Originally Posted by
sggoodri
At a crossing location, if the path traffic volume is greater than the road traffic volume, then install stop signs for the road traffic. Otherwise, install stop signs for the path traffic.
If the road traffic is so high that path users waiting at the stop signs cannot cross within a reasonable amount of time, e.g. according to MUTCD warrants/acceptable LOS, then signalize the path/road intersection with appropriate demand-activation sensors that detect cyclists and pedestrians. Another reason to signalize the path/road intersection is if sight lines/sight distances are inadequate and cannot be improved.
The only reason I can think of to treat the situation any differently than for a standard road-road intersection (the above policy for which is detailed in the traffic engineering standards manuals) is that timing must be adjusted slightly for cyclists, who will not cross a wide intersection as fast as a motor vehicle, and who require a shorter wait time for an acceptable level of service.
You've hit the nail on the head. In short, treat the intersection as a "real" intersection where vehicles paths cross. The engineering standards are well established, they just need to be applied. It gets to a deeper issue of who bike paths are constructed, where there is often no appreciation that the path will be used by vehicles, travelling faster than pedestrian speeds.
Although I have the feeling that many bike paths would never be built if they were held to any sort of real standard.