September 4, 2009

BIKEWAY FACILITY DESIGN: SURVEY OF BEST PRACTICES

Appendix

PORTLAND BICYCLE PLAN FOR 2030 BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

This report was developed as an element of the Portland Bicycle Plan for 2030.

DESIGN WORKING GROUP for the Portland Bicycle Plan for 2030

David Amiton Scott Batson Rob Burchfield Anthony Butzek Wendy Cawley Ivy Dunlap Roger Geller Denver Igarta Peter Koonce Grant Morehead Greg Raisman Chris Smith Ellen Vanderslice Eric Wiley

Thanks to Denver Igarta for producing this report.

January 5, 2010

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

INTRODUCTION – SURVEY OF BEST PRACTICES

The unprecedented numbers of people bicycling in Portland has necessitated expansion of the bikeway design tools available to the city’s traffic engineers. Portland is looking to world leaders in bicycle transportation to meet this growing demand. Many cities from across the globe have long recognized the merits of bicycling as an important means of transportation and have led the way in facilitating bicycle traffic through innovation and adaptation of bicycle‐friendly infrastructure.

This report documents an extensive review of best practices from world‐class bicycling cities where the most innovative technology advances in designing for bicycle traffic have been proven effective. The purpose of the report is to create a guide for traffic engineers, designers and planners detailing tried‐ and‐tested bicycle facility designs along with essential considerations for their implementation.

Portland aims to help lead a national effort to develop standards and guidelines for designing bikeways that meet the wide ranging needs of the cycling public for safe, comfortable and attractive conditions. Currently, the City’s Bikeway Design and Engineering Guidelines established as Appendix A of the 1996 Bicycle Master Plan serve as the local manual for the design, construction and maintenance of the city’s bikeway network. Formation of the Portland Bicycle Plan for 2030 presented the opportunity to revisit these guidelines, make enhancements to approved designs and integrate new designs into a revised manual that will meet the bicycling demands projected in coming decades.

Current State of the Practice In 1996 when the city’s original bikeway design guidelines were adopted the bicycle mode share in Portland was roughly two percent for commute trips. Today, eight percent of Portlanders reported bicycling as their primary commute mode and 10 percent of those who sometimes used a different mode reported bicycling as their secondary commute mode. Nationally, only 0.5 percent of trips to work are made by bicycle according to the 2007 American Community Survey.

Standard guidance on bikeway design outlined in national manuals, namely the American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) “Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities” and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), has proven insufficient to address the levels of bicycling experienced in Portland. The intense influx of bicyclists using the city’s transportation system has begun to exceed the capacity of developed facilities. If Portland is successful in realizing more than one quarter of all trips made by bicycle as envisioned in this 2030 plan, current practices will not suffice. Thus, new design guidelines and standards need to be adopted to ensure safe traffic conditions in the future for all travel modes.

Bikeways for Portland’s Future Portland has a reputation for implementing innovative designs that are not found in any domestic traffic design manual. Demonstration projects implemented by the Portland Bureau of Transportation, such as bicycle boxes at several high‐risk intersections, have been lauded by the cycling public. Still, the city’s existing bikeway network has primarily appealed to those residents who are already confident in their cycling abilities and enthusiastic riding on major streets alongside motor vehicles.

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Moving forward, Portland is committed to developing better designs for bikeways that will have greater appeal to the average citizen who is interested in bicycling but concerned about their safety. A key recommendation of the Portland Bicycle Plan for 2030 is to expand the palette of bikeway designs to facilitate creating conditions that make bicycling more attractive than driving for short trips. Separation from high volumes of high‐speed traffic is an essential element of the Plan’s approach, as it is in the world’s most bicycle‐friendly cities.

Next Steps Most of the facilities contained within this report are considered nonstandard or experimental in the United States. Some treatments will require enabling legislation to permit their usage. In addition, transfer of any appropriate engineering technologies from other countries will require context‐sensitive translation to fit local conditions.

The bikeway designs collected and published as part of this report will be further evaluated and considered for potential inclusion in revisions to the City’s Bikeway Design and Engineering Guidelines that will direct future bikeway improvements within the City of Portland.

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

PORTLAND BICYCLE PLAN FOR 2030 BIKEWAY FACILITY DESIGN: SURVEY OF BEST PRACTICES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Road Sections Intersection Treatments 1. Bike Lanes 25. Truncated Cycle Track ‐ Ramp Down to 2. Bike Passing Lane Bike Lane 3. Buffered Bike Lane 26. Cycle Track Two‐Stage Signalized Left 4. Contraflow Bike Lane Turn with Queuing Space 5. Floating Bike Lane 27. Forward Stop Bar 6. Colored Bike Lane 28. Bicycle Box 7. Advisory Bike Lane 29. Combined Right‐turn Bicycle Lane 8. Cycle Track 30. Traffic Circle 31. Bike Boulevard Off‐Set Intersections Traffic Speed and Volume Reduction 32. Median Refuge 9. Bicycle Street 33. “Cross‐bike” Marking 10. Pinch Point (Queuing Streets/ 34. Pass‐through Curb Extensions Neckdown/Choker) 35. Bicycle Roundabout 11. Chicanes 12. Narrow Width Shared Roadway Signage and Markings 13. Residential Speed Limits 36. Bike Boulevard Pavement Markings 14. Speed Bumps 37. Shared Roadway Markings 15. Home Zone/Woonerf 38. Bicycle Destination Signage 16. Traffic Volume Control Measures Transit and Bicycle Streets Non Motorized/Off Street Pathway Sections 39. Streetcar on Bikeways 17. Copenhagen Green Cycle Routes 40. Bicycle‐Friendly Transit Stop Design 18. Off Street Path Section 19. Car‐Free Street/Zone Miscellaneous Treatments 20. Trails/Off‐Street Path Transition 41. Bicycle Lift (Trampe ) 21. Bicycle Underpass (Tunnel)

Signalization 22. Green Wave 23. Traffic Signal Operations for Bicycles 24. Traffic Signal Crossings for Bicycles

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Bike Lanes

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages Marked space along length of roadway for • Provides bicycle access on major • Space requirements can exclusive use of cyclists. Bike lanes create through street preclude other possible uses like separation between cyclists and • Clarifies lane use for motorists and parking or excess travel lane automobiles. cyclists • Increases cyclist’s comfort through visual separation.

Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • On roadways with ≥3,000 motor vehicle • Bike lane width • Recommended width tripss per day • Frequency of bike symbol • 6.5‐8.2 ft (CROW) • Any street with excessive curb to curb • Keep bike symbols out of the path • Should comfortably space where bike lanes could help of turning vehicles accommodate two cyclists riding reduce vehicle lane widths • Typically placed on right side of side by side with sufficient shy roadway distance from both travel lane • Vehicle door zone clearance when and on‐street parking. bike lanes are adjacent to parked vehicles

Maintenance Level – Medium

Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries n/a • CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic ‐ Netherlands • Chicago, IL • Portland, OR • Seattle, WA Source: City of Portland (PBOT)

1 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Bike Passing Lane

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages Adding a second bike lane adjacent to a • Reduces the length of bicycle • Space requirements can first to provide space for passing platoons preclude other possible uses like • Reduce number of faster bicyclists parking or excess travel lane that merge with auto traffic to pass slower cyclists.

Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • Large number of cyclists • Adequate space for two bicyclists • Commute routes • Wide range of travel speeds to pass without encroaching into • Uphill sections • Typically on an uphill roadway travel lane. • After forced stops (signals) where platoons form Maintenance Level – Medium • Recreational paths • Uphill sections • PBOT guidance • Minimum passing lane width of 5 ft adjacent to a 5‐ft bike lane • Skip striping between the two bike lanes and double bike symbols mitigates concerns of motorists mistaking the area for a travel lane. • Bike lanes in same direction separated by 4‐in wide (100 mm) skip stripe, 1 ft long (300 mm) skip stripe with 3 ft (1 m) skip. Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries • Space requirements may reallocate • Portland, Oregon Source: BikePortland.org Portland, OR uses from parking or driving lane

2 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Buffered Bike Lane

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages Bicycle lane with a buffer to increase the • Provides cushion of space to • Additional space requirements space between bicycle lane and travel mitigates friction with motor • Added maintenance required for lane or parked cars. vehicles on streets with narrow bike the buffer striping lanes. • Provides space for cyclists to pass without encroaching into the travel lane. • Mitigate for obstacles in the bike lane, e.g. drainage inlets, manholes. • Parking side buffer: provides cyclists with space to avoid the “dooring zone” of parked cars. • Provides motorists (particularly drivers of large vehicles) greater shy distance from cyclists in the bike lane.

Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • Bike lanes with high automobile • Determine which side of the bike • Buffer Width traffic speeds and volumes lane the buffer is needed, adjacent • Minimum 32 in (London) • Bikeways with bike lanes adjacent to to parking or the travel lane. • 32 in (Brussels) on‐street parking • Frequency of parking turnover • 20‐30 in (CROW) • Bike lanes with high volume of • Determine buffer width needed to • Diagonal Buffer Stripe Details truck/oversized vehicle traffic avoid door zone of parked cars • 6 ft spacing (Portland ‐ • Major intersection approaches Holgate) • Frequency of motor vehicle right turns • Design of conflict areas where cars and bike weave • Continuous or truncated buffer striping approaching intersection

Maintenance Level – Medium Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries • Space requirements may reallocate • Brussels & Bruges, Belgium uses from parking or driving lane • London, UK • San Francisco, CA

Source: Greg Raisman • New York, NY Bruges, Belgium • Portland, OR (NW 10th)

3 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Contraflow Bike Lane

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages A one‐way street for motor vehicles • Provides direct access and • Limits on parking might be that includes an opposite‐direction connectivity for bicycles traveling in needed on side with contraflow bicycle only lane. both directions. lane. • Influences motorist choice of routes • Possibility of illegal loading or without limiting bicycle traffic. parking in contraflow lane. • Cyclists do not have to make detours as a result of one‐way traffic. Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • One‐way auto traffic streets • Accompanying signage needed. • Contraflow lane width • Narrow streets where on‐street • Contraflow lane separated from • 5.0 to 6.5 ft (CROW) parking and bicycle accessibility are motor vehicle lane by a solid double • Minimum 5.0 ft (London) give priority over traffic accessibility yellow line. • Ensure contraflow lane is exclusively for bicycles by using bike lane striping with legal status. • Clearly distinguish contraflow lane with markings. • Consider use of color on bike lane. • Consider physical separation between bike lane and travel lane. • Determine modifications needed to existing traffic signals.

Maintenance Level – Medium Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries • Outreach to stakeholders, adjacent • Madison, WI businesses and neighbors • Cambridge, MA • Conversion from 2‐way requires • San Francisco, CA Source: Denver Igarta elimination of one direction of auto Amsterdam, Netherlands • Netherlands travel. • Germany

• Portland (23rd Pl, Weidler Ct)

4 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Floating Bike Lane

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages A single lane functions as a parking lane • Accommodates bicycles at all times, • Unorthodox design can be or an exclusive bike lane: even when parking is permitted. confusing. • During peak hours, parking is not • Provides bicycle facilities on streets • Enforcement required allowed and cyclists use a curbside with constrained rights‐of‐way. bike lane. • During off‐peak hours, cyclists travel in the space between the motorized traffic lane and parked cars. This treatment retains the bicycle facility when an extra travel lane (for automobiles) is added during peak hours. Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • Primary bicycle routes during peak • Provide adequate space to minimize • Peak hour (SF) hours the risk of “doorings” when parking • 7 am ‐ 9 am / 3 pm ‐ 7 pm • Streets warranting bike lanes with is permitted • Parking permitted during off‐ high parking demand where there is • Consider using bicycle symbol peak (SF) not enough space to provide both curbside • 9 am ‐ 3 pm / 7 pm ‐ 7 am standard bike lane and parking. • Minimal use of signage required. • Consider using sharrow markings in lieu of bike lane striping. (San Francisco) • Time of day vehicle use communication Maintenance Level – Medium

Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries • Typically requires removal of travel • San Francisco (SF), CA lane to add parking

Source: sfmta.org San Francisco, CA

5 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Colored Bike Lanes

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages Color is applied to the bike lanes to • Provides a continuous facility for • Maintenance requirements. distinguish the bike lane, alert roadway cyclists. users at high conflict areas and to clearly • Mitigates high conflict areas. assign right‐of‐way to cyclists. Motorists • Provides for safer merging of are expected to yield to cyclists in these bicycles with motor vehicle traffic. areas. • Increases awareness and safe behaviors by both cyclists and motorists

Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • Heavy auto traffic streets with bike • Provide appropriate signs. • Provide ample bike lane width lanes • Use marking and sign configurations • Provide color through the • At dangerous intersection or where that encourage the weaving of conflict area cyclists and motorists must weave bicycles and motor vehicles in • PBOT guidance with one another. advance of the intersection proper. • Green Color: Bright green • Conflict area with a record of crashes • Use thermoplastic rather than paint color was adopted in 2008 replacing the blue color Maintenance Level – High used prior. Typically blue color is used to indicate disabled parking. • Limit use to conflict areas

Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries • Not part of the Manual on Uniform • New York City, NY Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) • Cambridge, MA • Portland, OR • Cologne, Germany

Source: BikePortland.org Portland, OR

6 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Advisory Bike Lanes

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages Dotted white lines on both sides of a • A viable option when cross‐section • Motor vehicle encroachment narrow roadway delineate bicycle areas. is too narrow for mandatory bike into the bike lane permitted The automobile zone is not wide enough lanes • If vehicles are parked in the bike for two cars to pass in both directions • Striping offers visual separation on lane cyclists must position creating a queuing situation. Motorists a low‐traffic roadway themselves further into the may enter the bicycle zone when no • Motorist tend to travel slower due roadway to pass safely bicycles are present. Motorists must to friction created with oncoming • Less protection for cyclists than a overtake with caution due to traffic vehicles. conventional bike lane traveling in the opposite direction.

Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • Low motor vehicle traffic volumes and • No continuous centerline should • Advisory bike lane width: speeds separate opposing directions of • 5 ft ‐6.5 ft (CROW) • Straight segments with few bends, auto travel • Min. 5 ft (London) inclines or sightline obstructions • Colored pavement on the edges to • 4.1 ft ‐5.25 ft (FGSV) • Two‐way streets discourage encroachment by • 2‐way motor vehicle lane: motorists or parked vehicles. • No centerline on roadway • 15 ft ‐ 18 ft (FGSV) • Assess potential hazards and • Min. 13 ft (London) conflict points • Curb‐to‐Curb: • Minimum bike lane width 5 ft (London) • 23 ft ‐28 ft (London) • Two‐direction travel lane not wide • Parking dimensions: enough for two cars to pass in • 7.5 ft ‐8.2 ft (FGSV) opposite directions • Line dimensions (CROW): • Consider maximum volume and • Width: 4 in ‐6 in speed (London: 3000 adt / 30 • Spacing: 3.28 ft mph1/ 37 mph2) • Continue across minor street intersection

Maintenance Level – Medium Implementation Obstacles • Not in MUTCD Example Cities/Countries • May require enabling legislation (1) Dutch CROW Manual • Standard need for striping (2) German FGSV (3) London, England Source: Roger Geller IJsselstein, Netherlands

1 Transport London ‐ London Cycling Design Standards 2 Zeeland, Netherlands

7 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Cycle Track Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages Exclusive bicycle facility adjacent to ‐ but • Direct access to main street • Amount of right‐of‐way required separated from ‐ the roadway by a commercial areas • May require removal of travel physical barrier. Combines the user • Significant separation from lane or on‐street parking experience of a separated path with the automobile traffic in busiest parts of • Left‐turns must be made in non‐ on‐street infrastructure of a bike lane. town standard manner, potentially resulting in delay • Expensive

Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • Arterial roadways with higher motor • Separation – channelized (elevated • Cycle track width vehicle speeds and volumes. or at‐grade), mountable curb, or • 6.5 ft minmum, 7 ft typical, 8 • Roads with fewer cross‐streets and bollards/markings ft desirable for new longer blocks. • Cycle track width construction, Up to 10 ft for • Based on bicycle volumes, design additional capacity (CPH) speed, and passing opportunities. • 6.5 ft to 13.1 ft depending on • Crossing driveways & low‐volume rush hour bicycle intensity streets (CROW) • Continue the cycle track through • 2 ft buffer on vehicle side is the driveway crossing desirable, required if cycle • Use pavement markings and track width is less than 7 ft grade separation to indicate cycle (CPH) track has the right‐of‐way • 5.5 ft absolute minimum for • Signalized intersections cycle tracks (CPH) • Drop down to bike lane • Curb separating the bike and • Forward stop bar pedestrian facilities (CPH) • Crossbike marking through the • Make the intersection look more intersection dangerous than it actually is Source: Denver Igarta (CPH) Amsterdam, NL • Exclusive bike signal phase • On‐street parking: place cycle • Other considerations: maintenance, track adjacent to the sidewalk bike symbol, interactions with with 2 ft clear space to prevent transit, ADA requirements, and two‐ “doorings” (ALTA) way cycle tracks. • Remove parking directly in • Adequate sidewalks to reduce advance of the intersection likelihood of cycle track use by Implementation Obstacles pedestrians. Example Cities/Countries • Separation from pedestrian realm • Difficult to implement where • Copenhagen Traffic • ADA access to sidewalks from on intersections are closely spaced. Department (CPH) street parking • Netherlands (CROW Manual ) • Design standards required Maintenance Level – Medium • Cambridge, MA • St. Petersburg, FL • New York, NY

8 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Bicycle Street ‐ ”Fahrradstrassen”/ ”Fietsstraten”

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages A street within a residential area that acts • Achieve objectives of safety, • Residential streets do as a major bicycle route and where the comfort and attractiveness on not typically provide position of the car is subordinate to that of low‐traffic direct through direct access to the bicycle. Bicycle streets offer safe streets. commercial destinations. passage for large numbers of cyclists, • Provide cyclists an alternative • Local residents may mainly between and through districts. The to bicycling on an arterial object to improvements intent of this treatment is to provide direct, street. or alterations on their safe, comfortable and attractive routes to • Local streets typically have street. promote bicycle use. fewer modal conflicts.

Provisions for Fahrradstrassen are outlined in German traffic law (Straßen‐Verkehrs Ordnung – StVO) requiring: • All vehicles are required to travel at moderate speeds • Allowing cyclists to ride side‐by‐side Application Design Maintenance Design Guidance • Low traffic residential street with a Considerations • Design should consider shared space for bicycle and motor • Bicycles are permitted to use neighborhood vehicle traffic. the entire width of the aesthetics. • Streets parallel to a nearby arterial. roadway. • Direct routes across districts. • Bicycle boulevard toolbox • Signage and pavement markings • Traffic calming • Diversion techniques • Speed limits • 30 km/h or 18.6 mph (Germany) • Preserve emergency access and occasion access for large vehicles.

Maintenance Level – Low Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries • Enabling legislation may be • Muenster, Germany Source: Fietsberaad required to reduce speed Oss, Netherlands • Essen, Germany limits • Oss, Netherlands

9 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Pinch Point (or Queuing Street/Neckdown/Choker)

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages This is a residential traffic calming • Slows speed of motor vehicles • Reduces on‐street parking treatment that narrows the travel lane for • Provides mode separation between capacity motorists by installing curb extensions or bicycles and motor vehicles passing • Cost islands to create a narrow channel. A through concurrently separated bicycle travel‐way segregates • Discourages cut‐through traffic bicycles and motor vehicles as they travel • Acts as horizontal deflection to reduce through the device. This design slows speed, and is more comfortable than a automotive traffic while retaining priority speed bump movement for bicycles. The intent is to calm and discourage non‐local traffic on • Some designs may allow for green bicycle boulevards. treatments and that improve attractiveness.

Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • Soft diversion – use in location where • Ensure adequate pass through • Must accommodate turn reduced volume is desired, but hard • Provide good visibility between movements at intersections diversion is not possible modes. • Width of extension/islands • Use as gateway treatment • Provide good visibility and adequate can be increased for wider • Speed reduction warning of floating islands. streets • Hard diversion at T‐intersection • Potential to add speed cushion in center of device for additional speed reduction • Oppositional flow of traffic improves speed reduction benefit • Auto speed through pinch point and cyclist merge point.

Maintenance Level – Low Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries • Not part of the Manual on Uniform • Utrecht, The Netherlands Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)

Source: Greg Raisman Utrecht, The Netherlands

10 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Chicanes

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages Alternating curb extensions or islands • Narrow circuitous lanes that limit the • Placement of curb installed to create horizontal (serpentine) clear path of vision and encourage extensions/islands may shifts of the travel lane thus reducing slow auto speeds. eliminate on‐street parking traffic speeds. • Narrow travel lanes provide opportunities for on‐street parking

Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • Bicycle boulevards • Allow pedestrian and bicycle pass • Refer to other design sheets • Low traffic residential street with through • Narrow width roadway shared space for bicycle and motor • Avoid disrupting drainage • Pass‐through curb vehicle traffic. • Median islands may be installed to extensions eliminate the opportunity for drivers to avoid travel lanes shifts by driving down the centerline. • Opportunities to enhance aesthetics with landscaping and streetscape design.

Maintenance Level – Low

Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries n/a • Seattle, Washington • Tallahassee, FL • Victoria, BC, Canada

Source: Denver Igarta Victoria, BC, Canada

11 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Narrow Width Shared Roadway

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages A bikeway on a local street with a • Achieve objectives of safety, • Local residents may object narrow width to reduce motor comfort and attractiveness on to improvements or vehicle speeds and enhance safety shared local streets. alterations on their street. for cyclists and pedestrians. • Local streets typically have fewer • Cost modal conflicts. • Provide more space for pedestrian realm (sidewalks, landscaping, etc.). • Potential for less impervious surface.

Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • Low traffic residential street with • Complementary speed limits • Roadway width (curb‐to‐ a mixed profile for bicycle and • Consider ways to preserve access curb) motor vehicle traffic. for emergency vehicles, buses • 12.5 ft: extremely low and/or delivery trucks. volumes (CROW) • Bicycles are permitted to use the • 16 ft: based on entire width of the roadway. bicycle/car/bicycle • Consider possible diversion impacts combination (CROW) on adjacent streets. • Design should consider neighborhood aesthetics. Maintenance Level – Low

Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries • Requires enabling legislation to • Muenster, Germany sufficiently reduce speed limits • Berlin, Germany • Netherlands (CROW)

Source: Denver Igarta Vancouver, BC, Canada

12 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Residential Speed Limit (Zone 30/Tempo 30/20 mph Zone)

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages Discourage motorists from cutting • Improves road safety by reducing • Enforcement requirements through residential areas by setting a the number of crash‐related injuries speed limit of 20 mph and implementing • Relatively inexpensive to implement necessary traffic calming measures. • Concentrates through traffic on streets designated as arterials • Enhances neighborhood livability (noise Ievels, air quality, other traffic nuisances) • Enables cyclists to more comfortably share the road with motorists Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • Local service traffic streets in • If zone is too large (>250 acres or a • Refer to other traffic calming residential areas. square km), it may divert too much related design sheets • Apply to an area consisting of several traffic onto arterials. (SWOV) streets rather than an individual • Determine need for traffic calming streets (UK) measures to accompany speed limit • Bicycle routes off the main arterial signs. streets. • Traffic calming devices must be bicycle‐friendly. • Gateway treatments (signs, pinch points and other calming measures) at neighborhood entry points have been shown to be very effective in reducing speeds. (UK) • Consider speed limit pavement markings (aka roundel marking)

