The Bicycle TRANSPORTATION System JANUARY 2010

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The Bicycle TRANSPORTATION System JANUARY 2010 FINAL DRAFT The bicycle TRANSPORTATION system JANUARY 2010 “Cycle tracks will abound in Utopia.” - H.G. Wells / BIKEPORTLAND.ORG MAUS JONATHAN Part THREE PORTLAND BICYCLE PLAN FOR 2030 39 A healthy community, vibrant neighborhoods... and bicycles everywhere ! Part Three: The bicycle transportation system Neighborhood: TOM SLOAN TOM RICHMOND Reason for bicycling: Commutes to school because it’s LESS HASSLE than driving a car - and it saves money too. Favorite Portland bicycling event: PROVIDENCE BRIDGE PEDAL “Block for block, Portland has the best biking infrastructure of any U.S. city. The lanes, the signs, the biking directions, the green boxes all make biking feasible for anyone in this city. I sold my car three years ago and haven’t regretted it a day since.” YAHOO MAPS YAHOO Bicyclist needs image PROFILE Alana 40 FINAL DRAFT - JANUARY 2010 FINAL DRAFT The bicycle transportation system JANUARY 2010 3.1 EXPANDING THE BICYCLE 3.1.2 Form a fi ne-grained bikeway network NETWORK A study of best practices from the world’s most 3.1.1 Introduction successful bicycling cities reveals that a dense Th ere is a direct correlation between the bikeway network has the advantages of limiting expansion of Portland’s bicycle network and out-of-direction travel and providing a variety / BIKEPORTLAND.ORG MAUS JONATHAN the growth in bicycle ridership that the city of route options to each destination. Having experienced between the early 1990’s and 2009. more route options allows bicyclists of diff erent Focused investments to build the city’s bikeway skill and comfort levels to identify routes best network eliminated barriers to bicycling for suited to their transportation needs. Streets Low-stress bicycle boulevard, SE Ladd Avenue many and gave proof to a ‘build it and they will optimized for bicycle travel translate to savings come’ approach. in time and energy that help to make bicycling more attractive than driving. To attract more Portland residents to bicycle for transportation, the Portland Bicycle Plan Th e density of Portland’s recommended BORKOWITZ TODD for 2030 proposes a three-pronged strategy for bikeway network varies from district to district. creating a more complete network: Spacing guidelines identifi ed in the survey of best practices suggest that a bikeway be 1. Form a fi ner-grained bikeway network provided every 800 feet in urban areas (about 2. Emphasize low-stress bicycle routes three Portland blocks). While this standard 3. Ensure access to common destinations can be met in many areas in Portland, it can’t be achieved in all Portland neighborhoods due At a bicycle signal at the Broadway Bridge Th is strategy is consistent with guidance off ered 1 to disconnected roadway networks, physical in the Dutch CROW Manual, the world’s barriers or terrain constraints. In such cases, the most authoritative manual on bikeway design, bikeway corridors have been spaced as closely which emphasizes cohesion, directness, safety, as possible while minimizing out-of-direction BORKOWITZ TODD attractiveness and comfort as the primary travel and steep slopes. factors in a successful bikeway network. Portland’s 1996 Bicycle Master Plan proposed a network of planned bikeways. Th e Portland 1 CROW is the acronym of the Information and Technology Platform Bicycle Plan for 2030 signifi cantly expands that for Transport, Infrastructure and Public space, a Dutch non-profi t collaboration between government and businesses that produces planned network. A network summary by the CROW-publication 261 ‘Handboek verkeersveiligheid’ (‘Road safety manual’). facility type is provided in Figure 3.2. Wide bike lane, N Vancouver Avenue PORTLAND BICYCLE PLAN FOR 2030 41 A healthy community, vibrant neighborhoods... and bicycles everywhere ! Part Three: The bicycle transportation system Bicycle network EXPANSION by facility type: 3.1.3 Develop a cohesive network of low-stress bikeways Bicycle facility type Existing Miles Total miles Facility As Portland’s bikeway network has expanded developed added by at plan proportion of and ridership has grown, it has become clear miles this plan completion total system that many residents who do not bicycle Trails 75 miles 64 miles 139 miles 14% regularly would ride more oft en if they could minimize their exposure to automobile traffi c. Separated in-roadways 176 miles 314 miles 490 miles 51% Th is realization forms the basis for this plan’s ( bike lanes, buff ered strategy to emphasize low-stress bicycle routes. bike lanes, cycle tracks) Bicycle boulevards / 30 miles 256 miles 286 miles 30% Low-stress bicycle facilities, including trails, advisory bike lanes low-traffi c shared roadways (such as bicycle boulevards) and cycle tracks, are bikeways Enhanced shared - 47 miles 47 miles 5% that are separated either physically or spatially roadways from higher-volume roadways. Emphasizing Signed connections 28 miles 0 miles 0 miles * 0% development of this low-stress network of streets and trails