Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways (2018)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

171 5.1 General Considerations In urban, suburban and rural town contexts, levels of non-motorized user activity typically warrant some provision of facilities for these users. Whereas Chapter 4 of this Guide focuses on criteria for design of the traveled way itself, this chapter provides guidance for the accommoda- tion of pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users in the roadside area adjacent to the traveled way. It also addresses how the design of the roadside varies with changes in context As noted in Chapter 4, balancing and blending modal accommodation in the geometric design process often involves technical analysis supported by a qualitative, even subjective, process involving policy choices, engineering judgment and the use of flexible and unique design approaches. These guidelines identify the ranges of flexibility that are available in current national design practice and guidelines for how to apply that flexibility. Greater awareness of the flexibility and versatility available in national guidance will help designers overcome many challenges related to both new and retrofit project designs. 5.1.1 Roadside Users, Uses and Activities in Low- and Intermediate-Speed Environments 5.1.1.1 Roadside Users Roadside users normally include pedestrians, can include bicyclists, and sometimes include unique users such as skateboarders and rollerbladers. ADA also requires that roadside projects in the public right-of-way must accommodate users with disabilities, including persons with vision and hearing impairments and persons in wheelchairs or motorized scooters (U.S. Access Board 2011). Pedestrians are the most vulnerable type of roadway user. Pedestrians are at the greatest risk of injury or death in a collision with someone traveling by any other mode. Bicyclists generally travel at slower speeds than motorized vehicles and are inherently more vulnerable in the event of a crash with a car, truck, or transit vehicle. Crash risks also exist between bicyclists and pedes- trians when these users share the same space, with pedestrians often at a disadvantage in those crash situations because of the speed differential. The roadside is frequently crossed by vehicular access driveways in urban and suburban contexts, which creates additional conflict risks for all non-motorized users. Roadways and streets should be designed to operate at speeds that create comfortable environ- ments for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as reasonable accommodation for motorized vehicles. Roadway traveled way designs in contexts with pedestrian and/or bicycle activity should attempt to limit excessive speeding, and design speeds should be appropriate for the road classification and context of surrounding land uses. On existing roads and streets with operating speeds considered C H A P T E R 5 Roadside Design Guidelines

172 Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways excessive or inappropriate for roadside pedestrians and bicyclists, traffic calming measures should be considered to reduce speeds to improve safety and comfort for all users. Pedestrians and bicyclists are particularly vulnerable in the event of a crash. Speed is of funda- mental importance: the severity of a pedestrian injury in the event of a crash is directly related to the speed of the vehicle at the point of impact. For example, a pedestrian who is hit by a motor- ized vehicle traveling at 20 mph has an approximate 95 percent chance of survival, whereas a pedestrian hit by a motorized vehicle traveling at 40 mph has an approximate 15 percent chance of survival. Vehicles traveling at lower speeds also have more reaction time, which helps prevents crashes. Designing for reduced vehicle speeds is especially important in urban, urban core and rural town contexts with higher levels of pedestrian and bicyclist activity. Improving the level of service, QOS or performance for one roadside user mode may nega- tively impact those same elements for one or more of the other roadside modes. Space and service for roadside users may also compete for space within the constrained right-of-way cross- section environments. Although technical analysis driven by quantitative data provides useful information to the designer about the impacts of these design choices and modal interactions, no single process or tool can provide absolute choices for a “best fit” design solution that meets roadside user needs and balances them with traveled way user needs. 5.1.1.2 Roadside Uses The roadside accommodates non-vehicular activity (typically walking and off-street bicy- cling) as well as the business and social activities of the adjacent land use context. It extends from the edge of the vehicular traveled way to the edge of the right-of-way, and it may abut buildings directly in urban and rural town settings, parking lots and fences in suburban settings, or open space in rural settings. The roadside also may contain private driveway approaches that must be carefully designed to ensure safe interactions between crossing pedestrians or bicyclists and motorized traffic or bicyclists in the traveled way. In urban, suburban and rural town context zones, the public right-of-way most typically includes pedestrian facilities (sidewalk) between the back of curb (or edge of shoulder) to the front property line of adjoining parcels, supported by some level of landscaping. This space can also serve many other functions, such as stormwater collection and management, utility placement and transit access. A well-designed roadside is important to a roadway’s function as a “public place” in many urban, suburban and rural town contexts. In urban and urban core areas with high levels of pedestrian use, the roadside often is divided into a series of zones that emphasize different functions, including frontage, throughway, fur- nishings and edge zones. (For more information on zones, see Chapter 2). On many corridors, the roadside also may include separate bicycle facilities, such as separated bicycle tracks, multi- use paths or exclusive cycle tracks. The function of roadside zones and the level of roadside use by pedestrians and bicyclists relate directly to the multimodal function of the corridor and the activities generated by the adjacent context. In any context, the basic functions of the roadside are the accommodation of pedestrians, access to adjoining buildings and properties, traffic control devices (signs and posts, traffic signal equipment), and the provision of clear zones and space for above- and below-ground utilities and other roadside appurtenances. In urban and some suburban or rural town contexts, these basic functions may be shared with the activities generated by the adjacent land use and general community functions, which can include: • Aesthetic features (such as landscaping, street trees, banners, public art); • Pedestrian-supportive amenities (benches, trash receptacles, news racks, kiosks, parklets, public restrooms);

Roadside Design Guidelines 173 • Bicycle amenities (bicycle racks); • Transit amenities (such as benches, shelters, waiting areas); • Pedestrian-scale lighting; • Sidewalk cafes; • Fountains and water features; • Plazas and seating areas; and • Merchandise display and occasional public activities (such as farmers’ markets or art shows). Roadside functions vary greatly by context zone and land use activity. The width of certain elements of the roadside will vary by roadway depending on the existence or lack of on-street parking and the speed and volume of vehicular traffic on the roadway. For example, the width of the furnishings zone may vary, with one design factor being its use as a buffer from vehicles for non-motorized users. Variations in the width of the roadside are addressed in the design guidelines in the section on roadside width and functional requirements. 5.1.1.3 Roadside Types and Zones Roadsides can take many forms and functions depending on the roadway and land use that they separate. Exhibits 5-1 through 5-11 illustrate differing traveled way roadside functions and Source: North Carolina DOT (2012) Exhibit 5-1. Cross section for typical urban/suburban Main Street. Source: North Carolina DOT (2012) Exhibit 5-2. Cross section for typical urban/suburban avenue.

Source: North Carolina DOT (2012) Exhibit 5-3. Cross section for typical urban/suburban boulevard. Source: North Carolina DOT (2012) Exhibit 5-4. Cross section for typical urban/suburban parkway. Source: North Carolina DOT (2012) Exhibit 5-5. Cross section for typical local/subdivision residential street.

Source: North Carolina DOT (2012) Exhibit 5-6. Cross section for typical local/subdivision office-commercial-industrial street. Source: North Carolina DOT (2012) Exhibit 5-7. Cross section for typical rural town Main Street. Source: North Carolina DOT (2012) Exhibit 5-8. Cross section for typical rural avenue.

176 Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways Source: North Carolina DOT (2012) Exhibit 5-9. Cross section for typical rural boulevard. Source: North Carolina DOT (2012) Exhibit 5-10. Cross section for typical rural parkway. Source: North Carolina DOT (2012) Exhibit 5-11. Cross section for typical rural road.

Roadside Design Guidelines 177 configurations across a range of roadway types in urban, suburban, rural and rural town con- texts as included in the North Carolina DOT’s Complete Streets Planning and Design Guidelines (2012). These eleven exhibits show the diversity of roadside uses and functions that may be appropriate for various roadside designs. Roadside elements, or zones, included in these cross sections include: • Sidewalk zone, • Bicycle zone, • Green zone (landscaping/drainage) with and without curbs, • Multiuse path zone, • Shoulders (paved and unpaved), and • Clear zone. In urban core, urban, rural town and some suburban contexts, the roadside design becomes increasingly complex given the close proximity of building frontages and a high level of inter- action between the roadside amenities and building activities. These settings generally incorpo- rate wide pedestrian sidewalks; buffers between sidewalks and parking or moving traffic lanes; and other traveled way elements, such as bus stop shelters, benches, sidewalk cafes, street trees and landscaping. (For more information on urban roadsides, see Chapter 2 in this Guide, particularly Exhibits 2-6 and 2-7). Urban roadsides often are designed with four key functional zones in mind: • Edge zone. This area, between the face of the curb and the furnishings zone, provides the minimum necessary separation between objects and activities in the roadside and vehicles in the traveled way; • Furnishings zone. This area provides a buffer between pedestrians and vehicles, and may contain landscaping, public street furniture, transit stops, public signage, utilities and so forth; • Throughway zone. The ADA establishes a minimum width for this area (sometimes called the “walking zone”), which must remain clear both horizontally and vertically for the movement of pedestrians (U.S. Access Board 2011); and • Frontage zone. Defined by the distance between the throughway and the building front or private property line, this area is used to buffer pedestrians from window shoppers, appurte- nances and doorways. The frontage zone may contain private street furniture, private signage and merchandise displays. Depending on the available width, it also can be used for street cafes. This zone is sometimes referred to as the “shy” zone. Exhibit 5-12 illustrates the four zones using the example of a roadside in an urban commercial area. 5.1.2 Relationship of Roadside and Traveled Way Environments A roadway design project may involve improvements to the roadside, to the traveled way, or to both. Even if a design project involves only one of these two realms, the proximity and interac- tions of the roadside with the traveled way make it essential to consider both realms during the design process. Land use context creates a third realm, which also is essential to consider in the design process because it informs the designer how the land use is served by, and relates to, all users of the roadside and the traveled way. Located between the traveled way and the adjacent land use context, the roadside must accommodate the uses, functions and activities of those realms as well as its own. This chapter addresses design elements and criteria for the roadside that serves pedestrians of all ages and abilities, bicycle users in some settings, and land use needs in some contextual settings. Other special users may include persons in wheelchairs or scooters, skateboarders, and rollerbladers.

178 Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways Roadside users can be separated from the motorized vehicle traveled way by painted edge line markings where paved shoulders exist, by raised vertical curbs, by paved shoulders and verti- cal curbs, and by on-street parking. Where paved shoulders are provided but no all-weather or other roadside facilities are available to pedestrians or bicycle riders, these travelers may use the shoulder because they have no other option. Although shoulders are not substitutes for well-designed, separated pedestrian or bicycle facilities in the roadside, the need may occasion- ally exist to design shoulders as walkways or bikeways where roadside space or funding is con- strained. The FHWA Guidance Memorandum ACTION: Consideration and Implementation of Proven Safety Countermeasures states that “walkable shoulders (minimum of 4 ft. stabilized or paved surface) should be provided along both sides of rural highways routinely used by pedestri- ans” (FHWA 2008). Bicycle use of shoulders is a common occurrence on many urban, suburban and rural roadways with shoulder facilities. Design guidance for the traveled way, roadside and intersections are organized into three dis- tinct chapters of this Guide, but all three design environments involve many interrelationships and multiple modal users. Therefore, the full right-of-way cross section and intersection design development process should be integrated as alternatives are developed and analyzed. 5.1.3 Multimodal Network Considerations Project design usually takes place at a much smaller scale than the network level, but it is important that design of a multimodal project including roadsides understand the network role of the facility on which the project is located. A roadway’s functional classification (arterial, collector or local) as defined in the federal, state and regional transportation planning processes is a primary network consideration; however, these designations are based solely on motorized vehicle mobility. They do not address a facility’s role in the mobility of other modes and how the facility relates to the community and the adjacent land use context. Source: Image courtesy of Community Design + Architecture Exhibit 5-12. Key components of an urban roadside.

Roadside Design Guidelines 179 The design process for any roadside should recognize the role of that roadway in all related transportation plans. The project design should be guided by all related state, regional, sub- regional and neighborhood plans for the roadway facility in relation to context and community goals and values. The design of the individual roadside project, therefore, is guided by both its context and the combined multimodal performance of the network. One difficult situation that is often encountered in the design of project roadsides on arterial roadways (and some collector roadways) is the need to balance the desires of local residents or communities to emphasize livability, character, walkability, bikeability, and other non-vehicle mobility goals versus the desires of transportation agencies to emphasize vehicle capacity or accommodation of projected vehicular travel demand. The designer should keep in mind that the roadside is the only traveled way for the pedestrian, and may be the only traveled way for bicyclists if separated lanes or other facilities are not provided. Network goals and considerations for roadside users may be informed by several different levels of network plans, as noted in Exhibit 5-13. The role that the roadside may serve in each of these modal network levels will influence the design of that facility. Multimodal accommodation can exist on any functional classification of roadway: arterial, collector or local. The Guide primarily addresses accommodation needs on arterial and collec- tor roadways because it is typically on those facilities where the combination of user types and volumes, vehicle speeds and context interactions presents the most challenging conditions to a designer. However, designers should keep in mind that each roadway and roadside design is unique, and the ultimate design needs to address the context, objectives, priorities and design concept established for all aspects of the facility and corridor. 5.1.4 Balancing Safety Between Roadside Users and Traveled Way Users Roadside safety concerns in urban contexts differ from those in rural contexts, where speeds are higher and most travel is by vehicle. In designing the roadside for traditional urban contexts, Type of Transportation Network Plan Possible Roadside Modal Plan Elements Transit Bicycle Pedestrian Other Community Goals for Roadsides * State Transportation Plan X X X Regional Transportation Plan (MPO/TPO) X X X Local Transportation Plan (County/City) X X X X Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan (local, regional, state) X X Transit Agency Service Plan X X X X Community Plan X X X X Corridor Plan X X X X Neighborhood Plan X X X X * Land use (context), urban design, housing, community facilities, recreation, parks/open space, utilities economic development. Exhibit 5-13. Planning documents that address modal elements in roadside project design.

180 Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways the designer is concerned about the safety of a wider range of users, including pedestrians on the sidewalk, and motorists, motorcyclists and bicyclists using the traveled way and/or road- side. The designer should consider the context of the roadway, including competing demands within limited rights-of-way and the peak periods when demand may be highest. In urban areas, roadside safety is achieved by: • Separating modes of different speeds and vulnerabilities to the extent possible by both space and time (e.g., bicyclists from pedestrians, pedestrians from vehicles, and bicyclists from vehicles when possible); • Informing all users of the presence and mix of travel modes; and • Providing adequate sight distance. The most challenging aspect of this design process often lies in developing solutions to resolve the inherent conflicts that arise where modes of travel cross paths (e.g., driveways crossing pedes- trian and bicycle paths in the roadside, pedestrians and bicycles mixing with motorized vehicles within intersections or other crossing locations). Providing for the roadside safety of the users in all contexts focuses on: • Providing uniform and predictable designs and traffic control; • Removing clearly hazardous roadside obstacles; and • Establishing an appropriate vehicle operating target speed, which in turn controls the speed- related geometric design elements of the traveled way. For detailed guidance on roadside design, the designer should be familiar with the concepts and guidance provided in the Roadside Design Guide (AASHTO 2011b) and NCHRP Report 612: Safe and Aesthetic Design of Urban Roadside Treatments (Dixon et al. 2008b). 5.1.4.1 Relationship of Vehicle Speed to Roadside Design A person’s decision to walk or ride a bicycle is influenced by many factors, including distance, perceived safety and comfort, convenience and visual interest of the route. In the roadside, pedestrians and bicyclists feel exposed and vulnerable when walking and riding directly adjacent to a high-speed travel lane, whether behind a standard vertical curb or on a shoulder. Vehicle noise, vehicle exhaust, and the sensation of passing vehicles reduce pedes- trian and bicyclist comfort and increase their stress level. Factors that improve the comfort of pedestrians and bicyclists include increased separation distances from moving traffic and barrier protection from moving traffic or a reduction in vehicle operating speed. In urban and suburban environments, a buffer zone that improves pedestrian and bicyclist comfort can be achieved using the width of the edge and furnishings zones, landscaping and on-street parking. 5.1.4.2 Roadside Clear Zones The application of a clear zone is most critical on high-speed (50 mph and above) roadways. Clear zones often are not fully implemented on low-speed (45 mph or below) urban thorough- fares with right-of-way constraints. In many situations, the vehicle safety hazard of roadside obstacles is substantially less in urban areas because of lower speeds, the presence of parked vehicles, or increased traveled way roadside separation from on-street bicycle lanes and buffers or shoulders. The Roadside Design Guide (AASHTO 2011b) focuses on safety treatments that can mini- mize the likelihood of serious motorist injuries when vehicles leave the roadway. The principles and guidelines for roadside design presented in the AASHTO guide generally discuss roadside safety considerations for rural highways, Interstates and freeways. Speeds on these roadways are

Roadside Design Guidelines 181 generally higher, approaching or exceeding 50 mph, and vehicles are operating under free-flow conditions. Much of the information presented in the AASHTO guide applies to rural high- speed facilities, but Chapter 10 offers information on urban roadside practices. It presents the designer with considerations to enhance safety on uncontrolled access highways in urban or restricted environments with these typical conditions (AASHTO 2011b): • Lower or lowering speeds; • Dense abutting development; • Limited rights-of-way; • Closely spaced intersections and accesses to properties; • Higher traffic volumes; and • The presence of special users, including transit vehicles, delivery trucks, bicycles, and pedes- trians (including persons with disabilities). Chapter 11 of the Roadside Design Guide (AASHTO 2011b) provides information on mail- boxes and mailbox pullout design. Chapter 12 discusses the application of the roadside safety concept on very low-volume roads and streets. Written for use by design engineers and professionals involved in roadside safety, the Road- side Design Guide is not intended to be used as a standard or a policy statement. Designers are expected to use the AASHTO guide as one reference on which to build the roadside design criteria best suited to their particular location and projects. Knowledgeable design, practically applied at the project level, offers the greatest potential for a continually improved transporta- tion system. The Roadside Design Guide provides the following information regarding roadside design relationships to pedestrian roadside users, and similar guidance could be applied to road- side bicycle users (AASHTO 2011b): • The common practice in urban settings is to use curbs or curbs with gutters adjacent to the highway travel lanes or shoulders (when present) to provide separation of pedestrians from the traffic flow. Realistically, curbs have limited re-directional capabilities and these occur only at low speeds of approxi- mately 40 km/h [25 mph] or lower. For speeds above 40 km/h [25 mph], the curb can influence driver behavior by providing positive guidance but does not provide a physical vehicle redirection function. Curbs alone may not be adequate protection for pedestrians on adjacent sidewalks or for shielding util- ity poles. In some cases, other measures may need to be considered. • In urban conditions, a minimum lateral offset of 1.5 ft. should be provided beyond the face of curbs to any frangible obstructions. This minimum offset does not meet clear zone criteria, but simply enables normal facility operations which may help to: – Avoid adverse impacts on vehicle lane position and encroachments into opposing or adjacent lanes, – Improve driveway and horizontal sight distances, – Reduce the travel lane encroachments from occasional parked and disabled vehicles, – Improve travel lane capacity, and – Minimize contact from vehicle-mounted intrusions (e.g., large mirrors), car doors, and the overhang of turning trucks. – Designers should strive for lateral offsets more appropriate for the off-peak operating speeds. Exam- ple preferred lateral offsets are identified in Section 10.1.3.1 of this chapter [in AASHTO 2011b]. At the higher-speed end of the rural-urban transition area or urban facilities, consideration should be given to providing a shoulder and offsetting any curbing to the back of the shoulder. The shoulders may be used to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians where sidewalks are not provided. • Sidewalks and pedestrian facilities, in general, do not pose a particular hazard to motorists. The safety concern for locating these facilities adjacent to the road is the risk to the pedestrians using the facilities. • Providing safe facilities for pedestrians to walk is an obvious strategy for increasing pedestrian safety. The Green Book [AASHTO 2011a] recommends the use of sidewalks on urban streets, with sidewalk widths ranging between 4 ft. and 8 ft., depending on the roadway classification and nearby land use characteristics [see Exhibit 5-14]. • An additional feature of the roadside environment is a pedestrian buffer area (often referred to as a buf- fer strip). The pedestrian buffer is a physical distance separating the sidewalk and the vehicle travel way. Buffer areas often accommodate transit stops, street lighting, planting areas for landscape materials, and common street appurtenances including seating and trash receptacles. Buffer strips may be either

182 Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways planted or paved and are encouraged for use between urban roadways and their companion sidewalks. On-street parking is a portion of the traveled way, but it can also serve as an important pedestrian buffer in some contexts. • Common strategies for eliminating or minimizing motorized vehicle-pedestrian crashes at roadside locations are provided in Table 10.5 [of the Roadside Design Guide] as follows: Purpose: Strategy: Reduce motorized vehicle-pedestrian crash likelihood at roadside locations - Offset pedestrian locations away from travel way with pedestrian buffers - Physically separate pedestrians from travel way at high-risk locations - Improve sight distance by removing objects that obscure driver or pedestrian visibility - Provide continuous pedestrian facilities - Install pedestrian refuge medians and/or channelized islands (see [separate] section on medians and islands) Reduce severity of motorized vehicle- pedestrian crashes at roadside locations - Reduce roadway design speed / operating speed in high pedestrian volume locations • Bicycle facilities consist of road and roadside features intended for bicycle operation. These facilities may include standard lanes, wide outside lanes, and bicycle lanes in the traveled way. The roadside may incorporate separated bike lanes, off-road bicycle paths and shared-use paths. Accompanying bicycle facilities in the roadside may include bicycle hardware such as bicycle racks. Wide shoulders and bicycle lanes provide an additional “clear” area adjacent to the traveled way, so these features could potentially provide a secondary safety benefit for motorists, provided bicycle volumes are low, and can be included as part of the clear zone. These bicycle facilities will also further separate the motorized vehicle from any roadside obstructions and improve the resulting sight distance for motorized vehicle drivers at intersecting driveways and streets. • Bicycle racks are commonly made of steel or other metals, and are typically bolted to the ground to secure locked bicycles from potential theft. These features are not designed to be yielding should a run- off-road event occur. Making such features yielding would potentially minimize the core function of these features, to provide a secure location for locking up bicycles. Thus, a potentially more desirable alternative may be to encourage the placement of these features outside of the clear zone on higher- speed roadways. • One on-roadway safety feature that is becoming more prevalent nationwide on facilities experiencing a significant number of runoff-the-road crashes is the use of rumble strips to supplement pavement edge lines. These indentations in the roadway shoulders alert motorists through noise and vibration that their vehicles have departed the traveled way and afford them an opportunity to return to and remain on the roadway safely. While these features are typically used in rural highway settings, there may be contexts in suburban settings where this treatment is applied. Roadway Classification Side of Street Dimension Arterial • Both • Border area (buffer plus sidewalk) should be a minimum of 8 ft. and preferably 12 ft. or more Collector • Both sides of street for access to schools, parks, shopping • Both sides of street desirable in residential areas • 4 ft. minimum in residential areas • 4 ft. to 8 ft. in commercial areas Local • Both sides of street for access to schools, parks, shopping • Both sides of street desirable in residential areas • 4 ft. minimum in residential areas • 4 ft. to 8 ft. in commercial areas, although additional width may be desirable if roadside appurtenances are present. Source: Compiled from the Green Book (AASHTO 2011a) Exhibit 5-14. AASHTO-recommended sidewalk provisions by functional classification.

