Planning Guidance in the 2012 AASHTO Bike Guide

Similar documents
PBIC Webinar. How to Create a Bicycle Safety Action Plan: Planning for Safety [IMAGE] Oct. 2, 2014, 2 pm

The 2012 AASHTO Bike Guide: An Overview

On Road Bikeways Part 1: Bicycle Lane Design

Bicycle Facilities Planning

Proposed. City of Grand Junction Complete Streets Policy. Exhibit 10

FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

2018 AASHTO BIKE GUIDE

Chapter 2. Bellingham Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 2: Policies and Actions

2018 AASHTO BIKE GUIDE

Off-Road Facilities Part 1: Shared Use Path Design

Physical Implications of Complete Streets Policies

Complete Streets Policy DAVID CRONIN, P.E., CITY ENGINEER

Cyclists and Bikeways: What s your match? A guide to bikeway options for a variety of cyclists

Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan

Small Town & Rural Multimodal Networks

Solana Beach Comprehensive Active Transportation Strategy (CATS)

Living Streets Policy

RURAL HIGHWAY SHOULDERS THAT ACCOMMODATE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN USE (TxDOT Project ) June 7, Presented by: Karen Dixon, Ph.D., P.E.

General Design Factors

Off-road Trails. Guidance

Prince George s County plans, policies, and projects

REGIONAL BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GUIDELINES

Appendix 3 Roadway and Bike/Ped Design Standards

Cycle Track Design Best Practices Cycle Track Sections

Who is Toole Design Group?

Toronto Complete Streets Guidelines

NM-POLICY 1: Improve service levels, participation, and options for non-motorized transportation modes throughout the County.

City of Charlottesville Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update

Active Transportation Facility Glossary

Creating Complete Streets to Accommodate All Users

2012 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.

South Carolina Department of Transportation. Engineering Directive

West Dimond Blvd Upgrade Jodhpur Street to Sand Lake Road

APPENDIX A: Complete Streets Checklist DRAFT NOVEMBER 2016

DRAFT - CITY OF MEDFORD TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN Roadway Cross-Sections

Chapter 3 DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS

Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (BIKESAFE) Webinar

Connecting cyclists to work. Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council

Brian D. Hare, P.E. Bureau of Design PennDOT PA APA Annual Conference Investing in a Sustainable Future October 5, 2009

Community Bicycle Planning

CONNECTING PEOPLE TO PLACES

Overview. Illinois Bike Summit IDOT Complete Streets Policy Presentation. What is a Complete Street? And why build them? And why build them?

CONTEXT SENSITIVE STREETS STANDARDS COMMITTEE

Toole Design Group is live tweeting this webinar

NJDOT Complete Streets Checklist

2.0 LANE WIDTHS GUIDELINE

RESOLUTION NO ?? A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF NEPTUNE BEACH ADOPTING A COMPLETE STREETS POLICY

Multimodal Through Corridors and Placemaking Corridors

Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Study. Old Colony Planning Council

TOWN OF PORTLAND, CONNECTICUT COMPLETE STREETS POLICY

El Paso County 2040 Major Transportation Corridors Plan

Chapter 7. Transportation. Transportation Road Network Plan Transit Cyclists Pedestrians Multi-Use and Equestrian Trails

Tonight is an opportunity to learn about the Study and ask questions of the Study Team members.

Chapter 4 On-Road Bikeways

Omaha s Complete Streets Policy

Chapter VISION, MISSION, AND GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. Vision. Mission. Goals and Objectives CONNECTING COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE ST.

Highway 111 Corridor Study

Report. Typical Sections. City of Middleton, WI

and Rural Multimodal Networks 2017 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN

MASTER BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN

Zlatko Krstulich, P.Eng. City of O9awa

5. RUNNINGWAY GUIDELINES

AMATS Complete Streets Policy

2.0 Existing Conditions

Proposed Bridge Street East Bicycle Lanes Public Open House Thursday, April 27, 2017

Moving Towards Complete Streets MMLOS Applications

What Is a Complete Street?