provides an eff ective strategy TOTAL 309 miles 681 miles 962 miles 100% for advancing the critical principles of cohesion, * Routes previously identifi ed as signed connections will be developed as another bicycle facility type in the Portland Bicycle Plan for 2030.” comfort, directness, safety and attractiveness commonly identifi ed as international best FIGURE 3-1: Bicycle network expansion by facility type practices for bikeway design. “The draft Portland Bicycle Plan for 2030 takes Portland’s current bicycle planning eff ort to Bicycle boulevards, in particular, have proven the next level by providing a more holistic range of bicycle planning policy, objectives and to attract high numbers of riders due to the action items in order to improve facility design, safety, rider education, encouragement and level of comfort they provide, the mobility enforcement.” function they serve and their proximity to where people live and travel. Indeed, bicycle - Portland Bicycle Advisory Committee letter to Portland Planning Commission, 2009 boulevards have become among the city’s most “We agree with the recommendation of the Plan to focus initial investments in bicycle popular bikeways. Although bicycle boulevards boulevards to rapidly bring a comfortable cycling experience to as wide a portion of Portland represent only one percent of Portland’s overall as possible.” roadway network, a recent study by Portland tate University Professor Jennifer Dill found - Portland Planning Commission, October 2009 that they attracted ten percent of all the bicycle 42 FINAL DRAFT - JANUARY 2010 FINAL DRAFT The bicycle transportation system JANUARY 2010 trips.2 Th is 10:1 ratio is higher than the ratio streets in Portland’s Transportation System Plan either for streets with bicycle lanes or for trails. (TSP) and only 20 percent of the streets in Metro ’s 2040 Growth Concept centers (Central A Bikeway Network Gap Analysis performed by City , regional centers and town centers) had the Bureau of Transportation in 2008 showed a developed bicycle facility at that time. Th e that fewer than 30 percent of Portland residents defi ciency is due to the wide range of other JONATHAN MAUS / BIKEPORTLAND.ORG MAUS JONATHAN live within a quarter mile of developed low- demands on main streets for motor vehicle stress bikeways.3 Even if the low-stress bicycle capacity, on-street parking and pedestrian network designated within Portland’s 1996 facilities. Portland’s 1996 Bicycle Master Plan Bicycle Master Plan were completed, it would called for bike lanes on many main streets where still serve only half of city’s population. they have not yet been implemented due to such constraints. Th e Portland Bicycle Plan for 2030 calls for updating Portland’s bicycle network to include Th e Portland Bicycle Plan for 2030 promotes more low-stress bicycle boulevards and trails, bicycle facilities on all main streets and and to update its design guidelines to include recommends that they be designed to provide treatments like buff ered bike lanes and cycle as much separation as feasible from the high tracks to make higher-volume roadways operate volumes of traffi c. Facilities such as wide bike in a more low-stress manner for bicycling. Th e lanes , buff ered bike lanes and cycle tracks4 are plan recommends a dense network of bikeways appropriate to provide separation between that will more than triple the size of the existing bicyclists and motor vehicle traffi c. As with any bicycle transportation network and increase the project, facilities must be tailored to the site Low-stress bicycle boulevard, SE Harrison Street low-stress bicycle network more than ten-fold. context and constraints, and the essential needs of other modes and uses of the right-of-way, 3.1.4 Provide direct access to common including walking, parking, street trees, freight destinations and surface stormwater management, must be A 2008 assessment of Portland’s existing considered in their design. bikeway network found that it fails to provide direct access to most commercial areas in As described in Part Five: Strategic Portland. Only 33 percent of designated main Implementation, the initial strategy for / BIKEPORTLAND.ORG MAUS JONATHAN 2Bike-GPS: Understanding and Measuring Bicycling Behavior. a building the new network will be to emphasize focus on travel time and route choice. Jennifer Dill, Ph.D., Portland State University. December 2008. 3 Such low-stress routes include the city’s 32 miles of bicycle 4 Facility types are described in detail Chapter 3.2 and in Appendix boulevards and 75 miles of off -street paths. G, Glossary Low-stress bikeway connection through a Portland park PORTLAND BICYCLE PLAN FOR 2030 43 A healthy community, vibrant neighborhoods... and bicycles everywhere ! Part Three: The bicycle transportation system Planned bikeways: Built bikeways: the development of the low-stress network, especially bicycle boulevards and other BIKEWAY GAP MAP #1 BIKEWAY GAP MAP #2 AREAS MORE THAN 1/4 MILE FROM A AREAS MORE THAN 1/4 MILE TSP CITY BIKEWAY OR OFF STREET PATH FROM AN EXISTING IMPROVED BIKEWAY shared roadway facilities .
