Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6 Venessa Garza 16·-NACTO I National Auoclatlonof c::Jty Traiuportatlon Offlclell NACTO Executive Board Janette Sadik-Khan Princ i pal, Bloomberg Associates NACTO Chair Seleta Reynolds Gene ral Ma nager, Los Ange les Department of Transportat ion NACTO Presiden t Robin Hutcheson Director of Public Works, City of M i nneapolis NACTO Vice President Robert Spillar Director ofTransportation, City of Aust i n NACTO Treasure r Michael Carroll Deputy Manag ing Director, Office ofTransportation and Infrastructure Systems, City of Philadelphia NACTO Secretary Joseph E. Barr Di recto r, Traff ic, Parking & Transportation , City of Cambridge NACTO Affiliate Member Representative I Working Group Cara Seiderman Community Development Department, Cambridge, MA Ted Wright New York City Department of Transportat ion Carl Sundstrom, P.E. New York City Department of Transportation Peter Koonce, P.E. Port l and Bureau of Tra nsportation, Portland, OR Mike Sallaberry, P.E. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Peter Bennett San Jose Department of Transportation, CA Dylan Passmore, P.Eng. City of Vancouver, BC David Rawsthorne, P.Eng. City of Vancouver, BC Dongho Chang, P.E. Seattle Department of Transportation Advisory Committee NACTO Cities for Cycling Committee representatives NACTO Project Team Corinne Kisner Execu tive Director Kate Fillin-Yeh Di rector of Strategy Nicole Payne Program Manager, Cities for Cycling Matthew Roe Technica l Lead Aaron Villere Senior Program Associate Celine Schmidt Design Associate Majed Abdulsamad Program Associate Technical Review Joe Gilpin Alta Pla nn i ng & Design Vignesh Swaminathan, P.E. Cross road Lab Acknowledgements Special t hanks to Robert Boler from Austin, TX for providing the i nspiration for the t itle of this document. Cover Photos Top: Vancouver, BC . Madi Carlson Bottom: Cambridge, MA. Better Bike Sha re Partnership Table of Contents Introduction Intersections at a Glance Reducing Turn Con fli cts Protected Intersections Description Implementation Guid ance Determi nin g Clea r Sight Distance Using Bikeway Se tb ack to Increase Visibility Setting Turn Speeds through Curb Radii Design, Control, & Managed Veh icles Variations Dedicated Intersections Description Implementation Guidance Reducing Turn Speeds and Mitigating Conflicts Variations Minor Street Crossings Description Implementation Guid ance Signal Phasing Strategy Leading Bike Interval (LBI) & Lagging Left Turn Bike Scra mb le Protected-Permissi ve Bike Signa l Protected Bike Signal Build Toolkit Citations 5 9 21 27 31 36 38 I Introduction Better bike networks need safer intersections Since the publi catio n of the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide in 201 1, cities across North Ame ri ca have expande d their protect ed bike lane mileage by more th an 600%,1 o pe ni ng the door for a dramatic increase in the number of people bik in g. However, amid st this growth , design strategies for intersections remain a crucial, underdeve lop ed pa rt of th e bikeway design toolbox. In tersec tion s are the place where the most vehicle-bike co nflicts occu r. In 20 17, 43% of u rb a n bicyclist fa t alities occurred at i ntersection s.2 On many st reets, large turn radii and w ide lanes e ncourage drivers to make sweepi ng, fast turns. The se des ign decisions i ncrease exposu re and r i sk for people wa l ki ng and biking, reduce the safety and comfort of the bike network, and d iscourage cycl i ng.3 As c ities wo r k to make st reet s safer and more welcomi ng for bicyclists of all ages a nd abilit ies, i ntersection design is key. Don 't Give Up at the Intersection expands the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide , ad ding detailed guida nce on intersecti on design tre atm ents th at re duce vehicle-bike and vehicle-pedestri an co nfli cts. Th is gu idan ce cove rs protected bike intersect ions, dedicated bike i ntersect ions, and mino r stre et cross i ngs, as we ll as signa lization strategies t o reduce co nflicts and i ncrease comfort and safety. Used i n conce rt w ith NACTO's Urban Bikeway Design Guide and Designing for All Ages and Abilities , t his gu id a nce provides th e too l s citi es need to build compre hensive, con nected, safe bike networks . I Introduction Intersections at a Glance This gu ide i s organized around three intersection design strategies and the spec if ic tools that are most applicab le to each. In combination, t hese tools reduce turn i ng speeds, increase the visibility of people bicycling, a nd give priority at intersections to people bicycling. Strategies I Protected Intersections (page 9) Tools Bi keway Setback Recessed Stop Line Bike-Frie nd ly Signal Phasing Turn Wedge Vertica l Se paration Ele ments Raised Bi ke Crossing Introduction Reducing Turn Conflicts Turning vehicles present a specific and outsized risk to people on bikes. Cities can design safer intersections by reducing turn speeds, making bikes visible, and giving bikes clearer priority over turning vehicles. Reduce turn speed. Drivers yield more frequent ly to people walking and biking when speeds are low, making it safer for bikes to pass in front of turning cars. Lower speeds give drivers more t i me to stop if needed, and reduce the sever ity of collisions when they occur. Smal ler turn radi i , centerline hardening, turn speed bumps, and raised bike crossings can al l reduce the speed at which drivers turn.4 Make bikes visible. Setting back the bikeway crossing, installing recessed (early) stop lines for motor vehicles, and build i ng raised bikeway crossings all make it easier for drivers to see people using the bikeway. The designer's challenge i s to provide good l ines of sight without encouraging higher speeds . Give bikes the right of way. People on bikes crossing a busy intersection need clear priority over turning motor vehicles. Formal right of way often is not enough, but driver yielding can be improved by prohibiting motor vehicle turns on red, implementing bike-friendly signal strategies, and letting bikes move past stopped vehicles while waiting for a signal.5 I Protected Intersections Protected intersections have been implement ed across North America as cities have expanded their protected bikeway networks. Also known as setback or offset intersections, this design keeps bicycles phys ically separate from motor vehicles up until the intersection , providing a high degree of comfort and safety for people of all ages and abilities.6• 7 This design can reduce the likelihood of high- speed vehicle turns, improve sightlines, and dramatically reduce the d istance and time during which people on bikes are exposed to conflicts. For example , i n San Francisco, a protected intersection design resulted in 98% of drivers yielding to people on bikes, and 100% yieldin g to people walki ng.8 A study in New York found that protected intersections had fewer vehicle -bike conflicts tha n even a dedicated turn lane with a dedicated bike signal phase .9 Description At protected intersect ions. the bikeway is set back from the parallel motor vehicle traffic. Unlike at conventional bike intersections, people biking are not forced to merge into mi xed traffic. Instead , they are given a dedicated path through the intersection, and have the right of way over turning motor vehicles . The setback between the motor vehicle lane and the bikeway makes people on bikes more easily visible to turning drivers than i n a conventional inte rsection . · Corner islands ancho r the design, extending the protected bike lane's separation as far into the intersection as possible and tightening the corner's turn radius . They create a bike queue area after the crosswalk, the natural place for people on bikes to wait. The setback creates a waiti ng zone for turning cars , where drivers can yield to bikes after starting to turn but before crossing the path of oncoming bicycles. If it