N_C

After being responsibile as the ride director for the Tri-State Trails Tour bicycle ride committee I have stepped down. This bike ride is what the Siouxland Trails Foundation hosts to rais money to help improve the rec. trails & bike routes in the Siouxland Community. My reasons are many, some of them personal, others professional, if you want details please ask. I will still be involved with the committee though. I still plan on being the safety coordinator & help with the route marking, etc. But setting up the committee meetings, planning the timing of what things should happen & when, setting up meetings with sponsors, etc will now be up to someone else.

I have stepped up to be the chairperson for a new committee. This committee will do a survey of the city streets in all 9 of Sioux City's districts, (the city is divided up by the police dept. into districts). This survey will be on the existing estasblished bicycle routes & propose new potential routes to the Siouxland Trails Foundation & to the City of Sioux City. Right now I am working on getting volunteers from within the foundation to help form the commitee & conduct the survey. After that we then start doing the survey. I am hoping to have at least 9 people but 18 would be better, which would make it 1 to 2 per district. I am also hoping that we will have at least one person that either lives or works in each of the 9 districts. Those people tend to know the streets better then anyone else as they either drive or ride their bikes on them on a more regular basis.

This leads me to a question. Does anyone here know of any kind of established criteria, if any, that makes a bike route in a city a bike route? The bike routes I am speaking of is the ones that have the green or other types of signs naming them as such. What criteria if any do city streets have to meet in order to be established as a bike route? I ask because I have looked on the internet & have not found any info. yet. I have also looked on Sioux City's web site & again came up empty. I will be asking the Parks & Rec. Director if he is aware of any criteria. I figured I would ask here too to see if anyone can point me in the right direction.

Thank you.

John

linds

Haha, I have no idea. One of the signed bike routes in Boston is on the absolute WORST road possible (for anyone that knows the city, it runs along Melnea Cass Blvd). The road is in terrible shape. There is zero shoulder. The lanes are narrow, and cars FLY down it.

If I were to set criteria, I would suggest:

- Nicely paved road, kept in good condition (maybe make a pact to repave every year?)

- Cleaned often, so the sides of the road don't get full of crap (broken bottles, other trash)

- Designed so that the gutters and manholes are LEVEL with the pavement. This is important. In Boston it seems like they're all dipped down, so riding as far to the right that feels safe also feels VERY uncomfortable and bumpy.

- Wide outside lanes so cars don't feel too nervous about passing you, and they can do so with a safe distance without having to travel into the other lane.

- Lights that can be triggered by a bicycle, in case someone's riding when there isn't much traffic.

- Share the Road and Bicycle signs so motorists are aware that it is, or will be, a well-traveled bike route.

N_C

linds, your response is one of the reasons we are doing the survey. To better improve the bike routes, existing & potential. We may find from doing the survey is that the current bike routes may no longer be safe enough to keep it established as such. And that a street that is a block away may be a better choice.

Keep in mind folks we are not having the City or Sioux City, or Woodbury County or even the state of Iowa conduct this survey. If we did who knows what they may come up with. Part of the reason the trails foundation is doing this is because in some cases we simply do not trust the bureaucracy & politics involved when a govt. is involved with something like this. We will how ever have to trust them enough to do the right thing & maintain an appropriate amount of pressure & motivation on them when we turn the results of our survey over to them. The survey is best done by people who live in & use the roads in this community. Not the govt. bodies that think they know whats best for cyclists & would more then likely manipulate things to the favor of motorists.

Longhorn

You might get in touch with other cycling organizations. For example, the officers of Austin Cycling Association could probably put you in touch with whoever mapped out routes in Austin. www.austincycling.org

Good luck!

brokenrobot

I imagine, but do not know, that the federal highway people *must* set some kind of standard... there are, after all, subsidies handed out per mile of new bike route to the states. I have not as yet been able to find out exactly what those standards are, but I imagine somebody in your local department of highways ought to be able to help...

atbman

See if you can get hold of a copy of the CTC (UK) publication, "Cycling Infrastructure". It's obviously UK specific, but there is much useful material which is generally applicable. I assume that a copy of Forester's "Bicycle Transportation" is available locally. It's very thick (and large) if you haven't already seen it.

