Managing Nonmotorized Facilities
Best Practices For Managing Sidewalks and Pathways
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TDM
Encyclopedia
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated
March 7, 2007
This chapter describes best practices for managing nonmotorized facilities such as walkways, sidewalks and paths. It provides guidelines for sharing such facilities among different types of users, public education and enforcement programs, and facility maintenance standards.
|
“Lowly,
unpurposeful and random as they appear, sidewalk contacts are the small
change from
which a city’s wealth of public life may grow,” - Jane Jacobs, The Death
and Life of Great American Cities. |
Nonmotorized facilities including walkways, sidewalks, crosswalks, paths, pedestrianized streets, pedestrian plazas, bike lanes and highway shoulders. These are developed through Nonmotorized and Carfree planning. Once established they require appropriate management and maintenance programs. Roadways are also used by nonmotorized modes and so nonmotorized users’ needs should be considered in roadway planning, management and maintenance.
Hallways
Walkways
Courtyards
Sidewalks
Public paths and trails
Pedestrian streets
Bike lanes
Nonmotorized facilities must often accommodate a diverse range of users and activities (called “modes”), including those listed below.
|
People standing or sitting People (usually children) playing games Vendors Individual walkers Groups of walker Walkers with pets Walkers with strollers and handcarts Walkers with physical disabilities Hand-powered wheelchairs Motorized wheelchairs |
Joggers and runners Skaters and skateboards Scooters Children on bikes Adults on bikes Bicycles with trailers, tandems and three-wheelers Electric powered bikes Segways Equestrians Service and emergency vehicles |
Different modes have different physical requirements and abilities. For example, some are more sensitive to surface irregularities or require more space than others. Although a person walking alone typically requires just 18-24 inches of width, a couple walking side-by-side, a person in a wheelchair or pushing a cart, a runner, bicyclist or person with a pet on a leash all require additional space.
Nonmotorized facilities contain various types of “furniture” such as signposts, parking meters, mail boxes, garbage cans and sometimes cafe seating. When people pass each other or an object on the path, they require adequate shy distance (extra space between vehicles or pedestrians as they pass each other). Nonmotorized facilities should also accommodate users’ need to stop along the public right-of-way, for example, to rest, enjoy a viewpoint or shop window, have a conversation, or play. Although a sidewalk or path may have a generous nominal width, its functional width may be much smaller due to various obstacles. In general, increased diversity requires wider sidewalks and paths to accommodate different types of users and avoid conflicts. Standard pedestrian level of service ratings often overlook these factors, resulting in designs that fail to accommodate users.
Conflicts sometimes develop over the use of nonmotorized facilities. There are two general ways to address these conflicts:
· Separate modes and restrict uses. For example, prohibit the use of skates, scooters and bicycles on sidewalks, with the assumption that they will use the roadway or will not be used at all in an area.
· Manage facilities for shared use by establishing and promoting user behavior guidelines concerning maximum speed and which mode must yield to each other, and where necessary, establishing and enforcing regulations.
In practice, most nonmotorized facilities have some degree of shared use. It is infeasible to create separate facilities for each mode everywhere, and conflicts can still develop even on separated facilities, for example, between walkers, wheelchair users and runners on a sidewalk, and between slow and fast cyclists on paths.
Rather than focusing on specific modes, it is usually more productive to manage nonmotorized facilities based on the priority, performance and behavior of individual users. For example, although cyclists should generally ride on the road rather than a sidewalk, sidewalk cycling can be appropriate in some situations, such as when a child or other inexperienced cyclist rides along a busy arterial or bridge with narrow lanes, the adjacent sidewalk is adequately wide and has minimal traffic. Strict enforcement of a no-cycling-on-sidewalks rule will effectively prohibit cycling by some types of users (children and inexperienced adults) on some corridors. As a result, the no-cycling-on-sidewalks rule is often ignored by users and not enforced by officials because they consider it unreasonable.
Similarly, rather than debating whether electric powered vehicles such as motorized scooters and Segway (www.segway.com) belong on sidewalks or roadways, it may be more productive to identify under which conditions they belong on sidewalks and how they should behave when using them, and under which conditions they belong on roadways and their appropriate behavior there (Liu and Parthasarathy, 2003).
It is not usually the different modes that create conflicts as much as unsuitable user behavior. A 12 miles-per-hour (mph) runner does not belong on a crowded sidewalk any more than a cyclist or powered scooter at that speed, while a skater or cyclist going 6 mph is better off using a sidewalk, if it is not too crowded, than on a narrow roadway with high speed vehicle traffic.
In practice, virtually any nonmotorized facility requires some degree of management involving a combination of education and enforcement regarding the safe and considerate sharing between different types of users. Table 1 compares various modes in terms of their priority (based on whether they help provide Basic Mobility or tend to be more recreational uses) and performance (size and speed). Of course, these are general factors that may need to be modified to address the needs of a particular situation.
