Design Primer

Design Primer Central City in Motion Project Volume 1 Twelve issues that will influence design and therefore planning 1) Intended User 2) Our Unique Grid 3) Left/Right Bike Facilities 4) Progression and Flow 5) Transit Integration 6) Curbside Uses 7) Stormwater Compliance 8) Utility Infrastructure 9) Signal Technology 10) Emergency Services 11) Loading and Hauling 12) Urban Design Districts

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project

PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION 2 DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project

PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION 3 The bikeway network will be designed for people of all ages and abilities. (TSP Policy 9.21)

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 4 INTENDED USER PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION • The existing network is mostly comprised of Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) 3 facilities. • Achieving the City’s aspired levels of growth and vitality will require that most (over 80%) people get around the Central City without the use of a private car. • For most people to make this choice, the streets must be low stress: safe, comfortable, and inviting for walking and biking. • CCIM will target improvements that meet the LTS 2 and LTS 1 levels.

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 5 INTENDED USER PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION Block Scale = Access Friction Portland’s small block structure (200’ x 200’ typ.) increases the number of intersections and the quantity and frequency of land use access ways onto the right-of-way. This consequence of our unique urban fabric increases the “friction” between movement along a linear bicycle facility and movements across the bicycle’s path.

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 6 OUR UNIQUE GRID PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION Street Width = Conspicuous Compromise Portland’s uniquely narrow right-of-way make the allocation of space within the street particularly constrained and challenging. The sameness of design and lack of modal hierarchy within the many streets of the grid means that repurposing space will have a network-level effect. The tightness of available space accelerates the need for choices between modes more quickly than in other peer cities.

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 7 OUR UNIQUE GRID PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION Couplet System in the Grid A one-way grid with a couplet circulation system means that vehicle turning movements across a bicycle path of travel happen every two blocks, regardless of whether the bicycle facility is on the left or right side of the street. There is no magic bullet for lane assignment within the one-way grid.

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 8 OUR UNIQUE GRID PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION Variety in the lane assignment or placement of the bicycle facility (left side running, right side running or center running) will be needed in response to context such as: • Frequent high-usage driveways • Unique property access requirements • Free right vehicular turning movements • Bridgehead and freeway ramp entries • Major bus transit stops and sidings • Surface rail alignments/lane assignment

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 9 LEFT/RIGHT FACILITIES PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION Accommodating bicycle turning movements within a one-way grid is complex. Right turns are generally easier than left turns. But when bicycle facilities within the grid occur on different sides of different streets (i.e. left running on 2nd Avenue but right running on Stark), the complexity increases.

It is expected that for different streets and different contexts, left running facilities will be preferable. And it is expected that on certain streets (perhaps where there is NOT any bus transit service) that right running facilities will provide the better option.

Therefore, the resolution of turning movements within the protected bicycle network will require multi-phase turns with necessitated dwell time for bicycles, or dedicated bicycle phases that allow bicycle turning movements in lieu of green time for vehicles.

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 10 LEFT/RIGHT FACILITIES PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION RIGHT-SIDE BIKE LANES Where there is significant curbside activity, such as transit stops, high-turnover parking, or loading and unloading zones, vehicles may frequently cross in and out of the bike lane, thus compromising comfort and safety for bicyclists.

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 11 RIGHT-SIDE BIKE LANES PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION LEFT-SIDE BIKE LANES On one-way streets, installing the bike lane on the left side is an alternative that can reduce conflict between bicyclists and transit vehicles, heavy volume right turn movements, or vehicles that need to access the right-side curb.

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 12 LEFT-SIDE BIKE LANES PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION • The traffic management system in the Central City – particularly the west side – is a complex network of inter-related signals. • The timing of the system manages speed and flow of vehicles in all four directions within the one-way grid/couplet construct. • Utilizing signal time for bicycle movements will have network-level effects. • Introducing long contraflow bicycle corridors (i.e. two-way cycle tracks) within the westside signal progression is not feasible.

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 13 PROGRESSION & FLOW PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION • In a one-way signal progression, as used in Downtown Portland, signals are timed so that vehicles can “hit all the greens” and maintain flow at about 12 miles per hour. • In this example, eastbound vehicles maintain flow, hitting green through the intersections, and the signals are on a 50- second cycle.

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 14 PROGRESSION & FLOW PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION • Introducing a contraflow movement, such as a two-way cycle track with one direction moving against the flow of one-way traffic, exposes the contraflow movement to substantial delay. • In this example, westbound bicycles are subject to up to 20 seconds of delay at red lights every two blocks.

