Designing to Increase Multimodalism

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

June 23, 2014

Bicycle Solutions Agenda - Morning

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 2 June 23, 2014 Agenda - Afternoon

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 3 June 23, 2014 About Planning & Design John Ciccarelli and

Rapid Assessments

Bike Rooms

CTCDC Designing to Increase Multimodalism 5 June 23, 2014 Law, Legislation, Policy and Complete Streets

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 6 June 23, 2014 Streets & Highways Code (SHC) Division 1. State Highways Chapter 8. Nonmotorized Transportation Article 3. California Bicycle Transportation Act “Bicycle transportation system”

Section 890. It is the intent of the Legislature… to establish a bicycle transportation system…. to achieve the functional commuting needs of the employee, student, business person, and shopper as the foremost consideration in route selection, to have the physical safety of the bicyclist and bicyclist's property as a major planning component, and to have the capacity to accommodate bicyclists of all ages and skills.

Designing to Increase Multimodalism June 23, 2014 Streets and Highways Code 890.4 Definitions of “bikeway” and Class I, II, III

Section 890.4. As used in this article, "bikeway" means all facilities that provide primarily for bicycle travel. For purposes of this article, bikeways shall be categorized as follows:

(a) Class I bikeways, such as a "bike path," which provide a completely separated right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflows by motorists minimized.

(b) Class II bikeways, such as a "bike lane," which provide a restricted right-of-way designated for the exclusive or semiexclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and crossflows by pedestrians and motorists permitted.

(c) Class III bikeways, such as an onstreet or offstreet "bike route," which provide a right-of-way designated by signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians or motorists.

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 8 June 23, 2014 Streets and Highways Code

Abandoned rights of way

892. (a) Rights-of-way established for other purposes by cities, counties, or local agencies shall not be abandoned unless the governing body determines that [they are] not useful as a nonmotorized transportation facility.

(b) No state highway right-of-way shall be abandoned until the department first consults with… local agencies… to determine whether [it] could be developed as a nonmotorized transportation facility.

Designing to Increase Multimodalism June 23, 2014 Streets and Highways Code

Severance of major nonmotorized routes by freeway designation

888. The department shall not construct a state highway as a freeway that will result in the severance or destruction of an existing major route for nonmotorized transportation traffic and light motorcycles, unless it provides a reasonable, safe, and convenient alternate route or such a route exists.

Designing to Increase Multimodalism June 23, 2014 California Vehicle Code (CVC) Bicyclists are drivers… CVC 21200. (a) Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle.... Bicyclists may move like vehicles… A bicyclist may leave the right edge (CVC 21202) or bike lane (CVC 21208) if as fast as normal traffic, to prepare for a left turn, to pass, and to avoid obstacles and right-turn areas

Bicyclists may use any public street… …except toll crossings and posted freeway segments

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 12 June 23, 2014 Bicyclists may move laterally like motorists

Cyclists may leave the right edge (CVC 21202) or leave a bike lane (CVC 21208)…

 if moving as fast as normal traffic  to prepare for a left turn  to pass (including vehicles)  to avoid obstacles (such as car doors)  to avoid right turn conflicts

…and (if there is no bike lane),

 if a lane is too narrow to share

Designing to Increase Multimodalism June 23, 2014 Q: What is “practicable”? A: Safe and reasonable

Drivers moving slower than the normal speed of traffic are required to travel as far to the right as “practicable” (i.e. safe and reasonable)

On multilane one-way streets, bicyclists may also travel as far to the left as practicable Bicycles are Traffic Same roads, Same rights, Same rules

• Between intersections: Speed Positioning – All drivers position laterally by speed – Enable or deter passing using your position in the lane • At intersections: Destination Positioning – Drivers position laterally by where they’re going – Bicyclists choose the rightmost lane or space that goes where they’re going (rightmost due to lower speed) • Approaching intersections and conflict areas – Transition from Speed to Destination positioning

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 15 June 23, 2014 CVC: Motorist responsibilities regarding bicyclists and bikeways Don’t drive in bikeways* CVC 21209 Motor Vehicles and Motorized Bicycles in Bicycle Lanes (*exceptions: to park, enter/leave roadway, or turn within 200 feet. Motorized bicycles - a.k.a. “mopeds” - OK) Enter bike lane before right turns CVC 21217 Turning across bicycle lane Don’t park in/on bikeways CVC 21211 Obstruction of Bikeways or Bicycle Paths or Trails

NEW: Pass with 3’ clearance (effective 9/16/14) AB 1371 Vehicles: bicycles: passing distance

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 16 June 23, 2014 How bicycling aligns with policy goals and legislation

• Trends – Climate Change / Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction – Travel (VMT) reduction – Compact development / infill / TOD – SRTS / Active & Healthy Commutes – Health & Activity – ATLC / CDC / RWJF • Policy context – US DOT – State (Caltrans, AB 32, SB 375) – Local

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 17 June 23, 2014 Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) Global Warming Solutions Act

• Signed in 2006 • Intent: Establish limits, measures and incentives • Action items – ARB: Prepare and approve Scoping Plan for maximum feasible and cost effective GHG reductions – Identify 1990 baseline GHG level for setting 2020 limits – Require GHG reporting by largest industrial sources – Identify and adopt regulations for discrete early actions

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 18 June 23, 2014 Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act

• Signed in late 2008 • First US legislation to link transportation and land use planning with global warming • Compels local planning agencies to foster development patterns that reduce driving (VMT) • Benefits beyond GHG reduction – Lower per capita transportation infrastructure cost – Better health and fitness (more walking and bicycling) – Reduced air and water pollution – Economic vitality – Protection of agricultural land from development

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 19 June 23, 2014 USDOT (FHWA) Policy -2000

“Bicycling and walking facilities will be incorporated into all transportation projects unless exceptional circumstances exist.”

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/design.htm

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 20 June 23, 2014 US DOT Policy United States Department of Transportation Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations [March 11, 2010] – Incorporate safe and convenient bicycling facilities into transportation projects

– Every transportation agency has the responsibility to improve conditions for

bicycling and integrate it into their

transportation systems

– Transportation agencies are encouraged to go beyond minimum standards to provide 15’ safe & convenient facilities CA min std = 12’

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 21 June 23, 2014 Going Beyond the Minimum

Min Path underpass = 8’ x 8’

15’ Min std = Shared Use Path CA min bike lane with parking = 12’

Bicycle Only Ped Only

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 22 June 23, 2014 US DOT Policy • Recommended Actions (CA Relevant):

– Considering bicycling as equal with other transportation modes

– Ensure transportation choices for people of all ages & abilities, especially children

– Going beyond minimum design standards

– Integrating bicycle accommodation on new, rehabilitated, and limited-access bridges

– Collecting data on bicycling trips

– Setting mode share targets for bicycling and tracking them over time

– Improving nonmotorized facilities during maintenance projects

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 23 June 23, 2014 Caltrans Deputy Directive 64-R1 (2008) Complete Streets - Integrating the Transportation System POLICY The California Department of Transportation (Department) provides for the needs of travelers of all ages and abilities in all planning, programming, design, construction, operations, and maintenance activities and products on the State highway system. The Department views all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility for all travelers in California and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation system.

