Mobilitate Biciclete

IMPLEMENTING BICYCLE
IMPROVEMENTS
AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
U.S. Doporlnonl
o Tronsporlolion
Fodorul Highwuy
Adminislrulion
PUBLICATION NO. FHWA-98-105 1998
PDF version created by the
Bicycle Federation of America
(c) 1999.
v
I NTRODUCTI ON
Implementing Bicycle Improvements at the Local Level
INTRODUCTION
W
ith the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Effi-
ciency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), metropolitan planning organizations
throughout the United States were explicitly required to consider
bicyclists in their long-range transportation plans. As a result, many post-
ISTEA plans do include ambitious bicycling components intended to
increase the levels and safety of bicycle use within the affected communi-
ties. In light of these events, the purpose of this document is to provide
detailed information on how to implement some of the most useful and
popular elements. As a result, the advice contained herein will be most
useful for those at the localtypically below the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO)level working to implement the MPO long-range
plans.
The goal of bicycle planning at the local level is to provide for bicycle
travel within the community. The purpose of doing so is to encourage more
bicycling and to reduce the number of serious bicycling crashes and
injuries. Building bicycle facilities is a key part of the encouragement side
of this effort. But such efforts typically mean focusing on small-scale
improvements and local environments. Since the typical bicycle trip is less
than two miles in length, regional plans tend to overlook issues of most
concern to bicyclists. . .the drain grate that can catch a wheel, the lack of a
bike lane on a main street, and the barrier between a neighborhood and
nearby park.
Clearly, much of the most important bicycle-related work in a commu-
nity will happen at the micro-level and will involve paying attention to
nuts and bolts issues. To deal with these problems, however, often requires
taking a step back. Instead of simply focusing, for example, on a particular
unresponsive traffic signal, the best approach may well be to create a
The goal of bicycle planning at
the local level is to provide for
bicycle travel within the
community. The purpose of
doing so is to encourage more
bicycling.
vi
I NTRODUCTI ON
program that routinely fixes such signals whenever an intersection is
modified or whenever a complaint is received. Such an approach should
also include standards for new construction that specify bicycle-responsive
loop detector designs. In this fashion, it is possible to have a community-
wide effect that can truly improve conditions wherever bicyclists ride.
PLANNING STRATEGY
Its important to start with a basic understanding of the current situation.
While in some instances it may be possible to do a complete survey of local
conditions, in many cases, a more basic approach will work just fine.
The suggestion here is to start with a checklist of possible problems or
existing environmental or program features (as shown on pages vii-ix) and
then proceed to implement improvements through the use of an interactive
and responsive program. For the most part, such a program can be managed
as part of an agencys routine function.
As an example, the checklist suggests replacing bicycle-unfriendly
drainage grates. One basic step in such an effort is to find out what grate
standard the street department currently uses. If it uses an unacceptable
model, then there are several steps that follow in the effort to improve the
safety of the roadways: (1) change the grate standard for new construction;
(2) have the street department use the new standard whenever it replaces or
modifies a current installation; and (3) budget a reasonable amount of
money for annual grate replacement, based on public requests and a quick
prioritization of street system (e.g., any popular bicycling streets and bike
routes at the top and unpopular streets at the bottom).
PROJECT PRIORITIES
The sections that follow the checklist describe some of the programs and
projects found in Americas most progressive bicycle-friendly communi-
ties. They range from trail networks and transit system connections to
rubberized railroad crossings and bicycle parking. Some are modest
projects while others are major undertakings.
While each project and program can be seen as part of a larger compre-
hensive planning effort, each can also be implemented singly. Implementa-
tion can be accomplished in phases that best reflect local realities. Since, for
example, it would be easy to replace dangerous grates but more difficult to
build a bridge across a major river, the former could be done almost imme-
diately and the latter as funding and support materialize. Similarly, if the
zoning ordinance is currently being revised, it might be best to start with
adding bike parking requirements to the parking chapter. It is both possible
and desirable to pick and choose those projects and programs from the list
that have local appeal and are doable.
Such an approach makes it possible to get things going almost immedi-
ately and to start making a real difference in the community, often at
minimal expense. Of course, some projects are expensive. For instance, if
there is a need for a grade separated freeway crossing, such a project can
easily cost upwards of $300,000 to $500,000. Planning for such an expendi-
ture can take several years and may involve grant applications or imple-
mentation through the Transportation Improvement Program process and
the use of any one of several categories of Federal funds. However, in the
vii
I NTRODUCTI ON
meantime, many small but important changes can be made as the commu-
nity works its way toward bicycle friendliness.
Many local bicycle programs have found, for example, that small initial
successes build momentum allowing more ambitious works to follow. In
one southern community, for instance, striping bike lanes on two collector
streets near the local universitya project that took several days of work
and less than $1000 to accomplishhelped build support for an important
$500,000 bicycle bridge.
The checklist below briefly describes projects that are more fully ex-
plored in the sections of this report that follow (each section is numbered in
accordance with this list). While not every possible bicycle program or
project is included in this checklist, it does include some of the most impor-
tant.
CHECKLIST OF CATEGORIES OF GENERAL IMPROVEMENTS
1. Major urban streets
Typical concerns: High traffic volumes and speeds, lack of space for bicy-
clists.
Possible projects: Widen outside through lanes or add bike lanes by either
redistributing space on the roadway by restriping or adding paved width.
2. Minor urban street traffic
Typical concerns: Higher than appropriate traffic volumes and speeds on
residential streets.
Possible projects: Create a traffic calming program that responds to neigh-
borhood requests by installing a variety of measures.
3. Minor street/major street crossings
Typical concerns: Bicyclists have difficulty crossing busy arterial thorough-
fares from quiet residential streets .
Possible projects: Provide median refuges at key minor street crossings,
bike-friendly signals, and other features on collectors.
4. Breaking bicycling barriers
Typical concerns: Physical features (rivers, creeks, railroads, freeways)
often keep bicyclists from getting where they want to go.
Possible projects: Provide independent bicycle/pedestrian structures
where necessary or combine bicycle/pedestrian structures with other
existing or planned transportation facilities.
5. Trail networks
Typical concerns: Trails are popular facilities among the bicycling public
but they may be rare or discontinuous. In addition, some are poorly designed,
constructed, or maintained.
Possible projects: Provide new trails where possible throughout the commu-
nity, connect existing trail segments, and encourage developers to include
trails in their developments. Make sure designers and operations staff use
current literature in their work.
viii
I NTRODUCTI ON
6. Transit connections
Typical concerns: The success of a multimodal transportation system
suffers when bicyclists cannot get to transit stations, when there is not ad-
equate safe bicycle storage, and when bicyclists are not accommodated on the
system itself.
Possible projects: Improve connections between residential areas and
transit stops, provide secure bicycle parking at stops, and provide for carrying
bicycles on the system.
7. Roadway bridge modifications
Typical concerns: Some bridges contain narrow outside lanes, hazardous
deck surfaces, hazardous expansion joints, high traffic volumes, high traffic
speeds, or high speed on- and off-ramps.
Possible projects: Reallocate bridge deck width by shifting lane lines,
modify surface for better bicycle stability, modify ramps to discourage high-
speed turning movements, and, as a last resort, develop bicycle connections
independent of the bridge in question.
8. Railroad crossings
Typical concerns: Diagonal railroad crossings and rough crossingsregard-
less of crossing anglecan cause bicycle crashes.
Possible projects: Replace dangerous crossings with rubberized installa-
tions (especially in the outside through lane), use flangeway fillers on low-
speed diagonal crossings, flair paved surface at crossing approaches to allow
right-angle crossings, and use warning signs or markings.
9. Traffic signals
Typical concerns: Most traffic-actuated signals have difficulty detecting
bicycles. In addition, signal timing may not allow sufficient clearance time
for bicyclists to get through an intersection, and programmed visibility heads
may not be as visible from a typical bicyclists location as from a typical
motorists location.
Possible projects: Provide bicycle-sensitive loop detectors in new installa-
tions and retrofit where needed; in some cases, use pavement markings to
identify most sensitive locations; adjust timing requirements on signals and
test heads for visibility at necessary angles.
10. Drainage grates and utility covers
Typical concerns: Some drainage grate designs can trap a bicycle wheel; in
addition, grates and utility covers should be kept level with the grade of the
street surface and, wherever practical, such installations should be kept out
of the typical path of a bicyclist.
Possible projects: Replace bad drain grate standards with bicycle-safe
models; replace or modify existing installations; as a routine practice,
consider bicyclists when locating new utilities.
ix
I NTRODUCTI ON
11. Rural road shoulders
Typical concerns: Many rural roads serve high-speed traffic and, in some
cases, high volumes of motor traffic containing a significant proportion of
large trucks. For bicyclists, sharing narrow roads with such traffic can be
unpleasant and dangerous.
Possible projects: Provide smooth paved shoulders on all new construction
and reconstruction; add shoulders to popular bicycling routes; adopt stan-
dards calling for adequate paved shoulders; restrict the use of rumble strips
when bicycle traffic is expected, and on new construction and reconstruction;
or provide space for future shoulders if they cannot be installed at the time.
12. Bicycle parking
Typical concerns: Scarce bike parking at popular destinations, undesirable
bike parking devices, no bike parking zoning requirements.
Possible projects: Each year, provide new bike parking as a routine practice;
use only parking devices that accept high security locks; or add bike parking
to local zoning regulations.
13. Maintenance
Typical concerns: Poorly maintained trails and roadway edges.
Possible projects: Alter current practices, create a user-requested bicycle
spot improvement program.
REFERENCES
Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Under ISTEA, FHWA, 1994
Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, AASHTO, 1998 (pending)
North Carolina Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Guidelines, NCDOT,
1994
x
I NTRODUCTI ON
1 MAJOR URBAN STREETS
1
MAJOR URBAN STREETS
PROBLEM OVERVIEW
I
n many communities, bicyclists feel squeezed out of the traffic mix.
Studies under way at the Traffic Institute at Northwestern University
and the University of North Carolina show that most bicyclists (i.e.,
casual adult riders and kids) feel high levels of stress while riding on busy
streets. While in some cases it is possible for them to ride on quiet back
streets, such streets suffer from some serious problems of their own: 1)
quiet back streets may take bicyclists to no important destinations; 2) they
may be discontinuous; 3) they may be badly paved; 4) they may have
many sight obstructions and low-visibility intersections; and 5) it may be
very hard to cross busy arterial roads.
Many major urban and suburban arterial and collector streets, on the
other hand, have some distinct advantages: 1) they are protected from
minor street cross traffic; 2) they have relatively few sight obstructions; 3)
they serve most of the popular destinations; 4) they are continuous; and
5) they are probably in better shape than the back streets. However, they
typically suffer from high levels of motor vehicle traffic, congestion
caused by on-street parking, and relatively narrow outside lanes.
In many communities,
bicyclists feel squeezed out of
the traffic mix. Providing
bike lanes or wide curb lanes
on major urban streets can
enhance mobility and access
for bicyclists.
2
SOLUTION OVERVIEW
While not applicable to all streets, it is often possible to create space for
bicyclists by altering the roadways channelization. On existing roadways,
this may mean eliminating or reducing the width of other lanes. On new
construction, it may mean adding space to the roadway and, possibly,
acquiring additional right-of-way.
OBJECTIVES
To provide adequate space for bicyclists on collector and arterial streets:
By reallocating space to provide either bicycle lanes or widened curb
lanes on existing streets.
By designing new roads with either bicycle lanes or widened curb lanes
as part of the typical cross section.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Implementing changes to the major street network involves the identifica-
tion of an overall network of connected bicycle improvements, combined
with action on a project-by-project basis. Specific routes may be more
difficult to implement than others for reasons of geometrics, politics, or
traffic considerations.
One of the most important aspects of the implementation strategy is on-
going and pro-active public involvement. Several key publics should be
closely involved in the process: 1) bicyclists (including casual adult riders
and children); and 2) property owners whose land may be impacted by
changes in channelization (e.g., elimination of parking).
SUBTASKS
1. Identify key corridors
With a map of the arterial and collector system, focus particular attention
on those streets that combine important characteristics: 1) close proximity
to residential areas; 2) serve potentially popular destinations (parks, shops,
schools, work centers); 3) continuous with good access to surrounding
neighborhoods; and 4) few nearby alternatives for through access.
2. Prioritize the corridors
Some potential streets will be higher priority than others. Highest priority
streets would include: 1) those with high levels of existing bicycle use;
2) those with evidence of potential bicycle use (e.g., lots of nearby neighbor-
hood riding); 3) streets that can be easily modified; and 4) those that con-
nect residential areas with potentially popular, but otherwise unreachable
destinations.
3. Determine likely alternatives
For basic guidance on which treatments to apply to particular streets, look
at the options given in the report, Selecting Roadway Designs for Accom-
modating Bicycles (FHWA, 1994). However, in addition consider the follow-
ing:
3
For each street, also look at the available space and its overall level of
complexity. In terms of space, striping bicycle lanes will require
between 1.2 m and 1.5 m (4 ft and 5 ft) per direction, depending on
conditions. For two directions, then, the required space will be between
2.4 m and 3.0 m (8 ft and 10 ft). The question, then, becomes: Is this
amount of space available or can it be found? Several options for finding
the space include: 1) eliminating a parking lane; 2) narrowing through
lanes or turn lanes; and 3) eliminating through lanes or turn lanes.
Eliminating a parking lane may help achieve other traffic-related goals
but may be politically difficult in some cases. Narrowing lanes should
be done with careful attention to capacity and safety concerns. Level of
service should be carefully considered when eliminating lanes.
The wide curb lane option requires making the outside through lane
between 4.2 m and 4.5 m (14 ft and 15 ft) wide. This may be accom-
plished by narrowing other travel lanes or eliminating a parking lane.
Very complex streetsthose with multiple sets of high-speed ramps
connecting with interstate highways and multiple turn lanes in either
directiontend to be difficult situations in which to install designated
bicycle lanes. They may be best served by wide curb lanes or, if speeds
are high, striped shoulders. On the other hand, standard arterial or
collector streets with normal four-legged intersections can be relatively
easy to stripe for bicycle lanes.
Finally, consider public support. If there is community interest in
serving utilitarian bicycling needs, then the trade-offs required for
bicycle lane installation will be more easily negotiated. Most casual
adult riders see little improvement when a wide curb lane is installed
but many appreciate the designated space provided by bicycle lanes.
Most observers agree that designated lanes are most likely to encourage
greater utilitarian bicycling.
4. Assemble a network
Look at the list of potential streets as a system or network of on-street
bicycle facilities. In this light, determine where the proposed network
breaks down, has gaps, or misses important destinations. Such areas may
need to be served by other options, like: 1) barrier-breaking bridges or
underpasses; 2) short sections of trail; or 3) bicycle routes or traffic-calmed
bicycle boulevards through particular neighborhoods.
5. Phase the development
With the complete network planned, it is next important to develop a
phasing proposal for the development. The first phase may include a
combination of: 1) critically important segments; 2) segments that can be
included as incidental features of other planned projects; 3) segments that
may disappear in the future if they are not implemented soon; and
4) segments that can be easily accomplished. These last segments can be
very important since they can help establish a track record.
Subsequent phases may include less critical connections, projects that
may ride along on future transportation projects, and expansions based on
new development.
4
6. Implement the system
Implementing a system of bicycle improvements on major urban streets,
according to the phasing scheme, requires engineering design work, com-
bined with the cooperation of street department personnel and continued
public involvement to ensure acceptance. The diagram below shows
options for modifying a four-lane urban roadway with on-street parking.
Further, while striping bike lanes or wide curb lanes may seem like a
simple change, it may take more effort and time than at first imagined. For
instance, existing striping patterns may be difficult to remove or modify,
especially if thermoplastic markings have been inset into specially ground
depressions in the paved surface. Even paint stripes can be difficult to
remove, and stripes that have been removed may still be visible and, as a
result, confusing to travelers under certain conditions (e.g., on rainy nights).
Figure 1.1
Three options for modify-
ing a typical 64-ft-wide
four-lane roadway to
improve the situation for
bicyclists
Source: Lubbock Metropolitan Area
Comprehensive Plan, Bicycle
Federation of America
8' Parking
Lane
12' Travel
Lane
12' Travel
Lane
12' Travel
Lane
12' Travel
Lane
8' Parking
Lane
Current Cross- section
8' Parking
Lane
5' Bike
Lane
12' Travel
Lane
12' Travel
Lane
5' Bike
Lane
8' Parking
Lane
14' Turn
Lane
Bike Lane Option 1
6' Bike
Lane*
11' Travel
Lane
5' Bike
Lane
8' Parking
Lane
12' Travel
Lane
11' Travel
Lane
11' Travel
Lane
Bike Lane Option 2
8' Parking
Lane
8' Parking
Lane
Widened Curb Lane Option
11' Travel
Lane
11' Travel
Lane* *
13' Travel
Lane
13' Travel
Lane*
* 14' preferred but
parking lane should
NOT be narrowed
for that purpose
* 4' min. bike lane
next to 2' gutter pan
* * Narrowing inside travel lanes to 11' on low- speed urban roadways is acceptable;
in addition, according to the Highway Capacity Manual, it reduces lane capacity by
approximately 3%.
5
In general, the easiest and best way to stripe either bicycle lanes or wide
curb lanes is when a new pavement overlay has been added and utilities
and grates have been adjusted.
Such an opportunity should not be missed. At the same time, designers
should be careful not to stripe sections of bicycle lane that end at difficult
locations and force bicyclists to share narrow traffic lanes with high speed
traffic. Each phase of such a project should be safe in and of itself.
7. Evaluate the results
Keep track of the results of the program as each phase is implemented.
Study bicycle traffic volumes before installation and after; in subsequent
years, it is helpful to do additional bicycle counts to determine changes in
use. Cities like Madison, Wisconsin, have counted bicycles in key corridors
for many years and have used the results to improve their system. Its also
useful to look at certain bicyclist behaviors before and after implementa-
tion. For example, bicycle use of the sidewalk may change when bicycle
lanes are installed.
RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
In general, the physical resources (e.g., paint, signs) required for striping
either bicycle lanes or wide curb lanes are not as significant as the labor
required to plan, design, and implement the system. As a result, implement-
ing some of the easy segments may be done with relatively little extra
expense and can often be handled within an agencys current fiscal year
using contingency funding sources.
Bike lanes are for the
preferential or exclusive
use of bicyclists. They
should be designated by
lane striping, regulatory
signs, and pavement
markings.
6
SCHEDULE
Short-term: Short-term projects include critically important connections,
easy restriping projects, projects that can be treated as incidental aspects of
current transportation projects, or projects that can take advantage of new
pavement overlays.
Long-term: Long-term projects include more complex restriping projects,
projects that are likely to engender greater public concern (e.g., loss of on-
street parking), and projects that will be completed as incidental parts of
major transportation improvements.
SPECIFICATIONS
Bicycle lanes
Bicycle lanes should conform to the AASHTO Guide for the Development of
Bicycle Facilities (1998pending) or local standards, if applicable. The
following are basic points that should be followed. Circumstances may
require deviating from these requirements in some special cases; however,
such cases should be carefully considered and mitigating measures applied.
1. Width: Bicycle lanes should be at least 1.5 m (5 ft) wide, from the lane
stripe to the curb face (see #1 below). In addition, there should be at least
1.2 m (4 ft) between the bicycle lane stripe and the joint between the
pavement and the gutter pan. When next to parking, bicycle lanes should
be at least 1.5 m (5 ft) wide (see #2). When no curb and gutter section is
present, a 1.2-m (4-ft) bicycle lane will suffice and it should meet a
smoothly graded shoulder at least 0.6 m (2 ft) wide.
2. One-way: On two-way streets, one-way bicycle lanes must be provided
on each side, to the right of the right-most through lane. Under no condi-
tions should two-way bicycle lanes be provided on one side of the street.
3. Side of road: On one-way streets, a one-way bicycle lane should gener-
ally be provided on the right side of the road. Special circumstances may
dictate striping a particular bicycle lane on the left side. Such circum-
Figure 1.2
Bicycle lanes provided
under different types of
conditions
Comprehensive Plan,
6" or 8" solid white
stripe
Parking stalls or 4" solid stripe*
6" or 8" solid white stripe
Motor vehicle lanes
Parking Parking
5' min.
Bike
lane
5' min.
Bike
lane
The optional solid white stripe should be used where stalls are unnecessary (because parking is
light) but there is concern that motorists may misconstrue the bike lane to be a traffic lane.
*
(2) Striped parking
Motor vehicle lanes
(1) Parking prohibited
4' min.
5' min.
bike
lane
4' min.
5' min.
bike
lane
8' - 10' 8' - 10'
7
B
I
K
E

