Planning and Design of Bicycle Routes Seminar Alberto M. Figueroa Medina, PhD, PE Associate Professor of Civil Engineering UPR-Mayaguez Miguel Pellot Altieri, MSCE, PE Transportation Engineering Consultants Ladislao Ortiz, PE LOA Ingenieros Reglas generales del seminario Registro y evaluación del seminario Favor de poner celulares en silencio o vibración Localización de baños y salidas de emergencia. Tendremos un receso de 15 minutos a las 7:30 PM. 1
1. Describe effective engineering treatments for designing safe and inviting bicycle facilities. 2. Identify and explain the application of roadway analysis tools for the planning of bicycle facilities. 3. Discuss the development and design of recent bicycle facility projects. AASHTO. 2012. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 4th edition. FHWA. 1998. The Bicycle Compatibility Index: A Level of Service Concept, Implementation Manual. Report FHWA-RD-98-095. FHWA. 2006. BIKESAFE: Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System. http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikesafe/. FHWA. 2012. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 2009 with Revisions 1 and 2. Part 9 Traffic Control for Bicycle Facilities. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/. Sprinkle Consulting. 2007. Bicycle Level of Service: Applied Model. Florida. 2
Bicycles should be expected on roadways, except where prohibited, and on shared paths Essential elements for a successful and safe bicycle program Physical road infrastructure to support bicycle use Implementation of sound engineering measures Bicycle safety education and training Campaigns to encourage bicycle use Enforcement of the rules of the road, focused on both motorists and bicyclists USA - 630 fatalities in 2009; 1.9% of all fatalities PR 17 fatalities in 2009; 4.7% of all fatalities USA 2.05 bicyclist fatalities / 100k people PR 4.29 bicyclist fatalities / 100k people Source: NHTSA. 3
Estimate bicycle travel demand Identify bicycle rider needs Evaluate network connectivity and directness Analyze crash / conflict analysis Intersection safety Remove barriers Ease of implementation Promote system integration 2-8 Factors Influencing Biking Decisions Trip purpose Attitude Distance/time Trip barriers Rider skill and comfort Destination barriers Advanced Basic Children 4
Bicycle Trip Purpose Utilitarian / nondiscretionary - trips needed as part of a person s daily activities (commuter trips) Types of riders Choice bicycle users No access to private motor vehicle or driver permit No transit available Dependent on bicycle School riders School policies Safe routes to school Different rider skill levels Recreation / discretionary - trips made for exercise or leisure Types of riders All age groups Varying levels of comfort Short trips within a neighborhood Longer trips covering many miles Mountain bikers Utilitarian Trips Important route features: directness, connected and continuous facilities Commute trips Recreational Trips Important route features: visual interest, shade, protection from wind Loop trips; start and end trips are the same 1-10 mile trip length 1-50 mile trip length Short and long term parking is needed at destinations Flat topography desired Often lone riders Use bicycle as primary mode, may transfer to transit, may or may not have access to auto Typically may occur during morning and evening, at any hour of day Short-term parking Varied topography may be desired May ride in groups May drive by auto to reach start ride point Typically occur during weekends, or before and after commute hours 5
