Reglas generales del seminarioacademic.uprm.edu/amfigueroa/Presentations/12 11...11/8/2012 1...
Transcript of Reglas generales del seminarioacademic.uprm.edu/amfigueroa/Presentations/12 11...11/8/2012 1...
11/8/2012
1
Planning and
Design of
Bicycle Routes
Alberto M. Figueroa Medina, PhD, PE
Associate Professor of Civil Engineering
UPR-Mayaguez
Miguel Pellot Altieri, MSCE, PE
Transportation Engineering Consultants
Ladislao Ortiz, PE
LOA Ingenieros
Seminar
Registro y evaluación del seminario
Favor de poner celulares en
silencio o vibración
Localización de baños y salidas de
emergencia.
Tendremos un receso de 15
minutos a las 7:30 PM.
Reglas generales del seminario
11/8/2012
2
1. Describe effective engineering treatments for
designing safe and inviting bicycle facilities.
2. Identify and explain the application of roadway
analysis tools for the planning of bicycle
facilities.
3. Discuss the development
and design of recent
bicycle facility projects.
AASHTO. 2012. Guide for the Development
of Bicycle Facilities. 4th edition.
FHWA. 1998. The Bicycle Compatibility Index:
A Level of Service Concept, Implementation
Manual. Report FHWA-RD-98-095.
FHWA. 2006. BIKESAFE: Bicycle
Countermeasure Selection System.
http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikesafe/.
FHWA. 2012. Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices 2009 with Revisions 1 and 2.
Part 9 Traffic Control for Bicycle Facilities.
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/.
Sprinkle Consulting. 2007. Bicycle Level of
Service: Applied Model. Florida.
11/8/2012
3
Bicycles should be expected on roadways,
except where prohibited, and on shared paths
Essential elements for a successful and safe
bicycle program
Physical road infrastructure to support bicycle use
Implementation of sound engineering measures
Bicycle safety education and training
Campaigns to encourage bicycle use
Enforcement of the rules of the road, focused on both motorists and bicyclists
Source: NHTSA .
USA - 630 fatalities in 2009; 1.9% of all fatalities
PR – 17 fatalities in 2009; 4.7% of all fatalities USA – 2.05 bicyclist fatalities / 100k people
PR – 4.29 bicyclist fatalities / 100k people
11/8/2012
4
Estimate bicycle travel demand
Identify bicycle rider needs
Evaluate network connectivity and directness
Analyze crash / conflict analysis – Intersection
safety
Remove barriers
Ease of implementation
Promote system integration
Factors Influencing Biking Decisions
2-8
Trip purpose
Distance/time
Rider skill and comfort
Attitude
Trip barriers
Destination barriers
Basic Children Advanced
11/8/2012
5
Bicycle Trip Purpose
Utilitarian / non-discretionary - trips needed as part of a person’s daily activities (commuter trips)
Types of riders Choice bicycle users
No access to private motor vehicle or driver permit
No transit available
Dependent on bicycle
School riders School policies Safe routes to school Different rider skill levels
Recreation / discretionary - trips made for exercise or leisure
Types of riders All age groups
Varying levels of comfort
Short trips within a neighborhood
Longer trips covering many miles
Mountain bikers
Utilitarian Trips Recreational Trips
Important route features: directness, connected and continuous facilities
Important route features: visual interest, shade, protection from wind
Commute trips Loop trips; start and end trips are the same
1-10 mile trip length 1-50 mile trip length
Short and long term parking is needed at destinations
Short-term parking
Flat topography desired Varied topography may be desired
Often lone riders May ride in groups
Use bicycle as primary mode, may transfer to transit, may or may not have access to auto
May drive by auto to reach start ride point
Typically may occur during morning and evening, at any hour of day
Typically occur during weekends, or before and after commute hours
11/8/2012
6
Experienced / Confident Riders Casual / Less Confident Riders
Most are comfortable riding with vehicles
Prefer shared-use paths, bicycle boulevards, or bike lanes
Able to navigate streets like a motor vehicle
May have difficulty gauging traffic, unfamiliar with road rules, may walk bike across intersections
Prefer a more direct route May use less direct routes to avoid high-traffic arterials
Avoid riding on sidewalks, ride with traffic flow
May ride on sidewalks of no on-street facility is provided
Ride at speeds up to 25 mph on level roads and 45 mph on steep descents
Ride at speeds around 8-12 mph
Ride longer distances Ride shorter distance: typical trip length is 1-5 miles
2-12
• Best opportunity to promote bicycle commute
travel in urban and suburban areas with large
percentages of trips shorter than 2-miles
• Complements transit services to expand transit
coverage area.
