HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-01-15 Meeting PacketEdina Transportation Commission
Roll-Call Sign-in Sheet
January 15, 2009
Last Name IInite Signature
Bonneville Thomas i v,
Brown Steve
Jennifer
ag.,
ly
P
Janovy
Mooty ITi1l
Plante Warren
Sierks Julie
Usem Marc
140,7 ; Ili Ge ...ff
. 7
Wanninger Les . "--,-- --,
White Jean
Workin•er Geof if /
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF EDINA
DATE: January 13, 2009
TO: ETC Members
FROM: Jack Sullivan 5 t
SUBJECT: January 15, 2009 ETC Meeting
ETC Members,
As you can see by the agenda the meeting is dedicated to the Greater Cornelia Area/West
70th Street Study SAC recommendation. I have enclosed a revised draft of the report you
received back in October of 2008. You can see revisions by the "track changes" text on the
pages.
Please review the document and come prepared to discuss.
See you all at the January 15th ETC meeting.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Jack D. Sullivan, PE
Assistant City Engineer
City of Edina
Direct: 952.826.0445
jsullivan@ci.edina.mn.us
AGENDA
Regular Meeting of the
Edina Transportation Commission
6:00 PM, Thursday, January 15, 2009
Edina City Hall
4801 West 50th Street
Council Chambers
I. Call to Order
II. Comments
a. Chair Comments
b. Public Comments
III. Approval of Minutes
a. Regular Meeting of November 20, 2008 *+
IV. Old Business
a. No Old Business - December Meeting was Cancelled
V. New Business
a. Greater Cornelia Area/70th Street Traffic Study *+
VI. Planning Commission Update (Commissioner Brown)
VII. Bike Edina Task Force Update (Commissioner Janovy)
VIII. Adjournment
* Attachment included
+ Item requiring action by the ETC
# Item for information only
During "Public Hearings," the Chair will ask for public comment after City staff members make their presentations. If you wish to
speak on the topic, you are welcome to do so as long as your comments are relevant to the discussion. To ensure fairness to all
speakers and to allow the efficient conduct of a public hearing, speakers must observe the following guidelines:
• Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes or less. The Chair will modify presentation times, as deemed
necessary.
• Try not to repeat remarks or points of view made by prior speakers and limit comments to the matter under consideration.
• In order to maintain a comfortable environment for all those in attendance, the use of signs, clapping, cheering or booing or
any other form of verbal or nonverbal communication is not allowed.
During "Public Comments," the Chair will ask to hear from those in attendance who would like to speak about something not on the
agenda. Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes or less and cannot speak to an issue for which a public hearing
was previously held and closed or a matter scheduled for a future hearing. Individuals should not expect the [Board or Commission]
to respond to their comments. Instead, the [Board or Commission] might direct the matter to staff for consideration at a future
meeting.
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing
amplification, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
DRAFT REPORT
GREATER CORNELIA AREA/WEST 70TH STREET
TRAFFIC STUDY
Prepared for the City of Edina
Prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
OCTOBER 28, 2008
REVISED JANUARY 12, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
STUDY PROCESS 3
Study Purpose 3
Study Area 3
Study Advisory Committee 3
Public Involvement Process 4
Problem Statement 5
CURRENT TRAFFIC PROBLEMS AND ISSUES 7
Data Collection Plan 7
Study Analysis 8
Study Findings 8
STUDY ALTERNATIVES 9
Daily Traffic Volume Assessment 9
Design Elements 11
Concept Alternatives 11
Funding Options 15
Survey Results 15
ENGINEERING TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATION 17
SAC RECOMMENDATION 18
APPENDIX A: Study Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Open House and Public Hearing Comments
APPENDIX B: Study Figures
APPENDIX C: Base Alternatives — Segments and Intersections
Materials from SAC #5 — November 29, 2007
APPENDIX D: Combined Base Alternatives
Materials from Open House — January 23, 2008
APPENDIX E: West 70th Street/West and East End Options
Concept Comparison Matrix
August 22, 2008 Comment Card — Survey Results
APPENDIX F: Met Council Regional Model Exercise
Rubberized Pavement
State-Aid Rules
Signal Justification Memorandum
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Study Purpose
To address on-going complaints from residents regarding high traffic volumes and speeds on
West 70th Street and other residential streets in the area, along with access issues onto West 70th
Street from roadways, a traffic study for the Greater Cornelia/West 70th Street area was
conducted to evaluate traffic volumes, speeds and safety, address pedestrian/bicycle concerns,
identify potential solutions for the study corridor and provide recommendations that best fit the
community's needs.
Study Process
• Collect data, analyze and prioritize the issues
• Consider alternative solutions
• Public communication and input
o Several special ETC and SAC meetings
o Public open house
o Publish progress — City website, newsletters
o Public hearing and comment period on draft report as directed by Edina City Council
and ETC
• Recommendations to the Edina City Council
Study Findings
• Daily traffic volumes on West 70th Street have varied over time with changes in land use
and improvements in the broader transportation system — historically, daily volumes have
been higher than the current 13,600 vehicles per day
• By the year 2030, daily traffic volumes are anticipated to be 19,300 vehicles per day
• Hourly traffic volumes on West 70th Street do not follow the typical pattern of significant
peaks during the morning and evening rush hour, but rather show a consistently high
volume of traffic throughout the day
• A significant amount of West 70th Street traffic exceeds the 30 mph speed limit
(approximately 70 to 90 percent), and a significant amount of those exceed the speed
limit by more than 5 mph
• Motorists entering West 70th Street from side streets or driveways have difficulties
during peak travel times
• Traffic surveys indicate that approximately 25 percent of the West 70th Street traffic —
traveling south on Highway 100 then east to the Southdale, Galleria or Richfield areas —
could potentially be influenced to take another route if their travel time was shorter
Deleted: October 2008
Greater Cornelia Area/West 70th Street Traffic Study
1
,Updated January 12, 2009
Deleted:
A study recommendation will be
developed by the SAC. ETC and Edina
City Council and will be included once
finalized by all entities.11
Deleted: October 2008
• Since a four-lane roadway would not completely address side-street and driveway delays,
it is not being considered to accommodate the anticipated future traffic volumes on West
70th Street; two-lane and three-lane options can accommodate future traffic while
providing enough delay to influence drivers to take alternate routes.
Study Approach to Address Problems
To address the high volume and speeds traveling on West 70th Street, the following approach
was used to develop alternatives where broad public support could be achieved:
• Gain a thorough understanding of the issues and concerns through data collection and
analysis, as well as public input
• Consider public input throughout the process to inform area residents and business
owners about the study results, as well as determine the level of support for possible
solutions
• Develop solutions that would encourage through traffic to use other arterial routes and
discourage the use of West 70th Street
• Identify roadway improvements that provide a visual cue to motorists that they are
leaving a higher volume roadway (such as Highway 100 and France • Avenue) and
entering the Greater Cornelia/West 70th Street neighborhood
Study Recommendation
• Removal of free right on north bound Hwy 100 to east bound 70th Street
• Creation of a school speed zone around Cornelia Elementary School
• Installation of a "smart" signal system along the corridor: new traffic signal at West
Shore Drive, pedestrian crossing at Wooddale Avenue and modifications to the existing
signal at Cornelia Drive
• Parking to remain along corridor where applicable
• Left turn lanes at West Shore Drive, Wooddale Avenue and Cornelia Drive
• Install improved signage at the west end of the corridor to redirect motorists to use
alternate routes to access locations further east
• Pavement rehabilitation or reconstruction to qu oadway
• Enhance landscaping along the corridor
• Explore possibilities for offering turn arounds on private property
• Study a roundabout to replace the "T" intersection of 70th Street and Valley View Road
• Further evaluation of roundabouts at the intersection of 70th Street and Trunk Highway
100.
Greater Cornelia Area/West 70th Street Traffic Study Updated Januarv 12. 2009
Formatted: Font: Not Bold,
Underline
Formatted: Bullets and Numbei
The Study Recommendations for the Greater Cornelia Area/ West 70A' Street Traffic Study are as
follows. Formatted: Superscript
- Formatted: Font: Not Bold,
Underline
STUDY PROCESS
Study Purpose
In September 2006, a traffic study was initiated in response to long-term concerns from area
residents regarding high traffic volumes and speeds on West 70th Street and other residential
streets in the neighborhood. The main objective of the study was to evaluate traffic volumes and
speeds, address pedestrian/bicycle safety concerns, identify potential solutions for the study
corridor and provide recommendations that best fit the community's needs.
Study Area
The study area for the Greater Cornelia Area/West 70th Street Traffic Study is bounded by
Highway 100 to the west, France Avenue to the east, Highway 62 to the north and West 77th
Street/Fred Richards Golf Course to the south. The majority of the areas north and south of the
corridor include established residential neighborhoods. The public involvement process also
included neighborhoods west of Highway 100 and business/commercial areas at each end of the
corridor.
Study Advisory Committee (SAC)
To facilitate input and coordinate planning efforts, the City of Edina invited members of the
Edina Transportation Commission (ETC), adjacent Richfield neighborhood, adjacent business
and commercial areas, and agency stakeholders to participate on a Study Advisory Committee
(SAC). The SAC was challenged with identifying issues of concern, reviewing analysis results,
evaluating alternatives, and facilitating public input throughout the process. Members of the SAC
included:
• Neighborhood Representatives
• Christ Presbyterian Church and Cornelia Elementary School Representative
• Business Area Representatives
• Richfield Neighborhood Representative and City Staff
• Hennepin County and Mn/DOT Staff
• Edina Transportation Commission Members
• Planning Commission Member
• Edina City Staff
The role of each SAC member was to guide the study process and provide a recommendation to
the Edina City Council upon the study's completion. The ETC will make a final recommendation
to the Edina City Council after reviewing the draft report and SAC recommendation. The City
Council will make the final decision, following a public hearing. Summaries of the SAC
meetings can be found in Appendix A.
I Greater Cornelia Area/West 70th Street Traffic Study ,Updated January 12, 2009
3
.{ Deleted: October 2008
Public Involvement Process
Public participation and consensus building was considered central to developing solutions that
could be supported by diverse residents and stakeholders with potentially different interests and
values. The public involvement process began with an informational meeting (Open House #1)
on November 28, 2006. Based on the overwhelming attendance at this meeting, public hearings
were scheduled in January/February 2007 to allow area residents to provide additional comments
and concerns about the study area.