is large enough, this area lets drivers wa it while th rough-traffic passes them, relieving pressure to turn too quickly. Protected intersectio ns also provide shorter, safer crossings for peop le walking. With low-speed vehicle turns and room for accessib le pedestrian islands, people on foot and using personal mobility device s get many of the benefits of curb extensions. Protected intersections create shorter, simpler crossings, more predictable movements , and better visibility between people on bikes and people drivi ng. As a result, the intersection is mo re comfortable and safe r for people using the bikeway and the crosswalk.10 I Protected Intersections No Stopping I No Standing Zon e Motor vehicle pa r king and stopping are prohibited on the approach to the intersection . Pedestrian Islands Islands reduce crossing distances and improve visibility by keep i ng the i ntersection clear. Wider isla nds support high volumes of peop le walking and biki ng , raising the capacity of the intersection. In some cases, islands can reduce the signal time needed for pedestrians. D D Clear Sight Distance No Stopping I No Standing Bike Yield Line (optional) _J Bikeway Setback The setback determines how much room will be available for drivers to wait and yield, and the angle at which they cross the bikeway. Larger se tbacks provide better visibility and give people bicycling more time to notice a nd react to turning vehicles . --- Bike Queue Area ----- People biking can wait I ahead of the crosswalk for a green signal or a gap in traffic. This shortens crossing distances, and accommodates the natural positioning of people biking. Bi ke de t ec t io n op tional Crossbikes I Intersection Crossing Markings Markings provide conspicuity and directional guidance to bikes in the intersection. They are marked with dotted bicycle lane line extensions and may be su pplemented with green color or b i ke symbols between these lines.11 Motorist Waiting Zone The space between the motor vehicle lane and the crossbike provides a place for motor vehicle drivers to wait before turning across the bike's path of travel. I I I Corner Island A corner island separates bikes from motor vehicles, prevents motor vehicles from encroaching on the bikeway, and creates a protected queuing area for people on bikes waiting to turn. Protected Intersections Implementation Guidance Bikeway Setback: The bikeway setback distance determines most other d im ensions of the protected in t ersection. A 1 O' setback, created in the shadow of the park ing /load in g l ane, is shown. Whe re practical, a setback of 14-20' is preferred. If se tbacks sma ller than 12' are used, they should be accompa ni ed by longer clea r d i stances , and additiona l s ign al phasing or speed reduction strategies should be conside red. Se tback s la rger than 20' may increase turn speeds , and se tbacks larger than 25' s hould be tre ated as a separate intersection. Corner Island: Radii shou ld be sma ll enough that passenger ca rs are discouraged from turning faster than 10 mph .12 This is accomp li s hed w ith an effective turn rad i us of less than 18', usua lly resultin g fro m a 1 O' to 15' curb radius. Corner is l ands may have a mou ntable override area to accommodate large vehicles . Corner isla nd s may al so be i mple mented as channelization markings that are reinfo rced by mou ntable verti ca l elements suc h as modu la r speed bumps. Pedestrian Islands: Wider is l ands sup po rt high vo l umes of people walk in g and biking, raising the person-capacity of the intersection . To serve as an accessi ble wa iting area, the min imum width of a pe de strian isla nd is 6'.13 The desired mi n i mum wid th is 8'. If 6' or wider, detectab le warning surfaces must be pl aced at both sid es of th e island to distinguish th e bikeway from the side walk , an d the island from the bikeway. No Stopping/No Standing Zones: Zones should be long enoug h to allow approaching drivers and b i ke riders to see and recog ni ze o ne another ahead of the intersectio n. Many cities already designate 20'-30' of curb before an inte rsect ion as a no-standing zone to in crease visib i lity. Features that per mit vis ibility, such as plants, sea tin g, bi ke parking, a nd sha red micromobility st ati ons, ca n be placed he re .14 Bike Queue Areas: Queue areas s hould be large enoug h for anticipat ed bicycle vo lu mes , which often in crease sub stantial ly after implementation of protected bike l ane s. The bi ke queue area should be at least 6.5' deep , but dimensions of 1 O' or greater are desirable to accommodate trailers , ca rgo bicycles , and high bike volumes.15 Protected Intersections: Applications Protected intersections can be applied on any street where enhanced bike comfort is desirable. They are most commonly found on streets with parking-protected bike lanes or buffered bike lanes. Variants can be applied where there is no bike facility on the intersecting street, as well as streets with two-way protected bike lanes. Protected intersections can also be implemented using interim materials. Where no parking lane exists, a setback can be created by shifting the bikeway or motor vehicle lanes away from one another as they approach the intersection. Accessible Signals: See MUTCD Chapte r 4 E, PROWAG, other national guid ance , and lo cal stan d ard s for sig na l timing and locati on guidance. Bike Yield Line & Bike Lane Crosswalk: Bike traffic sho uld be expected to move forward to the stop bar on any sig nal phase , and pedestrian traffic sho uld also be expected to cross to the islan d on any phase. Th is operat ion may be forma li zed with optio na l y ield teeth on the b i keway before the crosswalk.16 The 2009 US MUTCD calls for a "Yiel d Here to Pedestr ian " sign if yield teeth are used. In some juri sd ictio ns, a y ield line i s not necessary before a crosswalk. Signs: A modi fied "Tu rnin g Vehicles Yield to Bikes and Pedestrians" sign (R10-15)17 i s recommended where a sig nalized inte rsect ion allows rig ht t u rns concurrent with bicycle and pedestrian moveme nts. It is required in jurisd ictions w here state /prov in c ial or loca l l aws are such that pedestrians and bikes do not automatically have the right of way over t urni ng vehicles. The sig n should be mounted close t o any signal head th at regu l ates ve hicles turning ac ross t he bikeway a nd any required locati o n. (This modified s ign rem ains expe ri mental under the 2009 MUTCD.) I Protected Intersections Determining Clear Sight Distance At the approach to a protected intersection, a clear sight distance must be provided so that people driving and biking can see one another before the intersection. The clear sight distance is calculated by adding the No Stopping/No Standing Zone, the crosswalk and crossbike widths , and the bikeway setback . The length of the clear sight distance is determined by the spee d at which both cyclists and motor veh icles are t ra veli ng. When b ike speeds are hi gh, such as at downhills, or when motor vehicle approach speeds exceed 30 mph,18 o r where drivers often proceed through a turn at s pe eds higher than 10 mph, long No Stopping/No Standing Zones are necessary.19 In these conditions, people using the bikeway need relativ ely long distances to slow ahead of an intersection if they have been overtaken by a turning vehic le . Short er sight distances may be applicable where the bike design speed is moderate to low and vehicle turning speeds are very low, such as at small driveways o r alleys. For example, in a protected intersecti on with a 12' bikeway setback, 25 mph t raffic, a nd average bike spee d s, the tota l clear sight distance shou ld be at least 40', meas ured from t he front of the last parking space t o the point where bikes become exposed to turn ing vehicles. At this distance, a person on a bike would have approximately 50' or 3 seconds to see a turning vehicle and react . Driver ha s enough