Home

Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool & User Guide

Contents

1. 3 6 Denmark The Danish Road Directorate s Collection of Cycle Concepts indicates that increased cycle use has been associated with increases in safety an observation that is consistent with other literature Figure 17 presents a list of measures described in this document that provide assistance in improving cycle use and safety This space intentionally left blank Danish Road Directorate Collection of Cycle Concepts Copenhagen Denmark 2000 Delphi MRC 32 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool 5 Figure 17 Denmark Planning and policy guidelines for improving cycle safety and use Examples of measures PLANNING FOR CYCLISTS BICYCLE SCHEMES Direct cycle routes City bikes Coherent cycle networks Company bikes Revival of focal communities through bicycle use Employee bikes Cyde audits of local municipal and regional plans Commuter bikes Cyde action plans Hotel bikes Bathing and changing facilities at workplaces Beach and harbour bikes Green transport plans for workplaces and schools Bicycle hire schemes More and smaller shops schools and lelsure centres Cycle trailer and basket deposit schemes In shops Fewer access barriers Bicycle courters Contra flow coding permitted in oneavay streets WIP service for commuter cyclists AND EVENTS Car sharing Campaigns for increased use of bicycle helmets Bicycle delivery services Bii eee END
2. Fi SHARED z ROAD SEGREGATED 6 ara CYCLE P F da Go y FACILITY a gt N CYCLE N 3 SHARED LANE Reduction of motor vehicle ROAD N speeds should be considered Ma f SHARED mr ROAD SEGREGATED _ EED CYCLE FACILITY IG af 70 40 SC Gr 7 Speed V 85 mph TEE Ibid 48 Sustrans The National Cycle Network Guidelines and Practical Details Issue 2 Bristol United Kingdom 1996 Thid Delphi MRC 36 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool 3 8 Germany Literature from Germany was also reviewed including Empfehlungen f r Radverkehrsanlagen Recommendations for Bicycle Facilities published by Forschungsgesellschaft fur strassen und verkehrswesen Roads and Transport Research Society While an English translation of this guide could not be obtained the facility selection nomograph illustrated in Figure 20 is the suggested guidance in this particular document Similar to other nomographs used in other jurisdictions it is based on traffic volume in this case hourly volume and vehicle speed Figure 20 Germany Facility selection nomograph weistreifige Stralgen _ Kfz h 2400 2200 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 km h V guiding principle is mixing Blue zone urban major roads Il guiding principle is partial separation Green zone 30 km h speed
3. City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool Figure 22 A model worksheet to carry out the facility selection process si dee Pre select the facility i See en i DE reds HI Er ere The Tabie rs ear E Biss If Step 1 yields a result different than Step 2 Straat and Section or if Step 1 is inconclusive prepare a rationale Street and Section ee from the following for selecting a preferred option Speed Volume Function Vehicle Mix On street parking _ Intersection access density Collision history Available space User skill _ User density Route function _ Project type _ Costs funding List the relevant rules amp 8 Check all that apply Select Rules From the column next to each checkmark extract each rule ot 3 DE EV ee IN os teer Diy Tet Voere ink nes rd roe Traffic Volume Document your design considerations to support the rationale Date and source Motor vehicle operating speed Date and source _Nomograph Result Delphi MRC City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool 5 3 Step 1 Pre select the facility type The facility pre selection in Step 1 of the tool is intended to identify the most appropriate facility type based on two key safety risk factors vehicle speed and volume This is supported by the literature and appears appropriate for the Ottawa context
4. 2 4 1 Cycling skill levels Most literature classifies cyclists into one of three distinct skill categories The following definitions are presented in the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and is generally representative of the types of skill stratification considered in the design of such facilities 1 Child cyclists they do not travel as fast as adult cyclists but still require access to key destinations within their community such as schools and recreational facilities Residential streets with low motor vehicle speeds and separate paths are preferred as children tend not to recognize risk in the same way most adults do In addition children have a limited understanding of the rules of the road and how best to interact safely with motor vehicle traffic 2 Basic novice cyclists less confident adult riders using their bicycles for transportation purposes but prefer to avoid roads with fast and busy motor vehicle traffic unless there is ample roadway width to allow easy passing They consider riding on neighborhood streets and separate paths to be more comfortable and prefer designated facilities such as bike lanes or wide shoulder lanes when riding on busier streets 3 Advanced experienced cyclists generally use their bicycles as they would a motor vehicle They are riding for convenience and speed and want direct access to destinations with a minimal detour and delay Information Technology Centre f
5. As such the user is required to have the following information e Motor vehicle traffic volume vehicles per day in all lanes in both directions e Motor vehicle operating speed 85th percentile speed in km h Based on the combination of motor vehicle volumes and operating speeds that are present along a given segment of roadway and using the nomograph shown in Figure 23 the user can pre select a cycling facility type There are five possible options identified by the four colour patterns in the nomograph and are described as 1 Mixed traffic i e regular traffic lanes or wide curb lanes Cycle lanes or paved shoulders Separated cycling facility high volume low speed and Separated cycling facility high volume high speed and a w bP Consider an alternative route due to high exposure to risk Once a facility type is identified the user must proceed to Step 2 to complete a more detailed assessment of site specific conditions Figure 23 Step l facility pre selection nomograph Cycle Facility Pre selection Nomograph Q 1 2 a 4 ba G T B g 10 11 12 13 14 215 Motor Vehicle 100 Operating Speed 85th Percentile Km h Cycle Lane Congested Conditions 20 Consider Separated Facility or Alternate Routes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 gt 15 Average Daily Traffic Volume all lanes both directions THOUSANDS Source Delphi MRG 2011 The nomograph is also provided in Appendix A Del
6. Conflicts between modes When designing separated bicycle facilities bicycle demand and pedestrian demand are both considered in determining the most appropriate configuration i e exclusive to bicycles mixed use or designating exclusive space for cyclists and pedestrians Bicycle operating speeds are also considered This is intended to minimize conflict between cyclists and pedestrians 6 Maintenance o Designs which facilitate and simplify maintenance AASHTO Guide for the Development of activities improve the safety and use of the facility Bicycle Facilities 1999 Pavements in bicycle travel paths should be free of bumps potholes and other irregularities Utility covers and JAASHTO Guide for the Development of drainage grates should be flush and traversable preferably Bicycle Facilities 1999 outside of the travel path Physical conditions on bridges such as narrower lanes AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bridges steep grades metal grates expansion joints and low ae 7 Bicycle Facilities 1999 railings can be challenging for cyclists Bicycle collisions are often concentrated at intersections The number and size of intersection crossings should be minimized to the extent possible and crossings should be AASHTO Guide for the Development of designed to minimize and highlight conflicts Exclusive Bicycle Facilities 1999 bicycle signals should be considered at high speed high volume intersections
7. Poorly designed or constructed facilities may result in increased safety risks for cyclists and are unlikely to encourage additional Delphi MRC iv City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool Delphi MRC
8. limit greater than 70 kmh Is route used for commuting by motor traffic 7 Is motor traffic volume AADT greater than 30004 vpd Is it possible to provide a high standard path for commuting by Where route follows a road is speed limit greater than 80 km h cyclists Refer Road Treatment Flowchart sect 4 3 1 Ensure salislactory local 4 canditions including safety connectivity and routes in and around schools and other bicycle trip gemeralers Ee A detailed review should be Carried curl i of roubes har inexperienced cyclists 1 for Sirabegic Retyole roules ar J where high beycle volumes exis Bicycle lane or path treatments may be appropriate in these 1 circumehances Consideration should be given te the use of advisory ireal i mants tor the strategic bicyele routes see sect 4 4 62 The above flow chart is based on the following principles 2 Ibid Delphi MRC 20 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool e A higher level of protection is appropriate if the route is commonly used by inexperienced cyclists e Routes commonly used by commuting motor vehicle traffic are commonly associated with aggressive driving conditions which poses significant risk to cyclists e A traffic volume of 3 000 vehicles per day is widely regarded as the threshold beyond which provision for cyclis
9. Bicycle symbols for traffic signals should be provided where separated facilities cross roads at signalized intersections that serve both pedestrians and cyclists Separated facilities that cross side streets at unsignalized intersections should do so adjacent to pedestrian crosswalks Proper signage and positive guidance are necessary to clearly indicate motorist cyclist right of way expectations at intersection driveway conflict areas Funding availability can limit feasible bicycle facilities at particular locations or limit the extent to which bicycle facilities can be provided A lack of funds should not result in poorly designed or inappropriate bicycle facilities E 7 Design of bicycle facilities must not encourage cyclists or AASHTO Guide for the Development of Provincial and Municipal Laws motorists to operate in a manner that is inconsistent with e l Bicycle Facilities 1999 established laws and expectations Infrequent bicycle use in the order of 10 users per hour or less is considered low bicycle demand Bicycle demand is considered to be high when there are 50 or so users per hour Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice Part 14 Bicycles 1999 Pavement Surface Quality Intersection Conditions Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice Part 14 Bicycles 1999 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Costs Funding Bicycle Facilities 1999 Delphi MRC 41 City of Ottaw
10. Land Transport Safety Authority New Zealand Cycle Network and Route Planning Guide Wellington New Zealand 2004 Delphi MRC 28 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool Figure 15 New Zealand Facility type suitability by cyclist skill CYCLE FACILITY OPTION CHILD NOVICE BASIC COMPETENCE EXPERIENCED Eerbeide ock lane Cycle lane next to parking AA Aib dk dk dk Ai dir di di Contra flow cycle lane AA dk dk di dk dip di dir di di Wide kerb side lane art Ek Ki dh BE di dk di Bus lane Sh Jih di di dir db di Transat lane te es chi di di dk di SJow mixed traffic SE okie okt ki ke di di di ok ok di dir Pathe i db db db di ip diie db db db db db Legend Benet AE minimal benett dk lke oh morair bereft AN tk ae AN AN moi Denefil Further facility selection support for urban roads is provided in the form of a nomograph illustrated in Figure 16 The basis of the nomograph is that comfort and safety is a function of traffic speed and volume similar to other facility selection nomographs applied elsewhere The document suggests that cycling facilities identified using this nomograph are expected to yield the broadest appeal This space intentionally left blank 42 Ibid Delphi MRC 29 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool Figure 16 New Zealand Facility selection nomograph 12 000 NOTE THIS DIAGRAM IS TO BE APPLIE
11. Loan of bicycle lamps rain clothes etc Promotion of maw cycle routes Arranged cycle tours with gimmicks eel Cyclist of the year awards Cycle to work campaigns Influencing attitudes and Intentions SAFER ROAD LAYOUT Teaching the health benefits from cycling Traffic calming of major roads Teaching the effect of carson urban environments Area wide traffic calming Fewer fixed roadside objects Bridges and tunnels at major barrlers Mobility centres with cyclist Information Campaigns against drunk cycling GPs recommendations of cycling Cycle crossings Workplace vistts fram the Heart Foundation Staggered stop lines Campaigns to promote the slimming effects of cycling Advanced stop lines Children to motivate parents Pre green for cyclists Bicycle escorts of school pupils Stop signs Bicycle days Speed reducing junction treatments Bike to the baker s campaigns WEE Hume Mini roundabourts Ft Roundabouts Cycle tracks on rural roads RESTRICTIONS ON CAR USE Removal of car parking spaces Road closures Stopping and parking prohibitions for cars More and larger areas with parking charges Reduction of focal speed limits EG ai INTERMODALITY Elkes on tralnsbuses schemes Oo BETTER ROAD MAINTENANCE ROAD SAFETY Better sweeping weed control and winter maintenance Black spot treatments 7 Road safety audits Integrated safety management BETTER BICYCLE PAR
12. Pleasant amd interesting routes or destinations challenging routes or grades Parking facilities located near destinations Security of bicycle parking Showers baggage lockers Water toilets shelter shops Poes NEIGHBOURHOOD de Te shops school or nding near home cai di di di ce EE Fas fa fa Ai Ab dir db dir dir dk di di di di dd di di di di dir di ok di dii hn dii dir dir Ai dy la moderate benefit New Zealand Facility design guidelines matrix To get to ther destination efficienthy dbp ct dir A Fa Ai sir di di dir kr Aih Ai in cain dk di di di dk dk cde dir di dir ok Ai Ai A ein cin dir dd db dd cain dir dr dir kr Fable 4 1 The relative importance of network or route criteria to different cyclin groups 1 Ta be physically challenged ci di di di cin di di dd kr airs ain An A dk a dk dip cde ci che Ab di db di dir chin chin ch di in Ai ik dk dk dkak most benefit Ab di db di dir an Ai Ai Ai aici Gi Gi db dd cp df ar Fe kr Aih Aih Ab dk Ab di dir di di di ir db dii dir di dir dir dir To see and miy new places and ERPETiENCES di di di di air ms Ai Ai Ai dk di di di Ap di di kr dk di di db di Gain di db di di dk di dk dir sif di di di Hi di Fa oa Ai Aii in
