HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM V-C
crrY oF Memorandum
WASHINGTON .
TO: Councilmember Lynn Norman, Chair, Planning & Community Development Committee
Councilmember Nancy Backus, Vice-Chair,' Flanning & Community Development
Committee
Cauncilmember Rich Wagner, Planning & Community Development Committee
CC: Mayor Lewis
Dennis Dowdy; P:E., Publie Works Director, Public Works Department
FROM: Kevin Snyder, AICP, Director, Planning & Development Department .
DATE; August 18,2010 ~
SUBJECTc DISCUSSION & INFORMATION: Bicycle Task Force Update DISCUSSION & INFORMATION PURPOSES:
~ ; .
1. Update the Planning and Community Development Committee on the visioning and planning efforts
of the Bicycle Task Force; and, 2. Discuss the future applicability of the Bicycle Task Force's vision and planning efforts; and,. -
3. Identify any Committee questions and concerns for future policy development
BAGKGROUND: .
1
tn 2009, the City updated its Comprehensive Transportation Plan including its poficies, objectives and
mapping for current and future bicycle facilities [Exhibit 1]. In March 2010, Mayor Lewis convened a
Bicycle Task Force to further develop and refine the City's goals and policies for its bicycle transportation
system. Mayor Lewis requested that the Task Force work with planning and public works staff on three.
key issue areas comprised.of community connections (e.g. how does a person get from the north end to
the south end of the City or from Lakeland to Lea Hill?), recreafion opportunities (e.g. how does the City,
further build and capitalize on a bicycle.network to support and enhance the recreation options for our
citizens?) and economic developrrient (e.g. how do we capitalize on the Interurban Trail as a conduif of
customers for existing and -new. businesses?). Mayor Lewis advised the Task Force that its
recommendations for bicycle infrasfrueture planning, design and inyestment would be forwarded to the
Transportation. and Trails Committee, the Public Works and Planning & Community Development
Committees and ultimately, the CityCouncil.
' The Bicycle Task Force is comprised of: -
4 Barry Lafreniere
• Bruce DeJong .
a Dennis Grad, Auburn School District ~ George Fraiser, Green River Community College Foundation
• Jerry Carpenter
0 John Calnan, Vice-Chairperson
m Jon Breiling
0 Kriss Kessler a Richard Gordon _
a Stephanie Norton-Bredl, Auburn Valley YMCA
• Terry Davis; Chairperson Tessa Greegor, Cascade Bicycle Club
The Bicycle Task Force held its first meeting on April 21, 2010. Subsequent meetings have been held on
' April 27, 2010, May 12, 2010, June 2, 2010, July 7, 2010, July 14; 2010 and August 12, 2010. On.July
24, 2010, six of the Task Force members participated in a three (3) hour tour of the, City with planning
and public works staff to look at bicycle facilities issues,. needs and opportunities in different parts of the-
City. At the August 12th meeting, the ?ask Force met with representatives of the, Auburn Downtown
Associatibn and Auburn Tourism Board to discuss potential economic development opportunities
associated with increased bicycling opportunities in the' community. The Task Force wi(l next meet the
week of September 13, 2010 with its work currently anticipated to wrap up in October 2010.
Key work efforts to date of the Task Force include the development of an enhanced bicycle routes and
trails map for the City [Exhibif 2], a prioritized bicycle improvements map [Exhibit 3], draft
recommendations for improvernents to the lnterurban Trail and economic development efforts [Exhibit 4]
and the review of other communities' bicycle infrastructure design practices [Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 6].
Through its work efforts to date, the Task Force has discussed and developed a working consensus
viewpoint that the City should primarily focus its efforts and inVestment dollars on the provision of striping
and signage throughout the City and public education on the benefits and opportunities for bicycli:ng. The Task Force has discussed that the City should consider planning for and pursuing grant funding for a
limited number of bicycie related capital improvement projects that have a broad community benefit.
2
. .
. ` ' r.XHIBIT
, ~
eiTYaF._,..~;,:,~~..,,,:;;-•,;~; Comprehensive Transportation Plan
A')~~
AFETY EDUCATION f1ND ENFURCEMENT cominute cyclists, in add.ition to recreational
S
cyclists.
Awareness of pedestrian safety issues should
be promoted through educational prograrns N E E D S A S S E S S M E N T
and enforeement efforts. This combination EXTSTING CONDTTIONS helps reuzforce key safery issues such as safe
pedestrian crossings and speeding. The Gity 1'he topography in many parts of Auburn is
will proactively work to identify problem flat and conducive to cycling for a range of
areas and issues. The following list contains skill levels. .Areas along the Green and White
. examples of some techniques that can be Rivers provide recreational oppozturiities for
employed in these efforts. mulri-use trails that support bicyclists,
• Establishing izon-motorir.ed travel pedestrians and equestrians. The Interurban ,
information kiosks at key City destinarions Trail is part of a major north-south regional.
(e.g. Main Street, Supermall, Emerald Downs, trail system. The Green River trail is also an
trails). extension of a north-south regional trail.
■ Displaying educationat information in City Therefore, Auburn has a good ne[work, of
. publications, on the website, and on TV. existing or planned north-south recreational -
■ Developing wayfinding signage to direct trails. However, there are few existing cross-
pedestrians and bicpclists. town connections and new connections onto
~ Pazrnering with the School District to tea.ch the West Hill and Lea Hill are needed. children safe walldng and biking behaviors. Recreational and commuter cyclists tra.vel
■ Launching public in£ormadon campaigns for along the Interurban Trail to areas north and ;
problematic locations and parmering with rhe south of Aubuxn. Cyclists also frequendy ride
Po]ice Department to provide enforcement. along .S 277`h to the east side :of Green R.iver
a Increasing driver awareness of.vehicle speeds Road, and dowri along the Green River to 8
through the presence of radar speed signs and . Street NE; or down R Street NEI to SE
photo enforcement in school zones. AubuYn Bla.ck'Diamond Road. SE AubuYn
■ Enforcing pedestrian, bicyclist, and driver Black Diamond Road and SE Green Valley
infractions; and posting signage to reinforce Road are popul.ar routes for accessing areas
this priority, east of Auburn. However, these roads are .
chara~terized by ~dangerous cy,cling conditions . ,
and are not suitable for inexperienced cyclists.
Bicpcle facilities are an important component Also, once in Auburn, triere is no clear of Aubuxn's transpoxtation and recreational direction for tsaveling within and through the
infra.structure. BicYcling provides a clean, City.
non-motorized form of transportation and Birycle lanes axe extremely lirnited • on city
allows citizens to mainta.in a healthy li£estyle. arterials' and collectoxs, makizag it difficult
. It also helps improve tra.ffic congestion and both for regional and local riders to naviga.te
air quali.ry by pzovid.ing an alternati.ve to for any reasonable distance thraugh the City.
driving. Increasingly, bicpcle cominuting is ~~ted bicycle storage is also a hindrance to
becoming a more populax alternative, and the cyclists. Figure 3-3 identifies existing trails
Ciry must take steps to provide a more and bike lanes in the City.
. functional and attractive networlc for
~
porkition Page 3-9
Chaptcr 3. Norr MotoriZed Traus
~
crry oF * ~ =y Comprehensive Transportation Plan ~
*"~~M 777, WASHINGTON
f
BICYCLE F'ACILITY CLASSIFICATTON The American Associaticin of State Highway F
Transportatio
n Offic.ias (.AASHTO} has acility Classification developed classificarions for bicycle facili►ies arate Faalitp (Class A non-' r
and parking. Bicycle•classification is based on torized facilitp, paved or unpaved,.
the design and exclusiveness of use., that is physically separated from.
motorized vehicular trafftc by an ' ojieri
. Class I rnulti-use trails that allow bicycles 'space or barrier. It is sometimes refexred
include the Iriterurban, White River, and to as a Bicyde Padi, Bike Trail, Nori- . .
Green River Trails, Some Class II bicycle - motorized Trail; Mutti-purpose Trail or lanes are located ar. some combination thereof.
° S 277th Sneet, between rhe DPest Valley Hwy ° Bike Lane (Class iI) - A portion of a
and B Street NW; ioadway that is designafed by stripirig,
■ 22nd Street NE between I and M Streets NE; ~g~ng> and pavement mazkings for:~
preferential or eicclusive use of biryclists.
~12th and 17th Street SE between A Street SE Typically these lanes are located outside
and Auburn Way; of the vehicie travel lane. " S 21 st Street SE between A Street SE and R ■ Bike Route (Class III) - A seginent of
Street SE; road designaeed by.the jufis.diction witli
n 29th Srseet SE/Riverwalk Drive SE between appropriate directional and informational
A Se. SE and 28th'St. SE; and marker§, but without stripingr signirig and-
~ Terrace Drive. pavement markings for the prefereritial
or exclusive use of bicyclists:
Bike parking facilities are classified by length . Bike Friendly (Class 1V) = A roadway riot
of use: long term, medium term, and short designaEed by direcrional.and .
term. The loriger bilies are to be stored, the informational rnarkers, striping; signing,
. more durable the facility's design must'be. _ or pavement markings for the •
Bike stoxage facilifies are Iocated at only a few prefe.=enrial or e$clusive use of bicyelists,
locations throughout the Ciry. These include but confaining appropriate.bicycle- y
the transit center, which pxovides 12 bike ~end1Y design standards suc~i as wide
r.ack spaces and eight spots, in the lockers. c►zrb lanes and bicycle safe drain~grates.
Source: Engineering Design Standards Manual, •
Table 3-1 lists existing bicycle facilities; Figure eity, of Aueurn '
3-3 identifies facility locations: '
Table 3-1 Existing Bicycte Facilities `WPROVEtvtEIVT NcEDs
` - Cyclisrs desir.e safe routes that make
co:nnectians thxoughout the City and to
. ,
' - . _ . _ regional points of interests: The existing
Hard-surface Treil Bicyclists `2$.5 miles facilities. fall short of creadng a bicycle
Pedestrians
iietwork in. Auburn. Theg are isolated from
Equestrians Soft-surface Trail oif-road cyclists. 2.17 miles one another. If unfamiliar with the terrain
Pedestrians aind/or unskilled, cyclists rnay find it diff cult
On-street Bike Lane Bicydists 7 miles to bike through Auburn.
Chapter 3. Non ll2otori~ed Trun.r~iortation l~age 3-10
crry OF- Comprehensive Transportation Plan
AQ-
J~ .-.:,•z'`" Y!'ASNINCn7OAl
'Y'he Ciry plans to build out the bicycle . . : _ F ' ~ ,
network and provide better east-west
conriections. Upgrading bicycle facilities on
ciry streets is an impo:rtant component of this ,
plan.
w .
Auburn shall make greater efforts in the, „ ; F'a;; ~:=:.~s•~~ ~u ~n mc. ~ .s,
future to encourage bicycle use, particularly
<
for comnnuting purposes, as. a form of `
transportation demand management (TDllI).
One mechanism of doing so is to encourage
major employers to locate riear trails and
bicycle routes, and to provide facilides The Work is Easier when Shared
conducive to bicycling to work. Also, the
City needs to ta.ke a more aggressive role in F U T U R E T RA V E L ,
programming irnpleinentation of the future The future bicycle network includes corridors
bicycle network identified in this chapter, for regional, recreational, and cross-tow.n
ensuring that eventually all residents of and connecttons. The regional corridors will
.
employees in Auburri feel comfortable plovide connections to the Valley
commutirig on bike. Tn addition, Auburn communities as well other areas of, King and
should seeli outlets, including the City's Pierce Counties. Local biking groups have
website, to provide up-to-date information on idenrified the Interurban Trail and Green
bicycling options within the City and to River Trail as important regional connections.
regional destinations. Other planned regional connections will link
1 he Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Auburn to attractions around the Puget program. provides a formal mechanism £or Sound Region including Mount RainerY the
encouraging these practices and is required by Port of Tacoma, and the Cities of Seattle and
state Iaw for employers with 100 or rnore Woodinville.
employees arriving at a single locarion during The Green and White River coiridors axe
the AM peak. Auburn's CTR program calls multi-functional, providing recreational
, out bicycle stqrage facilities, lockers, ehanging opportunities for regional and • local bicycle areas, and showers as measures employers trips. Therefoze, the City ha.s prioxitized the
can take to meet CTR goals. In addition, completion of both these trail systems. Also,
Auburn can use the SEPA process to Auburn will seek to enhance poxtions, of Ciry eiicourage development of these facilities at trail systexns wlienever possible, by providing
the time of new cievelopment or tenant amenities for non-rnotoiized travel.ers such as
improvernents. rest areas, as well as safery improveinents
The Downtown Plan also discusses the need for including warning signage a.nd grade
improving bicqcle facilities ;in the area. On- separated trails. Additional cross-town
street bicycle fac,itities will be sought in connections that complete . the bicycle
associa.tion with planned roadway network will consist of local traits and on-
improvernents. In addition, the City should road facilities linking Auburn's
inv.estigate providing bicycle storage and neighboxhoods.
other amexuties on aity owned properties. Chupter 3. Non -Motorked Tiansj~ortatzon Page 3-91
CI'N OF. Comprehensive Transportation Plan
. A,14B..RN .
, wnsHINcr4N
The bicycle routes identified for future 3..3 EqlleStB'0a17 T6•avel
development Iink to existing multi-use rrails
and bike lanes. The R~ Street corridor from Auburn citizens have a long history of
Auburn Black Diamond Road to.12`" Street supporting the planning and development of SW will provide a north-south connection equestrian facitities. The City intends to
between the Terminal Paxk neighborhood increase its network of soft-surface, multi-use
and other future bicycle lanes linking to the trails in more rural,locations with appropriaee
downtown and North Auburn. A future facilities suitable for equestrian use.
. connection between Auburn Black Diamond NEE D SAS S E S S M E 1~ T
Road and Auburri Way'-S is also-proposed. . The future B'onneville Power Trait will :be a EXIS'ITNG CONDITIONS
separated; hard surfaced trail.crossing the I.ea Auburn's equestrian trail systetn is quite
Hill area and connecting to the Interuruan bited. _ The Parks Department currendy
Traal and West Hill via on-street' bicycle manages. a twa-mile, soft-surface trail, along
facilities. Numerous other on-street Uicycle the White River at Roegner and Game Farm
'facilities and trails are planned. They are all Wilderness Parks. Otherwise, there are no
identified in Figure 3-4, found at the end of 'formal equestrian trails in Auburn. -
this chapter.
:Korse owners do have informal access to the .
The selection of bike faciliry projects will be Soft-su'rface path adjacent to, the Interurban
.
based upon safety, route continuity and trail, as Nvell as Iarge apen spaces in the rural
connectiviry issues. In add.ition to new bicycle area just south o£ the White River and east o€
coxridors, 'spot safety improveinents are an Kersey. Way in southeast Auburn. To reach
important component of the City's future the open areas, many ride along the edge of
bicpcle network. Improvements are needed zOads such as 53=a and 56. Streets SE. These
at 15th Street SW and the Interurban Trail and are narrow roads with gravel shoulders. C Street SW and Ellingson. In addition, 5afe brainage swale.s run parallel to manq portions
access to downtown Aubum and onto West of these roads, and while conditions vary
,
Hill and Lea Hill axe a prioriry for the Ciry. ; typically -there is a narrow unpaved shoulder
Typical birycle route improvements along a ot grassed. area alongszde the road whexe
Class I facility include -purchasing the right- horses cari wallc.
of-way, designing the trail, and constructing
the trail and trailhea.d. For a C1a.ss II paEhway, Tabte 3-2 Existing Equestrian'Facilities
improvements include striping lanes,
installing warning and directional signage, and ~ - " , . ° • ,
painting bike symbols on the payement.
As this plan is updated in, the future, Soft- Equestrians `
emphasis should continue to be placed on surFace OfF-road Cyclists 2.17 miles 2 miles +
developing a safe and convenient bicycling Trail Pedestrians
environm.ent fox both recreational and
commuter cyclists of all experience levels. , Chafiter 3. Non 11 iotori.Zed 2'rurr.cportataon ' Page 3-11
~-F-_Corriprehensive Transportation Plan
. , . .
A-UTRE'URN
1A'ASH.I NGTO N less for soft-surface trails than for paved addition of the BNSF undercrossing, just
trails. Some of the soft-surface trails are north of the White River a.nd west of A Street
proposed to occur in conjunction with a SE, will provide safe passage for pedestrians.
paved trail. Summaries of trails that are A new trail connection along C Street SW will
appropriate for equestrian use are listed in provide pedestrians and cyclists with a safer
TaUle 3-3. . Design specifications £or connection to downtown and the. Transit
equestrian rrails will be incorporated into the Center.
Auburn Eragineering Desigsi Standard.r manual. .
3.4 Future Non-
motorozed System .
A.uburn's future nori-motorized system 'yer~r~f~
consists of an interconnected network of
sidewalks, bike, lanes, multi-use trails, and
PNTTMS'Gf~ ~A1i ~.'nqfd . equestrian paths. '"he list af proposed 409
projects in I'able 3-3 is developed for plarining purposes.. rigure 3=4 identifies the
. location of the trail projects idenrified in White River Trail Table 3-3 and maps rhe future tra.il and Mult'i-Use Path
bicycle network. This network will provide regional, PROMOTING HEALTHY COMMUNTT'IES
recreational and citywide connections for a The Ciry of Auburn envisions a
variety of non-motorized . modes: The transportation system that will help promote
corripleted portions of the Interurban and healthy community principles by coard.inating "
Green R.iver Tra.ils connect pedestrians, land use, the non-motorized transportation
cyclists, and equestrians- to areas north and system, and transit in a manner that
south of Aubuxn, while the White R.iver Trail encourages walking and bicycling. The Puget
provides for east west travel: Additional bike Sound Regional Council has identified several
lanes through tawn and completion.of the elements, which contsibute to the desirability
paved tr.ail network will guide cyclists safely of walking, bicycling, and transit use?
to points of interests and through congested e Concenrxaring complementary uses such as
areas of the Ciry. restaurants, retail and grocery stores -
~ The establishm.ent of an equestrian district pxoximate to xesideiices and employment.
and trails in the southeast portion of the Ciry • Linking neighborhoods byconnecung streets,
' permits more opportunities" for equestrian sidewalks, and crails.
~ travel in scenic areas. " ° Designing for safe -and welcoming pedestrian ,
Pedestrians will be able to travel more sa£ely
and bicycle faciliries. • and comfortably with the complerion of the • •
sid'ewalk network, new crossirigs and street
lighring, increased driver awareness, and I Vision 2040 Update Issue Paper on Health What's `
~iealth Got to Do with GrowthManagement; bettez street design near 5Chools azld Economic Development and Transportation?, Puget
frequently traveled pedestrian 'locations. Tlie Sound Regional Council, Dec. 2, 2004. ,
Ghapter 3. Non Motoritied Tran*ortation Page 3-14
CUM; Comprehensive Transportation Plan
.~.~~►~t~~~~ .
' ~•WASHiNGTON
.
~ Enhancing transit opportunities and non-
motorized connections to transit facilities. -
. o Reducing and mitigaring the effects of
paxking, ,
These pxinczples, ' many of wliich can be promoted by thoughtful transportation .
systems planning, encourage healthier . .
~ communities by increasing physical activiry .
and decreasing air pollution caused by vehicle ,
emissions. Auburn has historically pla.nned .
for a transportation system that•in.corporates .
' ma.ny healthy connmuniry principles, such as transit facility.. plantvng and regional trail
planning. In addiuon, the_Doivntown Plan ca11s .
for a mixed-use, high densiry, pedestrian . .
oriented downtown. In the futuxe, Auburn
' shall continue to promote these principles
through long-range pTa.nning efforts, capital
faciliry. improvements, development review, .
anci community activities involving active
lifesryle elements.,
• IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS
. The City has developed polieies a.nd identified
funding straEegies that will help * implement
the futu:re non-rnotorized network. They can •
be found i1i Chapters 5 and 6 of this'plan.
