DOCSLIB.ORG

Traffic Impacts of Bicycle Facilities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Traffic Impacts of Bicycle Facilities Greg Lindsey, Principal Investigator Humphrey School of Public Affairs University of Minnesota June 2017 Research Project Final Report 2017-23 • mndot.gov/research To request this document in an alternative format, such as braille or large print, call 651-366-4718 or 1- 800-657-3774 (Greater Minnesota) or email your request to [email protected]. Please request at least one week in advance. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. 3. Recipients Accession No. MN/RC 2017-23 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Traffic Impacts of Bicycle Facilities June 2017 6. 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. John Hourdos, Derek Lehrke, Melissa Duhn, Alireza Ermagun, Lila Singer-Berk, Greg Lindsey 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. University of Minnesota CTS# 2015017 Humphrey School of Public Affairs 11. Contract (C) or Grant (G) No. th 301 19 Ave. S. (c) 99008 (wo) 144 Minneapolis, MN 55455 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Minnesota Local Road Research Board Final Report Minnesota Department of Transportation 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Research Services & Library 395 John Ireland Boulevard, MS 330 St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-1899 15. Supplementary Notes http:// mndot.gov/research/reports/2017/201723.pdf 16. Abstract (Limit: 250 words) Engineers need information about interactions between vehicles and bicyclists to design efficient, safe transportation systems. This study involved a review of design guidelines for bicycle facilities, observation of bicycle-vehicle interactions at nine roadways with different types of bicycle facilities, analysis of results, and description of design implications. Facilities observed included buffered and striped bicycle lanes, sharrows, signed shared lanes, and shoulders of various widths. Driver behaviors were categorized as no change in trajectory, deviation within lane, encroachment into adjacent lane, completion of a passing maneuver, and queuing behind cyclists. Drivers on roadways with bicycle lanes were less likely to encroach into adjacent lanes, pass, or queue when interacting with cyclists than drivers on roadways with sharrows, signs designating shared lanes, or no bicycle facilities. Queueing behind cyclists, the most significant impact on vehicular traffic flows, generally was highest on roads with no facilities or shared facilities without marked lanes. Statistical modeling confirmed the descriptive results. Given an objective of increasing predictability of driver behavior, buffered or striped bicycle lanes offer advantages over other facilities. Sharrows may alert drivers to the presence of cyclists, but traffic impacts on roadways with sharrows may not differ significantly from roadways with no facilities. Signs indicating bicyclists may occupy lanes also may alert drivers to the presence of cyclists, but this study provided no evidence that interactions on roadways marked only with signs differ from roadways with no facilities. From the perspective of reducing potential traffic impacts, bicycle lanes are to be preferred over sharrows or signage. 17. Document Analysis/Descriptors 18. Availability Statement Bicycling, Traffic, Bicycle Facilities, Design, Impact Studies, No restrictions. Document available from: Drivers, Bicycle Lanes National Technical Information Services, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 19. Security Class (this report) 20. Security Class (this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 100 Traffic Impacts of Bicycle Facilities FINAL REPORT Prepared by: John Hourdos Derek Lehrke Melissa Duhn Minnesota Traffic Observatory Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geo- Engineering University of Minnesota Alireza Ermagun Lila Singer-Berk Greg Lindsey Humphrey School of Public Affairs University of Minnesota June 2017 Published by: Minnesota Department of Transportation Research Services & Library 395 John Ireland Boulevard, MS 330 St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-1899 This report represents the results of research conducted by the authors and does not necessarily represent the views or policies of the Minnesota Department of Transportation or the University of Minnesota. This report does not contain a standard or specified technique. The authors, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and the University of Minnesota do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to this report because they are considered essential to this report. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research team would like to acknowledge the Local Road Research Board, Mr. James Rosenow, Technical Liaison, Mr. Bruce Holdhusen, Project Coordinator, members of the Technical Advisory Panel (TAP), Ms. Elizabeth Andrews, Center for Transportation Studies, and Ms. Christine Anderson, Center for Transportation Studies, for their assistance with the design and conduct of this study. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................................1 CHAPTER 2: The Design and Evaluation of Bicycle Facilities: A Review of the Literature........................2 2.1 Approach and Methods ...................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Analyses and Results........................................................................................................................... 4 2.2.1 Categorization of Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines ................................................................... 4 2.2.2 Evaluations of Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines ...................................................................... 12 2.2.3 Complete Street Policies and Programs .................................................................................... 20 2.3 The Need for Field Evaluations of Bicycle Facilities .......................................................................... 24 CHAPTER 3: Field Methods, Site Identification, and Monitoring Approach ......................................... 26 3.1 Pilot Study to Demonstrate Field Methods ...................................................................................... 26 3.1.1 Pilot Site Description ................................................................................................................. 26 3.1.2 Data Reduction .......................................................................................................................... 29 3.1.3 Data Reduction Methodology ................................................................................................... 29 3.1.4 Results of the Pilot Study .......................................................................................................... 30 3.2 Selection of Study Sites .................................................................................................................... 32 3.3 Data Collection, Reduction, and Analysis ......................................................................................... 32 3.3.1 Camera Deployment ................................................................................................................. 32 3.3.2 Review and Initial Video Reduction .......................................................................................... 38 3.3.3 Manual Observation and Bin Counts ........................................................................................ 38 3.3.4 Further Video Reduction ........................................................................................................... 38 3.3.5 Movement Log and Classification of Interactions ..................................................................... 39 3.3.6 Analysis of Interactions ............................................................................................................. 41 CHAPTER 4: Bicycle-Vehicle Interactions and Driver Behaviors on Roadways ..................................... 42 4.1 Veteran’s Memorial Bridge, Mankato .............................................................................................. 42 4.1.1 Effects of Reconstruction on Riding Location ........................................................................... 42 4.1.2 Effects of Reconstruction on Bicycle-vehicle Interactions. ....................................................... 42 4.2 Marshall Avenue, St. Paul ................................................................................................................. 49 4.2.1 Effects of the Striped Bike Lane and Signed Shared Lane ......................................................... 50 4.2.2 Driver Avoidance of Shared Lane .............................................................................................. 51 4.3 Como Avenue, Minneapolis .............................................................................................................. 51 4.3.1 Effects of the Striped Bike Lane and Sharrows ......................................................................... 52 4.4 15th Avenue SE, Minneapolis ............................................................................................................ 53 4.4.1 Effects of Striped Bicycle Lanes and Signed Shared Lanes ........................................................ 53 4.4.2 Effects of Buffered Bicycle Lanes and Signed Shared Lanes ....................................................
Recommended publications
  • 2. Basic Roadway Improvements the Street System Provides the Basic Network for Bicycle Travel

