HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/02/2011
Staff: Committee Members Rhonda Smiley, Assistant to the City Manager Jacquie Sullivan, Chair David Couch Rudy Salas REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE of the City Council
-City of Bakersfield Monday, May 2, 2011 – 12:00 p.m. City Hall North 1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301 First Floor, Conference Room A A G E N D A 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT FEBRUARY
7, 2011 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion of a Request from Bike Bakersfield Regarding Street Signage and Bicycle Lane Width – Rojas 5. COMMITTEE
COMMENTS 6. ADJOURNMENT
_________________________________ Jacquie Sullivan, Chair Rhonda Smiley, Assistant to the City Manager /P.I.O. Rudy Salas For: Alan Tandy, City Manager David Couch AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Regular Meeting of the COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, February 7, 2011 -12:00 p.m. City Hall North, First Floor, Conference Room A 1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield CA,
93301 The meeting was called to order at 12:01 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL Committeemembers Present: Councilmember Jacquie Sullivan, Chair Councilmember Rudy Salas Councilmember David Couch Staff
Present: Alan Tandy, City Manager Darin Budak, Parks Superintendent Rhonda Smiley, Asst. to the City Manager Ken Trone, Park Construction & Facility Planner Steve Teglia, Asst. to the
City Manager Ed Murphy, Civil Engineering Chris Huot, Administrative Analyst Ryan Starbuck, Traffic Engineer Josh Rudnick, Deputy City Attorney Raul Rojas, Public Works Director Others
Present: Zachary Griffin, Bike Bakersfield Brian DeLaCerda, Bike Bakersfield Robert Smith, Bike Bakersfield Tina Chapa, Bike Bakersfield Cindy Parra, Bike Bakersfield Alan Theesen, San
Joaquin Hospital 2. ADOPT JUNE 16, 2010 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None DRAFT
Community Service Committee Agenda Summary Report February 7, 2011 Page 2 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion of a Request from Bike Bakersfield regarding Street Signage and Bicycle Lane
Width Robert Smith of Bike Bakersfield requested that the City increase the width of the bicycle lanes on City streets to eight feet. Mr. Smith presented a PowerPoint slide show. He
stated that he had obtained more information since the previous Committee meeting on June 16, 2010 that he believes would help the Committee better understand his concerns. Public Works
Director Rojas gave an overview of the City’s General Plan. He stated that the City has a design for complete streets. He showed two maps that detailed all planned bicycle lanes and
bicycle paths in the city, both current and future, and all of the facilities, including the 30-mile bicycle path which goes right through the middle of the city. Mr. Rojas confirmed
that Public Works staff previously met with Bike Bakersfield representatives and also sent them a letter explaining that the City would be increasing the bicycle lanes from the current
width of five feet to six feet for any new streets. One concept to widen bicycle lanes is to reduce some of the landscaping area. However, this would affect the developer of the property,
as they would be giving up some of their land. Mr. Smith presented the idea that when streets are torn out and repaved, there is an opportunity to stripe it differently at no extra cost
to the City. Committee member Couch asked if it would be possible to re-stripe the street with thinner lines, to create wider bicycle lanes. Thus, if the City were to adopt a new standard,
then over the years as they re-pave the streets, there could be a new system created that is better for bicyclists. Adam Theesen, Director of Rehabilitation at San Joaquin Hospital,
commented on the proposal of decreasing the landscaping area. He stated that if the width of the ten-foot landscaping area is decreased, it would decrease water costs, also. Mr. Rojas
commented that there still is an obligation to make sure that streets are safe for vehicles. Committee member Couch asked how wide a GET (Golden Empire Transit) bus is, how wide a typical
school bus is, including mirrors, how wide the trash trucks are, and how wide fire trucks are. Civil Engineer Murphy stated that, according to the Fire Department, the mirror-to-mirror
distance for fire trucks is approximately ten feet. The width of school buses is just less than that. Committee Chair Sullivan asked how wide the cars are. Mr. Murphy said that the standard
is about seven and one half feet. DRAFT
Community Service Committee Agenda Summary Report February 7, 2011 Page 3 Committee member Salas asked if there have been any impact studies done showing that by decreasing an existing
12-foot lane down to 11 feet, it would cause a certain amount of accidents. The Traffic Engineer indicated he would research that issue. Mr. Rojas stated that the legal limit for vehicle
width is 10 feet, and that is the basis for setting the lane widths. Mr. Smith provided information showing that narrowing lanes from 12 feet to 10 feet does not increase crash rates.
