Bicycle Master Plan: Appendices

Appendices include bikeway design guidelines, selected projects, StreetPlan Model, project cost estimates, and public involvement summary

2011 University of Utah Bicycle Master Plan PREPARED BY: Alta Planning + Design#1;BOE#1;1TPNBT PREPARED FOR: University of Utah Facilities Department #12;University of Utah Bicycle Master Plan Appendix A: Bicycle Facility Design Guide Prepared for: University of Utah Prepared by: Alta Planning + Design #12;Bicycle Master Plan - Bicycle Facility Design Guide Introduction This technical handbook is intended to assist the University of Utah in the selection and design of bicycle facilities. The following chapters pull together best practices by facility type from public agencies and municipalities nationwide. Within the design chapters, treatments are covered within a single sheet tabular format relaying important design information and discussion, example photos, schematics (if applicable), and existing summary guidance from current, or upcoming draft standards. Existing standards are referenced throughout, and should be your ultimate source of information when seeking to implement any of the treatments featured here. National Standards: The Federal Highway Administration's Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) defines the standards used by road managers nationwide to install and maintain traffic control devices on all public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public traffic. The MUTCD is the primary source for guidance on lane striping requirements, signal warrants, and recommended signage and pavement markings. To further clarify the MUTCD, the FHWA created a table of contemporary bicycle facilities that lists various bicycle-related signs, markings, signals, and other treatments and identifies their status (e.g., can be implemented, currently experimental) in the 2009 version of the MUTCD. See Bicycle Facilities and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.1 Bikeway treatments not explicitly covered by the MUTCD are often subject to experiments, interpretations and official rulings by the FHWA. The MUTCD Official Rulings is a resource that allows web site visitors to obtain information these supplementary materials. Copies of various documents (such as incoming request letters, response letters from the FHWA, progress reports, and final reports) are available on this web site.2 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities last updated in 1999 provides detailed guidance on dimensions, use, and layout of specific facilities. The standards and guidelines presented by AASHTO go beyond the MUTCD to provide basic information about the design of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, such as minimum sidewalk widths, bicycle lane dimensions, more detailed striping requirements and recommended signage and pavement markings. An update to this guide is in progress, and is likely to provide revised guidance on standard facilities, and new entries for more contemporary bikeway designs. The National Association of City Transportation Officials' (NACTO) 2011 Urban Bikeway Design Guide is the newest publication of nationally recognized bikeway design standards, and offers guidance on the current state of the practice designs. The intent of the guide is to offer substantive guidance for cities seeking to improve bicycle transportation in places where competing demands for the use of the right of way present unique challenges. The NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide was endorsed officially by Mayor Becker and Division of Transportation in Salt Lake City. Some of these treatments are not directly referenced in the current versions of the AASHTO Guide to Bikeway Facilities or the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), although many of the elements of these treatments are found within these documents. In all cases, we encourage engineering judgment to ensure that the application makes sense for the context of each treatment, given the many complexities of urban streets. 1 2 Bicycle Facilities and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. (2011). FHWA. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/mutcd_bike.htm MUTCD Official Rulings. FHWA. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/orsearch.asp University of Utah | A-1 #12;Appendix A Design Needs of Bicyclists The purpose of this section is to provide the facility designer with an understanding of how bicyclists operate and how their bicycle influences that operation. Bicyclists, by nature, are much more sensitive to poor facility design, construction and maintenance than motor vehicle drivers. Bicyclists lack the protection from the elements and roadway hazards provided by an automobile's structure and safety features. By understanding the unique characteristics and needs of bicyclists, the facility designer can provide the highest quality facilities and minimize risk to the bicyclists using them. Bicycle as a Design Vehicle Similar to motor vehicles, bicyclists and their bicycles come in a variety of sizes and configurations. This variation can occur in the types of vehicle (such as a conventional bicycle, a recumbent bicycle, or a tricycle), and behavioral characteristics (such as the comfort level of the bicyclist). Any bikeway undergoing design should consider reasonably expected bicycle types on the facility and design with that set of critical dimensions in mind. Figure 2-1 shows the operating space and physical dimensions of a typical adult bicyclist, which is the basis for typical facility design. The bicyclist requires clear space to operate within a facility; this is why the minimum operating width is greater than the physical dimensions of the bicyclist. Bicyclists prefer five feet or more operating width, although four feet is minimally acceptable. Operating Operating Envelope Envelope 8' 4" (2.5m) 8' 4" Eye Level Eye Level 5' 5' (1.5m) Handlebar Handlebar 3'8" 3' 8" (1.1m) Physical Operating 2'6" Minimum Operating 4' Preferred Operating Physical 5' University of Utah | A-2 2' 6" (.75m) Figure 2-1 Standard Bicycle Rider Dimensions Min AASHTO Operating Source: Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 3rd Edition 4' (1.2m) Preferred Operating 5' (1.5m) #12;Bicycle Master Plan - Bicycle Facility Design Guide Outside the design dimensions of a typical bicycle, there are many commonly used pedal-driven cycles and accessories to consider when planning and designing bicycle facilities. The most common types include tandem bicycles, recumbent bicycles, and trailer accessories. Figure 2-2 and Table 2-1 summarizes the typical dimensions for typical bicycle designs. Table 2-1 Bicycle as Design Vehicle - Typical Dimensions Bicycle Type Feature Typical Dimensions Physical width 2 ft 6 in Operating width (Minimum) 4 ft Operating width (Preferred) 5 ft Physical length 5 ft 10 in Physical height of handlebars 3 ft 8 in Operating height 8 ft 4 in Eye height 5 ft Vertical clearance to obstructions (tunnel height, lighting, etc) 10 ft Approximate center of gravity 2 ft 9 in - 3 ft 4 in Physical length 8 ft Eye height 3 ft 10 in Tandem Bicyclist Physical length 8 ft Bicyclist with child trailer Physical length 10 ft Physical width 2 ft 6 in Upright Adult Bicyclist 5' 10" 8' 3' 6" 8' 2' 8" 3' 9" 9' 4" (Bicycle + Trailer) Figure 2-2 Bicycle as Design Vehicle - Typical Dimensions Source: AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 3rd Edition *AASHTO does not provide typical dimensions for tricycles. Design Speed Expectations The expected speed that various types of bicyclists can maintain under various conditions can also influence the design of facilities such as shared use paths. Table 2-2 provides typical bicyclist speeds for a variety of conditions. The skill level of the bicyclist also provides a dramatic variance on expected speeds and expected behavior. There are several systems of classification currently in use within the bicycle planning and engineering professions. These classifications can be helpful in understanding the characteristics and infrastructure preferences of different bicyclists. However, it should be noted that these classifications may change in type or proportion over time as infrastructure and culture evolve. Often times an instructional course can instantly change a less confident bicyclist to one that can comfortably and safely share the roadway with vehicular traffic. Bicycle infrastructure should be planned and designed to accommodate as many user types as possible with separate or parallel facilities considered to provide a comfortable experience for the greatest number of bicyclists. Recumbent Bicyclist Table 2-2 Bicycle as Design Vehicle - Design Speed Expectations Bicycle Type Upright Adult Bicyclist Recumbent Bicyclist Feature Typical Speed Paved level surfacing 15 mph Crossing Intersections 10 mph Downhill 30 mph Uphill 5 -12 mph Paved level surfacing 18 mph *Tandem bicycles and bicyclists with trailers have typical speeds equal to or less than upright adult bicyclists. University of Utah | A-3 #12;Appendix A Types of Bicyclists It is important to consider bicyclists of all skill levels in creating a non-motorized plan. Bicyclist skill level greatly influences expected speeds and behavior, both in separated bikeways and on shared roadways. Bicycle infrastructure should accommodate as many user types as possible, with decisions for separate or parallel facilities based on providing a comfortable experience for the greatest number of bicyclists. The bicycle planning and engineering professions currently use several systems to classify the population, which can assist in understanding the characteristics and infrastructure preferences of different bicyclists. The most conventional framework classifies the "design cyclist" as Advanced, Basic, or Child1. A more detailed understanding of potential bicyclist classifications is illustrated in Figure 2-3. Developed by planners at the City of Portland, OR2 and supported by data collected nationally since 2005, this classification provides the following alternative categories to address the Americans' ‘varying attitudes' towards bicycling: • • • • Strong and Fearless (Very low percentage of population) - Characterized by bicyclists that will typically ride anywhere regardless of roadway conditions or weather. These bicyclists can ride faster than other user types, prefer direct routes and will typically choose roadway connections -- even if shared with vehicles -- over separate bicycle facilities such as multi-use trails. Enthused and Confident (5-10% of population) -This user group encompasses the ‘intermediate' bicyclists who are mostly comfortable riding on all types of bicycle facilities but will usually prefer low traffic streets or multi-use trails when available. These bicyclists may deviate from a more direct route in favor of a preferred facility type. This group includes all kinds of bicyclists including commuters, recreationalists, racers, and utilitarian bicyclists. Interested but Concerned (approximately 60% of population) - This user type makes up the bulk of the cycling population and represents bicyclists who typically only ride a bicycle on low traffic streets or multi-use trails under favorable conditions and weather. These bicyclists perceive significant barriers towards increased use of cycling, specifically traffic and other safety issues. These bicyclists may become "Enthused & Confident" with encouragement, education and experience. No Way, No How (approximately 30% of population) - Persons in this category are not bicyclists, and perceive severe safety issues with riding in traffic. Some people in this group may eventually give cycling a second look and may progress to the user types above. A significant portion of these people will never ride a 1% Strong and Fearless 7% Enthused and Confident 60% Interested but Concerned 33% No Way, No How Figure 2-3 Typical distribution of bicyclist types bicycle under any circumstances. 1 2 Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles. (1994). Publication No. FHWA-RD-92-073 Four Types of Cyclists. (2009). Roger Geller, City of Portland Bureau of Transportation. http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?