HomeMy WebLinkAbout27 Bicycle Countermeasure Selection SystemBIKESAFE:
Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System
MAY 2006
U.S. Depart ment of Tran sp o rtat io n
Federal Highway Administration FHWA-SA-05-006
Notice
This doc ument is disseminated under the sponsors hip of the D e p ar tme nt ofTran sporta tion in the inte r-
est of information exc hange. The Unite d States Government ass umes no li ability for its co ntents or u se
the reof. This report does not co n stitute a stand ard , sp ecifi ca ti o n or regul ation.
Some of the traffic control d ev ices illustrated or described in this doc ument may b e exp erimental or
non-compliant with the curre nt edition of the M anu al o n Uniform Traffic Control D evices (MUTCD).
The MUTCD is the legal standard in the Unite d States for all traffic control devices and is ava ilable for
viewing at http:/ /m utcd .fhwa .d ot.gov.
The U nite d States Government does not end orse products or manufacterers. Trade and m anu fac ture rs'
names app ea r in this report only because they are con sidered esse ntial to the object of th e document.
,
.~I
5. P arkingTrea tments ........................................................................................................................................ 62
6 . M edian/Cross ing Island ................................................................................................................................ 64
7 . Driveway Improvem ents ............................................................................................................................... 66
8. A ccess M an age m en t ...................................................................................................................................... 6 7
9 . R educe Number Of Lan es ............................................................................................................................ 69
10. R educe Lane Width .................................................................................................................................... 70
On-Road Bike Fac iliti es ...................................................................................................................................... 71
11 . Bike Lan es .................................................................................................................................................. 7 2
12.Wide C urb Lan es ........................................................................................................................................ 73
13 . P ave d Shoulde rs .......................................................................................................................................... 74
14 . C ombinati o n Lanes ..................................................................................................................................... 7 5
15. C ontrafl ow B ike Lane s ................................................................................................................................ 76
Inter sec tion Trea tme nts ........................................................................................................................................ 78
16 . C urb R adii R ev isions ................................................................................................................................. 79
17 . Roundabouts .............................................................................................................................................. 8 1
18 . Intersection Markings ................................................................................................................................. 83
19. Si ght Distan ce Improvem ents ...................................................................................................................... 8 5
2 0. Turning R es trictions ................................................................................................................................... 86
21 . M erge and W eave Are a R edes ign ................................................................................................................. 87
M ainten ance ........................................................................................................................................................ 89
22 . R epetitive/Short-Ter m Mainten anc e .......................................................................................................... 90
23. M ajor M ainten anc e ..................................................................................................................................... 92
24 . H az ard Id entifi ca tion Prog ram .................................................................................................................... 93
Traffic Calming ................................................................................................................................................... 9 5
25 . Mini Traffi c C ircle s ..................................................................................................................................... 96
2 6. C hi cane s ..................................................................................................................................................... 98
27. Sp ee d Tabl es /Humps/Cu shi ons ................................................................................................................. 100
28.Vi sual N ar rowing ...................................................................................................................................... 102
29. Tra ffi c Divers io n ....................................................................................................................................... 103
30. R aise d Intersec tion ................................................................................................................................... 10 5
Trails/Sh ared-Use P aths ..................................................................................................................................... 106
3 1. Se p arat e Shared-Use P ath .......................................................................................................................... 107
32. P ath Inter sec ti o n Treatme nts ..................................................................................................................... 109
3 3. Inter se ction W arning Trea tme nts ............................................................................................................... 11 1
3 4. Share the P ath Treatments ......................................................................................................................... 11 2
M arki ngs, Si gn s, and Signals ............................................................................................................................... 11 4
3 5 . Ins tall Si gn al /Optinuze Timing ................................................................................................................. 1 15
36. Bike-Activa ted Si gnal. ............................................................................................................................... 11 7
37. Si gn Imp rove m ents ................................................................................................................................... 11 8
38. P ave m ent M arking Improve m ents ............................................................................................................. 11 9
39. Sc hool Z o n e Improvements ...................................................................................................................... 121
Educa tion and En fo rce ment .............................................................................................................................. 123
40 . Law Enforce m ent ..................................................................................................................................... 12 4
41 . Bicy clist Educatio n ................................................................................................................................... 126
42 . Motorist Educa ti on ................................................................................................................................... 128
4 3. Prac titi oner Educati on .............................................................................................................................. 12 9
Supp o rt Fa ciliti es and Program s ......................................................................................................................... 130
44. Bike P arking ............................................................................................................................................. 131
45 . Transit A ccess ............................................................................................................................................ 13 3
4 6. Bi cy cli st P erso nal Faciliti es ........................................................................................................................ 135
4 7. Bike M aps ................................................................................................................................................. 136
48 .Way fi ndin g ................................................................................................................................................ 13 7
49 . E vents/ A cti viti es ....................................................................................................................................... 138
Bicycle Co untermea sure Se le ction System Tabl e of Contents v
50. Aesth eti cs/Landscapi n g ............................................................................................................................. 139
Chapter 6 -Case Studies ............................................................................................................. 141
#1 -Minimizing R oadway Surface H azards fo r Bikes ....................................................................................... 145
#2 -A Tale of P ortl and Bridges ......................................................................................................................... 148
#3 -Ligh ti ng and Advance Warning of Bicyclists in th e Knapps Hill Tunnel ...................................................... 155
#4 -Back-in Diagonal Parking wi th Bike Lanes ................................................................................................ 157
#5 -Valencia Street Road D ie t -Creating Spa ce for Cyclists ............................................................................ 164
#6 -Shoreline Park Expansion Proj ect-Provision of Bicycle and Pedestrian Enhancem ents ............................ 168
#7 -Bicycle Trea t ments on a Former Pedestrian M all ....................................................................................... 171
#8 -Bike Lane Safety Evalua tion ...................................................................................................................... 176
#9 -Establi shing Bike Lanes-Ch icago's Stree ts for Cycling Plan ..................................................................... 181
#10 -How H ampshire Stree t P avement Markings Influ ence Bicycle and Motor Ve hicl e Positi oning .................. 185
#11 -Raised Bicycle Lanes and Other Traffic Calmi ng Treatments on Ayre s Road ............................................ 190
#12 -Flo ati ng Bike Lanes in Conjunction w ith Part-Time P arki ng .................................................................. 196
#13 -Incorporating a Bicycle Lane through a St reetcar Platform ...................................................................... 199
#14 -Red Shoulders as a Bicycle Fac ility ......................................................................................................... 201
#15 -Conversion of 14-foot-wide O u tside Lane s to 11-foot Trave l Lanes with a 3-foot Undes igna ted Lane ..... 204
#16 -Prefere ntial Transi t-Bicycle-Right-Turn Lan es on Broadway Boulevard ................................................... 207
#17 -Taming the Urban Arte ri al. ...................................................................................................................... 209
#18 -Contraflow Bicycle La n es on Urban Streets ............................................................................................. 212
#19 -Left Side Bike Lanes o n One-Way Stree ts ................................................................................................ 216
#20 -Curb R adii /Curb Revisions .................................................................................................................... 221
#21 -Combined Bicycle Lane /Right-Turn Lan e .............................................................................................. 223
#22 -Blue Bike Lanes at Inter section Weavi n g Areas ......................................................................................... 226
#23 -Crossing an Arter ial throu gh an Offset Inters ec tion: Bicycle-Onl y Center-Turn Lan e .............................. 230
#24 -Improvin g Sight Distance b etween Cyclists and Motorists ....................................................................... 232
#25 -Grandview Drive Roundabout and Corridor Improvements ................................................................... 235
#26 -Innovative Appli catio n of the Bike Box ................................................................................................... 238
#27 -Compreh en sive Maintenance P lanning for Bicycle Faciliti es .................................................................... 242
#28 -Road H azard Identifi ca tion Pilot Proj ec t ................................................................................................. 246
#29 -B ikeway Spe ed Humps ............................................................................................................................ 249
#30 -Speed C u shi ons for the Evergreen Corridor Bike Lane Project ................................................................ 252
#31 -Neighb o rh ood Mini Traffic Circles .......................................................................................................... 258
#32 -B icy cle Boulevards-Brya nt Street Example ........................................................................................... 260
#33 -Planning, Designing and Impl ementing a Sh ared-U se Path ...................................................................... 265
#34 -Path and R oadway Intersections .............................................................................................................. 268
#35 -Grade-Se p arated Cross ing Trea tments ...................................................................................................... 273
#36 -Sh are the Trail: Minimi zing Us er Confli cts on Non-Motorized Faciliti es ................................................. 278
#37 -Sh are d Lane M arkings ............................................................................................................................. 283
#38 -Bicycle D etection Program ..................................................................................................................... 286
#39 -Bicycle Signal Heads ............................................................................................................................... 289
#40 -P edestrian/Bicycle Crosswalk Signals (H alf-Signals) ................................................................................. 292
#41 -Sh are the R oad Sign Initiati ve ................................................................................................................. 294
#42 -P lace m ent of 20-mph School Zone Signs ................................................................................................ 296
#43 -Sh are d-Use Arrow ................................................................................................................................... 302
#44 -Enforcem ent for Bicy cle Safety ............................................................................................................... 305
#45 -Bicycling Ambassadors and Bike Lane Edu ca tion ..................................................................................... 308
#46 -A Compreh ensive C hild Bicycle Safety Program ..................................................................................... 310
#4 7 -Sh are the Road: Motorist/Bicyclist Traffic Edu cation and E n fo rcement Program s .................................... 316
#48 -Hitching Posts for Bicycle Parking .......................................................................................................... 320
#49 -Bicycl e Access on Caltrain ....................................................................................................................... 323
#50 -Bike an d Bus Program ............................................................................................................................. 327
#51 -M app ing for Bicyc li sts ............................................................................................................................. 333
vi Table of Contents Bicycle Countermeasure Selec tion System
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors of this report thank the many incli viduals
w ho contribute d to the production of the case studi es in
C hapter 6 . The specific persons are identified on the first
page of eac h study.
W e thank the panel of prac tition ers with whom we met
at the outset of the project to d efine the goals and objec-
tives for the BIKESAFE product, including:
Andy C larke
Executive Director, League of American Bicyclists
Washington, D.C.
Peter Flu cke
President, WE B IKE
Green Bay, WI
M ark Horowitz
Bicycle Coordinator
Broward Co unty, FL
Tom Huber
Wisconsin DOT Bi cycle and Pedes trian Coordina tor
Macli son, WI
Peter Lagerwey
Pedestrian an d Bicycle Coordinator
C ity of Seattl e, WA
Jim Sebastian
District of Columbia
Office ofTran sportation Planning
Washington, D.C.
We thank the following individuals from Santa B arbara,
CA, w h o participated in a Technical Working Group to
cliscuss the beta version of the expert system:
Dru van Hengel
Ralph Fertig
Erika Lindemann
Su san M cLa u ghlin
We also thank the following reviewers of the b e ta ver-
s10n:
Sh eil a Andersen, Louisvill e, KY
John M adera, Philadelphia, PA
Kevin Chang, Seattle, WA
Report layout an d graphics and Web/CD applica ti o n de-
sign support was provided by Zoe Gillenwater of HSRC.
Web /CD appli cation programming was provided by
Dwayne Tharpe of HSRC.
Finally, we thank FHWA task m anage r Tamara R e dmon,
and tec hnical managers Leverson Boodlal , Pedestrian
Safety Consultant of KLS Engineering, and Dan N abors
of BMI-SG for the ir overall review of the project.
Bicycle Countermea sure Selection System Acknowled gment s iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SI* (M odern M etri c) C onve r si o n Fac tors .............................................................................................................. ii
Ac knowled gm ents ................................................................................................................................................ iii
H ow to U se this G u id e ...................................................................................................................................... viii
Chapter 1 -The Big Picture ............................................................................................................ 1
La nd U se and Bicycli n g ......................................................................................................................................... 2
A ss u m e th at P eo ple Will B icy cl e ............................................................................................................................ 3
Tran sit and Bicycling ............................................................................................................................................. 3
H ow B icy clists are Affec t ed by M o to r Vehicl e Traffi c Vo lume and Sp eed ................................................................. 4
Complete Stree ts ................................................................................................................................................... 4
Optio n s to Improve Bi cy cling ................................................................................................................................ 5
Chapter 2 -Bicyclist Crash Factors .................................................................................................. 7
M agnitu d e of the P roble m ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Bi cyclists M os t at Risk. .......................................................................................................................................... 9
Place and Time of Occu rren ce ............................................................................................................................... 9
Al co h o l Invo lve m ent ............................................................................................................................................. 9
Sp ecial Situatio n s Involv in g Bicycli sts .................................................................................................................... 9
Chapter 3 -Selecting Improvements for Bicyclists ............................................................................ 13
Identificati o n of High -Cras h Lo ca ti o n s ................................................................................................................ 14
Bicycl e Crash Ty pi n g ........................................................................................................................................... 14
D efiniti ons of Bicycl e Crash Ty p es ....................................................................................................................... 15
1 . M o t orist Fail ed to Y ield -Signaliz ed Inters ec ti o n ..................................................................................... 15
2 . M o to ri st Fail ed to Yield -N on-Signali ze d Intersec ti o n ............................................................................. 16
3 . Bi cycl ist Fail ed to Yi eld -Si gn al ized Intersec tio n ...................................................................................... 17
4 . B icyc li st Fail ed to Y ield -N on-Signali zed Inter sec ti o n ............................................................................. 18
5 . M o torist D rove O ut-Midblo ck .............................................................................................................. 19
6 . Bicyclist R o d e O ut -Midblock ................................................................................................................ 20
7 . M o to ri st Turned or M er ge d Left into P ath o f B icy cli st ............................................................................... 20
8. M o to ri st Turn ed or M erge d Righ t int o P ath of Bicyclist ............................................................................ 22
9 . B icycli st Turned or M erge d Left int o P ath of M o to ri st ............................................................................... 23
10 . Bi cycli st Turned or M erge d Righ t into P ath of M o torist ............................................................................ 24
11 . M o t o rist O vertaking Bicy cli st .................................................................................................................... 25
12. Bi cy cli st O vertaking Motorist .................................................................................................................... 26
13. N on-Motor Vehicl e C ras h es ...................................................................................................................... 27
14. N on-R oadwa y and O ther Cras h es ............................................................................................................ 28
C ras h-Relate d Cou n t ermeasures ......................................................................................................................... 29
P erform ance Obj ec tives ....................................................................................................................................... 30
Prog ram of Improvemen ts ................................................................................................................................... 30
Chapter 4 -The Expert System ....................................................................................................... 37
H ow to U se BIKESAFE ...................................................................................................................................... 39
Se lec ti o n Tool ...................................................................................................................................................... 40
Interac ti ve M atrices ............................................................................................................................................. 45
C ountern1eas ures ................................................................................................................................................. 4 7
Case Studi es ........................................................................................................................................................ 48
Chapter 5 -Countermeasures ......................................................................................................... 51
Shared R oadway ................................................................................................................................................. 53
1. R oa d way Surfa ce Im p rove m e n ts ................................................................................................................... 54
2 . B r idge and O verpas s A ccess .......................................................................................................................... 56
3 . Tu nnel and Underp ass A ccess ........................................................................................................................ 5 8
4 . Li ghti ng Improve m ents ................................................................................................................................. 60
iv Table of Content s Bicyc le Counterm easu re Sele ction System
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
FHWA-SA-05-006
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
BIKESAFE: May 2006
Bicycle Co unte rmeas ure Selection System 6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s) William W Hunter, Libby Thomas and J a n e C. Stutts 8. Performing Organization Report No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
University of North Carolina 11. Contract or Grant No.
H igh way Safety R esea rch Center DTFH61 -99-X-00003
730 Martin Luther King,Jr. Blvd., CB #3430
Chapel Hill , NC 27599-3430
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Federal High way Administration Fin al R e port
Office of Safety Programs 2002 -2005
400 7th Street, SW 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Washington, DC 20590
15. Supplementary Notes
T hi s report was produced under the FHWA co n tract "Bicy cl e and Pedestrian Technical Information Cent er," direc t e d
by John Fegan (AOTR). The ta sk m an age r was Tamara R e dmon (FHWA). The tec h nical managers were Leverson
Boodlal, P edes trian Safety Con sultant of KLS E n gin eering and Dan Nabors of BMI-SG . R e port layo ut and gra phics
provided by Michael Daul, Zoe Gillenwater, and P aul Kendall of HSRC ; Illu stra tions by A.J. Silva; W eb /CD ap pli ca-
tion programming p rov ide d by Dwayne Tharpe of HSRC ; and Web /C D appli ca ti o n d es ign supp o rt prov ide d by Zoe
G ill e nwate r of HSRC.
16. Abstract
BIKESAFE is an exp ert sys te m that is div ide d into sec ti ons titl e d "Resources " and "Tools." This report is th e counterp art
to PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide and Co untermeas ure Selection Syste m.1 The "Resourc es" sec tion includes a var iety of
background information, and "Tools" includes 50 enginee ring, edu cation, enforcement, and supp ort co unterm eas ures
or trea tme nts that m ay b e imple m e nte d to improve bicycli st sa fety an d mobili ty. Also include d are more than 50 case
st udi es that illustrate these co n ce pts ap pli e d in practice in a numb e r of c onununities throughout the United States.
This sys tem and the content of this guide are included on the e nclose d C D and are ava il able online at http :/ /sa fety.fhwa.
dot.gov /bikesafe and at http ://www.bicycling info .org/bikesafe .The sys te m allows th e u ser to refine his or h er se lec tion
of trea tments on the b as is of site ch arac teristi cs, su c h as geo m e tri c features and o p e rating conditi ons, and th e type of
safety p ro bl em or d esired behavioral c h an ge.Th e purpose of the system is to provi d e th e most a ppli cable informati o n for
identifying safety and mobility needs and improv ing conditions for bicyclists within the publi c right-of-way. BIKESAFE
is intended primarily for e n gineers, pl anne rs, safety profess ionals, and d ec isionmakers, but it may also b e u se d by ci ti ze n s
for identi fying problems and reconunending so luti ons for the ir communities.
1 PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Se lection System was authored by David H arkey and Charl es
Zegee r, with contributi o n s from Cara Se iderman , Peter Lagerwey, Mike Cynecki, Mic h ael Ronkin, and Robert Sch-
n eider.
17. Key Words: 18. Distribution Statement
bi cycle safety, bicycle fac iliti es, crash typing, e n gineering trea tme nts, N o restrictions. This document is availa bl e
e ducation , enfo rce m ent to the publi c through the N ational Techni-
cal Information Service, Springfie ld , Virginia
22161.
19. Security C l assif. (of this re-20. Security C l assif. (of this 21. No. of Pages 22: Price
port) page) 384
Unclassified Unclass ifi ed
Form DOT F 17 00.7 (8-72)
Reproduction of form and completed page is authorized
Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System Technic al Repo rt Docu ment ation Pa ge
SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS
SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL
LENGTH
in inches 25.4 m i llimeters mm
ft feet 0.305 meters m
yd ·yards 0.914 meters m
mi miles 1.61 kilometers km
AREA
in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm 2
ft2 square feet 0 .093 square meters m2
vd2 square vard 0.836 square meters m2
ac acres 0.405 hectares ha
mi2 square miles 2 .59 square kilomete rs km2
VOLUME
fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters ml
ga l gallons 3.785 li t ers l
ft3 cub ic feet 0 .028 cubic meters m3
yd3 cub ic yards 0 .765 cubic meters m3
NOTE : volumes greater than 1000 l shal l be shown in m3
MASS
oz oun ces 28.35 :grams 1g
lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg
T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton ") Mg (or "t")
TEMPERATURE (exact de2ree s)
oF Fahrenheit 5 (F -32)/9 Celsius oC
or (F-32)/1.8
ILLUMINATION
fc foot-cand les 10.76 l ux Ix
fl foot-lamberts 3 .426 candela /m2 cd /m2
FORCE and PRESSURE or STRE SS
lbf ooundforce 4.45 newtons N
lbf/i n2 poundforce pe r square inch 6.89 kilooascals kPa
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS
SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL
LENGTH
mm mill i meters 0.039 inches in
m meters 3.28 feet ft
m meters 1.09 I Yards !Yd
km kilometers 0.621 miles mi
AREA
mm2 square mill i me t ers 0.0016 square inches in2
m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2
m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2
ha he ctares 2.47 acres ac
km2 square kilomet ers 0.386 square miles mi2
VOLUME
ml mi l liliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz
l liters 0.264 1gallons gal
m3 cubic mete rs 35 .314 cubic feet ft3
m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3
MASS
l g grams 0.035 ounces oz
kg kilograms 2 .202 pounds lb
Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton ") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T
TEMPERATURE (exact degree s)
oC Celsius l .8C+32 Fahrenheit oF
ILLUMINATION
Ix lux 0 .0929 foot-candles fc
cd/m2 candela /m2 0 .2919 foot-lamberts fl
FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS
N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf
kPa ki looascals 0.145 ooundforce oer square inch lbf/in2
*S I is the symbo l fo r t he Internationa l System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comp ly with Section 4 of ASTM E380. (Revised
March 2003)
SI* (Mo de rn Met ric) Co nve rsio n Fac tors Bicyc le Co un ter meas ure Se lec ti on System
#52 -Commuter Coach : Commuter Bicyclist R ecruiting ................................................................................. 336
#53 -Bike to Work Promotion ......................................................................................................................... 339
#54 -Free Cycles Program ............................................................................................................................... 344
#55 -Bicycle D es tination Signing Syste m ......................................................................................................... 347
#56 -Urban Forestry ........................................................................................................................................ 349
#57 -Raising Funds for Bi cycle Safety Programs through Specialty Li cense P lates ............................................ 351
#58 -A Transit Oriented Development Financi al Incentive Program -A Tool to Encourage More Bicycling and
Walking ............................................................................................................................................................. 355
Chapter 7 -Implementation and Resou rces ................................................................................. 359
Getting Star ted .................................................................................................................................................. 360
Construction Strategies ...................................................................................................................................... 361
Funding ............................................................................................................................................................ 362
Web Sites .......................................................................................................................................................... 362
Guides, H andbooks and R efe rences ................................................................................................................... 365
Appendix A -Field Investigation Form ........................................................................................ 375
Appendix B -Case Study Matrix ................................................................................................. 377
References ................................................................................................................................. 381
Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System Table of Contents vii
HOW TO USE THIS GUIDE
BIKESAFE is an exp ert sys t em that all ows the user to se-
lec t ap p ropriate co untermeasures or treatments to address
specific problems. BIKESAFE also includes a large num-
ber of case studies to illustrate trea tments implemente d in
communities throughout the United States .
This sys tem and the content of this guide are incl ude d on
the enclose d CD and are ava il able o nli ne at http:/ /safety.
fhwa.dot.gov /bikesafe and at http :/ /www.bicyclinginfo.
o rg /bikesafe. The sy stem allows the user to refine hi s or
h er selection of trea tments on the b asis of site chara ct er-
isti cs, su ch as geo m e tric features and operating condi-
ti ons, and the type of safety problem or d esired beh avioral
ch an ge. The purpose of the syste m is to provide the most
app li ca bl e information for identi fy ing safety and mobility
needs and improving co nditions for bi cyc li sts w ithin th e
public right-of-way. BIKESAFE is inte nded primaril y for
e n g ineers, p lanner s, safety p rofess ionals, and decisionmak-
e rs, but it may al so b e u sed by citi zens for identifying p ro b-
lems and reconunending so lutions for the ir co nununities.
BIKESAFE was desi gned to enabl e practitioners to se-
lect enginee r ing, edu cation, or e nforce m e nt treatme nts
to h elp mitigate a known cras h problem and/ or to h elp
ac hieve a spec ifi c p e rfo rmance objective. While the ma-
jority of the specific trea tments are e n gineering co u nter-
measures, many of th e case studi es include sup ple m e ntal
e nforce m ent ac tivities (e.g., a course that teach es p oli ce
about enforcing bi cy cl e safety) and / or edu ca tional ap -
proaches (e.g., educating p eople ab o ut riding o n sh ared
roadways or o n roads with bicycle facilities). BIKESAFE
u ses known ch arac te risti cs of the environment and per-
nuts the u se r to either view all co unterm eas ures assoc i-
ated w ith a give n obj ective or cras h type or to view only
those th at are ap plica bl e to a defined set (as input by th e
u ser) of geome tri c and operating conditi ons. The objec-
tives of the product are as fo llows :
viii
Provide i nfo rmation abou t bi cycl e cras h typ es, sta ti s-
tic s and other back gro und res ources.
Provide u ser w ith informa tion on wha t co unter-
m easures ar e ava il abl e to preve nt sp ecific c ategories
of bicycle cras h es or t o ac hi eve certain performance
objectives.
Outline consid era ti ons to be addressed in the selection
of a counte rmeas ure.
Provide a d ecision process to elimin at e countermea-
sures from the li st of possibili ti es.
Provide case st udies of co unte rmeasures introdu ce d in
co nununiti es through o ut th e United States.
How to Use thi s Guid e Bicycle Countermeasu re Se lec ti on System
C h apter 1 -The Big Pic ture gives an overview on h ow to
crea te a sa fe bicycling e nv ironme nt. C h apte r 2 -Bicyclist
Crash Statis ti cs describes b as ic bicyclist cras h trends and
statisti cs in the U.S . C h apter 3 -Selecting Improvements
for Bicy clists di scusses the approa ch es to se lec t th e most
appropriate co untermeasures. On e ap proach is based on
the need to reso lve a known safety pro bl em, w hil e the
oth er is ba se d on the desire t o ch ange beh aviors of mo-
tori sts and/ or bicyclists.
C h ap ter 4 -The Expert System describes the Web /CD
applicatio n , inclu ding a descr iption of the overall content
and st e p-by-step instructio n s for u se. C hapte r 5 -Coun-
t ermeas ures contains the d e tail s of more than 50 e n gi n eer-
ing, e duca tion, and enforcement treatments for bicy clists.
These improvements re late to sh ared roadways; on-road
bike fac ilities; intersection trea tments; mainte nance; traf-
fic cal nung; trail s/share d-use p aths; markings, signs, and
signals; e ducation and e nforc e m e nt; and supp ort fac ilities
and prog rams . In Chap te r 6 -Case Studies are more than
50 exa mples of implemented trea tments in communities
throughout the U.S.
Furth e r reso urces are provide d in Chapter 7 -Implemen-
tation and Resources, includin g sections on community
involvement in developing priorities, devising strategi es
for co n stru c tion , and rais ing funds for b icycle improve-
m e nts. A li st of u sefu l Web sites, guides, h andbooks, and
other refe renc es is also provide d .
There are al so two appe ndices with sup porting materi-
als . Appendix A includes an assessment form th at can be
used in th e fi eld to collect the informa ti on needed to
effec ti vely u se the expert sys t e m . Appendix B provides
a detailed matrix showing the sp ecific cou ntermeasures
that are assoc iat ed with eac h of the case studi es.
Chapter 1 -The Big Picture
Land Use and Bicycling
Assume That People Will Bicycle
Transit and Bicycling
How Bicyclists are Affected by Motor
Vehicle Traffic Volume and Speed
Options to Improve Bicycling
Bi cycle Countermeasure Se lec tion System I Th e Big Picture
Bicycling is one of the o ld es t forms of human tran sp o rta-
tion, ye t the m o d e rn-day cycli st faces p ro bl ems relate d to
suburban liv ing and m o tor ve hicle sp ee d and traffi c vo l-
ume, am o n g othe r s. The va rio u s kinds of fac ilities n ee d ed
to m aintain bi cycling as a viable tran sp o r tation m o d e h ave
b een fr e que ntly ove rl oo ke d in the buildi n g of m odern
tran sp o rtation sy st em s. T his situation h as b ee n c h an g ing
in rece nt year s, and n ow peopl e wa nt m ore ways t o get
around their communities and elsew h e re v ia b icy cl e . And
they want to b e abl e to m ake th ese bicycling trips in a sa fe
and e nj oya ble m anne r .
The bi cyclist is a v uln era bl e ro ad u se r, and creating a sa fe r
bi cycling e nvironment invo lves m o re than striping a bike
lan e o r re -str iping motor ve hicle trave l lanes t o acco m-
modat e a w ide c urb la n e o r eve n building a se p arate d
p ath. A truly v ia ble bicycling n e twork invo lves b o th the
big pic ture and the sm all est d e tails -from h ow a co m -
munity is built and connec te d , to the m ap s that indica te
sa fe bi cycling route s, to the surface m at e rials o n the bike
p ath. Bicycling fac iliti es sh o uld b e access ibl e to va rio us
typ es o f u se rs, and informati o n should b e p rovide d about
the level of skill n ecessa ry o n a ce rtain route.
B eca u se most of the w o rk that w ill b e done involves re t-
rofitting existing ro ads, stree ts, and trails, improv ing the
bicycling environment w ill likely start at the community
level. It is n o t only impo rtant to ide ntify bicycling corri-
dors w ithin a c ommu ni ty and d e te rmine if im p ro vem e nts
n ee d to b e m ad e , but al so to exa mine ove rall co nnectiv i ty
w ithin th e c ommunity.
LAND USE AND BICYCLING
The n ature of the built environme nt is im p o rtant n o t
only fo r walking but also for bicy cling. Communi ty
c h ar ac t e risti cs t h at fo st er b icy cling include: h av ing d es-
tina ti o n s cl ose t o eac h o th e r ; c hoosin g sites fo r sc h ools,
p arks, a nd public sp aces appropriatel y; all owing rnixe d -
u se d evelopme nts; h av ing suffi ci e nt d e n siti es to sup-
port tran sit; c rea ting comme r cial di stricts that p eop le
can access by bicycl e (o r foo t and w h eelc h air); p rov id-
ing ad e qua te, v isible, sec ure p arking, and so o n . About
5 7 p e rcent of bi cycling t rips are less than 3.2 km (2.0
mi). 1 Whe n res ide nts are segrega t e d fr o m sites su c h as
pa r k s, offi ces, and stores, t h e re will b e fewe r bicycling
trips b eca u se d es tinations are n o t clo se eno u gh for bi-
cycling . While mixe d -u se d evelo pme nts w i th suffi c ie nt
d e n sity t o support tran sit and n e ighborhoo d c omme r-
c ial bu sinesses normall y m ak e bi cycling a v iable optio n
for res ide nts, single -use, low-de nsity res ide nti al land-u se
p atte rns c an di sc ourage bicy cling, es p eciall y if the con-
2 The Big Picture Bic ycle Cou nt ermea sure Selection System
Bi cycling on loc al streets can be an enjoyab le form of
t ran spo rtation and re c re ation.
n ec tin g ro ad s to o ther d es tina ti o n s h ave hi g h sp eed s and
traffi c volumes and inad e quat e bi cycle fa c iliti es.
The connec ti o n b etween la nd-use pl anning and tran s-
p o rtati o n pl anning is criti cal but all to o o ft e n ignore d .
Integra ting land-u se and tran sportati o n planning allows
n ew d eve lo pme nts to imple m e nt these strategies fr o m the
o n se t . Communities th at suppo rt b ala n ced tran sp o rtati o n
sys te m s m ake bi cycling an attrac ti ve o ption.
In es tabli sh e d communities, m any of these goals can b e
m e t w ith "in-fill developme nt" to increase d e n sity and
co mmunity via bili ty. In addition, p roviding appropr iate
bi cycling fa cilities b etween d es irabl e des tinati o n s w ill re-
sult in more bicycle trip s.2 The fac ility m ay b e as simple
as a normal-width sh are d lane on a street with low tra ffi c
vo lumes and slow moto r ve hicl e sp ee ds. Some times low-
volume, slow-sp ee d streets b ecom e bi cy cl e boulevards
throug h n eighbo rhood s. A s motor ve hicle traffi c volume
and sp eed s increase, p rov idin g sp ace for bicycli sts thro u gh
bike lan es or w ide c urb lan es b ecom es more important.
So m e times providing a se parate d bi cycle path m ay b e n ee -
The nature of th e bui lt enviro nm ent is important for bicycling.
z w
Cl a::
::>
"' z
;3
>-"' ~
0
I
tL
essa ry to provide a link between areas that have no streets
suitable excep t for the most experie n ce d bi cycli sts.
ASSUME THAT PEOPLE WILL
BICYCLE
Bicycles are ve hicles and are abl e t o travel on a wide var i-
ety of roadway types. It should b e ass ume d tha t bicycli sts
w ill want to rid e, and plans should b e m ad e to acc ommo -
date the m.The Federal Hig hway Administration (FHWA)
has en courage d routine acco mmodation for bicyclists (and
pedestrians) for many years, and the con cept h as b een em-
braced by m any state and local d e p artme nts of transportation
(D OTs). More d e tai l on routine acconunod ation is avail -
able at http :/ /www.fhwa .dot.gov I e nvironme nt/bike p e d /
guidance.htm.
The bicycle can b e used to commute to work , to run
erra nds, to vis it n eighbors, to go t o local stores, t o tra n s-
port c hildren , to ge t exe r cise, or for recr ea tion . Skill
level s am ong bicyclists will vary, and novices may only
fee l comfortable on sl ow-sp ee d , n e ig hborhoo d streets
or off-road path s. The exp e rie n ced bi cy cli st will tend
t o feel comfo rtable on hig h e r-sp ee d , hig h e r-volume
street s if adequ a t e space is provided . The sp ace u su all y
res ults from fac ilities s u c h as bike lanes, p ave d shoul-
ders or wide c urb lanes.
Bicycling can also b e enco ura ged by re trofitting existing
stree ts on corridors bicycli sts are known to fr e que nt. R et-
rofitting could involve su ch things as re moval of p arking,
narrowing of travel lanes to slow motor vehicle sp ee ds,
and u sing the space add ed from lan e n arrow ing to accom-
modate bike lan es, p ave d sh o uld ers o r wide curb lanes.
Conm1Uniti es inte res ted in promoting bi cycling n eed to
know where bicyclists ride, as w ell as where they want to
ride. Once desired corridors are identifi e d , inve ntory can
be taken to identify on-stree t d efic iencies . D e fi ci e n cies
app ear in many forms, including poor p ave m e nt quality,
narrow streets with not e nou gh sp ace to share a lane with
mo tor vehicles, inadeq u ate sp ace on bridges, problem in-
tersections, etc. D eficie n cies can often b e improved , but
so m e times right-of-way is a probl e m , and a se parate trail
or path may be n eeded to fi ll a gap.
Besides facility improve m e nts, it is also b enefi c ial to pro-
v ide a pleasant and interesting bicycling environment.
T he built and natural environme nts are th e refo re impor-
tant components of a pleas ing bi cy cling e nvironment.
The e nvirone m e nt may also b e improve d in p ar t through
lands ca p e design ele m ents, which ca n improve aest h e ti cs,
Bes ides providing a pleasant place to ride, a separated tra il
can provide a desired connec ti on .
offe r a sense of vis ual n arrowing, and perhaps slow traffi c
sp eeds. Proper u se of serpentining o r other traffic calming
measures can accomplish the sam e thin g.
Bicyclists al so want to ride in an enviro nme nt where they
feel safe, not only safe from motor ve hicle traffic, but also
safe from cr ime or other con cerns that ca n affect personal
sec urity. Li ghting and other se curity measures should b e
conside re d in certain lo catio n s.
Traditionally, traffic safety p ro bl ems h ave b een ad dressed
by analyzing police c ras h reports and improvements h ave
b ee n made only after they were shown to b e warrant-
ed by cras h numbers. H owever, planners, engineers and
o th er pra ctition er s sh ould co n sider proble m -id e ntifica-
tion methods suc h as interactive public workshops , sur-
vey ing bi cyclists and drivers, and talking with police to
identify safety problem s in an area b efore crashes occur.
These m eas ures m ay h elp proa ctive ly ide ntify lo ca tions
for bicycle safety improve m ents and will involve citi zens
in the process of improving safety and mobility in the ir
own communities.
TRANSIT AND BICYCLING
Bicycling and transit are complementary. In many com-
munities, bicycle racks are prov ide d on buses, e n abling
w h at might be a long bicycling trip to be shorte n ed by
u sing transit for part of th e journey. Once bi cy cli sts get
used to pla cing their bikes on the racks, the process te nds
to flow easily. Friendly and com forta bl e tran sit stops are
also a plus . Some consideration n eeds to b e give n to the
on-street riding conditions aro u nd transit stops freq u ent-
ed by bicycli sts m aking use of bu s racks. It may b e rela-
tively easy to implem e nt minor c h anges that m ak e the
bi cycl ing part of the trip to or from the tran sit sto p much
Bi cyc le Cou nterm easure Selec tion System The Big Pi ctur e 3
z
UJ
0
"' ::::>
CD
z
C'5
>-
CD
~
0
I c..
sa fer a nd c omfortable. Feeling unsafe on the bicycl e for
even a short di stance m ay di sc ourage u se of a combine d
bike-bus trip.
It is al so the ca se that carry ing a bicycl e o nto a train is
muc h more c ommon than in the past . Fo r example, C al-
train in th e San Francisc o area has become very accessibl e
for bicycli sts. Su ch access is ye t anothe r way to c ombine
bicy cling with anoth e r m o d e of transportati o n .
HOW BICYCLISTS ARE AFFECTED
BY MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC
VOLUME AND SPEED
A bicycl e ca n b e ridde n o n almost any kind of ro adway,
ye t certain traffi c conditio n s crea te a se n se of di sco mfort,
eve n for th e skill e d bi cycli st . A high vo lume o f traffic is
one o f those co nditions an d ca n inhibit a bicycli st 's feel-
ing of safety and c omfo r t . This is parti c ularl y true when
no bicycl e fac iliti es exis t on these ro adways .
Motor ve hicle traffi c sp ee d is e quall y criti cal to bike -
ability and safe ty. Though bi cy cli sts m ay feel co mfort-
able o n streets that ca rry a signifi ca nt am o unt of traffi c
at low sp eed s, fas t er sp eed s increase the likelihood o f
bi cy cli sts b eing stru ck an d seriously injured . At hi gh er
sp eed s, m o to rists are less likely to sto p in time to avo id
a c ras h . At a m e re 4 9. 9 km/h (31 mi/h ), a drive r will
n ee d ab o ut 61.0 m (200 ft) to stop, w hic h m ay exceed
avail able sight di stan ce . R edu cing sp ee d limits and subse -
que nt m o to r ve hicle sp eeds should improve b icycle safety.
A drive r trav eling at 30.6 km/h (19 mi /h ) ca n stop in
about 30.5 m (100 ft ).3
Unfo rtunate ly, m any of o ur st ree ts are d es ign e d to ac -
commo d ate high e r motor ve hicl e traffic volumes and
4
High motor vehicle traffic volume can create a sense of dis-
comfort for b icycl ists when they don't have space.
The Bi g Picture Bicycle Cou nte rmeasure Select ion System
z w
Cl a::
::::>
al
z
"' Cl
>-al
0
b
I
----~~~-----~~-----...;.;..~~
If done properly, slow ing speeds through traffic calming mea -
sures such as speed humps can improve safety for bi cyc lists ,
as well as pedestrians and motorists.
sp ee ds in an attempt to b e tte r h andle pea k h o ur co n ges -
tion . Most bicycli sts w ill try to av oid the se stree ts if p os -
sibl e, but a problem exi sts if th ese sa m e stree ts are p ar t
of a bicychng co r r ido r. Fortunately, ther e are tools th at
ca n improve the sp ee d profile, primarily by re d es igning
stree ts through traffic calming m eas ures. Howeve r, ca re
must b e take n to e n sure that the traffic caLning m e tho d
is suitable for bicycling. N ew stree ts ca n also b e con fig -
ure d w ith lowe r d es ign sp ee ds w itho ut a g rea t sac rifi ce
in ca p ac ity. Sp ee d re duc tions ca n inc rease bicycling sa fety
con sider abl y. The safety b en e fit s of re du ced sp eeds exte nd
to m o torists and p e d es trian s as well . O n slow sp ee d city
stree ts and lightly travel ed roadways, bi cyc li sts m ay sa fely
opera te in the normal traffi c lan es. H ow eve r, o n h eav-
il y travel e d stree ts, bicy cli sts n ee d space to ope rate and to
provide room for ove rtaking m o t o rists. Sp ace can b e p ro -
v ide d through the u se of bike lan es, p ave d shoulde r s, or
w ide c urb lan es (al tho u gh wide cur b lan es m ay n ot b e th e
b es t c hoice for a hi gh-sp ee d and hi gh -volume co mbina-
tion), and th ese fac iliti es ca n ofte n b e c rea te d thro u gh the
n arrow ing of traffic lan es through rem arking, o r w h at h as
com e to b e known as "road di e ts" (e.g ., re ducing traffi c
lan es from 3.7 m (1 2 ft ) to 3 or 3 .4 m (10 o r 11 ft ). M ore
d e tail about traffi c calming and ro ad di e ts is prov ide d in
late r sec tions.
COMPLETE STREETS
A move m e nt ca ll e d "Compl e t e Stree ts " h as b ee n ac -
ti ve ly g rowin g si nce about 2001. T hi s builds o n th e
previous c once pt o f routine accommo d ation fo r bicy-
cli sts and p e d es t r ians. "Compl e t e S tree ts" is m ea nt t o
c onvey a win/w in for all p arti es w h o u se th e st ree t . A
st a t e m e nt of philosophy is containe d on the America
Bikes W e b sit e:
Complete streets provide ch o ices to the p eople w h o li ve,
work and travel on th em. Ped es trians and bicycli sts are
comfortable using complete streets. A n etwork of com-
plete streets improves the safety, co nve ni e n ce, effic iency
and access ibility of the tran sportation sys te m for all u sers.
Every road proj ec t sh o uld crea te co mpl ete streets.
Compl eting the streets m ean s routinely accommodat-
ing travel by all m odes. This will expand the ca p acity
to serve everyone who travels, be it by motor ve hicl e,
foot, bi cycle, or other means.A comple te street in a rural
area may look quite different from a comple te st reet in
a hi ghl y urban area. But both are d esigned to balance
safety and convenience for eve ryo n e using the road.
The Co mple te Stree t s co n ce pt promotes c h a n g ing the
way d es igners think abo ut th e street. Inst ea d of c urb
to c urb, they should think mo re co mple tely, s u c h as
building face to building face. Besides improving safe-
ty for bicyclists a nd pedestrians, completing the streets
sh o uld enco urage more people t o bi cycle and wa lk.
Stat es tha t have incorpora t e d this t ype of thinkin g into
their d es ign poli c i es include N ew J e r sey and Califor-
nia, both of whom h ave n ew g uid e books promoting
fl exibility in design of m ain stree ts.4 ·5 Th e Thunde r -
head Alli a n ce has d eve lop e d a repor t with information
a bout "Compl e te Streets" l aw s, policies, a nd plans m
the United States.6
This street comfortably accommodates all users .
OPTIONS TO IMPROVE BICYCLING
There are many ways to improve the co nditions for
bicycling. The follo wing c h apters provide informa ti on
on ge n era l fac tors rela t ed to bicyclist-motor ve hi cle
cras h es (C h a pte r 2), and a n alys is of c r as h ty p es and
se l ec ting appropriate co unte rmeas ures (Chapte r 3).
C hapter 3 also provides information on sel ec ting treat-
ments for more general p e rforma n ce objectives. Chap-
ter 4 describes the features of BIKESAFE and how to
use the W e b or CD-b ased appli cations. Descriptions of
countermeasures, organized into general categories, are
included in Chapter 5. Chap ter 6 contains over 50 case
st udi es d esc ribing impl ementa ti on tips, and additio n al
r eso urces ar e documented in C h apter 7.
The Web applic ation also allows th e u ser to expl ore m any
counterm eas ure (or treatment) choices based on particu-
lar cras h problems or p erformance objectives. For exam-
pl e, a cras h problem might involve overtaking motorists
striking bicyclists from the rear on a busy corridor with
inadeq uate space . A p erforman ce obj ec tive might b e to
provide sa fe intersec ti o n s for bicyclists.
These bicycling improvements represent th e current b es t
thinking of the authors and exp ert panel. Some of the
improve m ents have b een formally eval u at ed and are ref-
erenced within this document. The remainder have b ee n
implemented in a number of locations across the United
States and aro und th e world and are felt to be worthy
of use. Carrying o ut ca refull y conduc t ed eval u ations and
publishing the results are vital ste p s to improv ing the safe-
ty of bicycling.
Bicycle Coun termeasure Selection Sy stem The Big Pi ct ure 5
210
Chapter 2 -Bicyclist Crash I
Factors
Bicyclist-Motor Vehicle Crashes by Light Condition -
1997-2003 NC Data
408 12 46
536
3595
• Daylight
Dusk
D Dark -Lighted
Road w ay
• Dark -Road w ay Not
Lighted
• Dark -Unknow n
Lighting
Dawn
Magnitude of the Problem
Bicyclists Most at Risk
Alcohol Involvement
Special Situations Involving Bicyclists
Place and Time of Occurrence
Bicyc le Countermeas ure Selection System I Bicyc list Crash Factors 7
z w
0
°' ::>
CD
z « 0
>-
CD
8
0
I
0..
Chapter 1 provided an ove rview of the n eed to provide a
more bicycle-friendly environment on stree ts and high-
ways. This c h apte r provides an overview of the bi cy cl e
sa fety problem and rel at e d fac tors that must b e under-
stood to se lec t appropriate fac ilities and p rogram s to im-
prove bicycl e safety and mobility. A brief description of
the bi cycle cra sh problem in the Unite d States is di scu sse d
in the following sec tions and is also re ported by Hunter,
e t al. in a relate d publication . 1 Similar statistics should b e
produce d for States and municipalities to better under-
stand the sp ec ifi c problems at the community level and
thus selec t appropriate co unterm eas ures.
MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM
Bicy cl e /motor ve hicle cras h es are a serious problem
throughout the world . The United States h as a particular
problem with bicyclist deaths and injuries.
Specifically, 622 b icyclists were re ported to h ave bee n
killed in motor ve hicle crashes in the United States in
2003.2 These deaths accounted for 1.5 p ercent of the
42 ,6 43 motor vehicle d eaths n ationwid e that yea r.An es-
timated 4 6,000 bicycli sts were injured in motor ve hicl e
collisions, which represen t 1.6 p e rce nt of the 2.9 million
total perso n s injure d in traffic c ra she s.2
These bicycle cras h es with motor vehicles are a primary
source of information on eve nts causing injury to bi cy-
8
Some crashes occur when mo t or ist s turn right soon
after overtaking bicyc l ists.
Bicyc li st Cras h Fac tors Bi cyc le Countermeas ure Selec tion System
Fatality an d injury crash ra t es are lower for b icyclist s age 65
and older co mpare d wi t h other age groups .
clists. Howeve r, these d ata are frequently refe rred to as th e
"tip of th e ice b erg," in th at t h ese c ra sh es are limite d almo st
e ntirely to even ts that occur on public ro adways . Thus,
poss ibl e exclusions include bicy cl e -motor ve h icl e cras h es
that occur in n on-roadway locations su ch as sh are d-use
p aths, p arking lo ts, driveways, and sidewalks , as well as falls
or other non-colli si o n eve nts that do not invo lve a motor
vehicle, regardl ess of w h e th er th ey occur on a roadway or
in a non-roadway location . In a study u sing data coll ecte d
at eight hospital emergen cy d e p ar tme nts from three stat es,
Stutts and Hunter fo und th at 70 p ercent of the re porte d
bicy cl e injury events did not involve a motor vehicle. In
addition, 31 p ercent of the bi cyclists were injure d in non-
roadway locatio n s su c h as sidewalks, parking l ots, or off-
road trails. 3
Bicyclist fata liti es in collisions with motor ve hicl es de-
c rease d 23.3 p ercent between 1993 and 2003, and bi cy-
clist injuries in colli sions with motor ve hicles d ec rease d
35.3 p ercent during the sa m e period. It do es not app ea r
that these d eclines are due to less b icycling . Base d on the
Nationa l Perso nal Tran spor tation Survey data, th e reporte d
number of bi cycling trip s inc reased fro m 1.7 to 3.3 bil-
li o n b etween 1990 and 1995. The 200 1 Nat ional H ouse-
hold Travel Survey 10 Year Status R eport also indi ca te d 3.3
billion repo r te d bicycling trip s.4•5 The Na tional Bi cycling
and Walking Study5, published in 1994, had m ajor goals of
d o ubli ng th e p ercentage of total trips made by bicycling
and walking and simultaneously reducing by 10 p ercent
the numbe r of bi cycli sts killed or injured in traffic cr as h es .
Progress i s b ein g made, and these continue to b e impor-
tan t goals for all professions de aling with these n o n-mo-
torize d modes.
z w
0
°' ::>
CD
z «
0
>-
CD
0
b
I
0..
B ICYCLISTS MOST AT RISK
Bicy cle crashes affe ct all age groups, but the hi g hest in-
jury and fat ali ty rates (p e r population) are ass o ciate d w ith
younge r rider s. Th e 10 to 15 age g roup h as both the
hi gh est fatali ty rate and th e hi g hest injury rate .2 This age
group is more ass o ciated with ride-outs from driveways
and inte r sec ti o n s, swe r ving le ft and right, riding in the
wrong directi o n and cross ing midbloc k. 1 Bicy clists unde r
age 16 acc ounte d for 23 p e rce nt o f all bi cy cli sts kill ed
and 37 p e rce nt of bi cyclists injured in c ras hes with motor
ve hicles in 2 003. The re is a tre nd of bicycli sts age 25 and
older accounting for an increas ing proportion of bicy cli st
d ea ths since 199 3, which likely re fl ec ts more riding (ex-
posure) by this group. The fatality and injury cr ash rates
for bicyclists age 65 and older are ge n e rall y lowe r than for
other age groups, and this likely refl ec ts whe re a nd whe n
they ride -gen e rally in sa fe r lo cations and at safer times
of d ay-and most likel y that th ey ride less .1•2
M al e bi cycli sts are more likely to b e involve d in c ras h es
than females. In 2003 , 88 p e rce nt o f bicyclists killed and
7 8 perce nt o f bicycli sts injure d were m al es. Similarl y, th e
fatality and injury rates p e r ca pita were hi gh e r for mal es.2
PLACE AND TIME OF OCCURRENCE
Once again , c ras h information tends to refl e ct exposure .
Almost 70 p e rcent of bi cy cli st fataliti es o cc ur in urban
are as, and 71 p e rcent o cc ur at non-inte rse c tion locations.
The hours of 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. acco unt for 31 perce nt
of fataliti es, a nd t h e months of June, July, and Aug u st
for 35 p erce nt.2
Othe r lo ca ti o n al informa tion indica tes that, for . all bicy-
cl e -motor ve hicle cras h es 1:
• About one -third o ccur on lo cal stree ts.
• About half are ass ociate d with inte r sec tions .
• About three -fourths o cc ur on ro ads with sp ee d limits
of 35 mph or less .
ALCOHOL INVOLVEMENT
Driving unde r the influ e nce of al c ohol is a w ell -publi-
ciz e d iss u e as related to motorists in this c ountry. It is al so
an iss u e for bicyclists. Al c ohol involve ment for e ith e r the
bi cyclist or motor ve hicl e drive r w as re porte d in more
than one-third of the cr as hes that res u lt ed in a bi cycli st
fa tality in 2003 . Some 28 p e rc e nt of fatally injured bi-
cy clists we re re porte d to h ave a blood alcohol con ce n-
tration (BAC) of 0.01 g ram s p e r d eciliter (g/dl), and 24
Many bicyc le crashes occur at intersections ; a frequent fac t or
invo lves the bicyclist no t obeying traffi c signals or stop signs.
The hou rs of 5 p.m to 9 p .m . account for 31 percent of
bicycle crash fatalities. Al cohol -related crashes are also mo re
li ke ly to occur during hours of darkness.
p e rcent, a sub se t of th e a bove g roup, had a BAC of 0.08
g /dl or highe r.2 Al c ohol c ras h es te nd to involve old e r
bicycli sts an d are more fr e qu e nt on w eeke nds and during
hours of darkn ess. 1
SPECIAL SITUATIONS INVOLVING
BICYCLISTS
Within any c ommu nity where b icycling occurs with any
fr e que n cy, the re are a numbe r of situations that lead to
problems. Efforts to improve th ese situations will lead to
improve d bi cy cl e sa fe ty.
WRONG-WAY RIDING
Wrong-way riding , or riding fa cing traffic , remains a prev-
al e nt problem. This b ehavior puts bicycli sts in a position
whe re motorists are not exp ec ting them to b e, whe ther
th e bi cy cli st is in the stree t or on the sidewalk . An exam-
Bicyc le Countermeas ur e Selection Syste m Bicyclist Crash Factors 9
z
UJ
0 er
::::>
CD
z
"" 0
>-
CD
~
D
I
Cl.
z
UJ
0 ex:
::::> co
z
<(
0
>-co
2
0
I
Cl.
Sidewa lk riding can be trea c herou s.
pl e is a motorist making a right turn o n red . T h e m o torist
is lo o king primarily t o the left for a ga p in tra ffi c and m ay
not recogni ze a bi cy cli st ridin g aga inst traffic, eithe r in the
stre et o r on the sidew al k .
SIDEWALK RIDING
Sidewalk riding is p er m itte d in m any, but not all , commu-
niti es. Indeed , se p arated sidewalk bike p aths, ro utinely use d
by b o th bi cycli sts and p ed es tri ans, are so m etimes use d n ext
to busy streets. If allowed on sidew alks, bicyclists n eed to
b as icall y trav el at the sp eed that pedes trians w alk , o r about
5 to 8 km/h (3 to 5 mi/h). An inhe rent danger in sidewalk
riding co m es from the prese n ce of driveways that cro ss the
sidewalk . Moto rists tend to drive acro ss the sidewalk to ge t a
b e tter view o f traffi c, and this can lea d to cras h es w ith bi cy-
cli sts riding o n the sidewalk , es p eciall y those r iding against
the normal fl ow of traffic. The problem is similar to w hat
is d esc rib ed above, where a motorist turning right from a
driveway is looking primarily to the left fo r a ga p in traffi c.
This sam e p attern is prese nt at intersec tions, w h e re bi cy cli sts
r iding o n the sidewalk may r id e through the cro sswalk , o r
bi cycli sts riding on a sh ared-use path or trail adj ace nt to th e
ro adway may ride into the p ath of motor ve hi cles M o torists
tend to exp ec t p ed es tri an s to e m erge from sidewalks.When
bicyclists m ake this m ane uver and tra ve l co nsiderab ly fa ster
than p ed es tr ians, th e p o te ntial for cras h es is in crease d .
PRESENCE OF DRIVEWAYS
B es ides th e pote ntial cras h es involvin g m o torists in drive-
ways and bi cy cli sts on sidewalk s m e ntioned ab ove, con sid-
e r able c ras h es al so o cc ur w h e n motor ve hicl es pull into th e
street fr o m a drive w ay and strike a bi cycli st r iding in th e
street . A va ri ety of fa c tors can b e prese nt in these crash es,
including the size of the bi cy cl e m aking it d ifficu lt to b e
see n , a bicycli st riding at night w itho ut p rope r li ghts, and
poor sight di stance at th e drive way.A ccess control to limit
the numbe r o f drive w ays o n bicycling co r ridors ca n h elp .
In addition, sp ecial si gning and/ or p ave m e nt m arking at
10 Bicycli st Crash Factor s Bi cycle Countermeasu re Se lection System
Many c ras hes occ ur when mot or veh ic le s pu ll into the street
from a driv eway and strike a bicyc list riding in the street.
the point the d r iveway cro sses the sidew alk and e nte r s th e
stree t ca n b e u se ful re m e di es.
NIGHT BICYCLE RIDING
D ata fr o m the N ational C e nte r for Stati sti cs and Analy-
sis indi ca te that 3 1 p erc e nt o f bicycli st cra sh es occur b e-
tween the h o urs of 5 p.m. and 9 p.m.2 N o t all of these
c ras h es would res ult from lac k of li ghting assoc iat e d
Lights and refle ctors ca n make bi cyc ling sa fer at night.
z
UJ
0 ex:
::::> co
z
<(
0
>-co
2
0
I
Cl.
z
UJ
0 ex:
::::> co
z
<(
0
>-co
2
0
I
Cl.
"' z
~
_J w
<(
I
(.)
:E
r:?
0
I
0..
z w
0
"' ::::l
"' z
<(
0
>-"' r:?
0
I
0..
w ith the bi cy cl e, but the p ro bl e m is con sid erable.Analys is
of rece nt data from North C arolina shows that almost
20 p ercent of bicy cl e -mo t o r ve hi cle cras h es occ u r u n-
der conditio n s of d arkness (http ://www.p e dbike info.org/
pbca t /pdf/ summary _bike_fac ts5y r s. pdf). 6 An additional
5 p erce nt o f cras h es occur at dusk . T his is an e du ca ti o n al
iss u e for bi cy cli sts, and local poli ce n eed to b e m o re w ill -
ing to le t bicyclists know if they are ridin g w ith i m prop er
e quipme nt, w h e the r throu gh a warning or a citation . B e-
sides h eadli ghts and rea r re fl ectors, a va ri ety of pulsing
li ghts for the bicy cl e or the bicy cli st n ow exis t.
BICYCLISTS RIDING NEXT TO PARKED
VEHICLES -THE "DOORING" PROBLEM
Se rious injury ca n o cc ur w h e n a bicycli st strikes a door
w h e n a moto rist exits a p arked ve hicl e. In c ommunities
w ith bicycling corrido r s o n stree ts w ith p arke d ve hicl es,
this cras h typ e can o cc ur w ith re aso n abl e fr e que n cy. Sev-
er al on-s treet treatme nts are avail a bl e . If th ere is a bike
A bicyc l ist pass i ng parked vehicles can be injured if a motorist
open s h is or her doo r and strike s the bi cyclist.
Bi cyc le-mot or vehicle c rashes at intersections often oc c ur due
to the bicyc li st ignoring traffic signals or signs.
lan e n ext to the p arke d ve h i cl e, u se o f a d o ubl e-strip ed
bike lan e is prefe rabl e, in that bicyclists t end to ce nte r
in the middle of the bike lan e, thus plac ing the m selves
furth e r away fr o m a door o p ening. So m e com m unities
are also exp erimenting with sy mbo ls, su ch as the typi-
c al bike lan e logo inside a di rec ti o n al arrow, to see if bi-
cyc li sts will trac k ove r th e sy mbol and aw ay fr o m door
o p enings . Bicycli st e du ca ti on e mphas izing th e d an ger of
riding to o clo se to p arke d ve hicles would al so b e h elpful.
BICYCLISTS NO T OBEYING TR AFFI C CONT ROL
AT INTERSEC T IONS
Abo ut half of th e bicycl e -mot o r ve hicl e c ras h es occur at
or n ea r inter sec tions.1 While m any o f these cras h es are
n o t the fa ult o f bicycli sts, a fre que nt fac to r in these c ras h es
is the bi cy cli st w ho ig nores eithe r traffi c si gnals o r stop
signs at inte rsec ti o n s. Bicycli st e du ca ti o n is o n e re m e dy,
but p e rhap s m o re important is law e nforce m e nt. Police
ofte n fa il to res pond to inappropriate m an e uve rs by bi-
cyc li sts, and w hil e it may b e unreali sti c to exp ec t large
in creases in citations to bicycli sts, w hol es al e incre ases in
w arnings c ould b e effec ti ve.
BICYCLE CRASHES INVOLVING CHIL DREN
Altho u gh bi cycli sts 2 5 years o f age and olde r are inc reas-
ingly involve d in injury and fa tali ty cras h es, the number
of c ras h es invo lving childre n unde r age 16 re m ai ns lar ge.
In 2003 , the gro up under age 16 acco unte d for 23 p ercent
o f bicyclist fa talities and 3 7 p e rce nt of bicycli st inj uries. 2
B ase d o n North Ca rolina d ata, the unde r 16 gro up al so
t e nds to b e o ve rre p rese nte d in cras h es w h e re the bi cy ch st
w as at fa ult . (http :/ /www.p edbikeinfo.o rg /pbca t /pdf/
summary_bike_typ es 5y r s.pdf).7 C ras h typ es w h ere this
g roup is ove r re prese nte d in clude r iding o ut or through
inter sec tions w ith stop si gn s, riding o ut at non-in t er sec-
tion loca tions su ch as driveways , turning o r m erging in
front o f traffi c, and non-roadway cras h es, including those
in p arking lots and drivew ays. In esse n ce, th e re are b e h av-
ioral iss u es prese nt that are rel ate d to lac k of exp e ri e n ce.
A s n o te d above, bi cy cli st e duca tion and police enforce-
m e nt o r w arni ngs co uld h el p w ith this problem .
USE OF BICYCLE HELMETS
At p rese nt th e re are 2 1 stat es (counting th e Distr ict o f
Columbia as a "s tate") and at leas t 148 locahti es w ith
some fo rm of a m and atory bi cy cl e h elm e t laws. T hirteen
stat es have no state o r local h elme t laws o f any kind (Bi-
cy cl e Helme t Sa fe ty Institute W e b site, 2006). M any se ri-
o u s h ea d injuries o cc ur at low sp ee ds and are p reve ntabl e
if h elm e ts ar e worn prop erly.
While helmets m ay not h ave an impac t on th e freq u e n cy
of cras h es , nume rou s studi es have found that us e of ap-
Bicyc le Countermeasure Selection System Bicy clist Crash Factor s 11
"' z
"' _J
UJ ..
I
'2
::<
8
0
I
0..
Younger bicy c l is t s have t he highest injury an d fata l ity ra t es
associated with bicyc le crashe s.
prove d bi cy cl e h elme ts signifi ca n tl y re du ces the risk o f
fa tal inju ry, se rious h ead and b ra in inj ury, h ea d injury,
a nd nuddle and u ppe r face inj u ry among bicycli sts of all
ages invo lve d in all ty p es of c ra sh es and c ras h seve riti es.
R elati ve r isk re d u c ti o ns es tima te d in a meta-anal ys is of
16 p eer-reviewe d studi es were 60 p e rce nt for h ea d injury
(OR=0.40; C I 0 .2 9, 0 .55 ), 58 p erce nt for brain injury
(OR=0 .42; C I 0 .26, 0 .67), 47 p e rce nt for fa cial injury
(OR=0.53; C I 0 .39, 0.73), and 73 p erce n t fo r fa tal injury
(OR=0 .27 ; C I 0 .10 , 0.7 1).8
Riva ra e t al. (19 99) re p o rt tha t h elm e ts that do not fit
prope rl y o r are misu se d also inc re ase th e r isk of h ea d inju-
ry. H elm e ts tipp e d b ac kward exposing the fo re h ea d we re
ass o ciat e d w ith a 50 p e rce nt in cre ase in ri sk of h ea d in-
j ury whe n c ompare d w ith h e lm e ts prop e rl y cente re d . U s-
in g anothe r m eas ure o f p oor helm e t fit, it was al so fo und
that h al f o f c hildre n w ea r ing h elm e ts 2 cm or m o re w id e r
th an their h ea ds h ad exp e ri en ce d a h ead injury.9
12 Bicycl ist Cras h Factor s Bicyc le Countermeasure Se lectio n Sys tem
Chapter 3 -Selecting
Improvements for Bicyclists
Identification of High-Crash Locations
Bicycle Crash Typing
Definitions of Bicycle Crash Types
Crash-Related Countermeasures
Performance Objectives
Program of Improvements
Bicycle Safety Guide and Counte rm easure Select ion System I Select in g Improvements for Bicyclists 13
Deciding on a se t of treatments that w ill provide th e
greates t sa fe ty and mobility b en efits for bi cyclist s re quires
transportation and land-use planners, engineers, law en-
forcement official s, and co mmunity leaders to e ngage in
proble m-so lv ing. In m ost cases, a two-pronged approac h
is required. The fir st p ro n g involves an exa minati on of
the bi cycling cras h proble m through a rev iew of hi stori-
cal crash d ata. Two sp eci fic types of cras h analyses that are
d e tailed in this c hapter include:
• The ide ntification of high-crash or ha zardo u s lo ca tions
• The d e tail e d examination of pre-cra sh maneuve r s that
lead to bicycle -motor ve hicle colli sions
Howeve r, m any of th e problems fa ce d by bicyclists e ith e r
do not involve cras h es or the cras h es are no t reported .
Thus , the seco nd prong is more broad-b ase d and foc u ses
o n performan ce o bj ec ti ves that will l ead to c h anges in
b e havior that , in turn, w ill res ult in a safer and more ac-
cess ible e nvironment for bi cy clists .
IDENTIFICATION OF HIGH -CRASH
LOCATIONS
A first st e p in the problem-solving pro cess of improving
bi cy cle sa fety and mobili ty is to ide nti fy loca tions or areas
where bicycle cras h proble m s exis t and w h ere e nginee r-
ing, edu cation, and enforc ement m eas u res w ill b e most
b eneficial. M ap ping the lo c ations of reported bi cy cl e
cra sh es in a neighborhood, ca mpus, or city is a simple
method of id e ntifying sites for potential bicycle safety im-
provements. One m ethod of analyzing cras h locations is
through co mputerized Geographi c Informatio n Syst e m s
(G IS) software. This typ e of map ca n h elp transportation
engineers and planners foc us sa fety improvements on in-
te r sec tions, corridors, o r neighbor h oods w h e re bi cycle
cra sh es h ave occurre d.
Seve ral iss u es should b e considered w h e n crea ting G IS
m aps of repor ted cras h loca tions. First , the volumes of bi-
cy cle and motor ve hi cle traffic that u se each location w ill
affec t reporte d crash d e n si ty. Second, bi cycle cra sh es m ay
not b e re ported frequently e nough t o establis h a p atte rn
of unsafe bicyc ling lo ca ti o n s. In eithe r case, o th er ste p s
may improve the identifi ca tion of unsafe loca tions for bi-
cycling. These include:
• Using b ikea bility ch eckli sts. 1
Noting bicycl e and driver b eh avior and examining
roadway and bi cycling c harac teristi cs at specifi c sites.
Observing and recording the number of bicycle-mo-
tor ve hicle c onflicts at sp ecifi c sites. 2
• M apping locations known to h ave a high pote ntial for
bicy cle crash es in an area .
Calc ulating a bicycle level of se r vice .3
In regard t o conflicts, a numb er of studi es h ave be en
p erfo rmed using bicycle-motor ve hicle confli c ts as a
study varia bl e in li e u of cras h d at a.2 A conflict i s usu-
all y d e fin e d as a sudd e n c h ange in sp eed or direction
by e ith e r p arty to avo id the other. In r ega rd t o bicycle
l evel of se rvi ce, one popular t ool is the Bi cycle Com-
p atibility Index, w h e re a u se r inserts va lu es for several
eas ily o btained var ia bles to d etermine the co mfort lev-
e l (level of service) for bi cyclists on a midb ock sec tion
of a stree t or roadway.3 An intersec ti on level of se r-
v ice for the bicycle through movement h as also b ee n
d evel oped. 4 Ano the r inte r secti on r ating t ool is und er
d evel op m e nt for the Fede ral Hig h way Administra tion
(FHWA) for both bicyclist s a nd pedestrians. The bicy-
clist portion consider s th e throu g h m ovement, rig ht
turns, a nd l e ft turns. 5
BICYCLE CRASH TYPIN G
The d evelopme nt of e ffective ro ad way d es ign and opera-
tion, education, and e nforceme nt m eas ures to acco nuno-
d ate bi cy clists and preve nt cras h es is hinde re d by insuf-
fi cie nt detail in compute rize d state and local cras h file s.
Analys is of these d atab ases can provide information on
w h e re bicycl e crashes occur (c ity, st reet, intersec ti on, two-
lane roa d , e t c.), w h e n they o cc ur (time of day, day of week,
e t c.), and ch aracteristics of th e victims involved (age, gen-
der, injury severity, etc.). Current cras h fil es ca nnot pro-
v id e a suffici ent level of d etail regarding th e seq u e nc e of
events lea ding to the c ras h.
In the 1970s, methods for typing pedestrian and bicy cl e
cras h es w ith m otor ve hicles were deve lope d b y th e N a-
ti onal Highway Traffic Safety Adminis trati o n (NHTSA)
to b e tte r d e fin e the se quence of eve nts and precipitating
actions l ea ding t o pedestrian-and bicycle-motor ve hicle
cras h es. 6·7 ·8 These methodologies were app li ed by Hunter
e t al. in a 19 96 st udy to more than 8,000 p e d es trian and
bicy cl e c ra sh es from six state s.9 The res ults provid e d a r ep-
rese ntative summary of the di stribution of crash types ex-
p eri e n ce d by p edestrians and bi cycli sts. Some of th e most
frequen tl y occurring bicycle c ras h ty p es include:
• A motorist failing to y ield (2 1.7 p erce nt of cra sh es)
A bicyclist failing to yield at an inte rsection (16 .8 per-
ce nt of cr as h es)
• A motorist turning or m er ging into the path of the
bicycli st (12.1 p erce nt of cr as h es)
14 Selecting Improvement s for Bicyclists Bicycle Countermea sure Selection System
• A bi cyc li st fa iling t o yield at a midblock lo c ation (11 . 7
p e rce nt of cras h es)
• A motor ist ove rtaking a bicy cli st (8.6 p ercent of cras h es)
• A bicycli st turning o r m e rging into the p ath of the
motorist (7 .3 p erc e nt o f crash es)
The cr as h -typing m e tho dology d esc rib e d above h as
evolve d ove r time and h as b een refin e d as p art of a software
p ac ka ge kn own as the P e d es trian and Bicy cl e C ras h Anal-
ys is Tool (PB C AT).10 The d evelopme nt of PBCAT w as
sp o n sored by FHWA and NHTSA. Those inte res t e d m ay
r egiste r for the PBCAT software and u se r 's manual fr o m
the P e d es trian and Bicycl e Information C ente r W e b site at
http :/ /www.bicycling info .org/b c/pbcat.htm. An update
of this software will soon b e ava il abl e on the W e b site.
PB C AT is a software p ro du ct inte nde d to ass ist state and
local p ed es trian and bicy cl e c oordinators, planne rs, and
e n gineer s w ith the problem of lac k of data rega rding the
se que n ce o f eve nts lea ding to a cras h. PB C AT acc om-
plishes this goal through the d evelopment and analys is
of a datab ase containing d e tails ass ociat e d with cr as h es
b e twee n m o to r ve hicles and p e d es tri an s o r bicy cli sts.
One of these d e tails i s the c ras h typ e, which d esc rib es the
p re -crash ac ti o ns of the p arti es involve d . The more than
70 sp ec ifi c bicycli st cras h typ es u se d in PB C AT m ay b e
coll apsed into 20 cra sh -typing groups. Seve ral of these
g roups (including rarer or unusu al c ra sh typ es ) have b ee n
furth e r co mbine d into 14 BIKESAFE g roups for pur-
p oses o f se lec ting trea tme nts. A few PBCAT typ es that
in clude rarer o r diffi c ult to re m e dy cras h es that cannot
b e ve ry sp ecifi call y d efin e d are n o t trea t e d in th e C ras h
M atrix. So m e o f these typ es of cras h es are disc u sse d in
g roup 14 in the t ext that follow s. Examining the clo se ly -
relate d cras h g roup s fo r co unte rmeas ures could b e help-
ful, as w ell as u sing the P erformance Obj ec tives Matrix to
ide ntify app ro priate co unte rme asures . (See C h apte r 4 fo r
more info r m ation on the C ra sh and P erforman ce Obj ec -
tive s m atrices.)
DEFINITIONS OF BICYCLE CRASH
TYPES
P rovide d b elow are the d efinition s of the 14 c ras h g roups
include d in the BIKESAFE applica ti o n (13 are includ-
ed in th e in t e rac tive c ras h m atrix). These d efinitions are
ad apte d from th e PB C AT software .1° For any crash g roup,
there are m ultiple p ro blem s or p oss ibl e ca u ses th at m ay
h ave led t o the c ra sh. T h e fo ll owing sec tion provides ex-
amp les of a few poss ibl e ca u ses and proble m s for eac h
g roup and so m e of the c ountermeas ures within BIKE-
SAFE th at m ay b e appli ca bl e .At the e nd of eac h pote ntial
solutio n is the counte rmeas ure numb er in p are ntheses,
which can b e u se d to quickly lo ca te the co untermeasure
d esc ription in C h a pter 5.
N eithe r the li st o f proble m s and p oss ible ca uses nor the
su gges te d countermeas ures are to b e conside re d co mpre-
h en sive . Prac titi o n er s will still b e re quire d to supplem ent
the an alys is and rec onm1e ndations w ith their ow n inves -
ti ga tions and knowle d ge o flo c al p o li cies and prac ti ces . A
numbe r of pote nti al countermeas ures h ave, however , bee n
ide ntifi e d for eac h g roup of c ras h es . Th e u se r is inte nde d
to thin k bro adl y initially, and d evel o p their ow n narrower
li st of suitable o ptio n s b ase d o n p arti c ular c ra sh problem s,
d e tail e d site co nditi o ns and o th e r lo cal circumstan ces.The
counte rmeas ures sel ec ti o n tool in the BIKESAFE soft-
wa re applica ti o n (d esc rib e d in C h apte r 4) is inte nde d to
aid in this process.
1. MOTORIST FAILED TO YIELD-SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
The motorist ente rs an inte rsec tion and fa ils to sto p at a
traffic signal , striking a bi cycli st who is traveling through the
intersec tion on a p erp endicular p ath . Ty picall y, n o turning
m ovem e nts are mad e by either p ar ty, except for a poss ibl e
right turn on red. M any o f these cras h es involve bicycli sts
who are r idi ng the w rong way against traffi c, either in th e
ro ad way or on the sidewalk appro ac hing the inte rsec tion.
Possible Cause/Problem #1
M o t o rist drives through a re d signal without st o pping .
The motorist could b e sp ee ding and unable to stop in
time, try ing t o ge t throu gh the intersec tion on a ye llow or
ambe r signal indi ca tion, disrega rdin g the signal , o r failin g
to see the red signal.
General Countermeasures
a. Add/improve ro adway li ghting (4).
b. R edu ce num b e r oflanes (9).
c . R e d u ce lan e w idth (10 ).
d . Insta ll roundabouts (1 7).
Bicycle Counte rm easure Se lectio n Sy stem Selecting Improvements for Bicycli sts 15
e. Add/improve intersec tion markings (18).
f. Improve sight distance at intersection (19).
g . Install mini traffi c circles (25).
h . Add c hi ca n es or oth er traffi c calming to slow motor
vehicle speeds (2 6, 27).
i. Provide r aise d intersec tion (30).
J . Provide trail intersection treatme nts for share d-use
p aths cross ing the roadway at the intersec tion (32).
k. Provide trail intersection warnings/advance trea tments
for sh are d-use p aths cross ing th e roadway (33).
1. Optimize signal timing or improve signal visi bility (35).
m . Make sign improvements (37).
n. Improve p ave m ent m arkin gs (3 8).
o. M ake sc hool zo n e improve m e nts (39).
p. Provide law e nforcement (40 ).
q. Provide bicyclist edu ca ti o n on wrong-way riding and
riding on the sidewalk (4 1).
r. Provide motorist edu ca tion (42).
P ossible Cau se/P roblem #2
The motorist drives o ut afte r stopping for a red signal ,
into the p ath of an oncoming bicyclist. The motorist
may b e m aking a right turn on re d and fails to look to
the right to see an approaching bi cyclist. The bicyclist
co uld be riding the wrong way in ei ther the roadway o r
on the sidewa lk .
Gen eral Countermeasures
a . Add/improve ro adway li ghting (4).
b . R edu ce c urb radii to slow motor vehicle spee ds (16).
c. Install ro undabouts (17).
d. Add/improve intersection markings (18).
e. Provide intersec tion sight distance improvements (19).
f. R es tri ct ri ght-turn-on-red (20).
g. Provide trail-roa dway inters e ctio n trea tme nts for
share d-use paths adj ace nt to the roadway (32).
h . Provide trail intersection advance war ning treatments
for shared-use paths adjacent to the roadway (33).
L M ake sign improvements (37).
J . Prov ide bicycli st e duca tion ( 41).
k. Prov ide m otorist e ducation (4 2).
2 . MOTORIST FAILED TO YIELD -
NON-SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIO N
The motorist e nters an intersec ti on w ithout prop erly
stopping or yielding at a stop sign, y i el d sign , or un-
co ntroll e d lo cation, striking a bi cyclist who is traveling
throu gh th e intersection on an initial perpendic ular p ath .
M any of these cras h es also invo lve bicyclists w h o are rid-
ing the wrong way against traffic, ei ther in the roadway or
o n the si d ewalk approac hing the intersection.
Possible Cause/Probl em #1
Motorist fails to stop at a sto p sign or y ield at a yield
sign o r uncontrolled inte rsec ti on. The m o torist co uld be
speeding or o therwise fail to observe correct r ight-of-
way, including flagrantly violating sign co ntrol.
General Cou ntermeasures
a. Add/improve roadway li ghting (4).
b . R e du ce numb er of lanes (9).
c . R e d u ce lane width (10).
d. R e du ce curb radii to slow motor ve hicl e turning
spee ds (16).
e. Install roundabo ut (1 7).
f. Add/improve inte rsec tion markings (18).
g. Improve intersec tion sight distance (1 9).
16 Se lect ing Improve ment s for Bicyc li sts Bi cyc le Counte rmea sure Selection System
h . Redesign merge area (2 1).
L Install mini traffi c circl e at inte r sec tion (25).
J · Add chi ca n e s or o the r traffi c calming to re du ce ve -
hicl e sp ee ds (26 , 27).
k . Provid e raise d inte r sec tion and o th er traffi c calnling
treatments (30).
1. Prov ide p ath inte r sec tion trea tme nts for sh are d-use
p aths cro ss ing the roa dway (32).
m . Provide p ath inte rsec tion w arnings /advance treatments
for shared-use p aths cro ss ing the ro adway (33).
n . Install traffi c signal (3 5). If si gn al is install e d , add bike
d e te cti o n / ac tiva ti o n (3 6).
o. M ake sign improve m ents (3 7).
p. Improve p ave m e nt m arkings (3 8).
q. M ake sc h o ol zone improvements (39).
r. Provide law enforce m e nt ( 40).
s. Prov ide bi cy clist e du ca tion on w rong-way riding and
riding o n the sidewalk (41 ).
t. Provide motorist educa tion (4 2).
Possible Cause/Problem #2
The moto rist pulls out into the p ath o f a bi cy cli st trave l-
ing throu gh the inte r sec tion after fir st stopping (or slow-
ing). The bicyclist c ould b e riding the w rong way o r on
the sidewalk or both and ride into th e inte rsec ti o n in the
p ed es trian cro ss wa lk area. The motorist m ay pull out and
fa il to c h eck o r notice the bicy cli st approac hing (p arti cu-
larl y from the right). The motorist m ay b e turning ri ght.
General Countermeasures
a. Add/imp rove ro adway li ghting (4).
b. R e du ce curb radii to slow turning sp eed s (16).
c. Install ro undab o u t (17).
d . Add/improve inte r sec ti o n m arkings (18).
e . Improve sig ht di stance (19).
f. Install mini traffi c circle (2 5).
g . Provide raise d inte r sec tion (3 0).
h . P rovide p ath inter sec ti o n trea tments fo r sh are d-use
p aths cro ss ing the ro adway (3 2).
L Provid e trail inte rsection w arnings/a dvan ce trea tments
for shared-use p aths adj ace nt to th e ro adway (33).
J· M ake sc h ool zon e improve m e nts (39).
k . P rov ide bi cyclist e du ca ti o n (41 ).
1. Provide m o t o rist e du ca ti o n ( 42).
3 . BICYCLIST FAILED TO YIELD-SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
The bicycli st enters an intersec ti on on a red signal or is ca ught
in the inters ec ti o n by a signal change, colliding wi th a moto r-
ist w h o is traveling throu gh the intersec ti on. This group of
cras h es could invo lve a lack of understanding of th e signal or
inexperi ence for a young bi cycli st or fl agrant di sregard for the
signal by an older bi cycli st . In m any o f these cras hes, the bicy-
cli st is likely to be riding on the sidewalk or riding the wrong
way, agains t traffi c, and fail to n o ti ce th e signal indi ca ti on .
Possible C ause/Problem #1
The bicyc li st r id es into the inte rsec ti o n through a red sig-
nal without sto pping . The bi cyc li st m ay b e trying to rush
throu gh on an ambe r signal indica ti o n , fa il to see the re d
signal, o r ch oose to di sregard the signal. The bi cycli st m ay
n ot wa nt to interrupt momentum o r stop for a signal with
an excessively lo ng d elay o r that d oes n o t d etec t bicycli sts '
prese n ce . Inexp eri en ce could also co ntribute to this typ e
of cras h . T h e signal m ay b e more diffi cult to o bserve if the
bi cycli st is trave ling wrong-way or riding o n the sidewalk .
General Countermeasures
a. Add/improve ro adway li ghting (4).
b. Install roundabout (17).
Bicycle Counte rm ea sure Selectio n System Select in g Improveme nts for Bicycli sts 17
c. Add/improve intersec tion markings (18).
d . Improve sight di stance (19).
e. Provide p ath intersec tion treatments for shared-use
paths crossing the roadway (32).
f. Provide p ath intersection advan ce warning trea tme nts
for shared-use paths crossing the roadway (33).
g . Install / optimize signal tinting (35).
h . Install bike-activat ed signals (36).
i. M ake sign improvements (37).
J· Improve pavement markings (38).
k . M ake sc hool zo n e improve m e nts (39).
1. Prov ide law enforcement ( 40).
m. Provide bi cyclist education (41).
Possible C au se /Proble m #2
The bicyclist enters the intersection on a green or amber
traffi c signal indication but fa ils to clear the inte rsec tion
when the traffi c signal ch anges to green for the cross-street
traffic. A multiple threat cras h ca n also occur when th e
signal ch an ges to green for the cross-street traffic and th e
bicyclist is stru ck by a m o tor ve hicl e whose v iew was ob-
stru c te d by standing or stop p ed traffi c in an adj ace nt lane.
G eneral Countermeasures
a. Add/improve roadway li ghting (4).
b . R e duce th e n u mber of traffic lan es (9).
c . R e duce the width of traffi c lanes (10).
d. Install roundabout (17).
e . Add/improve inte r sec tion markings (18).
f. Improve sight distan ce at the intersection (19).
g . Add traffic calming trea tme nts to slow motor vehicle
speed (2 5, 26, 27, and 30).
h . Provide p ath interse c tion treatme nts for shared-use
p aths cross ing the roadway (32).
i. Provid e p ath intersec tion warnings/advance trea tments
for shared-use paths cro ss ing the roadway (33).
J. Optimize signal tinting (35).
k . Install bike-activat e d signal (36).
1. M ak e school zone improvements (39).
m . Provide bicyclis t e ducation ( 41).
n. Provide motorist e d u cation about multiple threa t (42).
Possible C au se/Proble m #3
The bi cy cli st rides into the intersection after st o pping
for a re d sig n al and into the p ath of a m o torist . The bi-
cy cli st may ride o ut after waiting for a green indica tion
if the r e is no provision fo r bicycle detection or the delay
is excessive.
General Countermeasures
a. Install a modern roundabout (17) or mini traffic circl e
(2 5) (depending on street fun cti on and volumes).
b . Improve signal tinting (35).
c. Add bike -activatio n to th e traffic sig nal (36).
d . Enforce traffic laws ( 40).
e. Provi d e bicyclis t e ducation (4 1).
4 . BICYCLIST FAILED TO YIELD-NON -SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
The bi cycli st enters an intersection and fails to stop or
y ield at a non-signalize d intersection (ty picall y controll e d
by a stop sign ), co lliding with a m o torist who is travel-
ing throu gh the intersection. This group of cras h es co uld
invo lve a lack of understanding of the sign co ntrol or in-
exp erie nce for a yo ung bicyclist , or fl ag rant di sre gard for
the sign by an old er bicyclist.
P ossible C au se/Proble m #1
Bicyc li st fails to yield at a stop sign , yield sign or uncontrolled
intersec tion . Sidewalk or wrong-way riding may exacerbate
18 Selec t ing Imp rove ment s fo r Bicyclis ts Bicyc le Co unt ermeasu re Se lection Sys tem
the problem by increasing the ch an ces the bi cycli st will n o t
n o ti ce and o b ey sign co ntrol.Younger bicycli sts tend to b e
dis proporti o n ately involve d in this cras h typ e .
General Countermeasures
a. Add/improve lightin g (4).
b . In stall ro undabouts (17).
c . Improve sight dis tan ce at inte r sec ti o n (19).
d . In stall mi ni traffi c c ircl e (2 5).
e . Provide p ath inte r sec tion treatme nts (32).
f. Provide path inte r sec tion w ar nings /adva n ce
m e nts (33).
trea t-
g. Install traffi c signal (35 ) and bike-ac tiva ted signal (36).
h . M ake sign improve m e nts (3 7).
1. Improve p ave m ent markings (38).
J· M ak e sc h ool zone improvem e nts (3 9).
k. Provide law e nforcem e nt ( 40).
1. Provide bicy clist edu ca tion (41 ).
Possible Cause/Problem #2
The bicyclist rides o ut aft e r stopping (or slow ing). At a
yield or two -way sto p , the motorist co uld b e sp eeding,
th e bi cycli st m ay unde res timate the time n eed e d to start-
up and ge t through th e inte r sec ti o n , o r th e bi cycli st m ay
n o t d e tect an approac hing motorist. At a four-way st o p,
the bi cycli st m ay n o t unde rstand ri ght-o f-way rules. A
multiple threa t situ ati o n ca n al so occur at a non-sig nal-
ize d loca ti o n.
General Countermeasures
a. Add/improve li ghting (4).
b. R e duce the numbe r of traffi c lan es (9).
c . R ec u ce the width of traffi c areas (10).
d . In stall rounda b o ut (17).
e. Imple m e nt sp ec ial inter sec ti o n m arkings (18).
f. Improve sig ht di stan ce at th e intersection (19).
g . R e d es ign m erge area (2 1).
h . Install mini traffi c c ircl e (2 5).
L Install chicanes o r othe r traffi c calming m eas ures t o
slow motorist sp eed s (26, 27, 30).
J . Install sp ee d ta bl es, humps, o r c u shio n s (27).
k. Install raise d inte rsec ti o n (3 0).
I. Install traffi c signal (35) and bike-ac ti va ted signal (3 6).
m . P rov id e bi cy cli st e du ca tion (41 ).
n . Provide m o torists educa tion ab o ut multipl e threat
and child bi cycli sts ( 42).
5. MOTORIST DROVE OUT -MIDBLOCK
The motorist typicall y pulls o ut o f a driveway o r all eyway
and fa il s to y ie ld to a bicycli st riding al ong the ro adway
or o n a p arallel p ath or sid ewalk . Two-thirds o f these typ es
of c ras h es typicall y involve a bi cy cli st who is riding the
w rong w ay aga inst traffi c, eit h er o n th e sid ewalk or o n
the ro adway.
Possible Cause/Problem
The motorist pulls out o f a res idential or co mmerc ial drive -
way o r all eyway an d fail s to yield to a bicycli st riding along
th e roa dway, o n the sidewalk , o r on a p arall el sh are d-use path .
Visibility m ay be o bsc ure d by buildings, p ar ked cars, trees
an d shrubs , signal co ntrol b oxes, sign pos ts and a h os t of other
things that can b e found al o n g th e sidewalk o r edge of th e
ro adway.The m otorist m ay al so fail to look ri ght b efore pull-
in g o ut or fa il to d etec t hi gh e r-spee d bicycli sts or th ose trav-
eling w rong-way on the ro adway o r sidewalk.
General Countermeasures
a. M ake p arking improve m e nts to inc rease sight dis-
tanc e (5).
b. Make d r iveway improve m ents (7).
Bi cycle Counterme as ure Selec ti on Sys tem Sele cting Improv eme nts for Bic ycl ists 19
c . Improve access m anagem e nt (8).
d. Provide path inte rsec tion treatments for sh ared-use
paths adja ce nt to the roadway (32).
e . Provide p ath intersec tion warning trea tme nts for
share d-use paths adj acen t to the roadway.
f. Optimize signal timing to create gaps mid-blo ck
(35).
g. Make sign improvements (37).
h. Improve p ave ment m arkings (38).
i. Provide law enforcement (40).
J. Prov ide bicyclist e duca tion ( 41).
k. Provide motorist e d u cation (42).
6. BICYCLIST RODE OUT-MIDBLOCK
The bicyclist rid es out from a re sidential driveway, co m-
m e rcial driveway, sidewalk, or othe r midblock lo ca tion
into the road and is struck by or collid es with a motorist .
Possible Cause/Problem
The bicyc li st rides out from a residential driveway, co mmercial
driveway, sidewalk , or other midblock location into the road
without stopping or yielding and is stru ck by a motorist. This
crash typ e is a common one for yo ung children w h o fa il to
stop and scan for ve hicl es before cros sing the road or pulling
out into traffi c. Motorists sp eeding through neighborhood
stree ts increase the risk of being unable to avo id this typ e of
crash, so traffi c calming m eas ures may be appropriate.
• \
/ ~tt;
·-~~ .. , ... :t,.
General Countermeasures
a . M ake p arking improvements to increase visi bility (5).
b . Install m e di ans or crossing islands (6).
c . M ak e driveway improvements (7).
d. Improve access management (8).
e. R e duc e number of lanes (9).
f. Reduce lan e w idth (10).
g. Install traffic calming m eas ures (26, 27, 28, 29).
h . Provide p ath intersec ti on trea tments for midblo ck
roadway crossings (32).
L Provide p ath inter sec tion advance warnings trea t-
m e nts (33).
J· Optimize signal timing to crea te gaps mid-block
(3 5).
k. If midblo c k signal is install e d , add bike d e t ec tion or
ac tivated signal (36).
1. Provide sc h ool zo n e improvements (39).
m. Provide law e nforce m e nt ( 40).
n . Provide bicycli st e ducation ( 41).
7. MOTORIST TURNED OR MERGED LEFT INTO PATH
OF BICYCLIST
The motorist turns left into th e p ath of an oncoming
bicycli st or turns or merges l e ft across the p ath of a bi cy-
cli st w ho is tra ve ling straight in the same direc tion as the
motorist. This cras h ca n also involve motorists or bus or
d elivery vehicles pulling out of p arkin g sp aces or sto ps.
Possible Cause/Problem #1
The motorist turns le ft into th e p ath of an oncoming
bicy cli st. The proble m frequ e ntly occurs at signalized
intersec tions on roads wi th four or more lanes, but m ay
occur at driveways a nd other non-signali ze d junctions.
The left-turning motorist is waiting for a ga p in o n-
co ming traffi c and fa il s to look for, see, or yie ld to the
oncoming bicyclis t .
20 Selecting Improvements for Bicyclists Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System
Possible Cause/Problem #2
A m o to rist turns o r merges l eft across the p ath o f a bicyclist
w h o is trave ling straight ah ea d in the sa m e directi o n as the
m o torist . M any ti mes this cras h occurs at an inte r sec ti o n
or driveway w h e re the bicy cli st is riding the w rong way
aga inst traffic or is r iding the wro n g w ay against traffic
o n the sidewalk. R edu cing wrong-way riding would b e a
goal of b icyclist e du ca ti o n and o the r c ounte rmeas ures.
M os t general c ounte r meas ures are the sa m e fo r these firs t
two typ es of cra sh es .
General Countermeasures
a. Add/improve roa dway li ghting (4).
b . Install m e dian s o r c ro ss ing islands (6).
c . M ake d rive w ay improve m e nts (7).
d. Improve access m anagem e nt (8).
e. Prov ide bike lan es (11 ).
f. Provide p ave d sh o ulde rs (13).
g. R educe c urb radii or redes ign skewed intersec tions (16).
h. Install roundabout (17).
1. Enhan ce inte r sec ti o n markings (18).
J . Make sight di stance improve m e n ts at intersec ti o n (19).
k . R es tric t left turns (20).
l. Impl e m e nt mini traffi c circl e (25).
m . Install tra ffi c di ve r sio n (2 9).
n . Install raise d intersec tion (30).
o . Prov ide p ath inte r sec tion trea tme nts fo r sh are d-use
p aths adj ace nt to th e roadway (32).
p . Provide path intersec ti o n w ar nings /adva n ce trea tme nts
for sh ared-use p aths adj ace nt to the ro adway (33).
q . Install o r o ptimize signal timi ng (d e di ca te d left turn)
(35).
r. Add sign improve m e n ts (37).
s. Provid e b icy clist e duca tion (41 ).
t . Provid e m o torist educa tion ( 42).
Possible Cause/Problem #3
A moto rist merges left across th e pa th o f a bicy cli st trave l-
ing straight ah ea d at an o n /o ff ramp o r o ther m e rge or
weave area.
General Countermeasures
a. Improve roa dway li ghting (4).
b . Enhan ce i nter sec ti o n m arkin gs (18) or make p ave-
m e nt m arki ng improve m e nts (38).
c . Add sign improve m ents (3 7).
d. R e d es ign m e rge area (2 1).
Possible Cause/Problem #4
A mo to rist , b u s, o r d elivery ve hicl e str ikes a b icyclist w h en
pulling out of a p arking sp ace o r sto p .
General Countermeasures
a . Add/improve ro adway li ghting (4).
b . Provide p arking trea tme nts (5).
Bicycle Countermea sure Selection System Sele cting Improvement s for Bicy clists 21
c. Provide tran sit stop treatments (covered under bike
lanes) (11).
d. Provide co mbination lanes (14).
e. Provide bi cyclist e du cation (4 1).
f. Provide motorist e ducation (42).
8. MOTORIST TURNED OR MERGED RIGH T IN TO
PATH OF BICYCLIST
The motorist turns right into the path of a bicyclist trav-
eling in the same direction or a motorist turning right
strikes an oncoming bi cyclist w h o is riding aga i nst traffic.
This cras h can also involve motorists pulling into p ark-
ing sp aces, bus or d elivery vehicle pull-overs, or motorists
making right turns on red.
Possi ble Cause/P roblem #1
At an intersection, merge area, o r driveway, the motorist
turns or merges right across th e path of a bicyclist w h o
is trave ling straight ah ead in th e sa m e direction. T h e mo-
torist may misj udge the speed of the bicyclist or believe
(mistakenly) that the bicyclist sho uld wa it for them.
G eneral Countermeasures
a. Add/improve roadway lighting (4).
b. Provide p arking t reatments (5).
c. M ake dr iveway improvements (7).
d. Improve access m anagement (8).
e . R edu ce numb e r of travel lanes to slow motor ve hicl e
sp ee ds (9).
f. R edu ce lan e width to encourage bi cyclists to take the
lan e (in low-speed areas) (10).
g. Provide bike lan es (11).
h. Provide paved shoulders (13).
1. Reduce c urb radii (16).
J . Improve intersection m arkings (18).
k . Implement turning res tri c ti ons (20).
1. R e d esign m erge areas (21).
m. Install traffic diversion (29).
n. Add raised intersection (30).
o. Provide path intersection treatments for sh ared-u se
path s adj acent to the roadway (32).
p. Provide p ath intersectio n warnings /advance treatments
for sh are d-use paths adj ace nt to the roa dway (33).
q. Make sign improvements (37).
r. Improve p avement markings (38).
s. Provide law enforcement ( 40).
t. Provide bicyclist education ( 41).
u. P rovid e motorist edu ca tion (42).
Possible Cause/Prob lem #2
A motorist turns right, striking a bicyclist app roach-
ing from the opposite direction. The bicyclist is most
likely riding th e wrong way, against traffic, but could
be legally riding on the si d ewalk or an adjacent shared-
use path. This crash may involve a right-turn-on-red,
w ith th e bicyclist possibly violating a r e d si g n al since
the cras h type involves trave ling on a parallel path t o
the motorist.
General C ountermeasu res
a. Add/improve roadway li ghti ng (4).
b. Make driveway improvements (7).
c. Imple m e nt turning restrictions (20).
d. Install traffic divers ion (29).
e. Provide p ath intersection treatments for sh are d-use
paths adj acent to the ro adway (32).
22 Selecting Improvement s for Bi cyclis ts Bicycle Countermea sure Se lection System
f. Provid e p ath adva n ce of intersec tion warning trea t-
ments for sh are d-use p aths adj ace n t to the roadway
(33 ).
g . M ake sign imp rove m e nts (37).
h . Provide bicycli st e du ca tion (41 ).
i. Provid e motorist edu catio n ( 4 2).
Possible Cause/Problem #3
A mo torist , bus, or d elive ry ve hi cl e strikes a bicy cli st w h e n
pulli n g into a p arki n g sp ace or sto p .
General Countermeasures
a . Add/improve ro adway li gh ti n g (4).
b. Provid e p arking trea tm e n ts (5).
c. Prov id e trans i t sto p trea tm e nts (cove re d under bike
lan es) (11 ).
d. Provide c o mbin ati o n lanes (14 ).
e. Provid e bicycli st e du ca tion (41 ).
f. Prov ide mo torist e duca tio n ( 42).
Possible Cause/Problem #4
A mot orist m erges right across the p ath of a bi cy cli st trav-
eling strai ght ah ea d at an on/ off ramp or othe r m e rge /
w e ave area ..
General Countermeasures
a. Improve roa dw ay li ghting (4 ).
b . Enhan ce int e rsec ti o n markings (1 8) or m ake p ave -
ment m arkin g improve m e n ts (3 8).
c. Add sign improve m e nts (3 7 ).
d . R e d es ign merge area (21).
9. BICYCLIST TURNED OR MERGED LEFT INTO PATH
OF MOTORIST
The bicycli st turns or m erges left into the p ath of an ove r-
taking motorist w ho is trave ling straight ah ea d in the same
direc ti o n as t h e bi cycli st , or a b icy cli st turning left strikes an
o n corn.ing m o to rist . This cras h ca n al so involve a bicyclist
riding o ut from a sidewalk o r pa th b esid e th e ro ad . T h e bi-
cycl e and the m o to r ve hicle are initially o n p arall el paths.
Possible Cause/Problem #1
The bi cy cli st turns o r m e rges le ft fr om the right si d e of
the roa dwa y. The r id e r fail s to see o r yi eld to a motorist
com.in g from b e hind and is hit by the ove rtaking motor-
ist . The cras h al so c ould invo lve a bicyclist r idi n g o u t from
a sidewalk o r p ath b es id e th e ro ad . Sp ee d of ove rtaking
vehicles m ay b e a fac tor in this g roup of cras h es. The mo-
to rist also m ay n o t se e the bi cy cli st , o r m ay n o t su sp ec t
that the b i cyclist w ill t u rn in front in time to reac t .
General Countermeasures
a. Make ro adway surfa ce h aza rd improve m ents (1).
b . Add /improve roa dway li gh ting (4).
c . Provid e p arking imp rove m e nts (5).
d. R edu c e numbe r oflan es /ro ad diet (9).
e. R e d u ce lan e w idth in low-sp eed areas to en courage
share d-lan e u se (10).
f. Insta ll rounda bo u t (17).
g. Im p rove inte r se ction m arkin gs (18).
h . Pe rform re p e titive and sh o rt-t erm m ainte n ance to
re du c e surface h azards (22).
L Pe rform m ajor m ainte n an ce (23).
J . In s ti tu te a h aza rd id e ntification prog ram (24).
k. In stall rn.ini traffi c circl e (25 ).
1. Provid e traffi c calming treatme nts (2 6, 2 7, 2 8) t o slow
mot o r ve hicl e sp ee ds.
Bi cyc le Co unterm eas ure Se lec tion Sy stem Selecti ng Im pro veme nts for Bicyclists 23
m. Divert traffi c (29).
n . Install raise d inte rsec tio n (3 0).
o. Provide p ath inte r sec ti o n treatme nts (parall e l p aths
adj ace nt to the ro adway) (3 2).
p. Provid e path inter sec ti o n w arnings /ad va n ce t rea t-
m e nts (3 3).
q . Make pave m e nt m arking improve m e nts (38).
r. Provide bi cy cli st edu cati o n (41 ).
Possible Cause/Problem #2
The bicycli st atte mpts to m ake a left turn and r ides into th e
p ath of an o n coming m o to rist . The cras h co uld occur at an
inter sec tion, a rnidblo ck drivewa y, or a sh ared-use path.
\
\
\
General Countermeasu res
\
\
a . Install m e di an s or cross ing islands (6).
b. Improve driveways (7).
c . Improve acces s m an age m e nt (8).
d . R e du ce number oflan es /road di e t (9 ).
e . R e du ce lan e width (10).
f. Install roundabout (17).
g . Improve inte r section m arkings (1 8).
h. Improve sight distan ce (19).
1. Install mini traffic circl e (25).
J · Prov ide trail inte rsec ti on treatme nts (32).
k. Provide trail inte rsec ti o n warnings /ad va n ce trea t-
m e nts (3 3 ).
l. Install / optimize signal timing (35 ).
m . Add bike ac ti va t ed signals (36).
n. M a ke p ave m e nt m arking improve m ents (38).
o. Provide bi cyclist e du ca ti o n (41).
10 . BICYCLIS T TURNED OR MER GED RIGH T I NTO
PATH OF MOTORIST
The bicyc li st turns or m erges right into th e path o f an on-
coming motorist , o r a bicy cli st turns r ight ac ro ss the p ath
o f a motorist trave ling in the sa m e direc tion as the bicycli st .
This cras h ca n also invol ve a bicycli st riding out from a
sidewalk or sh ared-use path b es ide the road . The bicycl e
and the motor ve hicl e are initially on p arall el p aths.
Possib le Cause/Problem #1
The bicycli st turns or m erges right into th e path of an on-
coming motorist. The cras h could occur at an intersec tion or
mid-block . The bi cycli st m ay b e riding o ut fro m an adj ace nt
sid ewalk or shared-use p ath or attempting to make a right
turn fr om the wro ng sid e of the ro adway.
. ~ ...
General C ountermeasu res
a . R edu ce number o f lanes /ro ad di e t to gain sp ace for
bike lan e s (9).
b . R edu ce lane w idth (10).
c. In stall bike lan es o n both sides of th e stree t (11 ).
d. Provid e/improve inte rs e cti o n m arkings (18).
e . Pe rfo rm re p e titive and short-te rm mainte n an ce (2 2).
24 Selecting Improve ments for Bicyclists Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System
f. P e rfo rm major m ainte n an ce (23).
g. Institute a h aza rd id e ntifica ti o n p rogra m (2 4).
h . Add t raffic calming trea tme nts to slow m o torist sp ee d s
(2 5,26,27,2 8,29,30).
L Provide p a th inte r sec tion trea tme nts for share d-use
p aths adj ace nt to the roa dway (32).
J · Provide path inte rsec ti o n w arnings /adva n ce trea tme nts
for sh are d-use p aths adj ace nt to the ro adway (3 3).
k . M ake p ave m e n t m arking improve m e nts (38).
l. Provide bi cycli st educa ti o n on w rong-w ay riding (41 ).
Possible Cause/Problem #2
The bicyclist turns o r m er ges righ t into the p ath o f a m o -
torist w h o is trave ling stra ight ah ea d in the sa m e orig inal
direc ti on as the bicycli st . The bicycli st m ay b e atte m p ting
to ch an ge lan es to m ake a rig ht turn . Th.i s c ras h ca n al so
involve a bi cyclist riding out from a sidewalk or sh are d-
u se p ath b es ide th e ro ad or ch an g ing from trave ling fac ing
traffi c (wro n g side of th e street) t o the co rrec t side of the
street .
General Countermeasures
a . R educe number of lan es/ro ad di e t to ga in space fo r
bike lan es (9 ).
b . R edu ce lan e width to slow m o to r ve hicle sp ee ds (10).
c. Install bike lan es on b o th sides of the stree t (11 ).
d . Prov ide o r improve inte rsec ti o n m arkings (1 8).
e . Institute go o d m ainte n an ce prac ti ces to re duce sur-
face and o the r h azards (22 , 23, 24).
f. Add traffic calming trea tme nts (25, 2 6, 27 , 2 8, 29, 30).
g . Provide trail inte r sec tion trea tme nts for sh are d-use
p aths adj ace nt to the ro adway (32 ).
h . Provide trail inte rsec tion warnings / adva n ce treatme nts
for sh ared-use paths adja cent to the roadway (33).
1. M ake p ave m e nt m arking improve m e nts (38).
J· Provide bi cycli st e duca tion o n wro n g-way riding and
sca nning b ehind (4 1).
1 1. MOTORIST OVERTAKING BICYCLIST
The moto ri st is ove rtaking a bicycli st and strikes the bi cy-
cli st from b ehind. These cras h es tend to o ccur b ec au se the
m o to rist fail s to d etect the bicycli st , the bi cycli st sw e rves to
the left to avo id an obj ec t or su rface irregularity, or the m o -
torist misjudges th e spa ce n ecessary to pass the bicyclist.
Possible Cause/Problem #1
The motorist is ove rtaking and fa il s to d e tec t a bi cycli st ,
striking the b icyclist from b e hind . These cras h es ofte n
occur at night, a nd one or b o th p ar ti es m ay h ave b ee n
drinking. Th e bi cycli st m ay h ave inad e qu ate li g hts or re -
fl ec tors , or m ay not b e u sing li ghts.
General Countermeasures
a . Provide sp ace o n bridges /ove rp asses (2).
b . Provide sp ace and o the r m eas ures in tunnels/under-
p asses (3).
c. Add/improve roa dway li ghting (4).
e . P rov ide sp ace o n ro adway fo r bicyc li sts w ith bike lan es
f.
g.
h.
1.
J·
k .
I.
(11 ), w ide curb lan es (12), p ave d sh o uld ers (13), or
co mbinati o n lan es (14).
Provide chi ca n es or ser p e ntine fo r low-sp ee d , share d-
lan e situ ati ons (26).
Provide o ther traffi c calming measures (27, 28, 29).
Provide a se p arate p ath o r trail (3 1).
M ake si gn improvem e nts (3 7).
Improve p ave m e nt m arkings (38).
Provide bi cyc li st e duca ti o n ab o ut co n spic ui ty and rid-
ing at night (4 1).
Provide m oto rist e duca tion (4 2).
Bi cycle Countermeasure Sele ction System Sel ec ting Improvements for Bicy clists 25
Possible Cause/Problem #2
The overtaking motorist str ikes a bicyclist suddenly swerv-
ing to the left, possibly to avoid an object or surface irregu -
larity, extended door of a parked car, or other obstacle .
G e n eral Countermeasures
a. M ake roadway surface hazard improvements (1).
b . Add/improve roadway lighting (4).
c. Provide parking improvemen ts (5).
d. Make driveway improvements (7).
e. Provide bike lanes (11).
f. Provide wide c urb lanes (12).
g. Provide paved shoulders (13).
h . Perform repetitive and sh o rt-term maintenance (22),
major maintenance (23), and institute a hazard id en-
tification prog ram (24).
1. Provide chicanes or serpentin e d esign or other traffic
calming measures (26 , 27, 28, 29).
J· Provide a sepa rat e path or trail (31).
k. Make sign improvements (37).
1. Improve pavement markings (38).
m. Provide bicyclist educatio n about avoidi n g objects
and correct spac ing from parked motor vehicles ( 41).
n. Provide motorist educa ti on (42).
Pos sible C au s e/Problem #3
The overtaking motorist detects the bicyclist ahead but
fails to allow e no u gh space to sa fely pa ss the bicyclist.
General Counte rmeasures
a. M ake roadway surface hazard improvements (1).
b. Provi d e sp ace on bridges and overpasses (2).
c . Provide sp ace and other measures in tunnels and un-
d e rp asses (3).
---------~-
d. Add/improve roadway li ghting (4).
e. Reduce lan e width (o n low speed roa ds) to encour-
age bicyclist to "take the lane" (10).
f. Provide sp ace for bicyclists on high sp eed roadways
w ith bike lanes (11), wide curb lanes (12), or paved
shoulde r s (13).
g. Id entify maintenance ne eds and perform routine and
m ajor mai ntenance (22, 23, 24).
h . Provide c hicanes or c hi ca n e-like parking (26).
1. Provide a separate sh are d-use path (31).
J . M ake sign improve m ents (3 7).
k. Improve p avement m ar kings (38).
1. Provide bi cyclist edu ca tion (41).
m. Provide motorist edu ca tion (42).
12 . BICYCLIST OVERTAKING MOTORIST
The bi cyc li st is overtaking and strikes the motor vehicle
from b ehind. These cras h es tend to occur because the bi-
cyclist tri es to p ass on the right or left, the bi cy cli st strikes
a parked vehicle while pass in g, or the bicyclist strikes an
ext e nde d door on a parked ve hicl e while passing.
Possible Cau se/Problem #1
The overtaking bicyclist strikes a motor ve hicle w hil e at-
tempting to p ass on either th e right or the left.
26 Select ing Improve ments for Bicyclists Bicycle Countermea sure Se lection System
General Countermeasures
a Provide space for bicycli sts with bike lanes (1 1), w ide
curb lanes (12), paved sh o ul ders (13), or combin ation
lanes (14).
b. Perform re p e titive and short-term maintenance (22).
c. Perform major maintenance (23).
d . Institute a h azard identification program (24).
e. Provide a separate sha re d-use path (31).
f. Improve pavement markings (38).
g. Provide bicyclist edu ca tion (41).
Possible Cause/Problem #2
T h e overtaking bi cyclist strikes a parked motor ve hicl e or
exte nded door of a parked motor ve hicl e whil e attempt-
ing to pass on ei th er the right or th e left.
General Countermeasures
a. Implement p arking trea tments (5).
Provide bike lanes (1 1).
Provide wide outside lanes (12).
1. Provide paved sho ulders (13).
e. Provide a separate sh ared-use path (31).
f.
g.
Improve pavement markings (38).
Provid e bicyclist e duca tion (41).
h. Provide motorist education (42).
13. NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CRASHES
These cras h es do not involve a motor ve hi cle and can
occur in a variety of ways, including falls from a bike, a
colli sion b etween two bicycles, a colli sion b etween a bike
and a p e d estrian, or a bi cyclist str iking an o bj ect.
Possible Cause/Problem #1
The bi cy clist loses control d u e to a p ave m ent surfa ce ir-
regularity, d ebris, or o th er hazard .
General Countermeasures
a. Make roadway surface h azard improvements (1).
b. Improve bridge access and su rfaces (2).
c. Improve tunnel access and surfaces (3).
d. Add/improve roadway lighting (4).
e. M ake driveway improvements (5).
f. Perform repetitive and sh ort-term m ai ntenance (22).
g. Pe1form major maintenance (23).
h. Institute a hazard identifi ca ti on program (24).
i. Implement "sh are the path " measures (34).
J· Improve pavement markings (38).
k. Provide bicyclist e du ca ti on (41).
Possible Cause/Problem #2
The bicyclist strikes a pedestrian, object or o th er bicyclist
on a sh ared-use path , sidewalk, or roadway.
Bicycle Cou nt erm easure Selec tion System Selecting Improvement s for Bi cyc lists 27
General Countermeasures
a. Make roadway surface h aza rd improve m ents (1).
b. Add/improve lighting (4).
c. Make pa rking improveme nts (5).
d . Implement maintenance co untermeas ures (22, 23, 24).
e. Provide path intersection tre atments (32).
f. Provide path intersection advance warning trea t-
ments (33).
g. Implement "sh are the path" measures (34).
h . Improve pavement markings (38).
1. Provide sc hool zone improve ments (39).
J · Provide bicyclist education (41).
14. NON -ROADWAY AND OTHER CRASHES
Possible Cause/Problem #1 (Non-Roadway)
A motorist and bi cyc list collid e in a parking lot or driveway.
The motor vehicle m ay b e backing at the tin1e of the cras h .
General Countermeasures
a. Add/improve li ghting (4).
b . R ed es ign p arking (5).
c. M ake driveway improvements (7).
d. Perfo rm rep etitive and sh ort-term mainten an ce (22).
e. P e rform m ajor maintenance (23).
f. Institute a h azard id entifi ca tion program (24).
g. P rovide sp eed tables, humps, or cus hions (27).
h . M ake sign improve ments (3 7).
1. Improve p avement markings (38).
J. Provide bicycli st e ducation ( 41).
k. Prov ide motorist education (42).
Possible Cause/Problem #2 (Other)
Either the bicyc li st or the motorist was trave ling in th e
wrong lane or direction and collid ed h ead-on wi th the
other. The bi cycli st co uld have b een riding on th e wrong
side of the roadway or the motorist co uld have b ee n pa ss -
ing an oth er vehicle w h e n the cras h occurre d .
General Countermeasures
a . Add or improve roadway li ghting (4).
b . Prov ide bike lanes (11).
c. Provide paved shoulders (13 ).
d . Complete repetitive and short-term m ainten ance
(ge n e ral sight distance maintenance) (22, 24).
e. Provide law enforce ment (40).
f. Provide bicyclist e ducation ab o ut wrong-way riding
and conspicui ty and u sing li ghts at night ( 41).
g. Provide motorist e ducation on safe passing (42).
Possible Cause/Problem #3 (Other)
Either the bicycli st or motorist m ad e a turning error (sw un
too wide on a right turn or c ut the corner on a left tur
and turned into the o pposing lane or path of the other.
28 Selecting Improvements for Bicyclists Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System
General Cou n t ermeasu res
a. Install median divider (6).
b. M ake driveway improvements (7).
c. R evise curb radii or re-align skewed interse ctions (16).
d. Install roundabout (17) or mini traffic circle (25) at
intersection.
e. Add or improve intersection markings (18).
f. Impose turning restrictions (20).
g . Install raised intersec tion (30).
Possible Cause/Problem #4 (Other)
The bicyclist or motorist intentionally caused the crash,
one or the other lost control due to impairment, mechan-
ica l problems, or other ca u ses, or there were other unusual
circ umstances such as the bicyclist being struck by falling
ca rgo. Few specific countermea sures can b e ide ntifi ed for
unusual or non-specific types of cras hes other than edu-
ca tional and e nforcement measures. To v iew general per-
formance objectives and corresponding countermeasures
to reduce cras h es and enco urage safer bicycling, go to the
Performance Objectives section .
CRASH-RELATED
COUNTERMEASURES
A total of 50 different bicycli st countermeasures are pre-
sente d in Chapter 5 of this guide. To ass ist engineers and
planners who may want further g uidance on which mea-
sures are appropriate to address certain types of bicycle
crashes, a m atrix is provid ed on pages 32-33 . The appli-
cable treatments within the nine ca te gories of counter-
measures are shown for eac h of th e 13 crash type gro up s.
To illu strate how to u se the table, consider the six th cr as h
type g roup in th e tabl e ("B ic yclist Ride Out-Mid-
block"). This is a cras h invo lving a bicyclist riding out into
the roadway from a lo cation in th e middl e of the blo ck,
su c h as a reside ntial driveway. This tends to be a rig ht-
angle cras h and often invo lves younger bicyclists .
The c hart shows that there are 17 potential count erm ea-
sures that may reduce the probability of this type of crash,
depending on the site conditions. These countermeasures
include shared roadway improvements, su ch as removal
of parking to increase sight distance, traffic calmi n g mea-
sures such as spee d humps that could slow motor vehicle
speeds and decrease th e braking distance, and other p os-
sible co untermeasures.
In Chapter 5, details are provided on eac h of the co unter-
measures list ed. The quick reference index at the start of
Chapte r 5 can b e used to eas ily lo ca t e the pa ge containing
the detailed description. The W eb /CD-ROM appli ca tion
allows the li st of countermeasures to b e refined on the
basis of site charact e risti cs (see C h apter 4).
These c h arts are intended to give general informa tion on
candidate solutions that should be consid ered w h e n try-
ing to reduce a pattern of bicycle cras h es at a specific
location or roadway section . Many bicyclist cras h es are
the direct result of careless or illegal motorist behavior
or unsa fe bi cycl ist b eh avior. Many of these cras h es can-
Bicycle Countermeasure Selec tio n System Selecting Improvements for Bicyclists 29
not n ecessa rily b e preve nte d by roadway improvements
alone. In such cases, bicyclist and motorist ed u ca tion and
enforcement ac tiv iti es m ay be h e lpful.
PERFORMANCE O BJECTIVES
Bicy clists face a vari ety of c h all e n ges w h en they rid e
along and ac ros s streets w ith motor ve hicl es. Conununi-
ti es are as king for help to "sl ow traffic down," and "m ake
the street more inviting to bicyclists ."
The fo ll owing is a li st of reques ts (o bj ec ti ves) that tran s-
portati on profe ss ionals are likely to face w h e n working to
provid e bi cy cl e sa fe ty and mobility:
Provide sa fe on-stree t fac ilities/sp ace for bicyclists.
Provide off-road p aths or trails for bicyc li sts.
Provide and maintain q uality smfaces for bicyclists.
Provide sa fe intersections for bi cyc li sts.
Improve motorist b eh avio r / complian ce with traffi c laws.
Improve bicyclist b eh avior/ compliance with traffic laws.
Encourage and promote bicy cling.
Each of these obj ectives can b e accomplish ed throu gh a va-
ri ety of the individual treatments presented in this chapter.
Ye t, most trea tments will work b es t when use d at multiple
lo ca tions and in combinati o n with oth e r trea tments.
In addition, m any of the trea tme nts will acco mplish two
or more objecti ves. The key is to make sure that the ri ght
treatme nts are c hose n to ac complish the d es ired effec t .
The m atrix located on p ages 34-35 sh ows w hi ch co un-
termeas ures are appropriate to co n sid e r for the seve n p er-
formance objecti ves. In using the ch art, it is important to
rememb er that it is simply a guide. In all cases, goo d engi-
ne eringjudgment should b e appli ed when making decisions
abo ut w hat trea tment will be b es t for a sp ecific locati on.
PROGRAM OF IMPROVEMENTS
While some bicy cl e cra sh es are assoc iat e d with d efi cie nt
ro adway d es ign s, bicyclists and m o torists often co ntrib-
ute to cras h es through a di sregard or lack of understand-
ing oflaws and safe driving or riding b e h avio r.9 Beca use
most c ras h es are a res ult o f human e rror, c ras h es w ill n ot
be comple tely eliminated as long as bicyclists and motor
ve hicl es sh ar e the sa m e sp ace. The consequ e n ces of these
crash es are exacerbated by sp ee ding, fa iling to yield , or
fa ilin g to ch eck both directions for traffic, so n ew edu ca-
tion, e n force m e nt, and e n g ineering tools are n ee d e d to
m an age the conflicts between bicycli sts and drive r s.
A co mple te program of bi cycl ist safety improvements in-
cludes:
Sh are d roadway acco nunodati ons, su ch as prov!Sl o n
of roadway surface improvem ents o r li ghting w h ere
n ee d e d.
• Provision of bicyc li st fac iliti es, su c h as bike lan es, w id e
c u rb lanes and separa te trail s.
Provision of intersec tion treatments, su c h as c urb radii
revisions and sight di stan ce improvements.
M ainten an ce of roadways and trail s.
U se of traffi c calm..in g tre atme nts, su c h as mini circles
and sp ee d control meas ures .
• Ade quate signs, signals, and m arkings, particularly as per-
ta..in s to intersecti o n s and sh are-the-road philosophies .
• Program s to enforce exis ting traffic laws and ordinances
for motorists (e.g., o beyi n g sp eed limits, yielding to ap-
proac hing bicyclists w h e n turning, traffic signal co mpli-
an ce, obeying drunk-driving laws) and bicycli sts (e.g.,
riding in the same direc ti on wi th traffic, obeying traffic
signals and signs).
• Encouraging bi cyclists to u se reflective clothing and
a ppropriate li ghting w h e n riding at night .
• E n co ura gi n g and e ducating bi cycl ists in prop e r h el-
m e t u se.
• Educa tion p rograms provided to m otorists and bi cyc li sts .
Providin g support fac iliti es, su c h as bicy cl e p arki n g
and eve nts, such as ride-to-work d ays or fundrai sers to
support bicycling.
Roadway improvements ca n often reduce the likelihood
of a bi cy cl e-motor ve hicl e cras h. Phys ical improvements
are m os t effective w h en tailore d to an individual location
and traffic problem. Fac tors to con side r when c h oosing
an improve m ent include: location c h arac t eristi cs, bicycle
and motor ve hi cle vo lume and types , motor vehicle sp eed ,
d es ign of a g iven location, city laws and o rdinances, and
financial co n straints. M any of these facto rs are include d
for cons ideration in the BIKESAFE Selec ti on Tool (see
C h apte r 4).
It is important t o rem ember that overuse or unjustifi e d
use of any traffic control measure is not recommended,
since this may bree d disre sp ec t for su ch d ev ices. While
fac ilities and sh ared roadway accommodations for bi cy-
clists ca n , in m an y cases, redu ce th e risk of colli sions, cras h
re duc tion is not th e o nly reaso n for providing su c h ac -
commodations . Other b e n efit s include improved acce.
to d es tinations by riding, b e tter air quality due to less df
p e nden ce on driving, and improve d p er sonal h ealth. Tr;;
fi e and transportation e n g inee r s h ave the res p onsibiJ"
30 Selecting Improveme nts for Bicyclists Bi cycle Countermea sure Selection System
for providing fac iliti es for all modes of travel, including
bi cycling (a nd walking).
Bi cycle Countermeasure Selec tion System Select in g Improveme nt s for Bicyclists 31
'""'--'u•..,.. 1 c:.n:1v1c:.J-\:::>Ut-<t:.::> A::SSOCIATED WITH SPECIFIC CRASH GROUPS
Crash Type
1) Motorist failed to
yield -signalized
intersection
2) Motorist failed to
y ield -non-signalized
intersec ti on
3) Bicyclist failed to
yield -signalized
intersection
4) Bi cyclist failed to
yield -non -si gnalized
intersect ion
5) Motorist drive out
-midblock
6) Bicyc list ride out
-midblock
7) Motorist turned or
merged left into path
of bicyclist
8) Motorist turned or
merged ri ght into
path of bic yc list
9) Bicyclist turned or
merged left into path
of motorist
10) Bicyclist turned or
merged right into
path of motorist
11) Motorist overtaking
bicyclist
12 ) Bicyclist ove rt akin g
moto r ist
13) Non-motor vehicle
crashes
Shared Roadway
· Lighting Improvements
· Red uce Lane Number
· Red uce Lan e Width
· Light in g I mprovemen t s
· Re du ce Lane Number
· Reduce Lane Widt h
· Lighting Im provements
· Median /Crossing Island
· Reduce Lane Number
· Reduce Lan e Width
. Li ght i ng I mprovements
· Red uce Lane Number
. Redu ce La ne Wid t h
. Parki ng Tr ea tments
· Driveway Improvements
· Access Management
· Par kin g Trea t men t s
. Med ian /Cro ssi ng Island
. Dr ive wa y Im provements
· Access Management
· Reduce Lane Number
· Redu ce Lane Wid t h
. Lighting Improvements
· Park ing Treatments
· Median/Crossing Island
· Driveway Improvements
· Access Management
· Reduce Lane Number
. Lig hti ng I mprovements
· Pa rki ng Tr ea t ments
· Dri veway Im provements
· Access Man ageme nt
· Reduce Lane Number
· Reduce Lane Width
· Roadway Surface Improvements
· Lighting I mprovements
· Parking Tr eatments
· Median/Crossing Island
· Driveway Im provements
· Access Man agement
· Reduce Lan e Number
· Reduce Lane Width
· Red uce La ne N umber
· Reduce Lane Width
· Roadway Surface Improvements
· Bridge and Overpass Access
· Tunnel and Underpass Access
· Lighting Improvements
· Parking Treatments
· Reduce Lan e Width
· Pa rk i ng Tre atments
· Roadway Surfa ce Improvements
· Bridge and Overpass Access
· Tunnel an d Underpass Ac cess
· Lighting Im provements
· Parking Treatments
· Driveway Im provements
On-Road Bike Facilities Intersection Treatments
· Curb Rad ii Re visions
· Roundabouts
· Intersec t ion Markings
· Sight Distance Improveme nts
· Turning Rest r ictions
· Cu rb Rad ii Re visions
· Roundabo uts
· I nte rsec t io n Markings
· Sight Distan ce I mprovemen t s
· Merge and Weave Area Redes ig n
· Roundabouts
· I ntersect ion Mark ings
· Sight Dista nce Improvements
· Rounda bouts
· Intersection Mark ings
· Sight Dis tance Improvements
. Merge and Weave Ar ea Redesign
· Bike Lanes ·Curb Radii Revisions
· Paved Shoulders · Roundabouts
· Combination Lanes · Intersection Markings
· Sight Dista nce Im provements
· Turning Rest r ict ions
· Merge and Weave Area Redesign
· Bike Lanes ·Curb Rad i i Revi sions
· Paved Sho ul de rs · Intersection Mark ings
· Combina t ion Lanes · Turning Restr ic ti ons
· Merge and Weave Area Redesign
· Roundabou ts
· Intersection Markings
· Sight Distance Improvements
· Bi ke Lanes · I ntersection Marki ngs
· Bike Lanes
· Wide Curb Lanes
· Paved Shoulders
· Combination Lanes
· Bike Lanes
· Wide Cu r b Lanes
· Pave d Shou lde rs
· Combi nat io n Lanes
Maintenance
· Repetitive/Short-
Term Maintenance
· Major Maintenance
· Hazard Identifica-
tion Program
· Repe t itive/Short-
Term Mai ntenance
· Ma j or Ma in tena nce
· Haza rd Identifica -
tion Program
· Repetitive/Short-
Term Ma i ntenance
· Major Maintenance
· Haza rd Identifica-
tion Program
· Repet it ive /Short-
Ter m Mainte nance
· Majo r Maintenance
· Hazard Identifica-
t ion Pro gram
· Repetitive/S hort-
Term Ma i ntenanc
· Major Mai nten anr
· Hazard ldentific ·
lion Pr ogram
Traffic Calming
· Mi ni Tr affic Circles
·Ch icanes
· Speed Tables/Humps/Cushions
· Raised Intersection
· Mini Tr affic Circles
· Chicanes
· Visual Narrowing
· Speed Table s/Humps/C ushions
· Rai sed Intersection
. Mi n i Tr affic Circles
. Min i Traff ic Circ les
· Chicanes
. Speed Ta bles/Hum ps/C ushions
· Raised I ntersection
· Chicanes
· Speed Table s/Humps/Cushions
· Visual Narrowing
· Traffic Diversion
· Mini Traffic Circles
· Traffic Diversion
· Raised I ntersection
· Traffic Diversion
· Raised Intersection
· Mini Traffic Circles
· Chicanes
· Speed Tables/Humps/C ushions
· Visual Narrowing
· Traffic Dive rsion
· Raised I ntersection
· Mini Tr affic Circles
· Chica ne s
· Speed Tabl es/Humps/Cush ions
· Visual Narrow ing
· Tr affic Diversion
· Raised Intersection
Trails/Shared-Use Paths
· Pat h I ntersection Treatments
· Intersection Warning Treat-
ments
· Path Intersect ion Treatm ents
· Intersection Warning Treat-
men t s
· Path Intersection Treatments
· Intersection Warning Treat-
men ts
· Path Intersection Treatments
· Intersection Warning Treat -
men ts
· Path I ntersection Treatments
· Intersection Warning Treat-
men t s
· Path I ntersection Treatments
· Intersection Warning Tr eat-
men t s
· Path Intersection Treatments
· Intersection Warning Treat-
men ts
· Path Intersection Treatments
· Intersection Warning Treat -
ments
· Path I ntersection Treatments
· Intersection Warning Treat -
ments
· Path In tersection Treatments
· Intersect ion Warning Treat-
ments
· Chica nes · Separate Shared-Use Path
· Speed Tables/Humps/Cush ions
· Visual Na rrowing
· Traffic Diversion
· Separate Shared -Use Path
· Path Intersection Treatments
· Intersect ion Warning Treat-
ments
· Share the Path Treatments
Markings , Signs , Signals Education and Enforcement
· Install Signal/Optimize nming · Law Enforcement
· Sign Improvements · Bicyclist Education
· Pavement Marking I mprovements · Motor ist Education
· School Zone Improvements
· Inst all Signal /Optimize nming · Law Enforcement
· Sign Im proveme nts · Bicyclist Edu ca tion
· Pavem ent Marking Improvements · Motorist Education
· School Zone Improvements
· I nsta ll Signal/Opt im ize nming · Law Enforcement
· B ike-Activated Signa l · Bicyclist Education
· Sign Improvements · Motorist Education
· Pavement Marking I mprovements
· School Zone Improvements
· I nstall Signal /Optimize nming · Law Enforcement
· Bike -Activated Sig na l · Bicyclist Education
· Sign Improvements · Motorist Education
· Pavement Marking Improvements
· School Zone Improvements
· Install Signal /Optimize nming · Law Enforcement
· Sign I mprovements · Bicyc l ist Education
· Pavement Marking Improvements · Motorist Education
· In sta ll Signal /Optimize nming · Law Enforcement
· Bike -Activated Signal · Bicyclist Edu cation
· School Zone Improvements
· Insta ll Signal /O ptimize nming · Bicyclist Education
· Sign Improvements · Motorist Education
· Pa vement Marking Improvements
· Sign Improvements · Bi cyc li st Edu cation
· Pavement Mark ing Improvements · Motorist Edu cation
· Install Signal/Optimize nming · Bicyclist Education
· Bike-Activated Signal
· Pavement Marking Improvements
· Pavement Marking Improvements · Bi cyc l ist Edu ca tion
· Sign Improvements · Bicyclist Education
· Pave ment Marking Improvements · Motorist Education
· Pavement Marking Improvements · Bi cyc list Educati on
· Motorist Edu ca tion
· Pavement Marking Improvements · Bicyclist Education
· School Zone Improvements
COUNTERMEASURES ASSOCIATED WITH :::;t-'t:.L;lt""lv uo ... n::.v 1 1 v ._....,
Obj ec tives
1) Provide safe on -street
facilities/space for bicy-
clists.
2) Provi de off-roa d pat hs or
t ra i ls fo r b icyc li st s.
3) Prov ide and maintain
quality surfaces for
bicyclists.
4 ) Pro vide sa f e intersec-
t ions fo r bic yc li st s.
5) Improve motorist be-
havior/comp! iance w ith
traffic laws.
6) Im pro ve bic yc li st be -
havi or/co mplian ce wit h
traf f ic laws.
7) Encourage and promote
bicycling.
Shared Roadway
· Roadway Surface Im-
provements
· Bridge and Overpass
Access
· Tun nel and Underpass
Access
· Lighting Improvements
· Parking Treatments
· Median /Crossing Island
· Driveway Improvements
· Access Management
· Reduce Lane Number
· Reduce Lane Width
· Roadway Surface I m-
provements
· Bri dge and Overpass
Access
· Tu nnel and Underpass
Access
. Lightin g Im provements
· Parkin g Treatments
· Reduce Lane Number
· Reduce Lane Width
· Lighting Improvements
· Parking Treatments
· Dri veway I mp rovements
· Reduce Lane Width
. Roa dway Surface Im -
prov ements
· Br idge and Overpass
Ac cess
. Tun nel and Underpass
Ac cess
. Parkin g Treatments
· Roadway Surface Im-
provements
· Br idge and Overpass
Access
· Tunnel and Underpass
Access
· Lighting Improvements
· Median/Crossing Island
On-Road Bike Facilities
· Bike Lanes
· Wide Curb Lanes
· Paved Shoulders
· Combination Lanes
· Contraflow Bike Lanes
· Bike Lanes
· Bike Lanes
. Paved Shou lders
34 Se lec ting Improv eme nts for Bicyc li sts Bicyc le Counte rmeas ure Se lection Sys tem
Inte rsection Treatments
· Curb Radii Revi sions
· Roundabouts
· Intersection Markin gs
· Sight Distance Improvements
· Turning Restrictions
· Merge and Weave Area Redesign
Maintenance
· Repetitive/Short-
Term Maintenance
· Major Maintenance
· Hazard Identifica-
tion Program
· Repetitive/Short -
Term Maintenance
· Major Maintenance
· Hazard Ide nt ifica-
t ion Program
· Repetit ive/Short-
Term Maintenance
· Major Maintenance
· Hazard Identifica-
tion Program
· Curb Radii Revisions · Repetitive/Short-
. Roundabouts Term Maintenance
· Intersection Markings · Major Main t enance
· Sight Distance Improvements · Hazard lden tifica-
. Merge and Weave Area Redesign lion Prog ram
· Intersection Markings · Repeti t ive/Short-
. Sight Distance Improvements Term Maintenance
. Merge and Wea ve Area Redesign · Major Maintenance
· Hazard Id entifica-
tion Program
· Repetitive/Short-
Term Maintenance
· Major Maintenance
· Hazard Identifica-
tion Program
Traffic Calm ing
. Mini Traffic Circles
· Chicanes
· Speed Tabl es/Humps/
Cush ions
· Visual Narrowing
· Traffic Diversion
· Raised Intersectio n
· Mini Traffic Circles
· Chi canes
· Spee d Tables/Hum ps/
Cushi ons
· Rai se d I ntersec tion
· M i ni Traffic Circles
· Ch icanes
· Speed Tabl es/Humps/
Cushions
· Visual Narrowing
· Tra ffic Diversion
· Raised Intersection
· Mini Traffi c Circles
Trails/Shared -Use Paths
. Separate Sha red-Use Path
· Path Intersection Treat -
ments
· Intersection Warnin g Treat -
ments
· Sha re the Path Tr eatments
. Path Intersect ion Tr eat-
ments
. Intersection Warni ng Tr eat-
men ts
· Path Intersection Tr eat-
ments
· I ntersection Warning Treat -
ments
· Share the Path Treatments
· Sepa rate Shared -Use Path
Markings, Sign s, Signals Education and Enforcement Support Facil ities and Programs
· Sign Improvemen t s
· Paveme nt Marking Improve-
ments
· Sc hool Zone Improvements
· Sign Improvements
· Pavement Marking Improve-
ments
· Pavement Marking I mprove-
ments
· In st all Signal/Optim ize Timing
· Bik e-Activated Signal
· Sign Improvements
· Pavement Marking Im prove-
men ts
· Sc hoo l Zone Improve men ts
· Install Signal /Optimize Tim ing
· Sign Improvements
· Pavement Marking Im prove-
ments
· School Zone Improvements
· I nsta ll Signal /Optimize Tim ing
· Bi ke-Activated Signa l
· Sign Improvements
· Pav ement Marking I mprove-
men t s
· School Zone I mproveme nt s
· B i ke -Activated Signa l
· School Zone I mproveme nts
· Practitioner Ed ucation
· Bicyc li st Education
· Practitioner Education
· Practitioner Edu ca tion
· Practit ioner Education
· Law Enforcemen t
· Motor ist Edu cation
· Law Enforcement
· Bicyclist Edu cation
· Bicyc l ist Edu catio n
· Motorist Education
· Practitioner Education
Bi cyc le Cou ntermea sure Se lection System
· Wayfinding
· Ae st hetics/Landscaping
· Wayfind in g
· Ae sthetics/Landscaping
· Bike Maps
· Events/Activities
· Bike Maps
· Events/Activities
· Bike Parkin g
· Transit Acc ess
· Bi cyc list Persona l Fa cil itie
· Bike Maps
· Wayfinding
· Even ts/Activities
· Aesthet ics/Landscaping
Sel ectin g Improvement s for Bi cyclists 35
Chapter 4 -The Expert System
E.ile !;_dit ~iew §o !;!ool<marks Iools t!elp del ,Jci o .us
http : I /www .bic ycling info.org/bikesafe/ba ckground. cfm
g,ip to main content I site map
BI KESAFE Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System ····--
Home> Bad<gro und
Background
Bi cyc lin g is one of the oldest form s of human t ransportation, ye t th e mode rn -day
cyc li st faces problems related to s uburban l iv ing and motor ve hi cle s peed and tr affi c
vo lume, among others . The variou s kinds offacilitie s neede d to maintain b icycling as
a viab le tr ansportation mode have been fr equentl y overlooke d in the building of
modern tra n s portation sys te ms Th is s ituation h as been changing in recen t ye ars,
and now people wan t more ways to get aro und th eir co mm uniti es and elsewhere via
bicyc le. And the y w an t t o be able to make th ese bi cyc ling trip s in a safe and enjoyable
manne r.
Page Content s:
• Land Use and Bicycling
• Assume That People V\1111 Bicycle
• Tran s~ and Bicycling
• How Bicyclists are Affected by
Motor Vehicle Traffic Volume and
Speed
• Options to Improve Bicycling
The bi cyc li st is a vulnerable road u s er, and crea t ing a sa fer bicycling
environment involve s more than striping a bike lane or re-striping motor
ve hi cle travel lanes to ac commod ate a wi de curb la n e or even b uildin g a
s eparated path . A truly via ble bicycling network in vol ves both the big pi cture
and th e s malle st detail s -fro m ho w a community i s built and conne cted, to
the map s that in di ca te safe bicycling routes, to th e s urface mate ria ls on the
bike path . Bi cyc ling facilities s hou ld be acc essible to variou s type s of u s er s ,
i
and information s hould be provided about the le vel of skill ne cessary on a l!IJ
How to Use BIKESAFE
Selection Tool
r' ,,,_,,,...,-,., eractive Matrices
Countermeasures
Case Studie s
Bicycle Countermeasure Selection Sys tem Th e Expert System 37
The BIKESAFE expert sys te m is provided on the e n-
closed CD-ROM and is available online at http:/ /safe ty.
fhwa.dot .gov /bikesafe and at http ://www.bi cyclinginfo.
org/bikesa fe. This ch apter provides an overvi ew of the ap-
plication and sp ec ifi c instructions on how to access and
u se the tools ava il abl e. The appli ca tion is designed to:
counterm easures for a sp ecific location.
Provide links t o case st udies show ing the variou s treat-
ments and p rograms implemente d in communiti es
around the U.S .
Provide easy access to reso urces such as sta ti stics, im-
p le m e ntation guidance, and re fer en ce mate rial s.
38
Provide information on the co untermeas ures ava il abl e
to prevent bi cy cle ·cras h es and improve motorist and
bicyclist b e h av ior.
Highli ght the purpose, con si derations and cos t es ti-
m ate s assoc iate d with eac h co unterm eas ure.
Provide a decision process to se lect the most ap pli ca bl e
The exp e rt sy stem combines th e resources provided m
this document with online to ols (see home p age below)
t o enable pra c titi oners to effective ly select engineer-
ing, e ducation, or e nforcement tre atme nts to m itigate a
known cras h proble m o r ac hi eve a specific p erformance
obj ec ti ve.
sk ip t o m ain content I si t e map
BI KESAFE Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System ····--
RESOURCES : background : crash facto rs : cr as h analysis : objectives : imp lem en tation
iiiiiiiiiiim : more in fo : down loads : search:
What is BIKESAFE?
The Bicycle Countermeasure Se lection System (BIKESAFE ) is intended .to provide practitioners with the late st informa tion
available for impro ving the sa fety and mobility of those who bi cyc le . The informat ion on the si te falls into two ca tegorie s,
Resources and Tool s, explained below. Learn more about BIKESAFE's cont ents and purpose , or go directl y to any of the
link s above.
Resources
The re s ources ar e info rmational pages providing an
overview of bicy cling in today's transportation sys tem,
information abou t bicycle crash fa ctor s and analysis,
and se le cting and impleme nting bicycling
improvements . Learn more about the resources
sections or choo se any link from the navigation bar
above to get started .
Tools
The tool s allow the user to select appropriate
cou ntermeasure s or treatments to address specific
bicycli ng objectives or crash problem s. Start w it h one
of these tool s if you're already familiar with the
issues involved in bicycle safety and mobility and
wantto start le arning how yo u can make
improvements in your own community .
Project sponsored by:
ft U.S . Department or Transportation
~ Federal Highway Administration
Sit e cre ated January 2006 .
This site is best viewe d in Firefox 1.5+, Netscape 8+, or In tern et Explorer 6.0+ brow se rs.
The home page of the BIKESAFE Web application introduces the site and highlights the Resour ces and Tools sections .
The Expert System Bicycle Countermeasure Se lection System
The resource materials include d in the W e b /CD -ROM
application are relate d t o this doc ument as follow s:
WEB/CD-ROM
B ac k g round
C r ash Fa c tors
C ras h Analys is
Obj ec tives
Impl e mentati o n
Publications
PRINT DOCUMENT *
C h a pter 1: The Big Pi c ture
C hapte r 2 : Bicy cli st C ra sh Fa c tors
C h apte r 3 : Sel ec ting Improve m e nts
for Bicyclists
C h apter 7 : Imple m e ntation and
R es ources
*C h apter s 5 and 6 include the c ountermeas ures and case
studi es , whic h are avail able as Tools o n th e W e b /CD-
ROM appli ca tion.
HOW TO USE BIKESAFE
The opening page g ives a brief explan ation of BIKE-
SAFE and the n highlig hts th e "R es ources" and "To ols"
sec tions. The "Resourc es " sec tion prov ides an ove r view
of bicycling in today's transportation sys te m , information
about bicy cl e crash stati sti cs and analys is, and sel ec ting and
imple m e nting bicy cling improve m e nts. "To ols" allows the
u se r to sel ec t appropriate counte rmeas ures or trea tments
to address sp e cific obj ec ti ve s, su c h as th e n ee d to m ake
inte r sec tions sa fe r for bi cy cli sts, o r c ras h proble m s, su c h
as ove rtaking motori sts striking bi cy cli sts from the rea r
on a busy co rridor with inad e quat e sp ace . This sec tion
al so includes a large numbe r of case studi es to illu strate
BIKESA FE Bicycle Coun t ermeasu re Select ion System ····-~ ~Mk9fowtd craril lact OJ • a a.h111Mysk objfftl\"H lmpf-..iu tioft
-~•f• downloMh surdt: ..§.QJ
Reso ur ces
TOOLS H4-ctl0f'l 1ool
iiiifiiiii fflt1ttKrin 1Httkn
-c.un1tontMUru
-UHJ!uct.f
The resources are lnformaUonal pages pr0¥idlog an oYeF\llew of blcycHno in 1odays transportabon system, Information about
bl eve le trash statistics anci analysts, and selectino and 1mptemen11no blt-;tling llTIProYements Start W!ltl Bacll:oround and
move thtough lhe following sections lfyou woUld hke to learn mo1e about bicycling safety and mobility
Understand 'tllftl11t 1s needed to c1ea1e a ¥1abte ttlcYtlmg system
Learnabouttnefactorsrelatedlothell1CYtltcrashproblem
~
Le am hOw crash typing can lead to !tie selection ()(the most appropnate countermeasUl'es
~
Learn how selected trealmen1s may aadress many requested Improvements to the bicycling env1ronment
Read about th• necessaiy components fo11mptementltlg bltytle lleatments
Ar.cess addition al Information about bicycle safsiy and mob~lrty ltlrough these lists of •elated W'llb sites, guides ,
handbooks, and other references
Access print versions of the guide In PDF tormat
Resources page .
trea tme nts impl e m e nte d in c ommunities throu ghout the
Unite d States.
The res t of this ch apter focuses on the four tools availabl e
on th e W e b /C D-ROM applica tion. E ac h ca n b e u se d to
e nter th e sy ste m , as d esc rib e d b elow :
Selec tion To o l -This inte ra c tive tool allow s the us e r to
d e ve lop a li st o f poss ibl e c ounte rmeas ures o n the b as is
o f site charac te risti cs, su ch as geome tric fea tures and
o p e rating conditions , and the typ e of safe ty problem
o r d es ire d b e h avioral c h an ge . Th e d ec isio n lo g ic use d
to d e te rmine w h e n sp ecifi c trea tme nts are and are not
a ppli cable is b ase d on input from an exp e rt p anel of
prac titione r s.
Inte ractive M atri ces -This tool shows the relationship
b e twe en the countermeasures and the p erforman c e
o bj ec tives o r crash typ es and ca n b e u se d to di splay
applica bl e counte rmeas ures .
Co untermeas ures - D e tail s of 5 0 en g ineering, e duca-
ti o n , e nforce m e nt, and othe r trea tments o r prog ram s
for improvin g bicy cl e safe ty and mobility are provide d
in the catego ri es of sh are d ro adway trea tme nts; on-
roa d bicycl e fac iliti es; inte r sec tion trea tme nts; tra ffi c
calming appli ca tions; trails/sh are d-use p aths; m arkings,
si gn s, and sign als; e ducation and e nforce m e nt; and sup-
p o rt faciliti es and prog ram s.
Case Studies -More than 50 real-world examples il-
lu strate vario u s trea tme nts or progr am s as implem ent-
e d in a state o r municipality.
BIKESAFE is d esigned to allow the tools and informa-
tion to b e accesse d from multipl e p o ints of e ntry. Links
are p rov id e d to all ow use r s to eas il y n avi ga te b etween the
to o ls and to qui ckly access th e res ource m ate rials. Pro-
vide d b elow are four exa mples of h ow a u se r m ay choose
to e nte r the sys t e m and access the t ools.
f!IPlt"'f'"f!!'f!l•nt t lll1..mil
BIKESAFE Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System ····-I ~ bac kground ll'Mh fact~ cralh an alyUs objKbftl IMpl-.nt.ttion
-mo!t lnfD dOWl'lioMk IHrth. ~
Too l s
TOO LS 1.i-tion tool
~ hit"adi"'l .,.hicH
-uunt"IM~r"
-asestudiH
The tools allow lhe use r to select appropriate countermeasures 0t treaiments to address specifk objectrtes, such as the
need to make Intersections safer f01 bicyclists, or crash problems, such as O¥ertaklng motorists slriktng blcycltsts ft'om lhe
rear on a IJusy com dor with Inadequate space This secbon also mcludes a large number of case stodtes ID mustrate
lreatments Implemented In communities throughout the United States
Find appropriate countermeasures on the basis or desired OOjecttves and specific locati on information
\'lew the countermeasurH assoclaled With crash tYPes .Jnd performance obJectNes
Rnd Oescr1ptions ofth1 50 eng inee ring, education, and enrorcemem lreatments
ReYlew real-wo rld eomples of implemented treatments
Tools page.
Bicyc le Countermeasure Selection System The Expert System 39
1) Selection Tool -The use r may have information avail-
abl e about geometrics and operating conditions of a
p articular lo ca tion and eithe r has a specific type of c ras h
problem or d es ire s to ch an ge motorist/bi cy clist behavior
at the site . Known locati on information may be e ntere d
by answering a ser ies of questio n s. The sys te m will th e n
di sp la y the co untermeasure options to b e co nsid ere d.
2) Interac tive Matrices -The u ser has a specific type of
cras h problem or de si res to c hange motorist/bi cycli st
b ehavior but does not h ave sp ecifi c information about
the c harac te ri sti cs of th e site. The m atri ces ca n b e u sed
to view and access th e types of countermeasures availabl e
for further co nsideration.
3) Countermeasures -The u ser is interested in acquiring
information about a p artic ular trea tment or program. The
c ountermeas ures p age can b e direc tl y accesse d and dis-
plays the nin e ca tegories of trea tments included. D e tail e d
descriptions of the 50 counterm eas ures can be accessed
from this point. Links to relevant case studi es ca n th e n b e
accessed from the des c ri p tion pages.
4) Case Studies -The u se r wishes to see sp ecific exa mples
of trea tments that h ave b een installed . The case studies
page provides a li st of all case studies assembled, as well as
the option of selecting a sp ecific impl ementation example
by type of tre a tment or by l ocation (state and municipal-
ity). From there, the u ser can access the co untermeasure
d esc ription p ages th at are releva nt to a p arti c ul ar exam-
ple.
Each of these tools is d escr ib e d in more d e tail in th e re-
mainder of the ch ap ter.
SELECTION TOOL
The interac tive selection tool all ows the us e r to re fin e
their se lection of countermeasures on the basis of sp ecifi c
site charac teristic s and / or the type of safety problem or
desired b ehavioral change. One b egins by c hoosing se -
lec tion tool from the Tools menu. A screen will appear
with specifi c inst ructions on how to u se the tool (see next
page), and then allows th e u se r to click o n "Start the Se-
lec tion Tool." This le ads to a simpl e three-ste p pro cess:
Step 1: Choose the Lo cation -A te x t box is provid ed for
the user to describe the lo ca tion of interest (e .g., "Route
1 between Spring Ave. and Sununer Ave." for a ro adway
segment, or "Intersection of Route 1 and Spring Ave." for
an intersec tion). This is e ntirely for the b enefit of the u se r
and allows other d escriptive information to b e entered
40 The Expert System Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System
as well . This information will b e store d and displayed as
typed with the results so the proj ec t can b e ide ntifi e d .
In the figure on the n ext pa ge, a sp ecific intersec tion lo-
ca ti on -Main Street and Broadway Avenue -h as b ee n
e nte red .
Step 2: Select the Goal of the Trea tment -The u ser must
the n c hoose a par ti c ular type of c ras h probl e m to b e
mitiga te d or a performance objective to b e ac hi eve d . As
shown in th e figure on page 42, th e re are seve n p e rfor-
m an ce objectives and 13 crash groups. Only one can b e
sele c te d.As the u se r proceeds through the ste p s, the previ-
ous input is shown on the right side of the sc reen (in this
example, the roadway lo cation from Step 1).
Step 3: Desc rib e the Site-Finally, th e us er is asked to pro-
vide input about th e characteristics of th e site . A s sh own
in the figure on page 43, there are nine ques tion s that are
asked in refer e n ce to th e general location, geometric fea -
tures, and operating conditions. The default va lu e is "Not
Appli ca ble /Unknown" for each question. The an swe r s to
these questions are us e d to n arrow the list of appropri-
ate co untermeasures for a specific goal or cra sh type. For
exa mple, if the location of inte rest was a ro adway segment
(midblo ck lo cation), then th e treatments associated with
intersec tion improve ments would not b e appli cab le and
would not b e include d in th e res ults as applicable co un-
te rn1 eas ures.
The fi eld inves ti ga tion form incl ude d in Appe ndix A ca n
b e used for site vis its to o btain th e information asked for
in this la st st ep. For any qu es tion where the information is
not known, an entry of"Not Appli ca bl e/Unknown" will
simply re tain all countermeas ures relevant to the question,
and th e choice of trea tments w ill not be re duce d .
After co mple ting these three ste p s, the u ser clicks Get
R es ults. The information entered is used to d evelop a
li st of a pplicable co untermeas ures, w hi ch are prese nted
as shown on p age 44. The u ser can then rea d more a bout
a specifi c countermeasure by sel ecting it , which takes the
u ser to the countermeasure d escription page . The u ser is
advise d to carefully read the countermeasure description
p age , es pecially if so m e of the su gges ted trea tme nts seem
"ina ppropriate." The description of the counterm eas ure,
along with the "Con siderations" sec tion, hopefull y w ill
cl ea r up questi ons. As an example, "R e duce Lane Width"
is displ aye d for the cras h typ e of motorist overtaking bi-
cy cli st on a sh ared roadway.While this may seem counter-/
intuitive, redu cing lane w idth is one way to reduce motof
vehicle speed . If speed is re duced, the n so m e overtaking
cras h es may b e aver te d (e .g., o n c urves w ith poor sight
distan ce).
Home > Se l ecti on To ol
Selection Tool
How the Tool Wo rks
The sel ec tion tool is des ign ed to rece ive inpu t on several va ri ab les from Uie user in th ree steps .
1
2
II
3
Choose t he Loca ti on
First, enter the locat ion of the s ite in question . This allow s the user to create reports for several different sites and
keep the results separated by loca tion . It is used for reporting purposes only and is not stored permanently by the
op er ator s of th is web site .
Se lect t he Go al of t he Treatm ent
Second, one mus t decide on the goa l of the treatme nt. It ma y eithe r be to acheive a specific performance objective,
suc h as reduce tra ffi c volumes, or to mi ti gate a s pec ifi c ty pe of bicyc lis t-motor ve hi cle collision .
Des crib e t he Sit e
Once a spe cifi c goa l has been se lected, the third step is to provide answer s to a series of questions related to the
geo m etri c an d ope rational charac teristics of the s ite in que stion . Tt1e ans we rs to th ese ques tions are us ed to narrow
the li st of approp ri ate co untermeasures fo r a speci fi c goa l. For exa m ple, ifthe loca ti on of in terest were a s egme nt of
roadway, or midblock location, then the treatment s asso ciated wi th in ter sec ti on im provements would not be
applicable and thu s , would not be included in the resu lt s as poss ible co untermeasure s .
For any question w t1ere the info rmation is not know n, an entry of"un known" will simply reta in th e cou nt ermeasures
re levant to the ques ti on, and the range of trea tmen ts w ill not be re du ced .
Start the Selection Tool
The Se lect ion Tool inc l udes t hree simple st eps that are described on its opening page.
Ho m e > Selectio n Tool > Step One : Cho os e the Location
Selection Tool
Step One : Choose th e Locati on
For the roadway location be ing addressed, plea s e enter a descripti on.
Location :
Main St reet and Broadway Avenue!
f[oceed to Ste ~
The user may enter any combination of text and numbers to des c ribe the location of i nterest.
Bicyc le Countermeasu re Selection System The Expert System 41
42
Ho me> Se l ectio n T ool > Step One: Ch oose the Locatio n> Step Two : S elect the G oa l of the T reatment
Selection Tool
Step Two: Select the Goal of the Treat ment
For the roadway loc ation being addres s ed, the goa l ofthe bicyc lin g treatment is intended to improve bi cycli st s afety and
acce ss by either achei ving one of th e foll ow ing performance obje cti ves OR mitigatin g one of the follo w ing crash type s.
Therefore, you must choose one of the following to begin:
-Performance Obj ectives I
r. Provide safe on-street
fa cilities/space for bi cyc li sts
r Provide off-road pa th s or
trails for bicycli sts
r, Provide and maint ain quality
surface s for bi cyc li sts
r Pro vide safe inter s ections
for bi cyc li sts
r Improve motor is t
beha vior/compli ance with
traffi c laws
r Improve bic ycli st
behav ior/compl ia nce wi th
traffi c laws
r Enco urage and promote
bicyc ling
Crash Types
(' Motori st failed to yield -
s ignalized intersection
r Motori st failed to yield -
non-s ignalized interse ction
(' Bicycli st fa iled to yield -
signalized interse ction
r Bic yclist failed to yield -
non-s ignalized interse ction
(' Motori st drove out-midblock
(' Bicycli st rode out -midblo ck
(' Motorist turned or merged
left int o pat h of bicycli st
r Motorist turned or merged
rig ht into path of bi ey e Ii st
r Bicycli st turned or merged
left into path of motori st
r Bi cycli st turned or merged
right into path of motori st
r Motorist overtaking bi cyc li st
(' Bicycli st overtaking motorist
(' Non -motor vehi cle cra s he s
Your Input:
Roadway Location :
test
Next Steps:
!Proceed to Step 3 I
A specifi c performance obje ctive or crash type to be mitigated must be sele cted in step tw o.
The Expert System Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System
I
H o me> Se le ction T oo l> Step One : Ch oos e the Lo cati o n> Ste p T w o : S ele ct the Go al of the Treatment > Step Three : Describe the Site
Selection Tool
Step Three: Describe the Site
Plea se answer the following que stion s .
1. Is the problem location on an
off-road m ulti-u se path (not at an
intersection with a roadway) or on a
roadway (o r roadway/path
intersection)?
0 Roadway
0 Path
0 No t Ap pli cable/Unknown
2. In w hat type of area is th e roadway
lo cated?
0 Urba n CBD
0 Urba n -Oth er
0 Sub urban
0 Rural
0 No t Ap pli cable/Unknown
3. Wha t is the fu nc tio na l class of the
roadway?
0 Local
0 Co llecto r & Minor Arteria l
0 Principa l Arterial
0 No t App licable/Unknown
4. Is the problem location at an
inter sec ti on or midblock ?
0 Intersection
0 Midb lo ck
0 Not Appl icable /Unknown
5. Is veh icle vol ume lo w , mediu m, or
high?
0 Low (<1 0,000 ADT)
0 Medium (1 0 -25,000 AD T)
0 High (>25,0 00 ADT)
0 Not App li cab le /Unknown
6. Is vehicle prevailing speed low ,
medium, or hi gh?
0 Low(</= 30 mph)
0 Med (3 1 -44 mph )
0 Hi gh (>45mp h)
0 Not App li ca ble /Unknown
7. Wt1at is the number of through lane s?
0 <1=2
0 3 or4
0 5 or more
0 Not Applicab le/Unknown
Your Input :
Roadway Location:
Main St r eet and Broadway Ave nu e
Your Performan ce Obj ecti ve :
Provide safe on-street facilities !
space for bicyc li sts.
Next Steps :
Edit:
Change Your Performan ce
Objective
Start O'Ver
Get Results
8. Is a traffi c signa l pre sen t, being considere d, or not an option?
0 Present (rem oval not an op tion )
0 Pre sen t (rem oval could be an op tion )
0 Not presen t (i nstall ation is not an option)
0 Not pre se nt (ins tall at ion possible )
0 Not Appli ca ble/Unknown
9 Wha t are the exis ti ng on-roa d bicycle faci liti es?
0 Bike Lane
0 Wide Curb Lane
0 Paved Sho ulder
@ None or Othe r
0 Not Appli cab le/Unknown
Th e c hara ct eristics of th e location are pro vided in step three by answer in g nine questions.
Bicycle Countermeasure Se lection Syste m Th e Expert Sys tem 43
In addition to the appli ca bl e c ounte rmeasures, the re sults
p age also provides the u se r w ith a li st of the inputs made
in the three st e ps. Options are provide d for ch anging these
inputs for the lo cation of inte rest , ex porting the results to
Microsoft E xc el , or starting ove r w ith a n ew lo c ation .
