Selecting Bicycle Facility Types and Evaluating Roadways

1. Publication No. FHWA-HRT-05-110 Selecting Bicycle Facility Types and Evaluating Roadways Lesson 13 (Some of these pictures show bicyclists not wearing helmets. FHWA strongly recommends that all bicyclists wear helmets.)

2. Lesson Outline • Bicycle facility type selection. • Comparison of approaches. • AASHTO guidance. • Roadway evaluation. • Bicycle compatibility index. • Bicycle level of service.

3. Bicycle Facility Types • Shared road with regular lane width. • Most existing roads. • Wide curb lane. • Shared outside lane. (This picture shows bicyclists not wearing helmets. FHWA strongly recommends that all bicyclists wear helmets.)

4. Bicycle Facility Types • Bike lane. • Dedicated road space with dividing paint stripe. • Separate path. • Dedicated path or trail. • Significant separation. • Mostly shared-use. (This picture shows bicyclists not wearing helmets. FHWA strongly recommends that all bicyclists wear helmets.)

5. How to Select Facility Type • No national standards. • Different State and local guidelines. • Common factors: • Vehicle traffic volumes. • Vehicle traffic speeds. • Other road cross section or traffic variables.

6. Comparison of Approaches • 2002 Review of North American and European guidelines. • Shared roads: low volumes/speeds. • Wide curb lanes: moderate volumes/speeds. • Bike lanes: higher volumes/speeds. • Separate path: special case.

7. AASHTO Guidance on Facilities • Facility selection is essentially a State/local policy decision. • It may be based on several factors: • Specific corridor conditions. • Facility costs. • Bicyclist skilllevel. Advanced Basic Children Source: PBIC (Dan Burden), www.pedbikeimages.org

8. Roadway Evaluation • Integral to planning: an inventory of existing conditions. • How suitable are certain roads for bicycling? • Bicycle compatibility. • Bicycle level of service. • Bicycle suitability. • Bicycle stress level. • Other names.

9. Bicycle Compatibility Index • Product of 1998 FHWA study. • Empirical model that uses: • Presence and width of shoulder or bike lane. • Vehicle traffic volume and speed. • Presence of vehicle parking. • Type of roadside development.

10. Bicycle Level of Service • Product of 1997 study in Florida, with subsequent testing and validation. • Empirical model that uses: • Road width. • Presence and width of shoulder or bike lane. • Vehicle traffic volume, speed, and type. • Pavement surface condition. • Presence of vehicle parking.

11. Applications for Evaluation Tools • Documenting existing conditions. • Comparing alternatives. • Identifying design configurations for improvements to existing roads. • Prioritizing/programming improvements. • Creating bicycle maps.

12. Lesson Summary • No national standards for facility selection: • Use State/local guidelines. • General principles. • Roadway evaluation tools: • Two commonly used models. • Numerous applications.