copyright 1996, Tracy-Williams Consulting
Beyond special improvements for specific roadway types, more general
system-wide changes are important for three reasons. First, bicyclists can
live anywhere in a community and may need to reach virtually any destination.
As a result, providing a network of special facilities alone will fail to
serve many users for many trips. As the authors of the Geelong (Australia)
Bike Plan said: "Every street is a bicycling street." It's just
that different streets may serve different users and different trip purposes.
Second, it's probably more cost-effective to use a limited number of standard
designs, whether it be for drainage grates or traffic lights. It simply
makes more sense to use a bicycle-safe standard throughout the network than
to use one only where bicyclists are likely and a bike-dangerous standard
elsewhere. And, third, eliminating bicycle hazards and problems throughout
the community can reduce the number of bicycling crashes, injuries, and
potentially, deaths. This can also reduce an agency's exposure to liability
and risk.
Here are some of the most common system-wide improvements:
References:
- Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities; AASHTO, 1991
- Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; US DOT/FHWA, 1976
- "Improving Local Conditions for Bicycling;" John Williams,
Bikecentennial, 1989
- North Carolina Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Guidelines;
NCDOT; 1994
- Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan; OR DOT; 1995
Topics for further study:
- Bicycle improvements and FHWA's "management and monitoring systems"
- Chip seal surfaces: lessening the impacts on bicyclists
- On-street parking and bicycle use (esp. diagonal parking and short
term commercial parking)
- Rumble strips: state policies, safety trade-offs and possible "bike-friendly"
approaches
- Palo Alto's roadway patching policies
- Madison's winter roadway maintenance procedures
Return to Planning and Design Return to Bike
Planning and Program Development
Return to Bike Plan Source Home Page