Committee member Couch requested that Mr. Smith provide a copy to the Committee. Committee member Couch asked if this matter should be taken up with the Planning and Development Committee
because there are design standards involved in the discussion. City Manager Tandy indicated it would not be appropriate as only one committee can discuss an existing item. Committee
member Couch asked if, instead of a sidewalk, could a multi-use walking and riding facility also also be used as a bike path, such as what exists in the Polo Grounds. Mr. Rojas indicated
that the path in the Polo Grounds was originally designed for equestrian use, but that has changed. He stated that a path such as the one suggested by Committee member Couch should be
constructed with asphalt or concrete for safety. In regard to the possibility of reducing street lane widths and landscaping areas to allow more room for bicycle lanes, Committee member
Salas suggested making the lane next to the curb 12 feet wide, and any others, 11 feet wide. Mr. Rojas replied that the downtown area has narrow lanes, due to the need for four lanes
and parking. It is possible to have a six-foot bike lane in some areas, but he would not recommend it. Traffic Engineer Starbuck stated that medians must remain in place in order to
retain left turn pockets. Medians are 14 feet wide, and that is the minimum standard. One of the City’s concessions from previous discussions with Bike Bakersfield was to reduce the
landscape area on arterial streets. The arterial rightof-way requirement is 110 feet, which is the total of the landscaping, sidewalk, curb, pavement, and the median island. Civil Engineer
Murphy stated that landscape standards are written separately, and on arterials, staff prefers 10-foot landscaping area. Committee member Couch referred to the Public Works Director’s
comments that there is a possibility those areas could be changed to less than 10 feet. Committee Chair Sullivan stated that there needs to be a plan in the newer areas to make bike
paths safe, and also to promote bicycle travel. Committee member Salas suggested that lane widths be set at 11 feet for the interior lane, 11 feet for the center lane, and 12 feet for
the outside lane, and remove some of the landscaping area to allow more room for the bike lane. Public Works Director Rojas responded that the lane next to the median island is 12 feet
wide to allow room for larger vehicles. DRAFT
Community Service Committee Agenda Summary Report February 7, 2011 Page 4 Committee member Couch asked if bicyclists could be encouraged to use the collectors, as opposed to the arterials.
Mr. Starbuck said that most collectors have only one lane in each direction, but it can be researched. Tina Chapa with Bike Bakersfield said that her concern is to have the same level
of service for bicyclists as for drivers. Committee Chair Sullivan stated that bicycling should be encouraged not only for recreation, but on a practical level, also. She asked staff
to figure out a way to make all of the bicycle lanes six feet wide. She asked if it meant that developers will have to give up two feet of their land, which Mr. Rojas confirmed. City
Manager Tandy stated that the City has been sued for millions of dollars over people hitting medians and bouncing back into traffic. Mr. Tandy further stated that at the next committee
meeting, staff will provide the requested information regarding accidents relative to lane width that address safety based on 5, 6, or 8 foot bike lanes; the Polo Grounds bike path alternate;
developers giving up more right-of-way; the collector street diversion alternative; and what the new right-of-way would be under the assumptions. He suggested a demonstration that would
give the Committee members a feel for what it is like to be sitting in a fire truck and there is a garbage truck next to you in a 10, 11, or 12 foot lane. In response to a question from
Committee member Salas, Mr. Tandy stated that CalTrans’ standards are a guideline, but not law. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee Recommendation Regarding the 2011 Committee
Meeting Schedule Adopted as submitted 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS None 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 1:45 P.M. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council DRAFT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS MEMO DATE: April 25, 2011 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO BIKE LANE WIDTH INQUIRIES
Bike Bakersfield has requested that future streets be built as well as existing streets retrofitted with bike lanes 8’ wide. Below are responses from Traffic Engineering regarding the
additional information requested after the Bike Bakersfield presentation on “8’Bike Lanes” at the February 7th Community Services Committee meeting: 1) Research an alternative approach
by emphasizing use of collector streets instead of arterials for bike lanes. Staff was asked to look at various options for possible bike lane striping on the City’s collector streets.
