DOCSLIB.ORG

Traffic Analysis and Intersection Considerations to Inform Bikeway Selection

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Traffic Analysis and Intersection Considerations to Inform Bikeway Selection TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND INTERSECTION CONSIDERATIONS TO INFORM BIKEWAY SELECTION © Toole Design February 2021 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND INTERSECTION CONSIDERATIONS TO INFORM BIKEWAY SELECTION TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED February 2021 Final Report 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. FUNDING NUMBERS Traffic Analysis and Intersection Considerations to Inform NA Bikeway Selection 6. AUTHORS 5b. CONTRACT NUMBER Mosier, Barbara; Schultheiss, Bill; Goodman, Dan; Draper, Jared; Blackburn, DTFH61-16-D-00005 Lauren 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT VHB, 940 Main Campus Drive, Suite 500 NUMBER Raleigh, NC 27606 NA Toole Design Group, 8484 Georgia Avenue, Suite 800 Silver Spring, MD 20910 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY Tamara Redmon REPORT NUMBER Project Manager, Office of Safety FHWA-SA-21-010 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 resource supplements the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Bikeway Selection Guide and is intended to inform trade-off decisions associated with bikeway selection at intersections. It discusses common performance metrics, spatial needs of bikeways at intersections, safety and equity focused design principles, and operational traffic analysis trade-offs and assumptions. 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES Bike, bicycle, bikeway, multimodal, networks, active transportation, 18 low stress networks, bikeway selection, performance metrics, traffic, 16. PRICE CODE intersections NA 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY 19. SECURITY 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT OF REPORT CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION Unlimited Unclassified OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified i TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND INTERSECTION CONSIDERATIONS TO INFORM BIKEWAY SELECTION CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................................1 Performance Metrics ...................................................................................................................................2 Spatial Needs By Bikeway Intersection Type .....................................................................................................5 Safety and Equity Focused Design Principles ...................................................................................................5 Traffic Analysis Assumptions and Analysis Tips ...............................................................................................9 Discussion Prompts ................................................................................................................................... 12 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 13 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. 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 this document. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Images in the report are intended to serve as examples of the range of real-world existing conditions; they are not limited to best practices or approved designs or behaviors and, in some cases, may reflect conditions that are not recommended. Publication Number: FHWA-SA-21-010 ii TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND INTERSECTION CONSIDERATIONS TO INFORM BIKEWAY SELECTION Introduction Decisions made about the design and operation of street intersections have historically played a central role in the bikeway selection process because these decisions have often been based primarily on favoring motor vehicle traffic. Selecting a bikeway facility that increases safety and aligns with community goals can be challenging when agencies are attempting to reallocate existing space to and through intersections for bicyclists without impacting motorists and other existing intersection users. This resource supplements the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Bikeway Selection Guide and is intended to inform mobility, safety, equity, and policy trade-off decisions associated with bikeway selection at intersections. This document also supplements other resources including The consideration of traffic impacts is central to the bikeway those from FHWA, American Association of State Highway and selection decision because in many locations existing Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the National Association property lines; existing curbs, drainage, and utilities; and in of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), and the Institute of some communities, buildings, constrain what can be done Transportation Engineers (ITE), which provide detailed design within the right-of-way (ROW). Expanding right-of-way can guidance not provided in this document. Design considerations be especially costly where it is necessary to modify these will be noted with references provided to these resources as typical features. Designers need to ensure retrofits preserve or appropriate. enhance