The planrung - direction outlinecl in..this
chapter shall be used as the foizndation for implementing the non-motorized policies and
seeuring funding. • , • •
Chuptcr 3. Non Motorized Tran.cj~ortution , Pagc 3-15
" OF
* r ~~d CiTY Comprehensive Transportation Plan
URN
- - WASEEiNGTON
Tabie 3-3 Future Trail and Bicycie Facility Projects
0 ~ • . U A% kr-17-
Skinner- This trail, Iocated with3n the Gty of Pacific, wifl provide connections for users west ofthe Bicydists
Road/3rd BNSF railroad to the White River Trail, the Supermall and downtown Aubum via the C pedestrians
Avenue Street trail. '
Green River This paved traii will be part of a regional recreational corridor. King County is the lead Bicydists
Traif administratar of the project but will work in collaboration with the City for the portion of Equestrians
the trail in Auburn. The trail alignment will extend along the west 6ank of the Green Pedestrians
River from, S 277tt' St., south to Brannan and Dykstra Parks. It will then cross at the `
Dykstra Park bridge over to Ehe east bank before crossing back to the west bank at the '
Green River beach access. A parallel trail on the east side ofthe Green River will exist
between S 277t~ St. and Dykstra Park, also providing a connection to Green River Road.
Two bridges are proposed; one south of the new S 277'j' St. and one for the Green. River .
beach access. The trail will end at Aubum Narrows. There may be some technical .
diff[cufties aligning the trail on the east side of the rive"r'from S. 277th Street to the 8th ,
Street NE Bridge. Safety issues will hava to be studied further and adequately addressed'
during iinpfementation of the trail.
Mi1E Creek This Iooped recreational path spurs off the Interurban Trail and will go through the Off-roacl Cyclists
Path Auburn Environmental Park. Pedestrians
Eque.strians,
possibfy
White River The White River Traif runs along the south side of the White. River from Roegner Park to Bicyclists
Trail the eastern edge of Game Farm Park. Future extensions of fhe trail are planned from A Eque.s6ians
Sireet SE to Roegner Park, across the White River via the'future BNSF Railroed Off=road Cyclists
underpass, on the south side of the river witfiin the City of Pacific, and from Game Farm pedestrians
Wildemess Park to sautheast Auburn along the White River.
Williams These recreational trails are intended to use public or quasi-public lands, including utility Bicyclists
Trail corridors. A variety of loop trails may be possible within tliis iarge 'area. Equestrians
' . Off road Cyclists
- Pedestrians
_ Bonneville This east-west trail will extend from Lea Hill to potentially I Street, where it'wi[I connect Bicyclists
Power Trail to West Hill via the 37U' Street NW street ROW. There are topographical and Pedestrians
environmental chailenges that will need to be addressed during the design phase. Equestrians
Academy The portion of Academy Drive from SR 164 to Green Valfey Road is permanently closed Bicyclists
Trail to vehiele traffic. Nowever, it has the potential to be re-opened as a multi-use Pedestrians
recreational trail. Eauestrians
Lakeland This trail connects the growing Lakeland developrnent with Mill Pond Drive and Oravetz Pedestrians
Hills Trail Road. It. is unique in Aubum because it passes directly through a residential
. neighborhood. A significant portion of the trail is already built; future cannections will
allow residents to travef from Oraveiz Road to Lake Tapps Parkway and Sunset Park.
*Refer to Flgure 3-4 for the location of future trail projects.
C.hapter• 3. Non il2otoriZed Tran.rportatiota Page 3-16
* .
c~aF ~ : Comprehensiv.e Transportation Plan
' . A .
--M -~WASNiNGTON •
community activity centers, and transit TR-13: Context and flexibility in balaxzcing
services. Development patterns that block user needs sha11 be considered in the design
d.irect pedestrian access are d.iscouraged. of all projects and if necessary, a deviation
Ample alternatives should . exist to from the. Auburia Engineeritag De.rigiz Standards
accomrnodate non-motoriLed transportation may be granted to ensure the Complete
on arterials, collectors, and local roads. Stteets Objective and supporting policies are
achieved.
OBJECTfVE: , -
COMPLETE STREETS - -
fnsure Auburn.s transportation sysfem is
designed to enable comprehensive, • z~
, fntegrated, safe access for users of alf ages
and abilities inciuding pedestrians, bicyclists,
motorists, transit riders and operators; and truck operators.
.
POLICIES: • . : . e5~ k~~^~~y t i . II . .
TR-9: Plan for and develop a balanced
transporta.tion system, which provides safe `~_:~:r • access and connectivity to transportation
facilities for users. of all ages and abilities
-
including pedestrians; bicyclists, motorists, , Helping those with Specia! Neecls transit users and operators, and truck ,
operators. . OBJECTIVE: TR-10: Plan for, design, and construct all ENVIRONME_NTAL PROTECTION
transporta.tion projects, whether City led or Minimize the environmental irimpacts of ai( new
development driven, to provide appropriate transportation projects and transportation :
accommodarian for bicyclists, pedestrians, related improvements. and transit users in a manner consistent with PoLICIES: the Comprehensive Plan, except in situations where the establishment of such TR-14: Thoroughly evaluate the impacts of
£acilities would be contrary to public health all transportadon- projects and. ' apply
and safety or the eost would -be excessively appropriate mitigation measures in
disproportionate to the need: conformance-with 5EPA, the Critical Areas
COrdinance, and other ciry, county, state, an.d
' TR-11: Ensure the transportation system ` federal regulations..
. riieets the requirements outliried. in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). TR=15:. Identify and corisider . the
environmental. impacts of transporta.tion
TR-12: The Auburn Engineering Dejigra ptojects at the earliest possible time to
Standardr is the pzimary veliicle for executing ensure, planning and decisions reflect
the Complete Streets Objective and should environmental values, to avoid delays later in
include standards for each ' roadway the pxocess, and to reduce or avoid potential
classification to guide implemeritation, problems that may adversely impact the
environment and project outcoine. .
, G'hupterS. X?olicics PageS- 3
TYCI
C Comprehensive Transporfiation Plan
F ' f.• ~.%tN,. i
AI*..R
~4" WASk11NGTON
> .
.
acquiring rhe land needed for a roundabout Transportation planning shall seek to allow
will be considered as a factor in this pedestrians and bicyclists the abiliry to cross .
requirement. or avoid barriers in a manner that is safe and
convenient.
5.3 Non°mOtOi"OZed SySte911 TR-115: Actively seek to acquire land along
O B J E T I V E: PL A N N I i~l G T NE corridors identified for furure trail
iV O N- Ilfl QT OtQ I Z E D SY S T E M development in the Comprehensive
Trasz.rportatzon Plan and Aubu~ Parks,
To plan a. coordinated, intercannected Becreation, & Operz Space Plan 2005 and
network of - non-motorized transpartation subsequent Pazk plans.
facifities that effectively provide access to
TR-116: Schedule, plan and co-sponsor
(ocal and regional destinations, improve
overall quality of life, and support he8lthy events that support recreational wallung and
community and environmental principles. birycling. These events should emphasize their recreational and health values and
POLICLES: introduce people to the transportation
TR-112:1mplement ]and use regulations and capabilities of bicycl'uzg and walking.
encourage site design that promotes non- TR-117: Innprove and protect the non-
-motorized forms of trans ortation. '
, P nnotorized transportation system through
TR-113: Include the role of non-motorized the establishment of level-of-service goals
transportation in all transportation planning, for non-motorized £acilities.
' prograrnming, and if suitable, capital
improvementprojects. OBJECTIVE: DEVELOPING 'i"HE
NON-MOTORIZED SYSTEM
To bui{d a safe, attractive, and inter-
; , . ' connected non-motorized transportation
system.
; . , • POLICIES:
:
TR-118: Develop and maintain the non-
• motorized system, including 'bilie routes, '
walkways and equestrian paths, to encourage
significant recreational use.
TR-119: Develop and maintain the non-
motorized system, including bike routes,
sidewalks, and multi u.se paths in a manner
that promotes non-motorized travel as a
Interurban Trai/ at W Main Street viable mode of transporta.tion.
TR-120: Develop the non-motorized system
TR-114: Pla.n for contitiuous non-motorized to accommodate appropriate altemative
circulation routes wirhin and between forms of non-motorized transport, as well as
. existing, new or redeveloping commercial, medically necessary motorized transport
residential, and industrial developments.
Chupter S. Policie.c Puge S- 15
. crryo.Fr R Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Ali-
WASHINGTON
TR-121: Appxopriate street furniture, pedestrian traffic or potential and are
lighting, signage, and landscaping should be identitfied in this plan. These areas- and
installed along non-motorized routes to streets shall encourage pedestriari travel by
increase safety and to ensure that facilities providing enhanced pedestrian are inviting to usexs. improvements or controls on motorized
TR-122: Clearly sign and mark majox non- trgffic. motorized xoutes to guide travelers and TR-128: Facus investments ori and
unprove safety. aggressively seek funding for the high
TR-Z23• Non-motorized routes shall be priority pedestrian corridors, idenufied in
constructed to accommodate emergency Figure 3-2.
vehicle aceess and be amenable to law TR-129:'Require developeis to incorporate
enforcement. pedestrian facilities into new development
TR-124: .Locate and design non-znotorized and redevelopment in conforrnance with the
transpoxtauon systems so that they Auburn Giry Code.
contribute to die safety, efficrency, TR-130: Continue to construct new and
enjoyment and canvenience of residential rehabilitate existing sidewalks through a neighborhoods. sidewallc improvement program:
TR-125: The development of facilities TR-131 Seek ways to provide. pedestrian
supporting non-motorized transportation amenities such as streetlights, trees, seating
should be provided as a regular elernent of areas, signage, and public art aiong all major .
new constructi.on projects.. Ixnprovements pedestrian travel routes. •
. shall be secured through the development TR-132: Work towar.ds buffering pedestrian
review process. : walkways from moving traffic, particularly in
TR-126: Minunize hazards and obstructions areas ' with high levels of pedestrian
on the ixon-motorized transportation system movements, such as near schools arid
by properly designing, constructing, commereial areas, and along corridoxs with.
managing, and maintaining deszgnated lieavyvehicular traffic. "
routes in the system. TR-133: Pedestrian crossin.gs ' shall be .
O B J E C T( V E: developed at Iocations * with significant
P E D E S T Rl A 1V T RA V E L pedestrian traffic and designed to match
pedestrian desire lines.
_ To enhance and encourage pedestrian travel
in Auburn. TR-134: Encourage the formation of LIDs
to develop: pedestrian pathways and other
POLICIES: non-inotorized amenities throughout the
TR 127: Promote pedestrian travel within City. Partner with the iocal school districts
the city and connections to adjacent to improve Safe Walking Routes to School. communities with emphasis placed on safety ' .
and on connectivity to priority destinations
such as schools, parks, the downtown, and
other pedestrian-oriented areas. Pedestrian- oriented areas are those areas with high Chuptei• S. Pok'sies Pugc 5-16
~ITY aF Comprehensive Transportation Plan
WASHINGTON
O B J E C T I V E' • B I C Y C L E T RAV E L TR-141: Transportarion proj ects, and other
. pub]ic and private projects, in lower-densiry
To improve Auburn's bicyciing netwark. neighborhoods should be evaluated, and
PoLIC1FS: where possible, planned, designed and
TR-135: Develap programs and constru.cted to be compatible witli .
publications, and work with local employers equestrian use.
to encourage citywide bicycle commuting. TR-142: Create an interconnected system of
- TR-136: Designate, develop, and maintain safe equestrian trairs and provide adequate
high prioriry bicycle routes, in conformance equestrian amenities adjacent to dtose trails.
with Figure 3-4, that create an 5s4 Transit Sysgem. , .
interconnected system of bike facilities for
local and regional travel, including on-street O B J E C T[ V E. • T R A N S 1 T
bike routes, and multi-purpose trails. S E RV 1 C E S .
TR-137: During the developmenr review To encourage the continued deveiopment of
process, ensure projects are consistent with public transit systems and ather alternatives
the Non-motorized chapter of the to single occupant vehicle travei, to relieve
Comprehensive Transportation Plan by traffic congestion, to reduce rel.iance on the
requiring right-o£-way ded.ica.rions and orher .automobi{e for personal transportation rteeds, .
improvements as needed. to develop the • t0 improve route coverage and SChedu(it1g,
bicycle network. and to ensure transit is a convenient and
TR-138: Focus investments on and reliabfe mode option for both: loca) and
aggressively seek funding for the high regional trips.
priority future bicycle corridars, idenEified in TR-143: Pa.rtner with WSD4T, 1Vletrn
Figure 3-4. Transit, Pierce Transit, and Sound Transit to
TR-139: Encourage tlie inclusion of aGhieve Aubutn's transit and passenger ra.il
convenient and secure bicycle storage obJectives.
facilities in all large public and private TR-144: Work with local and zegional transit
developments. agencies to serve new and existuig trip
generators in' Auburn, such as colleges,
U B J E C T 1 V E: commercial areas, and community facilities. -
E Q U E S T R 1 A N T RAU E L TR-145: Encourage Sound Transit, Metro.
To improve Auburn's equestrian environment. Transit, and Pierce Txansit to expand transit
POLICIES: ' to underserved areas of Auburn.
. TR-140: Strive to incorporate equestrian TR-146: Partner with WSDOT, .Elmtrak;
. facilities into the design of traal and and Sound Transit to establish an intexcity
transportation faalities, where possible and passenger rail sEop at the Auburn Station.
appropriate. These efforts. should be TR-147: Consider both the transit impacts concentrated south of the White River in an
a the opportunities presented by major
Auburn's southeast corner and in Lea Hill, development proposals when reviewing
but considered for other ateas of the Ciry, development under the Sta.te Environmental
Policy Act
Chaptcr S. Policie.r Page S- 17
C,TYaF *.Y~~; ~Comprehensive Transportation Plan
1~~T
WASt{iNGTON
TR-148: Encourage the inclusion of transit be discouxaged, in conformance with FAA '
facilities in new development when regulations.
appropr.iate. TR-156: The City's zoning. ordinance and
T'R449: Encourage bus stops to be located otlier appropriate regulatory measures shall
at well lit axeas. enforce the airport clear zones as regulated '
TR-150• Work with transit providers and by the Federal Aviation Administration
regional agencies to develop a transit system (FAA)• The impact of development an air
that is fully accessible to pedestrians and the safety slzall be assessed through SEPA
physically challenged, and which integrates review, and appropriate m.itigation measures • .
shall be required by the Ciry. -
the access, safety, and parking requirernents _
of bicyclists. TR=157: Minimize or - eliminate the
TR-151• Idenrify axeas of. concentrated potentially adverse effects of Iight arid glare
transit • ttaffic and impose design and . on the operation of the Auburn Airport.
construction standards that accoinmodate
the unique considerations associated with '
bus travel, such as street geometry and pedestrian linkages. 5.5 Air Transportation
OBJECTIVE: . ~ AIR,TRAN3PORTATI4N To provide an efficient municipal airport, .
serving light general aviation aircraft, as an
integral part of the City's transportation
system. POLICIES:
TR-152: Continue to develop the. Auburn .
' Municipal ' Airport in accordance' with the
Airport Ma.rter Plan.
TR-153: The airport shall be managed as .a .
' general aviarion faciliry; the use of jet
air.crafts and helicopters that crea.te noise
. and land use conflicts sha11 be evaluated, in
conformance wirh FAA regulations. `
TR-154: The siting of new airport faciliries
sliall consider neighborhood. impacts such as _
zncreased noise generated from.~the use of
those facilities.
TR-155: Use of the airport: by non- .
conventional aircraft such as ultra lights shall
ChaiterS. Policier . Puge S- 18
I.. 2
~
- ~
lf 1 n , t
d
o ~ ` ~'r
L
7 771 hlf, ~t _J,~. L
' r 1 ~z9othl~st
~ ~~j9 wI •-t r- . ~ ;~1i~ ~ ~ {
rr_ ~ J ~ ~ ~ ' , , ~ •ti.. ~ 'i, ~ I_` „ ~ ~ . I ~ ~ ;
~ 2Eath St ~a
~ • ^ °
♦ 1 4
20 ~tt~ St 6
( i
f-.`i `
_.8
r 'l
,e \ , U~'•L_ _i L I
- C
~i~
~ ti
, - ze6lnlsc, _
+
~ ' I I ~ f @~`-=-,-~-•.,, ~~•i ~ t
f' 3ocn sc f I - - j> ~"''1 • i_ i~E' ; ~ ~,I;,: I
j!2su, st wg-~-~-.-s~,,
a~`'~tlr; m a
3 30 0~^-i~ 1 ♦ I•~ i
,om ~p - i ^ - " - - = ~ . 4 t y ~•'``1+ ~
j ~ y - ~ ~
~ Ath1 Sf~ I~% ~l~ "4/^ p'', I I
j /I Q ~••~1'~ J~
• ' ~ ~ L_~,~ , a E ZZndlSC
> ;
~
~a ~
" gd I , I a , -
w
~ I
r~• ' I~ I_ _ ¢ -rf
r, r~_--Lc~ ~ill Rtl_"I fJ
isr -
_ Sl
71
~316 h IC. ~ i':°. ~ • II ' ~ I~ . ~ ° _ _ - - . _ _ _ _ - - - ~fr~~_~I,i _ I
9th Sq--
St r~- -
y
_ ~ ~ ~ . ' _ ~ ~ ~in ~~~3rtl~Stl . ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~C~~ - - ~ +:--_~r••~.~~ ;
m
it d._.._.._.._.._.a_.A
-i
~i.~~~ ;
, dRL. sth7s'tl=- L
;~,;--I--~s `~r.: _ r~•.._.._.,_.._. ' ~ _ 'I ~
~
~}r. ~ t
17tnl5t
~ ° ~~i ~~~~o naary~~vZ9~ . - . _ _ •
i ~ l p f if7
i'i ~f%L+ _ 3 c~ ~ ~ ~v..~.:w~
~j~ zr_
U
s 4-~ - - • A ~
I ~ e - , _
~ ~
> 1
a. ~ 4C gi"^
ti `
"
a
Ellinason Rd a
f
~ ~ ~ ' ~ fl ~ ♦
164 ~
~
~ ri ~ I~ j ~ i~ ~ q; ° ~s.
~ f_, ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , i ! ~ ~-1- - ~ - R-- a i'`~,~~
I j`1 f ~ ` ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ a'~~
i4.~
r.-..-u-......-..-..r..-.. • ~..~.uti.........=.....:..............~li. I
. ' ~
/ ~ ~'1' }i ~ ~ ~ , ~ r i I i` •
•.-.._.._.._.._.._.¢~i~7;P
L , ~
! t ~ , scnlsac ; C
_ _ ~
I TI ~ °'tt--' ~ [v~;' S
I 1} ~ t~ - - f~ ~ -i
+ i
~12thSt j
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ti ~aQp ~c D• I' ~ ~ ~ ° ~ 1 ~
17
~ ~ j~ ~ ( Tf y,~ ;~1~~• t ~ti ~
) ` l ~ ~t,~ , ml • y _ _ _i.~ D~",,..~'i ~ ' I
~
f ,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ti~ - - ` 3 ; ,5?~ ~ , f ~ ~ 'r, '
- ~ ~
~ r~' ~r~ _I ~ ~ I'i ~~.1~ 1 r', i _ ~ 'i
~,s;7
~
_ _
, ~ , _ ~
,
,
r
~~~a{~~cu-~a '➢"a-a~aspo~-tatuou~ PGan
Sc9~oo9s - Buke Roaates (C&ass 2 or 3) Exastang Bacyc@e FacuBoties
~-ai9s
Parks 9Via~9t's-19se T~-ai9s (Class '9) anc~ 9~aa9$a-~9se T
0--~-~'S ~ O..a ~rBty ~.V~'9'BBtS
Miles .
