1/16/2019 TODAY S WEBINAR AGENDA CONTINUING EDUCATION UPCOMING TRAINING FROM APBP

Transcription

1 TODAY S WEBINAR AGENDA 3:00 pm: Introduction 3:05 pm: Presentation 3:45 pm: Questions 4:00 pm: Webinar Ends For technical assistance during the webinar: Choose these prompts: 1, 1, 1 1 CONTINUING EDUCATION To document Professional Development Hours (PDH) or Certification Maintenance (CM) credit for the AICP: Log your attendance on the site host s sign-in sheet Site hosts: return the completed sign-in sheet to APBP after the webinar (fax to or webinars@apbp.org) A Certificate of Attendance may be downloaded and printed here: Planners: APBP has applied to the AICP for 1.0 CM credits for this webinar 2 UPCOMING TRAINING FROM APBP 2019 Monthly Webinar Series: February 20 Viewing Low-Stress Networks through an Equity Lens March 20 Navigating Without Curbs: Accessibility on Shared Streets April 17 Designing Streets for the Speeds You Want Free Webinars: February 13 1 st Quarter Policy Webinar April10 2 nd Quarter Policy Webinar 3 1

2 THANK YOU TO OUR GENEROUS SPONSORS SUSTAINERS SUPPORTERS 4 BUS STOPS WITH BIKEWAYS: DESIGNING TRANSIT STOPS WITH ON-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES JANUARY 16, 2019 For technical assistance during the webinar: Call Choose audio prompts: 1, 1, 1 5 TODAY'S WEBINAR PRESENTERS Jesse Boudart, PE, Toole Design Jesse is a Professional Engineer with experience in active transportation planning/design, research, and traffic engineering. He has spent considerable effort planning and designing multimodal corridors to safely accommodate bicycle travel in Boston, Cambridge, Portland, and beyond. He most recently produced a sidepath guidance document for the Michigan Department of Transportation and was the lead author/editor for AC Transit's Multimodal Corridor Guidelines. He has applied these principles to design other transit prioritized corridors in the Boston area. Jesse facilitates easy-to-understand transportation solutions with a solid technical foundation. Outside of work he goes on bicycle adventures, rock climbs, and writes. 6 2

3 TODAY'S WEBINAR PRESENTERS John Urgo, AICP, AC Transit John Urgo is a senior transportation planner with AC Transit, where he brings experience in transit service planning and emerging mobility services and technologies. John served as the project manager for the AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Guidelines, which aimed to resolve bus-bike conflicts through updated street design guidelines. John helped develop the proposal, guide content, and solicit input from the 13 cities and counties in which AC Transit operates. John has master s degrees in city planning and transportation engineering from UC Berkeley, where he co-authored a white paper on legal and liability barriers to the implementation of complete streets designs. 7 TODAY'S WEBINAR PRESENTERS Brian Patterson, MCIP, RPP, Urban Systems Brian is a Principal and senior transportation planner with Urban Systems. Brian is based in Vancouver and leads Urban Systems active transportation practice across Canada. Brian specializes in active transportation planning and design and has led the development of over 70 active transportation plans, design, and studies across Canada. Brian is currently leading the development of a provincial Alberta Bicycle Facilities Design Guidelines and has worked on a range of designs that involve integrating all ages and abilities bicycle facilities with transit facilities, including several designs and studies with the City of Winnipeg. 8 TODAY'S WEBINAR PRESENTERS Chris Baker, MCIP, RPP, City of Winnipeg Chris Baker, MCIP, RPP is the acting Active Transportation (AT) Coordinator and active transportation planner with the City of Winnipeg. His role is to implement the City s AT plan, the Pedestrian and Cycling Strategies, to make Winnipeg a more a walkable and bikeable city. He is responsible for AT facilities planning and design, integrating AT and transit, enhancing cycling programming, public engagement, project management and managing the annual AT budget. Previous to this, Chris worked as a land use planning consultant. 9 3

