11/8/2012

1

Planning and

Design of

Bicycle Routes

Alberto M. Figueroa Medina, PhD, PE

Associate Professor of Civil Engineering

UPR-Mayaguez

Miguel Pellot Altieri, MSCE, PE

Transportation Engineering Consultants

Ladislao Ortiz, PE

LOA Ingenieros

Seminar

Registro y evaluación del seminario

Favor de poner celulares en

silencio o vibración

Localización de baños y salidas de

emergencia.

Tendremos un receso de 15

minutos a las 7:30 PM.

Reglas generales del seminario

11/8/2012

2

1. Describe effective engineering treatments for

designing safe and inviting bicycle facilities.

2. Identify and explain the application of roadway

analysis tools for the planning of bicycle

facilities.

3. Discuss the development

and design of recent

bicycle facility projects.

AASHTO. 2012. Guide for the Development

of Bicycle Facilities. 4th edition.

FHWA. 1998. The Bicycle Compatibility Index:

A Level of Service Concept, Implementation

Manual. Report FHWA-RD-98-095.

FHWA. 2006. BIKESAFE: Bicycle

Countermeasure Selection System.

http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikesafe/.

FHWA. 2012. Manual on Uniform Traffic

Control Devices 2009 with Revisions 1 and 2.

Part 9 Traffic Control for Bicycle Facilities.

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/.

Sprinkle Consulting. 2007. Bicycle Level of

Service: Applied Model. Florida.

11/8/2012

3

Bicycles should be expected on roadways,

except where prohibited, and on shared paths

Essential elements for a successful and safe

bicycle program

Physical road infrastructure to support bicycle use

Implementation of sound engineering measures

Bicycle safety education and training

Campaigns to encourage bicycle use

Enforcement of the rules of the road, focused on both motorists and bicyclists

Source: NHTSA .

USA - 630 fatalities in 2009; 1.9% of all fatalities

PR – 17 fatalities in 2009; 4.7% of all fatalities USA – 2.05 bicyclist fatalities / 100k people

PR – 4.29 bicyclist fatalities / 100k people

11/8/2012

4

Estimate bicycle travel demand

Identify bicycle rider needs

Evaluate network connectivity and directness

Analyze crash / conflict analysis – Intersection

safety

Remove barriers

Ease of implementation

Promote system integration

Factors Influencing Biking Decisions

2-8

Trip purpose

Distance/time

Rider skill and comfort

Attitude

Trip barriers

Destination barriers

Basic Children Advanced

11/8/2012

5

Bicycle Trip Purpose

Utilitarian / non-discretionary - trips needed as part of a person’s daily activities (commuter trips)

Types of riders Choice bicycle users

No access to private motor vehicle or driver permit

No transit available

Dependent on bicycle

School riders School policies Safe routes to school Different rider skill levels

Recreation / discretionary - trips made for exercise or leisure

Types of riders All age groups

Varying levels of comfort

Short trips within a neighborhood

Longer trips covering many miles

Mountain bikers

Utilitarian Trips Recreational Trips

Important route features: directness, connected and continuous facilities

Important route features: visual interest, shade, protection from wind

Commute trips Loop trips; start and end trips are the same

1-10 mile trip length 1-50 mile trip length

Short and long term parking is needed at destinations

Short-term parking

Flat topography desired Varied topography may be desired

Often lone riders May ride in groups

Use bicycle as primary mode, may transfer to transit, may or may not have access to auto

May drive by auto to reach start ride point

Typically may occur during morning and evening, at any hour of day

Typically occur during weekends, or before and after commute hours

11/8/2012

6

Experienced / Confident Riders Casual / Less Confident Riders

Most are comfortable riding with vehicles

Prefer shared-use paths, bicycle boulevards, or bike lanes

Able to navigate streets like a motor vehicle

May have difficulty gauging traffic, unfamiliar with road rules, may walk bike across intersections

Prefer a more direct route May use less direct routes to avoid high-traffic arterials

Avoid riding on sidewalks, ride with traffic flow

May ride on sidewalks of no on-street facility is provided

Ride at speeds up to 25 mph on level roads and 45 mph on steep descents

Ride at speeds around 8-12 mph

Ride longer distances Ride shorter distance: typical trip length is 1-5 miles

2-12

• Best opportunity to promote bicycle commute

travel in urban and suburban areas with large

percentages of trips shorter than 2-miles

• Complements transit services to expand transit

coverage area.

