[Archive] Complete Streets: It’s About More Than Bike Lanes
04SEPT12 Literature Review Scope
Quote from the email sent to one of my committee member, for the record:
“…expand my scope and have some discussion on the necessity of this “sharing road” idea in my literature review. I need to do some study on theories about multimodal travel means.”
04SEPT12 Schedule v1.1
04SEPT12 Questionnaire Beta
This questionnaire is to gather information about transportation situation on campus. Please offer some help to improve our campus community. By any means you travel on campus, your comments are helpful.
Are you an:
⃝ Undergraduate
⃝ Graduate Student
⃝ Faculty
⃝ Staff
By which means do you travel to/on campus? (Including travel as a driver of)
⃝ Pedestrian
Please check if apply:
⃝ (Travel with) ancillary facilities (Including baby carriage, wheelchair or other handicap transportation facility)
⃝ Cyclist
⃝ Motorcyclist (Including all kinds of motorized bi-wheel vehicles)
⃝ Private vehicle driver/passenger
⃝ Public transportation driver/passenger
(Please Specify):
⃝ UMD Shuttle bus
⃝ other bus system
⃝ Freight vehicle and other engineering vehicle driver
(Please specify) the vehicle belongs to:
⃝ UMD Facility Management or other UMD department
⃝ Other
⃝ Other (Please specify):
___________________________________
If you checked more than one item in the above question, in which occasion do you apply a specific travel means?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Apply to pedestrian only), what do you consider the major obstacles to walking on campus? (Rank in priority, number 1 being the lowest and 6 being the highest)
⃝ Danger from vehicles
⃝ Inadequate infrastructure (i.e., missing sidewalk, missing zebra crossing, route problems, confusing signage…)
⃝ Conflicts with cyclists
⃝ Weather conditions
⃝ Hilly Topography
⃝ Other inconvenience (Please specify):____________________________________________
(Apply to cyclist only), what do you consider the major obstacles to biking on campus? (Rank in priority, number 1 being the lowest and 6 being the highest)
⃝ Danger from vehicles
⃝ Inadequate infrastructure (i.e., poor road surfacing, lack of biking facilities, route problems, confusing signage…)
⃝ Conflicts with pedestrians
⃝ Weather conditions
⃝ Hilly Topography
⃝ Other inconvenience (Please specify):____________________________________________
(Apply to cyclist only), is your bike registered with either Campus Public Safety or the City of College Park?
⃝ Yes
⃝ No
(Apply to cyclist only), do you wear a bicycle helmet?
⃝ Yes
⃝ No
(For public transportation driver/passenger only), is there any obstacles to travel on campus?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(For freight/engineering operating vehicle driver/passenger only), what’s your average frequency of driving a freight/engineering operating vehicle on campus?
⃝ Daily
⃝ Weekly
⃝ Bi-weekly
⃝ Monthly
⃝ Rarely
Which of the following do you think would improve the transportation environment on campus?
⃝ Improve roadway conditions
⃝ Separate lanes on existing roadways for specific travel means
⃝ Provide new lanes or roads for specific travel means other than existing ones
⃝ Limit some sections of walkways to pedestrians only or dismount zones
⃝ Enforce existing traffic laws and regulations
⃝ Improve traffic facilities
⃝ More weather protected facilities for pedestrians, public transportation users and cyclists
⃝ Enhance the directionality of the roadway on campus (i.e. provide more signage and maps)
⃝ Construct new roadways to shorten the travel distance between two places on campus
Have you been involved in traffic accidents?
⃝ Yes
⃝ No
If yes, check all that apply:
I was a:
⃝ Pedestrian (of all ages and abilities)
⃝ Cyclist
⃝ Motorist
(Please specify)
⃝ Motorcyclist
⃝ Car driver/passenger
⃝ Public transportation driver/passenger
⃝ Freight vehicle driver/passenger
⃝ Operating engineering vehicle driver/passenger
The accident involved a:
⃝ Pedestrian (of all ages and abilities)
⃝ Cyclist
⃝ Motorist
(Please specify)
⃝ Motorcyclist
⃝ Car driver/passenger
⃝ Public transportation driver/passenger
⃝ Freight vehicle driver/passenger
⃝ Operating engineering vehicle driver/passenger
⃝ Myself
Required:
⃝ Minimal medical attention
⃝ Emergency room treatment
⃝ Hospital admission
Was reported to:
⃝ Campus/Town, City Safety or Police Department
Cause of accident or other comments:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Do you know about the entries in the traffic law and regulations related to your specific transportation means to/on campus?
⃝ Yes, I know all of them
⃝ Yes, some of them
⃝ Not really
Continue above question, do you obey them?