The remaining public involvement components, including the participation of the SAC are
described below:
• SAC #1 (April 12, 2007) — process overview, identifying, summarizing and prioritizing
the issues, and significance of the problem
• SAC #2 (May 17, 2007) — transportation education overview, concurrent related projects,
state-aid requirements and finances, City policies and rationale
• SAC #3 (August 9, 2007) — data collection, O-D survey results, study goals and
constraints, evaluation criteria and anticipated alternatives
• SAC #4 (September 27, 2007) — additional traffic speed data, future traffic projections,
potential alternative elements and sustainable options for future West 70th Street
• SAC #5 (November 29, 2007) — segment concept alternatives, intersection
improvements and potential cross-section and right-of-way dependent elements
• Open House #2 (January 23, 2008) — input on preliminary concepts
• Public Hearing (January 31, 2008) — comment publicly on preliminary concepts
• SAC #6 (July 28, 2008) — summary of all public input, information on issues frequently
raised, alternative concepts, discussion of pros and cons, review draft survey and public
comments
• Comment Card Mailing (August 22, 2008) — comment publicly on study options and
funding
• SAC #7 (November 6, 2008) — summary of survey results -eview draft reporc SAC
[Deleted:,
IDeleted: , and study recommendation asked staff and consultant to look at reducing traffic volumes by use of roundabouts.
• SAC #8 (January 12, 2009) — summary of roundabout alternative and creation of a SAC.- ------ { Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
recommendation.
• ETC January 15, 2009) — receive recommendation from SAC, review draft report, Coeieted: November 20,2008
consider public input to date, and expected to make a formal recommendation to the { Deleted: i Council { Deleted: all 3
• City Council/Public Hearing (Hearing date not set at this time) — consider all public { Deleted: December 2,2008 )
input and make final decision on the ETC recommendation
Open House and Public Hearing comments are also summarized in Appendix A.
Greater Cornelia Area/West 70th Street Traffic Study ,Updated January 12, 2009
4
.{ Deleted: October 2008
Problem Statement
During peak travel times, motorists on the side-streets and residential driveways are experiencing
difficulty entering the West 70th Street corridor. High levels of traffic and speeds on the study
corridor raise concerns regarding the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists and are not consistent
with the character of a residential street. There is a conflict between the residential character of
the roadway versus its role as a thoroughfare between Highway 100 and the greater Southdale
area. Specifically, the following issues have been identified as priority concerns:
Traffic Issues
• High speeds on West 70th Street with the perception that there is little to no police
enforcement of the speed limit
• High traffic volumes on West 70th Street
• Aggressive driving behavior includes passing on shoulders or in turn lanes, honking,
tailgating, failing to yield to pedestrians and running traffic signals
• Safety concern for pedestrians, bicyclists and school-aged children — unsafe and difficult
to cross West 70th Street
• Difficult to enter West 70th Street from side streets and driveways
• Perceived high truck traffic volume and associated noise on West 70th Street
• With no access to the west and south, West 70th Street is the major access for residents
south of the corridor
• Perception that much of the traffic on West 70th Street is "non-local"
• Need to define how much of the traffic using West 70th Street is local/residential traffic
versus cut-through/non-neighborhood traffic and what is considered "local" (West Edina
residents, West Edina workers who live in West Richfield etc.)
• Traffic noise and air pollution
• High speeds and cut-through traffic on neighborhood streets to the north and south are
due to difficulty in accessing West 70th Street, congestion at France Avenue and the
perception that neighborhood routes are faster
• Safety concerns with the traffic operations of the northbound Highway 100 off ramp,
Normandale Road and Christ Presbyterian Church
• Need to encourage motorists to use other routes, such as 1-494, Highway 62, France
Avenue and West 76th/77th Street
Neighborhood Issues
• Some residents are concerned that future redevelopment in the Southdale area will
continue to increase traffic volumes on West 70th Street and affect its residential
character
• Some residents believe redevelopment (high rise buildings, hotels, condos) is a higher
priority than the adverse traffic impacts on existing neighborhoods
Greater Cornelia Area/West 70th Street Traffic Study ,Updated Januan) 12, 2009
5
• There is the tension between the need for east-west travel on West 70th Street as a
through route versus its character as residential street
• Some residents believe we need to eliminate the State Aid designation of West 70th
Street in order to lower the speed limit, restrict trucks and eliminate the possibility of a
four-lane expansion
• Some residents do not trust City officials (City Council, Planning Commission, ETC,
City staff)
• Some residents believe there is a hidden agenda and predetermined plan for West 70th
Street
• There is a concern with the selection of SAC members — lack of residents on the
committee
• Some residents believe any expansion of West 70th Street is to support commercial
growth
• Some residents believe study is narrowly focused and needs to be expanded
• Some residents want to actively participate, not just provide input
• Some residents are concerned with a decrease in home value due to traffic issues and the
potential of West 70th Street being expanded
I Greater Cornelia Area/West 70th Street Traffic Study ,Updated Jan uarv 12, 2009
6
.{ Deleted: Odober 2008
CURRENT TRAFFIC PROBLEMS AND ISSUES
The study included a thorough data collection plan to clearly identify current traffic and safety
problems in the West 70th Street/Cornelia Area. A comprehensive understanding of the issues
was critical to building credibility with stakeholders and developing solutions that adequately
address study area needs.
Data Collection Plan
With direction from City staff, the following data collection plan was developed and
implemented:
• Historical traffic volumes: Historical daily traffic volumes were compiled for West 70th
Street, West 66th Street and West 77th Street to determine traffic growth patterns on
study area roadways.
It is important to note that daily traffic volumes documented over the years represent a
"snapshot" in time when the data was collected. In addition, historical volumes could also
vary due to the change of the traffic counting equipment at the time.
• Roadway traffic volumes: Roadway tubes (May/July 2005) were placed at each end of
the West 70th Street corridor to determine weekday, weekend and hourly traffic volumes
and peak travel time patterns. Additional roadway tubes (September/November 2006)
were placed on 20 neighborhood streets in the study area to determine weekday traffic
volumes.
• Speed data: Roadway tubes also collected information regarding vehicle speeds, which
were compared to posted speeds for residential streets in the study area.
• Peak hour turning movement counts at key intersections: Turning movement counts
(September 2006) were conducted at key intersections during the morning and evening
peak hours to evaluate the intersection operations and average delay currently
experienced by drivers at these intersections.
• Origin-Destination (0-D) surveys: O-D surveys were conducted on May 16, 2007.
A station was set up on West 70th Street in the eastbound right-turn lane at Arneson
Acres Park to conduct O-D surveys between 4:45 p.m. to 5:45 p.m. The survey results
determined the amount of "through" traffic currently traveling on West 70th Street during
the evening peak hour in the eastbound direction.
An additional station was set up in the office development parking lot in the southwest
quadrant of Highway 100 and Metro Boulevard to determine employee travel patterns
from their place of employment between 4:00 p.m. to 4:45 p.m.
Deleted: October 2008
I Greater Cornelia Area/West 70th Street Traffic Study ,Updated January 12. 2009
7
Study Analysis
A thorough analysis was conducted to identify the magnitude of the current traffic problems and
to address the following questions:
• What are the current traffic volumes on West 70th Street and other residential streets in
the study area?
• How have traffic volumes on West 70th Street grown over the years?
• What are the hourly travel patterns along West 70th Street during a weekday and
weekend?
• What percent of the evening peak hour traffic is traveling through the study area using
West 70th Street?
• Are speeds along West 70th Street higher than the posted speed limit?
• Are other residential streets in the study area experiencing higher speeds than the posted
speed limit?
• How are key intersections currently operating?
Study Findings
The data collection task and analysis of current conditions is summarized below and in the
attached Figures 1 — 12 in Appendix B.
• Daily traffic volumes on West 70th Street have varied over time with changes in land use
and improvements in the broader transportation system — historically, daily volumes have
been higher than the current 13,600 vehicles per day.
• Hourly traffic volumes on West 70th Street do not follow the typical pattern of significant
peaks during the morning and evening rush hour, but rather show a consistently high
volume of traffic throughout the day.
• A significant amount of West 70th Street traffic exceeds the 30 mph speed limit
(approximately 70 to 90 percent), and a significant amount of those exceed the speed
limit by more than 5 mph.
• Motorists entering West 70th Street from side streets or driveways have difficulties
during peak travel times.
• Traffic surveys indicate that approximately 25 percent of the West 70th Street traffic —
those moving south on Highway 100 then east to the Southdale, Galleria or Richfield
areas — could potentially be influenced to take another route if their travel time was
shorter.
Deleted: October 2008
I Greater Cornelia Area/West 70th Street Traffic Study ,Updated January 12, 2009 ,
8
STUDY ALTERNATIVES
Given the study findings, the SAC identified the following evaluation criteria that would address
the study goals and be used in the alternatives analysis to determine feasible solutions to the
problem (no order of preference):
• Ability of alternative to carry anticipated traffic volumes and/or redirect traffic volumes
to other appropriate roadways with excess capacity
• Level of service at key intersection(s)
• Travel time estimates
• Ability of alternative to promote reasonable speeds
• Ability of alternative to address traffic flow and/or geometric concerns creating
problematic conditions
• Ability of alternative to inform motorists of change of character at West 70th Street
• Number and location of controlled pedestrian crossings
• Ability to provide a trail/sidewalk along West 70th Street in accordance with appropriate
standards
• Ability of alternative to provide sufficient gaps to allow backing onto West 70th Street
from adjoining driveways
• Ability of alternative to provide reasonable levels of delay at side-street intersections
• Number and location of access/egress points from the neighborhood to collector or
arterial streets
• Concept level cost estimate/time for implementation
• Amount of right-of-way required
• Approvals needed to implement the alternative and anticipated success in securing
approvals
Daily Traffic Volume Assessment
Based on public input, it was important that potential solutions reduce the number of vehicles
traveling on West 70th Street today and in the future. With the assessment of daily traffic
volumes, there were three main areas of discussion:
Actual Data Collected:
• Roadway tube counts identified a 2005 daily traffic volume of 13,600 vehicles per day on
West 70th Street west of West Shore Drive. This is a documented AADT volume shown
on Mn/DOT's 2005 Municipal State Aid Street System Traffic Volume map for the City
of Edina.
Deleted: October 2008
Greater Cornelia Area/West 70th Street Traffic Study Updated Januao, 12, 2009
9
• O-D survey results identified 28 percent of the eastbound traffic between 4:45 p.m. and
5:45 p.m. was local traffic. The eastbound total traffic volume collected during the
evening peak hour in September 2006 was approximately 900 vehicles. Therefore, it is
reasonable to conclude that approximately 250 vehicles were local traffic. However, this
percentage only applies to one direction of travel (eastbound) during one hour of the day
(evening peak hour) and it cannot be applied to the total daily traffic volume.
The O-D survey results indicate that a high volume of motorists are traveling through the
study area using West 70th Street. The O-D survey was only conducted for the evening
peak hour in the eastbound direction. Unless survey results are available for other hours
of the day in both directions, it is a difficult task to calculate how many motorists could
be diverted to other alternate routes by implementing potential solutions. In general,
motorists have to experience a negative experience along West 70th Street (heavy
congestion and delays) before diverting to another route. At that point, the motorist's
experience on the alternative route needs to be positive (less congestion and delay), in
order for the motorists to stay on that route.
