DOCSLIB.ORG

A Summary of Design, Policies and Operational Characteristics for Shared Bicycle/Bus Lanes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Summary of Design, Policies and Operational Characteristics for Shared Bicycle/Bus Lanes A Summary of Design, Policies and Operational Characteristics for Shared Bicycle/Bus Lanes Contract No. BDK85 977-32 Final Report 07/2012 i Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA; Credit: John S. Allen A Summary of Design, Policies and Operational Characteristics for Shared Bicycle/Bus Lanes Project No. BDK85 977-32 Prepared By Edward L. Hillsman, Ph.D., Senior Research Associate, Transportation Demand Management Sara J. Hendricks, AICP, Senior Research Associate, Transportation Demand Management JoAnne K. Fiebe, MUCD, LEED AP, Research Assistant Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue, CUT100 Tampa, FL 33620-5375 Joel Volinski, National Center for Transit Research Program Director Philip L. Winters, Transportation Demand Management Program Director Prepared For The Florida Department of Transportation Research Center 605 Suwannee Street, MS 30 Tallahassee, FL 32399 Project Manager: David C. O’Hagan, P.E. Co-Project Manager: Mary Anne Koos July 2012 Final Report ii Disclaimer The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation University Transportation Centers Program and the Florida Department of Transportation, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government and the Florida Department of Transportation assume no liability for the contents or use thereof. iii Metric Conversion SI* Modern Metric Conversion Factors as provided by the Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/aaa/metricp.htm Length SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL in inches 25.4 millimeters mm ft feet 0.305 meters m yd yards 0.914 meters m mi miles 1.61 kilometers km Area SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2 ac acres 0.405 hectares ha mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 Length SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL mm millimeters 0.039 inches in m meters 3.28 feet ft m meters 1.09 yards yd km kilometers 0.621 miles mi Area SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2 m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2 m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2 ha hectares 2.47 acres ac km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2 *SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380. iv Technical Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date A Summary of Design, Policies and Operational Characteristics for July 2012 Shared Bicycle/Bus Lanes 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Edward L Hillsman, Sara J Hendricks, AICP, JoAnne Fiebe NCTR 77937/BDK85 977-32 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) National Center for Transit Research Center for Urban Transportation Research 11. Contract or Grant No. University of South Florida FDOT BDK85 977-32 4202 E Fowler Avenue, CUT 100, Tampa, FL 33620-5375 U.S. DOT DTRS98-G-0032 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Research and Innovative Technology Administration Final Report U.S. Department of Transportation, Mail Code RDT-30 02/17/11-04/31/12 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE, Room E33, Washington, DC 20590-0001 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Florida Department of Transportation Research Center 605 Suwannee Street, MS 30, Tallahassee, FL 32399 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract This report contains the results of an investigation of the design and operation of shared bicycle/bus lanes in municipalities in the United States and other countries. These lanes are designated for use by public transit buses, bicycles, and usually also for right-turning vehicles. Some municipalities may also allow use of these lanes by taxis and delivery vehicles. The purpose of such lanes is to provide a time advantage to public transit service by taking the buses out of the general traffic flow and into a designated lane. Where constrained right-of-way prevents provision of a separate bicycle lane, the intent is to allow bicycles to use the designated bus lane. This is to provide a more direct route for bicyclists, provide greater level of service to bicyclists and provide some degree of space separation between general traffic and bicyclists for their greater safety and comfort. However, this combined use raises many issues of compatibility of bicycles and buses sharing the same road space. The limited available research on the subject of shared bicycle/bus lanes includes informative investigations from the Minneapolis Public Works Department, Minnesota; the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, Pennsylvania; the City of Ottawa, Canada, the Department for Transport of the United Kingdom and from