ENGINEERING / PLANNING ISSUES IN BIKE ADVOACY

1. ENGINEERING / PLANNING ISSUES IN BIKE ADVOACY ADVOCATE FOR INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS PRACTICAL AND COST-EFFECTIVE TO ENCOURAGE GREATER RIDERSHIP Anthony Fernandez, P.E. ASF Consulting (City of Madison, Engineering Div. - Retired) Oops! That’s not a bicycle…)

2. Major Themes of Presentation • Measure Success in Mode Share, not Miles • Focus on the “Low-Stress” Network to Attract New Riders • Embrace Innovation But Don’t Overlook Basic Network of Local Streets • Move Beyond “Complete Streets” to Complete Networks • Look for Solutions With “Greater-Than-Zero-Sum” Benefits • Understand Engineering Concerns and Published Resources to Create Safe, Practical and Cost-Effective Solutions

3. Mode Share Matters • Safety is the most important factor to increase ridership. • Consider location, ease of access and especially continuity • Good data as well as first-hand experience crucial in planning and advocacy

4. Mode Share Matters Safety is the most important factor to increase ridership. • Perception is critical • Primarily means separation from fast vehicular traffic • Good visual clues and directional guidance

5. Mode Share Matters Consider location, access and especially continuity • Railroads, waterways freeways: barriers and opportunities • Convenient access is crucial to success • Route judged by its most difficult segment

6. Mode Share Matters Good data plus first-hand experience are critical to planning and advocacy • Data supports public acceptance and recognition • No substitute for on-the-ground experience and input from riders • Gap identification G

7. Focus on “Low-Stress” Network • Wide range of user characteristics • LOS vs. “Low Stress” • Understanding bikes as separate mode from pedestrians • Importance of special marking, signing and other visual treatment

8. Focus on “Low-Stress” Network Separate rights-of-way: Shared-Use Paths • High functionality but difficult to locate, complete corridors • Interface with street network is critical • “Backbone” but not complete network

9. Focus on “Low-Stress” Network On-Street physically separated from traffic: Protected Bike Lanes • One-Way, Two-Way Counter-directional • Distinct from “side paths” • Challenges and limitations • NACTO for more info

10. Focus on “Low-Stress” Network “Bike Boulevards” or “Bike Priority Streets • Defined by special control devices, marking, signing and visual treatment • Volume Management • Speed Management • No widely-accepted definition or criteria

11. Innovation + Local Street Network Can be re-imagined in innovative ways while fulfilling all functions • High public acceptance • Potential for more green space • Applicable to typical narrow rights-of-way

12. Innovation + Local Street Network Local streets are a core element of network but often overlooked • Provide property access, parking while moderating speed and priority • Bike-Only links provide continuity without car volume

13. Innovation + Local Street Network Low speed, low volume local streets are a core element often overlooked • Enhance with marking, signing, other visual clues • Improve pavement condition and winter maintenance

14. Innovation + Local Street Network Create New Bike-Only Links for Continuity • Maintains low volume, low speed characteristics • No negative impacts on MV mobility • Often inexpensive

15. Complete Networks and Streets • Mobility, access, safety and efficiency guide the process • Flexible, practical approach tailored to specific community • Mapping and analysis needs • Importance of informed advocacy to identify gaps

16. Complete Networks and Streets Mobility, access, safety and efficiency guide the process • Big projects needed to overcome big barriers (Beltline) • Projects sometimes opportunity-driven • Function in network justifies investment

17. Complete Networks and Streets Flexible, practical approach for specific community and location • Well designed at-grade crossings: superior access at low cost / R.O.W. • Wide median refuge at high-volume crossings

18. Complete Networks and Streets Mapping and analysis: GIS is providing new and powerful tools • Need flexibility to combine on- and off-street, low-stress on single map • Assist with gap analysis, public communication

19. Complete Networks and Streets Mapping and analysis: GIS providing new and powerful tools • Layers for ownership R.O.W., Parks etc. • No substitute for “ground” experience, informed advocates, designers/planners

20. Greater Than Zero-Sum Benefits • Bike mobility does not come at expense of other modes • Especially consider pedestrian needs • Critical to public acceptance and continued investment in bike infrastructure

21. Greater Than Zero-Sum Benefits Bike mobility does not come at expense of other modes • Counter-directional bike lane on one-way street enhances bike mobility without affecting autos • Often requires flexibility, creativity

22. Greater Than Zero-Sum Benefits Bike mobility does not come at expense of other modes • Colored pavement provides safety and confidence for biker • Clear definition of bike space assists drivers as well

23. Greater Than Zero-Sum Benefits Bike mobility does not come at expense of other modes • European model: provide separate space for bikes and pedestrians • Improves experience for both • Visually intuitive

24. Engineering Issues / Resources • Transitions and intersections more complex than X-C • Don’t let “perfect” be enemy of the “good” • Design standards are for safety and user comprehension, not bureaucracy • Newer standards are innovative, flexible

25. Engineering Issues / Resources Intersections, transitions are more complex than typical section • Consider all allowed movements • Visit site, understand unique conditions • Seek professional guidance on safety standards

26. Engineering Issues / Resources Don’t let “perfect” be the enemy of the “good” • Bike speed or priority may have to be secondary to safety • Avoid creating high stress or perceived unsafe conditions • Understand needs of other modes

27. Useful Engineering and Planning Resources AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities - 2012 • The “Bible” for geometric and design standards for separate paths and on-street facilities • Updated infrequently and not generally seen as cutting edge of innovation • Authoritative and “adopted” by many States

28. Engineering Issues / Resources NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide • Indispensable guide to innovative design • Primarily on-line resource but available in paper • Authoritative and informative but not “adopted”

29. Useful Engineering and Planning Resources WisDOT Bicycle Facility Design Handbook - 2004 • Official geometric and design standards for separate paths and on-street facilities for WisDOT or federally funded projects in WI • More detailed guidance than AASHTO on many topics • Updated infrequently and not completely current with recent innovative ideas

30. Useful Engineering and Planning Resources Fundamentals of Bicycle Boulevard Planning & Design - 2009 • Unofficial but authoritative and useful information on one strategy • Example of many resources supplementing official guidance with innovative ideas • Recommend NACTO for more current info

31. Useful Engineering and Planning Resources CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic - 2007 • Official manual in the Netherlands and widely used in Europe • Good source of innovative ideas from places with very high bicycle mode share • Use with caution as some concepts may not be applicable in US cities.

32. ENGINEERING / PLANNING ISSUES IN BIKE ADVOACY THANKS FOR LISTENING! QUESTIONS? Anthony Fernandez, P.E. ASF Consulting (City of Madison, Engineering Div. - Retired) (That’s closer…)