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 15 PROGRESSION & FLOW PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION • Clarifying the spatial and operational relationship between bus transit and protected bicycle facilities is paramount. • A range of tools, developed in the Enhanced Transit Corridors Plan, will be needed in different places within the Central City. • Examples of solutions could include: • Lane configurations and markings • Bus stop placement and arrangement • Enhanced stations with separated bicycle facilities • Shared environments at transit stops

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 16 TRANSIT INTEGRATION PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION BIKE-BUS CONFLICT The main conflict between bus operations and bicyclists is that both modes of transportation often need to utilize the same part of the road at bus stops. Buses pull to the right of the road to pick up waiting passengers, forcing bicyclists to stop behind the bus or merge into adjacent travel lanes.

!

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 17 TRANSIT INTEGRATION PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION BIKE-BUS CONFLICT Side-boarding island stops eliminate bike-bus conflicts while facilitating accessible in-lane stops and reducing pedestrian crossing distances.

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 18 TRANSIT INTEGRATION PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION SHARED SPACES With constraints in the right-of-way and overlapping needs for transit service and protected bicycle facilities occurring on the same stretch of street, hybrid right side solutions may need to be adopted.

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 19 TRANSIT INTEGRATION PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION Channelized bicycle lanes along bus islands may be more comfortable for bicyclists.

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 20 TRANSIT INTEGRATION PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION Raised bicycle lanes may be appropriate in some areas to provide a larger clear zone for wheelchair users loading and unloading from the transit vehicle.

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 21 TRANSIT INTEGRATION PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION Streetcars, which have fixed paths, must stop in lane, and therefore require floating boarding islands where there is an adjacent bikeway.

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 22 TRANSIT INTEGRATION PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION • Access to the sidewalk/curbside is critical for many street users and existing land uses. • Preservation of many access and curbside uses is key to the vitality of the Central City. • Balancing need for access with protection for people riding bicycles is a key design challenge at: • Non-redundant driveways • Loading/trash/recycling service entries • ADA parking • Hotel zones, event frontages • Fire hydrants

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 23 CURBSIDE USES PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 24 CURBSIDE USES PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 25 CURBSIDE USES PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION • The City of Portland has important criteria for stormwater management in the right-of-way. • Clarifying the thresholds of reconstruction and reconfiguration of the street with the addition of protected bicycle facilities will be key to cost- effective implementation.

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 26 STORMWATER COMPLIANCE PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION • Full reconstruction of streets, drainage and introduction of significant stormwater solutions is NOT the purpose of the CCIM, however, opportunities to leverage multiple bureau goals to get to the desired facilities should be encouraged.

• Proposed improvements that trigger the Stormwater Management Manual may lead to a PBOT stormwater cost responsibility. BES could be a potential funding partner by targeting locations where the BES System Plan has established a system benefit.

Impacts to street trees is not expected. Photo: GreenWorks P.C. •

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 27 STORMWATER COMPLIANCE PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION • The type, size and location of above and below-grade utilities will influence feasibility of design options, and these utilities are located throughout the Central City, including: • Street lighting • Transit OCS/strain poles • Water supply and distribution lines • Sewer catch basins and facilities • Traffic signal poles/cabinets • Vaults, vaulted sidewalks • Communications and power lines • Street trees

• Major utility relocation will NOT be considered as part of CCIM design options.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2547810

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 28 UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION • CCIM will investigate augmenting lighting when the project gets deeper into design. • The approach to utilities will be to avoid major impacts and may move minor utilities/poles ONLY.

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 29 UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION • Not all signals in the Central City have the technology to allow some bicycle movements. There is an important relationship between signal/tech upgrades and full intersection upgrades to current accessibility standards. • Full intersection and signal reconstruction are significant costs generally outside the scope of the CCIM. • Physical changes to the signal infrastructure (e.g. adding mastarms or trenching to new controller cabinets) will trigger full rebuild, while technology-only changes generally do not trigger full rebuild. • Upgrading signals to include bicycle phases (adding/changing signal heads) could trigger ADA compliance, inflating costs.

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 30 SIGNAL TECHNOLOGY PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION Protected Signal Phase • Protected signal phases for bicycles provide a separate interval for bicycle movement. • Protected phases help reduce risk of left- and right-hook crashes and may be required to implement some solutions. • The Downtown Portland one-way grid primarily runs on a two-phase system with cycle lengths of 60 seconds. • Adding a third phase to downtown signals may substantially impact the available green time for vehicular movements.

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 31 SIGNAL TECHNOLOGY PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION • Circulation and access for emergency services within the Central City is critical. • Fire Bureau response routes and fleet design criteria will influence design options. • Fire hydrant placement will influence adjacent bicycle facility design. • Police/EMT providers have high-frequency incident locations and needs in the ROW. • Courthouse/Justice Center frontages may require special treatment/consideration.