11/8/2012
7
2-14
11/8/2012
8
2-16
Shared road lanes
Regular lane width
Wide curb lane
Bike lane / shoulder
Boulevards/ separate
path
11/8/2012
9
Bicycle facilities – improvements and provisions to
accommodate or encourage bicycling, including parking
and storage facilities, and shared roadways not specifically
defined for bicycle use.
Bicycle route – roadway or bikeway designated by the
jurisdiction with a unique route designation or Bike Route
signs, along which bicycle guide signs may provide
directional, distance, and destination information for
bicyclists.
Bikeway – generic term for any road, street, path, or way
which in some manner is specifically designated for bicycle
travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designated
for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with
other modes.
Shared lane – lane of a traveled way that is open to both bicycle and motor vehicle travel.
Bicycle lane – portion of roadway that has been designated for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists by pavement markings and signs (typically for one-way traffic in the same direction as adjacent travel lane).
Shared use path – bikeway physically separated from motor vehicle traffic from motor vehicle traffic by an open space or barrier and either within the highway right-of-way or within an independent right-of-way. May also be used by pedestrians and other non-motorized users. Typically two-way operation.
Bicycle boulevard – street segment, or contiguous street segments, that has been modified to accommodate through bicycle traffic and minimize through motor vehicles.
11/8/2012
10
No national standards; different State and local guidelines
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
2-19
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
15 20 25 30 35 40
Avera
ge D
aily T
raff
ic V
olu
me .
85th Percentile Speed (mph)
Normal lane Wide lane Bike lane or shoulder
Facility selection is essentially a State/local policy decision
Based on several factors:
Road functional class and existing conditions
Road cross section
Traffic volumes and speeds
Traffic mix and characteristics
Driveway and access points
Topography
Existing and proposed land uses
Expected users
Facility cost
2-20
11/8/2012
11
Facility
type
Best use Motor vehicle
design speed
Traffic volume Intended use Other
considerations
Shared
lanes
Minor roads w/
low volumes
Varies < 1,000 vpd Rural roads, or
neighborhood
and local streets
Alternative to
busier roads
Wide curb
lanes
Major roads > 25 mph > 3,000 vpd Arterials and
collectors
Next three options
are more desired
Marked
shared
lanes
Space
constrained with
narrow lanes
Speed limit ≤ 35 mph Variable Collectors and
minor arterials
High parking
turnover
Paved
shoulders
Rural highways 40-55 mph Variable Inter-city
highways
Width depends on
adjacent traffic
Bike lanes Major roads > 25 mph Speed
differential is
more important
Arterials and
collectors
Analyze
intersection
conflicts
Bicycle
boulevards
Local roads with
low volumes and
speeds
Speed limit ≤ 25
mph, speed
differential < 15 mph
< 3,000 vpd Residential
roadways
Grid network,
avoid using
frequent bike stops
Shared use
paths
Linear corridors - - Separate path
for bicyclists
Path crossings
Use of sidewalks for bicycle travel is
unsatisfactory
Conflicts are minor on residential
streets
Operating width
4 feet minimum for exclusive or
preferential treatment
5 feet or more is desirable if there
is a mix of traffic volumes and
speeds, presence of buses and
trucks
Does not include shy distance
Additional width for steep grades Min. 1.2 m
(48 in)
Desired 1.5 m
(60 in)
11/8/2012
12
Typically ride on right side of roadway on two-way roads
Lateral position is determined by speed and usable width
Obey stop and yield signs and rules
Yield when changing lanes
Overtake other vehicles on the left, except when
Riding on a bike lane
The vehicle to be overtaken is turning left
Some states allow to pass on right when it is safe
Approach intersections in the rightmost lane
Several options for turning left at intersections
Regular lane with no special bicycle provisions
Wide curb lanes
Roads with shared lane markings
Roads with paved shoulders
11/8/2012
13
Roads with very low to low traffic volume and speeds ≤ 55 mph
Travel Lane width (no shoulder is available for bicycles)
12 feet if no shoulder
14 feet min. desirable
15 feet on steep grades
Paved shoulder width
4 feet min. desirable
5 feet min. in front of guardrails, curbs, or other roadside barriers
Wider shoulders desired on roads with speeds > 50 mph
Use where inadequate width exists for bike lane or shoulder (Width: 14 – 15 feet)
Caution with lane width ≥ 16 feet, cars can perceive it as two practical lanes
Can often be installed by narrowing inside lane
Not particularly attractive to bicyclists
3.6 m (12 ft) 4.2 m (14 ft) min.of usable lane width
Inside travel lane Wide curb lane
11/8/2012
14
• Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in a
shared lane with on-street parallel parking
in order to reduce the chance of a
bicyclist’s impacting the open door of a
parked vehicle
• Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in
lanes that are too narrow for a motor
vehicle and a bicycle to travel side by side
within the same traffic lane,
• Alert road users of the lateral location
bicyclists are likely to occupy within the
traveled way,
• Encourage safe passing of bicyclists by
motorists, and
• Reduce the incidence of wrong-way
bicycling.