    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.
  • Training Course Non-Motorised Transport Author

    Training Course Non-Motorised Transport Author

    Division 44 Environment and Infrastructure Sector Project „Transport Policy Advice“ Training Course: Non-motorised Transport Training Course on Non-motorised Transport Training Course Non-motorised Transport Author: Walter Hook Findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this document are based on infor- Editor: mation gathered by GTZ and its consultants, Deutsche Gesellschaft für partners, and contributors from reliable Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH sources. P.O. Box 5180 GTZ does not, however, guarantee the D-65726 Eschborn, Germany accuracy or completeness of information in http://www.gtz.de this document, and cannot be held responsible Division 44 for any errors, omissions or losses which Environment and Infrastructure emerge from its use. Sector Project „Transport Policy Advice“ Commissioned by About the author Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ) Walter Hook received his PhD in Urban Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 40 Planning from Columbia University in 1996. D-53113 Bonn, Germany He has served as the Executive Director of the http://www.bmz.de Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) since 1994. He has also served Manager: as adjunct faculty at Columbia University’s Manfred Breithaupt Graduate School of Urban Planning. ITDP is a non-governmental organization dedicated to Comments or feedback? encouraging and implementing We would welcome any of your comments or environmentally sustainable transportation suggestions, on any aspect of the Training policies and projects in developing countries. Course, by e-mail to [email protected], or by surface mail to: Additional contributors Manfred Breithaupt This Module also contains chapters and GTZ, Division 44 material from: P.O. Box 5180 Oscar Diaz D-65726 Eschborn Michael King Germany (Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates) Cover Photo: Dr.
  • Chapter 3 Review Questions

    Chapter 3 Review Questions

    Chapter 3 - Learning to Drive PA Driver’s Manual CHAPTER 3 REVIEW QUESTIONS 1. TEENAGE DRIVERS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE INVOLVED IN A CRASH WHEN: A. They are driving with their pet as a passenger B. They are driving with adult passengers C. They are driving with teenage passengers D. They are driving without any passengers 2. DRIVERS WHO EAT AND DRINK WHILE DRIVING: A. Have no driving errors B. Have trouble driving slow C. Are better drivers because they are not hungry D. Have trouble controlling their vehicles 3. PREPARING TO SMOKE AND SMOKING WHILE DRIVING: A. Do not affect driving abilities B. Help maintain driver alertness C. Are distracting activities D. Are not distracting activities 4. THE TOP MAJOR CRASH TYPE FOR 16 YEAR OLD DRIVERS IN PENNSYLVANIA IS: A. Single vehicle/run-off-the-road B. Being sideswiped on an interstate C. Driving in reverse on a side street D. Driving on the shoulder of a highway 5. WHEN PASSING A BICYCLIST, YOU SHOULD: A. Blast your horn to alert the bicyclist B. Move as far left as possible C. Remain in the center of the lane D. Put on your four-way flashers 6. WHEN YOU DRIVE THROUGH AN AREA WHERE CHILDREN ARE PLAYING, YOU SHOULD EXPECT THEM: A. To know when it is safe to cross B. To stop at the curb before crossing the street C. To run out in front of you without looking D. Not to cross unless they are with an adult 7. IF YOU ARE DRIVING BEHIND A MOTORCYCLE, YOU MUST: A.
  • High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Detection System Testing

    High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Detection System Testing