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 32 EMERGENCY SERVICES PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION • Having protected bicycle facilities on the Major and Secondary Emergency Response Routes (MERS) is not a fatal flaw but will require further design review and collaboration with Portland Fire & Rescue (PF&R) • Multiple types of emergency vehicles need unimpeded turning movement, minimum width staging areas and clear paths of travel throughout the Central City and in relation to high-rise construction • Any modification that introduces physical barrier within the street environment or changes the relationship of emergency service vehicles to the land uses, will require detailed study and design innovation

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 33 EMERGENCY SERVICES PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION • Solid waste disposal, recycling and food waste composting services are provided in the Central City by multiple businesses, at multiple times of days, along different routes and utilizing different vehicles and containers • This diversity complicates the process of determining acceptable design solutions for changes in the right-of-way and particularly in changes to how/where service vehicles can access the curb and businesses/buildings

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 34 LOADING & HAULING PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION • Protected bicycle facility design will have to take into consideration the waiting/staging, circulation and lifting of containers into/out of the various solid waste fleets. Side reach, front reach and other technologies are emerging and there is no one design vehicle. • Bicycle facility design will have to be durable to withstand hammering of full bins dropping in elevation from the curb or truck and will have to allow unencumbered rolling of containers over/past the physical protection boundary to get within the truck’s operating envelope. • All these details will require industry input.

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 35 LOADING & HAULING PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION • Urban design policy and consideration may influence the materiality of the bicycle facilities. • The Central City has numerous sub-districts, some with specific streetscape standards. • Central City 2035 and the Comp Plan have new character designations for key corridors. • Most physical elements used to implement protected cycle facilities are comprised of approved, standard materials within the right- of-way.

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 36 URBAN DESIGN DISTRICTS PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 37 URBAN DESIGN DISTRICTS PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION The “Ladder” As a river city, Portland’s transportation system – for all modes – focusses flow onto a handful of key bridges.

The spacing of these bridges suggests the need for a bicycle facility on each, and contiguous routes to and from them. Network density of coverage principals suggest the need for two or more north/south routes on each side of the river that connect to all the east/west bridgehead routes.

The resultant form for a contiguous protected bicycle network within Portland’s Central City is a “ladder” with long rails and short rungs.

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project 38 NETWORK CONTINUITY PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION The Design Primer will set the stage for the context in which we will do our work. It will help us understand priorities and where issues are most likely to arise. This document identifies criteria that will inform the development of facility design alternatives. It will inform our partners about the technical issues that will influence decision making and frame possible projects for implementation within in the next 5 years.

DESIGN PRIMER central city in motion project INTENDED USE PORTLANDOREGON. GOV/TRANSPORTATION 39 Design Primer Central City in Motion Project Central City in Motion Design Primer Volume 2

Introduction Volume 2 of the Design Primer documents best practices and specific guidance in relation to six critical issues in the planning, design, and construction of protected bike lanes in Portland where available. These issues include:

• Impacts of the compact grid structure in relation to short block faces and one-way and two-way streets • Degree of separation between vehicles and bicycles • Transit stop design alongside a PBL and other transit interactions • Curbside activities: fire, solid waste pickup, and delivery services • Intersection treatments • ADA-required facilities

In addition to the forthcoming PBOT Protected Bike Lane Design Guide, there are seven major resources that provide detailed design guidance on protected bikeways.

1. 2015 FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide 2. 2015 MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide 3. 2017 City of Portland Protected Bike Lane Design Guide 4. 2014 NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, Second Edition 5. NACTO Urban Street Design Guide 6. NACTO Transit Street Design Guide 7. 2012 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, Fourth Edition 8. 2015 Evolution of the Protected Intersection, Alta White Paper2

2

Design Primer Volume 2 | 1

Impact of the Grid Structure, Short Blocks, and One- way and Two-way Streets The nature of the Downtown’s compact grid road network and short 200-foot blocks presents some unique opportunities and limitations for protected bikeways. The nature of this grid involves constrained rights-of- way and intersection geometries, multiple, frequent curbside uses, and challenges related to signal timing and vehicle progression. The predominantly one-way grid introduces another layer of complexity in terms of vehicle progression, speeds, and turning movements. For these reasons, two-way protected bikeways in the Downtown area are considered infeasible.

One-way Streets3

One-way Streets (NACTO Urban Streets Design Guide)

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Undifferentiated street space and wide travel lanes can result in higher speeds and are an ineffective use of valuable street space.

Many downtown 1-way streets have travel lanes with extra capacity or peak-hour restricted parking lanes.

Bicyclists feel uncomfortable riding between fast-moving traffic and the door zone. Double-parked vehicles may cause bicyclists to weave into traffic unpredictably, creating unsafe conditions for both motorists and bicyclists.

RECOMMENDATIONS

On downtown streets with heavy bus traffic, a red bus-only lane may be applied at curbside or offset. Bus-only lanes require significant enforcement and may be encroached upon by double parked cars and loading vehicles without proper enforcement. Combine bus-only lanes with bus bulbs, shelters, and transit signal priority to increase their effectiveness.

Analyze existing traffic volumes to determine whether or not peak-hour lanes can be removed and converted to on-street parking, bus or bike lanes, or additional sidewalk space. Converting underutilized travel lanes to other uses can eliminate potential conflicts within the roadway and improve traffic operations.