time to react. Clear Sight Distance (40' shown) I Pe rso n biking has enough time to re ac t . (LJD J No Stopping I No Standing Zone (20'shown) Bi keway Setback (12'shown) II Protected Intersections Using Bikeway Setback to Increase Visibility Protected inte rsections in c rease driver visibi lity of people in the crossbike and crosswalk by setti ng back the crossbike from t he motor ve h icle trave l lane. The la rger the bikeway setback , the easie r it is fo r drivers to see people i n the bikeway or crossbike wi th out chec king mirrors or turning around. In a conventio na l bike inte rsect ion, the bike s pend s a long time in the blind spot of an approaching vehicle. Exce pt at the lowest speeds, this sets up an unresolved conflict where bike riders must be prepared for evasive action even though they have t he right of way. Conventional Intersection ·------... At a conventional intersection, the bike rider is hidden from the driver's view as the driver makes the turn. For exam ple, in a protected intersection with the crossbike setback approximately 14' -16' from the motor vehicle l a ne, a car driver approaches the crossbike at an angle above 45 degrees and preferably above 60 degrees. This hig h angle a llows the dri ver to eas ily see cyclists and keeps cyclists f ully outside of t he right-side bli ndspot on large ve hi cles. In co ntrast, in a convent ional intersect io n, turning d ri vers approach the intersectio n at a very low angle, and wou ld have t o check mirrors and turn almost a ll the way around to see approac hi ng bicycles. Protected Intersection ----------- At a protected intersection, the bike lane is set back from the motor vehicle through/turn lane. so the bike rider is visible as the driver turns. I Protected Intersections Setting Turn Speeds through Curb Radii Research shows that d ri ver yield rates decl i ne as speeds increase .20 As a result, motor vehicle tu rn speeds should ge nerally be lower t han 10 mph in protected intersections.21 This is achieved by building corner islands wi th small curb radi i , typically 10-15' or less, that guide drivers to take the tu rn at slower speeds . When the bikeway setback is small or when the receiving lane of t he turn is wide, a smaller curb radius is recomme nd ed . In most cases, the curb rad i us s hould not be larger th an the setback. The width of the cross -street receiving t he turn also i nfluences t urn speed . This w idth should be kept as low as p ractica l. Pedestrian islands or centerline hardening may be used to reduce tu rn speeds. Pedestrian islands ca n also reduce t he d istance that people biking and wa l king will be exposed to turning vehicles . 100 75 :g Q) >= 50 ...... c: Q) t) ..... Q) c... 25 I 5 Driver Yielding Rates & Travel Speeds at Crossings 10 15 Speed (mph) 20 Lower speeds lead to higher driver yielding rates at urban roundabouts. Roundabouts share important geometric features with protected intersections. Graph source: Geruschat, D.R., Driver Behavior in Yielding to Sighted and Blind Pedestrians at Roundabouts. 2005. • 25 Protected Intersections Design, Control, & Managed Vehicles The selection of the Design , Control, and Managed vehicles inform s the design of the co rn er radius at a protected in tersect ion , as wel l as the need for any vertical featu res. Design Vehicle The Design Vehicle is the largest typical veh icle that will frequen tly use the street. For major streets and down t own settings, a DL-23 delivery truck is a typical design vehicle. In protected intersections, it is acceptable for the design vehicle to use all of the first la ne, and part of the second la ne of the rece iving street. In a neighborhood setting, a 15' car/ light truck is a typical design vehicle, allow in g for a tighter turn radius. In locations where truck turn volumes are high, a si ngle-unit 30' -40' truck is a typical design vehicle . A c ity bus should be used as a design vehicle only if a scheduled/ planned bus route makes that turn. In most cases, this affects only one corner. Turn speeds of 3-5 mph should be used for model ing the design veh icle. Control Vehicle The Control Vehicle or accommodated veh icle is the largest vehicle that will i nfrequently use the street . For major streets and downtown settings, a WB-50 truck is a typical control vehicle. In protected intersection de signs, this vehicle can make the turn at a very low or 'craw l' speed. It i s expected to turn over mountable elements, and may enter the lane adjacent to its l ane of or igin. In a neighborhood settin g, sanitation or fire emergency vehicles a re control vehicles . Turn speeds should be se t 1-5 mph for the control vehicle. For turn spee ds under 5 mph, field testing or observation is recommended as software may be i naccurate at l ow speeds. Managed Vehicle I I The Managed Vehicle is the most common vehicle to use the street. It is typically smaller than the des ig n vehicle which means it is capable of higher, more dangerous speeds. In most urban streets, the managed vehicle is a personal vehicle or taxi. In protected intersections, the goal for a managed vehicle is to keep turn speeds below 10 mph. In some cases, this requ i res that the design vehicle turns over a mountab le element. I Protected Intersections Variations High-Capacity Protected Intersection At this two-way bikeway intersection, the corner island is th i nner than i n t yp ical protected intersect ion s. This shape maximizes the available queuing and maneuvering space . To reduce wait times , the crossbike is also wider on the inte rsection approac h than at the receiving sid e. This configuration a l lows more riders to wait side-by-si d e and depart at the same time. Faster riders tend to accelerate throug h the intersection first , and pass slower riders before reaching the narrower receiv ing side. As shown in the d rawing below, the approaches are 6' wide and the receiving side 4' w ide for a tota l 1 O' two- way approach. I 0 A th i n corner curb creates addition a l queu i ng capacity at corner. c::====::::;---0 The departure is widened a nd tapers down through the crossing to stack and release cyclists more efficiently. Protected Intersections Variations Bend-Out To set back the bikeway further, the bikeway can be 'bent-out' away from the motor vehicle lanes. This design enhances visibility by raising the angle at which cars cross the bikeway. Increasing the bikeway setback can a l so provide room for turning cars to wait before making the turn. As it approaches the intersection , the bikeway can be bent away from the motor vehicle lanes and toward t he s idewalk. If the bi keway bends out before the intersection the taper angle should be gradual, typically 1 :4 or 1 :5, allowing for a smooth transition to the intersection.22 When possible, the taper should end before the crosswalk to provide good visibility for approach i ng pedestrians . The bikeway ca n also bend out after crossing the crosswalk, and before crossing the motor vehicle lanes. Bikeway tapers on approach to gently deflect bikes (max . 