Home > Selection Tool > Step One : Ch oose the Location > Step Tvoo : Se l ect the Goal of the Treatment > Step Three : Describe the Site >
Applicable Countermeasures
Applicable Countermeasu r es
Based upon your input, the fo ll ow ing countermeasure s were found :
• Sha red Road way
• Roadway Surfac e Improvemen ts
• Bridqe and Ove rp ass Access
• Tu nnel and Underpass Access
• Liqhting Improvement s
• Parking Treatments
• Median/Crossing Island
• Driveway Improvements
• .A.ccess Manage m ent
• Reduce Lane Numb er
• Reduce Lane VV idtt1
• On-Road Bike Fa cilities
• Bike Lane s
• Wide Curti Lanes
• Paved Shoulders
• Comb ination Lanes
• Contratlovv Bike Lanes
• Maintenan ce
• Repetitive/Sr1ort-Term Maintenance
• Mai or Maintenance
• Hazard Identification Program
• Traffi c Ca lming
• Speed Tables/Humps/Cushions
• Visual t'.Jarrowinq
• Markings, Sign s, Signa ls
• Sign Improveme nt s
• Pavement Marking Improvements
• School Zone Improvemen ts
• Education and Enfor ceme nt
• Practitioner Educa tion
• Support Facilities and Program s
• Waytinding
• .A.esth etics /Land sc aping
Your Input:
Roadway Location :
Main Street and Broadway Avenue
Your Performance Objec ti ve :
Provide safe on -street facilities /
space for bicyclists.
Yo ur answers to the previo us
ques tion s:
Roadway or Path: Roadway
Location: Suburban
Functional Class: Not Applicable
Intersection or Midblock:
Midblock
Volume: Medium ( 10 -25,000
AOT)
Speed: Med (31 -44 mph)
Lanes: 3 or 4
Signal: Not Applicable
Bike Facilities : No ne or Ot her
Next Steps:
Edit :
Change Your Performance
Objec ti ve
Chan ge Your .A.nswers to Site
Descr ipti on
Save:
Outpu t Results to Microsoft Excel
Start Over
The results produced from the Select ion Tool provide a list of applicable coun termeasures and present the user with options to edit
the responses , save the resu Its , or start over ..
44 The Expert System Bi cycle Countermeasure Selection System
INTERACTIVE MATRICES
Also included in the Web/CD-ROM application are two
matrices that may be accessed by se lec ting "interactive
matrices" from the Tools menu . The objectives matrix
(shown below) provides the us er wi th a quick view of the
relationship between the seven performance objectives
and the nine countermeasure groups. The cras h analysis
matrix (shown on the following page) allows the us e r to
see th e rel ationship between the 13 cras h type gro up s and
the nine counterm easure groups . In e ither m atrix , a fill e d
ce ll indicates that there is a specific co untermeasure with-
in the countermeasure group (shown in th e columns) that
is applicabl e to the crash gro up or p e rformance obj ec tive
listed in eac h row. The user ca n click o n th e bullet in any
filled cell to obtain a drop-down li st of the specific ap-
plicable countermeasures. From there, the user can select
a countermeasure and b e linked to the countermeasure
description page or select anoth er cell within the matrix.
Ho m e > Inte ra ctive Matrices > Objectives Matrix
Objectives Matrix
Select an Objective and Co untermea sure Group from the matrix below by clicking on one of the dot s , or view the te xt-onl y
ver sion .
Objective
I I I I I I I I I I
r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -r - - - --,-- - - -., - - - - -r - - - - -r - - - -1-- - - -T - - - - -r - - - --,-- - - - ,
I I I
1. Provide safe on-street • 1
• • • • • ' •
facilities/space for bicyclists .
1. Pro vide off-road paths or
tra ils f9r bicyclists .
3. Provide and ma in ta in quality
surfaces for bicydists .
4 . Provide safe intersecti ons
for bicyclists.
5. Improve motorist behavior/
comp lia nce wfth traffic laws .
6 . Improve bicyclist behavior/
comp lian ce with traffic laws.
7. Encourage and promote
bicycl ing .
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
• • •
• •
• • • •
• •
• • • •
• • • •
• • • • •
• • • •
Cells with a bullet indicate there are one or more countermeasures with in a countermeasure group that are applicable to a specific
performance objective.
Bicyc le Countermeasure Selection System The Expert System 45
H o me > Inte ra ctive Mat ri ces > Cras h Matrix
Cra sh Matrix
Select a Crash Group and Co unterme asure Group from the matri x below by clickin g on one of the dots, or view tt1e text-only
ver s ion.
1. Motorist failed to yield -
signalized intersection
2. Motorist failed to yield -
non-s ignalized In t ersect ion
3 . Bicydist failed to yield -
signalized intersection
4 . Bicyd ist failed to yie1d -
non~signa lized intersection
5. Motorist drove out -
midblock
6. Bi cyclist rode out -
midblo ck
7. Motorist turned or merged
left into path of bicyclist
8. Motorist turned or merged
right into path of blcyclist
9. Bicyclist turned or merged
left into path of motorist
10 . Bicyclist turned or merged
right into path of motorist
1t Motorist ovenaking
bicyclist
12. Bicyclist overtaking
motorist
13 . Non-motor vehicle crashes
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
• •
•
• •
• •
• •
•
•
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • •
• • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • • •
• • • • • •
• • • • •
• • • •
• • • • I I
I I I I I I I I L __________________________ L _____ L ____ J _____ 1 _____ L ____ J _____ J _____ -----'
Cells with a bullet indicate there are one or more countermeasures within a co untermeasure group that are applicable to a specific
cra sh group .
46 The Expert System Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System
/
/
COUNTERMEAS U RES
Ea ch of the 50 enginee ring, educati o n , and e nforcement
co untermeasures d esc rib ed in C h apter 5 are included in
the W e b /CD-ROM application. After se l ec ting "coun-
termeasures" w ithin the Tools menu , the u ser may se lec t
one of the fo ll owing nine ca tegories of trea tme nts:
Shared Roadway
On-Road Bike Fac iliti es
Intersectio n Trea tme nts
• M aintenan ce
Traffic Calming
• Trails/Share d-Use Paths
M arkings, Signs, Signals
• Education and Enforcement
S u pport Faciliti es and Programs
Ho m e > Co untermeasu re s
Countermeasures
A specific countermeasure m ay then be selected from those
li sted for eac h ca tegory. Each countermeasure includes a
d esc riptio n of the trea tment or program, purpose(s), con-
side rations of whic h one should be aware, and cost esti-
mates . Finally, the re are links to sp ec ifi c case studies (if
avail abl e) where the p artic ular countermeasure h as b ee n
imple m ented. An example countermeasure d esc ription
p age is sh own on the following page for Bike Lanes.
A t ota l of 50 engineering, education, and enforcement co untermea s ure s are discusse d in thi s sec tion. The treatment s and
programs se lected for inclusion in thi s appli ca tion are those tt1at ha ve been in pl ace for an extended period of time and/o r
have been pro ven effective at the time the material fo r th is produ ct was being complied. Since th at time , new
co unte rme as ur es co ntinue to be de ve loped, implemented, and evaluated. Thu s, practitioners s hou ld not ne ces saril y limit
thei r choices to tho se inc luded here; thi s material is a starting point. More inform at ion on the latest tre atme nt s and programs
can be found th rough many of the Web s ite s and resour ces included in this sec t ion and the More Inf o s ection .
Shared Roadway:
The goal of an appropr iatel y de sign ed
roadwa y s hould be to sa fely and
efficiently acc ommodate all mode s of
travel, from bicyclists to pedestrians t o
motorists.
On -Road Bike Fac ilities:
Va riou s kind s of on-road fa cil itie s, such
as bike lane s, paved s houlder s , and w ide
curb lane s, make bicyclists more
comfortable .
Intersection Treatments:
Nearly half of all bic yc le-motor ve hi cle
cra s trn s oc cur at intersections or other
junctions
Maintenance:
Maintenance of all kind s of bicycle
fa cilities mu st be planned for and done
routinely .
Traffic Calming:
Traffi c ca lming is a way to de s ign street s ,
using physical measures, to encourage
people to drive more slowly .
Trails/Shared -Use Paths:
Bi ke path s or shared -u s e tr ails are
comp lementary t o tt1e road network and
s erve recreational, chi ld, and even
commu ter bicyclists .
Markings, Signs, Signals:
Tr affic engineer s have an arsenal of
pavement marking s, signs, and s ign als
th at ca n be used to inform, regu late, and
warn both motori st s and bicyc lists
Education and Enforcement:
Edu ca tion and enforcement are key
str ateg ies in increasing bi cyc li st and
motorist awa rene ss and behavior .
Support Facilities and Programs:
The s imple promotion of bi cyc ling is a
way to increase the amount of riding in a
comm unity .
The 50 co untermeasures are divided among the ni ne ca tegories of im provements shown her e.
Bi cyc le Count ermeas ure Selection System Th e Expert System 47
Bike Lanes:
IViewOtherOn-fload8'kefeoh11esTreotments 3
Bike lanes 1nd1cate a preferenllaJ or utlUc!Ye space tir bicytle tr~I along a Sire et B•ke
lanes a11 ttPICallif I 2 to 1 8 m (4 to 8 ft;) In Width and •re deslgnatao bf' striping andfo1
Signs Colo red pavement (for example, blue or 1ed bike lanes) 01 1 Olfrerent p;Mng
matenal has also been used in nrtaln sitUalions to ci1S11ngu15h bike lanes ftom lhe
molof vehtcle lanu Ute of col01ed bike lanes I• being considered bu! Is not yet an
acc1pted MUTCO standard i Blkl lanes are usu1tty marked along lhl right skle olltle
roadWay and Shoul d be e1111gnated to tne le ft Of pa1~ng or ngM-11Jm tanH Sometimes
bike lilnts art ma1k1d on !he left side of a on•Yl'Tf sb'eet
Map&atlons to bike lanes h8¥8 bean used to sotve local problems AA lnnO'latwe bike
lane lrlllnsi1slop1rea1men1 In Portland, OR, ls used to reduc e contlcts btM-een
b1<:ytMsts and strH\c:at lrillnH stop vters ad1aceit to a bike lane (see ~aH stuav .,, J)
(Adaptiltlonforlhlstrealn'lenishouldbeposslbleforasharedroacJwaty'sil.latlon)Some
tommun~es also empt~ combination bike and bus lanes, a single lane nearnt the
cum lhai Is shared tJf lhe IWo modes This Is geneiallf'workable unless lhere 1s
considerable bike and bus tratnc
Bike lanes have been found to prow;oe more conslstenl separabon between bie;CllSIS
and passing motorists 1han 1t1aiedirom11 1anes The presence oflhe bike lane stripe
has also been snown ff om iesearch lo result In iewe1 erratic motor vehicle d!Ml1
manewers, more p1edicbbte b1cyi;list ndlng beh<Mor, ano enhanced tomfon tevels for
bolh moiorists aM blCYtllsls 1 The ma space c•eated for b1cycllsts ;s also a Denem on
tonge51ed roadwa'(s'Ntlere blcyi:llsts maybe ebe IO p1u moiorvehM:IH on1rie right
Purpose
• Create o~stJeet, sepau1t•d lrsvel facilttlH ror bicyi;~sts
• Pr<Md• sep91ate operatJonal space for sale motonst CMtrtalang ot blcyi;Usts
• R1dute or pr11¥tnt lh• problems associated Wllh biqc~sts ovel'laklng motor
YenltlH In narrow. congested areH
• Narrow ltle roaowav or roa~ moto1 vetm:le nflk lanes to encourage 1owe1
motorveh1c11 speeds
Cons1derat1om
• Where bb lanes ar1 to be considered, the road or StrHl Should be evoiluatell IO
lletermlrnilrlhlsfacllitflsappropriate
• P11M11eadequateblkelane....tdlh
• Prmlde a smoottW p!M!ll surface and kHP the bike lane ll'ee or debris
• Pro¥ide adequate space bet.iteen lhe bike lane and parked ca11 so Iha! open
doors do not CIHte a haiard kif blcycl1sts
• Avoid termination ofbllce lanes 'Nheie b1cwtl!sts are le1' 1r1 a wloerable si!Ua!lon
• Determlnetrspeclalslgnsormarklngsarenecessaryfors1tuatlons suchasa
h1gt...volurneotblkelellturns onabusyrcai:tway
Estlniutt>d Cosl
The cos1 of Installing a bike lane ls appnoomateH 13.100 to 131 ,000 per kilome1e1
{55,000IO S50,000pe1mile),depend1ngonttiecondlbonotthepi1'1'8ment.ttieneedto
lflmove: and repa1nl \fle lane tine&, lhe nHd 10 acjusl s1;nalizabon, and olhe1 fac101s rt
•S mosl cost efl'lcl8nt kl create btlal lanes dunng street reconstrud1on, street resurfacing,
oratthebmeotoriglnalconslrucbon
• '61 A Ta1e o!PorUnd Bn.,g8' Portl11M t")R
• '6'3 -Y41en<1a Sllp~ Road U11t-l ttatlna Space !91 ( rch1ts 111 l!!_n!.!.~_co
~
• '60-Snor1 1M P 1r1-Erya11t0n Pi(lt&'t -Pr"""s ~·rr:ie ar'ld Ptll1J1~!1 !IJ
Enhal'ltemenl'i · S3nla Bo•bar.11 CA
• fS -8 ke Lairie S<ifety EYaiuauon. Phoeni :\l
• 1'9-E1n11011sn1na B1t..1J1 Lanes -Ch1,ago·6 Slru! to ,_ycflng P1.11n -Chicago !l
• '6 10-HowHamp6nne li>treel PMment Nark j!S lnft<Jenct 8 -ye le 411101110!01
• 111 -Ra;Ull Bl')'tle Lanu anll 0tt•erTro1'11c Calmrna Trutments ... n Avres
Ro11d· Eooene ..,R
• #12 -Flo4bng 0 ke Lanei 1n Lon1..,n(bonW!tt! Paft. mrt P1r1oJng S11n Ffi•"·" o
~
• 117-hm102lheUrtnnMer.i1~
• #18-Contra'IO"#B1cyc1eLanuonurunbtrtets· · ambudge MA
• •19-l@olt SnJe 8 ~e Lanei on One-W~y ;,~•l!tT$ · 111 rint.ipol" MN
• '6 21-<...om"ir~d8u:ys1e l6nelR1pnt. Tom L.Jii;e ·Pon anll JR
• 122-BlUI 8 ...e Lanes at 1nte1~ecbonwe.,,,ngAJen -Poftl.ind OR
• 113-Crc.SS ng i'•Arlefltol lhrough in OlloHlr.!e~etboo 81crcl&-Onty
Cente1-TumL.ine·f'Ortlind OR
• f 2'5-•)rand\.iBWOrlYI ~ounlliiitJOut ""0 Comdo1 mp1C'o'8rr ents .1nn.'81Sl!r
Place WA
a ~-rurrou
a _.._cons deraboM
a ~nresbmated<Oit
a YlfWtnntyq'"
• -o> •-o:>-
---~--
•jf
Each countermeasure in cludes a desc r iption, purpose, consid -
erations, estima t ed cost, and links to case studies where the
treatment or progr am ha s been implemented .
48 The Expe rt System Bicycle Countermeasure Se lection System
CASE STUDIES
The case studi es d esc rib e d in Chapte r 6 ar e included
in the W e b /CD-ROM application . The u se r ca n access
th e imple m e nta tion exa mples by selec tin g "case studies"
within the Tools m e nu. A s sh own on th e fo ll owing pa ge,
th e use r the n h as th e o ption of sel ec ting a case st u dy on
the bas is oflocation o r ty p e of c ounte rmeas ure .The fi gure
on the follow ing p age provid es an example of se lec ti o n
by co unte rme asu re. The se le ction o f th e On-Road Bike
Fac iliti es c o u nte rmeas ure g roup produ ces a li st o f the fi ve
trea tme nts include d in the appli ca ti o n . The se lec tion of
Bike Lan es produces a li st of 16 case studi es in w hi ch a
bike lan e w as a co mpo n e nt of th e trea tme nts impl ement-
ed . A ccessing eac h of th ese case studi es provides informa-
ti o n about the sp ecifi c proble m that was addresse d , the
soluti o n implem e nte d and t h e res ults ac hi eve d .
Home > Case Studies
Choose a Case Study
The 50 eng inee ring, edu cation, enfor cement and promoti onal co untermea s ure s are de sc ribed in the Countermeasures
s ectio n. Inc luded in thi s s ection are cas e studie s that illu strat e the s e treatme nts or prog rams as implemented in a state or
mu nic ipa lity . Exa mp les are in cluded from m any State s .
Ea ch cas e stud y in clude s a de sc ripti on of th e problem tha t was addre s sed , rele va nt backgrou nd information , a de sc ri pti on of
the implemented so lution, and an y qu an titative re s ults from eva lua tion stud ies or qual it ati ve assess ments .
Many co mmunitie s find it diffi cult to condu ct formal evaluation s of projects due to staff and bu dget limitati ons , but ass essi ng
w hethe r a trea tm ent ha s he lp ed to w ard the intended obje cti ves and not ca use d unexpected advers e impa cts is critica l to
long -term improvement. W e tend to thin k that s ome evaluation is be tt er tha n none but occasio nal ly may be m is led by
s hort-term or s ingle-event type s of ass ess ments . In the s e cas es , the judgment of expe ri en ce d practitioner s m ay hel p to fill in
the gaps in knowledge or interpret re s ults that s eem "too good to be true ." By far, longer-term evalu ations (bicyc li st/tr affi c
count s, sp eed studi es , etc.) are preferabl e to s hort-term pro j ect ass ess ments . Multip le s hort-te rm studie s of the s ame type s
of faci litie s do, ho w eve r, build on ea ch oth er and help to pro vide a more compl ete pic tu re of th e effe cti vene ss of bicyc li ng
co unterme as ures . The se cautio ns s hould be borne in mind w hen reviewin g the cas e studie s th at follow.
In clude d for ea ch stud y is a point of contac t in the event that furt he r informatio n is de s ire d. Pl ease note that in som e cases
the s peci fi c ind ividu al listed may ha ve left th e po s it ion or agen cy . There s hou ld still be some one at the mun ic ipa l or state
agency w ho is famil iar w ith the proje ct and ca n pro vide any s upple mental information .
Not all traffic contr ol devices (T CD s) in the cas e studie s compl y with the Ma nu al on Uniform Traffic Co ntrol Devices (MUTCD).
The Federa l Hi gh w ay Admini stration (FH WA) doe s not end ors e the us e of non-com pli ant TCD s exc ept under
exp erim entation, w hich m ust be approv ed by the FHWA Offi ce ofTrans port ati on Op era tion s
All Case Studies
• #1 -Minimizing Roadway Surface Hazards for Bikes, Seattle,
washinqton
• #2-ATale of Portland Bridqes, Portland, Oregon
• #3 -Lighting and Advance Warning ofBicyclists in the Knapps
Hill Tunne l State ofWashinaton
• #4 -Back-in Diagonal Parkinci with Bike Lanes, Vancouver,
Washington
• #5 -Valencia Street Road Diet-Creatin
By Countermeasure Group
By Location
1±1 D Inside the United States
1±1 D Outs ide the United States
By Countermeasure Group
1±1 D Shared Roadway
1±1 D On-Road Bike Facilities
1±1 D Shared Roadway
El ia;On-Roa d Bi ke Fa cilitie s
1±1 D Bike Lanes
Ci #1 0 -How Ham JShire Street Pavement Markin s Influence Bic 1cle and Motor
Ci #11 -Raised Bic cle Lanes and Other Traffic Calrninq Treatments on A res R
Ci #12 -Floatinq Bike Lanes in Coniunction with Part-time Parking
1±1 D Wide Curb Lanes
1±1 D Paved Shoulders
1±1 D Combination Lanes
1±1 D Contra tl ow Bike Lanes
1±1 D Intersection Treatments
1±1 D Maintenance
1±1 D Traffic Calming
1±1 D Trails/Strnred-Use Patt1s
1±1 D Markings , Siems, Signals
1±1 D Education and Enforcement
1±1 D :=:upport Facilities and Programs
Ci #13 -Incorporating a Bicycle Lane through a Streetcar Platform
Ci #16 -Preferentia l Transil-Bicvcle-Riqh!Turn Lanes on Broadway Boulevard
Ci #17 -Taming t~1e Urban Arterial
Ci #18 -Contraflow Bicycle Lanes on Urban Streets
Ci #19 -Left Side Bike Lanes on One-Way Streets
Ci #2 -A Tale of Portland Bridqes
Ci #21 -Combined Bicvcle Lane/Riqht-Turn Lane
Ci #22 -Blue Bike Lanes at Intersection Weavinq Areas
Ci #23 -Crossinci an Arterial throu h an Offset Intersection Bic cle-Onl Center-
Ci #25 -Grandview Drive Roundabout and Corridor Improvements
Ci #5 -Valencia Street Road Diet-Crealinq Space for Cyclists
Ci #6 -Shoreline Park Ex ansion Pro eel-Provision ofBic cle and Pedestrian
Ci #8 -Bike Lane Safety Evaluation
Ci #9 -Establishing Bike Lanes -Chicago's Streets for Cvcling Plan
The case stu dies may be selected by location or countermeasure . Opening a cou nterm easure gro up folder reveals the list of cou nter-
meas ures in cluded . Selecting a spec ific countermeasu re reveals the case studies in which that tre atment/program was a component.
Bicycle Countermeasure Se le ction System The Expert System 49
Chapter 5 -Countermeasures
Shared Roadway
On-Road Bike Facilities
Intersection Treatments
Maintenance
Traffic Calming
Trails/Shared-Use Paths
Markings, Signs, Signals
Education and Enforcement
Support Facilities and Programs
Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System I Countermeasures 51
A total of 50 e ngin ee ring, ed u ca tio n , and e nforcement
countermeasures are di sc u ssed in thi s ch apter. The trea t-
m e nts and programs selec t e d for inclusion in this docu-
m e nt are those that have b ee n in place for an exte nde d
p e riod o f time or h ave b een prove n effective at the time
the material for this produc t was b e ing compiled. Sinc e
that time, n ew co unte rmeas u res h ave continued to be d e-
velo p e d , implem e nted, and eva luated. Thus, prac tition ers
should not necessa rily lim.it th e ir c hoi ces to those includ-
ed h ere ; this material is a starting point. More informa-
tion o n th e lat es t treatments and progra m s can b e found
through many of the W e b sit es and resources included in
this c hapte r and C hapte r 7. T h e categori es of improve -
n1ents include:
• Share d Roadway
• On-Road Bike Faciliti es
• Inter sec tion Treatments
• M aintenance
• Traffic Calming
• Trails /Shared-U se P aths
• M arkings, Signs, Signals
• Education and Enforce m ent
• Support Fa c ilities and Prog rams
The following index can b e u se d to quic kl y locate th e
countermeasu re of interest.
SHARED ROADWAY
1. Roadway Surfac e Improveme nts ............................ 54
2. Bridge and Overpass A ccess ................................... 56
3. Tunnel an d Underpass Access ................................. 58
4 . Lighting Improve m ents ......................................... 60
5. Parking Treatments ................................................ 62
6. Median/Cross in g Island ......................................... 6 4
7. Driveway Improvements ........................................ 66
8. Acc ess M anagement .............................................. 67
9. R e du ce Lan e Numbe r .......................................... 69
10. R e du ce Lane Width ............................................ 70
ON -ROAD BIKE FACILI TI ES
11 . Bike Lanes ........................................................... 72
12.Wide C urb Lanes ................................................. 73
13. Paved Shoulders .................................................. 74
14. Combin ation Lanes ............................................. 75
15. Contrafl ow Bike Lan es ........................................ 76
INTERSECTION TREATMENT S
16. Curb R adii R evisions .......................................... 79
17 . R o undabouts ...................................................... 8 1
18. Intersec tion Markings .......................................... 83
19. Sight Distance Improvements .............................. 85
20 . Turning R es tri c tion s ............................................ 86
52 Countermeas ur es Bicycle Co untermea sure Se lection System
•
21. M erge and W eave Are a R e d es ign ......................... 87 I
MAINTENANCE
22. R e p e titive/Sh ort-Te rm M ainten an ce .................. 90
23. M ajor M ainte n ance ............................................. 92
24. H aza rd Id entifi catio n Prog ram ............................. 93
TRAFFIC CALM I NG
25. Mini T raffi c Circles .............................................. 96
26. C hi ca n es ............................................................. 98
27. Sp ee d Tables /Humps/C u shi ons ......................... 100
28.Visu al N arrowing ............................................... 102
29. Traffi c Dive rsion ................................................ 103
30. R aised Intersection ............................................ 105
TRAILS/SHARED-USE PATHS
31. Se p arate Shared-Use Path .................................. 107
32. Path Intersection Trea tments .............................. 109
33. Intersec tion W arning Treatme nts ........................ 111
34. Share the Path Trea tments .................................. 112
MARKINGS , SIGNS , SIGNALS
35. Install Signal/Optimize Timing .......................... 115
36. Bike-Activate d Signal ........................................ 117
37. Sign Improvements ............................................ 11 8
38. P ave ment M arking Improvements ...................... 11 9
39. School Zone Improve m e nts ............................... 121
EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT
40. Law Enforcement .............................................. 124
41. Bicy clist Edu cation ........................................... 126
42. Motorist Edu ca ti o n .......................................... 12 8
43 . Pra c titioner Edu ca tion ....................................... 129
SUPPORT FACILI T IES AND PROGRA MS
44 . Bike P arking ..................................................... 131
45. Tran sit A ccess ..................................................... 133
46 . Bicyclist P ersonal Facilities ................................ 135
47 . Bike Maps ......................................................... 13 6
48.Wayfindin g ........................................................ 137
4 9. E ve nts/ A ctivities ............................................... 138
50 . A es th e ti cs /Landsca ping ...................................... 13 9
SHARED ROADWAY
Althou gh "sh ared roadway" is a term use d by MUTCD to
mean "a roa dway that is officially d es igna ted and marked as
a bicycle route, but w hi ch is ope n to motor ve hicl e trave l
and upon w hi ch n o bicycle lan e is des ignate d ," the ge n eral
conce pts cove re d by this ca tegory of co untermeas ures are
geared towa rd providing safe, smooth surfaces, good vis-
ibility, and appro pri ate, sa fe and easy access for bicycli sts o n
all roadways that bicycli sts are allowed to u se. The co unte r-
m eas ures descr ib e d in this ca tegory are among p erhap s the
most impo rtant fa ctors in providing a sa fe and accessible
stree t and path n etwork for bi cycli sts since the vast ma-
jority of trave l-ways u se d by most bicycli sts w ill b e road-
ways sh ared w ith m o torists . Appropriate use of this gro up
of tools h elp s to manage traffic and vehicle sp ee ds suitabl e
to the roadway typ e an d area the roadway se rves, outco m es
that b e n efit bicycli sts and other road use rs.
The c ounterm eas ures discussed unde r Sh ared Roadway
w ill re m ain applicabl e in most riding c ircumstan ces, eve n
for specialize d bicycli st fac iliti es su c h as bike lanes . Li ght-
ing, atte ntion to surfaces and other co untermeas ures are
also important w ith res p ec t to sh are d-use pathways. At-
te ntion to all of these m eas ures w ill help to e n sure that
bicy cli sts h ave safe places to ride.
Shared Roadway tools are most e ffec ti vely inco rporated
at the planning and design stage for streets b eing con-
structe d or re-con stru c t e d , with con side ration to all road
u se r s. G ood d es ign ca n preve nt proble m s later on and
redu ce m ainte nanc e iss u es and cos ts. Some improve -
m e nts ca n b e made, su c h as li ghting, p arking redesi gn, o r
m ainte nance upgrades that improve su rface co nditions
to existing roadways, but are typicall y more difficult to
implement as re trofit measures. Providing sa fe access to
and space on bridges and overpasses and through tun-
nels and unde rpass es may b e p articularly ch all e n ging to
implement as retrofit measures.
The countermeasures under Shared Roadway are as fol-
lows:
• Roadway Surface Improve ments
• Bridge and Overpass Access
Tunnel and Underpass Acc ess
• Lighting Improvements
• Parking Treatments
• Median/Crossing Island
Driveway Improvements
A ccess M an age m e nt
R e du ce Lane Numbe r
Reduce Lane Width
Slow speed down town streets can be safe ly shared by bicy-
c li sts and motorists. (Santa Barbara , CA)
A raised median helps reduce c ut-through traff ic and reduce
co nflicts with turning vehic les.
Lighting, street trees, on-street parking , bicycle parking, and
buildings close to the roadway s ignal that this is an urban,
low-speed , shared-use street. (Santa Cruz, CA)
Bicyc le Countermeasure Selection System Countermeasures 53
z
"' 0
"' ::::>
"' z
<(
0
>-"' ~
0
I
"-
z
"' 0
"' ::::>
"' z
<(
0
>-"' ~
0
I
"-
1. ROADWAY SURFAC E IMPROVEMENTS
Bicyclists are particularly vulnera bl e to sudden ch anges in
the roadway (o r p ath) surface, su ch as potholes or sudden
drop-offs. Slippery surfa ces, presence of water or d e bris,
broken pavement, and gaps in pavement parallel to the
roadway that ca n trap bic ycle tires can also be hazardous.
In addition to ca using bicyclist fa ll s, surface irregular iti es
may contribute to a sudden weaving movement that may
pla ce the cyclist in the path of a motorist. Poor riding
surfaces may also increa se bicyclist di scomfort and pote n -
ti ally discourage riding. Therefore, providing smooth but
non-slipp ery pavement surfaces is a key to maintaining a
good level of service for bicyclists. Good initial design ca n
help red u ce future repair and maintenance costs.
Several overarching is su es warrant parti c ular atte ntion.
• Initial design and m aterials se lec tion help to prevent
problems su ch as poor drainage, slippery surfaces, gaps
in pavement and others. Once d es ign standards are d e-
termined , insp ec tors and proj ec t contractors should
ensure that standards are met.
• H av ing a plan for regul ar swee ping and identifying and
making spot repairs is key to keeping surfaces in good
co ndition.
• Bi cyclist co nside rati ons should also b e incorporated
into long-term maintenance and up grades.
Good design, ha zard i dentification and maintenance
practices should b e institutionalized. Id entifi ca tion of
bi cyclis t priorities and a sys t em for regular inclusion of
best bicyclist faci liti es practices within a regular main-
tenance framework can h elp to improve conditions for
bi cyclists without substantially increasing costs.
To provide smooth, level surfaces, the following are so m e
pote ntial h azard s that may b e minimized by instituting
goo d design and maintenan ce prac ti ces. Drain grates
should b e maintained level w ith the surrounding pave-
m ent , which may require raising the grates fo ll owing
re-paving, and a bicycle-friendl y d esign sho uld be u sed
so that tires will not be trapped by slo ts parallel to the
roadway (see images). Particularly with new or reco n-
struction, c urb inle ts co uld b e install ed. Designs should
also ens ure tha t utility covers and other potential ha zards
are pla ced out of the predominant bi cycling p athways,
are level with the surrounding pave m ent, and h ave non-
skid surfaces. Pavement sho uld be ke pt in good condi-
tion, particularly near the e d ges where bicyclists t e nd to
ride most o ft e n .
Additionally, when designing bike faci liti es, pavement
seams should be p laced w h ere they minimally co nfli c t
with the bicycle right-of-way. Excessively w id e gutter
54 Countermeasure s Bicyc le Co untermea su re Se lec tio n System
Purpose
• Prov ide smooth, safe s u rf aces for bicycl ist s .
Considerations
• In sti tuti o nalizing good des ign, street sweeping,
and ma intenance prac ti ces with respect to bicy-
c l ists can help to red uce l iability.
• Hazar d identificatio n p rograms can faci l it ate
ide nti f ication and repai r of potential surf ace
hazards.
Estimated Cost
Many of th e costs associa t ed with providi ng and
ma i ntain i ng good bicyc l is t surfaces sho ul d be
incorporat ed into the overa ll i nitial project budget
or mainte na nce plan. T he costs of hazard identifi-
cation, s hort-term sweep in g and spot ma inte nance
progra ms w i ll be mini mi ze d if bicyclist co ncerns
are i nstit uti onalized w ithin the regular ma i ntenance
and repa ir framework. Spec ia l repairs (such as drain
g rate repa ir/replacemen t) wi l l vary considerably by
project.
>-0 a
z
0
<..O w a::
0
z
:5
0..
z
:'!' a:: >--.,.,
w a w
0..
a z «
w _,
~
'-' Cii
z
0
<..O w a:: 15 ~!:'1m 1 J /. 400 mm i
16" 6
~
-2.4m -~
8 ' 3
'--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-' _,
A newer rumble strip des ign is more bicycle-friendly: 400 mm
(16 in) groo ves are cu t into the shoulder, 150 mm (6 in) from
the fog l i ne. On a 2.4 m (8 ft) shoulder, th is leaves 1.8 m (6
ft) of usable shoulder for bicycl ist s.
pans may unnecessar il y re duce bicyclists' sp ace. Paving
over the gutter pan is a te mporary so lution, as seams u su-
all y reappear in the pavement w ithin five years. Reflective
raised pavem ent markers also create ha za rds for bicyclists
direction of
travel
A
direction of
travel
B
direction of
travel
c
z 8 Bicycle safe gra t es . Note : gra t es with bars perpendi c ular t o
~ the roadway mu st not be placed at curb cuts , as bicy cle t ires
z
5
0..
z :::;
°' >--
co ul d get caught in the slot.
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--.
0 w
0..
0 z «
w
_J
u >-u
00
z
0
tO w
°' 0
=" 0
°' "-en z
Q
~
°' >-en
::0
_J
_J '--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--'
Inlet flush in the curb fa ce. The most effe ctive way to avoid
dra in age-grate prob lem s is to eliminate th em entirely with th e
use of inlets in t he c urb f ace (type CG -3 ).
and should o nly b e u se d w ith appro priate con side rati on
o f bicy cli sts. T h ese can de fl ec t a bicycl e w h e el , ca u sing
the cyclist to lose contro l.
Whe n rumble strips are u se d as a m o to rist al e rt, for exa m-
ple, along a sh o ulde r, a n arrowe r des ign place d cl ose to the
lan e e d ge line allow s m ore u sa bl e bicycl e-frie ndly sp ace.
If texture d p avers are u se d , these sh o uld not compromise
b icycli st safety o r comfo rt.
Finally, care must b e take n to prov ide bi cycl e-safe ra il roa d
cross ings. Crossings sh o uld ideall y b e clo se to 90 d egrees.
If th e cro ss ing is smooth, but n o n-slipp e ry (c oncre t e p av -
ing may work b es t), and the fl an ge o p e ning is k e pt as n ar-
row as poss ible, somewh at more fl exibili ty with the an gle
m ay b e p oss ible.
The Oreg on Bicy cle and Pedest ri an Pl an co ntains m o re in-
fo rmation a nd illu strations of g ood surface d es ign prac-
so · bikeway crossing with
9 m (30 ') radius curves.
Tracks cross roadway at 30°
1.2 m (4') tangent section
provided both sides of rail to
allow bike to cross tracks with
both wheels straight.
9.0 m (30 ')
radius minimum
•• ,.,....----normal edge
of pavement
t
travel lane
>-0
0
z
0
tO w
°' 0 z «
_J
0..
z :::;
°' >-en w
0 w
0..
0 z «
w
_J
§:'.
<,>
CD
z
0
tO w
°' 0
=" 0
°' "-
z
0
~
°' >-en
::0
_J
'--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--' _J
Bike lan e or shou lder crossin g rai lroad trac ks.
ti ces unde r the "Othe r D es ign Con side rati o n s" sec ti on
(http ://www.o r egon.gov /ODOT /HWY /BIKEPED /
d ocs /bp_plan _2_ii . pdf ). 1
Bi cyc le Countermeasure Sele ction Sy stem Counter mea sure s 55
z w
0 a::
::>
ID
z
<(
0
>-ID
2. BRIDGE AND OVERPASS ACCESS
Barriers to move ment su c h as rive r s, fr eeways, ca nyo n s
and railways m ay pres ent seve re impe djme nts to bi cycli st
trave l. A cc ording to the Institute of Traffi c E ngineer s' In-
novative Bicy cl e Treatments2 , the C ity o f Euge n e, OR, d e-
t e rmin e d throu gh a u se rs' survey that bi cy cl e and p e -
d es trian bridges w e re n eed e d eve ry 1.6 t o 2.4 km (1 to
1.5 mi) to cro ss a ge o g raphic b arri er th ro u gh town -in
this case the Willame tte River. Bridges built t o acc om-
modate all m o d es of trave l are typicall y pre fe rable since
th ey connec t w ith th e exis ting stree t n e two rk . If se p arate d
bi cy cli st /p e d es trian fa cilities are prov id e d , sec urity iss u es
must b e addres se d. Bridges must b e prope rl y d es ign e d t o
prov id e sa fe, access ible approac h es, with su ffic ie nt sp ace
for bi cyclists to n avi ga te asce nts and d esce nts as well as
ac ro ss th e ove rpass, and sa fe riding surfa ces that take into
con sid e rati o n expan sion g rate d es ign and sea m pla ce m e n t
that minimize h az ards to bicy clists. Bridges should al so
b e w ell-lit .
If re trofit m eas ures are n ee d e d for exis tm g stru ctures,
spa ce on th e bridge m ay b e provide d o n t h e stree t , on
walkways if th ey are wide e nou gh to safely acco mmodate
p e d es trian s and bi cy cli sts, or eve n on a se p arate d eck as
~ ~ liiliiiiiil••
z w
0 a::
::>
ID
z
<(
0
>-ID
0
b
I a._
Separated overpasses may be needed to provid e safe acc ess
across busy freeways or other barrier s.
56
This cantilevered, shared-use path was added to the Steel
bridge i n Portland, OR .
Countermeasu res Bi cycle Countermeasure Selection System
---------
Purposes
• Provide continuity of access for bicyc lists.
• Prevent significant detours for bicyc li sts due to
unsurpassable natura l or built barriers.
Considerations
• Width of travel lanes and existing walkways,
length and height of span , and motor vehi c le
travel speeds and volume should all be consid-
ered when determining the best place to provide
space for bicycl ists.
• Extra buffers may be needed for "s hy distance"
from railings or from traffic to protect bicyclists
from sudden w i nd .
• Bicyclist access on mult i-modal bridges should
be provided si nc e these bridges connec t with
the existing street network. Separate faci Ii-
ties may be desirab le t o prevent long detours
for bicyclists (if add ition al multi -moda l bridges
are infeasible) or to connect multi-use paths or
separate corridors .
Estimated Cost
Varies widely, depending on whether a new bridge
is constructed or a retro fit of existing i nstal lat ion
is provided. The type of facilities and changes
impleme nte d also affec t cost. For retrof it treat-
ments, Portland examp les inc l ude from $20,000
for restriping to add bike lanes on an existing deck
cross section to $10,000,000 for addi ng a cantile-
vered share d path to an existing bridge .
z
"' <ii w
0
+
"' z
z z
:3 a._
<( ::;
<(
::;:
0 a:: u._
rs
I
'--------~~~~~~~~~~------a._
Bike lan es prov ide spa c e on this bridge .
b
0
z
0
(.!)
UJ a:
0 z
:5
11-
z
~ a:
t;;
UJ
0
UJ
11-
0 z
<(
UJ __,
§2
u a;
z
0
(.!)
UJ a:
0
::E
0 a:
LL
z
0
~ a: >-VJ
::::l __,
t
/
/
__, '--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
z
UJ
0 a:
::::l
ID
z
£3
>-ID
0
b
I
11-
Ramp provides bicyclist access to shared-use path from the
on-street bike lane.
was done on the Steel Bridge in Portland (see case study
#2). If sid ewalk access is provided , ramps should provide
bicycli sts direct access from the street. Sidewalk access
may b e desirabl e if traffic volumes and speeds are hig h ,
the bridge is long, and the re is ins uffi ci ent roadway sp ace
(o utside lanes or shoulders are n arrow) to sa fel y accom-
modate bi cyclists.
W h e n bicyclist sp ace is provided n ear bridge railings or
near motorized traffic, extra horizo ntal w idth or buffer of
Extra width , co ncrete barrier, and outside ra i ling protect bicy-
clists from strong wind gusts . (Seattle, WA)
0.6 m (2 ft) or more is reconunende d to protec t bicycli sts
in the eve nt of a c ra sh or w ind blas t, es p eciall y on higher
spee d b r idges or hig h sp ans where w ind g u sts m ay b e
stro n g . Railings should al so b e provided. The Ame rican
A ssoc iation of State Hig hway and Transportation Officials
(AASHT0)3 recommends a railing h e ig ht of at least 1.4
m (4 .5 ft ).
A ccess from adjoining stree ts should b e as direc t as pos-
sibl e to re du ce o ut-of-th e -way d e tours for bicyclists, and
d esigns should e ndea vor to minimize co nfli ct points at
entran ces and exi ts.
Bi cyc le Cou ntermea sure Selectio n System Countermeasures 57
(/)
er
0 co
<( z
z
<(
0
>-co
0
b
I
3. TUNNEL AND UNDERPASS ACCESS
A s with bridges and overpasses, safe accommodation
sh ould b e m ade for b icyclist s to u se roadway tunnels and
und erpasses t o preve nt impedime nt to free movement
across fr eeways, railways, and o ther b arriers. Access from
adjoining streets sh oul d be as direct as p ossi ble t o re duce
out-of-the-way d e tou rs for bicyclists , and d es igns should
e nd eav or to minimize conflict points at e ntrances and ex-
its. Space should b e continu ed through the fac ility, w ith
extra con sidera tion for i ss u es su c h as li g hting and personal
sec urity. Separa t e tunnels may al so b e p rovided, particu-
larl y to connect multi-use or bike p aths (a lso see "Path
Inte r sec ti o n Trea tments").
~ '--~~~~~~~~~~~~......;;~
State Street underpass with bike la nes, Santa Barbara, CA.
Sidewalk is e levated above the roadway.
Most existing roadway tunnels h ave, h owever, b ee n built
to acco mmodat e motor ve hjcl e traffi c, and retrofit m ea-
sures m ay b e limjte d if extra space is unava ila ble to ac-
conunoda t e bi cy clist s. Planned improvement or tunnel
reconstruc ti o n proj ec t s are an ideal opportunity to im-
prove conditions for bi cycli st s. In the ab sence of m ajor
recon struction, so m e re t rofi t measures that may improve
bicycli st safety or comfort include provi di ng warnings to
motorists that bicyclists are prese nt in the tunnel and pro-
vi ding extra li g hting, call boxes, and oth er measures t o
improve vis ib ili ty, sa fety, and personal securi ty. To ac ti va t e
a "bicycli st present in tunnel " fl as hing warning li g ht, a bi-
cycli st pull-off area and push button are typ i cally provi d e d
b efore the tunnel entrances (see case study #3). If there
are no suita bl e altern at e ro utes, and safe access ca nno t b e
provid e d throu gh a tunne l fac ility, creative measures m ay
b e call ed for, s u c h as p roviding transit or shu ttl e servi ce
through the tunnel on a sc h e dul e d b asis or at cert ain
hig h-use p e r iods, or other so lutions.
N ew roadway tunnels and underpas ses sh o uld incorporat e
p lanning to acc onunodat e bicyclists. There are at prese nt
58 Countermeasures Bicycle Countermea sure Selection System
Purposes
• Provide continuity of access for bicyc l ists across
barriers.
• Connect shared-use path across a bu il t or
natura I barrier.
Considerations
• Secur ity issues must be ful ly addressed.
• Retrof it measures may be restricted since many
existing tun nels may have limited space.
• Upgrades and downgrades wi 11 affect the speeds
of bicyclists and shou ld be considered in the
p lan nin g or renovation of a tunnel .
Es ti mated Cost
Flashing warning signs, "Bicyclist in Tunne l ," along
with widened shoulder for bicyclist pul l-o ff were in-
stalled for $5,000 in 1979. Other costs vary widely
depending on measures implemented . A variety of
cost data can be found at the following Web site:
http ://www. bicycl i ngi nfo .org/bi kecost/.
no sp ecifi c d es ign sta ndards relating to bicycl e accom-
modation in roadway tunnels. General d es i gn st andards
for bicycle facilities wo uld likely ap ply, but con sideration
should b e g iven to providing significant extra w idth for
shy distance from walls or other barriers. Bear in mjnd
that bicyclist speeds w ill b e affected by gra d e, and extra
w idth may al so be needed on st eep grades. A s previously
n1entioned, li g hting and p er so n al security are iss u es in
tunne ls, and d es igns should m ain tain good v isibili ty w ith-
o ut "hidde n " recesses or unlit areas that inv ite security
Lighting is important for personal safety as well as viewing the
riding surface in tunne ls and underpasses. (Seattle , WA)
z w
0 er
::::> co
z
<(
0
>-co
0
b
I
~
z w
0
0::
~
"' z
;3
>-"' ~b?!f~fj~i~~~
B icyclists prefer shorter underpasses where the end is c learly
visible .
c oncerns . Other issues, su c h as air quality, may b e p articu-
lar to tunnels, but should b e addresse d from the bicyclist 's
p e r spective.
If separated bike and p e de stri an tunnels are prov ide d ,
ve rtical cl eara n ce of 3 m (10 ft ) is reco mmende d for bi-
cy clist co mfort.3 Foll owing general AASHTO structure
guidelines for sh ared-use paths , the Iowa Department of
Tra n sportation recomme nds a width of at leas t the trail
w idth plu s clear zones, o r a minimum of 3 m (10 ft) if
e mergency ve hicle access must b e provide d , but the w id er
the b e tter for lighting and comfor t . 4 Security iss u es must
also be addressed in separa ted fac iliti es. Generally, bicy-
clists are m ore comfortable if they ca n see "th e li ght at the
end of the tunnel" when they enter, but appropriate li ght-
ing sh ould be provid ed to e n sure good v isibility both for
se curity and to vi ew the bi cy cling surface. Diversion of
water away from the tunnel and goo d drainage and non-
slipp ery surfaces in underpasses are also important d esign
conside rations to preve nt water from becoming a h azard
for bicyc li sts. The City of Davis bi cycle plan also provides
so me guidance for shared-path under p asses . 5
Bicycle Countermeasure Selectio n System Countermeasures 59
<(
>-co
z
0
~
°" >--(/)
::::>
4. LIGHTING IMPRO VE MENTS
Although bicycli sts riding during d ark conditions are
generally required to h ave appro priate li g hting on their
vehicles or persons, re quirements va ry from state to state
and m any bi cy cli sts do n ot comply with th e requirements.
Good illumination also helps nighttime bi cyclists see sur-
face conditions and obstacles or p eo pl e in the path of
travel. D ata from fiv e years of North Carolina bicycle-
m o tor ve hicle cras h es indi cate that a bout one quar te r of
reported colli sions and more than half of bicyclist fatali-
ti es occurred during non -daylight conditions, probabl y
far exceeding the proportio n of riding that occ urs un-
d e r these conditions.6 Similarly, estimates referred to by
Florida State Unive rsity 7 indicat e that "nearly 60 p erce nt
of all adult fa tal bi cy cl e accidents in Florida occur during
twilig ht and night hours eve n though less than 3 p ercent
of bicycl e riding takes pl ace during that time p eriod ." Bi-
cyclists, partic ul arly co mmuters, may h ave to r id e during
ea rly dawn hours or b e ca u ght by twilight, p ar ti c ul arly in
th e winter months.
j .___..._.._~~~~~~~~-'---l...l--lJ.......:::::...~~~~~~~
Lighting illuminates the roadway surface as well as other
roa dway users.
Improved roadway li ghting may h elp t o reduce cras h es
that occur under less than op timal li ght condi ti o n s. In-
tersections may warrant higher lighting levels than road-
way segments. Good li ghting on ro adways, bridges, tun-
nels and sha re d-use p ath s is al so important for p erso nal
sec urity. Lighting improvements are typically thought of
as an urban and suburban trea tment, but there may b e
situ ati ons w h e re li ghting improvem e nts are ap propriate in
ru ral locatio n s. Examples of su ch locations might include
ru ral roadways th at serve as bi cy cling connecto r s b e t\veen
o utlying or neighboring population areas and urban ce n-
t ers, and intersections or sh are d-use trail crossings u se d by
60 Countermeasu res Bicyc le Co untermeasure Se lec tion System
Purposes
• Illuminate the roadway surface and surround-
ings.
• Enha nce safety of all roadway users.
• Opt i mize visi bi I ity of b icyc l ists (and pedestri -
ans) du r ing low-light conditions , particu larly in
locatio ns where high n u mbers of bicyc l ists may
be expec t ed such as commuter routes, routes to
and from universities, in tersections and intersec -
tions w it h multi -use trai ls.
• Improve personal sec ur it y of bicyclists and pe -
des t r ians.
Considerations
• I nsta ll l ighting on bo th sides of wide roadways
fo r most effective il l um i nation .
• Pro vide generally un ifo rm illuminat ion avoiding
ho t spo t s, glare , and deep shadows; some inter-
sectio ns may warran t add itional illum i nation .
• Cons i de r rural loca ti ons for lighting i mprove-
ments if nighttime or twi I ight crashes are a
proble m .
Estimated Cost
Cost va ri es depending on fi xture type, design, local
condit ions, and uti I ity ag reements .
Lighting is provided for bo th bicyclists and pedestr ians at this
location .
significant numbers of cy clists. More research is n ee d e d on
the safety and mobility b e n e fit s of lighting improve m ents
to bicyclists and pedestrians. The America n As soc iati on of
State Highway and Transportation Officials3 g uide rec-
o mme nds using ave r age m aintained ill uminatio n leve ls
of b etween 5 and 22 l ux, and the Fl o rida DOT recom-
m e nds 25 as the ave rage initial lu x for shared-use p at h s,
z w
0
°" ::::> co
z
C§
>-co
~
0
:I:
0..
z w
0
0:
::>
(0
z « 0
>-'° 0
l-o
I
(l_
Ra ised medians provide another option for locating l ighting on
this shared roadway .
16 for bike fac ilities on arterial roads, and 11 for all other
roadways.8 The Wisconsin Bicycle Facility Design Handb ook
also provides guidance for path illumination (p. 4-35 to
4-37).9 Other roadway lighting resources include Ameri-
can National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting ANSI
!ESNA (RP-8 -00) and other publi ca tions (ava il able from
the Illuminating Engineering Society) and AASHTO's
1984 An Iriformational Guide for Roadway Lighting (up-
date anticipated). A forthcoming NCHRP project will
deve lop guidelines for roadway lighting based on safety
benefits and cos ts.
Lighting is a complex treatment requiring thou ghtful
analys is. Not only are there sa fety and sec urity iss u es for
bicyclists, pedestrians and motorists, but potential li ght
pollution, long-term energy costs, and aes theti cs also are
factors. With good design, lighting can enh ance safety of
the bicycling (as well as pedestrian) e nv ironme nt and im-
prove th e ambience of areas of nighttime activity.
Bi cyc le Countermeasure Selection System Countermeasures 61
<( ::;
iii
<(
> "' <fl z
0
~ a::
f-
<f)
::::>
_J
5. PARKING TREATMENTS
Certain p o li cy, d es ign and co nfi gurati on p ractices for o n-
stree t p arking fo r moto r ve hi cles ca n fac ili tate safe r bi cy -
cling conditio n s. R emoving p arki n g is one o p tio n for re-
ducing confli cts between cycli sts and ve hicles driving into
and out o f p arking, or with m o torists entering or exi ting
p arke d cars. R em oving or nar rowing a p arki ng lan e o n o n e
o r both sides o f the road way is also an o ption for ga ining
u sa ble sp ace for bicycli sts, for example, to create a bike lane.
Also , elimi na ting or re du cin g p arking w ill im p rove sight
di stan ce al o n g a corridor and m ay b e p artic ul arly u se ful for
se gments w ith numerous b usy drive w ays or confli c t areas.
_J '--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Before (top) and after (bottom) park in g eliminated to gain
spa ce for b ik es .
Diago n al on-street p arkin g cons umes significa nt ro adway
w idth and m ay al so b e h aza rdou s to bi cycli sts since m o-
torists typically must b ack into traffi c . Diago n al p arking
m ay b e re d es igne d to a p arall el parking co nfiguration,
w ith a ty p ical loss of less than half the sp aces. If an gl ed
on-street p arking is c urre ntly provided an d m aintaining
c urrent on-street parking leve ls is a prio ri ty, an o the r op-
ti o n is to reve r se the an gle direc tion and require m o torists
62 Countermeasures Bicycle Countermeasure Se lect ion System
Purposes
• Reduce conflicts between bicyclists and parking-
related in cidents (p ulling into and o ut of park -
i ng , open in g doors).
• Provide more space or f ac iliti es for bicycl ists on
the road way.
• Imp ro ve sight distance along a roadway.
Considerations
• Overall parking demand and space must be evalu -
ated in li ght of the co mmun ity's other needs and
values . A number of factors should be cons id ered ,
includ i ng the function of the streets to move
peop le and goods safe ly, the desire to reduce
sing le-veh icle auto use , the need to promote
bicyc l in g or transit use, and the need to accom -
modate business and resid ential park in g demand .
• Space used for on-st reet parking may provide use-
ab le space for bicyclist s. Demand for motor ve -
hicle parking could be reduced if suffi c ient modal
sh ifts occur. Many European cities are reducing
mot or ized vehi c le access to urban cen t ers .
• On-street parking , if ca refu I ly designed , does not
inhe rently conflict with safe bicycling and may
help s low vehicle speeds and improve the safety
of the st reet.
• Creative solutions to me eting parking demand
suc h as timed shar ing of public and private
facilities may be requ i red .
• Removing parking might result in an increase in
vehic le travel speeds if other measures do not
compensate .
Estimated Cost
Costs may involve only restriping expe nse. More
extens ive work such as adding curb bulb-outs to en-
close parking spaces and provide landscape space
may inc re ase the cos t of parking trea tments.
t o b ac k in whe n ente ring the p arking sp ace. Moto rists are
the n fac ing fo rward w h e n re-ente ring the ro adway an d
b e tte r abl e t o vi ew b o th oncoming bi cy cli sts and o the r
moto rists (see case study #4).
P oli cies t h at m ay h elp re duce p arking d e m and or m axi -
mize effi cie nt u se co uld b e c onsidered if on-stree t p ar k-
ing is re du ced .
5
0
z
0
Other o ptio n s are discu sse d m o re full y unde r traffi c calm-
ing . Fo r exa mple , p arking m ay b e configure d in a c hi-
cane-like p attern by alte rnating sp ac es fr o m one side o f
the stree t t o the other. This trea tme nt forces m o torists to
shift late rally and slows travel sp eeds if prope rl y d es ign e d .
(See C hi ca n es coun term eas ure.)
~ .-------------------------, "' 0
z
:5 a..
z
:"'!:
"' ....
"' w
0 w a..
0 z
<(
w
_J
'-' >-'=' CD
z
0
"' w
"' 0
::;;
0
"' u.
z
0
~
"' ti
::::>
_J
BEFORE:
AFTER:
1.8 m +-3.6 m --l~'--
(6 ') (12')
4---------13.2 m ---------+i (44 ')
_J '-------------------------'
Parking removed on one side of a two way street. In some
cases , parking may be needed on only one side to ac commo -
da t e residen ces and /or businesses. Note : It is not always ne c-
essary to retain parking on the same side of the road through
an entire corridor .
§ BEFORE:
z
0
"' w
"' 0
z
:5 a..
z
:"'!:
"' ....
"' w
0 w a..
0 z
<(
w
_J
~
'=' CD
z
0
"' w
"' 0
::;;
0
"' u.
z
0
~
"' ....
"' ::::>
_J
Diagonal
Parking
....._4.2m-.
(14')
AFTER:
3.6m
(12')
1.8 m ..-3.6 m--...-3.6 m
(6 ') (12 ') (12 ')
..... ________ 15.6 m --------~
52'
_J '------------------------~
Diagonal parking t akes up an inordinate amount of roadway
width relative to the number of parking spaces provided. It can
also be hazardous, as drivers backing out cannot see oncom -
ing traffic . Changing to parallel parking reduces avai labi l ity by
less than one-half . Spe c ial note: on one-way streets , changing
to parallel parking on one side on ly is sufficient; this reduces
parking by less than one-fourth.
BEFORE : AFTER: 5
0
z
0
"' w
"' 0
z
:5 a..
z
<(
ii: ....
"' w
0 w a..
0 z
<(
w
_J
'-' >-'-' a;
z
0
"' w
"' 0
::;;
0
"' u.
z
0
~
"' ....
"' ::::>
~'..=:========-__!!._!:====::::!...!:===::!!..___:__J j
Where all of the above possibilities of replacing parking with
bike lanes have been pursued , and residential or bus in ess
parking losses c annot be sustained , innovative ideas shou ld be
considered to provide parking , su c h as with off-street parking.
Other uses of the right-of-way should also be considered, such
as using a portion of a planting strip, where availab le.
"Door zone " space was left between bike lane and parking
space . (Chapel Hill , NC)
Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System Countermeasure s 63
"' <(
::;;
0
I ....
_j
>-CD
0 ....
0
I a..
z
WJ
0 a::
::>
"' z «
0
>-"' 0
b
6. MEDIAN/CROSS ING ISLAND
M e di ans are raised barrier s in the ce nter portion of the st ree t
or roadway that have multipl e benefits for bicyclist, mo-
torist and pedestrian safety, particularly w h en they replace
cent er, two-way left-tum lanes. Two-way left-tum lanes
can crea t e proble m s for bicyclists and p edestrians as well
as o ppos ing left-tum ve hicles and m ay b e u sed as accelera-
tion lan es by so m e moto rists . A median (or median island)
helps m an age traffic, p articularly le ft-tum movements, and
reduces the number of conflict areas. Left-tum bays m ay
b e incorporat e d at sp ecifi c location s. The restricted access
to sid e streets may also h elp to reduce cut-through traffic
and calm local streets. R aised m edians are most u se ful on
high-volume roads. Bicyclist (and pedestrian) access to side
streets, transit stops, or sh ared-u se paths sh o uld be main-
tained by providing access pockets throug h the median.
I
!l. i;... ___ _
While this median treatment provides a crossing point and a
refuge for pedestrians, space is still available for bicyclists .
T hi s design al lows bicyclist s to make a left turn at a location
where motori st left turns are prevented.
Another u se of median islands a nd bicycle cross ings is to
provide a refuge for bicyclists c ro ss ing a busy thorough-
fare at unsi gnalized loca tions where gaps in traffic in both
directions are ra re. The m e di an should b e at leas t 2 m (6.6
ft ) w ide to provide sufficient waiting spa ce for bicyclists.2
If a full 2 m (6.6 ft) is not ava ilabl e, the bi cycl e stora ge
area m ay be an gl e d across the median w ith bicyclist s di-
64 Countermeasures Bicycle Counterme asure Selection System
Purposes
• Manage motor vehicle traffic and reduce the
numbe r of conflict areas. Provide comfortable
left-hand turn in g pocke t s with fewer or narrower
lanes. May help to slow traffic if roadway is nar-
rowed sufficiently.
• Assist bicyclists in cross in g high-volume streets at
non-signalized locatio ns by providing a protected
refuge for bicyclists crossing or making left turns.
• Provide space for street trees and other land-
scapi ng.
Considerations
• Provide bicyclist access to cross streets (or
shared use paths) whe re a median restricts mo-
tor vehicle movements.
• Evaluate whether there is sufficient width for
appropr iately wide s id ewa l ks, bike lanes, and
plant in g strips before proceeding with median
const ruction. Intermittent median is lands may
be a preferable option for some locat ions.
• Landscaping in med ians should not obstruct vis -
ibi l ity between bicycl ists (and pedes t rians) and
approac hi ng motorists .
• Pedestr ian median crossings should also be
p rovided at appropr iate midblock and intersec-
tion lo cations and des igned to provide tactile
cues for pedestrians with visual impairments.
Examples of good and bad designs for raised
median crossings ca n be found in Chapter 8 of
Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access : Part
II of II, Best Practices De sign Guide.11
• Desired t urning move ments need to be care-
fu I ly provided so tha t motorists are not forced to
travel on inappropr iate routes, such as residen-
tial streets, or make unsafe U-turns.
• Bicyc li st median access pockets may be difficult
to keep clear, depe ndin g on width.
• Continuous media ns may not be the most appro-
pria te tre atment i n every situation. In some cases,
separa tin g opposing traffi c flow and el im i nating
left-turn frict ion m ight in crease traffic speeds by
dec reas in g the perce ived friction of the roadway.
rected toward oncoming traffic for cross ing the seco nd
half of the roadway. Railings m ay b e provided for bi cy-
clists to hold so they n eed not put their feet down to aid
in quick e r st art-ups.
z w
0
"' :J
al
z
<(
0
>-al
0
b
I o._
Estimated Cost
From PEDSAFE : The cost for add in g a raised median
is approximately $15 ,000 to $30,000 per 30 m
($15,000 to $30 ,000 per 100 ft), depending on the
de sign, site conditions , and wh ether the media n can
be added as part of a utility im provement or other
street constr ucti on project.10
Medi ans and median islands can help narrow roadways and
potentially slow motorist speeds.
If travel lan es are suffi cie ntly n arrowe d , install ation of m e -
dians m ay als o help to slow traffi c sp eed s. Finally, m e di an s
provide sp ace for street trees that m ay improve th e aes-
the tic env ironme nt.
Pocke t in med ian is land · maintains ac c ess for bi cyc li sts .
Bi cycle Counter measu re Selection Sys te m Coun ter measure s 65
z w
0
"' :J
al
z
<(
0
>-al
~
I o._
<(
'.'3
iii
-;
<i
>-al
z
0
~
°' f-
r/)
7. DRIVEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
Con side ration for bicyclists' n ee ds should cover from the
trip origin to th e d es tinatio n. A sig nifi cant proportion of
bicycle -motor ve hicle crashes occur when eith er the bi-
cyclist or motorist r id es or drives out from a driveway
without p ro p erl y yi elding to oncom.ing traffic. M o torist
left turns into driveways and side streets also acco unt for
a sizeable portion of crashes invo lving bi cyclists . Thus, th e
design of conn ections to the stree t n etwork has a signifi-
cant impact on bicyclist safety and access.
= = 3 .c::.-~~==== ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Good driveway des ign prov ides for safe ac cess to the street
network.
Driveway des ign affec ts sight di stan ce for both motor-
ists and bicyclists accessing roa dways, as well as the sp ee d
and perhaps ca re with whi ch drivers enter or leave the
roadway. Right-angle connections are b est for v isibili ty of
a pproac hing traffic as well as sl owing the turning sp ee d
for ve hicles exiting o r entering th e roadway. Tighter turn
r adii at driveways, as well as ramps to sidewalk level, also
slow veh.icle sp ee ds. D esigning Sidewalks and Tra il s for Ac-
cess provides more information and d es ign alte rnati ves for
driveway /sid ewalk crossings.11 Pave d driveway apro n s of
at least 3 m (10 ft) may be desirab le for unpave d co nnec-
tions to contain grave l and debris and prevent it from
accumulating in the bikeways. C urb cuts should h ave suf-
fi cie nt fl are, h owever, for bicyclists to complete turns into
the driveway or into the nearest lan e w itho ut 'swing ing
w ide' into the adj acent lane . On streets wi th sid ewalk s,
th e walkway sho ul d continue at g rad e across driveways to
prov ide for through p e d es tri an movem ent, slow ve hicl es,
and m ake it clear to m o torists and bi cyclists that sidewalk
u se rs h ave the r ight-of-way.
Stop b ar s, sign s, and other measures m ay b e u se fu l at co m-
m e rcial driveways, but sight d ista n ce sh ould not b e im-
p aire d with too many o r improp erly-placed sign s. Drive-
way rig hts-of-way should al so b e kep t cleared of fo li age
and other objects that o bscure visibility.
66 Countermeas ures Bicyc le Countermeasure Se lect ion Syste m
Purposes
• Pr ov ide good vis i bility fo r motorists and bicy-
cl ists accessing the roadway.
• S low mo t or vehicles e ntering/ex iting t he roadway
and es t ab l ish pedes t r i an r ight-o f-wa y.
• Reduce th e chances of a bicycle-on ly fal l or
t urning er ror when bicyc les enter or lea ve the
roadwa y.
Considerations
• Local landscape ord in a nces and othe r driveway
guide lin es may be needed to establ ish c lear
zo nes for driveway r ig hts-of-way, and t o maintain
s ight di stance and roa d way surfaces.
• Dri veway crossings of sidewalk corr ido rs shou ld
be w i de enough to provi de a level pedest rian
cross in g and a suitab le ramp to the st reet.
Estimated Cost
No ad dit io nal costs w he n i ncorporated in t o ori gi nal
plan and constru ction.
z w
0
°' :::J
al
z
<(
0
>-al
~
0
I ... ~~~~-....~~---.--~ ~
Good sig ht d istance helps redu ce the poten t ial for co nfl ic t be-
tween the vehi c le emergi ng from the driveway and a bicyclist
in th e bike lane .
Every dr iveway connection is a potential co nfli ct point
among motorists, bicycli sts and pedestrians. T hus, drive-
way co n solidation or oth e r measures should also b e co n -
sidered for arterials and collector roads. See the Access
M an age m e nt counte rmeas ure for more di sc u ss ion.
z
U.J
0
et:
::::>
"' z
"" 0
>-"' ~
0
:I:
Q_
I-0
0
z
0
"' LU
et:
0 z
"" _J
Q_
z
'.'!:
et:
I-
</)
LU
0
LU
Q_
0 z
"" LU
_J
u >-u
iii
z
0
"' LU
et:
0
::;;
0
et: u..
z
0
~ et:
I-
</)
::::>
_J
:::!
8. ACCESS MANAGEMENT
Every drive way and street connec ti o n is a potential con-
fli c t point amon g motorists, bicyclists and p edestrians.
Therefore, m an aging the numbe r, sp acing, access, di rec-
tional fl ow, and o ther aspects of driveway and sid e street
c onnections protects those trave ling along the corridor
from conflicts with thos e e ntering or leaving the corridor.
Access m anagement strategies suc h as providing raised /
non-traversable m edia n s and limiting driveway access may
be u seful in promoting safe bi cycle travel, particularly o n
arterial or major collec tor streets, since they help re duce
the number of potential co nfli ct points .
Raised medians and driveway conso l idat ion are two access
managem en t tools that reduce the number of co nfli ct points .
• • . •
••• •• • •
Before (left), uncontrolled accesses c reate eight potential
co nflict points at every driveway. After (right), a raised medi an
and conso lid at in g driveways redu ce co nfli ct points.
The principles o f access m an age m ent in corporate provid-
ing sp ecialized roadways ap propriate to their intended u se.
The trad e-off is b etween providing direc t access and pro-
moting through movement. For example, the main pur-
Purposes
• Redu ce con flicts between those traveling along
the corridor and those entering or leaving the
corridor.
• Provid e access appropriate to the function of the
roadway and area it serves .
• Mainta in flow of traffic along a corridor.
Considerations
• Consider whether the street's intended function
is primarily to move through vehicles (freeways,
arterials , collec tors ) or to provide direct access
(neighborhood and lo cal streets).
• Providin g for free-flow of traffic by reducing con-
nection s may result in increased travel speeds .
Es ti mated Cost
If inc l uded in initial design and construction, ac-
ces s man agement measures might raise or decrease
costs compared to other designs. Cost of retrofit
measures would depend on the type and extent.
Adding a raised median, for exa mple , is estimated
to cost $15 ,000 to $30 ,000 per 30 m ($15 ,000
to $30,000 per 100 ft ). Pr ohib iting left turns with
diverte rs may cos t from $15 ,000 to $45,000 each .
pose of freeways and arterials is to move through traffi c,
and access sh ould b e restricted to n ecessa ry interch anges.
Local streets should generally serve all d es tin ations and
access should not b e lim_ited . There are exceptions, h ow-
ever, if manageme nt is n ee ded t o reduce non-local traffi c
or crea t e preferential bi cycle bouleva rds (see Traffic Di-
versio n). A ccess manageme nt includes suc h meas ures as
li miting the numbe r of or es tab li shing minimum spacing
b etween driveways; providing for right-in, right-out only
move ments ; locating sign als to favor through move ments ;
restri cting turns to certain inter sections; and using non-
trave rsab le m edians to m anage left-and U-turn move-
m e nts . Other m eas ures such as provision of left and right
turn lanes at intersec tions to remove slowing/turning
ve hicles from the traffic stream co uld also b e included .
H odgson, e t al., have provided an in depth discussion of
p o tential impacts (positive and n ega tive) of access man-
agement strategies on bicyclists and pedestrians. 12 The
Transportation Resea rch Board (TRB) Committee on
A ccess M an agement identifies 10 principl es or stra tegies
of access m an agement altogeth er, along w ith the rationale
and ele m e nts of a co mprehensive program (see http :/ I
www.accessmanagement .gov/). TRB also published the
Bicycle Countermeasure Selectio n System Countermeasures 67
Access Manage m en t Manu al in 2003 that prov id es a co m-
pre h e nsive d esc ription of access m a n agement principles ,
tec hniqu es and effec ts, and rationale a nd st e p s toward
d eve lopin g a n access m an ageme nt program and poli-
ci es. 13 Safe ty a nd o ther impac ts of access m anage ment
a re do c umente d in N ationa l Coope rativ e Highway R esearc h
R eport 4 20. 14
68 Countermeasures Bicyc le Countermea su re Se lec tion System
z
UJ
0
"' ::::>
Cl)
z
<(
0
>-Cl)
8
0
I 1:..1...~~--~~~~~~~~~~~....I ~
Restri cted acce ss can provide for relatively uninterrupted
b icyc le travel along arterials and co lle ct ors .
j
' I
f
...;
<(
>-CD
en z
0
~
9. REDUCE NUMBER OF LANES
Some ro ads have m o re travel lan es th an n ecessa ry, and
the width of the excess lanes could b e fr eed up for o the r
u se s. Sp ace may b e b e tte r use d for bicycl e lan es, p ark-
ing, or w ide r pedes trian buffe r s or sidew alks (with c urb
realignme nt). A traffi c analys is should b e done to d e te r-
mine w h e ther th e numbe r of lan es on a roa dway (m any
of which we re built w ithout su c h an a nal ys is) is appropri-
ate. R e du cing the numbe r of trave l lan es m ay al so slow
travel sp eeds.
A typi cal "road di e t " m ay involve co nve rting an undi vid-
e d four-lan e ro adway to on e travel lan e in eac h dire ctio n ,
with an o n going ce nter l eft-turn lane. Road di e ts h ave
also re pl ace d the seco nd travel lan es with a raise d m e di an
and turn p ocke ts, and bike lanes in ea ch direction.A raise d
m e dian all ows gre ate r c ontrol of turning m ove m e nts a nd
may e nhan ce bicycli st as w ell as motorist sa fe ty in some
circ umstan ces (se e M e dians/Cross ing Isl ands).
A varie ty o f re configurations ar e poss ibl e for lane num-
b e r re ducti o n s depe nding on the curre nt co nfi g urati o n ,
0:: ..... en => _J
_J '--~~~~--"-~~~~--'-....l.....~~~~~~~~~~....I
Before (top) and after (bottom) road diet.
Purposes
• Remedy a situat ion where there is excess capacity.
• Provide space for bicyclists , pedestrians , or
parking .
• Reduce appare nt width of the road; provide me-
dian refuge.
• Imp rove social interaction and enhance livabi lity
of the street.
Considerations
• Traffic studies should determine whether the re is
excess capacity.
• Studies that include safety effects as wel I as
traffic operat ion s should help to determine
preference for an on-going left turn option or
whether interm ittent left turns wi 11 provide the
level of service needed.
Estimated Cost
The cost for restri ping a ki lo meter of four-lane
stree t to one lane in each direction plus a two-way,
left-turn lane and bike lanes is about $3, 100 to
$12,400 ($5 ,000 to $20,000 per mi), depending
on the amount of lane l i nes that need to be re-
painted. The estima t ed cost of extending sidewalks
or bui ldin g a raised median is much higher and can
cost $62,000 per km ($100,000 per mi) or more.
If a reconfiguration is done after repaving or with an
overlay, and curbs do not need to be changed, there
is little or no cost for space reallocations accom-
plished through new striping.
Lane reducti on in Toronto , Canada , from two to one lane in
eac h di re ction , b i ke lanes, and center two-way, left-turn lanes .
u ser needs, an d potenti al op era tion al and sa fe ty o utc omes .
Other m eas u res could b e imple m e n te d simultan eo usly to
complete the overall re d es ign fo r th e stree t.
Bicycl e Countermeasure Sele ction Sy stem Countermeasures 69
z
U.J
0
0::
=>
CD
z
"' 0
>-CD
~
I a..
<i
>-
Cl)
VJ z
0
~
c:t: >-VJ
::::>
--'
10. REDUCE LANE WIDTH
Roadway lan e narrowing may h elp to reduce ve hicle
sp eeds along a roadway sec ti o n and e nhan ce movement
and safety for bicycli sts as well as p e d es trians. Lane nar-
rowing is b es t us e d w h ere motor ve hicl e sp eeds are low to
e n co ura ge sh ared lane trave l and prevent motorists from
atte mpting to p ass bicyclists w ithin the same lane if there
is insufficient width . Another use would b e to gain sp ace
to str ip e a bicycl e lan e or paved shoulder w h ere motor
ve hicl e sp ee ds and volume are highe r. Lan e w idth re du c-
tions ca n b e ac hie ve d in several diffe rent ways:
a . Lane w idths ca n b e reduced to 3.0 or 3 .4 m (10 or
10.5 ft) and excess p avement strip ed with a bi cycle
lan e or shoulder.
b. Excess lan e width can b e reallocated to parking.
c . The street and lanes can also b e phys ically narrowed by
extending th e c urb for w ider sid ewalks and land sca p e d
buffers, or by adding a raise d m e di an .
--' L-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Before (top) and after (bottom) width of lanes is reduced.
Narrow lanes contri bute t o slow design speed and shared lane
use in downtown Eugen e, OR .
70 Countermeasures Bicycle Countermea su re Se lection System
Purp oses
• Redistribute space to other users , such as to
gain space for bike lanes .
• Narrowing travel lanes may lower motor vehicle
speeds and encourage safer sharing of the road -
way in low speed areas.
Considerations
• Bicyclists must be safe ly accommodated. Bike
lanes, wide curb lanes , or paved shoulders are
needed if motor vehic le volumes and speeds are
high.
• Road narrowing must consider school bus and
emergency service access as wel I as truck vol-
umes.
• Besides narrowing lanes, tightening curb radii is
another way to reduce speeds of turning ve-
hicles.
• Evaluate whether narrowing may encourage traf-
fic to d ivert to other local streets .
Estimated Cost
Adding striped shoulders or on-street bike lanes can
cost as litt le as $620 per km ($1,000 per mi) if the
old paint does not need to be changed. The cost for
restriping a kilometer of street to bike lanes or to
add on-street parking is $3 , 100 to $6,200 ($5,000
to $10,000 per mi), depending on the number of
old lane lines to be removed. Constructing a raised
median or changing the curb alignment (widening
a sidewalk or buffer) can cost $62 ,000 or more per
km ($100,000 or more per mi).
ON-ROAD BIKE FACILITIES
Bicy cl es are ve h icl es and n ee d to b e sa fel y acco mmoda te d
o n our stree ts and roa dways. FHWA h as supporte d ro u-
tine acco nuno dation of bi cy clists (a nd p e d es trian s) since
2000 . This m ea n s that o ur streets should b e d e si gn e d to
acc onuno d ate all m odes, including m o to r ve hicl es, tran sit,
bicycles, an d w alking. Fac ilities that are sa fe, access ibl e and
aes theti call y pleasing attrac t bi cycli sts. E v ide n ce is increas-
ing th at bi cyclist safety improves as m o re bicyc b sts are
p art of the traffic strea m . 1 The c ounte rmeas ures re late d t o
o n-road bi cy cl e fa cili ty d es ign include:
• B ike Lan es
• Wide C urb Lanes
Paved Sh o ulders
C ombination Lan es
C ontrafl ow B ik e La n es
Bike lanes provide bicyc l ist ac c ess on roads conne cting with
bridges and overpasses . (Portland, OR)
Wide c urb lanes provide ro o m for both bi cyc l ists and motor
vehi c les .
Paved shoulders prov ide spa c e for bicyc l ists.
Bicycle Countermeas ur e Sele ction System Countermea sure s 71
z w
0 a:
::::>
CD
z < 0
>
CD
8
0
I a..
<( ::;
u;
--;
<(
>-"' z
0
~ a:
f-
if)
;:) _,
11. BIKE LANES
Bike lan es indica te a prefe re ntial or exclu sive sp ace fo r
bicycl e t rave l alo n g a street . Bike lan es are ty pically 1.2 to
1.8 m (4 t o 6 ft ) in width and are d es ign at ed by striping
and/ or sig n s. C olore d p avement (for example , blu e o r re d
bike lan es) o r a diffe rent pav ing m a terial h as also b ee n
u se d in ce rtain situations to di stinguish bike la n es fro m
the motor ve hicl e lanes. U se o f co lore d bike lanes is b e ing
c onside re d but is not ye t an accepte d MUTC D standard . 2
Bike lan es are u sually m arke d along the ri ght side o f the
roa dway and should b e d es ign a te d to th e left of p arking
o r right-turn lan es. Sometimes bike lan es are m arke d on
the le ft side o f a one-w ay stree t.
Adaptati o n s to bike lan es h ave b een u sed to so lve local
proble m s. An innova ti ve bike lan e transit sto p trea tme nt
in Po rtl and, OR, is u se d to re du ce co nfli c ts betwee n bi -
cycli sts and stree tca r tran sit sto p us er s adj acen t to a bike
lan e (see case study #1 3). (Adapta tion fo r this trea tme nt
sh o uld b e p oss ibl e for a sh are d roadway si tuati o n .) Some
communities al so e mploy co mbination bike and bu s lan es,
a single lan e n ea res t the c urb that is sh are d by th e two
modes. This is ge n e rall y work abl e unless there is con sid er-
abl e bike and bus traffi c .
... · .. ·. ··: :·: ., . . ···.: .·. ·. . ...... . ... ·. ·.
_, L.-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
a:
UJ z a:
;:)
f-
z
~
I
if)
>-"' 0
Bike lan es on a two -lan e roadway .
~ E::....=.:~~~-=:::.....::::::=::::::::==-;;;;;;=-i~~::'.!::::::!I
In Madison , WI , bike lane s have been pla ce d to the left of bus
and right-turn lanes to redu ce co nfli cts for through bi cyc lists.
72 Countermeasure s Bicycle Countermea sure Se le ct ion System
Purposes
• Create on-street , separated travel faci I ities for
bicyclists.
• Provide separate opera tional space for safe mo-
torist overtaking of bicyclists .
• Reduce or prevent the problems associated with
bicyclists overtaking motor vehicles in narrow ,
conges ted areas .
• Narrow the roadway or roadway motor vehicl e
traffic lane s to enco urage lower motor vehic le
speeds.
Considerations
• Where bike lanes are to be considere d , the road
or street should be evaluated to determine if this
facility is appropria te.
• Provide adequate bike lane width .
• Provide a smoothly paved surface and keep the
bike lane free of debris.
• Provide adequate space between the bike lane
and parked c ars so that open doors do not c reate
a hazard for bicyc lists.
• Avoid termination of bike lanes where bicyclists
are left in a vu I nerab le situation.
• Determine if special signs or markings are nec -
essary for situations such as a high-volume of
bike left turns on a busy roadway.
Es ti mated Cost
The cost of installing a bike lane is approximately
$3,100 to $31 ,000 per kilomet er ($5,000 to
$50 ,000 per mi le), depending on the co ndit ion of
the pavement , the need to remove and repaint the
lane l i nes , the need to adjust signalization , and
other factors . It is most cost efficient to create bike
lanes during street reconstr uction, street resurfac-
ing , or at the t i me of original constr uction.
Bike lan es h ave b ee n fo und to p rovide m ore consistent
se p ara tion b etween bi cy cli sts and p ass ing m o to r is ts than
sh are d trave l lanes. T h e prese n ce of the bike lane str ipe
h as also b ee n sh own from researc h to res ult in fewe r er-
r atic motor ve hi cle drive r m an e u ve rs, m ore p re di ctab le
bi cy cli st riding b eh av ior, and e nhan ced co m fo rt leve ls
for both m o torists and bi cy cli sts.3 The extra sp ace cre-
ated for bi cycli sts is al so a b e n e fit o n co n ges t e d roa dways
w h e re bicyclists may b e abl e to p ass m o tor ve hi cles on
the right.
12. WIDE CURB LANES
A wide curb lane (WCL) is the lan e n ea rest the c urb tha t
is wider than a standard lan e and provides extra space so
that th e lane may b e shared by m o tor ve hicl es and bi cycles.
These facilities can also be placed on roa d s without c urb s
a nd are so m e times calle d w id e o utside lan es. WCLs m ay
b e present o n two-lane or mu lti-lan e roads. A d es irable
w idth is 4.3 m (14 ft), not including the gutte r pan area.
La n es wider than 4.3 m (14 ft) some times result in the op-
e ration of two motor ve hicl es side by sid e. Howeve r, the
WCL m ay n ee d to b e 4.6 m (15 ft) in w idth w h ere drain-
age gra t es, raise d refl ectors, or on-street p arking redu ce
the u sa bl e lane width. W CLs are sometimes d es ignated
w h e n right-of-way co nstraints preclude th e install ation
of "full width" bike lanes. W CLs are so metimes put in
place by re-strip in g, es pecially when a section of ro ad way
is resurfa ced, by nar rowing th e other trave l lan es.
Wide curb lane in Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
WCL advoca tes b eli eve that th ese wider lanes e n co urage
bicyclists to operat e more like motor ve hicl es a nd thus
lea d to more correct positioning at inte r sec tions, p articu-
larl y for left-turnin g maneu vers. A previous FHWA pub-
lica tion recommends WCLs in many kinds of roadway
si tuations where m ost bicy clists are experience d riders.4
Since W CLs are a sha re d-lan e traffic situ atio n, th ey are
not signed o r marke d like a bike lan e wo uld b e.As a result,
ma ny bicyclists do not know of their exis tence or utili ty
as a bicycle fac ility. More detail on the comfort and safety
ofWCLs can be found in Hunter e t al ., 1999, and H arkey
e t al., 199 6.3•5
Purposes
• Crea t e on-street t ravel facil ities for bicyclists .
• Crea t e a la ne w ide eno ugh so that motor vehic les
a nd b icycles ha ve adequate room to share the
la ne during overtaking .
Considerations
• Wh ere WCLs are t o be cons idered, th e road or
st ree t shou ld be evaluated to determi ne if t h is
fac i I ity is approp ri ate .
• Pro vid e appro pri ate WC L w i dth , es pec ial ly wh ere
drai nage grates or other factors red uce the us-
able lane wid t h .
• Co ns ider the use of "S hare th e Lane" s igning if
used on a heavi ly traveled roadway .
• Co nsider the use of a stenci I such as the Sha red
Arrow or the SHARR OW (deve loped i n San Fran-
c isco) to help wi t h proper bicyclist placement
w ithin the WCL and to enco u rage bicycl ists to
t ra ve l i n same di rection as mo t or ve hi c le tra ffi c .
• Truck traffic shou l d not exceed five percent of
the t ot al mo t or vehicle tra f fic.
Estimated Cost
Norma lly, the o nly cost assoc iat ed with WCLs is fo r
re -str i p in g the road way. A bal l park cost for large
stripi ng is $5 ,500 per km ($3,470 per mi). It is
most c ost effic ie nt t o crea t e WCLs duri ng st reet
reco nstru ction , st ree t resu rfacing , or at t he time of
origina l construction.
Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System Countermeasure s 73
13. PAVED SHOULD ERS
P ave d shoulder s are ve ry similar to bike lan es as a bicy cl e
fa c ility. The p ave ment e d ge line for the p ave d sh o uld er
provides sep arat e d spa ce for the bicyclist mu ch like a bike
lan e . D ep e nding on th e situ ation, the width o f the shoul-
d e r s m ay vary. If the p ave d shoulde r is less than 1.2 m ( 4
ft) in width it should not b e des ignat e d or m arke d as a bi-
cycl e fa cility. W i dths ar e ty pi call y a fun c ti o n o f amount of
bicy cl e usa ge, motor ve hicle sp ee ds , p e rcentage of tru ck
and bus traffi c, e tc., although widths ar e some times purely
a fun c tion of ava il able right-of-way. More p ave d shoulde r
d es ign d e tails are give n in the AASHTO G reen Book. 5
Prior re sea rch ha s shown that p aved shoulde r s te nd to
res ult in few e r e rrati c m o tor ve hicl e drive r m a n e u ve r s,
more pre di c ta ble bi cycli st riding b e h av ior and enhan ced
c omfort levels for both m o torists and bi cycli sts.3
C olo re d should e rs have b een u se d in Eu rope to visu all y
narrow the ro adway. This technique ha s b ee n tried in Ta-
vares, FL, whe re a sec ti on of roadway added p ainte d re d
shoulders (see case study #14).The inte nt was to prov ide
increa se d room and comfort for walker s and bic yc li sts.
The 0 .6 km (1 mi) trea t e d sec tion of ro ad way w as a two-
lan e rural ro ad way with ap proxi m at ely 1,700 ve hicles p er
Red shoulders in Tavares , FL .
Bike pocket striped to the left of a right -turn lane aids through
bicyc l ists using a paved shou lder fa c ili ty.
74 Countermea sures Bi cycle Countermea sure Selection Sy stem
Purposes
• Create t ravel facilit ies for bicyclists.
• Create separated space for b icyclists.
• Reduce or prevent t he problems assoc iated with
bic ycl ist s overtak i ng mo t or vehicles i n narrow,
congest ed areas .
Considerations
• Provide adequate widt h by taking into account
factors such as the a m ount of bicyc l e usage, mo -
to r ve hi c le speeds, pe rcen t age of tr uck and bus
tra ff ic, etc .
• Pro v ide ride-able space for bicyclists if rumble
st r i ps are used.
• Exam in e alternative space for bicyc l ists if there
are in t ersecting side stree t s.
• Pro vid e a smooth ly pa ved surface a nd keep free
of debr is.
Estimated Cost
Paved shoulder costs can be quite variab le. Using
da t a from Iowa DOT average contract prices for cal-
endar year 2000 , a min i mum design width of 1.2
m (4 ft) of paved shoulder width to accommodate
bicycle t raff ic was est im at ed at $44,000 per km
($71 ,000 per mi).8
d ay and had a 5 6 km/h (35 mi/h ) sp eed limit. E ve n aft e r
the ro adway was w ide n e d , th e u se of the re d sh o ulde r s re-
sulte d in motor ve hicl e sp ee ds similar to th e b e fore (n a r-
rowe r roadway) situation.6
Browa rd County, FL , ha s exp erimente d w ith an o ther
p ave d should er va ri ation. Undes ign ate d lanes 0.9 m (3 ft )
h ave b ee n imple m e nte d on a numbe r o f ro adways w hi c h
fo rme rl y h ad w ide 4.3 m (14 ft ) curb lanes in place (i .e.,
3 .4 m (11 ft) trave l lane and 0. 9 m (3 ft ) undes ign ated lan e).
The lan es w e re left as undes ignate d b eca u se they were too
n arrow to b e referred to as bike lan es .The striping res ulte d
in a d elineated, alth o u gh sub-standard , sp ace for bicy clists
to o p e rate on these roa dways (see case study #15).7
Rumbl e strips are o ft e n us ed on sh o ulde rs to al e rt sleepy
o r inatte ntive m o to rists, but th ere is co n sid e rabl e d e b ate
a b o ut w h at kinds of d es ign s are sa fe o r appropriate fo r
bi cy cl es.AASHTO re comme nds that 1.2 m (4 ft ) ofride-
abl e surfac e should b e prese nt fo r bi cycli sts if rumble
strip s are used o n a shoulder.
(/)
(/)
0
"" "" ::::>
I
f-a:
<(
>-"' 8
0
I
0..
14. COMBINAT I ON LANES
A combination lane usually refers to a lane neares t the curb
which serves va rious modes of traffic or move m ents. An
example would b e a transit-bicycle lane. Generally suc h
multiple u ses are opera tionally accep table unless the re is
co nsid erable bus and bike traffic . Signs mi ght identify this
lane as a priority BUS AND RI G HT TURNS ONLY
EXCEPT BIKES. Another signing alternative is BICY-
CLES BUSES AND RIGHT TURNS ONLY. The lan e
wo uld accommod at e bus traffic , motor ve hicl es m aking
right turns, and bicycles w h e re it is not fe as ible to provide
se parate facili ti es.
These combination lanes are n ot w ithout proble m s. If
there is a sh ortage of bus and bike traffic, the lane ca n
b e come another p ea k hour traffic lane. Provision of com-
bina tion lanes on arterial streets with on-and off-ramps
c re ates a diffi c ult riding situ ation for bicyclists.
This combination lane in Madison, WI , has little bus and bike
traffic, which ca n result in use of the lane by other motor
vehi cles at peak hours .
If bus and bike traffi c need to be separated, the bus lane is
usually n earest the c u rb, which reduces confli c ts b e tween
buses accessing stops and bicy cle s trave ling through, and
b e tween bus passengers and bicy cli sts. Se p arat e d lan es
sho u ld re duce co nflicts ass ociated w ith bu ses moving in
and out of a sin gle bus and bike lane.
Communities with shared bike /bus lan es include Santa
Cruz, CA; Philad elphia, PA; Tucson, AZ (case study #16);
and Toronto, ON.
Purposes
• Crea t e on-st ree t t ravel faci l ities for bicyclists
w here it is no t fe asible t o provide a complete ly
sepa rate bicyc le facility or lane.
• Create separated space from higher-speed traffic
la nes for bicyclists.
Considerations
• Pro vi de approp ri at e lane width.
• Pro vi de approp ri at e sig ns.
• Eva lu ate the amount of ri ght-turn i ng motor
vehicles to deter m ine if the use of a combinati on
lane is appropr iate .
• Dete rmine if spec ial signs or markings are nec-
essary for sit uat ions such as a hig h vo l ume of
mo t or veh ic le rig ht turns .
• Ampl e bus and b ike traffic may create a "leap
frog" effect wi th buses and bikes pass i ng each
other frequent ly.
Estimated Cost
The cost for mark in gs and s igns for a b us-bike la ne
is in t he range of about $100 per sign, pos t ed
about every 0.2 km (eighth of a mile), and painted
paveme nt symbols spaced throughout.
Use of a bike lane next to a bus lane in Madison, W I.
Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System Countermeasures 75
-' u z
::::>
0 u
w
-' u >-~
"' Cl z
<(
z ::,;
"" f-
(/) w
Cl w
0..
w
~
"" w z
"" ::::>
f-
z
~
I
(/)
>-"' 8
0
I
0..
15. CONTRAFLOW BI KE LANES
Bicycli sts are exp ec te d to fo llow es tablish ed rules-of-th e-
ro ad . A partic ular exa mple is r idi ng in th e same direc tion
as motor ve hicl e traffi c. H oweve r, th ere are certain situ -
ati o n s w h e re th e pl acement of a bi cycle lane co unter to
the normal flow of traffi c may in c rease safety or improve
access for bi cy clists. For exa mple, connectivity m ay b e
e nhan ced, and o ut-of-the-way d e tours and wron g-way
riding redu ce d , if a c ontraflow bike lan e is designa te d on
so m e one-way stree ts, all owin g bi cyc li sts to r ide aga inst
the main flo w of traffic.
It sh o ul d b e m ad e clear that th ere are safety concerns as-
sociate d w ith contraflo w riding, as this places bi cy cl es in
a p os iti o n w h e re motorists do not expect to see th e m.
Thu s, a carefu l assess m ent should b e m ade before instal -
lation. Howeve r, there is precedent for opposite direc tion
riding that e m an at es fr om Europ e, w h ere cycli sts are of-
te n all owed to r id e in the op posite direc tion o n one-way
stree ts, u sually w ith slow moto r vehicl e traffic. The co n -
traflow bike lane is a sp eciali ze d bi cycle fac ility th at can
be u se d in partic ul ar si tuations and is intended to reduce
th e number of co nfli c ts between bi cy cl es and motor ve-
hicl es. The fac il ity al so woul d b e inte nded t o save time b y
preve nting cy cli sts h aving t o trave l an extra distan ce t o
ride in the sa m e directi on as motor ve hicl es. Co ntraflo w
lan es m ay also all ev iate r iding o n a high spee d , high vo l-
un1 e route.
Contraflow bike lan es can be fo und in cities in the Unit-
e d States w ith large numbers of bi cyclists, including Cam -
bridge, MA (see case study #18); B o uld er, CO; M adison,
Blue pavement was use d to increase co nspi cuity of this co n-
traflow lan e in Cambridge, MA .
76 Countermeasures Bicycle Count ermeasure Se le ction System
Purposes
• Create specialized on-street faci I it ie s for bicy -
c li sts .
• Enhance bik e connec t ivity.
• Reduce out -of-direct ion r iding on a one-way
street netwo rk .
Considerations
• I nsta 11 contraflow lanes on the correct side of the
st reet , i .e . on the left side facing the one-way
traffic .
• Where contraflow bike lanes are considered , the
road or street shou ld be evaluated to determine
if this facility is appropriate.
• Provide adequate bike lane width .
• Provide approp r iate pavement markings and
sign ing along the route .
• Consider whether co lored pavement in the co n-
traflow lane is needed.
• Avoid ter mination of contraflow bike lanes where
bicyc li sts are left in a vulnera b le situation.
• Avoid situat ions where there are many driveways ,
alleys, or streets that would intersect with th e
contra flow lane.
• Determine if there is room for a regu lar bike lane
in the dire cti on of motor vehicle travel on the op-
posite side of the street.
• Determ i ne if exist in g traffic signals need to be
modified with loop detectors or push buttons to
accommodate bicyc lists .
• Ensure contraflow b ik e lanes are legal under lo -
cal traffic laws .
Estimated Cost
The cost of installing a normal bike lane is approxi-
mately $3,100 to $31,000 per kilometer ($5 ,000
to $50,000 per mile), depending on the condition
of the pavement , the need to remove and repaint
the lane l ines , the need to adjust signa l ization , and
other factors. Depending on complexity, such cos ts
could also be associated with contraflow bike lanes.
However, the most Ii kely additiona l costs wou Id
pertain to thermoplastic bike symbols and arrows
or in lay b i ke symbols and arrows . It is most cost-
efficient t o create co ntraflow or normal bike lanes
during street reconstruc ti on, street resurfacing , or
at the tim e of origi na l construction .
z w
0
"' ::::>
tI)
z
"" 0
>-(I)
~
0
J:
0..
WI; and Eugene, OR. A Madison co ntraflow lan e exists
on a street with high traffic volumes. In this case, the con-
traflow lane is se p arated from m otor ve hicl e traffic w ith a
raised m edian (see case study #17).
Separated contraflow bike lan e in Boulder, CO.
Bicy cle Counte rmea sure Selection System Cou ntermea sures 77
INTERSECTION TREATMENTS
Over half of all bicycle-motor vehicle crashes occur at
or near inte r sec tions or other junctions. Improvem ents
at these lo ca tions have the potential to significa ntly in-
crease safety. Specialized intersection markings that m ay
h elp bicyclists and motorists safely nav igate through in-
te rs ec tions and us e of innovative techniqu es, suc h as bike
boxes, are ga ining more prominence in some co mmuni-
ti es. Other measures are designed to reduce confl ic t areas
at intersections. It is also important to try to slow motor
ve hicle spee ds through in tersections to reduce both th e
number and seve rity of intersection co lli sions, and some
of the treatments d escribed below pertain to this objec-
tive . Other measures to slow sp ee ds m ay be found in the
Traffic Calming section. The co unte rmeasures included
in this sec tion are as follows:
78
Curb Radii Revisions
Roundabouts
Inters ec tion Markings
Sight Distance Improvements
Turning Restrictions
M erge and Weave Area Redesign
Countermeasures Bicyc le Countermeasure Selection System
A roundabout i nterse ction design should force slow trave l speeds.
Reducing t he curb radius by ex t ending the curb and realigning
skewed intersections can improve intersection safety.
>-U.J
3: er
U.J
"' :5
er
U.J t;:;
CL
>-ID
~
0
I
CL
<i
>-ID
</) z
0
~ a:: e-
</)
:::>
_J
16. CURB RADII REVISIONS
Motor ve hicles turning at a high rate of sp eed pose prob-
lems for bicyclists (as w ell as p edestrian s).This is a common
problem w h en motorists traveling o n an arterial street turn
o nto a res idential stree t . A typical bicycle -motor ve hicle
cras h typ e, so metimes call ed a "right hook," o cc urs w h e n
a motor ve hicl e p asses a bicycl e going straight ah ea d and
then turns right sho rtl y aft er m aking the p ass ing m an e uve r.
Reducing th e radii of curbs at these high sp ee d right turns
provi d es a rem edy. Creating 90-degree inter sec tion corner s
o r corner s w ith ti gh t curb radii tend to slow m o torists.
_J L-~~---'-~~~~--':......;"'"-'---""'"'--""-"'~~~~~~~~
Before (top) and after (bo ttom) curb rad iu s is reduced.
Purposes
• Create a safer interse ctio n design.
• Slow ri ght-turning motor vehicles .
• Lessen likelihood of "right hook" crashes.
Considerations
• Wher e curb rad i i revision is to be co nsidered , the
roa d or street should be evalu ated to determine
if appropriate for th is faci I ity.
• Make sure that pu blic maintenance vehi c le s,
sc hool buses, emergency vehicles , and typica l
trucks and buses can be accommodated.
• Determine if the presence of on-street parking
a nd /or bike lanes help to tighten the radii more
than the norm .
Estimated Cost
Costs for reconstruct in g a curb to a tighter radius
c an vary from approximate ly $5 ,000 to $40,00 0 ,
depending on site conditions (e.g ., the amount of
concre t e and landscaping that is requ ired , whether
drain grates and oth er utilit ies have t o be moved,
a nd w hethe r there are other issues that need to be
addressed).
Some comm u nities routinely re du ce c urb radii at loca-
ti o n s whe re the routes: (1 ) are use d by sc hoo lchildren or
the el d erl y, (2) are in n e ighbo rhood sh o pping areas with
hi gh bicycl e and p e d es trian volu m es, and (3) are at par-
ti c ul ar inte rsec tion s known to h ave a sa fety proble m (see
case study #20). A lo g ical st e p is to ev alu ate th e curb radii
alo n g a co rrido r fr e que nte d by b icycli sts, al o n g with a
lighter curb radii at obtuse angle corners forces slower motor-
ist turns . (Seatt le, WA)
Bi cyc le Counte rm easure Select ion System Coun termea sures 79
study of the cra sh typ es. Care must b e u se d w h e n revising
c urb radii o n routes w ith truck and bu s traffic. If a curb
radiu s is m ad e too sm all , large tru c ks and bu ses m ay ride
ove r the c urb or may veer o ut into an adj acen t tra ffi c lan e
to m ake the turn .
Wh e n the re is p arking and/ o r a bike lan e, c urb r adii ca n
b e ti ghte r, b eca u se th e motor ve hicles w ill h ave m o re
room to n egotiate the turn . Olde r citi es in E urope and in
the n o rtheas t Unite d States fr e quently h ave c urb radii of
0 .6 to 1.5 m (2 to 5 ft) w itho ut suffering any d e trimental
effec ts. M o re typicall y, howeve r, in n ew co n struc tion th e
appropriat e turning radiu s is ab o ut 4 .6 m (15 ft ) and ab o ut
7 .6 m (2 5 ft) fo r arte rial streets w ith a substan tial numbe r
o f turning buses and/ or truc ks. Tighte r tu rning radii are
p arti c ularl y important w h ere stree ts intersec t at a skew.
While the corne r c h arac terize d by an acute an gl e m ay
re quire a sli ghtly larger radiu s to ac commoda te the turn-
in g m an e uvers, th e c orner w ith an obtuse an gle sh o uld b e
ke pt ve ry ti ght t o preve nt hi gh-sp ee d turns.
80 Countermeasures Bicycle Counterme as ure Selection Sy stem
17 . ROUNDABOUTS
A modern roundabout is built with a large, u suall y c irc u-
lar, rai se d island lo ca te d at th e inte r sec tion of two or more
stree ts and may take the pl ace of a signali ze d inte rsec ti on.
Traffi c m an e uvers around th e circl e in a co unte rclo ckw ise
direction , and th en turns right onto th e d es ired stree t .
Entering traffic yields to traffi c in th e roundabout, and
le ft-turn movements are elimjnated. Unlike a sign ali ze d
intersection, ve h icl es ge n erall y fl ow and m e rge throu gh
the ro u ndabout from eac h approaching stree t without
having to stop. If prope rl y d es ign e d , roundabouts force
slow inte r section sp eed s and re duce th e numbe r of con-
flict areas. 1
Bicyc l ists may safely share space with motor vehicles in low-
speed, single-lane roundabouts.
Roundab o uts n ee d to acc onunodate bi cy cli sts and p e-
d es trian s. It is important that moto r ve hicl e traffi c y ields
to p ed es trians cro ss ing at the rou n dabout. Splitter islands
at th e approaches sl ow ve hicl es and allow p e d es trians to
cross one traffic lan e at a time. Single-lane approac h es can
b e d es ign ed to keep speeds down to safer levels and allow
p ede strians to cro ss. Multi-lane roundabouts te nd to h ave
hi gher motor ve h icl e sp ee ds and crea te more co nfli c ts b e -
twee n bi cycles (a nd p edes trian s) and motor ve hicles.
Unless the roa d lea ding to a roundabout h as two lanes,
slow motor ve hicle traffic spee ds , a nd low traffi c vo lumes,
bi cy clists m ay have difficulty nav igating the roundabout .
Marking bike lan es through th e roundabout h as not b een
shown to be sa fer and may ac tu all y be less safe . In hi gh
volume, mutli-lane roundabouts, an off-road share d p ath
m ay b e n ee d ed for bi cyclis ts. Such a trea tment d elays and
in co nveruences bi cy cli sts but may improve safety.
N ational Coo p e rat ive Hig hway R esea rch Progra m Proj-
ec t 3-65, "Applying R o undabouts in th e Unite d States,"
is sc h edul ed to b e completed in 2006. Th e objectives of
Purposes
• Provi de good t raffi c ma nagement wh ere the
in t ersection is large and complex.
• Re pl ace a t raffic signal that is expe ri encing
hea vy traffic bac k up and congestion.
• Red uce speeds at intersect ion .
• Crea t e a gateway into an area.
Considerations
• B ik e lanes sho ul d genera ll y be discontinued
whe n leading to low-speed roundabo uts. Bi-
cyc les are expec t ed to merge wi t h the flow of
tra f f ic -a low design speed is required .
• St ree t widths and/or available right-of-way need
to be sufficie nt t o accommodate a properly de-
sig ned roundabo ut.
• Rou ndabouts oft e n work best where th ere is a
high percentage of left-turning traffic .
• De fl ection on eac h leg of the intersection mus t
be se t to con t ro l speeds to 24 to 29 km/h ( 15 to
18 mi /h).
Estimated Cost
The cost for a landscaped roundabout varies wide ly
and ca n range from $45 ,000 to $150,000 for
ne igh borh ood intersections and up to $250,000 for
arter ia l st reet inte rsec ti ons, not i nc l udi ng additio na l
right-of-way acquisition. Yet, roundabouts have lo wer
ongoing maintenance costs than traffic signals .
Mou ntable curbs pr ovide access for buses, trucks , and emer-
gency vehicles .
this project are to : (1) d evelo p m e th ods of es timating th e
safety and op era tiona l impacts of U.S. roundabo uts, in-
Bicycle Counte rm easure Selection System Countermeasures 81
z
dueling a tho rou gh exa min ati o n o f interac ti o n s b e twee n
motor ve hicl es and p e d es trian s and bi cycli sts, a nd (2) re-
fin e th e d es ign crite ria u se d fo r them .2
Bike lanes should be disco ntinued before roundabouts .
~ !-"'=---.
a::
::::>
"' z
<(
0
>-"' 0
b
I
0..
Sp litter islands and narrow c urb rad ii slow speeds approach in g
th e roundabo ut.
82 Countermeasures Bicyc le Countermeasure Se lec ti on System
18. INTERSECTION MARKINGS
Some 5 0 to 70 p e rcent of bicycle-motor ve hicl e crashes
occur at intersec tions or othe r junctions su ch as driveways.
Intersec tion m arkings are one method of helping bicy-
clists n egotiate these proble m are as . The AASHTO Guide
for th e D eve lopment ef Bicycle Fac ili ties di sc usses recom-
mended pla ce ment of bike lan e striping for various kinds
o f intersections.3 The g uid e al so c overs sp ecial situ ati ons
where the re are high numbe rs of right-turning motor ve-
hicl es a n d w h ere auxili ary r ight-turn lanes are n eed ed .
Bike pockets may b e u se d to direct bi cyclists to the b es t
placement in th e inte rs ec tion. Bike po cke ts pla ced n ext
to a roadway ce nterline m ay also b e u se d to m ake it eas ie r
for bicyclists to n egotiate an offset intersec tion.
Th is bike pocke t pos itions bicyc les to the left of righ t -turning
moto r ve hi c les.
So m e times da sh ed lin es are u se d to indi ca te the proper
p ath for the bicycl e in a co mplex inte rs ec tion . Colore d
pavement m ay also b e u se d for this purpose, as well as t o
indicate the weav ing area for bi cycles and motor ve hicl es
w h e n right-turning motor ve hicles cross th e p ath of bicy-
cles in a bike lan e . The inte nt is to increase aware n ess and
sa fe b e h aviors by both cy cli sts and m o torists and yielding
behaviors by motorists.
Other kinds o f markings are available for u se at inter-
sec tions . Bike box is the te rm that has ga ine d popular-
ity in th e Unite d States for a European treatment u sually
known as the advanc ed stop b ar. The box is a right-angle
ext e n sio n to a bike lane at the h ea d of the inte r section
(see drawing). The box allows bicycli sts to ge t to the h ea d
of the traffic que u e on a red traffic signal indica tion and
then proceed first when the traffi c sign al ch anges to g reen .
Such a m ovement is b eneficial to bi cycli sts and eliminates
co nflicts when, for example, th e re are m any right-turning
motor ve hicl es n ext t o a right-side bike lane. B eing in the
Purposes
• Create on -s tree t t ravel faci I ities for bicyclists .
• Create separated space for bicyc l ists .
• Inc rease awareness and safe beha v iors by both
cyc l ists and m otorists .
Considerations
• Wh ere intersec ti on mark i ngs are to be consid -
ered , the road or street should be evaluated to
de t er mine w hat markings are appropriate.
• Pr ovi de adequate widt h if space is created for
cyc li sts.
• Pro v ide appropria t e signs.
• Use marking and sign configurations that
enco urage the weaving of bicycles and motor ve-
hic les where there are adequate gaps in traffic,
us ua l ly in advance of the intersection proper.
Estimated Cost
Costs w i l l be variable, depending on the type of
marking used. For a combination b i ke lane-ri g ht
turn la ne, costs i nc lu de paint (regular, not thermo-
plastic) removal , new thermoplastic paint , one sign
place d in ground and another sign up ne xt to signal
head fo r approxi m ate ly $1,500 parts and labo r. If
tratfic loops have to be moved, the cost would be an
extra $1 ,000 per lane .
z
U.J
0 er
::>
"' z
<(
0
>-"' 0
~:i:~..:::~~~::::~~:::~~~~ .. ~~iilliiilii ~
Dashed li nes may assist both bicyclists and drivers in co mp lex
i ntersections .
Bicycle Countermeasure Se le ction System Countermeasures 83
z
b ox, and thus at t h e front o f th e traffic qu e u e, also te nds to
m ake bi cy clists more vi sibl e to motorists. R ecesse d sto p
lin es o p e rate simil arl y. Th ese tre atme nts sh o uld only b e
con sidere d w h e re the re, are a co n side rabl e numbe r of d ai-
ly bicy cl e commute r s. Multi-lan e stree ts w ith high tra ffi c
vo lume sh o uld b e ca re full y evalu ate d to b e su re th e trea t-
m e nt would b e sa fe. (S ee case study #26.)
---- -
-------- -
--- ------ --- -
-- -
1111111111 ·111
t fo
t (
This innovative bike box was us ed in a one -wa y st reet with a
left side bike lane in Eugene , OR .
Ano the r exa m p le is a co mbination bi cycle la n e-r ight-
turn lan e at an inte rsec ti o n. There are m any inte r sec ti o n s
w h e re u sing a minimu m-wid th bike lan e is not poss ibl e
du e t o limite d r ight-of-way. T h e u se of a sha re d , n arrow
ri ght-turn lan e in combinati o n with a bike lan e in a lim-
ite d right-of-w ay situ ati on is a novel approac h . T his trea t-
0 .-~~~~~~~~~~~~ ........ .-~~--.~....,.....,,.....,....,....., ~ >-0:
0
0..
<J) z
<(
0: >-
u..
0
w u
(;:
u..
~ l-ill ..... ~!!ii
0
ci z s >-0:
0
0..
u..
0
~ u
> "' ~
0
I
0..
84
A bicy c le -only c enter-turn lane in Portland , OR , helps bi cy-
c lists navigate an offset intersec t io n .
Countermeasures Bi cycle Countermeasure Selection Sy stem
m e nt could b e appli e d in i!1iti al inte rsec tion des ign , whe n
re trofitting a bike lan e to an existin g ri g ht-of-way, and
w h e n adding a n a uxilia r y right-turn lan e . This innova-
tive applica tion is use d in Euge n e, OR, to allo w straight-
through bi cy cli sts to sh are a n arrow r ig ht-turn lan e w ith
m o t o ri sts. At th e i n t er sec tion prope r, the total ri ght-turn
lan e w idth is 3.6 m (12 ft), whic h includ es a bike lan e
(po cke t) o f 1 .5 m (5 ft ) and a 2 .1 m (7 ft) sp ace to th e
right o f th e bike p ocke t . D e p e nding o n the size o f the
motor ve hicle, the bi cy cl e could b e p os itione d in fr o nt of,
b es id e o r b e hind the motor ve hicl e in this c ombina ti on
lan e. (See case study #2 1.)
T h e city o f Po rtland , OR, h as use d sp ec ial m arkings to
direct bicycl es arou n d a stree t car trans it stop in th e vicini ty
o f a bike lan e (see case study #13) and to prov id e bi cycl e
access thro u gh an offse t inter sec ti o n (see case study #23).
5
_J
::;: «
I
(/)
UJ
_J a:: «
I u
>-CD
~
I
19. SIGHT DISTANCE IMPROVEMENTS
Ad equ ate sight di stan ce is vital fo r safe bi cycling. Bi cyc li sts
need to see th e movements o f m o to r ve hicl es, and vice
ve rsa. Intersec tions are o ft e n areas w h e re a numbe r of sigh t
distan ce p ro bl em s o cc ur. For exa mpl e, on-stree t p arking
of motor ve hicles ca n res trict the view. Tre es, shrubbery,
and oth e r fl o ra can al so imped e th e line of sight. Imprope r
place m e nt of signs ca n d ec rease sight di stance. Skewe d in-
tersec ti ons, w h ere cro ss stree ts are g rea te r o r le ss than 90
degrees, can m ake it di ffi cult to see o the r ve hicles, as well as
inc rease th e exposu re of bi cyc li sts (or p ed es tri an s) cro ss ing
the stree t . P ro blem s similar to the ab ove al so ofte n occ u r
w h ere driveways intersect w ith stree ts.
Realigning skewe d or obtuse -angle intersections im prove s
sight angles fo r intersectin g roadways.
Sight di stan ce problems ca n also occur away from inte r-
sec tions due to ve r ti cal c urves . U se o f th e SHARE THE
ROAD sign (see case study #41) w o uld b e appropriate o n
roa ds or stree ts w ith signifi ca nt bi cy cl e traffi c.
a.. L---~-'=,,_
Trans it stop pla cement can impact sight distan ce at jun ction s.
Purposes
• Improve the abi lity to see other modes of traffi c.
• Inc rea se aware ne ss and safe behav iors by bot h
cycl ists and motorists .
• Increas e reac tion ti me .
• Decreas e stopp in g distance .
Considerations
• Determine whet her on -street parking is neces-
sa ry.
• Determin e the mo st appro pr ia t e kind of parking
if neces sary .
• Provide appro priate sig ns at street i ntersectio ns
and problem driveways.
• Prov ide the appropriate ki nd s of trees , shrub -
bery, and flora .
• Place street furnit ure so sight distance is not
red uced.
• Determine if skewed intersections should be
rea ligne d .
Estimated Cost
Costs wi II vary depe nding o n the treatment. Re -
st r i ping m ay be a ll that is necessary to eliminate
unnecessary parking . The cost of s ign removal or
relocatio n is dependent on the size of th e signing.
T he sa me would a lso be true for remova l of trees,
shrub bery , and other flo ra .
Bi cyc le Counter mea sure Select ion Sy stem Coun termea sur es 85
20. TURNING RESTRICTIONS
A frequent c rash type involves a colli sion b e tween a bi-
cycle and a turning motor ve hicle. One scenario involves
a bicyclist going straight ahead and an oncoming motorist
turning left at an intersection or into a driveway. If th e
motorist is intent on finding a gap b etween oncoming
motor vehicles, h e or she may fai l to recognize an ap-
proaching bicyc list. Another sce nario involves motor ve-
hicles turning right on red.This is a p ar ti c ular problem for
bicycles riding against traffic.
A permissibl e Right T u rn On R ed (RTOR) was 111-
troduced in th e 1970s as a fuel -saving measure and h as
sometimes h ad detrimental effec ts on bi cycling.Whil e th e
law requires motorists to come to a full stop and yield
to cross-street traffic , including bicycli sts (and pedes tri-
ans), before turning right on red, many motorists do not
fully comply with the regulations, especially at intersec-
tions with wide turning radii. In addition, motorists are
so intent in looking for traffic approaching on their left
that they m ay not b e alert to bicyclists (or pedestrians)
approaching on their right. Motorists also ofte n pull into
th e crosswalk area to wait for a gap in traffic, which may
put them directly in the path of bicyclists (or pedestrians)
cross ing in the crosswalk.
In locations where th ere is bicycle traffic, u se of signs pro -
hibiting certa in turning movements may be warranted.
One example is the standard sign preventing motor ve-
hicles from turning left, usually plac ed over the roadway
or at a left-hand c orn er of the intersec tion. The sign m ay
be install ed adjacent to a signal face viewed by motorists
in the left lan e. Prohibiting RTOR sh o uld be considered
as well (also with high pedestrian vo lumes). This ca n be
done with a simple sign posting at the right-hand co rn e r
of the intersection. The sign may also b e installed adjacent
to a signal face viewed by motorists in the right lan e.
There are so me options that are more effec tive than a
sta ndard sign. For example, one option is a large r 762
86 Counterm eas ures Bicycle Counter measure Selection System
Purposes
• In crease bicycle (and pedestrian) safety and
decrease crashes with t urning motor vehi c les .
• I ncrease safety in c ro sswalks.
Considerations
• Signs should be used where necessary and not
overused. Overuse of signs breeds non-compli -
ance and disrespect.
• Traffic signs used on public propert y must com-
ply with the Manua l on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (M UTCD).
• Signs should be p laced in clearly visible loca -
tions.
• Signs should be checked to assure adequate
nighttime reflectivity.
Estimated Cost
Sign costs are variab le but typi cally range from $30
to $150. In stallation may cost another $200. Elec-
tronic signs are apprec iab ly more expensive.
NO
TURN
ON
RED
mm by 914 mm (30 in by 36 in) NO TURN ON RED
sign , w hich is more co nspi c uou s. For areas where left
and right turns are acce ptable during certain times,
time-of-day r es tric tions may b e appropriate u sing vari-
ab le-m essage signs.
A partial restri ction may prohibit left turns except for bi-
cy cl es and transit . Such sign s could be used in conjunc tion
with bicycle bouleva rds or othe r low-volume, low-speed
streets to not only reduce conflicts at th e inte rsectio n , but
h elp create a preferen tial bicyclin g cross -stree t. Turns m ay
also b e restricted with diverters and partial diverters.
...;
<( ,..
"' z
0
~
"' 1-
(/)
::>
..J
..J
f-
0
0
z
0
'-" w
"" 0 z
:3
0..
z :::
"" f-
(/) w
0 w
0..
0 z
<(
w
__J
CJ >-CJ
iii
z
0
'-" w
"" 0
:>'
0
"" LL
z
0
~
"" f-
(/)
::::l
__J
21. MERGE AND WEAVE AREA REDESIGN
Merge area s th at affec t bicycli sts are typically associa ted w ith
intersections. Generally the pavem ent markings are for lane
se paration, for indicating an ass igned p ath or co rrec t posi-
tion for the bicycli st, and for informatio n about upcoming
turning and crossing maneuvers.The Manual efUniform Traf
fie Contro l D ev ices (MUTCD) is the national standard for all
pavement m arkings (as we ll as signs and signals).4
P ave ment m arkings, su c h as bike pockets adj ace nt to left-
or right-turn motor ve hicl e traffi c lanes, can b e u sed to
make bi cycling sa fer. Double left-and right-turn lanes
are particularly difficult for bicyclists. Long merge areas
or high sp ee d merges for motorist left turns are also prob-
le ms for bi cy cli sts nee ding to make left turns. Local ge o-
m e tric d es ign tailoring may be n ee d e d on stree ts w ith
these ch aracteristics that al so have a co n sider able number
of bicyclists in the traffi c stream .
In addition to inte rsection problems, bicycli sts often ride
on arterials or urban p arkways whic h may contain so m e
fr eeway-sty le d es igns su ch as merge lane s and exi t ramps.
If there is bicycle traffic on th ese roadways then it is likely
that a bike lan e or pave d shoulder w ill b e ava ilable. The
1995 Oregon Bicycle and Pedes trian Plan h as a goo d de sc rip-
tion of the problems that can occur and potential so lutions,
and the desc ription below is adap ted from the plan.5
Fo r the m erge lane or e ntrance lan e situation, seve ral
problems exis t:
• The angle of ap proac h creates visibili ty proble m s.
• Motor ve hicl es are accele rating to m er ge with traffic
OBR1-2-24
Purposes
• Provide for sa f er merging of bicycles with motor
vehicle tra ffic.
• Improve sight distance and awareness for bi-
cyc le s and motor veh ic le s invo lv ed in potential
co nfli c t s at en t ry and ex it ramps .
Considerations
• Where entry and ex it ramp revi sio ns are to be
co nside red, the road or street shou ld be evalu-
ated to determine if appropr iat e for this facility.
• Determine if oth er sight distance improvements
need t o be made.
• Try to avoid doub le le ft-and double ri gh t-tu rn
situa tion s for bicyclists.
Estimated Cost
Construction cos t s for reconstructing a tighter turn-
in g rad iu s are approx im ately $2 ,000 to $20 ,000
per co rner , depending on site conditions (e.g .,
drainage and ut i lities may need to be relocated).
Costs for reconstructing entrance and ex it lanes on
arter ials or urban parkways are also dependent on
site co nditi ons .
on the main road.
• Motor vehicles are typically trave ling much faste r than
bi cycle s.
The Oregon DOT offe rs
the design shown b elow
as one altern ative to the
e ntrance lane problem. 5
This de sign cre ates a
short distance across the
ramp for the bi cy clist at
n ea rly a right angle for
improved sight di stan ce,
as well as providing a
cro ss ing in a location b e-
fore drive r s' attention is
focused on th e upcom-
ing merge with motor
ve hi cles.
__J L-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.....I
Design solut ion for bicyc les and motor vehicles at an entrance ramp.
Bicycle Counte rm easure Se lection System Countermeasure s 87
l-o
0
z
0
<.'.l w
Q'.
0
z
:5 a..
z :=;
Q'.
1--
(/) w
0 w a..
0 z «
w
_J
~
~
"' z
0
<.'.l w
Q'.
0
::E
0
Q'.
u..
(/) z
0
~
Q'.
1--
(/)
::::>
Similar probl e m s exi st for the exit lan e situation:
Motor ve hicl es are o ft e n exi ting at hi g h sp ee d s.
The exit angl e crea tes visibility proble m s.
E x iting drivers m ay n o t u se th e ir turn signal to indi-
cate their desire d m ove ment.
Th e Oregon DOT offe rs the d es ign shown b elow as one
alt e rn ative to the exit lan e problem.
j L_~..'.::::::=::::::.::::::.__::::::.::::.._:__:_~~~~~~~~~~~_J
88
Design solut ion for bicy c les and motor vehicles at an exit
ramp .
Cou nt ermeas ure s Bicyc le Co untermeasure Se lect ion Syste m
MAINTENANCE
The avail abili ty o f bi cycle fac iliti es is one of the compo-
n ents that ca n lead to increase d ridin g in a community -if
yo u build it, bicycli sts w ill come . H owever, if you build it , it
w ill al so n eed to b e m ain tained . Thus, m ainten an ce n ee ds
re quire pl anning and budge ting . Sample m ainte n an ce ac -
tivities include keeping ro adways and bike lan es cl ea n and
fr ee of d e bris, identifying and correc ting roadway surfa ce
h aza rd s, keeping signs and p ave m e nt m arkings in go o d
co nditio n , m aintaining ad e qu ate sight di stan ce, and keep-
ing se parate sh are d-u se p aths in go o d c ondition .
M ainte n an ce i s an area whe re pl annin g and a tte nti o n
ca n prov ide signifi ca nt b e n e fit s fo r bi cycli sts a t rela-
ti ve ly modes t additi o n al cos t. Id e ntifi ca ti o n of m ainte-
n an ce n eed s fo r ro adways and bi cycl e fac iliti es and in-
stitutionaliza ti o n of goo d m ainte n an ce prac ti ces are key
e le m e nts in prov iding safe fac iliti es fo r bi cycli sts. Th e
co unte rmeas u res in this ca tegory h ave b ee n div ide d into
the foll owing ca t ego r ies:
• R e p e titive /Short-Te rm Mainte n an ce
M ajor M ai nte n an ce
H azard Identifica ti o n P rog ram s
T h e typ es of ac tivities t h at w ill b e ca rrie d o ut unde r eac h
h eadin g will be similar am o n g c ommunities in m any cases ,
but sh o uld be ide ntifi e d , ca tegorized, pri o ritize d in te r ms
of urgen cy a nd fr e qu e n cy, and budge te d for by eac h co m -
munity since local conditi o n s will di c tate exac t need s. For
example, local flora, cli mate, weather, so il typ es, and o ther
conditi o n s m ay di c ta te fr eq u ent landsca p e m ainte n an ce
and d e bris sweeping in so m e areas but b e less fre que ntly
n ee d e d elsewh e re . Winter snow re m oval m ay b e impo r -
ta nt in n o rthern communiti es but ir rel eva nt in wa rmer
climat es.
T h e impo rtan ce of good planning and initial d es ign al so
ca nnot b e ove rstate d w ith res p ec t to long-te rm mainte-
n an ce n eed s. It is eas i er t o o btain o utsid e fundin g for fa-
ciliti es c onstruc tion tha n for on-going m ainte nance, so
plan and build correc tl y at the o utse t to re duce future
m ainte n an ce probl em s and expense.
Well -ma in tained roadway surfa c e and bike lane free of debris
and surfa ce irregularities. (Ph oeni x, AZ)
Bicycle Countermea sure Se lec tion Sy stem Count ermeas ures 89
z
0 w
_J
« z z
:'!'.
"' CD
>-CD
~
0
I
0..
22. REPETITIVE/SHORT-TERM
MAINTENANCE
R e petitive and short-term m aintenan ce includes ac ti v ities
su c h as swee ping ,landsca p e m ainte n an ce, p ave m e nt m ark -
ings m aintenan ce, drain sys tem s cle aran ce and pothole re -
p air that must be p e rfo rme d at some routine fr e quency,
g enerally at least once p e r ye ar, but some much more of-
te n . Su c h acti viti es are c ru c ial to m aintain ing sa fe riding
surfaces, adequate sight di stan ces and cl ea ran ce, and cl ea r
and visible m arkings. A ctivities su ch as landsca p e m ainte-
nanc e , sweeping, graffiti r em oval , em er ge n cy tele phone
re pair and gen e ral tras h pic k up al so affec t the aes the ti c
e nvironme nt and promo te bi cy cling thro u gh m aintainin g
a more sec ure and pl eas ing e nvironme nt. R egular insp ec-
tions o f stru c tures and ge n era l surface cond iti o n s sh o uld
al so b e p erforme d to d e t ec t m ajor m aintenan ce n ee ds.
M aintenanc e ac tiviti es rela te d to th e sa fe o p era ti o n o f a
facility should always receive top priority. The Ame ric an
A ss o ciati o n o f State High way and Tran sp ortati o n Official s
Maint enance Manua/1 id entifi es seve n m ainte n an ce ac ti vi-
ti es that should b e ca rried o ut o n a routi ne b as is:
Signs an d Traffic Markings
Signs w arning both the mot o ri st and bi cyclist sh o uld b e
insp ec te d regularly and ke pt in good conditio n ; and strip-
ing sh o uld b e ke pt p rornine n t.
Sight Distanc e and C l earance
Si ght distan ces on paralle l roa dways and trail s sh o uld n o t
b e impaire d leading u p to cross in gs and c urves . Trees,
Sight distance has been impaired due to po or landscape de-
sign and insufficient landscape maintenan ce.
90 Countermeasures Bi cycle Countermea sure Selection System
Purposes
• Maintain surfaces and other riding conditions in
a safe and inviting condition for bicyclists.
• Identify, plan , and budget for rout ine mainte-
nance activities that are critical to 1) main-
taining the safety of a facility; 2) protecting
the investment in a fa cility; and 3) protecting
aesthetics and the e nv ironment.
Considerations
• Good maintenance practices prese rve the invest-
ment in facilities and keep them in safe, us eab le
co ndition .
• If faci li ties are we l l-maintained for bicyc l ists,
they are apt to be in suitable cond ition for all
shared uses .
• Annual maintenance needs and costs should be
considered at the ti me faci I ities are constructed
since it is more difficult to secure outside fund-
ing specifically for maintenance.
• Institutionalizing good ma intenance practices
may increase bicycl in g and reduce government
l iab ility.
• Develop an annual budget for repetitive mainte-
nance that reflects current and new facilit ies to
prevent une xpected in creases .
shrubs and tall g rass should b e regul arl y ins p ec te d and
e ither re move d o r tr immed if they ca n inte rfere.Ade qu ate
cl eara n ces on b o th si d es and ove rhea d should b e ch ecke d
regul arl y. Tree bran c h es should b e trimme d to all ow
e n o u g h room for seaso nal growth w ithout e n croac hing
o nto the stre e t o r trail.
Surface Repair
Stree ts a nd trail s sh o uld b e p atc h e d o r g rad e d on a regul ar
b as is. It is important that fini sh e d p atc h es b e flu sh with
the exis ting surface. Skid res istan ce o f th e rep aired area
sh o uld b e the same as the adj o ining surface. Ruts should
b e re move d by w h at eve r m easures are appropriate to give
a sa ti sfac tory res ult and avoid rec u rre n ce.
Drainage
Seas onal wa sh o ut, silt or gravel was h es acro ss a stree t , o r
trail, and sinking sh o uld b e watch ed for, and appropri-
ate m eas ures sh o uld b e take n to preve nt them. Installing
c ul ve rts or building small bridges co uld b e conside red a
m ai nte n anc e fun c ti on to achieve an imme di ate res ult and
av oid the expe n se o f contracting . Drainage g rates should
</) « ::;:
0
:i:: >--
>-m m
:::J
>-m
2
0
:i::
Cl.
Sunke n pavement pat ch and sho uld er drop-o f f to below-g rade
drainage grate cont r ibute to bicycl ist discomfort and possible
hazards for bicyclists .
n o t h ave p arall el openings that could ca tc h n arrow bi-
cy cl e tire s. M aintenan ce p e r sonn e l should b e es p eciall y
instructe d to e nsure that g rate s are positione d so th at
openings are at angles to th e bicyclist's dire ction.
Sweeping and Cleaning
The tires o f a bicycle ca n b e easil y dam age d by broken
glas s and other sharp o bj ec ts. Bicy cl e wheels slip easil y
o n le aves o r ice . Sand o r lo o se g rave l on an as phalt sur-
face ca n ca u se a se rious fa ll .Whe n m ech ani cally swee ping
roa dways, the re should also b e co n ce rn that mate rial is
n o t throw n onto a bike lan e, shoulde r o r trail.
Structural Deterioration
Structures sh o uld b e insp ec te d annually to e n sure th ey are
in good condition. Sp ecial attenti o n sh o uld b e g ive n to
w ood foundati o n s and p os ts to d e te rmine w h e the r ro t or
t ermites are prese nt.
Illu m ination
Lig hting improve m e nts sh o uld b e m ad e at busy arte rials.
O n ce install ed, the li ghts sh o uld b e m aintaine d to n o t only
e n sure reli abl e o p e rati on, but that they are kept cl ea n and
re place d as req uire d to kee p th e d es ire d lurnin esce n ce.
A thorough assess m ent of all bi cycle fac iliti es should b e
p erforme d to ge nerate a li st of re p e titive and short-te r m
re quire d m ain te n an ce ac tiv iti es. Pre fe rably su c h pro cesses
w ould occur at the d es ign phase so m ainten an ce ac tiv i-
ti es will b e budgete d and pl ann ed fo r in adva n ce . So m e
m ainte n a n ce ac tiv iti es m ay b e incorp o rat ed unde r regul ar
ro adway and publi c fac iliti es mainte n an ce, althou gh ca re
should b e take n to con sid e r the sp ec ial n ee d s of bi cycli sts
and provide appropriate standards . Fo r exa mple , whe n re-
Estimating Cost
Historic cos t s pro vi de th e bes t roadmap for deter-
mining futu re cos t s. Wh en es ti mating costs , there
are fo ur thi ngs to cons ider :
• Freq ue ncy : Repo rt s of haza rds o n b icycle f aci li -
ties are going to co m e in at about the same ra t e
eac h year with so m e increase as new b icycle
facil iti es come on li ne and the number of bicy-
clist s i ncreases . T hey are also likely to increas e
in t he spring and s ummer when more bicycling
occ urs. Getting a handle on the total number is
the first step in de veloping a budge t.
• Types of hazards : Reported hazards should be
pu t into bas ic ca t egories suc h as po th oles,
longi tu d i nal cracks i n the paveme nt, debr is that
nee d s sweeping, etc .
• Cos t per incident: Once reported hazards have
bee n put into categories, an average cost per
inci d ent can be determined . For example, it is
rela tive ly easy to come up with an average cos t
fo r fi x in g a po th o le .
• Budget: The final st ep is to develop a budget
base d on the frequency and cost per inc ident.
Existing m aintenance budgets can often be used
to cover the costs of fixing hazards . Once a budget
has bee n determ in ed, it may be possible to sim-
ply increase existing b udgets proportionally. Some
commu nit ies create separate budgets for addressing
bicyc le-re lated hazards.
p airing utili ty cu ts, the C ity o f Sea ttl e re quires an initial
p av in g, then aft e r allowing time fo r se ttling, th e area is
re p ave d to e n su re that the c ut area is m ad e level with
the surrounding p ave m ent (see case study #1). Swee p-
ing may al so need to occur m o re fre que ntly for bicycli sts
than wo uld b e n ecessa ry fo r m o t o r is ts. Instituti o nalizing
regular bi cy cl e fac ili ty and sh are d roa dway m ainte nance
p rac ti ces throu gh sc h e dulin g, budge ting and inter-de p art-
m e ntal c oop era tive ag re eme nts will en sure that the n ee ds
of bi cycl ists d o not "s lip th ro u gh the c rac ks."
Bicyc le Countermeasure Se lection System Countermeasure s 91
if)
<( ::;:
0
I >--
>-co co :::;
>-co
0
b
I
0..
23. MAJOR MAINTENANCE
A c tiviti es su ch as re p av ing a trail su rface, re plac ing bridges
and fi xin g m aj or drainage p ro ble m s th at h ave a fr e qu e n cy
of two o r m o re yea r s w ill fa ll into th e ca tegory of m a-
jor m aintenance . While m aj or mainten an ce occu rs infre-
que ntly, it should b e budge t ed for o n an annual b as is t o
avoid large , u n exp ec te d budge tary d e m ands.
Once m ajor maintenan ce ca tegories h ave b ee n id e ntifie d ,
se t mainte n an ce priorities by ide ntify ing w hi c h ac tiviti es
are critical to th e safe o p e ration o f the fac ili ty and w hich
ones are c riti cal to oth e r o bj ec tives su ch as protec ting the
inves tme nt in the infras truc ture , protec ti ng the e nv iron-
m e nt and pro t ec ting aes th e tic s.While some priorities m ay
va r y to re fl ec t lo cal co mmunity exp ectati ons, sa fe o p er a-
tion o f the fa cility should n ever b e compromised. The
AASHTO Ma intena nce Man ual rec omme n ds that m ain-
te n an ce should seek to m aintain c onforman ce w ith the
d es ign guidelines u se d to build the fac ili ty. 1 Whe re prope r
g uid elines we re not u se d , m ainte n an ce sh o uld include
improvem ents to the fac iliti es' safe ty and o p e rati o n .
Bridge repla ceme nt offe rs an oppo rtu nity t o add spa ce for
bikes. (Durham Co unty, NC)
The fin al m aj or main t e n an ce budge t and plan should
include a c h ec kli st of all m ainte n an ce items, the fre-
qu e n cy of and cost for eac h ac tivity, the annual cos t o f
eac h ac ti vity and an indica ti o n of w h o w ill p e rfo rm the
ac tivity. Priorities rel at e d t o sa fe op e r ati on of the fac il -
ity should b e cl e arly id enti fie d and a tracking p rocedure
cl early outline d .
92 Counte rmeasu res Bi cycle Counter me asure Selection Sy stem
Purposes
• Id e ntify major maintenance acti vit ies that are
c ritical to mainta inin g t he safety of a facility ;
protect the inves tment in a facility; and protect
the aesth etics and th e environmen t.
• Develop an annua l bud ge t for major ma i nte-
nance t o avoid the pe r iodic need for a major
infus ion of cas h.
Considerations
• Securing maintena nce dollars is difficult. There-
fore , fo cus on designin g and constru cting f aci l i-
ties correctly at the outse t to min imize future
ma intenance costs. In particular, make sure a ll
d rainage issues are fully addressed at the time
of co nstruction s i nee water is the cu I pr it fo r
m a ny m ajor maintenance prob lems .
• Make sure that ma jor maintenance is reflected in
an annual budge t th at can be carr ied over from
year to year . By definition , the amount spent on
ma j or maintenance will vary from year t o year
(i .e. a new bridge on a trail is not going to occur
every year). Avoid "emergen c ies" if possible.
Estimating Cost
When develop i ng a ma j or maintenance p lan for a
new fac il ity, t he f i rst step is to c hec k current c osts
for maintaining an ex isting facility. The key is to ob-
tain the costs fo r m ain t ain i ng a f ac ility that i s most
similar to the fa c ility you plan to c onstruct.
The ne xt step i n deve loping a maintenance budget
and plan is t o c reate a li st of all possible mainte-
nan c e activ itie s . A good way to begin is to list ma j or
items in c lu ded in the facilities' design. Most major
items wil l have a measurable life expectancy. For
examp le, asphalt pave ment on a trai l may have a
15-year l ife ex pectancy. Taking the tota l miles of as-
phalt trail and div i ding it by 15 will g iv e a good es-
timate of how much pa vement needs t o be replaced
on an a nn ua l basis. Bridges are better handled on
a case-by-case basis . M ake a l ist of a l l br idges on
trails , estimate t heir probable life, and then devise
a mu lti -year plan for maj or maintenance or rep l ace-
ment. Listing all major maintenance it ems, while a
lot of wo rk , is a one-ti m e act iv ity tha t will a l low you
to develop a realistic budget.
(/)
<( :::;
0
I >--
>-"' "' :::;
>-"' ~
I
Cl.
24. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM
Roadways and off-ro ad fa ciliti es ca n b e made sa fe r and
more app eali n g to bi cy cli sts by d eve loping m e tho ds to
ide ntify h aza rds and re p air n ee ds and institutionalizing
prac ti ces to address them. Diffe rent and c ombine d ap-
proac h es h ave b een ta ke n by co mmunities but include
d eveloping bicyclist h azard re p o rting program s, hiring
p er sonnel t o c onduct regul ar insp ec ti o n s o fbikew ays, and
providin g fo r routine acc ommodati o n or sche duling and
p erforman ce of regular ac tiv iti es su ch as swee ping, in-
sp ec tion and spot re p ai rs, insp ec tion and landsca p e m ain-
te n an ce, e tc. Publi c h aza rd rep o rting programs typi call y
invo lve d evel o ping a h aza rd id e ntifi ca tion re p o rting form
su c h as a p os tca rd and publici zing th e prog ram and p ro-
ce dures to re port problems through bi cy cl e shops, bike
m ap s, bike clubs, and o ther ve nues . A staff co ordinato r
(m ay b e p art-time) w ill b e n ee d e d to administe r the pro-
g ram, e nsure that the problem is re ferre d to the co rrec t
d e p artme nt and follow -through on res olution, including
c ontac tin g th e re p o rting p e rson to adv ise the m o f the
re pair or othe r outc ome .
Below-gr ade drain grate s create hazards for bi cyc l ists .
Short t erm solutio n of pavemen t marking high l ig hts t he hazard
until unsafe drain grat es can be replaced or repaired .
Purposes
• Prov ide a reg ul ar method of identifying hazards
for b ic yclists.
• Pro vi de proced ures for ensuri ng t hat main t e-
na nce hazards are addressed o n a timely bas is.
Considerations
• Res ponding t o reported hazards in a ti mely way
is c r itical to pro t ecting public safety and red uc-
i ng li ability expos ure .
• Pri oriti zing haza rds req uires a bas ic un dersta nd -
ing of what problems are likely to cause crashes .
For examp le , loose gra vel on a curve is like ly t o
ca use a cras h. Ov ergrowth t hat im pa i rs sight di s-
ta nce at a busy in tersection shou ld be addressed
i mm ediate ly.
• Th e level of effort pu t in t o responding to bicyc l e-
re lated hazards s hould be equal t o or slightl y
g rea t er t han t he effort put into responding to
mot or vehic le-re lat ed hazards. I n ot her words,
be ab le to demo nstrate par ity when developing a
we ll -rounded program .
Estimated Cost
Provi ding paid sta ff t o perform hazard identificat ion
prog ram activi ti es fo r 26 weeks cost one around
$10,000 . Setting up a volunteer bicyclist hazard
repo rtin g program wi t h a coordinator, training an d
ma t er ia ls p r int in g cost arou nd the sa m e , i nc l ud in g
a pilot t est and eva lu ation of the program (see case
study #28).
See Repetit ive /Short-Term Maintenance and Ma j or
Ma inte na nce coun t er measures descr i ptions for
proced ur es to establ ish costs of actua l maintena nce
and repa i r activities.
Al o n g with ide ntify ing p ro bl em s, it is impera ti ve that
effec ti ve p o li cies and p roce dures are in place t o reso lve
them . Much routine m ainte n an ce might b e acc onm10 -
d ate d throu gh regular ro ad way m ain te n an ce (a nd th e cos ts
ab so rb e d by, o r at leas t sh are d w ithin, the regular roa dway
m ainte nance budge t). It is important that identifica tion
m e tho d s and mainte nan ce p roce dures sp ec ify iss u es that
are p arti c ul ar o r m o re stringe nt fo r bi cyc li sts, and that
might o th erwise n o t b e d e tec te d o r re paire d to the n ec-
essa ry standard. Exa mples of iss u es that re quire pa rticular
atte ntio n ar e drain g rates; c rac ke d , uneve n , or unsw e pt
surfaces-partic ularl y of o utside c urb lan es, p ave d sh o ul-
Bicycle Countermeasure Selection Sy stem Coun termea sur es 93
d er s, or bike lan es ; poor drainage ; and sli ppe ry surfa ces
su ch as p ave m e nt markings, railroad c ro ss ings, utility cov-
e r s, d am age d p ave m e n t a nd other s.
94 Cou ntermeas ur es Bic yc le Count ermeasure Se lec tion Sys tem
TRAFFIC CALMING
Traffic calming is a way to lower traffic sp ee ds or vo lume
using phys ical m easures. Traffi c calming crea tes phys i-
cal and vis u al cu es that induce drivers to trave l at lower
sp ee d s and is intended to b e self-enforcin g. The d es ign
of the roadway res ults in the de sire d e ffe c t , without re ly-
ing on compliance w ith traffic co ntrol devices su c h as
sign als and sign s, and w ithout enforcement . While adde d
ele m e nts suc h as landsca ping and li ghting do not force
a ch an ge in driver behavior, they might supple m e nt the
visu al and perceptual c u es that enco u rage p eople to drive
more sl owly. Slower mo torist sp ee ds help re du ce th e se-
ve rity and number of cras h es and h elp bicyclists feel more
co mfortabl e cy cling in traffic.
Traffic diversion u ses physical m eas ures to restrict or di-
ve rt traffic, typica ll y to reduce cut-though motor ve hi cles,
w hil e not blocking local ac c ess. Traffic diversio n m eas ures
may b e u se d if other traffic calming m eas ures do not suffi-
ciently slow ve hicles or redu ce c ut-through traffic . Often
the tools of traffic calming and di vers ion are c ompleme n-
tary and are us e d toge the r. Ideall y, streets would b e d e-
sign ed and built for the de sire d trave l sp eed and vo lume.
Unfortunately, m any exis ting local and n eighb orh ood
stree ts that should h ave slow d es ign speeds a nd carry only
local traffic were not de sign e d t o refl ec t this priority.
Traffic ca lming is such a powerful and c ompelling tool
because it is very effec ti ve if p roperl y appli e d . Some of
the effects of traffi c ca lming, su c h as fewer and less severe
c rashes, are clearly measurabl e. Othe r outcomes, su c h as
e nhanced co mmunity li va bility, are less tangibl e, but are
also imp ortant.
Bicyclists d ese rve sp ecial co n sid e ration w h en planning,
designing, and implementing traffi c calming and divers ion
measures. Roadway narrowin g or verti cal or horizontal d e-
flections of traffic to slow ve hicl es m ay h ave adve rse impac ts
on bicyclists unless carefull y done. Thoughtfully designed
and u se d traffic calming measures, on the o ther h and , are
-val uabl e tools to e nhan ce bi cycli st safety and access. When
traffic di vers io n is us ed, bi cycli st and p edestrian access must
be maintaine d. Typically, traffi c calming and dive rsio n mea-
sures are most appropriate on lo cal streets that should h ave
low speeds ba se d on re side ntial or inte nse commercial land
u ses. Traffic calming measures may also h elp to reduce traf-
fic vo lumes on res idential stree ts, w h ere children and cas ual
cyc li sts ride and o th er activi ti es are carried o ut.
There are also so m e circ umstan ces where traffic calm-
ing measures may b e effective tools to e nhan ce bi cycli st
safety and access on c oll ec tor and arterial stree ts -thos e
meant to carry higher volumes of traffic at higher sp eeds.
These situations w ill b e di scusse d under the individual
co untern1 eas ures.
Traffic calming and diversion sh o uld be implemented and
eval uated on an area-wide b as is to avo id " diverting" probl ems
to o ther streets or neighborh oods. It is also imp erative to in-
vo lve the community and all stakeholders in the process.
Other Intern e t reso urces on traffic calming:
http :/ /www.ite.org/traffic /index.html -This traffic
calming W e b site was develop e d by the Institute of
Tran sp ortation Enginee rs (ITE) with financial supp ort
from th e Fe deral High way Administration (F HWA) in
the inter est of information exch an ge.
http: I I safety.fhwa. dot. gov I sp ee d_manage / traffic _
cal ming.htm -This is FHWA's sp eed m anagement
W e b site .
http : I I w w w. fh w a . cl o t. gov I env ir o nment I
t cal m / -This FHWA site includes links to local traf-
fi c calming program sites.
http://www.bik ewa l k.org / assets /pdf/CASE 1 9.
PDF-Case Study 19: Traffi c Ca lming, Auto -res trict ed
Zone s and other Treffic Managem ent Techniqu es [FHWA-
PD-93-028]
http:IIwww.pps .org/buildings/ info /h ow _to/ tran sit_
tool/livememtraffi c -Proj e ct fo r Public Spaces
The co untermeasures relate d to traffic calming include :
Mini Traffic C ircl es
C hi can es
Speed Tabl es /Humps/Cushions
Visual N arrowing
Traffic Dive rsio n
Raised Inter section
A mini traffic circle i n Charlotte, NC.
Bi cycle Coun ter measure Se le ction System Countermeasures 95
__J
__J «
0 z « er
>-z z
I
Q
>-co
~
0
I
0..
>-w :;::
er: w
~
er: w
ti
0..
>-"' 8
0
I
0..
25. MINI TRAFFIC CIRCLES
Mini traffic circles are raised circ ul ar islands cons tructe d
in the center of res ide ntial or lo cal street inte r sec tions.
Mini cricles are a traffi c calming intersec ti on trea tme nt
e mploying y ield control. They may al so b e u se d at un-
controlled junctions. Si gn s should b e install e d direc ting
motorists to procee d to the right around th e circl e b e for e
turning right, p ass ing through or making a left turn . En-
tering traffic yields to traffi c in the circle and both e nte r-
ing and exiting ve hicles sh o uld yi eld to p edestrian s cro ss-
ing the legs of the approac h es to th e inte r sec ti o n . Mini
circles are commonly landsca p ed (oft e n with a center
tree and low-growing shrubs, flowe r s, or g rasses). In some
communities, the c ity m ay re quire th e n eighborhood to
maintain the plantings. In loca tions where lands ca ping is
' . ~ .
•I
•, ',
Mini traffic circles are widely used at neighborh ood junctions
in Seattle, WA.
96 Countermeasures Bi cycle Countermea sure Selection System
Purposes
• Manage traffi c at intersections where volumes do
not warrant a stop sign or a signal.
• Reduce crash problems at the intersection of two
local streets .
• Reduce vehicle speeds at the intersection .
Considerations
• Mini c i rcles are typical ly not used on arterial
streets.
• Consider whether bicyclists may be "squeezed"
in traffic circles by overtaking motor vehicles.1
This type of problem is not likely on low -volume
streets, but should be considered where vehicle
and bicycle volumes are higher.
• Keep the turning radii low to reduce turning speeds
and improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety.
• Larger vehicles that need access to st reets (e.g.,
schoo l buses and fire e ngines) may need to
make left turns in front of the circle, or accom-
modation may be made with mountable curbs on
the perimeter of the c ircle .
• Use yield, not stop , controls.
• Midb lock speeds may not decline, or may even
rise, if intersections and mini circles are widely
spaced and no midblock traffic calming mea-
sures are introduced. Traffic circles are primar-
ily used to manage traffic flow at intersections
and reduce inte rsection speeds, but may be
comb ined with other measures or frequent mini
circles to achieve street-long traffic calming.
• Pedestrians with vision impairments will find
fewer cues to identify a gap to cross when traffic
does not stop.
Estimated Cost
The cost is appro xi mately $6,000 for a landscaped
traffic mini circle on an asphalt street and about
$8,000 to $1 2,000 for a landscaped mini circle on
a concrete street (using existing curb radii).
infeas ibl e, traffi c circles can b e made more aes th e ti call y
pleas ing by u sing special paving materials.
Gen er ally, mini circles are not intended for use where one
or both stree ts a re arte rial stre e ts (see sec tion on Round-
ab o uts, pa ge 8 1). The primary b e n efit to bi cycli sts is that ,
like roundabouts, mini circl es slow traffic approaching th e
junctions by forcing motorists to m an e uve r c ounte rclo c k -
w is e around them. Mini circl es also re du ce th e numb e r
of conflict p o ints at inte r sec tions. Mini circl es have b ee n
found to re duce moto r ve hicl e c ras h es at the involve d
inte rs ec tions by 9 0 p e rce nt or more in Sea ttl e, WA. Mini
circl es may p rov ide one o f the larges t safe ty b en efit s of all
the traffi c calming d evices . Most impac t studies su gges t
they h ave a nominal impac t on traffi c volumes, so the
re du c tion in cras hes is appare ntly not due to dive rting
traffic to o ther stre e ts. 2
Mini circl es must b e prop e rl y de sign e d with e nough d e -
fl ec tion to slow ve hicl es to provide sa fety b e n e fit s to bi-
cyclists, p ed es trians and motorists. P edestri an s w ith vision
impairments w ill , howeve r, find few e r cues to ide ntify a
ga p to cro ss w h e n traffi c do es not st o p .Additionally, right-
turning ve hicl es are n o t (s top) controlle d at inter sec tions
w ith mini circl es, pote ntially putting p e d es trian s at risk.
The refor e, n arrow curve radii sh o uld c omple m e nt this
treatment t o di sc ourage fa st right-turn m an e uve r s. Add-
ing splitte r islands with p e de strian c uts to the legs of the
inte r sec tion m ake s cro ss ing e asi e r for p e d es trians , es p e-
cially wheelchair u se r s. Splitte r islands al so dire ct ve hicl es
e nte ring the inte rs e cti o n but require additional space .
The o ccas io n al large r ve hicl e going through an intersec -
ti o n with a traffi c circl e (e.g ., a fir e tru ck o r m oving va n )
can b e acc ommodate d by allowing these ve hicles to m ake
left turns in front of the circl e or by c rea ting a mountabl e
c urb in the o ute r portion of th e circl e . Othe r poss ibl e so-
lutions are di sc u sse d in Traffi c C almi ng : S tate ef th e Prac ti ce ,
ch apte r 7.2
Motor vehi c les must slow to navigate through mini circ les such
as this one in a Seattle, WA , neighborhood .
Bicycle Countermeasure Se lect ion System Countermeasure s 97
..:
>-"' z
0
~ a: ,_
(/)
::::i
_J
26. CHICANES
C hi can es, as the te rm is u se d h e re, crea te a se rp e ntine,
horizontal shifting of trav el lan es, w ith o ut re ducing th e
number o flan es or lan e w idth, by alt ernati ng c urb ext en -
sio n s fro m o n e side o f th e roa dway to th e o the r. Shifting
a travel lan e h as an effec t on travel sp eeds by inte rrupt-
ing stra ight stre tc h es of roa dway and fo rcin g ve hicl es to
shift lat e rally. C hi canes m u st b e w ell d es ign e d so that the
tap e r is n o t so g radual that m o torists can m aintain sp ee ds
through the c u rve or by cutting a sh o rtcut p ath ac ro ss the
ce nte r line. For traffi c calming, the tap e r length s m ay b e
as much as half of what i s su gges t e d in tradi tio nal high-
way en ginee ring.A ccording t o Ewing2, "Eu ro p ean d es ign
m anuals rec ommend sh ifts in ali gnme n t of at leas t on e
lan e width, d efl ec tion an gles of at leas t 45 d egrees, and
center islands to preve nt drive rs from taking a strai ght
'racin g lin e' through the fea ture."
n
_J ...._~...._~_......~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Altern ating park in g ca n provide a c hi can e-like effe ct.
Shifts in trave l-way s can b e crea te d by building land-
scap e d islands o r exte nded walkways, o r less exp e n sivel y,
98 Countermeasure s Bi cyc le Countermea sur e Selec t ion Sy stem
Purposes
• Re d uce veh ic le speeds by interrupting st raight
stretc hes of roadwa y.
• Ad d more green (landscap i ng) to a street.
Considerations
• Chicanes may some times be used on minor
ar terial streets, but shoul d not be used on high-
speed, high-volume arterials .
• Chicanes may red uce on-street park in g .
• Mainta i n good vis ibility by planting only low
shrubs or trees w ith hi g h canopies .
• Ensure that bicyc li st sa f ety and mobi lity are not
diminished .
• Effect of chokers (w ith narrowing or lane rest r ic-
tion s) on bi cyclists should be carefu lly evaluated
p rior to i mpleme ntation ; use shou ld typically be
restricted to lower-volume local streets t o pre-
vent bicycl ist-motorist co nf licts at pinch points.
Chokers shou Id not be used on stree t s heav i ly
used by bi c ycles (or with bike lanes) unless
design provides for bi cyc l ist accom modation .
Estimated Cost
Costs for lan dscaped c hi canes are approximately
$10,000 (for a set of three chicanes) on an asphalt
stree t and $15 ,000 to $30,000 on a concrete
stree t. Costs should be far less for chica ne -like
park in g configuration. Costs for chokers are est i-
mated at $5 ,000 to $20,000 . Drainage and ut i lity
reloca tion often represent the most s igni fi ca nt cos t
co ns ideration .
by shifting parall el or an gle d p arking from one side o f the
roa dway to the o the r. Landsca p e d bulb-outs or exp ande d
walkways can also e ffectivel y enclose p arking b ays and
supple m e nt the p arking shift . If the re is no res tric ti o n or
n arrow ing (i .e., th e numb er and w idth of lan es is m ain-
taine d), c hi can es can b e c rea t e d o n stree ts with high er
vo lumes, su c h as coll ec tors or mino r arte rials, as w ell as
on n e ighborhood stree ts .
A n ew or r e -constru c t e d roa dway c ould also b e d e-
sig n e d in a ser p e ntine fa shi o n to keep sight lines short
and force ve hicles t o m ak e ·lateral shifts. Su ch a d es ign
co uld eve n b e u sed w h e r e the r e is no c urb su c h as in
p arks o r rural ar eas w h e re th e sce ni c qualiti es also w ould
supp o rt su c h a d es ign.
z
UJ
0
Ct'.
::::>
"' z «
0
>-"' 8
0
I
[l_
A serpentine design was created with landscaped islands.
(Boulder, CO)
Chokers
Diverting the p ath of trave l plus res tri c ting the lanes (o ften
call e d "ch okers") u su all y consists of a se ries of mid blo ck
c urb extensio n s, narrow ing th e street to two narrow lanes
or one lan e at selected points and forcing motorists to
slow down to mane uve r b e t\vee n the m. Chokers or later-
al shifts that create pinc h points or re duce the numbe r of
lanes, which niay b e acco mplish ed through the addition
of landscaped islands or sid ewalk bulb-outs, are inte nd-
e d for u se only on local stree ts with low traffic volumes .
C hokers m ay be used to simultan eou sly c reat e a n arrowe d
p e d es trian cross ing zo n e. Use of choke rs sho uld b e ca re-
fully evalu ate d to avoid c reating pote ntial c onfli ct zo n es
b etween over taking motorists and bi cycli sts.
Bi cycle Countermeasure Selection System Countermea sure s 99
<(
:".i en
<i
>-"' z
0
~
0:: >--"' :::>
_J
27. SPEED TABLES /HUMPS/CUSHIONS
R aise d traffi c calming d ev ices ar e typi c all y u se d on lo cal
streets, primaril y to re du ce traffi c sp ee ds. R aise d d ev ices
m ay provide th e gre ates t impa c t of traffic ca lming d e -
v ices on lowering sp eeds, but effec ti ve n ess is d e p e nde nt
on th e ge ome tri cs of th e d ev i ces a nd h ow w idely sp ace d
they are.2 Some traffi c m ay also b e di ve rte d through the
u se o f raise d d evices, d e p e nding on how mu c h of c urre nt
traffi c is non-local , the ava il ability of alte rnat e routes, th e
ext ent .of area -wide trea tme nt, and the ty p e of trea tme nt
imple m e nte d (that is, humps m ay dive rt mor e traffi c than
lo n ge r and g rea ter tables). D es ign s sh o uld con side r bi-
cy clist n ee d s. More g r adual and/ or lo n ger humps are
less unco m for table for bi cycli sts as well as o the r ve hicl e
drive r s and p asse n ge rs, b ut also te nd to h ave so m ewh at
l ess slowing e ffe ct. Bicycli sts m ay pass b e tween sp eed
cushio n s, but this and th e othe r d evic es sh o uld b e cl ea rl y
m arke d for v isibility.
a
a
_J '--~~...___..~~-'-~~-"-~~--'-~~-'-~_.._~~~
Raised devi c es may hav e the g reate st impa ct o n lowering traf -
f ic speed s.
Sp eed humps are p ave d (usually as phalt), ap proxi m atel y
7 .6 to 10.2 cm (3 to 4 in) high at th e ir ce nte r, and u su all y
exte nd the fu ll width of the stree t w ith h eight ta p ering
n ear the gutte r for d rain age . (ITE su ggests an approxi m at e
3.5 in m axi mum h e igh t d u e to the j arring that occurs at
4 in .1) Sp ace n ea r the c urb m ay also b e p rovi d e d to allow
unimp ed e d bi cy cl e trave l o r fo r a bike lane (but m o to rists
m ay b e t empte d to u se the area). (Sp eed humps sh o uld
not b e confu se d with the na rrow sp eed "bum p " that is of-
100 Countermeasure s Bi cycle Counterm easur e Select ion Sy stem
Pu rpo ses
• Reduce vehicle speeds. Raised measures tend
to have the most pred ictable speed reduction
impacts .
• Enhance the pedestrian environment at crossings.
• May d ivert some (cut-through) traffic .
Con sid eration s
• Raised treatments are not typically suitable for
use on arterial streets.
• Do no t use if on a sharp curve or if the street is
on a steep grade.
• The effect on speed reduction is inversely
re lated to the comfort of the device. H igher and
shorter devices have the greatest slowing effect,
but are the most uncomfortable to traverse.
• Markings and signs should promote nighttime
visibi li ty of raised devices for bicyclists and
motorists .
