Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
Transcript of Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 1/61
Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
• FHWA & AASHTO
– Oregon
– Florida
– Washington
– Vermont
• Australia
• UK
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 2/61
FHWA
•Geometrics
–Bicycle Lanes
–Intersections
–Pavement Markings
–Parking and Storage
–Construction and Maintenance
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 3/61
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 4/61
15.2 Width Standards and Cross-Section Design
BICYCLE LANES
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 5/61
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 6/61
The following discussion details a planning
process for a bicycle network plan. Chapter
1 of the
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities contains several
suggestions for establishing a
bicycle planning program. The following
process is but one example. It consists of
six steps:(1)
1. Establish performance criteria for the
bicycle network.
2. Inventory the existing bicycle facility and
roadway system.
3. Identify desired bicycle travel lines and
corridors.
4. Evaluate and select specific route
alternatives.
5. Select appropriate design treatments.
6. Evaluate the finished plan against the
established performance criteria.
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 7/61
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 8/61
13.3 AASHTO Guidance on Selecting Bicycle Facility Type
The 1999 AASHTO Guide provides some qualitative guidance on choosing the appropriate facility type,
but largely suggests that bicycle facility selection is a policy decision to be made by State and local
agencies. The facility selection guidance is largely centered on the skill levels of bicyclists and what types
of facilities they prefer. The 1999 AASHTO Guide defines three bicycle user types (these were first
defined in a 1994 FHWA report):(2,4)
1. Type A (Advanced).
2. Type B (Basic).
3. Type C (Children).The following descriptions are from the 1999 AASHTO Guide:(2)
Advanced or experienced riders are generally using their bicycles as they would a motor
vehicle. They are riding for convenience and speed and want direct access to destinations
with a minimum of detour or delay. They are typically comfortable riding with motor
vehicle traffic; however, they need sufficient operating space on the traveled way or
shoulder to eliminate the need for either themselves or a passing motor vehicle to shift
position.
Basic or less confident adult riders may also be using their bicycles for transportation
purposes, e.g., to get to the store or to visit friends, but prefer to avoid roads with fast and
busy motor vehicle traffic unless there is ample roadway width to allow easy overtaking
by faster motor vehicles. Thus, basic riders are comfortable riding on neighborhoodstreets and shared-use paths and prefer designated facilities such as bike lanes or wide
shoulder lanes on busier streets.
Children, riding on their own or with their parents, may not travel as fast as their adult
counterparts but still require access to key destinations in their community, such as
schools, convenience stores and recreational facilities. Residential streets with low motor
vehicle speeds, linked with shared-use paths and busier streets with well-defined
pavement markings between bicycles and motor vehicles, can accommodate children
without encouraging them to ride in the travel lane of major arterials.
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 9/61
Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI). Used to “evaluate the capability of specific roadways to
accommodate both motorists and bicyclists.”(6) This model was developed as part of an FHWA
study and involved data collection from 200 persons in three different States.
• Bicycle LOS. Used to evaluate “…the bicycling conditions of shared roadway environments.”(7)
This model was developed using 150 persons in Florida; however, the model has been calibrated
and extensively tested in numerous other locations.
13.5 Bicycle Compatibility Index
A team of researchers developed BCI in the late 1990s to quantify the “bicycle friendliness” of
roadways.(6) BCI is calculated as shown in table 13-1. The significant variables include: the presence and
width of a paved shoulder or bicycle lane; motor vehicle traffic volume and speed in adjacent lanes; the
presence of motor vehicle parking; and the type of roadside developmen
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 10/61
SHARED ROADWAYS
14.1
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 11/61
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 12/61
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 13/61
Width Standards
In general, the shoulder widths recommended for rural highways in AASHTO’s Policy on Geometric
Design of Highways and Streets serve bicyclists well, since wider shoulders are required on heavily
traveled and high-speed roads and on those carrying large numbers of trucks.(3)
When providing paved shoulders for bicycle use, a minimum width of 1.2 m (4 ft) is recommended (see
figure 14-6); however, even 0.6 m (2 ft) of shoulder width will benefit more experienced bicyclists. A
shoulder width of 1.5 m (5 ft) is recommended from the face of guardrail, curb, or other roadside barriers.
Figure 14-6. Illustration. Example of a paved shoulder or shoulder bikeway.
