DOCSLIB.ORG

Bicycle Facilities Design Guide Provo Bicycle Facilities Master Plan - Bicycle Facilities Design Guide Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bicycle Facilities Design Guide Provo Bicycle Facilities Master Plan - Bicycle Facilities Design Guide Contents Provo Bicycle Facilities Master Plan Appendix A: Bicycle Facilities Design Guide Provo Bicycle Facilities Master Plan - Bicycle Facilities Design Guide Contents Design Needs of Bicyclists ........................................................................................................1 Shared Roadways ......................................................................................................................4 Signed Shared Roadway ........................................................................................................................................................................5 Marked Shared Roadway .......................................................................................................................................................................6 Shared Roadway Adjacent to Diagonal Parking ............................................................................................................................7 Bicycle Boulevards ....................................................................................................................8 Route Selection .........................................................................................................................................................................................9 Basic Treatments .......................................................................................................................................................................................10 Vertical Traffic Calming ...........................................................................................................................................................................11 Horizontal Traffic Calming .....................................................................................................................................................................12 Traffic Diversion .........................................................................................................................................................................................13 Minor Intersection Treatments ............................................................................................................................................................14 Major Intersection Treatments .............................................................................................................................................................15 Offset Intersection Treatments ............................................................................................................................................................16 Separated Bikeways ..................................................................................................................17 Bike Lane with No On-Street Parking ................................................................................................................................................18 Bike Lane Adjacent to On-Street Parallel Parking .........................................................................................................................19 Bike Lane Adjacent to ............................................................................................................................................................................20 On-Street Back-in Diagonal Parking ..................................................................................................................................................20 Left Side Bike Lane ...................................................................................................................................................................................21 Colored Bike Lanes ...................................................................................................................................................................................22 Buffered Bike Lane....................................................................................................................................................................................23 Cycle Tracks ................................................................................................................................24 Cycle Track Separation and Placement .............................................................................................................................................25 One-Way Cycle Tracks .............................................................................................................................................................................26 Two-Way Cycle Tracks ..............................................................................................................................................................................27 Driveways and Minor Street Crossings .............................................................................................................................................28 Major Street Crossings ............................................................................................................................................................................29 Shared Use Paths Along Roadways ....................................................................................................................................................30 Provo City | i Appendix A Separated Bikeways at Intersections.......................................................................................31 Bike Box ........................................................................................................................................................................................................32 Bike Lanes at Right Turn Only Lanes ..................................................................................................................................................33 Colored Bike Lanes in Conflict Areas .................................................................................................................................................34 Shared Bike Lane / Turn Lane ...............................................................................................................................................................35 Intersection Crossing Markings ...........................................................................................................................................................36 