-
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities
Posted on March 23rd, 2010 9 commentsI have trouble laying my hands on this sometimes, so here is a source for the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities,1999 — which is the most recent final version; it’s a largish (2.5MByte) .pdf available from the here, via azmag.gov (Maricopa Assoc of Governments). You can purchase the book directly from AASHTO
This book gives the accepted guidelines for dimensions and usage of various bicycle facilities, i.e. bike lanes, wide curb lanes.
There is also a DRAFT revision dated February 2010: DRAFT AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Bicycle Facilities.
Bike Lane / Bicycle Lane Dimensions
I frequently have to look this up, so here are the design specification dimensions for bike lane per the 1999 Guide (p.22, 23)
For roadways with no curb and gutter, the minimum width of a bike lane should be 1.2 m (4 feet). If parking is permitted, as in Figure 6(1), the bike lane should be placed between the parking area and the travel lane and have a minimum width of 1.5 m (5 feet). Where parking is permitted but a parking stripe or stalls are not utilized, the shared area should be a minimum of 3.3 m (11 feet) without a curb face and 3.6 m (12 feet) adjacent to a curb face as shown in Figure 6(2). If the parking volume is substantial or turnover is high, an additional 0.3 to 0.6 m (1 to 2 feet) of width is desirable.
The recommended width of a bike lane is 1.5m(5 feet) from the face of a curb or guardrail to the bike lane stripe. This 1.5-m (5-foot) width shouldbe sufficient in cases where a 0.3-0.6 m (1-2 foot) wide concrete gutterpan exists, given that a minimum of 0.9 m (3 feet) of ridable surface is provided, and the longitudinal joint between the gutter pan and pavement surface is smooth.
So in summary, recommended width:
- If no curb and gutter / no parking : 4 feet
- If curb and gutter / no parking: 5 feet from curbface, with a minimum of 3 feet of “ridable surface”, i.e. up to two of the 5 can be gutter pan.
- If parking: generally 5 feet, see document.
By the way, there is a handy extract of the Guide including cross sections diagrams within lesson #15 of FHWA-HRT-05-133 Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation. The material is available in both pdf and ppt; and has a whole spectrum of information pertaining to planning bike and ped facilities.
Wide Curb Lane Dimensions
From page 17 of the 1999 Guide (emphasis added):
In general, 4.2 m (14 feet) of usable lane width is the recommended width for shared use in a wide curb lane. Usable width normally would be from edge stripe to lane stripe or from the longitudinal joint of the gutterpan to lane stripe (the gutter pan should not be included as usable width).
It then goes on to list several cases where 15′ is indicated, though it discourages wider than that on the theory that cars might then “double up” in the one lane.
The 2010 DRAFT Guide
The 2010 draft guide, link above, has a LOT of extra detail and generally stronger wording, e.g. the 1999 Guide refers to “the recommended width of a bike lane is 1.5m(5 feet)” whereas the 2010 Draft says “the minimum bike lane width is 5 feet…” (empahsis added).
The Draft Guide also, by the way, specifies that the measurement is made “to the center of the bike lane line”. The 1999 Guide doesn’t specify.
R3-17 Sign
Bike Lane Signs & Markings (MUTCD)
This is from the MUTCD but I lumped it in here because I thought it was interesting: as of the current MUTCD (Dec 2009, as of this writing), the R3-17 signs are not mandatory, section 9B.04: “If used, Bike Lane signs and plaques should be used in advance of the upstream end of the bicycle lane…”. It used to say “Bicycle Lane signs shall be used in advance…”
This is surprising to some, including me. The thinking is, apparently, that the ground markings are the important piece. Here is a nice presentation-style document outlining all bike+ped oriented changes in the 2009 MUTCD, bikes are part 9.
For more explanation, see bicycle (part 9) related FAQs.
The term markings refers to the various paint on the ground that may or must be used to mark a bike lane. The stripe is unambiguously and absolutely required – “Longitudinal pavement markings shall be used to define bicycle lanes” (my emphasis added) see 9C.o4 Markings for Bike Lanes, and note that no particular stripe width is specified. However, the painted words or symbols/logos, and arrows are “if used”, which would suggest they are optional. Not so fast! According to the above-mentioned faq, due Item C in Paragraph 6 of Section 3D.01 the word, symbol, and/or arrow pavement markings are required. Apparently this apparent confusion has already been recognized by the NCUTCD’s BTC (that is, the National Committee on Uniform Traffic control Devices, Bicycle Technical Committee: ncutcdbtc.org) and a fix is in the works. The proposed fix clarifies in 9C.04 that markings are required, by adding them to the standard (thanks to Richard Moeur for pointing this out). The official status of the request 9(9)-26 – one imagines this can take a long, long, long time if it is granted; and in the meantime it’s not clear what the status of all this is?? Hopefully, it will one day show up as an ‘interim approval‘.A “Longitudinal pavement marking” is defined in 3A.06 : noting that width for “Normal line—4 to 6 inches wide”; I’m sure the color is specified as white somewhere else?