The UK Dept for Transport has produced a large number of (free in UK) Traffic Advisory Leaflets on cycling. A list is available on a pdf document on https://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ads_038047.pdf. As you will see, they cover a huge range of advice and practical examples

A useful approach, when you have identified your volunteers, might be to equip them with a helmet-mounted videocam. This assumes that they are competent, experienced and safe riders. Realtime route/traffic visual information is invaluable and assists with putting a practical gloss on the theoretical standards (if any) applied.

As a retired cycling officer with my local city council, I'm afraid that many routes suggested may not allow for much in the way of improvement and/or cycling infrastructure for reasons of space. However, apparently small changes such as Advanced Stop Lines at signalled junctions, cyclist cut-throughs at traffic calming sites etc., can have a a measurable effect on cyclists' confidence.

It's vital that any improvements/routes suggested start from the needs of competent riders. Facilities designed for nervous cyclists invevitably come to an end at some point. Such a rider then has nowhere to go so is not encouraged or motivated to continue along a section of road that they then see as unsafe because of the lack of the facility they've just been using.

If you do manage to get a route/routes off the ground, you may need to persuade the powers that be to put some money aside for cyclist training with proper classes and, hopefully, "bike buddies" to help newbies dip their pedals in the water.

Good Luck!

atbman

that should be https://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ads_038047.pdf

atbman

If at first you don't succeed...

https://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/

dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_038047.pdf

The above should be all one line of course, but the system doesn't seem to like it that way

N_C

Thank you for the responses & information. I will read & use it. I did meet with the Parks & Rec. Director today about the survey. He is going to speak with the traffic & planning engineer for Sioux City & provide me with the information I will need which will help us conduct the survey.

Again thank you & if there is any more advice or information you can provide me, please by all means post a response or send me a PM.

John

mechBgon

There may be some good info here, too:

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/bike/Design_Info.htm

I'm on a dial-up connection so it's slow for me to follow all the links from there, but hopefully there's something for you

supcom

Dallas, TX has an extensive network of bike routes. Generally, they are set up in a grid arrangement with north/south and east/west routes that are signed along the streets with turns indicated. There are no bike lanes or other amenities other than the signs.

The streets appear to be selected primarily based on low traffic counts so there is a fair degree of meandering to avoid high traffic roads. However, the coverage of the city is pretty complete and you can pretty easily get just about anywhere by taking one or more of the routes and be within a couple blocks of your destination.

I suggest that you look for some data on traffic counts to use in selecting streets for your routes. The city street department should be able to get you access to the data.

If you would like to see the Dallas Bike Plan routes, go to www.dfwmaps.com (an excellent source of maps and aerial photos for the Dallas area) and select the "bike/pedestrian trails" map layer. Zoom in on Dallas and the bike routes will be in blue.

DCCommuter

There is info here: https://www.bicyclinginfo.org/de/onstreet.htm

AASHTO is the organization that sets the standards.

I seem to recall reading that Toronto took down their bike route signs after they were successfully sued by a cyclist who was hit by a car on a street that was signed as a bike route but did not meet AASHTO standards.

Robert Raburn

John:
The East Bay Bicycle Coalition works in two counties. Contra Costa County has adopted the following eight criteria to select routes for inclusion in the bikeway network:

Existing Bicycling Patterns
Roadway Conditions
General Connectivity and Directness of Route
Destinations Served
Topography and Gradients
Integration into the Regional System
Presence of Reasonable Alternatives for Bicyclists of Various Skill Levels
Collision and Safety Data

We successfully used these criteria to submit justifications for routes that we wanted to have included in the Countywide Bicycle plan. For example, under "existing bicycling patterns" we emphasized how a particular route is popular for bicyclists traveling to BART. Under "collision data" we focused on the need for countermeasures to improve bike safety at a narrow undercrossing and near a major intersection.

I applaud your efforts and wish you the best in your endeavor to advocate on behalf of bicyclists in Sioux City.

atbman

Since you've geen responsible for organising bigger events than I have ever done, I may be risking teaching granny to suck eggs. However...

Cycling is a difficult beast for both local and national govts. to deal with. It covers transport, recreation, sport, safety, health/fitness and so crosses nearly every departmental and organisational boundary you can think of. But, with a metropolitan area of about 140,00 pop (thankyou Google) you may have a better chance of assisting with the process than in larger cities.