1 :4 angle, 1 :5 preferred). --- I Increasing the bikeway setback decreases back pressure on turning vehicles . I Protected Intersections Variations Interim Materials Quick-build or interim materials can be used to implement protected intersection designs, even when building a refuge and corner island is not possible . As shown below, a pedestrian safety area is marked between the bikeway and the motor vehicle lane. This area is outlined in a doub le w h ite line to prohibit motor vehicle crossings, and a pedestr ian-friendly color and texture has been applied to this area. Flexible delineators or other vertica l devices are used to separate t his space from the roadway. Modular speed bumps can be placed at the corner, in lieu of a concrete truck apron. A pedestrian island can be imple mented with paint-and -posts and other quick-bui ld materials. Vertical elements make the island easier for drivers to see, and can make non-visual navigation easier. I Detectable warning surface s alert pedestrians as they enter a potential conflict zone. A turn wedge with a modular speed bump allows l arge trucks to turn while keeping car turns slow . Ill Access i bility for Interim De sign Protected intersections with interim materials often have flush, roadway-level pedestrian areas . These can be made accessible for pedestrians who are blind or have low vision by following either of the following design and regulation options : • Interim Island: Place detectable warning surfaces on each side of t he refuge a rea, as would be done at a raised pedestrian island . This allows pedestrians who are blind to use the intersection the same way other pedestrians do. The interim refuge area should include detectab le elements when the pedestrian path changes direction at the refuge area, or if the refuge is so wide that pedestrians might diverge into the bikeway or street, or if other alignment concerns are present. • Pedestrian Safety Zone : Mark the crosswalk all the way through the surface-level pedestr ia n area. This does not des ignate the pedestrian area as a refuge or stopp i ng place. In some co nditions, this arrangement may be simpler to navigate. I Dedicated Intersections People on bikes can be given a dedicated path through the intersection even where there is not enough space for a full bike setback. By providing excellent visibility and low turn speeds, dedicated bikeway intersections provide key improvements over conventional bike lane intersections. Description To reduce conflicts between bikes a nd turning vehicles on busy streets, turn speed reduction te chniques and new signal phasing patterns can complement the design of the ded i cated bike i ntersection . These techniques include corner wedges , which feature a modular speed bump or similar elem ent over which vehicles are permitted to turn at low s pee d s. Where the bikeway is on a two-way street or intersects with one, the speed of left turns across the bikeway can be reduced with centerline hardening or pedestr ian safety isla nd s. When co mb ined wit h a protected-permissive bike signal phasing, dedicat ed intersections may have fewer conflicts even than similarly-designed intersections with a fully protected bike signal phase du e to higher signa l complia nce . People riding bikes rate these intersections as i ntermedi ate in comfo rt between protected intersections a nd co nven tional bike lane intersections.23 Dedicated bike intersections may be more challenging to use than a protected in tersection. With a re l ativ ely narrow buffer o r no buffer, the angle at wh ich turning drivers see pedestria ns is lowe r t han at protected intersections, so people o n bi kes can not always con fir m that a turning driver has recog ni zed them and will remain stopped . In addition, people o n bi kes do not generally have a queue space within the intersection , and i nstead wa it before the crosswalk , or use a co nv entional turn queue box to turn across traffic. I Dedicated Intersections Crosswalk Separator A raised element such as mountable curb or a pair of flexible delineator posts discourages turning vehicles from cutting across the bikeway when turning right. ~ kU_) <?1 0' Bikes wait here Buffer or Curb A marked, painted, or raised buffer provides people on bikes with a defined travel zone at the approach to the intersection . I Corner Wedge & Speed Bump Speed reduction devices, suc h as modular speed bumps, help prevent high-speed turns and are expec t ed to improve driver yielding. They can extend over the space used by turning vehicles but not over the bikeway or crosswa lk. - ~ I A CJ Centerline Hardening Mod ular curbs with or without vertical delineators reduce the speed of turns across the bikeway and shorten the confl ict zo ne . Crossbike/ Bike Lane Line Extensions II ---- ~ Bike Signal A D Dedicated Intersections Implementation Guidance Vertical Elements : Vertical elements in the buffer are recommended. The same vertical separation used on the rest of the bikeway can generally be continued until the intersection. Traversable Separation: In some cases, it is desirable to provide flush or traversable buffers to allow riders to exit the bike lane ahead of the intersection. If high bicycle volume or speeds are anticipated, or if turning drivers are expected to block the bikeway temporarily, it is desirable to provide people on bikes with po i nts where they can exit the lane ahead of the intersection. The com bi nation of flexibi l ity and separat ion from motor vehicles can be provided with a marked buffer with flexible delineator posts or other discontinuous, low-impact elements. To reduce interfe rence with street sweeping or snow clearing operations, short raised elements, such as modular speed bumps , should be placed in line with curbs or higher raised elements, such as ve rtical deli neators. Curbs: Curbs or other hard elements that end at the crosswa l k can prevent turning cars from encroaching on the bikeway before the intersection . If built curbs, medians or other continuous vertical elements are used in the buffer, the recommended mi nimum bi keway width is 6'. Raised Bike Lanes: Often separated by a mountable c urb but no other buffer, raised l anes can also use dedicated intersection geometry. The bi ke lane can slope dow n to the grade of the cross-street, or can rema i n slightly raised to encourage tu rn ing vehicles from the main street to yield . Buffer Markings: Buffers less than 2' w ide can be marked as a double white line indicating that cross i ng is pro hi bited or a w ide single wh ite line indicating that crossing is discouraged . If wider than 2', t wo pairs of parallel w hi te lines should be marked .24 Optional color pavement t reatments between the white lines contribute to the conspicuity of the buffe r, add aesthetic value, and reinforce the walking-friendly nature of the space. If the buffer is 4' wide or w ider, either color pavement or c hannelization chevrons should be used. If the b i keway buffer is 6' or wider at the intersection, see Protected Intersections. Crossbike I Bike Lane Line Extensions: Broken white lines w it h dashed green bars should be used across the intersect ion . Signals: Using a combination of a leading bike signal phase or interval, and setting back the stop bar for motor veh icles, people on bikes get a head start before cars start turning. A Leading Bike+ Pedest ri an Interval (LBI) can be provided if a shared through/turn lane is ne xt to the bikeway. If a dedicated right or left t u rn lane is next to the bikeway, protected-permissive b ike signa l ph asing sho u ld be cons ide red .25 Protected signal phases should be considered if t urn volu mes from the ad j acent la ne exceed 1 20 to 150 vph . Protected signal phases should also be conside red if conflicting left turn volumes (on two-way streets) across the bikeway exceed 60 to 90 vph, o r if these t urn s cross multiple traffic lanes.26 Signs: A mo d ified "Turning Vehicles Yield to Bikes and Pedestrians" sign (R10-15) is recommended at dedicat ed i ntersections .27 It is required in j urisdictions where pedestrians and bikes do not automati cally have t he right of way over turning ve hicles. The sign should be mounted i n accordance with ex ist i ng location standards. (This modified sign is experimental under the 2009 MUTCD .) I Dedicated Intersections Reducing Turn Speeds and Mitigating Conflicts Lacking a f u ll bikeway setback , dedicated intersections typically make use of turn speed re d uctio n techniques. Most of these tec hn iques are a l so applicab le on protected a nd major- minor i ntersections. Sig na l strategies an d advance st op bars a re also applicab le i n most situations. but geometric speed reduction techniques are often eas ier to i mplement. These techni qu es are applica ble whether or not dedicate d turn lanes ex i st adjacent to the bikeway. Bi keway-Crosswalk Conflicts • Grad ua lly bend the b ikeway (3:1 ang le at steepest) as it approaches the crosswa l k; straighten before cross in g the crosswa l k .28 • Ra ise t he pedestrian cross i ng over the bikeway. The bi ke climbi ng ramp should be gradual (1 :12 or shallowe r). and a 6' flat approach a rea shou ld be provided to a llow bikes to stop w ithout s li pping backwa rd . 