⃝ Yes, always
⃝ Yes, most time
⃝ Some of them
⃝ Not really
Answer if apply: explain yourself (this may help to improve our transportation regulations):
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
* * * * *
[Questions need to be marked on map]
Please mark on the map:
[R] Where you live (if it’s not in the range of the map, skip this question)
[E] Intersection of roadway you used as entrance to campus (Answer if applicable)
[D] Your most frequent destinations
[X] Hazardous locations where accidents have occurred (if you have experienced as litigant or witness)
[W] Locations where weather protected facilities would me most useful
Please draw a solid line on the route you traveled most frequently by your most frequently used travel means, and mark this particular travel means aside
Please draw a dashed line on the route you consider as a better (proposed) route by your most frequently used travel means, and mark this particular travel means aside (Answer if applicable)
04SEPT12 Thesis Proposal
Share the Road
A Tool Kit for Complete Streets: The case of The University of Maryland
Working Title:
Share the Road – A Tool Kit for Complete Streets: The case of The University of Maryland
Committee Member:
Dr. Byoung-Suk Kweon, Assistant Professor, Dept. of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture
Dr. David Myers, ASLA, Associate Professor, Dept. of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture
[Dr. Powell Draper, Associate Professor, The School of Architecture, Planting & Preservation]
Abstract:
In 2011, the 112th Congress House passed Safe and Complete Streets Act (HR. 1780), which defines complete streets as “safely accommodates all travelers, particularly public transit users, bicyclists, pedestrians (including individuals of all ages and individuals with mobility, sensory, neurological, or hidden disabilities), motorists, and freight vehicle operators; and enables all travelers to use the roadway safely and efficiently”. This proposed act will ensure the rights of all roadway users once it’s passed by the Senate (S. 1056).
Based on these legal provisions, and also as a response to the Complete Street movement, this thesis will look at the improvement of the roadway system in University of Maryland, College Park. It will start with a review on writing materials on American roadway design standards and guides, and complete streets proposals and some of the policies enacted by jurisdictions lower than federal level. Then it will study several cases of constructed examples and completed proposals as precedence. From a planning scope, the design will be composed with collected data and facts. Based on the analysis of questionnaire survey results, some factors other than transportation, like physical constrains, roadway storm water runoff and aesthetic outcome, etc., will be taken into consideration during the following design. Finally this thesis will develop a set of tool kits for future campus roadway improvements design towards complete streets.
Key Words:
Complete streets, campus roadway system, campus roadway facility, campus roadway design tool kit, shared road, transportation improvement.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Research Scope
Chapter 2 Background: Legislative and Practical
Chapter 3 Literature Review
[Include related Acts, publications and AASHTO Guides]
Chapter 4 Case Study
San Francisco: Find one university here
Portland, Oregon: Find one university here
Chicago, Illinois: Find one university here
Chapter 5 Towards A Better University Community: The Case of University of Maryland
Introduction
Current Situation
Options
Master Plan
Appendix (Including survey results and analysis)
Chapter 6 Complete Streets Tool Kit for University Campus
Chapter 7 Conclusion
Chapter 8 Appendix
Bibliography
Schedule
Bibliography
23AUG12 Literature Review – Cornell Cycles
CORNELL CYCLES – A New Call for Transportation Alternatives
The Report of the Cornell Bikeway Project
Project Team:
Brad Lane – Office of Transportation Services
Scott Whitham – Department of Facilities Engineering
Chris Ellis – Office of Transportation Services
Tom Campanella – Office of Transportation Services
Under the direction of:
William Wendt – Office of Transportation Services
Office of Transportation Services March 1992
INTRODUCTION
Issues need attention:
l Safety – Bicycles and motor vehicles safely share roads
l Should there be bicycle routes on campus? If so, where?
l Parking for bicycles?
l Other aspect – cost, practicality, existing laws and regulations, and time lines.