11/8/2012

7

2-14

11/8/2012

8

2-16

Shared road lanes

Regular lane width

Wide curb lane

Bike lane / shoulder

Boulevards/ separate

path

11/8/2012

9

Bicycle facilities – improvements and provisions to

accommodate or encourage bicycling, including parking

and storage facilities, and shared roadways not specifically

defined for bicycle use.

Bicycle route – roadway or bikeway designated by the

jurisdiction with a unique route designation or Bike Route

signs, along which bicycle guide signs may provide

directional, distance, and destination information for

bicyclists.

Bikeway – generic term for any road, street, path, or way

which in some manner is specifically designated for bicycle

travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designated

for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with

other modes.

Shared lane – lane of a traveled way that is open to both bicycle and motor vehicle travel.

Bicycle lane – portion of roadway that has been designated for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists by pavement markings and signs (typically for one-way traffic in the same direction as adjacent travel lane).

Shared use path – bikeway physically separated from motor vehicle traffic from motor vehicle traffic by an open space or barrier and either within the highway right-of-way or within an independent right-of-way. May also be used by pedestrians and other non-motorized users. Typically two-way operation.

Bicycle boulevard – street segment, or contiguous street segments, that has been modified to accommodate through bicycle traffic and minimize through motor vehicles.

11/8/2012

10

No national standards; different State and local guidelines

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

2-19

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

15 20 25 30 35 40

Avera

ge D

aily T

raff

ic V

olu

me .

85th Percentile Speed (mph)

Normal lane Wide lane Bike lane or shoulder

Facility selection is essentially a State/local policy decision

Based on several factors:

Road functional class and existing conditions

Road cross section

Traffic volumes and speeds

Traffic mix and characteristics

Driveway and access points

Topography

Existing and proposed land uses

Expected users

Facility cost

2-20

11/8/2012

11

Facility

type

Best use Motor vehicle

design speed

Traffic volume Intended use Other

considerations

Shared

lanes

Minor roads w/

low volumes

Varies < 1,000 vpd Rural roads, or

neighborhood

and local streets

Alternative to

busier roads

Wide curb

lanes

Major roads > 25 mph > 3,000 vpd Arterials and

collectors

Next three options

are more desired

Marked

shared

lanes

Space

constrained with

narrow lanes

Speed limit ≤ 35 mph Variable Collectors and

minor arterials

High parking

turnover

Paved

shoulders

Rural highways 40-55 mph Variable Inter-city

highways

Width depends on

adjacent traffic

Bike lanes Major roads > 25 mph Speed

differential is

more important

Arterials and

collectors

Analyze

intersection

conflicts

Bicycle

boulevards

Local roads with

low volumes and

speeds

Speed limit ≤ 25

mph, speed

differential < 15 mph

< 3,000 vpd Residential

roadways

Grid network,

avoid using

frequent bike stops

Shared use

paths

Linear corridors - - Separate path

for bicyclists

Path crossings

Use of sidewalks for bicycle travel is

unsatisfactory

Conflicts are minor on residential

streets

Operating width

4 feet minimum for exclusive or

preferential treatment

5 feet or more is desirable if there

is a mix of traffic volumes and

speeds, presence of buses and

trucks

Does not include shy distance

Additional width for steep grades Min. 1.2 m

(48 in)

Desired 1.5 m

(60 in)

11/8/2012

12

Typically ride on right side of roadway on two-way roads

Lateral position is determined by speed and usable width

Obey stop and yield signs and rules

Yield when changing lanes

Overtake other vehicles on the left, except when

Riding on a bike lane

The vehicle to be overtaken is turning left

Some states allow to pass on right when it is safe

Approach intersections in the rightmost lane

Several options for turning left at intersections

Regular lane with no special bicycle provisions

Wide curb lanes

Roads with shared lane markings

Roads with paved shoulders

11/8/2012

13

Roads with very low to low traffic volume and speeds ≤ 55 mph

Travel Lane width (no shoulder is available for bicycles)

12 feet if no shoulder

14 feet min. desirable

15 feet on steep grades

Paved shoulder width

4 feet min. desirable

5 feet min. in front of guardrails, curbs, or other roadside barriers

Wider shoulders desired on roads with speeds > 50 mph

Use where inadequate width exists for bike lane or shoulder (Width: 14 – 15 feet)

