Chapter Two: Creating Your Community Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan

Step 4: Create A Bicycle System Plan

Bicyclists want access to most of the same places as motorists, and they can legally use any roads from which they are not officially banned. Many roads are useable for local bicycling but others are undesirable because of such factors as excessive traffic and high speeds. Bicyclists have varying levels of comfort in traffic, depending on skill levels and aversion to risk. The average adult bicyclist is uncomfortable in heavy, fast traffic and prefers an improved designated bicycle facility system.

A bicycle facility network is a continuous, connected system of trails and on-road bikeways that accommodates the needs of the average cyclist safely and conveniently. This network offers information through signs and pavement markings, and special facilities as needed. The following six criteria should be considered in the development of a bicycle network plan.

Bicycle Network Criteria

Directness – A bicycle network plan should provide the most direct routes to major destinations.

Continuity – A continuous, connected system of bicycle facilities should serve major destinations. If there is a significant break in a proposed route, that route should be left off the designated system until the gap can be connected or bridged.

Safety – Where a choice exists, bikeways should be designated on streets with less traffic and lower speeds. When travel speeds are high and traffic is heavy, on-street bicycle lanes or side-path facilities may be considered. When a bikeway crosses a major arterial road, a stop sign or traffic signal should control the crossing traffic.

Comfort – Comfort for a cyclist includes the safety of smooth pavements and light traffic, as well as intangible pleasures like tree-shaded streets, pleasant neighborhoods, and interesting views. On streets with significant traffic, bike lanes increase the comfort of average riders.

Access to Destinations – It is essential to provide routes that lead to major destinations, and to make specific destinations bicycle accessible. Access routes that do not require traveling through parking lots, and conveniently located, well-designed bike racks contribute to improved access.

Timely Implementation – A bicycle network plan is only as good as the possibility of its being implemented. Many significant improvements are low cost and others can be accomplished as part of already planned street and bridge projects. Prioritizing projects, developing alternatives for controversial proposals, and using funding efficiently will assure timely implementation.

Planning for bicycle transportation has much in common with planning for other modes. A network of facilities that meets demands for circulation and access is required. The process of planning this network requires the identification of priority destinations and connecting corridors, the evaluation of alternatives, and the programming of projects.

Priority Destinations

When developing a facility network, it is important to identify priority destinations, which can include:

Existing trails, parks, and recreational facilities
Central business districts
Shopping areas
Schools and universities
Community centers
Public services, including libraries and post offices
Employment centers

The public participation process will identify additional destinations. In addition to priority destinations, participants can be asked to identify:

Favored routes
Hazardous or difficult intersections
Obstacles (e.g. high-volume bridges without sidewalks or bike lanes and freeways)
Corridors considered to have trail potential
Priority bicycle parking locations

Corridor Connections

Corridor connections are the obvious connections through the community between residential areas and priority destinations.

By connecting priority destinations along available roadway and trail corridors, it is possible to generate bicycle "desire lines." Corridors that connect destinations can be identified, and along with trail potentials, will form the basis of the initial network. There might be just one or several roads within each corridor. By applying the network criteria, and evaluating roads for their bicycle compatibility, planners can identify bicycle network candidate roads. Trail opportunities must also be evaluated. While many trail opportunities can accommodate multi-use paths, some are suitable for walking only or will be designated for incompatible motorized uses.

Product/Action

Map that illustrates potential trail opportunities; priority destinations; "desire line" corridors; and, hazards and obstacles, as known.
If possible, conduct these mapping exercises during or after a planning "charrette."

Alternative Evaluation

Alternative evaluation determines which street and trail opportunities are most suitable for bicycle travel. Steps to consider when evaluating trail opportunities include:

Evaluating Trail Opportunities

Opportunities for trail development exist within many types of linear corridors. Some of the most desirable corridors are abandoned railroads. Operating railroads with wide rights-of-way also sometimes share the corridor with a trail. Assess the status of area railroad corridors:

Are any abandonments planned?
Are extra wide rights-of-way on operating railroad alignments available that might accommodate a "trail with rail" facility?
What is the ownership status of already abandoned railroads?

Additional trail opportunities exist along waterways, highways and within utility rights-of-way. Assess other corridors:

Do canals, rivers or existing greenways offer trail opportunities?
Are substantial riparian corridors publicly owned?
Do neighboring communities or other public agencies own portions of corridors to which your community might connect?
Might public easements be granted along desirable utility corridors?
Do highway rights-of-way offer adequate width for a trail that would serve identified priority destinations?

Evaluating Roadway Opportunities

While bicyclists have legitimate access to most roads, some roads are definitely preferable to others. Research indicates that the primary conditions that impact the bicycle compatibility of roads are:

Roadway widths
Traffic volumes
Traffic speeds

Roadway width, the single most important factor, is modified by:

The presence of a parking lane.
The presence and usable width of a paved shoulder.