13. acces road 600 450 Estate acces 3 road gt 1 50 1 50 3 2 6 Summary The Netherlands have an advanced cycling system and sophisticated policies and guidelines particularly with respect to the issue of segregation However the cycling culture and environment are significantly different than in North America so a direct adaptation of their facility implementation guidance may not be possible Nonetheless some elements may be almost directly useable while others may require some 1 Thid 20 Thid Delphi MRC 12 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool modifications In either case the basic underlying principles are applicable and appropriate for the Ottawa context 3 3 United States 3 3 1 Overview Unlike the Netherlands in the United States there does not appear to be an extensive history of research development and deployment of cycle facilities based on a unified and defensible set of technical principles geared specifically to cyclist needs Rather much of the literature and guidance that exists is based on conventional road design principles or practices but never evaluated comprehensively from the technical standpoint of safety comfort and operational criteria In the US there appear to be many implementation opinions but little factual guidance for the purposes of applying segregation principles to cycle facilities Nonetheless there is some useful information with respect to cur
14. basis wide curb lanes and cycle lanes are avoided if possible Motor Vehicle Speeds Incremental clearance or buffer space is recommended between vehicles and the bicycle operating envelope as Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering speeds increase e g 1 0 m at 60 km h 1 5 m at 80 km h Practice Part 14 Bicycles 1999 2 0 m at 100 km h Reducing traffic volumes and speeds may do more to New Zealand Land Transport Authority improve cyclist safety than providing cycling facilities Cycle Network and Route Planning Guide depending on the circumstances 2004 Operating speeds are categorized into four groups less than 50 km h 50 to 65 km h 65 to 80 km h greater than 80 km h FHWA Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles Cyclist volumes may be used as an indicator of level of use however may underestimate the potential bicycle demand Bicycle trip generators such as residential AASHTO Guide for the Development of neighborhoods employment centres schools parks Bicycle Facilities 1999 shopping centres recreational facilities colleges etc Cyclist Volumes should also be considered to estimate latent bicycle demand and desire lines Infrequent bicycle use in the order of 10 users per hour or less is If a road section forms part of what Ottawa would term a considered low bicycle demand spine bicycle route direct primary routes between major Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering
15. bays to maintain a straight riding path for cyclists Under these conditions the travel width available for motorized traffic should be limited Figure 3 provides an interesting recommendation for width requirements between various combinations of cyclists curbs parked and moving vehicles It is noted that these vehicle dimensions and the resulting required space between cyclists and parked vehicles may be significantly different in Canada 17 Thid Delphi MRC 10 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool Figure 3 Netherlands Facility width guidelines Dimensional segments and indicative use In order to compile a profile designers can use dimensional segments and indicative use Indicative use means the indicative combina tion on a road section a combination of a car and two cyclists for example Dimensional segments are the dimensions required for a specific user in the cross section profile The dimensional segments that apply to an estate access road are shown below The value of the cyclist edge dimensional seg ment refers to the minimum distance a cyclist wants to keep from the kerb If the cyclist passes cars parked on the right the value of this dimensional segment is about twice as high Almost all motorised traffic will over take bicycle traffic when the value of the Required width Dimensional segment profile m cyclist 0 75 car 21 75 lorry2 3 2 60 cy
16. be accomplished if new cyclists feel comfortable using the facilities and an emerging option that is becoming increasingly important in this respect is the appropriate deployment of segregated cycle facilities 2 2 Segregated versus non segregated facilities Direct comparison of the relative safety of bicycle facilities proves to be a difficult task Separate bicycle paths may appear to be safer than bicycle lanes but may result in more conflicts at intersection and driveway locations especially if the path is physically removed from the roadway in such a way that motorists may not be expecting cyclists at the junction of the path with the driveway or intersection Similarly bicycle lanes may result in more orderly and predictable behavior between motorists and cyclists along a road segment but may lead to conflicts at intersections if cycle lane traffic must re integrate with motorized vehicles as they jointly traverse the intersection and its influence area Much of the safety performance seems to depend on the design of bicycle facilities and the context of the road environment on which they are applied The New Zealand Land Transport Safety Authority makes note of this in their Cycle Network and Route Planning Guide as a general consideration for providing either roads or paths One choice is not inherently safer than another both can be hazardous and both require high quality design to achieve safety Research on this issue is f
17. cease Ge Oe ee ee oe Ee ER EE ee DE GE GR GE eae meet ieee DE GE SE GE GE 6 3 NERE LAND AE EE EG N EE EE tne 6 3 2 1 Ere wes OE EE EE EE N ON EE N EE EE ON N N 6 Solve CICR TICIVPOT IG SIICCES S see ESE N OE on Ge Oe E ee Ee ee ee eas 6 3 2 3 ODI ER N ER EE RR EN 7 3 2 4 Facilities on road segments in urban areas ees ee ee ee EE ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee 9 Dhd Road segments in rural are aS ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee Ee ee ee ee ee Ee ee ee ee Il 3 2 6 AN AO EO HE EE EE EE EE EO E 12 3 3 UNITED STATES secscincorctweasavean es ke ee n Gee Ge eo Ee EG ie be ee Ee Ge ee ea Ee EG Re ee Ee GE ee Ge EG EG 13 3 3 1 6a AA EE AE OR RE AAR NA RE EER N EN 13 3 3 2 AA OD E T 13 3 3 3 FHWA BIKESAFE Safety Countermeasure Selection SYSTEM ees sesse ee ee ee esse ee ee ee ee ee ee ee 15 3 3 4 NCHRP Report 552 Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities l 3 4 PMNS THR N EE OD Oe OE EE EO OG N N N Oe ON 19 3 4 1 PAN SPI PAID Soe ve ck ee acevo ae ee ee Ee 19 3 4 2 IN OW OEE VV ICS AE OR N ere dais ecto cele EE EO N EE N 24 3 5 NEW N Aile ARE EE RE N OE RE TEN 27 3 6 DBI e E A AEEA 32 3 7 LIN IERE INGOOI tes isonet eo ee ee ee ee ee ie oe ee EA De EE n 36 3 8 GERMANY AA N OO N sae cee OE N OE OO N Oe N N IE 37 3 9 A SUMMARY OF THE LITERATURE sic ivciovesvsicicecacscbvwiveicedecersatendineddvecvtocsavaevidedsneboateadbneddvecetecsavaveeedaas 38 4 DEVELOPING A FACILITY SELECTION TOOL ccccccccccc
18. consisting of both on and off road facilities In addition there is an active cycling community using these facilities that promotes the benefits and use of this network As such the City continually strives to improve both the safety of these facilities and the level of comfort experienced by its users Awareness of the continuing need for such efforts was highlighted by the July 2009 incident in which 5 cyclists were struck from behind by a motor vehicle while riding single file in a marked cycling lane within the traveled way of a road This incident highlights the significant vulnerability of bicyclists in such environments particularly when higher vehicle speeds are involved The fact that this incident occurred in a marked cycle lane also triggered heightened interest in the potential for new physically segregated cycling facilities 1 2 Goals and objectives In September 2010 the City of Ottawa engaged Delphi MRC to carry out a Cycling Safety Study The following project tasks were carried out 1 Cycling safety assessments at 10 existing cycling facilities including road segments and intersections at locations selected by City staff This effort consisted of a review of geometric and operational data at each site a detailed engineering study that included extensive field reviews a diagnostic phase and finally the development of short term improvements and longer term solutions for each site 2 To research the issue of relativ
19. ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee 11 FIGURE 4 NETHERLANDS RURAL FACILITY OPTIONS ccccceccceccceecceccencceseceeceuscseseceeceeecseseseeceusess 12 FIGURE 5 NETHERLANDS RURAL FACILITY AND VERGE WIDTH GUIDELINES ees sees see sees see see ees ee 12 FIGURE 6 US FHWA S BIKESAFE SAFETY OBJECTIVES AND COUNTERMEASURES esse sees sees see 16 FIGURE 7 US FHWA S BIKESAFE CRASH GROUP AND COUNTERMEASURES ese ee sees see see ee see se ee 17 FIGURE 8 AUSTRALIA FACILITY SELECTION DECISION TREE esse ese sees sees ee ee se ee see ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee 20 FIGURE 9 AUSTRALIA BUFFER BETWEEN CYCLE FACILITIES AND VEHICLE LANES ese ee see see ees ee 21 FIGURE 10 AUSTRALIA DECISION TREE FOR ON ROAD TREATMENTS ees ee sees see see see se ee se ee ee se ee ee ee ee 22 FIGURE 11 AUSTRALIA DECISION TREE FOR SEGREGATED PATH ees esse sees see see ees see ee ee se ee ee se ee ee ee ee 23 FIGURE 12 AUSTRALIA BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN CHECKLIST ccccccsccceccesccncccsccscenscescescenseusceuess 25 FIGURE 13 AUSTRALIA FACILITY SELECTION NOMOGRAPH cccsccesccssccscccsccsceuccesccscenseesceuscenscusseusss 26 FIGURE 14 NEW ZEALAND FACILITY DESIGN GUIDELINES MATRIX c cccscccssccssccesccesccesscesscessceesseuscss 28 FIGURE 15 NEW ZEALAND FACILITY TYPE SUITABILITY BY CYCLIST SKILL ee ees ees sees se ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee 29 FIGURE 16 NEW Z
20. most direct route Careful attention must be paid to busy intersections Urban_off road paths Generally absent of conflict with motor vehicles paths are attractive and relatively safe to less confident novice cyclists Perception of personal security on these paths however is poor particularly at night and they must be frequently light and posted with wayfinding information Once again careful attention must be paid to intersections and connections to roads Rural arterial roads In rural areas cyclists rarely have an alternative to using the same road system as motorized traffic Because traffic is fast a high proportion of cyclist crashes involve death or serious injury Cyclists benefit from sealed road shoulders even greater safety benefits are attainable with parallel bicycle paths Narrow bridges are particularly hazardous Rural secondary roads Rural secondary roads can provide a coherent route and be an excellent cycling alternative to more heavily used rural arterials The authors provide a discussion of major factors that influence whether roads or paths best suit cyclists needs Of particular interest are Increased segregation from motor traffic is usually accompanied by increased interference from pedestrians pets skateboarders slower cyclists etc Both paths and on road facilities can be hazardous and both require high quality design to achieve safety Paths tend to be safer between intersections as long as the d
21. proportion of bicycles in the modal split and that patience and continuous attention in policy generating large scale bicycle use by means of a high quality network requires It goes on to explain that bicycle trips are most effective for short journeys under 5 km Therefore generating significant cycling demand depends largely on effective land use and transport planning policies Cyclists often opt for a different means of travel when directness safety and comfort are not ideal In the Netherlands the basic principle behind their successful cycling network is an appropriate balance between function goals and expected use form type of facility provided and use interaction with other modes speed and volumes The five main requirements for bicycle friendly infrastructure are defined as 1 Cohesion connection of origins destinations and other modes of transport completeness of routes and networks 2 Directness provision of the shortest quickest and most convenient routes 3 Attractiveness perception and social safety 4 Safety speed and volume of vehicles and the risk and severity of collisions appropriate separation of vehicle types minimizing conflicts with other vehicles obstacles 5 Comfort mental and physical exertion ease of wayfinding nuisance and minimizing shortcomings in the cycling network 3 2 3 Facility types The use of segregated facilities is first mentioned in Chapter 5 of
22. review as well as the basic requirements of a facility selection decision tool and developed a process customized for the City of Ottawa context This process has three elements 1 An initial pre selection step using a nomograph to guide the practitioner in selecting an initial facility type 2 A decision tree process in support of the nomograph that guides the practitioner through the decision making process at a more detailed level essentially determining if the pre selected facility is compatible with the site characteristics and 3 A process for summarizing the decision and rationale behind a final facility type An overview of the tool is provided in Figure 21 on the following page Figure 22 provides a model worksheet that practitioners can use to work through the facility selection process 5 2 A note to users In carrying out the facility selection tool the user must bear the following in mind e This tool is intended as an aid to City staff during the planning process to provide a consistent and technical sound process to make decisions e The tool has been developed for urban facilities and will address both two lane two way roads as well as multi lane roads e Along a given route the roadway characteristics may vary As such the route should be divided into homogenous sections The tool can then be applied to each homogeneous section of the route Notwithstanding this principle if possible the practitioner s
