in Michigan. It's application, therefore, is oriented toward the context of sidepaths in Michigan. Its use is not limited to MOOT roadways since many sidepaths occur on city or county roads. As discussed, some of the suggested treatments go beyond MDOT's standard practice, so application of the guide should include communication with MOOT and ot her agencies with respect to sign placement, marking application, and the use of bicycle signals. The planning process described, as well as the recommended treatments, come from national best practices and could be applied in ot her states. The following design process is intended to provide the designer with sufficient information to create an optimal sidepath design. However, no guide can anticipate every context or design situation, and engineering judgment should always be used when considering nonmotorized facilities. The guide outlines an eight-step planning and design process that is intended to help the designer evaluate the sidepath context and document any barriers to incorporating the suggested treatments. These steps are: • Step I -Identify corridor • Step 2 -Collect data I ' 20 Ai.. TooleDestgnGroup ~ Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use • Step 3 -Review crash history • Step 4 -Assess existing bicycle network • Step 5 -Assess existing bikeways along the corridor • Step 6 -Determine achievable sidepath width • Step 7 -Select intersection treatments • Step 8 -Design and engineering Note that Step 4 encourages the designer to look outside the corridor they are focused on and evaluate how it fits into the larger bicycle network. In communities with a published bicycle plan, this step is straightforward. In communities where a bicycle plan has not been created, this step may require more consideration. Step 7 illustrates the suggested intersection treatments to address crossing priority, speed reduction, and sidepath user visibility. The suggested treatments are scaled based on the usage/traffic volumes at the intersection. A low-volume driveway requires fewer treatments than a high-volume intersection. The treatments used are graded on a tier system, with crossings incorporating more treatments achieving a higher tier. The highest tier, Tier I, is the optimal sidepath intersection treatment. For instance, a Tier I intersection treatment for a driveway with medium usage (I 0-50 vehicles per hour crossing a two-way sidepath) has several treatment elements that can address several of the identified intersection treatment categories, as shown below in Table 4 and illustrated in Figure 14. Optimally, motorist stop/yield signs should be installed at these intersections, which ensures bicyclists have crossing priority. A stop sign warrant should be performed. Raised crossings can also reduce speed and increase sidepath user visibility, benefiting both bicyclists and pedestrians. Signs indicating to motorists that there may be sidepath users at an approaching intersection and striping across the intersection also help to increase the visibility of sidepath users. Table 4. Tier I Facility -Driveway Intersection, Medium Usage Intersection Treatment Category T . Sidepath 'reatment Crossing Speed Motorist stop/yield signs -Bicyclists have priority through intersection. Raised crossing -Motorists ramp up to sidepath by at least 6 inches and crossing hump is designed for I 0 mph. Signs -Sidepath user warning signs are provided for motorists. Striping -White pavement markings are provided for the intersection crossing. 21 P . . R d . User nonty e uct1on v· ·b·1· ISi I ICY ~ & ~ » IA TooleDes1gnGroup ~ Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use Figure 14. Tier I Driveway Intersection Treatment, Medium Usage6 c .·--~-., •,,· _, ...... Signs 4.5 Conclusions The Sidepath Intersection and Crossing Treatment Guide was developed based on a detailed bicycle crash analysis and survey of roadway users' design preferences. Clearly, the sidepath is an important and preferred option in a designer's toolkit. This Guide provides a significant step forward in helping designers proactively address potential issues via safe sidepath design. The Guide is available to the public at www.michigan.gov/mdot-SidepathResearch. Aspects of the Guide were also incorporated into the educational materials described in the following chapter. 6 As of June 2018, the use of the RI 0-1 Sb as portrayed in Figure 3 is not consistent with the current MUTCD standards. This sign is currently only suggested for use at signalized intersections, and will require FHWA approval. 