7 responses to “AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities”

• 

  Marjorie Holderer June 23rd, 2010 at 09:33

  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!

• 

  Wayne September 21st, 2011 at 12:38

  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 · Like

  Ed 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 · Like

  Richard 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 · Like

  Barry 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 · Like

  Ed 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 · Like

  Mike 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 · 1

  John 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 · 3

  Barry 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 · Like

  Ed 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 · Like

  John 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 · Like

  Ed Beighe ‎John Brooking, i have heard that same phrase “bike shoulder” widely used in Tuscon area.
  January 26 at 8:03am · Like

  Ed 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 · Like

  Bob 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 · Like

  Jason 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 · Like

  Wayne 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 · Like

  Jason 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 · Like

  Ed 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 · Like

  Jason 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 · Like

  Ed 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 · Like

  Jason Walker What do you think would be an appropriate solution?
  January 26 at 1:40pm · Like

  Jason 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 · Like

  Dan 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 · Like

  Jason 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 · Like

  Dan 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 · 1

  Jason Walker Funny, the area I’m talking about is ALSO Sacramento. Might be a Sac thing. Terrible.
  January 26 at 2:12pm · Like

  Dan 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 · Like

  Jason Walker Ouch. Is this the course you teach that I see you refer to here?
  January 26 at 2:15pm · Like

  Ed 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.pdf

  On 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

  —-

  Tuscon/Pima’s Bicycle Friendly Community 2012 application materials. Their steadfast avoidance of the term “bike lane” or “bicycle lane” borders on the comical, e.g. Att6-TucsonRoadwayDevPolBike mentions bike routes with edgelines and so forth a half-dozen times, yes doesn’t utter bike lane once (well, perhaps once by accident)!
  It also references a City of Tucson Bike Route Striping document, which i mentioned above and have a local copy of, which is particularly disingenous with regard to markings “2. Optional word of symbol legends may be used to define bicycle facilities, as described in the (MUTCD). The legends, when used, may be placed at intervals and locations matching the D11-1 signing, or as otherwise identified by the (MUTCD)”. This is a complete mis-representation of REAL Bicycle Lane markings, and REAL Bike Lane signs (R3-17, and NOT D11-1) in the MUTCD. Oh the word legends? It’s, ummm, “BIKE LANE”, see MUTCD 9C04.

• 

  anon February 20th, 2012 at 20:53

  I reread this page, and the situation is actually more convoluted than
  I thought, althought the MUTCD FAQ seems to clearly indicate the
  intended interpretation and direction. Thanks for all the detailed
  references.

  Some thoughts on the 2009 changes:
  http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2003r1r2/part9/part9c.htm
  http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2003r1r2/images/fig-9c-06.gif
  |Standard: If used, the bicycle lane symbol marking (see Figure 9C-6)
  |shall be placed immediately after an intersection and at other
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  |locations as needed. The bicycle lane symbol marking shall be white.
  |If the bicycle lane symbol marking is used in conjunction with
  |*other* word or symbol messages, it shall precede them.
  ^^^^^^^^
  Emphasis added; 2009 does not say “other”, and symbols are no longer
  required to be placed “immediately after an intersection”, which I
  think is unfortunate. The only reason I can think for that change is
  that “intersection” could be interpretted to mean “every
  intersection”, including residential/commercial or could just be quite
  frequent (500′) in downtown areas. I think there should at least be
  some kind of maximum distance between the markings.

  2003-9B “signs” also says:
  http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2003r1r2/part9/part9b.htm
  |Standard:
  |The BIKE LANE (R3-17) sign (see Figure 9B-2) shall be used only in
  |conjunction with marked bicycle lanes as described in Section 9C.04,
  |and shall be placed at periodic intervals along the bicycle lanes.

  And 2003-9C “markings” also says:
  http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2003r1r2/part9/part9c.htm
  |Standard:
  |[...]
  |If the word or symbol pavement markings shown in Figure 9C-6 are used,
  |Bicycle Lane signs (see Section 9B.04) shall also be used, but the
  |signs need not be adjacent to every symbol to avoid overuse of the
  |signs.

  In 2003, symbols (which are optional) require use of signs. Signs
  could be used when there is a stripe only, without symbols. Right?

  http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2003r1r2/part9/part9a.htm
  |Bicycle Lane.a portion of a roadway that has been designated by signs
  |and pavement markings for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists.

  http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2003r1r2/part9/part9c.htm#section9C04
  |Guidance:
  |Longitudinal pavement markings should be used to define bicycle lanes.

  IMHO, the definition which is a standard/”shall” carries more weight
  than the guidance/”should”, so 2003 requierd signs.

  In 2009, the 9C part is also a standard/”shall”:

  http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part9/part9c.htm
  |Standard:
  |02 Longitudinal pavement markings shall be used to define bicycle
  |lanes.

  http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part1/part1a.htm#section1A13
  |Bicycle Lane.a portion of a roadway that has been designated for
  |preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists by pavement markings and,
  |if used, signs.

  Unfortunately, that introduces an (stonger) ambiguity on requirements:
  markings could (easily) be interpretted to be optional. (Signs are
  deliberately changed to be optional).

