Urban

Bikeway

Design

Guide

About Island Press

Since 1984, the nonprofit Island Press has been stimulating, shaping, and communicating the ideas that are essential for solving environmental problems worldwide. With more than 800 titles in print and some 40 new releases each year, we are the nation’s leading publisher on environmental issues. We identify innovative thinkers and emerging trends in the environmental field. We work with world-renowned experts and authors to develop cross-disciplinary solutions to environmental challenges.

Island Press designs and executes educational campaigns in conjunction with our authors to communicate their critical messages in print, in person, and online using the latest technologies, innovative programs, and the media. Our goal is to reach targeted audiences—scientists, policymakers, environmental advocates, urban planners, the media and concerned citizens—with information that can be used to create the framework for long-term ecological health and human well-being.

Island Press gratefully acknowledges major support of our the work by The Agua Fund, Inc., The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, Betsy and Jesse Fink Foundation, The Bobolink Foundation, The Curtis and Edith Munson Foundation, Forrest C. and Frances H. Lattner Foundation, G.O. Forward Fund of the Saint Paul Foundation, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, The Kresge Foundation, The Margaret A. Cargill Foundation, The Overbrook Foundation, The S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation, The Summit Charitable Foundation, Inc., V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation, The Wallace Alexander Gerbode Foundation, and other generous supporters.

The Opinions expressed in this book are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of our supporters.

Urban

Bikeway

Design

Guide

Edward Reiskin, President,

NACTO, Director, San Francisco Municipal

Transportation Agency

Janette Sadik-Khan,

Chair, Strategic Advisory Board

Linda Bailey,

Acting Executive Director

David Vega-Barachowitz,

Director, Designing Cities initiative

NACTO encourages the exchange of transportation ideas, insights and practices among large cities while advocating for a federal transportation policy that prioritizes investment in infrastructure in the nation’s cities and their metropolitan areas — home to a majority of Americans and hubs of economic activity. Large city transportation officials are investing in innovative public transportation, bike, pedestrian and public space projects to create more sustainable, livable, healthy, and economically competitive cities.

National Association of City

Transportation Officials

55 Water Street, 9th Floor

New York, NY 10041

www.nacto.org

Cataloging-in-Publication Data has been applied for and may be obtained from the Library of Congress.

ISBN: 978–1–61091–436–9

© Copyright 2014 National Association of City

Transportation Officials

Second Edition

The most current version of the Guide is available at c4cguide.org. Copies may be purchased through the National Association of City Transportation Officials (www.nacto.org/print-guide/). Updates and addenda to the Urban Bikeway Design Guide will be posted on the NACTO website.

Design: Pure+Applied (pureandapplied.com)

Washington | Covelo | London

www.islandpress.org

All Island Press books are printed on recycled, acid-free paper.

Contents

Foreword

Introduction

Bike Lanes

Conventional Bike Lanes

Buffered Bike Lanes

Contra-Flow Bike Lanes

Left-Side Bike Lanes

Cycle Tracks

One-Way Protected Cycle Tracks

Raised Cycle Tracks

Two-Way Cycle Tracks

Intersections

Bike Boxes

Intersection Crossing Markings

Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes

Median Refuge Island

Through Bike Lanes

Combined Bike Lane/Turn Lane

Cycle Track Intersection Approach

Signals

Bicycle Signal Heads

Signal Detection and Actuation

Active Warning Beacon for Bike Route at

Unsignalized Intersection

Hybrid Beacon for Bike Route Crossing of Major Street

Signing and Marking

Colored Bike Facilities

Colored Pavement Material Guidance Shared Lane Markings

Bike Route Wayfinding

Bicycle Boulevards

Route Planning

Signs and Pavement Markings

Speed Management

Volume Management

Minor Street Crossings

Major Street Crossings

Offset Intersections

Green Infrastructure

Resources

Notes

Design Guide Project Teams

References

Foreword

Since the publication of the first edition of the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide in 2011, the progress made for bicycle safety in US cities had been nothing short of astonishing. The number of miles of protected bike lanes across the country has grown exponentially. Cities from Houston to Lincoln, Nebraska to San Diego are now proactively redesigning their streets for bicyclists, using the NACTO Guide as their go-to source for world-class design. At the same time, support has steadily grown among some of NACTO’s key partners, culminating in an August 2013 FHWA Memorandum that expresses full support and endorsement for the Bike Guide itself. Two states, Massachusetts DOT and Georgia DOT, officially adopted the Bike Guide in 2013.