Caution with lane width ≥ 16 feet, cars can perceive it as two practical lanes

Can often be installed by narrowing inside lane

Not particularly attractive to bicyclists

3.6 m (12 ft) 4.2 m (14 ft) min.of usable lane width

Inside travel lane Wide curb lane

11/8/2012

14

• Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in a

shared lane with on-street parallel parking

in order to reduce the chance of a

bicyclist’s impacting the open door of a

parked vehicle

• Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in

lanes that are too narrow for a motor

vehicle and a bicycle to travel side by side

within the same traffic lane,

• Alert road users of the lateral location

bicyclists are likely to occupy within the

traveled way,

• Encourage safe passing of bicyclists by

motorists, and

• Reduce the incidence of wrong-way

bicycling.

Shall not be used on shoulders or in designated bicycle lanes.

Street with on-street parallel parking

Centers of the markings should be located at least 11 feet from the face of the curb, or from the edge of the pavement where there is no curb.

Street without on-street parking and outside travel lane that is less than 14 feet wide

Centers of the markings should be located at least 4 feet from the face of the curb, or from the edge of the pavement where there is no curb.

If used, the Shared Lane Marking should be placed immediately after an intersection and spaced at intervals not greater than 250 feet thereafter.

11/8/2012

15

… may be used on roadways where no bicycle lanes or adjacent shoulders usable by bicyclists are present and where travel lanes are too narrow for bicyclists and motor vehicles to operate side by side.

The R4-11 sign may be used in locations where it is important to inform road users that bicyclists might occupy the travel lane.

The Uniform Vehicle Code defines a “substandard width lane” as a “lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the same lane.”

Min. shoulder width: 4 feet (additional foot in front

of guardrail, curb, or other objects)

Wider shoulder on roads with speeds > 50 mph, with

heavy truck traffic, or presence of obstructions

3.6 m (12 ft) 3.6 m (12 ft)1.2 m(4 ft) min.*

* Min 1.5 m (5 ft) from face of guardrail, curb or other roadside barrier

1.2 m(4 ft) min.*

11/8/2012

16

No curb and gutter: 4 feet minimum

If on-street parking present: 5 feet minimum

With curb and gutter: 5 feet minimum (3 feet min.

rideable surface, not including gutter pan)

Parking permitted but not striped: 11 feet total

with no curb; 12 feet total with curb

5 feet (1.5m) min.

7-8 ft 7-8 ft 5-7 ft

11/8/2012

17

11/8/2012

18

Direction

of travel

Direction

of travel

Direction

of travel

A B C

* max 150 mm(6-inch) spacing

*

AVOID THIS! (rumble strips in bike lane)

11/8/2012

19

Longitudinal pavement markings shall be used to define bicycle lanes.

If used, bicycle lane word, symbol, and/or arrow markings should be placed at the beginning of a bicycle lane and at periodic intervals along the bicycle lane based on engineering judgment.

The sign and supplementary plaques shall be used only in conjunction with marked bicycle lanes.

If used, should be located

in advance of the upstream end of the bicycle lane,

at the downstream end of the bicycle lane, and

at periodic intervals along the bicycle lane as determined by engineering judgment based on prevailing speed of bicycle and other traffic, block length, distances from adjacent intersections, and other considerations.

11/8/2012

20

In locations where the roadway width does not allow two bike lanes

Intersections provide a challenge from conflicts

between right-turning vehicles and through-moving

bicyclists.

A through bicycle lane shall not be positioned to

the right of a right-turn only lane or to the left of a

left- turn only lane.

11/8/2012

21

11/8/2012

22

Multiple turn lanes

are problems for

bicyclists

Should be avoided

Loop detectors should be provided for bicyclists at intersections

11/8/2012

23

Design or modify ramps to terminate closer to 90°

Cross high-speed ramps in areas of good visibility

Cross ramps at right angle

11/8/2012

24

Bike Lanes -

Interchanges

Inside radius =9 m (30 ft) min.