~ I Fugaa~-e 3-3
Sources: City of Auburn, King County
fj
ro ~-a--~
c J-T
D ~
~ •N [ ~ f- I '-I I
5,5 vB ~ o-
T ~,i,
~
~
Sfilh vei~
J
~ ~ ~ ! ~r• l _~~y ~ " ~ I
`n m f7 ~ !A
C J,~
' L
9 / { y
0
i'I erracc Dr
V
i ~
~ ► ~ ~ h j ~ ~ t , s ~ ~ , -
l Vallr ~
Y
N a s - .I ~I,_ o~ ~ ~ ~ - t.~. .
0
(f Pacific Ave 72ud Ave
I ►
• ~ ~ ° . - ~ _ ~ J_ _1H SI~LQ Eineraid'DoW~s~fir
I S' J
~si u
.
i ,
B+SI
~ Valley "N...•'7 j~ ,1_~ ~ N.~.. . ~ ~ ..r~~ . o. ~J-,.._
cc~.~o asi~~ - f I~
N (D ~ -
C ~ '"~l
~ W H ~ - ~ i1~I _ ~ . i - ~ ~ ~ I_(; ~ ~ E^ st
m I
e - 'i i E st
_ ~ Q ,1_! I ~5~
' ~1 -I -AuburnIWay
~
~ N~ li1 4e~~ ay ~ ~
~
„ ' I~
N
o
~ y
0
~
~.lSV~,
~ } r
o
Z 1, I ( ~ E
a
~ ~J~~~ ~ f ~ ` E'~~~ ;,~y 1j ~ ~ ~~ary,,, ~r j ~ ~ ,~ej ~ r
oy f`1 ♦ r' I a~~ ~ I' o..m 2 ~
,
~J
C, 11 '
-od
c sr s'~~ ;H st
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I_~~~~_I, ~ ( ~ ' ~ ~ l~ ~ ' ~
Hcmlo~k 5Ul 116thAve T
1
~ 6th AV
m e~ .
I ~i • ~ v. ~ 1 r ~ ym i ,
118
r^ Ave + I N) l ~
iN
~
V
~ti
~ - - 1 - ~ ' . '1!• ~ - ~ -
~.~1
N
/
4,14~;~ ~ ~
1
i
~ ~It =
Fh ~ r
,
~sax ~ i
~St ~ ~ ~ I dy I ~pf. 6' • ~ ~ I ~ ~ II~ ~ ~ ~ >
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M~r - - ~ ~ - ~ _ , • I " ' ~ _ , ~ , , I ~ _ _ ~ '
1 ~ d ( ~ ~ • 1 I~
n /N
n ll ~ ~
~ Cra ~ 4 • I I I • _+A 1, `~°'~a'►J'fl ( '
dr~PJDr
0
~
M, 5t
~ y Oo Y - ~ ~ ~
~ (D 0
:3
R; Sf ~ - ~ .,~N
177i 1 J
Itl '
r ~ ~ ~ ~ •i,
I
- I-~ - ~ _ ~ ~Lj ~ ~ f~, ~ I
-
~a
i-,~-
_
Y j~~ . ,7, :9 4J .i ~ ~ ; r- .A w,•.-' ,A'M r.4. ~ -~,~~t~.-----
~ti . (I ii t 5.'4 .ill) a~ '~`a~ 6',~~ { ..,C . ~ ~"y • , F_.. . ~ .ip . ~„t+d'~'~~ G l~. .1~;. ~i!~:. ~ -
. ~ ~
~11 ~~'M. Y :;b~ k~~~ ~~y • : ..f ~I; ~ ~1~~74',"i ~i' ~ . - i
,E . '1~Nni ;YA,, , + . + k. x~F,y 1 r --7' r!. a~- ,,kw, ~ ~•3 ~t,~~'~ ~l ~ ~ 'F' 1 ; • .
~ j~i'4~ A 'l! l~~r~ tF. '~i~ ~ ~a;,,,`! r`W4 ~i ! 'iT~ - . ~ , a . ~ I' , 1 ; I •i
. ~
i Yt ~~~r~ y .~~-rt~~ ~ , I~. .,l ~ j• '7'' ~ ~ IF.ll.,~,
'M~a ~I ~~I.~~ ~A ~ '~V.. 1 R ~,~uL,'' ..Jt. ..k'^Jh f:'~.n . ~ ~ ~ .J I ~ „f1 i ~ '.•vr I f ' i ~4 1''q~.~~
, , • 5~' {
y ;i~
+ ~ ~ k . pl ~ ~ V ~ i . ~yl~-- ~ . ~.I,
~C.yL~ y .yl•i ;e'4 ,a• .a i r t
~ ~~',~.•w~~:, ~''atiR+ 'r'~'#~ + ' ' ~1~~+~ ~ f~ - ~ ~ g~ . ' " 1L=~~ ~ j i ~ t> i ~
. ` ~1,p ~ !'4~'(~ i~,'1~~•' .(U-i~. ~ ~r a V4jf~ar~ ` , k.~. f~: ~'R' . .VI~ ✓ ~ ~ , '.pd.'1 '~'`171
. k }a~;2•~1'1~, 'd'*I~~~ t}~l~'.''l;r".~ ~,t..~.,i,; -.t71~,,, .{..1,. .~F•"1~' ~:i. i~ SS'"b~'9 t. :~.4. ~`A;.~~~ "~r:~-.. ~ ~ t~ t ~ . i~j
,
~
yi ;~k, • ,~'l
r ~ ~ `.R f, a' I i~•
~
~1 . )~~i' ~y1 L, .4 f,~~ . 'i~ i~i.~~~V.~ d~•.; ~~S~S.: ~i n
a r
t
1. . ~
i~~
'19a~. 1S, ~r. . 'rli' t°, +N; i °l~ , i ~ ~,i q•. ..X.~ ''L,',j + " ~3. 7. r ~~•;f~ i'~" 'JS.` ~ ~ '1~
(V r'V :l'+~ u ~f~ I~ ` y~i, I I ~ I~~'L i. , ' t ~i :~i ~ ~ • 4 ~ ~ ~ { Y ~ a,lY.';- . ~ .A ~ S 1~~ .r,,.
Sr ~4t t i~l-1~ f~ ~-~~4 r ~ . ~ ~l" ! pf~i.' ~,'~r I ~ I ~,'I~~~1 ~.~`:S `t~.h;~ I S ~r.~l~.~~:~ ~..y~,y~4' ,
C ° f ~4'r~ i I . r ~ i~~~ 7~~~~~ . ~ ~ y ~ i~ 1 i ~ p ~~•1 - ?b i - .
4r1~~
~ r~T
'So~ ir ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ ' ~
'}"I , • ~ ~~2 ~ ~~~IY7~~~~~b~~k~~~~' fi li.` ~ ~Q ~q~~,5
,
4~ P ~
t~. , r . ~ ~ If~~' ~3~ M~' 'j .i ,y ~ ~7,'; i ; i.~ ~ a • '~r ~ ~I~. ~ ~~~'.i ~ t'~ ~'!+1' ~IRQ1~A
~ i~r I ; ~I 1 . ~ ~Y ~ i 5 d.~' i t~ ~~j~ ~i~ 7.. ~.z ~~,.~~i,.:• ~ ~a ~ v4,
111 ~s
i y/ ! .r+Fd$: ~~~i~~, ~~t., ~V~~~P ~ t d~:.n{~. r.~, 4~1, :41~+"'~a ~ ~ ~ y~ '•'~litq~ z ".1~
~ r ~ ~tfq~Y~~r~lf+'~: ~ ~C ~ ~l'i i. f ~Il~r~l~„L/~d,•~~ ~ L~] ~'~!'F'~r. ti. it-t,~Mi4 ~ ' p~ '~i ,lt"~; 4 ~ ~t~~~• -
~ k ~r w , r.,~ ~ : , , , r~r ~
Qf l~ci? .'r_l+,~~'~ k•~ ~ ~3 ~;i.yv~~ i~, ;j,~~ 'a~ ,F•:ity w~;'t1 4~:'il~;
V i' I ~ . 'V ~ . ~ ~ A.~S~ y..,. ~~'r ~~~Y1 ti ~ . - 1. , <x~ l~~~ V. „~p . i. ~ ~a~ + _
~ 1 • ~ . ~ d: ~e ~ ~ ~ t~ 'Y `
~ ~ _ ~4~ r ~ ~l~ ~ ~tn A ~1 ' ' "~a .
"Mms t u ;r;ti .0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~il ~tfil~(~ i
~ "j,
,i,
~..a~
~ k , . . ~ g~ K „i . 1 ~ ~~~tFJ~h i - ~ ~'I ~ e, 1 i-~. iP ..~~It~~P~~. ~~'~f' ~ „t ~ n ~'I
+ 4
bma,
(o _ , ~ _ 0~~9-~,w ~ .g:.r~ ,ix-, F~,i. ~ I ~•1 15,,. '°,S't~ „~~1 ~ ? . ~I~~, ~
. 1. .i~ a.~'w ~i~. l~( ~ d~~,,-~+-F~-~~,~ti~~kla,:~.'It.,' •1~ `~.~i {~~~IS" ~.ii~. P ~ ( .i,~ ~;S ~ _ 1~
~
. As
~ -
~ '~a w~~~~ wr''if~ `,i ~ "i~ ~~:y~'i~ ,t'~i;r~li i., ~i~~•~~~,~1 wt~.i~''~' ~a~~~ ~:~~~,~t~;~Y w- •r "t t ~~y~`:n ~
h~ _ . ~ ~"~A - . ~~i;; ~ . j, . .N. ~ ~r . .i, •"'.i. 1 4~" ~ ~ . l; ~ ~
, j
f ~ fl
i I~ i - e
;.i' 1 i ~ i i. ~t.~. ~~'~~}i~ ~ ~~,~~t`~ ii' . w,-, f i..,µ';,~ ; 7~iF~ f ~ i ~~1~ •i~~,7 .
( .
1
' , . . . s , k a ~ ~ : fi f' f R ~ i•~ ~ , t: ~ ,-.i ; I ~ i.,,~
'
~
1... ~ ,,r .J_ I i. ,y . ~c . 4 t •r, ~;I. i t ^-r~. tl ~ ~
,r~t^ I i I i' r~ i'~' t. e ~ - ! 1 r13'!: ~ ''Y~. 1' ~it~ ~ s
; ' i; } ~J`~c 1 !lf; i III . A ~i . ~~I . ~ ~ 'a, A ~ r q~~ '*t , ~ i ~i
~~r'~ v. .a~'..4 ~{:..11° '.~~1 , 1k 'c; ~ r~ly: ..~6~. r'• ..f_-t, i l, . i~ y~~. ',I ~~i }~l,~W c~ + ~ ' f.
,
o f i ~~~~j.~ ~ ;1~'P '7'~~y ~A '~,A, . I '1, I v ~ ~ ~1. ~Y:~ .r 4. 5~..,~ . - r~~!'tl .1 I+-~~ 1~ ~r31 ,t~(..Y -~l !Fa
~
~
V . t I~, i+~. ~~}W~ ~ 4 P~ '1. 1 . , r ~ i~:'r~ ~~.~r .i .
` . - •1 I'f`,
.
I
, ~ ' i 1~, ~ ~ h'+iC, ~ ~~~~:a ~ ~ ~ {~~?s{'~ ~"S~i~ ' e1~`~v ~ _ ri ...:~e~'~
• ~ ~ . _
~
. . IY ,I:.~ :O ~ ~Y•4 A~~ ~i
~'j''
..y~~
O . s,s"~ ,Q~i~~~ ~Js~.,. ~ _ 2?~~, f @+:,.~~1 '1 ~7!~_ ~ y~ . ~ a~ . -
~
L' 1.7,
It_ ~;j~~ ~ ' ~ jK'~ 1""y~~.w f~i^~il . ~r j - . !'4•0 , r I '
~ - t_,'~ ..1~ i ~.Fh ~•j;~ I - ~ _ ';4 t . 1~~;(~Y .!~c~an.r! . , !.,+al" il; ~ ~i"!~' ~ -
• . . ~
A~~
. ~ i' ~ ~J~ ~ ;r r ~1 .i.,,~~~ ~~~.~~H, '!SA'~ t ~ ~
~ .,v : r . ' `ti ._~1y ~~'7'~ ~ R~ g~~e 4~ ~i .
~1, ~j. ~ I'~ t~~ ~ j~~ ~j~ ~ l i • t ~~~~1~ t.1~ r ~ u-
~ ~ '~~~f ~ ~ p i-~ fi'~ .i ~ ti " ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i
0'M
t~ t,
;~-Y ~ s ~~'v~~~~..L M1 q+.. no-~~j~ r ~ ~ !~,'1.~6~.~
I - -~`a'i~ 4, ~ •,I y "~S'~J~~~i~ ~e ik - ~ 5~,~ '~I ~ ,.~,1~, 111~ Y~, f ~ y~~' ~ 'iPri,
~ Iu~' z -~FZ ~I71 f • . d`i ' .:r .~~.~i ~ h~q4.r: ~7 ~ql~, ~'d..1 Yr1 ~~~'r~ ~p ..i.. ~ ' u , t~.~~ 'ti ~
~la~.~,~.~
a ti}r~~f~1~ ~
~f
Y~~~
.i~ ~4 ':~:~j~'~~ z°~~ .~Sn 3~.\.~ Siic
~I .~i1~ ~ . 1~~ F~.i,FF 1~~'~ti ~ ( ( , 5~•l~ iY ^r~, .,N` ~ ~~I,. ,I .Y~, ,f''f`` f~~~~.~'~ :f r ~ ~ `3 p ! 1
r '.:i ,i ~ q ~r ~{1~.~.ir~Yl"n , .n~ll . ~'~~I~~',~~ 1 ~'I~u1~{i~ M .'•C. tk•. _w,~~ ,4~ II?• ";~,','~A' 4, ~7~) ~ i'~ ~ f.~
u
--U.~: :4 i'r ~ ,!i I ~ ~x~ 1~ r; ~3~ ~t~ i +r h'' ,,~N y}~ ' ~ r •wr M1,
4t'
~k i~'~~• ~.r tiB F. T.~ ~ f i~ ~i~ tl{~~~ ~ r~ ti I , O
' ~ ~3' 1u-ia,L a ~ .•.T'~..' ,j), ti~ rox, e r•
~~~-+s+
: .i iT
~
\
Bicycle Task Force Improvement Priorities - Bicycle Routes and Trails P`="lld °~a1`''"'/1 C
.
i
~ ~T rt ~ . ' . yy,da~,•t ~-~1 ~ee - .y, ' i7~ T~f~ . - .
yJ
T . ~i . _ ~,,j"~~ 'y~'
if JR . ~ ~ : _ ~ ~ r ,~'-qs. L 7S` • ~ .r::
.
, t' ~-M''l _ _ ~i~
~ ~ k.. ~ i `g~~ "'Y= \ r,.~~' ' ~_w.ar - yp$,. - - u ` ~ ~j ' ~
-7 N~ A~
1
z`~~~
-~.-v ' y _~r, ~1`. 1 ~ ~.i.~ _ . _ _ _ - ~S% "~'r?4-"s. ..~"'J -~..3►~~ ' ~'T.~y .,~w'"~. -
~ ~ }d~. ~ ~ ~ - ~ . i ' ? ~ _ . ~ ~ r ~ r. 1 ,i.: r~. r` ' . ' ~~'~1
. . i • ~ ~ y ~ ~ .r- ~ii ~ = . - 1}; ~ , . `'4 ~ ~ r , r.~~rf.3'~
`
►ti i_ ~ ----y ~A . r T _ _`,.?+'c._'.
. , r, ~ ■ b ~ ` 4 - ~ - ~ '~~`rr i. Fe~ ~ , ja
~~Y ; _
~i~9d7R~... _ { k~. ~ `~`~'^~•j ' . ~~'~:.~!"~,~L_ _ 'f.~ . ' IC ~ ~-Q~
r 'y
- F e f•.,~,~it . , i ~ ~ o^ a.~~y "Y . ° ~ ' _ - - _ 1. { ~ -
~ w ~ ~,r ~ • ~ . _ - . ~ ~ ` L- Z .
A
ti ~ ~c - ~ _,r, ~~.j,.c y t ..T._ 1,~ . irrH! ~ ~ `R~~ ,i•` ~ ~ g -
14
. ~ _
i~e_,,
.r.. ~.u J,~ r _ ' ~ _ - - ~ ' 1 - ~
:
. ~
. . . . ' ' ~
. . . .
a: ':~e-.. n~-}•.'°;e,•.¢r - A+ , 1. ' ~ . ' - . _
_ . . -
F -
• , . , - - - i' _ ~.F
~ ~ '1~?'~l• - ~;~~a~ ; , . ; . 167 r- _ _ . -
g,~.cr„-; ~ c ~e . - { - i - ~ f 7 ~ • ~ - ~ Y . " 8`
~.a.~
- - _ ^ ~ _ _ _ . - ' ~i- - e _-s ~ ~ • -
`.J ~ b.-F~~. ' 7 y Y :L - ~ ~ _r~ ~ - .
ii Y. / : - .T S .1 ~ ^ S ~+Z. 'C ~ . 3wY~ ~ _ .
. '
t• ' f Y{'ti~ ~
° ~f~ ~ 'Su, . ^~'~....an. • y - . - . r . ~ - t ` _ _ . • -
s.
-
~ s .
7~1
• r~, ~ >
i x'`z , ~ ~~i~~ a,~.; p, ~ ~ - ~ ~.a~-; ~ - -
~ . _ . c . . _ a:. ~~4 _
~ : ~4;
~.a i,
'+s IL- e •c - _ ~r. . ' ,
~;~r~~ ~ Z"K'_ ¢0a~ ~t c~~ r ~
~ . ~ ` "'M::r ~ r • ~ - ~ X" _ t~ ~?7 < ~ ~1r~pr '''.:c ~•~1 ` ~ . " ~ ~c
'sT ~`~n. . _ - I J~3 . ~ . ,^J~t' v~r~ ~S~ - 1O• -
. _ . . . ~ . ,
. ' ri. . _ .
.
+
r }..G~ ,i_ ~ . ;r;^r _ _ ~s"' ~ ~•~1 { r , ~'~s.,, , .
. F ^w•s3~~ - ~ 4 . 1
r
. . . . •T'- . 'e~.. . _ 1
4 ^i K .,.r. _ . . .
1.
. . . . . ~R' i. . . ,
.
. . _ . . .
. ~ ~ ~t Y~ ~ : c " '.~s.-~ ~y -s, • - - Tc'~ 1~t ~
r;ii/ .
~.~1~_
y ~
I y sr-~• ~ ~ ~ . . . - I w . .
. i 2~• 1O
y~ ~V
_ f ~ ~ tU ~
1 ~1t i. ~ ~ ` ~r . _ ir Y.i Y ~~fi~ '',yJ ey r. ~il -'r'' ~d Y• _ 17
y
z' F ,s
.A5.:7~ii ~ e~ - 4 't~'~ t - ; % 1 ~y .r
: r~w Yy J~ ~ - . . ~e -z-~'. - 's - - ~ ~ . -ti,~ • a ~ , . .yt{, ~ ! ly - .
