Making Streets Safe for Cycling OVERVIEW: currently done in the United States centers on Literature Review the installation of conventional bicycle lanes. A growing number of cities surveyed, however, have experienced successful installations of The following information is a contextual review innovative facilities in recent years. These of bicycle facility research and implementa- cities include Minneapolis, MN, Cambridge, tion guides, accompanied by a selective case MA, Portland, OR, Philadelphia, PA, and San study survey of innovative on-street cycling Francisco, CA. implementations in both the United States and abroad. This information is intended to serve Nationally implemented facility innovations can as a catalogue of ideas on which to base facility be grouped into three categories: (1) intersec- recommendations for local implementation. tion treatments, (2) improvements to standard- ized facilities and (3) new roadway accommoda- Existing Documents tions. Intersection treatments used to reduce confl icts between cyclists and turning vehicles As U.S. federal transportation policy increas- include advanced stop boxes and combination ingly supports the development of alternative turn lanes; improvements to standardized fa- transportation options, planning for bicycle fa- cilities include the use of pigmented lanes and cilities has emerged on federal, state and local improved road marking programs; new roadway levels. With its initial release in 1981and 1991 accommodations include bicycle/bus lanes, update, AASHTO’s Guide to the Development contra-fl ow bicycle lanes, center-median lanes of Bicycle Facilities has continued to serve as and various traffi c calming installations. the primary reference for standardized bicycle facility design and implementation. International case studies The 1997 New York City Bicycle Master Plan Information received from other countries re- released by the Department of City Planning fl ects a higher level of bicycle facility innovation offers a local context for the implementation of and evaluation than that seen in the United AASHTO recommended facilities. However, it States. Denmark and the United Kingdom, in provides few recommendations for the imple- particular, provided literature documenting ex- mentation of innovative facilities increasingly tensive research and evaluation which expands seen in use in other cities in the United States upon U.S. facility implementations. and internationally. These facilities can be used to serve cyclists more safely in locations where Successful implementation of innovative fa- standardized facilities (AASHTO recommended) cilities in the United States provides a realistic are not easily implementable or desirable. basis upon which New York City can fi nd inno- vative ways to safely accommodate cyclists on Literature search highly traffi cked city streets. In addition, national testing of international bicycle facilities will likely Outreach for this report focused on large met- continue as planning for cycling becomes more ropolitan areas somewhat comparable to New pervasive in the United States, particularly with York City, in addition to cities with a reputation increased levels of federal funding. Examples for innovative cycling programs. Literature was of cycling facilities used in other countries can received from more than 30 national bicycle pro- be used to broaden the scope of innovation grams and 10 international cycling programs. used in the United States to date, and supple- ment evaluation and safety data to guide local National case studies implementation efforts. A review of written materials and phone inter- views with local bicycle coordinators shows that the majority of bicycle facility implementation 62 Literature Review EXISTING DOCUMENTS after study reports that potential bicyclists... want a designated space in which to operate -- and that without the feeling of safety this An expanding array of bicycle facility literature confers on them, they simply will not ride in has been published in the decade following the current traffi c conditions” (p.82). 1991 Intermodal Transportation Effi ciency Act (ISTEA). Moreover, with authorization of the Current FHA research includes a three-year federal 1998 Transportation Effi ciency Act for comparative analysis of bike lanes versus wide the 21st Century (TEA 21), a continued national curb lanes. The study is being reviewed and emphasis on bicycle research and implementa- should be fi nalized before the end of 1998. At tion will occur. that time, a Transportation Research Board (TRB) paper will be prepared that summarizes Bicycle Facility Research the results. For the past twenty years, a major point of Overall, there has been an emerging recognition research and debate both in the United States in research literature that a range of potential and abroad has been the relative merits of facilities can be used to accommodate bicy- separating bicyclists from motor vehicles versus clists, and that the major issues are those of integrating them into traffi c fl ow. design and selection. The safety of bicyclists is infl uenced more by the design of a particular A 1995 report published by the Federal Highway facility than the decision to implement that type Administration (FHA), Bicycle Safety-Related of facility. Reseach Synthesis, summarizes this debate as one in which both sides used “safety” as the Implementation Guides cornerstone of their argument: A number of federal, state and local guidelines • proponents of separation argue that bicycles have been developed for the implementation of and motor vehicles do not mix well because bicycle facilities. The following pages provide a of speed differentials, operator skill, visibility context for the Making Streets Safe for Cycling and other factors; report by briefl y describing a number of these • proponents of integration contend that documents. seperated facilities create dangerous in- tersections, and that all bicyclists can be Descriptions are organized into federal, New trained to ride confi dently in traffi c. York State and New York City listings, pay- ing specifi c attention to design guidelines and The nature of this debate, however, has changed standards. These are not intended to provide over the past twenty years as much has been an exhaustive listing of bicycle literature. Those learned about the planning, design, operation documents listed, however, have emerged as and maintenance of bicycle facilities. In par- widely referenced and recognized national ticular, the FHA’s Research Synthesis cites a guidelines and standards, or standards and number of case studies showing reductions in reports specifi cally applicable to the New York bicycle accident rates upon the implementation City area. of bike lanes (pp.80-84). This report also cites growing evidence that the presence of bike Federal literature contains planning and design lanes is a signifi cant determinant of the level of guidelines that are widely referenced by nearly bicycle use in a community: every state (including New York). In addition, this literature offers a comprehensive review of “In the context of the current Federal policy both national and international programs, poli- goal of increasing bicycle use, the issue of cies and design adaptations for bicycle facilities perceived safety and the comfort of bicyclists in the 1990’s. assumes much greater signifi cance. Study 63 Making Streets Safe for Cycling Literature produced by New York State focuses on streamlining federal bicycle guidelines into planning for state and local projects. New York City planning and policy documents apply coordinated state and federal guidelines to a local network. Design standards recom- mended in this literature generally rely on a lim- ited number of AASHTO recommended facility types. Brief descriptions of innovative on-street facilities are contained in these documents, although none recommends implementation specifi c to the local network. 64 Literature Review Federal Documents Transportation Offi cials (AASHTO) Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Uniform guidelines in the United States were Accommodate Bicycles, 1994 established in 1981 by AASHTO, and continue Federal Highway Administration (FHA) to provide a national reference which most states and cities, including New York City, This manual provides comprehensive guidelines have adopted entirely or with minor changes for the selection of roadway design treatments as standards for the design of cycling facili- to accommodate bicycles, and fi lls in many of ties. The most recent update of the Guide was the policy and planning gaps that the American published in 1991, much of which is devoted Association of State Highway and Transporta- to facility design. tion Offi cials (AASHTO) did not address in its 1991 Guide to the Development of Bicycle Fa- Following a section on safe roadway conditions cilities 1 (described below). More specifi cally, for facility implementation (i.e. safe drainage this manual recommends design treatments grates and good pavement quality), the AAS- and specifi cations for roadways to serve dif- HTO Guide describes several on and off-street ferent types of bicyclists under various sets of facility types available to engineers and plan- traffi c operational factors. Two types of design ners. On-street facility types covered by the bicyclists are recognized: group A (advanced) Guide include bicycle lanes and wide curb lanes, and group B/C (basic adult and child). in addition to the cyclists’ use of shoulders and bicycle routes. Bicycle