Q. We are at the beginning stages of creating some bicycle lanes in our community.. Can you suggest some resources we can look at and share with our community leaders?

Michael McKinny
Olney, IL

Michael,

The links below will take you to specific information about design of bicycle lanes, which was the primary issue we discussed during our phone conversation. The first two refer to the AASHTO Guide, which is essentially the “blue book” of design guidance in the United States. Many community engineers and planners won’t make a move if the design guidance isn’t included in the AASHTO Guide. (“AASHTO” by the way is the acronym for American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials.)

http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/engineering/facilities-bikelanes.cfm
This link will take you to the bicyclinginfo.org site discussion of bike lanes. This site has a lot of excellent information on other pages that you will find useful.

http://www.bikelib.org/roads/aashto.htm
This page refers to a lot of the same information, again taken from the AASHTO Guide. But I wanted to send it along because it also has other information in addition to recommended bicycle lane widths. And, more importantly, it is published by an Illinois group that you may want to contact for further local and regional information and suggestions: The League of Illinois Bicyclists.

http://www.activelivingresources.org
In addition to diagrams and technical data, you may find some information about the process of gaining community approval useful. The Active Living Resource Center web site addresses many of these issues. Also on this site, you’ll find some specific information about bike lane
design at:
http://www.activelivingresources.org/bikingandwalking4.php 

At the bottom of this page, you’ll find links to the excellent Chicago Bicycle Lane Design
(pretty close to home!) and the Oregon Bicycle Lane Design Guide.

That should get you started.

Regards,
Gary

Q. Hi there,
I am an avid bike commuter to work in Southern California. Plus, I’m also working on obtaining my master degree in Public Adminstration. As part of my degree, I am required to evaluate a pubic program/policy;  I selected bikway plans because the topic is dear to my heart.

However, I’m encountering some difficulties in locating scholarly journal articles regarding bikeway program evaluation/assessment/review. I am wondering if you can assist me with obtaining journal articles that deal with bikeway program evaluation/assessment/review.

 

Thank you for your time and assistance.
Kiet Nguyen

 

Hello Kiet–
You should also look into the FHWA Turner Fairbank R&D website. This page has an overview on their bike-related information:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/pedbiketrb2007.htm

You should also contact Ann Do at the FHWA, who knows a lot about their bike and pedestrian work. Her email address is: <ann.do@dot.gov>

In addition, you should should find some useful resources in the work of the Transportation
Research Board Bicycle Transportation Committee:
http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/trbbike/

Hope this helps!  I’ve just sent messages out to several colleagues who are more involved in the research arena than I am. I’ll forward any responses that I receive.

Cheers!
John Williams

Jessica Roberts, Programs Manager at alta PLANNING + DESIGN in Portland, Oregon, suggested this resource:
http://www.ibpi.usp.pdx.edu/pathfinder.php

Shawn Turner wrote:
Hi Kiet – It sounds as though you want to evaluate the effects of a bikeway program. The first step is to decide what is the measure of effectiveness. That is, what are you trying to solve implementing bikeway programs?

There are at least 3 main measures of effectiveness that are used from the engineering perspective:

1. Evaluate the bikeway program using increases in bicycle-friendliness – look at changes in the bicycle compatibility index (BCI) or the bicycle level of service (BLOS)  that would result if the bikeway plan were to be implemented. The BCI and BLOS attempt to capture the “bicycle-friendliness” or the comfort level of most cyclists. You can find more on these methods by Googling their names.

2. Evaluate the bikeway program using expected safety improvements – there is a fair bit of literature about safety improvements of different types of bike facilities. Look at Table 1 in the main Memo and Appendix C in the attachments for some more references – these should get you started.

3. Evaluate the bikeway program using expected modal shifts from auto to bike – this is perhaps the most difficult and least understood. You might be able to find something by searching on terms bicycling latent demand, bicycling modal shift, bicycle tripmaking, etc.

Good luck on your project,

Shawn Turner, P.E.
Texas Transportation Institute
College Station, TX
http://tti.tamu.edu>http://tti.tamu.edu

Q. What is the peak hour (or 15 minute) capacity of a 12-foot wide pedestrian bridge, 175-feet long?  Our Parks Department is designing a bridge over a canal next to a new cultural center that could generate large numbers during events and want some assurance that 12-feet will be wide enough.