As the landscape changes for bicycling on US streets, so too has NACTO witnessed a year of transitions. Longtime NACTO President and former NYC DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan has passed the baton to me, as she moves into a new position with NACTO as the chair of the organization's new strategic advisory board. Under her leadership, NACTO has grown from a shoestring operation into a leader in transportation policymaking and a barometer for innovation at the local level. In fall 2013, under NACTO’s Designing Cities initiative, NACTO released its first companion volume to the Bike Guide, the Urban Street Design Guide. That document is the first of its kind to comprehensively integrate the most up-to-date bicycling infrastructure guidance into a document that addresses pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and motorist design issues.

The product of an unprecedented coalition of local actors and designers, the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide is actively transforming how our cities think about streets—whom they are for, and how they might be best used. In our member cities, this design guidance is being translated into a series of game-changing street projects—bikeways that funnel people through the heart of the city into our cherished neighborhoods, from greenways to waterfronts, and from homes to businesses. While our efforts in this arena are just getting started, NACTO is fully committed to accelerating innovation and world-class design in this exciting field. In 2014, NACTO will focus on encouraging federal, state, and local adoption of this Guide, as well as the Urban Street Design Guide. We will also continue our work to support cities in their implementation of projects, providing tools and sharing best practices to get these projects built. We welcome your participation in helping us to make the public realms of our cities safer and more enjoyable.

Edward Reiskin

NACTO President

Director, SFMTA

Introduction

The purpose of the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide (part of the Cities for Cycling initiative) is to provide cities with state-of-the-practice solutions that can help create complete streets that are safe and enjoyable for bicyclists.

The NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide is based on the experience of the best cycling cities in the world. The designs in this document were developed by cities for cities, since unique urban streets require innovative solutions. Most of these treatments are not directly referenced in the current version of the AASHTO Guide to Bikeway Facilities, although they are virtually all (with two exceptions) permitted under the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The Federal Highway Administration has posted information regarding MUTCD approval status of all of the bicycle related treatments in this guide. All of the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide treatments are in use internationally and in many cities around the US.1

To create the Guide, the authors have conducted an extensive worldwide literature search from design guidelines and real-life experience. They have worked closely with a panel of urban bikeway planning professionals from NACTO member cities, as well as traffic engineers, planners, and academics with deep experience in urban bikeway applications.

SAN FRANCISCO, CA

NEW YORK, NY

For each treatment in the Guide, the reader will find three levels of guidance:

Required Features

Elements for which there is a strong consensus that the treatment cannot be implemented without

Recommended Features

Elements for which there is a strong consensus of added value.

Optional Features

Elements that vary across cities and may add value depending on the situation.

In all cases, we encourage engineering judgment to ensure that the application makes sense for the context of each treatment, given the many complexities of urban streets.

It is important to note that many urban situations are complex; treatments must be tailored to the individual situation. Good engineering judgment based on deep knowledge of bicycle transportation should be a part of bikeway design. Decisions should be thoroughly documented. To assist with this, the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide links to companion reference material and studies.

VANCOUVER, BC

Bike Lanes

Conventional Bike Lanes

Buffered Bike Lanes

Contra-Flow Bike Lanes

Left-Side Bike Lanes

A bike lane is defined as a portion of the roadway that has been designated by striping, signage, and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists. Bike lanes enable bicyclists to ride at their preferred speed without interference from prevailing traffic conditions and facilitate predictable behavior and movements between bicyclists and motorists. A bike lane is distinguished from a cycle track in that it has no physical barrier (bollards, medians, raised curbs, etc.) that restricts the encroachment of motorized traffic. Conventional bike lanes run curbside when no parking is present, adjacent to parked cars on the right-hand side of the street or on the left-hand side of the street in specific traffic, though they may be configured in the contra-flow direction on low-traffic corridors necessary for the connectivity of a particular bicycle route.

The configuration of a bike lane requires a thorough consideration of existing traffic levels and behaviors, adequate safety buffers to protect bicyclists from parked and moving vehicles, and enforcement to prohibit motorized vehicle encroachment and double-parking. Bike lanes may be distinguished using color, lane markings, signage, and intersection treatments.

Conventional Bike Lanes

OLYMPIA, WA (PHOTO: WWW.PEDBIKEIMAGES.ORG, DAN BURDEN)

Bike lanes designate an exclusive space for bicyclists through the use of pavement markings and signage. The bike lane is located adjacent to motor vehicle travel lanes and flows in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic. Bike lanes are typically on the right side of the street, between the adjacent travel lane and curb, road edge, or parking lane. This facility type may be located on the left side when installed on one-way streets, or may be buffered if space permits. See contra-flow bike lanes for a discussion of alternate direction flow.

Bike lanes enable bicyclists to ride at their preferred speed without interference from prevailing traffic conditions. Bike lanes also facilitate predictable behavior and movements between bicyclists and motorists. Bicyclists may leave the bike lane to pass other bicyclists, make left turns, avoid obstacles or debris, and avoid other conflicts with other users of the street.