29 I Right Turns, and Left Turns from One-Way Streets • Create a t ighte r effective co rn er radius. using mountable ele ments if necessary to accommodate truck t u rns. • Install speed reduction dev ices. such as mod ular speed bum ps or a mountable truck apron , inside the swept path of la rge vehicles or all vehicles. • Instal l a median island or ce nterline hardening on the receiving street to prevent 'corne r cutting.' • Raise the bikeway crossing. • Prov ide a lead i ng bike interva l . protected bike phase . or protected- permissive bike phase. Left Turns from Two-Way Streets • In st all a median refuge is l and or centerline hardening on a pp roach street and receiving street to preven t 'corner cutting.' • Raise the bikeway crossing. • Prov ide a leading bike interva l , lagging left turn p hase. or p rotected bike phase . Dedicated Intersections Variations Dedicated Turn Lane At locations with high volumes of motor vehicle turns, a right turn lane or a left turn lane (on one-way streets) is sometimes impleme nted next to a protected bike l ane . A protected or prot ected- per mi ssive bike signal phase is recommended. Bend-In 'Bend-in' approaches can be i mplemented where pedestrian bulbouts a l ready exist a nd can not easi ly be altered. The bend-in bikeway intersection approach reduces bike speeds, increases visibility between people in the bikeway and people driving, and reduces the likelihood of visual obstructions between people drivin g and people on bi kes. Thi s design is compatib le w ith a var iety of s igna l designs . I :!.• -- Minor Street Crossings The point where a bikeway crosses a minor street or driveway is a transition zone between a moderate- speed, signalized traffic environment and a very-low speed street. A well-designed minor-street intersection gives everyone-people driving, biking, and walking-a clear indication that bikes and pedestrians have the priority when crossing the minor street . In addition, minor intersection redesigns are an opportunity to improve pedestrian safety and access as well. Many major streets have no existing crossing accommodations for pedestrians at minor streets. Minor crossing features, such as compact corners, can also reduce pedestrian crossing distances and increase visibility, creating a safer overall bicyclist and pedestrian environment. Description Minor street crossings use compact corners and raised elements to keep turn speeds low. The raised crosswalk and bike way indicate t o drivers that they are entering a low-s peed environ ment, and must prepare to y ield to other users. Traffic control devices, such as signals, are unco mm on. Ens uri ng a clear approach sightline is essentia l to encourage drivers to yie ld to peo ple in t he bikeway or the cross wal k. On mino r street cross i ngs, a num be r of design features work to keep spee d s low . These includ e pedestrian islands or bulbouts , marked pedestrian safety zones, planters, in- street bike parking , or bikeshare stations. As in dedicated intersection s, turn wedges and/or hardened centerline treatments can reduce turn spee d s wh i le providing t urn flexibi lity for emerge ncy vehicles and trucks. I Minor Street Crossings Clear Sight Distance A clear approach sightl ine gives drivers time to see and yield to people in the cross bike, a nd gives peop le on bike or on foot time to see and react to turn i ng cars. Ra ised Crossing Raised crossings improve bicyclists' visi bility and reduce the speed at which vehicles turn by bringing the vehicle crossing up to (or near) t he sidewalk level. In addition, the raised crossing is a signal to turning cars that through-moving bikes and pedestria ns have the right of way. Compact Corners Small turn radii force turning drivers to slow down. If there is no raised cross i ng , the corner rad i us is the primary method to reduce turn speed. (O::D) Crossbike & Crosswalk -------. ••--Detectable Warning Surfaces Markings Crossbike and crosswa l k markings prov ide conspicuity to people on bike or on foot. High-visibility markings provide the formal crosswa l k and crossb i ke. I A CJ n D Detectable warning su rface s alert people who are blind or have low vision that they are entering an intersection . Minor Street Crossings Implementation Guidance Raised Crossing slopes should be designed for very low speeds. On minor streets that accommodate through traffic, a 5-8% slope is recommended. On alleys and driveways, a slope of up to 15% may be used.30 When a sharp grade is used , care should be taken to design the top of the raised crossing smoothly enough that the control veh icle can climb and descend at a low speed (<5 mph) without bottoming out. If large vehicles suc h as buses routinely use the ramp, a sinusoidal shape sho uld be used for t he vehicle ramp and crossing.3 1 The sidewalk and bikeway may gradually slope downward to meet the raised crossing as they approach the intersec tion . These slopes sho uld be 1 :24 or gentler in most cases. Even an ADA- compliant s lope (1 :12), can jolt riders on a bike , in a wheelchair, or using other mobility devices. If nece ssary, the entire roadbed can be sl anted gradually up when approaching the m i nor-street in tersection, generally at no more than a 1 :20 slope.32 Compact Corner radius shou ld be designed based on the effective turning rad iu s, which is typically larger than the curb radius itself since vehicle s rarely turn from a pos itio n exactly at t he curb. Detectable Warning Surfaces should be pla ced across the transitio n between the sidewalk and the crosswalk, and may extend across t he bikeway. Green or another contrasting co lor may be used across the b ikeway to support people with low vision in distinguishing between the crossbike and the crosswalk. Clear Sight Distance i s determined by the de s ired bicycle approac h speed.33 Particula rly where there is no raised crossing, green bike intersection markings s hould be used in the crossbike. Provide detectable warning surfaces across the entire raised crossing unless local guidance indicates that it should be lim ited to the crosswalk entrance. I Signal Phasing Strategy Signa l pha si ng strategi es are a core tool fo r better intersection design. Thi s section provides signal phasing options for protected and dedicated bike intersections, with an emphasis o n mitigating conflicts between motor vehi cle and bicycle movemen t s. It supplements, and in so me cases upd ates , the NACT O Urba n Bike way Desig n Gu ide's reco mm endations for bicycle signa l s. The following phasing options reflect the recent experience of North American ci ti es and shou ld be adapted to local standa rd s and pract ices. Trade-offs between comfort and co nvenience are presen t in al l signal o perations. Motor vehicle turning movements consume a large amount of ti me and space at intersections. At t he same time, many riders express a comfort preference for protected bi cycle signal phases, w ith f ully separate motor veh icle t urn phases. However, i n some cases, fully se parated phases may resu lt in longer wait ti me s for both bike and automobile travel, reducing perceive d convenience. Setting signal progressions to bike-friendly speeds can re du ce b icycle de l ay cause d by a separat e t urn movement, while supporting bus transit reliability and disince ntivizing spee din g. At some i ntersections, it is more effective to provide flexibility to people walking and biking, allowing them to proceed even afte r motor vehic les begin to turn across the bikeway. This operation