• If the street is a bus route or primary emergency
route, the design must be coordinated with
operators. Speed cushions show promise here .
Usually, some devices are acceptab le if used
prudently -one dev ice may be appropriate and
may serve the primary need (e .g ., if there is a
particular location a long a street that is most in
need of traffic slowing).
• The aesthetics of speed humps and speed tables
can be improved through the use of color and
specia l pav i ng materials. Designs that comple-
ment neighborhood aesthetics will be more read-
ily accepted by the public .
• Noise may increase , particularly if trucks use the
route regularly, but some noise assessments have
found little impact, and noise may be reduced
overal l because of cars traveling at lower speeds.
• Raised treatments such as speed tables may
contribute to drainage problems on some streets.
• Speed humps , tables, and cushions should be
proper ly designed and installed to reduce the
chance of back problems or other physical dis-
comfort exper ienced by vehicle occupants .
t en found in m all p arking lots.) The re are seve ral d es igns
for sp eed humps. The traditional 3 .7 m (12 ft) hump h as
a d es ign sp eed of 24 to 32 km/h (15 to 20 mi/h), a 4 .3 m
(14 ft) hump a few miles p e r hour hi gh e r.
z
D
~ >--' a::
a:>
(/) z « a:: >-
LL
D
w u r;::
LL
D
0 z
:5
f-a::
a:>
>-"' :::'
D :r:
CL
z w
0 a::
~
"' z «
0
>-"' :::'
D :r:
CL
Speed humps should be c learly marked for visibility.
Sp eed tabl e is a term u se d to des c ribe a ve r y long and
broad , or fl at -topp e d , sp eed hump. Some times a p e d es -
trian cro ss ing is prov ide d in the hig he st or fl at portion
of the sp ee d ta bl e. A sp eed t abl e ca n e ithe r b e para b o li c,
m aking it m o re like a sp ee d hump, or trap ezoidal , w hi ch
is u se d more fr e quently in E u rop e. A 6 . 7 m (22 ft) tabl e
h as a d esi g n sp eed of 4 0 to 48 km/h (25 to 30 mi /h ).
The longe r humps /tabl es a re much ge ntler for lar ger
ve hicl es . Sp ee d tabl es ca n also b e u se d in c ombination
w ith c urb ext e n sions, w h e re p arking ex ists, to c re ate p e -
d es trian cross i ngs .
Midb lock speed table, also serves as a pedestrian c rossing .
Sp eed c ushi o n s, re se mbling a cushion or pillow place d
longitudinally in the trave l lan e, are modifie d sp ee d
humps that d o not sp an the e ntire ro adway or lan e w idth .
The intent is to slow most motor ve hicles similarly to
sp eed humps and tabl es, but allow w id e-axle d ve hicl es
su ch as buses and fire truck s to span and p ass ove r the traf-
fi c cal ming d ev ice . These d evi ces h ave b ee n u se d to slow
motor ve hicles in Van co uve r, WA, on a c oll ec tor stree t
u se d by e m e rge n cy res p o n se and transit (s ee case study
#30). Bicycli sts typi call y ride b e twee n the c u shions.
Sp eed humps and tabl es should probabl y b e c onside red
as "P lan B " on stree ts that are thoroughfares for bicy clists.
Sp ee d cush ions may b e somewhat more suitable for bi-
cy clists. U se o f othe r trea tme nts su ch as mini circl es, c hi-
Estimated Cost
The cos t for each speed hump is approx im ate ly
$1 ,500 includin g markin gs. Speed tables are
$2 ,000 to $15 ,000, depending on drainage cond i-
ti ons and materia ls used . Speed cushio ns also cos t
approx imately $2,000 each .
A speed c ushi on is p laced lo ngitudinally in th e t rav e l lan e .
Vehicle s with w i der axle s straddle the c ushi on.
ca n es o r chi ca n e-like p arking trea tme nts, m e di an islands,
and c urb radii re duc tion sh o uld also b e exa mined. Bicy-
cli sts m ay, h owever, b e m ore co n ce rne d w ith traffic sp ee ds
on local streets than with trave r sing ra ise d d evices, but
should b e include d in traffi c calming planning processes.
Bicycle Coun termea sure Select ion Sy stem Coun termea sur es 101
z w
0 a::
~
"' z « 0
>-"' D
b :r:
CL
"' 0
w z w
" ::> w
LL
0
~ u
>--
"' z w
I
(/)
Ci:
I u
>-"' 8
0
28. VISUAL NARROWING
Some communities h ave beg un combining traffic calm-
ing and other techniqu es w ith tre atments d es igne d to
create a v isu al perception of a narrow, multi-use ro ad-
way in an e ffort to sl ow speeds and increase motorist
attentiveness . Treatments such as adding street trees,
vertical lighting el ements, street furniture, special pav-
ing trea tments or roadway markings , eve n striping bike
lan es, that may create a percep tion of a narrow roadway
or travel lanes (but do not necessarily physically nar-
row it) h ave b een impl emented . Effe c ti ve n ess of the se
techniques a t lowering speeds is somewh a t inconclusive
since multiple treatments are usu all y impl e mente d si -
multaneo usly. Commun iti es may neverthele ss desire to
imple ment such treatments as part of the overall desig n
or aestheti c o f the roadway and neighborhoo d .
~ ....__....:....;""""=..::
Street furn iture was used to visua ll y narrow the roadway
t hrough this plaza in Eugene , OR .
Use of contrastin g p av ing materi als mig ht also enhance
the functional se paration of diffe r ent portions of the
roadway. For exa mple, different p av ing treatment from
tha t u sed for other lanes might emphasize a bike l ane
and inc r ease motorists' p erception that bicyclists should
be expected.
102 Counterm eas ures Bicyc le Co unt ermeasure Se lect ion System
Purpose
• Suggest to motorists that the street is a nar-
row, low -speed street and other users shou l d be
expec ted .
Considerations
• Maintain adequa t e s ig ht distance, especia l ly at
intersections .
• Maintain adequate sidewalk clearance for pedes-
t r ian vol ume.
Estimated Cost
Costs, in c l uding ma inte na nce costs, would vary
widely depending on the specific treatme nts
imp l eme nted .
z w
0
"' ::> co
z
<(
0
>-"' 0
b
I
~~----------_ ........ __________ ~
Use of co ntrastin g paving mate ria ls highlights th is bike lane
and visua I ly na rrows the roadway space in Sacramento, CA.
29. TRAFFIC DIVERSION
Traffic dive rsion techniqu es are reme di es intended pri-
m arily to re duce traffi c vo lumes on res ide ntial neighbor-
hood stree ts when traffi c calming or othe r m e asures h ave
n o t suffi ciently redu ce d c ut-through traffic. Traffi c di ve r-
sion should only be u se d as a last res ort, and the n only
in conjunc ti o n with area -wide traffi c analyses and man-
ageme nt. The prime b e n eficiarie s of traffi c dive r sion are
bi cyclists, p e d es trians , and those who live on the tre ated
stree ts, but local res ide nts are also m os t n ega tive ly affe c te d
by traffi c di ve r sion .
Divert ers sh o uld al low bi cyc le access .
R aised, island dive rte r s m ay b e u se d fo r area -w ide traffi c
m anagem e nt . Four typ es o f isla nd dive rte r s ar e di ago-
n al , star , forced turn and truncated. A di ago n al di ve rter
breaks up c ut-throu gh m ove m e nts and fo rces ri g ht or
le ft turns in ce rtain direc tions. A star di ve rte r c onsists
of a st ar -sh ap e d island place d at the inte r sec tion , whic h
forces ri ght turns fro m each app roac h . A trunc ate d di-
agonal di ve rte r is a dive rter w ith o n e e nd o p e n to al-
low turning move m en ts. Othe r ty p e s o f isl and di vert e r s
ca n b e place d o n one o r more approac h l egs t o preve nt
through and left -turn m ove m e nts and force ve hicles t o
turn ri ght. N ei ghborhoo ds w ith a g rid-typ e p a tte rn m ay
b e n e fit most from u se o f one or more of these typ es of
Divert ers and toucan signal s he l p create a bicyc l e bou levard in
Tucson , AZ.
Purpo ses
• Lim it motor ve h ic le traffic on certain streets.
• Pre ven t turns from an arterial street onto a res i-
den t ia l street.
• Red uce traffic vo lu me by d iscouraging or preven t -
ing traffic from c utting through a neighborhood .
• Restr ict access to a street without creat i ng one-
way st reets .
Consid erat ions
• Part of an overal I traffic management strategy.
• Desig n diverters to al,low bicycle, pedestrian,
and emergency vehicle access. If th is cannot be
done and the stree t is a major bicycle corridor, a
d ivert er shou Id not be used .
• At f ul l closures , provide a turnaround area for
motor vehicles, inc l uding service veh icles , and
prov ide for surface drainage .
• Ful l st reet closures may be considered for local
streets, but are not appropriate for co l lector
stree t s.
• Cons ider whether less restr ictive measures wou ld
work. Local residents wi l l be most affected.
• Assess whether other local streets would receive
d iver t ed traffic and/or access into or out of the
neighborhood would be adequate.
• The i mpact on school bus routes and service
veh ic les shou ld also be considered.
• Di vert ers general ly do not effectively address
m idb lock speed in g prob lems 1 ; use i n conjunc-
tio n wi th traffic ca l ming measures if speeding is
a prob lem.
• Diago nal diverters may be used in conjunction
with other traffic management tools and are
mos t effective when appl ied to the entire neigh-
borhood street network .
• Partia l or full street closu.res and area -wide use
of d iverters should have strong neighborhood
support. There may be legal issues.
di ve rte r s to re du ce th e appeal o f n e ighb o rhoo d stree ts to
cut-through traffic.
Divert er s m ay also be u se d in c onjuncti o n w ith other
m eas ures to crea t e bicycl e bou levards, sp eciali ze d stree ts th at
g ive priority to through move m e n t of bi cy cli sts, but at
intervals dive rt motorize d traffi c in o rd er to p rovide a
Bicyc le Countermeasure Selectio n System Countermeasure s 10 3
prefere ntial bicycling environment. Local access for mo-
tor vehicles is maintaine d , but traffi c calming and traf-
fic control devices h elp to keep motorized sp ee d s low
and reduce conflict s b etween motor ve hicl es and bi cycles.
Examples of bicycle boulevards m ay b e fo und in Palo
Alto, CA (see case stu dy #32).
A partial stree t closure uses a se mi-diverter to phys ically
clo se o r block one direction of motor vehicle travel into
or o ut of an intersection; it co uld also invo lve blo cking
one direction of a two-way stree t . Partial street closures at
the e ntrance to a n eigh b orhood or area sho uld consider
the traffic flo w pattern of the surrounding st ree ts as well .
T h e des ign of this m easure should allow for easy access by
b icyclists and all pedes trians.A partial closure provides b e t-
ter emergency access than a fu ll clo sure. Since this des ign
also allows motorists to eas il y violate the prohibition, police
enforcement m ay b e required. If the partial clos ure only
e linlinates an entrance to a street, a turnaround is not need-
ed; closing an exi t will generall y re quire a turnaround.
A partial closure limi ts cu t -throug h traffic but allows bicyclist
access.
A full street closure is accompli sh e d by installing a physi-
cal barrier tha t blo cks a street to motor vehicle traffic and
provides some means for vehicles to turn around. There
are a number of consid erations before implementing a
fu ll street closure, which should b e used only in the rarest
of circumstances. Neighb orhoods with cul-de-sac streets
require extensive out-of-the-way travel, which is not a
mere convenience issue, but has ser ious implications for
impacts on other streets . All traffic is forced to trave l on
feeder streets, which has negative consequences for the
people who live o n those streets and forces higher lev-
el s of control at cr itical intersections. If a street clos u re is
implemented, it sh o ul d always allow for the free through
movement of all pedestrians including wheelchair u sers,
and bicyclists. Provision for e m ergency vehicle access
should also be made. Such provision can be accompli sh ed
104 Countermeasures Bicyc le Counterm easure Se lection Sys tem
Estimated Cost
The cos t for a full , landscaped stree t c losure varies
from approximately $30 ,000 t o $100 ,000 , de-
pending on conditio ns .
A well -desig ned, landscaped partial street c losure
at an intersection typical ly cos t s app ro x im ately
$10 ,000 to $25,000 . They can be insta ll ed for less
if there are no major draina ge issues and landscap-
ing is minim al.
Diverters cost in the range of $15 ,0 00 to $45 ,000
eac h , depe nding on the type of diverter and the.
ne ed to address drai nage .
Bollards rest ri ct motor ve hic les from a neig hborhood co nne ctor
between c ul-de-sac streets.
with a type of barrier or gate that is electronicall y oper-
ated, or by ins talling barrie r s that pennit only large or
wide-axled vehicles to tra verse them.
z w
0
"' ::::>
Cl)
z «
0
>-0)
~
0
I
0..
--' u z
::::l
·8 -
UJ
--' (..)
>-(..) cc
z < a:
t;)
UJ
Q
UJ
0..
UJ
!:::
>-"'
13
I
0..
30. RAISED INTERSECTION
A raise d inte rsec tion is esse ntially a sp ee d tabl e for th e e n -
tire inter sec ti o n . This trea tme nt m ay improve inte rsec ti o n
safe ty by forcing ve hicl es approac hing th e inte r sec ti o n to
slow dow n and co uld b e p art of a stree t-w ide traffi c calm-
ing effort . Co n stru c ti o n involves prov iding ramps on eac h
ve hicle app roac h, whic h ele vates th e e ntire inte r sec tion to
the leve l of the sidewalk. They can b e built with a va ri ety
o f m ate rial s, including as phalt, concre te, stamp e d conc re te
o r p ave r s. The c ros swalks o n each a pproac h are u su ally
al so elevat e d as part o f the trea tme nt to e n abl e p e d es tri an s
to cro ss th e ro ad at th e sa m e level as the sid ewalk , elim-
inating th e need for c urb ramps. D e t ec tabl e p e d es tri an
warnings sh o uld b e u se d to m ark the b o undary b e tween
the sidewalk and the stree t. Gradu al approac h es sh o uld
reduce the impac t on bicy cli sts.
.. t-----t
' ., ' .. UMililil ) ' ' . ( ' -r ' ..
/\ /'..
r::=r t:::::l ~~ i::=t r::::4
~ t:=:l
m:m~ ~ i:::::::1
r=::1 t:::=4
t=:1 t::::=J
~~ r 0 DD D DD uw -' ' ' .. . ~-:. . . , . . ' . i:===I
.. ' ,.
'I ' ~ ..
'
. ,
Sketch of a raised intersec t ion.
A warning sign and pavement markings alert traffic to this
raised i ntersection .
Purposes
• Reduce vehicle speeds; improve in terse ct ion
safety.
• Enhance the pedestrian environment at the
cross ings .
Conside ra tions
• Considerat ions are generally the same as for
other raised devices.
• Don't use if on a sharp c urve or if the street is
on a steep grade .
• May not be appropriate if the stree t is a bus
route or emergency route . One device may be
necessary and serve the primary need . Severa I
raised devices may be disruptive, so other mea-
su res shou Id be co ns idered .
• Speed tabl es and raised crosswalks and intersec-
tions can be an urban design element through
the use of spec ial paving mater ia ls.
• Detectable warning strips at edges enable pe-
destrians with vision impairments to detect the
cross ing .
• Care must be taken to manage drainage.
Esti mat ed Cost
Raised crosswalks are approximately $2 ,000 to
$15,000, depending on drainage condit ions and
material used . The cost of a raised intersect ion is
highly dependent on the size of the roads. They can
cos t from $25 ,000 to $75,000 .
Bi cycle Counte rmea sure Sele ction System Countermeasure s 105
TRAILS/SHARED-USE PAT HS
Bike or share d-use paths are c omple m e ntary to the ro ad
n e twork and se rve rec rea ti o n al , child , and p erhap s co m-
muter bi cy cli sts if w ell -pla nne d and connec te d to th e
st re et n e twork and de stinati o n s. A s with o n-road fa ciliti es,
junctions are a partic ul ar ch all e nge to d es ign and build
so bicyclists and other u se r s h ave safe access and cro ss ings
of roadways an d othe r inte rsec ting co rrido r s. Addition-
ally, providing for safe sh aring of trails am o n g dive r se u se r
groups re quires good d es ign a nd educa ti o n al m eas ures to
promote good beh avior.
Shared-use p aths ca n e nhan ce the quali ty of life in a co m-
munity o r region by p roviding additi o n al o pportunities
for activity, re cre ational riding, or co mmuting choices.
Trails should not b e th o u ght o f as an alte rnative to pro-
v iding sa fe o n -s treet fac iliti es for bi cycli sts since th ey
ca n n eve r co n n ec t to all the d es tinati o n s reac h e d by the
street n e twork. Some bicycli sts will cycle prefe re ntiall y
on the stree t n e twork sin ce it suits th e ir sp ee d , skill , a nd
trip n e eds b e tt e r. Paths sh o uld n eve rth e less b e d es ign e d
to u se r-appropriate e n g in eerin g stand ard s, similarl y to
roadways, or sa fety will b e compromised. Since it is rare
to create a path that w ill b e u sed by bikes o nly (p e rhap s
some long-distan ce rural p aths are an exce ption), g uides,
including the American Assoc iation of Stat e Highway and
Transporta tion Offici als (AASHTO) G ui de fo r the D eve l-
opment of Bi cycle Faciliti es , now rec omme nd th at p ath s b e
designed for bi-directi o nal m ixe d u se, and re comme nd a
minimum trail width o f3 m (10 ft) (up fro m 2.4 m (8 ft ))
and enc ourages the use of 3.7 m (12 ft) o r m o re w h ere
h eavy or mixed u se s are exp ect e d . 1
Counte rmeas ures de sc rib e d in this sec ti o n include:
106
Separate Shared-Use Pa th
P ath Inte rsection Treatm e nts
Inte r sec tion Warnin g T rea tme nts
Share th e Path Treatme nts
Counterme asures Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System
Re c reational riders are attracted to trails through natural and
other seen ic area s.
Diverse users, in c luding ch il d bi c yclists, should be expected
on shared-use paths.
Sign encourages slower cyc l ists to keep right on this Austin
loop trail.
z
UJ
0
"' ::::>
CD
z
"" 0
>-CD
~
I
0..
z
UJ
0
"' ::::>
CD
z
"" 0
>-CD
0
l-o
I
0..
z
UJ
0
"' ::::>
CD
z
"" 0
>-CD
~
0
I
0..
c..i z
</)
~ z w w a:
"' ~ z ::::;
u..
"' (.)
::::>
I
(.)
>-Cl)
8
0
I
31. SEPARATE SHARED-USE PATH
Bike p aths and sh are d-use p aths are typ i call y p ave d bi-di-
rec tional p athways tha t are se para te from the road right-
of-way. Id eally, share d-use paths w ill follow a di stinc t
co urs e in a se p arate right-of-way, often along forme r rail-
road beds, alo n g water co urses or other rights-of-way that
u sually have few cro ss ing ro adways. 1 Trails immediately
adj ace nt to roadways m ay cross nume rous intersec ting
roads that cre a te ha zards and other problems for trail u s-
ers (see http :/ /www.bicy clinginfo.org/ de /sh are d .htm for
more informatio n). There sho uld , howeve r, b e suffi cie nt
access points from th e ro ad network.2
~--~~~---~~~~~..:...-~~~~~~~~~~~w
Separate shared-use paths prov ide opportun it ies for recreation-
al riding for dive rse bicyc lists as well as potent ial utilitarian
connec tions.
Bicycle p aths or share d-use trail s offer opportunities for
rec reational cycling and co mmuting that diffe r qu alita-
ti vely from o n-stre e t riding. Paths may b e d es ign e d t o
flow through natural or sce nic areas, connec t town to
town or even region to region, or allow bicyclists to trave l
throu gh urban areas away from motorize d traffic. Bi cycle
and sh are d-use paths also ma y t end to attra c t bi cy cli sts
w ith a wide range of skill level s, including yo ung children.
A p ath , even if d es igned primaril y as a bike fac ili ty, al so
likely will attrac t a m ix of other u sers including p e d es-
trian s, in-line ska t er s and oth er s, d ep ending on location
and access. Special care must th e refo re b e taken in th e
planning and d es ign of su c h trails to provide a sa tisfa c tory
exp e ri e n ce for bicycli sts, and safe sharing of th e facility
w ith a variety of u sers of differing sp ee ds and a bilities.
Good planning and d es ign of bi cycle and sh ared-use paths
are crucial to provide for sa fe use, to m aximize long-te rm
b en efit s, and reduce future mainte n anc e problems (such
as e rosion , wate r or ed ge deterioration). Pathways will
n eve r replace th e ro ad n e twork for connecting to de sti-
nations and some cy clists w ill prefe r the ro ad network for
Purposes
• Provide off-roadway recreational or commuting
bicyc li ng opport unit ies.
• Co nne ct dest in at ion s that may be inaccessible
for bicyclists via the road network.
Considerations
• Paths s ited along roadways present numerous
desig n safety chal lenges due to intersec ti ng
roadways .
• Good ini tial des ig n will minimize future main-
tenance needs as well as access and safety
prob lems .
• A good public process can help in des igning a
pat h th at best meets local needs and suits loca l
con dit ions.
Estimated Cost
Many factors , inc ludin g regiona l materia ls and
construc ti on cos ts, top ography, comp lexity of the
environment and need for structures, and others
affect trai I costs. For a 3-km-w ide (10-foot-wide)
asphal t paved path with s igns , minor drainage, and
l imited ur ban road crossings, the cost per kilometer
could be around $155,300 ($250 ,000 per mile).
Costs as h igh as $1,000 ,000 per mile have been
reported.
Des ign t ypically ru ns about 18 percent of the tota l
constr uct ion value.
Th e pub li c plann ing process is important to establ ish bicyc le
paths and shared-use trails that meet local need s and suit
loca l conditions.
Bicycle Countermeasure Selectio n System Countermeasu res 107
c..i z
</)
~ z w w a:
"' ~ z ::::;
u..
"' (.)
::::>
I
(.)
>-Cl)
8
0
I
~
most riding. Separate trails may b e a d es tination for riding
in themselves . Separate paths m ay also offer alte rnati ve
routes for so m e bi cycl ists, provided they link origins and
d es tinations or fill a gap t hat co nnec ts other bicycle fac ili-
ti es o r routes o n the street n etwork. Creating safe and ac-
cess ible intersec tions b etween paths and the roa d n etwork
is one of the most ch all enging as p ec ts of design (see P ath
Intersection T reatments).
A good process that incorporat es input from future u sers
and property owners may be the most important eleme nt
to realizi n g a p ath that w ill max imize recreational and
travel benefits and minimize potential proble m s. Good
initial design i s also crucial for minimizing fut ure m ainte-
n ance cos ts and problems. The pro cess sh ould en gage th e
co mmunity so that the faci lity that is ultimately d es ign ed
fit s with local n eeds and with the lo cal c ultural , n atural ,
and built e nv ironme nts.
108 Countermeasures Bicyc le Countermea sure Se lection System
z
LU
0
0:
:::>
"' z
<(
0
>-"' ~ r a..
32. PATH INTERSECTION TREATMENTS
Since an off-road p ath lures u se r s b y the opportuni ty t o
bi cy cle away from traffic or through sce nic settings, o r to
co nnect with des tinati ons unavai lable on the road n e t-
work, it is important to minimize the numb e r of roadway
crossings or oth er intersec tions, both for safety reasons
and to minimize d elays and e nhance p atrons' enj oyment.
Where paths must cross ro adways, driveways, o r oth er
paths, it is important that the trail design fac ilitates the
safes t and most convenie nt crossing move ments p oss ibl e .
Where th ere is a co nfli c t b e twe e n safety and convenie n ce,
safe ty should take precedence . Trail inter sec tions with
roa dways offer sp ecial des ign ch allenges, especiall y since
trail use r s may h ave a w ide range of cycling skill s and
diverse ch aracte risti cs. The AASHTO Guide for th e D e-
velopment of Bicycle Facili ties provid es des i gn guidelines for
midblock , adj ace nt p ath an d complex intersection trail
cross ings w h ere the p ath cro sses a roadway at an exis t-
ing intersection o r driveway. 1 Signs and signals for the
roa dway and path , end of path tra nsi tions, markings, sight
and sto pping distan ce, ramp widths, and other inter sec-
tion d es ign iss u es are di scusse d , but eac h situation re quires
judgment on the p ar t of th e de si gn er.
A med i an refuge enables pat h users to cross one direct ion of
traffic at a t i me.
Both p ath -to-path and p ath-to-roadway int e rsec ti ons
requi re ca r eful planning and c onstru c ti on to m aximize
safe ty.Where c rossin gs m u st occur, priority right-of-way
sho uld b e es tablish e d base d on the type of intersec ting
travel-way, traffic vo lu mes, sp eed , and oth er factors. P ath
u se rs should b e co unte d in the vo lumes, and wher e p aths
cross low-volume ro adways or driveways and path u se is
hig h , priority should b e give n t o the p a th. Wa rning and
regulat ory signs, traffic signa ls, and pave m e nt trea tme nts
or m a rki ngs should b e u se d to clea rl y d elineat e w hi ch
cor ridor h as t h e right-of-way, coordinat e inte r ac ti ons,
and g ui de path u se r s to sa fe crossing locations . A traffic
contro l device (s ign or signal) should be install e d at all
path-roadway intersec tions. Efforts should be m ad e to
Purpose
• Pro vi de safe mu lti -use pa th crossings of road-
ways and other corridors.
Considerat ions
• Des ig n paths to mi nim ize t he numbe r of cross-
i ngs.
• Cross i ngs should c learly de li neate r ight-of-way;
depe nding on use and type of faci l it y be i ng
crossed, the t ra i l may warrant the r ight-of-way.
• On occasion , d irec t ness may have to be sacri-
ficed to maximize safety.
• Off-g rade cross ings may be safest for crossing
some roadways, but good de s ign is c rucial to
crea tin g an appea l ing secure facility that will
i nv ite use. Expense of new off-grade crossings
may be prohibitive.
Es timat ed Cost
Intersec ti on cos ts are part of t he overa ll cost of the
trail . Some treatme nts may be i ncorpora ted into
roadway or intersecti on upgrades.
Path users are directed to an exi stin g signa l ized intersection
for crossi ng .
minimi ze crossing delay s to path u sers as some may be
u n w illing to t olerat e significant d elays.
Pathways must link to the stree t n etwork and access points
sh ould b e cl ea rl y marke d and signed . C urb c u ts should b e
flar ed to allow bicyclists to make safe turns onto or to
exit the trail. On unpaved paths, a pave d apron sh ould
extend at least 3 m (10 ft) from the edge of pave d road-
ways. To prevent motorized traffic from inadvertently or
Bicyc le Counte rmeasur e Selec tion System Coun termea sur es 109
z
"' er;
LU
0
+
"' z
z z
<(
--' a..
<(
':::;
<(
::;;
0
0: .....
0
b r a..
intentionally access ing the trai l , signs cl ea rly noting that
motorized traffic is prohibited, as w ell as brightly p ainted
bollards or m e dians, should b e install ed in the ce nte r of a
3 m (10 ft) w ide or less path , or no less than 1.5 m (5 ft)
apart on a w ide r p ath. A ccess for m aintenance and emer-
gency vehicl es mu st b e provided.
Railroad co rridors are often des irab le loca ti o n s for p ath s
b ecause they generall y have few roadway cross ings and
built-in off-grade crossi ngs (overpasses and underpasses)
of roadways, strea ms , and oth er barriers where crossings
do occ u r. At railroad crossings, ac ti ve devices su c h as b ell s
and fl ashing li ghts, or a utomati c ga tes triggered by th e
approac h of a train m ay b e warra nte d.3 For new constru c-
tion, the cos t of off-g rade crossings m ay b e con sid e re d
prohibitive but m ay b e th e b es t alte rnative w h ere a trail
n eeds to c ross a busy or hi gh -s p ee d co rridor or if trail u se
is expected to b e high. Some c ommunities suc h as Boul-
der, CO (see case st udy #35), h ave u sed off-grade c ro ss-
ings extensively for bike and p e d es trian corridors. For safe
and effec tive overpasses and unde rp asses, adequ ate light-
ing is important for trave l and for p erso nal sa fety. (See
Tunnels /Underpasses co unte rmeas ure.)
When trail s must cross roadways at gr ad e, it may b e d e-
sirable to design the cross ing at an exis ting inte r sec tion
to minimize incide n ces of wrong-way riding along the
roadway to the trail access. The cros sing distance sh ould
b e minimized. If the trail crosses a bu sy, multi-lan e or
high-speed road, a refuge island is a trea tme nt that e nabl es
trail u sers to c ross one leg of th e ro adway at a time. The
cross in g may b e angled so tha t trail us ers turn toward on-
coming traffic to cross the seco nd direc tion of travel lan es .
Lighting ca n also enh ance the safety of p ath intersections
with roadways, railways, and oth e r p at h s, es p ec ially if ex-
te nsive nighttime u se is exp ect e d (such as in a busy urb an
area or near a c oll ege or unive rsity ca mpus).
110 Countermeasures Bicycle Countermea sure Selection System
A stop sign controls right-of-way, while crossing markings and
warning signs on the roadway alert that path users shou ld be
expected.
z
UJ
0
"' ::>
CD
z «
0
>-CD
0
b
I
Cl.
z w
0
Q'.
::;)
ID
z
<(
0
>-ID
~
0 :r: a..
33. INTERSECTION WARNING TREATMENTS
Advance warning treatments le t bicycli st path u sers know
they are approac hing an intersec ti o n with a roadway, an-
other p ath, a railway, or other crossing . Since so m e bi-
cyclists w ill be among the high es t sp eed users of paths,
sight and stop ping di stance, signs, and intersection d e-
sign guid elines for bi cycli sts should b e u sed in design-
ing sh ared-use path s, including intersec tion approac h es.1
Pass ive warning devi ces including pavement markings,
sp ecial pavement "alerts" such as texture d treatmen ts, and
warning signs may b e used. See the Manua l of Uniform
Traffic Control D ev ices (MUTCD) for signs that may b e
appro priate for warning of at g rad e cross ings, including
r ailroa d crossings . 4
A flat grade and bo ll ards with pa inted ma r kings warn path us -
ers to slow on approach to junction, as well as prevent motor
vehi cle access to the path.
A flat grade should be u se d o n intersec tion approac h es
to improve sig ht di st an ce and provide bi cycli sts with a
c h an ce to reduce sp eed . Bollards sh o u ld b e pla ce d so
bicyclists h ave ad equ ate clearance and the pl acement
does not force bi cyclists into an incorrec t position on
approac h t o the intersec tion . Veget ation and oth er ob-
structions sh o uld b e kept cl ea r n ear inte rs ec tions for ad-
equ ate sight dis tan ce.
Roadway treatments su c h as wa rning sign s and p ave m e nt
markings also let ro ad u se rs know th ey are approac hing
an area whe re bicyclists, p e d estrians, and other p ath u sers
m ay b e cross ing or prese nt.
Purpose
• Wa rn b icyclists and other path use rs t hat they
are ap proaching a ju nctio n whe re t hey should be
prepared to st op or yield .
Considerations
• Assess sight distance requirements for path-
roa dw ay intersec ti ons .
• A f lat grade on th e pat h sho ul d p rece de jun c-
tio ns t o provide good sight distance and suffi-
c ient st opp in g d ist ance fo r bicyc li st s.
• Vege tati on and oth er landscape f ea tures should
al lo w adequate sig ht d ist ance nea r in tersect ions .
Estimated Cost
Cos t s woul d be inc l uded in overall path costs .
Retrofit measure s suc h as signs or c han ge s i n pave -
men t ma rki ngs wo ul d depend on t reat ment.
Bi cycle Counte rmeasure Selectio n System Co unt ermeasures 111
34. SHARE THE PATH TREATMENTS
The diverse types, multipl e skill and age levels, and other
characteristics of shared-u se p ath users may co ntribute to
conflicts, falls , and crashes. Good path design, as well as
sh are d-use policies, education, and p erh aps e nforcem e nt
m ay help bicyclis ts and other p ath u sers sh are off-road
paths more sa fely and enhan ce the ir enjoyment .
A number of treatments and markings are available to encour-
age safe shared use as need ed.
D es ign and polici es for accommodating multiple types
of u sers sho uld be d eveloped o n a case-by-case basis de-
pending on local d emand for d ifferent uses, exp ec t ed
vo lumes , and oth e r factors. For example, if the path is
expected to se r ve b oth commuter bicyclists and local
p edes tri an s a n d c h ild bicyclists, and there is suffi cient
corrid or right-of-way, separate faci liti es may be desir-
a bl e. For joggers, a grave l or dirt path may be provided
b es ide a p aved p ath . In most situ ati ons, separate faci liti es
w ill , h owever, likely be considered infeasible or cost-
prohibitive.
Other en gi n eering trea tments may e n courage safer shar-
ing of a single , t\;vo-way, multi-use facility. These incl ude
center-line striping to sepa r ate direc ti o n s of travel w ith
broken markings that indi ca te sa fe p ass ing zones; sp ecial
p av ing trea tme nts to sep ara te u sers; p avement markings at
t rail and roadway junc ti o n s th at ch anneli ze u se r s to ap-
propriate cross ings ; signs , marking and paving treatments
to cl ea rl y indicate r ight-of-way; and others.
Appropriate path u se policies should al so be d eve loped
since b e h avio r s of u sers h ave much to do with prevent-
ing cra sh es and conflicts . Trai l ru les or e tiqu e tte m ay b e
post e d at e ntran ces and include d on bi cycling m ap s. Such
p ath u se guidelines include:
112 Countermeasures Bicycle Countermea sure Selection System
Purpose
• Reduce conflicts and crashes on m ul ti -use trai ls.
Consideratio ns
• Do not dim i nish t he t ra i l experie nce by over-de -
s ign in g specialized treatments .
• I nco rporate various user groups in planning and
progra ms to enhance shared -use cooperat ion and
enjoym ent.
• If e nforcement is used, more pos iti ve , educa -
ti o na l t ypes of inte rv e nt io ns may wo rk better
t han penalizing trai l users .
Estimated Co st
Costs de pend on progra m but would at a minimum
include fu nding for staff p lanning time.
• Slower u sers keep ri ght
• U se audible signal w h e n passing
• Pass o nly where sight-distance allows a safe maneuver
• Use ca ution when riding near yo ung c hildre n , pets,
and other unpredic ta ble p ath u sers, e tc.
User guideli n es might b e promo ted through a var i ety of
conm1Llnity reso urces in addition to postings along the
Gallopin1 Goose
Regional Trail
R For yOll' safety and g enjoyment notify others
of YOll' approach and
~ pass with care.
Lill Keep yu dog under
control or on 1 leash. DI Respect private
property.
Shft·the-Tral
Keep Rltiit 11cepl
to pass.
CJclsts, Jleld to
ptdtstrllns Incl
ring bel or c• out
.. Plssint from
llelllnd. •
Path use ru les or gui delines are posted along the Gallopin g
Goose Tra i l in Vi ctoria, BC , Canada.
z w
0
0: => "' z
g r..l::ii:#..#:~ >-"' 0
f-
0
I o._
Pave m e nt markings were used t o designate separate spaces for
shared use on th is heavily used Long Beach, CA, path.
trail. Traditional traffi c enfo rc ement methods may be in-
a ppropriate for path s si n ce non-motorize d u ses typically
do not require a license and many u sers are childre n , but
more positive, e ducational types of interventions may help
if confli ct or crash problems arise.
Guideli nes for bicyclists produced by the League of
American Bicyclists on sharing paths are ava ilab le at
http: I /www.bike l eag u e.o rg / educe nt er /factsheets /
sha ringthe p ath.htm. The International Bicycle Fund
(http :IIwww.ibike .org/ ed u ca tion/ trail-sharing. htm) h as
also poste d guideli nes for trail sharing including a model
trail u se ordinance.
Bicycle Coun term easure Se lect ion System Coun termeasures 113
MARKINGS, SIGNS, AND SIGNALS
Traffic control devices , including a var iety of p ave m e nt
m arkings, signs, and traffi c signals, are u sed by traffi c e n-
gineers to improve safety and access for bicyclists . Besides
traditional treatm e nts su c h as install ati on of a traffic signa l ,
innovative trea tme nts are also b e ing installed and evaluat-
ed, including se p arate b icycle signal h eads and bicycle and
p e d estrian crosswalk signals, so m e times known as to u can
signals. Sc h ool sp ee d zone and traffi c control d evices m ay
also be implemented to improve sa fety for c hildren bi cy-
cling and walking to sc h ool along d es ignated ro utes.
The countermeas ures included in this sec ti on are:
114
Install Signal/Optimize Timing
Bike-Ac tiva t ed Signal
Sign Improvements
Pavement Marking Improve m ents
School Zone Improve ments
Countermeas ures Bi cyc le Countermea sure Se lection System
Warning signs may en hance safety in spec ial si tuat io ns.
<(
~
3 ;, INSTALL SIGNAL/OPTIMIZE TIMING
T ra ffi c signals c re ate ga p s in traffi c flow, all owing bi cyclists,
p 1 des trians, and motorists to access o r c ro ss the stree t . Sig-
n a 1Js are parti c ula rl y important for c ro ss in g higher sp ee d
re ..>a ds, multi-lan e ro ads o r highl y co n ges te d inte r sec ti o n s.
'National w arrants from th e Manu al on Uniform Traffic Con -
trol Devices (MUTCD) are typicall y u se d for n ew sign al
install ation .1 P art 9 of the MUTC D fo cuses o n "Traffic
C alming for Bicycle Fac iliti es ." So m e stat es h ave the ir
own supple m e nt to the MUTCD.
z ...--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
,)<i.
>-co
z
0
~
Q'.
I-
<./)
::0
-' -' L-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Appropriate signa l tim ing may help c reate gaps for bicyc lists
at midblock or unsignalized side streets as well as the signal-
ized intersections .
Bicyc le signals prov id e a distinct crossing phase for bi cyclists
in parti c ular ci rc um stances .
In downtow n areas, si gn als are ofte n cl ose ly spa ce d , so m e -
times at eve r y block. A proble m for bicycl es is that signal s
are timed to ac conuno d ate typi cal motor ve hicle sp eed s
and flows. The motor ve hicl e sp eed s ca n b e sig nifi ca ntly
faster than bicy cle sp ee ds. In addition , the cl earance in-
t e rval for motor vehicl es c ro ss ing a wide inter sec tion may
not be long e nough to e n sure sa fe cl ea ran ce by bicycl es .
Although littl e research is available, timed se que ncing of
signals may take bicycling into ac c ount. Some citi es time
their downtown urban traffic signals to acc o unt for speeds
of 20 to 25 km/h (12 to 16 mph), whic h allows bicycle s
to easily rid e with traffi c .
Purposes
• Optimize signal tim i ng to slow down motorists try-
ing to get through a signal at a high rate of speed.
• Prov id e intervals in a traffic stream where bi-
cyc le s can cross streets safely.
• Provide enough time for a bicyclist to clear a
wide street at the end of a green phase.
• Accommodate both motor vehicle and bicycle
traffic in dense urban areas through optimal
signa l timing.
Considerations
• Studies are necessary to determine if a traf-
fic s ign al is needed . However, warrants need to
take into account local conditions, such as the
volume of bicyc le (and pedestrian) traffi c .
• Determine if the signals in a dense urban area
can be timed to accommodate both motor ve-
hic le and bicycle flow.
• Determine if b icyc le volumes are large enough to
warrant a bicycle traffic signal.
Estimated Cost
Typical traffi c signal costs range from $30,000 to
$140,000 .
<./)
<(
::;;
0 :r:
I-
>-co co
::J
>-co
""""'""'" ..... "'-~
Loops be ing in stalled in advance of intersection with l im ited
sight distance may detect vehi cles and delay the green indica-
tion for cross-street traffic. (Chapel Hill , NC)
In lo ca tions with high vo lu m es of bicycli sts, traffic signals
for bi cy cles can b e u se d. The se have been popular in E u-
rop e and China for ma ny years. The City of Davis, CA,
Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System Countermeasures 115
0 :r:
Cl.
where bicycling accounts for ap proximately 17 perc e nt of
th e mode share, has effectively employed a bicycle traffic
signal to reduce conflicts and crashes b etween bicycles
and motor vehicles at a location with very high volumes
of bicycles and pedestrians. The bicycl e signal provides a
separate phase for bi cyclists and pedestrians, w ith motor-
ists following after th e intersection h as cleared (see case
study #39). "NO RIGHT TURN ON RED" signs are
also u sed.
116 Countermeasures Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System
I ;
36. BIKE-ACTIVATED SIGNAL
Bicycli sts o ft e n h ave di ffic ulty cro ss ing stree ts w ith hi gh -
sp ee d and/or hi g h-volume moto r ve hicl e traffi c. The
p ro bl em is worse n e d i f th ese streets h ave multipl e lan es.
These situ ati o n s can b e g rea tl y improve d by plac ing bi ke
ac tivation d evices on the minor stree t . These g ive bicy-
cli sts prefe re n ce on d e m and without ca u sing undu e d e-
lay to m o to rists. A c ti va ti o n d ev ices ca n al so b e u se d o n a
m ain lin e stree t to p ro l o n g th e g ree n phase and ext e nd
th e time n eeded for the bi cy cl e to cl ear the intersec ti on.
Pavement symbol shows b ic yclists wh ere to posit ion to be
detected fo r a signal c hange.
Bicy cl e lo op d e t ectors are the norm as the ac tiva tion d e-
vice. Loop d e tec tors ca n b e place d in a traffi c lan e or
bike lan e o n the side stree t to trip th e sig nal . Th ese d etec-
tor s ca n also be p laced o n the m aj o r stree t to prolo n g the
g reen phase and allow a cy cli st to cl ea r a wide intersec-
ti o n . It m ay al so b e n ecessa r y to inc rease the se n sitivity of
exis ting loops, as w ell as p aint ste n cil s o n the p ave m e nt
t o point ou t the most sens itive lo o p loca tions to cycli sts.
Anothe r al te rnative is th e u se of push butto n s n ea r the
roa dway su ch that the cyclist do es n o t h ave to ge t off the
bike .Vid eo ca m e ra s and infrare d m o ti o n d e t ec tion se n so r s
are othe r opti o n s but are m o re ex p e n sive.
The C ity of Sea ttl e, WA , h as m ad e exte n sive u se of p e-
des trian /bi cy cl e c ro sswalk sig nals (fo r m e rl y call e d h alf-
Purposes
• Provide intervals in a traffic stream where bi -
cycles can c ross streets safely.
• Prolong the green phase to provide adequate
time to clear the intersection .
Considerations
• Determine where act ivation devi ces are needed
and th e most appropriate type.
• Determine if activat ion dev ices are needed to
pro lon g the green phase .
Estimated Cost
Costs will vary depe ndin g on s ize and comp lexity of
the intersection , but in general are comparable to
the inst a l lation of co nve ntional traffic signals.
signals) in locati o n s w h ere bi cyc li sts u sing res ide nti al
streets h ave a need to cro ss an arte rial street at an un-
signalize d intersec ti o n (see case study #40). Th ese signal s
are ac tu ate d by b icy clists (o r p e d es tr ian s) and sto p traffi c
o nl y o n th e arterial, leaving th e lower vo lume cross street
unsignali ze d . T hi s all ows bicycl ists (a nd p ed es tri an s) to
cross safely upon demand w ith o ut crea ting unnecessa ry
d elays o n the ar ter ial stre e t . T h ese crosswalk signals h ave
also b ee n u se d to fac ilitate "bi cy cl e b o ul evards" in va rious
c omm unities. The boulevards are ro utes to fac ilitate fa st
and safe bike m ove m e nt w hil e di sco urag ing th ro u gh m o-
to r ve hicl e traffic.
Bi cycl e Countermea sure Sele ction System Counterm easures 117
"' z
i'
__J
UJ
<(
r
S?
::>
>-
CD
0
b r
37. SIGN IMPRO VEMENTS
Signs ofte n convey impo rtant informati o n that ca n im-
prove ro ad sa fe ty.The inte nt is to le t bi cyclists and m o to r-
ists know w h at to exp ec t , thus improvin g th e c h an ces that
they will reac t and b e h ave appropriately. For example, th e
u se of a "N o Parking in Bike Lane" sign is inte nded to
keep this spa ce clear for cycli sts. Si gn u se and place m e nt
should b e done carefully, in that ove ru se ofte n res ults in
n o n-complian ce and / o r di sres p ec t. E xcess ive u se o f signs
ca n .also c rea te v isual clutter and lea d t o th e inte nde d sign
and m essage ge tting "lost."
~ --~~~--~----~~~--
R egul ato ry si gn s, su ch
as STOP, YIELD o r
turn res tr i ctions re-
quire drive r ac tions and
are e n fo rceabl e . NO
TURN O N RED si gn s
ca n improve sa fety fo r
bi cycli sts (a nd p ed es tri -
an s). Probl e m s ofte n o c-
c ur at RTOR lo ca tion s
as m o to rists look t o the
le ft fo r a ga p in traffi c,
es p ecially if bic ycli sts
are riding wrong wa y
e ith e r in the stree t o r
on a sidewalk or p ath .
"' z
i'
__J
UJ
<(
r u
:E
>-CD
~
0 r
~
Regulatory sign restricts c urb
lane use to buses, bicy c le s, and
right -turn i ng vehicl es.
Warning sign alerts bicy c li st s and
motorists to an upcoming lane
shift.
W arning signs can al so
provid e u se ful informa-
tion . An example is the
SHARE THE ROAD
si gn , w hic h se rves to le t
motor ists know that bi-
cy cli sts m ay b e on the
ro ad and that th ey h ave
a legal r i ght to u se the
road . This sig n is typi -
call y pl ace d alon g ro ad s
w ith significa nt bi cycle traffic but relati ve ly h aza rd o u s
conditions fo r riding, su c h as narrow trave l lan es w ith
no shoulde r, ro ads or stree ts w ith poo r sight di stance, o r
a bridge c ros sing with n o ac commodati o n for bi cy cl es .
Sp ecial sign s are some times u se d to indi ca te th e prese n ce
o f a bicyc li st .
All signs sh o uld b e periodicall y chec ke d to m ake sure th at
they are in g ood conditio n , fr ee from g raffiti , reflective at
night, and c ontinue to se rve a purpose.
118 Countermeasures Bicycle Counte rmeasure Selection System
Purposes
• Provide warn i ng and regulatory messages , as well
as usefu I information .
• NO TURN ON RED signs can increase bicycle
safety and decrease crashes with righ t -turning
vehic les.
• SHARE THE ROAD s igns can make motorists more
aware of bicyclists o n roads with poor bicycle ac-
commodations.
Con sidera t ions
• Streets with bicycle t raffic should be evaluated
to determine if sign i mprovements could improve
safety.
• Proh i biting RTOR is a simple, low-cost measure.
The change can bene f it bicyclists o n streets with
considerable through bicycle traffic with min i mal
impact on motor vehicle traffic.
• Pa rt-t i m e RTOR proh i b itions during th e busiest
times of the day may be sufficient to address the
prob lem.
• RTO R signs should be clearly visib le to right-
turni ng motorists stopped in the curb lane at the
crosswalk.
• Carefu ll y evaluate use of both regulatory and warn-
ing signs. Avoid overuse which may lead to non-
comp li ance or visua l c l utter
Estimated Co st
Costs range from $30 to $150 per typica l sign plus in-
stallation at $200 per s ign . Electronic sign costs vary
wide ly b ut tend to be sig ni ficantly more expens ive.
Flashing warning signs such as this "Bicyc li st on Bridge" sign
could be used to alert motorists to the presence of bicyclists
ahead.
z
UJ
0 a:
:J
CD
z
<(
0
>-
CD
~ r
~
38. PAVEMENT MARKING IMPROVEMENTS
A va riety of pavement markings are ava il abl e to m ake bi-
cycling safer. Generall y the m arkings are for lan e se p ara-
tion, for indicating an ass ign e d p ath or correct positi on
for th e bi cyclist, and for informati o n about up coming
turning and cross in g maneuvers. The Manual of Uniform
Traffic Co ntrol D evi ces (MUTCD) is the national standard
for all p avement m arkings (as well as signs and sign als),
and P art 9 focuses on "Traffic Controls for Bicycle Fac ili -
ties."' Some states m ay have th eir own supp le m e nt to the
MUTCD.
Examples of pavement markings include the stripin g
and ide ntifi ca tion associated with bike lan es, striping for
paved should ers, turning lan es a t intersections, railroad
cross ings, an d dra inage g r at es or o ther pavement h az-
ards or irregu lar iti es. A general g uid elin e for improved
bicycle safety is to m ake sure th e markings are dura bl e,
vis ibl e, and non-skid . Markings are u su all y done with
paint or thermoplas ti c. Paint is c h eaper but tends t o fade
quickly, while ther m oplas ti c lasts longer but may be slip -
p ery. If thermoplasti c is used for bicycle markings, a thin ,
n o n-skid type is pre ferr ed. The State of Oregon h as four
different types of legend markings that ca n b e u se d for
bike la n es-hot poured th er moplas ti c, preformed ther-
moplastic, t ape, a nd m ethyl m e thacrylate. U se va ri es by
geogr aphy, weath er, traffic vo lumes and pedestrian and
bike co unts. Amo unt of ski d res istance va ri es wi th each
product. Sometimes glass beads, crush ed glass a nd ag-
grega te can be added during p lacement to increase skid
resistance, but th e skid res istant particles tend to sink
before the thermoplastic cools.
Blue pavement highlights a contraflow bike lane.
Purposes
• Indicate a t raffi c lane to be shared between mo-
tor vehicles and bicycles.
• Indicate the presence of a bike lane .
• Indicate an assigned path or correc t position for
the bicyclist.
• Provide information about upcoming turning and
cross in g maneuvers.
• Indicate other specialized bicycle faci I ities or
s ituations .
Considerations
• Use of thin , durable, non -skid thermoplastic
mater ial improves conditions for bicyclists.
• Care ful placement of markings (e.g., away from
bus and tru ck traffic , away from driveways) will
increase their longe vity.
Es ti mated Cost
A roug h cost est imate of labor and mater ials for
arrow and chevron markings app l ied using methyl
methacrylate is $100 each. Costs of other markings
would depen d on type and materials used.
The "b ik e and chevron," or SHARROW, is used to indicate
both the pr esence of b icycles and the co rre ct placement of
bicyc les in the traffi c lane.
Care in th e placeme nt of painted markings will increase th eir
longevity. For example, avo id placement of markings near far-
sid e bus stops or near driveways or other loca tions , particu-
larly those vvith high truck traffic, to avoi d wear from tires.
M ore sy mbols are now b eing used to indicate the pres-
e n ce of bicycles in th e traffic stream, as well as the cor-
Bicy cle Counte rmea sure Selection System Co unt ermeasures 119
rect riding position in the traffic lan e. There are many
international exa mples. In th e United States, the City of
Denver, CO, introduced th e "bike-in-house" marking
for shared lane situations many years ago. An experimen-
tal evaluatio n of a modified ve rsion o f this sy mbol, th e
"Sh ared Arrow," was performed on a w ide curb lane cor-
ridor in Gainesvill e, FL, in 1999.2 In February 2004, th e
City of San Francisco complete d an evaluation of a modi-
fied "bike-in-hous e" and "bike-and-c h evron" markings
(see case stu dy #37). The Gainesville and San Francisco
eval u ations showed benefits for the markings. The "bike
and ch evro n " markings h ave come to be known as the
SHARROW, and this symbol ha s b een approved by the
California Traffic Control Device Committee for u se in
California.
Other known U.S. cities with so m e varia tion of th e
markings described above include Chicago, IL ; Cam-
bridge, MA; Portl and, OR; Warren and Waitsfie ld , VT;
Seattle, WA; and Sacramento, CA. There continu es to be
movement toward adop tion of some form of the arrow or
c hevron as a n ational standa rd, but as of this writing this
is not comple t e.
120 Counterm easures Bicycle Countermea su re Selection System
z
UJ
0
0:
::::i
al
z
<(
0
>-al
0
39.SCH OOLZ ON E IMPROVEMENTS
A variety of roadway and other improvements may b e u sed
to e nhance the safe mobility of childre n in sc hool zo nes .
Th e countermeasures p ertinent to children walking to
school also ge n erally apply to children bicycling to sc hool.
b ~ L...:...: _ __...::....::..:::.....:.:..:......:£:....:~~l!::.::£2~~~~
Young bicyclists as well as walkers will benefit from slow
school zones and other safety improvements .
Sidewalks or separated walkways and paths are ingredi-
e nts for a safe trip from home to sc hool on foot or b y
bike. C hildren ca n also b e taught sa fe riding techniques
that will e n abl e the m to ride on low-volume n eig hbor-
hood streets . Speeds of motor vehicl es also n eed to b e
controlled on these street s. Signs and m arking treatments
to control motor vehicle speed s in and aro und sc hools
include the sc hool advance warning sign (w hich can b e
fluores ce nt ye llow/gree n ), school speed zon e and flash-
ing speed zone signs , fl.as hing ye llow warning signals, and
in-street "Yield to Peds" signs (generally dropp e d into a
holder in the street). Police e nforcement in sc hool zones
may b e needed in situations w h ere drive r s are speeding or
not yielding to children in crosswalks . Sometimes lo ca li-
ti es double the fines for sp eeding in sc hool zon es.
Other h elpful measures include parking prohibitions
n ear intersections and crosswalk s near sc hools. Marke d
crosswalks can help g uide children to the b es t routes to
school. Some times these c rosswalks h ave addition al pe-
d es trian cross ing signs mounted at the side of the st re e t
as well as overh ead. Fl as hing b eacons may also b e u se d.
School administ rators and p are nt-teacher organizations
n eed to edu ca t e students and parents about sc hool safety
and access to and from sc hool. Edu ca tion, e nforcement,
and well-designed roads must all b e in place to e n courage
motorists to drive appropriately. Safe Routes to School
Communities are u sing Safe Routes to School (S R2S)
programs to work toward making walkin g and bicycling
safe and appeali ng ways for childre n to get to school. A
Purpose
• Prov id e enhanced safety around sc hoo ls .
Considerations
• Sa f ety m ust be a combined effort be tween loca l
tra ffi c offi cials, po li ce , sc hoo l officia ls, pa ren t s,
and stu dents.
• Care mu st be t a ke n t o make sure st ud ents un-
derst and the vario us signs and markings and no t
be lu l led into a fa lse sense of secur ity.
Estimated Co st
Costs wo ul d depend on the school zone t reatment
selecte d . For examp le, if signs were c hose n , cos t s
might inc l ude $50 to $150 per sign p l us inst alla -
tion cos t s. Adult cross i ng guards may cost around
$10,000 each pe r yea r.
n ew co urse deve loped by the P e d es trian and Bicycle I n-
form ation Center (PBIC) for FHWA is d es igne d to h elp
corrununities and stat es c rea t e sound programs that are
based o n conmmnity conditions, best prac ti ces and re-
sponsible use of resources. The course co ncludes with
participa nts d eveloping an action plan . The co urse is sup-
ported throu gh a partnership of funding from the Federal
Hig hway Administration , the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration , th e Centers for Disease Control
and Preve ntion and the Environmental Protection Age n-
cy. (See http ://www.p e dbikeinfo.org/sr2 s/ for more.)
The u se of well-trained ad u lt cross ing guards h as been
found to be one of t h e most effec tive measures for as-
sisting c h il dren , w h e the r bicyclists or walkers, in cross ing
z
UJ
0
0:
::::i
al
z
<(
0
>-
al
~
0
I
"'-'-------0..
A crossing guard helps child bicyclists and wa l kers safely cross
a n intersect ion .
Bicycle Counte rmeasure Selection System Countermeasures 121
streets safely. Adult crossing guards require training and
monitoring and should be e quippe d w ith a bright and
reflective safety vest and a STOP p addle. Florida has a
state-l evel cross ing guard program. The Florida School
Crossing G u ard Training G uidelines, produced by the
Florida DOT and administered by the Florida Depart-
m e nt of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, are ava il able
at http :/ /www.dot.state.fi. u s/Safety /ped_bike/trainin g /
p ed_bike_training.htm.
One of the bi gges t safety hazards aro und schools is parents
or care takers dropping off and picking up their c hildren.
There ar e two immediate so lutions: (1) there n ee ds to b e
a clearly m arke d area where parents are permitted to drop
off and pi ck up their children, and (2) drop-off/pick-up
regulations m u st b e provided to pare nts on the first day of
sc hool. Drop-off areas must be lo cated away from where
childre n on foot or bicycle cro ss stree ts or access th e
sc hool. P are nt drop-off zones must also be separa ted from
bus drop-off zo n es. If parents ca n b e trained to do it right
at the start of t h e sc hoo l year, they are likely to continu e
good b e h avior through o ut th e yea r.
For a longe r-ter m so lut ion, it is prefera bl e to crea te an
environme nt w h ere c hildren can walk or bicycle safely
to sc hool , prov ided th ey live within a suitable distance.
One co n ce pt that h as been su ccessfu l in some com-
munities is the concept of a "walking bus," w h ere an
adult(s) accompanies children to sc h ool, star ting at one
location a nd pi c king c hildren u p along the way. Soon, a
fa irly sizea bl e gro up of children are walki ng in a regul ar
formation, two by two, under the supervision of res pon-
sible adults, who are mindful of stree t cross ings. P aren ts
take turns accompanying the "walking school bus" in
ways that fit th e ir sc h edules.
122 Cou nt ermeas ur es Bicyc le Count ermeasure Selec t ion System
EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT
Prov idin g e du ca tion, training, and reinforce ment are key
strategies in improving bicyclist and motorist traffic skill s
and b e h avior. T h e primary goal of an edu ca tional strat-
egy is to g ive p e ople b oth the means and the motivation
to alter th e ir b ehav ior and reduce reckl ess ac tions and
cras h es. To implement the stra tegy, an integra t e d , multi-
di sc iplinary approac h that links h ard policies (fo r exampl e,
ch anges in infrastructure) and soft poli cies (for exampl e,
public relations campaigns) an d addresses both bicyclists
and motorists has th e grea tes t ch ance of su ccess.
Police enforceme nt is a primary comp o n e nt in re info rc-
ing proper b e h av iors and maintaining a sa fe e nv ironment
for all modes of travel. W ell -public ize d e nforcem e nt
ca mpaigns, combine d w ith public e duca tion programs ,
can b e effec tive in d e terring ca reless and reckless driv-
ing and encouraging drivers to sh are the roadway w ith
bicyclists (and pedestrians). M os t imp ortantly, by e nforc-
ing the traffic co d e , p oli ce reinforc e a sense of right and
wrong in th e general public and l e nd credibility to traf-
ic sa fety e duca tional programs and traffi c laws and co n-
tro l d evi ces. Law e nforce m e nt offic e rs sometimes find it
difficu lt to "tick e t " bi cyclists, and eve n to stop a yo un g
child . However, warnings, in li e u of citati o n s, ca n b e ef-
fe c tive in d e te rring inappropriate bi cyclist b e h av io rs.Th e
educa tion and e nforcement co unte rmeas ures covered in
this sec ti on include:
Law Enforcem e nt
• Bicyclist Edu ca tion
• Motorist Education
• Practitione r Professio n al E du ca ti o n
A wide ra nge of bicyc le safety training programs is availab le
for adapt ati on . These ch il dren are pa rti cipat i ng in an o n-bi -
cycle program in Duva l County, FL .
FLORIDA BICYCLE
LAW ENFORCEMENT
GUIDE
A Review of
Florida's Bicycle Safety Laws
to help with warnings,
citations and crash reports
All citations are to the 2002 Florida Statutes
~
FLORIDA
BICYCLE
#fu~cj?b
ASSOCIATION
Bicycles are Vehicles
Law enforce ment sho ul d play a n ac t ive ro le i n supporting a
safe bicyc lin g environme nt. Fund i ng for this brochure was
provided by sa les of a special "Share the Road" license plate
(see case stud y #57).
Bi cyc le Counte rmeasure Selec tio n System Countermeasures 12 3
z
UJ
0 er:
::::>
a:i
z
<§
>-a:i
~
I
0..
40 . LAW ENFORCEMENT
Al o n g w ith e n g ineering a nd e du ca ti o n ap proac h es t o
improv ing bi cy clist safety, e n fo r cem ent of traffi c laws
ca n h e lp t o c rea t e a safe r r idin g e nv ironm e nt, w h e th-
e r this e nforce m e nt is di rec t e d at the m o torist o r the
bicy clist . With r e sp ec t t o m o torists, effo rts to re du ce
sp ee ding in r es identi al ar eas a nd alo n g roa dways fr e -
qu e nte d b y bicy cli sts, and to e nforce p ro p e r yi e l ding,
p ass ing and ove rtaking m a n e u ve r s, ca n m a ke ro adways
safe r places fo r bicycl ist s, a nd also safer fo r oth e r m o-
t o ri sts a n d p e d es trians sh a ring the roadway. Simila rl y,
e ffor ts to c urb running of r e d li g hts a t inte r sec ti ons
w ill b e n e fit all road u sers.
On -bike poli ce officers set a good example and ca n help t o
reinfor ce obe d ience to traffi c laws by commun ic ation as well
as direc t enforcement.
Alth o u gh law e nforcement o ffi ce r s so m e times find it
difficult t o "tic ke t " bi cycli sts, and eve n to stop a yo ung
c hild, su c h ac tions as rid i ng fac ing traffi c, weaving in and
o ut of traffi c, ignoring sto p sign s, and riding without
p ro p er li g hts at night are da n ge rou s, and th ey can c re -
a te ill w ill w ith moto rists. Law e nforce m ent o ffi ce r s ca n
take adva ntage of the opportunity to sto p and e du ca t e
the offe nding bicy cli st a bou t th e impo r ta n ce o f obey in g
traffic laws. It is es p eciall y critical that office r s e n fo rce
any h elme t wearing law in effec t , in o rd e r to increase th e
effecti ve n ess o f th e laws.
A judicial prog ram es p ec iall y targe te d to th e inte nde d au-
di e n ce ca n b e a key t o e n co ura ging g rea t er p arti cip ati o n
by p olice in bi cy cl e law enforcem e nt ac tiviti es. On col-
lege ca mpuses, a sp ec ial "stu de nt co urt" ca n b e se t up to
address traffic v iolato r s, incl uding bicyclists. Young chil -
dre n (a nd the ir p arents) m ight b e as ke d to atte nd a bi cy cl e
safety e du ca ti o n cl ass in lie u of p ay ing a traffi c fin e . Ty pi-
call y, the foc u s of sp ecial bicy cl e judicial prog ram s is o n
e du ca ti o n rathe r than punishment .
12 4 Countermeasures Bi cyc le Count erm easure Selection Sy stem
Purposes
• Educate law enforce ment officers about factors
cont rib uting to bicyc li st crashes and about ways
they can interact with the public to reduce these
factors and ult i mately the number of bicyc le-mo-
tor vehi c le traffic c rashes .
• Improve cyclists' knowl edge, attit ude s, and be -
ha viors with respec t to safe bicycl in g .
• Educate the motor in g public abo ut th eir rights
and resp onsibilities wh en shar i ng the road w ith
bic yc li sts .
• Dea l effectively with young children as bicy -
c li sts .
Considerations
• Because of the many demands placed on law
enforcement officia ls' time , it may be diffi c ult to
con vince police de part ments of the importance
of officers receiving training in enfo rcement of
laws rel ating to b icyc le safety.
• Althou gh "educa tion " is emphas ized over
"ti cke tin g," the prob lem of how to handle young
off enders espec ially ca n be a roadb lock t o effec -
tive bicy cle law enforcement. (See case stu dy
#4 7 .)
• Bi cyc le law enforce ment programs are most
needed in commu nities and areas with high lev -
els of bi cycling , suc h as on and around coll ege
ca mpuses.
Estimated Cost
The est im ated cost for an officer to participate in
the two-day Wisconsin officer training co urse is $90
to $100, w ith disco unts ava i lable to spo nso r ing
departmen t s and some tra ining costs co vered by the
state. If another state want ed to i nitiat e a similar
program, t here would be startup cos t s inv olved , pri -
mar i ly associated with "train the trainer" act iviti es.
WE Bl KE, the deve lope r of the course, also offers
inst ructor training (see case study #44). N HT SA
has re ce ntl y begun to offer a similar program.
S p ecial e du ca ti o n al prog ram s offe re d to bi cy cli sts in li e u
of c onviction or traffic c ourt app ea ran ces are a fo rm of
dive rsion prog ram since th e offe nder (ofte n a juve nil e)
is di ve rte d fr om normal co urt procedures. Dive rsio n
p rog ram s ha ve lo n g b ee n u se d w ith res p ec t to juve nil es,
tee n s, and o the r sp ecial populati o ns. There are a number
o f exa mples of bi cy cli st dive rsion prog rams in pl ace across
the country, incl udin g p rog ram s in:
Cor va lli s, OR,
h ttp :/ /www.bicy cl efriendl yco nunu n ity.org /p ress_
co rvalli s.h tn1
P alo Alto, CA, http ://www.ci ty.palo -alto.ca.u s/
tra n sp o rtation -di vision / safe-bi cy cl e -pe d es tri an -edu .
h tml
• W alnut Creek , C A , h ttp://wvv\v.nhtsa.d o t .gov/
peopl e / o utreac h / safed ige / sp r ing2000 / spr00-1 6.html
A recent article app eari n g in th e Internati o n al P o li ce
M o untain B ike A ssoc iati on n ewsle tter supp ort ed in-
crease d p oli ce e nforcem e nt of traffic laws for bi cy cli sts.
It stat es :
T h e foc u s of any bicycle e n fo rcem ent prog ram sh o uld
b e e du ca ti onal , not punitive. A su ccessful e n fo rce m ent
prog ram sho uld improve a cy cli st 's knowle d ge and at-
titudes, and, most imp o rtantly, b e h av ior. A g ood pro-
g ram also ed u ca tes th e m o to rin g publi c con ce rni ng
th eir ri ghts and res p o n sibiliti es w h e n sh aring the ro ad
w ith bi cycli sts (see http :/ /www.ipmba.org/printabl es /
case-for-b ike -e nfo rceme nt.PDF) .1
Al t hou g h law e nforcement offi ce r s are tra in e d t o m ake
tra ffic st o ps fo r sp eeding, re d li g ht running, a nd other
d angerou s b ehaviors by m o torist s, t h ey ty pi call y d o n o t
receive an y speci al training with r es p ec t to bi cycl e sa fety.
It is not su rpr isin g, th en, that th ere is ve ry littl e ac ti ve
e n fo rce m e nt of traffi c laws a ffec ting bi cy clists in U.S.
co mmuniti es. In th e sta te o f Wisco n sin , howeve r, the
situa tion is improving b eca u se of an inn ovati ve train-
ing prog r am that is o ffere d upon re qu es t t o individu al
p o li ce d e p artments. Office r s who p arti cip a te in the two-
d ay Enforcem e nt for Bicy cl e Safety Co urse signifi ca ntly
improve b o th their knowle d ge and attitudes ab o ut e n-
fo rce m e nt for bi cy cl e sa fe ty, and are more likely to m ake
e nforce m e n t contac ts in th e ir c ommuniti es (see case
study #4 4).
On a n ati o n al level , th e N ational Hig hway Traffi c Safe ty
Administ ra ti o n (NHTSA) now offe r s a similar co urse
e ntitl e d "Community Bicy cl e Safe ty for Law Enforce -
me nt" to p rov ide guidan ce t o o ffi cer s in t e res t e d in
working w ith the ir communities to enc ourage bicy-
cling and improve bicy cl e safe ty. A C D -ROM training
c ourse is also unde r d eve lo pme nt tha t m ay b e offe r e d b y
a training office r or take n v i a self-instruc ti o n on a p e r-
so n al c ompute r. (See http ://www.bicy cling info.org /ee /
e nforce_o ffi ce r 0 3.htm.) Anothe r sourc e o f support t o
law e nforce m e nt offi ce r s is the Law Enforce m e nt Bi-
cy cl e Ass o ciation (LEBA), an orga niza tion "run by co p s
"Cops o n Bikes" have a c on spi c uou s pre sen c e in the com-
mun ity a nd may i nterac t with bi cyc lists a nd pedest r ians more
readil y.
for co p s" (http://vV\vw.le b a.o rg).
Traine d , adult cross in g g u a rds are ano ther fa irly beni gn
but effec tive m e th o d of providing correction and e du ca-
ti on to motorists, bi cyclists, and p edes tri an s, partic ularl y
childre n e n ro u te to and fro m sc h ool. C ro ss ing gu ard s
edu ca te o n safe walkin g an d bi cycli ng b e h aviors, ass ist
c hildre n in crossing at ce rtain loca ti o n s, and m ay help to
e n courage u se of th ese m o d es in trave lin g to sc h ool since
they p rovid e a m eas ure of safety th at e n g ineering trea t-
m ents alone ca nno t p rov ide. Addi t io n ally, well-traine d
adult gu ard s may ass ist in e n fo rcing m o t o rist spee d lim-
its, yielding, and o the r laws (throu gh re p o rting o ffe nd-
in g m o to ri sts). Since 1992, the State of Fl o rida re quires
most localiti es to provid e minimum training by u sing th e
Fl o rida Schoo l Crossing Guard Training G uid elines (see
http:I/www.d o t .s tate.£1.u s/Sa fe ty /p e d _bike/tr aining /
p e d_bike_training .htm).
Finally, NHTSA h as c ompile d a reso urce guid e o n laws
relate d to p e d es tri an and bicy cl e sa fety. The guide is avail-
abl e fo r downloading at http ://www.nhtsa .gov /p eopl e /
injury I p edbimo t /bike/ reso urceguide/ index.html.
Bicycle Counter me asure Select ion System Countermea sure s 125
<( :::
::E
0
E
8
0
I a..
(fl
<( ::;o
0
I >--
>-!Il
!Il ::::;
>-!Il
41. BICYCLIST EDUCATION
Although m any of the countermeas ures ide ntifi e d in this
guide have foc u se d o n improving the ro adway e nviron-
m e nt fo r bi cy cli sts , a co mpre h e n sive app roac h to bicycli st
sa fe ty e n compasses e du ca ti o n and e nforcem e nt as well as
en gineering. Not only d o bicy clists n eed sa fe pl aces to
ride, they n eed to know how to rid e skillfully and how
to inte rac t sa fely with motorists on the roa dway, whe the r
at inte rsec ti o n s or midblock . This is tru e rega rdl ess of th e
age of the bi cy clist . For exa mple, bi cyclists ca n b e tau ght
the importan ce of foll owing traffi c rul es and re gulations,
the h aza rds of riding at night witho ut p roper li ghts, the
h aza rds of w rong-w ay an d sidewalk riding, and o th e r skills
and b ehav io rs impo rtant to sa fe riding . Bicy cli sts ca n also
b e traine d to b e aw are of m an e u ve rs m o t o rists te nd to
m ake at inte r sec tion s that ca n b e dan gero u s fo r a bi cyc li st ,"
su c h as sp eeding thro u gh an amb er signal indica ti o n o r
running a re d li ght, turning ri ght o n re d , making a right
turn so on aft e r ove rtaking a cycli st , e tc. Similarly, bicy -
cli sts need to b e aware of p o te ntially dan gero u s m.idbl oc k
m o torist m an e uve r s, su c h as turnin g across lan es o f traffi c,
turning into or out of a drive wa y, turning into or o u t o f
a p arking sp ace , etc.
~ &iiiiiiiiiil••
Th e BikeEd Hawaii program offers f ive less ons of on-bike train-
ing geared toward tea c h i ng safe neighborho od riding skills.
Bicycli st e duca tional p rograms ca n b e ca rrie d o ut at m any
l evels, fro m di stributing b roc hures o r sh owing videos to
co mpre h e n sive sc hoo l-b ase d on-bike prog ram s, and tar-
get a udi e n ces ca n ran ge fro m youn g presc h ool-age c hil-
dre n to se nio rs .
In 1998, the Fe d e ral Highway Administration (FHWA)
co nve n e d a steering gro up o f bicycl e safety exp e rts to d e-
ve lo p a N ational Bi cy cl e Safety Edu ca tion C urric ulum.2
The res ulting guide (a lso ava ilable on C D-ROM fr o m
NHTSA) identifi es and prioritizes the sp ec ifi c topi c areas
that sh o uld b e addresse d fo r various targe t a udie n ces, a nd
includes a res ource ca talog w ith informati o n on train-
126 Counte rmeas ur es Bicyc le Countermea sure Se lect ion System
Purposes
• Teac h cyclists of a ll ages safe b icyc l ing ski l ls,
i nc l uding how to interact with mo t or ists in traf-
fic, both at intersections and mi d b lock.
• Teach cyclists the im portance of having a bi ke
that fits, mainta in i ng the bike in good condit ion,
a nd a lways wear i ng a he l met whe n ridin g.
• Enco ur age bicycl i ng as part of a hea lt hy l ife-
sty le .
Considerations
• Al t hough many b icycle safety educa ti on materi -
als and programs ex ist, it is importa nt to choose
th e r ight program fo r your partic ul ar needs and
situa ti on.
• For children , a co m prehensive bicyc le safety
education program s hould include an on-bike
co mp onent.
• Av a il able funding, t im e, space, and t eacher educa-
tion and training are al l important co ns iderat ions
when select i ng a bic ycle safety education program.
• It is a lso importa nt t hat once implemented,
prog ram effective ness be evaluated.
• As w ith other ed uca ti on and enforcement initia-
ti ves, a long-term co m mitment is requi red , both
to re in force learned behaviors and to accommo-
date new bicyclists.
Students in the BikeEd Hawaii program practi ce signall i ng
right turns on neighborho od streets .
ing prog rams that addres s e ac h of the vario u s topi cs . Th e
R es ource Catal og is also av ail abl e as an online se arch -
(fl
<( ::;o
0
I >--
>-!Il
!Il ::::;
>-!Il
0 >-0
I
CL
able datab ase (http ://vrww.bicyclinginfo .org/ee/thwa.
html). Users ca n search the database by key word(s), b y
a specific tar ge t a udi e n ce (e.g ., young bi cy cli sts ages nine
through 12 ; adult bi cycli sts; motorists), and by se lec ted
topi c or subtopic areas (bicycle-riding skill s, rules of th e
road, esse ntial e quipment, riding for h ealth and fitn ess,
e t c.) to find an edu ca tion curriculum that is suited to
the ir n ee ds.
More rece ntly, FHWA has developed a Good Pra ct ices Guid e
for Bicycl e Safety E ducati on (http :/ /www.bi cyclingi nfo .org /
ee/b es tguide.cfin) th at co ntain s case study d escr iptions of
16 progr ams spa nning riders of all ages, alo n g with h elp -
ful information on planning, funding, impleme nting, and
evaluating a program in your own community or state.3
FHWA's bicyclinginfo.org Web site also contains links
to many bicyclist safety e du ca tion prog rams, tools and
resources that ca n b e used by profess ionals planning a
program as well as by individual bicyclists (http :/ /www.
bi cy clinginfo.org/ ee/index.htm). For exa mple, th e sec -
tion for young cy clists ages nine through 12 co ntains links
to sites with informati o n on ch oosing the right bike and
helmet and how to park and secure yo ur bike, among
o the rs.The sectio n for adult cy clists contains links to m a-
terials ava il able from the Leagu e of American Bicyclists
covering areas ranging from "A Guide to Commuting for
the Employee" to "H ow to Shift and C h ange Gea rs" to
"Bike Mainte nance 101." With ready access to these re-
so urces, program d evelopers do n o t n ee d to reinven t the
w h eel to implement a bicycle safety edu ca tion prog ram,
and young and old riders alike can readily find the infor-
mation th ey nee d to be safer riders.
Specialized equip ment helps make on-bicyc le training avail -
able to more stu dents in this sc hool-based program in a
Nevada co mmunity.
Es ti mated Cost
Costs wi l l vary greatl y, de pend in g upon the typ e
and scope of the educa ti ona l activity. Dissemi -
nating sa fety broc hures or si mply show in g a bike
safety video will be much less expens iv e than , for
examp le, a syste m-wide sc hool -ba sed program that
in cludes on-b ike ins tru ction.
A mong coa liti on-pro vid ed prog rams, th e Hawaii
Bi cyc l i ng League esti mates th at Bike Ed Haw ai i
costs between $23 and $28 per stude nt wh ic h
provides th ree ins tructors per class for a week -
long on-bi cycle safety and ski l ls training course of
approx imately 45 minutes per day. Al I in structor
salaries, equipment (fle et of bikes , hel met s, safety
jerseys), vehicle costs, and a percentage of office
support is covered under the Bike Ed budget. Bikes
and he lmets are rep l aced eve ry ot her year . Th e
Oregon Bi cycle Transportatiaon A lliance estimates
that the i r Bicycle Safety Education Program , a 7 to
10 day course of 45 to 60 minutes daily involving
classroo m and on-b icycle tra inin g, cos t s appro x i-
mately $800 per c lass (for anywhere from 1 2 to 30
students ). This program also provides inst ructors
(one per c lass), bi ke s and helm ets, and transp orta-
tion of the bikes to program sites.
I n North Carolina , th e Office of Pedes t rian and
Bi cyc le Tran sportat ion prov ided $5,000 mini -g rants
to eleme ntary schoo ls wanting t o teach the Basics
of Bi cycl i ng, an on-bi ke bicycle safety education
program for eleme ntary schoo l age c hildren . The
amoun t covered the cost of trailers for storing and
transpo rtin g bicyc les ($2,000 t o $2,500 depend-
ing on le ngth); the p u rchase of 20 to 30 bicycles at
$105 to $1 20 each (a discounted price negotiated
with a lo cal bicycle shop); and helmets at a cost of
$5 each (recommend purchasing 35 he l mets for
a class of 30 stude nts , with va ry in g sizes t o allow
for proper fitting). Th e program also required some
props (traffi c signs, b ike fronts, etc.), which schoo ls
genera l ly made themselves for a minimal cost.
Bicycle Counte rme asure Select ion System Counte rm easures 127
z w
0
"' ::;)
"' z
<(
0
>-"' 2
0
I
0..
42. MOTORIST EDUCATION
In addition to e ducating bicyclists about how to ride safely
in traffic, it is important that motorists be edu ca te d about
how to sh are the road with bi cy cli sts. This is es p ecially
important fo r motorists who are not bicyclists th em se lves
and who n1a y b e less fami li ar with the risks bicyclists face
when operating in traffic.
The FHWA Bicycling Safety Educa tion Resource Guide
and Database d esc rib e d in the sec tion on Bicyclist Educa-
tion also con tains inform ation on programs and mate rials
for educating motorists.2 Example to pic areas of imp or-
tan ce to motorists are co mn1Unic ati ons an d sh aring the
ro ad, th e impac t oflarge motor ve hi cles on bicycles, c hil-
dren 's basic riding skill s, h ow to pa ss groups of bicycli sts,
and how to o perate in th e prese nc e of bike lan es.
Motorist educational materials may include information on
the importance of obeying low speed limits i n neighbor-
hoods and being alert for child bicyclists who may ride out
wit ho ut yield in g.
FHWA's bic y clinginfo.o rg W e b site contains ad ditional
tips for e duca ting motorists about cyclin g, along with
links to W e b-b ased reso urces and m ater ials (http :/ /www.
bicy clinginfo.org/ ee l e d_motorist.htm). In di sc ussing e d-
u cation programs for motorists, the site urges that e mpha-
sis be given to the b enefits of shar ing the road (safer, more
inviting streets, a bette r e nvironment, etc.), the fa c t th at
bi cycling is a v iabl e m ean s of transportatio n , and the bicy -
clists' right to use th e roadway. The W e b site also contains
links to m any bicyclist sa fety e ducation programs , tools
and resources that can b e u se d by profess ionals planning a
program as well as b y individual bi cycli sts. For motorists,
there is a sec tion on "U n d e rstanding Cyclist B e h av ior in
Traffic" with links to th e follow ing m ate rials from th e
League of American Bicyclists:
10 Commandments of Cycling
• Principles ofTraffic
• How to Avoid M otorist Errors
128 Countermeasures Bicycle Countermea sure Se lect ion System
Purposes
• Educate motorists about how to safe ly share the
road with bicyclists and motivate them to act on
th i s knowled ge.
• Promote bicycling among motorists who other-
wise might not consider bicycling as a viable
transportation mode and a way to be physically
active .
Considerations
• Th e target audience of motorists is much
broader than that of bicyclists, and not all may
have a positive mindset towards bicyclists . It is
important that bicyclists not aggravate the situ-
ation by disobeying traffic laws or otherwise not
rid in g responsibly in traffi c.
• As with bicyclist education , motorist education
requires a long-term commitment.
Estimated Cost
Costs for motorist educat ion programs or initiatives
are generally less than those for bicyclist educa-
tion , especially on-road bicycling instruction. The
primary cost is for any print materials and any ad-
ditiona l costs assoc iated with updat in g educational
materia ls (such as the state driver license manual
or state driver education program mater ials).
• Bike Lanes -What They Are and How They Work
• Riding Right-On th e Right
Driving at Nig ht -Look for Their Lights
In addition to prov iding informati o n in the form of bro-
c hures and other print mate rial s, motorists ca n also b e
e ducated throu gh signs (e.g ., reminders to "S hare the
Ro ad ") (see case studies #41, 45 , a nd 47), through in-
formatio n provided on walking or bicycling m ap s (see
case study #51), and through information c ontaine d in
driver li cense h andbooks. The primary goal of these ef-
for ts is to create a sa fer , more positive climate for cycling
a mong the general motoring public and poss ibl y to re -
cruit additional cyclists .
43. PRACTITIONER EDUCATION
State and local bicycle coordinators and othe r profes -
sio n als whose res ponsibiliti es include planning, d es igning,
building, and maintaining safe faciliti es for bicyclin g n eed
c urre nt info rmation upo n whic h to b ase the ir d ec isions
and guid e th e ir actions.Th e 199 9 Ame rica n Ass o ciation of
State Highway and Tran sportation Offi cials (AASHTO)
G uid e f or the D evelopm ent ef Bi cycl e Faciliti es re m ains th e
primary reso urce for bicycl e tran sportation profess ional s
re sponsible for p lanning, designin g, and building fa ciliti es
to e nhance a nd e n courage sa fe bi cy cl e trave l.4 The Manu al
on Uniform Traffi c Cont ro l D evi ces (MUTC D ) al so contains
g uidance with resp e ct to re c omme nde d si gns and pave -
m e nt m arkings for bi cy clists and bi cy cl e fa ciliti es. 5
Works hops and ot her training opport unities can increase effec -
tiveness of profess ionals involved i n bicycle planning, design ,
engineer i ng , education, or enforcement.
The As so ciati o n of P e d es tri an and Bicy cl e Profess ionals
(APBP) offe rs a one-day training course to "bring bi cy cl e
and pedestrian profess ionals up-to-date with the very lat-
es t te chnical information: th e AASHTO Guide for the
D eve lopme nt of Bicy cl e Faciliti es, the MUTCD, TEA-
21, and the Uniform Ve hicl e Code ." It also sponsors pro-
fess ional d eve lopment se minars that provid e an opportu-
nity for profess ionals to di sc u ss sp ecifi c tec hnical iss u es in
g reater de pth (h tt p://www.apbp.org/).
FHWA ha s also develop e d a training course for g radu-
at e and unde rg rad uate tran sportation p lanning and d es ign
students. The course "provid es current information on
p e d e strian and bicycl e pl anning and d es ign tec hniques,
as well as practical lessons on how to in crease bicy cling
and walking through land-use practic es and eng in ee r-
ing design " (se e http ://safety.fhwa.dot.gov /p e d_bike /
univco urse /pbc rsbro c h.htm). Th e course contains 24
modules that ca n form the ba sis for a "stand alone" course
or b e incorpo rated into o th e r courses.
Purpose
• Pro vi de transporta t ion planners, designers, and
othe rs the tra inin g and tools needed t o create
sa f er, more inviting environments for bicycling.
Consideration s
• Avai lability of tra ini ng opportunities, costs to
participate, and ti me requirements are important
co ns id erations in efforts t o encourage greater
professional train i ng . Also, professionals must
first be motivated t o want to engage in such
tra inin g.
Es t i mated Cost
The reso urces and mater ials identified in this sec -
tion are generally ava i lable in electronic format at
no cos t , or can be ordered from their deve lopers at
minima l cost.
NHTSA and FHWA h ave combine d to p ro du ce th e
NHTSA/FHWA Bicycl e Safety R es ource Guide, whic h
contains informa tion about proble m areas, bicyclist a nd
moto ri st e rrors, targe t g roups, and co unte rmeas ures . The
reso urce guide (ove r 15 ,000 p ages o f m ate rial), now avail -
abl e e ntirely o n the FHWA W e b site, al so co ntains in-
formation on fac ility d es ign , pl anning, guid e lines, good
prac ti ces, tools and outreac h m ate rials to aid in problem
id e ntification , counte rmea sures d eve lopme nt and raisin g
aware n ess (see http ://safe ty.fh wa .dot.gov /to o ls/do cs /
w elc o me_bsg . pdf).
Othe r initiatives su ch as Safe Routes to School train-
in g prog rams and eve n on-bicy cl e tours for pl anners and
engine ers are b e ing us e d to train prac tition ers (see case
study #9).
Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System Countermeasures 129
SUPPORT FACILITIES AND
PROGRAMS
The m eas ures discu sse d in this sec ti o n support access to
bi cycling by provid in g trip b eginnin g or d es tin at io n n e-
cess ities su c h as bicycling m ap s for trip planning, sec ure
b icy cl e parki n g , sh owers, lo ckers and o th e r fa ciliti es. To
e n able longe r multi-mo dal trips, providin g access to tran-
sit and sp ace fo r bicycl es o n tra nsit is also n ecessa ry. Th ese
m e asures, p lus prom oti o nal ac ti vities and prog ram s, may
h elp to incre ase th e am o unt of riding in a c onununity.
Support ac ti vities or p o li cies ca n take m any fo rms, some
of which n at urally fa ll in lin e w ith a compre h en sive c om-
munity p rogram . For exa mple, provisio n of ni ce pl aces to
r ide w ith way findin g or d es tination sign s is o n e way that
a co mmunity ca n p romo t e or e ncourage riding . In addi-
tion, sp ecial eve nts su ch as "Bike to W o rk D ays" o r m en-
t o ring prog ram s h elp to suppo rt bi cycli sts and e n co u rage
n ew bicy cli sts to g ive it a "s p in." Othe r prog ram s m ay
h elp to raise mon ey to su p p o rt bicycling .
Sp ec ifi c counte rme asures in this sec tion in cl ude :
Bike Parking
Tran sit A ccess
• Bicycli st Pe r so n al Fac iliti es
• Bike M a ps
130
W ayfinding
Eve nts/ A c tivitie s
A es th e ti cs /Landsca p in g
Countermeas ures Bicyc le Countermea sure Se lect ion System
Ramps suc h as this one i n Japan fa c ilitate b icy c l ists' access to
off-stree t -level parkin g.
Tra nsit acc ess expa nds the rea c h of bi cyc list s.
z w
0
"' :J
tD
z
<(
0
>-"' ~ :r:
0..
z w
0
"' :J
tD
z
<(
0
>-"' 0
b :r:
0..
::;
<(
::;
0
"' "-
8
0
44. BIKE PARKING
Access to sec ure bike parking is critical to encouraging
g reater u se of bicycles.Without safe an d conveni e nt pl ac -
es to p ark, bi cyclists are much less like ly to commute to
work or sc hool , run erra nds, and engage in other utilitar-
ian trip s by bike. Bicycle parking fac iliti es run the gamut
from simple hitching posts installe d outside buildings or
on downtown sidewalks to covered parking fac iliti es, bike
lockers, and full se rvi ce bike stations.
~ --~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~ ...............
Bike lockers provide secure parking at thi s D.C . area metro
station.
As w ith other strategies fo r pron10ting bicy cling, this is an
area whe re much of the legwork h as alrea dy b ee n done by
others, and h elpful guidance is only a mouse-cli ck away
on th e Interne t . The Inte rn ational Bicycle Fund p rov id es
helpful infor m ation on its Web site, including guid an ce
on locating bi cy cle p arking fac ilities, choosing th e m ost
suitabl e p arkin g devi ce to install , and publi cizing p arkin g
once it is ava il able. Prope rl y lo cating bi cy cl e parking fa-
cilities can help redu ce bicyclist-pedestrian co nfli cts a nd
cras hes and enhanc e utili ty of bike parking. The site also
m aintains a li st of bi cycle p arking suppli e r s along with
their contact information. Se e http :/ /www.ibike.org/
enginee ring /parking.htm. Bi cycl e Park ing G uidelin es from
the Amer ican Assoc iation of Pe d es trian and Bicycle Pro-
fessiona ls is also ava il able from http :/ /www'.bi cycling info .
org/pdf/bi kepark .pdf w ith g uidance o n racks and loca-
tion and d es ign of p arking areas .
Anoth er good so urce of information is the City of Po rt-
land's Bicycle Master Plan (http ://www.portlandonline.
com/ sha red/ cfin/image. c&n ?id=40414). The plan d e-
sc ribes Portland's assessmen t of sh ort-and long-term bi-
cy cle parking needs and fac iliti es and res ulting objective
and action item s for address ing d eficiencies.
Purpose
• Encourage greater use of bicycles by providing
secure and co nvenient parking at destination
s ites (shopp ing, schools, Ii braries, parks, busi-
nesses, etc .).
Considerations
• It is i mportant that the right parking equip-
ment be insta lled for a given location and
purpose. In general, the more long-term the
park i ng, the more secure (and expensive) the
required equipment. See Web sites in main
text for guidance.
• To he l p determine where parking is needed ,
. look for where bikes are a l ready being parked
illegally, and survey bike club members to
learn what destinations are most la cking in
park i ng.
Estimated Cost
Costs depend on the type of facility provided. In
general, bike racks will cost about $50 to $100
per bike, whi le bike lockers wi 11 cost from $500
to $1,500 per bike. Locker costs can sometimes
be offset by charg ing re ntal fees, although these
shou ld not be so high as to discourage would -be
commu ters. Employers and businesses can also be
encouraged to support bicycle parking facilities,
si nee providing even the best lo cker faci I ities is
much cheape r than providing motor vehicle parking .
(A good We b site for cost information is http://www.
bikeparking.com.)
"' 0
i.J z w
(.!J
::::i w
"-0 r: u
>--
"' .~~~~i;;:J ~
llla!=i!!!lllll~ ~
Convenient parking sho uld be located ou t of the pedest rian
throughway. Demand should be periodically re -asse ssed.
Bicy cle Counte rmea sure Selection System Coun term easures 131
"' I u
>-CD
8
0
I
0..
a::
0 ~ z
Ci a::
8 u
"' z
:E
_J
<[
u
u u: u..
<[ a:: >-
Q
<[ ::;;
w
In ge n e ral , fo r m ee tin g sh ort-te rm p arking n eed s, su c h as
at shopping locations , a sturdy bike rac k w ill suffi ce. Th e
bike rac k should b e lo cate d n ear an e ntra n ce, in a lo ca ti o n
that is p ro tec te d from p e d es tri an and ve hicl e traffi c but
still vi sibl e e n o ugh to p asse rs-by to in crease sec uri ty. Fo r
longe r-te rm p arking, su ch as at tran sit stati o n s or work-
places , bi cy cl e lockers are ge n erall y rec omme nde d . In ad-
dition to providing sa fe parking that is p ro tect e d fr o m th e
el ements, locker s all ow bi cy cli sts to l eave extran eo u s gear
(h elme t , li ghts, p annie r s, tool b ags , e tc.) w ith th eir bikes,
rather than h av ing to ca rry it with the m .
~ t--~r-~-1111...----,
:;:)
ct:
>-CD
~
0
I 0.. ...._..._ ____ ...
A funct ional Li -sty l e rack may sti ll be creative , such as this
one in Alexandria , VA .
132 Countermeasures Bicyc le Countermeasure Selec tion System
z w
0
"' ::> en
z
C'S
>-en
0
b
I a._
45. TRANS IT AC CESS
In cities that h ave bus, li ght rail or subway se rvi ce, m aking
these se rvi ces bicycle-friendly can grea tl y expand options
for bicyclists, allowing them to commute longer distances
while also reducing car traffic to and from comnrnte r sta -
tions. For buses, the most frequent option is an exterior
rack mounted on the front of the bus that can accommo-
date two bi cycles; however, other optio n s exist, including
interior bike racks or simply allowing bicyclists to bring
their bike onboard an unequipped bus when conditions
are not crowded.
A two -bi ke, front-mounted bus rack is the most common ly
used rac k. The driver can see bicyclists mounting their bikes.
(Phoen ix, AZ )
For rail transit, se lected cars are generally equipped w ith
interior bike racks, with the number of racks dependent
on demand. During off-peak travel times and on week-
ends, bikes may be allowed on all cars. Eac h transit system
sets its own policies and ru les. In most cases, no additi onal
fee is ch arged to ca rry a bike on board.
A deca l on the outs ide of the tra i n lets bicyclists know which
car to use .
Pur po ses
• T his st rategy promo t es b icycl i ng by grea tl y ex-
pand in g the ra nge of accessib le dest in ations.
• It also promo t es transit use, by expand in g op-
tions for access in g and using transi t.
Conside ration s
• Successful integrat ion of bikes and tra nsi t
requires a comprehensive approach th at begins
wit h a n assessme nt of needs.
• In addit ion to providing direct access to t ran-
sit (e .g., via bike racks on b uses or in t ra in s),
cons ideration shou ld be g ive n to improvi ng safe
and convenient bike access t o transit locations
and providing secu re bike parking faci l it ies at a ll
trans it locations .
• Although liabil ity is always a potentia l concern,
at th is point there is suffic ient accu m ulated ex-
perie nce and su ffi cient product safety evidence
that it shou Id not be a deterrent to prov iding
bike access on t ra nsit.
Estimated Cost
The TOM Encyclopedia notes t hat bicycle racks
suitab le for buses ty p ically cost $500 t o $1 ,000
for a h ig h-quality mo d el that ca n carry t wo b icyc les.
The Nas h ua , NH, t ra ns it pla n developed i n Decem-
ber 2003 i ncluded a n estimate of $1,000 per b i ke
rack , ins t a ll ed .
While so m ewhat dated, the http ://www.BikeMap .co m
Web site contains a li sting of all locations in the U.S .
where bikes are accommodate d on tran sit, either on inter-
city rail, intercity bus, local transi t , or fer ri es (see http:/ I
wvvw.bikemap.com/tran sit/usa.pdf ).Th e site also offers a
discussion of why bikes sh ould b e linked w ith trans it and
offers examples of bikes on transit so lutions . In the future,
the develo p er of the si te h opes to offer a sea rc h able data-
b ase where one can type in a lo cation and find informa-
tion on avai lable bike and transit options.1
According to information on the BikeMap.com Web sit e,
the two most active regions of the country for providing
bike access to transit are the West Coas t states (Califor-
nia, Oregon and Washingto n), and th e Northeast corridor,
especially along the Atlantic coas t from eas tern Virginia
to southern Maine. Many cities and local p lanning au-
thorities have excell e nt Web sites providing informa tion
on availa ble services, maps, hours of operation, fares, etc.
Bicycle Countermeasure Selecti on System Countermeasures 133
z w z z
"° er w
t;;
a..
>-"' 0 >-0
I a..
A good exam p le is the Sa nta C lar a Va ll ey Tran sp o rtati o n
Autho ri ty (V TA) in Cali fo rnia (see http :/ /www.vta.o rg/
se r v ices/bikes.html).
It sh o uld b e n o t e d that eve n if bike access on tran sit (rai l
or subway) is not an o ptio n , tra n sit can still suppo rt bi cy-
cling by providing lo ckers or o ther sec ure parking at tra n-
sit statio n s, as w ell as p roviding safe ro u tes to the tran sit
stati o n fr o m n ea rby res id en ces and d estina tion s.
A go o d reso urce on thi s top ic is th e On li ne T D M [Tra n s-
p o rtati on D e m and M anage m e nt] Encyclopedia, m ain-
taine d by th e Vi c toria T ran sport Po li cy In stitute (see
http://www.vtpi.org/tdm /tdm2.htm). T h e c h apte r o n
bike/trans it integration disc u sses bikes on tra n sit, bicy cl e
p arking at tran sit stops, bicycl e access to tra n sit stations,
bikes o n taxis, and bi cycle re ntals. It al so summari zes
ava ilable d ata on how integration of bikes w ith tran sit
has promote d transit u se and provides information with
res p ec t to c o sts and b e n e fit s. Anothe r reso u rce is the Pe -
d es trian and Bicy cl e Info rmation C enter (http :/ /www.
bicycling info. org/ tran sit/index.htm). Tran si t C oope rative
R esea rch Prog ram Sy nthes is 62, Int egration of Bicycl es and
Tran sit , is also availabl e o nline at http :/ I g ullive r. trb.org/
publicatio n s/ tc rp I tcrp _syn_ 62 . pdf.
Bicycle cars on CalTrain may acco mmodate up to 32 bicycles.
134 Coun termeas ur es Bicycle Countermeasure Sele ct ion Sys t em
46. BICYCLIST PERSONAL FACILITIES
Along w ith sec ure and conve ni e nt bike p arkin g and tran sit
access, another prere quisite for e n co ura ging bi cycl e com-
muting is fac ilities for cyclists to sh owe r, ch ange clothes,
o r o th e rwise "fres h e n up " o n ce they arrive at the work-
pl ace. Ideally, su c h facilities w ill b e locate d on or ve ry n ear
to the worksite pre mises and will also include lockers for
storing clothin g and p erso n al item s.
B-m-3929)
More commun iti es and
bicyc lin g organiza ti ons are
deve loping bike station s as a
way of prov id in g facil it ies for
bicyclists in urban areas .
Since co n stru c ting show-
e r s and lock e r rooms
can b e a n exp e nsive un-
d erta kin g, es p ecially for
smaller e mploye rs, some
creative option s might
b e to p artner with other
nearby busin esses to pro -
vide facilities, or m ake ar-
ran ge m e nts with a n ea rby
h ealth club to all ow bi-
cyclists to u se its faci liti es
for a nominal fee (w hi c h
the e mploye r ca n opt to
cover). For larger employ-
er s interes t e d in promot-
ing a h ea lthy work force,
bicycli sts ca n b e g ive n
fre e or di sco unte d u se of
a co mpany h ealth club or
workout faci li ty. Another
hi gh -end optio n is to
incor p ora te changing fa-
ciliti es and bike rental and
rep air op ti ons along w ith
parking fac iliti es, su c h as
is done at the private ly
operated Bike Station in Lo n g B eac h, C A , and oth e r fa-
cilities (see http ://www.bikes tation.org).
At Stanford University in P alo Alto, CA, over 21 p e rce nt
of the staff bikes t o work. Showe r s are ava il ab le in seve ral
buildings and gy nmasiums on ca mpus, and most buildings ·
al so h ave commute r clothes lockers that can b e rente d for
$16 per year. Other"perks" for nonmotorize d commute rs
include a "Clea n Air Cash Reward " and a gu arante e d r id e
h ome in case of an em ergen cy (see http:/ /transportation.
stanford . edu / alt_transpo rtation/BikingAtStanford .s h tml ).
Purpose
• Encourage bicycle co mmuting by providin g
p laces where employees ca n shower and change
clothes once they arrive at the workplace .
Considerations
• Before investing in facilities , employers should
take stock of what is already avai lable (both at
the work place and ne arby) and survey employees
to l earn what faci I ity characteristics are most
impo rtan t to them .
• Like other counte rm eas ures included under the
gene ral heading of support f acilities and pro-
grams, th is coun term easure is most l ikely to be
successful if comb in ed with other measures that
make it easier or more attractive to bi cycle to
work. Examples in c l ude bike parking (especially
bike lo ckers), ca sh in cen tives or other rewards,
and bike to work days.
Estimated Cost
Costs will be high ly varia ble depending up on the
level of existing resources and the type of facility
provided.
Bi cyc le Countermeas ur e Selection System Countermeasures 135
l-o
0
(.) z
::;;
0
"' u..
z
Q
!;;:
"' I-
C/)
=> --'
47. BIKE MAPS
Bike m a ps ca n b e a u se ful tool for h elping bi cy cli sts
ge t around in a n ew or unfamiliar riding e nvironme nt,
wh e ther see king a differe nt route for ge tting to the ir d es -
tination, exploring a n ew se ction of town , o r ne gotiat-
in g anothe r city or town w hil e on a vaca ti o n . Bike map s
c ome in m any shap es and sizes, from small "s trip maps"
designe d to fit in the po cke t of a front p annie r so they
can b e re ad while ridin g, to large r fold -out m ap s looking
mu c h like a traditional roa d m ap . They ca n b e stat ewid e
maps, reg io nal , or local.
--' L-.....::: .......... -=.c...L..;.;"""-~..J:!: ....... ...:...'"""'-~;...__;::...ro:,;...;::=:;;.i........t..~..LllL-.l....~
Detai l of Raleigh, NC, bike map .
There are two primary typ es of b ike m ap s: route maps,
which indica te prefe rre d ro adways for bi cycli sts, and suit-
ability m ap s, w hich are m ore like regul ar m ap s, but with
the ro adway s c ode d (through the u se o f colors, das h ed
or dotte d lines, etc.) b ase d upon th eir relative safe ty or
attrac tive n ess to bicy cli sts. Both typ es ca n b e ex tre m ely
b e n efi cial to bicycli sts (a nd eve n non-bicyclists simply
looking for the b es t w ay t o n egotiat e a n ew city e nv iron-
m e nt).
A w ell-des ign e d bike m ap is ty pi call y in hi g h d e m and and
ca n se r ve m any functions. In addition to sh owing the b es t
route for ge tting places, bike maps ofte n contain informa-
tion or ad ve rtising for a va ri e ty of reso urces including a
cal e ndar of bike eve nts, locations of bike sh o p s, points o f
inte rest in th e c on1munity, law s a nd lo cal o rdinan ces p e r-
taining to bi cycl es, and sa fety tips for th e r id e r and motor
ve hicle drive r. Thu s, a good bike map ca n b e a tool for
promotin g bicyc lin g as well as for edu ca tin g and inform-
ing rid e r s and motorists.
136 Countermeasures Bicyc le Countermeasure Selec tion System
Purposes
• Enco urage and enab le bicyclists to ride in new
e nvironments.
• Assist bicyclists in se lecting appropriate road-
ways for their skill le ve l .
• Provide safety tips for bicyclists as well as
mo t orists .
• I nform bicyclists abo ut available resources
w ithin a community, region , or state.
Consideration s
• Computer mapping capabilities have greatly re -
duced the costs invo lved in producing attractive
bike maps, and today many bike maps may be
down loaded from the Internet. Still , care must
be taken in recommending specific routes for bi-
cyc li sts. For suitabi l it y maps , c are must be taken
in de veloping guide li nes and a rating system for
distinguishing among the various roadways the i r
suitabi l ity for bicyc l ing .
Estimate d Cost
The pr imary cost l ies in the development of the
map . In North Carolina, cost for the trip-tics (strip
maps) fo r the orig i nal "Bicycl i ng Highways" maps
were min i mal -just ink and paper. Recent updates
inc l ude d igitizing the i nformation , undertaken by a
consu lti ng cartographer at an average cost of $1 ,000
per segment for two-co lor artwork . The four-color
map/brochures for coun t y route systems , produced
by o uts ide cartographe rs and graphic designers , cost
$20,000 for product ion and about $.50 for ea c h
printed copy. Urban maps produced by outside c ar-
tographers and graphic designers have ranged from
$30 ,000 to $60 ,000 for production and $.34 to
$.78 per copy for printing. These costs do not reflect
staff time spent i n administering the projects , de-
veloping routes , coordinating with local committees ,
prepa ri ng text , or reviewing and proofing the produ ct
t hroughout the product ion pro cess .
48. WAYFINDING
Wayfinding pertains to directional sign s, di stan ce m arker s,
posted m aps, informati on kiosks and other aides for get-
ting p eople places. In their broadest appli ca tion, wayfind-
ing systems help all road us ers (including motorists and
pedestrians· as well as bicyclists) find their way in a city.
For example, as p ar t of its downtown improve m ent ef-
for ts, th e City of Atl anta is d eve loping a wayfinding sign
sys te m that w ill include uniform geogra phica ll y orient-
ed map s, signs, and kiosks d es igned to serve all modes
of tran sportation accessing th e area (see http :/ /www.
atl antadowntown .com/Ca pAdidinitiati ves_ Wayfinding.
asp). Another exa mple is the C ity of Seattle, w hi c h has
been awarded a three-part Fe d eral Tra n sit-Administrati on
(FTA) grant to d es ign and implement a d owntow n way -
finding system . When comple te d , the sys tem will include
kiosks, signs, maps, and a Web site "to e nhance eve ryone's
ab ility to navigate the Ce nter C ity and find destinations
whether by foot, transit, bicycle or car" (see http:/ /www.
ci .sea ttl e. wa. us / dcl u / C ity D es i gn/Desi g nLea d ers hip /
Conn_n_Places /).
Wayfinding sig ns hel p bicycl ists navigate or disco ver new
routes t o co mmon destinations .
Wayfinding syste m s can also b e more n arrowly focused. For
example, Contra Costa County in C aliforni a is working
to d evelop a way findin g sys t em to guid e p e d es trian s and
cy clists in and aro un d its Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
sys tem stati o n, and m any co mmunities with w e ll-d efined
bike n e tworks are looking to wa y findin g signs both to
publicize the ir sys tem and to h elp p eopl e access and us e
it. When pl ace d along bike trails or routes, wayfi nding
sig n s typically include easy -to-read arrows pointe d to-
Purposes
• Pro vid e travel information (nearby dest i nations,
directions, distances) to users of a given path -
way or fac i I ity.
• Pub li cize the existence of a bicyc le network .
• Make it easier for people to find and access
bicyc le facilities.
Considerations
• Wayf i nding pro j ects can be carried out at many
leve ls; however, it is important that a systemwide
app ro ach be taken so that different signs , maps,
infor mation kiosks, etc. do not appear in differ-
ent parts of a ci ty , thereby confusing rather than
en l ightening users.
• Web sites con taining wayfinding informat ion are
beco ming more important.
Estimated Cost
Estimated costs will be variable , depending on the
nature and scope of the system being developed .
More e laborate kiosks and map postings will be
more expens ive depending on materials and insta l-
lation costs.
ward sp ecifi c nearby destinations and distances to these
destinations. A freq u e nt location for su ch signs is where
a bike path m ay cross or intersect w ith a roadway-the
si gn both informs the bi cyclist and alerts passing motorists
and pedestrians of the exis t ence of the bike path.
Bi cyc le Counte rm easure Select ion System Counte rme asures 137
49. EVENTS/ACTIVITIES
Sp ec ial bicycl e eve nts and ac tivities li e at th e h ea rt of
bi cycl e promo ti o n . Th ey re info rce the effo rts of c urre nt
bi cy cli sts and see k to attrac t n ew bi cycli sts to the fo ld .
Sample eve nts includ e b ik e t o work days, fun rides, bi -
cycling c omp e titions o r races, trail op enings, co mmutin g
h elp lines, and "short c ourses" on h ow to rid e in traffi c.
Bicy clin g can al so b e promo te d at h eal th fa irs as p art of
a more ac tive and h eal thy li fes tyle and at env ironme ntal
eve nts like E arth Day as a fo rm of tran sp ortation that is
good for the e nvironme nt.
M an y of these eve nts are pla nne d by lo cal , stat e, o r n a-
tional advoc acy g roups and are just one part of a lar ge r
plan to promo te in c rease d bi cycling fo r trans p o rtati o n as
w ell as rec reation, fun an d fitn ess. For example, the C hi ca-
go land Bicycl e Fe d e rati o n h os ts an annual car-free "Bike
the Drive" Sunday. In 2002, ove r 16,000 bicyclists p ar-
ti c ipated , takin g ove r the ci ty 's famou s Lake Sh o re Drive
(see http ://www.bike the drive .org/). During the m o nths
of May and June, the C h icago Mayor's O ffice of Sp ec ial
E ve nts h el p s sp o nsor over 100 se p ara te eve nts promo ting
th e h ealth, ec onomic and e nviro nme ntal b e n efit s o f bi cy-
cling as p art of its annu al Bike C hi cago.
"B ike t o W o rk " days are well -es tabli sh ed eve nts in m any
co mmuniti es. They ty pi call y draw a mix of es tabli sh ed
and fir st-time c ommute rs and ca n b e co mbine d with
o th e r ac tiv ities su ch as compe tition s, "h ow to r ide in traf-
fi c" workshops, and brea kfas t ga the rings. The eve nts raise
community awa ren ess of bi cycling as a legitimate m o d e
of transp o rtati o n , bring cy cli sts toge th e r, and, ide all y, con-
ve rt so m e p artic ip ants to regu lar bike co mmute r s.
Al so include d unde r the ge n e ra l topi c of supp o rting
ac ti v iti es and prog ram s are effort s to raise c ommunity
aware n ess of and su pp o rt fo r bi cycling and inves tme nt in
bi cyclin g fac iliti es and activiti es or sa fety. Two example
case studi es are incl u d e d: (1) a prog ram that u se d fin an cial
incentives t o e n courage d evel o p er s to build high e r-d e n -
si ty n eig hborhoods n ear tran sit stati o n s, th u s in c reas ing
th e oppo rtunity for bi cycling, and (2) a special ve hicl e
li ce n se pl ate prog ram that se rves as a so urce of su staine d
fin an c ial supp o rt for improv ing bi cy cl e sa fe ty (see case
studies #5 7 and 5 8).
138 Cou nt ermea sures Bicyc le Countermea sure Selection System
Purposes
• Pr omote bicycling throu gh sup port programs and
activi ti es.
• Help to establish bi cyclin g as a legitimate form
of transportation .
• Hel p attract peop le to bicycling .
Considerations
• Th e prima ry cons iderati on for this counter-
measure is deciding what type of promotiona l
event or activity to conduct. Factors impacting
t his decisi on inc lude th e ta rge t audience to be
reached by the even t , le vel of com munity sup -
port, the membership and goals of th e sponsor-
ing organ izat i on(s), available funding , and even
weather conditions .
Estimated Cost
Estimated cost will va ry dependin g on th e partic u-
lar event or program se lected , the sc ope and time
frame for the event , level of volunteer invo lv ement,
etc. As an example , the total cost of a Bike t o Work
promot ion he ld in Hartford, CT, in 20 0 2 wa s just
under $12,500 , wh ich covered t he cos t s of food,
two advert ising banners, a brochure , a payroll i n-
sert, sig ns on buses , T-s hirts, and a b icyc le to raffle
(see case study #53).
The 50 e n g ineering, e du ca tion , e nforcem e nt and pro -
motio nal counterm eas ures are d escr ib e d in C hapte r 5.
Include d in this chapte r are case studi es that illu strate
these trea tments or prog rams as imple m e nte d in a stat e
or municipality. Examples are include d from m any States.
Prov ided on th e fo ll owing pages is a li st of the 59 case
studies by co unte rmeas ure gro up . A more d e tail ed m atrix
showing the case studi es by sp ecifi c co unte rmeas ure is
included in App e ndix B.
Each case study includes a description of th e problem
th a t was addressed, r e l eva nt b ac k gro und information ,
a d esc ription of the impl e m e nte d so l ution , and any
quantitative r es ults from eva luation studi es or qualita-
tive assess m e nts.
M any c onununities find it difficult to co nduc t formal
eval u ations of projects due to staff and budge t limitations,
but assess ing whether a trea tment h as help ed toward the
intended objec tives and not ca u se d unexp ec te d advers e
impac ts is criti cal to long-term improvem e nt. W e te nd to
think that so m e evaluation is b e tter than none but oc-
cas ionally may b e misl e d by sh ort-t erm or single -eve nt
types of as sess m e nts. In these cases, the judgme nt of ex-
p erie nc ed pra c tition e rs may h elp to fill in the ga p s in
knowledge or interpre t res ults that see m "too go od to
be true." By far, longer-te rm evaluations (bicyclist/traffic
co unts., speed studies, e t c.) are prefe rable to short-term
proj ec t assessments. Multiple short-term studi es of th e
sa m e types of fac ilities do, howeve r, build on eac h other
and help to provide a more co mple te picture of the ef-
fective n ess of bicycling countermeas ures. These ca utions
should b e borne in mind when rev iewing the case studi es
that follow.
Include d for eac h study is a point of contact in the eve nt
that further info rmation is d es ire d. Please note that in
so m e cases the sp ec ifi c indiv idual listed may have le ft the
posi tion or agency. There should still b e someone at the
muni cip al or state age n cy w h o is familiar with th e proj ec t
and ca n provide any supplemental information .
Not all traffi c contro l devi ces (TCD s) in the case studies
comply with the Manual on Unifo rm Traffic Co ntrol D e-
vices (MUTCD). The Fe d eral Highway Administra tion
(FHWA) does not e ndorse the us e of non-complia nt
TCDs exce pt unde r exp erimentation, which must b e
approved by the FHWA Office of Tra n sportation Op-
erations.
142 Case Studies Bicycle Counte rmeasure Selection System
]
1 .
1
<i
>-"' z
0
~
50 . AESTHETICS /LANDSCAPING
W e ll-des ign e d and well-la ndsc ap e d bicy cle facilitie s ca n
b e an impo rtant attrac ti o n , especially fo r the recreational
bicyclist .Whereas bi cycle conm1ute rs w ill ty pi call y c hoose
routes b ase d upon their directness and safety, recreational
riders are more li kel y t o b e drawn to routes that are aes-
th e ti call y p leas ing a nd w h e re t h ey feel comfortab le riding .
The aes the tic of the riding e nvironment is al so of criti-
cal importan ce to attrac ting n ew riders-an individual is
much more li k ely to try commuting to work if h is ro u te
takes him along an attrac tively maintaine d greenway or
ro adway th an al ong an unke mpt, urban street.
~ 1--...JU::::::I.L...----ll:...J~~i......Jl.l.......Q~.llllil~~ ....
::::>
_J
_J
_J u z
::::>
0 u
w
_J
u >-u co
z
~
"" >-<J) w
0 w
0..
w t:::
::;;
0
"" u.
0
b
~----~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A es the ti cs are an integral p art of building a li va bl e, bike-
abl e, and walkable co mmunity. Streets and bi cycl e facili-
ti es that are well-designed and well -maintaine d , buffered
fr o m traffic, attrac tively land sca p ed, and that are eithe r a
d es tinati on in their own right (e.g., a popular off-ro ad
trail in a p ark) or that conn ect popular d es tinations (e.g.,
houses w i th shopping, n eig h b orhoods w ith schools) will
attra c t bicy cli sts.
~ L-~~~~~~~-'-......;=-~~~---'-"'""'-...__
Dow ntow n areas ca n be ap pealing bicycling locations.
Purposes
• Th e pr i mary goa l in d es ig ni ng a nd buil d in g aes-
th eti ca l ly pleas in g bi cycle faci lit ies is t o cre ate
a n att rac t ive environm ent -no t o nl y fo r b icy-
c li st s , but fo r every o ne.
• By bu ild i ng suc h e nvi ronme nts, o ne hopes to
enco u rage more people to bi ke for rec rea t io n ,
fitn ess, and tr ip-m a k ing.
Considerations
• Land scaping is integra l to goo d design. It is
i m portant for the overa l l aes t he ti cs of a pro je ct,
but also the da y-t o-d ay sa f ety, opera ti on a nd
m a intenance of th e pro j ect.
• Th e services of a la ndscape arc h it ect or ot her
pro f essional ma y be beneficial in p lanning and
bui l d ing a fac ility t hat is aestheti cal ly p leas in g
an d that con t rib utes t o t he overa ll goa l of a l iv-
abl e commun ity.
Estimated Cost
Esti m at ed costs w i ll vary widely, d e pe nd in g o n the
spec ifi c type of fac ili t y, its locat io n , original condi -
tio ns at the site, th e overall scope and timeframe
fo r th e project, avai lab i lity of vo lu nt eer labor, etc.
W ell -d es igned and landscaped faci li ti es are also eas ie r to
mainta i n , lead to fewer safety and sec urity problem s, and
are more likely to be s u pported by t h e n eig hborhoods
and b u sinesses they access.
Shore l ine Park bike pa t h in Santa Barbara , CA , provides an
off-road option conn ecting a park wi th a bus i ness district.
Bicycle Countermeasure Selec ti on System Countermeasu res 139
IJ)
E ro
+-' ..... c OD
<I) 0
IJ)
IJ)
IJ) E ct IJ) +-'
<I) c ~ ro <I)
<I) +-' c u -0
:'.::: E ro OD 0 c -0... ro ·-+-' (/) -u ro <I) c IJ)
>. ro <I) IJ) vi w <I) ro L1... i!:: :J $: OD c -0 :'.::: ..... <I) c ' -~ -<I) -0 ~ IJ) <I) ·--0 c ·-
.0 ro ·-c u E <I) (/) ro u
0 en 0 c ..... ro E -c L1... a:: ro ro ro vi -0 +-' 0 :::i u c (J ~ OD t z -0 ro <I) <I) (/) c +-'
<I) 0 ~ +-' u --ro 0
<I) ..... a:: c ;;:::: IJ) ~ u a. -OD ro ' <I) ·--·-..... :::i a. ro ~ c +-' ro ro ro ro -0 :::i
0... Ca se Study Ti tl e (/) 0 c ~ i!:: i!:: ~ w (/) -
145 #1 -Roadway Surface Haza rds for Bikes x x
148 #2 -A Tale of Port land Br idges x x x x x
155 #3 -Li g hti ng in th e Kn apps Hill Tu n ne l x
157 #4 -Bac k-in Di ago nal Parki ng w it h Bike Lanes x x
164 #5 -Valenc ia St ree t Road Di et-Creat in g Space for Cyc l ists x x x
168 #6 -Shorel ine Park Expansion Pro j ect -Provisio n of B icycle and Pedes -x x x x
trian En han ceme nts
1 71 #7 -B ic ycle Trea t me nts on a Former Pedestrian Mal l x x x x
1 7 6 #8 -Bi ke Lane Safe ty Ev aluat ion x x
18 1 #9 -Esta bli shing B i ke Lanes -Ch icago's Streets for Cyc lin g Pl an x x x x
18 5 #10 -How Hampsh ire St reet Pavement Markings Influ ence Bi cyc le and x
Motor Vehi cle Posit ion i ng
190 #11 -Raised Bicyc le Lanes and Oth er Traffic Ca lm i ng Tr ea t me nt s on x x x x
Ayres Road
196 #12 -Fl oat ing B ike Lanes in Con ju nc t ion w ith Pa rt -t i me Parki ng x x x
199 #13 -In co rpora tin g a Bi cyc le Lane th ro ug h a Stree t c ar Pl atfor m x
20 1 #14 -Red Shou lders as a Bi cyc le Faci l ity x x
204 #15 -Co nv ersion of 14 -foo t -wide Outside Lanes to 11 -foot Travel Lanes x x x
w it h a 3 -fo ot Un desig nat ed Lane
20 7 #16 -Pre f erentia l Tra nsit-B i cyc le Lanes on Broad way Boulevard x x
""20'9 #17 -Tam i ng the Urba n Arterial x x x
212 #18 -Cont raflow Bic yc le Lanes o n Ur ba n St ree t s x x
2 16 #19 -Left Side B ik e Lan es on On e-Way St reets x x
22 1 #20 -Cur b Radii/Cu rb Rev isio ns x
223 #21 -Co mb ined B ic yc le Lan e/Rig ht-Tu rn Lane x x x
226 #22 -Blu e Bi ke Lanes at I nt ersec ti on Wea ving Areas x x
23 0 #23 -Cro ssing an Arte ri a l on an Of f se t I nt ersectio n : Bi cyc le-O nly Center-x x
Tu rn Lane
232 #24 -I m pro ving Sigh t Distance bet wee n Cyclists an d Mot orists x x x x
235 #25 -Gra ndview Dri ve Rou nd about and Corridor I mp ro vements x x x x
2 38 #26 -In nov ative Appl ica t ion of t he B i ke Box x x
242 #27 -Co m prehensi ve Maintenance Pl anni ng for Bic yc l e Faci l iti es x x x
246 #28 -Road Hazard Id ent if icat ion Pro j ec t x
249 #29 -Bike way Spee d Hu mps x
252 #30 -Spee d Cushio ns for t he Ev ergree n Cor r idor Bik e Lane Pro j ec t x
258 #3 1 -Neigh borhoo d M i n i Tra ff ic Ci rc les x
Bicycle Counte rm ea sure Selection Sys tem Ca se Studie s 143
(/)
E ro
+' On c
Cl) 0
(/) (/) E ....
(/) +' (/) 0....
Cl) c .c ro Cl)
Cl) +' c u "O :t: E ro 0.0 .... c -0.... 0 ro ·-+' Cf) '+--u ro Cl) c (/)
>. ro Cl) (/) ui w Cl) ro l...L.. ~ ::> ~ 0.0 c "O +' .... Cl) c I 0.0 -Cl) "O .::s::. (/) Cl) ·-"O c
.D ro ·-c u E ~ Cf) ro u
E 0 ro 0 c -ro
0:::: ·-ro ro ro (/)-c l...L..
:::J "O +' (_) .c 0 u c 0.0 ·-+' z "O ro Cl) Cl) Cf) c +' Cs Cl) 0 (/) +' u --·-ro
Cl) .... 0:::: Cii c ~ (/) .::s::. u 0.. -0.0 ro I '+--·-.... :::J 0.. ro .c c +' ro ro ro ro "O :::J
0.... Case Study Title Cf) 0 c :2: ~ ~ :2: w Cf) -
260 #32 -Bi c ycle Boulevards -Bryan t Street Example x x x
265 #33 -Planning, Designing and Implementing a Shared-Use Path x
268 #34 -Path and Roadway Intersections x x x
273 #35 -Grade Separated Crossing Treatments x x
278 #36 -Share the Trail: Minimizing User Conflicts on Non-motorized Fa cili-x x
ties
283 #37 -Shared Lan e Markings x x
286 #38 -Bicycle Detection Program x x
289 #39 -Bicycle Signal Heads x
292 #40 -Pedestrian /Bicycle Cros swalk Signals (Half-Signals) x
294 #41 -Share the Road Sign Initiative x
296 #42 -Placement of 20-mph School Zone Signs x x
302 #43 -Shared-Use Arro w
305 #44 -Enforcement for Bicycle Safety x
308 #45 -Bicycling Ambassadors and Bike Lane Education x x
310 #46 -Comprehensive Child Bicycle Safety Program x
316 #47 -Share the Road: Motorist/Bi cyclist Traffi c Education and Enforce-x
ment Programs
320 #48 -Hitching Posts for Bicycle Parking x
323 #49 -Bicycle Access on Caltrain x
327 #50 -Bike and Bus Program x
333 #51 -Mapping for Bicyclists x
336 #52 -Commuter Coach: Commuter Bicyclist Recruiting x x
339 #53 -Bike to Work Promotion x x x
344 #54 -Free Cycles Program
347 #55 -Bicycle Destination Signing System x x
349 #56 -Urban Forestry x
351 #57 -Raising Funds for Bicycle Safety Programs through Specialty Li-x
cense Plates
355 #58 -A Transit Oriented Development Financial Incent ive Program -A x
Tool to Encourage More Bicycling and Walking
144 Case Studies Bicycle Countermeasure Se le ction System
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON #1
Minimizing Roadway Surface Hazards
for Bikes
BACKGROUND
The go als of the city of Sea ttl e's Bicycl e Prog ram are t o
ge t more p eople bicycli ng more often a nd to re du ce the
numb e r of c ras h es involving bi cy cli sts. To acc on1pli sh
thi s, th e ci ty o f S ea ttl e h as adopte d two m ain o bj ec ti ves:
1) to c omple t e a c ompre h e n sive urba n trail s sys t e m (ra il-
trails and oth e r trail faci liti es); a n d 2) to m ake all street s
and bridges bi cy cl e -frie ndly. The secon d o bj ec ti ve was
d eve lop e d w ith the knowle d ge th at up t o 80 p e rce nt of
all bi cy cl e trip s within the c ity w ill always b e o n stree ts
sh ar e d w ith mo tor ve hicl es, r ega rdl ess o f h ow many trail s
are c omple t ed. T h e re i s simply n o way t o build a trail to
eve ry res ide n ce and eve r y pl ace of b u sin ess. Eve n bi cycle
t r ip s that involve the u se o f a trail ty pi ca ll y in vo lve o n-
stree t el e m e nts ge tting t o and fr om the t rail.
Bicyclists rid in g o n city st ree ts o ft e n e n co unte r roa d
h az ards th a t can ca u se the m t o su d d e nl y weave, poss ibl y
ca u sing a confli c t w i t h mo to r ve hi cles, o r eve n fa ll. In
o the r cases, it di sc ourages p e ople from eve n a tte mpting
to ride. Ty pi ca l ro ad h aza rds include drainage g ra tes tha t
ca n ca tc h bi cycl e ti res, drain age grates that are eithe r
above o r b elow the road su rface, ga p s b e tween p ave m e nt
sea ms , gutte r p an s tha t are to o w ide, p oo rl y pl ace d o r
slipp e r y utili ty c overs, railro ad trac ks th at cross streets
at o btuse an gles, t exture d c ro ss w alks that are slipp e r y o r
excessive ly bumpy, p o t h o l es, b ad p ave m e nt aro und util-
ity patch es , an d broke n p ave m e nt ca u se d by t ree roo ts.
COUNTERMEASURES
Sea ttl e 's so luti o n ha s been to "instituti o n ali ze" go o d d e -
sign practi ces into standard plan s and sp ecifi ca ti o n s and to
es tabli sh a "Bi ke Spot Safety Prog ram ."
Peter Lagerwey, Pedestrian & B ic ycle Program
Coordinator, City of Seattle
Surfa ce irregularities be com e hazard s for bikers lo ng before
they become so for autom obile drivers.
INSTITUTIONALIZE GOOD INITIAL DESIGN
The inte nt of the prog ram , to i ns titutio nali ze goo d d es ign
prac ti ces into standard pl an s and sp ecifica ti o ns , is to m ake
sure th at as streets are re-built and m ai ntained , the right d e-
signs h app en auto m ati call y (ty pi call y re ferred to as "ro utine
acco rrunodation"). The fo ll owin g are exa mpl es of h ow the
city h as incorporated and adopted standard practices that
b e n efit bi cycli sts by removing roa d h aza rds:
drain grates-standard , re quire d sp ec ifi ca ti on gra te is
b affi ed in a way that p reve nts bike tire s from ge tting
ca u ght in th e ga ps; drain grates are re quired to b e flu sh
w ith the stree t ;
• seamles s curbs-new, concrete streets have seamless c urbs
th at are integra ted into the c urb lane (no gutter pan);
• utili ty cove rs-wh e re p oss ibl e, utility cove rs are locate d
o utside the travel area fo r bi cyc li sts (1.2 m (4 ft) from
c urb or, if the re is parking, to the left o f th e p arked ca rs);
utili ty covers must b e fl at , h ave texture and b e vo id o f
unn ec essary pro tru sions th at could dive rt a bi cy cl e tire;
Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System Ca se Studi es 14 5
utili ty c uts-utility c uts must b e re p aired twice, o n ce
w ith a te mpo rary p atc h to all ow fo r se ttling, and later,
w ith a p e rman e nt p atch .
The effo rt t o d o an eve n b e tter j o b of"ro utine acco mmo -
d ati o n " c ontinu es. O ver the n ext three years, the "Citi es
Street D es ign M anual " w ill aga in b e comple tely rev ise d .
BIKE SPOT SAFETY PROGRAM
Th e inte nt o f th e Bike S p o t Safe ty P rogr am is to m a ke
low -cos t r e p airs and imp rove m e nts tha t e nhan ce bi -
cy cl e safe ty and access o n S ea ttl e's stree ts . T h e prog r am
reli es o n c iti ze n s t o id enti fy proble m s that n ee d atte n -
tion . Utiliz i ng c iti ze n input is don e w ith the r ecogni -
tion tha t the bicycling public is going to h ave th e b es t
knowle d ge and informa ti o n as to wh e re p robl e m s ex-
ist. Additionall y, c ity st aff simply do es n o t h ave th e time
t o spend riding the stree ts t o ide ntify all p ro ble m s that
n eed atte ntion .
The city h as d evelop ed a Citize n Bicycling Improve m ent
R e ques t fo rm that is distri bute d to bike sh o p s, co mmunity
ce nter s, and publish e d in the lo cal bi cycle club n ews le tte r.
On one side is sp ace for an individual to fill o ut th e loca-
tion and n ature o f the p ro bl em and their n am e, address
and pho n e numbe r. The oth er sid e h as the address of the
bicycle p rogram and a place fo r a stamp, w hic h allow s the
re ques t form to b e m aile d w itho ut the u se of an e nve lop e.
Whe n the fo rm is receive d by the bi cycle p rogram, a staff
p er so n m akes a quick assess m ent of the requ es t and call s
the p e rso n w h o fill ed o u t th e form to le t the m know that:
a) th e proble m will b e fixe d ; b) the proble m n ee ds furth e r
inves ti ga ti o n ; o r c) the p ro bl e m is some thing th at the Bike
Sp o t Safety P rogr am cannot address . In all cases, th e staff
p e r so n m akes sure to le t the res ide nt know ab o ut how
long it will ta ke to res po n d to their re qu es t .A pothol e, for
example , m ay b e fill ed in 24 hours w hil e a bike rac k re-
ques t might tak e six week s to install. Afte r the res id e n t h as
b ee n co ntac te d , the n ext ste p is to d e te rmine whe the r a
field check is n ee d e d.Ty p icall y, a fi eld ch eck is not n ee d e d
o n routine m ainte n an ce ite m s su c h as a requ es t t o sweep a
bike lan e. Fi eld ch eck s, h oweve r, are re quire d for req u es ts
involving othe r improve m e nts su ch as the install ati o n of
signs and bike rac ks. Once th e field inves ti ga tion is co m -
ple te d and a d e te rminati o n is m ad e to m ake an imp rove -
m e nt, a wo rk instruc ti o n is fill ed out and elec tronicall y
se nt to the a ppropriate city crew. The crews the n d o th e
work and el ec troni call y notify the bi cy cl e prog ram th at
the improve m e nt h as been co mple te d. Bike Sp o t Safety
Prog ram staff th e n call the res id e nt w h o o ri g inally m ad e
the re ques t t o comple te the lo op.
146 Case Studies Bicycle Countermea sure Se lection System
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
The importance of institutionalizing good design
practices is brought home by the experiences of a
few localities in Florida and probably other states.
These jurisdi ctions attempted a retrofit measure
to create more space for bikes and e limin ate the
bike -unfriendly seam between the pavement and
the gutter pan by paving over the seam to the
curb face . I nitially, the treatment seemed s uc-
cessful. As the pavement aged and shifted, the
lateral seam returned, however, as we ll as cracks
in the asphalt at expans io n joints in the gutter
pan. In addition to the seams reappearing, the
asphalt gutter gives the impression that this is us -
able riding spa c e and encourages inexperienced
cyclists to ride in the gutter too close to the curb .
Because the effectiveness of this fix degrades
over time, this treatme nt should only be consid-
ered as a short-te r m fix (five years or less), and
even then as a last resort. (The placement of an
edge stripe wi 11 help delineate the gutter and may
reduce gutter riding.) Other considerations : In
areas with heavy rains, paving over the gutter pan
may reduce the drainage capacity of the gutter.
Also, add it ional care needs to be taken during
resurfac in g to prevent asphalt from co ver in g the
drainage in lets .
Information provided by Mark Horowitz , Bicycle
Coordinator, Broward County Dept. of Planning
and Environmental Protection
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
Eliminating ro ad h azard s for bicycli sts re duces th e num-
b e r o f lo cations w h e re bi cy cli sts ca n fall or b e dive rte d
into the p ath of m o to r ve hicles. H oweve r, Sea ttl e h as n o t
b ee n able to draw a direct ca u se and effec t relati o n ship
b etween the Bike Sp o t Safety P rogram and institutional-
iza tion program and a re duc ti o n in cras h es or an increase
in bicy cl e ride r ship.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Bike Sp o t Safety Prog ram is the sin gle most impo r-
tant prog r am administere d by the Sea ttl e Bicy cl e Pro-
g r am to improve safety. Additionally, res ide nts appreciate
the quick turnaro und on the initial phone call and d o n 't
Gaps ar e min imi zed , but meta l surfa c es of thi s rai l road
c rossing ma y be s lippery when wet.
Relatively sma ll bumps in a road or path surfa c e may be
enoug h to cause a b icyc li st to lose con t ro l.
mind waiting a few m o nth s for an improve m e nt as lo n g
as they know w h e n it is co ming . In m an y cases, they are
d eli ghted just to h ave so meone who li ste n s and res p o nds
to their co n ce rns . The prog ram ha s w on m any fri e nds by
m aking a sp ecial effort to g ive prio rity to re ques ts fr o m
p e rsons w ith di sa bilities.The prog ram is also popular w ith
elec te d o ffi c ial s and othe r d ecis ion-make r s since it gen-
e rat es thank-you le tter s and phone calls. Some thing is
always occuring on th e stree t , whic h d emonstrat es th at
"s omething" is b eing d o n e. Finally, it h elp s the city d efe nd
itse lf aga inst li ability claims since it ca n b e d e monstrate d
that the re is a sa fe ty p rog ram w hi ch qui c kl y res ponds to
n1 ainte n an ce con cerns.
The res ults of th e prog ram to institutionali ze good d e -
sig n prac ti ces into standard p lan s and sp ecifi ca tions, h ave
b ee n e quall y su ccess ful. In almost all cases, stree ts are b e-
ing re-built in a more bicycl e-fri e ndly d es ign as a m atte r
of ro utine acco mmodati o n . This is tru e o f b oth public
and private p roj ec ts. One of th e keys to su ccess is to m ake
su re th at on priva t e proj ec ts th e c ity insp ec to rs k now th e
d es ign re quire m e nts and ar e will ing to stay o n to p of the
c ontrac tors to m ake sure th ey do it r ight.
COSTS AND FUNDING
One key to the Bike Sp o t Safety Prog ram 's su ccess h as
b ee n to work w ith exis ting m ainte n an ce prog r am s that
p ay for many o f th e bike sp o t proj ec ts. Fo r example, Se-
attl e h as a "P o tho le Range r " progra m w h ere a crew do es
n o thing but res p o nd to p o th o l e re ques ts. The bike sp o t
prog ram simply adds a few re qu es ts to this exis ting pro-
g ram . T h e Bike Sp o t Safety p ro gra m sp e nds a minimum
of $200,000 p e r ye ar. Since individual improve m e nts are
re lati ve ly ch ea p, th e am o unt d edi ca t e d to the prog ram
is fl exi ble . M o re money m ea n s m o re improve m e nts. In
lea n ye ar s wh e n funds are sca rce, fewe r improve m e nts ar e
co mple ted.
CONTACT
Peter Lage rwey
Bicycl e & Pedes trian Program C o ordinator
Seattl e D ep artme nt ofTran sportati o n
700 5th Av e nue, S uite 3 900
P.O. B ox 34996
Sea ttl e, WA 98 124-4996
(206) 6 84-510 8
Bi cyc le Coun termea sure Select ion Sys te m Case Studi es 147
PORTLAND, OREGON #2
A Tale of Portland Bridges
BACKGROUND
There are 10 bridges spanning Portland's Willamette Riv-
er, which cuts through the heart o f Portland and provid es
soc ial, economi c, and recreational b e n efits.The Willamette
River bridges connect the ci ty's eas t and west sid es -on
the wes t side is Portl and's vibrant and economicall y cr iti-
cal downtown and on th e eas t side are light industries,
emerging business districts and p e d es trian and bicycle-
friendly neighborhoods. The bridges simply are criti ca l
for mobility (see map, figure 1). They include five lo ca l
bridges providing downtown access (H awthorne, Mor-
rison, Burnside, Steel and Broadway), three o ther lo cal
bridges (Ross Island, Sellwood, and St. Johns), and two
limited-access freeways (Fremont and Marquam). Mult-
nomah County is responsible for five of the bridges, the
Oregon Department ofTransportation (ODOT) for four,
and the Union Pacific R ailroad for one. The city of Port-
land is responsible for installing sign s, striping, and faci li-
tating access to all bridges.
Eight bridges (a ll but the limited-access freeways) pro-
vide some leve l of pedestr ian and bi cycle access (see tabl e
1). In the ea rl y 1990s, a year-long partial closure of the
H awth orne Bridge galvanized cycle advocates to press for
access during the clo sure. At the same time, the city em-
barked upon a m ajor program to e n gage cyclists and po-
tential cyclists in a di alogue about ways to increase cycling
as a means of transportation. Overwhelmingly, improve-
m e nts to th e bridges' approac h es and spans were seen as
the highest priority b ecause of the poor bicycle and pe-
destrian conditions .
At the time, the e ight non-freeway bridges were a ma-
jor barrier fo r p e destri an and bi cycle travel. Bicyclists and
148
Mia Birk 1, Principa l, Alta Planning+ Des ign
With assistance from Jeff Smith , City of Portland
Transportation Optio ns
Case St ud ies Bicycle Co unt ermeasure Selection System
Figure 1. Key Portland Bridges .
pedestrians sh ared narrow sidewalks, and all bridges had
access problems, such as the following:
Cyclists h aving to cross motor vehicle ramps w ith no
markings or yie ld co ntrol.
Lack of bikeway fac ilities on approaching congested
streets and structures.
Confli c ts between bicyclists and pedestrians on nar-
row sidewalks and other points.
On two bridges (Se llwood and Steel), the sidewa lks were
so narrow that bicyclists were supposed to walk their bikes
(w hi c h they r are ly did) through conflict areas. On several
of the bridges, bicyclists co uld theoretically u se auto travel
lan es. On one downtown bridge (B urnside) this required
sh ari ng the relatively narrow 3 m (10 ft)-wide o utside
trave l lanes on a six-lane span. On three other downtown
bridges, sharing the travel lan es was (and still is) a danger-
Broadway Br idge , 1992 : Westside , westbound . Bike signal, no
bike lanes.
ous undertaking g iven the narrow lane widths, traffic vo l-
ume and speeds and sight distance. On three non-down-
town bridges, sharing lanes m eant bicycling on slipp ery
grating (not a good option in rainy Portland).
These probl ems translated to low bicycle and pedestrian
use of the bridge. Surveys of cyclists fo und the number-
one problem ci te d was bridge facility qu ality a nd access.
In response, Multnomah Co unty, ODOT and th e city of
P ortland collabo rat ed on an !STEA-fund ed stu dy ca ll ed
the Willamette River Bridges Access Project (WRBAP).
Con sultants C H2MHill identified over $15 million in
potential bicycle, p edestrian, and ADA improvements. The
city and county subsequentl y implemented many of these
via gra nts from ODOT, ISTEA, and thro u gh routine ci ty
of Portland, Multnomah County, and ODOT bridge and
approac h maintenance work.
COUNTERMEASURES
Over $12 million worth of improvements ha ve b een imple-
mented, primar il y on four of th e downtown bridges-H aw-
thorne, Burnside, Steel, and Broadway. Preliminary design
for improvements on the fifth downtown bridge-M or-
rison-is underway as of fa ll 2002. Limited improve m ents
were suggested for the Sellwood, St. J o hns, and Ross Island
bridges; no major improvements h ave resulted .Th e measures
implemented on th e four main bridges ar e shown in the
photos below and d escribe d for each bridge in table 1.
The meas u res in,::l u de :
Im p roveme nts to off-stree t fac ili ti es (wid ening sid ewalks
on Hawthorne, sidewalk in-fill in approach areas, rep lace-
ment of slippe ry sid ewalk smfac e on bo th Hawthorne
an d Broadway, addition of share d-use path on Steel).
Broadway Bridge , 2002: Westside, westbound . New bike sig-
nal sp l its bike movements.
Bike lanes on approaches and connect i ng streets.
• Striping bike lanes, sig ns (on the bridge sp an on Burn-
side, and on most approaches and access streets).
Focusing on safety at conflict areas (clos ure of on-
ramp from Naito to H aw thorne Bridge, reconstruc-
tion of conflict areas on approac h es to H awthorne and
Broadway, blue bike lane impl ementation in co nfli c t
zones on approach es to Broadway and H awthorne).
• Redesigning sidewalk ramps to meet ADA (all bridges).
It should b e noted that many of the improvements w e re
m ade in conjunction with oth er bridge upgrade or re -
co n stru ction proj ec ts; thus cos ts for spec ifi c bike and p e-
d es tri an improveme nts are not always ava ilabl e . Al so note
that the C ity used blu e paveme nt areas in b ike and motor
vehicle co nflict areas on the approa ches from the eas t-
sid e for two bridges (Broadway and Hawthorne). B lu e
bike lanes as a safety tech niqu e are discu sse d in the C ity
of Portla nd publi ca tion, Blu e Bik e Lan es for Cycling Safety
(C ity of Portl and, 1997).
Bi cyc le Coun termea sur e Se lect ion Sys tem Case Stud ies 14 9
Table 1. Bridge coun t ermeasures, costs, fundi ng sources
Bridge Owner2 Status Befo re Measures Imp lemented Cost Funding Source
S id ewa l ks w ide ned t o 3
m (10 f t ) on eac h side.
B ike lanes striped o n all
Cy c li st s and pedes -approaches. Si d ewa l k
in -f i ll o n a pp roac hes. t ri a ns sharing 1.8 m Cu r b ramps rebui lt to (6 ftl-wide sidewa lk s. m eet ADA . Eas tbou nd No bike lanes a nd a p proach , Wes ts i de : First Sidewalk
m inim al sidewal ks o n w i denin g : $1.2
Multn omah a ppro aches . Bi cyc li st s ramp from Nai t o Par k-million ODOT Bi ke/Pe d
Hawt horne * Co unty shared roadway or used way close d , e limin ati ng Gra nts, TEA -2 1
s id ewal ks to access. con fli ct area. Seco nd Other c hanges: ST P funding
Prob lema t ic inte rac -ra m p reco nfi g ured t o force $2 00 ,0 00
t io n be t ween cyc li st s mot orists to stop and give
a nd m ot or vehic les j n cyc l ists a nd pedes t r ians
se vera l areas. pr iori ty, sepa rat e bi ke and
pedest r ia n cross i ng areas .
Blu e bike lanes intro-
duced i n conf li ct zones on
eas t si d e.
B i kes and pedestrians Dec k rest r ipe d with bike o n 3 m (10 ft)-wid e
B urn side * Multn omah s id ewalks. Bike access la nes by remo v i ng one $2 0 ,0 00
Loca l t rans por-
Co unty vi a surface street w ith -tra ve l lane in no n-peak ta ti on funding
o ut b ike lanes . di rec t ion
New 3 .7 m (12 ft) bike
U p per Deck:
and pedest r ian path add-
Mult nomah
Bi kes and pedest rians ed t o lower deck, a long I STE A & T EA-
Co u nty.
s hari ng about 1.5 m (5 with new share d -use path 2 1 Enh a nce-
St ee l * ft ) s idewalk on south (Eas t bank Esp la na de) and $10 million ments , local
Lower Deck : s ide, u pper deck. So m e bike lanes o n eas t s i de t ax i ncre me nt
Uni o n Pacific
Rai l road
cyc li sts on roadway . approaches. "Bikes on fi nancing
roadway" signs o n u pper
deck.
Bikes and pedes t r ians Sidewalk surface replaced
o n 3 m (10 ft)-wi de (s idewalk w idth sa m e).
si dewalks with s li ppery Bike lanes adde d t o all M u ltnomah
Broadway * Multn omah s urfa ce. No bike lanes co n nect in g su rface stree t s $3 0 0 ,000 Co unty & Port-
Co u nty o n connect ing surface and ramps . Conf li ct areas la nd transporta -
st ree t s. A pproac hes on approac hes m odified t io n f unding
with numerous i ll -de-and defined (by b lu e bike
fin ed conflict areas . areas in two cases).
Bikes and pedestrians
on 1.2 m (4 ft)-w ide
s idewalk on one s ide.
Mul tnomah Very constrained. Ac-None. Br idge to be rebuilt
Se ll wood Co u nt y
cess from eastside v ia w ith in 20 yea rs su rface street wi t hout
bik e lanes. Access fro m
Wes t s ide via shared use
pa th .
150 Case Stud ies Bicyc le Countermea sure Selection System
Br idge Owner2 Stat us Before Measures Implemented Cost Fundin g Source
St. Johns B ikes and pedestr ians
o n narro w 1.2 m (4 No ne. ODO T stud ying
ODOT ft )-wide s idewa l ks .Ac-
cess ho rri b le vi a m ajo r res tri p in g pote nti a l .
highway.
Ross Is land Bikes an d pedest ri a ns
o n 1.2 m (4 ft)-wide
s idewa l k on o ne side. Br idge rebuilt, bu t bikes Very cons t rained . Ac -
ODO T cess from wes t side near & pe destrians still share
i m possible. Access f rom na r row sidewa lk . No im-
eastside v ia crowded
pro ve m ents ma de.
s urface st ree t s w it hout
b i ke lanes .
Mor ri son * B ikes an d pedest ria ns
M ul t nomah on narrow sidewalks . Pre limi nary des ig n study Very co nstrained . Da n-$250,000 TEA-2 1
County gerous con f lict areas at underway as of f a ll 2002
hi ghway ramps .
2 On al l bridges, approaches , signing , a nd stripi ng co ntro ll ed by the c ity of Portland
*Connects eas t s ide to dow ntow n Portland.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS wide ned, from about 2,400 cy cli sts to ove r 3,100 -a
3 2 p erc e nt inc rease in o n e ye ar.
The city of Portland coll ec te d bi cy cl e counts on the
bridges ove r time, as sh own in fi gure 2 and table 2 . These
co unts are b ase d on the d ail y p ea k ~vo-hour p e riod , and
thus primarily re fl ec t commute trips. The co unts sh ow an
e normous inc rease ove r time in bi cy cl e u se on th e four
m ain bridges, w hile in co mpari son, co unts for the bridges
w ithout bicycl e access improvem e nts rem ain extremely
low. R ec rea ti o n al trip s h ave increase d e n o rmously as well .
Joggers and cyclists fr e que ntly u se the H awthorne and
Ste el bridges and th e ir connec ting p aths as a d owntow n
exe rcis e loop during the d ay and o n weeke nds.
A cl e ar link ca n b e m a d e b e tween the in c rease d bike u se
a nd improve d fac iliti es o n th e four brid ges di sc u sse d .
On the H aw thorne, Burnsid e, and Broa d way bridges
alo ne, bike u se w e nt up 78 p e rce nt in the 1990s, co m-
p a re d with a 14 p e rce nt inc rease in th e p o pula tion and
a n 8 p e r ce nt increase in motor ve hicl e u se on th ese
bridges . The fo llowing res ults should b e note d:
On the Burnsid e Bridge, bike use triple d from 300
d aily cycli sts to ab o ut 1 ,000 once the improve m e nts
w e re m ad e.
On th e H aw thorne Bridge, m any improvem e nts we re
made over a multi-yea r p eriod . The most signifi ca nt
jump in u se o cc urred in 1999 aft e r th e sid ew alks we re
On the Broad way Bridge, a 54 p e rce nt increase in cy-
cling o c curre d the ye ar aft e r the major improve m ents
were m ad e.
• On th e Steel Bridge, bike u se we nt up 220 p e rce nt
aft e r th e Ste el Bridge Rive rwalk and E as tb ank E spla-
n ad e op e n e d in M ay 2 00 1.
Bi cycle Counte rm eas ure Se lec ti on Sys tem Case Stud ies 151
Table 2. Bridge Bicycle Traffic
before 1990 1990-92 1993-94 1995-96 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Hawthorne Bridge 830 1445 1920 2040 2025 2471 3 31544 3125 3675
Burnside Bridge 300 1 600 1 9952 1065 1375 905 920 1075 965
Broadway Bridge 495 755 715 950 1205 18545 14766 14057 16257
Steel Bridge 215 220 350 475 350 360 410 13128
Totals 1825 3015 3850 4405 5080 5580 5910 6015 7577
Ross Island Bri dge * 100 90
Morrison Bridge * 100 100
Sellwood * 260 315
Notes : counts are either from 24-hour hose counts, or from extrapolated 4 to 6 PM manual counts (estimated at 20
percent of total daily bicycle volume based on 24-hour video and manual verification). Where more than one count is
available in a given year , counts are averaged. All counts taken in the summer months, on good weather weekdays .
* No significant bike and pedestrian improvements made .
1 Burnside Br idge counts pre-1993 are estimates based on 7-9am counts .
2 Burnside Br idge is restr i ped with bike lanes on-street.
3 Hawthorne Bridge 1998 count was conducted on the Morrison Bridge Detour , as the Hawthorne was closed.
4 Hawthorne Bridge reopens with widened sidewalks and access improvements .
5 Broadway Br idge sidewalks resurfaced , eastside approaches improved , westbound bike lanes added to Lovejoy
Ramp.
6 Broadway Br idge 1999 count conducted during Lovejoy ramp demolition.
7 Lovejoy Ramp not yet open.
8 Steel Bridge Riverwalk opens.
Before: Steel Br idge, upper deck. Bicyclists and pedestrians
sharing one l.5m (5 ft) sidewalk with guardrail.
152 Case Studies Bicycle Countermeasure Se lection System
After: Stee l Bridge Riverwa l k on lower deck. It's a cantilevered
3m (10 ft) shared use path c onnecting to paths.
Before : Eastbound Hawthorne Bridge access to sidewa lks -bi-
cyc lists make sharp turn , yield to motorists.
No t e 1.8 m (6 ft)-wide sidewalks .
After: Eastb o und Hawt horne Brid ge ac cess to sidewalks -bi-
cy c lists proceed straigh t , motorists yield,
Note 3.2 m (10 .5 ft)-wide sidewalks.
fJ(J(}(J 0 Steel Brid ge
O Br oadway Bri dg e
7000 •Burn side Brid ge 312
6IJOO
0 Ha wth orn e Brid ge
ll ~ 5000
" (;'
4000 ....
0 ...
"' .Q 3000 E ~ 200()
1000
before 1990-92 199J-94 1995-96 199 7 1998 1999 2000 2001
1990
Year(s)
Figure 2. Br idge bicycle traffic on four main Willam ette River
bridges.
Hawthorne : Bike lanes added on all approaches . Bike lan es
added to al l c onne c t in g streets: SW Main, SW Madiso n , S E
Hawthorne, SE Madison .
Blue bike lane o n eastbound viaduct at off-ramp . Used at
areas where motorists cross bicyc le lane .
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
This d ecad e-long e ffort h as b een a m ajor fa ctor in Portland's
increas ing bi cycl e use beca use of the cru cial links these
bridges provide into downtown. It al so h as b ee n positive fo r
p ed es trians and p eople w ith di sabiliti es, for several reasons:
• Bike and p e d es trian c onfli c ts h ave e ith e r b ee n largel y
eliminate d through the install ation of on-stree t bike
lan es, or redu ced through th e provis ion of more or
alte rna ti ve sp ace.
All c urb r amp s h av e b ee n u p g ra d e d to m e et ADA
standards.
Missing side w alk c onnec tions h ave b ee n install e d .
P e d e strian-motorist c onfli c t a reas at approache s
w e r e improve d .
The most dramati c and exp e n sive improve m e nts h ave h ad
th e most signifi cant impact. Relatively low-cost improve-
Bicycle Coun termea sure Selectio n System Case Stud ies 153
ments su c h as the blue b ike markings in co nflict zones,
bike lanes on certain approac h es, and signs were not as
significant to increasing bike u se as were the major cost
items, su ch as providing a new sh ared-use path, w iden-
ing the sidewalk, and replac ing sidewalk surfaces and ap-
proaches. For exa mple, bike use on th e Burnside Bridge
tripled when bike lanes were install e d in 1993 (a t a cos t
of $20,000), but h as remained flat since that time at less
than 1 ,000 d aily cycli sts. In compariso n , bike use o n the
Hawthorne Bridge tripled to more than 3,000 daily cy-
cli sts b eca u se of the much-improved sid ewalks and ac-
cess improveme nts (a t a cost of more than $1.3 nullion).
Similar increases were seen on Broadway Bridge (a cost
of $300,000) and Steel Bridge (a cost of more than $10
million) fo ll owing improvements.
A key to the h eavy and increas ing concentration of bi-
cycli sts on the H awthorne, Steel , and Broadway b ridges
as o pposed t o the Burnside and o th er bridges is that on
these three bridges' sp ans, bicycli sts are off-street o n either
w id e sidewalks or sh ared-u se path s, with bike lanes o n the
approach es. In addition, the city add ed bi cycle lanes to all
streets conn ec tin g to the Hawthorne, Steel and Broad-
way bridges, overcoming a m ajor hurdle in getting people
t o the bridges. In co ntrast, on the Burnside Bridge, cy-
cli sts operate in strip ed bicy cle lanes adjacent to traffic ,
which is uncomfortable for so me cyclists. And, there are
n o connectin g bike lan es on the approaches or connect-
ing streets.
COSTS AND FUNDING
The t o tal cost of bridge improvements to date is over $12
million, funded through a var iety of so urces (see table 1
above).
CONTACT
Mia Birk
Principal, Alta Planning + D es ign
3604 SE Li n coln St
Portland, OR 972 14
(503) 230-9862
1 Mia Birk was th e Bi cycle Program M anager fo r th e C ity of
Portland from 1993-1999. Currentl y sh e is a Principal with the
Portland 's office of Alta P lanning + D es ign, a firm spec ializing in
bicycle, pedes trian , and trail planning and design.
154 Ca se Studies Bic ycle Counterme asure Selection System
STATE OF WASHINGTON #3
Lighting and Advance Warning of Bicyclists
in the Knapps Hill Tunnel
BACKGROUND
The Knapps Hill tunnel is located on U.S . 97 A in the
North Central region of Wa shington State. U.S. 97 A is a
sce ni c route th at parall els the Columbia Rive r north from
Wenatch ee through th e resort city of Chelan on the so uth
shore of Lake C hel an. This route offers views of wildlife
including deer, bi ghorn sh ee p, eagles and an occas ional
moose, m aki n g it an attrac tiv e ride for the wee ke nd biker
and large bicycle gro ups.The Kn apps Hill tunnel was o ri g-
inally constructed in 1936.Th e tunnel is approximately 214
m (700 ft) lo n g on a 6 percent grade an d, unfortunately,
o nly 7.6 m (25 ft) wide.The steep grad e and n arrow width
of the tunnel meant that slower m oving bicycles would b e
in the driving lan es during their rid e through the tu nnel.
COUNTERMEASURES
The tunnel had no illurn.in ation until 19 57 when a contract
was le t to place flu orescent lights throu gh th e le ngth of
the tunnel. The o ri ginal bicycle /p ed es trian warning sys tem
Greg Morehouse, WSDOT North Central Region
m ay h ave b ee n install ed at the same time, but is th o u ght to
have been in place at leas t by 1967. The sys tem consists of
a push button at eac h portal that ac ti va tes fl as hing b eac ons
on a "PED OR BIKES IN TUNNEL'' sign loca te d in ad-
vance of eac h end of the tunnel. The fl as hing b eaco n oper-
ates fo r a period suffi cient for the bicyc list to travel through
the tunnel. The shoulder w as widened to allow bicycli sts
to pull off th e road sa fely to ac ti va te the push-button. The
system ha s b een modified since th e original was installed
but remains basically unch anged. In 1988, the illumination
sys tem was upg rade d with 400-wa tt , high-press ure so dium
lu minari es. The upgrade al so allows the internal tunnel
Bicycle Countermeasure Selectio n System Ca se Studies 155
li ghting to adjust b ase d on the ambie nt li ghting co nditions
outside. This mininuzes the blinding effects of driving into
vas tl y different li ghting condition s.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
No sp ecifi c studi es h ave been performed to evaluate these
improvements, but adding flashing b eacons fo r advanced
warning and illuminati on systems are common compo-
nents in o u r es tabli sh ed safety standards.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
This sys tem is pe rforming well for the current leve ls of
bicycle and ve hicular traffic, and there is no plan for an
upgra d e at this time. The t u nnel stru c ture itself is c urrentl y
b eing retrofitted with a concrete liner that maintains the
c urre nt width and stabili zes the rock b e hind the exis ting
wooden structure . Any future upg rad es for bicycle safety
would more than likel y invo lve moving the bicycle traffic
to an alternat e route.
COSTS AND FUNDING
Information o btained fro m: http :/ /inform.e nterprise .
prog.or g /p 22.html
The fl as hing wa rning system cos t $5,000 to build and in-
stall in 1979. T h ese costs were relatively low as a power
supply was alrea dy in place to provide li ghting on th e
tunnel. Had this not b een the case, install ati on costs would
h ave b een significantly hig h e r.
CONTACT
J e nnene Ring
WSDOT North Central R egion Traffic Engineer
P.O. Box 98
W e natc h ee,WA 98807
ringj @ WSDOT.WA.GOV
(509) 667-3080
156 Ca se Studi es Bicyc le Cou ntermeasure Se lect ion System
VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON #4
Back-in Diagonal Parking with Bike Lanes
BACKGROUND
M clou ghlin Boulevard , a minor arte ria l laid out at the
turn of th e ce ntury, was no longe r se rv ing the surround-
ing land u ses and u se r s well. Along segm e nts, this arteri al
w as wide r than its tra ffi c vol u m e n ecess itate d , es p eciall y
in th e area of C lark Coll ege. The segm e nts unde r study
h ad one to two wide lan es in eithe r direc tion and ofte n
no p arking o r p arking limite d to p arall el stall s (see fi g ure
1). Complaints typicall y fo c u se d o n proble m s with drive r
sp ee din g, lac k of bi cycle fa c iliti es, strong p arking d e m and
in are as with limited suppl y, and lo n g p e d es tri an c ro ss ing
distanc es to reac h tran sit stops. Comp laints about conve n-
tional di agonal parking fo c use d o n the res tri ct e d lin e of
sight parkers h ad wh e n leaving a stall and th e inse curity
o f bi cy cli sts in cycling along zones w ith conve ntional di-
agonal p arkin g .