R
O
U
T
E
750 feet rural
250 feet urban
LANE
AHEAD
ONLY
RIGHT
LANE
O N L Y
R I G H T
L A N E
ONLY
RIGHT
LANE
L A N E
E N D S
B
E
G
I
N
750 feet rural
250 feet urban
750 feet rural
250 feet urban
750 feet rural
250 feet urban
N
o
t

l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n

5
0

f
e
e
t
N
o
t

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n
5
0

f
e
e
t
B
E
G
I
N
B
I
K
E

R
O
U
T
E
Figure 1.3
Possible designation for
bicycle lanes
Comprehensive Plan,
stances could include greater numbers of potential conflictslike busy bus
routes, double right turn lanes, or high-turnover parkingthat exist on the
right side. The conditions should be carefully documented.
4. Designation: Bicycle lanes should be designated by lane striping,
regulatory signs, and pavement markings. The diagram below shows an
approach based on the recommendations in the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (FHWA, 1988). Some agencies with a great deal of experi-
ence have found that the MUTCDs approach can result in too many signs.
Some, for example, only use the bicycle warning signs on cross streets
where a likely conflict may arise. Other agencies use a word message (Bike
8
Lane) instead of the diamond symbol. Their Bicycle Only signs would be
simplified to eliminate the diamond as well. Before deciding on an approach
for local bike lane striping, signing, and marking, find out what the State
agencies and other, more experienced local jurisdictions are using in your
area. In addition refer to the MUTCD.
5. Striping: Bicycle lanes should be separated from other travel lanes by a
15-cm or 20-cm (6-in or 8-in) solid white stripe. In general, a bicycle lane
stripe may be solid from the beginning of a block to within 15 m (50 ft) of
the end; at that point, it should be dashed until it hits the intersection
(MUTCD, 1988). There should be no curb between bicycle lanes and the rest
of the roadway, nor should bicycle lanes be placed on a sidewalk.
6. Regulatory signs: Bike lane regulatory signs should be used after
significant intersections. In addition, the Oregon Bicycle Plan (ODOT, 1992)
suggests posting signs at intervals equal to the speed limit multiplied by 40.
Thus, on a 56 km/h (35 mi/h) street, signs would be placed approximately
every 427 m (1400 ft). In addition, on-street parking between the curb and
the bike lane can hamper the visibility of bike lane signing. In such cases,
the Oregon Bicycle Plan suggests using pavement markings only.
7 . Pavement markings: Bike lane pavement markings should be placed
adjacent to bike lane regulatory signs (installed as described above). If
regulatory signs are not used, more frequent pavement markings (e.g., after
intermediate intersections or at midblock on very long blocks) should be
used. They are also appropriate in the short sections of bike lane found to
the left of right turn lanes.
8. Intersections: For the most part, intersections of streets that include
bicycle lanes are relatively easy to handle. Simply dashing the bike lane
stripe at the intersection approach and then picking up the solid stripe after
the intersection is all that is needed. However, more complicated intersec-
tions require more attention.
At intersections with right-turn-only lanes, bicycle lanes should not be
striped to the right of such lanes. In these situations, the need for the right-
Where right turn lanes
are provided at intersec-
tions, bike lane stripes
should be dashed as they
approach the intersection
to indicate a merging of
bicycles and right turning
vehicles.
9
(1) Right- turn- only lane (2) Parking area becomes
right- turn- only lane
(3) Optional double
(4) Right lane becomes
Optional dashed
stripe. Not recom-
mended where a
long right-turn-
only lane or
double turn
lane exists.
*If space is available.
Otherwise all delineation
should be dropped at
this point.
Typical path
of through
bicyclist.
*If space is
available.
Typical path
of through
bicyclist.
Typical path
of through
bicyclist.
*If space is
available.
Drop bike lane
stripe where
right turn only
designated.
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
4min.
Ped. crossing
LANE
BIKE
Ped. crossing
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
Ped. crossing
4min.
*
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
Ped. crossing
4min.
*
turn-only lane should be evaluated based on turning volume warrants. If
the right-turn-only lane is not necessary, eliminating it will make bicycle
lane striping less complex. If it is necessary, the bicycle lane should be
moved to the left (as shown below on the approach to an interstate highway
on-ramp) or dropped, depending on how much space is available. One
factor that often makes an intersection more difficult is the presence of a
high-speed ramp with a wide radius. This tends to increase motor vehicle
speeds and it makes merging and crossing maneuvers more difficult for
bicyclists. Using a smaller turning radius for ramps and dedicated right
turn slip lanes can lower motor vehicle speeds and improve conditions for
both bicyclists and pedestrians.
The diagram below shows a range of four typical situations and some
possible solutions. If possible, the preferable solution is to continue the bike
lane to the left of the right turn lane rather than simply dropping it and
forcing bicyclists to fend for themselves. Some designers feel that providing
the short section of bike lane to the left of a right turn lane is almost more
Figure 1.4
Bicycle lanes and right
turn lanes: four options
Source: North Carolina Bicycle
Facilities Planning and Design
Guidelines; 1994
10
important than striping the lane on the rest of the block since it gives
bicyclists a refuge away from turning traffic and encourages them to merge
before the intersection.
9. Parking: Bicycle lanes should be to the traffic side of all curbside park-
ing. Standard width parking spaces 2.4 m to 3.0 m(8 to 10 ft) wide should
be provided and should, in general, not be narrowed to create the bicycle
lanes. Such an approach can result in a dangerously close relationship
between parked cars and bicycles.
Diagonal parking, because it requires motorists to back into traffic at an
angle, does not work well with bicycle lanes. If a bicycle lane is moved away
from the parking in order to provide clearance from backing motor ve-
hicles, the combined parking/backing/bike lane area can take up an
excessive amount of space. If the lane is striped close to the ends of the
diagonal parking spaces, it puts bicyclists in jeopardy of being hit by
backing cars. The best solution is to replace the diagonal parking with
parallel parking and a bike lane.
10. Signal actuation: At traffic-actuated signals, special accommodation
will be needed in the bicycle lane in order to ensure bicycle detection.
Generally, this means a quadrupole loop buried in the bicycle lane near the
stop bar at the intersection. If the bicycle lane is widened to accommodate
right-turning motor vehicle traffic (as might be the case where, as in
California, right-turning motorists are required by law to merge into the
bike lane), then the loop should be a diagonal quadrupole to accommodate
a wider range of bicycle positions. A loop marking might also be helpful.
Wide curb lanes
A wide curb lane provided for bicyclists, while not technically a special
bicycle facility, should conform to certain requirements nonetheless.
1. Width: A wide outside traffic lane should be 4.3 m to 4.6 m (14 to 15 ft) in
width but studies have shown that bicyclists welcome any extra width
beyond 3.6 m (12 ft) (MDDOT, 1984). Width should be measured from the
lane stripe to the joint with the gutter (if any). Including the gutter pan
when determining the width of the outside lane is generally a mistake. The
joint between the lane and the gutter is a hazard for bicyclists.
While widths greater than 4.6 m (15 ft) may give bicyclists even more
room, excessive widths may encourage motorists to share the lane with
each other side-by-side. This behavior is most likely to occur on the ap-
proaches to intersections with heavy volumes of right-turning traffic.
14' 14' 2' 2'
32'
6" 6"
C
L
14' 14' 2' 2'
68'
6" 6" 12' 12' 12'
Two- lane roadway with wide lanes
C
L
Five- lane roadway with curb & gutter, standard 12' inside lanes, and widened curb lanes
Figure 1.5
Wide curb lanes
implemented in two
different situations
Comprehensive Plan,
11
2. Right turn lanes: At intersections with right turn lanes, the extra width
should be added to the right-most through lane. A short section of bike
lane between the right-most through lane and the right-turn-only lane can
also be a welcome design feature. As for the bicyclists making right turns,
they can generally share a standard width lane with turning motor vehicle
traffic. If, however, the right-turn-only lane is, in actuality, a high-speed
merging lane, providing extra width there, as well, can help bicyclists and
motorists coexist more peacefully.
3. Signal actuation: At traffic-actuated signals, special accommodation
may be needed on the right side of the rightmost through lane in order to
ensure bicycle detection. Options include installation of diagonal quadru-
pole loops in the right through lane or use of a pavement marking to
identify the best location for detection (see the section of this report en-
titled Traffic Signals for more information).
REFERENCES
Evaluation of Wide Curb Lanes as Shared Lane Bicycle Facilities, MDDOT,
1984
Guide to the Development of Bicycle Facilities, AASHTO, 1998 (pending)
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, FHWA, 1988
Oregon Bicycle Plan, Oregon Department of Transportation, 1992
Selecting Roadway Designs for Accommodating Bicycles, FHWA, 1994
12
13
2 MINOR URBAN STREET TRAFFIC
MINOR URBAN STREET TRAFFIC
PROBLEM OVERVIEW
O
ne of the most common complaints that local public works depart-
ments hear from community residents involves neighborhood
traffic: either motorists go too fast on neighborhood streets or there
is too much traffic or, most likely, both. These problems often arise as
motorists use residential streets as bypasses for arterial streets. Sometimes
exasperated agency personnel, upon investigation, learn that the cars are
going less than the speed limit and volumes are within accepted norms.
However, such conclusions often miss the point: if residents feel uncomfort-
able with their neighborhoods level of traffic or typical motorist speeds,
then there is most likely a problem, whether or not it is severe enough to
meet typical agency warrants for action.
Studies have shown that bicyclists, particularly youngsters, are most
often involved in car/bike crashes on residential streets. These crashes tend
to involve motorists driving lawfully. A question being asked more and
more these days is whether it is truly appropriate to give priority to auto
traffic in neighborhoods and for motorists to drive 25 mi/h through areas
where children play and people of all ages live.
Minor streets attract
casual adult and
child cyclists because
these streets typically
have low traffic
volumes, low traffic
speeds and serve
residential areas.
14
A study conducted in Australia produced the following findings:
The higher the speed, the more drivers put the onus on the pedestrian
or cyclist to get out of their way.
The attitude of drivers at marked pedestrian crossings is astoundingly
ruthless.
Skills of judgment required to interact with traffic are only acquired
by experience. Young children do not have these skills. Safety education
is only of limited valueit cannot impart these skills. (Children and
Road Accidents; Australian Bureau of Road Transport; 1985)
In addition, a study by Dr. Stina Sandels of Sweden concluded that it is
impossible to adapt small children fully to the traffic environment. She
argues that adults still blame children for accidents, calling them careless
whereas in reality the children have not developed the perceptual and
cognitive skills necessary to handle traffic. She mentions four key factors:
(1) play is a very important part of development; it is the business of chil-
dren and must be factored into design; (2) children, being short, have
trouble seeing what adults expect them to see; (3) children have trouble
dividing their attention between that in which they are engrossed at the
moment and the traffic to which they are supposed to pay attention; and
(4) young children have difficulty understanding instructions and the
somewhat arcane concepts that are integral to functioning in a traffic
setting (in Children in Traffic; ed. by J. Hartley; 1975).
SOLUTION OVERVIEW
Some local traffic problems can be solved through simple and inexpensive
means like installing regulatory signs. Among the most popular are stop
signs. Unfortunately, residents often expect too much from the installation
of stop signs, which are intended to assign right-of-way between compet-
ing drivers. Studies suggest that, while stop signs can reduce right-of-way
conflicts, they do little to reduce traffic speeds or volumes. Another popular
idea, posting lower speed limits, also has little effect on drivers behavior,
unless backed by a sustained enforcement effort. Similarly, the various
warning signs (Slow Children Playing etc.) are unlikely to affect motor-
ists actions.
Making certain streets one way can discourage through traffic, although
speeds may increase. However, the idea must have the support of the neigh-
borhood. In addition, one-way streets can have negative effects on local
bicycle traffic. For example, a youngster who, before one-way street desig-
nation, could ride to a friends house a block away may find him/herself
having to ride three or four blocks to reach the same destination after the
street is designated one-way. As a result, wrong-way riding will likely
increase when neighborhood streets are designated as one-way streets.
Some simple physical measures, on the other hand, can improve bicy-
cling conditions on minor streets. For example, eliminating sight obstruc-
tions at key intersections can help motorists and bicyclists see each other in
time to avoid conflict. Many communities have ordinances governing sight
distance and these should be enforced.
To really make a difference in terms of traffic speeds or volumes on
residential streets, it is necessary to use more serious measures. What is
15
needed is to change motorists expectations and behaviors when driving in
neighborhoods. The best way to do this is by significantly changing the
environment. When motorists enter a neighborhood, they should see
immediately that they are no longer on a thoroughfare. Using such traffic
calming measures as diverters and partial diverters (see Specifications
later in this section) can also help in the creation of bicycle boulevards,
low-volume traffic-calmed streets that parallel major arterials.
In general, standard subdivision design features like cul de sacs and
curvilinear streets are not considered traffic calming techniques. Such
approaches are seldom
applicable in retrofit situa-
tions. And, while they un-
doubtedly reduce through
motor vehicle traffic on
specific residential streets,
they also create barriers to
bicycle travel and may well
increase bicycling trip
lengths, due to their circui-
tous nature. As a result, such
design features are less
desirable as traffic calming
measures.
By increasing trip lengths
and forcing bicyclists to use arterial streets to reach many common destina-
tions, such designs as cul de sacs go hand-in-hand with increased reliance
on motor vehicles. Studies from Portland, Oregon, for instance, show greater
reliance on motor vehicles for most trips in such neighborhoods, when
compared with more traditional grid designs (The LUTRAQ Alternative,
1992, Cambridge Systematics, Inc.).
Simple physical mea-
sures, like this raised
traffic circle, can improve
bicycling conditions by
slowing traffic and
discouraging through
traffic in residential
neighborhoods.
16
It is possible, however,
to modify the standard
cul de sac design to
somewhat increase the
options for internal
bicycle circulation. The
diagram at right shows a
short connector path
between the ends of two
cul de sac streets. While
this approach can make
very short intra-neighborhood trips more feasible, it does little for longer
distance trips. And it is difficult to retrofit such a design to existing streets.
OBJECTIVES
To reduce inappropriate levels of motor vehicle traffic and traffic speeds
and encourage bicycle travel on residential streets:
By working with neighborhood groups to identify traffic problem
locations.
By using appropriate traffic management strategies or installing traffic
calming devices at key locations.
Implementing traffic management strategies, like one-way street designa-
tion or traffic calming projects on existing neighborhood streets, should
only be attempted with strong support from residents. Through extensive
public involvement, it is possible to arrive at a consensus on a
neighborhoods needs. Without residents support, proposed solutions will
likely be seen as attempts by agency personnel to run peoples lives and will
most likely be rejected by elected officials.
There are three primary strategies for implementing traffic management
and calming measures. The first is to create a traffic management program
with an annual budget and an explicit process for considering candidate
projects. This approach allows an agency to consider projects from all parts
of town in an impartial manner. It can also make the process understand-
able and acceptable for neighborhood residents.
The second approach relies on using unrelated projects to further neigh-
borhood traffic management goals. For instance, adding a traffic calming
feature to a planned repaving project could result in lower costs than
implementing independent projects.
Third, implementing traffic management and traffic calming measures
as a condition of development could reduce the impacts that new housing
projects have on existing nearby neighborhoods. And, by requiring develop-
ers to cover the costs, it can reduce the burden on current residents and the
communitys taxpayers.
In all probability, some combination of the above strategies would serve
the community best. A routine programmatic approach can help institu-
tionalize consideration of neighborhood traffic problems. Adding inciden-
tal traffic management elements to a larger project can reduce costs and
Figure 2.1
Cul-de-sac modified to
increase options for internal
bicycle circulation
17
allow the community to take advantage of opportunities. Requiring devel-
opers to deal with the traffic their work generates is a good way to solve
problems before they occur.
SUBTASKS
1. Develop a program
Set the programs budget to an amount that can ensure a relatively stable
future: large enough to accomplish its purpose but small enough to keep it
from becoming overly reliant on undependable income sources (e.g.,
grants). Create a reasonable process for project identification, selection, and
implementation. Determine criteria for prioritizing potential projects,
considering such elements as public support, costs, and current traffic
impacts.
2. Identify problem areas
On the basis of public input and professional judgment, identify potential
locations for attention. These might include residential streets used by
commuters to circumvent nearby arterials, streets where drivers routinely
speed, intersections with greater than expected numbers of crashes, as well
as park and school sites. Determine whether unrelated transportation
projects or other public works can help fund improvements. Move such
improvements into the fast track in order to take advantage of the oppor-
tunities. For other locations, analyze and prioritize candidates according to
criteria developed in Step 1 above.
3. Determine appropriate traffic calming measures
Depending on the particular problem involved, the street configuration,
and the likely costs, identify the necessary measures for each site. Consider
that, for traffic management to work, it should not merely shunt traffic
from one residential street to another. For this reason, several locations in a
neighborhood may have to be dealt with at one time. In selecting appropri-
ate measures, it is important to work with neighborhood residents, as well
as police and fire agencies. The latter must be involved to ensure emergency
service for all affected locations.
Sample problem and solution
Consider the problem shown at right. To avoid a busy intersection at E,
motorists cut through a nearby neighborhood as shown. As part of the
solution, local officials installed
partial closures at 1, 2, 3, and 4
and a raised center median on
the north-south arterial be-
tween A and D. This eliminated
most through traffic on the
neighborhood streets. Some
years after these measures were
implemented, the intersection
at E was also improved.
1 2 3 4
A
B
C
D
E
N
Figure 2.2
Diagram showing how through
traffic may be reduced on
through streets
18
With a good list of project sites and their appropriate traffic management
measures, it is next important to create a phasing proposal for their devel-
opment. The first phase may include a combination of: 1) critically impor-
tant projects; 2) projects that can be included as incidental features of other
planned projects; 3) projects whose opportunities may disappear in the
future if they are not implemented soon; and 4) projects that can be easily
accomplished.
Subsequent phases may include less critical projects, projects that may
ride along on future transportation projects, and expansions based on new
development.
Implementing a system of traffic management measures on minor urban
streets, according to the phasing scheme, requires engineering design work,
combined with the cooperation of street department personnel and contin-
ued public involvement to ensure acceptance. In some cases, input from
sewer, police, and fire department personnel may also be necessary.
Keep track of the results of the program, as each project is implemented.
Measure motor vehicle and bicycle traffic volumes before installation and
after. Vehicle speeds should also be recorded before and after installation. A
reduction in vehicle speed can be used as a measure of effectiveness. Speed
is also needed to evaluate operations. Records of motor vehicle crashes,
bicycle/motor vehicle crashes, and pedestrian/motor vehicle crashes
should also be kept to determine the extent of safety improvements.
In general, traffic management and traffic calming work requires small-
scale construction projects. The physical resources (e.g., concrete, asphalt,
signs) required for their creation are not as significant as the labor required
to plan, design, and implement the improvements. Visiting communities
with active programs and talking to designers can help agency personnel
get up to speed and avoid common pitfalls.
SCHEDULE
Short-term: Short-term projects include critically important locations,
easy projects, and projects that can be treated as incidental aspects of
current transportation projects.
Long-term: Long-term projects include more complex construction
projects, perhaps involving projects that are likely to engender greater
public concern (e.g., loss of on-street parking), and projects that will be
completed as incidental parts of major transportation improvements.
SPECIFICATIONS
While local agencies will likely be familiar with standard traffic manage-
ment techniques, traffic calming measures are often less well-understood
in the United States. The following table briefly illustrates some of the most
common approaches.
19
COMMON TRAFFIC CALMING TECHNIQUES
Technique Definition
Figure 2. 3 Traffic circle
A raised traffic control device (see photo earlier in this section) located in
the middle of an intersection to slow traffic. Usually, vegetation is planted
in the center.
Figure 2.4 Speed hump or table
A section of raised roadway surface (2.4 m to 3.6 m [8 ft to 12 ft] long) that
forces motorists to slow down. Not to be confused with speed bumps
(typically less than 1 m [3 ft] long), often found in parking lots or mobile
home parks, which can be a hazard to bicyclists.
Figure 2.5 Diverter
Structure placed at intersection designed to prevent through traffic by
forcing motorists onto another street. They can be designed to allow bicy-
clists to ride past.
Figure 2.6 Partial street closure
Access to a road is essentially eliminated in one direction through the use of
a barrier across half the street. The rest of street remains two-way. They can
be designed to allow bicyclists to ride past.
Figure 2.7 Street closure
All through motor vehicle traffic is stopped by a curb-to-curb barrier. Slots
are cut to allow bicycle traffic to get through. Can cause problems if motor-
ists must use nearby driveways to turn around.
Figure 2.8 Curb bulb
Sidewalk extensions at intersections narrow the road width and reduce
crossing distances while increasing pedestrian visibility. Often used in
downtown shopping districts and typically match the width of on-street
parking.
Figure 2.9 Chicane
Obstacles (e.g., expanded sidewalk areas, planters, street furniture, or
parking bays) are staggered on alternate sides of the roadway, requiring
motor vehicle traffic stream to move side-to-side in the right-of-way.
20
Figure 2.0 Choke point
The narrowing of a street over a short distance to a single lane, forcing
motorists to slow down and, occasionally, negotiate with on-coming traffic.
Figure 2.11 Gateway treatment
Raised intersection, surface alterations (such as brickwork or textured
materials) that indicate a change from arterial to residential streets. Some-
times accompanied by signs showing the name of the neighborhood.
Figure 2.12 Woonerf
Dutch term meaning living yard, a street design strategy in which motor-
ized and non-motorized traffic are not segregated and which grants pedes-
trians priority usage. May include the use of a variety of the measures
described above.
FOR MORE INFORMATION...
One of the best references on traffic calming and
management measures, complete with cost esti-
mates and situations where particular measures
are most appropriate, is Making Streets That
Work: Neighborhood Planning Tool, a workbook
for community groups interested in making
changes to their own neighborhood streets.
Written by staff from the City of Seattle, the
book may be ordered from the
Seattle Engineering Dept.
Municipal Bldg. 600 4th Ave.
Seattle, WA 98104-1879
Cost is $10.00.
21
REFERENCES
Children in Traffic, ed. by J. Hartley, 1975
Livable Streets, Donald Appleyard, University of California Press, 1981
Making Streets That Work: Neighborhood Planning Tool, City of Seattle, 1996
State of the Art: Residential Traffic Management, Smith et al., USDOT/
FHWA, 1980
Traffic Calming, Auto Restricted Zones and Other Traffic Management
Techniques, Case Study 19, National Bicycling &Walking Study, Clark
&Dornfield, USDOT/FHWA, 1994
Traffic Calming: Planning Advisory Service Report No. 456, Hoyle, American
Planning Association, 1995
Traffic Calming: The Solution to Urban Traffic and a New Vision for Neigh-
borhood Livability, CART, 1989
Design Considerations for Pedestrian Sensitive Geometric Features,
Pietrucha & Plummer, in the Pedestrian Agenda, Bicycle Federation of
America, 1993
22
23
3 MINOR STREET/MAJOR STREET CROSSINGS
MINOR STREET/MAJOR STREET CROSSINGS
PROBLEM STATEMENT
M
uch of Americas bicycling takes place on residential streets.
However, the longer a bicycle trip is, the more likely it is that the
rider will have to cross a major arterial thoroughfare. For some
bicyclists, this is no challenge; but for others, it forms a nearly insurmount-
able barrier. As a result, many otherwise purposeful bicycle trips are cut
short because the bicyclists cant get there from here.
While this problem may exist to some degree in all parts of a community,
it is generally most acute in newer residential areas. Such areas rely heavily
on the hierarchical model of street designation, with residential streets
feeding into collectors which, in turn, feed into arterial streets. As a result,