Response: Currently the City has roughly 90 miles of bike lanes on both arterials and collectors. Exhibit “A” shows both the City’s existing and proposed bike lanes layout. The routes
were designed to provide the best connection for bicyclists through the City. This involves the use of of both arterials and collector streets. Arterial streets tend to be used more
since they are usually constructed first when an area is being developed. They also provide a more direct connection because collectors often terminate into residential neighborhoods.
Collectors generally have lower speed limits; however, they also have more vehicle/pedestrian conflicts due to on street parking and more driveways. Collector roadways within the City
currently striped for bike lanes include Camino Media, Q Street, Planz Road, Auburn Street, Bernard Street, and Jewetta Avenue. An additional 16.3 miles (approx.) of planned bike lanes
are planned for striping on collectors. The bikeways map (see Exhibit “A”) shows the locations where collectors have bike lane striping planned. There are additional collectors that
may utilize Class 2 bike lane striping, but it is recommended that each roadway segment be considered on a case by case basis. Traffic Engineering staff will continue to utilize both
collector and arterial streets to provide bike connectivity throughout the City.
2) Section views of the City’s existing 6’ Bike Lane plan on arterial streets, as well as a section view showing a theoretical 8’ Bike Lane plan. Response: Section views for both layouts
are shown in exhibit “B”. Exhibit “B” shows a plan view and two section views for the bike and vehicle lane layouts. The plan view sheet shows the existing proposed 6’ bike lane that
is used for arterial roadways. The first section views show the lane width striping within the City’s existing right-of-way including the 6’ bike lane. The second section view sheet
shows a layout with the bike lanes at 8’, showing the additional 4’ added to the arterial street ROW and 6’ added to the collector ROW in order to accommodate the additional width of
the bike lanes. 3) Research other Valley cities regarding their bike plans and lane widths for both vehicles and bikes. Staff was asked to research bike plans for other cities such as
Visalia, Fresno, Stockton, and Modesto. Response: Staff found the California cities researched to have vehicle lanes of 11’-12’ and bike lanes between 5’-6’(see attached exhibit “C”
for comparison chart). These lane widths are also the range that City of Bakersfield uses for our own vehicle and bike lanes. The City of Fresno was different from the other cities in
their implementation of a maximum 7’ bike lane instead of 6’. Bakersfield Staff had an opportunity to travel to Fresno and visit with Fresno City’s Traffic Engineer regarding bike issues
in general. Since 2008, Fresno has taken a more active approach toward becoming a more bicycle friendly community then they had in the past. The City just released their 2010 Bicycle,
Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plan offering the City’s intermodal transportation goals for the next 20 years. They also constructed and retrofitted many miles of their roadways using
a “resurface and repurpose” approach which allows the City to re-engineer a street during resurfacing projects. Similar to Bakersfield, Fresno reviews all retrofit striping on a project
by project basis, and every roadway project that comes through is plan checked for bike lane requirements. Fresno does not use or encourages the use of 8’ bike lanes. 4) Photos of various
sized vehicles in 10 foot and 11 foot lanes. Response: Garbage truck, fire truck, busses, etc. were used to give a graphic example of the 10’ and 11’ lanes in relation to those vehicles.
Exhibit “D” is a plan view drawing of the various vehicle sizes in 10’, 11’, and 12’ lanes. The drawing shows how each type of vehicle (including mirrors) fits within each of the different
sized lane. The 12’ lane shows plenty of room for all vehicles. 11’ lanes reduce the amount of “wiggle room” for the larger vehicles, and the 10’ lanes have vehicle mirror overlap amongst
the larger vehicles. These examples are vividly demonstrated in exhibit “E” photos. These graphic examples show how undesirable the use of 10’ vehicle lanes are, particularly with emergency
and maintenance vehicles. It should be noted that due to right-of-way limitations, the City has used 10’lanes in various locations around the City. However, this is due to limited right-of-way
and the need to provide the minimum 5’ width to accommodate bicycles. As seen by the plan view and photos, the use of 10’ vehicle lanes should only be an exception and not the norm.