Roadside Design Guidelines 183 NCHRP Report 612: Safe and Aesthetic Design of Urban Roadside Treatments (Dixon et al. 2008b) discusses the many challenges that are encountered when designing roadway projects in urban areas or rural towns. This report recognizes that, although arterial and collector roadways are typically designed to move vehicles as quickly and efficiently as possible, in many locations these roadways are the centers of communities that have developed around them. The report also calls attention to the fact that communities are increasingly requesting that these facilities be redesigned using roadside solutions that enhance the appearance and, in many cases, the functional uses of the roadway for all users of the right-of-way. NCHRP Report 612 recognizes that the urban roadside environment is complex and often constrained, thereby making it dif- ficult for a designer to achieve an acceptable clear zone, free of fixed objects. As a result, a lateral offset that enhances roadway operations is recommended, recognizing that this offset does not represent a safe placement for rigid roadside objects (Dixon et al. 2008b). 5.1.5 Considerations in Urban, Suburban and Rural Contexts Understanding context is considered a necessary element of effective multimodal roadway design. This is especially true for the roadside component of the right-of-way because of the interactions of non-motorized users (who share the roadside and directly interact with the trav- eled way on one side and interact with land uses on the other side). This section of Chapter 5 summarizes design considerations in urban, suburban, and rural contexts. A broader discussion of design considerations for low- and intermediate-speed (45 mph or less) roadways and streets that serve a mix of user modes is provided in Chapter 2 of this Guide. The design guidance presented throughout this Guide requires a thorough understanding of how the current and future context of a project area can impact multimodal activity within and adjacent to the project limits. The application of context also requires a designer to know how to apply design controls and criteria to support beneficial interaction between the roadside, the traveled way, and the existing and planned multimodal activity generated by adjacent land uses and local modal networks. Designing for low- and intermediate-speed multimodal roadways requires an expanded understanding of context. Context depends highly on many aspects of land use, including build- ing and site design, which can provide support for integrated pedestrian, bicycle and transit activities in the roadside environment. The roadside design process should recognize land use as an important contributor to overall project context and as a major factor in the selection of design criteria related to the levels of motorized and non-motorized travel produced by the land use. Land use also factors significantly in selecting and assembling components of the roadside cross section. Differing land uses have differing needs for design elements such as clear sidewalk space, landscaping, street furniture, bicycle parking and so forth. Commercial uses tend to generate higher volumes of pedestrian and bicycle travel than do uses such as office or industrial. Com- mercial areas also typically have a higher volume of delivery trucks and buses, and there is usually a higher turnover of on-street parking than residential areas. 5.1.5.1 Selecting Context Zones in Roadside Design Context helps guide the selection and prioritization of basic design elements and crite- ria for low- and intermediate-speed roadways with a mix of motorized and non-motorized users. This Guide has defined a group of five context zones that can be used as a primary initial consideration in selecting the design elements and criteria for multimodal roadways (see Chapter 2, Exhibit 2-4). Deciding which context zone to use for a particular project, or for a project that involves a combination of contexts, can be challenging. Variations in land use or

184 Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways modal variations within each context zone should be considered by the designer in developing cross sections and design elements. Guidelines for selecting the context to be used to inform the roadside design process are essentially the same as those used for the traveled way design process. Key considerations for projecting roadside user demands include: • Consider both existing conditions and future plans, recognizing that roadway improvements often last longer than development; • Assess area plans and review general, comprehensive and specific plans, zoning codes and community goals and objectives, which may provide detailed guidance on the vision for the area; • Compare the area’s predominant land use patterns, building types and land uses to the char- acteristics presented in Exhibit 2-4; • Pay particular attention to residential densities and building type, commercial floor area ratios and building heights; • Consider dividing the area into two or more context zones if a range of land use characteristics suggests multiple context zone types; • Identify current levels of pedestrian, bicycle and transit activity; and • Estimate future levels and circulation needs based on the type, mix and proximity of land uses. 5.1.5.2 Main Streets as a Special Context Main streets are a unique type of context. Typically found in smaller towns and villages in rural settings, urban cores and urban neighborhood centers, main streets vary from community to community, but some universal characteristics can be identified. They are usually short, walk- able segments of arterial or collector roads or streets, often only a few blocks in length. They also may fall within a grid or interconnected system of local streets, serving the commercial center of town with short blocks, minimal or no driveways and buildings often served by alleys. Land uses on main streets consist of compact, mixed-use development, usually with a strong retail and entertainment emphasis on the ground floors and with office or possibly residential uses on the upper floors. Buildings are typically one to three stories (or taller in an urban core) and are oriented to the street without setback. Buildings generally are closely spaced, with avail- able parking on-street or in lots or garages behind or to the side of the buildings. The design of main streets often includes wide roadsides that support active uses such as street cafes, social interactions, strolling and window-shopping. By tradition and design, main streets are pedestrian friendly and may have historic design features, street furniture, landscaping, pub- lic spaces, and possibly public art. Main streets are typically low-speed facilities with target oper- ating speeds no higher than 30 mph. They may employ curb extensions that provide for shorter crossing distances and additional space for plantings, street furniture and traffic calming. Roadside design features include an appropriate width to accommodate anticipated levels and types of activity. The provision of distinct roadside zones is considered a key element of main streets. The clear pedestrian throughway should be wide enough, at a minimum, to allow two people to walk side-by-side and often is wide enough to allow pairs of people to pass one another. The frontage zone should allow for window shopping, seating, displays and pedestrian activity at building entrances. The furnishings zone may need to accommodate many distinct functions, including street trees, planting strips, street furniture, utilities, bicycle racks, public art and possibly transit stops. If community plans call for street cafes, then the furnishings zone should also be designed to accommodate them. If the traveled way provides on-street parking, the edge zone will need to accommodate car door openings, signing, lighting and possibly parking meters. Lighting may serve a dual purpose

Roadside Design Guidelines 185 for the roadside and traveled way, or the design may incorporate separate pedestrian-scaled decorative lighting. 5.1.6 Design Controls for the Roadside AASHTO guidelines identify functional classification and design speed as primary factors in determining roadway design criteria. The Green Book (AASHTO 2011a) separates its design criteria by both functional classification and urban and rural context. The primary differences between contexts are the speed at which the facilities operate, the mix and characteristics of the users and the constraints of the surrounding context. In addition to functional classification, speed and context, AASHTO presents other design controls and criteria that form the basis of its recommended design guidance. Design controls for the traveled way design are addressed in Chapter 4 of this Guide. This chapter focuses on design controls related to pedestrian and bicycle users as identified in the Green Book. The Green Book provides this guidance on designing for pedestrians and bicyclists (AASHTO 2011a): Interactions of pedestrians with traffic are a major consideration in highway planning and design. Pedestrians are a part of every roadway environment, and attention should be paid to their presence in rural as well as urban areas. The urban pedestrian, being far more prevalent, more often influences road- way design features than the rural pedestrian does. Because of the demands of vehicular traffic in con- gested urban areas, it is often very difficult to make adequate provisions for pedestrians. Yet provisions should be made, because pedestrians are the lifeblood of our urban areas, especially in the downtown and other retail areas. In general, the most successful shopping sections are those that provide the most com- fort and pleasure for pedestrians. Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, traffic control fea- tures, and curb cuts (depressed curbs and ramped sidewalks) and ramps for the older walkers and persons with mobility impairments. Pedestrian facilities also include bus stops or other loading areas, sidewalks on grade separations, and the stairs, escalators, or elevators related to these facilities [. . .]. The bicycle is an important element for consideration in the highway design process. The existing street and highway system provides most of the network needed for bicycle travel. While many highway agen- cies allow bicycles on partially access controlled facilities, most highway agencies do not allow bicycles on fully access controlled facilities unless no other alternative route is available. Improvements such as the following, which generally are of low to moderate cost, can considerably reduce the frequency of crashes on a street or highway and provide for bicycle traffic; paved shoulders, wider outside traffic lanes (14 ft. minimum) if no shoulders exist, bicycle compatible drainage grates, adjusting manhole covers to the grade, and maintaining a smooth, clean riding surface. The Green Book also provides this guidance to the designer on bicycle accommodation (AASHTO 2011a): • At certain locations or in certain corridors, it is appropriate to further supplement the existing roadway system by providing specifically designated bikeways for either exclusive or non-exclusive bicycle use; • To provide adequately for bicycle traffic, the designer should be familiar with bicycle dimensions, oper- ating characteristics, and needs as these factors determine acceptable turning radii, grades, and sight distance; and • In many instances, design features of separate bike facilities are controlled by the adjoining roadway and by the design of the highway itself. Pedestrian characteristics that serve as design controls include walking speed, walkway capac- ity and the needs of persons with disabilities. The Pedestrian Facilities Guide (AASHTO 2004b) and Bicycle Guide (AASHTO 2014b) expand significantly on the Green Book guidance, present- ing factors, criteria and design controls. The Pedestrian Facilities Guide emphasizes pedestrians and bicyclists as a design control in all contexts, but particularly in the urban core, urban, sub- urban and rural town contexts. Roadways with existing or anticipated high levels of pedestrian and bicycle usage should pro- vide appropriate roadside and bicycle facilities (in the traveled way and/or roadside) in project

186 Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways design. These facilities must be coordinated with the other design elements in the traveled way, and be sensitive to project context. As a result, in some projects the design requirements for bicyclists and pedestrians may function as design controls, significantly influencing the prioriti- zation of design elements for all users of the right-of-way. For example, requirements for bicycle lanes may be considered a higher priority than a landscaped median, on-street parking or even vehicle travel and turn lanes. A fundamental expectation in roadway design is that all users will be accommodated safely. In the roadside environment, the users typically include pedestrians and bicyclists with a wide range of ages and abilities. The characteristics of these varied roadway users are important con- trols that influence the physical design of a roadside. Early in the process, the designer should determine the estimated demand and composition of users anticipated for the facility. Account- ing appropriately for all user characteristics is essential for designing a safe and efficient project. Experience demonstrates that when human and vehicular factors are properly accommodated, the safety and effectiveness of the overall roadway system is greatly enhanced. Consideration of roadway users’ characteristics and selection of appropriate accommodations also can influence the roadway’s effectiveness for businesses and residential users, the economic health of the region, the physical health of the population, and the quality of the built and natural environment. The Massachusetts DOT’s Project Development and Design Guide (Massachusetts Highway Department 2006) provides a good overview of pedestrian and bicycle users and their charac- teristics, which is summarized in the following sections. 5.1.6.1 Pedestrians All travelers are pedestrians at some point during their trip, and pedestrians are a part of every roadway environment. In some cases pedestrians are regular users of the roadway while in others, pedestrians may be using the roadway in emergency circumstances, such as accessing a disabled automobile. Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, paths, crosswalks, stairways, curb cuts and ramps, and transit stops. In lower-speed and lower-volume contexts, pedestrians may use the shoulder or even share the road to complete a trip. Designers should understand that no single “design pedestrian” exists and that the transporta- tion network should accommodate a variety of pedestrians, including people with disabilities. For example, children perceive their environment differently from adults and are not able to judge how drivers will behave. Children usually walk more slowly, have a shorter gait, and have a lower eye height than adults. Older adults may: • Require more time to cross streets, • Desire surfaces that are more predictable, • Benefit from handrails in steep areas, and • Require places to rest along the route. Based on information in the most recent U.S. Census, almost 20 percent of the pedestrian population has some disability, and that number is likely to grow as the population ages. People with vision impairments require audible and tactile cues to safely navigate sidewalks and cross- walks. People with limited cognitive abilities may rely on symbols and take longer to cross the street. People using wheelchairs or scooters may travel across an intersection faster than people who are walking, but it is more difficult for drivers of high-profile vehicles to see people in wheelchairs or on scooters. It is important to recognize that pedestrians exhibit a wide range of physical, cognitive and sensory abilities, but they all make up the “pedestrians” that a designer needs to accommodate. When estimating pedestrian travel between activity centers (i.e., residence to school, parking to store), distance is the primary factor in the initial decision to walk. Most people are willing to

Roadside Design Guidelines 187 walk for 5 min. to 10 min. at a comfortable pace to reach a destination (typically a distance of up to 0.4 mile). Although longer walking trips are possible, for most people 1.0 mile is generally the longest distance that they are willing to walk on a regular basis. The designer also should ensure that pedestrian network connectivity and safe crossings are provided between activity centers. In addition to the characteristics described above, the spatial dimensions of pedestrians and their operating characteristics are key critical aspects that influ- ence the detailed design elements of pedestrian facilities. 5.1.6.2 Spatial Needs of Pedestrians Pedestrians require a certain amount of physical space in order to maneuver comfortably. The space requirements of pedestrians influence the ability for individuals to freely select their speed and the carrying capacity of a pedestrian facility. The HCM (TRB 2016b) provides methodologies for evaluating how a pathway serves the demand placed upon it, or how wide a sidewalk should be for a given demand. Space requirements also are influenced by the characteristics of those who use wheelchairs or other assistive devices as outlined in the PROWAG (U.S. Access Board 2011). A simplified body ellipse of 2.0 ft. by 1.5 ft. (for an area of 3.0 sq. ft.) is used as the basic clear space for a single pedestrian. This area represents the practical minimum space required for standing pedestrians, although a single person using crutches, a service animal, or a walker typically requires 36 in. (3.0 ft.) clear width. The clear space for a person sitting in a stationary wheelchair is generally understood to be 2.5 ft. by 4.0 ft. (or 10.0 sq. ft.), although people using scooters and power chairs may require even more space. In evaluating a pedestrian facility, an area of 8.0 sq. ft. typically is considered adequate to allow a buffer zone for each pedestrian, with approximately twice that needed for each person using a wheelchair or a white cane. These dimensions indicate that a 3-ft. pathway is adequate for single-file pedestrian flow in one direction, in the absence of vertical obstructions along the route. To allow free passing of pedestrians, a walkway that is at least 5-ft. wide and clear of obstructions is required. Walking is often a social activity, and frequently pedestrians walk in pairs or groups. To account for this common behavior, it may be desirable to design facilities that enable two people to walk or ride their wheelchairs abreast, requiring approximately 6 ft. of width. In areas with high pedestrian traffic, greater widths are desirable. 5.1.6.3 Bicyclists Safe, convenient and well-designed facilities are essential to encourage bicycle use. Roads designed to accommodate bicyclists with moderate skills will meet the needs of many riders, although many occasional and recreational riders prefer separated facilities such as cycle tracks, sidepaths or shared-use paths. Young children are primarily the bicyclists who may require special consideration, particularly on neighborhood streets, in recreational areas, and close to schools. Moderately skilled bicyclists may be served by: • Extra operating space when riding on the roadway (e.g., bicycle lanes, usable shoulders or wide curb lanes); • Low-speed streets (where cars share travel lanes); and • A network of designated bicycle facilities (e.g., bicycle lanes, side-street bicycle routes and shared-use paths), supplemented by paths for bicyclists that supplement the roadway network and generally also serve other non-motorized users. The design of roads for bicycling should consider these factors: • Providing width sufficient for motorists to pass bicyclists without changing lanes on high- speed or high-volume roadways;

188 Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways • Removing roadway obstacles that could cause bicyclists to fall; • Using guide signs and/or pavement markings to direct bicyclists to scenic and low-traffic routes; and • Providing signalized crossings of major roads when warranted for those who are not comfort- able making left turns in heavy traffic. When bicycles are used on public streets and roads, bicyclists generally are subject to the same traffic rules as motorized vehicle operators. 5.1.6.4 Spatial Needs of Bicyclists The bicyclist’s operating characteristics include required width, angle of lean when negoti- ating curves, sight distances, and clear zones. Clear width requirements may vary somewhat depending on bicycle type. Typically, bicyclists require a clear width of at least 40 in. A clear width of at least 48 in. is necessary to accommodate bicycles with trailers or adult tricycles. The required height of the operating space is 100 in. An operating space of 4 ft. is assumed as the minimum width for one-way bicycle travel. Where motorized vehicle traffic volumes, truck and bus volumes, or speeds are high, a more comfortable operating space of 5 ft. to 6 ft. is desirable. Where bicyclists travel adjacent to on- street parking, a 5 ft. to 6 ft. operating space also is desirable to provide bicyclists space to avoid car doors that may open into the travel lane. Critical design considerations include the minimal surface contact between bicycle tires and the ground and the susceptibility of bicycle tires to damage. The minimal tire contact means that longitudinal seams and cracks, sand, mud, wet leaves, metal utility covers and decking, and skewed railroad tracks can precipitate a crash. Longitudinal cracks as narrow as 1/4 in. and surface edges higher than 1/2 in. can cause loss of control. Bicyclists may be forced to swerve to avoid road debris or obstacles, using maneuvers that are unexpected by motorized vehicles sharing the same lane. Placement of obstacles in the travel path of bicyclists should be avoided. 5.1.7 Considerations Related to Users with Disabilities The Green Book notes that roadway “designs with features for persons with disabilities can greatly enhance the mobility of this sector of our society. To provide adequately for persons with disabilities, the designer should be aware of the range of disabilities to expect so that the design can appropriately accommodate them. The designer is cautioned to adequately review all local and national guidelines for proper compliance with applicable rules and regulations” (AASHTO 2011a). The U.S. Access Board produces the primary guidelines that address regulations for designing facilities to accommodate users with disabilities. In 2010, the U.S. Access Board published the ADA Standards for Accessible Design (U.S. Access Board 2010), which provides guidelines based on standards issued earlier that year by the U.S. DOJ (2010a). Subsequently, the Board published Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way (PROWAG) in 2011, and in 2013 the Board published a supplement titled Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way; Shared-Use Paths, which broadened the coverage of its guidelines to encompass shared- use paths used by pedestrians, bicyclists and others for transportation or recreation (U..S. Access Board 2011, U.S. Access Board 2013). The 2013 supplementary guide added new provisions tailored to shared-use paths that cover grade, cross slope, surfaces and protrud- ing objects. At the time of publication of this Guide, the U.S. Access Board had not issued a final PROWAG rule for either the 2011 pedestrian facilities guidelines or the 2013 shared- use path guidelines.