Austroads, Sydney, Australia. Investigators compiled a list of shared bicycle/bus lanes in cities in the United States and Canada, including facility attributes that are presented in an appendix. Researchers found very few examples of state-level guidance on shared bicycle/bus lanes but more examples at the local and regional levels. These are provided in the report. Through surveys and interviews, the shared bicycle/bus lanes from four cities in the United States were selected for in-depth examination and were developed into case studies: Ocean City, Maryland; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Washington, D.C. As a result of this investigation, an identification and discussion of the contextual factors, design variables, and tools for planning and implementing shared bicycle/bus lanes is presented. The report provides recommendations for further needed research. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Bicycle, Bus, Congestion, Public transportation, Shared bicycle/bus lanes, Bicycle safety, Preferential lanes 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 167 v Acknowledgements This report was prepared by the National Center for Transit Research at the Center for Urban Trans- portation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida, through the sponsorship of the Florida Department of Transportation. FDOT Project Manager David C. O’Hagan, P.E., State Roadway Design Engineer FDOT Co-Project Manager Mary Anne Koos, Special Projects Coordinator, Roadway Design Office Contributors and Reviewers Study authors would like to thank several transportation professionals from the U.K. for their kind assistance, including Iain Macbeth, Alex Sully, Richard Armitage, John Lee, Adrian Lord, Derek Lawlor, and Tony Russell. At the beginning of the study, John Ciccarelli provided the research team with a spreadsheet that listed shared bicycle/bus lanes, which the research team checked, augmented, and expanded into the inventory that appears as Appendix A. Tony Garcia of the Street Plans Collaborative and Transit Miami blog in Miami also provided helpful comments and suggestions at the beginning of the study. Diane Quigley and Amy Datz from FDOT also conducted a detailed review of the report. Finally, the study authors interviewed and surveyed numerous persons in cities where there are shared bicycle/bus lanes. The authors greatly appreciate the time and information made available by these persons, who are identified in footnotes throughout the report. Joel Volinski, Program Director for the National Center for Transit Research at CUTR, Jay Goodwill, Senior Research Associate at CUTR, and Philip L. Winters, Director of CUTR’s Transportation Demand Management Program, reviewed a draft of this report and provided useful advice for improving it. Nevine Georggi provided helpful assistance in report formatting. vi Executive Summary A shared bicycle/bus lane (SBBL) is a traffic lane dedicated for exclusive use by buses, bicyclists, and, usually, right-turning vehicles. SBBLs have been implemented in municipalities where there are street right-of-way constraints and where municipalities seek ways to accommodate buses and bicycles for better multimodal service. There were three objectives of this study, conducted for the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT): • Identify and describe the state of the art and practice in the design, implementation, operation, and use of shared bicycle/bus lanes (SBBL) • Evaluate the benefits and barriers to implementing SBBLs • Develop recommendations for Florida to consider the use of SBBLs on the State Highway System. Through the literature review, surveys of chief contacts within municipalities that have SBBLs, and follow-up telephone interviews, information was collected about SBBL design, operation, and functional effectiveness. For four municipalities with SBBLs, there was sufficient information to develop and present case study narratives. These were Ocean City, Maryland; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Washington, D.C. For the other host municipalities, additional comparative data about SBBLs were collected, where available. The main report summarizes findings of relevant previous research, available SBBL planning and design guidelines of localities, states, and other nations, identification of those background conditions that remain
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2. Basic Roadway Improvements the Street System Provides the Basic Network for Bicycle Travel