5) Research double lane line (with/with out hatching area) between bike lane and vehicle lane. The question was asked if the striping was included in the current MUTCD and what other
cities are currently using the striping. Response: The striping is not in the current California MUTCD. So far, we have not found any other California cities using the double lines or
a derivative form of striping, but there were test areas of using the design in Portland, Oregon. The California Standard is a solid 4” white stripe which is dashed on the approach to
major cross streets. 6) Traffic Engineering to review accident rate comparison study received from Bike Bakersfield regarding vehicle lane width safety. Bob Smith referenced this study
during his presentation to the Community Services Committee. Staff was requested to review the study and any other safety studies regarding bike and vehicle lane widths. Response: Staff
reviewed the study submitted by Bob Smith. The study is a research paper conducted by the Midwest Research Institute in Kansas City, MO. The study found no indication, except in limited
cases (four-lane undivided and divided arterials and fourleg stop-controlled intersections), that narrower lanes increased crash frequencies on arterial roadways segments and intersections.
However, in these three cases the results suggested an increase in crash frequencies with narrower lanes. And the study did have some caveats such as “until more is learned about the
interactions between motor vehicles and bicycles on streets with narrower lanes, lane widths less than 12 ft should be used cautiously.” Data for this report was gathered in both Michigan
and Minnesota. The study used a cross-sectional analysis approach for analysis instead of a more preferred before-after evaluation. It was noted that a before-after evaluation was infeasible
due to the consistent use of standardized lane widths by highway agencies; therefore a crosssectional type of evaluation was used. At this time, no other recent studies regarding urban
vehicle lane widths as related to accident rates were found. Also, no further studies were found relating 5ft, 6ft, or 8ft bike lane widths to bike accident rates. 7) Research the Planning
Department requirements regarding various Trail Plans, landscaping requirements, and provide cross section of Jewetta Avenue horse trail, north of Hageman Road. A request was made regarding
the design of the horse trails located in the City’s northwest neighborhoods showing right-of-way, bike lanes, and horse trail widths, and general landscaping requirements from the Planning
Dept. Response: Attached exhibit “F” is a cross section of the current Multi-Use Trail plan that is used for a trail that is adjacent to an arterial. The plan has a 12’ wide paved bike
lane on the south and east sides of the street and a 12’ wide natural equestrian trail on the north and west sides.
There are different variations of the trails plans that have already been adopted and constructed for different large land developments around the City, as well as trail areas that were
existing prior to being annexed into the City. This has resulted in many different styles of trails plans in the northwest that have to be considered on a case by case basis. In light
of the different variations that may be found in the area, the attached Multi-Use Trail Plan is the one that is currently required to be built by land developers. The landscaping requirement
is 10’ behind right-of-way towards the interior of the lot for arterials, and 8’ behind right-of-way for collectors. Generally, the 10’ and 8’ are measured from the back of sidewalk
to alleviate any complications with maintenance issues. Conclusions and Recommendations: The use of 8’ bike lanes impacts new construction of roadways by requiring additional right-of-way,
resulting in additional cost to developers. The additional bike lane width on existing roadways reduces the width of vehicle lanes overlapping the vehicles “footprint” and reducing the
drivers “wiggle room” within the lane. This is especially true for the larger emergency and utility vehicles. It is recommended the City does not implement the use of 8’ bike lanes.
The City of Bakersfield is consistent with other cities in regards to its requirements of vehicle lane widths and bicycle lane widths. All existing striping for both vehicle lanes and
bike lanes within the City are in accordance with the standards of the Highway Design Manual and the California MUTCD. The design standard for new arterials with bike lanes is a 12-11-12
vehicle lane layout with a 6’ bike lane. It is recommended that the City continue to use this existing design layout plan for all future arterial roadway construction. Most of the existing
arterial roadways within the City that include bike lanes have 38’ width of pavement in each direction which accommodates three 11’ vehicle lanes and a 5’ bike lane. As stated in Answer
##4 in this memo, due to limited right-of-way at some roadway locations it was necessary to stripe some vehicle lanes at 10’ to accommodate 5’ bike lanes; but the use of 10’ vehicle
lanes should only be an exception and not a design standard. For retrofit purposes it is recommended that vehicle lanes be no less wide than 11’ with a minimum 5’ bike lane. A 6’ maximum
bike lane will be required on retrofits when the right-of-way width is available to provide one. Each retrofit project will continue to be reviewed on a case by case basis. The overall
effort would be to provide the 6’ bike lanes whenever possible when the lanes can fit within the confines of the vehicle width requirements. cc: Brad Underwood, Assistant Public Works
Director Ryan Starbuck, Traffic Engineer Ed Murphy, Civil Engineer III
DOCUMENTS HANDED OUT AT THE MEETING
Response to Staff Report BAC 5-2-1 1 First I would like to say that I appreciate the time that has been spent on this issue by both staff and this committee. It is a very important issue.