Figure 1. Four lane configuration before back-in park in g.
Diagonal p arking in the C ity up to the point of this dem-
o n strati on proj ec t w as laid ou t conve ntionally by staff to
all ow drive r s t o e nter 45-degree st all s h ea d -in along some
of th e wide r arte rials. R esea rch by the City in th e 19 70 s
d ocume nte d th e risk o f ve hicl e -to-ve hicle c o ll isions
Todd Boulanger, Sen i or Transportation Planner,
MURP, Vancou ver, WA
Contributions by A li Gouda rz Eghtedari PE; John
Manix PE, PTOE
w h e n u sing h ea d -in di ago n al p arking on an arte rial stree t .
To mitiga te this co n ce rn, C ity e n gin eers se parate d di ago-
n al p arking lan es from travel lan es w ith a full 3 .7 m (1 2 ft )
buffe r lan e for ve hicle qu e uing (fi gure 2).The M clou gh-
lin Bo ul evard co rridor also lac ke d bike lan es, with th e
res ult that some bi cy clists chose to ride on th e sidew alk
al o n g t hi s street (figur e 3 ). O ve r tim e, this layo ut b ec ame
less o pportune as h ea d-in di agonal parking fac ilities w e re
di ff ic ult to co mbine with bi cycl e lanes. This d emonstra-
tion proj e ct m ove d forward b eca use of th e d es ire of our
Park s and R ec rea tional D e p artme nt for both additional
on-stree t p arking and e nh an ce d bicyclist access to th eir
fa c iliti es along a segm e nt o f M cloughlin Bouleva rd that
lac ke d parking .
Fi gure 2. Traditi onal diagonal parking with buffer lane, no bike
lanes and in complete sidewalks (1 block east of ba c k-i n zo ne).
Figure 3 . Bicyclist access before bike lanes .
Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System Ca se Studi es 157
PHOTO 3: Bi cyc l ist Access before Bikf> I ::in"c
In the treatment section, McLoughlin Boulevard:
• is a minor arter ial ,
had two striped lanes in each direction and no parking,
• was identifi e d as a facility w ith future bike lanes in the
city's bike plan,
• had an ADT of 6,800 in 2000.
In a zo n e to the eas t of the demonstration area , McLaugh-
lin Boulevard h as h ead-in diagonal p arking with a 3.7 m
(12 ft) buffer lane (s hown in figure 2).
This demonstration proj ect h ad three objectives , to asses s
whether:
1 . b ac k-in diagonal p arking would fun c tion as well as
h ead -in diagonal p arking in regard to safety and com-
munity acceptance,
2. back-in di ago n al p arking would all ow bike lan es to
replace vehicle buffer lanes for motorist maneuvering
spa ce, there by improving bicyclist access, and
3. the narrower stree t cross-section d evoted to motor ve-
hicle travel wo uld lower the 85th p ercentil e sp eed s.
The exis t ence of b ack-in diagonal parking in other cit-
ies was not widely known in Vancouver at the time of
th e original proposal in 2000. Staff b ecame aware of this
option in 1 997 when bicycling in Seattle's Queen Anne
district and from other citi es (see figures 4-7). Inter-
actions b e twee n parkers with motor vehicles, bicyclists
and p edestri an s were p h otogra phe d and video tap e d in
other lo cations, although th e co mbination w ith a bike
lane was not observed during several annual observa-
tional v isi ts. Other sections of Seattle u sed back-in park-
ing along streets with very st eep grades. Initial proposa ls
were deve lop e d using photo simulations in Adobe Pho-
toshop® overlaying photos of Seattle parked ca r s with
Vancouver projec t sites .
Staff primarily relied on Seattle staff's written positive co l-
li sion exp erie n ce with this layo u t of p arking, 1 as repeated
lite rature review and researc h did not find m any other
examples to evaluat e until the proj ect was well unde1way.
Soon afte r 2002, articles began to appear in the ITE Journal
concerning renewed interest in ba ck-in parking (E dwards,
2002) and concern abou t its rediscovery (Box , 2002). Over
the la st four years, staff has exch an ged inform ation w ith
over 10 jurisdictions with b ac k-in p arking and those co n-
te mplating it . Through site visits and e-mail di scussio n s,
23 communities in th e US have b een identified as h aving
so m e form of back-in diagonal parking, and at least four of
158 Case Studies Bicyc le Countermeasure Se lection System
Figure 4 . Seattle-Merchants prefer the view.
Figure 5. Washington , DC -Back -in parking used on streets
with bike lanes .
Figure 6. Seattle -bac k-in parking with neighborhood com-
merc ial land use.
Figure 7. Tucson standa rd for mixed -use downtown -bicycle
and back-in angle parking.
"' 0
>-a:
::::>
CD
(/)
"' z
"'
those have combined back-in p arking with bike lanes as of
2004 (see App e ndix).
Initial trea tment sites along M cLaughlin Bouleva rd were
se lected during a N eighborhood Traffi c Manage m e nt
planning process in 1999-2000. The initial parking con-
ce pt proposal langui sh e d until a faci lity plan for a public
swinuning pool propose d tearing down a heritage house
for parking lot exp ansion in Hough. Community sup-
port for b ac k-in di ago n al parking grew, as it would allow
neighborhood assoc iations to improve the surrounding
parking supply while providing bi cy cl e access to sur-
rounding public facilities and protec ting existing hous-
ing sto ck . The site of this d emonstration was relocated
one half-mile eas t of the original site, after a re qu es t by
the Parks & Recreati o n D e partme nt for more p arking in
front of anothe r pool g uarantee d fundin g for the strip-
ing d emonstration proj ec t . Additionally, engineer in g staff
c onsidered this site to b e less politically risky for a long
eva luation p eriod as it had a greater supply of off-street
parking, thus allowing drivers uncomfortable w ith back-
in parking oth e r p arking options.
COUNTERMEASURES
The d emonstration proj ec t relied primarily on n ew bike
lane striping, stenciling and signs to c rea t e b ac k-in, diago -
nal parking stall s along a zo ne that did not h ave pre-exist-
ing parking. The pre -project lane c onfiguration generall y
was four lanes with a strip e d ce nter line for an 18.6 m (6 1
ft)-wide street (shown in figure 1) cla ss ifi e d as a 'minor
arter ial' w ith 7 ,000 ve hicles p er da y. The post-proj ec t lane
Figure 8 . After conversion -two lane configuration with
... ba ck-in parking on one side.
configuration h as adde d se p ara te lan es for p arking and
bike lanes while removin g one lane in eac h trav el direc-
tion (see fi gure 8 and tabl e 1).
The propose d addition o f stree t t extures for tra ffi c calm-
ing and bulb-outs for reduction in p e des tri an cro ssing
di stances could not advance until e n g ineering evaluation
of the p arking d e monstration was co mple te d and addi-
tional construction funding was found. The proj ec t was
initiate d in the summer of 2002.
Time and unde r standing of the opportunities of this typ e
of p arking was important for m any of the stakeholder s
in order for trust to d eve lop. Initial interac tions among
stake holde r s co uld b e b es t summe d up by o n e co uncil
m ember's co n1111 e nt on the idea; "cockamami e." Othe r s
su gges ted that it b elonge d downtown where more p ark-
ing supply was n ee d e d and the sp eed s were slower. Sup-
p o rt for the d e monstration projec t was d eve loped through
re p ea t ed dialo g w ith surrounding n eighborhoo d assoc ia-
tions and large institutional prope rty owners, and the n
waiting for the m to re ques t proj ec t initi ation at a late r
d ate .The bicy cl e communi ty h ad g u ard e d support for the
proj ec t , as it provided 0.8 km (0 .5 mi) of additional bike
lan es in an area with m any res ide n ces and civic fa cilities
(two swimming pools, a coll ege, a high sc h ool, and a re c-
rea tional ce nter). Outreac h to other stakeholder s (elderly
recreation facility cli e nts, stude nts, bicycli sts, tran sit rid-
ers, pedes tri an s, and p arker s) was accomplish e d by posting
information on the C ity W e b site , holding n eighborhood
n ewsle tter disc u ss io n s and a televised c ouncil sess ion, and
the posting of fly e r s on windshields, bus stops, and side -
walk A-boards along the proj ec t area. Final instituti onal
support for the projec t was found aft er th e transportation
m anager vi sited Se attl e and observed ba ck-in parking in
use. The proj ec t then advanced to C ity Council for final ,
though g u ard e d , approval.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
This demonstration proj ec t has b ee n evalu ate d u sing video
anal ys is of ve hic ul ar interaction with parking (3 0 hours
over six w eekdays while co ll ege w as in sess ion), observa-
tional studies, feedbac k from u se rs, review of co llision rate s
and sp eed su rveys , and revi ew of ci ti ze n complaint fil es .
Table 1. Lane Configura ti ons Pre-and Post -Proje ct
Lane Type Bike Lane Parking Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Parking Lane Bike Lane
Befor e None None 4.6 m (15 ft)* 4.6 m (15 ft)* None None
After 1.8 m (6 ft) 4.9 m (16 ft) 3.7 m (12 ft) 3.7 m (12 ft) 2.4 m (8 ft) 1.8 m (6 ft)
Notes: Prior to 2002 there were two lanes in each direction .
Bicycle Cou nt ermeasure Se lection System Case Studies 159
DIAGONAL BACK-IN PARKING (F IG URE 9)
• Some drive r s h ad diffi cu lty backing into spaces w h e n
few ca r s were p arked vers u s w h e n sta ll s surrounded by
other parked ca r s, as there was less spatial reference as
to where the stall s were loca t ed while execu ting the
turn unto a stall .
Figure 9 . Driver backing i nto stall.
• A few drivers preferred to pull into a back-in sp ace by
looping in throu gh empty adjace nt stalls vers u s stop-
ping in the bike lane and backing up into a stall -this
behavior was not fore cast before d es ign.
• The 1.8 m (6 ft ) b icycle lane was ad eq u ate to provid e
drivers space for reversing into th e p arki n g stall with
traffi c.
• Drivers that violat ed (drove through th em with o ut
parking) the bike lan es and parking zones were typical-
ly leav ing or e ntering the driveways nearest the park-
ing zone vers u s drivers that were just driving throu gh
the zone.
• N o drivers were observed v io lating the parking zo n e
when cars were parked in it or when bicyclists were
u sing th e bicycle la n e.
• Loading and unloading from p ark ed vehicles is easier
from the c urb area (figure 10).
Fi g ur e 10. Eas ier unl oad in g at the c u rb wi t h back -i n park i ng.
160 Case Studies Bicyc le Cou nt erm easure Selectio n Sys tem
VEHICLE TO PARKER CONFLICT (FIGURES 11
AND 12)
• No bike to parking or exitin g parking ve hicl e con-
flict was observed on the video footage, but there we re
too few joint actions to judge this interaction b etween
th ese stree t u sers.
• No ve hicl e to parking or exiting parking ve hicl e con-
flict was observed on the v id eo footage.
Figure 11. B icy c list's view along ba c k-i n park i ng zone.
Figure 12 . Exiting driver's view of approaching traffi c along
back-in parking zone.
BICYCLE TRAFFIC FLOWS
• Bicycle traffi c increased from 1 to 6 percent of all east-
bound ve hi cular traffic alon g th e project area (tub e
co unts pre-and post-proj ec t -10h00 to 1 lhOO) dur-
in g an average hour of use.
• Total bicycle traffic increased 235 percent from 17 bicy-
cles (hose count-April 24, 2002) to as many as 44 bi-
cyclists (v ideo analysis-Oct .16,2002, 10h00 to 14h00,
clear war m weather) after the bike lanes were added.
l
1
• Bikeway fac iliti es provid e d m ore direc t b en e fit th an o n-
street p ar king fac ili ties at thi s loca ti o n (44 bi cycli sts ve r-
sus eight drivers w h o p arked during p eri o d w ith hi gh es t
p arking utili zati o n -O ct. 15, 2002 video analys is).
• No recognize d avo id an ce o f b ac k -in p arking zo n e
ve rsu s co nve ntional p arall e l p arking zone by eithe r ad-
van ce d (A typ e) o r exp e ri e n ce d (B typ e) bi cy cli sts rid-
ing n ext t o p arke d ca rs-and b o th zo n es h ad simil ar
traffi c fl ows (1 9 vers us 25 r id er s o n O c t . 15 , a nd 1 9
ver su s 2 1 ride rs o n O ct . 16).
LANE CONFIGUR AT ION EFFE CT ON SPEEDS
Th e seco nda r y obj ec tive of a dding bike la n es a nd
p a rkin g lan es w as t o r e du c e the traffic sp ee d s alon g
this c orridor. Th e trave l sp ee d s alo n g thi s sec ti o n
o f M c L aughlin B o ul eva rd a re hi stori ca ll y hi g h e r
t han post e d , c au sing c on ce rn among n ei ghborh o od
l e ade r s and other stree t u se r s su c h as p e d es tri an s a nd
bi cyclists, as ide ntifi e d durin g th e N e ig hborhood
Traffi c M an age m e nt pl a nnin g p rocess .
• The post-proj ec t trave l sp eeds w e re not calm e d . They
in crease d slightly (see tabl e 2). There is a visual brea k
b e tween the sec ti on wes t of th e proj ec t area, w hi ch is
a muc h more p edes trian -sc al e d , sh ared-use n eighbo r-
hood.Th e proj ec t area, by contras t , is borde re d by op en -
spa ce land u ses (s p o rts fi elds ) w ith few drive w ays and
long bl ocks. In th e n ext phase, e nhan ce d p e d es trian
cro ss ings w ith calming m eas ures w ill b e imple m e nte d .
Tab le 2. Eighty-Fifth Per c entile Speed Pre-and Post -Pro j ect
Eas t -Bound Traff ic West-Bou nd Tr affic
Befo re 35.1 mph 36 .7 mp h
After 38.5 mph 38.3 mp h
Notes: This stree t is posted as a 25 mph zone.
COLLIS ION HISTOR Y
• The re we re few co lli sio n s in b o th the pre-and p os t-
time p e rio d s, so th e projec t 's influ en ce o n th e collision
rat e along th e p arking zone is inconclusive . During
2000-2002 th e re were two collisions ve r su s three col-
li sions in the 2002-2004.
• All exce pt one o f the colli sions in both p e riods in-
volve d two ve hicl es, w h e re one ve hicle turning left
into a drive w ay fail e d to y ield t o oncoming traffi c.
• Both p eri o ds had o n e injury re porte d clo ses t to the
parking zo n e . Th e e nti re bike lan e zone (whi ch ex-
te nds b eyo nd th e p arking proj ec t area) h ad a total o f
six injuries b e fore the additi o n of the bike lan es and
o n e injury aft er .
• N o n e o f the re porte d collisio n s o r injuries invo lved
a bi cycli st o r drive r unde rtaking a p arking o r exi ti ng
p arking m an e u ve r.
Our o ffic e is cu rre ntly workin g o n ext e nding this b ac k-
in p arkin g and bike lan e zo n e fu r th e r to the wes t and th e
e as t for 244 0 m (8 000 ft ) total , as re qu es ts for w ork are
ge n e rate d by prope rty ow n e r s and n eig hborhoo d ass o c ia-
tion s. Two p roj ec ts are c ur re ntl y in the d es ign stages . Both
sh o uld be constru c te d during the sunm1e r o f 2005 .
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDAT IONS
R ec omme ndati o n s for future Van co u ve r proj ec ts includ-
e d th e follo w ing:
1. Widen the standard p arkin g stalls from 2 .7 m to 2 .9 m
(9 ft to 9 .5 ft) or provide othe r stall position guidan ce
(raise d m arkers, e tc.).
2. Adopt a supple m e ntal b ac k-in p arking sign adapte d
fr o m Salt Lake C ity (fi g ure 13).
3 . Adju st striping lay out to add turn lan e for wes t bound
tra ffic into wes t ern e ntran ce of p arking lo t (s ite sp e -
c ifi c).
This tre atme nt has b ee n
very e ffec ti ve at b alan c-
ing bi cy cli st access (in-
crease in trips) w hil e
providing fo r g rowin g
p ar king d em and . The
ad o pti o n of reconm1 e n -
d ations #1 and #2 h as
m e t res istance from our
m ainte nance crews ('an-
othe r sign to st ock ' and
BACK-IN ONLY
ANGLE PARKING
~~~ ;~
COMMENTS: 535 -7106
Figure 13 . Salt Lake City sign
adapted for use in Vancouver.
'if th e drive rs n ee d th e pave m e nt m arke r s, th en th e re must
b e a proble m w ith this typ e of p arking ... '). The propose d
proj ec ts w ill b e u sing th e w id er stall (2 .9 m (9.5 ft )).
The u se of pho to simulati o ns of th e planne d p arking sce-
nario was very h elpful during th e staff and publi c pro cess
stages, as few if any stake holde rs h ad exp eri e n ce d this typ e
of p arking b efo re o r re m embe red doing so w hil e visitin g
Sea ttl e in th e p as t (fi gures 14 and 15).This ty p e of p arking
d e m ands a lot of public di sc u ss ion and pro cess, more so
than any other striping proj ec t we have typi call y under-
Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System Case Studies 161
Figure 14. Simulati on before back-in parking.
Figure 15. Si mul ation afte r back-in parking.
taken, especially since we were addi ng parking and not re-
moving it. It would b e ideal if a stake h old e r gro up (bu siness,
e ngine ers, res idents , e tc.) were abl e to visit a city with this
type of p arking b efore adopting it o n a distri ct-wid e bas is.
Vancou ve r plan s to adopt the b ac k-in fo rm of di ago n al
p arking along w ider arterial s w h ere bike lan es are de sira bl e
and the surroun ding land uses support p e destrian trips and
sh ared uses. The use of co nve ntional dia gonal p arking w ith
bike lan es is not acceptable. Whe re bike lanes are re quire d
and back-in parking is n ot ado pted , (l ow res ident and busi-
n ess support) p arall el p arking sh all b e used. Back-in p ark-
ing with bike lanes might b e thought of as a kind of "road
diet plus "-having parking and bike lan es but still keeping
a narrowe r cro ss section to co nstrain car traffic. Road di-
e ts u sually invo lve ch oosing b etween parking or bike lan es
w ith th e extra sp ace going to ce nter turn lan es.
COSTS AND FUNDING
An o rig inal budge t of $5,520 for signs , striping and traf-
fic control was es tabli sh ed . This cost was split b etween
the Transportation Se rv ices and the P arks and R ecreation
d e partme nts (the parking was lo ca ted in front of the ir rec-
rea tion fac iliti es and at their req u es t). W e are appl y in g for
the seco nd p o rtion of $100,000 Community D evelo p-
m e nt Block Grant (Fed eral funds) money to fund p e d es-
trian cross ings. These funds join $80 ,000 funded for th e
striping and refu ge islands .
162 Case Studie s Bicyc le Countermeasure Selection System
RE F ERENCES
J o hn Edwards , A ngle Parkin g Iss u es R evisited, 2001 ITE
Journal , February 2002
Pa ul Box, C h anging O n-Stree t Parall el Parking to Angle
P arking , ITE J ourna l, Marc h 2002
CONTACTS
Todd Boulanger, MURP
Se nio r Tran sportation Pl a nne r
City oNa n co u ver
(360) 696-8290 ext. 8657
Ali Eghtedari , PE
Traffi c Eng in eering Manager
C ity oNa n c ouver
(360) 696-8290 ext. 866 1
1 "It is my und erstanding, th e last research on accident hi sto r y in
th e 1970s indicated a 3-1 ratio of more re p orted acc id ents occur-
ring in relation to h ead-in parking spaces as distinct fr o m back-in,"
wrote Bill y J ack , City of Seattl e to Todd B o ul an ge r in 200 1.
APPENDIX
CITIES WITH BACK-IN DIAGONAL PARKING
• Seattle,WA*
• O lympia,WA
• Tacoma,WA
• Van couver,WA *
• Everett,WA
• Portland, OR
• Salem, OR
• Ve ntura, CA
• San Fran c isc o, CA
• Tucson ,AZ
• Salt Lake City, UT
• Hono lulu , H I
• C h arlotte, NC
• Indiana p oli s, IN
• Montreal, QC
• Pottstown, PA*
• P lattsburgh , NY
• Knoxvill e, TN
• Birmingham, MI
• M arqu e tte, M I
• W as hington, D C *
• Arlington ,VA
• Wilmington, DE
Bicycle Counte rm easure Se lect ion System Case Studies 163
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA #5
Valencia Street Road Diet-Creating Space
for Cyclists
BACKGROUND
Bi cy cl e la n es a nd w id e c u r b la n es are co mmo n o n -
stree t fac iliti es for acco mmo d a ting and a ttrac tin g bi cy-
cli st s. As it is a g o al of th e c i ty and co un ty of Sa n Fr a n-
c isc o t o e n co urage cycl i ng as a v iabl e t rans p o rta tion
o ption , efforts ar e co n stan tl y m ad e t o fin d and c rea t e
opportunities for th e ins t all a tion of bi cycle fac iliti es .
Howeve r, w ith a popula ti o n o f a b o ut 780,000 p e opl e
in a 4 7 -sq u a re-mil e sp ace , Sa n Fra n c isco is a ve r y d e n se
a nd c onges t e d c ity wh e re a va ri e ty o f m o d e u se r s c om-
p e t e for limite d street space. While this rea lity is o n e
r eas on tha t bicycling i s a p o pular w ay t o t rave l throu g h
th e city, it also c ompli ca t es the install a ti o n of bi cy cl e
fac iliti es.
In o rd e r t o impl e m ent t he ci ty's bi cycle ro ute n e two rk ,
moto r ve hicl e lan es mu st o ft e n b e r e m ove d t o c r ea t e
sp ace fo r bi cycle fac ilities (o ft e n r eferred to as a "road
d ie t "). Sa n Fran cisco i s a wa lkabl e c ity w h e re m ass
tra n sit is h eav il y u se d and e leva t e d freeways ar e b e ing
t o rn d ow n ra th e r th an cons truc t ed. T h e effec t s of su c h
roa d di e ts o n all ro ad u sers mu st , h owever, b e co n sid-
e r e d a nd suffi c i e ntly stu die d b e fore fi n al a pprova l a nd
imple m e nta ti o n.
Althou g h ro ad di e ts h ave b ee n imple m e nte d t o c rea t e
ro o m for bi cycl e fa c iliti es o n at l eas t 1 6 st ree t s th ro u g h -
o ut the c ity, thi s case study w ill focu s primaril y o n th e
exp e ri e n ce w ith Val e n c ia Stree t , with p ass ing r e fe re n ce
t o a n o th e r ro ad di e t o n P o lk Street . Add iti o n all y, exp e-
ri e n ces w ith proposing an d study ing ro ad di e t proj ect s
in ge n era l w ill b e sh a red as a ppropria te.
164
Michael Sallaberry, Assistant Transportation
Engineer , San Francisco Department of Parking
and Traffic
Case Studi es Bicycle Countermea sure Se lect ion System
VALENCIA STREET
Val e n cia Stree t is a 19.1m(62 ft 6 in )-wide stree t
thro u gh a sh are d-u se area of n10s tly two-to three-st o ry
buildings with comme rcial at stree t level and res identi al
units ab ove, and m e t ere d on-stree t pa rking o n b o th
sides. The stree t li es in a g rid patte rn and is p arall ele d
by fo ur o th er n orth-so uth arterials. Before th e p roj ec t ,
the arte rial w as a fo ur-lan e street w ith an Ave rage Dail y
Traffi c (ADT) o f approx imately 22,000 ve hicl es p er
d ay. A mo tor coach tran sit lin e w ith a h ea dway of 15
to 20 minutes trave ls alo ng th e street. Th e re is a h eavy
p e d es tri an presence beca u se the stree t is a p o pular area
w ith res ta urants, nightclubs, and a va ri ety of shops. All
inte rsec tions h ave signals. A pho to oNalen cia Stree t w ith
fo ur lan es b efo re th e roa d di e t is sh own below.
Figure 1. Valencia St reet before road diet.
COUNTERMEASURES
Thou gh the bi cycle communi ty wa nte d a ro ad di e t p e r-
fo rme d along Vale n c ia Stree t , the local d e p artme nt of
tran sp o rtation was n o t willing to re du ce ca p ac ity alo n g
thi s important n o rth-s o uth c orrido r. Val e n cia Stree t ca n
b e u se d as a surface street alte rnati ve to the Central Free-
w ay, whic h w as d am age d by the 1989 Loma Prie ta earth-
quake. E ve ntually, afte r a se ri es of co mmunity m ee tings
and publi c h ea rings, the city B oard of Supe r visors vote d
on a reso lution in Nove mber 1998 ca lling for the remova l
o f two trave l lanes and the installation of bi cy cle lanes and
a median lane for left turns on a one-year trial b asis. In
March of 1999, work was compl e ted on Val e ncia Street
with the road di et p erformed from Market Street at its
north to Tiffany Ave nue to the so uth, a length of approx i-
mately 1 .8 1niles .
Please see figure 2 b elow for a pic ture ofVale ncia Street
after the road diet.
Figure 2. Valencia Street after road diet.
To 1ninimize the loss of ca pacity along Valencia Street
and redu ce the impac ts to parallel streets, ch anges were
made to the signal timing along Valencia Street and Guer-
rero Stree t one blo c k to the west . On Valencia Stre e t , the
green time was maxi1nized for th e Va le n c ia Street split
while still maintaining time for pedestrians cross ing Va-
lencia Stree t . On Guerrero Street, the signal offsets w e re
modified to promote a smoother progression at 25 mph,
as the speed limit was lowered from 30 mph to address
citize n concerns along the primarily re si dential street. The
spee d limit change and signal timing modifications w e re
intende d to address sp ee ding concerns and help miti gate
the likely increase of traffic along Guerrero Street.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
Before th e work w as started, base lin e data were co ll ected
for us e in a before-afte r report eva l u a ting the road diet.
As th e proj ec t was done t e mporar ily for a one-year trial
period, the results of the re port would b e prese nted at
va rious public hearings with th e project to b e voted on
by the Board of Supe r visors. If the proj ec t were rej ected,
the street wo uld b e returned to its previou s four-lane
c onfiguration.
Traffic volumes were rec orded along Valencia Street an d the
four p arall el ar terials surro unding it to determine if there
was spillover traffi c from Val encia Street and where it w e nt.
The co unts were taken u sing pneumati c devi ces laid across
th e roadway that automati call y counted ve hicles.The coun-
ters were install ed at the sam e lo ca tion on all fi ve streets.
Aft er determining the green times for Val encia Street, it was
predi c te d that 10 pe rcent ofValencia Stre e t traffic would
divert to parall el streets after the road di et was p erformed .
Following is a tabl e sh owing before and after ADTs for
the fi ve roadways along the c orridor.As expected,Valencia
Stree t traffi c vo lumes dropp ed by 10 perce nt.
Va lencia Street Corridor ADTs
~ 20000 +---------!
" II
8 15000
i 10000 ..
~ 5000
S Ven Mission Valencia Guerrero Dolores
Ness
Collision data were also coll ec te d to d ete rmine if safety was
improved with the new d es ign.As the trial was for one year,
it was diffi cult to come to any statisti call y significa nt con-
clu sion for the b efore-aft e r re port. Howeve r, as it has now
b ee n a few years sinc e the installation of the bike lanes, the
collisio n data analyzed include a larger sampl e size.
The table below summarizes the collision data results. The
values in the table are average monthly co lli sion totals for
eac h res p ec ti ve colli sion type, and not rate s.
Table 1. Co ll is ion Data for Valen c ia Street,
Before vs After Road Diet *
Before After Pe rce nt
1/95-12/98 3/99-12/01 Cha nge
Tota l Co lli sions 5.9 4 .7 -20
Mid b lock 1.1 1.4 27 Collisio ns
I ntersect ion 4.9 3.4 -31 Collisio ns
Bicyc l e 0.67 1.0 49 Collis i ons **
Pedestri an 0.83 0 .53 -36 Collis i o ns
*Co l lis ions per month
**Bicyc le collisions not included during 1996 and 1997 due
to lack of reporting so t he before peri od ref lects only 1995 and
1998 da t a .
Bicycle Cou nte rm easure Se lect ion System Case Studies 165
To tal c ollisio n s d e clin e d by 20 p e rce nt, tho u gh the ove r-
all drop was less dramati c w h e n one co n sid e r s that the
ADT along Vale nci a Street d ro pp e d b y approx imately 10
p e r cent. Al so , a signal upgra d e proj ec t was co mple te d
al ong Vale n c ia Stree t in 1997 tha t incr ease d sig n al v is-
ibili ty and h elp e d r e duce the ove rall c ollision rat e . Thus,
it is difficult to c ome to any d e finit e c onclusi o n s rega rd-
ing the effect of thi s ro a d di e t on ove r all colli sion pat-
t e rns alo n g Vale n ci a Street .
A lthough bicycl e colli si ons increase d by ap proximately
50 p e rcent, the increase was o utpa ce d by the 140 p e r-
ce nt rise in ridership al o n g the stree t. This n e t d ec rease
in c olli sio n rat e fo r cycli sts mirrors the inc rease d comfort
cycli sts re p o rt feelin g along the stree t .
C olli sio n s involving p e d es tr ian s dropp ed by 36 p er ce nt.
This co uld b e view e d as a by produc t of the traffic calming
e ffec t p eo ple along the stree t h ave an ecd o tall y o b se rve d.
With lower sp eed s and fewe r lan es, motorists are able to
avo id c olli sions w ith p e d es tri an s more eas il y.A ccordin g to
an ec d o tal acc ounts, p e d es tria n vo lumes on Va le n cia Stree t
h ave in c rease d th e past few years as th e stree t h as thrive d
c omme rciall y and attrac te d eve n more foo t tra ffi c .
Bicy cl e counts were take n alon g Va le n cia Street b e fore
and aft e r. Ideall y, c ounts also would h ave b ee n tak e n o n
p arallel stree ts t o d e ter m i ne h ow much o f the rise in
cycli sts alo n g Vale n cia Street was attribute d to n ew cy-
cli sts o r t o cy cli sts transferr in g fr o m p arall el ro utes . Also ,
a number o f co unts sh o ul d h ave b ee n tak en to c ome up
w ith an ave rage that b e tter acco unts for flu c tu ations in
cy cling vo lumes that o ccur w ith time of year, w ea ther
c onditio n s, e tc.
A bicy cl e co unt take n on Vale n cia Stree t prior to the road
di e t showed 88 bi cy cli sts per aft e rnoon p eak h o ur. Afte r
the roa d di e t , a c ount y ielded 2 15 bi cyc li sts p e r hour, a
140 p e rc e nt inc rease . A s n o counts w e re t ake n o n parall el
streets b efor e the ro ad di et , it is diffi c ult to know what
p e rcentage o f these cycli sts were new cyclists or cyc li sts
from parall el stree ts. Sp eaking w ith cy cli sts, h oweve r, it is
cle ar that m any were n ew cycli sts willi n g to try bicycling
once they saw th e bike lan es install e d .
Public res p o n se was record e d u sing a hotline voice m ail
sys t e m that was adve rti se d o n two sig n s install e d promi-
n e ntly along the roadway. The numb er of e-mail s and le t-
t e rs submitte d w e re also co n sid ere d . Car e must b e take n
to e n sure that the source of publi c input is co n side re d .
For in stan ce, do 200 form le tters se nt as p art o f a m ail
in campaign outweigh 20 individu all y w ritte n le tte r s?
R ega rdl ess, the ability to di rec tly h ear fr o m th e public
166 Case Stud ies Bicycle Countermea sure Selection Sy stem
w as instrume ntal in unde r standing h ow various p eople
res p o nde d to the c h an ges and what su ccesses or problem s
w e re ass o cia ted with the chan ges .
Public res ponse to the ro ad di e t p roj ec t wa s supp o rtive.
A h o tline w as adve rtise d along Valen cia Street on two
promine nt sign s direc tl y aft e r the ro ad di e t . From the 2 86
reco rd e d calls , 25 9 were supportive of the proj ec t while
27 were oppose d. Ofle tte rs and e-m ail s re ce ive d , 3 9 sup -
p o rte d the proj ec t w hil e three did n o t . A postca rd ca m-
p aign le d by the local bike co alition yielde d 4 8 4 supp o rt-
ive p os t ca rds and fo ur not supp ortive .
A s this w as th e fi r st roa d di e t studie d in San Fran cisco,
the re were some d ata that could h ave been coll ec t ed for
a more c omple t e study but were n o t. They include : tra n-
sit trave l time and d elay data , trave l time and d elay d ata
for motorists, double p arking obse rva ti o n s, and spot sp ee d
surveys . Othe r d ata th at c o uld h ave b ee n coll ec t ed fo r a
ve ry thorou gh b efo re -aft e r study c ould include : noise lev-
el s, cy cli st c ompliance w ith laws, and surveys of res ide nts,
m e rc h ants, cy cli sts, m o to rists, and p e d es trian s.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Altho u gh the proj ec t was initially controve rsial w ithin the
local de p artme nt of trans portati on and so m e m ember s of
the community, the gen eral conse n su s is that the proj ec t
is a su ccess. Bi cycli ng along the street h as increase d dra-
m ati call y and h as m ad e the street th e seco nd most h eavily
u se d bicy cl e route in the city. C ollisio n rates for cycling
h ave dropp e d on th e stree t . The m erch ants asso ciati o n h as
sh own support fo r the ro ad di et that h as made the stree t
see m like more of a d es tination rath e r th an through arterial.
Altho ugh some traffic h as sp ill ed over to adj ace nt streets, it
is likely that much of that traffic is through traffi c with n o
intention of stopping al ong the street anyway. Thus, m er-
chants' fea rs that less traffi c m eant less business we re n o t
substantiate d, in ge n e ral .
With publi c o utreac h initi ated by the bicy cle coalitio n and
m andated by the n ature of a one-yea r trial , giving stake hold-
ers p lentiful opportuni ti es to b e involve d in the pro cess was
an important as p ec t of the proj ec t's su ccess. Al so, the use of
a trial allowe d everyone to see how the p roj ect operated in
real life, es pecially use ful for skeptics . It is important to h ave
a trial of suffi cient len gth to allow any ch anges in traffi c pat-
terns to come to an eq uilibr ium. One yea r is a good le ngth ,
with six month s as a p oss ibly suffi ci ent length of time. With
any trial , the pro cess sh o uld b e made cl ear to the conununity
so that th ere are n o misguided exp ectations.
As this was the first trial road di e t in th e city, some d ata
was not coll ec te d t h at wo uld h ave b ee n helpful.The e ffec t
o n tran sit was not su fficien tl y studi e d . Trave l time and d e-
lay studi es for both trans it and m otor ve hicles wo uld h ave
been h e lp ful.Al so, bi cycle co unts o n p arall el streets would
have p rovided a b etter pic ture of where the increase of
cycli sts orig inate d . While sp eed data would b e h el pfu l on
road di e t projects in general , the n ature ofVale n cia Street
is su ch th at sp eeds are so va riabl e g iv e n th e sh ort blo c ks ,
the ch an g ing traffic leve ls, the prese n ce of double parking,
e tc. that coll ec ting consis te nt b efore and after data would
h ave b een difficu lt .
Although the road diet c rea ted sigruficantly m ore work
w h en it was d es ign ated a trial , it was worthw h ile t o study
and thoroughly discuss th e proj ec t. Since the Valen cia
Street proj ect , the city governme nt and public h as b ee n
ge n erall y more receptive to the id ea of road di e ts. One
exa mple of a road di et w h ose approval was made more
likely by Valenc i a's su ccess was Polk Street, a sirilll arly
c ontroversial proj ect.
Polk Stree t is a 13.6 to 15.1 m (44 ft , 9 in to 4 9 ft, 9 in)-
wide street w ith metered on-street parking on both sides .
Like Va le n cia Street it trave ls thro u gh a share d-use area
and li es in a gr id p attern w ith one and two-way p arall el
arterial s. B efore th e project, the stree t was a three-lane
street with two lan es serving the h eav ier so uthbound di-
rec tion. D ependin g on w hi c h section of Polk Stree t , the
ADT range d fro m 11 ,000 to 16 ,000 ve h icles p er day. A
moto r coach transit lin e w ith a h ea dway of 10 to 20 nun-
utes trave ls along the stree t and p e d estrian pres e n ce is sig-
nificant. Nearly all intersections h ave signals . Polk Street
was install e d as a six-month tri al and al so unde rwent a
review of a b e fore-aft er re port.As w ith Va le n cia Stree t , the
roa d diet on Po lk Street was also eve ntuall y approved as a
perma n e nt ins tall ati on .
REFERENCE
Va lencia Street Bicycle Lanes:A On e Year Evaluation, Mich ae l·
Sallab erry, San Francisco D epartment of Parkin g and
Traffic, Decembe r 14, 2000
COSTS AND FUNDING
For p aint and sign work, and lab or sp ent writin g the re -
port, the road diet cost $130 ,000 .
CONTACT
Mich ae l Sall aberry, P.E.
Ass istant Transp o rtation Engineer
San Francisco Departm ent of Parking and Traffic
25 Van N ess Avenu e, Suite 345
San Fra n cisco, CA 94102
(4 15 ) 554-2351
(41 5) 55 4-2352 (fax)
Bicy cl e Hotline (4 15) 585-BIKE
http :/ /www.bi cy cl e.s fgov .org
Bicycle Coun t ermea sure Select ion System Case Studies 167
SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA #6
Shoreline Park Expansion
Project-Provision of Bicycle and
Pedestrian Enhancements
BACKGROUND
A segme nt of Shoreline Drive, d es ign ed and co n stru c te d
as a California D e partme nt of Transportati o n (Caltran s)
facility, provide d exc e ss ve hicl e ca p ac ity that was atypi ca l
of a Santa Barbara stree t. Furthe rmore, w ith o nly a 1.5 m
(5 ft ) sid ewalk , this coa stal connec tion b etween res ide n-
ti al n e ighborhoods, Leadb e tte r B eac h P ark and the Santa
B arb ara W at e rfront, w as inad e qu ate for th e th o u sa nds o f
pedes tri an s access ing the W ate rfront eac h wee k. P e d es tri-
ans c ornmonly stepp e d into the street or o nto the c o as tal
bluff top to avoid one an o the r on th e sid ewalk . Finall y,
bi cyclists riding the existing bike path w hi ch t erminate d
to the east of th e proje c t we re fr e qu e ntl y o b se rve d riding
on the sidewalk or riding th e w rong way on th e stree t.
This project's g oa ls refl ec t those in the L ocal C o as tal
Pla n , the Shore line Ma ster Plan and the C irc ul ation El e -
m e nt of the Ge n era l Plan . These are: redu c ing th e sp ee d
on the roadway and improv ing the transiti o n for p e d es -
trians and bi cyclists b e twee n Shoreline P ark a nd Lea d-
better Beach Park .
This ro adway se gment, w ith no inte rsec ti o n s or drive -
ways, carried 8 ,600 av e rage ve hicl e trip s p e r d ay (ADT).
The already ex isting two-lan e portion of Sh o relin e Drive
c ontiguous with the p roj ec t ca rrie d sli ghtly less tra ffi c
(8 ,400 ADT) and operate d at a L evel of Service (LO S) B
during peak times with n o ro adway link d elays, with the
exce ption of th e occasion al left-turning ve hi cle.The p roj-
ect section of th e roadway was exp ec t ed to o p e rat e at the
same LOS B or b e tter b eca u se there ar e n o o pportuniti es
for left turns in the proj ec t sec tion of th e ro adway.
No changes we re propose d to e ntering lan e configura-
tions at any inters e ctions connec t ed to the p roj ec t. The re -
168
Drusilla van Hengel , PhD . Mobility Coordinator,
City of Santa Barbara
Case Stu dies Bicycle Countermeasure Selection Sy stem
Road diet created off-road space for bicyclists and pedestrians to
connect an ocean -front park with a marina and shopping district.
fore , th e LOS at Sho relin e Drive's inte rsec tion s with Loma
Alta Drive and La M arina Drive , which operate d at LOS
A and B res p e ctive ly during the aft e rnoon p eak w e ekday
hours and w ee ke nds, were not exp ec ted to c han ge.
The n ew se ction of th e roadway w as anticipated to op er-
ate at slowe r, safe r sp eeds . At two lan es in each direction ,
the proj ec t se cti o n of the roadway was signe d for a max i-
mum sp ee d of 35 mph and experie n ce d 85th p ercentil e
sp ee ds of 3 7 mph eas tbound and 40 mph westbound. Be-
ca u se the roadway was wide and inv ite d spe e ding, sp eed
spiking o c curre d ab ove 50 mph .
The primar y obj ec ti ve of the proj ec t w as to provide in-
crease d cap acity fo r p e d estrians and bicycl es . The refore,
alt e rnatives to th e proj ec t also had to meet this objec-
tive. B eca u se of public d emands to re tain th e roadway 's
ca p ac ity w hile still improving the p e d es trian fa cility, two
alternatives were conside red that would have all owed the
exis ting four-lan e ro adway to rem ain: widening the exist-
ing sidewalk and con struc ting a Class 1 bike path to th e
south (toward the o cean); and constructing a new, wide
sidewalk and Class 1 bike p ath on the north side of the
exis ting ro adway (t owa rd the coastal bluff).
Four lanes sepera te d by a median provided excess veh icle
capacity . Space was needed for bi cyclists and pedestrians .
T h e alternative to cons tru c t th e proj ec t to the so uth was
determined to b e infeas ibl e b eca u se of coastal res ource and
e nvironmental impac ts. The exis tin g sidewalk runs alo n g
a coa stal bluff and cliff w ith drop-off vary ing from 4 .6 m
(15 ft) to 13.7 m (45 ft). Below the cliffli es th e b eac h and
the P ac ifi c Ocean. Staff of the Coastal Commission state d
that con struction of retaining walls on th e b eac h to widen
the sidewalk and construct a C lass 1 bike path wo uld not
receive staff support and most likely would b e defea t e d b y
the Coastal C ommiss ion.
The second alternative was to co nstru c t a n ew sid ewalk
on the north sid e of Shoreline Drive . Although the cos t
wo uld b e signifi ca ntl y hig h e r than the propose d proj ec t ,
a 2.4 m (8 ft) sidewalk co uld be co n stru c te d in this lo ca -
tion. Howeve r, there was inade qu ate w idth for a bike p ath
witho ut ext e n sive re taining wall s. A coastal bluff about
12.2 m (40 ft) high lin es the north side of Shorelin e Drive,
w ithin th e proj ec t area. B eyo nd the bluff are private ly-
own e d residences and three condominium c ompl exes.
The city's experie nc e w ith oth er sidewalks th at are ac ro ss
the stree t from th e b eac h is that they are less de sirable by
the publi c compared to b eac hsid e walk ways. Therefo re,
the. city did n o t pursu e th is alte rnati ve.
COUNTERMEASURES
In sprin g 2004, the city of Santa Barbara modifi e d and
improve d thi s h alf-mile, four-lan e sec tion of Shoreline
Drive by p roviding p e d es tri an enhancem e nts and bi cy cl e
fac iliti es for novice cyclists, as w ell as landscap ing that al-
lows pedes trians to e njoy the oc ea n w hil e se parate d from
motor ve hicl es . The excess road ca p ac ity on th e o cea n
side of the existing median wa s conve rte d to m eet the
d e m and pl aced on the segm e nt by p e d es trians and bi cy -
cli sts. Both dire ctions of mixe d-flow motor ve hicle traffic
now travel on the north side of th e exis ting m edian as a
two-lane road w ith an uphill C lass II bike lan e. The exis t-
in g eas tbound trave l lanes, w ith a tre m e nd o u s ocea n view,
were co nve rte d to a 3.4 m (11 ft ) bikeway, a 4.6 m (1 5 ft)
p ar kway, and an expande d p e d es trian prome n ad e within
the portion of Shorelin e Drive that is south of the exist-
ing m edian b e tween Loma Alta and La Marina Drive. A
midblock p edes tri an cross in g is provided and the existing
sidew alk w as substantially widened to create a promenade.
The C la ss I bikeway is separated from th e walkway by
turf.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
Th e proj ec t was constru c te d in spring 2004 and h ad not
yet b ee n eval uate d at the time this case study was writ-
t e n . Two obvi o u s res ults of th e proj ec t are the elirnination
of wrong-way bi cy cl e riding on th e stre e t and increas e d
ca p ac ity for p e d es trians . A b ea te n p ath adja ce nt to the
widened sidewalk on the n ew turf indi ca tes that m any
p e destrians are using the g ra ss for walking or jogging as
well. Finally, the proje c t eliminate d the opportunity to
p ass slower cars, as motorists driving at excess sp ee ds are
forc ed to slow down whe n trailing other moto rists driv-
ing at or below the speed limit.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Although ea rl y planning and e ngineering d es ign efforts
were diffi c ult b eca us e of the la ck of publi c support for
ch an ge in th e area, espe ciall y the lane re duction, overall
Tw o lanes on one side of original median were converted to a two-
way off-road bikeway and a pedestrian facility.
Bi cycle Countermeasure Selection System Case Studies 169
publi c res p o n se to thi s p roject h as b ee n favorab le since its
opening. In addition to the increased ca p acity for bi cy -
clists and p edes trian s, the lane reduction had so m e effec t
on lowe ring ve hicl e sp eeds, w hich may all ow the city to
re duce the sp ee d limit in this area.
COSTS AND FUNDING
T h is proj ec t was fund ed throu g h th e Coastal R eso urces
Enhancement Fund, the California R eso urces Agency,
Transportati o n Enhancement Funds and the C ity of Santa
B arbara.
Source
Co as t a l Reso urces En hanceme nt Fund
Ca li fo rni a Reso urces Agency
Tr anspo rt atio n Enh a ncement
C ity of San t a Bar ba ra
Tot a l Cos t
CONTACT
Rob ert]. D ay ton
Supervisi n g Tran sportation P la nner
(805) 564-5390
rd ay ton@santab arb araCA.gov
Fun ds
$5 0 ,28 1
$2 73,295
$5 70,000
$228 ,71 9
$1,122,295
170 Case Studies Bicyc le Co untermeasure Se lect ion Sys tem
EUGENE, OREGON #7
Bicycle Treatm.ents on a Former Pedestrian
Mall
BACKGROUND
This pap e r describ es a unique st reet proj ec t in downtow n
Eugene, OR. The city staff and th e co mmunity h ave
moved up a "lea rning c urve" during th e p as t d eca d e in
regard to on-street trea tments for bicycl ists and motorists
sharing th e sa m e lanes. This proj ec t prese nted an oppor-
tunity to combine ve ry narrow lan es and other d es ign
ele m ents in a way that resulted in a truly slow-traffic, pe-
des tri an-oriente d street in th e h eart of downtown.
In 2002 a three-blo ck sec tion of Broadway in down town
Eugene, OR, was reconstructed and reopened to ve hi c-
ular traffi c. This portio n o f Broadway h ad b een p art of
the downtown p e de stri an mall created in the ea rly 1970s.
Two other stree t segn1e nts were previo u sly rebu ilt and re -
open ed to traffic-a two-blo ck sec ti o n of Olive Street in
1992, and two blo c ks ofWill amette Street in 1996.
While there was widespread agre e m e nt in th e co mmunity
that the p edestrian mall h ad fai led to ac hi eve the go al of
revitali zing downtown Eugene, all three stree t reop e ning
projects were somewh at controvers ial , and eac h proj ect
went forward only aft e r winning approval at a city-wide
elec ti on. Now that all portions of th e former mall ha ve
been converted to p edes tri an-oriented streets with slow-
moving a uto traffic, the ove rall res ults h ave b een receive d
fav orably. However, the mix of veh.icle and bicycle traf-
fic on eac h stree t ha s been the topic o f much disc u ss ion
and fee db ack. Experience w ith the Olive and Willam e tte
Street proj ects le d th e project t eam to modify the street
design for Broadway, and th e results appea r to be m ore
agreea bl e to most of the bicyclis ts, p e d es trians and motor-
ists usin g th e street .
Dave Reinhard, former Transportation Engineer,
City of Eugene, OR
Diane Bishop, Bicycle and Pedestrian Coo rdina-
tor, City of Eugene, OR
Over the past three d ecades Eu ge n e ha s deve loped an ex-
tensive sys te m of bikeways.T h e network includes off-street
p aths, on-street striped lanes o n busy stree ts, and d es ign at-
ed bike ro u t es on sel ect e d n eighb orhood streets to h elp
provi d e continuity. Within the downtown area seve ral of
th e busiest one-way stree ts h ave bicycle lanes but th e re
are still some ga p s in the network, lea ding to increase d u se
of sidewalks as well as bicycling on unstrip ed stree ts. City
ordinances req uired bi cyclists to di smo unt and walk the ir
bikes o n th e former p e d es trian m all , though enfo rce m e nt
was minimal . For th ese reaso n s, w h en the d ecision was
m ad e to b egin converti ng segm e nts of the mall to re-
opened stree ts, c ity staff recognized the opportunity to
enhance th e downtown bicycle n etwork b y provi ding for
bi cycles on these street segments.
EARLIER STREET DESIGNS
The des igns for Olive and Willamette Streets were d eve l-
oped w ith significant input from the general public as well
as m ajor stakeholders su ch as downtown bu sinesses. Early
on, it was d ecide d that on-street parking should b e provid-
ed and the curb-to-curb street width sh o uld b e as narrow
as possible to maximize p ed es trian sp ace on the si d ewalks
and di sc ourage sp eeding and excessive through traffi c.
E ac h stre e t segme nt was d es igned as a two-way, two-lane
cross -sec ti on .The des igns also made use of techniques such
as brick crosswalks; and, on Willamette, raised mid-block
crosswalks to enh an ce pedes trian visibility and discourage
h.i gh sp eeds . Lane T rans it District buses also use O live and
Willam e tte Streets fo r several bus routes connecting to the
central downtown Eugene station, so the d es ign needed to
acco mmodate buses as well as e m ergency ve h.icl es.
The ge neral trea tment fo r bicycles on both O live and Wil-
lamette co uld b e d esc rib ed as a so rt of hybrid "mixin g" of
veh.icles and bicy cl es witho ut using strip ed bi cycle lanes.
Each of the two-blo ck segn1e nts b egins o r ends at a signal-
ize d intersec ti on wi th a three-lan e cross section that in-
cludes a left-turn pocke t. In the middle of each segm ent
(where these two stree ts cross Broadway) the street n arrows
to a minimal 6.7 m (22 ft ) width for about 45.7 m (150
Bi cycle Counte rm easure Select ion System Case Studies 171
Earlier Olive Street design (4 .3 m (14 ft) lanes along parking ,
3.4 m (11 ft) lanes approa c hing Broadway) is not favored by
b icy c lists.
ft ). In b etween , eac h stree t w iden s to provid e p arking b ays
on eac h side, ge n erall y 2.1 m (7 ft ) in width , and the trave l
lan es are wide n e d up to 0.9 additional m e te rs (three ad-
ditional fee t) to provide w id e r lane s fo r the mix of autos
and bicy cl es . The ove rall co n ce pt is thus a bl end in which
cars and bikes sh are th e sam e lan es at eac h e nd and the
middl e, alon g with wide r lan es in b e twee n w h ere cars can
pas s bikes whe n the volume and sp eed of the auto traffi c
m akes this feas ible , su ch as off-p ea k times o f the day.
As with many situations w h ere a compromise is use d to
provide "th e b es t of two w orlds," th e d es ign u se d for both
Olive and Will am e tte e nds up b ein g th e worst of both
worlds in the opinion o f Euge n e's bi cyc ling co mmunity.
Wide ning the trave l lan es fo r se veral hundred feet tends
to produce the uninte nded effe ct of "anti-traffic-calm-
ing," p arti c ul arl y at off-p eak p eriods when the volume of
auto traffi c does not provid e e nough conges ti o n to preve nt
hi gh er sp ee ds . Some cycli sts report that it fe el s as if ce rtain
motorists inte n tionally intimidate th e cycli sts. The ove rall
res ult is that m any cycli sts fe el uneasy o r unwelcome on
these two stree ts. (One o ther outcome is the continu ed ·
h e avy use of th e adj acent sidewalks by m any cycli sts, w hi ch
is unfortunate given th e go o d inte ntion s e mbodie d in th e
d es ign o f eac h stree t for mixed traffi c.)
For these r eas ons, the d es ign of Bro ad way w as ap-
proac h e d in a differe nt way, as d esc ribe d in the n ext sec -
tion of thi s p ap e r.
COUNTERMEASURES
The d es ign for th e three-bl ock Broadway reop ening proj-
ec t cam e togethe r ove r a p e riod of seve ral months in the
fa ll and winter of 20 0 1-200 2. T h e p rocess involve d an
172 Case Studies Bicyc le Countermea sure Selection System
unprece d e nte d d egree of inte rac ti o n and c ooperation
am o n g city staff a nd priva te d es ign con sultants, m any o f
w h o m h ave their businesse s along this stre tch of Broad-
way o r within a bl ock or two . This e n a bl e d th e g roup to
u se a process that came to b e known as a "rolling c h ar-
re tte" in which 10 to 20 p eo pl e at a time w o uld walk
slowly from one e nd of the proj ec t to the othe r, di scu ss ing
iss u es and d es ign o ptions, and see king ag reem e nt on the
key d es ig n fea tures fo r Broad way. After se ve ral of these
rolling ch arre ttes and m any other informal and fo r m al
oppo rtunities for input and di alo g, th e fo ll owing m ajor
fea tures emerged:
NARROW LANES
Travel lanes as n arrow as 3 m (10 ft ) would b e use d
throughout the le n gth of the three-blo ck se gn1 ent of
Broadway. Unlike Olive and Willam e tte Stree ts, trave l
lan es w ould not b e w ide ned to provid e for side-by -side
m o torists and cyc li sts. In stead , the exp ec tation of ve ry
slow-moving ve hi c ul ar traffi c would b e re inforced by
h av ing ca r s and bikes use the sa m e sp ace.
RAISED MEDIAN ISLAND
This featu re , whic h was abandone d fo r the ea rli er d es ign s
o f Olive and Willam e tte Streets, was re-introduce d ba se d
o n its ove rall su ccess and wides prea d populari ty on sev-
e ral o ld e r segme nts o f Broadway and Will ame tte just one
bl ock away from the m all. A rai se d m e dian island ab o ut
1.2 m (4 ft) in w idth wa s vi ew ed as having seve ral ad-
va ntage s. It prov id es more sp ace for landsc aping, ther e by
re ducing the glare and re late d drawbacks to th e added
"hards cap e " of the n ew ly built stree t. B y planting trees
and shrubs in the m e di an , the m o t o rist 's view d own the
street is interrupte d. The ove rall e ffec t t ends to re inforce
th e notion of m oving slowly down a n arrow stree t , rathe r
than b eing abl e to see uninte rrupte d p ave m e nt se ve ral
Raised median islands narrow the street and offer a safe
pedes t r ian refuge .
blo ck s ah ea d. The m e dia n provides a sa fe landing sp ot fo r
p e d es trian s, w ho are thu s e n c ourage d to c ro ss at multipl e
l oca tions, not just intersec tions. And the m e di an prov ides
a le ft ed ge for eac h trave l lane that h elp s visuall y n ar row
th e lan e, e n c oura ging slower sp ee d s.
VARIATIONS IN PAVEMEN T HEIGHT AND
TEXTUR E
The d es ign fo r B roadway u ses diffe re nt colo r s and t ex-
ture s o f p av ing m at erials, as w elJ as r aise d c ro ss ings, mu c h
more exte n sive ly than Olive or Willam e tte. E ac h bl ock
o f Broadway fea tures a mid-block c ro ss ing r aise d t o the
full h e ight o f the c urb (thou gh w ith a g radual tran siti o n
fo r motor ists a nd cyclists, to avo id a sp ee d hump e ffec t).
The intersec t ion o f B ro adway a nd Will am e tte is raise d
1 5.2 c m (6 in) and the portion o f Bro adway just eas t of
Willa m e tte is pave d i n bri ck an d ra ise d to the h e ight of
the adj acen t brick pl aza, exte nding the r aise d intersec -
t ion into an a t-g r ad e stree t sec ti o n . In addition t o its
Raised c ross ing , pavement color changes , street furn iture at
edge of street en courage slower speed s.
At-grade interse ction and street section blend in with adjoining
outdoor p laza .
The new Br oadway -10 ft lanes, median island s, and
parking bays .
traffi c calming effec t , this e nhan ces th e u se of the street
as an ext e n si o n o f the pl aza o n those o ccas ions w h e n the
st ree ts are clo se d for m aj o r eve nts.
JUDICIOUS USE OF STOP SIGNS
B efo re the reop e ning of B roa dway, the two locati o n s where
Olive and Willam e tte Stree ts cro ss Broadway w ere not stop-
co ntrolle d. The fac t that B roa dway was o nly a ped estri an
"s tree t " m ea nt that wa rrants fo r stop control w e re not m e t .
This le d to a numbe r of co mplaints by p ed es tri an s who felt
ca r s were going too fas t , or that to o m any m o to rists would
n o t sto p for p ed es tr ians at these cro ss ings. During the de-
sign pro ces s fo r Broadway, city staff es timated that the traf-
fi c vo lumes aft er co mpl e ti on of the proj ect would w arrant
all-way stop co ntrol at the two n ew fo ur-w ay intersec tions,
al o n g w ith the intersec tion of Broadway and C h arnelton at
th e wes t e nd o f the proj ect. (The interse ction of B ro adway
and Oak Stree t at the proj ec t's eas t e nd is controll e d by a
traffi c signal , since volumes are much high er on O ak Stree t ,
a mino r arterial ). The prese n ce o f sto p signs at regular one-
blo ck interval s is o n e more fea ture that tends to reinforce
slow sp eeds along Broadway, and to some extent on Olive
and Willamette now that traffi c on those two stree ts must
stop at Broadway.
Bi cyc le Counter measure Selection System Case Studie s 173
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
The combined visual effec t of all these fea tures provides
sigillficant re inforc ement for the conce pt of a sl ow-mov-
ing, ve ry p e d estrian-orie n te d stree t. A s a m o torist , o n e
te nds to trave l slowly and so m ew h at unce rtainly down
Broadway, p e rhaps b e cau se it looks so diffe rent from a
typical street. It fe els okay to b e there only i f yo u are g o-
ing slowly e noug h to allow fo r surprises and to sh are th e
space with othe r s who are going eve n sl ower than you.
Spee d studies condu c te d mid-block at two loca tions in
this three-block proj ec t indica te favorabl e res ults. The 85'h
p erce ntile sp eed w as 17 mph at one lo ca ti o n and 18 mph
at the othe r. Hig hest spee d s w e re 23 mph . This compare s
favorab ly to the sp eed st u di es of Will am e tte and Olive
streets at the completion o f their ope nings w h e re, eve n
with raise d mid-blo c k cross ings on Willam e tt e, the 85'h
p e rc entile sp ee d s w e re 2 0 mph on Willame tte Stree t and
22 mph on Olive.
Informal fee dbac k from o th e r city staff, d owntow n bu si-
n esses, bicycli sts, and the ge n e ral public seem s ve ry sup-
portive of the ove rall d es ig n and the sp ecific t ec hniques
u se d to provide a sa fe r and sl ower mix of auto and bicycl e
traffi c. So m e of this positive fee dba ck m ay relate more
to the fa vorable impressi o n most of the c ommunity has
about th e look and fee l of the n ew stree t . H oweve r, th e
ge n er al impress ion and community "buzz " ab o ut a p roj-
ec t are impo rtant asp ects of the proj ec t 's effec tive n ess and
publi c acceptan ce of innova tive desi g n fea tures.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
PUBLIC INVOLVEMEN T
E nco uraging particip ati o n by private sec t o r con sultants,
k ey stake holde rs, and inte res t e d public as full p arti cip ants
in the d es ig n o f the proj ec t from th e b eginning ca n b e
a p owerful t ool fo r gaini ng acce ptan ce and m ov ing fo r-
wa rd w ith stro n g support for the proj ec t . B y the time
the c ity P lanning C onuTii ss io n reviewed and approve d the
d es ign co n ce pt, n ea rl y all the iss u es h ad b ee n res olve d and
the va ri o u s stak e holder gro ups all strongly supporte d the
p roj ec t as prese n te d . M any p ro p e rty own e rs b eli eve d the
o p e ning of Broadway to auto mobiles w as c riti cal to the ir
su ccess . T h eir inte res t h e lp e d su stain the forward move-
m e nt of the proj ec t .
TRAFFIC CALMING
Ge tting the motorists to slow down so bicycli sts ca n
sh are the sp ace and p ede st r ians feel sa fe w h e n c ro ss ing
17 4 Ca se Studies Bi cycle Countermea sure Selection System
th e stree t appe ars t o d e p e nd on n arrowing the travel
lanes as mu c h as p oss ibl e. The lan es n ee d to b e n arrow in
an ac tual , physi c al se n se (e.g. 10 or 11 ft wide), and they
n eed to look and feel narrow t o m o to rists. Th e lo ok
and feel ca n b e ac hi eve d by a combination o f n arrow
l an es along with co n spic uous e dges (e.g. u se of a m e di an
isl and) and d es ign e l e m e nts like trees and shrubs at the
e d ges a nd in the m e di an to e limina te the look of a lo n g
straig htaway. Other co mpone nts of the d es i g n include d
p arking b ays along b o th sides of the stree t , minimizing
the p ave m e nt m arkings; lan e lines a nd sig n s along the
stree t , to av oid the look a nd feel of a m ajor traffi c arter y;
and r aising th e m aj o r inte r sec tion o f Broadway a nd Wil-
lam e tte to m ee t the g rad e of the adj ace nt publi c pl az a
and cre ate a sp e ed tabl e.
Parking bays, raised i ntersections, narrow lanes he l p calm traffic.
CONTINUING UP THE LEARNING CURVE
While it appea rs the city h as d evelop e d a winning d e-
sig n in the case of Broadway, this exa mple al so se rves t o
illu strate that there are probabl y o ther still-undisc o ve re d
"te mplat es" fo r stree t d es ig n s that ca n m ee t th ese kinds o f
obj ecti ves. The b es t approac h invo lves b eing ope n to ex-
p e rime ntation and recombining va rio us d es ign t ec hniqu es
t o ac hi eve the b es t mix of outc omes. Broadway see m s to
reinforce th e n o ti on that th e two b es t ways to provide fo r
bikes on stree ts ar e a) strip ed lanes w ith ade quate , se parate
sp aces for cy cli sts and motorists, o r b) ve ry n ar row lan es
sh are d by bikes and autos. H owever, the re are likely to
b e situations in E u ge n e and other locations where w ider,
sh are d lan es w o rk b e tte r, or so m e o ther c ombination of
fea tures should b e tri ed , es p ec ially in vi ew of the n ee d s o f
tran sit and em ergen cy ve hicles. E ac h proj ec t prov ides an
example that can b e copied or b o rrowed from to crea te
eve n b ette r d es ign s fo r future proj ec ts.
COSTS AND FUNDING
Tota] cost of the p roj ec t was $2 .1 milli o n , includin g p re -
liminary and con stru ctio n e n g in eering. Landsca ping, irri-
ga tion, and st ree t fu rniture acco unte d fo r ab o ut $185,500.
A cco mmo d ating an exis ting b rick o utdoor pl aza at th e
ce n t er o f the proj ec t and incorpo rating it into t h e stree t
d es ign increase d the proj ec t cost co n sid e rably. A b reak -
dow n of proj ect costs is ava ilable up o n re ques t .
G e n e rall y th e ci ty assesses a certai n p ortio n of a p roj ec t's
cos t to adjacent p ro p erty owne r s. Since this area h ad p re -
viously b een a street befo re it b eca m e a p e d es tr ian m all , a
seco n d assess m e nt was not poss ible. H oweve r, the bu siness
owne rs al o n g the project we re anxio u s fo r the co nve rsio n
b ac k to a c ity stree t and donated $200,000. T h e co unty
provid ed $1.6 milli on in road funds and th e city of E u-
ge n e pa id the b alance fro m for mer Comme rcial R evital-
iza ti on Loan funds.
St reet fu rn iture, b icyc le ra cks, and land sc aping were co nsid -
ered part of th e cost of th e pro je ct.
CONTACTS
Diane Bishop
B icycle and Pe d estrian Coordinator
C ity of Eugene
(5 41 ) 682-52 18
D ian e.L.Bis h o p @ci .eu ge n e. o r . us
C h r is Henry
T ran sp ortation Planning E n gineer
C ity of Eugen e
(5 4 1) 682-8472
C h ris . C.Henry@ci.eugene.or.us
Dave R einhard
Tra n sportati o n Co ns ul tant
(for m e rl y w ith C ity of E u ge n e)
(54 1) 9 12-1209
d ave@rei nh ardtra n s.co m
Bi cyc le Counterm easure Selec tio n Sys tem Ca se Stud ies 175
PHOENIX, ARIZONA #8
Bike Lane Safety Evaluation
BACKGROUND
Phoe nix, AZ, is the sixth larges t city in th e United States
w ith a popula tion of 1.32 million and an ideal climate for
cy cling. In th e mid-1980s P ho e nix h ad a very small sys-
t e m of bike fac iliti es, consisting of only 75 miles, includ-
ing off-street p aths, signed bike routes, and a few miles of
on-street bike lanes .
COUNTERMEASURES
In 1987, the C ity Co u n cil approve d an aggressive bi cycle
sys t em of 700 mil es of bike lanes, bike p aths, an d signe d
bike routes to be installed over the yea rs. The plan includ-
ed providing m any n ew miles of bike facilities as well as
upgrades to exis tin g facilities. Funding for new bike facili-
ti es increased from $300,000 per year to $500 ,000 p er year
in fiscal year 2000-2001. By 2000, Pho enix h ad developed
176
Michael J . Cynecki, P.E., Traffic Engineer i ng
Supervisor , City of Phoenix Street Transportation
Department
Case Studies Bicycle Coun termeasure Selection Sy stem
over 450 miles of bike facilities, including over 222 mi les
of on-street b ike lanes. While m any of the on-street bike
lanes have been installed o n coll ector streets, bike lanes are
also provided on arterial st ree ts. Furthermore, th e standard
cross-sectio n for new ar te ri al stree ts built in Pho enix was
modified to includ e on-street bike lanes.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
Traffic enginee ring staff wa nted to determine if the new
bike faci liti es were assoc iate d with an increase in bike
cras h es w ith motor vehicl es. In addition to wanting to
l earn more about the h ow, where, and w hy of all bi cy-
cle cras h es, staff wanted to d e termine how many colli-
sions occu rred in the on-stree t bike lanes and how th ese
cras h es were occ u rring. T h e re was al so a d es ire to kn ow
if yo unger c hildren were involved in the bike-lane co lli-
sions on busy arterial stree ts.
A compre h e nsive manual review of all police reports in-
vo lving bicyclists on Phoenix streets in 2000 was con-
ducted to d e termin e where b ike colli sions occurred and
the age of the bi cyclists in th e crashes. Additional data
was coll ec te d to determine th e classification of th e street
where the cras h occurred and if a bike fac ility existe d o n
that street . The p olice report was further reviewed to de-
termine if th e bi cyclist was ridin g on th e sidewalk , along
the street or in an on-street bike lane, or cross ing th e street
w h e n the colli sion occurre d.
This analys is w as, unfortunately, limited to colli sions b e-
twee n bi cy clis ts and motor ve h icl es on the publi c ri ght-of-
way based on the Arizona D e p artment ofTrans portatio n
(ADOT) Accid e nt Location Id e ntifi cation Surveill an ce
System (ALISS) comp ute rize d datab ase. Bike cras h es with
fixed objects, other bicyclists, or p edes trians are not in
the stat e data b ase, nor are private property cras h es . Fur-
th e rmore, non-injury bike cras hes below the re portin g
thres hold ($1,000) are not in the statewide co mputerize d
colli sion data b ase .
About two p e rcent of the 36,4 00 ve hicl e coll isi o n s re -
port e d in Ph oe nix durin g 2000 invo lve d a c ras h b e -
twee n a m o t o r ve hi cle and a bicycl e . Whi le thi s m ay
n o t see m like m an y, thi s res u lte d in 68 2 bike c olli si o n s
w ith m o to r ve hicles . Thu s, a moto r ve hicle o r bike col-
li sion was re porte d eve r y 12.8 h o urs o n Phoeni x stree ts,
rou g hl y two p e r d ay. Of the re p o rte d c ollisio n s, 3 5 (fi ve
p e rce nt) involve d n o injury, 5 32 (78 p e rcent) involve d
'minor' or 'mode ra te' injuries, 107 invol ve d a se riou s o r
incap ac itating injury (1 6 p e rce nt), a nd e ig ht (on e p er-
ce nt) res ulte d in a fa tali ty. The numb e r of t o ta l and fa tal
ve hicl e o r bike c ras h es in Pho e nix re m a in e d relati ve ly
stabl e ove r the fiv e yea r s of the study p e ri o d , but p ea ke d
in 19 99, as shown in the ta bl e b e low:
Ye ar
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Motor vehi c le /bicycle c ra shes
repo rted i n Phoenix (1996-2 000)
Tot al Bi ke Cras hes Fat al Bik e Cra shes
683 9
743 9
760 6
811 9
682 8
During these sa m e fi ve yea rs, Phoenix p o pulatio n in-
crease d ab o ut 15 p e rce n t from 1.15 million in 1996 to
1.3 2 milli on in 2000 . T he total numbe r of re porte d colli-
si o ns inc rease d a bout 13 p erce nt fr o m 3 2 ,200 in 1996 to
3 6,400 in the yea r 2000.
WHICH BICYC LI STS ARE MOST COMMONLY
INVOLVED IN MOTOR VE HICLE COLLISIONS?
The cra sh d ata reveal ed th at bicyclists ages 1 1 to 20 w ere
most fr e que ntly invol ve d in motor ve hicl e colli sions (32
p e rcent).This age group h ad do u ble th e numb e r of cras h-
es of th e n ext hi gh es t 10 -yea r age g roup. A vas t m ajo r-
i ty of bicycli sts involve d in co lli sio n s w ith moto r ve hicl es
are m al es (81.5 p e rce nt), a nd thi s is re lati vely co nsiste nt
am o n g all age ca t egories. This largely re fl ec ts that m ore
bi cy cli sts are males.
WHO IS AT FAULT IN BIKE COLLISIONS WITH
MOTOR VEHICLES?
Fa ult in th e colli sio n w as d e t e rmine d ba se d on the com-
m e nts of th e inves ti ga ting p oli ce o ffi ce r (Fi gure 1). The
inves ti ga ting office r c ould d es ign ate either th e motorist
o r the bi cy clist o r b o th were at fa ult in th e cras h. The
inex p eri e n ce or e rrrors m ad e by bi cyclists is evide nt by
the p o li ce re p ort res ults, w hi ch indica t ed th at bi cycli sts
were p a rtiall y o r e ntirely at fa ult in n ea rl y 79 p e rce nt of
the collisions w ith m o t o r ve hicles, w ith the mo to rists in-
vo lve d in an unsafe ac ti o n in 43.5 p e rce nt of th e cras h es .
This di sprop o rtionat e bl am e for co lli sions large ly b eing
attributed to bi cy cli sts re fl ec ts th e yo ung age of bi cy cli sts
invo lve d in m any cras h es . It also indica tes a n ee d for m o re
training and e duca tion o n the r ights and duti es o f bicy-
cli sts. In some instan ce s, the police o ffic e rs m ay not full y
unde r stand th e tra ffi c laws as th ey appl y to bi cy cli sts i n
the right-of-way, w hi ch m ay res ult in an erroneo us d es-
igna ti o n of fa ul t .
Bicyclist
55 .7 2 %
Motorist
2 0 .53% Non e
0.73%
Figure 1 . Poli ce d esignation of fault i n bi cyc le -m ot or vehicle
col I isi o ns.
HOW DID THE BIKE CRASHES OCCUR?
Fi g ure 2 shows the breakdown of bicycl e colli sio n typ es
in Phoenix. Angle crash es co mprise d 38 p e rcent of re -
porte d bike c olli sions, with 27 p e rce nt invo lving ri ght-
t u rn motorists, and 25 p e rce nt invo lving ve hicl es e nte ri ng
or leav ing private drive wa ys.
Bicyc le Counte rm easu re Selectio n Sys tem Case St udies 177
Rea r E ncl
1%
Right Turn
27%
25% 5%
Sideswipe
Same
D irec t io n
2%
Head-O n
2%
Angle
38%
Figure 2. Type d ist ributi on of reported bi cycle-m otor vehi cle
crashes.
WHERE DID THE BIKE CRASHES OCCUR?
The clas sifi ca tion of stree t w h ere eac h bike cras h occurred
(lo cal, collector, or ar terial stree t) wa s identified. Figure
3 shows that only 10 p ercent of re ported bike cras h es
occurred o n local stree ts, w hi c h are the overwhelming
majority of th e streets in Phoenix (74 p erce nt). These are
the sa fes t stree ts for bi cyclis ts b eca us e of lower sp eeds ,
n arrower street cross ings, and fewer conflicting motor
vehicles. Fifty-five p e rcent of the bike crashes occurred
on arte ri al streets, w hi c h comp ri se o nly ab out 15 p erce nt
of Pho en ix stree ts. Collector stree ts co mprise about 11
p erce nt of our total streets but were the loca tion of 35
p erce nt of th e re ported bike c ras h es.
Arterial/Major
55%
Local
10%
Collector
35%
Figure 3 . Street c lass ifi cations of bicyclist co llision locations .
The p oli ce re p orts were reviewe d to d e ternune if the
bike cr as h es took p lace on streets with d es ign ated bike
fac iliti es (o n-stree t bike la n es, ·striped shoulders, or sign e d
bike routes). O f the 682 cras hes with m o to r ve hicl es, 95
percent o f the c ras h es occurred on stree ts w ith no d es ig-
n ate d bike fac iliti es. Fi gure 4 shows w h e re th e bicycl ist
was riding whe n struck . Abo ut 40 p ercent of the bike /
motor vehicle c ra sh es occurred in the crosswalk are a, w ith
a similar p e rce ntage of b icyclists hit when riding in the
stre e t outside of a c ro sswalk or bike fac ility (bike lan e,
strip e d shoulder or signed ro ute). Almost 18 p e rce nt of
178 Case Studies Bicycle Countermeasure Se lection System
th e bi cy clists w ere struck while on a sid ewalk . M any of
the bi cy cli sts struck crossing the stree t rod e off a sidewalk
into the stree t and were in the c ro ssw alk whe n hit. Less
than 2 p e rce nt of th e bi cy cli sts were stru ck while riding
in an on-street bike lan e, and a sm all e r p e rce ntage of bi-
cy cli sts were stru ck w hil e riding in a strip e d should er (not
signed as a bike lan e).
In Slreel
39.92%
In Crosswa lk
I NT
39.700/o
Bike Lane
1.91%
On Sidewa lk
17.83%
other/U nknown
0.42%
Shoulder
0.21%
Figure 4 . Bicyclists riding location when bicycle-motor vehicle
cras hes occured.
The ac tion s of bi cycli sts invo lved in c ras h es is illu strat ed
in Fi gure 5. Sli ghtly more than h alf of th e bi cyc li sts struck
were attempting to cross a stree t . Fo r those bicyc lists not
cross ing the street, the most c ommo n ac tion w as a bicy-
clist w h o was riding in a sidewalk 'aga inst ' traffi c (22 .6
p e rcent). While riding in e ither directio n on a sid ewa lk is
legal in Phoe nix, motorists generally d o n o t ex p ect bicycle
traffi c coming fr o m th e 'wrong' direc ti o n , es p ec iall y when
turning out of a driveway or sid e st ree t. Most drive r s are
looking to their l eft for approaching traffic and do not ex-
p ec t traffi c conung from their ri ght . G e nerall y th e sp eeds
of bicy clists on the sid ewalk do n o t provide motorists
On shoulde r with traffic
On shoukier ag ainst traffic 0.'4'4%
029%
OtherlUnknawn
0.59%
Figure 5 . Pre-crash riding direction and position of bi cyc l ists
inv olved in cras hes with motor vehicle s.
mu c h time to reac t. Only 5.8 p e rce nt of bic yclist-m o tor
ve hicl e cras h es invo lve d cy cli sts riding on the sid ewalk
in the sa n1e directi on as motor ve hicl e traffic.
State law re quires bi cy cli sts, whe n in th e stree t , to o b ey
the traffi c laws es tabli sh e d for m otor ve hicl es and ride
w ith traffi c (ARS 28-812). Abo ut 8.7 p ercent of bi cy-
clists w e re struck whe n ridin g in the stree t with traffic,
and about the sa m e p e rce nta ge were r iding in th e street
aga inst traffi c (not in bike lanes).Very few bi cyclis ts were
stru ck in o n-street bike lan es (abo ut 1.8 p erce nt of total
bike cras h es), with 1.3 p e rce nt riding with traffi c and 0.6
p e rc e nt riding ill egally aga inst traffic.
A sp ec ial analys is w as co ndu cte d to furthe r ide ntify whe re
the o n -stree t bike lan e cra sh es occ urred, how they oc -
curred , and the age of th e bi cycli sts.Th ere were 13 bi cycli st
cras h es in on-street bike lan es during 2000 . Of these, fi ve
occ urre d at midblo ck loca tions and e ight occurred at in-
tersec tions. The age of b i cycli sts stru ck w hil e riding in bike
lanes ranged from 16 to 70 years old, w ith the m edi an age
of 38 . With the exception of the 16-year-old bicycli st , all
oth er bi cyclists stru ck in bike lan es were adults. Six of the
bike-lan e cras h es occurred on arte rial stree ts whil e seve n
occ urre d o n coll ec to r stree ts. Three of the cra sh es invo lve d
'wron g w ay' bike riding in the bike lan e. All but two of the
bike-lane cras h es invo lve d co lli si ons w ith motorists turning
into or o u t o f driveways or sid e stree ts.The o the r two bike-
lan e cras h es were rear-end collisions w h e re the m o torist
stru ck th e bicy cli st from b ehind. Three of th e bike-lane
c ras h es occurred during nighttime co nditions , an d in two
of these co lli sions the inves ti gating officer noted th at the
bi cycli st did not h ave a fro nt h eadli ght (in violation of State
law w h en riding at ni ght). N o n e of the on-stree t bike lan e
cras h es invo lve d al cohol, but one did invo lve a hit-and-run
motor vehicle.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
T h e Pho enix bike program h as b ee n hi ghl y su ccess ful
in prese r v in g more sp ace in th e right-of-way for bi cy-
cl e trave l and id entify ing d es irabl e bi cy cl e travel ro utes.
While the population of Phoe nix is growin g, th e numb e r
of c ra sh es invo lvin g bi cycli sts in 2000 w as virtuall y the
sa m e as fi ve ye ars ea rli er, d es pite an increase in the interim
yea rs . The number of fa tal cra sh es involv ing bicy cli sts h as
re m ained unc h an ged.
T h e most co mmon safety probl e m s for bi cy cli sts invo lved
c ro ss ing stree ts, ridi n g the 'wrong way' on sidewalks, col-
liding with r ight-turning motor ists, and cra shing into
m o tor vehicl es e ntering o r leav ing d riveways.These prob-
le m s should be addresse d th ro u gh bi cycli st training and
bicyclist / driver e du ca ti on, as well as police e n fo rce m e nt
of unsafe bi cyclis t and drive r ac tions.
Th e r es ults of th e study indica t e that th e n ew bike
fac ilities in Phoe nix, p a rti c ul a rl y on-stree t bike la n es,
a re not asso c ia t e d with motor ve hicle or bicy cl e sa fe ty
proble m s. Furthe rmore, th e re is not a proble m with in-
exp e rienced c hildre n b e ing e n co urage d to ride i n bu sy
stree ts with on-stree t bike la n es, res ulting in c r as h es.
Obse r va tion confirms tha t the bicyclists who u se on-
stree t bike lanes al o n g arte rial st ree ts ar e mo stl y a dults,
w hile c hildre n most commo nl y r ide on n e i g hborhood
st ree ts. B eca u se so m any of the bike cras h es occ urre d
o n arterial stree t s o utside of bike lanes, th e additi o n of
bike lanes along arte rial stree ts m ay res ult in sa fer con-
ditions for bi cy cli st s. This is es p eciall y tru e w h ere the
c urb lan e of th e arte rial stree t is o nly 12 ft wide, w hi c h
is not c ondu cive for a bi cy cli st a nd a motor ve hicl e t o
"s h a re" the lan e.
Phoenix h as ac ti ve ly promoted bi cycling as an alte rnative
transportation mode that is h ealthy, non-p o llu ting, and
does not rely o n foss il fu el. These ac tivities will co ntinu e.
The re is a n ee d to qu anti fy th e amount of bi cycle travel
thro u ghout the city an d monitor u sage.
COSTS
This eva l u a ti on of p o li ce reports for all bike /motor
ve hi cle cra sh es in Pho en ix was made po ssi bl e through
a n inte rnshi p prog ra m w ithin the Street Tran sporta-
ti o n De p a rtme nt . Tim Cook, w ho was co mple ting hi s
B ac helor's D egree a t Ari zo n a State University, accom-
pli sh e d the ana lys is. The cos t of the study was a pprox i-
m a t e ly $7,000.
Bi cycle Countermeasure Selec tion System Case Studie s 17 9
REFERENCES
City of Pho en ix 2000 Traffic Co lli sion Summary, Stree t
Transportation D ep artment, Phoenix, Arizona
C it y of Pho enix 2000 Bike Co lli sion S ummary for the year
2000, Street Transportation Department , Phoenix,
Arizona
CONTACTS
Micha el J. Cynecki, P.E.
Traffic Engin eeri n g Superv isor
Street Transportation D epa r tme nt
200 WWas hing ton St., 6th Floor
Pho enix, AZ 85003
( 602) 262-721 7
Briiana Leo n
Bi cy cl e Progra m Coordin ator
Street Transporta ti o n D epar tment
200 WWashington St, 5th floor
Pho e nix, AZ 85003
(602) 495-3697
180 Case St udies Bicycle Cou nte rmea sure Selection System
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS #9
Establishing Bike Lanes-Chicago's
Streets for Cycling Plan
BACKGROUND
In 1992, M ay or Ric h ard M. D aley's Bicy cl e Adviso ry
Co uncil adopted C hi cago 's Bike 2 000 Plan . A key rec-
omme ndati o n wa s to "d evelop a n e twork of a minimum
of 300 mil es of bikeways" including on-street bike lan es ,
sign e d routes, wide c urb lan es, and bike p aths. This case
study w ill foc u s o n h ow 100 miles o f bike lan es h ave
b ee n est abli sh e d as o f O ctobe r 2 004 in C hi cago, prese nt-
in g seve n strategies to h e lp othe r jurisdi c tions su ccess full y
es tabli sh bike lan es .
COUNTERMEASURES
1) PLANNING
C hi cago 's firs t bike lan es were es tabli sh ed in the mid 1990s
with m inim al public and politi cal consultation and with-
o ut a compre hensive pl an . Some locations w ere criti cize d.
C hi cago 's Bi cycl e Prog ram Coordinator, soon aft er h e was
hire d , se cured $125 ,000 to hire a profess ional consultant to
pre pare a pl an id e ntify ing the b es t stree ts for b icycling in
C hicago. Thi s Stree ts for C ycl ing Plan ide ntifi ed a n e twork
of 150 miles of bike lan es and 3 00 mil es of signed routes .
Criti cal su ccess fa ctors include the fo ll owing:
• Propose d b ikeways w e re "fi eld teste d " by bicycl e to
e n sure the b es t stree ts w e re sel ec ted .
• All stree ts propose d for bike lan es w ere m ea sure d to
e n sure they w e re w id e e nough for bike lan es w ith
minimal e ffe c t on traffi c m ove ments. Bike lan es w e re
primaril y acc ommo date d on stree ts by re du cing trave l
and p arking lane w idths.
Nick Jackson, Di rector of Planning, Chicagoland
Bicycle Federation
Ben Gomberg, Bicycle Program Coordinator, Chi-
cago Department of Transportation
Bike lane next to parking . Chicago's Bike Lan e Design Guide
provides designs for variou s c ross -sect ion s .
Only stree ts w ith tra ffi c c ontrols at all m ajor inte r-
sec tions we re co n side r e d , to prov id e safe cro ss ings
for cycli sts.
2) PROMOTION
Pre p ar ation of th e Stree ts for C ycling Pl an was ve r y in-
cl u sive , invol v ing thousa nds of cy cli sts, prese nta tions t o
thirty-five C hi cago Alde rme n a nd twenty -five se ni o r
C DOT staff, and eve n fr ont-page cove rage in th e C hi ca -
g o Tribun e. Th e process w as d y nami c and wide ly known ,
w it h a re sult that th e pla n was lar gely supp ort e d upo n
its compl eti o n .
3) FUNDING
Any plan is o nly as good as its imple m e ntati o n . Funding
is criti cal.
Fo rtun atel y, p erha p s in p art b eca u se of the "buzz" while
d eve lopin g the Str ee ts fo r C ycling Plan , th e C ity of C hi-
cago wa s abl e t o se cure $3.82 5 milli o n of fe d e ral Co n-
ges ti o n Mitiga tion and Air Qu ality (C MAQ) funds for
imple m e ntati o n .
4)STAFF
With the fe d e ral funding, C hi cago was abl e to hire three
full-time c onsultants to h elp with es tabli shing the n e t-
Bicycle Coun termeasure Se lect ion System Case St udies 181
work of bicycle lanes : an urban plann e r to arrange p o liti ca l
a nd comrnunity supp ort, a designer to prepare p ave m e nt
marking plans, and a "bikeway technician" to perfo rm d e-
tail e d site visits and coordinate construction. In additi on,
two stud ent interns were hired to work with the program
and ass ist as n eed e d. The designer and bikeway technician
were Chicagoland Bicycle Federati on employees who
were p ass io n ate about improving conditions for cycling.
The Chicagoland Bicycle Federation is a n onprofit orga-
ni za tion dedicated to improving the bi cycling environ-
m e nt of the region.
5) MAP
More than one million copies of a m ap fea turing the Streets
for Cycl ing Plan were published. The Ch icago Sun -Tim es, at
no cos t to the city, publish es the m ap eve ry yea r as an in-
sert in its Sunday editi on fo ll owing Bike to Work Day in
June. Copies were also di stributed throughout the Chicago
Transportation and Planning Departments. Laminated (dis-
pl ay) maps were mail ed to 100 local e ngineering and plan-
ning firms w ith a le tter from the transportation department's
commissioner asking them to con sid er the reco mmended
routes in their projects .
6) RESURFACING PROGRAMS
Every year in C hi cago more than 50 to 75 miles of roads
with poor p ave m ent are resmfaced. Each year, thanks to
the bikeway tec hnician 's effo rts in rev iewing the bi cy cl e
network include d in this program, fi ve to 10 miles of n ew
or upg rade d bike lanes are es ta bli sh ed during res urfa cing.
Advantages include costs being abso rb ed by the res urfac-
ing agency and excell ent (vs. pothole d) p aveme nt for bi-
cycli n g.Ribbon-cutting ceremonies are often sta ge d , and
le tte rs are written to acknowledge the effo rts of th e res ur-
fac ing agency to h elp ensure their continu ed support.
Additionally, C hi cago stree ts are fr e qu e ntl y repaved after
utility or con stru c tion work (e.g., sewer main repair, fiber
optic ca bl e install ation). Bikeway tec hnicians ar range for
new lan es to b e st rip ed or existing lanes upgraded as a
condition of a pproval for this work.
7) ENGINEERING OUTREACH
A plan will only be imp lemente d if e n g ineers and plan-
ners embrace it. Education and outreach are es p eciall y
important since most agencies and their staff ha ve littl e
ex p erience pl a nning and designing for bike lanes. Two
C hi cago strate g ies :
• Staging three Bicycle Faci li ty Tours a year for e n ginee rs
and p lanners to see that bike lanes work. Are they
worth staging? Consider what one participant stated:
'Tm go ing to include bike lanes in my project now
18 2 Case St udie s Bicycle Countermeasure Sel ection System
More th an 1 million co pies of the Chi cago Bike Map have
been publi shed.
that I see that they wo rk . Thanks for ge tting me o n a
bike for the first time in years."
• D eve loping compre h e nsive design guidelines with
typical cross-sections, intersection co nfigurations,
and specifi cations for line types and bicycle symbols.
G uid elines are compil e d in the Bike Lan e D es ign Guide
and di stributed for engin eers' reference. Plans are un-
d erway to follow-up these guidelines with a 2-hour
interactive training sess ion .
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
R es ults of our efforts are evaluated by th e mil es of bike
lan es establi sh ed, th e partnership s d evelo p e d, the c h anges
in awareness among e n gineering and p lanning staff in ad-
voca ting for bike lanes, and the c h an ges in bi cycl ing o n
C hi cago's streets with bike lanes.
The following table illustrates the res ul ts of partner ships
w ith other age n cies to install bike lan es from 2000-2004:
M i le s
Implementi ng of B ike
Ag ency Div i sion Prog ram La ne s
Ch icago B ureau of CMA Q 40 De part ment of Traffic
Tr ansportation B ureau of · AS RP 17 H ighwa ys
B ureau of Reco nstr uc t ion 2 H ighways
Bu reau of
S igns and Request 5
Mar kings
B ureau of
Br idges a nd St reetscape 2
Transit
B ureau
of Under-Uti l ity 1
g round
Co l lab -
orative
pro j ect w ith
Evanston
Ci ty of Evan -Depart m e nt
of Public Resurfacing 1 st o n Works and
Ch icago
Departme nt
of Trans por-
t at ion
I l lin o is De-
pa rt ment of Local Roads Resurfaci ng 5
Tr a nsp o rt at io n
Subtot al 72
Pr e-2000 31
Tot a l 1 03
Over 100 mil es of bike lan es have b ee n es tabli sh e d in Chi-
cago to d ate w ith 32 of those mil es es ta blish ed through
partnering and at minimal cos t. Eight differen t agencies
h ave es tablish e d bike lanes as part of th eir res urfa cing o r
road recon struction proj ec ts. The fe d e ral CMAQ pro-
gra m h as b ee n so successful that anoth e r $1,500,000 was
recently award e d to gu ara ntee co mple tion of th e proj ect
and es tablish colore d bike lan es, sign e d bike routes, and
up gra d e existing bike lanes to hi g h er standards. Engineers
now typically ask bi cycle program staff abo ut installing
bike lanes as p art of th eir proj ec ts, eve n if th e stree ts were
not incl u d ed in th e Streets for Cycling Plan. The bike lane
tours have turne d e n gineer s and p lann ers prev io u sly h esi-
tant about bike lan es into advocates for bike lan es on fu-
ture proj ec ts. And, most importantly, bike u se on C hica-
go's stree ts continues to grow.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Stre ets for Cyc ling Pl an was a valuable tool in creating
partn ers hips t o diversify the funding of constru c tion of
a bike lan e n etwork . Thro u gh th e S tree ts for Cycl ing Pl an,
bicycle facilities are now incorporat e d in the multi-year
planning for infras tru c ture improve m e nts.
REFERENCES
City of Chicago. C hicago Bike Map. Summer 2004.
C ity of Chicago. Streets for Cycl ing. 1999.
Ped es trian and Bicycle Information Center. Bi ke Lane D e-
sign Guide. Pedestrian and Bicycle Informati o n Center,
C ity of C hi cago, Chicagoland Bicycle Fed e ration , and
Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professio nals.Au-
gu st 2002.
http ://www.ChicagoBikes.org
CONTACTS
B e n Gomberg
Bicycle Prog ram Coordinat or
C hi cago Department ofTransportation
(312) 7 44-8093
b gomb e rg@cityofc hi cago.o rg
B e th Meier
CDOT B ikeways Prog ram M an age r
TY Lin In terna tional Senior Planne r
(312) 7 42-3815
bme ie r @cityo fc hi cago.org
Nick J ac k so n
Direc tor of Planning
C hi cagoland Bicycle Federation
(312) 427-3325 ext . 27
Bicycle Cou nt ermeasure Se lec t ion Sys tem Case St udies 183
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS #10
How Hampshire Street Pavement Markings
Influence Bicycle and Motor Vehicle
Positioning
BACKGROUND
Bicycle lanes h ave been es tablished on city stree ts throu gh-
out the United States as a way of improving co nditions for
cy cling and ensuring that motorists understand that bi cy-
clists b elong on the street. Multiple surveys have shown
that bicycli sts strongly prefer m arke d bicycle lanes w h en
traveling on urban streets (figure 1). Some p e opl e h ave
raised a concern abo ut whether bi cycle lanes are more
likely to put cyclists at risk of corning in confli c t with
motorists opening car doors into the p ath of the cyclist.
Al though motorists parking a car are res ponsible for not
opening a car door unless it is safe to do so, the reality is
that many motorists have not b ee n well educated ab o ut
this. Attention h as thus focused on whether pavement
markings have an impact on bicycli st safety by influ enc-
ing whether bicyclists ride close r to parked cars.
The purpose of this stu dy was to determine how p ave-
ment markings influence where bicyclists and motorists
Figure 1.
Cara Seiderman, Transportation Program Man -
ager, City of Cambridge
Ron Va n Houten, Professor, Mount Saint Vincent
University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, CA
position th emselves on the road, particularl y w ith r egard
to how far bi cy cli sts travel from parked cars. The re sea rch
examined the effec ts of se quentially adding the compo-
n e nt markings that consti tute a bike lan e on H ampshire
Street in Cambridge, MA. Hampshire Stree t h as on-street
p arking and a substantial number of cyclists w ho trave l on
it. The street had j u st b een re pave d , offe rin g the ideal op-
portunity for testing a variety of p ave ment markings. The
st udy looked at w h at impacts th e vario u s markings h ad
on parked motor ve hicl es, traveling m otor ve hicles and
t rave ling bicyclists.
PREVIOUS RELATED RESEARCH
Research on bicycle faci liti es h as ofte n focused o n exam-
ining bi cycle l anes insta ll e d on ro ads without on-stree t
p arki ng (H arkey & Stewart , 1997; H ar key, Stewart, &
Stutts, 1999). Several studies h ave shown that drivers m ake
fewer w ide swe rves or clo se passes whe n p ass in g bi cy -
clists o n streets w ith bi cycle lanes (Kro ll & Ramey, 19 77;
McHenry &Wallace, 19 85) and h ave found that bike lanes
reduced the percentage of e n croachments by motorists
into the next lane and res ul ted in less var iation in the
wheel path for bicycles and motor vehicles (M c Henry &
Wallace, 1985). McHenry and Wallace (1985) also found
that motorists swerved less when passing cyclists w h en
there was a marked bike lane.
Harkey and Stewart (1997) found th at bicycle lan es as
narrow as 0. 9 m (3 ft) p rov id e suffi cie nt space for bicy cl es
and motor vehicles to interact safe ly and that lanes of 1.2
m (4 ft) worked best. They also foun d that a stripe se p a-
rating motor vehicles and bi cycles produced fewe r er-
ratic maneuvers by motorists. Hunter, Stewart and Stutts
(1999) discovered that there was more wrong-way cy cling
and more sidewalk riding at w ide curb lane sites than at
bicycle lane sites and that more cyclists obeyed stop signs
at locations with bicycle lane sites. These st udi es involved
compariso ns of exis ting sites an d did not invo lve com-
parisons of cyclist a nd driver b e h av ior b efore and after
facilities were installed.
Bi cyc le Counte rmea sure Selectio n System Case Studi es 185
One re c e nt study did look at stree ts with o n-stree t p ark-
ing. The San Francisco D e p artme nt of Parking & Traf-
fi c e n gage d Alta Plannin g & D es ign to stu dy the e ffec ts
of "s hared u se" markings on cy cli sts' and m o torists' ro ad
position, cy cli sts' riding b e h av ior, and bi cycle /motorist
c onflicts. The re port, Sa n Fra ncisco's Shared Lan e Pav ement
Markings : Improving Bicycle Safe ty , (F ebruary, 2004) con-
clude d that th e markings in c rease d the di stan ce of cy-
clists from p arked cars as well as th e di stan ce b e twee n
cycli sts and p ass ing vehicles . One of the m arking typ es,
th e "bike and ch ev ron," signifi ca ntl y re du ced the numbe r
of w rong-way riders.
COUNTERMEASURES
Hampshire Stree t in C ambridge wa s the c h ose n lo ca-
tion for imple m e nting th e se ri es of p ave m e nt m arkings .
H ampshire Stree t is 13.4 m (44 ft ) w id e , w ith p arking
on both sides of the street , an ave rage d ail y traffi c (ADT)
of ab o ut 15 ,000 and bi cycle vo lumes of 120 to 15 0 in
p ea k p e ri o ds.
The p ave m e nt marking trea tme nts w ere imple m e nte d
se quentially. First, data was ga th e re d whe n the stree t wa s
n ewl y re p ave d and th e only m a rkings w e re a ce nte r line
a nd c ro ss w alks. T h e n , e d ge lin es w e re es t ablish e d 3 . 7 m
(12 ft ) out fr o m the curbs, c rea tin g 3 m (10 ft ) trave l
la n es, a nd d a ta c oll ec t e d w ith thi s m eas ure. T h e n , bi cycl e
sy mb o ls and arrows w e re put to th e rig ht of those lines,
and d a ta coll ec t e d. Finall y, inner lines wer e es ta bli sh e d ,
c rea ting 2 .1 m (7 ft ) p arking lan es, 1 .5 m (5 ft ) bi cy cl e
la n es and 3 m (10 ft ) trave l la n es. Fi g ures 2-5 show th ese
tre atme nts .
The w o rk w as done betwee n April and O c to b e r of2003.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
D a ta m eas ure d w e re the di sta n ce ca r s p arke d from the
c urb, the di stan ce bicyclists rode from the c urb , and the
di stan ce trave ling motor ve hicl es drove fr o m the c urb .
The data on bi cyclists and m oving motor ve hicl es w e re
ga the re d by vid e otape. The d ata on p arke d ca r s w e re
ga the re d in the field. D a ta we re c o ll ec t e d at ea ch stage
of the imple m e nta tion , so the re w e re fo ur se ts of d ata
coll ect e d: b ase line, li n e al o n e , line with sy mb o l , a nd full
bi cy cl e la n e .
Survey s of bi cy cli sts and m o t o ri sts al so were administe red .
An inte rce pt survey of bi cy cli sts and motorists w as con-
ducte d during the baselin e and fina l treatme nt c ondition .
186 Case Studies Bicycle Co un te rmeasure Se lect ion System
Figure 2 . Only center lane markings .
Figure 3. Edge line s installed.
Figure 4. Edge I in es with bicycle symbols and arrows.
Figur e 5 . Inner lines added.
All inte rcept surveys were c ondu c te d at traffi c sign als on
H ampshire Stree t .Afte r the sign al turne d red , the resea rc h
ass istant or volunteer approac h e d the stopp ed cy cli st o r
drive r and said , "G ood morning /aft erno on. I am doing
a survey for th e C ity o f C ambridge and h ave a few bri e f
qu es tions to ask you . It will take less than a minute. M ay
I procee d ?" If the pote ntial res p o nde nt re fu se d , th e sur-
veyor app roac hed th e n ext person. The re were few re fu s-
als. Cycli sts w ho ag ree d to parti c ip ate were aske d to stay
against th e c urb, out o f the line o f traffi c . Th e b ase li ne
bicycli st survey (n = 1 17) h ad parti cip ants rate the ir co m -
fort level o n a five-p o int sc ale ; how o ft e n they cy cl e d o n a
five-point sc al e ; and what they wo ul d c h ange to improve
cycling o n H ampshire Street (an o p e n-e nde d qu es ti o n).
During th e aft er survey (n = 123; 115 we re sc ore d fo r
the rankings), cycli sts were again as ke d to r at e th eir co m-
fort level o n a fiv e-po int sc ale ; h o w ofte n they cy cl e d
on a fi ve -p o int scale; if th ey notice d stree t markings on
Hampshire Stree t ove r the course of the pas t few m o nths
(yes/n o); and to rank eac h of th e fo ur c onditions with "1"
b eing m os t preferre d and " 4 " b eing leas t pre fe rred.
The b ase li ne survey was administ e re d t o 12 9 m o to r -
i st s, a nd 120 received th e "aft e r " survey. Th e m o t o rist
survey as ke d drive r s w h e the r th ey we re aw a re o f bi cy-
clists whil e driving o n H amp shire Street ; wha t ab o ut
the stree t m a d e the m aw are of bi cy cli sts (an op e n -e nd-
e d qu es ti on); and h ow o ft e n th ey drove o n H ampshire
Stree t (fi ve -point sca le).
The three p ave m e nt ma rking trea tme nts-an e d ge line
demarca ting the trave l lan e, the e dge lin e a nd bicy cl e
sy mbols, and a full bi ke lan e-were all effec ti ve at i n -
flu en cing bi cycli sts to r id e fa rthe r away from p arke d cars
than w h e n no pave m e nt markings were prese nt. H e re are
some d e tail s.
PARKED VEHICLE S
With th e installation of the lan e lin e (trea tme nt 1), m o-
torists p arke d signifi ca ntly farth er from the c urb in b o th
direc tions. Th e motorists move d in w ith each additi o n al
marking and in the en d , th ere w as n o stati sti call y signifi -
ca nt diffe re n ce b e twee n w here m o to rists parke d in the
b as eline co ndition an d th e fu ll bike lan e condition.
BICYCLE POSITION
Whe n o n e lo oks simply at an ave rage p os ition, th e cy cli sts
did m ove further away fr om p arke d ca r s in all c irc um-
sta nc es, but o nl y by a co uple of inc h es-n o t as signifi ca nt
as m.i ght b e hoped . H ow ever, the c ritical evaluation is the
e ffe ct of th e treatme nts on the di stribution of whe re cy -
cli sts rod e . Under all tes t markings, th e di stributions n ar-
rowe d so that the re we re fe w e r o utli e rs on e ithe r side
(whi ch is w hy the ave rage did n o t c h an ge dram ati ca ll y)
(Van Houte n and Seide rman , 20 05 ). Most importantly,
cycli sts w h o w ere riding the closes t to parke d car s in the
b aseline co ndition m ove d furth e r away, so th e p e rce ntage
of p e ople riding more than 0 .6 or 0.9 m (2 or 3 ft ) fr o m
parke d ca r s w e nt up sig nificantly.
The data al so n eed e d to b e adju ste d to acco unt for the
pl ace n1 ent of the parked car s. At first bl u sh , it looked as
th o u gh the "lin e only " m arking h ad the m os t influ e n ce
o n cy clist positio n , with th e hi g h es t p e rce ntage o f p e opl e
ridin g more than 2.7 or 3 m (9 o r 10 ft ) o ut from the
c urb. Howeve r, w h e n the d ata w e re adju ste d to ac count
for th e change in where cars w e re p arked , th e three inte r-
ve ntions b eca m e more e qual in th e ir impac t of how fa r
cyclists were fro m the p arke d ca rs.
There w as also a diffe ren ce among the lo ca tion s, particu-
larl y betwee n th e lo cations n ea r th e sign ali ze d inter sec -
ti o n a nd those nea r unsi gnali ze d inte r sec ti o n s. The influ -
ence o f the m arkin gs w as g rea te r o n the cyclists n e ar th e
form er, b eca u se they started o ut cl ose r to the p arked ca r s.
At th e end of th e study, the lo ca tions w e re similar as to
w h ere cy cli sts we re riding .
MOVING MOTOR VEHICLES
Th e data revea le d that the trea tme nts h ad little e ffect
on drive r wh eel p ath . B eca u se H a mpshire Stree t is rela-
ti ve ly narrow a nd is busy at ru sh hour, wh en the d at a
was c oll e cte d , th e r e m ay n o t h ave always b een room
fo r drivers t o m ove into the o pp os ing la n e. Th e d a ta
o n the mea n di sta n ce b e twee n bicy cli sts and throug h
ve hicl es show th at th e di sta n ce b e twee n bi cy cli sts and
th e n e are st thro u gh ve hicl e was grea t es t du r ing b ase li ne
and sig nifi cantl y less a t three of th e four si t es d uring the
lane line al o n e co ndition . Since bi cy cli sts were mov ing
t owa rd t h e trave l la n e with su ccess ive trea tme nts, this
findin g is co n si st e nt .
SURVEY DATA : CYCLISTS
B eca u se thi s is a c onunute r route and b ecau se d ata w e re
co ll ec ted during commuting p eriods, it is n o t surprising
that th e va st m aj o rity of rid e rs rod e the ir bikes o n H amp-
shire on a dail y b as is, and virtu all y all res p o nd e nts rode at
leas t se ve ral times a w eek . It was the refo re reaso n abl e t o
exp ec t the m to b e aware o f th e various interve ntions.
Ride r comfort ratings, on a fi ve -po int sca le, avera ge d 3.4
durin g bas elin e survey and 3.3 during th e aft e r study sur-
vey-not stati sti call y significa nt. R atings in this range fa ll
b e twee n n e utral and fa irl y c omfortabl e .Whe n res ponde nts
w e re as ked (in an op e n-e nde d ques tion) what they would
ch ange to improve bi cycling o n H ampshire Stree t , b y far
th e most conuno n res ponse was to "add a bike lan e ."
During th e aft e r study survey, 8 0 p e rce nt of cy cli sts indi-
ca te d they h ad n o ticed the m arkin gs.Whe n as ked to rank
th e va rious co nditions from 1 (m os t prefe rre d) to 4 (l eas t
pre ferre d), cy cli sts ranked th e full bike lan e th e highes t
.(ave rage rank o f 1.25), the lan e lin e plus bike sy mbol n ext
Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System Case Studie s 187
(average rank 1.97), followed by the lan e line alo n e (ave r-
age r ank of 2.95), and the n no markings at all (average
rank 3.78).
Anoth er way of looking at this is to summar ize w hi ch
of the options were chosen as r iders' first prefer en ces.
Eigh ty-two p e rcent of the responde nts chose the fu ll bike
lane, and 8 percent ch ose the line w ith bike sy mbol. Sin ce
the latter is also a bike lane, 90 p erce nt of the respo ndents
prefere d a bi cycle lan e.
SURVEY DATA: MOTORIS TS
Most drive r s in b oth surveys drove on H ampshire on a
d ail y basis . A similar p ercentage of drivers in both surveys
re sponded that they were aware of cycli sts on H ampshire
(86 p ercent of t h e base line res ponde nts and 84 p erce nt
of the e nd of study survey res pondents-not sta ti sticall y
diffe re nt).
Whe n asked, "W h at about this street m akes yo u aware
of bicyclist s?," motorists during b ase line res p ond e d most
frequ ently "n othing" (68 p e rcent). After all of the trea t-
ments had b ee n introduce d the most frequ e nt res ponse
was "bike lanes" (42 p erce nt) and the second most fr e-
que nt res ponse was "I see the m (th e cy cli sts)."
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
This study shows that all three p ave m en t marking options
e n couraged cycl ists to ride far ther away from parked ca r s.
T h e bicycle lane was the most effe ctive at keep ing ca r s
p arke d closer to t h e c urb and enco uraging cycl ists to r ide
in a consiste nt position at intersections. G iven that cycl ists
prefer marked lanes and h ave indicated that they make
them feel welc o m e on the street, and that mo tori sts d o
notice them, bicy cl e lanes can be seen as a preferred and
posi ti ve way of providing for bicyclists in the transporta-
tion network.
COSTS AND FUNDING
This research was funded by the ci ty of Cambridge. T h e
proj ect cos t ap prox imately $25,000 for the research effort,
p lus st aff time, incl uding markings done by staff and most
of an intern's time for about six months.
188 Case St udi es Bi cycle Countermea sure Se lection System
REFERENCES
Alta P lanning & D es ign. San Franci sco's Shared Lan e Pav e-
ment Markings: Improv ing Bi cycle Safety. Final Report
Prepare d for San Francisco D ep artment of P arking &
Traffi c, February 2004.
H arkey, D.L. & Stewart,J.R . (1997). "Evaluation ofShare d-
U se Fa cili ti es for Bicy cl es and Motor Ve hicles." Trans-
por tati on R esearch R eco rd , 15 78, 111-118.Hunter, WW
Stewart, J.R . & Stutts, J.C. (1999). Study of bicycl e
lan es ve r su s w ide c urb lan es, Transp ortation R es earch
R ecord 1674 , 70-77 .
Kroll , B ., & R am ey, M .R . (1977). "Effects of b ike lan es on
drive r and bicycli sts b eh avior." J ourna l of Tran sportation
Engin ee ring,ASCE , 103.
M cH e nry, S.R., & W allace, M.J. (1985) Eva luation ef Wid e
Curb L anes as Share d L ane Bicycle Fa ciliti es .FHWA/
MD-85 /06 R e port.
R odal e Press, Inc., (1992). Path ways for Peop le, Enunaus,
Pe nnsylvania, 1992.
Stimson, Monique. Analysis of Commute r Bi cycl ist Route
Choic e Us ing Stated Preference Study, Transportation Re-
sea rch Board, 2003 .
Van Houte n , R . and C. Se id erman. (20 05). "How p ave -
m e nt markings influence b icy cl e and motor ve hicle
p os itioning: A case study in Cambridge, MA ." Pre-
se nte d to Transportation R esearc h Board Annual
M ee ting: W as hington , D .C., J anu ary 2005 . [access ibl e
a t: http ://www.cambridge m a.gov/-CDD /e t/bike/
bike_hamp_study. pdf)
AC KNOWLEDGMENTS
The resea rch p roject was d es igned and eval u ate d by Dr.
Ron Va n Houten, Mount Saint Vincent University. In the
C ity of Cambridge, those w h o p ar ticipated in th e study
include: Susanne R as mussen, Director, Environmental
& Tra n sportation Planning Division (E&TP ), Conmm-
nity D evelopment D e pt. (CDD); Juan Avendano, E&TP,
CDD;Joshua Kra u s, E&TP, CDD; Michael Young, E&TP,
CDD ; Wa y n e Amaral, Traffic Ope rations Manager, Traffic,
Parking & Transp ortation D epartment ; and memb ers of
the Cambridge Bicycle Conunittee .
CONTACTS
Cara Seide rman
Transportation Program Manager
Environmental & Transportation Planning, Community
Development Dept.
344 Broadway
Cambridge , MA 02139
(6 17) 349-4629
cse id erman@cambridgema.gov
Ron Van H o uten
Mount Saint Vincent University
Halifax , Nova Scotia, Canada B3M 2J 6
ron. vanhou ten@msvu.ca
Bicy cle Counte rm easure Selection System Case Studies 189
EUGENE, OREGON #11
I
I
Raised Bicycle Lanes and Other Traffic
Calming Treatments on Ayres Road
BACKGROUND
This pap e r d escrib es an unusu al de sign for a stree t im-
prove m e nt proj ec t in Eugene, OR. City staff and the
community have moved up a "le arning curve" during
the p as t several d eca d es in regard to on-street trea tments
for bicyclists in c ombination w i th traffi c calming tech -
niqu es. This proj ec t presen ted an opportuni ty to co mbine
a number of de sign fe atures in a new way on a su burban
c olle c tor street.
In 2001-2002 the city o f Eugene, OR, full y improve d
Ayres Road , a c oll ector street in the northern suburban
part of the city, u sing a number of un co nve ntional d e-
sign tec hniqu es. Ay res R oad is a half-mil e long co ll ec tor
street in a developing residen ti al neigh borhood, and the
o nl y street that provide s a u sa ble eas t-wes t connection b e-
tween two north-so u th major coll ec tors-Delta H igh-
way North on the west, an d G ilham Road o n the eas t.
Ayres Road is si milar to m any oth e r co lle c tor and minor
arterial streets th e city h as inh e rited from Lane Co u nty
through annexati on. It was a two-lan e, n arrow oil m at
roadway with no curbs, drainage, or sidewalks. T h e ro ad-
way function e d reas onably well for many years in its ru-
ral setting, b u t was not ade qu at e to serve the suburban
res idential d eve lopment call e d for in the c ity's adopte d
land us e plan. T h e ci ty b ega n efforts to d esign an i m-
prove d cross -sec tio n in the ea rl y 1990s w h e n residentia l
d evelopme nt b egan to accele r at e on adjacent fa rm land.
T h e proj ec t was d elayed a numb e r of years b eca u se of
other proj ec ts having a high er priori ty for sca rce fund s
and an ext e nde d p u blic invo lvement pro cess over t h e
propo se d d es ign.
190
Dave Reinhard, Transportation Consultant (for-
me r ly City of Eugene Transportation Engineer,
Divis ion Manager)
Case Stud ies Bicycle Co unt ermeasure Se lect ion System
Over the past three d ecad es Eugene ha s d eve loped an
extens ive sys t em of bikeways. The network includes off-
stree t paths, on-street strip e d lanes on busy streets and
designated bike ro utes on sel ected n eighborhood stree ts
t o h elp provid e continuity. The classification of Ay res
Road as a m ajor coll ec tor street and th e n ee d for bicy cl e
conn ec tiv ity in the area led to a d ecision to incor porate
o n-stree t strip e d lanes in th e d es ign for the stree t recon-
struction proj ec t.
In addi tion, Eugene h as d evelop e d a number of strate-
gies over the p as t decade to in corp orate traffic calming
features in stre e t improve m ent proj ects. Experience with
a numbe r of techniques in various se ttings, in retrofit
examples as well as new construction, help e d sh ap e the
publi c input and the decision-making by city staff on the
Ay res Road proj ec t . The proj ec t prov ide d an opportunity
to combine a numb er of b ike-fri e ndly compone nts with
prove n traffi c calming features in a unique way.
EARLIER STREET DESIGNS
During the 19 70s and 1980s a numb e r of co ll ector and
ar t e rial stree ts in Eugene were improve d to up g rad e the
cross-sec tion from a two-lane as phalt mat to an urb an
section including c urb s, gu tte rs , and sidew alks. In a few
cases, multi-lane streets were built to respond to existing
or for ecas t e d traffi c vo lumes , but the m ajority of proje cts
we re b uilt as two-o r three-lan e streets, the latte r u sing a
strip e d center continuou s two-way left turn lan e. In so m e
cases p arki n g was retained on one or both sides of the
street , and in n early all cases, on-stree t , strip e d bi cy cl e lanes
were include d in the proj ec t . Therefore a so m ewh at typi-
cal , d e fa ul t cro ss -sec tion of three lanes and bi cycle lanes
b ecam e th e norm for upgrading former county roadways
to urban standards in developi n g areas of the city.
In the e arly 1990s , seve ral acti ve n e ighborh ood assoc ia-
tions began petitio ning th e city for re li ef from excess ive
traffi c speeds on coll ec tor stree ts in residential areas . The
city went through a process of initial exp erime ntation
with sp ee d humps, evo lvin g to th e u se of oth er techniques
A typi cal l 970s-80s 3-lane urban street with on-street bike
lanes used in Eugene.
that h ave proven more acce ptabl e to e m er ge n cy se rvice
prov id ers. As these projects were ca rrie d out in retrofit
situ ations in olde r n eighb orhoods, inte res t also b ega n to
grow rapidly in incor porating traffic calming fea tures as
part of the d es ign of m ajor street improve ment proj ec ts.
Public percep tion shi fte d , and th e ea rli e r "d efa ult " d es ign
o f two lan es, a ce nter turn lane, bike lan es and (u su all y)
no on-s treet p arking ca m e to b e v iewed as a ve ry unat-
trac tive d es ign that e n co ura ged sp ee ding and diminis h e d
n eighb orhood livability.
In res p o n se to these iss u es, city staff b ega n modi fy in g d e -
si gn prac ti ces to inco rporate traffi c calming fea tures in
major improveme nt proj ec ts. Seve ral proj ec ts were built
in the 1990s that include d some o r all of the fo ll owing:
n arrower lan es (more u se of 3.4 m (11 ft) lan es th an
3. 7 m (12 ft) or wider)
rai se d m e di a n islands
c hi canes or similar c urves introdu ce d into the ali gn-
m e nt of oth erwise straight sections of street
• provisio n of on-street p arking, e ithe r continu o u sly or
in intermittent p arking bay s
u se of se tback sid ewalks and exte nsive street tree pl ant-
ings b etween curb and sidewalk , instea d of c urb-sid e
sidewalk s
A more re ce nt (1990s ) design with c hi ca nes and wide curb
and gu tter for bike lane (example from Terry Street).
As the city ga in e d exp erience w ith th ese ty p es of d es ign
fea tures, th ey were incorporated in th e m aj o r update of
design standards and guide lines, ad o pted in 1999. While
some of the traffic calming features still generate contro-
versy, the improve d lo ok and fee l of major stree t proj ects
h as m e t with a hi gh level of public acce ptan ce.
BICYCLES LANES VS . TRAFFIC CALMING
T h e g rea tes t disappo intment w ith the "n ew" street d e-
si g n was that by co ntinuing t o include on-street bicycle
lan es, the overall look and feel of the st ree t still gave th e
p e rception of a fairly wide ro adway that did little t o
discourage speeding. To prov id e a sa fe pl ace fo r cyclists
o n streets w ith moderate t o h eavy vehicu la r traffi c, an
additional 3 t o 3 .7 m (10 to 12 ft) of p ave m e nt width
was b eing adde d , which t e nde d t o cancel o ut the visu al
e nh an c eme nt brought a bout b y th e othe r fea ture s su c h
as n ar rowe r lanes, m e di an s a nd la ndsca ping.
A s p art of the updated d es ig n sta ndards m e ntioned ear-
li er, the city r evisite d its pra c ti ce of r e quiring on-stree t
bike lan es on all street cl ass ifi ca tions oth e r than lo ca l
stree ts . The n ew st andard es ta bli sh e d a ca t egory for co l-
l ectors throu g h res idential a reas, te rme d the "n e ighb or-
h ood c ollec to r." This stree t ty p e calls for mixe d , slow-
moving bike and auto traffi c, r athe r tha n re quiring
str ip e d lanes on these lower-volume st reets. However,
o n-street bi cycle lan es a re still the st andard for m aj or
co ll ec tors and all arte rial stree ts in Euge n e. Since Ay res
Ro ad is a major c ollector, the c ity face d a c h all e n ge
t o c ome up with a d es ign tha t wo uld ac hi eve the b est
b alan c e of comp e ting obj ec ti ves-su c h as the goal of
a bike-fri e ndly d es ig n along with one that di sc ourages
tra ffi c sp eed.
COUNTERMEASURES
The de sign for the Ayres Road m ajor improvem ent proj -
ec t evolved over a period of n ea rl y 10 years. In about 1991
ci ty staff initially propose d a typical three-lan es -plus-bi-
cy cl e -lanes cross sec tion. R es ide nts of th e area protes te d
that this would res ult in to o wide a stree t and increase d
traffic speeds in the n eighborhood. The pro cess was put
on hold for seve ral years du e to o ther priorities, but o c-
cas ional dis c u ss ions took pl ace with res id e nts and local
d evelopers who were carrying o ut subdivision projects on
land adjac e nt to Ayres R oad. E ve ntually the city initiated
a se ries of m ee tings and d es ign c harre ttes with re prese nta-
ti ves of the adj ace nt resid e ntial n eighborh oods and other
inte res te d stake holde rs. The d es ign that e m erged from thi s
process include d th e following elem e nts:
Bicycle Counte rmea sure Selection System Ca se Studies 191
NARROW LANES
Trave l lan es as n arrow as 3.2 m (10 .5 ft ) wo uld b e use d
o n Ayres Road.
CHICANES
Horizontal c urve s w ith bulb-o uts and ce nte rlin e c hang-
e s o n a fairl y stra ight segme nt o f roadway wo uld b e us e d
to di sc ourage hi gh sp ee d s.
RAISED MEDIAN ISLA NDS
O va l-sh ap e d , raise d median islands w e re u se d to inte rrupt
the ce nte r line and cre ate a "veer " to the right, then b ac k
to the le ft as th e island tap e re d and th e n va ni sh ed at th e far
e nd. The islands al so provid e sp ace for landscapi n g, which
h elp s re du ce th e glare and relate d drawb ac ks to the add e d
pave m e nt of the newly bu ilt stree t. By planting trees and
shru bs in the m edian, th e m o torist 's vi ew d own the stree t
is inte rrupte d and the ove rall e ffec t te nds to re inforce th e
notion of mov ing slowly d own a n arrow stree t , rath e r th an
b ein g abl e to see uninte rru p te d p ave m e nt a lo n g distan ce
ah ea d. The m e dian islands p rov ide a sa fe landing sp o t for
p e d es tri an s, e n abling th e m t o cross at multip l e lo ca ti o n s,
not just inte rsec t ions. Al so, w h e re a m edi an island runs
along the left e d ge of the trave l lan e it h elp s v isuall y n ar -
row the lan e, e n couraging slow e r sp ee d s.
RAISED INTERSECTIONS AT ENTRANCES TO
MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS (MEADOWVIEW AND
RIVER POINTE)
Th e inte rsec tion s w ere ra ise d to fu ll cu rb h eight in orde r
to provid e a visual cu e as well as a tac til e m ess age that
h elp s di sco urage sp eeding in t h ese areas. The ra ise d inter-
sec tions w e re an important d es ig n component in orde r to
preve nt the image of Ay res R oa d simpl y b e ing a n ew and
improve d road rac e c ourse fr o m o n e e nd to th e o th e r.
RAISED BICYCLE LANES
The most unusu al and co ntrove r sial d es ign fea ture is th e
u se of rai se d bi cy cl e lanes . C ity staff knew o f this tec hruqu e
Vehicles t end to intrude into bike lanes on c u rved roadways
(Crescent Avenue).
192 Case Studi es Bi cycle Countermea sure Select ion System
b ein g u se d in Eu ro p e, and aft e r a g rea t d eal o f inte rn al
di scuss i o n , d ecid e d to u se this fea ture o n Ayres R oa d . The
p r imary reas on for u si n g raise d bi cycle lanes inst ea d o f the
co nve nti o nal on-stree t la n e at n o rmal street g rad e was the
d es ire to provide a ve ry strong, visibl e, right-hand e dge
to the ve hicle travel lan es . Euge n e's exp e ri en ce on m any
o th er stree ts has b een that on-stree t bike lanes tend to b e
see n as anothe r 1.5 t o 1 .8 m (5 to 6 ft ) of p ave m e nt o n
eac h sid e of the roa d. Eve n th o u gh m os t motorists don 't
phys icall y occ upy this sp ace wh e n driv ing alon g tan ge nt
sec ti o n s, most u se it w h en th ey crea te their own tran si-
ti o n s o n c urve d roa d segm e nts.
Th e additional sp ace also adds to the ima ge o f a w ide
ro adway w here it feels OK to drive fas t . Sin ce th e raise d
bi cycl e lane is co n stru c te d of co n c re te and h as a le ft
e d ge that is b eve l e d up to a h e ig ht o f half the normal
c urb h e ig ht, it adds a very visibl e e d ge to the trave l lane
that a normal , str ip e d bike lan e d oes not prov ide. The
4 : 1 slo p e o f the left e d ge is ve ry fo rg iv in g for both bi c y-
cli sts and motorists w h o ge t to o cl ose t o the e d ge, but is
v isu all y n ea rly as p owerful as a ve rti ca l c urb .
Raised bike lane and other traffic c alming fea tures utilized on
Ayres Road.
ISSUES IN DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND
OPERATIONS
Design
Whe n it w as d ec ide d that a raise d bike lane would b e
a d es ign feature fo r th e Ayres R oad improve m e nt proj -
ec t , seve ral d es ign iss u es b eca m e appare nt right away:
h ow w ide and el eva te d should the riding surfa ce b e, how
w ide and at what sl o p e should th e b evele d e dge or tran si-
ti o n surface b e, w h at ty p e of m at e rial should it b e c on-
stru ct e d of, and h ow sh o uld transitions at acc ess ibl e ramps
and inte r sections b e d es ign e d. The only information on
raised bike lanes av ail a bl e at th e time ca m e from the Or-
egon Bicy cl e and P e d es tri an Plan, which was li mite d to a
photo of one co nstru c ted in Switzerland and a cross-sec-
tion sketch showing how the raised bike lane se para tes
bicyclists from motorists and bi cy cli sts from p ed est ri ans .
No details or dimensions were specifi e d in the p lan. The
photo as we ll as the sketch d ep icted a rai se d bike lane
constru c ted of as phalt concret e, th e sa m e material u se d
in th e motor ve hicl e trave l lan e, with a sloping concrete
ribbon se parating th e two. The city's de sire was to h ave
at least 1.4 m ( 4 .5 ft ) of bi cycle-riding surface, th e same
accommodated by a wide curb-and-gutte r option that is
used as a bike lan e. It was also de cid e d that the rais e d bike
lane would b e constructed of concrete b eca u se a n arrow
lane of asphalt concrete would b e h ard to construct and
to maintain. The d es ign of the bevele d e dge dete rmine d
how hi gh th e raised bike lane would b e, and it was ba se d
on how well it would deter casual intrusion by motorists
but still be traversable by motorists and bicyclists alike.
Design er s chose to u se a 4: 1 bevele d e d ge with a transi-
tion width of 30.5 cm (1 ft ) (a 7 .6 cm (3 in) ri se in a 1
ft run). The trea tment at intersections becam e a c hall enge
al so. At one interse c tion, the rai se d bike lane co ntinu es
aro und th e curb re turn , w hi c h broug ht up accessibility
Tran sitio n design for access i ble ramp locations.
Wa t er ponding cre ated by aspha lt paving crea ted challenges
around c urb return.
requirem ents. At this lo cation, it was d ec ided to transition
the beveled edge n ear the curb re turn from a 4 :1 slope
to a strai ght gra de all th e way to the bottom of c urb. This
choice complies w ith accessibil ity gu id elines and seems to
satisfy ridin g co nditions as we ll .
At anoth er intersec tion , th e rai se d bike lane transitions
to a standard on-stree t bike lane at th e curb re turn . This
option did not introduce any riding or accessibility issues,
but it did bring up constru cta bili ty iss u es for the asp h al t
paving operation .
Construction
Wh e n th e des ign of the rais ed bike lan e wa s co mple ted,
the city did not sp ec ify how it wo uld b e construc ted . A s
it turned out, th e contractor who was awarded the proj-
ec t elec te d to extrude the raised bike lane as is done for
most c urb and gutter installations. Howeve r, this proved to
b e more complicated since it wa s untried with no simi-
lar proj ects to u se as an exa mple. The first challenge for
the co ntrac tor came whe n the company asked for a shoe
from the extruding machin e m anufacturer bas ed on the
city 's design. The manufa c ture r stated that its m ac hine was
not d es igned to handle that mu ch con cre te volume (t hree
times as much) through a shoe and there for e would not
provid e one. At that point, the contractor elected to fabri-
ca te a sho e on hi s own and take hi s ch an ces. It eve ntually
worked, aft er minor modifications with the structural sup-
ports, but several ya rds of co n crete were wasted because the
extruding ma chine operators were learning how to control
the opera tion .The fini sh ed produc t did not full y meet city
specifications and the su rface smoothness for ride-ability
was less than des ired. N evertheless, the City c hos e to accep t
it si n ce the end produ ct did not see m to presen t safety h az-
ards . Had th e contractor chosen to con struct the raised bike
lan e by using traditional wood forms, it would likely h ave
m e t spec ifi cations, but would prob ably have b een more
co stl y, mostly du e to labor expense.
Another ch all e n ge for th e co ntractor was the n arrow c ur-
vilinea r trave l lanes. Most p av ing co ntra c tors h ave large
highway typ e m ech anized p ave rs, but a narrow mecha-
ni zed paver would h ave provided b e tte r res ults in this ap-
plica tion. As a result of the contractor using a sta ndard 3
m (10 ft)-wide p ave r, the e nd product h ad m any undesir-
abl e surface co nditions (poor cross sl ope, poor longitu-
dinal slop e, raveling, flu shing, e tc.) in th e fin al lift of th e
asphalt co n cre te.
Operations
A few o p e rational cons id erations must b e kept in mind
whe n c hoosin g a raised bike lane-street sweeping, road
drainage, and driveway access. The final version of Eu-
Bicycle Counte rm easu re Selectio n Sys tem Case Studies 19 3
gene's raised bike lane requires two passes for the ci ty's
2.4 m (8 ft)-wide street sweepers. The first p ass is done
along the raised bike lane, which pushes all of the debris
to the bottom of the b eveled edge. The second pass is
along the bottom of the beveled e dge . Another opera-
tional consideration is to be aware that the road drain-
age is along th e joint, which ca n reduce the life of th e
asphalt pavement a nd create long -term maintenance
h ea d ac h es . The las t operational co nsideration, driveway
access, was addressed during the d es ig n phase, but had
to be re-evaluate d after constru c tion. During the d es ig n
phase, it was d e t e rmin ed that no special cons idera tion
would b e given for vehicle access at driveways. How-
ever, because th e raised bike lane was constructe d out of
specification (a ris e of 10.2 cm ( 4 in) to as much as 11.4
c m (4.5 in) in 30.5 cm (1 ft) run), so m e homeowners
co mplain e d that their vehicles were "bottoming out"
during ingress a nd egress. Based on this information,
the City ele c t ed to h ave each driveway access lo ca tion
reconstructed u sing th e same design p arame t ers done
for accessible ramps, i .e., the b eve led edge dropped out
at driveways.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
The combined visual effec t of all these features prov ides
re inforcement for slower ve hicle speeds on Ayres Road.
Motorists who u se the street, es p eciall y those not al-
ready familiar with it , a re gree ted with a set of v isu al
c u es that imply, "so methi ng is rea ll y differen t about thi s
street," and a re probably more li k ely to proceed some-
what slowly and ca utiously. At the same time, the raised
bicycle lane s, m e dian isl ands and other features help bi-
cyclis ts and pedestrians feel relatively safe and at home
as u sers of the stree t .
Informal feedback from motorists, bi cyclists, n e ighbor-
hood residents and the ge n eral publi c h as b ee n mixe d.
A number of initial comme nts during the co n struc tion
of the project and immediately afterward were c ritica l ,
partly be ca u se the street looked so differe nt from other
ty pi ca l Eugene stree ts, not to m e ntion very different
from th e narrow Ayres Road that this proj ec t rep l aced.
A s people have gotten more used to the street and so me
of its visual n ewness h as worn off, publi c reacti on seems
to b e ca utiou sly su pportive or at leas t neutral. City staff
continues to rece ive comments about how unusu al the
street looks, but there is also a growing ac knowledg-
ment that the design does help slow down traffic. I n
ge n eral , feedback from the bi cycling co mmunity has
b een positive.
194 Case St udies Bicyc le Coun termeasure Se lec tion System
Before 1992, Ayres Road was under co unty jurisdic-
tion, and like m ost roads that did not have formal sp eed
studies conducted, operated under basic rul e-up to
88 km/h (55 mph) dependent upon road and weather
conditions. When the road was transferred to the city in
1992, a speed study was co mpleted, whic h resulted in a
speed zone of 56 km/h (35 mph). After the reconstruc-
tion of Ayres Road , the posting was changed to 40 km/h
(25 mph), which more closely re fl ec ts the traffic ca lming
design features and the ave rag e sp eed of vehicles.
Ayres Road speed zone history
19 92
Ave rage Speed (mph) 36
85th % Speed (mph) 39
Maxi mum Speed (mph) 46
Posted Speed (mph) 35
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
200 2 (Pos t
Reco ns t ruc ti on)
26
29
37
25
As with many other projects, the process of arriving at a
final design for Ayres Road reinforces the notion that it's
generall y better to approach the neighborhood and ma-
jor stake holders at the b eginning, with no preco n ceive d
design proposal, and le t t h e public help develop the de-
sign. Only by struggling w ith the choices and trad e-offs
in the de sign process ca n t h e publi c co m e to appreciate
the difficult ta sk city staff and cons ultants face in d es ign-
ing a street to meet a number of co nflicting goals and
objectives. Additionally, staff ca nnot ass u me that c itizens
are able to fully understand e n g ineering p lans and draw-
ings. Ill u strations and 3-D pic tures may be necessary to
co nvey th e "look and fe el " of a d es ign element, p ar ti c u-
larly one that is unique to an area.
TRAFFIC CALMING
Getting motorists to slow down so bicyclists can sh are
the space and pedestrians feel safe when crossing the
street appear s to depend on n arrowin g the travel lanes
as much as possib le. The lanes need to b e narrow in an
ac tual , physical sense (e.g . 3 or 3.4 m (10 or 11 ft) wide),
and th ey need to look and feel narrow to motorists. The
look and feel, in turn, can b e achieved by a combination
of narrow lanes along with··conspicuous edges (e.g. us e
of a ce nte r isl and), introdu cing curves and chi canes, and
design elements such as trees and shrubs at both th e edges
and in the m edian, to eliminate the loo k of a long, straight
road . U se of spee d ta bl es or rais e d inter sectio n s at strate g ic
lo cations is also a key ele m ent of traffic calming, es p ec ially
w h en there are very few intersections or o the r inte rrup-
tions to continuou s traffic flow alo n g the stree t.
BIKE LANES THAT COMPLEMENT TRAFFIC
CALMING
The most signifi cant n ew feature in the Ayres R oad de-
sign was the use of raised bicycle lanes. T his e n abl e d th e
city to meet th e objective of a safe facility for bicycli sts
along a mode rately busy roa dway, w hil e at the sa m e time
avoiding the pave m e nt-wid ening effec t of the ty pi cal on-
stree t bike lan e . The strong visual e dge provided by the
left edge of the raised bike lan e helps reinforce th e narrow
trave l lanes and di scourage excess ive sp ee ds.
CONTINUING UP THE LEARNING CURVE
While it appears the city h as d eve loped a su ccessfu l d e-
sign in the case of Ayres Road , this example al so serves
to ill u strate that th e re are probably o th e r undiscovere d
"te mplates" fo r stree t de sign s that ca n meet these kinds
of objectives. The b es t approac h invo lves b ei n g op en to
exp erime ntation and re-combining var ious design tec h-
niques to ac hieve the b es t mix of o utcomes. Eac h proj ec t
provides an exa mple that ca n be co pied or b orrowed from
to crea t e eve n b e tte r d es igns for future proj ec ts.
COSTS AND FUNDING
The total co n stru ction cos ts for the re construction of
Ayres R oad ca m e to just under $1 million. The unit cos ts
for eac h of the bid items co mpared well with other local
proj ec ts simila r in size and n ature d es pite the innovative
d es ign trea tme nts utili ze d . The raise d bike lane compo-
n e nt ca m e in at $15 p e r lineal foot as co mpare d to the
C ity 's standard c urb and gutte r with as phalt stree t sec ti on
at $13.5 0 p e r lineal foot. A m aj ority of the project costs
were funded by Transportation Sy stem Developme nt
C harges (a.k.a. tran sporta ti o n impac t fees) but ab o ut 20
p ercent of the proj ec t cos ts were p a id by ab uttin g prop-
e rty owners through assess ments.
REFERENCES
Oregon Bicycle an d Pedestr ian Plan , Orego n Departme nt of
Transportation, Bicycle and P edestr ian P rogra m.
CONTACTS
Lee Sho e m aker
Bicy cl e & P edes trian Prog ram Coordinator
City of Eugene Public Works
858 Pearl Street
Eugene, OR 97401
(5 41 ) 682-8472 (vo ice)
(54 1) 682-5598 (fax)
lee .sh oem aker@ci.e u gene.or.u s
Brian Genovese
A ssis tant Transportation Pl anning Enginee r (Ayres Road
Proj ec t M anager)
City of Eugene
(54 1) 682-5343
brian. k . genovese@ci .e u ge n e . or. u s
D ave Reinhard
Tra n sportation Co n sul tant (fo rme rl y C ity of Eugene
Transportation Engineer, Division M anager)
(541) 9 12-1209
d ave@ reinhard tran s.com
Mic h ael R onkin
Program M anager
Orego n D epartment ofTransportation
(503) 986-3555
mi ch ae l. p.ronkin@state.or.u s
Bicycle Countermeasure Selec tio n System Ca se Stud ies 195
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA #12
~loating Bike Lanes in Conjunction with
Part-Time Parking
BACKGROUND
The Embarca dero is a wa terfro nt arterial in San Fran cis-
co that re place d a fr eeway h eavil y dama ge d by th e Loma
Prieta E arthqu ake of 198 9. T h e roadway varies from four to
six lan es (two to three in eac h direction) and now handles
weekday traffi c volumes of 40,000-50,000 ve hicl es per da y.
Aft e r the roadway was co n st ru c te d and w hil e the area
alon g th e wa t e rfront continued its e voluti on, it was d e te r-
mine d in some areas that there was a n eed for on-street
p arking during non-peak traffic p e riods. During p eak pe-
riods, the re would b e a tow-away res tric ti o n to uncove r
a third trav el lane in each direction. While the acco m-
modation of bi cycli sts was inte nded along th e le ngth of
th e roadway, the re was a probl e m with how to str ip e or
d es ignate space for cyclists to use along th e sec tions with
p ar t-time p arking.
One option was to strip e two rows of sh are d lane mark-
ings along eac h direc tion of th e roadway, one along th e
c urb to show where cycl ists would ride w h en the re was
n o p arking allowed and the oth e r farth er away from the
curb when p arking wa s allowed. This was rejected on th e
b as is that two rows of bi cycle specifi c m arkings would
b e confusing to ro ad u se rs. Al so, it generally is d es irabl e
to explore options which g ive cy cli sts their own striped
sp ace on the roadway b efo re acce pting sh are d lane mark-
ings in n arrow lanes.
COUNTERMEASURES
To give cyclists a de signa ted spa ce along th e sec tion of
roadway w ith p art-time p arking, the d es ign shown in
196
Michael Sa l laberry, PE, Associate Transp ortation
Eng ine er , San Francis co Department of Parking
and Traffic
Case Studies Bicycle Countermeasure Select ion System
"Floating Bike Lane" when parking is allowed
The Embarcadero, Harrison to Howard Streets
I
Figure l. Cyc li st using space be tween parked cars and first lane .
"Floating Bike Lane" when no parking is allowed
The Embarcadero, Harrison to Howard Streets.
Shoulder for
cyclists
Figure 2. Northbound Emb arcadero floa t ing bike lane
during t ow-away.
figures 1 and 2 was c hose n . Whe n parking is allowed,
cyclists u se the spac e between th e p ar ke d ca r s and th e
so lid 10.2 cm (4 in)-wide white strip e, a sp ace about
2.1 m (7 ft) wide dependi ng how close ca rs park to the
curb. W h e n parking is not all owed, as sh own in Figure
2, cyc li sts move to the r ight and u se the 1 .5 m (5 ft)-
wide should er. Motorists are abl e to use the third lane,
Figure 3. Cross-hatching at beginning of part -time bike -park-
ing lane, northbound Embarcadero.
w hich at 3 m (10 ft) wide is narrow, but wide eno u gh
to accommodate the ge n e ra ll y slowe r traffi c speeds one
would exp ect during peak hours.
Before this d es ign, there was some trial and error along
t h e way. The 10.2 cm (4 in) solid white lin e shown 4.5
m (15 ft) from th e curb in Figure 1 initially was farther
ou t at 4 .7 m (15 ft , 6 in) and broken, like a typical lane
line .Whil e this allowed for a 3.2 m (10 ft 6 in) motor ve-
hicle lan e when no p arking was allowed, it also created a
wider spa ce alongsid e the parked ca rs when p arking was
all owed .The space looke d like a typical travel lane but ac-
tually was too narrow to accommodate traffic. The result
was th at motorists used the spa ce and sid esw ip e d parked
cars, fi lling the space intended for cycl ists.
To m ake the space b etwee n the first 10.2 cm (4 in)-wide
lane li ne and the p arked ca rs seem less like a travel lane
to motorists when parking is all owed, the 10.2 cm (4 in)-
wide white line wa s moved close r to the curb face. It was
also made so lid to discourage crossing and make the lane
see m less like a travel lane. The parking T's, initi all y 2.1 m
(7 ft) from the c urb, were relocated to be 2.4 m (8 ft) from
the curb and painted with longer stems. The placement
was meant to further narrow the space by e n co urag ing
people to park their cars fa rther from th e curb while the
longer stems were t o make th e sp ace seem less like a trave l
lane. And fina ll y, cross hatching was added in the 3 m (10
ft) space at the beginning of the floating bike lan e sec-
tions to further discourage motorists from u sing the space
when parking was allowed (see figure 3). While this was
meant to make the space narrower and less attractive to
motorists when parking is allowed, it sti ll remains wide
and attractive to cyclists.
Would these efforts to make the space less attractive to
motorists when p arking was allowed result in the space
not being used by motorists when parking was restricted
and th ey were expected to drive in the third lane? From
Figure 4. Merge sign, southbound Embarcadero at beginning
of part-time bike-parking lane.
observations, motorists use the 3 m (10 ft)-wide third
lane as intended when p arking is not allowed. The t h eory
is that w h ile it does not look like a conventional lane, mo-
torists, es pecially when traffi c congestio n reaches ce rtain
leve ls (s uch as during p eak hours), will u se whatever rea-
sonable space is ava ilabl e to them. An analogy is that th e
design works as a pressure release va lve w ith the unusual-
lo oking third lane used o nl y w h en traffic levels reach a
certain level.
Use of signs assoc iated with this unusual arrangement
h as been m.inimal. While it was tempting to place signs
along these stretches to explain what is going on, initial
sign designs were too complicated or incomplete.Though
signs always were an option if the roadway lane markings
were not sufficient, it was determined that signs expl ain-
ing the part-time u se of the space were not necessary.
The only signs pertinent to the design are the tow-away
signs (c ircled in Figure 1) and the merge sign used in
the southbound direction (fig ure 4). There, three full-time
lanes ente r the sectio n with the floating bike lane, and the
three lanes narrow to two travel lan es when parking is al-
lowed. Bike route sign s are also along this area.
There h ave been some calls to install bicycle markings
on the street. But as mentioned earlier, two sets of mark-
ings would b e necessary for cyclists as they shift from one
space to another, resulting in a confusing arrangement.
Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System Case Studies 197
Cyclists t e nd to stay to the right, so when there is no
parking allowe d , th ey n aturally ride in the 1.5 m (5 ft )-
wide shoulde r. Whe n parking is allowe d , they ride in the
sp ace b etwee n th e parking and the 10.2 cm (4 in) so lid
white strip e.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
While th e re has not been a quantitative evaluation of th e
design, observations indicate the sp ace is now working
as intended. Fee dba ck from cycl ists, motorists, and e m-
ployees of the P o rt of Sa n Francisco along the Embar-
cadero h as b ee n utili zed throughout the process. Initial
feedback and observations yie lde d t h e m o di fica tions t o
th e d es ign, while the good feed back and lack of negative
fe e dba c k h ave reflected observations that the design es-
se ntially works. The primary comm e nt h eard now is that
there should b e pavement markings for cyclists, but the
pote ntial co nfu si on ca u sed by tryi n g to mark a shifting
sp ace would likely o u tweigh any b e n efi ts.
The de sign resu lt of thi s trial and error pro cess to accom-
modate cyc li sts al ong a roadway with part-time parking is
sh own in Figures 1 and 2. If this ap proach of creating shift-
ing bike lanes is use d, the key is to not make the space be-
tween the parked ca rs and the first 10 .2 cm (4 in) lane lin e
too w id e.With the 10.2 cm (4 in) lan e line initially 4.7 m
(15 ft 6 in) from th e c urb , the space was wide enou gh to at-
tract motorists when p arking was allowed.This 4.7 m (15 ft
6 in) width resulted in sideswipes with p arked ve hicl es and
motorists in th e sp ace intended for cycli sts. Another key is
to en sure that tra ffic levels are reasonably accommodated
w h en parking is allowed so that th ere is less temptation to
try to u se the space intended for cyc li sts.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
B ased o n o bserva tions, generally good feedback from cy-
cli sts and lack of signifi cant negative feedback, the c urrent
design is conside red effec ti ve . Whil e not perfect, w ith its
sli ghtly confu sing, unorthodox d es ign , it successfull y ac-
co mmodates cycli sts, p art-time o n-stree t p arking, and m o-
torists needing additional ca pa city during peak hours. It
does so w ith minimal signs, lea ding one to conclude that
while the d es ign is unorth odox, it uses fairly predictable
road-user b eh av ior to its advan tage. Cycli sts naturally te nd
to stay to the right, and motorists will u se a space even if it
is not clearly fo r their u se if traffic co n ges ti on reac h es cer-
tain leve ls and th e space is reasonably accommodating.
198 Case St udies Bicyc le Cou ntermea su re Select ion System
COSTS AND FUNDING
Costs of the final design are typical of basic striping and sig-
nage projects. However, the amount of re-striping and trial
and error did add to the final cost. Costs were not tracke d .
CONTACT
Mic h ael Sallaberry
San Francisco D epartment of Parking and Traffic
(415) 554-2351
nuke.sallab e rry@sfgov.org
PORTLAND, OREGON #13
Incorporating a Bicycle Lane through a
Streetcar Platform
BACKGROUND
Bicycl e lan es on NW Lovejoy Stree t i n P o r tl and h ave
lon g se rv i ce d an imp ortant bi cycle co nn ec ti o n b e twee n
Northwes t P o r tl a n d an d Portland's inn e r ea st side . N o rth-
wes t Portla nd is Orego n 's most d e n se ly d eve lop e d res i-
d e nti al area, includes m any sh are d -u se d eve lo pme nts and
is a gatew ay to o n e of the ci ty 's indu stri al e mploy m ent
di stri cts. One e d ge o f the di stri c t is also one o f Portl and 's
fas tes t re d eveloping sh are d-u se n eig hborhoods. Th e
n e ighbor h ood is co nnec te d ac ro ss th e Will am e tte Riv-
e r to P ortl and 's inner northeas t n e ighb o rh oo d s v ia th e
Broadway B r idge. The eas tside n e ig hbo rho o d s are simi-
lar, though no t as d e n se as those o n the wes t , a nd h os t
m any c onune rc ial es tabli shme n ts, includin g th e t h ri ving
Lloyd Distri c t .
The introdu c ti o n o f a streetca r line on NW Lovejoy pre-
se nte d a di ffic u lt probl e m fo r m aintaining bi cy cl e fac ili-
ti es on th e st ree t . (Bi cycles are n ot all owe d o n stree t cars.)
A stree tc ar platform at th e inte rsec ti o n o f Lovej oy an d
13 th ext e nds to the ed ge o f th e trav el lane . The stree tcar
trac ks run p arall e l to the platform a nd 45.7 cm (18 in )
from the c urb fa ce. Thro u gh cycli sts w e re fa ce d wi th th e
pote ntial of a droppe d bike lan e and 45 .7 cm (18 i n) of
cl earance b etween th e p arall el trac k s and an 27 . 9 cm (1 1
in) c urb exp os ure. O ne con sid e rati o n was to drop th e b i -
cy cle lane and imple m e nt an o ut-o f direc t io n d e to ur th at
invo lve d an unco ntroll e d le ft-turn onto a busy arterial
w ithout bi cy cl e fa c ili ti es .
COUNTERMEASURES
The solutio n eve ntu all y adopte d was to ca rry th e bicy cl e
lan e up onto the stree tcar p latform. W e did seve ral thin gs
Roger Ge ller, Bi cycle Co ord in at o r, City of Po rt-
land , Or egon
Street leve l b ike lane is div erted to behind a stree t car p latform.
to slow cycli sts e nte ring the p latform -th e on-st re et lane
run s into an area of h eavil y bru sh e d con cre te and the
m o uth of the ramp e nte rin g th e platform is n arrow and
e nte r s th e platfor m at a mode rate an gle . W e m ad e sure to
disting uish this area from the res t of the p latfo rm to al e rt
p e d es trians to the pres ence o f cycli sts. The bike lan e area
o n the p latfo r m is m arke d w ith two bike ste n cil s and is
borde red w ith brick. It also h as a diffe rent texture than
the o th e r area s of th e platform. A t th e e nd o f the platform
th e bike lane rej o ins the stree t.
EVALUATION AND RES U LTS
T h e fac ili ty h as b e en ope rating for some time w ith n ei-
th e r incid e nt nor complaint. A more ch all e n gin g tes t will
Bi cyc le Countermeasu re Selection Sys te m Case Stud ies 199
View of bike lane and street car platform.
co m e whe n a n ea rby multi-story res id e ntial development
is comple te d and the u se of thi s streetcar platform g rows.
Another c hall e n ge for the platform co uld b e the proposed
d evelopme nt of a supermarket, w hi ch co uld dramaticall y
inc rease cycli sts' us e of th e platfo rm and the stree t.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
The innova ti ve pla cem ent of the bike lane h as operated
well so far. More w ill b e lea rne d as n earby d eve lopment
tak es pla ce.
Bicyclists travel behind th e transit stop platform to reduce
potential co nflicts with stopped streetcars and passengers.
200 Case Stud ie s Bicycle Countermea sure Se le ction System
COSTS AND FUNDING
Proj ect cos ts are unknown , as c h an ges were p ar t of a larg-
er stree t improvement proj ec t. The platform was to b e
built as p art of th e street ca r proj ec t . Additions to adapt
the pl atform to a bikeway invo lve d brickwork , m arkings
a nd ramp and were not c ostl y.
CONTACT
R oge r G ell er
Bi cy cl e Coordinator
City of Portland Office ofTransportation
11 20 SW 5th Ave nu e, Room 800
Portland , OR 97204
(5 03) 823-767 1 (voice)
(5 03) 823-7609 (fax)
TDD: (503) 823-6868
roger. ge ll e r @ pdxtran s.org
http :/ l wv.rw. portlandtransportation .org/bi cy cl es / d efa ult .
htm
'
LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA #14
Red Shoulders as a Bicycle Facility
BACKGROUND
A scenic road in Lake Co unty, Florida, is the subj ect of
this evaluation. Lakeshore Drive is abo u t 8 km (5mi) in
length and li es between Mount Dora and Tavares, a pair of
communities located about 56 km (35 nu) northwes t of
O rl an do.The road is under both city and county jurisdic-
tion, al though m aintenance is performed by th e co unty.
The location is popular with bicycl ists and wa lkers. Lake
County has so m e hilly terrai n and is frequented by bi-
cyclists riding for physical fitness or pre p aring for races.
Bicycling groups from the Orlando area often ride on
Lakeshore Drive as part of longer bike rides. The route
is also used ext en sively durin g the Mount Dora Bicycle
Fes ti va l each fa ll .
In the early 1990s, the road was slated to receive sh o ulders.
Residents who feared that spee ds wo uld in c rease w ith the
ad dition of sho uld ers opposed the project. The Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) su gges ted that
pai nti ng the sho uld ers nught b e a treatment that co ul d be
ada pted from E u rope . Even though the travel lan es would
remain at approximately 2.9 m (9.5 ft ), adding sh o ulde rs
wo uld physically w i den the cross-sectio n . The p ainting of
th e sh o ul ders was intended to m ake the road ap p ear no
wider than before.
COUNTERMEASURES
In th e summer of 1996, a 1.8 km (1.1 nu) sec ti o n of th e
road was widened with 0. 9 m (3 ft) shoulders. T h e sh o ul -
ders were colore d red with a p aint that is u se d on tennis
courts (figure 1).
William W. Hunter, Senior Research Scientist,
UNC Highway Safety Research Center
Figure 1. Vi ew of the red s hou ld ers.
The 1.8 m (1.1 ni.i) tre ate d sec tion of road has a 56 km/h
(35 mph) sp eed limit and is primarily a t\'io-lan e rural
roadway with about 1 , 700 ve h icles p e r da y. T h ere are t\'lo
m ain intersections alo n g the sec ti on w h e re th e sho ul d er s
h ave been p ainted red. I n one area a railro ad divides th e
road into two one-lane sections. At the end of this sec ti on
a roun dabout h as been added, w ith the rail road exte nding
through the roundabo ut and th e colore d sh oulders e nd-
ing at th e entry to the roundabout. Several more inter-
sec tions (s top-sign -controlled) intersec t Lakes hore Drive
along the red sh o uld er section.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
The evalu ati o n exa nuned several it em s. T h e treatment
produ ce d a n on-slipp ery surface that maintained its ap-
p eara n ce rath er well for some time afte r th e initial paint-
ing.Th e m ost obviou s di sco lorations occurred at lo ca tions
with freq u e nt motor vehicle traffic, su ch as m ail trucks
stopping at m ail boxes.
The Lake County Department of Public Services col-
lec te d sp ee d data b efo re and after the addi tion of th e
red shoulders to deternune if motor vehicl e speeds h ad
ch anged.Videotape was taken of bi cycl ist s traveling along
Bi cycle Counte rmea sure Selection Sys tem Case Stud ie s 201
the roadway at sec tions w i th and witho ut red shoulders.
B es ides d e t e rmining whether the shoulder was used by
bicy clists, the lateral positioning of bicyclists being pa sse d
by motor vehicles was d e t e rmine d , along w ith the amount
and severity of ve hic ul ar encroachme nt into the oppos-
ing lan e of tra ve l. If e n croac hme nt occurred, confli c ts
b etween the pass ing and o n co ming motor ve hicles were
recorded. In additio n , any co nflicts b etween motor ve-
hicles and bi cycles were recorded . Also, the Lake County
D e p artme nt of Public Works d evelop e d a questionnaire
that was administe red to bi cycli sts riding along Lakes hore
Drive to obtain fee dba ck co n ce rning the red shoulde r s.
Evaluation of the red sh ould ers considered a var iety of
iss u es . M ajor findings are highli ghted b elow:
Full-time bicyclist u se of the sh oulder tended to b e
aro und 80 p ercent, and another six p erce nt u se d the
shoulder partiall y.
• The frequency of motor ve hicles e n croaching over th e
ce nte r line w hen pass in g a bi cycli st was grea t e r at th e
site without red sh oulders.
• The sever ity of e n croachme nt was fairly eve nly split
b e tween minor, modera t e, and seve re at the re d shoul-
d er site. Almost 93 p e rce nt of the e n croac hme nts were
severe at the site without re d shoulde r s.
• There were no motor ve hicl e-to-motor ve hicle co n -
flicts when passing a bicycli st at th e red shoulder site,
and there w e re eight (fo ur minor and four se rious) at
the si te w itho ut red sh o uld ers .
• Bicycli sts positioned th ems elves about the sa m e di s-
tanc e (a b o u t 0.5 m (1.5 ft )) from th e edge o f pavem e nt
on both the red sh oulder and non-red sh o ulde r sites.
• T h e spac ing b e tween bi cy cl es and p ass ing motor ve-
hicles was statisti cally significantly grea t er (a bout 0.1
m (0.6 ft )) at the site w ithout red shoulders.
• Mean and 85th percen til e speeds sh owed little differen ce
before and after the place ment of the red shoulder.
202
Survey res ponses sh owed that 80 p erce nt of the re-
sponde nts thought the red shoulde r s resulte d in no
c hange in the speed of ca r s and tru ck s. More than
85 p e rc e nt res ponded that th e re was m o re spa ce b e-
twee n bicycles and passing motor vehicles with the
re d should e r s in place, eve n thoug h ac tu al meas ure-
m e nts of sp ac ing distan ce showe d g r eater cl eara n ce
between bicy cle s and motor ve hicl es on th e sec tion
Case Studies Bicycle Countermea sure Se le ction Sys tem
of roadway with o ut red shoulde r s. A final survey re-
sponse showed tha t almost 80 percent thou g ht the
re d sh oulders made them feel sa fer than ordinary un-
p ainte d sh oulders. Thus, bi cycli st comfort level was
increase d by installing t h e re d sh ould ers.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
The re d sh o ulder sec tion of road way not only h as b een
well rece ive d but also h as fun c ti oned well in an o p era-
ti o nal se n se. T h e comfort level of bi cycli sts appears to be
grea te r on the red sh o ulder sec tion, w hic h m atc he s the
res ults of a recent Federal Hi gh way Administration study
focused on th e development of a bicycl e co mpatibility
index (B C I), a means o f meas uring th e "bicycle fr ie ndli-
n ess" of a ro adway (H arkey, R e infu r t , Knuiman, Stew-
art, and Sorton , 1998). In thi s study the variabl e with the
larges t effec t on the index was the prese n ce of a bicycle
lane or pave d shoulder. In other words, the presence of a
bicycle lan e or p aved shoulder increase d the comfort level
more than any other fac tors.
U se of the sh oulder was quite hi gh. Riders w ho did not
u se the re d shoulder te nde d to b e part of a gro up, where
th e typical pla cement was to h ave one o r more following
cycli sts riding to the left of lea d cyclists for safety pur-
poses. In addition, cyclists in pairs ofte n rode abreas t so
they co uld converse. C hildren also had a te nde n cy to b e
p ar tial us e r s of the red shoulde r s, w ith a tendency to cross
b ac k and forth across the road.
P erh ap s the most important evalu ati on parame te r was the
spee d of motor ve hicl e traffic before and after the pla ce-
ment of the re d sho ulders. The primary intent of the red
sh o uld ers was to crea te a visual sense of no w idening of
the road, which would lea d to no increase in traffi c sp ee d.