Roadside Design Guidelines 189 The PROWAG will become an enforceable standard only after the Board publishes a final rule, and only after the U.S. DOJ and/or the U.S.DOT adopt the final guidelines into their respective ADA and Section 504 regulations. Until that time, the U.S. DOJ 2010 ADA Standards and the U.S.DOT 2006 ADA and Section 504 Standards provide enforceable standards appli- cable to the public right-of-way. Where these standards do not address a specific issue in the public right-of-way, FHWA encourages public entities to look to the U.S. Access Board’s draft 2011 and 2013 PROWAG guidelines for best practices. This Guide cites the draft PROWAG in anticipation of final PROWAG being adopted as the enforceable standard in the near future. Public entities and/or recipients of federal financial assistance are responsible for complying with the current ADA and Section 504 accessibility standards and/or demonstrating equivalent facilitation. Several jurisdictions have applied the draft PROWAG as an alternative to, or equivalent facilitation for, the adopted ADA standards because the PROWAG provides more specific coverage of accessibility issues in the public right- of-way. Jurisdictions that have adopted the draft PROWAG as their standard should consistently apply all provisions of the draft PROWAG. The PROWAG calls for a pedestrian access route to provide a 4-ft. minimum continuous clear width, a maximum grade consistent with the road grade, a maximum 2-percent cross slope, and a “firm, stable, and slip-resistant” surface (U.S. Access Board 2011). These accessibil- ity guidelines greatly influence the design strategies for all pedestrian facilities, including side- walks, shared-use paths, street crossings, curb ramps, signals, street furniture, transit stations, on-street parking, loading zones and more. In this Guide, key elements of PROWAG guidance as presented in Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility and Reducing Con- flicts (FHWA 2016a) are summarized in Chapter 4 in the section titled “Users with Disabilities in Multimodal Design.” 5.1.8 Considerations Related to an Aging Population In coming decades, the proportion of the U.S. population aged 65 years and older will increase significantly. This means that a steadily increasing proportion of pedestrians and bicyclists will experience declining vision; slowed decision making and reaction times; exaggerated difficulty when dividing attention between traffic demands and other important cognitive tasks; and reductions in strength, flexibility, and general fitness. Although the effects of aging on people as drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists are highly individual, design practices that explicitly recognize these changes will better serve this growing segment of the nation’s population. The Green Book notes that a pedestrian’s age is an important factor that may explain behavior that leads to collisions between motorized vehicles and pedestrians (AASHTO 2011a). Other observations include: • Older pedestrians may be affected by limitations in sensory, perceptual, cognitive, or motor skills; • Pedestrian collisions also can be related to the lack of sidewalks, which may force pedestrians to share the traveled way with motorists; and • Sidewalk construction should be considered as part of any urban/suburban street improvement. The Green Book also suggests the following measures as having potential to aid older pedes- trians (AASHTO 2011a): • Use simple designs that minimize crossing widths and minimize the use of more complex elements such as channelization and separate turning lanes; • Assume lower walking speeds;

190 Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways • Provide median refuge islands of sufficient width at wide intersections; • Provide lighting and eliminate glare sources at locations that demand [multifocused] infor- mation gathering and processing; • Consider the traffic control system in the context of the geometric design to assure compat- ibility and to provide advance warning or guide signs for situations that could surprise older pedestrians; • Use enhanced traffic control devices; • Provide oversized, retroreflective signs with suitable legibility; • Consider increasing sign letter size and retroreflectivity to accommodate individuals with decreased visual acuity; • Use properly located pedestrian signals with large indications; • Provide enhanced markings and delineation; and • Use repetition and redundancy in design and in signing. 5.1.8.1 Pedestrians According to the Older Driver Highway Design Handbook (FHWA 1998), for pedestrians, diminished capabilities related to aging may make it more difficult to negotiate intersections. Individual concerns will vary, but may include: • Decreased visual acuity, • Increased risk of falls, • Slowed walking and crossing speeds, and • Decreased ability to judge safe gaps and avoid turning vehicles. Moreover, loss of physical strength, joint flexibility, agility, balance, coordination and motor skills, and stamina can contribute to difficulty negotiating curbs and an increased risk of falling, as can difficulty in detecting surface irregularities in the pavement and estimating curb heights. The FHWA handbook observes that lighting and visibility at intersections are increasingly important to pedestrians as they age (FHWA 1998): In a survey of older pedestrians (average age of 75) involved in accidents, 63 percent reported that they failed to see the vehicle that hit them, or to see it in time to take evasive action (Sheppard and Pattinson, 1986). Knoblauch, Nitzburg, Dewar, Templer, and Pietrucha (1995) noted that difficulty seeing a vehicle against a (complex) street background may occur with vehicles of certain colors, causing them to blend in with their background. . . . Reductions in visual acuity make it more difficult for aging pedestrians to read the crossing signal (Bailey, et al. 1992). The handbook (FHWA 1998) also notes that the physical limitations of aging pedestrians result in a greater likelihood to: • Delay before crossing; • Wait for longer gaps between vehicles before attempting to cross the road (Tobey, Shungman and Knoblauch 1983); • Spend more time at the curb; • Take longer to cross the road (Hoxie and Rubenstein 1994; Knoblauch, Nitzburg, Dewar et al. 1995); and • Make more head movements before and during crossing (Wilson and Grayson 1980). Given the risk that drivers may “run” an amber or red traffic signal, the handbook (FHWA 1998) observes that pedestrians and bicyclists may hesitate, waiting to see whether traffic obeys the signal. Moreover, [b]ecause older persons have difficulty dividing attention, this scanning and decision making process requires more time than it would for a younger pedestrian. Parsonson (1992) reported that the State of Delaware has found that pedestrians do not react well to the short WALK and long flashing DON’T WALK timing pattern. They equate the flashing with a vehicle yellow period. The Florida Department

Roadside Design Guidelines 191 of Transportation and the city of Durham, Ontario, provide sufficient WALK time for the pedestrian to reach the middle of the street, so that the pedestrian will not turn around when the flashing DON’T WALK begins. Turning vehicles also are a concern for aging pedestrians. The loss of peripheral vision and “useful field of view” increases an aging pedestrian’s chances of not detecting approaching and turning vehicles from the side. An analysis by Council and Zegeer (1992), also reported in the FHWA handbook, examined vehicle-pedestrian crashes and the collision types in which aging pedestrians were over-involved. The results showed aging pedestrians to be overrepresented in both right- and left-turn crashes. Young elderly persons (ages 65–74) were most likely to be struck by a vehicle turning right, whereas older elderly persons (ages 75 and older) were more likely to be struck by a left-turning vehicle (FHWA 1998). Together, these findings from research on aging road users reinforce the overriding design principles to clarify and simplify traffic operations at intersections. By providing appropriate advance information about route choices and destinations, clearly identifying lane assignments for allowed maneuvers, and implementing conspicuous and easily comprehensible sign and signal displays for traffic control, engineers can manage workload during intersection approach and negotiation in a manner that benefits road users of all ages. Likewise, the need for inter- section geometrics to convey path, direction, and speed unambiguously is universal, and such “positive guidance” is an explicit goal of the treatments presented in this chapter. 5.1.8.2 Bicyclists Aging-related changes in capabilities may make bicycling more difficult for older riders just as it affects pedestrians. Older bicyclists face the same general concerns with decreased visual acuity, increased risk of falls, and decreased ability to judge safe gaps and avoid turning vehicles. These factors contribute to the potential difficulties older bicyclists may experience when nego- tiating bicycle facilities, perceiving and reacting to other users in the roadside and intersections, or perceiving and reacting to traffic control features. Bicyclists age 50 and over pedaled an estimated 2.6 billion miles on 830 million rides in 2009, according to the National Household Travel Survey (U.S.DOT 2009). That number was sig- nificantly up from 1995, when people in that age group covered less than 400 million miles on 175 million rides. Bicycle riders ages 70 years to 79 years made 147 million trips in 2009; riders ages 80 years and over took 13 million trips by bike (U.S.DOT 2009). According to a comprehensive survey released in March 2015 by PeopleForBikes (2015): • Of Americans age 55 years and older, 19 percent rode a bike in 2014, as did 27 percent between the ages of 45 years and 54 years and 34 percent of all people over the age of two years; • Among older Americans, 17 percent reported riding a bicycle for recreation, 7 percent reported riding as a way to get around, and 5 percent said they bicycled for both transportation and fun; • Bicyclists ages 55 years-plus bicycle more often than any other adult group, with 42 percent riding more than 25 days a year. Other research has found that 22 percent of the net growth in U.S. bike trips from 1995 to 2009 was by people ages 60 years to 79 years. Their bicycling quadrupled during those 14 years, the fastest growth of any demographic. All of the above trends make it important for the designer to understand the potential for aging bicyclists to use the roadside in a project area and to address their special needs in the roadside design. The Handbook for Designing Roadways for the Aging Population (FHWA 2014c) provides designers and practitioners with practical information that links aging road user performance

192 Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways to highway design, operational and traffic engineering features. Planning Complete Streets for an Aging America (Lynott et al. 2009) and the ChORUS website (Roadway Safety Foundation et al. n.d.) are other resources available to the design practitioner. For a more in-depth discussion of these resources, see Chapter 4, “Aging Users in Multimodal Design.” 5.1.9 Freight Considerations in Roadside Design In many urban areas, commercial vehicles face extremely challenging urban delivery condi- tions characterized by congested traffic and inadequate parking. At the same time, cities are increasingly looking to reduce congestion and its negative impacts by encouraging commuter shifts to non-motorized modes. However, achieving a considerable increase in bicycle mode share requires implementation of safe, often exclusive, bicycle capacities. Sparse available space, and even existing motorized vehicle capacity, are increasingly being converted for use by bicy- cles, resulting in even less available parking for commercial vehicles and creating an even more challenging multimodal environment at the curbside. Freight movement is essential in urban and rural areas. Freight vehicles operate at some level on most major roadways. Freight vehicles range from single-unit box trucks to large tractor- trailer combinations. The largest vehicles are wider, have larger turning radii, and are slower to accelerate and decelerate than most other vehicles; they also have more blind spots than typical passenger vehicles. Freight vehicles also have significant mass, creating the potential for seri- ous or fatal injuries when involved in any type of collision, especially collisions with bicyclists or pedestrians. Data from Traffic Safety Facts: Large Trucks (NHTSA 2015, available at https:// crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov) indicates that, among crashes involving large trucks, 11 percent of people killed were non-occupants such as pedestrians or bicyclists. Conflicts between freight vehicles and bicyclists and/or pedestrians generally occur at inter- sections; however, mid-block conflicts also can occur, and these are typically due to loading activities. Through proper roadway design, many conflicts can be mitigated and the behavior of all users can be made more predictable. Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts lists these guiding principles to reduce conflicts through better roadway design (FHWA 2016a): • Safety. Through engineering, education and enforcement, roadway designers and the freight industry should consider an approach to reduce the severity and likelihood of crashes; • Accommodation and comfort. Designs should provide a sense of comfort for vulnerable road users where freight vehicles are present and accommodate freight needs specific to each corridor; • Coherence. The path of travel for pedestrians and bicyclists should be clearly delineated for drivers of freight vehicles to recognize; • Predictability. The design should maximize predictability and reduce conflicts between vulnerable road users and freight vehicles; and • Context sensitivity. The design should support community health and livability goals while maintaining and growing the economy. 5.1.9.1 Commercial Loading and Unloading In urban and urban core contexts, many trucks typically pull to the side of the street or road- way to load and unload. This practice may result in blocking of traffic or bike lanes, and it could involve trucks crossing through a bike lane to access a loading zone. Dedicated commercial loading zones are a benefit to commercial activity, may help reduce obstruction of the bike lane, and should be provided where they will cause minimal conflict with bicycle facilities and traffic

Roadside Design Guidelines 193 flow. These zones can be striped and signed, or managed for off-peak deliveries (NACTO 2013). Design considerations for freight accommodation include the following: • Consider consolidating commercial loading zones to a single location on each block to reduce potential conflicts. • Verifying the length of typical loading vehicles that use the space when determining the length of the loading zone; • Assessing the width needed for the loading zone (generally 8 ft. to 10 ft.); • Providing a 5-ft. minimum access aisle between the commercial loading zone and the bike lane on roadways with on-street parking and separated bike lanes; • Discontinuing vertical objects where an access aisle is provided; • Using a curb ramp with a separated bike lane crosswalk, which can simplify loading and unloading activity; • Using green-colored pavement to notify freight operators of a potential conflict with a bicy- clist; and • Locating a commercial loading zone on an adjacent block or alley where a loading zone is desired but on-street parking is not present. Lateral shifts of the separated bike lane and the sidewalk should be considered as a last resort. 5.1.9.2 Intersection Geometry Designers should consider mountable truck aprons where turning movements by large vehi- cles are common. Mountable aprons discourage smaller vehicles from making turns at high speeds while still allowing trucks to turn without entering the pedestrian zone or adjacent vehicle lanes. They help reduce off-tracking risks to pedestrians with visual disabilities. Additional strat- egies for accommodating large vehicles at intersections include setting back stop bars and allow- ing large vehicles to encroach into adjacent lanes when turning. 5.1.9.3 Traffic Signal Operations Traffic signal phases can be used to separate or provide lead-time to bicycle and pedestrian movements from conflicting freight movements. Separate signal phases can be used: • Where a primary freight route turns and a bicycle route continues straight, • At intersections with a high number of freight and bicycle or pedestrian crashes, and • At intersections with separated bike lanes. When using separate signal phases, the intersection should be designed so that tractor-trailer combinations can safely make a turn without encroaching on the bike lane, preferably with curb separation between the bike lane and the travel lane. A leading pedestrian or bicycle interval also will increase visibility and typically will reduce conflicts. 5.1.9.4 Signing Dynamic warning signs may be used to alert freight vehicles when bicyclists are present. Dynamic signs may use various technologies to detect a bicyclist. When a bicyclist is detected, the dynamic sign illuminates to alert any potential turning vehicles to yield to the bicyclist. Any signing should comply with the MUTCD (FHWA 2009b). 5.2 Roadside Design Guidelines This section of the Guide provides principles and guidance for the design of a roadway’s roadside areas serving non-motorized users in low- and intermediate-speed environments. On roadways with traveled ways that include shoulders, non-motorized users may sometimes be

194 Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways accommodated on the shoulders if roadside facilities are not provided. The guidance in this chapter is used in conjunction with the guidance suggested for the traveled way roadway com- ponents in Chapter 4. The roadside consists of the two outside portions of the roadway (Exhibit 5-15). It contains the design elements that allow for the movement of pedestrians and sometimes bicycles. The roadside also serves motorized vehicles when driveways cross the roadside. Fundamental principles of roadside design include development of roadside cross-section ele- ments that remain relatively uniform along the length of the roadway corridor and its individual improvement projects. This chapter of the Guide addresses general design principles in roadside design development, and then discusses the following key design areas for the roadside and its users: • Cross sections and roadside width determination, • Pedestrian accommodations, • Bicycle accommodations, • Shared-use paths, • Transit service accommodations, • Landscaping and stormwater management, • Lighting, • Utilities, • Driveway access, • Bridges, • Railroad-highway (railroad-roadway) grade crossings, • Traffic control devices and operations, and • Snow removal and storage. 5.2.1 General Roadside Design Principles When determining the elements and features for the roadside, the designer should be equally concerned about the level and quality of accommodation and safety of all users of the entire roadway. Roadside safety considerations in urban and suburban contexts differ from those in rural contexts, where speeds are higher and most travel is by vehicle. Rural town contexts vary greatly in size and form, but the designer typically can expect some level of pedestrian and pos- sibly bicycle activity in those settings as well. Exhibit 5-15. Components of a typical urban street.

Roadside Design Guidelines 195 Regardless of the context, the designer is responsible for balancing the accommodation and safety of all users, including pedestrians of all ages and abilities, bicyclists and motorists that include automobiles, motorcyclists, buses and trucks. The need to connect and blend all the envi- ronments involved in the traveled way and the context will greatly influence the roadside design. 5.2.2 Cross Section and Roadside Width Determination The desired width and cross-section elements of the roadside will depend on many factors that should be identified and understood as a part of the design development process. Each element should be assessed for the existing condition and future design year condition for both the project limits and the corridor on which the project is located. These elements can include: • The number, type and general abilities of pedestrians; • ADA requirements for disabled accommodation; • The number and type of bicyclists (if not served by traveled way facilities); • The volume, type and speed of adjacent traffic; • The land use context and planned roadside functions and amenities (e.g., street furniture, sidewalk cafes, public spaces, banners, news racks, public art); • Stormwater management needs; • Landscaping plans, including street trees; • Transit service and amenities; • Utility accommodation; • Lighting accommodation, roadway and roadside; and • Traffic control devices. Although consideration of the above elements will result in understanding the desired or optimal provision of roadside facilities and features, other factors also influence the final provi- sion, design, dimensions and arrangement of each of the selected cross-section elements of the roadside. These factors may include limited available right-of-way, project budget, environ- mental requirements, public involvement, or other factors. Roadway network plans (all modes), community and corridor plans, and other planning documents also may influence the desired and final roadside design. Minimum and desired dimensions and criteria for cross-section elements are addressed in each of the sections that follow. 5.2.3 Pedestrian Accommodations According to the Pedestrian Facilities Users Guide: Providing Safety and Mobility (FHWA 2002), walking is the oldest and most basic mode of travel in the United States transportation system. Sidewalks are the most fundamental element of the walking network, as they provide an exclusive area for pedestrian travel that is separated from vehicle traffic and other roadside functions. As has been discussed in Chapter 4, pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks must also be designed to accommodate persons with disabilities. In many urban, suburban and rural town contexts, sidewalk functions include more than just pedestrian transportation. They serve many uses, including access to adjacent properties’ ground-floor land uses, possibly complemented by outdoor dining/sidewalk cafes, plazas and seating areas (place making); transit amenities; merchandise display; and occasional public activities (such as farmers’ markets). Sidewalks also occupy valuable space that can be used to support healthy trees and manage stormwater. The benefits of a robust tree canopy in urban areas can include aesthetics, reduc- ing heat islands, reducing pedestrian stress and improving air quality. The primary objective in

196 Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways designing sidewalks within a community is providing a continuous system of safe, accessible pathways for pedestrians on both sides of all streets. 5.2.3.1 Current AASHTO Policy and Guidance The Green Book (AASHTO 2011a) recognizes the need to provide sidewalks wherever road- side and land development conditions result in regular pedestrian movement along a roadway. Sidewalk construction should therefore be considered in the planning and design of any street improvement project in an urban or suburban area, or anywhere that routine pedestrian travel exists or is planned. In rural and suburban areas, sidewalks are more often justified near developments that gen- erate pedestrian activity, such as residential areas, schools and shopping centers. In rural areas, given higher operating speeds and the relative lack of lighting, the Green Book also recommends sidewalks to reduce pedestrian collisions regardless of existing pedestrian volume, especially if shoulders have not been provided and on segments between two communities in proximity to one another (AASHTO 2011a). Sidewalks are contained within the roadside area. The roadside width varies significantly, but 8 ft. to 12 ft. is a common minimum dimension. An absolute minimum border area may be 5 ft. clear of signs, utility poles, and other objects to accommodate the minimum-width sidewalk meeting ADA regulations. The Green Book describes relevant sidewalk attributes across three areas (AASHTO 2011a): • The border area (the unpaved roadside within the right-of-way intended for sidewalk placement); • The sidewalk (the clear area intended for through pedestrian travel); and • The buffer strip or planted strip (an area whose width separates the sidewalk from the curb or edge of the roadway, and which serves to locate utilities). Sidewalk widths may vary from 4 ft. to 8 ft., but sidewalks less than 5 ft. in width require a clear passing section every 200 ft. Sidewalk widths may be increased to accommodate higher pedestrian activity or other uses along a street segment. Buffer strip width should be at least 2 ft. to provide space for aesthetic vegetation, utility poles, signs and other hardware and allow for maintenance activities. The Green Book recom- mends wider buffer strips created by locating the sidewalk as far as practical from the traveled way, usually close to the right-of-way line (AASHTO 2011a). AASHTO’s Pedestrian Facilities Guide (AASHTO 2004b) supplements the Green Book with additional guidance related to the design, placement and provision of sidewalks. The Pedestrian Facilities Guide recommends more ample dimensions than those suggested in the Green Book, to be selected in response to local land use, user comfort and highway characteristics. The Pedestrian Facilities Guide states that “even in areas where there may not be an initial demand for pedestrian facilities, walking can almost always be expected to increase when adequate facilities are provided” and “[w]herever there is developed frontage along a road or street, there will be people walking for exercise, visiting neighbors, accessing bus stops or walking for pure enjoyment. Side- walks or pathways are needed to safely accommodate these activities” (AASHTO 2004b). The recommended minimum clear pedestrian-way width for a sidewalk is 5 ft., to accommodate two pedestrian users who wish to pass one another. An absolute minimum clear pedestrian-way width is 4 ft., but this width must be paired with 5-ft.-wide passing spaces at reasonable intervals. The recommended minimum buffer strip width is 2 ft., to functionally accommodate utilities and maintenance activity; but a buffer strip width of up to 4 ft. is desirable on local or collector