23. the cyclist e There is still much debate surrounding the perceived safety of a cycling facility and whether that can translate into measurable safety improvements In the end bicycle safety data are difficult to analyze mostly due to the fact that bicycle trip data and thus accident probability per trip are hard to uncover As more research and conclusive findings become available a better understanding of cycle facility safety benefits will likely emerge 3 4 Australia 3 4 1 AUSTROADS AUSTROADS is the association of Australian and New Zealand road transport and traffic authorities Their goal is to promote national uniformity and harmony in the implementation of transportation systems and through their work have developed the Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice Part 14 Bicycles This document is similar to the CROW document from the Netherlands in that a policy level emphasis is required between coordinating bicycle planning with transit and land use planning This guide categorizes cyclists into seven broad groups that must be considered by planners and engineers The groups include those who are not licensed to drive a motor vehicle and hence have not received formal education regarding the rules of the road Primary school children Secondary school children Recreational cyclists Commuter cyclists Utility cyclists Touring cyclists Sports cyclists The varying needs and desires of these cyclists suggests that a combina
24. when traffic volumes exceed 3 000 vpd or 200 250 vph in a vehicle commuter routes as this is often associated with single outside lane aggressive traffic conditions Traffic volumes are categorized into three groups less than 2 000 vpd low FHWA Selecting Roadway Design 2 000 to 10 000 vpd moderate Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles greater than 10 000 vpd high Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice Part 14 Bicycles 1999 Available roadway width needs to be considered in conjunction with traffic volumes and speed to determine the most appropriate type of facilities and preferred routes Bicycle commuters generally advanced experienced AASHTO Guide for the Development of cyclists frequently use arterial streets because they are Bicycle Facilities 1999 direct minimize delay and provide continuity Basic novice cyclists generally prefer more lightly travelled streets On high speed gt 80 km h rural roads separated bicycle facilities or alternate routes are recommended A boulevard buffer of 4 5 CROW Traffic Engineering Design Manual 6 0 m is recommended between the roadway and the bicycle for Bicycle Traffic June 2007 facility Cited research Godefrooji 1992 states that where the difference between bicycle and motor vehicle speeds is less than 20 km h mixed traffic may be acceptable Separated bicycle facilities are most desirable when the speed differential exceeds 40 km h On this
25. zones Ill separation is preferred Red zone highways IV separation is essential Forschungsgesellschaft fiir strassen und verkehrswesen Roads and Transport Research Society Empfehlungen fiir Radverkehrsanlagen Recommendations for Bicycle Facilities K ln Germany 2010 Ibid Delphi MRC 37 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool 3 9 A summary of the literature In table 1 we have provided a concise summary of the principles drawn from the literature review section of this report for ease of reference This space intentionally left blank Delphi MRC 38 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool Table 1 A summary of the literature review Roadway Characteristic Catergory Crtera Thresholds_ oo Heuristies J Bouree _ _ _ _ _ Generally mobility oriented roads i e arterials require bicycle facilities cycle lanes or separated facilities and Some form of designated bicycle facility is recommended when access oriented roads i e residential local do not CROW Traffic Engineering Design Manual vehicular volumes exceed 500 vph Figure 19 provided speeds are low Roads that serve both a mobility for Bicycle Traffic June 2007 and access role generally require some form of bicycle facility Motor Vehicle Volume Cyclists should be provided with adequate exclusive operating Provision of bicycle facilities is recommended on motor space
26. 0 m 60 60 Cycle Lane 50 50 40 30 Congested Conditions 20 Consider Separated Facility or Alternate Routes 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 gt 15 Average Daily Traffic Volume all lanes both directions THOUSANDS Delphi MRC i City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool Appendix B step 2 A More Detailed Look Site specific Rules Delphi MRC City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool Roadway Characteristics EE Considerations Motor vehicle operating speeds 85th percentile Speed differential between bicycles and motor vehicles is within 20 km h suggesting integration of the two modes as mixed traffic in standard or wide Low 30 to 50 km h curb lanes may be appropriate Exclusive operating space for both bicycles and motor vehicles in the form of wide curb lanes cycle lanes or separated facilities is recommended Traffic Moderate 50 to 65 km h calming and enforcement may be considered to manage motor vehicle volume and speed Speed differential between bicycles and motor vehicles exceeds 40 km h suggesting physical separation of the two modes is most appropriate i e Typical of rural highways and major urban thoroughfares separated facilities with a buffer between the roadway and the bicycle facility are most Very high greater than 80 km h appropriate Alternatively a parallel bicycle route should be explored Motor vehicle volumes Low tw
27. 5 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool Specific to the issue of segregation the guide highlights the relationship between the prevailing traffic soeed and volume as an important factor in the decision to provide physically separated facilities mixed traffic or something in between Again the RTA guidance with respect to facility selection is technically based The RTA nomograph illustrated in Figure 13 provides an aid to the facility selection process Figure 13 Australia Facility selection nomograph Volume of motor vehicles vehicles day 12 000 Mote This diagram is to be applied to urban roads and is not appropriate for rural or non urban roads 0 IG AM 30 40 50 70 80 0 100 References CROW 0 1993 DELG 1999 DRD 2000 SUSTRANS 1997 85 percentile speed in kmh The guideline recommends before finalizing a decision on a specific cycling facility type the practitioner should give careful consideration to the full range of physical and operational parameters including 36 Thid Delphi MRC 26 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool e Function of street within road hierarchies and within the bicycle network Width and allocation of space along the street corridor Motor vehicle speeds and volumes Use by heavy vehicles and busses Slopes and grades Parking demand Collision history Location of services and utilities Drainage 3 5 New Ze
28. Bicycle demand is considered to be high when there are 50 or so destinations and areas of the city preference is directed Practice Part 14 Bicycles 1999 users per hour toward cycle lanes or separated bicycle facilities Delphi MRC City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool Table I continued riteria Thresholds Heuristies If Seuree CY Conflicts with bus loading and unloading should be minimized in bicycle facility design Greater separation may be required where cyclists must TruckdBus Use share roadway space with trucks and busses particularly if operating speeds are high AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities 1999 More than 30 heavy vehicles per hour warrants design consideration to minimize conflict between bicycles and large vehicles FHWA Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles Turnover density and configuration of on street parking can affect cyclist safety AASHTO Guide for the Development of Locations with perpendicular and diagonal parking should Bicycle Facilities 1999 be avoided N oi ee parking comana ig ane PARMI Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering restrictions appear attainable cycle lanes are preferred Practice Part 14 Bicycles 1999 On Street Parking over mixed traffic Parking should be prohibited on streets with cycle lanes if there is significant turnover Where parking is permitted a buffer should be pr
29. D TO URBAN ROADS AND 11 000 IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR RURAL OR WON URBAN ROADS 10 000 9 000 7 000 6 000 5 000 Volume of motor vehides vehicles day 4 000 9 000 3000 1 000 10 20 30 40 50 70 BO 90 100 Traffic speed 85th percentile km h The publication also discusses various locations where bicycle facilities can be provided both on and off road and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each A brief summary is provided below 43 Thid Delphi MRC 30 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool Urban arterial roads Minor arterials with lower traffic volumes and speeds are typically a single lane in each direction and can usually be adapted to provide for cyclists of basic competence both mid block and at intersections Major arterial roads are busier and faster and typically have multiple lanes They are not appropriate for cyclists of basic competence unless they have more effective separation and facilities to turn left such as hook turns Alternative routes supplement arterial routes for less competent cyclists but rarely eliminate the need for cycle provision on the latter Urban streets Many cyclists undertaking inter suburban trips prefer quiet routes especially if they are not confident mixing with busy traffic Local or collector roads can provide this as long as they form a coherent pattern Commuter cyclists will use them only if they are as convenient as the
30. EALAND FACILITY SELECTION NOMOGRAPH ee ees sees ese ee ese ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ees ee 30 FIGURE 17 DENMARK PLANNING AND POLICY GUIDELINES FOR IMPROVING CYCLE SAFETY AND USE 33 FIGURE 18 DENMARK FACILITY SELECTION NOMOGRAPH ccccsccssccesccucccsccusceuccesccscenccescescenseueseuecs 35 FIGURE 19 UK FACILITY SELECTION NOMOGRAPH cccccsecceescesccececeeccescceseceesceeucsececeeceeseseseceeseusess 36 FIGURE 20 GERMANY FACILITY SELECTION NOMOGRAPH cccccscccsscesccucccuccesceuccesccuscenscenscuscenssenseuss 37 FIGURE 21 THE DECISION SUPPORT TOOL PROCESS cccccccccseccseccesccececeeceescceeceenceusecessceeceesesuseseseseusess 44 FIGURE 22 A MODEL WORKSHEET TO CARRY OUT THE FACILITY SELECTION PROCESS ee ee esse see ee 45 FIGURE 23 STEP FACILITY PRE SELECTION NOMOGRAPH scceeccssccusccsccusccnccescenscesscescesccenscescesscenseuss 46 FIGURE 24 WORKED EXAMPLE Il esse ese ee sees see ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee 48 PIGURE 25 WORKED BAIN 2 aas ed ee Ee Ge ee Ge ed ee ee Re ee ee Ge Ge 49 LiST OF TABLES TABLE 1 A SUMMARY OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW ese ee ees sees sees ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee 39 Delphi MRC ii City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1 Overview The City of Ottawa has an extensive and well used cycling network
31. Figure 1 Delphi MRC City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool Figure 1 Netherlands facility selection nomograph 600 500 pcu h 400 300 narrow We 200 199 cycle street 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 b h ee The CROW document cautions the reader that the boundaries between the facility types in this diagram are not well defined This is based on the fact that there may be more than one appropriate solution on a section of road Again there is a need for flexibility as the decision maker needs to balance the function and form of the roadway and meeting the safety and comfort needs of the cyclist 3 2 4 Facilities on road segments in urban areas Generally in urban road segments fulfilling mobility functions i e arterials are compatible with specific bicycle facilities Conversely road segments fulfilling access functions i e local roads are more appropriate for combined motorized traffic and cyclists due to the lower operating speeds However some flexibility does exist in this general principle Also while it may be possible to safely mix cyclists with motorists due to lower speeds more provisions may be required from the viewpoint of comfort so as to encourage more riders Another facility selection guideline developed by CROW that is specific to urban roadways is provided in Figure 2 16 Thid Delphi MRC 9 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Sele
32. HTS The technical basis for this tool is extensive and similar tools have been deployed elsewhere in Europe and Australasia with success At its foundation is a consistent framework that is relatively easy to apply is technically based and allows flexibility to account for the differences in physical and operational characteristics from one site to another This tool represents a significant departure from the practical experimentation that has taken place across North America on the issue of segregated cycling facilities and changes how we look at facility selection and the principles behind our decisions Finally we note the selection tool does not tell designers when and when not to provide a segregated facility Rather it provides guidance on the use of a mixture of cycling facility types Having a mixture of facility types that can be deployed using a consistent methodology is necessary to achieving both safe and comfortable cycling routes Again experiences elsewhere suggest that comfort and safety are key elements to a successful cycling network Delphi MRC 50 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool Appendix A Step 1 Facility Pre selection Nomograph Delphi MRC City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool Cycle Facility Pre selection Nomograph 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 gt 15 Motor Vehicle 100 100 Operating Speed 85th Percentile 90 90 Km h 80 80 7
33. KING Blcycle parking funds More bicycle racks some covered some locked Cycle centres with service at major stations Temporary bicycle parking possibly with surveillance COMPETENCE DEVELOPMENT Cyde co ordinator Networks seminars and conferences Systematised Information for spectalists Research amp Development Further training and education Demonstration projects ECONOMIC SUPPORT Tax deductions for cyclists 45 Ibid Delphi MRC City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool This document also presents a facility selection nomograph that offers the following discussion on facility types Mixed traffic At low car speeds and low volumes of motor vehicles separation rarely results in safety benefits for cyclists In fact separation on roads with many junctions will often result in more bicycle accidents Traffic calming is often necessary to obtain suitably low speeds in mixed traffic Cycle lane With speeds of 50 km h and less and moderate traffic volumes cycle lanes may be a solution Cycle lanes can be recommended on urban roads without shops and with few junctions Like cycle tracks cycle lanes can result in more bicycle accidents as the number of intersections and accesses increase Cycle track A physical barrier between cars and bicycles is beneficial even at moderate speeds and traffic volumes Cycle tracks improve safety comfort and perceived risk Cycle tra