The Department develops integrated multi modal projects in balance with community goals, plans, and values. Addressing the safety and mobility needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users in all projects, regardless of funding, is implicit in these objectives. Bicycle, pedestrian, and transit travel is facilitated by creating "complete streets" beginning early in system planning and continuing through project delivery and maintenance and operations. Accommodating all modes = moving people, not just vehicles

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 24 June 23, 2014 DD‐64‐R1 Key Concepts Ensure that travelers of all ages and abilities can move safely & efficiently along and across a network of “complete streets” Complete Street: A transport facility that is planned, designed, operated, and maintained to provide safe mobility for bicyclists, appropriate to the function and context of the facility Duties of State and Local Agencies: Provide for the safety and mobility needs of all who have legal access to the transportation system

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 25 June 23, 2014 Frameworks and Perspectives

• Bikeway network design • Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) • Volume / Speed / Context • Passing Behavior and Bicyclist Comfort • “Travel Zones”

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 39 June 23, 2014 Network Design • Accommodation principles • Spatial frequency (scale to travel speed) • Barrier crossing (natural, artificial) • Primary and secondary grids • Bicycle priority streets • Motorized vs. non-motorized connectivity: constraining motor vehicle movements

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 40 June 23, 2014 Accommodation principles How one bicycle-friendly nation expresses them Coherence The cycling infrastructure forms a coherent unit and links with all departure points and destinations of cyclists Directness The cycling infrastructure continually offers the cyclist as direct a route as possible (so detours are kept to a minimum) Attractiveness The cycling infrastructure is designed and fitted in the surroundings in such a way that cycling is attractive

Safety The cycling infrastructure guarantees the road safety of cyclists and other road users

Comfort The cycling infrastructure enables a quick and comfortable flow of bicycle traffic

from Sign up for the bike: Design manual for a cycle-friendly infrastructure Centre for Research and Contract Standardization in Civil and Traffic Engineering (C.R.O.W.), The Netherlands

Designing to Increase Multimodalism June 23, 2014 Spatial Frequency

• Travelers on utility trips make decisions based on time, not distance • Spacing of corridors and connections should scale to the mode’s travel speed • Example: On a 35 MPH street, a pedestrian detour of 600 feet takes the same time as detouring 3.5 miles in a car

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 42 June 23, 2014 Bikeway Network Example – Palo Alto

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 43 June 23, 2014 Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Rating network links and nodes by user stress tolerance • Peter Furth, Northeastern U., based on Netherlands work: Each user’s “network” does not exceed their stress tolerance. • Rates (colors) blocks and intersection approaches 1/2/3/4 based on complexity & comfort of bicycle-vehicle interaction. • To attract wide range of users, network should be connected at LTS 1&2. Traffic-accustomed riders also use LTS 3&4. • GIS-intensive, but not as data intensive as Bicycle LOS • Maps and data easy for public to understand, unlike BLOS. • Furth & S.J. State University’s Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) analyzed San Jose, CA’s street network: MTI Report 11-19: Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 44 June 23, 2014 Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Rating network links and nodes by user stress tolerance

Roger Geller City of Portland

• LTS 1 = For children • LTS 2 = Traffic-intolerant adult • LTS 3 = “Enthused and confident” • LTS 4 = Highest stress

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 45 June 23, 2014 Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) San Jose, CA – All levels

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 46 June 23, 2014 Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) San Jose, CA – LTS ≤ 3

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 47 June 23, 2014 Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) San Jose, CA – LTS ≤ 2

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 48 June 23, 2014 Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) San Jose, CA – LTS = 1

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 49 June 23, 2014 Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) San Jose, CA – LTS 1 “islands”

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 50 June 23, 2014 Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) San Jose, CA – LTS 1 islands, colored

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 51 June 23, 2014 Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) San Jose, CA – LTS ≤ 2 islands, colored

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 52 June 23, 2014 Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) San Jose, CA – Improvements to connect LTS 2 islands

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 53 June 23, 2014 Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) San Jose, CA – Resulting LTS ≤ 2 network

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 54 June 23, 2014 Selecting Appropriate Bikeway Types

Vehicle Speed, Vehicle Volume, and Urban/Rural Context

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 55 June 23, 2014 Bikeway options vs. speed and volume Austroads A Collection of Cycle Concepts, A Collection of Directorate, 2000 Danish Road

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 57 June 23, 2014 Bikeway options vs. speed and volume

From Peter Furth’s Level of Traffic Stress presentation at the 2013 APBP Professional Development Seminar

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 58 June 23, 2014 Passing environments: How can a motorist pass a bicyclist? • Yield Street (one party moves aside) • Full street • Half street • Wide (shareable) lane • Adjacent lane • Narrow (non-shareable) lane • Exclusive delineated bicycle travel area (Bike lane or bike-compatible shoulder)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 59 June 23, 2014 Passing Environments: “Yield Street”

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 60 June 23, 2014 Passing Environments: Full street

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 61 June 23, 2014 Passing Environments: Half street

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 62 June 23, 2014 Passing Environments: Wide lane

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 63 June 23, 2014 Passing Environments: Narrow lanes

Barely shareable Not shareable (Vehicles could use left lane to pass, but cyclist would need to control the lane)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 64 June 23, 2014 Physically wide lane becomes effectively narrow along parking

EFFECTIVE DOOR LANE ZONE (not shareable (extends about if < 14’) 10’ from curb)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 65 June 23, 2014 Passing Environments: Delineated bicycle area

Bike Lane

Shoulder

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 66 June 23, 2014 “Travel zones” The sequence that road users follow as they progress through blocks and intersections.

BLOCK INTERSECTION BLOCK

Exit Block start ntry Mid torage E sition S Midblock Tran

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 67 June 23, 2014 Cycle track – Long Beach (Broadway)

Photo credit: Allan Crawford

Block Midblock Transition Storage start

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 68 June 23, 2014 Bikeway Types

• Types • Shared Roadways • Bike Lanes • Shoulder Bikeways • One-Way Cycle Tracks • Two-Way Cycle Tracks and Paths

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 93 June 23, 2014 Bikeway Types

Source: Washington County, Oregon

Designing to Increase Multimodalism June 23, 2014 Classifying bikeway types

Caltrans / AASHTO “Markings-based” • Shared Roadway • No marked bike area (No bikeway designation) – 2-way, no centerline • Signed Shared – 2-way, centerline only Roadway – Multilane, shared (Caltrans “Class III” / Bike Route) outside lane • Bike Lane • Marked bike area (Caltrans “Class II”) – Bike lane • Shoulder Bikeway – Shoulder (Oregon DOT) – Modified shoulder (width, through slots, no tapers) • Shared Use Path • Path / Trail (Caltrans “Class I”)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 95 June 23, 2014 Shared Roadways and Shared Lane Markings (“Sharrows”)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 98 June 23, 2014 Bicyclist positioning in shared lanes between intersections

Primary Secondary Tertiary (in line, controlling lane) (nor(normalmal sharing) ((temporarytemporary sharing) Non-shareable lane, or Shareable lane, and Shareable lane, and bicyclist at same speed, or bicyclist moving bicyclist moving faster or bicyclist deterring passing slower than other traffic changing lanes

Designing to Increase Multimodalism June 23, 2014 How bicyclists enter intersections in shared lanes

Vehicular left turn: rightmost left turn lane

Going through: rightmost through lane

1) Use the rightmost lane or space that serves your destination (even if it serves another) 2) In general, control the lane or space to prevent being cut off or crowded as you traverse the intersection Shared Lane Markings (“Sharrows”)

Sign explaining sharrows added in a Los Angeles neighborhood

T-shirt Art: aaronarthur, redbubble.com

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 101 June 23, 2014 Shared Lane Markings (“Sharrows”)

• Suggests bicyclist line of travel to avoid conflicts or hazards • Not for bike lanes or striped shoulders

Along parallel parking Intersection approach

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 102 June 23, 2014 Shared Lane Markings - Placement

• AASHTO 2012 & CA MUTCD 2012: only right-minimums • 4’ no parking • 11’ parallel parking • ITE TCDH 2nd Ed (2013): “Effective Lane” = physical lane – hazards (uses 10’ for door zone) • If EL is shareable (14’+), place to cue sharing • If EL is not shareable (<14’), center in EL to deter passing • Centering marking within effective lane should reduce wear compared to placing it in the right tire track