Metropolitan Council Regional Model Exercise
• The 2005 regional model was used to estimate how much traffic from the neighborhoods
to the north and south could be using West 70th Street on a daily basis. A summary of
this exercise is included in Appendix F.
• In the 2005 regional model, 1,090 households are assigned to West 70th Street. For single
family residential units, the average trip generation rate identified in the 2003 Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Reports is approximately 10 trips per
day. This source indicates that each trip represents one direction of travel. Therefore,
leaving the house to go to the grocery store and back requires you to travel on a segment
of West 70th Street twice, which equals two trips.
• Based on the above information, the homes north and south of West 70th Street could
generate 10,900 trips per day on West 70th Street. It is important to note that this is only
an exercise to estimate how much traffic is assigned to West 70th Street from a modeling
perspective. It is not a calculation indicating that 10,900 trips of the 13,900 vehicles
(actual data) is local traffic. The number of local trips generated could be slightly less or
more. However, it is not reasonable to assume that each house only generates two trips
per day, or 2,800 trips on West 70th Street. In addition, this exercise does not include
daily trips for the church and school, which should also be considered local traffic using
West 70th Street.
Deleted: October 2008
I Greater Cornelia Area/West 70th Street Traffic Study ppdated Jai:way 12, 2009
10
Future Traffic Volumes
• As part of the City's Comprehensive Plan update (2008), traffic forecasts for year 2030
were estimated for the study segment of West 70th Street using the Metropolitan
Council's regional model. Based on future land use plans within the City of Edina and
surrounding communities and capacity constraints on other major transportation facilities
(such as 1-494 and Highway 100), the 2030 daily traffic volume along West 70th Street
east of Highway 100 is estimated at 19,300 vehicles per day. This forecast traffic volume
was determined using an extensive modeling process under a separate study. Further
documentation is included in the City's Draft Transportation Plan (Chapter 7). Forecast
traffic volumes for other study area roadways are shown in Figure 13 in Appendix B.
Design Elements
Prior to the development of study alternatives, the following design elements were analyzed:
• Roadway capacity section (two-lane section, three-lane section and four-lane section)
• Intersection design and traffic control (side-street stop control, all-way stop control,
traffic signals and roundabouts)
Based on an operations analysis using future traffic projections for West 70th Street, a four-lane
roadway would not completely address side-street and driveway delays along the corridor.
Therefore, it was decided that a four-lane section would not be considered to accommodate
future traffic volumes on West 70th Street. The development of study alternatives only
considered two-lane and three-lane design sections.
Results of the operations analysis also identified which intersection traffic control measures
could continue to be included in the development of concept alternatives. The installation of all-
way stop control at intersections along the study segment of West 70th Street would create
significant delays and queues for mainline traffic during the morning and evening peak hours.
These queues extending from the all-way stop controlled intersections would increase the
difficulty of motorists entering the West 70th Street corridor from other side streets and
driveways during peak hour conditions. Therefore, all-way stop controlled intersections were
eliminated from consideration. Side-street stop control, traffic signals and roundabouts were
feasible intersection traffic control measures to consider during the development of concept
'alternatives.
Concept Alternatives
Due to the diverse interests amongst the SAC members, City staff, and the community at large,
the development of study alternatives involved a lengthy process to reach a point where a
compromised alternative could achieve broad support. The development of study alternatives
involved the following three separate phases:
Deleted: October 2008
I Greater Cornelia Area/West 70th Street Traffic Study ppdated January 12. 2009
11
Phase 1 — development of base alternatives focusing individually on segments and intersections
Phase 2 — development of combined base alternatives focusing on a comprehensive solution for
the corridor and its end points
Phase 3 — development of four final options taking into account all public input
Phase 1 — Base Alternatives
With input from SAC members, base alternatives focusing on the West 70th Street segment were
identified for further analysis:
• Arneson Parkway Alternative — A two-lane roadway with the construction of
roundabouts at Cornelia Drive and West Shore Drive and a continuous center median
• Traffic Signal Alternative — A three-lane roadway with the current traffic signal at
Cornelia Drive and a new traffic signal at West Shore Drive
• Combined Traffic Signal/Roundabout Alternative — A two-lane roadway with the
current traffic signal at Cornelia Drive and a roundabout at West Shore Drive
In addition to the segment itself, public input identified the need to develop solutions that inform
motorists at both ends of the corridor that the character of West 70th Street is changing to a
residential street. In addition, an important study goal was to redirect traffic from West 70th
Street to more appropriate roadways with excess capacity. Therefore, improvements to provide a
better connection of West 70th Street to Valley View Road were developed for the east end.
Long-term improvements to the France Avenue intersection and the Highway100/Normandale
Road/Frontage Road area (taking into account the church access) were also developed.
It is important to note that these were base alternatives to provide a place to start in the analysis
of the corridor as a whole and the intersections at both ends. Concepts of the base alternatives
are included in Appendix C.
Phase 2 — Combined Base Alternatives
The combined base alternatives included improvements along the segment corridor and at each
end of the corridor. These alternatives were prepared for the January 2008 open house, to gain
community feedback. Concepts of the combined based alternatives are included in Appendix D
and are summarized below:
• Roundabout Alternative — A two-lane roadway with the construction of roundabouts
at the intersections of Highway 100, West Shore Drive, Cornelia Drive and Valley
View Road and a continuous center median.
• Traffic Signal Alternative with Roundabouts — A three-lane roadway with the current
traffic signal at Cornelia Drive, a new traffic signal at West Shore Drive and
roundabouts at Highway 100 and Valley View Road.
I Greater Cornelia Area/West 70th Street Traffic Study ,Updated January 12, 2009
12
Deleted: October 2008
• Traffic Signal Alternative with a Roundabout and Direct Connection — A three-lane
roadway with the current traffic signal at Cornelia Drive, a new traffic signal at West
Shore Drive, a roundabout at Highway 100 and a direct connection at Valley View
Road.
• Combined Traffic Signal/Roundabout Alternative — A two-lane roadway with the
current traffic signal at Cornelia Drive and roundabouts at Highway 100, West Shore
Drive and Valley View Road.
In order to better understand how these alternatives would impact the existing curb-to-curb and
right-of-way width along the corridor segment, cross-sections were developed and also presented
at the open house. With information provided by the West 70th Street Homeowner's
Association, a cross-section representing the Arneson Parkway concept was also developed.
These cross-sections are also provided in Appendix D.
Phase 3 — Final Study Options
As a result of the open house and public hearings, four options for the central part of the corridor
and one option for each end of the corridor were developed and included in a comment card, in
order to receive public feedback. A detailed comparison of the final study options was
conducted, addressing issues such as through traffic diversion, traffic speed reduction, access to
the corridor, pedestrian/bicycle safety, and on-street parking. Concepts of the final study options
and the comparison matrix are included in Appendix E and are summarized below:
Option 1 — Arneson Parkway
This is the option presented by the West 70th Street Homeowner's Association. The corridor
design includes two 10-foot driving lanes separated by a one-foot wide rumble strip,
multipurpose vehicle lanes (for bikes and small electric/motorized vehicles) on both sides, a
parking lane on one side, pushbutton pedestrian crossings at Cornelia Drive, West Shore Drive
and Wooddale Avenue, an added traffic signal at West Shore Drive and new noise reducing
asphalt pavement. Left-turn lanes at West Shore Drive, Wooddale Avenue and Cornelia Drive
will be removed. Road sensors would be installed to trigger extended left-turn lights.
Planning level daily capacity is 8,000 to 10,000 vehicles per day.
Overall project cost is approximately $850,000.
A memorandum from City staff related to rubberized pavement is included in Appendix F.
Option 2— Modified Arneson Parkway
This corridor design includes two 11-foot driving lanes, "bike only" lanes on both sides, a
parking lane on one side, pushbutton pedestrian crossings at Cornelia Drive, West Shore Drive
and Wooddale Avenue, an added traffic signal at West Shore Drive and new asphalt pavement.
Designated left-turn lanes at the intersections of West Shore Drive, Wooddale Avenue and
Cornelia Drive will remain.
Planning level daily capacity is 14,000 to 18,000 vehicles per day.
Overall project cost is approximately $1,106,000.
I Greater Cornelia Area/West 70th Street Traffic Study ,Updated January 12, 2009
Deleted: October 2008
13
Although there are several differences between Options 1 and 2, the main difference is the
elimination of left-turn lanes in Option 1. The lack of left-turn lanes at key intersections creates a
safety concern with left-turn, rear-end and side-swipe crashes. Transportation research has
identified numerous studies documenting the effectiveness of left-turn lanes in increasing
intersection safety. A source used by Mn/DOT's Highway Safety Improvement Program, a
program that federally funds roadway projects designed to decrease the frequency and/or severity
of crashes, is the Kentucky Transportation Center — Development of Accident Reduction Factors.
According to this source, there is a 45 percent reduction for left-turn crashes and 25 percent
reduction for all other crashes at an intersection, when left-turn lanes are installed.
Option 3— Three-Lane Option
This corridor design includes two 14-foot driving lanes in each direction with a continuous
center turn lane. This option does not include any on-street parking or bike/multipurpose vehicle
lanes. This design also include new smoother pavement.
Planning level daily capacity is 14,000 to 18,000 vehicles per day.
Overall project cost is approximately $975,000.
Option 4— Current Roadway Design (As Is)
This corridor design does not change from what is currently in place. However, future
construction would include some type of an asphalt overlay to reduce the wheel noise.
Planning level daily capacity is 14,000 to 18,000 vehicles per day.
Overall project cost is approximately $775,000.
West End Option
The westerly end of the corridor encompasses the intersection of Highway 100, Normandale
Road, the north frontage road and the Christ Presbyterian Church access. One option is to leave
as is. Another option would be to incorporate two roundabouts, one on each side of Highway
100. The roundabouts are being proposed in this option to address the operational problems
experienced in the Highway 100/Normandale Road/frontage road area, including the church
access. The proposed roundabout east of Highway 100 will also improve the movement from
West 70th Street to the north frontage road. These roundabouts would also reduce travel speeds
and provide a visual cue of entering the neighborhood from the west end.
Additional project cost is $1,000,000.
East End Option
The easterly end of the corridor encompasses both the Valley View Road and France Avenue
intersection. The France Avenue intersection is proposed to remain the same. However, there is
an option of a roundabout at Valley View Road. The roundabout is being proposed in this option
to reduce travel speeds and provide a visual cue of entering the neighborhood from the west end.
Additional project cost is $800,000.
