Phase 1 Bike Plan_r

Recommendations

Info

SPECIALIZED TREATMENTS: ROAD DIET Descrip on: A “road diet” describes a project to right size a street when it has surplus through lanes given traffic volumes, when can create space for other travel modes or uses. The most common road diet projects involve conver ng a four-lane undivided roadway to a two-lane roadway (one travel lane in each direc on plus a two-way center le turn lane) by removing one travel lane in each direc on. A center landscaped median or refuge islands can be used in place of the center two-way le turn lane in loca ons where driveways are uncommon or absent. Ÿ Elimina on of mul ple threat pedestrian collisions (when a driver stops in one lane of a mul -lane road to permit a pedestrian to cross, and a vehicle in an adjacent lane strikes the pedestrian who is crossing in front of the stopped vehicle) Challenges: Ÿ Removing travel lanes, even on a lightly traveled corridor, can be conten ous and necessitates effec ve public engagement and communica on Applica on: Gollihar Road Gollihar Road between Staples Street and Airline Road is a good candidate for a road diet from a fourlane undivided sec on to a three-lane sec on, with one travel lane in each direc on and center twoway le turn lane. With an average daily traffic volume of less than 7,000 vehicles per day, this roadway sec on falls well below the typical maximum volumes for a four-lane to three-lane road diet of 15,000 vehicles per day. The project, as shown, would include the following features: Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Raised refuge islands at strategic loca ons, such as between Sheridan Drive and Mustang Trail, to allow for two-stage pedestrian crossings. The refuge would be supplemented with high visibility ladder style crosswalk markings and rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs). Addi onally, the median break at the island would be angled to force pedestrians and bicyclists to look toward the direc on of traffic they were about to cross The width gained by conver ng to a three-lane sec on would be captured by moving the curbs inward an equal amount of each side, transla ng into savings during roadway reconstruc on and maintenance A one-way cycle track (5 feet wide) would be installed on each side of the street immediately adjacent to the sidewalk, ideally set back from the back of curb by at least 2 feet; the cycle track is differen ated from the sidewalk using colored pavement On-street parking on the south side of the street adjacent to King High School is retained 2’ (min) buffer between back of curb and cycle track ADA compliant sidewalk Benefits: Ÿ Lower vehicle speed variability (i.e. more consistent traffic flow) due to the diversion (into the center turn lane) of vehicles turning le and due to the elimina on of aggressive movements between lanes Ÿ Improved mobility and access, par cularly for non-motorized modes: Ÿ A three-lane cross sec on produces fewer conflict points between vehicles and crossing pedestrians Ÿ Pedestrians cross one lane of traffic at a me using median refuge islands Ÿ Reduced number of collisions and injuries, which generally results from: Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ A reduc on in speed variability along the corridor A decrease in the number of conflict points between vehicles Improved sight distance for vehicles turning le Enhanced pedestrian experience and neighborhood character No right-of-way acquisi on is required for most projects Traffic volumes on streets subjected to road diets typically do not vary from the pre-diet condi on, which indicates that func on and level of service is not impacted (and may be enhanced) by the road diet On-Street parking 62 INFRASTRUCTURE ILLUSTRATIONS
SPECIALIZED TREATMENTS: BICYCLE ROUTE STREET CROSSING Descrip on: Bicycle boulevards and other bike facili es may be required to cross major streets at unsignalized loca ons. To facilitate safe crossing maneuvers, there are several treatments that may be used including high visibility crosswalk markings, median refuge islands, curb extensions (on streets with onstreet parking), rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs), pedestrian hybrid beacons, or traffic signals. Raised Median with Refuge: Ÿ Separates conflicts in me and loca on through use of median islands Ÿ Creates a refuge for crossing bicyclists or pedestrians, providing them a safe res ng point and opportunity for them to cross the roadway in two stages, which becomes increasingly important with higher traffic volumes and speeds Ÿ Crossings may be raised to provide drivers with more visual cues of the crossing loca on and to help slow traffic or may be flush with the roadway using painted islands Ÿ Angling the crossing through the median or island forces the bicyclist or pedestrian to face oncoming traffic and make be er eye contact with approaching drivers Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons: Ÿ Bicyclist or pedestrian ac vated high intensity flashing beacons mounted beneath standard crossing warning signs that increase awareness of and visibility of non-motorized crossings