Note that the MUTCD has in some sense the force of law in Arizona, see The MUTCD and A.R.S.
4 responses to “AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities”
-
Thank you so much for putting the guidelines on the web. Beats $99 for hard copy AND I was able to quickly resolve the details of an assertion made in a bike/ped workshop for planners and TEs.
Actually thanks go to MAG for posting it, but I know exactly what you mean!
-
On page 5 of the 1999 Guide it says,
“As Figure 1 shows, bicyclists require at least 1.0 m (40 inches) of essen- tial operating space based solely on their profile. An operating space of 1.2 m (4 feet) is assumed as the minimum width for any facility designed for exclusive or preferential use by bicyclists. Where motor vehicle traf- fic volumes, motor vehicle or bicyclist speed, and the mix of truck and bus traffic increase, a more comfortable operating space of 1.5 m (5 feet) or more is desirable.”
So the “3 feet of ridable (sic) surface” is not compliant with the 4 feet minimum operating space.
Why should bicyclist space be reduced to 3′ of usable surface just because the seam of the unusable gutter pan is smooth!
As an aside, I recently wrote a 1 page paper describing what the dimensions in Figure 1 mean.
http://bicyclingmatters.wordpress.com/infrastructure/design-bicyclist-width/ -
azbikelaw January 30th, 2012 at 20:07
Here are some facebook threads from “cyclists are drivers” group
I think i have a pretty good handle on what a bike lane is or isn’t with respect to its physical characteristics like width, striping, ground marking (optional) signs. But, can someone tell me in sort of detail what it mean to “designate” a bike lane? E.g. the phrase “designated as a bicycle path or lane by state or local authorities” shows up a couple of times in our state traffic laws.
Barry Childress Designate = signage or icons on the pavement
January 24 at 3:14pm · LikeEd Beighe http://azbikelaw.org/images/slides/tucsonSabinoCanyonAndSnyder.html apparently there is something more to it than that — i am told by the “local authority” that this, e.g. is NOT a designated bicycle lane; despite the stripe, and ground marking. There are no R3-17 signs, but they’re now optional anyway. In other words, it has all the physical characteristics but is simply not designated.
Dan Gutierrez That’s as absurd as saying that the rest of the road is not a highway because it’s not designated. However, aren’t you legally better of with a shoulder than a BL, because the FTR law does not apply to a highway shoulder, which is NOT part of the roadway, whereas a Bl is a roadway portion of the highway, and thus subject to the FTR law.
January 24 at 4:19pm · LikeRichard C. Moeur If it is an area on the roadway pavement surface delineated by a solid white line and also containing standard bicycle lane symbols as defined in Part 9 of the MUTCD, then I would think that it would be rather difficult to claim that such an area wasn’t a bike lane. As you’re aware, NCUTCD has recommended a clarification to the language in Chapter 9C to reduce any ambiguity, but even with the existing wording it would be difficult to say it isn’t a bike lane once the symbols are added.
January 24 at 6:27pm via mobile · LikeBarry Childress We had a planner in Balto city that said “When I call a sidewalk a side path it’s a side path.” There is a truth in that but it is up to the advocates to advocate for standards. Additionally the law may look at things differently then how the planners look at things.
On the flip side in Maryland we have been pushing for “curb lanes” (when AASHTO standards cannot be met) either as an optional place to ride or to keep lane widths narrow (depending what spectrum of cyclist you are talking to.) Since cyclists were requesting these MDOT decided to put a tiny biker dude in a 2.5′ curb lane to make it a bike lane. We complained, so MDOT promised to take out the stripe and the designation. Heavy sigh, some concepts are just hard to get across.
January 24 at 6:37pm · LikeEd Beighe Dan Gutierrez: right, that would be my understanding. I just crave consistency. This is in a part of the state i don’t frequent.
January 24 at 7:51pm · Like
Ed Beighe Richard C. Moeur yes, it puts me in mind of “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and….”
January 24 at 7:53pm · LikeMike Schwab In Illinois, a stop sign is enforceable, even without an ordinance. Conversely, an ordinance requiring you to stop is not enforceable if there is no stop sign.
January 24 at 8:07pm · Like · 1John Schubert There is a national epidemic of calling everything to the right of the fog line a “bike lane.” But, as miserable as most bike lanes are, they aren’t one percent as unsuitable for cycling as many thousands of miles of shoulders. Potholes, drain grates, sight triangles, arbitrary narrowing and ending…….. shoulders are not made to any standard, and I strenuously oppose “promoting” them by calling them bike lanes.
For that reason, it needs the official markings. And the markings need to be approved by an engineer who understands this stuff.