&a=237507 University of Utah | A-4 #12;Bicycle Master Plan - Bicycle Facility Design Guide Shared Roadways Shared roadways mix bicyclists with motor vehicles within the same roadway space. They are typically used on roads with low speeds and traffic volumes, however can be used on higher volume roads with wide outside lanes or with shoulders. A motor vehicle driver will usually have to cross over into the adjacent travel lane to pass a bicyclist, unless a wide outside lane or shoulder is provided. Marked Shared Roadway Shared roadways can employ a large variety of treatments from simple signage and shared lane markings to complex treatments including directional signage, traffic diverters, chicanes, chokers, and /or other traffic calming devices to reduce vehicle speeds or volumes. This Section Includes: Shared Lane Marking • Marked Shared Roadway University of Utah | A-5 #12;Appendix A No Separation Bikeways Shared Lane Markings Marked Shared Roadway Guidance Preferred placement in constrained conditions is in the center of the travel lane to minimize wear and promote single file travel. Minimum placement of SLM marking centerline is 11 feet from edge of curb where on-street parking is present, 5 feet from edge of curb with no parking. If parking lane is wider than 7.5 feet the SLM should be moved further out accordingly. Description A marked shared roadway is a general purpose travel lane marked with shared lane markings (SLM) used to encourage bicycle travel and proper positioning within the lane. In constrained conditions, the SLMs are placed to discourage unsafe passing by motor vehicles. On a wide outside lane, the SLMs can be used to promote bicycle travel next to (to the right of ) motor vehicles. Under all conditions, SLMs should be placed outside of the door zone of parked cars. Consider modifications to signal timing to induce a bicycle-friendly travel speed for all users MUTCD R4-11 (optional) When placed adjacent to parking, SLM should be outside of the "Door Zone". Minimum placement is 11' from curb. When placed in a curb lane, placement is 5' from curb Placement in center of travel lane is preferred in constrained conditions Discussion Bike lanes should be considered on roadways with outside travel lanes wider than 15 feet, or where other lane narrowing or removal strategies may provide adequate road space. Shared Lane Markings shall not be used on shoulders, in designated bicycle lanes, or to designate bicycle detection at signalized intersections. (MUTCD 9C.07 03) Additional References and Guidelines Materials and Maintenance AASHTO. (1999). Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. FHWA. (2009). Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. NACTO. (2011). Urban Bikeway Design Guide. Placing the SLM markings between vehicle tire tracks will increase the life of the markings and minimize the long-term cost of the treatment. University of Utah | A-6 #12;Bicycle Master Plan - Bicycle Facility Design Guide Separated Bikeways Designated exclusively for bicycle travel, separated bikeways are segregated from vehicle travel lanes with striping, and can include pavement stencils and other amenities. Separated bikeways are most appropriate on arterial and collector streets where higher traffic volumes and speeds warrant greater separation. Conventional Bicycle Lanes Separated bikeways can increase safety and promote proper riding by: • Defining road space for bicyclists and motorists, reducing the possibility that motorists will stray into the bicyclists' path • Discouraging bicyclists from riding on the sidewalk • Reminding motorists that bicyclists have a right to the road. Uphill Bicycle Climbing Lane Colored Bike Lanes Contra-flow Bike Lane This Section Includes: Conventional Bike Lanes • Bike Lane With No On-Street Parking • Bike Lane Next to Parallel Parking • Bike Lane Next to Diagonal Parking Buffered Bike Lanes Enhanced Bikeways • Uphill Bicycle Climbing Lane • Contra-Flow Bike Lane on One-Way Street • Colored Bike Lanes • Buffered Bike Lanes • Shared Use Paths Along Roadways Shared Use Paths Along Roadways University of Utah | A-7 #12;Appendix A Separated Bikeways Conventional Bike Lane Configurations Bike Lane with No On-Street Parking Description Guidance 4 foot minimum when no curb & gutter is present 5 foot minimum when adjacent to curb and gutter or 3' more than the gutter pan width if the gutter pan is wider than 2'. Salt Lake City prefers 6 foot minimums adjacent to curbs as the gutter lip can become rough over time. Bike lanes designate an exclusive space for bicyclists through the use of pavement markings and signage. The bike lane is typically located on the right side of the street, between the adjacent travel lane and curb and flows in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic. A bike lane width of 7 feet makes it possible for bicyclists to ride side-by-side or pass each other without leaving the bike lane, increasing the capacity of the lane. 7 foot maximum width for use adjacent to arterials with high travel speeds. Greater widths may encourage motor vehicle use of bike lane. See Buffered Bicycle Lanes when a wider facility is desired. 6-8" white line MUTCD R3-17 (optional) 3' minimum ridable surface outside of gutter seam Discussion Wider bicycle lanes are desirable in certain circumstances such as on higher speed arterials (45 mph+) where a wider bicycle lane can increase separation between passing vehicles and bicyclists. Appropriate signing and stenciling is important with wide bicycle lanes to ensure motorists do not mistake the lane for a vehicle lane or parking lane. Consider buffered bicycle lanes when further separation is desired. Additional References and Guidelines Materials and Maintenance AASHTO. (1999). Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. FHWA. (2009). Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. NACTO. (2011). Urban Bikeway Design Guide. Paint can wear more quickly in high traffic areas or in winter climates. Bicycle lanes should be included in routine snow removal operations. The R3-17 Bike Lane sign is beneficial when snow obstructs lane line visibility. University of Utah | A-8 #12;Bicycle Master Plan - Bicycle Facility Design Guide Separated Bikeways Conventional Bike Lane Configurations Bike Lane Adjacent to OnStreet Parallel Parking Guidance 12 foot minimum from curb face to edge of bike lane. 14.5 foot preferred from curb face to edge of bike lane. 7 foot maximum for marked width of bike lane. Greater widths may encourage vehicle loading in bike lane. See Buffered Bicycle Lanes when a wider facility is desired. A marked separation can reduce door zone riding. See Buffered Bike Lanes Description Bike lanes designate an exclusive space for bicyclists through the use of pavement markings and signage. The bike lane is located adjacent to motor vehicle travel lanes and typically flows in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic. Bike lanes are typically on the right side of the street, between the adjacent travel lane and curb, road edge, or parking lane. Many bicyclists, particularly less experienced riders, become more comfortable riding on a busy street if it has a striped and signed bikeway than if they are expected to share a lane with vehicles.. MUTCD R3-17 (optional) 4" white line or parking Ts 6-8" white line Discussion Bike lanes adjacent to on-street parallel parking require special treatment to avoid crashes caused by a suddenly opened vehicle door. The bike lane should have sufficient width to allow bicyclists to say out of the door zone, while not encroaching into the adjacent vehicular lane. Parking stall markings, such as parking "Ts" and double white lines create a type of parking side buffer to encourage bicyclists to ride farther away from the door zone. Additional References and Guidelines Materials and Maintenance AASHTO. (1999). Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. FHWA. (2009). Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. NACTO. (2011). Urban Bikeway Design Guide. Paint can wear more quickly in high traffic areas or in winter climates. Bicycle lanes should be included in routine snow removal operations. The R3-17 Bike Lane sign is beneficial when snow obstructs lane line visibility. University of Utah | A-9 #12;Appendix A Separated Bikeways Bike Lane Adjacent to On-Street Diagonal Parking Guidance 5 foot minimum marked width of bike lane. Parking bays are sufficiently long to accommodate most vehicles (so vehicles do not block bike lane). Conventional Bike Lane Configurations Description In certain areas with high parking demand such as urban commercial areas diagonal parking can be used to increase parking supply. Back-in diagonal parking improves sight distance between drivers and bicyclists when compared to conventional head-in diagonal parking. Back-in diagonal parking has other benefits to vehicles including: loading and unloading of the trunk occurs at the curb rather than in the street, passengers (including children) are directed by open doors towards the curb, there is also no door conflict with bicyclists. While there may be a learning curve for some drivers, using back-in diagonal parking is typically an easier maneuver than conventional parallel parking. 4" white line 6-8" white line MUTCD R3-17 (optional) 2' buffer space Discussion Conventional front-in diagonal parking is not compatible or recommended in conjunction with high levels of bicycle traffic or with the provision of bike lanes as drivers backing out of conventional diagonal parking have poor visibility of approaching bicyclists. Additional References and Guidelines Materials and Maintenance There is no currently adopted Federal or State guidance for this treatment. This treatment is currently slated for inclusion in the next edition of the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities Paint can wear more quickly in high traffic areas or in winter climates. Bicycle lanes should be included in routine snow removal operations. The R3-17 Bike Lane sign is beneficial when snow obstructs lane line visibility. University of Utah | A-10 #12;Bicycle Master Plan - Bicycle Facility Design Guide Separated Bikeways Enhanced Bikeways Uphill Bicycle Climbing Lane Description Uphill bike lanes (also known as "climbing lanes") enable motorists to safely pass slower-speed bicyclists, thereby improving conditions for both travel modes. Guidance Uphill bike lanes should be 6-7 feet wide (wider lanes are preferred because extra maneuvering room on steep grades can benefit bicyclists). Can be combined with Shared Lane Markings for downhill bicyclists who can more closely match prevailing traffic speeds. MUTCD R3-17 (optional) May be paired with shared lane markings on downhill side 6-7' width preferred Discussion This treatment is typically found on retrofit projects as new roads should provide adequate space for bicycle lanes in both directions of travel. Accommodating an uphill bicycle lane often includes delineating on-street parking (if provided), narrowing travel lanes, and/or shifting the centerline if necessary. Additional References and Guidelines Materials and Maintenance NACTO. (2011). Urban Bikeway Design Guide. Paint can wear more quickly in high traffic areas or in winter climates. Bicycle lanes should be included in routine snow removal operations. The R3-17 Bike Lane sign is beneficial when snow obstructs lane line visibility. Partial Guidance: AASHTO. (1999). Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. FHWA. (2009). Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. University of Utah | A-11 #12;Appendix A Separated Bikeways Enhanced Bikeways Contra-flow Bike Lane on One-way Street Guidance The contra-flow lane should be 5-7 feet and marked with a solid double yellow line and appropriate signage. Bike lane markings should be clearly visible to ensure that contraflow lane is exclusively for bicycles. Coloration should be considered on the bike lane. Description Contra-flow bike lanes provide bidirectional bicycle access along a roadway that is one-way for automobile traffic. This treatment can provide direct access and connectivity for bicyclists, avoiding detours and reducing travel distances for bicyclists. Contra-flow bike lanes can also be used to convert two-way automobile traffic to one-way to reduce traffic volumes where it is desired. Signage should be placed to permit exclusive bicycle travel in contraflow direction Signage specifically allowing bicycles at the entrance of the contra flow lane is recommended. Determine modification necessary to existing traffic signals May be paired with shared lane markings on opposite side in constrained conditions Discussion Because contra-flow travel increases the speed differential between cars and bicyclists, a buffered bike lane or separated cycle track configuration should be considered if space permits. Additional References and Guidelines Materials and Maintenance FHWA. (2009). Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. NACTO. (2011). Urban Bikeway Design Guide. Because the effectiveness of markings depends entirely on their visibility, maintaining markings should be a high priority. University of Utah | A-12 #12;Bicycle Master Plan - Bicycle Facility Design Guide Separated Bikeways Colored Bike Lanes Guidance The color green has been given interim approval by the Federal Highways Administration in March of 2011. See interim approval IA-14 for specific color standards. The colored surface should be skid resistant and retroreflective. Enhanced Bikeways Description Colored pavement within a bicycle lane increases the visibility of the bicycle facility. Use of color is appropriate for use in areas with pressure for illegal parking, frequent encroachment of motor vehicles, clarify conflict areas, and along enhanced facilities such as contra-flow bicycle lanes and cycle tracks. Color has also been used in conjunction with shared lane markings to create a "lane within a lane" to further clarify proper bicyclist positioning on shared roadway streets. When applied along full corridors, driveway and intersection areas should be identified though the absence of color, or the use of an alternate marking pattern to identify potential conflict areas. Color may be used on a marked shared roadway to further clarify bicycle positioning Apply within the full width of the bicycle lane Discussion Colored pavement is also used to identify potential areas of conflict, and reinforces priority to bicyclists in these conflict areas. See Colored Bike Lanes in Conflict Areas for more guidance. Additional References and Guidelines Materials and Maintenance FHWA. (2011). Interim Approval (IA-14) has been granted. Requests to use green colored pavement need to comply with the provisions of Paragraphs 14 through 22 of Section 1A.10 NACTO. (2011). Urban Bikeway Design Guide. There are many materials in use in cities throughout the U.S. from a variety of vendors. Take care in choosing a product to meet durability and cost requirements. University of Utah | A-13 #12;Appendix A Separated Bikeways Enhanced Bikeways Buffered Bike Lanes Description Guidance Where bicyclist volumes are high or where bicyclist speed differentials are significant, the desired bicycle travel area width is 7 feet. Buffers should be at least 2 feet wide. If 3 feet or wider, mark with diagonal or chevron hatching. At driveways or minor street crossings, consider dashing the inside buffer boundary where cars are expected to cross for clarity. Double parking edge lines or other buffer designs may be used to discourage riding in the "door zone". Buffered bike lanes are conventional bicycle lanes paired with a designated buffer space separating the bicycle lane from the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane and/or parking lane. Buffered bike lanes are allowed as per MUTCD guidelines for buffered preferential lanes (section 3D-01). Buffered bike lanes are designed to increase the space between the bike lanes and the travel lane or parked cars. This treatment is appropriate on bike lanes with high automobile traffic volumes and speed, bike lanes adjacent to parked cars, and bike lanes with a high volume of truck or oversized vehicle traffic. Parking side buffer design with double parking lane lines Parking side buffer design with parking Ts Color may be used at the beginning of each block to discourage motorists from entering the buffered lane Discussion Frequency of right turns by motor vehicles at major intersections should determine whether continuous or truncated buffer striping should be used approaching the intersection. Commonly configured as a buffer between the bicycle lane and motor vehicle travel lane, a parking side buffer may also be provided to help bicyclists avoid the ‘door zone' of parked cars. Additional References and Guidelines Materials and Maintenance FHWA. (2009). Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. (3D-01) NACTO. (2011). Urban Bikeway Design Guide. Paint can wear more quickly in high traffic areas or in winter climates. Bicycle lanes should be included in routine snow removal operations. The R3-17 Bike Lane sign is beneficial when snow obstructs lane line visibility. University of Utah | A-14 #12;Bicycle Master Plan - Bicycle Facility Design Guide Separated Bikeways Shared Use Paths Along Roadways Enhanced Bikeways Pay special attention to the entrance/exit of the path as bicyclists may continue to travel on the wrong side of the street Description A shared-use path allows for two-way, off-street bicycle use and also may be used by pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers and other non-motorized users. These facilities are frequently found in parks, along rivers, beaches, and in greenbelts or utility corridors where there are few conflicts with motorized vehicles. Along roadways, these facilities create a situation where a portion of the bicycle traffic rides against the normal flow of motor vehicle traffic and can result in wrong-way riding where bicyclists enter or leave the path. Crossings should be stop or yield controlled The AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities generally recommends against the development of shared-use paths directly adjacent to roadways. Guidance • 8 feet is the minimum allowed for a two-way bicycle path and is only recommended for low traffic situations. • 10 feet is recommended in most situations and will be adequate for moderate to heavy use. • 12 feet is recommended for heavy use situations with high concentrations of multiple users such as joggers, bicyclists, rollerbladers and pedestrians. A separate track (5' minimum) can be provided for pedestrian use. W11-15, W16-9P in advance of cross street stop sign Bicycle lanes should be provided as an alternate (more transportation-oriented) facility whenever possible. Discussion When designing a bikeway network, the presence of a nearby or parallel path should not be used as a reason to not provide adequate shoulder or bicycle lane width on the roadway, as the on-street bicycle facility will generally be superior to the "sidepath" for experienced bicyclists and those who are cycling for transportation purposes. Additional References and Guidelines Materials and Maintenance AASHTO. (1999). Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. NACTO. (2011). Urban Bikeway Design Guide. See entry on Raised Cycle Tracks. Asphalt is the most common surface for bicycle paths. The use of concrete surfacing for paths has proven to be more durable over the long term University of Utah | A-15 #12;Appendix A Separated Bikeways at Intersections Intersections are junctions at which different modes of transportation meet and facilities overlap. An intersection facilitates the interchange between bicyclists, motorists, pedestrians, and other competing modes in order to advance traffic flow in a safe and efficient manner. Designs for intersections with bicycle facilities should reduce conflict between bicyclists (and other vulnerable road users) and vehicles by heightening the level of visibility, denoting clear right-of-way, and facilitating eye contact and awareness with competing modes. Intersection treatments can resolve both queuing and merging maneuvers for bicyclists, and are often coordinated with timed or specialized signals. The configuration of a safe intersection for bicyclists may include elements such as color, signage, medians, signal detection, and pavement markings. Intersection design should take into consideration existing and anticipated bicyclist, pedestrian and motorist movements. In all cases, the degree of mixing or separation between bicyclists and other modes is intended to reduce the risk of crashes and increase bicyclist comfort. The level of treatment required for bicyclists at an intersection will depend on the bicycle facility type used, whether bicycle facilities are intersecting, the adjacent street function and land use. Bike Box Colored Bike Lanes in Conflict Areas Bike Lanes at Right Turn Only Lanes Shared Bicycle/Right Turn Lane This Section Includes: • Bike Box • Bike Lanes at Right Turn Only Lanes • Colored Bike Lanes in Conflict Areas • Shared Bicycle/Right Turn Lane • Intersection Crossing Markings • Bicycle Detection at Intersections • Bicycle Signal Heads University of Utah | A-16 Intersection Crossing Markings Bicycle Signal Heads #12;Bicycle Master Plan - Bicycle Facility Design Guide Separated Bikeways at Intersections Bike Box Description A bike box is a designated area at the head of a traffic lane at a signalized intersection that provides bicyclists with a safe and visible way to get ahead of queuing traffic during the red signal phase. Motor vehicles must stop behind the white stop line at the rear of the bike box. R10-11 R10-15 variant or similar May be combined with intersection crossing markings and colored bike lanes in conflict areas Guidance • 14' minimum depth of bicycle storage area • A "No Turn on Red" (MUTCD R10-11) sign shall be installed overhead to prevent vehicles from entering the Bike Box. • A "Stop Here on Red" sign should be post-mounted at the stop line to reinforce observance of the stop line. • A "Yield to Bikes" sign should be post-mounted in advance of and in conjunction with an egress lane to reinforce that bicyclists have the right-of-way going through the intersection. • An ingress lane should be used to provide access to the box. Colored pavement can be used in the box for increased visibility Wide stop lines used for increased visibility R10-6a If used, colored pavement should extend 50' from the intersection Discussion Bike boxes should occur at signalized intersections only, and right turns on red shall be prohibited for motor vehicles. Bike boxes should be used in locations that have a large volume of bicyclists, and are often utilized in central areas where traffic is usually moving slowly. Prohibiting right turns on red improves safety for bicyclists and does not significantly impede motor vehicle travel. Additional References and Guidelines Materials and Maintenance NACTO. (2011). Urban Bikeway Design Guide. FHWA. (2011). Interim Approval (IA-14) has been granted. Requests to use green colored pavement need to comply with the provisions of Paragraphs 14 through 22 of Section 1A.10 Because the effectiveness of markings depends entirely on their visibility, maintaining markings should be a high priority. University of Utah | A-17 #12;Appendix A Separated Bikeways at Intersections Bike Lanes at Right Turn Only Lanes Colored pavement may be used in the weaving area to increase visibility and awareness of potential conflict Description The appropriate treatment at right-turn lanes is to place the bike lane between the right-turn lane and the rightmost through lane or, where right-of-way is insufficient, to use a combined bike lane/turn lane. The design (right) illustrates a bike lane pocket, with signage indicating that motorists should yield to bicyclists through the conflict area. Guidance Continue existing bike lane width; standard width of 5 to 6 feet or 4 feet in constrained locations. Use signage to indicate that motorists should yield to bicyclists through the conflict area. Consider using colored conflict areas to promote visibility of the mixing zone. Discussion For other potential approaches to provide accommodations for bicyclists at intersections with turn lanes, please see combined bike lane/turn lane, bicycle signals, and colored bike facilities. Additional References and Guidelines Materials and Maintenance AASHTO. (1999). Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. FHWA. (2009). Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. NACTO. (2011). Urban Bikeway Design Guide. Because the effectiveness of markings depends entirely on their visibility, maintaining markings should be a high priority. University of Utah | A-18 #12;Bicycle Master Plan - Bicycle Facility Design Guide Separated Bikeways at Intersections Colored Bike Lanes in Conflict Areas Variant of R10-15 or R1-5 Description Colored pavement within a bicycle lane increases the visibility of the facility to identify potential areas of conflict, and reinforces priority to bicyclists in conflict areas. Guidance Green has been given interim approval by the Federal Highways Administration in March of 2011. See interim approval for specific color standards. The colored surface should be skid resistant and retroreflective. A "Yield to Bikes" sign should be used at intersections or driveway crossings to reinforce that bicyclists have the right-of-way at colored bike lane areas. Normal white edge lines should define colored space Discussion Evaluations performed in Portland, Oregon, St. Petersburg, Florida and Austin, Texas found that significantly more motorists yielded to bicyclists and slowed or stopped before entering the conflict area after the application of the colored pavement. Additional References and Guidelines Materials and Maintenance FHWA. (2011). Interim Approval (IA-14) has been granted. Requests to use green colored pavement need to comply with the provisions of Paragraphs 14 through 22 of Section 1A.10 NACTO. (2011). Urban Bikeway Design Guide. Because the effectiveness of markings depends entirely on their visibility, maintaining markings should be a high priority. University of Utah | A-19 #12;Appendix A Separated Bikeways at Intersections Shared Bike Lane/ Turn Lane Description The shared bicycle/right turn lane places a standard-width bike lane on the left side of a dedicated right turn lane. A dashed strip delineates the space for bicyclists and motorists within the shared lane. This treatment includes signage advising motorists and bicyclists of proper positing within the lane. Short length turn pockets encourage slower motor vehicle speeds This treatment is recommended at intersections lacking sufficient space to accommodate a standard through bike lane and right turn lane. Guidance Maximum shared turn lane with is 13 feet. Bike Lane pocket should have a minimum width of 4 feet with 5 feet preferred. A dotted 4 inch line and bicycle lane marking should be used to clarify bicyclist positioning within the combined lane without excluding cars from the suggested bicycle area. A sign may be needed to make it legal for through bicyclists to use a right turn lane. R4-4 Discussion Case studies cited by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center indicate that this treatment works best on streets with lower posted speeds (30 MPH or less) and with lower traffic volumes (10,000 ADT or less). May not be appropriate for high-speed arterials or intersections with long right turn lanes. May not be appropriate for intersections with large percentages of right-turning heavy vehicles. Additional References and Guidelines Materials and Maintenance NACTO. (2011). Urban Bikeway Design Guide. This treatment is currently slated for inclusion in the next edition of the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities Locate markings out of tire tread to minimize wear. Because the effectiveness of markings depends on their visibility, maintaining markings should be a high priority. University of Utah | A-20 #12;Bicycle Master Plan - Bicycle Facility Design Guide Separated Bikeways at Intersections Intersection Crossing Markings Description Bicycle pavement markings through intersections indicate the intended path of bicyclists through an intersection or across a driveway or ramp. They guide bicyclists on a safe and direct path through the intersection, and provide a clear boundary between the paths of through bicyclists and either through or crossing motor vehicles in the adjacent lane. May be combined with Colored Bike Lanes in Conflict Areas Guidance Crossing striping shall be at least six inches wide when adjacent to motor vehicle travel lanes. Dashed lines should be two-foot lines spaced two to six feet apart. Chevrons, shared lane markings, or colored bike lanes in conflict areas may be used to increase visibility within conflict areas or across entire intersections. Discussion Additional markings such as chevrons, shared lane markings, or colored bike lanes in conflict areas are strategies currently in use in the United States and Canada. Cities considering implementing markings through intersections should consider standardizing future designs to avoid confusion. Additional References and Guidelines Materials and Maintenance FHWA. (2009). Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. (3A.06) NACTO. (2011). Urban Bikeway Design Guide. Because the effectiveness of marked crossings depends entirely on their visibility, maintaining marked crossings should be a high priority. University of Utah | A-21 #12;Appendix A Separated Bikeways at Intersections Bicycle Detection and Actuation Video detection camera Description Push Button Actuation User-activated button mounted on a pole facing the street Loop Detectors Bicycle-activated loop detectors are installed within the roadway to allow the presence of a bicycle to trigger a change in the traffic signal. This allows the bicyclist to stay within the lane of travel and avoid maneuvering to the side of the road to trigger a push button. Push button actuation Current and future loops that are sensitive enough to detect bicycles should have pavement markings to instruct bicyclists how to trip them, as well as signage Video Detection Cameras Video detection cameras can also be used to determine when a vehicle is waiting for a signal. These systems use digital image processing to detect a change in the image at the location. Video detection can be calibrated for bikes, bike lanes, and bike pockets. Video camera system costs range from $20,000 to $25,000 per intersection. RTMS Bicycle detector pavement marking (MUTCD Figure 9C-7) Remote Traffic Microwave Sensor Detection (RTMS) RTMS is a system, which uses frequency modulated continuous wave radio signals to detect objects in the roadway. This method is marked with a time code which gives information on how far away the object is. The RTMS system is unaffected by temperature and lighting, which can affect standard video detection. In bike lane loop detection Discussion Proper bicycle detection meets two primary criteria: 1) accurately detects bicyclists; and 2) provides clear guidance to bicyclists on how to actuate detection (e.g., what button to push, where to stand). Bicycle loops and other detection mechanisms can provide bicyclists extra green time before the light turns yellow, so that bicyclists of all abilities can reach the far side of the intersection. Additional References and Guidelines Materials and Maintenance AASHTO. (1999). Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. FHWA. (2009). Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. NACTO. (2011). Urban Bikeway Design Guide. Because the effectiveness of markings depends on their visibility, maintaining markings should be a high priority. University of Utah | A-22 #12;Bicycle Master Plan - Bicycle Facility Design Guide Separated Bikeways at Intersections Bicycle Signal Heads Description A bicycle signal is an electrically powered traffic control device that should only be used in combination with an existing conventional or hybrid signal. Bicycle signals are typically used to improve identified safety or operational problems involving bicycle facilities. Bicycle signal heads may be installed at signalized intersections to indicate bicycle signal phases and other bicycle-specific timing strategies. In the United States, bicycle signal heads typically use standard three-lens signal heads in green, yellow, and red lenses. Bicycle signals are typically used to provide guidance for bicyclists at intersections where they may have different needs from other road users (e.g., bicycle-only movements, or leading bicycle intervals). Guidance Specific situations where bicycle signals have had a demonstrated positive effect include: • High volume of bicyclists at peak hours • High numbers of bicycle/motor vehicle crashes, especially those caused by crossing paths • At T-intersections with major bicycle movement along the top of the T • At the confluence of an off-street bike path and a roadway intersection, and • Where separated bike paths run parallel to arterial streets • Bicycle signals can be actuated with bicycle sensitive loop detectors, video detection, or push buttons. Visual variation in signal head housing may increase awareness Signage may clarify proper usage 1/2 size near-side bicycle signal for greater visibility Bicycle signals must have appropriate detection and actuation Discussion Local municipal code should be checked or modified to clarify that at intersections with bicycle signals, bicyclists should only obey the bicycle signal heads. For improved visibility, smaller (4 inch lens) near-sided bicycle signals should be considered to supplement far-side signals. Additional References and Guidelines Materials and Maintenance NACTO. (2011). Urban Bikeway Design Guide. The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices has formed a Task Force that is considering adding guidance to the MUTCD on the use of bicycle signals. Bicycle signal heads require the same maintenance as standard traffic signal heads, such as replacing bulbs and responding to power outages. University of Utah | A-23 #12;Appendix A Path/Roadway Crossings At-grade crossings can create a potential conflicts between path users and motorists, however, welldesigned crossings can mitigate many operational issues and provide a higher degree of safety and comfort for path users. This is evidenced by the thousands of successful facilities around the United States with at-grade crossings. In most cases, at-grade path crossings can be properly designed to a reasonable degree of safety and can meet existing traffic and safety standards. Path facilities that cater to bicyclists can require additional considerations due to the higher travel speed of bicyclists versus pedestrians. Consideration must be given for adequate warning distance based on vehicle speeds and line of sight, with visibility of any signing absolutely critical. Catching the attention of motorists jaded to roadway signs may require additional alerting devices such as a flashing beacon, roadway striping or changes in pavement texture. Signing for path users may include a standard "STOP" or "YIELD" sign and pavement markings, sometimes combined with other features such as bollards or a sharp bend in the pathway to slow bicyclists. Care must be taken not to place too many signs at crossings lest they begin to lose their impact. Marked/Unsignalized Crossings Active Warning Beacons Route Users to Existing Signal A number of striping patterns have emerged over the years to delineate path crossings. A median stripe on the path approach will help to organize and warn path users. The actual crosswalk striping is a matter of local and State preference, and may be accompanied by pavement treatments to help warn and slow motorists. In areas where motorists do not typically yield to crosswalk users, additional measures may be required. Signalized/Controlled Crossings Undercrossing This Section Includes: • Marked/Unsignalized Crossings • Active Warning Beacons • Route Users to Existing Signalized Intersection • Signalized/Controlled Crossings • Undercrossings • Overcrossings University of Utah | A-24 Overcrossing #12;Bicycle Master Plan - Bicycle Facility Design Guide Path/Roadway Crossings Marked/Unsignalized Crossings Guidance Maximum traffic volumes • ≤9,000-12,000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes • Up to 15,000 ADT on two-lane roads, preferably with a median • Up to 12,000 ADT on four-lane roads with median Maximum travel speed • Description A marked/unsignalized crossing typically consists of a marked crossing area, signage, and other markings to slow or stop traffic. The approach to designing crossings at mid-block locations depends on an evaluation of vehicular traffic, line of sight, pathway traffic, use patterns, vehicle speed, road type and width, and other safety issues such as proximity to major attractions. When space is available, using a median refuge islands can help improve safety by providing a crossing refuge, allowing pedestrians and cyclists to gauge safe crossing of one side of the street at a time. 35 MPH Minimum line of sight • 25 MPH zone: 155 feet • 35 MPH zone: 250 feet • 45 MPH zone: 360 feet W11-15, W16-9P Crosswalk markings legally establish midblock pedestrian crossing R1-2 YIELD or R1-2 STOP for path users Detectable warning strips help visually impaired pedestrians identify the edge of the street Curves in paths help slow path users and help make them aware of oncoming vehicles If used, a curb ramp should be the full width of the path Consider a median refuge island when space is available Discussion Crossings of multi-lane arterials over 15,000 ADT may be unsignalized with features such as: excellent sight distance, sufficient crossing gaps (more than 60 per hour), median refuges, and/or active warning devices like rectangular rapid flash beacons or in-pavement flashers. See Enhanced Marked Crossings for a discussion of active warning beacons. On roadways with low to moderate traffic volumes (<12,000 ADT) and a need to control traffic speeds, a raised crosswalk may be the most appropriate crossing design to improve pedestrian visibility and safety. Additional References and Guidelines Materials and Maintenance AASHTO. (1999). Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. FHWA. (2009). Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Locate markings out of wheel tread when possible to minimize wear and maintenance costs. University of Utah | A-25 #12;Appendix A Path/Roadway Crossings Active Warning Beacons Guidance Guidance for Marked/Unsignalized Crossings applies. • Warning beacons shall not be used at crosswalks controlled by YIELD signs, STOP signs, or traffic control signals. • Warning beacons shall initiate operation based on pedestrian actuation and shall cease operation at a predetermined time after the pedestrian actuation or, with passive detection, after the pedestrian clears the crosswalk. Providing secondary installations of RRFBs on median islands improves driver yielding behavior. Description Enhanced marked crossings are unsignalized crossings with additional treatments designed to increase motor vehicle yielding compliance on multi lane or high volume roadways. These enhancements include pathway user or sensor actuated warning beacons, rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFB) shown below, or in-roadway warning lights. Median refuge islands provide added comfort and should be angled to direct users to face oncoming traffic. Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFB) dramatically increased compliance over conventional warning beacons W11-15, W16-7P Discussion Rectangular rapid flash beacons show the most increased compliance of all the warning beacon enhancement options. A study of the effectiveness of going from a no-beacon arrangement to a two-beacon RRFB installation increased yielding from 18 percent to 81 percent. A four-beacon arrangement raised compliance to 88 percent. Additional studies over long term installations show little to no decrease in yielding behavior over time. Additional References and Guidelines Materials and Maintenance NACTO. (2011). Urban Bikeway Design Guide. FHWA. (2009). Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. FHWA. (2008). MUTCD - Interim Approval for Optional Use of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (IA-11) Locate markings out of wheel tread when possible to minimize wear and maintenance costs. Signing and striping need to be maintained to help users understand any relatively unfamiliar traffic control. University of Utah | A-26 #12;Bicycle Master Plan - Bicycle Facility Design Guide Path/Roadway Crossings Route Users to Signalized Crossings Guidance Path crossings should not be provided within approximately 400 feet of an existing signalized intersection. If possible, route path directly to the signal. Description Crossings within approximately 400 feet of an existing signalized intersection with pedestrian crosswalks are typically diverted to the signalized intersection as they can cause traffic operation problems so close to an existing signal. For this restriction to be effective, barriers and signing may be needed to direct path users to the signalized crossing. If no pedestrian crossing already exists at the signal, modifications would be made. Barriers and signing may be needed to direct shared-use path users to the signalized crossings R9-3bP If possible, route users directly to the signal Discussion The minimum distance a marked crossing can be from an existing signalized intersection varies across the nation from approximately 250 to 660 feet. Engineering judgement and the context of the location should be taken into account when choosing the appropriate allowable setback. Pedestrians are particularly sensitive to out of direction travel and jaywalking may become prevalent if the distance is too great. Additional References and Guidelines Materials and Maintenance AASHTO. (1999). Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. AASHTO. (2004). Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities. University of Utah | A-27 #12;Appendix A Path/Roadway Crossings Signalized/Controlled Crossings Guidance Traffic signal installations must meet MUTCD pedestrian, school, or modified warrants. Hybrid signals may be installed without meeting traffic signal control warrants, if roadway speed and volumes are excessive for comfortable path user crossings. Additional guidance for signalized crossings: • Located more than 300 feet from an existing signalized intersection • Roadway travel speeds of 40 MPH and above • Roadway ADT exceeds 15,000 vehicles Description Signalized crossings provide the most protection for crossing path users through the use of a red-signal indication to stop conflicting motor vehicle traffic. The two types of path signalization are full traffic signal control and hybrid signals. A full traffic signal installation treats the path crossing as a conventional 4-way intersection, and provides standard red-yellow-green traffic signal heads for all legs of traffic. Hybrid signal installation (shown below) faces only cross motor vehicle traffic, says dark when inactive, and uses a unique ‘wig-wag' signal phase to indicate activation. Vehicles may proceed after stopping during ending flashing red phase, reducing motor vehicle delay when compared to a full signal installation. Hybrid Signal May be paired with a bicycle signal head to clarify bicycle movement Should be installed at least 100 feet from side streets or driveways that are controlled by STOP or YIELD signs W11-15 Push button actuation Discussion Shared-use path signals are normally activated by push buttons, but also may be triggered by embedded loop, infrared, microwave or video detectors. The maximum delay for activation of the signal should be two minutes, with minimum crossing times determined by the width of the street. Each crossing, regardless of traffic speed or volume, requires additional review by a registered engineer to identify sight lines, potential impacts on traffic progression, timing with adjacent signals, capacity, and safety. Additional References and Guidelines Materials and Maintenance FHWA. (2009). Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. NACTO. (2011). Urban Bikeway Design Guide. Hybrid signals are subject to the same maintenance needs and requirements as standard traffic signals. Signing and striping need to be maintained to help users understand any relatively unfamiliar traffic control. University of Utah | A-28 #12;Bicycle Master Plan - Bicycle Facility Design Guide Path/Roadway Crossings Undercrossings Description Guidance Width: 14 feet minimum , greater widths preferred for lengths over 60 feet. Height: 10 feet minimum Signage & Striping: The undercrossing should have a centerline stripe even if the rest of the path does not have one. Lighting: Lighting should be considered during design process for any undercrossing with high anticipated use or in culverts or tunnels. Bicycle/pedestrian undercrossings provide critical nonmotorized system links by joining areas separated by any number of barriers such as railroads and highway corridors. In most cases, these structures are built in response to user demand for safe crossings where they previously did not exist. Grade-separated crossings are advisable where existing bicycle/pedestrian crossings do not exist, where ADT exceeds 25,000 vehicles, and where 85th percentile speeds exceed 45 miles per hour. 14' min. 10' min. Center striping Discussion Safety is a major concern with undercrossings. Shared-use path users may be temporarily out of sight from public view and may have poor visibility themselves. To mitigate safety concerns, an undercrossing can be designed to be spacious, well-lit, equipped with emergency cell phones at each end, and completely visible for its entire length prior to entering. Additional References and Guidelines Materials and Maintenance AASHTO. (1999). Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. AASHTO. (2004). Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities. 14 foot width allows for access by maintenance vehicles. Potential problems include conflicts with utilities, drainage, flood control, and issues with vandalism. University of Utah | A-29 #12;Appendix A Path/Roadway Crossings Overcrossing Guidance Width: 8 feet minimum, 14 feet preferred. If overcrossing has any scenic vistas additional width should be provided to allow for stopping. A separate 5 foot pedestrian area may be provided for facilities with high bicycle and pedestrian use. Height: 10 feet headroom on overcrossing; clearance below will vary depending on feature being crossed. Roadway: 17 feet Freeway: 18.5 feet Heavy Rail Line: 23 feet Signage & Striping: The overcrossing should have a centerline stripe even if the rest of the path does not have one. Description Bicycle/pedestrian overcrossings provide critical nonmotorized system links by joining areas separated by any number of barriers such as deep canyons, waterways or major transportation corridors. In most cases, these structures are built in response to user demand for safe crossings where they previously did not exist. Grade-separated crossings may be needed where existing bicycle/pedestrian crossings do not exist, where ADT exceeds 25,000 vehicles, and where 85th percentile speeds exceed 45 miles per hour. Overcrossings require a minimum of 17 feet of vertical clearance to the roadway below versus a minimum elevation differential of around 12 feet for an undercrossing. This results in potentially greater elevation differences and much longer ramps for bicycles and pedestrians to negotiate. Path width of 14 feet preferred for shared bicycle and pedestrian overcrossings ADA generally limits ramp slopes to 1:20 Railing height of 42 " min. 17' min. Center striping Discussion Overcrossings for bicycles and pedestrians typically fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which strictly limits ramp slopes to 5% (1:20) with landings at 400 foot intervals, or 8.33% (1:12) with landings every 30 feet. Overcrossings pose potential concerns about visual impact and functional appeal, as well as space requirements necessary to meet ADA guidelines for slope. Additional References and Guidelines Materials and Maintenance AASHTO. (1999). Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. AASHTO. (2004). Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities. Potential issues with vandalism. University of Utah | A-30 Overcrossings can be more difficult to clear of snow than undercrossings. #12;The project Steering and Working Committees selected five projects to explore from the recommended projects in Chapter 6. These projects are presented in greater detail with conceptual graphics, additional discussion and other information that is intended to provide additional guidance if and when these projects are developed. The intent of the project Steering and Working Committees was to select projects that could serve an important role in the bikeway system that have some degree of complexity. The five projects selected for project sheets are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. North Campus Path #1 1500 East Connector Mario Capecchi Drive & Wasatch Drive North-South Bike Path - West End of Business Loop to Merrill Building HPER Mall Bisect - East End of Business Loop to Central Campus Drive #12;North Campus Drive is currently a significant barrier for bicyclists due to the steep grade, narrow travel lanes, high traffic speeds, poor sight distance, and poor shoulder areas. Some bicyclists use North Campus Drive in the downhill direction since it's possible to take a travel lane and keep up with vehicular traffic. There is currently no facility for bicyclists to traverse the northern side of campus. This is of particular importance for bicyclists who desire to reach the Health Sciences and Medical campuses from the Avenues, Federal Heights, and downtown. Looking west along North Campus Drive where the road turns to the North and West Side of North Campus Drive: Sections of a wide 8-foot sidewalk totaling approximately 0.3 miles exist along the north side of North Campus Drive between Penrose Drive and the Jewish Community Center access drive. The first phase of bicycle improvements proposes to extend this facility to the south with a new 12-foot-wide concrete shareduse path. Improvements to delineate intersections with cross streets are also included. For detailed recommendations for the minor road crossings, please see the shared-use pathway section of the Bikeway Design Guidelines in Appendix A. Penrose Drive & Federal Heights Drive Crossings It is possible that a signal will be installed at the Penrose/ Wasatch intersection in the future in conjunction with the Ambulatory Care Complex and other campus development in the area. If constructed, the signal should have provisions for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross North Campus Drive. The University, UDOT, and Salt Lake City would need to decide whether to allow through vehicle movements as well. south; grade and utilities may pose challenges Existing sidewalk just north of Penrose Drive Modifications could be made to the Federal Heights Drive intersection to allow bicyclists to turn left onto North Campus Drive. A vehicular "pork chop" island may be used to maintain vehicle restrictions while allowing bicycle access. A conceptual illustration of this scenario is provided on the following page. South and East side of North Campus Drive: The northern shared use path will