Shall not be used on shoulders or in designated bicycle lanes.
Street with on-street parallel parking
Centers of the markings should be located at least 11 feet from the face of the curb, or from the edge of the pavement where there is no curb.
Street without on-street parking and outside travel lane that is less than 14 feet wide
Centers of the markings should be located at least 4 feet from the face of the curb, or from the edge of the pavement where there is no curb.
If used, the Shared Lane Marking should be placed immediately after an intersection and spaced at intervals not greater than 250 feet thereafter.
11/8/2012
15
… may be used on roadways where no bicycle lanes or adjacent shoulders usable by bicyclists are present and where travel lanes are too narrow for bicyclists and motor vehicles to operate side by side.
The R4-11 sign may be used in locations where it is important to inform road users that bicyclists might occupy the travel lane.
The Uniform Vehicle Code defines a “substandard width lane” as a “lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the same lane.”
Min. shoulder width: 4 feet (additional foot in front
of guardrail, curb, or other objects)
Wider shoulder on roads with speeds > 50 mph, with
heavy truck traffic, or presence of obstructions
3.6 m (12 ft) 3.6 m (12 ft)1.2 m(4 ft) min.*
* Min 1.5 m (5 ft) from face of guardrail, curb or other roadside barrier
1.2 m(4 ft) min.*
11/8/2012
16
No curb and gutter: 4 feet minimum
If on-street parking present: 5 feet minimum
With curb and gutter: 5 feet minimum (3 feet min.
rideable surface, not including gutter pan)
Parking permitted but not striped: 11 feet total
with no curb; 12 feet total with curb
5 feet (1.5m) min.
7-8 ft 7-8 ft 5-7 ft
11/8/2012
17
11/8/2012
18
Direction
of travel
Direction
of travel
Direction
of travel
A B C
* max 150 mm(6-inch) spacing
*
AVOID THIS! (rumble strips in bike lane)
11/8/2012
19
Longitudinal pavement markings shall be used to define bicycle lanes.
If used, bicycle lane word, symbol, and/or arrow markings should be placed at the beginning of a bicycle lane and at periodic intervals along the bicycle lane based on engineering judgment.
The sign and supplementary plaques shall be used only in conjunction with marked bicycle lanes.
If used, should be located
in advance of the upstream end of the bicycle lane,
at the downstream end of the bicycle lane, and
at periodic intervals along the bicycle lane as determined by engineering judgment based on prevailing speed of bicycle and other traffic, block length, distances from adjacent intersections, and other considerations.
11/8/2012
20
In locations where the roadway width does not allow two bike lanes
Intersections provide a challenge from conflicts
between right-turning vehicles and through-moving
bicyclists.
A through bicycle lane shall not be positioned to
the right of a right-turn only lane or to the left of a
left- turn only lane.
11/8/2012
21
11/8/2012
22
Multiple turn lanes
are problems for
bicyclists
Should be avoided
Loop detectors should be provided for bicyclists at intersections
11/8/2012
23
Design or modify ramps to terminate closer to 90°
Cross high-speed ramps in areas of good visibility
Cross ramps at right angle
11/8/2012
24
Bike Lanes -
Interchanges
Inside radius =9 m (30 ft) min.