residential streets may be literally devoid of traffic but arterials tend to be
extremely busy.
In older parts of a community, a regular street grid can provide a variety
of alternative routes for both bicyclists and motorists. As a result, the
contrast between traffic on residential streets and that found on arterials is
less severe and crossings often less difficult. Arterial streets in an older part
of town may be three lanes of one-way traffic with parking on both sides
and a curb-to-curb cross section of 15.8 m (52 ft). In such situations, cross-
ing bicyclists can edge out into the intersection to see beyond the parked
cars. As a result, the real crossing is reduced to 11.0 m to 12.2 m (36 to 40 ft).
The longer the bicycle trip,
the more likely a bicyclist
will have to cross a major
arterial. For some, this can
be an insurmountable
barrier.
24
By contrast, an arterial street in a newly developed area may have six
through lanes, a center turn lane, two right turn lanes, and no parking for a
possible curb-to-curb width of some 33.5 m (110 ft). And while traffic
speeds on arterials in older parts of town may be 40 km/h to 48 km/h (25
to 30 mi/h), those on arterials in new areas may be 72 km/h to 88 km/h (45
to 55 mi/h).
SOLUTION STATEMENT
There are several strategies for reducing crossing problems for bicyclists
who use residential streets. One way is to encourage neo-traditional designs
that include a combination of more compact and mixed land uses and a
street system that more closely resembles a grid. A growing body of litera-
ture describes how this may be done (see References). Briefly put, this
approach may require changes to zoning ordinances and re-education of
local planners, engineers, developers, and residents. While such an ap-
proach may help a community avoid problematic arterial street crossings in
the future, it doesnt help them deal with existing situations.
Since residential streets in many residential areas feed into collector
streets, one important part of the solution is to improve collector/arterial
street crossings. Such crossings should have bicycle-responsive traffic
signals, adequate green time for casual riders to get across, and a reasonable
amount of space on the collector streets for bicyclists to ride. Such streets
are often excellent candidates for bicycle lanes and such measures can help
attract riders who might otherwise use less desirable crossing locations.
At some residential street/arterial street intersections, the possibility of
installing raised medians should be carefully considered, particularly in
areas with potential bicycle and pedestrian cross traffic. Such medians can
provide protection for non-motorized travelers, allowing them to cross one
half of the roadway at a time in relative safety. Motor vehicle traffic access
needs must be carefully considered, however.
There are two primary strategies for improving minor street crossings for
bicyclists. First, a field study of all collector/arterial street intersections
should be conducted and improvements suggested as needed. Second, key
residential street/arterial street intersections should be identified and
modified. Factors in identifying such intersections would include public
input, nearby bicycling attractors (parks, commercial areas, schools) and
residential areas, adequate width on the arterial street, and the potential
impact of eliminating left turns from the arterial to the residential street.
OBJECTIVES
To provide safe and convenient means for bicyclists to cross arterial streets:
By improving collector street conditions and collector/arterial
intersections.
By providing bicycle improvements at key residential street/arterial
street intersections.
25
Improving collector street conditions and collector street/arterial street
intersections may require installation of bicycle-sensitive loop detectors
and other relatively low-cost measures. Providing raised medians at key
residential street/arterial street intersections will require construction and
careful attention to safety considerations and may be controversial among
residents. Extensive public involvement is critical.
SUBTASKS
1. Survey collector streets and collector/arterial
intersections
Through a field survey, identify needed improvements on collector streets
and at collector/arterial intersections. Check out the responsiveness of
traffic signals and measure curb-to-curb widths as background for possible
lane marking changes.
2. Survey residential street/arterial street intersections
Identify intersections that serve important origins and destinations and
determine whether nearby collector street/arterial street intersections can
serve the need. If not, determine the feasibility of making crossing improve-
ments to help bicyclists get across the arterial.
3. Prioritize locations by need
Based on potential use, identify those locations that are most likely to need
improvements immediately and those that can wait. Put together a priori-
tized list of locations and the needed improvements.
4. Set up an on-going improvement program
Identify those problem locations that are likely candidates for inclusion in
currently planned road construction or reconstruction projects and suggest
adding bicycle features to those projects. Identify those locations that
cannot be dealt with as incidentals, prioritize these, and budget a set
amount for improvements each year.
5. Add bicycle improvements to the routine arterial street
intersection design process
To keep future arterial streets from becoming major barriers to bicycle
travel, make sure that the crossing needs of bicyclists are considered in the
standard thoroughfare design process.
6. Evaluate results
On at least an annual basis, determine what progress has been made toward
the goal of providing ways for bicyclists to cross arterial streets. Consider
the number of intersections treated, the number of locations left to be
improved, and the proportion of new locations that accommodate bicy-
clists .
26
SCHEDULE
This program requires an on-going effort to incrementally eliminate
arterial street barriers to bicycle traffic. It requires an on-going commit-
ment to making bicycle-related improvements part of the routine business
of road building and renovation.
SPECIFICATIONS
Collector street/arterial street intersections
Providing bicycle lanes on collectors may require rethinking current
striping. For example, eliminating a turn lane may allow restriping for bike
lanes. Bicycle lanes should be equipped with sensitive loop detectors as
described elsewhere in this manual. Further, signal timing should be
adjusted to allow crossing bicyclists to clear the intersection. Bike lanes
should merge to the left of right turn lanes.
Residential street/
arterial street
intersections
At locations where a
raised median can be
provided, a careful
design using curb cuts
and short connecting
paths can be combined
with appropriate
warning and regulatory
signs to accommodate
crossing bicycle traffic
S T O P
STOP
B
I
K
E
X
I
N
G
B
I
K
E
X
I
N
G
STOP
S T O P
Improving conditions for
cyclists at signalized
intersections may require
installation of bicycle-
sensitive loop detectors.
Figure 3.1
Curb cuts and short connecting
paths can accommodate
crossing bicycle traffic at raised
medians.
27
(Bicycle Federation of America, 1995). Such a design can work well as part
of a bicycle boulevard approach, which involves making bicycle-friendly
and traffic calming improvements to a residential street that parallels a
major arterial.
REFERENCES
Guide to the Development of Bicycle Facilities, AASHTO, 1998 (pending)
Lubbock Metropolitan Area Comprehensive Bicycle Plan, Bicycle Federation
of America, 1995
1994
28
29
4 OVERCOMING BICYCLING BARRIERS
OVERCOMING BICYCLING BARRIERS
PROBLEM OVERVIEW
I
n many cases, implementing a community bicycle plan includes dealing
with substantial physical barriers. It is often the case that a potentially
important destination for bicyclists may be separated from nearby
residential areas by a river, an interstate freeway, a railroad line, or some
other major obstacle. For bicyclists, the saying you cant get there from
here is, sadly, often true.
The importance of such barriers becomes clearer in light of typical
bicycle trip distances. Because bicyclists are self-powered, many of their
trips are limited to 1 or 2 miles in length. In fact, according to the 1995
Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, the average length for a bicy-
cling trip is just under 2 miles. Therefore, a barrier that adds a mile or two to
a bicycle trip may put the destination out of reach for most bicyclists.
Conversely, eliminating a major barrier has the potential for increasing the
number of bicycling trips significantly.
Forming the connection between origin and destinationbreaking the
barriercan be a major challenge. In some cases, it is possible to take
advantage of existing roadway connectors. For example, re-striping the
travel lanes on a roadway bridge can be used to create bicycle lanes. In
many cases, providing such on-road facilities can help bicyclists reach the
Eliminating a physical
barrier, or providing a way
for bicyclists to go around,
over, or under such barriers,
has the potential for signifi-
cantly increasing the
number of bicycle trips.
30
popular destinations com-
monly found on collector and
arterial streets. See the Road-
way Bridge Modifications
section for on-road options.
If an independent structure
like a bridge or underpass is
required, costs can be substan-
tial. Or there may be conflicts
over land ownership, agency or
company policies, and jurisdic-
tion. For instance, one agency in
Massachusetts recently built a
bicycle/pedestrian trail with a
15.2-m (50-ft) gap where the
trail crosses a railroad line. The
railroad company and the
agency could not agree on a
plan of action.
SOLUTION OVERVIEW
One way of breaking bicycling
barriers is through physical
improvements, like bridges or
underpasses. While they can be
among the most expensive
parts of a system, they can
substantially increase the
utility of a trail or street net-
work.
In some cases, such structures
have been built independently
of any roadway facility. This
ensures that the structure is
located just where it is needed.
Because the location can be
carefully chosen, this approach
can also eliminate conflicts
with major corridor traffic. The
structure can be a major cross-
ing, like the bridges shown in
the top two photos at right. Or it
can be an underpass beneath an
arterial street like that shown in
the third photo.
Sometimes, independent
structures can be provided in
conjunction with solutions for
other community needs. For
instance, several bicycle/
pedestrian bridges have been
31
combined with utility crossings. In other cases, structures have been added
to existing or planned transportation facilities.
For instance, bicycle bridges have been added on one side of a highway
bridge, as shown in the fourth photo, or underneath a transit bridge, as
shown in the last photo. These approaches are most easily done when a
major structure is being built or renovated. In such cases, they can be
handled as incidental features of a large project. Its important, however, to
carefully evaluate such options. Some existing bridges will not support the
eccentric loads imposed by cantilevered bike-pedestrian bridges. And
structures hung underneath a bridge must allow sufficient clearance for
flood waters or highway or train traffic, depending on the circumstances.
In extreme cases, agencies may provide services that circumvent the
problem. For example a shuttle might take bicyclists across a major water-
way, as has been done in several areas. Because such cases are much less
common than those discussed above, this report will not go into detail on
the subject.
OBJECTIVES
To overcome important bicycling barriers:
By providing bicycling improvements to existing or planned roadway
bridges (see the section entitled Roadway Bridge Modifications for
details).
By providing independent bicycle/pedestrian structures where neces-
sary.
By combining bicycle/pedestrian structures with other existing or
planned transportation facilities.
Overcoming physical barriers to bicycling involves first identifying and
prioritizing those that are most important. The next step is to determine
how to overcome each one and develop approximate cost estimates. Some
barriers are easily bridged but are relatively unimportant while others may
be exceedingly difficult but are very much needed.
Setting priorities for solutions involves balancing public input, gathered
through meetings, media outreach, and other means, with an analysis of
the potential good to be achieved. For instance, if a small but vocal group
proposes a bridge over a major river but the structure would serve few
potential users, this project may deserve a lower priority than one that
would link a major residential area with a large park, school, or shopping
area. Area-wide surveys can help determine potential support for a particu-
lar structure.
Finally, because of the costs involved in major construction, it is always
important to investigate all potential means of solving the bicycling
problemperhaps through some sort of combined project or by modifying
an existing roadway structure. Evaluate those existing structures carefully.
In some cases, a simple restriping combined with surface improvements
will provide a critical link.
If no such link exists, find out who else could benefit from a crossing and
who may be already planning a major investment that could help break the
32
bicycling barrier. The City of Eugene, Oregon, for example, has worked with
utility agencies to combine water lines with bicycle-pedestrian bridges
over the Willamette River. Seattle, Washington, has worked with communi-
cations companies to combine fiber optic lines with trail corridors.
SUBTASKS
1. Identify bicycling barriers
With a map of the community, identify barriers like rivers, railroad yards
or tracks, interstate freeways, creeks, and canals. Focus particular attention
on those barriers that separate residential areas from potentially popular
destinations (parks, shops, schools, work centers). Examine existing cross-
ings (if any exist) in terms of their suitability for bicycling. It may be that
the only way across a particular river, for instance, is over a narrow, busy,
high-speed bridge with a hazardous deck. On the other hand, the structure
may hold promise if suitably modified.
2. Prioritize the barriers
Some barriers deserve a higher priority than others. Highest priority
barriers would include: 1) those near areas with high levels of existing
bicycle use or evidence of potential bicycle use (e.g., lots of families living
nearby or potentially popular destinations); 2) those identified by bicycling
interests as major problems; 3) those with evidence of related safety prob-
lems; and 4) those that isolate communities that are traditionally
underserved. Lowest priority barriers would be: 1) those seldom mentioned
by bicyclists; 2) those far from potential users; and 3) those broken by other
nearby (and relatively suitable) structures.
3. Determine likely alternatives
Determine how the barriers might be broken. A river or creek would need a
bridge while a raised interstate freeway would probably require an under-
pass. Identify streets or trails that the structure would (or should) connect.
Look at traffic volumes, speeds, and physical characteristics of the streets to
determine their suitability for a connection. For the most part, a special
bicycle-pedestrian bridge or underpass should link smoothly with the trail
and road network on both sides with no hazardous conditions. In other
words, it should not dump users out onto a major arterial street. Get a rough
approximation of distances to be crossed, elevation changes, and any
physical constraints (e.g., locations of interchanges, historical buildings
that cant be moved, or sensitive natural areas). Look at the possibility of
using existing or planned structures in some way. Finally, get a general idea
of costs for budgeting purposes. In these steps, it is particularly useful to
work with an engineer with a background in structures. He or she can help
determine whether, for example, prefabricated bridges or culvert-type
underpasses might be useful.
4. Prioritize projects based on feasibility
With information gathered during the previous step, revisit the priority
listing of barriers and determine whether any changes are needed. Quite
possibly, a lower priority barrier may be easily broken while a high priority
barrier may be nearly impossible to bridge.
33
With a prioritized list of barrier-breaking projects in hand, it is next impor-
tant to develop a phasing proposal for development. Depending on available
funds, early phases may include a combination of: 1) critically important
structures; 2) structures that can be included as incidental features of other
planned projects; 3) existing structures that can no longer serve motor
vehicles and may be demolished in the future; and 4) structures that can be
easily and cheaply built.
Subsequent phases may include less critical connections, projects that
may ride along on future transportation projects, and expansions based
on new development.
6. Implement the projects
Building a series of barrier-breaking bicycle structures according to the
phasing scheme requires detailed engineering design, combined with
sensitive construction work and continued public involvement to ensure a
fit between the publics needs and the projects characteristics. Members of
the public may initially worry that breaking a bicycling barrier may bring
undesirables into their neighborhoods. Such real but unwarranted con-
cerns, along with others, must be seriously addressed throughout the
development process.
In addition, it is important that projects be designed according to the
most current information. In particular, adequate consideration of such
details as widths and clearances, railings (if any), grades, visibility on
curves, and lighting are critical to the projects success. Because structures
are so costly to begin with, it is unlikely that initial mistakes (e.g., making a
bridge too narrow for safe two-way bicycle use) will be fixed. The addi-
tional cost involved in doing it right the first time is far smaller than the
cost of changing a structure at a later date.
Finally, it is important to consider maintenance as part of the implemen-
tation phase. Someone will have to sweep the structure, replace light bulbs,
and attend to myriad details for years to come. The responsibility for these
duties must be determined before the structure is built.
Keep track of the results of the projects. Measure bicycle traffic volumes on
a regular basis. Consider installing loop detectors that can be wired to
counters; these can count bike traffic unattended on an on-going basis. Also
look at how popular the structures are and whether there are important
problems with vandalism or other crimes. Identify any changes in bicycle
traffic patterns resulting from a structures installation that may require
modifications of other parts of the system.
In general, the resources required for designing, building, and maintaining
bicycle structures are significant. Money and expertise are the primary
requirements. The former need can be met by including projects in the
Transportation Improvement Program and prioritizing them according to
their importance. The latter need can be met through the use of engineer-
ing and planning staff or consultants.
34
Since virtually all communities have structures of some kindgenerally
motor vehicle bridges or underpassesthe expertise to build bicycle
structures is already in place. The primary extra requirement is familiarity
with such documents as the AASHTO Guide for the Development of
Bicycle Facilities.
SCHEDULE
Short-term: Since most projects will require allocation of substantial sums
of money, detailed engineering, and an environmental impact assessment
and public involvement process, few are likely to be accomplished in the
short term. However, some opportunities for immediate action may include
easy retrofit projects and projects that can be treated as incidental aspects
of current transportation projects.
projects, projects that are likely to engender greater public concern (e.g., loss
of on-street parking), projects that may involve significant environmental
effects, and projects that will be completed as incidental parts of future
transportation improvements.
SPECIFICATIONS
Bicycle structures should conform to the AASHTO Guide for the Develop-
ment of Bicycle Facilities (1991). In addition, the following basic points
should be considered. Special circumstances may require deviating from
these suggestions.
Bicycle bridges
1. Width: The width of
a bicycle bridge should
be equal to that of the
approaching path plus
the clearances on either
side. With a 3-m (10-ft)
path and 0.6-m (2-ft)
clearances on either
side, this would result
in a bicycle bridge
width of 4.3 m (14 ft). If
significant pedestrian
traffic is expected, or if
users are likely to stop
on the bridge to view
the scenery, extra width
should be considered.
2. Railings: Bridge
railings should be a
minimum of 1.4 m (4.5
ft) high to keep bicy-
clists from pitching
over the top in case of an accident. A rub rail at handlebar height can
improve safety as well. Approach railings should be angled away from the
edge of the path to reduce the potential that a bicyclist could hit it head-on.
14'-0"
Plan of bridge end
4
.
5
'
m
i
n
.
Bridge cross section
Bikeway surface
10' path
14' bridge
2' shoulder
2'
min.
Railing
8
'
m
i
n
.
15
Direction of travel
4
5
m
in
.
Planking*
*If planking used, it must be laid at least 45 to
direction of travel.
Railing
Figure 4.1
Source: adapted from Lubbock
Metropolitan Area Comprehensive Plan,
Figure 4.2
Plan of bridge end
35
3. Surface: A relatively smooth non-skid surface should be installed to
reduce the potential for sliding under wet conditions. If planking is used,
boards should be installed at least 45 degrees to the direction of travel and
any curl should face down.
4. Approaches: Bridge approaches should have good visibility; bicyclists
exiting a bridge should be able to see bicyclists approaching the bridge, and
vice versa. Grades should be no greater than the requirements set by the
Americans with Disabilities Act (U.S.A.T.B.C.B., 1994). If barrier posts are
used to keep motor vehicle traffic off, they should be brightly painted and
reflectorized and should be installed in a well-lit area.
5. Lighting, visibility, and security: Bridges should be well-lit for safety
and personal security reasons. In addition, it is desirable that bridges be
visible from adjacent populated areas, buildings, or roadways to allow
police patrols and others to easily see what is going on.
Railing heights must be 1.4 m 4.5 ft}.
Minimum vioth shoulo be 4.3 m14 ft}, in lov-volume
situations 3 m 10 ft} may suffice.
C/Icr //cxjc/:/vc Dr/oc cj//c/:
ln some instances, it may be possible to implement a bike-
peoestrian brioge project for very little money. ^t least three
techniques suggest themselves.
1. Farmers have long knovn the value of olo railroao
flatcars as short brioges. 1he trick is that your neeos, in
terms of span, shoulo at least roughly correspono to the
oistance betveen the flatcars front ano rear vheel assem-
blies.
1his oistance can vary up to about 27.4 m v0 ft} long. So
shop arouno for one thats the right length. Useo flatcars
can sometimes be hao for betveen S3,000 ano S6,000.
Keep in mino that there vill be extra costs, beyono the price
of the flatcar. ou vill probably have to truck it to your site
ano lift it into place, it vill neeo a oeck ano railings. ^no
youll have to oesign piers.
2. ^s rail lines are abanooneo or improveo, railroao com-
panies sometimes stockpile materials from brioges for fu-
ture use. ou may be able to talk the company into either
oonating the brioge parts to your cause, or giving them to
you at a gooo price. lf you have non-profit status, a oona-
tion can give them a nice tax oeouction!
3. Consioer an olo motor vehicle brioge that can no longer
serve its intenoeo purpose. ln some cases, these brioges can
be moveo to a nev site, in others, the replacement brioge is
built elsevhere, leaving the olo brioge in place. Lither vay,
such brioges can often be retrofitteo to serve bicycle traffic
for a small amount of money.
RELT/1ELY /AEXFEA6/1E ER/LCE6
^ custom-oesigneo structure is not the only solution to
provioing a bicycle brioge. ^ groving number of compa-
nies oesign ano builo prefabricateo brioges to serve a vioe
variety of neeos, from crossing vater hazaros at golf courses
to carrying peoestrians across major arterial roaos. Such pre-
fab brioges are oesigneo ano assembleo to a customers
specifications at a companys factory ano then shippeo to
the site by truck.
1he companies belov provioe a variety of structures maoe
from oifferent materials.
Continental Brioge Company, 8301 State Highvay 2v,
N., ^lexanoria, MN 56308
LnVooo Structures, PO Box ^, 5724 Koppers Ro,
Morrisville, NC 27560
L.1. 1echtonics, 2117 1ryon St., Philaoelphia, P^ 1v146
Lxcel Brige Mfg. Co., 1200 Shoemaker ^ve, Santa Fe
Springs, C^ v0670
Steaofast Brioges, PO Box 806, 281 40th St NL, Ft.
Payne, ^L 35v67
Vestern Vooo Structures, PO Box 130, 1ualatin, OR
v7062
Some companies use steel for their prefabricateo brioges,
others use glulam vooo beams. Clear spans run from 6 m
20 ft} to 76.2 m 250 ft}, oepenoing on type of brioge.
Several spans can be combineo to form a longer brioge
through the use of intermeoiate supports. Using short spans
ano lots of supports, hovever, may or may not be the vay
to go. 1he expense of a beefier structure for a long clear
span must be veigheo against the expense of provioing
extra piers in a river, for instance.
^ couple of important factors to consioer vhen getting
cost estimates.
36
Attached bicycle bridges
1. Width: The
suggested width
for an attached
bicycle bridge is
the same as that
for an indepen-
dent bridge: 4.3
m (14 ft). For a
short span, a narrower cross section may be adequate, particularly if low
volumes of bicycle traffic are likely. If the width available is very limited,
such as 1.8 m (6 ft), consider adding such a structure for one-way traffic to
each side.
2. Separation and clearances: There should be a physical separation
between the bicycle bridge area and any adjacent travel lanes. For a bridge
suspended below a roadway or railroad bridge, vertical clearances should
be a minimum of 2.4 m (8 ft). If maintenance vehicles will use the bridge,
clearance should be increased to 3.0 m (10 ft).
3. Railings: Bridge railings should be 1.4 m (4.5 ft) high. A rub rail at
handlebar height is also recommended.
4. Surface: The decking should be relatively smooth but non-skid. If the
bicycle bridge is adjacent to the roadway bridge, savings may be achieved
by creating a contiguous surface and installing the barrier later. Concrete or
asphalt surfaces are preferable to steel decking.
5. Approaches: If a bicycle bridge is attached on one side of a motor vehicle
bridge, the approaches should be designed very carefully. The best solution
is to provide connecting pathways that take bicycle traffic to nearby quiet
streets or independent trails. This eliminates the likelihood of introducing
crossing or contra-flow
bicycle traffic at bridge
ends. If the bicycle bridge
is underneath the road-
way bridge, traffic
considerations are likely
to be insignificant;
however, grades may
require attention.
6. Lighting, visibility,
and security: Lighting
from an adjacent roadway
bridge is likely to serve
bicyclists well. If the
bicycle bridge is sus-
pended under another
bridge, special consider-
ation should be given to
providing adequate
14'-0"
4
.
5
'
Bikeway surface
Railing
Highway surface
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.4
Lighting for a bicycle
underpass
Light well in
street median
5' min. 5' min.
C
e
n
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
8
'