Approximate angle 15°

Bike lanes shall not be provided on the circular roadway

11/8/2012

25

Colorized pavement

Bike boxes

Contra-flow bike lanes

Buffered bike lanes

Cycle tracks

11/8/2012

26

Photo by SCI

11/8/2012

27

• Reduces “right-hook” threat

• Assists left-turning bicyclists

• Alerts motorists to presence of bicyclists

• Eliminates RTOR

11/8/2012

28

• May provide more direct access in both directions

• Consider physical separation

• Must provide legal signing and striping

Contraflow

Lanes Hazard

Issue

Primary Field of View

Primary Field of View

Two-waybike lane

11/8/2012

29

Provide more bicyclist

comfort

Provides more

maneuvering space to

avoid obstacles

Can be placed on roads

with high…

speeds or volumes

parking turnover

volume of heavy vehicles

11/8/2012

30

Used on high-volume, high-

speed roads with few

turning conflicts

Appealing to a wide range

of bicyclists

Reduces “dooring” risk

Requires a large amount of

space

Requires investment at

intersections

Physical area separated

from the road

Typical widths: 10-15 feet

Diverse user mix

Not always the best

transportation corridors

Grades <5% for long distances

Centerline stripe is recommended

11/8/2012

31

11/8/2012

32

Shared Path Grade Separation

Only place one in the center

Should be spaced 60 inches apart

11/8/2012

33

Bike Route Guide signs may be provided along

designated bicycle routes to inform bicyclists of

bicycle route direction changes and to confirm

route direction, distance, and destination.

The Bicycle Route sign shall contain a route

designation and shall have a green background with a retroreflectorized white legend and border.

2-66

Integral to planning: an inventory of existing conditions

Documenting existing conditions

Comparing alternatives

Identifying design configurations for improvements to existing roads

Prioritizing/programming improvements

Creating bicycle maps

How suitable are certain roads for bicycling?

Bicycle Compatibility Index

Bicycle Level of Service

Bicycle Intersection Safety Index

11/8/2012

34

Product of 1998 FHWA study

Evaluates the capability of specific roadways to accommodate both motorists and bicyclists

Developed for urban and suburban roadway segments

Allows evaluation of existing facilities to determine what improvements may be required

Can also determine the geometric and operational requirements for new facilities

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 2-67

Incorporates variables which bicyclists typically use to assess the "bicycle friendliness" of a roadway

BCI = 3.67 - 0.966 BL - 0.41 BLW – 0.498 CLW + 0.002 CLV + 0.0004 OLV + 0.022 SPD + 0.506 PKG - 0.264 AREA + AF

11/8/2012

35

BCI Score BLOS Bicycle Compatibility Level

≤ 1.50 A Extremely High

1.51 – 2.30 B Very High

2.31-3.40 C Moderately High

3.41-4.40 D Moderately Low

4.41-5.30 E Very Low

> 5.30 F Extremely Low

BL = presence of a bicycle lane or paved

shoulder > 0.9 m; No = 0, Yes = 1

BLW = bicycle lane (or paved shoulder) width; m

CLW = curb lane width; m

CLV = curb lane volume, vphpd

OLV = other lane(s) volume - same direction, vph

SPD = 85th percentile speed of traffic, km/h

BCI = 3.67 - 0.966 BL - 0.41 BLW – 0.498 CLW + 0.002 CLV + 0.0004 OLV + 0.022 SPD + 0.506 PKG - 0.264 AREA + AF

11/8/2012

36

PKG = presence of a parking lane with more than

30% occupancy; No = 0, Yes = 1

AREA = type of roadside development;

Residential = 1, Other type = 0

AF = f(t) + f(p) + f(rt); adjustment factors for large

truck volumes, on-street parking turnover, and

volume of right-turning vehicles, respectively

BCI = 3.67 - 0.966 BL - 0.41 BLW – 0.498 CLW + 0.002 CLV + 0.0004 OLV + 0.022 SPD + 0.506 PKG - 0.264 AREA + AF

1 - Large trucks = all vehicles with 6 or more tires

2 – Includes total number of right turns into driveways or minor intersections along the road

11/8/2012

37

Multilane arterial road (2 lanes per direction)