Experienced / Confident Riders Most are comfortable riding with vehicles Able to navigate streets like a motor vehicle Prefer a more direct route Avoid riding on sidewalks, ride with traffic flow Ride at speeds up to 25 mph on level roads and 45 mph on steep descents Ride longer distances Casual / Less Confident Riders Prefer shared-use paths, bicycle boulevards, or bike lanes May have difficulty gauging traffic, unfamiliar with road rules, may walk bike across intersections May use less direct routes to avoid high-traffic arterials May ride on sidewalks of no on-street facility is provided Ride at speeds around 8-12 mph Ride shorter distance: typical trip length is 1-5 miles 2-12 Best opportunity to promote bicycle commute travel in urban and suburban areas with large percentages of trips shorter than 2-miles Complements transit services to expand transit coverage area. 6
2-14 7
2-16 Shared road lanes Bike lane / shoulder Regular lane width Wide curb lane Boulevards/ separate path 8
Bicycle facilities improvements and provisions to accommodate or encourage bicycling, including parking and storage facilities, and shared roadways not specifically defined for bicycle use. Bicycle route roadway or bikeway designated by the jurisdiction with a unique route designation or Bike Route signs, along which bicycle guide signs may provide directional, distance, and destination information for bicyclists. Bikeway generic term for any road, street, path, or way which in some manner is specifically designated for bicycle travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with other modes. Shared lane lane of a traveled way that is open to both bicycle and motor vehicle travel. Bicycle lane portion of roadway that has been designated for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists by pavement markings and signs (typically for one-way traffic in the same direction as adjacent travel lane). Shared use path bikeway physically separated from motor vehicle traffic from motor vehicle traffic by an open space or barrier and either within the highway right-of-way or within an independent right-of-way. May also be used by pedestrians and other non-motorized users. Typically twoway operation. Bicycle boulevard street segment, or contiguous street segments, that has been modified to accommodate through bicycle traffic and minimize through motor vehicles. 9
Average Daily Traffic Volume. 11/8/2012 No national standards; different State and local guidelines 2002 Review of North American and European guidelines Shared roads: low volumes/speeds Wide curb lanes: moderate volumes/speeds Bike lanes: higher volumes/speeds Separate path: special case 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 85th Percentile Speed (mph) Normal lane Wide lane Bike lane or shoulder 2-19 2-20 Facility selection is essentially a State/local policy decision Based on several factors: Road functional class and existing conditions Road cross section Traffic volumes and speeds Traffic mix and characteristics Driveway and access points Topography Existing and proposed land uses Expected users Facility cost 10
Facility type Shared lanes Wide curb lanes Marked shared lanes Paved shoulders Best use Minor roads w/ low volumes Motor vehicle design speed Traffic volume Intended use Other considerations Varies < 1,000 vpd Rural roads, or neighborhood and local streets Major roads > 25 mph > 3,000 vpd Arterials and collectors Space constrained with narrow lanes Speed limit 35 mph Variable Collectors and minor arterials Rural highways 40-55 mph Variable Inter-city highways Bike lanes Major roads > 25 mph Speed differential is more important Bicycle boulevards Shared use paths Local roads with low volumes and speeds Speed limit 25 mph, speed differential < 15 mph Arterials and collectors < 3,000 vpd Residential roadways Linear corridors - - Separate path for bicyclists Alternative to busier roads Next three options are more desired High parking turnover Width depends on adjacent traffic Analyze intersection conflicts Grid network, avoid using frequent bike stops Path crossings Use of sidewalks for bicycle travel is unsatisfactory Conflicts are minor on residential streets Operating width 4 feet minimum for exclusive or preferential treatment 5 feet or more is desirable if there is a mix of traffic volumes and speeds, presence of buses and trucks Does not include shy distance Additional width for steep grades Min. 1.2 m (48 in) Desired 1.5 m (60 in) 11