4 John Urgo, AICP Jesse Boudart, PE January 16, 2019 Published 10 Contents of Guide Purpose & Background General Design Guidelines Typology Overview Explanation of a unique AC transit bus stop design issue Typology Selection Maintenance Considerations 11 Purpose & Background AC Transit serves 13 cities and unincorporated areas in Alameda and Contra-Costa Counties, so there is too much bus stop design variability Cities are constructing protected bike lanes, which often overlap with highfrequency transit service The purpose of the guide is to provide national best-practices to design high-quality bus stops with protected bike lanes, while being sensitive to the local context This AC Transit Stop in Fremont is ranked one of America s Sorriest Bus Stops in

5 Background Continued Local jurisdictions are engaging in Complete Streets projects which often include protected bike lanes or even dedicated bus lanes Leap-Frogging is an emerging issue and floating bus stops help to minimize bus/bike conflicts There is a growing desire to create safe and efficient transit bus stop operations, which is why this guide was commissioned 13 Purpose Continued The document provides guidance about: Americans with Disabilities Act and bus stops Bus entering/exiting clearances Overall bus stop siting design Designs for efficient bus operations Designs to increase comfort for bicyclists passing through transit stops 14 Stakeholder Outreach Technical Advisory Committee (3 meetings) Presentations at Existing Meetings (e.g. Technical Working Groups, Citizens Advisory Committees, Transportation Commissions, etc.) 15 5

6 General Design Guidelines Building upon previous guidebooks AC Transit Bus Stop Policy (reiterated) AC Transit Designing with Transit Alameda CTC Central County Complete Streets Design Guidelines Caltrans Highway Design Manual AASHTO Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities (newest 2019 draft elements are in this document) NACTO (Urban Streets, Transit Streets, Urban Bikeways) 16 General Design Guidelines Spatial Location of Bus Stop Far Side Stop is preferred 17 General Design Guidelines Bus Stop Design Floating bus stops are not preferred on roads with speeds of 35 MPH or higher Due to vehicle/bus conflicts of stopped in travel lanes AC Transit wants to avoid bus pullouts But, TCRP Report 65: Evaluation of Bus Bulbs suggests pullouts for roadways with speeds 40 MPH or higher 18 6

7 General Design Guidelines AC Transit Door Location and ADA Access 19 General Design Guidelines AC Transit Door Location and ADA Access This is normally 10 x5 So much narrower! 20 Typologies General Street Definition 21 7

8 Typologies Key Design Elements Bicycle Racks Recommended Detectable Warning Surface Standard Lighting Recommended Railings Optional Trash receptacles - Optional Bus Shelters Optional Bus Stop Pole Standard Lean Bar or Lean Rails Optional Lighting Recommended Trash receptacles - Optional 22 Typologies Five Typologies, three main cross sections Bike Lane Separated Bike Lane Two-way Separated Bike Lane Floating Bus Stop Floating Bus Stop 23 Typologies Five Typologies, three main cross sections 24 8

9 Typology 1 A regular bike lane 25 Typology 2 A basic floating bus stop 26 Typology 2 A basic floating bus stop 27 9

10 Typology 2 Details 28 Typology 2 Details continued The directional indicator. 29 Typology 2 Trends in ADA Design Directional Indicator Truncated Dome 30 10

11 Directional Indicator Precedents The Norway Edition 31 Typology 2 Bus Stop Dimensions 32 Typology 3 Let s skip this one It is the same as Typology 2, except no parking - Boring ;) 33 11

12 Typology 4 An intermediate-level bikeway!? - #EXCITING 34 Typology 5 Two-way bike facility and transit 35 Typology Selection - Four Guiding Principles Guiding Principle 1 The proposed roadway configuration should be the primary determinant in the choice of a typology. Guiding Principle 2 Floating bus islands are preferred for bus routes with headways of 15 minutes or less. Guiding Principle 3 Floating bus islands are not preferred for roadways with posted speeds of 35 mph or higher. Guiding Principle 4 A typology choice should incorporate future curbside use and future roadway configurations