pedestrian accessibility. They should also be aware that changes on one intersection leg can affect the width of Figure 1: Crossing Locations Relative to Intersection Functional Area. legend functional area of intersection shared use path road and driveway path median road driveway crossing sidepath crossing at an functional area mid-block intersection of intersection crossing road road median median median road road functional area of intersection road shared use path Source: FHWA sidepath 1 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND INTERSECTION CONSIDERATIONS TO INFORM BIKEWAY SELECTION the entire intersection, as well as the width approaching the intersection—described as the intersection’s functional area Performance Metrics (see Figure 1). The functional area of an intersection as defined To assess intersection and bikeway design alternatives, in the AASHTO “A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways performance metrics need to be established. The most and Streets” extends both upstream and downstream from the common performance metric used is vehicular Level of Service physical intersection area and includes any auxiliary lanes and (LOS), which is derived from either vehicular delay or the volume their associated channelization where vehicles routinely queue to capacity ratio (v/c) based on Transportation Research Board at the intersection. (TRB) Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies. In the past, these two measures have often been the primary This document includes the following sections: or only metrics considered in the analysis of intersections. • Performance Metrics should be used to guide decision However, the HCM contains guidance discouraging a narrow making and inform trade-off evaluation. focused approach, stating that, “(n)either LOS nor any other single performance measure tells the full story of roadway • Spatial Needs by Bikeway Intersection Type are a building performance.” block for considering bikeway safety and comfort benefits. • Safety and Equity Focused Design Principles set the When vehicular LOS is relied on in isolation, potential negative foundation for the planning and design of a transportation impacts on vehicular operations are given undue weight and are system that is safe and equitable for all users. This section not balanced against potential impacts on other roadway users, builds on the intersection performance characteristics by for example relating to accessibility and benefits associated bikeway type that are highlighted in the Bikeway Selection with the installation of a bikeway. To minimize impacts on Guide (pp. 16-17) based on Sustainable Safety principals. motorists as measured through LOS, a common strategy has been to downgrade the quality of a bikeway to a lesser facility • Traffic Analysis Assumptions and Analysis Tips are provided or to terminate a bikeway through an intersection to maintain or to establish a basic understanding of standard traffic analyses provide additional vehicular capacity to meet an arbitrary LOS approaches and their associated inputs. A general overview criterion. When this happens project and community goals such of this information provides common ground for future trade- as increased bicyclist safety, increased bicycle mode share, and off conversations when considering a project that changes bicycle network connectivity are compromised. the existing roadway and intersection operation schemes. © Toole Design 2 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND INTERSECTION CONSIDERATIONS TO INFORM BIKEWAY SELECTION At the outset of a project process that will include intersection For additional information on safety related metrics, consult the design alternatives analysis, it is vital that
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Proofs with Perpendicular Lines
    3.4 Proofs with Perpendicular Lines EEssentialssential QQuestionuestion What conjectures can you make about perpendicular lines? Writing Conjectures Work with a partner. Fold a piece of paper D in half twice. Label points on the two creases, as shown. a. Write a conjecture about AB— and CD — . Justify your conjecture. b. Write a conjecture about AO— and OB — . AOB Justify your conjecture. C Exploring a Segment Bisector Work with a partner. Fold and crease a piece A of paper, as shown. Label the ends of the crease as A and B. a. Fold the paper again so that point A coincides with point B. Crease the paper on that fold. b. Unfold the paper and examine the four angles formed by the two creases. What can you conclude about the four angles? B Writing a Conjecture CONSTRUCTING Work with a partner. VIABLE a. Draw AB — , as shown. A ARGUMENTS b. Draw an arc with center A on each To be prof cient in math, side of AB — . Using the same compass you need to make setting, draw an arc with center B conjectures and build a on each side of AB— . Label the C O D logical progression of intersections of the arcs C and D. statements to explore the c. Draw CD — . Label its intersection truth of your conjectures. — with AB as O. Write a conjecture B about the resulting diagram. Justify your conjecture. CCommunicateommunicate YourYour AnswerAnswer 4. What conjectures can you make about perpendicular lines? 5. In Exploration 3, f nd AO and OB when AB = 4 units.