Greater Cornelia Area/West 70th Street Traffic Study
14
Updated January 12. 2009
Deleted: Odober 2008
Funding Options
West 70th Street is currently a designated Municipal State Aid (MSA) roadway. Twenty percent
of local municipality roadways are typically dedicated as MSA roadways. This means that
funding for MSA roadways are derived from the State Gas Tax. This money is then distributed
through Mn/DOT. In order to acquire this money for roadway projects, the municipality must
abide by the rules put in place by the State Legislators. The City Council has established a local
funding policy in the City of Edina for MSA roadways. This policy includes a special assessment
of twenty percent of the roadway cost to the adjacent properties; the other 80 percent is funded
through MSA monies. The potential funding options for West 70th Street improvements could
be:
• 80 percent with MSA funds and 20 percent with special assessments to adjacent
property owners
• Increase property taxes to the entire City to fund a specific roadway project
• Special assessments to a specific area/neighborhood
Some of the options do not meet current State rules and therefore would not be eligible for MSA
funding. However, variances are possible for some of the options and would need to be applied
for once an option is chosen. Approval of variances is not guaranteed. Options 1 and 2 would
require a variance for the proposed roadway improvements and new traffic signal. Option 3
would require a variance for a new traffic signal. Information in response to questions raised
during the study process and a signal justification memorandum is included in Appendix F.
Survey Results
On August 22, 2008, a comment card was sent out to more than 1,332 residents. We received
685 responses, almost a 51 percent response rate, which is exceptionally high. A breakdown of
comment cards mailed back to the City is summarized below:
• Residents on West 70th Street —48 out 65 returned (75 percent responded)
9 Residents north of West 70th Street — 289 out of 581 returned (50 percent responded)
• Residents south of West 70th Street —343 out of 681 returned (50 percent responded)
• Five miscellaneous responses through the website
Based on the review of all comment card responses, the following issues were identified:
• Traffic volumes and vehicle speeds on West 70th Street should be reduced
• Reducing vehicle volumes and speeds along the corridor are equally important
• Safety of pedestrians and access to West 70th Street from side streets and driveways
is jeopardized with the current state of the roadway
• On-street parking is not needed on both sides of the street
Deleted: October 2008
I Greater Cornelia Area/West 70th Street Traffic Study ,Updated January 12, 2009 _,--
15
• Each side is equally important for on-street parking
• Current designated pedestrian crosswalks should be upgraded
• Designated bicycle lanes should be incorporated along the roadway
• The City has sent effective communications regarding the West 70th Street/Cornelia
Area Traffic Study
• There is minimal support for Option 3 — Three-lane Option
• There is minimal support for Option 4— Current Roadway Design
• Options 1 — Arneson Parkway and 2 — Modified Arneson Parkway are clearly the
preferred options and the support is split fairly even between the two.
• Improved signing to alternative routes should be considered at the west end
• There is minimal support for roundabouts at the west end
• No improvements are necessary for the east end
• There is minimal support for eliminating MSA funding from any future projects on
West 70th Street
• There is minimal support for higher property taxes or special assessments to
implement one of the roadway options
The comment card survey results are included in Appendix E.
I Greater Cornelia Area/West 70th Street Traffic Study ppdated January 12. 2009 ,
16
.(-Deleted: October 2008
ENGINEERING TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATION
I Based on the data collected, study findings, comment cards and survey ,results; an engineering Deleted: results,
technical recommendation was developed. Despite the fact that the two options are essentially
equally supported by the public, they are significantly different in design and function. City staff
and the consultant recommend the Modified Arneson Parkway option based on the following
reasons:
• According to the basics of intersection design, the efficiency, safety, speed and capacity
of a roadway depend on the design of its intersections. If the intersections are not
properly designed and begin to break down from an operations and safety standpoint, the
roadway as a whole operates poorly and becomes unsafe.
• The lack of exclusive left-turn lanes at key intersections along West 70th Street creates
the potential for an increase in left-turn, rear-end and side-swipe crashes. Studies have
shown the effectiveness of left-turn lanes in increasing intersection safety, with a 45
percent reduction in left-turn crashes and 25 percent reduction for all other crashes, when
left-turn lanes are installed.
• As a basic design principle, left-turn lanes will provide added safety and efficiency at
both unsignalized (Wooddale Avenue) and signalized (Cornelia Drive and West Shore
Drive) intersections along West 70th Street. Left-turn lanes will improve the safety and
operation of these intersections by providing space for deceleration and storage of
vehicles wanting to make a left turn.
• Left-turn lanes will also facilitate the movement of through traffic along West 70th Street
with less friction at key intersections along the roadway. The lack of left-turn lanes and
reduced capacity at key intersections will increase peak hour congestion and mainline
queues along West 70th Street. If motorists experience long queues and heavy delays on
West 70th Street during the peak hours, there may be a noticeable increase in cut-through
traffic on neighborhood streets north and south of the corridor.
I Greater Cornelia Area/West 70th Street Traffic Study ,Updated January 12, 2009
17
Deleted: October 2008
SAC RECOMMENDATION
The SAC recommended a phased ipplementation _approach foc the proposed roadway,
intersections and traffic control improvements„
,Phase I
Phase I includes items 1 thru 9 in the above recommendation and would require the following
approvals:
• Approval of a Signal Justification Report by Mn/DOT State Aid for removal of the free.‘
right on north bound Hwy 100 to east bound 70th Street.
• Approval of a 15-mph school speed zone on West 70th Street adjacent to the Cornelia
Elementary School
• Approval of an Signal Justification Report by Mn/DOT State Aid for a new traffic signal
at West Shore Drive,
• pocumentation of acceptable levels of service with 20-year traffic volumes on a two-lane
roadway to Mn/DOT State Aid
Deleted: (draft recommendation to be )
discussed at the November 6,2008 F
meeting)g
-I Deleted: its
Deleted: November 6, 2008
Deleted: the SAC reviewed the survey
results and all comment cards received,
regarding the four options for the central
part of the corridor and one option for
each end of the corridor. Based on the
survey results and their discussion,
Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... + Start
at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at:
0.33" + Tab after: 0.58" + Indent
at: 0.58"
fFormatted: Superscript
Formatted: Superscript
Deleted: adopted the following
recommendation to the Edina City
Council upon the study's completion:I
<One roadway, intersection and traffic
control improvements identified in the
Modified Arneson Parkway option should
be implemented
<fi>The City of Edina should continue to
work with Mn/DOT to eliminate the
northbound Highway 100 off-ramp fire
right-turn lane to eastbound West 70th
&reef
<#>The City of Edina should install
improved signage at the west end of the
corridor to redirect motorists to the
frontage road north of West 70th StreetS
<#>The City of Edina should continue to
coordinate with Cornelia Elemental),
School and Arneson Acres Park
representatives to improve
pedestrian/bicycle safety in the areas
<ti>The City of Edina should continue to
work with Mn/DOT to establish a 15-
mph school speed zone adjacent to
Cornelia Elementary Schools
<fl>The City of Edina should coin(
r Deleted: in the Modified Arneson
Parkway option will require the following
approvals:
‘‘,1 Formatted: Underline
fFormatted r21)
t Deleted: 11
A• t thetfinal meeting on January 8, 2009, ,the SAC recommended the following components be
incorporated in to the study findings in an effort to lower speeds, reduce traffic volumes and
increase safety along the corridor:
1. Removal of free right on north bound Hwy 100 to east bound 70,th Street
2. Creation of a school speed zone around Cornelia Elementary School ,
3. Installation of a "smart" signal system along the corridor; new traffic signal at West
Shore Drive, pedestrian crossing at Wooddale Avenue and modifications to the existing
signal at Cornelia Drive
4. Parking to remain along corridor where applicable
5. Left turn lanes at West Shore Drive, Wooddale Avenue and Cornelia Drive
6. Install improved signage at the west end of the corridor to redirect motorists to use
alternate routes to access locations further east
7. Pavement rehabilitation or reconstruction to quite roadway
8. Enhance landscaping along the corridor
9. Explore possibilities for offering turn arounds on private property
10. Study a roundabout to replace the "T" intersection of 70,th Street and Valley View Road /
11. Further evaluation of roundabouts at the intersection of 70th Street and Trunk Highway
100. .
Implementation
Deleted: I
1, Deleted: of
Deleted: <#>Approval of a variance by
Mn/DOT State Aid for the proposed 8-
foot parldng lane widthl —131
t Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25" )
.1-Deleted: October 2008
Greater Cornelia Area/West 70th Street Traffic Study ,Updated January 12. 2009
18
Phase II and III will be to evaluate items 10 and 11 in the above recommendation and determine
feasibility of achieving study goals and constructabilitv. Tthe roundabouts would require
approval of Mn/DOT Intersection Control Evaluation Reports.
Deleted: <#>Approval of a No Parking
resolution on the north side of the
corridorl
Preliminary cost estimates developed for
the Modified Arneson Parkway option is
approximately $1,106,000.1
11 Column Break
Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left:
0.25"
Phase II and III Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Greater Cornelia Area/West 70th Street Traffic Study Updated January 12, 2009 ---".
19
I Deleted: October 2008
Federal Highway Administration
University Course on Bicycle and
Pedestrian Transportation
Lesson 15: Bicycle Lanes
July 2006
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
5E1N
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS
Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
in
ft
yd
mi
in
ft2
yd2
ac mi2
fl oz
gal
ft3
yd3
oz
lb
T
°F
fc
fl
lbf
lbf/in2
LENGTH
inches 25.4 millimeters
feet 0.305 meters
yards 0.914 meters
miles 1.61 kilometers
AREA
square inches 645.2 square millimeters
square feet 0.093 square meters
square yard 0.836 square meters
acres 0.405 hectares
square miles 2.59 square kilometers
VOLUME
fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters
gallons 3.785 liters
cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters
cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters
NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3
MASS
ounces 28.35 grams
pounds 0.454 kilograms
short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton")
TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)
Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius
or (F-32)/1.8
ILLUMINATION
foot-candles 10.76 lux
foot-Lamberts 3.426 - candela/m2
FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS •
poundforce 4.45 newtons
poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals
mm
m
m
km
mm2
m2
m2
ha
km2
mL
L
m3
m3
g
kg
Mg (or "r)
°C
lx
cd/m2
N
kPa
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS
Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
mm
m
m
km
mm2
m2
m2
ha
km2
mL
L
m3
rn3
9
kg
Mg (or "t")
°c
lx
cd/m2
N
kPa
LENGTH
millimeters 0.039 inches
meters 3.28 feet
meters 1.09 yards
kilometers 0.621 miles
AREA .
square millimeters 0.0016 square inches
square meters 10.764 square feet
square meters 1.195 square yards
hectares 2.47 acres
square kilometers 0.386 square miles
VOLUME
milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces
liters 0.264 gallons
cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet
cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards
MASS
grams 0.035 ounces
kilograms 2.202 pounds
megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb)
TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)
Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit
ILLUMINATION
lux 0.0929 foot-candles
candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts
FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS
newtons 0.225 poundforce
kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch
in
ft
yd
mi
in2 ft2
yd2
ac mi2
fl oz
gal
ft3
ycl3
oz
lb
T
°F
fc
fl
lbf
lbf/in2
*SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380.
