3. Objectives
• Understand that there is diversity among
bicyclists we are designing for in St. Louis
• There is a distinct preference in the type of
facilities we are providing in the Gateway
Bike Plan.
• There are a basic and expanded pallet of
bikeway types in the Gateway Bike Plan.
• Safety is critical, and good design is
mandatory.
• Funding is available to get it done
• Practice using the bikeway “Top 10”.
4. The Bicycle
Vision – The Gateway
Bike Plan will create the
bicycle component to
the regional
transportation network
that accommodates all
users and promotes
consistent design and
development of bicycle
facilities.
5. The Bicycle
Mission – Increase
the number of people
using bicycles for
transportation, while
reducing the number
of crashes involving
bicycles
6. Top Ten Considerations for Bikeways
1. Is the roadway a collector , arterial or
neighborhood street?
2. Has the bikeway taken into consideration the
primary type of riders using the bikeway?
3. How does the bikeway fit into the roadway
segment?
4. Has the bikeway type considered the volume
of motor vehicles?
5. Has the bikeway type considered speeds of
motor vehicles?
7. Top Ten Considerations for Bikeways
6. How does the bikeway integrate into the
transportation system?
7. Has the bikeway taken into consideration
ongoing maintenance?
8. Has the bikeway type considered
intersections?
9. What destinations are you connecting?
10. Have you considered the right of way and
roadway width ?
11. Bike Network:
Note: Bike St. Louis
mileage included in the
table does not include
mileage in the regional
network that calls for
changes to facility type.
Assessment in the plan
did not include all BSL
routes.
23. Purpose
• To provide continuous low‐stress access
within a neighborhood.
• To provide a route parallel to desirable high‐
volume travel routes
• To create low‐stress connections to family,
work and recreation destinations
• To provide a network of connected
neighborhoods
24. Why?
Walk or bike to school
1969 42%
2001 16%
Health, options, independence and vitality
27. Features
• Safe pedestrian environment for all ages and
abilities
• Safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian
crossings minimizing delay at minor streets
• Easy to find and follow
• Calming for motor vehicle traffic
• Streetscape that slows and discourages through
motor vehicle traffic
28. Features
• Parallel to desirable travel routes lacking
dedicated bicycle facilities or that make
pedestrians uncomfortable
• Accommodate pedestrians and cyclists not
comfortable using major roads (even with bike
lanes and sidewalks)
• A “Family‐friendly” alternative for children
and/or less experienced riders
31. • Quiet Streets are also called Bicycle
Boulevards or Neighborhood Greenways
• Streets where bicycling and walking is
prioritized over motor vehicles
• Shared roadways with no specific vehicle or
bike lane markings (e.g., a residential street)
• Streets with lower travel speeds and low or
reduced motor vehicle volumes
• A safe environment to walk along and cross as
a pedestrian
32. Why Bother?
• Precedent
• Finding Our way
• Calming
• Getting Across
• Signals
63. Shared Lane Markings
Shared roadway pavement
markings are markings used to
indicate a shared lane
environment for bicycles and
automobiles. SLMs reinforce
the validity of bicycle traffic
on the road and suggest
proper positioning of cyclists
on the street.
Portland
64. Shared Lane Markings:
Shared Lane Markings: “
What does it do?
– Shows cyclists where to
ride on the street to avoid
doors
– Alerts drivers to cyclists
Where is it appropriate?
