Don Lund: The following additional factors should be considered when deciding whether or not to designate a route as a bicycle route: Degree of Service: The route should offer a higher degree of service than alternate routes. Continuous and direct travel: The route should provide for continuous and direct travel in the bicycle-demand corridor. Safety: The route should present no hazards to bicyclists. Signing: Signing for bicyclists and motorists should be distinguished.
Andy Clarke: Re: signing a numbered bike route with the same number as a nearby highway: signing of alternate routes should also be on main road.
AASHTO: break the second paragraph starting with "Generally, bicycle traffic..." No text changes introduced.
Bill Feldman: Revise last sentence in second paragraph as follows, eliminating the items in brackets and adding those emphasized: "Roadway improvements, such as adequate pavement width, safe drainage grates, railroad crossings, smooth pavements, [maintenance schedules,] and signals responsive to bicycles, should always be considered before a roadway is identified as a bicycle route.
Diane Bishop: More specifics on when to choose what facility would be helpful.
Dick Unrein: Expand information on bikeways through intersections and interchanges; options should treat bicyclists as vehicle operators, not pedestrians.
AASHTO: Introduce a new heading starting with paragraph 2, p. 12: "Bicycle Lane Widths."
AASHTO: Revise 5th sentence, paragraph 2, p. 12. deleting the items in brackets and adding the items emphasized as follows: "The [minimum] recommended bicycle lane width for this location is 5 feet (1.5m)."
Curt Yates: We have noticed that the omission of specific advice on how to begin and end bicycle lanes has led to some unusual and dangerous local solutions.
Diane Bishop: I'm not sure how appropriate the sentence "Bicycle lane markings can increase a bicyclist's confidence in motorists not straying into his/her path of travel" is. Suggestions on how to encourage proper left turns by bicyclists and right turns by motorists when bike lanes are recommended would help.
Diane Bishop: A recommendation on how to deal with streets which have double right turn lanes would help.
John Forester: These don't provide the advantages stated for them, and the purposes of using them aren't desirable.
Rick Knapp: In the first paragraph on p. 12, it is stated that "Bicycle lanes on one-way streets should be on the right side of the street, except in areas where a bicycle lane on the left will decrease the number of conflicts..." The idea of bike lanes on the left side of one-way streets was thoroughly considered and rejected by the committees involved in developing the California Criteria. A recent TRB article on bike lanes in Madison, Wisconsin, indicated that the overall safety of bicycling was enhanced as a result of their bike lanes, but their experience with left-side bike lanes on one-way streets indicated increased accidents. There are several bad things associated with left side bike lanes, including: 1) Bicyclists are used to riding on the right and looking over their left shoulders; 2) Motorists are not used to encountering bicyclists on their left; 3) Left-turning motorists on one-way streets will cross the path of left -turning bikes (that doesn't happen with right-side bike lanes; 4) many bicyclists concerned with safety wear rear view mirrors on their left side; that feature is useless on left side bike lanes; 5) where parking exists, departing motorists on the left side are located next to the curb where it is difficult for bicyclists to see them.
Peter Lagerwey: The Guide does not address counter-flow bicycle lanes on one-way streets. While they are not something to overly promote, there are times when they are appropriate. We have had a very good experience with three short sections of counter-flow lane. In each case, physical constraints encouraged wrong-way riding, that is solved with a counter-flow lane.
Bill Feldman: Paragraph 3 on page 12, which starts "Where parking is permitted but a parking lane is not provided" should be moved under Wide Curb Lanes.
Steve Yost: On page 12, a statement is made that, "under ideal conditions the minimum bicycle lane width is 4 feet." It further states that Figure 1(b) depicts bicycle lanes on an urban curb and gutter section with a 5 foot lane. Actually, the bicycle lane is the minimum width - 4 feet. It is just that the additional foot is part of the curb & gutter. Would it be acceptable to keep the 4 foot width as a standard (in the text), and show, as you do in Figure 1(b) that additional width can be gained by the width of the curb & gutter section?
X: Debris gets kicked back into bike lanes where curbs exist
Rick Knapp: On page 12, 3rd paragraph, a combination bike lane and parking lane is referred to; a typical cross-section should be added to the figures on page 13.