(Revised March 2003)
Table of Contents
15.1 Introduction 1
15.2 Width Standards and Cross-Section Design 1
15.3 Retrofitting Bicycle Lanes on Existing Streets 3
15.4 Bicycle Lanes at Intersections and Interchanges 10
15.5 Bicycle Lane Pavement Markings 18
15.6 Bicycle Lane Signing 19
15.7 Other Design Considerations 21
15.8 Practices to Avoid 24
15.9 Student Exercise 26
15.10 References and Additional Resources 27
List of Figures
Figure 15-1. Illustrations. Typical bike lane cross sections 2
Figure 15-2. Illustration. Retrofitting bike lanes by reducing travel lane widths 4
Figure 15-3. Illustration. Reducing the number of travel lanes on a one-way street. 5
Figure 15-4. Illustration. Road diet: retrofitting bike lanes by reducing the number of
travel lanes. 6
Figure 15-5. Illustration. Narrowing parking on a one-way street. 7
Figure 15-6. Illustration. Parking removed on one side of a two-way street. 7
Figure 15-7. Illustration. Changing from diagonal to parallel parking on a two-way street. 8
Figure 15-8. Illustration. Providing parking when there are no reasonable alternatives. 8
Figure 15-9. Illustration. Restriping for a wide curb lane 9
Figure 15-10. Illustration. Typical pavement markings for bike lane on two-way street 11
Figure 15-11. Illustrations. Possible configurations for bike lane and right-turn lane. 12
Figure 15-12. Illustrations. Design alternatives for a through bike lane with dual
right-turn lanes 13
Figure 15-13. Illustration. Right-turn lane shared by bicyclists and motorists 14
Figure 15-14. Illustrations. Different loop detector configurations for traffic signals. 15
Figure 15-15. Illustration. Example of bicycle detector pavement marking. 15
Figure 15-16. Illustration. Bike lane configuration at entrance ramp (urban design—not for
limited access freeways). 17
Figure 15-17. Illustration. Bike lane configuration at exit ramp (urban design—not for
limited access freeways). 18
Figure 15-18. Illustrations. Examples of optional word and symbol pavement markings for
bike lanes. 19
Figure 15-19. Illustrations. Regulatory signs for bicycle facilities 20
Figure 15-20. Photo. Example of blue bike lane in Portland, OR 21
Figure 15-21. Photo. Contraflow bike lane with bicycle-specific signal in Madison, WI. 23
Figure 15-22. Illustration. Use of wide stripe to separate bike lane from diagonal parking. 24
Figure 15-23. Illustration. A wrong-way bicyclist in a two-way bike lane is not in a
driver's field of vision 25
Figure 15-24. Illustration. Reconfiguration of a continuous right-turn lane to be
bicycle-friendly 26
11
LESSON 15:
BICYCLE LANES
15.1 Introduction
The 1999 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) publication,
Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (hereafter referred to as the AASHTO Guide), defines a
bicycle or bike lane as "a portion of a roadway which has been designated by striping, signing, and
pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists."(I) The public agency and
community support for bike lanes as a reasonable accommodation of bicyclists has been growing in many
American cities. Although some cities such as Davis, CA, have several decades of experience, many
American cities are still developing innovative ways to design bike lanes into complex roadway and
traffic environments. A number of best design practices have emerged and are included in the 1999
AASHTO Guide or in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).(2) This lesson includes
the design standards from AASHTO as well as additional design guidelines that other cities or States have
developed. This lesson also summarizes other innovative bike lane designs and concepts (some are
borrowed from Europe—see lesson 23) that are still being tested and evaluated.
The major sections of this lesson are as follows:
• 15.1 Introduction.
• 15.2 Width Standards and Cross-Section Design.
• 15.3 Retrofitting Bicycle Lanes on Existing Streets.
• 15.4 Bicycle Lanes at Intersections and Interchanges.
• 15.5 Bicycle Lane Pavement Markings.
• 15.6 Bicycle Lane Signing.
• 15.7 Other Design Considerations.
• 15.8 Practices to Avoid.
• 15.9 Student Exercise.
• 15.10 References and Additional Resources.
This lesson on bicycle lanes has been derived from several sources, including the 1999 AASHTO Guide,
the 1995 Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, and the Philadelphia Bicycle Facility Design
Guidelines.(1'3'4)
15.2 Width Standards and Cross-Section Design
Bicycle lanes serve the needs of all types of cyclists in urban and suburban areas by providing them with
a dedicated travel lane within the street space. The minimum width of a bike lane will vary based on the
roadway cross section (see figure 15-1). For roadways with no curb and gutter, the minimum width of a
bike lane should be 1.2 meters (m) (4 feet (ft)). If parking is permitted, the bike lane should be placed
between the parking area and the travel lane, and have a minimum width of 1.5 m (5 ft). Where parking
is permitted but a parking stripe or stalls are not utilized, the shared area should be a minimum of 3.3 m
(11 ft) without a curb face and 3.5 m (12 ft) adjacent to a curb.
(1) On-Street Parking
Parking stalls or optional 100-mm (4-inch) solid stri e*
150-mm (6-inch) solid white stri e*
Bike Parking
lane
Parking
Motor vehicle lanes
150-mm (6-inch) solid white stri e Rolled (mountable)
curb
Motor vehicle lanes
Vertical curb
*The optional solid stripe may be advisable where stalls are unnecessary (because parking is light) but
there is concern that motorist may misconstrue the bike lane to be a traffic lane.
(2) Parking Permitted without
Parking Stripe or Stall
3.6 m (12 ft) min.* 3.3m (11 ft) min.* •
• 3.9 m (13 ft) is recommended where there is a substantial parking or turnover of parked cars is
high (e.g., Commercial areas).
(3) Parking Prohibited
150-mm (6-inch)
solid white stripe
Motor vehicle lanes
(4) Typical Roadway in Outlying
Areas Parking Protected
Rumble
strips* 150-mm (6-inch)
-080, z solid white stripe
1.2 m
(4 ft)
min.
Bike
lane
Motor vehicle lanes 1.2 m
(4 ft)
min.
Bike
Lane
If rumble strips exist there should be 1.2 m (4 ft) minimum from the rumble strips to the outside
edge of the shoulder.
Figure 15-1. Illustrations. Typical bike lane cross sections.
Source: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officia1s(1)
0.9 m
(3 ft)
min.
1.5 m
(5 ft)
min.
Bike
lane
1.2m
(4 ft)
min.
Bike
lane
2
The recommended width of a bike lane is 1.5 m (5 ft) from the face of a curb or guardrail to the bike lane
stripe. This 1.5-m (5-ft) width should be sufficient in cases where a 0.3-0.6 m (1-2 ft) gutter pan exists,
given that a minimum of 0.9 m (3 ft) of ridable surface is provided and the longitudinal joint between the
gutter pan and the pavement surface is smooth. If the joint is not smooth, 1.2 m (4 ft) of ridable surface
should be provided.
Since bicyclists usually tend to ride a distance of 0.8-1.0 m (32-40 inches) from the curb face, it is very
important that the pavement surface in this zone be smooth and free of structures. Drain inlets and utility
covers that extend into this area cause bicyclists to swerve, resulting in a reduction of usable lane width.
Where these structures exist and the surface cannot be made smooth, the bike lane width should be
adjusted accordingly. Regular maintenance is critical for bike lanes (see lesson 16).
Bicycle lanes are always located on both sides of the road on two-way streets. Since bicyclists must
periodically merge with motor vehicle traffic, bike lanes should not be separated from other motor vehicle
lanes by curbs, parking lanes, or other obstructions. Two-way bike lanes on one side of two-way streets
create hazardous conditions for bicyclists and are not recommended. The problems associated with two-
way bike lanes are discussed in more detail in section 15.8.
On one-way streets, bicycle lanes should be installed on the right-hand side, unless conflicts can be
greatly reduced by installing the lane on the left-hand side. Left-side bicycle lanes on one-way streets may
also be considered where there are frequent bus or trolley stops, unusually high numbers of right-turning
motor vehicles, or if there is a significant number of left-turning bicyclists.
15.3 Retrofitting Bicycle Lanes on Existing Streets
While bike lanes may be desirable in many urban locations, designers face the reality that space is limited
on most urban streets. Unless plans call for a roadway widening project, the extra width for bike lanes is
often very difficult to find in retrofit situations. In central business districts, roadway widening for bike
lanes is usually not a desired option, since it could cause problems for pedestrians by further reducing
sidewalk space. This section discusses possible options to consider when retrofitting bicycle lanes into
limited space on existing streets.
Where existing street width does not permit desirable roadway cross-section dimensions to be used, it
may be possible to modify elements of the roadway to accommodate bike lanes. In their guidelines, the
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) considers these options:(3)
O Reduction of travel lane width.
o Reduction of the number of travel lanes.
O Removal, narrowing, or reconfiguration of parking.
O Other design options.
ODOT uses the guidelines in this section to determine how a roadway can be modified to accommodate
bike lanes without significantly affecting the safety or operation of the roadway. The reduced travel lane
widths are within AASHTO minimums. ODOT stresses the importance of using good engineering
judgment when retrofitting bike lanes on existing streets.
3
Reduction of Travel Lane Widths
The need for full-width travel lanes decreases with speed (see figure 15-2):
• Up to 40 kilometers per hour (km/h) (25 miles per hour (mi/h)), travel lanes may be reduced to
3.0 or 3.2 m (10.0 or 10.5 ft).
• From 50 to 65 km/h (30 to 40 mi/h), 3.3-m (11-ft) travel lanes and 3.6-m (12-ft) center turn lanes
may be acceptable.
• At 70 km/h (45 mi/h) or greater, try to maintain a 3.6-m (1241) outside travel lane and 4.2-m
(14-ft) center turn lane if there are high truck volumes.
20.4 m (68 ft)
Figure 15-2. Illustration. Retrofitting bike lanes by reducing travel lane widths.
Source: Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan(3)
Reduction of the Number of Travel Lanes
Many one-way street pairs were originally two-way streets. This can result in an excessive number of
travel lanes in one direction. A traffic capacity study will determine if traffic can be handled with one less
lane (see figure 15-3).
4
BEFORE
AFTER
-4
3.6m 1.8m
(12 ft) (6 ft)
13.2m (44 ft)
3.6 m
(12 ft)
4.2 m
(14 ft)
Figure 15-3. Illustration. Reducing the number of travel lanes on a one-way street.
Source: Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan(3)
On two-way streets with four travel lanes and a significant number of left-turn movements, restriping for
a center turn lane, two travel lanes, and two bike lanes can often improve traffic flow (see figure 15-4).