Source: Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan(1)
Certain situations may require a wider paved shoulder. On steep grades, it is desirable to maintain a 1.8-m
(6-ft) shoulder (minimum of 1.5 m (5 ft)), as cyclists need more space for maneuvering. A 1.8-m (6-ft)
shoulder allows a cyclist to ride far enough from the edge of the pavement to avoid debris, yet far enough
from passing vehicles to avoid conflict. If there are physical width limitations, a minimum width of 1.2 m
(4 ft) from the longitudinal joint between a monolithic curb and gutter and the edge of travel lane may be
adequate. Where high bicycle usage is expected, it is desirable to increase the shoulder width. Additional
shoulder width may also be appropriate where vehicle speeds are greater than 80 km/h (50 mi/h), or
where there is significant truck, bus, or recreational vehicle traffic.
Pavement Design
Many existing gravel shoulders have sufficient width and base to support shoulder bikeways. Minor
excavation and the addition of 75 to 100 millimeters (mm) (3 to 4 in) of asphalt pavement is often enough
to provide shoulder bikeways. It is best to widen shoulders in conjunction with pavement overlays for several reasons:
• The top lift of asphalt adds structural strength.
• The final lift provides a smooth, seamless joint.
• The cost is less, as greater quantities of materials will be purchased.
• Traffic is disrupted only once for both operations.
When shoulders are provided as part of new road construction, the pavement structural design should be
the same as that of the roadway.
On shoulder widening projects, there may be some opportunities to reduce costs by building to a lesser
thickness. A total of 50–100 mm (2–4 in) of asphalt and 50–75 mm (2–3 in) of aggregate over existingroadway shoulders may be adequate if the following conditions are met:
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 14/61
There are no planned widening projects for the road section in
the foreseeable future.
• The existing shoulder area and roadbed are stable and there is
adequate drainage, or adequate
drainage can be provided without major excavation and grading
work.
• The existing travel lanes have adequate width and are in stable
condition.• The horizontal curvature is not excessive, so the wheels of
large vehicles do not track onto the
shoulder area (on roads that have generally good horizontal
alignment, it may be feasible to build
only the insides of curves to full depth).
• The existing and projected vehicle and heavy truck traffic is not
considered excessive (e.g., heavy
truck traffic less than 10 percent of total traffic).
The thickness of pavement and base material will depend upon
local conditions, and engineering
judgment should be used. If there are short sections where the
travel lanes must be reconstructed or
widened, these areas should be constructed to normal full-depth
standards
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 15/61
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 16/61
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 17/61
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 18/61
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 19/61
14.7 Other Design Considerations
Rumble Strips
According to the 1999 AASHTO Guide, rumble strips or raised
pavement markers, where installed to
warn motorists they are driving on the shoulder (or discourage
them from doing so), are not
recommended where shoulders are used by bicyclists unless
there are:(2)
• A minimum clear path of 0.3 m (1 ft) from the rumble strip to
the traveled way.
• 1.2 m (4 ft) from the rumble strip to the outside edge of paved
shoulder (or 1.5 m (5 ft) to an
adjacent guardrail, curb, or other obstacle).If existing conditions preclude achieving the minimum desirable
clearance, the width of the rumble strip
may be decreased or other appropriate alternative solutions
should be considered.
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 20/61
Rumble strips should only be installed when an adequate
unobstructed width of paved surface
remains available for bicycle use. To aid a bicyclist's movement
to the left of a shoulder rumble
strip when needed to avoid debris, make turns, or avoid other
shoulder users, some States provide
periodic gaps of 3.0 m (10 ft) to 3.6 m (12 ft) between groups of
the milled-in elements
throughout the length of the shoulder rumble strip. A study by
one State recommends a gap of
3.6 m (12 ft) between milled-in elements of 8.5 m (28 ft) to 14.6
m (48 ft) in length. Other States
have specified 3.0 m (10 ft) gaps between 3.0-m (10-ft) milled-in
elements.
• Small stones, sand, and other debris often collect on roadway
shoulders. Usually the air
turbulence caused by passing traffic will keep the portion of theshoulder closest to traffic
relatively clear of such debris. For this reason, most bicyclists
prefer to ride on that portion of the
shoulder nearest to traffic to avoid debris. To provide a clear
area beyond the rumble strip for
bicycle travel, highway maintenance agencies should
periodically sweep shoulders along
identified bicycle routes and other routes with high bicycle
usage.• Recent studies by two States attempted to develop modified
rumble strip designs that would be
more acceptable to bicyclists. The principle adjustments to the
milled-in strip elements
considered were reduced depth, reduced width, and changes to
the center-to-center spacing.