-

1
0
'

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

c
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
Recessed vandal-
resistant light fixtures
37
visibility. In some cases, police bicycle patrols may need to visit the facility
on a regular basis.
7 . Structural considerations: Careful attention must be paid to whether
the bicycle structure can be safely added to an existing bridge. Cantilever-
ing a facility on one side of a highway bridge, for instance, may introduce
loading conditions for which the structure is unsuited.
Bicycle underpasses
1. Width: Ideally, the minimum width of a bicycle underpass should be
equal to that of the approaching path plus the clearances on either side.
With a 3-m (10-ft) path and 0.6-m (2-ft) clearances on either side, this
1. Relative elevations. Depenoing on vhat must be crosseo
e.g., a river, a freevay, a railroao yaro} ano its elevation
compareo vith that of the possible bicycle connections, an
overpass may or may not be preferable to an unoerpass. For
the most part, vater features vill be crosseo vith a brioge
ano the clearance belov the structure vill be oetermineo
by such factors as flooo levels ano the necessity to allov
vatercraft to pass unoerneath. Llevateo freevay sections,
by contrast, may be best oealt vith by provioing an unoer-
pass. Vhen freevays must be crosseo via an overpass, the
structure must allov for the passage of large trucks, 6.1 m
20 ft} of clearance may be requireo. Railroao tracks, par-
ticularly those vhere piggy backcars must be accommo-
oateo, require 7.3 m 24 ft} of clearance. Unoerpasses, by
contrast, neeo not have such large clearances since the
heights involveo are those of bicycle users. ^ ceiling height
of 2.4 m to 3 m 8 to 10 ft}, in most cases, is all that is
neeoeo, oepenoing on vhether maintenance vehicles must
be accommooateo.
2. Craoes ano the ^mericans vith Disabilities ^ct. Since
most bicycle structures are, in actuality, multi-use structures
that must accommooate peoestrians, the ^mericans vith
Disabilities ^ct, or ^D^, is an important factor to consioer.
^D^ governs maximum graoes for ramps 1.12} ano requires
a level lanoing for every 0.7 m 2.5 ft} of rise U.S.^.1.B.C.B.,
1vv4}. ln some cases, these consioerations may result in
very long ramp structures. For example, to reach the oeck of
an overpass vith a 7.3-m 24-ft} clearance, over 106.7 m
350 ft} of ramp voulo be requireo. Depenoing on avail-
able lano, an unoerpass may be the most feasible vay to
cross a particular barrier.
3. Craoes ano ease of bicycling. 1o some extent, it is easier
for a bicyclist to use an unoerpass than an overpass. 1he
reason is simple. ^ bicyclist entering an unoerpass gains
speeo as he/she oescenos ano, in some cases, can almost
coast up the exit ramp at the other eno. By contrast, a bicy-
clist must climb an overpass first, using energy in the pro-
cess, ano then can coast oovn the other sioe. Descenoing
first can result in a possible savings of energy ano an easier
ascent. ^t the same time, it is important to consioer the
implications of speeo vhen oesigning either an unoerpass
or an overpass.
For example, a bicyclist entering an unoerpass may oe-
cioe to peoal fast oovn the slope in oroer to ease the climb
at the far eno, as a result, bicycle speeos may be higher
than expecteo ano the potential for crashes in the unoer-
pass itself shoulo not be ignoreo. Vith an overpass, it voulo
be important to consioer the potential speeos of bicyclists
coming off the structure ano oesign trail connections ano
intersections accoroingly. Lnoing the ramp at a curb cut
on a major roaovay voulo be a serious mistake. lt voulo
be better to connect the ramp to a generally flat trail seg-
ment vith no more than gentle curves.
Beyono the choice betveen an unoerpass or overpass,
graoes can also oetermine hov much use a structure gets.
Bicyclists may choose an alternate route that has some-
vhat more challenging conoitions e.g., higher levels of
traffic, higher speeos, or vorse surface conoitions} if they
perceive the climbing involveo in using the structure to be
excessive.
4. Sense of oanger. Many people are less comfortable go-
ing through an unoerpass than they are using an overpass.
1his is particularly true if the unoerpass is long or oark or
has geometric features that either offer hioing spots for
muggers or block the viev through to the outsioe at the
other eno. Since an unoerpass typically offers shelter from
the veather, it can become a gathering place for people,
ano a bicyclist vill have to pass through or near them. 1his
can be oisconcerting ano some bicyclists vill avoio using
an unoerpass for this reason. ^n overpass, by contrast, can
generally be seen from nearby areas ano a person in trouble
voulo have a greater chance of attracting attention than
he or she might in an unoerpass.
5. Veather. On the other hano, the sheltering aspect of an
unoerpass can reouce the impacts of veather on the bicy-
clist. ^n overpass in the Snov Belt may neeo to be ploveo
ouring the vinter ano ramps may neeo to be sanoeo for
safety.
6. Potential hazaros for others. ^n overpass presents an
opportunity for mischief as vell. lf, for example, it crosses
an interstate highvay or a high-speeo railroao line, some
people may throv objects from the overpass onto users
belov. Vhile oesign features can mitigate the problem, it
is important to consioer potential vanoalism vhen consio-
ering a particular site for an overpass.
FACTORS IN DECIDING BETWEEN UNDERPASSES & OVERPASSES
The choice between an overpass and an underpass depends on a variety of factors.
38
would result in a minimum underpass width of 4.3 m (14 ft). A narrower
width may be acceptable for a very short structure; however, the longer the
underpass, the more unpleasant and unattractive a narrow structure will
be. A width greater than 4.3 m (14 ft) may be necessary if the underpass is
likely to be well-used or if significant pedestrian traffic is anticipated.
Vertical clearances should be at least 2.4 m (8 ft); 3 m ( 10 ft) may be re-
quired if maintenance vehicles must use the structure.
2. Surface: A relatively smooth non-skid surface should be installed to
reduce the potential for sliding under wet conditions. Drainage should be
carefully considered; standing water (or, possibly, ice) should not be al-
lowed to accumulate in the structure but should, rather, be dealt with
through appropriate drainage features.
3. Approaches: Underpass approaches should have excellent visibility;
bicyclists exiting should be able to see bicyclists approaching, and vice
versa. In addition, bicyclists entering one end should be able to see all the
way through the underpass for personal security reasons. Grades should be
no greater than the requirements set by the Americans with Disabilities
Act. If barrier posts are used to keep motor vehicle traffic out of the under-
pass, they should be brightly painted and reflectorized and should be
installed in a well-lit area.
4. Lighting, visibility, and security: Underpasses should be extremely
well-lit for safety and personal security reasons and lighting should be
vandal-resistant. In some cases, police bicycle patrols may need to visit the
facility on a regular basis. If the underpass is long (for example two bridge
structures with two lanes each), passive lighting can be provided by open-
ing up the ceiling of the underpass in the space between the structures.
Drainage must be considered if such openings are provided.
REFERENCES
1994
Arizona Bicycle Facilities Planning & Design Guidelines, AZDOT, 1988
A Second Look at Bridges, John Williams, Bicycle Forum, 1995
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 14, Public Rights-of-Way
Interim Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 117, June 20, 1994, U.S.
Architectural & Transportation
39
5 TRAIL NETWORKS
TRAIL NETWORKS
PROBLEM OVERVIEW
M
any bicyclists prefer riding in low-stress environments. Such
environments can often be found on residential streets. But, in
many cases, the least stressful environments are found on separate
trail systems. Yet, because such facilities are often in short supply, bicyclists
must often travel long distances to reach trailheads and may well encoun-
ter very high levels of bicycle and pedestrian traffic once they arrive. As a
result, the low-stress travel experience they were expecting ends up being a
stressful encounter with hoards of other non-motorized travelers.
Bicyclists prefer low-stress
environments. In many cases,
the least stressful environ-
ments are found on trails
separated from traffic.
40
5 TRAIL NETWORKS
SOLUTION OVERVIEW
Creating a more complete network of trail opportunities can bring those
facilities closer to a greater number of potential users and can help spread
use over a larger system. As a result, more people will be able to ride trails
and do so with less congestion.
OBJECTIVES
To develop an extensive network of off-road facilities to serve a greater
number of users and reduce use-related impacts on specific sections:
By developing new trails where possible throughout the community.
By connecting existing trail segments.
By encouraging or requiring developers to include trail segments in
their work.
There are two primary approaches to implementing a trail network. The
first approach is to aggressively go after potential corridors (e.g., railroad
lines, utility easements, waterway corridors, and linear park opportunities)
and build new trail segments whenever the opportunity arises. The second
is to implement regulations that require developers to build trail segments
or at least provide dedicated rights-of-way in their developments when
doing so will extend an existing trail network or may possibly do so in the
futureor may provide for internal off-road circulation.
SUBTASKS
1. Develop a broad brush conceptual trail network map
Taking advantage of existing or potential corridors, develop an overview of
the future trail network that, to the extent possible, connects the different
neighborhoods and major attractors of the community. Where necessary,
keep route selection generalized in order to allow some deviation when
unexpected opportunities arise. Get this conceptual plan adopted by the
local governing body.
2. Identify key specific trail corridors that can be the focus
of initial attention
There may well be one or two particular corridors that can serve as the
starting point of a trail network. These should combine a balance of relative
ease of implementation, attractiveness, and maximum utility. For instance,
while some potential corridors may be easily secured, they may exist far
from any likely user base. For this reason, users will have to travel long
distances just to reach the trail. On the other hand, a corridor that is close to
residential areas may not serve a purpose. In either case, low numbers of
trail users may doom future extensions of the system.
3. Work to implement trails in those initial corridors
Developing trails in those key corridors will first require the acquisition of
either property or an easement. Once the land is secured, design can pro-
ceed and should be based on the references found at the end of this section.
41
5 TRAIL NETWORKS
Budgeting adequate funds for trail development is important. Many ex-
amples of underfunded trails exist around the country and these are
typified by substandard widths, clearances and geometrics, narrow struc-
tures, lack of continuity, and inadequate attention to other hazardous
conditions. It is generally best to build shorter, high-quality trail segments
than longer segments that stretch the limits of the budget and ignore
available design standards.
4. Create a mechanism for implementing trails as condi-
tions of development
It may be necessary to change development regulations to require develop-
ers to include trails in their plans. However, it is often the case that once
they see the commercial benefits of trail development, they will include
them without question. It is still important in such cases, however, that
developers trail networks mesh with that of adjacent land owners and the
overall system.
5. Prioritize future trail development needs and budget for
a long-term investment
Once initial trails have been built and a constituency begins to grow,
interest in future trail projects will likely grow as well. A detailed workplan
should be assembled that will involve sequential implementation of the
overall network over a period of years. A budget for the program should be
established and appropriate agency staff should be placed in charge of the
program.
Keep track of the results of the program, as projects are implemented. Keep
track of the number of miles of trail developed and identify gaps in the
system that need to be bridged. Measure bicycle use throughout the process.
It may be useful to install bicycle counters in the trail surface at key loca-
tions in order to keep on-going records of use. Survey users regarding their
satisfaction with the improvements and their ideas for future work. In
addition, on a routine basis identify hazardous locations and crash sites and
identify necessary measures to solve such problems.
There are two primary resources required for a trail network. First is land in
the form of linear corridors and this may be assembled through a variety of
means. The second is the wherewithal to build and maintain the facilities.
Many parks departments are equipped to handle these tasks.
SCHEDULE
Short-term: Short-term projects include trails in easy-to-implement
corridors that connect to bicycle-friendly streets or other trails. These will
likely be few in number but can help build support for the long-term effort.
Another short-term project may be the initial conceptual trail network
design.
Long-term: Long-term projects include assembling extensive trail corri-
dors and modifying regulations to require or encourage developers to
participate in the process.
42
5 TRAIL NETWORKS
Safety
rail
Less
than 5'
Bike path
D
r
o
p

i
s

6
'
o
r

m
o
r
e
S
lo
p
e

3
:1
Bike path
D
r
o
p

i
s

4
'
o
r

m
o
r
e S
lo
p
e

2
:1
4
.
5
'
Bike path
D
r
o
p

i
s

1
'
o
r

m
o
r
e
S
l
o
p
e

1
:
1
Safety
rail 4
.
5
'
Less
than 5'
Less
than 5'
Safety
rail 4
.
5
'
SPECIFICATIONS
Trail design
The AASHTO Guide recommends a paved width of 3.0 m (10 ft) for a two-
way directional shared use path. Where substantial use by bicyclists,
joggers, skaters, pedestrians, or large maintenance vehicles is expected or
where steep grades are encountered, it may be necessary or desirable to
increase the width of a shared use path to 3.6 m (12 ft) or even 4.2 m (14 ft).
A width of 2.4 m (8 ft) should only be used where: (1) bicycle traffic is
expected to be low, even on peak days or during peak hours, (2) pedestrian
use of the facility is not expected to be more than occasional, (3) there will
be good horizontal and vertical alignment providing safe and frequent
passing opportunities, and (4) during normal maintenance activities the
path will not be subjected to maintenance vehicle loading conditions that
would cause pavement edge damage.
The AASHTO Guide also recommends that a graded area 0.9 m (3 ft) or
wider be maintained adjacent to both sides of the pavement to provide
clearance from trees, poles, walls, fences, guardrails, or other lateral ob-
structions. The minimum width of such an area should not be less than 0.6
m (2 ft). Where shared use paths are adjacent to canals, ditches, or slopes
steeper than 1:3, a separation greater than 0.9 (3 ft) should be considered. In
addition, a physical barrier, such as shrubbery, railing, or chain link fence,
may need to be provided depending on the depth of drop-off and condition
Figure 5.1
Safety rails
Guidelines
43
5 TRAIL NETWORKS
at the bottom. The diagram on the preceding page, taken from the North
Carolina Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Guidelines, illustrates this
point.
Another topic of concern to designers involves intersection design; that
is, the design of intersections between trails and roadways. As a general
principle, it is best if a trail intersects a relatively low-volume roadway,
particularly if it can do so at a good location (adequate sight distance, etc.).
Some trails, by contrast, intersect roadways at blind curves or in the middle
of already-complex intersections. For example, one trail in the Northwest
cuts across a signalized T intersection on the diagonal with no separate
phase for this unusual movement. This intersection is adjacent to a major
interstate highway and serves as the entrance to an outlet store shopping
mall. In general, it is best to keep trail crossings away from such complex
situations. Proper choice of a trail corridor can be the first step in providing
safe intersections.
Once a proper intersection site is chosen, good design can help mitigate
any remaining hazards. Basic traffic controls (e.g., stop signs and warning
signs), combined with judicious clearing of sight lines and adequate over-
head lighting is often all that is needed.
One of the most common concerns relates to motor vehicle use of trails.
As a result, much attention is given to designing car-proof intersections.
In some cases, designers have also attempted to keep motorcycles off the
trail through the use of special barriers and mazes. Yet, it is important to
remember that barriers and the like can often prove hazardous to the
bicyclists and others such as those in wheelchairs for whom the trail is
intended. In addition, the variety of usersfrom very young children on
their first two-wheelers to parents pulling their children in bicycle trailers
to elderly adults on full-sized 1-m- (3-ft-) wide tricycleswarrants care
when using barriers of any kind.
Several more appropriate approaches are used in cities with large trail
networks that see substantial use. In Madison, Wisconsin, for example,
regulatory signs are generally used to keep motorists off trails. If a particu-
lar intersection proves troublesome, however, officials then install bright
reflective bollards (see below). But they do not do so unless needed.
4
-
0
"

Reflectorized 8 6" x 6" pressure treated posts; 4 buried
5 ' Min. 5 ' Min.
Figure 5.2
Reflective bollards
Guidelines
44
5 TRAIL NETWORKS
In addition to reflectorized posts and overhead lighting, the California
Department of Transportation also recommends use of pavement markings
to direct bicyclists around bollards. The diagram below shows a typical
installation.
Finally, some agencies prefer to use a more subtle approach to discourag-
ing motor vehicle use. The diagram below, from the North Carolina Bicycle
Facilities Planning and Design Guidelines, is based on Ohios design
manual. Similar designs have been used successfully in places like Eugene,
Oregon, and Seattle, Washington. The idea is to separate the two directions
of trail travel at the intersection and plant low-growing shrubs in the
median. While emergency vehicles can still enter the path when needed,
most other motorists will find such a design treatment uninviting. See
4-inch yellow stripe
Post
10
1
S T O P
Stop
sign
10
5
STOP
Stop
sign
5 Approx.
5
Bicycle path
Note: See MUTCD
Part IX Figures 9-2
and 9-6 for more
advice on signing and
marking bicycle
path/roadway
intersections.
1
0

t
o

2
5
Stop bar approx.