This type of street reconfiguration is referred to as a road diet and is considered to be effective at calming
traffic and providing space for bicyclists while still providing a reasonable vehicle level of service.
Burden and Lagerway summarize the street and location criteria that can be used to identify potential
candidates for road diets:(5)
• Moderate volumes (8,000-15,000 average daily traffic (ADT)).
• Roads with safety issues.
• Transit corridors.
• Popular or essential bicycle routes/links
• Commercial reinvestment areas.
• Economic enterprise zones.
• Historic streets.
• Scenic roads.
• Entertainment districts.
• Main streets.
5
BEFORE
AFTER 9
4
1.8m 3.6m
(6 ft) (12 ft)
4 3.6 m
(12 ft)
• 3.6m 1.8 m
(12 ft) (6 ft)
Figure 15-4. Illustration. Road diet: retrofitting bike lanes by reducing the number of travel lanes.
Source: Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan(3)
Removal, Narrowing or Reconfiguration of Parking
A roadway's primary function is to move people and goods rather than to store stationary vehicles. When
parking is removed, safety and capacity are generally improved. Removal of parking will require
negotiations with the local governing body (such as the city council), affected business owners, and
residents. To reduce potential conflicts, careful research is needed before making a proposal, including:
6 Counting the number of businesses and residences and the availability of both on-street and off-
street parking.
o Selecting which side of the roadway would be less affected by removal (usually the side with
fewer residences or businesses, or the side with residences rather than businesses in a mixed-use
neighborhood).
• Proposing alternatives such as:
o Allowing parking for church or school activities on adjacent lots during services or special
events.
o Promoting shared use by businesses.
o Constructing special parking spaces for residents or businesses with no other options.
Instead of removal of all on-street parking, several other options can be pursued. Parking can be narrowed
to 2.1 m (7 ft) (see figure 15-5), particularly in areas with low truck parking volumes.
Bicycle lanes next to on-street parking can be problematic if enough space is not provided to prevent
bicyclists from riding into an opened door. The AASHTO Guide recommends a combined width of 3.9 m
(13 ft) for combined width of parking and bike lanes (see figure 15-1).
6
AFTER
BEFORE
13.2m (44 ft)
ParkinQ 4 3,
2.4 m
(8 ft)
Parking at 0 4 0 4 2.1 m 1.5m
(7 ft) (5 ft)
4
3.6 m
(12 ft)
3.6 m
(12 ft)
BEFORE
Parking
3.0 m
(10 ft)
Parking
3.0 m
(10 ft)
AFTER
1.8m 3.6m
(6 ft) (12 ft)
3.6m 1.8m
(12 ft) (6 ft)
13.2m (44 ft)
Figure 15-5. Illustration. Narrowing parking on a one-way street.
Source: Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan(3)
In some cases, parking may be needed on only one side to accommodate residences and/or businesses
(see figure 15-6). Note that it is not always necessary to retain parking on the same side of the road
through an entire corridor.
Figure 15-6. Illustration. Parking removed on one side of a two-way street.
Source: Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan(3)
Diagonal parking takes up an inordinate amount of roadway width relative to the number of parking
spaces provided. It can also be hazardous, as drivers backing out cannot see oncoming traffic. Changing
to parallel parking reduces availability by less than one-half (see figure 15-7). On one-way streets,
changing to parallel parking on one side only is sufficient; this reduces parking by less than one-fourth.
7
AFTER
BEFORE
Diagonal
Parking )
4.2 m
(14 ft)
Diagonal
Parking
4.2 m
(14 ft)
'Parking
2.4m 1.8m
(8 ft) (6 ft)
3.6 m
(12 ft)
3.6 m
(12 ft)
). 1.8 m
(6 ft)
,plarking„
2.4m
(8 ft)
15.6 m (52 ft)
Figure 15-7. Illustration. Changing from diagonal to parallel parking on a two-way street.
Source: Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan(3)
Most business owners cite the fear of losing potential customers as the main reason to retain on-street
parking. Many cities have had success with ordinances prohibiting employees from parking on the street.
This could help increase the number of available parking spaces for customers, even if the total number of
parking spaces is reduced. Note that one parking place occupied by an employee for 8 hours is the
equivalent of 16 customers parking for half an hour, or 32 customers parking for 15 minutes.
Where all of the above possibilities of replacing parking with bike lanes have been pursued, and
residential or business parking losses cannot be sustained, innovative ideas should be considered to
provide parking, such as off-street parking. Other uses of the right-of-way should also be considered, such
as using a portion of a planting strip where available (see figure 15-8).
BEFORE
AFTER
Figure 15-8. Illustration. Providing parking when there are no reasonable alternatives.
Source: Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan(3)
Other Design Options
Not all existing roadway conditions will be as simple to retrofit as those listed previously. In many
instances, unique and creative solutions will have to be found. Width restrictions may only permit a wide
8
curb lane (4.2-4.8 m (14-16 ft)) to accommodate bicycles and motor vehicles (see figure 15-9). Bike
lanes must resume where the restriction ends. It is important that every effort be made to ensure bike lane
continuity. Practices such as directing bicyclists onto sidewalks or other streets for short distances should
be avoided, as they may introduce unsafe conditions.
BEFORE
AFTER
Figure 15-9. Illustration. Restriping for a wide curb lane.
Source: Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan(3)
Other minor improvements at the outer edge of the roadway should be made in conjunction with bike lane
restriping, including:
• Existing drainage grates, and manhole and utility covers should be raised flush to the pavement
prior to striping a bike lane.
• Minor widening may be required to obtain adequate width.
• Removal or relocation of obstructions away from the edge of the roadway may gain some usable
width. Obstructions can include guardrails, utility poles, and sign posts.
Additional Benefits from Retrofitting Bike Lanes
Safety is enhanced as travel lanes are offset from curbs, lanes are better defined, and parking is removed
or reduced. Adding bike lanes can often improve sight distance and increase turning radii at intersections
and driveways. Restriping travel lanes redistributes motor vehicle traffic, which can help extend the
pavement life, as traffic is no longer driving in the same well-worn ruts.
Salem, OR, Case Study
A paper by Chuck Fisher contains information about how the city of Salem, OR, approached the retrofit
of bicycle lanes in their city.(6) The first step in the retrofitting process was identifying which streets
would make the best connections for bicyclists. In Salem, there is a lack of connectivity between the outer
areas' bicycle facilities and the downtown core. Particularly lacking are connecting bicycle lanes within
3 km (2 mi) of downtown, the area most likely served by increased levels of bicycling. Salem city staff
recognized that retrofitting these older neighborhoods with bike lanes and removing all on-street parking
would probably have created a political firestorm. As a result, the staff developed policies and
methodologies that allowed for the mitigation of on-street parking demand.
9
Policy Language. The relevant policy language is contained within the Goal, Objective, and Policies of
the Salem Transportation System Plan's Bicycle System Element:
Policy 1.2—Mitigation of On-Street Parking Loss Due to Future Bicycle Facility
Projects. Where new bicycle facilities require the removal of on-street parking spaces on
existing roadways, parking facilities shall be provided that mitigate, at a minimum, the
existing on-street parking demand lost to the bike project. This policy does not apply to
street widening or major reconstruction projects.
The key phrase in the policy is the mitigation of parking demand, not supply. As part of the update of the
plan, the staff developed criteria for ranking potential bike projects. Working with this list, the staff
determined which projects were to be included for the next construction season. First and foremost, the
staff surveys the existing on-street parking demand on the facility. Other data collection includes existing
cross sections and on-street parking supply. Analysis activities included sketching cross-section design,
locating alternative on-street parking locations, and developing initial project cost estimates.
Public Involvement. At this point, the staff began a public involvement process that included
neighborhood meetings, letters to abutting property owners, public workshops to determine alternatives,
on-street sign notification, Citizens Advisory Traffic Commission meetings, and final approval by the
City Council.
Some of the alternatives presented by the staff at the meeting workshops included restriping the road to
accommodate parking on one side instead of two. Neighbors were asked to help determine on which side
of the street parking should remain, given that only half of the parking supply would be required to meet
the demand. A variation on this would be to alternate the parking from side to side. For instance, if a six-
block area required parking on one side, a solution might be to allow parking on one side for three blocks
and then changing to the other side for three blocks.
Another alternative would be to build parking bays, especially if only a small amount of parking
mitigation would be required. Similar to bus bays or pull-outs, these would add the necessary room to
accommodate parking in what had been the planting strip, between the curb and sidewalk.
15.4 Bicycle Lanes at Intersections and Interchanges
At intersections and interchanges, bicyclists proceeding straight through and motorists making turns must
cross paths. Lane striping and signing configurations that encourage crossings and merging in advance of
the intersection are preferable to those that force a crossing or merging in the immediate vicinity of the
intersection. The following paragraphs within this section provide guidance on bike lane design issues at
intersections and interchanges.
Intersections with Right-Turn Lanes
The AASHTO Guide provides supplemental information about the design of bike lanes at intersections
with right-turn lanes)' ) Figure 15-10 illustrates typical bike lane design and pavement markings at a
variety of intersection approaches. There are several possible approaches for bike lane design where these
right-turn lanes are present (see figure 15-11). The most desirable configuration will depend on the local
road cross section and turning vehicle traffic patterns.
10
tr.1 rirr !I ir
--- 15-60 m (50-200 ft)
dotted line -
0.6 m (2 ft) dot,
1.8 m (6 ft) space Typical application where parking prohibited Typical application where parking permitted 150-mm (6-inch)
solid line
15-60 m (50-200 ft)
dotted line if bus stop or heavy
right-turn volume
150-mm (6-inch)
solid line
Optional 100-mm
(4-inch) solid line
R3-17
AIL R7 series sign
(as appropriate)
Sign ali zed in ter sectio
Fag
Dotted line line for bus stops
immediately beyond the
intersection is optional;
otherwise use 150-mm
(6-inch) solid line
R3-17 AIL R7 series sign
(as appropriate)
Figure 15-10. Illustration. Typical pavement markings for bike lane on two-way street.
Source: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (1)
11
.D. 1
510141 LANE
uuSI
110511 RICHT
R4-4 at beginn ng of
right-turn lane
R3-7R R3-7R
DUI 11:11 511 TO
TRIO 111111
R4-4 at beginn ng of
right-turn lane
RUT ONE
MUST
TIM 115147
JR-
• R3-7R R3-8
W11-1 and W16-1
(Optional)
D. Optional right/straight and right-turn-only lane
I I
C. Right-turn-only lane
R4-4 at beginn ng of
right-turn lane
A. Right-turn-only lane B. Parking lane into right-turn-only lane
Note: The dotted lines in cases "A" and "B" are optional (see case "C")
Figure 15-11. Illustrations. Possible configurations for bike lane and right-turn lane.