13 Maintenance Bus stops need to be maintained Typically, the City will have an agreement with the Transit agency to clean bus stops Floating bus stops will require a different type of maintenance But not necessarily additional work 37 Adoption and Next Steps Board Adoption Strategic Policy Plan AC Transit wanted cities to adopt the AC Transit Guidelines, but cities have their own complete streets guidelines which may conflict This document is a guide, but represents the nation s best practices 38 Summary The guide provides purpose and vision for why high floating bus stops need to be constructed to allow for fully multimodal corridors Design elements and typologies are described providing sufficient flexibility and guidance for bus stop plans Principles for selecting a typology are also given following local functionality and national best practices 39 13

14 Acknowledgements & Thank You! Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District John Urgo Stephen Newhouse Toole Design Jesse Boudart, P.E. Pete Robie John Dempsey, PLA Ashley Haire, Ph.D, P.E. Stantec Michael Ohnemus, AICP Additional Experts Sean Co 40 Bus Stops with Bikeways in Winnipeg The Design Evolution of Transit Stops with Bicycle Facilities in Winnipeg Chris Baker, MCIP, RPP City of Winnipeg Brian Patterson, MCIP, RPP Urban Systems Ltd. 41 Agenda 1. Canadian Context 2. Winnipeg Overview 3. Local Design Considerations 4. Case Studies a. Bicycle Bypass b. Floating Bus Stop c. Balancing Trade-Offs 5. Lessons Learned 42 14

15 Step 4 Evaluate 1. Canadian Context 43 Canadian Design Guidance The Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) publishes national design guidance Until recently, there was very limited guidance for bus stop islands in Canada Guidance was focused on mixing zones, where the transit vehicle crosses dashed line to access curbside transit stop 44 Canadian Design Guidance The TAC Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads was published in 2018 Provides guidance for bicycle bypasses, which allows people cycling to pass stopped buses on the right side of the vehicle GDG provided high level guidance, but does not provide technical details 45 15

16 Canadian Design Guidance No other national or provincial guides currently provide detailed design guidance. The forthcoming Alberta Bicycle Facilities Design Guide will fill this gap Guide will provide guidance on bicycle bypasses and constrained bus stops 46 Canadian Design Guidance Bicycle Bypass Key Features Transition bicycle lane to sidewalk height Minimum width of island 2.5 metres (3.0 metres preferred) Tactile directional indicators Two marked crosswalks (front and rear door) Channelizing features to help guide passengers with visual impairments Drainage considerations 47 Canadian Design Guidance Constrained Bus Stop Can be considered if a bicycle bypass would result in the following: Sidewalk is narrowed below an appropriate width Bicycle lane is narrowed the below minimum width Bicycle lane adjacent to bus stop Create non-compliance elements based on the most current accessibility standards

17 Step 4 Evaluate 2. Winnipeg Overview 49 About Winnipeg 50 Active Transportation in Winnipeg 51 17

18 Step 4 Evaluate 3. Local Design Considerations 52 Winter City Considerations 53 Bus Stop Design Guidelines 54 18

19 Accessibility Design Standards 55 Bus Stop Design Considerations Bus Stop Flag Pavement Markings Longitudinal Directional Indicator Surface Perpendicular Directional Tactile Strips with Concrete Pedestrian Crossing 56 Step 4 Evaluate 4. Case Studies a. Bicycle Bypasses b. Floating Bus Stops c. Balancing Trade-Offs 57 19

20 Bicycle Bypass (First Generation) Pembina Highway Project Overview Six lane north-south arterial Major transit route and carries 50,000 vehicles per day Connects downtown with the university and south end Buffered bicycle lanes with removable bollards 58 Bicycle Bypass (First Generation) Pembina Highway 59 Bicycle Bypass (Second Generation) Pembina Highway 60 20

