Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Lesson 13 (Some of these pictures show bicyclists not wearing helmets. FHWA strongly recommends that all bicyclists wear helmets.) Publication No. FHWA-HRT Selecting Bicycle Facility Types and Evaluating Roadways

Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation 2-2 Lesson Outline Bicycle facility type selection. –Comparison of approaches. –AASHTO guidance. Roadway evaluation. –Bicycle compatibility index. –Bicycle level of service.

Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation 2-3 Bicycle Facility Types Shared road with regular lane width. –Most existing roads. Wide curb lane. –Shared outside lane. (This picture shows bicyclists not wearing helmets. FHWA strongly recommends that all bicyclists wear helmets.)

Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation 2-4 Bicycle Facility Types Bike lane. –Dedicated road space with dividing paint stripe. Separate path. –Dedicated path or trail. –Significant separation. –Mostly shared-use. (This picture shows bicyclists not wearing helmets. FHWA strongly recommends that all bicyclists wear helmets.)

Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation 2-5 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.

Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation 2-6 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.

Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation 2-7 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. AdvancedBasicChildren Source: PBIC (Dan Burden),

Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation 2-8 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.

Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation 2-9 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.

Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation 2-10 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.

Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation 2-11 Applications for Evaluation Tools Documenting existing conditions. Comparing alternatives. Identifying design configurations for improvements to existing roads. Prioritizing/programming improvements. Creating bicycle maps.

Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation 2-12 Lesson Summary No national standards for facility selection: –Use State/local guidelines. –General principles. Roadway evaluation tools: –Two commonly used models. –Numerous applications.