4from intersection
Figure 5.3
Pavement markings to direct
bicyclists around bollards
Guidelines
Figure 5.4
Intersection of a trail and a
roadway
Guidelines
45
5 TRAIL NETWORKS
MUTCD Part IX Figures 9-2 and 9-6 for more advice on signing and mark-
ing bicycle path/roadway intersections.
REFERENCES
Trails for the Twenty-First Century, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
Greenways: A Guide to Planning, Design, and Development, Flink & Searns,
1993
1994
California Highway Design Manual, CalTrans, 1987
Ohio Bicycle Facilities Design Guide, OHDOT, 1988
Arizona Bicycle Facilities Planning & Design Guidelines, AZDOT, 1988
Minnesota Bikeway Design Manual, MNDOT, 1985
Maintenance Manual, AASHTO, 1987
46
5 TRAIL NETWORKS
47
6 TRANSI T CONNECTI ONS
TRANSIT CONNECTIONS
PROBLEM OVERVIEW
M
ultimodalism is an important feature of transportation planning
under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991 (ISTEA). As stated in the law, The National Intermodal
Transportation System shall consist of all forms of transportation in a
unified, interconnected manner, including the transportation systems of
the future, to reduce energy consumption and air pollution while promot-
ing economic development and supporting the nations preeminent posi-
tion in international commerce. (PL 102-240, Sec. 2)
Yet, in many communities, the connections between modes are only just
beginning to emerge. One significant gap involves the bicycle and public
transit. Far too often, potential transit users who ride their bikes to the
nearest bus stop or light rail station will find themselves without a safe
place to park. And, with bicycle theft estimated to cost Americans more
than $400 million per year, the lack of safe bicycle parking can be a deter-
rent to this form of multimodal transportation.
Another aspect of the problem is inadequate or unsafe bicycle access to
transit stops and stations. In some instances, transit stations can only be
reached via an interstate highway or a high-volume/high-speed arterial
street. In such cases, it would be the rare (and brave) bicyclist who would
attempt to reach the station by bicycle.
P
h
o
t
o

c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y

o
f

P
h
o
e
n
i
x

S
t
r
e
e
t

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Being able to carry bicycles on
transit can greatly expand
both the range of cycling trips
and access to the overall
transportation system.
48
In addition, some transit users would appreciate being able to use their
bicycles on both ends of their transit journey. However, that generally
means carrying their bikes on board in some fashion and this is often
forbidden or discouraged, or is inconvenient for bicyclists and for other
transit users.
SOLUTION OVERVIEW
Transit and bicycling can, under the right conditions, complement each
other very well. A transit system can expand a bicyclists access to the
overall transportation system by bridging great distances and by carrying
bicyclists over serious barriers. Most studies suggest that the average bicycle
trip is approximately 3.2 m (2 mi) in length. At an average speed of 12.9
km/h (8 mi/h), that trip would take 15 minutes. However, by riding to a
transit stop, a bicyclist can combine that 3.2-km (2-mi)/15 minute bicycle
trip with, for example, a 16-km (10-mi) bus or light rail trip and reach
destinations 19.3 km (12 mi) away with the same level of effort.
The transit system can, itself, benefit from encouraging multimodal
bicycle-bus trips as well. Since bicyclists typically travel between three and
five times as fast as pedestrians, in the amount of time it takes a pedestrian
to walk 0.4 km (0.25 mi) to a bus stop, a bicyclist can easily ride a mile or
more to the same destination. And the bicyclist will use less energy in the
process. This simple fact means that the transit systems capture area can
expand dramatically, reaching potential users who would be very unlikely
to walk long distances to the bus stop.
There are three primary services that transit operators and transporta-
tion agencies can provide to improve access for bicycling customers: 1)
secure parking at key transit stops, 2) safe and convenient connections to
transit stops, and 3) the means to conveniently carry bikes on the system.
These options are discussed in more detail below.
OBJECTIVES
To develop a strong connection between transit systems and bicycle use in
order to encourage the use of both modes:
By providing adequate levels of secure bicycle parking at key transit
nodes.
By providing adequate bicycle access to transit connections.
By providing for bicycle transport on bus and rail systems.
Implementing bicycle-friendly changes to the transit system involves
working on three fronts simultaneously: 1) establish a bicycle parking
program to systematically identify transit-related parking needscurrent
and potentialand take advantage of opportunities for installation;
2) identify barriers and develop necessary improvements such as connect-
ing paths, low-stress bicycling streets, or modifications to arterial streets to
allow bicyclists to reach the stations conveniently; and 3) develop policies,
supported by the necessary practices and related hardware, to allow bicy-
clists to take their bikes on the transit system in a safe and convenient
manner.
49
SUBTASKS
1. Research current bicycle-related policies and practices
Many transit systems throughout the country have policies and practices
that dealeither explicitly or implicitlywith bicyclists. These should be
identified and considered for modification as part of a bicycle-encourage-
ment program.
2. Create bicycle-friendly policies and practices
Working closely with staff from relevant departments, modify existing
policy guidelines and routine practices to encourage a stronger bicycle/
transit connection. Suggested changes may include allowing bicycles on
buses at certain times or under certain conditions; for a rail-type system,
changes may include creating a permit system to allow bicyclists to bring
their bikes on-board during certain hours, on certain trains, or in certain
cars of the trains. Another change might be to add bicycle parking to the
checklist of required items for new transit stops. Or they may include
encouraging bus operators to undergo a short course in dealing with bikes
while driving.
3. Identify locations with access problems
Assess the ease with which bicyclists can reach key transit system loca-
tions. Using a map of the network, mark problem areas and major barriers.
For example, a primary bus stop may be located at mid-block along a busy
eight-lane arterial street. For many bicyclists, this would count as an
inaccessible location. Moving the stop to a site near an intersection may
enhance bicycle accessespecially if that streets crossing is improved with
bicycle-sensitive traffic signals and similar bicycle-friendly features. As
another example, consider a rail transit station located in the middle of an
interstate highway. In order for bicyclists to reach this site, some sort of
special access (e.g., a bike/pedestrian overpass) may be needed.
4. Identify locations that will benefit from the addition of
bicycle parking
Using a map of the network, identify locations that will most benefit from
the addition of bicycle parking. For example, all transit stations near
residential areas or work centers should include bicycle parking. Major bus
stops that are near residential areas and serve several key bus routes should
be considered as well.
5. Prioritize locations and propose solutions
Some sites will hold more promise than others, in terms of encouraging a
stronger bicycle/transit connection. For instance, a park-and-ride lot
located in the middle of nowhere would benefit little from the provision of
bicycle parking. Sites near residential areas, on the other hand, would most
likely be viable locations.
To implement a system of bicycle improvements for a transit system,
determine an annual budget for the program and create a workplan based
on the prioritized list of locations and projects. Some aspects of the work
50
must be done by street or road departments while others can be accom-
plished by the transit agency.
Keep track of the results of the program, as projects are implemented.
Measure bicycle use before installation and after; in subsequent years, it is
helpful to do additional bicycle counts to determine changes in use. Survey
users regarding their satisfaction with the improvements and their ideas for
future work.
The resources required for this program can be broken down into several
categories. First, road improvements needed to improve access may involve
new pavement, restriping, modifying intersections or, in some cases, instal-
lation of bicycle grade separations (e.g., overpasses or underpasses). Second,
resources required to implement a bicycle parking program consist of racks
and lockers and are readily available from a variety of commercial vendors.
Third, allowing bicyclists to take their bikes on a rail-type transit system
will require administrative support and possible modifications to entrance
gates and other physical features of station architecture. Allowing bikes on
buses will primarily require special racks, which are available from several
vendors.
SCHEDULE
Short-term: Short-term projects include small-scale construction projects,
bike-on-bus projects, and simple bicycle parking provisions.
projects providing access to stations, possibly implementation of new
policies for allowing bicycles on trains, and projects that will be completed
as incidental parts of major transportation improvements.
SPECIFICATIONS
Bicycle parking
Considerations for bicycle parking are similar to those discussed in the
Bicycle Parking section of this report. Long-term parking and high security
lockers should be considered more seriously, however, since most transit
users will likely leave their bicycles for extended periods. Parking should be
located at a highly visible site that is, at the same time, out of the direct
flow of pedestrian traffic.
Bike-bus racks
The most popular bike-bus racks carry two bicycles. They are fold-up
devices that attach to a bracket on the front of a bus.
Bicycle connections to stations
On-street connections should allow bicyclists to use bicycle-
friendlystreets (e.g., low-stress collectors or arterial streets that have been
modified for bicycling) to reach transit stations. Actual physical improve-
ments should be designed based on advice found in other sections of this
manual, as well as the AASHTO Guide.
51
Bicycles-on-transit policies
Policies that allow bicycles on transit trains should be developed after
serious consideration of both the options and local needs. A good source of
specific approaches is the report entitled Linking Bicycle/Pedestrian
Facilities with Transit (Michael Replogle, 1992).
REFERENCES
National Bicycling &Walking Study Case Study 9: Linking Bicycle/ Pedes-
trian Facilities with Transit, FHWA, 1992
Bikes on Buses in Pierce County, Washington, Marie Keister, Bicycle
Forum, 1992
Bus Meets Bike in Eureka, California, John Gill, Bicycle Forum, 1987
52
53
7 ROADWAY BRI DGE MODI FI CATI ONS
ROADWAY BRIDGE MODIFICATIONS
PROBLEM STATEMENT
B
ridges, almost by definition, are squeeze points: places where traffic
must come together to cross an obstacle. Often, that obstacle is a body
of water, although it could easily be something elsefor example, a
railroad yard, or a freeway. For bicyclists, the problem with bridges is
twofold: first, since bridges are often less common than are nearby roads,
route options may be limited to high-volume roadways; second, since
bridges are expensive to build, extra space is generally limited.
In many cases bicyclists are, therefore, funneled on to narrow high-
volume roads. And, while some bicyclists can handle the situation, many
cannot. As a result, the presence of bridges or overpasses in key corridors
can often reduce the amount of bicycling in a community.
SOLUTION STATEMENT
There are two primary solutions to this problem. First, in some cases it may
be possible to build a bicycle bridge, overpass, or underpass connecting
low-volume roadways or segments of a trail network. This approach,
discussed in another section, is particularly useful for providing new access,
especially if it results in a significant short cut.
Some bridges are pinch
points for cyclists. Such
structures, if not improved for
cyclists, can reduce roadway
width or inhibit access.
54
The other alternative is to modify roadway bridges to provide for bicy-
clists. In many cases, it is important to make such modifications whether or
not there are nearby opportunities for trail bridges or other independent
structures. Often, for example, a modified roadway bridge will better serve
utilitarian needs like shopping and commuting to work or school. Such
modifications may involve adding width to the traveled way, altering
connecting ramps at the bridge ends, and making the deck more suitable for
bicycle use.
In general, using both solutions in tandemif feasiblemay help better
serve a wide variety of bicyclists. Youngsters and less-experienced adult
riders often feel more comfortable on a trail bridge, and skilled adults may
find a well-placed structure cuts off a significant part of their journeys. On
the other hand, some trips (e.g., commuting to work) are often best made on
the through routes and riders of all skill levels may need to make such trips.
In some instances, it is possible to modify an existing bridge for the sole
purpose of improving bicycle access. In cases where the modifications are
minor, this can easily be done; some types of bridge deck modifications (e.g.,
adding expansion joint covers or restriping the existing deck to create bike
lanes or wide curb lanes) are relatively small-scale projects that can be
easily accomplished in this fashion. And, yet, they can significantly im-
prove conditions for bicyclists. However, if major construction is needed, the
most likely approach is to include bicycle considerations when the bridge
is replaced or extensively modified. In some special circumstances, an
independent project to add major improvements for bicyclists could be
considered, particularly if current conditions are especially hazardous and
there is a significant potential for bicycling crashes, injuries, and fatalities.
In general, decades go by between major projects at a particular bridge
location. The recommended approach, therefore, is to determine the sched-
ule for improvements and suggest appropriate bicycle accommodations for
each project. The earlier in a projects history that bicycle elements are
considered, the more likely they are to be implemented. With some bridge
projectsfor example, those under construction or in the middle of the bid
processonly small modifications may be possible. However, if a bridge
project is years away from completion, it is very feasible to include serious
modifications to accommodate bicyclists.
Ultimately, it may be best to modify bridge design standards to include
bicycle accommodations. In this way, such improvements will not be seen
as exceptions but, rather, as the rule. New bridges should include wide
shoulders as a matter of course. Following the recommendations of the
Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (AASHTO; 1990) will
result in shoulders at least 1.8 m (6 ft) wide, an adequate width for bicycle
travel.
OBJECTIVES
To accommodate bicycle traffic on roadway bridges:
By including bicycle-friendly features in new bridge construction and
reconstruction projects.
By independently adding bicycle accommodations where sufficient
need has been identified.
55
By adopting design standards for bridges that include reasonably wide
and smoothly paved shoulders.
For the most part, providing bicycle accommodations on bridges is simply
a matter of following commonly understood engineering practice and
budgeting adequate funding for the extra width and other needs.
SUBTASKS
1. Review and, if necessary, modify design standards for
roadway bridges
Identify typical cross sections used by local public work agencies in rural
and urban bridge work. Compare the requirements with the bicycle-safe
approaches described in the Specifications section below. Unsuitable
designs should be replaced with better specifications.
2. Survey all local roadway bridges
Through field inspections, determine bridge deck widths, number of lanes,
widths of outside lanes, surface quality, presence (or absence) of hazards in
areas most likely to be used by bicyclists, and the situations at bridge ends
and ramps. Determine which locations are in need of improvement.
3. Identify high-priority locations for major projects
While all hazardous locations should eventually be improved, the best
places to start are on popular bicycling routes, connections between impor-
tant destinations (e.g., schools and housing developments), bridges that are
scheduled for improvement, bridges that can be easily modified, and
locations where bicycle safety problems have been previously identified.
4. Develop appropriate solutions to major problems
Draft proposals for bicycle improvements and work to include them in
descriptions for all relevant bridge construction and reconstruction
projects.
5. Develop appropriate solutions to minor problems
Draft proposals for simple bicycle improvements and work to include them
in routine bridge maintenance and spot improvement programs.
6. Evaluate results
the goal of providing bicycle improvements on roadway bridges. Consider
the number of structures improved, the importance of those projects to
local bicyclists, the status of proposed changes to the current design stan-
dards, and the proportion of new construction and reconstruction projects
that include bicycle improvements.
SCHEDULE
For the most part, this program involves adding bicycle improvements as
incidental features of major bridge construction projects. For this reason,
56
the schedules for those features should be integrated into the overall
schedules of the projects involved.
SPECIFICATIONS
Paved width
Providing adequate width on roadway bridges can be accomplished in
several ways. First, adding striped bicycle lanes to each side can give bicy-
clists a greater sense of comfort and can provide continuity to a bicycle lane
system. Lanes should be a minimum of 1.5 m (5 ft) in width. Greater width
should be considered where high curbs or railings are immediately adja-
cent to the roadway or where traffic speeds and/or truck volumes are high.
Similarly, on highway bridges, extending the paved shoulders width
across the bridge can provide bicyclists with continuity of service.
AASHTOs A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (1994),
also referred to as the Green Book, states The minimum clear width for all
new bridges on streets with curbed approaches should be the same as the
curb-to-curb width of the approaches. For streets with shoulders and no
curbs, the clear roadway width preferably should be the same as the ap-
proach roadway width Depending on factors like the prevalence of
crosswinds, typical motorist speeds and volumes, and the percentage of
truck traffic, shoulder width required could vary between 1.8 and 3 m (6 ft
and 10 ft).
In some cases, simply providing a widened outside travel lane can
adequately accommodate bicyclists. This would be most suitable on lower
speed roadways with no complicating factors. In such cases, the width of
the outside travel lane should be at least 4.3 m (14 ft). Extra width should
be provided if edge conditions justify.
On some bridges, particularly those in rural and semi-rural areas, the
deck may be wide enough to allow one striped shoulder or wide outside
lane but not two. At the same time, there may be a sidewalk on one side of
the structure. If pedestrian volumes allow, it may be possible to install
ramps or curb cuts leading to the sidewalk for one direction of bicycle
travel and restripe the traffic lanes to give a striped shoulder or wide
outside lane on the other side (see below).
Surface conditions
To encourage bicycle use, the surface of the bridge should be smooth,
particularly in those areas likely to receive bicycle traffic. Special attention
should be paid to expansion joints, longitudinal gaps, longitudinally
grooved pavement, and honeycomb steel decking.
In the case of uneven expansion joints, a non-skid steel cover with
One-Way
Bikes
Striped
shoulder
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
Figure 7.1
Adapting a narrow bridge to
accommodate bicycles where
pedestrian volumes are low
57
beveled edges
can be mounted
over the top and
attached to one
side of the joint.
Similarly,
longitudinal
gaps can be
covered with a
non-skid surface
or filled with a
weatherproof
sealant.
Grooved pavement surfaces should be discontinued in the area near the
right edge of the travelled way. A smooth surface should be provided for at
least 1.2 m (4 ft) of width. If the bridge is a popular bicycling route, if it has
a high curb or adjacent railing, or if it is on a high-speed route, the width of
the smooth surface should be increased.
A steel honeycomb bridge decking can lead to control difficulties for
bicyclists, particularly if the riders are inexperienced or weather conditions
are inclement.
Filling the voids
with light-
weight concrete
is one solution
used to success-
fully solve the
problem. Such
modifications,
however, should
only be made
with competent
engineering
advice.
Bridge approaches
For bicyclists to safely use a bridge, they must be able to reach it. Therefore,
approaches should be designed with bicyclists needs in mind. The bicy-
clists expected path should not be crossed by high-speed merging ramps if
at all possible. In such casesespecially if traffic volumes or speeds are
highit may be best to encourage bicyclists to leave the roadway at the first
possible exit.
P
h
o
t
o
:

B
o
b

D
u
f
f
y
P
h
o
t
o
:

S
e
a
t
t
l
e

E
n
g
i
n
e
r
i
n
g

D
e
p
t
.
58
Bridge railings
Railings adjacent to the area occupied by bicyclists should be high enough
to prevent pitch-over if a bicyclists loses control. A height of 1.4 m (4.5 ft) is
necessary for this purpose. AASHTOs Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges (1989) offers guidance on the details (see diagram below).
Debris
Debris near the right edge of a bridge deck can reduce the available width
for bicycling and can provide hazards for bicyclists to hit. Routine mainte-
nance should, therefore, include cleaning of this area and the removal of
objects like car parts, tires, and cans and bottles.
REFERENCES
Bridging Bremertons Expansion Joints, Steve Davis, Bicycle Forum, 1981
Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, AASHTO, 1990
1994
Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, AASHTO, 1989
B
i
k
e
w
a
y
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
1
'-
3
"
m
a
x
.
1
'-
0
"
m
a
x
.
1
'-
3
"
m
a
x
.
W
W
W
W
WL
P/2
P/2 P/2
P/2
W
W
W
W
P/2 P/2
P/2
WL W
W
W
W
W
W WL WL
W
P/2
P/2
P/2
P
W
W
W
WL
P
(typ.)
4
'

-

6
"

m
i
n
i
m
u
m
4
'

-

6
"

m
i
n
i
m
u
m
2
'

-

3
"

m
i
n
.
1
'
-

6
"

m
i
n
.
2
'

-

3
"

m
i
n
.
1
'
-
3
"
1
'-
3
"

m
i
n
.
1
'
-
3
"
1
'
-
3
"
2
'

-

3
"

m
i
n
.
4
'

-

6
"

m
i
n
i
m
u
m
1
'
-
8
"
1
'
-
3
"
2
'

-

3
"

m
i
n
.
2
'

-

8
"

m
i
n
.
4
'

-

6
"

m
i
n
i
m
u
m
1
0
"
4
'

-

6
"

m
i
n
i
m
u
m
2
'

-

8
"

m
i
n
.
1
0
"
1
0
"
W
W
Figure 7.2
Bridge railings
for combined
motor vehicle
and bicycle
bridges
after Standard
Specifications for
Highway Bridges
(AASHTO, 1989)
59
8 RAILROAD CROSSINGS
RAILROAD CROSSINGS
PROBLEM STATEMENT
A
t-grade railroad crossings cause numerous problems for bicyclists,
the least common of which involves actually being hit by a train.
Generally, it is the track itself or the surrounding railbed that causes
bicyclists the most grief, especially when combined with the threat of
closely passing motor vehicle traffic. Crossings on high-speed/high-volume
roads with narrow outside travel lanes are probably the worst examples, but
the problems exist on many otherwise ridable bicycling routes.
On diagonal railroad crossings, the gap next to and on the inside of the
rail (called the flangeway) can trap a bikes front wheel causing it to
divert. The result is a surprisingly quick fall for the bicyclist. This problem
is most serious when the track crosses at an angle less than 45 degrees to
the direction of travel. The more shallow the angle, the more hazardous a
crossing is for bicyclists. Wet weather exacerbates the situation, making the
tracks even more slippery than normal.
In addition to diagonal track problems, it is important to remember that
virtually all railroad crossings take a continual and significant beating
P
h
o
t
o

c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y

S
e
a
t
t
l
e

B
i
c
y
c
l
e
/
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
At-grade railroad crossings
can pose a serious hazard for
cyclists. A diagonal crossing
can entrap and divert a
bicycles front wheel, causing
the cyclist to fall.
60
from both motor vehicle traffic and train traffic. As a result, crossings may
be very rough and uneven. Timbers may break up or shift; asphalt may
crumble, mound into large bumps, or be filled with potholes and cracks.
As a result, crossings often require frequent maintenance and can cause
bicyclists either wheel damage or serious falls, or both.
SOLUTION STATEMENT
Diagonal railroad crossings
There are two primary solution approaches to this problem: 1) provide a
way for bicyclists to approach the track at a wider angle; and 2) fill the
flangeway with a rubberized material.
The first approach can best be accomplished by flaring out the roadway
(see diagram in Specifications section below). In this way, the bicyclist can
cross at a better angle without swerving into the path of passing motor
traffic.
The second approach, installing a flangeway filler adjacent to the inside
edge of the track, works only on very-low-speed rail lines (e.g., in an indus-
trial yard). Since a passing trains wheels must compress the dense fill
material, the train must be moving slowly. The wheels of a fast-moving
train will not compress the fill and will, as a result, derail. However, in the
proper setting, flangeway fill can solve a serious bicycle safety problem
very well.
Rough railroad crossings
Frequent maintenance, therefore, is essential to solving this problem.
However, the best solution is to replace a defective crossing with either a
non-slippery concrete crossing or one of the rubberized installations. The
latter are not simply rubber pads placed over existing crossings. They
typically involve replacement of the trackbed with a concrete slab and
extensive construction work. While the resulting crossing may cost signifi-
cantly more to install than the less expensive timber or asphalt crossings,
they generally save money in long-term maintenance.
Some new rubberized crossing systems involve less extensive construc-
tion than the full-fledged approach described above. However, their long-
term benefits for bicyclists are, at this time, unknown.
Specific railroad crossing problems vary, depending on the crossing angle,
the type of roadway surface, the number of lanes, and the type of rail and
roadway traffic. However, the basic strategy is to identify the type of hazard
(diagonal vs. rough), the degree of hazard (e.g., a crossing at 45 degrees vs. a
crossing at 20 degrees), the importance of the crossing (e.g., a popular bike
route vs. an industrial area with little bike traffic), and the type of solution
that is most suitable (e.g., flangeway filler vs. pavement flaring). While
numerous small problems may be solved in a fiscal year through routine
maintenance functions, some of the problems may be large enough to
require significant planning, engineering, as well as allocation of time and
61
money. These latter projects, once identified, should be included in the
Transportation Improvement Program and should be identified by system
(e.g., urban, national highway system, etc.) to determine potential
sources of funding.
OBJECTIVES
To eliminate hazardous railroad crossings:
By identifying all local at-grade railroad crossings.
By determining which are hazardous for bicyclists.
By prioritizing those hazardous crossings identified.
By determining which approaches will work with which crossings.
By including a reasonable number of crossings as projects in the TIP.
By evaluating progress on a regular basis.
Depending on the problem identified and the solution chosen, the resources
necessary for a particular crossing may vary from a few warning signs to a
full concrete or rubberized crossing. The first option could probably be
installed for less than $200, depending on departmental labor rates. The
latter could easily cost $100,000, depending on the roadway width and
other geometric and traffic considerations.
SUBTASKS
1. Identify crossings
Using a current, accurate, and detailed local road map, highlight all in-
stances where a roadway crosses a railroad track or set of tracks. In addi-
tion, identify the responsible agencies or companies for all crossings shown
on the map.
2. Determine hazards
Use the map described above to locate crossings that are either diagonal (45
degrees or less) or rough. If the map is sufficiently accurate, diagonal
crossings may be measured and identified in the office. However, the
roughness and flangeway opening of the crossing are best determined by
riding across it on a bicycle.
3. Prioritize hazardous crossings
Set priorities on improving the hazardous railroad crossings identified in
the previous step. There are four primary factors to consider when prioritiz-
ing hazardous railroad crossings: 1) public desires, 2) the degree of hazard,
3) the likely importance of the route, and 4) the potential for a solution.
Through public involvement procedures, identify those crossings that are
of most concern to the bicycling public. This may be done through public
meetings, surveys, or media efforts. However, these processes may fail to
identify some critically important projects. This is particularly true if the
publics reached do not include groups like school children or casual riders.
Next, consider the actual degree of hazard, taking into account the angle
62
of the crossing, its roughness, and flangeway opening, as well the combined
effects of all three factors (if present). In addition, consider whether the
crossing is near a potential bicycle traffic generator (e.g., a school, neighbor-
hood commercial area, or residential area). Further consider whether it is
on either a popular bicycling route or is on the only route through a par-
ticular area.
Finally, consider the potential for a solution. Factors include how expen-
sive the solution may be, the cooperativeness of the railroad, and whether
the crossing is scheduled for improvement and whether there is sufficient
public support, especially in the case of a potentially expensive project.
4. Determine approaches
With diagonal crossings, determine whether the track is a low-speed line,
where a flangeway fill may work. If it is not, consider the potential for
widening the paved roadway surface to give bicyclists room to cross at a
wider angle. If neither of these is a possibility, consider warning signs and/
or pavement markings to warn bicyclists about the problem.
With rough crossings, determine the potential for a rubberized crossing
installation across the entire roadway surface. If costs are too high and
benefits for other road users are likely to be insignificant, look at the possi-
bility of installing two rubberized crossing sections in the outside lane,
bike lane, or paved shoulder of each side of the roadway. The key is to
install the sections where bicyclists will be riding. If it is financially
impossible to improve a hazardous crossing in the near future, the possibil-
ity of providing warning signs should be considered.
5. Select projects
On the basis of the priorities determined above and the type of work
required, set a schedule for inclusion of the projects in the Transportation
Improvement Program.
6. Evaluate results
the goal of making crossings bicycle-safe. Consider the number of crossings
improved, the extent to which the most critical have been dealt with, and
whether new crossing problems have arisen.
SCHEDULE
In the short term, it is relatively easy to identify hazardous crossings and
install bicycle-related warning signs or markings. Paving aprons for bicy-
clists to approach diagonal crossings at a wider angle will take longer,
depending on factors like shoulder condition and available space. Replacing
crossings with rubberized installations will take the longest time of all,
depending on budgeting considerations, as well as the cooperation of the
railroad involved.
63
SPECIFICATIONS
Diagonal railroad crossings
The first approach to
dealing with a diagonal
railroad crossing is to flare
the roadway, as shown in
the diagram at right. In
this way, the bicyclist can
cross at a wider angle
without swerving into the
path of passing motor
traffic. The width of the
flare and its particular
angles depend largely on
the angle at which the
track crosses the road .
Tracks that cross at very
shallow angles require
bicyclists to turn to a
trajectory that is far from
the direction of the
roadway in order to cross
safely. For this reason,
such angled crossings will
require the greatest width.
On the other hand,
tracks that cross the road
at 45 or more degrees to
the direction of travel will
require relatively little
extra width to allow
bicyclists to cross at a
wider angle.
The second approach,
installing a flangeway fill,
works only on very low
speed rail lines. Since a
passing trains wheels
must compress the dense
fill material, the train
must be moving slowly.
The wheels of a fast-
moving train will not
compress the fill and will,
as a result, derail. However,
in the proper setting flangeway fill can solve a serious bicycle safety prob-
lem very well. And even on higher speed rail lines, reducing the flangeway
width to a minimum is a needed improvement.
If a crossing is particularly hazardous and no physical improvement is
possible in the near term, installation of warning signs may be warranted.
Large
radius
is best
Direction
of bike
travel
R
R