And if the engineer doesn’t approve, and it doesn’t get the markings, everyone is better off.
January 25 at 8:27pm · Like · 3Barry Childress I’ll note that Mesa, AZ is pretty good at not designating anything less then 4′ even to the point of signing “bike lane ends” while the stripe continues with ~3′ of space. (My personal criteria is stricter then this but that is a battle for another day.)
January 25 at 9:52pm · LikeEd Beighe The city of Phoenix is excellent in this regard — i mean they never mark a designated bike lane unless it meets specs. On the other hand, they often use edge lines, and do nothing to prevent people from thinking they are bike lanes (part of the “national epidemic” John Schubert referred to!) here is a typical shoulder, that functions as a de-facto bike lane http://azbikelaw.org/images/slides/SampleBikeRoute.jpg
January 26 at 7:16am · Like ·Dan Gutierrez So, if a bicyclist were to control the nicely narrowed travel lane, would the police cite for the FTR law because they would treat the shoulder as part of the roadway?
January 26 at 7:27am · LikeJohn Brooking Harkening to John Schubert’s comment, I have discovered a problematic tendency in Maine to refer to paved shoulders of suitable width for bicycling but without a bicycle icon as “bicycle shoulders”. I have heard this from various advocates, who recall hearing it from engineers at the DOT and consulting firms. It seems to be a made-up concept that has taken hold locally. Kenneth O’Brien might point to it as a result of advocacy on the part of bicycle groups in the last decade to promote paving shoulders as a “bicycle improvement” for a state with a lot of rural roads, and I could totally see that.
January 26 at 7:56am · LikeEd Beighe John Brooking, i have heard that same phrase “bike shoulder” widely used in Tuscon area.
January 26 at 8:03am · LikeEd Beighe Dan Gutierrez, did you mean generally speaking, or in particular? In Phoenix i’m not aware of police citing. On the other hand in Flagstaff, yes, absolutely (lane = 11′ per officers testimony). Although specific LEO tactics are fluid there; lately they’ve eschewed FTR law in favor of criminal obstructing of a highway; and very recently even cited under a local MBL law; which has since been repealed. long story. sorry! http://azbikelaw.org/blog/the-flagstaff-chronicles/
January 26 at 8:10am · Like ·Jason Walker Absolutely terrifying.
January 26 at 8:39am · LikeBob Sutterfield http://bikeportland.org/2012/01/12/after-activist-action-odot-repaves-danger-spots-on-hall-blvd-65087 In BFC Platinum Portland, bikeway advocate commentators muddle the difference between bike lane and shoulder.
BikePortland.org » Blog Archive » After citizen action, ODOT repaves danger spots on Hall Blvd
bikeportland.org
After years of sending emails to ODOT and other agencies regarding the catch bas…
See More
January 26 at 8:57am · LikeJason Walker I dunno’ man. It seems like improving a shoulder in case a cyclist chooses to use it (And here I am assuming cyclists are NOT required to ride on the shoulder in OR.) is a good thing right? Are you thinking that the writer of the article should have mentioned that it was a shoulder and not a bike lane?
January 26 at 9:31am · Like · 1
Ed Beighe Jason Walker, regardless of the official designation, and regardless of laws, and regardless of the amount of space — cyclists are expected to ride to the right of the white line… so that’s a problem.
January 26 at 9:59am · LikeWayne Pein John Schubert’s epidemic is at least in part attributable to a 2004 report produced by the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center in cooperation with the State of Florida Department of Transportation, the USDOT, and the FHWA for the Florida Department of Transportation.
Those entities could and should have squashed “undesignated” bicycle lanes, but the report is flawed and is still up on the FDOT website (along with other fatally flawed reports).
My critique of that junk science is here: http://bicyclingmatters.wordpress.com/critiques/critique-of-conversions-report/
January 26 at 10:01am · LikeJason Walker Ed – It seems, based on the AZ article you wrote that this is a real problem. Have their been other cases of judges ruling the same way in AZ, or do these generally get thrown out? I am wondering if this was just another biased, auto-centric judge. There was a case like this in Texas a year or so ago as well that got considerable press in the cycling blogs and so forth, with a similar, bogus outcome. Vexing…
January 26 at 10:06am · LikeEd Beighe Jason Walker, we (arizona) has some pretty good results, e.g. see these three cases http://azbikelaw.org/blog/take-the-lane/ But the troubles in Flagstaff are unresolved; it is more than one judge, and more than one LEO (plus a problematic prosecutor’s office, so i suppose you could say more than one prosecutor). Flagstaff is BFC silver by the way.
January 26 at 12:25pm · LikeJason Walker Good lord. It seems no matter how many layers of law I see or decisions regarding this sort of thing, it always come back to confusion about and / or abuse of, FTR laws. I’m starting to think this is MOST misguided regulation in regards to cyclists.