    [Show full text]
  • Designating Scenic Bikeways: a Framework for Rural Road Owners
    Designating Scenic Bikeways: A Framework for Rural Road Owners Publication No. FHWA-FLH-19-004 June 2019 FOREWARD The Federal Lands Highway (FLH) promotes development and deployment of applied research and technology applicable to solving transportation related issues on Federal Lands. The FLH provides technology delivery, innovative solutions, recommended best practices, and related information and knowledge sharing to Federal Agencies, Tribal Governments, and other offices within the FHWA. The objective of this project was to develop a resource to help road owners navigate the Oregon Scenic Bikeway Designation Process. In addition to helping road owners in Oregon, it was the intent of the project that the resource be useful to road owners across the country who are similarly involved with bikeway designation. The resulting Designating Scenic Bikeways: A Framework for Rural Road Owners is a toolkit intended to assist land management agencies, road owners, and proponent groups to communicate and work together in a positive way to develop bikeways. The project included a literature review covering rural road safety, bikeway designation, and liability of bikeway designation. A Technical Advisory Committee guided the work and participated in three bicycle road safety site visits in Oregon to better understand specific issues facing road owners. 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Intersection Theorems for Ordered Sets and Graphs
    IOURNAL OF COMBINATORIAL THEORY, Series A 43, 23-37 (1986) Some Intersection Theorems for Ordered Sets and Graphs F. R. K. CHUNG* AND R. L. GRAHAM AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974 and *Bell Communications Research, Morristown, New Jersey P. FRANKL C.N.R.S., Paris, France AND J. B. SHEARER' Universify of California, Berkeley, California Communicated by the Managing Editors Received May 22, 1984 A classical topic in combinatorics is the study of problems of the following type: What are the maximum families F of subsets of a finite set with the property that the intersection of any two sets in the family satisfies some specified condition? Typical restrictions on the intersections F n F of any F and F’ in F are: (i) FnF’# 0, where all FEF have k elements (Erdos, Ko, and Rado (1961)). (ii) IFn F’I > j (Katona (1964)). In this paper, we consider the following general question: For a given family B of subsets of [n] = { 1, 2,..., n}, what is the largest family F of subsets of [n] satsifying F,F’EF-FnFzB for some BE B. Of particular interest are those B for which the maximum families consist of so- called “kernel systems,” i.e., the family of all supersets of some fixed set in B. For example, we show that the set of all (cyclic) translates of a block of consecutive integers in [n] is such a family. It turns out rather unexpectedly that many of the results we obtain here depend strongly on properties of the well-known entropy function (from information theory).
    [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]
  • Complete Intersection Dimension
    PUBLICATIONS MATHÉMATIQUES DE L’I.H.É.S. LUCHEZAR L. AVRAMOV VESSELIN N. GASHAROV IRENA V. PEEVA Complete intersection dimension Publications mathématiques de l’I.H.É.S., tome 86 (1997), p. 67-114 <http://www.numdam.org/item?id=PMIHES_1997__86__67_0> © Publications mathématiques de l’I.H.É.S., 1997, tous droits réservés. L’accès aux archives de la revue « Publications mathématiques de l’I.H.É.S. » (http:// www.ihes.fr/IHES/Publications/Publications.html) implique l’accord avec les conditions géné- rales d’utilisation (http://www.numdam.org/conditions). Toute utilisation commerciale ou im- pression systématique est constitutive d’une infraction pénale. Toute copie ou impression de ce fichier doit contenir la présente mention de copyright. Article numérisé dans le cadre du programme Numérisation de documents anciens mathématiques http://www.numdam.org/ COMPLETE INTERSECTION DIMENSION by LUGHEZAR L. AVRAMOV, VESSELIN N. GASHAROV, and IRENA V. PEEVA (1) Abstract. A new homological invariant is introduced for a finite module over a commutative noetherian ring: its CI-dimension. In the local case, sharp quantitative and structural data are obtained for modules of finite CI- dimension, providing the first class of modules of (possibly) infinite projective dimension with a rich structure theory of free resolutions. CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................ 67 1. Homological dimensions ................................................................... 70 2. Quantum regular sequences ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • And Are Lines on Sphere B That Contain Point Q
    11-5 Spherical Geometry Name each of the following on sphere B. 3. a triangle SOLUTION: are examples of triangles on sphere B. 1. two lines containing point Q SOLUTION: and are lines on sphere B that contain point Q. ANSWER: 4. two segments on the same great circle SOLUTION: are segments on the same great circle. ANSWER: and 2. a segment containing point L SOLUTION: is a segment on sphere B that contains point L. ANSWER: SPORTS Determine whether figure X on each of the spheres shown is a line in spherical geometry. 5. Refer to the image on Page 829. SOLUTION: Notice that figure X does not go through the pole of ANSWER: the sphere. Therefore, figure X is not a great circle and so not a line in spherical geometry. ANSWER: no eSolutions Manual - Powered by Cognero Page 1 11-5 Spherical Geometry 6. Refer to the image on Page 829. 8. Perpendicular lines intersect at one point. SOLUTION: SOLUTION: Notice that the figure X passes through the center of Perpendicular great circles intersect at two points. the ball and is a great circle, so it is a line in spherical geometry. ANSWER: yes ANSWER: PERSEVERANC Determine whether the Perpendicular great circles intersect at two points. following postulate or property of plane Euclidean geometry has a corresponding Name two lines containing point M, a segment statement in spherical geometry. If so, write the containing point S, and a triangle in each of the corresponding statement. If not, explain your following spheres. reasoning. 7. The points on any line or line segment can be put into one-to-one correspondence with real numbers.