Several types of raised elements have also been tested and
evaluated. Both studies concluded that
a reasonable compromise between maximum warning to errantmotorists and tolerable discomfort
-
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 21/61
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 22/61
In a study for the Pennsylvania DOT, the authors recommended
two different “bicycle tolerable” rumble
strip patterns:(6)
• For nonfreeway facilities with speeds greater than 88 km/h (55
mi/h):
o Groove width of 127 mm (5 in).o Flat portion between cuts of 178 mm (7 in).
o Depth of 10 mm (0.375 in).
• For nonfreeway facilities with speeds near 72 km/h (45 mi/h):
o Groove width of 127 mm (5 in).
o Flat portion between cuts of 152 mm (6 in).
o Depth of 10 mm (0.375 in).
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 23/61
Drainage Grates
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 24/61
15.3 Retrofitting Bicycle Lanes on Existing Streets
• Reduction of travel lane width.
• Reduction of the number of travel lanes.
• Removal, narrowing, or reconfiguration of parking.
• Other design options.
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 25/61
Reduction of Travel Lane Widths
The need for full-width travel lanes decreases with speed (see
figure 15-2):
• Up to 40 km/h (25 mi/h), travel lanes may be reduced to 3.0 or
3.2 m (10.0 or 10.5 ft).
• From 50 to 65 km/h (30 to 40 mi/h), 3.3-m (11-ft) travel lanes
and 3.6-m (12-ft) center turn lanes
may be acceptable.• At 70 km/h (45 mi/h) or greater, try to maintain a 3.6-m (12-ft)
outside travel lane and 4.2-m
(14-ft) center turn lane if there are high truck volumes.
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 26/61
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 27/61
Removal, Narrowing or Reconfiguration of Parking
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 28/61
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 29/61
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 30/61
Other Design Options
Not all existing roadway conditions will be as simple to retrofit as
those listed previously. In many
instances, unique and creative solutions will have to be found.
Width restrictions may only permit a wide
curb lane (4.2–4.8 m (14–16 ft)) to accommodate bicycles andmotor vehicles (see figure 15-9). Bike
lanes must resume where the restriction ends. It is important that
every effort be made to ensure bike lane
continuity. Practices such as directing bicyclists onto sidewalks
or other streets for short distances should
be avoided, as they may introduce unsafe conditions.
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 31/61
15.4 Bicycle Lanes at Intersections and Interchanges
Intersections with Right-Turn Lanes
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 32/61
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 33/61
Dual right-turn lanes are particularly diff icult for bicyclists.
Warrants for dual turn lanes should be used to
ensure that such lanes are provided only if absolutely necessary.
The design for single right-turn lanes
allows bicyclists and motorists to cross paths in a predictable
manner, but the addition of a through lane
from which cars may also turn adds complexity. Some drivers
make a last minute decision to turn right
from the center lane without signaling, thus catching bicyclists
and pedestrians unaware.
Several approaches to bike lane design with dual right-turn lanes
are provided in figure 15-12. Design
alternative A encourages cyclists to share the optional through-
right-turn lane with motorists. Design
alternative B guides cyclists up to the intersection in a dedicatedbike lane. Design alternative C allows
cyclists to choose a path themselves (this design is the AASHTO
recommendation—simply dropping the
bike lane prior to the intersection). Engineering judgment should
be used to determine which design is
most appropriate for the situation.
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 34/61
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 35/61
On bike lane retrofit projects where there is insufficient room to
mark a minimum 1.2-m (4-ft) bike lane
to the left of the right-turn lane, a right-turn lane may be marked
and signed as a shared-use lane to
encourage through-cyclists to occupy the left portion of the turn
lane (see figure 15-13). This has proven
to be most effective on slow-speed streets.