Approximate angle 15°
Bike lanes shall not be provided on the circular roadway
11/8/2012
25
Colorized pavement
Bike boxes
Contra-flow bike lanes
Buffered bike lanes
Cycle tracks
11/8/2012
26
Photo by SCI
11/8/2012
27
• Reduces “right-hook” threat
• Assists left-turning bicyclists
• Alerts motorists to presence of bicyclists
• Eliminates RTOR
11/8/2012
28
• May provide more direct access in both directions
• Consider physical separation
• Must provide legal signing and striping
Contraflow
Lanes Hazard
Issue
Primary Field of View
Primary Field of View
Two-waybike lane
11/8/2012
29
Provide more bicyclist
comfort
Provides more
maneuvering space to
avoid obstacles
Can be placed on roads
with high…
speeds or volumes
parking turnover
volume of heavy vehicles
11/8/2012
30
Used on high-volume, high-
speed roads with few
turning conflicts
Appealing to a wide range
of bicyclists
Reduces “dooring” risk
Requires a large amount of
space
Requires investment at
intersections
Physical area separated
from the road
Typical widths: 10-15 feet
Diverse user mix
Not always the best
transportation corridors
Grades <5% for long distances
Centerline stripe is recommended
11/8/2012
31
11/8/2012
32
Shared Path Grade Separation
Only place one in the center
Should be spaced 60 inches apart
11/8/2012
33
Bike Route Guide signs may be provided along
designated bicycle routes to inform bicyclists of
bicycle route direction changes and to confirm
route direction, distance, and destination.
The Bicycle Route sign shall contain a route
designation and shall have a green background with a retroreflectorized white legend and border.
2-66
Integral to planning: an inventory of existing conditions
Documenting existing conditions
Comparing alternatives
Identifying design configurations for improvements to existing roads
Prioritizing/programming improvements
Creating bicycle maps
How suitable are certain roads for bicycling?
Bicycle Compatibility Index
Bicycle Level of Service
Bicycle Intersection Safety Index
11/8/2012
34
Product of 1998 FHWA study
Evaluates the capability of specific roadways to accommodate both motorists and bicyclists
Developed for urban and suburban roadway segments
Allows evaluation of existing facilities to determine what improvements may be required
Can also determine the geometric and operational requirements for new facilities
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 2-67
Incorporates variables which bicyclists typically use to assess the "bicycle friendliness" of a roadway
BCI = 3.67 - 0.966 BL - 0.41 BLW – 0.498 CLW + 0.002 CLV + 0.0004 OLV + 0.022 SPD + 0.506 PKG - 0.264 AREA + AF
11/8/2012
35
BCI Score BLOS Bicycle Compatibility Level
≤ 1.50 A Extremely High
1.51 – 2.30 B Very High
2.31-3.40 C Moderately High
3.41-4.40 D Moderately Low
4.41-5.30 E Very Low
> 5.30 F Extremely Low
BL = presence of a bicycle lane or paved
shoulder > 0.9 m; No = 0, Yes = 1
BLW = bicycle lane (or paved shoulder) width; m
CLW = curb lane width; m
CLV = curb lane volume, vphpd
OLV = other lane(s) volume - same direction, vph
SPD = 85th percentile speed of traffic, km/h
BCI = 3.67 - 0.966 BL - 0.41 BLW – 0.498 CLW + 0.002 CLV + 0.0004 OLV + 0.022 SPD + 0.506 PKG - 0.264 AREA + AF
11/8/2012
36
PKG = presence of a parking lane with more than
30% occupancy; No = 0, Yes = 1
AREA = type of roadside development;
Residential = 1, Other type = 0
AF = f(t) + f(p) + f(rt); adjustment factors for large
truck volumes, on-street parking turnover, and
volume of right-turning vehicles, respectively
BCI = 3.67 - 0.966 BL - 0.41 BLW – 0.498 CLW + 0.002 CLV + 0.0004 OLV + 0.022 SPD + 0.506 PKG - 0.264 AREA + AF
1 - Large trucks = all vehicles with 6 or more tires
2 – Includes total number of right turns into driveways or minor intersections along the road
11/8/2012
37
Multilane arterial road (2 lanes per direction)
Curb lane width is 4.3 m
AADT on this segment is 15,000 vpd
Posted speed limit is 65 km/h
85th percentile speed during the peak-hour is 75 km/h
Development primarily consists of retail centers and
commercial businesses