Maintenance Level – Low Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries • Requires enabling legislation to • New York City, NY1 sufficiently reduce speed limits • Graz, Austria Source: Denver Igarta Vancouver, BC, Canada • Netherlands (SWOV) • UK Dept of Transport

1 New York STATE Vehicle & Traffic Law §1643 II. In cities with a population >1 million, speed limits <25 mph but in no case <15 mph may be established along designated highways for the “purpose of implementing traffic calming measures.” However, no such speed limit can be established where such measure consists only of traffic control signs. The term “traffic calming measures” means “any physical engineering measure or measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve conditions for non‐motorized street users such as pedestrians and bicyclists.” V & T Law §1642(26)

13 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Speed Bumps

Description Advantages Disadvantages Speed bumps are short sections of roadway • Full‐time speed reduction • Fire vehicle response delay that have been vertically raised to cause a • Low cost relative to enforcement • Potential to generate noise reduction in automobile speed. (Also known • Quick to install as Speed Humps (14’) or Speed Tables (22’))

Application Design Considerations Design Guidance • Local Service or Neighborhood Collector • Adequate markings • Bump Spacing streets that are not Major Emergency • Adequate warning signs • Ranges from 300‐500 ft Response Routes • Distance from utility access but is typically near 400 ft. points and intersecting streets • Bump Size • Distance from driveways • Speed Bump (14 ft) on Local Service streets • Speed Tables (22 ft) on bus Maintenance Level – Low routes and Neighborhood Collector streets • Offset Speed Tables on Major Emergency Response Routes

Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries n/a • Portland, OR

Source: Greg Raisman Portland, OR

14 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Home Zone/Woonerf

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages Home Zones are residential streets in • Improves neighborhood livability • Can reduce connectivity for which the road space is shared between and traffic safety by making streets motor vehicle congestion relief drivers of motor vehicles and other road places for people, not only traffic. • Impacts convenience of users, with the wider needs of residents • Changes the layout of the street so residents and visitors who drive (including pedestrians, bicyclists, and that motorists perceive that they to the neighborhood children) in mind. (UK DfT) should give informal priority to other road users. • Reduces cut‐through traffic and speeding by motorists • Prioritizes pedestrian and bicycle travel on residential streets Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance Home Zones can be established in areas • Motorists should feel like “guests” • Travel lane should be as narrow that are primarily residential. This traffic on the street. (UK) as practicable – minimum 10 ft management system is particularly • Street design must be legible to (UK) beneficial in areas with schools, parks, visually impaired. • Design for 20 mph travel speed and other public spaces. • Preserve two‐way connectivity on • Traffic flows of < 100 vehicles in all streets for bicycles and afternoon peak hour. (UK) pedestrians • Vehicles should not have to • Ensure acceptable levels of travel more than .25 miles along diversion on adjacent streets home zone street. (UK) • Retain emergency response access • Provide adequate guidance for • Focus on operational and area‐wide bicyclists and pedestrians strategies • Utilize non‐intuitive one‐way • Utilize capital projects strategically systems or traffic diversion techniques to reduce non‐ • Retain access for street sweeping • Retain access for deliveries and resident cut‐through traffic

basic municipal services such as garbage removal. • Accommodate occasional use by

large vehicles (UK)

Source: Denver Igarta Maintenance Level – Low Amsterdam, NL Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries • Oregon law: may require statutory • Utrecht, Netherlands change to establish slower travel • Groningen, Netherlands speeds in Home Zones • Copenhagen, Denmark • Area‐wide planning requires very • Bonn, Germany high level of community process • Malmo, Sweden

• UK Institute of Highway Incorp. Engineers (homezones.org.uk)

15 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Traffic Volume Control Measures

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages Volume control measures cover all • Reduce potential conflicts between • Creates some access techniques which utilize a physical barrier to motor vehicles and restrictions for local residents restrict the flow of motor vehicles. bicyclists/pedestrians • Traffic may be diverted to an Treatments to control auto volumes include: • Increase comfort and adjacent local street • Semi‐ (Partial‐) diverter attractiveness of route for • Enforcement may be required • Median barrier bicyclists for partial diverters • Diagonal diverter • Enhance neighborhood livability • Cul‐de‐sac/Full‐street closure • Forced turn island

Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • Bicycle boulevards • Consider designs that preserve • Local service streets in residential areas necessary access for emergency • Streets with a documented cut‐through vehicles or occasional truck traffic problem deliveries • Not transit or major emergency • Make passable for pedestrians and response route bicyclists • Provide adequate alternative exit/entry routes for automobiles • Consider trial treatment period • Enhance visibility with signs, delineations, painted curbs, etc. • Consider use in sets to make Example Cities/Countries through traffic possible but less • Berkeley, CA attractive • Boulder, CO • Consider integrating stormwater, • Eugene, OR utilities and other functions • Portland, OR • Seattle, WA Maintenance Level – Low

Implementation Obstacles • Defining a neighborhood outreach Source: Denver Igarta process Portland, OR

16 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Copenhagen Green Cycle Routes

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages Green cycle routes serve a bicycle • Offers routes with minimal motor • Challenge of connecting green mobility function on quiet routes vehicle conflicts spaces to form a network separated from heavy traffic. These • Provides the highest standard of routes serve both a transportation and bikeway design recreation function passing through neighborhoods, parks, greenways and natural spaces. Green cycle routes are long (1‐5 mi) continuous routes that form a citywide network complementing the city bikeway network.

Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • Green areas and low traffic roadways • Wide bicycle pathway and • Refer to other design sheets: separated walkway the preferred • Off‐Street and Shared‐Use treatment Path Sections • Minimize out of direction travel • Bicycle streets • Minimize stops (delays) for cyclists

Maintenance Level – Low Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries n/a • Copenhagen, Denmark

Source: City of Copenhagen

17 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Trails/Off‐Street or Shared‐Use Path Sections

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages Minimum and standard dimensions for • Uniformity of expectations for off‐street exclusive bike paths and users and developers shared‐use pathways.

Application Design/Maintenance Design Guidance • Off‐street bike paths or shared‐use Considerations • Horizontal separation of modes, bike and pedestrian pathways. • Travel speed of bicyclists particularly on commute routes • Grade • Vegetation adjacent to catch run‐off • Pedestrian volumes • Ideally, pedestrians and bicyclists • Security issues – night time should be separated, especially in illumination areas with high expected use. • No curbing • Bike & ped traffic can be combined • Signing, including route signing if < 200 peds/hr/meter of profile • Markings width (CROW) • Full combination – 100 Maintenance Level – Low peds/hr/meter of profile width (CROW) Implemenation Obstacles • Visual separation (simple marking) – up to 160 peds per hr per meter of • Right of way acquisition width (CROW)

• “Soft separation”‐ separate bicycle travel path using different paving material 160‐200 peds/hr/meter of width (CROW) • PBOT guidance (Portland) • Minimum path, exclusive or Example Cities/Countries shared, is 12 ft (4 m), standard is 16 ft (5 m). • Burke‐Gilman Trail, Seattle, WA • Preferred width for a shared‐use • Springwater Corridor, Portland pathway is a 16 ft bike lane, • South Waterfront Trail, Portland centered in the right of way, with Source: Denver Igarta • Netherlands (CROW manual) pedestrian paths on each side (6 Munich, Germany ft min, 8 ft standard width) and vegetated separation between bike & ped pathways (2‐4 ft wide).

