DOCSLIB.ORG

Complete Streets Design Guide Great Streets for Los Angeles

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Complete Streets Design Guide Great Streets for Los Angeles COMPLETE STREETS DESIGN GUIDE GREAT STREETS FOR LOS ANGELES NOVEMBER 2014 DRAFT Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 1 4.10BIKESHARESTATIONS 68 Goals of the Guide 3 4.11 PARKING METERS AND PAY STATIONS 69 Complete Streets Design 4 4.12 UTILITIES AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE 70 Guide Organization 4 4.13 STREET LIGHTING 72 Glossary 4 4.14WASTEANDRECYCLINGRECEPTACLES 75 Definitions 5 4.15PARKLETS 77 4.16 BUS STOP LOCATION 79 STREET CLASSIFICATIONS 7 4.17BUSBULB 81 Introduction 9 4.18SIDEWALKEQUESTRIANTRAIL 82 Network Overlays 9 4.19ESPLANADE 83 Additional Overlays 10 ARTERIAL STREETS 11 ROADWAYS 85 NON-ARTERIAL STREETS 12 PedestrianEnhancements 87 NON-ARTERIALS - HILLSIDE STREETS 14 5.1PEDESTRIANPLAZA 87 OTHERPUBLICRIGHTS-OF-WAY 15 BicycleEnhancements 88 ALLEYS 17 5.2BICYCLELANE 88 BicycleLaneNexttoOn-StreetParallelParking 89 COMPLETE STREET DIAGRAMS 19 Bicycle Lane with No On-Street Parking 90 StreetClassificationsandNetworkAssignments 21 Bicycle Lane on Left Side of One-Way Street 90 Legend for Complete Street Cross Sections 22 Uphill Climbing Bicycle Lanes 90 Complete Street Cross Sections 23 Wide Outside Bicycle Lane as a Connection Gap Closure 90 SIDEWALK AREA 37 Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane on One-Way Street 91 SIDEWALK ZONES 39 Wide Bicycle Lane with Additional Pavement Markings Components of the Public Right-of-Way 39 Next to On-Street Parallel Parking (Non Standard) 91 Sidewalk Area and Roadway Zones 39 Floating Bicycle Lane or Bicycle Accommodation with Part-Time Parking (Non Standard) 92 4.1 BUILDING ENTRIES 41 5.3PROTECTEDBICYCLELANE 93 4.2 PORTABLE SIGNAGE AND SIDEWALK MERCHAN- DISING 43 5.4SHAREDLANEMARKING(SHARROW) 95 4.3 STREETSCAPE SIGNAGE AND WAYFINDING 44 5.5SHAREDBICYCLE-BUSLANE 96 4.4 PUBLIC SEATING 46 Transit Enhancements 97 4.5OUTDOORDINING 48 5.6BUSLANE 97 4.6PUBLICART 50 5.7OFFSETBUSLANE 98 4.7STREETTREESANDLANDSCAPING 52 5.8MEDIANBUSLANE/BUSWAY 99 4.8STORMWATERTREATMENTANDMANAGEMENT 56 5.9BUSPAD 100 4.9 BICYCLE PARKING 64 5.10MEDIANBUSBOARDINGISLAND 101 COMPLETE STREETS DESIGN GUIDE OtherTrafficCalmingTreatments 102 Signalization 137 5.11LANERECONFIGURATION/ROADDIET 102 Pedestrian Enhancements 137 5.12LANENARROWING 103 6.18EXCLUSIVEPEDESTRIANPHASE 137 5.13NECKDOWN 104 6.19PEDESTRIANBEACON 138 5.14CHICANES 105 6.20LEADINGPEDESRIANINTERVAL 139 5.15LANDSCAPEDMEDIAN 106 6.21 ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL 140 5.16SPEEDFEEDBACKSIGN 107 6.22 SHORTER SIGNAL LENGTHS 141 On-StreetParking 108 6.23 SPLIT PHASING 142 5.17BICYCLECORRAL 108 Bicycle Enhancements 143 5.18ON-STREETCARSHAREPARKING 109 6.24 BICYCLE-ONLY SIGNAL 143 5.19BACK-INANGLEPARKING 110 6.25BICYCLELOOPDETECTOR 144 5.20COMMERCIALLOADING 111 6.26BICYCLEGREENWAVE 145 Transit Enhancements 146 INTERSECTIONS & CROSSINGS 113 6.27 TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITIZATION 146 PhysicalComponents 115 PedestiranEnhancements 115 OFF-STREETNON-VEHICULAR 6.1CROSSWALKMARKINGS 115 STRATEGIES 147 6.2DECORATIVEPAVEMENTMATERIALS 117 7.1 BICYCLE CHANNEL RAMPS FOR STAIRWAYS 149 6.3ADVANCEDYIELDMARKINGS 118 7.2DESIGNOFMULTI-PURPOSEPATHS(CLASS1) 150 6.4 RAISED CROSSWALK 119 7.3MULTI-PURPOSEPATHSINRIVERANDUTILITY 6.5CORNERBULBOUT 120 CORRIDORS 153 6.6 CURB RADIUS 121 7.4MULTI-PURPOSEPATHSINEXISTINGACTIVE 6.7 CURB RAMPS 123 RAILCORRIDOR 154 6.8CROSSINGREFUGEISLAND 124 7.5MULTI-PURPOSEPATHSINNEWTRANSIT 6.9DRIVEWAYS 125 CORRIDOR 155 Bicycle Enhancements 126 7.6COASTALPATHS 156 6.10BICYCLEPAVEMENTMARKINGSAPPROACHING 7.7 GRADE-SEPARATED UNDERCROSSINGS AND AN INTERSECTION 126 OVERCROSSINGS 157 6.11BICYCLEPAVEMENTMARKINGSTHROUGHAN 7.8FENCING 159 INTERSECTION 128 DRAFT7.9 PROGRAMMING AND TEMPORARY 6.12BICYCLEBOX 129 TREATMENTS 161 6.13TWO-STAGETURNQUEUEBOX 130 6.14 BICYCLE-ONLY TURN POCKET 131 6.15DIVERTER 132 OtherTrafficCalmingTreatments 133 6.16 TRAFFIC MINI-CIRCLE 133 6.17MINI-ROUNDABOUT 135 COMPLETE STREETS DESIGN GUIDE ii DRAFT COMPLETE STREETS DESIGN GUIDE LADCP CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION COMPLETE STREETS DESIGN GUIDE This page intentionally left blank Goals of