This app ea rs to b e th e case. One co uld spec ul ate that the
ge neral c urvy alignme nt of the roadway co uld also h ave a
b ea ring on this result; however, the section of the roadway
w h ere the re d sh o uld er was install ed is rel ati vely straight.
COSTS AND FUNDING
The cos t of p ainting the 1.8 m (1.1 mi) sec tion of red
shoulders (in both travel direc ti ons) was approxi mately
$6,600. The widening and res urfacing cos ts amo unted to
$173,000.
REFERENCES
Harkey, D.L., R einfurt, D.W, Knuiman, M., Stewart,J.R.,
and Sorton, A., D evelop ment ef th e Bi cycle Co mp atibility
Ind ex : A Level of Serv ice Concept, R eport N o. FHWA-
RD-98-072, Fed eral Highway Administration, Wash-
ington, DC, D ecemb er 1998.
Hu nter, WW, Stewar t , JR., Stutts, J.C., Huang, H.F.,
and Pein, WE ., A Compa rati ve Analy sis of Bicycl e Lan es
ve rsu s Wide Cu rb Lan es : Final R epo rt , Publi ca tion No.
FHWA-RD-99-034, Fed eral Highway Administra-
tion , Washington , DC, October 1999.
CONTACT
William W Hunter
UNC Highway Safety R esea rch Cent er
730 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd , Suit e 300
C h apel Hill , NC 27599-3430
(9 19) 962-8716
bill_hunter@unc.ed u
The modification (red shoulders) that is the
subject of this case study is not compliant with
the Manual on Uniform Traffi c Control Devices ,
nor is it currently being co nsid ered for inclusion.
Accord i ngly, it is impera tive that any jurisdic-
tion w is hing to uti I ize red shoulders (or any other
non -approved traffic contro l device) shou Id seek
experimental approval from the Federal Highway
Admini strat ion. For information on how to do so,
please visit this Web site: http ://mutcd .fhwa .dot.
gov/kno-amend. htm .
Bicy cle Countermeasure Se lect ion System Case Studie s 203
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA #15
Conversion of 14-foot-wide Outside Lanes
to 11-foot Travel Lanes with a 3-foot
Undesignated Lane
BACKGROUND
In the early 1990s, the City of Fort Laude rd ale redesigned
SRAlA, the famous Fort Lauderdal e "s trip." It went from
a three-l an e cro ss-sec tion with h ea d-in parking on th e
ocean side and a narrow sidewalk on the commercial side
to a four-lan e di vide d ro adway with a 4 .3 m (1 4 ft )-wide
o utside lan e and 2.4 m (8 ft)-wide sidewalks on both
sides. Shortly aft e r the comple tion of the initial redesign,
the city b ega n receiving complaints ab o ut bicycli st and
p e d es trian co nfli c ts on th e b eac h side sidewalk. Whil e th e
typical section included a "bi cy cl e fa c ili ty," only th e profi-
cient bi cyc li st was comfortable mixing with traffic in th e
4.3 m (14 ft)-wide outsid e lane . As the complaints co n-
tinu ed to rise, th e city b egan re questing that the Fl orid a
Departme nt ofTransportation (FDOT) add 1.2 m (4 ft)
bi cy cle lan es. The re w as conside rable di sc u ss io n b etween
the city of Fo rt Laude rd ale , the FDOT a nd the Broward
County Bi cyclin g Adviso ry C ommittee ab o ut re du c ing
the outside travel lanes to 3 m (10 ft) and putting in
l.2 m (4 ft) bi cy cl e lanes. It was d ec id ed to try 0.9 m (3
ft ) m arke d bicycl e lanes (F igure 2) n ext to 3.4 m (11 ft)
trave l lanes. During disc u ss ions, co n cerns we re rai se d that
there mi g ht b e increas es in wrong-way ridin g and turning
confli cts at h otel drivew ays .
COUNTERMEASURES
A 0.9 m (3 ft ) bike lan e was inco rporated into th e w ide
outside lane (fi gure 1). B e ca u se this was a pilot projec t , the
exis ting e dge stripe was le ft in p lace. Standard bi cy cle lane
p ave m ent m arkings and signs were added to ide ntify the
lan e as a bi cy cl e faci li ty.
204
Ma rk Ho row itz , Sp ecial Pro j ects Co ordinator IV,
Bi cyc l e Coordinator, Broward County De pt. of
Plannin g and Env i ron mental Prot ec ti on
Case Studies Bicycle Countermea sure Selection System
Figure 1. SR AlA with a 0.9 m (3 ft) marked bike lane. Sub-
standard w idt h lane s are no longer marked or des ignated as a
bicyc le facility.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
The proj ec t was evalu at e d by seve ral m ea ns. The local
bi cycle coordinat o r t es ted th e facility by bicy cl e; m em-
b ers of the County's Bi cyclin g Adviso ry Committee and
FDOT Staff co ndu c te d observati o n s of th e bi cycli sts on
the sidewalk and in th e u ndes ignated lan e, and surveyed
bicy cli sts u sing the undes ignate d lan e . In addition, the
complaints rega rding bi cy cl e and p e des trian co nfli cts re -
ce ive d by th e city decrease d .
O ve rall , the evaluation of the facility was positive.Th e on-
bike tes t by th e •bicy cl e coordinator found that while the
strip e did provide an additional m eas ure of traffi c control
and bi cy cli st comfort leve l increase d , it was th e minimum
width that sh ould b e strip e d . The o b servations of bicycle
rider ship showe d a d ecrease in sid ewalk ridin g and co n-
ve r se ly an increase in bi cy cli sts riding in the street.Th e bi-
cycli st surveys reveale d t h at th e majority of bicycli sts w e re
glad the lan e was prese nt but thought it w as too n arrow.
B efo re th e in stall ati on of the lan e, the cl ub cyc li st typified
the bi cy cli st in the street . Aft e r in stall ation , cy cli sts with a
wider va ri e ty of exp e rience level s were us in g the 0.9 m
(3 ft ) lane. In this instanc e the concerns about an increase
in wro ng-way riding were not va lidated . Howeve r, thi s is
' ,
Figure 2 . Along US 1 an existing 4 .2 m (14 ft) outside lane
was converted to an 3 .3 m (11 ft) travel lane ne xt to 0. 9 m (3
ft) undesignated lane , or urban paved shoulder.
most likely b eca u se the m ajor attrac tion to the area is the
b e ach , a nd the re w as a signific a nt amount of w rong-way
riding on the b eac h sid e b e fore the install ati o n . Additi o n -
ally, wrong-way ridi ng did not increase o n the o pposite
side of the stree t , n or was the re an inc re ase in turning
co nfli c ts at th e numero us hotel driveways .
While this tes t w as su ccess ful, the FDOT ultimate ly d e-
cided to re du ce th e w idths of all four trave l lan es to 3 .2 m
(10 .5 ft ) and put in a 1.2 m (4 ft) m ark e d bike lan e.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
The tes t o f the 0 . 9 m (3 ft ) bike lan e w as su ccess ful. It
re duce d bi cy clist and p e d es trian co nfli c ts on th e sid ew alk
and increase d the bi cycli st's comfort level wh e n riding
in the stree t . The pre di c te d n egati ve impa cts of in crease d
wrong-way riding and increase d c onfli c ts with turning
ve hicle s did not mate ri ali ze in this inst an ce.
This de sign h as b een sli ghtl y modifi ed from th e original
t es t and does not include bike lan e p ave m e nt marking o r
signs . It is n ow b e in g u se d by both th e FDOT and Bro-
wa rd County Public W o rk s w ith ab o ut 7 5 km (4 7 mi) in
place in B rowa rd County. Fi gure 2 shows U.S . 1 in Fort
La ude rdale w ith a 4 .3 m (14 ft)-wide outsid e lane th at h as
b een c onve rte d to a 3.4 m (11 ft) trave l lane with a 0.9 m
(3 ft) undes ign ate d lan e.
Browa rd Coun ty has included th e 0.9 m (3 ft) undes -
igna t e d lan e in its Land D evelopme nt Code as a d es ign
alt e rna ti ve w h e n ri ght-of-way is constrain e d. Browa rd
C ounty's Traffic Eng ineering Division h as m ad e a sp ec ial
e ffort to strip e a 0 . 9 m (3 ft ) undes ign ate d lan e on exi st-
ing 4.3 m (14 ft ) outside lan es . T h e Unive r sity o f N o rth
Carolin a High way Safety R esearc h Cente r is study ing the
conve rsions.
Und es ign ate d lan es are in pl ace o r pl anne d for u se
throughout Brow ard C o unty on major arterials as well
as coll ec tors with ADTs ran g ing fro m 2 5 ,000 to 45 ,000
ca r s p e r d ay. A s was obse rve d in the o riginal evaluation,
the undes igna t e d lan e is use d by bicy cli sts o f all abiliti es
(fi gure 4). B eca u se of th e 0 .9 m (3 ft) width , the d es ign
sh o uld not b e re fe rred to as a bi cy cl e lan e but as e ither a
0.9 m (3 ft ) undes ignate d lane or an urban sh o uld e r.
B eca use this ty p e of fac ili ty provi d es b e tte r direc tion for
th e m o toring and the bi cy cling public but does not m ee t
c urre nt standard s, bi cy cl e sign age and pa ve m ent m arkings
are not u se d . Additionall y, this fac ility typ e h as b ee n re-
fe rre d to as an undes ign ate d lan e or urban sh o ulder. It
sh o uld b e n o t e d th at re fe r r ing to this fac ili ty as an urban
sh o uld e r h as occasio n all y crea te d so m e confusio n during
th e striping p rocess and h as res ulte d in th e lane b eing
pl ace d to th e right o f a d e di ca te d r ight turn lane in st ead
o f to th e le ft . Additi o n all y, care n ee ds to b e take n dur-
ing the striping process. A sli ght drift to the right whe n
apply ing the strip e c ould eas il y res ult in a 0.8 m (2 .5 ft)
lan e.
COSTS AND FUNDING
During new co n stru c tion the install ation cos t is sli ghtl y
more than pl ac ing an e d ge strip e. The co st in Broward
C ounty to conve rt a 4.3 m (14 ft) w id e lan e to an 3 .3 m
(l lft) trave l lan e w ith a 0.9 m (3 ft ) undes ign at ed lane is
app roxim ately $0 .3 7 /ft to strip e th e lan e. Removal of th e
e d ge strip e is approximately $1/ft . Broward Co unty h as
c hose n not to re move th e exis tin g e d ge strip e.
REFERENCES
AASHTO, Guidelin es for th e D evelopm ent ef Bi cy cle Faciliti es
Fe d e ral Highway Adminstration
Manu al on Unifor m Traffi c Co ntro l D ev ices, 2 000 Edition
Bi cyc le Countermeasure Selection System Case Studies 205
CONTACTS
M ark H orowitz
Special Projects Coordinator IV, Bicycle Coordinato r
Broward County Dept. of Planning and Environmental
Protecti o n .
(95 4) 519-1487
mhorowitz@broward .org
Beatriz Caicedo, P.E .
FDOT District IV
(954) 777-4336
206 Ca se Studie s Bic ycle Countermea sure Se lect ion System
t
,
TUCSON, ARIZONA #16
Preferential Transit-Bicycle-Right-Turn
Lanes on Broadway Boulevard
BACKGROUND
Broadway Boulevard is a major, six-lan e divided arte rial
roa d way in T u cson, Ariz ona, tha t ca rries over 30,000
ca r s p e r d ay. All of the la ne s were co nstru c t e d b e twee n
3 .7 m (12 ft) a nd 4.3 m (14 ft ) wide, exce pt th e c urb
lanes w hich were construc te d b etween 6. 7 m (22 ft) and
7 .3 m (24 ft) w i d e with no parking allowed . Orig inall y,
the plan inte nded the curb la n es to b e wide enough to
fac ilitat e turns into a nd o ut o f the nume rous driveways
along the strip sh opping co rridors w it h out im pa c ting
through traffic along the arte ri al. The wide r curb lane
was d es ig n ed to all ow drivers t o position th e ir vehicles
n ext to th e lane strip e wh e n trave lin g stra ig ht a h ea d and
only p ull clo se r to the c urb when turning r ig ht into
t h e business driveways , keeping the faster lanes cl ear.
In addition , the wide r c urb lane was inte nde d to ass ist
public transit vehicle operations by g iving th em an op-
portunity t o travel more slowly a nd stop fr e qu e ntly for
A comb i nation bus, bi cycle, and right-turn lane was separated
from a former 6.7-7.3 m (22-24 ft) multi -use, wide cu rb lane .
Richard B. Nassi, Transportation Administrator,
City of Tucson
Shell ie Ginn, Bicycle Coordinator, City of Tucson
p asse ngers m rel a tive safety n ext to the c urb and not
imp act the m ain fl.ow of traffi c .
Unfortunately, the ac tual operation of th e w ide r lanes did
n o t fulfi ll their d es ign intent. After the co n stru ction of the
road sys tem, a se ri es of cras h es o ccurred involving right-
turning ve hicles entering the driveways and colliding with
the slower-moving public transit ve hicles. In addition, there
was no cle ar area for bi cycli sts to ride. The wide lan e did not
provide e n ough guidance to less-s kill ed drivers and a num-
b e r of drivers fail ed to position their ve hicle prope rly as th ey
b ega n their turn.Approximatel y 20 p erce nt of these cras h es
invo lve d tur ning ve hicl es and publi c tran sit ve hicl es.
COUNTERMEASURES
Th e proble m was studied and rev iewe d by transit and
traffic pra c titi oners and the d ec ision was m ade to divide
the wide c urb lan e into two lanes. The wide outside lane
was divided and th e n ew c urb lan e was strip ed as a prior-
ity B US and RIGHT TUR NS O N LY, EXCEPT BIKES,
lane. This trea tme nt provid e d cl eare r direc tion as to how
the lan es were to b e used and w h e re drive rs sh ould posi-
tion their ve hicles wh e n turning into driveways. Transit
vehicle op erators ca n operate in the c urb lan e, away from
the faste r throug h traffi c lanes, thu s reducing the potential
for cras h es as th ey stop to board or dis e mbark p asse n gers.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
The splitting of th e wide c urb lan e worked very w ell
and eve ntu all y was include d in the d es ign of othe r stree ts
w ith wid e curb la nes. The sys te m now h as b een in op-
era ti on for ove r 22 years throughout T u cson on ab o ut
22.5 km (14 mi) of arterials. Th e reocc urring sideswip e,
rea r-e nd and turning type cras h es fell to ve r y low levels,
Trans it manage m e nt also note d tha t t h e lanes h elp ed in
oth e r areas in addition to se rvice and sa fe ty. Sun Tran, the
lo ca l tran sit agency, indicated the priori ty lane see m ed
Bi cycle Counte rm easure Selectio n System Case Studies 207
to in crease bus drive r m orale and ultimately made the ir
jobs eas i er. Equally imp ortant , the prefe rential transi t /
bike lan e prov i d e d a m ea n s of making the ci ty's tran sit
sys te m more visibl e to the communi ty, especiall y in a
time of e n ergy co n se r vation, an d e n co uraged alte rnate
mod es of tra n sportation .
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
T h e priority transit lane st riping worke d as exp ec te d and
the re oc c urring cra sh es fe ll to low levels. The lan es have
now bee n in operation, ci ty-wid e, for approxima t ely 22
yea r s. Once th e lane sys t em was install e d in oth er portions
of t h e city, cra sh involvem e nt b e twee n trans it vehicl es and
other motor ve hicles was red u ced.
The operation is transfera bl e to other jurisdic ti o n s w ith
similar roadway ge ome tric and land u se patterns. The
mix ing of the va rious transi t an d bi cycle modes h as not
prove n to b e a proble m . The se paration of the turning
vehicles, faster throu gh ve hicles and the trans it vehicles
solve d th e safety problems.
COSTS AND FUNDING
The proj ec t was fund e d under th e City ofTu cso n m ain-
te nanc e budge t . The cost fo r markings and signs is mini-
mal -in the ran ge of approximately $100 p er sign, poste d
approximately every fifth of a ki lomete r (e ighth of a mile),
and painted pave ment di amond adj acent to each sign .
REFERENCES
The strip es and signs of the pre fer e nti al Transit-Bicycle
lane can be found in th e Fe deral Highway Administra-
tio n 's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control D ev ices.
CONTACTS
Richard B. Nassi
Transportation Administrator
City ofTucson
(520) 791-4259
Shellie Ginn
Bicy cle Coordinator
City ofTucson
(520) 791-4372
208 Case Stud ies Bicyc le Cou ntermeasure Se lection System
MADISON, WISCONSIN #17
Taming the Urban Arterial
BACKGROUND
The one-mile d owntown segment of University Av en u e
is a major arte rial roadway that cuts through th e h eart
of the University of Wisconsin camp us. In view of the
signifi cance of University Avenue to local p e d es tri an and
o the r traffic ci rc u lati on on the University campus, as well
as to the broader conununity traveling to and through
downtown Madison, there was a b road-based com_mu-
nity input and review process engagin g local officials and
the publi c that co n sid ered the safety a nd acconunodation
nee ds of pedestrians, bicycles, and motor ve hicl es alo n g
this corridor before selection of the reconm1ended design
cross-sec ti on and reconstru ction in 1983.
Before reconstruction, th ere were three eas tb o und
through traffic lan es, a c urb lan e designated for buses,
bicycles and right turns only, plus a 3.4 m (11 ft )-wide
contrafl ow bus lane, w hi ch eas tb o und bi cycles were also
permitted to sh are . Roadway fa ciliti es and infras truc ture
were out of date and in p oor condition. Acconm1oda-
tions for buses, bi cycles, a nd pedestrians were consid ered
inadequate. Numerous d es ign concepts, alte rnatives, and
cross-sec ti ons, es p ecially for accommodating eas tbound
b us and bicycle traffic, we re developed for th e Univers ity
Avenue corridor that also incl u ded co n sid era tion of the
parallel one-way J ohnson Stree t . A d e taile d safety rev iew
and conflic t anal ys is was condu ct ed b efo re the se lection
of a d es ign cross-sec ti on. The se lected cross-section pro-
vide d for comp le t e reco n structi on within the existing
right-of-way and include d relo ca tion of eas tbound bus
traffic to West Johnso n Street. This made it poss ib le to
increase the spa ti al acconm10 dation s for p e d es tri an s and
bicyclists while minimizin g the number of co nfli c ts be-
tween m otorize d and non -motorize d traffi c.
Arthur Ross, Pedestrian-Bicycle Coordinator
Tom Walsh , Traffic Engineer
City of Mad ison Traffi c Engineer i ng Division
Univers ity Avenue at Pa r k Street -Before condition with curb
bicycle, bus and right turn on ly lane . Lane to left of co nc rete
divider is a co ntraflow bus lane .
COUNTERMEASURES
The co u ntermeasures/improvements implemented in-
clude the following:
2.4 m (8 ft)-wide westbound bike lan e adj acent t o a
4 m (13 ft)-wide bus and right turn o nl y curb lane
2 .4 m (8 ft )-wid e exclu sive eastb o und co ntrafl ow bike
lane and barrier m e dian b etween this lane and west-
bound through traffic lanes.
• Expansion of 1.8 m (6 ft )-wide pedestrian walk ways
to between 2.4 m (8 ft ) and 3 m (10 ft ).
• Barrier raili ng b etween sidewalks an d roadway to pre -
ve nt midbl ock pedes tri an cross ings.
Wider and enha n ce d p edes tri an crosswalk m arki n gs in-
cluding zebras at th e most desirable cross in g locations
Signal timing improvements to prov ide progressive traf-
fic flow and reduce bi cycle and motor vehicl e co nfli cts
Widened barrier m e di an at intersec ti ons to provide
refuge for left-turning bicyclists
Bicycle Counte rmeasure Selection System Ca se Studies 209
Two views of University Avenue at Park St reet today.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
Unive r sity Ave nu e traffi c c onditions h ave c h an ge d over
th e p as t 2 0 yea r s. Av e rage weekday m o tor ve hicl e traffic
volume inc rease d fr o m ab o ut 22 ,000 ve hicl es p e r d ay in
1980 to 32,000 in 2001 . The t o tal numbe r of bu ses was
re duce d by the e limina ti o n of the c ontrafl ow bus lan e,
but w es tb o und bus traffi c h as re m aine d sta bl e a t about 5 0
buses p e r hour in p e ak h o urs. The combine d eas tbound
and w es tbound bicycl e lan e volumes inc rease d from an
ave r age w eekday low vo lume of 25 and hi gh volume
o f 6,31 0 in 1980 to an ave rage w ee kday low volume o f
3,198 and hi g h volume of 12,749 in the yea r 200 2. (Low
bicy cl e co unts typicall y ar e in J a nu ar y w h e n stude nts
are o n break and w ea ther is cold and sn owy; hig h bi-
cy cl e co unts ty picall y are in Se pte mb e r w h e n Unive r sity
cl asses r es ume aft e r the summe r bre ak .) P e d es trian vol -
ume is extre m e ly high , al th o u gh no c ou n ts are avail able.
Th e Unive r sity Ave nu e corridor is locat e d in the h eart
of the Univers ity camp u s, w ith a n e nro ll ment o f m o re
than 40,000 stude nts. T h e numb e r o f p e d es trian u se r s
along and c ro ss ing Unive r sity Av e nue like ly exceed s th e
numb er o f motor ve hi cle u se r s on a typi c al d ay whe n
cla sses ar e in sess ion.
210 Case Studies Bi cycle Countermeasure Selection System
The corridor imp rove m ents res ulting from recon stru c-
ti o n include:
Fewer co nfli cts between p e d es trians o n wide n e d side-
w alks.
Fewer c onfli cts b etween w es tbound buses and bicy cl es
th at playe d lea p frog prior to reco n struc tion .
Fewe r co nfli c ts b etween wes tb o und bicy cl es and m o-
to r ve hicl es thro u gh se p aration of sp ace for bi cy cl es
ve rsu s through and ri ght-turning m o to r ve hicl es (c re-
ation of sp ace fo r eac h purpose / u se r).
• Eas tbound bu s and bicy cl e c onflic ts w e re eliminate d
through relo ca ti on of bus traffi c t o the p arallel J o hnson
Street arte rial.
R e duc tion in trave l delay and intersec tion cro ss -traf-
fi c confli c ts thro u gh prog ress ive sign al timing for both
w es tbound traffic and eastbound bi cy cl e traffi c.
Traffi c signal s we re re move d fr om o n e low -volume in-
. te rsec ti o n in the corridor, res ulting in improve d signal
prog ress ion fo r wes tb o und traffi c.
A s they a pproa c h the 20-yea r d es ign life of the Unive r-
sity Ave nu e reco n struc tion proj ec t , local offi c ials look
ba c k on the proj ect as a major su ccess, es p eciall y in v iew
o f the large volume o f multi-modal u ses and the lar ge r-
tha n -exp ec t e d inc reases in traffi c vo lume in the corrido r,
w hich still h as few p ro bl e m s. The re h ave b een few com-
plaints o r irres olva bl e proble m s, and the sa fe ty rec ord is
ve ry goo d with n o re m arkable iss u es . Th e primary c on-
fli c ts or c once rns h ave to do w ith turning traffi c, both
le ft - a nd right-turning traffi c c onfli c t s as well as c onfli c ts
with p e d es trian s at inte r sec tions. The limite d numb e r o f
priva t e driveways an d the r ela ti ve ly low volume of turn-
ing traffi c at m os t inte r sec tions al o n g the corrido r h ave
c ontribute d to the go od safety record .
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Lo c al offi cials conclude that improve m e nts w e re su ccess -
ful. It's likely th at if the corridor were recon struc te d to d ay,
the exis ting c ro ss-section would n o t b e c hange d sig nifi-
ca ntly.
COST AND FUNDING
Construction cos ts in 1983-1984 were approximately $1
million and were fund ed by the Fe d e ral Aid Urban Sys-
t em Program (predecessor to the Surface Transportatio n
Program-Urban (STP-U)). Cost sharing was 70 p e rce nt
Fe d e ral , 30 p e rcent lo cal cos t matc h.
REFERENCES
!TE j ournal, Fe bruary 1986 article e ntitl e d "Uniqu e
Roadway D es ign Reduces Bus-Bike Conflicts."Also C ity
of M adi so n Traffic Eng ineering proj ec t and lo ca tion files.
CONTACTS
Arthur Ross, Pedes trian-Bicycl e Coordinator
Tom Walsh , Traffic Engineer
City Of M adison Traffi c Engineering Division
PO Box 2986
Madison,WI 53701-2986
(608 ) 266-4761
traffic @cityofinadison.co m
http:/ /www.cityofinadi so n .com/transp /trindex.html
Bicycle Countermeasure Se le ction System Ca se Studies 211
'
. CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS #18
Contraflow Bicycle Lanes on Urban Streets
BACKGROUND
Citi es that h ave extensive o n e-way street sys t e m s ca n
b e ve ry frustrating for cycl ists to m ane u ver, es p eciall y
b eca u se they often are more affect e d b y major d e tours
or out-of-th e -way trave l than motorist s, both b eca u se
th e time diffe re n ce is g r eate r a nd b ecause th e alterna -
ti ve routes are o ft e n m ore stress fu l o r l ess safe . In addi -
tion , b eca u se of the inherent g rea t er fl exib ility of th e
bi cy cl e, many cy clists will si mply ig no re th e one-way
r es tri c tions and trave l aga inst traffi c, particularly when
traffi c volurn.es and sp eed s on the preferred ro ute d o
n ot prese nt a d e te rre nt.
The re are so m e op ti ons ava ilable in looking at ways to ac -
corn.modate cycli sts on one-way street sys tems. Many cit-
ies and towns in Europe ex pli citly all ow cyclists to trave l
in both direc tions on a one-way street. This u su all y occurs
on very narrow stre e ts wi th ve ry slow traffic, typically in
the core ar eas of old e r ci ti es and towns. Another option
is that sp ec ifi c designated fac ilities b e creat ed to p ermit
trave l in th e opposite direc tion . The co ntrafl ow bike lan e
is a d esign ate d faci li ty marked to all ow bicyclists to trave l
against the fl ow of traffi c on a one-way street .
Th e re are, o f c ourse, safe ty c once rns assoc iat e d w ith
contraflow bike lan es . Motorists and p e d est rians do not
exp ec t bicy clists to b e trave lin g in th e opposite direc -
tion of traffic on one-way streets. Howeve r , co ntraflow
bike lanes h ave b een u se d su ccess full y in so me cities in
the United States (Boulder, CO; Eu gene, OR; Portlan,d ,
OR; M adi son, WI). B u ilding on eva lu ation c riteria d e-
ve lop e d for E u gene, OR, th e city of Cambrid ge looks
at the following conditions when eva lu ating a potential
contraflo w la n e location:
212
Cara Seiderman, Transportation Program Man-
ager, Camb ri dge , MA
Ca se Studies Bicycle Countermea sure Selection System
Sign indicating contraflow bike lanes on Scott Street. Bike
lan e is highlig ht ed with blue pavement.
Safe ty is imp roved b eca u se of redu ce d confli cts;
• Bicy clists can sa fely and conve ni e ntl y re-enter th e traf-
fi c stream at either e nd of th e section;
The co ntraflow bike lan e is short and provides direc t
access to a high-use d es tinati on point;
Th e re are no or few inte r sec ting driveways, all eys or
stre e ts on the side of the propose d contraflow lane;
A substanti al number of cyclis ts are already u sing th e
stree t ;
Th e re is suffi cie nt stree t w idth to acc ommodate a full-
dimension bike lan e;
The co ntrafl ow bike lane provides a substantial sav ings
in o ut-of-directio n travel compared to the route mo-
tor ve hicl es must fo llow ;
The co ntraflow bike l ane provides a si gnifi cantl y im-
proved trave l experience for the cyclist (e.g., allows
cycl ists to avoid a high-volume, hi gh -sp ee d alterna-
ti ve route);
Traffic volumes on the street are low.
In addition, the follow ing fea tures should b e inc orporated
into the d es ign of the stree t with the co ntrafl ow lan e:
( The co ntraflow lan e must b e placed on th e correct
si d e of the stree t , to the motorists' left.
Any intersecting all eys, major driveways and streets
must h ave si gns indicating to motorists that th ey sh o uld
exp ect two-way bicy cle traffi c.
Existing traffi c signals should b e modifie d for bi cy-
cli sts, w ith loop d e t ec tors or pu sh -buttons. The pu sh-
buttons must b e pla ced so th ey ca n b e eas il y reac h ed
by bi cyclists.
It is pre fera bl e also to h ave a se p arate bike lan e in th e di-
rection of motor vehicle traffic, strip e d as a n o rmal bike
lane . Where the roadway w idth do es n o t all ow thi s, bi cy-
cl ists will h ave to sh are the road w ith traffic.
COUNTERMEASURES
There n ow are four contraflow bicy cle lanes in Cam-
bridge : on Co n co rd Ave nu e b e tween Foll e n Street and
Waterhou se Street (o ft e n referred to as "Littl e Concord
Avenue"); on a portion ofWa te rho use Stree t off of Mass.
Ave (i t is a ve ry sh ort stretch w itho ut mu c h eva lu ati on
informati on so this w ill not b e di scusse d h e re); on Scott
Street b etwee n B eacon Stree t and Brya nt Stree t; and on
N o rfolk Street so uth of Broadway. These contra fl ow lan es
mee t the c rite ria d etaile d above , although Norfolk Street
was so m ewha t of an exception in that not m any cyclists
we re riding aga inst traffic on thi s stree t .
1. CONCORD AVENUE
In 1994, a m ajor street renova tion proj ec t crea ted c h an g-
es in the stree t p attern in the area of Arse n al Sq u are. This
route is a direc t connec ti on for eas t-west trave l in th e
ci ty as well as a m ain ro ute from o n e p ar t of the H ar-
vard Unive r sity ca mpus to t h e m ain ca mpus . Co n c ord
Avenu e not only provides the m os t direct c onne c tion ,
but al so all ows cy cli st s to avo id riding on a stree t with
major traffi c and n o sp ace b e twee n the trave l la n es and
the p ar king la n es. It also all ows cycl ists t o avo id ridin g in
an unde rp ass w h e r e ca r s reac h sp eed s of up to 50 mph
(the c ity spe e d limit is 30 mph).
Larger nu mbers of cyclists already were trave lin g in both
direc ti o n s on this one short blo ck of a re side ntial street to
make the direc t c onnec tion.There are o nly two driveways
for single -family res ide n ces along th e street .
A 1.5 m (5 ft) contraflow bi cycle lane w as c reat e d w ith
two so lid white lines, bi cy cle sy mbo ls and arrows at very
freq u e nt intervals. The reason for u sing white rat h e r than
ye llow, w hic h one n ormally wo uld u se to se p ara te the di-
rections of traffic, is b eca u se the re is parking b etween the
Concord Avenu e co ntraflow bike lane.
co ntraflow bike lan e and the c urb, so motorists n ee d ed
to be p e rmitted to pull over and park in the direc tion of
travel.A stop sign for cyclists was put up at the e nd of the
bl ock so that cycli sts would look for traffic before pro-
ceeding across the st ree t .
Signs were install e d on th e approac h to th e intersec ti on.
The inte rsection is a non-conve nti o nal situ ati on, more of
a bend in th e road than a rea l inte r sec tion . Motorists must
p rocee d slowly. The street is a U -sha p e d one, only se rv ing
residen ts along the stree t , and h as very low traffi c volumes
(u nder lO OOVPD).
2. SCOTT STREET
Sewe r c onstruc tion and roadway p av ing on this stre e t of-
fere d th e possi bility of impl e m e nting traffic calming and
o ther c h an ges. Scott Street o ffe r s a direc t co nnec tion b e-
tween a minor arteria l that is o n e of th e area's m os t u sed
bi cycle travel corridors and H arvard Unive r sity, Harvard
Squ are, and other d es tinations. It is a wide one-way street
Sign indi cating co ntraflow bike lane on Norfolk Street.
Bi cycle Coun termea sure Select ion System Ca se Studies 21 3
w ith little-u se d p arking on b o th sides. A contrafl ow bike
lan e was m arke d and blu e thermo plas ti c i ncl ude d to re -
mind moto rists to look for cy cli sts and n o t t o drive in the
bicy cl e lan e. A sign w as in clude d , stating "D o N o t Enter
E xcept for Bicy cl es ." Traffic vo lumes are less t h an 2 ,000
ve hicles p er d ay.
3. NORFOLK STREET
One bl ock of this one-way stree t w as str ip ed as a c ontra-
fl ow lan e to allow cy cli sts t o avo id an arte rial street w ith-
o ut shoulde rs or bike lan es and w ith large traffi c volumes,
including tru ck s. A sign w ith a g raphi c re prese nta tion of
th e co ntraflo w lan e w as ins tall e d at the intersec tion e nte r-
ing the stree t . Blu e the rmo pl as ti c w as adde d to eac h en d
o f th e lan e to ca ll atte ntion to its prese n ce. Traffic volumes
are b elow 2,00 0 vehicles p e r da y.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
No formal eva luations h ave b een d o n e fo r th ese stree ts.
C ity staff h ave o b se rve d the loca tions, Camb ri d ge Bicy cl e
C omrnittee m e mbe r s, an d m e mbe rs o f th e trave ling pub-
li c h ave o ffe re d comme nts, and w e h ave p e rfo rme d b efore
and aft er bicycli st c ounts fo r two of th e st ree ts. Cycli sts
are continuing to u se th e stree ts in b o th di rectio n s and are
u sing the d es igna t ed contra fl ow lan es.
On C onc ord Ave nu e , some cy cli sts h ave been o b se r ve d
riding in the co ntra-flo w la n e but in the directi o n of traf-
fi c, d espite th e extre m ely fre que nt o cc urre n ce o f arrows .
Anec dotal comme nts are th at the lane h as bike sy mbols,
so it see m e d to those trave ling the wrong way that th ey
were suppose d to b e in that lan e.
On C onc ord Ave nue, th e re is al so a sight-lin e iss u e cre-
at ed by a co mbination of th e an gle of the street and a
priva t e prop er ty fe n ce . Con cern s w e re re p orte d by regu-
lar u se r s o f th e stre e t an d additional signs we re put up to
remind m o to r ists to w atc h fo r bi cy cli sts.
SCOTT STREET COU NTS
B efore and aft e r counts we re p e rformed fo r cy clists rid-
in g on Sc ott Street. These showe d an incr ease of cyc li sts
riding against traffi c (u sing the c ontrafl ow lan e in the af-
te r c ounts). Give n origins and d es tinati ons in the area, it
wo uld b e exp ec te d that m o re p e ople would b e u sing the
contraflow lan e in the morning p ea k p e ri o d , and this w as
affirm e d in the data (see fo ll owing tabl e).
214 Ca se Studies Bicycle Counterm eas ure Selection Sy stem
Before and After Sc ott Street Contraflow Lane Bike Counts
AM Pe ak Hour
Before 20 peak , 16 tra vel ing southbou nd (against
traffic), 4 northbound (w ith traffic)
After 34 peak, 30 traveling southbound (in con -
tra-flow lane), 4 northbound (with traffic)
PM Pea k Hour
Before 17 peak , 4 trave l ing southbound (aga i nst
traffic), 13 nort hbound (with traffic)
After 19 peak, 7 trave l ing southbound (in contra-
f low lane), 11 northbound (w ith traffic)
CONCORD AVENUE COUNTS
B e fore and aft e r co u n ts are not exactl y comparabl e b e-
ca u se they w ere p e rfo rme d at diffe re nt times of th e yea r.
H oweve r, th e counts con siste ntl y sh owe d that there were
ab o ut the sa m e n umbe r of cycli sts in both direc ti o n s o f
trave l , b efor e and aft e r. P eak hour co unts w e re ab o ut 6 2
cy cli sts (o cc urring at midday rathe r than m o rning o r
night, pres umably b eca u se of the stude nt populati o n ).
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Contrafl ow bike lan es ca n be use d su ccessfull y in circum-
stan ces similar to the ones d esc rib ed h e re if they m ee t
the crite ri a o utlin e d. The re m ay b e additio nal d es ign s o r
circ umstan ces that wo uld m e rit tes ting as well .
P ave m e nt m arkings and sign s sh o uld b e thought through
ca refull y in the design . It is prefe rabl e to impl em e nt th e
lan e w h en longe r -las ting p ave m ent m arking m ate rials ca n
b e in stall e d (the r moplasti c or in-lay tap e). Otherwise , a
stri ct m ainte n an ce prog ram to kee p paint hi ghl y v isible
w ill b e re quire d . Bicy cl e sy mbo ls and arrows sh o uld b e
c rea te d at fr e qu e nt interval s (far m ore fr equ ently th an
standard AASHTO rec ommendati o n s). Consid er ation
should b e give n to adding color (b lue is most v isibl e)
in th e lan e. Si gns sh o uld b e install e d w h e reve r moto r-
ists wo uld b e approac hing the stree t (a t th e b eginning of
th e inter se ctio n and at any inter sec ting ro ad s o r m ajor
drive ways ).
Whe re there is room for bike lan es o n both sides o f the
street , th ey sh o uld b e include d to cl arify whe re cy clists
should travel. If the re is no room fo r a full bike lan e, o th-
e r p ave m ent m ar ki n gs o r signs sh o uld b e co n side re d to
clarify dire cti o n .
COSTS AND FUNDING
In gen e ral, the co sts fo r impl e m e nting a co ntraflow lane
are fairly straightfo rward and easy to calculate w h e n they
involve stan d ard p aveme nt markings and signs. Th e cos ts
would in crease somewh at from a standard bi cy cl e lan e
b eca u se it is prefera bl e to u se more freq u e nt bi cy cl e sy m-
bols and arrows as well as more signs. Additionally, some
si gns might b e c u stom-made rath e r than standard. Costs
would increase if blu e thermoplas ti c p aint is u se d.
Sample cos ts for Cambridge in 2002:
Thermoplastic Bike Symbols $80 each
Thermoplastic Bike Arrows $60 each
Inlay Tape Bike Symbols $200 each
Inlay Tape Bike Arrows $150each
Blue Preformed Thermoplastic * $10.00/square foot
*Not including installation-A ll others include instal-
lat ion
CONTACTS
Cara Seiderm an
Transportation Program M an ager, Cambridge, MA
Environmental & Trans p ortation Planning
Communi ty D evel o pment D e partment
Cambridge, MA 02139
cse iderman@ci .cambridge .m a . u s
Wayne Amaral
wa m aral @ci.cambridge.ma.u s
Bicycle Countermeasure Se le ction System Ca se Studies 215
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA #19
Left Side Bike Lanes on One-Way Streets
BACKGROUND
More than 50,000 p eo pl e (35 p e rce nt of commuters)
trave l to downtown Minnea polis each weekday by bus.
Pra c ti call y every street within th e downtown g rid is a
bus route. M os t of th ese buses stop at eac h block o n the
ri ght si d e of the roadway, c rea ting a potenti al h azard for
bi cyclists who t e nd to ride on th e right side.
A ccordin g to Census 2000 d a ta, Minneapoli s h as o n e of
the hig h es t comm u t e r and bi cy cl e mode sh ares in the
nation for a city of its size . Mu ch of this su ccess is attrib-
uted to more than 80 miles of on-street and off-street
bikeways . During the mid 1990s, t h e C ity of Minnea po-
li s d ecide d to in sta ll a g rid of eas t /west and no rth/so uth
bi cy cl e lan es in downtown Minnea polis t o e n co urage
bi cycle co mmuting. Most of these fac iliti es were pro-
pose d along one-way stree ts with high vo lumes of right-
turn m ove m e nts. Possibl e bi cycl e and bus co nfli c ts along
th ese routes grea tly co n cerned city e n g ineers and transi t
prov id ers, es p eciall y after a bi cy cl e fa tality invo lv in g a
bu s occurred downtow n.
COUNTERMEASURES
In an effo rt to redu ce p otential bi cy cl e and bus conflicts
it was d ec ided that bi cycle lan es on one-way stree ts in
downtown M innea poli s wou ld b e install ed along th e le ft
side of th e roadway for th e following reaso n s:
• Better v isibility-Drive r s are b e tte r abl e to see bi cy -
clists in th e driver's sid e 1nirror th an on the pa sse n ge r
side. There is al so a large bli nd spot on the pa sse n ge r
side of most ve h icl es .
216
Donald C. Pflaum, City of Minneapolis Public Works
Thomas Becker, P.E ., City of Minnea pol is Publ ic
Works
Case Stu dies Bicyc le Cou ntermea sure Se lect ion System
Downtown Minneapoli s Bi cycl e Routes 2003
- - - -l10W'ITO"~
----BIKELA.'\ES
Downtown Minnea po li s bicycle lane routes .
Fewe r ru sh h o ur parki n g restrictions-Rush hour
p arki n g res tric ti o n s create ri ght-turn lanes and add ca -
pa c ity d u ring p ea k periods. H av ing the bicycle lan e
o n t h e left side e n su res a co n sistent facility during all
times of th e d ay.
Fewe r tru ck confli cts -Since most loading zo n es are
on the right side of t h e roadway, the re are fewer de-
li ve ry tru cks cross ing t h e bike lan e on the left side of
the roadway.
Fewe r door inc idents-Since most commuters
drive alon e there are r e lative ly few pa sse n ge r do ors
swing ing open. H av in g th e bike lan e on th e left side
conside r abl y reduces a bi cycli st 's c h a n ce of b e ing hit
by a door.
Left s ide bicycle lane on Portland Avenue.
Left s ide bicycle lane on Park Avenue.
Fewe r le ft-turn movements-There tend to b e fewe r
le ft -turn movements on one-way streets than ri ght-
turn move m e nts. H aving the bike lane on th e left side
of th e roadway reduces the number of a turn-relat e d
bi cycle crashes.
Typical l eft side bicycle lanes along one-way st ree ts in
downtown Minn ea p oli s ca n b e found on 9th Street
South, 10th Street South, 12th Stree t South, P ark Av e nu e
an d Portland Avenue.
To facilitat e the efficient move m ent of bu ses durin g peak
periods and to improve air quality, reverse flow bu s lan es
were imple mented along three north/sou th downtown
one-way stree ts in the mid-1990s. An additional east /
wes t one-way street was converte d in 2000 to include a
c ontraflow bus lane and bi cy cle lane on 4th Street South
to acconunodate buses and bicycles di sp laced from 5th
Street South, which is the co rridor in whic h Hiawatha
Line Light R ail Tran si t ve hicles w as to begin operation in
2004 . Reconfiguring these streets by removing a 3 m (10
ft) p arking lane and an 3.4 m (11 ft ) driving lane allowed
for a n ew 4.6 m (15 ft)-wide reve rse flow bus lane and
a parallel 1.8 m (6 ft)-wide bike lane to b e co nstructe d.
To increase visib ility of th e bicycle lane, a red seal coat
trea tment was applied t o the bike lan e in all of these cor-
ridors.
Perhaps one of the m ost controve rsial dis c u ssions whe n
the 2 nd and M arquette corridors were redesigned was d e-
cidin g which direction to place the bike lanes. Although
there is te chnical merit for e ithe r optio n , th e decision ul-
timat ely was made by bicycli sts. After co nsid era bl e d e b ate
by the Minnea polis Bicycl e Advisory Committee, the
majority felt th at it was better to ride in th e same direc-
tion as buses since bus drivers are profess ional drivers and
are less likel y to hit a bi cy clist fr om behind.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
The su ccess of the left sid e bi cycle lanes in downtow n
Minneapoli s can best b e gauged by obse rving how mu ch
th e fac iliti es are u se d , by exa mining bi cycle c rash tre n ds,
and by asking bicyclists their opinions. These outcomes
were measured by examining acc id e nt rec ords , perform-
in g a thorough downtown Minnea polis bi cycle co unt, and
by performing a survey w ith a reaso n abl e sample size.
On Se ptember 10 , 2003, the City of Minneapoli s con-
ducted a 12-hour cord on co unt, countin g all p eo pl e via
all modes of transportation entering and exis ting down-
town Minnea polis at 35 p erimeter stations. There were
2,311 inbound bicyclists and 2,368 o utb ound bi cy cli sts
counte d th at day. In addition to th e cordon co unt, over 30
vo lunteers took turns co unting bi cycles at four locations
from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. that day. These mid-block stati ons
T't'PIC AL
DOWNTOWN
STRHT
A
Al A A r
_;-, I I
:=I= t::I
.., I I
I I I ·.
::i I I b •t
1 I I h
, 1 1 ·a
I I h
811<.ElANE
CLEFTSIOEJ
A
A A A A r
,:. I I
r ::i ::i =:
I I'.
t: ~ I' :.l:
ri I fl
.' " 11 lif ; I I u ...
REVERSE-Fl OW
BUS LANE
WIBIKE LANE
' ' i !
r ' ' i t
9' l)' 13' 13 9' 8' 6' 11 10' 10' 11' lJ 11 ' 11 ' 6' 15'
Typical downtown cross-sectio ns.
Bicycle Counte rm ea su re Selec tion System Case Studi es 217
2nd Avenue looking north . Bicycles t ravel northbound in the
same direction as buses. Bu se s are al lowed t o use the bike lane
to pass other buses onl y in the event of a bus breakdown . Bi -
cyclists making right turns may share t he bus lane with buses .
Marquette Avenue one b loc k t o the west is the mirror image of
2nd Avenue exc ept that bi cyc les and bu ses travel southbound
and general traffic t ravels northboun d .
Typi cal signs along 4th Street South .
w e re set up b e tween 6 th Stree t and 7th Stree t alon g H e n-
n epin Ave nue, th e Nicoll e t M all , M arqu e tte Ave nue, and
2nd Ave nue So uth. A t o tal of ab o ut 1 ,475 bi cy cl es we re
co unte d in th ese four corridors.About 3 5 0 bicyclists we re
obse r ve d u sin g Marqu e tte Ave nu e, 3 2 5 u se d 2 nd Ave nu e
South, 200 use d th e N icoll e t M all , and over 600 u se d
H e nnepin Ave nu e. In Mi n n eso ta it is lega l for a bi cy cli st
to rid e w ith ve hi c ular traffi c, eve n if th ere is a bicy cl e
lan e prese nt. It is also imp o rtant to n o te that bicycl es are
prohibite d on the Nicoll e t M all w ee kdays fr o m 6 a .m. to
6 p.m. by city ordinan ce.
About 75 p e rce n t of bi cyc li sts who c hose t o r id e in the
H e nne p in Av e n u e, M arqu e tte Av e nu e, and 2nd Ave n u e
corridors us e d the b icy cl e lan e . Unfortunate ly, improper
218 Case St udi es Bi cyc le Count ermea sure Selec tion Sys tem
Eastbound b icycle lane along 4th Street South . Note that bi-
cy c les travel in t he same direct io n of traffi c. A b icy c le lane will
be installed along 3 rd St reet Sou t h to repla ce the we stbound bi -
cyc le lane los t d ue to Light Rail Transit al ong 5th St re et South .
Sin ce 3 rd Street is a typica l one-way we stbound street with a
proposed wes t bound bi cyc le la ne, an eastb ound bi cyc le lane on
4 th St reet was the mo st logi cal app l icat ion .
Modified MUTCD approved sign al ong 4th Street South .
u se o f the b icycl e lan es w as commo n . About 3 5 p e rcent
of those w ho ch ose t o use th e bi cy cl e lan es on M arqu e tte
Ave nue and 2 nd Aven u e th at day were w rong-way rid-
e rs.W ro n g-way use was co n sid er abl y less o n H e nne pin
Ave nu e sin ce the re are d e dic at ed bicy cl e lan es in eac h
direc tion . O n e phe n o m e no n that was o b se rve d was th at
wro n g-way ridin g was w orse alo n g M arque tte Ave nu e in
the m o rning p ea k h o urs and wor se alo n g 2 nd Ave nue in
the aft e rnoon p ea k h o urs. One th eory is th at So uth Min-
n ea poli s has m o re bicy cl e commute r s than othe r regions
of the city and that bi cy cl ists w ill tak e the q ui ckes t , m os t
direc t route p oss ibl e fro m th e ir o rigin to th e ir d es tina-
ti o n. C lea rl y some bi cy clists d o n o t wa nt to go a blo ck
out of their way to ge t to th eir d es tination, eve n if th eir
b eh av io r is ill egal. A t the easte rl y cord o n b o undary it w as
also o b se r ve d that o n e -third o f all bicyclists e ith e r u se d
the sid ew alk or c h ose to r ide aga inst traffi c on one-way
streets, both of w hi c h are p ro hi b ite d by law. Bi cy cl es are
n o t p er mitte d o n sidewalk s in dow ntow n Minnea p olis to
avo id confli c ts w ith p e d es trian s.
,
,
1
,
Looking sou th along Hennepin Avenue at 7th Street.
Looking north at th e same location. Approximately 50 per cent
of th e crashes that have occurred at this intersection (and
also at the i ntersections of 7th Street and 3rd Street) between
1998 and 2 003 have involved a left-turning car and a bicy-
clist going straight ahead. To mitigate this problem , bollards
wit h warning signs have been placed where left turns are per-
mitted. Although the bollards have improved safety, they must
be removed in winter to allow fo r easier snowplowing . T he bol -
lards also help keep vehicles from cutting into the bike lane.
Over one -third of all bicyc lists in Mi nneapo li s bike year -round .
Bicycle cras h es in Minnea polis te nd to b e direc tionall y
proportional to the vo lumes of bi cy cl es in a c orridor, ve -
hic ul ar sp eed , ve hicular traffic volumes, and the numb er of
turning m ove ments in a give n c orridor. Afte r eva l u ating
typ es of cr as h es and c ras h lo cations from 19 99 to 200 3 , it
w as found that the ab ove statement is acc urate through-
out most corridors in down town Minn ea polis. Bicy cl e
c ras h rat es o n 2nd Ave nu e and M arquette Ave nu e appea r
to be typi cal for a c orridor of its fun c tional clas sific ation
and ch arac te r is ti cs. H e nn e pin Avenu e cras h rate s also ap-
p ea red to b e typ ical , but crash rat es w e re hi gh e r at inte r-
se ctions whe re le ft turns were p ermitted. This problem
w as miti ga t e d with additional sign s to w arn turning ve -
hicl es to yield to bicyclists traveling ac ros s an inte rsec tion.
Many of the crashes th at o cc urre d on H e nnepin Ave nu e,
Marqu ette Ave nu e , a nd 2nd Ave nu e involved a drive r or a
bicycli st w h o was u sing the co rridor improp erl y.
Although n o sc ie ntifi c bicy cle survey h as b ee n c onduct-
e d c itywide, more tha n 600 bic y cl e survey s w e re di strib-
ute d to bi cyclists and n e ighborhood g roups thro u ghout
the city in N ove mbe r 2 00 1. Of the 1 8 8 bi cy cli sts who
r es p o nde d to the survey, more than 2 8 p e rce nt fe lt that
safe ty c once rns and fear of drive r s is the most sig ni fi ca nt
b arri e r in arriving at the ir d es tin ations. The lac k of trail s
and o n-stree t bikeways r anke d sec ond with 17 p e rc e nt
of res ponse s, and r anking third at 8 p e rc e nt of res ponses
was the po o r mainte n an ce of bikew ays, ro adway s, and
bridges . A numb e r of th ose surveye d indica t e d t h e im-
p o rtan c e of the downtow n bi cycle lan e syst e m , b ut many
fe lt uncomforta ble using the left sid e b ik e lan es. Novice
and eve n inte rme diate adult bi cy cli sts found it es peciall y
difficu lt to sa fe ly ge t on and off th e bicycle lan es al on g
H e nne pin Ave nu e. M an y exp e rie n ce d bicy clists com-
m e nte d th a t they would r athe r ride with traffi c inst ea d
of u se th e l e ft sid e bi cycl e lan e s b eca u se they felt un-
n atural and co unte rintuitive.
The re are seve ral ga p s and di sco ntinuiti es th at re m ain in
th e Minneap o li s bi cy cl e lan e sys t e m . M any of the se gap s
and di scontinuities are prog ranune d for fundin g w ithin
the n ext fiv e year s. In d owntow n Minnea polis many o f
th ese di scontinuities and ga p s o ccur at the p e rime te r.
Th e re is n ee d to connec t with exis tin g bikew ays systems
n ea r the Unive r sity o f Minnes ota and in res ide ntial ar eas
thro u ghout th e c ity. E x p e rime ntal mid-blo ck and inte r-
sec tion tre atments are n ow b e ing explore d to b e tte r in-
tegrate l eft-side bicycl e sys t em s on o n e-way streets with
ri ght-side bicy cl e sys te m s on two -way stree ts.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATION
Aft e r eva lu ating the le ft-side bi cy cl e lan e co n cept in
d owntown Minnea poli s and along the P ark and Portland
corridors ove r the las t seve ral yea r s, City of Minn eapoli s
e n g ineers are sa ti sfi e d with the le ft side bicy cl e lane sys-
t e m . No signifi ca nt changes are planne d for any of th e
c orrido rs di sc u sse d in this an alys is, howeve r g rea t er e n-
force m e n t is n ee d e d to e nsure proper use of the fa ciliti es.
What is important to note is th e left-sid e bicycl e lane sys-
t e m in downtow n Minneapolis wa s cre at e d to acc ommo-
d at e sp e cific n ee d s g ive n uniq u e conditions and circum-
stan ces . T hi s conce pt is not a one -size -fits-all trea tme nt
and is not ap propriate in some situ ations. Although many
b icycli sts do not like th e le ft-side bicycle lane concept,
left -sid e bicycle lanes create a safe r environment for bi cy-
clists by effe ctively providing se paration from bu ses .
Bi cycle Counte rmea sure Selectio n Sys tem Case Studies 219
REFERENCES
Ce n su s 2000 Supplemental Survey. M ea n s ofTransporta-
tion to Work 16Yea r s and Older, Summary Ta bl e P 047,
U.S . Cen su s, Washington D. C.
Minn es ota Manual of Unifor m Traffi c Contro l D ev ices
(MMUTC D )
Nab ti , Ridgeway, e t al. In novative Bicycl e Tr eatments Institute
ofTransportation Engineers . Washington D .C., 2002
SRF Con sulting Group. D own town Minn eapo li s Cordon
Count, 1998
SRF Con sulting Group. Downtown Minn eapo li s Cordon
Co unt , 2003
COSTS AND FUNDING
Standard bicycle lane striping and counter p ar t sign s cos t
about $50 ,0 00 p er mil e to implem ent in an urban se tting.
Roadway configurations and se al coat/p ave m ent trea t-
m ents are extra and proj ec t cos ts widely vary. For exa m-
pl e it cos t $100,000 in 1996 to implem ent the Marquette
Aven u e /2nd Ave n u e res triping, signs, an d seal coating
proj ec t (3.2 km (2 mi) lo n g). The 4th Stree t reve rs e flo w
bus lan e proj ec t was p ar t of a $9 00 ,000 mill / ove rl ay proj -
ec t about 1.6 m (1 mi ) in len gth . Annual bi cy cl e lan e
maintenan ce cos ts in Minneapoli s have b ee n es timated at
about $6 .50 p er linear m et er ($2 per lin ear foo t).
CONTACTS
Donald C. Pfl aum
City of Minneapo li s D epartment of Publi c Works
350 South 5th Street -Room 233 C ity H all
Minnea polis, MN 55415-1314
(6 12) 673-2 129
Jon M .W ertj es, P.E .
C ity of Minneapolis D ep artment of Public Works
350 South 5th Stre et -Room 233 City H all
Minnea polis, MN 55415-1314
(6 12) 673-26 14
Thomas B ecke r, P.E .
C ity of Minnea polis D e p ar tment of Publi c Works
3 50 South 5th Street -Room 233 C ity H all
Minnea p oli s, MN 55415 -1314
(6 12) 673-24 1 1
220 Case Stud ies Bicyc le Counterm easure Selection Sys tem
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON #20
Curb Radii/Curb Revisions
BACKGROUND
Whe n stree ts inte rsect a t an obtuse an gl e or h ave a large
c urb radius, motorists ca n make turns at relatively hi gh
sp ee ds. By co ntra st , 90-d eg ree inte rsec ti o n s and corners
with ti ght c urb r adii te nd to slow motorists down . The
problem w ith obtuse angles is p ar ticul arl y b ad w h en a
ve hicl e on an arterial stree t turns o nto a residen ti al street.
Motorists turning ri ght at hi gh sp ee d m ay cut off bi cy-
clists traveling straight on the arte rial stree t . Pe d es trian s
cross ing the res ide nti al stree t adj ace nt to the arte rial m ay
not exp ec t high-sp eed turning traffi c, or th ey m ay h ave
their b acks fac ing the turning ca r s.
COUNTERMEASURE
The so luti on to thi s p ro bl em in Seattle h as b ee n to re du ce
the turning radius . Seattle routinely re duces the curb radii
a t lo ca ti o n s that : a) are on routes us e d by sc hool c hil-
dre n or the el d erl y; b ) are in n e ighborhood shoppin g areas
w ith hi gh pedestrian vo lumes; and c) are at inte rsec tions
ide ntifi ed by the n e ig hborhood as h av ing a unique sa fety
problem.
The goal is to slow down ri ght turning motor vehicles.
This so lution works particula rl y well where motor ve hi-
cles are turning right, at an obtuse an gle, from an arte rial
street o nto a residential stre e t.
When m aking curb radii re visions, con sid e ration must b e
made for tru ck and bu s traffi c . A c urb radiu s that is too
ti ght may result in the tru c k or bu s cross ing th e doubl e
yellow line or ove rriding the c urb. This ca n damage th e
c urb and pose a risk to p ed es tri an s. Howeve r, when a
truck or bus is turning onto a four-lane ro adway (two
Peter Lagerwey , Pedestrian & Bicycl e Program
Coordinator , City of Seatt le
Obtuse angle intersection allowed motorists to make high -
speed turn s.
lanes in each direc tion), it oft e n is acce ptabl e to turn into
th e se cond (insid e) lane as long as the center double yel-
low line is not crosse d. Such turns would n o t be acce pt-
abl e in cases where tru c k traffic is very h eavy or there is
a double ri ght turn.
Seattle h as adopte d the following g uidelines for re du cing
c urb radii :
• A c urb radiu s of 3 to 4.5 m (10 ft to 15 ft) is recom-
mended where res ide ntial stree ts intersec t o ther res i-
d e ntial stree ts and arte rial stree ts.
• A curb radius of6 m (20 ft) is reco mmended at intersec-
ti o ns of ar terial streets that are not bu s or tru ck routes.
• A curb radiu s of 7.5 to 9 m (25 ft to 30 ft ) is rec om-
m e nded at inte rsec tions of ar terial streets that are bu s
o r truck routes.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
R edu cing th e c urb radiu s is exp ec t ed to re du ce turning
spee d s and inc rease th e comfort of bi cycli sts trave ling
straight th rou gh p as t this junc tion . Seattle h as not con-
du ct e d a formal study to d e te rmine if c ras h rates h ave
b een red u ced.
Bicycle Counte rm easure Se lection System Case Studi es 221
Curb realignment red uced the turning radius , forc ing turning
vehicles to slow. Crossing d istan ce wa s al so nar ro wed .
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATI O NS
While m any tran sportati on age n cie s h ave increase d curb
r adii over th e yea rs, these c h an ges h ave h ad the effec t
of increas ing the turning sp ee d of m o tor ve hicles . This
h as m ad e bi cycling and walking le ss safe an d less invit-
ing. In m any cases , turning radii have b ee n unnecessar-
il y increase d o n n e ig hbo rh ood and arte ri al stree ts w h e re
there is littl e o r no truck or bus traffi c . Sea ttl e h as found
th at re du c ing c urb radii is a rela ti vely ch ea p, effec ti ve and
p o pular way to crea t e a m o re bi cycl e-and p e d es tri an-
fri e ndly community.
COSTS AND FUNDING
The co sts o f ch anging c urb radii ca n vary con sid e rably,
d e p e nding o n the amount of c oncre te and landsca ping
that is re quire d and also o n w h e ther drain age g rates and
other utilities h ave to b e m ove d or ifthe re are o the r iss u es
that n ee d to b e addresse d . For exa mpl e, it m ay b e n eces-
sa ry to move a conduit fo r a sig n al or rel ocate utili ty poles
and li g ht standards. In Sea ttl e, c o sts typi call y ra n ge from as
low as $5 ,000 to as high as $4 0,000.
CONTACT
Pe ter Lage rwey
Bi cycle & Ped es tri an Program C oordinator
Seattle D e p artment ofTran sportation
7 0 0 Fifth Ave nue, Suite 3 768
P.O. Box 34996
Seattle,WA 98124-49 96
(206) 684-5108
222 Case Stud ies Bicyc le Co un termeasure Selec tion System
PORTLAND, OREGON #21
Combined Bicycle Lane/Right-Turn Lane
BACKGROUND
In many bike lane retrofit proj ec ts , there is not enough
space to mark a minimum 1.2 m (4 ft) bike lan e to the
left of a right-turn lane. This case study foc u ses on a com-
bined bicycle lane /rig ht-turn lane use d in E u ge n e, OR,
w h en right-of-way at an intersectio n was limited. The re
are standard options for installing or re trofitting bike lanes
onto shared roadways. The American A ssoc iation of State
Highway and Transportation Officials Guide for the De-
ve lopm ent of Bicycl e Faci li ties (1999) shows acce pted ways
of accommodating bike lan es at inte rsec tions. P lacement
of bike lanes in conjunction with right-turn lane lanes
must b e done carefu ll y, in th at confli c ts result b etwee n
straight-through bi cycles and ri ght-turning m o tor vehi-
cles (Hunter, Stewart, Stutts, Huang, and Pein , 1999). In
so me cases w h ere insuffi cie nt room exis ts, th e bike lane is
dropped prior to th e intersection. The Oregon Bicycle and
Pedestr ian Plan (O regon DOT, 1995) recognizes this limi-
tation and state s that w h e n this occ urs, "a right-turn lane
may b e marked and sign e d as a sha red-u se lan e, to en-
co urage through cyclists to occupy th e left p ortion of the
turn lane. This is most su ccessful on sl ow-speed stree ts."
COUNTERMEASURES
The City of Eugene, OR, h as su c h a sh are d , narrow right-
turn lane in p lace on 13th Av e nue a t its inte rs ec tion with
P atte rs on Street. The ave nu e leads direc tl y into th e Uni-
versity of Oregon campus and ha s co nsiderable bi cycle
traffi c (see figure 1 -left sid e diagram). N ea r ca mpus,
13 th Avenue has a spee d limit of 48.3 km/h (30 mi/h)
and ca rri es 6,000 to 8,000 ve h icl es per da y.
William W. Hunter, Senior Research Scientist ,
UNC H ig hway Safety Researc h Center
13tl1 Street @ Patte rson
Narrow lane -width site
DJ ~ ~smou otod
on signal arm
OH.Y
1 ft •0.305m
13th Street @ Willamette
Standard lane -width sit e
~ Um-5 I 3[
I J[ ONLY '·
I (
(
( ofo
I tl•0.30Sm
Figure 1. Narrow-and standard-la ne views.
The left side of Figure 1 provides details for 13th and Pat-
terso n, which w ill b e refe rred to h ereafte r as the narrow-
width r ight-turn lan e site. At thi s si te, bi cycli sts u sually
approach th e inte rsec tion in a 1.5 m (5 ft) bike lane at
the e dge of the stree t. At the intersecti o n prope r, the total
right-turn lan e w idth is 3.6 m (12 ft), which includes a
bike lane (pocket) of 1.5 m (5 ft ) and a 2.1 m (7 ft) sp ace
to the r igh t of the b ike p ocket . The right si d e of Fi g ure
1 provides d e tail s for 13th and Willam e tte, w hich will be
referre d to herea ft e r as th e standard -width right-turn lan e
site. At thi s loca tion, b icycli sts also u suall y a pproach th e
intersec tion in a 1.5 m (5 ft) bike lane at th e edge of the
street. At th e inter sec ti on prop er, the total ri ght-turn lane
w idth is 5.2 m (17 ft), which includes a bike lan e (pocket)
of 1.5 m (5 ft ) and a stan dard 3 .7 m (12 ft) lan e to the
rig ht of th e bike poc ke t. Fi gure 1 also shows acco mpany-
ing sig ns u sed at both intersections.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
The narrow right-turn lan e d escr ib ed above was evalu-
a ted by compar ing the b e h avio rs of bi cycli sts an d motor
vehicle drive rs at 13th and P atterso n (a n intersection that
h ad the sh are d , narrow right-turn lane d esc rib ed above in
Bi cyc le Counte rm easure Selectio n System Ca se Studies 223
Figure 2. Videotaped bicyclists at the narrow-lane si tes (above)
and standard -lane sites (below).
plac e) with b eh av iors at 13 th and Willame tte (a n intersec-
tion th at h ad a standard -width (3 .7 m (12 ft )) right-turn
lane and accompanying b ike lane (pocket) to the left of
the right-turn lane). The intersec tion of 13th and Willa-
m e tte is lo ca t e d about 0.8 km (0.5 mi ) west of 13th and
Patte r son. These ri ght-turn trea tme nts h ad b ee n in pl ace
for several yea rs w h e n this evaluation wa s done, and bicy -
cli sts w ere famili ar with the movements.
It is important to n o te that bicyclists approaching on 13th
at Patterson Stree t proceed straight ahead to the bike
poc ket at the inte rs ec tion proper, in th at th e right-turn
lan e is "bulb e d o ut." Bicycli sts approa c hing on 13th at
Willame tte h ave to shift to the le ft to ge t in the bike
pocket adjacent to th e right-turn lan e at the intersec ti on
(i .e., n o "bulb out").
Approximately 600 bi cycli sts trave lin g throu gh eac h in-
t e r sec ti on w e re v ideotaped during a three-wee k period in
M ay 1998.Videota ping was done for two-hour p eriods at
diffe rent times of th e da y and wee k to ge t a cross-sec tion
of bi cyclists a nd to avo id recording bi cy cli sts more than
once. It is poss ible that so m e dupli ca ti on occurre d , but
th e numbe r would have b een quite small . Fi gure 2 shows
the view from a v ideo ca m e ra of onco ming bicy cli sts
at both 13th and P atterson (th e n arrow -width si te) and
13th and Willamette (the standa rd-width si te). The vid-
eo tap es were coded to eva lu at e opera tion al b e h av iors and
224 Case Studies Bicycle Countermea sure Se lection System
co nfli c ts w ith motorists, o the r bi cycli sts, and p e d es trian s.
Cod e d bicy cli st variables included sex, age gro up, helme t
u se, w h e ther a p assenge r was b eing carrie d , inter sec tion
approach position, position at the intersec tion, proxi mity
of th e bicyclist to motor ve hicl e at a red traffic signal in-
di ca tion, turning m ove m e nts, traffic sign al violations, and
wheth e r th e bi cyc li st preve nted a right-turn-on-red by
following motorist. Coded motor ve hicle information in-
clud ed type of motor ve hicl e b es id e th e bi cycli st at a re d
traffi c sign al indica ti on, and motor ve hicl e type and posi-
tion w ithout a bicycli st prese nt. We also co d e d whether
any co nfli c ts occ urre d. C onflicts b etween a bi cy clist a nd
a motor ve hicl e, anoth er bicy cli st , o r a p e d es trian were
defined as an interac ti on su ch that at leas t one of th e par-
ti es h ad to make a sudde n ch ange in spee d or direc ti on to
avo id the oth er.
The tec hnique worked well at the intersec tion lo ca tions
evalu ate d in this study. More th an 17 percent of the sur-
veyed bi cycli sts u sing th e narrow-lan e intersec tion felt
th at it w as sa fer than the comparison loca ti on with a stan-
.. dard-width rig ht-turn lane , and ano ther 55 p erce nt felt
that the narrow-lane site was no diffe re nt safety-wise than
the standard-width loca tion. This is probably a fun ction
not only of relati ve ly slow m otor ve hicl e traffic sp ee ds on
13th Stree t , but als o b eca u se of th e bike lane pro cee din g
straight through the inte rsection at the n arrow-lane sit e
su c h that motorists cross ing to the right-turn lan e te nded
to h ave to y ield . Bicyc li sts at th e co mparison intersection
had to shift to the left to b e positi o n e d in th e bike poc ket
n ext to the right-turn lan e. It was also relatively easy for
bi cy cli sts to time the ir approac h to the narrow-lan e inter-
sec ti on and ride through on a green indication.
It was exp ec t ed that bicyclists go ing straight through the
n arrow-lan e inte r sec tion would position th emselves ei-
th er in front of o r behind motorists. H owever, it was quite
easy for bi cycli sts to ride up to th e n arrow-lane inte r sec-
ti o n and positi on themselves b es id e p asse n ge r ca r s or light
tru ck s. The iss u e of the most appropria te position for a
bicyclist at an inte rsec tion is not n ecess arily well under-
stood or ag reed upo n. Positioning ce rtainly ca n vary as a
function of motor ve hicl e sp ee d , traffic vo lume, turning
move ments , and a number of o the r va riable s. This evalu-
ation pertains to a single lo ca tion for this narrow-lane
treatme nt, and it wo uld b e b e nefi cial to compare bicyclist
positi oning c h oice h ere to what occurs at oth e r intersec-
tion types, su ch as a shared through /right-turn lane with
n o bi cy cl e lan e or poc ket.
Bicyc li sts at the n arrow-lan e site c h ose to position the m-
se lves in the adjacent traffic lan e on a few occa sions, usu-
all y th e re sult of a h eavy ve hicle taking extra sp ace. Some-
times bi cycli sts would shift to the r ight-turn portion of
the lane if a h eavy vehicl e we re in t h e t h rough lan e. Right
turns on red by motor ve hicl es were rarely preve nte d
w h en bi cyclists w e re present at the front of th e qu e u e at
the n arrow-lane site. No co nfli cts b etween bi cy cli sts and
motor ve hicl es, other bi cy cli sts, or p ed es tri an s took place
at either intersec ti on .
The combined bicycle lan e/right-turn lane d es ign is
shown in th e Oregon Bicy cle and Pedestr ian Plan and h as
b ee n rev iewe d , but no t ye t offic ially adop ted, by the
Oregon Department of Tra n sp ortatio n 's Traffi c Control
Device Committee. H oweve r, ado ption is exp ec te d in
the n ea r future. For the prese nt, favorab le conditions for
impl em entation appear to b e on lo cal stree ts w ith sp ee ds
of 48.3 km/h (30 mi /h) and traffic vo lumes of less than
10,000 ve hicl es p er day. Adding a bulb-ou t to the com-
bin e d bike la n e/ri ght-turn lan e so that motorists move to
the right and bicycli sts continu e in a straight line m ay also
be a sa fer situ ation for bicycl ists.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recomme nde d th at the d es ign b e impl e m e nte d a t
o th er ty p es of intersection locati ons (i.e., diffe rent m o tor
ve hi cle approac h sp eeds and approach configurations) and
evalu ated for e ffec tiveness.
There are many intersec tions where using a m.inimum-
width bike lane is n ot poss ibl e du e to limite d r ight-of-way.
The use of a shared , n arrow right-turn lan e in co mbin ation
with a bike lan e in a limited right-of-way situati o n is a novel
approa ch . This trea tme nt co uld b e app li ed in initial inter-
sec tion d es ign, whe n retrofitting a bike lane to an exis tin g
right-of-way, and w h en ad ding an auxiliary ri ght-turn lan e.
COSTS AND FUNDING
Costs included the removal of p aint (regular, n ot th er-
moplasti c), n ew thermoplas ti c p aint, a sig n pla ce d in the
gro und and ano th er sign n ex t to the sign al h ea d for abo ut
$1 ,500 in p arts and labor. If traffic loops h ave to b e move d ,
it would cos t an additional $1,000 p er lane.
REFERENCES
Ame rica n A ssoc iation of State Highway and Transp orta-
tion Offi cials, Guide for the D welopment ef Bi cy cle Facili-
ties, W as hing to n , D . C., 19 99 .
Hunte r, WW Eva lu ation ef a Comb in ed Bicycle Lane/Right-
TI1rn Lane in Eugene, Oregon, Publication No. FHWA-
RD-00-151 , Fe d eral Highway Administration, Wa sh-
ington , D.C.,August 2000.
Hunte r, WW , Stewart, J.R., Stutts, J.C., Huan g, H .F,
and P ein, WE., A Comparat ive Analys is ef Bicycle Lanes
vers us Wide Curb L anes: Fina l R eport , Publi ca ti on No.
FHWA-RD-99 -034 , Fed e ral Hig hwa y Admini stra-
tion,Washington, D.C., O c tober 1999.
Orego n D e p artme nt ofTransportation. Oregon Bi cycl e and
Pedes tri an Plan, Salem , OR, 1995.
CONTACTS
L ee Shoemaker
Bi cycle & Pedes trian Prog ram Coordinator
City of Eugene Public Works
858 P ea rl Stree t
Euge n e, OR 97 401
(54 1) 682-8472 (vo ice)
(541 ) 68 2-55 98 (fax)
lee.s ho em aker@ci. e u gene.or. u s
William Hunter
UNC High way Safety R esea rch Cente r
730 M artin Luthe r Kin g J r Blvd, Suite 300
C h apel Hill , NC 27599-3430
(9 19) 962-8716
bill_hunter@ unc.e du
Bicycle Countermeasure Selec tion System Case Studies 225
PORTLAND, OREGON #22
Blue Bike Lanes at Intersection Weaving
Areas
BACKGROUND
Intersection and intersection-related l ocations account
for 50 to 70 percent of bicycle-motor vehicle crashes
(Hunter, Stutts, Pein, and Cox, 1996). In Portland, OR,
both motorists and bicyclists had expressed concern
about a number of locations w h ere bi cycles and motor
vehicles came into conflict when motor vehicles turned,
ch anged lanes , or m erged across bike lanes at or near in-
tersections . Colored p avement, raised crossing paths, and
other measures h ave the potential to alert motorists and
cycl ists to these intersection co nfli ct zones, thereby in-
creasing y ielding b e h aviors and reducin g co nflicts and
cras h es. Such treatments have been found to be effective
in several E urop ea n and Canadian cities (Pronovost and
Lusginan, 1996;Jensen, 1977; Leden , 1977; Leden, Garder,
and Pulkkinen, 1998).
The 10 Portland sites se lec ted for treatment and st udy
were all sites w ith a hi gh level of bicycli st-motorist in-
te rac tion and a hi story of comp laints. All were in areas
with exis ting bicycle lanes. Prior to treatment, all of the
bike lanes were o utlined w ith das h e d lines at the co nfli c t
areas. All except one of the sites also h ad in place tradi -
ti o nal regulatory signs to alert motorists to "YIELD TO
BIKES." The sig ns h ad b een in pl ace for some time and
were in good re pair. At one loca tion, H aw th orne Bridge,
where there was no yield sign for m otorists, bicycles h ad
bee n yie lding to motor vehicles b efo re th e b lue pave m e nt
and signs were added.
COUNTERMEASURES
Ea c h of t h e 1 0 sites were loca tions w h ere the bi cyclist
trave ls through (s trai g ht ahead) and the motorist crosses
226
William W. Hunter and Libby Thomas , UNC High -
way Safety Research Center
Case St udie s Bicyc le Counterm easure Se le ction System
Figure 1. Hawth orne bridge conflict area. Motorists exit right
to an off-ra mp , crossing the th rough bike lane that wea ves left
to cross the bridge. Examp le of a group 1 configuration .
the bicycle lane to: exit a ro adway (gro up 1), move into
a right turn lane (g roup 2), or merge onto the bicyclist's
street from a ramp (gro up 3). (See figures 1-3 for ex-
ampl es.)
At all 10 sites, the conflic t areas of the bicycle lanes were
marked w ith li ght blue paint or w ith blue the rmoplasti c
intended to h ighlight the conflict zone. T h e inte nt was to
increase awareness and sa fe b e h avio r s by both cyc lists and
motorists and y ielding behaviors by motorists. Light blu e
was chose n b eca u se it doesn 't have anoth e r meaning to
motorists (as d o red and green, sometimes u sed in other
co untries), ca n be detec te d by color-blind indiv iduals, and
u suall y is re latively vis ible in low-light or wet conditions.
Additionall y, blu e was ove rw h elmingly favo re d b y par-
ti cip ants in a number of publi c presenta tions, as well as by
bicycling professionals, a nd prior st udi es su gges t e d that it
would b e an effective color.
The first sites were pain te d blu e w ith glass b eads ap pli ed
to th e we t paint at a total cost of $900. Unfortunately,
within two t o three months, the p aint was worn away at
so m e of the locations w ith high er traffic vo lumes. There-
fore, at eight of the sites, a m ore expensive, th e rmoplas ti c,
skid-resistant material was applied.
Figure 2 . Motorists app ro ac hing Grand Avenue weave ac ross a
bicycle th ro ugh lan e to enter a r ight-turn-only lane on Mad i-
son Street. (Group 2 site)
Figure 3 . Bi cyc l ists approac hin g the Broadway Bridge travel
straight, whi le motor ists from Interstate Av enue entering
Broadway c ross the bike lane confli ct area (outlined by the
dashed str i ping). (Group 3 site)
At eac h location, one of sev eral innovative "YIELD TO
BIKES " sign s was install ed with a de sign appropriate for
the parti c ul ar motorist m aneu ve r and c onfiguration at
that sit e (Fig. 4).
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
Videotap e a nalys is w as u se d to c omp ar e b efore and aft e r
b e hav iors o f both motorists and bi cy clists in the conflic t
area s. Twe n ty hours o f "b e fore" trea tment v id e o data
(two hours p e r site) a nd 30 hours of "afte r " data (two
o r four hours p e r site) were coll ec te d. Vide otaping was
p e rforme d at p eak-h o ur r id e times on days w ith good
wea t h e r. Vide o data were c ompare d with obse r vations
c ondu c t e d b e fore v id eo tapin g , and the re w as no ev i-
d e nc e th at the presence o f the c am e ra affec t e d rid e r or
motorist b e h av ior. E ac h bi c ycli st trave ling throu g h a site
wa s an observa tion , w hil e e ac h ve hicl e trave lin g throu gh
YIELD TO YIELD TO YIELD TO
BIKES BIKES BIKES
Group 1 -Exi t Group 2 -Lane Group 3 -Enter-
right across bi-change across ing roadway/merge
cyc le lane bi cyc le lane ac ross bi cyc le lane
Figure 4 . Novel signs (no n-MUTCD approved) used in con jun ction
with blue pavement marking to alert motorists and bi cyc lists of
confl ict areas and to warn motorists t o yield to bi cyc lists.
a site in the p rese n ce of a bi cy cl e was also an obse rvation .
Video tap es were a n alyze d t o co d e signalin g, slowing and
st o pping , and y ielding b e h av iors for b o th bi cy cli sts a nd
m o t o rists, as well as h ea d-turning o r sca nning b e h av ior
for bi cycli sts o nly.
Vid eo tap es were also an alyze d to co d e co nfli cts "b e for e"
and "aft e r " t rea tme nt. C onfli c ts we re d e fin e d as an inter-
ac ti o n b e tween m o torist and bi cy cli st w h e re at leas t o n e
of the p arti es h ad to m ake a sudden ch a nge in sp ee d o r
direc ti o n to avo id the other (a stringe nt d e finiti o n).
Bicy clists ' o pinio n s on th e trea tme nt we re soli c ite d
thro u gh an in-the-field, o ral survey of 200 ride r s w ho h ad
just traveled throu gh one o f the sites . A survey was also
m ail e d to ab o ut 1 ,2 00 ow n ers of ve hicl es w h o h ad b ee n
spotte d driv ing throu gh the sa m e site as de t e rmine d from
li ce n se plate numbe r s. R es ponses we re receive d from 22 2
of the ve hi cl e owne r s. Additionall y, city staff m e mbe rs
p e rforme d tes t rid es on we t treate d surfaces to evalu ate
sli pp e riness. The sites w e re also informally evalu ated for
durability and w ear of th e m arkings.
A s m e ntione d above, th e p ainte d markings did not las t
more than two month s at hi gh traffi c lo cations. Almost a
yea r aft e r the the rmoplasti c trea tme nts w e re a pplied , six
of those e ight lo catio n s showe d littl e w ear. One was in fair
condition, and one w as in poor condition b eca u se it m ay
ha ve been in stall e d incorrec tl y. Thus, th e hi gh e r c o st for
thermo plastic appli cation may be offse t by g rea t er dura-
bility and lowe r ma intenance c osts. N either th e p aint nor
th e thermoplas ti c wa s slip p e ry, but n e ither m at erial wa s as
vi sibl e at ni ght as h ad b een exp e cte d.
MOTORISTS
Bi cycle Counte rm easure Selec ti on System Case Stud ies 227
Motorist b eh aviors chan ged signifi ca ntl y in one or more
ways at m os t sites. From the data poole d across sites, sig-
nifi ca ntly m ore motorists slowed or stopped at the co n -
fli c t area in th e "after " p eriod than in th e "b efore" p e riod
(87 p e rcent aft e r compared to 7 1 p ercent b efore). Fewer
motorists signal e d their inte ntions aft er the blu e p ave-
m e nt was install e d (63 percent after comp are d with 84
p e rce nt b efo re), but this result cou ld p ar tiall y be b eca u se
the motorists yielded m ore frequently.
BICYCLISTS
M os t observabl e bicyclist c harac teri sti cs (age g roup,
helm e t us e, p asse n ge r s carr ie d) r e m ained the sa m e for
th e b e fore and after p e rio d s, w i t h the e xception that
there were 29 p e rcent females b efo re and 21 perce nt
in the aft e r p e riod over all the sites. The p ercentage of
bi cy cli sts following th e marked path th ro u gh th e co n -
fli c t areas si g nifi ca ntly increase d o ver all sites from 85
percent b e fore to 93 percent aft e r the blu e markin gs
were added. Bicyclists slowing or stopping on approach
to the c onflic t a rea s decrease d from 11 p e r ce nt to 4 per-
ce nt after the treatment. R edu ce d slow ing is interpre t e d
to signify bi cy cli sts ' inc rease d c omfort in ap proac hin g
the co nfli c t areas.
Some d es irabl e bicy cli st behaviors d ec reased, howeve r,
aft e r the trea tme nt. Considerably fewer bi cy cli sts turne d
their h ea d s to check for m o tor vehicle traffic after th e
treatme nt than b efo re ( 43 percent before, 26 p erce nt after).
Additionally, as with motorists, fewer bi cycli sts ( 4 perce nt)
us e d h a nd sign als to indicate their intended movement
aft e r the blu e pave m e nt was insta ll ed, altho u gh few bi cy-
clists (11 p e rce n t) u se d h and signal s in th e b efo re p e riod
eithe r. It al so should b e noted that bicycli sts wo uld not b e
exp ec t e d to sig n al at sites w h e re they were riding straight
ah ea d (all but two of th e sites).
MOTORIST AND BICYCLIST INTERACTIONS
228 Case Studies Bicycle Countermea sure Selection System
A sig nifi ca ntly hi gher p ercentage of motorists over all
sites yi elde d to bicyclists aft e r th e blue pave m ent was
install e d-92 p ercent in the aft e r phase comp ared with
72 percent in the b efore p e riod . Conflic ts, as defined in
thi s study, were infrequent in both periods , w ith eig ht
coded in th e b efore p e riod a nd six cod e d in the after
p eriod. Co nflict rates were th e r efo re quite small -0.95
p er 100 e ntering bi cyclists in the before p eriod. This
r a te d ec r ease d to 0.59 per 100 after the blu e pavement
was insta ll e d.
Th ere were differences by site and by ty p e of site
(gro up) in so m e of th e outcomes n oted above (fo r full
report and analyses, see H u nte r , e t al. 2000). Fo r ex-
a mple, a ft e r blu e pavement was install e d for th e gro up
1 and g roup 3 sites d esc rib ed above, th e p e r ce ntage
of bi cy cli st s u sing th e marked p athway in c r eased sig-
nifi ca ntly a nd the percentage of bi cycl ists slowin g or
stop ping d ecr eased signifi ca ntl y. Al so, the p e r centage of
motorists yie lding to bicy cli st s in crease d si gnific antly.
Unfortunately, bi cyclis ts turned to c h ec k for traffi c le ss
frequently at th ose gro ups of sites. In the group 2 sites,
where motorist s were shifting into a right-turn lane
across a throu gh bicycle lan e (as opposed t o e nter-
ing or exiting th e roa dway), cy cli st s ac tua ll y inc reased
th e ir sca nning b ehavio r and motorist signaling also in-
c rease d si g nifi can tl y. The p e r ce ntage of bi cy cli sts u sing
th e painte d area a t th e group 2 sites d ec r ease d aft er
trea tme nt , and motorist yielding did not change sig-
nificantly at th e gro up 2 sites.
SURVEY RESULTS
The majority of bicyclists indicated the following:
• the pav em e nt m a rkings were no more slipp e ry than
b efo re ,
• motorists were yie lding to bi cycli sts more than b efo re,
th e treate d lo ca ti ons were sa fe r th an b efo re, and
th e markings increase d motorist aware n ess of the con-
flj c t areas.
A m ajority of surveye d motorists noti ced the blu e mark-
ings and th e si gn s. More motorists w h o noticed the signs
also correctly interpre ted that th e blu e pavem e nt m ea nt
they should yield to cycli sts. N ea rl y 50 p e rcent of the
motorists w h o responded said the trea tme nt h elp e d in-
crease aware n ess of the confli ct areas, while others ex-
presse d co nc ern about crea ting a false sense of sec urity
for bicy cli sts.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDAT IONS
These results suggest that colored bike lan es and accompa-
nying signs may b e one way to h e ighte n both motorist and
bi cyclist aware n ess of so m e typ es of intersec tion and m e rge
co nfli ct areas, the reby creating a safer riding environment .
Motorist yielding b eh av ior increased overall and at six of
10 individual sites . Slowing by bi cyclists approaching the
confli ct areas also d ecrease d , signaling an increase d com-
fo rt level amon g cyclists. Some of the treated areas still are
in good co ndition , even fi ve years aft e r the thermoplas ti c
markings were install ed. Some are so m ewh at worn, but still
functional. Others are grea tl y worn where traffic is h eavy.
T h e th ermoplas ti c colo ring see m s to las t two to three years
in places wi th h eavy traffic. Five yea rs fo ll owing install a-
tion, Portland's bicycle coordinator still h as a high o pinio n
of the val u e of th e blu e pavem e nt markings. H e h as m ore
sites identifi ed for implementing thi s trea tment w h e n funds
become ava il abl e to install and m aintain th e m .
More eval u atio n s are n ee ded of the u se of this trea tment
as well as w h e n and w h e re su ch appli ca tions are app ro-
priate, the effec ts and use of signs w ith m arkings, and the
types of materials and colors that sh o uld b e use d. Addi-
tionally, bicyclists sh o uld b e e ncourage d to continu e the ir
vig il ance and sca nning beh av ior aft er colored pa ve m ent
ma rkings are install ed in co nflict areas .
COSTS AND FUNDING
Painted sites mater ials and $900/10 sites labor
Blue thermo-materia ls 9,700
p la stic sites labor 6,300
Tot al : $16 ,000/8 sites
(1998)
REFERENCES
Hunter, WW; H arkey, D.L.; Stewart, JR.; and Birk, M.L.
Eva lu ation of the Blu e Bike Lane Treatment used in Bicycle -
Motor Vehicle C onfl ict Areas in Portland, Oregon, Publi-
cation No. FHWA-FD-00-150, Fe d eral Highway Ad-
ministration, M cLean, Virginia, 2000.
Hunter, WW; Stutts, J.C.; P ein, WE.; and Cox, C.L. Pe-
destrian and Bicycle Crash Types of the Early 1990's, Pub-
lication No. FHWA-RD-95-163, Federal High way
Administration, M cLean, Virg inia, 1996 .
J ensen , S.U. "Junc tions and Cyclis ts ." Inser t to Pro ceed -
ings of Velo City '9 7 -10th International Bicycle Planni ng
Coriference, Barcelona, Spa in, 1997.
Le d e n, L. "H as th e City of Gothenburg Fo und the Con-
ce pt to Encourage Bi cyc lin g by Improving Safety for
Bicy cli sts?" Pro cee dings of Ve lo Ci ty '97 -10th Inter-
nat ional B icycle Plan ning Conference, B arcelona, Spain,
1997, pp . 271-274.
Leden, L.; Garder, P.; and Pulkkine n , U. Meas uring the
safety effect of rai sed bicycle cross in gs u sin g a n ew
resea rch methodology. Transportation R esearch R ecord
163 6,Tran spo rtation R esearc h Board and the National
R esea rch Co uncil , W as hington , DC, 1998, pp. 64-70.
P ro novost ,]. and Lusign an, M . Pro Bik e/Pro Walk '96 R e-
so urce Boo k. Bicycle Fe d e ration of Ameri ca and Pe d es-
trian Fe d eration of America, Portland, M aine, 1996 .
CONTACTS
Mia Birk, Princip al
Alta Pl anning + D es ig n
144 NE 28 th Ave
Portland OR 97232
(503) 230-9862
Roger G ell er
Bicycl e Coordinator
City of Portland Office ofTransportation
1120 SW 5th Avenue, Roo m 800
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 82 3-767 1 (vo ice)
(503) 82 3-7609 (fax), (503) 823-6868 (TDD)
ro ge r. ge ll e r@ pdxtran s.org
http: I I www. p o rtlandtran spo rta ti on. org/b icycles / d e fa ult.
htm
The modifi catio n (b l ue bike lanes) that is the
subjec t of this case study is not compliant with
the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devi ce s,
nor is it current ly being considered for inclusion .
Accordingly, it is imperative that any jurisdi ction
wishing to utilize blue bike lanes (or any other
non -approved traffic control device) shou Id seek
exper imental approval from the Federal Highway
Administration . For information on how to do so,
please vi sit this Web site: http ://mutcd .fhwa .dot.
gov/kno-amend. htm.
Bicycle Counte rm easure Selection System Case Studies 229
PORTLAND, OREGON #23
Crossing an Arterial through an Offset
Intersection: Bicycle-Only Center-Turn Lane
BACKGROUND
Th e North-South 40s Bikeway is a 12 .2 km (7 .6 mi)
bicy cl e co rrido r a b o ut 4 km (2 .5 mi) from P o rtla nd 's
dow ntown c ore . D eve l oped in 1999, th e bikeway run s
th e e ntire brea dth of P o rtl a nd from north t o south ,
co nnec ting res ide ntial n e ig h bo rho o d s t o five co mme r-
ci al di st r ic ts, six p ark s and 1 0 sc hools a nd inte r sec tin g
1 0 perp e ndicul a r bikeways . It c omprises 9 km (5.6 mi )
o f bi cy cl e b o ul eva rds, 2 . 9 k m (1.8 mi) of bicycle la n es
a nd 15 2 .4 m (500 ft ) of off-s tree t p a th 1•
A mino r arte rial w ith an average d ail y traffic of ab o u t
10,000, SE Stark Stree t , intersec ts a segment of the bike-
way o n SE 41 " Ave nu e. T h e junc ti o n is compli ca te d by
a 3 5 m (11 5 ft) o ffse t of 4 1" as it crosses Sta rk . N o rth
and so uth a pproac h es are st o pp e d w ith stop si gn s. The
standard se t o f c ro ss in g trea tme nts were considere d but
p osed signifi ca nt draw backs fo r this project. T h e o nl y
effec ti ve c iv il o ption wo uld h ave b ee n a m edi an re fu ge,
w hi c h wo uld h ave p ro hi b ite d some tu rnin g m ove m e nts
fr o m Stark to 41 st .
COUNTERMEASURES
In the e nd it was d eci d ed to strip e a bi cycle-o nl y ce nte r-
turn lan e. This t\;vo-way, 3 m (10 ft ) lan e p rov ides a re fu ge
for cy cli sts w ho cros s Stark by esse ntiall y exec uting fir st a
ri ght-turn o nto Stark an d the n a le ft-turn b ac k o nto the
bikew ay 2 .
230
Roger Geller, Bicycle Coordinator, City of Port -
land , Oregon
Case Studie s Bicycle Coun te rmea sure Se lec ti on System
I 1'
I
I I
I
I
I I ·'-J.' _e:::===::::::::.:::::::::~c...LJ~ ,'I ====cg;i=='=== --_.,,,.,_ .. ~ ...
Rendering of bi cyc le-only center-turn lane .
Photo of bi cycle -o nly center-turn lane as imp lemented.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
There h as b ee n n o fo rmal ev alu ati o n , but feedback fr om
cycl ists h as b ee n p os iti ve and the intersec tion co ntinu es
to fun ct ion as inte nde d .
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
This treatm e nt su ccess fu ll y addresse d three c riteria: it o f-
fe red a refu ge for cro ss ing cycli sts and all owed th em to
c ro ss one di rec ti o n o f traffic at a time; it m aintained all
automotive turning m ove m e nts, and it provid e d an inex-
p e n sive so lutio n to this c ro ss in g th at left more ava ilabl e
funding for conventional civ il treatments at oth er inter-
sections on the b ikeway.
COSTS AND FUNDING
Costs for thermoplastic paint to make the bike markings
were minimal. The project was implemented as part of a
larger plan , so there is no break-out for this treatment.
CONTACT
Roger Geller
B icycle Coordinator
City of Portland Offi ce ofTransportation
1120 SW 5th Avenue , Room 800
Portl and, OR 97204
(503) 823-7671 (voi ce)
(503) 823-7609 (fax)
(503) 823-6868 (TDD)
roger.geller@pdxtrans.org
http: I I www.portlandtransportation.org/bicycles/ default .
htm
'Portland str ip es bicycle lanes on roads w ith average dail y traffic
vo lu mes of 3,000 or greater. Bicycle boulevards are low volu1ne
stre ets that generally work well for bi cycling. The city typicall y im-
proves arterial cross in gs, alters the stop sign pattern, and occasion-
aJly diverts automo tive traffic to make them work better.
2We considered two options-crossing making first a right turn
and then a left turn, or using the n ext st reet to cross making first
a le ft turn and then a right turn . Doing the latter would require
o nl y striping receiving bicycle lanes on the cross stre e t.We rejected
that in favor of the right-turn first scenario because to make the
left turn first wo uld necessitate crossing both lanes of cross traffic
at once, rather than crossing one lane at a tim e, as is done whe n
making the right t urn first.
Bicycle Cou nt erm easure Se lec ti on System Case Stud ies 231
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA #24
Improving Sigh t Dis tance between Cyclists
and Motorists
BACKGROUND
A sh ared-use p a thway for bicycli st s and pedestrians
t ravels east to wes t al ong the Panhandl e portion of
Go ld en Gate P ark, b ordered b y a co u plet of o n e-way
a rte rials. Fe ll Stree t , the wes t-bound portion of the
co uple t , i s the cl oses t t o t h e path and to the north. The
p a th trave ls alo n g the p ark mostl y fr ee of i ntersec tions
w ith any roadways except at Masoni c Avenue w h ere
th e path crosses the street in the so uth crosswalk . The
inte rs ec tion is co ntro ll ed by a two-phase signal w h ere
motorists on Fe ll S tree t and peopl e in the east-wes t
c ro sswalk see a green light a nd WALK signal a t the
sa m e time (see figure 1).
There are a pprox imately 300 ve hicl es per hour turning
l e ft from Fe ll Stree t t o Masonic Avenue in the evening
p ea k h our. That sa m e time is also p eak u sage for th e
p a thway, w hi c h se r ves as a popu la r co mmute ro u te for
cyclists. In 2002, 100 cyclis t s p er h our were co unted
on t h e p ath . G ive n c ity -w ide tre nds an d anecdo tal ob-
se rvations, th e r e are like ly more cy clists than this t o d ay.
The numb er of p e d es t rians an d other wheeled path
u sers co ntributes t o the number of p eople in the cross-
walk at any given t ime.
Give n the popular ity of the path, the number ofleft-turn-
ing vehicles trave ling across the path , and the number of
cl ose call s re porte d , it has been w id ely recognized that
improve m e nts we re n eeded to ease th e p otential for co n-
fli c ts in the crosswalk .
232
M ichael Sallaberry, PE , Associate Transportation
Engineer, San Francisco Department of Park i ng
and Traffic
Contribu ti ons by Dustin White, i ntern, San Fran-
c isco Department of Parking and Traffi c
Ca se Stud ies Bicycle Co unter measure Selec tion System
Figure 1. Aerial view of path intersect ion with Maso ni c Avenue
and Fe l l Street.
COUNTERMEASURES
About five years ago , so m e m eas ures were implemente d
to improve thi s area. First, an approximately 3 m (10 ft )
long red (no parking) zo n e approaching the inte r sec ti on
on Fell Street was painted to improve sight lines. T hree
meters in le n gth was chosen as it was feared that a longer
red zone would be routinely violated, as p arking d em and
in the area was high and it m ay not be clea r to motorists
why a long red zone was n eeded . Later on, si gn s were
installed stating LEFT TURN YIELD TO BIKES AND
PEDS (fig ure 2).
Since th e n , the path was w ide n ed and repaved to h andl e
increased d e m and. As the n umb er of path u sers co ntinu ed
to climb, so did the number of reported colli sions and
near-collisions. Another ro und of improvements to the
crossing was warranted.
Though many believed it might b e time to h ave a se p a-
rate phase for path users and for left turnin g ve h icl es, it
was recognized that this chan ge would require more time
and funding for the needed sign al upgrade. Some also
thought that perhaps a more moderate, sh orter t erm ap-
• I
r
'
Figure 2. Si gnage at path c ro ssin g .
p ro ac h n1ight suffi ce. In any case, all recognized the n eed
for imp roveme nts in the n ea r t e rm . Thu s, the n ext ro und
of improvements inclu de d th e fo ll owing:
• A lo n ger re d (no parking) zone o n the Fe ll Street ap -
proac h t o the intersec tion t o improve sig htlines
Striping t o e n co urage w id e r an d thu s slow e r left tu rn
m ove n1 e nts
• A ladde r-trea tment t o th e crosswa lk w ith ad vanced
stop b ar o n Maso ni c Ave nu e
A lea ding p e d es trian sig n al inte r va l (see fig ure 3)
Th e propose d re d zo n e improves sightlines b e twee n
motorists a nd p a th u se r s, and is n ow 1 8 .3 m (6 0 ft ) lo n g ,
a 15 .2 m (50 ft) ext e n sion of the existing 3 .0 m (10
ft ) z on e. To improve complia n ce with this p arking r e-
stric ti on , a cro ss -ha t c h e d are a w as strip e d in addition
t o the u su al r e d c urb p aint and the NO PARKING
sig n s. Sp eed s on Fell Stree t ar e controll e d u sm g regu -
Fi g ure 3. Aeria l vi ew of the interse ct ion with th e imp rove-
ments.
larly sp ace d sign als and are 48 kph (30 mph) d uring th e
even ing p eak p eri o d . With a 15.2 m (50 ft) incre ase to
the existing re d zo n e, m o torists are abl e to see p eo p le in
the crossw alk 1 .1 seco nds soo n er.
The sa m e cross h at c hing u se d t o e mphas ize the N O
PARKIN G res tri c tion also di sco urages m o t o rists from
m oving cl oser t o the c urb as th ey turn ri g h t. A c urve d
ext e n si o n of th e c ro ss-h a t c hing is inte nd e d to e n c o urage
w ide r and slower turn m ove m ents. Pri or t o the res t rip-
ing, m any m o torists c ut th e turn with minimal re du c-
ti o n in the ir sp eed . The o th e r striping c h ange w as t o
m ak e the crosswa lk a ladder-styl e c ro ss ing w ith a st o p
b ar fo r n o rthb o und M aso ni c Ave nu e motor ists. T h ese
m arkings w e re inte nde d t o inc rease the vi sibili ty of th e
crosswalk , a nd c rea t e so m e sp ace b e tween n orthbound
m o t or ists and t h e c ro sswalk . Th e additional sp ace was
inte nde d to all ow some m arg in of sa fe ty b e tween p ath
u se r s e nte ri ng the c ro sswalk o n a stale g ree n a nd motor-
ists eage r to pro ceed north at the ir g reen.
A l ea d ing p e d es trian inte r va l (LPI ) of 3 sec onds was also
impl e m e nte d t o allow p ath u se r s t o es t abli sh the m se lves
in the c ro sswalk b e for e the pla t oo n o f ve hicl es o n Fe ll
Street arrive d a t the intersecti o n . The LP I also provides
a 3 sec ond all-re d for the inte r sec tion , a seco ndary b e n -
e fit . It sh ould b e note d tha t th e p e d es trian si gn al is a
co untdown sign al , w h ic h di spl ays the amount of time
le ft dur in g the "fl as hi n g h and."
Figure 4. Ea stbound view of th e crosswa lk/pat h and westbound
motor ists on Fell Street.
Bi cycle Coun terme asu re Se le ction System Case Studi es 233
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
To determine th e e ffec ti veness of th e c h anges, a survey
was t ake n of p ath us e rs . A more sc ie ntifi c approac h would
have been to observe the intersection and coll ect data.
However, given limited resources and the difficulty of
eva lu ating various levels of co nflict and near-colli sions
between path u sers and left turning motorists, it was d e-
cid ed that a survey would have to su ffice. The survey was
take n at various times of the day, mostly on weekd ays but
also on a Saturday. An effort was made to pick 100 p eo pl e
randomly so that cy clists, pedestrian s, and oth er path u ser
groups would b e represented.
Fifty-six p ercent of path users surveyed did not notice
the c hanges. The 44 p ercent who did were as ke d on a 1
to 5 sc ale what they thought of the ch anges, 1 m ea ning
"n1uch n1or e safe", 2 n1eaning "n1ore safe ", 3 n1eaning
"no change," 4 meaning "less safe," and 5 n1eaning "n1 u ch
less sa fe." The ave rage score from this response was 2.3 ,
so mewhere b e tween "more sa fe" and "no change." More
than half of th e 42 who responded (two did not) gave a
sco re of 2 ("mo re sa fe ") while three respondents replied
they felt either "le ss safe" or "much less safe."
Anecdotally, so m e observations h ave b een made. M an y
motorists are still c utting the turn sh ort, but a high er p e r-
centage than b efore is taking it wider and sl ower. North-
bound motorists on M asonic Avenue obey the stop b ar
se t b ac k 1.5 m (5 ft) from the crosswa lk approximately
80-90 perc e nt of the time. Also, there h ave been very few
incidents of motorists p arking in the extended re d zone.
B ase d on the much hi gher incidence of motorists p arking
in th e previous 3 m (10 ft)-long red zone, this indica tes
the crosshatc hi ng along the c urb makes a difference.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
B ase d on the res ults of th e survey and anecdotal observa-
tions, these ch anges have improved the cross ing. However,
as noted in the survey results, 56 p e rc ent of the res pon-
d e nts did not notice th e improvements. The nex t ste ps
are to con side r additional short term improvements and
con c urre ntly consider the cos ts, benefits, and impac ts of a
se parate phase for crosswalk u se rs and left-turning ve hi-
cles. As the intersec tion is already n ea r a vo lume/ capacity
ratio of 1.0 , there is not much time during a signal cycle
to work with. Splitting th e phase would yield a signifi-
cantly shorter crossi ng time for path u sers, up to half what
it is today. Still, the prop osal will b e studie d in greater
d e tail so that a mo re informe d decision can be m ad e .
234 Case Studie s Bicycle Countermea su re Selection System
REFERENCES
Fell Street and Masonic Avenue Intersection Survey R eport,
October 2005, City and County of San Francisco Mu-
nicipal Transportation Agency Bicycle Program
http://wwvv.bicycle.sfgov.org/site /uploadedfil es /dpt/
bike /Fe ll _Masonic_Survey _Summary(l). pdf
COSTS AND FUNDING
It cos t approximately $5000 to d es ign and imple m e nt the
ch anges and take the survey. The funding was provided by
the San Francisco Transportation Authority via Proposi-
tion K funds, a fund developed by a half-cent sales ta x
devoted to transportation improvements within th e city
and co unty of San Francisco.
CONTACTS
Mi c h ae l Sallaberry
San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic
( 415) 554-2351
mike.sallaberry@sfgov.org
Dust in White
San Francisco D epartment of Parking and Traffic
(415) 503-2117
dustin.white@sfgov.org
UNIVERSITY PLACE, WASHINGTON #25
Grandview Drive . Roundabout and Corridor
Improvements
BACKGROUND
Because Gra ndvi ew Drive (a n arterial road) lac k ed ad e-
quate sh ould ers, chil dren bi cy cling and walking to sc ho o l
we re forced to travel along the edge of p ave d travel lan es,
adj acent to 45 mph traffic . In 1996, the Unive rsity Place
Co uncil and staff commenced a public involve m e nt pro-
cess in the community to dete rmine the improve m ent
opti o n s for Grandview Drive. Grandview Drive is a sec-
o ndary ar terial that provides access to a hi gh sc hool , mid-
dle sc h ool and over 200 res id e nts. It e nds at the C ity's
undeveloped 700-acre waterfront. The one-mil e stre t ch
of road did not ha ve any pedestrian or bicycle fac iliti es,
and although the speed limit on the road was m a rk ed as
35 mph (56 kph), the ave rage spee d was as high as 42
to 45 mph (73 kph). Therefore, th e childre n were forced
to nego ti ate thi s commute-adjacent to high sp ee din g
vehicles-by walking on the ed ge of trave l la n es, as th e re
was no other place for them to walk (see figure 1).
In addition, the intersecti on of G ran dview Drive and
O ly mpic Drive was controll ed by a four-way stop, caus ing
traffic to b ack up hundreds of feet in eve ry direc tion dur-
ing p eak h o urs. Many impatient drive r s, waiting to cross
the intersection, did not p ay attention to th e p e d es tri ans
and bi cyclists w ho were trying to cross th e roadway.
COUNTERMEASURES
After m any public m eeti n gs, the City C ouncil d ecid ed to
build Washington State's very fir st modern roundabo ut at
the intersec tion of Grandview Drive and Olympic D r ive.
Ben Yazici, City Manager, City of Sammamish ,
WA; Former Assistant City Manager/Director of
Public Works for City of Univers it y Place, WA
Contribut ion s by Steve Sugg, Current Director of
Public Works, University Place, WA
Figure 1. Gr andview Driv e before roundabou ts bike lanes, and
other improveme nts were added.
Initially, th ere was overwhelming oppositi on to the
roundabout from the conununity. Many re sid ents were
concerne d that it wo uld crea te m ore safety problem s for
p edestrian and bicyclists. So, th e Council decided to build
a temporary roundabout for twelve months. At the end
of the twelve-month p erio d , an analys is was to be con-
ducted , including an assessment of the community's ac-
ce ptan ce along w ith techni ca l data to h elp d ec id e the fate
of the roundabout .
The C ity did ext ens ive re searc h on the roundabout. Fewer
and less severe acc ide nts were expected w ith roundabo ut-
controll e d intersections than w ith signal or stop-con -
troll e d intersec tions. Whil e the re are 32 potential co nfli ct
points at a co nven tional (sign or si gnal controlled) inter-
sec ti o n , there are o nl y 12 pote ntial confli c t points in a
roundabo ut (figure 2).
After the tes t p eriod, co mmunity acce ptan ce of the round-
a b ou t was m easured at 75+ percent, so the Council d e-
cided to kee p it as a permanent traffic co ntrol device. Ul-
timately, the entire roadway was reconstructed with c urb s,
gutter s, sidewalks, bike lanes, p lante r strips and stree t li ght-
ing (see fi g ure 3). And four add itional ro undab o uts were
Bi cycle Counte rmea sure Selectio n System Case Studies 235
Figure 2 . Diagram of conflict points at roundabout and conven -
tiona l four-way inte rsec t ions .
Figure 3 . Redesigned Gra ndview dri ve with roundabout, bike
lanes, crosswalks, curb and sidewalk with buffer strips and
enhan ced l ig ht ing.
c onstruc te d , along with fo ur m.id-block sc hoo l cros swalks
with yellow fla sh er s.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
Delay and cras h es have b o th d ec rea sed for motor ve hicl e
traffic . R es id e nts p e rce ive d th e roadway's g rave l shoulde rs
as unsafe for p e de strians b efore the proj ec t , so p e d estrians
h ave a muc h g reater leve l o f c omfort with th e n ew d esi gn.
And bi cycli sts are more co mfortable b eca u se of the n ew
bicycle lanes .
Average sp eed at a mid-blo ck lo cation o n Grandvi ew
Drive w as lowered from ove r 40 mph (6 4 kph) to 32
mph (52 kph). Another study of niidday sp ee ds found
that the d esi gn with the roundabout and p e destrian and
bicycle enhancements re duced average sp e eds by 4.1
mph (6.6 kph) with out the support of in c reas ed e nforce-
236 Case St udies Bicyc le Co untermeasure Selection System
m e nt. Ave rage m.idd ay sp eeds on a p arall el ro adway that
was tar ge te d with h eavy e nforce m e nt, but did not h ave
any d es ig n c hanges, exp e ri e nc e d a re duc tion of only 0 .8
mph (1.3 kph).
ADT on Grandview Drive at Olympic Drive was 69 32
in 199 4 , b efore the improveme nts, and 6 503 in 20 0 1 , aft e r
the improveme nts we re c omple te d .
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
B ecau se th e ro adway d es ign is mu c h more aes the ti cally-
pleas ing , res ide nts now c onside r Grandvi ew Drive t o b e
the City 's "linear p ark " as it connec ts to th e undevelop e d
wate rfront .
N o offi cial data h ave b een collect e d , but p ed es tri an ac tiv -
ity h as increase d alo n g Grandv iew Drive. A cc ording to
Steve Su gg of the Un.i ve rsity Pl ace Public Works D e p art-
m ent, "sidew alks b ro u ght th e p e ople o ut."
The proj ec t was a co mple te su ccess as the citi ze n s o f Uni-
ve r sity Pl ace h ave ove rwhelmingly supporte d the stree t
improve m ents and th e roundabouts. Furthe r, th e Wa sh-
ington State D e p artme nt of Tran sp o rtation d eve lop ed
rounda bout guidelines and m an y c ommunities in Wa sh-
ing ton State built ro undabouts aft e r th e Grandv iew Drive
proj ec t w as compl e t e d.
COSTS AND FUNDING
The first roundab o ut, at Grandview and O lympic Drives,
c o st only $20 ,0 00 more th an th e projec ted c o st of the
traditional inter sec tion improve m e nt that w as initially
planned and d es ign e d for th e inte rsec tion.
Th e e ntire proj ec t c o st $6.15 millio n and wa s fund e d and
built in three phases. It includes fi ve roundabouts and over
three mil es (4.8 km) of reconstru c te d roadway. Funding
came from a varie ty of sourc es, including City gen eral
funds (~$3 millio n ), a low inte res t lo an from a stat e pub-
lic works revolv ing lo an fund ($1.8 million), lo cal bonds
($1 million), County funds and donate d right-of-way
($320,000), and a contribu tion from a loc al grave l busi-
n es s ($50,000).
CONTACTS:
Ben Yaz ici
City M anager
C ity of Samma mish
486 228 th Aven u e, NE
Sammamish, WA 9807 4-7222
(425) 898-0660
byazici@ci.sammamish. wa. us
Steve Sugg
D irec tor of Publi c Works
C ity of University Place
3 7 15 Bridgepo rt W ay, West
University Place, WA 98466
(253) 566-5656
ss u gg@ci. univers ity-place. wa. u s
Pa t O'Neill
C ity Engineer
City of University Place
3715 BridgeportWay,West
University Place, WA 98466
(253) 460-2529
PO N eill @ ci. university-place . wa. u s
Bi cyc le Countermeasure Selection System Case Studies 237
EUGENE, OREGON #26
Innovative Application of the Bike Box
BACKGROUN D
Bike box is a te rm th at h as gai n e d popularity in the Unit-
e d States for a E u ropean treatme nt u su all y known as the
adva n ced stop bar (figure 1). The box is a right an gle ex-
tensio n to a bike lane at the h ea d of t h e intersec tion . The
box allows bi cycli sts to ge t to the h ea d of th e traffic que u e
o n a re d traffic signal indica tion and then procee d fir st
when th e traffic signal ch anges to g reen. Such a move-
ment is b e neficial to bicycli sts an d eliminates co n fli c ts
when, for example, there are m any right-turning motor
ve h icles n ext to a r i ght side bike lan e. B eing in t h e box,
a nd thus at the front of th e traffic qu eu e, also tend s to
make b icycli sts more visi ble to motorists.
COUNTERMEASURES
A bike box and accompanying traffi c signs, but with no
sp ecial traffic signals to h o ld motorists or di rec t bi cycli sts
to t h e box, were ins tall e d o n High Street at 7th Ave nu e
in Eugen e, OR, in th e summe r of 1998. The appli ca tion
of the b ike box was innova ti ve in th e se n se that th e i nte nt
was to give bicy cli sts a safer way to ch ange fro m one sid e
of the stree t to th e other at a b usy downtown inte r sec-
tion featuring two on e-way stree ts. Prior t o the box, the
vas t m ajority o f cy clists approac h e d on High Street in th e
left-side bike lane adjacent to p arked m o t or ve hicles. The
bike lan e was le ft-sid e to match w ith ano the r o n e-way
couple t and to av o id h av ing a righ t-side bike lan e n ext to
inte r sec tions with double right-tu rn lan es. M any of the
cyclis ts approachin g in the le ft-s id e bike lane prefe rre d to
switch to the right-sid e (thro u gh) bike lane on the far sid e
of the inte rsec tion b eca u se at the n ext block cyclists in
th e l eft-side b ike lane must turn left . Moving from left to
righ t side aft e r th e inter sec tion e ntail s cross ing th ree lanes
238
Wil liam W. Hunt er, Senior Research Scientist ,
UNC High way Sa fety Rese arch Cen ter
Case Studi es Bicyc le Count ermeasure Se lect ion Sys tem
------------------------------
1111111111111
Jo
t
Figure 1. Di ag ram of a b i ke box used with le f t side bike lane .
of traffic . T h e ave rage annual d aily traffic on H igh Street
is ab o ut 8,500 ve hicles p er d ay, and the p eak h o ur total is
ab o ut 1 ,000 m o tor ve h icl es. Whe n traffic was busy, bi cy -
cli sts co uld ha ve difficulty finding a ga p lar ge e n o u gh to
all ow an eas y m ove from left to right. Some b icy clists were
aggress ive and u sed h and signals to indicate th eir move-
m e nt from left t o right. Many, however, simply stopped in
the bike lane and wai te d for a suitabl e gap .
B esi des the crossover from left to right aft e r the intersec-
tion ide ntified above, th ere were a variety of other ways
us e d by bicyclists to n egotia te this inte rsec tion . Some
would shift from the bike lan e to the motor ve hicl e traffic
lan es prior to the intersec ti o n . Other s rode or walked th eir
bicycle thro u gh the crosswalk s o n b o th High Street and
7th Aven u e as p e d es trian s would, a movement that delays
right-turning motorists. Some bi cycli sts would inte ntion-
all y disob ey the traffic signa l at the intersection prop er
while motorists wai ted for the signal to ch an ge, move into
the inte rsec tion , and the n sh ift from left to right.
With the bike box in place, bicyclists d es iring to ch ange
fro m the left to th e right sid e of High Street ca n proceed
to the h ead of th e traffic queue on a re d traffic sign al
indica ti on and the n cross ove r t o the front of the second
lan e of traffic (figure 2). The seco nd lan e is a combinatio n
through/ri ght-turn lane.Th e right-most lan e is righ t turn
only. Right t urn on re d is not p e rmitte d ; however, so m e
motorists do not compl y.The b ox is not m ea nt to b e u se d
o n a green traffic signal indication .
Bicycl ists h ave the rig ht of way w h e n in the b ox. They
ge n erall y are able to acc el erate quic kl y through the inter--
sec tion ah ea d of motor ve hicl es w h e n th e sign al c h a n ges
to g ree n , the n safe ly sw itch to the through bike lan e o n
the right-hand side of High Stree t su c h that motorists are
not inconve ni e n ce d .
Seve ral other step s were take n to h elp bicy clists and mo-
torists understand the u se of thi s innovati ve trea tment at
this inte rsec tion. A press release was pre p ared and stories
run in th e local n ewsp ap er and the Unive r sity of Oregon
stude nt n ews pap e r. A sp ecial sign board w ith information
about how to us e the bike box was pl ace d on a co n stru c-
tion b arricade n ear th e intersection p e d es trian crosswalk.
The b ar ri ca d e with e du ca tional sign also h ad a fl as hing
light attac h e d. Traffi c sign s with orange diamond attac h-
ments add e d for c onspi c uity were pl ace d at the inte r sec -
tion to indica te that traffic, except bikes, should stop prior
to the b ox on a red signal indication (STOP HERE ON
RED, with EXCEPT BICYCLES mounte d b elow). A
ye llow di agra nunatic sign with a BICYCLES MERG-
ING m essage was alrea dy in plac e.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
Cycli sts trave ling throu gh the inte rsec ti o n w e re vid eo-
taped b efo re and after placement of the box. The video-
tapes were co d e d to evaluate op e rational b e h av iors and
confli c ts w ith motorists, other bicyclists, and p e d es trian s.
Othe r d ata c once rning bi cy clists ' ch ara c teristi cs and ex-
p e ri en ce, as well as th e ir o pinion of h ow th e bike box
fun c ti oned, were obtained throu gh short oral surveys.
T h ese surveys were p e1formed on d ays when videotaping
was not occuring .
T h e u se of a bike box to fac ilitate th e m ove m e nt of bi-
cycli sts from a le ft -side bike lane, through an inter sec ti o n ,
and across seve ral lanes of a one-way street to a rig ht-side
bike lan e was an innovative appro ac h . The d ata indi ca t e d
that th e u se of the b ox was reas onably good. U sage ca n b e
examined seve ral ways.
Figure 2. Three bicyclists using the box correc tly.
For all bi cyclis ts coming throu gh thi s intersec tion, 11
p e rcent u se d th e box as inte nde d (i.e., approaching
fro m the left-sid e bike lan e and then moving into the
box on a re d traffic signal indi ca ti on).
Including bi cy cli sts w h o u se d the box throu gh other
maneuve r s, su c h as crossing from left to right b efore
the inte rsection and the n moving into th e box, 16 p e r-
ce nt of all bi cycli sts u sed th e box.
N arrowing fu rthe r, of the bi cycli sts w h o approac h ed
in the left-side bike lan e and th en crosse d to the right
side of the str ee t (th e bicyc li sts for whom the box was
most inte nde d), 22 p erce nt u se d the b ox.
• M any m ore bi cyclist s in thi s targe t g roup co uld h ave
u se d the box (i.e ., they h ad a re d signal indi ca tion and
e n o ugh time to move into the box). H ad these bicy -
cli sts done so, th en some 52 p erc e nt would h ave u se d
the box. This las t perce ntage thu s approximates the up -
p e r limit of bike box u se for this pilot lo ca tion and
le ft-to-right m ane u ver during this time p eriod.
A problem with motor ve hicle en croachmen ts into the b ox
likely diminishe d the am o unt of use. Overall, en croachments
occurred in 52 p erc e nt of the red traffic signal indic ati ons
after the box h ad b ee n in pl ace for fi ve months.While this is
n ot uncommon, eve n in Europe w h ere th e d es ign has b een
in pl ace for some time, it is troubling, and rem edies should b e
so u ght. Bicyclists surveyed abo ut th e pilot lo cation tended to
fr equently complai n about the en croac hment problem.
The bike b ox h ad no effec t o n signal vio lati ons. Some 6
to 7 p erce nt of bi cy cli sts vi o late d a red si g nal indication
b oth b e fore and afte r place m e nt of the box .
The r at e of co nflicts b e twee n bicycles and motor ve-
hicles c hanged littl e in the b e fore and afte r p e riods. The
Bi cycle Counte rmea sure Se lection System Ca se Studies 239
ra t e wa s 1.3 c onfli c ts p e r 100 e nte ring b icy cli sts b e fore
the bike b ox and 1. 5 conflic ts p e r 100 ente r i n g bic y cli sts
aft e r . H owever, the patte rn of the c onfli c ts did c h an ge.
Ei g ht o f the 10 confli c ts in th e b e fo re p e ri o d invo lve d
a b icyclist mov ing from le ft t o r ig ht across th e trave l
lan es aft e r the inte r se cti o n . Tw o of the 10 confli c ts in the
after p e rio d w e re of thi s typ e. Six of the aft e r c onflic ts
took place within the inte r sec tio n prop e r, but three of
these invo lve d bicy cli sts com.in g off the r ig ht sidewalk
a nd c onflic ting w i th ri g ht turning m o tor ve hicles. N o
c onfli c ts to o k pl ac e while u sing the bike b ox in the n o r -
m al se n se .
CONCLUS IONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
U se of th e bike box t o h elp bi cy cli sts n ego ti at e a diffi-
c u lt m an e u ve r at this intersec ti o n w as considere d to b e a
ri gorou s t es t . All thin gs con sid e re d , the innova tive trea t-
m ent worke d reas onably well . M o re evaluation s sh o uld
b e co ndu c te d in oth e r se tti ngs and for o ther m an e uve r s
to furth e r unde rstand h ow well this d esign works in the
Unite d States and h ow it mig ht b e improve d. For up-
c oming evaluations, a numbe r of recomme ndations ca n
b e m ad e.
• Edu ca ti o n o fb o th bi cycl ists and drive r s as t o the p ro p e r
u se o f th e b ox is importa nt. This ca n b e acco mplish e d
throu gh n ews p ap e r sto r ies, ra dio and te lev isio n public
service announ cem e nts, b roc hures in bike sh o p s, e tc.
The sp ec ial e duca ti o n sign p os te d at the E u ge n e in-
t e rsec ti o n came about after it w as lea rne d in th e oral
survey of bi cy cli sts that the b ox was n o t well under-
sto od . One of the bi cycli sts p articip ating in th e oral
survey su gges te d u se of a b anne r across the ro adway.
This would b e an excell e nt way of d rawi ng atte nti o n
to the prese n ce of th e box and th e expecte d m ove -
m e nts, es p ec iall y for m o t o rists.
• U se o f bold d e marca ti o n of the b ox is vital. This could
involve w id e r stripin g than th e n o rm o r p e rhap s p aint-
ing the box a brigh t co lo r.
• Ste p s sh o uld be take n t o limit motor ve hicl e en cro ac h-
m e nt. Se tting stop b ar s b ac k a sh ort di stance from the
b ox might lesse n e n croac hme nt. O ffset (o r stagge re d)
st o p b ars also would b e b e n e fi cial , n o t o nl y for en -
cro ac hme nt purposes but also to h elp m o torists see
bi cyclists m oving into th e b ox . Some poli ce prese n ce
m ay al so b e n e c ess ary t o instru c t , warn, o r ti cke t m o -
t o rists about improp er e n cro ac hme nt.
240 Case Studies Bicycle Co unt ermea sure Selection System
In summary, the bike b ox is a p ro misi n g tool to h elp bi-
cycli sts and moto rists avo id confl.i cts in ce rtain ki nds of
inte r sec tion movemen ts. More b oxes n ee d t o b e ins tall ed
a nd evaluat ed to fu rther unders tand th eir effec tive ness in
diffe re nt se ttings. Pilo t tes ting th e D ani sh trea tme nt of re-
cesse d stop bars for m o to r ve hicl es is also rec omme nd e d .
COSTS AND FUNDING
Costs include d p aint (regul ar, n ot th ermo pl as ti c) re moval ,
n ew the rmoplas ti c, two sign s n ear intersec tion an d infor-
m ati o n al sign for ap proxi m ately $2,500 p arts and lab or. If
traffic lo ops ha ve to be m ove d: $1,000/lan e extra.
REFERENCES
H errs te dt, L., Ni elsen, M.A ., Agtis tson, L , Krogsgaa rd ,
K.M .L., J 0 r ge n sen, E., and J 0rgen se n , N .O.. Safety
of Cyclists in Urban Areas: D ani sh Exper iences , Danish
R oa d Direc t ora t e , Co p e nhage n , Denm ark, 1994.
U.K. D e p artme nt ofTran sp o rt. "Advance d Sto p Lines for
Cycli sts,"Traffi c Adviso r y L ea fl e t , U.K. D e p artment of
Tran sport, Lo ndo n , E n gland, 1993.
Wheele r, A . "Advanced Sto p -Lines for Cyclists - A Sim-
pli fie d Lay out," Traffic E ng ineering an d Contro l. Vo l. 36 ,
N o . 5 , pp. 283-289 , M ay 1995 .
Wheeler, A.H ., Le ices t e r, M .A.A., and Underwood, G .
"Adva n ce d Sto p-Lines fo r Cycli sts,'"Tra.ffi c Engin ee ring
and C ontrol ,V ol. 34, N o . 2, pp . 54-60, Fe bruar y 1993.
Z egee r, C.V , Cyn eck.i, M ., Fegan , J., G ill eran , B ., Lager-
wey, P.,T an , C., and W o rks, B . FH WA Study Tour for Pe-
destr ian and Bicyc list Safe ty in Eng land, Germany, and the
Nether land s, R eport N o . FHWA-P L-9 5-006, Federal
Hig hway Adm in istra ti o n , W as h ington, D C , 1994.
CONTACTS
Lee Sh oem ak er
Bicy cl e & P ed es tr ian Program Coordina t o r
C ity of Eu ge n e Publi c W o rks
8 5 8 P ea rl Stree t
E u ge n e, OR 97401
(5 4 1) 682 -8 4 72 (vo ice)
(541) 682-55 98 (fax)
lee.s h oem ake r @ci .e u ge n e.or.u s
William Hunter
UNC Highway Safety R esea rch Center
730 M artin Luther King Jr Blvd , Suit e 300
C h apel Hill , NC 27599-3430
(9 19) 962-87 16
bill_hunter @ unc.edu
The modification (bike box) that is the subject of
this case study is not com pliant with the Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, nor is it cur-
rently being considered for in clusio n . Accor d -
ingly, it is imperat ive that any jurisdiction wishing
to util ize the bike box (or any other non-approved
traffi c contro l device) shou Id seek experi menta I
approval from th e Federa l H ighway Administra -
tion. For in form ation on how to do so , please
vi sit this Web site : http://m utcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
kn o-amend. htm.
Bi cycle Countermeasure Selection System Case Studies 241
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON #27
Comprehensive Maintenance Planning for
Bicycle Facilities
BACKGROUND
A co mpre h e n siv e budget and maintenan ce plan sh ould
b e d evelop e d b efore construction of a bicycle fac ility.The
cos ts invo lved with m aintaining a facility should b e con-
sid e red and budge te d for during the planning process .
The most important concept to keep in n1ind w h e n
con side ring m aintenan ce cos ts is th e direct re lation-
ship b e twee n what is built a nd what is maintained. If
yo u build it, it w ill h ave t o b e maintaine d . If yo u d on't
build it , it won 't ha ve to b e maintaine d . For example, if
yo u install automatic sp rinkl e r systems , you w ill h ave
to follow a sprinkle r m ain t enance sc h e dule suppli e d by
the m anufac ture r. If you install informa ti o n al and direc-
tional signs, yo u will h ave to r e place a certain p ercentage
of the m eac h yea r.Your fac ili ty d es ign , therefore, should
direc tly re fl ect the amount of money you anticip a te h av -
ing available fo r mainte n ance .
A seco nd important con ce pt t o kee p in mind is that it is
very difficult to sec ure m aintena n ce d o ll ars. Fo undati o n
and government grants, w hile available for d es ign and
co n stru c tion of bicycl e fac iliti es, are ge n erally not ava il-
able for m ainte n a nc e. Additionally, it is difficult to ge t th e
public involve d in raising funds for routine maintenance.
The lesso n is that m ainte nance costs are b es t addresse d
through preve ntion . For example, it is always eas ier to in-
clude th e cos t of installing a go od drainage sys t em in th e
initial cos t of a proj ec t than it will b e to secure funding
for fixin g a drai n age proble m at a late r date .
The third a nd final impor tant point is that d eve loping an
accurate m ainte n an ce budge t is a process, no t an exac t
sc ie nce . B eca u se of differe n ces in bookkeeping m e thods,
wages, fac ility d es ign , topography, avail ability of m ai nte -
242
Peter Lagerwey, Pedestrian & Bicycle Program
Coord i nator, City of Seattle
Case Studies Bicycle Countermea sure Select ion System
nance e quipme nt, community exp ec tation s and a host of
oth er va riables , i t is impossibl e to d e t e rmine the p ote ntial
maintenance cos ts of any one fac ility, per mile p e r year.
For exa mple, t wo ide ntical trail s in diffe rent co mmunities
w ill fr equ ently h ave radica ll y diffe re nt p er-mile m ainte-
na n ce cos ts. It is, h oweve r, poss ibl e to develop an acc u ra t e
es timate of m ainte n ance cos ts for a p ar ticular fac ili ty sys -
tem if proper pro ce dures are followe d.
COUNTERMEASURE
Seattl e's so lution for d eveloping a m ai ntenance program
for bi cy cl e facilitie s has b een to develop and impl e m e nt a
seve n -s te p approach:
1) EXISTING COSTS
Whe n d eve loping a m aintenance plan for a new faci li ty,
the first ste p is to c h ec k curre nt cos ts for maintaining an
existing fac ility. The key is to get th e costs for m aintaining
a fac ility that is similar to the faci li ty yo u plan to co n struct.
Whe n reviewing cos t informati on, go over th e budget
w ith so m eo n e who ca n explain exac tl y what item s are
include d in the cost figures . For example, you w ill want
to know if they include labo r and ove rh ead cos ts. D o
they include one-time cos ts on major e quipment su ch as
sweepe rs and tru cks? Do they include ch arges for bring-
ing d e bris to the local landfill? Do vo luntee rs do so m e of
the m ainte n an ce?
2) BOOKKEEP I NG
A seco nd important ste p is to find out cos ts th at w ill b e
ass igned fo r various maintenan ce activi ti es. In particu-
lar, yo u will w an t to look at m ajor e quipme nt, lab or and
overhead costs. For exa mple, if you are go ing to n ee d a
sweeper, the agency m ay h ave a se p ara t e capital fund to
p ay for th e sweep e r, in w hi ch case yo u o nly pay the labor
cos ts of the op e rator. On the other h and , th e maintenance
budge t may b e charged a p er-h o ur fee that covers th e
amortize d , lifetime cos ts associated with the purchas e and
maintenance of the swee p er. Labor and overhead can also
'
vary greatly. Fo r examp le, a m ainte nance e mployee who
makes $14 an h our may ac tually cos t the ma inten an ce
budge t $28 p er hour if all ove rhead costs are included.
A ga in, every age n cy keeps its books d ifferently, w ith some
having sepa rat e b u d ge ts fo r categories like b e n e fit s, of-
fice sp ace, and m an age m e nt support, and others h avi n g
bookkeepin g sys te m s that include these items in th eir per
hour labor cos ts. The bottom line is that the bookkeep-
ing m e thods u se d by the age n cy mana ging yo ur bi cycle
faci li ti es w ill h ave a major impac t on h ow yo u develop a
maint en an ce budge t .
3) MAINTENANCE CHECKLIST AND COST
The nex t st e p in d evelopi ng a m ainte nance b u dge t and
p lan is to c rea t e a c h eckl ist of all possible mainte n ance
ac tiv iti es. A good way to begin is to list everything in-
clude d in the fa cili ti es design . Once again, the rule of
thumb is that you w ill h ave to m aintain whatever yo u
build. B esi d es eac h maintenance ac tivity, list its frequ e n-
cy, its cost p e r application, and i ts annual c o st. Listing
the annual cost, while a lot of work, is doabl e if yo u
are familiar w ith th e bookkeeping sys tem and w ith how
c harges will b e ass igned.
4) ROUTINE AND MAJOR MAINTENANCE
Once yo u have completed a draft li st of maintenance ac-
tivi ti es, di vide th em into "ro u tine" and "major" mainte-
nance ca tegorie s. In ge n e ral, m aintenanc e activities such
as mowing, tha t have a fr e quency of one or more times
p er year, w ill fa ll into t h e category of ro u tin e m ainte -
nance. A ctiv ities such as re p av in g a trail surfa ce, that ha ve a
frequ ency of two or more years, w ill fall into the ca tegory
of m ajor mai n tenance . Whil e major maintenance occurs
infre quently, it should b e budge t ed for on an annu al b as is
to avoid the p e r iodic n ee d fo r a major infu sion of cas h .
5) MAINTENANCE PRIORITIES
Once yo u h ave divide d maintenance ac ti v ities into rou-
tine and major m aintenan ce ca t ego ries, you will want to
se t maintenance prioriti es by identifying which activities
are critical to the safe o p eration of th e facility, and which
ones are cri ti ca l t o oth er obj ectives, su ch as protecting
the investme nt in the infrastru cture, protecting th e e n-
v ironment, and protec ting aesthetics. While so me priori-
ties m ay vary to reflect local co nunu nity exp ec tations,
sa fe operation of the faci li ty sh o uld never be compro-
mised. The American Association of State High way and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Maintenance Manua l
reconm1ends that maintenance should seek to m aintain
co nfo rmance w ith the d es ign guidelines u sed to build the
fac ility. Where proper guidelin es were n ot used, m ainte-
nance should include improvements that will improve the
fac ilities' safety and operation.
6 ) TRACKING
The final task is to crea te a trac king sys tem to insure that
all m ainte n ance ac tivities are completed in a timely, sys-
t ematic w ay. More th an likely, the age n cy that w ill m an-
age a faci li ty alrea dy h as a sys tem in place. Typically, yo u
w ill want a c h ec kl ist for field crews that includes inst ruc-
tions and frequency. Once co mpleted , ch ecklis ts should
be reviewed and kept on fi le for d eveloping future m ain-
tena n ce b u d gets and plans.Th e re also needs to be a sys tem
for requestin g specifi c m ainte n an ce improve m ents su c h as
sign rep lacement. A standardized work instruc tion form
should be d evelope d and se nt to th e fi eld crew, then re-
turne d to the m ainten an ce supe rvi so r for fi ling once the
work h as b ee n co mple te d. Finall y, th e re n eed s to b e a
way to tr ack resident complaints and requests for main-
t e nanc e . This is p articularly cr itical from a liability stand-
point. Once an age ncy h as b een "put on notice" co n-
ce rning a p artic ular safety-related m ainte n an ce problem,
it must b e correct e d within a reaso nable p eriod of time.
Whe n res idents call or write in, their co n cern should b e
put on a stand ard fo r m that includes th e res ide nt's name
and day phon e nu mber, the date , and the location and
n ature of the problem. This should b e fo ll owed up with a
fi eld visit and a call back to the res ide nt exp laining what,
if anythin g, will be done abou t th e sit u ation . Again , all
comp laints should b e fil e d for future refere n ce.
7) MAINTENANCE BUDGET AND PLAN
Once th e above ste ps have b een completed , the mainte -
nance b u dge t and plan is r ea dy to b e p u t in final form . It
shoul d include a ch eckli st of all maintenance items, the
fr e q u e ncy of eac h ac tivity, th e cost for eac h ac tiv ity, th e
annual cost of eac h ac ti vity and an indication of who will
p e rform the ac tivity. Priorities related to sa fe operation
of the fac ili ty sh o ul d b e cl ea rl y identifi ed and a tracking
procedure cl ea rl y o u tlin e d .
SAFETY
A s previously mentione d , mainte n anc e ac tiv ities relat ed
to the safe operation of a facility should always rece ive
top priority. The AASHTO Maintenance Manual identifies
seve n maintenance activities that should b e carrie d out on
a routine b as is. They include:
Signs and Traffic Markings
Signs warning both th e motorist and bicycli st should b e
insp ec te d re gula rl y and kept in good c ondition; and strip -
ing sh ould b e kept promine nt.
S i ght Dist ance and Cle aran ce
Sight distances on parall el ro adways and trail s should not
b e impaire d lea ding up to crossings and curves . Tre es,
shrubs and tall grass should b e regularly inspec ted and
Bicycle Co unt erm easure Se lec ti on Sys tem Case St udies 243
e ither removed or trinm1e d if they can interfere.Adequate
clearances on both sides and overh ead should be ch ecked
regul arl y. Tree branch es should be trimmed to allow
e nou gh room for seasonal growth without encroaching
onto the street or trail.
Surface Repair
Streets and trails should b e patched or gra d ed on a regular
b as is. It is important that finished patc h es be flush with th e
existing surface. Skid resistance of su rface sho uld be the
same as the adjoining surface. Ruts sh ould be removed by
whatever measures are appropriate to give a sa ti sfac tory
resu lt and avoid rec urrence.
Drainage
Seasonal was h o ut, silt or gravel was h es across a st reet or
trail , or si nking should be watc h e d for and appro priate
m easures take n . Install ation of culverts or building small
bridges co uld b e co n sidered a maintenance function to
ac hi eve an inm1ed iate res u lt and avoid the expen se of
con trac ting. Drainage grates sho u ld not have parallel
openings that co uld catch narrow bicycle tires. Mainte-
nance personnel should be espec iall y instructed to assure
tha t gra tes are positi oned so that o p enings are at angles
to the bicyclist 's d irec ti on.
Sweeping and Cleaning
The tires of a bicycle can be eas il y damaged by broken
glass and oth e r sh arp objects. Bicycle wheels slip easily
on leaves or ice. Small solid objects such as loose grave l
or a sti ck on an as phalt smface ca n ca use a serious fa ll .
There also should b e concern when mechanically sweep-
in g roadways that m aterial is not thrown onto a bike lane,
shoulder or trail . M aterials suc h as b ark or grave l may
r ave l and necess ita te frequ ent swee pin g.
Structural Deterioration
Structures should b e inspected annu all y to ensure they are
in good condition. Special attention sh ould be given to
wood foundations and p osts to determine whether rot or
termites are present.
lliumination
Lighting improvements should b e m ade at busy ar te rials.
Once installed, th e li gh ts sho uld b e m aintained not only
to g u ara ntee re li able operation, but also to ensure that
they are kept clean and replaced as required to maintain
the desired luminesce nce.
SAMPLE MAINTENANC E ACTIVITY LIST
T h e following is a p artial li st of so m e of the mainte-
nan ce activities to co n sid er whe n d eveloping a main-
244 Case Stud ie s Bicycle Coun termeasure Selectio n System
tenance budget and plan. It is important to note tha t
this li st sh ould be modified to reflect your particular
needs and co mmu nity exp ec tat ions. This includes iden-
tifying prioriti es and classifying ac ti vities as routine or
major mainte n ance. For exampl e, while mowing m ay
be a wee kly activity in a wet, warm area, it may never
b e requ ire d in a dry, arid p ar t of the co untry. When
yo u develop your own plan, yo u will want t o include
the frequency, cost per application, cos t p er year and
specific instru ctions for eac h item listed as previously
described.
Replace missing and damaged regu latory and direc-
tiona l signs.
Repaint worn pavement m arkings.
Trim trees, shrubs and grass to maintain sight distances.
Patch h oles, fill cracks and feather edges.
C lean dra inage systems, m ake modifications to elimi-
nate the formation of ponds.
Sweep to remove mud, grave l and other debris
Mow bike lane, roadway and trail shoulders (0.8 to 1.5
m (2.5 to 5 ft) back from facility).
Inspect stru ctures for stru ctural deterioration.
Spot pruning to maintain view, enhance aesthetics.
Maintain furniture and other furnishings.
Mow se lec tively where groomed look is d es ired.
In stall and remove snow fences.
Maintain irrigation lines.
Pick up tra sh, empty trash cans.
C lean rest rooms and drinking foun tains, repair as
needed.
Remove graffiti from retaining walls, rocks, etc ..
Prune dense understory growth to improve u ser safety.
Spray for weed control.
Remove snow and ice.
Maintain em ergency te le phones.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
Seattle's Maintenance Program is evaluated by the feed-
back of res id ents, the number of claims resu lting from
p oor maintenance and the number of people bi cycling.
The program is a success by all measures. The city has
been recognized five times as one of the best bicycling
cities in North America. Publi c involvement h as been and
continues to b e high with the Bicycle Program Web site,
the location visited most frequently by those accessing the
Seattl e Department ofTra n sp ortation site.
,
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
After more than 30 years of building and maintainin g bi cy-
cle facilities, Seattl e h as b ee n very su ccess ful in e ncouraging
people to bicycle more often while redu cing the number
of crashes. Additionally, Seattle residents enthusiastically
support the program and have twice voted for m.illion d o l-
lar bonds and levies to co nstru ct more bi cy cl e facilities.
COSTS AND FUNDING
Multiple funding so urces include gas tax funds , ge neral
reve nu e funds, B & 0 Tax funds, car tab reve nu es, federal
and state grants, e t c .
CONTACT
Peter Lagerwey
Bicycle & Pedes trian Program Coordinator
Seattl e D epar tn1ent ofTransportation
700 Fifth Aven u e, Suite 3768
P.O. Box 34996
Sea ttl e,WA 98 124-4996
(2 06) 684-5108
Bicycle Counte rm easure Selection System Case Studies 245
GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN #28
Road Hazard Identification Pilot Project
BACKGROUND
R oa d condition s su ch as po tho les, d e b r is, dra in g rates,
crac k e d or uneve n p avemen t , ra ilro ad tracks , and ove r -
h an ging vege tati o n ca n ca u se bi cy cli st cras h es by di s-
turbing th e d eli ca te b alance b etween rid er and m ac hin e.
These h aza rds m ay c ontr ib ute to fa ll s w h ic h acco unt fo r
50 p e rcent o r m o re o f b icycli st cras h es. R oa d h azard s al so
m ay res ult in cras h es w ith fixe d obj ec ts, o ther bi cycli sts,
o r m o to r ve hicl es if a bi cyclist swe rves to avo id a h aza rd .
C olli sio n s b e tween bi cyclists and motorists are usuall y th e
m os t seri o u s. M o re than 90 perce nt o f bi cycli st fa taliti es
occur in c ras h es w ith motor ve hicl es (B aker, e t al, 1993).
In 2003, 622 bi cy cli sts were kill e d and 46,000 injure d in
re p o rte d cras h es w ith m o tor ve hicl es in th e Unite d States
(N a tion al Cente r for Statisti cs and Analys is, 20 03 d ata).
R oad h aza rd s in c rea se the c h an ces that a bi cycli st w ill b e
involve d in a cras h .
In additi o n , bi cy cli sts tend to avo id ro ad s and trail s that
they fee l h ave unsafe o r o th e rwise uncomfor ta bl e riding
surfaces . D ec rease d bicycli n g m ay res ult if m o re acce pt-
abl e routes are n o t ava il abl e .
Bicy cli sts are ofte n rel u c tant to re port roa d h aza rd s b e-
caus e they do n o t know h ow and they often b eli eve that
the n ecessa ry re p airs will n o t b e made eve n if re porte d . It
is o ft e n diffi c ult for cyclis ts to ide ntify w hi ch jurisdi c ti o n
h as m ainte n an ce res ponsibili ty for a given sec tion of ro ad
su ch as the city vs. the co unty.
Road crews se ldom are trai n e d to ide nti fy and re pair bi-
cy cl e ro ad ha za rd s. They are ty picall y b e tter at dealing wi th
h aza rds for m o torists. H owever, by the ti me so m ething is
h aza rdo u s for m o tori sts, it h as long b een a da n ge r to bi-
cycli sts. Fo r example, a 1 .3 cm (0 .5 in)-wide crac k in the
ro ad th at runs p arall el to th e direc tion o f trave l is suffi cie nt
Peter Flucke, President -WE BIKE
246 Ca se Studi es Bicycle Countermea sure Se lect ion Sy stem
Bi cyc le tire in a drain grate.
to ca use a bicy cli st to fall , but will n o t p rese nt a problem to
m o to ri sts (California. D ept. ofTran sp o rtati o n , 199 5).
Th e R oa d H aza rd Ide ntifi ca tion Pil o t Proj ec t was d eve l-
o p e d and te st e d for the Wisc onsin D e p artme nt o f Tran s-
p o rtati o n. Lo cal sp o n sors w e re the Villa ge of Howard
and the B ay Sho re Bicy cle C lu b . The proj ec t w as b ase d
o n similar "s pot improve m e nt" p rogra m s in Sea ttl e, WA,
C hicago, I L , and M ad ison , WI. The goal w as to d evelop a
sys t em w hi c h co uld b e u se d by public or priva t e e ntities
t o eas il y and inexp e n sive ly facil i tat e the ide ntifica tion and
re p air o f bicy cl e roa d hazard s. Su ch a sys te m in1proves
bicycli st sa fe ty and e njoym e nt as well as c oop e ration b e-
twee n bi cy cli sts, roa d crews and d ecisi on-make r s. The
grea te r Gre en B ay, WI, area consisting of six municip aliti es
within Brown County was chose n to pilot tes t th e p roj ec t .
B efo re the pil o t p rogram the re we re n o orga ni ze d e ffo rts,
e ithe r public o r priva t e, to ide ntify and rep air bicy cl e-sp e-
cifi c roa d h aza rds. Municipaliti es in th e pilot proj ec t area
ran ge d in populati on size from 1,400 t o 96,00 0.
COUNTERMEASURES
The pilot proj ec t ra n from June thro u gh Se ptember 1995
in the g rea t er Green B ay, W I , area. R oa d H aza rd Id e nti -
fication postcards were distributed to the publi c through
bicycl e sh ops, bicycle clubs, recrea tion d epartme nts, co unty,
city, and village offices. These cards were use d by bi cyclists
to report hazards. After a card w as compl eted it was mailed
(at the se nder 's exp ense) to a ce ntral lo ca tion where the haz-
ard identifi cation informa tion was entere d into a sp ec ially
d es igne d co mputer database. The database allowed the h az-
ard to b e tracke d by the proj ec t coordinator from the time it
was re p orted until it was repaired. The data base al so ass isted
in id enti fying w hi ch jurisdiction was res ponsibl e for repairs ,
and in crea ting h azard re ports which were se nt to affec ted
jurisdicti o n s. Following data entry, the ca rd was give n to a
train ed voluntee r who ch ec ked the ca rd and h aza rd for ac-
c uracy and vali dity via a si te visit. Two weeks after hazard
reports were forwarded to jurisdictions, re pair statu s updates
were requested . The project coordinator contacted jurisdi c-
tions p ersonally for sub se qu e nt status re ports.
Prior to th e implementation of the pilot proj ec t, a com-
p uter program wa s developed for trac king ha za rd s, vo lu n-
tee r insp ectors were id e ntifi e d and traine d , publi c works
dire c tors and the County High way Commissioner were
consulted, an d specialized bicycle road h aza rd trammg
was offered to eac h jurisdiction invo lve d .
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
Road H aza rd Cards were tabul a ted to d e t e rmin e the
numb e r of hazards reporte d and the repa ir st at u s of th ese
haz ard s. H aza rd insp ec tor ac tivity was analyzed, and bi-
cycli sts, insp ec tors and public works supe rviso r s wer e
surveyed abo ut the project.
During the four-month pilot p roj ec t , 120 h aza rd s were
re porte d. Of thes e, 23 we re rep aire d or d eem e d u nrepair-
able. The "unre p airable" d es ignation u suall y refe rred to
BAY SHORE BICYCLE CLUB
BICYCLE ROAD HAZARD
IDENTIFICATION PROJECT
Rood condition s such a s potholes, unsafe drain gra tes, ra ilroad h"ad<s,
overhang ing veg etohon , glass, debris, etc. ore hazardou s to bicyclists . To
enable repa in lo be made , please fill ou t the form below and mail it in.
Location: Roadway Name ----------
Landmarks: IMlm•. ,;oo ol """· "°" """'· "'·' Be specific!
Description al hazard: ----------------
Reported by: Name ______ Phone ____ Date __ _
Address City/Stale/Zip ______ ~
® FOR FURT HER INFORMATION , CALL WE BIKE • {414) .497 ·3196
~= Roceived __ Che<kod __ Ropoi<od __ Cord#
minor streets that were in ove rall ro u gh sh ape b ut that
were not sc h e dul e d for resurfacing for seve ral yea rs. The
o ther common situ ation was w h ere a sh eet of concre te
road surface h ad rise n up or subsid e d and b eca u se of the
excess ive cos t of repa ir, the repair wo uld n ot be made un-
til the situation b eca m e much worse o r, more likely still,
when the entire road was re place d . (Without major road
work, 67 were sc hedule d for re p airs and th e remaining 30
were w orking their way through the sys tem at the time
the pilot evalu ati o n ended .)
Twenty-fo ur diffe re nt bi cy cli sts reported h aza rds du r-
ing the pilot project . R eport e r s t e nd e d to be experi-
enced bi cyclis ts, ofte n commuters, w ho reported h az-
ards primarily on busy, narrow coll ec t o r and a rte ri al
stree ts.
P os iti ve o utcomes of the proj ect as reported by the proj -
ect coordinator, p ubli c works sup erviso rs, hazard insp ec-
tors and bicyclis ts we re :
For bicycli sts:
Increased aware n ess of road h azard s;
Increased opportuniti es to re port ha za rds;
In creased bi cycli st safety;
A core group of"h azard " edu ca te d bi cyclis ts formed;
Professional co ntac ts by bicyclists d eve loped with
stree t d e p artme nts;
Ease of implem entati on;
C h an ge in stree t d ep artments attitudes;
H azards often were repaired b efo re they co uld b e report-
e d beca use of increase d awareness among road crews.
For municip aliti es:
Safer stree ts;
D ecrea se d expos ure to liabi li ty;
D ecreased mai nte nance cos ts;
• Ease of imp le mentation;
Cost-effec ti ve to id en tify h azards and coordinate repairs;
Improve d traffic flow ;
Good public re lations;
L ess critical attitudes of bi cy cli sts toward public works
de p ar tments.
There still are seve ral areas of concern w hi c h need to b e
furth e r addresse d :
For bi cycli sts:
R elatively small number of bi cyclists reported h azards;
Project informa ti o n may not b e reac hing all bicycli sts;
Bi cyc le Countermeasure Selec tion System Case Studi es 247
Some re p o rting bicycli sts were di sco uraged because of
slow h aza rd repairs (perceived or actual);
• Some h azards were difficult for inspectors to lo ca t e
b eca u se of inad e quat e site descriptions ;
Continuatio n of proj ect fo ll owing pilot test.
For munic ip aliti es:
• Slow to make re pairs;
H azards were so m etimes difficu lt to locate;
• Some ha zards are expensive to re p air (including se c-
tions of entire stre e ts);
• Some jurisdictions communi ca t ed poorly with proj ec t
director;
• No m ainte n an ce d e p artment acce pted the offe r of bi-
cycle h azard id e ntification trai ning for their staff;
• Proj ec t /effo rt disconti n u ed fo ll owing pil ot.
CONCLUS IONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
A formal sys t em for identifying ro ad conditions that
are h azard o u s to bicycli sts is importa nt for improving
bicyclis t safe ty and e nj oyme nt. Onc e establi sh e d , th e
Ro ad H aza rd Id e ntifi cation Proj ec t prove d to b e a n
inexp e n sive and e ffec ti ve means of iden ti fy ing and fa-
c ilita ting th e re p air of bicycle road h azards. This pro-
gra m, or a similar one that incorporates bicyclist and
profess ion al training and input, would b e va lua bl e in
any community.
COSTS AND FUNDING
The m ain costs of d eve loping the program are project co-
ordinator training a nd research (a bout e ight hours), com-
puter database se tup (about eight h ours), inspector and
public works trainings (a b o ut three h ours) and adve rti sing
(a bout three hours). The project c oordinator sp ent about
two h ours per week on the project, and public works su -
pervisors spe nt ab o ut the same amount of time.
Funding for the proj ec t was provide d by the Wisco n sin
D e p artme nt ofTransportation's Burea u ofTransportation
Safety u sin g Fe d eral High way Safety ( 402) Funds. The
total cos t of the proj ec t , including d evelopment and th e
pilot t es t , was $9,6 15.
REFERENCES
B ake r, Su sa n P., e t al. Inju ries to Bicycli sts: A Nat ional Per-
248 Case Studies Bicycle Countermeasure Selec tion System
sp ec tiv e. St. J ames : J ohn H opkins Injury Preve ntion
Center, 19 93.
Cah fornia. D e pt. ofTransportation . Highway De sign Manu -
al. Chap te r 1000, Bikeway Planning and Design, Bike-
way S u rface Tol e rances, Draft. Sacramento: 1995 .
Kaplan ,J ero m e A ., Charac ter ist ics ef th e Regular Adult Bicycle
Use r, 1975.
M assB ike, B icycle Cras h Statistics , 11 Nove mb er 2002
http:/ /www.massbikeboston.org/resources /stats.htm.
Moritz, William E ., Adult Bicyclist s in the Un it ed
Stat es - C hara cteri sti cs an d Riding Experience . Transpor-
tation R esearch Board. 77th Annual Mee ting . 1998.
N ational Center for Statistic s and Analysis.
Traffi c Safety Fa cts 2003: Peda lcycli sts . National H igh way
Traffic Safety Administration: Washington, D. C.
Rivara , Fre d erick P., Diane C. Thompson, and Robert S.
Thompson. Cirwm stances and S everity ef Bicycle Injurie s.
Sn ell Memorial Foundation. H arborview Injury Pre-
ve ntio n and Research Center. 1996.
US.DOT, Ti'affic Sefety Facts, 2001 : Pedacyclist s. Washing-
ton: N ational Highway Traffic Safety Administration ,
2002.
CONTACTS
P eter Flu c ke
Pres ide nt
WE B IKE
1144 H awthorn Rd.
Green Bay,WI 54313-5812
(920) 497-3 196
(920) 497-3 196 (fax)
webike@aol.com
Larry Corsi
Bicy cl e /P e destrian Safety Prog r am M anage r
Wisconsin Depar tme nt of Transp ortation -Burea u of
Transportation Safety
4802 Sheboygan Avenue
PO Box 7936, RM. 95 1
M adi so n , WI 53 707-7936
(608) 267-3154
(608) 267-0441 (fax)
larry.corsi@ dot.state. w i . us
PORTLAND, OREGON #29
Bikeway Speed Humps
BACKGROUND
Portland's Bike Program e nli sted the h elp of th e Traffic
Calming sec ti o n for a speed hump proj ec t in spring 1998.
Speed humps were identified by local citi zens as the most
ap propriate tool to address traffi c proble m s on Southeast
C linton Street. Though three traffic circl es were con-
stru ct e d toward th e east end of C linton in 1990, sp eeding
vehicles continued to b e a problem. C linton h ad b een
designa te d a City Bikeway b u t did not h ave adeq uate
curb-to-c u rb width to mark bike lan es w ithout removal
of p arking. Redu c tion of traffi c volume on the street was
obtai n e d in conjunc ti on with the 1990 project that in-
stalle d traffic circl es, so speed redu ction was the primary
objective for this proj ect.
The sp ecifi c goal of the proj ec t was to enh an ce street
safety for bicycle riders by reducing the 8 5th p e rc e ntil e
spee d of ve hi cles u sing Southeast C linton closer to th e
legal maximum sp eed limit of 25 mph. Portland h as d e-
termin ed speed h u mps to be an effec ti ve to o l to reduce
traffic sp eeding.
Southeast C linton was divided into three segm ents for th e
undertaking of this proj ect.A middle portion of th e stree t ,
21st Avenue to 26th Av enu e, is p ar t of a tra n si t route that
jogs through the neigh borhood. This segm ent of C linton
necessitated a speed tabl e design by City policy.
Southeast C linton is a local service street and serves a
mixed single-family residence an d conunercial neighbor-
hood. Southeast C li nton is fa irly level and straight. The
entire le ngth of South east C linton h as p arking, sidewalks
.and c urbs on both sid es of the stree t .
Scott Batson, PE , Senio r Engineering Associate ,
Traffic Invest igat ions Section , Bureau of Transporta -
t ion Management, Portl an d Office of Transportation
OPEN HOUSE
R es ide nts along Southeast C linton were invited to an
open house on June 3, 1998, to review and conunent on
the proposed speed hump install ati on. Forty-five people
attended the open house. Most of those who attended
expresse d approval for the proposed project. Some con-
sidered the humps to b e excess ive or inadequate, while
others expressed concern over noise and hump lo ca tion .
A petition was ava il able at th e o p en house for residents
along Southeast C linton to sign, and was circ ul ated aft er
the o p e n house by lo cal residents. Petition results in ag-
gregate for the three segm ents were as follows:
In f avor of speed humps Numbe r Percen t of Total
Yes 17 9 77
No 52 23
Total 23 1 100
COUNTERMEASURES
Five 4.3 m (14 ft) spee d humps, at 12 1.9 to 161.5 m (400
to 530 ft) spacing, were cons tru cted along th e 0.7 km
Bicyc le Countermea sure Selection System Case Studies 249
VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON #30
Speed Cushions for the Evergreen Corridor
Bike Lane Project
BACKGROUND
Evergreen Boulevard serves as a popular bike route with
great potential as a bike co nmmte r route. It was rated by
the C ycl e Clark Co unty Map as hav in g a low leve l-of-se r-
v ice for bikes . Its roadway cl ass ific ation is coll ector w ith
an average d ail y traffi c of 3200 vehicles p er day. It co nnec ts
b e tween downtown and a large res ide ntial n eighborhood.
The width is 9.8 m (32 ft), with p arking allowed on one
side b efo re the proj ect (figure 1). It h as comm e rci al bus
service that se r ves both blind and d eaf stude nts in the area.
Figure 1. Everg reen Boulevard before the project i n area of
speed c ush ions .
Th e st ree t was an old stat e hi ghway before the co n st ru c-
tion ofWashington SR 14 and still p rovides access to th e
City's Histo ric Rese r ve.