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 103 June 23, 2014 Shared Lane Markings - Placement AASHTO 2012 Bike Guide (matches CA MUTCD 2012)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 104 June 23, 2014 Shared Lane Markings (“Sharrows”)

Insufficient width for bike lanes and parking in both directions

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 105 June 23, 2014 Shared Lane Markings (“Sharrows”)

AASHTO 2012 Bike Guide

Uphill bike climbing lane, downhill sharrows (bikes descend fast)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 106 June 23, 2014 Shared Lane Markings (“Sharrows”)

In non-shareable lanes, center the sharrow in the effective lane

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 107 June 23, 2014 Shared Lane Markings (“Sharrows”)

Multiple sharrows reflecting multiple bicyclist destinations

SF – Market St

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 108 June 23, 2014 SF – Mariposa St Shared Lane Markings (“Sharrows”)

Guiding bicyclists around the bus zone SF – Market St

SF – Market St

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 109 June 23, 2014 Signs to support “claiming” a lane

MUTCD W11-1 Victoria BC Long Beach, MUTCD R4-11 + W16-1 (on bridge) Santa Cruz

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 110 June 23, 2014 Colored shared lane Long Beach • Standard white sharrows centered on 6’ green band • Green is Interim Approved for bike lanes but not shared lanes • Solo bicyclists are guided to avoid the door zone • 2-abreast riding is comfortable • Motorists change lanes to pass • Conventional option: 2 travel lanes plus bike lane + parking

2nd Street through Belmont Shores

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 111 June 23, 2014 Green backed sharrows San Francisco

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 112 June 23, 2014 Multi-Way Boulevards

Concept

Octavia Street San Francisco

Designing L.A.'s Streets for Bicycling 113 April 26-27, 2011 Multi-Way Boulevards: LA

Vermont Street at 66th Avenue, Los Angeles

Designing L.A.'s Streets for Bicycling 114 April 26-27, 2011 Bicycle Friendly Street (Bicycle Boulevard)

• Local Street throughway for bikes but not cars • Parallel to, and near, a busy vehicle street • Serving same major destinations • Goal: Comfortable “full-street passing” • Target motor vehicle volumes: 1,500 ADT (45-second passing gap?) … 3,000 (20-25 second) • Stop signs “turned” to side streets • Traffic calming as needed to achieve comfort goal • Volume control if needed for full-street passing; can include barriers (natural or artificial) to through motor traffic • Speed control if needed

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 115 June 23, 2014 BicycleBicycle FriendlyFriendly StreetStreet (Bicycle Boulevard)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 116 June 23, 2014 Bicycle Boulevard

A modification of a Local Street corridor to create a bike throughway

Change #1: “Turn” most stop signs onto side streets

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 117 June 23, 2014 Bicycle Boulevard

Change #2: Periodic features divert through motor traffic while retaining full local access

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 118 June 23, 2014 Bicycle Boulevard

Yucca Street – median treatment creates right-in/right-out for motor vehicles

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 119 June 23, 2014 Hart Street (Van Nuys)

A sample Bicycle Boulevard candidate

SupermarketSupermarket

SchoolSchool 0.5 mi 0.5 mi Van Nuys Airport Nuys Van Van Nuys Airport Nuys Van

2-way2-way stopstop AddAdd creekcreek crossing?crossing? 0.5 mi 0.5 mi

FrontageFrontage roadroad enablesenables offsetoffset connectionconnection

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 120 June 23, 2014 Hart Street (Van Nuys)

A sample Bicycle Boulevard candidate

Parallels Vanowen St and Sherman Way for about 4 miles, 0.5 miles from each

Residential for its entire length; few stop signs

Slow speeds, low volume

36’ wide, with parking Too narrnarrowow for bike lanes, which aren’t needed anyway

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 121 June 23, 2014 4th Street – Advocate’s concept

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 124 June 23, 2014 2012 CA MUTCD Guide Signs

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 125 June 23, 2014 Bikeway User Map Example – SF

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 126 June 23, 2014 Bike Lanes

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 127 June 23, 2014 Channelizing: Long lines

WHITE: divides same-direction traffic Dotted (warns of change in lane use ahead) Broken (crossing permitted, e.g. for passing) Single (crossing discouraged) Buffer (crossing permitted but discouraged)

Double (crossing prohibited) Triple (NYCDOT cycle tracks; not used in CA)

YELLOW (centerline): divides opposite-direction traffic Broken (passing permitted either direction) Broken one side (passing OK from broken side) Solid (passing prohibited)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 128 June 23, 2014 Transverse lines

Crosswalk

Buffer (diagonal or Advance limit line Yield line chevron). Deters from (typically 4’ back at (typically 20’-40’ before crossing the lines. controlled intersections) uncontrolled mid-block crosswalks)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 129 June 23, 2014 Bike Lane Markings • 6” white line • BIKE LANE or bicycle symbol • Far side of each major intersection • Need not be centered in space along parking

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 136 June 23, 2014 CA MUTCD Bike Lane Figures

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 137 June 23, 2014 AASHTO Figure 1 says a cyclist needs 40” (1.0m) operating width But 2.1m (car) + 0.8m (door zone?) + 1.0m (cyclist)= 3.9m

Parallel Parking: HDM Figure 1003.2A Bike Lane Widths - Optimum

Posted speed Without With parking (mph) parking (ft) (ft)

0-30 5 13

35-50 6 14

50+ 8 16

Source: VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines Table 3-1

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 139 June 23, 2014 Bike Lane Width (No Parking) Minimums

No curb & gutter: Curb & gutter: 4’ minimum 3’ minimum clear to gutter joint

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 140 June 23, 2014 Marking Materials  Paint  Least expensive per application …but not long lasting  Thermoplastic  Optimum maximum thickness is 100 mils (2.5 mm) Add crushed glass to increase friction coefficient  Tape  Longest lasting Most skid resistant Methyl Methacrylate or 3M Stamark TM tape Series 380I and Series 420

141 Thermoplastic Composition

Crushed glass shall be incorporated into the thermoplastic material at a rate of 9 – 10 percent by weight of the combined material. The crushed glass will be used as a substitute for an equal amount by weight of the filler material. Glass beads meeting standard requirements shall be incorporated into the thermoplastic composition at a rate of between 28-30% by weight of the combined material. Thermoplastic composition shall be as follows:  Pigment 25%  Glass Beads 30 %

 Filler 35%

 Crushed Glass* 10%

* The crushed glass shall be produced from cullet of clear glass, with a maximum size of 850 micrometers (100% passing by weight) and a minimum size of 425 micrometers (0-2 % passing by weight)

Source: Vermont Agency of Transportation

142 Standard Bike Lane Signs

Standard: Place at beginning of bike lane, after every arterial and at half-mile intervals

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 143 June 23, 2014 Example of Optional Wrong-way Bike Sign

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 144 June 23, 2014 Bike Lanes Along Parking

Parking tees No tees, no stripe (Back-in diagonal)

Parking stripe (“fender line”) Oakland disciplines parking, deters driving near curb

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 145 June 23, 2014 Bike Lane with Parking Stripe

Keeps bike lane from looking like a travel lane

Disciplines parking, especially with rolled curb

146 Bike Lane with Parking Door Zone

10’ (parking lane): Door 12’: Door zone covers about zone covers bike lane; half of bike lane. Bicyclist bicyclist uses travel lane rides at edge of bike lane

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 147 June 23, 2014 Bike Lane with Parking Designing for the door zone SF Shared Lane Marking study: •Doors open 2.5’+ ft •85% extended to 9.5’ from curb (observed) (i.e. 1 in 6 extend further!) •+Straight bike handlebars ~12” half-width (24” wide) •+Min. 6” shy-away distance gives sharrow min. offset from curb (11’)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 148 June 23, 2014 Increase width in areas of substantial parking turnover

SF Shared Lane Marking Study: •Doors opened 3+ feet •85% extended to 9.5’ from curb (i.e. 1 in 6 extended further) •Suggestion: use 10’ as door zone extent Back-In / Head-out (Reverse Angle) Diagonal Parking

Albany, CA Police Station

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 150 June 23, 2014 Back-In / Head-Out

View: bicyclist View: Motorist (parker)

Easy cargo access and child control

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 151 June 23, 2014 Left-side through bike lane (SF)

Kezar Drive between Golden Gate Park Continuing across Stanyan Street main section and Panhandle. Kezar splits into the Panhandle path. Vehicle into one-way couplet at next cross street, left turns (from right side of bike with Panhandle (bike destination) between. lane) are prohibited here.