34. a Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool 4 DEVELOPING A FACILITY SELECTION TOOL 4 1 Three basic principles Our review of the literature suggests that in choosing the type of cycling facility design that will be deployed in any given situation there are three basic principles that must be clearly understood 1 The choice to provide a segregated versus non segregated facility is not a simple yes or no decision 2 The criteria or thresholds used to select one cycling facility type over another need to be flexible to be able to accommodate each unique set of site characteristics that will exist for each design situation and 3 The final decision to segregate or not to segregate and the choice of the specific facility type to be deployed will always be the responsibility of the designer No quantitative algorithm warrant or other selection tool can substitute for the experience and judgement of a qualified engineering designer in such situations To help designers to properly exercise their judgement any facility type selection tool must also provide supplementary technical guidance appropriate to a full range of likely design situations 4 2 Considering site specific conditions Through the use of a facility selection tool such as a nomograph similar to those discussed in Section 3 a practitioner can identify a preferred cycling facility type with relative ease However actually implementing the result produc
35. aland The New Zealand Land Transport Safety Authority s Cycle Network and Route Planning Guide begins with an excellent discussion of strategic cycling plans and the relationship with safety The following key points relate to the Ottawa study e Typically cycling strategic plans aim to increase the number of cycle trips while reducing cyclist injuries This appears to be realistic as many cities in the world have achieved this result including York in the United Kingdom and Portland in the United States Therefore improving cycle safety is an essential part of cycle promotion The research carried out by Jacobsen supports this notion by providing evidence that higher cycling numbers result in a lower crash risk e Reducing traffic volumes and speeds may do more to improve cyclist safety than providing cycling facilities depending on the circumstances Consequently a cycling strategic plan needs the support of more general traffic and transport strategies e The quality of the cycling facilities reflects an agency s commitment to increasing the cycling mode share Conversely lower quality facilities if provided at all tend to require more skill to negotiate and may not attract new less confident cyclists New Zealand has adopted the same guiding princples for network success i e safety comfort directness cohesion etc and combined them with cyclist skill child novice basic competence experienced trip purpose utilit
36. ances Bicycle paths play a critical role in recreational cycling but can also play a critical transportation role where they are used to avoid limitations caused by discontinuous access along roads excessive gradients or undesirable traffic conditions Paths should either lead to specific destinations commuter paths or offer a pleasant ride recreational paths and the purpose of the path should be based on the potential likely and desired use by various types of cyclists Designs of commuter and recreational paths may be quite different e g design speed intersection treatments etc If it has been determined that a path facility is appropriate the decision tree shown in Figure 11 helps to determine the appropriate type of path a for recreation e connection om Is the sr Figure 11 Australia Decision tree for segregated path Exclusive Bicycle Path Sect 6 6 3 Shared Use Path 1 sect 6 6 1 Separated Path sect 6 6 2 1 to community facilities such as een manent vag hard ho Wie on od Godefrooij Criteria for Segregation and Integration of Different Modes of Transport Prepared for the Conference Velo Mondiale The Bicycle Global Perspectives Montreal Canada 1992 33 AUSTROADS Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice Part 14 Bicycles Second Edition Sydney Australia 1999 Delphi MRC City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Suppor
37. ar from conclusive Findings can be contradictory and many studies seem to exhibit shortcomings in data analysis basic definitions i e what are considered on road and off road facilities statistical robustness and often a preconceived bias that seemingly favors one type of facility over another Further much of the research has been conducted outside of North America where the rules of the road and the nature of transportation systems and policies are substantially different than those experienced on this continent 2 3 Difficulties in quantifying bicycle safety The National Cooperative Highway Research Program NCHRP Report 552 Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities provides an excellent discussion regarding the challenges associated with evaluating and comparing studies that attempt to determine relative safety levels of various bicycle facilities Land Transport Safety Authority New Zealand Cycle Network and Route Planning Guide Wellington New Zealand 2004 Transportation Research Board TRB National Cooperative Highway Research Program NCHRP Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities Report 552 Washington 2006 Delphi MRC 2 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool The prevailing argument is that enhanced facilities bike lanes bikeways and special intersection modifications improve cyclist safety This claim however is the sourc
38. aving more advanced skill will be more likely to use a more direct on road facility Conversely we would expect a recreational or neighbourhood trip made by a less experienced cyclist to feel more comfortable on a segregated facility or on a low volume low speed roadway 2 5 Facility segregation a key factor Although safety is an important component to measuring the performance of a cycling facility system the level of comfort of a range of users is also important Creating cycling facility designs that balance the competing needs of these two components is further complicated by the requirement to accommodate both differing user skill levels and trip purposes One important design option that can help achieve the necessary balance is the separation of cycle facilities from those of motorized traffic a technique referred to in this report as segregation A variety of segregation alternatives exist ranging from separate cycle lanes delineated by typical lane separator pavement markings to similar facilities with varying widths of painted buffer through to cycle lanes that are separated from the motor vehicle lanes with a physical non mountable structure of some kind i e raised curb concrete barrier etc We begin our exploration of the segregation of cycle facilities from motor vehicle traffic with a review of what is currently being done in other jurisdictions both in North America Europe and Australasia 10 City of Ottawa Cycl
39. cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccces 42 4 1 THREE BASIE PRING DIES oe DE EN oases ene De GE ONE oad eae De EE OE EO EE eN Ge De ee saosin 42 4 2 CONSIDERING SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS cccscesceccecceccscecccceccscescscsccscescescesceceecescescesesceseescsencs 42 4 3 THE TOOL REQUIREMENTS osse ei oe ee oe ee ME oe GE Ge EE ee ee ee GE Ee RE EN RE Ge EE oe 42 5 THE FACILITY SELECTION TOOL sees sen sind ie es se GN ede ee sd Gee N ed ie ee de Ged N dd Ge 43 5 1 OVERVIEW icone es voice wsdl essen ev Ge Dee GE Ge GE ace nw dives GE Ee EE RE 43 52 PTO WO OG EIR SE EO N EA OE 43 5 3 STEP 1 PRE SELECT THE FACILITY TYPE es ee se es ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee 46 5 4 TEE AA eg 12 au Sd OP UO DOOIE EO NA 47 39 STEPI DEVELOP YOUR RATIONAL B noa E E E E EEEE oe ETE 47 60 WORKED EXAMPLES pocia ao OU ee a ro ene oe ee 48 7 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS ui ccccsccsccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccocccccccccscccecs 50 Delphi MRC i City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 NETHERLANDS FACILITY SELECTION NOMOGRAPH ee ees sees ese ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee 9 FIGURE 2 NETHERLANDS URBAN FACILITY OPTIONS ee ees ee see esse sees see ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee 10 FIGURE 3 NETHERLANDS FACILITY WIDTH GUIDELINES ee esse ee see ee se ee see ee ee ee ee see ee ee
40. cks lose many of their advantages with respect to safety and comfort on roads where there are many major and closely spaced intersections On the other hand cycle tracks function well on roads with signalized junctions and minor side roads Cycle track with dividing verge On roads with high speeds distances between intersections are often greater and improved comfort and less perceived risk can be attained by providing a cycle track with a dividing verge Dividing verges should not be used on roads with many intersections or at signalized intersections Paved shoulders If it is necessary to widen the road in order to establish paved shoulders the construction of cycle tracks should be considered The facility selection nomograph is illustrated in Figure 18 on the following page Delphi MRC 34 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool Figure 18 Denmark Facility selection nomograph Example of separation principles 12 DEM mm ME EE MEE EE EE EE EE EE dn Emm EE EE EE drr CE EE Em RR Ee EE Cycle track with dividing verge oe coe N Cycle lane i a j iis AO OC EER EE EER EE ms rae riel I E j i a kak 2 I z a in fe mmm mmm mm mie pa z Mixed traffic Motor vehicles per day AADT a Desired speed kph The following discussion regarding the interaction between cyclists and parked vehicles highlights the following 46 Thid Delphi MRC 35 City of Ottawa C
41. clist edge kerb 0 25 cyclist parked vehicle 0 50 cyclist cyclist both riding 0 50 cyclist driving vehicle 0 85 vehicle vehicle both driving 2 0 30 driving vehicle kerb 0 25 1 value determined on the basis of research 2 source Recommendations for Traffic Provisions in Built up Areas ASVV 3 in this context buses are counted as lorries 4 a vehicle refers to all motor vehicles with at least three wheels 3 2 0 Road segments in rural areas cyclist vehicle dimensional segment is 0 85 m or more and in addition the width of the vehicle is left If the cyclist vehicle distance is smaller motorists will hesitate some over take others stay behind the cyclist This is then a critical profile which leads to a dangerous unwanted situation The remaining width next to the cyclist should there fore be restricted in such a way as to make it clear that every motorist has to remain behind the cyclist The cyclist moving vehicle dimensional segment is larger than the vehicle vehicle dimen sional segment because the behaviour of bicycle traffic is harder to predict than that of motorised traffic When motorists overtake they take a cyclist s zigzagging into account Bicycle traffic is also more vulnerable Outside of built up areas where speed limits are typically 80 km h or greater the guidance in the Netherlands suggests that bicycle traffic should travel off the roadway on a separat
42. ction Decision Support Tool Figure 2 Netherlands Urban facility options Cycle network category Max speed Motorised basic network cyderoute main cycle Road of motorised trafficinten hiyae gt Work lyde 500 route lyde category traffic km h i sity pcu day 750 day 2500 day gt 2000 day solit n a 0 3 walking pace 1 2 500 combined traffic cycle street w or30kmh or cycle lane with z right of way t 2 000 5 000 d 6 g 5 i gt 4 000 cycle lane or cycle track is SENE i PEAD EU sa Y 50 2x1 irrelevant 9 km h lanes n H TRT s 2x2 parallel road t lanes ie 70 km h cycle track moped cycle O track or parallel road Based on the guidance illustrated above there is often more than one appropriate solution for implementing a cycle facility on an urban road This is reflected by the overlap in vehicle and cyclist intensities Other more specific guidance includes the following e For urban roadways that serve both a mobility role in terms of network function and traffic volumes and an access role in terms of adjacent buildings and amenities are also discussed In these cases some form of cycle facility separation is advisable e On roadways where on street parking is provided guidance suggests that locations with more than 20 of a road s length is used for parking it is advisable to provide a marked parking lane or parking
43. d space or off the roadway Design intersection crossings to minimize and clearly mark conflicts and restrict parking in close proximity to intersections Ne ES PEN EE EE NE N EE N EE EE EE EE et De Anticipated users skill trip purpose Experienced advanced cyclists commuters utilitarian This group generally prefers direct continuous facilities with minimal delay as is generally provided by the arterial road network Wide curb lanes may be This group generally prefers routes on residential neighborhood streets with light traffic and low speeds Wide curb lanes cycle lanes and separated Basic novice cyclists recreational facilities should be considered This group generally requires separated facilities free of conflicts with motor vehicle traffic Separated facilities should be considered near schools parks Child cyclists and neighborhoods ca P Level of bicycle use Seas Latent bicycle demand may exist if there are employment centres neighborhoods schools colleges parks recreational and shopping facilities along the Significant bicycle traffic generators are nearby route Cycle lanes and separated facilities should be considered to accommodate anticipated levels of cyclists ER EE N EE N EE ser upon Nc EE N OE N AN EE N ON N EE ei Function of route within bicycle facility network EE l Redundancy of bicycle routes may provide an opportunity to provide different types of bicycle facilities within the same travel corridor providin
