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

Caltrans Endorsement of NACTO Guidance: what it means, what’s been accomplished, and where we’re headed Beth Thomas, Pedestrian & Bicycle Planning/ Coordination Branch Chief, Caltrans District 4

Caltrans Complete Streets Policy (Deputy Directive 64-R1)  Superseded Non-Motorized Policy in 2008  Provide for needs of all ages, abilities  Planning, programming, design, construction, operations, maintenance  Opportunity to improve safety, access, mobility for all travelers  Bicycle, pedestrian, transit modes as integral elements

Caltrans Complete Intersections Publication Guiding Principles  Observe  Pedestrians & bicyclists will be there  Maintain & improve  Tee it up  One decision at a time  Slow it down

Caltrans Complete Intersections Publication Guiding Principles  Shorten crossings  Improve visibility  Clarify the right-of-way  Keep it direct  Light at night  Access for all

Alternative to Free-Flow Ramps Redesign ramp to meet crossroad at 90 degrees Construct one-lane on ramps Provide bicycle pocket to left of dedicated turn lane From: Complete Intersections: A Guide to Reconstructing Intersections and Interchanges for Pedestrians and Bicyclists , 2010 prepared by Caltrans, Alta Planning + Design, Cambridge Systematics

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

Traffic Control Devices: Interim Approvals (2011)  Green bike lanes & Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons  Caltrans sought, received CA approval from FHWA  Local agencies just inform Caltrans of location  Guidance in FHWA Interim Approval Memo Source: FHWA Photo: courtesy of Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition

CA Highway Design Manual (HDM) Update for Complete Streets (2012)  Increased minimum sidewalk width (previously 5’ min in all cases)  8’ min for urban & rural main streets  Elsewhere: 6’ min contiguous to curb, 5’ min next to planting strip Source: NACTO

CA HDM Update for Complete Streets (2012)  Decreased min lane width from 12’ to 11’  Conventional highways  Posted speed < or = 40 mph  Average daily trucks < 250 per lane  Urban, suburban, town center/ rural main street From Albany Complete Streets Plan for San Pablo Ave (SR 123)

CA HDM Update for Complete Streets (2012)  Corner Radius / Sizing  Smaller radii of 15 to 25’  Minor cross streets with few truck/ bus turns  Local agency standards  May be appropriate in urban, suburban areas  First curb extension/ bulbout www.walkinginfo.org standards  Posted speed of 35 mph or less  On-street parking

CA HDM Update for Complete Streets (2012)  Pedestrian refuge islands  “Where pedestrians are allowed to cross 4 or more lanes at a marked or unmarked crosswalk, a pedestrian refuge island should be provided”  6’ in direction of ped travel

Caltrans Main Street, California Guide (2013)  Principles  Flexibility in design  Partnerships: Caltrans, communities, stakeholders  Main streets for all  Walking, biking, public transit, travelers with disabilities

Caltrans Main Street, California Guide  Principles (Continued)  Livable Main Streets  Placemaking, community identity  Scenic highways/ byways  Sustainable Main Streets  Sustainable land uses  Resource stewardship  Fiscal sustainability

Caltrans Main Street, California Guide  Design & operational elements for pedestrians  Setting the speed limit/ main street design speed  Road diets/ # of lanes  Lane width  Raised median islands/ pedestrian refuge islands  Curb extensions/ bulbouts

Caltrans Main Street, California Guide  Design & operational elements for pedestrians  Crosswalk markings  Advance stop or yield lines  Roundabouts  Signals & beacons  On-street parking

Caltrans Main Street, California Guide  Design & operational elements for bicyclists  Bike lanes & green bike lanes  Bike routes  Shared traffic lanes  Shared lane markings (sharrows)  Bike paths

Caltrans Main Street, California Guide  Design & operational elements for bicyclists  Bike parking  Signs for bicycle facilities  Access during construction  Drainage grates

State Smart Transportation Initiative (SSTI) Report on Caltrans (Jan 2014)  Critiqued Caltrans re. roadway design  Focus on pedestrian-dense urban areas  Concerned with statute specifying that Caltrans develop design criteria for local bikeways  Pointed out that Caltrans design guidance has no facility type intermittent between on-street bike lanes and bike paths 5 feet back of curb

Bikeway Classifications in the HDM  Class I  Bike path Photo: Jake Nicol, OaklandNorth.net  Generally shared with pedestrians  5 feet off the roadway/ back of curb unless behind a barrier  Cross-flows minimized

Bikeway Classifications in the HDM Source: LA Streetsblog  Class II  On-street bike lane  To left of parking lane

NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide & Urban Street Design Guide  NACTO = National Association of City Transportation Officials  SSTI references:  “give designers the option of using NACTO urban design standards in metro areas.”  “quickly adopt modern guidance such as that laid out in the Urban Street Design Guide.”