2014 Bellingham Bicycle Master Plan

Safer Cycling: How the City of Vancouver is Proactively Improving Cycling Safety

CITY OF BLOOMINGTON COMPLETE STREETS POLICY

Balancing Operation & Safety for Motorized and Non-Motorized Traffic

Hennepin County Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning

LOUISIANA COMPLETE STREETS POLICY. Ellen W. Soll, AICP Principal Soll Planning

City of Wayzata Comprehensive Plan 2030 Transportation Chapter: Appendix A

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Vision

Classification Criteria

GIS Based Data Collection / Network Planning On a City Scale. Healthy Communities Active Transportation Workshop, Cleveland, Ohio May 10, 2011

FHWA Resources for Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals

Town of Bethlehem. Planning Assessment. Bethlehem Town Board

Corpus Christi Metropolitan Transportation Plan Fiscal Year Introduction:

CITY OF COCOA BEACH 2025 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Section VIII Mobility Element Goals, Objectives, and Policies

BIKE PLAN CONTENTS GATEWAY

Peter Kremer, WSP/Parsons Brinckerhoff

Multimodal Analysis in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual

METHODOLOGY. Signalized Intersection Average Control Delay (sec/veh)

WHEREAS, the New Jersey Department of Transportation' s Complete Streets

6.0 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES 6.1 INTRODUCTION 6.2 BICYCLE DEMAND AND SUITABILITY Bicycle Demand

INTRODUCTION THOROUGHFARE SYSTEM CLASSIFICATIONS

Access Management Regulations and Standards for Minor Arterials, Collectors, Local Streets

The Traffic Monitoring Guide: Counting Bicyclists and Pedestrians. APBP 2017 June 28: 11:15am-12:45pm

Goodlettsville Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Executive Summary

Madison Urban Area and Dane County. Bicycle Transportation Plan Summary. September Introduction. Bicycle Plan Scope and Planning Process

Watertown Complete Streets Prioritization Plan. Public Meeting #1 December 14, 2017

Memorandum. Exhibit 60 SSDP To: Jenny Bailey, Senior Planner. From: Bill Schultheiss, P.E. (WA. P.E. #46108) Date: June 20, 2017

Technical Memorandum. Shoulder Width Standards for State Highways. Expiration. Implementation. Introduction. Purpose

Designing for Pedestrians: An Engineering Symposium. Rutgers University March 21, 2013

Pedestrian Safety. By Jerry Duke & Polly Carolin, FAICP for the Nevada Transportation Conference 2009

Complete Streets Training. Georgia Municipal Association June 27, 2016

Multimodal Design Guidance. October 23, 2018 ITE Fall Meeting

Transcription:

Planning Guidance in the 2012 AASHTO Bike Guide Presentation by: RJ Eldridge Peter Lagerwey August 22, 2012

WEBINAR 2: PLANNING GUIDANCE IN THE 2012 AASHTO BIKE GUIDE Today s Webinar Significant Updates & New Content Why planning is important Types of bicyclists User skill & comfort Types of planning Choosing appropriate facility Data collection & analysis Technical analysis tools Integrating bikes and transit Bicycle operations and safety (Chapter 3)

FUTURE WEBINARS August 10: Overview August 22: Planning Chapter September 4: On-Road Bikeways Bike Lanes (including Intersections) September 18: On-Road Bikeways Shared lanes Bicycle boulevards & signing Signals October 9: Shared Use Paths General design principles Pathway geometry October 23: Shared Use Paths Intersection Design Mid-block crossings November 6: Bikeway Maintenance and Operation

DISCOUNT FOR WEBINAR PARTICIPANTS http://www.walkinginfo.org/training/pbic/ AASHTO_Promo_Flyer.pdf Link will be emailed to webinar attendees

COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEBINAR Webinar #1: Overview Background on how the Guide was developed Difference between AASHTO & NACTO Guides High level overview of major changes in 2012 Guide

RELEASE OF THE GUIDE JUNE 2012 ÂSold 1200 copies in the first month ÂGuide expanded from 75 pages to over 200 pages Â3 chapters to 7 chapters

WHY PLANNING FOR BICYCLING IS IMPORTANT Flexible, convenient, affordable travel option Trips under 2 miles; jobs, school, shopping and recreation Economic development Transit compatibility Reduce congestion Public Health Reduces transportation-related environmental impacts

WHY PLANNING FOR BICYCLING IS IMPORTANT Bicycle improvements often benefit other modes Bike lanes increase motorist comfort Bike lanes provide buffer for pedestrians Bike lanes improve site lines for all, especially at driveways Shoulders improve safety for all roadway users