44. ddi MRC A member ol A2NNN MMM GROUP Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool amp User Guide Issue 1 0 Prepared for Ottawa A report outlining the technical foundation of and a multi step approach for selecting cycling facility tyoes in the City of Ottawa May 2011 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool TABLE OF CONTENTS t IN TRO PIONEER KG ee GE N Ee ER be Gee GE Ee re ae GR 1 1 1 EIS EE EE N N EE N EE Ee 1 1 2 FOALS AND OBJECTIVES os Re Ge N SR RE EG Ge EG GE ee Ee Se Oe GE dein tie idea N Ee Ee GR Ee Ee Ge Ge 1 2 WHY SEGREGATED FACILITIES 2 cccccsccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccsccoes 2 2 1 COON ER VI OR NE EE OR N N OE ON EO N EER 2 Qe SEGREGATED VERSUS NON SEGREGATED FACILITIES c ccccscescecceccecescsceccscescscescecescsceseecescescesees 2 2 3 DIFFICULTIES IN QUANTIFYING BICYCLE SAFETY ees ees ee see ees ee ee see see ee ee ee see ees ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee 2 2 4 ACCOMMODATING DIFFERENT TYPES OF CYCLISTS c ccceccsceccececcsceccececcecscescscusesceccscucescecscecescncacs 4 2 4 1 E E E a ER RE HE EA N EE ON 4 2 4 2 Oa Aa OM ELL DOSE eee EER OTT RECIPE TR CTT TO Ge Meare trate oe Teer EE ar ee 5 2 5 PACILITY SEGREGATION A KEY FACTOR is ie SEE SE Se ee GE Ee Gee Ge Ee ek ee Se oe Ge Gee ee es Ge ee Ge 5 3 CYCLE FACILITY SEGREGATION STATE OF RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 6 3 1 OVERVIEW ise ss ee dine
45. e cycle track or parallel road On collector or local roads with speeds 60 km h or less it may be appropriate to provide on road cycle lanes or allow combined traffic Figure 4 provides a reasonable facility selection guideline for rural areas 18 Thid Delphi MRC 11 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool Figure 4 Netherlands Rural facility options Bicycle traffic road section function Intensity main cycle route Function Speed km h pcu day basis network ode 2 000 day cycle street if 60 1 2 500 combined traffic Tu lt 500 peu day cycle track or perhaps lanes cycle lane 2 000 3000 or cycle track Estate access road gt 3000 cycle track 80 irrelevant cycle moped track parallel road Motorised traffic road section function District access road 1 Plus any additional requirements in the area of safety In cases where a cycle track is provided adjacent to a rural road the space between the cycle track and the roadway is called the partition verge and acts as a buffer between cyclists and motorists It is preferable to have a wide partition verge Figure 5 provides guidance with respect to minimum and recommended partition verge widths Figure 5 Netherlands Rural facility and verge width guidelines Width of partition verg m recommended minimum Road category distance distance District
46. e of a rich controversy within the literature as evidenced by the debate between Forester and Pucher Part of the controversy around this topic is fueled by differences between what cyclists state they prefer i e their perception and what studies with collision data actually reveal It is widely acknowledged that increased perception of safety is important to encourage cycling as a means of transportation and recreation Subsequently providing separated bicycle facilities along roadways is mentioned as a key ingredient to increased perception of safety Existing literature on the safety of bicycle facilities usually considers one of three outcome measures the number of fatalities the number of crashes and perceived levels of comfort for the cyclists Key explanatory variables behind these measures are myriad and complex to identify For example the overwhelming majority of bicycle crashes resulting in fatalities are caused by collisions with motor vehicles Less severe crashes tend to occur at intersections or at locations where motor vehicles and bicycles come in contact with each other it is further suggested that crashes are caused by differing expectations between auto drivers and bicyclists However there is increasing evidence to suggest that some bicycle crashes do not involve any other party this is especially true for children The degree to which perception of safety translates into actual increased safety however is stil
47. e safety performance of various types of cycling facilities and develop application criteria to identify opportunities and requirements for the use of cycle facilities that segregate cyclists from motor vehicle traffic The first objective has been completed and documented in a separate report entitled Ottawa Cycling Safety Study that has been submitted to the City The second objective is the focus of this report We use the terms segregated and separated interchangeably in this report Both indicate a facility that has some level of physical separation between cycling and motor vehicle traffic The segregation may take a variety of forms from a simple lane separator within the traveled way in the form of raised curbs concrete barriers or other means through to a facility that is outside of the traveled way such as a cycle path or multi use path Delphi MRC i City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool 2 WHY SEGREGATED FACILITIES 2 1 Overview Research clearly shows that one of the most effective measures for improving overall cyclist safety within a road network is increasing the number of cyclists using the system While it is necessary to ensure that existing facilities of current cyclists perform appropriately from a safety standpoint cycling facility planners and designers also need to provide additional routes and facilities that encourage new or less experienced cyclists This can only
48. e was published thirteen years ago in 1994 titled Sign Up For The Bike Design Manual for a Cycle Friendly Infrastructure The most recent update to this document is the Traffic Engineering Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic and is the focus of our discussion below 3 2 2 Cycling network success The success of the Dutch cycling system is well Known around the world and represents a model to follow for any agency Their success is due in part to how they overcame the convenience of the automobile as a travel mode and developed their cycling infrastructure to be safe convenient and direct The CROW document touches on this issue The organization s original name was Centrum voor Regelgeving en Onderzoek in de Grond Water en Wegenbouw en de Verkeerstechniek CROW or in English Dutch Centre for Research and Contract Standardization in Civil and Traffic Engineering The name was changed in 2004 Dutch Centre for Research and Contract Standardization in Civil and Traffic Engineering Sign Up For The Bike Design Manual for a Cycle Friendly Infrastructure The Netherlands 1994 S Information Technology Centre for Transport and Infrastructure CROW Traffic Engineering Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic The Netherlands June 2007 English version Delphi MRC 6 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool various studies have shown that good quality cycling infrastructure actually leads to a higher
49. e width Bicycle volume Car lane width Percentage of heavy vehicles Road alignment 30 Thid Delphi MRC 24 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool Once a decision has been made to implement an on road facility or a segregated path the flow charts shown in Figures 10 and 11 respectively help to determine the more specific details about these two respective facility types Figure 10 Australia Decision tree for on road treatments Bicycle Car Parking n Lane s sect 4 4 2 or Figure 10 is based on the following criteria 31 Ibid Delphi MRC 22 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool A cited report by Godefrooij states that where the difference between bicycle and motor traffic speeds is less than 20 km h full integration i e sharing the road may be acceptable Conversely segregation is most desirable where the difference between bicycle and motor traffic soeeds exceeds 40 km h On this basis wide curb lanes are avoided on roads with speeds in excess of 70 80 km h as the 85 percentile speed of cyclists under free flow conditions is in the order of 30 km h The decision tree only identifies the more commonly used on road facililty types and the less common treatments such as contra flow cycle lanes or advisory treatments similar to the application of sharrows in North America are other treatments that may be considered in special circumst
50. ed from the nomograph may not be possible in all situations due to such issues as physical constraints environmental or neighbourhood impacts or significant costs In making their final choice of facility type designers must also consider the site specific characteristics i e lane widths access density etc and how they relate to cycling safety and comfort To help designers do this we have taken the results of our detailed literature review as summarized in Table 1 and constructed a set of rules that link specific site conditions to appropriate facility types These rules are summarized in Appendix B 4 3 The tool requirements The facility type selection tool that we have developed for this purpose in the course of this project is a multi step process that e Addresses the issue of segregated versus non segregated facilities e Is technically reliable and founded on current knowledge and research e Provides a consistent framework that is easy to apply and uses readily available data and e Allows flexibility during the decision process to account for differences in the physical and operational characteristics of the design context We discuss this tool beginning in the immediately following Section Delphi MRC e City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool 5 THE FACILITY SELECTION TOOL 5 1 Overview Based on our discussion in the previous Section we took the principles gleaned from the literature
51. ellent bicycle handling skills but lack knowledge and experience in terms of the rules of the road and potential risks Type C children AASHTO then goes on to classify bicycle facilities in the following manner including both non segregated and segregated elements American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities Washington 1999 Delphi MRC 13 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool e Shared roadway unsigned a roadway shared between motorists and cyclists with no designated markings or signage In some cases a community s existing street system may be adequate and appropriate for bicycle travel and signing striping may not be necessary In other cases streets and highways may be inappropriate for bicycle travel or it may not be a high bicycle demand corridor and it would be inappropriate to encourage bicycle travel e Shared roadway signed a roadway shared between motorists and cyclists with no designated markings but with signage along the route on a map etc used to either provide continuity to other bicycle facilities or to designate preferred routes through high bicycle demand corridors e Bicycle lanes a designated space for cyclists along a road reinforced with pavement markings and signage They are intended to delineate right of way assignments and to provide more predictable movements by both cyclis
52. esign is adequate and there are minimal crossing driveways Cycling through intersections is generally safer from the roadway than from a path Traffic calming or signals may be required where paths cross busy roads New Zealand law as in Canada requires cyclists on paths to yield to vehicles on roads reducing cyclist level of service Geometric design standards are almost always higher for roads than for paths It is usually easier and less expensive to accommodate the needs of commuter cyclists on roads than paths Notwithstanding many commuters make use of well located paths and many leisure cyclists enjoy on road facilities Delphi MRC 31 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool e It is difficult to provide a coherent and direct path system that is as convenient for commuters as the arterial road network e Depending on the circumstances there is usually no clear advantage between roads and paths in terms of safety conflicts with other users expense and maintenance e Relative advantages of on road facilities include directness coherence convenience efficiency availability intersection controls high levels of surveillance and are well suited for experienced cyclists e Relative advantages of separate paths between intersections include no motor traffic lower speeds less stress attractive environment additional links beyond the road network and are well suited for child novice cyclists
53. g options for Parallel bicycle routes already exist with bicycle facilities present cyclists with different skill levels and trip purposes New route provides a connection between adjacent existing facilities Facility selection should provide continuity with adjacent bicycle facilities to the extent possible New route provides district level access to a neighbourhood city region suburb etc Cycle lanes and separated facilities should be considered to encourage cycling for all users ETTER EE DE EN EE S Type of Roadway Improvement Project EE EE Ee ee OE Appropriate bicycle facilities should be planned and integrated with design and construction of new roads and communities Major roadway reconstruction provides an opportunity to improve provisions for cyclists through increased roadway width or off road space with Reconstruction considerable cost savings Retrofit Affordable solutions may be limited to redistributing existing road space an SR EL ES EE N N N EE N Ed EE EL EE EE EE EE EE Costs Funding More than one type of bicycle facility appears appropriate Benefit cost analysis of alternatives should be conducted Refer to NCHRP Report 552 Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities Consider alternate routes or focus on cost effective improvements to existing facilities such as improved maintenance pavement drainage rehabilitation Funding levels are not available to provide preferred type of facility and removal of barriers
54. ge ramps Ensure adequate head height at underpasses and tunnels Ensure smooth kerb ramps lipless driveways appropriate landscaping with good sightlines Include social safety considerations in the design of underpasses tunnels and sections between fencing or through remote areas Ensure seamless route connectivity and continuity through good design Determine the profile type for intersections this may differ from the mid block profile Explore all alternative design possibilities to traffic lights Ensure bicycle rider operating space is designed inte the intersection for approach transition waiting through travel and departure movements Ensure minimum green signal time to allow cyclists enough time to cross large intersections Design in road detectors to pick up cycles Pay particular attention to right turning cyclists Ensure the cycleway surface is smooth even and well drained Ensure the joints transverse and longitudinal are smooth and even Ensure all drainage grate covers are cycle friendly Where there is a bicycle path paralleling a major road make sure that the pavement is as even as possible across side road openings Ensure that all line marking is clear and unambiguous In special circumstances consider using green surface colour to delineate path of cyclist Ensure adequate lighting Ensure that a comprehensive route destination signage system is provided for the network Provide adequate parking facilities 2
