Selecting Bicycle Facility Types and Evaluating Roadways Publication No. FHWA-HRT-05-110 Selecting Bicycle Facility Types and Evaluating Roadways Lesson #: 13 Lesson Title: Selecting Bicycle Facility Types and Evaluating Roadways Learning Objectives: Upon completion of this lesson, students will be able to: Describe the general philosophy and the different approaches to selecting bicycle facility types. Describe the general philosophy and the different approaches to evaluating the bicycle compatibility or level of service of roadways. Preinstruction: Assign reading for lesson 13 and review the material in the Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Student Workbook (Student Workbook). Student Participation: Ask students to give examples of different bicycle facility types in the local community. Ask students to characterize the roadways on which the facility types are located and what factors might have led to those decisions. Ask students to give examples of streets or areas that are not bicycle-friendly, and ask them to describe factors that make roads unfriendly to bicyclists. Followup: Assign student exercise for lesson 13. Assign reading for lesson 14. Session Time: 35–55 minutes Lesson 13 (Some of these pictures show bicyclists not wearing helmets. FHWA strongly recommends that all bicyclists wear helmets.)

Lesson Outline Bicycle facility type selection. Roadway evaluation. Comparison of approaches. AASHTO guidance. Roadway evaluation. Bicycle compatibility index. Bicycle level of service. Key Message: Provide the students with an overview of the lesson. Est. Presentation Time: 1 minute Suggested Comments: This slide is optional.

Bicycle Facility Types Shared road with regular lane width. Most existing roads. Wide curb lane. Shared outside lane. Key Message: Shared roadways with regular and wide lanes require bicyclists to share the road with other vehicle traffic. As a result, many bicyclists feel less comfortable in these types of facilities. Est. Presentation Time: 3–5 minutes Suggested Comments: The two types of bicycle facilities shown in this slide require cyclists to share the road with motorists. A shared road with regular lane width (typically 3.3 to 3.6 meters, or 11 to 12 ft) encompasses the majority of existing streets. Wider curb lanes are sometimes provided when the vehicle traffic volumes and speeds approach moderate levels, as the majority of cyclists are not comfortable riding in close proximity to high-speed, high-volume traffic. Wide curb lanes do not necessarily have to be designated (although they can be) with signing or pavement striping. Wide curb lanes can often be created by restriping existing pavement markings. (This picture shows bicyclists not wearing helmets. FHWA strongly recommends that all bicyclists wear helmets.)

Bicycle Facility Types Bike lane. Dedicated road space with dividing paint stripe. Separate path. Dedicated path or trail. Significant separation. Mostly shared-use. Key Message: Bike lanes and separate paths provide dedicated space for bicyclists. Many bicyclists feel more comfortable in these types of bicycle facilities. Est. Presentation Time: 3–5 minutes Suggested Comments: The other two bicycle facility types, bike lanes and separate (or shared-use) paths, provide dedicated space for bicyclists. With bike lanes, bicyclists have a solid line (or sometimes dashed near intersections, bus stops, or driveways) that separates them from vehicle traffic. However, cyclists will still be required to merge with vehicles at certain locations like intersections or when turning. Shared-use paths typically occupy a right-of-way separate from vehicle roads, or they have substantial separation from roads. Paths parallel to roads (sometimes called sidepaths) are discouraged for a number of reasons. Many cyclists, particularly children and those with modest bike handling skills, prefer to have a dedicated space on the road. For this reason, bike lanes and shared-use paths are often viewed as one of the infrastructure incentives necessary to encourage people with modest bike-riding skills. (This picture shows bicyclists not wearing helmets. FHWA strongly recommends that all bicyclists wear helmets.)

How to Select Facility Type No national standards. Different State and local guidelines. Common factors: Vehicle traffic volumes. Vehicle traffic speeds. Other road cross section or traffic variables. Key Message: There are no national standards for selecting bicycle facility type, but many State and local agencies’ guidelines use similar variables with different category thresholds. Est. Presentation Time: 5–8 minutes Suggested Comments: Many State and local agencies have their own guidelines on how to select bicycle facility types. Many of these guidelines are based on common factors like vehicle traffic volumes, vehicle speeds, and other road cross section or traffic variables. To date, there are no national standards for selecting bicycle facility types. In general, most agencies recommend that shared roads with regular-width lanes are appropriate at low traffic volumes and speed. Wide curb lanes are typically used on roads with moderate traffic volumes and speeds, whereas bike lanes or separated paths are commonly used for higher traffic volumes and speeds. Some agencies may, as a policy matter, decide to use only bike lanes. Conversely, other agencies may decide that only wide curb lanes are to be provided. This is mostly a policy decision that has been made by a particular agency. It should be noted that some agencies do not provide bicycle facilities on busy, high-speed roads. Instead, they develop bicycle facilities on parallel routes that can serve the same destinations.

Comparison of Approaches 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. Key Message: A 2002 review of North American and European bicycle facility selection guidelines attempted to find a common standard; however, the review found numerous differences that could only be reconciled into general principles of facility selection. Est. Presentation Time: 3–5 minutes Suggested Comments: A review of bicycle facility selection approaches by Michael King found many differences, particularly between guidelines in the United States versus those used in Europe. Despite the many differences between the facility selection guidelines, the King review did present an aggregate or composite chart that attempts to represent all guidelines from North America on a single chart. This composite chart points to clear trends among all guidelines: • Shared roads (also referred to as normal lanes) are recommended where traffic volumes and speeds are low. • Wide curb lanes are recommended where traffic volumes and speeds are moderate. • Bicycle lanes are recommended where traffic volumes and speeds are high.