Curb lane width is 4.3 m

AADT on this segment is 15,000 vpd

Posted speed limit is 65 km/h

85th percentile speed during the peak-hour is 75 km/h

Development primarily consists of retail centers and

commercial businesses

No on-street parking

Large truck volume is 5 %

Approximately 10 % of the

vehicles turn right into

driveways or minor streets

Assume K = 0.10, D = 0.55

PHV = AADT x K x D = 15,000 x 0.1 x 0.55 = 825 vph

CLV = PHV / N = 825 / 2 = 413 vph

OLV = PHV - CLV = 825 – 413 = 412 vph

Assume T (truck % in curb lane) = 0.8

CLTV = PHV x HV x T = 825 x 0.05 x 0.8 = 33 tvph

RTV = PHV x R = 825 x 0.1 = 83 vph

AF = 0.3 + 0 + 0 = 0.3

Ft = 0.3

Fp = 0.0

Frt = 0.0

11/8/2012

38

BCI = 3.67 - 0.966 BL - 0.41 BLW – 0.498 CLW + 0.002 CLV + 0.0004 OLV + 0.022 SPD + 0.506 PKG - 0.264 AREA + AF = 3.67 – (0.966 x 0) – (0.41 x 0) – (0.498 x 4.3) + (0.002 x 413) + (0.0004 x 412) + (0.022 x 75) + (0.506 x 0) – (0.264 x 0) + 0.3 = 4.47 LOS E, Very Low Compatibility

Developed in 1996 by Sprinkle

Consulting and University of

Florida

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

2-76

11/8/2012

39

Measures on-street conditions (not trails), for mid-

block cross-sections (not intersections)

Research based on perception of comfort,

safety for range of adults

Both based on roadway corridor cross-sections

and traffic conditions

Numeric result, grade ranges “A” (best) to “F”

(worst)

Published in Transportation Research Record

1578

Bicycle LOS

Level of Service BLOS Score

A ≤ 1.5

B > 1.5 AND ≤ 2.5

C > 2.5 AND ≤ 3.5

D > 3.5 AND ≤ 4.5

E > 4.5 AND ≤ 5.5

F > 5.5

11/8/2012

40

Vol15 = volume of directional traffic in 15 minute period

= (ADT x D x Kd ) / (4 x PHF)

ADT = average daily traffic on the segment

D = Directional factor

Kd = peak to daily factor

PHF = Peak Hour Factor

L = total number of through lanes

SPt = effective speed limit = 1.1199 ln(SPP -20) + 0.8103

SPP = Posted speed limit

HV = percentage of heavy vehicles

PR5 = FHWA’s five point surface condition rating

Bicycle LOS = 0.507 ln (Vol15/L) + 0.199 SPt (1+10.38 HV)2 + 7.066 (1/PR5)

2

- 0.005(We)2 + 0.76

11/8/2012

41

We = Average effective width of outside through lane;

= Wv - (10 ft x %OSPA) and Wl = 0

= Wv + Wl (1 - 2 x %OSPA) and Wl > 0 & Wps= 0

= Wv + Wl - 2 (10 x %OSPA) and Wl > 0 & Wps> 0 and bikelane exists

Wt = total width of outside lane and shoulder/parking

OSPA = % of segment with occupied on-street parking

Wl = width from outside lane stripe to pavement edge

Wps = width of pavement striped for on-street parking

Wv = effective width as function of traffic volume

= Wt, if ADT > 4,000

= Wt (2 - 0.00025 x ADT), if ADT ≤ 4,000 vpd and if the street/ road is

undivided and unstriped

Bicycle LOS = 0.507 ln (Vol15/L) + 0.199 SPt (1+10.38 HV)2 + 7.066 (1/PC5)

2

- 0.005(We)2 + 0.76

Retrofitting bike lanes on existing streets:

Reduction of travel lane width

Reduction in the number of travel lanes

Removal, narrowing, or reconfiguration of parking

Other design options

11/8/2012

42

Can be implemented up to 20,000 ADT with little traffic diversion

Crash reductions (CMF 0.71 for all crashes)

Candidate roads:

Moderate traffic volumes

Popular cycle routes

Main Streets

Streets with safety issues

Historic streets

4 to 3 lanes

4 to 2 lanes

11/8/2012

43

Bicycle Level of

Service

Examples

Bicycle LOS - Before ADT = 13,500 vpd

Assume: Kd = 0.10

D = 0.50

PHF = 1.00

Ln = 2

PC5 = 4 (good pavement)

Wt = 12 ft Wl = 0 ft

SPp = 30 mph

12' 12' 12' 12'