22 ~ TooleDestgnGroup ~ Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use Chapter 5 -Overview of Educational Materials D evelopment Process 5.1 Fact Sheet Process The goal of the fact sheets is to communicate to the public the key research findings and tips for safe bicycling on and driving near sidepaths. To develop content for the fact sheets, TDG consulted with MDOT staff to determine the topics most appropriate for a broad general audience. The team decided on the following five educational cut-sheets: I) Common Sidepath Crash Types 2) (Safety Tips for) Bicycling on Sidepaths 3) (Safety Tips for) Driving near Sidepaths 4) Why Build Sidepaths and Separated Bicycle Lanes? (Results of a Survey of Michiganders) 5) Sidepath Design Best Practices Determining the Content The team then reviewed the complete crash analyses, survey results, and design guidance to identify the key findings, safety lessons, and design imperatives resulting from the research. Highlights of these efforts relevant to the cut-sheets are described further below. Crash Analysis The research showed that crashes disproportionately occur at intersections and driveways, on quiet sidepaths where drivers may not expect or be looking for bicyclists, when drivers turn across sidepaths without looking for bicyclists, and when bicyclists are riding in the opposite direction as the motor vehicles on the adjacent roadway. Resident Survey The surveys showed that bicycling is popular in Michigan but that there are safety concerns about sharing the road with motor vehicles. A majority of respondents indicated that they would feel comfortable bicycling if there is separation between bicyclists and motor vehicles. This holds true for people driving, people biking by themselves, and people biking with children. Design Guidance The TDG team's design guidance recommended several features to improve safety, including signs, truck aprons, raised crossings, reduced curb radii, and pavement markings. Based on these findings, an outline was developed for each element with key data points, facts, and findings and reviewed with MOOT. Selecting the Graphic Approach To develop the graphic approach, TDG reviewed examples of safety-related, one-page infographics for inspiration and debated several visual approaches. The team decided to use Sketch-Up graphics to visualize bicyclists/motorist interactions and design features. The survey results were shown using bar charts. 23 ~ TooleDestgnGroup ~ Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use The fact sheets underwent several rounds of revisions with MDOT technical and communications staff. The final fact sheets concisely summarize the important safety and design findings of the research, and can be found in Appendix A. 5.2 Video Script Development Process Based on successful examples of informational videos, such as a popular separated bike lane usage video produced by the City of Fort Worth, TDG proposed that MDOT produce an educational video to share the results of the sidepath research. The video serves the following purposes: I . Familiarize people with the concept of sidepaths, 2. Show public support for separated bicycle infrastructure, and 3. Provide safety tips to drivers and bicyclists. MDOT provided a video script template with a column for visual notes on the left, the time in middle column, and the text for the narration in the right column. TDG then produced a draft script that defined sidepaths, showed supportive survey results, described MDOT's role in developing research, and presented tips to drivers and bicyclists for traveling on or near sidepaths. Much of the content was based on the previously approved fact sheet content, creating a mutually reinforcing public messaging campaign. MDOT provided initial feedback on the draft, which was incorporated into a follow-up draft that can be found in Appendix B of this report. MDOT will produce and market the final video. 24 ~ TooleDestgnGroup ~ Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use Chapter 6 -Conclusion This multi-pronged project provides robust research and supporting materials to allow for the implementation of sidepath designs that are grounded in research and best practices. Through research conducted as part of the project, it is evident that the public strongly prefers separated bicycle facilities, such as sidepaths, especially when bicycling with children but also as drivers. Survey respondents indicated that building more separated bicycle facilities and a more connected bicycle network will help encourage them to bicycle more. At the same time, safety while using sidepaths remains important. This research found that, while more crashes between