the Guide Great Streets for Los Angeles: Complete Streets Design existing technical standards provided for in other City Guide lays out a vision for designing safe, accessible or national manuals. Rather, it is meant to supplement and vibrant streets in Los Angeles. As outlined in Cali- existing engineering practices and requirements in fornia’sCompleteStreetsActof2008(AB1358),the order to meet the goals of Complete Streets. Due to goal of Complete Streets is to ensure that the safety specificsiteandoperationalcharacteristicsassociated andconvenienceofalltransportationusers–pedestri- with any given street, any proposed street improve- ans,bicyclists,transitriders,andprivatemotorists–is ment project must still undergo a detailed technical accommodated. analysesbytheappropriatecitydepartments.Specific design guidance that is in a demonstration phase and Streetsnotonlyinfluenceourmobilitychoices,but has yet to be incorporated into the California Manual they also affect the safety and quality of life in our onUniformTrafficControlDevices(CAMUTCD)will neighborhoods. When streets are designed with only require provisional approval from the appropriate City vehicular throughput in mind, they create an environ- departments. Overall, this Guide hopes to indoctrinate ment that invites unsafe speeds. As a result, bicycling the concept of Complete Streets into Los Angeles’ becomes more daunting and pedestrian walkways present and future street design so that all stakehold- become less attractive. An overabundance of single- ers are able to plan for, implement, and maintain safe occupancy vehicles on the road slows down buses and and accessible streets for everyone. other motorists, making public transit less convenient and driving more frustrating. When streets are continu- MobilityPlan2035representstheCity’sMobility ally widened to accommodate more vehicular volume, Element (formerly Transportation Element) of the City they create an induced demand for car travel that only ofLosAngeles’GeneralPlan.MobilityPlan2035’s encouragesfuturetrafficcongestion. fivegoals–Safety First, World Class Infrastructure, Access for all Angelenos, Informed Choices, and Clean Los Angeles’ streets serve a much larger purpose than Environments for a Healthy Community–setthepolicy just moving cars. They can provide lively gathering foundation making Complete Streets a priority in Los places that foster community building and neighbor- Angeles.Theplan’semphasisonsafety,trafficcalming hood identity. They allow for healthy, recreational and access are key principles that mirror the goals of activities such as walking, running and bicycling. the Complete Streets Design Guide. When designed to be safe and attractive, streets can boost the economic activityDRAFT and visibility of storefront The Complete Streets Design Guide is a living docu- businesses. When cars travel at slower, safer speeds, ment, meaning that it will be amended through future the number of collisions between motorists and active editions as best practices and innovations in street transportation users decreases. Moreover, fewer cars design continue to evolve. The Guide falls under the on the road means lower levels of air pollution. Overall, authority of the City of Los Angeles’ Streets Standards a city that is designed for Complete Streets prioritizes Committee, which is comprised of the Director of City people over cars, and safety over speed. Planning (Chairman), General Manager of the Depart- ment of Transportation, and the City Engineer (LAMC The Complete Streets Design Guide provides a com- 17.05). pilation of design concepts and best practices that promote the major tenets of Complete Streets—safety and accessibility. The Guide is not meant to supersede LADCP 1 INTRODUCTION DRAFT 3 Complete Streets Design Guide Organization Designingsisnotaone-size-fits-allapproach.It Chapter 1. Introduction requires an analysis of various site conditions to Chapter2.StreetClassifications determine what sort of treatments and solutions are applicable for a given street. Factors that should be Chapter 3. Complete Street Cross-Sections considered include the physical characteristics of the Chapter 4. Sidewalks street, urban vs. suburban context, surrounding land Chapter5.Roadways uses, collision history, and expected pedestrian