ENGINEERING / PLANNING ISSUES IN BIKE ADVOACY ADVOCATE FOR INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS PRACTICAL AND COST-EFFECTIVE TO ENCOURAGE GREATER RIDERSHIP Anthony Fernandez, P.E. ASF Consulting (City of Madison, Engineering Div. - Retired) Oops! That’s not a bicycle…)

Major Themes of Presentation Measure Success in Mode Share, not Miles Focus on the “Low-Stress” Network to Attract New Riders Embrace Innovation But Don’t Overlook Basic Network of Local Streets Move Beyond “Complete Streets” to Complete Networks Look for Solutions With “Greater-Than-Zero-Sum” Benefits Understand Engineering Concerns and Published Resources to Create Safe, Practical and Cost-Effective Solutions Choose and prioritize projects to increase ridership, not just mileage. Well used facilities encourage more investment, reduce push-back from opponents.

Mode Share Matters Safety is the most important factor to increase ridership. Consider location, ease of access and especially continuity Good data as well as first-hand experience crucial in planning and advocacy

Safety is the most important factor to increase ridership. Mode Share Matters Safety is the most important factor to increase ridership. Perception is critical Primarily means separation from fast vehicular traffic Good visual clues and directional guidance

Mode Share Matters Consider location, access and especially continuity Railroads, waterways freeways: barriers and opportunities Convenient access is crucial to success Route judged by its most difficult segment

Mode Share Matters Good data plus first-hand experience are critical to planning and advocacy Data supports public acceptance and recognition No substitute for on-the- ground experience and input from riders Gap identification G Good data is hard to acquire but supports public acceptance. No substitute for practical, on-the-ground experience of active bikers.

Focus on “Low-Stress” Network Wide range of user characteristics LOS vs. “Low Stress” Understanding bikes as separate mode from pedestrians Importance of special marking, signing and other visual treatment

Focus on “Low-Stress” Network Separate rights-of-way: Shared-Use Paths High functionality but difficult to locate, complete corridors Interface with street network is critical “Backbone” but not complete network

Focus on “Low-Stress” Network On-Street physically separated from traffic: Protected Bike Lanes One-Way, Two-Way Counter-directional Distinct from “side paths” Challenges and limitations NACTO for more info Location Chicago. Credit NACTO.

Focus on “Low-Stress” Network “Bike Boulevards” or “Bike Priority Streets Defined by special control devices, marking, signing and visual treatment Volume Management Speed Management No widely-accepted definition or criteria Location Palo Alto. Credit NACTO. Example of volume management. Much discussion on what actually qualifies as a Bike Boulevard.

Innovation + Local Street Network Can be re-imagined in innovative ways while fulfilling all functions High public acceptance Potential for more green space Applicable to typical narrow rights-of-way

Innovation + Local Street Network Local streets are a core element of network but often overlooked Provide property access, parking while moderating speed and priority Bike-Only links provide continuity without car volume Location Madison. Credit NACTO. Note the sign. Also uses sharrows. Much discussion on what actually qualifies as a Bike Boulevard.

Innovation + Local Street Network Low speed, low volume local streets are a core element often overlooked Enhance with marking, signing, other visual clues Improve pavement condition and winter maintenance

Innovation + Local Street Network Create New Bike-Only Links for Continuity Maintains low volume, low speed characteristics No negative impacts on MV mobility Often inexpensive

Complete Networks and Streets Mobility, access, safety and efficiency guide the process Flexible, practical approach tailored to specific community Mapping and analysis needs Importance of informed advocacy to identify gaps

Complete Networks and Streets Mobility, access, safety and efficiency guide the process Big projects needed to overcome big barriers (Beltline) Projects sometimes opportunity-driven Function in network justifies investment

Complete Networks and Streets Flexible, practical approach for specific community and location Well designed at-grade crossings: superior access at low cost / R.O.W. Wide median refuge at high-volume crossings

Complete Networks and Streets Mapping and analysis: GIS is providing new and powerful tools Need flexibility to combine on- and off- street, low-stress on single map Assist with gap analysis, public communication

Complete Networks and Streets Mapping and analysis: GIS providing new and powerful tools Layers for ownership R.O.W., Parks etc. No substitute for “ground” experience, informed advocates, designers/planners

Greater Than Zero-Sum Benefits Bike mobility does not come at expense of other modes Especially consider pedestrian needs Critical to public acceptance and continued investment in bike infrastructure

Greater Than Zero-Sum Benefits Bike mobility does not come at expense of other modes Counter-directional bike lane on one-way street enhances bike mobility without affecting autos Often requires flexibility, creativity

Greater Than Zero-Sum Benefits Bike mobility does not come at expense of other modes Colored pavement provides safety and confidence for biker Clear definition of bike space assists drivers as well

Greater Than Zero-Sum Benefits Bike mobility does not come at expense of other modes European model: provide separate space for bikes and pedestrians Improves experience for both Visually intuitive

Engineering Issues / Resources Transitions and intersections more complex than X-C Don’t let “perfect” be enemy of the “good” Design standards are for safety and user comprehension, not bureaucracy Newer standards are innovative, flexible

Engineering Issues / Resources Intersections, transitions are more complex than typical section Consider all allowed movements Visit site, understand unique conditions Seek professional guidance on safety standards

Engineering Issues / Resources Don’t let “perfect” be the enemy of the “good” Bike speed or priority may have to be secondary to safety Avoid creating high stress or perceived unsafe conditions Understand needs of other modes

Useful Engineering and Planning Resources AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities - 2012 The “Bible” for geometric and design standards for separate paths and on-street facilities Updated infrequently and not generally seen as cutting edge of innovation Authoritative and “adopted” by many States

Engineering Issues / Resources NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide Indispensable guide to innovative design Primarily on-line resource but available in paper Authoritative and informative but not “adopted”

Useful Engineering and Planning Resources WisDOT Bicycle Facility Design Handbook - 2004 Official geometric and design standards for separate paths and on-street facilities for WisDOT or federally funded projects in WI More detailed guidance than AASHTO on many topics Updated infrequently and not completely current with recent innovative ideas

Useful Engineering and Planning Resources Fundamentals of Bicycle Boulevard Planning & Design - 2009 Unofficial but authoritative and useful information on one strategy Example of many resources supplementing official guidance with innovative ideas Recommend NACTO for more current info

Useful Engineering and Planning Resources CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic - 2007 Official manual in the Netherlands and widely used in Europe Good source of innovative ideas from places with very high bicycle mode share Use with caution as some concepts may not be applicable in US cities.

ENGINEERING / PLANNING ISSUES IN BIKE ADVOACY THANKS FOR LISTENING! QUESTIONS? Anthony Fernandez, P.E. ASF Consulting (City of Madison, Engineering Div. - Retired) (That’s closer…)