Recommended publications
  • SHARED LANE MARKINGS (Sharrow) SHOULDER BICYCLE
    BICYCLE FACILITIES DEFINITIONS SHARED LANE (wide curb/outside lanes) SHARED LANE MARKINGS (sharrow) A lane of a traveled way that is open to bicycle travel and A pavement marking symbol that indicates an appropriate bicycle vehicular use. positioning in a shared lane. SHOULDER CYCLE TRACK The portion of the roadway contiguous with the traveled way, for A portion of a right-of-way contiguous with the traveled way, which accommodation of stopped vehicles, emergency use and lateral has been designated by pavement markings and, if used, signs, for support of sub-base, base and surface courses, often used by the exclusive use of bicyclists. Cycle tracks are typically one-way cyclists where paved. (not always), may or may not be raised above the roadway and are separated from the motor vehicle lane by a barrier or buffer such as a rolled curb, cross-hatched paint, planting strip or parked cars. BICYCLE LANE OR BIKE LANE A portion of a roadway which has been designated by pavement markings and, if used, signs, for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists. BICYCLE FACILITIES DEFINITIONS SHARED USE PATH BICYCLE PARKING A bikeway physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic Bicycle racks should be designed so that they: by an open space or barrier and either within the highway right-of- • Support the bicycle at two points above its center of gravity. way or within an independent right-of-way. Shared use paths may • Accommodate high security U-shaped bike locks. also be used by pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers • Accommodate locks securing the frame and one or both wheels and other non-motorized users.
    [Show full text]
  • Bicycle Boulevards: Statistical Analysis of the Presence Of
    BICYCLE BOULEVARDS: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE PRESENCE OF BICYCLE BOULEVARDS AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON BICYCLE-TO-WORK RATES IN PORTLAND, OREGON by RITHY KHUT A THESIS Presented to the Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Community and Regional Planning December 2012 THESIS APPROVAL PAGE Student: Rithy Khut Title: Bicycle Boulevards: Statistical Analysis of the Presence of Bicycle Boulevards and Their Influence on Bicycle-to-Work Rates in Portland, Oregon This thesis has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Community and Regional Planning degree in the Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management by: Dr. Marc Schlossberg Chairperson Dr. Grant Jacobsen Member Briana Orr Member and Kimberly Andrews Espy Vice President for Research & Innovation/Dean of the Graduate School Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. Degree awarded December 2012 ii © 2012 Rithy Khut This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. iii THESIS ABSTRACT Rithy Khut Master of Community and Regional Planning Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management December 2012 Title: Bicycle Boulevards: Statistical Analysis of the Presence of Bicycle Boulevards and Their Influence on Bicycle-to-Work Rates in Portland, Oregon One of the top bicycling cities in the United States, Portland, Oregon has used a mixture of bicycle infrastructure to create a cohesive network for bicyclists. Building on their success, in 2010 Portland set forth on an ambitious path to envision their bicycle network in 2030.