The transportation system which is provided to a community determines how livable a community is. A transportation system which truly provides cost effective healthy options to the community
is an invaluable asset. I will keep by response focused on the bike lane width vs. travel lane width on arterial roadways. No matter what ultimately happens with the collector streets
or more separated bikeways the ultimate destinations for work, shopping, recreation and worship are mostly on the arterials. Therefore safe and comfortable access to these roadways is
a necessity. The staff report did not discuss the level of service which is now provided to bicyclists or what it would take in order to provide an acceptable level of service. The Highway
Design Manual provides the formulas to do this. As we discussed 5' and 6' bicycle lanes on arterial roadways do not provide an acceptable level of service. Caltrans design manual reinforces
this by suggesting 6'to 8' lanes for higher speed roadways. With the 6' lane being suggested for speeds over 35 mph. It seems logical that speeds of 45 to 55 mph would require the 7'
and 8' lanes in order to provide an acceptable level of service. There are many California cities which provide 8' bike lanes. The city of Davis is a great example which also happens
to have about a 30 percent bicycle mode share. If Fresno chose a 7' wide bike lane then what were their travel speeds? I have enclosed a picture of a buffered bike lane in Fairfax Ca
... I have also enclosed a document from the FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) which states that buffers are acceptable. Perhaps a 7' bike lane with the buffer would be a solution
that would take one foot less of roadway but still provide a better level of service for bicyclists. The buffer would have to begin outside of the minimum 5' lane and be at least 2'
wide wide to meet standards. The city of Bakersfield has experience with 10' and 1 1' lanes. They have not experienced additional crash frequencies in those areas. The research study
which was submitted stated clearly that "A safety evaluation of lane widths for arterial roadway segments found no indication, except in limited cases, that narrower lanes increased
crash frequencies. The lane width effects in the analyses conducted were generally either not statistically significant or indicated that narrower lanes were associated with lower rather
than higher crash frequencies." In short "narrower lanes were associated with lower rather than higher crash frequencies" i.e. wider lanes were more dangerous There were three exceptions
to the findings
1 ."Lane widths of 10' or less on four-lane undivided arterials, (as all of our arterials have medians this exception does not apply to Bakersfield streets). 2."Lane widths of 9' or
less on four-lane divided arterials" (as we are not suggesting lane widths of 9' or less this exception does not apply to Bakersfield streets). 3." Lane widths of 10' or less on approaches
to four-leg stop-controlled arterial intersections." (As all of our arterial streets have signaled intersections as opposed to stop-controlled this exception does not apply to Bakersfield).
The staff report also references this sentence in the report. "Until more is learned about the interactions between motor vehicles and bicycles on streets with narrower lanes, lane widths
less than 12' should be used cautiously where substantial volumes of bicyclists share the road with motor vehicles, unless an alternative facility for bicycles, such as a wider curb
lane or paved shoulder, is provided". We could not agree more. The alternative facility for for bicycles is the bicycle lanes which we are discussing. The report is a scientific study
with adequate data to complete a statistical analysis and concludes that if anything narrower lanes are safer. From the conclusion of the report. "These findings suggest that the AASHTO
Green Book is correct in providing substantial flexibility for use of lane widths narrower than 12' on urban and suburban arterials. Use of narrower lanes in appropriate locations can
provide other benefits to users and the surrounding community, including shorter pedestrian crossing distances.. ..bicycle lanes, buffer areas.. . Interpretation of design policies as
rigidly requiring the use of 12' lanes on urban and suburban arterials may miss the opportunity for these other benefits without any documentable gain in safety." 12' lanes are not safer
According to the Highway Design Manual 10' to 12' lanes have the same capacity. If they are not safer and do not provide any additional capacity then why don't we use this space for
the benefit of the community and provide more street capacity by providing wider bicycle lanes? As regards the discussion regarding the oversized vehicles I have the following comments
About 97 percent of the traffic on Bakersfield arterials is of the F-150 size 6.6' and smaller a Prius is 5.5'. The other 3 percent of traffic on Bakersfield arterials are somewhat larger
with the state maximum width being 8.5'. The need for one oversized vehicle i.e. garbage truck to overtake another i.e. bus within the city seems infinitely small. If it is an emergency