JFK n

ya Kezar n Fell

ta

S

Oak

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 152 June 23, 2014 1-side bike lane, other side shared

SF - Justin Avenue. Bridge has limited width and needs left turn lane.

Santa Monica: uphill bike lane, downhill sharrow (& parking).

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 153 June 23, 2014 Colored Bike Lanes

Santa Monica

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 154 June 23, 2014 Colored Bike Lanes: Continuous Color

FHWA Interim Approval IA-14 Midblock says green is only to be used between white long-lines

Designing to Increase Multimodalism Storage 155 TransitionJune 23, 2014 Colored Midblock: conflict Bike Lanes: no conflict Conflict-Area Color

Block start

Midblock: driveway conflict

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 156 June 23, 2014 Shoulder Bikeways

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 157 June 23, 2014 Bike-friendly shoulders

Bike Conventional Bike-friendly Lanes shoulders shoulders Correct right-side YES YES Yes guidance for motorists Correct left-side YES NO YES guidance for cyclists

Position relative to Through “slot” Against the curb or Through “slot” right turn area on left right edge on left

Dotted, then either Optionally dotted, Alignment at exits dropped or dotted Curves into exit then dropped across exit Adequate continuous 4’ minimum Follow bike lane No minimum bicycle travel width 3’+ PCC gutter width standards

4” (100mm) Line width 6” (150mm) 4” (100mm) or 6” (150mm) Use 6” if future bike lane Optional Optional Signs and markings BIKE LANE BIKE ROUTE BIKE ROUTE

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 158 June 23, 2014 Bicycle-friendly shoulders

Figure from Santa Clara County Department of Roads and Airports Expressway Bicycle Accommodation Guidelines

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 159 June 23, 2014 Bicycle-friendly shoulders

AASHTO 2012 Bike Guide

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 160 June 23, 2014 Buffered Bike Lanes

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 161 June 23, 2014 MUMU Buffered Bike Lane TCTC DD • MUTCD compliant

• Increases separation from motor traffic, absorbs excess width

• Discourages crossing more than a Long Beach: 2nd Street / Appian Way interchange single white line. Not legally a “double white” (which prohibits)

• Wide-spaced channelizers can deter auto intrusion yet enable bicycles to move laterally

• If buffer is wide, 2-abreast riding is San Francisco: Market Street comfortable

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 162 June 23, 2014 Buffered Bike Lane

Delineator spacing prevents intrusion at vehicle speeds but does not impede crossing by bicycles

Dotted green at driveways

Solid inner line discourages but does not prohibit crossing Solid green for full length SF – Cesar Chavez St of mainline and in storage areas (heavy east of US-101 truck route) Dotted outer line clearly indicates that bicyclists may cross it

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 163 June 23, 2014 Buffered Bike Lane – high speed

SF - Alemany Blvd I-280 frontage road, formerly 3 lanes

Ample width for sweeper or emergency Delineators offset vehicle 164 toward motor traffic side Buffered Bike Lane

Two solid lines strongly discourage, but do not prohibit, crossing

Transverse marking differentiates from “double white”, which would prohibit crossing

SF – Laguna Honda Blvd 165 Buffers on both sides (traffic lane, turn lane) Buffered Bike Lane

SF – Market St

Designing to Increase Multimodalism June 23, 2014 Buffered Bike Lane – Early stage of one experiment

Dotted line was intended as a door zone buffer

Parallel white lines without transverse markings were ambiguous (is it a double-white = crossing prohibited?)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 167 June 23, 2014 Buffered Bike Lane – LA (2011)

LA - Downtown 168 Buffered Bike Lanes – MUTCD direction Draft language for next FHWA MUTCD (2016?)

Section 1A.13 – Definitions of Headings, Words, and Phrases in this Manual

Standard:

xx. Bicycle Lane Buffer - area that separates a bicycle lane from adjacent general-purpose lane or parking lane and is delineated by longitudinal pavement markings and, as required, crosshatch markings.

xx. Buffered Bicycle Lane - a bicycle lane that is separated from the adjacent general-purpose lane or parking lane by a bicycle lane buffer.

Insert the following text to a new Section 9C.xx:

Section 9C.xx - Buffered Bicycle Lanes

Support:

Pavement markings can designate a buffer area between a bicycle lane and adjacent general purpose lane and/or parking lane. A buffer area can provide greater separation between the bicycle lane and adjacent lanes.

Option:

A bicycle lane buffer may be used to separate a bicycle lane from an adjacent general-purpose lane or parking lane.

Where a bicycle lane buffer is less than 3 feet in width, crosshatch markings may be omitted.

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 169 June 23, 2014 Contra-flow” Bike Lanes - Basics

• A one-way street for general motor traffic that is a two-way street for bicycles • Usually not recommended because they may encourage wrong-way cycling, and motorists may not look for contra-direction bicycle traffic • However, may be safer than a less-direct route in certain situations

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 170 June 23, 2014 Contraflow Bike Lanes When to consider • Much shorter than out-of- direction route • Direct access to high-use destinations • Fewer conflicts than on longer route • Few driveways, alleys, streets on contra side • Cyclists can safely and conveniently reenter traffic at either end • Many cyclists already using street • Enough width for bike lane

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 171 June 23, 2014 Contraflow Bike Lanes: Implementation options

• Standard 2-way no-passing configuration – Double yellow centerline – Painted median – Raised median • Busways (only bus+bike in one direction)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 172 June 23, 2014 ““ContraContra--flowflow”” BikeBike LaneLane withwith ““nono passingpassing”” centerlinecenterline

Portland, OR

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 173 June 23, 2014 ““ContraContra--flowflow”” BikeBike LaneLane withwith paintedpainted medianmedian islandisland

Lincoln Avenue, The Presidio, San Francisco

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 174 June 23, 2014 ““ContraContra--flowflow”” BikeBike LaneLane withwith raisedraised medianmedian

Madison, WI

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 175 June 23, 2014 Contra-flow Bike Lane University Avenue, Madison WI

Bus-only lane

Bicycle lane

3 travel lanes

Wide bike lane Raised median (the only lane in this direction)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 176 June 23, 2014 Contraflow Bike Lane SF Polk Street between Market and Grove

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 177 June 23, 2014 Contraflow Bike Lane SF Polk Street between Market and Grove

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 178 June 23, 2014 Contraflow Bike Lanes – MUTCD direction Draft figures for next FHWA MUTCD (2016?)

Contraflow Bicycle Lane With Bicycle Lanes On Outside of Travel Lanes

Contraflow Bicycle Lane With Bicycle Lanes On One Side of Travel Lanes Signing for contraflow bike lanes at intersections

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 179 June 23, 2014 Contraflow Bike Lanes – MUTCD direction Draft language for next FHWA MUTCD (2016?)