Roadside Design Guidelines 197 streets. On arterial or major streets, a width of 5 ft. to 6 ft. is desirable. Because on-street parking or a bike lane increases separation between pedestrians and moving motorized vehicles, areas without on-street parking or bike lanes should provide a 6 ft. buffer strip. The Pedestrian Facilities Guide (AASHTO 2004b) recommends incorporating an additional width of 2 ft. adjacent to buildings and fences, to accommodate shy distance from walls for shop- pers and to avoid conflicts between pedestrians and opening doors or gates. On streets with speeds over 25 mph, the Roadside Design Guide (AASHTO 2011b) recom- mends the provision of a buffer space to separate the sidewalk from the roadway. On curbed streets, a lateral offset should be provided in the buffer to minimize contact from vehicle mirrors, car doors or vehicle overhang. The minimum lateral offset is 1.5 ft.; however, an enhanced lateral offset of 4 ft. to 6 ft. may be more desirable. When the buffer strip is less than 4 ft., the Roadside Design Guide (AASHTO 2011b) recom- mends that rigid objects be placed on the far side of the sidewalk to achieve desired lateral offset from the roadway. When the buffer strip is wider than 4 ft., rigid objects should be placed within the buffer zone. The Green Book and Pedestrian Facilities Guide guidelines for widths of sidewalk attributes in low- and intermediate-speed contexts are summarized in Exhibit 5-16. 5.2.3.2 Pedestrian Accommodation Principles and Considerations for All Users The Pedestrian Facilities Guide (AASHTO 2004b) encourages designs that support walking by a wide range of people, including the elderly, children, people who are blind or have low vision, and people who need assistance from a wheelchair for mobility. The guide states, “It is important that sidewalks be usable by pedestrians for whom they may represent the only mode of inde- pendent travel” (AASHTO 2004b). Attributes of well-designed sidewalks include the following: • Design user. There is no single “design pedestrian,” and the transportation network should accommodate a variety of pedestrians. The U.S.DOT states that pedestrian “facilities should accommodate people of all ages and abilities, including people too young to drive, people who cannot drive, and people who choose not to drive” (U.S.DOT 2010). • Adequate width. Two people should be able to walk side-by-side and pass a third person comfortably. Different walking speeds should be possible. In areas of intense pedestrian use, sidewalks should accommodate the high volume of pedestrians. • Safety. Design features of the sidewalk should allow pedestrians to have a sense of security and predictability. Sidewalk users should not feel they are at risk because of the presence of Sidewalk Attribute Residential Street Commercial/High-Traffic Area Minimum Preferred Minimum Preferred Buffer Strip 2 ft. 4 ft. 5 ft. 6 ft. Sidewalk 4 ft. 5 ft. 8 ft. 10 ft. to 12 ft. Building/Wall Shy Distance 2 ft. (0.6 m) 2 ft * 4-ft. clear travel way must be complemented with 5-ft. passing zones every 200 ft. Source: AASHTO (2011a); AASHTO (2004b) Exhibit 5-16. AASHTO suggested sidewalk widths.*

198 Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways adjacent traffic. Increasing the buffer area (e.g., by providing on-street parking or a planted area) provides separation from moving traffic, and reducing speeds improves the pedestrian experience • Comfort. Pedestrians choose to walk based on the influence of many factors, including dis- tance, perceived safety and comfort, convenience and visual interest of the route. • Continuity. Walking routes should be obvious and should not require pedestrians to travel out of their way unnecessarily. • Landscaping. Plantings and street trees should contribute to the overall psychological and visual comfort of sidewalk users and should be designed in a manner that contributes to the safety of people. • Drainage. Sidewalks should be well graded to minimize standing water. • Social space. Places for standing, visiting, and sitting should be provided along sidewalks. The sidewalk area should be a place where adults and children can safely participate in public life. Sidewalks often serve the important function of providing community and civic gathering spaces, either in the form of public plazas, squares and parks, or as an extension of adjacent land uses such as outdoor dining or transit stops. • Place making. Sidewalks should contribute to the character of neighborhoods and business districts. 5.2.3.3 Recommended Practice A revised set of terminology is recommended to better communicate the purpose of each ele- ment of a pedestrian travel way. Codified in the Walkable Urban Thoroughfares Guide (ITE 2004) and the Urban Street Design Guide (NACTO 2013), these terms generally correspond to AASHTO terms. Exhibit 5-17 identifies and describes the recommended terms, and cross references them with the functionally equivalent terms used in AASHTO policy and guidance documents. • Design guidance. Exhibit 5-18 provides recommended widths of sidewalk zones for low- and intermediate-speed streets in the urban contexts for local, collector and arterial roadways. These recommendations are based on AASHTO policy and guidelines, and they are modified as needed to account for three levels of non-motorized multimodal accommodation. • Implementation guidance. Meandering sidewalks and paths are sometimes used when there is a desire to provide a high level of landscaping; however, they introduce additional Recommended Terminology AASHTO Terminology Use Furnishings zone Buffer Strip Separates the pedestrian through zone from the adjacent roadway, and serves as a space to accommodate roadway and sidewalk furnishings, utilities and landscaping. In commercial areas, this space may also serve business-related activities. Pedestrian Through Zone Clear Travel Area Serves through pedestrian travel along the sidewalk. This must serve basic accessibility requirements, but may expand to serve areas of high volumes of pedestrians. Frontage Zone Building Shy Distance This area is adjacent to the property line and serves activities and interactions related to land use access and servicing. In commercial areas, businesses may use this space for non-transportation activities such as sidewalk cafes, portable signage or merchant displays. In less developed areas, this zone may serve for placement of utilities. Exhibit 5-17. Recommended pedestrian travel way terminology.

Roadside Design Guidelines 199 walking distances and may introduce orientation issues for pedestrians with vision disabili- ties that make their use inappropriate in most settings. Meandering sidewalks should be kept within a 10-ft. (3.0-m) space parallel to the edge of the roadway width, with horizontal- curve radii no less than 300 ft. (90 m) in order to maintain a convenient walking route (AASHTO 2004b). As much as possible, sidewalks should keep to the natural path of travel, parallel to the roadway. Ideally, they will be located in a position that naturally aligns with crosswalks at intersections. In some locations, it may be desirable for the sidewalk to curve to form a more direct route to an intersecting walkway, to preserve significant trees or to provide a greater degree of separation between the sidewalk and the road. Sidewalks immediately adjacent to high-volume pedestrian generators require special consideration. This includes sidewalks adjacent to transit stations, universities, major tourism and entertainment venues, and major destinations. 5.2.4 Bicycle Accommodations Most bicycle accommodations along streets and roadways are provided within the traveled way. These accommodations may take the form of shared vehicle lanes, striped bicycle lanes and separated bicycle tracks. Bicycle accommodations also are addressed in Chapter 4 as a subsection under “Traveled Way Design Element Guidelines for All Users.” Roadside bicycle accommodations also can occur on sidepaths and shared-use paths. Bicycles are discouraged on pedestrian sidewalks, however, and are generally illegal to operate on sidewalks. Multimodal User Priority Level Sidewalk Zone * Street Type Local Urban Street Urban Collector Street Urban Arterial Street LOW Multimodal Priority Furnishings zone 2 ft. (0.6 m) 2–5 ft. (0.6–1.5 m) 5 ft. (1.5 m) Pedestrian Through Zone 4 ft. (1.2 m)* 5–8 ft. (1.5–2.4 m) 5–8 ft. (2.4 m) Frontage Zone 2 ft. (0.6 m) 2 ft. (0.6 m) 2 ft. (0.6 m) MODERATE Multimodal Priority Furnishings zone 4 ft. (1.2 m) 4–5 ft. (1.2–1.5 m) 5 ft. (1.5 m) Pedestrian Through Zone 5 ft. (1.5 m) 5–10 ft. (1.5–3.0 m) 10 ft. (3.0 m) Frontage Zone 2 ft. (0.6 m) 2 ft. (0.6 m) 2 ft. (0.6 m) HIGH Multimodal Priority Furnishings zone 4–6 ft. (1.2–1.8 m) 4–8 ft. (1.2–2.4 m) 6–10 ft. (1.8–3.0 m) Pedestrian Through Zone 5–7 ft. (1.5–2.1 m) 5–10 ft. (1.5–3.0 m) 10-12 ft. (3.0–3.6 m) Frontage Zone 2 ft. (0.6 m) 2 ft. (0.6 m) 2 ft. (0.6 m) Additional width should be provided when diagonal parking is present (2.5 ft.). Where the adjacent street lacks parking or bike lanes, a minimum 6 ft. (1.8 m) width frontage zone is desirable. * 4 ft. (1.2 m) clear travel way must be complemented with 5 ft. (1.5 m) passing zones every 200 ft. (60.0 m). This requirement may be met by the furnishing or frontage zone space. Exhibit 5-18. Recommended sidewalk zone widths by multimodal priority level and street type.

200 Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways Facilities placed outside the traveled way can provide low-stress environments for mixed bicycling and walking activities. Well-designed shared-use paths or trails can provide direct and comfortable routes to places of employment, recreation, education and other destinations. They can enhance the efficiency of transit systems by making transit stops more accessible. They also can provide a way to engage in physical activity. Such paths also can be great places for novice and child bicyclists to test their riding skills before taking trips on urban streets. Although sidepaths and shared-use trails that are outside the traveled way offer many positive fea- tures, their design should be approached with the same care and attention to recognized guidelines as design of bicycle facilities on roadways. Trails often are extremely popular facilities that are in high demand among pedestrian or bicycling commuters, rollerbladers, recreational bicyclists, joggers, people walking dogs, families with young children, and various other users. Trail users often have differing objectives, which can result in conflicts. The resulting mix and volume of non-motorized traffic can create dangerous conditions that should be anticipated during the design phase. Very few trails are used exclusively by one type of user. People routinely walk on “bicycle paths” and it is safe to assume that trails will be shared by all types of users of all ages and abilities. By understanding users’ needs and designing trails to accommodate expected types and levels of use, a trail system can be designed that plays an important role in the community or region’s transportation and recreation network. Multimodal conflicts on shared-use paths most often derive from (1) high volumes of users, (2) path users traveling at different speeds, (3) path users overtaking other users, (4) sharp curves, (5) vertical objects near the path and (6) surface defects that effectively narrow the usable width. Increasing use of paths should be expected over time as more people become aware of them and as walking and bicycling rates grow. The design of a path should follow best practices and industry standards and consider future growth patterns. Through careful planning and design, shared-use paths can be built to accommodate current and future path volumes while reducing conflicts between users of different types and speeds. 5.2.4.1 Sidepaths and Shared-Use Paths Most sidepaths are physically located in the roadside. The term sidepath implies that the bicy- cle facility is placed adjacent to, or beside, the traveled way. Shared-use facilities also may be located in the roadside, but they are found more often outside the roadway right-of-way. As shown in Exhibit 5-19, shared-use paths provide off-road connections that can be used for recreation and commuting. These paths often are found along waterways, abandoned or active railroad and utility rights-of-way, limited-access highways, or within parks and open space areas. Source: Image courtesy of FloridaBicycle.org Exhibit 5-19. Typical shared-use path.

Roadside Design Guidelines 201 Along high-speed, high-volume roads, sidepaths may be an acceptable alternative to side- walks or bike lanes, although intersection conflicts could be both less expected by users and more severe than with other treatments. As shown in Exhibit 5-20, sidepaths generally are bi-directional and located within the roadside or adjacent to the roadside. Sidepaths immedi- ately adjacent to roadways may cross numerous intersecting roads and driveways, which can create hazards and other problems for path users. Creating safe and accessible intersections between paths and the road network is one of the most challenging and critical aspects of their design. Shared-use paths tend to attract bicyclists with a wide range of skill levels, including young children. Even if a path has been designed primarily as a bike facility, it also will likely attract a mix of other users, including pedestrians, in-line skaters and others, depending on the path’s location and access. Special care must be taken in the planning and design of such paths to provide a satisfactory experience for bicyclists and to provide safe sharing of the facility with a variety of users of differing speeds and abilities, including users with disabilities. 5.2.4.2 Current AASHTO Policy and Guidance The Green Book (AASHTO 2011a) does not provide guidance on the design of shared-use paths or sidepaths. On the topic of bicycle facilities, it directs readers to the Bicycle Guide (AASHTO 2014b) and the Pedestrian Facilities Guide (AASHTO 2004b) for appropriate design guidance. The Bicycle Guide (AASHTO 2014b) provides general guidance on the design of sidepaths, identifying sidepaths as being most appropriate on highways with very high motorized vehicle traffic volumes and speeds such that bicyclists might be discouraged from riding on the roadway. Safety concerns remain at intersection and driveway crossings where crossing motorists may have inadequate sight distance and may not expect to encounter crossing bicycles on the sidepath. The Bicycle Guide provides extensive information on the potential safety concerns with side- path operation and expresses caution about potential operational challenges with their use. Specific conflicts that may apply to some sidepath designs include issues with blockage of the sidepath by motorized vehicles stopped at intersections, concerns about visibility of sidepath users at driveways and intersections, a lack of awareness by motorists of bicyclists approaching from the right, and issues with transitions onto the roadway where the sidepath ends, among others. The Bicycle Guide notes that, although paths in independent rights-of-way are their pre- ferred use, sidepaths may typically be considered where one or more of the following conditions exist (AASHTO 2014b): • The adjacent roadway has relatively high-volume and high-speed motorized vehicle traffic that might discourage many bicyclists from riding on the roadway, potentially increasing side- walk riding, and no practical alternatives exist for either improving the roadway or accom- modating bicyclists on nearby parallel streets; Source: Image courtesy of TrailLink Exhibit 5-20. Typical sidepath.

202 Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways • The sidepath is used for a short distance to provide continuity between sections of path in independent rights-of-way, or to connect local streets that are used as bicycle routes; • The sidepath can be built with few roadway and driveway crossings; and • The sidepath can terminate at each end onto a street that accommodates bicyclists, onto another path, or at another location that is otherwise bicycle compatible. The preferred width of sidepath facilities is 12 ft. This width is needed to enable a bicyclist to pass another path user going the same direction, while another path user is approaching from the opposite direction. The preferred minimum width is 10 ft., and the absolute minimum width is 8 ft. This width should be considered only in constrained conditions for short distances (AASHTO 2014b, Section 5.2.1). Exhibit 5-21 summarizes recommended sidepath widths. Separation between the sidepath and roadway requires a minimum of 5 ft. of unpaved surface. Where such width is not available, a barrier may be used between the sidepath and the roadway. Graded shoulders should be provided on each side of the path. A lateral offset of 3 ft. should be provided to signs or other fixed objects. The Bicycle Guide concludes that one-way paths on both sides of the street, which may oper- ate similarly to directional separated bike lanes, “can reduce some of the concerns associated with two-way sidepaths at driveways and intersections” (AASHTO 2014b). 5.2.4.3 Sidepath Principles and Considerations for All Users Attributes of well-designed sidepaths include: • Adequate width. Sidepaths should be designed to allow two people to ride side-by-side and/or pass other users. Eleven-ft.-wide (3.4-m-wide) pathways are needed to enable a bicyclist to pass another path user going in the same direction, at the same time a path user is approaching from the opposite direction (AASHTO 2014b). • Visibility at driveways and crossings. Clear sight lines should be provided between the road- way and the sidepath in advance of driveways and intersections. • User separation. Where high volumes of multiple user types exist, separation between bicy- clists and pedestrians is desired. 5.2.4.4 Recommended Practice • Design guidance. Exhibit 5-22 provides recommended widths of sidepaths for low- and intermediate-speed streets in urban contexts in response to three levels of non-motorized multimodal accommodation. Sidepath width affects user comfort and path capacity. As user volume or mix of modes increases, increased path width is necessary to maintain comfort and functionality. Separated Bike Lane Area Minimum Width Preferred Minimum Width Roadway Separation 5 ft. (1.5 m) * 5 ft. (1.5 m) Clear Travel Area 10 ft. (3.0 m)** 12 ft. (3.6 m) Graded Shoulder 1 ft. (0.3 m) 2 ft. (0.6 m) * Roadway separation may be reduced if a physical barrier is provided. ** An absolute minimum width of 8 ft. (2.4 m) may be considered in constrained conditions. Source: AASHTO (2014b) Exhibit 5-21. AASHTO-recommended sidepath widths.

Roadside Design Guidelines 203 Exhibit 5-23 identifies the preferred pathway width in response to volume and user mix, as needed to achieve LOS “B,” as calculated by the FHWA Shared Use Path Level of Use Calculator (FHWA 2006c). Sidepaths designed to serve extremely heavy user volumes should be configured with sepa- rated paths for separate users. Accomplishing this requires a minimum width of 15 ft. (4.6 m), with 10 ft. (3.0 m) provided for two-way wheeled traffic and 5 ft. (1.5 m) provided for pedes- trians (AASHTO 2014b). A sidepath with separated treads may function similarly to a two-way separated bike lane (see “Separated Bike Lanes” in Chapter 4). • Implementation guidance. Sidepaths have operational and safety concerns at driveways and intersections. The design of crossings should promote awareness of conflict points with cross- ing and turning vehicles and should facilitate proper yielding of motorists to bicyclists and pedestrians. In some design settings, wrong-way cyclists may be a concern. The AASHTO Bicycle Guide (AASHTO 2014b) offers additional guidance on this subject. Provision of a shared-use path adjacent to a road is not a substitute for the provision of on-road accommodation (e.g., paved shoulders or bike lanes). In some locations, shared-use paths may be considered in addition to on-road bicycle facilities (AASHTO 2014b). Multimodal User Priority Level Sidepath Attribute Recommended Widths LOW Multimodal Priority Roadway Separation 5 ft. (1.5 m) Clear Travel Area 10 ft. (3.6 m) Graded Shoulder 2 ft. (0.6 m) MODERATE Multimodal Priority Roadway Separation 5 ft. (1.5 m) Clear Travel Area 11–12 ft. (3.4–3.6 m) Graded Shoulder 2 ft. (0.6 m) HIGH Multimodal Priority Roadway Separation 5–8 ft. (1.5–2.4 m) or greater Clear Travel Area 11 ft. (3.4 m)–20 ft (6.0 m) * Graded Shoulder 2 ft. (0.6 m) * At widths beyond 15 ft., separated paths may be provided for bicyclists and pedestrians. Exhibit 5-22. Recommended sidepath attribute widths by multimodal priority level. Volume and User Mix Preferred Pathway Width Medium user volume (less than 50 users in one direction per hour), low user mix (75% bikes, 25% pedestrians) 8–10 ft. (2.4–3.0 m) Medium user volume (less than 50 users in one direction per hour), heavy user mix (50% bikes, 50% pedestrians) 10–12 ft. (3.0–3.6 m) High user volume (150 or more users in one direction per hour), low user mix (75% bikes, 25% pedestrians) 12–14 ft. (3.6– 4.2 m) Source: Adapted from FHWA (2006c) Exhibit 5-23. Pathway volume and user mix.