    Figure 2-1: Many low-volume resi- YES dential streets need only the most basic improve- ments to make them more ridable. 2. Basic Roadway Improvements The street system provides the basic network for bicycle travel. Other ele- ments (e.g., bike lanes and paths) supplement this system. To make most streets work for bicyclists, basic improvements may be needed. Such things as safe railroad crossings, traffic signals that work for bicyclists, and street networks that connect benefit bicyclists and make more bicycle trips possible and likely. 2.1 Roadway types While the most basic improvements are appropriate for all categories of street, some improvements are most appropriate for certain categories. In a typical community, streets types range from quiet residential streets, to minor collector streets, to major arterials, and highways or expressways. Figure 2-2: Long blocks and a lack 2.1.1 Residential streets of connectivity On quiet residential streets with little traffic and slow speeds (fig. 2-1), make trips longer bicyclists and motorists can generally co-exist with little difficulty. Such and discourage streets seldom need bike lanes. Only the most basic improvements may bicycling for pur- poseful trips. be required, for instance: • bicycle-safe drainage grates • proper sight distance at intersections • smooth pavement and proper maintenance One additional factor that may need attention is connectivity. Providing bicycle linkages between residential streets and nearby commercial areas or adjacent neighborhoods can significantly improve bicycling conditions. In many communi- 2-1 Wisconsin Bicycle Facility Design Handbook ties, newer parts of town tend to have dis- Figure 2-3: Bicycle- continuous street networks that require bicy- pedestrian connec- clists, pedestrians, and motorists to travel a tions like that long distance to get to a nearby destination shown can provide (fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Written Comments
    Written Comments 1 2 3 4 1027 S. Lusk Street Boise, ID 83706 [email protected] 208.429.6520 www.boisebicycleproject.org ACHD, March, 2016 The Board of Directors of the Boise Bicycle Project (BBP) commends the Ada County Highway District (ACHD) for its efforts to study and solicit input on implementation of protected bike lanes on Main and Idaho Streets in downtown Boise. BBP’s mission includes the overall goal of promoting the personal, social and environmental benefits of bicycling, which we strive to achieve by providing education and access to affordable refurbished bicycles to members of the community. Since its establishment in 2007, BBP has donated or recycled thousands of bicycles and has provided countless individuals with bicycle repair and safety skills each year. BBP fully supports efforts to improve the bicycle safety and accessibility of downtown Boise for the broadest segment of the community. Among the alternatives proposed in ACHD’s solicitation, the Board of Directors of BBP recommends that the ACHD pursue the second alternative – Bike Lanes Protected by Parking on Main Street and Idaho Street. We also recommend that there be no motor vehicle parking near intersections to improve visibility and limit the risk of the motor vehicles turning into bicyclists in the protected lane. The space freed up near intersections could be used to provide bicycle parking facilities between the bike lane and the travel lane, which would help achieve the goal of reducing sidewalk congestion without compromising safety. In other communities where protected bike lanes have been implemented, this alternative – bike lanes protected by parking – has proven to provide the level of comfort necessary to allow bicycling in downtown areas by families and others who would not ride in traffic.
    [Show full text]
  • Madison Avenue Dual Exclusive Bus Lane Demonstration, New York City
    HE tV 18.5 U M T A-M A-06-0049-84-4 a A37 DOT-TSC-U MTA-84-18 no. DOT- Department SC- U.S T of Transportation UM! A— 84-18 Urban Mass Transportation Administration Madison Avenue Dual Exclusive Bus Lane Demonstration - New York City j ™nsportat;on JUW 4 198/ Final Report May 1984 UMTA Technical Assistance Program Office of Management Research and Transit Service UMTA/TSC Project Evaluation Series NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. NOTICE The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. - POT- Technical Report Documentation Page TS . 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient s Catalog No. 'A'* tJMTA-MA-06-0049-84-4 'Z'i-I £ 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date MADISON AVENUE DUAL EXCLUSIVE BUS LANE DEMONSTRATION. May 1984 NEW YORK CITY 6. Performing Organization Code DTS-64 8. Performing Organization Report No. 7. Authors) J. Richard^ Kuzmyak : DOT-TSC-UMTA-84-18 9^ Performing Organization Name ond Address DEPARTMENT OF 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) COMSIS Corporation* transportation UM427/R4620 11501 Georgia Avenue, Suite 312 11. Controct or Grant No. DOT-TSC-1753 Wheaton, MD 20902 JUN 4 1987 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address U.S. Department of Transportation Final Report Urban Mass Transportation Admi ni strati pg LIBRARY August 1980 - May 1982 Office of Technical Assistance 14.