T
r
a
c
k
s
Roadway flare allows wider angle crossing
Flangeway filler Rail
Tie
Side shim
Side pad Center pad
Center shim
Flangeway filler strip applied to the
inside flangeway to the rail
Figure 8.1
Roadway flare allows wider angle
crossing
Figure 8.2
Flangeway filler strip applied to the
inside flangeway to the rail
64
Currently, there are no standard signs
for this purpose. The development of
a standard warning sign would be
helpful. In the meanwhile, however,
several communities have experi-
mented with different options. The
sign shown at right is one possibility
for such an installation.
Rough railroad crossings
The best solution is to replace a
defective crossing with one of the
rubberized or concrete installations.
While these may cost significantly
more to install
than the less
expensive timber
or asphalt cross-
ings, they gener-
ally save money in
long-term mainte-
nance. A number
of companies
make such cross-
ing systems.
REFERENCES
1994
BICYCLES CROSS
AT ANGLE
A possible
warning sign
for use at
diagonal
railroad
crossings
Rail
Tie
Side shim
Side pad Center pad
Center shim
Rubberized railroad crossing, a more durable long-
term solution than timber crossings.
Figure 8.3
Figure 8.4
65
9 TRAFFIC SIGNALS
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
PROBLEM OVERVIEW
T
here are four primary bicycle-related problems with traffic signal
installations. First, many demand-actuated signal systemsthose that
change when traffic is detectedwere designed and installed without
attention to their effects on bicyclists. As a result, bicyclists may find it
impossible to get a green light.
Second, programmable signal heads may be oriented in such a way as to
make it impossible for most bicyclists to tell if they are green or red. This
can happen when such signal heads are checked only in the middle of the
travel lane and are set up exclusively for that location.
Third, minimum green time may be inadequate for bicyclists to clear the
intersection. As a result, bicyclists can be caught in an intersection during
the change from green to red. A national study (Cross, Fisher, 1977) found
that approximately 3 percent of reported non-fatal car/bike crashes
involved a bicyclist caught in a signalized intersection during a phase
change. These crashes typically happened while the bicyclist attempted to
cross a multi-lane road.
Traffic signals can be designed
or modified to detect and
respond to bicycles.
66
9 TRAFFIC SIGNALS
And fourth, synchronized traffic signal systems may be set to accommo-
date typical or desirable motor vehicle speeds but may not work well for
most bicyclists. Bicyclists traveling at significantly lower speeds than motor
vehicles may find themselves stopped by successive red lights while
motorists are able to match their speeds to the signal timing and, as a result,
meet only green lights.
SOLUTION OVERVIEW
Demand-Actuated Signals
Numerous advances have been made in detecting bicyclists at demand-
actuated signals. There are four primary approaches currently in use: 1)
installing more bicycle-sensitive loop systems (e.g., quadrupole, diagonal
quadrupole, or quadracircle loops); 2) marking current loops that do detect
bikes; 3) adjusting systems that do not detect bikes; 4) converting to new
technology (e.g., infrared or video systems); and, finally, 5) converting
demand-actuated signals to pre-timed signals.
Programmed Visibility Heads
Programmed visibility heads require a simple adjustment in order to be
visible from typical bicyclist locations. Signal crews should check the
signals visibility from the right edge of the roadway and adjust accord-
ingly.
Signal Timing
Signal timing should be set according to the guidance provided on page 71.
Signal Synchronization
Where bicycle use is high, signal timing should take into account the
convenience of bicyclists. For example, signals in downtown Portland are
timed for speeds of 12 to 16 mi/h, allowing bicyclists to ride with the rest of
traffic (Oregon Bicycle Plan, 1995). Interestingly, synchronizing signals to a
relatively slow speed has been suggested as a traffic calming measure
applicable under certain urban conditions.
OBJECTIVES
1. To ensure that existing traffic signal installations work properly for
bicyclists:
By testing and, if necessary, modifying demand-actuated signals to
detect bicycles.
By testing and, if necessary, adjusting programmed visibility heads to
be visible from the most common bicycle positions (e.g., the right side
of the roadway).
By testing and, if necessary, adjusting the green and yellow phases of all
signals to accommodate bicyclist speeds.
By synchronizing traffic signals to work for both motor vehicles and
bicycles, to the extent possible.
67
9 TRAFFIC SIGNALS
2. To ensure that new traffic signal installations work properly and safely
for bicyclists:
By requiring bicycle-sensitive detectors in all new installations.
By requiring all new programmed visibility heads to be visible from
the most common bicycle positions (e.g., the right side of the roadway).
By requiring all new installations to accommodate common bicyclist
speedsboth in terms of individual signal clearance intervals and, if
possible, overall system synchronization.
Most signal improvements can and should be done on a routine basis using
funds set aside for signal maintenance work. However, some may require
more serious attention; in such cases, a special fund that pays for the elimi-
nation of such problems can be a good approach. Setting aside a specific
amount of money per year to make bicycle-related improvements to
systems can help ensure the gradual elimination of bicycle-related traffic
signal problems.
Two primary implementation strategies suggest themselves for solving
these problems. First, slightly altering routine signal maintenance proce-
dures can catch existing problems. Second, using bicycle-friendly design
standards and equipment can keep new problems from being created.
SUBTASKS
1. Modify testing and repair procedures
When a signal system receives attention in the field, its reliability and
utility for bicyclists should be checked. The three topics of greatest interest
are, as mentioned above, the sensitivity of demand-actuated systems, the
visibility of programmed visibility heads, and the length of the clearance
interval.
Detection devices should be tested to determine their sensitivity for
bicyclists. The best way is for one person to test the loop with a bicycle
carried specifically for this purpose, while another person adjusts the loops
sensitivity at the controller. In so doing, determine whether the loop can
reliably detect bicycles in an appropriate location. If so, mark the location
with spots of spray paint and ask the pavement marking crew to place a
symbol like that shown in Figure 9.2 on page 70. If not, note the
intersections location and problem for further attention.
Next, determine the necessary length of the clearance interval, based on
the chart shown later in this section. If bicyclists are unable to clear the
intersection in the available time, adjust to rectify the problem by adding
time to the yellow phase or, possibly, adding an all-red phase.
Finally, check any programmed visibility heads for their readability in a
normal bicycling location. This location will typically be near the right
side of the outside lane. Adjust the signal head if needed.
68
9 TRAFFIC SIGNALS
2. Identify and list signals that need further attention
If simple field adjustments, markings, or minor repairs will not solve the
problem at an intersection, it should be identified for further attention.
Most likely, the problem will be an unresponsive loop detector. List the
location, the nature of the problem, and any important parameters (e.g.,
traffic channelization, the existence of a popular bicycle route, old control-
ler hardware, impending repaving projects, etc.).
3. Prioritize the list
Since it is seldom possible to solve all problems at once, it is important to set
priorities for signal improvements. Factors to consider include: the serious-
ness of the crossing situation (i.e., can a bicyclist actually get across the
intersection safely?); popularity of the route for bicyclists (is it near popular
destinations or does it serve an important need?); presence of reasonable
alternative routes; likely cost of the improvement; and planned projects
that could include the improvement as an incidental feature. These factors
should not determine whether an improvement is needed. All signalized
intersections should work for bicyclists. Rather, the factors simply help
determine which should be fixed first.
4. Implement the improvements
Develop a schedule and budget for making the improvements. One option
to consider is the creation of a bicycle signal program and include it as a
single item in the Transportation Improvement Program. By creating such a
program, it would be possible to combine a number of small bicycle-related
signal improvements into one budget item that could be funded through a
variety of transportation funding sources.
On an annual basis, compare the number of intersections improved against
the list of candidate intersections. In addition, routinely test improved
intersections for sensitivity. Occasionally, frost heave and other such factors
can damage a loop detector, making bicycle detection less reliable or
impossible.
Pavement guide lines at
signalized intersections can
facilitate the movement of
left-turning bicyclists.
69
9 TRAFFIC SIGNALS
SCHEDULE
Short term: Make on-going repairs to existing traffic signal installations.
Long term: Ensure that future projects comply with bicycle-friendly
standards.
SPECIFICATIONS
Bicycle-actuated signals
Appropriate solutions to the problem of unresponsive demand-actuated
signals depend on the particular characteristics of the intersection, the type
of bicycle facility chosen, and the hardware in place. The following are four
common situations and possible solutions for dealing with them.
Type of Route Existing Loop Solution Options
Street with bicycle lanes* Rectangular in Add quadrupole loop in bike
travel lane l ane
Mark sensitive location (if there
is one AND IF it is in the
bicycle lane)
Change to pre-timed**
Shared lane street Rectangular Replace with diagonal
quadrupole
Mark loop with pavement
marking (if it can be adjusted
to detect bikes)
Add small loop in proper
location and mark with
pavement marking
Change to pre-timed*
Street w/right-turn lane** Rectangular in Replace with diagonal
through lane quadrupole in through l ane
marking (if it can be adjusted to
detect bikes)
Add small loop in proper
location and mark with
pavement marking
Street w/left-turn lane*** Rectangular in Replace with diagonal quadru-
left-turn lane pole
marking (if it can be adjusted
to detect bikes)
Add small loop in right side of
left-turn lane and mark with
pavement marking
* Pavement markings can encourage bicyclists going straight to use the through
lane instead of the right-turn lane. Or consider a short stretch of bike lane left of
turn lane.
**Pre-timed signals should be used only if bicycle volumes are very high.
***Pavement markings can help encourage left-turning bicyclists to use the turn
lane.
70
9 TRAFFIC SIGNALS
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
r
a
v
e
l
Standard Loop
detects most strongly over wires
gradual cut-off
used for advanced detection
Diagonal Quadrupole Loop
sensitive over whole area
sharp cut-off of sensitivity
used in shared lanes
Quadrupole Loop
detects most strongly in center
sharp cut-off of sensitivity
used in bike lanes
1
9
.
5
"
2
4
.
5
"
2
0
"
2
0
"
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
r
a
v
e
l
Location of loop
The diagram below at left shows the three primary options for detector
loops. Note that the rectangular, or standard loop is only recommended
for advance detection loops, placed some distance from the intersection. At
intersections, the quadrupole or diagonal quadrupole are suggested, de-
pending on whether bike lanes are present.
The diagram given below at right shows the most common pavement
marking used to identify a bicycle-sensitive location. Over a standard loop,
it is typically placed with the solid lines above the right-most wire of the
loop. Over a quadrupole loop, it is typically placed with the solid lines
above the center wires.
Figure 9.2
Pavement marking to identify a bicycle-
sensitive location
Figure 9.1
Three primary options for
detector loops
71
9 TRAFFIC SIGNALS
Adjusting Signal Heads for Bicyclists
Since bicyclists are expected to obey traffic signals, bicyclists, when prop-
erly positioned on the road, should be able to see them. Adjusting signal
heads, especially programmed visibility heads that are designed to have a
finite field of view, involves having someone stand in a location where
bicyclists may be expected to wait for a signal indication and attempt to
read the signal. The appropriate locations will generally be either within a
bicycle lane or near the right-hand edge of the roadway. The following
quote from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (1988) provides
guidance for accommodating bicyclists with such adjustments.
At installations where programmed signals are used, special attention
should be given to adjusting the signals so bicyclists on the regular bicycle
lanes or travel paths can see the signals. If programmed signals cannot be
aimed to serve the bicyclist, then separate signals shall be provided.
(MUTCD, 1988. Sec. 9D-1.)
Signal Timing
The draft of the 3rd edition of the AASHTO Guide suggests that where
bicycle traffic exists or is anticipated, setting the timing of traffic signals to
accommodate bicyclists should be considered. AASHTO provides the
following guidance regarding signal timing for bicyclists.
In mixed traffic flow the bicyclist normally can cross the intersection
under the same signal phase as for motor vehicles. The greatest risk to
bicyclists is during the clearance interval and during the actuated phases
during periods of low traffic flow. Signals should be designed to provide an
adequate clearance interval for bicyclists who enter at the end of the green;
and a total crossing time (minimum green plus clearance interval) long
enough to accommodate bicyclists starting up on a new green.
The length of the yellow change interval is dependent upon the speed of
approaching traffic. Yellow change intervals adequate for motorists (gener-
ally 3.0 s to 6.0 s) are usually adequate for bicyclists. Generally, an all red
clearance interval is not required, but can be used following the yellow
clearance interval. The all red clearance interval normally ranges from 1.0
s to 2.0 s. The total clearance interval (yellow change interval plus red
clearance interval) can be calculated from:
y + r
clear
> t
r
+ v/2b + (w + l)/v
where:
y = yellow interval
r
clear
= red clearance interval
t
r
= reaction time (1.0 s)
v = bicyclist speed
b = bicyclist braking deceleration (1.2 to 2.5 m/s
2
)
w = width of crossing
l = bicycle length (about 1.8 m)
If field observations are not available, approximately 98 percent of
cyclists should be able to clear signals timed for the following speeds: 19
km/h (5.3 m/s) for Group A cyclists, 13 km/h (3.6 m/s) for Group B cyclists,
and 10 km/h (2.8 m/s) for group C cyclists. Approximately 85 percent of
cyclists can clear signals timed for speeds 20 percent higher. If local prac-
tice does not permit a red clearance interval this long (as given by the
72
9 TRAFFIC SIGNALS
equation), the longest red clearance interval consistent with local practice
should be used.
Signal clearance intervals should be sufficient for the bicyclist to react
and stop safely, or pass through the intersection on the clearance interval.
The general equation to determine the minimum green time is:
g + y + r
clear
> t
cross
= t
r
+ v/(2a) + (w + l)/v
where:
g = minimum green
y, r
clear
= yellow and red clearance intervals actually used
t
cross
= time to cross the intersection
t
r
= reaction time (2.5 s)
v = speed (at full speed)
a = bicycle acceleration (0.5 to 1.0 m/s
2
)
w = width of crossing (m)
l = bicycle length (1.8 m)
However, as with all calculated signal timing, actual field observations
should be undertaken prior to making any adjustments to the minimum
green or clearance intervals. Acute angle intersections require longer
crossing times for bicyclists. (AASHTO Guide for the Development of
Bicycle Facilities, Draft, 3rd edition)
REFERENCES
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, FHWA, 1988
Oregon Bicycle Plan, ORDOT, 1992
Technical Note: Bicycles &Traffic Signals, Bikecentennial, 1989
Traffic Signal Bicycle Detection Study, City of San Diego, 1985
73
10 DRAINAGE GRATES AND UTILITY COVERS
DRAINAGE GRATES AND UTILITY COVERS
PROBLEM STATEMENT
D
rainage grates and utility covers can cause serious problems for
bicyclists in several ways. Raised or sunken grates or covers can stop
or divert a cyclists front wheel, causing wheel damage and/or a
serious crash. A related problem involves old-style parallel bar drainage
grates, which can trap the front wheel of a bicycle, causing the bicyclist to
be pitched over the handlebars.
SOLUTION STATEMENT
Grates or covers that are not level with the roadway surface can be brought
to the proper grade through raising or lowering, depending on the situation.
In addition, on new construction the problem can be ameliorated through
judicious placement of utilities; by keeping them out of bicyclists most
common path of travel (i.e., away from the right side of the roadway),
problems can be reduced in frequency, if not in severity.
Parallel bar drain grates can be replaced with modern bicycle-safe and
hydraulically efficient models, like the vane or honeycomb grates (see
images later in this section). When it is possible to do more than simply
replace a grate, installing curb face inlets can move the inlet out of the
roadway entirely. These must be designed carefully to minimize cross
slopes, which, if excessive, can throw bicyclists toward the curb.
Grates and covers that are
not flush with the roadway
surface can stop or divert a
cyclists front wheel, causing
wheel damage and/or a
serious crash.
74
10 DRAINGE GRATES AND UTILITY COVERS
There are two primary approaches necessary when addressing drainage
grate and utility cover problems. First, existing problem locations must be
identified and corrected according to a well-developed and prioritized plan
of action.
Second, design standards must be modified, as needed, to keep similar
problems from arising in the future. It is far more cost-effective to design
with bicyclists in mind than to retrofit solutions later.
OBJECTIVES
To eliminate drainage grate and utility cover hazards for bicyclists:
By replacing parallel bar drainage grates with bicycle-safe models.
By adjusting grates or utility covers that are above or below the level of
the surrounding roadway.
By adopting bicycle-safe design standards for drainage grates on all
new construction.
By adopting bicycle-safe standards for leveling utility covers and
drainage grates.
By encouraging the location of utilities away from the normal path for
bicyclists.
For the most part, the resources needed for this project are easily obtained.
Bicycle-safe drainage grate models are available from most commercial
foundries, and the hardware necessary to raise or lower manhole covers or
utility covers may be found in most relevant agencies inventories.
SUBTASKS
1. Review standards for drainage grates, utility cover
adjustment, and utility locations
Identify standards used by local public work agencies in their drainage
work. Compare the requirements to the bicycle-safe approaches described
in the Specifications section below. Unsuitable design should be replaced
with better information.
2. Determine the likely scope of the problem
If parallel bar drainage grates have not been used for years, it is possible that
only a few remain. If, on the other hand, they are still in use, it is likely to be
a major problem. Research into agency records will give a sense of the
magnitude of the problem.
3. Identify hazardous locations on popular bicycling
routes
While all hazardous installations should be improved, the best place to
start is on either existing or planned bicycle facilities or on popular bicy-
cling routes. These should be as free of bicycling hazards as possible.
75
4. Replace hazardous installations whenever field work is
done
When storm sewer work is done, correct bicycle-related problems as part of
the scope of the project. Field personnel should make this a routine part of
their activities.
5. Set up an on-going hazard identification program
To catch problems that agency personnel would otherwise miss, enlist the
help of the bicycling public. Through such approaches as bicycle hazard
postcards left in bicycle shops or publicity sent through local bicycle
clubs, it is possible to extend the agencys effectiveness in solving bicycling
problems.
6. Evaluate results
the goal of eliminating unsafe grates and utilities. Consider the number of
grates replaced, the current design standards, and the extent of changes in
utility location.
SCHEDULE
For the most part, this program requires an on-going commitment to
making bicycle-related improvements part of the routine business of storm
sewer and utility work.
SPECIFICATIONS
Drainage grates
Numerous designs have been developed over the years that eliminate the
dangers of the parallel bar grate, while at the same time maintaining
hydraulic efficiency. Here are three of the most popular:
Vane grate (e.g., Neenah Foundry Type L)
Honeycomb grate (e.g., the CalTrans Standard Grate)
Curb face inlets
Curb face inlet
design
Vane grate
design
Honeycomb grate
design
Images courtesy
Neenah Foundry
Figure 10.1 Drainage grates
Vane grates are being used in
grate replacement programs in
many cities throughout the
country, not only because of
their storm water capacity
but also for their bicycle-safe
qualities. When the grate is
installed properly with the
vanes perpendicular to the
curb line, the bicyclist passes
over a series of bars rather
than into a parallel long slot.
Vane grates should not be
installed in driveway entry
areas of the roadway unless
longitudinal bars have been
added for bicycle safety.
76
Other options identified in various references include pavement mark-
ings that direct bicyclists around dangerous grates (see diagram below) and
retrofitting parallel bar grates with welded straps every 15 cm (6 in) to keep
bicycle wheels from falling in. When used, straps should be welded perpen-
dicular to the line of bicycle travel. However, pavement markings are
temporary solutions at best. Paint wears off and bicyclists may not notice
the marking under certain lighting conditions. In addition, they may be
forced to continue over the grate by passing traffic.
Welded straps, likewise, are temporary measures. Passing traffic can pop
the bars loose, producing a double hazard for bicyclists. In addition, the
costs of field repairs to drainage grates must be compared with the costs of
replacement. When all the costs are analyzed, it may well be that replace-
ment is less expensive than repair.
Uneven grates or utility covers
The solution to this problem is to adopt a standard for manhole and utility
cover adjustment, similar to that shown below. Raising or lowering the
cover is one option while feathering the new paved surface to match the
cover height is another. In addition to making sure utility cover height is
proper, to the extent possible, new utilities should be installed away from
the expected line of travel for bicyclists.
Utility locations
In general, bicyclists travel along either the right side of the outside travel
lane or on the paved shoulder. To the extent possible, utilities should not be
6"
Direction of
travel
20'
Curb
Street
Surfacing
+
-
1
/8
1-0
Concrete
adjusting
rings as
Necessary
Figure 10.2
Pavement marking in
advance of a drainage
hazard
Guidelines: after MUTCD, p. 9C-6
Figure 10.3
Standard height adjust-
ment for storm sewer
cover solves a problem
for bicyclists
Source: Montana Public
Works, 1988
77
located in these areas. Further, if
bicycle lanes are present, the utili-
ties should not be within these
lanes.
Drainage grates, however, must be
located near the curb and, for this
reason, must be bicycle safe. In some
areas, the curb and drainage struc-
ture may be offset further to the
right to allow bicyclists to pass
without obstruction (see diagram at
right).
REFERENCES
Bicycle-Safe Grate Inlets Study, FHWA, 1977
Construction Castings Catalog, Neenah Foundry Company, 1995
MTPublic Works, 3rd Edition, 1988, MTPublic Works Association
The Grates of Cincinnati, Don Burrell, Bicycle Forum, 1986
Figure 10.4
Offset drainage structure
78
79
11 RURAL ROAD SHOULDERS
RURAL ROAD SHOULDERS
PROBLEM STATEMENT
W
hile rural roads seldom serve large numbers of bicyclists, they are
often the only connections between points A and B. Thus, bicy-
clists who, for example, live on a farm and want to ride to town
will have relatively few options, compared to bicyclists who live in town
and want to ride to the store. In addition to having few options, rural
bicyclists may have to contend with high speed traffic and, in some key
instances, high traffic volumes with significant percentages of truck traffic.
To further exacerbate the problem, the roadway itself may be narrow with
damaged pavement and debris deposits near the right edge, and drainage
ditches or rough gravel verges immediately adjacent to the edge of pave-
ment.
Other bicycle users known to frequent rural roadways include touring
bicyclists, racing cyclists on training rides, and those out for a days recre-
ational ride. In some parts of the country, these users can be quite numer-
ous, particularly on certain routes and during certain times of year.
SOLUTION STATEMENT
Smoothly paved shoulders adjacent to the travel lanes can significantly
improve the situation for bicyclists. They can provide a reasonably safe area
for bicyclists to ride that is out of the stream of high-speed motor vehicle
traffic. Further, shoulders can provide a buffer between bicyclists and the