3 NACTO Urban Street Design Guide

Design Primer Volume 2 | 2

A raised cycle track applied on the left side of a 1-way street, removes cyclists from potential conflicts with bus traffic and creates a pedestrian safety island that decreases exposure time for pedestrians. Location: New York, NY - 1st Avenue (before)

In 2010, 1st Avenue in New York City was redesigned with a 1-way cycle track, Select Bus Service, and pedestrian safety islands. The redesign not only carved out room for bicyclists, but shortened long, unsafe crossings for pedestrians. The avenue has since become a model for the successful transformation of the city’s major avenues.

As part of a full reconstruction, consider widening sidewalks, especially when they have previously been narrowed in favor of additional travel lanes.

Design Primer Volume 2 | 3

https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/streets/downtown-2-way-street/

Two-way Streets1

Two-way Streets (NACTO Urban Street Design Guide) Busy downtown streets that operate 2-way are often the most difficult streets for cities to reconfigure and retrofit. Many of these streets suffer from double parking and loading conflicts, have heavy turn volumes, and offer insufficient accommodations for bicyclists and pedestrians.

Retrofit constrained 2-way streets using lane diets and conventional bike lanes or add cycle tracks that decrease the overall width and offer a higher-quality bicycle facility.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

The above illustration depicts a constrained 2-way street in a central business district. While many downtown streets were converted to 1-way operations, many were not, resulting in streets that are heavily congested by buses, bikes, people, and cars. Especially in older cities, these streets may be a main route for multiple modes

On major bus routes, curbside bus stops may be undermined by double-parked vehicles and heavy rush-hour traffic. These obstructions hurt the reliability and on-time performance of transit vehicles.

A lack of organization and striping can invite unintended uses and double-parking.

1 NACTO Urban Street Design Guide

Design Primer Volume 2 | 4

Freight vehicles double-parking at peak hours create weaving conflicts and safety hazards for motorists and bicyclists.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Bus bulbs serve as dedicated waiting areas for transit users while decreasing pedestrian exposure during crossings. Far-side placement is preferable to near-side when possible. Apply turn restrictions for near-side bus bulbs where right-turning vehicles are likely to queue in the right lane. Bus bulbs may be created in the near term without affecting drainage if slightly offset from the curb or designed as a bus-boarding island with a bicycle cut-through.

Create definition in the roadway using striping, cycle tracks, and narrow travel lanes.

Cycle tracks require special attention at intersection crossings. Conflicts should be highlighted using intersection crossing markings with the application of color optional. Bicycle signals may need to be applied for bicycle traffic to operate safely along the corridor, though bikes may use pedestrian signals in an interim design. Turning conflicts may be reduced through the implementation of turn restrictions.

Restricting freight delivery or encouraging off-peak freight delivery is critical to eliminating double-parking obstructions. Off-peak deliveries are faster and more cost-efficient and avoid obstruction of the bike lane or delays to buses and local traffic. At peak loading times, dedicated loading zones should be provided to avoid the need for freight vehicles to double-park. Designers may also consider the use of wide parking lanes in these situations.

Create definition in the roadway using striping, cycle tracks, and narrow travel lanes. https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/streets/downtown-2-way-street/

Design Primer Volume 2 | 5

Degree of Separation Between Bicycles and Vehicles

Buffer widths and physical separation45

3.4.1 Street buffer width (2015 MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, p. 34 – 36) Central to the design of the street buffer is its width. Appropriate street buffer widths vary greatly depending on the degree of separation desired, right-of-way constraints, and the types of structures or uses that must be accommodated within the buffer. In general, the recommended width of a street buffer is 6 ft., regardless of the type of street buffer. Street buffers may be narrowed to a minimum of 2 ft. in constrained conditions, or a minimum of 1 ft. alongside a raised bike lane.

4 2015 MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide

5 2014 NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, Second Edition

Design Primer Volume 2 | 6

Design Primer Volume 2 | 7

Recommended Features of One-Way Protected Bikeways (2014 NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, Second Edition)

Design Primer Volume 2 | 8

Design Primer Volume 2 | 9

https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/cycle-tracks/one-way-protected-cycle- tracks/

Design Primer Volume 2 | 10

Transit Stop Design Alongside PBLs and Other Transit Interactions Ideally, separated bike lanes will not operate along the same side of the roadway as high-frequency transit routes, either by using different sides of the street or different streets. However, on many corridors, this division between transit and bicycles is not possible. In these cases transit stops present a challenge among interactions with cyclists, transit vehicles, and those accessing transit stops.

Where possible, separation should continue at transit stops by routing bicyclists behind the bus platform. This type of design avoids conflicts with transit vehicles but does create potential conflicts with pedestrians who must cross the separated bike lane to access the transit stop. This potential pedestrian conflict can be mitigated through design and the provision of discrete crossing locations. Visually impaired pedestrians accessing the bus stop should be directed to the crosswalk using detectable warnings.