It's not made any easier because of the often vehement disagreements within the cycling community itself (read this forum, ho..ho)

Putting in facilities is a Good Thing, but they seem only to attract a fairly small additional number of regular riders. I believe that a multi-pronged approach has the best chance of increasing numbers significantly:

If you can involve your parks/recreation people, highway engineers (who may need a lot of convincing to look at their habitual highway design practices, by the way - they've built their careers on improving the lot of the driver and seeing this as identical with the need of the community/local economy), health professionals (HMOs?), the cycling volunteers you've already mentioned, schools/colleges, cycling clubs (are there any?), land management types for off-road activities, the police and so forth.

All of this will complicate your task enormously as each group will need evidence to support the value of cycling to their particular area of interest (ain't www.xxx.etc., wonderful). For example, HMOs and their health insurance companies might usefully be shown "Effects of regular cyling on a sample of previous non-exercisers" (see www.allott.co.uk, summarised in UK Traffic Advisory Leaflet 12/99) and any similar publications to get their support.

There is also evidence that individual travel plans have a marked effect on people's travel modes (Australian project originally - no reference, I'm afraid) I believe that this was taken up by Worcester county (or town) Council in the UK with some success. The availability of safe road cycle training is vital for nervous and not-so-nervous newcomers

Councillors, engineers and other relevant movers and shakers also need to be encouraged to get on their bikes to view the roads from that perspective - and they definitely need training first so that they aren't put off by bad experiences arising from their own ignornce of sfe practice.

And then there are drivers, of course. Making it safe for your citizens needs their cooperation, which in turn requires a determined effort to educate them, which requires courage from your politicians (I hope it's not election time?). You can always point out to them that sticking your head in the sand leaves your arse exposed

And didn't I read something about Tri-State? More cross-border problems (oh dear)

At this point, Gentle Reader, feel free to climb into bed and pull the covers over your head.

From 5000+ miles away, advice is easy - so again, the best of luck

N_C

The Parks & Rec. Director of sioux City sent me the guidline & criteria info. my self & the survey committee will need to follow to conduct the survey of the existing bike routes & the potential for new city street bike routes. There is more to the document, this is only the part regarding the bike routes on city streets. Here it is:

URBAN DESIGN STANDARDS MANUAL CHAPTER 8 - RECREATIONAL TRAILS &
SIDEWALK
SECTION 1 - GENERAL INFORMATION
7 09/18/03
J:\Statewide (SUDAS)\Standards\October 2003\10-21-03 Manual with Markups\Chapter 8 - with Changes - 10-21-03.doc
signs as a marked recreational trail bicycle route system but does not have marked
recreational trail Bicycle lLanes). These are explained in detail in the following
subsections.
1.5 RECREATIONAL TRAILS CLASSIFICATION (Continued)
1. CLASS 1 - OFF ROADWAY RECREATIONAL TRAIL (BIKEPATHS) SHARED
USE PATHS
Class 1 Recreational trails, also known as bikepathsShared Use Path, are a
separate system from the highway roadway and are normally a two-way facility.
Crossings with automobiles and pedestrian facilities are kept to a minimum. By
nature, recreational trail Shared Use Ppaths will occur most often in open
spaces, parks, highway right-of-way, railroad right-of-way, river banks, and newly
planned developments. Class 1 Recreational trailsShared Use Paths offer
opportunities not provided by the road system. They can either provide a
recreational opportunity or can serve as a direct commute route if cross flow by
motor vehicles can be minimized. When bikepaths are shared with other users,
such as pedestrians, the widths may need to be increased to accommodate
horizontal clearances. Figures 1.1 and 2.1 shows typical Class 1 Recreational
trail Shared Use Path cross sections.
2. CLASS 2 - ON ROADWAY RECREATIONAL TRAIL (BIKE LANES) BICYCLE
LANES
Class 2 Recreational trails, also known as Bicycle Lanes or Bbike lLanes, are an
exclusive one-way bike lane for recreational trailsbicycle use only. Lanes parallel
to motor vehicle travel lanes or parking lanes are markeddesignated through the
use of signs and pavement markings. Crossings with pedestrians and
automobiles are allowed but are to be minimized such as at driveways and
crosswalks.
Bike Llanes are established along streets in corridors where there is significant
recreational trailbicycle demand, and where there are distinct needs that can be
served by them. The purpose should be to improve conditions for bicyclists in
the corridors. Bike Llanes are intended to delineate the right-of-way assigned to
bicyclists and motorists and to provide for more predictable movements by each.
Recreational trailBike lLane markings can increase a bicyclist′s confidence in
motorists not straying into his/her path of travel. Likewise, passing motorists are
less likely to swerve to the left out of their lane to avoid bicyclists on their right.
Recreational trailBike Llanes should always be one-way facilities and carry
bicycle traffic in the same direction as adjacent motor vehicle traffic. Two-way
recreational trailBike lLanes on one side of the roadway are unacceptable
because they promote riding against the flow of motor vehicle traffic. Wrong-way
riding is a major cause of recreational trailbicycle accidents and violates the
Rules of the Road stated in the Uniform Vehicle Code. Recreational trailBicycle
lLanes on one-way streets should be on the right side of the street, except in
areas where a recreational trail Bicycle lLane on the left will decrease the number
of conflicts (e.g., those caused by heavy bus traffic).