    [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]
  • Women's Needs and Behaviours in the Paris Region
    Towards inclusive mobility: Women’s needs and behaviours in the Paris Region Cosima Malandrino (LGI) Luc Berman (LGI) October, 2020 Table of Content Executive summary .............................................................................................................................. 6 Introduction – About TInnGO............................................................................................................... 7 1. Structure of the report ................................................................................................................. 8 2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 8 Part I: The Paris Region context ........................................................................................................ 11 1. The region, transport services and stakeholders of gender equality in mobility ....................... 11 2. Women mobility behaviours and challenges in the Paris region .............................................. 19 Focus 1: Changes in mobility behaviours after the lockdown ....................................................... 23 Part II: Women's mobility in the Paris Region: main challenges ................................................... 24 1. Mobility behaviours ................................................................................................................... 24 2. Safety and Security Issues in the Paris Region .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • MINI-ROUNDABOUTS Mini-Roundabouts Or Neighborhood Traffic Circles Are an Ideal Treatment for Minor, Uncontrolled Intersections
    MINI-ROUNDABOUTS Mini-roundabouts or neighborhood traffic circles are an ideal treatment for minor, uncontrolled intersections. The roundabout configuration lowers speeds without fully stopping traffic. Check out NACTO’s Urban Street Design Guide or FHWA’s Roundabout: An Information Guide Design Guide for more details. 4 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS COMMON MATERIALS CATEGORIES 1 2 Mini-roundabouts can be created using raised islands 1 SURFACE TREATMENTS: and simple markings. Landscaping elements are an » Striping: Solid white or yellow lines can be used important component of the roundabout and should in conjunction with barrier element to demarcate be explored even for a short-term demonstration. the roundabout space. Other likely uses include crosswalk markings: solid lines to delineate cross- The roundabout should be designed with careful walk space and / or zebra striping. consideration to lane width and turning radius for vehicles. A mini-roundabout on a residential » Pavement Markings: May include shared lane markings to guide bicyclists through the street should provide approximately 15 ft. of 2 clearance from the corner to the widest point on intersection and reinforce rights of use for people the circle. Crosswalks should be used to indicate biking. (Not shown) where pedestrians should cross in advance of the » Colored treatments: Colored pavement or oth- roundabout. Shared lane markings (sharrows) should er specialized surface treatments can be used to be used to guide people on bikes through the further define the roundabout space (not shown). intersections, in conjunction with bicycle wayfinding 2 BARRIER ELEMENTS: Physical barriers (such as route markings if appropriate. delineators or curbing) should be used to create a strong edge that sets the roundabout apart Note: Becase roundabouts allow the slow, but from the roadway.
    [Show full text]
  • Tempe Bicycle Boulevards
    Tempe Bicycle Boulevards Background In June 2014, the City Council directed staff to pursue development of a bicycle boulevard system in Tempe and placed $100,000 in the Capital Improvements Program budget beginning July 1, 2015. Bicycle boulevards enhance access and comfort for bicyclists, attract new bicycle users and increase ridership. Bike boulevards are off-street pathways and streets with low-motorized traffic volumes and speeds designated and designed to give bicycle travel priority. Bicycle boulevards can have a range of amenities to reflect local conditions and generally use signage, pavement markings, landscape and hardscape, as well as speed and volume management measures to discourage through trips by motor vehicles and promote safe, convenient bicycle use and crossing of busy arterial & collector streets. Bike boulevards connect neighborhoods to major destinations, employment centers and activity centers. As part of the Tempe Transportation Master Plan (www.tempe.gov/transportationplan), which was approved by the Council on Jan. 8, 2015, the overall Tempe bicycle network has been branded as BIKEiT (Bike in Tempe) and the bicycle boulevard system has complimentary logos. Implementation As part of the Transportation Master Plan, and utilizing public feedback a network of bicycle boulevards for Tempe has been developed. The map on the next page details nine bike boulevards city-wide that would be implemented to connect existing facilities, major destinations, neighborhoods and the downtown Tempe and ASU campus. Staff plans to implement the first phases of the work related to the Seat (Knox Road) and Pedal (College Avenue) bike boulevard routes in FY 2015/16. These initial two routes were selected to provide broad coverage of the city (south, central and downtown Tempe) and because they follow existing popular bicycle corridors that will facilitate easier implementation.