204 Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways Where a sidepath terminates, it may be necessary for path users to transition to a facility on the opposite side of the road. Designs should consider the desire for natural directional flows and the potential for conflicts with adjacent traffic. Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks (FHWA 2016e) is a resource intended for trans- portation practitioners in small towns and rural communities. It applies existing national design guidelines in a rural setting and highlights small-town and rural case studies. It addresses challenges specific to rural areas, recognizing how many rural roadways are operat- ing today and focusing on opportunities to make incremental improvements despite the geo- graphic, fiscal and other challenges faced by many rural communities. This FHWA document provides information on maintaining accessibility and MUTCD (FHWA 2009b) compliance while encouraging innovation. For example, it highlights two innovative facility types: yield roadways and advisory shoulders (dashed bicycle lanes). The document notes that, as of 2016, an approved Request to Experiment is required to implement advisory shoulders. 5.2.5 Transit Service Accommodations Public transit helps cities provide accessible and affordable transportation, improve local air quality, increase transportation capacity without expanding roadways, and encourage compact mixed-use development. Roadside design practices include the accommodation of transit ser- vice facilities, providing enhanced facilities in locations that prioritize multimodal travel (e.g., in central business districts and other dense, high-traffic commercial areas). Designers must consider the needs of transit riders when designing curbside stops to improve service efficiency and performance while balancing the interests of other roadway users. Design considerations also include the street classification, site context and level of transit ridership. This section addresses bus transit accommodations only; rail transit accommodations present a broader and more complex range of challenges. The Guide for Geometric Design of Transit Facilities on Highways and Streets (AASHTO 2014a) and the Transit Street Design Guide (NACTO 2016) should be consulted for designing transit accommodations other than bus accommodations. 5.2.5.1 Current AASHTO Policy and Guidance The Green Book (AASHTO 2011a) states that, when land use patterns generate demand for passenger car traffic, there is likewise potential demand for public transportation. When a street is served by public transit, roadside accommodations must be provided to support that service as well as devoting the appropriate space connecting sidewalks to transit stops. Transit stops can be designed either as an in-line facility or with a pullout clear of the lanes for through traffic. The Green Book recommends the use of pullouts whenever sufficient right-of-way is available (or by restricting on-street parking) to reduce interference between buses and other motor- ized vehicles, as long as the pullout (turnout) is well designed for the driver to enter and then maneuver back into traffic (AASHTO 2011a). A two-bus-length pullout should be, at minimum, 130–180 ft. (40–55 m) long, depending on whether the stop is located before or after an inter- section, or whether it is located mid-block. Mid-block locations require the most space while far-side stops require the least. The Green Book recommends the use of longer pullouts to speed up bus maneuvers, and reduce interference with through traffic (AASHTO 2011a). The Pedestrian Facilities Guide (AASHTO 2004b) recognizes the need for transit stops to provide a designated space for loading and unloading passengers. Stops can consist of a simple sign and a designated space at the curb, pullout area or shoulder. Stops also can include enhance- ments to improve passenger experience (e.g., shelters, benches, real-time arrival signs, trash receptacles, lighting and other furnishings). Shelters must have a minimum clear floor area of

Roadside Design Guidelines 205 2.5 ft. (0.8 m) by 4 ft. (1.2 m) entirely within the perimeter of the shelter, with pedestrian access to the boarding area (AASHTO 2004b). The Pedestrian Facilities Guide (AASHTO 2004b) requires newly built transit stops to include an 8 ft. (2.4 m) by 5 ft. (1.5 m) landing pad to provide accessibility for all users and compliance with ADAAG 10.2.1 (U.S. Access Board 2002). The Pedestrian Facilities Guide also recommends a continuous 8 ft. (2.4 m) pad or sidewalk for the entire length of the transit stop, or at minimum between the front and rear doors of the bus, without interference from utility poles, fire hydrants or other street furniture to impede access to transit stops and loading areas (AASHTO 2004b). The Guide for Geometric Design of Transit Facilities on Highways and Streets (AASHTO 2014a) recommends that communities weigh the trade-offs between improving the pedestrian experi- ence and accommodating transit vehicles and other general traffic. The AASHTO Guide for Geometric Design of Transit Facilities on Highways and Streets provides the following guidance on the selection of transit stop treatments (AASHTO 2014a). • Curbside stops are used on all types of roads, where parking can be either permitted or prohibited; • Bus bays (pullouts) are appropriate along roadways where the curb lanes are used by moving traffic and vehicle speeds are higher (over 40 mph); • Bus bulbs (transit stops in curb extensions) are appropriate in urban environments that allow parking at all times, have frequent transit service and high levels of pedestrian activ- ity, and generally experience lower traffic volumes and lower vehicle speeds (e.g., under 40 mph); • Bus bulb curb extensions should be a minimum of 6 ft. (1.8 m) wide and leave an offset of 2 ft. (0.6 m) between the bulb and the edge of the travel lane, assuming an 8-ft. parking space; and • Bus bulb curb extensions should be long enough to allow for simultaneous boarding of as many buses as required given peak transit frequencies. • Bus bulb curb extensions should be a minimum of 6 ft. (1.8 m) wide and leave an offset of 2 ft. (0.6 m) between the bulb and the edge of the travel lane, assuming an 8 ft. parking space; they also should be long enough to allow for simultaneous boarding of as many buses as required given peak transit frequencies (AASHTO 2014a). Bus pullouts are used mainly on higher-volume, higher-speed suburban roads to enable buses to serve the stop without impeding traffic. The pullout creates separation from moving traffic for passenger boarding and can be appropriate for buses with long dwell times or during a layover; however, difficulty when reentering the flow of traffic from a pullout can lead to increased transit delay for the buses, especially when traffic exceeds 1,000 vehicles per hour per lane. The AASHTO transit guide recommends building pullouts where right-of-way width is adequate without affecting sidewalk functionality. Additional considerations to consider are where traffic in the curb lane is between 250–500 vehicles during the peak hour, when speeds are higher than 40 mph, where bus frequency is between 10–15 vehicles in each direction dur- ing the peak hour, and where transit passenger volumes exceed 20 to 40 boardings per hour each way (AASHTO 2014a). Bus platforms should be at least 8 ft. (2.4 m) wide, with 10 ft. (3 m) provided if there are no adjacent sidewalks. In constrained conditions (e.g., when curb to building distance is less than 10 ft. [3 m]), a reduced pad width may be needed. The platform length should be a minimum of 25 ft. (7.5 m); a longer length may be necessary to cover all doors given the types and number of buses that serve the stop at any given time. Specific stop dimensions will depend on the bus type in the transit system, the need for and dimensions of passenger shelters, and well as the number of waiting passengers (AASHTO 2014a).

206 Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways 5.2.5.2 Additional Guidance The Transit Street Design Guide (NACTO 2016) details how reliable public transporta- tion depends on a commitment to transit at every level of design, and provides guidance for the development of transit facilities on city streets and the design of city streets to prioritize transit, improve transit service quality and support other goals related to transit. This guide was developed on the basis of other design guidance, city case studies, best practices in urban environments, research and evaluation of existing designs, and professional consensus. The specific guidance, designs and elements included in the guide are based on North American street design practice. 5.2.5.3 Transit Service Accommodation: Principles and Considerations for All Users • Accessibility. Transit accommodations should be accessible to persons using mobility devices such as wheelchairs. Transit stops and stations should be fully accessible in accordance with the provisions of the most current ADA guidelines (U.S. Access Board 2011). Guidelines cover pathway width, space for wheelchairs, grades, treatment of obstructions, and placement and design of signs. A goal should be to exceed the minimum standard to provide adequate accommodations and minimize impact of site design conditions. • Multimodal access. Transit stops and stations should be designed to integrate with a con- nected network of bikeways and walkways. Based on the needs at the transit stop and the land use in the area of the stop or station, short- and long-term bicycle storage such as bicycle racks or lockers should be provided at stops and stations so that users can continue their trips on public transportation. • Integration with land uses. In the urban street environment, transit service should be closely coordinated with the surrounding developments. Each should support the other in making communities more livable and in enhancing transit ridership (AASHTO 2014a). • Priority in mixed traffic. The selection of pullout (turnout) stops or in-lane stops should be based on service levels of the transit system on that route, as well as overall traffic operations on the route. A pullout allows motorists to pass the stopped bus, but may cause a significant transit delay when buses have to reenter the travel lane. In-lane curbside or curb extension stops reduces transit delays compared to pullout stops and may provide more space for ame- nities, stormwater treatments, and sidewalk space. 5.2.5.4 Recommended Practice Four general types of transit stop configurations exist, from which a selection is made in response to the available right-of-way, cross-section configuration and desired degree of multi- modal accommodation (see Exhibit 5-24). These configurations are: • Auxiliary bus turnout stops. Also called bus bays or (as in this Guide) bus pullouts, this con- figuration establishes an auxiliary bus loading lane outside of the adjacent travel lane; • Curbside bus pullout stops. Used on streets that have on-street parking or shoulders, this configuration allows the bus to pull directly to the curb alongside the adjacent travel lane; • In-lane curb extension bus stops. On streets that have on-street parking or shoulders, the transit vehicle may stop in the travel lane by a transit stop that is located within a curb exten- sion; and • In-lane curbside bus stops. On streets without on-street parking, the transit vehicle may stop in the travel lane alongside marked transit stops located behind the curb of the sidewalk. Exhibit 5-25 identifies recommended bus stop configurations for low- and intermediate- speed streets in response to multimodal priority and the presence of on-street parking.

Roadside Design Guidelines 207 Source: Adapted from content in TCRP Report 100 (Kittelson & Associates, et al. 2003) Exhibit 5-24. Bus stop configuration types. Multimodal User Priority Level Parking Configuration Recommended Bus Stop Configuration LOW Multimodal Priority No Parking Auxiliary turnout stop On-Street Parking Curbside turnout stop MODERATE Multimodal Priority No Parking In-lane curbside stop On-Street Parking Curbside turnout stop or curb extension stop HIGH Multimodal Priority No Parking In-lane curbside stop On-Street Parking Curb extension stop Exhibit 5-25. Recommended transit stop configuration by multimodal priority level and presence of on-street parking.

208 Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways 5.2.5.5 Transit Platform Design Transit platforms should be designed to accommodate waiting transit passengers, include transit shelter amenities and integrate well into adjacent sidewalks. Transit stops must include easily identifiable signage and a paved area that is accessible to all passengers. Platforms should be at least 35 ft. (10.6 m) long to accommodate a single 40-ft. bus, or long enough to cover all doors of each bus that is expected to simultaneously serve the stop during peak hours. An additional length of 5–10 ft. (1.5–3.0 m) is needed between each additional transit vehicle expected to dwell at the platform. In addition, there should be a minimum of 10 ft. (3.0 m) of clear distance between the platform and the nearest crosswalk or curb return. Exhibit 5-26 depicts a bus transit stop platform that incorporates an available furnishings zone for transit boarding and alighting. Exhibit 5-27 shows an example of a bus transit platform incorporated as part of a narrow sidewalk with no furnishings zone. Exhibit 5-28 shows a curb extension bus stop and illustrates a desirable approach for integrating an urban bus stop with the roadside. Transit stop platforms must provide ADA-required access to accommodate all passengers. A pedestrian access route that is at minimum 4-ft. (1.2 m) wide and clear of obstructions is neces- sary to connect the transit shelter to the loading area, street, and sidewalk. When transit facilities are adjacent to sidewalks, a sidewalk pedestrian through zone of 8 ft. to 12 ft. (2.4–3.6 m) or greater should be provided. Where possible, pinch-points in the pedestrian through zone should be avoided; however, a minimum of 6 ft. (1.8 m) of clear sidewalk space is suitable for constrained conditions. Source: Excerpt from Diagram 3: Bus stop design: sidewalks with furnishings zones (Basic), in TriMet Bus Stops Guidelines (2010, 18), used by permission Exhibit 5-26. Transit stop configuration with furnishings zone. Source: Excerpt from Diagram 4: Bus stop design: sidewalks without furnishings zones (Basic), in TriMet Bus Stops Guidelines (2010, 19), used by permission Exhibit 5-27. Transit stop configuration without furnishings zone.

Roadside Design Guidelines 209 All transit stops should incorporate the following elements (AASHTO 2004b): • A pole and transit stop sign to identify the stop. Poles should be placed 2.5 ft. (0.75 m) from the curb. • An accessible landing pad to provide wheelchair lift access. This clear, level landing area must be a minimum of 5 ft. (1.5 m) by 8 ft. (2.4 m). If the stop is located in an area with a furnishings zone, the landing pad can be incorporated within that area while maintaining a pedestrian through zone on the sidewalk (see Exhibit 5-27). If the stop is in an area without a furnishings zone and sidewalks are narrower than 8 ft. (2.4 m), the landing pad can protrude behind the sidewalk toward the property line (see Exhibit 5-28). • A bus zone (when necessary). For bus stops to be accessible, a transit vehicle must have a clear path to the stop area. Where on-street parking is available, a no-parking area should be implemented to allow for curb access. Depending on each stop’s near-side, far-side, or mid-block location, the length of the no-parking area may range from 90 ft. to 150 ft. (27.0–45.0 m). The zone length should be increased if more than one bus is expected to use the stop at one time (AASHTO 2014a). At auxiliary pullout stops, a deceleration lane or taper should permit easy entrance for the bus to the bus loading area. The taper should be at an angle (minimum of 5:1) that is flat enough to encourage the bus operator to pull completely clear of the through lane before stopping. A merging lane enables buses to reenter the general travel lanes, tapered at a maximum of 3:1 (AASHTO 2014a). Depending on the available space and current or expected ridership, designs for transit stops may include the following elements (AASHTO 2014a): • A rear landing pad, integrated into the transit platform to provide accessibility for alighting passengers, in addition to an ADA-accessible landing area to access the front door. The landing area should be clear of obstacles and with a minimum dimension of 4 ft. × 6 ft. (1.2 m × 1.8 m). • A transit shelter, to provide seating and protection from inclement weather. Shelters are rec- ommended at stops with higher ridership or where there is a higher expectation of senior citizen ridership or heavier use of wheelchair lifts. Shelters will normally have a minimum accessible clear floor area of 2.5 ft. × 4 ft. (0.8 m × 1.2 m) entirely within the perimeter of the shelter and a clear pathway from the accessible waiting area inside the shelter to the accessible landing pad. Source: NACTO (2016) Exhibit 5-28. Preferred sidewalk and transit stop dimensions.

210 Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways • Seating, to improve the off-board passenger experience. Seating can be incorporated into shelters or installed independently. Seating placement should not compromise safety or accessibility. • Trash cans, to improve the off-board passenger experience. Trash cans are most appropriate at high ridership stops (e.g., transfer locations) or where a high volume of pedestrian activity occurs. • Lighting, to improve the off-board passenger experience. Lighting increases the visibility of waiting passengers along with passengers’ perceptions of comfort and safety. Overhead light- ing can be oriented toward the boarding area, with additional lighting incorporated as part of a shelter. Considering pedestrian accessibility also is important for bus stops in rural settings. The shoulder may provide the only access to the bus stop, and “where a shoulder serves as part of a pedestrian access route, it must meet ADA requirements for pedestrian walkways to the maxi- mum extent possible” (AASHTO 2004b). • Implementation guidance. Providing route information and wayfinding tools at stops improves the passenger experience by making the transit system easier to use and reducing travel uncertainty, especially if real-time arrivals are provided. The information provided can include details on the surrounding neighborhood and nearby destinations. As with sidewalks, transit stops can incorporate green infrastructure to improve water quality, reduce stormwater runoff, and reduce impact on water treatment systems to pro- vide an inviting environment for transit users. Green infrastructure is suitable at bus bulbs where extra sidewalk space is available, and can help calm traffic, reduce crossing distance and improve the aesthetics of the stop environment. Bike parking that includes short-term racks or longer-term storage can help improve intermodal connectivity to transit, which boosts ridership and reduces reliance on on-bus bicycle racks. Improving bicycle parking expands transit reach that addresses last mile travel to and from stops, and improves access to adjacent destinations that are beyond walking distance. The Pedestrian Safety Guide for Transit Agencies (FHWA 2013c) provides an extensive dis- cussion of design and operational features that roadway designers can consider to increase the safety of pedestrians accessing transit. Guidance from this resource includes the following: – The design of paths, sidewalks and transit stops contributes to a passenger’s experience and perception of safety on the transit system; – Well-connected sidewalks should be installed in all areas with regular transit service so that transit patrons will not be forced to walk in the street while traveling to or from a stop or station; and – Roadway crossings should be made safer with an appropriate combination of facilities, such as marked crosswalks, median crossing islands, warning signs, and pedestrian signals; and – Effective pedestrian design should account for the needs of all potential users, including those with physical or mental limitations. When applied appropriately, universal design concepts ensure that the built environment can be shared by all people, thus eliminating the need for specialized design. The ADAAG (U.S. Access Board 2002) describes the minimum designs for providing accessibility for all pedestrians, but FHWA’s Pedestrian Safety Guide notes that the ADAAG is just the starting point for ensuring that universal design is applied. The following sources are recommended for best practices to accommodate all pedestrians (FHWA 2013c): – Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Part I, A Review of Existing Guidelines (FHWA 2001c); – Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access Part II, Best Practices Guide (FHWA 2001d); and – Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (AASHTO 2004b).

Roadside Design Guidelines 211 5.2.5.6 Sidewalk Design Creating safer places for pedestrians to travel along roadways can encourage more people to use transit systems. It is critical to ensure that sidewalks and other pedestrian pathways along roadways have appropriate width, surface, separation from motorized vehicle traffic, lighting and signage. • Sidewalk width. Sidewalks should be wide enough to accommodate the expected levels of pedestrian traffic. Narrow sidewalks that cannot accommodate the volume of foot traffic may encourage pedestrians to walk in the roadway or take alternate routes, increasing the poten- tial for conflict with motorized vehicles. It is desirable to provide a sidewalk clear width (i.e., lateral space available for pedestrian travel for the length of a corridor) at least wide enough to accommodate two people walking side-by-side. ADA guidelines specify a minimum clear width of 5 ft. to accommodate users in wheel- chairs (36 CFR Part 1190). In areas with high pedestrian volumes (often areas near transit stops and stations), sidewalks may need to be wider to accommodate pedestrians. Street fur- niture (e.g., trash cans, newspaper racks), utilities, and street trees present obstacles to pedes- trians and reduce the sidewalk clear width. Obstacles should be placed outside of the normal pedestrian travel path, ideally in the buffer zone (i.e., between the street and the sidewalk) to ensure that the sidewalk provides direct pedestrian paths. • Surface. The full clear width of a sidewalk should be paved with a smooth, stable and slip- resistant material to accommodate wheelchairs, bicycles and strollers. The sidewalk should be clear of obstructions, including overhanging branches, utility poles and signs. • Buffer. For the safety and comfort of pedestrians, a buffer area between the sidewalk and roadway is often desirable (i.e., sidewalks should not be located against the curb, directly adjacent to the lanes of moving traffic). Some form of buffer should be included to protect pedestrians from noise, wind and vehicle splash caused by passing vehicles and errant vehicles. Landscaping, such as a simple grass strip, shrubs or trees, can be used to provide a buffer. A tree-lined buffer has the added benefit of improving roadway aesthetics, providing shade and improving pedestrians’ perceptions of safety with respect to motorized vehicle traffic. On-street parking can also serve as a buffer between moving vehicles and pedestrians while simultaneously slowing vehicular traffic. • Other amenities. Other sidewalk design considerations and amenities include: – Driveway crossing design. Crossing design is important for providing safe, accessible side- walks. Grade changes between the sidewalk and the driveway should be minimized, and corner radii should be made as small as possible to encourage drivers to turn slowly and yield to pedestrians. – Lighting. Ample, consistent and uninterrupted lighting helps ensure the safety and security of all pedestrians, including customers accessing transit. A Resident’s Guide for Creating Safe and Walkable Communities includes more information about lighting requirements for pedestrian facilities (FHWA 2015a). – Directional signage. Installed around heavily used transit stops, directional signage enables passengers to find their way to local points of interest. Signage should be scaled for pedes- trians and should be designed to be understood by all pedestrians, including those with visual impairments and limited English proficiency. – Visual obstructions. Large shrubs, utility boxes or other visual obstructions that impair driv- ers’ ability to see pedestrians should be avoided. 5.2.5.7 Roadway Crossings Pedestrians and bicyclists often must cross roadways when traveling to and from transit stops, and these crossings should be made as safe as possible. Roadways and pathways should be designed to facilitate safe interactions between bicycles and cars, trucks, transit vehicles, and pedestrians. Marked crosswalks are commonly used to identify preferred roadway crossing