21 Bicycle Bypass (Second Generation) Pembina Highway 61 Bicycle Bypass (Second Generation) Sherbrook Street 62 Floating Bus Stop (First Generation) Sherbrook Street Project Overview One-way northbound arterial street Significant commercial area with on-street parking Parking protected bicycle lanes Floating bus stop, but bicycle lane not raised to sidewalk level 63 21

22 Floating Bus Stop (First Generation) Sherbrook Street 64 Floating Bus Stop (Second Generation) McDermot Avenue Project Overview East-west couplet with one-way streets Three design options developed Preferred option was unidirectional protected bicycle lanes on both streets Transit routing was key consideration for facility selection Bus stop consolidation and relocation 65 Floating Bus Stop (Second Generation) McDermot Avenue 1 Floating bus stop (2.6m) Bike lane narrowed and raised to sidewalk level Truncated domes and directional tiles leading to front door Concrete pedestrian crossing 5 5 Longitudinal indicator surface 66 22

23 Floating Bus Stop (Second Generation) McDermot Avenue Design Elements 67 Floating Bus Stop (Second Generation) McDermot Avenue Construction Considerations 68 Floating Bus Stop (Second Generation) McDermot Avenue Educational Information einfrastructureusersguide.stm 69 23

24 Balancing Trade-Offs McDermot & Main Street Constrained location with significant operational issues Busses turn right onto Main Street, bicycles continue straight through Busy north-south arterial (50,000 vpd) Significant congestion and delay, particularly for right turns Major transit corridor (25 bus routes) Very high pedestrian activity Parking, loading, and access requirements Mature street trees 70 Balancing Trade-Offs McDermot & Main Street 71 Balancing Trade-Offs Option 1 (Relocate Bus Stop) Preferred option in preliminary design Relocate bus stop to avoid conflicts between stopped busses and bicycle users Not supported due to transit operational issues on Main Street 72 24

25 Balancing Trade-Offs Option 2 (Shared Bus and Bicycle Lane) Busses pull into bicycle lane at existing location New curb extension to prevent right turning vehicles to encroach into bicycle lane Not supported due to conflicts between cyclists and transit vehicles, and transit vehicles merging back into travel lanes 73 Balancing Trade-Offs Option 3 (Constrained Bus Stop) Existing curb realigned to widen sidewalk Bicycle lane directly adjacent to bus stop with 0.8 metre buffer Not supported due to conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists 74 Balancing Trade-Offs Option 4 (Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossover) Existing curb realigned to widen sidewalk (same as Option 3) Bicycles and pedestrians would cross to place pedestrians directly adjacent to transit stop Not supported due to conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists, and transit passengers 75 25

26 Balancing Trade-Offs Option 5 (Relocate Bus Stop) Mixing zone for bicycle users and busses Reduced conflicts with motor vehicles by relocating bus stop further west Protected bicycle lane to intersection with protected phasing to eliminate right turn conflicts Preferred option 76 Balancing Trade-Offs Educational Information 77 Step 4 Evaluate 5. Lessons Learned 78 26

27 Lessons Learned Lack of national guidance led to locally developed solutions that needed to evolve needed to try and adapt Bike lane bypasses work best at sidewalk level and asphalt Accessibility considerations are critical Need to with transit and other stakeholders early and on an on-going basis to ensure support Balancing trade-offs is important, especially in constrained conditions Education is important especially with new types of infrastructure 79 Bus Stops with Bikeways in Winnipeg The Design Evolution of Transit Stops with Bicycle Facilities in Winnipeg Chris Baker, MCIP, RPP City of Winnipeg Brian Patterson, MCIP, RPP Urban Systems Ltd. 80 QUESTION & ANSWER Jesse Boudart John Urgo Brian Patterson Chris Baker 81 27

28 THANK YOU TO OUR GENEROUS SPONSORS SUSTAINERS SUPPORTERS 82 THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING Please take a short survey to tell us what you think about today s presentation. A link to the survey will be ed to the site host. If you re the host, please forward the link to anyone who attended in the webinar at your site. Return your sign in sheets promptly! 83 28