make a critical connection for bicyclists and pedestrians trying to reach the Health Sciences Campus and the hospitals. However, it requires users already on campus to cross North Campus Drive twice to reach those destinations. In the long term, it is recommended that the University of Utah also pursue development of a shared-use pathway on the south side of North Campus Drive. Topography will be more challenging on this side of the roadway. Wherever possible, sections of this path should be worked into future campus development projects. North Side Path: $145,500; South Side Path: $250,200 Wasatch/Penrose Intersection A bicyclist travels against traffic on North Campus Drive #12;#12;One of the most frequently cited problems by students, faculty and staff is the discontinuity between the existing bicycle lanes on Guardsman Way and campus. This project represents a response to this problem via a short-term improvement. This project lies within University property with the exception of the short crossing of South Campus Drive. Improvements to existing shared-use path An 8-foot concrete walkway on the west side of Parking Lot 09 (southwest of the Guardsman/South Campus roundabout) connects to the Foothill Drive/Guardsman Way intersection. Many cyclists already use this walkway. The route should be formalized though the use of wayfinding signage and pavement markings. Concrete wheel stops should be installed in the parking spaces along the western edge of the parking lot to keep vehicles from encroaching into the path and becoming a hazard to cyclists and pedestrians. For bicyclists traveling from campus towards Guardsman Way, instructional signage should be provided about using the pedestrian signal to access the bike lanes along Guardsman. If heavy bicycle use is attracted, the University may wish to consider widening this pathway to 12 feet. 1500 East Shared Lane Markings After a short shared-use path section, bicyclists should be directed on-street to use approximately 800 feet of 1500 East as a low-speed shared lane bicycle route. This route should have consistent wayfinding signage directing bicyclists to major destinations such as the Marriott Library and Olpin Union building. Shared lane markings should be placed in the center of the travel lane at the far side of intersections and at intervals of no more than 150 feet. Bicyclists should be directed to enter the plaza in front of the library rather than continue through the parking kiosks. From the library, bicyclists can connect to other routes serving destinations within central campus. Testing should be conducted to ensure that the South Campus Drive1500 East signal detects bicyclists. Bicyclists crossing South Campus Drive along 1500 E should be detectable by the signal. Bicycle stencils over the loop detector should be installed. The curb ramp should be widened in front of the library $10,000 Wheel stops should be added to the parking lot Share lane markings should go down the middle of 1500 East #12;#12;This project concept provides a new connection for bicycles and shuttle buses between the Fort Douglas and mid-campus areas. Getting across Mario Capecchi Drive - especially north of South Campus Drive - is difficult for both bicycles and buses. This concept would tie a new 20-foot-wide roadway into the Wasatch Drive/Mario Capecchi Drive intersection. The design would allow shuttle vehicles to pass in the unlikely event that two would meet at this location, while keeping it narrow enough to potentially fit around the Legacy Bridge support structure. Currently, the Orange Shuttle Route serves the Wasatch Drive- Fort Douglas area. This connection would make the route more direct. Other shuttle routes could be reconfigured to take advantage of this connection as well. Looking east across Mario Capecchi Drive from Wasatch Drive Median and signal modifications would be necessary to allow through movements from Wasatch Drive. A new road southeast of the intersection would need to be constructed beneath the Legacy Bridge to connect to Fort Douglas. Allowing left turns from Wasatch Drive onto Mario Capecchi could be considered, but this would have a larger impact on signal performance. A full engineering study including traffic and signal analysis should be performed before devoting funding to further planning or design. The bike lanes should have dashed lane lines to allow shuttle vehicles to pass when necessary if there are no bicycles in the lane. Looking down at the intersection from the Legacy Bridge  Full engineering study needed, including assessment of possible impacts to Legacy Bridge structure  Traffic Impact Assessment needed  Coordination and cooperation with UDOT and UTA required  Significant earthwork and retaining walls are likely needed Unknown. Cost will depend on soil investigations, intersection modifications, and chosen alignment for shuttle/bike connector. Concept of 20-foot-wide bike and shuttle connection #12;#12;In 2008, the University experimented with designating part of this campus pathway for bicycles. The experiment consisted of yellow dashed center striping and bicycle symbols. This route is particularly strategic in that it is continuous across campus and is mostly flat. For these reasons, the route is well-used by bicyclists. Currently, there is low compliance with many bicyclists using the pedestrian side and pedestrians using the bicycle side. The University of Utah Bicycle Master Plan provides new design guidance for bike paths interfacing with pedestrian areas. This corridor is the perfect place to apply these concepts and test their effectiveness. The following additional visual cues and treatments should be implemented to provide continuity and improve clarity for bicyclists and pedestrians.      Existing configuration between Architecture and the C Roland Christensen Center Green colored pavement for first 20 feet after a pedestrian mixing area or crossing Bicycle and pedestrian guide signs at entrances to bike path Move bike path to east side of corridor between the Business Loop and library pedestrian plaza rather than down the middle. Delineate this section entirely in green. Provide bicycle wayfinding markings through mixing areas and across pedestrian plazas such as in front of the Marriott Library "SLOW" pavement stencils and "Yield" signage on the bike path at approaches to pedestrian areas Plaza in front of library should have bicycle wayfinding markings directing $95,000 bicyclists rather than a delineated pathway The existing split configuration of the bike and pedestrian portions of the corridor #12;#12;#12;This project was identified through the public involvement process and through discussions with the project Working and Steering Committees. Discussions withUniversity of Utah Facilities Management Departmentpersonnel and individual project managers indicate opportunities for improvements to be coordinated with existing and future development. The bike path should be established keeping with the same design detail afforded to the other bike paths proposed on campus with clear signage, green pavement for the first 20 feet beyond a pedestrian plaza or mixing area, and wayfinding markings and signs to help bicyclists navigate. From business loop to HPER Mall  Two options (upper or lower) o Upper option as either repurposing of exiting pathway, or widening to accommodate both bicyclists and pedestrians o Lower option as bicycle and pedestrian corridor on east side corridor. This option may provide a higher quality experience because more space is available  Integration with pedestrian plazas (bicycle wayfinding signage and markings) From HPER Mall to Central Campus Drive:  Use of existing bike path ramp to Parking Lot 24 or new facility in association with future HPER Mall shuttle connection  Route through Parking Lot 24  Bicycle path from Parking Lot 24 around the back of the Humanities Building to Central Campus Drive Looking north along the HPER West building - bike path could route through here or with new construction at the bottom of the slope Looking north within HPER Mall with new HPER Mall bike path on left $193,000 New HPER Mall bike path connects to Parking Lot 24 #12;Concept of options for the HPER Mall Bisect #12;An innovative component of the on-street bikeway analysis was the use of Alta Planning + Design's StreetPlan model. The StreetPlan model is a method of determining how an existing roadway cross-section can be modified to include bike lanes. Assuming acceptable minimum widths for each roadway element, the model analyzes a number of factors including strategies to retrofit bike lanes on each surveyed roadway segment. Factors used in this analysis include:  Current roadway width  Raised or painted median  Number and width of travel lanes  Presence and number of turn lanes and medians  Location and utilization of on-street parking In some cases, the retrofit is simple and only requires the addition of a bike lane in readily available roadway space. In other circumstances a retrofit may be more challenging and require the narrowing of a travel lane, the removal of on-street parking or a more detailed engineering study. This model is useful because it clearly illustrates locations where bike lanes can be completed easily and, conversely, where doing so would be challenging. Acceptable lane widths vary by functional classification. For example, 10-foot travel lanes may be acceptable for a local street, but higher speed arterials may require 11 feet for the minimum lane width. For the purposes of the model, acceptable minimum roadway dimensions were set at the values shown in Table C.1. These values were obtained from the respective agencies: Travel Lane Turn Lane Parking Lane 11 feet 11 feet N/A 10 feet 12 feet 7.5 feet 11 feet 11 feet 8.5 feet Many segments of the roadway network resulted in multiple potential strategies for accommodating bike lanes. The model layers these potential strategies based on the following hierarchy: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Bike lanes will fit with existing roadway configuration Reconfigure travel lanes and/or parking lanes Consider 4-to-3 lane road diet Remove redundant on-street parking and stripe bike lanes Remove a lane of on-street parking to accommodate bike lanes Bike lanes cannot be accommodated easily - engineering solution needed #12;Based on this order, the StreetPlan model uses the first strategy for a given segment of roadway and is given priority over succeeding strategies. Not all of the options were possible strategies for all segments, but on many segments multiple strategies could be used to implement bike lanes. In this option, enough surplus road space exists to simply add the bike lane stripes and stencils without an impact on the number of lanes or configuration of the roadway. This is by far the most desirable and easily implemented option available. Such segments represent the "low hanging fruit" of the recommended on-street bikeway network. In this option, bike lanes can be added by simply adjusting wide travel lanes or parking lanes within the established minimums presented above. No reduction to the number of travel or parking lanes is needed. In this option, a four-lane road section is "put on a diet" and reconfigured to include a single travel lane in each direction and a two way left turn lane. Three-lane road sections have operational and safety benefits for motorists by facilitating left turns and reducing rear-end crashes. Road diets are strong candidates for #12;roadways with traffic volumes below 20,000 vehicles per day. In some instances, road diets have been successful on roads with 23,000 vehicles per day. In this option, unnecessary on-street parking on one or both sides of the street is removed to create space for bike lanes. Acceptable situations for this scenario include collector or arterial roadways that pass by back fences of homes rather than the front sides, or areas that have large surface parking lots adjacent to existing on-street parking. In this option, on-street parking may be removed on one side of the road. This is a less desirable option and may only be considered as a last resort in short sections to maintain bike lane continuity. A full parking study should be conducted to determine if excess parking capacity exists before making changes to the roadway configuration. #12;Figure C.4 displays the output of the StreetPlan Model. This analysis represents only what is physically possible within the existing roadway dimensions and does not reflect the final recommendations provided in Chapter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Œ NK D DV #3;' U U ZN #3;: D\ HH Q #3;' ULY H $UDSHHQ#3;'U %O DF *XDUGVPDQ#3;:D\ ' LOO#3; #20;#22;#19;#19;#3;(DVW .R P RWK )R 6XQQ\VLGH#3; #20;#15;#19;#19;#19; Figure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ppendix