55. hould strive to maintain a consistent facility type along a given route to better match the expectations of both cyclists and motorists e The tool does not specifically address intersection locations but it does provide guidance with respect to the types of facilities to consider on the approaches to intersections This space intentionally left blank Delphi MRC 43 Figure 21 The decision support tool process Step 1 Pre select a Facility Type User Input Vehicle Operating opeed Nomograph Determine facility type User Input Vehicle Daily Two way Volume Cycle Lanes Facility Type 3 Separate Cycle Facility Step 3 Develop your rationale The list of rules produced in Step 2 provide the practitioner with implementation guidance and will aid in the planning and design stages Implementation Guidelines Facility recommendations Mitigating measures MRC Step 2 Amore detailed look Consider a new alternate parallel route City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool Select alternative facility type amp review new rules Is new facility type compatible Is facility type User Input Roadway Characteristics Review site specific rules After reviewing the list of site specific rules the user must determine if the pre selected facility type is compatible with site conditions compatible _ 44
56. ikeways vs Roads Transportation Quarterly Vol 55 No 4 Fall 2001 pp 9 22 Eno Transportation Foundation Inc Washington DC 2001 Transportation Research Board TRB National Cooperative Highway Research Program NCHRP Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities Report 552 Washington 2006 Delphi MRC 3 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool 2 4 Accommodating different types of cyclists In addition to safety considerations the level of comfort is an important component to the success of a cycling network Every cyclist possesses a different level of skill confidence and experience As a result many cyclists have different needs and often prefer different types of facilities This need to provide a variety of bicycle facilities on a variety of types of roads in order to provide an effective cycling network appealing to all users is reflected in the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities No one type of bicycle facility or highway design suits every bicyclist and no designated bicycle facility can overcome a lack of bicycle operator skill Within any given transportation corridor bicyclists may be provided with more than one option to meet the travel and access needs of all potential users Below we discuss typical breakdowns of skill level and trip purpose used to help designers address the distinct needs of cyclists within their network environment
57. ing Plan Bikeway Planning and Design Guidelines Technical Appendix No 1 Ottawa January 2008 Delphi MRC 5 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool 3 CYCLE FACILITY SEGREGATION STATE OF RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 3 1 Overview A carefully focused literature and research in progress review was carried out to provide an examination of the current state of practice with respect to cycling facility segregation Recent research on cycling safety and implementation guidance was reviewed from the following jurisdictions Netherlands United States Australia New Zealand Denmark United Kingdom Germany The findings flowing from our literature search for each of these jurisdictions is provided in the Sections that follow 3 2 Netherlands 3 2 1 Background We began our literature review with documentation from the Netherlands as they have a very successful cycling network throughout the country and appear to have the most advanced level of guidance with respect to cycling facility design One of the key organizations behind this success is the national Information and Technology Centre for Transport and Infrastructure CROW a non profit organization disseminating knowledge They work with all levels of government civil engineers and transport agencies to transfer knowledge in the form of guidelines recommendations training courses and conferences Their first design manual associated with cycling infrastructur
58. l areas and around bicycle traffic generators schools office buildings AASHTO Guide for the Development of Accessibility shopping areas parks museums etc Designs should Bicycle Facilities 1999 also facilitate access for service maintenance and emergency vehicles Scenery is an important consideration for recreational AASHTO Guide for the Development of Aesthetics users Trees also provide shade and shelter from the an Ee Bicycle Facilities 1999 Delphi MRC 40 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool Table I continued Roadway Characteristic Catergory HERLEES OIE MEE eee ENE eee Personal Safetv Securit Potential for criminal acts against cyclists particularly AASHTO Guide for the Development of y y along isolated bicycle facilities needs to be considered Bicycle Facilities 1999 Cyclists have an inherent desire to maintain momentum and may avoid a route where bicycle facilities are provided AASHTO Guide for the Development of or disregard traffic control if delays are frequent or Bicycle Facilities 1999 excessive Delay Stops Potential conflicts between different types of users cyclists motorists cyclists pedestrians etc should be identified and designs should aim to minimize and highlight the presence of conflicts Intersections and driveways generally result in concentrations of conflicts AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities 1999
59. l debated It proves difficult to translate perceived measures of safety into quantifiable or economic estimates Additional confounding factors are that prevailing guidelines recommend a variety of solutions In the end bicycle safety data are difficult to analyze mostly because bicycle trip data and thus accident probability per trip are hard to uncover As more research and conclusive findings become available it will likely be possible to understand the safety benefits of bicycle facilities in more detail at such time a model could then be developed and incorporated into the guidelines The NCHRP report touches on the fact that comprehensive bicycle trip data is very difficult to determine one must have an accurate estimate of the volume of cyclists on each route facility in order to determine exposure cyclist kilometers travelled and subsequently cyclist collision rates Furthermore many cyclist collisions go unreported This is particularly true for single bicycle collisions and those that do not result in significant injury or property damage The rate of unreported bicycle collisions may vary significantly between different types of bicycle facilities again making it difficult to compare safety directly t Forester John The Bicycle Transportation Controversy Transportation Quarterly Vol 55 No 2 Spring 2001 Eno Transportation Foundation Inc Washington DC 2001 Pucher John Cycling Safety on B
60. nd comfort In support of these over arching principles the RTA provides the reader with a facility checklist that covers the common issues from planning through to design This space intentionally left blank 34 Roads and Traffic Authority New South Wales New South Wales Bicycle Guideleines Version 1 2 North Sydney Australia 2005 Delphi MRC an Figure 12 35 Ibid Delphi MRC City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool Australia Bicycle facility design checklist E1 Identify all existing state regional and local plans and policies relevant to the provision and Position cycle routes to be as direct and as short and as safe as possible Limit the impact of motorised traffic with consideration of vehicle speed and wolune Provide sufficient crossing opportunities to overcome the barrier effect of roads Avoid steep slopes and grades Offer alternatives to routes which are considered unsafe Avoid one way cycle facilities and detours For new facilities determine the most suitable type of profile see Figure 3 2 For existing facilities check if the existing type of profile is suitable see Figure 3 2 Ha mixed use on road profile is selected limit the speed difference between cyclists and cars Determine actual width of facility including access for maintenance vehicles Ensure adequate curve radii and manoeuvring width on tight curves and sightlines Design for adequate grades on brid
61. o way daily average volume less than 3 000 vpd Some level of formal bicycle facility cycle lanes or separated facility is recommended Physical separation of motor vehicle and bicycle traffic i e separated facility may be most appropriate Some level of formal bicycle facility cycle lanes or separated facility is recommended WESE EE EG EE N eT Function of street road highwa Some level of formal bicycle facility cycle lanes or separated facility is appropriate Some level of formal bicycle facility cycle lanes or separated facility is appropriate Separated bicycle facilities should be considered to minimize conflicts with aggressive drivers on the roadway EE E NE oe EE N EG Vehicle mix More than 30 trucks or busses per hour are present in a single outside lane Separated bicycle facilities may be preferred by many cyclists If wide curb lanes or cycle lanes are considered additional width should be provided as a Bus stops are located frequently along the route Facilities should be designed to minimize and clearly mark conflict areas between cyclists and busses pedestrians at stop locations EE NEE EG N N N N EE id I AG Ne Ge NG EE GE EA N ei On street parking er Parallel on street parking is not permitted Opportunities to provide wide curb lanes or cycle lanes as well as their appropriateness should be explored Consistent cycle lanes may prove difficult to provide as available roadway width is likely to change where parking i
62. omized list of rules 5 5 Step 3 Develop your rationale Once the customized list of rules for the site under review has been developed in Step2 the practitioner is required to review the list and determine if the rules are compatible with the pre selected facility type in Step 1 For example if the result of Step 1 is a cycle lane facility type the user must review the list of rules developed in Step 2 and determine if site conditions support cycle lanes If not the practitioner must consider another facility type that may be more compatible with site conditions The expectation is that once the user has completed all the steps in the tool the user can make a final decision regarding the appropriateness of the facility type for the specific roadway section being evaluated It is imperative that each decision made during the process is documented In this way the tool provides a consistent means of defending and documenting planning decisions Delphi MRC sis City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool 6 WORKED EXAMPLES Figure 24 Worked Example 1 Step One Pre select the facility type The be ee GE has If Step 1 yields a result different than Step 2 descriptors from the following or if Step 1 is inconclusive prepare a rationale categories for selecting a preferred option Example A Maitland Avenue Sa Spoor Consider an alternate parallel route to by pass the at Highway 417 Function pa
63. omponent of any cycle facility planning effort In selecting an appropriate bicycle facility type for a given location AASHTO notes that many factors need to be considered including e Skill level of anticipated users e Turnover density and configuration of on street parking and loading zones e Physical barriers such as waterways freeways railroads gradients etc Known and potential safety issues Directness and convenience Connectivity of major trip generators Accessibility for maintenance and service vehicles Aesthetics Personal safety and security Delphi MRC id City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool Frequency of stops and length of expected delays Conflicts with other modes Pavement surface quality and drainage Truck and bus traffic Traffic volumes and speeds Bridges width grades surface railings expansion joints Intersections Costs and funding levels Applicable laws and regulations 3 3 3 FHWA BIKESAFE Safety Countermeasure Selection System Development of the BIKESAFE Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System 2006 was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration FHWA Although this tool is not specifically designed to aid in a facility selection process it does provide practitioners with the latest information available for improving the safety and mobility of those who bicycle The crash analysis component of this system provides the most relevant informa
64. onential effect on injury crash rates and that a safety benefit can be realized by encouraging more cyclists to use facilities a phenomenon which often subsequently reduces the volume of motor vehicle traffic using the roadway The following excerpts are taken from Appendix F User Safety Benefits Transportation Research Board TRB National Cooperative Research Program NCHRP Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities Report 552 Washington 2006 Ibid 7 Thid Delphi MRC 18 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool e There are generally two prevailing opinions among cyclists that enhanced facilities such as cycle lanes or special intersection provisions improve cyclist safety the other claims that segregated facilities are the only way to truly improve safety The literature suggests that this controversy here in North America is due in part to the differences between what cyclists state they prefer i e their perception and studies of the limited amount of collision data actually reveal e Providing separated bicycle facilities along roadways is identified as a key component to the increased perception of safety according to the literature related to quantifying bicycle related risk e Existing literature on the safety of bicycle facilities usually considers one of three outcome measures the number of fatalities the number of crashes and perceived levels of comfort for
