AASHTO Sub-Committee on DesignUpdate on the 2017 Guide to the Development of Bicycle Facilities

Jennifer TooleMonday, June 20, 2016

• Status Report for NCHRP 15-60

• Results of AASHTO committee member survey

• Literature Review• Proposed Chapter Outline• Balloting Process

As the 2012 Guide was being developed, new types of bicycle facilities were being considered and installed in the United States. Publications:

• National Association of City Transportation Officials Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2012)

• Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Separated Bikeways (2013)• FHWA memorandum Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Flexibility

(2013)• U.S. Access Board Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2014)

• Consideration of the AASHTO balloting comments to the 2012 Guide

• Identification and evaluation of new and existing types of bicycle facilities and treatments being considered or installed in the United States

• Review of research and practice that complement the objective and addresses any gaps in the 2012 Guide

• Development of a framework for selecting appropriate facility and design features based on context

• Development of a tiered approach (i.e. nominal criteria where appropriate, guidance based on the body of knowledge, and information about new and innovation applications)

• Consideration of users of all ages and abilities, including children

• Preparation of common definitions of terms

• Harmonization with applicable standards and guidelines

• 261 “content-based” comments• Roughly half resulted in changes• Some changes were recommended for future

editions• Result – final version was not substantially

different

Dr. William C. RogersSenior Program OfficerTransportation Research Board

Ms. Charlotte ClaybrookeSafe Routes to School CoordinatorWashington State Department of Transportation

Mrs. Lauren BlackburnDirector, Bicycle and Pedestrian DivisionNorth Carolina Department of Transportation

Dr. Ralph BuehlerAssociate Professor in Urban Affairs & PlanningVirginia Polytechnic Institute & State University

Ms. Catherine CagleManager of Sustainable TransportationMassachusetts Department of Transportation

Michael JanzenCalifornia Department of Transportation

Mr. Jon KaplanBicycle & Pedestrian EngineerVermont Agency of Transportation

Mr. Jonathan MarburgerSpecial Requirements EngineerKansas Department of Transportation

Mr. Gabriel SulkesPolicy AdvisorIllinois Department of Transportation

Mr. Bernardo Kleiner – TRB RepSenior Program Officer - Transportation Safety SpecialistTransportation Research Board

Ms. Julie Walcoff – AASHTO MonitorBicycle/Pedestrian and Safe Routes to School Program ManagerOhio Department of Transportation

Mr. Edward Stollof – LiasionSenior Director, Highway Safety ProgramsInstitute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)

Ms. Elizabeth Hilton – FHWA LiaisonArea EngineerFederal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Jul Aug Spt Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Spt Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Phase 2: Preparation of the Update to the Guide

6: Prepare First Draft Guide and Facilitate Panel Review

7: Prepare Second Draft Guide and Facilitate Panel Review

8: Prepare Third Draft Guide

9: Conduct Stakeholder Outreach

10: Prepare Final Draft Guide and Facilitate Balloting Process

11: Address Final Comments and Assist with Publication of the Guide

• Interim Report Panel Meeting: July 2016• 1st Draft: Fall 2016• 2nd Draft: Winter 2016• 3rd Draft: Spring 2017• Stakeholder outreach: Spring/Summer 2017• Final Draft and Balloting: Summer/Fall 2017• Final Comments and Publication: End of 2017/2018

• March 15 – April 8• 28 responses• 23 states

AASHTO Committee Membership:• SCOTE (15)• TCNMT (6)• SCOD (5)• Committee unknown

(2)

Please indicate your level of experience working on bicycle projects:

11

18

1836

4

14None/Less than 1 year

1-5 years

6-10 years

11-15 years

16-20 years

20+ years

Value Percent Count

None/Less than 1 year 10.7% 3

1-5 years 17.9% 5

6-10 years 17.9% 5

11-15 years 35.7% 10

16-20 years 3.6% 1

20+ years 14.3% 4

Total 28

How often do you use the AASHTO Bicycle Guide?