– Not enough room for lanes
– Parallel parking
– High occupancy rate
65. Use of Shared Lane Markings
• Adjacent to on‐street parking to position
cyclist outside of door zone
• In wide lanes to position away from curb
• Narrow lanes (yes, they can go in the middle)
• Multi‐lane roads where there is no room for
bike lane
• Climbing lanes (on downgrade) paired with
bike lane
• 35 mph or less speed limit
80. Advantages of bike lanes
• Create a lane so cyclists can travel at their own
pace ( priority for bikes that allow passing
stopped motor vehicles in travel lanes)
• Guide cyclists in a manner consistent with good
operation (close to traffic, where they’re visible
and drivers can predict their movements)
• Reduce bicycle / pedestrian conflicts (cyclists
no longer ride on sidewalks)
• Striping creates conditions that change
behaviors
• More cyclists on the road leads to increased
driver awareness
82. Bike Lane Basics
• Markings are required, signs are optional
• Edge lines between bikes and motor
vehicles should be 6”, the right bike lane
line should be 4”
• Keep bike lanes solid and not dotted at
unsignalized driveways and alleys
• Dot lines through bus stops
• In St. Louis we use a helmeted rider and
an arrow
83. Bike Lane Basics
• 5 ft. standard width (4 ft. with no curb and gutter)
• 5 ft. bike lane is sufficient assuming a 1 ft. wide
gutter
• In areas that have 2 ft. wide gutter, a 6 ft. wide
bike lane is preferred, with 5 ft. as a minimum
width in locations with lower speeds
• In extremely constrained, urban low speed
environments where 5 ft. cannot be achieved and
there is no gutter, a 4 ft. wide bike lane is
acceptable (assumes adjacent travel lane has been
narrowed to the minimum acceptable width)
84. Car Doors and Bike Lanes
• Why this is an issue, and where?
• Recommend and reinforcing safer path of
travel
Use Parking “T’s” extending into bike lane
Use parking “T’s” in a wide parking lane
Slightly narrower bike lane symbols on the
left of lane
85. Angled Parking
• Bike lanes not recommended along front-in
angled parking, use Shared Lane Markings
• Bike lanes are OK with back-in angled parking if:
1. Parking bays are sufficiently long
2. Solid line separates parking and bike lane
Yes No
94. Colorized Lanes
Color applied to bicycle facilities
helps alert roadway users to the
presence of bicyclists and clearly
assigns right-of-way to cyclists.
Motorists are expected to yield to
cyclists in these areas.
Portland
98. Convenience of
Colorized Lanes
riding on the street
with some
psychological
separation
Novice cyclists are
more likely to ride
in bike lane, not on
sidewalk
Street appears
narrower -
motorists drive
slower
Used in many
cities within the US
(Seattle, Olympia,
Portland) and
worldwide
122. Buffered
Bicycle lane with a spatial
buffer to increase the distance
between the bicycle travel lane
and the automobile travel lane
or the parking zone.
Portland
131. Convenience of
Buffered (Raised)
riding on the
street +
psychological
separation of a
barrier
Mountable curb
allows cyclists to
leave bike lane for
turning or
overtaking
Motorists feel
bump when they
stray into curb
Novice bicyclists
more likely to ride
in bike lane rather
than on sidewalk
135. Cycle Track
A bicycle exclusive facility that
provides physical separation from
motorized vehicle traffic within the
right of way.
Portland
136. Cycle Track
A bicycle exclusive facility that
provides physical separation from
motorized vehicle traffic within the
right of way.
Combines the user experience of a
separated path with the on-street
infrastructure of a bike lane.
Portland
182. Request to Experiment
FHWA experimentation procedure:
Requests for experimentation should
originate with the agency responsible for
managing the roadway where experiment will
take place.
That organization forwards the request to the
FHWA.
The FHWA must approve the experiment
before it begins.
183. Request to Experiment
All requests must include:
A statement of the nature of the problem, including data
that justifies the need for a new device or application.
Describe the proposed change, how it was developed,
how it deviates from the current MUTCD.
Illustrations that enhance understanding of the device
or its use.
Explain how the device was developed, if it has been
tried, the adequacy of its performance, and the process
by which the device was chosen.
A statement that the concept of the traffic control device
is not protected by a patent or copyright.
184. Request to Experiment
All requests must include:
The time period and locations of the experiment.
A detailed research or evaluation plan. Before and after
studies, quantitative data enabling a scientifically-sound
evaluation of the performance.
An agreement to restore the site following completion.
Agreement to terminate the experiment if the experiment
causes significant safety hazards.
An agreement to provide progress reports for the
duration of the experiment.
187. Request to Experiment
At the conclusion of the experiment:
If the experiment demonstrates an
improvement, it may remain in place
as a request is made to update the
MUTCD.