TRIP PURPOSE Utilitarian/Nondiscretionary Everyday trips; work, school, etc. Recreation/Discretionary Wide range of trips and riders Utilitarian vs. Recreation Difficult to differentiate Many trips a combination Design bicycle facilities to accommodate all trip types (same as for motor vehicles) trips)

TYPES OF BICYCLING AND BICYCLISTS Age Children Bicyclists Experienced and Confident Casual and less Confident

TYPES OF BICYCLING AND BICYCLIST Casual/Less Confident Riders Prefer shared use paths, bike boulevards, or bike lanes along low-volume, lowspeed streets May have difficulty gauging traffic and may be unfamiliar with rules of the road as they pertain to bicyclists. May walk bike across intersections May use less direct route to avoid arterials with heavy traffic volumes If no on-street facility is available, may ride on sidewalks May ride at speeds around 8 to 12 mph Cycle shorter distances: 2 to 5 miles is a typical trip distance

TYPES OF BICYCLING AND BICYCLIST Experienced/Confident Riders Most are comfortable riding with vehicles on streets, and are able to negotiate streets like a motor vehicle, including using the full width of a narrow travel lane when appropriate and using left-turn lanes While comfortable on most streets, some prefer on-street bike lanes, paved shoulders or shared-use paths when available Prefer a more direct route. Avoid riding on sidewalks. Ride with the flow of traffic on streets May ride at speeds up to 20 mph on flat ground, up to 45 mph on steep descents May cycle longer distances

TYPES OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESSES Comprehensive Transportation and Recreation Plans Bicycle Master Plans Public process Coordination with other plans Phasing of infrastructure Typical plan contents Transportation Impact/Traffic Studies Small Area and Corridor Level Planning Project Level Planning

KEY ELEMENTS OF PLANNING BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS Bicyclists need accommodation on ALL roadways Deciding and prioritizing where improvements are needed The practical approach of network planning Choosing an appropriate facility type

PHASING OF INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS Short-term projects East to implement (e.g. restriping when road is repaved) Medium-term projects Part of another capital project (e.g. widening shoulder) Long-term projects Complex & high cost (e.g. bicycle bridge)

PHASING PLAN: ISSUES TO CONSIDER Bicycle travel demand Route connectivity and directness Crash/conflict analysis Barriers Ease of implementation System integration

DECIDING WHERE IMPROVEMENTS ARE NEEDED Bicyclists need accommodation on ALL roadways Prioritize most important improvements Revised guidance explains: The practical approach of network planning Choosing an appropriate facility type Multiple facilities on a single corridor Wayfinding

DECIDING WHERE IMPROVEMENTS ARE NEEDED Factors to Consider User needs all types Overcoming barriers Connection to land uses (e.g. employment centers) Directness of route Logical route Intersections Aesthetics Spacing or density of Bikeways Safety Security Overall feasibility Employment Density

CHOOSING AN APPROPRIATE FACILITY TYPE Facility Types Shared lanes Marked shared lanes Paved shoulders Bike lanes One-way lanes (cycle tracks) Bicycle boulevards Shared use paths Considerations Road function (arterial, local) Traffic volume Speed Traffic mix (e.g. truck %) Expected users Road conditions Driveways, access points, parking Topography Adjacent land uses Costs

CHOOSING AN APPROPRIATE FACILITY TYPE Considerations for different facility types Multiple facility types in same corridor Type of bikeway Paved shoulders Bike lanes Best use Rural highways that connect town centers and other major attractors Major streets that provide direct, convenient, quick access to major land-uses. Also can be used on collector roadways and busy urban streets with slower speeds Motor vehicle design speed Typical posted rural highway speeds (generally 40-55 mph) Use as the speed differential between bicyclists and motorists increases. Generally, any roadway where the design speed is more than 25 mph Traffic volume Variable. May be as low as 250 vehicles per day up to 4,000 vehicles per day or greater Variable. Speed differential is generally a more important factor in the decision to provide bike lanes than traffic volumes Classification or intended use Rural 2-lane roadways, inter-city highways Other considerations Provides more shoulder width for roadway stability. Shoulder width should be dependent on characteristics of the adjacent motor vehicle traffic, i.e. wider shoulders on higher speed roads Arterials and Where motor vehicles allowed to collectors intended park adjacent to bike lane, ensure for major motor width of bike lane sufficient to vehicle traffic reduce probability of conflicts due movements to opening vehicle doors and other hazards. Analyze intersections to reduce bicyclist/motor vehicle conflicts. Sometimes bike lanes are left undesignated (i.e. bicycle Planning Guidance in the symbol 2012 and AASHTO signs are not Bike used) Guide in urban areas as an interim measure

