Bicycle and Pedestrian State of Practice

Due to the long history of routine accommodation for pedestrians, such as sidewalks, crosswalks, dedicated signals, etc., there has been relatively little need for innovations in pedestrian facilities. Conversely, the historical lack of similar accommodation for bicyclists combined with increased interest in improvements has helped to generate innovative bicycle-related facility diversity and breadth. Particularly in the last five years, the state of practice for bicycle facilities in the United States has undergone significant transformation. Much of this may be attributed to bicycling’s changing role in the overall transportation environment. Until recently widely viewed as an “alternative” mode, it is now considered a legitimate transportation mode that should be actively promoted to help achieve air quality targets and to provide a more equitable transportation system, among other goals. While connectivity and convenience remain essential bicycle facility quality indicators, recent research strongly supports the increased acceptance and practice of daily bicycling will require “low-stress” bicycle facilities. Specifically, facility types, and design interventions intended to encourage ridership among the large “interested, but concerned” portion of the population tend to be those that provide separation from high volume and high speed vehicular traffic. Other measures required to mainstream bicycling include convenient and secure bicycle parking and other end-of-trip facilities, as well as seamless bicycle-transit integration designed to address “first and last mile” connectivity. Bicycle facility state of practice is in flux and new and innovative facility details are constantly being refined. The level of guidance regarding innovative facilities at the local, regional, State, and national levels varies. In the case of Californian cities, best practice guidance comes primarily from national organizations such as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), and through the efforts of other cities within California and elsewhere that have planned, implemented, and evaluated such facilities. Bikeway design guidance has traditionally come from the State, especially Caltrans’ California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), but this agency and manual offer little support for innovative facilities. Fortunately, California cities may apply for experimental designation from the FHWA for projects not in conformance with the CA MUTCD. The following section provides a review of facility state of practice, drawing on the AASHTO and NACTO guides, as well as experiences from California cities and elsewhere. A subsequent section addresses Complete Streets state of practice at the local, regional, State, and national levels.