AASHTO Guidance on Facilities Facility selection is essentially a State/local policy decision. It may be based on several factors: Specific corridor conditions. Facility costs. Bicyclist skill level. Advanced Basic Children Key Message: The 1999 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide provides some qualitative guidance on choosing the appropriate facility types, but largely implies that it is a State or local decision. Est. Presentation Time: 3–5 minutes Suggested Comments: The 1999 AASHTO Guide suggests that facility selection is dependent on many factors, including specific corridor conditions, facility costs, and bicyclist skill level. Most of the discussion in the 1999 AASHTO Guide is centered on skill levels and the types of facilities bicyclists of different levels prefer. The 1999 AASHTO Guide defines three bicycle user types (these were first defined in a 1994 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) report): 1. Type A (advanced). 2. Type B (basic). 3. Type C (children). These definitions suggest that bicyclists with different skill levels will prefer certain facility types. Advanced bicyclists, because of their advanced skills, desire for speed, convenience, and direct access, prefer direct routes that may also carry significant vehicle traffic, without any dedicated space for bicyclists. Children, however, prefer shared residential roads with little traffic or separated paths. Because of these differing preferences, it may sometimes be difficult to accommodate all potential bicyclists’ preferences. Source: PBIC (Dan Burden), www.pedbikeimages.org

Roadway Evaluation Integral to planning: an inventory of existing conditions. How suitable are certain roads for bicycling? Bicycle compatibility. Bicycle level of service. Bicycle suitability. Bicycle stress level. Other names. Key Message: An integral part of bicycle facility planning is an inventory of existing conditions, which includes evaluating how suitable the existing roadway network is for bicycling. Est. Presentation Time: 3–5 minutes Suggested Comments: An integral part of the planning process for bicycle facilities is an inventory of existing conditions. Most bicycle plans attempt to quantify how well the existing road network accommodates bicyclists. A variety of road evaluation measures have been developed over the past 15 years to quantify how compatible a roadway is for accommodating safe and efficient bicycle travel. These road evaluation measures go by different names, but they all have the same general purpose: to evaluate the comfort and/or compatibility of bicyclists on roads. Several recent studies have identified roadway cross-section elements and traffic factors that affect bicyclists’ perceptions of safety, comfort, and convenience. These factors have been tested and calibrated in real-world conditions to develop models that attempt to quantify bicyclist comfort levels (based mostly on perceptions of safety). Numerous models have been developed, but there are two that appear to be most commonly used in bicycle planning and facility selection: the bicycle compatibility index and the bicycle level of service.

Bicycle Compatibility Index Product of 1998 FHWA study. 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. Key Message: The bicycle compatibility index is one of two commonly used methods to evaluate roads for bicycling conditions. Est. Presentation Time: 3–5 minutes Suggested Comments: A team of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) researchers developed the bicycle compatibility index in the late 1990s to quantify the “bicycle friendliness” of roadways. The bicycle compatibility index is a fairly complex (or at least lengthy) formula that is shown in the Student Workbook. The significant variables include: a) the presence and width of a paved shoulder or bicycle lane; b) motor vehicle traffic volume and speed in adjacent lanes; c) the presence of motor vehicle parking; and d) the type of roadside development.

Bicycle Level of Service Product of 1997 study in Florida, with subsequent testing and validation. 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. Key Message: The bicycle level of service is one of two commonly used methods to evaluate roads for bicycling conditions. Est. Presentation Time: 3–5 minutes Suggested Comments: Bicycle level of service (LOS) is an evaluation of bicyclists’ perceived safety and comfort with respect to motor vehicle traffic while traveling in a roadway corridor. It identifies the quality of service for bicyclists or pedestrians that currently exists within the roadway environment. As such, it is analogous to the LOS concept used in the Highway Capacity Manual. Like the bicycle compatibility index, the bicycle level of service has a lengthy equation that has been calibrated using bicyclists’ perceptions in real-world conditions. The bicycle LOS score resulting from the final equation is prestratified into service categories A through F, with A the best and F the worst. Because the model represents the comfort level of a hypothetical typical bicyclist, some bicyclists may feel more or less comfortable than the bicycle LOS calculated for a roadway. A poor bicycle LOS grade does not mean that bikes should be prohibited on a roadway.

Applications for Evaluation Tools Documenting existing conditions. Comparing alternatives. Identifying design configurations for improvements to existing roads. Prioritizing/programming improvements. Creating bicycle maps. Key Message: There are several common applications that benefit from roadway evaluation tools like the bicycle compatibility index or bicycle level of service. Est. Presentation Time: 3–5 minutes Suggested Comments: Describe the various applications in which the road evaluation tools may be used.

Lesson Summary No national standards for facility selection: Use State/local guidelines. General principles. Roadway evaluation tools: Two commonly used models. Numerous applications. Key Message: Summarize the lesson and discuss any questions or issues with students. Est. Presentation Time: 3–5 minutes Suggested Comments: Summarize the lesson and discuss any questions or issues with students.