and roadway demand. Treatments can vary from installing Chapter 6. Intersections & Crossings actual infrastructure to altering signalization or simply Chapter7.Off-StreetNon-VehicularTreatments reinforcing safety efforts with signage. Funding is also Chapter8.Appendices a major determinant of what types of treatments are feasible for certain projects. Glossary The Complete Streets Design Guide is intended to serve a variety of users. For city departments that Acronyms and Abbreviations oversee the implementation of street improvement AASHTO. American Association of State Highway and projects, this Guide serves as a guiding document that TransportationOfficials ensures all projects are designed with complete street BOE. Bureau of Engineering in the City of Los Angeles principles in mind. Private developers can also use the Department of Public Works guide to tailor their projects to support complete street principles.Electedofficialscanconsulttheguidewhen BOS. Bureau of Sanitation in the City of Los Angeles proposing public improvements in their jurisdictions, Department of Public Works while communities and local groups can refer to the BSL. Bureau of Street Lighting in the City of Los manual when advocating for safety treatments in Angeles Department of Public Works their neighborhoods. The Guide can
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2. Basic Roadway Improvements the Street System Provides the Basic Network for Bicycle Travel
    Figure 2-1: Many low-volume resi- YES dential streets need only the most basic improve- ments to make them more ridable. 2. Basic Roadway Improvements The street system provides the basic network for bicycle travel. Other ele- ments (e.g., bike lanes and paths) supplement this system. To make most streets work for bicyclists, basic improvements may be needed. Such things as safe railroad crossings, traffic signals that work for bicyclists, and street networks that connect benefit bicyclists and make more bicycle trips possible and likely. 2.1 Roadway types While the most basic improvements are appropriate for all categories of street, some improvements are most appropriate for certain categories. In a typical community, streets types range from quiet residential streets, to minor collector streets, to major arterials, and highways or expressways. Figure 2-2: Long blocks and a lack 2.1.1 Residential streets of connectivity On quiet residential streets with little traffic and slow speeds (fig. 2-1), make trips longer bicyclists and motorists can generally co-exist with little difficulty. Such and discourage streets seldom need bike lanes. Only the most basic improvements may bicycling for pur- poseful trips. be required, for instance: • bicycle-safe drainage grates • proper sight distance at intersections • smooth pavement and proper maintenance One additional factor that may need attention is connectivity. Providing bicycle linkages between residential streets and nearby commercial areas or adjacent neighborhoods can significantly improve bicycling conditions. In many communi- 2-1 Wisconsin Bicycle Facility Design Handbook ties, newer parts of town tend to have dis- Figure 2-3: Bicycle- continuous street networks that require bicy- pedestrian connec- clists, pedestrians, and motorists to travel a tions like that long distance to get to a nearby destination shown can provide (fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Review- Resource Guide for Separating Bicyclists from Traffic
    Literature Review Resource Guide for Separating Bicyclists from Traffic July 2018 0 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. REPORT NO. 2. GOVERNMENT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NO. FHWA-SA-18-030 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE Literature Review: Resource Guide for Separating Bicyclists from Traffic 2018 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE 7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Bill Schultheiss, Rebecca Sanders, Belinda Judelman, and Jesse Boudart (TDG); REPORT NO. Lauren Blackburn (VHB); Kristen Brookshire, Krista Nordback, and Libby Thomas (HSRC); Dick Van Veen and Mary Embry (MobyCON). 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME & ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO. Toole Design Group, LLC VHB 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. 8484 Georgia Avenue, Suite 800 8300 Boone Boulevard, Suite 300 DTFH61-16-D-00005 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Vienna, VA 22182 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE FHWA 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The Task Order Contracting Officer's Representative (TOCOR) for this task was Tamara Redmon.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Concrete Pavements with Tied Shoulders Or Widened Lanes Bert E