Typically ride on right side of roadway on two-way roads Lateral position is determined by speed and usable width Obey stop and yield signs and rules Yield when changing lanes Overtake other vehicles on the left, except when Riding on a bike lane The vehicle to be overtaken is turning left Some states allow to pass on right when it is safe Approach intersections in the rightmost lane Several options for turning left at intersections Regular lane with no special bicycle provisions Wide curb lanes Roads with shared lane markings Roads with paved shoulders 12
Roads with very low to low traffic volume and speeds 55 mph Travel Lane width (no shoulder is available for bicycles) 12 feet if no shoulder 14 feet min. desirable 15 feet on steep grades Paved shoulder width 4 feet min. desirable 5 feet min. in front of guardrails, curbs, or other roadside barriers Wider shoulders desired on roads with speeds > 50 mph Use where inadequate width exists for bike lane or shoulder (Width: 14 15 feet) Caution with lane width 16 feet, cars can perceive it as two practical lanes Can often be installed by narrowing inside lane Not particularly attractive to bicyclists Inside travel lane Wide curb lane 3.6 m (12 ft) 4.2 m (14 ft) min. of usable lane width 13
Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in a shared lane with on-street parallel parking in order to reduce the chance of a bicyclist s impacting the open door of a parked vehicle Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in lanes that are too narrow for a motor vehicle and a bicycle to travel side by side within the same traffic lane, Alert road users of the lateral location bicyclists are likely to occupy within the traveled way, Encourage safe passing of bicyclists by motorists, and Reduce the incidence of wrong-way bicycling. Shall not be used on shoulders or in designated bicycle lanes. Street with on-street parallel parking Centers of the markings should be located at least 11 feet from the face of the curb, or from the edge of the pavement where there is no curb. Street without on-street parking and outside travel lane that is less than 14 feet wide Centers of the markings should be located at least 4 feet from the face of the curb, or from the edge of the pavement where there is no curb. If used, the Shared Lane Marking should be placed immediately after an intersection and spaced at intervals not greater than 250 feet thereafter. 14
may be used on roadways where no bicycle lanes or adjacent shoulders usable by bicyclists are present and where travel lanes are too narrow for bicyclists and motor vehicles to operate side by side. The R4-11 sign may be used in locations where it is important to inform road users that bicyclists might occupy the travel lane. The Uniform Vehicle Code defines a substandard width lane as a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the same lane. Min. shoulder width: 4 feet (additional foot in front of guardrail, curb, or other objects) Wider shoulder on roads with speeds > 50 mph, with heavy truck traffic, or presence of obstructions 1.2 m (4 ft) min.* 3.6 m (12 ft) 3.6 m (12 ft) 1.2 m (4 ft) min.* * Min 1.5 m (5 ft) from face of guardrail, curb or other roadside barrier 15
No curb and gutter: 4 feet minimum If on-street parking present: 5 feet minimum With curb and gutter: 5 feet minimum (3 feet min. rideable surface, not including gutter pan) Parking permitted but not striped: 11 feet total with no curb; 12 feet total with curb 5 feet (1.5m) min. 7-8 ft 5-7 ft 7-8 ft 16
17
* max 150 mm (6-inch) spacing * Direction Direction Direction of travel of travel of travel A B C AVOID THIS! (rumble strips in bike lane) 18
