Bicycle Railing Height Report - AASHTO - Subcommittee on Design

Recommendations

Info

DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE RAILING HEIGHTS FOR BICYCLISTS NCHRP 20-7 (168) Chapter 4 - Survey Results A preference survey was conducted during January and February 2004. The survey was posted on the internet, and state bicycle and pedestrian coordinators and advocacy groups were asked (via regular and electronic mail) to participate. The Association of Pedestrian and <strong>Bicycle</strong> Professionals (APBP) list serve was also monitored for opinions and information relative to bicycle railings. Survey Respondents The primary purpose of the survey was to identify height preferences, and determine real and perceived issues related to the height of bicycle railings. Two bicycle railing height surveys were created: one for state representatives and one for bicycle advocacy groups. Appendix A provides the state and advocacy bicycle railing height surveys. The state bicycle railing height survey questioned respondents as to their state of practice regarding railing heights, and solicited information on crash events and data. The advocacy bicycle railing height survey questioned respondents as to their group’s preference of railing height, and also solicited information on crash events. Thirty-four (34) individual respondents provided their professional title (i.e., bicycle coordinator or bridge/design engineer) in the state bicycle survey, as outlined below. • 24 bicycle coordinators and transportation/trail planners completed the survey, which represented 71% of those respondents who provided their titles. • 10 bridge/design engineers completed the survey, which represented 29% of those respondents who provided their titles. Twenty-seven (27) representatives of advocacy groups and international transportation agencies provided their professional titles for the advocacy bicycle survey. The titles included presidents, directors, and planners. The bicycle surveys also solicited the opinions of bicycle users and facility designers regarding the advantages and disadvantages of a 1.4-meter (54-inch) versus a 1.1-meter (42-inch) railing height. State bicycle coordinators and bicycle advocates expressed similar sentiment regarding the advantages and disadvantages of each height. 17
DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE RAILING HEIGHTS FOR BICYCLISTS NCHRP 20-7 (168) Issues and Preferences Advantages and Disadvantages of a 1.4-meter (54-inch) <strong>Railing</strong> <strong>Height</strong> Respondents indicated that the 1.4-meter (54-inch) railing height provided protection from high falls and steep slopes, therefore creating a greater feeling of security. However, respondents also indicted that the 1.4-meter (54-inch) railing height reduced the viewshed, sight distance, and aesthetics of a trail or bridge, created a feeling of confinement, and required a greater expense. Respondents also indicated that a 1.4-meter (54-inch) railing height: • Prevented bridge users from tossing debris off the bridge • Protected bicyclists from strong winds on coastal areas • Created difficulty for exiting a bicycle path in the event of an assault. Advantages and Disadvantages of a 1.1-meter (42-inch) <strong>Railing</strong> <strong>Height</strong> State bicycle coordinators, bicycle advocates, and bridge engineers indicated that the 1.1- meter (42-inch) railing height provided a proper viewshed and sight distance, but reduced the feeling of security, and inadequately protected bicyclists from drop-offs. Respondents also indicated that a lower railing height would be less expensive than a higher railing height. Preference The results of the preference survey indicated that: • 43% of advocacy groups prefer a 1.1-meter (42-inch) railing height. • 46% of state bicycle coordinators and bridge designers prefer a 1.1-meter (42- inch) railing height. The remaining advocacy and state respondents (50% +) were divided on their preferred railing height. The remaining respondents either indicated a preference for a 1.4-meter (54-inch) high railing or selected the “other” response. Those who chose the “other” response provided discussion, opinions, and sentiment, ranging from personal bicycling experiences to the inability to reach a conclusion due to multiple factors. Appendix A provides the responses from the surveys. Figure 9 shows the preferred railing height of advocacy groups, while Figure 10 shows the preferred heights from the state bicycle survey. 18
Page 1 and 2: NCHRP NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY
Page 3 and 4: DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE RAILIN
Page 21: DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE RAILIN
Page 51 and 52: APPENDIX A
Page 53 and 54: BICYCLE RAILING HEIGHT SURVEY STATE
Page 59 and 60: 5-3. Did the bicyclist fall over th
Page 63 and 64: Extra expense (significant issue wh
Page 71 and 72: BICYCLE RAILING HEIGHT SURVEY ADVOC
Page 73 and 74:
2-6. What was the serverity of the
Page 75 and 76:
BICYCLE RAILING HEIGHT SURVEY ADVOC
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83:
APPENDIX B
show all

Bicycle Railing Height Report - AASHTO - Subcommittee on Design

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?