vehicles and bicyclists occur on sidepaths and sidewalks in comparison to on roadways (not adjusted for bicycle volumes in these locations), these conflicts result in less severe injuries. The two most common vehicle actions that result in bicycle crashes along a sidepath for bicyclists traveling with traffic are right and left turns. Contrarily, the most common vehicle action that results in bicycle crashes when the bicyclist is traveling against traffic is the motorist driving out. Mitigating potential negative conflicts between bicyclists and vehicles along all roadways, and specifically along sidepaths, will provide a safe environment for the public to bicycle and feel comfortable, and will improve motorist and pedestrian safety in the process. The results of this research also informed the development of the Sidepath Intersection and Crossing Treatment Guide. This Guide can act as a resource to help mitigate points of conflict between bicyclists and vehicles along sidepaths. Using the proposed methodology and tiered intersection treatment, planners and engineers now have a methodology for how to improve safety and reduce the likelihood of crashes. The Guide proposes a holistic method to identify the optimal intersection treatment based on vehicular usage, intersection type, and available right of way. The Guide defines the purpose for each treatment at an intersection, which provides planners and designers with rationale for their decisions to prioritize safety along sidepaths. In addition to implementation, education is also an important aspect of creating behavioral change among both bicyclists and drivers. The educational cut-sheets and online video (once produced) will help raise awareness about crash risks for bicyclists and teach people how to behave safely. Ultimately, these educational materials may also encourage the public to bicycle more through providing a better understanding of how to do so safely. Potential next steps for MOOT to further this work include developing, implementing, and evaluating targeted bicycle safety campaigns using the educational materials created through this project. MOOT could consider researching the impacts on bicycling and driving behavior and safety when sidepaths are designed according to the Sidepath Intersection and Crossing Treatment Guide. 25 1'. TooleDestgnGroup ~ Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use Appendix A. Educational Cut-Sheets 26 ~ TooleDeslgnGroup ~ Common Sidepath Crash Types CRASH ANALYSIS FINDINGS A statistical analysis of sidepath crashes in Michigan found two statistically significant patterns in crashes. RIDING AGAINST THE DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC • Sidepaths are two-way facilities, yet bicyclists riding against traffic are at higher risk of a crash than those riding with traffic • Specifically, bicyclists riding against traffic have a higher risk of crash ing with right-turning vehicles than those riding with traffic • Bicyclists riding against traffic have a higher crash risk at commercial driveways and signalized intersections than those riding with traffic AT INTERSECTIONS • Bicyclists riding through signalized intersections-which generally have higher amounts of vehicle traffic- have a higher crash risk than at intersections with other types of traffic control • At intersections, sidepath bicycle crashes tend to occur with turning vehicles. Bicycling on Sidepaths SAFETY TIPS USE CAUTION AT INTERSECTIONS Watch for turning vehicles, which are involved in many of the bicycle crashes on sidepaths. Look for street signs indicating who has the right of way. USE CAUTION AT DRIVEWAYS Control your speed and be alert for cars and trucks at driveways. Drivers are often looking for gaps in traffic rather than bicyclists. Make eye contact to confirm that the driver can see you before asserting your right of way. BE ALERT WHEN RIDING AGAINST THE DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC On a two-way sidepath, bicyclists may ride in either direction. However, be especially alert when riding against the direction of traffic on the adjacent road. Drivers may not expect you to come from the opposite direction of motor veh icle traffic. Pay special attention when encountering the following: • Commercial driveways • Signalized intersections • Right-turning vehicles Research shows that the risk of a crash is high der these conditions. A sidepath provides people on bikes with their own space to ride next to a roadway. Drivers and bicyclists both find the separat ion more comfortable . Stay safe by keeping a lookout at intersections. Being aware and cautious