Trail Design Guidelines for Portland’s Park System, Portland Parks & Recreation, May 2009, available online at http://www.portlandonline.com/parks/index.cfm?a=250105&c=38306

18 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Car‐Free Street/Zone

Description/Purpose Advantages Streets or areas with a concentration of • Achieves safety, comfort and attractiveness on car‐free streets. destinations where motor vehicles • Provides bicyclists an alternative to busy arterial streets. have been excluded from the public • Bicyclists can remain close to their bicycle to reduce theft and facilitate right‐of‐way. Combine pedestrian and transport of purchased goods. bicycle traffic (modes with minimal • Allowing bicycling (as opposed to prohibiting it) in pedestrian districts: nuisance) to provide for an attractive ƒ Offers access to the destinations clustered in the area car‐free experience. ƒ Eliminates what may form as a barrier in the bicycle network ƒ Enables bicyclists to avoid busy streets that often encircle pedestrian districts Disadvantages • Possible conflicts with pedestrians

Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • Streets in the central business district • Volume of pedestrians/bicyclists • Horizontal separation of modes or regional/town center with high • Speed of bicyclists • Where volumes of pedestrians numbers of pedestrians and • Pedestrian district streets limited to and bicyclists are high, designing bicyclists. bus, taxi and service vehicle access for separation may be desirable. should also be available to bicyclists • Bike & ped traffic can be • Signing, including route signage combined if <200 peds/hr/meter • Pavement markings of profile width (CROW) • Full combination – 100 Maintenance Level – Low peds/hr/meter of profile width (CROW) • Visual separation (simple marking) – up to 160 peds/hr/meter of width (CROW) • “Soft separation”‐ separate bike travel path of different paving material 160‐200 peds/hr/meter of width (CROW) Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries • Defining a business/neighborhood • Boulder, CO Source: Denver Igarta outreach process • Charlottesville, VA Düsseldorf, Germany • Düsseldorf, Germany • Groningen, Netherlands

19 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Trail/Off Street Path Transition

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages The concrete driveway ramp with bollard, • Current driveway design is familiar • Wider than standard ramp, so signing and markings that delineate the to construct and not confused with uses more space beginning or end of a bicycle‐only or pedestrian ramp • Added cost of construction shared‐use pathway where it meets a • Can double as access point for standard public right‐of‐way. maintenance vehicles. • Separates bicyclists from pedestrian crossing paths

Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • Any street where an off‐street path or • Shared use paths may need added • Standard 12 ft driveway with shared path enters or crosses a typical signing to communicate desired single, removable bollard right of way. separation of modes. centered in ramp. • Pedestrian ramps adjacent to bicycle driveway on both sides Maintenance Level – Low with drop ramps at sidewalk. • Use odd number of bollards only

Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries n/a • Portland, OR • Copenhagen, DK • Houton, NL

Source: Denver Igarta Vancouver, BC, Canada

20 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Bicycle Undercrossing (Tunnel)

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages Bicycle undercrossings, or tunnels, provide • Conflict‐free crossing of bicycle • Susceptible to vandalism bicyclists grade‐separated passage beneath and motorized traffic • Security concerns major arterial streets. Tunnels eliminate • May offer shorter inclines than an • Cost the conflicts cyclists would encounter with overcrossing. motorized traffic if the crossing was at‐ grade.

Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • Intersection between a main bikeway • Unobstructed views through • Bicycle section and a major arterial street. tunnels (CROW) • Separate footpath: 10 ft • Good lighting situation for minimum (CROW). security. Maximize daylight. • Shared use: 11.5 ft (CROW) minimum (CROW). • Consider groundwater/drainage • Height: > 8.2 feet issues. • Incline < 1:20 • Bicyclist preferably at ground level • Tunnel floor: 2% (drainage) (CROW) • Approaches kept to no more • Clear of vegetation. No corners or than 5% grade (Davis) recesses. (CROW) • Illumination • Walls recede towards top (CROW) • Adequate overhead clearance of at least 10 ft (Alta) Maintenance Level – Medium • Minimum width of 14 feet for several users to pass safely (Alta) Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries n/a • Davis, CA • San Diego, CA (ALTA)

Source: Denver Igarta • Boulder, Co Vancouver, BC, Canada • Madison, Wi • Netherlands (CROW)

21 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Green Wave

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages Green waves are coordinated traffic • Reduces the number of stops for • Potential to increase complaints signals that allow bicyclists to travel from bicyclists along an arterial street. from drivers about traffic signal intersection to intersection without • Makes cycling more competitive as timing and maintenance. stopping in one direction. Signs compared to automobile travel. • Potential air quality impacts due communicate to bicyclists the intended • Reduces person delay, where to increased idling at traffic speed for the facility and how fast they bicycle and transit volumes exceed signals (not in all cases). need to ride to stay within the band. auto carrying capacity (or where • More difficult to implement on Green waves increase the efficiency of the policy dictates). two‐way roadways. bicycle and are a developing tool to • Reduced noise due to lower speeds address high demand bicycle corridors. • Increases safety for all roadway users (including pedestrians) Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • Arterial and collector streets with • Identify effects to traffic (bicycle • Green wave speeds may be groups of signalized intersections and automobile) in both directions influenced by grade • High bicycle volumes • Under congested conditions • Operation may be limited to • A high percentage of through (automobile congestion), impacts periods of peak bicyclist use movements for bicyclists to vehicles may be less significant • Operation may be limited to periods when signal timing is Maintenance Level – Low operating at a given cycle length • Signal cycle lengths may need to be revised, requiring comprehensive corridor evaluation.

Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries • Auto traffic congestion resulting in • Copenhagen, DK complaints • Amsterdam, NL • Increased road maintenance costs due to braking caused by heavy vehicles

Source: City of Copenhagen

22 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Traffic Signal Operations for Bicycles

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages It is commonplace to have traffic signals • Reduces bicycle delay (associated • Additional maintenance designed primarily for automobiles. However, with advance bicycle detection associated with advance there are several techniques that can balance and uncoordinated signals) bicycle detection the usefulness of the traffic signal for • Provides bicyclist priority over • Increased traffic congestion bicyclists, including: other users (leading bicycle associated with additional • Advanced signal detection in the bike interval) green time used by bicyclists lane • Increases bicyclist safety by (advance detection, signal • Shorten delay for bike boulevard allowing a head start through the phasing, leading bicycle crossings intersection (leading bicycle interval) • Leading bicycle interval interval)

Application Design/Maintenance Design Guidance • Signalized intersections where bicyclists Considerations • Advance detection must travel at a high speeds • Identify effects to traffic (cyclists account for signal timing • Locations where intersection operation is and auto) in both directions parameters (gap timing), not intuitive for crossing through the signal • Identify mode of operation of speed of bicyclists, and • High volume of bicycle trips signal (time of day for potential for automobiles to coordination) and determine actuate the detector. whether it is necessary. • Visibility of display for leading bicycle interval needs careful Maintenance Level – Low consideration.

Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries • Exclusive signal displays for • Albany, OR (advance bicycles have not been reviewed detection) by the Federal Highway • Boulder, CO (scramble Administration. phase) • Portland, OR (scramble) Source: Denver Igarta

Amsterdam, NL

23 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Traffic Signal Crossings for Bicycles

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages Various types of traffic signal control provide • Reduces bicycle delay during • Power and maintenance costs opportunities for bicyclists to cross major periods of high vehicle traffic for signal streets in a safe and comfortable manner, • Provides a safer protected • Increased stops and delay for include: crossing automobile traffic • Full traffic signals with • Helps create an attractive and • Increased delay for bicyclists detection/actuation for bikes low‐stress route for bicyclists during periods when the major • Pedestrian Hybrid Signals (a.k.a. street traffic is low Hawk) • Midblock signals for trails and pedestrian crossings

Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • Bicycle boulevard crossings of higher • Evaluate warrants to identify the volume collector and arterial streets. need for a traffic signal and the • Trail crossings of higher volume Collector type of signal. and Arterial Streets • Placement of a new signal along a major street should consider signal spacing and progression. • Identify mode of operation of signal (time of day for coordination). • Design detectors so that they are easy for bicyclists to use.

Maintenance Level – Low

Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries • Pedestrian Hybrid Signals are not • Portland, OR yet approved for general use. • Phoenix, AZ • Exclusive signal displays for • Boulder, CO bicycles are not included in proposed design standards for Hybrid Signals. Source: City of Portland (PBOT)

24 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Truncated Cycle Track ‐ Ramp Down to Bike Lane

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages A cycle track that ramps down to the • Bicyclists are more visible to • Bicyclists may have a sense of roadway in advance of the intersection to motorists at intersections. perceived risk entering a travel reduce conflicts with right turning • Mitigates risk of “right‐hook” lane with motor vehicles. motorists. crash with right turning motorists. • Increases visibility of bicyclists in advance of the intersection.

Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • Cycle tracks situated behind on‐street • Bicyclists ramp down to a • Ramp down at least 70‐100 ft parking or otherwise removed from dedicated bike lane or mixed before the intersection travel lane. right‐turn lane. depending on the number of • Intersections with frequent right turning • Provide bike lane up to the right turning motorists. motor vehicles. intersection. (Denmark) • Mark bicycle crossing through the • If combined with right‐turn lane intersection. must be about 13 ft wide to • May be combined with bicycle box facilitate safe merging treatment. manoeuvres. (Denmark) • Remove parking in advance of the intersection to increase visibility.

Maintenance Level – Low

Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries n/a • Denmark – Collection of Concepts • Muenster, Germany Source: City of Vancouver, BC • Amsterdam, Netherlands

25 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Cycle Track Two‐Stage Signalized Left Turn with Queuing Space

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages Two‐stage left (aka Copenhagen‐Left, • Reduces conflicts between • Bicyclists must wait for two Melbourne‐Left, jug‐handle turn) offers motorists and bicyclists. signals rather than one. bicyclists a safe left‐turn movement where • Bicyclists can position themselves • Bicyclists may feel there are physical/safety barriers to in front of traffic on cross street. uncomfortable in the queuing entering the roadway in advance of the • Reduces complexity of left‐turn for area. intersection. Bicyclists proceed straight bicyclists. across the intersection to the far side and then queue in front of the cross‐street traffic. Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • Cycle tracks or bike lanes with multiple • Use pavement markings to • Markings separate left‐turn and motor vehicle travel lanes. channelize bicycle movements and through movements of bicyclists. • Signalized intersections. define queuing space. • Adequate/marked queuing area. • Consider a physical refuge (e.g. • Queuing area width > 4.0 ft curb extension or jug‐handle) for (CROW). queuing bicyclists. • Motorists on cross street are not • Consider bicycle advanced signal. allowed to turn right on red.

Maintenance Level – Low

Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries n/a • Netherlands, CROW Manual • Copenhagen, Denmark

• Muenster, Germany

Source: City of Muenster, Germany

26 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Forward Stop Bar

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages A second stop bar for bicyclists placed • Bicyclists have better visibility of • Right‐turn vehicle conflict if closer to the centerline of the cross‐street cross‐street traffic. bicyclist arrives after motorist than the first stop bar. Typically used with • Bicyclists are more visible to going in the same direction. crossing treatment (i.e. curb extension) to adjacent motorists. • Potential conflicts with encourage bicyclists to take full advantage • Bicyclists are permitted to bypass pedestrians crossing the leg of of crossing design. queuing motorists. the intersection with the forward

• Shortens crossing distance for stop bar. bicyclists. Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • Low‐volume, stop‐controlled • Low % right‐turning motorists • Consider other treatments if intersections, preferably with curb • Moderate motor vehicle volumes >25% motor vehicles turn right extension • High volumes of bicycle traffic or >15% bikes (Portland) • Unsignalized bicycle boulevard crossing • Placement of the forward stop bar • Combined bike/right turn in relation to the crosswalk lane • Adequate space for pedestrians • Bike box in through lane • Should be thermoplastic due to • Stop bar should be increased wear thermoplastic • Stop sign permits bicyclists to Maintenance Level – Low move past the motorist stop bar without stopping.

Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries n/a • Portland, OR

Source: City of Portland (PBOT)

27 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Bicycle Box

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages Bicycle boxes are a traffic control device at • Gives bicyclists priority and makes • Eliminates motorist right‐on‐ signalized intersections that require them more visible to mitigate red. motorists to stop a short distance before “right‐hook” threat. • Potential for unfamiliar drivers the crosswalk and allow bicyclists to stop in • Gives bicyclists on bike boulevards to be confused or to encroach the area between the cars and the priority when signal has a short into the bicycle box. crosswalk. Bicycle boxes give bicyclists green phase. • Maintenance costs of colored priority by allowing them to go to the head • Enables left‐turning bicyclists to surface. of the line. position themselves to the left prior to getting a green signal Application (works vise‐versa if bicyclists Design Guidance Signalized intersections: turning right from left side bike • Reservoir (box) depth • A high number of queuing lane). • 13 ft ‐16.4 ft bicyclists • Lessens nuisance from exhaust. (CROW/London) • High automobile & bicycle volumes • Lead‐in approach bike lane to • Frequent turning conflicts allow bicycles to bypass queuing • A high percentage of turning motor vehicles. movements by both bicyclists and • Minimum width: 5 ft motorists. (London) Design/Maintenance Considerations • As long as queue length • Identify dimensions that work best • Prominent bicycle symbol and for bicyclists (comfort/safety) bright color surfacing. • Box may be disregarded by • Right‐turn‐on‐red prohibited. motorists if not commonly filled • Consider “head start” advanced by bicyclists and properly signed. signal. • Consider surface color and markings to reduce vehicle encroachment

Maintenance Level – High Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries Source: Denver Igarta Portland, OR • Not part of the Manual on • Cambridge, MA Uniform Traffic Control Devices • Portland, OR (MUTCD) • Vancouver, BC, CA • Victoria, BC, CA • Amsterdam, Netherlands • Muenster, Germany

28 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Combined Right‐turn Bike Lane

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages A right‐turn lane for automobiles that is • Identifies bicyclist location in a • Through‐bicyclists may block also a through lane for bicyclists, marked geometrically restricted right‐turning motorists where or unmarked, but signed as such. intersection. turn capacity is needed. • Allows “dual use” of lane where there is insufficient space for both bicycle lane and dedicated right‐ turn lane.

Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • Where a bike lane approaches a • Advance warning is needed for • < 10% of auto traffic is right‐ congested intersection that requires an bicyclists and motorists. turning exclusive right‐turn lane for motorists. • Not appropriate at intersections • If > 25% of auto traffic is right‐ with very high peak automobile turning, use bike box in adjacent turn demand or where automobile through lane if bike demand is turn demand is consistently high sufficient throughout the day. • Use shared lane marking in right‐ • Maintenance Level – Low or High. turn lane to show through If the combined right‐turn and bike bicycle movement lane includes markings for the cyclist space, those markings will be regularly driven over and suffer faster wear than a center of lane marking. Without markings the maintenance should be low and consist of only sign maintenance.

Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries n/a Vancouver, Washington

Source: Oregon Department of Transportation

29 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Traffic Circles

Description Advantages Disadvantages Traffic circles are raised circular islands at • Requires motorists to slow down • High cost the center of the intersection of two or more to drive around them • Delay to fire trucks streets. • Reduces the likelihood of right‐ • Long vehicles cannot go around angle collisions circle to make a left turn • Where bike lanes do not exist, bicyclists and motorists are forced together

Application Design Considerations Design Guidance • Local Service streets only • Proximity of circular roadway to pedestrian crossing path • Emergency vehicle access • On high volume roadways impact repairs may be more frequent, but are typically infrequent. Maintenance of vegetation for visibility issues may be required every five years.

Maintenance Level ‐ Medium Design Obstacles/Challenges Example Cities/Countries n/a • Seattle, Washington Source: Denver Igarta • Portland, Oregon Vancouver, BC • Vancouver, BC, Canada

30 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Bicycle Boulevard Off‐Set Intersection with Arterial Street

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages A variety of treatments to facilitate an off‐set • Provides facilities for bicyclists to • Some designs may limit bicycle boulevard crossing of a major traffic enabling them to cross one turning movements for street where the bicycle boulevard forms two direction of traffic at once or using motorists. closely spaced T‐intersections. a dedicated signal. • Parking removal may be • Facilitates bicycle mobility on required for some bicycle boulevards. designs. • Provides safe crossings of high‐ volume roads.

Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • Bicycle boulevards intersecting arterial • Designs for RIGHT off‐set • Bike lane width streets at off‐set locations. intersections include: • 6 to 8 ft • Bicycle‐only center turn lane(s) • Use retroreflective • Median refuge island with materials on raised or integrated bike path painted center turn • Right‐running bike lane/cycle lanes. track with left‐turn pockets • Two‐way bicycle sidepath • Designs for LEFT off‐set intersections include: • Right‐running bike lane/cycle track • Two‐way bicycle sidepath • Provide adequate bicycle turn lane width • Consider median refuges or signals at intersections for right‐running bike facilities • Consider cross‐bike to mark roadway crossings for bicyclists • All designs may include a signal.

Maintenance Level – Medium Source: Roger Geller Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries Portland, OR n/a • Portland, OR • Seattle, WA • Tucson, AZ • De Bilt, Netherlands

31 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Median Refuge

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages A short median of full‐height curb • Calms traffic and provides space for • May restrict left‐turn constructed between automobile travel safe bicycle and pedestrian crossing movements of automobiles lanes where bicyclists (and pedestrians) • Allows bicyclists and pedestrian to • Requires right‐of‐way that may can take refuge while crossing a multi‐ cross while focusing on one result in loss of parking spaces or lane or high‐volume arterial. direction of traffic at a time. a travel lane • Cost

Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • Relatively wide roadways with • Adequate width to allow a bicyclist • Median width: minimum width 8 multiple lanes and few gaps in traffic. with a trailer to be protected from ft, 10 ft preferred (BMP) • May be used at signalized or un‐ the travel lanes • Should be at least 6.6 ft wide signalized crossings. • Angled refuge (45 degree) can be to provide sufficient waiting • Can be effective when located at used to provide space and face space. (MTC) intersections between signalized bicyclist towards oncoming traffic • If 2 m is not available, the intersections that create gaps • If a crossing island is landscaped, it bicycle storage area may be should not compromise visibility. angled across the median • Consider reflectors or lighting to (MTC) enhance visibility at night • Preferable at‐grade passage through the island rather than ramps and landings.

Maintenance Level – Low

Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries n/a • Portland, OR (BMP) • San Francisco, CA (MTC)

Source: Denver Igarta Portland, OR

32 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

“Cross‐bike” Markings

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages Pavement markings adjacent to the crosswalk • Provides greater visibility for • Cross‐bike will have higher indicating space for bicycles to cross major bicyclists at intersections. than normal wear based on intersections. Increases visibility of bicycles at • Informs all roadway users of the level of crossing auto intersections and encourages motorists to where bicyclists should cross. traffic. yield right‐of‐way to bicyclists waiting to cross. • Separates modes to reduce conflicts.

Application Design/Maintenance Design Guidance • Where main bicycle routes cross relatively Considerations • Minimum width of single lane minor collectors. • Consider combining with yield crossing is 5 ft • Where cross traffic has to yield right‐of‐way (sharks teeth) marking. (London/CROW) to crossing bicyclists. • Use of color • Minimum width of two‐way • Not appropriate where speeds exceed 30 • Improves visibility crossing is 10 ft (CROW) mph unless signalized. (Sustrans) • Increases maintenance cost • Elephant footprints. Block • Markings should not be confused marking (CROW) with crosswalks • 20 in by 20 in meters • Skid resistant markings for • Spacing: 20 in bicycles • Physical measures to slow traffic. Implementation Obstacles • Civil crossing improvements • Not in Manual on Uniform should be introduced in Traffic Control Devices conjunction. (MUTCD) • If signalized, prohibit right turns • May require enabling on red. legislation • Consider ladder‐bar shape (aka • Standards for application Zebra) to reduce auto tire wear needed • Consider marking adjacent crosswalk to distinguish two Example Cities/Countries Source: Denver Igarta pathways • London, England (Sustrans) Groningen, NL • Vancouver, BC Maintenance Level – High (Keefer/Carrall) • Vienna, Austria • Netherlands (CROW) • Paris, France • Groningen, Netherlands

33 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Pass‐through Curb Extension

Description Advantages Disadvantages A curb extension with a path for bicyclists • Eliminates conflict point where • Potential for pedestrian‐cyclist that permits them to drive over the curb bicycles and automobiles share conflict extension. the same space • Automobiles overtaking bicycles and conflicts after both pass curb extension

Application Design Considerations Design Guidance • High‐conflict point where frequently • Conspicuity of in‐road features • Road narrowing to 16 ft does not stopped transit vehicle may block bike for roadway users require advance warning, below lane • Clearly communicate to cyclist 16 ft provide advance warning of • Soft diversion location where road is and motorists the proper path to narrow road narrowed to induce queuing for take • Mark bike path through curb automobile traffic • Clearly designate right‐of‐way extension to reduce conflict with between opposing motorists pedestrians • Provide truncated domes for Maintenance Level – Low pedestrians for crossing both bike path and entering roadway • Bike lane width over curb extension to match bike lane standards Design Obstacles/Challenges Example Cities/Countries n/a • Vancouver, BC • Portland, OR

Source: Denver Igarta Vancouver, BC

34 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Bicycle Roundabout

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages Use of a circular intersection conforming • Familiar layout • Space needs to modern roundabout standards to • Reduces need to stop • Compliance uncertainty organize the interaction of bicycles( and • More predictable interactions automobiles) where bicycle boulevards or • Improves safety off street pathways intersect. • Educational benefit

Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • Where two bike boulevards or shared • Geometric layout on shared use • Center island diameter 20 ft use pathways cross. paths should place bicyclists to minimum without visibility center of pathway with obstructions or truck apron. pedestrians at sides (automobile • Target bicycle operational speed bike analogy of roadways) of 5‐10 mph. • Pedestrians should be guided to • Circular roadway width 8‐ft exit shared path and use minimum per lane concentric external pathway that • Entry and exit lane widths, 6‐ft crosses bikeways at splitter islands. minimum with flare • Central island size and radii should • Splitter island minimum 2‐ft encourage low‐speed bicyclist wide, offset left, with deflection interaction of 5‐10 mph. toward circular roadway before entry. Maintenance Level ‐ Medium • Consider raised pedestrian crossings. • Standard roundabout signing and markings using bike‐sized signs Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries n/a • Utah Source: Greg Raisman Utrecht, NL • Davis, California • The Netherlands

35 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Bicycle Boulevard Pavement Marking

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages Large pavement markings that identify • Guide bicyclists along the occasional • Maintenance costs. bike boulevards. Intent of markings is to jogs on boulevard routes. make these streets recognizable to all • Reinforces proper bicycle position users as bicycle priority streets. on a shared roadway. • Makes bicycle boulevards as recognizable to roadway users as streets with bicycle lanes.

Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • Low‐traffic shared roadways. • Supplemental arrows help direct • Install markings at all bicyclists when boulevard route intersections and at regular jogs. intervals: • Fit the neighborhood aesthetic. • 200 ft intervals (Alta) • Place near high‐conflict areas • Symbol dimensions (driveways). • Large bicycle symbol 5’ by 9’ • Apply markings with retroreflective (CROW) paint or thermoplastic (Alta) • 5.5’ by 9’ (London Cycle • Should be skid resistant. symbol 1057) • Consider the application of color and markings at major crossings. • Consider wear/maintenance on roadways where motor vehicles travel. • Potential neighbor concerns about aesthetic.

Maintenance Level – Low Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries • Not in Manual on Uniform Traffic • San Luis Obispo, CA Control Devices (MUTCD) • Berkeley, CA • Source: vuz‐essen.de Portland, OR Essen, Germany • Eugene, OR • Essen, Germany • Kiel, Germany

36 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Shared Roadway Markings

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages Shared roadway pavement markings, or • Helps bicyclists position • Maintenance requirements “sharrows”, are markings used to indicate a themselves in lanes too narrow for • Less desirable than a separated shared lane environment for bicycles and a motor vehicle and a bicycle to bicycle facility. automobiles. Sharrows increase the travel side by side within the same visibility of the roadway as a valid place for traffic lane. bicycle traffic and guide proper roadway • Mimics the effect of bicycle lanes positioning of bicyclists on streets where a on streets with constrained rights‐ separated facility is desired but not feasible. of‐way and alerts road users of the lateral location bicyclists may occupy. • Moves bicyclists out of the “door zone” of parked cars. • Encourages safe passing by motorists.

Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • Streets with moderate motor vehicle • Visible placement of markings. • Design guidance for sharrows traffic volumes, but where bike lanes are are provided in the Manual on precluded by constrained right‐of‐way. Maintenance Level – Low Uniform Traffic Control Devices • Short gaps between bike lanes. (MUTCD) • Streets without space for bike lanes in • Bike‐and‐chevron symbol both directions. dimensions 9 ft 3 in by 3 ft 3in. • Low‐traffic shared roadways to indicate • Marking placed minimum 11’ presence of bikeway. from curb face. • To designate through‐movement of • Symbol spacing should bicycles through shared turn lane correspond to difficulty of bicyclists trying to take proper travel path.

Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries n/a • San Francisco, CA • Portland, OR • Montreal, Quebec, Canada • Used by 76 jurisdictions in 26 states as of 2009

Source: Denver Igarta Portland, OR

37 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Bikeway Destination Signage

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages Guide signing for bicyclists along • Guides bicyclists to significant • Size limits information designated bike routes. Reinforce bikeway destinations • Sign clutter network by providing visual cues. Direct • Encourages potential riders bicyclists to destinations via preferred routes.

Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • Bike route intersections • Current signs include direction, • Manual on Uniform Traffic • At key decision points along bikeways destination & distance (3D) – Control Devices (MUTCD) consider adding difficulty. • Oregon Department of • Conspicuity Transportation (ODOT) standard • Legend size • City of Portland standard sign • Color code or route numbering

Maintenance Level ‐ Low

Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries • Federal Highway Administration • Portland, OR and ODOT currently have • Berkeley, California standards that differ from the City • Vancouver, BC, Canada of Portland. • Netherlands • Maintaining and updating system • Denmark Source: City of Portland (PBOT) with addition of new routes becomes increasingly complex.

38 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Streetcar on Bikeways (Center or left running streetcar tracks with bicycle lane or cycle track)

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages The street is designed to accommodate a • Bicyclists and streetcar are • Potential conflicts with center‐ or left‐running streetcar track and completely separated. pedestrians crossing the platform. Bicyclists will either travel to the • Increases safety. street to the center platform. right of the streetcar in either a bike lane, • The center platform eliminates cycle track or vehicle lane free of the the pinch point at curb extension streetcar tracks. platforms, and the lack of parked cars eliminates conflict with parking cars and doors. • Center platforms eliminate curb extension platforms that force bicyclists to cross tracks at shallow angles. Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • Where streetcar is planned on a one • Separate bicycle travel from • Track crossing angle for cyclists way or two‐way street with a bicycle streetcar tracks to the extent • Minimum 45 degree angle facility. possible. • Offer 90 degree whenever • Clearly mark where crosswalks possible meet with the bicycle facility (bike lane or cycle track) • Way‐finding signs and markings should be created for bicyclists to indicate turning opportunities • Design should direct bicyclists to cross tracks at a right‐angle. • Crossing angles should be near‐ perpendicular. • Mid‐block or far‐side streetcar stops may result in fewer conflicts than near‐side corner stops.

Maintenance Level – Low Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries n/a Source: Denver Igarta • Melbourne, Australia Amsterdam, NL (Swanston St.) • Portland, OR (SW Bond/ SW Harrison) • Amsterdam, Netherlands

39 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Bicycle‐Friendly Transit Stop Design

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages A boarding platform is placed at a transit • Buses are not forced to merge • Pedestrians have to cross stop between the bicycle facility and the into/across the bike lane. the bicycle facility. roadway to eliminate the need for transit • Bicyclists do not have to merge • If in advance of an vehicles and bikes to merge. into automobile traffic or across intersection, visibility of rail tracks to overtake a stopped bicyclists may be obscured transit vehicle. by platform/shelter. • Potential ADA issues.

Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • Bike lanes or cycle tracks on transit • At intersections, visibility for • Platform should be at least routes where buses merge with motorists and bicyclists should not 6.56 ft wide. (CROW) bicyclists to reach a passenger boarding be blocked by the shelter. • Platform with shelter should area. • Communicate proper positioning be wider (8.2 ft) with the for bicyclists, pedestrians and distance between the bicycle motorists. facility and the shelter being • Consider markings or colored at least 2.1 ft apart.(CROW) pavement in bicycle facility at • Provide truncated domes and conflict areas with pedestrians, crosswalk markings for including where pedestrians cross pedestrians crossing both the the bicycle facility. bicycle facility and the • Consider maintenance – street roadway sweeping • Width of bicycle facility through the boarding area Maintenance Level – Low must match design standards Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries • Not part of the Manual on Uniform • Netherlands (CROW) Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) • Copenhagen, Denmark • Portland, OR

Source: Denver Igarta Portland, OR

40 of 41

BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

Bicycle Lift (Trampe)

Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages The Bicycle Lift is a continuous collective • Eliminates a severe topographical • Installation costs and transportation concept for assisting barrier maintenance bicyclists up steep hills in urban areas. • Provides access for all bikeway • May create a barrier for local users, not just the most fit. auto access • Provides a sweat‐free option • Right‐of‐way requirements

Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance • Relatively short bikeway segments • Semi‐underground cableway • Maximum distance 656 ft with steep grades • Electric key card unit at base of hill • Trondheim prototype: • Important links in the network (operation is unmanned) • Distance: 430 ft • Trondheim prototype: • Grade: up to 20% • Operational since 1993 • Served 145,000 trips in first 6 yrs • 4,500 keycard holders (approx. 150,000 residents) • Operates form 7 am to 10 pm • Safety: no injuries in 5 years. User safety rating of 4.7 out of 6 points • 70% of users were male

Maintenance Level ‐ High Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries • Not part of the Manual on Uniform • Trondheim, Norway Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)

Source: City of Trondheim, Norway

41 of 41 BIKEWAY DESIGN – best practices

PORTLAND BICYCLE PLAN FOR 2030 BIKEWAY FACILITY DESIGN: SURVEY OF BEST PRACTICES

REFERENCES

Administration of the Brussels‐Capital Region and Belgian Road Safety Institute (IBSR). Fitspaden en fietssuggestiestroken. 2007. ADONIS. Denmark Ministry of Transport ‐ Road Directorate. Best Practices to Promote Cycling and Walking, Copenhagen, 1998. Alta Planning + Design and Initiative for Bicycle and Pedestrian Innovation (IBPI) Portland State University. Bicycle Boulevard Planning & Design Guidebook, 2009. Alta Planning + Design. Bicycle Interactions and Streetcars: Lessons Learned and Recommendations. 2008. City of Davis Public Works Department. Comprehensive Bicycle Plan. 2006. CROW. Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic. English Version. 2006. CROW. Fietsstraten in Hoofdfietsroutes. CROW publicatie 216. 2005. Dutch Ministry of Transport and Public Works. Road Trafic Signs and Regulations in the Netherlands . 2006. Melia, Steve. On the Road to Sustainability ‐ Transport and Carfree Living in Freiburg. Report for W.H.O. Healthy Cities Collaborating Centre edn. University of the West of England. 2006. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) San Francisco Bay Area. Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Toolbox. www.mtc.ca.gov . Nabti, Jumana. Ridgway, Matthew. Innovative Bicycle Treatments ‐ An Informational Report for the Institute of transportation Engineers and the ITE Pedestrian/Bicycle Task Force. 2001. Portland Bureau of Traffic Management. Traffic Manual ‐ Traffic Calming. 1994. San Diego Association of Governments. Draft Bicycle Design Guidelines/Best Practice Manual ‐ San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan. 2009. Sustrans. The National Cycle Network ‐ Guidelines and Practical Design Issue 2. 1997. Torslov, Niels. Traffic Director of Copenhagen. Active Transportation in Copenhagen ‐ Shifting Gears II Lecture Series. Simon Fraser University. 2009. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System (BIKESAFE). www.bicyclinginfo.org .