D - Project Cost Estimates Bicycle Paths Recommended Short-Term Bicycle Paths Segment Improvement Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost 160 160 LF LF $ $ 25.08 103.74 475 0 LF LF $ $ 25.08 103.74 a. Signing and Striping b. Hardscape Improvements (Requires 75%) 175 131 LF LF $ $ 25.08 103.74 a. Signing and Striping b. No Hardscape Improvements Required 950 0 LF LF $ $ 25.08 103.74 a. Signing and Striping b. Hardscape Improvements 660 660 LF LF $ $ 25.08 103.74 a. Signing and Striping b. Hardscape Improvements (Requires 50%) 2,700 1,350 LF LF $ $ 25.08 103.74 a. Signing and Striping b. Hardscape Improvements 1,500 1,500 LF LF $ $ 25.08 103.74 a. Signing and Striping b. No Hardscape Improvements Required c. 600 ft Colored Bike Path (10 ft wide) 3,300 0 6,000 LF LF SF $ $ $ 25.08 103.74 2.00 715 0 LF LF $ $ 25.08 103.74 1,050 0 LF LF $ $ 25.08 103.74 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ a. Signing and Striping b. No Hardscape Improvements Required Connor/Fort Douglas a. Signing and Striping Connector b. Hardscape Improvements Heritage Center Path Heritage/Officers Connector Legacy Bridge Path Student Life Connector HPER Mall Path HPER Mall Bisect North-South Path 1500 East/Olpin Union a. Signing and Striping Connector b. No Hardscape Improvements Required Stadium Connector a. Signing and Striping b. No Hardscape Improvements Required University Facilities Department 4,013 16,598 20,612 11,915 11,915 4,390 13,616 18,006 23,830 23,830 16,555 68,468 85,024 67,727 140,049 207,776 37,626 155,610 193,236 82,777 12,000 94,777 17,935 17,935 26,338 26,338 University of Utah Bicycle Master Plan D-1 #12;Appendix D - Project Cost Estimates Bicycle Paths Recommended Medium-Term Bicycle Paths Segment Improvement Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Student Housing Path a. Signing and Striping b. Hardscape Improvements (Requires 70%) 1,270 889 LF LF $ $ 25.08 103.74 2000 East Extension a. Signing and Striping b. No Hardscape Improvements Required 1,270 0 LF LF $ $ 25.08 103.74 a. Signing and Striping b. Hardscape Improvements (Assume 75% is part of project cost of USTAR and Amb. Care) 2,670 668 LF LF $ $ 25.08 103.74 2,270 681 LF LF $ $ 25.08 103.74 820 0 LF LF $ $ 25.08 103.74 1,185 593 LF LF $ $ 25.08 103.74 Interdisciplinary Mall Lower Campus East- a. Signing and Striping West Path b. Hardscape Improvements (Requires 30%) Middle Campus East- a. Signing and Striping West Connector b. No Hardscape Improvements Required Stadium/President's Circle Connector a. Signing and Striping b. Hardscape Improvements (Assume 50% is part of bigger project cost) 31,857 92,225 124,081 31,857 31,857 66,974 69,246 136,221 56,941 70,647 127,587 20,569 20,569 29,724 61,466 91,190 Recommended Long-Term Bicycle Paths Segment Improvement Item Parking Lot North of a. Signing and Striping Fieldhouse b. Hardscape Improvements (Requires 70%) University Facilities Department Quantity Unit 500 350 LF LF Unit Price Item Cost $ $ $ $ $ 25.08 103.74 University of Utah Bicycle Master Plan 12,542 36,309 48,851 D-2 #12;Appendix D - Project Cost Estimates Bicycle Paths Cost Breakdown for a Bicycle Path Signing/Striping Linear Items Quantity Unit Unit Price 1. Linear Striping a. Left side white strip (4" solid) throughout the entire length ($/ft for Thermo Plastic striping) 1 LF $ 0.20 b. Right side white strip (4" solid) throughout the entire length ($/ft for Thermo Plastic striping) 1 LF $ 0.20 c. Middle yellow stripe (4" dashed) throughout the entire length ($/ft for Thermo Plastic striping) 1 LF $ 0.10 Total $/ft 2. Striping per Crossing a. Colored Pavement (20' long, 10' wide) x2 (One for each side of the crossing) 400 SF $ 2.00 b. Message Striping "SLOW" (4 Letters per each direction) Thermo Plastic 8 EA $ 175.00 c. Message Striping - Bicycle (one for each direction) Thermo Plastic 2 EA $ 175.00 d. Message Striping - Direction Arrow (one for each direction) Thermo Plastic 2 EA $ 200.00 e. Message Striping - Pedestrian Stencil (one for each side of the crossing) Painted 25.00 2 EA $ Lump Sum Total per Crossing Average Cost per Linear Foot (Assuming Crossing Is Every 300') 3. Mode Split Signs per Crossing (e.g. D11-2, D11-1a, M6-2, Custom) Placed in median between bicycle path and pedestrian path 8 EA $ 50.00 a. Generic Mode Split Sign (Assume two on the pedestrian side, two on the bicycle side, and on each side o b. Sign Posts (one for ped. Side, one for the bike side, and then duplicate for other side of crossing) 4 EA $ 150.00 c. Sign Post Bases (one for each post) 4 EA $ 150.00 Lump Sum Total per Crossing Average Cost per Linear Foot (Assuming Crossing Is Every 300') 4. Confirmation Signs per Crossing (e.g. D11-1a, and D11-2) Assumed to be part of Mode Split Signing a. Assumed to be included in the Mode Split Signing Lump Sum Total per Crossing Average Cost per Linear Foot (Assuming Crossing Is Every 300') 5. Warning Signs per Crossing (e.g. R1-2, R15-8, W7-5) a. Yield to Pedestrian Sign (one for each direction) 2 EA $ 85.00 b. "Look" Sign (attached to "YIELD" sign post) 2 EA $ 50.00 c. Sign Posts (one per each direction) 2 EA $ 150.00 d. Sign Post Base (one per each post) 2 EA $ 150.00 Lump Sum Total per Crossing Average Cost per Linear Foot (Assuming Crossing Is Every 300') Sub-Total Signing/Striping Cost Per LF Mobilization (3%) Per LF Contingency (30%) Per LF Total Signing/Striping Cost Per LF University Facilities Department Item Cost $ $ $ $ 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.50 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 800.00 1,400.00 350.00 400.00 50.00 3,000.00 10.00 $ $ $ $ $ 400.00 600.00 600.00 1,600.00 5.33 $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 170.00 100.00 300.00 300.00 870.00 2.90 18.73 0.56 5.79 25.08 University of Utah Bicycle Master Plan D-3 #12;Appendix D - Project Cost Estimates Bicycle Paths Hardscape Items Quantity 6. Grubbing Cost Per Linear Feet a. Assuming $0.20 per square feet, and a 20' wide corridor Unit Unit Price 1 LF $ 1 1 LF LF $ $ 1 1 LF LF $ $ $ $ 4.00 4.00 40.00 $ 24.00 $ $ 40.00 24.00 64.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 4.00 4.00 8.00 76.00 3.80 23.94 103.74 4.00 Total 7. Concrete Pavement Cost per Linear Feet a. Bike Pathway - Concrete Pavement (10' Wide, 6" thick pavement, 8" thickened edge, 6" base material - per b. Ped Pathway - Concrete Pavement (6' Wide, 6" thick pavement, 8" thickened edge, 6" base material - per U Total 9. Landscaped Median (Between Pedestrian and Bicycle Pathways) a. Grass Turf Median - Assumed $1.00 per square foot for a 4' wide strip b. Irrigation Installation - Assumed $1.00 per square foot for a 4' wide strip Total Sub-Total Signing/Striping Cost Per LF Mobilization (5%) Per LF Contingency (30%) Per LF Total Signing/Striping Cost Per LF Item Cost 4.00 4.00 Summary of Average Cost Per Linear Foot Signing and Striping Items - Cost per Linear Foot (Linear Items + Crossing Items) Hardscape Items (Cost per Linear Foot) University Facilities Department $ 25.08 $ 103.74 University of Utah Bicycle Master Plan D-4 #12;Appendix D - Project Cost Estimates Shared-Use Paths Recommended Short-Term Shared-Use Paths Segment Improvement Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Research Park Connector a. Signing and Striping b. Hardscape Improvements 980 980 LF LF $ $ 6.83 57.33 Foothill Dr. Path #1 a. Signing and Striping b. Hardscape Improvements 700 700 LF LF $ $ 6.83 57.33 4,100 2,050 LF LF $ $ 6.83 57.33 565 0 LF LF $ $ 6.83 57.33 1,075 0 LF LF $ $ 6.83 57.33 North Campus Path #1 a. Signing and Striping b. Hardscape Improvements (Requires 50%) 1500 East Connector a. Signing and Striping b. No Hardscape Improvements Required Foothill Dr. Path #2 a. Signing and Striping b. Hardscape Improvements 6,692 56,183 62,876 4,780 40,131 44,911 27,998 117,527 145,525 3,858 3,858 7,341 7,341 Recommended Medium-Term Shared-Use Paths Segment Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost Red-Butte Creek Trail - a. Signing and Striping Segment 1 b. Hardscape Improvements 1,600 1,600 LF LF $ $ 6.83 57.33 425 425 LF LF $ $ 6.83 57.33 Red-Butte Creek Trail - a. Signing and Striping Segment 3 b. Hardscape Improvements 1,250 1,250 LF LF $ $ 6.83 57.33 Red-Butte Creek Trail - a. Signing and Striping Segment 4 b. Hardscape Improvements 1,700 1,700 LF LF $ $ 6.83 57.33 a. Signing and Striping b. Hardscape Improvements 2,120 2,120 LF LF $ $ 6.83 57.33 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Red-Butte Creek Trail - a. Signing and Striping Segment 2 b. Hardscape Improvements Mario Capecchi Path Improvement Item Foothill Dr Path #3 (VA Connector) a. Signing and Striping b. No Hardscape Improvements Required 180 0 LF LF $ $ 6.83 57.33 Foothill Dr Path #4 (Option 1: ReConstruct) a. Signing and Striping b. No Hardscape Improvements Required 1,640 1,640 LF LF $ $ 6.83 57.33 Foothill Dr Path #4 a. Signing and Striping (Option 2: Re-Stripe b. No Hardscape Improvements Required Only) 1,640 0 LF LF $ $ 6.83 57.33 University Facilities Department 10,926 91,728 102,654 2,902 24,365 27,268 8,536 71,663 80,199 11,609 97,461 109,070 14,477 121,540 136,017 1,229 1,229 11,199 94,021 105,221 11,199 11,199 University of Utah Bicycle Master Plan D-5 #12;Appendix D - Project Cost Estimates Shared-Use Paths Recommended Long-Term Shared-Use Paths Segment Improvement Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost $ $ $ $ $ $ Foothill Dr. Path #5 a. Signing and Striping b. Hardscape Improvements 120 120 LF LF $ $ 6.83 57.33 North Campus Path #2 a. Signing and Striping b. Hardscape Improvements 3,900 3,900 LF LF $ $ 6.83 57.33 University Facilities Department 819 6,880 7,699 26,633 223,587 250,220 University of Utah Bicycle Master Plan D-6 #12;Appendix D - Project Cost Estimates Shared-Use Path Cost Breakdown for a Shared-Use Path Signing/Striping Items Quantity 1. Linear Striping a. Middle yellow stripe (4" dashed) throughout the entire length ($/ft for Thermo 1 Total $/ft 2. Message Striping a. Message Striping - Bicycle (one for each direction) Thermo Plastic 2 b. Message Striping - Direction Arrow (one for each direction) Thermo Plastic 2 Lump Sum Total per Placement Average Cost per Linear Foot (Assuming Placement Is Every 150') Sub-Total Signing/Striping Cost Per LF Mobilization (3%) Per LF Contingency (30%) Per LF Total Signing/Striping Cost Per LF Hardscape Items Quantity 3. Grubbing Cost Per Linear Feet a. Assuming $0.20 per square feet, and a 10' wide corridor Total 4. Concrete Pavement Cost per Linear Feet a. Bike Pathway - Concrete Pavement (10' Wide, 6" thick pavement, 8" thickened Total Sub-Total Signing/Striping Cost Per LF Mobilization (5%) Per LF Contingency (30%) Per LF Total Signing/Striping Cost Per LF Unit Unit Price LF $ EA EA $ $ Unit 0.10 $ $ LF $ 1 LF $ 0.10 0.10 175.00 $ 350.00 200.00 $ 400.00 $ 750.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.10 $ 0.15 $ 1.58 $ 6.83 Unit Price 1 Item Cost Item Cost 2.00 $ $ 2.00 2.