during the following situations can improve safety and reduce the risk of crashes . Driving Near Sidepaths SAFETY TIPS ALWAYS EXPECT PEOPLE ON SIDEPATHS Crashes are more likely at crossings of less crowded sidepaths because drivers may not be expecting to see people on bikes there. Always look for sidepath users, even on quiet paths and at off-peak times. LOOK BOTH WAYS! Remember that people ride bikes in both directions on sidepaths. Look both ways when crossing sidepaths at driveways and intersections . BE CAREFUL MAKING TURNS, ESPECIALLY AT TRAFFIC LIGHTS Sidepath bicycle crashes at intersections tend to occur when drivers are mak ing turns. When making a turn, look both ways for people using sidepaths to avoid a crash. It's especially important to look for bicyclists at signalized intersections. You should always double check for people on bikes before turn ing, even if you have a green light. A sidepath provides people on bikes with their own space to ride next to a roadway. Drivers and bicyclists both find the separation more comfortable. Help keep everyone safe by keeping a lookout at sidepaths. Be prepared to slow down for turns and to look for people riding bikes in both directions. J Why Build Sidepaths and Separated Bicycle Lanes? • • FAVORABLE VIEWS OF Fj~ 'J\ BICYCLING AND WALKING Exercise is important . . •" ' . ' 88% Like the idea of sometimes walking or biking instead of taking a car Like biking Would like to see more people bicycling where they live 64% Q ' CONCERNS AND ~· ENCOURAGEMENT Drivers don't notice people on bikes Safety in fast or busy traffic inhibits biking for trips to work or school Separated bikeways would encourage them to bike more often RESULTS OF A SURVEY OF MICHIGANDERS* (iii) COMFORTABLE FOR DRIVING Separated bike lane on a four-lane roadway Sidepath adjacent to a four-lane roadway Bike lane on a four-lane roadway No bike facility on a four-lane roadway 0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% • o'to COMFORTABLE FOR BIKING Sidepath adjacent to a four-lane roadway Separated bike lane on a four-lane roadway Bike lane on a four-lane roadway No bike facility on a four-lane roadway 0 40% 60% 80% 100% • • COMFORTABLE FOR BIKING ~ WITH CHILDREN ~CJ For more information, see full reports. Sidepath adjacent to a four-lane roadway Separated bike lane on a four-lane roadway Bike lane on a four-lane roadway No bike facility on a four-lane roadway 0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% KEV: • Disagree or completely disagree • Neutral • Agree or completely agree *Footnote indicating the date and total response rate for the survey. See more information: www.michigan.gov/mdot-SidepathResearch Michigan Departme Si epath Design Best Practices HIGHLIGHTS Designers may reduce crash risk for bicyclists by raising the visibility of bicyclists going in both directions, establishing priority, and reducing speed. Following are some examples of how this can be achieved through treatments such as signs, truck aprons, and raised crossings. STANDARD SIGNS Providing clear signs and pavement markings warns motorists of a bicycle contraflow conflict. The guide shows v MDOT's Sidepath Intersection and Crossing Treatment Guide contains information on the latest state-of- the-practice principles for designing sidepath crossings. This handout highlights just some of the guidance. Refer to the full guide for more information on these designs and their application. The process in the guide is designed to help practitioners evaluate the appropriateness of elements such as those shown here. applicable regulatory, signal, and warning signs related to sidepaths and provides suggestions HERE 00 ~~ on when they should be used. MUTCD R1·5b NON-STANDARD SIGNS An option for warning motorists of contraflow bicycle conflict is the Rl 0-1 Sb sign, which is usually found at signalized locations. Use of this sign at unsignalized intersections will require FHWA approval. , RAISED CROSSINGS TURNING_. VEHICLES I r V ro1 MUTCD R10-1 Sb Creating a raised crossing encourages drivers to slow down and pay more attention to the cross ing, helping to achieve the desired vehicle speed and driver awareness. EXAMPLE INTERSECTION There are many designs for roads and sidepaths that improve safety for bicyclists . This example intersection graphic shows several treatments that designers may employ. O In this example, the stop sign for drivers gives bicyclists the priority through the intersection. At signalized intersections, this can be achieved using a dedicated bicycle signal phase or leading interval, depending on vehicle volumes. & A sign warns motorists to look for sidepath users ahead*. @ The curb radii entering and exiting the intersection are reduced to slow vehicles and increase motorist yielding. The truck apron shown allows for truck movements. The offset distance between the sidepath and the motorist travel lane is increased to slow vehicles. 