revision to the aashto guide for the development of bicycle facilities n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Revision to the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Revision to the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities

Revision to the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities

181 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Revision to the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Revision to the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities Presentation by: Jennifer Toole Principal Investigator July 21st, 2009

  2. NCHRP Project 15-37 • Some history • This will be the 4th edition of the Guide • Last Guide – 1999, largely written in 96-98 • John LaPlante and Jennifer Toole – co-authors • Survey to update Guide – 2004 • Chair of NCHRP Panel – Dwight Kingsbury, Florida DOT • Panel includes: • 7 members from State DOTs • 2 FHWA representatives • 3 members from local agencies • 1 consultant

  3. Team and Panel Project Team • Jennifer Toole, Principal Investigator • Eric Mongelli, P.E. • William Schultheiss, P.E. • Nick Jackson • Subject Matter Experts: • John LaPlante, P.E., PTOE • Michael Moule, P.E. • Michael Ronkin • Mia Birk • Matthew Ridgeway • Shawn Turner, P.E. • Srinivasa Sunkari, P.E. • Bill Hunter Panel • Dwight Kingsbury, Chair • Denise Chaplick • David Church, P.E. • Ann Do • Eric Glick • Fred Glick, RLA • Thomas Huber • Mary Meletiou • Richard Moeur, P.E. • William Prosser, P.E. • William Riccio, Jr., P.E. • Cara Seiderman • Richard Pain

  4. Project Timeline • NCHRP Project Completion – Fall 2009

  5. Basis for Content Changes • Reviewed findings of scoping study (survey) • Reviewed a significant body of research and literature • Drew upon our own experience using the Guide on a daily basis • Drew upon the experience of our Team and Panel • This presentation will cover the highlights of new and revised content of design chapters.

  6. Issues NOT addressed by this Guide • Contrasting colored pavements • Bike boxes • Cycle tracks • Raised bike lanes • Bicycle signal heads

  7. Important source for design chaps

  8. New ChapterBicycle Operation and Safety • Sets the stage for Design Chapters • Organizes info on design vehicle • Overview of traffic principles for bicycles • Positioning on the roadway in different situations • Causes of bicycle crashes • Urban vs. rural • Young vs. adult riders • Etc.

  9. Key Dimensions Chart

  10. Chapter 4Design of On-Road Facilities • More guidance on shared lanes, general roadway compatibility • New sections on shared lane markings, bicycle boulevards and wayfinding signage • More context and detail for bike lane guidance • More info on bike lanes with various roadway configurations • More info on bike lanes at intersections • New section on retrofitting existing roadways to accommodate bicycles

  11. Shared Lanes • Roads do not need a special bicycle facility to be compatible • Design guidance for wide outside lanes is same (14’) • Guidance on selecting appropriate type of bikeway given traffic volumes and speeds (Bicycle LOS)

  12. Shared Lane Markings • Coordinated with MUTCD

  13. Locations to use SLM’s • Adjacent to on-street parking to position cyclist outside of door zone • In wide lanes to position away from curb • Narrow lanes • Multi-lane roads where there is no room for bike lane • Climbing lanes (on downgrade) paired with bike lane

  14. Climbing Lanes

  15. Where NOT to use SLM’s • On paved shoulders or bike lanes • Where the speed limit exceeds 35 mph

  16. Paved Shoulders • Shoulder width: • 4 ft. min, 5 ft against vertical face • Wider if there are higher speeds/volumes (per BLOS) • At shoulder bypass lanes – carry shoulder space through T-intersections

  17. Bicycle Lanes • Markings are required, but signs are optional • More guidance for markings at bus stops • Both symbols still allowed

  18. Left-Side Bicycle Lanes • Discussion of when left side bike lanes can be beneficial on one-way streets: • When there are a lot of left-turning bicyclists • If the left-side lane would decrease conflicts, i.e. with buses or heavy right turn volumes

  19. Bicycle Lane Widths – DRAFT • Same as last Guide – 5 ft standard width (4 ft with no curb and gutter) • Some caveats: • 5 ft bike lane is sufficient assuming a 1 ft wide gutter • In states that use a 2 ft wide gutter, a 6 ft wide bike lane is preferred, with 5 ft as a minimum width in locations with lower speeds • In extremely constrained, urban low speed environments where 5 ft cannot be achieved and there is no gutter, a 4 ft wide bike lane is acceptable (assumes adjacent travel lane has been narrowed to the minimum acceptable width)

  20. Angled Parking • Bike lanes not recommended at front-in angled parking • Bike lanes are OK with back-in angled parking if parking bays are sufficient length

  21. Typical bike lane markings

  22. Bicycle Guide Signs • Deemphasizes bike routes, they are not a facility type • Guidance on all sign types • Signs are not a substitute for good geometric design • D-Series are below

  23. Bicycle Guide Signs

  24. M1-8 and M1-9 Series

  25. Traffic Signals • Significantly expanded guidance • Formulas and diagrams based on new data • Assumes one speed – 10 mph – rather than different speeds for A, B and C bicyclists • Appropriate to modify the minimum green interval, all-red interval, and extension time for bicyclist speeds.