    [Show full text]
  • Bikesharing and Bicycle Safety Department of Transportation MTI Report 12-02MTI Report
    MTI Funded by U.S. Department of Services Transit Census California of Water 2012 Transportation and California Bikesharing and Bicycle Safety Department of Transportation MTI ReportMTI 12-02 MTI Report 12-54 December 2012 MINETA TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE MTI FOUNDER Hon. Norman Y. Mineta The Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) was established by Congress in 1991 as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Equity Act (ISTEA) and was reauthorized under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century (TEA-21). MTI then successfully MTI BOARD OF TRUSTEES competed to be named a Tier 1 Center in 2002 and 2006 in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Most recently, MTI successfully competed in the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011 to Founder, Honorable Norman Joseph Boardman (Ex-Officio) Diane Woodend Jones (TE 2016) Michael Townes* (TE 2017) be named a Tier 1 Transit-Focused University Transportation Center. The Institute is funded by Congress through the United States Mineta (Ex-Officio) Chief Executive Officer Principal and Chair of Board Senior Vice President Department of Transportation’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), University Transportation Secretary (ret.), US Department of Amtrak Lea+Elliot, Inc. Transit Sector, HNTB Transportation Centers Program, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and by private grants and donations. Vice Chair Anne Canby (TE 2017) Will Kempton (TE 2016) Bud Wright (Ex-Officio) Hill & Knowlton, Inc. Director Executive Director Executive Director OneRail Coalition Transportation California American Association of State The Institute receives oversight from an internationally respected Board of Trustees whose members represent all major surface Honorary Chair, Honorable Bill Highway and Transportation Officials transportation modes.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons from the Green Lanes: Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes
    Lessons from the Green Lanes: Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes http://bit.ly/nitc_583 Christopher M. Monsere @CMonsere Jennifer Dill @JenniferDillPSU Nathan McNeil @NWUrban Portland State University Pro Walk Pro Bike Pro Place Pittsburgh, PA September 9, 2014 1 Photo credit: Nathan McNeil, PSU Session Overview 1. Overview of Sites (Chris) 10 2. Methodology (Nathan) 5 3. Change in Ridership (Jennifer) 15 *Questions from audience* 4. Design (Chris) 25 *Questions from audience* 6. Barrier types (Nathan) 5 7. Community Support (Jennifer) 10 *Questions from audience* 2 Research Objectives • A field-based evaluation of protected bikeways in five U.S. cities to study: – Safety of users (both perceived and actual) – Effectiveness of the design – Perceptions of residents and other road users – Attractiveness to more casual cyclists – Change in economic activity 3 Overview of Sites 4 Green Lane Cities Studied 5 Study Facilities: Austin Rio Grande Street Bluebonnet Lane Barton Springs Road 6 Study Facilities: Chicago Chicago: N/S Dearborn Street Chicago: N Milwaukee Avenue 7 Study Facilities: Portland Portland: NE Multnomah Street 8 Study Facilities: San Francisco SF: Fell Street SF: Oak Street 9 Study Facilities: Washington DC DC: L Street 10 Methodology 11 Video Data • Primarily intersections • 3 locations per facility, 2 cameras per location • 2 days of video (7am to 7pm) per location • 168 hours analyzed • 16,393 bicyclists and 19,724 turning vehicles observed Example Video Screenshots (2 views) from San Francisco at Oak and Broderick Resident
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 Review Questions
    Chapter 3 - Learning to Drive PA Driver’s Manual CHAPTER 3 REVIEW QUESTIONS 1. TEENAGE DRIVERS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE INVOLVED IN A CRASH WHEN: A. They are driving with their pet as a passenger B. They are driving with adult passengers C. They are driving with teenage passengers D. They are driving without any passengers 2. DRIVERS WHO EAT AND DRINK WHILE DRIVING: A. Have no driving errors B. Have trouble driving slow C. Are better drivers because they are not hungry D. Have trouble controlling their vehicles 3. PREPARING TO SMOKE AND SMOKING WHILE DRIVING: A. Do not affect driving abilities B. Help maintain driver alertness C. Are distracting activities D. Are not distracting activities 4. THE TOP MAJOR CRASH TYPE FOR 16 YEAR OLD DRIVERS IN PENNSYLVANIA IS: A. Single vehicle/run-off-the-road B. Being sideswiped on an interstate C. Driving in reverse on a side street D. Driving on the shoulder of a highway 5. WHEN PASSING A BICYCLIST, YOU SHOULD: A. Blast your horn to alert the bicyclist B. Move as far left as possible C. Remain in the center of the lane D. Put on your four-way flashers 6. WHEN YOU DRIVE THROUGH AN AREA WHERE CHILDREN ARE PLAYING, YOU SHOULD EXPECT THEM: A. To know when it is safe to cross B. To stop at the curb before crossing the street C. To run out in front of you without looking D. Not to cross unless they are with an adult 7. IF YOU ARE DRIVING BEHIND A MOTORCYCLE, YOU MUST: A.