Design Primer Volume 2 | 11

Transit Stops p. 92 - 961

1 NACTO Urban Street Design Guide

Design Primer Volume 2 | 12

Design Primer Volume 2 | 13

Design Primer Volume 2 | 14

Transit Stops p. 98 – 1042

2 2015 MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide

Design Primer Volume 2 | 15

Design Primer Volume 2 | 16

Design Primer Volume 2 | 17

Design Primer Volume 2 | 18

Design Primer Volume 2 | 19

Design Primer Volume 2 | 20

Design Primer Volume 2 | 21

Portland PBL Design Guidance and Central City Zone • All of the cross section width and travel directions listed in the Design Guide, with the exception of the 48’ one-way and the 66’ one-way, exist in the Central City area. • The cross sections above 60 feet in width, expected to not be needed, do apply to SW Naito Parkway. • Some streets identified as targets for PBLs are not represented in the Design Guide cross sections, e.g. N. Broadway which is 90+ feet wide in portions. • A 48 foot cross section was not shown in the Design Guide’s maps on pages 47-55 but was included as a one-way cross section.

PBL Designs for Portland Parking-Protected 1. Parking-Protected (with or without delineators)

Barrier-Protected 1. Delineator-Protected 2. Traffic Separator-Protected 3. Planter-Protected 4. Median-Protected

Parking-Protected Bicycle Lane

Delineator-Protected Bicycle Lane

Design Primer Volume 2 | 22

Traffic Separated-Protected Bicycle Lane

Median-Protected Bicycle Lane

Planter-Protected Bicycle Lane

Design Primer Volume 2 | 23

Parking-Protection Applied to 36’ Wide, One-Way Street

Delineator-Protection Applied to 36’ Wide, Two-Way Street

Design Primer Volume 2 | 24

Traffic Separator-Protection Applied to 76’ Wide, Two-Way Street

Median-Protection Applied to 60’ Wide, Two-Way Street

Design Primer Volume 2 | 25

Planter-Protection Applied to 42’ Wide, One-Way Street

Design Primer Volume 2 | 26

Transit Stops and Transit Stop Elements 5

https://nacto.org/publication/transit-street-design-guide/stations-stops/

5 NACTO Transit Street Design Guide

Design Primer Volume 2 | 27 https://nacto.org/publication/transit-street-design-guide/station-stop-elements/

Design Primer Volume 2 | 28

Bicycle Rail Crossings5 https://nacto.org/publication/transit-street-design-guide/intersections/intersection-design/bicycle-rail- crossings/

With or without bike lanes, streetcar and light rail streets attract bicycle traffic. Making these streets safe for people using bikes is critical for preserving local destination access, and is often important for bike network connectivity.

If high-comfort bicycle facilities cannot be implemented on streetcar and light rail streets, parallel high-comfort bicycle routes should be provided in addition to basic destination-access bicycle accommodations on streetcar streets.

DISCUSSION

Bicycle tires can become stuck in rail flanges when in-street tracks are crossed at too low an angle, causing the bicycle rider to fall. Particular attention must be paid where streetcar tracks bend or turn, where light rail tracks cross a street, or where bicycle lanes or bicycle turning movements cross tracks.

Bicycling adjacent to tracks can also pose dangers, particularly pronounced when a bicyclist must be prepared to swerve to avoid unforeseen obstacles such as opening vehicle doors.

A variety of design techniques can prevent these injury-causing falls by directing bicyclists to cross tracks at higher angles, and by guiding people on bikes to ride a safe distance from rails while riding parallel to them.

APPLICATION

Bike-friendly track crossings are applicable wherever streetcar or light rail tracks turn across a bikeway (including any bike lane, bike boulevard, or cycle track), where a bikeway turns across tracks, and at any intersection where bike turns are accommodated, especially where two bike lanes intersect.

Bike-friendly trackway design is applicable to all mixed-traffic streetcar and light rail running ways.

5 NACTO Transit Street Design Guide

Design Primer Volume 2 | 29

Bicycle lane shift over tracks, Portland (credit: Flickr user Payton)

CRITICAL

Where bicycle paths of travel cross a street-surface rail track, bicyclists must be directed to cross tracks at a high angle. While 90-degree crossings are preferred, 60 degrees is the minimum design angle for bikeways to cross in-street rails.

Bicyclists must be able to cross tracks fully upright and not leaning, with perpendicular or high-angle approaches established in advance of tracks to allow riders to right themselves.

RECOMMENDED

Rail Turns Across Bikeways

• A bike sneak is a short section of bicycle lane, protected bicycle lane, or raised cycle track that is bent out (bent toward the sidewalk) to direct bicyclists at a safe angle across turning tracks. Provide bicycle lane markings to direct bicyclists to the right, establishing sufficient space for a safe crossing of rails. Provide intersection markings, at or near a 90-degree angle to the curving track that return bicyclists to the bicycle lane on the opposite side of the intersection without entering the motor vehicle lane. The bike sneak can be marked, raised, channelized, or otherwise protected using a variety of means of separation, depending on the volume of bicyclists and the role of the street in the bicycle network. • Crossing tracks at an angle less than 45 degrees should be discouraged, both on streets with and without a bicycle facility. • Warning signage or markings should be used ahead of an intersection or other rail crossing where the natural travel path of a bicyclist, generally parallel to the lane line or curbline, would cross the rail at a low angle.