Community goals for the proj ect were to improve bicy-
cl e safety and compatibility, p e d es trian access for p e rso n s
252
John Manix PE PTOE Neighborhood Traffic Eng i-
neer, City of Va ncouver, WA
Case Studie s Bi cyc le Countermeasure Selection System
w ith di sa biliti es, to slow traffi c, and to e nhan ce the road-
way aes the ti cs with the hop e of spurring re d evelo pme nt.
The work on the corridor was broke n down into phases .
This report focuses on Phase 1 from E. R ese rve to Grand
Bouleva rd.
Speeding on Evergreen Bouleva rd was a co nm1on n e igh-
b orhood complaint with th e sp ee d p os t ed at 25 mph.The
8 5th p e rcentile spee d was 34 mph, w ith about 90 p ercent
of the ve hicles traveling over the spee d limit.
The phase 1 section of Evergree n Boulevard is 0.65 miles
long and had relatively few colli sions. In the three yea rs
b efo re construction, 20 collisions were re ported w ith the
majority (12 ) at Grand Boulevard. The m ajority of the
colli sions at Grand Boulevard were "approac h turn" col-
lisi o n s related to Grand Bouleva rd traffic , not Evergreen
Bouleva rd. M os t of the othe r colli sio n s were at minor in-
t ersec tions and were of the "right an gle " type. No bike
or p e d es trian colli sions were reported along Evergreen
Boulevard in the phase 1 section.
The surrounding and adjacent neighborhood assoc iations
h ad identified a goal of crea ting a bicy cl e p ath along Ev-
e rgree n Boulevard in th eir N e ighborhood Action Plan.
Install ation of a path was infeas ibl e, so the alternat ives
were to install bike l an es, place sign s along a bike route, or
improve an alternative route.
The proj ect scope propose d installa tion of bike lanes o n
Evergreen Boulevard, but thi s required removal of all
on-street p arking. R e moval of parking is never popular,
particularly on this section w ith co nm1 e rcial land use.
Knowing p arking r es triction would not b e popular, staff
propose d installation of bike lanes and "streetscap e" im-
prove m e nts to minimize the protests assoc iated w ith the
lo ss of p arking. The streetscaping was supported by th e
lo cal neighborh ood association because it reinforced the
goal to b eautify the street.
Afte r ext e n sive public involve m e nt, the con se n su s w as to
install bike lan e s on most of Eve r g reen Boulevard but to
le ave 26 on-stree t p arking sp ac es for three blo ck s in the
c omme rci al distric t . To e nhan ce bicy cl e compatibili ty in
this sec ti o n w ith sh are d trave l lan es and o n-street p ark-
ing, traffi c calming was propose d. Traffi c calming also
addresse d res ide nt co n ce rns with sp ee ding o n E ve r green
Boulevard .
The traffi c -calming t ool of ch o i ce w as the n an impo r -
t ant co n side r ation . Ty pical sp ee d humps wer e rule d o ut
b ase d on th e impac ts t o c ommerc ial tran sit se r v i ce and
fir e d e p ar tme nt r espo n se time . The u se of certain traf-
fi c ca lmi ng meas ures was c ontrove r sial w ith bicyclis ts
b ecau se of sa fe ty concerns. A prev ious traffi c-ca lrnin g
proj ec t o n a popular bike route u se d c urb ext e n si o n s
that ge n era t e d m any bicy cl e safety co mplaints ass o ci at e d
with bike ride r s b eing pinc h e d b e tween mov ing traffi c
and the c urb ext e n sions. '
COUNTERMEASURES
Staff h ad , fo r some time, co n si d e re d the u se of "s p eed
c u shions" as an alte rnative to sp eed humps to prov ide
an e ffec ti ve traffi c -ca lming to o l o n arte ri al , coll ec tor, o r
local stree ts that serve as e mergen cy r es p o n se routes.
Sp ee d c u shions are m o dified sp ee d humps. The sh a p e
r ese mbles a c u shion o r pillow pl ace d in the ro ad way, but
a sp ee d cushion does not sp an the e ntire ro ad way or
traffi c lane . The inte nt is to sl ow most mo tor ve hicl es ,
similarly t o a sp eed hump, but t o allow w ide w h eel-
b ase d ve hicles su c h as buses and fi re tru ck s t o drive ove r
the m w ith minimal impac t, as c u shions are n ar ro wer
th an the w h eel b ase o f these ve hicl es.
In resea rc hing the t o pic, staff fo und sp eed c u shio n s in
us e in the U n ite d Kingdom as ea rl y as 1993 a nd learned
of American exp e ri e n ce in the citi es of Sacramento, C A ,
and Austi n, T X. Sacramento 's exp e rie n ce w ith what they
refer to as a "sp eed lump " was p artic ularly important b e -
ca u se these d ev ices are d es ign e d fo r the sa m e size o f fi re
en gine and comme r c ial bus as u se d in Van c ouve r. Fi g ure
2 illustra t es the trial sp eed lump fr o m Sac ram e nto .
Van co u ve r t es t e d speed c u shio ns u sing rubb er sp eed
hump compone nts that c ould b e asse mble d t o m a tc h
the Sac r am e nto sp eed lump w idth dime n si o n o f 1 .8 m
(6 ft) (see fig ure 3).
oOo 0 0
----~ -----l
Figure 2 . Sa c ramento speed lump.
Figure 3. Trial rubber speed cushion .
These tri als allowe d th e City to tes t seve ral co nfig uratio n s
relat ed to the p os ition of sp ee d c u shio n in the street. Fo r
example, sh o uld one c u shion b e place d in the ce nte r of
the roadway li ke Sac ram e nto's sp eed lump, o r sh o uld they
b e place d in the cente r of the trave l lan e? If in the lane,
h ow far ap art sh o uld adj acen t cus hions b e?
W ith the fir e d ep artment's endorsem ent o f th e rubb er
sp ee d cu shi o n , th e City implem e nted two o the r traffi c
calming proj ec ts c onc urrently w ith the E vergree n Cor-
ridor bike lane proj ec t that u se d sp ee d cushio n s. These
p rojects w e re W es t 33rd Stree t fr o m M ain Stree t to Co-
lumbia Street , and Southeas t 1 55 th Ave nue fr o m South-
eas t Mill Pl ain Road t o So utheas t 1s t Stree t . T h ey were
o nly intende d to slow traffi c and were not inte nde d as
bike improve m e nts. The b efore and aft e r sp ee d survey
da ta from the three proj ec ts as well as o ne o the r is p ro -
vided in the eval u ation.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
B efo re and aft e r bike counts w e re coll ect ed , compare d
an d found inconclusive . The pre-proj ec t E ve rg ree n Bou-
levard bike volumes w e re about 1 p erce nt o f th e t o tal traf-
fi c as m e asured in the midwee k aft e rno on p eak hour. The
aft er volume was about the sa m e b ut at this sm all a sa mple
Bicycle Counte rme asure Se le ction Sy stem Case Studie s 253
size, the staff does not feel confid e nt that the res ults ca n
b e attribute d to the proj ect.
The Bicycle Compa tibility Index: A L evel of Service Con-
cept (Bi cycle LOS) by FHWA was u sed to evalu at e th e
proj ec ts ' effec ts on bi cycli ng on Evergreen Boul eva rd .
This metho d is straig htforward and m atc h es local ex-
p eri e n ce. In previous work, staff found that this eva lu-
a tion tool approx imately matched th e eva lu at ion u se d
by th e C lark Co unty Bic ycle Advi sory Committee's
Bike M ap (Cycle C la rk Count y ) tha t independ e ntly
r a t ed roadways for bi cycle co mpatibili ty. The Bi cycle
LOS evaluation include d co mparing th e sh ar e d la n e
with parking on one side of Evergreen Boulevard sec-
tion b efore and after the spee d c u shi ons were install e d ,
and also tha t o f the section w ith bike lanes and no
parking allowe d .
The seco ndar y p e rformance measures were related to
community go als not excl u sive ly linked t o bicycling.
Th e n e ighborhood hop ed for a redu c tion in sp ee d-
ing. This objective wa s eva luated with a before and
aft e r sp ee d survey, a traffic co unt, and a colli sio n his-
tory review. The speed survey and traffic co unt data
were coll ec t e d v i a hos e co unte r s in the vicinity of the
proposed traffi c ca lming b efo re and midway b e tween
sp ee d c u shions followin g installation. The traffic data
were collected for one midweek da y. This report in-
cludes the resu lts of three o the r sp ee d c u shi on proj ec ts
to evaluate the effec tiveness of this re l ative ly new traf-
fi c calming tool.
Staff anticip ate d a collision reduction associated with the
traffic calming. The city's colli sion datab ase was queried
for three years b efore and one yea r aft e r th e project was
implemented .
City staff hoped the speed cushions would d emonstrate a
bi cycl e, fir e truck , and transit-fri e ndly speed hump de sign.
To evaluate these obj ec tives, staff solicited comme nts from
lo cal bike club members, the local transit agency and the
fire department.
The res ults of installing sp ee d c ushions in the sec tion of
Eve rg reen Bouleva rd w ith parking improved the Bicycl e
Level of Service or Compatibility, but not nearly as much
as th e sec tion with bike lan es and no parking. T abl e 1
shows th e res ults of the Bicy cl e LOS evaluati on .
254 Case Studies Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System
Tabl e 1. Bi cyc le Compat ib ility Index
Results for Evergreen Boulevard.
Bicycle
Level of Compatibility
Midblock Identifier BC I Service Level
Evergreen Boule-3.47 D Moderately
vard -Before Project Low
EB without Parking
Evergreen Bou le-3.47 D Moderately
vard-Before Project Low
WB with Parking
Evergreen -Afte r 1.97 B Very H igh
Project w ith bike
lanes & no parking
Evergreen -Afte r 3 .24 c Moderately
Project WB with High
Parking
Evergreen -After 3.24 c Moderately
Project EB without High
Parking
The LOS changed from a high D to a mid-level C w ith
the addition of sp eed c u shions. This minor ch an ge is sig-
nifica nt b eca u se LOS of C is noted in The Co mpa ti bility
Index : A Leve l of Service Co ncep t, Im plementa tion Manual as
a bench mark for roadways where cas ual bicycli sts are ex-
p ec ted. A s a popular recreational bikeway, this is a reaso n-
abl e exp ec ta tion for Evergreen Bouleva rd .
The Bicy cle LOS ofB for the bike lane sec tion confirms
staff efforts to k ee p the shared lan e sec tion as short as
poss ibl e.
The Bicycle LOS eval u ation looked at the b efore and
after traffi c data, n o ting c hanges in traffic volume, sp eed
and p arking occupancy of the on-street parking. The
Bicycl e LOS was calc ul a t e d for eac h direction b eca us e
p arking was all owed o n one side only. But p arking h ad
little impac t on the Bicycle LOS b eca u se th e occupancy
r at e is low . (l ~s than 25 p e rcent) both b efore and aft er
the proj ec t .
In all cases, the sp eed c u shions signifi cantl y re du ce d the
sp eed of ve hicl es and h ave likely re duced the numbe r of
collisions. Table 2 shows the res ults of th e sp ee d survey
and colli sion history of the four stree ts w ith sp ee d cush-
ions. Ali lo ca tions h ad ve ry consiste nt results. l
Tab le 2 . Traffic Survey Results of
Streets with Speed Cushions .
Traffic Daily -
Roadway with Collisions Traffic 85 %
Termini per yr Volume Speed
Evergreen
Boul evard;
34 X St to 1.25 3,900
Winchell-mph
Before
Evergreen
Boulevard ; 29 X St to 0 3,400 mph Winchell-
After
W 33rd St ;
Wash ingt on to NA * 3,300 33
Columbia -mp h
Befor e
W 33rd St;
Washington to 0 3,000 29
Columbia-mph
After
SE 15 5th
Ave; Mi ll Plain 0 3,400 34
to SE 1st mph
St-Before
SE 155th
Ave; Mill 0 3,100 28
Pla in t o SE mph
1st St -Af ter
NE 49th St:
NE 26th St to .33 1,500 35
Work St -mph
Before
NE 49th St:
NE 26th St to 0 1 ,3 00 31
Work St -mph
After -·
Percent -
age of
Vehicles
Over 30
MPH
42 %
8 %
19%
7%
3 7 %
9 %
44%
17 %
* This lo cation had speed humps changed to speed
cushio ns to address fire department conce rns with
response delays associated with hum ps.
The 8 5 p ercent sp ee d is at o r sli ghtly lowe r than 30 mph
on all streets tha t h ave a 25 mph sp ee d limit. More im-
portantly, th e p erce nta ge of ve hicl es ove r 30 mph droppe d
dram ati ca ll y (see ta ble 2).
T h e traffi c vo lume on eac h of the stree ts w ith sp eed
c u shi o n s d ro pp e d about 10 p e rcent. This traffic dive rsion
co uld cause co mplaints o n p arall el routes, but no c om-
plaints h ave b ee n receive d .
N one of th e fo ur sites h ad a signilican t nwnber of collisions
in the three years b efore the proj ec t. One year after the instal -
lati o n of sp eed cus hions , there are en co uraging, but inconclu-
sive res ults with no collisions since installati o n (see ta bl e 2).
The fo llowing info rmatio n was gain ed from the trial with
rubbe r humps and p erman ent install ati o n of fo u r proj ec ts:
• The prop osed sh ape o f a sp ee d cushion m atching th e
pro fil e of o ur c urrent sp ee d hump (7 .6 cm (3 in) high
and a 4.3 m (14 ft) parab oli c c urve profile), 1.8 m (6 ft)
w ide with sid e ramps of3.7 m (12 ft) (1:4 grade) could
be traverse d by a fire en gine witho ut signili cant impac ts .
• U sing a sp eed c ushion less th an 1.8 m (6 ft ) w ide (one
trial at 1. 7 m (5. 5 ft) signifi ca ntly co mpromise d effec-
tive n ess ).
• Sp ee d c u shi o ns should b e space d approxim atel y 9 1.4 to
121.9 m (3 00 to 40 0 ft ) ap art al o n g a ro adway to keep
the 8 5 p erce nt sp eed of traffi c at or b elow 30 mph.
• The configurati o n shown in figure 4 should b e use d with
p arking res tricti o n s in the vicini ty o f the sp ee d c ushion
if the street is narrower th an 11.6 m (3 8 ft). With our
W es t 33rd Street proj ec t , we review conflicts b etween
parked cars and fire tru cks. The Wes t 33rd Stree t is 11.5
m (36 ft) wide . B ased on o ur work, the fire department
staff concluded that the distan ce b e tween the p arked car
and the fire truck (a bout 0.6 m (2 ft)) w as to o clo se for
them to feel co mfortabl e res p o nding to an em erge ncy
at normal sp eed and sa fely trave rsing the sp eed cushion.
See figure 5 for a photog raph of a fire e ngine traversing a
sp eed cushion n ear a parked car. In th e case ofWes t 33rd
Street , w e are m o difying the d esign by res tricting park-
ing o n one side of the street and adju sting the p os ition
on the oth er side to allow fo r grea ter cl earan ce be tween
parke d cars and the fire tru cks.
• The sp eed cushi o n should b e positi on ed in the ce nter of
the trave l lan e so buses and fire engines can ali gn ove r the
ce nter of the cushion and remain within the trave l lan e.
• The sp eed c ushi o n should b e u se d o n straig ht sec tions
of ro adway for fir e tru c ks to positio n ove r the hump.
From our trial it app ea rs that sp ee d c u shions install ed
on a horizontal c urve will b e of little b e n efit b ecaus e
th e rea r wh eels d o not trac k the sa m e as the fr o nt.
Bicycle Countermeasure Se lection System Case Studies 255
BIM' ""'"" DETAIL T28-42
STREET C(Ni[RL.JNE
DOOll..E YEll!lW
COITEJIU4£ """""" DETAI. ,.. .... II
"'"""" """"'""DETAIL
,.,. .... (!'IP.)
A
1.-+-.-!l--h
'"l 1: ,,. :a ~
~~J ~ECTION A-A
SURFACE
2' 6' ~.'
I . POSIOON SPE£0 CUSHIONS ON
STRAIGHT S£CTIONS OF
RON)WAY.
2. USE Of' TYPt I ON STRECTS
LESS TK4.N J8' WIDE REQUIRES
PARKING RESTRICTIONS 50'
ON EACH 510£.
3. TYPE I NOT APf'ROPR1"TE FOR
STREETS L£SS THAN 36' WIOC.
4, CENTERUNE STRIP£ MAY NOT
SE IN THE C£HTER OF
ROADWAY, BUT IF" NOT
STRIPED, POSITION
CUSHIONS SYMMETRlc.Al TO
CENTrR Of ROMJWAY.
5. *USE AOOrTlOHAL PAVEMEHT
lrM.RKING ON STRt:aS WITH
Blt<E LANES. PAVEMENT
WARICltG DE'TAI. T29-42
(!'IP.)
ISTING OR PROPOSED CURS
Figure 4 . Speed cushion design configuration for 36-38 ft
streets-use with parking restriction s.
Figure 5 . Fire eng i ne over speed cushion-too close to parked
vehicle.
S(CllOH8-8
Figure 6. Speed cush ion des ign with pavement marking .
256 Case Stud ies Bicyc le Countermeasure Sele ction System
The gap between the sp eed c u shi ons should be 0.6 m
(2 ft). Our 0.3 m (1 ft) spacing appeare d too narrow.
With the sp eed cushion ce ntered in the travel lane and
the m arki n g centered over the cushion, the marking
helps fir e en gine and bu s drivers line up wheels to
strad dl e the cushion. This d esign also fac ilitat es the use
of a marking that is in compliance with the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Contro l D ev ices, Millennium Edition, (U.S.
Department of Transportation Federal Highway Ad-
ministration, 2001).
Figure 6 shows the spee d cushion wi th pavement marking
detail that is in compliance with the MUTCD MB.
Our strip ing crew has added th e same pavement marking on
the additio nal hump w hi ch sp ans the sho ulder-parking area
to the right of the speed cushion. This marking is techni-
cally incorrect but confor ms with past practice used by many
agencies that use an ar rowhead-type marking on humps .
The fir st comments regarding the speed c ushi ons on Ev-
ergreen Boulevard from Vancouver Bicycle C lub (VBC)
members were negative b eca use the speed c u shi ons were
initially install ed incorrectl y, making them uncomforta ble
to ride over.Thi s was true for both cars and bikes.They also
obj ec te d to them becau se of concerns w ith lo ss of control
and appare nt lack of n ee d.After the modifications , the City
received the following comment from a member ofVBC:
"Bicyclist" stopped in to tell you th at yo u that Eve r-
gree n Boulevard is "wonderful." He was ve ry pleased
w ith the speed bumps b eing "redone." We also have
received positive co mme nts regarding th e bi cy cle im-
provements on the corridor.
Comments related to tra nsit h ave been very positive . The
C -Tran re presentative co1nn1ented:
Thanks for the information that yo u provide ; it was
very helpful. I checked with the current operators driv-
ing through Evergreen Boulevard and h ave not h ad any
negative feedback. In fac t , th e cushions seem to be al-
lowing them the ability to travel through with limited
interference. They app ear to be "transit-friendly" with
the most re ce nt adjustme nts.
Another c01nn1en t from a C ity Council member to the
C ity M an ager:
While on the sa me bus trip with the J apanese kids I
referenced ea rlier, we took Everg ree n eas tbound . (It
looks absolutely GORGEOUS.) The bumps were no
problem for the drive r. In fact, h e sa id that th ey w e re so
much b e tter than Portland's .That was Evergreen Coach
that took us. Big bus, not uncomforta bl e at all .
Fire d e p artment staff gave positi ve comments on the sp eed
c ushions several times . The quali ty of the ride on E ver-
green is relatively poor b ecaus e of dip s at cross stree ts, so
it is not an important res ponse route. The West 33rd Street
traffi c calming proj ec t d emonstra t e d that the fire engine
drivers n eed ample cleara n ce (0. 9 m (3 ft) or more) with
parked ca rs to traverse the sp eed c u shion at full speed.
The staff ha s take n several co mments from the public re -
ga rding the lac k of effec tiven ess of the speed cushions.
The comments are generally relat e d to comparison with
spee d humps and can be p araphrase d as: "I can drive over
those humps at a high rat e of spee d." But the sp ee d data
do not support that opinion.
CONCLUSION S AND
RECOMMEN D ATIONS
Adding sp eed cushions to Evergreen Boulevard increased
the Bike LOS to a level (C) that w ill accommod ate rec-
r ea tional ride rs exp ected on this fac ility, and allowe d the
city to address the de sire of th e co nunercial community
to m aintain on-stree t parking. But if parking h ad signifi-
ca ntly increase d , the lower sp eeds and vo lumes would not
have ad equ ately compe n sa te d to ke ep th e Bicycle LOS to
C. The Bike LOS eva luation m ethodology is more sens i-
tive t o ch anges in p arking than the sp ee d of traffic.
T hus the u se of sp eed c u shions is not recomme nded as a
replacement for bike lanes for long sec ti ons of roadway,
but they are a va luable tool in assuring that the total proj-
ec t was a su ccess in acc ommodating multipl e interes ts -in
this case the businesses that va lued parking, bicyclists that
needed safe bicycle fac ilities , and transit and em ergency
respons e. Sp ee d c u shions are relative ly n ew traffic calming
tools that appear to b e su ccessful at calming coll ec to rs or
arterials that se rve both as fire response and transit routes
and carry moderate leve ls of bicycle traffic.
Traffic calming remains controve r sial w ith so me bi cy cl e rid-
ers . The main con cern with speed cushions relate s to lo ss of
co ntrol by hitting the tap ered side of the sp eed cushion n ear
the gutter. If the sp eed cushion design can provide a clear
w h eel path through the sp eed cushion, this safety concern
would b e addressed. On future proj ec ts w ith bike lanes the
city pl ans to modify the des ign to minimize th e ri sk that bi-
cycli sts will traverse the sp ee d cushion on the tap ered side.
The u se of traffic calming o n streets class ifi e d as "col-
lector" will always b e controve r sial . If time proves speed
c u shions to b e a su ccessful traffic calming tool, we must
b e wary of ove ruse. A likely negative outcome of overuse
is dive rsion of traffic onto parallel re side nti al stree ts. In
the p as t, increases in emergen cy respo n se time and the
high cos t of alte rnati ve traffic calming to ols h ave limited
d eployment. Because spe e d c u shions address these iss u es,
ad opti o n of policies to prevent a slippery slid e of overuse
is re c ommende d. The p oli cy should limit the u se on col-
lec tors to bracketing impo rtant crosswalks, p arks, sc hools
or short sectio n s of p arking on bike routes.
COSTS AND FUNDIN G
Speed cu shions (m at erial and lab or): $2,000 each
Funded within a larger project included a Federal Tran s-
portation Enhancem e nt grant and local matching funds.
REFERENCES
D e partment of the Environmental Transport an d th e R e-
g i o n s. "Spee d C u shion Sche m es" Traffic Advisory Leaflet
1198. London , United Kingdom, February 1998
Harkey, D. L.; Reinfrut, D.W ; Sorton,A. Th e Bicycle Com -
pat ibilit y Index.A L evel of Serv ice Concept, Implementa ti on
Man ual , Publica tion No. FHWA-RD-98-095, Federal
Highway Administration, M cLean, Virginia, 1998
U.S . D epartme nt ofTransportation, Fe d e ral Highway Ad-
ministration. Man ual on Uniform Traffic Control D ev ices,
M ill ennium Edit ion,Ju ne 2001
CONTACTS
J o hn M anix P.E. PTOE
City ofVa n co u ver
PO Box 1995
Vancouver,WA 98668-1 99 5
(360) 696-8290
j ohn.m anix@ci. va n co uve r. wa. u s
Todd Boulanger
City ofVancouver
PO Box 1995
Vancouve r,WA 98665-1995
(360) 696-8290
todd . boulan ger@ci.van couve r. wa. u s
Bi cycle Cou nt ermea sure Se lect ion System Case Studies 257
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON #31
Neighborhood Mini Traffic Circles
BACKGROUND
Seattle's Neighborhood Traffic Control Program (NTCP )
star t ed in 1968 w h en the city b ega n to respond t o res i-
d e nt reques ts to slow motor ve hicl e traffi c and re duce the
numbe r of cras h es at intersec tions of residential stree ts.
Of all the trea tme nts u se d in Sea ttle , th e traffic circl e h as
prove n to b e the most effec tive at so lving this problem .
Since 1 973, over 800 circl es h ave b ee n constructe d in Se-
at tl e and NTCP staff m embers receive ab out 700 res ide nt
re ques ts for new ci rcl es each year.
COUNTERMEASURES
Pote ntial traffic c ircl e locatio n s are identified through
co mmunity requests or inves ti ga tion of high acc ident
inte r sectio n s . Each re qu es t is inves ti ga t ed and an initial
assessment i s p e rformed to determine if a traffic c ircl e
i s feasible. Residents' requests are r es p o nded to w ith a
le tter explaining the pro cess for installi ng a ci rcl e and
th e likelihood of th e locatio n c omp e tin g su ccess full y
for full c ity fundin g . I n order to e n sure that the c ity's
traffi c safe ty funding is all oca t e d to intersections dem-
onstra ting th e grea t es t n ee d, a priority point sys t e m
is u se d to r a nk the intersections w h e re traffic circl es
ar e requ es t e d . R anking criter ia include the number o f
cras h es that have occurred at th e inte r secti on in th e la st
three years; traffi c speed (85 th p e rce ntile); and traffi c
vo lum e. To comp e t e for funding, resid e nts are require d
to submit a p e tition with sign atures r epresentin g 60
p e r cent of t h e h o u se h olds w ithin a one-block r adius of
the prop ose d traffi c circl e . Funding is all ocated sta r ti ng
w ith the inte rs ection with the worst combination of
258
John Marek, Neighborhood Traffic Contro l Pro-
gram Engineer, City of Seattle
Peter Lagerwey, Pedestrian & Bicycle Program
Coordinator , City of Seattle
Case Studie s Bicycle Counte rm easure Se lec tion System
proble m s and pro cee ds as far down the li st as fundin g
allows. The cos t to co n stru c t each circl e r an ges from
$4,000 t o $7,000.
Each traffic circl e is individuall y d esigne d to fit the in-
tersection w itho ut h av ing t o modify the stree t width
or corne r radii. Most of Seattle 's local st re e ts are 7.6 m
(25 ft) w ide and traffic circl es are usuall y 3. 7 to 4. 9 m
(12 to 16 ft) in diame ter. A single unit tru ck hav ing a
13.7 m (45 ft) tu rning ra dius is u se d as a d es i gn ve hicl e
to ens ure that fire trucks c an pass by the c ircle without
running over the c urbs. The fir e d epartm e nt reviews all
intersec tions where circl es are to b e constru c ted and fie ld
tests are co ndu c ted w h ere they h ave a sp ec ifi c co n cern.
While traffi c c ircl es are d es ign ed to allow fir e truck s to
pas s by them, they are co nstruc te d w ith a 0 .6 m (2 ft)-
w ide mountable curb that all ows fir e trucks or large r ve -
hicles, su ch as moving va n s, to run over the c urb with o ut
damaging e ither the ve hicle or the circle.
Landscap ing is included in all the traffic circl es as lo n g as
a neighb orh ood vo luntee r is ide ntifi ed who w ill m ain-
tain the circl e (almost always). The pave m ent inside the
traffic circl e is removed during construction to all ow for
drainage and to accommodate tree roots . The landsca ping
p lays two important roles-it makes the circl e more at-
trac ti ve to th e n e ig h bo rh o od res id e nts, and c h a n ges the
chara c t e r of the street to make it l ess a pp e aling for hi g h
sp ee d driv i ng. The local res id e nts are re quire d to m ain-
tain the pla n tings, w hi c h con sist of g round c over and
o n e to three trees. R es id ents are allowe d to add the ir
own low -growing pl ants that will not blo ck p e d es tria n
o r drive r v isibility.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
Traffi c circles are evaluate d by c omparing the numbe r of
cras h es occurring in the 12 m o nths b e fore and th e 12
months afte r a traffic circl e is install e d . Additionall y, sur-
ve y s are mail ed to res idents following th e constru c tion of
a traffi c c ircle.
In 1997 , a study of 11 9 traffi c circl es c onstru c te d b e tween
199 1 and 1994 showed a 94 p e rce nt re duc tion in all typ es
of crash es. Since th e study, subse que nt spot c h ec ks of o th-
e r lo cati o n s have produce d similar res ults. While most of
the non-arte rial intersec tions in Sea ttl e h ave no ri ght-of-
way contro l , 3 2 of the 11 9 lo ca ti o n s studi e d had exis ting
two-way st o p or yield signs , whic h w e re remove d whe n
the traffi c circl es were install e d. These lo cations, w hic h
prev iously h ad right-of-way control , exp e ri e n ced acc i-
d e nt and injury re du c tion rat es similar to those found at
unc ontrolled inte rsec ti o n s.
In additi o n to r e du c ing acc id e nts, traffi c c ircl es h ave
b ee n e ffec ti ve at re du c ing ve hicl e sp ee d s but h ave
n o t si gnifica ntly r edu ce d traffi c vo lumes . The e ffec t
o n sp ee d ge nerally ca rri es ove r to the middle of the
blo c k , but to a l esser ext e nt tha n n ea r the inte r sec -
ti o n. A s mig ht b e exp ec t e d , multiple c ircl es a t eve r y
intersec ti o n ar e more e ffec tive than an i solate d c ircl e.
Th e minimal impac t o n tra ffi c volumes allows c ircl es
t o b e u se d as a spot or stree t -lon g sa fe ty d ev i ce witho ut
n ee ding t o address the imp ac ts o f traffi c dive rting t o
o th e r r es ide ntial stree t s.
T raffi c circl es ge n e rall y ha ve b ee n w ell-ac c epted by bi cy-
cli sts. The circles slow d own m otor ve hicle sp eed , which
red u ces the spee d di fferen ti al b etween bicycli sts and m o -
tor ve hicles. B icyclists have n o t compl ained of b ei n g
"sq u eezed " by m otor ve hicl es as th ey go aro und the circl e
since the sp eeds of the motor ve hi cles are co mparabl e t o
the bicy cli sts. A few bi cycli sts h ave co mpl ain e d that th e
circles cause th e m to slow dow n (in the same w ay they
slow the m o torists).
The su ccess of traffi c circles is al so m eas ured by its acce p-
tance among res ide nts li vin g n ear th e m . By far, the m aj ority
of res id ents are e n thu sias ti c ab o u t th e traffic circles. For ex-
ample, ne arl y 700 requ es ts for n ew circles are receive d eac h
yea r and ab o ut 3 ,0 00 signa tures are rece ive d o n p e titions for
n ew circl es eac h yea r. Only t\vo circles h ave b ee n re move d
o ut o f more than 8 00 co nstructed (res idents are guaranteed
that the city w ill rem ove a traffi c circl e if, aft er con structi o n ,
60 p e rce nt of th e house h o lds w ithin a o n e bl ock radiu s h ave
sign e d a rem oval p etiti o n), and su rvey s mail ed to res id ents
foll owing co nst ructi o n o f a traffi c circl e indica te that 80
p erce nt to 90 p erce nt of res ide n ts feel the circles h ave b een
effec tive and want to kee p them p erman e ntly.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
After n earl y 30 ye ars of experi en ce installin g mini traffic cir-
cl es, Se attle h as fo und them an effec tive d evi ce fo r control-
ling n eighb o rh ood traffi c and improving th e safety of res i-
d ential stre ets . Additionall y, res id ents fe el traffi c circl es h ave
su ccess fully address ed th eir safe ty co nce rns and make th eir
n eighborhoods b etter places to li ve . By slowing down m o -
to r ve hicle sp eeds , th ey b en efit n eighborho o d bi cycli sts . If a
res id ential street has hi gh volumes of bicycli sts or is a bi cycl e
b o ul evard , othe r treatmen ts, su ch as diverte rs fo r m o tor ve -
hicl es, should b e considered b efo re installin g a traffi c circl e.
COSTS AND FUNDIN G
$5 ,000 to $8 ,000 including staff time .
CONTACT
John Mare k
M an age r of N eighborh ood Traffi c C alming
Sea ttl e D e p ar tme nt ofTran sp o rtati o n
700 5th Ave nu e , Suite 3 900
P 0. Box 34996
Sea ttl e,WA 98124-49 9 6
(206) 684-5069
Bicycle Counte rm ea sure Selection Sy stem Case Studie s 259
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA #32
Bicycle Boulevards-Bryant Street
Example
BACKGROUND
A three-mile res ide n tial stree t was tran sformed into a
mostly stop-free bi cycle arterial th at serves cyclis ts of all
leve ls. This "bicycle boul evard " treatment is straig htfor-
ward and would b e re pli cable in many citi es.
THE BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT
Bi cycle trave lways are generall y cl ass ifi ed as sh ar e d
ro a dways, sh ar e d roadways with signs, bike lan es and
sh ar e d -u se p aths (G uid e for the D evelopment of Bicyc le
Facilities, AASHTO 1 999). Each type attracts cycl ist s
according to the ir d esi re for direc tness, avo idan ce of
motor traffi c a nd oth er fac tors. I n t h e abse n ce of ve -
hicle ca lming a nd divers ion measures, direct throug h
ro u t es for cycl ist s ofte n al so at tra c t th rou gh motor traf-
fi c, d ec reas ing t h e i r attractive n ess for less traffic-toler-
a nt cycl ists of all ages.
A bicycle bouleva rd is a treatment of a low-volume, local
stree t sh are d roadway that crea t es a mostl y stop -free "ar-
t e rial " for bicycles while dive rting most th ro u gh motor
traffic . Motor ve hi cl e p arking and access t o all proper-
ti es is unc h ange d. Through motor traffi c is diverted by
bicycle -perm ea b le street clos ures and mandatory-turn
d ev ices spa ced eve ry half-mil e to a mile . Most stop sign s
face most cross -stree ts, creating two-way stops favoring
the boulevard . The city of Palo Alto, CA, imple m e nte d
what is believe d to b e the nation's fir st bicycle bouleva rd
by tran sfo rming Bryant Street .
260
Written by John Ciccarelli , Consultant , Transight
LLC I Bicycle Solutions.
Contributions by Gayle Likens, Carl Stoffel , and
Ashok Aggarwal (City of Pa lo Alto Transpo rta-
tion Division), Paul Goldstein (Bicycle Adv isory
Committee chairperson), and El len Fl etcher (BAC
vice -chair and former City Councilmembe r).
Case Studies Bicyc le Co untermea sure Select ion System
Bryant at Matadero Creek: Se para t e bicycle and pedestrian
brid ges.
COUNTERMEASURES
BICYCLE BOULEVARD H IST ORY IN PALO ALTO
Disc u ss ion of bicycle -priority streets arose in Palo Alto
during t h e e nvironmental move m e nt of t h e 1970s, re-
flecting the c ommunity's desire for bicycle routes with
low ve hicl e traffic to co mplement bus ie r bike -lan ed
stree ts. Safety was a seco ndary goal to be ac hi eved
m ainly by lowering motor vehicle vo lume a nd reducing
car-bike c onflic ts. The city's fir st bikeway n e twork plan
was adopte d in 1972, and i ts 1976 Co mpreh e n sive P lan
called for a network of bicycl e boul evards and ide ntified
seve ral possibl e st reets. T h e 2000 Draft Bicy cl e Trans-
portation P lan furth e r devel ops the propose d bicy cl e
boul eva rd network.
For its fir st b icycle boulevard, th e city eva luat ed three par-
all el stree ts se r ving the sa m e north-so uth trave l co rridor
(Brya nt, W ave rl ey, and Cowp er). All are res ide ntial exce pt
for three blocks through downtown, and all h ave parall el
parking for th eir entire length except for so m e di ago nal
p arking down town. All three se rve the sa m e d es tinations,
incl u ding several sc hools, an d fun c ti o n as n ea rb y multi-
lan e through streets favo red by motorists.At th e northern
city limit all three streets e nd n ear a bi cy cl e and p e des-
trian bridge across a m ajor c reek , e n abling extens ion of
the route into the adjace nt city (M e nlo Park). Each h ad
a signal at one of the two eas t-wes t arterial stree ts they
cros se d . One (Waverley) was a bus route .
Bryant was se lec te d because it was not a bus route, it h ad
an existing p e destrian bridge across a creek that diverted
through motor traffi c-a key bike bouleva rd fe ature, and
it alrea dy h ad a signal at the southe rn arterial street that
would b e crosse d . The bi cy cl e b o ul eva rd conve rsion was
imple m ente d in two segments eac h 11 years apart, in part
b eca u se of the anticip ate d expense of placing a signal at
the crossing of the northern arterial stre e t .
The so uthern segm ent , extending 3 km (1. 9 mi) from East
Meadow Drive to Churchill Avenue, was implem e nted in
1981 and invo lve d fo ur major elements. The first was a
bicycle-an d p ed es trian-only crossing o f a cre ek that h ad a
wooden pedestrian bridge that was scheduled for re place -
ment. B eca u se of the anticip ated increase in bicycl e trave l
due to the bouleva rd transformation, th e old bridge, just
one blo ck fro m an elementary sc hool, was re pla ced w ith
a bi cycl e-only bridge align e d with the stree t centerline
and a separate p e de strian-only bridge align ed with o n e
of the sid ewalks. These were ac tually co n struc te d aft er the
bouleva rd segment o p e n ed . The other el ements were two
bicycle-p ermeable street closures, and th e ch anging of all
stop-controlle d intersec tions to two-way stops on th e cross
stre e ts except at two intersec tions that remained four-way
stops.The latter change e n abl es uninterrupted p edaling for
a mile or more b etween four-way stops and signal s.
The northern segment, extending 1.9 km (1.2 mi) from
C hurchill Avenue to the northern city limit, was imple-
mented in 1992 and involved three maj or ele m e nts. The
first, constituting most of the cos t , was a n ew signal at
Embarcadero Road , a four-lane residential arterial street
ca rrying 25,000 vehicles dail y, combined with isl ands that
fo rc e ri ght-turn-only movements for m o tor ve hicles o n
Bryant. The cos t of the propose d signal attrac ted a grea t
deal of non-cycli st opposition bec aus e of an existing signal
one blo ck away. Cyclists responded that a two-blo ck d e-
tour added turning movements and compromise d n aviga-
bility, and that inte ra c tion with buses on the p arallel street
was undes irabl e.The city adde d the signal and c oordinate d
it with the adj ace nt sign al to minimize d elays on the arte-
rial street. The seco nd element was a bi cy cl e-permea bl e
street closure just south of Channing Av e nue, which also
attracted opposition due to res ide nt c oncerns ove r traffi c
diversion and impacts on an urgent-ca re m e dical facility.
After a six-month trial , the closure was replaced with a
n e ighborhood traffi c circl e one blo c k so uth at Addison .
The third element was stop sign changes similar to those
implem e nte d on th e first segment.
Bryant at Lowell : Typi cal street closure.
Bryant approaching Embarcadero: Turn restriction sign.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
FIRST (SOUTHERN} SEGMENT
Brya nt's fir st bicycle boulevard segm e nt was evaluated
during a d em o n stration period from May throug h Oc-
tober 1982, just aft e r its imple m entation. R esul ts are re -
p o rte d in the staff's Bi cycle Bou levard D emonstration Study
-Eva luation report ofDecember 9, 1982, w hi c h states:
Comp arative bi cy cl e co unts were take n at three lo ca -
tions on Bryant and at three other lo cations prior to
and during the bike boul evard study. Counts were taken
during a twelve hour p eriod (7:00 a.m. -7:00 p.m.) on
mid week days. B ase co unts were take n in M ay 1981
a nd April 1982; co unts at these lo ca tions were taken
again in O c tobe r 1982.
Twenty-four ve hic ul ar traffic co unts were t ake n at
ei g htee n lo ca ti ons along the bike boulevard corridor.
These counts included lo ca tions alo n g Brya nt as well
as p arall el and cro ss streets where c h an ges in traffi c
patterns were anti c ip at ed . Base co unts wer e taken in
M ay 1981 and 1982; co unts were taken again in Oc-
tob e r 1982.
Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System Case Studies 261
The res ults sh owed that bicy cl e traffi c o n Bryant in-
crease d dra m ati cally -85 p erce nt and 97 p e rce nt for two
key lo ca tions -and that Brya nt's rate of inc rease in bicy cl e
traffi c exceed e d th at of o the r stree ts. Brya nt was fo und to
ca rry 475 to 72 5 bi cycl es p er day d e p e nding o n loca tion .
Bike traffic d ec rease d substantiall y on two n earby p a rall el
multilan e stree ts fa vored by m o torists (-3 5 p e rce nt and
-54 p e rce nt for two key loca tions).
M o to r ve hicl e vo lumes w ithin the overall co rridor, e n -
compass ing Brya nt and several p ara ll el stree ts, re m aine d
fairl y co nstant. All but three o f th e stree ts in th e c orri-
dor ca rri e d c onside rabl y less than 1 ,000 ve hi cles p er da y,
quite acce ptabl e for lo cal res ide ntial stree ts. M o to r tra ffi c
o n Brya nt n ea r the two st reet closures d eclin e d by 5 2
p erce nt (9 53 to 457 ve hi cles) and 65 p e rce nt (48 1 to 170),
res p ec tively. Motor traffi c di ve rte d by the clos ures split
ab o ut eve nly to the two closes t p arall el streets.
The P al o Alto Po li ce D e p artme nt re ported that colli sions
rem aine d at a low level on the so uthe rn segment. N o col-
li sio n s occurre d n ea r the stree t clo sures.
Staff se nt a le tter to all res i d e nts within o n e bl oc k of Bry-
ant along th e corridor, and 18 individuals respo nde d . B e-
fo re implem e ntation , n eighborh o od res ide n ts ra ise d sev -
e ral kinds of co n cerns-in crease d sp eedi n g, moto rcycle
and m o p e d vi o lations of th e stree t cl os ures, and res id e n ce
access iss u es. Sp ee ding co mplaints w e re receive d so o n af-
t er imple m e ntati o n but d ropped off. Twelve-ho ur m o to r-
cy cl e and m o p e d co unts at th e two stree t clos ures n o te d
79 m o p e d vio lations an d 4 m o torcy cl e vi o lati o n s. (Mo-
p e ds fe ll o ut o f fas hi o n afte r th e 19 7 0s, and few if any m o-
t o rcy cli sts c u r re ntly u se Bryant fo r th ro u gh t rave l b eca u se
n ea rb y p arall el multi -lan e streets se r ve the ir nee ds.) One
complain t relat e d to driv ing sc h o o ls using the stree ts and
Bryant at Addi son : Neighbor ho od traff ic c ircle.
262 Ca se Studies Bi cycle Countermea sure Selection Sy stem
their n ew c ul d e sacs as prac ti ce areas, but a ft er be ing con-
tac te d th e sc h ools agreed to u se o ther ro utes. Th e p o li ce
and the fir e d e p ar tme nt re porte d n o se rious impai rme nt
of em e rge n cy res p o n se (Palo Alt o h as a fu ll y co nnec te d
stree t g rid th at offers n1a n y route o pti o n s).
Th ere was some co n cern about c h an ges to cycli st b e-
h av ior at inte r sec ti o n s on a route w ith most st o p sign s
re m ove d in the bi cycle travel direc ti o n . On a weekday in
O c to b e r 19 8 2, a m e mbe r of the ci ty's Bi cy cl e Adviso ry
Committee observed cyclist b eh avio r at o n e o f th e re-
m aining four-way st o p s on Brya nt's fi rst segm e nt . Three
hundred to 4 00 cyclists were observe d during eac h of th e
m orning and aft ernoo n c onunute p e rio ds. M os t sca nned
fo r cross traffi c, so m e sca nne d and slowed , and a few m ad e
a comple t e stop. T his is typi cal o f cycl ist b e h av io r at o ther
sto p -con troll ed in t ersec ti o ns in the city.
SECOND(NORTHERN)SEGMENT
Brya nt's se cond bike boul evard segm ent was imple m e nt-
e d in 1992 . Unlike th e fir st segment, w h ose full len gth
unde rwe nt a six -month d e m o n strati on, th e o nl y tr ial ele-
m e nt was th e stree t clos ure four bl ocks n o rth of the n ew
sign al . One reason for tes ting thi s ele m e nt was its loca-
ti o n n ext to an emergen cy m e di cal ca re buildi ng, th o u gh
tha t fac ility subseq u e ntly reloca t ed o ut of th e co r r id or.
The trial's res ults ap pea re d in th e staff re p o rt o f July 15,
1993 titl e d Eva luat ion ef S ix -Mo nth Tr ial of Bryan t Street
Tempora ry Street Clos ure fo r th e Bi cycle Boul evard Extens ion.
O nl y o n e p arall el stree t bl oc k exp erienced traffic increas -
es pre di c te d to b e "noti cea bl e" by th e "Traffi c Infu sio n o n
R es idential Streets" m e thodology u se d by n eighb o rhood
tra ffi c m ana gement resea rch er s. Staff reconunended that
th e clos ure b e m ad e perman e nt, b u t res idents p e rsu ad ed
th e city co uncil to replace it w ith a n eighborh ood traffic
circl e at th e n ea res t inte r se cti o n to the south . That circle
went throu gh its own tri al p e ri od and is n ow p ermanent .
B eca u se o f th e lack of a stree t clos u re o n th e segm e nt
fr o m the northern arte ri al to dow ntown , this segm ent still
attrac ts co n siderable short-distan ce thro u gh m otor traf-
fic . M o tor ve hi cle vo lumes th e re are hi gh e r and ca r-bike
inter ac ti o ns m ore fre qu e nt th an on th e boulevard 's purely
res ide ntia l southern se gme nt.
OTHER FEEDBACK
So m e cy cli sts o n Brya nt h ave re m ar ke d th at m o t orists ap -
p roac hing on stop-controll e d cro ss stree ts some times fa il
t o yiel d to n o n-st o p through cyclists on Bryant. W h e n
eac h b o ul eva rd segme nt w as fi rst install e d , th e c ity te m-
p o rar il y add e d ye ll ow "Cro ss Traffic D oes N o t Sto p "
warning plates b e low cros s-stree t st o p sign s to edu ca te
drive r s ab o ut the traffi c contro l ch ange. In b o th phases
th ese we re re move d aft e r seve ral m o nths b eca u se they are
nonstandard traffi c co ntrol d evices and b eca u se th e ir size
impac ts sightlines.
As wa s the exist in g p rac ti ce for bicy cl e-p ermeabl e street
clo sures in Pa lo Alto, th e two cl os ures on the bo ul evard 's
south ern segm e nt were both pla ce d just b e hind the co rn e r
c urb re turns at inter sec tions, forrnin g an appare nt three -
way junc tion that was ac tu all y fo ur-way for bi cy cl es. It
wa s found that moto r is ts approac hing su ch inte r sec ti o n s
do not always sca n for and yield to bicy clists trave r sing the
street cl os ures. Palo Alto now in stall s n ew stree t cl os ures
se veral car l e ngths b ac k so inte r sec ti o n s appea r as fo ur-
w ay for all p arties.
SUBSEQUENT EVALUATION
The c ity h as c ondu c t e d o ccas io n al c ounts of bi cy cli st s
a t various lo c ations sin ce th e c omp le tion of th e Bry -
ant bi cycle boul e vard in 1 992. E ig ht-hour inte r sec ti o n
co unts co ndu c t e d i n M ay 1997 t alli e d 38 5 bi cy cl es a t
o n e lo ca ti o n on B rya nt. Sta ff a ttributes th e sub stan ti al
r e du c ti on fro m 1 982 leve ls t o cultural c h a n ges-th e
bicycl e's sh a r e of co mmute a nd utility trip s h as dropp e d
since the fir st e n e r gy c ri si s, a nd a g r ea t e r fra c tion o f
stude nts are drive n t o sc hool as c ompared to 20 yea r s
ago. Th e c ity rec e ntly hire d a full -time tra n sporta ti o n
sys tems m a n ag e m e nt coo rdina t o r d evote d to fa c ilita t -
ing adult a nd stud e nt co mmute alte rna tives including
bi cy cling .
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Th e bicycl e bou leva rd tre atm e nt su ccess full y tra n s-
form e d a local stree t into a bicy cl e throug hway whil e
r e taining motor ve hicle access t o all prop e rti es . Bi cy cl e
vo lumes inc r ease d substa ntiall y, and bi cy cl e trip tim es
c omp are fav orably w ith p a rall e l route o ptions. B ry-
a nt Stree t h as b ecome a wid e ly kn own and well-u se d
throu g h ro ute on th e Sa n Fran c isco P e nin sul a, both for
inte r-c ity c ommutes a nd intra-c ity trips, including stu -
d e nt c ommute s to e le m e ntary, middle, and hig h sc h ools.
In honor o f h e r multi-decad e rol e in the stree t 's tran s-
form ati o n , th e city r ece ntl y d es ig n at e d the stree t t o b e
th e Ell e n Fl e t c her Brya nt Stree t Bicy cl e B o ul evard .
The pro cess o f ide nti fy ing pote nti al bi cy cl e bouleva rd s
is straig htfo rw ard , and imple m e nta tion is re la ti vely
simple co mp are d t o full-o n tra ffi c ca lming . Othe r c it-
ies throu g hout the co untry h ave imple m e nte d bicy cl e
boulev ard s or are co n side ring the m. One Bay Area ex-
ample is B e rke l ey. The re is a future example in n ea rb y
S unnyval e, w h e re Bo rregas Ave nu e, a local stree t c ur-
re ntly severe d by two fr eeways, w ill b ecome a bicy cl e
b o ul eva rd w h e n tho se ga p s are cl ose d by n ew bicycle-
p e d es trian bridges .
COSTS AND FUNDING
California 's Tran sporta ti o n D eve lo pm.e nt A c t , Article 3
(TDA-3) prog ra m d e di ca t es a sm all fr ac tion o f the stat e
sa les ta x on gaso lin e for bi cycl e and p e d es trian transp o r-
tati o n proj ects throu g h o ut the st at e . TDA-3 is all o ca te d
by c ity popula ti o n so i t is a fa irly pre di c ta bl e-alb eit
va ri a ble-fundin g source .
For the fir st (s outhern) segm e nt of the Brya nt bicy cl e
b o ul evard , Pal o Alto obtaine d $35 ,000 o f FY 1 9 83-84
TDA-3 funds fo r a n ew b icycl e bridge ac ro ss a c ree k .The
re m ainder of the funding fo r this segm e nt came from city
Stree t Improvement funds.
T h e se cond (n o rth e rn ) segm e nt c o st $243,0 0 0 in
1 992, including th e traffic sig n al. T h e si gn al -includ -
ing interc onn ec tion t o th e c ity's co ntrol sys t e m a nd
th e adjacent si g n al -was p aid for with $7 5 ,00 0 of FY
1 99 2-93 TDA-3 fund s a nd $99,00 0 of c ity T ra ffi c Si g -
n al C apital Improve m e nt Proj ec t fund s . T h e ba la n ce
o f $6 9 ,000 ca m e from t h e c ity's Stree t Improve m e nt
P rogram .
Cos t es tima t es for bi cy cl e boul eva rd s in o the r lo ca-
ti o n s will l a r gely d e p e nd o n the capital imp rove m e nts
n eed e d to dive rt throu g h moto r traffi c (s u c h as bike
a nd p e d es tria n -only wa t e rway bridges and bicycl e-
p e rme abl e stree t clo sures), ca lm r e m aining moto r
traffi c (such as tra ffi c c ircl es), a nd crea t e bike route
co ntinuity across m aj o r stree t s (n e w sig n als, b r id ges or
unde rpa sses).
REFERENCES
Bi cy cl e Boulevard D emon stra tion S tud y -E valu at ion, City of
P alo Alto Tran sportati o n Divi sion, D ecembe r 9, 1982 .
[St aff rep o rt for c ity council ac ti o n .]
B ryan t Stree t Bicy cle Boul evard Extension R eport, C ity of
P alo Alto T ra n sportati o n Divisio n , Se pte mbe r 1991.
Eva luation of S ix -Mo nth Tr ial of Bryant Street Te mpo rary
Stree t Clo sure fo r th e Bicycl e Boulevard E x tension, C ity of
P alo Alto Tran sportatio n Divisi o n , July 15 , 199 3 . [St aff
re port for city c ouncil ac tion .]
Bicy cle Cou nt ermeasure Selection System Case Studie s 26 3
National Bi cycling and Wal k ing Study, Ca se Study No . 19:
Traffi c Calming, Auto-Res tri cted Zon es and Other Traffi c
Manag ement Techniqu es -Th eir Effects ef Bicycling and
Pedestrian s, U.S. Department ofTransportation/Federal
Highway Administration, Publication N o . FHWA-
PD-93-028,January 199 4 .
TIRE (Traffi c Infusion on Residential N eighborhoods)
Index, cited by Palo Alto Transportation Division staff
in their July 1993 staff re port (listed above) as : "Source :
Barton-A sc hman Associ ates, Inc . from G oodrich Traffi c
Group, ba se d on work by Donald Appleyard ".
CONTACTS
Gayle Likens, Senior P lanner
Transportation Division
Palo Alto, CA
(650) 329-2136
Gayle .Likens @ cityofpaloalto.org
Ellen Fletcher
(former Councilmember)
Palo Alto, CA
(650) 494-8943
fl.etchere @aol.com
264 Case Studies Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System
UNITED STATES #33
Planning, Designing and Implementing a
Shared-Use Path
BACKGROUND
There are millions of bicyclists that e njoy and prefe r riding
on off-road trails rathe r than sharing the road with tru cks
and cars . Off-road trail s prese nt a differe nt set of d es ign
chall e n ges for planners, d es ig n e r s and bi cy cle advo cates.
This p aper offe rs a summary of elem e nts that con stitute
good trail design and defines how su c h trai ls ca n b e cre-
ated within a g ive n community.
Successful, functional, and shared-use (t hose that accom-
modat e a var iety of trail u se r s) trail s are, for the most p art,
the res ult of good planning and design. Prop erly p lanned
and d es ign e d tra il s take into acco unt how an indiv idu-
al trail fit s into a comp re h e n sive trail n etwork , offering
transportation as well as h ealth and rec rea tional b enefits
to a community. M ost importantly, well-designed trails
serve the needs of trail u sers, limit co nfli c ts among u ser
gro up s, link popul ar destinations, are su ccessfull y integrat-
ed into the exis tin g built e nvironment of a community,
and are se n sitive to the surrounding native landsca p es and
e nvironment.
COUNTERMEASURES
ELEMENTS OF GOOD TRAIL DESIGN
T h ere are many factors that go into the d evelo pment of a
functional and su ccessful sh are d-use trail. This p a p er d oes
not m ake an attempt to address all facto r s. The most im-
portant factors have been se lec ted and d esc rib e d h e re in .
A cco mmod a ting the Use r
T h e most important conside rati on for the d es ign of a trai l
is the accommodati on of the trail u ser. Most sh ared-use
trails w ill need to serve the interests of a w ide range of
Charles A. Flink , FASLA, President , Greenways
Incorporated
u sers, inclu ding p eo ple who want to walk, j og, bike, and
in-line skate. M os t sh ared-u se trail s w ill b e d eveloped at a
minimum width of 3 m (10 ft).This is done to acco mmo-
d ate two-way traffic on th e prepare d trail tread surfa ce. It
may b e ne cessary to inc rease the w idth to 3 .7 or 4.3 m (12
or 14 ft) in order to accommodate h eavy traffi c o n a g iven
trail . It would also b e advisa ble to divide the trail into
"wh eele d" and "non-wh eeled" treads if th e ri ght-of-way
and landscape can su pport two trail trea ds. The wheeled
tread shoul d be 3 m (10 ft) wide. The non-w h eeled tre ad
can b e 1 .8 or 2.4 m (6 or 8 ft) in w idth .
All trails must be designed and cons tru cted to be acces-
sibl e to all p ersons regardless of their abiliti es. There are
very few reasons w hy a give n trail cannot be built to b e
full y access ibl e. The b es t g uide book on this subj ec t is D e-
signing S idewa lks and Trails for Access: Part 2, Best Pra ct ices
D esig n Guide. Every trail d esign e r and m an age r sh ould
h ave this reference book on h and to e nsure that trail proj-
ec ts are accessible.
Connectiv i ty
The b es t trails are those that link people to popular d es ti-
nations. Each trail segm ent sh o uld h ave logical and fun c-
ti onal endpoin ts. Trails that se r ve as links throughout a
community are the most popular for trail u se r s.While this
seem s o bv i ous, sometimes off-road trail s will end abruptly,
Bicycle Cou nt erm easure Se lect ion Sy stem Case Studie s 265
es p eciall y in urb an area s. It is ve ry important that trail s b e
linke d to othe r trails, to p arks, and to an o n-road n e two rk
of bi cycl e fa cilities and sidewalks.
R e du ce M ulti -User Conflict
Multi-use r c onflict is regarded as the most se rious safe ty
concern for off-road trail s. C onflicts between cyclists and
p e d es tri an s are the most preval e nt and are u su ally ca u se d
by reckl ess and unsafe b e h avio r, inc ompa tibl e u se valu es
or by overc rowding. The m os t e ffec tive rem e di es for this
confli c t b egin with d es ign and manage m e nt. Trail s ca n
and should b e d es igned t o re duce co nfli c t by wide nin g
the trail tread or by se p aratin g th e trail trea d fo r diffe re nt
u se rs. Single tread, multi-use trails ca n al so b e rn.anage d
to re duce c onflicts, some times by se p arating u sers under
a time of u se policy. Invo lving u se r g roups in the d es ign
of a trail is the best wa y to b o th u nder stand local n ee ds
and re solve the potential for share d-use co nfli c t . Posting
trail s with a trail us e ordinan ce and providing e ducational
m ate rial s on how to u se th e trail is al so impo rtant.
Fitting Trail s to the Environ ment
The most e njoyable trail s t o u se are those that cele brate
th e natural landsca pes and n ative e nv ironme nts trave rse d
by the off-ro ad trail. This is o n e of th e m os t popular rea -
sons outdoor advocates ch oose to use o ff-roa d , sh are d-
u se trails. Trail s should h ave rhy thm and sy n cop ation, and
fl.ow within the ir surroundings so that they captivate u s-
ers. Trail s should follow th e n atural conto urs of the land
and take advantage of n ati ve lands cap e fea tures su ch as
water, groupings of vege ta tion, sce ni c vi ews, and interes t-
ingly built feature s.
Integrating Trails into the Built E nvironmen t
Trails should al so celebrate th e bu il t lands ca p es they tra-
ve rse. Often w e try to hide v iews h eds d eem e d unpleasant.
This m ay not always be a good id ea . Since trails are design e d
to b e use d by p e ople, it is mu ch b etter to kee p vi ew sh ed s
open. Trails through urban landsc ap es provide an opportu-
nity to interpret th e surrounding environme nt. Great care
266 Case Stud ies Bicyc le Co unt ermea sure Selection System
must al so b e take n to su ccess full y fit a new trail into the
u rb an fabri c. For example, the co nve rsion of abando n ed
railro ad c orridors h as b ee n th e grea tes t re source for n ew
urb an trails in th e pas t 20 year s. It prese nts chall e nges for
trail designers b eca use these corridors supported a different
typ e o f transportatio n ac ti vity. C rea ting n ew inter sec ti o n s
b e twee n roads and co nve rted rail -trails is the g rea tes t chal-
le nge for these urban trails. It is impo rtant that intersec tio ns
b e d es igned to cl ea rl y d e termine w h o h as th e ri ght-of-
way. Inte rsec tions sh o uld al so b e ve ry cl early m arked fo r all
g roups to d elinea te cross ing zones fo r trail us ers. Pave m e nt
m arkings, signs, li ghting, and textured pave m e nt ca n all b e
use d to m ake inte rsec tions safe r.
THE IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC INPUT
Inco rp o r ating public input into the d e si gn o f a trail is
one of the most imp o rtant st e p s in the pro cess. Land-
owne r s who are adja ce nt to trail co rridors should alwa ys
b e include d in the d es ig n pro cess . Finding th e most ap-
propriate method fo r invo lving the public in the d es ig n
o f a trail is importa nt . A list of involve m e nt tec hniqu es
is prov id e d below :
Meet w ith individual s
One-on-one m eetings are th e b es t way to appro ac h p eople
who mi ght have oppos ition to a propos ed trail.These m eet-
ings offer opportunity to calmly di scuss alternatives, as w ell
as sp ecifi c needs.
Citizen advisory committees
It may be advantageous to convene a group of ci ti zens
to help decide elements of the trail design. This ca n cre-
ate community buy-in and advo cacy for the project. Be
certain to have balance o n this committee amon g user
gro u ps, as well as advocates and possible opponents.
Public workshops
Perh aps the best method for soliciting input is to invite
the public to attend an open house or trail workshop.
T h ese mee tings can be held during the week or on a
Saturday. Provide opportunities for attendees to write on
tra il design maps and participate in oth er elements of the
design process .
Public hearings
Some local governments may require a forma l publi c
hearing or presentation to an elec t e d co uncil or b oard.
These official meetings are important to providing lega l
foundation for future trail developmen t .
Public survey
It is also adv isa bl e to condu ct a public survey, either an
opinion poll or a statisticall y val id survey, to better under-
sta nd interes t and level of su pport for the trail project.
All public input should b e recorded and made part of a per-
manent record with respect to the final design for th e trail.
CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Good trail design is influenced by many factors. This pa-
per has defined the most importan t components of good
design. Within the context of our modern world, trail d e-
velop m ent is actuall y a fai rly complex undertaking. It re-
quires that we understand the opportunities and constraints
of the natural an d human-made environments and that we
acco unt for the diverse interests of trail u sers. Defining a
logical process for p lanning and d esigning every trail is one
way to ensure that all factors influencing trail development,
function, and safe sh ared u se, have been appropriately ad-
dressed and reso lved.
REFERENCES
Flink , C., Seams , R. 1993 , Greenway s A Guide to Pl anning,
Des ign and D evelopment, Island Press, Washington, DC
Flink, C. Seams, R, Olka, K, 2001, Trail s for the Ttventy First
Century, Publi sh ed by Island Press, Wash ington, D C
Beneficial Designs, 2001 , D esig ning Sidewa lks and Trail s for
Access, Part 2, Best Practi ces D es ig n Guide, US Depart-
ment ofTransportation, Washington, DC
McHarg, Ian L., 1969, D es ig n with Nature, Natural History
Press, Garde n C ity, N ew York
CONTACT
Charles A. Flink, FASLA, RLA
President
Greenways In corporated
5850 Fayetteville Road, Suite 211
Durham, N C 27713
(919) 484-8448 (vo ice)
(919) 484-3003 (fax)
c huck.flink @greenways .com
http :/ /www.greenways.com
Bicycl e Countermeasure Se lec tion Sys tem Case Stud ies 267
'
PORTLAND, OREGON #34
I
Path and Roadway Intersections
BACKGROUND
The Springwat e r Corridor is a 25.7 km (16 mi) p ave d
sh ared-use path from Portland 's inner eas tside h ea ding
eas t to the adj ace nt suburbs of Gres h am and B o ring . A
rail-to-trail co nve rsion , it fo ll ows power lines and is p art
of a larger trai l sys t em known as the 40-Mile Loop ex-
te nding throug h o ut the Portland m e trop o litan area.
Currently exp erie n cing over half a milli on annual u sers,
the trail crosses 28 roadways alo n g the way, offer ing an
interes ting case study of trail-roadway cross ings.Almost all
are at loca tions away from exis ting ro ad way intersections,
thus few b efo re and after safety or fun cti onality compar i-
so n s can b e mad e. However, we offer qu alitati ve observa-
tions where appropriat e .
COUNTERMEASURES
TYPES OF IN T ERSECTIONS
Evaluation of trail-roadway cross ings invo lves an alys is of
traffi c p atte rns of ve hicl es as well as trail u se r s. This in-
cludes traffi c sp eeds , street width , traffi c volumes (aver-
age dail y traffic and pea k h o ur), line of si ght, and trail
u se r profile (age di stribution , destinati ons). Althou gh
many trail s or paths u se gra d e-sep ara t ed cross ings of
major roadways whenever poss ible, these are exp e n sive
and must b e well-des igned, o r they ar e n ot u se d. On
the Springwa t e r Corridor Trail , ther e are five g r ade -
separated cross ings of roadways, three of w hi c h existe d
b efo re d evelopme nt of the trail , and the las t two were
install e d as a n ew ro ad way improve m ents project after
the trail was compl e ted . Essen ti all y, the crea tion of the
fiv e grade-separated c ro ssings were the refore fund e d by
so urces oth e r than trail constru c tion doll ars.
268
By Mia L. Birk & Geo rge Hudson 1
Principals , Alta Planning+ Design
Case Stu dies Bicy cle Countermea sure Selection System
The exis ting crossings fa ll into th e following categories:
1. Unprotec te d , marked c ro ss ings-Unprotecte d cross-
ings include rnidbl ock crossings of residential, coll ec-
tor, and so m e times m ajor arterial streets.
2. R o ute d to existing inte rs ection -In certain lo ca tions,
the trail emerged quite clos e (within a few hundred
fee t) to existing intersections and w as routed to u se the
exis ting sign al.
3. N ew signali zed cross ings-In four locations, n ew sig-
nalized cro ss ings we re installed at majo r roadways du e
t o the traffi c volumes, speeds, and projected trail usage .
4. Grade-separated cross ings -Three g rad e-sep ara ted
cross ings were in p lace at the time of ac qui sition of
th e corridor. Two additional grade -se p arate d cross ings
were co nstru cted aft er the trail was installed. The trail
takes advantage of the prese n ce of these g rad e-se p a-
r at ed crossings .
TYPE 1: UNPROTECTED/MARKED CROSSING
Most of the minor public ro adway crossings along the
Springwater Corridor are servi ced by unprotected cross-
ings co nsisting of crosswalk m arkings and sign s. Where
the cross ing is of a public roadway, trail u sers are re-
quired to stop for roadway traffi c. In additi o n , there are
seve r al private driveway crossings of the trail. At these
private driveway cross ings, motorists are required to stop
for trail u se rs . These cross ings h ave a low vo lume of t raf-
fic and ar e not public stre e t ri g ht-of-ways. A s a general
policy on the Springwater Corridor Tra il , private drive-
way u se r s are requi re d to stop for trail u se r s as indicat ed
by stop signs and mark e d crosswalks.
In eac h case, the cross ing d es ig n t oo k into co n sider-
a tion ve hic ular traffic, line of si ght , trail traffi c, u se p at-
t erns, road typ e and w idth, a nd o ther sa fe ty iss u es su c h
as n ea rby sc h ools.
Unprot ec t ed , ma r ked crossing of loca l stree t.
These crossings have th e fo ll owing characteristics:
Crosswalks
• Maximum traffi c vo l umes of approximately 5,000 av-
erage daily traffi c (ADT) (1,000-1,500 p eak hour)
• M aximum 85th p e rce ntile sp ee ds -35-45 mph
• M aximum street w idth-18.3 m (60 ft) (no median)
• Minimum line of sight-25 mph zo n e: 3 1.5 m (100
ft ), 35 mph zone: 61 m (200 ft), 45 mph zo n e: 91.4 m
(300 ft)
• Warning signs provided for motorists, and stop signs
and sl owing te c hniques (boll ards /geometry) u sed on
the trail a pproa ch . Bollards al so serve to minimize mo-
torized ve hicl e access onto the trail.
• Vegeta ti on and other obstacles cleared from motorists
and trail-u se r sight lines
Three of the unprotect e d intersec tions Qohnso n Creek
Boulevard, Southeas t Flave l , and Southeast 92nd Av-
enu e) have m edian islands that provid e a p e d es tri an
refug e area and were added in anticipation of increases
in traffic vo lumes on these streets
Evaluati on and R esults
No trail user and motorized ve hicl e co nfli cts have b een re-
ported. The priva te driveway cro ss ings typically serve large
industrial complexes, and their access across the trail is per-
nutted by the tra il m anaging agency (th e city of Portland).
There have been no issues at th ese private driveway cross-
ings, and motorists do sto p w h en cross ing the trail .
Two of the three median re fu ge islands h ave landscap-
ing. The landscaping h as b ee n subj ec t to damage from
automobiles.
TYPE 2: ROUTE USERS TO EXISTING
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
The trail leads u sers very close to a major inte r section at
Southeast Linnwood and Johnson C re e k Bouleva rd. This
intersec tion went through a major redesign shortly af-
t er the Springwater Trai l was built . N ew improvements
included signalization of this intersec tion. Trail designers
recognized the pote ntial of inc rease d sa fety by dive rting
trail u se rs to th e new signalized crossing.
In addi ti on, the former rail line crosse d an existing inter-
sec tion at Southeas t B ell and J o hnson Creek Boulevard
at a diagonal through this inte rsec tion. The intersection
was signali zed prior to the con stru c tion of the trail . Trail
u sers now utilize the existing sign al, cross ing eac h street
one at a time.
The cross in gs have th e following c harac teristi cs:
Crosswalks
• Traffic si gnals and pedes trian ac ti vated signal button
• Traffic volumes greater than 15,000 average d ail y
traffic (ADT)
• 85th p e rcentil e speeds g reater than 45 mph
• Stree t widths g rea ter than 18.3 m (60 ft)
• Minimum line of si ght-25 mph zo n e: 31.5 m (100
ft), 35 mph zo ne: 61 m (200 ft), 45 mph zo n e: 91.4 m
(300 ft)
• Warning signs provid ed for motorists, STOP signs and
slowing techniques (bo ll ard s/geo m e try) u sed on th e
trail approach, and bollards that serve to minimize m o -
torized vehicle access o nto th e trail
• Vegetation and other obstacles cleared from motorists
and trail u se r sigh t lines
• ADA compliant c urb ramps
Distance of trail to sign ali zed intersection less than
106 .7 m (350 ft)
E valuation and Res ults
No colli sions have b een reported. Trail u se r s complain of
h avi n g to cross two c ro sswal k s at Bell and Johnso n Creek,
thus req ui ring them to wai t for two signal cycles .
Bicycle Cou nte rm ea sure Select ion System Ca se Studies 269
Trail routed t o Johnson Creek/Linwood signalized i nterse c ti on.
Trail users c ros s using crosswalk s .
TYPE 3: NEW SIGNALIZED CROSSINGS
There are four lo cations-South east 82nd Ave, So uth-
eas t Foster R oa d , Southeas t 122 nd Ave and Eas tman Park-
w ay -alo n g th e Springwa ter C orridor w h ere th e trail
cro sses a m ajor ro adway of above 15 ,000 ADT. In all fo ur
cases, the cro ss ing width w as grea ter than 18.3 m (6 0 ft ), th e
n ea rest intersec ti on more than 106.7 m (3 50 ft) aw ay, and
all had anticipated trail user volumes of grea ter than 100 p er
h o ur. Trail des ign e rs felt th at n ew signalize d cro ssings would
b e n ecessary to fa cilitate safe travel , and thus deve loped a
signal w arrant ana lysis that p roj ec ted use thro ugh trail us er
numbers fr o m th e Burke G ilman Trail in Sea ttl e, and use r
co un ts on a 1.6-km (1-mi) built portion of the Springwat er
C orridor in Gres ham. E ac h loca tion was al so analyzed for
sight lines, impacts on traffi c p rog re ssion , timing w ith adj a-
ce nt signals, ca p ac ity, and safety.
Trail u se r s activate the sign al as fo ll ows:
• Pedestrian s: push butto n
Cycli sts: loop d e tec to r in p ave m e nt
• Eques trian s: push butto n m o unte d o n p o l e at 2.4 m
(8 ft) h e ight
At Southeas t 8 2nd, Southeas t Fo ste r Road and So u th-
eas t 122nd Ave nu e, the cross ing includes a medi an island
to re duce the c ro ssing di stan ce, sign al activa tio n in the
m e dian fo r those unable t o cro ss the e n tire ro adway in
one move m e nt, and adva n ce wa rning sign s fo r motorists.
Othe r cro ss ing fea tures foll ow th e guidelin es provide d for
dive rting use rs to an exis tin g signal as d esc rib e d earli e r.
Evaluation and Re.suits
T h e signalize d c ros sings h ave b ee n effec tive, sa fe, and func-
ti o nal. Since their install ation in 1995 , th e re h ave b ee n no
re ported c olli sions, with an es timated 5 00,000 annu al u s-
270 Case Studi es Bi cycle Countermea sure Selec ti on Sys tem
Signalized cross in g at 82nd Ave and 122nd Ave in c lu des : flat grade
with two marked crosswalks (one for ea c h movement) and land-
scaped median; ped estrian an d equestrian pus h button activation ;
bicyc li st loop det ector signa l activation ; flat grade on app roac hes
with good sight lines ; ad vance warning signs for motorists.
ers . Trail users note that although th ey must ac ti va te the
signal and wa it for a gree n li ght, m o tori sts have gotten
used to the signal and fre que ntly stop before they ge t th e
re d li ght. Traffic engineers re p ort minimal interference
w ith nearby signals, give n the relatively distant spac ing
fro m th e nearest signalized intersec ti o n s. They also report
no probl ems.
TYPE 4: GRADE -SEPARATED CROSS I NGS
There are five grade-separa te d crossings on th e Sp ring-
wa ter Corridor. These crossings co n sist of both ove r and
undercrossings of roadways . Interstate 205, Highl and
Road /181st, and Telford Road were existing grade-sepa-
ra te d crossings d evelope d in response to the presence of
the railroad. As such, these crossings are well integrated
into the trail layo ut and eas il y u sed by trail u sers.
Hogan Road and the 7th Street Bridge, b oth in the City
of Gresham, are roadway improvement proj ec ts built after
th e trail was cons tru cted. At both these roadway crossings,
th e ro adway goes over the trail, and J o hnson Creek is im-
mediately adj ace nt to the trail. The Hoga n R oa d cross ing
was implemented in 1995, while th e 7th Street Bridge
project followed a few years later. Both grade-se p arated
cross ings were built in antici p ati on of hi gh projected ve-
hicle volumes and sp eed.
Key c h aracteris ti cs of these undercross ings include :
• A minimum vertical clearance of2.4 m (8 ft )
• P lacement of the trail at an el eva ti o n highe r than the
one year floo d plain eleva tion of th e c reek
• M aximum trail grade ap pro aching the unde rcross ing
of 5 percent
• Alternative trai l route lea ding up and over the bridge
in the event the creek is in flo odin g stages
• Lighting under th e bridge
• Rip-rap reinforced edge to the creek
• Limited vertical clearance warning signs for trail u sers
Evaluation and R esults
Hogan Road, h av ing been th e first of th e two under-
cross ings to be implemented , h ad seve ral sh o rtcomings.
Placement of the trail at the two-year fl oo d plain eleva-
tion resulted in regul ar flooding and closure of the trail.
With eac h flooding event, sediments from th e c reek were
deposited on the trail , req uir in g regular cl ea n-up. The ap-
proach to the undercrossing did not facilitate compl e te
visib ili ty through t h e undercrossing area, res ulting in un-
safe feelings among users along the approac h . Li ghting
installed in the underpass area w as va ndali ze d , requ iring
retrofitting of the lights with m e tal cages. In order to m eet
ADA grades on the trail approach , a swi tch b ac k ramp was
incorporated on the eastern side of the undercross ing ap-
proach. Turning r adii u sed on this approac h t end to b e a
bit tight for bicyclists' comfort. Today, ab o ut half the trail
u sers opt to use the altern a ti ve, at grad e crossing route in
li eu of the Hogan Road undercrossing, regardless of creek
conditions.
These lessons learned were taken to h ear t when the 7 th
Street Bridge proj ec t was proposed. Key ch aracter isti cs of
this undercrossing include:
• Placement of th e trail at the 25 year flo od plain el eva -
tion
• Ali g nment of the trail ap p roach to facilitate co mplete
visibility of the undercross ing area
Installati on of h ose bib water connec ti ons to facilitate
trail cl ean up in th e event of a flood
• 2. 7 m (8 ft, 9 in) of ver ti cal clearance instead of th e
minimum of 2.4 m (8 ft)
• Use of vandal-res istant light fixtures
• Se tb ac k of the bridge fo undati on ab utment from th e
trail, resulting in a g reater sense of openness under th e
bridge
These improvemen ts resulted in an unde rcross ing that h as
b een well -received and equally well-used by the public.
Fl ooding and maintenance p ro blems are few. Most trail
u sers are surprised to learn th e brid ge came in afte r the
trail.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Trail crossing designs tail ored to the site ch arac teristi cs
(type o f cross-s tree t , traffic vo lumes, stree t w idth, traf-
fic speed s, proximity to exis ting intersec ti o n s, e tc.) ha ve
resulted in well -fu n cti oning trail-roadway intersec tions
w ith no re p orted sa fety problems to date . Experience
with so m e unde r-crossings highlighted th e importa n ce of
good design, including open approaches w ith good visi-
bili ty and con sideration of site environmental conditions.
CONTACTS
Mia Birk
Princip al , Alta Planning + Design
Po rtland , OR 97214
3604 SE Li nc o ln St
(5 03) 230-9862
Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System Case Studies 271
BOULDER, COLORADO #35
Grade-Separated Crossing Treatments
BACKGROUND
For ove r a ce ntury, B o u lde rites h ave b ee n ge tting aro und
by b i cycle. T h e city did not, h owever, e mph as ize bicy-
clists and p e d es t ri ans in th e d es ig n of tr an sportation fa-
cil iti es until the 1980s. Th e 1989 Transportation M as t e r
P l an (TMP) bro u ght w ith it some m ajor c h an ges in h ow
th e ci ty v i ewed trans portati on . Transportation's e mphas is
was move d away from primar ily fo c u sing on t h e auto-
mobil e, and shifted t owa rd a balanced v i ew of transp or-
tation that fu ll y incl ude d options like walking, biki n g,
a nd taking the bus.
Since 1989, th e ci ty h as see n many c h an ges in transp o r-
tation facilities, p articu larl y for bicycl ists. The planne d
n e twork of prim ary and seco ndary bicycle corridors is
largely comple t e, minus a few key co nnec tions that re-
m ain to b e buil t . A n e twork of continuous paths along
Bould er C ree k and its tributaries is 70 p erce nt built. To-
day, Boulder's b ike and p e d es trian faci li ties are among the
b es t in the co untry.
The city recognizes the importance o f provi ding a va ri e ty
of tran sp ort ation options that allow ci ti ze n s to travel safe-
ly and effic ie n tl y. All o f Boulder's tran sportation facilities
include several elements that h ave b ee n embrace d by the
c ommuni ty. B ike and p e d es trian underp asses h ave been
such a su ccess that they are now u se d throughout the city.
In explainin g how the city has co m e to provide over 55
unde rp asses, it is important to con side r th e hi story leading
to th eir co n struction.
Cris Jo nes, Tran sportation Planner, Bou l der, CO
Con tri but ions by Bill Cowern (Traffic Operations
Eng in eer), Ann ie Noble (G reenways Coordinator)
Ma rni Ratzel (B i ke and Pedest r ian Pla n ner) and
Ra ndall Rutsch (Senior Transportation Planner).
In 1910, Frederick Law Olmst ed, Jr. warned the city
of Bould er of the d angers of all owing d evelo pme nt to
enc roa ch up on th e flo o dp lai n of Bould e r C r ee k . H e
recommended aga inst the construction of a d eep , ar -
tifi cial flood c hannel to facilitate d evelo pme nt in the
fl oo dplain. Inst ead h e su gges t e d that Bould er C r eek b e
all owe d to remain in a sm all sh all ow channel for the
ordinary stages of the strea m , w hil e including a mu ch
broader flo od plain as a ch annel during large r storms.
R ecogni zing the n eed t o dedicate thi s flo odplain land
t o a u se ful purpose, h e su gges t ed crea ting a sp ace for
publi c u se.
In 1969, a moderate fl oo d affec ted the c ity of Boulder.
The fo ll owing d ecad e ma rke d the city's fir st serious flo od
contro l effor ts. Initi al inves ti ga ti ons fo c u sed on tradi-
ti o n al flood mitiga tion techniques, su ch as hard-lining
strea m channels and u sing co n c re t e struc tural fac ilities to
c h annelize strea m flo w. These plans, h owever, confli c ted
w ith th e city's commitment to improve both quali ty of
li fe and the urban environment, and evok e d conside rable
public opposition .
With the goal of maintaining and e nhancing the aesthetic
and e nvironmental integrity of Boulder Creek and its
tributaries, the city d ecide d to pu rs u e alternative sol uti ons
to flood co ntrol. In 1978, the city adopted a "non-con-
tainment" policy for Boulder Creek as p ar t of the Boul-
der Vall ey Compre h ensive P l an . This policy promoted
o n going city effo rts to protect public sa fety by restricting
development w ithin th e floodp lain of Bo ul der Creek and
its trib u taries.
In 1984, the city adopted the Boulder C reek Corridor
Plan th at recommended deve lopm ent of a co ntinuous
path along the e ntire length of Boulder Creek. This cor-
ridor would se rve both as a flood h aza rd miti gation m ea -
sure and as a co nti nu ous urb an park for recreational and
transportation u se. It wo uld also se rve to restore and en-
h ance wetlands along with fish and w ildlife h ab itats.
Bi cycle Co unt erm ea sure Se lec ti on System Case Studie s 273
The construction of a continuous sh ared-use facility re-
quire d separated grade cross ings at eac h intersection
thro u ghout th e corridor. Existing creek underpasses were
co nverte d to include shared-u se path underpasses through
fairly simple modifica tions. Upon its completion, th e Boul-
d er Creek Path was instantly popular and quickly b eca m e
a mu ch love d community amenity (figures 1 and 2).
Fi gu re 1. Const ructio n of the Boulder Cree k Path underpass at
Broadway.
Figure 2. The comp let ed Boulder Cree k Path underpass at
Broadway.
T h e public ac claim of the Boulder Creek p roj ec t le d to
an inc rease in publi c di sc u ss ion abo u t the desirability of
extending and c o n tin ui n g the conc e pt of the Bo ul der
C reek projec t along Bould e r Creek's tributar ies w ithin
the ci ty. As a resu lt, the city d es ignated over 32.2 km (2 0
mi) of stre am c orridors along six tr ib u taries of Boul der
Creek for inclusio n in th e Greenways Program.
274 Case Studi es Bicycle Co unt erm eas ure Select ion Sys tem
COUNTERMEASURES
Today, th e city of Boulder is home to more than 55 un-
derpasses built to serve bi cy cli sts and pedestrians. While
most new underpass projects are drive n by the transporta-
tion d epartment, under p asses often h ave b e n efit s b eyo nd
tran sportation . N ew underpasses along Bould er 's gree n-
ways h ave in creased flood carrying capacity and improve d
th e natural e nvironmental sys te m s along Bould er C reek
and its trib utaries.
Although most underpasses h ave b een built as a p art of
Boulder's g ree n way system, a number of underp asses h ave
b een co n stru c ted at locations not along a waterway. These
unde rp asses serve to e liminat e p e d es trian barrie rs and in-
crease safety at dangero u s intersec tions. The C oll ege and
Broadway underpass, for instan ce, was designed w ith the
so l e purpose of in creasing p ed es trian safety.
Before construction of the College and Broadway un-
d erpass, thou sa n d s of st udents a d ay were forced to cross
Broadway (U.S . High way 92) at grade, in order to get
b e tween ca mp u s and th e Unive rsity Hill conm1 erc1al dis-
tri c t . Stu d e nts often crosse d (midblock) and would stand
in the m e dian b efore crossing entirely. Unlike m ost of
the unde rp asses w ithin the city, the Broadway and Col-
lege unde rpass required a le ngthy public process b efo re
cons truction. This was largely b eca u se of concerns from
th e m e rc hants in the Hill commercial district. M erch ants
worried that an una ttrac ti ve or po o rl y designed underpass
would b e p e rceived as unsa fe and discourage p edestrian
traffic to the ir businesses. T h e city went through an ex-
ten sive d es ign process, including obtaining publi c input,
and crea ting p h oto simulations of the proposed design to
gain co nmmnity acceptance (see figure 3).
Figure 3. Pedestr ian underpass at College and Broadway.
•
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
The su ccess and support of Boulde r's underpasses is m ea -
sured by se veral el e m e nts b e n e fiting th e community.
These include increas ing the safe ty and conve ni e n ce o f
bicycle and pedestrian trave l, promoting their us e, and in
the ca se of the Gree nways syst e m, providing a c ontinu-
ous grad e -se parated sy stem appropriate for u sers wh o
are not co mfortabl e u sing the on-s treet sy st e m. Th e city
c urre ntly e mploys seve ral m e thods to as ses s the va lu e o f
its unde rp asse s relati ve to its tran sportation goal s. Th ese
m e thods include auto m ate d p e d es trian and bike co unts
and p e ri o di c surveys u se d to calcul at e bicycl e and p e d es -
trian mode share.
In addition to routine evaluation methods, the city up-
date s its Transportation Maste r Pl an (TMP) approxima te-
ly eve ry six to seve n yea rs in orde r to ensure th e city is
working towa rd th e c urre nt ne e ds of the community. The
1989 TMP created a vision of a g rad e-separated sys t e m
along B o ulde r's gree n ways . This vision w as refin e d in the
1996 TMP update w ith its recognition of diffe re nt typ es
of u se r s fr o m th e n ovice to the exp e rie nced commute r
and go al of providing fac iliti es for all types of u se r s. Un-
d e rpa ss con struction c ontinues t o b e strongly supporte d
by Bould er citizens and evaluation of TMP policies w ill
d e t erm.in e the exte nt of future co n stru c tion.
The planning and d es ign e ffort s res ulte d in an award -win-
ning proj ec t widely h ail e d as a co mple t e su ccess. To day,
the C oll ege and Broad way unde rp ass allows thousa nds of
bicycli sts, p ed estrians, and motor ve hicles to travel fr eely
and sa fely through the inte rsec ti o n eve ry day.
A s m e nti o n e d above , se ve ral m e thods are employe d to
eva l u ate underpass u se and b e n e fit . U se r c ounts are p e r-
form ed at seve ral loca ti o n s throug hout th e city including
the Broadway and Coll ege underp ass . Although counts
are not ava il able fo r d ates prio r to construc tion , c urre nt
1200
1000
~ 800
ll 600 I 400
:J z
200
0
August September October November December
Figure 4 . Co l lege and Broadway fal l 2002 users.
co unts indi ca t e a high numbe r of u se r s. If th e unde rp ass
did not exist , curre nt u se rs wo uld b e forced to cro ss Broad-
way at grad e (fi gure 4). Co unts at Broadway and C oll ege
are taken once a month fr o m 4 :4 5pm to 5:30pm.
In addition to p e rforming manual c ounts, the city op e r-
ates several automated bike c ounter s along seve ral share d-
u se pathways. These c ounter s monitor use 24 hours a d ay,
365 day s a yea r. Counts h ave reveal e d fa irly stabl e u se of
ab o ut 600 to 800 cy cli sts p e r day ye ar-round, excluding
d ays of ex tre m e cold, precipitati o n , and hi gh w inds .
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
A s the city of Bo ul d e r c ontinues to move toward com-
ple ting its gree nway c orridors, it is important to c onsid er
the fa c tors that have l ea d to th e city 's su ccess (for othe r
communities inte res te d in building a similar sys t e m ). A s
m e ntioned ab ove, mu c h o f the su ccess of the g ree nways
sys te m and its unde rp asses ca n b e attribute d to a com-
munity t h at v iew s su ch a sys te m as b e n efi cial. It al so i s
important to rem e mb er that th e sys tem ha s not b e en built
e ntirely on city doll ars . About 50 p e rc ent of funding h as
c ome from fe d e ra l resources .
COSTS AND FUNDING
The cost of c onstru cting a g rad e-se p arate d tran sportation
sys te m is a di sc ouraging fac tor for m any co mmunities.
It often is purporte d that hi gh sales ta x reve nu es h ave
afford e d the city's d esire to c onstruct su ch an extensive
multi-modal tran sportation syst em. In actuality, Boul der's
sales tax reve nues ar e ave rage am o ng citi es of similar size.
It is the community's vision of res ponsible g rowth and
co nm1itment to a multi-modal n e twork that h as drive n
tran sportation e ffort s in the city. In addition to c onunit-
m e nt, th e rapid and exte n sive construction of unde rp asses
throughout the city h as d e p e nde d on fundin g l eve rage.
M any underpass proj ec ts h ave receive d fe d e ral funding
b ase d on flood n1itigati o n ele m e nts. P l ease see the tabl e
li sting of some re c e nt unde rpas s projec ts and their fund-
m g sources.
Bicycle Cou nte rm easure Se lection System Case Studies 275
Underpass Proje ct s and Funding Sources
GREENWAY PROJECT DESCRIPTION/GOALS FUNDING
South Boulder Cent ral to Stazio Trail construction includ ing low wate r $ 67 ,000 (Lottery)
Creek cross ing and railroad underpass. $ 70 ,000 (Flood Control)
Bear Creek Baseline to US 36 One underpass and trail connections to CU $ 8 , 700 (Transportation)
though CU property Main campus , Apache Trail and Williams $ 58 ,000 (Flood Control)
Village. (FAUS)
1992
Wonderland Creek Flood capacity increase, channe l restora-$ 45,000 (Tra nsportation)
Broa dway Underpass tion , riparian vegetation restoration , wet -
la nd and pond creation .
Wonderland Creek $ 30 ,000 (Transportation)
Valmont Underpass Flood capacity increase, trail underpass . $ 45,000 (Flood Control)
(FAUS)
South Boulder Paved trail construction , ra il road under-$ 57,000 (Lottery)
Creek Staz io to Arapahoe $ 6,000 (Transportat ion) pass, wetland creation. $ 55,000 (Flood Control)
1993
Bear Canyon Riparian habitat widening and restorat ion, $ 28 ,000 (Lottery)
Creek $ 55,000 (Tra nsportation) Moh awk to Gil pin wetland creation, landscaping and two $ 84 ,000 (Flo od Control) underpasses , trail construction .
South Boulder $ 93,000 (Lottery)
Creek Arap ahoe Underpass Trail underpass . $ 55,000 (Transportation)
$ 45 ,000 (Flood Control)
South Boulder EBCC Pedestrian New trail bridge and soft-surface trail ap -$ 18,000 (Lottery)
Creek Brid ge proaches. $ 2,000 (Flood Control)
1994
Bear Canyon Food improvements , two underpasses , trail $148,000 (Lottery)
Creek Mart i n to Moorhead $335 ,000 (Tra nsport ation) con nect ions. $599 ,000 (Flood Control)
1995
Fourmile Trail underpass and flood capacity improve -$ 4 ,000 (Lottery)
Broadway Underpass $ 75 ,500 (Transportat ion) ments. $ 10 ,000 (Flood Control)
Goose Creek Tr ail Connection at Trai I through new 30th Street underpass to $ 9 ,000 (Transportation)
30th Street Mapleton. $ 1 ,000 (Flood Control)
Bear Creek Trail underpass and flood capac ity improve-$ 93,000 (Transportation)
Moh awk Underpass $ 75 ,000 (Flood Control)
ments. $200,000 (Urban Drainage)
1997
South Boulder Underpass , habitat restoration and trail
$ 61 ,000 (Transportation)
Creek Baseline to EBCC $ 82 ,000 (Lottery)
connection. $ 52,000 (Flood Control)
Bear Creek $ 6,500 (Lottery)
Gilpin Underpass
Flood control, pedest r ian and bicycle $ 63 ,000 (Flood Control)
underpass. $211 ,000 (Transportation)
$ 97,000 (Urban Drainage)
276 Ca se St ud ie s Bicycle Countermea sure Se lection System
REFERENCES
Noble, Anne. Greenway s Ma ster Plan . City of Boulder:
2001.
Smith, Phyllis. History of Tran sportation in Boulder. City of
Boulder : 1989.
CONTACTS
Bill Cowern
Traffic Op erations Engineer
1739 Bro adway, 2nd Floor
P.O. Box 791
Bould er, CO 80306-5498
(303) 441-3266
Cris J ones
Transportation P lanner
1739 Broadway, 2nd Floor
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-5498
(303) 441-3266
Annie Noble
Greenways Manager
1739 Broadway, 2nd Floor
P.O. Box 7 9 1
Boulder, C O 80306-549 8
(303) 441-3266
Marni Ratzel
Bike and Pedestrian Planner
1739 Bro adway, 2nd Floor
P.O. Box 79 1
Bo ulder, CO 80306-5498
(303) 441-3266
Bi cyc le Cou ntermea sure Selec tion System Case Studi es 277
VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA #36
Share the Trail: Minimizing User Conflicts on
Non-Motorized Facilities
BACKGROUND
A major portion of bicycl e cras h es involves falls or collisions
with p e des trians and other cycli sts. Non-moto rize d faciliti es
(s idewalks , path s, bike lan es an d trail s) tend to be partic ularl y
ha za rdou s. There are a number of reaso n s for this:
These fac iliti es are sometimes crowded, p arti c ul arl y
during busy p eriods.
These facilities often h ave a dive rse range of us er s, in-
cluding cy cli sts,jogger s, ska te rs , scoo te r u sers, pedestri-
ans, p e d es tri ans with p e ts on leas h es, p e de strians with
ca rts or p ackages, p eo pl e using wheelchairs and other
mobility aids, and eve n e ques trians . Th ere are a w id e
range of u se r b eh av iors, including fast and slow cy -
clists, u sers alone and in gro ups, p ed es trians w ho stop
to view, talk o r play, and sometimes vendors.
U se rs often include young childre n and pets who ca n-
not b e expec ted to u n derstand traffi c rules or take
sa fe ty preca utions.
Fac iliti es are often built and maintained with lirnit-
e d reso urces . D es igne r s so m e tim es accep t inade quate
standard s with th e ar gume nt that , "It's b e tte r than
nothing." For example, paths and sidewalks often are
too n arrow for their inte nde d u ses. P ath intersections
are often co nfusing to use as well .
The re is som e times littl e education or e nforce m e nt of
appropria te u se r behav io r.
These conflicts are likely to increase in th e future as u ser
divers ity g rows. For example, in rece nt yea r s public paths
and sid ewal ks have experienced increase d u se by motor-
278
Todd Litman, Director, Victoria Transport Policy
Institute
Case Studies Bicycle Countermea sure Selec tion System
iz ed w h ee lchairs, inline sk ates, push scoo ters and elec-
tric-powered bicycles. N ew d ev ices su c h as Segway m ay
b eco m e more co1nn1o n . Effective m an age m e nt of non-
motorize d faciliti es is increasingly important to avo id
proble m s, to ac conunodate dive rse u se rs, and to m anage
reso urces effici e ntly.
This case study reports on b es t practices for managing
non-motorize d facilities. The goals and objectives o f su c h
m an age ment are to:
In crease the safety and comfort of non-motorize d fa-
cility users;
A cc onm10date a di ve rse ran ge of non-mo tori ze d facil-
ity u se rs and avoid co nflicts; and
Encourage n on-motorize d modes for transp ortation
and recreation.
R ely in g only on separa tion to so lve user conflicts may
effec ti ve ly prohibit some forms of trans port. For example,
many conmmnities h ave laws th at prohibit cycling on
sid ewalks, ye t m any cy clists d o not feel sa fe riding on bus y
stree ts. As a result , cy cling b ecom es infeasible for m any
users (p articularly for c hildren and inexperie n ce d adults
al o n g bu sy arterials), o r th e regul ation s are ignored by u s-
ers and se ldom enforced by poli ce. Similar patterns oc-
c ur w ith oth e r m odes, including ska tes, skate boards, push
scoo t ers, and Segway.
An alte rnative approach to constructing se p ar at e fac iliti es
is to address pote ntial u se r c onfli c ts by establi shing cl ea r
rules that d efi n e how eac h user of a non-motorized facil-
ity should behave , supported by adequate education and
enforcement efforts. R eg ul ations co n ce rning when and
where specific ac ti v iti es are allowed o r prohibite d , m axi -
mum trave l speed, and who must y ield to whom can h elp
re du ce us er conflicts. For exa mpl e, rather than prohibit-
in g all sidewalk cycling (including along suburban arte ri-
als w h e re there m ay b e few prac ti cal alte rnatives), it ma y
b e b e tte r to establi sh rules that prohibit cycling on side-
walks in co mmercial areas and o the r crowd ed areas, limit
maximum trave l sp ee d to 10 mph o n sid ew alks, and require
cycli sts to yield to p ed es trian s and other sidewalk use rs.
In o the r words, go o d m a n age m e nt fo c u ses o n u ser behav-
ior m ore than u se r type, sin ce it is the b e h av ior that t e nds
to crea t e co nflic ts. Fo r exa m ple , there m ay b e less conflic t
b e tween a wal ke r and a slow, c ourte o us cy cl ist t h an b e -
twee n a p e d es t r ian and an inc onside rate j ogger , al thou gh
bo th of the latt e r w o uld b e cl ass ifi ed as p ed es trian s. Foc u s-
ing on use r b e h av io r ca n acc om.modat e a broad er ran ge o f
u se r s and address a b roa d e r ra nge o f co nfli c ts.
COUNTERMEASURES
DEVELOPMENT OF PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND
GUIDELINES
Many communities h ave adopted program s to m anage n o n-
moto rize d fac iliti es, includin g sidewalks , paths, bike lan es and
trails. Su ch programs are particularly important o n h eavily-
use d urb an trails, b u t vi rtually any n on-m o torized fac ili ty
re q uires so m e degree o f m ana ge m ent involving a combina-
tio n of ed u ca tio n and e nforc em e nt regarding th e safe and
considerate shar ing b etwee n different typ es of use rs.
Good m a n age m en t re quires th e es tabli sh m e nt of the b as ic
principl es and priorities to g ui d e indiv idual p o li cies and
prac ti ces . D ecision-m ake rs (w h i ch m ay include age n cy
staff, poli cy m ake r s, citi ze n advisory g ro u p s, e tc .) sho uld
ide n tify the fac tors they wa nt to co n sid er w h e n se tting
priorities fo r diffe rent n o n-mot orize d fa c il ity use r s, su c h
as the relative imp ortan ce and impac ts of diffe re nt ty p es
o f ac ti vi ties, an d the n eed s an d abili ti es of diffe re nt ty p es
o f u ser s. Fo r exam p le, tran sportation ac tiviti es m ay be
give n priority ove r other u ses of sidewalks and p aths, su ch
as p ath s (signs, ve n dors, ga m es), and more v ulne rab le u s-
e r s (w h eelchair u se r s and chi ldre n ) and modes th at im-
p ose few er impac ts on o the rs (p e d es tri ans) ca n gen erall y
b e g iv e n pri o ri ty ove r less v u ln erabl e and high e r impac t
ac ti v ities (cy cli sts, ska te r s and use r s of m o to ri ze d mobili ty
d ev ices ).
The tabl e b elow p ro vides an exa mple c ompar ison of
n o n-motorize d m o d es that h as b ee n appli e d to th e m an -
age m e nt of the Ga ll oping G o o se R egional Trail in Brit-
ish C olu mbia. W hile some o f the list ed m odes, su c h as
m o to r ize d w h eelc h ai rs, are not stri c tl y "non-mo torize d "
m o d es, they fr e q u e n tl y u se n o n -mo torize d fac ilities su c h
as sid ewalks , p aths and trails. Of co urse, these fac to r s, su c h
as sp ee d , m an e uve rab ili ty, and p r io rity are so m ewh at sub-
j ec ti ve an d m ay n ee d to b e modifi e d to address the ne e ds
of a p ar ti cular situ ati on.
This ty p e of info rma ti on ca n h elp d ecisio n -m akers d evel-
o p appropriate guideli n es and regulatio n s to m an ag e th e
u se o f non -motorize d fa cilities b ase d o n th e p e rfo rmance
and valu e of eac h mo d e. Fo r exa mple:
• H igh er-prio ri ty modes sh o ul d h ave priori ty to lowe r-
priority m o d es. For exa mple, recrea ti o nal m o d es (s u c h
as sk at e b o ards) sh o ul d yield to m o d es that p rov ide b a-
sic mobili ty (s u ch as walking and w h eelch air u se r s) if
co nfl icts exis t.
• Lower-sp eed , small er m o des sh o uld h ave prio rity ove r
high e r-sp ee d,large r modes . For example, bicycles sh ould
yield to scoo ters, and sc o o ters sh o uld yield to wal kers.
Exam pl e Compariso n of Non -Motorized Faci l it y Users o n Briti sh Co lumbi a 's Ga l lopi ng Goose Trai l (VT PI , 2002)
Mode Speed Size (Width) Maneuverabi I ity Priority
Walkers Low Narrow Hi g h Hi gh
Walkers with c hildre n Low Medium to large Medium to low Hi gh
Walkers with pets Low Me d ium to large Med i u m to low Medi u m
Human powered whee lch a i rs Low Medium Low t o Medium Hi g h
Motor powered wheel ch ai rs Medium Medium Medium Hi g h
Jogger s a nd r unners Medium to hi g h Narrow Medium Medium
Skates , skateboards and push -sc oot ers Medium Narrow t o mediu m Med i um Low
Powered sco oters and e lec tri c human
Medium t ransporters (Segway) Na r row to mediu m Me di um Med iu m
Handcarts , wagons and push c arts Low Medium to large Med i um Med i um
Human powered bicycle Medium to hi g h Med i um to large Low to medium Medium
Motorized b ic yc le High Med iu m to large Low to m ed i um Low
Eq uestr i ans Medium to hi g h Large Low Low
Bi cycle Counte rmea sure Sele ction System Case Studi es 279
Sp ec ial e fforts should b e m ad e to acc ommo date a wide
range o f u se rs (includin g cycli sts, skate rs an d runners)
where there are no sui tabl e alt ernative routes (for exa m-
p le, adj ace nt ro adwa ys are unsuitable for su ch modes).
C y clists, skate r s and m o torize d modes sh o uld re du ce
their sp eed whe n u sing mixed us e p aths (6 to 12 mph
maximum, d e pending o n conditions) and y ield to
non-motorize d modes . People who wa nt t o g o fa st e r
should u se ro adways.
Posted regulations should cl earl y indi ca te w h en and where
p ets are forbidd en, whe n and where they are allowe d if
leas h ed , and w h e n and w h ere they m ay run fr ee.
The report, Co rifii cts on Multipl e-Us e Trail s: Sy nth es is ef th e
Literature an d S tate ef th e Pract ice (Moore, 19 9 4), provides
furth er guid elines for d evelo ping pro g ram s to manage
trails.Altho ugh this re port is primarily concerned with rec -
reational , o ff-road trails , the guid elines are ge n erally appro-
priate for-m an ag ing any n o n-motorize d fa ciliti es, including
sidewalks and bicycl e paths. The re port is avail abl e at no
cost from FHWA. The re p o rt identified the fo llowing 12
principl es for min.irn.izin g co nfli cts on multipl e-use trail s:
R ec ogni ze Conflict as Goal Inte rfe re n ce
Provide Ade quate T ra il Opportunities
• Minimize Numb er o f C ontac ts in Problem Areas
Involve U se rs as E arl y as Po ss ible
• Unde r stand U se r N eeds
Ide ntify th e Actual Sources of Conflic t
• Work w ith Affec te d U se r s
Promote Trail Etiqu e tt e
Encourage Positive In terac tion Among Different U sers
Favor "Li ght-Hande d " M a n agem e nt
Plan and A c t Locall y
Monitor Prog ress
TRAIL USER EDUCAT ION AND ENFORCEMENT
Use r g uidelines and regulati o n s for sh aring non-moto r-
ize d fa cilities are only as effective as their e du cation and
enforce m e nt. Su c h prog ram s re quire sp ecial e fforts, sinc e
the re are no tes ting and li ce n sing re quire m e nts for u sing
non-mo torize d modes as there are for moto r ve hicles .
Once g uid e line s and reg ula tions ar e es t a blish e d , it is
important to promote the m u sing si g n s a nd bro c hures,
by enlisting th e help o f p u b li c organiza t io n s (su c h as
w alking a nd cycling club s) a nd sc hools and by promot-
ing r es ponsible b e h av i o r a t eve nts su c h as fair s. Some
c ommuniti es u se st aff o r vo lunteer s t o t alk with u se r s
a nd distribute bro c hures a nd oth e r info rmation m a-
t e rials on public trail s during parti c ul arl y bu sy times.
280 Case St udies Bicyc le Countermeasure Selection System
Sp ecial outreac h e ffo rts may b e warra nte d for partic u-
lar g roup s, su c h as w h eelchair u se r s, p e t owne r s, sk a t e rs
a nd m o untain bikers.
Edu ca tional informati o n should b e prese nte d fr e que ntly.
For exa mple, in d ense urban are as, sig n s with trail u se
g uidelines can b e loca te d at eve ry inte r sec tion o r ev-
e r y few hundre d m e te r s. In le ss d e n se area s they may
b e lo cate d eve r y kil o m e t e r or so. In ge n e r al , th e more
fr e qu e nt the b e tte r t o e n sure broad di stribution o f this
information .
M essages sh ould b e simple , e asy to unde rstand, and pre -
se nte d in a fri e ndly way. T h ey should cl earl y st at e what
b e hav ior is exp ec t e d from trail u se r s. lt gene r all y is b e t-
t e r t o c ommunica te the inte nt of the law than to pres-
e nt the ac t u al w o rdin g of a law (l aws ar e ofte n diffi c ult
t o unde r stand). Th e boxes below illu strate ex amples of
su c h guidelines.
An example of an e du ca tion prog ram d esi gn e d to mini-
mize c onfli cts amo n g u se r g roups is the G alloping G o o se
R egio nal Trail in British Columbia (see figur e). Th e Of-
ficia l Guide: Th e Ga ll op ing G oose R eg ional Trail bro chure
(Mulchinock, 1996) promotes the foll owing about sh are d-
u se trail e tiqu e tte:
The key word is multi-use. Share the trail. Ke e p right
exce pt to pas s. M o t o rize d vehicl es are prohibited (except
fo r motorize d wheelchairs). R es p ect private prope rty ad-
j ace nt to the trail.
If yo u 're on foo t or on wheels, p as s horse b ac k rid-
e rs with cauti o n -horses ca n b e spooke d by startling
noises or motio n s.
Figure l. An example of "Share the Trail" signs a long t he Gal-
lopi ng Goose Tra il i n Victoria, British Columbia.
• If yo u 're on hors e b ack, let other trail u se r s know when
your horse is sa fe to p ass.
If you're cy cling, yield to p e d es trian s, contro l yo u r
spee d and warn-calJ out or u se a b ell -other trail
us e rs b efore p ass ing.
If you're walking yo ur dog, keep it under co ntrol or on
a le as h , and please pick up its droppings.
Additional g uidelines direc te d at cyclists on h ow to
share publi c tra ils are ava il abl e in the Leagu e of Ameri-
ca n Bicy cli sts' Fa ct Sheet titl e d "Sharing the Path " (see
http: I l www.bike l eag u e.o r g/ e du cente r / factsheets /
sh ar ingth e p ath.htm). They include showing co urtesy and
respect for other us e rs, announcing yo urse lf when p ass ing,
yielding to oth e r users w h en e ntering or cross ing, keeping
to th e right, passing on the left, being pre di ctable, u sing
lights at ni ght, not blo cki n g th e trail, cleaning up litte r and
using roadways rather than paths for higher sp ee d travel.A
similar se t of g uideli nes for shared-use trail s is also ava il -
able from the Internatio n al Bicycle Fund (http :/ /www.
ibike.org/ education/ trail-sharing.htm).
It m ay also b e imp ort a nt to develop special enfo r ce-
ment procedures for non-motorized traffi c violations.
Existing traffi c enforcement prac ti ces often are in ef-
fective for non-motorized modes, because su c h mod es
do not generally require a li ce n se or vehicle registra-
tion, and many non-motorize d trail u se r s a re c hildren.
It is unrealistic to impose a standard traffic c itati on on
non-motorized violations, in part b eca u se th e fin es
will seem too large to m a ny residents a nd in p art b e -
ca u se there often is no effec tive m ech an ism to pro cess
a citati on if th e viola tor is a minor or d oes not h ave a
driver's license.
An alternati ve approach, recomme nde d b y th e Interna-
tional Bicycle Fund, reli es as much on e ducation as o n
e nforcement and creates a friendlier, positive relationship
between non-motorized faci lity u se rs (and th eir p ar-
ents) and public offici als. The t ext of a model ordinan ce
is ava il abl e o n the IBF W e b site (http :/ /www.ibike .org /
e du ca tion/trail-ordinance.htm). Non-motorized fac ili ty
e nforcement is also an ideal ap pli ca ti on for bicy cl e poli ce
(see IPBMA Website, http :/ /www.ipmb a.org) and for bi-
cyclist diversion programs.
EVALUATION
Most n on-mo torized fac ility m anage m e nt prog rams ap-
p ea r to b e su ccessful. Howeve r, we have not found any
eval u ation studies that m eas ure b efo re-a nd-after or with-
and-w ithout effec ts, so it is not p oss ibl e to say w ith any
confid en ce to w h at d egree su c h progra m s reduce cra sh es,
re duce us e r confli cts, improve u se r exp e riences or increase
non-motorized trave l.
Differe nt co nmmnities h ave had different experie n ces
with programs designed to encourage responsible shar-
ing of non-mo tor ize d facilities, v irtualJ y alJ of which are
positi ve. If trail s are fun c tioning well with a minimum of
confli c ts among u sers, this co uld be take n as evide n ce of
good trai l d es ign and/or m an age m ent prog ram s.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
M an age m e nt p rogram s that address pote ntial conflicts are
important for the sa fety and comfort of non-motorize d
fac ili ty u sers. This applies to sidewalks, paths, bike Jan es
and trails.
REFERENCES
Alta Transportation Consulting, Rails-With-Trails: Lessons
Learned, U.S . D e pt. of Tran sp ortation (http :/ /www.
altaplanning.com/ proj ects / rails.html), 2001.
B .W Landis, TA. Pe tritsc h , H .F. Huan g andAnn Do. Char-
acter ist ics of Emerg ing Road and Trail Users and their Safety.
Sprinkle Consulting, In c. (http :/ /www.enhancements.
o rg /trb /trb2004 /TRB2004-001954.pdf), 2003.
Todd Litman and Robin Blair, Managing Persona l Mobil-
ity D ev ices (PMDs) on Nonmotor ized Fa cili ties, Victoria
Transport Policy Institute (http :/ /www.vtpi .org/
man_nmt_fac.pdf), 2004.
D avi d Mozer, Bike I Walking I J ogging I Blading I Skat-
ing Safety: Gu id e To Bike & Mu lti-u se, Non-Moto ri zed
Tra il Etiqu ette, Share The Trail Brochures, International
Bi cy cl e Fund (http://www.ibike.org/e du cation/trail-
sh aring.htm).
David Moze r, Mode l Non-Motor ized Trail Ordinance Multi-u se,
Non-Motori zed, Bicycle Trail s, Interna ti o nal Bicycle Fund
(http :/ /www.ibike.org/ edu cation/trail-sharing.htm).
J im Mulchinoch , The Official Guide: The Galloping Goose
R eg ion al Trail, Capital District Regional Par ks (Victoria;
http://wvvw.crd.bc.ca /p arks/pdf/galgoos2.pdf), 1996.
Bicy cle Countermeasure Selection System Ca se Studies 281
Roge r L. Moore, Corifl.ic ts on Mu ltipl e-Use Trails: Synthes is
of th e Litera ture and State ef the Pract ice, Federa l Highway
Administration , FHWA-PD-94-031 (h ttp ://www.
imba. co m / res o urces /bike_man age m ent / co nfl ic tsfull .
html), 1994.
VTPI , "M an ag ing Non-motorize d Fac iliti es: Best Prac -
ti ces For M an aging Sidewalks and Pathways," Online
TDM En cycloped ia, Vi ctoria Tran sport Policy Institute
(http :/ /www.vtpi .org), 2002.
COSTS AND FUNDING
Costs vary d e p e nding on the ty pe of prog ram a nd its ac ti v-
iti es. Most non-mo tori zed fac ili ty m a n agement prog ram s
re quire staff time for p lanning, plus reso urces to produce
signs, b roc hures and o ther outreac h m ate rial s, which are
u s.u all y fund e d fro m local trans portation or parks bud-
gets. Most oth er activities , su ch as traffi c law enforcem e nt
on non-motorize d fac iliti es, are included within exist ing
agency budge ts.
CONTACTS
Todd Litman
Vi c toria Tran sport Policy In stitute
1250 Rudlin Stree t
Vi ctoria, BC V 8V 3R 7 Canad a
(205) 360-1560
litman @vtpi .org
http:/ /www.vtpi.org
282 Case Stud ies Bicycle Co unt ermea su re Select ion System
SAN -FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA #37
Shared Lane Markings
BACKGROUND
Shared roadways m ake up th e majority of most bike route
n e tworks. These shared roadways are ofte n composed of
c urb lanes too narrow for motorists and bicyclists to sa fely
share side by sid e (defi n e d h e re as "s ub standard width").
On thes e roadways, th e fo ll owing problems ofte n occur:
• Cyclists are pressure d into hazards on the e d ge of the
road or lane , su ch as the "door zone" where motorists
leaving p arked ca r s may sudd e nl y open their door in a
cyclist's path .
• Motorists attempt to pass cy clists too closely or intimi-
date cyclists legally in the lane.
• Cyclists d ecide to ride on the sidewa lk ill ega lly.
• Cyclists ride the wron g way on th e road .
T hough th ese probl ems are faced regul arl y by municip ali-
ties , th e re is no acce pte d p ave ment marking standard for
shared ro adways. D e nve r attempted to address thi s is su e
by devel oping an arrow with cycli st sy mbol inside to b e
plac e d in shared lan es. San Fran cisco us ed this marking
on some stree ts but determined that th e m arking could
b e more visib le.
COUNTERMEASURES
After obtaining p ermiss ion from the California Traffi c
Control Device Conmlittee (CTCDC) to experiment,
San Fran cisco hired a co n sultant to rev iew a number of
marking designs and study th e best two in the fi eld. The
two marking de signs (see fi g ures 1 and 2) were pl ace d on
six city stree ts with sub sta ndard c urb lan e widths (5.1 m
(16 ft , 10 in) to 6.7 m (22 ft) wide, with parking).
Michael Sallaberry, PE , Associate Transportation
Engineer, San Francisco Department of Parking
and Traffic
Figu re 1. "Bike and Chevron"
Figure 2. "B ike-in-House "
Bicycle Coun te rmeasure Selection System Case Studies 283
Based on previously record e d obse rvations w hich sh owed
that ca r doors open to a b o ut 2.9 m (9 ft, 6 in) from the
curb face, the markings were pla ced 11 feet from the c urb,
g iving cycli sts with 0.6 m (2 ft) wide h andlebars approxi-
m ately 15.2 cm (6 in) of clearance from opened doors.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
"B e for e" and "aft er " vid eo was take n at eac h marking lo-
ca tion, and a limite d numbe r of surveys were distrib ute d
to cycli sts and motorists to determine their unders tanding
of the marking designs. R ecorded behavio r s taken with
v ideo included :
Cyclists' positions on roadway (e.g. distance from
parke d ca r s).
• Motorists' positions (e.g. di stan ce from cycli sts when
passing).
• Cycli st direc tion (w ith or against traffi c).
• Cyclist location (street or sidewalk).
• Confli cts b e tween cyclists and motorists.
Afte r reviewing v ide otape of 2400 cycli sts and 2400 mo-
torists , the most effective p ave ment m arking d es ign, the
"bike and chevron" (figure 1), was sh own to:
• Encourage cy clists to rid e 20.3 c m (8 in) fu r ther away
from the door zone.
284 Case Studies Bi cyc le Countermea su re Se lection System
• Encourage m o t orists to give 68.6 cm (2 ft , 3 in) more
sp ace w h e n p assing cy cli sts .
• R e du ce the incidence of wrong way riding by 80
p e r ce nt.
• R edu ce the in cide n ce of sid ewalk riding by 35 percent.
There was no stati sti call y signifi ca nt c h ange in hostil e or
agg re ss ive b eh avior by motorists, but this may b e attrib-
uted to the very small numbe r of observe d co nfli c ts in
both the "b efore" and "aft e r " videotapes.
Through the m o torist and cyclist surveys, it was deter-
mine d that the meaning of the m arkings was not always
clea rly unde rstood .
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
A s a res ult of this stu dy, the bike and c h evro n d es ign (fig-
ure 1) was reconunended by the California Traffic Con-
trol D evice Committee as a p avement marking t o b e in-
cluded in th e MUTC D 2003 Californ ia Supplement. As
of October 2004, the CTCDC and Caltran s h ad devel-
oped draft language for inclu sion of the marking in the
manual. T h e language discusses the op tiona l use of this
marking on roadways used by bicyclists, and g ives pl ace-
ment g uidance.
San Francisco is deve loping a se t oflocal warran ts to help de-
termine on w h at streets the m arkings will be pla ced.Thus far,
the fo ll owing list of fac to rs to consider h as b een d eveloped:
Curb lane width
• P arking turnover
• ADTs
• Dooring, overtaking, midblock bicycle collision hi story
Gap in oth erwise continu o us C lass I/II bikeway 1
j
• C urrent demand by cy clists
• Prevailing speeds by motor ve hicl es and cyc li sts
• Prevalence of cyclists riding o n sidewalk o r in wrong
direc ti on
• Anticipated additi o n of C lass II bikeway to stree t
Based on the res ults of the surveys taken as par t of the
study, outreach campaigns explaining this n ew m arking
are recommende d. San Francisco pl ans to launch a ca m-
p aign , using bus t ail ca rds for exampl e, and other advertis-
ing, to explain th e sh ar ed lan e m arking. This will likely b e
an ongoing effo rt for th e fir st year or so of implem enta-
tion as p eople grow acc u st o m ed to the n ew marking.
COSTS AND FUNDING
The $73,000 study was fund ed by gra n ts generat ed by local
and state initiatives (Sa n Francis co and Califo rnia) w hich
ea rmark portions of sales taxes for tran sportati o n proj ects.
A rough cos t es timat e oflabor and m ate ri als for m arkings
appli e d u sing m e thyl m e tha crylate is $100 eac h .
REFERENCES
Sa n Francisco's Shar ed Lan e Pa vement Marking s: Imp roving
Bi cycle Safety, w ritten by Alta Pl anning + D es ign for the
San Francisco D e p artment of Parking and Traffic , Fe bru-
ary 2004 , http:/ /www.sfgov.org
CONTACTS
For informa tion ab out the study:
Mia Birk, Principal
Alta Pl anning + D esign
144 NE 28 th Av e
Portland, OR 97232
(503) 230-9862
m.ia birk@altaplanning.com
For information about the CTCD C app roval pro cess or
u se of the sh are d lan e m arking in San Francisco :
Mich ael Sall ab e rry
Sa n Francis co D e p artment of P arking and Traffi c
(415) 554-235 1
mike.sall ab e rry@sfgov.o rg
The modifi ca tion (shared lan e markings) that is
the subject of this case study is not currently
compliant with the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices , but it is being co nsidered for
inclusion (the "Bike-in-House" marking in Figure
2 is not being endorsed by the Bi cyc le Technical
Committee of the National Committee on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices , however). Accord ing ly ,
it is imperative that any jurisdiction wishing to
utilize the shared lane markings (or any other
non-approved traffic control device) should see k
experimental approval from the Federal Highway
Administration . For info rmation on how to do so '
please visit this Web site : http://m utcd.fhwa.dot.
gov/kno-amend. htm .
Bi cycle Counterme asure Se lection System Ca se Studies 285
SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA #38
Bicycle Detection Program
BACKGROUND
Bicycl ists ' inab il ity to "get a g ree n light" h as be e n the
ca u se of many a call to the Traffic Eng in eer ing offi ce.
T h e ca ll ers typicall y d i splay frustration, confu sion, and
a se ns e of modal discr imination. T h e Bicycle D e t ec tion
Prog ram was d eve loped as a two-phase stra t egy to ad-
dress th ese co mplaints. Phase 1 involve d correcting ac-
tu al detection proble m s at eac h tra ffi c si gn al. Phase 2
invo lve d edu ca ting th e public a bout h ow and w h e re to
b e d e t ec t ed at traffic si gna ls.
T h e City of Santa Cru z h as 40 signalized intersections.
T h irty inte r sec tions u se indu cti ve loop d e tec ti o n and 10
inte r sec tions u se vid e o detection. Typi cal loop la yo ut is
three "A" loo ps and a stop bar "Q " or "D " loop for eac h
motor lane. Bicycle lanes typica ll y h ave a bike "Q " loop at
th e sto p bar for the rninor legs. Bicycle d e tec ti on is not al-
ways provid e d for the m ajor legs if th e signa l rests in g ree n
o n th e m aj or legs .Video detection inte rsectio n s u se Pee k
Vid eo cameras. Four arterial corridors are inte rco nnec te d
u sing Tra co n e t w ith Tra co n ex co n tra il e rs.
COUNTERMEASURES
PHASE 1: ENGINEERING
1. C itize n requests and work o rd e rs regarding bi cycle
d e tec ti o n we re compiled to determine sign als with a
history of complaints .
2 . A work li st was create d prioritizing lo ca ti ons and th e
stat ed compl aints, with propose d sh ort-term and/or
lo n g-ter m so lutions and cos t es timates.
286
Cheryl Sc hmi tt, B icyc le/Pedestrian Co o rdi na tor,
Santa Cruz , CA
Case Studies Bicycle Co unt ermeasure Select ion System
3. The loca tions were t es te d by the Bicycle /Pe d es trian
Coordinator and th e Traffic Signal Technician in the
fie ld. The Coordinator rod e an al uminum frame bi-
cycle over ·eac h lane and the Technician recorded the
l eve l of d e tec ti on at the sign al ca bine t . D e tec ti o n levels
were adju st e d and re-tested as necessary to d e tec t th e
bi cy cl e (s h ort term solu tion).
4. Long-term so luti ons include c utting n ew lo ops, ad-
justing ca m eras, and insta ll in g bike push buttons w h ere
n ecessa r y. These repairs are fund ed fro m an annu al Mi-
nor Traffic Si gnal Maintenance budge t .
PHASE 2 : EDUCATION
1. The lea d loop in left-turn lan es, c urbside lanes w ith-
o u t bike lanes , and bike lanes w ere marked with the
Manual of Uniform Traffic Cont ro l D evices bike d etector
marking if sawcut lines were not visibl e.
2. A bro chure wa s developed to descr ib e how traffi c sig-
nals work and to explain where b icycli sts should posi-
tion th ems elves on sawc ut lines in order to be detec ted.
This bro chure is availa bl e on-line on the City's W e b site at
http:/ hvww.c i.sa nta-cru z.ca.us /pw/trafeng/biked et.pdf
3. Signal detection is d iscussed at th e 2-hour bi cycle
safety class required of all appli ca nts to th e region al
bike loan and e-bike re bate programs. O ve r 500 par-
ticip ants have received the Bicy cl e D e tec tion bro chure
t h rou gh this progra m.
4. Bicyclists o n the local e -mail bike list were kept abreas t
of th e prog ram an d encouraged to contact the B ike /
Pedes trian Coordinator with comments.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS.
Complai n t calls to th e Traffic Engineering office have de-
crease d dramati cally. Bicycli sts on th e local e-m ail bike li st and
bi cycli sts' n ewsletter describ e a grea ter level of confidenc e in
b eing de tected and w illingness to wait thro ugh the red .
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Some of th e technical problems are difficu lt to solve. Turn-
in g up th e sensi ti vity on the d e tec tor amplifi e r to d etect
bikes w ill sometimes work for a p e riod of tim e, but it usu-
ally ends u p "loc king on," ca using a maximum rec all co n-
dition . Rapidly d ecaying stree t in frastructure is res ulti ng in
m o re loop fa ilures, w ith no funding in sight for re p airs .
Video detectio n is m u ch more reliable overall, b u t th ere
was a learning c urve for th e field crew to b eco me pro-
fi cie nt w ith it. N eve r th el ess, th e Bicycle D e tec tio n Pro-
gram h as b een an d continues to be a su ccess.
COSTS
Loops are approxi mately 500 eac h ; for bike detection,
th ere are typically two loops p er direction of trave l.Video
d etec tion is approx imately $35,000 fo r a comp le te in-
t ersec tio n insta ll ation. P edes trian /bicy cl ist push bu ttons
with the conduit and conductor to th e controller ca binet
is ap prox imat ely $1500; eac h pole with pu sh button is
ab o ut $300.
REFERENCES
Allen, Joh n S. "Traffi c Si gn al A c tu ators: Am I Paranoid?"
http:/ /www.bikex prt.co m
Goodridge, Steve n. "D e t ec tion of Bicycles by Quad-
rupole Loops at D ema nd-Actuate d Traffic Signals."
http: I /www.h u m a ntrans port.org /bi cycle dr iv i n g /
lib rary I signals / detection. htm
Wachtel, Al an. "R e-Eva lu ating Traffic Signal Detec tor
Loop s." http ://www.bikeplan.co m /aw-signals.pdf
Bicycle Coun termeasure Se lect ion Sy stem Case Studie s 287
CONTACT
C h eryl Schmitt
Bicycle /Pedestrian Coordinator
City of Santa Cruz Public Works D epartment
809 Center Street, Room 201
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
(831) 420-5187
cschmitt@ci.santa-cruz.ca. us
288
The modificat ion (bicyc le detect or mark ings) that
is t he subject of this case study is allowed by
the Manual on Un iform Traffic Control Devices
(M UTCD), but if used, one spec if ic design is re-
q u ired. Th e specif ic markings used by San t a Cruz
and shown in the article are not i n conformance
with the techn ical provisions of the marking
shown in Figure 9C-7 of the MU TCD.
Case Studies Bicycle Countermeasure Se le ction System
DAVIS, CALIFORNIA #39
Bicycle Signal Heads
BACKGROUND
The city of D av is, CA, h as b ee n a m ecca for cy cling since
the mid 1960's . Bicycling acco unts for a b o ut 17 p e rcent
of the mode share in D av is, whereas n ati onally, two to
three p ercent is conside red high. Whenever p oss ibl e,
g rad e separa tions h ave been built to minimize co nfli c ts
b e tween cyclists and mo torists. These include undercross-
ings and ove rcro ss ings of mostly co ll ect or and arte rial
stree ts. Where g r ad e se p arati o n s h ave not b ee n poss ibl e,
speciall y designed traffic co ntrol devices h ave b ee n added
at selected inte rsec ti ons.
To h elp manage the large n u mber of bicyclists utili zing
the ci ty's tran sportation n etwork, th e re h as b ee n a co ntin-
u ally increasing n eed t o exp lore new e n g ineering tech-
niques that wo uld b enefit cy clists and enhance safety fo r
all road u sers. The u se of bicycl e sign al h eads was ch osen
as one su ch approach. The goal was to e nhance safety fo r
cyclists whil e maintaining ad e qu ate level s of se rv i ce fo r
motor vehicl es at each of th e inte rsec ti ons where th ese
signal s h ave b een install e d .
Howeve r, bicycle signal h ea d s never h ad been approved
for u se by th e California D ep ar tment of Transportation
(Cal tran s), so the city was re quire d to go through an ap-
proval pro cess that included an exp erimental , co ndition-
al-u se phase o f the bicycle signal h ea ds. Final approval
would ultimately be subj ec t to review and acce ptance
by the Califo rnia T raffi c Contro l D evices Committee
(CT CDC) under the purview of Caltrans.
Ti mothy Bustos , Bi cyc le and Pedestr ian Coordi na-
t or , City of Davis , Californ ia
Cont r ib utions by Dave Pelz , former Pub li c Work s
Directo r, City of Dav is, Ca lifornia (retired ),
Jonathon Flecker, former Traffi c Enginee r, City of
Dav is (now i n pr iva t e practice)
Alth o u gh th e u se of bicycl e signals h ad n o t previously
b ee n formally u se d in Califo rni a, they have b een widely
u se d for m any years in countries su ch as C hina, England,
and the N e therl ands. A fo rmer Public Works Director for
the city of D av is h ad at o n e point visi te d the Netherlands,
and bro ught the co n ce pt of the bike sign al heads b ack
with him.
Potential intersec tions that were evaluate d for retrofitting
with bi cy cl e signal h eads were se lec te d b ased o n three
primary cr iteria:
1. Volumes of bicyclists at p eak h our(s)
2. Bicycle and m o tor vehicle cras h d ata
3. Proximity t o sc hools (p rimary, seco ndary, and univer-
sity levels)
Other lo ca ti o n s co n sidere d for placement were those
w h ere se p arate d bike paths co nnected w ith intersections
in su c h a way that conve ntio n al traffic li ght co nfi gura-
ti ons could not b e see n by cyclists. These were typically
loca ti o n s w h ere the re was a three-way intersec tion for
motorist's (i .e. "T" intersec ti o n s) that b ecame fo ur-way
intersec tions for bicyclists.
Bicy cle Counte rm easure Se lect ion System Case Studies 289
COUNTERMEASURES
Bicycl e sig n al h ea d s actu all y are simil ar t o co nve ntional
tra ffi c sig n als. Howeve r, ra th er than re d , ye ll ow and g reen
"b all s," the n ew signal h ea d s u se re d , ye ll ow, and g reen
bike ic ons. Initiall y, th e c i ty had to h ave these c u stom-
mad e by bl ac king o ut c onve ntional colore d l e ns c ove r s
t o hi d e eve r y thi ng but the bike shap e. The n ewer si gn als
now u se r e d , ye llow, and g r ee n LED 's in the sh ap e of a
bike that are mu c h brig hter, ye t m o re e n e rgy-e ffi cie nt .
These li g hts are also actu at e d in th e sa m e way as tradi -
tional traffi c li g hts: throu gh th e u se of bi cycle se n siti ve
l oo p d e t ec tors a nd, whe r e appropria te, bike pu sh but-
tons. A s technology h as ad va n ced, n ewer inte r sec tions
utili zing c onve ntional or bi cy cl e sig nal h ead s now u se
c ame ra d e te c tion.
Although seve ral locatio n s through out the ci ty m e t th e
crite ria li ste d prev i ously, the location that would ulti-
m ately p rove th e vi abili ty o f bicycl e signal h ea ds was th e
inte r sec ti o n o f Sycamore Lane and Russe ll Bouleva rd .
This lo ca ti o n is a "T " inte rsec tion for m o to r ve hicles,
ye t it is a "fi ve -way" inte r sec ti o n for bi cy cli sts du e to th e
prese n ce of bike lan es and bike p at h s th at co nve rge at thi s
lo cati o n. It is also a primary access point to the Unive r sity
of C aliforni a for many of the stude nts in the northwes t
quadrant of the city. Manual t ra ffi c c ounts at thi s lo ca tion
indicate d that a pproxim~a tel y 1 , 100 cy cli sts and 2,300 m o-
tor ve hicl es p asse d through this inte rsec ti o n during p ea k
hours. Additi o n ally, this would b e th e fir st location w h ere
both m o torists and cyc li sts co uld see th e co nve nti o n al
tra ffi c li ghts and the bicycle si gn al h ea ds.
Previo u sly, all bi cycl ist s, p e d es tria n s, a nd m o t o r ve hicl es
would pro ceed throu gh thi s inte rs ec tion c onc urre ntly,
with m an y bi cycli sts and p e d es tri a n s c h oosing the routes
they p e rce ive d to be the m ost direc t , n o t n ecess aril y th e
290 Case Studies Bi cycle Co unt ermea sure Selection System
sa fes t. B icycl e si gn al h e ads w e re c ho se n for this loca-
ti o n t o h e lp m a ke t h e re sp ecti ve m ove ments more pre -
di c ta bl e, and the re by sa fe r. To this e nd , move m e nts w e re
split , w ith bicycli sts and p e d es trian s m oving throu gh th e
inte r sec tion fir st and motor ve hicl es pro cee ding o nl y
aft e r all the bi cycl ists and p e d es trian s h ad cl ea re d the
intersec tion . Additio n all y, a c h a n gea bl e m essage sig n
was adde d for the m o t o ri sts, indica ting "NO RIGHT
TURN ON RED " t o pre vent through cycl ists from b e -
ing hit by right-turnin g motorists.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
In o rd e r to obj ec ti vely assess just h ow effec ti ve th e bi cy cl e
sign al h ea ds were in redu cing c onfli cts, surveys we re co n-
duc te d w ith b o th moto ri sts and cyclists b e fore and aft e r
the addition of bi cy cl e signal h ea ds. Additionall y, v ideo
foo tage w as take n o f bi cy cl e, p e d es trian , and motor ve-
hicl e move m ents b efo re a nd aft e r interse ction modifica -
ti o n (both horizo n tall y and ve rti ca ll y). Bicy cl e and m o tor
ve hicl e cras h re p orts were also evalu ate d b efore and aft e r
the installation of th e bi cy cl e sign al h ea ds.
B o th m o tori sts and bi cy cli sts fo und th e n ew sig n al
h ea d s to b e e ffec ti ve in re du c ing co nfli c t s b e twee n the
va ri o u s modes p ass ing throu g h th e inte r se ction . Eva! u-
a ti o n of c r as h d a ta see m e d t o r e fl ec t this as well. Fo r
the two-ye ar p e r io d b e for e th e inst all a tion of bi cy cl e
si g n al h e ads at th e inte r sec tion of Syc amore and Ru s-
se ll , th e re w e re ab o ut 1 6 bi cy cl e and motor ve hicl e
colli sions. For the two-ye ar p e ri o d follo w in g th e in-
stall atio n , the r e we re only two colli sion s, n e it h e r of
w hi c h inv olve d bicycles.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
This study d e monstrate d that:
• Bicy cl e signals enha n ce sa fety by se p arating large vol-
umes of bi cy cle and auto traffi c.
• The re is minimal additional delay to moto r ve hicles
• Bike signals are easy to c ompre h e nd by cycli sts and
motorists
• Bicycle tra ffi c signals should b e conside re d on a case-
by-case b as is takin g into account inte r sec tion ge om-
e try and bicycl e and motor ve hicl e vo lumes
As a res ult o f what the city of D av is w as able to d e m on-
strate rega rding the e ffec tive n ess of bicy cl e signal h ea ds,
CTCD C vo t ed to approve u se of this traffi c co ntrol d ev ice
in 199 8 . Subse q u e ntly, the C aliforni a legislature ame nde d
the Califo rnia Vehicl e C ode to allow its use statewide, and
it w as sign e d into law by the gove rnor in 1999.
COSTS AND F UNDING
C o st will d e p e nd on the complexity and size of th e inte r-
sec tion , but in ge n e ral, cos ts are comparabl e t o the instal-
lation o f conve ntional traffi c si g n als (e.g . controlle r boxes,
d e t ec ti on d ev ices, m as t arms, e tc.)
C ONTACT
Timothy Bu stos
Bicy cl e and P e d es tri an C oordina tor fo r th e C ity o f
D avi s, C A
(5 3 0) 7 5 7-5669
tbu stos@ci.dav is.ca . u s
The modification (biycle s ignal heads) that is the
subject of th is case study is not currently compli-
a nt with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Contro l
Devices, but it may be considered for i nclusion
once research is completed. Accordingly, it is im-
perative that any jurisdicti on wis hi ng to utilize the
bicycle signal heads (or any other non-approved
traffic contro l device) shou l d seek experimental
approval fro m the Federal Highway Administra-
tion . For information on how to do so, please visit
t h is Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
kno-amend. htm.
Bicy cle Counter measure Selection Sy stem Ca se Studie s 291
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON #40
Pedestrian/Bicycle Crosswalk Signals (Half-
Signals)
BACKGROUND
Bicy clists u sing res idential stree ts often h ave trouble cross-
ing arterial stree ts at u n signali ze d intersec tions. T h i s is es-
p ecially tru e for bicyclists try ing to cross hi gh-vol ume,
multi-lan e ar terial stree ts.
Where stree ts are laid o ut in a tradition al grid p atte rn,
res idential stree ts become p artic ularly attrac ti ve to in ex-
p e rie n ce d bi cycli sts. H owever, if c ro ss ing major arterials
results in too much d elay o r makes the crossing too dif-
fi c ult , inexp erie n ce d bi cyc li sts w h o are not co mfortable
using arterial stree ts will be di sco uraged from b icycling .
COUNTERMEASU RES
Sea ttle 's so lution ha s b een to install p e d es tri an or bicy cl e
crosswalk signals (form all y call e d h alf-sign als).A c ro sswalk
signal is a pedestrian-or bicyclist-actuated light that stops
arterial traffic only, leav ing the lower-volume cross -stree t
unsignali ze d. It allows bicyclists and p e d es trian s to cross
safe ly upon d e mand with o ut unnecessar ily c rea ting de lays
fo r arterial stree t traffi c that a fu ll y sign ali zed intersection
might impose. It also can prevent c u t-through motor ve-
hicle traffi c on the res idential stree t that can happen with
the in stall ation o f a fu ll signal.
Crosswalk signal s also have been su ccessfull y install e d to
fac ilitate "bi cy cl e boulevards" in va ri o u s communities
around the co untry.These are bike routes that are d es ign ed
to encourage fas t, th rou gh bicycle traffic on res id e ntial
streets while di sco ura ging through m o t or ve hicle traffic .
The cro sswalk signals are combine d w ith other trea tments
su ch as diver ters (fo r m o toris ts) to crea te the bicycle bou-
levard. More often, these signals also h ave b een in stall ed
292
Peter Lagerwey , Pede str ian & Bi cycle Program
Coord inator, City of Seattle
Ca se Studies Bi cyc le Co untermea sure Selection System
to facilitate pedes tria n c ro ss ing n ear schools, hospitals and
in n eighborh ood sh o pping distric ts. To d ate , more than 80
crosswalk signals h ave b ee n in stall e d in Seattle.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
It is relatively easy to evaluate th e su ccess of a p edestrian
half-sign al. If th e number of c ras h es and bi cy cl e and p e-
d es trian co mplaints goes down , then it's a su ccess. In Se-
attl e, half-signals h ave co n si sten tl y h ad cras h rates e qual to
or lower than full signals. If th e arterial has high vo lumes,
traffic impacts su ch as the fr e qu ency of m o torist de lays
sh o uld be studi ed. If freq u e nt red phases ca u se delays,
consider length ening the green phase a bit. To str ike th e
right balance , observe the intersec ti on throu ghout the da y
and, if n ecessary, vary the timing.
Seattle 's crosswalk signals h ave b een well receive d . In most
ways, th ey ope rate like the midblo ck signals that are u sed
in many commu nities. If install e d with th e same ca re
that midblock signals are in stall ed, th ey ca n b e effec tive
and safe. When Seattle 's cros swalk signals are rev iewed by
other co mmunities, their traffic engin ee r s o ft e n express
concerns about p oss ibl e driver confusio n which in turn
could lea d to increased cras h es . T hi s has not b ee n Sea ttl e's
experience-they don't increase crash rates, p eople like
them, and the re is consta nt d e m and to have them installed
at n ew locations.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Most jurisdic tions u se the Manual on Uniform Traffic Con -
tro l D evices (MUTCD) to d e t e rmine signa l warrants,
whether the signals are to b e install e d for vehicular traffic
o r p e d es trian s. Crosswalk si gn als, howeve r, have not ye t
b ee n incorporate d into th e MUTC D. Co n se qu e n tl y, it is
n ecessary to c rea te more fl exible guidelines for installing
a cro sswalk signal inst ea d of a full signal when there are
insuffi cient gap s for bicyclists and p e d es trians. W e h ave
two su gges tions for in stalling a crosswalk signal : 1) when
traffic vo lumes on the inte rs ecting stree t are less than 50
p erce nt of MUTCD reco mmend e d b e n chmarks for a full
tra ffi c signal; and 2) w h en a substantial amount of m otor
ve hicle traffic might be induce d to opt for and u se a lower
volume, res ide ntial stree t if a full sign al were install e d.
COSTS AND FUNDING:
Cost d e p e nds on a lot of factors , including the location
of the nearest power so urce, the ty p e of p ole s install e d
and the avail ab ility of sp ace for signal e quipme nt. H ow-
eve r , in general a crosswal k signal is about h alf the cost
of a full signal. I n many cases, they ca n b e install e d for
l ess than $30,000 .
CONTACTS
Loren Raynes
Signal Op erations
Seattle D e p artme nt ofTran sportati o n
700 5th Ave nue, Suite 3900
P.O. Box 34996
Sea ttl e,WA 98 124-4996
(2 06) 684-5119
Joe Couples
Sign al Op e rations
Sea ttl e Departme nt ofTransp o rtati o n
700 5th Ave nu e, Suite 3900
P. 0. Box 34996
Seattle ,WA 98124-4996
(206) 684-5246
Peter Lagerwey
Bicy cl e & Pedestrian Program Coordinator
Seattle D e p artment ofTransportati on
700 Fift h Ave nue, Suit e 3768
P. 0 . Box 34996
Seattle,WA 98124-4996
(206) 684-5108
Th e mod ifica ti on (half s ig na ls) that is t he sub-
j ec t of th is case stu dy is not comp l ia nt w ith t he
Ma nu al on Uniform Traffic Contro l Devices , no r
is it c urrently be in g co nsidered for i nc lu s ion .
Acco rd i ngly, it is i mperat iv e that any juri sdictio n
w is hin g to uti li ze th e half s igna ls (or any othe r
no n-ap proved t ra ffi c contro l device) sho ul d see k
ex perim e nta l ap pro val fro m th e Fede ra l H ighway
Ad mini st rat io n . For informa ti on on how t o do so,
p lease vi sit th is Web site: htt p://mu t cd .f hwa.dot.
go v/kn o-amend . htm .
Bi cycle Cou nt ermeasure Se lect ion System Case Studies 293
NORTH CAROLINA #41
Share the Road Sign Initiative
BACKGROUND
The N o rth Caro lina D e p ar tme n t ofTrans p ortatio n D i-
vision of Bicy cl e and Pe d es tri an Transp o rtati o n (DBPT)
fir st install e d "Share the R o ad " sign s along d esign ate d bi-
cycl e routes in 19 8 7 . Funding was prov ided as p art of th e
fir st an n u al all oca tion o f Bicy cl e Transp ortati on Improve-
m e nt P rog ram (T IP ) funds receive d by the Bi cy cl e Pro-
gr am , as DBPT was kn own at the time.
The Ma nua l on Unifo rm Traffi c C ontro l D ev ices (MUTC D )
sp ecifi es w hat ty p es of signs ca n b e in stall e d alo n g Fed -
e ra l Aid High ways. In 1987 , n o autho r ize d sign wi th th e
"Sh are the Road " m essage h ad b ee n approve d . DBPT
rec ognize d the ne e d for suc h a si gn and worke d within
the MUTC D guidelin es t o d eve lop a state "supple m e n -
tary" si gn. The d es ign c h ose n utili ze d an approve d blac k
on ye ll ow di amond-shap ed bi cy cl e w arning sign (d es ig-
n ated as Wl 1-1 by th e M U T C D ) with a suppl em e ntary
"Share the R o ad " plaqu e . In 2000 , th e Secre tary o fTran s-
portati o n d ecide d to u se a r efl ec torize d flu oresce nt yel-
low-g reen ve r sion of the sign to increase v isibili ty. This
d es ign was adopte d as a n ati o n al standard in th e m os t re -
ce nt MUTC D updat e .
The sign serves to m ake mo to rists awa re that bi cy cli sts
might b e o n the road an d th at th ey h ave a legal right
to us e the ro adway. It typ ically is pla ce d alo n g roa dways
w ith high levels of bi cycle u sage but relatively ha za rd-
ous c onditio n s for b icy clists. The "Sh are th e R oa d " sign
is esp e cially u se fu l in citi es an d towns w h ere a sig nifi ca nt
n u mbe r o f bicy clists u se a roa d way that by its n ature is n o t
suitabl e to b e d es ign a te d as a bi cy cle route, but w hi ch is
an impor tant c onnec ti o n fo r bicy cl e tran sp ort ati o n . The
294
Mary Paul Meletiou, Program Mana ger for Plan-
ning and Safety, North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Divis ion of B icycle and Pedestrian
Transportation
Case Studi es Bicycle Co unt ermea sure Select io n Sy stem
SHARE
THE ROAD
sign should not be u se d to d es ign ate a preferre d bi cy cl e
route, but may b e u sed along sh o rt sec ti o n s of d es ign ate d
ro utes w h ere traffi c vo lumes are high e r th an d es irabl e.
COUNTERMEASURES
The North C aroli na "Sh are the R oa d " sign ha s b een in-
stall e d alo n g m any miles of ro adways since it was crea t ed
in 1 987. It is u sed al o n g cro ss -stat e, regio n al and local
d es ign ate d bi cy cl e ro utes on sec ti ons of ro adway w h e re
traffic vol umes are hi gh er th an d es ira bl e. T h ese sec tions of
roa dway typ icall y are less than a mile in le n gth and se rve
t o co nnec t the m o re li ghtly -trav ele d roa d s th at co mpr ise
the m aj ority of a g iven route . The sign s are p lace d o n the
roa dway in eac h direc tion, just b efo re the bicy cl e route
,
joins that partic ul ar road, so that motorists w ill b e made
awa re that cycli sts m ay b e on the roadway. If a parti cu-
lar hi gh -volu m e road must be u sed for a distanc e gre ate r
than two miles, additional signs are installed . These signs
are pl aced where th e grea te st number of motorists will see
the m , b ased on tur ning moveme nts off intersecting roads.
To elab ora te, if there is a choice betwee n pl acing a sign just
before a seco ndary road wi th traffic volumes of 1,500 ca rs
ve rsus plac ing it a short distanc e fart h er along the route
before a more m aj or roa d w ith a traffic co unt of 5,000,
choose the latte r. Fieldwork and en g ineerin g judge m ent
are n ecessary to fin e-tune the placeme nt of signs.
"Sh are th e Road" signs also h ave been placed along roads
that are not part of a d esignated bi cy cl e route, b o th in towns
and cities, as well as on ru ral ro adways. R oads and br idges
h eavil y used by cycli sts, partic ul arl y w h ere on-roa d improve-
ments cannot b e m ade, are prime lo cations fo r su ch signs .
Some examples include a major road near a coll ege or uni-
ve rsity where m any stu dents commute by bike; coastal or
mountain roads in to uri st area s where no alternate routes
exis t ; or on a bridge ap proach where no o ther conveni ent
crossings provide an effic ient transportation link.
Install ation of"S h are the Road " signs is an ongo in g pro-
cess. Ea ch n ew route sys te m that is d evelo p e d is assessed
for "S h are the Road" sign n eeds. Periodic fi eld insp ec-
tions of exis ting routes are co nducted not o nly to c h ec k
the co nditi on of existi n g sign s, but also to id e nti fy areas
w h e re c h an g ing traffic conditions may warrant additional
"Sh are the Road" signs.
As one example of the exte nt of sign p os tin g, on a 241-
km (15 0-mi) segm ent of roadway in R andolph Co unty,
NC, a to tal of 45 "Share the Road" sign s were poste d (in
both direc tions of trave l).
"Share the Road" sign next to a busy roadway.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
No fo rmal evaluation on the sign's effectiveness has b een
conducted, but public fee dback h as b ee n favora ble. Cy-
cli sts h ave noted that m otorists seem more co urteous in
areas w h ere "Share the Road " signs are promine nt. One
interes ting note is that DBPT staff members h ave re ceived
call s fro m severa l m o torists indica ting th eir willingn ess to
sh are th e road but commenting that cycli sts they have
e nco untered do not seem willin g to do th e sa me.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
"Sh are th e Road" sign projects m ay b e a low-cost way to
increase th e awa reness of motorists and e nhance the safety
of cycli sts. The fl u oresc e nt ye llow-green W l 1-1 sign s are
vis ibl e from a great di stance.
COSTS AND FUNDING
Fabricati on a nd install ati on of "Share the Road " signs
range from $75 to $100 eac h . The flu orescent ye ll ow-
green sign costs ab o ut twice as much to fabricate as th e
ye ll ow and bl ack ve r sion .
REFERENCES
North Caro li na Bi cy cl e Facility Pl anning and D es ign Gu id eli nes,
North Carolina D epartme nt ofTransportation Division
of Bicycl e and Pe des trian Transportation , 1994.
CONTACT
Mary Pa ul M e le tiou
Bicy cl e and Pedes trian Program Manager
Institute for Transportation R esea rch and Edu ca tion
North Carolina State Univers ity
Centennial Campu s, Box 8601
R aleigh , N C 27695-8601
(919) 515-8771
(919) 515-8898 (fax)
mpmele ti @ uni ty.n cs u .edu
Bi cycle Countermea sure Selection System Case Studies 295
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON #42
Placement of 20-mph School Zone Signs
BACKGROUND
Different jurisdictions across the nati on do not u se the
same polici es in de te rmining where sc h ool speed zo n es are
esta blish ed. Not all jurisdictions eve n u se the same speed
limit in the sc h ool zo n e. Seattle h ad exp eri enced press ure
from parents and sc h ools to place 20-mph school zone
signs as a matter of course in the vicinity of any sc hool. No
written policies were previously in pl ace, and most deci-
sions were made on a case-by-case b as is. H owever, ce r-
tain factors remained constant, incl udi ng the placement of
these signs only at elementary sc h ools, and only in direct
relation to a marked crosswalk (in contrast to a set area
aro und the sc h ool regardless of cross ing facilities).
This project looked at defining and updating current place-
m ent of th e 20-mph school zo n e signs (as well as all sc hool
crosswalk signs) in Seattle. The goal of studying where to
place 20-mph sc hool zone signs was to provid e co nsiste n cy
of use for better motorist understanding, and better mo-
torist compli an ce with the spee d limit. A secondary goal
was to have better internal guidelines on sign placement to
improve consiste n cy of responding to public and sc h ool re-
quests for 20-mph sc h ool zone signs.Th e underlying proj -
ec t goal was to red u ce driver speeds at the locations where
elem entary sc h ool children were most likely to be walking
or bicycling to or from school.
One decision abo ut the placement of the 20 mph speed zone
signs was already m ade by the sta te ofWashington. Locations
with a School Patro l present, where there is no form of traf-
fic control, are required to have 20-mph speed zone signs. In
Seattle, School Patrol is an optional student progran1 run by
the individual elem entary school. Participating students are
typ ically in 5th grade and have an adul t supervisor. School Pa-
trol members help o ther students cross safely, but m ust remain
296
Megan Hoyt , Pedestrian Safety Engineer, Seattle
Department of Transportation
Case Stud ie s Bicycle Countermeasure Selec tion Sys tem
,.
SCHOOL
SPEED
LIMIT
20
WHEN
CHILDREN
ARE PRESENT
Figure 1. Standard reduced speed sc hool sign.
in sight of the school. By co ntrast, adult crossing guards are
adults employed by the Seattl e Police Department.
Combined with this project was an effort to m ake the
20-mph sc hool zone sign s more readily understood as to
when th e re duced speed li mit is in effec t and increase
motorist compliance. Almost all 20-mph sc ho ol speed
zone signs in Seattle have a qualifying sign a ttached th at
reads "WHEN CH ILDREN ARE PRESENT" (see fig.
1). This sign is defined thro u gh the Washington Adminis-
trative Code (WAC) as w h en:
1) School children are occ u pying or walking w i thin the
marked crosswalk.
(2) School children are waiting at the curb or on the
sh oulder of th e roadway and are about to cross the road-
way by way of the marked crosswalk.
(3) Schoolchildren are present or walking along the road-
way, e ither on the adj ace nt sidewalk or, in the absence
of sidewalks, o n th e shoulder within the posted sc h ool
sp ee d limit zo ne which ext ends 300 feet in eith er di rec -
tion from the marked crosswalk .
The ge n eral perc e ption in Seattl e was that 20 mph school
zo n es are ofte n not o b eye d . The Seattle D e p artment of
Tran sportatio n (SDOT) P e d es trian Prog ram receives a
number of complaints from m oto rists eac h year asking
fo r cl arifi catio n of the sign u se d to qualify 20-mph sp eed
zones. Quite oft en , th e motorist h as just received a sp eed-
ing ti cket and is n ot clear o n precise ly w h e n th e re du ced
sp ee d limit is in effect. In ge n eral, sp ee d zo n es in Seattle
do not receive the respect that p are nts and sc hool admin-
istrators would like to see. The speed at which a motor-
ist trave ls has a direct effect on th e injury sustained by
th e pedestrian in a collisio n , and ca n also increase driver
compliance in stopping for p edestrian s at crosswalks. A
new sc h ool zo n e sign that reads "Wh e n Lights are Fl ash-
ing or When C hil dren are Present " and fl as hing b eaco n
(fig ure 2) will rep lace the sign reading "Wh e n C hild ren
are Present" and will be se t to fl as h during the times of
the day that c hildren are m os t li kely to b e traveling to and
from sc h ool.
The city of Sea ttl e has historicall y redu ced sp eeds to 20-
mph in sc h ool zones. The d ecisi on of w h at speed limi t to
use d epends largely on w h at th e normal roadway speed
limit is. Almost all arterial streets in Seattle h ave a sp eed
limit of 30-mph . As th e goal of these sign s is to redu ce
motorist spee d , the reduced sp eed should b e an ac hi ev-
a ble change in sp ee d that do es n ot req uire h eavy e nforce-
ment. For instance, a redu ce d speed zone of 15-mph in
a sec ti on of roadway w h e re th e normal sp eed limi t is
40-mp h may ge t very littl e co mpliance if it is not en-
forced . Interestingly eno u gh , h owever, the city ofTu scon,
AZ, h as achieve d very hi gh compliance in th e ir 15-mph
sc hool zones, showing that in the right c ircumstan ces thi s
is ac hi eva bl e.
T h e opportunity for this proj ec t occ urre d as th e SDOT
upgraded all sc hool crosswa lk sig n s from ye ll ow to flu o-
rescent ye ll ow-g ree n , and c h anged the sc ho o l sign a t
the crosswa lk to include a n arrow pointin g to the cross-
wa lk itself. The fi e ld chec k s n ecessary to p e rform the
sign replacements presente d an o pportunity to bring
co n sist ency to all sc h oo l sp eed zone si gn s. The pre-ex-
isting co nditions of eac h lo ca ti o n var ie d . Fluorescent
ye ll ow-green sig n s were alrea d y rep lace d on princ ip al
arte rials thro u g hout the c ity. All o the r sc hool crosswa lks
had ye ll ow sig n s.
COUNTERMEASURES
The proj ec t itself was three -fold . First, the existing condi-
tions had to be documented.
• Where were o ur 20-mph school zone signs presently
loca te d ?
• What was the traffi c control at the crosswalk?
• Was there a Sc h ool P atrol or an adult cro ss ing g u ard
present?
Second, n ew School Sign Placement G uideli nes were es-
tablis h ed . Lastly, we implemented the n ew 20 mph sign
poli cy. During this implementati on, a p arti c ular lo cation
would either:
• kee p the signs it originally had (th ey would just be
upg rad e d).
• gai n 20-mph sp ee d zo n e sign s (w h ere c urrentl y only
adva n ce warning signs we re in place).
• lo se 20-mph sp eed zone signs.
Additionall y, cr ite ria were d evel oped to prioritize where
to use the n ew signs and fl as hing beacons. In the program's
first year, n ew sp ee d zone sign s w ith flashing b eacons
were ins tall ed at 12 locations. An additional 14 lo ca ti ons
received b eacons in 2004. No funding h as b een identified
for fur th er imple m e ntati on.
SPEED
LIMIT
20
WHEN LIGHTS
ARE FLASHING
---OR
WHEN
CHILDREN
ARE PRESENT
Figure 2. Modified reduced speed zone sign used in co njun c-
tion wit h a flashing beacon .
Bi cyc le Cou ntermea sure Select ion System Case Studies 297
SURVEY
To fi nd o ut w h at the existing co nditi ons were, a sa mple
survey was taken aro und several sc h ools. First, we d efi n e d
th e di ffe re nt ty p es o fl oca tions poss ible. T h e fo ll owin g el-
emen ts were co n side re d :
ty p e of traffic co ntro l (uncontro ll e d , stop sign , traffic
sign al , crosswalk sign al)
• ty p e of street (a rterial street or res idential stree t)
• w h e the r the crosswalk was atte nded (School P atrol ,
adult crossing gu ard , or una tten d ed)
While th e numb e r o f lan es of traffi c a pedestria n mu st
cross is an i m p o rta nt factor fo r SD OT when eva lu -
a tin g uncon tro ll e d m arked crosswa lks, th is fac t or d id
n o t play a bi g ro l e in this ana lys is. The mai n reason
for this is t ha t few m arked crosswa lks across more than
t wo lan es of t raffi c ar e establi sh e d as el ementary sc h ool
crosswal ks . T h e sp ee d li m i t on the roadway a lso d id no t
p lay a m ajor ro l e in the survey as o nl y several ar t erial
stree ts in th e c i ty h ave a spee d limit g reater th an 30.
This was a fac t o r in the fina l decisi o n of where t o i n-
st all th e beaco n s, h owever.
I t was n o t feas ible to survey the e ntire city (the city of Se-
attl e h as over 300 uncontrolled ma r ked school crosswalks
alone), so th e su rveyor so u gh t to find a minimum of fi ve
examples o f each combin ati o n (there were a total of 18
combinati o n s).
Once th e survey was compl e te, we had a b e tter under-
standing of the existing conditi o n s (see ta bl e 1).
SPEED ZONE GUIDELINES
When t h e survey was comple t e, we drafte d guideli n es
tha t b o th m e t the depar tment's goals of co n siste n cy and
combined so m ewhat acc urately with exis ti ng condi ti ons.
T h e o ld 20-mph school zo n es were inconsiste ntl y esta b -
lis h ed . The n ew guideli nes i ncl u ded:
• kee ping th e zones at all uncontro ll ed loca ti ons with an
active Sc h ool Patrol prese n ce. (require d by state law)
• providin g 20 mph sign s at uncontro ll e d cro sswalk w ith
ad ul t cross ing guards.