vehicle it could certainly turn on its lights and siren and have
all the space it needed. To design a transportation system around this remote possibility is not in the best interest of the community. 12' travel lanes do not provide any measurable
benefit to the community. They are freeway size travel lanes. They are not safer and do not provide additional capacity to the street. In order to provide a better level of service to
bicyclists Fresno and many other communities actually have taken out travel lanes and added bicycle lanes. All we are suggesting is that the travel lanes be reduced. A 7' bicycle lane
with a buffer or an 8' bicycle lane can provide more capacity to the street. They can also help Bakersfield address other problems such as obesity and help reduce the cost of transportation
for the community. What we are asking is that Bakersfield provide a 7' buffered or 8' bicycle lane on any new construction or reconstruction of it's arterial roads subject to the minimum
10' travel lane which is already in use in Bakersfield and has not been shown to be a safety or capacity problem. Once again I thank you for your time and consideration. Bob Smith
Bicycle Facilities and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Background The Federal Highway Administration receives occasional inquiries about what bicycle facilities, signs,
and markings are permitted in the Manual on Uni?orrn Traffic Control Dev~ces(MUTCD). The table below lists various bicycle-related signs, markings, signals, and other treatments and
identifies their status (e.g., can be implemented, currently experimental) in the 2009 version of the MUTCD. Are x\NA Description of Bicycle Status in the FHWA's Manual on Uniform Experimen+s
Facilities Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) in Progress? Signs and Markings Bike Lanes Conventional bike lanes Can be implemented at present time Continuation of bike lanes Can be implemented
at present time up to intersections Dashed bike lanes through Can be implemented at present time intersections Use of green pavement Interim approval has been granted. Yes markings for
bike lanes and Requests to use green colored pavement cycle tracks within need to comply with the provisions of intersections Paragraphs 14 through 22 of Section 1A.10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Green bike lanes at conflict lnterim approval has
been granted. points such as heavy Requests to use green colored pavement turning and merging need to comply with the provisions of locations Paragraphs 14 through 22 of Section lA.10
Green bike lanes or green lnterim approval has been granted. behind bike lane symbols Requests to use green colored pavement and arrows need to comply with the provisions
of Paragraphs 14 through 22 of Section lA.10 Contraflow bike lanes Can be implemented-at present timejf signs and pavement markings that are compliant with the MUTCD are used Shared
bike lanes and right Can be implemented at present time if turn lanes Shared Lane Markings are used, but currently is experimental if any other pavement markings are used Dashed bike
lanes on This treatment is currently experimental narrow roadways (advisory bike lanes) Buffered bike lanes Can be implemented at present time if pavement markings that are compliant
with the MUTCD are used Bike lanes between traffic Can be implemented at present time lanes on approaches to lane drpp conditions-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bike lanes
on left-hand side Can be implemented at present time of one-way streets Cycle Tracks Protected cycle tracks, both Not a traffic control device, so no MUTCD one-way and two-way restriction
on its use bicycle facilities Raised cycle tracks, both Not a traffic control device, so no MUTCD one-way and two-way restriction on its use bicycle facilities Cycle track two-stage
Can be implemented at present time if signs signalized left turn with bike and pavement markings that are compliant queuing space with the MUTCD are used Merging cycle track users Can
be implemented at present time if signs with turn lanes in advance and pavement markings that are compliant of high volume turn with the MUTCD are used lo~ations,~allowing bicyclists
to make a through movement at the intersection in order to reduce conflicts with the turning traffic Yes Yes Yes Yes
Truncated cycle track (ramp down to bike lane or shared right-turn lane) Shared lane markings Bike boxes with advanced stop lines for motor vehicles and no-turn-on-red restrictions on
the approach Accommodating two-stage "delayed" left turns at signalized intersections via pavement markings and signal detection Bike route wayfinding and marking system Rotated bicycle
symbols in bike lanes at intersections and driveways oriented towards turning or entering motorists Defining orange pavement markings for temporary traffic control usage to draw attention
to the changed conditions, including for bike lanes, pedestrian crosswalks, yield markings, etc. Defining unique, highvisibility pavement markings for bicycles and pedestrians (similar