    [Show full text]
  • Livre Blanc Version Anglaise Couv + Intérieures.Indd
    Working toward smart, sustainable, and optimised transport by2030 in Ile-de-France A White Paper by the Forum Métropolitain du Grand Paris mars 2018 Study carried out by: Florence Hanappe (Apur), Sara Helmi (Forum métropolitain du Grand Paris), Lydia Mykolenko (IAU-IdF), Michelle-Angélique Nicol (Apur), Patricia Pelloux (Apur), Dominique Riou (IAU-IdF), Marion Vergeylen (Forum métropolitain du Grand Paris) Publication management Dominique Alba (Apur), Fouad Awada (IAU-IdF), Sylvain Cognet (Forum métropolitain du Grand Paris) Design www.autour-des-mots.fr Printing Imprimerie Hauts de Vilaine Publication Mars 2018 Contents 2 EDITORIAL 7 PART ONE AN ONGOING TRANSFORMATION IN TRAVEL IN THE ILE-DE-FRANCE? Factors for diagnosis and forecast 9 1. Overview of travel in the Ile-de-France 19 2. What are the prospects for 2030? 43 PART TWO WORKING TOWARD SMART, SUSTAINABLE, AND OPTIMISED TRANSPORT BY 2030 IN ILE-DE-FRANCE 44 1. Proposals resulting from a citizen consultation: towards a reduction of individual car use in Ile-de-France 51 2. The elected representatives’ proposals of the Forum Métropolitain du Grand Paris for smart, sustainable, and optimised transport by 2030 in Ile-de-France 88 TABLE OF CONTENTS 90 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 92 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS O1 Editorial Joint review of future travel in the Ile-de-France region We have decided to jointly review, in a forward-looking manner, changes in travel patterns across the Ile-de-France region as we are convinced that issues concerning movement are at the heart of the challenges currently affecting metropolitan areas. Away from the political debate, and in cooperation with a group of relevant public and private stakeholders as well as residents, we have brought together over one hundred people to see what they think about travel patterns today as regards the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Cost Analysis of Bicycle Facilities: Cases from Cities in the Portland, OR Region
    Cost Analysis of Bicycle Facilities: Cases from cities in the Portland, OR region FINAL DRAFT Lynn Weigand, Ph.D. Nathan McNeil, M.U.R.P. Jennifer Dill, Ph.D. June 2013 This report was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, through its Active Living Research program. Cost Analysis of Bicycle Facilities: Cases from cities in the Portland, OR region Lynn Weigand, PhD, Portland State University Nathan McNeil, MURP, Portland State University* Jennifer Dill, PhD, Portland State University *corresponding author: [email protected] Portland State University Center for Urban Studies Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies & Planning PO Box 751 Portland, OR 97207-0751 June 2013 All photos, unless otherwise noted, were taken by the report authors. The authors are grateful to the following peer reviewers for their useful comments, which improved the document: Angie Cradock, ScD, MPE, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health; and Kevin J. Krizek, PhD, University of Colorado Boulder. Any errors or omissions, however, are the responsibility of the authors. CONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. i Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 3 Bike Lanes................................................................................................................................ 7 Wayfinding Signs and Pavement Markings .................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossings: Lessons Learned
    Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossings: Lessons Learned Prepared by: Rory Renfro Portland State University Masters of Urban and Regional Planning Field Area Paper June 2007 Acknowledgements Todd Boulanger, City of Vancouver, Washington Basil Christopher, Oregon Department of Transportation Jennifer Dill, Portland State University (first FAP reader) Carley Francis, Washington State Department of Transportation Young Park, TriMet David Roth, City of Eugene, Oregon Jim Strathman, Portland State University (second FAP reader) Steve Yates, City of Portland, Oregon ii Table of Contents Introduction: Why are pedestrian/bicycle overcrossings important?.......... 1 Purpose of this Study……………………………………………………………………. 2 Background Literature................................................................................. 2 Federal Publications……………………………………………………………………... 2 State Publications………………………………………………………………………... 2 Other Publications……………………………………………………………................ 3 Overcrossings Evaluated for this Study……………………………………………. 3 Overcrossing Inventory Process…………………………………………………………. 3 Data Collection Challenges……………………………………………………………... 3 Location Elements……………………………………………………………………….. 4 Pedestrian/Bicycle Destinations and Desired Routes…………………………………... 4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Destinations………………………………………………... 4 Walking and Bicycling Routes………………………………………………………. 7 Using an Overcrossing versus Crossing At-Grade……………………………………... 8 Overcrossings within the Overall Pedestrian/Bicycle Network………………………... 9 Shared Use Paths…………………………………………………………………….