(Maps sh owin g the loca ti o n s of School P atro l h ad b een
outdated; thro u gh this process we were abl e to update
some of t h e loca tions.) T h e second priority gu ideli ne es -
ta bli sh ed was to begin plac ing 20 mph zo n es at any un -
contro ll ed crosswalk loca ti o n w it h an adult crossing guard
presen t . T h e p h ilosophy b e hind this decisio n was that
Tab le 1. Sc hoo l Zo ne Signs Fi eld Surv ey Tot als
Signs Adv ance 20-mph
#Cro ss walks Present Si gns Sig n End Speed Mi d block
Samp le d School Sig nin g Sc en ario At X-Walk Pr esent Pres ent Zone c ro ssing
2 9 unattended 2 7 23 5 2 2
17 Art er ial : Marked Cross -Adu lt Guard 16 16 10 3 wa l k ; No Traffic Contro l
8 Sc hool Patrol 8 8 6 1
2 3 una ttended 2 0
3 Art erial : St op Sig n Adu lt Guard 2 2 1
3 Sc hoo l Patro l 1
2 0 u nattended 2 2 1
2 1 Art er ial: Ful l Sig nal Adu lt Guard 2 6 1
5 Sc hool Patrol 3 2
18 unattend ed 4 8 2 1
8 Art eri al : Cros swa l k Si gnal Adult Gu ar d 6 7 1 1
3 Sc hoo l Patro l 3 3 3 2
22 u nattend ed 2 0 14 9
0 Re s: Marked Cro sswal k Ad ult Guard
19 Sc hool Patro l 17 14 9
0 u nattended
1 Res : St op Si g n Adult Gu ard
2 Sc hoo l Pat rol 1 1
298 Case St ud ies Bicycle Co unt ermeasure Se lec t ion Sys tem
th e adult cro ss ing gu ards are typi call y p lace d at lo ca tio n s
w h ere traffic vo lu m es and in te rsec tion ch ara c te ri stics are
such that students re quire ext ra guidan ce in cro ss ing sa fely.
T h e loc ations w h ere ad ult gu ards are typicall y post ed also
see th e hi gh es t n umbe r of st u d en ts c ro ss ing. The re for e,
re d u cing drive r sp eed s at th e lo ca tio n s likely to see th e
most stu d e n t traffi c foc u ses atte n tion on the i n tersec tions
tha t b e n efit th e m o st st u d e n ts.
R ev ise d gu id elines were d isc u sse d among Sea t tl e D e -
partme nt ofTransp o rta ti on sta ff from t h e diffe re nt traffi c
m an age m e nt div isio n s. Sc h ool zone sign s w e re not u se d
at st o p -o r si g n al-co ntroll e d lo ca tions (incl uding cro ss-
w al k si g n als). (S ee ta ble 2 for p lacem e nt guid e li n es.)
FLASHING BEACONS
In p rioritizing the fl as hing b eaco n lo ca tions, w e u se d th e
above cri te ria and also considered ave rage dail y traffic
(ADT), w ith high e r ADT lo ca tions receiv ing a h igh er pri-
ority. Fo r m o re consisten cy with standard en gineerin g prac -
ti ce, and b eca use of th e weekd ay -only n ature o f the fl as h-
ing b eaco n signs, th e li st of se lec ted lo ca tions al so incl u d es
the most curren t Ave rage W ee k D ay Traffi c (A WDT).
A rece nt study release d by t h e Fe de ral H ighway Admin-
istrati on n o tes the fac tors th at infl u e n ce p e d es trian sa fe ty
at m arked cro sswalks (Z egee r e t al., 2002). T h ese are th e
number of lan es of moto r ve hicl e traffi c, the ave rage daily
traffi c (ADT ) and motor ve hi cl e sp eeds. To se lect the final
12 lo cati o n s, staff at th e SDOT evaluate d all m arke d cro ss -
w alks qu ali fy ing for a 20-mph sc h o ol sp ee d zone. None of
these locations h ad more than two lan es, and only a few
h ad a sp eed limit hi gh e r th an 30 mph . T h erefore, th e lo ca -
ti o ns were ranke d by ADT.
Twelve lo catio ns ran ked highes t on selec ted c r iteria fo r the
fi rs t ye ar of imple m entation. All locations h ad ad ult cro ss -
ing gu ards p os ted. While almost eve ry m arked cro sswalk
considere d fo r this trea tme nt wa s an u nco n tro ll ed marked
cro sswalk , there we re seve ral lo ca tio ns th at h ad cros swalk
signal s (also referre d to as half-signals ). One of these lo ca -
tio n s h ad not o nl y ve ry high ADT and hi gh ve hicle sp ee ds ,
but al so w as a high complaint loca tion . This locati o n al so
was on a ro adway wi th a sp ee d limit o f 3 5-mph. For that
reas o n , it w as incl ude d in thi s li st of th e top 12 loca ti ons.
The subse qu e nt year of b ea con installa tions use d th e n ext
14 loca ti ons o n this sam e li st .Two locations o n the li st were
n o t impl eme nted du e to con struction and timing iss u es .
IMPLEMENTATION
With g uidelines in place, sig n re place m e nt , inclu ding
th e es t ablish m e nt of n ew 2 0 -mph sc h ool zo n es, was
Tab le 2. Sc hoo l Sig n Pl acemen t Guid elines
R 2M End
Signs Present At Marked Advance Signs (20mph) Sign Speed
School Signing Scenario at Marked Crosswalks X-Walk Present Present Zone
Schoo l Pat ro l Yes Yes Yes Ye s
Arter ial : Ma rk ed Cross walk Adult Gu ard Yes No traff ic co ntrol Yes Yes Yes
unattended Yes Ye s No No
Sc hool Patrol No No No No
Arter ial : Mar ked Cross walk Adult Gu ard No Stop Si gn No No No
un atte nded No No No No
Sc ho ol Pat ro l No No No No
Arteri al : Ma rk ed Cross walk Adult Gu ard No Full Si gnal No No No
un attend ed No No No No
Sc hool Pat ro l W-3 7 ov erh ead sign onl y No No -
Art eri al : Mar ked Cross walk Adult Gu ar d W-3 7 overh ea d sign onl y Cro ss walk Sig nal No No -
un attende d W-3 7 ov erhead sign only No No No
Sc ho ol Pat ro l Yes Yes Yes Yes
Resid ent ial Mark ed Cross walk Ad u lt Gu ar d No Tr affic Co nt rol Yes Yes Yes Yes
una ttend ed Yes Yes No No
Sc ho ol Patrol No No No No
Res id ential Mark ed Cross walk Adult Gua rd Sto p Sign No No No No
una ttended No No No No
Bicycle Counte rmea sur e Selectio n Sy stem Ca se Stud ies 299
b egun . Sign s on minor and c oll ec tor arte ri als w e re re-
p lace d in 2 0 02 . Sign s on n o n-arterial stree ts were re -
pl ace d in 2 00 3 .
The install ation of the fl as hing beacons re quire d utility
poles on whic h to mount the m .All b eac ons we re install ed
on th e sid e of the ro ad approxi mately 200 fee t in advan ce
of the marke d c rosswalk . In seve ral cas es, it was possibl e to
u se an exis ting pole. Howeve r, the maj o ri ty of lo ca ti o n s
re quired the installati on o f a n ew pole. Du e to res tri c-
tions in whe re a utility p o le co uld b e install e d , o r existe d
al rea dy, some o f the school sp ee d zon e b o undaries w e re
alte red . All e ffort s w e re m ad e to plac e the zo n e limits as
clo se to th e MUTCD g uidelines as poss ibl e.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
D e fining sp ecifi c evalu ati on c rite ria w as di fficu lt for this
projec t b eca u se we did n o t know until h alfway throu gh
whic h loca tions would ch an ge and w h ic h would st ay the
sa me. There is also th e fa c t th at all lo cati o n s wer e b eing
upg rade d to the fluoresce nt ye llow-g ree n sc h o ol signs,
which compli ca te d the effec t the 20-mph sp eed zon e
alone would h ave.
Therefore, the evaluation co uld b es t b e examined in terms
of public feedbac k and inte rnal o pinion. Pos itive feedbac k
cam e from the adult cro ss in g guards them se lves b eca use
quite a numbe r of them did not have the reduce d sp ee d
zone signs at their lo cations. This proj ec t al so c reated con-
siste nt guidelines for 20 mph zone establishme nt, and has
res ulte d in cl ea rer communica tion to the publi c about
whe re th e signs are p laced an d th e reasons for th e p articular
sign plac e m e nt. There have b ee n some n ega ti ve comments
from citize n s, however, wh o wo nder why th e sc hool sp ee d
zones are b e in g es tablish ed at the lo ca ti o n s with an adult
c ro ss ing guard rath e r than the o n es that lac k a guard . This
p articular complaint requires o n going explan ation of the
advantage SDOT se es in foc using atte nti o n o n the places
w h ere the most childre n cross, and where (thro u gh pl ace -
m e nt of an adult crossin g guard) it h as b een d e termine d
that childre n n eed more gu idan ce in cross ing safe ly.
B efore/ aft e r sp ee d asses sm e nts w e re p e rforme d for seve ral
of the fla shing b eacon lo catio n s to d e te rmine if motori st
c ompliance increa se d . The b efore measures were take n in
spring 2002 for most lo ca tio n s, as proje ct comple tion w as
originally sc h e dul e d for Au gu st 2002 (ac tual co n stru c tion
o c curre d in Augu st 2003). The b efore res ults showe d a
cl ea r disregard for the 2 0-mph school sp eed zones. 'B e-
fore sp eeds' whe n c hildre n we re prese nt ran ge d from 32
mph to 40 mph .
300 Case Studies Bicycle Cou ntermeasure Selection System
Sp ee d d ata were also coll e cte d seve ral months aft er the
sign s and b eac ons were install e d . In all but one case, ve hi-
cl e sp ee ds w h e n a n ad ult cros sing gua rd w as prese nt were
lowe r fo llow ing install ation of the n ew signs and b eaco n s.
Th e larges t de crease in sp ee d note d was a 22 p e rce nt de-
crease (the 85th p e rce ntile sp ee d dro ppe d from 37 mph
to 29 mph). D es pite th e re duc tion in ve hicl e sp ee d , th e
ra n ge o f sp ee ds m eas u re d (29 mph to 34 mph) were still
w ell above th e 20 mph sp ee d limit.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
The SDOT reli e d direc tl y upon the pl ace m ent of cro ss ing
guards in sign place m ent. Other jurisdi c tions m ay w ant to
con sid er othe r criteria in th e pl ace m e nt o f 20-mph sp eed
zo n e signs. Criteria th at c ould b e conside red includ e th e
di stan ce from the crosswalk to the sc hool and th e numbe r
of stude nts using the crosswalk . An impo rtant de tail to kee p
in mind is the am o unt o f annual survey work that must
b e co nducted to kee p signs current. While the numbe r of
stude nts using the crosswalk is impo rtant, coll ec ting thi s in-
formati o n for hundreds of cros swalks co uld b e a large tas k.
It was ve ry useful to d o the survey work and crea te guide-
lines fo r sign p lace m e nt through o ut the city. It is an excel-
lent way to gain internal concurre n ce o n guidelines and to
take time to verify that current prac ti ces are still use ful.
It is n o t cl ear w h e the r the consiste n cy of th e sig n s h as
b ee n n o ti ce d or apprecia te d by the public. In m os t cases,
res id e nts are happy if the change in g uide lines allows a
school sp eed zone t o b e establi sh e d at a cro ss ing they
ofte n u se .
While the sp ee d study analysis did n o t show as large a
drop in vehicle sp ee d as w e would h ave liked, it did re-
sult in reduced vehicle spee ds within the reduced speed
sc hool zones. A notab le result of the n ew b eaco n s h as also
been more effec tive enfo rc ement by the SDOT. Officers
are g iv en a list of the beacon lo ca tions and the times they
will b e in effec t. Targeted e nforce m e nt is therefore pos-
sibl e, and the SDOT keeps a log of th e times th e b eaco ns
flash which reduces the number of motorists who can
contes t a ticket.
COSTS AND FUNDING
The up grade of th e sc hool crosswalk sign s was funded
through stat e grant funding. The survey work an d b ack-
gro und gath ering n ecessa ry for this proj ec t were made
possib le by h elp fr om a gra duate sc hool intern and a
transportation c rew worker on light duty. The fir st year
of fl as hing beacon installa tion was funded by a state grant ,
and the seco nd year was funded by the Seattle D e p ar t-
ment ofTransportation.
REFERENCES
Zegeer, C.V, J.R. Stewart, H .H. Huang, P.A. La gerwey,
J. Feaganes, and BJ. Campbell. Safety Effects ef Marked
Versus Unmar ked Crosswa lk s at Uncont roll ed Lo ca tion s:
Final Report and R eco mmended Guidelines. Fe d eral
Highway Administration, Offi ce of Safety R esea rch
and D evelo pment: McLea n , Virginia , February 2005,
110 pp. [FHWA -HRT-04-100] available at : http ://
www.walkinginfo .o rg / pdf/ r&d/ safetyeffec ts. pdf
CONTACTS
Megan Hoyt
Pedestrian Program
Seattle D e p artme nt ofTransportation
700 Fifth Avenu e, Suite 3900
Seattl e,WA 98 104
(206) 684-5124
megan. hoy t@sea ttl e. gov
Peter La gerwey
Bicy cl e & Pedes trian Prog ram Coordinator
Seattle D e p artment ofTrans portation
700 Fifth Avenu e, Suite 3768
P.O. Box 34996
Seattle,WA 98124-4996
(206) 684-5108
Bi cyc le Countermeas ur e Selection System Case Studies 301
GAINE~VILLE, FLORIDA #43
Shared-Use Arrow
BACKGROUND
A bi cycl e lan e strip e provides a late ral p os itio ning refe r-
e n c e for both motorists and bicy cli sts, and the prese n ce of
the strip e , as w ell as sign s, info rms motorists th at bi cycli sts
are typically prese nt upstrea m . In contras t , the ab se n ce o f
bi cy cl e-sp ecifi c p ave m e nt m arkings in wide o utside lan es
(al so know n as w ide c urb lan es), anothe r w idely acknow l-
ed ged w ay to acc ommo d at e bi cyclists, obvio u sly m ea n s
that there is n o re fe re n ce for late ral positi o ning, or a vi su al
c u e to the exis t e n ce of up strea m bi cycli sts.
A~oth e r arg ume nt put fo r th is that bicycle lanes are cl ea r-
ly m arke d sp aces for bicycli sts th at h ave b ee n shown to
draw ride rs off of adj ace n t sid ew alk s and o nto the road-
w ay, a d es irable outc ome g ive n the inhe rent d an ge rs o f
sidewalk ridin g . On the o the r hand , b eca u se there are no
bicy cl e -sp ec ifi c m arkings in w ide outsid e lan es, th ey are
not rec o gni ze d as an o n-roa d bi cy cl e "facili ty" by m any
bicycli sts, res ulting in a high e r in cid en ce of adj ace nt side-
walk riding than could o the rwise b e the case.
COUNTERMEASURES
The sh are d-u se ARROW is a sy mb ol place d o n the roa d-
way with a ste n cil and is u se d to indi ca te p ro p er position-
ing for a bi cy clist in a sh are d travel lane . T h e sh are d-use
ARROW (fi g ure 1) was d eve lope d with the inte ntion of
address ing th e d e fi cie n cies o f w id e o utsi d e lan es m en -
tione d above. Further m o re, for sit u ati o n s at w hi ch suffi-
ci e nt p ave m e nt w idth exis ts to c h oose b etween striping a
bicycl e lan e or leaving a w ide outsid e lan e, the sh are d-use
ARROW m ay o ffe r a third o ption, "bridg ing the ga p " b e-
tween the two existin g t rea tme nts. Unlike a bicy cl e lan e
strip e, the sh ared-use ARROW do es n o t res tri ct bi cy cli sts
302
William W. Hunter , Senior Research Sc ientist,
UNC Highway Safet y Research Center
Ca se Studies Bicyc le Counterme as ur e Sele ction Sy stem
and m o to ri sts to se p ara te a reas o f th e roa dway, thus ad-
dress ing seve ral p o tential problem s of bi cy cl e lan es. The
sh ared-use ARROW al so re qui res less p ave m e nt m ark -
ing m ate rials than a bi cy cl e lan e strip e, and the ARROW
re inforc es the co rrec t direc tion of trave l, an iss u e of g rea t
importan ce for bi cycling safe ty.
Figure 1. Shared -us e ARROW.
The original sh ared-use ste n cil was d eve lo pe d by J am es
M ac kay, the Bicy cl e and Ped es trian Planner for the city and
co unty of D enver, C O. The city of Sa n Fran cisco, thro u gh
M anito Vela sco, ass istant tran sp ortati on en g ineer, h as al so
u se d the ste n cil . They elonga te d it fro m 1.3 m (4 .25 ft) to
1 .8 m (6 ft) an d also al tered the place m ent sp ecifi ca ti ons.
The current ARRO W builds up o n these effo r ts by es tab-
li shing a w ide n ed o p ening al o n g its ce nte rline in an effo rt
to ch anneli ze and m ake it m ore o bvio us to bi cycli sts to
trac k down the ce nterlin e o f th e symbol.
Late ral placement was propose d at 0.8 m (2.5 ft) from
the curb fa ce, w h ic h was b ase d on the lo cal co ndi ti o n s
of a 4.6-m (15-ft)-w id e lan e w ith n o gutte r p an and p re-
liminary BEFORE m eas ure m ents w hi c h sh owed b icy-
I
clists riding 0.5 m (1.6 ft ) on ave rage from the curb. Fur-
thermore, w ith this specifi ed sp ac ing, it w as exp ec t e d that
motor vehicle tires wo uld b e less likely to track ove r and
wear out the marking. H owever, ea rli e r pavin g over the
o ld gutte r p an had le ft a sea m about 0 .6 m (2 ft) from the
c urb. Thus, ins tea d of at 0.8 m (2.5 ft ) from the curb face,
the ARROW was place d at 1.1 m (3.5 ft) by Gainesvill e
Public Works (F igure 2).
I r<-3 ' 6 11 , ... 15' O" ...
I
I
I , ... 9' 6 11 ,. I' 6"
I
I
I "'(--5'6" -~
Figure 2. Actua l lateral placement.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
A b efore a nd aft er evalu ation was c onducted . Four
lo ca tions alon g 13th Stree t (US 441 ) in G ain esv ill e,
FL , w e r e exa mined u sing v ideotap in g equ ipme nt to
r ec ord bi cycles and motor ve hi cles. In this study area
13th Stree t h as four la n es w ith wide outside lan es in
both direc tions. Th e stree t h as a 30 mph sp ee d limit
and carries a bout 35,000 ve hicl es p e r d ay. Sites 1-3
were acceptable for all data tha t was to b e co ll ec t e d ,
while one site (Site 4) was not acce ptable for sp ac ing
n1eas ure1nents.
Seve nteen v ideo taping sess ions about two h o urs long
were u sed to ga the r d at a both before and also after the
ARROW was install e d for a total of 34 sessions. Con-
c urre nt with install ation of the devi ce, about one week
of p ubli c aware n ess was co nducted. A press rel ease was
pre pare d , and t elevision crews film e d bicyclists riding
along the st encil e d street. Information abo ut the st e n cil
was widely di sse minated to University of Florida stu-
d ents, facu lty, and staff through normal channels. The
v ideo tapes were examin e d by H SRC p e r so nne l. Thre e
later al spacing meas u rements were m ade using J andel
Scientifi c SigmaScan Pro Image M eas u rement Software
on still images of the videotape ca pture d by Snappy Ve r-
sion 3.0. The measurements w e re bicycle to c urb, bi-
cycle to motor ve hicl e, and mo tor ve hicl e to c urb.
B efo re the ARROW w as pl aced, 39 .3 p e rce nt of bicycli sts
rode in stree t , with traffi c. After the ARROW was placed,
the proporti on of bi cyclis ts riding in stree t , with traffic
inc rease d to 45.3 p erce nt. Comparing in street, wi th traf-
fi c w ith all other positio n s and direc tions co mbined (a
2x2 table, c hi-square tes t) yie lds a statistically sig nifi cant
increase (p <.05) toward riding in the street with traffic
aft e r the placement of the ARROW
Bicy cle-to-c urb m easure ments were made to determine
if the ARROW was asso ciate d w ith a c h ange in th e lateral
positioning of bicyclists. The diffe re nce b e tween th e be-
fore measure m e nt of0.5 m (1.6 ft) and the after of0 .6 m
(1.8 ft) (a bout 76.2 mm (3 in .)) was statisti call y signifi ca nt
(p <.01). However, this small differe nce was not con sid-
ered to b e practically signifi ca nt.
Bicycle-to-motor ve hicl e m eas urements were m ade when
a motor vehicl e w ith a driver with unobstructed view was
direc tl y next to the bicyclist, the front w h eels of the mo-
tor ve hicle and bi cy cle in line . The m ea n bicycle-to-mo-
tor ve hicl e m eas ure m ent in th e b efore p e riod was 1.8 m
(6 ft) (n=92). The m ea n bicycle-to-motor vehicle mea-
surement in th e after p eriod was 1.9 m (6.1 ft ) (n=83).
The difference was not statisticall y signific ant.
Th e motor ve hicl e-to-curb distan ce was m eas ure d from
th e o utside e dge of th e front tire (or in some cases the rear
tire) to th e c urb face w h e n the re were no bi cyclists nearby
to influence the drivers' positioning. The differe n ce b e-
twee n the b efore mea n ofl.9 m (6.3 ft) and th e afte r of2
m (6 .4 ft) wa s not statisti call y significant.
The re was an inte resting diffe re n ce in th e distributions
of the m easure m ents that were m ad e, an d the diffe rence
was assoc iated with the Bicycl e -to-Curb di stan ce . There
was increase d sprea d in the lowe r e nd of th e di stributions
in the aft er p eriod , suc h that the propo rtion of bi cy cli sts
riding 0.5 to 0.8 m (1.8 to 2.5 ft ) from the curb increased
substantially, in effec t increas ing th e ir sa fety marg in.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Th e re we re no practical diffe re n ces in the ave rage lat-
e ral spa cing m eas ure m e nts of bi cycl e-to -c urb, bicycle -to-
motor ve hicle, and motor ve hicl e -to-c urb. H owever, the
proportion of bi cyclists riding 0 .5 to 0.8 111 (1.8 to 2.5 ft)
from th e c urb sh owed a substantial in c rease , g iving th e m
a large r sa fe ty m arg in. The re was a stati sti call y signifi ca nt
increase in the propo rtion of bi cyclists riding in th e street
after place m e nt of the ARROW This shift from th e side-
Bicycle Countermeasure Selection Sys tem Case St udie s 303
walk t o the street should inc rease safety by putting cyclists
w h ere they are more visibl e to motorists and out of con-
flict with ve hicl es e nter ing or exiting driveways that cross
sidewalks, as well as reduce the co nfli c ts with pedestrians.
The 13 th Street corridor was chose n because there were
e nough bicyclists riding on a daily b as is to make data co l-
lec ti o n effic ie nt. In re tro spect, however, the n umber of
cyclists may b e a fac tor that mitigates against possible shifts
in the distance m eas ures of effec ti veness. It is ce rtainly
poss ible that motor ve hi cle drivers on this route are well
attune d to the presence of bicyclists, and thu s may already
ha ve shifte d their traffic lane location away from th e c urb
to acco unt for the sp ace needs of bicycli sts before th e
ARROW was install ed. H owever, th e shi ft in the lower
end of the Bicycle-to-Curb measurement which yie lde d
m ore riding sp ace for bicyclists is compelling eno u gh to
"kee p th e jury o ut" on this share d lane trea tme nt a bit
longer. M ore tr ials in o th er locations are recommended
and should resu lt in more conclu sive findings.
COSTS AND FUNDING
Approxim ate cos ts were the fo llowing:
Labor
Trucks and arrow board
Paint and stencil
Total
CONTACTS
William Hunte r
UNC Highway Safety Research Center
730 M ar tin Luther King Jr Blvd, S uite 300
C h ap e l Hill , NC 27599-3430
(9 19) 962-8716
Brian K anely
C ity o f Gainesvill e
Public Works -Engineering
P.O. Box 490
Gainesville, FL. 32602-0490
(352) 334-5074
$500
$216
$11 8
$834
304 Case St udi es Bicycle Countermeasure Se lection Sy stem
The modification (s hared use arrow) that is the
subject of th is case study is not comp liant with
the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devi ces '
but a version of this marking (bike symbol fol -
lowed by chevrons, s hown on page 279, Figure
2) is being considered for inclus ion. Accord-
ingly, it is imperative that any jurisdict ion wish -
ing to utilize the shared use arrow (or any other
non-approved traffic control device) s hou Id seek
experimental approval from the Fe dera l Highway
Administration. For information on how to do so '
please vi s it this Web s ite: http://mutcd.fhwa .dot.
gov/kno-amend . htm.
GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN #44
Enforcement for Bicycle Safety
BACKGROUND
The enforcement of laws, both for bicyclists and moto r-
ists , is critical to improving bicy cl e safety and enjoyment.
Ve ry little effec tive e nforce m ent typically occurs, how-
eve r, in U.S. cities an d towns. Wisco n sin 's Enforcement
for Bicycle Safety (EBS) co urse was d es ign e d to h elp law
e nforcem e nt agencie s and officers co rrec t this situ atio n.
Police officers are th e only ones w ho ca n enforce laws , ye t
most officers n ever receive any bicy cl e-sp ec ific training.
Bicy cl e iss u es ge n er ally are not a police priority.The pub-
lic and many officers ass ume that since officers are traine d
in traffic enforcemen t , thi s training includes bicy cle safety.
Police officers tend not to e nforce laws that they d o not
know or cannot justify enforcing.
In Wiscon si n , police recruits receive 400 hours (and soo n
520) of basic standards training, of which 10 hours cove r
traffic law. Laws related to bicycling co uld b e cove red dur-
ing this b asic training, but they n o rmally aer not di scusse d .
Following rec ruit sc h ool, n ewly hire d officers go through
1 O+ weeks of fi eld trai ning . This is anoth er bicycle training
opportunity, b u t it is se ldom u sed.All poli ce officers are re-
quire d to take 24 hours of continuing e du cation eac h year.
T h is presen ts a third opportunity for bicy cl e safety training,
but until the crea ti on of EBS in 19 95, th ere was no su ch
trainin g availa ble (this ab se nc e of training tends to b e tru e
nationwide). Therefo re, most poli ce officers have n ever
been ta ught the leading ca uses of bi cy cl e cras hes, th e laws
specifi c to bicycle safety, and how se lective enforce m ent
can improve bicycle safety.W ithout thi s information , poli ce
officers are unlikely to contribute significa ntly to bi cycle
safety and enjoyme nt in their communities.
Enforcement for bicycle safety is p ar t of polic e c ulture
in only a few communities . EBS is c hang ing the b eli ef
Peter Flucke, Pres ident , WE Bl KE
of both officers and the public that "Bicycle v iolations
are trivial." Bicycle sa fety should b e a recognize d part of
every officer's j o b . In 2001, 728 bicycli sts we re kill e d and
45,000 were injured in reported cras h es w ith motor ve -
hicles in the United States (U.S. DOT, 2002).
Law e nforceme nt ha s a role, al ong w ith e n g ineering, edu-
ca tion and e n co ura ge m e nt, in improving bi cy cl e safety.
Well-targeted e nforcement (with o r w ithout citations)
h as great pote ntial to p os itive ly affec t bicycle sa fety and
e njoy m ent. Officers can also help e n gineers, ed u ca tors
and others t o ide ntify poss ibl e problems and so lutions.
THE GOALS OF EBS :
Short Range
1) Provide police officers with b asic training abo ut bi cy-
cling and bicycle sa fety iss u es.
2) D eve lop aware n ess amon g police officers about the
si gnific an ce of bicycling and its related iss u es.
3) Convince officers that they can improve traffic sa fety
by enforcing laws, both for bicyclists and motorists .
4) Encourage poli ce d e p artme nts to adopt a bicycle law
e nforc ement poli cy.
5) Demonstrate the n ee d to d evelo p additional bicycle
e duca tion c urricula and m aterials for police age n cies.
Long R a nge
1) Promote a safe r and more e njoya bl e bi cycli ng e nvi-
romnent.
2) R e d u ce d ea ths and injuri es to bicyclists.
COUNTERMEASURES
The Enforcement for Bicycle Safety Course (E BS) was
d evelo p ed in 1995 for the Wisconsin D ep artment of
Transportation Burea u of Transportation Safety, in con-
junc tion with the Law Enforcement Training Center at
Bicycle Cou nt erm easure Se lect ion System Case Stud ies 305
Lakes hore Technical College (LTC) in Cleveland, WI.
LTC was chose n b ecau se courses developed with a state-
certifi e d law e nforce m ent training center are au tomati-
c ally approve d by the Department of Justi ce fo r continu-
ing education h ours and training doll ars.
EBS is a two-day course designed to g ive p olice officers
th e b as ic bicy cl e sa fe ty information they need to manage
traffic and provide a safe bicycling environment in their
communities. The co urse is designed for all p o li ce officers
who are assigned patrol duties and will encounter bicy-
clists. Officers patrolling by bicycle and those involved
in bi cycle e du ca tion find EBS particularly helpful. Topics
covered include bicy cl e h istory, bi cy cl e types , w hy and
w h e re people b icy cl e, engineering, bi cycle cras h es, en-
forcement, laws, cras h inves ti ga tion and reporting, edu-
ca tion , bicycle theft , bicycle registration, police bi cycle
patrols , and on-bike training.
Courses initially were offered through th e state's law en-
forcement trainin g ce nters at vocational-technical colleges,
but this approach was quickly abandoned in favor of offer-
ing the co urse through individ ual poli ce d epartments.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
For the first few years of the co urse, officers were g ive n
pre-tes ts and post-tests designed to m easure both their ba-
sic bicycle safety knowledge and their attitud es abo ut en-
forcement for b icycle safety. The bicycle enforcement ac-
tivities of 10 officers from one department were eval u ated
for a five -year p eriod before the co urse and then o n e year
aft er the course . Feedback is solici te d from course partici-
pants following every course via a co urse evalua ti on form.
The number of officers trained is tra cked, and the future
bi cycle safety activities of some of the se officers are moni-
tored. Requests for co urses and prese ntati ons abo ut the
course are tracked both within and outside of the state.
Initiall y, it was difficult to sched ul e courses and to fill them
once sc h edul ed . It seemed logical to offer the course through
the vocational-technical colleges because thi s is w h ere po-
li ce officers receive thei r recruit sc hool and continuing edu-
ca tion training. But because of a lack of familiarity with the
topic and insufficient advertising, few of these courses were
su ccessful. Once the co urses were tran sferred to individual
departments they b ecame highly su ccessful. The success of
department-run co urses is primarily b ecause of incentives
and marketing. Hosting departments are offered free spots in
the course once a minimum number of students is reached.
Hosting departments adver tise th e co urse heavily to reach
thi s minimum and receive the free spo ts.
306 Case Stud ies Bicycle Co untermea sure Se le ct ion System
There now are three instruc tors running regu lar EBS
courses in the state , but reliable co urse data is ava il abl e
from only one instructor. That instructor, the course de-
veloper, h as conducted 15 co urses over the la st eight year s.
C lass sizes average approximately 11 students, and 167 of-
ficers h ave b een trained.
During the eight years that the co urse has b ee n offered,
the ty p es of officers participating has c hanged. For the
first few yea r s, most of th e attendees were new to the
law enfo rcem e nt field, had li ttl e, if any, bicycle exp er ience
and were se nt by their training officers. Over the years
this h as ch anged. More recently the course h as attracted
officers w ho ha ve experie nc e in law enforcem e nt (t hree
to five years plus), are already trained as bicy cl e patrol
officers (e ither by the Law Enforcement Bicycle Associa-
tion (LEBA) or IPMBA) and h ave requested the training.
Because of th e ir on-bike training and exp erie n ce, these
lat ter trai n ees h ave tended to do b etter in the course and
enjoye d it more.
Based o n pre-and post-test res u lts, officers atte nding EBS
signifi ca ntly improve both their bicycle safety knowledge
and their attitudes abo ut e nforcement fo r bicy cl e safety.
Typical co nm1 ents from officers include, "I w ish that I h ad
taken this course years ago," and "It would b e a good idea
to send eve ry officer thro ugh yo ur class." One sup e rvisor
commente d, "This is the fir st time that an officer came
back from a (class) and sh are d th e informatio n .... Thank
you for the presentation."
The bicycle enforcement activities of 10 officers from
one department were eva luate d for a five-year period be-
fore the co urse and then one year after the co urse. Before
the course, these officers had issued only two citati ons
for bicycle v iol ations. T h e yea r following the course, each
officer wro te an average of three to five citations. These
numbers do not include citations to motorists for bicycle
safety-rela te d stops or contacts that did not result in a ci-
tation. Those types of enfo rcem ent activities are b elieved
to have inc reased as well.
Following the ir participation in the EBS co urse, many
students h ave increased their l evel of participation in
bicycle sa fe ty activities. Some make more enforce-
ment contacts, others have so u ght out additional bi-
cycle safe t y training a nd h ave b ecome instructors for
this and other courses. One officer now sits o n the
board of directors for a sta t e bi cycle advocacy orga-
nization. A ll of these ac tiv iti es indicate an in creased
level of awareness and interest among police officers
of bicycling issues.
l Developing instru c tors for the co urse h as b een difficult.
Police officers, or forme r police officers, seem to b e the
most credible whe n teaching oth e r offi cers . But, be-
c au se of the ir workloads and sc h e dules, most poli ce of-
ficer s h ave little fr ee time for oth er jobs. Also , relative ly
few officers are inte res t e d in t eac hing bicycle safety to
o ther officers. An instructor co urse was condu c t ed in
1996 sh ortly aft e r EBS was d eve lope d ; however, none
of the parti c ip a nts h ad take n the co urse b efo re a nd only
two g r adua t es went on to t eac h co urses. Anoth er i n-
st ru c to r co urse was co nducted in 200 1 u sing o nl y for-
me r EBS gra duates. T h e six inst ru c tor ca ndidat es still
need to co-t eac h w ith the lea d instructor, but the n th ey
w ill b e certified.
EBS h as gained national recognition. Co urses or presenta-
tions ab out the course have b een made in Minneso ta, In-
diana, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Washington . Por-
tions of the course re centl y were inco rporated into a n ew
N ational High way Traffic Safety Administration co urse,
"Community Bicycle Safety: For Law Enforce ment."
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
The most effec tive means of introd u c ing bicycle safety
knowledge and ac ti vities in to law e nforceme nt likely is
t h ro u gh inclusio n of bi cy cl e safety training in poli ce re-
c ruit sc h ools a nd field training for new officers. Until thi s
happens, continuing e duca tion training, like EBS , w ill
have to fill the ga p. EBS training dramati cally improves
the knowledge, activ ity levels, and attitud es of poli ce of-
ficers about enforcement for bicycl e sa fety. This type of
training sh ould be incorpora te d into every law e n force-
ment d e p artment in the co untry.
COSTS AND FUNDING
The cos t of th e EBS co u rse is $90 to $100 p er officer, but
d e p artments that sponsor a co urse rece ive a discount, u su-
all y free spaces in the course . The co u rse is approved by
the Wisconsin Department of Ju sti ce and training dollars
can b e u sed to pay for attendees.
Funding for the in iti al d evelo pment of the c ourse in 1995
was provided by th e Wisco nsin D epartment of Trans-
portation-Bureau of Transportation Safety (WisDOT-
BOTS) u sing Federal Highway Safety (402) Funds. The
cos t was ab out $10,000. WisDOT-BOTS paid approxi-
m ately $10,000 to revise and update th e co urse mate rial s
in 2001.
REFERENCES
United States Dept. ofTransportation. Traffi c Safe ty Facts,
2001 : Pedacycl ists. Washington: N ati onal Highway Traf-
fic Safety Administration, 2002 .
WE B IKE , Enforcement For Bi cycle Safety. Wisco n sin D e-
partment ofTran sportation Madison. R ev ise d 2001.
CONTACTS
Peter Flu cke
P reside nt
WE B IKE
1144 H awthorn Rd.
Green Bay, WI 54313-5812
(920) 497-3196
(920) 497-3196 (Fax)
webike@aol.com
JoAnne Pruitt Thunder
Bicycl e/Pe d estrian Safety Prog ram Manager
Wisco nsin D epartment ofTransp ortati on -
Burea u ofTranspor tation Safety
4802 Sheboygan Avenue
PO Box 7936, RM . 951
M adison,WI 53707-7936
(608) 267-3 154
Bicyc le Countermeasure Selection Sys tem Case Studi es 307
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS #45
Bicycling Ambassadors and Bike Lane
Education
BACKGROUND
Mayo r Dal ey's Bi cy cling Ambassadors sp ent the sunune r
of 2002 teac hing safe cycling in Chicago in seve ral dif-
fe re nt venues, including C hi cago Park Distri ct d ay camps,
aft e r sc hool progra m s, neighborhood fes ti va ls, block par-
ti es, sp o rting eve nts and large ci ty festivals like the Taste
of Chicago and J azz Fest. The program, b ased on a similar
prog ram in Toronto, Canada, is part of the C hi cago D e-
partme nt ofTransportation's Bike Prog r am and was initi-
at ed the prev io u s sununer to e d u cate C hicagoa n s about
sa fe cycling, as well as to e n courage both childre n and
adults to cycle more. One of the Ambassa d o rs ca mpai gn s
focu se d o n edu ca tin g m otorists on th e prope r us e of bike
lan es on C hi cago streets.
C hi cago h as install ed 70 mil es of n ew bike lan es on city
streets , a m ajority of those within the p ast few yea r s. B e -
ca u se th ese are n ew facilities, many cycli sts and motorists
h ave misco n ce ptions ab o ut how bike lan es will affec t the
safety, ca p ac ity, and access of stree ts. These misco n ce ptions
co uld lea d to co nununi ty di sa pprova l of new bike lanes.
Many cy cli sts also complaine d that they did not feel sa fe
u sing bike lane s beca use motorists often drive in the m , u se
the m as a p ass ing lan e and do u ble -park in them , which
forces cy clists to swerve into th e trave l lan e. Since bike
lanes are on stre e ts that are highly trafficked by both mo-
torists and cyclists, m o torists' prac ti ces redu ced the feeling
of sa fety the bike lan es were m ea n t to engend e r.
308
Dave Glowacz, Director of Education , Chicagoland
Bicycle Federation
Christine Ranieri , Bicycle Ambassador , Chicago -
land Bicycle Federation
Case Stu die s Bi cyc le Countermeasure Se lectio n Syste m
COUNTERMEASURES
The Bicycling Ambassadors canvasse d 11 streets where
bike lanes h ad been ins talled in the last few years . On
eac h stre tc h , they v isi t e d every busin ess and talke d to em-
ployees about the bike lanes, asking them to e n co urage
the ir cu stomers not to drive or double-park in th e bike
lan es at th e ri sk of a $100 fin e. At bus in esses that agree d ,
Ambassa dors left literature for c usto m ers about bike lan es,
including "Bike Lan es: Fre qu e ntly A ske d Qu es tions" and
a fli e r titl e d "This is Not a Parking Spot: Bike Lan es are
for Bikes" w hi c h explaine d th e $100 fin e and why it is
d an ge rou s for cycl ists when motorists drive in bike lan es.
Several bu sinesses al so agree d to tap e th e fl ye rs in the ir
storefront windows.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
The Bicycling Ambassadors re cord e d: 1) eac h busin ess v is-
ited; 2) th e opinion expresse d by the store's employee(s);
3) whether or not th ey took th e literature; 4) whether
or not they agree d to di stribute it or post it; and 5) any
co nm1ents th e employees m ay have made about the bike
lan es or literature.
O f th e canvas sed businesses , 48 p e rce nt express ed a fa -
vorable opinion towards bike lan es and the tas k of en-
c ouraging the ir custo m e rs not to p ark or drive in them .
Twe n ty-eig ht p e rce nt h ad no opinion, eight p e rce nt h ad
a n ega tive o pinion and 19 p e rce nt m ad e no c onunent .
Seve n ty-fi ve p ercent of the businesses ag reed to take th e
lite rature, and of t h at 7 5 p e rce nt, 7 1 p e rce nt ag ree d to di s-
tr ibute it by eithe r putting it out n ea r t h eir cas h registe r s,
in lite ratu re rac k s or by posting fli e r s. Seve ral businesses
w e re interes te d in putting bike rac k s o n th e sid ewalk in
fro n t of th eir sh ops (th e C ity o f C h i cago install s rac ks
o n city p ro p e rty fr ee of c h arge) an d obtaining lo ading
zo n es to h el p eliminate double p arking. N ega tive com -
m e nts ce nte re d on bi cycli sts' re fu sal to follo w traffi c laws.
Po sitive co nm1 e nts ce nte red around: 1) the hope that bike
lan es wo uld re d u ce th e numbe r of p eop le cyclin g o n th e
sidewalk 2) ge neral e nthusias m fo r sa fe r cycling in the
city and 3) the d es ire to b e rega rd e d as a bicycl e-frie ndly
es tabli shme nt.
CONCL USIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
These res ults sugges t that the busin ess ca nva ssing p roj ec t
should b e co ntinue d by the Bicy cling Ambassa dors n ext
su mme r. It is effe cti ve fo r seve ral reas ons. First , t h e cam-
p aign direc tl y ed u ca tes o n e or m o re indiv iduals work-
ing in eac h b u sin ess. Sec o n d, since most b ike lan es are
on w ell -traffi cke d stree ts w it h a lar ge numbe r of busi -
n esses, c u sto m er s co uld see th e fl ye r s in eve ry sh o p they
fr e q u e nt o n th e block , and reali ze that res p ec ting bike
lan es is a co n ce rn for busin ess own ers in the area. This
impresses cycli sts, e duca t es moto rists and ca n only work
in t h e busin ess' favor. Finall y, p er so nal contact allows busi-
n es s ow n ers to ai r con cerns an d as k important q u es ti o n s
about iss u es su ch as: loa din g zone p ermits, li fts on ru sh
hour p arking res t ri c ti o n s, laws c oncerning cyclists, and
h ow to ge t a bike rac k install ed in front of the ir busi-
n ess. T h e campaign mig ht b e m o re effec tive i f lite rature
was regularly re ple nish e d in th e businesses that were am e-
n abl e to acce pting and di splay ing it. Finally, the ca mpaign
would be most e ffec tive if th e "Bike Lan es: Fre qu e ntl y
A ske d Q u es ti o n s" lea fl e t co n siste ntly w as p lace d on cars
p arke d along bike lan e stree ts, reinforcin g the info rmati o n
see n in the sh o p s.
An o b stacl e that o ft e n ca m e up in this proj ec t was n ot
b e in g able to co mmunica t e w ith non-Engli sh sp ea ke rs.
While o n e o f th e Bicycling Ambassa d o rs sp oke Sp ani sh
and t h e two fli e r s we re p r inte d in Sp anish , it still w as di f-
fi c ult to conm1Uni ca te if th e Sp anish-sp ea king ambassa -
d or was not prese nt or if anoth e r lan gu age w as spoke n . It
wo u ld be more e ffec tive if those who sp eak th e langu ages
of th e particular stree t o r n e ighborhood w ere hire d to
conduc t the ca nvass ing, and if liter ature was p rinte d m
seve ral lan guages commo nly sp o ke n in th e city.
COSTS AND FUNDIN G
Funding for th e B icycli n g Ambassa dor progra m pre-
d o mina ntl y ca m e throu g h a g r ant from the Illino is D e-
p artme nt of Tran sportation , Div ision of Traffic Safe ty
and m at chi n g fund s fr o m the C hi cago D e p artme nt of
Tra n spo r tati o n , Burea u of Traffi c. Office sp ace, training
a nd su pport ca m e fr o m th e C hi cago land B icycl e Fe d-
e ration. Kry pto nite L ock s, B o b T r ail e r s, America n Au -
t o m o b il e A ssoc ia tion-Chi cago M o tor C lub, an d P lane t
Bike also sp onso re d t h e p rog ram .
REFERENCES
M ayo r Dal ey 's B icycling Ambassa dors 2 001 R eport
CONTACTS
B e n Gombe rg
Bicy cle Prog ram C oordinato r
C hi cago Departme nt ofT ran sportation
(3 12) 744-8093
b gomb erg@cityo fc hi cago.o rg
D ave G lowacz
Direc to r of Edu ca tion
C hicagoland Bicy cl e Fe d e ration
(3 12) 427-3 32 5 ext. 29
glow@biketraffi c.org
Bicycl e Cou nt ermeasure Se lec ti on Sy stem Ca se Stud ies 30 9
DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA #46
A Comprehensive Child Bicycle Safety
Program
BACKGROUND
BASELINE INJURY INCIDENCE
Preliminary resea rch on bicycle-related injury mortali ty
and morbidity was conducted by th e Florida Department
of H eal th 's Injury Preve nti on Program Office (TIPPO) in
Duval County during th e end of 19 94 and the beginning
of 1995. Early assess m ent reveal e d a dispropor tionately
high incidence of bicycle injuries among the 5-to 14-
year-old age population in Duval Co unty.This population
gro up ranked number one with 35 p ercent of all n o nfatal
bi cycle-related injuries during 1994. Only four of th e 115
injured childre n in the same age gro up were wearing h el-
m e ts d u ring th e c ra sh event (1). This represents only a 3
p erce nt helmet u se rat e for the nonfatal injured gro up and
no h elmet use among th e fo ur fa tahti es that year.
BASELINE HELMET USE
In 1996 the Florida Department of Transportation ap -
proved a grant for Florida State University to co ndu c t a
Florida Bicycle H elm et Use Survey (2), which incl ude d Du-
val County. The 1996 survey revea le d th e overall bi cycle
helm e t use rate for all ages in D uva l Co unty to b e 19
percent (t h e seco nd lowes t rate among the eight co unti es
in the study). The sa m e report revea led a 14 percent ob-
served h elmet use rat e for the 5-to 14-year-old age group
in Duval County-th e same pop ul ati on group that ex-
perienced the hi gh es t inj ury rate.
310
Stephen M. McCloskey, Program Manager, The
Injury Prevention Program Office, Duval County
Health Department, Jacksonville, FL
Radley C. Remo, M .P.H., Coordinator for the
Center for Health Statistics , Duval County Health
Department, Jacksonvi l le, FL
Carol Conroy , MPH , PhD., Director of Epidemiolo-
gy Division, Duval County Health Department, FL
Case Stud ie s Bicycle Cou nt ermeasure Selection System
COUNTERMEASURES
ACTION PLAN
With the problem clearly defined, Florida Department
of Health's Inj ury Prevention Program Office (T IPPO)
in Duval Co u nty drew up a project design with the aim
of increasing h elmet use among 5 to 14 year olds in the
co unty as its p rimary goal. Our goal was formalized and
reads, "To incre ase use of bike h elmets in D u va l Co unty
Public E lem e ntary Schools' aged children to at least 50
percent by D ecember 1999 as measured by baseline and
ann u al observa ti onal surveys." A work plan with sched-
uled milestones and activities was then drafted to track
the implementation progress. Three cou ntermeasures to
apply to the at-risk population group were c hosen based
on efficacy studi es found in the literature.The three coun-
tern1easures were:
• Insti tuti o nali zing a sc hool-based bike safety program
with e mphasis on knowledge-based education and
skills training, including p roper helmet use;
• Seeking bicycle helmet legislation and policy support;
• And providing and pro m oting one of the most effec-
tive injury-prevention techno logies, b ike helmets, at
discounted or no cost to sc h ool-age c hildren.
,
1
ACCESSING HUMAN AND ECONOMIC CAPITAL
To ac complish o ur obj ec ti ves, we knew w e would n ee d broad
commu ni ty support and a strong coalition of working part-
n ers.We we re for tun ate to gai n su ccess fi.tl , progress ive bu y-in
from a vas t array of di sc iplines with an interes t in m.iti ga t-
ing th e probl em of bi cy cl e-related injur ies to children . B o th
dire ct fin ancial , an d in-ki nd supp ort, including staff sal ari es,
w ere and are an imp ortant par t of thi s pro gram .
"Show Me the Money !"
Primary underwriting h as come from the Florida D e -
partme nt o fTransp o rtation State Safe ty Offi ce with ap-
prox imately 50 p erce nt o f th e mone tary support ove r th e
e ight-yea r history of thi s proj ec t. The sec ond larges t cas h
comm.itme nt to the proj ec t came from Brooks H ealth
Foundati o n w hi c h is affi li ated with Brooks R e habilita-
tion Hospital. (A c umulative summary of the finan ci e r s o f
the proj ec t is li ste d o n th e la st p age .)
In-Kind
The seco nd cr iti cal fisc al supp ort el e m e nt for thi s proj ect
is in-kind do nations.T h e Duva l Co unty School Board and
the Duval County H ealth D e p artme nt ca rry the li o n 's sh are
of day -to -day staff all oca tion by providing proj ec t adm.in.i s-
tration staff and teac h e rs for th e bicy cl e safety c urri culum
at th e 103 elem e ntar y sc hools and 26 m.iddl e sc h ools in
Duval County, Florida, ove r the p as t eight years.
A pivotal p os ition t o kee p the impl e m e ntation process
in the sc h o ols going is th e sc ho o l board's bike co n-
tact/proj ec t c oordinat o r. This p e r son wo rks fu ll time o n
m akin g sure that th e sc h ools are imple m e nting the bi ke
sa fety c ur r iculum, sc h e du li n g th e trail e r s, c ondu c ting
instru c t or trainin gs, a nd ac ts as a li aison for co mmuni ca -
tions b e twee n all the co re p artners . In addition , the Fl eet
Man ageme nt Div isio n o f th e sc h ool sys te m is inva l u able
to the proj ect be ca u se they st o re and tran sp o rt all th e
e quipme nt th e sc h oo ls n ee d t o co ndu c t the proj ec t at
th e ir in d iv idual schools.
Garnering Political Will
A third level of support w as so u ght in th e form of coali-
ti o n s, si n gle orga niza tion ch ampi o n s and support groups
th at would b e res ponsive to th e cause of re du c ing bike
injuri es in Duval County. At the lo cal leve l, TIPPO h as
b ec ome an ac ti ve m embe r in thre e c o alitions that h ave
ves te d inte res ts in th e bi cy cl e -injury probl em. These
g roups ar e the J ac k sonvill e P edi atric Injury C ontrol Sys -
t e m , Duval Co unty C o mmunity Traffi c Safety, and The
Bicy cle /Pedes trian Adv iso ry Comm.ittee w ithin the m ay-
or's o ffice. These gro up s provid e exp e rtis e in th e area s o f
injury preve nti o n among childre n, traffi c-re late d injury
preve ntion knowled ge, and a c onnec tion to th e lo cal gov -
e rning body.
Local Champions
The oth er c h ampions on the lo cal sce n e are to o numer-
o u s to mentio n , but are no less important to th e who le
m.i ss io n. They co mprise indiv idu als w ith a pass io n for the
p ro bl em , priva te e nterprises that are se n sitive to giving
b ac k to th e c onununity in this form , bike club s, the hous-
ing authority, bike shops, th e J ac kso nvill e J agu ars footb all
tea m 's foundati o n , hospitals, se rv ice clubs, th e city p arks
and rec re ati o n d e p artme nt, law e nforce m e nt age n cie s, re-
h abilitation hospitals a n d clini cs, brain injury ass ociations,
m e di cal assoc iations, law firms, aca d emia , phys ical e du ca -
ti o n ass oci ati ons, and publi c h ea lth ass o ciati o ns.
State and National Support
Statew ide organi za tions and state and n ation al agenci es
including The N ational High way T raffi c Sa fety Adm.in-
istrati o n , th e Fe d e ral High way A dm.ini strati on and th e
Ce nte r for D isease Contro l & Preve ntio n h ave also sup-
p o rte d this effo rt.
CURRICULUM
T IPPO sel ec te d a bike safety c urriculum d evelope d by
th e University of Florida b eca use of its stro n g emphas is
o n skills training, a hi ghl y ra te d p eer-review e d c urricu-
Bi cycle Counte rm ea sur e Selec tion Sy stem Ca se Studi es 311
lum, its p e rsp ec tive on bi cycle safety in th e context of
all traffic safety (pedestrian to pre-dr ive rs ed u ca tion), its
two-day certifi ca tion re quire m e nt for all instruc tors, and
the proximity of the Univers ity for technical support. The
c urric ulum, th e Florida Traffi c and Bicycl e Safety Education
Progra m is g rad e-sp ecifi c and is m ea nt to build on the pre-
vious years knowled ge and skill s ba se (see http :/ /www.
d c p. ufl.edu / ce nte rs /traffi csafetye d / for more informa-
tion). The ultimate proj ect v ision and mi ssion is that the
knowledge and skill s learned in the ea rl y years will also
transfer to sa fe motor vehicle driving b eh aviors w h e n th e
children ge t old er.
INSTRUCTOR S
Since 19 9 5 , over 175 phys ical e duca tion teac h e r s and
sc h ool r eso urce officers h ave b ee n trained and ce rtifi ed
w ith th e classroom and the on-bike skill s qualifications
n eed e d to deliver the c urriculum to th e c hildre n during
phys ical e duca ti on clas ses in the 103 sc h ools.
EQUIPMENT
Thirtee n c u stom-d es igned (by TIPPO) transpo rtabl e self-
contained training modules (tra il e rs) were purchased to
house bicy cl es, h elmets, st ree t sign s, videos, P.A. systems,
c urric ul ar m anuals, teaching aids, e tc. to servi ce and ro-
tat e among the 103 el ementa ry sc h ools in the co unty.
The fleet management di visio n of th e sc h ool sys t e m pro -
v ides transport of the trai le r s to and from the ele m e n -
tary and middle sc hools. A sc hool wareh o u se is u se d to
store e quipme nt between deliveries to the var io u s sc hools
and during sc h ool breaks. T h e sc hool sys tem provid es the
m ainten an ce of most of th e proj ec t e quipment , b ut so m e
bicycle rep airs are contracte d o ut to lo cal bike shops.
LEGISLATION AND POLICY APPLIED TO THE
TARGET POPULATION
In 1996 , TIPPO provided sta ti sti cal data, cos t of injur ies, and
cost b en e fit analy sis of helmets to inform and educate the
312 Case Studies Bi cycle Countermeasure Selection System
state legislators b efore their vote on bi cycl e h elme t 17 gis la-
tion . Florida p assed bi cy cl e h elmet legislation for children
unde r the age of 16, w hi ch took effec t in 1997 . TIPPO al so
draft ed a Helmet Proclamation, w hi ch was adopted and
signed by the Duval County Sch ool B oard Pres ide nt and su-
p erinte ndent of schools. The proclam ati on the n was posted
at all elem entary sc h ools in 199 7. The irtjury preventi on staff
worked with the Duval C o u n ty publi c sc hool c urric ulum
w riters to c raft a bi cycle safe ty edu ca tion standard that se rve d
as a countyv.rid e m anda te to provide th e h ealth d ep ar tment's
bike safety proj ec t in all 103 elementary sc hools. In 1998 the
city o f J ac ksonvill e passed a C ity Coun cil Resolution recog-
nizing the h ealth department's bike safety proj ec t.
PROVISION AND ACQUISITION OF HELMET S
APPLIED TO THE TARGET POPULATI ON
O ve r 20,000 h elmets h ave b een so ld and distribu ted wi th
"h an ds -o n " prop er fit training thro u gh o ut the ele m entary
sc h ools of J acksonville in th e last seven yea rs.A uniqu e sys -
tem of helme t acq ui siti on was d esigne d to b e self-contained
and modular like the e du ca tional trail e r compon en t.Twen-
ty-two kits w e re assem bl ed that contai n e d samples of the
h elmets, th ree types of sal es p rocedures, order fo rms, and
m eas uring instruc ti ons. T IPPO th en p rocesses the sc hools'
helme t orde rs and arra n ges direct shipme nt from the ven-
dor to the individual sc hools. Scholars hip program s were
al so designe d for eac h sc hool, and included in the helmet
kit . Th e h ealth d e partment was abl e to purch ase h elm e ts
at low cos t through its competitive bid pro cess. R ather
than give the h elmets away fr ee, h elmets w e re sold to th e
childre n for $4 to $5, about half th e price that the h ealth
d e p artme nt paid . Subsidizing th e h elmet cos t rath er than
giving the m away, enable d the County to provide low-cos t
h elmets to more of the County 's at-risk populati o n , ap-
proximately 50 p e rcent inste ad of 25 p ercent that would
h ave b een poss ibl e with free h elmets.
Oth er proj ect reinforceme nt over this p e riod h as 111-
clude d:
• H elme t c ontrac ts b e twee n d e ntists, kids, and pare nts
co ndu c te d in d ental o ffi ces
• Implem e ntatio n of a "sa fe ty v ill age" in J ac kso nvill e
that in 200 1-2002 trained 2000 Pre-K to second-grad e
c hildre n during field trips w ith p ro p e r helme t fit and
o n -bike riding thro u gh a miniature town that includes
working traffic li ghts, railro ad cross ings, e tc.
• Produ ction and air ing of tv.ro helme t publi c se rvi ce
announcem ents reac hing a vi ewing a udi e n ce o f ove r
180,000 house h o lds through the local NBC, ABC,
C BS , PBS and FOX affi li at e TV stations
I
~
I
1
Helmet ince ntive project with sc h ool cross ing gu ards
rewa rding h elmeted kids with age -appropriat e prizes
• Weekend bike rodeos conducted with our conununity
education trail er that is sp ecially e quipp e d with tri-
cy cl es, bicycles with trainin g w h e el s, adult-siz e bikes
and a wide r an ge of age-specific support m at e rials.
All of the above activi ti es and products are specifically
planne d to ra ise conununi ty awareness of bicycle safety
and injury preve ntion. Therefore, an intensive multifa ce t-
ed proj ect aime d at the high es t risk populati o n combined
w ith a multi-leve l aware n ess campa ign aimed at crea ting a
co mmunity bike safety norm.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
KIDS TRAINED WITHIN THE ELEMENTARY AND
MI ODLE SCHOOLS
There h ave been 1 15,000 c hildren (the target populati on
is ab out 64,000 childre n in any g iven yea r) e duca te d and
traine d in proper h elmet fit and pedes tri an and on-bike
sa fety skills. Ma ny of these c hil dren h ave received annu-
al bike safety training throughout the ir elementary and
middle school g rad es. Program reviews and a udits su ggest
that the number of childre n educated h as ac tually b een
und e res timate d .
About 75 percent of the elem entary schools have par-
ticipate d in the proj ec t at leas t once, and so m e annu all y,
w hil e an estimat e d 25 percent of the sc hools h ave not
participated in the bike sa fety curriculum or helme t dis-
tribution. Furth er study to determin e poss ible barri ers to
sc hool participati on, and to ga in hi gh e r co mpliance to
repo rti ng protocols, are p art ofTIPPO's on-going qu ali ty
improvement goals.
We eval u at ed data from pre-and post-interve ntion annu-
al o b se r vational surveys (1996 -2002) to d e termine if the
inte rve nti on (bicycle h elme t sa les and bi cycle safety edu-
catio n) increase d the use and proper u se of bicycle hel-
mets. W e also compared exp e rimental sc h ools (exp osed to
the inte rve ntion) against co ntrol sc hools (no t exp osed to
the intervention). Although data were collected on other
bicycle safety b e h av io r s (s u ch as sca nning, signaling and
wearing bright visible clo thing), this case study focuses
only on helme t us e and proper u se .
Data were coll ected at sc hool lo ca ti o n s for approxi -
mately 45 minutes b efore sc h ool started or immediately
aft e r sc h ool e nded. To m axi m.i ze the numb er of obser-
va tions, sc hools w ere o b se rved during the sc h ool year's
warm weather months (A pril through June). Three Duva l
County Health Dep artment employees and o n e Duval
County School Board employee coll ec ted the data.
PRE-INTERVENTION VS. POST-INTERVENTION
In 1996 there were a total of 735 children obse rve d at
school sites. Of those a to tal of 93 wore a h elmet (12 .7
percent), an even lower percentage than the results from
the stat ewide observational survey. Over the n ext six year s,
the bicycle h elme t u sage ra tes ranged from as high as 63.9
p ercen t in 1998 to as low as 43 .8 p erce nt in 200 1. All of
these ye ar s have sh own a grea ter helme t u se ra t e than
the base line. The number of bicyclists observed fo r those
same yea r s r ange d from 409 to 582, eac h a sm alle r sampl e
than the b aseline yea r. The m e th odology u se d for the sur-
veys was the same year-to-year exce pt for modificati on
of age g roups over different yea r s. Middle sc ho ol children
are included in the yea rly res ults even though they were
not exposed to the c urriculum until 2001. The observed
increase s in helmet use might, therefo re, b e understat e d ,
al though it remains to b e see n if middle sc h ool students
will show the same degree of increase in helme t us e as the
elementary -aged children.
There was a signifi ca nt increasing trend in helmet u se
across all locations (see figure 1). Only children in ele-
mentary and middle schools observed riding to or from
school are included in this figure. Figure 1 sh ows a rapid
increase from baseline to the n ext inm1ediate yea r then
shows the rates start to level off at ab o ut 44 p erce nt for
2001 and 2002.
Data on prop er u se of helme ts were ava il abl e from 1997
to 2002 . B eca u se the data were not disaggregated by age
gro up and observation location , p roper h elme t u se w as an-
alyzed for the total sa mple (including children an d adults)
and not by observati on lo ca tion . Baseline data were from
the 1996 observatio nal survey conducted by school b oard
transportati on specialists. Proper use as a percent of total
u se among all ages dropped dramati call y from base line to
1997 and then again from 1997 to 1998, from 87 p erc ent to
4 7 percent (figure 2). Proper u se remain ed about the same
for seve ral years, and then climb ed dramati cally for 2001
and 20 02 to 73 and 77 p ercent, res p ec tively. Altho ugh total
use peaked in 1998 and gradually leveled off, pro p er u se
sh owe d a so m ewhat co unter-trend. If sc hoo l-aged children
showe d similar trends to the all-a ges da ta, the n the overall
res ult would b e an increase in the proporti on of children
properly wearing h elme ts from ab o ut 11 p ercent at b ase -
line to 34 p ercent in 2002 . It is likely, howeve r, that children
wear helme ts improperl y so m ewh at more oft en than d o all
ages. Nevertheless, the res ults are encourag ing that the re
h as been an increas ing trend in prop e r h elme t u se .
Bicycle Countermeasure Se lection System Case Studies 313
Bicycle Helmet Usage Rates at Elementary and
Middle Schools , 1996-2002, Duval County
eo ~--------~--------------~
60 +-~~-==-""===--~=---'"L-~..-~~~~~~~~
40 1--" .. mctu .. ,.Rote. I
20 +-=r-~~~~~~~~~~~-----i
0 +-"""'-'......-----,----,----,----,--'---,---l
1995• 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Figure 1. *Note : Bicyc le Helmet Use was calcu la ted for both e l-
ementary and middle schools over al l yea rs even though the first
five years of this pro j ect targeted onl y e lementary sc ho o l chi l-
dren. Proper Bicyc le He lm et Use, is ca lculated as perce ntage of
those wear i ng he lm ets. 1 996 was the ba se l ine year; data from
obse rvati ona l s urvey. Middle school c hil dren were not exposed
to the in t erv e ntion unt il 2001 (200 2 survey results).
100
BO
60
40
20
0
91-• 87
Proper Helmet Usage Rates ,
Duval County 1996-2002
73
..... , .-4g_ , 45
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
_,._Proper Use •• % of
Totot Un
Figure 2 . *Note: Pr oper h elmet use i s ca lc u l ated as the per-
cen t of those using helmets , for bot h e lementary and mid-
dle schools ove r a l I yea rs, although the first five years of th is
project was aimed o nly at elemen tary school c hildren . Midd le
sch oo l children we re not exposed t o th e intervention unt i l
2001 (2002 s urvey re su It s). 1996 is the base I i ne year .
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
These res ults su gges t that our m ulti-faceted bicycle sa fe -
ty program h as b een su ccess ful in increasing helmet u se
among childre n. Observa ti ons indicate substan tial increases
in h elmet use amon g chil dren riding to and from sc h ool,
altho u gh rat es h ave level ed off si n ce 199 8, possibly due to
l ess enforcement of the h elme t law in recent yea r s. The
eval u ati on rel ates to the effec t of implem enti ng a sa fety
program in a conununi ty (D u val County ) and does not
address w h e th e r there were ch anges in b e h avio r in the
individual children receiving the safety training. The re-
fore, additional evaluation aimed at comparing individual
ch anges in behavior (e .g., u se of h elmets, proper u se of
helmets, safe ridin g skill s) among children receiving the
trai ning and those not tra in e d n eeds to be comple te d to
more p recise ly m eas ure the su cce ss of the safety program.
Additionally, b eca use there we re seve ral components to the
interve ntion (di stributing low cos t helmets , h elme t use e d-
314 Case St udie s Bicyc le Co unterm ea sure Se le ction Sys tem
u ca tion , fitting instructio n , and riding safety) it is important
to eval u ate the different components . There m ay b e o ther
facto rs, including a helmet law that went into effec t J anu ary
1 , 1997, and a sc h ool pro cl am ati on end orsing h elme t use
that al so contributed to the increase in h elm e t u se . Con-
sidering these factors would b e an important n ext step to
eval u ate the su ccess of this safety program.
The res ults of the compreh e nsive community-wide effo rt
are promising and illustrate the n eed t o co ntinue the safety
program w hil e condu cting a more r igoro u s evalu ation.
From 1995 to the present , the h ealth department's Injury
Preve ntion Office h as ga ine d a progressive li st of co ll abo-
ra tors w ho are making a difference that likely would not
h ave been ac hieved by any single agency or entity. All the
co ntributors, great and small , are equally important t o the
success of this proj ect. O ur philosophy is that the smallest
contributor could be the difference between li fe and d ea th
with a child that they direc tl y o r indirec tl y affec te d .
COSTS AND FUNDING
Summary of all financial support , 1995 -2002
FOOT Grants (1995-2 002) $440 ,000
TIPP O Proje ct Di rector (DCHD In -kind) 75 ,000
TIPPO Proj ec t I mpleme ntation (DCHD 43 ,000 In-kind)
BROOKS Health Fou ndation Donation 100 ,000
He lm et Sales Revenue (1995-2002) 93,000
Duval County School Board (in -k i nd ) 140 ,000
Cente r for Dise ase Con trol Gr ants 60 ,000
Po rt of Jacksonv il le Pilot Club 5 ,000
Misc Donations 20,000
Grand Total $976,000
Note: Duval County H ealth D ep artment and Duval
County Sc hool Board in-kind fi gures are con servative
es tima t es. H elm e t sales reve nues are rei nveste d for co n-
tinuous h elme t p roc urem ent. Misce ll aneo u s donations
include, but are not limited to , su ch support m ate rials
as surgical caps for preve ntion of li ce transmissi on , field
markers, vo lunteer service h ours, et c.
REFERENCES
1. Flori da Vital Statistics A nnual R eport . Stat e of Florida
D e p artment of H ealth Office ofVital Statistics . 2001.
2. Sapolsky, B.S., M assey, BL. Flor ida Bicycle H elm et Use
Survey, A Report for the Florida Department offrans-
portation State Safety Office, Project # PS-96-08-
03-01 , Department of Communica tion Fl o rida State
University, Tall ah asee, Fl orida. September 1, 1996 .
3. U.S . Department of H ea lth and Human Services.
H ea lthy People 2000, National H ealth Promotion and
Disease Preve ntion Objectives , 1991.
4. Duval Co unty Public H ea lth Unit . Materna l and Child
H ea lth Five -Year Plan. 1995.
5. J ac qu es LB. 1994. "R ates of bicycle h elmet use in
an affiuent Michigan Co un ty.'~ Publi c H ea lth R eports;
10 9(2) :296-301.
6. Towmey JG, B evis MC, M cGibbon CA. 2001. "Asso -
cia tion between ad ult an d child assoc iati ons be tween
bicycle helmet us e: Results of an o bserva tional sur-
vey." MCN, American J ourna l of Maternal/Ch il d Nursing;
26(5):272-277.
7. Kinney L, M cCloskey S. 1997 . Duval County bicycle
helm et and child bicycle riding behav ior in traffic observa-
tional study. (Availabl e from the Duval County H ealth
Department/Injury Prevention P rogram, 900 Univer-
sity Blvd. North,Jacks onville, FL 322 1 1.)
CONTACT
Step h en M . McC!oskey
Project Direc tor
Duval Co un ty H ealth Department
The Injury Prevention Program Offic e
900 University Blvd. N., STE 210 D
Jacksonville , FL 32211
(90 4) 665-2308
Stephen_McC!o skey@doh.s tate.fl.us
Bi cycle Countermeasure Selec tion System Case Studies 315
VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA #47
Share the Road: Motorist/Bicyclist Traffic
Education and Enforcement Programs
BACKGROUN D
Most confli cts an d collisions b etween motor ve hicles and
cycli sts res u lt w h e n e ith er a drive r or cyclis t violat es a
traffic rule or law, including ru les th at motorists must
observe that re fl ec t cycli sts' right to u se public roadways.
Common violations that ca n ca use these p ro bl e m s in-
clude failure to stop or yield when re quire d , following
too closely b e hind another ve hicl e, ill egal turns and p ass-
ing, and cycling at night without adequate li ghting. Traffic
rule violations by cyclists reduce res pect for cy cling as a
le g itimate form of tran sp ortation , and can res ult in publi c
poli cies that proh ibit or discourage cy clin g under certain
conditions. Traffi c rule v io lations by motorists discourage
p eopl e from cy cling .
T his situation sugges ts that one of t h e most effec tive bi cy -
cl e sa fety counte rmeasures, and a way to increase respect
for cy clists and e n c oura ge cycl in g, is to implement "Sh are
th e Road" prog rams and m at erials whic h provide bi cy cl e
traffi c safety informati o n and e nforcement direc ted at
both motorists and cycli sts . The goals and o bj ec tives of
such programs are to:
Improve drive rs' and cycli sts' knowledge and obser-
va nc e of traffic rules as they apply to cycling.
R e duce conflicts and collisions b e tv.reen motorists and
cy clists.
In c rease re spect and courtesy b e twee n motorists and
cyclists.
In c rease unde rstanding of cyclists' right to us e publi c
roads.
This case study summar izes so m e of the b est pra c ti ces in
"Sh are the Road " program s and mate rial s that teac h and
enforce bicy cl e -related traffic rules. M any organizations
316
Todd Lit man , Di rector , Victo ri a Tr anspo rt Pol icy
I nst itute
Case Studies Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System
h ave d eve lop e d "Share th e Road " traffic e du ca tion and
e nforcement programs and materials. These may include:
• Brochures and booklets.
Cycling route ma ps that also in corporat e "Sh are the
Road" information .
Trai ning workshops .
M ass adverti sin g messages (billboards, radi o, television,
e tc.).
Special police training and bi cycle law e nforce m e nt
prog rams.
Sponsoring organizations include gove rnment age n cies,
bicycle clu b s, transportation advocacy organizations,
c hildren's sa fe ty programs, and var io u s co mbinations of
th ese. Since traffi c laws are es tabli sh ed at the stat e o r pro-
vinc ial level, and sometimes have local variations, such
m at e ri als are u sua ll y imple m e nted at the stat e, provincial,
or lo ca l leve l.
The quality of these prog rams and materials va r ies, d e-
pending on the perspective, knowledge, and resources of
sponso r in g organi za tions. Important fac tors include:
• Accuracy-materials re fl ec ts current rules and laws.
Clarity-the importan t co n ce pts are easy to under-
stand and apply.
Accessibility-programs/m aterials are attract ive and
eas ily avai lable to the inte nd e d audie nce.
As muc h as possib le, information sh o uld b e present ed in a
positive manner. For example, rath er than convey ing the
message, "Cycling is d an gero u s. Watch out!" it is b e tter
to emphas iz e that "Cycling ca n b e easie r and safer if yo u
follow th e rules w h en yo u rid e." A "Share the Road" bro-
c hure is most effective if it is phys icall y attra ctive w ith in-
teres tin g g raphic images and simple but acc urate wording
that explains k ey co n ce pts in a friendly, non-threa tening
manner. Su c h a b roc hure must b e w idely distribute d so
that the informati on di sse minates through th e co mmu-
nity.
Materials sh o uld target both moto rists and cycli sts. For ex-
ample, some "S h are the Road " bro chures h ave informati on
for motorists on one side and information for cycli sts on
the other. Of course, many people w ill read both sides, b e -
ca u se they are interested in both perspectives. Special ma-
terials m ay be ne cessary to targ et particular gro up s, su ch as
children or p eo ple w h o sp ea k a different language.
Occasionally, motorists or publi c officials ass ume that cy-
clist s have less right to use publi c roads than motorists, ei-
ther b eca u se bicycles are small er and more v ulnerabl e, be-
ca us e they are use d by c hildre n or b eca u se they do not p ay
fu el taxes and ve hicl e registration fees. Litman (2000) and
Hill (1986) respond to these claims. They p oint out that:
• The Uniform Vehicle Cod e (UVC, the basis for m os t
traffi c laws) states, "Every p erso n propelling a ve hicle
by human power o r riding a bicycle shall h ave all the
rights and all the duties applica bl e to the drive r of any
other ve hicle."
• Most traffic la ws do not differenti at e b etwee n bi cycles
and other ve hi cles.
• B eca u se motor vehicl es impose significant risks to
bicyc li sts and p edes trian s, the UVC gives drive rs the
res ponsi bility to "avoid c olliding with an y p e d es trian
or any person p ropelling a human-powered ve hicl e
and ... exercise prop e r preca ution upon obse rving any
c hild or any obviously confused, incapacitated or in-
toxica ted person."
• Cyclists pay an equal portion of lo ca l taxes that are
u se d t o fund lo cal roads, which is where th e major-
ity of cycling o ccurs. Since cy clin g ge n e rally takes less
ro ad sp ace, ca u ses less wear-and-tear on road s than
moto r ve hicl es and imposes relatively sm all external
cos ts, cyclis ts tend to pay more than th eir fair share of
roadway cos ts as calc ulate d by roadway cos t all oca ti on
methodo logies (Litman , 2000).
COUNTERMEASURES
Following are examples of so m e exempl ary bro chures and
print m aterial s and e duca tion and e nforce m ent programs
for helping motorists and cycli sts b e tter sh are the road .
BROCHURES
The D rive Right /Cycle Rig ht brochure d evel oped by
the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC,
1999) is a good example of "Share th e R oa d " materi al
that provides information for b oth drivers and cy cli sts.
The brochure ha s "Drive Right" on one sid e and "Cycle
Right" on the o th e r, with simple drawings that illu strate
these conce pts (http ://www.i cb c.co m or http ://www.
ri c hmond.ca / se rvi ces/ ttp / cy cling/ n ew s/ driveright.htm).
Another good example of this type mate rial is the "Shar -
ing the Road" tip s d evelop ed by the Lea gu e of American
Bicyclists , ava il a bl e at http :/ /www.bikeleague.or g /ac-
ti on/ sharetheroa d . php.
TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT-BICYCLE
DIVERSION PROGRAMS
Appropriate traffic law e nforce m ent ca n al so help pre -
ven t co nfli c ts and collisions b etween bicyc li sts and mo-
torists and ca n instill lifelong traffi c safety habits in young
p eople. Childre n who sp e nd yea r s violating bicy cle traffi c
laws with impunity are b e ing poorly pre pare d to become
res ponsible car drive r s.
Safety exp erts recommend targeting the following cycle
traffic rul e violatio n s:
Motorists failure to y ield or stop for p ed es trians and
cy clists when require d by traffi c law
• Excessive motor vehicle sp eed
Intoxicated drivers and cycli sts
• Cyclists failure to yield when required by traffic law
Cyclists riding in the w rong direc tion, against traffic
Cyclis ts riding at night w ith inadequate lighting
An effec ti ve enfo rce ment progra m must overcome var-
iou s b arrie r s. Poli ce offi ce r s m ay b e unfamiliar with
traffic rul es and laws as th ey a ppl y to bicycles, cyclists'
rights to u se the ro a dway, or how to e ffe c ti ve ly enforce
bi cycl e traffic laws. N onmo torize d traffi c violations ,
particu larly by c hildren , t e nd to b e c onsidere d a low
priority by officials and th e ge n e r al community. Stan-
d a rd traffi c fin es may a pp ear excessive or inappropri-
at e for c hildren. Cyclists and p e d es trians may ignore
c itations unless police d e p artme nts d eve lop a suitable
pro cess ing sys t e m.
A bicycle "diversion" prog ram allows offending cy clists to
take a cy cling safety workshop as an alternative to paying a
traffic fin e (i.e., they are "dive rte d " from the co urt system).
Poli ce departments ca n run such works hops internally or
contrac t with an outside expert . Su ch program s are popu-
lar beca u se they emphasize safety rather than punishment
and h elp develo p cooperation among poli ce, pare nts, and
bicycle sa fety ad voca te s. Scout tro ops, sc hool gro ups and
p are nts often voluntarily atte nd th e safety workshops.
E xamples of co mmunities with well-establi shed and ef-
Bicycle Coun ter measure Selec tion System Case Studies 317
fe c tive bicycle diversion training programs include Tempe,
AZ; University of California at Davis throu gh Transporta-
tion and Parking Services; and Huntington Beach, CA;
as well as Walnut Creek and Brentwood in Contra Costa
County, CA. H e re is how such programs typically work:
• Cyclist is ti cketed for v iolating a traffi c law.
If the cyclist is a child , police send a standard letter to
their parents describing the violation, emphasizing the
importance of observing bicycle traffic laws for the
sake of safety, as king the parent to bring the c hild to a
bi cycle safety workshop (typ icall y offered monthly or
semi-monthly) within a specified time period (s u ch as
three months), and inviting the parent to co ntact the
program coordinator if they have any ques tions.
If the cycli st attends the workshop th e traffic ticket is void.
If the cyclist fails to attend the workshop in the speci-
fied period , the ticket is processed.
• Police and courts coordinate to allow efficient pro-
cess ing of cyclist traffic tickets .
CONCLUS IONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Many conflicts and collisions between motorists and cy-
clists result from inad equate understanding and obse r-
vance of bicycle traffic rules, including rules that cyclists
must follow, and rules th at motorists must observe th at
reflect cyclists' right to use public roadways.
"Share the Road" programs h ave the potential to improve
awareness and res pect of cyc lists ' right to use the roads and
compliance with rules and laws affec tin g bicyclist safety by
both motorists and cyclists, and may therefore help to reduce
conflicts and colli sions b etween cyclists and motorists.
COSTS AND FUNDING
Costs vary d e pending on the type of program and ma-
terials. Most bicycle traffic safety edu cation programs re-
quire staff time for planning, plus resources t o produce
bro chures and other outreach materials . Some offer train-
ing courses. Most traffi c law enfo rcement activiti es are
included in existing police budgets.
318 Case Studies Bicycle Countermea sure Selection System
REFERENCES
The Bicycle Information Center (h ttp :/ /www.bicy-
clinginfo.org) provides information on nonmotorized
transport planning and programs .
EWG, Share th e Road: Let's Mak e America Bicycle Friendly,
Environmental Working Group (http :/ /www.ewg.
org/pub/home /reports/bikes /share.html), Surface
Transportation Policy Proj ect, Bicy cle Federation of
America, 1997.
GVCC, Bike Sens e -The British Columbia Bicycle Op erator 's
Manual, Greater Victoria Cycling Coaliti on and the
British Columbia Ministry of Transportation (http :/ I
www.bikesense.bc .ca), 2000. A guide to the rules of
the road, bike handling, traffi c skills and the enjoyment
of cycling.
Paul Hill , Bicycle Law and Pra ctice, Bicycle Law Books (Falls
C hurc h), 1986.
The Cornell Law W e b site (http :/ /www.law.cornell .edu/
topics /sta te_statutes.html#motor_ vehicles) ha s U.S.
traffic laws.
I CBC, Drive Right /Cycle Right, Road Sense, In surance
Corporation of British Columbia (h ttp :/ /WW\¥.icbc .
com), 1999.
Aaron Kirsch, "Local Campaign To Share The
Road Rolls Forward," Bi cycl e Tim es : Nw1slet -
ter of the Lo s Angeles County Bi cycle Coalition
(http: I I www. la bikecoalition. org / downl oads /
times/2002/BTwinter02. pdf), Winter 2002.
Leagu e of American Bicyclists Education Programs
(http:/ /www.bikeleague.org) provides a variety of re-
sources, including a "Sharing the Road" fact sh ee t.
Larry Leveen , Bicycle Commute Guide: An Intr oduction to
the Fun and Art ef Bi cy cle Commuting , Capital Bicycling
C lub and Energy Outreach Center/C limate Solutions
(http :/ /www.climatesolutions.org), 1997.
Lippman, E. A New Approach to Improving Cycling ; Bicycle
Diversion Training Programs. California As soc iation of
Bicy cling Organizations N ews le tter, CommuniCABO,
Fall 2000.
Todd Litman, Whos e Roads?, VTPI (http ://www.vtpi .
org), 2000.
Todd Litman, Quan tifying the Benefits of Nonmotorized
Tran sportat ion for Achiev ing TDM Object iv es, VTPI
(http ://www.vtpi.org), 1999 .
Todd Litman, e t al., Pedes trian and Bicycl e Planning; A Guide
to Bes t Pra ctices,VTPI (http :/ /www.vtpi.org), 2000.
MBC, Bike to Work vveek: Planning Guid e, Massach u setts
Bicycl e Coalition (http :/ /www.massbike.org/ events /
bw95 /guide.htm), 1995.
Online Bi cy cle Commuter Assistance Program (http :/ I
www.w aba.org) ide ntifies the best cycling route to a
particular destination and provides other informat ion
for bicy cle transportation.
CONTACT
Todd Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
1250 Rudlin Street
Victoria, BCV8V 3R7 Canada
(205) 360-1560
litman@vtpi .o rg
http :/ hvww. v tpi.org
Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System Case Studies 319
I
SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA #48
Hitching Posts for Bicycle Parking
BACKGROUND
BRIEF HISTORY
The 1968 Santa Barbara State S treet Plaza project r e-
move d on-street parkin g from th e Downtown Com-
m e rcial area, resu l ting in a two-way, t wo -lan e road
with right-turn pocke ts an d bike lanes for a le n g th
of 914 m (300 0 ft). Stre e t furniture su c h as founta in s,
planters and b e n c h es was inst all ed al o n g long reaches
of the p rojec t . A si g n ificant in crease in bicycle traffi c
a nd insufficient bicycle parking supply were attributed
to this proj ec t and the later striping of bike lanes. B y
th e ea rly 1980s , 240 bi cycle parking spaces of vari-
o u s types, including front wheel r ac k s and hitc hing
po st s, were avai la bl e on sidewalks in the mall t o m eet
the average daily demand of 2000 bi cyclists . They were
p e r ce ived as a nuisance b y local bu siness persons, and
created a hazard to p edestria n s. Furth ermore, th e im-
b al ance b e twee n su pply a nd demand resulted in bi-
cycl es re g ul arl y blo cking th e sid ewa lk s.
An additional problem faced was gaining approva l from
the Historic La ndmarks Co mmissi on . The Landmarks
Commiss ion was form ed in May 1 960 to e n sure tha t
the area wi thin E l Pue blo Vi ejo Distri c t wo uld retain
its uniqu e ea rly-Cali fornia Spanish c h arac t e r and a t-
mosphere through careful city p lanning and d eve l-
opment. It is an a d visory g roup t o the ci ty Co uncil
that approves, di sa pp roves, or approves w ith co nditions
plans for ext erior alt e r ation, re l o ca tion or demolition
of locati o n s wi thin the di st rict . Una bl e to find a b al-
an ce betwee n aes theti cs a nd funct i onality, the Histori c
Landmarks Commiss ion for th e area generall y disa p-
proved of th e inst all ation of bike ra c k s on State Street,
finding bicycles inconsistent with th e landmark s in th e
historic district.
32 0
Drusilla van Hengel , Ph.D., Mobili ty Coordinator,
City of Santa Barbara
Case Studie s Bicyc le Co unt ermeasure Se lection Syste m
Figure 1. Bi cyclists c hoose t o par k against street furn iture or
trees rather than use substandard parking .
Altho u gh this decision was su ccessfull y appealed, the con-
fli ct laste d several years, w ith interim designs including the
installa tion of eyebolts into sa ndstone pillars or planter walls.
Finally a hitching post design was app rove d for th e area . In
some loca ti ons, more aes thetically pleasing so lutions that
integrate sa ndstone pillars or ironwork have b een required
instead of hitching posts. T h ese d ecisio ns h ave res ulted in
lo ca tions w h ere bicycle parking goes unused and bicyclists
p ark agains t trees or tras h receptacles instea d of p arking in
substa ndard racks, as shown in figure 1.
The pra c ti ce of providing bi cycle racks on the sidewalk
is b es t employed where bicy cl e and pedestrian volu mes
are low to modera te and where sidewalk w idths are ad-
equ ate. At the time, neither of th ese prerequisites applied.
The sidewalk bi cycle parking was d ecreas ing the ava il abl e
sidewalk w idth in an area with many pedestrians, and the
bi cy cl e vo lum es were high, with nearly 50 p e rc ent of the
bicycli sts to the downtown responding to a local survey
indica ting th at they parke d the ir bike downtown three to
fi ve times per week.
Through public outreach , city staff lea rne d that the re-
moval of bicycle parking from the sidewalk along State
Street li kely would lea d to a large number of bicyclists
parking ill egally on the sid ewalk. This outrea ch was con-
ducted by leav ing surveys on p arked bi cy cles w ith self-ad-
dresse d reply ca rds. Bicy cli sts were asked, "If parking yo ur
bike on the sidewalk o n State Stree t were m ade ill egal, but
bike racks we re p rovided in parking lots, on side stree ts or
along State Street at nud-block locations, w h at wo uld yo u
do?" Alth ough m any indicated that they would co ntinue
to p ark ill ega ll y on the sid ewalk, the u se of racks provid e d
at nudblock received the most favorab le response.
Fo rtunately, since tha t time, severa l sid ewalk improve m e nt
proj ects h ave b ee n unde rtake n on State Stree t , and hitc h-
ing posts are now a standard stree t furniture accessory
w ith a goal of providing one hitching post , or two bicycle
parking spaces, in front of eac h business door.
GOALS
T h e goal of the p rojec t is to prov id e bi cy cl e p arking in
the public right-of-way w h ere d e m and warrants. R e-
moving destina ti on barrier s is a key ele ment of the city 's
1998 Bi cycle M aster P lan, and this ongoing proj ec t pro-
vides conveni e nt p arki ng for downtown customers arriv-
ing by bi cycle. Additionally, th e bike p arking so lution was
n ee d ed to preve nt bikes from blo c king pedestrian traffic
o r b eing left in pl anters o r locked to trees .
COUN T ERMEASURES
In 19 83, a hitching post d es ign was approved for State
Stree t. This design continu es to be u se d w ith sli g h t modi-
Figure 2. Hitching post.
Figure 3 . Bicucles parked at hitching posts adjacen t to curb.
ficatio n s, su c h as a protec ti ve ultrav iole t thermal-resista nt
sleeve that protects the bicycle frame. The rack prov ides
parki n g opp ortunity for two bicycles, with eac h bi cycle
h av ing two points of conta ct with the ra ck . The d es ign
is reflec tive of the hitching posts histori call y ava il abl e to
c u sto m er s arriving downtown on horse b ack. The su ccess
of th e State Street hitc h ing post program h as b ee n a m od-
el for safel y providing public bicycle parking spaces c ity-
wide. In addition to p eriodi c insp ec ti o n of the business
area, indiv idual requ es ts for p arking trigger a fiel d inves-
tigatio n to evaluate the sp ace ava il ab le for hitc hing post-
style parking. A traffi c tech 11i cian reviews the proposed
locatio n for the ra cks and marks the acceptable location
on the concrete. A n1i11imum of 1.8 m (6 ft) of sidewalk
clearance must be maintai n ed for p e d es tri an access, and
place m e nt is ma d e so that pa sse n ger s exi ting p arked cars
may avoid swinging th eir doors into the rack or p arked
bicycles.
The metal post is 1 m ( 40 in) hi gh, with rings placed at
0.5 m (20.5 in) (figure 2). The ring pl acement allows for
th e fro nt wheel and fr ame to b e eas il y lo cked to a ring.
The post is attac h ed to the sidewalk u sing four expan-
sion bolts. The posts are set adjace nt to the curb line so
a bicycli st may park immediately afte r exiting the street.
The goal h ere is to red u ce the di stance a cycli st m ust walk
with th e bike in order to park and t o discourage cyclists
from ridin g on the si d ewalk (figure 3).
It is extremely important to orient contractors and staff
installing th e posts to the su b tl e difference between ori-
entin g the rings parallel or perpendicular to the curb be-
cause th e bicyclist n aturally wants to park the bike per-
pendic ula r to the rings, and th erefore th e ring orie ntation
will affect the footprint of th e bicycle on the sid ewalk
and m ay even prevent the bicyclist from parking correctly
(figure 4).
Bi cycle Cou ntermea sure Select ion System Case Studies 321
Figure 4 . Prop erly insta ll ed hitching posts create ord erly park -
ing areas.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
Th e proj ec t is eval u ate d periodically by staff The bicy cl e
p arking count o n State Street provides informatio n ab o ut
the n ee d for m o re hitchin g posts, and also confirm s w h at
perce ntage of bi cy cli sts are using th e bike parki n g. Sur-
veys are conduc te d by co unting bicycl e usage of ava il able
hitching posts during two midweek afternoons. The total
numbe r of bi cycles parked is also co unte d .
To date, there are 128 hitching posts in nine blocks of State
Street , providing space for 256 bi cy cl es. Thirty percent of
th e p os ts are in use at any one time. Altho u gh this number
shows only a sli ght increase in bi cy cl e parking ava il abil-
ity, cens u s fi g ures over the period b e tween 1980 and 2000
show a ge n e ral d ecline in cyc ling for the journey to work,
so the numbe rs probably represent a real increase relative to
th e demand. B eca use there are so m e locations w here the
sidewalk is too n arrow to permit hitching post installation,
we so m e times find bicycles leaned up against buildings o r
stree t furniture. Howeve r, 82 percent of the bicycles parked
in th e Plaza are using th e hitching posts p rov id ed, improv-
in g th e safety of p e d es trians and bicycli sts alike.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
This trea tment works extremely well . The hitc hing posts
are easy to store in th e Public Works Yard and therefore
inunedi ately ava ilable for installation. The progr am ac-
co mmodates th e n ee d to be aes the ti call y appro priate in
this h istoric area, yet also prov id es a fun cti onal place for
sh ort-te rm bic ycl e parking. T h e rack is relatively easy to
install , and additional posts are provided w h eneve r the d e-
mand warrants and space permits.
322 Case Studies Bicycle Coun termeasure Select ion System
Providing appropriate levels of well-sited bi cycle parking
reduces barriers to bicycling, encourages bicycl ists to use
the p ar king and should re du ce conflic ts b e tween bicy-
clists and pedestrians or w ith p arked mo tor vehicles and
their occupants.
COSTS AND FUNDING
Hitc hin g post fabrication is co mpleted by our staff weld-
ers for an approximate cos t of $100 per post . The proj-
ec t is fund e d throu gh our ongoing bicycle improve m ents
cap ital prog ram. Installa tion is provid ed by the concrete
crew of th e street maintenance division of the Public
Works Department.
CONTACT
Drusilla R. va n Hengel, Ph .D .
M o bili ty Coordi nator
City of Santa Barbara
P.O. Box 1990
Santa Barbara, CA 93102
(805) 564-5544
dvanhengel@ci.santa-ba rb ara. ca. us
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, CALIFORNIA #49
Bicycle Access on Caltrain
BACKGROUND
C altrain bicycle accommodation is th e San Francisco Bay
Area bicycle success story, m aki n g it the leas t restrictive
and most access i ble rail sys tem in the United States for
bicycles.1 Caltrain runs 124 km (77 mi) so utheas t from San
Francisco through Silicon Valley to San Jose, CA (a nd G il-
roy during peak-hours). It operates 75 bi-level (gallery) car
trains each weekday (27,200 riders per day) and p rovides
more limited weekend and holiday service. It is one of the
few U.S . rail sys t ems to ca rry bi cycles on all trains.
A September 199 7 count showe d almost 2,000 bi cycles
ca rried (7.5 p e rc ent of th e total rider s), no t including
cy cli sts denied boarding d u e t o ca pa city constraints. In-
creased ridership because of cycl ists repaid the startup
costs within six months and is now a revenue so urce.
COUNTERMEASURES
In 1977 the Southern Pacific R ailro ad (S P ) fil e d for aban-
donment of its San Francisco-San Jose commute lin e.
From 1977 to th e ea rl y '80s, the ca mpaign for bi cycle
access (other than encased folding bicycles) and con tinu-
an ce of train se r vice, was le d by two bi cycle advocates,
E ll en Fl etcher and Darryl Skrabak (of the Silicon Valley
and San Francisco Bicycle Coalition s, respectively). By ar-
g uing that bicycle access would increase ridership and by
submitting p e titions w ith 2,500 signa tures, they h elp e d
d e fea t th e aba n donme nt. The state and three co unti es
o f th e San Fra n cisco-Sa n Jose M e tropolitain Are a b ega n
subsidizing the train serv ice.
In 1980, the California D e p artment of Transportatio n
(Cal trans) ass ume d management of th e line, re n amed Cal -
Pete r S. Tanne n, B ic ycle Program Manager City &
County of San Francisco
train, and contracted operations to the SP. Bicycl e access
was sti ll d e ni ed, but cyclists co ntinu ed th e ir camp aign , re-
sulting in a four-month demonstration program in 1982.
Twelve off-p eak train s permitted up to five bicycles at
the conductors' discretion. SP refuse d to continu e bi cycle
access without payment for additional li abili ty insurance. 2
(Later re searc h in 1987 showe d that no insurance claims
were fi led aga in st any U.S. railroad b eca u se of bicycle
transport.)
Three years aft er this demonstration's su ccess (up to 100
bicycles p e r week), Caltrain began a year to a year-and-a-
half review of the 1982 demonstration, contacted the 12
North Ame ri can rail operators w ith bicycle access, spoke
to local bi cycle gro up s, reviewed literature and took bi-
cycles on board out-of-service trains. Caltrans' R oger
H oos on comple ted an in-depth report in 1987 support-
ing bicycle access and recommending ano th e r d e mon-
stration, prov iding gro undwork for the current prog ram,
w hile acknowledgin g a key ca p ac ity con straint. Bringing
bi cy cl es throu gh th e n arrow vestibules of commuter rail
cars inc reases train dwell times at stations.
A Metropolitan Transportation Commiss ion st udy also
supported bicycle access, stating that "all owing bicycles
on tra ins co uld in c rease th e utili za tion of rail for sh ort
trip s w h ere bi cy cl e access represents a Teasonable alte rna-
ti ve to th e ca r."3 To th e north and east, bicycle access al-
Bicycle Co unt erm easure Se lec ti on System Case Stud ies 323
ready was prov ide d by the B ay Area Rapid Tran sit D i stri c t
and b ay fe rries. SP acc e ss w ould add two co unties to th e
fiv e with existing bicycle -o n-transi t access .
B y July 19 92 , the P en i n sul a C orridor J oint P owe r s Board
w as form e d by San Fran cisco, San M a te o , and Santa Clara
c ounties to purch ase C altrain and contrac t o p e rations to
Amtrak. Caltran s ove rsaw o p e rations and planning and
the San M ate o Co u nty Tran sit Distr ict m an age d th e line .
B i cy cl e access still was not p ro vid e d .Afte r a 1992 mee ting
of more th an 200 p eopl e, a Bicycl e Advisory Conmlit-
t e e wa s form e d.4 Cycli sts at te nde d h e arings, wrote le tte r s,
and th e Caltrain C iti zen s Adv iso ry Committee approve d
res olutions.
At th e re qu es t of Pe ninsul a R ail 2000 (a Caltrain co m-
mute r's ad vocacy g ro up) and th e C itize n Advisory C om-
mittee, lan gu age was include d in Cal train 's Sho rt Range
Tran sit Plan re quiring bicycl e access. After m o re lobby -
ing, a sec ond d e monstrati o n proj ec t b ega n in Se pte mbe r
199 2 . Four bi cy cl es w ere p ermitte d in th e aisle on all but
p ea k hour trains. Free p e rmits we re re qui re d .
Throu gh the e ffort s of th e Bi cy cl e Adviso ry C ommit-
t ee an d ano the r d e di c at e d bi cycle advoca te, Law ren ce M .
"Cap "Tho m as, bi cy cl e access was exp anded in 1994 . Sea ts
were re m ove d to all ow in stall ati o n o f fo u r-bi cy cl e rac ks
w ith sec ure m ent cords, b ase d up o n Cap 's d es ign . Whe n
h e fir st app roac h e d th e J o int Power s B oa rd w ith this idea,
they rej ec te d it b eca us e of the lac k of fund s. Ca p aske d if
the proj ec t coul d b e imple m e nte d if h e sec ure d fundin g
and was told yes . H e obtained $30,000 of Sa n Fra n c isco's
bi cycle an d ped es trian funds, and th e inst all ati o n o f th e
rac ks b ega n. Additional racks were sub seq u ently fund ed
by th e city of M e nlo P ark and the J o int P owe r s B oa rd .
Ca p was t h e rec ipi e nt of a M e tro p o litan T ra n sp o rtati o n
Conmliss io n Tra n sportati o n Awa rd and a Caltra in Sil ve r
Spike Awa rd fo r hi s e ffort s.
324 Ca se Studies Bicy cle Cou nte rmea sure Selectio n System
Bicy cl e are as ide ntifi e d by ca r-exte ri o r graphics we re
crea t ed in 52 ca r s. Caltrain d ec rease d the p ea k-ho ur bi-
cy cl e res tri c tions in ste p s as exp e rie n ce showe d no m ajor
proble m s. By M ay 199 5 , w h e n the p e rrnit re quire m ent
w as dropp e d , more than 9,600 p e rmits w e re iss u ed and
twelve bicycles (four in eac h of th ree cars) were allowe d
on sp ecifi e d trains. Som e train s (ge n e rall y reve rse -com-
mute express es) lac ke d ca p acity. In c reas in g numbe rs o f
bi cy cli sts were le ft to wa it for th e fo llowing lo cal train .
In July 19 96, tim e tabl es were adju st e d sli ghtly to acco unt
fo r bi cy cl e loading and unlo ading at p o pular stations, ev i-
d e n ce o f fu r th e r bi cycle acc o nuno d ati o n .
EVALUATION AND RESU LTS
R ac k s h ave b ee n co n so lidat e d to fewer car s. All trains
now h ave at le as t o n e sp ec ial bi cy cl e c ar. Twe n ty -fo ur
bi cycl es are st ore d o n rac k s in the fro nt of t h e bi cy cl e
sec tion (four bicycles o n eac h of six r ac ks). C y cli sts sit in
th e rea r on remaining sea ts on th e lower or upp e r leve ls,
in sig ht of t h e bicycles. Si g n s re qu es t non-bi cy cli sts sit
in o the r ca r s. The w indow informati o n sh ee ts exp lain
bicycl e stowage p rocedure s.
S o m e cy cl ist s h ave b ee n tu rn e d away in p as t yea r s
w h e n trains r egul a rl y r eac h e d bi cy cl e c ap ac ity, es p e-
c iall y reve r se -co mmute t r ains. In r es ponse to hi g h
d e m a nd , an e x t ra bi cycl e c ar i s so m e t i m es ad de d t o
so m e o f th ese trains (u se d b y S an F r a n c isco resi d e nts
w ith j o b s in Sili co n Vall ey), in creas in g ca p ac ity to 4 8.
Caltra in ide n t ifi es th e u su al trains tha t h ave two bike
ca r s a nd strives t o offer tw o bike cars o n these trains as
co n si st e n tl y as p oss ibl e. S in ce th e m ain San Fra n ci sco
sta ti o n i s ab o u t a mile from M a rke t Stree t (t h e d ow n -
t ow n transit co rrid or), ma n y Sa n Fran c is c o res ide nts
wo u l d h ave t o t a k e t wo b u ses to reac h th e sta ti o n . At
th e wo rk e nd o f the trip, tra n sit se r v i ce i s l ess fre-
quent wi th less coverage, sin ce this a rea is suburban.
Therefore, bi cy cl e access for most r eve r se -commuters
is ide al. Witho ut it , m a n y of th ese reverse-commuters
wou ld prob a bly drive ca r s.
Major rules include: fir st co m e, first se rve bicy cl e spa ce
for clean , single-ride r bicycles; no condu ctor loading as-
sistanc e; cy clist at leas t 16 years old; bi cy cles sec ured by
bungee cords (provid e d) and close ly attended by rid e r ;
boarding and d e training quickly up on arrival at stati o n
aft e r p assenge r s exit; co ndu c tor's authority is fin al ; and u se
of d es tination tags is strongly encouraged. Cyclists n eve r
have b een charged extra for bi cy cl es.
Thirteen p e rcent of responses to a Novemb e r 1994
Caltrain pas se nger survey sta t ed they u se th e bi cy cl e-
on-board program and 43 p e rc ent of these reported no
problem s. Commonly c ite d bi cy cl e-rel ated problems
(decreasing response freq u e n cy) include d: in adequate
ca p ac ity, inte ractions w ith conductors, ad e qua t e sea ting,
inade quate information, bi cycles in ais les or vestibules,
and "bicycle c onditions." Ei ghteen p e rcent sa id more bi-
cycl e access would ena bl e them to u se a bicycle as part
of the ir trip.
Bicycles were co unted as p art of annual ridership co u nts
sin ce 1994, all conducted during the same p eriod. Al-
though Fe bruary 1998 sh ows a drop in bi cy cl es, it was
during th e h eight of the area's seco nd rainiest winter. A
September 1997 count showe d 1, 96 1 bicy cl es ca rried o n
6 5 trains (o n e train omitted) averag ing 17 bi cycl es per
train . Fi ve northbound and fiv e so uthbo und trains ex-
cee d e d capacity.5 Cyclists unabl e to board because of bi-
cycle capacity limitations were not co unted.
Besides trans portation, cy clists are brought together in
one ca r w ith an opportunity for co nv er sa tion, crea ting
a se n se of co nununity. Arranging bicycles in first -out in-
front order crea tes a reaso n to talk and interac t. Wh e n
regul ar bi cycle commuters see fir st-time bicy cl e ca r u sers,
th ey expl ain the bicycle stowing pro cedure. Caltrain fa-
cilitates this process by providing bicy cl e d es tination tags.
M any bicycle commute r s are also bi cy cl e ac tivists , so the ir
commute g ives them a m ee ting pla ce for discussions and
fo ll ow-up e-mails.
CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Th e m ajor probl em w ith thi s prog ram is its su ccess and
p ea k de m and . Cyclists are some tim es d e ni e d access dur-
ing peak commute times b ecause oflack of bicycle space.
Cal train could try to obtain additional funds to secure
more bicycle cars or re trofit more car s with rac k s so more
bi cycl es can be ca rried per train . N either is likely in the
n ea r future. Caltrain acquired additional ca rs in 1999 but
re pla ce d old e r ca r s in n ee d of overha ul. Howeve r, more
trains will b e operate d b eginning in 2004, resulting in ad-
ditional bi cycle ca p acity.
The Caltrain Bicycl e-on-Board Program shows w h at ca n
b e acc omplish ed by dedica te d bi cy cl e activists and a co-
o p e rating tran sit operator. In 1977, at a Public Utilities
Conunission SP ab andonme nt h ea ring, a staff attorney
sa id that these trains could b ecom e "a national model."
H e did not h ave bicycle trans portation in mind, but in
that realm, Caltrain h as become a national model.
REFERENCES
Califo rnia D epa rtme nt ofTransportation, Distric t 4 , San
Francisco R ail M an age m e nt Bran c h , Bicycle -on-Train
Feas ibili ty Study, San Fran cisco, CA, April 1987
Al an A. Hirsch, 2 0 yr History of Bikes Aboard Ca /train , M ay
1998, E-mail docume nt
Doolittle, John T., Jr. and Porter, Ellen Kre t , Int eg ration of
Bi cy cl es and Transit, Tran sit Cooperative researc h pro-
g ram , TCRP Synthesis 4, Transportation R esea rch
Board, N ational researc h Co uncil , N ational A ca d em y
Press , W as hington, D. C., 1994
Transportati on R esea rc h Board -National R esea rch
Co uncil , Integra tion of Bi cycl es and Tran sit , 1994, N a-
tional A ca d e m y Press, Washington, DC
N ational Bicycle and Walking Study FHWA Case Study
No. 9 , Linking Bi cycl es with Transit, Fe d e ral Highway
Administration, O c tobe r 1992, Washington, D.C.
CONTACT
P e te r S. Tannen
Bicy cl e Program Manager C ity & County of San Francisco
S.F Departme nt of P arking and Traffic
25 Van Ness Avenue, #345
San Franci sco, C A 94 102-6033
(41 5 )554-2396
415-554-2352 (Fax)
p eter_tannen@ci.sf.ca. u s
Bi cycle Countermeasure Se le ction System Case Studies 325
1 Tlt e S tat e of Ca /t ra in R eport , Fall 1996, C al train
2Caltran s p aid SP a n extra $73,200 (o r m o re than $100 /bi cycle
trip) in insuran ce co sts for the fo ur-month bi cycle d em o nstrati o n .
At the time, C altran s w as p ay in g SP $4 00 ,000 annually for ge n e ral
li abili ty insuran ce .
3Pe ninsul a Route 101 Study, M etropolitan Tran sp o rtation C om.-
miss io n , Oakland, CA, Septem b er, 198 4
4The Caltrain BAC m ee ts at least qu arte rl y and in cl udes cycli sts
fr o m eac h co un ty, JPB staff, Amtrak /Caltrain m an age m e nt , an d
co ndu ctors. It p ro vid es bi cycle access t ec hni cal gui dance.
5Cal tra in Bi cycl e Program M emo, Caltrain, O ctober 1, 1997
326 Case Studies Bicycle Cou nte rmeasure Selection System
SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA #50
Bike and Bus Program
BACKGROUND
The Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District (MTD)
h as promoted bike and bu s programs for over 30 years.
The goal has always been the same: to h elp cy cli sts ext end
their travel via buses. Over the years, MTD h as so u ght
to achieve this through the u se of trail ers towed b e hind
buses, bi cycle lockers, bicycle parking at bus stops, and
bicycle racks mounted directly on the bu s.
In 19 75, MTD acquired a 4.3 m (14 ft) bi cy cl e-capacity
trailer from San Diego State Univers ity. Towing it b e hind
a 6.1 m (20 ft) bu s, M TD targeted the cycling b e h av ior
of coll ege st ude nts and p laced the bus on an e ight-m.il e
express se rvice b etween downtown Santa Barbara and
the Univers ity of Cali forn ia at Santa Barbara. The regular,
o n e-way bus fare in 1975 was 25 ce nts, and cycl ists paid
an additional 15 cents to transport the ir bi cycles. Initially,
six percent of all passengers on the route brou ght th eir
bicycles. This qu ickly improved to 30 perce nt .
Within a few months, dai ly us e h ad fa ti g u ed the trail er's
springs , causing th e axle to b e nd and the wooden fr ame
to break. The program was t e mporarily su spended until
1977 when MTD enhanced the trailer d esign to in clude
a st urdier metal frame, supports that gripp ed th e bi cycles'
tires, and individual bike ramps for eas ie r loading. The
bus and trailer were placed back in service on th e express
ro ute, the 15-cent bike fare was dropped and the proj ect
began to attract n ational attention .
In 1978,MTD was awarded a $182,000 Urban Mass Tran-
sit Administration grant, w hi ch provided for six newly
designed, heavy-duty steel trailers, 150 bicycle racks and
12 bicycle lockers.
Lynnette Caver ly, Marketing Manager, Passenge r
Relations
1970s bicycle trailer.
In September 1979, all six bicycle trailers operated on var-
ious ro utes throughout the community. The rou tes were
chosen for th eir distance between destination poin ts and
service to local co ll eges. MTD carried an average of 105
bicycles on weekdays, 44 on Saturdays and 28 on S u ndays
on these routes. The service continued to b e free.
With the continued growth of the bicycle trailer program
and the opening of MTD 's new Park & Ride Facility in
Goleta, w h ich included new bicycle lo ckers, MTD em-
barked upon a large multi-media campaign centered on
familiariz ing the public with the bike and ride program.
The ca mpaign, "S ig ns of the Times," incl uded print, radio
and bus advertising an d bus stop signs promoting the Bike
'n Ride and Bus 'n Bike programs.
In 1982, M TD rep la ced its 6.1 m (20 ft) mini-buses with
12.2 m (40 ft) buses to handle th e increasing passenger
loads. Consequ en tl y, th e trailers co uld not legally be towed
behind the new ve hicl es and the bi cycle trail er program
was disco nti nued.
In 1984, MTD mounted bike racks on the rear of its bu s-
es. Each rack was ca p abl e of holding two bi cy cl es and the
bu ses we re available on five routes, including service to
local coll eges, far-reac hing neighborhoods and an o utly-
ing conmrnnity to the south . The bike-bus se r vice co n -
tinu ed to b e free.
Bi cycle Countermeasure Selection System Case Studi es 327
Sign language.
Bike 'n Ride.
Sign language.
Bus'nBike.
F.tm "' 'hi~ Wn #!r A-.ct
~u l;iLacntt~tn
l.n hrl nnr.-,. k
dnU k t.u eopt•W.C'rbc R~
• ,,-.nvn nadlt*-
~ r Ri!.( •~i.1.acr(' ,.Jw
~.~.'\~~n;_~r
"' .(' •lb «• b' ~it. rl' •I> "
MTO
Si9n.softhe ttm s.
Promotional materials supporting bike and bus program.
B y June 198 5 , the rea r-mounte d ra ck s we re posing sig-
nificant proble m s in th e areas of risk m an age m e nt (rea r
mounting res u lt e d in acc ide nts and the ft ) and mainte-
328 Case Studies Bicyc le Countermea sure Se lection System
1980s rear-mounted ra c k.
n an ce (th e rac ks h ad to b e rem ove d b efore eac h wa sh
beca u se of damage exp e rienc e d in the bus w as h e r). In
1987 th e bike-bus prog ram wa s te rminated .
COUNTERMEASURES
Almost 10 ye ar s late r in 1995 , MTD partne re d with the
loca l Air Pollution C ontrol Distri c t (APCD) to purc ha se
20 front-mount e d r ac k s capabl e of holding two bi cycl es
eac h . Th e APCD fund e d the ca pital c o st of the rac k s
up to $30,000 and MTD install e d , m aintaine d and m ar-
k e te d the prog ram. Front-mounte d r ac ks w e re c hos e n
p artl y b ecaus e of the driver's ability to e asi ly obs e r ve
bicycl e insta ll ati o n and re mova l , thus minimizing sa fety
and se curity is su es.
Fo r the n ext six yea r s, a suc cess ful d emonstration pro-
g ram e n sued. MTD pla ced the rac k-equipp ed bu ses o n
three routes, two se rv in g o utl ying co mmunities and the
othe r se r ving the local univer sity. Th e routes w ere c hose n
fo r th eir distan ce b e twee n orig in a nd d estination points
and for th e hi g h p erce ntage of coll ege stude nts, m any o f
w h o m use bi cycl es to ext e nd their travel once o n ca m-
pus. The buses o p e rating on these three routes carri e d
ove r 8 7 ,000 bicycles from 199 5 to 200 1 at no additional
c h arge to the p asse n ge r s. The prog ram was m arke te d v ia
a bro c hure di str ib ute d to all lo cal bicycl e shops as w ell as
exterior adve rtisements on the ve hicl es and disp lay adve r-
tising in th e unive rsity n ews pap er.
In 2000, MTD and the APCD aga in coopera ted to ex-
pand the Bike & Bus Program to MTD 's entire fleet of
12.2 m (40 ft) buses (53 vehicles). The purchase of 35
racks (33 plus 2 spares) at a cost of $571 per rack (in-
cl uding all brackets, ada pte rs , etc.) ca m e to $20,000. The
APCD aga in supp orted t h e ca pital exp ense of purchasing
the additional racks-up to $15 ,000. MTD p aid the dif-
feren ce plus th e cost of install atio n . Additionally, MTD
continu es to maintain the ra cks.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
Bike trail er and r ack usage is record e d by the bus driver.
In the early yea r s of the bike trail er manu al talli es were
kep t , which was made eas ie r by an express route that h ad
just two st ops. In th e 1980s, with th e rea r-mounte d racks,
da ta collection b eca m e more difficult as drivers frequently
we re unable to see a passenger loading or unloadin g th eir
bicycle. Passengers' current u se of th e front-m o unted
racks is talli ed via the fare box, which has a code that the
driver ca n easily input for bikes carri e d p er trip. Since
the ince ption of the front-mo unted bike rack program,
incl uding b oth the demonstrati on and exp an sion, MTD
has ca rried about 15 3 ,000 bi cycles.
The ch art below li sts yea rs a nd co rres ponding numbers
of bicycles carrie d . N o te that b etween 1984 and 1987 bi-
cycle ride r ship was much lower than previo u s yea rs, p ar tl y
b eca use of the differe n ce in what the racks were ca pable of
carry ing-two bikes on th e rac k s co mpared t o 14 bikes
on the trail ers.Additionally, w h en the fro n t-mounte d rac ks
initially were ins tall ed in th e latter half of the 1990s, MTD
riders hip was m u c h grea ter, reflecting a sharp rise in bike
rack u se. The fully imple mented Bike & Bus Program be-
55,000
25,000
Blcycle Trailers
{~ • 14 bike$ pe1 tra11ot, 6 1ootes)
Rear-Mounted Racks
(capacity• 2 bikes pet r.:k. 5 l'O!Ae s)
1984 ·1987
Front-Mounted Racks
(c:ap.acy • 2 biknper nte k, 14 routes)
Demons tration of
Front-Mounted Racks
(cspacrty • 2 bir.et per r11ek 3 routes)
11,720
1H6 · 2000 FY 01-02
ginning in Feb ruary 2001 res ulte d in a sh arp increase b e-
tween fi scal years 2000-2001and2001-2002.
The 12.2 m (40 ft) bu ses are allo ca te d to th e routes car ry -
ing th e largest p e rce ntage of pa ssenger s and are eq uipp ed
w ith bike racks.Thu s 14 of MTD 's most p op ul ate d routes
are also gu arantee d to provid e bike-bus service. T h e four
routes most utilize d by cycli sts (acco unting for 75 p ercent
of bike r ack u sage) are popular b eca u se th ey travel long
distances that m ay b e u nattainab le by bi cy cl e alo n e and
h ave d es tinati o n s that prove u se ful for bi cy cl es , su ch as th e
local university (Lin es 6, 11, 12, and 20).
• Line 6: Trunk se rvic e trave ling along a main business
corridor, abo ut 17 . 7 km (11 mi)
• Lines 11 and 12: E xpress se rvice to local university,
about 12.9 km (8 mi)
• Li n e 20: Connector se rv i ce between Carpinteria and
Santa B arbara , abo ut 24.1 km (15 mi)
MTD do es not h ave plans to remove th e bike rac ks from
buses o n lesser p e rfo rming routes for operati onal reasons.
As stat e d , 12 .2 m ( 40 ft ) buses are allocated to a sp ecifi c
gro up o f routes depending o n p asse n ge r volume and free-
way trave l. On any g ive n day, a 12.2 m ( 40 ft) bu s co uld b e
assigne d to any of the 14 ro u tes. T h e prog ram is more eas-
il y marke te d t o passe n ge rs by e n su r in g th at all 12.2 m (40
ft) buses h ave racks. Therefore, all ro utes served by 12 .2
m (40 ft) bu ses are gu aranteed th e service. The ro utes are
marketed as bike-bus routes v ia an icon in th e bus book,
at the bu s stop and o n th e Web si te.
Table 1 d e pic ts the p er ce ntage of bicycles carr ie d as
compar e d t o t o tal ri d e r ship of t h e most u tilized bicycle
routes: 12 , 11 , 20 , and 6. While the b ike-bu s prog ram is
su ccess ful , it does represent a very sm all p e rcentage of
bus passengers overall. MTD g ives this se rious con sid-
era tion w h e n reviewing any potential exp ansi on of the
bike-bus program.
The fo llowing two ta bl es, based o n the fully implemente d
bike-bus program, depict the monthly average of bicycles
carried co mpared to monthly bus ridership, se rvice hours
and service miles. Although Lin es 11 a nd 12 carry th e
m ost bicycles on average per month (see table 1), Lin e
13, w hil e n ot carrying as many bicycles, is th e m os t pro-
du c tive in terms of bicycles car ri e d per hour (see ta bl e
2). Line 13 p erforms well in the bicycles p er 100-mil e
category as well. In fact, 6 .6 percent of its rid e rs hip is
co mp ose d of bicycling pa sse n gers. It is impo rtant to note
that both th e 13 and th e 26 are commuter servic es w ith
just one morning trip and one afternoon trip daily, thus
explainin g th e low number of bi cycles carr ied overall.
Bi cyc le Counte rmea sure Selection Sys te m Case Studies 329
Rou t e
12
11
20
6
1
23
8
15
2 1
13
18
26
TO TAL
Route
13x
12x
11
6
20
15x
21x
8
23
1
18
26 x
TOTAL
33 0
Bike & Bus!
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
1
1
With 30 yea rs of exp e ri e n ce , it see m s that MTD h as found
a bike-bu s pairing that works for p asse n ge rs, MTD and 1
th e community. T h ere are ch all e n ges tha t MTD co ntinues
to rev iew, b u t for th e mom ent, th e p rogra m is su ccess full y
d o ing its p art to h el p w ith m ultimo d al ism in th e g rea te r
Santa B arb ara commu n ity.
MTD 's cu r re nt Bike & Bu s prog ram co ntinu es to b e a
p o pular se r vic e with a regul ar rid er ship. The tre nd an alys is
confi r m s an in creas ingly stea dy u sage of th e rac ks among
Tabl e 1. Compar iso n of B icyc les Carried to Rid ership o n an Aver age Mo nth
Avg Monthly Bu s Avg Mon thly Bicy c les Car-% of Cy c l i ng Passengers to
Av g Monthly Bicycles Carried Rider ship ried per 100 Pas senge rs Non -Cy c ling Passen gers
1, 112 5 7 ,908 1.9 1.92%
1 ,088 80,636 1.3 1.35%
601 3 8 ,049 1.6 1.58%
555 4 6,138 1.2 1.20%
365 112 ,380 0 .3 0.32 %
2 50 29 ,8 13 0 .8 0 .84 %
2 2 4 18 ,358 1.2 1.22 %
177 12 ,6 7 8 1.4 1.40%
176 10,5 18 1.7 1.6 7%
2 2 334 6 .6 6 .59 %
16 3 ,181 0 .5 0 .50 %
2 408 0 .5 0.49 %
4 ,588 410,40 1 11 1.12 %
Tabl e 2. Co mpari so n of B icyc le s Carr ie d t o Servi ce Ho urs/M i les on an Average Mo nth
Avg Monthly Passen -Av g Mont hl y Se r-Av g Month ly Bicycle s Av g Monthly Av g Monthly Bi cycle s
ge rs Carrie d per Hour vi ce Hour s Carr ied per Hour Servic e Mil es Ca rr ie d per 100 Mi les
21.5 20 1.10 592 3 .72
53 .8 1,2 03 0 .9 2 27,958 3 .98
46 .8 1,877 0 .58 26,0 14 4.18
47 .0 1 ,066 0.52 12,8 11 4.33
37 .1 1,192 0 .50 20,152 2 .98
43.1 382 0 .46 10,863 1.63
24 .2 433 0.41 8,465 2 .08
24 .1 640 0.35 13 ,6 00 1.65
42 .0 873 0.29 11,291 2 .21
63 .2 1,868 0.20 15,7 92 2.3 1
27 .6 110 0 .1 5 1,890 0 .85
25 .3 2 0 0 .10 20,152 0 .0 1
42 .38 9 ,684 0.47 169 ,580 2.71
Case Studie s Bi cycle Count erm easu re Sele ction Sy stem
Univer sity o f California at Santa Barbara ro utes as well as
w ith the h eavy working trunk and conn ec tor routes .
The exp an sion of th e p rog ram to include all ve hicl es h as
prov ide d for a mu ch mo re marke tabl e, m o re reli abl e p ro-
g ram . P asse n ger s are g u ar anteed bicy cl e ra c ks on all routes
w ith 12.2 m (40 ft ) buses all o ca te d to the m , curre ntl y 14
lines. P asse n ger s eas il y know whic h routes th ese are sim-
ply by looking for th e Bike & Bus ic on within printe d
m ate ri als and on M T D 's W e b site .
Bike & Bu s is a su ccess ful prog ram b ase d on p asse n ge r
b e n e fit and adniinistra tive and sa fety st andpoints. But th e
pop ul arity o f th e p rog ram also is its drawb ac k. B eca u se
eac h rac k can only h o ld tw o bi cy cl es, p asse n ge r s so m e-
times wa it t o lo ad the ir bike at a st o p, only t o find th e
approac hing bus with a fu ll r ac k. Propose d so lutions in -
clud e b r ing ing b ac k the t rai le rs, installing rea r -mounte d
r ac k s in ad dition t o the front-m o unte d rac k s, prov iding
bi cycl e rac k s or locke r s at bus st o p s a nd allowing bi-
cy cl es o n the bus. All of th ese solutions h ave drawb ac k s.
Trail e rs are o utdate d n ow th at large 12 .2 m (40 ft ) buses
must m an e u ve r inc reas ingly bu sy and nar row stree ts.
R e ar-m o unte d ra c k s h ave prove n difficult to m aintain
w ith inc rease d liabiliti es . Bike r ac k s and lo c ke r s prov ide
a new se t of sec urity iss u es, a nd with the hi gh cos t of
bi cycl es, p asse n ge r s are less incline d to l eave th eir bikes
at an unatte nde d l o ca ti o n su c h as a bu s st o p , w h e re the
r isk of th eft is g rea t . Fi na ll y, all owing bi cy cl es o n b oa rd
the bus seems unfair a nd un safe for th e 98 t o 99 p e rce nt
of bu s p asse n ge r s that d o not u se this se rv ice a nd w h o
must m ane u ve r around a bi cy cl e in the aisle .
A rece nt t echno log ical innova ti o n holds some pronuse .
A popular b ike ra c k m an u fac turer h as d eve lope d a pro-
to typ e o f a rac k t h at is ca pable o f holding three bi cy cl es.
Co n ce rns ove r the full y d e ploye d rac k ex tending furth e r
than the legal ve hi cl e-le n gth liniit appea r to b e addresse d .
T h e m anufac ture r cl aims that this n ew r ac k does not ex-
te nd any fa rthe r t h an th e two-bicycl e rac k co unte rpar t
that MTD u ses.While it m ay b e too ea rl y to call , th e p ro -
t o typ e rac k is b eing tes te d a t a few tran sit prop erti es in th e
wes te rn U nited States and h as b een su ccess ful thus fa r. It
see m s th at an o th e r potenti al solutio n t o ca rry at leas t o n e
additional bike p e r bus is in th e w orks.
It does n o t app ea r that all o f th e an sw e rs are av ail able at
thi s time o n h ow b es t to administ e r and g row a su ccess ful
bike -bus p rogra m that is b e n efi cial t o eve ryo n e .The Santa
B arb ara M T D has , h oweve r, shown that with p e rseve r-
an ce, supp o rt and continu e d resea rc h , bi cy cl es and bu ses
ca n h elp exte nd p e opl e's trave ls whil e leav ing their m o to r
ve hicl es at h o m e.
COSTS AND FUNDING
T h e ca pital cos ts of the fr o nt-m o unted bike rac k s, as
m e ntion e d ea rli er, we re cove red by a g rant fro m the lo-
ca l APC D. The res t of th e prog ram cos ts are cove re d by
MTD. Initi all y the re w e re m arke ti ng cos ts t o ad ve rti se th e
n ew program, howeve r ail cos ts n ow are assoc iat ed w ith
th e mainte n an ce o f the rac ks.
BREAKDOWN OF ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH BIKE & BUS PROGRAM
1. Annual parts rep lacement costs
Support Arm $11 .50 x 2/mo x 12 mo $276 Grips
Bracket Bol ts/ $17.00 x 2/mo x 12 mo $408 Bushings
Decals $10.00 x 4/mo x 12 mo $480
Total $1,164
2. Ann ual preven tat ive main t enance costs (safety
inspec t ions)
Basic Labor I 82.4 hr/year x $35/hr I $2 ,884
3 . Annua l bike rack repairs (straighten damaged bike
racks)
Basic Lab or I 120 hr/year x $35/hr I $4 ,2 00
4 . Annua l rack replacement costs
There were 9 racks that were in need of replacement
due to accidents .
Cost of racks $376/rack x 9 racks $3 ,384
Labor $35/hr x 2 hr/rack x 9 $630 racks
Total $4,014
5. Road ca ll s
I n the event of a vehicle requiring towing (about 24
times per year) the front section of the rack must be
removed to facilitate maneuverability, adding about
five min utes per road call.
5 minutes x 24 calls= 2
Labor add iti onal hours per year $70
$35/h r x 2 hrs
Bicycle Countermeasure Sele ction Sys tem Ca se Studie s 331
6. Annual i ncreas ed bus washing costs
Bus wash ing time is inc reased by 3 0 seconds per bu s
or 30 minutes per night because of the necessity of
deploying each rack, soaping the front of the bus and
stowing the rack before d r iving through the bus wash .
This time is down from t wo minutes during the pilot
program .
30 minutes/nig ht x 362
Labor nights = 181 hours $2, 172
181 hr x $12/hr
Total annual operational costs:
Parts Replacement $1, 164
Preventative Maintenanc e $2,884
Bike Rack Repa i rs $4,200
Bike Ra c k Replacement s $4,014
Road Calls $70
Bus Washin g $2,172
Total $14,504
* Note that due to the large front wind ow on Nova
buses, the bicycle racks were obstru c tin g the driver's
view . MTD 's maintenan ce department came up with a
way to lower the rack s. Therefore, wh en MTD procured
the racks originally, a retrofitting took place to lower
the racks at a cos t of $456 per rack ($176 in parts
and $280 in labor).
CONTACT
Marketing M ana ger, Pass en ge r R elations
Santa B arb ara Metropolita n Tran sit Distri c t
550 Olive Stree t
Santa B arb ara, C A 931 0 1
(8 05 ) 96 3-3364
332 Case Studi es Bicycle Countermea sure Selection Sy stem
NORTH CAROLINA #51
Mapping for Bicyclists
BACKGROUND
One of th e most common q u e stions a bi cycli st as ks is,
"Wh e re ca n I ride m y bike sa fely?" A good bicycl e m ap
w ill answ e r this ques ti o n. Bicycl e m ap s ca n provide in-
form.ation to guid e n ovice cyclist s to less-travele d routes,
help an exp e r ie n ced cy cli st get arou nd unfamiliar p arts
o f town, or ide ntify suitable routes fo r touring cy clists. A
bicycle m ap can b e a to o l to promote al t e rnative tran s-
portati on, improve cycli sts' sa fe ty, or provid e a guide to
rec rea tional o pportunities .
The North C aro lina D e p artment of T ransportati on Di-
vision of Bicy cle and Pe d es trian Tran sportation (DBPT)
h as a long history o f d eve l oping bi cy cl e m ap s. In mid-
19 75 th e Bicy cl e Prog ram , as it w as th e n call e d , initiated a
proj ec t to d es ig n and m ap a cros s-stat e bicy cl e route . The
m ap wa s in res pon se t o th e Bicycle and Bikeway Act of
19 7 4 that c h arged th e NCDOT with th e res ponsibili ty of
d eveloping a sta tewide "b ikeway " sys te m . The go al of this
in itial e ffort was to se lec t and map a route that provide d
access to th e m ajor p o pulation ce nte r s of the state, linking
them to stat e p arks , histo ri c sites, and other points o f in-
t eres t via th e more li ghtl y-traveled roads of the exte n sive
sec o n dary ro ad syst e m.
The N C DOT effort was pionee ring a n ew aren a. At
t h at time, g uidelines fo r sel ec ting and d es ignating bi cy cl e
ro utes did n o t exi st. Only one other state h ad produ ced
a bi cy cl e m ap . Few N o rth Caro lina cyc lists h ad lo n g-dis-
tan ce touring exp e ri ence o r know le d ge o f ro ads outside
the ir inm1e di ate area . N o fu n d s h ad b ee n se t as id e for su c h
a proj ec t . Fortunatel y, existin g reso urces of the d ep art-
m ent could b e tapp e d to unde rtak e th e tas ks. Bicy cl e p ro -
gra m staff, exp e ri e n ce d in bi cy cl e to uring and mappi ng,
Mary Paul Me letiou , Program Manager for Plan-
ning and Safety, NC Department of Transportation
Divisio n of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
d eve lop e d route se le ction c riteria , d es igned and drew the
m ap s, and u tili ze d th e DOT print shop to produ ce the
m ap s (see Yat es and Mele tiou , 19 78).
In th e e n su in g years, the "Bicy cling Highways" syst e m
g rew to nine di sc re te routes covering more th an 4 ,023
km (2 ,500 mi) (See http :/ /www.n cdot.org/trans it /
bi cy cl e /maps /m ap s_hi g hways.html). In th e 1980s the Di-
visio n b egan to produ ce co unty and regional bike route
sys te m m ap s as well as urba n route and suitabili ty m ap s.
Funds for plac ing signs on b o th "Bicy cling Highways"
routes and lo cal routes b eca m e avail abl e in 1987. Twe nty-
two local and regional m ap s are n ow availabl e w ith three
additio nal m ap s n ea ring comple ti o n . These m ap s d e tail
approxi m ately 2,000 mi of d es igna t ed routes. R e qu est s
for 20 more m ap s are b eing h andle d as time p ermits.
COUNTERMEASURES
The 1 , 12 6 km (700 mi) M o untains to Se a R o ute was the
fir st ro ute to b e ma pp ed and was co mple te d in June o f
1976 .A se t of six t ee n trip-tic m ap s, eac h covering 6 4 .3 to
8 0.5 km (40 to 50 mi) of the ro ute, was d evelo p e d. The
0 .2 m by 0 .2 m (8 by 8.5) inc h m ap s we re d esigned to fit
in th e ma p po cket of a fr o nt h andl e b ar b ag w h en fo ld ed ,
providi ng e asy access for cyclists w hil e riding. All m ap s
we re h and-drawn a nd d esi gn e d to prov id e info r ma tion
Bicycle Countermeasure Sele ction System Cas e Studie s 33 3
of interes t to cycli sts. N arrative information acco mpani e d
eac h segm e nt and include d a ge n e ral d esc rip tio n as well
as information o n te rrain, any h az ardous areas, ro adway
c onditions, avail able ser vi ces, and points o f inte res t. A
se p arate li sting of ca mpg rounds with co ntac t information
w as prov ide d. The strip ma p s were pa cka ged in a jacke t
that provide d ge n e ral infor m ation on bi cy cl e to uring in
North Carolina, a d esc riptio n o f the ove rall ro ute, a g uide
to u sing th e maps, b as ic wea the r informati o n , and a li st of
res ources for o btaining additi o nal informati o n.
A s n o t e d ab ove, additi o n al cross -stat e ro utes were d e-
ve lope d fr o m 1976 to 198 5 , c rea ting a 4 ,023 km (2 ,5 00
mi) sys tem of "Bicyclin g Hig hways ." In 1983, the DBPT
comple t ed th e fir st county bi cy cl e m ap , sh owing a 241
km (15 0 mi) sys te m that connec te d tow n s and points of
inte res t via low volume sce ni c roadways. Local cy cli sts
we re involve d in d evelo ping th e routes and p roviding in-
put o n ma p d es ign. In 1987, fe d e ral funds b ecam e ava il -
abl e to pla ce sig n s along th e ro utes. The 32 1 km (200 mi)
north/so uth Carolina Co nnec tion, whic h h ad receive d
America n Ass o cia tion of Stat e High w ay and Tran sporta-
tion Officials (AASHTO) d es ignation as U.S . Bike R o ute
1, w as the fir st to re ce ive signs.
In 19 9 1 , the DBPT worke d with lo cal cycli sts, staff, and
consultants to crea te th e fi rst two suitabili ty m aps. Un.like
route sel ec ti o n map s, w hi ch rec omme nd a "b es t route"
b e tween tw o p o ints of interes t , bi cy cl e suitabili ty m ap s
provid e information o n a b roa d er se lec ti o n o f ro adways,
with the go al o f helping cy cli sts make good ch oi ces ab o ut
w h e re to ride b ased on the ir own level of cy cling abili ty
and traffi c h a ndling skill s. Altho u gh suitabili ty map s h ad
b ee n crea t e d for localiti es in oth e r p arts of th e c ountry,
334 Case Stud ies Bicycle Countermea sure Selection System
th e DBPT refin e d the pro ce ss o f d ata coll ec tion and ap-
pli ca ti o n of suita bili ty ra tin gs to refl ec t conditions in eac h
community. E ac h N o rth C arolina co nm1llnity is unique,
and w h e the r produ cing a route m ap o r a suitabili ty map,
the DBPT strives to re fl ec t th ese uniqu e ch arac te risti cs
and cycling oppo rtuniti es.
O ve r th e pa st 28 yea rs, th e route selec ti o n , m apping and
signing ac ti v iti es of DBPT ha ve co ntinu e d in res p o n se t o
high local d e m and fo r su ch produc ts.The annual all oca tion
for map and si gn p roj ec ts is n ow $200,000 , se t as id e from
Tran sp o rtation E qui ty Ac t for the 21 st Century (T E A-
2 1) fund s. C ommuniti es can re ques t a proj ec t to d ev el o p
a route o r suitabili ty m ap for the ir area throu gh th e bi an-
nual Tran sportati on Improve m e nt P rogram . Su ch re qu es ts
ar e ge n e rate d th ro u g h loc al pl anning d e p artme nts, p arks
and rec rea tion d e p artme nts, ch amber s o f c ommerce, re-
g i o n al age n cies, a n d ad vo cac y g roup s. To rece ive funding
autho ri za tion, req u es ts must b e e ndo r se d and submitte d
to th e N C DOT by a local gove rning age n cy su c h as a city
co uncil o r c ounty commi ss ion.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
Evalu ati o n of th ese proj ec ts is m os tl y subj ec ti ve exce pt
for a surve y of"Bicycling High ways" m ap use r s co ndu ct-
e d in 198 0. This survey w as unde rtaken to coll ec t d em o -
g ra phic informatio n o n use r s and to p o ll th eir o pini o n s
o n th e safety and ap p eal of the routes and u se fuln ess of
th e m ap s.
Ve rbal or written fee db ac k is provid ed to DBPT staff p eri-
odi call y from requ es tin g agen cies n o ting lo cal res p o n se to
m aps and p erc eive d usa ge of routes . Individual cycli sts, lo-
cal cyc ling groups and bi cycl e sh o p p ersonnel al so provide
fee db ac k in the fo rm of prai se fo r th e produ ct o r co nstru c-
ti ve sugges tions fo r im prove m e nts o r rev isions to ro utes.
Althou gh informati o n on th e effec ti veness o f m ap and
sign proj ec ts is p r imarily an ec dotal , it is cl ea r that bi cy cl e
m ap s and sign s i nc rease bi cy cl e u sage and the visibili ty o f
bicy cling. Foll owin g are some exa mples to supp o rt this
state m e nt.
The DBPT distributes more than 2 5 ,000 bi cycl e
m ap s annu all y and field s thousa nds of phone ca ll s and
e -mails req u es ting additi o n al information o n where
to rid e .
An additional 2 5 ,0 00 to 3 5 ,000 m ap s are di stribute d
locally eac h yea r by communities for which bicy cl e
m ap s h ave b ee n produce d .
1
• The North Carolina ferr y sys t e m 's annual p assenger/
vehicle co unts consist e ntly sh ow signifi ca nt u sage
by bi cyclists . Several m apped routes m ake u se of this
ferry syste m.
In formal di sc u ssio n s with proprietors of b ed and
brea k fas t accommodations throu ghout the stat e show
tha t m any g u ests bring bi cycles w ith the m o r arrive
by bi cycle .
• DBPT staff freq u entl y field phone call s o r e -mail s fr om
visitors to the state noting that th ey c h ose to co m e to
North Carolina b eca u se of th e bi cycle mapping p ro-
g ram because it provides an ab undan ce of touring in-
formati on.
• Cycle North Carolina , an annu al c ro ss-sta te eve nt ini-
ti at ed in 1999, is a direct o utgrowth of the state's em-
phasis on mapping for bic ycl es.
• Each year since 1980 the DBPT h as produ ce d a cal -
e ndar of major bi cycle eve nts. The li stin g h as g ro wn
from twenty events to more than 200 . M any of th e
ride promo te rs u se th e mappe d routes for th e ir r ides.
Local bicycle club s regu larl y u se the m app ed routes in
their areas.
Other p os itive res ul ts invo lve roadway improvements
alo n g sec ti ons of d esigna te d bicycle routes. T h e route
se lec tion process ofte n reveals barrie r s to bi cy cling su c h
as bridges wi th inadequ ate width o r low railings and
roadways th at n ee d bi cy cl e improvements su ch as bike
lanes, wide c urb lanes, or wide p ave d shoulde r s to pro-
v ide a continu o us safe co rridor of trave l. Over the yea r s,
by working thro u gh ongoin g pro cesses of the NCDOT,
m any signifi ca nt improvements h ave b een m ad e to roads
and bridges id entifi ed through these ac ti v iti es.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Bicy cl e map a nd sign projects prov ide a low-cost way to
improve th e sa fety of cyclists by direc ting th em to roads
that are b e tter for bicycling. Bi cy cl e maps are also an ex-
cell ent to o l for promoting cy cling. The appointme nt of a
lo cal committee of plann ing and e n g inee ring staff, inte r-
es t e d elected offic ials, and citize n s to g uid e th e m apping
project creates g rea ter aware n ess of o ther bi cycling n eeds
and often leads to futu re plann ing efforts or faci li ty im-
provem e nt proj ec ts.
REFERENCES
Nort h Carolina Bicycle Facilities Planning and D es ign Guid e-
lin es, NCDOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation, 1994.
Bicycli ng and Wa lk ing in North Carolina: a Long-Range Tran s-
porta tion Pl an, N C DOT Division of Bicycle and P e -
d es trian Transporta tion , 1996.
"North Carolina's Bicycling Highways," C urtis B . Yates
and M ary Pau l M ele tiou , Bi cycle Program, North
Carolina Departme nt ofTra nsportation , Tran sp ortation
R ese arch R ecord 683, 1978.
http : I I ww w.nc dot .org/t r a n s it /bi cycle I maps /
maps_intro.html
COSTS A N D FU N DIN G
Costs of m appin g proj ec ts vary grea tl y depending on the
forma t , area covere d , number of colo r s, size of finis h ed
produc t , number o f co pi es printed and whether the work
is done in-house or through the services of a consultant.
Cost for the trip-tics (s trip maps) for th e original "Bicy-
cling Highways" maps were minimal -just ink and pap er.
R ecent upd at es include digitizing the informati o n , un-
d e rtake n by a cons u lting car tog rapher at an average cos t
of $1,000 p er segm e nt for two-colo r ar twork . The four-
color map/b rochures for co unty route sys t ems, produ ced
by o utside cartographers and g rap hic d es igners, cost
$20,000 for produ c ti o n and abo ut $.50 for eac h printed
co py. Urban m aps produ ced by outsid e ca rtograp h ers and
gra phic d es igners h ave ranged from $30,000 to $60,000
for produ c tion and $.34 to $.78 per copy for printin g.
Th ese cos ts d o not reflect staff time sp e nt in admini ste r-
ing the proje cts, deve lo ping rou tes, coordinating w ith lo-
cal co mmittees, preparing text, or reviewing an d proofing
the produ c t th roughout the production pro cess.
CONTACT
N C DOT Division of Bicycle and Pedes trian Transportati on
(919) 733-2804
Bikeped_transp orta tion@ dot.state.nc . u s
Bicycle Countermeasu re Selec tion System Case Studies 335
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO #52
Commuter Coach: Commuter Bicyclist
Recruiting
BACKGROUND
T raffic congestion and air quali ty are problemati c in Fort
Collins. With the p o pulation p roj ec t ed to in c rease by 43
percent with in th e next 20 years, it is imperative th at our
c ommu nity make use of alte rnative sources of transpor ta-
tion and do so safe ly. Since most commute rs live with in
4.8 km to 11.2 km (3 to 7 mi) of th e ir workplace, th e
bi cycle is a very v iable so urc e of transportation for many.
In ad dition, t h ere m ay b e improved "sa fety in numb er s" in
terms of the number of bi cyc lists that use the road and bi-
cycle fa cilities. [Se e case study #54, refe re nc es (page 346),
for studies th at docu ment this p h enome non.] Our mild
climate, re lati ve ly fl at terrain , and ab o u t 402 km (250 mi)
of bi ke lanes, tra il s and routes, m ake commuting by bike
an e asy option.Ad ditionally, our annu al Bike to Work Day
re se arch shows t h at p eo pl e will co mmute by bike if give n
the opportunity and th e right in centives.
T h e goal of Commuter Bi cy cle Coach was to rec ruit
individuals to ri d e their b ikes o n e d ay a week for fiv e
months inste ad of d riv ing alone. In return, they would
re ceive ince ntives u pon reac hing specific mil es tones. By
e ncouraging riding for a p e riod of time, o ur hop e was to
c h ange people's transportation h abits.
COUNTERMEASURES
Commuter Bicycle Coach is an intensive bicycle conmrnter
re cruiting program that provides su pport, edu ca tion and in-
centives to b egi1min g and exis ting co nunuters. D eve loped
and implemented in 2002, Conm1 uter Coach prese nts cy-
cling as a fim and easy way to conunute to work. Bicycle
conm1uting provid es th e freedom and individuality we enjoy,
while easing traffi c congestion an d improving air quality.
336
Betsy Ja cobsen , Bic yc le & Pedestri an Market i ng
Spe c ialist, City of Fort Collins Sma rtTrips ™
Case St ud ies Bicyc le Countermeasure Se lec ti on Sys tem
Comm uter Bicycle Coach
J oin the fun and hundreds of other bicycle commuters In
Fort Collins! Commit to ridi ng a bike or walking to work one
day a week and earn great rewards -from bike
accessories to gift certificates!
Commuter Bicycle Coach is for everyone -whether you 're a
beginning bicycle commuter or an experienced rider.
Start this free program In your wori<place and experience
the fun and freedom of riding a bike to work. Contact Betsy
Jacbosen at bjacobsen@fcgov.co m or 416-2453.
By targe ting selected compani es th at h ad previo usly partici-
p ated in SmartTrips™ programs, we recruited a "Conmrnter
Coach " within their organizations who would b ecom e the
li aiso n b e tween o ur office and theirs. They in turn would
rec ruit individuals fo r the p ro g ran1 as well as ass ist in trac k-
ing mil eage and distrib u ting ince ntives. We would provide
the incentives, as well as support th eir rec ruitment efforts
w ith gra phic and ed u ca tional materials on safety, clothing,
routes (s u ch as bike maps), etc. We also would b e availa ble
for free presentatio ns and cli ni cs related to co mmuting.
Prospective coac h es (a bout 30 co mpany representatives
w ho were Bike to Work D ay Coordinators) were invite d
to an informational brea kfa st where the program was de-
sc rib e d and ince ntives w e re shown . Information also was
sh are d among the gro up on the best practi ces of recruit-
ing individuals within th e workplace .
From that initial brea kfa st , w e e nli ste d seve n co ac h es of
varying cy cling exp e ri e n ce . Some w e re regular c onunut-
er s; othe r s were infre qu e nt riders.Their c ompani es range d
in si ze fr o m just a few e mployees to clo se to a hundre d .
Once th e prog ram started, word of mouth spread to othe r
companies until w e h ad a total of 15 coa c h es and 23 7
participants in the prog ram . Budge t limitations re quire d
that w e sto p taking p arti cipants at th at point.
Our inc enti ves include d a cycl o m e te r to provid e mil e-
age information, as well as othe r ite ms that h elp m ake
c onunuting sa fer and eas ie r su ch as h e adlights , rea r rac ks
and tire pumps. (We lea rn ed that m any b e ginning bi cy cl e
commute r s don't h ave the equipme nt to m ake commut-
ing safe and easy.) Additionally, w e se le cte d non-bike in-
ce ntives th at could b e e njoye d by anyon e , su ch as fr ee
movie p asses, ic e crea m cones, res ta urant certifi ca tes, e tc.
We d evel o p ed a simpl e el ec tronic sprea d sh ee t in E xcel
that the "Co ac h " post e d on his or h e r c ompany compute r
network so ea ch parti cipant c ould eas il y trac k th e miles
and day s they rode eac h month . At the end of the month ,
the c oa c h would th e n forward the sprea d sh eet to m e, and
I would distribute the mil estone in ce ntives.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
Throughout the prog ram w e trac ke d both mileage and
the numbe r of day s p arti cipants conm1Ute d by biking or
by walking . This gave us ba sic information about the fr e-
que n cy and di stanc e p articipants w e re commuting .
At th e e nd of the prog ram w e di stribute d a follow -up
survey to all C ommute r Coac h es a nd ask ed the m to for-
ward the surveys to the ir p articip ants. Of the 23 7 enroll e d
in the prog ram, w e rece ive d 60 res ponses -a 25 p e rcent
res ponse rate. The survey simply asked if th ey conu11Ut e d
by bike or walking more, less , or th e same amount b e -
ca u se of the prog ram .
Our origin al expectati o n w as to attain 10 0 bicycl e p artic -
ipants the fi rs t ye ar, including co ac h es . W e exceed e d th at
goal and ac hi eve d 23 7 parti cip ants, including 15 co ac h es
from 15 orga ni zations. B eca u se of budge t limitations (the
c o st of in cen tives), w e stopp ed taking n ew particip ants
and cre ate d a waiting li st for 2003 (wh e n our n ext budge t
was to be release d).
In addition to bicycl e commuter s, w e also h ad 15 p e d es-
trian conm1Ut e rs. Whe n th e program b ega n , seve ral in-
te rested walke rs asked to have a prog ram d eve lope d for
them, so unde r th e same umbrella of Commute r Coa ch ,
we implemente d a walkin g c ompone nt. Walker s w e re re-
quire d to walk at least one da y a w eek for fiv e months and
we re g iven p e dome ters to tra ck their mil eage. They al so
we re give n diffe re nt in ce ntives .
Sinc e June, the start of the prog ram , w e h ave tra cke d
46,414 miles and 6 ,238 da ys of conm1uting as o f Janu ary
3 1 , 2003. Unfortunately, the va ca nt position of Bicy cl e
& P e destrian Marke ting Sp eciali st , City of Fort Collins
Smart Trips™ could not b e fill e d , and the prog ram w as
n o t c ontinue d .
Of the 237 p arti cipants 111 the program, more than half
(12 7) fini sh e d th e program ; and another 50 completed at
leas t half the prog ram. Injury, cold w eather and darkness
were cited as reas ons for n o t completing the program . Ad-
diti o nally, m o re than h alf o f the particip ants comple ting the
survey (38) sta ted the prog ram motiva ted them to increase
th e amount they we re conm1uting by biking or walking.
CONCLUSIONS AND
R E COMMENDATIONS
B ase d on the numb er of parti cip ants e nroll ed in the pro-
g ram and the high numb er that compl e te d it, this app e ar s
to b e a success ful prog ram th at at l eas t introdu ces bi cy cl e
conm1Utin g as an alt e rnative transportation ch o ice . How-
eve r, there ce rta inly are asp ec ts that n eed to b e addresse d:
While parti c ip a nts w e re as k e d to bike or w alk one d ay a
w eek , bike p arti cipation wa s al so tied to di stan ce, m ea n-
ing tha t a bike r c ould comple t e th e prog r am in 20 d ays
or 322 km (20 0 mi). The latt e r g o al cause d some of the m
to do all their riding in a shorte r amount of time inste ad
of th e anticip at e d fiv e months. A s w e move d into 200 3,
w e adjuste d th e incentive mil es tones so p arti c ipants
w e re re quire d to log at leas t four d ay s a month in orde r
to rece ive the ir ince ntives, and w e no longe r ti e d ince n-
ti ves to di stance.
C old w ea the r and lack of dayli ght w e re hindrances as w e
m ove d into the colder months. While 2002-2003 has still
b een o ne of th e warmest and dri es t winte rs on re c ord ,
p eo pl e p e rc e ive it to be winte r and there fore stop riding.
W e starte d the progra m earli e r the se cond yea r (March
instea d of June) in hopes p e ople would form th eir habit
o f riding as the weathe r w arms inst ea d of cools.
Clea rl y, in the companies whe re th e C oa ch es were more
invo lve d (providing hands-o n support, inte rnal motiva-
tion, prompt di stribution of incentives, e tc .) the partici-
p ants did mu ch b e tter. Becau se of that , w e have b ee n more
Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System Case Studies 337
sp ecifi c regarding th e expectatio n s we have of coac h es.
Additionally, we're working more closely w ith th em at
the onset of the prog ram. ·
COSTS AN D FUNDING:
While we were a bl e to receive di sco unts on many of th e
ince ntives we purc ha se d , the cos t p e r p articipan t is ro u gh-
ly $100. That includes admini strati on of the program as
well as ince ntives. In 2002, funding was made ava il a bl e
through th e city. In 2003, it w ill b e combine d fundin g
from both th e City and Federal C MAQ (Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quali ty) fun d s.
CONTACT
B e tsy J aco b sen
Bi cy cl e & Pe d es tri an M arketing Sp eciali st
City of Fort Collins SmartTrips TM
P.O. Box 580
250 North M aso n
Fort Collins, CO 80522
(970) 416-2403
bj aco b se n @fcgov.com
33 8 Case Stud ie s Bicycle Countermea sure Se le ction Syste m
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUTT #53
Bike to Work Promotion
BACKGROU N D
The Ca pitol R egion Council of Gove rnme nts (CR C O G)
b ase d in H artford , C T , co mple te d its R egio n al Bicycl e
Plan in April 2000 with th e visio n th at by the Yea r 2010,
res ide nts and visitors to th e regio n wo uld b e abl e t o co n-
ve ni e ntly and sa fely bi cy cl e whe reve r they n ee d or want
to go. The Plan include d a varie ty o f recornme ndati o n s t o
reac h this vision, including a mix o f fac iliti es, e du ca ti o n ,
e nforce m e nt and encourage m e nt. But th ere w e re two
major findin gs during th e study indica ting that it wo uld
b e unreaso n abl e to exp ec t m ea ningful imple m e ntation o f
the pl an 's rec omme ndation s:
• A stagge ring lac k of unde rstanding throu ghout the re-
g ion th at bi cycl es are to foll ow th e ve hicl e code and
do, in fac t , belong o n th e road .
• A d es ire o n the p art o f most of the regio n 's towns to
acc ommo da te bi cyclists, but stri c tl y on se p arat e, multi-
u se trail s.
These iss u es are not ext rao rdinary, but th ey do give some
indi ca ti o n o f w h ere the H artford , C T , region res id es in the
sp ec trum of b ecoming a bi cy cl e-frie ndly community and
the am o u n t o f b as ic ed u ca tion that n ee d s to b e don e.
Shortly afte r th e p lan was ad o pte d , th e CR C O G staff d e-
cide d to kick o ff th e imple m e ntati o n of the Bike Plan
w ith an all-o ut e ffo rt o n N ational Bike to Work D ay in
M ay 2000. A committee w as fo r m ed , ac tiv iti es and an
eve nt were planne d for a park in d owntown H artfo rd on
th e morning of Bike to W o rk d ay, gifts for cy cli sts were
o btaine d and breakfast was re ady. Unfortun ately, Bike to
Work D ay 2000 w as extre mely r ainy, and only 12 in-
tre pid souls atte nd e d the eve nt. The pl anning co nunittee
Sa ndy Fry, Prin c i pal Transpor t atio n Pl anner, Ca pi-
t ol Region Co un ci l of Gov ernm ents
felt th e momentum c reate d by th e eve nt n ee d e d to b e
m aintaine d , and a d ec isio n was m ad e to continu e Bike to
W o rk D ay o n the las t Friday of eac h month througho ut
th e srnnme r.
Fro m this start, th e region embarked up o n a regular Bike to
W o rk promo ti o n , w ith m o nthly eve nts throu gh the spring,
summer and fa ll . The eve nts h ave b ee n d es igne d to:
• Edu cate bi cycli sts and o ther s that th e bi cy cl e is a se n -
sibl e and b e n e fi c ial m ea n s of tran sportati o n ;
• M ake ba sic informatio n o n bicycl e co mmuting ava il -
abl e to pote ntial ride r s;
• Encourage p e opl e to try bicy cl e conunuting; and
Inc rea se the ge n e ral public's awa re n ess o f and res p ec t
fo r bicy cli sts.
COUNTERMEASURES
The Bike to W o rk prog ram h as g row n since the fir st eve nt
in M ay 2000 . In 2 000 the eve nts were low key and in-
formal -one o r two sta ff m e mb ers se t up a ca rd tabl e in
a d owntown p ark and se r ve d juice, c offee and d o nuts to
bi cycling commute rs on the las t Friday of the m o nth. A
n ew loc ation was sele c ted in th e sec ond yea r of o p eration ,
but th e maj o r c h an ge in the prog ram w as th e addition o f
a raffl e. In 20 02, th e lo cati o n wa s c h an ge d to a m o re ce n -
tral d owntown sp o t and the eve nts were exp ande d to run
fr o m April to O c t o b er. In M ay, e ig ht town s in the region
hoste d th e ir own eve nts. T h e follow ing sec tions d escrib e
th e fea tures of the prog ram.
Bicycle Countermea sure Sele ction Sy stem Ca se Studie s 339
ORGAN IZATIONAL STR UC TURE
The Bike to Work Planning Conmiittee, now n amed Bike
to Work-Capitol Region, is ch aired by a staff m ember
of the Capitol R egion Council of Gove rnments (the ar-
ea's M etropolitan Planning Orga ni zation). Organi za ti ons
represe nte d on the Committee include state agencies (the
Departme nts of Public H ealth, E nvironmental Protection,
and Transportation) and advocacy gro ups (the Conn ecticut
Bicycle Coalition , the Si er ra Club, th e American Lung As-
sociation and All Aboard!, a trans it advocacy gro up .) The
MPO provides ove rall adniinistra tive supp ort with othe r
age nci es contributing time and funclin g as th ey are abl e.
PROGRAM FEATURE S
Bike to Work h as evolved to be a once-monthly ac ti v ity
running from April through October. Commuting cycli sts
are m e t at a central location w h e re they are prov ided with
fr ee breakfas t , a small gift and the opportunity to m eet
oth er cy cli sts. Cycli sts fill o ut a form at the eve nt which
m akes them eli g ibl e for a drawing held at the end of the
year. Those comn1Ute rs w h o work in locations oth e r th an
downtown Hartford can still e nter th e raffie by submit-
ting a raffi e fo rm for eac h eve nt day that they bicy cl e to
work. Other towns in the region are encouraged to spon-
sor their own eve nts, and th e ir p ar ti cip ants are e nte red
into th e regional raffie.
PUBLIC/PRIVATE COOPERATION
To date, th e eve n ts h ave b een strictly low-budge t. A small
fundraising ca mpaign, targe te d at bi cycli sts, provides $500
to $1,000 .Age n c ies on the Bike to Work Pl anning Com-
mittee ha ve contribute d to the effort in va rious ways. In
2002 the D e partment of Public Health prov id e d funds
from a ca rdiovascular h ealth gra nt to cover the cos t of pro-
du cing and di splaying Bike to Work signs on tra nsit buses
340 Case Studies Bicyc le Countermeasure Selection System
($8,500). The D ep artment of Environmental Protec tion
covered the c ost of printing and di stributing a p ayroll in-
se rt announcing the Bike to Work program, which went
to all state employees (a t a cos t of ab o ut $500) in 2001
and 2002. Gifts for cyclists attending eve nts are donate d
by bike shops.
In addition , the year-e nd raffi e is for a bi cycle that is
provide d by a m anufac turer's re prese ntative at wholes al e
pri ce. A bike sh o p fits th e bike and builds it for th e w in-
ner. The cos t of th e breakfa sts is covere d throu gh dona-
tions (pr imaril y from membe rs of the planning conmut-
tee) and so me funding ava ilab l e through the Co uncil of
Governments. In 2002, o n e of the monthly eve nts was
sponso re d by a large downtown e mploye r, who provid ed
the food and m an p owe r re quire d .
PROMOTIONAL EFFORTS
Promotion of Bike to Work has several as p ec ts:
Getting the word out
• H elping nov ices give it a try
• Enco ura gi n g bike co mmuting as a continuing h abit
C R COG maintains a W eb site (http :/ /www.crcog.org /
biketowork2 005.htm) that ha s monthly updates on the pro-
gram. Each month press rel eases are cli stributed widely to
crea te inte rest in the program, a p ayro ll inse rt goes to all sta te
employees (one insert eac h year) and brochures are distrib-
ute d (inclucling distribution to noontime crowds at a center
city park).A large e-mail address li st of those who have p ar-
ti cip ated in Bike to Work or who h ave sh own an interest
in it is m aintained, and they are se nt e-mail s monthly. The
Committee al so works w ith large empl oye rs, requ es ting that
th ey send e-mail s to their employees about the eve nt each
month. The pl acement of adve rti sin g signs on buses in 2002
significantly boosted the program 's visibility.
