General
Terry Eldred: Add a discussion of tort liability and the role of bicycle facilities in addressing that problem. Many local agencies still believe a bike facility or map creates an attractive nuisance and an absolute liability. They are not aware of the ways in which a properly implemented bike plan can reduce risk.
Terry Eldred: Add a review of bike accident research and its implications for facility selection. The relationship of intersections and driveways to certain accident types was only briefly mentioned.
Terry Eldred: Add a discussion of ADT thresholds at which no improvement to a street is needed to accommodate bicycle travel. I would be interested to know if other agencies have warrants of this type based on ADT and lane width.
Susan Kavulich: I'd like to see more specific guidelines for when certain types of facilities are warranted. For example, what percentage of bus/truck/RV traffic is high enough to warrant a paved shoulder wider than 4 feet? Under what conditions are paved shoulders (or wide curb lanes or bike lanes) needed to accommodate bicycle travel? I believe John Fegan at FHWA is doing some work on this. It would be great to see some of the results of his work and perhaps the NJDOT bicycle-friendly roadways guide, incorporated into the AASHTO Guide.
Rick Knapp: These pages generally cover the subjects contained on pages 2 through 9 of the original California Criteria. However, there are some things I like better about the California Criteria (see attachment 1). In particular, it contains a section called "The Decision to Develop Bikeways," which outlines the reasons it is important to think about the committments involved in the development and maintenance of bikeways. This is critical. Some of the items discussed are included in the AASHTO Guide on page 30, the next to last page. However, some of this information needs to be included to some degree in the planning section. Some cross-referencing could be used to avoid redundancy.
John Forester: Delete the planning section. It is argued that bicycle planning, and this document, should exist to encourage cycling. Encouragement of cycling may be a valid governmental goal, but whether or not it is, those bicycle facilities that have been built have encouraged only incompetent cycling. (Note: this statement is taken from a lengthy discussion, included in the author's letter; see attached)
Rich Nowack: it might be beneficial to at least have some discussion of when it might be appropriate for cyclists to be accommodated or allowed to ride upon various highway type facilities. For example, when would it be appropriate for cyclists to ride on the shoulder of an interstate?
John Forester: "Rather, bicycle facilities should be planned and designed to accommodate a broad range of bicyclists." No one facility can do this. Only two standards are possible: facilities for cycling on the road in accordance with the rules of the road, by those cyclists who know how to do it, and multi-use paths for those who don't and who will move slowly.
Bill Feldman: Delete the following last two sentences from paragraph 3: "Also, a practical means of obtaining trip purpose data is often not available. New bicycle facilities, therefore, should be designed to accommodate the needs of the anticipated mix of bicyclists."
Inventory of Existing Conditions
Rick Knapp: P. 4, paragraph 3: I question the need and value of collecting data on "the amount of recreational vs. utilitarian riding, and on the ages and experience of bicyclists." There seems to be an inference in various portions of the Guide that if more experienced riders are expected that the facilities need not be as good. This is no more valid for bikeways than it is for highways.
Andy Clarke: Add "and other transportation facilities" to the 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: "Areas near bicycle traffic generators, such as major employment centers, schools, parks, and shopping centers and other transportation facilities, should be reviewed to identify existing or potential bicycle travel."
Rick Knapp: P. 4, paragraph 4: It does not seem practical to survey "potential bicyclists."
Andy Clarke: 3rd paragraph, add after first sentence: "Cyclists should be asked to identify places they think are dangerous."
Curt Yates: Our planning engineers seem to find this section of little help when they are trying to decide whether to include a bicycle element within a highway project. They plan the rest of the project based on formulas and counts and want to take the same approach when considering bicycle features. Perhaps the Guide needs to tackle the issues of use and potential use more directly, if only to point out why bicycle counts are not the complete solution.
Analysis of Improvements
Andy Clarke: 3rd paragraph, last sentence: especially true at intersections.
Ralph Hirsch: The options of restricting motor vehicle traffic (e.g. with the Temp 30 measures widely used in Western Europe, or with woonerf development) or of banning motor vehicles outright or at specified times (as in many European pedestrian zones) should be mentioned.
Andy Clarke: Sidewalks; end of last sentence: add "and where pedestrian volumes are low."
