Shared Roadway Implementation Guidance
Publication: Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 139, Issue 8
Abstract
Shared roadways have automobiles and bicycles operating in the same traveled way, which may negatively affect traffic operations; there is limited guidance on appropriate shared roadway implementation. To provide guidance on shared roadway implementation, this paper uses microsimulation models and a sensitivity analysis to evaluate automobile quality of service on shared roadways. After the sensitivity analysis, automobile quality of service is compared to bicycle quality of service on shared roadways. Using the results of the sensitivity analysis and comparison, guidance is provided on the implementation of shared roadways. This study finds that outside lane width and bicycle volume affect automobile quality of service on shared roadways. Additionally, higher values for unsignalized access points per kilometer (per mile), heavy vehicle percent, and signalized intersection crossing distance result in bicycle quality of service being less than automobile quality of service. Using this study’s findings, shared roadway implementation guidance is provided for four-lane divided urban street segments. Future research should develop shared roadway implementation guidance using microsimulation models calibrated to observed data.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
This paper uses research conducted in the completion of a Master of Science at Texas A&M University. The authors want to thank Dr. Tim Lomax and Dr. Yunlong Zhang for their contributions as committee members. Additionally, the authors thank Shawn Turner for his assistance in calibrating the simulation models along with Kay Fitzpatrick and Jim Dale for their assistance in the completion of this research.
References
AASHTO. (1999). A guide for the development of bicycle facilities, Washington, DC.
AASHTO. (2004). A policy on geometric design of highway and streets, Washington, DC.
Allen, D., Rouphail, N., Hummer, J., and Milazzo, J. (1998). “Operational analysis of uninterrupted bicycle facilities.” Transportation Research Record 1636, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Bisbee, G. (2010). “15 states require 3-foot clearance for bicycles; Updated.” Biking Bis, 〈http://www.bikingbis.com/blog/_archives/2008/3/5/3549263.html〉 (Oct. 29, 2010).
Box, P., and Oppenlander, J. (1976). Manual of traffic engineering studies, 4th Ed., Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC.
Dowling, R., Holland, J., and Huang, A. (2002). “California Dept. of Transportation guidelines for applying traffic microsimulation modeling software.” Dowling and Associates, Oakland, CA.
League of American Bicyclists. (2010). “Confident cycling commuting.” 〈http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/education/pdfs/confident_cycling_commuting_driving_your-bike_script.pdf〉 (Apr. 11, 2010).
Oregon Dept. of Transportation (ODOT). (2009). “When are bike lanes needed in urban/suburban settings?” 〈http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/docs/bike_lane_matrix.pdf〉 (Sep. 22, 2009).
Stover, V., and Koepke, F. (2006). Transportation and land development, 2nd Ed., Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC.
Transportation Research Board. (2003). Access management manual, Washington, DC.
Transportation Research Board. (2010). 2010 highway capacity manual, Washington, DC.
VISSIM 5.10 [Computer software]. Planung Transport Verkehr AG, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jul 15, 2012
Accepted: Mar 27, 2013
Published online: Apr 3, 2013
Published in print: Aug 1, 2013
Discussion open until: Sep 3, 2013
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.