to Swiss usage of yellow for bike lanes and pedestrian crosswalks) Active warning beacon for a bike boulevard Bicycle traffic signal indications Bicycle traffic signal Not a traffic
control device, so no MUTCD restriction on its use Other Signs and Markings Can be implemented at at present time Currently is experimental; more research data is needed before a final
decision can be made regarding this application Yes Can be implemented at present time if signs and pavement markings that are compliant with the MUTCD are used Can be implemented at
present time if signs and pavement markings that are compliant with the MUTCD are used, but currently is experimental if a non-compliant sign or marking is used Can be implemented at
present time Yes Not allowed by the MUTCD; no experiments are being conducted regarding this treatment Not allowed by the MUTCD; no experiments are being conducted regarding this treatment
Can be implemented at present time Signals Bike symbols on traffic signal displays are currently experimental Can be implemented at present time if Yes
phasing at signalized circular indicationsare used for the bicycle intersections (such as signal with a "BIKE SIGNAL" sign adjacent protectedlagging right to the signal face turns for
motorists made after through movement bicycletraffic) Hybrid beaconfor bike Bikes can be assisted in crossing a roadway Yes boulevard or other bike by a pedestrian hybrid beacon type
of route crossing device at the present time, but bike symbols ----on-trafficsignal displays are-currently---------~ ~ ~ ~ experimental Signal detection for Can be implemented at present
time bicycles Right-turn-on-redmotor Can be implemented at present time vehicle restrictions Other Treatments Separationof travel modes Can be implemented at present time on shared-use
paths Railing separating Not a traffic control device, so no MUTCD bicyclists and pedestrians restrictionon its use at cycle tracks approaching signalized intersections Convex mirrors
at --------Not a traffic control device,so noMUTCD -signalized intersectionsto restriction on its use reduce "right hook" type crashes Bike routes on lower Not a traffic control device,
so no MUTCD volume parallel roadways restriction on its use Median or refuge islands for Not a traffic control device, so no MUTCD bikeway crossings restrictionon its use Disclaimer:
Inclusion on this list does not constitute FHWA endorsement. Thepurpose of this list is to describe the status in the MUTCD of different bicycle-related treatments. Practitioners should
consult any applicable design policies, including the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Oficials'Guide for the Deveiop~nentof @~ c l e Facil~be>,and State laws
of the State within which the treatment is contemplated for use. The design and implementation of trafic control devices requires careful consideration of the roadway environment to
ensure the safety of all road users. Web Resources: ----------------------------------------------------FHWA Bicyc!e and Pedestrian Proqram -FHV\IA Ma-n-ual on Uniform Trazic Control
Devices o Part 9. The MUTCD Chapter-Traffic Contrcls for Bicilcle Facil~ties o Inforrnatlon a-Wnterim approvals issued by FHWA o Information about conductlnr, an experiment -The Pedes-t-ria--n
and Bicycle Information Center
-------------FHWA Presentation: Des~qninqfor Nonmotorisis Additional Information: If you need additional information, please contact: Gabe Rousseau Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Manager
Federal Highway Administration or Bramfnedmarr MUTCD Team -Part 9 Federal Highway Administration To provide Feedback, Suggestions, or Comments for this page contact Gabe Rousseau at
gabe rousseau@dot qov. This page last modified on April 19, 2011 FHWA Home I HEP Home I Feedback Q FHWA United States Department of Transportation -Federal Highway Administration
s-/?UBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Community Services Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject
that is not listed on the Committee Agenda. All other statements will be allowed at the time the Committee addresses the item. No action will be taken on any item not on the Agenda;
this Committee will gather information and report back to the City Council. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote,
waive the time limit. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Jacquie Sullivan Name: 2 4 ~ 5~ 9 ~ : ! x $ d Company1 Organization: ms %A
6-1 Gb9 Phone: Subject:
PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Community Services Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date d~h You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject
that is not listed on the Committee Agenda. All other statements will be allowed at the time the Committee addresses the item. No action will be taken on any item not on the Agenda;
this Committee will gather information and report back to the City Council. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The 'Zommittee may, by simple majority vote,
waive the time limit. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Jacquie Sullivan Name: Company/Organization: /--Address: Phone: 33o-/Y6L/Fax
/e-mail:\ Subject: L/M.F~