Add to Section 9C.04 Markings for Bicycle Lanes (following the end of all existing text):

Support:

A contraflow bicycle lane is an area of the roadway designated to allow for the lawful use of bicyclists to travel in the opposite direction from motorized traffic on a roadway that allows motorized traffic to travel in only one direction.

Guidance:

If used, a contraflow bicycle lane should be marked on the left side of travel lanes so that contraflow bicycle travel is on the left of opposing traffic.

Standard:

Where used, a contraflow bicycle lane shall be separated from opposite-direction travel by use of a two- direction center line, buffer or an island. See Figure 9C-x1 and 9C-x2.

Option:

Parking may be permitted between the contraflow bicycle lane and the curb to its right. Two adjacent bicycle lanes providing for two-way bicycle travel may be marked on the left side of travel lanes on a roadway that allows motorized traffic to travel in only one direction. See Figure 9C-x2. be provided by appropriate prohibition of parking near driveways and intersections.

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 180 June 23, 2014 Contraflow Bike Lanes – MUTCD direction Draft language for next FHWA MUTCD (2016?), cont’d.

Add to Section 9C.04 Markings for Bicycle Lanes (following the end of all existing text):

…. Guidance: Where signs are provided to regulate turns from intersecting streets or driveways on a roadway that permits contraflow bicycle travel, One Way (R6-1 or R6-2) signs should not be used. Turn Prohibition signs (R3-1 or R3-2) with supplemental R5-xxP Except Bicycles plaques should be used. See Figure 9C-x3.

Support:

Contraflow bicycle travel can be unexpected by motorists crossing the bikeway to enter or exit the roadway. Consideration of additional signing and marking treatments may be appropriate for intersections, alleys, and driveways.

Option:

At locations where a contraflow bicycle lane is provided across an intersection or a driveway entrance, pavement markings that inform intersection or driveway traffic of the presence of the bicycle facility and the direction of permitted bicycle traffic may be placed within the bicycle lane across the intersection or driveway opening.

Guidance:

Where parking is allowed between the contraflow bicycle lane and the curb or pavement edge to the right of the contraflow bicycle lane, sight distance to allow motorists entering or exiting the travelway to observe approaching bicyclists should be provided by appropriate prohibition of parking near driveways and intersections.

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 181 June 23, 2014 Cycle Tracks

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 182 June 23, 2014 Cycle Tracks • 1-way or 2-way • 1-way: like a buffered bike lane, but with an un-crossable buffer – Raised barrier – Floating parking • Barriers – Floating parking (curbed or uncurbed) – Raised barrier

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 183 June 23, 2014 Cycle Tracks - Examples • 1-way, parking buffered – Long Beach – Broadway – SF - JFK Drive (Golden Gate Park) – NYC - 8th/9th Avenues – NYC - Grand Street • 2-way – DC Pennsylvania Avenue median

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 184 June 23, 2014 Cycle Tracks: 1-way vs. 2-way

Issue 1-Way 2-Way Intersection conflicts on 2-way Relatively simple Relatively complicated streets Handle through movement with Yes, with transition No STOP signs? (“mixing”) zone Ease of pedestrian access to curb Short, 1-way conflict Long, 2-way conflict from floating parking (yielding, gaps)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 185 June 23, 2014 Cycle track (NYC 9th Avenue)  No driveways. No curbs (snow)  8’ wide - enough for snowplows

 Buffered by parking lane

 Left-side door / loading area

 Parking becomes left turn lane

approaching streets that go left

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 186 June 23, 2014 Cycle track (NYC 9th Avenue)

Cross street is one-way “right”; parking occupies full block

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 187 June 23, 2014 Cycle track – NYC 9th Avenue

Cross street is one-way “left”; parking lane becomes left turn lane

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 188 June 23, 2014 Cycle tracks – NYC (Grand St) Note design of transition and storage areas

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 189 June 23, 2014 Cycle track – Long Beach

 Some driveways  Floating curb is legal parking edge

 Meters at street curb

 2 left turn designs

 a) Bike & left turn signals

 b) Bikes & left turners weave

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 190 June 23, 2014 Cycle track – Long Beach

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 191 June 23, 2014 Cycle track – Long Beach (Broadway)

Photo credit: Allan Crawford

Block Midblock Transition Storage start

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 192 June 23, 2014 Cycle track – SF (JFK Drive)

 Floating parking  No floating curb

 Handicap stalls

 High loading activity (families)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 193 June 23, 2014 SF JFK Drive – Diagrams

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 194 June 23, 2014 SF JFK Drive – Right turn merge

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 195 June 23, 2014 SF JFK Drive - Details

Driveway Bicycle driveway

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 196 June 23, 2014 SF JFK Drive – ADA parking

ADA parking - own ramp ADA parking – crosswalk ramp

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 197 June 23, 2014 SF JFK Drive – Usage

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 198 June 23, 2014 Barriers Along Bike Lanes: Why historically prohibited

• Encourage wrong-way riding • Prevent avoiding hazards in bike lane, and traffic exiting driveways and alleys • Prevent leaving bike lane to prepare for left turn • Pose a fixed-object hazard • Interfere with routine sweeping • Imply to some motorists that ”bikes aren't part of traffic” • Eliminate use of bike lane by emergency vehicles or disabled vehicles

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 199 June 23, 2014 Cycle Tracks – MUTCD direction Draft language for next FHWA MUTCD (2016?)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 200 June 23, 2014 Innovation: Policy & Process

• New State policy directions: NACTO, MUTCD, HDM • FHWA / CTCDC Experiment approval process; streamlining

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 201 June 23, 2014 Experimentation (FHWA / CTCDC)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 202 June 23, 2014 Transforming Streets

• Reduce lane widths • Medians • Reuse width of one • Center lanes or more lanes • Roundabouts • Remove or modify • Roundabout parking corridors

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 203 June 23, 2014 Reclaiming Road Space

START

REDUCE LANE WIDTHS

RECLAIM THE WIDTH OF ONE OR MORE LANES

REMOVE OR RETHINK PARKING

WIDEN ROADWAY

CCourtesyourtesy Wilbur SmithSmith AssociatesAssociates NO GO

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 204 June 23, 2014 Reducing arterial lane widths: Recent findings on safety and capacity

“…all projects evaluated during the study that consisted exclusively of lane widths of 10 feet or more resulted in accident rates that were either reduced or unchanged.”

NCHRP Report 330: Effective Utilization of Street Width on Urban Arterials

CONCLUSION: On moderate-speed multilane urban arterials, 10-foot lanes are as safe as 12-foot lanes

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 205 June 23, 2014 Reducing arterial lane widths: Recent findings on safety and capacity

“A safety evaluation of lane widths for arterial roadway segments found no indication, except in limited cases, that the use of narrower lanes [than 12’] increases crash frequencies.”

