Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Advocacy & Safety (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/)
-   -   Examples of bicycle friendly principles applied to road (re)design standards? (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/926304-examples-bicycle-friendly-principles-applied-road-re-design-standards.html)

bigfred 12-15-13 04:38 PM

Examples of bicycle friendly principles applied to road (re)design standards?
 
Through my local cycling club I have the opportunity to participate in the review process of various local road and transport projects.

I'm interested in finding any formalized, cycling friendly, standards that have been adopted by other car-centric cultures. The Dutch models will probably not work based on their requirement for a large amount of realestate that is not available to REdesign projects and the lack of necessary mentality with regard to pedestrians, cyclists, motor traffic.

I've used the search function for the forum and have found a few examples. But, have found this a very frustrating search, requiring a great deal of wading through other stuff to find a few gems.

If any of you have a database or compiled list of Standards that have been studied, suggested or adopted by various agencies I would be very interested in seeing it, in an effort to further my own education and ability to think about and contribute in a meaningful manner.

Thanks in advance,

B. Carfree 12-15-13 05:18 PM

Good luck finding actual bike friendly standards. Most of what I have seen are pretty dismal and, sadly, generally ignored. For example, the state of Oregon requires that major road rebuilds must provide for bike and pedestrian access. However, the loophole is that if it is too much bother or if it appears to be unnecessary, then it can be ignored (which is the norm). It also requires six foot bike lanes unless the right-of-way is too narrow. However, the traffic engineers have decided that too narrow means that if they want to have extra lanes then they can shrink the size of the bike lanes. ORDOT also requires "ride-able" shoulders to be repaved with asphalt, not chip-seal. Sadly, most of the shoulders that I have seen repaved over the past few years are chip-seal.

Thus, when something good happens on the ground, it is usually because someone has convinced the traffic engineer to do it differently. We did this locally and convinced him to remove some on-street parking. It was only a half-step since he used most of the space to widen the travel lanes instead of buffering one of the bike lanes from the remaining parking.

bigfred 12-15-13 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B. Carfree (Post 16332620)
Good luck finding actual bike friendly standards. Most of what I have seen are pretty dismal and, sadly, generally ignored. For example, the state of Oregon requires that major road rebuilds must provide for bike and pedestrian access. However, the loophole is that if it is too much bother or if it appears to be unnecessary, then it can be ignored (which is the norm). It also requires six foot bike lanes unless the right-of-way is too narrow. However, the traffic engineers have decided that too narrow means that if they want to have extra lanes then they can shrink the size of the bike lanes. ORDOT also requires "ride-able" shoulders to be repaved with asphalt, not chip-seal. Sadly, most of the shoulders that I have seen repaved over the past few years are chip-seal.

Thus, when something good happens on the ground, it is usually because someone has convinced the traffic engineer to do it differently. We did this locally and convinced him to remove some on-street parking. It was only a half-step since he used most of the space to widen the travel lanes instead of buffering one of the bike lanes from the remaining parking.

I don't need to see the standards put into action so much, as I'm looking for what constituted reliable solutions from a number of view points in the first place. Basically, robust ways to accommodate the main intersections types (traffic circle, T, 4-way, with and without right & left turn lanes, etc.)

Then, a reasoned set of alternatives, where available resources, not will, are inadequite.

SBinNYC 12-15-13 07:45 PM

You may find some of the design guidelines suggested by NACTO useful.

http://nacto.org/

turbo1889 12-15-13 09:16 PM

I suggest you look up the FDOT publication "FHWA-SA-12-018" I will not say that I agree with everything in it or that it covers everything your asking about but it should be good reading for you. It specifically concerns making official "Safety Audits" for cyclists of existing or planned infrastructure and is way better then 90+% of the junk they actually build are stuff they actually try to push off as "for your own safety" onto cyclists.

Also, there was a poster some time back in this section who at least claimed to be an actual pro-cyclists transportation/road engineer that posted some stuff along the lines of what your asking about. He mainly got chased off though because he was too VC for a lot of people on here who didn't like him posting threads with titles like "Should bikes ALWAYS have the right to take the lane?" (can't remember if that is the exact wording, but pretty close) you can pull up what you posted and also PM him and ask for more of what he has.

I've also got a few ideas of my own if your interested but they are by no means standards or anything but rather just my own ideas based on what I think would work based on my own personal experience on the roads as a cyclist.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:23 PM.