65. or Transport and Infrastructure CROW Traffic Engineering Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic The Netherlands June 2007 English version 8 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities Washington 1999 Thid Delphi MRC 4 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool 2 4 2 Cycling trip purpose Although less of a factor in the decision process to determine if a facility should be segregated or not some level of consideration should still be given to the reason for the cycling trip Typically the trip purpose is related to the characteristics of the route i e is it close by comfortable to use direct indirect and is a function of how well the route links land uses or trip generators attractors i e a residential area and an employment area The literature stratifies cycling trip purpose in several ways The City of Ottawa uses two categories utilitarian i e commuting or school trips and recreational Other agencies typically have more categories and an example is provided in the following Commuting utilitarian getting to a destination efficiently Neighborhood leisurely riding to shops school or near home Recreation touring for enjoyment sightseeing and exercise Sport for competition and training PY ME Generally speaking we would expect that a cyclist making a trip to work utilitarian and h
66. ovided between the cycle lane and the Danish Road Directorate Collection of parking lane Cycle Concepts 2000 Angle and perpendicular parking increases bicycle collision risk significantly Bicycle facilities near schools parks and residential neighborhoods are likely to attract more basic novice and child cyclists who typically prefer separated facilities AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities 1999 Anticipated Users Skill level amp trip purpose Significant use by children or basic novice cyclist typically Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering warrants consideration of separated bicycle facilities Practice Part 14 Bicycles 1999 Steep grades waterways railroads freeways and narrow bridges can impede bicycle movement AASHTO Guide for the Development of EE EL Bicycle facilities should be designed to overcome these Bicycle Facilities 1999 types of barriers 7 Plans for providing bicycle facilities should attempt to AASHTO Guide for the Development of Collision Patterns resolve existing collision patterns and collision conflict l noe Bicycle Facilities 1999 frequency Particularly for commuter utilitarian bicycle trips facilities AASHTO Guide for the Development of Directness should correspond with bicycle desire lines and provide a ik Bicycle Facilities 1999 direct convenient route Freguent convenient access to bicycle facilities should be provided especially in residentia
67. owever designers should ensure a cycle track would not be a better solution 5 Suggestion lane similar to a cycle lane except not painted red in colour They are preferably accompanied by parking bans but allow periodic loading and unloading 6 Parallel road parallel roads next to arterial roads and freeways are often residential local roads appropriate for cycle lanes or suggestion lanes While they are often one way streets cyclist movements in both directions should be accommodated and conflicts with parked vehicles should be accounted for 7 Combined traffic roads which carry both motorists and cyclists with no separation or delineation between modes Generally these are found on low speed residential streets They may be narrow profile whereby motorists must follow cyclists if there is oncoming traffic or wide profile whereby motorists can overtake cyclists without encroaching upon the path of oncoming traffic Research has been carried out by CROW with respect to the most appropriate facility type given site conditions The science behind the Netherland s facility selection guidance is technically based and practical It is based on the premise of cycle vehicle encounters or conflicts and therefore metrics such as cycle volume vehicle volume and operating speeds are necessary inputs to the decision process This research has resulted in a set of guidelines to aid practitioners and is illustrated in
68. peed Volume Function Vehicle Mix On street parking Intersection access density Collision history Available space User skill _ User density Route function Project type Costs funding sa MA MA AA Check all that apply Select Rules From the column next to each checkmark extract each rule If Step 1 yields a result different than Step 2 or if Step 1 is inconclusive prepare a rationale for selecting a preferred option Bank Street is a north south spine route There are limited alternatives to this north south route due to its location between the Rideau Canal and river This area of the City is dense and well established with numerous accesses and side streets Therefore site conditions appear incompatible with a separated facility or an adjacent alternative route Explore opportunities to implement a cycle lane List the relevant rules See Table in Appendix B Document your design considerations to support the rationale Given the importance of vehicle parking for local merchants and residents some form of on street parking should remain on Bank Street Explore opportunities to re configure on street parking or limit availability of on street parking This will make roadway width available for an exclusive space for cyclists in the form of a cycle lane with an addition buffer if next to parking City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool T CONCLUDING THOUG
69. peed limits yielding to approaching bicyclists when turning traffic signal compliance obeying drunk driving laws and bicyclists e g riding in the same direction with traffic obeying traffic signals and signs e Encouraging bicyclists to use reflective clothing and appropriate lighting when riding at night e Encouraging and educating bicyclists in proper helmet use e Education programs provided to motorists and bicyclists e Providing support facilities such as bicycle parking and events such as ride to work days or fundraisers to support bicycling 3 3 4 NCHRP Report 552 Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities The National Cooperative Research Program NCHRP Report 5527 provides a discussion on the North American experience with respect to safety consequences of various types of bicycle facilities Studies carried out in the United States suggest that there is as much research demonstrating a safety benefit of implementing a particular facility whether it be segregated or not as there are findings that no safety relationship actually exists This synopsis is captured in Report 552 by the following While there is considerable literature suggesting cyclists perceive greater safety with cycling facilities the bottom line is that there is little conclusive evidence to suggest this The report describes the widely supported research that indicates the number of cyclists in an area has a non linear exp
70. phi MRC 46 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool 5 4 Step 2 A more detailed look After pre selecting a cycling facility type that appears appropriate given the speed and volume conditions the user must then carry out a more detailed review of the site characteristics This ensures in fact that the pre selected facility type is compatible with the site conditions Two things can happen when this step is carried out e Other facility types may emerge as being appropriate for the site under review and e Specific design considerations will likely be identified to suit the road segment As discussed earlier in Section 4 2 our project team has developed a set of facility selection rules from the literature and related them to specific site conditions They include Speed Volume Roadway function Vehicle mix On street parking Intersection and access density Collision history Available space User skill level Cycling demand Function of cycle route Type of improvement project and Project cost funding A detailed list of rules associated with these site conditions is contained in Appendix B This table allows users to select or check each roadway characteristic that applies to the particular site Once all the applicable characteristics are identified the corresponding rule i e located in the same line of the table is pulled from the Appendix B table and assembled into a cust
71. rent practices cycling facility safety evaluation and analysis principles and other relevant matters that could be useful in any technical analysis environment related to cycling and we discuss these beginning below 3 3 2 AASHTO The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities begins by highlighting the challenges associated with the planning and design of bicycle facilities due to dramatic differences in skill confidence and preferences of various types of cyclists No single type of bicycle facility or associated highway design will suit every cyclist and no facility design can overcome a lack of operator skill It may be appropriate to provide bicycle facility alternatives within the same transportation corridor to meet the needs of all cyclists and the type of facility provided will influence the level of use and types of users The Guide notes that e Some riders are confident riding anywhere and can negotiate busy and high speed roads that have few if any accommodations for cyclists Type A advanced or experienced riders e Most adult riders are less confident and prefer to use roadways with less traffic and a more comfortable amount of operating space perhaps with designated space for cyclists or shared use paths that are away from motor traffic Type B basic or less confident adult riders e Children may be confident riders and have exc
72. right into path of motorist 11 Motorist overtaking N a 5 r e o bicyclist 12 Bicyclist overtaking b 2 motorist 13 Non motor vehicle crashes S p BIKESAFE also outlines a fairly comprehensive program of bicyclist safety improvements which recognizes that while some bicycle collisions are associated with deficient roadway designs bicyclists and motorists often contribute through a disregard or lack of understanding of laws and safe driving riding behaviour The consequences of these crashes are often exacerbated by speeding failing to yield etc and the following education enforcement and engineering measures are recommended to help reduce both the frequency and severity of collisions e Shared roadway accommodations such as provision of roadway surface improvements or lighting where needed 24 Thid Delphi MRC 17 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool e Provision of bicyclist facilities such as bike lanes wide curb lanes and separate trails e Provision of intersection treatments such as curb radii revisions and sight distance improvements e Maintenance of roadways and trails e Use of traffic calming treatments such as mini circles and speed control measures e Adequate signs signals and markings particularly as they pertain to intersections and share the road philosophies e Programs to enforce existing traffic laws and ordinances for motorists e g obeying s
73. rrier caused by the Highway 417 and the narrow Vehicle Mix bridge structure on Maitland Avenue Explore On street parking opportunities to use the east west NCC path south Intersection access density of Highway 417 to connect Maitland Avenue to Collision history Clyde Avenue Available space User skill User density Route function Project type l EE List the relevant rules b a Aa Check all that apply Select Rules From the column next to each checkmark extract each rule See Table IN Appendix B 0 1 2 4 E a 7 a 10 m Ww 13 4 Fi Traffic volume 26 330 data from City Operating speed 65 km h observed _ Result Consider Alternate Route or Separated ss i d Document your design considerations Facility to support the rationale n a Delphi MRC 48 Figure 25 Worked Example 2 Step One Pre select the facility type Example B Bank Street from Echo Drive to Riverside Cycle Facility Pre selection Nomograph Motor Vehlele Ed 88th Parcentibe Hm h b RE dB WORS T a NR MG N go wo THOUSANDS Traffic volume 12 000 vpd Operating speed 50 km h Result Could be one of three options gt cycle lane gt separated facility gt consider alternate routes Delphi MRC City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool Describe Your Site The Table in Appendix B has descriptors from the following categories dk S
74. s provided Wide curb lanes may be an Parallel on street parking is permitted in localized areas along the route acceptable solution Separated bicycle facilities or alternate routes may be most appropriate Cycle lanes are not desirable in this situation due to frequent conflicts with parking On road facilities are not appropriate unless parking is reconfigured or removed Alternate routes or opportunities to provide a separated facility should be EE EE IE aaa aaa Intersection access densit Limited intersection and driveway crossings are present along the route Separated facilities or cycle lanes are well suited to routes with few driveways and intersections Wide curb lanes or cycle lanes may be more appropriate than separated facilities as motorists are more likely to be aware of cyclists on the roadway than ER N EE l Separated facilities are generally not preferred in this situation cycle lanes or wide curb lanes may be more appropriate Crossings should be designed to Numerous high volume driveways and or unsignalized intersections are present along the route minimize conflicts additional positive guidance warning measures should be considered to warn cyclists and motorists of conflicts Consider provision of cycle lanes advance stop lines and exclusive bicycle signal phases at major intersections consider hook indirect left turn treatments if there is significant bicycle left turn demand conflicting with through motor vehicle traffic If a separa
75. t Tool Figure 11 is based on the following criteria e Low demand is described as infrequent use in the order of 10 users per hour or less e High demand is described as regular use in both directions in the order of 50 users per hour or more e The volume considerations are intended to limit incidence of conflict between different types of users e g pedestrians and cyclists The AUSTROADS guide notes that bicycle symbols for traffic lights should be provided where bicycle paths cross roads at signalized intersections that serve both pedestrians and cyclists and the signals should be coordinated with the pedestrian crossing phase The authors also point out that where bicycle paths cross roads at unsignalized intersections it is generally appropriate to cross close to the intersection particularly if sightline restrictions exist They further suggest that typically warning signs are provided to warn road users of the crossing conflict An optional yield sign is suggested on the pathway at the street being crossed 3 4 2 New South Wales Another prominent Australian cycling document was reviewed as part of our work and is tiled New South Wales Bicycle Guidelines published by the Australia Roads and Traffic Authority RTA New South Wales Similar to the CROW and AUSTROADS documents five key principles for the provision of successful bicycle networks are discussed and include coherence directness safety attractiveness a
