Caltrans Endorsement of NACTO Guidance: what it means, whats been - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Caltrans Endorsement of NACTO Guidance: what it means, what’s been accomplished, and where we’re headed

Beth Thomas, Pedestrian & Bicycle Planning/ Coordination Branch Chief, Caltrans District 4

Caltrans Complete Streets Policy (Deputy Directive 64-R1)

 Superseded Non-Motorized Policy in 2008  Provide for needs of all ages, abilities  Planning, programming, design,

construction, operations, maintenance

 Opportunity to improve safety, access,

mobility for all travelers

 Bicycle, pedestrian, transit modes as

integral elements

Caltrans Complete Intersections Publication Guiding Principles

 Observe  Pedestrians & bicyclists

will be there

 Maintain & improve  Tee it up  One decision at a time  Slow it down

Caltrans Complete Intersections Publication Guiding Principles

 Shorten crossings  Improve visibility  Clarify the right-of-way  Keep it direct  Light at night  Access for all

Alternative to Free-Flow Ramps

Redesign ramp to meet crossroad at 90 degrees Construct one-lane on ramps Provide bicycle pocket to left of dedicated turn lane

From: Complete Intersections: A Guide to Reconstructing Intersections and Interchanges for Pedestrians and Bicyclists, 2010 prepared by Caltrans, Alta Planning + Design, Cambridge Systematics

Alternative to Free-Flow Ramps

From: Complete Intersections: A Guide to Reconstructing Intersections and Interchanges for Pedestrians and Bicyclists, 2010 prepared by Caltrans, Alta Planning + Design, Cambridge Systematics

Traffic Control Devices: Interim Approvals (2011)

 Green bike lanes & Rectangular Rapid

Flashing Beacons

Caltrans sought, received CA approval from FHWA Local agencies just inform Caltrans of location Guidance in FHWA Interim Approval Memo

Photo: courtesy of Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition

Source: FHWA

 Increased minimum sidewalk width

(previously 5’ min in all cases)

8’ min for urban & rural main streets Elsewhere: 6’ min contiguous to curb,

5’ min next to planting strip

CA Highway Design Manual (HDM) Update for Complete Streets (2012)

Source: NACTO

 Decreased min lane width from 12’ to 11’

Conventional highways  Posted speed < or = 40 mph Average daily trucks < 250 per lane Urban, suburban, town center/ rural main street

CA HDM Update for Complete Streets (2012)

From Albany Complete Streets Plan for San Pablo Ave (SR 123)

 Corner Radius / Sizing

Smaller radii of 15 to 25’

Minor cross streets with few

truck/ bus turns

Local agency standards

May be appropriate in urban,

suburban areas

First curb extension/ bulbout

standards

Posted speed of 35 mph or less On-street parking

www.walkinginfo.org

CA HDM Update for Complete Streets (2012)

 Pedestrian refuge islands

“Where pedestrians are allowed to cross 4 or

more lanes at a marked or unmarked crosswalk, a pedestrian refuge island should be provided”

6’ in direction of ped travel

CA HDM Update for Complete Streets (2012)

Caltrans Main Street, California Guide (2013)

 Principles

Flexibility in design Partnerships: Caltrans,

communities, stakeholders

Main streets for all

Walking, biking, public transit,

travelers with disabilities

Caltrans Main Street, California Guide

 Principles (Continued)

Livable Main Streets

Placemaking, community

identity

Scenic highways/ byways

Sustainable Main Streets

Sustainable land uses Resource stewardship Fiscal sustainability

Caltrans Main Street, California Guide

 Design & operational elements for pedestrians

Setting the speed limit/ main street design speed Road diets/ # of lanes Lane width Raised median islands/

pedestrian refuge islands

Curb extensions/ bulbouts

Caltrans Main Street, California Guide

 Design & operational elements for pedestrians

Crosswalk markings Advance stop or yield lines Roundabouts Signals & beacons On-street parking

Caltrans Main Street, California Guide

 Design & operational elements for bicyclists

Bike lanes & green bike lanes Bike routes Shared traffic lanes

Shared lane markings

(sharrows)

Bike paths

Caltrans Main Street, California Guide

 Design & operational elements for bicyclists

Bike parking Signs for bicycle facilities Access during construction Drainage grates

State Smart Transportation Initiative (SSTI) Report on Caltrans (Jan 2014)

 Critiqued Caltrans re. roadway design

 Focus on pedestrian-dense urban areas

 Concerned with statute specifying that Caltrans

develop design criteria for local bikeways

 Pointed out that Caltrans design guidance has

no facility type intermittent between on-street bike lanes and bike paths 5 feet back of curb

Bikeway Classifications in the HDM

 Class I

Bike path Generally shared with pedestrians 5 feet off the roadway/ back of curb unless behind

a barrier

Cross-flows minimized

Photo: Jake Nicol, OaklandNorth.net

Bikeway Classifications in the HDM

Source: LA Streetsblog

 Class II

On-street bike lane To left of parking lane

NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide & Urban Street Design Guide

 NACTO = National Association of City

Transportation Officials

 SSTI references:

“give designers the option of using NACTO urban

design standards in metro areas.”