WAYFINDING FOR BICYCLES Considerations Standard signs Part 9 of the MUTCD

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS TOOLS Data collection: bike counts Quality (level) of service Safety analysis GIS-based network planning Bicycle travel demand analysis Cost benefit analysis

DATA COLLECTION AND FLOW ANALYSIS Data for planning and operating a bicycle network Identify high demand corridors Before & after data (new facility) Forecast bicycle travel demand Track use over time Project increases in bicycle use Track travel patterns Analyze equipment trends (e.g. helmets) Analyze demographic trends

QUALITY (LEVEL) OF SERVICE Evaluates bicyclists perceived safety and comfort with respect to motor vehicle traffic Can be used to: Inventory and evaluate existing bicycling conditions Forecast conditions under different design scenarios Prioritize corridors for bicycle improvements Road Width Travel Lane Width Bicycle Lane Width Parking Lane Width w/gutter Resulting Bicycle Level of Service (LOS Score) 50 13 5 7 C (2.79) 50 12 5 8 C (2.61) 50 11 6 8 B (2.43)

SAFETY ANALYSIS Crash data analysis can be used to: Inform selection and design of appropriate bicycle facility Target specific areas (e.g. intersections, corridors, neighborhoods) Understand conditions that could contribute to high crash rates Focus attention most effectively

GIS DATA COLLECTION/NETWORK PLANNING Visual representation of information (e.g. bicycle networks, demand, etc.) Efficient analysis of large quantities of data (e.g. crash data, ADT, speed, roadway widths, etc.) Essential for systematic evaluation tools such as Bicycle LOS, or systemwide crash analysis

BICYCLE TRAVEL DEMAND ANALYSIS Latent demand Types of travel demand analysis Comparison studies Sketch plan Market analysis/land use models Discrete choice survey models

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS One-time capital construction costs + ongoing maintenance costs Allows comparison to motor vehicle and transit projects Aids in prioritization of bicycle projects

INTEGRATING BICYCLE FACILITIES WITH TRANSIT Main components to bicycletransit integration: Bikeways to transit locations Bicycle parking at transit locations Bicycle access on transit vehicles Education on bicycle-transit connections Considerations for combined bicycle/transit facilities Bus/bike lanes, bike lanes on bus corridors, etc.

CHAPTER 3: BICYCLE OPERATION AND SAFETY Design Vehicle Typical bicycle dimensions Key performance criteria Traffic Principles for Bicyclists Position on roadway Changing lanes Intersection approach Left turns

CHAPTER 3: BICYCLE OPERATION AND SAFETY Bicyclist Crash Studies Urban vs. rural Youth vs. adult Bicyclist vs. driver error Nighttime vs. daytime Riding on sidewalk vs. roadway

CHAPTER 3: BICYCLE OPERATION AND SAFETY Bicyclist-Motor Vehicle Crashes - Causes and Countermeasures Wrong-way riding Sidewalk riding Dooring Nighttime riding Crashes involving children Bicyclist struck from behind Bicyclist/motorist failing to yield

QUESTIONS? Contact Information: RJ Eldridge Toole Design Group reldridge@tooledesign.com Peter Lagerwey Toole Design Group plagerwey@tooledesign.com @tooledesign AASHTO 20% Discount: http://www.walkinginfo.org/training/pbic/ AASHTO_Promo_Flyer.pdf

FUTURE WEBINARS August 10: Overview August 22: Planning Chapter September 4: On-Road Bikeways Bike Lanes (including Intersections) September 18: On-Road Bikeways Shared lanes Bicycle boulevards & signing Signals October 9: Shared Use Paths General design principles Pathway geometry October 23: Shared Use Paths Intersection Design Mid-block crossings November 6: Bikeway Maintenance and Operation

WEBINAR 3: ON-ROAD BIKEWAYS (BIKE LANES) Focus primarily on bike lanes, including bike lane widths, signs and markings, intersection considerations Standard bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, bike lanes adjacent to reverse angled parking, green bike lanes, leftside bike lanes and contra-flow bike lanes Bicycle facility transitions, including bike lanes at intersections