212 Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways locations. In many cases, however—particularly on multilane roads with high speeds and high traffic volumes—marked crosswalks alone are not sufficient to assure the safety of pedestrians or bicyclists. FHWA guidelines state that “in most cases, marked crosswalks are best used in combi- nation with other treatments (e.g., curb extensions, raised crossing islands, traffic signals, road- way narrowing, enhanced overhead lighting, traffic calming measures etc.)” (FHWA 2015a). Detailed engineering analysis will help to determine the appropriate combination of treat- ments for a pedestrian crossing. When implemented with education and enforcement programs, infrastructure improvements can make crossings safer and more convenient for transit custom- ers and can help reduce pedestrian crashes. One critical aspect of pedestrian crossing safety is the sight distance between pedestrians and drivers approaching a crossing. Adequate sight distance should be provided for drivers to see pedes- trians entering a crosswalk and stop their vehicles. Sight distance can be limited by hills, curves, buildings, parked cars, landscaping, trees and other objects. At roadside transit stops, poorly placed shelters or non-transparent shelters can limit the ability of drivers to see pedestrians at or near the stop. In addition, transit vehicles servicing passengers at stops can block the sight lines between pedestrians crossing the roadway and other approaching drivers. Crossings placed near bus stops in low-density and rural areas may be of particular concern for two reasons: (1) minimum geomet- ric standards may not be met or maintained consistently, and (2) pedestrians gather less frequently, meaning that motorists may be less likely to expect them. Many of the roadway crossing treatments presented in this section can help address sight distance issues. Possible design elements for improved pedestrian roadway crossings include: • Marked crosswalks, • Median islands, • Curb extensions, • Reduced curb radii, • Narrowed or reduced motorized vehicle travel lanes, • Warning signs and signals for pedestrians and bicyclists (crossing on foot), and • Grade-separated crossings. In some areas, pedestrians or bicyclists also may need to cross railroad or light rail tracks to access a transit station or stop. The design of these crossings is critical because pedestrian/train or bicycle/train collisions typically result in severe or fatal injuries. Although most current standards and requirements for railroad at-grade warning systems are tailored to motorized vehicle traffic, the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook (FHWA 2007b) provides guidance about pedestrian crossings. Additional guidance is provided in: • Part 8 and Part 10 of the MUTCD (FHWA 2009b), • Volume 1, Section 3 in the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Associa- tion (AREMA) Communications and Signals Manual, available online (AREMA n.d.), and • CFR 49 Part 234. Railroads shall provide a minimum of 20 seconds of warning time, with the active warning devices (e.g., bells, flashing lights, barricades) fully deployed 5 seconds before the arrival of a train or transit vehicle. This gives a pedestrian a minimum of 15 seconds to complete crossing the tracks. Longer crossings may necessitate that additional warning time be built into the train- detection system. In addition to time, the type of surface material used at the rail crossing must be designed in accordance with the ADAAG (U.S. Access Board 2002). At-grade crossings with multiple tracks can present additional dangers. Pedestrians or bicy- clists may assume that a warning has been deployed for a train that is currently stopped on one

Roadside Design Guidelines 213 of the tracks while an unperceived second train is approaching on another track. For these loca- tions, separate warnings may be necessary to provide adequate alerts to pedestrians or bicyclists. Safety treatments that can be used at rail locations include: • Traditional gate/flasher/bell assemblies, • Active or passive warnings, • Fencing, • Grade-separated crossings, and • Crossing surveillance, combined with educational outreach and enforcement efforts. When considering what, if any, warning system is to be deployed, designers are advised to make a thorough review of the environment around the crossing. This review includes evalu- ating the frequency of rail service and number of tracks that are present. The assessment also should include land uses and frequently used pedestrian or bicycle pathways near the railroad track. Railroads near schools, playgrounds, hospitals, retail centers and other major pedestrian generators may have a much greater need for safety treatments than a railroad track in a rural setting. Designers also must be aware of the different standards and approaches applied to at-grade crossings of light rail and streetcar tracks, which often have no gates or warning devices. In areas with expected bicycle traffic, bicycle-specific facilities (e.g., on-street bicycle lanes, climbing lanes, or shared lane pavement markings) should be installed. Any off-street facilities provided for both pedestrians and bicyclists should provide a safe area for bicyclists that does not impede or endanger pedestrians. AASHTO’s Bicycle Guide (2014b) should be consulted during planning, design, and construction projects to ensure that appropriate bicycle facilities are provided. As noted in the Bicycle Guide, railroad tracks that cross roads or bicycle use paths on a diago- nal can cause steering difficulties for bicyclists. Depending on the pavement condition, evenness of elevations, crossing angle and width/depth of the flangeway opening, a bicycle wheel can be diverted from its intended path, resulting in a crash and/or damage to the wheel or tire. The AASHTO Bicycle Guide provides detailed recommendations that address these potential issues (AASHTO 2014b). 5.2.6 Landscaping and Stormwater Management 5.2.6.1 Landscaping Roadside landscaping is typically provided in many urban core, urban, suburban and rural town contexts. Although landscaping is not a specific accommodation for pedestrians or bicycles, in contexts with pedestrian and bicycle activity landscaping often is considered an important ame- nity. Allocating roadside space to landscaping can help improve the aesthetics of the streetscape, provide a buffer between the roadway and sidewalk that improves pedestrian comfort, and facili- tate stormwater management through bioretention features such as planters and swales. Landscaping typically occupies the furnishings zone of the sidewalk corridor. It is most fea- sible when there is sufficient space to provide landscaping in addition to an adequately wide clear pedestrian through zone. 5.2.6.2 Current AASHTO Policy and Guidance The Green Book recommends landscaping as a way to improve roadside aesthetics, lower construction and maintenance (and costs), and “create interest, usefulness, and beauty for the pleasure and satisfaction of the traveling public without increasing the potential crash severity for motorists who unintentionally run off the roadway” (AASHTO 2011a). The Green Book

214 Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways recommends landscape development that retains the highway’s character and environment while maintaining a sufficiently wide clear path that takes into account pedestrians with disabilities. Landscaping features are most suitable in the “border area,” which is provisioned for the sidewalk, for snow storage, and for the placement of underground and above-ground utilities. At intersections, any landscaping in the clear sight triangle should be maintained no higher than 2 ft. above the roadway grade so as not to impede visibility (AASHTO 2011a). The Pedestrian Facilities Guide recommends plantings and street trees as one of the funda- mental attributes to good roadway design that accommodates pedestrians (AASHTO 2004b). These treatments “contribute the overall psychological and visual comfort of sidewalk users” and help encourage walking behaviors by separating the pedestrian travel way and moving traf- fic (AASHTO 2004b). Furnishings zone plantings help protect pedestrians from roadside spray during inclement weather, provide an increased sense of security, and can direct pedestrians— especially those with vision impairments—to appropriate crossing locations and increase aware- ness for approaching motorists. Street trees typically are used as a buffer between the roadway and sidewalk to help improve the visual quality of the street and to help calm traffic while providing shade to pedestrians. Street trees with large canopies should have their branches regularly trimmed so that they are at least 7 ft. (2.1 m) high above the sidewalk. Trees with large trunks or with root patterns that may eventually cause the sidewalk to heave and shift vertically, or that may damage nearby structures, are gener- ally to be avoided. Tree well sizes vary based on the width of the sidewalk and the type of tree used for planting, but tree wells should be placed outside of the pedestrian clear zone and flush with the sidewalk surface. Tree wells also should have drainage grate gaps that are narrow enough to prevent stroller wheels, wheelchairs, canes or high-heeled shoes from becoming lodged in the grate. AASHTO (2004b) recommends 6 ft. (1.8 m) of width for a planting strip if there is no on- street parking or bike lane. The desirable landscape buffer width is 5 ft. to 6 ft. (1.5–1.8 m) for arterials and 2 ft. to 4 ft. (0.6–1.2 m) for local or collector streets. Trees, planting strips or boxes should be carefully designed to not obscure visibility at cross- walk locations or negatively impact perceived security, which can discourage pedestrian activity at night. Moreover, the Roadside Design Guide (AASHTO 2011b) also recommends designing plantings and trees to maintain a clear vision space from 3 ft. to 10 ft. (1.0–3.0 m) above the roadway grade to facilitate proper sight distance. Placement of trees also should consider where they will not interfere with overhead utilities or car doors, and provide sufficient buffer between trees and other roadside furniture. Frequent maintenance may be needed to prevent plantings and shrubs from encroaching the minimum clear sidewalk width or the roadway. Plantings and shrubs should be maintained no higher than 3 ft. (1 m). The Roadside Design Guide (AASHTO 2011b) encourages the use of buffer strips between urban roadways and sidewalks to physically separate pedestrians from the roadway and the use of land- scaping and other roadside furniture to improve the quality of the visual setting for all roadway users and adjacent property owners. The guide recognizes that in urban, suburban and small- town rural settings where pedestrian and bicycle activity is expected, roadway design will normally incorporate street trees, furnishings, and plantings, which help create a sense of enclosure to reduce traffic speeds and increase comfort and safety for vulnerable road users (AASHTO 2011b). Landscaping also can provide drivers visual cues about the road environment through which they are traveling. Landscape design should take into account: • The mature size of trees and shrubs and their effect on safety, visibility and maintenance costs; • Accommodation of landscaping within the border area given the needs of other users (e.g., access to on-street parking);

Roadside Design Guidelines 215 • Potential future changes in roadway cross sections; • The impact of landscaping on visibility for motorists and pedestrians at driveways and intersections; • Proper placement and spacing of landscape elements such as trees and shrubs away from roadside utility lines in order to avoid conflict with root systems; • Positioning of canopy trees so they are far enough away from service wires; and • Trimming canopy trees as needed to provide sufficient clearance height for taller vehicles. 5.2.6.3 Additional Guidance Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares (ITE 2010a) recommends landscaping as a pedes- trian amenity, as it can help create a distinctive identity as part of a planned streetscape project. Furthermore, spacing street trees 15 ft. to 30 ft. (5–10 m) apart in the furnishings zone can create continuous canopy for shade and aesthetics (ITE 2010a). In areas with high pedestrian activity with active ground-floor uses, trees should be planted in tree wells covered by grates (or using other suitable cover techniques such as porous pavement) to maximize the area available for walking. Landscaping also can be incorporated as part of a curb extension in the shadow of the on-street parking lane to narrow the width of the street and improve pedestrian crossings (ITE 2010a). Accounting for the impacts and costs of maintenance, streetscape improvements should incorporate plants that are adapted to the local climate and indigenous to the area. Trees will need to be regularly pruned to avoid interfering with pedestrians, street lighting, parked vehicles, sight distance to crossing pedestrians, or visibility of traffic control devices. Tree branches also can interfere with overhead utility wires. Burying utilities or planting trees that will have lower canopy heights at maturity can help reduce this conflict. Trees also should be chosen and planted to reduce the potential of root systems damaging sidewalks, utilities and pavement. The ITE guide recommends a minimum vertical clearance of 8 ft. above the pedestrian travel way along the sidewalk and at least 13 ft. from the top of curb in the traveled way to provide clearance for larger vehicles (ITE 2010a). 5.2.6.4 Landscaping Principles and Considerations for All Users Landscape buffers help improve pedestrian safety and enhance the quality of the walking environment by increasing separation between vehicles and pedestrians. The furnishings zone provides room for snow storage, splash protection during inclement weather, and space for curb ramps, street lights, traffic signs and other furnishings. Buffer area plantings and benches also create inviting spaces for pedestrians. The design of landscaping should take into account: • Accessibility. Landscaping should accommodate access to parked cars (when applicable) and to bus stop loading zones. When a landscape buffer at a bus stop separates the sidewalk and street, accessible paved loading pads and connections for both the front and rear doors of a bus should be provided, depending on the length of the bus stop. Street trees with high canopies generally provide sufficient minimum clearance to avoid interfering with pedestrian travel. ADA standards for clear width along sidewalks also must be maintained. • Maintenance. The designs must consider the costs and effort required to maintain the plant- ings and avoid damaging the streetscape. For example, consistent pruning of street trees is needed to avoid interference with pedestrians on the sidewalk or tall vehicles within the road- way. Root systems also must be managed to avoid heaving the sidewalk or damaging sur- rounding foundations. • Stormwater management. Best management practices can be incorporated to capture and treat stormwater runoff. Solutions may include vegetated swales, infiltration basins, pervi- ous pavement, drywells and flow-through planters. Sustainable stormwater management

216 Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways practices help reduce the flow and toxicity of runoff, and they are more cost-effective than conventional drainage systems. • Sight distance. Low-growth plantings (generally 2 ft. high or less) can be incorporated as part of curb extensions that help calm traffic and guide pedestrians to legal crossings while main- taining the visibility of motorists and pedestrians at crosswalks. 5.2.6.5 Recommended Practice • Design guidance. On low- and intermediate-speed streets in urban contexts, landscaping generally is located within the furnishings zone of sidewalks (i.e., between the pedestrian accessible route and the roadway). The potential to support landscaping and trees depends on the width of the furnishings zone and the resulting permeable surface (see Exhibit 5-29). • Implementation guidance. On low- and intermediate-speed streets, using small-caliper trees alleviates concerns about fixed objects or visual obstructions between the roadway and the pathway. AASHTO (2011a) does not classify trees whose trunks grow to below 4 in. (100 mm) diameter at maturity as fixed objects (unless they are grouped closely together). Accordingly, trees of this width may be placed within the clear zone, but small-caliper trees should be placed outside the lateral offset of roadways (AASHTO 2011a). On streets and roadways at the upper range of intermediate speeds (40–45 mph) or above, safe roadside design is important to evaluate in landscape design alternatives. See Chapter 10 of AASHTO’s Roadside Design Guide (AASHTO 2011b). Trees and other landscaping may affect the visibility of sidewalk users at driveways and intersections. To promote adequate sight lines ground covers should not exceed 2 ft. (0.6 m) in height. Trees generally should be set back at least 20 ft. to 30 ft. (6.0 m to 10.0 m) on the approach to intersections and 10 ft. to 20 ft. (3.0 m to 6.0 m) on the far side (Gattis et al. 2010). Trees also must be pruned so that branches do not interfere with pedestrians, street lighting, parked vehicles and traffic control devices. The minimum recommended vertical clearance is 8 ft. (2.4 m) above the pedestrian travel way (U.S. Access Board 2002). Street trees also can introduce conflicts with overhead and underground utilities. Tree selec- tion and training tree branch development can minimize impact to overhead utilities. Pro- viding watering systems to encourage deep roots or root barriers can be used to reduce the potential for sidewalk damage (ITE 2004). Because plant and tree selection can affect both maintenance costs and the aesthetic char- acter of the roadside, designers are encouraged to select plants that are adapted to the local climate and fit the character of the surrounding area. Providing plantings in curb extension islands between parking bays helps reduce the visual width of the street and can be part of a design that maintains a wider pedestrian throughway, especially in constrained conditions. Furnishings Zone Width Landscaping Compatibility Trees 2–4 ft. (0.6–1.2 m) Small shrubs possible, generally appropriate for turf grass Trees not practical within this width 4.5–6.0 ft. (1.3–1.8 m) Large shrubs or decorative landscaping possible Small trees become practical > 6.0 ft. ( > 1.8 m) Supports a high degree of decorative landscaping Large canopy trees possible * Where on-street parking is present, curb extensions may be used to offer an enhanced landscaping area suitable for placement of bioswales and trees. Exhibit 5-29. Landscaping potential of various furnishings zone widths.*

Roadside Design Guidelines 217 For plantings in the furnishings zone, tree wells with grates should be considered in areas with predominantly commercial ground-floor uses in order to maximize the area for pedes- trian circulation. 5.2.6.6 Stormwater Management Stormwater runoff from roadways and roadsides normally must be collected and transported within the right-of-way. Conventional stormwater treatments vary. For some communities, the conventional way is to collect and carry it in storm sewer pipe networks to a treatment plant, then to an outfall into a water body or possibly a beneficial re-use. For other communities, stormwater is controlled at the source or through treatment-control best management practices (BMPs). These stormwater collection and management techniques and practices must be coordinated with the design of facilities for transit access and for roadside users including pedestrians and bicyclists. Increasingly, urban communities and small towns are turning to “green infrastructure” (veg- etated stormwater management) in the roadside and in traveled way medians. In addition to achieving the landscaping benefits noted in the previous section, green infrastructure can help reduce the negative environmental impacts of stormwater. On multimodal urban and suburban roadways, effective green approaches to stormwater management also can improve the walking and bicycling environment and the aesthetics and perceived quality of the community. Adding value and multiple functionality, green stormwater management practices should be considered in roadway improvement projects. In addition to the other benefits of vegetated stormwater management, these systems can: • Enhance the aesthetic appeal of streets, neighborhoods and commercial or industrial sites; • Provide wildlife habitats; • Reduce soil erosion; and • Provide locations for snow storage. Managing Wet Weather with Green Infrastructure (U.S. EPA 2008) describes typical green infrastructure applications in urban and suburban areas, which may include: • Stormwater planters. Designed to collect and treat runoff from the surrounding area, storm- water planters and rain gardens rely on physical and biological systems, using mulch, soil, plant root systems and soil microbes to hold water and capture pollutants such as bacteria, nitrogen, phosphorus, heavy metals, oil and grease. Stormwater planters and rain gardens are designed to hold standing water only for short periods of time; they should drain down to a dry surface within 24 hours of a storm event. They work best where roadway grades are relatively flat so that the water flows created during heavy rain events do not erode the collection areas. The plants selected should be tolerant of short periods of inundation, but be able to survive long dry periods, as they will generally not be irrigated. Plants also should be salt tolerant if runoff from streets or sidewalks will be captured. Planters and gardens can be lined if infiltration is not desirable or feasible, but lined planters must be designed to drain to an external structure. All planter and garden designs should include overflow structures. Plant selection should be appropriate to the surrounding context, and should be sensitive to maintenance capacity. Stormwater planters generally are used to capture runoff from surrounding paved surfaces including sidewalks, plazas, parking lots and streets. They have structural walls and curbs, and may include retaining walls. Underdrains are incorporated into the design to keep water from building up in the soil, and overflow pipes are used to control excess flow and prevent flooding onto adjacent areas. Drains and overflows usually connect to nearby storm drains, and the planters usually have open bottoms to allow for infiltration. As cost-effective enclosed structures that can be modified to fit almost any physical con- straint, stormwater planters can be used in medians and added to the roadside design. They

218 Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways also may be combined with traffic calming devices when used on curb extensions or designed as chicanes. They can be designed to accommodate trees or low vegetation depending on size and visibility constraints. Generally, a planter is composed of the following layers: mulch, plants, a specific soil mix- ture, infiltration bed and the native soil. Engineered geotextile lining material may be used in some applications, but generally is not desired on the bottom of the planter as it can easily clog. The fundamental design principles behind both stormwater planters and rain gardens reflect the fact that soils are highly porous with a high organic content to support healthy plant com- munities. Both planters and rain gardens that are adjacent to paved areas can include structural soil beds to increase their stormwater management capacity. • Rain gardens and vegetated swales. Typically, rain gardens are simpler recessed planting beds that function like stormwater planters but have fewer structural elements. They may appear simi- lar to conventional landscaped areas, but rain gardens will be depressed rather than elevated from the surrounding area. They can be used in areas where a more natural garden aesthetic is desired. They are commonly used in residential areas and urban settings with ample space, as rain gardens often are larger, providing opportunities for more diversity in plant life over planters. Linear rain gardens that convey runoff to a desired location are called vegetated swales. Vegetated swales slow runoff velocity, filter stormwater pollutants, reduce runoff tempera- tures, and in low-volume conditions recharge groundwater. Vegetated swales can be used to augment traditional pipe and gutter systems. Narrow vegetated swales, called green gutters, also can be constructed to capture, infiltrate and convey runoff from an adjacent sidewalk. If swales or green gutters will be used, the side- walks should be pitched to convey the runoff into the landscape feature. Filter strips are rain gardens that capture sheet flow from a parking lot or other paved area during smaller rain events. Filter strips are used in conjunction with an infiltration trench or other system that can capture the excess runoff during a larger rain event. 5.2.6.7 Stormwater Management Design Guidelines Complete design guidance in relation to stormwater management is beyond the scope of this Guide. To develop an initial concept for using a green approach to stormwater management in urban contexts, designers may: • Consider swales for use in medians, planting strips, planters, curb extension, islands or other green areas of significant size where runoff can be collected and detained until filtered or absorbed or flowed into inlets at the end of swales; • Employ swales where they can slope downward from the curb or sidewalk; • Design gutters and curbs so that water can enter the swale through breaks or other openings in the curbs; • Provide for runoff to enter swales directly from adjacent sidewalks or piped from elsewhere in the right-of-way; • Consider the appearance, cleaning, and maintenance of stormwater features along with the amount of stormwater to be handled; • Blend stormwater BMPs in with the rest of the roadway design and context by consider- ing pedestrian connectivity, parking, bicycle and transit needs and provisions, safety, and emergency access. 5.2.7 Lighting and Street Furniture 5.2.7.1 Lighting Streetlights generally are installed in the roadside area. Appropriate street lighting facilitates safe movement of traffic and provides a sense of safety and security for pedestrians and bicyclists,