Longitudinal pavement markings shall be used to define bicycle lanes. If used, bicycle lane word, symbol, and/or arrow markings should be placed at the beginning of a bicycle lane and at periodic intervals along the bicycle lane based on engineering judgment. The sign and supplementary plaques shall be used only in conjunction with marked bicycle lanes. If used, should be located in advance of the upstream end of the bicycle lane, at the downstream end of the bicycle lane, and at periodic intervals along the bicycle lane as determined by engineering judgment based on prevailing speed of bicycle and other traffic, block length, distances from adjacent intersections, and other considerations. 19
In locations where the roadway width does not allow two bike lanes Intersections provide a challenge from conflicts between right-turning vehicles and through-moving bicyclists. A through bicycle lane shall not be positioned to the right of a right-turn only lane or to the left of a left- turn only lane. 20
21
Multiple turn lanes are problems for bicyclists Should be avoided Loop detectors should be provided for bicyclists at intersections 22
Design or modify ramps to terminate closer to 90 Cross high-speed ramps in areas of good visibility Cross ramps at right angle 23
Inside radius = 9 m (30 ft) min. Bike Lanes - Interchanges Approximate angle 15 Bike lanes shall not be provided on the circular roadway 24
Colorized pavement Bike boxes Contra-flow bike lanes Buffered bike lanes Cycle tracks 25
Photo by SCI 26
Reduces right-hook threat Assists left-turning bicyclists Alerts motorists to presence of bicyclists Eliminates RTOR 27
May provide more direct access in both directions Consider physical separation Must provide legal signing and striping Contraflow Lanes Hazard Issue Primary Field of View Primary Field of View Two-way bike lane 28
Provide more bicyclist comfort Provides more maneuvering space to avoid obstacles Can be placed on roads with high speeds or volumes parking turnover volume of heavy vehicles 29
Used on high-volume, highspeed roads with few turning conflicts Appealing to a wide range of bicyclists Reduces dooring risk Requires a large amount of space Requires investment at intersections Physical area separated from the road Typical widths: 10-15 feet Diverse user mix Not always the best transportation corridors Grades <5% for long distances Centerline stripe is recommended 30
31
Shared Path Grade Separation Only place one in the center Should be spaced 60 inches apart 32
Bike Route Guide signs may be provided along designated bicycle routes to inform bicyclists of bicycle route direction changes and to confirm route direction, distance, and destination. The Bicycle Route sign shall contain a route designation and shall have a green background with a retroreflectorized white legend and border. Integral to planning: an inventory of existing conditions Documenting existing conditions Comparing alternatives Identifying design configurations for improvements to existing roads Prioritizing/programming improvements Creating bicycle maps How suitable are certain roads for bicycling? Bicycle Compatibility Index Bicycle Level of Service Bicycle Intersection Safety Index 2-66 33
Product of 1998 FHWA study Evaluates the capability of specific roadways to accommodate both motorists and bicyclists Developed for urban and suburban roadway segments Allows evaluation of existing facilities to determine what improvements may be required Can also determine the geometric and operational requirements for new facilities Empirical model that uses: Presence and width of shoulder or bike lane Vehicle traffic volume and speed Presence of vehicle parking Type of roadside development 2-67 Incorporates variables which bicyclists typically use to assess the "bicycle friendliness" of a roadway BCI = 3.67-0.966 BL - 0.41 BLW 0.498 CLW + 0.002 CLV + 0.0004 OLV + 0.022 SPD + 0.506 PKG - 0.264 AREA + AF 34
BCI Score BLOS Bicycle Compatibility Level 1.50 A Extremely High 1.51 2.30 B Very High 2.31-3.40 C Moderately High 3.41-4.40 D Moderately Low 4.41-5.30 E Very Low > 5.30 F Extremely Low BCI = 3.67-0.966 BL - 0.41 BLW 0.498 CLW + 0.002 CLV + 0.0004 OLV + 0.022 SPD + 0.506 PKG - 0.264 AREA + AF BL = presence of a bicycle lane or paved shoulder > 0.9 m; No = 0, Yes = 1 BLW = bicycle lane (or paved shoulder) width; m CLW = curb lane width; m CLV = curb lane volume, vphpd OLV = other lane(s) volume - same direction, vph SPD = 85th percentile speed of traffic, km/h 35