Potts, Harwood and Richard: Relationship of Lane Width to Safety for Urban and Suburban Arterials, TRB 2007 Annual Meeting

CONCLUSION: On moderate-speed multilane urban arterials, 10-foot lanes are as safe as 12-foot lanes

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 206 June 23, 2014 Reducing arterial lane widths: Recent findings on roadway capacity

“All of the relevant research is in general agreement…. so long Florida DeDepartmentpartment of Transportation (FDOT) as all other geometric and traffic signalization conditions remain Conserve by Bicycle Program Study constant, there is no measurable decrease in urban Phase I Report June 2007 street capacity when through lane widths are narrowed form Appendix P: The Effect of Lane Width on 12 feet to 10 feet.” Urban Street Capacity

CONCLUSION: On urban arterials, 10-foot lanes carry as much traffic as 12-foot lanes

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 207 June 23, 2014 Reclaiming the width of one or more lanes - Guidelines Courtesy of Dan Burden • Ideal candidate • Using the reclaimed space – Four lane undivided roadway – Bike lanes – 12,000 to 18,000 vehicles per day – Center turn lanes (medians) • Other considerations – Pedestrian refuge (convenience, – Roads with safety issues safety) – Transit corridors – Wider sidewalks (economic vitality) – Essential bicycle routes/links – Landscaping – Commercial reinvestment areas – On-street parking – Economic enterprise zones – Better bus stops – Historic streets – Scenic roads • Safety benefits – Entertainment districts – Reduced crash frequency & severity – Main streets – Emergency access – Speed (and speed profile) reduction

Designing to Increase Multimodalism June 23, 2014 Reusing lanes: 4-to-3 Conversion SF - Valencia Street

Before

After

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 209 June 23, 2014 Reusing lanes: 4-to-3 Conversion SF - Valencia Street – Truck offloading

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 210 June 23, 2014 Benefits - Safety

On a multi-lane street… “…the impatient driver sets the pace”

With one lane each way… “…the prudent driver sets the pace”

- Dan Burden

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 211 June 23, 2014 Improved Sight Distance for Left Turns 4-lane, no turn lane 3-lane with CTL

Outside lane hidden by traffic Improved left turn sightlines

Courtesy of Thomas Welch, Director, Office of Transportation Safety, IDOT.

Designing to Increase Multimodalism June 23, 2014 Fewer Mid-Block Conflicts

Courtesy of Michael Ronkin, formerly Oregon DOT State Bicycle-Pedestrian Coordinator

Designing to Increase Multimodalism June 23, 2014 Fewer Intersection Conflicts

Courtesy of Michael Ronkin, formerly Oregon DOT State Bicycle-Pedestrian Coordinator

Designing to Increase Multimodalism June 23, 2014 Benefits - Emergency Access

• Bypass congestion • Space for vehicles to pull over

Before After

Courtesy of Thomas Welch, Director, Office of Transportation Safety, IDOT

Designing to Increase Multimodalism June 23, 2014 Benefits - Pedestrian • Reduces crossing distance • Eliminates or reduces “multiple threat”crash types • Refuge medians or islands create 2 simpler crossings • Reduce travel speeds • Parking or bike lane increases sidewalk buffer from travel lanes

Designing to Increase Multimodalism June 23, 2014 Courtesy of Michael Ronkin, Oregon DOT Pedestrian Benefits

• FHWA Report Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: – Pedestrian crash risk reduced when pedestrians crossed two- and three-lane roads, compared to roads with four or more lanes

Designing to Increase Multimodalism June 23, 2014 Other Benefits • Easier to exit driveways (improved sight distance) • Smaller curb return radius (“effective radius”) • Prolong pavement life • Benefits transit (allows curbside stops outside of travel lane) • Buffers street trees

Courtesy of Michael Ronkin, formerly Oregon DOT State Bicycle-Pedestrian Coordinator

Designing to Increase Multimodalism June 23, 2014 Other Benefits

• Center Turn Lane on low-speed streets: – Enables truck off-loading – Can provide weekend church parking (only 1 travel lane + 1 bike lane to reach curb) • Bike lanes – Easier to pull over for emergency vehicles – Easier for bicyclists to pass stopped buses – Easier, safer access to parking – Easier to exit driveways

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 220 June 23, 2014 Reusing lanes: 5-to-4 Conversion Los Angeles - York Blvd

OLD LAYOUT P

P

• Volume evidently too high to remove 1 lane in both directions Solution: 2 travel lanes one direction, 1 in the other • Added bike lanes, retained parking

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 221 June 23, 2014 Reusing lanes: 5-to-4 Conversion Los Angeles - York Blvd

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 222 June 23, 2014 Reusing lanes: 6-to-5 Conversion Oakland – Grand Avenue

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 223 June 23, 2014 Reusing lanes: 4-to-3 Conversion Oakland – Lakeshore Avenue

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 224 June 23, 2014 Reusing extra-wide lanes San Francisco – Polk Street

Before After

Courtesy of Kimley‐Horn Associates

Designing to Increase Multimodalism June 23, 2014 Reusing lanes: Discussion San Fernando Road (western SFV)

• 51’- 53’ curb to curb (10.5’ lanes) • Rural - few driveways • No parking • Miles of empty center-turn lane • Bicycle route (signed) • Some walkers

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 226 June 23, 2014 Reusing lanes: Roundabouts

Roundabouts: An Informational Guide NCHRP Report 672 (FHWA) Exhibit 2-1 Wide Nodes, Narrow Roads Concept

Roundabouts present opportunities to shape the cross section of a corridor in ways… different from those afforded by signalized intersections…. [L]ane continuity between signals is needed to sustain… platoons…, and the links tend to be underused between platoons. [In contrast,] roundabouts can be made as large as needed for node capacity, keeping the links between nodes more narrow. This… is sometimes referred to as… “wide nodes, narrow roads”… [ROW] way savings between intersections may… accommodate parking, wider sidewalks, planter strips, and/or bicycle lanes. - FHWA, Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, 2nd Ed. (2010), NCHRP Report 672

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 227 June 23, 2014 Roundabouts - Resources

Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, 2nd Edition (2010) NCHRP Report 672 (FHWA)

NCHRP Project 03-100 Evaluating the Performance of Corridors with Roundabouts Lee Rodegerdts, Kittelson & Associates

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 228 June 23, 2014 Time-of-day bike / parking options

Bike Lane OR Travel+Bike OR Parking Lane Bike+Parking

“Travel” Travel lane + Bike lane mode curbside bike lane

“Parking” Parking lane Bike lane + mode (typically residential) curbside parking lane Typical hours of 7am - 7pm, AM and PM “travel” mode weekdays only or 7 days commute periods Residential collector on Typical street school route or commuter Arterial route

Width needed 7’ minimum Travel lane width + 5’

Examples in… Palo Alto San Francisco

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 229 June 23, 2014 Bike Lane OR Parking Lane • Minimum 7’ width required • BIKE LANE during workday or daytime hours • Parking (typically residential) at other times • Useful on school commute routes Palo Alto

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 230 June 23, 2014 ““FloatingFloating”” BikeBike LaneLane (SF Embarcadero)

10.5’ travel

9.5’ travel 5’ bike 6.5’ bike 8’ parking (Tees extend to 11’ to indicate door zone)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 231 June 23, 2014 ““FloatingFloating”” BikeBike LaneLane

StartStart transitiontransition (1(1 ofof 2)2)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 232 June 23, 2014 ““FloatingFloating”” BikeBike LaneLane

Start transition (2 of 2)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 233 June 23, 2014 Reclaiming the Parking Lane Bike Corrals and Parklets

In-Out Design (Art concept) Long Beach

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 234 June 23, 2014 Bike Corrals – 10-15 bikes in the space of 1 car

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 235 June 23, 2014 Bike Corrals – Considerations

“Hardware” •Access: from street, from sidewalk, both? •Where/how will bicyclists stop and dismount? •Support for long bikes, trailers? •If access from sidewalk, interaction with other sidewalk uses •Bike orientation: perpendicular, diagonal, parallel? Angled vertical? •Corral material •Rack type •Rack built-into corral fence? •Protection from vehicles •Sign visible from a distance •Night visibility “Software” Dero Bike Rack Co. LADOT installation •Business support / initiation “Cycle Stall Elite” on Figueroa •Maintenance agreement

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 236 June 23, 2014 Bike Corrals – APBP Bicycle Parking Guidelines 2nd Edition (www.apbp.org)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 237 June 23, 2014 Parklets – Reclaiming the ROW for commerce and public space

• Parklets in Los Angeles • Programs in 7 other cities • Design Guidance • Vision for Future Parklets • LA Maintenance Agreement • Interview questions for staff, businesses, and designers

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 238 June 23, 2014 Parklets – Reclaiming the ROW for commerce and public space

Long Beach

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 239 June 23, 2014 Parklets – Restaurant space

Parklet Traditional café seating café seating (NYC) (NYC)

Parklet

“Downtown” sidewalk cross-section (LA Model Streets Design Manual)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 240 June 23, 2014 Intersection and Crossing Treatments

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 241 June 23, 2014 Intersections Right-Turn Design

• Conflicts at Right Turn Lanes

Designing to Increase Multimodalism June 23, 2014 242 Bike Lane Approaching Dotted or dropped

• >30 mph: dash 200’ in advance

• 30 mph or less: dash 100’ in advance

• Drop where Polk Street right turns are San Francisco light

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 243 June 23, 2014 Through Bike Lane Adjacent to Right Turn Lane

• Minimum 4’ wide

• Optional MUTCD R4-4 in advance of transition area

Minimum MUTCD R4-4 4’ wide

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 244 June 23, 2014 “Trap” Right-Turn Lane: Should the transition area be dashed?