John Forester: Delete bicycle routes. Bicycle routes, considered as facilities, do nothing useful. The Guide says that they provide continuity or designate preferred routes. Continuity of what? There is already perfect continuity, because a bicycle route is an unchanged street that already provides perfect continuity. Routes that are preferred by whom, for what reason? Nobody knows. (Note: this statement is taken from a lengthy discussion, included in the author's letter; see attached)
John Forester: Bicycle routes should be considered only in the manual for the selection and marking of continuous routes that guide cyclists to particular destinations or provide specific aesthetic experiences. (Note: this statement is taken from a lengthy discussion, included in the author's letter; see attached)
John Forester: Delete bicycle lanes. The Guide incorrectly states that bicycle lanes improve conditions by delineating the desired path of travel, separating bicycle from motor traffic, and increasing the capacity of the highway. Each of these claims is incorrect. Bicycle lanes should be deleted because they probably increase car-bike collisions, confuse both motorists and cyclists and decrease the legitimacy of cycling. (Note: this statement is taken from a lengthy discussion, included in the author's letter; see attached)
Bill Feldman: Bicycle lanes section: Revise to read as follows, deleting items in brackets and adding those with emphasis: "Bicycle lanes, together with signs and pavement markings, can improve conditions in corridors where there is significant or potential bicycle demand by delineating the intended or preferred path of travel and by [encouraging] providing for the separation of bicycles and motor vehicles. Bicycle lanes may also help to increase the total capacities of highways carrying mixed bicycle and motor vehicle traffic.
Bill Feldman: Sidewalks: Revise end of paragraph to read as follows, deleting items in brackets and adding those with emphasis: "designation of the sidewalk as an alternate facility [can be beneficial] may be acceptable."
Sharon Todd: Sidewalks: Add "(See "Sidewalks," p. 17.)"
John Forester: Bicycle paths rarely provide desirable commuting routes, because the traffic on them is too slow and ill-behaved for commuting among.
Rick Knapp: Bicycle Parking Facilities: I'd suggest deleting reference to "vandalism." It is virtually impossible to protect bikes from vandalism with bike parking, even if it were inside.
Sharon Todd: Add "(See "Bicycle Parking," p. 29)"
Ralph Hirsch: The importance of linking bicycles to public transportation of various kinds should be stressed as a basic planning principle; at present it is barely mentioned, and only in a very specific connection, namely under "Bicycle parking facilities" at mass transit stations.
Selection of a Facility
John Forester: While the items listed on pages 5 and 6 are important, they do not provide the means of determining the type, location, or priority of a facility. It is far better to consider improvements to existing streets, given what we know about the items that endanger or discommode cyclists than to worry about imaginary facilities. For example, item 16 is bridges. What if there is one? You have to use it, so fix its surface if that's what's wrong.
Don Lund: State Advisory Groups should be used as sounding boards for facility selection and design proposals.
Rick Knapp: This section is written in a confusing manner. Although the factors included are important, they are prefaced by a sentence which tries to make their application all-inclusive, i.e. "to determine its [the bikeway] type, location, and priority." In the California Criteria, we called these Location Criteria. Neither is presented in the best way. Right now, I think the best way would be to include the section "Selection of the Type of Facility" from the California Criteria, and incorporate the various factors which are listed in the AASHTO Guide where appropriate where the three types of bikeways are described. In the guide, the types of bikeways are only discussed briefly on page 5. A more complete discussion in the Planning chapter would be appropriate.
Curt Yates: The Guide should provide more guidance to help planners and engineers choose among the various on-road options. When is a wide curb lane a better solution type than a bicycle lanewhen is a shoulder preferred over widened curb lanes and so on.
Don Lund: The following additional factors should be considered under Selection of a Facility: Potential usage: Bicycle facilities should be located along corridors where use is or can be maximized. Topography: The grades that are attainable in the area should be less than 10 percent. Available widths: For on-street bicycle facilities, the overall roadway width must meet or exceed the highway minimum design criteria.
Peter Lagerwey: The current list fails to mention system continuity or system links. Isolated pieces of bike path get very low use, even when they are very scenic. Paths that are part of our larger urban trail system get lots of use, even if they are not particularly scenic.
Dick Unrein: Stronger emphasis on selection of facility type; each type may be appropriate based on circumstances; no overriding preference for any type and selection should be based on analysis of all factors.
Dick Unrein: Selection of facility type should consider "usage warrant system" e.g. >50 bikes/day expend funds on bike lanes, or path; <50 bikes/day, shared roadway or shoulder
Rich Nowack: Some type of general matrix might help to select the type of bicycle facility that would be appropriate.
Andy Clarke: Add in item 18: Bicycle parking: without safe parking, bicyclists won't use routes (this is different from #6 which assumes there is bicycle parking).
Andy Clarke: Add in item 19: Traffic signals
Steve Yost: Item 16 (Bridges) indicates that some features found in bridges can be unsuitable where bicycles are to be accommodated. I believe some additional information here or within the text is warranted. A sketch similar to Figure 1 would better support this statement, indicating what features are suitable and how they can be accommodated. Also, a reference to AASHTO's Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges can be noted here, or the material directly concerning bicycle facilities from this specifications book can be duplicated here or in the text.
Don Lund: Shared roadways, with no bikeway designation must be addressed in the Guide. In some cases, entire highway, road and street systems are fully adequate for safe and efficient bicycle travel. In such cases, signing and striping for bicycle use would be unnecessary. In other cases, routes are inherently unsafe for bicycle travel and it would be inappropriate to encourage additional bicycle travel by designating the routes as bikeways. Finally, if routes are not along high bicycle-demand corridors, it would be inappropriate to designate them as bikeways regardless of roadway conditions.