    [Show full text]
  • Intersection of Convex Objects in Two and Three Dimensions
    Intersection of Convex Objects in Two and Three Dimensions B. CHAZELLE Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut AND D. P. DOBKIN Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey Abstract. One of the basic geometric operations involves determining whether a pair of convex objects intersect. This problem is well understood in a model of computation in which the objects are given as input and their intersection is returned as output. For many applications, however, it may be assumed that the objects already exist within the computer and that the only output desired is a single piece of data giving a common point if the objects intersect or reporting no intersection if they are disjoint. For this problem, none of the previous lower bounds are valid and algorithms are proposed requiring sublinear time for their solution in two and three dimensions. Categories and Subject Descriptors: E.l [Data]: Data Structures; F.2.2 [Analysis of Algorithms]: Nonnumerical Algorithms and Problems General Terms: Algorithms, Theory, Verification Additional Key Words and Phrases: Convex sets, Fibonacci search, Intersection 1. Introduction This paper describes fast algorithms for testing the predicate, Do convex objects P and Q intersect? where an object is taken to be a line or a polygon in two dimensions or a plane or a polyhedron in three dimensions. The related problem Given convex objects P and Q, compute their intersection has been well studied, resulting in linear lower bounds and linear or quasi-linear upper bounds [2, 4, 11, 15-171. Lower bounds for this problem use arguments This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grants MCS 79-03428, MCS 81-14207, MCS 83-03925, and MCS 83-03926, and by the Defense Advanced Project Agency under contract F33615-78-C-1551, monitored by the Air Force Offtce of Scientific Research.
    [Show full text]
  • Complex Intersection Bodies
    COMPLEX INTERSECTION BODIES A. KOLDOBSKY, G. PAOURIS, AND M. ZYMONOPOULOU Abstract. We introduce complex intersection bodies and show that their properties and applications are similar to those of their real counterparts. In particular, we generalize Busemann's the- orem to the complex case by proving that complex intersection bodies of symmetric complex convex bodies are also convex. Other results include stability in the complex Busemann-Petty problem for arbitrary measures and the corresponding hyperplane inequal- ity for measures of complex intersection bodies. 1. Introduction The concept of an intersection body was introduced by Lutwak [37], as part of his dual Brunn-Minkowski theory. In particular, these bodies played an important role in the solution of the Busemann-Petty prob- lem. Many results on intersection bodies have appeared in recent years (see [10, 22, 34] and references there), but almost all of them apply to the real case. The goal of this paper is to extend the concept of an intersection body to the complex case. Let K and L be origin symmetric star bodies in Rn: Following [37], we say that K is the intersection body of L if the radius of K in every direction is equal to the volume of the central hyperplane section of L perpendicular to this direction, i.e. for every ξ 2 Sn−1; −1 ? kξkK = jL \ ξ j; (1) ? n where kxkK = minfa ≥ 0 : x 2 aKg, ξ = fx 2 R :(x; ξ) = 0g; and j · j stands for volume. By a theorem of Busemann [8] the intersection body of an origin symmetric convex body is also convex.
    [Show full text]
  • Points, Lines, and Planes a Point Is a Position in Space. a Point Has No Length Or Width Or Thickness
    Points, Lines, and Planes A Point is a position in space. A point has no length or width or thickness. A point in geometry is represented by a dot. To name a point, we usually use a (capital) letter. A A (straight) line has length but no width or thickness. A line is understood to extend indefinitely to both sides. It does not have a beginning or end. A B C D A line consists of infinitely many points. The four points A, B, C, D are all on the same line. Postulate: Two points determine a line. We name a line by using any two points on the line, so the above line can be named as any of the following: ! ! ! ! ! AB BC AC AD CD Any three or more points that are on the same line are called colinear points. In the above, points A; B; C; D are all colinear. A Ray is part of a line that has a beginning point, and extends indefinitely to one direction. A B C D A ray is named by using its beginning point with another point it contains. −! −! −−! −−! In the above, ray AB is the same ray as AC or AD. But ray BD is not the same −−! ray as AD. A (line) segment is a finite part of a line between two points, called its end points. A segment has a finite length. A B C D B C In the above, segment AD is not the same as segment BC Segment Addition Postulate: In a line segment, if points A; B; C are colinear and point B is between point A and point C, then AB + BC = AC You may look at the plus sign, +, as adding the length of the segments as numbers.