Dashed Bike Lane Becomes line in Right-Turn transition Only Lane area Bike Lane

Stevens Creek Blvd approaching I-280 NB on-ramp, Cupertino CA

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 245 June 23, 2014 Bike Lanes at Right Turn Areas A VO ID

End parking lane, Added turn lane, End parking lane, Outside lane RTL and no bike pocket bike pocket bike pocket becomes RTL; through-right bike pocket option lane

No lateral shift; No lateral shift; Slight lateral shift; Large lateral shift; Cannot mark dotted line on left side dotted lines OK dotted lines OK omit dotted lines pocket lane

246 Bicycle-only Alma St at Palo Alto Ave Left Turn Areas Palo Alto CA

Davis CA

Left turn Bike Lane Painted median with No Left Turn “Except Bicycles”

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 247 June 23, 2014 Bike Boxes (Advance waiting areas)

• 1-lane bike box enables through bicyclists to avoid turning motorists (right and left “hooks”)

1-lane: Bike lane on right side • Multi-lane bike box enables turning bicyclists to move laterally in front of stopped motorists

• Safety issue near end of red phase!

1-lane: Bike lane on left side

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 248 June 23, 2014 Bike Box for Left Turns Long Beach

• Color and bike symbol encourages left turning bicyclists to control front of through-and-left lane • Advance stop line for motorists • Unsafe to move laterally in bike box when signal is about to turn green

E. MarinMarinaa Drive northbound at 2nd Street

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 249 June 23, 2014 BikeBike Boxes:Boxes: SafetySafety issuesissues

Figure: John Allen, www.bikexprt.com

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 250 June 23, 2014 Assembly Bill 1581 (AB 1581) Bicycle and Motorcycle Detection

• Effective January 2008 • Action items – New and improved signals – actuated approaches must detect bicycles and motorcycles at limit line • Caltrans policy – TOPD 09-06 Limit Line Detection • Includes Table: “Signal Operations – Minimum Bicycle Timing” – CPD 10-13 Revised Implementation of TOPD 09-06 • Procedure

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 251 June 23, 2014 CA MUTCD: Detection

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 252 June 23, 2014 Two new tools for crossings:

Rapid Flashing Beacon

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 253 June 23, 2014 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)

• Very high motorist yield compliance • FHWA Interim Approval (no need for further experiments) • Can be solar-powered (cost << signal)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 254 June 23, 2014 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (“HAWK”)

CA MUTCD Chapter 4F

Street users see:

Crosswalk users see:

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 255 June 23, 2014 Bicycle Signal Faces

Term Meaning Signal Assembly of 1 or more Faces facing one or more directions Face Assembly of 1 or more Sections facing the same direction, mounted together within the same housing Section Module that displays a single Indication (lighted shape) at a time. Shapes are circular (“ball”), arrow symbol, or bicycle symbol Indication The display state of a Section (dark, or a lighted shape)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 256 June 23, 2014 Bicycle Signal Faces

• CA MUTCD 2012 – 3 warrants • Volume (peak hour vehicles x bicycles >= 50K) • Collision history • Geometric – Only bicycle-symbol indications • Interim Approval IA-16 (2014) – Not adopted in CA due to PHB prohibition • CA strategy until 2016-18: – No warrants Request Caltrans TOPD – Turn arrows – Eliminate volume and – Ball indications (with [BIKE] SIGNAL sign) collision history warrants – Not for use Leading Interval – Specify phasing, created or with Ped Hybrid Beacon by City of Berkeley, for use • Future MUTCD (US 2016? CA 2018?) with Ped Hybrid Beacon – Probably similar to IA-16 – Possibly address – Not sure if prohibitions will survive optional turn arrows

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 257 June 23, 2014 Bicycle Signal Faces San Francisco – Golden Gate Park Panhandle

Panhandle Path crossing Masonic Ave

WB Panhandle Path entering/crossing Fell Street at Shrader Street (note arrow)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 258 June 23, 2014 Bicycle Signal Faces Berkeley’s proposed phasing for use w/PHB

Bicyclists and pedestrians both see flashing red (orange) when motorists see flashing red (= all-way STOP)

City of Berkeley / Ashby-Hillegass Recommended Improvements

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 259 June 23, 2014 Markings within the Intersection

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 260 June 23, 2014 Intersection Crossing Markings

NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide: •Indicate the intended path of bicyclists through an intersection or across a driveway or ramp •Guide bicyclists on a safe and direct path through the intersection •Provide a clear boundary between the paths of through bicyclists and either through or crossing motor vehicles…

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 261 June 23, 2014 Intersection Crossing Markings MUTCD • Section 3B.08 Extensions Through Intersections or Interchange • Single solid or dotted extension line per lane • Same color as the line it extends • Figure 9C-1 Examples of Intersections Pavement markings • Shows a single dotted white line extending a left turn bike lane onto a cross street

• Section 9C.07 Shared Lane Marking does not appear to prohibit use within intersection. However, the space within an intersection is not typically referred to as a “lane”.

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 262 June 23, 2014 NACTO: Many patterns Intersection Crossing Markings NACTO, NYCDOT NACTO Guide describes NYCDOT: Bike lane: double several patterns and dotted; add chevrons if turning suggest standardization conflict. Bike route: Chevrons only.

“Egress Lane”

Source: NYCDOT Highway Design Typical Markings

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 263 June 23, 2014 Intersection Crossing Markings NYCDOT

9th Ave Cycle Track intersection with West 21st St (both streets one-way)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 264 June 23, 2014 Intersection Through Markings (NYC)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 265 June 23, 2014 Two-Stage Turn Queue Box

NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide: •Improves bicyclist ability to safely and comfortably make left turns. •Provides a formal queuing space for bicyclists making a two-stage turn. •Reduces turning conflicts between bicyclists and motor vehicles. •Prevents conflicts arising from bicyclists queuing in a bike lane or crosswalk.