0 The raised crossing is designed to slow motorists by requiring them to ramp up to the sidepath. This design also provides a level crossing for the sidepath users. 0 White intersection pavement markings are provided to alert drivers of the potential for crossing bicyclists. *The use of the Rl O· 1 Sb as portrayed in the figure above is not consistent with cu rrent MUTCD standards and will require FHWA approval. See more information: www.michigan.gov/ mdot-SidepathResearch ltMDOT Michigan Department of Transportation Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use Appendix B. Sidepath Safety Research Video Script (3:20) VIDEO Video of smil ing people riding bikes on a well- designed, two-way sidepath with people bicycling, walking, and adjacent motor vehicle movement. The following numbers appear large on the screen and fade after the bullet points are spoken: 81% 64% 73% 73% 89% --------.. .j:. • FAVORABLE VIEWS OF It' 'fi BICYCLING AND WALKING l.Se the idu f1f someti~ walking or biking in~ed of t4k.ing a car l.hbikinq "-: Woufd lik.t. to ~more jX'Ople bicydl"'J '"'"" thty u .. Q .. CONCERNS AND ~ ENCOURAGEMENT Drittfs don't notice~ on bkes Safety ifl fGt Of busr tmffic ifiMtiU bi 1KJ f01~ps to wctkorschoof Separatedbi~~woi.jd ~them tob~moteofte11 27 Time AUDIO (0 :00) Safe bicycling is an important and growing part of how Michiganders get around. (0:12) (0:15) (0:19) (0:24) (0:26) A recent Michigan Department of Transportation survey shows that a large majority of Michiganders: • Like the idea of occasionally walking or biking instead of taking a car (81% -% shown not spoken) • Would like to see more people bicycling where they live (64%} • And, enjoy riding bikes themselves (73%) But the survey also shows concerns that: • Drivers don't notice people on bikes (73%} • And that fast or busy traffic keeps people from biking to work or school {89%} ~ A \J...pJ) n TooleDes1gnGroup ~ ' Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use VIDEO Sidepath footage continues. Statistics -use the sidepath statistics for drivers, biking, and biking with children : ~ COMFORTABLE FOR DRIVING ..,., .............. ~ •four~roadway ~~JKfflflD• fOUf-t.nttNdW•J Eike laM °" I foy .. '8.x •·• ro.ad'#lf Mjijji Nobikefldrtyon1 -fwi~1Nlhr.-y -C1. IO'\ *"' ofo COMFORTABLE FOR BIKING -·-.,·~ IOU1'~~5J ' SeJ:.nledbblene011 1 I01JJ-Qnero.adi#lf Bh laM: °" 1 faur-Wle ~ - No bb f1Ci!itJ on~ :::. f01.:t-4anero.d"#lf I X'\ ~~le\ 10C\ ~• COMFORTABLE FOR BIKING WITH CHILDREN for INR infoim.UDn, stt #UI fepc>fb. """"'" ....... "'§; four-lfil'lf' roadwty Stpal1tedbilc:tt..!leon 1fCU1~ta.aw., .,.., .. ~ .......... ~ . -.....,., . Nobhf.ol1ty0fl1 ] rou1.t-iu....tw;sy I :lln. ~ ~ 100'\ ll:EY:.Cis1f!91w~~ ...... • Jqrlfa~.- "f-.i.iniu;,,,,th.datll-4t.ml~ r-btti._...,, Stt MOie infOfHl~M>!I: •-.mic~.ga.!mdot-Side,.thRne1n:h Footage of MOOT contructing a sidepath would be ideal. Video shows a driver stopping short for a bicyclist in a sidepath crosswalk. 28 Time (0:32) (0:40) AUDIO The Michigan Department of Transportation is always working to improve safety for everyone. One important tool for improving bicycle and pedestrian safety is known a (0:50) "sidepath." Side paths are used throughout the state to provide space for people walking and bicycling that is separated from traffic. These facilities are constructed along-side roadways - hence the name "sidepath." Sidepaths have benefits for people bicycling, walking, and driving. Survey respondents said sidepaths are comfortable for bicycling -and for bicycling with children. And ninety percent (90%) of drivers said they feel comfortable when there is a sidepath present next to a four-lane roadway. ~ TooleDestgnGroup ~ Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use VIDEO Time AUDIO TEXT appears: "When Driving" Video: View from a car, approaching a sidepath. (1 :08) Video shows a quiet sidepath. A bicyclist approaches an intersection; they are seen from driver's perspective. Driver slows and allows the bicyclist to pass. Bicyclist smiles and waves. Video : View from a car, approaching a sidepath. Bicyclists approach from both directions on the (1:30) sidepath. Pedestrian also present. View from outside of car of driver looking both ways and seeing MOOT and other agencies are bicyclists. Driver yields to people crossing in both installing sidepaths along