David Henderson
Miami-Dade MPO

A. Hi David.
I don’t have anything as technical as that. But, when we improved an old car bridge near our university, we went for the full width between the structural members (18ft). We had done a count before the structure was improved and came up with about 1200 people (bicyclists and pedestrians) in 12 hours on a spring day during school. At that time, the usable width was about 8 ft with 3 ft entrances on either end and was in a sorry condition. It was very helpful to have an existing structure there at the time, to give us some sense of typical use.

The improved structure could safely hold people standing shoulder to shoulder all the way across (according to the county bridge engineer). However, our real width considerations were more to do with whether pedestrians could stop and talk leaning on the railing and looking down at the river, and bicyclists could ride side-by-side while chatting. In other words, we looked at the bridge as a place. And a people mover.

I think that taking that use into consideration also allowed it to serve folks going to a special event, e.g., football games, concerts (the Stones came last fall and many folks used the bike/ped bridge).  If you’re going to get large amounts of event traffic, I’d push for more than 12ft. If you’ve got a couple of people leaning over the railing, watching the river (or whatever), and a bicyclist coming each way, it’s a little bit uncomfortable. We’ve got a couple of 14-ft bridges (with bulb-outs for folks who want to hang out, fish, etc). I got the idea from a bike/ped bridge on a trail near Sacramento and liked it.

Cheers!
J

PS: Here’s a bike/ped rail yard overpass we got done in the mid-90s.I believe it’s 18ft wide. It’s got bulb-outs, too.
http://www.bikeplan.com/project1.htm

Here’s a newish bike/ped bridge. I believe it’s 14ft wide (not close to the U or other major traffic generators but is part of the river-front trail system). You can’t see the bulb outs but they’re at the middle on both sides.
http://www.bikeplan.com/project2.htm

Q. Do you have comparison information/preferences/costs on various trail surfaces?

Dan H. Hatley, AICP
Principal Planner
City of North Myrtle Beach
Planning and Development

A. Hi Dan.

If you’re looking at a hard surface, that’ll be either concrete or some form of asphalt, and the price can vary in different places. Some places have lower prices for asphalt, others have lower prices for concrete. One variable to keep in mind is the price of oil, which could make concrete a relative bargain. Concrete also tends to have a longer life than asphalt, so that should be factored in. I don’t believe the life of the surface would vary by region but that could be possible. With asphalt, a major ingredient would be oil, and the prices of oil is getting a lot of publicity these days.

Your best bet is to check around your area and get an idea what surfaces people are currently using.  I’m cc’ing this to Tom Dodds, the SC State Bike/Pedestrian Coordinator, because he’s in your general area and knows local practice. Also, I’ve attached some pages about surfaces from the Wisconsin DOT bikeway guide. I primary on the project back in 2004, so it’s relatively current.

Hope this helps!

John W.

Q. Good day,
I am a member of the Mississauga Cycling Advisory  Committee in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. We are volunteers that promote cycling of all types in our fair city and advise city concillours on cycling issues. I was wondering what you think of the possibility to extend the traffic signal loop detector from detecting bikes at a stand-still, to detecting bicycles in motion on a bike lane while approaching an intersection.

Let me explain:In order to encourage more people to cycle instead of taking their motor vehicles in our sub-urban city, I want to explore priority traffic signals for oncoming cyclists. This would give a much greater chance of the bicycle receiving a green signal at a safe, calculated distance – allowing the cyclist to stay in motion while cycling straight through the intersection.

It would look something like this:
- Put a loop detector in the right-hand bike lane about 40-50 metres (approx 50 yards) from the intersection.
- This loop should detect a bicycle riding over it at normal cycling speeds
- When a moving bicycle is detected, the traffic light will advance to a green light for the
oncoming bicycle.

Benefits & Considerations:
- If an unexpectedly large number of cyclists took to the street, they may find themselves waiting about the same as motor traffic. Perhaps priorities can be set between north-south and east-west traffic?
- Motorists would catch on to this and try to (illegally) drive over the bike signal as they approach. To avoid this, place road bump barriers as a deterance to motorists crossing into the bike lane near that location.
- The detector location should be marked on the road.
- The loop detector must be far enough back to allow the cyclist to pull out of the bike lane to overtake/pass vehicles making right-hand turns.
- If motorists view the efficiency of cycling through that route then they will be encouraged
to using a bicycle instead of a motor vehicle for some of their motor trips.
- “If you were on your bicycle, you would be home by now”
- The goal is not to take away the flow of motor traffic, yet to still make it more fluid for cyclists. I.e. Reward cyclists without harshly punishing motor vehicle drivers.
- This would be far less expensive to implement than putting in, say, a bicycle freeway.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
Allan Harder
MCAC Member
http://www.mississaugacycling.ca