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 266 June 23, 2014 Two-Stage Turn Queue Box SF: EB Market Street to NB Polk Street EB Market St Facing Polk St contraflow lane

Bike 3 Signal 1 Entering Polk St Looking back at contraflow lane EB approach

2 4

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 267 June 23, 2014 Two-Stage Turn Queue Box NACTO: In Cycle Track Parking Lane

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 268 June 23, 2014 Two-Stage Turn Queue Box NACTO: In Parking Lane Next To Bike Lane

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 269 June 23, 2014 Two-Stage Turn Queue Box NACTO: In Curb Area

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 270 June 23, 2014 Bikes and Buses

• If possible, provide 16’ or more to enable overtaking. Delineation is optional • Bike lanes along bus lanes should be on the left if bike speed equals or exceeds bus speed • On high speed arterials, put bike lane on right. Dash or drop it across bus stops • Where buses are given “queue jumps” (through permission at right turn only lanes), allow cyclists to go through too

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 271 June 23, 2014 Shared bus & bike lane

• 12’: Not shareable • 14’: Minimally shareable • 16’: Comfortably shareable – but no guidance to bicyclist as to where to ride

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 272 June 23, 2014 Shared bus+bike lane (Europe)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 273 June 23, 2014 Bike lane adjacent to bus lane

• Bike lane on left if bike speed >= bus speed • Reduces conflicts: – Bus approaching & leaving curb – Bus stopping & starting – Passenger loading

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 274 June 23, 2014 When buses stop frequently…

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 275 June 23, 2014 …bike lane on left avoids passengers

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 276 June 23, 2014 Bike and bus lanes (Madison, WI)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 277 June 23, 2014 BikeBike andand busbus laneslanes (Madison,(Madison, WI)WI)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 278 June 23, 2014 Townsend St at 4th St San Francisco Bus stop on expressway

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 279 June 23, 2014 Counting Bicycles

Counting enables: •Establishing baselines •Tracking trends •Computing crash rates (#crashes / #travelers) •Validating travel models Automated counting of bicyclists and pedestrians and their turning movements is now practical

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 280 June 23, 2014 Counting Bicycles SCAG / Metro manual Contents •Introduction •Primer •Before the Count •Count Technologies •During the Count •After the Count •References Appendices •Instructions to Traffic Data Firms •Recommended Screenline Count Form •Sample Intersection Turning Movement Count Form •Sample Bike Parking Inventory and Occupancy Count Form •Sample Bicycles on Transit Count Form •Vendors for Count Technologies •Sample Outputs from Automated Count Technologies •Presentation and Handout for Count Volunteers •Standard Definitions for Behavioral and Demographic Variables 281 Designing to Increase Multimodalism 282 June 23, 2014 Designing to Increase Multimodalism 283 June 23, 2014 Counting Bicycles Training

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 284 June 23, 2014 Resources

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 285 June 23, 2014 Resources - 1

AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities  2012 edition current

California MUTCD 2010 (Caltrans)  Based on FHWA 2009 MUTCD  Not a design guide

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 286 June 23, 2014 Resources - 2

Fundamentals of Bicycle Boulevard Planning & Design  July 2009, ibpi (Portland State University)

Road Diets - Fixing the Big Roads  1999, Dan Burden and Peter Lagerwey  Results from Seattle and elsewhere

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 287 June 23, 2014 Resources - 3

Traffic Calming - State of the Practice  1999, ITE (Reid Ewing)  Still one of the best references on the subject

Main Streets: Flexibility in Design & Operations  Caltrans, January 2005

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 288 June 23, 2014 Resources - 4

Trail Design Resource Handbook  2000, Contra Costa County  Good reference for path/street intersections

Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Part II of II: Best Practices  FHWA, 2001  Excellent graphics and discussion for sidewalks, ramps, curb cuts, driveway aprons

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 289 June 23, 2014 Resources - 5

NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide  2011, NACTO  Includes innovative treatments  Does not always acknowledge potential issues with treatments Model Design Manual for Living Streets  2011, LA County  Includes streetscape, environment

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 290 June 23, 2014 AASHTO Bike Guide

1. Introduction 2. Bicycle Planning 3. Bicycle Operation and Safety 4. Design of On-Road Facilities 5. Design of Shared Use Paths 6. Bicycle Parking Facilities 7. Maintenance and Operations

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 291 June 23, 2014 California MUTCD Part 1 - General Part 2 - Signs Part 3 - Markings Part 4 - Highway Traffic Signals Part 5 - Low Volume Roads Part 6 - Temporary Traffic Control Part 7 - School Areas Part 8 - Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Part 9 - Bicycle Facilities Part 10 - Highway-Light Rail Grade Crossings

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 292 June 23, 2014 California MUTCD

Section 1A.02 Principles of Traffic Control Devices …. Guidance: To be effective, a traffic control device should meet five basic requirements: A. Fulfill a need; B. Command attention; C. Convey a clear, simple meaning; D. Command respect from road users; and E. Give adequate time for proper response.

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 293 June 23, 2014 California MUTCD

SectionSection 9C.049C.04 MarkingsMarkings ForFor BicycleBicycle LanesLanes Guidance:Guidance: LongitudinalLongitudinal papavementvement markingsmarkings shouldshould bebe usedused toto definedefine bicyclebicycle lanes.lanes. Support:Support: PavementPavement markingsmarkings desidesignategnate thatthat portionportion ofof thethe roadwayroadway forfor preferentialpreferential useuse byby bicyclists.bicyclists. MarkingsMarkings informinform allall roadroad usersusers ofof thethe restrictedrestricted naturenature ofof thethe bicyclebicycle lane.lane. ExamplesExamples ofof bicyclebicycle lanelane markingsmarkings atat right-turnright-turn laneslanes areare shownshown inin FiguresFigures 9C-1,9C-1, 9C-3,9C-3, andand 9C-4.9C-4. ExamplesExamples ofof pavementpavement markingsmarkings forfor bicyclebicycle laneslanes onon aa two-waytwo-way strstreeteet areare shownshown inin FigureFigure 9C-5.9C-5. PavementPavement symbolssymbols andand markingsmarkings forfor bicyclebicycle laneslanes areare shownshown inin FigureFigure 9C-6.9C-6. Standard:Standard: IfIf used,used, thethe bicyclebicycle lanelane symbolsymbol markingmarking (see(see FigureFigure 9C-6)9C-6) shallshall bebe placedplaced immediatelyimmediately afterafter anan intersectionintersection anandd atat otherother locationslocations asas needed.needed. TheThe bicyclebicycle lanelane symbolsymbol markingmarking shallshall bebe white.white. IfIf thethe bicyclebicycle lanelane symbolsymbol markingmarking isis usedused inin conjunctionconjunction withwith otherother wordword oror symbolsymbol messages,messages, itit shallshall precedeprecede them.them.

Typical text Typical figure (Standard=shall, GuidanceGuidance=should,=should, Option=May…) (Blue mamarkupsrkups = California differences from US)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 294 June 23, 2014 How the Books change: slowly!

MUTCD – Volunteer experts (NCUTCD Technical Committees) meet twice yearly for 2 days + email between* – FHWA rulemaking process (>1 year)* – Requests To Experiment (RTEs)* – Interim Approvals (IAs) – FHWA MUTCD: Every 6 years or so (2003, 2009, …)* – CA (Caltrans) MUTCD: 18-24 months later (2012…) AASHTO Guide – Tends to follow MUTCD, but not every MUTCD – 2012 edition (13 years after 1999 update)

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 295 June 23, 2014 Resources

Complete Intersections  2010 Caltrans Contents All Intersections Four-Leg Intersections Three-Leg and Offset Intersections Skewed and Multileg Intersections Special Cases Intersections with Transit Roundabouts Interchanges

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 296 June 23, 2014 Complete Intersections

Contents 1.Introduction 2.All Intersections Overview 3.Four-Leg Intersections 4.Three-Leg and Offset Intersections 5.Skewed and Multi-Leg Intersections 6.Special Cases 7.Intersections with Transit 8.Roundabouts 9.Interchanges 10.Treatments on the Horizon 11.Background A.Treatments by Collision Type B.Related Resources

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 297 June 23, 2014 FHWA bikeway element MUTCD status page

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 298 June 23, 2014 Wrap-up

Topics for next year’s workshop?

On-bike tour logistics

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 299 June 23, 2014 Thanks for attending!

John Ciccarelli Bicycle Solutions (415) 912-6999 mobile/text [email protected] www.BicycleSolutions.com

Designing to Increase Multimodalism 300 June 23, 2014