Bicycle transportation planning and engineering
- 4 min read
- 7 chapters
Related on Lably
In addition to designing individual facilities, bicycle transportation planning encompasses network planning, integration with public transport, project evaluation, public participation, and analysis of how the benefits and burdens of cycling policies are distributed among different population groups.
In jurisdictions such as the United States it is often practiced in conjunction with planning for pedestrians as a part of active transportation planning. Some bicycle planning was criticised for favouring car based travel connections rather than connections used by non car users.
Networks, signage and maps
Most national cycling route networks have long-distance named routes, rather like highways. However, the international numbered-node cycle network has a modular design that enables arbitrary routes using simple signage. Both aim to minimize map use with plentiful signs.
Cycle networks of routes can be developed in co-ordination with cycle maps. Co-ordination can be local or national (the numbered-node cycle network has national co-ordination in some countries, and local co-ordination in others).
Sign in to keep reading
6 more chapters are free with a Lably account.
Bikeways
Some examples of the types of bikeways under the purview of bicycle transportation engineers include partially segregated infrastructure in-road such as bike lanes, buffered bike lanes; physically segregated in-road such as cycle tracks; bike paths with their own right-of-way; and shared facilities such as bicycle boulevards, shared lane markings, advisory bike lane, road shoulders, wide outside lanes, shared street schemes, and any roadways with legal access for cycling.
In roadway
NACTO guidelines state "desired width for a cycle track should be 5 feet (1.5 m). In areas with high bicyclist volumes or uphill sections, the desired width should be 7 feet (2.1 m)". CROW standard width for one way cycle paths in the Netherlands is a minimum of 2.5 m (8′). For bidirectional use the minimum is 3.5 m (11′).
Unsegregated
- Bicycle boulevard
- Shared bus and cycle lane
Partially segregated
- Cycle lane
- Shared lane marking
Segregated
- Cycle track
Barriers
Options for barriers are soft-hit posts, raised curb or traffic barriers.
Off road
- Bike path
- Rail trail
Bike freeway
- Bike freeway
Integration with public transportation
Bicycles can be used for the access leg between a journey origin and a public-transport stop, for the egress leg between a stop and the final destination, or for both. This combination is commonly known as bike-and-ride. Cycling can increase the practical catchment area of public-transport stops and may reduce door-to-door journey times compared with walking or using a connecting service.
Intersections and signals
Bicycle transportation engineers also are involved in improving intersections/junctions and traffic lights. Advanced stop lines are one example of road markings on mixed mode shared space as cycling infrastructure.
Other infrastructure
Road diets, curb extension, improving the road surface; building bicycle parking such as bicycle locks, bicycle stands, lockers. Measures used to support bike-and-ride include safe cycling routes to stops, conveniently located bicycle parking, secure bicycle parking at major stations, and short-term bicycle rental at destination stations. Cycling infrastructure in public transit hubs, train stations and bus stops was found to increase the volume of passengers using the public transit options according to a 2004 study by Dutch transport planner, Karel Martens. Dutch evaluations in Martens' study reported that improvements to bicycle parking at railway stations were followed by increased user satisfaction and growth in the number of bicycles parked at stations. Programs at bus stops produced more varied results, partly because bus stops generally have smaller catchment areas and lower passenger volumes than major railway stations.
In the United States, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 required federally supported pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities to be included in long-range plans developed by states and metropolitan planning organizations, and made pedestrian and bicycle facilities eligible as transportation-enhancement activities.
Legislation
in California new bikeway design standards were last adopted in 1976. Those designs were adapted by the Association of American State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to become the AASHTO Guide for Bicycle Facilities, which is followed in the USA.
Criticism
In 2007 Karel Martens and Aaron Golub criticised the investment priorities in cycling projects. They argued that investment based primarily on congestion relief or peak-period commuting favours routes to major employment centres over connections needed by car-free households or people making local and off-peak journeys. Martens and Golub suggested equity analysis which can supplement aggregate counts by examining the geographic and demographic distribution of various factors including: facilities, hazards, and the accessibility of destinations. It was also suggested to consult with the public and to specifically consult communities known to be underrepresented in existing data.