Source: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials(1)
Dual right-turn lanes are particularly difficult for bicyclists. Warrants for dual turn lanes should be used to
ensure that such lanes are provided only if absolutely necessary. The design for single right-turn lanes
allows bicyclists and motorists to cross paths in a predictable manner, but the addition of a through lane
12
from which cars may also turn adds complexity. Some drivers make a last minute decision to turn right
from the center lane without signaling, thus catching bicyclists and pedestrians unaware.
Several approaches to bike lane design with dual right-turn lanes are provided in figure 15-12. Design
alternative A encourages cyclists to share the optional through-right-turn lane with motorists. Design
alternative B guides cyclists up to the intersection in a dedicated bike lane. Design alternative C allows
cyclists to choose a path themselves (this design is the AASHTO recommendation—simply dropping the
bike lane prior to the intersection). Engineering judgment should be used to determine which design is
most appropriate for the situation.
A
Figure 15-12. Illustrations. Design alternatives for a through bike lane with dual right-turn lanes.
Source: Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan(3)
On bike lane retrofit projects where there is insufficient room to mark a minimum 1.2-m (4-ft) bike lane
to the left of the right-turn lane, a right-turn lane may be marked and signed as a shared-use lane to
encourage through-cyclists to occupy the left portion of the turn lane (see figure 15-13). This has proven
to be most effective on slow-speed streets.
13
oto ONLY
COMBINED LANE
ate
Figure 15-13. Illustration. Right-turn lane shared by bicyclists and motorists.
Source: Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan(3)
Intersections with Bus Stops
If there is a bus stop at the near side of an intersection, a broken white bike lane line between 15 and 60 m
(50 and 200 ft) in length should be used, and the solid white line should resume on the far side of the
intersection, immediately after the crosswalk (see figure 15-10). If a bus stop is located on the far side of
the intersection, the solid white line on the far side of the intersection should be replaced with a broken
line for a distance of at least 24 m (80 ft) from the crosswalk.
Traffic Signal Actuation
It is recommended that new on-road bicycle facilities include traffic signals that detect bicycles for all
actuated signal systems. The Traffic Detector Handbook recommends several bicycle-sensitive loop
configurations (loops are wires installed beneath the pavement surface that detect the presence of
vehicles) that can effectively detect bicycles. M The quadrupole loop is the preferred solution for bike
lanes, and the diagonal quadrupole loop is preferred for use in shared lanes (see figure 15-14).
A potential solution for existing intersection signals that do not respond well to bicycles is to install a
special pavement marking over the exact spot that a bicycle must stop in order to activate the signal.
MUTCD, 2003 edition, recommends a pavement marking that can be used to locate these sensitive areas
covering loop detectors for bicyclists (see figure 15-15).(2)
14
150 mm (6 inches)
125 mm (5 inches)
Quadrupole Loop
• detects most strongly in center
• sharp cut-off of sensitivity
• used in bike lanes
Diagonal Quadrupole Loop
• sensitive over whole area
• sharp cut-off of sensitivity
• used in shaded lanes
Standard Loop
• detects most strongly over
wires
• gradual cut-off
• used for advanced detection
Figure 15-14. Illustrations. Different loop detector configurations for traffic signals.
Source: Traffic Detector Handbook(7)
()e()
600 mm (24 inches)
50 mm (2 inches)
150 mm (6 inches)
Figure 15-15. Illustration. Example of bicycle detector pavement marking.
Source: MUTCD, 2003 Edition(2)
15
Expressway Interchanges
Expressway interchanges often present barriers to bicycle travel. Designs that encourage free-flowing
motor vehicle traffic movements are the most difficult for pedestrians and bicyclists to negotiate.
Interchanges with access ramps connected to local streets at a right angle are easiest for bicyclists to
negotiate. The intersection of the ramp and the street should follow established urban intersection designs.
The main advantages of this approach are:
• The distance that pedestrians and bicyclists must cross at the ramps is minimized.
• Signalized intersections stop traffic.
* Visibility is enhanced.
If these configurations are unavoidable, mitigation measures should be sought. Special designs should be
considered that allow pedestrians and bicyclists to cross ramps in locations with good visibility and where
speeds are low.
Where it is not possible to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists with at-grade crossings, grade
separation should be considered. Grade-separated facilities are expensive; they add out-of-direction travel
and will not be used if the added distance is too great. This can create problems if pedestrians and
bicyclists ignore the facility and try to negotiate the interchange at grade with no sidewalks, bike lanes, or
crosswalks.
In some instances, a separate path can be provided on only one side of the interchange, which leads to
awkward crossing movements. Some bicyclists will be riding on a path facing traffic, creating difficulties
when they must cross back to a bike lane or shoulder (clear and easy-to-follow directions must be given to
guide bicyclists' movements if those movements are inconsistent with standard bicycle operation).
The following concepts have been presented by ODOT as examples of innovative solutions to bike lane
design at freeway/expressway interchanges and intersections.(3) Traffic entering or exiting a roadway at
high speeds creates difficulties for slower-moving bicyclists.
It is difficult for bicyclists to traverse the undefined area created by right-lane merge movements,
because:
• The acute angle of the approach creates visibility problems.
o Motor vehicles are often accelerating to merge into traffic.
• The speed differential between cyclists and motorists is high.
The design in figure 15-16 guides bicyclists at merging entrance ramps in a manner that provides:
• A short distance across the ramp at close to a right angle.
• Improved sight distances in an area where traffic speeds are slower than farther downstream.
• A crossing in an area where drivers' attention is not entirely focused on merging with traffic.
16
6 m (20 ft)
min. Radius
75° fr
Travel lanes
Figure 15-16. Illustration. Bike lane configuration at entrance ramp
(urban design—not for limited access freeways).
Source: Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan(3)
Exit ramps present difficulties for bicyclists because:
• Motor vehicles exit at fairly high speeds.
• The acute angle creates visibility problems.
• Exiting drivers often do not use their right-turn signal, thus confusing pedestrians and bicyclists
seeking a gap in the traffic.
The exit ramp design in figure 15-17 guides bicyclists in a manner that provides:
• A short distance across the ramp, at close to a right angle.
• Improved sight distances in an area where traffic speeds are slower than farther upstream.
• A crossing in an area where the driver's attention is not distracted by other motor vehicles.
17
011 Lig
oto
WATER AVE
DOWNTOWN t
Inside radius =
9 m (30 ft) min.
Approximate angle 15°
Figure 15-17. Illustration. Bike lane configuration at exit ramp
(urban design—not for limited access freeways).
Source: Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan(3)
15.5 Bicycle Lane Pavement Markings
Section 9C of MUTCD addresses numerous aspects of pavement markings for bicycle facilities.(2)
Pavement markings typically consist of:
• Solid or broken-edge line lane markings that delineate the vehicle travel lane and the bike lane
(see figure 15-10 for examples).
• Lane symbols that indicate the preferential nature of the bike lane and its direction (see figure
15-18 for examples).
• Traffic signal detector symbol to indicate preferred bicyclist stopping location at actuated signals
(see figure 15-15 for example).
• Pavement markings to warn of road hazards or obstructions.
Care should be taken to use pavement striping that is durable, yet skid-resistant. Reflectors and raised
markings in bike lanes can deflect a bicycle wheel, causing a bicyclist to lose control. If reflective
pavement markers are needed for motorists, they should be installed on the motorist's side of the stripe
and have a beveled front edge.
18
Normal
white line
1.8 m (6 ft)
(optional)
1.8m (6 ft)
1.8m (6 ft)
•111•11111•111111111111111
U. ill 111 11 1 UM Elf 11111 WI 1 1 •••
•
1111 1 11111111 MUIU!!uii 1 1 MIMI •ui iuiiuiti 1 REM
• 111 1 1111 1 1MM • 1M 1 I I 1 •••
INF NI 1111 1 MAW UI ME 11 11 I 1 NMI UM mill 11111 1u.•
EA 1 MI 111 1 1MM 1111•••••••••••
••••••••••••
•••••••••111111111
••••••••••••
••••••••••••
•11•••111•11••••
••••••••••••
111•11•••••••••
••••••••••••
••11111111111111••••• 1111•••••••••••
111111•1111111•11111111••• •111111111111•••••••
••••••••••111111 •1111111•1111111••••• 11111111•111•••••111111
MI 11 I 11 11 AM 11111 E II II I 11 !WM
MA 11 11 I 1 A 1•••
111111 11 II I F 111 1•111M I. 'II I 1IIAIM
• 11 II • AB MEI 11 1 i • MEM
MI 11 II I I WI MEI • 11 11 I 1 II INA • 111 1 I 11 11 M•111
EA A 11 • 11 1MM 111•11•111111111•111111•11
Word Legends
(optional)
1111111••••••••111111
•111111111•••••••• UMW 1111111111••
MUM MIME MEIN 1111••• MEMO, 1•111•111 U•U 11111••• •111•1 HAM
MEW 1•1111•1 MEN MEI 11111111011 EVA=
IMAM MOW 1111111111111111 1111•11111111
MIMI MEW MTh ISM
IMAM 1111111•••
MIMEO IWO MEM EMMEN
=MIN •11111111111 111111•1111•1111••••••
Directional arrow
1•1111•••••••••• •11111111LEE11•••111
111•1111•011111•1111111111
•••11111111111.UUUU IMMO 1•111
11•11111 11111111111 NMI MI monom
r"4111111 IA da MOE *EMI 1111 AN 'II 1 Ala 11111 U! All ii ll IA 111 • •MN 1 1111111•1 •
• MEM 11— • IMMO ON milli •
1111•11 MN MI •
1111111111 uuiaui MI ME /MR AA II
MIA/ JIMA NEM
• ..••••n,.ll
••••••••••••
••••••••••••
111111111111 MAIM. All•••111 MINIM .•••••• ••••1•111'1111111111•• MUM/ MOW
IMAM' . IMAM 111•1111M
MIMEO All 'MIMI •1111•1111,' 11111•••
•1111"1111 tP".1•1111
my — Ir r lilt 1111 •
•iial 1 )1 1•11 • • MU 11' 1••1 • • IMM1 i. E INA •
111A 1•111 MA A • "w
••nn••••. lU
11•••••••••••
Symbols
1:1 = 100 mm x 100 mm
(4 inches x 4 inches)
Figure 15-18. Illustrations. Examples of optional word and symbol
pavement markings for bike lanes.
Source: MUTCD, 2003 Edition(2)
15.6 Bicycle Lane Signing
MUTCD section 9B addresses standard bike lane signing. Figure 15-19 shows regulatory signs for
bicycle facilities (including bike lanes). MUTCD also provides recommendations for warning signs and
bicycle route guide signs. Key MUTCD signing principles for bicycle facilities are:
• Bicycle signs shall follow standard MUTCD conventions for shape, legend, and color.
• All signs shall be reh-oreflectorized.
• Where signs serve bicyclists and other road users, the size, vertical mounting height, and lateral
placement shall be as specified for vehicle traffic applications.