PORTLAND, OR

Benefits

Increases bicyclist comfort and confidence on busy streets.

Creates separation between bicyclists and automobiles.

Increases predictability of bicyclist and motorist positioning and interaction. Increases total capacities of streets carrying mixed bicycle and motor vehicle traffic.

Visually reminds motorists of bicyclists’ right to the street.

Typical Applications

Bike lanes are most helpful on streets with ≥ 3,000 motor vehicle average daily traffic.

Bike lanes are most helpful on streets with a posted speed ≥ 25 mph.

On streets with high transit vehicle volume.

On streets with high traffic volume, regular truck traffic, high parking turnover, or speed limit > 35 mph, consider treatments that provide greater separation between bicycles and motor traffic such as:

NEW YORK, NY

NEW YORK, NY

In a case study looking at the influence of pavement markings and bicyclist positioning, researchers found that, the bicycle lane [with an edge line demarcating the parking lane] was the most effective at keeping cars parked closer to the curb and encouraging cyclists to ride in a consistent position atintersections.¹

Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. (2006). BIKESAFE: Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System. Publication No. FHWA–SA–05–006, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

SAN MARCOS, TX (PHOTO: WWW.PEDBIKEIMAGES.ORG, GREG GRIFFIN)

Required Features

The desirable bike lane width adjacent to a curbface is 6 feet. The desirable ridable surface adjacent to a street edge or longitudinal joint is 4 feet, with a minimum width of 3 feet. In cities where illegal parking in bike lanes is an concern, 5 foot wide bike lanes may be preferred. ²

When placed adjacent to a parking lane, the desirable reach from the curb face to the edge of the bike lane (including the parking lane, bike lane, and optional buffer between them) is 14.5 feet; the absolute minimum reach is 12 feet. A bike lane next to a parking lane shall be at least 5 feet wide, unless there is a marked buffer between them. Wherever possible, minimize parking lane width in favor of increased bike lane width. ³

The desirable bike lane width adjacent to a guardrail or other physical barrier is 2 feet wider than otherwise in order to provide a minimum shy distance from the barrier. ⁴

Bicycle lane word and/or symbol and arrow markings (MUTCD Figure 9C–3) shall be used to define the bike lane and designate that portion of the street for preferential use by bicyclists. ⁵

Bike lane word, symbol, and/ or arrow markings (MUTCD Figure 9C–3) shall be placed outside of the motor vehicle tread path at intersections, driveways, and merging areas in order to minimize wear from the motor vehicle path.

A solid white lane line marking shall be used to separate motor vehicle travel lanes from the bike lane. Most jurisdictions use a 6 to 8 inch line. ⁶

A through bike lane shall not be positioned to the right of a right turn only lane or to the left of a left turn only lane (MUTCD 9C.04). A bike lane may be positioned to the right of a right turn only lane if split-phase signal timing is used. For additional information, see bicycle signal heads. For additional strategies for managing bikeways and right turn lanes, see through bike lanes in this guide.

Recommended Features

Bike lanes should be made wider than minimum widths wherever possible to provide space for bicyclists to ride side-by-side and in comfort. If sufficient space exists to exceed desirable widths, see buffered bike lanes. Very wide bike lanes may encourage illegal parking or motor vehicle use of the bike lane.

When placed adjacent to parking, a solid white line marking of 4 inch width should be used between the parking lane and the bike lane to minimize encroachment of parked cars into the bike lane. ⁷

Gutter seams, drainage inlets, and utility covers should be flush with the ground and oriented to prevent conflicts with bicycle tires. ⁸

If sufficient space exists, separation should be provided between bike lane striping and parking boundary markings to reduce door zone conflicts. Providing a wide parking lane may offer similar benefits. Refer to buffered bike lanes for additional strategies.

If sufficient space exists and increased separation from motor vehicle travel is desired, a travel side buffer should be used. Refer to buffered bike lanes for additional details.

Lane striping should be dashed through high traffic merging areas. See through bike lanes for more information.

The desirable dimensions should be used unless other street elements (e.g., travel lanes, medians, median offsets) have been reduced to their minimum dimensions.

In cities where local vehicle codes require motor vehicles to merge into the bike lane in advance of a turn movement, lane striping should be dashed from 50 to 200 feet in advance of intersections to the intersection. Different states have varying requirements.

Optional Features

Bike lane signs (MUTCD R3–17) may be located prior to the beginning of a marked bike lane to designate that portion of the street for preferential use by bicyclists. The 2009 MUTCD lists bike lane signs as optional; however, some states still require their use.

On bike lanes