. ~^1~-'' ~ - ~ - - ~ _ ~ x~-. :y, . m . ~"-Y ~LC• r~. «r- Yz~-~:-,p ' .
I -'~;~i:;\^~~'f! ~^W 3. '7 G _ F.it~ ~ - s'~~ ,T1~F. ~,}~~t'~'.~d~`. -
~-r`~ TMl~ ~ - - - ~+d~.,t ~'1 , ~ ~ ♦ ~ _ _ .1.~-. ~
ff' 'L'
ti+
• 6'-
~ . ~
1 . .
r_
. a... -Y
. y~~+y~ " ` s~[ „s.~.y'fa~j - j ~•i-ar~.. _ . - . "y
K!'9 ~ 7; 4
~ - Jvj j...' ~ ~ i~`~ p .s'3wi~ ~ t • . ~ ''4-'~ir~ ~s*-M` f ~ . ..~.s -
bt .
~ /
j,~
-
-A:.ti~
•qr~J . r~. 't" , . -d'~d.'_ r" ''r~r f' . ~ y ~ R_
• ~T + . -
. ..I ~T.-_ :.r
I~+R• .
.
~
S~ --,nf .r i~R: ~r ~,~~,~+~y.r~ ~ i~~ - ~4. ~ ~ r ~w~ ~ • ~ ~yi . ~ - ~ ~'~s~'~y~--,~.. -
,4,, ~ ~I' ' "W 1 ~~~!fi _ I, 1 ~ ' ~t _ / .iG: . ~ . r+r-
t~ ~ t "i , ~ r _ ~ {'s~ _ . • _ -J -
~z}.~-~r. ~ ~ ::3 . A ~ ~5~~ _ ~ ♦
167
~ A
~/'11,. `r y ~ P y. ~ a, r _ ._r .~~y .
~,y • ~ ~ rE~- O ♦ . ..~$,,.~x . F - 11 ~ ~ „y . J~r . - L`{' . L3 -
~ ~.'t n~ ~ F?~~ ~~G"t~~ . ~ "
~ •c% t"" ~ ..a7.r
7 ~ 4:rg
~ .rlf~P5^1SY~'Y.• 4
. r • i . ~~~,,,'~r y-~'"' ~ ~ " +~r ~ ~ ~`,L~~+.~' ' y .
~ , tF~ '~r. _ ~ -..~.4: ~ • -yfi,~ `'sfw. _ , t~. . sn+s~r_~ -
~ _ ~ . ~ -i+'' ' ~ \ ""i1 _ ~
~ _ . -7~l~'~y~ a _ - "ti''~F.'^-x.,+r'` - ~ -
i., - _
T,<k i-or-ce Route s by Street Ciassfication
Arterial
~ 1 • ~ ~ ~ ; a;t~ ~ - y~ - ~ - -
A~~~
" Local
; •p~a ~ u
~ , t ~ ~l,' . T -8' ~s•1. - - r i - '
Non Residential Colledor
4Vk
"4~ ,a ~
Residential Colledor
SChools , . 4W . C o -i--
. .t :IT
. _ - `r~ ~ _ _ , ~ ~ 4 =~6:`
~ - ~ Aubum City Limits
rn Pr c i~
~ l ~ , . .t- ~ --~i ~ K k~ ` . ~•y_ .
0 1,000 2.000 OGO 4.000 5.000 ~ . " ~ ' ~ .°.-.-W - s~-
`
FEE~1'
r
~ informabon shown u ior ?cncral reference purposes ~f x I,~~ ` F`. ru~. ~t ` ! . ~Y~~}t :."i x- ' ~ - 3 ~ - ~ ~ . ~ ~•~s . X~~ - - ^ .
orly and ~oe~ not n . anl y r p e~t •a t ' - ~ - - " . ~ - - '~E ~ ~'7r~•
~ ~ . . ~ - . . , _ ~ ~ .
9ro^ ir c
Y/$y
,:t
,
, tAHIBIT 4
r
,
AUBURN BICYCLE TASK FORCE
KEY P41NTS FROM JULY 7, 2010 MEETING
interurban Trail Recommendations:
■ Flashing lights at key intersection crossings:
0 15th St NW
o Su~ermall
0 37' Street
o West Main
■ Improved maintenance and operation - vegetation management, asphalt repair
■ Permanent bathroom facility/water station at West Main Street/Interurban Trail
■ 20 parking spaces (non-gravel) at West Main Street/Interurban Trail
■ Information kiasks at enterlexit points into City containing:
0 3 types of bicycle maps - family ariented riding, commuter oriented riding,
recreational oriented riding -
o Sponsoring business advertisements
■ Informational kiosks could be built as class praject in partnership with Auburn School
District, Green River CommunitY C
olfe9e and Iocal businesses
Economic Development Recommendations:
■ Develop Sounder Station as "starting paint" for Cascade Bicycle Club rides
■ Rally Aubur.n Downtown Association and Auburn Tourism Board to develop business
support for bicycle riders/create bike-friendly businesses
■ City bicycle maps should be developed to provide business advertisement
opportunities
■ Create perception of Auburn as "Bicycle City of South King County"
■ Use_social media to advertise Auburn as bicycle friendly community
■ Greate bicycle signage program - similar to City of Berkeley - that directs bikers to
bike friendly businesses in downtown Auburn; offer businesses opportunity to pay for
space on signs as way to offset cost of signs
■ Connect with different types bicycle organizations about bicycling opportunities in
Auburn including Tacoma Wheelers, Washington Mauntain Biking Association
■ Establish annual bike event in Auburn similar to Redmond Criterium, Enumclaw
Days or Cyclocross that offer time trials, road races and multip[e terrain racing
■ Tie in with racing events at Pacific Raceway
■ Develop annual road race on Auburn streets - work with pramoters to have different
levels of road racing to appeal to multiple types of riders
■ Cyclocross - major event that draws riders from all over Pacific Northwest,
California, etc. Multiple venue opportunities needed - could include Emerald Downs,
GRCC, Auburn Streets, Game Farm Park
` .
. , ~
,
~
IMM ~
~
LU
. . - ~ f~".~% i'~.✓^° .~n . .
°~0. / ~ _ ~
. ~ . crry OF
. , `~aW." .:,c,"r ' ~p`,v✓"
WASHINGTON
.
~
B ~ y'Datily e
i ~ i l'i
1; r% s
■
~
Firactices v
Auburn Bicycle Task Force
J n 9 20 10
1
• Bidce Boxes provide a place for cyclists to wait for lights to change in front of vehicles.
~ Bike Dots are pavement markings for signed bicycle routes. Unlike sharrows, bicycle dots
are not intended to provide guidance on bicycle positioning but are a tool to provide way
finding,
• BuffereclBike Lanes provide a striped cross-hatched area between bicyclists and motor
vehicles.
• Con$raflow Lanes provide bicycle lanes headed in the opposite direction of motor vehicles
on a one-way street where there is no parki.ng. Usually separated by delineators and marked with signage • On-Street Bike Parking are put in piace of public car parking spaces in locations where
bicycle parking demand exceeds existing supply of sidewalk-mounted bicycle parking.
Each installation will take the space of one or two car parking stalls, which will then be
surrounded by barriers and filled with bicycle racks. Bicyclists may enter the parking stall
from the sidewalk. Ideal locations for new installations are where rnore bike parking is
needed and will be used; Where there is already on-street parking and perhaps aturb
bulb; and, far enough away from bus stops:
~ Sharnows also known as shared lane markings, are on-street legends that reinforce the
existing rules of the road. They are not separate bike lanes: a rnotorist can still drive over
the sharrows. Motorists should expect to see and share the lane with bicyclists. Sharrows
indicate to bicyclists the best place to ride in the lane. Sharrows are typically used in
locations where the roadway width is not adequate to provide dedicated bike facilities or on
downhill lanes where bicyclists rnight travel s similar speed as- mo.tor vehicles.
~ Trafffic Loop Detector is a pavement marking .designates the Iocation of a loop detector
under the pavernent. Bicycfists :positioned on these detectors will firigger the traffic signal.
, . 2
ummary of Thoroughfare
ropriate ocycle. Fa d 11ties
~ditianal FWli~
Yhoroug~far~ Type Appropriate Bikeway Fatiiibes ~
81'cye-le Path Shoulder
SOO Shaned Roadway, BitycIe'BouleYard sttar~ow
Drive Bicycle P6, Bic* Lane~ Shared fRoacway SharrowF ShOulder, ficycle Box
Avenu~ B'Icycle tane, S-hared ff~O'ad'my ~hglrrow, gicycle, gox
huIev~~~ ~i.eydo-Lone; Shared RoadW4(SIip lan~~) Shw* Bioycle Box.
Hi~lhay Bic~~~~P& (sepA rate. d ghf.4"Way) .
. Source: Mike Lydon, founding Principal of the Street Plans Collaborative 3
S,harrows -
Seattle, W.- A
4-4 .W.».~....... .
~ .
~ . . . . . r
SI18roO TtGYOI SI~I'Bd~TrAMM91 F~erf~eg
a L
lBne LarM larte
.
. C
*
,
.
{ ~ 1: t-
~ , i . . • . .
~ f S r
t i
x.
i
~'4"R k ~ - . ~ , ~'i'a' . • 1 f _ ~ _ . ,m~'.A.
. ~ j R F • ~ . ! ~ , ` r~ '§s'.y w;. _
r~ . i., l t . . J ~ ~ ,d. ~ ha~~ ~v , ~~R: ~
.
, F
• , ~
~ . ~ . . A
!
i '
. , '
. ~
.
. ~f i@
.
~ qs ~ F E i
~r Yh
. _ . 3 ~ _ ._.e . ~ ~ .
4
, ~ t ~ . . . V / .
1 ,
. ~ ~v R• ~ "$y y.
Tx
g #
3 3 ~ t,~a 4;'
. 1 .j; . . . . -
- {
g
} y
~
f , ' 1 . 'C- ~ i -.a,„ { ~ z . . .
ai i t =
2w ~
t
~
ey,
~
r%
w ; ~
fi. } ~ i .
~u. ~ w~ 4^
My~'
i ~ • i .h ~ ~ ~ :t ~
''a t
. .
.
r . ~ .
.
. ~
i
• Y~ K„~. a r~-, .
t
I ~ • q x
~ -i ~ 4 .Y . 1 6 . Y s.~y }a ~ 44` ~ -q •4 ~ , ~ ~ ,
Ws,
r
t tr
y~
3'.. ,~1~'~t# 3 7 _ 3
t q
C3 r I
f f ~
~
~ ' . ~ hE t
~ F~ Y ~ ~ ~t ~ ~Y YS-~„sy~:' • 1~~„' k,~
~ ay
~~~~g
4~I -~,~a~ p a~ µ
. ~Y ~ J i +.C✓' R¢~"" ~2 a y ~41 ~M,~e~'~` . _ .
. :Vy .'~.X ~ 4.~` ~ ~ y f a ~-r,J •
4~ 9 3 t F ,p • - ~
R x1 ~q~
~ . ~ ~ . `~y •4 x G` ~ bp.~ ~.~t"~,-
~ ~ t ' ~i . e" ~ ~ \ : c`~ • ~
' L~ s~; .~~f 1 ~ • _ ° ~ ~ Kt
~
~ ' ` n . F • ~ . .
Y P i ~"t
, •
'_~~1'
1 v i ¥5*s ~7'1 *1 r " O.p
* ' p
' ^ r~ ' i
+ . 4
, ~ ~ ~ i i`s ` S~ 1' ' ~ r .
S~ ~ 8 ~ e~r'.•x~ z
~ •
~ ' ,.m~:ar'~ .tP; .°y ~ ,8~, ~~f~~ Z•.
- Ek+o ~ F 0 `i
t • ~ ~ . . ~ K ' . ~ : ~ f
. ~'s,;.~t r ` ~ • ~~1 ,'S ~4~',~~, t 50,.34~ .
~ f
ti
~
~
. ..LA~
` m m d ;3. f~ .~~I
tl ~ . 3
o'h ~ ~ ~,d 3 ~ ~~p c'~ Q .
y V r~ ~ i ~
. ' `
, • . , . .
' _ ~ . . , t . ✓ . I .
1. ~ .y e } 4 ~o
I. . ~;R
n'.'. • ~ ~ . ` .t~ ~Y ~ ' . q ~ ~ .
v ''S,~ . ~ ~ . . t' . _ ' , . '
5
6t ~•~Lry` ,~n ~ .
C ~ 4
~ y -
_ . . . . . ~
~ .
~
ffl~
r
4
fr
~ y~.•' ~
. ~1' ~ ~~~3 k~•~~
. - n « • . . , .
. " i . ~ ~ .
e r
~ .
. PA,
' . .
' . A . . . ' : . ~ . . ' i
r , r 7
. _ , ~ y~
' t R ~ • j- ~ - . , . ` ~ _ ~ s. ~ :
. . ~ ~ . { ;t .
$ '
. r . - .
. . . ~ ~ - . . a: . ~
,
' fk °
. . . . ~ ' . '
. i. . : ' ° a .
~ ~ , . . . , - ~ . .
~
7
. . ' _ ' . ; . . .
. . . , " . . . . . ~ - ~ ' V .
~
~ -
f ~
Seattle, . . .
.
i - . . _ ~ . . . . 4
~ . . . . - _ . . r
r~',j~~ ~ e . . „ . ' ~ . . . , . . . _ . _ - ~ . . ~ .
,
~
. ~ " ' ' . ~ . . . ~
s
y p ~
WAa1A
.
~:ma
~ ~ . $ '
r ~
• , st - - ~ ; . ~ ,
.
~
.
,
;
7
.
- ~ _ cs• e ~ ~ m~
r
~d
3
, e .
. 9
• i -Y.` ffi J, T'- ~~^^jr -•Qf•_~.:"~="•.w
^e ~id
a
w*,
`l
~ [ . 1.
~
L=z
~
c
4~t''
~ t~ ~ ~ ~f ~ s~' ` °~z
7a" ~
~A
~ $ 1
. ~ ~ 0 {(F~ ~b ? ~ ~ $ ~ i~ •
k~
i Jy`p~p
x~
~ •yf e Pg ` y~, ~ ' ~ ~ ~C~j ~ ~ r ~ ~~f`~'h
, . ~
A
~ a l j t
,
40 1 Y,'
■ ~ ~i~.~-~ r. '
u ~
r
. ~ ,
. ~
Cl)
j
.
:.,a~ •
.
~",7!! @
i `
f
.Ad
. ~6 ~ti::. :a - .
i
~ . • ,
.
y e
AMbk
. ~ i:~'*'~~ '0' ' .
1.
~ 4 a~ o
a
,
I ~
. ~
r f
,
~ .
x
_
V ~
3• l~
c e
~ ~ . 9.' ~ t •
~ S o{ ( x . ~ •"D '
B■
' e Lane Portland, OR
, . _ . .
~
~
,
aA
. { q
- ~ +
~
.
- ~ 7~r~,.. c. .Y •iw -
,,y ' x~-F • .
7.7 : x
: , . . . •y'~ • ~ . \;i :
~ y
.Y
t;
r.
~
~
12
~ Sho.p by iBucket - Portland,
OR~...'~~""
,a # _ { . ,y • _
/.4'•• 4 s . •
tt-
~ +
~'~6 •~v."w ~q,.ax."~ . ~a+~
. . - c.~ . ~ . .
* ~AV
. s~r' _ ~~~,>"t'• ~ .
s
~ ~ , ty':
r ~
x~
• ~ p a " /ry~~~µ~~~ ~ ~,~~~~j~~ ~I~~` .
+f
~
13
Shared Car/Blke Lane - Portlan ~ R
$ a
.
.
. & r, - ;«a} r:,..N~ ~ i' r'~ ..r'
k~ „~tg.,,..r
>s 4 ~1 } ~ 't~.
s 7 ~ u s ~ -^---~.,a e t ~ .d ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ '+~",aS. 1t e x s ' s,;° 'm ~ ~a~ }.q ~r + Y . E ~ i "~`~2
* 0~.~~ M~+t~
_ s
a re
e,«~° ~ ~y~r y,tX~ 'zI.,~
G, s f
t
1ati~~~`~sa'C~~ `~."rtt~°-~~~ ~~~ri~~~.~.,~.,.,~
o& : c L.
rg ~,~Z ~~j~° ' • ~ . ~ ._:_t
.1~
14
■
~
Colored Bike Lane - Portlandi f
~
rt6
a .t
-
I
. *
, .
. ~
.
, .
a...~ ~ - . _ ~
_t
~
fi 1 A~ - a ~ , ~ sT4
15
Bike
Bicycle Corral On=Stree.t
Parking Portland, OR
+
1 t
"
i nY a~
.
.
e ~
. ' .
Fi
~ : . , e ~ ' ' , '~y°^ ti'"` . , 4 , ~ $ • .~i _ _ .
. 1 # } m
~;~i~=`~-',~'•---_..~^~`-~"'~ ~ , ' ~ z~ '
s An ~ .
i
y ~ ~ jt - ♦ _ _ P
' G c +1~ _ r"S c' {
k,~ e
~ . :
. y{,-f p ~ ai- ~"n~ .
O
~
~ a.
s h °
i
'r . a
. . . =t , J°ir.._ '
- 16
, OR
Sp 0-kane St. Bike Blvd, - _ _ I
~t!
3
, . . . .
I -
- wrM*." .
~
, 17
,
Affit3ike Lane ~ Intersection.,- I
. ~ ' . . E . ~ .
{
4
OR~"""~,f
.
~
~ - . . , ' . . . , . .,~wat"'~ M r`~•~~ ~ .
.
.
. ~'r~ ~ i~ - .
.
. ~ : .r .
.,r~- - .
. ,
~ .
~ _ ~ > . .
_ 18
r
.
Bike~- _
Retrofit, , i 1'~- : - ~ OR
~~~ORE
~ ~ .
3.6 m 3.6 m 3.6m 3,6 R~
'(12 (12 (12
AFTER
-1.8 'm 3.6 m 3.6 hi 3.6 ~i 1~9 ~
(6 ft). ` (12 ft) (12 ft) (12 ft) (6.ft)-
. . 19
/
NE Blv W Track Pr posaI Cully Cycle Portla.n 9 R
a~
3 - . _ . . . . . . , . . . :y: ..x
g
. a - . , .
. _ . . . f . ~ . . '3. y_..
i _ 0,~ . f . t_,..., - . o, .....:,p.. S
~rf.±'w~+M, .~n _ ~ ~~~'RS~"~ . . .-r_N.,.. . . . w.✓'•v~ !~'1 . O
' it~(3l1T OF 4~l~AY WTTH tYCLE TW~CK AC~10 ~RKING
C7
r.~c, r!!, sr..s r V. a
,
,
" • a~
, s
:
w,
. . . . _ . . .
- • . - - _ ~ - y, _ .
. • ,
. r~ ~ ~i •`74~ "13r
7 r,.,• . ~
/.P~~ v ` • hi` ~ ~~t' ~ ~ T~ D 'f:
:
. .
20
. - , . . ; • ~ . .r , ~
Bike Si,gnage- Berkeley, CA
.
r ~
. •e. .f~1 .
,
ara
'
, , , ~ C! (s
.
g • r , 4 p~~ C$ ~ ~:t { ~ ; ~ :!3 • ~ W,3 ~e - ~ . . . ~ .
. Mll,
~
.
. .
.
I
,
. +s~ .
.
.
'er+ms~r;s~Rakr. - - r~.St
-
ri1~5:f:L5
,
~ ~ ~ , . r'~.. i:AtlF`Q11tfiG•KltLG y..
. ~ .
I
~
.p . y. . - •.ir f •
~3~b...~ _ ~ ~ ~ ° a• a ~
21 .