48'

BLOS Evaluation: LOS score Category

3.58 D

11/8/2012

44

48'

12'14'12'5' 5'

Bicycle LOS - After ADT = 13,500 vpd

Assume: Kd = 0.10

D = 0.50

PHF = 1.00

Ln = 1

PC5 = 4 (good pavement)

Wt = 17 ft Wl = 5 ft

SPp = 30 mph

LOS score Category

2.07 B

BLOS Evaluation:

Extra space benefits cyclists

Striping particularly helpful in improving BLOS

11/8/2012

45

Model is not used to predict bicycle crashes; it is a suitability model

Model is based on the perceptions of safety of a typical bicyclist

Model applies to roadway segments, not intersections

Model represents the typical conditions along a

roadway segment (averages, not anomalies)

Driveways were not a significant factor

Slope is not included in the model

Signage is not included in the model

“New” facility types cannot be evaluated (e.g., shared lane markings, cycle tracks, etc.)

Develop in 2005 in the State of Florida

Rate entire arterial sections

Based on perceptions of bicyclists about

level of safety, comfort, and travel efficiency (i.e., delay) provided by the bicycling environment

Survey of 63 participants

11/8/2012

46

Arterial BLOS = 1.37 + 0.797 AvSegLOS + 0.131 NumUnsigpm

AvSegLOS = distance-weighted average

segment bicycle LOS along the facility

NumUnsigpm = the number of unsignalized

intersections per mile along the facility

Develop in 2002 in the State of Florida

LOS for bicycle through movements at

intersections

Based on the safety and comfort perception of

60 bicyclists riding through signalized intersections

BLOS primary factors

Roadway traffic volume

Total width of outside through lane

Intersection crossing distance

11/8/2012

47

TM Int BLOS = 4.1324 – 0.2144 Wt + 0.0153 CD + 0.0066 (Vol15 / L)

TM Int BLOS = perceived hazard of shared-roadway

environment through the intersection Wt = total width of outside through lane and bike

lane (if present) CD = crossing distance, the width of the side street

(including auxiliary lanes and median) Vol15 = volume of directional traffic during a 15-

minute time period L = total number of through lanes on the approach to

the intersection

Bicycle LOS Real-time roadway segment ratings

Bicyclists in real traffic situations

Bicyclists could evaluate pavement; pavement condition was significant and used in model

Bicycle Compatibility Index Bicyclists watched & rated video clips

Most of the same factors identified as important

Right-turn volumes were significant and included in model

Parking turnover was significant and included in the model

11/8/2012

48

Developed by FHWA in 2007

Allows prioritization of intersections with respect

to pedestrian and bicycle safety

Evaluates each approach leg for a group of

intersections

Bike ISI gives relative rankings according to

potential bicyclist safety

Selects sites with highest ISI values and conduct

more in-depth safety evaluation

11/8/2012

49

FOR THROUGH BICYCLE MOVEMENTS

MAINADT =main street ADT, in 1,000s

MAINHISPD = main street speed limit ≥ 35 mph, 1=yes

TURNVEH= presence of turning vehicle traffic across the path of TH bicyclists, 1 = yes

RTLANES = right-turn lanes on main street

BL = bike lane indicator, 1=yes

NOBL = no bike lane indicator, 1=yes

CROSSADT = cross street ADT, in 1,000s

SIGNAL = traffic signal indicator, 1=yes

PARKING = on-street parking on main street indicator, 1=yes

Source: 2007 FHWA

FOR RIGHT-TURN BICYCLE MOVEMENTS

MAINADT =main street ADT, in 1,000s

RTCROSS = lanes for cyclists to cross to make a right turn

CROSSLNS = through lanes on cross streets

PARKING = on-street parking on main street indicator, 1=yes

Source: 2007 FHWA

11/8/2012

50

FOR LEFT-TURN BICYCLE MOVEMENTS

MAINADT =main street ADT, in 1,000s

SIGNAL = traffic signal indicator, 1=yes

MAINHISPD = main street speed limit ≥ 35 mph, 1=yes

LTCROSS = lanes for cyclists to cross to make a left turn

BL = bike lane indicator, 1=yes

NOBL = no bike lane indicator, 1=yes

PARKING = on-street parking on main street indicator, 1=yes

Source: 2007 FHWA

Lesson Summary