06 FACILITY TOOLBOX

This bicycle and pedestrian facility toolbox provides general design guidelines and considerations for the development of bicycle and pedestrian improvements. These treatments and design guidelines represent the tools for creating a pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly, safe, and accessible community.

The toolbox includes facility types and design elements anticipated for use; however, the list is not all-inclusive. The toolbox is not a comprehensive list of design standards and is not a substitute for a more thorough evaluation upon implementation of facility improvements.

National And State Guidance

The following national and state guidelines were referenced during the preparation of the Facility Toolbox. These reference materials should be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure compliance with the most recent revisions.

The National Association of City Transportation Officials’ (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2012) provides cities with state-of-the-practice solutions that can help create complete streets that are safe and enjoyable for bicyclists. To create the Guide, the authors have conducted an extensive worldwide literature search from design guidelines and real-life experience.

The U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration’s Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (2015) is the latest national guidance outlining planning considerations for separated bicycle lanes (also called “cycle tracks” and “protected bicycle lanes”). The Guide consolidates lessons learned from practioners designing and implementing separated bicycle lanes throughout the U.S.

The U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration’s Bikeway Selection Guide (2019) is a resource to help transportation practitioners consider and make informed trade-off decisions relating to the selection of bikeway types. It incorporates and builds upon the FHWA’s support for design flexibility to assist transportation agencies in the development of connected, safe, and comfortable bicycle networks that meet the needs of people of all ages and abilities.

Other national, state, and local guidance includes the following:

Indiana Design Manual (2013) .

FHWA Shared Use Path Level of Service Calculator (2006) . Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2009) . Fundamentals of Bicycle Boulevard Planning and Design (2009) .

.

Minikel (2011) Cyclist safety on bicycle boulevards and parallel arterial routes in Berkeley, California. Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012) provides information on the physical infrastructure needed to support bicycling and presents sound guidelines that result in facilities that meet the needs of bicyclists and other road users.

FHWA Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks Guide (2016)

ITE Designing Urban Walkable Thoroughfares

AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (2004)

FHWA Memorandum on Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Flexibility (2013)

National Highway Institute Bicycle Facility Design Course (2020) .

NACTO Designing for All Ages and Abilities (2017) . Dutch CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic .

Montgomery County (MD) Planning Department Bicycle Facility Design Toolkit (2018)

Facility Selection

Facility selection for the bicycle and pedestrian network requires good engineering judgment which can be applied to complex urban, suburban, and rural environments. Project specific details should be determined by the design professional during the construction design process. Determining the appropriate bicycle and pedestrian facility begins with this Plan but also includes examination of the broader network and roadway context and then looks at the conditions of the corridor.

The FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide provides recommendations for facility type based on the volume and speed of automobiles in the corridor. This guidance is provided in the graphic below. In addition to these recommendations, site specific conditions should be considered, including:

What is the function of the corridor in the overall network? (For example, north/south or east/west connector, short distance neighborhood connector)? .

What user type will the corridor serve? (For example, the “Enthused and Confident” user group along with pedestrians)? .

.

.

.

What are the physical constraints of the corridor? (For example, are there buildings close to the right-of-way, are there major utility lines within the corridor, is there a natural feature such as a ditch or river)?

Is there an opportunity to provide separate bicycle and pedestrian facilities or should they be combined into a single facility?

What are the land use conditions of the corridor? (For example, a residential area with on-street parking and off-street parking available for each homeowner or a busy business district with frequent trips)

What is the level and speed of vehicular traffic in the corridor? .

Where is the existing bicycle and pedestrian demand? .

Is this facility completing a gap within the existing network? .

Are there short-term and long-term solutions appropriate for the corridor? .

Is the preferred facility type feasible or would a less than ideal facility provide a safe and comfortable improvement to the network? .

Are there existing facilities to which this corridor will connect and what are the transitions needed to connect the different facilities? .

Are there barriers to completing the route within this corridor? .

Preferred Bikeway Type for Urban, Urban Core, Suburban, and Rural Town Contexts

Source: FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide

Chart assumes operating speeds are similar to posted speeds. If they differ, use operating speed rather than posted speed.

Advisory bicycle lanes may be an option where traffic volumes are less than 3,000 ADT. .

See page 32 of the FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide for a discussion of alternatives if the preferred bikeway type is not feasible.

Separated bicycle lanes are also called “cycle tracks” and “protected bicycle lanes.” For purposes of this Plan update, the facility is called a “cycle track.” Shared lanes and bicycle boulevards are similar to the neighborhood bicycle route used in this Plan.

Design Needs Of Bicyclists

Regardless of which user type a particular facility will serve, such as the “Interested but Concerned” or “Enthused and Confident” user groups, the design of a bicycle facilitiy should consider expected bicycle types and utilize proper dimensions. The figure below illustrates the operating space and physical dimensions of a typical adult bicyclist, which is the basis for typical facility design.

Bicycle Operating Space

Source:National Highway Institute and AASHTO

Preferable Operating Space

10’

Minimum Operating Space

8’

Physical Operating Space

7’

Handlebar Height

3’-8”

Physical Operating Width

2’-6”

Minimum Operating Width

4’-0”

Preferred Operating Width

5’-0”

It is preferrable that the width of bicycle facilities accommodate side-by-side bicycling. At a minimum, the facility width should allow for bicyclists to pass one another without creating unsafe or uncomfortable conditions. When designing to accommodate side-by-side riding, the width of the bicycle facility should include the operating space of both bicyclists. On minimum-width bicycle facilities, bicyclists must operate single-file, which allows only occasional passing and precludes the opportunity for social bicycling and for parents to ride next to their children.

Facility User Groups

In order to meet the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists of all ages and abilities, Columbus’ bicycle and pedestrian network will be comprised of a variety of facility types.

The key described below, which represents the various user groups in Columbus’ bicycle and pedestrian network, will be used throughout the facility toolbox to indicate the user groups that will be comfortable on a given facility. As introduced in Chapter 1, bicyclists in the “Interested but Concerned” and “Enthused and Confident” user groups prefer facilities that are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic, especially as traffic speeds and volumes increase. Conversely, bicyclists in the “Strong and Fearless” user group are comfortable riding with traffic, even as traffic speeds and volumes increase.

PEDESTRIANS

INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED BICYCLIST

ENTHUSED AND CONFIDENT BICYCLIST

STRONG AND FEARLESS BICYCLIST