some directions. roadways to improve safety and comfort for everyone. Video of signalized intersection with an adjacent (1:36) Although sidepaths separate bicyclists sidepath crossing. and walkers from traffic, crashes can (1:38) occur. Therefore, MOOT initiated a Driver with a green light makes a turn and yields to research project to assess motor pedestrians and/or bicyclists crossing at the (1 :40) vehicle/bicycle crashes on sidepaths to sidepath crossing. determine crash causes and help inform sidepath design. TEXT appears: "When Bicycling on a sidepath" The research shows that everyone has Bicyclists at intersections look up and see motor a role in improving safety. To avoid crashes, follow these tips: vehicles turning. (1:50) The appropriate user stops, based on who has a stop sign or signal (depends on the intersection chosen). When driving: Video shows bicyclists paying attention at Expect people on all sidepaths, even driveways, controlling speed, yielding as needed. (2 :00) quiet ones 29 /. A I& TooleDes1gnGroup Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use VIDEO Time AUDIO Bicyclists make eye contact with drivers, smile, wave. Video shows bicyclists approaching intersections from opposite direction of travel. Bicyclist uses caution and proceeds with crossing. (If needed to illustrate the point, graphic arrows should appear on screen to show what is meant by "opposite direction (2:18) of traffic" to the closest adjacent traffic lane.) Show use of caution at a commercial driveway and (2:19) signalized intersection. Sidepath Design Best Practices !!!@Ii@# ,,.._. __ .......... ,.......,,,....."~""'M• ........ ....._ ........ ~ .. ......,_........, __ ~~--.,. ..... ..,... __ ......,..__ ~---· ....... ----... ~ --·-.. .,..,1!1¥ ~-... -----.....----~llooo. ....... ..,......_ 0 lU1U ctOU*U ~ ..... ~ -~ ..... ..., ..... __ 11~_ ........... .. ..... -...-....... ,...,......._.,. ~"'l~-~W0111:M1jfl~C...aiM-....,_•liltb!dlf­ h-~IU~!#tll"".vP')~<~.illll~~,.i.t11.M~fir.~. ~u.,_W...,.¥tl'ff~.,.u,.,~ ... """'~llw~ .. !lliflo.,,,.. -~~~~~lhf:lpfllo.....-.ri~.,,IC---""t UlMM.l llOWiC'UOll ,.,..,,,_.,,_"'_""',.,,._""' ......... -'-..,_. -~---­---~"'!II"""""""° ••• _ .. .., ....... -. .... ~ .. '°"'" _ _...,. ............. ---i.-............ _.""*"~ _.,,.,,-·~· ................ ...... .. _..__..,.. __ .......,..., -.-.-_... ....... ..._._ ................ -~ ... ~--0 ... ....,. ___ ..,...._ e·•--·• .. ...,..-._ __,,,...,~,.._..., ... ,._ e ---.-. ..... ~"'"~ ... ....,. ___ !\>~~-... __ ~l\.o11r ~-=-------.. --i. ::.=..:.. !!!;.t!....Qgj, .. TEXT: For more information on the Michigan DOT's sidepath safety research see: www.M ichigan.gov/mdot-SidepathResearch Fades out on fina l shot of happy, smiling sidepath users. f 30 (2 :27) (2 :37) (2:52) (3:06) • You may be surprised to learn that crashes are more common at the intersections of le ss crowded sidepaths than busy ones because drivers may not be expecting people there. 2. Look both ways • Remember that people walk and ride bikes in both directions on sidepaths. Look both ways when crossing sidepaths at driveways and intersections. 3. Be careful making turns ... especially at traffic lights • • When making a turn, look at the sidepath crossing . This is especially important at signalized intersections, since there can be a lot to pay attention to. Always double check for people on bikes before turning, even if you have a green light. When bicycling on a sidepath: 1. Use caution at intersections • Watch for turning vehicles, and Al. TooleDestgnGroup ~ Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use VIDEO Time AUDIO • Look for stops signs and signals indicating who has t he right of way. 2. Use caution at every driveway • Control your speed and be alert. • Drivers are often looking for gaps in traffic rather than bicyclists. • M ake eye contact to confirm that the driver can see you . 3:20 3. Be alert when riding in the opposite direction of motor vehicle traffic • Sidepaths are designed for two-way travel and bicycl ists may ride in either direction. But, be especially alert when riding in the opposite direction of traffic. • Drivers may not be expecting you. MDOT's sidepath research is helping us all be safer. People driving and bicycl ing shoul d fol low these tips to increase safety. And MDOT has produced research and created a guide to help inform sidepath design and operation. 31 AL TooleDestgnGroup ~ ' " Sidepath Application Criteria Development for Bicycle Use VIDEO Time AUDIO Please visit www.Michigan.govLmdot- SidepathResearch for more information about this initiative. (End: 3:20) 32 ~ TooleDeslgnGroup ~