  26. Bicycle Minimum Green • Bicyclists require more time to clear intersection than motorists • More important where minor streets cross major roads (may be a long distance with a short cycle length) • Two choices: • Program controller to provide BMG with a detector • Increase minimum green for all vehicles

  27. Detection for Bikes at Signals • Provides more guidance on: • Loop configurations that best detect bicycles • Sensitivity settings • Use of upstream detectors • Detector markings

  28. Roadway Bridges • Bridges should accommodate bicycles • “Absence of bicycle accommodations on the approach should not prevent the accommodation of bicycles on the bridge.”

  29. Bridge Railings • In locations where bicyclists will operate in close proximity to railings, should be a minimum of 42” high. • On bridges where bicycle speeds are likely to be high and where a bicyclist could impact a barrier at a 25 degree angle or greater, use 48” railing.

  30. Bicycles on Freeways • Addresses considerations if bicycles are allowed to operate on the freeway • Addresses freeway interchange design • Design junctions as right-angle intersections if possible

  31. Single Point Urban Interchange

  32. Merge Ramp Options

  33. Merge Ramp Options

  34. Bicycles at Roundabouts • Terminate bike lanes in advance (at least 100 ft) • General design issues • Low speed roundabouts are best (15-20 mph) • Discourages use of multi-lane roundabouts unless absolutely necessary • For multi-lane roundabouts, provide opportunity for bicyclist to exit roadway and use sidewalk

  35. Multi-lane Roundabouts

  36. Chapter 5Design of Shared Use Paths • New stand-alone chapter • Reflects several significant studies: • Characteristics of Emerging Trail and Roadway Users • Shared Use Path Level of Service • Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas • Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations • Fills missing gaps in the old Guide

  37. Sidepath Guidance • Consolidates discussion of SUP’s adjacent to roadways – Clearly defines “sidepath” • Expands discussion of operational problems • Acknowledges reasons for building paths adjacent to roadways • Provides guidance on when and where these facilities are appropriate • Provides design guidance for those locations

  38. Sidepaths may be considered: • Adjacent road has high speeds and volumes and no practical alternatives for improving on-road conditions or adjacent routes • Sidepath is used for a short distance to connect: • Pathway segments • Local streets used as bicycle routes • Sidepath can be built with few roadway and driveway crossings • Sidepath can be terminated in a bicycle compatible location

  39. Shoulders/clearances • Graded shoulder of 3-5 ft recommended, max cross slope of 1:6 • Minimum clearance of 2 ft to lateral obstructions • Except at smooth features such as railings or fences, 1 ft is acceptable • Adjacent to hazards, 5 ft separation is desired • Water hazards • Downward slopes greater than 3:1 • Depending on height of embankment and condition at bottom, railing may be needed

  40. Safety rail guidelines

  41. Design Speed • Old Guide: 20 mph min design speed • New Guide: “No single design speed” for all paths • Consider types of users, terrain, path surface • Guidelines: • Generally should not be lower than 85th percentile speed: 14 mph • For longer segments in flat areas: 18 mph • Higher design speeds in hilly terrain, up to 30 mph

  42. Horizontal Alignment • Horizontal curve formula is now based on lean angle rather than superelevation • By revising formulas and using new design speeds, min. curve radius can be lower: • Old Guide: 90-100 ft min • New Guide: 60 ft (18 mph design speed)

  43. Speed Control on Paths • Introduces concept of using geometric design and traffic control to reduce user speeds, such as curvature • Recommends centerline stripe to reduce speeds and address conflicts • Depends on site specific context

  44. Stopping Sight Distance • New braking friction factor for bikes (0.16) • Longer stopping distances but reduced design speed offsets this • Gives values for other users

  45. Path-Roadway Intersections • Significantly expanded guidance • Explains the complexities of path-roadway intersections: • Fastest user must be considered on the approach • Slowest user must be considered at the crossing • Three intersection types: • Midblock • Sidepath • Grade-separated