A. Hi Allan–
Off hand, I don’t see a big difference — in terms of wiring — between an advance loop for motor vehicles (pretty common practice) and an advance loop for bicycles. The biggest concerns, I think, would be if there is adequate capacity in the electronics to add a new circuit and if the loop design will detect bicycles reasonably well (the best designs, if memory serves, are the quadrupole or diagonal quadrupole). Come to think of it, even a simple rectangle loop should work if its sensitivity can be adjusted separately from, say, motor vehicle detectors. Which should be the case. An advance loop could also alert the system to an approaching bicyclist, so that the bicyclist might get the green sooner.

I’ve forwarded your inquiry to several bicycle traffic engineering experts who undoubtedly have
significantly more insight than I do on the subject.  I’ll let you know what I hear back.

Cheers!
John W.

A. Allan has a pretty good grip on this except for the physical barrier between motor vehicles and bicycles. A barrier of this nature is one that a bicyclist could “crash and burn” on! It is really quite unnecessary anyway as motorists wouldn’t understand the nuances of bicycle detection and signal timing! I’m sending you both a copy of an article I wrote about a detection system that I implemented in the City of Cupertino way back in 1977. Yep, more than  thirty (30) years ago. You don’t need to do exactly as I have done, however, this should give you concepts that you can build upon.
Glenn

 

Jean-Francois Rheault wrote:
We manufacture loops for bike lanes that do not register motorized traffic. The system has been designed for counting but can be hooked up to traffic signal for detection.

Jean-Francois Rheault
Eco-counter – Bike / Ped counters
<http://www.eco-compteur.com>www.eco-counter.com
Canada & USA: 1-866-518-4404 (toll free)

Eco-counter on video: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtyxloPoyI8>

 
Bob Shanteau wrote:
As far as inductive loop detection of bicycles, bike lane or not, see:

<http://rmshant.googlepages.com/DetectingBicyclesandMotorVehiclesUsi.pdf>
<http://rmshant.googlepages.com/BicycleDetectionatTrafficActuatedSig.pdf>

Also Kelly Hughes just called me from New Zealand to tell me about his company’s induction pads that can be used in bike lanes, as long as not too many motor vehicles pass over them:

<http://www.advancedtrafficsupplies.com/detail_xflo.html>

 

Theo Petritsch added:
Sounds like a groovy idea if you can sell it to the local Traffic Ops folks.If they go for it, more power to you.It may be an easier sell to start at the other end of the green. Our MUTCD
requires that:

“On bikeways, signal timing and actuation shall be reviewed and adjusted to consider the needs of bicyclists.”

In addition to (possibly) extending the minimum green time, this could also apply to extending the green time to allow an approaching bicyclist to clear the intersection prior to the red. Basically the dilemma zone can be calculated and loops placed to ensure that a bicyclists traveling at a given speed is not required to stop.

While I like your idea for its high visibility to motorists and bicyclists, my modification may be easier to sell. Extension of the green to prevent the signal trap for cyclists is just a more comprehensive application of an already common treatment. Preemption is typically used for emergency vehicles – in which case the preemption is usually on demand and immediate allowing just for the clearance interval on the side street; or it is used for transit, in which case the minimum side street green times and clearance intervals are maintained – reducing but not eliminating the potential for busses having to stop.

 

While at most intersections, the 10 to 13 second advance notice provided by a 50 m advanced loop would mean the side street would still have plenty of time for a minimum green and clearance, some area have intersections so large that this may not be adequate. Sneaker left turns at the end of a cycle have also caused concerns for advancing the green types of preemption. I think those concerns would be minimal in areas with smaller intersections.

Hope any of this was useful.

Theodore A. Petritsch, P.E., PTOE
Senior Transportation Engineer
 Sprinkle Consulting, Inc.
tap@sprinkleconsulting.com

Q. Dear John,
We have 8-foot-wide off road multi-use pathways on both sides of two 4-lane county roads (pathway, buffer, 2 lanes, central median, 2 lanes, buffer, pathway). Buckwalter Parkway is about 6 miles long and Bluffton Parkway is about 8 miles long.

 

The Bluffton Town Council,  Bluffton Town Manager and Bluffton Chief of Police in South Carolina are seriously considering allowing golf carts on the Bluffton, Buckwalter and McCracken Circle pathways. Greater Bluffton Pathways believes this would be unsafe for those children and families who are biking and walking to school each day.