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ 40.00 40.00 42.00 2.10 13.23 57.33 40.00 Summary of Average Cost Per Linear Foot Signing and Striping Items - Cost per Linear Foot Hardscape Items (Cost per Linear Foot) University Facilities Department $ $ 6.83 57.33 University of Utah Bicycle Master Plan D-7 #12;Appendix D - Project Cost Estimates Bicycle Lanes Proposed Short-Term Bicycle Lanes Segment Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost a. Signing and Striping b. Hardscape Improvements (Assume 70% is part of bigger project cost) 1,950 585 LF LF $ $ 7.14 53.24 1,080 0 LF LF $ $ 7.14 53.24 a. Signing and Striping b. No Hardscape Improvements Required 880 0 LF LF $ $ 7.14 53.24 Wasatch Dr. a. Signing and Striping b. No Hardscape Improvements Required 2,140 0 LF LF $ $ 7.14 53.24 Central Campus Dr. a. Signing and Striping b. No Hardscape Improvements Required 1,250 0 LF LF $ $ 7.14 53.24 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Hempstead Rd. a. Signing and Striping b. No Hardscape Improvements Required Fort Douglas Blvd. Mario Capecchi Dr. Improvement Item 13,926 31,142 45,068 7,713 7,713 6,284 6,284 15,282 15,282 8,927 8,927 Proposed Medium-Term Bicycle Lanes Segment Improvement Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Arapeen Dr. a. Signing and Striping b. Hardscape Improvements 2,935 2,935 LF LF $ $ 7.14 53.24 Chipeta Way a. Signing and Striping b. Hardscape Improvements 2,740 2,740 LF LF $ $ 7.14 53.24 Wakara Way a. Signing and Striping b. Hardscape Improvements 2,975 2,975 LF LF $ $ 7.14 53.24 South Campus Dr. (Option 1: ReConstruct) a. Signing and Striping b. Hardscape Improvements 2,940 2,975 LF LF $ $ 7.14 53.24 South Campus Dr. (Option 2: Re-Stripe Only) a. Signing and Striping b. Hardscape Improvements 2,940 0 LF LF $ $ 7.14 53.24 Guardsman Way (Option 1: ReConstruct) a. Signing and Striping b. Hardscape Improvements 450 450 LF LF $ $ 7.14 53.24 Guardsman Way (Option 2: Re-Stripe Only) a. Signing and Striping b. Hardscape Improvements 450 0 LF LF $ $ 7.14 53.24 University Facilities Department University of Utah Bicycle Master Plan 20,960 156,245 177,205 19,567 145,864 165,431 21,245 158,374 179,620 20,996 158,374 179,370 20,996 20,996 3,214 23,956 27,169 3,214 3,214 D-8 #12;Appendix D - Project Cost Estimates Bicycle Lanes Proposed Long-Term Bicycle Lanes Segment Improvement Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost 4,350 LF $ 7.14 $ 31,065 2,935 LF $ 53.24 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 156,245 187,310 31,065 31,065 9,998 9,998 31,208 232,637 263,845 Mario Capeccihi Dr (Option 1: ReConstruct) a. Signing and Striping b. Hardscape Improvements Mario Capeccihi Dr (Option 2: Re-Stripe Only) a. Signing and Striping b. Hardscape Improvements 4,350 0 LF LF $ $ 7.14 53.24 a. Signing and Striping b. Hardscape Improvements 1,400 0 LF LF $ $ 7.14 53.24 a. Signing and Striping North Campus Drive b. Hardscape Improvements 4,370 4,370 LF LF $ $ 7.14 53.24 100 South University Facilities Department University of Utah Bicycle Master Plan D-9 #12;Appendix D - Project Cost Estimates Biycle Lanes Cost Breakdown for a Bicycle Lane Signing/Striping Linear Items Quantity 1. Linear Striping a. Traffic side white strip (6" solid) throughout the entire length ($/ft for Thermo Plastic striping) b. Right side white strip (4" solid) throughout the entire length ($/ft for Thermo Plastic striping) Total $/ft 2. Message Striping a. Message Striping - Bicycle (one for each direction) Thermo Plastic b. Message Striping - Direction Arrow (one for each direction) Thermo Plastic Lump Sum Total per Placement Average Cost per Linear Foot (Assuming Placement Is Every 300') 3. Confirmation Signs a. "BIKE LANE" Sign. Assume one on each side of the street (R3-17) b. Sign Posts (one for each side) c. Sign Post Bases (one for each post) Lump Sum Total per Placement Average Cost per Linear Foot (Assuming Placement Is Every 300') Sub-Total Signing/Striping Cost Per LF Mobilization (3%) Per LF Contingency (30%) Per LF Total Signing/Striping Cost Per LF Unit Price 0.30 0.20 0.50 $ $ $ $ 350.00 400.00 750.00 2.50 50.00 $ 150.00 $ 150.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 100.00 300.00 300.00 700.00 2.33 5.33 0.16 1.65 7.14 LF LF $ $ 2 2 EA EA $ $ 175.00 200.00 2 2 2 EA EA EA $ $ $ Unit Unit Price LF $ 2.00 $ $ 2.00 2.00 1 LF $ 5.00 $ $ 5.00 5.00 1 LF $ 20.00 $ $ 20.00 20.00 1 LF $ 12.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ 12.00 12.00 39.00 1.95 12.29 53.24 Total 6. Asphalt Pavement a. Assume 5' Wide, 3" Thick, over 4" High Quality Road Base Total 7. Re-Pour Curb a. Assume curb with new road base Item Cost 1 Total 5. Demo Inside Curb (No Gutter is on the inside curb) a. Remove and Dispose of Curb and Gutter Item Cost 0.30 $ 0.20 $ $ 1 1 Hardscape Items for Lanes that Require Expansion of Roadway (Expansion is AssQuantity 4. Grubbing Cost Per Linear Feet a. Assuming $0.20 per square feet, and a 10' wide. Unit Total Sub-Total Signing/Striping Cost Per LF Mobilization (5%) Per LF Contingency (30%) Per LF Total Signing/Striping Cost Per LF Summary of Average Cost Per Linear Foot Signing and Striping Items - Cost per Linear Foot Hardscape Items (Cost per Linear Foot) $ 7.14 $ 53.24 University Facilities Department University of Utah Bicycle Master Plan D-10 #12;Appendix D - Project Cost Estimates Shared Lanes Recommended Short-Term Shared Lanes Segment Quantity Unit a. Signing and Striping 1,400 Chipeta Way/Connor a. Signing and Striping Rd. Wakara Way Pollock Rd.. Army Rd. Officers Circle Stover St. #1 Stover St. #2 2000 East #1 2000 East #2 Red Butte Canyon Rd. Fort Douglas Blvd. Northeast Parking Lot 2030 East VA Western Route VA Central VA Eastern Route South Campus Drive Guardsman Way Institute Loop Business Loop Improvement Item Unit Price Item Cost LF $ 4.91 $ 6,874 1,580 LF $ 4.91 $ 7,757 a. Signing and Striping 1,570 LF $ 4.91 $ 7,708 a. Signing and Striping 1,415 LF $ 4.91 $ 6,947 a. Signing and Striping 1,300 LF $ 4.91 $ 6,383 a. Signing and Striping 220 LF $ 4.91 $ 1,080 a. Signing and Striping 145 LF $ 4.91 $ 712 a. Signing and Striping 415 LF $ 4.91 $ 2,038 a. Signing and Striping 530 LF $ 4.91 $ 2,602 a. Signing and Striping 1,220 LF $ 4.91 $ 5,990 a. Signing and Striping 1,715 LF $ 4.91 $ 8,420 a. Signing and Striping 3,920 LF $ 4.91 $ 19,246 a. Signing and Striping 2,175 LF $ 4.91 $ 10,679 a. Signing and Striping 2,100 LF $ 4.91 $ 10,310 a. Signing and Striping 2,960 LF $ 4.91 $ 14,533 a. Signing and Striping 1,200 LF $ 4.91 $ 5,892 a. Signing and Striping 2,940 LF $ 4.91 $ 14,434 a. Signing and Striping 450 LF $ 4.91 $ 2,209 a. Signing and Striping 2,060 LF $ 4.91 $ 10,114 a. Signing and Striping 2,270 LF $ 4.91 $ 11,145 University Facilities Department University of Utah Bicycle Master Plan D-11 #12;Appendix D - Project Cost Estimates 1500 East Central Campus Dr. Wolcott Extension President's Circle Exploration Way Federal Way Fieldhouse/ Library Connector South Temple Research Rd Shared Lanes a. Signing and Striping 1,280 LF $ 4.91 $ 6,284 a. Signing and Striping 2,100 LF $ 4.91 $ 10,310 a. Signing and Striping 915 LF $ 4.91 $ 4,492 a. Signing and Striping 1,725 LF $ 4.91 $ 8,469 a. Signing and Striping 800 LF $ 4.91 $ 3,928 a. Signing and Striping 1,000 LF $ 4.91 $ 4,910 a. Signing and Striping 525 LF $ 4.91 $ 2,578 a. Signing and Striping 960 LF $ 4.91 $ 4,713 a. Signing and Striping 775 LF $ 4.91 $ 3,805 University Facilities Department University of Utah Bicycle Master Plan D-12 #12;Appendix D - Project Cost Estimates Shared Lanes Cost Breakdown for a Shared Lane Signing/Striping Linear Items Quantity 1. Message Striping a. Message Striping - Bicycle Shared Lane Marking (one for each direction Lump Sum Total per Placement Average Cost per Linear Foot (Assuming Placement Is Every 150') Sub-Total Signing/Striping Cost Per LF Mobilization (3%) Per LF Contingency (30%) Per LF Total Signing/Striping Cost Per LF 2 Unit Unit Price EA $ 275.00 Item Cost $ 550.00 $ 550.00 $ 3.67 $ 3.67 $ 0.11 $ 1.13 $ 4.91 Summary of Average Cost Per Linear Foot Signing and Striping Items - Cost per Linear Foot Hardscape Items (Cost per Linear Foot) University Facilities Department $ 4.91 None University of Utah Bicycle Master Plan D-13 #12;Appendix D - Project Cost Estimates Bicycle Lane/ Shared Lane Combinations Proposed Short-Term Bicycle Lane/Shared Lane Combinations Segment Medical Dr. Medical School Access Wasatch Dr. Improvement Item Quantity Unit a. Signing and Striping 2,090 a. Signing and Striping a. Signing and Striping University Facilities Department Unit Price Item Cost LF $ 7.25 $ 15,159 740 LF $ 7.25 $ 5,367 415 LF $ 7.25 $ 3,010 University of Utah Bicycle Master Plan D-14 #12;Appendix D - Project Cost Estimates Bicycle Lane/Shared Lane Combination Cost Breakdown for a Bike Lane/Shared Lane Combination Signing/Striping Linear Items Quantity 1. Linear Striping a. Bicycle Lane, traffic side white strip (6" solid) throughout the entire length ($/ft for Thermo Plastic striping) b. Bicycle Lane, right side white strip (4" solid) throughout the entire length ($/ft for Thermo Plastic striping) Total $/ft 2. Bicycle Lane Message Striping a. Message Striping - Bicycle (one for each placement) Thermo Plastic b. Message Striping - Direction Arrow (one for each placement) Thermo Plastic Lump Sum Total per Placement Average Cost per Linear Foot (Assuming Placement Is Every 300') 3. Shared Lane Message Striping a. Message Striping - Bicycle (one for each placement) Thermo Plastic b. Message Striping - Direction Arrow (one for each placement) Thermo Plastic Lump Sum Total per Placement Average Cost per Linear Foot (Assuming Placement Is Every 150') 4. Confirmation Signs (Bicycle Lane Side) a. "BIKE LANE" Sign. Assume one at each placement (R3-17) b. Sign Posts (one for each sign) c. Sign Post Bases (one for each post) Lump Sum Total per Placement Average Cost per Linear Foot (Assuming Placement Is Every 300') Sub-Total Signing/Striping Cost Per LF Mobilization (3%) Per LF Contingency (30%) Per LF Total Signing/Striping Cost Per LF Unit Unit Price Item Cost 1 1 LF LF $ $ 0.30 $ 0.20 $ $ 0.30 0.20 0.50 1 1 EA EA $ $ 175.00 $ 200.00 $ $ $ 175.00 200.00 375.00 1.25 1 1 EA EA $ $ 175.00 $ 200.00 $ $ $ 175.00 200.00 375.00 2.50 1 1 1 EA EA EA $ $ $ 50.00 $ 150.00 $ 150.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 50.00 150.00 150.00 350.00 1.17 5.42 0.16 1.67 7.25 Summary of Average Cost Per Linear Foot Signing and Striping Items - Cost per Linear Foot (Linear Items + Crossing Items) Hardscape Items (Cost per Linear Foot) University Facilities Department $ 7.25 None University of Utah Bicycle Master Plan D-15 #12;Appendix D - Project Cost Estimates Spot Treatments Proposed Short-Term Spot Treatments Treatment Improvement Item Quantity Unit a. Lump Sum Estimate 1 LS $10,000 $ 10,000 Intersection modification (Foothill/Wakara Way) a. Lump Sum Estimate 1 LS $50,000 $ 50,000 Intersection Modifications (Foothill Dr. Mario Capecchi Dr.) a. Lump Sum Estimate 1 LS $50,000 $ 50,000 Intersection Modifications (North Campus Dr./Penrose/Wasatch) a. Lump Sum Estimate 1 LS unknown Intersection Modifications (North Campus Dr.\Federal Heights Dr.)) a. Lump Sum Estimate 1 LS $150,000 $ 150,000 Foothill Share-Use Path Crossing modifications Unit Price Item Cost unknown Stop Bar Relocation (South campus Dr./LDS Institute Loop Rd) a. Green Stop Box 600 SF $2 $ 1,200 Stop Bar Relocation (South campus Dr./LDS Institute Loop Rd - South Bound Approach) a. Green Stop Box 600 SF $2 $ 1,200 Proposed Medium-Term Spot Treatments Treatment Improvement Item Red-Butte Path Crossing Legacy Bridge Ramp North Campus Crossing Modifications Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost a. Lump Sum Estimate 1 LS unknown unknown a. Lump Sum Estimate 1 LS unknown unknown a. Lump Sum Estimate 1 LS unknown unknown Proposed Long-Term Spot Treatments Treatment Wakara Way Grade Separation Red Butte Path Crossing Mario Capecchi Crossing Improvement Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost a. Lump Sum Estimate 1 LS unknown unknown a. Lump Sum Estimate 1 LS unknown unknown a. Lump Sum Estimate 1 LS unknown unknown Some items are unknown to to strong differences in design, construction, materials that could be implemented. University Facilities Department University of Utah Bicycle Master Plan D-16 #12;Appendix E ‐ Public Involvement Summary Table E.1: Summary of Public Comments Red indicates negative comment Green indicates positive comment Comment Total Email Cards 62 <‐‐ total in category 7 6 1 15 7 8 16 11 5 11 11 13 6 7 1 1 8 3 5 1 1 2 2 3 <‐‐ total in category 3 3 1 1 1 1 32 <‐‐ total in category 13 9 4 12 8 4 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 <‐‐ total in category 1 1 1 1 6 4 2 1 1 4 1 3 12 12 2 2 2 2 5 2 3 1 1 2 2 12 <‐‐ total in category 12 10 2 0 5 University Facilities Department Topic Accessibility Stairs Integration with City Bike Lanes Paths on Campus (Clearly Identified) Paths on Campus Connections Across Campus HPER Mall Railings Wayfinding Signs Wayfinding Signs Lack of bike lanes on major campus roads Culture Courtesy Biking Community Biking Community Safety Conflicts with Pedestrians Safe Routes to Campus Lighting Lighting No vehicles on pathways Flashing Crosswalk Signs Too much traffic Separate High speed/low speed riders Hard corners on path Vehicles/Obstructions on Bike paths Convenience Shower Facilities Weather Room on transit Elevation Lack of Racks Lots of Racks Shower Facilities Repair Facilities Covered Bike parking Bikes allowed on Transit Close to Residences Security Secured Bike Parking Secured Bike Parking University of Utah Bicycle Master Plan        E‐1         #12;Appendix E ‐ Public Involvement Summary Table E.2: Summary of Public Comments by Theme # of Respondents Themes Within Category 62 Accessibility 15 Issues with Stairs 16 Issues with Lack of Bike Paths 11 Thought Bike‐able Paths were plentiful 15 Integration with City Bike Lanes 13 Issues with Good Connections Across Campus From Lower Campus to Upper Campus From Central to Hospital, Research Park 8 Issues with Lack of Wayfinding Signs To identify where bike paths are/go, trouble areas 32 Safety 13 Conflicts with Pedestrians 12 Safe Routes to Campus Issues with Traffic, Intersection Design, Presence of Routes Foothill Dr, 1300 East, 400 South 18 Convenience 6 Need More Room on Transit Buses, TRAX, and even Shuttle Busses 12 Happy with Amount of Bike Racks Present 4 Issues with Lack of Racks South OSH, Stadium, JFB, North Union 5 Issues with Lack of Covered Racks 12 Security 12 Want more Secured Parking Allowed to bring bikes into offices, or lockers 5 Satisfied with Lockers here University Facilities Department University of Utah Bicycle Master Plan        E‐2