“quickly adopt modern guidance such as that laid

• ut in the Urban Street Design Guide.”

Near-Market for Cycling

 Portland Survey *

1% “strong & fearless” cyclists Bike anywhere 7% “enthused & confident” cyclists Just need a bike lane or shoulder for any traffic

conditions

60% “interested but concerned” Want separation if motorized traffic speed or volume

is high

Much bigger market than current cyclists 33% “no way no how”

• Geller, Roger, Portland Office of Transportation, Undated

Near-Market for Cycling

• Geller, Roger, Portland Office of Transportation, Undated

 Endorsed both Urban Street Design Guide &

Urban Bikeway Design Guide

For reference in making design decisions For use in documenting design exceptions Not yet approved traffic control devices still

require request to experiment

CA Traffic Control Devices Committee & FHWA

Caltrans NACTO Endorsement (April 2014)

 Caltrans released Flexibility in Multimodal

Design Memo

Refers to HDM policy & philosophy Not ‘one-size-fits-all’ Delegates design authority to local agencies Including for bikeways References additional guidance sources NACTO (Urban Street & Urban Bikeway) ITE Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares

Caltrans NACTO Endorsement (April 2014)

 HDM Revision – Sept 2014

 New statement acknowledging sources of

guidance in addition to HDM

 Not limited to FHWA & AASHTO

Caltrans Accomplishments Since NACTO Endorsement

 HDM Revision – Sept 2014

 Design Speed Reduction 30 mph: downtowns/ city centers 30-40 mph: rural & suburban main streets

Caltrans Accomplishments Since NACTO Endorsement

 HDM Revision – Sept 2014

 Revised curb extension/ bulbout standards Setback reduced from 4’ to 2’ = larger bulbouts

Caltrans Accomplishments Since NACTO Endorsement

 Caltrans compared CA MUTCD to NACTO  Fast-tracked 3 items

 Already allowed by FHWA but lacking guidance  Buffered Bicycle Lanes  Contraflow Bicycle Lanes  Bicycle Lane Extensions through Intersections

New Bikeway Sections in CA MUTCD* (Forthcoming Fall 2014)

* CA MUTCD = California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

 Buffered Bicycle Lanes

New Bikeway Sections in CA MUTCD (Forthcoming Fall 2014)

Sloat Blvd (SR 35). Photo: Sergio Ruiz, Caltrans

 Contraflow Bicycle Lanes

New Bikeway Sections in CA MUTCD (Forthcoming Fall 2014)

Source: NACTO

 Bicycle Lane Extensions Through Intersections

New Bikeway Sections in CA MUTCD (Forthcoming Fall 2014)

 Caltrans proposed CA adoption of

Federal Interim Approval to CTCDC

 Would eliminate bike volume warrants in

current CA MUTCD

 CTCDC developing CA-specific

language

 Would allow use with:  Ped Hybrid Beacon  Bicycle scramble (all-way bike phase)

Bicycle Signal Faces (Anticipated 2015)

 Signed into law Sept 2014  Established Class IV

facility type: cycle track

 Requires Caltrans to

develop design guidance (by 1/ 1/ 16)

 Allows local agencies to use other guidance

Under specified conditions

Long Beach. Source: Orange20bikes.com

Assembly Bill 1193: Protected Bikeways Act

 Guidance development

plan still in the works

 Engagement

CA Bicycle Advisory

Committee (CBAC)

Other stakeholder committees

 Will develop any complementary striping

guidance for CA MUTCD

Next Steps: Class IV in HDM

Indianapolis Cultural Trail. Source: NACTO

Next Steps: CA MUTCD

 Bike Boxes & 2-Stage Turn Queue Boxes

NCUTCD recommended guidance to FHWA

For 2016 Federal MUTCD

Federal Interim Approval sooner than 2016? Need for FHWA finding of substantial

conformance

Between CA & Federal MUTCD Submit request to experiment in meantime

Next Steps: CA MUTCD

 Bike Boxes

Position cyclist ahead of waiting traffic at

intersection for visibility

Experiments: being evaluated

in San Luis Obispo, CA & Columbus, OH

Source: NACTO

 Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes

To facilitate left turns Experiments in progress with FHWA oversight Already approved by FHWA for T-intersections

Source: NACTO

New & Experimental Treatments Found in NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide

Questions/ Comments?