is represented by lead in g bike interva l s and protected-permissive bike signals . The relative risks an d efficiencies among these options are important cons iderat ions for the practitioner. In tersection and co rridor signa l timing analysis, the existing risks and iss ue s at an inte rsection , and an underst anding of how people using the street will respond to signals are all important factors in bike intersect ion operations decisions. I Signal Phasing Strategy Leading Bike Interval (LBI) & Lagging Left Turn A leading bike interval gives people on bikes a head start in front of turning vehicles, providing a priority position in the right of way. The leading pedestrian interval (LPI), which ca n accompany the LBI, is a proven measure to reduce serious crashes and injuries for pedestrians.34 Bike signal heads or "Bikes Use Pedestrian Signal" plaques m ay be used to prov ide LB ls in some jurisdictions. This use of a bike-symbol signal is considered experi mental under MUTCD Interim Approval IA -16 .22 .35 On two -way streets with signalized left turns, bike and through /right motor vehicles should generally be given the first phase , with right turns yielding to bikes and pedestrians. Left turns are then accommodated in a dedicated phase after oncoming bikes receive a red signal, to reduce bike-left turn conflicts and pedestrian-left t u rn conflicts. Phase A I --~~ I • • . • I ~ l(J Phase B .•-> • l(J -. ·--+ TVRPllNG - EHIC LES I - V ro~ PhaseC . • • . • • • • •• • • • • • • •• •• - • • '------ • •••• 'ti l(J -····--+ TU:~~ ... V ro<5ff> Signal Phasing Strategy Bike Scramble The bicycle all-cross phas in g is an option at high bike -volume locations to allow more time to move through the intersection, especially if diagonal movements are in high demand. The bike scramble is compatible with protected intersections, since the geometric scheme organizes otherwise conflicting right-angle bike movements. It is also useful at other intersections where an LBI might otherwise be used to mitigate motor vehicle turn conflicts, but where bike turn volumes are also high . Pedestrian signals should be placed on the pedestrian island or corner island where practical to avoid signalizing the bike-pedestrian and b i ke-bike interaction . -- t D I Di• I -{I ~ ~ USE PED SIGNAL I ••J I 0 ) I Signal Phasing Strategy Protected-Permissive Bike Signal The protected-permissive bike signal , also known as the Split LBI, a llows throug h-mov i ng motor vehicles to start at the same time as parallel bikes. Bike and pedestrian movements continue, as turning mo t or vehicles receive a flashing yellow arrow turn phase . Protected -permissive signal phas i ng can reduce the number of conflicts per turning moto r vehicle , even compared with full signal protection .36 Protected -perm i ssive bicycle signa l ope rat ions allow rid ers to decide for themselves whether it i s safe to go du rin g the motor vehicle phase, or whet her to wa it fo r a fresh protected bike p hase. Protected -per mi ssive bicycle s ign als are most app l icable on streets where turn volumes are moderate to high and vehicle storage is needed, but prevailing motor vehicle speeds are relatively low, preferably 25 mph or below. This use of a bi ke-symbol signal is considered experimental under MUTCD Interim Approval IA -16. Phase A Phase B ----I I .. ··-+ .. ··-+ I Signal Phasing Strategy Protected Bike Signal Fully separate signal phases for b i kes and turning vehic les provide a green bike phase and pedestrian Walk phase during a motor vehicle red arrow phase, followed by a motor vehicle turn phase accompan ied by a red bike signal .37 This condition is most applicable at high-volume turn locations (above 150 turns per hour), or w here prevail i ng speeds are 30 mph or higher, where motor vehicle y ie ldi ng is low, or at locations where multiple lanes turn across a bikeway.38 Phase A Phase B l __ I ltl!O ......... I Build TO ·Olkit Implementation of safer crossings can wield a full suite of design tools, from tactical to interim to capital construction. A wide variety of modular, pre-cast, and cast-in-place materials can be used to separate bikeway approaches from motor vehicles . The following suites of materials have been used successfully in No rth America. Markings & Color Direct iona l markings, especially using green color, highlight the "cross-bike" path t h rough the intersection and draw attention to potential conflict zones. Markings are also used to create two-stage turn boxes or bike boxes as storage for bikes waiting to cross, increas in g intersectio n efficiency and comfort. I Quick-build Paint & Posts Bollards and other low-vertical elements can be installed to formalize exclusive t u rning and refuge spaces. They can be i mplemented relatively quickly and at low cost . Low Delineators Low-to-the-ground objects such as tempora ry curbs are useful where a long mountable curb is desired but impractical. Angling the elements toward the center of the roadway allows bikes to easily exit the bikeway whi le dissuading drivers from entering t he bi keway. Mountable Rubber Speed Humps Molded rubber and plastic speed humps are mountable by motor vehicles at low speeds suitable for turns. They are an easy-to-impleme nt speed reduction alternative to raised truck ap rons or textured pavement. These off-the-shelf devices can be secured to asphalt or concrete road surfaces. Example Combination: Paint and posts Channelization markings and flex posts for buffer Modular speed hump for large-vehicle overrun area and /or inside the channelization area to prevent early turns Optional: flow-through planters Bike Parking Bike park i ng, street-grade bike corrals, and bike share stations make positive use of the clear zone. Since these features do not block the view of approaching cars and bikes, they can replace automobile parking at the approach. Modular Islands & Bulbs Modular refuge islands and bus boarding islands can be used at bikeway intersections, creating a level accessible boarding platform or simply a protected waiting area between the bikeway and the street. Surface Concrete Concrete elements can be i mplemented for relat ively low cost where drainage is not an issue. Concrete refuge islands, extruded curb, and cast-in-place curbing, can often be built by sidewalk or highway repair crews. Pre-cast concrete, including parking stops or specially designed mountable elements, is more expensive but, like other modular elements, can be implemented quickly. Perman e nt Full Construction In larger capital implementations or roadway reconstruction, raised bike lanes and full truck aprons can be built to create a long-lasting addition to the streetscape. I Citations I 1. People for Bikes (2019). Inventory of Pro- tected Bike Lanes . Retrieved from https"// peopleforb i kes org/green -lane-project/ i nventory-protected -bike-lanes/ 2. NACTO analysis of NHTSA FARS data : Non-Freeway Urban Bike Fatalities (U .S., 2017): Intersection or Intersection -Related : 226 Total Known : 531 Percent Intersection or I ntersection-Relat - ed: 43% 3. Fitzpatri c k, K. and Schneider W. (2005) Turn speeds a nd crashed within right-turn lanes (Report No. 0-4365-4). College Station, TX: The Te xas A&M University Sy stem 4. New York City Depa rtm ent ofTransporta- tion (2016 , August). Don 't Cut Corners:Left Turn Pedestr ian and Bicycle Crash Study. Retrieve d from : http·/Jwww nyc ~v/htm l/ dot/downloads/pdf/left-turo -pedestrian - and-bicycle -crash-study,pdf 5. New York City Department ofTransporta- tion (2018 , September). Cycling at a Cross- roads: The Design Future of New York City Intersect ions . https"//www1,nyc gov/html/ dot/down loads/pdf/cycli ng-at-a-cross - road s-20 18 pdf 6 . Monsere, C., McNeil, N., Sanders, R., Wang, Y, Burchfield , R. Sc hultheiss, W. (2019). Contextual Guidance at Intersection s for Protected Bicycle Lanes. (Report No . NITC - PF -98 7). Nationa l In stitute fo r Transporta - tion and Communities (NITC) 7. Madsen, T.K.O., La hrm ann, H, (2 017). Compari son of five bicycle fa c ility designs in signalized i ntersections using traffic conflict studies . Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psyc hology and Behaviour. 46(B), pp . 438 -450. 8. San Franc is co Municipal Transportation Agency (201 7). 9t h Street/Divi s ion Street Protected Intersection Proof-of-Con- cept Evaluation. Retrieved from :https "// www sfmta com/sites/default/files /re - ports -and-documents/2018/03/9th divi - sion fact sheet pdf 9 . New York City Department ofTransporta - tion (2018 , September). Cycl i ng at a Cross- roads : The Design Future of New York City Intersection s. https"//www1 nyc gov /html/ dot/down load s/pdf/cycli ng -at-a-cro ss- road s-2018 pdf 10 . Aldred, Rachel et a l (2016). Cycling pro - vision se parated from motor traffic: a systemat ic review exploring whether stated preferen ces vary by gender and age. Trans - port Rev iews . 37(1 ), pp . 29-55. 11 . Seattle Department ofTran s portation (2017). Seattle Streets Illustrated . Re - trieved from : https :// streetsillustrated . seattle.gov/designstandards/bicycle/ bike -intersectio n-design /The NACTO Ur- ban Bikeway Design Guide provides further details . 12 . Massachusetts Department ofTrans - portation (2 015). Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide . Retrieved from : https"//www mass gov/lists/separat- ed-b ike -lane-planning-des ign-guide 13. United States Access Board (2005). R305 .4.1 Length in Publi c Right of Way Ac cess i bi l ity Guidelines . Retr ieved from : https"//www acces s-board gov/guide - lines-and -standards/streets -sidewalks / pu blic-ri ghts -of-way/backgrou nd/re- vised -d raft-gu ideli nes/chapter-3 14 . Massachusetts Department ofTran s- portation (2 015). Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. Retr ieved from: https·//www mass gov/lists/separat- ed -bike-lane-planning-design-guide 15 . Alta Planning+ Design (2015, December). Les sons Learned : Evolut ion of the Protect - ed Intersection. Retrieved from : https ·// altaplanning com/wp-content/uploads / Evolution-of-the -Prote cted -Intersection ALTA-2015 pdf 16. Alta Planning+ Design (2015, December). Lesson s Learned: Evolution of the Protect- ed Intersection . Retrieved from: hllP..s.:fL altaplanning com/wp -content/uploads/ Evolut ion -of-the -Protected -Intersection ALTA -2015 pdf 17. U.S . Department ofTran s portation Federal Highway Administration (2015, May). Sep a- rated Bike Lane Planning And Design Gu ide. Retr ieved from: https"//www fhwa dot gov / environment/bicycle pedestrian/publica - tion s/separated bikelane pdg/separated - bikelane pdg pdf 18. Massachusetts Department ofTran s- portation (2015). Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide . Retrieved from : https"//www mass gov/lists/separat- ed -bike-lane-planning-design-guide 19 . Massachusetts Department ofTrans - portation (2015). Separated Bike Lane Plann i ng and Design Guide . Retrieved from : https"//www mass gov/lists/separat - ed -bike-lane-planning-design -guide 20 . Gerus c hat, D.R., & Hassan, S. E. (2005). Driver behavior in yielding to sighted and blind pedestrians at roundabouts.Journal of Visual Impa irment and Blindness, 99(5), 286-302 . 21 . Alta Planning+ Design (2015, December). Lessons Learned : Evolution of the Protect- ed Intersection. Retrieved from: https"// altaplann i ng com/wp-content/upload s/ Eyolutjon -of-the -Protected -1 ntersect ion ALTA-2 015 pdf 22. Massachusetts Department of Trans - portation (20 15). Separated Bike Lane Plann i ng and Design Guide. Retrieved from: https "/Avww mass goy/ljsts/separat - ed -bike -lane-planning-de si gn -guide 23. Monsere, C., McNeil, N., Sanders, R., Wang , Y, Burchfield , R. Schultheiss, W. (2019). Contextual Guidance at Intersections for Protected Bicycle Lanes. (Report No. NITC- PF-987). National Institute for Transporta- tion a nd Communities (NITC) 24. U.S . Department ofTransportation Federal Highway Administration (2009). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Re - trieved from: https ://mutcd fhwa .dot,goy/ pdfs/2009 /pdf index htm 25 . New York City Department of Transporta- tion (2018, September). Cycling at a Cross- roads: The Design Future of New York City Intersections. https"//www1 aye gov /html/ dot/downloads/pdf/cycling-at-a-cross- roads-2018 ,pdf 26. Massachusetts Department of Trans - portat ion (2015). Separated Bike Lane Plann i ng and Design Guide. Retrieved from: https"//www mass gov /lists/separat- ed -bike -lane -planning-de s ign -guide 27. U.S. Department ofTransportation Federal Highway Administration (2015, May). Sepa- rated Bike Lane Pla n ning And De sign Guide. Retrieved from: https"//www fhwa .dot goy/ en vironm ent/bicycle pedestrian /pu bli ca- tions/separated bikelane pdg/separated - bi kelane pdg pdf 28. Massachusetts Department ofTrans- portation (2 015). Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. Retrieved from: https·/Jwww mass .gov/li st s/separat- ed -bike -lane -pl anning-design -gu ide 29. Massachusetts Department ofTrans- portation (2015). Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide . Retrieved from : https·/J www,ma ss gov/lists/separat- ed-bike -lane -planning-design -guide 30 . Massachusetts Department ofTrans- portation (2015). Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide . Retrieved from: https"//www mass gov/lists/separat- ed -bi ke -laoe-plan n i ng-desj gn -gu ide 31. Webste r D.C ., Layfield R.E.(1998, Decem- ber) Traffic calming -Sinusoidal, 'H' and 'S' humps. Workingham, Berkshire United King dom: Transport Research Laboratory 32. Massachusetts Department ofTrans- portation (2015). Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide . Retrieved from: https ://www ma ss,goy /lists/separat - ed-bjke-lane -planning-design-gujde 33. Massachusetts Department of Trans - portation (2015). Separated Bike Lane Planning and De sign Guide . Retrieved from : https "//www mas s gov/lists/separat- ed -bike -la ne -planning-de s ign -guide 34. Van Houten, R., Retting , R., Farmer, C., Houten,J ., Field Evaluation of a Leading Pe- destrian Interval Signal Phase at Three Ur- ban Intersections . Transportation Research Record:Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1734, 86-92, Washington DC : Tran sportation Research Board 35. US Dep artme nt ofTransportation Federal Highway Administration (2013). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices : Interim Ap- proval for Optional Use of a Bicycle Signal Face (IA-16). Report No . HOT0-1 . Retrieved from : https "//mutcd fhwa dot gov/resourc- es/interim approyal/ia16/ 36. New York City Department of Transporta- tion (2018, September). Cycling at a Cross- roads: The Design Future of New York City Intersections. https·/J www1 nyc goy /htm l/ dot/down load s/pdf/cycli n g-at-a-cross- road s-2 018 pdf 37. Furth, P., Koonce P., Miao, Y., Peng. F., Litt- man, M. (2014). Mitigating Right-Turn Con- flict with Protected Yet Concurrent Phasing for Cycle Track and Pedestrian Crossings. Transportation Research Record 2438(1), pp . 81-88. 38 . Massac husetts Dep artment ofTrans- portation (20 15). Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide . Retrieved from: https "//www mass,goy/lists/separat- ed-b i ke -lane-plan n i ng -design -gu ide Additional Resources Monsere, C., Dil l ,J., Clifton, K., McNeil, N., (20 14) Lessons from the Green Lanes : Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes in the U.S. Port land, OR: Transportation Research and Education Research Center Harkey, D., Carter, D., Barlow,J ., Bentzen, B., (2007 ) Accessible Pedestrian Signals: A Guide to Best Practice s. National Coopera- tive Highway Research Program Web -Only Document 150, Wash ington DC: National Cooperative Highway Research Program Blackburn, L., Zegeer, C., Brookshire, K., (20 17) Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Lo ca t ions (Report No. FHWA-SA-17-072) Washington DC: Fed eral Highway Admini stration Office of Safety I Venessa Garza From: Sent: To: Cc: Cooper, Wayne <wCooper@Halff.com > Tuesday, November 04 , 2014 3:15 PM Venessa Garza Cooper, Aaron Subject: RE : Spring Creek Trail :: Preferred Corridor Categories: High Priority Venessa : Just getting back to you on this! We could not open either link , but get a message that the link to the files does not exist In any event , we have looked at the corridor again , and offer the responses below. Wayne H. Wayne Cooper, ASLA, AICP Vice President HALFF ASSOCIATES, INC. 4030 West Braker Lane , Ste . 