Design Primer Volume 2 | 30

Bicycle Turns Across Rail

• Two-stage turn queue boxes direct bicyclists to cross rails at a safe angle when turning left across tracks, or turning right across tracks from a left-side bikeway. (Refer to the Urban Bikeway Design Guide for guidance on two-stage turn queue box design). Bicycle-Friendly Trackways

• Bicycle lanes should include a buffer at least 3 feet wide to account for these instances, and prohibitions of dangerous misuse of the bike lane, such as double-parking, must be strictly enforced. Where possible, physically separating bicycle lanes from streetcar lanes is preferred. In addition to cycle tracks, placing rails on raised beds or transitway design treatments, such as rails in raised beds, or vertical separation, prevent bicycles from entering tracks. Vertical separation may be especially desirable in tight spaces. If curbs are greater than 2 inches, roll curbs or mountable curbs should be considered.

Design Primer Volume 2 | 31

Curbside Activities: Loading Zones, Emergency Services, Waste Pickup, and Delivery Services

Loading Zones p. 99 - 1011

1 2015 FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide

Design Primer Volume 2 | 32

Design Primer Volume 2 | 33

Loading zones, bike parking p. 91 – 972

2 2015 MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide

Design Primer Volume 2 | 34

Design Primer Volume 2 | 35

Design Primer Volume 2 | 36

Intersection Treatments Intersection design treatments are the most complicated and the most critical portion of a protected bikeway. A wealth of material exists in the references sourced for this design primer but only a small portion is included here.

Intersection Treatments p. 102 - 1261

Turning Movements: Bend-Out (Protected Intersection) The bend-out design positions bicyclists downstream on the side street away from the intersection, allowing vehicles to complete turning movements before interacting with bicyclists. This design, which could be used on lower-volume side streets or driveways, provides space for a vehicle to yield to crossing bicycles without blocking through traffic on the main street. A Bicycle/Pedestrian Warning (W11-15) sign may be used as driveways approach separated bike lanes to alert drivers to be aware for bikes and pedestrians.

1. Bend-out design provides opportunity for an ample pedestrian refuge between the separated bike lane crossing and the roadway crossing. 2. Separated bike lane and crosswalk may be raised to sidewalk level through the intersection, providing a traffic calming effect. 3. For further guidance on buffer selection and installation, see page 83. 4. A "Turning vehicles yield to bikes" sign may be placed on the mast arm. 5. For further guidance on typical signs and markings for separated bike lanes, see page 127. 6. For further guidance on signal phasing, see page 119.

Figure 26 (Not to Scale)

Turning Movements: Bend-In (Protected Intersection)

1 2015 FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide

Design Primer Volume 2 | 37

To increase the visibility of bicyclists for turning vehicles, the bend-in design positions bicyclists adjacent to the vehicle turn lane.

1. Shift bicycle lane closer to motorized traffic so motorists and bicyclists can see each other better. 2. Bend-in design creates opportunity to build a curb extension to reduce pedestrian crossing distance. 3. For further guidance on buffer selection and installation, see page 83. 4. A 'Turning vehicles yield to bikes' sign may be placed on the mast arm. 5. Guidance for parking space markings can be found in MUTCD(2009) Section 3B.19. 6. For further guidance on typical signs and markings for separated bike lanes, see page 127. 7. For signal guidance see page 113.

Figure 25 (Not to Scale)

Turning movements: Signalization

Design Primer Volume 2 | 38

1. A near-side bicycle signal can supplement far-side signals to improve visibility (refer to MUTCD Interim Approval IA-16).

Near-side signals are required when the far-side signal is 120 ft or greater from the stop bar, and recommended over 80 ft.

Near-side signals can be placed on the pedestrian pushbutton pole, or the bicycle pushbutton pole, if used. 2. Minimum 1 ft buffer at intersection. For further guidance on buffer selection and installation, see page 83. 3. If no dedicated right turn lane is present, bicyclists may use pedestrian walk signal. A 'Turning vehicles yield to bikes' sign may be placed on the mast arm. 4. NO TURN ON RED (MUTCD R10-11) on mast arm near signal head. 5. Guidance for parking space markings can be found in MUTCD(2009) Section 3B.19. 6. For further guidance on signal phasing, see page 119. 7. Signal detection for bicyclists is needed if the signal [or signal operation] is actuated. 8. An optional signal detection loop may be placed 60 - 120 ft in advance of the intersection. 9. A bicycle detector symbol marking (MUTCD Fig. 9C-7) should be placed over the loop to alert passing cyclists to the in-ground sensor.