Roadside Design Guidelines 219 but when used effectively, lighting can do much more. Streetscape lighting lends character to a street, and by highlighting certain features, it can contribute to a sense of place and civic pride. Private property owners are critical participants in creating the overall streetscape lighting envi- ronment, especially for the roadside. While accounting for existing lighting levels, nighttime design needs and aesthetics, urban street lighting should complement the context and land use of the street. The Green Book notes that lighting may reduce nighttime crashes and contribute to the ease and comfort or operation on a highway or street (AASHTO 2011a). Statistics indicate that night- time crash rates are higher than daytime crash rates and that this may be attributed to reduced visibility at night. AASHTO also notes that there is evidence that fixed-source lighting tends to reduce crashes in urban and suburban areas, where there are concentrations of pedestrians and roadside intersectional interferences (AASHTO 2011a). The Green Book recommends that streetlight luminaire supports (poles) should be placed outside the roadside clear zone whenever practical; but if they are located within the clear zone, they should be designed to have a suitable impact attenuation feature, normally a breakaway design. AASHTO recommends that breakaway poles should not be used on streets in densely developed areas, however, and particularly with sidewalks because struck poles could interfere with pedestrians and cause damage to adjacent buildings. Because of lower speeds and parked vehicles, the Green Book notes that there is much less chance of injuries to vehicle occupants from striking fixed poles on a street as compared to a highway (AASHTO 2011a). In general, street lights should be provided in urban core and urban contexts where pedestrian and bicycle activity is the greatest. Lighting also should be considered in suburban and rural town contexts where it may be beneficial for the safety and comfort of any user mode. Other benefits of street lighting include: • Creating an environment that feels safe and secure for pedestrians. • Improving the legibility (visibility) of streets, intersections, ramps, transit stops, critical nodes and activity zones; and • Enhancing the character of the streetscape by using fixtures that are in keeping with the image of the community. Design considerations for street lighting include: • Using state-of-the art technology when appropriate to provide effective, energy efficient light- ing that minimizes light trespass and is dark-sky compliant; • Using clear and consistent patterns to reinforce the direction of travel and delineate intersections; • Using pedestrian-scale lighting (lower than 20 ft.) alone or in combination with roadway- scale lighting in high-activity areas to encourage nighttime use of the roadway by pedestrians and bicyclists; and • Ensuring that critical locations (e.g., ramps, crosswalks, transit stops and seating areas that are used at night) are visible and lit. 5.2.7.2 Street Furniture Street furniture placed along a sidewalk is an amenity that encourages walking. Street furniture such as public seating, trash receptacles and drinking fountains provide functional services to pedestrians and visual detail and interest to the context. Street furniture also con- veys to other users of the roadway that pedestrians are likely to be present. When designing for street furniture, guidelines include the following (ITE 2010a): • Street furniture may be placed within curb extensions as long as it does not obstruct the clear pedestrian throughway, access to curb ramps or sight distance at crossing locations;

220 Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways • Bicycle parking or landscaped areas with seating walls can be accommodated in curb extensions; • Street furniture should be placed on thoroughfares expected to have high pedestrian activity; • Placement of furniture should not reduce the width of the clear pedestrian throughway to less than 5 ft., or intrude into the operational offset for objects behind the curb (typically 1.5 ft. minimum from the face of curb) (AASHTO 2011b); • Placement of furniture should be evaluated for impacts on sight distance at intersections and driveways; and • Placement of non-breakaway furniture should be evaluated carefully on higher-speed road- ways in consideration of guidance in the Roadside Design Guide (AASHTO 2011b). The most beneficial uses and locations for street furniture include: • Transit stops, • Major building entries, • Retail and mixed-use main streets, and • Restaurant areas. 5.2.8 Utilities Utilities are a necessary part of the roadway design process in all contexts, urban, sub- urban and rural. Telecommunications, electric transmission, street lighting conduit, traffic sig- nal conduit, and fiber optic conduit often are located under the sidewalk. Lateral lines extend from water, sewer and gas utility mains in the public rights-of-way to serve adjacent properties. Whether placed overhead, underground or both, utilities can significantly impact the design of all elements of the roadway. In urban core, urban and suburban areas, utilities particularly affect roadside elements. Often, the portion of the right-of-way available to the roadside is less than preferred, and roadside facilities must be carefully coordinated with a multitude of utilities. The benefits of well-organized and coordinated utility design/placement include: • Reduced clutter in the roadside, • Improved pedestrian safety and visual quality, • Increased opportunity for planting areas and adequate soil volume to support tree growth and stormwater infiltration, and • Reduced maintenance conflicts. 5.2.8.1 Current AASHTO Policy and Guidance The Green Book provides the following observations and guidelines regarding coordination with utilities in the right-of-way during the roadway design process (AASHTO 2011a): • Because of restricted space in most metropolitan areas, special consideration should be given in the initial design to the potential for joint usage of the right-of-way that is consistent with the primary function of the highway or street. • Appurtenances to underground installations, such as vents, drains, markers, manholes, and shutoffs, should be located so as not to be a roadside obstacle, not to interfere with highway or street maintenance activities, and not to be concealed by vegetation. Preferably, they should be located near the right-of-way line. • Where there are curbed sections, utilities should be located in the border areas between the curb and sidewalk, at least 1.5 ft. behind the face of the curb, and where practical, behind the sidewalk. • Where shoulders are provided rather than curbs, a clear zone commensurate with rural condi- tions should be provided. • Existing development and limited right-of-way widths may preclude location of some or all utility facilities outside the roadway of the street or highway.

Roadside Design Guidelines 221 • Under some conditions, it may be appropriate to reserve the area outside the roadway exclu- sively for the use of overhead lines, with all other utilities located under the roadway. In some instances, locating all the facilities under the roadway may be appropriate. • The location of underground and above-ground utilities must be considered when planning new landscaped areas in the right-of-way. Each jurisdiction should establish guidelines to organize and standardize utility location and to minimize conflicts between landscaping and utilities based on input from all involved departments and agencies. • The majority of underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains, and water, gas, and electrical mains, are typically located under the roadway. Sanitary sewers are often in the center of the street directly under the potential location of a landscaped median. They are usually relatively deep. In general, if they have at least 4 ft. or 5 ft. of cover, they should not be affected by the introduction of a landscaped median. The other utilities within the roadway are typically located closer to the curbs. 5.2.8.2 General Guidelines and Considerations for Utilities in the Urban or Suburban Roadside AASHTO also provides the following general guidelines for coordinating utilities in urban and suburban roadways (AASHTO 2011a, AASHTO 2005): • Utilities should be located to minimize disruption to pedestrian travel and to avoid ideal loca- tions for directing stormwater, planting trees and other vegetation, and siting street furniture, while maintaining necessary access to the utilities for maintenance and emergencies. • Utility main lines that run laterally under the sidewalk should be located in a predetermined zone to minimize conflicts with tree roots and planting areas. The ideal location to minimize conflicts with trees would be under the pedestrian or frontage zones, although the more prac- tical location is often under the furniture zone. Stacking dry utilities (telephone, cable televi- sion [CATV], electric, etc.) in the pedestrian or frontage zones will further reduce conflicts with the landscaped area. • Utility laterals should not typically run directly under landscaped areas in the furniture zone, but instead under driveways and walkways wherever possible. • Vaults in the pedestrian zone should have slip-resistant covers. Large flush utility vaults should be placed at least 3 ft. from the building and 4 ft. from the curb where sidewalk widths allow. Surface-mounted utilities should not be located in the pedestrian zone. • Utility vaults in the frontage zone should ideally not be located directly in front of building entrances. • Utility vaults and valves should be minimized in curb extensions where plantings or street furnishings are planned. • Surface-mounted utilities may be located in curb extensions outside of crossings and curb ramp areas to create greater pedestrian through width. • New utility structures should not be placed within street crossing and curb ramp areas. • Catch basins and surface flow lines associated with storm drainage systems should be located away from the crosswalk or between curb ramps. Catch basins should be located upstream of curb ramps to minimize ponding at the bottom of the ramp. • Street lighting and traffic signals should share poles wherever possible. When retrofitting existing streets or creating new streets, pursue opportunities to combine these poles. • Utility appurtenances should not interfere with pedestrian circulation, block entrances to buildings or curb cuts, or interfere with sight distance triangles. • Above-ground utilities should be placed at least 18 in. from the back of curb and may not interfere with the minimum pedestrian throughway. If buildings do not abut the right-of-way, place utilities behind the sidewalk, where they will not interfere with the use of the adjacent property.

222 Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways Refer to A Guide for Accommodating Utilities Within Highway Right-of-Way, 4th Ed. (AASHTO 2005) for additional information on the design and placement of utilities in all contexts. 5.2.9 Driveway Access Driveways provide vehicle access to businesses and residences located along roadways. How- ever, turning vehicles create conflict points with pedestrians along sidewalks and with bicyclists if sidepaths or shared-use paths exist. Driveway design details can help prioritize pedestrian movements, lower vehicle speeds, maximize visibility of all modes and reduce crash potential. 5.2.9.1 Current AASHTO Policy and Guidance The Green Book states, “An objective of driveway design is to seek a balance that minimizes conflicts among motorized vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians and accommodates the demands for travel access” (AASHTO 2011a). Driveways should be designed with the objective of main- taining roadway operations and efficiency, providing reasonable property access, accommodat- ing bicycle lanes or paths when present, allowing efficient travel for sidewalk users, maintaining sight distance between vehicles and pedestrians or other roadway users, and maintaining public transit stops (where applicable). The Green Book considers driveways similar to low-volume intersections but with the need for additional design considerations to determine grade, width, channelization and cross slope, taking into account the street’s functional classification and adjacent land uses. Driveways must be designed with adequate widths, throat dimensions and proper layouts to accommodate the anticipated usage. The vertical alignment of the driveway must take into account the sidewalk cross slope designed to accommodate pedestrians with disabilities while allowing for efficient vehicle operation. The driveway should allow adequate drainage to minimize ponding where the driveway interfaces with the sidewalk and the main roadway. Sight distance should be maintained by limit- ing the presence of unnecessary roadside structures, such as advertising signs or billboards. The Green Book recommends not locating driveways within the vicinity of an intersection or adjacent driveways in order to reduce the need to monitor multiple conflict areas in a short distance and reduce potential conflicts (AASHTO 2011a). Minimizing the number of driveways to each parcel by consolidating access points or by providing access from a side street or access road can help achieve desired spacing on urban and suburban roadways. The Pedestrian Facilities Guide states that driveway ramps should be designed to preserve access for pedestrians with disabilities (AASHTO 2004b). The Pedestrian Facilities Guide prefers conventional flared driveways for property access to enhance pedestrian safety and comfort, compared to intersection-style driveways with turn- ing radii, and clearly indicate the pedestrian right-of-way. Conventional driveways encourage motorists to slow down when entering the driveway and reduces the reaction time needed to stop for pedestrians. The Pedestrian Facilities Guide recommends one of four driveway types (see Exhibit 5-30) to meet ADA accessibility requirements by maintaining a minimum 4-ft. (1.2-m) continuous path along the sidewalk alignment, or by providing an area adjacent to the main walk that maintains a 2 percent cross slope. Additional driveway design considerations from the Pedestrian Facilities Guide include (AASHTO 2004b): • Placing the driveway ramp in the sidewalk furnishings zone to maintain a continuous level walkway and providing more turning area for entering and exiting vehicles;

Roadside Design Guidelines 223 • Narrowing a wide sidewalk only at the driveway to maintain a 4-ft. travel path behind the driveway cut; • Building curb ramps at a maximum 8.33 percent slope between the sidewalk and driveway if there is insufficient space to achieve the desired 2 percent cross slope; and • Obtaining an easement from the adjacent property owner if necessary to construct a level sidewalk area behind the driveway aprons. The Pedestrian Facilities Guide discourages the use of intersection-style driveways at uncon- trolled locations. If they are deemed necessary, the following design elements can mitigate nega- tive impacts to pedestrian travel (AASHTO 2004b): • Continuing the sidewalk material across the driveway while maintaining sidewalk height and grade to provide a visual cue to motorists that they are entering a pedestrian area; • Minimizing corner radii of the curb to reduce vehicle speeds; and • Narrowing driveway widths as much as possible to reduce pedestrian exposure. 5.2.9.2 Driveway Principles and Considerations for All Users The Pedestrian Facilities Guide recognizes that “uncontrolled access across a sidewalk not only degrades the quality of the pedestrian environment, but also increases the potential for vehicle-pedestrian conflicts” (AASHTO 2004b). Attributes of well-designed driveways include: • Design. Conventional driveway designs are strongly preferred in areas with high multimodal priority, as the design reinforces the pedestrian right-of-way and reduces vehicle turning speeds. When intersection-type driveways are used, narrowing the curb radii to 10–15 ft. and using high-visibility crosswalk markings helps meet the same design objectives. • Accessibility. When a sidewalk crosses a driveway, the pedestrian clear zone must be a mini- mum of 4 ft. in width (with additional width preferred) to maintain accessibility for pedestri- ans with disabilities. The cross slope of the sidewalk through the driveway must be no greater than 2 percent. • Access management. Placing multiple driveways in close proximity to each other or to nearby intersections is not compatible with high pedestrian activity. Consolidating or closing driveways, installing continuous medians to prohibit left-turn movements, or moving access points to side streets can enhance the pedestrian environment and reduce potential conflicts with vehicles. • Reduce exposure. The total width for two-way driveways generally should be a maximum of 24 ft. (14 ft. for one-way driveways) unless the volume and type of traffic requires more lanes or wider lanes. Where driveway volumes warrant multiple lanes in each direction, providing a separating median between directions can provide a pedestrian refuge (ITE 2010a). Source: AASHTO (2004b) Exhibit 5-30. Driveway types in the AASHTO Pedestrian Facilities Guide.

224 Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways • Sight distance. Roadside objects should not block the visibility of motorists or pedestrians at driveways. Prohibiting curbside parking adjacent to the driveway expands the sight triangle for motorists exiting the driveway onto the roadway. 5.2.9.3 Recommended Practice • Design guidance. The preferred design of uncontrolled driveways is a conventional style with the driveway apron contained fully within the furnishings zone of the sidewalk corri- dor. The ability to provide a preferred design is directly related to the width of the sidewalk. For more information about sidewalk design, see the section in this chapter on “Pedestrian Accommodations.” Exhibit 5-31 identifies preferred driveway design types in response to sidewalk width. Uncontrolled intersection-type driveways should be avoided in any areas where multi- modal accommodation is desired. Signalized intersection-type driveways are suitable for large traffic generators. When used, intersection-type driveways should incorporate pedestrian- oriented design treatments to lower turning speeds, reduce pedestrian crossing distance and improve sight distance (AASHTO 2004b). Pedestrian-oriented treatments include: – Crosswalks that are well-marked and visible to motorists; – Signage placed as necessary to remind motorists of their duty to yield to pedestrians when turning; and – A narrow curb radius (e.g., 10 ft. to 15 ft. [3–4.5 m]) when truck volumes are low. When truck volumes are higher, the curb radius can be increased and the stop bar should be set farther back to allow clearance for wide turns. • Implementation guidance. Designers should keep in mind that an excessive grade change between the cross slope of the roadway and the driveway grade may result in the underside of a vehicle dragging on either a crest or sag alignment (Gattis et al. 2010). NCHRP Report 659: Guide for the Geometric Design of Driveways provides additional guid- ance on driveway design and interaction with the roadside and its users. Some general con- siderations for designers include the following (Gattis et al. 2010): – Access management elements such as driveway consolidation and turn restrictions can reduce the number of conflict points between motorists and other roadway users. A raised median allows for only right-in/right-out vehicle movements, which reduces conflict points by redirecting motorists to nearby traffic-controlled intersections. Total Sidewalk Width Preferred Design Critical Dimensions 10 ft. (3.0 m) or larger Conventional style with driveway slope contained within furnishings zone (Option A) 5 ft. (1.5 m) minimum pedestrian through zone maintains a continuous level walkway 7 ft. to 9 ft. (2.1–2.7 m) Conventional style driveway Driveway slope may need to encroach into pedestrian through zone (Option B). 4 ft. (1.2 m) minimum pedestrian through zone required 5 ft. to 6 ft. (1.5–1.8 m) Conventional style driveway with wraparound sidewalk (Option D) Optional: Dipped sidewalk style (Option C) 4 ft. (1.2 m) minimum pedestrian through zone required Source: Midwest Research Institute (MRI Global) Exhibit 5-31. Preferred driveway design by sidewalk width.

Roadside Design Guidelines 225 – The appearance of the sidewalk (e.g., a scoring pattern or special paving) should be main- tained across driveway and alley access points to indicate that, although a vehicle may cross, the area traversed by a vehicle remains part of the pedestrian travel way. – Ideally, the width of driveways intended for two-way traffic should not exceed 24 ft. unless a specific frequent design vehicle requires a wider dimension. Some driveway volumes will warrant two lanes in each direction. In these cases, the designer may consider designing a median between directions to separate opposing traffic and to provide a pedestrian refuge. When a driveway is one-way only, a maximum width of 14 ft. should be considered. 5.2.10 Bridges Bridges connect destinations in communities and provide access to emergency and essential services, yet many of the nation’s existing bridges do not provide safe and comfortable accom- modations for people who are walking and biking. Bridges that lack pedestrian and bicycle accommodations can force substantial detours or sever routes entirely, discouraging or elimi- nating the option to walk and bike for transportation. Pedestrians and bicyclists who do travel on bridges without proper accommodations may increase their risk of being involved in a crash. Incorporating pedestrian and bicycle facilities as part of bridge rehabilitation projects can improve safety for everyone while providing all road users direct and safe connections to schools, jobs, parks, health care services and other destinations. Bridge rehabilitation projects are opportunities to create critical connections in existing pedes- trian and bicycle networks or provide safer and more comfortable facilities for non-motorized users. Bridge projects also are high-profile, large-scale projects, and the inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities can serve as recognition of the role of bicycling and walking in transporta- tion networks. In general, major capital projects at bridge locations are infrequent, with many years or decades between infrastructure upgrades. Given the long lifespan of a bridge compared to a typical section of road, it is especially important that bridge rehabilitation projects consider bicycle and pedestrian access and connectivity. Bridges can be upgraded at locations where facili- ties like sidewalks or greenways are planned but are not yet present, with the understanding that surrounding multimodal network connections will improve over time. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities can be added to bridge retrofits during project alternatives analysis and identified as part of the public engagement process. It is critical to consider the bridges not as standalone structures, but rather as elements of the pedestrian and bicycle net- work. Planning non-motorized networks should involve identifying key barriers (e.g., water- ways, railroads and major roadways) and recognizing that the bridges spanning these features are a key element of multimodal network improvement strategies. National guidance supports the inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities on bridges. The following statements appear in: • Federal law (23 USC §217(e)): In any case where a highway bridge deck being replaced or rehabilitated with Federal financial par- ticipation is located on a highway on which bicycles are permitted to operate at each end of such bridge, and the Secretary determines that the safe accommodation of bicycles can be provided at reasonable cost as part of such replacement or rehabilitation, then such bridge shall be so replaced or rehabilitated as to provide such safe accommodations. • The Bicycle Guide (AASHTO 2014b): [b]ridges, viaducts, and tunnels should accommodate bicycles. There are numerous examples of limited-access highway bridges that cross major barriers (such as wide waterways) that incorporate a