Two-Stage Turn Boxes .............................................................................................................................................................................37 Bicyclists at Single Lane Roundabouts .............................................................................................................................................38 Signalization ..............................................................................................................................39 Bicycle Detection and Actuation ........................................................................................................................................................40 Active Warning Beacons .........................................................................................................................................................................41 Hybrid Beacon ...........................................................................................................................................................................................42 Provo City | ii Provo Bicycle Facilities Master Plan - Bicycle Facilities Design Guide Design Needs of Bicyclists The purpose of this section is to provide the facility designer with an understanding of how bicyclists operate and how their bicycle influences that operation. Bicyclists, by nature, are much more affected by poor facility design, construction and maintenance than motor vehicle drivers. Bicyclists lack the protection from the elements and roadway hazards pro- vided by an automobile’s structure and safety features. By understanding the unique characteristics and needs of bicyclists, the facility designer can provide the highest quality facilities and minimize risk to the bicyclists using them. Bicycle as a Design Vehicle Similar to motor vehicles, bicyclists and their bicycles come in a variety of sizes and configurations. These variations can oc- cur in the types of vehicle (such as a conventional bicycle, a recumbent bicycle, or a tricycle), and behavioral characteristics (such as the comfort level of the bicyclist). The design of a bikeway should consider reasonably expected bicycle types on the facility and utilize the appropriate dimensions. Figure 2-1 illustrates the operating space and physical dimensions of a typical adult bicyclist, which are the basis for typical facility design. The bicyclist requires clear space to operate within a facility; this is why the minimum operating width is greater than the physical dimensions of the bicyclist. Bicyclists prefer five feet or more operating width, although four feet is minimally acceptable. Operating Envelope 8’ 4” Eye Level 5’ Handlebar Width 3’8” Physical Operating Width 2’6” Minimum Operating Width 4’ Preferred Operating Width 5’ Figure 2-1 Standard Bicycle Rider Dimensions Source: AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 3rd Edition Provo City | 1 Appendix A In addition to the design dimensions of a typical bicycle,
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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Bicycle Master Plan
    Bicycle Master Plan OCTOBER 2014 This Environmental Benefit Project is undertaken in connection with the settlement of the enforcement action taken by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation related to Article 19 of the Environmental Conservation Law. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PUBLIC PARTICIPANTS Thank you to all those who submitted responses to the online survey. Your valuable input informed many of the recommendations and design solutions in this plan. STEERING COMMITTEE: Lisa Krieger, Assistant Vice President, Finance and Management, Vice President’s Office Sarah Reid, Facilities Planner, Facilities Planning Wende Mix, Associate Professor, Geography and Planning Jill Powell, Senior Assistant to the Vice President, Finance and Management, Vice President’s Office Michael Bonfante, Facilities Project Manager, Facilities Planning Timothy Ecklund, AVP Housing and Auxiliary Enterprises, Housing and Auxiliary Services Jerod Dahlgren, Public Relations Director, College Relations Office David Miller, Director, Environmental Health and Safety Terry Harding, Director, Campus Services and Facilities SUNY Buffalo State Parking and Transportation Committee John Bleech, Environmental Programs Coordinator CONSULTANT TEAM: Jeff Olson, RA, Principal in Charge, Alta Planning + Design Phil Goff, Project Manager, Alta Planning + Design Sam Piper, Planner/Designer, Alta Planning + Design Mark Mistretta, RLA, Project Support, Wendel Companies Justin Booth, Project Support, GObike Buffalo This Environmental Benefit Project is undertaken in connection
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring Changes to Cycle Infrastructure to Improve the Experience of Cycling for Families
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UWE Bristol Research Repository Exploring changes to cycle infrastructure to improve the experience of cycling for families Dr William Clayton1 Dr Charles Musselwhite Centre for transport and Society Centre for Innovative Ageing Faculty of Environment and Technology School of Human and Health Sciences University of the West of England Swansea University Bristol, UK Swansea, UK BS16 1QY SA2 8PP Tel: +44 (0)1792 518696 Tel: +44 (0) 117 32 82316 Web: www.drcharliemuss.com Email: [email protected] Twitter: @charliemuss Website: www.uwe.ac.uk/et/research/cts Email: [email protected] KEYWORDS: Cycling, infrastructure, motivation, families, behaviour change. Abstract: Positive changes to the immediate cycling environment can improve the cycling experience through increasing levels of safety, but little is known about how the intrinsic benefits of cycling might be enhanced beyond this. This paper presents research which has studied the potential benefits of changing the infrastructure within a cycle network – here the National Cycle Network (NCN) in the United Kingdom (UK) – to enhance the intrinsic rewards of cycling. The rationale in this approach is that this could be a motivating factor in encouraging greater use of the cycle network, and consequently help in promoting cycling and active travel more generally amongst family groups. The project involved in-depth research with 64 participants, which included family interviews, self-documented family cycle rides, and school focus groups. The findings suggest that improvements to the cycling environment can help maintain ongoing motivation for experienced cycling families by enhancing novel aspects of a routine journey, creating enjoyable activities and facilitating other incidental experiences along the course of a route, and improving the kinaesthetic experience of cycling.