BCI = 3.67-0.966 BL - 0.41 BLW 0.498 CLW + 0.002 CLV + 0.0004 OLV + 0.022 SPD + 0.506 PKG - 0.264 AREA + AF PKG = presence of a parking lane with more than 30% occupancy; No = 0, Yes = 1 AREA = type of roadside development; Residential = 1, Other type = 0 AF = f(t) + f(p) + f(rt); adjustment factors for large truck volumes, on-street parking turnover, and volume of right-turning vehicles, respectively 1 - Large trucks = all vehicles with 6 or more tires 2 Includes total number of right turns into driveways or minor intersections along the road 36
Multilane arterial road (2 lanes per direction) Curb lane width is 4.3 m AADT on this segment is 15,000 vpd Posted speed limit is 65 km/h 85th percentile speed during the peak-hour is 75 km/h Development primarily consists of retail centers and commercial businesses No on-street parking Large truck volume is 5 % Approximately 10 % of the vehicles turn right into driveways or minor streets Assume K = 0.10, D = 0.55 PHV = AADT x K x D = 15,000 x 0.1 x 0.55 = 825 vph CLV = PHV / N = 825 / 2 = 413 vph OLV = PHV - CLV = 825 413 = 412 vph Assume T (truck % in curb lane) = 0.8 CLTV = PHV x HV x T = 825 x 0.05 x 0.8 = 33 tvph RTV = PHV x R = 825 x 0.1 = 83 vph AF = 0.3 + 0 + 0 = 0.3 Ft = 0.3 Fp = 0.0 Frt = 0.0 37
BCI = 3.67-0.966 BL - 0.41 BLW 0.498 CLW + 0.002 CLV + 0.0004 OLV + 0.022 SPD + 0.506 PKG - 0.264 AREA + AF = 3.67 (0.966 x 0) (0.41 x 0) (0.498 x 4.3) + (0.002 x 413) + (0.0004 x 412) + (0.022 x 75) + (0.506 x 0) (0.264 x 0) + 0.3 = 4.47 LOS E, Very Low Compatibility Developed in 1996 by Sprinkle Consulting and University of Florida Empirical model that uses: Road width Presence and width of shoulder or bike lane Vehicle traffic volume, speed, and type Pavement surface condition Presence of vehicle parking 2-76 38
Measures on-street conditions (not trails), for midblock cross-sections (not intersections) Research based on perception of comfort, safety for range of adults Both based on roadway corridor cross-sections and traffic conditions Numeric result, grade ranges A (best) to F (worst) Published in Transportation Research Record 1578 Bicycle LOS Level of Service BLOS Score A 1.5 B > 1.5 AND 2.5 C > 2.5 AND 3.5 D > 3.5 AND 4.5 E > 4.5 AND 5.5 F > 5.5 39
Bicycle LOS = 0.507 ln (Vol 15 /L) + 0.199 SP t (1+10.38 HV) 2 + 7.066 (1/PR 5 ) 2-0.005(W e ) 2 + 0.76 Vol 15 = volume of directional traffic in 15 minute period = (ADT x D x Kd ) / (4 x PHF) ADT D Kd PHF L = average daily traffic on the segment = Directional factor = peak to daily factor = Peak Hour Factor = total number of through lanes SP t = effective speed limit = 1.1199 ln(sp P -20) + 0.8103 SP P HV PR 5 = Posted speed limit = percentage of heavy vehicles = FHWA s five point surface condition rating 40
Bicycle LOS = 0.507 ln (Vol 15 /L) + 0.199 SP t (1+10.38 HV) 2 + 7.066 (1/PC 5 ) 2-0.005(W e ) 2 + 0.76 W e = Average effective width of outside through lane; W t = Wv - (10 ft x %OSPA) and Wl = 0 = Wv + Wl (1-2 x %OSPA) and Wl > 0 & Wps= 0 = Wv + Wl - 2 (10 x %OSPA) and Wl > 0 & Wps> 0 and bikelane exists = total width of outside lane and shoulder/parking OSPA = % of segment with occupied on-street parking W l = width from outside lane stripe to pavement edge Wps = width of pavement striped for on-street parking Wv = effective width as function of traffic volume = Wt, if ADT > 4,000 = Wt (2-0.00025 x ADT), if ADT 4,000 vpd and if the street/ road is undivided and unstriped Retrofitting bike lanes on existing streets: Reduction of travel lane width Reduction in the number of travel lanes Removal, narrowing, or reconfiguration of parking Other design options 41
Can be implemented up to 20,000 ADT with little traffic diversion Crash reductions (CMF 0.71 for all crashes) Candidate roads: Moderate traffic volumes Popular cycle routes Main Streets Streets with safety issues Historic streets 4 to 3 lanes 4 to 2 lanes 42