■
bike uBerkeley, CA
,
g
,e .
~ •
. ,
~
~
a~ ~r
.
,
~
.9 ~ j%-
~~af ~ "._9 ~e t ~ 1 .ry~r # y ~ .
7.~
"-s~ 4 ,`r:a ~'~43Zz: '-s ~k ,.~7~
-
F ~r
~ i? ' ~Nr?+". -~,,f° _ '?Y ra ~ ~„~e5 .A~ ?~a ~
,«-•h - °~~'~`4~ ~3"'~ G~~w~,-~~ ~rt y, ~ ~ ~ ~,`y t` w f'i'~a ~ ~ ' r - . s ` r~x~
~C ~N - `W+cr~ " ~
, .
. w
. . . .
' ' . . . ..22
.
,
Berkley, Boulevard 3
_
f
r
~ rs
,
.W
CAx~7
Tp `
. . .
i
v
- o ~ v 3' ' ~ . , ^ - ~ X ♦ ~ F , r
~ Fc)..... . . . - ~ .
. _ ~ •
~ . ~
~ _ - r "s =S, 1 ~ ' • t ; _
, , . _ ~ : , . L . , , i ~ . - ~i~. •Fi . _
' ''3''~*~~''.`~~"5~~.~Ft ~ ~,2._ ` i '~.y R...x'> ~
~ -7 .x .Fy~ •St 3 ~'i~ • .o ' ~ j...,,~ ~ r - t e.
~
a ~ ~ w ~ a o" ~ ~ ~ ; { .':J 2 a.=D •:c~ ~r..~~' ?'r,.~t ...r~G^ .5~, t'~* F' r .~a ~ .
ya
~q, e~.:9K~~~V~,~~. _ }k,• ~ ~.yei e y ~ '~'"Uwy«_b' ~ 3~ ~
Y 'Y 9p , . _ ~ 4„ . ~~t
w~ ~ ~ka ~ .C~e ~ ~y°~ ~ .e ~ c . ~ ~'a.',~ ;~'v~b a `',.t~ ci~` } Ct tt. 1 'e% .
~r~~ 3 Ir ~ - ~ ~ .4+~ : > s. . ~ s . •
♦ 4 f -W'C' f ' t fS- ~ 3 ~y ,kr a 'f? .
8 t .
' ~ *'t'd ~p ,~.~}tr~. ~tf~ rfi . ~ ~ ~.n;~ • i i _ t ~ . ~o ~ e~ .
. y,~ ''.d~+ ^r^+R.,r~ ~b~:.`~~ ; ~L~d°'" ~ Yri .,t~'~.`~~iP 1J*~"`} • s;y~& `Y..~d ~~,{`S ~ . .
~ " . c " r~Y ~ vs u, C '~~°iP~ ~'d ~.k q`•'~ K 3 ~~~St. r°y e,~ ~ r! '2. ;u4 ~ /s aq g, : , ;
w~
.»y _ w ~ ~r - 3 0: • ~ x ' ,S~ + _ : L~ D ~~N.~id'N~' ~r ` zt° . ~ 'ir R ,r"- +0:
d
~
. ;d , ~,,.~3~ ~~~f•",~~ ak_ ~n ~rw 'v. s, °`,a .'a5' d'. .4" ~A. r r" C
, _ . 23
. r L oop Detector -
Berkeley,' ~
r
~-a ` ~cn
7'~',
y.
- ~ . - . ~ - " , .
',n. ' , ~ • . ~ j. ~ Ml , n..-._~t~t~-~;"...M~_.^-^.. , .
't-
, t" , ♦ ~ t ~~'`i t = r , . 'SS ~ ~ ' ~ t'~¢~ a' ` 1 ~ - ~ ~i ` 4 . .
, ' , ~~.,,,,x. ~ c Y. ~.J `.~y ` , =j,~ ~ ~~-t, . r d ~+p,.~xJr,.@ r ~r• ~
m
e F~ " ~t• ' + `f .
- .-f~ " " t' ~ t.°.' ~~..,t p < : ~ 9C „1~ti~ { ~ ~ ~
a d 1` t ' „-f.~ t,~~". : , fl
.c.'~ . ~ _ t% Jj y~ r ~ ° n ~ z - c~ `
.ox
,
dcw°4 tr
. ~
I ~~'~~.a.,''t~ .n~ aJ~,. ~ _ ~ ~ ~ '4 ~ , ~ 4n.~~ j . - . , s ~ ~ t •`'y~ ~ a,° ~ - ax. ` }Y
.,.T,.
~t' • ri ~ t 1 ' ~s f~ ~ r a 1 n, yc,] c.
, ,
y+4-+t4
_ ~c. r t ~ ~3` ~ 1 , + ~ . . ~ ° ~ • ~ ' ~ ~r,' `
l.
;
;
~
.
.
•:t
,
a '
. ~ ~ . . .
. . ,
. . . ~ . _ . . _ . ,
~ ' 24
dc) R'cyc~s Mfrastructurs CA
- 9
_ ♦ y , 6 ; 'y ~VV.' f.,
~
- . .
. . .
• . ,
.
c a
_ . . r ~
. a R - ~ - . ~ ✓ ~ F
'k•i ~
„s z_ ~ a ~ , . • , r r
. ' i-. .:n f o~, r3~;~•S ~ ~~~f .
~
al..
Nl-
~ o z'
~4
i ~
:
.f•-
t
- - _ ' •t'. _ ~ @+' . , -
:
}
.
. 4 . . . . , ~F . ,
~ c ✓ ` ~ ~C '
~ ~-r,..?a • . . ~ s
~t s
.~.,,~~..e_...... '
25
■ ~
B"ke Tra'l'l - Da viis
~
~ _
. _
. 4 .
. a
. . . , ..e .
. . .
~.1 z
-
`
~ I ~ a~~~~
a.~ . 4 ti
l
' 7.
, M . .z. . . _
~
~ _ . '
L
sy Kd - - - ' ' la`
Y« ~ , _ , IY t~ "
. ,
x as
~
. .N , - .
. ~ - _ " - . . . - ~ . , . r.::_~`....°y,._ . .
\
26
Urban Bike Lane - Stockholm.Sweden
,
~ g XY
+
.m. w 4 . i. . ,
~ a
~ .
. .
n ° Si`~ • ~ ~ ~x = ~ NYn' yp~-~ ~'✓"x '~+e.
' ~ ,+rrv , : E { ;•-~a"~.e~
-1-
3 =yt~, .v'° g
_ .-w ~ ,^"~-='~"s..~ "c~-w.-..-.-;~°` ' ,t-.^~aM.~ ' ~
q
°@ `u-.`° • , w,!
z ~
. (a ~ 4 ~ ap' ~ ~ •.c *e .
~
~ x
~ .
.
. L ~a ~ ~ 4~..' . f. - ~ ` . . t, ~.1 a ~ , d .
~ 27
~ Dedicated- Bike Lane - Boulder CO
t'~+~~.: ~
.
h. _
.
~h - - . . .
.
. . ~ . ✓f
<
i
. ~ . ~ ~ T . _ . .
, " . _ ~ - , . . ~ i~ ` . ` r - j..~. w ~ ~
. . • . . . ~ ~ .
~
~ a
~Gt~~ ~
. _ . x .
i' _ _ "`L ,~~d~ 1:~ •'1 j "~'}*J
.
.
.
t y
` ~
+ - "
. .
~
. . 4 ~ . d .
' ~ ' ,
28
mpift iic c l e Lane Direction Signage
Boulder Co
~ ~ ~ s ~"e ° •y'k ~ f ~ Ox:
j~gj
4
~r.
s
.
,
,
~ . w
. ,
- . . r~ ~ 4 - _ • ` ;
,
gd~ # ~ F ~ e F • ~ 'a.. ~ 7a ~ 4 .
F,
' ~ '9 . l; . .y ~ ~t . b . ~ g~i~n H` _ sy`^.~, •
iz
LV
m .
- I t n DC
e Wash 0
_ tr et Bike Lan
~
~
,
~.p.
~
,f ~
t t _
~
.
.
, t
- •
~
_ ;,z • b . f+~r~ ~ ` ~ ~ j' " 1 ' i
, . . _ . .
~
k~ . .~T 'Vs t`.,,.,* ; Y. ' a •r's~~ 'n...~ S~~ ,..~.,4, t . . '
' ~ ' ~ ~ e+-. 1 * ' . 1: r."..' ♦ ,l*~_`__,-~ ; ' 'j ( . . ~i,
r p ,s ~ E3~ ' b ' t
„ ~;`t ..,,3. X " r 4 a: R ~ . ~ p' 3 ? Q .~N , . ,:-~1 fi 1t •1~~~ ,
xi, s
. 30
" ■ ■
rr ed Bik,e Lane - Reno, NV
~
.
_ ' ~e, ~x- ; , $ ~:S ~
_ W.. ` p 1~. ~ k¢
~
s'
~
F
I,
31
■
arked Bike Lane - St Minn.
~ Paul, qg'i
t v • ' rot r~,oQ ~ . -~a C~.-••~~ ~ > ~
,'T r' 1 ~ ~x~ ~iiV-,r~ _ ~ .•wS,~~~ if~ i rY Y
N„, z~ ~s•~ .~t J~ .r~• ~~.R",~,"`
.•~t. -.t 1. •1~.,` ~
~
4 J- .
. m+'
r~
R'iCaw...~
.
~
.'?'~4►~'~ ~ .7►~~'~°- -
. •
, . ~ - ~ . ~Ar~~l~t,Y~~j{~
. -
< a
" -
• m
• { ~ " ..t+~.~.- ~ : ~ Y tr
k ".~,s~.er,;,.,::,. i~#.' n,y , U~.,f,_.,y
~ ' ~ ~ r ~ ` ~ ~ d A , ~
p
b
7r.~'
y
.y _
r-
*a
~ ~
- , r
. 4 f t ~ 4~'t ~ ~
~f.4~-4 ~4'g~ ~.}i r•. .
~ ..'n._ .
e
32
4\
EE ' * H :~B ~T . ' ' - ~ . ~
i ' -
~ ~ ~ tl ~ •
~
. . . . ~ _ ~ . .
- - . . . - .
_ ~°~~..'}x.. r r;+,- ~ ~'a~~~'!~eH'., t~K..F`+~+*''~ ,a ~ u, ~ ~ • . ~ ' S' `ica. ~
°s- ♦
. . ~ '.s°F ~ i~~~'{:, q?,',~",,,~~ ~`~Y.t" `^''Aj .r»5 r ,s,v~ ~ ' ~
- < • ~1 ":Y ~~f". °n,s.7ve'~~~'~,w .v!.~`. ~ : ~ . y -",g!,~ ~:i'
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ 1 n ~ o`;:~~V7~s' . ~."q k ~ `^~y ~ ~ „S ~ .
k
. ~ c. r a~!~y,a^. .L' .4.
.
s ' C .
t .
,
.
. . . .
.
t.
v~ . '~'.;r•
' ~ ~ . ! :3A .
V w Y '~9
` , • . . ~ t~ ~ :,,su:
a
- 4~~ o ' ~ ~y , t_~7~' ~t '"k n.~~ .yh'~5;, H~''+•.4'
, . .C . " i
la~. \ t~.y , . ~ A
. + ~t•Y ` 7 Y . ~ ~ r9 ~ . X"~i.t i~ . ~ .
t._.31 ~ , a . ~ T;,~• f, ~:tio ~ ~ - .
• . ' ~ a !'a.' . . t~ '
~•~<~ra Sy r ' '~0 o ¢9~ ~..L`_~Ad'PZ. , o,
' ~ ' ~ ' L •~k"`,~~~a' ~ _
o?.<
. 1 ~ i.
' 4,t} ~ r3` , r. o , ~ ~ w b.1 0 ~ . . . , • _ . . .
a Q ~ « ..r ...-.r..d....-.,-....1. `ft ~ Y. '~'.r.~ S o ~ a ~ o , , . ~ ~ . : . ,s. -
0
_ r ~
~ ~ . .
PORT~ND BICYCLE PLAN f~OR 2030 PORG.~lI~
~ ~ iR(SPORTAT0OR1
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practices
This repart was developed as an element of the Portland Bicycle Plan fpr 2030.
DESIGN WORKING GRbUP
for the
Portland Bicycle Plan for 2030
David Amiton
Scott Batson
Rob BurchfieldAnthony Butzek Wendy Cawley
Ivy Dunlap
Roger Geller
Denver fgarta
PeterKoonce "
Grant Morehead
Greg Raisman
Chris Smith
Eilen Vanderslice
Eric Wiley
, . Thanks to Denverlgarta for producing this report. . ,
January 5, 2010
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practiceS
INTRODUCTfON - SURVEY OF BEST PRACTICES
The unprecedented numbers of people bicycling in Portland has necessitated expansian of the bikeway.
design tools available to the city's traffic engineers. Portland is looking to world (eaders in bicycle
transportation to meet this growing demand. Many cities from across the globe have long recognized
the merits of bicycling as an important means of transportation and have led the way in facilitating
bicyc(e traffic through innovation and adaptation of bicycle-friendly infrastructure.
This report documents an extensive review of best practices from world-class bicycling cities where the
most innovative technology advances in designing for bicycle traffic have been proven effective. The
purpose of the report is to create a guide for traffic engineers, designers and planners detailing tried-
and-tested bicycle facility designs along with essential considerations for their implementation.
Portland aims to help lead a national effort to develop standards and guidelines for designing bikeways
that meet the wide ranging needs of the cycling public for safe, comfortable and attractive conditions. Currently, the City's Bikeway Design and Engineering Guidelines established as Appendix A of the 1996
Bicycle Master Plan serve as the local manual for the design, canstruction and maintenance af the city's
bikeway network. Formation of the Porttand Bicycle Plan for 2030 presented the opportunity to revisit
these guidelines, make enhancements to approved designs and integrate new designs into a revised
manual that will meet the bicycling demands prajected in coming decades.
Current State of the Practice
In 1946 when the city's original bikeway design guidelines were adopted the bicycle mode share in
Portland was roughly two percent for commute trips. Today, eight percent of Portlanders reported
bicycling as their primary commute mode and 10 percent of those who sometimes used a different
mode reported bicycling as their secondary commute mode. Nationally, only 0.5 percent of trips to wark
are made by bicycle according to the 2007 American Community Survey.
Standard guidance on biktway design outlined in national manuals, namely the American Association of
State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) "Guide for the Developrnent of Bicycle Facilities"
and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), has proven insufficient to address the
levels af bicycling experienced in Portland. The intense influx of bicyclists using the city's transportation ,
system has begun to exceed the capacity of developed facilities. If Portland is successful in realizing
more than one quarter of all trips made by bicycle as envisioned in this 2030 plan, current practices wil)
not suffice. Thus, new design guidelines and standards need to be adopted to ensure safe traffic
conditions in the future for all travel modes.
Bikeways fnr Portland's Future
Portland has a reputation for implementing innovative designs that are not found in any domestic traffic
design manual. Demonstration projects implemented by the Portiand Bureau of Transportation, such as
bicycle boxes at several high-rislc lntersections, have been lauded by the cycling public. Sti(1, the city's
existing bikeway network has primarify appealed to those residents who are already confident in their
cycling abilities and enthusiastic riding on major streets alongside motor vehicles.
6
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practices
Moving forward, Portland is committed to developing better designs for bikeways that wil( have greater
appeal ta the average citizen who is interested in bicycling but concerned about their safety. A key
recommendation of the Portland eicycle Plan for 2030 is to expand the palette of bikeway designs to
facilitate creating conditions that make bicycling mare attractive than driving for short trips. Separation
from high volumes of high-speed traffic is an essential element of the Plan's approach, as it is in the .
world's most bicycle-friendly cities.
Next 5teps
Most of the facilities contained within this report are considered nonstandard or experimental in the
United States. Some treatments wi11 require enabling legislation to permit their usage. In addition,
transfer of any appropriate engineering technologies from other countries will require context-sensitive
translation to fit local conditions.
The bikeway designs collected and published as part of this report wilf be further evaluated and ,
considered for potential inclusion in revisions to the City's Bikeway Design and Engineering Guidelines
that will direct future bikeway improvements within the City of Portland.
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practices .
PORTLAND BICYCLE PLAN FOR 2030
BIKEWAY FACILITY DESIGN: SURVEY OF BEST PRACTICES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Road Sections Intersection Treatments
1. Bike Lanes 25. Tr.uncated Cycie Track - Ramp Down to
, 2. Bike Passing Lane Bike Lane
3. Buffered Bike Lane 26. Cycle Track Two-Stage Signalized Left
4. Contraflow Bike Lane Turn with Queuing Space
• 5. Floating Bike Lane 27. Forwar.d Stop Bar • •
6. Colored Bike Lane 28. Bicycle Box
7. Advisory Bike Lane 29. Combined Right-turn Bicycle Lane
8. Cycle Track 30. Traffic Circle
31. Bike Boulevard Off-Set Intersections
Traffic Speed and Volume Reduction 32. Median Refuge
9. Bicycle Street 33. "Cross-bike" Marking
10. Pinch Point (Queuing Streets/ 34. Pass-through Curb Extensions
Neckdown/Choker) 35. Bicycle Roundabout
11. Chicanes
12. Narrow Width Shared Roadway Signage and Markings
13. Residentiaf Speed Limits 36. Bike Boulevard Pavement Markings
14. Speed Bumps 37. Shared Roadway Markings
15. Home Zone/Woonerf 38. Bicycle Destination Signage
16. Traffic Volume Control Measures
Transit and Bicvcle Streets
Non Motorized/Off Street Pathwav Sections 39. Streetcar on Bikeways
' 17. Cbpenhagen Green Cycle aoutes 40. Bicycle-Friendly Transit Stop Design 18. Off Street Path Section
19. Car-Free Street/Zone Misceflaneous Treatments
20. Trails/Off-Street Path Transition 41. Bicycle Lift (Trampe )
21. Bicycle Underpass (Tunnel) .
Signalization 22. Green Wave
23. Traffic Signal Operations for Bicycles
24. Traffic Signal Crossings for Bicycles
EtIKEWAY DESIGN - best practices
Bike Lanes
Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages
Marl<ed space along length of roadway for e provides bicycle access on major • Space requirements can
exclusive use of cyciists. Bike lanes create through street preclude other passible uses like
separation between cyclists and o Clarifies lane use for motorists and parking or excess travel lane
automobiles. cyclists
e Increases cy.clist's comfort through ~
visual separation.
Application Design/Maintertance Considerations Design Gufdance
• On roadways with ?3,000 motor vehicle • Bike lane width • Recommended width
tripss per day • Frequency of bike symbol • 6.5-8.2 ft (CROW)
• • Any street with excessive curb to curb • Keep bike symbols out of the path 'a Should comfortably '
space where bike lanes couid help of turning vehicies accommodate two cyclists riding
reduce vehicie lane widths . Typically placed an right side of side by side with sufficient shy
roadway distance from both travel fane •
• Vehicle door zone clearance when and on-street parking.
bike lanes are adjacent to parked
vehicles
•1 ~ Y
Maintenance Level - Medium
77,
Implementation Obstacles ' Example Cities/Countries
n/a o CROW Design Manual for
Bicycle Traffic - Netherlands
• Chicago, IL
• Portland, OR
- Seattle, WA
5ource: City of PorCiand (PBOT~
1of41
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practic@S
Bike Passing Lane
Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages
Adding a second bike lane adjacent to a o Reduces the length of bicycle e Space requirements can
first to provide space for passing platoons preclude other possible uses iike
• Reduce number of faster bicyclists parking or excess travel lane
that merge with auto traffic to pass
slower cyclists.
Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance
• Large num6er of cyclists o Adequate space for two bicyclists ~ Commute routes
• Wide range of travel speeds to pass without encroaching into o Uphill sections
' • Typically on an uphill roadway travel lane. o After forced stops'(signals)
where platoons form
Maintenance Levef - Medium . Recreational paths
• Uphill sections
• RBOTguidance
• Minimum passing lane width of
5 ft adjacent to a 5-ft bike lane
• Skip striping between the two
bike lanes and double bike
symbols mitigates concerns of
• motorists mistaking the area
" for a travel lane.
t • Bike lanes in same direction
separated by 4-in wide (100
mm) skip stripe, i ft long (300
mm) skip stripe with 3 ft (1 m)
skip.
lmplementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries
Space requirements may reallocate • Portland, Oregon
Source: BikePOrtland.org
Port{and, OR uses from parking or driving lane • •
' ` 2 of 41
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practices
Buffered Bike Lane
Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages
Bicycle lane with a buffer to.increase the • Provides cushion of space to o Additional space requirements
space between bicycle lane and travef mitigates friction with motor • Added maintenance required for
lane or parked cars. vehicles on streets with narrow bike the buffer striping
lanes.
e Provides space for cycfists to pass
without encroaching into the travel
lane.
o Mitigate for obstacles in the bike
lane, e.g. drainage inlets, manholes.
e Parking side buffer: provides cyclists
with space to avoid the "dooring
zone" of parked cars.
e Provides motorists (particulariy
drivers of large vehicfes) greater shy
distance from cyclists in the bike
lane.
Applfcation Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance
• Bike lanes with high automabile • Determine which s9de of the bike • Buffer Width
traffic speeds and volumes lane the buffer is needed, adjacent • Minimum 32 in (London)
• Bikeways with bike lanes adjacent to to parking or the travel lane. • 32 in (Brussels)
on-street parking • Frequency of parking turnover • 20-30 in (CROW)
e Bike lanes with high volume of e Determine buffer width needed to . Diagonal Buffer Stripe Details
truck/oversized vehicle traffic avoid door zone of parked cars . 6 ft spacing (Portland -
• Major intersection approaches Holgate)
• Frequency of mator vehicle
right tums
~9 . • Design of conflict areas where
cars and bike weave
• Continuous or truncated buffer
striping approaching . .
intersection
Mafntenance Level - Medium
Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries ~
o Space requirements may reallocate • Brussels & Bruges, Belgium
uses from parking or driving lane • London, UK
• 5an Francisco, CA
Source: Greg Raisman L.- New Yor'k, NY
sruges, Belgtum Portland, OR (IVW lptn)
3of41
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practices
Contrafiow Bike Lane
Destriptionf Purpose Advantages Disadvantages
A one-way street for motor vehicles . Provides direct access and • Lim'rts on parking might be
that includes an opposite-direction connectivity for bicycles traveling in needed on side with contraflow
bicycle only lane. both directions. lane. .
• Influences motorist choice of routes o Possibility of illega) loading or
without limiting bicycle traffic. parking in contraflow lane.
o Cyclists do not have to make
detours as a result of one-way
traffic.
Apptication Design/Maintenance Considerationsy Design Guidance
' • One-way auto traffic streets • Accompanying signage needed. e Contraflow lane width
o Narrow streets where on-street • Contraflow lane separated from • 5.0 to 6.5 ft(CROW)
parking and bicycle accessibility are motor vehicle lane by a solid double • Minimum 5.0 ft(London) '
give priority over traffic accessibility yellow line.
• Ensure contraflow lane is exclusively
for bicycles by using bike lane
striping with legal status.
• Clearly distinguish contraflow lane
with markings.
+ Consider use of cofor on bike lane.
• Consider physical separation
between bike lane and travel lane.
~
Determine modifications needed to
,
existing traffic signals.
Maintenance Level - Medium
• t Imptementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries ~
• Qutreach to stakeholders, adjacent o Madison, WI
~ • -+r_ businesses and neighbors • Cambridge, MA
• Conversion from 2-way requires e San Francisco, CA
Source: Denverlgart a elimination of one direction of auto . Netherlands
• •Amsterdam, Netherlands tYBVQI. • Germany '
• Portland (23"' PI, Weidler Ct)
4of41
BIKEWAY DESIGiV - best practices
FBoating Bike Lane .
Description/Purpase Advantages Disadvan4ages
A single lane functions as a parking lane e qccommodates bicycles at all times, a Unorthodax design can be
or an exclusive bike lane: even when parking is permitted. confusing.
e During peak hours,-parking is not e provides bicycle facilities on streets o Enforcement required
allowed and cyclists use a curbside with constrained rights-of-way.
bike lane.
o During off-peak hours, cyclists .
travel in the space between the
motorized traffic lane and parked
cars.
This tteatment retains the bicycle facility
when an extra travel lane (for
automobiles) is added during peak
hQUrs. r
Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance
e Primary bicycle routes during peak e Provide adequate space to minimize m Peak hour (SF)
hours the risk of "doorings" when parking s 7 am - 9 am J 3 pm - 7 pm
o Streets warranting bike lanes with is permitted o Parking permitted during off-
high parking demand where there is • Consider using bicycle symbol peak (SF)
not enough space to provide both curbside . s g am - 3 pm J 7 pm - 7 am
standard bike lane and parking. • Minimal use of signage required.
' • Consider using sharrow markings in
lieu of bike lane striping. (San
Francisco)
'-AOaw,9MosLmc-w+enpwmmaaowee • Time of day vehicle use
r ThBE°de`3ftm K"b01tDMo"mdSt"'e` communication
„ Maintenance Level - Medium
.
Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries
.u'1~_, • . ~ ~ ,
° c e Typically requires removal of travel e San Francisco (SF), CA
V'- lane to add parking
, . . . . .
` Source: sfmta.org
San Franclsco, CA
5 af41
BIKEV1/AY DESIGiV - best practices
Colored Bike Lanes
Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages
Color is applied to the bike lanes to . Provides a continuous facility for • Maintenance requirements.
distinguish the bike lane, alerC roadway cyclists.
users at high conflict areas and to clearly o Mitigates high conflict areas.
assign right-of-way to cyclists. Motorists . provides for safer merging of
are expected to yield to cyclists in these bicycfes with motor vehicle traffic.
areas. . tncreases awareness and safe
behaviors by both cydists and
motorists
~
Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance
• Heavy auto traffic streets with bike • Provide appropriate signs. • Provide ample bike lane width
lanes • a Use marking and sign configurations • Provide color through the e At dangerous intersection or where that encourage the weaving of conflict area
cyclists and motorists must weave bicycles and motorvehicles in • PBOTguidance
with ane another. advance of the intersection proper. • Green Color: Bright green
• Conflict area with a record of crashes a Use thermoplastic rather than paint color was adapted in 2008
replacing the blue color
Maintenance Leve) - Nigh used prior. Typically blue
color is used to indicate
disabled parking.
• Limit use to conflict areas
~
Implementation Ohstacles y~ Example Cities/Countries
' • Not part of the Manual on Uniforrn • IVew York City, NY
Traffic Contro( Devices (MUTCD) . Cambridge, MA
• Portland, OR
• Cologne, Germany ' Source: BikePOrtland.org Portland, OR •
6of41
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practices
Advisory Bike Lanes
Description/Purpose Advantages , Disadvantages
Dotted white lines on both sides of a . A viable option when cross-section • Motor vehicle encroachment
narrow roadway delineate bicycle areas. is too narrow for mandatory bike into the bike lane permitted
The automobile tone is not wide enough lanes • If vehicles are parked in the bike
for two cars to pass in both directions . Striping offers visual separation on lane cyclists must position
creating a queuing situation. Motorists a low-traffic raadway themselves further into the
may enter the bicycle zone when no . Motorist tend to travel slower due roadway to pass safely
bicycles are present. Motorists must to friction created with oncoming o l.ess protecfiion for cyclists than a
overtake with caution due to traffic vehicles. conventional bike lane
traveling in the opposite direction.
Application Design/Mainienance Considerations Design Guidance
• Low motor vehicle traffic volumes and • No continuous centerline should • Advisory bike lane width:
speeds separate opposing directions of • S ft-6.5 ft (CROW)
• Straight segments with few bends, auto travel . Min. 5 ft(London)
inclines or sightline obstructions • Colored pavement on the edges to e 4.1 ft-5.25 ft(FGSV)
e Two-way streets discourage encroachment by e 2-way motor vehicle lane:
e No centerline on roadway motorists or parked vehicles. . 15 ft-18 ft(FGSV)
a Assess potential hazards and • Min. 13 ft(London)
conflict points • Curb-to-Curb:
• Minimum bike lane width 5 ft
(london) • 23 ft -28 ft(London)
• Twa-direction travel lane not wide . parking dimensions:
enough for two cars to pass in o 7.5 ft-8.2 ft(FGSV)
opposite directions o Line dimensions (CROW):
• Consider maximum volume and o Width: 4 in -6 in
speed (London: 3000 adt / 30 o SpaEing: 3.28 ft
mphl/ 37 mph2)
• „ ^ t= • c v,~a a Continue across minor street
intersection
= Maintenance Level - Medium
Implementation Obstacles „ • Not in MUTCD Example Cities/Countries
_ May require enabling legislation (1) Dutch CROW Manual
` 0 Standard need for striping (2) 6erman F65V .
, _ ~ _ ~--~.4 ~ (3) London, England
Source: Roger Getler
Ussetstein, Netherlands
' Transport London - London Cycling Design Standards
2 Zeeland, Netherlands •
7of41
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practices
Cycle Track
Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages
Exclusive bicycie facility adjacent to - but • Direct access to main street o Arnount of right-of-way required
separated from - the roadway by a commercial areas • May require removal of travel
physical barrier. Combines the user o Significant separation from lane or on-street parking
experience of a separated path with the automobile traffic in busiest parts of e Left-turns must be made in non-
on-street infrastructure of a bike lane. toWn standard manner, potentially
resulting in delay
o Expensive
-
Applicatlon Design/Maintenance Cansiderations Design Guidance
• Arterial roadways with higher motor • Separation- channelized (elevated • Cycle track width
vehicle speeds and voiumes. or at-grade), mountable curb, or e 6.5 ft rninmum, 7 ft typical, 8
s Roads with fewer crass-streets and bollards/markings ft desirable for new
. longer blocks. . • Cycle track width construction, Up to 10 ft for
• Based on bicycle volumes, design additional capacity (CPH)
speed, and passing opportunities. • 6.5 ft to 13.1 ft depending an
• Crossing driveways & low-volume rush hour bicycle intensity
streets (CROW)
' ~ Continue the cycle track through • 2 ft buffer on vehicle side is
:~,s•~ . , .
the drivewa crossin desirable, required if cycfe
Y g
~~`-~~t~'~ • Use pavement markings end track width is less than 7 ft
F
grade separation to indicate cycle (CPH)
track has the right-of-way • 5.5 ft absolute minimum for
' . ~ ' ~i tl'~ • Signalized tntersections cycle tracks (CPH)
M • Curb separating the bike and
• Drop down to bike lane
L edestrian facilities (CPH
• Forward stop bar p ~
• Crossbike marking through the • Make the intersection look more
dangerous than it actuaffy is
~ Source: oenver Igarta intersettion CPN
Amsterdam, NL e Exclusive bike signal phase o On-street parking: place cycle
• Other considerations: maintenance, track adjacent to the sidewalk
bike symbol, interactions with With 2 ft clear space to prevent
transit, AOA requirements, and two- "doorings" (ALTA)
way cycle tracks. . Remave parking directly in
• Adequate sidewalks to reduce advance of the intersection
likelihood of cycle track use by [mplementation Obstacles pedestrians. Example Cities/Countries
• Separation from pedestrian realm • Difficult to implement where 0 Copenhagen Traffic
• ADA access to sidewalks frorn on intersections are closely spaced. Departrnent (CPH)
street parking a Netherfands (CROW Manual )
• Design standards required Maintenance Level - Medium • Cambridge, MA
• St. Petersburg, FL
• New York, NY
8of41
Pubiic Works File Archive. - Find by Box 5r26n010
Archive Purge Off
Box Loc Document Description Date Group_ Date Site Other _
647 In Ann FAC07-0012 Strawberry Court 5/2010 ENG Oto
Contents File #1160
647 In Ann FAC06-0023 Momson Sewer Extension 5/2010 ENG OJO ~
Contents File #1109 •
647 !n Ann GRA08-0039 Boeing Altemative Contractor Access Road +5l2010 ENG 010
Contents File #1246 647 In Ann FAC04-0027 Fairvreather Cove• 5l2010 ENG OIO ~
Contents File #1026 647 In Ann FAC07-0022 Vukshick 5/2010 ENG 010 ~
Contsnts File 1185
. 647 in Ann GRA08-0021 Boeing BLD 17-13 5/2010 ENG ' 0/0 0
Contents File #1232 '
647 In Ann GRA08-4021 Boeing BLD 17-13 5/2010 ENG OIO CD
Contents File #1232
647 In Ann GRA08-0030 Boeing BLD 17-08 5/2010 ENG 0/0 0
Contents File #1242
647 In Ann GRA04-0037 l.yden Property 5/2010 ENG 0!0 ~
Contents File #1037
9 records
BIaCEV1/AY DESIGN - best practices
Bicycle Street - "Fahrradstrassen"/ "Fietsstraten"
Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages
A street within a residential area that acts • Achieve objectives of safety, • Residential streets do
as a major bicycle route and where the comfort and attractiveness on not typically provide
position of the car is subordinate to that of low-traffic direct through direct access to
the bicycle. eicycle streets offer safe streets. commercial destinations.
passage for large numbers of cyclists, • provide cyclists an alternative • Local residents may mainly between and through districts. The to bicycling on an arterial object to improvements
intent of this treatment is to provide direct, street. or alterations on their
safe, comfortable and attractive routes to . Local streets typically have street.
promote bicycle use. fewer modal conflicts.
Provisions for Fahrradstrassen are outlined
in German traffic law.(Strafien-Verkehrs • Ordnung-StVO) requiring:
• All vehicles are required to travel at
moderate speeds ~
• Allowing c clists to ride side-by-side
App6cation Design Maintenance Design Guidance
• Low traffic residential street with a Considerations • Design should consider
shared space for bicycle and motor • Bicycles are permitted to use neighborhood
vehicle traffic. the entire width of the aesthetics.
• Streets parallef to a nearby arterial. roadway.
• Direct routes across districts. • Bicycle boulevard toolbox
• Signage and pavement
markings
• Traffic calming
- o Diversion techniques
' • Speed limits
• 30 km/h or 18.6 mph
(Germany)
~
•r ` • Preserve emergency access
and occasion access for large
• ' P • ' F=~ vehicles.
Maintenancelevel -Low
: • ~ ~ ~ :
Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries
, • Enabling legislation may be • Muenster, Germany
Source: Fietsberaad required to reduce speed . Essen, Germany
Oss, Netherlands
limits e Oss, Netherlands
9of41
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practices
Pinch Point (or Queuing Street/Neckdown/Choker)
Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages
This is a residential traffic calming • Siows speed of motor vehicles • Reduces on-street parking
treatment that narrows the travel lane for • provides mode separation between capacity
motorists by installing curb extensions or bicycles and motor vehicles passing o Cost
islands to create a narrow channel. A through concurrently
separated bicycle travel-way segregates o Discourages cut-through traffic
bicycles and motor vehicles as they travel * Acts as horizontai deflection to reduce
through the device. This design slows speed, and is more comfortable than a
automotive traffic while retaining priority sgeed bump
movement for bicycles. The intent is to . Some designs may ailow for green
calm and discourage non-local traffic on
bicycle boulevards. treatments and that improve
attractiveness.
Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance
• • Soft diversion - use in location where • Ensure adequate pass through • Must accommodate turn
reduced volume is desired, but hard . Provide good visibility between movements at intersections
diversion is not possible modes. • Width of extension/islands
o Use as gateway treatment • Provide good visibility and adequate can be increased for wider
• Speed reduction warning of floating islands. streets
• Hard diversion at T-intersection • Potential to add speed cushion in
center of device for additional speed
reduction
• Oppositional flow of traffic improves
; speed reduction benefit
• Auto speed through pinch point and
cyclist merge point.
Maintenance Level - Low
Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries
• Not part of the Manua) on Uniform • Utrecht, The Netherlands
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
5ource: Greg Raisman
Utrecht, The M1letherlands •
10 of4i
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practices ~
Chicanes
Description/Furpose Advantages Disadvantages
Alternating curb extensians or isiands • Narrow circuitous lanes that limit the a Placement of curb
installed to create horizonta( (serpentine) clear path of vision and encourage extensions/islands may
shifts of the travel lane thus reducing slow auto speeds. eliminate on-street parking
• traffic speeds. • Narrow travel lanes provide
opportunities for on-sCreet parking
Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance
• Bicycle boulevards e Allow pedestrian and bicycle pass • Refer to other deslgn sheets
e Low traffic residential street with through s Narrow width roadway
shared space for bicycle and motor• • Avoid disrupting drainage • P'ass-through curb '
vehicle traffic. • Median islands may be installed to extensions
eliminate the opportuniry for drivers
to avoid travel lanes shifts by driving
down the centerline.
• Opportunities to enhance aesthetics
with landscaping and streetscape
design.
t ` ~ •r-~ ~ 7~'`' ° i ; Maintenance Level - Low
~ ' • ~ ~
w .
-
Implementation Obstacles Exampie Cities/Countries
n/a • Seattle, Washington
a Tallahassee, FL
Victoria, BC, Canada
Source: Denvertgarta Vlctaria, B Canada
11 of 41
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practices
Narrow Width Shared Roadway
Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages
A bikeway on a local street with a o Achieve objectives of safety, o Local residents may object
narrow width to reduce motor comfort and attractiveness on to improvements or
vehicle speeds aRd enhance safety shared locaf streets. afterations on their street.
for cyclists and pedestrians. . Local streets typically have fewer • Cost
modal conflicts.
a Provide more space for pedestrian
' realtn (sidewalks, landscaping,
etc.).
• Potential for less impervious
surface. • Application • Design/Maintenance Considerations • Design Guidance .
• Low traffic residential street with • Complementary speed limits ~ Roadway width (curb-to-
a mixed profile for bicycle and . Consider ways to preserve access curb) ,
motor vehicle traffic. for emergency vehicies, buses • 12.5 ft: extremely low
and/or delivery trucks. volumes (CROW)
• Bicycles are permitted to use the • 16 ft: based on
entire width of the raadway. bicycle/car/bicycle
• Consider possible diversion impacts combination (CROW)
on adjacent streets. • Design should consider
neighborhood aesthetics.
' Maintenance Level - Low
Y
s•~' ° ,?!~j; Implementation Obstacles Exampte Cities/Countries
o Requires enabling legislation to • Muenster, Germany
sufficiently reduce speed limits . eerlin, Germany
~`~x • Netherlands (CROW)
~ -
• _
Source: Denver igarta
Vancouver, BC, Canada
12 of 41
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practices
Residential Speed Limit (Zone 30/Tempo 30/20 mph Zane)
Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages
Discourage motorists from cutting . Improves road safety by reducing • Enforcement requirements
through residential areas by setting a the number of crash-related injuries
speed iimit of 20 mph and implementing • Relatively inexpensive to implement
necessary traffic calming measures. • Concentrates through traffic on
streets designated as arterials
• Enhances neighborhood livability
(noise levels, air quality, other
traffic nuisances)
• Enables cyclists to more
comfortably share the road with
motorists
- - ~
Appl[cation ~ • Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidaace •
• Local service trafFic streets in • If zone is too large (>250 acres or a • Refer to other traffrc calming
residential areas. square km), it may divert too much related design sheeis .