No on-street parking
Large truck volume is 5 %
Approximately 10 % of the
vehicles turn right into
driveways or minor streets
Assume K = 0.10, D = 0.55
PHV = AADT x K x D = 15,000 x 0.1 x 0.55 = 825 vph
CLV = PHV / N = 825 / 2 = 413 vph
OLV = PHV - CLV = 825 – 413 = 412 vph
Assume T (truck % in curb lane) = 0.8
CLTV = PHV x HV x T = 825 x 0.05 x 0.8 = 33 tvph
RTV = PHV x R = 825 x 0.1 = 83 vph
AF = 0.3 + 0 + 0 = 0.3
Ft = 0.3
Fp = 0.0
Frt = 0.0
11/8/2012
38
BCI = 3.67 - 0.966 BL - 0.41 BLW – 0.498 CLW + 0.002 CLV + 0.0004 OLV + 0.022 SPD + 0.506 PKG - 0.264 AREA + AF = 3.67 – (0.966 x 0) – (0.41 x 0) – (0.498 x 4.3) + (0.002 x 413) + (0.0004 x 412) + (0.022 x 75) + (0.506 x 0) – (0.264 x 0) + 0.3 = 4.47 LOS E, Very Low Compatibility
Developed in 1996 by Sprinkle
Consulting and University of
Florida
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
2-76
11/8/2012
39
Measures on-street conditions (not trails), for mid-
block cross-sections (not intersections)
Research based on perception of comfort,
safety for range of adults
Both based on roadway corridor cross-sections
and traffic conditions
Numeric result, grade ranges “A” (best) to “F”
(worst)
Published in Transportation Research Record
1578
Bicycle LOS
Level of Service BLOS Score
A ≤ 1.5
B > 1.5 AND ≤ 2.5
C > 2.5 AND ≤ 3.5
D > 3.5 AND ≤ 4.5
E > 4.5 AND ≤ 5.5
F > 5.5
11/8/2012
40
Vol15 = volume of directional traffic in 15 minute period
= (ADT x D x Kd ) / (4 x PHF)
ADT = average daily traffic on the segment
D = Directional factor
Kd = peak to daily factor
PHF = Peak Hour Factor
L = total number of through lanes
SPt = effective speed limit = 1.1199 ln(SPP -20) + 0.8103
SPP = Posted speed limit
HV = percentage of heavy vehicles
PR5 = FHWA’s five point surface condition rating
Bicycle LOS = 0.507 ln (Vol15/L) + 0.199 SPt (1+10.38 HV)2 + 7.066 (1/PR5)
2
- 0.005(We)2 + 0.76
11/8/2012
41
We = Average effective width of outside through lane;
= Wv - (10 ft x %OSPA) and Wl = 0
= Wv + Wl (1 - 2 x %OSPA) and Wl > 0 & Wps= 0
= Wv + Wl - 2 (10 x %OSPA) and Wl > 0 & Wps> 0 and bikelane exists
Wt = total width of outside lane and shoulder/parking
OSPA = % of segment with occupied on-street parking
Wl = width from outside lane stripe to pavement edge
Wps = width of pavement striped for on-street parking
Wv = effective width as function of traffic volume
= Wt, if ADT > 4,000
= Wt (2 - 0.00025 x ADT), if ADT ≤ 4,000 vpd and if the street/ road is
undivided and unstriped
Bicycle LOS = 0.507 ln (Vol15/L) + 0.199 SPt (1+10.38 HV)2 + 7.066 (1/PC5)
2
- 0.005(We)2 + 0.76
Retrofitting bike lanes on existing streets:
Reduction of travel lane width
Reduction in the number of travel lanes
Removal, narrowing, or reconfiguration of parking
Other design options
11/8/2012
42
Can be implemented up to 20,000 ADT with little traffic diversion
Crash reductions (CMF 0.71 for all crashes)
Candidate roads:
Moderate traffic volumes
Popular cycle routes
Main Streets
Streets with safety issues
Historic streets
4 to 3 lanes
4 to 2 lanes
11/8/2012
43
Bicycle Level of
Service
Examples
Bicycle LOS - Before ADT = 13,500 vpd
Assume: Kd = 0.10
D = 0.50
PHF = 1.00
Ln = 2
PC5 = 4 (good pavement)
Wt = 12 ft Wl = 0 ft
SPp = 30 mph
12' 12' 12' 12'
48'
BLOS Evaluation: LOS score Category
3.58 D
11/8/2012
44
48'
12'14'12'5' 5'
Bicycle LOS - After ADT = 13,500 vpd
Assume: Kd = 0.10
D = 0.50
PHF = 1.00
Ln = 1
PC5 = 4 (good pavement)
Wt = 17 ft Wl = 5 ft
SPp = 30 mph
LOS score Category
2.07 B
BLOS Evaluation:
Extra space benefits cyclists
Striping particularly helpful in improving BLOS
11/8/2012
45
Model is not used to predict bicycle crashes; it is a suitability model
Model is based on the perceptions of safety of a typical bicyclist
Model applies to roadway segments, not intersections
Model represents the typical conditions along a
roadway segment (averages, not anomalies)
Driveways were not a significant factor
Slope is not included in the model
Signage is not included in the model
“New” facility types cannot be evaluated (e.g., shared lane markings, cycle tracks, etc.)