    39 19. K. Y. Kung. A New Method in Correlation Study of vision of Pavements. Proc., 3rd International Con­ Pavement Deflection and Cracking. Proc., 2nd In­ ference on Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, ternational Conference on Structural Design of 1972, pp. 1188-1205. Asphalt Pavements, 1967, pp. 1037-1046. 20. P. H. Leger and P. Autret. The Use of Deflection Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Pavement Condi­ Measurements for the Structural Design and Super- tion Evaluation. Evaluation of Concrete Pavements With Tied Shoulders or Widened Lanes Bert E. Colley, Claire G. Ball, and Pichet Arriyavat, Portland Cement Association Field and laboratory pavements were instrumented and load tested to reducing pavement performance, Because of this prob­ evaluate the effect of widened lanes, concrete shoulders, and slab thick­ lem, several states have installed costly longitudinal ness on measured strains and deflectfons. Eight slabs were tested in the and transverse drainage systems. Thus, concrete field and two in the laboratory. Pavement slabs were 203, 229, or 254 shoulders and widened lanes have the potential for curing mm (8, 9, or 10 in) thick. Other major design variables included the width of lane widening, the presence or absence of dowels or of a con­ many drainage problems as well as providing additional crete shoulder, joint spacing, and the type of shoulder joint construc­ slab strength. tion. Generally, there was good agreement between measured strains and Many design features contribute to pavement life. values calculated by using Westergaard's theoretical equations. Concrete The effect of some of these features can be evaluated shoulders were effective in reducing the magnitude of measured strains analytically.
    [Show full text]
  • Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure Network Data Catalog
    Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure Network Data Catalog Created by Institute for Transportation Research and Education Bicycle and Pedestrian Program For North Carolina Department of Transportation Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation January 21, 2016 JANUARY 2016 PBIN DATA CATALOG PBIN Data Catalog Each dataset provides a consistent set of attribute fields on existing bicycle, pedestrian, and shared-use path data for use in asset management as well as proposed data for use in planning and project development by PGI awarded communities. Where applicable, fields or attributes marked with an asterisk (*) are required data for NCDOT Planning Grant Initiative (PGI) communities to collect and/or update as a condition of award. PGI communities should consider including additional fields or attributes from the Data Catalog when inventorying focus areas or corridors, as identified through the plan development process. The data catalog is broken up into three sections: 1. BICYCLE ASSETS The Bike_Fac_Linear feature class includes polyline data on existing and proposed facilities such as bike lanes, bike routes, bicycle boulevards, and paved shoulders. It also includes information on surface condition, facility width, slope, and rumble strips. The Bike_Fac_Point feature class includes polyline data on existing and proposed facilities such as bike parking, crossing improvement, bike boxes, bike share kiosks, and bike detection loops. It also includes information on bicycle-oriented signage and hazardous grates. It also includes information on surface condition, facility width, slope, and rumble strips. The Ped_Fac_Linear feature class includes polyline data on existing and proposed facilities such as sidewalks and other types of footpaths. It includes information on material, facility width, buffer, buffer width and slope.