To e n co urage those w ho h ave n eve r tried bike commut-
ing , a rid e coordinator system h as b ee n develop e d . The
coordinators are indiv iduals who bike to work regul arl y
and h ave vo lunteere d to mee t cycli sts on th eir trip or to
help them plan the ir commutes . They are li sted on th e
W e b site w ith co ntac t information, trip origin and d es ti -
nation, and frequ ency.
To e ncourage bi cy cli sts to continue biking to work, eac h
month we se le ct one indiv idual as our area's Supe r Bike
C ommute r w ith re cognition in the monthly press re lease,
on our W e b site , and at the monthly eve nt. Selec tion is
b ase d up o n d e dication to commuting by bike and abil-
ity to inspire others to g ive it a try. This re c ognition h as
re ceived signifi cant press atte ntion.
Oth er features of the prog ram are d es ign e d to ge n e rate
public inte res t.At ea c h eve nt, cycli sts ca n se lec t a gift (ge n-
erally relate d to bike m ainte nan ce or sa fety ) and e nte r a
raffle . Monthly raffi e pri zes ar e award ed , and the yea r-e nd
raffle includes a new, hi gh-quality bike with an approx i-
m ate re tail value of $900. In 2002 , a T-srurt was give n to
the fir st 50 p articipants and then m ad e av ail able for sale.
In 2002 th e Big Whe el award wa s c reate d to re cog ni ze
towns that exhibit a commitment to integratin g sa fe bi-
cy cl e travel on the ir ro ad s. (This award was prese nted only
once during th e promo tion , as only one town , Windso r,
C T, exhibite d progress w arrantin g the award.)
SAFE CYCLING
Safe cyclin g h as bee n a co ntinuing th em e of th e events.
A Share the Road bro chure was d e velop e d for the initi al
eve nt in M ay 20 00 and h as bee n avail a bl e at all eve nts.The
bro c hure co ntains tip s fo r both bicycli sts and motorists on
h ow to sh are th e ro ad sa fely. All cy cli sts are e n c ourage d
to take a co py o f th e bro chure, and since the bro c hure
is targete d to motorists also , p ass e r sby are en couraged to
pi c k up a co py.
Cyclists are also g iv e n an opportunity to re p o rt any h az -
ards they find o n th e ir co mmute. These are reporte d on
a postca rd d es igned fo r this purpose and re turned to
C R C OG. C RCOG th e n forwards the conce rn to the
appropriate roa d d e p artme nt (s tat e or town) for res olu-
ti o n . Some of th e conune nt ca rds are re turned with sp e -
cifi c mainte n an ce iss u es (d e bris on th e ro ad , potholes)
while others n o te longer-te rm iss u es, like the n ee d for
bike lan es or p aths.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
The su cc ess of Bike to Work eve nts can b e m eas ure d in a
numb e r of w ays:
How many p e ople atte nde d the eve nts?
Did the eve nts en courage p e opl e to try bike conm1Llt-
ing for the fir st time?
But most importantl y for o ur eve nts:
Did the eve nts raise c onm1Llnity aw are n ess o f the rol e
th at bikes ca n play in th e transp o rtation sys t em?
Is there a g rea te r unde rstanding of the fa ct that bikes
do b el ong on the roads?
A d ata ba se was d evelop e d to m eas ure atte ndan ce and
ch arac te rist ics of bike co1ru11Ut er s. In the fir st yea r (2000),
approximately 25 attende d the Bike to Work eve nts, but
little w as known about their co11U11Llt e trip. In 200 1 and
2002, a raffi e form was d e si gn e d t o provide info rmation
on ea ch parti cipant's bike conm1Ut e and th e datab as e was
crea te d using this information.
C onm1Llnity aware n ess h as b ee n m eas ured with a surro-
gate -how m any news articles cove red th e eve nt eac h
yea r. A survey o f the public would provide a more ac-
c ura te understanding of ch an ges in public p e rce pti o n and
Bicycle Countermeas ure Selectio n Sys tem Case Studies 341
attitudes, but prese n ce of n ews articles indica tes that the
information is going out to the publi c, and that opinion-
m akers such as the m e di a view the topic as important.
An analysis of the d atab ase indica tes that the program is
h av ing some impac t in convincing individuals t o try bike
commuting. In 2001, 15 p e rce nt of the p arti cipants were
try ing bike conunuting for the first time (see table). In
2002, the numb e r dropp ed to just over 10 percent. The
diminishing numbers of new bike commuters is so m e-
what exp ec t ed. Those who first try biking to work tend
to have sc h e dules, work loca tions and skill s most ame-
nabl e to biking to work. Once the "low-hanging fruit"
joins in the prog ram, a grea te r e ffort is needed to e n -
coura ge those who may h ave more diffi c ult sc h e dules or
whose work locations lack suitable facilities to try biking
to work. In addition, to continu e to attract new co mmut-
e rs, th e region's roads n eed to feel safe t o bicyclists w ith
a wide variety of skill levels. At thi s point, the Bike to
Work prog ram h as not b e e n acco mpani ed by w ides prea d
introductio n of new bike fac iliti es (e .g. bike lanes, parking
racks, showers, locker s.)
Re co rd of Parti cipation in Bike to Work Events
2000 2001 2002
Number of individuals
participating t hro ughout 25 201 236
promotion
Highest attendance at a 20 si ngle event 95 153
Number of first t i mers
(biked to work for the NA 30 25
first time on the day of
an event)
Percent of participants NA 15% 11 %
who were first timers
Annual bicycle com-
mute miles reported by NA 204,000 225,000
participants
Notes
NA= not available
2002 peak attendance includes attendees at one
downtown event and 8 regional events.
Follow-up work is required to determine wheth er those
who tri ed biking to work as a res ult of our program have
continued to bike to work and if so, how often.
The eval u ation ha s indi cated that the program is having
some impact in co nvincing people to try bike commut-
ing, but the numbers are still very small. Feedback from
342 Case Stud ie s Bicycle Counterm easure Se le ction System
cycli sts and those who have considered biking to work,
but h ave not, indi cates that n ew conunute rs are disco ur-
aged by the lack of bicycle facilities (the re are no trail s
or bike lanes leading into downtown Hartford) and that
many of them lack the confidence n eeded to rid e in traf-
fic . The rid e coordinator prog ram is d esign ed to h e lp build
confidence for n ovices, but it is not being full y utili ze d.To
d at e n o one h as ridden with an y of the ride coordinators,
but they h ave b een co ntac te d for informa tion regarding
prefe rre d routes. [n the future the Committee w ill work
to stre n gthen this program, adding coordinators and im-
proving publicity.
The h aza rd -spotting prog ram is an effo rt to improve
conditions for bikers, but implementa tion is still di f-
ficult. Some m aintena n ce d e p artmen ts take the com-
plai nts se riou sly and respond immediately. Others are
less prompt. The chall e n ge to the Bike to Work Com -
mittee i s to ge t the commitment of all the towns and
the sta te to res p ond promptly to con ce rns. Othe r suc-
cess ful bike h azard-spo tting prog r am s in the co untry
h ave b ee n d eve lo p ed from the t o p down a nd there is
a m an age m e nt directive to implement the program. In
this case, the impleme ntation is from the u sers, and this
bottom-up approach w ill require time b efore it is full y
ins ti tu tionalized.
The region ha s not see n a sudde n increase in d eve lopment
of bike faci liti es as a res ult of the Bike to Work promo tion,
but there h ave b een some positive signs. The town man-
age r of Windsor, CT, h as directed his Public Works De-
partment to examine every stree t sc h edul ed to b e re p aved
to determine if bike lanes ca n b e designated on the street.
The city of H artford has unde rtaken a m ajor citywide
traffic calming project, and bike lanes are b e ing consid-
ere d on several major ar te rials.Th e town o f East Hartford
h as b ee n working diligently to get funding in pl ace for a
piece of bike trail that w ill link th e eas t e rn subu r bs with
downtown H artford.
Media coverage has increased each year, and th e tone of
articles h as ch anged from a fo c u s on trail s and p aths to a
greater e mphasis on bi cy cling as a means of trans porta-
tion. This indicates a signifi ca nt change in attitude abo u t
the role of biking in the transportation syste m , at leas t
amon g the opinion makers of the regio n.
It does a pp ear that the program h as been su ccessfu l in
raising the p rofile of bicycling as a legitimate part of
the transportation sys t e m, as ev idenced in the in c rease
in media coverage. In additi on, th e m e re prese n ce of
a n umb er of bicycle commuters one d ay each month
reinforces the ide a that bikes do belong on the stree t. It
f ,
is uncl ea r if the m essage that bicy cl es should follow the
ve hicle co d e has b ee n c onveye d . The r e is no ev id e n ce
to indi ca t e tha t more bi c yclists a nd motorists are p ro p-
e rly sh a ring th e ro ad .
CONCLUS IONS A N D
RECOMMENDATI ON S
The Bike to Work promotion h as p layed a rol e in raising
the profil e of cycling as a m eans of tran sportation in the
H artford region, and it app e ars that it ca n pl ay a rol e in
re inforc ing the ide a that bicycle s follow th e ve hicl e cod e .
The prog ram will continu e n ext ye ar with an emphas is
on providing support to those who are conside ring bik-
ing to work but are h es itant. This w ill include exp and-
ing th e ride coordinato r prog ram and providing tip s and
d emonstrations for bike commute r s, su ch as how to dress,
how to m ake a safety c h e ck of your bike and how t o
re pair a fl at. Furth e r o utreach to e mploye r s to e n courage
them to support bike commuting will b e unde rtake n . In
addition, more information will b e c o ll e cte d from cyc li sts
to b e tte r under stand how e ffective the prog ram is and to
]ea rn more abo u t th e imp ediments t o biking to wo rk .
With the Big W h eel aw ard , th e prog ram will continue
t o re cognize towns, to e n c ourage th e m to consid e r bike
n eed s on their roadway sys te m . This w ill dove tail with th e
MPO 's ad o ption and implementation of th e U.S . DOT
Poli cy on Inte grating Bicy cling and W alking into the
Transportation Infra struc ture. AJ so , it is hop e d that m any
o f the regio n 's towns w ill ag ree to sponsor at leas t o n e
Bike to W o rk eve nt n ext year. C o ntinu ed di ss eminati o n
o f "Share the Road " information w ill b e an important
p ar t of th e continuing prog ram.
W e conside r o ur prog ram a su ccess in m eeting our goals,
and exp ec t that by continuing the prog ran1 w e will con-
tinu e to see b e n e fit s. Our adv ice to other s c onte mplating
a similar prog ram is to start simply, add to the prog ram
ove r time and sh are the res ponsibiliti es w ith p artne r o r -
ga ni za tions.
COSTS AND FUNDING
Eve nt
Food (7 events at $60 each) $420
Pub l ic ity
Ban ner : 2' XlO' (reused year t o year) 120
Ba nn er : 3' X 20 ' (reused year to year) 360
Broc hu re printing 500
Payro l I I nsert 5 00
Sig ns on Buses 8,550
Gift s/Pri zes
T-s hirts (250) 1 ,5 30
Bicyc le t o raffle 500
Total $12,480
N o tes:
Fo r se ve ral of the eve nts, th e fo o d was ac tuall y donat ed
by the h os t .
• The bro chure cos t cove rs th e cos t o f printing the Bike
to Work b roc hure .
• The Share the Road b roc hure printing cos t ($2 ,20 0)
was c ove re d u nder an o the r prog ram .
• T h e c o st of the p ayro ll inse rt was d o n ate d by th e C T
D e partme nt of Environme ntal Protec tion.
• The c o st of th e sign s o n buses was covere d by the C T
D e p artme nt of Public H ealth.
• 85 shirts we re g ive n away, th e res t we re ava il able for
sale at $14 .
• The bi cy cl e is provided to the proj ec t at cl ose to the
m anufa c ture rs cos t so we p ay $500 for a $9 00 to $1,000
re tail valu e bike .
CONTACT
Sa n dy Fry
Pri ncip al Tran spo rtati o n Planne r
Capito l R egion Co unc il of Governm e nts
24 1 M ain Street
H ar tford , CT 06106
(860) 52 2-221 7
sfry@crc o g.org
Bicycle Countermea sure Sel ec tion Syste m Ca se Studies 34 3
MISSOULA, MONTANA #54
Free Cycles Program
BACKGROUND
Free C ycl es Miss oula w as fo rme d in 1996 as a non-profit
to address th e followin g iss u es:
proj ec tions o f future inc rease d c ongestio n and air
polluti o n
• la ck of c onununity access to afford abl e bi cy cl es
• broke n bi cy cl es b eing th rown aw ay
B efore Free Cycl es Misso ula b egan ope rati o ns , rou ghl y
500 bicycles a yea r w e re going to th e lo cal recycling ce n-
te r and la ndfill. These "th row-aw ay " bikes p rese nte d an
o ppo rtunity to increase access to bi cy cl es by all citi zens,
es p eciall y low-in come indiv iduals. The ac t of giving aw ay
bicy cl es also provid e d increase d opportu n iti es to di strib -
ute sa fety info rmation to individual citi ze n s and to th e
c ommunity at large.
The d e cision to start th e p roj ec t by prov idin g 'fr ee-ro am -
ing' green b ikes was b ase d o n the p e rce ptio n that p eopl e
wo uld gladl y d o n ate unuse d bikes and b ro ken bikes to an
orga ni za ti o n that w ould ge t the bikes b ac k to th e com -
munity in working order . Ano the r fa ctor to start the proj-
ec t w as th e knowle d ge that m any short m o to r ve hicl e
trips could b e re pla ced by b icy cl e trip s ( 40 p e rce nt of
lo cal m o to r ve hicl e trip s are less than two mil es) if c onve -
ni e nt alte rn ative s existe d .
While community awa re n ess exi ste d ab o ut these iss u es,
ove rall th er e see m e d to b e a ge n e ral se n se o f fru stration
that motorize d traffi c was in creasin g unab at ed and that
cy cling conditions w ere d e t e riorating. A just-compl et-
e d Long R an ge Plan for Miss oula C ounty (po pul ati o n
344
Bob Giordano
Executive Director,
Missoula Institute for Sustainable Transportation
Program Director, Free Cycles Missoula
Case Studies Bi cycle Countermea sur e Selection Sy stem
An umbrella adv oc acy organization helps mon itor and advocate
for b ik e faci li ty.
90,000) ea rmarke d seve ral ro ads to b e reco n struc te d w ith
additi o n al lan es fo r motorize d ve hicl es as a way t o reli eve
con ges tion. Ye t , it see m e d that bi cycling w as b e in g ove r-
loo ke d as a legitimate mode of tran sp o rtation that co uld
b e planne d for and encourage d . N o bike lan es exis t ed at
the time, w hic h ofte n force d an awkwa rd and d an gero u s
sh aring o f ro ad space o n arte ri al roa d ways .
On e justifi ca ti o n for n o t sp e nding more reso urces o n
bi cy cl e infra structu re was that cyc lin g m ad e up a sm all
p o rti o n of th e local mod e sh are. To th e found er s of Free
Cycl es this seem e d t o b e a "catc h-22" situation: w itho ut
safe fac iliti es bi cycling mi ght n o t grow, but w itho ut bicy-
clin g g rowth , the safe fac iliti es m ay n o t b e supp orte d by
d ecisio n-maker s.
GOALS OF THE PROJECT
At th e start o f the proj ec t , a primary goal o f Free Cycles
Misso ul a w as "to o btain old, unuse d bi cy cl es, g ive them a
p aint j o b, fe nders, re fl ec tors, and a w ire b as ke t , and pl ace
the m in publi c places around Misso ula" (MIST W e b site,
2005). C ommunity invo lve m e nt in building a nd m ain-
taining th e bikes was also an important goal. By m aking
reb uilt bicycles w idely ava ilabl e throughout the city (the
bike is ridden, and then p arked at any public rack) it was
thoug ht that the sh eer numbers of bi cyclists and bicycle
trip s would increase.
Longe r term, a go al of the proj ec t was to e mbark on a
process that wo uld eventu all y lea d to elevated co mmunity
awa reness about, and utilj za tion of, bi cycling as a legiti -
mate m ode of tran sportation . By c reatin g a b e tte r cycling
atmosphe re in th e city, more facilit ies and thus more cy-
clists would eve ntu all y exis t . Overall , the proj ect aimed to
initiate a positive feed b ac k loop th at wo uld release and
c reate the late nt d emand fo r bicycling.
Several researc h stu dies indica te th at safety for bi cycling
inc reases w h e n more bicyclists are on th e street. One p a-
per found an inverse relatio n ship b e twee n the number
bicyclists on the street and th e numb e r of crashe s invo lv-
ing bicyclists bei ng hit by motor vehicles Qaco b se n, 2003).
A noth er st udy sinularly fo und that th e ri sk of a cyclist
inc urring a severe injury is d ec reased w h e n numbe r s of
bicyclists increase (Rob inso n , 2005).
COUNTERMEASURES
In th e spring of 1996, 50 gree n bikes were rel ease d to the
community. At th e end of the r iding seaso n , twenty-five had
"s urvived."While this surnval ra te peaked at 83 perce nt in
1999 (MIST Web si te, 2005), it b ecame ap parent from th e
middl e of the firs t year of the projec t tha t a multi-face ted ap-
proach with a var iety of commu ni ty cycling program s wo ul d
b e needed in order to meet the p roject goal s and o bj ec ti ves.
This multi-facet e d approach h ad alrea dy been co n ce ive d
in the Green B ike Proposal that h ad circulate d th rough-
o ut th e city prior to the initial green bike release in April,
19 96 . This approach reads:
Free Cycles Missoula w ill b e respo n sibl e for co ntinu -
all y bringing in additiona l bikes, m aintaining th e ones
in use, condu c ting senil n ar s on ed ucation and safety,
working with th e city in improving bi cycle corridors,
and monitoring th e su ccess of th e prog ram (MI ST
W e b site, 2005).
Yea rs two and three of th e proj ec t (1997-98) saw an
evolution t o fo ur m ore programs:
• the expansion of the gree n bike release d ay into a full
Fes ti val of Cycles focused on commuru ty building and
bike building,
the c rea ti on of a second ge n era tion of public bicycles
(a le ndin g library call ed Checkout Misso ul a),
• the spread of an outreach and edu ca tion program
call e d Pedal Edu ca ti on,
• and th e transfo rmati on of th e gree n bike repa ir sh op
into a formalized gath e ring pl ace ca ll e d the Commu-
nity Bike Shop.
I n 2000, in order to address researc h , design a nd ad-
vocacy for better bicycle sys t ems a nd, more gener-
all y, bett er trans portati on sys t e m s, an umbre ll a gro up,
the Mi ss oula Institute for Sustainable Tra n spo rta tion
(M I ST) was formed . And finall y, 2003 saw a 6 th p ro-
g r am added t o Free Cycles -P edal Tec hnology. Th e
a im of P e dal Tec hnol ogy i s t o ext e n d th e reac h of
what the bi cycle i s capabl e of b ei ng u se d for (i.e. load
ca rry ing, p rotecting th e r id e r from th e weath e r , i m-
provi ng effi ciency) and increasing the avai la bility of
exi sting bi cycle att ac h ments (i.e. trai l ers and racks) t o
m ore peopl e throu g h inex p ensive fabr i cation (utili z -
in g a stock of 1,000 r ecovered bikes for parts).
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
One of the outcomes of this proj ec t h as been th e su ccess -
ful recove ry of over 5 ,000 broken and unu sed bicycles
from the conunu nity and region . 2,500 of th ese bicycl es
The bike lane was origina lly striped too narrow and then fixed a
f ew days later. Th e new l ine to the left makes for a proper bike
lane . Th e old lane was only 30 in wide, forci ng cyclists too c lose
to the gutte r pan seam. T he city engineer ori gi nall y wante d t o
wait a year until the paint wore off to correct th e problem but ,
und er direction from city co un cil, fi xe d th e prob lem within day s.
MIST was effective at advo ca ting for bicyc li st safety.
Bicyc le Countermeasure Selec tio n System Ca se St udi es 345
h ave b ee n give n away to those in n eed. The recipi e nt of
th e fr ee bike lea rns the skill s t o fi x the bi cy cl e at th e com-
munity sh o p and learns the skill s to rid e the bi cy cl e sa fel y
e ithe r at the shop or at a varie ty of worksh o p s taught
throug hout th e c onununity. In addition , ove r 10,0 00 indi-
vidu als ha ve inte ra c ted with the community bi cy cl e shop
in the form o f ge tting info rmation, gettin g p arts, or u sin g
tools. Efforts are made by shop p e rsonnel and voluntee r s
to e n sure th at some el e m e nt o f safe ty is expresse d to these
shop p arti c ipants. Th ese e ffo rts take th e sh ap e o f:
• pointing out safe routes in the conununity w ith m ap s
and guides
• e ncourag ing safe riding skill s through h ands-on d e m-
onstrations or through bro c hures
• ensuring safe mech ani cal functionin g of th e bike
through one-on-one cl asses and group di scu ssion s
Othe r outcomes of the proj ec t include a su cces sful Fe s-
ti val of C ycl es th at h as run co ntinuously for eight ye ar s
with ave rage atte ndance of 1,000 p e opl e, approximately
1,000 bi cycle ch ec kouts fro m the bike library (Chec kout
Miss oula prog ram), and seve ral suc ce ssful bicycl e fa cili ty
improve m ent proj ects run by the umbrell a o rga ni za tion ,
MIST. One p articular p roj ec t by M IST improve d a bike
lan e that h ad b een inadverte ntl y narrowed to under three
fee t by the city of Misso ul a. The bike lan e was res trip ed
at a more prop er fiv e fo o t w idth within one wee k of th e
m.ist ake due solel y to the e n gage m e nt of MIST with th e
Miss oula C ity Cou ncil .
Finall y, the o ri g inal proj ec t goal of increas in g bike trips
by prov idin g fr ee g ree n bikes to citi ze n s was success -
ful in that ove r 10,00 0 trip s are estimate d to h ave be e n
take n by this m e thod of tran sportation (primaril y in the
yea r s 1996-2000 ). It is unknown how m any o f these trip s
re pla ced an auto trip, a walk trip, or an o the r bike trip.
H ow eve r, the re h as also b ee n substantial p ositive fee dbac k
from citize n s on the effe cti ve n ess of th e g reen bikes w ith
res p ec t to 1) providing a fun alt e rnative t o driv ing and
2) sp awning a whole ran ge o f bicycl e and tran sportatio n
p rogram s aime d at ge tting more p e ople bicy clin g as a
fo rm of tran sportation . Furth e r resea rc h would n ee d to
b e co ndu c te d to obtain more detail e d numbe r s on th e
ove rall effec t o f all Free Cycl es and MIST prog rams on
m o d e sh are and bicycl e sa fety.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
In hi ndsight, starting w ith a ve ry simple, hi ghly-visibl e
co nm1u1u ty -base d prog ram w ith the willingness and inten -
346 Case Studies Bicyc le Countermea sure Se lec t ion Sys tem
tion to ch an ge, g ro w, and expand, has prove d ve ry effective.
R ec onune ndations fo r o ther conmrnnities includ e:
• B egin a community bi cy clin g prog ram with a c om-
munity shop. This e ntail s finding sp ace (10 00 to 3000
squ are fee t), a coordinator (vo lunteer or paid) and th e
support of oth e r local cycling orga ni zations.
Give aw ay fr ee bicy cle s, sell some bicycles to cove r
so m e expenses, and retain a sm all fle e t for loaning
bikes o u t .
G e t involve d in the d esign and advocacy for b e tte r
fa ciliti es (b ike lan es on all arte rial s, c onne cted multi-
u se trails , and rega ining or m aintainin g calm n eighbor-
hood streets).
• If starting a publi c bicy cl e sys te m , c ompli m e nt a 'fr ee-
ro anung' prog ram w ith a 'c h eckout' prog ram .
• Emphas ize safe riding, sa fe fac iliti es, and sa fel y-tuned
bikes in all prog ram s.
REFERENCES
J ac obse n , P. L. 2003. Sa fe ty in numbe rs: more w alke r s and
bi cy cli sts, safe r walking and bi cycling. Injury Prevention ,
9, 205 -209 .
Miss oula Institute fo r Su stainabl e Tran sportation W e b
site . 2001. R e tri eve d O c tobe r 1, 20 05 from th e World
Wide W e b: http :/ /stran s.org
Robinson, D . L. 200 5 . Safety in numbe rs in Australia: more
walke rs and bi cy cli sts, sa fer w alking and bi cycling .
H ea lth Prom otion J ournal of Aus tralia , 16:1, 47-51.
COSTS AND FUNDING
Free Cycl e s starte d w ith $2 ,50 0 in lo ca l bu siness dona-
tions. Th e budge t h as g rown approx imately $1,0 00 a yea r,
m ainly through fundraisers, bike sal es, fees for servi ces
(workshops and classes), and local priva te donatio n s.
CONTACTS
Robe rt N. Giordan o
E xec utive Direc to r
Miss oula In stitute fo r Su stainabl e Tran sportation
9 1 Camp u s Dr. #1 41 2
Miss oula , MT, 5980 1
( 406) 880-683 4
nust@s trans.o rg
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA #55
Bicycle Destination S·igning System
BACKGROUND
The city of San Diego b ega n d eveloping a systematic
n e twork of bikeway d es tination signs during the la te
1980s. This n e twork we nt b eyo nd the guidan ce pro-
vided by th e Manual of Uniform Traffi c Contro l D ev ices
(MUTCD) a nd the An1 er ica n A ssoc iation of State High-
way and Tran sportation Officials (AASHTO) sec tion on
bikeway d es ig n. U sing the prin c iples of the California
D e partme nt ofTransportation's Traffic Manual , selected
bikeway corr idors receive d c onsistent and comprehen-
sive de stina tion signs.
Freeways and o ther major hi ghways d e fin e mu c h of
the roadway tra n sporta tion network in San Diego that
link n e ighborhoo d s and major ac tivity ce nte r s within
the city and its adj acent n e ighbors. Many of San Di ego's
bikeways p ara ll el fr eeways . In addition nume ro u s arte -
ri al, coll ector an d local stree ts and shared u se p aths are
designated bikeways. Coll ecti ve ly they form a bicycle
transportation network .
Disparate roadway a nd trail segm e nts are use d by bicycli sts
to trave l within San Diego. The bikeway de stination sign
sys te m was esta blish ed to al ert curre nt and pote ntial bi-
cy cli sts of communi ti es and major activiti es with bikeway
signs that would not n ecessa rily b e ev ide nt. For example,
a resident of the San Diego c ommunity of Pacifi c B eac h
wishing to trave l to downtown San Di ego mi ght drive
the re using Grand Ave nue, Inter state 5 and Front Stree t.
If that p er so n w ish ed to cy cl e to downtown it m ay not
b e so evident that th ey could get the re via Grand Av e n u e,
East Mission Bay Drive, and Pacific Highway. D es tination
bikeway signs make findin g the way via bicycl e mu ch
Michael Jackson, Director of Bicycle and Pedestri-
an Access , Maryland Department of Transportation
Kathy Keehan, Executive Director, San Diego
County Bicycle Coal ition.
eas ier and safer. Anecdotal re ports h ave shown that visi -
tors and resid ents alike find the destination signs h elpful
in their cycling trave ls.
COUNTERMEASURES
Generally at least two different des tinations were posted
on a sign (one line p e r destin ation) as th e thinner, one-line
signs were more su sce ptible to b e in g b ent. Bikeway des-
tination signs were gree n w ith white le tte ring. The signs
are 24 inc h es wide to match the width of standard 18 x 24
inch BIKE ROUTE signs. Sign h eight var ied according to
the amount of info rmation provided. Arrows accompa ni ed
eac h d es tination line. Arrows indica ting straight ah ea d and
left turn de sti n ations were place d to the left of the destina-
tion n ame and d es tinations requiring right turns had ar-
rows placed on the right side of the d es tination line.
D es tinatio n signs are always acc ompanied by a BIKE
ROUTE or BIKE LANE sign. D es tinatio n signs are always
p laced b eneath BIKE ROUTE sign s on the premise that
p eople rea d from left to right and from top to bottom.
The "control city" co nc e pt was utili zed to al ert bicyclists
to the ultimate d es tination of a bikeway. For example
Bicycle Countermeas ur e Selection System Case Studies 347
n o rthbound trave l e r s o n In ters tat e 5 leav i ng downtown
Sa n Diego are ale rte d t h ey are going towa rd Los Ange -
les . Lo s Ange les se rves as th e "co ntrol city" an d o ri e nts
trave lers to the ir ge n e ral d irecti o n of trave l. In t erm e di ate
exi ts are li ste d o n thos e freeway g uide sign s as well to
p rovid e suppl e m e ntal infor m ation about the inune di ate
surro undings.
In th e case of the bikew ay destination sign s a maj o r ac ti v-
ity cente r, community o r an adja ce nt city serve d as the
co ntrol city and inte r mediat e n eig hb o rh oods o r maj o r
ac ti vity ce nte r s were al so li sted. For exampl e a bikeway
in So uth B ay li sts Tiju ana, M exico as the "contro l city"
and San Y sidro as the intermediat e d es ti na tion. Ano ther
exa mple is the d es tinati on signs fa cing n orth b o und traf-
fi c o n P ac ifi c Highway o ut o f downtown . P ac ifi c B eac h
w ould serve as th e "contro l city" and Miss io n Bay Park as
the inte rme di ate d es ti na ti on.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
Bikeway d es tinati o n sign i ng was se t up to ad dr ess th e fo l-
lowin g iss u es:
• Infor m existing bi cyc li sts o f how to safe ly r eac h m aj or
p o ints o f inte res t in San Diego .
• E n co urage more bicycle tr ip s by info rmi ng wo uld-be
bi cy cli sts of d es tinati o n s that ca n b e reac h e d by bi cy cl e
from va r io u s lo cati o n s.
• P rovide additional m eaningful informa ti on to BIKE
ROUTE sign s.
348
In fo rm all roa dway use r s that th e city of Sa n Diego
recogni zes the legitimacy o f bicycli ng by p rov iding
guidan ce signing .
Ca se Studie s Bi cycle Counterm easure Se lection Sy stem
A sm all -scal e survey of bi cy cli sts in th e Sa n Diego area
did no t eli cit su ffic ie nt res ponses to conside r the m b eing
re prese ntati ve o f th e co ll ec tive viewp o in ts o f San Di ego's
bi cycling co mmu n i ty. The m aj o ri ty of res p o n ses were,
h owever, ge n e rall y su p p orti ve o f the sign s. The prim ar y
b e n e fit s app ea r t o be that the signs co nfirm di recti on
w h e n o n e is already on a trip ; the signs ale rte d so m e bi cy-
cli sts of p o t e ntial des tinations or routes that are access ibl e
by bi cy cl e tha t they h adn 't thought of; and so m e bi cycl ists
fe lt th at the sign s could at least al e rt motorists th at bi cy -
cli sts a re legitimate roa d u se rs, altho u gh o the rs felt that
mot or ists might no t n o ti ce the signs. A few bicy cli sts al so
fe lt that the sign s co uld h e lp t o e n co urage n ew bi cy clists
to try a bi cy cl e tri p, if th e sys te m was well doc ume nte d .
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Bikeways d es tinatio n signing, w hil e not replac ing bike
ro ute m ap s and o ther reso urces to ass ist in trip pl an n ing,
ca n p rov ide o n-the-road ass urance of direc ti on (o r dis-
tan ce, if provid e d), if loca te d o n ro utes likely to be u sed
by bicy clists. Bicycli sts should th erefore b e e n gaged in th e
p rocess of c h oosing p refe rre d ro utes to sign. The sign s
m ay h el p to alert bicyclists to o th er po te ntial d es tinati o n s,
and ale rt m o torists th at bi cyc li sts are exp ec te d u sers of
the roa dways, w h ic h may c ontribute to a sa fe r b icy cli ng
e nv iro nm e nt as well as a more supp o rtive one. T h e sign
con ce pts (s u ch as " co ntrol c ity ") an d sign e d routes sh o uld
b e publicize d an d explain e d in o ther p ubli ca ti o n s (s u ch as
bike m ap s) to h elp b icy cli sts unde rstand th e i nform ati on
p rovid e d in the signs.
CONTACTS
K athy K ee h an
E xe cutive Director
San Di ego Cou nty Bicy cle Coaliti on.
exec dir@s d c b c.org
Mic h ael J ac kson
Direc to r o f Bicycle and P e d es tr ian Access
M ary land D e p ar t ment ofTran sp orta tion
mjac kso n @ mdo t .s tate.md . u s
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON #56
0
Urban Forestry
BACKGROUND
The mission of Seattle's Urb an Forestry Prog ram is to
administ er, maintain, protect and expand the c ity 's urb an
landscape in st ree t rights-of-way for Seattle's res id ents
and bu sinesses so that environmental , aesthetic, and safe-
ty b e n efits are max imized. Most of Seattle's trees are l ess
than 30 years o ld and more than 50,000 n ew trees h ave
been p lanted in the past 10 years through vario u s c ity
programs. The Urban Fores try Program is part of the
city's effort to c rea t e a better b icycling and walking en-
viro nment, to provide a buffer between vehicu lar and
pedestrian traffic, thereby improving comfort and safety,
to d iscourage ve h icular parking on p la ntin g strips, and
to improve air and water quality. When combined w ith
other treatments, street trees also co ntr ibute to sp eed
management on residential an d arteria l streets, creating
a better bi cycli n g and wa lking environment . The posted
speed s of most arterial stree ts in Seattle are 30 or 35
miles p er hour.
COUNTERMEASURE
New trees get planted in a variety of ways. They are rou-
tinely included in roadway recons tru ction projects and
sidewalk projects, and are required as part of the devel-
opment or redevelopment of property. Trees are install ed
as part of neighborhood tree pl anting proj ec ts, planted
by individuas, an d th e Urban Forestry Prog ram h as some
funds to p lant trees on targeted arterials .
The su ccess of the Urban Forestry Program ca n b e attrib-
uted to the success fu l partnersh ip between the city and
Shane DeWa ld , Lands c ape Architect
Liz Ellis , Program Manager
Peter Lagerwey, Pedestri an and Bicyc le Program
the citi ze ns of Seattle, to maintain, protect and expand the
trees in Seattle's street ri ghts-of-way.
STEWARD PROGRAM
Seattle's Steward Program trains residents to help care for
street trees. Classes on tre e maintenance and pl anti n g are
provide d . R esidents are trained to take inventory of the
trees, to see k pl anting opportunities in the ir neighborhood
and to organize neighborhood tree-planting projects.
HERITAGE TREE PROGRAM
Since 1996, Seattle h as li sted 20 trees with the Heri-
tage Tree program. H e ritage trees may be on eith er City
or private prop erty and must have the owner's approva l.
Trees ca n b e recognized for their size, age, historic as-
sociation with a place or event, or be a community land-
m ark. Eac h tree is ide ntifi ed by a plaque and is part of a
H eritage tre e tour.
CITYWIDE TRAFFIC CIRCLE GARDEN CONTEST
The landscaping on Seattle's traffic circles is maintained
by nearby residents . Every year, th ere is a citywide co n-
t est to determine the b es t-main tain ed traffic circles. Up
to 10 awa rds are given each year, often with good media
coverage.
Bi cyc le Countermeas ur e Selection System Case Studies 349
Cer t ain tree spec ies are no t reco m mended or are even pro -
hi bited due to fruit in g c hara cterist ics, brittle wood or root
growth traits.
M o re info rmation, incl udi ng tree se lecti o n and pla nt-
ing g uide lin es, is avail able at the Sea ttl e U r b a n Fo res try
W e b site at h ttp ://www.sea ttl e .gov /tran sp o rtati o n /
tree planting.htm.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
The Urban Fores try P rogram is evalu ated by th e h ea lth
and surv ival rat e o f trees, th e leve l o f pu bli c invo lve m e nt
by th e Stewa rd and o th er program s and the numb e r of
n ew trees pl an te d .
The Urban Fores try P rogram i s a su ccess by all m eas u res.
The city h as b ee n recognize d by the n atio n al Arbor D ay
Fo undati o n as a Tree C ity USA for 16 years and as a Tree
G rowth C ity for nine . P ubli c involvement h as b ee n and
Lands cape guide li nes , su c h as se t ba c k and pruning require -
ments , help maintain v isi bility and a safe mult i-modal environ -
ment whil e the tree s con tr ib ute to a healthi er, more aes theti -
cally pl eas in g env ironmen t.
350 Ca se Studie s Bic ycle Counter meas ure Sele ction Sy stem
continu es to b e high and ove r 5 0,000 n ew trees h ave b ee n
p lante d in t h e la st 10 yea r s.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Afte r years of fo c u se d e ffo rts to m aintain, protec t and ex-
p and th e city 's urb an landsca p e in street rights-of-w ay, the
p rogra m h as b ee n su ccess fu l i n m aking Sea ttl e a m ore
liva bl e, walkable, an d bikea ble co mmunity. The res ults in -
clude improve m e nts in aes th e tics, safety and air qu ali ty
that b en efit all road u se r s. Additi o n all y, Sea ttl e res id e nts
e nthusias ti call y supp o rt th e prog ram through th eir vo l-
u n t eer e ffo rts.
COSTS AND FUNDING
Multip le fundin g so urces acq uire d thro ug h "pi ggy b ac k-
ing " o n o th e r p roj ec ts a nd voluntee r co ntributio n s.
CONTACTS
N olan Rundquist
C ity Arborist
Sea ttl e Departme n t o fTran sp o rtati on
700 5th Ave nue, S uite 3900
P.O. B ox 349 96
Sea ttl e,WA 98 124-4996
(206) 6 15-0 957
Sh a n e D eWald
La ndsca p e Architec t
Sea ttl e D e p artme nt o fTransportati o n
700 5th Ave nu e, S u ite 3 900
P. 0 . Box 34996
Sea ttl e,WA 98 124-4996
(206) 68 4-5 041
Li z Elli s
P rog ram M an age r
Sea ttl e D e p artment o fTransp o rtati on
700 5th Ave nu e, Suite 3 9 00
P.O. Box 3 4 996
Sea ttl e,WA 98124-4996
(206) 68 4-5 008
STATE OF FLORIDA #57
Raising Funds for Bicycle Safety Programs
through Specialty License Plates
BACKGROUN D
Florida h as o n e of th e hi gh es t bicycle injury and fatality
rate s in the n ation. To h elp redu ce the number of bi cy cl e
c ras h es, an o n goin g d edi ca ted funding source w as n eed e d
to help m ake Florida a sa fer pl ace to cycl e . There had b een
a va riety of short-te rm state and fed e ral g rants and appro-
priations, but sec uring sustained finan cial support w as im-
p erative to support quality bi cycle safety program s.
Florida is o n e o f the m any stat es that offe r motorists an
opportunity to purchase a sp e ci alty li ce n se plate inst ea d
of the standard state li ce nse plates for th eir motor ve -
hicl e . Ea c h sp ec ialty plate in Florida se rves as a fundin g
m ec hanism fo r a nonprofit organi za tion in th e stat e . Th e
sp ec ia lty pl ates c ost the co n sumer an additional fee that
is colle c te d by the D e p artme nt of Highway Safe ty and
Motor Ve hicl es. The fees are c;oll e cte d eve ry ye ar th at th e
individual p osses se s the sp ecialty pl ate a nd forwarded to
the nonprofit o rgani za ti o n that sponso rs the plate.
E ac h stat e h as diffe rent laws and pro ce dure s re ga rding th e
sp ec ialty li ce ns e plates and some states do not ha ve any
sp ecialty plates for th e ir citi ze n s. Conta c t your D e p art-
m ent of High w ay Safety and Moto r Vehicl es for m o re
info rmation o n sp ecialty li ce n se pl at es in your state (see
app e ndix A for informati o n o n Florida's statute).
Florida's re quire m ent b ega n with an offi cial appli ca tion
to th e Divi sion of Motor Ve hicl es re qu es ting th e est ab-
li shment o f a n ew sp ecialty li ce n se plate . N ext, a survey
sa mple of 15 ,000 registe re d ve hicl e own e r s or registrants
stating their inte ntion t o purc has e th e propose d sp e -
cialty li ce n se pl ate w as compl e t e d . An application fee of
$60,000 w as th e n submitted to d efr ay the d ep artme nt's
c o st to revi ew the appli ca ti o n and d eve lop th e sp ecialty
T.J. Ju skiewicz, Executive Di rector of Bike Florida
an d th e Share t he Road Campa ign, Florida
• FLOR I DA •
li ce n se plate. Th e las t step in th e appli ca tion pro cess wa s
to submit a m arke ting strat egy o utlinin g short-te rm and
long-te rm marke ting plans for th e propose d sp ecialty li-
ce n se plat e (se e app e ndix B).
Once th e appli ca tion re quire ments h ave b een m e t , Flori-
d a law re quires that legislation b e submitted to the House
and Se n ate Tran sportation C onmiittees. The propose d
legislation would d e tail the c o st of the propose d plates,
the purpose in crea ting th e propose d plat e and h ow the
funds wo uld b e sp e nt (see appe ndix C).
Upon approval by the legisl ature, th e orga ni za ti o n must
submit the propose d art d es ign for the sp ec ialty li cens e
plate. Comple tion o f the d esi gn, d eve lo pme nt, produ c tion
and di stribution of eac h n ew sp e ci alty li ce n se pl ate shall
o cc ur w ithin one yea r aft e r the legislature's approval of
the plat e (see app e ndix D ).
COUNTERMEASURES
The p roc ess in Fl o rida to crea t e th e "Share the Road"
sp ec ialty li ce n se plates b ega n in 1997. A few bi cy cl e ad-
vo ca tes we re d e ter mine d to c rea te a n ew sp ecial ty tag
in Fl orida to bring atte ntion to th e sa fe sh arin g o f the
Florida roadways fo ll owing th e trag ic d ea th of M argare t
R ay n al. Raynal and a coll e ag u e we re kill ed in 1996 w hil e
cy clin g o n a rural ro ad in north Fl o rida. M arga re t w as
an av id cyclist and advo cate w h o w o rk e d at the Florida
Bicycle Countermeasure Sel ect ion System Case Studie s 351
Bicy cl e and Traffic Safety E duca tion Prog ram at the Uni-
ve r sity of Florida in G ainesvill e.
Linda C ride r and Jimmy Carnes of G ainesvill e and H e nry
Lawre n ce o f Panama C ity were some of the key individu-
al s invo lve d in the crea ti o n of the proj ec t . They e nli ste d
the support of the Florida Governor's C ouncil on Phys i-
cal Fitness and Sports t o coll ec t sign atures and rai se th e
fund s re quired to crea te the "Share th e R oa d " sp ec ialty
li ce ns e plate . Various bi cy cl e clubs and advocacy gro ups
throughout the stat e al so pitc h e d in by coll ec ting the
n ee d e d signa tures. Afte r two yea rs th e re quire d sign atures
we re ga th e re d and the funds were in place to pro cee d.
The "Share th e Road" li ce n se plate legisla tion in Florida
was fil e d and sponsore d by R e prese ntati ve Bob Casey
(H o use Bill 60 1, 19 99 Legislative Sess io n ) fr o m Ga ines -
v ill e and Se n ator Donal d Sulliva n (Se n at e Bill 280, 1999
Legislati ve Sess ion) fr o m St. Pe te rsburg. Dur ing th e 199 9
legislative sess ion , both th e House (113 to 4) and Se n ate
(38 to 1) approve d th e "Sh are the Road " li cen se pl ate. On
June 8, 19 9 9 , the gove rn o r signe d the "Sh are the Road "
sp ecialty li ce n se plat e bill into law (see appe ndix E ).
During the 199 9 legislati ve sess ion, Sena te Bill 1566,
C h apter 99 -251 provide d for th e Fl o rida Sp o rts Founda-
tion to ab so rb many du ties c urre ntly ass ign ed to the Gov-
e rno r's C ouncil on Phys ical Fitn ess and Amat e ur Sports.
The bill orig inally di stribute d th e annu al u se r fees of
th e li cens e plates to the Governor's Co un c il on Phys ica l
Fitne ss and Amate ur Sp o rts. A portio n was to b e u se d
for m a rke tin g a nd promo ti o n of the "S h are the Ro ad "
c oncept and li ce n se pla te. The re m ainin g fund s were
to b e di vid e d e quall y b e tween Bike Fl orid a, Inc . and
the Florida Bicycle A ssoc iation, In c . Bike Florida and
Florida Bi cycl e A sso c ia ti o n , both non-pro fit organi za-
tions found e d to p ro m o t e sa fe bi cycling , h ad mutu all y
ag reed , b e fore pa ssage of th e bill , tha t Bike Florida wo uld
administ e r the m arketing and promo ti o n of the sp ec ialty
li ce n se pl at e and a ft e r exp e n ses, split th e p roceed s. R e p -
rese nta ti ve C as ey fil e d a bill to di stribute funds directl y
from the "Share the R oa d " specialty tags to Bike Florida ,
Inc., inst ea d of the Governor's Counc il o n Phys ical Fit-
n e ss and Sports. Afte r seve ral c h an ges, H o u se Bill 57 1
and S e nate Bi ll 7 68 were prese nte d and p asse d . In July,
the Gove rnor signe d the bill m aking it law.
EVALUATION AND RESULTS
Florida's D e partme nt of Highway Sa fety and Motor Ve-
hicl es (DHSMV) is the main e ntity w ith whic h Bike
352 Case Studies Bicyc le Countermea sure Selection System
Fl o rida works rega rding the "Share the Road " li ce nse
plates . The DHSMV receives updates on tags so ld and
funds coll ec te d fro m c ounty tax coll ec tors and tags so ld
direc tl y through the stat e offi ce . The DHSMV tran sfe r s
funds c oll ec te d thro u gh these age n cies and m ail s a p aper
c h ec k to the Bike Fl o rida offi ce. The D HSMV al so sends
a monthly rep o rt of tag funds co ll ect e d by e ac h county
and the state office. The funds ty pi call y are di stribute d by
the DHSMV m any months aft e r th ey are coll ec te d.
Once Bike Fl orida rece ives the funds fron1 DHSMV, Bike
Fl o rida calcul ates 2 5 perc ent of eac h c h ec k and d eposits
that amount into the Share the Road Promotion A cc ount.
Th e re mainder is split e q uall y b e tween Bike Flo r ida and
the Florida Bicy cl e A ssoc iation . Th e funds are di stribute d
to the Florida Bicycle As so ciati o n o n a quarte rl y b as is.
In 20 00 , th e "Sh are th e R oa d " sp ecialty li ce n se pl ates
ge n e rate d $3 7,2 45 in re ve nu e. In 2 00 1, $75 ,511 wa s ge n-
e rat e d . It is proj ec te d that w ell ove r $100 ,00 0 in reve nue
w ill b e produce d in 2002 .
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
The "Share th e R oa d " li ce n se pl ates proj ec t ha s exceed ed
exp ec tations to date . The go al was to sec ure an on-going
fundin g m ech anism t o promo te bi cycl e sa fe ty in Florida,
w hi ch was acco mplish e d . The reve nues ge n e rate d sh o uld
e clip se the $100,000 m ark for yea rs to c ome, w hi ch
w ill b e extre m ely b e n e fi cial to bi cycl e sa fety p rogram s
throug hout Fl orida.
CONTACT
T. J. Juski ewicz
Fo rme r E xecutive Direc to r
Bike Florida, I nc.
P.O. Box 621 626
O vie do, FL 3 2762-1626
(40 7) 9 7 1-8 15 3
407 -97 1-8154 (fax)
Bike Florida info@a ol.c om
http :/ /www.bike fl o rida.org
APPENDIX A
FLORIDA LAW
Section 320.08053 , Florida Statutes outlines the requi re-
ments an orga nizati on must m eet to req u es t that a n ew
specialty license plat e be crea ted. Sec tion 320.08056,
Florida Statutes provides the res ponsibilities of the De-
p artme nt of Highway Safety and Motor Ve hicles in d evel-
o ping and issuing specialty li cen se pl ates when legislation
authorizes a new sp ecialty lic en se plate to b e es tabli sh ed.
APPENDIX B
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
Initia l contact must be made with the Division of Motor
Ve hicl es before an organization can b egin the process.
Legislation must b e enac t e d to es ta bli sh a n ew sp ec ialty
li cen se plate de sign. Proposals for specialty li ce n se plates
may b e consid ered by the legisl ature only upon compli-
ance with the fo ll owing conditions and require m e nts. An
o rgani za ti on that seeks to es tabli sh a n ew specialty li cense
plate, for which an annual u se fee is to be ch arge d , must
submit to the dep artment:
1) A le tter of requ es t for the sp ecialty li ce ns e p late de-
scribing the proposed sp ec ial ty li ce n se plate in general
t e rms.The le tt e r must include the purpose for crea ting
th e sp ecialty li cense plate.
2) The res ults of a scie ntifi c sa mple survey of 15,000 or
more registered vehicle owners or registrants w h o
stat e their inte nt to purchase the propose d sp ecial ty
li cense plate. The sa mple survey must b e p erfo rmed
indep end e n tl y of the re q u estor and b e condu c te d by
a organization that does sa mple surveys as a normal
course of business. Additional prerequisites regarding
the su rvey and its content are o utline d .
3) An applica tion fee of $60,000, p aya ble to the Divi-
sion of Motor Vehicles, to d efray the d e partme nt's
cost for reviewing the applicati on and d eveloping the
specialty li ce n se plate. If the specialty lic e n se plate
reques t ed by th e organi za tion is not approved by th e
legislature, the applica tion fee sh all b e r e fund e d to
the requesting organization.
4) A m arketi ng strategy o u tli n ing short-term and long-
term marketing pl ans for the propose d specialty li cense
pl ate. The marke ting strat egy also must include a fi-
n ancial analys is outlining the anti cip ate d re ve nu es and
the planned expenditures of the revenues to b e d erived
from the sale of th e proposed spec ialty license plates.
APPENDIXC
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
When a proposal has been submitted, the department will
notify the H ouse and Senate abo ut whether the applic ation
requirements have been m et.When the proposed legisla tion is
submitted to the House and Senate Transportation Commit-
tees, a copy will be provided to the app li cant of the proposed
plate. The prop osed legislation will be gen eric to be consi stent
with all other existing sp ecialty li cense plates and will:
1) Requi re that the plate b e d evelop e d , manufactured
and distributed within o n e year.
2) Provide for the specialty li cense plate t o be issued to
th e owner or lessee of a ny motor vehicle, excep t for
a ve hicl e registered under the Inte rnational Registra-
tion P lan, a comm e rcial truck required to display two
license pl ates or a truck tractor.
3) Specify th e amount of the annual u se fee for th e u se
and distribution of the fee.
4) Describe the basic design specific ations of the plate
and prov ide for th e plate to b e personalized.
5) Provide for this dep artment to annually retain, from
the first proceeds d erived from the annu al use fees co l-
lec ted, an amount suffi cient to defray th e department's
cos ts directly re lat e d to iss uing the sp ecialty plate.
6) Specify audit requirements.
7) Provide for de-authorization and di scon tinu ation of
the specialty li ce nse plate if the li ce n se plate does not
meet statutory requirements.
APPENDIX D
DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT, MANUFACTURE &
DISTRIBUTION
When th e n ew sp ecialty li ce n se plate is approved by the
legislature , the orga niza tion must submit the proposed art
design for the specialty li cense plate to the department
within 60 days.
The Division of Motor Vehicles is responsible for coordi-
nating th e d es ign and develo pme nt of the specialty li cense
pl at e. Completion of the design, development, production
and distribution of eac h new sp ecialty li cense plate sh all
occur w ithin one year afte r th e legislature's approval of
the sp ecialty li ce n se p late.
Bicycle Counte rm easure Selection Sy stem Case Studies 353
Specialty li cense plates must bear th e design required by law
for the appropriate specialty license plate and the design and
co lors must b e approved by the department. In addi tion, the
produced sp ecialty license plates may b ear the imprint of
numerals from 1 to 999, inclusive, ca pital letters "A" through
"Z" or a combination thereof. The dep artment sh all d eter-
mine the maximum number of characters including both
n u mbers and letters .All specialty lic ense plates must be of the
same material and size as standard li cense plates.
The organization that requested th e specialty license plate
may not redesign the specialty li ce n se plate before the end
of the fifth year, unles s the inventory of those plates has
b een d ep leted. However, the organization may purchase
the remaining inventory of th e specialty license plates
from the department at cost.
DE -AUTHORIZATION & DISCONTINUATION
The department must discontinue the issuance of an ap-
proved specialty licen se plate if:
1) Less than 8,000 p lates are issued by the end of the fifth
year of sales or any subsequent five-year period.
2) The plate's re cipient organization no longer exists, h as
stopped providing authorized services or has requested
discontinuation.
DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
In addi tion to the plate design requirements previously
mentioned, the following specifications would apply to the
design b ased upon its location on the actual license plate.
CENTER DESIGN
1) The plate si ze must be 30.5 cm by 15.2 cm (12 in
by 6 in).
2) The center graphic must be no larger than 6.4 cm by
7.6 cm (2.5 in by 3 in).
3) The b ackgro und must be limited to three colors.
4) If the le ttering of" Florida" which is placed at th e bot-
tom or top depending upon the d es ign of the li ce n se
plate, is to b e e m b ossed, it must b e the same color as
the li ce n se plate characters . In addition, a specialty li-
cense plate may bear an appropr iate slogan.
5) The li ce nse plate number must h ave three ch arac ters
to the left and three to the right of th e centered graph-
ic design. The range o f li cense plate numbers assigned
will consist of three alpha followed by three numeric
or three numeric followed by three alpha charac t ers .
354 Case Studies Bicycle Co untermea sure Selection System
LEFT SIDE DESIGN
1) The plate size must be 30.5 cm by 15.2 cm (12 in
by 6 in).
2) The gra phic must be on the left side of the license
plate and b e no larger than 7.6 cm (3 in) in diameter.
3) The background must b e limited to three colors.
4) If the le ttering of" Florida" which is placed at the bot-
tom or top depending upon the design of the li cense
plate is to be embossed, it must be the same color as
the li ce nse plate charac ters. In addition, a specialty li-
cense plate may bear an appropriate slogan.
5) The li ce nse plate number is limited to five digits with
one alpha character and four numeric c h ara c ters.
APPENDIX E
2001 FLORIDA STATUTES
Title XXIII -Motor Vehicles
Chapter 320 -Motor Vehicle Licenses
Statute 320.08058 -Special ty License Plates
(31) SHARE THE ROAD LICENSE PLATES
(a) The department shall develop a Share the Road li cense
plate as provided in this sec tion .The word "Florida" must
appear at the top of the plate, and the words "Sh are the
Road" must appear at the bottom of the plate.
(b)The annual use fees shall b e distributed to Bike Florida,
Inc., up to 25 p ercent of which shall be u sed for market-
ing and promotion of the "Sh are the Road" concept and
li ce ns e plate. The remaining funds sh all be divided eq u ally
between Bike Florida, Inc., and th e Florida Bicycle As-
sociation, I nc., to be used for:
1. Education and aware nes s programs, for bicycle safe -
ty and motorist safety, with emphasis on sh aring th e
roadway by all users.
2. Training, workshops, edu ca tional materials, and media
even ts.
3. The promotion of sa fe bicycling.
SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA #58
A Transit Oriented Development Financial
Incentive Program-A Tool to Encourage
More Bicycling and Walking
BACKGROUND
There are two primary o b stacles to u sing non-motor-
ized transportation for p e rso n al, shopping, and co mmut-
ing trips: lac k of faciliti es and longer than reasonabl e trip
le n gth. P eo ple w ill bi cycle and walk more if the prop er
fac iliti es are provid ed an d th eir d es tinations are within a
re latively short distance.
The 2002 National Survey of P ed es trian and Bicy cli st At-
titudes and B e haviors noted that the ave ra ge trip le n gth
o n a bicycle was 6 .3 km (3.9 mi ) and 38.6 p e rce nt were
1.6 km (1 mi) o r less. The average trip le n gth for walking
was 1.9 km (1.2 mi) and 26.9 p e rc e nt were shorte r than
0.4 km (0.2 5 mi). Unfortun ately, as a res ult ofland u ses in
San M ateo County, CA, and many co mmunities throu gh -
o ut the United States, distances from res idential h ousing
locations to e mployment and sh o pping d es tin ation s are
typically great e r than th e average trip le ngths noted in
the 2002 survey.
Use ofland and its specific location, as d etermined by local
gove rnme nts throu gh out the United States, is traditionall y
targe ted to maximize sales tax revenue. The focus on in-
creas ing tax reven u e results in a grea ter tendency for land
deve lopment proj ects su ch as office an d retail space, w hil e
crea ting a disincentive to develop residential proj ects. This
o ft en produces an environment where employment, shop-
ping and h o using are se parated by distances that are much
greater than the average b icycling and walking trip di stan c-
es. In addition to di sco uraging non-motorized trips, this
land u se p attern also burdens the motorize d transportati on
infrastru cture and redu ces air quality.
To furth e r co mpli cate th e iss u e, land u se de cisions ge n er-
ally are m ade by local jurisdi cti ons w hil e transporta ti on
Felicia Leonard , Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordina -
tor, City of Clearwater, Florida
Ph ase 1 of the Franklin Street Proje ct, near completion. The
proje ct rece iv ed $1.2 mi ll ion in TOD Incentive Program funds .
d ec isio n s are made by region al coalitions . Such regional
coalitions might b e, for exa mple, M e tropolitan Planning
Organizati ons o r Con ges tion Management Agencies
(s u c h as t h e San M ateo City I Co unty Association of Gov-
ernments (C /CAG).
The goals of this program are not only to promote lo-
cal land u se decisions that reduce the distan ces between
residen ti al u nits and e mploy m ent and sh opping land u ses ,
but also to provide an alternative so urce of fundi n g for
trans portation projects, including non-motorized proj-
ec ts. In addition, effo rts t o increase the numbe rs of p eo ple
or amounts of bi cyclin g and walking may improve indi-
vidu al safety throug h a phenomenon of improved "safety
in numbers." [S ee case st udy #54, refere n ces (page 346),
for studies that document this phenom enon .] Promot-
ing transit-ori ente d d evelopment may therefore h elp to
improve safety for bi cy cli sts by increasing th e numbe r s of
p eop le able to bicycle.
COUNTERMEASURES
In ord e r to influ ence land use d ecisio n s that would crea t e
sh orter trip lengths and provide fundin g for adeq u ate fa -
cilities, the San Mateo C /CAG h as so u ght to implem ent
a tailore d Transi t Oriente d Developme nt (TOD) Pro-
g ram. In general, TOD program s seek to d eve lop shared-
Bi cycle Coun termeasure Se lectio n Sy stem Case Studies 355
'-' <{
8
u..
0
> en
LU ..... a:
::>
0 u
~
I
0..
u se, hi gh er-density nei gh borhoods that tak e adva ntage of
prox imity to transit alt e rnatives. The res ulting d evelop-
m e nt e n courages more w alking and bi cycling by offe ring
shorter trip di stanc es b etween o rigins and d es tinations.
U sing the TOD c oncept as a fo undati o n , the San M ateo
C /C AG h as d evelop e d a u n ique initiative that provides
a fin an cial incentive t o influ e n ce th eir local jurisdi c-
tions (2 0 citi es and the co unty) whe n these jurisdi ctions
d evelop and implem e nt a criti cal c ompo n e nt ofTran sit
Orie nte d D eve lopme nt: hig h e r d e n sity res ide nti al u ses
that are clo se to transit locations. To fund this fin an c ial
incentive prog ra m , the Sa n M a te o C /C A G alloca t es up
t o 10 p e rce nt o f its Stat e Tra n sporta ti o n Improve m e nt
Prog ram fund s.
Through th e prog ram, the San M ate o C /C AG di stributes
ince ntive funds to a lo cal jurisdi ction for a d evelopme nt
that m ee ts the program's b as ic crite ria. To ac hieve elig ibil-
ity for the prog ram, the d evel opme nt must include hous-
ing that is lo ca ted within 0.5 km (0 .3 mi) o f a rail tran sit
sta tion, and d ensity must b e at leas t 4 0 res ide ntial units
p er ac re . Local jurisdic ti ons rece ive th e incentive fundin g
upon the st ar t of c onstruc ti o n .
The lo ca l jurisdi c tion ty pi ca ll y receives up to $2 ,000
p e r b e droom that is loca t e d in the eli g ibl e proj ect .
Funds ar e the n used t o support improve m e nts e ith e r
on-site or off-site, as d e t e rmine d by the l oc al jurisdic-
tion. In a ddition to tran sp o rta tion improve m e nts su c h
as n o n-mo toriz ed transporta tion proj ects, many ge n -
e r al improve m e nts su c h as la ndsca ping, li g hting, pla zas
and r ec rea tion al proj ec ts ar e al so allo wed . The fundin g
or incentive go es to the la nd u se age n cy t o u se as th ey
w ish on tran sportation p roj ect s. It m any times is u se d
on the qu alify ing proj ec t but is not r e quire d. It could
pote ntially b e us e d to a ddress a n e ig hb o rho od c oncern
of the proj e ct to help sell it .
356 Case Studies Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System
EVALUATION AND RESU LTS
Since O c tober 1999, th e San M at eo C ity C /C AG h as
all oca t ed $5 .2 millio n to th e TOD Inc e ntive Prog ram ,
supporting the d evelo pment o f 3,689 b e drooms in 15
proj ec ts. The res ulting proj ec ts promote more bicy cling
and walking by p roviding ac ceptabl e trip leng ths b e tween
o rig ins and d es tinati o n s.These proj ec ts also ha ve provide d
ad e qu ate faciliti es for bicycling and w alkin g by o ffering
fl exi bili ty in th e exp e nditure o f the fin an cial ince ntives.
This innova tive TOD Ince nti ve P rogram, as cra ft e d by
the San M ateo C /C AG, ha s res ulted in linking land u se
and tran sportati o n d ecisions that e n co urage trip le n g ths
that are suitabl e for w alking and bicycling . In additio n
t o providing an alte rnative funding so urc e for bi cy cling
and w alking fa cilities, TOD d evelopme nts r educe traffi c
con ges tion and improve air quality.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
This prog ram trul y h as provide d a link b etween lo cal land
use and transportatio n d ecisions. The TOD ince ntive pro-
gram has resulte d in the creation of sh ared us e, hi gh e r-den-
sity d evelopme nt in Sa n M ate o County. The hi gh er-den-
si ty uses in these d evelopments crea te shorte r, acce ptabl e
trip lengths fo r bicycli sts and p ed es trians. In addition to
e n couraging m o re n o n-motorize d trips, the prog ram al so
p rovides an alt ernative funding so urce that local jurisdi c-
ti o n s can u se fo r bicy cl e and p e des tr ia n improve m e nts.
This program is eas il y replicated , h aving alrea dy b ee n dupli-
ca te d in the San Fran cisco B ay Area through the M etropoli-
tan Tran sportatio n Commission 's H o u sing Incenti ve Pro-
gran1 , w hi ch h as alrea dy allo cated $9 million for su ch uses.
This program was also th e recipi e nt o f the Environme ntal
P ro tec tion Agency's Smart Grow th Awa rd in 2002.
REFERENCES
2002 N ational Survey ef Pedest ri an and Bi cycli st A ttitud es
an d Behaviors, U.S . DOT and Burea u ofTransp o rtati o n
Stati sti cs
COSTS AND FUNDING
The San Mateo C /C AG allo ca tes 10 p e rc e nt of its State
Transportation Improve m e nt Program to fund the TOD
Ince ntive Program . Howeve r, a new program could start
with less funding.
CONTACT
Richard N ap ier
Executive Director
City/County Association of Governments of San M ateo
County
Co unty Office Building
555 County Center, 5th Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
(650) 599 -1420
rnapier@co.sanmateo.ca. us
Bicycle Coun term easure Se lect ion System Case Studies 357
Chapter 7 -Implementation
and Resources
Getting Started
Construction Strategies
Funding
Web Sites
Guides, Handbooks and References
Bicycle Countermeasure Se lection System I Implementation and Resources 359
Commu n iti es are asking that m otor vehicle speeds be
reduced on their n eighborhood streets and that streets
b e made more accessible and inviting for bicycling (a nd
walking). Some of the most important issues to the pub-
li c are safety, access, and aesth etics. This chapter discusses
some of the iss u es related to se tting priorities and imple-
m e nting needed bicycli ng improvements.
GETTING STARTED
Getting star t ed can be daunting-th e needs are over-
whelming, reso urces are scarce, and staff time is li m-
ite d . Every community is face d with the questions of
"Where do I st ar t ?" and "How d o I get goi n g?"Whil e
it is not the intent of this g uid e to provide an exh a u s-
tive discussion of implementa tion strategies, it offers
some direction.
PRIORITIES
Since all bicycling needs cannot be addressed immedi-
ately, project priorities need to b e established. To create
prioriti es requires several program o bj ec ti ves:
• Safety-One o bj ective should b e to reduce the num-
b er and sever ity of crashes involving bicyclists.Accom-
plishing this would require: (1) a good understanding
of the types of c rashes that are occurring in your com-
munity, and (2) application of appropriate counter-
measures to address these cr as h es. The information
provided in thi s guide is intended to help se lec t the
countermeasures that would b e most effec tive in ad-
dressing se lected types of cras h p roblems.
• Access-A second objective should be to crea te an ac-
cessibl e community where all bi cycli sts can reach their
desired destinations. Typically, thi s begins w ith identi-
fy ing corridors frequented by bi cyclists and how t h ese
corrid ors ca n b e accessed w ith connecting streets, as
well as determining if the m ain corridor stree ts n eed
improvements.
• Aesthetics-It is n ot e nough to simply have a safe, ac-
cessible co mmunity -it sh o u ld also be an aes the ti call y
pleasing place to live and work. Landscaping, li ghting,
parking, and other facilities help create a "liva bl e com-
munity" and should be considered when making bicy-
cling improve m ents.
ONE STEP AT A TIME
To create a safe community for bicycling, take one step
at a time. Along m ain corridors, c h eck to see that th ~re
is adequate space for riding for the speed and vo lume
of motor vehicle traffic at both midblock and intersec-
tion loca tions. In other words, check block by block and
intersection by intersection. Indiv idually, these locations
do n o t crea te a safe, livable community. Coll ecti vely, they
create the infrastructure n eeded for a great place to work,
play and conduct business. In other words, the whole bi-
cycling sys tem is great er than the sum of its parts.
COMMUNITY CONCERNS
Be very se n sitive to community concerns. Public partici-
pation wi ll build community pride and ownership that
is esse ntial to long-term su ccess. Some of the problems
identified in this guide will not be an iss u e in yo ur com-
munity and some of th e tools may be perceived as too
expensive (a t least initially). There pro b ably w ill be mea-
sures that your conununity puts on hold for a few years
until a co nununity co n se n su s is reached. Conversely, there
probably w ill be measures that your community would
like to pursu e that are not even mentioned in this plan-
ning section.
DELIVERABLES
It is very imp ortant to produce immediate deliverables
that p eo p le can see . For example, the addition of bike
lanes an d / or the removal of parking along a stree t are
highly vis ibl e, while a transportation plan is a paper docu-
ment that may never be seen or apprecia ted by the public.
To keep its momentum, a program needs some "qu ick
wins."Th ey create the se n se that something is h appening
and that government is responsive.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
T h e Bikeability Checklist ca n q u ickly identify some of
the more obvious deficiencies in your neighborhood or
community.
http: I /www.rwjf.org / fi l es / n ewsroom / in t eractives /
sprawl/bike_app.jsp
http:/ /www.bicyclinginfo.org/ cps / checklist .htm
TheAmericanAssociation ofState Highway and Transpor-
tation Officials (AAS HTO) Guide for the Development of Bi-
cycle Facilities is a comprehen sive document for information
about fac iliti es. The AAS HTO Web site is:
http :/ /www.transportation.org/
The Bicycle Compatibility Index (BC I) is a tool that can
be used by bi cycle coordin ato rs, transportation planners ,
traffic engineers, and oth ers to evaluate the capabili ty of
specific roadways to accommo d ate both motorists and bi-
cyclists.
http: I l www. hsrc. unc. e du / research / pedbike /9809 5 /
index.html
360 Implementat ion and Re sources Bicycle Countermeasure Selection Sy stem
Information o n both Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) and
the Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI) is contain ed at a
W e b site m ain tained by the League of Illinois Bicycli sts.
http : I I www.bikeli b.org/ roads /blos /
Information o n the Intersec ti on Leve l o fS e rv i ce:The Bi-
cy cl e Through Movement is co ntaine d on a Fl o rida D e -
p ar tment ofTran sportati o n W e b site:
http: I /www.dot.state.fl.us / planning / sys t ems / sm /los /
pdfs /BLOSTM.pdf
NCHRP Project 7-14 provides guidelines for th e analy-
sis of inves tme nts in bicycle facilities. The research was
p erforme d by the Univers ity of Minneso ta, Planners Col-
laborative Inc, the UN C Highway Safety R esea rch Cen-
ter, and the UNC A ctive Living by D es ign Program . A
cos t-de m and s-b e n efit s analysis tool ca n b e found at this
W e b site:
http ://www.bicy cling info.org/b ikecos t /
Aesthetics: Californi a's Local Government Conuniss ion
h as some grea t reso urces o n stre e t d es ign and li va bility.
http:/ /www.l gc.org /transportation /stree t.html
http:/ /www.lgc.o rg / center/index.html
CONSTRUCTION STRATEGIES
There are many w ays to acco mplish proj ects. B e crea ti ve;
take advantage of opportuniti es as they prese nt them-
se lves. H ere are some su gges tions:
REGULATION OF NEW DEVELOPMENT AND
REDEVELOPMENT
Iss ue s h e re tend to pertain more to p e d es trian ac ti v iti es.
For example, d eve lopers ca n b e required to install public
infrastructure such as sidewalk s, curb ramps, and traffic
sign als. In addition , zoning require m e nts can b e w ritten
to all ow for o r re quire n arrowe r stree ts, sh ort er blo cks, and
inixe d-use d evel opme nt. Howeve r, these infras tructure
ite m s b en efit bicy cling as well . Encouraging d evelo p ers
and community leaders to focus o n basic p e de strian and
bi cy cling needs will benefit th e community and inc rease
the attractiveness of th e developme nts themselves.
ANNUAL PROGRAMS
Consider exp anding or initia ting annual program s to make
sm all , visible improvements. E xamples include improving
sp ace for bicyclists on stree ts where it is poor, or adding
sp ace to a link b etwee n two areas to improve co nnec-
tivity. This c rea tes momentum and co mmunity support.
Seve ral co n si d erati ons should b e m ad e when d eve lop ing
these progra m s:
Identify corridors where bi cycling tak es place a nd
give priority t o these loca ti ons.
Conside r givin g preference to req u ests from l ocal bi-
cyclists about spo t improve m e nts or address ing a cr as h
p roblem.
Evaluate yo ur con stru c tion or renovation options.
Consider h av ing city crews d o work re qu es ted by res i-
dents to provide fast c u stomer service while bidding
o ut so m e of the staff-generated projects.
CAPITAL PROJECTS
"Pi ggyb ac king" bi cy cling (and p edes trian ) improve ments
onto ca pital p roj ec ts is one of the b es t ways to make m a-
j o r improvements in a conununi ty. For example, when
a stree t is res u rface d , co n sider w h e the r lanes should b e
n arrowed when the stree t is re-strip ed to provid e for bike
lan es, w ide c urb lan es, or simply more sp ace for cy cli sts.
Landsca ping, li ghting, and o the r ameniti es ca n be includ-
ed in road proj ects, utility proj ec ts and priva te co nstru c-
tion in p u bli c rights-of-way (fo r examp le, ca bl e tel evision ,
hi gh-spe e d fib er optics, e t c.). To accomplish this, there are
several thin gs that ca n b e done:
• Conta c t all State and regio n al agenci es, and local pub-
lic and private utiliti es th at do work in public rights-
of-way. Secure their five-year proj ect plans as well as
their long-range p lan s.Th en, work with them to m ake
sure that the stree ts are restored in the way that works
for your city.
• Look internally at all ca pital proj ec ts. M ake sure that
eve ry opp ortunity to m ake improve m e nts is taken ad-
va ntage of at the time of co n stru ction.
Co n sider co mbining small proj ec ts with larger ca pital
projects as a way of saving money. Generally, bid prices
dro p as qu an titi es increase.
PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
In creasingly, public improve m ents are reali zed through
public /priva te partnerships. These p ar tne rship s ca n take
many forms .Examples include Community D evelo pment
Cor porations, n e ighborhood organizations, gra nts from
foundations , direct industry support and invo lve m ent of
individ u al ci ti ze n s. In fact, m any public proj ec ts, whethe r
they are traffic -calining improve m e nts, stree t trees or the
res t o ration of hi storic buildings, are the res ult of indi-
vid u al people ge ttin g invo lve d an d d ec iding to make a
diffe re n ce. This involvement doesn't just h app en; it nee ds
to be e ncourage d and suppo rte d by lo cal gove rnme ntal
authorities.
Bicyc le Cou ntermeasure Selection System Implementation and Resources 361
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Cities su c h as Cambridge, MA, Eugene and P ortl and ,
OR, and Seattle, WA h ave ado pte d plans and proce dures
to en sure that bicycl e improve m e nts become a routine
ac tivity in n ew d evelopment proj ects, reconstruction
wo rk , and retro fit s. Charlotte, NC, also h as so m e exc iting
urban stree t d es ig n guidelines out for publi c review.These
include a chapter on the design of streets for multiple u s-
e rs, as well as an appendix with a tool to calc ulat e bi cy cl e
and p ed es trian leve l of se rvi ce at signalized intersections.
P lease note that W e b site addresses c hange frequently.
City of Cambridge, MA
http://www.ca mbridgema.gov/-CDD/et/bike /
City of Eugene, OR
http : I /www.eugene-o r.gov I portal/ server. pt?space=
Community Pag e&c a c h ed = tru e&p are ntna m e=
Community P age&parentid = 3&in_hi_userid =2&co ntrol
=S etCommunity&CommunityID=435&Page ID=541
City of Portland , OR
h t tp :/ /www.portl andonline.com/transportation/index .
cfm?c=34772
City of Seattle, WA
http : I I www. c i . sea ttl e. wa. u s / tr a nsp o rta ti o n /
bikeprog ram.htm
City of C h arlotte, NC
http ://www.c harm eck.o r g /Departments /
Transportation /Urban +Street+ D es ign +G uidelines.htm
FUNDING
Bicycling (a nd pedestrian) projects and p rogra m s ca n b e
fund e d by fede ral, State, local , private, or any co mbina-
tion of sources. A summary of federal bicycling (and p e-
d es trian) fundin g opportunities ca n b e v iewed at http :/ I
www.fhwa.dot.gov I e n viron m e nt /bikeped /bp-bro c h.
htm#funding .
Communities that are m os t su ccess ful at securing fund s
often h ave the fo ll owing ingredients of su ccess:
• Consensus on Priorities-Community consens u s on
what should be accomplished increases the likelihood
of successfull y fundin g a proj ec t. A divided or unin-
vo lved co mmunity will find it more difficult to raise
funds than a conmmnity that gives b road support to
bi cycle (a nd pedes trian) improvement programs.
Dedication-Funding a proj ec t is hard work, and
ge n e rall y, there are no shortc uts. It takes a great
a mount of effor t by m any p eople u sing multiple
funding sources to c omplete a project su ccess full y.
Be agg ress ive and app ly for m any differe nt co mmu-
nity g rants. While profess ional g r ant-writing sp ec ial-
ists can help, they are no substitute for community
invo lve m ent and one-on-one co ntac t (the "p eop le
part" of fund raising).
Spark Plugs (Chan ge A gents)-Su ccessfu l proj ec ts
ty picall y h ave one or more "can do " p eo pl e in the
right p lace at the right time w h o provide th e e n ergy
and vision to see a proje c t through . M any successful
"can do " p oliti cians ge t th ei r start as suc cessful n eigh-
borhood activists.
• Leve rag in g-Funds, once sec ured, should always b e
u se d to leverage additional funds. For exa mple, a g rant
from a local fo undation could be u se d as th e req uired
m atc h for a Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21) Enh ancement gra nt.
WEB SITES
There are dozens ofWe b sites that contain information
on bicycle safety and mobili ty. The Pedestrian and Bicy-
cle Information Center (PB I C) m aintains a li st at http :/ I
www.bi cy clinginfo.org /links of national and interna-
tional g ove r nment agenci es, sta te and lo cal government
agencies, profess ional organizations, advocacy gro up s an d
other sites as li sted in the fo ll owing sec tions.
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND OFFICES
D anish Road Directorate
http :/ /www.vejdirektorate t .dk/roaddirectorate.asp?
page=dept&objno=l 024
Federal Highway Administration (F HWA)
http :/ /www.fhwa.dot.gov
FHWA Office of Highway Safety
http ://sa fety.fh wa.dot.gov /p ed_bike /bike /index.cfm
FHWA/NHTSA National Crash Analysis Center
http :/ /www.ncac.gwu.edu
House Committee on Transportation and Infras tru c ture
http :/ /www.house.gov I transportation
Interna ti o n al Bicycle Fund
http :/ /www.ibike.org/
362 Implementation and Resources Bicycle Countermeasure Se lection System
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
http :/ /www.nhtsa.dot.gov
Transportation Association of Canada
http :/ /WW\;v.tac-atc.ca
U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board (Access Board)
http :/ /www.access-board.gov
U.S. Department ofTransportation (U.S. DOT)
http :/ /www.dot.gov
GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES
FHWA Bicycle and Pedestrian Program
http :/ /www.fhwa.dot.gov I environment/bikeped
FHWA Office of Safety
http ://safety.fhwa .dot.gov/index.htm
FHWA Bicycle Safety
http ://safety.fh wa.dot.gov /ped_bike /bike /index.htm
FHWA Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Research Page
http ://www.tfhrc.gov/safety /pedbike /pedbike.htm
FHWA Pedestrian /Bicyclist Crash Analysis Tool
(PB CAT)
http :/ /www.walkinginfo.or g/pc /pbcat.htm
NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)
http ://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/main.cfin
NHTSA Traffic Safety
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa /
menuitem. 5 928da 4 5£99592381601031046108a0c /
For NHTSA Bicycle Safety
http ://www.nhtsa.dot.gov /portal/site /nhtsa /m enuite
m . 81 Oacaee50c651189ca8e4 l Odba046a0/
For NHTSA Pedes trian Safety
http ://www.nhtsa .dot.gov /portal /site /nhtsa /
m e nuitem.dfe dd5 70f698ca bbbf30811060008a0c /
Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (PBIC) Web Sites
http :/ /www.pedbikeinfo.org
http :/ /www.walkinginfo.org
http :/ /www.bicyclinginfo.org
http :/ /www.pedbikeimages.org
http :/ /www.iwalktoschool.org
http: I I www.walktoschool.org
http:/ /www.safero utesinfo.org
Safe, Ac counta bl e, Flexibl e, Effici e nt Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).
August 10 , 2005 , bill authorizing the Federal surface
transportation programs for hi g hways , highway safety,
and transit for the 5-year period 2005-2009 .
http ://www.fhwa.dot.gov /safetealu /
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATI ONS
American Association of State Highway and
Trans portation Officials (AASHTO)
http :/ /www.transportation.org
American Planning Associ ation (A PA)
http:/ /www.planning.org/
Ame rican Public Works As soc iation
http :/ /www.apwa.net/
Ame rican Society of Landsca pe Architects
http :/ /www.asla .org
An1 e rican Traffic Safety Services A ssoc iation
http :/ /www.atssa.com /
Association of P e de strian and Bi cy cle Profe ss ionals
(APBP)
http:/ /www.apbp.org /
Bi cy cle Federa tion of America /N ational Center for
Bicycling and W alking
http :/ /WW\;v.bikewalk.org /
Human-Powere d Transportation Conunittee of the
American So c iety of Civil Engineers
http:/ /www.ascehpt.homestead.com/
Institute ofTransportation Enginee rs
http:/ /www.ite.org/
League of American Bicyclists
http :/ /www.bikeleague.org/
N ational Safety Co uncil
http:/ /www.nsc.org /
Transportation Research Board
http://www.trb.org/
OTHER ORGANIZATIONS (IN CLUDING ADVOCAC Y
ORGANIZATIONS)
AAA Foundation forTraffic Safety
http:/ /www.aaafoundation.org /home /
Bicyc le Countermeasure Selection System Implementation and Resources 363
America Bikes
http :/ /www.am ericab ikes.o rg /
Bicy cl e H elmet Safety Institute
http ://www.bhsi.org
Bikes B elo n g C o alition
http ://www.bikes b elo n g.org
B e tte r E nv ironmentall y So und Tran sp ortati on
http :/ /www.b es t.b c.ca
Brain Injury A ssoc iati o n of America (formerly Nati o nal
H ea d Inju ry Foundati on)
http :/ /www.biau sa.org/P ages /h o m e.h tml
C h aing u ard-Bicycl e A dvocacy Online
http :/ /p ro bi cy cl e.com/
Con se rva ti o n Law Fo u nda ti on
http :/ /www.cl f.org
H arborv iew Injury Preven ti o n and R esearc h Center
http :/ I d e pts.was hington.edu /hiprc /
High way Sa fety R esea rch Center
http ://www.h src.unc .e d u /
Inte rnati onal M o untain B icy cling A ssoc iation
http :/ /www.imba .com
M assac huse tts Bicy cl e Coaliti on
http :/ /www.mass bike .org
N ational Cente r fo r Bicycling and W al king
http ://www.bikew alk.org
N ati o n al Sa fety C ouncil
http :/ /www.n sc.org /
N ati o n al T ran sp ortation Enhancem e nts C leari n gh o u se
http :/ /www.enhan ce m e nts.o r g
R ail s to T rail s C onse r va n cy
http :/ /www.railtrail s.org
Su rface Tran sp o rtation P o li cy Proj ec t
http:/ I www.tran sac t .org
Texas Bicycle Coaliti o n
http :/ /www.bike texas.org
T hunde rhead Alli an ce
http :/ /www.th u n d e rh ea dalli an ce.org
T ran sp o rtation Alternati ves C iti ze n s Gro up (N ew Yo rk
C ity Area)
http :/ /www.transal t .o rg
T rans portation R esearc h Board
http :/ /www.trb.org
Travis Co unty (Aus tin , TX) Su per Cyclist P roj ec t
http :/ /www.ci.aus tin .tx.u s/bicycle / super.htm
T r i-S tat e Tra n sportati on Campaign (N ew Yo rk /N ew
J ersey /C onnec ti cu t)
http ://www.ts tc.org
Ve rmo nt Bicycl e and Pe d es trian Coalitio n
http ://www.vt bike p e d .org
V ic toria Po lic y Ins titute
http ://www.vt pi.or g
W alkabl e C ommun iti es, Inc.
http :/ /www.walkable.o rg /
W as hing to n Area Bicy cli st A ssoc iati on
http ://www.wa b a.org/
LOCAUSTATE SITES
C ity of Bould e r, C O , T ra nsportation Planning
http :/ /www3.ci . b o ulde r.co. u s/p ubli cwork s/ d e pts/
tran sportati o n .html
C ity of Cambridge, MA, Enviro nme ntal and
Tran sp o rtati on Div isio n
http ://www.camb ri d ge m a.gov /~C DD /e t /i ndex.
html
C ity of Eugen e, O R , Bicy cl e Info r mati o n
http ://www.eu gene-o r.gov /p o rtal /se rve r.pt?s p ace=
CommunityPage&cac h e d =tru e&p are ntnam e =
C onmrnnity P age&parentid = 3&in_hi_use rid =2&
contro l=Se t Communi ty&Conmrnnity ID =435&P age
ID =541
C ity of Po r tl and , O R , Pe destrian Tran sp o rtati o n
P rogra m
http ://www.trans .ci.portland .o r.u s
C ity o f Sea ttl e
http :/ /www.ci.seattl e.wa .u s/tran sp o rtati o n /
bikep rogram .htm
364 Implementation and Resources Bicy cle Coun termeasure Selection System
City of San Francisco (a nd County)
http :/ /www.bicycle.sfgov.org/site / dptbike_index.asp
C ity ofTallahassee, FL , Bi cy cle and Pe d es trian Mast er
P lan
http :/ /www.c rtp a.org/
Florida D e p artment ofTran sportati on P e d es trian and
Bi cycle Safety P rogram
http ://www.dot.state.fl.u s/Safety /p ed_bike /p e d_
bike.htm
Missouri D e p artment ofTransportati o n Bicycle /
P e d est ri an Program
http :/ /www.modot.org/ othertra nsportation/
bi cyclepedestrian ge n er alinformation.htm
Montgomery Co unty, MD, R esiden ti al Traffi c-
Calming Program
http :/ /www.dpwt .com /TrafiPkgDiv/triage.htm
North Carolina D e p ar tme nt ofTran sportation Division
of Bi cycle and Pe d es trian Transportati on
http :/ /www.ncd ot.org/transit /bicycl e /
Note: Info rmation from more than 9,000 rece nt
bi cycle and pedestrian cras h es in N orth Carolina h as
b een compile d in an interactive data b ase .
Oregon D e p artment ofTrans porta ti o n Bi cy cle and
Pe d es trian Program
http : I I www. odot.s tat e. or. us / t ec h se rv /bikewalk/
Univers ity of California-Davis Bi cy cl e Program
http ://www.taps.u cdavis.edu /bicycle /
Virginia DOT Traffic C alming Guide
http: I I www.virginiadot.org/ infoserv ice / resourc es /
TrafficCalmingGuideOct2002 . pdf
Wisconsin D e partment ofTran sp ortation Bicycle an d
Pedestrian Information
http ://www.dot.wisco nsin.gov /modes /pedestri an .htm
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE LINK PAGES
Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center bi cyclin g
informa ti o n sit es
http : I I www.bi cyclinginfo .org
Bicycle advocacy W e b sites provide d by Chainguard
http: I I pro bicycle . co m / mainne t. html
Bicy cl e education and safe ty site s p rov ided by Chainguard
http :/ /probicycle.com/maine du .html
P e d es trian and bicycle sites provid e d by TransAc t
http :/ /www.transact.org/iss u es /intro _h ss .a sp
State bi cy cl e laws provided by Bi cycle Coalition of
M assac husetts
http:/ /www.mass bike.org/bikelaw
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE STUDIES AND STATISTICS
Bike Plan Source H ot Topi cs provid e d by Tracy-
William s Consulting
http ://www.bikeplan.com/ traxq . htm
B TS National Transportati o n Library Links to Bike/
Pedes trian Transportati on R esearc h
http://www.transtats.bts.gov /D atab ases.asp?Mo d e_
ID =7 &Mode_Desc= Bike /P edestrian &S u bj ec t_
ID2=0
Burea u ofTransportation Sta ti sti cs
http://www.bts.gov
Consumer P roduct Safety Commiss ion R ecrea tional
Safety Publi ca tions
http :/ /www.cp sc .gov I cpsc pub/ pub s/rec_sfy.html
Insuranc e Institute fo r High way Safety -Bicycle Fatali ty
Fac ts
h ttp :/Iwww.iihs.o rg / research / fa tality _facts /bicycles.
h tml
N ational Bi cycling and W alkin g Study Ten-Year Sta tu s
R e port
http :/ /www.bicy clinginfo.org /pp/nbwsl .htm
N ationwide H o u se hold Trave l Survey
http ://www.fhwa.dot .gov /p olicy/o hpi /nhts/index.
htm
Northwestern Unive r sity Traffic Institute
http:/ I server. traffic.n orthwes t ern.e du/
University of Mic higan Trans portation R esearch
Institute
http ://www.umich.edu / ~i ndu s try /p edv is.html
Unive rsity of North Carolina Highway Safety R esea rc h
Cent e r
http://www.hsrc.unc.e du /
Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System Implementation and Re sources 365
GUIDES, HANDBOOKS AND
REFERENCES
There are a significant number of additional reso urces
related to the topic of bi cycle (and p ed es trian) sa fety
and mobility. A sa mple of the national and internati onal
g uides, practitioner h andbooks, research re ports and o th e r
general refere nces are provide d in this sec tion. Note that
this list is not co mpreh e n sive, but it sh ould provide a pla ce
to start a searc h for information.
DOMESTIC GUIDES AND HANDBOOKS
B ike Facility Plan n i ng and D es i gn
American A ss o ciation of State Highway and
Transportation Offi cials, Guide for th e D eve lopment of
Bi cycl e Faci li ties, W ashington, D.C., 19 99.
American Planning As soc iation , Bi cycl e Facility Planning,
Planning Advisory Service Report 45 9, Chicago, IL ,
19 95.
U.S. Departme nt ofTran sportation, Fe d e ral Highway
Administration. Tech Bri ef: C haracteristics of
Eme rging Road and Trail Users and The ir Safety.
FHWA-HRT-04-104 Sep temb er 2004.Available at
http ://www.tfhrc.gov /safety /pubs/04104/
Institute ofTransportati on Engineers, Innovative Bicycle
Treatm ents: An Inform ational R eport , Wa shington, D.C.,
2002.
Oregon D e p artment ofTran sportation, Oregon Bi cycl e
and Pedestr ian Plan , 1995.
North Carolina D epartme nt ofTransportation,
North Carolina Bi cycle Facilities Planning and D es ign
Guidelines, NCDOT Div ision of Bicycle and
P ed es trian Transportation, 1994.
B icycle/Ped est rian Safety
Fe deral Highway Administra tion. Good Pra ct ices Guide
for Bicy cle Safety Edu cat ion, FHWA-SA-02-001 I
HSA-4/3 0-02(5M)QE ,Washington , DC, 2002,
available o nline at http :/ /www.bicycling info.org/ ee /
bestguide .cfm
Federal Highway Administration, National Bicyc ling and
Walking Study Ten Year Status R eport O ctob er 2004,
2004 , ava ilable online at http ://www.fhwa .dot.gov /
e nvironme n t /bike p ed / study I index.htm
N ational Highway Traffi c Safety Administration I
Fe d e ral Highway Administration, Bicycl e Safety
R eso urce Guid e (C D-ROM), see http :/ /www.
bi cy clinginfo.org /rd /safety.htm#cd for ord er in g
in forma tion.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and
the Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, National
Survey of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Attitudes and Behaviors,
Hig hlig hts R eport, n.d., availabl e online at http :/ /www.
walki n g info.org/survey2002.htm
N atio n al Highway Traffic Safety Administration , Traffic
Safety Facts -Peda lcy clists, 2003 Data, 2003, avai lable
online at http ://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/
nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2003 /809768.pdf
Z egee r, C.V., C. Seiderman , P. Lagerwey, M . Cynecki , M .
Ronkin, and R . Sc hn e ide r, Pedes trian Fa cili ties Use r
Guide : Pro vidi ng Scifety and Mobility , Federal Highway
Adminis trati on, McLean, VA , 2002 , ava il able o nline
at http ://www.walkinginfo.or g/pdf/peduserguid e/
p e dusergu id e . pdf, accesse d April 23, 2004 .
B ri d g e Design
Ame rican A ssociation of State High way and
Transpor tation Officials , Guid e Specifica tion s for Bridge
R ailings, Wa shington, D. C., 1989.
Ame rican As sociation of State Highway and
Transpo r tati on Offi cials, Standard Specifications for
Hig hway B ridges, l 7'h E dition , W as hington, D. C., 2002.
C rash Analysis
H ar k ey, D., S. T sai, L. Thomas and WW Hunte r,
Pedes trian and Bi cycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT)
Version 2. 0, Application Manu al, Report No. FHWA-
HRT-06-089, and Software FHWA-HRT-06-091 ,
Federal Highway Administration, Office of R esearc h
and Developme nt, McLean, Virginia, M arch 2006.
Availab le online at http:/ /www.bicycling info .o rg/
pbcat
Laws
N ational Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and
Ordinances, Unifor m Vehicl e Code, 1992.
R ail/Tra il
"R ail s to Trails: Les so ns Learne d ," FTA-MA-26-0052-
04-1. Availabl e o nline at h ttp :/ /www.fhwa .dot.
gov I e nvironment/ rec trail s/ rwt/
Roadw ay D e si gn
Amer ica n Asso ciation of State Highway and
366 Implementation and Resources Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System
Transportatio n Offi cials, A Policy on Geometric D es ign
of H ighways and Streets, Was hington, D.C., 2001.
American Assoc iati on of State Highway and
Trans p ortation Offic ials, Road way D es ig n Guide, 3rd
Edition, Was hington, D.C., 2002.
Institute ofTran sportation Engin eers, Gu id elines
for R es id entia l Subdi vision Street D es ig n: An ITE
R ecommende d Practice, Was hington, D .C., 1993.
Institute ofTran sportation E n gineers, Guidelines for Urban
Major Street Design : An I TE R ecom mended Practi ce ,
Wa sh ington, D.C., 1984.
Ins titute ofTransp ortation Engineers, Traditional
Neighborhoo d D evelopment Street D esign Guidel ines:
R ecommended P ractice,Was hington, D.C., 1999.
Planning Division , Median H andbook, Florida
D e p artment ofTrans portation, Ta ll ah assee, FL,
1997, availa bl e online at http :/ /www.dot.state.
fl. u s/ pl anning/ systems / sm / ac cma n / pdfs/mhb2. pdf,
accessed April 23 , 2004.
Roadway Operations and Capacity
Institute ofTran sportation E n gineers, "Guidelines for
Prohi bition ofTurns on Red," ITE ]ournal,Vol. 54 ,
No. 2, February 1984, pp. 17-19.
National Research Council , Transpo rtati on Resea rc h
Board, High way Capacity Manual 2000,Washington,
D.C., 1999, 2000.
School Safety
Florida D e partment ofTran sportat ion, Florida Sc ho ol
Crossing Guard Training Gu id elines, ava il abl e o nline
at http :/ /www.dot.stat e.fi . u s/Safety /ped_bike/
bro chures / pdf/ xinggu ard . pdf.
Karplus, K ., Gu idelin es for C hoosing a Safe Bicy cle R oute to
School , availabl e online at http ://www.cse.ucsc.e du/
~karplu s /bike/ safe-ro ute-to-school. html, accessed
April 06, 2004.
"Sc h ool Trip Sa fety Guidelines," I TE Journ al, Institute of
Transportatio n Enginee r s, Washington , D . C., 1985 .
Traffic Calming
Ewing, R ., Institute ofTransportation Enginee r s/
FHWA, Traffic Calming State of th e Pract ice, Was hington,
D.C., 1999.
N oyes, P. Traffi c Ca lming Primer, Pat Noyes & Assoc iates,
Bo uld er, CO, 1998.
Traffic Control Devices
Federal High way Adrnini stration , Manua l on Unifor m
Traffic Control D ev ices for Streets and Highways,
Was hington, D.C., 2003, ava il ab le o nlin e at
http :/ /mutcd.fhwa.dot .gov
Traffic Engineering
Institute ofTranspo rtati on Engin eers, Traffic Engin ee ring
Co uncil Speed Humps Task Force, G uid elines for th e
D es ig n and Application of Speed Hump s, Washington,
D.C., 1997.
Inst itute ofTran sportation Engin eers, The Traffi c Safety
Too lBo x: A Prim er on Traffic Safety, Washington, D.C.,
1994.
Instit ute ofTransportation Engineers, Traffic Engineer ing
Hand book , Prentice H all , Englewood C li ffs, NJ, 1999
(draft).
In stitute ofTrans portation Engineers, Transportation and
Traffic Engineering H andbook, Wa shington, D. C., 1990.
INTERNATIONAL GUIDES AND HANDBOOKS
Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety
Fe d e ral Highway Administration, FHWA Study Tour for
Pedest ria n and Bi cycli st Safety in England, Germany,
and the Netherlands, R eport No. FHWA/PL-9 5/006,
Was hingt on, D. C., 1994.
Gilleran , B.F. and G. P ates, Bicy cling and Wa lk ing in the
Nineties and Beyo nd.Applying Scand inavian Experience to
America's Challenges, Fe deral Highway Administration,
Was hingt on, D.C.,Janu ary 1999 .
Hummel, T., Dutch Pedestrian Safety R esearc h R evie w,
Fe d e ral Highway Administration, Was hington, D. C.,
Janu ary 1999 .
Bike Facility Planning and Design
Dutch Centre for R esearch and Contract
Sta ndardiza tion in C ivil and Traffi c Engineering, Sig n
Up for th e Bike: D es ign Manua l for a Cycle-Friend ly
Infra stru cture, The Netherlands, Sep temb er 1994.
Die pens an d Okkema Traffic Consultants, In ternatio nal
Handbookfor Cycle Network D es ig n, Delft University
ofTechnology, The Netherlands, 1995.
Bi cyc le Countermeasure Se lection System Imp lementat ion and Re sources 367
Roadway Operations and Capacity
Denmark Ministry ofTransport, Speed Manag ement:
National Practice and Experiences in D enmark, The
Netherlands, and in the United Kingdom , Report
No. 167, Traffic Safety and Environment, Road
Directorate, 1999.
Traffic Calming
County Surveyors Society, Department ofTransport,
Association of M e trop olitan District Engineers,
Association of London Borou gh Engineers and
Surveyors , and Associa tion of C hiefTechnical
Officers, Trciffic Ca lmi ng in Practice, Great Britain, 1994.
Devon County Council Engineering and Planning,
Traffic-Calming Guidelines , Grea t Britain, 1991.
H ass-Klau, C. e t al., Civilise d Street s-A Guid e to
Traffic Calming, Environment & Transport Planning,
Brighton, England, 1992.
H awley, L., C. H enson, A . Hulse, and R. Brindle, Toward s
Traffic Calm ing: A Practitioners' Manual of Implemented
Local Area Traffic Manag ement an d Black spot Devices,
Report No. C R 12 6, Federal Office of Road Safety,
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia, 1992 .
H e r rstedt, L. e t al., An Improved Traffic Environment-A
Catalogue of Id eas, Danish Road Directorate,
Copenhagen, Denmark, 1993.
Transportation Association of Can ad a and the Canadian
Institute ofTran sportation Engineers, Canadian Guide
to Neigh bourhood Traffic Calming, December 1998.
Traffic Control Devices
Standards Association of Australia, Australian Standard:
Manual of Uniform Traffic Contro l D evices, Part 13: Local
Area Traffic Management, North Sydney, Australia, 1991.
Traffic Engin eering
D e nmark Ministry ofTransport, An Im proved Traffic
Env ironment-A Catalogu e of Id eas, Report 106, Road
Data Laboratory, R oad Standard Division, Road
Directorate, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1993.
ARTICLES , RESEAR CH RE PORT S AN D GENERAL
REFERENCES
America n Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Right-Turn-on-Red Task
Force, Safety and D elay Impacts of Right-Turn-on-Red,
Washington, D.C., 1979 .
American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard
No.ASTM1501-99e1 , Standard Specifica tion for
Nighttime Photometric Peiformance of Retroreflective
Pedestrian Markings for Visibility Enhancement, West
Conshohocken , PA, 2003, available o nline at http :/ I
www.as tm.org, accesse d July 23, 2004.
Appleyard, D., Livable Streets, University of California
Press, B erkeley, 1981.
Beck, K., The Ca se for Bicycle Law Enforcement,
International Police Mountain Bike Association
(IP MBA) News , Baltimore, MD, Sprin g 2002.
Bicycle Federation of Ameri ca, The Ba sics of Bicycling,
Washington, D.C., 1991.
Blomberg, R.D., Cross, K.D., Farrell, M.L., Hale, A.,
and Leaf, WA., Identification and Development of
Countermeasures for Bicyclist / Motor-Vehicle Prob lem
Typ es, Vo l.1-3, Norwalk , CT, Dunlap and Associates,
1982.
Blomberg, R.D., DeBartolo, K.B., Leaf, WA., an d
Preusser, D.F., Th e Effec t of Right-Turn-On-Red on
Pede strian and Bicyclist Accidents, Norwalk, CT, Dunlap
and Associates, Inc., 198 1 .
Blomberg, R.D., Hale, A. and D .F. Preusser, Conspicuity
for Pedestr ian s and Bicyclists: Definition of the Problem,
Development and Test of Countermeasures, Report No.
DOT HS 806 563 , NHTSA,Washington, D.C., 1984 .
Botma, H. and Mulder, W "R e quired Widths of Paths,
Lanes, Roads and Stree ts for Bicycle Traffic," 17
Summaries of Major Dutch R esearch Studies About
Bicycle Traffic, Grontrnij Consulting Engineers, T h e
Netherlands, 1993 .
"Bronx 'Safe Routes To School' Campaign Blazes New
Path," Transportation Alternatives Maga z ine, September/
October 1998, pp. 12-13, ava il ab le online at http ://
www. trans alt. org/ press/ m agaz ine /985Se p0ct / 12-
13saferoutes .html , accesse d April 6, 2004.
Brookline Transportation D ep artment, Neig hborhood
Traffic Ca lming Program for R esidential Streets, To wn of
Brookline, MA, 1996.
Brownfield , D.J., "Environmental Areas: Interim R eport
on a B efore-After Accident Study," Traffic Engineering
and Control , Vol. 21 , No. 5, M ay 1980.
368 Imp lementa t ion and Re so urces Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System
Burden , D., Wa lkabl e and Bi cycl e-Friendl y Co mmunities,
Florida D ep artment o fTran sp o rtati o n , 1996.
Burring to n , S.H ., "R es t o ring th e Rule of Law and
R es p ec t fo r Communities in Tran sportation,"
Environm ental Law Journal ,Vol. 5 , No. 3 , N ew York
Univer sity, 1996.
Carte r, D.L., Hunter, WW , Zegee r, C.V , St ew art,
J.R ., and Huang, H . Index fo r Assess ing Pedes tri an
and Bicyclist Sefet y at Inte rsect ions. W as hington , D.C.:
Fed eral Highway Administrati o n , In press .
C iti ze n s Advoc ating R es ponsible Tran sportation
(CART), Traffi c Cal ming -T/ie So lution to Ur ban Traffic
and a New Vi sion for Ne ig hborhood Livability, A sh gro ve,
Australi a, 19 89 (r eprinted by Sen sibl e Tran s portation
Options fo r Peopl e (STOP), Oregon , 199 3).
C ity of Cambridge , MA , Prelimin ary R es ul ts : Effects
of Co lu mbia Stree t Traffic Ca lmi ng Proj ec t on D rive r
Behav ior, 2 000 .
C larke, A . and M.J. Dornfeld , "Case Study No. 19 :Traffi c
Calming ,Auto-Res tri cted Zones and OtherTraffic
Manage m ent Techniques -Their Effects on Bicycling
and Ped es trians ," Na ti onal Bicycling and Walking Study,
R eport N o. FHWA-PD-93 -028 , Fed eral Highway
Administration, W as hington , D. C. ,J anu ary 19 94 .
C leven ,A.M . and R.D. Bl o mberg. "Case Study N o. 12 :
Incorpora ting Consideration of Bicy cli sts and Pedes trians
into Educa tion Programs," N ati ona l Bicycling and Walking
Study , R eport No. FHWAPD-92-036 , Federal Highway
Administration , Was hington, D.C., 19 92 .
C line, E ., "D es ign of Sp eed Humps ... OrThe Kinder,
G entl er Sp ee d Hump," Prese nted at the 45th
C aliforni a Sy mpo siu m on Tran sp ortat ion Iss ues, M ay 12-
14 , 1993 .
C onse rva ti o n Law Foundation , C ity R out es, City Rig hts:
Building Livable Ne ig hborhoods and E nvironm ental Ju sti ce
by Fi x ing Transportati on, June 19 9 8 .
C onse rva ti o n Law Fo undation, R oa d Kill: How Solo
Dri ving R uns Do wn the Eco nom y, M ay 19 94 .
C onse rva ti o n Law Fo undation , Ta ke Ba ck You r St reet s:
Ho w to Protec t Com mu niti es From Asp halt and Traffi c,
M ay 199 5 .
C ounty Surveyors Soci ety, Traffi c C alming in Practi ce,
Landor Publishing Ltd ., 1994 .
Cross , K.D., Bicycle-Safety Edu cat ion, Facts and Iss ues, Fall s
C hurch ,VA ,AAA Fou n dati o n fo r Traffic Safety, 1978.
Cross, K.D. and Fi sh er, G ., Id en tifi cat ion of Sp ecific Pro bl ems
an d C ounterm eas ure A pproac hes to E nhan ce Bi cycle Safety ,
Ana ca pa Sci en ces, Inc., Sa nta B arb ara, CA, 1977.
D avis ,]., Bicycle Safety Eva luation, Auburn Univer sity, city
of C h attan ooga, and C h attan ooga -Hamilto n Co unty
R eg ional P la nning Commiss ion, C h attan ooga , T N ,
June 198 7 .
D elft Ministry ofTran sp o rt, Publi c Wo rks and Wa ter
M anageme nt , C iti es M ak e Roomfor Cyclists, D el ft , The
N etherlands, Augu st 199 5 .
D enmark Ministry o fTrans p o rt , An Improved Traffic
Env ironm ent : A Cata logu e of Idea s, Traffi c Safety and
Environment, R oa d Direc t o rat e, 1993.
D enmark Ministry o fTrans p o rt, Bi cycle Ma rk ings: Safety
Effects at S igna li z ed Int ersectio ns, Traffi c Safety an d
Env ironment, Road Direc torat e, 1996.
D enmark Ministry ofTran sp o rt, Safety of Cycl ist s in
Urba n Areas: D an ish Experiences, Traffi c Safety an d
E nvironment, R oa d Direc t o rate, 1994.
D enmark Ministry ofTran sp o rt, T he Traffi c Safety Effects
of Bicycl e La nes in. Ur ban Areas, Traffi c Safety and
Environment, Road Direc torate, 1996 .
D es ign Commiss ion, Engineer ing D ep artment and
Strategic Planning Office, Mak ing S treet s that Wo rk ,
Sea ttl e,WA , April 199 5.
Dill ,]., and Carr, T., "Bi cy cl e Commuting and Fac iliti es
in Major U.S . C iti es : IfYo u Build Them , Commuters
Will Use Them ," Transportat ion R esearch R ecord 182 8 ,
2003 .
Engwicht, D., R eclaiming O ur C iti es and Town s: Bette r
Living With Less Traffi c, N ew So ciety Publish ers,
Philadelphi a, PA , 1993.
Engwicht, D ., "What Is Seco nd-Gen er atio n Traffi c-
Calming?" Creat ive Comm uniti es I nternational,
ava ilable online at http :/ /www.l ess traffi c.com /
Articles/Traffi c/SGT C.htm , accesse d Ap r il 06,
2004.
Bicycle Countermea sure Se lection Sy stem Implementation and Re sources 369
Environmental Working Group, Bicycle Federation of
American and Surface Transportation Policy Project,
Share the Road: Let's Make America Bi cycle Fr iendly,
May 1997.
Epperson, B., "Evaluating the Suitability of Roadways
for Bicycle U se: To wards a Cyclin g Level of Service,"
Tran sporta tion R esearch R ecord 14 38, Transportati on
R esearch Board, Was hi ngton, DC, 1994.
Federal Highway Administra tion , Bi cycle Safety-Re lated
R esearch Synthes is, Washington, D.C., April 1995.
Federal Highway Administratio n , Bicycling & Wa lking
in the Ninet ies an d Beyond: Applying the Scandinavian
Experience to America's Cha ll enge, Washington, D. C.,
Novembe r 1994 .
Federal Highway Administration, "Case Study No.
12: Incorporating Considera tion of Bicyclists and
Ped es tri an s into Education Programs," Nationa l
Bicycling and Wa lking Study, R eport No. FHWA 343
120, 85904, Washington, D.C., 1993.
Federal High way Administratio n , "Case Study N o. 19:
Traffic Calming,Auto-Restri ct ed Zones and Other
Traffic M anagement Techniq u es," National Bicycling
and Walking Study, Wa shington, D.C., 1994
Fed e ral Highway Administration , "Case Study N o. 2 1:
Integratin g Bicycle and Pedestrian Considera tions
Into State an d Lo cal Transportation Pl anning, Design,
and Operations," National Bicycling and Walking Study,
Washington , D.C., 1994.
Fed eral Highway Administratio n , Flexibility in Hig hway
D esign, Washington , D . C., 1997.
Fed er al Highway Adminis tration, Safety Effective ness ef
Highway D es ig n Features, Volume VI: Ped estrians and
Bicycl ists, Washington, D.C., 1991.
Federal Hig hway Admini stratio n , Th e National Bicycling
and Walking Study:Tra nspor tation C hoices for a Changing
America , Final Report, USDOT, FHWA,Washington,
D.C., 1994 .
Forest e r,]., Cycl ing Traffic Engineer ing H andbook, Custom
Cycle Fitn ess, Palo Alt o, CA, 1977 .
Freedman, M., M .S.Janoff, B.W Koth , and W
McCunney, Fixed Illu mination for Pedestrian Protection,
Report No. FHWA-RD-76-8, Fed eral Highway
Administration, 1975.
Gehl,]., Life Between Buildings , Van Nostrand Reinhold
Company, N ew York, 19 87.
Gliewe R., M . Limbourg, and B. Pappritz, "German
Examples of Safer Ro u t es to School ," Paper
presented at th e Road Safety Educati on
Confere n ce in York, United Kingdom, June
1998, ava il able onlin e at http://www.uni-essen.
de /~qpd4 00 /texte.ml/york.html , accessed April 7,
2004.
Harkey, D .L., M ekems on,J., Chen, M .C., and
Krull, K. Pedestri an and Bicycle Cras h Analysis
Tool, Produ ct No. FHWA-RD-99-192, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, DC ,
De ce mber 1999.
Harkey, D.L, R einfurt, D.W, Knuiman, M ., Stewart , JR.,
and Sorton, A. D eve lopment of th e Bicycle Compatib ilit y
Ind ex: A Level ef Serv ice Concept, Federal Highway
Admini stration, Report No. FHWA-RD-98-072 ,
Was hington, DC, December 1998.
Harkey, D.L., and Stewa rt ,J.R., "Evalu ation ofShared-
Use Facilities for Bicycles and Motor Vehicles ,"
Transportation R esearc h R ecord 157 8, Transportation
Research Board, Was hin gton, DC 1997.
H arkey, D.L., Stewart, JR., an d Rodgman , E .R .
Eva lu ation of Shared-Use Fa ciliti es for Bicycl es and Motor
Vehicles in Florida. Study prepared for the Florida
Department ofTrans portation, Tallahassee, FL, June
1996.
H arkey, D .L., Tsai , S., Thomas, L., and Hunter, WW
Pedes trian & Bicycle Crash Analysis Too l (PB CAT):
User's Manu al, Was hington , D.C.: Federal Highway
Administration , Report No. FHWA-HRT-06-089,
2005.
Hu , P.F. and ].Young, 1990 Nat ionwide Personal
Transportation Survey: Summary of Trav el Trend s, Report
No. FHWA-PL-92-027,Was hington, D.C., Federal
Highway Administration , March 1992, availab le
o nline at http ://npts.ornl.gov /npts /1990/.
Hu , P.F., andJ.Young, 1990 N PTS Databook: Nationwide
Personal Tran sportation Survey, Report No. FHWA-
PL-94-0lOA, Federal Highway Administration ,
Washington, D.C., November 1993.
370 Implementation and Reso urces Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System
Huang, H .F. an d Hunter, WW, "User Counts on Bi cycle
Lane s and Multi-Use Paths in th e United Stat es."
Wa shington, DC : Transportation Researc h Board ,
Tran spo rtation R esearch R eco rd 1502, 1995.
Hunter, WW , An Evaluation of R ed Should ers as a Bi cycle
and Pedes trian Fa ci lity , Study prepared for the Florida
D ep artm ent ofTrans portation,July 1998.
Hunter, WW , Evaluation of an Inn ovat ive Application of
th e Bik e Box, Washington , DC : Fed eral Highway
Administration , R eport No. FHWA_RD_00_141 ,
Augu st 2000.
Hunter, WW , Evaluation of a Combin ed Bicycle Lan e/
Right '[i,1rn Lan e in Eugene, Oregon, Washington,
DC: Federal Highway Administ ration , R eport No.
FHWA_RD_00_151 ,August 2000.
Hunter, WW and Fe aga n es, JR., Effec t of Wid e Curb L ane
Conv ers ions on Bicycle and Motor Veh icl e Int eraction s,
Study prepa red for the Florida D e par tment of
Transportation (Contract BA7 84),April 2004.
Hunter, WW, Fos s, R . D., Stutts ,J.C., and Perriello,
P.D., A Statewide Survey of Bi cycle H elm et Use in North
Carolina , (Project R eport for Governor's Highway
Safety Program). C h ap el Hill , NC: UNC Highway
Safety R ese arc h Center, September 19 99.
Hunte r, WW , Harkey, D.L., Stewart,J.R., and Birk,
M ., Evaluation of th e Blu e Bike Lan e Tr eatm ent Used
in Bi cycle -Motor Vehicl e Conflict Areas in Portland ,
Oregon, Washington , DC: Fed e ral Highway
Administration, R eport No. FHWA_RD_00_15 0,
August 2000.
Hunter, WW and St ewart, JR., An Evaluation of Bike
Lan es Adjace nt to Motor Ve hicle Parking, Study prepared
for th e Florida D ep artment ofTransportation,
December 1999.
Hunter, WW , Stutts ,J.C., Pein , WE., and Cox, C.L.
Pedes trian and Bi cycle Crash Typ es of the Early 1990 's,
Publication No. FHWA-RD-95-1 63,Was hington ,
D.C.: Federal Highway Administration ,June 19 96.
Hunter, WW , Stutts,J.C., Pein , WE. Bicy cle Crash Tj 1p es:
A 19 90's Iriformational Guid e, W as hington, D. C.:
Federal Highway Administration , Publication No.
FHWA-RD-96-104 ,April 1997.
Hunter, WW , Stewart,J.R., Stutts ,J.C., Huang, H.F., and
Pein, WE . A Comparison of Bi cy cle La nes Versus Wid e
Curb Lan es: Fina l R eport.Wa shington, D C: Federal
Highway Administration , Publi ca tion N o. FHWA-
RD-99-034, October 1999.
Hunter, WW , Stewa rt,J.R., Stutts ,J.C., Huang, H .F., and
Pein, WE. Bicycle Lan es versus Wid e Curb Lan es: Ope ratio nal
and Sefety Findings and Countermeasure R ecommenda tion s,
Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration,
Publication No. FHWA-RD-99-035. October 1999.
In stitute ofTransporta ti on Engineers and the Fed eral
Highway Administration , Traffic Ca lming State of th e
Art, Wa shington, D. C., August 1999.
Institute ofTransportation Engineers, Residential Street
D es ign and Traffi c Control, Wo lfgang Hamburge r et al.,
Wa shington, D.C., 1989.
Ja co bs, A., Great Street s, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,
1994.
J acq u emart, G., NCHRP Synthesis 264 : Mod ern
R ou ndabout Practice in th e Un it ed States, N ati onal
Coo perative Highway Research Program, Synthesis
of Highway Prac ti ce 264, TRB, N ational R esearc h
Council , Washington , D.C., 1998.
J apan Road Assoc iation, A ccid ent Preve ntion Effec ts of Road
Safet y D ev ices:An nual R epo rt , 1969.
Khan ,A .M . and Ba cc hus, A . "Bi cycle U se of Highway
Shoulders ," Tran sportati on R ese arch R eco rd 1502, 1995,
pp. 8-21.
King, M. Bicycle Fa cility Sel ec tion -A Compari son of
Approach es, Report prepared for the Ped es tri an
Bi cy cl e Information Center, Highway Safety
R esea rch Center, 2002.
Klik , M ., and A. Faghri , "A Comp ara tive Evalu ation
of Speed Humps and D eviations." Tran sportation
Quarterly, Vo l. 47 , No. 3,July 1993, pp. 457-469 .
Kroll , B . and R am ey, M . "Effec ts of Bike Lan es on
Drive r and Bi cyc li sts B ehavior,"Transportation
Eng in ee ring ]ourna l,Volume 103, M arch 1977.
Landis, B .W ., "Bicy cl e Interac tion H aza rd Score: A
The oretical Model," Tran sportation R esearc h R eco rd
1438, Transportation R esearc h Board, W as hington,
DC, 1994 .
Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System Implementation and Resource s 371
Landis , B .W,Vattikuti,V.R., Ottenburg, R .M .,
Petritsc h ,T.A., G uttenpl an, M., and Crider, L.B.,
"Inte rs ec tion Level of Servi ce : The Bicy cle
Through M ove m ent," Transportat ion R esearc h R eco rd
1828, 2003.
Loughery, D.A. and M . Katzman, Montgom ery Coun ty,
Maryland Sp ee d Hump Program Eva luation R ep ort,
Prepared for prese ntation to th e Montgomery
County Council ,J anuary 1998.
Ma cbeth,A., "Balliol Stre et ," Traffic Calming 1995,
Proceedings from 21 pap ers , Ontario Traffic
Conference, November 1995.
M cDon al d , P.E. and J.R. J arvis, The Use of Road Humps
on R esi den tial Streets in the Shire of Corio, ARRB
Internal Report, R eport No.AIR 335-2,Australian
Road Researc h Board , 198 1.
M cGee, H.W , "Accident E x perience w ith Right-Turn-
on-Red," Tran sp ortati on R esea rch R ecord 644, TRB,
N ati onal R esea rch Council , Washington , D .C., 1976,
pp. 66-75.
McHenry, S.R. and Wall ace, M.J. Eva lu ation efWid e Curb
Lan es as Shared Lan e Bicycle Faciliti es, Maryland State
Highway Administrati o n , Baltimore, Marylan d , 1985.
National Highway Institute, U.S. D ep artment of
Trans portati o n , Fed eral Highway Administration ,
and N ati onal Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Pede strian and Bi cycli st Safety and Accommodation,
Report No. FHWA-HI-96-028, May 1996.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Fatal
Accident Reporting Sy stem, Washington , D. C., 1992.
National High way Traffi c Safety Administration, General
Estimates Syste m 1989: A R ev iew of Iriformation on
Poli ce -Reported Traffi c Crashes in the United States,
Washington, D.C., 19 90.
National Hi ghway Traffi c Safety Administration,
Treffic Safety Facts, N ational Highway Traffic Sa fety
Administration, W ash ington, D.C., 2000.
Owens , D.A., R.J.Antonoff, and E .L. Francis, "Bi ological
Motio n and Nighttime Pedestrian Conspicuity,"
Hum an Factors, Vol. 36, No. 4 , 19 94, pp. 718, 732.
Pein , WE., Hunter, WW , and Stewart,J.R ., Eva luat ion ef
the Shared-Use Arrow, Study prepared fo r the Florida
D epartment ofTranspo rtati on, D ece mber 199 9.
Peg rum, B .V., Th e Appli catio n of Certain Traffic Management
Techn iqu es and Their Effect on Road Sefety, N ati onal
Road Safety Symposium, M arch 1972.
Preusse r, D .F.,WA. Lea f, K.B . Debartla, and R.D.
Blo mb erg, Th e Effects of Right -Timi-on-R ed on
Pedest rian and Bicycle Accid ents, Report N o. NHTSA-
DOT /HS-806/182, Dunlap an d Associate s, In c.,
Darien, C T, 1981.
Puch er,J. and L. Dijkstra, "M aking Wa lking and Cycling
Safety: Le sso n s from Europe," Transportation Quarter ly
Vol. 54 No. 3, Su nuner 2000.
Rails-to-Trails Conserva n cy. Tunn els on Trail s: A Study ef
7 8 Timne ls on 3 6 Trai ls in th e United States. April , 2001.
Ac cess ibl e at: http:/ /www.railtrails.o rg/wh atwe do /
info rmation/tot.asp
R ep logle, M . and H. Parcell s, Linking Bicycle/Pedestrian
Fa cili ties With Transit, October 1992.
Replogle, M., "Case Study 17: Bicycle and Pedestrian
Policies and Programs in Asia, Australia, and New
Zealand," National Bi cycling and Walking Study,
R eport No. FHWA-PD-93-016, Federal Highway
Administration , Washington , D.C.,April 1992.
Reschovsky, C., "Journey to Work: 2000," Census 2000
Brief, US Department of Commerce, Cens us Bureau,
Wa shington, D.C., M arc h 2004, ava ilable online at
http ://www.cens us .gov/p ro d /2004pubs/
c2kbr-33.pdf, accesse d April 23, 2003.
Richardson, E. and J.R. J arv is, Th e Use ef Ro ad H umps
on R es idential Streets in th e City ef Stirling, Western
Austra li a,ARRB Internal R eport ,AIR 335-3 ,
Australi an R oad R esea rch Board , 198 1.
Robinson, B .W , et al., Roundabouts: An Informationa l
Guide, Publi cation No. FHWA-RD-00-067, Fed eral
Highway Administration , Washington, D C,June 2000 .
R o dal e Press, In c., Pathway s for Peop le, June 1992.
Route 50 Corridor Coalition , A Treffi c-Calming Pl an for
Virginia's Rural Route 50 Corrid or, Middleburg, VA , 1996.
Schoon, C. and ].Va n Minnen, Th e Safety ef R oundabouts
in the Neth er lands, SWOV Institute for Road Safety
R esearc h , Traffic Engineering and C ontrol, 1994 .
372 Implementation and Resource s Bi cycle Counte rmea sure Selection System
Seiderman, C., "Traveli n g at th e Speed of Life ,"
Conservation Matters, No. 4, Fall 1997, pp. 20-23.
Smith, D. et al., State-of-the -Art R es idential Traffic
Manag eme nt, R eport No. FHW-RD-80-092,
Fe d eral Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.,
December 1980 .
Smith, R.L. and W alsh, T. "Safety Impacts of Bicycle
Lanes," Transportat ion R ese arch R ecord 1168, 1988, pp .
49-59 .
Sorton, A., Walsh, T., and Williams,]., Liabil ity Aspects ef
Bicycl e Environments : Bi cycle Faciliti es and R oads, Paper
prese nted at the 60th Annual M ee tin g of the Institute
ofTransportation Engineers, Orlando, FL, 1990.
Stutts,J.C. and Hunter, WW, Evaluation of a Bicycl e
Safety Educa tion Curricu lum for El ementary Sc hoo l Age
Children, Chap el H ill , N C, UNC hi gh way Safety
R esearch Cente r, 1990.
Stutts,J.C. and Hunter, WW , "Motor Vehicle and Roadway
Factors in Pedestrian and Bicyclist Injuries: An
Exan1ination B ased on Emergency Department Data ."
Accident Analy sis and Prevention . 31(5):505-514, 1999.
Stutts,J.C. and Hunter, WW, "Poli ce Reporting
of Pedestrian s and Bicyclists Treated in H osp ital
Emergency Rooms."Was hington, DC: Transportation
R esearch Board, Transportat ion R esea rch R ecord No.
163 5, Highway Safety Modeling, Analysis, and
Design , pp. 88-92, 1998.
Thomas, L., Hunte r , WW, Feaganes ,J.R ., and Fo ss,
R.D., H elmet Use in Nort h Carolina Following a
Statewide Bicycle H elmet La w, (Projec t Report for
Governor's Highway Safety Program). C h ap el
Hill , NC: UNC Highway Safety R esearc h Center,
J anu ary 2003.
Thomas, L.]., S. V M asten, and]. C. Stutts . Im pact ef
Scho ol-Based, Hand s-On Bicycl e Safety Education
Approach es fo r School-Aged Children. Final report,
prepared for U.S . Department ofTransp orta tion,
N ational Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
O c to b er, 2005 (in review).
Thompson, R.S., Rivara, FP , and Thompson, D.C., "A
Case-Control Study of the Effectiveness of Bi cycle
Safety H elme ts," New Eng land j oiirnal ef Medicin e,
320(21), 136 1-67, 1989.
Troutbeck, R.J., "Cap acity and D es ign of R ounda bouts
in Australia ," Tran sportation Resea rch R eco rd 13 98, TRB,
National R esearch Council, W as hington, D.C., 1993 ,
pp. 68-74.
U.K. Department ofTransport, Killing Speed and Saving
Lives, London, 1987.
U.S. Department ofTransportation and Rails to Trail s
Con se rvan cy, Improvi ng Conditions for Bicycling and
Wa lk ing: A Best Pract ices R eport, January 1998 .
U.S. Department ofTransportation, 199 5 Nationw id e
Pers onal Tran spor tation Survey, Bureau ofTransportation
Statistics, Washington, D.C., 1995.
U.S. Department ofTransportati on, National Bicycl ing and
Walking Study Five Year Status R epor t, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C., 1999.
University of Minnesota Humphrey Institute of Public
Affairs and the Department of Civil Engineering,
Planners Coll ab ora tive Inc., U niversity of North
Carolina Highway Safety R esearc h Center, and
University of North Carolin a Active Living by
Design Program, Guide lines for Analysis of Investments
in Bicycl e Fa cilitie s, Final R e port for Project 7-14,
National Cooperati ve Highway Research Program,
Washington , D.C., 2005.
Van Sc h agen, I., ed., Traffi c Ca lming Schemes:
Oppo rtuni ties and Impl ementa tion Strategies, Report
No. R-2003-22, SWOV Institute for Road Safety
Research . Le idschendam, The Netherlands, 2003,
ava il abl e online at http :/ /www.swov.nl, last accessed
April 23, 2004.
Wachtel , A . and Lewiston, D. "Risk Factors for Bicycle-
Motor Vehi cle Colli sions at Intersections." !TE
J ourna l, ISSN 0162-81 78,Vo l. 64, N o. 9, 30-35,
September 1994.
Walter, C.E., "Suburban R es idential Traffic Calming," !TE
J ourna l,Vol. 65, N o . 9, September 1995, pp. 44-48.
Wheele r, A. "Advanced Stop-Lines for Cycli sts -A
Simplifi e d Layout," Traffic Engineering and Contro l,Vol.
36, No. 5, pp. 283-289, May 1995.
Wheeler, A.H ., Leicester, M.A.A., and Underwood, G.
"Advan ced Stop-Lines for Cyclis ts," Traffi c Engineering
and Control, Vol. 34, N o. 2, pp. 54-60, Fe bruary 1993 .
Bicycle Countermea su re Selection System Implementation and Resources 373
Whyte,WH ., City: Rediscover ing the Center, Anchor
Books , Doubleday, 198 8.
WC.Wilkinson, A. C larke, B. Epperson, & R. Knoblauch ,
Se lecting Roadway Design Treatmen ts to Accommodate
Bicycles, Report No. FH WA-RD-92-073, Federal
Highway Administration , Washington, DC, 1994.
Wilkinson , WC., and Moran, C.G., Highway Route
D es ignation Criteriafor Bicycle Routes: Final Report,
Report No. FHWA-RD-86-066 , Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C., 1986.
Zegeer, C.V, and M. Cynecki, Methods of Incr eas ing
Pedestr ian Safety at Right-Titrn-on-Red Intersections,
Final Report, Report No. FHWA/IP-86/10, Federal
Highway Administration, Washi ngton, D.C., 1986.
Zegeer, C.V, Cynecki, M., Fegan,]., Gilleran, B., Lagerwey,
P, Tan, C., an d Works, B. FHWA Study Tour for
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Sefety in Eng land, German)~ and the
Netherlands, Report No. FHWA-PL-95-006, Federal
Highway Administration , Washington , DC, 1994.
Zegeer, C.,J.H . H avens, and R. Deen, "Speed
Reductions in School Zones," Tran sportation R esearc h
Record 597, TRB, National Research Council ,
Washington , D.C., 1978, pp. 39-40.
Zegeer, C.V,J. Stutts, an d W Hunter, Pedestrian and
Bicycl ists, Volume VI: Safety Effectivenes s of H igh way
D es ign Features, R eport No. FHWA-RD-91-049 ,
Federal Highway Administration, Washin gto n , D.C.,
November 1992.
374 Implementat ion and Resource s Bicycle Countermeasure Se lection System
Appendix A -Field Investigation
Form
The Selec ti o n Tool w ithin th e BIKESAFE exp e rt sys te m
req uires a numbe r of inputs d esc ribing the geom e trics and
o p e rati o n s of the loca tion in qu es ti o n . The sys t e m u ses
these inputs to re fin e the se lec ti o n of appli ca bl e co unter-
m eas ures . Include d on the followin g p age is a for m that
m ay b e use d in the fi eld to ac quire th ese d ata el ements .
Bi cyc le Countermea sure Selection System Appendi x A 375
BICYCLE COUNTERMEASURE SELECTION SYSTEM
FIELD INVESTIGATION FORM
I Location , I Completed by,
Date:
Area Type Location
Urban CBD I ntersection
Urban Other Mi d bl ock
Suburban
Rural Number of Through Lanes
~ 2 la nes
Roadway Functional Clas s 3-4 lanes
Loca l ::::: 5 la nes
Col lector
M in or Arte ri al
Majo r Arteria l
Traffic Volume (Average Daily Traffic)
< 10 ,0 00
10,000-25,000
Motor Vehicle SpeedA > 25,0 00
~ 30 mph
3 1-44 mph
> 45 mph Bike Facilities
Bik e lane
Wid e curb lane
Signalization Paved shoulder
Traffic signal prese nt (removal is NOT an option) None or other
Traffic signal prese nt (removal IS an option)
No signal presen t (installation is NOT an option)
No s ignal presen t (installation I S an opt ion)
Comments
Notes
A Use 85th perce nt i le speed if avai lable . If no t availab le , add 9 mi/h to t he posted spee d l imit as a su rroga t e measure
for the 85th pe rce nt ile speed . Pr ior research has sho wn t hat 85th pe rce ntil e speeds for ve h ic les trave l i ng o n many
urban and subu rb an streets (in c lu d i ng arterial, c oll ec t or, a nd loca l cl as sifi cations) ge nerall y exceed t he posted l imit
by 6 to 14 mi/h . (D .L. Harkey, H .D. Robertso n , an d S.E. Davis , "Assess ment of Curre nt Speed Zoning Cr iteria ,"
Transportatio n Research Reco r d 1281, Transportat ion Research Board, Washington, DC 1990.)
376 Appendix A Bi cyc le Co un termea sure Selection System
1
Appendix B -Case Study Matrix
Include d on the following p ages is a m atrix that sh ows
the sp ec ifi c co untermeas ures addressed b y eac h of the
case studi es included in C h apter 6.
Bicyc le Countermeasure Se lecti on System Appendi x B 377
<fl w I <fl
wW w w "' f-<fl w w w _,a: u > > w Cl <fl a: z "' _, 0 z 0 ji: w ::5 f-CD :J Lt <fl <fl <fl I-' Ui a: "' z w iii > w </l
>=
<(<fl a: f-<fl <fl a: <( 0.. <( Cl w <fl z u f-u <( :J z w w 0.. w <fl <( w w _, _, z 3 a: f-0 Zz >--w u u ::;o a: 0 ~ z z z <fl :J 0 -:J "° w Cl ~::;o </lw u u -f-a: <( <( <( w CD 0 ~ 0 -0 >=<fl >-::;o <( >< >-::;o _, _, a: _, Cl CD </l::;o :J 0.. a: <( "' z I w.. u"' f-<( w _, "' <( w a: :J <( <( -w <( w w z Zo <fl w <( <fl z <( Wz Cl> <fl _, f-3> w -<fl Z</l 3</l UW u u a: Cl </)_ oo "' z f-f-;c ~ ::=z w f-<fl f-:J CD
_, Cl iii a: <fl CD <fl z a:"' f-0 w <( z e Wz :J w w w f-w I a: <fl f-:J (§ g: z Iz Cl <( ::::z o::E Cl Cl ::;o zz a: z :J w a: <.!JW a: w w _, a: w Uw ~ > :J Q f-<( <.!JO.. <( 00 a: ~ a: :J ;f:::;o ::;o!,Q ~::;o w :J w ji: Cf: 0 0 <( 0 ~::;o -::;o u f-u "' f-::::;::;o o::E a: z a: "' u u _, U</l a: <fl-
#l -Roadway Surface Haza rds for Bikes 3 x
#2 -A Tal e of Portland Bridges 7 x x x
#3 -Lighting in the Knapps Hill Tunnel 2 x x
#4 -Back-in Di agonal Parking with Bike Lanes 3 x x
#5 -Valencia Street Road Diet -Creating Space for Cyclists 3 x x
#6 -Shoreline Park Expansion Project -Provision of Bicycle and 4 x x
Pedestrian Enh ancements
#7 -Bicycle Treatments on a Former Pede strian Ma l l 8 x x
#8 -Bike Lane Safety Evaluation 5 x
#9 -Establishing B ike Lanes -Chicago's Streets for Cycling Plan 6 x
# 10 -How Hampshire Street Pavement Markings Influence Bicycle 1 x
and Motor Vehicle Positioning
#11 -Raised B icycle Lanes and Other Traffic Calming Treatm ents 6 x x x
on Ayres Road
#12 -Floating Bike Lanes in Conjunction with Part-time Park i ng 6 x x x x
#13 -Incorporating a B icycle Lane through a Streetcar Platform 1 x
#14 -Red Shoulders as a Bicyc le Fac i lity 2 x
#15 -Convers ion of 14-foot-wide Outside Lanes to 11 -foot Travel 5 x x x
Lanes with a 3-foot Undesignated Lane
#16 -Pr eferential Tr ansit-B icycle Lanes on Broadway Boulevard 4 x x x
#17 -Taming the Urban Arterial 4 x x x
# 18 -Contraflow Bicycle Lane s on Urban Streets 4 x x
# 19 -Left Side Bike Lanes on One -Way Streets 5 x x x
#20 -Curb Radii /Curb Revisions 1 x
#21 -Combined Bicycle Lane/Right-Turn Lane 4 x x x
#22 -Blue Bike Lanes at Intersection Weaving Areas 2 x x
#23 -Crossing an Arteria l on an Offset Intersection: Bi cycle-Only 2 x x
Center-Turn Lane
#24 -Improving Sight Distance between Cyclists and Motorists 7 x x x
#25 -Grandv iew Drive Roundabout and Corridor Improvements x x x
#26 -Innovative Application of the Bike Box 2 x
#27 -Comprehensive Maintenance Planning for Bi cyc le Fa cilities 8 x x x
#28 -Road Hazard Identification Project 2 x
#29 -Bikeway Speed Humps 2
#30 -Speed Cushions for the Evergreen Corridor Bike Lane Project 1
#31 -Neighborhood Mini Traffi c Circles 1
#32 -Bicycle Bou levards -Bryant Street Example 5
#33 -Pla nn ing , Des igning and Implementing a Shared-Use Path 3
#34 -Path and Roadway Intersections 7 x x x x
#35 -Grade Separated Crossing Treatments 3 x
#36 -Sha re the Trail: Minimizing User Conflicts on Non -motorized 3
Facilities
#37 -Shared Lane Markings 2 x
#38 -Bicycle Detection Program 3
#39 -B icyc le Signal Head s 3
#40 -Pedestrian/Bicycle Crosswalk Signals (Half-S igna ls) 2
#41 -Share the Road Sign Initiative 1
#42 -Pla cement of 20-mph School Zone Signs 2
#43 -Shared-Use Arrow 4 x
#44 -Enforcement for Bicycle Safety 2
#45 -B icycling Ambassadors and Bike Lane Education 3
#46 -Comprehensive Child Bi cyc le Safety Program 2
#47 -Share the Road: MotorisUB icyclist Traffic Education and 3
Enforcement Program s
#48 -Hitching Posts for Bicyc le Parking 2
#49 -Bicycle Ac cess on Caltrain I 1
#50 -Bike and Bus Program 1
#51 -Mapping for Bi cycl ists 1
#52 -Commuter Coach: Commuter Bicyclist Recruiting 2
# 53 -Bike to Work Promotion 4
#54 -Fre e Cycles Program 3
#55 -Bicycle Dest ination Signing System 2
#56 -Urban Forestry 1
#57 -Raising Funds for Bicyc le Safety Progra ms throu gh Specialty 1
License Plates I
#58 -A Tr ansit Oriented Devel opment Financial Incentive 2
Program-A Tool to Encourage More Bicycling and Walking
x TURNING RE STRI C-
TIONS
x MERGE AREA REDE -
SIGN
x x x x REPETI TI VE/SHORT
TERM MAINTENANCE
x x MAJOR MAI NTE -
NANCE
x x x x HAZARD IDENTIFI CA -
TI ON PROGRAM
x x x MIN I CIR CLE S
x CHICANES
x x x SPEED TAB LES /
HUMPS/CUSH IONS
x x x VISUAL NARROWING
x TRAFFIC DIVERS ION
x x RAI SED INTER SEC-
TION
x x x x x SEPARATE SHARED
USE PAT H
x x x x PATH INTER SECTION
TREATMEN TS
x INTERSECT ION WARN -
ING TREATMENT S
x x SHARE THE PATH
TREATMEN TS
x x x x x x x x IN STALL SIGNALU
OPTIMIZE TIMING
x x x x BIKE -ACTIVATED
SIGNAL
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x SIGN IMPROVEMENT S
x x x x x x x x x x x PAVEM EN T MARKING
IMPROV EMEN TS
x x SC HOO L ZONE IM-
PROVEMENTS
x x x x x LAW ENFOR CEMENT
x x x x x x x x x x x x BI CYCLI ST EDU CA-
TION
x x x x x x MOTORIST EDUCA-
TI ON
x x x PRACT ITIONER EDU -
CATION
x x BIKE PARKIN G
x x TRAN SIT ACC ESS
BICYCLIST PERSONAL
FAC ILITIES
x x x BIKE MAPS
x WAYFINDING
x x xx x x x EVENT S/ACTIVITE S
x x x x x x x AE STHETIC S/LAND -
SCAPING
CHAPTER 1 -THE BIG PICTURE
1. United Stat es D ep artment ofTransportation , National
High way Traffic Saf ety Administration and th e Bureau ef
Tran sportation Statist ics. National Surv ey of Pedest rian and
Bicycli st Attitudes and Behaviors, Hig hlights R eport , n.d.
2. Dill ,]. and T. Carr. (2003). Bicycl e commuting and facili-
ti es in m ajor U.S. citi es : if yo u build them, commuters will
us e th em , Tran sportation R esearch R eco rd 1828: 116-123 .
3 . Americ an Association of State Highway and Transpor-
tation Officials. A Poli cy on Geometr ic D es ig n of Hig h-
ways and Streets 2001 .Washington , DC, 2001.
4 . Ewing, R. an d King, M. Fl ex ibl e D es ig n of New J ersey's
Main Streets, New J er sey D epartment of Transporta-
tion , undated.
5. California Department ofTransportation, Main Stree ts:
Flexibilit y in D es ign and Op eration s, Sacramento, CA,
January 2005.
6. McCann, B ., Compl ete Stree ts R eport , Analysis of a Sur-
vey of Comp lete Streets Laws, Polici es, and Plan s in the
United States, Thunderhea d Allianc e, D ece mber 2004.
CHAPTER 2 -BICYCLIST CRASH
FACTORS
1. Hunter, WW , J.C. Stutts, WE. Pein, and C.L. Cox.
Pedes trian and Bic ycle Crash Typ es of th e Early 1990's .
United States D e partment of Transportation , Fed-
eral Highway Administration: Wa shington , DC, 1996 .
(FHWA-RD-95-1 63 ]
2. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffi c
Safety Fa cts 2003. U.S. Department ofTransportation,
National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration: W as h-
ington, DC, n .d. Accessed at : http:/ /www-nrd.nhtsa .
dot.gov /pdf/ nrd-3 0 /NCSA/TSFAnn/TSF2003F. pdf
(DOT HS 809 775]
References
3. Stutts , J.C. and Hunter, WW Injuri es to Pedest rian s and
Bicycli sts: An Analysis Ba se d on Ho spital Emergency D e-
partm ent Data. United State s D epartment ofTranspor-
tation, Fed eral Highway Administration: Washington,
DC, 19 97. [FHWA-RD-99 -078]
4 . United States Department of Transportation , Federal
Highway Administration . National Bi cy cling and Walk-
ing Study, Ten Yea r Status R eport October 2004 . Acc ess ed
at : http :/ /www.fhwa.dot.gov I environment/bikeped /
study /index.htm
5. United State s Department of Transportati on, Federal
Highway Administration , Th e National Bi cy cling and
Wa lking Study -Tran sp ortation Choices for a Changing
America: Fin al R eport . 199 4 (FHWA-PD-94-02 3].
6. North Carolina D e partment of Transportation ,
Division of Bicycle and Ped es trian Transporta-
tion . Bicycle Crash Fa cts Summary Report. n .d. Ac-
cesse d at: http :/ /www.pedbikeinfo.org/pbcat/pdf/
summary _bike_facts5yrs . pdf
7. North Carolina D ep artment of Transportation ,
Division of Bicycle and Ped es trian Transporta-
tion . Bi cycl e Crash Typ es Summary R eport. n.d. Ac-
cesse d at: http :/ /www.pedbikeinfo.org/pbcat/pdf/
summary _bike_types5yrs. pdf
8. Attewell R .G., K. Glase , and M . McFadden . Bicycl e
h elme t efficacy: a meta-analysi s. A ccid en t Analys is &
Preve ntion 33: 345-352, 2001.
9. Rivara, F.P , Astley, S.J., Clarren , S.K., Thompso n , D.C.,
and Thompso n, R.S. "Fit of Bicycle Safety Helmets and
Risk of H ead Injurie s in Children." Injury Prevention. vol.
5,no.3,1999, 194-97.
CHAPTER 3 -SELECTING
IMPROVEMENTS FOR BICYCLISTS
1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center,
Bicyc linginfo .o rg. Bikeab ility Checkl ist. Ac cesse d at:
http : I I www.bicyclinginfo.org/ cps / ch ecklist. htm
Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System References 381
2 . Hunter, WW , D.L. H arkey, J.R. Stewart , and M.L.
Birk. E 1Ja lu at ion ef th e Bl11 e Bike Lan e Treatment Used in
Bicycl e-Motor Ve hicle Corifl.ict A reas in Port lan d, Oregon.
Fed eral Hi gh way Admi nistra tion: W as hingt o n , D C,
Aug ust 2000 . [FHWA_RD_00_15 0]
3 . H ar key, D.L , D.W R einfor t, M . Knuiman, J.R. St ewart,
and A. So rto n . D e1Jelop ment ef th e Bicycle Compatib ilit y In-
dex: A Lelle! ef Se rvice Concept . United Sta tes D epar tment
ofTranspo rtation , Federal Highway Administratio n :Wa sh-
in gto n , D C, D ece mber 1998. [FHWA-RD-98 -072]
4. Landi s, B .W , VR. Vatti k uti , R .M .Ottenburg, TA. Pe-
tritsc h , M . Guttenpl an , and L.B . Crider. Intersect ion
Leve l of Serv ice : Th e B icycle Thro ug h Mo1Jement . Sprinkl e
Con sulti ng In c.: Lutz, FL, 2002.
5 . Ca rter, D.L., H u nter, WW, Z egee r, C.V, Stewa rt ,J.R.,
and Huang, H . Ind ex for Assess ing Pedestrian an d B ic ycl ist
S afet y at Int ersec tions. Was hingt o n , D.C.: Fede ral High-
way Administration , In p ress.
6. Sn y d er, M ., and R . Kno bl auch. Pedes trian Safet y : Th e
Id entificat ion of Precip itating Fac tors and Poss ible Co unter -
measures (2 Vol s.). N ati o n al Highway Traffic Sa fety Ad -
ministrati o n : Was hingt on, D C, J anu ary 197 1. [DOT-
HS-800 -403 ]
7. Knoblauch , R ., W M oore, Jr., and P. Sc hmitz. Pedest ri an
Accidents O ccurring on Freeways.A n In1Jestigation ef Ca usat ive
Fac tors, Accident Da ta. Fed eral H igh way Administration :
Was hingto n , D C , 1978 . [FHWA-RD-78-159 /17 1]
8 . Kno bl au ch , R . C au sat ive Fac tors and Counter meas ures for
Rural and Suburb an Pedestr ian A cc idents: Acci dent D ata
Co ll ection an d Analyses . N ational H igh way Traffi c Safe-
ty Administration : W as hingto n , D C, Jun e 1977 . [DOT
HS-802-266]
9. Hunter, WW , J.C. Stutts, WE. Pein, and C. L. Cox .
Pedes trian and Bi cycle Crash Typ es ef the Ea rly 1990s.
Fed eral H ighway Administration , Office of Safety and
Traffi c Operations R & D : McLea n , VA , June 1996.
[FHWA-RD -9 5-163]
10.H arkey, D .L.,J. M ekem so n , M .C. C h en , and K Krull.
382
Pedes trian and Bicycle Cras h A naly sis Too l. Fed eral High-
way Administration: Was hington, D C, D ece mber 1999 .
[FHWA-RD-99-192]
References Bi cycle Co un termea sure Selection Sy stem
CHAPTER5-COUNTERMEASURES
SHARED ROADWAY
1 . Orego n D ep artment o fTran sp ortati o n. Orego n Bicycl e
and Pedes tri an Pl an: An E lement of th e Oreg on. Tran sp orta -
tion Pl an. Sal em , O regon, 19 95 , 2 67 pp . A ccess ibl e at:
http ://www.o rego n.gov /ODOT /HWY /B IKEPED /
pl an p roc.s html
2. N abti ,J.M . and M .D. Ridgway. Inn.01Jat ive B icycle Tr eat-
ments: an. Irifo rmat iona l R eport ef the In stitute of Transpor-
ta ti on E ng in eers (I TE) and th e ITE Pedes trian and Bi cycl e
Counci l. ITE : W as hington, D C, 2002 .
3. AA SHTO Tas k Fo rce o n Geom etri c D es ign. G uid e
for the D welo pment of Bicycl e Faci li ties . Ameri can Asso -
ciation of State Highway and Tran sp o rtation Offi cials:
Was hing ton, D C, 1999.
4 . Iowa D ep artment o f Tra n spo rtati o n. Iowa Trail s 2 000,
C h apter 4 . A ccesse d fr o m : http :/ /www.iowabikes.
co m /#Documents%20a n d%20Plans
5. C ity o f D av is. C ity of D av is Compreh en sive Bi cy cl e
Pl an , M ay 2002. Acces sed from : http ://www.city.
d av is.ca.us/pw /p dfs /0 1 bikeplan -images . pdf
6 . N o rth Carolin a D epartment ofTransportation , Div i-
sio n of Bi cycle and Ped es tri an Tran sportation . N orth
Caro lina Bi cycle Cras h Data . Accesse d at : http :/ /www.
p edbikeinfo.o rg
7. Fl o rida Stat e Unive r sity. Bi cy cl e Safe ty and Enforce men t.
Accesse d at: http :/ /www.sa fety.fsu .e du/bicycl em anu al.
html#accid ents
8 . Florida D epar tment ofTran sportation. Florida Bicycle
Fac iliti es Pl ann ing an d D es ig n Ha ndb ook ,April 2000 . Ac-
cesse d at : http ://www.dot .stat e.fl .us/safety /p ed_bike/
h andbooks_and_res earc h /bhchpt5 . pdf
9. Wisc ons in D ep artmen t of Transportation. W isco nsin
Bi cycle Fac ili ty D es ig n H andb ook, J anu ary, 2004 , 19 3 pp.
Accesse d at : http://www.d o t .wisco n sin .gov/proj ec ts/
state/ do cs/bike-fac ility.pdf
10.H arkey, D.L. an d C.V Z egee r. PE DSA FE: Pedes trian
S cife ty Guide and Co unterm eas ure S electi on S ystem. Federal
Highway Administration: Was hingto n, D C, 20 04 , 33 6 pp.
1 1.B e n efi cial D es igns, In c, J.B . Ki rsc hb aum, P.W Axelson,
P.E . Langmuir, K.M. M isp age l , J.A. Stein, and D.A .
Yamada . D es ign ing Sid ewa lks and Trai ls f or A ccess, Part II
of II: B es t Practi ces Design Guide. U.S . Department of
Tran sportation , 2 00 1.
12.Hodgs on , G.D., K. Hunter-Zaworski , and R.D. Lay-
ton. A Preliminary A ssess ment of th e Effects of Access
Manage ment on Pedes trian s, Bicycl es and Tran sit , Fina l
R eport. Tra n sportation R esea rch Institute , Oregon
State University : C orvall is, OR and Transportation
Northwest , D ep artment of Civil Engineering, Uni-
versity OfWashing ton: Seattl e, WA (n .d.) A ccesse d at:
h ttp: I I www . w s do t. w a. g o v I p ps c / r es ea r e h I
CompleteReports/TNW99-03Acces sMgti mpa ct. pdf
13.Transportation R es earc h Board. A ccess Manage ment
Manu al. Washin gton, DC, 2003, 387 pp.
14.Tran sportation R ese arch Board , N ational R esea rch
Council. National Coop erativ e Hig hway R ese arch Prog ram
R eport 420: Imp ac ts ef A ccess M anage ment Techniqu es. N a-
tional A ca demy Press: Washington , DC, 1999 , 15 7 pp.
ON-ROAD BIKE FACILITIES
1. J acobse n, PL. Safety in Numbers: More Walkers and
Bicyc lists, Safer Walking and Bicy cling. Injury Prev en-
tion , 9, 20 5-209, 20 03 .
2. Federal H ighw ay Admin istration , Manual on Unifo rm
Traffi c Contro l D ev ices for Stre ets and Highways , Fed eral
Highway Administratio n : Washington , DC, 2003.
3 . Harkey, D L, St ewart,] R, and Rodgman, E R. E valua-
tion of Shar ed-Use Fac iliti es for Bi cycl es and Motor Ve hicl es
in Fl orida. St u dy prep ared for the Florida D e partment
ofTransporta tion:Talla h assee, FL ,June 1996.
4. Wilkinson, WC. and Moran , C.G., Highway Route D es -
ignation Criteria for Bicycle Routes: Final R eport, Report
No. FHWA-RD-8 6-066, Federal Highway Adm.inis-
tration , Washi n gton , D.C., 1994.
5 . American Associ ation of State High way and Transp o r-
tation Officials, A Poli cy on G eom etr ic D es ign ef H ig h-
way s and Streets , W ashington, D.C., 2001.
6 . H unter, WW An Evaluat ion ef R ed Should ers as a Bi cycl e
and Pedes trian Facility . Study prepared for the Florida D e-
partment ofTransportation:Tallahassee, FL ,July 1998.
7. Hunter, WW and Feaganes, J.R .. Effec t ef Wid e Cu rb
Lane Conversion s on Bi cycle and Motor Vehicle Int era ction s.
Stu dy prepare d for the Fl orida Dep artment ofTrans-
p ortation: Tall ahass ee, FL, 2004.
8 . So ul eyre tte, R., M cDonald , T., H ans , Z., Kamyab , A .,
Welch , T., Storm, B., and Anderson-Wilk, M. Paved
Sho ul de rs on Primary High ways in Iowa: An Analysis
of Should er Suifa cing Citeri a, C osts, and Benefit s, C en-
ter for Tran sportation R ese arch and Edu ca tion , Ames,
Iowa , 20 0 1.
INTERSECTION TREATMENTS
1. Robinson, B.W., et al., Roundabo uts: A n Iriformation al
G ui de, Publi ca tion No. FHWA-RD-0 0-067 , Fed-
eral Hig hway Adm.ini stration , W as hin gton , DC, Jun e
2000 .
2 . Applying Roundabouts in th e United States, NCHRP
Proj ect 3-65 Final R e port, Transportation R esearch
Board , Was hington, D.C. (to b e comple ted in 2006).
3. AASHTO Task Force on G eometri c D esi gn . Guide
f or th e D eve lopm ent ef Bicycl e Fa ciliti es . Ameri can As so-
ciation of State Highway and Transportation Offi cials :
Was h ington , DC, 1999 .
4 . Federal Highway Administration , Manual on Uniform
Traffi c Cont rol D evi ces for Stree ts and Hig hway s, Federal
High w ay Administration: Was hington, DC, 2003.
5 . Oregon Department ofTransportation. Oreg on Bicycl e
and Pedes tri an Pl an.An El ern ent ef th e Orego n Tran sport a-
tion Plan . Sal em , Oregon , 19 9 5, 267 pp. A cc es sed at:
http ://www.oregon.gov/ODOT /HWY /BIKEPED /
planproc.shtml
MAINTENANCE
1 . American Ass o ciation of State Highway and Transpor-
tation Officials. AASHTO M aintenan ce Manua l: Th e
Maint enan ce and Man age ment ef Roadways and Bridges .
Was hi ngton, DC, 1999 .
TRAFFIC CALMING
1 . Instit u te of Transportation Eng ineers. Traffi c Ca lming
f or Communiti es, Traffi c Calming Library. Wash ington,
DC. Ac cesse d at: http :/ h vwvv.ite.org/traffi c/
2. Ewing , R H . Traffi c Calming: Stat e of th e Pra ctic e. In-
stitu te ofTranspo r tation Engineers , prepared for U.S.
D epartment of Transportation, Federal High way
Administration: W ashington, D.C., 1999. Accessed
at : http :/ /www.ite.org /traffic /tcstat e.htm#tcsop
[FHWA-RD-99-135]
Bicycle Co unt ermeasure Se lection System Refe rences 383
INTERNET RESOURCES ON TRAFFIC CALMING:
http :/ /www.ite.org/traffic/index.htrnl This traffi c calm-
ing Web site was develop ed by the Institute of Trans-
portation Engineers with financ ial support from th e
Federal Highway Administration in the interes t of in-
formation exc h an ge.
http: I I safe t y. fhwa.dot. gov I s peed_manage / traffic_
calnung.htm This is FHWA's speed m anagement Web
site.
http ://www.fhwa.do t .gov /environment/tcalm/ This
FHWA site includes links to lo cal traffic calming pro-
gram sites.
Case Study 19: Traffi c Calming, A uto-restricted Zones and
other Traffi c Manag ement Techniques [FHWA-PD-93-
028] ava il ab le from: http :/ /www.bikewalk.org/assets /
pdf/CASE19.PDF
Project for Public Spaces http :/ /www.pps.org/buildings /
info /how _to / transit_tool/livem emtraffi c
TRAILS/SHARED-USE PATHS
1 . AASHTO Task Forc e on Geometric D esign . Guide
for th e D eve lopment ef Bicycle Facilitie s. American Asso-
ciation of State Highway and Transportati on Officials:
Washington , DC, 19 99.
2. Oregon D e p artment ofTran sportation . Orego n Bicycle
and Pede strian Plan : An Element of th e Oregon Tran sporta-
tion Plan, sec tion 11.6, Multi-use Paths. Salem, Oregon ,
1995, 267 pp. Accessible at : http ://www.oregon.gov /
ODOT /HWY /BIKEPED /planpro c.s html
3. Alta Planning + Design. Rails-with-Trails : L ess on s
L earn ed: Literature R eview, Current Pra ctic es, Conclusions.
US .DOT, Federal Highway Administration, August
2002 . Ac ce ssible at : http :/ /www.fhwa.dot.gov/
environme nt/rectrail s/rwt /. [FTA-MA-2 6-0052-
04-1]
4. F e d eral Hig hway Administration , Manual on Un i-
form Traffi c Control D ev ices for Stree ts and Hig hways,
Federal Hig hway Administra tion: Washington, DC ,
2003.
MARKINGS, SIGNS , AND SIGNALS
1. Federal Highway Adnilnistration , Manu al on Uniform
Traffi c Control D evices for Streets and Highway s, Fed eral
Highway Adnilnistration:Washington, DC, 2003.
384 References Bicycle Counte rmeasure Selection System
2. P ein,WE., Hunter, WW , and Stewart, JR. Evaluation
ef th e Shared-Use Arrow, Study prep ared for the Florida
D ep artment ofTran sportation, D ece mber 1999.
EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT
1. B ec k, K. (2002). The ca se for bicy cl e law enforcement,
IPMBA (Int ernational Poli ce Mountain Bike Associat ion )
News, Spring 2002: Baltimore, MD. Access ibl e at :
http:/ /www.ipmba.o rg /n ewsletter-0 206-safety.htm
2. Fed eral High way Adnilnistration. National Bicy cle
Safety Educati on C urriculum Proj ec t. U.S . D ep art-
m ent ofTran sportation , FHWA, Wa shington, D C, un-
dated. Acessibl e at : http ://www.bicyclinginfo .org/ eel
introguide.cfm
Information al so ava ilabl e at :
Fed eral Highway Adnilnistration . Bicycle Safety
Edu ca tion R esource Center w ebsit e. Accessible at :
http ://www.bi cycling info.org/ee /fhwa_db.cfrn and
http: I I safe t y.fhwa. dot .gov /p e d_bike /bike /bike_
know.htm
3. Fed eral High way Administration . Good Pra ctices Guide
for Bicy cle Safety Education. Wa shington, DC, 2002
[FHWA-SA-02-001 I HSA-4/30-02(5M)QE].Ac ces -
sible at http ://www.bi cy cling info.org/ee /bestguide .
cfrn
4 . AASHTO Ta sk Force on G eometric Design. Guid e
for th e D evelopment of Bicycle Faciliti es. American Asso-
ciation of State Highway and Transportation Officials:
Wa shington, DC, 1999.
5 . Federal High way Administration, Manual on Uniform
Traffi c Control D ev ices for Stre ets and Highway s, Federal
Highway Adnilnistra tion: Washington , DC, 2003.
SUPPORT FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS
1. Spindler, S. (2 004). P ersonal communication. Steve
Spindler Cartog raphy, 303 Wyncote Rd, Jenkintown,
PA 19046, W eb site link: http :/ /www.bikemap.com /
' t
l
l