4

21

2532

18

Every day

Once a week

Once or twice a month

A couple of times per year

Rarely or never

Value Percent Count

Every day 3.6% 1

Once a week 21.4% 6

Once or twice a month 25.0% 7

A couple of times per year 32.1% 9

Rarely or never 17.9% 5

Total 28

What other bicycle design guides do you rely upon on a regular basis? (Check all that apply)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

9079

36

25

89

39

4

2114

4

Value % #

AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (Green Book)

78.6% 22

FHWA Separated Bike Lane Design Guide 35.7% 10

ITE Traffic Control Devices Handbook 25.0% 7

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 89.3% 25

NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide 39.3% 11

Dutch Crow Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic 3.6% 1

Local Agency Bicycle Design Guide, please state which one(s):

21.4% 6

Other, please state which one: 14.3% 4

Not applicable 3.6% 1

Total 28

Rank the importance of including these issues in the next edition of the AASHTO Bike Guide? (1 = most important, 10 = least important)

Topic Score Overall Rank

Design of transitions between treatments 200 1

Bicycle intersection treatments (e.g. bike boxes, two-stage turn boxes) 171 2

Separated Bike Lanes 167 3

Buffered bike lanes 164 4

Application of PROWAG 155 5

Bicycle signals and detection 151 6

Other (please describe in next question) 146 7

Use of green color in bike lanes 137 8

Bicycle Boulevards 128 9

Electric assist bicycle (e-bikes) 121 10

State DOT Guidance

CaltransMassDOT

State DOT Guidance

Chapter 1230WSDOT Geometric Design Manual

May 2016 USDOT policy revisions

May 2016 SCOH Resolution

Sources: Helmet wearing: Germany: Mobility in Germany (2008), Finland: OECD (2013), France: Richard et al. (2010), Denmark: OECD (2000), Sweden: Swedish National Road and Transportation Institute (2013) Netherlands: Department of Transport (2012), USA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2012), UK: Department of Transport (2008), Switzerland: Swiss Council for Accident Prevention (2012)Cyclist Fatalities: Sweden: European Transport Safety BIKE PAL (2012), UK, Denmark, Netherlands: OECD/International Transport Forum (2006-2009 average), USA: OECD/International Transport Forum (Data from 2009), Finland: OECD/International Transport Forum (data from 2010), France: OECD/International Transport Forum (Data from 2008), Switzerland: Federal Roads Office (2012), Germany: OECD/International Transport Forum (2004,2005, 2007 average)

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Helmet wearing rate Fatality/billion km cycled

Cyclist’s Helmet Use and Fatality by Country

User Characteristics• Until age 14, children tend to have slower

response and execution times (Plumert et al., 2004; Kali, 1991)

• Children also tend to sacrifice cognitive functions to preserve motor functions, e.g., maintaining balance on bicycle (Wierda & Brookhuis, 1991)

• Older adults show slower processing time and task performance (Salthouse, 2009; Verhaeghen & Cerella, 2002)

– Particularly true in the face of multiple stimuli (Verhaeghen & Cerella, 2002)

Separated Bike Lanes• Reduced injury risk compared to riding in a travel

lane (Lusk et al., 2013; Lusk et al., 2011; NYCDOT, 2014; Winters et al., 2013)

• Clearly preferred over striped or mixed travel lanes by both cyclists and motorists (Monsere et al., 2014; Monsereet al., 2012; Sanders, 2014)

• One-way generally safer than two-way (Schepers et al., 2011; Thomas & DeRobertis, 2013)

• Two-way SBLs typically better on one-way roads, on the right side, and with additional design/op features like separated signal phases (Schepers et al., 2011; Zangenehpour et al., 2015)

Crashes and Near Crashes• Both crash and near-crash experiences influence

perceived bicycling safety and comfort (Lee et al., 2015;

Sanders, 2015; Aldred & Crossweller, 2015)

• Bicycle fatalities more likely in urban areas; crashes typically more common at intersections (NHTSA, 2015)

• Freight/bicycle fatalities more likely at intersections, along arterials, and in urban areas (Drescher & Goodchild, 2016)

Chapter 1. IntroductionChapter 2. Bicycle Operation and Safety Chapter 3. Bicycle PlanningChapter 4. Elements of Design Chapter 5. Traffic Signals and Active Warning DevicesChapter 6. Design of Separated Bike LanesChapter 7. Design of Shared Use PathsChapter 8. Design of Bicycle BoulevardsChapter 9. Design of On-Street Retrofits and Bike LanesChapter 10. Rural RoadwaysChapter 11. Special Intersection TypesChapter 12. StructuresChapter 13. Wayfinding for Bicycles Chapter 14. Maintenance and OperationsChapter 15. Bicycle Parking and End of Trip Facilities

• One contractor instead of three• Final draft will be submitted to TCNMT, SCOD,

SCOTE and TC on Geometric Design • Comments will be addressed• Balloting anticipated in 2017• Final revisions and publication