450 Austin , Texas 78759 Office 512 -777 -4600 Direct 512-777-4590 Fax 512-252 -8141 Cell 512-663-4569 wcooper@halff.com www .halffdpc.com 1708 N. Dal Paso , Suite #3 Hobbs , New Mexico 88240 57 5-391 -3805 From: Venessa Garza [mailto:vgarza@cstx.gov] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 4:56 PM To: Cooper, Wayne Cc: Cooper, Aaron Subject: RE: Spring Creek Trail : : Preferred Corridor This message contains attachments delivered via ShareFile. • • • Picture6 045.jpg (2 .9 MB) Picture6 047 .jpg (2.8 MB) Picture6 049.jpg (2 .5 MB) j Download the attachments by clicking here. This message contains attachments delivered via ShareFile. • TowerPoint-TrailDesign_CEC_ 14-04-03 .Zip (10.4 MB) j Download the attachments by clicking here . Good afternoon, 1 Here are my comments/questions: {I realize this is a very preliminary corridor location) Let me know if you don't get the attachments. Starting at the east end heading west towards the high school - 1) I noticed the majority of the trail is in the floodplain. Do you not think there will be complications with the NL Ts? Isn't that one of the reasons why we stayed out of the floodplain for Lick Creek Trail ? There was a portion of the trail on Lick Creek that happened to be in area that was suitable for the NLT habitat, and we moved it to not cause any mitigation activities to occur. We moved the trail out of the flood plain at Danielle's request, because of the potential impacts on trail construction and long-term maintenance costs . We are Looking at an alternative alignment through the trees. One thing to consider is the, though it is not monumental, but there will be additional costs to clear the trees out of the trail corridor when we move out of the sanitary sewer easement. Aaron will take a look at the habitat with our biologist, Brian, this Friday when they walk this area. 2) After the first bridge crossing, the trails seems to be in the floodway. Please move further away. We actually do not show the floodway, but we will move the trial further away from the creek . 3) I'm not sure that the homeowners on Woodland Ridge will be interested in a trail directly behind them . It should probably cross over the creek where the culvert crossing is and cross back after the underpass at some point. I'm open to discussion on this. We had shown the trail corridor taking the easy way across the greenway. We will provide a new alignment this area. 4) Please sl:low a caAAectier:i to Sprir:ig Br;rnd~ Ca~rt . Done . S) Attached is info for the Tower Point easement/trail location . Could not open this file . The link was inoperative. 6) I'm not sure about the location of the trail where the channel protection is?? Did y'all walk that area? There's some odd earthwork that was done there maybe with the development of the residential homes . See attached pictures. I would assume if we're going to put a trail through here some dirt work would be needed -affecting the cost. We were again looking at an easier way out. To avoid the location behind the houses, we'll have to cross the creek with a larger/longer bridge in this area. It's probably a wash cost -wise either way. 7) Please sl 1ow a co111 1ectim 1 to Alexandria Ave11ue tlir oagh the park pr aper tv DMl e. 8) I'm not sure about the location of the section between Reatta Meadows Park and Castle Rock Park/ the area between the two bridge crossings. I've attached the final plat for Shenandoah Phase 15 -we are supposed to get a blanket access easement for the common area so the trail could go through there if it is feasible. We have re -aligned the trail in this area to conform to the green belt area shown in the plat for the lots. -J:s rt' -f~ ,blt.? 9) From Reatta Meadows Park to the terminus -there are a couple of locations that seem close to the creek and although it can be designed further away in sections where there is room there is the section midpoint of the school to the terminus that looks tight. Can it be confirmed that it won't be a problem or require channel protection . We have adjusted the alignment of the trail, but we won't know the final impacts until a survey is prepared in this area . 10) Lastly -Although we talked about the existing terminus could it actually go to Barron Road so that if the Parks Department thinks it's feasible we have the a cost estimate that reflects that. I guess the question is if it is feasible on the narrowest section with the creek in that location too. I assume the answer is no but just want to confirm . We are looking at this option and will have a solution for your review in the near future . Thanks and sorry for the delay in responding! Venessa Garza, AICP Greenways Program Manager City of College Station 979-764-3674 2 Venessa Garza from: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Venessa : Cooper, Wayne <wCooper@Halff.com> Monday, October 13 , 2014 6:05 PM Venessa Garza Cooper, Aaron FW: Spring Creek Trail :: Preferred Corridor Preferred Trail Corridor.pdf Please see the attached preliminary tra il alignment for the Spring Creek Trail. We selected this alignment after walk ing the trail corridor. The piece you walked with us , up to where the trail crosses the creek behind the commercial area is fairly straightforward , and from that point northward we pretty much follow a sanitary sewer easement , except where we pass through Woodland Hills Park , and where we depart the easements south of the future Pebble Creek Parkway extension . We also show a loop at the Lakeway Drive crossing as there is a drainage ditch on the south side of the road that will have to be crossed, depending on the timing of the trail construction . The area south of SH 6 navigates around the detention basin to cross beneath Arrington Drive , where we run into the first obstacle . The area beneath the bridge is standing in water , and looks to be a wetland . Our biologist will review this area when he walks the corridor looking for the Navasota Ladies ' Tresses (NL T). We show the trail corridor to cross the creek at the most narrow point in the stream , within the limits of the Conservation Easement , hoping that this will minimize any impacts to the NLT , but this will have to be confirmed when the biologists walk that area . From the conservation easement toward the south , we tried to stay within the limits of existing easements, but were not always successful. We did select routes that seemed to have the least impact possible . We show two alternative alignments at the terminus in Sonoma Park as well. Regarding the Ladies' Tresses , our biologist is in communication with the scientists at TX A&M , who are on the lookout for NL T s ightings . We would like to wait until some of the flowers have been spotted (2-3 weeks) to perform our walk through , in order to provide the most accurate review possible of potential impacts to the flower's habitat. Please let me know if this will be a problem . In the meantime , please pass along any comments that you may have regarding the current alignment. Thanks, Wayne H. Wayne Cooper, ASLA, AICP Vice President HALFF ASSOCIATES , INC . 4030 West Bra ker Lane , Ste . 450 Austin , Texas 78759 Office 512-777-4600 Direct 512 -777-4590 Fax 512-252 -8141 Cell 512-663-4569 wcooper@halff.com www .halffdpc.com 1708 N . Dal Paso , Suite #3 Hobbs , New Mexico 88240 575 -391-3805 1