Rick Knapp: On page 12, 4th paragraph, Figure 1(c) is discussed. It describes how to deal with th joint of a concrete gutter in setting bike lane widths. It is confusing and probably in error. I suggest the standard be 4 feet beyond the joint. There is no need to consider if the joint is uneven, as it always is somewhere or sometime (after differential settlement occurs). In California, we use 3 feet beyond the joint as the minimum.
Rick Knapp: Figure 1(c) and the 5th paragraph on page 12 indicate use of a 4-foot bike lane where a shoulder exists outside the bike lane. This is a strange option. The reader can't tell if this is a paved shoulder. If not, it doesn't provide "maneuvering room" as indicated. If it is paved, why doesn't it get incorporated into the bike lane?
Steve Yost: The minimum bicycle lane width is stated to be 4 feet. This seems a bit excessive for providing bicycle lanes on rural highways and roadways. Paved shoulders (3 feet or wider) along rural highways seem to be more than adequate for cyclists. Do studies indicate that a minimum of 4 feet of bicycle lane with additional paved shoulder width is all that is acceptable?
Tom Walsh: Re: width of bike lanes: Additional width is also desirable when the width of the adjacent traffic lane is less than 12 feet. This is an important addition because the effective clearance of a bicyclist and adjacent traffic is a function of the combined width of both the bike lane and the adjacent traffic lane.
X: More detail needed: striping is the recommended manner for separating bicycle lanes from motor vehicle lanes.
AASHTO: Creates a new section "Intersections with Bike Lanes" but with the same text that starts with the last paragraph on page 12.
Andy Clarke: I'd like to see the new "Intersections with Bike Lanes" section start with "Unless controlled by traffic signals to separate turn movements, bicycle lanes..."
AASHTO: The 3rd sentence in the first paragraph of this new section is revised as follows, eliminating the bracketed item [see p. 14, 1st full sentence]: "Thus, some bicyclists will begin left turns from the right-side bicycle lane and some motorists will begin right turns from the [lane to the] left of the bicycle lane."
Rick Knapp: On page 14, 1st full paragraph: In discussing the need for motorists to merge into the bike lane prior to turning right, it is stated that "Striping and signing configurations which encourage these crossings in advance of the intersection...are generally preferable to those that force the crossing in the immediate vicinity of the intersection." Ideally, these striping arrangements would be required; and where states have vehicle codes that are inconsistent, they should be encouraged to change them as a result of these standards. In this section, reference should be made to Section IX of the MUTCD for standard striping details; and specific mention should be made to the need to drop the stripe or dash the stripe prior to reaching the intersection. In California, we use a 96-foot dashed stripe. In the MUTCD, it shows the stripe being dropped a minimum of 50 feet prior to the intersection.
X: More detail needed: how to guide a bicyclist straight through an intersection striped with double turn lanes (no option to go straight), or clear reasoning for modifying this intersection to allow an option.
Rick Knapp: Another item not dealt with is the width of the stripe. In California, we use a 6" stripe to differentiate the bike lane stripe from a normal edge stripe that is 4" wide.
Rick Knapp: The bike lane should be noted on the figures.
Rich Nowack: Illinois guidelines require bicycle lanes on shoulders (rural) to be marked on the outside 4 to 6 feet of the shoulder with 2 feet of buffer zone between the edge of pavement and the bicycle lane. The intent is to minimize the hazards associated with riding immediately adjacent to high speed cars and trucks. Current AASHTO guidelines allow the lanes to be marked on the inside of the shoulder. We have also seen cases where other agencies have posted signs allowing cyclists to use the entire shoulder.
Rich Nowack: It is possible that each of these three alternatives may be appropriate under certain conditions. We suggest AASHTO study these alternatives and provide guidelines as to the conditions when each should be used.
Steve Yost: [These] four intersection sketches are provided depicting how bicycle lanes should be marked for instances where bicyclists and motorists cross paths. In all four sketches, the bicyclists are approaching motor vehicle right turn only lanes and the bicyclists are shown to proceed straight through the intersection. Some additional sketches should be added here to indicate how bicycle left turn lanes should be marked. This would replace or augment the references to MUTCD Park IX.
Rick Knapp: Parking lanes are shown to be 8-10 feet. With the narrower
vehicles of today, bike lanes have been successfully implemented with 7-foot
wide parking lanes.