Bicycle Level of Service Examples Bicycle LOS - Before ADT = 13,500 vpd Assume: K d = 0.10 D = 0.50 PHF = 1.00 L n = 2 PC 5 = 4 (good pavement) W t = 12 ft W l = 0 ft SP p = 30 mph 12' 12' 12' 12' BLOS Evaluation: LOS score Category 3.58 D 48' 43
Bicycle LOS - After ADT = 13,500 vpd Assume: K d = 0.10 D = 0.50 PHF = 1.00 L n = 1 PC 5 = 4 (good pavement) W t = 17 ft W l = 5 ft SP p = 30 mph 5' 12' 14' 12' 5' 48' BLOS Evaluation: LOS score Category 2.07 B Extra space benefits cyclists Striping particularly helpful in improving BLOS 44
Model is not used to predict bicycle crashes; it is a suitability model Model is based on the perceptions of safety of a typical bicyclist Model applies to roadway segments, not intersections Model represents the typical conditions along a roadway segment (averages, not anomalies) Driveways were not a significant factor Slope is not included in the model Signage is not included in the model New facility types cannot be evaluated (e.g., shared lane markings, cycle tracks, etc.) Develop in 2005 in the State of Florida Rate entire arterial sections Based on perceptions of bicyclists about level of safety, comfort, and travel efficiency (i.e., delay) provided by the bicycling environment Survey of 63 participants 45
Arterial BLOS = 1.37 + 0.797 AvSegLOS + 0.131 NumUnsigpm AvSegLOS = distance-weighted average segment bicycle LOS along the facility NumUnsigpm = the number of unsignalized intersections per mile along the facility Develop in 2002 in the State of Florida LOS for bicycle through movements at intersections Based on the safety and comfort perception of 60 bicyclists riding through signalized intersections BLOS primary factors Roadway traffic volume Total width of outside through lane Intersection crossing distance 46
TM Int BLOS = 4.1324 0.2144 Wt + 0.0153 CD + 0.0066 (Vol15 / L) TM Int BLOS = perceived hazard of shared-roadway environment through the intersection Wt = total width of outside through lane and bike lane (if present) CD = crossing distance, the width of the side street (including auxiliary lanes and median) Vol15 = volume of directional traffic during a 15- minute time period L = total number of through lanes on the approach to the intersection Bicycle LOS Real-time roadway segment ratings Bicyclists in real traffic situations Bicyclists could evaluate pavement; pavement condition was significant and used in model Bicycle Compatibility Index Bicyclists watched & rated video clips Most of the same factors identified as important Right-turn volumes were significant and included in model Parking turnover was significant and included in the model 47
Developed by FHWA in 2007 Allows prioritization of intersections with respect to pedestrian and bicycle safety Evaluates each approach leg for a group of intersections Bike ISI gives relative rankings according to potential bicyclist safety Selects sites with highest ISI values and conduct more in-depth safety evaluation 48
FOR THROUGH BICYCLE MOVEMENTS MAINADT =main street ADT, in 1,000s MAINHISPD = main street speed limit 35 mph, 1=yes TURNVEH= presence of turning vehicle traffic across the path of TH bicyclists, 1 = yes RTLANES = right-turn lanes on main street BL = bike lane indicator, 1=yes NOBL = no bike lane indicator, 1=yes CROSSADT = cross street ADT, in 1,000s SIGNAL = traffic signal indicator, 1=yes PARKING = on-street parking on main street indicator, 1=yes Source: 2007 FHWA FOR RIGHT-TURN BICYCLE MOVEMENTS MAINADT =main street ADT, in 1,000s RTCROSS = lanes for cyclists to cross to make a right turn CROSSLNS = through lanes on cross streets PARKING = on-street parking on main street indicator, 1=yes Source: 2007 FHWA 49
FOR LEFT-TURN BICYCLE MOVEMENTS MAINADT =main street ADT, in 1,000s SIGNAL = traffic signal indicator, 1=yes MAINHISPD = main street speed limit 35 mph, 1=yes LTCROSS = lanes for cyclists to cross to make a left turn BL = bike lane indicator, 1=yes NOBL = no bike lane indicator, 1=yes PARKING = on-street parking on main street indicator, 1=yes Source: 2007 FHWA Lesson Summary 50