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4 TOOLBOX and SAMPLE BIKE BOULEVARD LAYOUT
    Chapter 4 TOOLBOX AND SAMPLE BIKE BOULEVARD LAYOUT OVERVIEW This chapter describes a cohesive set of strategies to create a bicycle boulevard, namely to make streets safer and more efficient for bicycle transportation. A variety of measures are included in the toolbox that are compatible with bicycling and with neighborhood traffic management goals. Enough choices are retained in the toolbox so that each neighborhood has flexibility in designing a boulevard that meets the needs and issues of a particular location. Based on the field review and the goals for developing the bike boulevard (see Chapter 1), five general issues that should be addressed during bike boulevard implementation were identified. See Table 4-1. The strategies in the toolbox were chosen because they address one or more of these general issues. Each strategy page in this chapter indicates which general issue is addressed. Table 4-1 GENERAL ISSUES TO ADDRESS DURING BICYCLE BOULEVARD IMPLEMENTATION Issue Abbreviation 1. Create the look and feel of a bicycle boulevard. 1. Look and feel 2. Slow traffic and discourage diversion of traffic to the 2. Traffic Calming bike boulevard when unwarranted STOP signs are removed. Unwarranted STOP signs cause excessive stopping and delay for bicyclists. They also increase noise and air pollution, increase fuel consumption and non-compliance compromises safety for all. They often increase speeds mid-block as well. 3. Address school or pedestrian related safety issues. 3. Ped Safety 4. Help bicyclists cross major streets. 4. Help Crossing 5. Prevent diversion of motor vehicle traffic to the 5. Diversion bicycle boulevard. The strategies are grouped into two categories as to where and how they would be placed on a bicycle boulevard.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplement: Design Guidelines
    Greeley Bicycle Master Plan SUPPLEMENT: DESIGN GUIDELINES CHAPTER OUTLINE: Overview The sections that follow serve as an inventory of bicycle design treatments and provide OVERVIEW guidelines for their development. These treatments and design guidelines are important because they represent the tools for creating a bicycle-friendly, safe, accessible community. DESIGN NEEDS OF The guidelines are not, however, a substitute for a more thorough evaluation by a landscape BICYCLISTS architect or engineer upon implementation of facility improvements. Some improvements may also require cooperation with the Colorado DOT for specific design solutions. The following SHARED ROADWAYS standards and guidlines are referred to in this guide. BICYCLE BOULEVARDS • The Federal Highway Administration’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices SEPARATED BIKEWAYS (MUTCD) is the primary source for guidance on lane striping requirements, signal warrants, and recommended signage and pavement markings. PROTECTED BIKE LANES • American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide SEPARATED BIKEWAYS for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, updated in June 2012 provides guidance AT INTERSECTIONS on dimensions, use, and layout of specific bicycle facilities. SIGNALIZATION • The National Association of City Transportation Officials’ (NACTO) 2012 Urban Bikeway Design Guide is the newest publication of nationally recognized bikeway BIKEWAY SIGNING design standards, and offers guidance on the current state of the practice designs. All of the
    [Show full text]
  • Bicycle Facilities Planning
    Bicycle Facilities Planning Overview Bicycle facilities range from conventional bike lanes to coordinated way finding systems, all acting to improve the safety and comfort of bicyclists. This module will review different types of facilities available to jurisdictions to improve their bikeway network. They are drawn from international best practices and this module give an overview of when and how they can be used. There are two separate lectures, one focused on types of facilities and the second focused on bike parking only. Learning Objective: Identify the needs of different types of cyclists Compare types of facilities that are available in a bikeway network Judge which types of facilities are appropriate in different environments Suggested Use _x_Professional Development _x_Graduate Level _x_Undergraduate Time Required __Less than 1 hour __ 1 hour __2-3 hours _x_Half-day Workshop __Full-day Workshop Instructions 1. Announce purposes and give brief overview of the day 2. Give lecture 3. Summarize lecture and discussion 4. Assignment 5. Circulate handouts and evaluations Lecture “Bicycle Facilities Planning” 1. Types of Cyclists 2. Purpose for Riding 3. Types of Facilities a. Bike Lanes b. Bicycle Boulevards (Neighborhood Greenways) c. Cycle Tracks d. Intersections e. Signals f. Signing and Marking 4. Discussion “Bicycle Facilities: Parking” 1. Why Parking? 2. Long term vs. short term 3. Types of racks 4. Placement & installation 5. Other facilities 6. International examples 7. Discussion Materials/Handouts Bike Boulevard Design Assignments and Activities 1. Bike Boulevard Audit 2. Code write up for parking types 3. Op/Ed piece for facility type in community Suggested Readings “Evaluation of Bike Boxes at Signalized Intersections.” (2010) Jennifer Dill.
    [Show full text]