15 5 Bicycle Lane Pavement Markings
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 36/61
15.5 Bicycle Lane Pavement Markings
Section 9C of MUTCD addresses numerous aspects of
pavement markings for bicycle facilities.(2)
• Solid or broken-edge line lane markings that delineate the
vehicle travel lane and the bike lane
• Lane symbols that indicate the preferential nature of the bike
lane and its direction (see figure
• Traffic signal detector symbol to indicate preferred bicyclist
stopping location at actuated signals
• Pavement markings to warn of road hazards or obstructions.
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 37/61
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 38/61
15.6 Bicycle Lane Signing MUTCD
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 39/61
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 40/61
15.7 Other Design Considerations
Colored Bike Lanes
Colored bike lanes have been tested in two U.S. cities (Portland, OR, and Cambridge,MA) as a way to
guide bicyclists through complex intersections as well as to make motorists aware that
they are crossing a
bike lane. The concept of colored bike lanes has been applied and is standard practice
in several European
countries such as The Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland,
Belgium, and France (see
lesson 23). A study of blue bike lanes in Portland, OR (see figure 15-20 for example),
reached thefollowing conclusions:(8)
• Significantly more motorists yielded to bicyclists and slowed or stopped before
entering the blue
pavement area;
• More bicyclists followed the colored bike lane path.
• Fewer bicyclists turned their heads to scan for traffic or used hand signals, perhaps
signifying an
increased comfort level or lower level of caution.
Colored bike lanes have issues of maintenance—the paint wears quickly with vehicle
traffic. As of 2004,
the use of colored bike lanes has not been endorsed by any national design manuals
or standards (such as
the AASHTO Guide or MUTCD).
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 41/61
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 42/61
Contraflow Bike Lanes
There are, however, special circumstances when this design
may be advantageous:
• A contraflow bike lane provides a substantial savings in out-of-
direction travel.
• The contraflow bike lane provides direct access to high-use
destinations.
• Improved safety because of reduced conflicts on the longer
route.
• There are few intersecting driveways, alleys, or streets on the
side of the contraflow lane.
• Bicyclists can safely and conveniently reenter the traffic stream
at either end of the section.• A substantial number of cyclists are already using the street.
• There is sufficient street width to accommodate a bike lane.
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 43/61
Diagonal Parking
Bike lanes are not usually placed next to diagonal parking.
However, should diagonal parking be required
on a street planned for bike lanes, the following
recommendations can help decrease potential conflicts:
• The parking bays must be long enough to accommodate mostvehicles.
• A 200-mm (8-in) stripe should separate the parking area from
the bike lane (see figure 15-22).
• Enforcement may be needed to cite or remove vehicles
encroaching on the bike lane.
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 44/61
BICYCLE PARKING AND STORAGE
Bicycle parking can be provided for these strategies using three
types of devices (see figure 17-2):
1. Bicycle racks. These are open-air devices to which a bicycle
is locked and work well for
short-term parking.2. Bicycle lockers. These are stand-alone enclosures designed
to hold one bicycle per unit and are a
good choice at sites that require long-term parking for a variety
of potential users.
3. Bicycle lock-ups. These are site-built secure enclosures that
hold one or more bicycles and are
often used for long-term parking for a limited number of regular
and trustworthy users.
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 45/61
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 46/61
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 47/61
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 48/61
GREENWAYS AND SHARED-USE PATHS
The term shared-use path is defined by AASHTO as “a bikeway
physically separated from motorized
vehicular traffic by an open space or barrier and either within the
highway right-of-way or within an
independent right-of-way.
Path Design
AASHTO’s updated (1999) Guide for the Development of Bicycle
Facilities remains the primary design
guide for shared-use paths. The MUTCD 2003 edition, “Part 9:
Traffic Controls for Bicycle Facilities,” is
the primary source for guidance regarding signing and striping of
shared-use paths.(6)
A number of new publications provide supplementary
information, including:
• ADAAG.(7)
• Accessible Rights-of-way: Sidewalks, Street Crossings, and
Other Pedestrian Facilities: A Design
Guide.(8)
• Characteristics of Emerging Road and Trail Users and Their
Safety .(2)• Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access: Parts 1 & 2 .(9)
• Draft Guidelines for Accessible Public Rights-of-Way .(10)
• Evaluation of Safety Design and Operation of Shared Use
Paths: Users Guide and Final
Report .(11)
• Recommendations for Accessibility Guidelines: Outdoor
Developed Areas, Final Report .(12)
• Trail Intersection Design Guidelines.(13)
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 49/61
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 50/61
Bi l I f t t
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 51/61
Bicycle Infrastructure
In the City of London Guidelines
The Canadian Institute of Planners;
· The American Planning Association;
· The Transportation Association of Canada; and,
· The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario.