  The draft fix addresses this, changing the definition of a bicycle
  lane to be “longitudinal marking and symbol”. The latest 2003 MUTCD
  is better than the latest 2009, but the 2009 with ammendment is
  slightly better than latest 2003.

         latest 2003    2009 published    2009 (pending)amendment
  stripe    mandatory    mandatory[4?]    mandatory[4]
  sign     mandatory[1]   optional[2]     optional[4]
  logo     optional      optional[3]      mandatory
  
  [1] There is some ambiguity between the two definitions, but one is a
  hard requirment, and one is a soft requirement.
  [2] That is a deliberate change
  [3] That is the topic of draft fix.
  [4] no change from previous
  

  Here is the Bicycle Technical Committee’s recommendation that requests that R3-17 Bike Lane signs become optional, dated 2005; and was ultimately incorporated into the 2009 MUTCD BICYCLE No. 3. It give a very detailed review of the status of bike lane signage back over 20 years(!). Anyway — “Summary: The Bicycle Technical Committee proposes that placement of the BIKE LANE (R3-17) sign along marked bicycle lanes be changed from a Standard (mandatory) to a Guidance (recommended) condition.”

• 

  xyz March 13th, 2012 at 12:12

  Notes on MUTCD 2000 versus 2003… Seems (without explicitly comparing them) substantially the same as 2003 MUTCD.

  Chapter 1:

  7. Bicycle Lane–a portion of a roadway that has been designated by signs and pavement markings for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists.

  Chapter 9:

  1. Bicycle Lane–a portion of a roadway that has been designated by signs and pavement markings for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists.

  Bicycle Lane (R3-16 and R3-17) signs shall be used only in conjunction with the Bicycle Lane Symbol pavement marking.

  R3-16 “(bicycle) lane ahead”
  R3-16a “(bicycle) lane ends”)
  R3-17 “right lane (bicycle) ONLY”
  R3-17a “left (bicycle) right (parking) ONLY”

  Bicycle Lane signs shall be used in advance of the beginning of a marked bicycle lane to call attention to the lane and the possible presence of bicyclists.

  Guidance:
  If used, the Bicycle Route or Interstate Bicycle Route markers should be placed at intervals frequent enough to keep bicyclists informed of changes in route direction and to remind drivers of the presence of bicyclists.

  (sigh)

  Guidance:
  Longitudinal pavement markings should be used to define bicycle lanes.

  If used, the bicycle lane symbol shall be placed immediately after but not closer than 20 m (65 ft) from the crossroad, or other locations as needed. [...]

  (I would like to see that requirement resurrected, without “with used”).

  Signs shall be used with preferential lane symbols.

  As indicated in Section 3C.02, obstructions within the bikeway shall be marked with the appropriate object marker or delineation.

  Notably, there is no mention of “right turn lanes”, as in 2003 and 2009 MUTCD.

  In 2000, the BL ground markings were 4ft tall, whereas in 2003 (and 2009), they are 6ft tall.

• 

  azbikelaw March 24th, 2012 at 12:56

  ANOTHER disconnect/inconsistency/mistake/typo in the MUTCD as it relates to Bike Lanes…
  between the definition of a bicycle lane; and Chapter 2G which mentions preferential lanes for bicycles, but then inexplicably doesn’t include them in the list of preferential lanes. And Chapter 2G is internally inconsistent in that it refers to preferential lanes for bicycles a couple of times.

  So, are Bike Lanes preferential lanes, or not? (emphasis added):

  2009 Edition Chapter 1A. General

  1A.13 ” The following words and phrases, when used in this Manual, shall have the following meanings:… 23. Bicycle Lane—a portion of a roadway that has been designated for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists by pavement markings and, if used, signs.”

  2009 Edition Chapter 2G. Preferential and Managed Lane Signs

  Section 2G.01 Scope “Support: Preferential lanes are lanes designated for special traffic uses such as high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs), light rail, buses, taxis, or bicycles.”
  Section 2G.16 “…as is more readily accomplished with other types of preferential lanes, such as HOV, Bus, or Bike lanes.”
  Section 2G.03 “Standard: When a preferential lane is established, the Preferential Lane regulatory signs (see Figure 2G-1) and pavement markings (see Chapter 3D) for these lanes shall be used to advise road users.”
  However, in the lists of preferential signs and plaques (Table 2G.1 , or Figure 2G.1), the Bike Lane sign is nowhere to be found anywhere in Chapter 2G.

5 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

• 

  Is this a bike lane? @ Arizona Bike Law Blog September 7th, 2011 at 20:36

  [...] other articles on critical width; see AASHTO for dimensional guidelines for (real) bike [...]

• 

  Take the lane @ Arizona Bike Law Blog September 13th, 2011 at 14:12

  [...] an engineering perspective, the authoritative AAHSTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1999 says minimum 14′ usable width for [...]

• 

  Bicycles May Use Full Lane, SLM; MUTCD updates @ Arizona Bike Law Blog January 1st, 2012 at 14:32

  [...] 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). [...]

• 

  Camelback Road Diet and Buffered Bike Lane @ Arizona Bike Law Blog January 6th, 2012 at 13:35

  [...] 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 [...]

• 

  Shoulder Use @ Arizona Bike Law Blog January 12th, 2012 at 17:17

  [...] More about designated Bike Lanes. [...]