    [Show full text]
  • Intersections
    Design Concept for a CycleTrack On the East Side of Herndon Parkway for 2,000 Feet South of the Washington & Old Dominion Railroad Regional Park Trail Final Report Revised July 14, 2017 September 20, 2016 Prepared by: Table of Contents Introduction 3 Intersections 4 Relevant Case Studies 5 Cycle Track Approach to Intersection 8 Near-Term Recommendation: Bend-Out 8 Long-Term Recommendation: Protected Intersection 9 Intersection Crossing 10 Signal Phasing 11 Bus Stops 12 Relevant Case Studies 12 Near-Term and Future Lower-Ridership Bus Stop Recommendation: Bus Passengers Cross the Cycle Track 14 Long-Term Recommendation for High-Ridership Bus Stops: Bus Stop on an Island 14 Access Roads and Private Driveways 15 Relevant Case Studies 15 Near-Term and Future Lower-Volume Access Road/Private Driveway 17 Long-Term Recommendation for Higher Volume Assess Roads/Private Driveways: Recessed Crossing 18 Additional Considerations 19 Transitions to Adjoining Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 19 Stormwater Management 19 Summary of Recommended Improvements 20 Prepared by: others address long-term conditions that will likely Introduction result from increased development in the Herndon Transit-Oriented Core, opening of the Herndon An improved bicycle facility has been proposed Metrorail Station, and restructuring of the Herndon along Herndon Parkway in the Herndon Metrorail Parkway and Spring Street intersection. Stations Access Management Study (2014) and the Transportation chapter of the Town of Herndon’s The recommendations for the proposed cycle track 2030 Comprehensive Plan (2008). The Fairfax are organized as follows: County Bicycle Master Plan (2014) and Urban Design and Architectural Guidelines for the Herndon • Intersections Transit-Oriented Core (2014) defined this potential Relevant Case Studies improvement as a cycle track, separated from Approaching an intersection pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • A Review of the Evidence on Cycle Track Safety Paul Schimek, Ph.D
    A Review of the Evidence on Cycle Track Safety Paul Schimek, Ph.D. October 11, 2014 This memo reviews the evidence on cycle track safety. As used by bicycling advocates in North America in recent years, the terms “cycle track” or “protected bike lane” refer to a segregated path for bicyclists adjacent to an urban roadway with a curb or raised object between the bicycle path and the portion of the road used by vehicular traffic and, in some cases, also between the portion used by pedestrians. Scandinavia, Germany, and the Netherlands have the most experience with urban bicycle paths adjacent to roads, the best data, and the most comprehensive studies. In addition to a review of the best of these studies, the memo includes a review of all of the studies of cycle tracks in North America that have been conducted in the past five years. The Netherlands A 1988 Dutch study analyzed 5,763 injury crashes recorded by police between 1973 and 1977 in 14 municipalities of more than 50,000 people.1 The share of cyclists and moped users from road traffic counts was compared to the share of cyclist and moped user injuries in police reports, according to location (intersection or road segment) and according to facility type (bike lane, cycle track, or mixed traffic). The traffic counts were multiplied by road length for the segments and by the number of intersections for the intersections. For bicyclists using bicycle paths, there was a 24% reduction in risk along segments, but a 32% increase in risk in intersections, compared to bicyclists in mixed traffic (with no separate bicycle facilities).
    [Show full text]
  • Traffic-Light Intersections
    Give Cycling a Push Infrastructure Implementation Fact Sheet INFRASTRUCTURE/ INTERSECTIONS AND CROSSINGS TRAFFIC-LIGHT INTERSECTIONS Overview Traffic-light intersections are inherently dangerous for cyclists. However, they are indispensable when cyclists cross heavy traffic flows. Cycle-friendly design must make cyclists clearly visible, allow short and easy maneuvers and reduce waiting time, such as a right-turn bypass or an advanced stop-line. On main cycle links, separate cycle traffic light and cycle-friendly light regulation can privilege cycle flows over motorized traffic. Background and Objectives Function Intersections are equipped with a traffic control system when they need to handle large flows of motorized traffic on the busiest urban roads, often with multiple lanes. A cycle-friendly design can greatly improve safety, speed and comfort, by increasing visibility, facilitating maneuvers and reducing waiting time. Scope Traffic-light intersections are always a second-best solution for cyclists, in terms of safety. Actually, traffic light intersections with four branches are very dangerous and should be avoided in general. Dutch guidance states that roundabouts are significantly safer than traffic lights for four- branch intersections of 10,000 to 20,000 pcu/day. In practice, traffic lights are used when an intersection needs to handle large flows of motorized traffic speedily. They can handle up to 30,000 pcu/day, more than is possible with a roundabout. These will typically include at least one very busy distributor road with multiple traffic lanes (50 km/h in the built-up area, higher outside the built-up area). Often, these busy roads are also of great interest as cycle links.
    [Show full text]