On-Road Bicycle Lanes:
London’s cycling network will consist of a series of on-road bicycle lanes that will
primarily cater to the commuting cyclist with a moderate to high level of expertise and skill. Onroad
bicycle lanes are depicted on Map 1 as a solid red line.On-road bicycle lanes have several advantages over wide shared lanes including the
delineation of exclusive space and the perception of a higher level of safety. Bicycle lanes are
therefore attractive to both the experienced and moderately skilled cyclist and may encourage
more people to cycle. On-Road bicycle lane facilities should, where feasible:
· Be one directional with the flow of traffic;
· Be located along both sides of an identified on-road route;
· Be located between the edge of the vehicular lane and the curb;
· Be placed between the parking lane and the adjacent travel lane in those instances where
on-street parking is provided;
· Be delineated by a painted line on the pavement;
· Be 1.5 m in width (1.6 m in those instances where on-street parking is provided);
· Be identified by signs along the route and/or bicycle symbols painted on the bicycle lane;
and,
· Include specific lane markings to denote potential conflict points and routing options.
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 52/61
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 53/61
London’s multi-use pathway system will be designed to accommodate a variety
of user groups including recreational cyclists, pedestrians and roller bladders. Multi-use bicycle
pathways are depicted on Map 2 as a solid red line. Being a multi-use pathway primarily located
within the City’s Open Space system, safety, aesthetics and environmental considerations carry
as much value as technical considerations in determining design standards (and routing
options). Design standards therefore will ultimately vary depending on the trails location and the
anticipated number of users.The Multi-use pathway should, where feasible:
· Be a separate and distinct facility from which all motorized traffic is excluded;
· Vary in width from 3 to 6 m depending on anticipated use, abutting infrastructure and natural
features, topography, etc.;
· Provide connecting pathways to local neighborhoods to ensure convenient access for users
and to the on-road bicycle network;
· Include access and exit points that provide visibility from an adjacent street every 500 m.
This may require small park block frontages and/or widened walkway blocks to ensure
safety for users of the system;· View existing vegetation and topography as an asset as they provide buffers between users
and adjacent land uses. A minimum setback to adjacent land uses for retro-fit/improvement
areas shall be determined based on detailed design. Typical setbacks for the pathway in
newly developing areas shall be 6 to 10 m with appropriate screening;
· Be a smooth asphalt treatment;
· Provide for two-way traffic with the appropriate line marking, directional indicators, and
hazard signage;
· Be designed such that they do not parallel roadways thus avoiding conflicts with traffic
turning movements; and,· Be designed to ensure positive drainage and accessibility requirements.
6.2. Multi-Use Pathways:
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 54/61
Signed On Road Facility:
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 55/61
Signed On-Road Facility:
Signed on-road cycling routes will constitute a sizable portion of
London’s bicycle
network. These facilities serve a secondary connection function
linking neighborhoods to the
larger commuter and recreational network. Signed on-streetcycling routes are depicted on
Maps 1 and 2 with dotted lines (commuter and recreational
feeders or secondary routes).
On-Road signed facilities should, where feasible:
· Be located on a local or collector road where wide curb lanes of
a minimum width of 4 m
exist or can be provided (a greater curb lane width may be
required having consideration for
vehicle parking, truck and vehicle volumes and speeds, drainagegrates, etc.,); and,
· Incorporate distinct sign route markers (i.e. commuter vs.
recreational connecter)
· Minimize and/or identify hazards to bicycle travel.
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 56/61
FACILITY DESIGN STANDARDS
1. ON-ROAD BIKEWAYS
2. RESTRIPING EXISTING ROADS WITH BIKE LANES
3. BICYCLE PARKING
5. STREET CROSSINGS
6. MULTI-USE PATHS
7. INTERSECTIONS
MMDA
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 57/61
MMDA
MARIKINA BIKEWAYS
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 58/61
MARIKINA BIKEWAYS
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 59/61
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 60/61
8/14/2019 Standards on Bicycle Infrastructures
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/standards-on-bicycle-infrastructures 61/61