    [Show full text]
  • High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Detection System Testing
    High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Detection System Testing Project #: RES2016-05 Final Report Submitted to Tennessee Department of Transportation Principal Investigator (PI) Deo Chimba, PhD., P.E., PTOE. Tennessee State University Phone: 615-963-5430 Email: [email protected] Co-Principal Investigator (Co-PI) Janey Camp, PhD., P.E., GISP, CFM Vanderbilt University Phone: 615-322-6013 Email: [email protected] July 10, 2018 DISCLAIMER This research was funded through the State Research and Planning (SPR) Program by the Tennessee Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration under RES2016-05: High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Detection System Testing. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Tennessee Department of Transportation and the United States Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The State of Tennessee and the United States Government assume no liability of its contents or use thereof. The contents of this report reflect the views of the author(s), who are solely responsible for the facts and accuracy of the material presented. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Tennessee Department of Transportation or the United States Department of Transportation. ii Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. RES2016-05 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date: March 2018 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Detection System Testing 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Deo Chimba and Janey Camp TDOT PROJECT # RES2016-05 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering; Tennessee State University 11.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Intersections –– Stopping at Intersections Are Places Where a Number of Road Users Cross Intersections Paths
    4 rules of the road Chapter 3, signs, signals and road markings, gave you some in this chapter information about the most common signs, signals and road markings you will see when driving. This chapter gives • Understanding you the information you’ll need to help you drive safely at intersections intersections, use lanes correctly and park legally. – signalling – types of intersections Understanding intersections – stopping at Intersections are places where a number of road users cross intersections paths. There is often a lot of activity in intersections, so it’s – right‑of‑way at important to be alert. Remember that other road users may be intersections in a hurry, and may want to move into the same space that you • Using lanes are planning on moving into. correctly – which lane Signalling should you use Signals are important — they let other traffic know what you are – lane tracking intending to do. You should signal when you’re preparing to: – turning lanes – reserved lanes • turn left or right – pulling into a • change lanes lane • park – passing – merging • move toward, or away from, the side of the road. – highway or freeway Types of intersections entrances and exits Controlled intersections – cul‑de‑sacs A controlled intersection is one that has signs or traffic lights – turning around telling you what to do. To drive safely in these intersections, you • Parking tips and need to know what the signals and signs mean, and also the rules right‑of‑way rules. But always be cautious. Other drivers may not be paying attention to the signs and signals. Uncontrolled intersections Uncontrolled intersections have no signs or traffic lights.
    [Show full text]
  • Online Version of the Questions (Updated Regularly): Q: Will Motorcyclists Be Able to Lane Share Anywhere?
    Online version of the questions (updated regularly): https://laneshareoregon.com/#faqs Q: Will motorcyclists be able to lane share anywhere? No. Only under the limited conditions proposed in the bill, summarized below. Traffic on the road: must be stopped, or moving at 10 miles per hour or less The rider: may travel no more than 10 miles per hour faster than traffic must not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic must safely merge with traffic, if traffic speed exceeds 10 miles per hour Riders cannot lane share: between a traffic lane and the curb and bicycle lane (on either side) between a traffic lane and a row of parked vehicles (on either side) in a school zone Riders should also use common sense when lane sharing, and err on the side of caution: "If you can't fit, don't split". The California Highway Patrol has defined guidelines for safe lane sharing. Q: Is lane sharing dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists? Not lane sharing under HB2314. HB2314 legalizes lane sharing only on roads with posted speeds of 50 mph or greater: highways and freeways. Most people don’t walk or bicycle on or across these roads, even if they’re allowed to. Also, under HB2314 motorcycles may not lane-share on the right hand side of the right hand lane, next to the curb, shoulder or bicycle lane. HB2314 was written this way to give additional protection to pedestrians and bicyclists. Commenting on the specific constraints in HB2314, Portland’s Bureau of Transportation wrote “our most serious concerns of threats to pedestrian and bike safety are addressed”.