URBAN DESIGN STANDARDS MANUAL CHAPTER 8 - RECREATIONAL TRAILS &
SIDEWALK
SECTION 1 - GENERAL INFORMATION
8 09/18/03
J:\Statewide (SUDAS)\Standards\October 2003\10-21-03 Manual with Markups\Chapter 8 - with Changes - 10-21-03.doc
A more important reason for constructing Bbike lLanes is to better accommodate
bicyclists through corridors where insufficient room exists for bicycling on existing
streets. This can be accomplished by reducing the number of lanes, or
prohibiting parking on given streets in order to delineate bBike lLanes. In
selecting appropriate streets for bBike lLanes, the criteria outlineds in Chapter 8,
Section 1.4 should be examined along with the MUTCD.
1.5 RECREATIONAL TRAILS CLASSIFICATION (Continued)
3. CLASS 3 - SIGNED SHARED ROADWAY (BIKE ROUTES)
Class 3 Recreational trails, also known as bike routesSigned Shared Roadways,
share the traveled portion of the roadway with motor vehicles and do not have
markedstriped bBike lLanes. Class 3 Recreational trails are established by
placing bike route signs along the roadway.
By law, bicyclists are permitted on all roadways, except prohibited freeways.
When a particular roadway is identified as having characteristics that make it
preferential for use by cyclists it may be beneficial to sign it as a designated bike
route. There are several reasons for designating signed bike routes:
• The route provides continuity to other bicycle facilities such as Bike Lanes
and Shared Use Path.
• The road is a common route for bicyclists through a high demand corridor.
• In rural areas, the route is preferred for bicycling due to low motor vehicle
traffic volume or paved shoulder availability.
• The route extends along local neighborhood streets and collectors that
lead to an internal neighborhood destination such as a park, school, or
commercial district.
Signed Shared Roadways indicate to cyclists that there are particular advantages
to using these routes compared to alternate routes. This means the responsible
agencies have taken action to ensure these routes are suitable for bicycle use
and will be maintained. Signing also serves to warn vehicle drivers that bicyclists
are present.
Class 3 Recreational trails are intended to provide continuity to the recreational
trail system and designate preferred routes through high demand (recreational
trails) corridors. As with bike lanes, designation of bike routes should indicate to
bicyclists that there are particular advantages to using these routes as compared
with alternative routes.
Since bicyclists are permitted on all roadways (except prohibited freeways), the
decision to sign the route should be based in part on the following:
Prior to signing a roadway as a designated bicycle route, the following criteria
should be considered:
• The route provides through and direct travel in bicycle-demand corridors
URBAN DESIGN STANDARDS MANUAL CHAPTER 8 - RECREATIONAL TRAILS &
SIDEWALK
SECTION 1 - GENERAL INFORMATION
9 09/18/03
J:\Statewide (SUDAS)\Standards\October 2003\10-21-03 Manual with Markups\Chapter 8 - with Changes - 10-21-03.doc
• An effort has been made to adjust traffic control devices to give greater
priority to bicyclists on the route, as opposed to alternative, non-designated
routes. This could include placement of bicycle-sensitive detectors where
bicyclists are expected to stop.
• Street parking has been removed or restricted in areas of critical width to
provide improved safety.
• A smooth surface has been provided (e.g. adjust utility covers to grade,
install bicycle-safe drainage grates, fill potholes, etc.)
• Maintenance of the route will be sufficient to prevent accumulation of
debris.
• Ensure that lane widths and roadway capacity are sufficient to
accommodate both the vehicle and bicycle volumes expected (14' of
usable outside lane is recommended)
A. Roadway geometrics, traffic volumes, speeds, sight distances,
intersection conditions, and clearances are examined to determine if the
route is satisfactory.
B. Routes provide for through and direct travel in recreational trail-demand
corridors.
C. Connect discontinuous segments of bike lanes.
D. Evaluate traffic control devices for their adequacy to the motorists and
bicyclists.
E. Street parking has been removed or restricted in areas of critical width to
provide improved safety.
F. Surface irregularities have been addressed.