Develop in 2005 in the State of Florida
Rate entire arterial sections
Based on perceptions of bicyclists about
level of safety, comfort, and travel efficiency (i.e., delay) provided by the bicycling environment
Survey of 63 participants
11/8/2012
46
Arterial BLOS = 1.37 + 0.797 AvSegLOS + 0.131 NumUnsigpm
AvSegLOS = distance-weighted average
segment bicycle LOS along the facility
NumUnsigpm = the number of unsignalized
intersections per mile along the facility
Develop in 2002 in the State of Florida
LOS for bicycle through movements at
intersections
Based on the safety and comfort perception of
60 bicyclists riding through signalized intersections
BLOS primary factors
Roadway traffic volume
Total width of outside through lane
Intersection crossing distance
11/8/2012
47
TM Int BLOS = 4.1324 – 0.2144 Wt + 0.0153 CD + 0.0066 (Vol15 / L)
TM Int BLOS = perceived hazard of shared-roadway
environment through the intersection Wt = total width of outside through lane and bike
lane (if present) CD = crossing distance, the width of the side street
(including auxiliary lanes and median) Vol15 = volume of directional traffic during a 15-
minute time period L = total number of through lanes on the approach to
the intersection
Bicycle LOS Real-time roadway segment ratings
Bicyclists in real traffic situations
Bicyclists could evaluate pavement; pavement condition was significant and used in model
Bicycle Compatibility Index Bicyclists watched & rated video clips
Most of the same factors identified as important
Right-turn volumes were significant and included in model
Parking turnover was significant and included in the model
11/8/2012
48
Developed by FHWA in 2007
Allows prioritization of intersections with respect
to pedestrian and bicycle safety
Evaluates each approach leg for a group of
intersections
Bike ISI gives relative rankings according to
potential bicyclist safety
Selects sites with highest ISI values and conduct
more in-depth safety evaluation
11/8/2012
49
FOR THROUGH BICYCLE MOVEMENTS
MAINADT =main street ADT, in 1,000s
MAINHISPD = main street speed limit ≥ 35 mph, 1=yes
TURNVEH= presence of turning vehicle traffic across the path of TH bicyclists, 1 = yes
RTLANES = right-turn lanes on main street
BL = bike lane indicator, 1=yes
NOBL = no bike lane indicator, 1=yes
CROSSADT = cross street ADT, in 1,000s
SIGNAL = traffic signal indicator, 1=yes
PARKING = on-street parking on main street indicator, 1=yes
Source: 2007 FHWA
FOR RIGHT-TURN BICYCLE MOVEMENTS
MAINADT =main street ADT, in 1,000s
RTCROSS = lanes for cyclists to cross to make a right turn
CROSSLNS = through lanes on cross streets
PARKING = on-street parking on main street indicator, 1=yes
Source: 2007 FHWA
11/8/2012
50
FOR LEFT-TURN BICYCLE MOVEMENTS
MAINADT =main street ADT, in 1,000s
SIGNAL = traffic signal indicator, 1=yes
MAINHISPD = main street speed limit ≥ 35 mph, 1=yes
LTCROSS = lanes for cyclists to cross to make a left turn
BL = bike lane indicator, 1=yes
NOBL = no bike lane indicator, 1=yes
PARKING = on-street parking on main street indicator, 1=yes
Source: 2007 FHWA
Lesson Summary