    [Show full text]
  • FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide
    BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE FEBRUARY 2019 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED February 2019 Final Report 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. FUNDING NUMBERS Bikeway Selection Guide NA 6. AUTHORS 5b. CONTRACT NUMBER Schultheiss, Bill; Goodman, Dan; Blackburn, Lauren; DTFH61-16-D-00005 Wood, Adam; Reed, Dan; Elbech, Mary 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION VHB, 940 Main Campus Drive, Suite 500 REPORT NUMBER Raleigh, NC 27606 NA Toole Design Group, 8484 Georgia Avenue, Suite 800 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Mobycon - North America, Durham, NC 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AND ADDRESS(ES) AGENCY REPORT NUMBER Tamara Redmon FHWA-SA-18-077 Project Manager, Office of Safety Federal Highway Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE This document is available to the public on the FHWA website at: NA https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike 13. ABSTRACT This document is a resource to help transportation practitioners consider and make informed decisions about trade- offs relating to the selection of bikeway types. This report highlights linkages between the bikeway selection process and the transportation planning process. This guide presents these factors and considerations in a practical process- oriented way. It draws on research where available and emphasizes engineering judgment, design flexibility, documentation, and experimentation. 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES Bike, bicycle, bikeway, multimodal, networks, 52 active transportation, low stress networks 16. PRICE CODE NA 17. SECURITY 18. SECURITY 19. SECURITY 20.
    [Show full text]
  • Complete Streets Evaluation 2016 Planning Partners Conference
    December 02, 2016 Complete Streets Evaluation 2016 Planning Partners Conference Topics Covered in this Presentation • What is a Complete Street? • Benefits and Challenges of Complete Streets • What is MMLOS? • Importance of Multimodal Evaluations • Methods of Evaluating MMLOS • Making Connections in Adams County What is a Complete Street? Complete Streets are streets for everyone. They are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities. Complete Streets make it easy to cross the street, walk to shops, and bicycle to work. They allow buses to run on time and make it safe for people to walk to and from train stations. -National Complete Streets Coalition What is a Complete Street? • Maximized auto capacity • Limited left-turn access • Limited pedestrian space • Long crossing distances for pedestrians • No clear cycling space Charlie Gandy – Livable Communities Inc. What is a Complete Street? • Reduced auto capacity • Dedicated cycling space • Increased left-turn access • Limited pedestrian space • Long crossing distances for pedestrians Charlie Gandy – Livable Communities Inc. What is a Complete Street? • Reduced auto capacity • Dedicated cycling space • Increased left-turn access • Limited pedestrian space • Increased treatments for safe pedestrian crossings Charlie Gandy – Livable Communities Inc. Benefits of Complete Streets Economic Roadway safety Shifting preferences for development urban environments Economic Benefits of Complete Streets Property Values: • Properties values along the Indianapolis Cultural Trail increased 148% after construction Indiana University Public Policy Institute Indianapolis Cultural Trail Economic Benefits of Complete Streets Property Values: • A one-point increase in WalkScore.com rating is associated with a $700 to $3,000 increase in property values Smart Growth America Economic Benefits of Complete Streets Retail Sales: • A study based on 78 businesses in Portland found that non-drivers spend similar amounts or more than drivers.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Bicycle and Trail Design Guidelines