January 26 at 1:26pm · LikeEd Beighe Jason Walker, i honestly don’t think it would matter. Note that in the last criminal obstruction case, the cyclist wasn’t charged with any transportation code violation (FTR or any other). My surmise is the prosecutor, after having his first criminal obstructing charge dismissed, told police NOT to charge him with the ftr law, and that it would then be easier to get the criminal conviction.
January 26 at 1:33pm · LikeJason Walker What do you think would be an appropriate solution?
January 26 at 1:40pm · LikeJason Walker Regarding my above comment: Clearly, fighting the same legal battle over and over again is pretty foolish, and that seems to be what’s going on.
January 26 at 1:52pm · Like
Ed Beighe Jason Walker; i guess a trial with a lawyer (on both sides; there’s always a lawyer for the city — which is in itself odd; traffic matters rarely have a prosecutor, however the city of Flagstaff takes an unusual interest in cases where cyclists use the road), along with expert witness testimony. I’m guessing this would cost the defendant on the order of $10K (but really don’t know. anyone?). Then, it would be good if he lost that case.(otherwise it would simply be an expensive victory; and the city could simply continue harassing him). Then it would have to go to our Court of Appeals. another lots of money, i guess. Then it better win, otherwise we would all be screwed. In short; i don’t know! it’s full of pitfalls.
January 26 at 2:03pm · LikeDan Gutierrez This whole issue of “designation” varies from state to state. In CA, the vehicle code and streets and highways code require that for a bike lane to be subject to the mandatory use law, the facility must be designed to state standards and employ state standard traffic controls, otherwise it’s not mandatory. This issue of “designation” does not come into play here. If for example a facility does not follow the legally required standards, then it’s NOT a legal bike lane and therefore not mandatory use.
January 26 at 2:04pm · LikeJason Walker I used to ride a 16-ish mile commute that contained some sections of marked “bike lane” that had, I kid you not, maybe 1′ of asphalt and then the gutter pan.
January 26 at 2:07pm · LikeDan Gutierrez That’s no surprise:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2338551194584&l=4d76ef8961
Understanding Bicycle Transportation – Revision 1 – Section 5d
Public Link: http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.2338543874401.122931.15740...
January 26 at 2:08pm · Like · 1Jason Walker Funny, the area I’m talking about is ALSO Sacramento. Might be a Sac thing. Terrible.
January 26 at 2:12pm · LikeDan Gutierrez No, I see such problems in Long Beach, Oakland, and other smaller cities like LaPalma. As far as I can tell, it stems from the kind of ignorance the “Understanding Bicycle Transportation” course is designed to remedy.
January 26 at 2:14pm · LikeJason Walker Ouch. Is this the course you teach that I see you refer to here?
January 26 at 2:15pm · LikeEd Beighe Dan Gutierrez “varies from state to state”. I’m still looking at our state laws… haven’t seen anything like that, but i’ll keep looking! we also have a supplement to MUTCD (though nothing in there is specific to bicycle stuff, i.e. there’s no part 9).
January 26 at 2:16pm · Like -
azbikelaw February 7th, 2012 at 17:28
By way of trying to explain what goes on in Pima County (on county roads) and the City of Tucson, here are a couple of document. Their Departments of Transportation say they have “Bike Routes with Striped Shoulders”, and NOT any bike lanes (well, generally speaking, there are a tiny handful of bus/bike lanes):
http://azbikelaw.org/cases/tucsonBikeRouteStripingPolicy.pdf
http://dot.pima.gov/transeng/roaddesign/RoadwayDesignManual.pdfOn Pima County’s Bike Map. Note the predominace of red versus yellow.
Here are a couple of pictures that illustrate some of these concepts:
http://azbikelaw.org/images/slides/tucsonSpeedway.html
http://azbikelaw.org/images/slides/tucsonSabinoCanyonAndSnyder.html
http://azbikelaw.org/images/slides/tucson2009FatalScenes.html
5 Trackbacks / Pingbacks
-
[...] other articles on critical width; see AASHTO for dimensional guidelines for (real) bike [...]
-
[...] an engineering perspective, the authoritative AAHSTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1999 says minimum 14′ usable width for [...]
-
[...] In the common arterial around here: no-parking, narrow-multi-laned arterials (usually 11′ lanes) — it seems to me that 6′ from the curbface to centerline of the marking is about right (has anyone done the math?) is appropriate. Narrow meaning not wide enough to safely share side-by-side with a vehicle — generally recognized as anything 14′ or below (see e.g. AASHTO). [...]
-
[...] safety drawbacks which usually go unmentioned. here is a more balanced view, as presented in the Feb 2010 (the latest) Draft AASHTO Guide, p.78 (my [...]
-
[...] More about designated Bike Lanes. [...]
Leave a reply
Marjorie Holderer June 23rd, 2010 at 09:33