    [Show full text]
  • INTERSECTION GEOMETRY Learning Outcomes
    INTERSECTION GEOMETRY Learning Outcomes 5-2 At the end of this module, you will be able to: 1. Explain why tight/right angle intersections are best 2. Describe why pedestrians need access to all corners 3. Assess good crosswalk placement: where peds want to cross & where drivers can see them 4. Explain how islands can break up complex intersections Designing for Pedestrian Safety – Intersection Geometry Intersection Crashes Some basic facts: 5-3 1. Most (urban) crashes occur at intersections 2. 40% occur at signalized intersections 3. Most are associated with turning movements 4. Geometry matters: keeping intersections tight, simple & slow speed make them safer for everyone Designing for Pedestrian Safety – Intersection Geometry 5-4 Philadelphia PA Small, tight intersections best for pedestrians… Simple, few conflicts, slow speeds Designing for Pedestrian Safety – Intersection Geometry 5-5 Atlanta GA Large intersections can work for pedestrians with mitigation Designing for Pedestrian Safety – Intersection Geometry Skewed intersections 5-6 Skew increases crossing distance & speed of turning cars Designing for Pedestrian Safety – Intersection Geometry 5-7 Philadelphia PA Cars can turn at high speed Designing for Pedestrian Safety – Intersection Geometry 5-8 Skew increases crosswalk length, decreases visibility Designing for Pedestrian Safety – Intersection Geometry 5-9 Right angle decreases crosswalk length, increases visibility Designing for Pedestrian Safety – Intersection Geometry 5-10 Bend OR Skewed intersection reduces visibility Driver
    [Show full text]
  • On Geometric Intersection of Curves in Surfaces
    GEOMETRIC INTERSECTION OF CURVES ON SURFACES DYLAN P. THURSTON This is a pre-preprint. Please give comments! Abstract. In order to better understand the geometric inter- section number of curves, we introduce a new tool, the smooth- ing lemma. This lets us write the geometric intersection number i(X, A), where X is a simple curve and A is any curve, canonically as a maximum of various i(X, A′), where the A′ are also simple and independent of X. We use this to get a new derivation of the change of Dehn- Thurston coordinates under an elementary move on the pair of pants decomposition. Contents 1. Introduction 2 1.1. Acknowledgements 3 2. Preliminaries on curves 3 3. Smoothing curves 4 4. Dehn-Thurston coordinates 8 4.1. Generalized coordinates 10 5. Twisting of curves 11 5.1. Comparing twisting 13 5.2. Twisting around multiple curves 14 6. Fundamental pants move 14 7. Convexity of length functions 18 Appendix A. Elementary moves 20 Appendix B. Comparison to Penner’s coordinates 20 References 20 Key words and phrases. Dehn coordinates,curves on surfaces,tropical geometry. 1 2 THURSTON 1. Introduction In 1922, Dehn [2] introduced what he called the arithmetic field of a surface, by which he meant coordinates for the space of simple curves on a surface, together with a description for how to perform a change of coordinates. In particular, this gives the action of the mapping class group of the surface. He presumably chose the name “arithmetic field” because in the simplest non-trivial cases, namely the torus, the once- punctured torus, and the 4-punctured sphere, the result is equivalent to continued fractions and Euler’s method for finding the greatest common divisor.
    [Show full text]
  • BIKEWAY DESIGN and MANAGEMENT GUIDE Contents
    BIKEWAYDESIGNANDMANAGEMENTGUIDE Contents 1. ABOUT THE BIKEWAY DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT GUIDE................................................ 2 2. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 3 3. BIKEWAY DESIGN.................................................................................................................... 4 A. Types of Cyclists ................................................................................................................. 5 B. Types of Bikeways .............................................................................................................. 6 C. Development of a Master Plan.................................................................................... 8 4. BIKEWAY MANAGEMENT..................................................................................................... 10 A. Bikeway Riding Surfaces ................................................................................................. 10 B. Drainage Inlet Grates...................................................................................................... 11 C. Bikeway Signage.......................................................................................................... 12 D. Pavement Markings......................................................................................................... 13 E. Entry Treatments..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]