Ÿ Proven treatment in raising the percentage of drivers who yield to bicyclists and pedestrians at midblock crossings to more than 80% yield rates at many loca ons Ÿ Preferable to mount signs on both sides of the street and within the median (if one is present) Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon: Ÿ Used to improve crossings for non-motorized users where side street vehicular or non-motorized traffic volumes do not meet the minimum warrant thresholds for installa on of a traffic signal Ÿ Also known as a HAWK (High-intensity Ac vated crossWalK), the beacon consists of two red lenses over a single yellow lens on the major street and includes pedestrian and/or bicycle indicators for the crossing movement Ÿ May result in less delay for motor vehicle traffic compared to a full traffic signal because stopped vehicles are permi ed to move if the crossing is clear once the beacon begins to flash red in a wigwag pa ern; this occurs during the normal pedestrian ‘flashing don’t walk’ phase, which immediately follows the pedestrian ‘walk’ phase during a double solid red indica on for motorists Ÿ Have been shown to have similar driver yielding rates as RRFBs and are generally used on higher speed roadways with two or more travel lanes in each direc on (Top le ) Angled median break forces bicyclist to face the direc on of traffic he is about to cross. (Top right) High visibility ladder markings and median island at bicycle boulevard crossing. (Bo om Le ) Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) at midblock crossing. (Middle right) Signalized crossing for a sidepath connec ng two bike boulevard segments. (Bo om right) Pedestrian hybrid beacon with colored pavement bicycle crossing. INFRASTRUCTURE ILLUSTRATIONS 63
Page 1:
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR ACTIVE MOBILITY
Page 4 and 5:
Bike racks at Bayfront Park, SEA Di
Page 6 and 7:
PLAN INTENT AND OVERVIEW The MPO's
Page 8:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Decision makers in
Page 11 and 12:
Network Development Community Hotsp
Page 13 and 14:
On the basis of vehicular traffic v
Page 15 and 16: Every RTA transit bus provides bike
Page 17 and 18: A1 A2 K E Y MAP K2 B2 L1 L2 B1 C1 C
Page 19 and 20: A1 A2 INFRASTRUCTURE A2 Both Off Ro
Page 21 and 22: B1 B2 INFRASTRUCTURE B1 Both Off Ro
Page 23 and 24: B1 C2 INFRASTRUCTURE C2 C3 Low Cost
Page 25 and 26: C1 C2 D1 INFRASTRUCTURE D1 D2 Low C
Page 27 and 28: C2 C3 D3 INFRASTRUCTURE D2 D3 Low C
Page 29 and 30: D2 D3 E2 INFRASTRUCTURE E1 E2 Low C
Page 31 and 32: E1 E2 F2 INFRASTRUCTURE Low Cost/Ra
Page 33 and 34: F1 F2 G1 INFRASTRUCTURE G1 G2 Low C
Page 35 and 36: F2 F3 G3 INFRASTRUCTURE Low Cost/Ra
Page 37 and 38: G1 G2 H1 INFRASTRUCTURE H1 H2 Low C
Page 39 and 40: G2 G3 G4 H3 INFRASTRUCTURE Low Cost
Page 41 and 42: H1 H2 H3 1 INFRASTRUCTURE Low Cost/
Page 43 and 44: H3 H4 3 INFRASTRUCTURE Low Cost/Rap
Page 45 and 46: 2 3 J1 INFRASTRUCTURE Low Cost/Rapi
Page 47 and 48: J2 K1 INFRASTRUCTURE Low Cost/Rapid
Page 49 and 50: K2 L1 INFRASTRUCTURE L1 L2 Low Cost
Page 51 and 52: SUPPLEMENTAL SPECIALIZED TREATMENTS
Page 53 and 54: INFRASTRUCTURE ILLISTRATIONS 1. Bic
Page 55 and 56: BUFFERED BIKE LANE Descrip on: Buff
Page 57 and 58: OFF-ROAD MULTI-USE TRAIL Descrip on
Page 59 and 60: ONE-WAY CYCLE TRACK, BOTH SIDES Des
Page 61 and 62: ONE-WAY CYCLE TRACK, BOTH SIDES 1
Page 63 and 64: SPECIALIZED TREATMENTS: HIGHWAY BIC
Page 65: SPECIALIZED TREATMENTS: RECAPTURE P
Page 69 and 70: SPECIALIZED TREATMENTS: BICYCLE ROU
Page 71 and 72: IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX **Cost of Imp
Page 73 and 74: **Cost of Implementa on: Low - Pote
Page 75 and 76: **Cost of Implementa on: Low - Pote
Page 77 and 78: CASE STUDIES 1. Bikeshare 2. Accomm
Page 79 and 80: Accommoda ng Bikes on Transit Houst
Page 81 and 82: Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Rosa G
Page 83 and 84: Safe Routes To School Coali on/Task
Page 85 and 86: Safe Passage Enforcement Un l 2014,
Page 87 and 88: SPECIAL TOPICS NARRATIVE 1. Bike Sh
Page 89 and 90: Sta on Density and Level of Service
Page 91 and 92: 2 3 Walking School Buses and Bicycl
Page 93 and 94: Helmet Laws Most states require the
Page 95 and 96: 11 Performance Measures Periodic pr
Page 97 and 98: APPENDICES Appendix A: Stakeholder
Page 99 and 100: Appendix C: ANSWER IT! Online Surve
Page 101 and 102: Appendix C: ANSWER IT! Online Surve
Page 103 and 104: Appendix D: Presenta on Loca ons Da
Page 105 and 106: Appendix G: Interview Protocol What
Page 107 and 108: Appendix I: Sample Resolu on (con
Page 109 and 110: Appendix J: Drive Kind Ride Kind Pr
Page 111 and 112: Appendix K: Model Bicycle Parking O
Page 113 and 114: Appendix K: Model Bicycle Parking O
Page 115 and 116: SR-1 K E Y MAP SR-2 SR-3 SR-4 SR-5
Page 117 and 118:
SR-1 SR-2 Appendix L: Priority Spor
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
SR-11 SR-9 SR-8 SR-10 SR-12 SR-10 A
Page 127 and 128:
SR-11 SR-9 SR-10 SR-12 SR-13 SR-12
Page 129 and 130:
SR-11 SR-12 SR-14 Appendix L: Prior
Page 131:
SR-16 SR-15 Appendix L: Priority Sp
show all

Phase 1 Bike Plan_r

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?