226 Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways shared-use path for bicyclists and pedestrians. The absence of a bicycle accommodation on the approach roadway should not prevent the accommodation of bicyclists on the bridge or tunnel. • The Pedestrian Facilities Guide (AASHTO 2004b): Provisions should always be made to include some type of walking facility as a part of vehicular bridges, underpasses, and tunnels, if the facility is intended to be part of a pedestrian access route. Early consideration of bicycle and pedestrian elements in the bridge planning project can ensure that the upgraded facility sufficiently meets the needs of all road users. Pedestrian and bicycle needs should be considered early in the planning and project development process as this is often when it is most feasible to include substantial safety-related improvements. Delaying consideration of these components until the final design or construction phases may limit the accommodations that are possible for non-motorized road users. Ideally, bridge designs should provide adequate width for current and anticipated pedestrian and bicycle use. Sufficient clear width and usable width should be provided. The desirable clear width for a sidewalk on a bridge is 8 ft. (AASHTO 2004b). The minimum width for one-way bicycle travel is 4 ft. (AASHTO 2014b). Clear width is a traveled way clear of obstructions such as railings, light poles, signs, and so forth (TRB 2010). The usable width recognizes that pedes- trians and bicyclists will not travel at the very edge of a traveled way or immediately against a railing, but need at least 1.5 ft. of shy distance from vertical objects such as bridge railings (TRB 2010). Because bicyclists have a higher center of gravity than pedestrians do, railings should be a minimum of 42 in. high. Where a bicyclist’s handlebar or pedal may come into contact with the railing, a smooth, wide rub-rail should be installed (AASHTO 2014b). On bridges that accommo- date both vehicular and pedestrian/bicycle travel, only a crash-tested railing should be installed. Including bicycle and pedestrian facilities on bridges is not always possible. Each bridge is unique, with differing infrastructure, surrounding land use, community support and context- specific challenges. These facilities cannot be accommodated in all bridge rehabilitation projects, and when they are included, the extent and configuration of the bicycle and pedestrian facility should match the need and opportunity. In addition, the decision to include a sidewalk, path or bicycle lane on a bridge should account for the surrounding bicycle and pedestrian network. In this Guide, Chapter 4 also includes a section on bridges that includes additional guidance on pedestrian and bicycle accommodation. 5.2.11 Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings Pedestrians and bicyclists in the roadside also must navigate rail crossings. The designer should pay particular attention to the width and surface of a roadside crossing to ensure that it meets minimum requirements to allow walkers, bicyclists, or persons with disabilities access to cross the railroad tracks. Where active crossing protection is provided for motorized vehicles, active crossing techniques also should be applied to protect non-motorized users of the roadway. 5.2.11.1 Bicycles Depending on the angle and type of crossing, a bicyclist may lose control of the bike if the wheel becomes trapped in the rail flangeway. Designing to ensure bicycle-friendly track cross- ings applies wherever streetcar or light rail tracks turn across a bikeway (including any bicycle lane, bike boulevard or cycle track), wherever bikeways turn across tracks, and at any intersec- tion where bicycle turns are accommodated (especially where two bike lanes intersect). Bicycling adjacent to tracks also can pose dangers, which are particularly pronounced when a bicyclist must be prepared to swerve to avoid unforeseen obstacles (e.g., opening vehicle

Roadside Design Guidelines 227 doors). Bike-friendly trackway design also applies to all mixed-traffic streetcar/trolley and LRT running ways. The Transit Street Design Guide (NACTO 2016) provides several design recommendations for keeping bicyclists safe at rail crossings. Information is provided in the section on “Railroad- Highway Grade Crossings” in Chapter 4 of this Guide. 5.2.11.2 Pedestrians Providing for the safety of pedestrians crossing railroads is the most difficult because of the relative ease with which pedestrians can go under or around lowered gates. Pedestrians typi- cally seek the shortest path and, therefore, may not always cross the tracks at the designated highway or pedestrian crossing. Given the variety of factors that may contribute to pedestrian hazards, detailed studies often are necessary to determine the most effective measures to provide for pedestrian access and safety at specific locations. A variety of preventive design measures can be employed, as discussed in this section. ADA guidelines for accessible design provide many geometric features pertaining to pedestrian facilities that address minimum widths and clearances, accessible routes and pedestrian pathways, curb ramps and protruding objects (U.S. Access Board 2011). As noted in Chapter 4, collisions between LRVs and pedestrians occur less frequently than collisions between LRVs and motorized vehicles; when they do occur, however, they are more severe. Furthermore, pedestrians are not always completely alert to their surroundings, and LRVs are nearly silent when operating in a street environment. Appropriate pedestrian crossing control systems are critical for pedestrian safety when crossing LRT tracks. The following design references provide information on crossing treatments that may be warranted at rail-pedestrian crossings: • Guide for Geometric Design of Transit Facilities on Highways and Streets (AASHTO 2014a); • TCRP Report 17: Integration of Light Rail Transit into City Streets (Fitzpatrick et al. 2015a); • Transit Street Design Guide (NACTO 2016); • TCRP Report 183: A Guidebook on Transit-Supportive Roadway Strategies (Ryus et al. 2016); • TCRP Report 175: Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services (Fitzpatrick et al. 2015b); • TCRP Report 117: Design, Operation, and Safety of At-Grade Crossings of Exclusive Busways (Eccles and Levinson 2007); and • TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings (Fitzpatrick et al. 2006). 5.2.12 Traffic Control Devices and Operations Roadside users encounter particular challenges when crossing public street intersections. When interacting with larger and faster motorized vehicles, roadside users are clearly vulner- able and must be extremely cautious when entering and crossing vehicle-dominated traffic lanes. Special traffic signal indications, signs and markings can provide some level of support and comfort to crossing pedestrians and bicyclists, but it is still the vulnerable users’ responsibility to cross streets and roadways with extreme caution. The roadway designer should recognize this challenge and provide the best accommodation possible when designing the roadside interac- tion with the traveled way. In contexts with significant volumes of pedestrian and bicycle traffic, fixed-time signal operation or pedestrian recall operation should be considered to better accom- modate those users. If applied properly, traffic control design and operations guidance from the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/) will help to reduce crash risks for

228 Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways roadside users in the traveled way (PBIC n.d.) (Fitzpatrick et al. 2015a). The MUTCD (FHWA 2009b) also provides a wealth of guidance to the designer in the design and operation of traffic control devices (e.g., signs, signals and markings) for pedestrians and bicyclists. 5.2.12.1 Pedestrian Signals Pedestrian signals should be clearly visible to the pedestrian at all times when in the cross- walk or waiting on the far side of the street. Large pedestrian signals can be beneficial in some circumstances (e.g., where the streets are wide). Use of the international pedestrian symbol signal is preferable and recommended in the MUTCD (FHWA 2009b). Existing “WALK” and “DON’T WALK” message signals may remain for the rest of their useful life, but countdown pedestrian indications are required for all newly installed traffic signals where pedestrian signals are installed. They must be designed to begin counting down at the beginning of the clear- ance (flashing “DON’T WALK”) interval and can operate on a fixed-time or pushbutton basis. Countdown signals have been demonstrated to reduce the number of pedestrians who begin to cross when only a few seconds remain (Markowitz and Sciortino 2006). Pedestrian detectors at traffic signals may involve pushbutton or passive detection devices (which register the presence of a pedestrian in a position indicative of a desire to cross without requiring the pedestrian to push a button). Pedestrian pushbuttons should be well designed, operable by pedestrians with visual disabilities, and within reach and operable from a flat surface for pedestrians in wheelchairs. They should be placed conveniently in the area where pedestrians wait to cross, and they should clearly indicate which pedestrian signals will be activated by the button. Quick response to the pushbutton or feedback to the pedestrian registering the signal’s actuation should be programmed into the system. Section 4E.09 of the MUTCD (FHWA 2009b) provides detailed guidance about the placement of pushbuttons. Given that pushbutton pedestrian signal devices are activated only by about one-half of pedes- trians (and even fewer are activated where the pedestrians perceive sufficient motorized vehicle gaps), new “intelligent” microwave or infrared pedestrian detectors have begun to be used in some locations. These devices automatically activate the red traffic and “WALK” signals when pedestrians are detected. Some detectors, including pedestrian user-friendly intelligent crossings (PUFFIN crossings), also can detect slower moving pedestrians in the crosswalk and extend the crossing time accordingly. Automatic pedestrian detectors have been found to improve pedes- trian signal compliance and to reduce pedestrian conflicts with motorized vehicles. They are still considered experimental, however, and their reliability may vary under differing environmental conditions. Accessible pedestrian signals (APS) can provide supplemental information in non-visual for- mats (e.g., audible tones, speech messages and/or vibrating surfaces) as described in the MUTCD (FHWA 2009b). More extensive information on the use of APS and the types of APS technologies now available can be found in NCHRP Web-Only Document 150: Accessible Pedestrian Signals: A Guide to Best Practices (Workshop Edition) (Harkey et al. 2010). 5.2.12.2 Signal Timing Signals provide positive guidance to pedestrians regarding the interval of time permitted for crossing a street and can be used to prohibit pedestrian crossings when conflicting traffic may impact pedestrian safety. As detailed on the “Pedestrian Signals” webpage of the PBIC web site (PBIC n.d.), signal phasing options for pedestrians include the following: Signal Coordination This measure involves timing the phasing of adjacent traffic signals along a corridor to control the speeds of motorized vehicles. For example, the sequence of green signal cycles can be timed to speeds of 20 mph or 25 mph.

Roadside Design Guidelines 229 Concurrent Phasing Pedestrian signal phase activates simultaneously with the parallel vehicle phase, permitting motorists to turn left or right across pedestrians’ paths after yielding to pedestrians. Exclusive Pedestrian Phasing When vehicles are stopped on all approaches to an intersection, pedestrians are given a WALK indica- tion. This phasing is referred to as “exclusive” or as a “pedestrian scramble.” Intersections with pedestrian scramble phases often feature pedestrian crossing markings indicating [that] pedestrians may walk diago- nally across the intersection. Exclusive pedestrian timing has been shown to reduce pedestrian crashes by 50 percent in some downtown locations with heavy pedestrian volumes and low vehicle speeds and volumes. Split Phasing The vehicular green phase is split into two parts: (1) pedestrians receive protected walk time while vehicles traveling parallel are given a green signal to go straight but not turn, and (2) the pedestrian DON’T WALK is activated when vehicles are permitted to turn. A study by the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council suggests that the split phasing significantly reduces pedestrian conflicts, crashes and illegal pedestrian crossings. Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) An LPI gives pedestrians an advance walk signal several seconds before motorists get a green signal, giv- ing the pedestrian protected time to start walking in the crosswalk before a concurrent signal is provided to vehicles. This [option] makes pedestrians more visible to motorists and motorists more likely to yield to them. Typical LPI settings provide 3 to 6 seconds of advance walk time. LPI has been used successfully in several places, such as New York City, for two decades. Studies have demonstrated that LPI reduces conflicts and crashes for pedestrians. To be useful to pedestrians with vision restrictions, an LPI needs to be accompanied by an audible signal to indicate the WALK interval. There are some situations [in which] an exclusive pedestrian phase may be preferable to an LPI, such as when high-volume turning movements conflict with pedestrians crossing. Hot Response A hot response detector activates a pedestrian signal immediately upon actuation, subsequent to pro- viding at least the minimum allowable green time for conflicting vehicles. Hot response signal phasing is desirable where pedestrian crossing volumes are significant or high pedestrian compliance is desirable. [This option] may be particularly appropriate at mid-block crossing locations where the distance to other signalized crossings is significant. Hot response signals also help reduce unnecessary delay for both pedes- trians and vehicles at locations where pedestrians will typically use the pushbutton, but cross before the pedestrian signal is active. Left Turn Phasing Use of concurrent, protected/permissive, or protected left turn phasing provides different levels of con- flict reduction with parallel pedestrian movements. These variations on left turn signal phasing provide increasing levels of conflict reduction between vehicles and pedestrians using a parallel crossing. In general, longer walk intervals paired with shorter cycle lengths (ideally less than 90 seconds) provide better service to pedestrians and encourage better signal compliance. For optimal pedes- trian service, fixed-time signal operation or automatic pedestrian recall mode usually works best because it provides an automatic, recurring pedestrian phase. Pedestrians usually receive more frequent crossing opportunities (and experience less delay) with concurrent signal phasing than with exclusive signal phasing, which must service vehicle traffic and pedestrian volumes separately. When pedestrians are required to wait a long time for a pedestrian interval, many will simply choose to ignore the signal and cross during a gap in traffic, thus negating the potential safety benefits of the exclusive signal. Without accessible pedestrian signal technology, exclusive pedestrian phases also introduce a problem for pedestri- ans with visual restrictions because the audible cues associated with parallel traffic streams can lead pedestrians to cross at inappropriate times. Pedestrian countdown signals can help reduce pedestrian crossings near the end of the pedes- trian phase. The use of “WALK/DON’T WALK” pedestrian signal indications at signal locations can be important in many cases, including when vehicle signals are not visible to pedestrians,

230 Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways when signal phasing is complex (e.g., a dedicated left-turn signal exists for motorists), at estab- lished school zone crossings, when an exclusive pedestrian interval is provided, and for wide streets where pedestrian clearance information is considered helpful. Considerations in pedes- trian signal selection include the following: • Signals must be visible/accessible to pedestrians. • Ideally, every signalized intersection should have pedestrian signal heads. • When possible, provide a walk interval for every cycle. • Provide supplemental non-visual guidance for pedestrians with sensory restrictions. • Pedestrian pushbuttons must be well positioned and within easy reach for all approaching pedestrians. • Marked crosswalks should be installed in conjunction with pedestrian signals. • Signal timing must also consider the needs of trucks, buses, and other motorized vehicles. • Signal timing also needs to account for vehicle volumes, including volumes of right- and left- turn motorists. • Illuminated “NO TURN ON RED” signs at heavy pedestrian crossings also are recommended. 5.2.12.3 Bicycle Signal Indications Bicycle signal heads may be installed at signalized intersections to indicate bicycle signal phases and other bicycle-specific timing strategies. Bicycle signals should only be used in com- bination with an existing conventional traffic signal or hybrid beacon. Similar to conventional traffic signals, bicycle signal heads use red, yellow and green lenses with a stenciled bicycle icon. The Bicycle Facilities Guide (AASHTO 2014b) indicates that a standard three-lens signal head with a supplemental plaque that says “BICYCLE SIGNAL” can be used. Bicycle riders may also use pedestrian signals where they exist for shared-use paths, and, where high-volume bicycle facilities exist, pedestrian crossings of that facility may need to be signalized. A bicycle signal should be considered in the following scenarios: • At intersections with bicycle-specific movements (e.g., a contra-flow bicycle lane or cycle track), a bicycle signal may be necessary to indicate right-of-way to the bicyclist. • At intersections where bicycle movements need to be separated in time from a conflicting vehicular movement (e.g., locations with a high volume of left- or right-turns), bicycle signals can allow for a separate bicycle phase or movement. • At locations with high vehicle turning volumes, cyclists could benefit from a bicycle signal with a leading bicycle interval (LBI). Similar to the LPI, the LBI provides bicyclists at the intersection several seconds of green time, effectively allowing them a head start before the concurrent vehicular signal turns green. The LBI reduces the risk of conflicts between bicyclists and turning traffic and provides bicyclists an opportunity to make a lane change or left turn. • At intersections with high bicycle volumes where bicyclists would otherwise follow the pedes- trian indication (e.g., shared-use path crossings), a bicycle signal can reduce confusion. Pedes- trian signal timing is inappropriate for bicyclists who travel at higher speeds, and a bicycle signal can allow bicyclists to cross legally during most of the flashing “DON’T WALK” interval. • At intersections where bicyclists normally would follow the vehicular indication, a bicycle signal can provide a longer clearance interval more suitable to bicyclists’ speeds, making it less likely for bicyclists to be caught in the path of an oncoming vehicle. Bicycle signal heads may be used to improve safety and operations at signalized intersections where bicycles require specific guidance. Considerations include: • Placing the bicycle signal in a location clearly visible to oncoming bicyclists, who will have varying lateral positions on the bicycle facility;

Roadside Design Guidelines 231 • Ensuring that, where bicycle signals separate bicycle through movements from vehicular turn- ing movements (or where an LBI is provided), there is no right turn on red; • Providing an adequate clearance interval for the bicycle signal (generally determined by con- sidering intersection width and bicyclist travel speed); and • Installing bicycle signals with an appropriate detection and actuation system if the bicycle phase is not set to recall each cycle. Preferably, the detection and actuation system will be pas- sive (i.e., bicyclists will not have to dismount and use a pushbutton). 5.2.13 Snow Removal and Storage During and after a snowstorm, most snow plows operate in emergency or “hurry-up” mode, focusing on opening up lanes for motorized vehicles. Often, when snow is scraped from the vehicular lanes, it is piled up in or alongside the roadsides, thus making it difficult for bicyclists and pedestrians to use any roadside facilities that have been provided for them. Adding to the problem, piled snow can create sight distance restrictions. Snow and ice blockages can force pedestrians onto the street at a time when walking in the roadway is particularly treacherous. Many localities that experience regular snowfalls have enacted ordinances requiring homeowners and businesses to clear the sidewalks fronting their property within a reasonable time after a snowfall occurs, and to maintain clear pathways, including areas set aside for bicycle racks. In addition, many public works agencies have adopted snow removal programs that ensure that the most heavily used pedestrian routes are cleared, including bus stops and curb ramps at street crossings, so that snow plows do not create impass- able ridges of snow. Designs for the traveled way and roadside should proactively incorporate provisions to facili- tate snow clearance and storage that accommodates all modes, with pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users given the same attention as motorists. Streets and sidewalks should remain acces- sible for elderly people, young children, people with disabilities, and people pushing carts and strollers. Sidewalks and bikeways should have clear, unobstructed, accessible pathways. Particular attention should be given to clearing curb ramps at crosswalks. Hydrants, catch basins, crossing islands, medians and building entrances also must be accessible. The following best practices are suggested for the design of roadways with pedestrian and bicycle travel in snow-belt regions: • Design roadsides to accommodate a normal level of plowed snow behind the curb without blocking the pedestrian throughway. A wide planting strip or furnishings zone can accom- modate plowed snow. • Avoid placing objects in the furnishings zone that interfere with the ability to plow snow onto the roadside (e.g., large raised planters, continuous hedges and large utility and traffic control cabinets). Objects that snow can wrap around include trees, signs and light poles. • Design the furnishings zone with hardscape or setback plantings and trees beyond the plow line where localities use salt to treat the streets, as roadside landscaping can be adversely affected by the salt mixture. • Take advantage of wide greenscape/furnishings zones and curb extensions, which provide space to store snow (and both sidewalk and roadway snow clearance operations can use this storage area). • Incorporate vertical elements (e.g., pedestrian signal poles and hydrants located on curb extensions) that can provide visual cues to snow-plow operators of changes in the curb-line. • Use smooth materials (e.g., concrete), which are easier to shovel compared to bricks or pavers.

232 Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways • Pitch roadways toward catch basins located on the upstream side of curb ramps to prevent pooling at the base of the ramp. • Use greenscape elements (e.g., tree pits, stormwater planters and rain gardens) and pervious materials that assist in accelerating the removal of snow and ice. • Ensure that street furniture and other physical obstructions do not clutter the pedestrian zone. Sources of Additional Information These publications are cited in the Older Driver Highway Design Handbook (FHWA 1998), which is discussed in this chapter: Bailey, S. S., et al. 1992. Issues of Elderly Pedestrians. Transportation Research Record, No. 1375, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Council, F. M., and C. V. Zegeer. 1992. Accident Analysis of Older Drivers and Pedestrians at Intersections-Task B Working Paper. Publication No. DTFH61- 91-C-00033, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transporta- tion, Washington, D.C. Hoxie, R.E., and L. Z. Rubinstein. 1994. Are Older Pedestrians Allowed Enough Time to Cross Intersections Safely? Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 42(3), pp. 241–244. Knoblauch, R., et al. 1995. Older Pedestrian Characteristics for Use in Highway Design. Publication No. FHWA-RD-93-177, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. Parsonson, P. S. 1992. NCHRP Synthesis Report 172: Signal Timing Improvement Practices. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Sheppard, D., and M. Pattinson. 1986. Interviews with Elderly Pedestrians Involved in Road Accidents. Transportation and Road Research Laboratory, Publication No. 98, Crowthorne, UK. Tobey, H. N., E. M. Shungman, and R. L. Knoblauch. 1983. Pedestrian Trip Making Characteristics and Exposure Measures. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. Wilson, D. G., and G. B. Grayson. 1980. Age-Related Differences in the Road Crossing Behavior of Adult Pedestrians. Publication No. TR RL-L-933, Transportation and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, UK.