    High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Detection System Testing Project #: RES2016-05 Final Report Submitted to Tennessee Department of Transportation Principal Investigator (PI) Deo Chimba, PhD., P.E., PTOE. Tennessee State University Phone: 615-963-5430 Email: [email protected] Co-Principal Investigator (Co-PI) Janey Camp, PhD., P.E., GISP, CFM Vanderbilt University Phone: 615-322-6013 Email: [email protected] July 10, 2018 DISCLAIMER This research was funded through the State Research and Planning (SPR) Program by the Tennessee Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration under RES2016-05: High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Detection System Testing. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Tennessee Department of Transportation and the United States Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The State of Tennessee and the United States Government assume no liability of its contents or use thereof. The contents of this report reflect the views of the author(s), who are solely responsible for the facts and accuracy of the material presented. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Tennessee Department of Transportation or the United States Department of Transportation. ii Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. RES2016-05 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date: March 2018 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Detection System Testing 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Deo Chimba and Janey Camp TDOT PROJECT # RES2016-05 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering; Tennessee State University 11.
  • Understanding Intersections –– Stopping at Intersections Are Places Where a Number of Road Users Cross Intersections Paths

    Understanding Intersections –– Stopping at Intersections Are Places Where a Number of Road Users Cross Intersections Paths

    4 rules of the road Chapter 3, signs, signals and road markings, gave you some in this chapter information about the most common signs, signals and road markings you will see when driving. This chapter gives • Understanding you the information you’ll need to help you drive safely at intersections intersections, use lanes correctly and park legally. – signalling – types of intersections Understanding intersections – stopping at Intersections are places where a number of road users cross intersections paths. There is often a lot of activity in intersections, so it’s – right‑of‑way at important to be alert. Remember that other road users may be intersections in a hurry, and may want to move into the same space that you • Using lanes are planning on moving into. correctly – which lane Signalling should you use Signals are important — they let other traffic know what you are – lane tracking intending to do. You should signal when you’re preparing to: – turning lanes – reserved lanes • turn left or right – pulling into a • change lanes lane • park – passing – merging • move toward, or away from, the side of the road. – highway or freeway Types of intersections entrances and exits Controlled intersections – cul‑de‑sacs A controlled intersection is one that has signs or traffic lights – turning around telling you what to do. To drive safely in these intersections, you • Parking tips and need to know what the signals and signs mean, and also the rules right‑of‑way rules. But always be cautious. Other drivers may not be paying attention to the signs and signals. Uncontrolled intersections Uncontrolled intersections have no signs or traffic lights.
  • Literature Review- Resource Guide for Separating Bicyclists from Traffic

    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.
  • Evaluation of Concrete Pavements with Tied Shoulders Or Widened Lanes Bert E

    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.
  • Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure Network Data Catalog

    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.
  • FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide

    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.
  • Indiana Drivers Manual: Ch. 7

    Indiana Drivers Manual: Ch. 7

    CHAPTER 7 | Safe Vehicle Operation CHAPTER SEVEN | SAFE VEHICLE OPERATION Even the most experienced drivers can be distracted while driving. A defensive driver looks out for the actions of other drivers and anticipates potential problems. LANE MARKINGS Lane markings separate traffic and alert drivers when it is permissible to pass other vehicles. Yellow Lane Markings Yellow lane markings separate multiple lanes of traffic going in opposite directions. You may cross a broken yellow line to pass another vehicle when it is safe, but you should not cross a solid yellow line except to turn. Two-lane road with a solid yellow line Two-lane road with a broken Four-lane road with a solid yellow line yellow line White Lane Markings White lane markings separate multiple lanes of traffic going in the same direction. Most roads with more than two lanes have broken white lines to separate the lanes. You may cross a broken white line when it is safe to change lanes, but you should not cross a solid white line. Three lanes of traffic with broken white lines CHANGING LANES AND PASSING OTHER VEHICLES Change only one lane at a time. When changing lanes to prepare for a turn, you must signal your intention to do so at least 200 feet prior to changing lanes or turning. Your signal distance must be at least 300 feet before the turn if you are operating a vehicle in a speed zone of at least 50 miles per hour. Do not weave in and out of lanes, which will greatly increase your risk of an accident.
  • Appendix a Bicycle and Trail Design Guidelines

    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
  • Preferential Lane Use for Heavy Trucks Final Report

    Preferential Lane Use for Heavy Trucks Final Report

    Preferential Lane Use for Heavy Trucks Final report PRC 15-39 F Preferential Lane Use for Heavy Trucks Texas A&M Transportation Institute PRC 15-39 F July 2016 Author Susan T. Chrysler, Ph.D. 2 Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ 4 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. 4 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 5 Benefits of Managed Lanes ......................................................................................................... 5 Introduction and Background ..................................................................................................... 8 Current Practice in Truck Access to Managed Lanes ............................................................. 11 Facilities Where Trucks Are Allowed ....................................................................................... 13 Minneapolis–St. Paul ................................................................................................................ 13 Fort Lauderdale ......................................................................................................................... 14 Houston ....................................................................................................................................