For further guidance on typical signs and markings for separated bike lanes, see page 127.

Figure 22 (Not to Scale)

Turning Movements: Lateral Shift A lateral shift moves cyclists to the left of the motor vehicle right turn lane before vehicles can move right. This places the responsibility for yielding clearly on drivers turning right, and brings bicyclists into a highly visible

Design Primer Volume 2 | 39 position. In the lateral shift configuration, like the mixing zone (see page 107), potential conflicts between right- turning vehicles and through bicyclists occur before the intersection. A lateral shift treatment is effective for intersections where a separate bicycle signal and signal phasing is not feasible, because bicyclists can proceed in the same signal phase as through and right-turning vehicles.

1. Provide minimum queue storage length for automobiles needed for operations, depending on right-turn volumes and signal cycle length. 2. For further guidance on bike boxes, see page 122. 3. Shift bike lane closer to motorized traffic prior to weave area so motorists and bicyclists can see each other better. 4. For further guidance on buffer selection and installation, see page 83. 5. Shorter queue storage lengths are preferred because it allows for a longer distance of midblock separation relative to the intersection and slows motor vehicle speeds. 6. Include BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE YIELD TO BIKES (MUTCD R4-4) at end of parking restrictions. 7. The weave area should be short to force vehicles to make slow and deliberate turning movements into the right turn lane. 8. A variety of pavement marking treatments can be used to improve visibility of the separated bike lane and reinforce the expected bicyclist behaviors. For further guidance on paint and striping in conflict areas, see page 114. 9. For further guidance on typical signs and markings for separated bike lanes, see page 127. 10. Guidance for parking space markings can be found in MUTCD(2009) Section 3B.19. 11. For further signal guidance, see page 115.

Figure 23 (Not to Scale)

Turning Movements: Mixing Zone A mixing zone is an area where bicyclists and right-turning automobiles merge into one travel lane approaching an intersection. Mixing zones provide a design option in which the potential conflict between right-turning vehicles and through bicyclists occurs before the intersection, similar to the lateral shift. Mixing zones may

Design Primer Volume 2 | 40 provide the best option in locations without on-street parking and/or with a constrained right-of-way where the roadway width will not accommodate both a bicycle lane and a right-turn lane at the intersection.

1. Mixing zones are often used at intersections with turning vehicle volumes high enough to cause frequent conflicts, but not high enough to require signalization. 2. Mixing zones may be most effective at intersections with 50-150 turning vehicles in the peak hour. 3. Shared lane markings help guide bicyclists to the left side of turning vehicles. 4. For further guidance on buffer selection and installation, see page 83. 5. Include BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE YIELD TO BIKES (MUTCD R4-4) at end of parking restrictions.

Figure 24 (Not to Scale)

Design Primer Volume 2 | 41

Intersection Treatments p. 51 - 8922

2 2015 MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide

Design Primer Volume 2 | 42

Design Primer Volume 2 | 43

Design Primer Volume 2 | 44

Design Primer Volume 2 | 45

Design Primer Volume 2 | 46

Intersection Treatments3 https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/intersection-treatments/cycle-track-intersection- approach/

3 2014 NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, Second Edition

Design Primer Volume 2 | 47

Intersection Treatments4 https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/intersection-design-elements/ https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/intersections/

Visibility/Sight Distance Visibility and sight distance are parameters central to the inherent safety of intersections, driveways, and other potential conflict points.

Application

Intersection design should facilitate eye contact between street users, ensuring that motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit vehicles intuitively read intersections as shared spaces. Visibility can be achieved through a variety of design strategies, including intersection “daylighting,” design for low-speed intersection approaches, and the addition of traffic controls that remove trees or amenities that impede standard approach, departure, and height sight distances. Sight line standards for intersections should be determined using target speeds, rather than 85th-percentile design speeds. This prevents wide setbacks and designs that increase speeds and endanger pedestrians.

CRITICAL

In determining the sight distance triangle for a given intersection, use the target speed, rather than the design speed, for that intersection.

Fixed objects, such as trees, buildings, signs, and street furniture, deemed to inhibit the visibility of a given intersection and create safety concerns, should not be removed without the prior consideration of alternative safety mitigation measures, including a reduction in traffic speeds, an increase in visibility through curb extensions or geometric design, or the addition of supplementary warning signs.

Traffic control devices must be unobstructed in the intersection and shall be free of tree cover or visual clutter.

DISCUSSION

Visibility is impacted by the design and operating speed of a roadway. Determining sightlines based on existing or 85th-percentile speeds is not sufficient in all cases. Designers need to proactively lower speeds near conflict points to ensure that sightlines are adequate and movements predictable, rather than widening the intersection or removing sightline obstacles.

Sight triangles required for stopping and approach distances are typically based upon ensuring safety at intersections with no controls at any approach. This situation rarely occurs in urban environments, and occurs only at very low-speed, low-volume junctions. At uncontrolled locations where volume or speed present safety concerns, add traffic controls or traffic calming devices on the intersection approach.