• Apply to an area consisting of several traffic onto arterials. (SWOV)
streets rather than an individual a Determine need for traffic calming
streets (UK) measures to accompany speed limit
• Bicycle routes off the main arterial signs.
streets. • Traffic calming devices must be
bicycle-friendly.
• Gateway treatments (signs, pinch
points and other calming measures)
I~ at neighbofiood entry points have
been shown to be very effective in
30 reducing speeds. (UK)
~ Consider speed limit pavement
• markings (alca roundel marking)
• • 30
Malntenance level - l.ow
Implementation Obstactes Example Cities/Countries
.
• ''O°?` 4i Requires enabling legislation to a New York City, NYl '
sufficiently reduce speed limits • Graz, Austria
Source: Denver 1Barta
I
•
Netherlands (SWQV)
Vancouver, 8C, Canada
• UK Dept of Transport
1 New York STATE Vehkle & Traffic !aw §1643
Il. ln cities with a population >2 million, speed limits <25 mph but in no case <15 mph may be esta611shed along designated highways for the °purpose of
impfemenNng traffic wlming measures." However, no wch speed Ilmlt can be establlshed where such measure mnslsts only of haffic control signs. The term
"traffic catming measures" means °any physical englneering measure w measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter drlver behavtar and
improve concritions for non-motorized street users such as pedestrians and bicydists.° V& T law 41642(26)
13 of 41
Description `Advantages ' Disadvantages
Speed bumps are short sections of roadway .:o Full-time speed reduction o Fire vehicle response delay -
that have been vertically raised to cause a' e. I.ow cost relatiye to enforcement Fotential to generafe noise
reduction in automobile speed. (Also known quick to instal! '
as Speed Humps (14') or Speed Tables (22'))
Apptication Design Considerations Design Guidance
o Locai Service or Neighborhood Collector e Adequate markings , o Bump Spacing
streets that are not Major Emergency o Adequate warning signs m Ranges from 300-500 ft
• Re'sponse Routes • @ Diftance from utii.ity access ' but is typically near 400 ft:
points and intersecting streets A Bump Size
. e Distance from driv.eways ~ Speed Bump (14 ft) on
- Local Servite streets .
e Speed Tables(22 ft) on bus
° Maintenance Level - Low routes and Neighborhood
Callector streets
' e Offset Speed Tables on .
Major Emergency
Response Routes
, .
Implementation Obstacles ~ 'Example Gities/Countries
n/a o Portland, OR,
Source: Greg Raismari
PorUand; OR . . .
14 of 41 -
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practices
Home Zone/Woonerf
Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages
Home Zones are residential streets in s Improves neighborhood livability • Can reduce connectivity for
which the road space is shared between and traffic safety by making streets motor vehicie congestion relief
drivers of motor vehicles and other road places for people, not only traffic. • Impacts convenience of
users, with the wider needs of residents e Changes the iayout of the street so residents and visitors who drive
(including pedestrians, bicyclists, and that motorists perceive that they to the neighborhood
children) in mind. (UK Dff) should give informal priority to
other road users.
o Reduces cut-through traffic and
speeding by motorists
• Prioritizes pedestrian and bicycie
travel on residentiai streets
. Application • ~ Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance •
Home Zones can be established in areas . Motorists should feel like "guests" • Travel lane should be as narrow
that are primarily residentiaf. This traffic on the street. (UK) as practicable - minimum 10 ft
management system is particularly • Street design must be legible to (UK)
beneficial in areas with schools, parks, visually impaired. a Design for 20 mph travel speed
and other public spaces. • Preserve two-way connectivity on o Traffic flows of < 100 vehicles in
all streets for bicycles and afternoon peak hour. (UK)
pedestrians • Vehicles should not have to
e Ensure acceptable levels of travel more than Z5 miles along
diversion on adjacent streets home zone street. (UK)
Retain emergency response access • Provide adequate guidance for
Focus on operational and area-wide bicyclists and pedestrians
strategies ~ Utilize non-intuitive one-way
Pt~~{ Utilize capital projects strategically systems artraffic diversion
•'~~a~ • Retain access for street sweeping techniques to reduce non-
i°`' R e t a i n a c c e s s f o r d e l i v e r i e s a n d resident cut-through traffic
basic municipal services such as
garbage removal.
• Accommodate occasional use by
large vehicles (UK)
w Source: Denver Igarta Maintenance Level - Low
Amsterdam, NL
Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries ~
• Oregon law: may require statutory • Utrecht, Netherlands
change to establish slower travel . Groningen, Netherlands
speeds in Home Zones • Copenhagen, Denmark
• Area-wide planning requires very • gonn, Germany
high level of community process . Malmo, Sweden
o UK Institute of Highway Incorp.
Engineers (homezones.org.uk)
15 of 41
' 16 ofa1
Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages
Green tycle routesserve a bicycle o Offers routes with minimal motor . e Ghallenge of connecting green
mobility function on quiet routes vehicle conflicts spaces to form a neiwork .
separated from heavy traffic. These . provides the highest standard of
routes serve both a transportation and bikeway design
recreation function passing through
• neigh6orhoods, parks, greenways'and natural spaces: Green cycle routes are
long (1-5 mi) continuous routes that
#orm a citywide network complementing
the city bikeway network.
'A"pplication' Design/MaintenanceConsiderations Design Guldance
o: Green areas and low teaffic roadways o Wide bicycle pathway and o Refer to other design sheets:
' separated walkwaythe preferred . Off-StreetandShared-Use
treatment Path Sections
o Minimize out of direction travef o Bicycle streets .
e Minimize stops (delays) for cyclists;
Maintenance Level-Low .
~ Implementation'Obs#acles Exampte Gities/Countries . " ~
n/a o Copenhagen, DenmarK
Source::City of Copenhagen ~ .
_
i
17 of 41
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practices
Trails/Off-Street or Shared-Use Path Sections
Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages
Minimum and standard dimensions for • Uniformity of expectations for
off-street exclusive bike paths and users and developers
shared-use pathways.
Application Design/Maintenance Design Guidance
e Off-street bike paths or shared-use Considerations . Horizontal separation of modes,
bike and pedestrian pathways. a Travel speed of bicyclists particularly on commute routes
a Grade • Vegetation adjacent to catch run-off
• Pedestrian volumes o Ideally, pedestrians and bicyclists
• Security issues - night time should be separated, especially in
• . • iilumination . areas with high expected use. ,
• No curbing • Bike & ped traffic can be cambined
• Signing, including route signing if < 200 peds/hr/meter of profile
• Markings width (CROW)
• Full combination -100
Maintenance Level - Low peds/hr/meter of profile width
(CROW)
Implemenation Obstacles • Visual separation (simple marking) -
• Right of way acquisition up to 160 peds per hr per meter of
width (CROW)
• "Soft separation"- separate bicycle
travel path using different paving
material 160-200 peds/hr/meter of
s width (CROW)
• PBOT guidance (Portland)
• Minimum path, exclusive or
Example Cities/Countries • shared, is 12 ft(4 m), standard is
Burke-Gilman Trail, Seattle, WA 16 ft(S m).
a Preferred width for a shared-use
Springwater Corridor, Portland pathway is a 16 ft bike lane,
o South Waterfront Trail, P.ortland .
z~ _ centered in the right of way, with
Source: Denver IgaRd • Netherlands (CROW mariual) pedestrian paths on each side (6
Muntch; Germany
ft min, 8 ft standard width) and
vegetated separation between
bike & ped pathways (2-4 ft
wide).
Trafl Design Guldelines forPort/and's Park System, Portland Parks & Recreation, May 2009, available online at
http://www.portlandonline.com/parks/index.cfm?a=250105&c=38306
18 of 41
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practices
Car-Free 5treet/Zone
Description/Purpose Advantages
Streets or areas with a concentration of . Achieves safety, comfort and attractiveness on car-free streets.
destinations where motor vehicles . provides bicyclists an alternative to busy arterial streets.
have been excluded from the public . Bicyclists can remain close to their bicycle to reduce theft and facilitate
right-of-way. Combine pedestrian and transport of purchased goods.
bicycle traffic (modes with minimal * Ailowing bicycling (as opposed tb prohibiting it) in pedestrian districts:
nuisance) to provide for an attractive . Offers access to the destinations clustered in the area
car-free experience. Eliminates what may form as a barrier in the bicycle network
■ Enables bicyclists to avoid busy streets that often encircle pedestrian
L districts
Disadvantages
a Possible conflicts with pedestrians
- - .
Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance ~
• Streets in the central business district • Volume of pedestrians/bicyclists e Horizontal separation of modes
or regional/town center with high • Speed of bicyclists • Where volumes of pedestrians
numbers of pedestrians and . pedestrian district streets limited to and bicyclists are high, designing
bicyclists. bus, taxi and service vehic{e access for separation may be desirable.
should also be available to bicyclists • Bike & ped traffic can be
• Signing, including route signage combined if <200 peds/hr/meter
e Pavement markings of profile width (CROW)
• Fullcombination-100
Maintenance level - Low pedsJhr/meter of profile width
~ (CROW)
• Visual separation (simple
marking) - up to 160
pedsJhr/meter of width (CROW)
~ • "Soft separation"- separate bike
travel path of different paving
materia1160-200 Peds/hr/meter
t
ofwidth (CROW)
Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries '
• Defining a business/neighborhood • Bou(der, CO
Source: Denver lgarta outreach process . Charlottesville, VA
DUsseldorf, Germany • D"usseldorf, Germany
, • Groningen, Netherlands
19 of 41
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practices
Trail/Off Street Path Transition
Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages
The concrete driveway ramp with bollard, e Current driveway design is familiar a Wider than standard ramp, so
signing and markings that delineate the to construct and not confused with uses more space
beginning ar end of a bicycle-only or pedestrian ramp e Added cost of construction
shared-use pathway where it meets a e Can double as access point for
standard public right-of-way. maintenance vehfcles.
• Separates bicyclists from
pedestrian crossing paths
Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance
• Any street where an off-street path or . Shared use paths may need added e Standard 12 ft driveway with
shared path enters or crasses a typical signing to communicate desired single, removable bollard
right of way. • separation of modes. centered in ramp. •
• Pedestrian ramps adjacent to
bicycle driveway on both sides
Maintenance Levet - Low with drop ramps at sidewalk.
• Use odd number of 6ollards only
Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries
yr
n/a • Portland, OR
• Copenhagen, DK
- ~ ~ • Houton, NL
Source: Denver lgarta
Vancouver, BC, Canada
20of41
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practices
Bicycle Undercrossing (Tunnel)
, Destription/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages
Bicycle undercrossings, or tunnels, provide e Conflict-free crossing of bicycfe • Susceptible to vandalism
bicyclists grade-separated passage beneath and motorized traffic e Security concerns major arterial streets. Tunnels eliminate . May offer shorter inclines than an o Cost
the conflicts cyclists would encounter with overcrossing.
motorized traffic if the crossing was at-
grade.
Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guldance
• Intersection between a main bikeway o Unobstructed views through o Bicycle section
and a major arterial street. tunnels (CROW) • Separate footpath:l0 ft
• • • Good lighting situation for minimum (CROW). •
security. Maximize daylight. • Shared use:11.5 ft
(CROW) minimum (CROW).
• Consider groundwater/drainage . Height: > 8.2 feet
issues. . Incline < 120
o Bicyclist preferably at ground level . Tunnel floor: 2% (drainage)
(CROW) • Approaches keptto rto more
• Clear of vegetation. No corners or than 5% grade (Davis)
recesses. (CROW) . Illumination
.ti~ • Walls recede towards top (CROW)
quate overhead clearance
o Ade
at least 10 ft (Alta)
Maintenance Level - Medium of . Minimum width of 14 feet for
several users to pass safely
{Alta}
Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries
n/a • Davis, CA
• San Diego, CA (ALTA)
• Boulder, Co
Source: Denver Igarta
Vancouver; BC, Canada ~ Madison, WI '
' • Netherlands (CROW)
21 of 41
61KEWAY DESIGN - best practices
Green Wave
Descriptian/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages
Green waves are coordinated traffic e Reduces the number of stops for o Potential to increase complaints
signals that aliow bicyclists to travel from bicyclists along an arterial street. from drivers abouttraffic signal
intersection to intersection without s Makes cycling more competitive as timing and maintenance,
stopping in one direction. Signs compared to automobile travel. e Potential air quality impacts due .
communicate to bicyclists the intended e Reduces person delay, where ta increased idling at traffic
speed for the facility and how fast they bicycie and transit volumes exceed signals (not in all cases).
need to ride to stay within the band. auto carrying capacity (or where • More difficult to impiement on
Green waves increase the efficiency of the pQlity dictates), two-way roadways.
bicycle and are a developing tool to , Reduced noise due to lower speeds
address high demand bicycle corridors.
• Increases safety for all roadway
users (including pedestrians)
-
Application • DesignjMaintenance Considerations Design Guidance •
• Arterial and collector streets with • identify effects to traffic (bicycle • 6reen wave speeds may be
groups of signalized intersections and automobile) in both directions influenced by grade
• High bicycie volumes • Under congested conditions • Operation may be limited to
• A high percentage of through (automobile congestion), impacts periods of peak bicyclist use
movements for bicyclists to vehicles may be less significant e Operation may be limited to
periods when signal timing is
Maintenance Leve! - Low operating at a given cycle length
• Signal cycle lengths may need to
be revised, requiring
comprehensive corridor
~`~n bgtge evafuation.
~ Implementation Obstades Example CitiesJCountries
• Auto traffic congestion resulting in • Copenhagen, DK
. complaints • Amsterdam, NL
o Increased road maintenance costs
~ due to braking caused by heavy
• `'~'~'r<''~~ vehicles
:
K~ b.30 20 ks~~t
Source: q of Copenhagen
22 of 41
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practices ,
Traffic Signal Operations for Bicycles
Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages
!t is commonplace to have traffic signals o Reduces bicycle delay (associated e Additional maintenance
designed primarily for automobiles. However, with advance bicycle detection associated with advance
there are severaf techniques that can balance and uncoordinated signals) bicycle detection
#he usefulness of the traffic signal for . Provides bicyclist priority over e increased traffic congestion
bicyclists, including: other users (leading bicycle associated with additional
• Advanced signal detection in the bike interval) green time used by bicyclists
lane o Increases bicyclist safety by (advance detection, signal
• 5horten delay for bike boulevard allowing a head start through the phasing, leading bicycle
crossings intersection (leading bicycle interval)
o Leading bicycle interval interval)
L
Application • DesignjMaintenance Design Guidance
• Signalized intersections where bicyclists Cons3derations • Advance detection must
travel at a high speeds • ldentify effects to traffic (cyclists account for signal timing
e Locations where intersection operation is and auto) in both directions parameters (gap timing), .
not intuitive for crossing through the signal • Identify mode of operation of speed of bicyclists, and
• High volume of bicycle trips signal (time of day for potential for automobiles to
coordination) and determine actuate the detector.
whether it is necessary. • Visibility of display for leading
bicycle intervaf needs careful
Maintenance Level - Low consideration.
I
Impiementation Obstactes Example Cities/Countries
Exclusive signal displays for • Albany, OR (advance
I' bicycles have not been reviewed detection)
- by the Federal Highway • Boulder, CO (scramble
Administration. phase)
' ; . '~r~ . : ' • Portfand. OR (scramble)
Source: Denver Igarta
Amsterdam, NL
23 of 41
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practices
Traffic Signai Crossings for Bicycles
Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages
Various types of trafficsignal control provide o Reduces bicycle delay during s power and maintenance costs
opportunities for bicyclists to cross major perfods of high vehicle traffic for signal
streets in a safe and comfortable manner, o Provides a safer protected s Increased stops and defay for
include: crossing automobile traffic
• Ful1 traffic signals with e Helps create an attractive and e Increased delay for bicyclists
detection/actuation for bikes Iow-stress route for bicyclists during periods when the major
• Pedestrian Hybrid Signals (a.k.a. street traffic is low
Hawk)
• Midblock signals for trails and
pedestrian crossings
~
Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design 6uidance
• Bicycie boulevard crossings of higher • Evaluate warrants to identify the
volume collector and arterial.streets. need for a traffic signal and the
• Trail crossings of higher volume Collector type of signal.
and Arterial Streets e Placement of a new signal along a
major street should consider
signal spacing and progression.
• ldentify mode of operation of
signal (time of day for
11 coordination).
r ~ • Design detectors so that they are
. ~ ~ ~r'• _ . - easy for bicyclists to use.
~ . z.
~ Maintenance Level - Low
Implementation Ubstacles Example Cities/Countries
e pedestrian Hybrid Signafs are not • Portland, OR
yet approved for general use. e Phoenix, AZ
ti • Exdusive signal displays for • Boulder, CO
t
bicycles are not included in
rR--ax.-r, ~ .
_,1 ""1 proptlsed design standards for •
Hybrid Signals.
Source: City of Portland (FBOT)
24 of 41
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practices
. Truncated Cycle Track - Ramp Down to Bike Lane
DescriptionjPurpose Advantages Disadvantages
A cycie track that ramps down to the • Bicycfists are more visible to e Bicyclists may have a sense of
roadway in advance of the intersection to motorists at intersections. perceived risk entering a travei
reduce conflicts with right turning • Mitigates risk of "right-hook" lane with motor vehicles.
motorists. crash with right turning motorists.
• lncreases visibility of bicyclists in
advance of the intersection.
Application~ Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance
Cycle tracks situated behind on-street • Bicyclists ramp down to a • Ramp down at least 70-100 ft
parking or otherwise removed from dedicated bike lane or mixed before the intersection
' travel lane. right-tum lane. depending on the number of
e Intersections with frequent right turning • Provide bike Iane up to the right turning motorists.
motor vehicles. intersection. (Denmark)
a Martc bicycle crossing through the • 1f combined with right-turn lane
intersection. must be about 13 ft wide to
• May be combined with bicycle box facilitate safe merging
treatment. manoeuvres. (Denmark)
• Remove parking in advance of the
- intersection to increase visibility.
Maintenance Leve[ - Low
t~.~._
Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries
. . r ~ i .
n/a • Denmark -Collectionof
- Concepts
• Muenster, Germany
Source: City of Vancouver, sc • Amsterdam, Netheriands
.
25 of 41
BIaCEWAY DESIGN - best practices
Cycle Track Two-Stage Signalized Left Turn with Queuing Space
Description/Purpose Advantages Uisadvantages
Two-stage feft (aka Copenhagen-left, o Reduces conflicts between • Bicyclists must wait for two
Melbourne-Left, jug-handle turn) offers motorists and bicyciists. signals rather than one.
bicyclists a safe left-turn movement where e Bicyclists can position themselves • Bicyclists may feel
there are physical/safety barriers to in front of traffic on cross steeet. uncomfortable in the queufng
entering the roadway in advance of the a Reduces complexity of left-turn for area.
intersection. Bicyclists proceed straight bicyclists.
across the intersection to the far side and '
then queue in front ofthe cross-street
traffic.
- -
Apptication Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance
• Cycfe tracks or bilce lanes with multiple • Use pavement markings to a Markings separate Ieft-turn and
motor vehicle travel lanes. • channelize bicycle movements and through movements of bicyclists.
• 5ignalized intersections. define queuing space. • Adequate/marked queuing area.
o Cunsider a physical refuge (e.g. • queuing area width > 4.0 ft
curb extension orjug-handle) for (CROW).
queuing bicyclists. • Motorists on cross street are not
• Consider bicycle advanced signal. aflowed ta turn right on red.