DCCommuter

A good read for someone involved in planning is "The Dilemmas of Bicycle Planning " by Paul Schimek. See: https://danenet.wicip.org/bcp/dilemma.html . He does a good job of pointing out in a balanced way that there is no ideal solution to a lot of bicycle planning issues.

Also, it's interesting that the guidelines you posted are entirely (and specifically) about recreational cycling, as opposed to transportational cycling.

N_C

DC, I never said anything about VC, if this is what you're trying to politley imply. In fact I'd rather the VC debate be left out of this thread, it has no place here. With that said in this area transportational cycling can be & is done on the trail system, existing established bike routes, on other city streets & will be done on new bike routes. There has never been any problem with transportational cycling here. Nor has there been a need for bike racks on buses, etc. We do not have a commuter train system, the city is not large enough for one. If an employee wishes to ride to work most if not all employeers are not against it. Every employer I have worked for & ridden bike to &/or from work has always accomidated me with a place to change & safely park my bike. The ability to be a transportaional cyclist has never been nor do I foresee ever being a problem for anyone to do in tis community.

The problems are lack of connectivity within the trail system & lack of properly marked bike route system. There is one trail currently being constructed as we speak that is part of the Perry Creek flood control project. When finished it will connect the river front, downtown, the west side & the north sode of Sioux City together. Thankfully the funding for this is from the construction dollars of the project. This will help a great deal with the connectivity issue.

The Seldom Kill

In addition to the above from atbman, ukcentric but well devised planning strategy documents are available from Transport for London's(TfL) Cycling Centre of Excellence and from the London Cycling Campaign.

Both parties are used to receiving interest in their policies and activities from overseas and the TfL stuff is being hailed as best practice by a number of large cities which aren't in Holland.

DCCommuter

Not at all. No VC here. The distinction I'm making is between recreational and transportational use of a bicycle -- using it for fun, or using it to get somewhere. Not that they are mutually exclusive.

I just thought that the wording of what you posted was kind of funny. For example:
Around here, bike lanes are not considered recreational facilities, they're transportational facitilities, designed and maintained by the Department of Transportation. I would bet that if you dug into the issue you would find that your bike lanes are paid for with federal highway dollars, which were allocated on the representation that they would be used as transportation facilities -- that's the primary funding mechanism for bike facilities in the US.

While it's largely a semantic difference, it has practical implications. Transportation is a need, ensconced in the Constitution and common law. Recreation is not. If bicycles did not have a transportational use their use on roadways would be much more restricted.

One of the causes of motorist resentment toward bicyclists is a feeling that they purely recreational, "blocking traffic with their toys." One of the challenges of advocacy is that there is no real way of differentiating transportational use from recreational use.

noisebeam

It concerns me when bike routes are planned for recreation vs. transport. It does put more resource on a select few routes that may be more comfortable for cyclists to ride on and also create perceptions from motorists that cyclist should be on them. Some transportational cycling is only going 5mi or less, so a 2mi detour to the 'bike route' way may double the the ride and the legs of the detour route to get to the
bike route' may be just as 'bad' to ride on as the roads the 'bike route' is designed to bypass.

All roads should be good for cyclist - I'd rather have two parallel roads be moderate for cyclists vs. one excellent and one terrible as some cyclist are going to always have to use the terrible at some point or another.

Al

N_C

DC, I think the definition of transportational cyclist vs recreational cyclist may be differant in each area. Or at least the perception & interpretation between the 2 is. Around here both tend to be one in the same. Although there are more recreational cyclists then there are transportation cyclists. Why? Honestly I don't know. The hope & focus of the trails foundation is to accomidate all cyclists. To do that we are improving the bicycle facilities for all cyclists.

This link you provided me is a great read. The survey committee I chair is going to use the info. in that plus the info in the guidlines & criteria to balance one another out when asking for changes to the existing & when recommending new on street bike routes.

Thank you for the info.