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Review- Resource Guide for Separating Bicyclists from Traffic
    Literature Review Resource Guide for Separating Bicyclists from Traffic July 2018 0 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. REPORT NO. 2. GOVERNMENT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NO. FHWA-SA-18-030 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE Literature Review: Resource Guide for Separating Bicyclists from Traffic 2018 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE 7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Bill Schultheiss, Rebecca Sanders, Belinda Judelman, and Jesse Boudart (TDG); REPORT NO. Lauren Blackburn (VHB); Kristen Brookshire, Krista Nordback, and Libby Thomas (HSRC); Dick Van Veen and Mary Embry (MobyCON). 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME & ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO. Toole Design Group, LLC VHB 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. 8484 Georgia Avenue, Suite 800 8300 Boone Boulevard, Suite 300 DTFH61-16-D-00005 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Vienna, VA 22182 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE FHWA 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The Task Order Contracting Officer's Representative (TOCOR) for this task was Tamara Redmon.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Concrete Pavements with Tied Shoulders Or Widened Lanes Bert E
    39 19. K. Y. Kung. A New Method in Correlation Study of vision of Pavements. Proc., 3rd International Con­ Pavement Deflection and Cracking. Proc., 2nd In­ ference on Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, ternational Conference on Structural Design of 1972, pp. 1188-1205. Asphalt Pavements, 1967, pp. 1037-1046. 20. P. H. Leger and P. Autret. The Use of Deflection Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Pavement Condi­ Measurements for the Structural Design and Super- tion Evaluation. Evaluation of Concrete Pavements With Tied Shoulders or Widened Lanes Bert E. Colley, Claire G. Ball, and Pichet Arriyavat, Portland Cement Association Field and laboratory pavements were instrumented and load tested to reducing pavement performance, Because of this prob­ evaluate the effect of widened lanes, concrete shoulders, and slab thick­ lem, several states have installed costly longitudinal ness on measured strains and deflectfons. Eight slabs were tested in the and transverse drainage systems. Thus, concrete field and two in the laboratory. Pavement slabs were 203, 229, or 254 shoulders and widened lanes have the potential for curing mm (8, 9, or 10 in) thick. Other major design variables included the width of lane widening, the presence or absence of dowels or of a con­ many drainage problems as well as providing additional crete shoulder, joint spacing, and the type of shoulder joint construc­ slab strength. tion. Generally, there was good agreement between measured strains and Many design features contribute to pavement life. values calculated by using Westergaard's theoretical equations. Concrete The effect of some of these features can be evaluated shoulders were effective in reducing the magnitude of measured strains analytically.
    [Show full text]
  • Lane Splitting Tips
    Sven Miller, Commander Contact: Fran Clader Office of Community Outreach & Media Relations Director of Communications 601 North 7th Street, Sacramento, CA 95811 (916) 843-3310 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 27, 2018 18-27 CHP ANNOUNCES LANE SPLITTING TIPS SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Lane splitting is a privilege enjoyed by California motorcyclists. With this freedom comes a greater responsibility for motorcyclists and drivers to share the road and create a safer highway environment. In 2016, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. signed California Assembly Bill 51, which defined motorcycle lane splitting and authorized the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to develop educational safety tips. Through a deliberative process and in consultation with the California Department of Motor Vehicles, the California Department of Transportation, the Office of Traffic Safety, and several motorcycle safety organizations, the CHP has finalized lane splitting tips. “Although lane splitting is legal in California, motorcyclists are encouraged to exercise extreme caution when traveling between lanes of stopped or slow-moving traffic,” said CHP Commissioner Warren Stanley. “Every rider has the ultimate responsibility for their own decision making and safety.” These general safety tips are provided to assist you when riding; however, they are not guaranteed to keep you safe: • Consider the total environment when you are lane splitting (this includes the width of lanes, the size of surrounding vehicles, as well as current roadway, weather, and lighting conditions). • Danger increases at greater speed differentials. • Danger increases as overall speed increases. • It is typically safer to split between the far left lanes than between the other lanes of traffic. • Try to avoid lane splitting next to large vehicles (big rigs, buses, motorhomes, etc.).
    [Show full text]