Maintenance Level - Low
~~i !
lmplementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries
n/a • Netherlands, CROW Manual
''Y ` ~e,. ` _ ; • Copenhagen, Denmark
.
• Muenster, Germany
%l ,
~-SOttft2'CI f ~GCR173[ly
26 of 41
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practices
Forward Stop Bar
Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages
A second stop bar for bicyclists placed o Bicyclists have better visibility of o Right-turn vehicle conflict if
closer to the centerline af the cross-street cross-street traffic. bicyclist arrives after motorist
than the first stop bar. Typically used with . gicyctists are more visible to going in the sarne direction.
crossing treatment (i.e. curb extension) to adjacent motorists. • Potential conflicts with
encourage bicyclists to take full advantage , gicyclists are permitted to bypass Pedestrians crossing the leg of
of crossing design. queuing motorists. the intersection with the forward
• Shortens crossing distance for stop bar.
bic clists.
Application Design/Maintenance Considerations ~ Design Guidance ~
o Low-volume, stop-controlted • Low % right-turning motorists • Consider other treatments if
intersections, preferably with curb. e Maderate motor vehicle volumes >25% motor vehicles turn right
extension • • High volumes of bicycle traffic or >15% bikes (Port(and) •
• Unsignalized bicycle boulevard crossing . placement of the forward stop bar o Combined bike/right turn
in reiation to the crosswalk lane
e Adequate space for pedestrians a Bike box in through lane
• Shou{d be thermoplastic due to • Stop bar shoufd be
increased wear thermoplastic
• Stop sign permits bicyclists to
Malntenance Levet - Low move past the motorist stop
bar without stopping.
1 ~
!
r" Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countrles
•zRJ n/a • Portland,OR
. r
Source: City of Portland (PBOTj
27 of 41
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practices Bicycte Box
Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages
Bicycle boxes are a traffic control device at • Gives bicyciists priority and makes e Eliminates motorist right-on-
signalized intersections that require them more visible to mitigate red.
motorists to stop a short distance before "right-hoak" threat. e Potential for unfamiliar drivers
the crosswalk and affow bicyclists to stop in • Gives bicyclists on hike boulevards to be confused or to encroach
the area between the cars and the priority when signal has a short into the bicycle box.
crosswalk. Bicycle boxes give 6icyclists green phase. • Maintenance costs of colored
priority by allowing them to go ta the head e Enables left-turning bicyclists to surface.
of the line. position themselves to the left
prior to getting a green signal
Application (works vise-versa if bicyclisu Design Guidance
Signalized intersections: turning right from left side bike • Reservoir (box) depth
• A high number of queuing lane). . 13 ft-16.4 ft
bicyclists . Lessens nuisance from exhaust. (CROW/london)
• High automobile & bicycle volumes . Lead-in approach bike lane to
• Frequent turning conflicts allow bicycles to bypass queuing
• A high percentage of turning motor vehicles.
movements by both bicyclists and • Minimum width: 5 ft
motorists. (London)
Design/Maintenance Considerations • As long as queue length
• Identify dimensions that work best • Prominent b9cycle symbol and
for bicyclists (comfort/safety) bright color surfacing.
' e Box may be disregarded by o Right-turn-on-red prohibited.
motorists if not commonly filled a Consider "head start" advanced
by bicyclists and properly signed. signal.
. .
i ' • Consider surface color and
markings to reduce vehicle
6 li encroachment
Maintenance Level - High
source: oenver igarta ~mplementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries
' Portland, oR • Not partof the Manual on • Cambridge, MA Uniform Traffic Control Devices • portland, OR
(MUTCD) e Vancouver, BC, CA
• Victoria, BC, CA
• Amsterdam, Netherlands
• Muenster, Germany
28of41
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practices
Combined Right-turn Bike Lane
Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages
A right-turn lane for automobiles that is • Identifies bicyclist focation in a • Th rough- bicyclists may block
also a through lane for bicyclists, marked geometrically restricted . right-turning motorists where
or unmarked, but signed as such. intersection. turn capacity is needed.
• Allows "duai use" of lane where
there is insufficient space for both
bicycle lane and dedicated right-
turn lane.
Appliwtion Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance
o Where a bike lane approaches a • Advance warning is needed for e< 10% of auto traffic is right-
congested intersection that requires an bicyclists and motorists, turning
exclusive right-turn lane for motorists. e• Not appropriate at intersections • If> 25% of autotraffic is right- •
with very high peak automobife turning, use bike box in adjacent
turn demand or where automobile through lane if bike demand is
turn demand is consistently high sufficient .
throughout the day. • Use shared lane marking in right-
o Maintenance Level - Low or High. turn lane to show through
If the combined right-turn and bike bicycle movement
_ _ _
lane includes markings for the
t cyclist space, those markings will
be regularly driven over and suffer
' ~ - faster wear than a center of lane
marking. Without markings the
maintenance should be low and
consist of only sign maintenance.
~ Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries
~oCONLY nla Vancouver, Washin ton
eae+ameo uea g
~
• j ~ / • . .
1
Source: Or!1on Department of Transportatlon
29 of 41 •
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practices
Traffic Circles
Destription Advantages Disadvantages
Traffic circles are raised circular islands at o Requires motorists to slow down • High cost
the center of the intersection of two or more to drive around them • pelay to fire trucks
streets. e Reduces the Iikelihood of right- o Long vehicles cannot go around
angle collisions circle to make a left turn
• Where bi[ce lanes do not exist,
bicyclists and motorists are
foreedtogether
Appliption Design Considerattons Design Guidance ~
• Loca( Service streets only o Proximity of circular roadway to
pedestrian crossing path
• • e Emergency vehicle access • •
e On high volume roadways .
impact repairs may be more
~ fY'~I I~'~'~;_t`• yfrequent, but are typically
finfrequent. Maintenance of
' vegetation forvisibility issues
may be required every five
years.
~ --a-~- ~ Maintenance Level - Medium
Design Obstacles/Chalfenges Example Cities/Countries
n/a • Seattle, Washington
Source:Denverlgarta • POrtland,OregOn
• vancouver, ac • Vancouver, BC, Canada
30 af 41
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practices
Bicycle Boulevard Off-Set Intersection with Arterial Street
DescriptionJPurpose Advantages Disadvantages
A variety of treatments to faeilitate an off-set Q Provides facilities for bicyclists to • Some designs may limit
bicycle boulevard crossing of a major traffic enabiing them to cross one turning movements for
street where the bicycle boulevard forms two direction of traffic at once or using motorists.
closely spaced T-intersections. a dedicated signal. • Parking removal may be
• Facilitates bicycle mobility on required for some
bicycle boulevards. designs.
' e Provides safe crossings of high- volume roads.
Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance
. • Bicycle boulevards intersecting arterial. • Designs for R/GHToff-set o Bike.lane width .
streets at off-set locations. intersections include: • 6 to 8 ft
a Bicycle-only center turn lane(s) • Use retroreflective
o Median refuge island with materials on raised or
integrated bike path painted center turn
' o Right-running bike lane/cycle (anes.
trackwith left-turn pockets
• Two-way bicycle sidepath
• Designs for LEFT off-set
intersections include:
• Right-running bike lane/cycle
. track
• Two-way bicycle sidepath
• Provide adequate bicycle turn lane
' width
' • Consider median refuges or signals •
~c
at intersections for rlght-running
. bike facilities
Consider cross-bike to mark
roadway crossings for bicyclists
• All designs may include a signal.
Maintenance Levet - Medium
source: RogerGetier implementation Obstacles ~ Example Cities/Countries
Portland, oR n/a . Portland, OR
• Seattle, WA
• Tucson, AZ
~ • De Bilt, Netherlands
31 of 41
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practices
Median Refuge
Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages
A short median of full-height curb . Calms traffic and provides space for • May restrict left-turn
constructed between automobile travel safe bicycle and pedestrian crossing movements of automobiles
lanes where bicyclists (and pedestrians) • Allows bicyclists and pedestrian to • Requires right-of-way that may
. can take refuge .while crossing a multi- cross while focusing on one result in loss of parking spaces or
lane or high-volume arterial. direction of traffic at a time. a travel lane
a COSY
r---
Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance
• Relatively wide roadways with e Adequate width to a{low a bicyclist o Median width: minimum width 8
rnultiple lanes and few gaps in traffic. with a trailer to be protected from ft,10 ft preferred (BM P)
• May be• used at signalized or un- • the travel lanes • • Should be at least 6.6 ft wide •
signalized crossings. e Angled refuge (45 degree) can be to provide sufficient waiting
• Can be effective when located at used to provide space and face space. (MTC)
intersections between signalized bicyclist towards oncoming traffic e If 2 m is not available, the
intersections that create gaps • If a crossing island is landscaped, it bicycle storage area may be
shauid not compromise visibility. angled across the median
• Consider reflectors or lighting to (MTC)
enhance visibility at night
• Preferable at-grade passage through
the island rather than ramps and
~landings.
Maintenance Level:- Low
- Implementation Obstacles Example Clties/Countries.
n/a • Portland, OR (BMP)
• San FranciSCO, CA (MTC)
Source: Denver Igarta
Portland, OR • 32 of 41
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practices
"Cross-bike" Markin'gs
Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages
Pavement markings adjacent to the crosswalk o Provides greater visibifity for • Cross-bike will have higher
indicating space for bicycles to cross major bicyclists at intersections. than normal wear based on
intersections. Increases visibility of bicycles at . Informs all roadway users of the level of crossing auto
intersections and encourages motorists to where bicyciists should cross. traffic.
yield right-of-way ta bicyclists waiting to cross. • Separates modes to reduce
conflicts.
Applitation DesignJMaintenance Design Guidance
• Where main bicycle routes cross relatively Considerations e Minimum width of single fane
minor collectors. • Consider combining with yield crossing is 5 ft
• Where cross traffic has to yield right-of-way (sharks teeth)•marking. (London/CROW) •
ta crossing bicyclists. s Use of color e Minimum width of two-way
• Not appropriate where speeds exceed 30 • Improves visibility crossing is 10 ft(CROW)
mph unless signalized. (Sustrans) • Increases maintenance cost a Elephant footprints. Block
• Markings shoufd not be confused marking (CROw)
with crosswalks • 20 in by 20 in meters
• Skid resistant markings for • Spacing: 20 in
bicycles 11
• Physical measures to slow traffic. Implementation Obstacles
• Civil crossing improvements • Not in Manual on Uniform
should be introduced in Traffic Control Devices
conjunction. (MUTCD)
• If signalized, prohiblt right turns • May require enabling
on red. legislation
' e Consider ladder-.bar shape (aka • Standards for application
Zebra) to reduce auto tire wear needed
• Consider marking adjacent
crosswalk to distinguish two Example Cities/Countries
, Source: oenverigarta pathways eLondon, England (5ustrans) ,
Groningen, NL e Vancouver, BC
Maintenance level - High (Keefer/Carrall)
• Vienna, Austria
• Netherlands (CROW)
o Paris, France
a Groningen, Netherlands
33of41
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practices
Pass=through Curb Extension
Description Advantages Disadvantages
A curb extension with a path for bicyclists e Eliminates conflict point where • Potential for pedestrian-cyclist
that permits them to drive over the curb bicycles and automobiles share conflict
extension, the same space • Automobiles overtaking bicycles
and conflicts after both.pass curb
extension
,.,-T._
Application T Design Considerations Uesign Guidance
• High-conflict point where frequently • Conspicuity of in-road features • Road narrowing to 16 ft does not
stopped transit vehicle may block bike for roadway users require advance warning, below
lane • • Clearly commvnicate to cyclist 16 ft provide advance warning of-
~ Soft diversion location where road is and motorists the proper path to narrow road
narrowed to induce queuing for take • Mark bike path through curb automobile traffic . Clearly designate right-of-way extension to reduce conflict with
between opposing motorists pedestrians
- - - ` • Provide truncated domes for
Maintenance Level - Low pedestrians for crossing both
bike path and entering roadway
• Bike lane width over curb
extension to rnatch bike lane
standards
Design Obstacles/Challenges Example Cities/Countries
n/a a Vancouver, BC
• Portland, OR
~
Source: Denver Igarta
Vancouver, BC
34 of 41
BIKEWAY DESIGRI best practices
Bicyc9e Roundabou$ Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages
Use of a circular intersection confarming e Familiar layout m Space needs
to modern roundabout standards to : Reduces need to stop o Compliance uncertainty
organize the interaction of bicycles( and o More predictable interactions
automobiles) where bicycle boulevards or , Improves safety
off street pathways intersect. o Educational benefit
Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance
e Where two bike boulevards or shared • Geometric layout on shared use e Center island diameter 20 ft
use pathways cross. paths should place bicyclists to minimum without visibility
. • center of pathway with obstructions or truck apron. •
pedestrians at sides (automobile e Target bicycle operational speed
bike analogy of roadways) of 5-10 mph.
• Pedestrians should be guided to . Circular roadway width 8-ft
exit shared path and use minimum per lane
concentric external pathway that . Entry and exit lane widihs, 6-ft
crosses bikeways at splitter islands. minimum with flare
• Central island size and radii should • Splitter island minimum 2-ft
encourage low-speed bicyclist wide, offset left, with deflection
interaction of 5-10 mph. toward circufar roadway before •
entry.
Maintenance level - Medium • Consider raised pedestrian
crossings.
o Standard roundabout signing
and markings using bike-sized
signs
• Implementation Obstacles Example Cit(es/Gountrles
~
n/a e Utah
Source: Greg Raisman
e Davis, California
. Ltrecht, Nl • ,
• The Netherlands
35 of 41
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practices
Bicycle Boulevard Pavement Marking
Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages
Large pavement markings that identify • Guide bicyclists along the occasional • Maintenance costs.
bike boufevards. Intent.of markings is to jogs on boulevard routes.
make these streets recognizable to all . Reinforces proper bicycfe position
users as bicycle priority streets. on a shared roadway.
• Makes bicycle boulevards as
recognizable to roadway users as
streets with bicycle lanes.
_ - - - -Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance
e Low-traffic shared roadways. e Supplemental arrows help direct o Install markings at all
bicyclists when boulevard route intersections and at regular
• • jogs. • intervals: •
a Fit the neighborhood aesthetic. • 200 ft intervals (Aita)
• Place near high-conflict areas • Symbol dimensions
(driveways). e Large bicycie symbol 5' by 9'
• Apply markings with retroreflective (CROW)
paint or thermoplastic (Alta) e 5.5' by 9' (London Cycie
a Should be skid resistant. symbo11057)
• Consider the application of color
and markings at major crossings.
`p~ • Cansider wear/maintenance on
~.•.°;S ~ roadways where motor vehicles
~ i travel.
• Potential neighbor concerns about
aesthetic.
Malntenance Level - Low
Imptementation Obstacles Exampte Cities/Countries
• Not in Manual on Uniform Traffic • San Luis Obispo, CA
Control Devices (MUTCD) • Berkeley, CA
• Portland, OR
Source: vuz-essen.de
Essen, Germarry • Eug2t12, OR
• Essen, Germany • Kiel, Germany
36 of 41
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practices
Shared Roadway Markings
Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvantages
Shared roadway pavement markings, or • Helps bicyclists position e Maintenance requirements
"sharrows", are markings used to indicate a themselves in lanes tao narrow for e Less desirabie than a separated
shared lane environment for bicycles and a motor vehicle and a bicycle to bicycie facility.
automobiles. Sharrows increase the travel side by side within the same
visibility of the roadway as a valid place for traffic lane.
bicycle traffic and guide proper roadway o Mimics the effect of bicycle lanes
positioning of bicyclists on streets where a on streets with constrained rights-
separated facility is desired but not feasible. of-way and alerts road usecs of the
lateral location bicyclists may
occupy.
• Moves bicyclists out of the "door
zone" of parked cars. ,
o Encourages safe passing by
moto rists.
Application DesignJMaintenance Considerations Design Guidance
• 5treets with moderate motor vehicie • Visible placement of markings. e Design guidance for sharrows
traffic volumes, but where bike lanes are are provided in the Manual on
precluded by constrained right-of-way. Maintenance Level - Low Uniform Traffic Control Devices
• Short gaps between bike lanes. (MUTCD)
o Streets without space for bike lanes in • Bike-and-chevron symbol
bath directions. dimensions 9 ft 3 in by 3 ft 3in.
o Low-traffic shared roadways to indicate • Marking placed minimum 11'
presence of:bikeway. from curb face.
• To designate through-movement of • Symbol spacing should
bicycles through shared turn lane correspond to difficulty of
bicyclists trying to take proper
- - ~•;,x~ travel path. Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries
. nja . • • San Francisco, CA
Portland, OR
o Montreal, Cluebec, Canada
, Used by 76 jurisdictions in 26
✓ states as of 2009
• " WW
Ah~~..
Source: Denver Igarta
Portland, OR
37 of 41 '
BIKEWAY DESIGN - best practices
Bikeway Destination Signage Description/Purpose Qdvantages Disadvantages
6uide signing for bicyclists along . Guides bicyclists to significant o Size limits information
designated bike routes. Reinforce bikeway destinations • Sign clutter network by providing visual cues. Direct • Encourages potentia{ riders
bicycfists to destinations via preferred
routes.
rApplication Design/Maintenance Consicleratians Design Guidance~
• Bike route intersections o Current signs include direction, o Manual on Uniform Traffic
o At key decision points along bikeways destination & distance (3D) - Control Devices (MUTCD)
• • consider adding difficulty. • e Oregon Department of •
o Conspicuity Transportation (ODOT) standard
• Legend size • City of Portland standard sign
• Color code or route numbering
Maintenance level - Low
Implementation Obstacles Exampte Cities/Countries
o federal Highway Administration • Portland, OR
and ODOT currently have . • Serkeley, California
standards that differ from the City . Vancouver, BC, Canada
'
~ of Portland. . Netherlands
o Maintaining and updating sysiem . Denmark
Source: [ityof Portland (PBOTj with addition of new routes
becomes increasingly complex.
38 of 41
B1KElNAY D ES 1 G N - Ib est p ra ct i ces
5$reetcar on Bikeways
(Center or left running streetcar tracks with bicycle lane or cycle track)
Description/Purpose Advantages Disadvaniages
The street is designed to accommodate a o gicyclists and streetcar are o Potentia( conflicts with
center- or left-running streetcar track and completely separated. pedestrians crossing the
platform. Bicyclists will either travel to the o Increases safety. street to the center platform.
right of the streetcar in either a bike lane,
a The center platform eliminates
cycle track or vehicle lane free of the the pinch point at curb extension
streetcar tracks. piatforms, and the iack of parked
cars eliminates conflict with
parking cars and doors.
o Center platforms eliminate curb
extension platforms that force
bicyclists to cross tracks at
' shaflow angles.
Application Design/Maintenance Considerations Design Guidance
a Where streetcar is planned on a one • Separate bicycle travel from o Track crossing angle for cyclists
way or two-way street with a bicycle streetcar tracks to the extent . Minimum 45 degree angle
facility. possible. e Offer 90 degree whenever
a Clearly mark where crosswalks possible
meet with the bicycle facility
(bike lane or cycle track)
. o Way-finding signs and markings
shoufd be created for bicyclists
to indicate turning opportunities
• Design should direct bicycfists to
cross tracks at a right-angle.
o Crossing angles should be near-
~
perpendicular.
o Mid-block or far-side streetcar
stops may result in fewer
M►
conflicts than near-side corner
x .~`ti - sto ps.
Maintenance Leve) - Low
Implementation Obstacles Example Cities/Countries
n/a o Melbourne,Australia
" Source: Denver Igarta
Amsterdam, Nl (Swanston St)
a Portland, OR (SW 8ond/ SW
Harrison)
a Amsterdam, Netherlands
39 of 41