Near-Market for Cycling  Portland Survey *  1% “strong & fearless” cyclists  Bike anywhere  7% “enthused & confident” cyclists  Just need a bike lane or shoulder for any traffic conditions  60% “interested but concerned”  Want separation if motorized traffic speed or volume is high  Much bigger market than current cyclists  33% “no way no how” • Geller, Roger, Portland Office of Transportation, Undated

Near-Market for Cycling • Geller, Roger, Portland Office of Transportation, Undated

Caltrans NACTO Endorsement (April 2014)  Endorsed both Urban Street Design Guide & Urban Bikeway Design Guide  For reference in making design decisions  For use in documenting design exceptions  Not yet approved traffic control devices still require request to experiment  CA Traffic Control Devices Committee & FHWA

Caltrans NACTO Endorsement (April 2014)  Caltrans released Flexibility in Multimodal Design Memo  Refers to HDM policy & philosophy  Not ‘one-size-fits-all’  Delegates design authority to local agencies  Including for bikeways  References additional guidance sources  NACTO (Urban Street & Urban Bikeway)  ITE Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares

Caltrans Accomplishments Since NACTO Endorsement  HDM Revision – Sept 2014  New statement acknowledging sources of guidance in addition to HDM  Not limited to FHWA & AASHTO

Caltrans Accomplishments Since NACTO Endorsement  HDM Revision – Sept 2014  Design Speed Reduction  30 mph: downtowns/ city centers  30-40 mph: rural & suburban main streets

Caltrans Accomplishments Since NACTO Endorsement  HDM Revision – Sept 2014  Revised curb extension/ bulbout standards  Setback reduced from 4’ to 2’ = larger bulbouts

New Bikeway Sections in CA MUTCD* (Forthcoming Fall 2014)  Caltrans compared CA MUTCD to NACTO  Fast-tracked 3 items  Already allowed by FHWA but lacking guidance  Buffered Bicycle Lanes  Contraflow Bicycle Lanes  Bicycle Lane Extensions through Intersections * CA MUTCD = California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

New Bikeway Sections in CA MUTCD (Forthcoming Fall 2014)  Buffered Bicycle Lanes Sloat Blvd (SR 35). Photo: Sergio Ruiz, Caltrans

New Bikeway Sections in CA MUTCD (Forthcoming Fall 2014)  Contraflow Bicycle Lanes Source: NACTO

New Bikeway Sections in CA MUTCD (Forthcoming Fall 2014)  Bicycle Lane Extensions Through Intersections

Bicycle Signal Faces (Anticipated 2015)  Caltrans proposed CA adoption of Federal Interim Approval to CTCDC  Would eliminate bike volume warrants in current CA MUTCD  CTCDC developing CA-specific language  Would allow use with:  Ped Hybrid Beacon  Bicycle scramble (all-way bike phase)

Assembly Bill 1193: Protected Bikeways Act  Signed into law Sept 2014  Established Class IV facility type: cycle track  Requires Caltrans to develop design guidance (by 1/ 1/ 16) Long Beach. Source: Orange20bikes.com  Allows local agencies to use other guidance  Under specified conditions

Next Steps: Class IV in HDM  Guidance development plan still in the works  Engagement  CA Bicycle Advisory Committee (CBAC) Indianapolis Cultural Trail. Source: NACTO  Other stakeholder committees  Will develop any complementary striping guidance for CA MUTCD

Next Steps: CA MUTCD  Bike Boxes & 2-Stage Turn Queue Boxes  NCUTCD recommended guidance to FHWA  For 2016 Federal MUTCD  Federal Interim Approval sooner than 2016?  Need for FHWA finding of substantial conformance  Between CA & Federal MUTCD  Submit request to experiment in meantime