19
AHEAD
R3-17a
ENDS BIKE LANE
BEGIN
RIGHT TURN LANE
Alt
YIELD TO BIKES
R4-4 R4-7
6we
NO PARKING
BIKE
LANE
RIDE
WITH
TRAFFIC
NO
MOTOR
VEHICLES
R5-1b
R9-3c BIKE
LANE
• Except for size, the design of signs specifically for bicycle facilities should be identical to that
specified in MUTCD for vehicular travel.
R1-1 R1-2 R3-17 R3-17b
DO
NOT
PASS
R4-1
PASS
WITH
CARE
R4-2
SLOWER
TRAFFIC
KEEP
RIGHT
R4-3
R5-3 R5-6 R7-9 R7-9a
CfSqb
USE
PED
SIGNAL
CAE)
YIELD
TO
PEDS
Cr 4\
KEEP
LEFT RIGHT 1
CAD
PUSH
BUTTON
FOR
GREEN
LIGHT ..nn•n••
TO REQUEST
GREEN
WAIT
ON 070
R9-3a R9-5 R9-6 129-7 R10-3 R10-22 R15-1
Figure 15-19. Illustrations. Regulatory signs for bicycle facilities.
Source: MUTCD, 2003 Edition(2)
20
15.7 Other Design Considerations
Colored Bike Lanes
Colored bike lanes have been tested in two U.S. cities (Portland, OR, and Cambridge, MA) as a way to
guide bicyclists through complex intersections as well as to make motorists aware that they are crossing a
bike lane. The concept of colored bike lanes has been applied and is standard practice in several European
countries such as The Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, and France (see
lesson 23). A study of blue bike lanes in Portland, OR (see figure 15-20 for example), reached the
following conclusions: (8)
• Significantly more motorists yielded to bicyclists and slowed or stopped before entering the blue
pavement area;
• More bicyclists followed the colored bike lane path.
• Fewer bicyclists turned their heads to scan for traffic or used hand signals, perhaps signifying an
increased comfort level or lower level of caution.
Colored bike lanes have issues of maintenance—the paint wears quickly with vehicle traffic. As of 2004,
the use of colored bike lanes has not been endorsed by any national design manuals or standards (such as
the AASHTO Guide or MUTCD).
Figure 15-20. Photo. Example of blue bike lane in Portland, OR.
Source: Evaluation of the Blue Bike-Lane Treatment Used in Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Conflict
Areas in Portland, Oregon, http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/bicycles/broadwayblue.htm(8)
21
Contraflow Bike Lanes
Contraflow bicycle lanes on a one-way street are not usually recommended. They may encourage cyclists
to ride against traffic, which is contrary to the rules of the road and a leading cause of bicycle/motor
vehicle crashes. There are, however, special circumstances when this design may be advantageous:
• A contraflow bike lane provides a substantial savings in out-of-direction travel.
• The contraflow bike lane provides direct access to high-use destinations.
• Improved safety because of reduced conflicts on the longer route.
• There are few intersecting driveways, alleys, or streets on the side of the contraflow lane.
• Bicyclists can safely and conveniently reenter the traffic stream at either end of the section.
• A substantial number of cyclists are already using the street.
• There is sufficient street width to accommodate a bike lane.
A contraflow bike lane may also be appropriate on a one-way residential street recently converted from a
two-way street (especially where this change was made to calm traffic).
For a contraflow bike lane to function well, special features should be incorporated into the design:
• The contraflow bike lane must be placed on the proper side of the street (to motorists' left) and
must be separated from oncoming traffic by a double yellow line. This indicates that the bicyclists
are riding on the street legally, in a dedicated travel lane.
• Any intersecting alleys, major driveways, and streets must have signs indicating to motorists that
they should expect two-way bicycle traffic.
• Existing traffic signals should be fitted with special signals for bicyclists (see figure 15-21); this
can be achieved with either loop detectors or pushbuttons (these should be easily reached by
bicyclists without having to dismount).
Under no circumstances should a contrafloW bike lane be installed on a two-way street, even where the
travel lanes are separated by a raised median.
22
(This picture shows a bicyclist not wearing a helmet.
FHWA strongly recommends that all bicyclists wear helmets.)
Figure 15-21. Photo. Contraflow bike lane with bicycle-specific signal in Madison, WI.
Diagonal Parking
Diagonal parking causes conflicts with bicycle travel: Drivers backing out have poor vision of oncoming
cyclists; parked vehicles obscure other vehicles backing out. These factors require cyclists to ride close to
the center of a travel lane, which is intimidating to inexperienced riders.
Where possible on one-way streets, diagonal parking should be limited to the left side, even if the street
has no bike lane (on one-way streets with bike lanes, the bike lane should be placed adjacent to parallel
parking, preferably on the right).
Bike lanes are not usually placed next to diagonal parking. However, should diagonal parking be required
on a street planned for bike lanes, the following recommendations can help decrease potential conflicts:
• The parking bays must be long enough to accommodate most vehicles.
• A 200-mm (8-inch) stripe should separate the parking area from the bike lane (see figure 15-22).
• Enforcement may be needed to cite or remove vehicles encroaching on the bike lane.
23
Figure 15-22. Illustration. Use of wide stripe to separate bike lane from diagonal parking.
Source: Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian PlatP)
Some cities have found the use of back-in diagonal parking to be more effective along streets with bike
lanes. With back-in diagonal parking, parking motorists are required to stop in the travel lane and back
their car across the bike lane into the parking spot. When leaving the back-in diagonal parking, the
motorists are in a much better position to see bicycles approaching the bike lane. This design alternative
has not been widely used yet, and more experience will determine its effects on the safety and operation
of bike lanes near parking.
15.8 Practices to Avoid
Two-Way Bike Lanes
Two-way bike lanes create a dangerous condition for bicyclists (see figure 15-23). They encourage illegal
riding against traffic, causing several problems:
• At intersections and driveways, wrong-way riders approach from a direction where they are not
visible to motorists.
• Bicyclists closest to the motor vehicle lane have opposing motor vehicle traffic on one side and
opposing bicycle traffic on the other.
• Bicyclists are put into awkward positions when transitioning back to standard bikeways.
If constraints allow widening on only one side of the road, the centerline stripe may be shifted to allow for
adequate travel lanes and bike lanes.
24
Two-way
bike lane
Figure 15-23. Illustration. A wrong-way bicyclist in a two-way bike lane
is not in a driver's field of vision.
Source: Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan(3)
Continuous Right-Turn Lanes
A continuous right-turn lane configuration is difficult for bicyclists. Riding on the right puts them in
conflict with right-turning cars, but riding on the left puts them in conflict with cars merging into and out
of the right-turn lane. The best solution is to eliminate the continuous right-turn lane, consolidate
accesses, and create well-defined intersections (Figure 15-24).
25
Before After
Figure 15-24. Illustration. Reconfiguration of a continuous right-turn lane to be bicycle-friendly.
Source: Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan(3)
15.9 Student Exercise
Exercise A
Redesign a local intersection to include bike lanes. Choose an intersection with a moderate level of
complexity, and assume that curb lines can be moved at will in order to achieve your design. Prepare a
report and graphics that show existing conditions and your recommended modifications. Signalization
changes (if necessary) should also be explained, as well as any advance striping and signing needed on
the intersection approaches.
Exercise B
Choose a local urban street that would be a good candidate for a bike lane retrofit project. Redesign a
two-block section of the roadway to include bike lanes (sketch drawings will be sufficient). Present at
least two options for retrofitting the street, and include solutions that would require further traffic studies.
Indicate proposed dimensions for travel lanes, parking lanes, and bike lanes. If removal of parking is one
of your solutions, describe the public involvement process you would go through to achieve agreement
from adjacent property owners and businesses.
26
15.10 References and Additional Resources
The references for this lesson are:
1. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Washington, DC, 1999.
2. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC,
2003, available online at http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov, accessed April 22, 2004.
3. Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, OR, 1995.
4. Philadelphia Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines, Philadelphia Department of Streets,
Philadelphia, PA,1998.
5. Burden, D., and P. Lagerwey, Road Diets: Fixing the Big Roads, Walkable Communities, Inc.,
March 1999, available online at http://www.contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/reading/
road-diets-3/resources/road-diets-fixing/.
6. Fisher, C., "Retrofitting Bicycle Lanes While Mitigating On-Street Parking Demand," Pro
Bike/Pro Walk 1996 Conference Proceedings, Portland, ME, September 1996.
7. Kell, J.H., I.J. Fullerton, and MX. Mills, Traffic Detector Handbook, Publication No. FHWA-IP-
90-002, Federal Highway Administration, July 1990, available online at
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tfhrc/safety/pubs/Ip90002/intro.htm, accessed April 28, 2004.
8. Hunter, W.W., D.L. Harkey, J.R. Stewart, and M.L. Birk, Evaluation of the Blue Bike Lane
Treatment Used in Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Conflict Areas in Portland, Oregon, Publication No.
FHWA-RD-00-150, August 2000, available online at
http://www.walkinginfo.org/pdf/r&d/bluelane.PDF, accessed April 28, 2004.
Additional resources for this lesson include:
o Bike Lane Design Guide, Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (PBIC), October 2002,
available online at http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/de/bikelaneguide.htm, accessed April 28, 2004.
27
Research, Development, and Technology
Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center
6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, VA 22101-2296
Publication No. FHWA-HRT-05-113
HRDS-05/07-06(WEB)E
NOTARY .,:!idLSOTA / My Cornmksr H - Jan. 31,2010
Revised: June 2006
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )SS
CITY OF EDINA CERTIFICATE OF POSTING NOTICE
I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting for the
City of Edina, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I
have on this date posted copies of the attached Meeting Notice, at each of the
official City bulletin boards, located at conspicuous places within the City as
follows:
1) City Hall, 4801 West 50th Street
2) Municipal Liquor Store, 50th and France Business Area
3) Centennial Lakes Park Centrum, 7499 France Avenue South
Time notice was posted: e 0 Date notice was posted /.2 - N
Signed -
Officer Posting Notice
Signed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public
in and for Hennepin County Minnesota, this
day of VY\ ,20.
4/-
HAN A ii- -\[ RA spoRiATmom COfMOi
Wost 70th SfrM / CormeHa Area rrafille Study
(Aghway 100 to i'rance Averame)
,Study Advisory Corn[AN-
Notice of Date Change
The Edina Transportation Commission Study Advisory Committee
(SAC) is- rescheduled for Thursday, January 8, 2009, 7:00-9:30 p.m., at
Braemar GoiV Course, 6364 John Harris Drive, Edina, Minnesota. -11-ds
Os the eighth in a series of meetings to consider suggestions and
explore options for improving the West 70th Street Corridor from
Highway 100 to France Avenue.
The meeting is open to the public and interested citizens are invited
to attend.
Debra Mangen
City Clerk
Dated: December 12, 2008