turbulence created by passing trucks. But paved shoulders can help non-
bicyclists as well. Studies have shown that they can reduce roadway main-
tenance costs and run-off-the-road motor vehicle crashes.
Smoothly paved shoulders
adjacent to the travel lanes
can greatly improve condi-
tions for bicyclists along
rural highways.
80
The AASHTO has enumerated many benefits of well-designed and
properly maintained shoulders on rural highways (A Policy on Geometric
Design of Highways and Streets, 1991, AASHTO, p.337). Most of the benefits
accrue to motorists. The 14 points are as follows:
1. Space is provided for stopping free of the traffic lane because of
mechanical difficulty, a flat tire, or other emergency.
2. Space is provided for the occasional motorist who desires to stop to
consult road maps, to rest, or for other reasons.
3. Space is provided to escape potential accidents or reduce their sever-
ity.
4. The sense of openness created by shoulders of adequate width con-
tributes much to driving ease and freedom from strain.
5. Sight distance is improved in cut sections, thereby improving safety.
6. Some types of shoulders enhance the aesthetics of the highway.
7. Highway capacity is improved; uniform speed is encouraged.
8. Space is provided for maintenance operations such as snow removal
and storage.
9. Lateral clearance is provided for signs and guardrails.
10. Storm water can be discharged farther from the pavement and
seepage adjacent to the pavement can be minimized. This may di-
rectly reduce pavement breakup.
11. Structural support is given to the pavement.
12. Space is provided for pedestrian and bicycle use.
13. Space is provided for bus stops.
14. Improved lateral placement of vehicles and space for occasional
encroachment of vehicles is provided.
Providing smoothly paved shoulders on rural roads is typically done in one
of three ways. First, shoulders are often provided as part of the construction
of a new road or a reconstruction project. This is, typically, the least expen-
sive way to provide shoulders; when included as an original part of a larger
project, shoulder provisions can benefit from possible savings in right-of-
way acquisition, utility relocation, grading, and paving that, in many cases,
must be done anyway.
The second alternative is to provide shoulders as an independent project.
While this may well prove more expensive than including shoulders when
a road is constructed or reconstructed, there are instances where it should
be done anyway. For example, consider the case where development over-
takes a previously adequate two-lane rural road. A new park may be built
near a school and a subdivision may go in just up the road. As a result of
these use changes, the road may well start attracting higher levels of bicycle
traffic than previously. And, while there may be plans to improve the
roadway in the long term, such a project may be 10 or 20 years off.
Third, shoulders may be provided as part of an overlay project.
81
In addition, rural road design standards could be modified to provide
adequate paved shoulders as part of the typical cross section.
OBJECTIVES
To provide adequately paved shoulders on rural roads:
By including such shoulders wherever possible in new construction,
reconstruction, and overlay projects.
By independently adding paved shoulders to existing roadways where
sufficient need has been identified.
By adopting design standards for rural roads that include reasonably
wide and smoothly paved shoulders.
By restricting the use of rumble strips and other similar devices where
bicycle traffic is expected.
When shoulders cannot be provided immediately, by locating utilities
and drainage structures far enough from the roadway to allow for even-
tual paving.
Providing smoothly paved shoulders requires no special resources or skills.
It is simply a matter of following commonly understood engineering
practice and budgeting adequate funding for the extra paving and other
needs.
SUBTASKS
1. Review design standards for rural roadways
and highways
Identify typical cross sections used by public work agencies in rural road
and highway work. Compare the requirements with bicycle-safe ap-
proaches described in the Specifications section below. Unsuitable designs
should be replaced with better ones.
2. Determine the likely scope of the problem
Determine the approximate mileages of the different categories of rural
roads that do not include paved shoulders.
3. Identify high priority locations
While all hazardous locations should eventually be improved, the best
place to start is on popular bicycling routes, connections between impor-
tant destinations (e.g., schools and housing developments), and locations
where bicycle safety problems have been previously identified.
4. Include smoothly paved shoulders on new construction
and reconstruction projects
When new roads are built or current ones are renovated, specify smoothly
paved shoulders as part of the typical cross section.
5. Set up an on-going shoulder program
Identify those problem locations that are not likely candidates for inclusion
82
in currently planned road construction or reconstruction projects. Priori-
tize these and budget a set amount for shoulder provision each year.
6. Evaluate results
the goal of providing adequate shoulders on rural roads. Consider the
number of miles of shoulder paved, changes to the current design stan-
dards, and the proportion of new construction and reconstruction projects
that include adequate shoulders.
SCHEDULE
For the most part, this program requires an on-going commitment to
making bicycle-related improvements part of the routine business of road
building and renovation.
SPECIFICATIONS
Shoulder width
To accommodate bicyclists, a minimum paved shoulder width of 1.2 m (4
ft) should be provided. However, paved shoulders that are as narrow as 0.9
m (3 ft) can also help improve conditions for bicyclists and are recom-
mended where 1.2-m (4-ft) widths cannot be achieved. Generally, any
additional paved shoulder width is better than none at all. The width of a
usable paved shoulder should be measured from the edge of a gutter pan.
Where guardrails, curbs, or other roadside barriers exist, the minimum
recommended width of a paved shoulder is 1.5 m (5 ft). Additional shoulder
width over the recommended minimums is always desirable where higher
bicycle usage is expected; where motor vehicle speeds exceed 90 km/h (56
mi/h); where there is a high percentage of large vehicles such as trucks,
buses and recreational vehicles; or where static obstructions exist at the
right side of the roadway.
In general, the recommendations for paved shoulder widths found in
AASHTOs A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets serve
bicycles well since wide shoulders are required on heavily traveled, high-
speed roads carrying large numbers of trucks.
To be useful for bicyclists, shoulders should be smoothly paved. A policy
for paving rural shoulders as developed by the Wisconsin Department of
Transportation appears on the next page.
Paved surface
To encourage bicycle use, the surface of the shoulder should be at least as
smooth as that of the adjacent travel lanes. Further, in order to ensure long-
term utility, the paved section and subgrade should be structurally ad-
equate for at least occasional motor vehicle use and should be adequately
supported at the edge of pavement. In addition, seams should be smooth or,
preferably, kept away from the shoulder area. And such devices as rumble
strips should only be used when there is a documented safety problem and
the needs of bicyclists may be served through, for example, provision of
adequate extra width that is not rumbled.
83
Shoulder continuity
Providing short stretches of shoulder connected by roadway sections with
no shoulders does little to solve the problem. On the other hand, if includ-
ing shoulders as incidental features of roadway reconstruction or overlay
projects can provide important pieces of the puzzle, such opportunities
should not be overlooked. The remaining sections can be connected at a
later date to provide continuity at a substantially reduced cost.
Ultimately, shoulders should be provided continuously between logical
origins and destinations. This includes providing adequate width on
bridges and other structures. In addition, the benefits to be gained from the
use of shoulders for right-turn-only lanes should be carefully weighed
against the consequences for bicyclists.
Debris
Debris on a paved shoulder can render it unusable for bicyclists. Broken
glass can easily destroy tires, gravel can cause loss of control, and rocks can
wreck a wheel. Careful design can eliminate many of the problems by, for
instance, paving 4.5 m to 6.1 m (15 to 20 ft) into intersecting gravel roads,
ing is warranted, the 3-ft. width shall be in addition to any
widening to increase the width of traffic lanes.
6. The thickness of shoulder paving should be based on
usual design considerations appropriate for each situation.
The above policy on paving shoulders is for rural state
trunk highways only. Projects on county trunk highways
which fit the above criteria may also have their shoulders
paved at the discretion of local officials. If the shoulders of
a county trunk highway are to be paved, the paved width
shall conform to the dimensions given in Figure 5 of this
procedure.
Procedure 11-45-10: Shoulder Bikeways
Table 1 provides shoulder paving requirements to accom-
modate bicycles on rural two-lane state trunk highways.
When shoulder bikeways are provided on four-lane divided
expressways the paved shoulder width should be 10 feet.
Where a bike route is planned or located on a CTH [County
Trunk Highway] or town road, the paved width, if any,
should be determined by the local government.
Table 1: Rural Two-Lane State Trunk Highway Paved
Shoulder Width Requirements to Accommodate Bicycles
Motor Vehicle ADT Bicycle ADT
0-24 >25
Under 1000 0
1
0
1
1000 - 1250 0
1
5ft.
Over 1250 Varies
1,2
5ft.
1
1 See Figure 5 of Procedure 11-15-1 for other shoulder paving standards
not related to bicycles.
2 For Great River Road only, paved shoulders 5ft. wide. See Procedure 11-
15-5
Wisconsin Department of Transportations Rural
Shoulder Policy:
The policy for paving shoulders on two-lane rural state trunk
highways shall be as follows:
1. When constructing new highway surfaces or when re-
surfacing existing roadways, the shoulder next to desig-
nated driving lanes shall be paved on highways function-
ally classified as arterials, regardless of traffic volume.
Shoulders on state trunk highways classified as collectors
or locals and having a current ADT in excess of 1250 ve-
hicles shall also be paved. The paved width shall be as
shown in Figure 5 of this procedure.
2. Segments of highway having a current ADT in excess of
1,000 vehicles and consistently carrying bicycle traffic of
25 or more per day two ways during the normal bicycling
season shall have the shoulders paved. See Procedure 11-
45-10 for guidance on shoulder bikeways.
3. Shoulders may also be paved full width along highways
in suburban areas where closely spaced driveways and/
or frequent turning movements cause unpaved shoulders
to require excessive maintenance.
4. Continuity of shoulder paving between logical termini
is desirable. Gaps of unpaved shoulders should not be left
due to a short segment of highway not meeting the war-
ranting criteria. Similarly, if only a short segment of high-
way meets the warrants, than paved shoulders may not be
appropriate. Also, for purposes of continuity and the clos-
ing of short gaps, it may be desirable to pave the shoul-
ders on sections of highway where surfacing of traffic lanes
may not be planned for several years, provided the shoul-
der paving is done in conjunction with surfacing or resur-
facing an abutting highway segment.
5. On highways with existing narrow pavements when pav-
84
providing extra width and, perhaps, garbage cans in areas where motorists
are likely to pull off, and including barriers to intercept falling rocks.
Maintenance can help as well. However, it is often better to design in low-
maintenance solutions than to require frequent sweeping or cleaning.
REFERENCES
ABCDs of Bikeways, MDDOT, 1977
A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO, 1998
(pending)
Facilities Development Manual: Shoulder Bikeways, WISDOT, 1993
Guidelines for Wide Paved Shoulders on Low-Volume, Two-Lane Rural
Highways, Woods, Rollins, & Crane, TRB, 1989
Rumble Strips and Bicycle Wheels, John Williams, Bicycle Forum, 1987
85
12 BICYCLE PARKING
BICYCLE PARKING
PROBLEM OVERVIEW
P
roviding secure bicycle parking is a key ingredient in efforts to encour-
age bicycling at the local level. Many bicycle journeys end somewhere
other than the bicyclists home and, as a result, the bicyclist must park
his or her bicycle. For those who live in apartment complexes, college
dormitories, or other high-density settings, the issue of where to leave a
bike while home is also a serious issue. In short, at one time or another most
bicyclists have experienced the frustration of finding no secure place to
leave their bikes.
Some have experienced the even greater frustration of returning to find
their bicycles stolen. In fact, statistics compiled by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation show that between 1988 and 1992, an average of approxi-
mately 450,000 bicycles were reported stolen each year. These figures are
low, according to the Lock Smart Campaign, which estimates that roughly
twice as many are stolen but never reported. They suggest that, with an
average cost of $380 per bike, the financial loss to American bicyclists
amounts to some $450 million per year.
While providing secure bicycle parking is not the entire solution to the
problem of theft, it certainly can help and it can increase bicyclists comfort
in leaving their bicycles unattended. As a result, many bicycle owners may
be encouraged to make bicycle trips they might otherwise forego.
Secure bicycle parking is a
key ingredient in efforts to
encourage bicycling at the
local level.
86
12 BICYCLE PARKING
SOLUTION OVERVIEW
Bicycle parking can be provided in a wide variety of settings using three
basic approaches: bicycle racks (open-air devices to which a bicycle is
locked); bicycle lockers (stand-alone enclosures designed to hold one
bicycle per unit); and bicycle lock-ups (site-built secure enclosures that
hold one or more bicycles). See page 90 for two types of bicycle parking
devices.
For short-term parking, bicycle racks work well. At sites that require
long-term parking for a variety of potential users, lockers are the devices of
choice. For long-term parking for a limited number of regular and trust-
worthy users, bicycle lock-ups can solve the problem.
OBJECTIVES
1. To provide well-located secure bicycle parking at popular destinations in
business districts and at other public sites:
By installing bicycle parking at public centers.
By installing bicycle parking on public rights-of-way in neighborhood
commercial and downtown business districts.
By encouraging private businesses to provide bicycle parking for their
customers.
By installing bicycle parking at transit stops and in parking garages.
By encouraging the installation of high-security bicycle parking at
existing worksites, schools, and high-density residential developments.
2. To require new commercial, public, and high-density residential
developments to include plans for bicycle parking:
By adding provisions to local zoning regulations requiring bicycle
parking as part of new developments, particularly commercial, public,
and high-density residential developments.
By making these requirements part of the process of getting a building
permit.
Implementing bicycle parking in a community requires a combination of
three primary strategies: 1) acquiring and installing bicycle parking devices
on public rights-of-way or at public destinations (e.g., city hall, libraries,
and parks); 2) encouraging businesses to provide bicycle parking for their
customers; and 3) altering zoning regulations to ensure bicycle parking is
provided in new developments. Typically, the first strategy helps prime the
pump for the second; and the third strategy helps ensure long-term im-
provements in newly developed areas.
SUBTASKS
1. Identify key implementors
Each of the three implementation strategies requires the cooperation of a
different group of constituencies. To put bicycle parking in public places
requires the cooperation of agencies that control the land involved. Side-
87
12 BICYCLE PARKING
walks may be controlled by the streets or public works department while
parks and recreation may have responsibility for public open spaces and
recreational sites. There may be an agency in charge of all public property.
Alternately, agencies that run specific services (e.g., the library, public
health clinics) may control their own sites.
Encouraging businesses to install bicycle parking requires the coopera-
tion of such groups as the Chamber of Commerce, downtown business
associations, and shopping center managers. In addition, agencies that
routinely deal with businesses should be enlisted as outlets for any litera-
ture developed as part of the program.
Altering zoning regulations to require consideration of bicycle parking in
new developments requires close cooperation with planning and zoning
agency staff, as well as assistance from appointed zoning boards and
builders associations. Typically, regulations are revised on a schedule;
therefore, the opportunity to revisit parking requirements may or may not
be imminent.
2. Structure the program
In some communities, a reactive program that simply fills orders and
answers questions can prove successful. This would be most likely in a
bicycle town with a high degree of interest in bicycling matters. However,
in many places, such a passive approach would result in little response.
Business owners and managers of large employment centers or residential
complexes often see bicycles as clutter and problems to eliminate rather
than as solutions to traffic congestion or air quality problems. As a result, a
successful bicycle parking program should include elements of marketing
and promotion.
With the help of the key players identified in Subtask 1, create three
adhoc task groups covering each of the three primary thrusts. The groups
should create the ground rules and materials necessary for the following
tasks:
Task Group 1: public bicycle parking
Install bicycle parking at public centers
Install bicycle parking on public rights-of-way
Install bicycle parking at transit stops and in parking garages
Task Group 2: private bicycle parking
Encourage private businesses to provide bicycle parking for their
customers
Encourage installation of high-security bicycle parking at worksites,
schools, and high-density residential developments
Task Group 3: zoning regulation revision
Add provisions to local zoning regulations requiring bicycle parking
Make these requirements part of the process of getting a building
permi t
3. Choose appropriate bicycle parking devices
As one of the first tasks, assemble packets of information on available
bicycle parking devices, along with pros and cons for endorsing each device.
88
12 BICYCLE PARKING
In a joint meeting(s) with all three task groups, adopt a set of criteria and
decide which devices to endorse. A set of possible criteria are listed in the
Specifications section given on page 91. Next, give each task group its
marching orders. They are as follows:
4. Tasks for Task Group 1: public bicycle parking
Task Group 1 should set criteria for installing bicycle parking devices on
sidewalks, as well as at public destinations. For sidewalks, criteria could
include such things as minimum width of sidewalk, rack position on
sidewalk and proximity to other street furniture and vegetation, number
per block or number per site. For public sites, they could include proximity
to the main entrance, and minimum number of bicycle parking spaces per
installation (perhaps keyed to type of facility served).
Next, they should create an agreed-upon step-by-step procedure for
planning and installation. This should include initial identification of the
potential site, discussion with relevant agency personnel, determination of
the specific sites needs (number of parking devices and location), cost
analysis and budgeting, procurement, installation, and follow-up.
To support this activity, they should create a project sheet for rack instal-
lation that includes places for the source of the request (if any), signatures
of any required agency personnel, a schematic diagram of site, installation
date, and any comments.
Next, they should estimate the total bicycle parking need for public
places, given a list of potential sites. Estimates can be conservative and
based to some extent on existing bicycle traffic, as long as participants
realize that latent demand may be significant. For this reason, phased
installations can be particularly appropriate.
For sidewalks, a base number of racks to be installed during the fiscal
year (e.g., 100, 500, 1000) should be decided upon, along with a map show-
ing area priorities. Downtown might, for instance, be a top priority area,
neighborhood commercial areas could be second, and strip development
areas might be third.
Finally, the Task Group should set an annual budget for the program and
decide how the bicycle parking should be paid for. Potential sources include
a wide variety of Federal transportation programs, as well as local funding
opportunities.
5. Tasks for Task Group 2: private bicycle parking
Task Group 2 should assemble a packet of information for potential private
sector bike parking providers. The packet should include a cover letter
describing the importance of bicycle parking to businesses and giving any
organizational endorsements for the program; a list of available parking
devices, along with information on how to order them and which are best
suited for which settings; tips on deciding how many bikes need to be
accommodated; and tips on locating and installing the devices.
The Task Group should also work out details of any promotional activi-
ties that will need to be planned. For instance, they should develop a list of
groups to talk with, determine who should be responsible for reaching each
one, and start making contacts. To this end, the Task Group should develop
a standard presentation, possibly including slides and handouts.
Funding Bike Rack
Installation:
One small city started a co-
operative downtown bike
parking program in which the
engineering department did
the installation while the rede-
velopment agency bought the
racks. The rack purchasing
budget was approximately
$2500 per year and installa-
tion cost slightly less. With ap-
proximately $5000 per year
in funding, the city was able
to install 50 racks each year.
Over the past decade, they
have installed between 400
and 500 racks in this manner.
Other cities have created
ambitious programs using
money provided under the In-
termodal Surface Transporta-
tion Efficiency Act. For ex-
ample, one large midwestern
city used nearly $1 million of
its Congestion Mitigation/Air
Quality Program money to in-
stall several thousand bike
racks around the community.
89
12 BICYCLE PARKING
6. Task Group 3: zoning regulation revision
This Task Group should start by identifying passages in the existing zoning
codes where motor vehicle parking is discussed. They should find out when
the regulations are going to be next modified and use that in determining
their schedule of work. They should next assemble sample bicycle parking
laws or ordinances from other communities. Based on the sample laws,
they should create a draft revision to the regulations and circulate it for
comment. Once comments have been received and considered, they should
forward a final draft revision for action at the proper time.
7. Implement the program
With the program set up, materials at the ready, and initial funding identi-
fied, implementing the program can begin. Routine responsibilities for the
various tasks should be taken care of by the agencies identified through the
previous steps. Oversight of the program may require the attention of a
project coordinator. This may be a task delegated to a member of the plan-
ning or public works staff.
8. Evaluate progress
As the work is proceeding, keep track of successes and failures. Early on, get
the word out to the bicycling public that 1) the program exists; and 2) that
they should submit comments and ideas for potential parking sites. Keep
records on how many parking devices have been installed, how many
comments have been received, how many information packets have been
sent out, what proportion of public places have adequate bicycle parking,
how well the parking is working (e.g., whether the public likes it, whether it
holds up well to vandalism), and how successful the zoning regulations
appear to be (once they are adopted). Use this feedback in fine-tuning the
program and determining future levels of funding.
For the most part, bicycle parking requires basic equipment: racks and
lockers. These can be ordered or fabricated in large or small quantities.
Ordering in quantity can save money as long as storage needs can be
satisfied until installation can be accomplished. Once a community gets
actively involved in bicycle parking installation, it is quite possible that
local sources will emerge. For instance, in some communities, welding
shops make and sell approved bike racks on a routine basis. This not only
helps agencies satisfy a growing bicycle parking demand but it can also
lead to the development of new local industries.
SCHEDULE
Installing bicycle parking at public places and on sidewalks can begin with
little delay. Encouraging businesses to install bicycle parking, being more of
a marketing and promotion activity, involves building interest over time
and may not pay off for several years. Even longer term are the results of
changes in zoning ordinances. At the same time, these changes can lead to
the greatest overall effect.
90
12 BICYCLE PARKING
4'-O"
Top View
2
'
-
1
O
"

