Guide for Reviewing Public Road Design and Bicycling Accommodations for Virginia Bicycling Advocates

Fairfax Advocates for Better Bicycling, the bicycling advocacy group in Fairfax County, Virginia, got a grant to produce the aforementioned guide, which was recently published. It was written by Fionnuala Quinn, a civil engineer, and Bruce Wright, the chairman of FABB, so it covers very well both the technical aspects of bicycle facilities as well as the approach advocates should take in moving improvements forward.

-- Webpage, Guide for Reviewing Public Road Design and Bicycling Accommodations for Virginia Bicycling Advocates

The guide is excellent, as it:

(1) outlines the design process for road improvements, which it does in a nice two page outline (pages 4 and 5) listing the 8 stages of the design and construction process;

(2) outlines how to be "productive" in shaping the process towards improvements that accommodate bicyclists

(3) provides checklists to help guide advocates through the processes, and what to look for, and what to advocate for;

(4) provides advice on how to "read and comment on engineering plans" in ways that reach engineers;

(5) outlines general principles for bicycle facilities improvements (this is drawn from standard publications in the field such as the AASHTO Guide to Bicycle Facilities, but is drilled down to the essentials and is very clear);

(6) outlines specific principles for different types of bicycle facilities (in the Western Baltimore County ped and bike access plan I wrote a huge section on this which for the most part was excised, which I think was unfortunate, although I still have the draft);

(7) provides a nice table of authorities, "standards, guidelines, policies and ordinances" that outline the applicable federal, state, and local requirements and policies;

(8) provides additional resources -- "common issues that affect projects", and other resources, definitions, a discussion of "non-standard projects, exceptions and innovations" and what to do in "late stages of the process."

I don't know the issues at the ground level in Virginia, but I will say that I would have added a few things to this guide, because such a guide should also work to move practice and opportunities forward in a significant way.

- there should have been discussion of Complete Streets principles more generally and probably a reference to the Smart Transportation Guide produced by the States of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. This could have included discussions of suburban vs. urban road networks.

This is important because given all the opposition still faced by walking, bicycling, and transit advocates to the creation of a more balanced transportation system and network, we have to continually outline and refer to this broader set of principles (including discussions of placemaking) in order to move this idea forward.

Instead, too often improvements for walking, bicycling, and transit are referred to as "a war on drivers," which puts us at a severe disadvantage.

The STG is probably the best guide right now about implementing complete streets principles in a practical way.

- while there are a few paragraphs in the guide on "innovative bicycling designs", I would have included a more extensive discussion of these facilities, especially cycle tracks, bicycle boulevards, and buffered bicycle lanes, which offer the best opportunities for significantly increasing take up of bicycling on the part of segments other than men under 40 years of age -- although maybe there are fewer opportunities for such facilities in Fairfax County, which has a typical suburban street pattern less conducive to these types of facilities. (Note that the section in Minneapolis Bicycle Plan on innovative facilities is one of the best I've seen -- Chapter 9 – Innovation.)

- I am not sure, again, about issues in Virginia, I know in Baltimore County, wide shoulders, discontinuous shoulders, bridges and interchanges and the ability of bicyclists (and pedestrians) to safely move through them are big issues, and need to be addressed better than they have been. This could have been covered in the guide, which is also intended to serve bicycling advocates throughout Virginia, where these issues are likely to be present.

- while intersection design was covered in a paragraph in the section "common issues that affect projects," -- the guide states, on page 19, that "The design must accommodate turning movements and crossings in many directions with numerous potential conflict points" -- providing more guidance and photographs on treatments such as shifting bike lanes left to separate bicyclists from right turning motorists would have been good to include.

I realize that right now the issue is getting government officials, elected and appointed, to acknowledge bicycle facilities at all, so advocating for "innovative" facilities may be seen as a stretch

- I am not sure if in the preparation of the guide, they referred to the new draft of the AASHTO guide, which admittedly only came out in February. It calls for a 12 foot minimum for shared use paths--in the guide, this width is recommended for heavy traffic, but a 10 feet minimum is stated.

The Shared-Use Path Level of Service Calculator manual, published by the Federal Highway Administration, would have been a good resource to provide a link to, and it calls for an 11 feet minimum. This guide is a good resource for advocates, because it provides an objective method for the justification of wider paths, based on the volume of users. Because wider paths help to minimize conflicts between faster and slower types of traffic along paths, it is important to make sure that elected and appointed officials are clued in to these newer recommendations.

- Another guide I would have considered referencing is Bicycle Safety Countermeasure Selection System: Bikesafe, which is both a printed manual and a software program designed to be used in the analysis of bicycling accidents (there is also a version for pedestrian accidents). Bikesafe makes recommendations for design improvements, based on the type of accident. Again, this provides a more systematic method for improving roadways for bicyclists.

All in all, this is a very good guide and I hope that the bicycling and sustainable transportation community will use this guide and thank Fairfax Advocates for Better Bicycling for taking on this project, finishing it, and providing the wider community access to this quality publication.

Thank you!