76. ted facility is being considered crossings Major intersections with high speed and traffic volumes are encountered should have bicycle traffic signals with exclusive phases and conflicts should be clearly marked EE id eek HANE ed AE re ec Collision histor A detailed safety study is recommended Alternate routes should be considered Separated facilities may be appropriate to address midblock conflicts If Bicycle collisions are relatively freguent along the route on road facilities are considered the operating buffer space provided to cyclists should be enhanced Bicycle collisions are relatively frequent at specific locations Localized design improvements should be considered to address contributing factors at high collision locations often near intersection and driveway Proposed facility and its design should attempt to address noticeable collision trends refer to the FHWA s BIKESAFE as one potential source of safety Noticeable trends emerge from bicycle collisions countermeasures Conflicts exist between cyclists and other modes i e motor vehicles pedestrians Facilities and crossings should be designed to minimize conflict between different types of users and the conflict area should be clearly marked EES GEE Ee ee N N N ee ee ed ee ee rs i Ne ee N ee ee oe Ge OE Nae we ee Available Space Redistribute roadway space to accommodate cycle lanes or wide curb lanes by narrowing eliminating parking lanes narrowing tra
77. th traffic laws 6 Improve bicyclist behavior n 2 i r P P compliance with traffic laws 7 Encourage and promote m m m o bicycling In lieu of performance objectives prevalent crash types can be used and the matrix illustrated in Figure 7 relates each crash type to groups of countermeasures and ultimately application guidelines for a number of specific countermeasures that the designer may explore This space intentionally left blank 23 Ibid Delphi MRC 16 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool Figure 7 US FHWA s BIKESAFE crash group and countermeasures y OV e Rg G Boe oe pi oe Roos WI ve sea NEG gor aes et ee Ko AO on C K ae es df g yi ae od ROF Bo he Ne so ee x Crash Group CO SAT 7 ON VET OG TE we whey ed 1 Motorist failed to yield a z r 8 a signalized intersection 2 Motorist failed to yield P m r e non signalized intersection 3 Bicyclist failed to yield z 8 n signalized intersection 4 Bicyclist failed to yield 5 D e non signalized intersection 5 Motorist drove out midblock 6 Bicyclist rode out a a a m midblock 7 Motorist turned or merged z n e left into path of bicyclist 8 Motorist turned or merged r n m right into path of bicyclist 9 Bicyclist turned or merged m a r 6 5 left into path of motorist 10 Bicyclist turned or merged i 8 r e e
78. this document where seven of the most typical cycling facility types are discussed Each facility type deployed in the Netherlands is defined below It should be noted that this discussion focuses on roadway sections and a separate discussion is provided on intersections later in the document 1 Solitary isolated cycle tracks two way facilities solely intended for cyclists with alignments independent of any roads typically termed bikeways in Canada These may be shared with pedestrians also known as multi use trails in Canada 2 Separate cycle tracks a cycle path parallel to but physically separated from an adjacent roadway minimizing passing conflicts between motorists and cyclists Conflicts at intersections of roadways and cycle tracks can be problematic and adequate sightlines must be provided 4 Thid 15 Ibid Delphi MRC 7 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool 3 Cycle street major cycle routes that are deliberately removed from busy mobility oriented roads because they are neither safe nor attractive for cyclists They are generally provided on parallel routes through residential communities 4 Cycle lane a delineated space for cyclists on the roadway characterized by sufficient width a red color and the bicycle symbol Critical reaction strips buffers 2 0 5 m are recommended between cycle lanes and parking lanes if there is a requirement to maintain parking h
79. tion in terms of identifying risks and safety concerns and helping to address cyclist needs at these locations Once a high risk location has been identified this expert system uses one of two distinct entities performance objectives and crash types to help planners select appropriate safety countermeasures Performance objectives represent the underlying goal of cycle facility improvements As outlined in the matrix below in Figure 6 objectives are related to groups of countermeasures each of which contains more specific countermeasures and application guidelines for designers to explore This space intentionally left blank Federal Highway Administration FHWA BIKESAFE Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System Report No FHWA SA 05 006 Washington 2006 Delphi MRC 15 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool Figure 6 US FHWA s BIKESAFE safety objectives and countermeasures a v r Gre eo otk AE ente e we et AN mae ce D PTa aor ROET OR AAS yt eo Ro or KO Ag Ao wind aw go Objective CO 7 ME ON ye WET we OPT Ahoy COP gn 1 Provide safe on street Py s ad facilities space for bicyclists 2 Provide off road paths or ps o pa m e trails for bicyclists 3 Provide and maintain quality o surfaces for bicyclists 4 Provide safe intersections i r for bicyclists 5 Improve motorist behavior z e compliance wi
80. tion of facility types on and off road in various environments direct routing on major streets and less direct routing on quieter streets are appropriate and necessary within a given area or 8 AUSTROADS Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice Part 14 Bicycles Second Edition Sydney Australia 1999 Delphi MRC 19 City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool corridor In addition and similar to other guidelines elsewhere sufficient space and appropriate surfaces should be provided The AUSTROADS document departs from other guidelines that use a nomograph by providing practitioners with a well defined decision tree to identify the appropriateness of a segregated or non segregated facility The criteria used in the decicision process is based on technical data including vehicle volumes operating speed and the type skill of cyclists This particular decision tree is provided in Figure 8 below Figure 8 is the route used primarily for Y recreation or for cycling to school le route used for commuting by motor y traffic Ie motor traffic volume AADT greater than 3000 vpd N A j Where route follows a road is speed 80 kmh Figure 2 4 Guide to Choice of Type of Facility for Cyclists See Notes on Page 10 limit greater than Australia facility selection decision tree 1Refer Path Treatment Flowchart sect 6 6 Where route follows a road is speed
81. ts and motorists They are generally placed along streets in corridors with significant cyclist demand and where district needs can be served by them e Shared use path an exclusive pathway designated for use by cyclists which may be shared by pedestrians joggers inline skaters etc Generally these paths should serve corridors not served by streets or highways and be constructed away from the influence of parallel streets Crossing conflicts should be minimized and the facility must be designed to be consistent with the rules of the road The guide emphasizes the need to observe and gather information on existing conditions for bicycle travel when planning facilities in order to identify needs deficiencies and safety concerns AASHTO points out that the use of both new bicycle facilities and alternate routes should be considered Traffic volumes speeds vehicle mix i e presence of trucks and buses and impediments to cycling e g parking narrow lanes driveways obstacles poor surfaces sight distance limitations etc should also be noted While cyclist volumes are noted as one possible indicator of level of use the guide points out that this often underestimates demand and the presence of major trip attractors such as residential neighbourhoods employment centres schools parks shopping centres recreational facilities and colleges Public participation from both bicycle users and non bicycle users is also noted as an essential c
82. ts should be made in terms of road safety concerns and cyclist stress levels Alternatively it may be appropriate in the case of multi lane roads one way roads and roads that experience unusually high or low traffic peaks to consider 200 250 vph in the curb lane as the threshold for making provisions for cyclists e The flow chart is not intended to discourage the provision of bicycle lanes including those in low volume low speed local streets where they may be required as part of a strategic bicycle route or for young and inexperienced cyclists Further this guide comments on various road design criteria for cyclists Of particular interest is the recommendation to provide clearances between motor vehicle traffic and the bicycle envelope in the following range to provide a level of comfort for cyclists and to account for wind force exerted by heavy vehicles These guidelines are provided in Figure 9 Figure 9 Australia buffer between cycle facilities and vehicle lanes Clearance Buffer 80 km h 1 5 m It is noted however that the inability to achieve these clearances should not preclude the provision of a facility with a lesser clearance unless a suitable alternate route or means of accommodating cyclists exists The guide suggests that the following factors require careful consideration when choosing appropriate lane and treatment widths Parking conditions Motor vehicle speed Motor vehicle volume Bicycle parking lan
83. vel lanes eliminating Sufficient curb to curb width exists to adequately accommodate motorists and cyclists unnecessary turn lanes etc Cycle lanes may be discontinued with appropriate positive guidance warning measures upstream of intersections to encourage cooperative merging of cyclists and motorists into a single traffic lane through intersections Sharrow markings can be used to denote desirable cyclist path through narrow Sufficient curb to curb width exists but pinch points are created where turn lanes are developed at intersections intersections Refer to TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for Canada for design recommendations Physical barriers are created by steep grades rivers freeways railways narrow bridges etc Separated facilities should be considered to bypass or overcome barriers Provide separated facilities adjacent to the roadway or within independent right of way widen roadway platform to accommodate cycle lanes or wide curb Curb to curb width is not adequate to provide adequate operating space for both motorists and cyclists lanes or examine alternate routes If on street parking is present explore opportunities to eliminate or reduce parking Improve sightlines by improving roadway geometry or removing relocating roadside furniture and vegetation provide adequate space for cyclists either on Sight distance is limited at intersections crossing locations or where cyclists and motor vehicles share limited roa
84. y vs leisure and trip type neighbourhood commuting sports recreation touring The combination of all these elements guides the practitioner to selecting the best facility that suits the majority of these elements The decision matrices developed by the Land Transport Authority are provided in Figures 14 and 15 37 Land Transport Safety Authority New Zealand Cycle Network and Route Planning Guide Wellington New Zealand 2004 38 Jacobsen P L Safety in Numbers More walkers and bicyclists safer walking and bicycling In Injury Prevention 9 pp 205 209 2003 3 Institution of Highways and Transportation Cyclists Touring Club Bicycle Association and Department of Transport Cycle friendly infrastructure Guidelines for planning and design Cyclists Touring Club Godalming United Kingdom 1996 it Koorey G Why a cycling strategy on its own will not increase cycling Prepared for the New Zealand Cycling Conference 2003 Delphi MRC 27 Figure 14 NETWORK AOUTE REOUIFEMEMTS Legend di minimal benefit City of Ottawa Cycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool CYOUST TYPE Cyclists posible cycling objectives CRITERIA Personal security good lighting etc High degere of safety Separated busierffaster traffic urban Aural mad shoulders on paths Screening from weather and wind High quality riding surfaces rect routes Mirirral delays Continuity ign postec recognisable
85. ycling Facility Selection Decision Support Tool Parking should be prohibited on roads with cycle lanes if there is significant turnover Where parking is permitted a raised island can be established between the cycle lane and parking lane Only parallel parking is acceptable on roads with cycle lanes Angle and perpendicular parking has the potential to increase the risk of collision 3 7 United Kingdom Sustrans a UK organization supporting active and public transportation modes has published The National Cycle Network Guidelines and Practical Details Issue 2 This document identifies the need to first assess the need for a segregated facility by using a facility selection nomograph The concept is similar to other facility selection nomographs by using different boundary criteria to identify one facility type over another The Sustrans nomograph is illustrated in Figure 19 Generally the threshold to move to a segregated facility is lower relative to the nomograph developed in the CROW document and reflects the needs of the inexperienced cyclist or family group who will benefit from segregation earlier than the experienced cyclist Figure 19 UK Facility selection nomograph Congested and becomes unsuitable for cycling on the camageway HE SEGREGATED F CYCLE FACILITY Cycle lanes and tracks can be considered g CF Eo g but are not normally beneficial in 20mph zones Pd

Download Pdf Manuals

Related Search

Related Contents

  .st:ryker*  Jura IMPRESSA F8  Tripp Lite Audio/Video Digital UPS    2007.5 J270_J280 Owners Manual (English)  "Clearaudio Performance DC" manual  Système d`entrée sans fil et sans clé  Ceiling Cassette Air  Field Control Genius Bus Interface Unit User`s Manual, GFK  

Copyright © All rights reserved. Failed to retrieve file