THE CURRENT SITUATION
Existing problems:
l Careless riders on pedestrian paths
l Obstruction of traffic flow along campus avenues
l Locking bicycles to inappropriate facilities
l High risk locations
l Lack of enforcement
l No place to ride
OPTIONS
Solutions to cope with the current bicycling problem:
l Banning bicycles from campus
l Maintain current situation
l Establish a bikeway system
3 components:
- Physical infrastructure, i.e., routes, signage, and parking facilities
- Regulations and enforcements
- Safety education and promotion
TOWARD A MASTER PLAN
Process
l A review on written material pertinent to the definition and construction of bikeway system
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Office’s (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of New Bicycle Facilities
l Probe the community for information on preferred routes, origins and destinations, and perceived difficulties to campus biking
l Inventory the physical conditions of the transportation infrastructure to expose the physical constrains and opportunities inherent within the system
e.g., road and corridors width, surface condition, traffic volume, road side parking, lighting, slope, and scenic value for all of the major corridors on site
Defining the Physical Structure of A Bikeway
l DIRECTNESS
“For utilitarian bicycle trips, facility should connect traffic generators and should be located along a direct line convenient for users.” ~AASHTO Guideline
l TRAFFIC GENERATORS
According to AASHTO recommendations, direct routes should be chosen between the peripheral regions and the hub of the site (center area, divided on generating traffics)
l FREQUENCY OF ROAD USE
Bikeway network should cover >= 50% of reported bike related accident locations
Selecting Appropriate Locations
Criteria used to determine the appropriate class for installation includes traffic volumes and speeds, safety, rider experience, physical constrains and secondary routes.
3 defined bikeway classes (See Fig. 7 – 9)
l TRAFFIC VOLUMES & SPEEDS
The AASHTO Guide specifies:
“For facilities on roadways, traffic volumes and speeds must be considered along with the roadway width. Commuting bicyclists frequently use arterial streets because they minimize delay and offer continuity for trips of several miles. It can be more desirable to improve heavily-traveled high-speed streets than adjacent streets, if adequate width for all vehicles is available in the more heavily-traveled streets.”
l SAFETY
A report from Clark County, Washington indicates:
“Accident statistics reported by the National Transportation Safety Board, show that automobile traffic, particularly in urban areas, poses the most hazard to the bicyclist.”
Some of the benefits of bike lanes described by AASHTO:
Bicycle lanes, together with signs and pavement markings, can improve conditions in corridors where there is significant or potential bicycle demand, by delineating the intend or preferred path of travel and by encouraging the separation of bicycles and motor vehicles. Bicycle lanes also help to increase the total capacities of highways carrying mixed bicycle and motor vehicles traffic.”
“Discussion with officials in other municipalities revealed that bike lanes work best if sufficient bicycles and motor vehicle traffic is present to claim the space delineated for each. – in this way, they will be less likely to wander into the other’s lane of travel.
l RIDER EXPERIENCE
“Bicycle lanes can be considered when it is desirable to delineate available road space for preferential use by bicyclists and motorists, and to provide for more predictable movements for each. Bicycle lane markings can increase a bicyclist’s confidence in motorists not straying into his or her path of travel. Likewise, passing motorists are less likely to swerve to the left, out of their lane, to avoid bicyclists on their right.” ~ AASHTO Guideline
l PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS
Roads of which width cannot be expanded
l SECONDARY ROUTES
AASHTO states the following about wide curb lanes:
“In many areas where there is a wide curb lane, motorists will not need to change lanes to pass a bicyclist. …In general, a lane width of 14 feet (4.3m) of usable pavement width is desired. Usable pavement width would normally be from curb face to lane stripe, or from edge lane to lane stripe, but adjustments need to be made for drainage grates, parking…”
Interior Campus Locations
l CLASS ONE BIKE PATH
AASHTO describe the dimensional requirements of bike paths where pedestrians also expects to travel.
“Under certain conditions it may be necessary or desirable to increase the width of a bicycle path to 12 feet (3.7m); for example, because of substantial bicycle volumes, probable shared use with joggers and other pedestrians, use by large maintenance vehicles, steep grades…”
l DISMOUNT AND CAUTION ZONES
Dismount zones step down to caution zones at certain time period
- Dismount zones
- Regulations
Written policies describing the bicycle regulations, violations and penalties to govern the use of these areas mentioned above should be adopted and enforced.
- Suggested areas
Conclusions
…it is recommended that the university consider adopting a standard minimum road width of wide-curb –lanes dimensions for use on all newly constructed campus roads that do not require bike lanes.
IMPROVEMENTS TO RECOMMENDED BIKE ROUTES
Overview
P. 24, Fig. 13
Future Actions
l Rules and Regulations
Subdivide into 3 categories:
- Those that governing the parking of bicycles
- Those that address the operation of bicycles
- Those that pertain to the registration of bicycles
l Promotion and Safety Education
* The immediate goal involves the collection and communication of information
Conclusion
(Perhaps) the most important phase in the planning of the physical network is the initial one: Data collection.
APPENDIX
P. 52~53, P. 56~57, P. 58~75
22AUG12 Case Study List
San Francisco
South Third Street in Missoula, Montana
Portland, Oregon
LAF .....X Precedence / Proposals in China .....X [UNiVERSiTY CAMPUS]
22AUG12 External Link
Update 20120806* Topic Changing
GARDEN OF FORKING PATHS 