Karen Heitman
Greater Bluffton Pathways
Bluffton, SC

Karen, I asked Tom Dodds in the South Carolina state bicycle/pedestrian offce if he had an opinion on this situation.  Tom’s answer:

It was kind of awkward for us to weigh in on an issue on that rare road in South Carolina that does not belong to SCDOT, but we did generally. The shared use path fit the definition in the state code of laws to legally be considered a sidewalk (not a stretch–area beside road for pedestrians). The golf carts fit the definition for motor vehicles, and so we reminded the town that state law says no motor vehicles on sidewalks except at the driveways across the sidewalk. Also these particular paths were not federally funded.

Thomas Dodds, P.E.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Engineer, SCDOT

Karen, I hope that helps. 

JW

Dan Jatres wrote asking for an old copy (Issue #47) of Bicycle Forum, which I edited for many years:

The Chicago Bike Lane Design Guide mentions that this issue had information about city’s experiences with reducing travel lanes to 10 feet; to allow the addition of bike lanes I will be meeting with the Sr. Traffic Engineer for the City of New Orleans in hopes of getting his buy-in on 10-foot lanes and any concrete evidence I can cite would be helpful

Dan Jatres
Regional Planning Commission
Pedestrian and Bicycle Programs
I told Dan I’d try to hunt up a copy of the back-issue, and also included a message I’d seen on the APBP listserve from Michael Ronkin, former bicycle/pedestrian coordinator for the Oregon Dept. of Transportation:

I think you’ll find unanimous support from APBP for the 10′ travel lane  configuration. Peter Furth made a compelling case. He also referred to a study;  I can pass it on to those who write me off-line (though I’ll be gone for all of next week).  It drives a nail in the coffin of ìwider is  saferî for travel lane widths in suburban and urban contexts. The author does  not claim speed reduction is the reason though. I saw him present the paper at  TRB, and his conclusion was wonderful; he essentially said “Why use wider lanes  if narrower lanes are as safe or safer?  With the space youíve saved you can  provide really useful features such as median islands or bike lanes.”

Michael Ronkin

Q. We are looking for a copy of the following report that was published in the mid-80s.

English, J.W. (1986). Liability Aspects of Bikeway Designation.
Washington, DC: Bicycle Federation of America.

Terrance K. Manion | Director of  IT, Instructor of Law, Librarian | Georgia State University
College of Law

 
A. This report is available in Word format at the National Center for Bicycling & Walking web site. Look in the NCBW Publications section of the site library: www.bikewalk.org/ncbw_pubs.php .

Regards,

Gary MacFadden

I received a question from the physical activing coordinator, Corey Wright, at the Oklahoma State Dept of Health.  Corey was consulting some partners on a Safe Routes to Schools/Community Walking Trail Project:

The community is building a 3 mile trail (4-sided rectangular). It’s an interior (never crosses a road) trail parallel to 3 roads and crossing through a pasture. The entire area inside the
trail is existing pasture with cattle and other livestock.

 They’ve planned for an 8-foot trail with a 10 to 12 foot buffer between the trail and the road, and an 8-foot buffer between is going to be removed in order to allow for this buffer space and will be replaced at the mentioned distance. The problem they’re having regards what type of fence to use.  They want to minimize the potential injury if a pedestrian/cyclist were to
contact the fence, but they also want to use something that will keep the cattle on the other side of the fence.  They are concerned not only for safety, but also for liability because some of the the trail is being constructed (with permission) on private land.  Some of the owners have expressed concern, and according to their agreement they will have a say in what type of fence material to use. Do you have any thoughts or recommendations?

 I responded that If there will be 8 feet between the fence and the edge of the trail, there shouldn’t be any problem. The design guidance available around the country varies somewhat, but those states without their own bikeway design guide use that of the American Assn. of State Hwy & Transportation Officials
(AASHTO). However, even those states with their own guides tend to agree with AASHTO’s guide for the most part.  Most guides suggest a 3 foot minimum between a path and any kind of obstruction.

With this amount of spacing, I don’t think it really matters what the fence is constructed of, although something other than barbed wire would be nice.

I also suggested widening the path itself  to 10 feet. These days, that’s considered the standard width;  8
feet is recommended in constrained circumstances. An example would be limited right-of-way, as you might see in an urban area. Even so, an 8 foot path wouldn’t be the preferred width.

John Williams