4 NACTO Urban Street Design Guide

Design Primer Volume 2 | 48

In urban areas, corners frequently act as a gathering place for people and businesses, as well as the locations of bus stops, bicycle parking, and other elements. Design should facilitate eye contact between these users, rather than focus on the creation of clear sightlines for moving traffic only.

Wide corners with large sight triangles may create visibility, but in turn may cause cars to speed through the intersection, losing the peripheral vision they might have retained at a slower and more cautious speed.

In certain circumstances, an object in the roadway or on the sidewalk may be deemed to obstruct sightlines for vehicles in a given intersection and to pose a critical safety hazard. Removal of the object in question is a worst case scenario based on significant crash risk and crash history. Many objects, such as buildings, terrain features, trees in historic districts, and other more permanent parts of the landscape should be highlighted using warning signage and other features, rather than removed.

OPTIONAL

Additional signage may be provided to enhance visibility at a given intersection, but should not replace geometric design strategies that increase visibility.

RECOMMENDED

Daylight intersections by removing parking within 20–25 feet of the intersection.

Site street trees at a 5-foot minimum from the intersection, aligning the street tree on the near side of the intersection with the adjacent building corner. Street trees should be sited 3 feet from the curb return and 5 feet from the nearest stop sign.

Lighting is crucial to the visibility of pedestrians, bicyclists, and approaching vehicles. Major intersections and pedestrian safety islands should be adequately lit with pedestrian-scaled lights to ensure visibility. In-pavement flashing lights can enhance crossing visibility at night, but should be reinforced by well-maintained retro reflective markings.

Design Primer Volume 2 | 49

Intersection Treatments7

Elements p. 11 - 13

7 2015 Evolution of the Protected Intersection, Alta White Paper

Design Primer Volume 2 | 50

Design Primer Volume 2 | 51

Design Primer Volume 2 | 52

Geometric Design p. 15 - 23

Design Primer Volume 2 | 53

Design Primer Volume 2 | 54

Design Primer Volume 2 | 55

Design Primer Volume 2 | 56

Design Primer Volume 2 | 57

Design Primer Volume 2 | 58

Design Primer Volume 2 | 59

Design Primer Volume 2 | 60

Design Primer Volume 2 | 61

ADA-required facilities

Accessible Parking p. 97 – 981 Where designated on-street parking is provided, accessible parking must be provided. Refer to the 2010 ADA Standards and the current Public Rights of Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) published by the U.S. Access Board for more information. These spaces must be provided on the block perimeter where on street parking is marked or metered. In many cases, the accessible parking may be provided on block faces that do not conflict with separated bike lane alignment. However, a priority for accessibility is locating the parking spaces where the street is most level and, ideally, closest to obvious destinations such as building entrances. Under these circumstances it may be necessary to include accessible parking on the same block face as a separated bike lane.

Providing accessible parking spaces at the start of a block often affords the most flexibility in designing around the separated bike lane. A painted access aisle without any vertical elements provides space to deploy a lift and allows a vehicle to park in the buffer to deploy a left-side lift, if necessary.

A dedicated accessible parking space with access aisle in Austin, TX. (Source: Kelly Blume)

1 2015 FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide

Design Primer Volume 2 | 62

Design Primer Volume 2 | 63

Accessible Parking2

2 2015 MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide

Design Primer Volume 2 | 64

Design Primer Volume 2 | 65

ADA/PROWAG Considerations3 When providing accessible parking spaces alongside cycle tracks, the following general considerations are recommended to accommodate persons with disabilities in the design of one-way and two-way protected cycle tracks. Local parking regulations and roadway context may vary considerably.

• A widened buffer space may be used to accommodate a side mounted vehicle ramp or lift so that it will not protrude into the cycle track and become a hazard to bicyclists. Additional buffer space may be challenging to achieve with limited right-of-way. • Mid-block curb ramps may be provided near marked accessible parking spaces, or curb ramps may be provided at a consistent interval along the cycle track to provide additional egress points for wheelchair users to gain access to the sidewalk. Mid-block curb ramps may also offset inconveniences in curbside freight delivery crossing the cycle track. • Roadway cross-slopes should be considered across the cycle track during design as slopes exceeding two percent will create difficulty for bicyclists and some disabled users. • If significant Taxi or Paratransit service exists along the cycle track, consider providing periodic loading zones to allow the vehicles to pull out of the travel lane. • If used, consider placement of bollards in the buffer area so as not to impede access by disabled users. Individuals with sight-impairments may lack familiarity with this roadway configuration. Outreach and education for sight-impaired individuals is advised to ensure that these individuals have a better understanding of changes to the roadway alignment. Select design elements, such as tactile surfaces may help reinforce these measures. • https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/cycle-tracks/one-way-protected-cycle- tracks/

3 2014 NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, Second Edition

Design Primer Volume 2 | 66