Other conditions impact bicycle traffic, too, and can be incorporated to varying degrees in the evaluation of roads. Surface condition, traffic controls, truck traffic, parking turnover, right-turning vehicle volume, and adjacent land-use, all influence bicycling.

Space requirements for standard roadway, parking and bike lane widths
Source: Pinsof and Musser, Bicycle Facility Planning, American Planning Association, 1995

Bicyclists are given adequate operating space on roadways in one of two ways:

A shared lane of adequate width to allow the safe operation of a bicycle and motor vehicle.
An exclusive bicycle lane.

The width required for sharing a traffic lane with cars is proportional to automobile speeds. On low-speed narrow residential streets, bicycles and cars move at similar speeds. As speeds increase, the requirements for road widths increase to allow for safe operating distances between bicycles and motor vehicles.

The FHWA publication, Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles, (see Design References, Appendix One), offers suggested widths for various types of shared roadways. Generally, a lane width of from 12 to 15 feet is considered adequate for shared use by bicyclists and motorists in most traffic conditions. The provision of bicycle lanes requires from 4 to 5 feet of space per travel direction. If a road requires 12-foot travel lanes, 8-foot parking lanes, and 5-foot bicycle lanes, a roadway width of 50 to 52 feet would be required to handle two-way traffic with parking.

However, localities throughout the United States have incorporated these needs into varying configurations. For instance, in the City of Chicago, a combined bicycle/parking lane of 11 to 12 feet is paired with a travel lane of 10 to 11 feet on some streets. This allows 44-foot wide streets (a fairly common width in Chicago), to provide bicycle lanes. Lane widths of less than 12 feet are gaining acceptance where traffic moves relatively slowly, as on busy city streets, and where it is fairly light, as on residential streets.

Product/Action

Once basic information is known, roadway evaluation can be approached several ways. An informal evaluation works well when planners and traffic engineers are familiar with local roads. This approach involves the following steps:

Examine traffic data and roadway dimensions for the roads that connect priority destinations.
Note location of traffic controls at arterial crossing locations.
Determine which roads might be candidates for bikeway treatments, using design considerations and references as summarized in Chapter Three.
Based upon priority destinations, locate bicycle parking recommendations.

Bicycle Compatibility Index

Information on the BCI is available in Bicycle and Pedestrian Research 1988, Transportation Research Record 1636, Washington D.C., 1998, ISSN 0361-1981 and at http://www.nas.edu/trb.

Also, two FHWA reports, "Development of the Bicycle Compatibility Index: A Level of Service Concept", "The Bicycle Compatibility Index: A Level of Service Concept, Implementation Manual", are available from the Federal Highway Document Center.
Fax (310) 577-1421

In recent years, several research teams have worked to standardize methods to assess the bicycle compatibility of roads. These methodologies rely on formulas to assign a number that represents relative bicycle compatibility to segments of the road. These formulas have, to varying degrees, been correlated with bicyclists' experience of comfort and safety. The "Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI)" is under development by a team of researchers under FHWA sponsorship. It assigns values to several factors, including:

Curb lane width and volume
Traffic speeds in the 85th percentile
Type of roadside development
Presence of a parking lane, a bicycle lane, or paved shoulder.

The BCI adjusts for the presence of trucks, parking turnover, and number of right turns. Once the compatibility factor is determined, alternative scenarios can be tested. For instance, a road with poor compatibility can be redesigned to provide a bicycle lane or other improvements that would improve its BCI score.

The trail and roadway evaluations will eliminate some corridors and streets. The remaining "candidates" will form the initial facility network.

The two primary resources on national bicycle facility design guidance are:

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official' Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1999.

The Federal Highway Administration's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Chapter IX. A new edition of the manual will be published soon.

Product/Action

The initial facility network should be presented to the public, ideally in an interactive meeting. It should be refined as needed to reflect legitimate concerns and comments. Once consensus is formed, further evaluation of the corridors will determine what actual improvements should be programmed.

Determine priority destinations.
Evaluate trail opportunity and corridor availability.
Conduct informal or formal evaluation of roadway bicycle compatibility, as needed.
Define preliminary network and present to public.
Develop alternative routes, if necessary.
Initiate coordinated planning with other agencies as needed.

Draft Bicycle Network Program

A draft Bicycle Network Program is the preliminary listing of priority projects for eventual implementation. It will include a list of corridors, projects, general costs, and will also identify implementing agencies and an initial implementation schedule. The evaluation process will have narrowed down the corridors to specific trails and streets. The trail planning process should consider which uses are to be accommodated within available trail corridors. A general assessment can be made of appropriate projects for each street. The bicycle network will be made up of a variety of facilities, including those in the following illustrations. These and other design considerations are discussed in Chapter Three of this handbook.

Bicycle routes on shared roadways – use road "as is;" sign with directional information.