    Riverton Active Transportation Master Plan Appendix A Bicycle and Trail Design Guidelines 2015 PREPARED BY: Alta Planning + Design 8 Broadway Salt Lake City, UT 84111 DRAFT Appendix A: Bicycle and Trail Design Guidelines Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................................1 Design Needs of Pedestrians ....................................................................................................................................................4 Design Needs of Bicyclists ..........................................................................................................................................................6 Bicycle Facility Selection Guidelines .......................................................................................................................................9 Facility Classification ....................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Facility Continua ................................................................................................................................................................................ 11 Bicycle Facility Contextual Guidance ........................................................................................................................................ 12 Shared Roadways ..........................................................................................................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • Bicycle Lane Design
    Maryland SHA Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines CHAPTER 3: BICYCLE LANE DESIGN 3.1 General Notes Bicycle lanes have been shown to increase the comfort level of bicyclists. Various studies have found that bicycle lanes have some distinct advantages over paved shoulders and wide outside lanes as they: Provide exclusive space for the bicyclist; Reduce wrong way bicycle riding; Encourage increased bicycle use; Increase motorist awareness of bicyclists; Encourage bicyclist to ride further away from parked vehicles; Reduce motorist lane changes when passing bicyclists; Provide visual guidance to cyclist navigating Figure 3.1: Bicycle Lane intersections (Hunter et al, 2005). Bicycle lanes have also been shown to have some of the following potentially negative operational characteristics: Require additional enforcement to prevent motorists from parking or stopping in the bicycle lane Create an impression that bicyclist must always operate in the bicycle lane (even if there is debris or an obstruction present) Can place bicyclist within the path of an opening parked vehicle door Designated bicycle lanes shall be considered if any one of the following criteria is met: It will be a minimum length of one-half (0.5) Figure 3.2 - Shared Road; Low Volume, Low Speed mile; Bicycle lanes are included in the local Master Plan; Existing or proposed adjacent land use will support bicycling (residential, commercial, educational, recreational, transit); or The bicycle lane would serve to connect other bicycle facilities, including shared use paths and bicycle routes. Bicycle lanes are usually not necessary for roadways with very low operating speeds (20 mph or less). In these locations, lane sharing between bicyclists and motor vehicles occurs naturally as there is little difference in speeds between them.
    [Show full text]
  • A Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hickory Was Held In
    December 15, 2020 A Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hickory was held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building on Tuesday, December 15, 2020 at 5:45 p.m., with the following members present: Hank Guess Tony Wood Charlotte Williams Aldermen David Zagaroli Danny Seaver Jill Patton* A quorum was present. *Alderwoman Patton attended simultaneously by electronic communication via Zoom. Also present were: City Manager Warren Wood, Assistant City Manager Rodney Miller, Assistant City Manager Rick Beasley, Transportation Planning Manager John Marshall, Community Development Manager Karen Dickerson, Public Works Director Steve Miller, Public Utilities Director Shawn Pennell, Executive Assistant Manager Yaidee Fox, City Attorney John Crone, Deputy City Clerk Crystal B. Mundy, and City Clerk Debbie D. Miller Representatives from Alta present: Mr. John Cock. Ms. Heather Seagle attended simultaneously by electronic communication via Zoom. I. Mayor Guess called the meeting to order. All Council members were present except for Alderman Williams. Alderwoman Patton attended simultaneously by electronic communication via Zoom. II. Presentation of Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan – Presented by Alta Transportation Planning Manager John Marshall thanked Council for coming in early to hear the presentation and consider the bicycle and pedestrian plan. He advised Council actually approved the contract for this plan approximately one year ago. Staff started the process last fall. They started talking with Alta last November. They had their first kickoff meeting in January of this year, before everything kind of went south. He recognized a couple people. Attending simultaneously by electronic communication via Zoom was Lindsay Stockman, from Live Well Catawba and the County Health Department.