1
'
-
6
"

Front View
Weld Weld
Side View
8"
4
"
1/2" Steel Plate
2"
2
"
3/8" dia.
Detail of Mounting Flange
Figure 12.1
An inexpensive bicycle rack design
The design shown at right has proved popular and effective in numerous communities. It is inexpensive to fabricate
locally, easy to install, vandal-resistant, and works well with the popular high-security bicycle locks. In addition, it can be
installed singly, as on a sidewalk,
or in quantity, as at a major rec-
reational center.
Schedule 40 steel pipe works
well and, for best results, the rack
should be galvanized after fabri-
cation. Typical costs run about
$75 per rack installed, when
purchased in quantities of 50 or
more.
Adapted from Lubbock Metropolitan Area
Comprehensive Plan,
Figure 12.2
Typical bicycle locker instal-
lation
Bicycle lockers provide a
higher level of security than do
bicycle racks. They are the pre-
ferred option where long-term
security is more important than
short-term convenience. Work site
locker installations for bike com-
muters are particularly welcome,
as are installations at large resi-
dential complexes. Unlike racks,
lockers provide protection for a
bikes components, as well as the
users luggage and other belong-
ings. Each locker unit is divided
diagonally to allow separate stor-
age for two bicycles.
Some agencies use coin oper-
ated units but the most popular
approach is to rent the lockers on
a monthly or quarterly basis or
to provide them free. Lockers are
generally installed in multiples of
two or more units, since each installation requires a starter unit, which is approximately twice the cost of subsequent
units. Typical costs run $3300 for starter units and $1600 for add-on units. Each unit has two enclosures.
Adapted from Lubbock Metropolitan Area Comprehensive Plan, Bicycle Federation of America
91
12 BICYCLE PARKING
SPECIFICATIONS
Criteria for selecting bicycle parking devices
Selecting bicycle parking devices should be based on the following consid-
erations, in addition to any special needs of the local community.
Bike racks
Security, especially how well the device works with common bike locks
Durability and resistance to vandalism
Ease of use
Aesthetics
Cost
Bike lockers
Security
Durability
Aesthetics
Cost
REFERENCES
Bicycle Parking, Ellen Fletcher, 1990
Source Book of Designs, Manufacturers and Representatives, Bicycle Federa-
tion of America, 1992
Technical Notes: Bicycle Parking Location; Choosing Parking Devices; A
Simple Bike Rack Design; Bike Parking Ordinances, Bikecentennial, 1987-89
92
12 BICYCLE PARKING
Purpose
(d) Providing adequate and safe facilities for the storage

of bicycles.
4. Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided as required

for all new structures and uses established as provided in
Sec. 28.11(2)(a)1. or to changes in uses as provided in
Secs. 28.11(2)(a)2. and 3.; however, bicycle parking fa-
cilities shall not be required until the effective date of this
paragraph. Notwithstanding Secs. 28.08(1)(i) and
28.09(5)(a), bicycle parking facilities shall be provided
in all districts including districts in the Central Area.
1. In the residential district, accessory off-street parking

facilities provided for uses listed herein shall be solely for
the parking of passenger automobiles and bicycles of
patrons, occupants or employees and not more than one
truck limited to one (1) ton capacity.
(e) Size. Required bicycle parking spaces shall be at

least 2 feet by 6 feet. An access aisle of at least 5 feet
shall be provided in each bicycle parking facility. Such
space shall have a vertical clearance of at least 6 feet.
d. Bicycle Parking Facilities. Accessory off-street parking

for bicycles shall include provision for secure storage of
bicycles. Such facilities shall provide lockable enclosed
lockers or racks or equivalent structures in or upon which
the bicycle may be locked by the user. Structures that re-
quire a user-supplied locking device shall be designed to
accommodate U-shaped locking devices. All lockers and
racks must be securely anchored to the ground or the build-
ing structure to prevent the racks and lockers from being
removed from the location. The surfacing of such facilities
shall be designed and maintained to be mud and dust
free.
3. Bicycle parking facilities shall be located in a clearly

designated safe and convenient location. The design and
location of such facility shall be harmonious with the sur-
rounding environment. The facility location shall be at least
as convenient as the majority of auto parking spaces pro-
vided.
1. Bicycle parking facility spaces shall be provided in ad-

equate number as determined by the Zoning Administra-
tor. In making the determination, the Zoning Administra-
tor shall consider when appropriate, the number of dwell-
ing units or lodging rooms, the number of students, the
number of employees, and the number of auto parking
spaces in accordance with the following guidelines (see
chart at left).
Off-Street Bicycle Parking Guidelines
Land Use Bike Space
Dwellings/lodging rooms 1 per dwelling unit or
3 lodging rooms
Clubs/lodges 1 per lodging room
plus 3% of person ca-
pacity
Fraternities/sororities 1 per 3 rooms
Hotels/lodging houses 1 per 20 employees
Galleries/museums/libraries 1 per 10 auto spaces
Colleges/universities/junior 1 per 4 employees
and high schools plus1 per 4 students
Nursery/elementary schools 1 per 10 employees
plus students above
second grade
Convalescent and nursing 1 per 20 employees
homes/institutions
Hospitals 1 per 20 employees
Places of assembly, recreation, 1 per 10 auto spaces
entertainment and amusement
Commercial/manufacturing 1 per 10 auto spaces
Miscellaneous/other To be determined by
the Zoning Administra-
tor based on the guide-
line for the most simi-
lar use listed above
a. In all cases where bicycle parking is required, no fewer
than two (2) spaces shall be required.
b. After the first fifty (50) bicycle parking spaces are pro-
vided, additional bicycle parking spaces required are 0.5
(one half) space per unit listed.
c. Where the expected need for bicycle parking for a
particular use is uncertain due to unknown or unusual op-
erating characteristics of the use, the Zoning Administrator
may authorize that construction and provision of not more
than fifty (50) percent of the bicycle parking spaces be
deferred. Land area required for provision of deferred bi-
cycle parking spaces shall be maintained in reserve.
Sample bike parking ordinance from Madison, Wisconsin
A growing number of communities have included bicycle parking requirements in their development regulations. By so
doing, they ensure that bicycle parking is included in the normal course of development. This example is from the
Madison City Code.
93
13 BICYCLE-RELATED MAINTENANCE
BICYCLE-RELATED MAINTENANCE
PROBLEM OVERVIEW
B
icycles and bicyclists tend to be particularly sensitive to maintenance
problems. Most bicycles lack suspension systems and, as a result,
potholes that motorists would hardly notice can cause serious prob-
lems for bicyclists. In addition, since bicyclists often ride near the right
margin of the roadsometimes as required by traffic lawthey use areas
that are generally less well maintained than the main lanes. On higher
speed roads, the passage of motor vehicle traffic tends to sweep debris to the
right, again where most bicyclists travel. In addition, ridges, like those
found where a new asphalt overlay does not quite cover the older roadway
surface, can catch a wheel and throw a bicyclist to the ground.
Aside from these general problems, special bicycle facilities often need
more maintenance than they receive. Bicycle parking devices are particu-
larly susceptible to misuse or neglect. On trail systems, for example, vegeta-
tion is often allowed to overgrow the pavement edge, effectively narrowing
the usable surface. Soil treatments that are commonly used under new
roadbeds are sometimes ignored on trail projects; as a result, the surfaces are
shortly destroyed by intruding plants.
SOLUTION OVERVIEW
For the most part, satisfying bicycling maintenance requirements is a
matter of slightly modifying current procedures. For example, if street
Surface problems that may
go unnoticed by motorists
can deter and/or be
hazardous for cyclists.
94
sweeping crews pay a bit more attention to the right edge of the road, it can
benefit bicyclists greatly.
In addition, using maintenance-friendly design and construction
techniques can reduce the need for specialand sometimes costlytreat-
ments later. For example, when paving a street bordered by unpaved alleys
and driveways, paving into those alleys and driveways 3 m to 6.1 m (10 ft to
20 ft) (depending on grades and other features) can keep entering traffic
from dragging gravel and other debris onto the paved surface.
Finally, special bicycle facilities like bike lanes or trails may require
enhanced maintenance attention. This cost, along with a clear understand-
ing of who has responsibility for maintenance, should be part of every
project budget.
OBJECTIVES
1. To maintain roadways and bikeways to a relatively hazard
free standard:
By sweeping pavement edges and paved shoulders with sufficient care.
By patching surfaces as smoothly as possible and by requiring other
agencies or private companies to do likewise whenever they dig up a
road or trail.
By making sure pavement overlay projects feather the new surface into
the existing one or otherwise do not create new linear joints.
By replacing such hazards as dangerous grates or utility covers as the
opportunity arises.
By patching potholes in an expeditious manner.
By routinely cutting back all encroaching vegetation, especially on
trails or popular bike routes.
2. To encourage bicyclists to report maintenance problems and other
hazards:
By developing a bicycle spot improvement form and distributing
copies throughout the bicycling community.
By making sure returned forms are acted upon in a timely fashion.
3. To design and build new roadways and bikeways in such a way as to
reduce the potential for maintenance problems in the long term:
By using edge treatments, shoulder surfaces, and access controls that
reduce the potential accumulation of debris.
By using materials and construction techniques that increase the
longevity of new trail surfaces.
4. To include maintenance costs and clearly spelled-out maintenance
procedures in all bicycle facility projects:
By including reasonable estimates of the maintenance costs in the
projects budget.
By establishing clear maintenance responsibilities in advance of
construction.
95
Improving bicycle-related maintenance requires action on several fronts.
First, maintenance policies used by all relevant agencies should be reviewed
and changed, if necessary. Second, designers should be encouraged to think
maintenance when they design; low maintenance requirements should be
the rule rather than the exception. And, finally, an outreach effort should
be implemented to 1) encourage bicyclists to report maintenance problems;
and 2) identify existing maintenance problems, particularly on special
bicycle facilities or popular bicycling routes.
SUBTASKS
1. Identify key implementors
Implementation requires working closely with those agencies and person-
nel responsible for maintaining the current infrastructure, as well as those
charged with designing and building new facilities. For roadway mainte-
nance, this may mean the local street department or the State transporta-
tion agencys district maintenance division. For trails, it may mean local,
State, or Federal parks or lands agencies.
New facility design can involve local engineering and parks planning
agencies, as well as State and Federal officials, depending on jurisdiction. It
may be, for example, that a new arterial street being built in the local
community is actually designed by engineers working in the State capital.
2. Review existing policies and practices
In some cases, an agencys policies, standards, and guidance are included in
formal documents that have gone through an approval process or that have
been issued by department supervisors. Examples of these may be standard
sweeping schedules and snow removal street priorities. Conducting a
review of these may be relatively simple once copies have been obtained.
On the other hand, some practices may simply be matters of how a
particular person handles a specific task. For instance, one street sweeper
may leave more of the right roadway edge unswept than another sweeper
may. Identifying important areas in which practices vary from standard
procedureor in which standard procedures do not existcan help in
determining needed improvements in such areas as policy development,
communication, and employee training.
3. Review results in the field and solicit comments from
users
In some cases, policies may seem reasonable, in theory, but may break down
in practice. For this reason, it is important to see how well the facilities
work. Checking out the street and trail systems from the saddle of a bicycle
can help uncover previously unknown problems. For instance, an agency
may have a policy of sweeping arterial streets every two weeks. But field
experience may show that certain arterials are subject to greater accumula-
tions of debris from nearby land uses. Increasing the frequency of sweeping
on such streetsparticularly if they are popular bicycling streetsmay be
necessary.
In addition, soliciting comments from users can help identify problems
that would otherwise be overlooked. Because of their intimate knowledge of
96
surface conditions, bicycle users can often pinpoint specific locations and
needs. To get such information, send news releases to local bicycle groups,
as well as the media asking for help. In all likelihood, users will welcome
the opportunity to contribute.
4. Recommend appropriate changes in policies and prac-
tices
Based on the reviews and comments discussed above, develop modified
versions of policies and practices where warranted; for important topics
previously not covered, develop new guidance for adoption. Work with the
appropriate agencies to make sure the changes are understood and imple-
mented.
5. Create an on-going spot improvement program
As mentioned earlier, soliciting comments from users can help an agency
find specific problem locations. Institutionalizing this process, in the form
of a spot improvement program, can provide on-going input and, in many
cases, help identify problems before someone gets hurt. In addition, such a
program can dramatically improve the relationship between an agency and
the bicycling public. Spot improvement programs are good policy and good
public relations.
To this end, set aside a modest annual budgetary allocation for user-
requested spot improvements. Create mail-back postcards for distribution
to local bicycle shops and user groups. As cards come in, check out the
locations identified and take action as necessary.
6. Evaluate progress
As the work proceeds, keep track of successes and failures, as well as the
schedule of routine maintenance activities. Identify changes that have or
have not been made to policies and determine if additional effort is needed.
On an annual basis, ask the bicycling public for comments on maintenance
issues, in general, and the spot improvement program, in particular. In
addition, keep track of the numbers and kinds of problems identified and
how they were dealt with. Finally, determine if the program budget is
appropriate to the task.
For the most part, bicycle-related maintenance tasks involve work an
agency already does; little additional effort will be required. It may simply
mean adding popular bicycling routes to the priority sweeping route
network, for example. In some instances, however, additional equipment
may be needed. For example, maintaining a particular trail may require
purchasing special equipmentperhaps a small sweeper or a special
attachment for a tractor.
SCHEDULE
In regions with harsh winters, special effort should be made to clear the
winters accumulation of road sand and other debris early in the spring.
Also, the periods following high winds and flooding may require special
attention.
97
SPECIFICATIONS
Typical maintenance concerns
The following are some of bicyclists most common maintenance concerns
and some common solutions:
Surface problems:
Potholes and other surface irregularities: Patch to a high standard,
paying particular attention to problems near bicyclists typical travel
alignments. Require other agencies and companies to patch to a similarly
high standard; if repairs fail within a year, require remedial action.
Debris (sand, gravel, glass, auto parts, etc.)near the right edge of the
road: Sweep close to the right edge. If necessary, use vacuum trucks to
remove material, especially if it accumulates adjacent to curbs. Pay particu-
lar attention to locations like underpasses where changes in lighting
conditions can blind bicyclists to surface hazards.
Debris or surface irregularities on curves or at intersections: Pay
special attention to the areas between the typical paths of turning and
through motor vehicle traffic; often these fill with debris and are in typical
bicyclist trajectories. In addition, areas where debris washes across the
paved surface should receive special attention; eliminating the source of the
problem, by, for example, providing better drainage, is ultimately a more
cost-effective solution than increased sweeping.
Chip seal gravel: Many local agencies use chip seal to extend the lives of
their roadways. However, the technique, which involves laying down a
coating of oil and a layer of crushed rock, often leaves deep piles of gravel
just to the right of the typical travel paths of motor vehicles. To reduce the
impacts on bicyclists, remove excess gravel as soon as possible and suggest
alternate routes as detours.
Attention should be paid and
repairs should be made to
surface irregularities that
occur where bicyclists are
expected.
98
Ridges or cracks: These should be filled or ground down as needed to
reduce the chance of a bicyclist catching a front wheel and crashing. Pay
particular attention to ridges or cracks that run parallel to the direction of
travel. One common location to check is where a merging lane is provided
just beyond an intersection. Because traffic must merge left to continue
travelling straight, bicyclists will be crossing the joint between the merge
lane and the through lane at a very shallow angle.
Encroaching vegetation:
Bushes and tree branches adjacent to trail edges: Trim vegetation back
to allow at least a 0.6-m (2-ft) clearance between the edge of pavement and
the vegetation, paying particular attention to the insides of curves.
Grasses adjacent to trail edges: Tall grasses should be mowed regularly to
expose any potential hazards that might otherwise be hidden from a
cyclists view. In addition, vegetation should be prevented from breaking up
the edge of pavement and encroaching on the trail surface.
Signing and marking:
Trail signing: Because they are often unique, trail signs may be subject to
frequent theft or vandalism. Regular inspections should be conducted to
ensure that signs are still in place and in good condition; this is particularly
true of regulatory signs and warning signs
Trail markings: Generally, trails have a few simple markings (e.g., a yellow
centerline) but these should be repainted when necessary. Centerlines, for
example, help encourage bicyclists to keep to their side of the trail and
perform a very useful function.
On-road bicycle signs: Special bicycle signs (regulatory, warning, or
information) should be maintained in the same way that other roadway
signs are. Pay particular attention to bike route signs at decision points,
warning signs at special hazard locations, and regulatory signs on popular
bike lane streets.
On-road bicycle markings: Bicycle lane striping should be renewed at the
same time as other lane stripes are painted. The same goes for bike lane
pavement markings (e.g., bicycle symbol markings). Some markings may
suffer from more wear and tear than others and deserve special attention.
For instance, pavement markings that indicate the hot spot for traffic
signal loop detectors may be in the location where car tires routinely pass;
as a result, they may wear out faster than other markings.
REFERENCES
Maintenance Manual, AASHTO, 1987
Trails for the 21st Century, Rails to Trails Conservancy, 1994
99
CONCLUSI ON: START WHERE YOU CAN
CONCLUSION: START WHERE YOU CAN
BUT GET STARTED!
T
he previous sections describe some of the basic improvements that can
help improve any communitys conditions for its bicycling public. As
mentioned in the introduction, each project and program can be seen
as part of a larger comprehensive planning effort. But, since money is often
scarce, each can also be implemented singly with gratifying results. And
implementation can be accomplished in phases that best reflect local
realities. The authors hope that this manual provides equal measures of
inspiration and nuts-and-bolts details to encourage you to move your
community forward to a more bicycle-friendly future.
P
h
o
t
o
:

J
a
m
e
s

M
a
c
k
a
y
,

D
e
n
v
e
r

B
i
k
e

P
l
a
n
n
e
r
100
CONCLUSI ON: START WHERE YOU CAN

Mobilitate Biciclete

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mobilitate Biciclete

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mobilitate Biciclete

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IMPLEMENTING BICYCLE

Stop bar approx.

(d) Providing adequate and safe facilities for the storage

4. Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided as required

1. In the residential district, accessory off-street parking

(e) Size. Required bicycle parking spaces shall be at

d. Bicycle Parking Facilities. Accessory off-street parking

3. Bicycle parking facilities shall be located in a clearly

1. Bicycle parking facility spaces shall be provided in ad-

You might also like