    [Show full text]
  • Bicycle Lane Design
    On Road Bikeways Part 1: Bicycle Lane Design Presentation by: Nick Jackson Bill Schultheiss, P.E. September 04, 2012 On Road Bikeways Part 1: Bicycle Lane Design Follow the conversation: @tooledesign FOLLOW THE CONVERSATION ON TWITTER ÂToole Design Group is live tweeting this webinar Â@tooledesign Â#AASHTO #BikeGuide On Road Bikeways Part 1: Bicycle Lane Design Follow the conversation: @tooledesign WEBINAR #3: ON ROAD FACILITIES PART 1: BIKE LANES AND INTERSECTIONS Today’s Webinar  Significant Updates & New Content for bicycle lane design  Purpose & Benefits  Marking and Sign Basics  Intersections/Turns  Retrofitting On Road Bikeways Part 1: Bicycle Lane Design Follow the conversation: @tooledesign FUTURE WEBINARS  August 10: Overview  October 9: Shared Use Paths  August 22: Planning Chapter  General design principles  September 4: On-Road  Pathway geometry Bikeways Part I  October 23: Shared Use Paths  Bike Lanes (including Intersections)  Intersection Design  September 18: On-Road  Mid-block crossings Bikeways Part II  November 6: Bikeway  Shared lanes Maintenance and Operation  Bicycle boulevards & signing  Signals On Road Bikeways Part 1: Bicycle Lane Design Follow the conversation: @tooledesign DISCOUNT FOR WEBINAR PARTICIPANTS http://www.walkinginfo.org/training/pbic/ AASHTO_Promo_Flyer.pdf Link will be emailed to webinar attendees On Road Bikeways Part 1: Bicycle Lane Design Follow the conversation: @tooledesign SOME BACKGROUND ÂWhat is AASHTO?  Mission: “provides technical services to support states in their efforts to efficiently and safely move people and goods” ÂSome history  Last Guide – 1999, largely written in 96-98  Survey to update Guide - 2004 ÂStandards vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4: Other On-Road Bicycle Facilities and Considerations
    Maryland SHA Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines CHAPTER 4: OTHER ON-ROAD BICYCLE FACILITIES AND CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Shared Roadways In Maryland, shared roadways include all roadways EXCEPT the following: - Roadways with posted speed limits greater than 50 mph and no available shoulder for bicycle use (bicycle access is prohibited by Maryland law) - Controlled access freeways (except where specifically allowed such as sections of US 29 in Howard and Montgomery Counties). Many local roadways in Maryland with low traffic volumes (<1,000 ADT) and/or low speeds (<20mph) generally do not need special bicycle provisions (such as bicycle lanes) in order to be compatible for bicycle use. These roadways operate well in their current condition for shared use. However, state-maintained roadways in suburban and urban areas of Maryland typically carry higher volumes of motor W11-1 vehicle traffic and are therefore less compatible to bicycling unless paved shoulders or bicycle lanes are provided. 4.2 Share the Road Warning Signage SHARE THE ROAD warning signs can be used to alert motorists of the presence of bicyclists in locations where conflicts between motorists and bicyclists are W16-2 frequent, and where there are no immediate opportunities to provide additional space for bicyclists. Figure 4.1 The following are examples of where SHARE THE ROAD signs may be used: - where bicycling conditions are poor (i.e. locations with high volumes of traffic, operating speeds greater than 35 mph, no shoulder space, or poor pavement condition along roadway edge); - areas of roadway with poor sight distance; - transitions to shared travel lanes at the end of shoulders or bicycle lanes; - where an obstacle prevents bicyclists from continuing on an otherwise rideable shoulder.
    [Show full text]
  • COMPLETE STREETS HANDBOOK CHECKLIST Philadelphia City Planning Commission
    COMPLETE STREETS HANDBOOK CHECKLIST Philadelphia City Planning Commission INSTRUCTIONS This Checklist is an implementation tool of the Philadelphia Complete Streets Handbook (the “Handbook”) and enables City engineers and planners to review projects for their compliance with the Handbook’s policies. The handbook provides design guidance and does not supersede or replace language, standards or policies established in the City Code, City Plan or Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). This checklist is used to document how project applicants considered and accommodated the needs of all users of city streets during the planning and/or design of projects affecting the public right-of-way. Departmental reviewers will use this checklist to confirm that submitted designs incorporate complete streets considerations (see §11-901 of The Philadelphia Code). Applicants for projects that require Civic Design Review or Plan of Development Review shall complete this checklist and attach it to plans submitted to the Philadelphia City Planning Commission for review. The Handbook can be accessed at http://philadelphiastreets.com/complete-streets.aspx. 1 COMPLETE STREETS HANDBOOK CHECKLIST Philadelphia City Planning Commission INSTRUCTIONS (continued) APPLICANTS ARE ADVISED TO NOTE: § This checklist is designed to be filled out electronically. Text fields will expand automatically as you type. § This checklist is estimated to take 60–90 minutes to complete for applicants familiar with the Handbook. § Answering “No” or “Not Applicable” (N/A) to questions in this checklist does not result in an automatic denial of approval. Applicants shall provide adequate explanation and comments to justify any such responses in the space provided at the end the checklist.
    [Show full text]