Table 1
Nonmotorized Facility Users Compared
|
User Type |
Speed |
Size (Width) |
Maneuver-ability |
Risk to Others |
Priority |
|
People standing or sitting |
None |
Low |
None |
Minimal |
High |
|
Walkers |
Low |
Narrow |
High |
Minimal |
High |
|
Walkers with children |
Low |
Medium to large |
Medium to low |
Moderate |
High |
|
Walkers with pets |
Low |
Medium to large |
Medium to low |
Moderate to High |
Medium |
|
Human powered wheelchairs |
Low |
Medium |
Low to medium |
Minimal |
High |
|
Motor powered wheelchairs |
Medium |
Medium |
Medium |
Moderate |
High |
|
Joggers and runners |
Medium to high |
Narrow |
Medium |
Moderate |
Medium |
|
Skates, skateboards and push-scooters |
Medium |
Medium |
Medium |
Moderate to High |
Low |
|
Powered scooters and electric human transporters (Segway) |
Medium |
Medium |
Medium |
Moderate to High |
Medium |
|
Handcarts, wagons and pushcarts |
Low |
Medium to large |
Low to medium |
Moderate to High |
Medium |
|
Human powered bicycle |
Medium to high |
Medium to large |
Medium to low |
Moderate to High |
Medium |
|
Motorized bicycle |
High |
Medium to large |
Medium to low |
Moderate to High |
Low |
|
Equestrians |
Medium to high |
Large |
Low |
Moderate to High |
Low |
This table compares various modes that use nonmotorized facilities.
This information can help decision-makers develop appropriate guidelines and regulations to manage the use of nonmotorized facilities based on the performance and value of each mode. Below are examples:
· Higher-priority modes should have priority to lower-priority modes. For example, recreational modes (such as skateboards) should yield to modes that provide Basic Mobility (such as walking and wheelchair users) if conflicts exist.
· Lower-speed, smaller modes should be given priority over higher-speed, larger modes. For example, bicycles should yield to scooters, and scooters should yield to walkers.
· Maximum speeds should be established for each mode, based on the physical design of the facility (i.e., some facilities may only accommodate 10 mph cycling, while others can accommodate 15 mph cycling). Maximum allowable speeds should decline as a pedestrian facility becomes more crowded or narrower.
· If facilities cannot accommodate all potential modes, higher-priority modes should be allowed and lower-priority modes should be required to use roadways. For example, cycling, skating and equestrians may be allowed on pedestrian facilities at uncrowded times and locations, but not at busy times and locations.
· Special efforts should be made to accommodate a wide range of users (including cyclists, skaters and runners) where there are no suitable alternative routes (e.g., adjacent roadways are unsuitable for such modes).
· At least some public trails should be designed to accommodate people with physical disabilities, including people in wheelchairs (Universal Design). These should have washrooms and drinking fountains that meet accessibility standards.
· Cyclists, skaters and motorized modes should reduce their speed when using mixed use paths (6-12 mph maximum, depending on conditions) and yield to non-motorized modes. People who want to go faster should use roadways.
· Public officials should clearly indicate when and where pets are forbidden, when and where they are allowed if leashed, and when and where they may run free. It is important to have some parks where dogs may run unleashed.
· Owners should be responsible for the behavior of their pets and clean up their droppings.
· All modes should use extra caution when passing children and pets.
· Special consideration may be given to equestrians, since horses are easily frightened and difficult to maneuver.
· Users should be expected to clean up trash (including their pet’s droppings). Adequate garbage cans should be provided.
Many conflicts between users can be avoided by simply educating users. For example, public trails can have a code of conduct posted on signs and promoted on brochures and maps. Professional staff and volunteers can be stationed along trails at busy times to share information and get feedback from users. User organizations (walking and cycling clubs, equestrian groups) are often willing to help.
|
Sharing the Path The following are guidelines for cyclists on how to share public trails, from the League of American Bicyclists’ “Sharing the Path Better Bicycling Fact Sheet” (www.bikeleague.org/educenter/factsheets/sharingthepath.htm). 1.Courtesy
Respect
other trail users; joggers, walkers, bladers, wheelchairs all have trail
rights. Respect
slower cyclists; yield to slower users. Obey
speed limits; they are posted for your safety. 2.Announce
when passing. Use
a bell, horn or voice to indicate your intention to pass. Warn
other well in advance so you do not startle them. Clearly
announce "On your left" when passing. 3.Yield
when entering and crossing. Yield
to traffic at places where the trail crosses the road. Yield
to other users at trail intersections. Slow
down before intersections and when entering the trail from the road. 4.Keep
right Stay
as close to the right as possible, except when passing. Give
yourself enough room to maneuver around any hazards. Ride
single file to avoid possible collisions with other trail users. 5.Pass
on left Scan
ahead and behind before announcing your intention to pass another user. Pull
out only when you are sure the lane is clear. Allow
plenty of room, about two bike lengths, before moving back to the right. 6.Be
predictable Travel
in a straight line unless you are avoiding hazards or passing. Indicate
your intention to turn or pass. Warn
other users of your intentions. 7.Use
lights at night Most
trail users will not have lights at night; use a white front and red rear
light. Watch
for walkers as you will overtake them the fastest. Reflective
clothing does not help in the absence of light. 8.Do
not block the trail For
group rides, use no more than half the trail; don't hog the trail. During
heavy use periods (holidays and weekends) stay single file. Stop
and regroup completely off of the trail. 9.Clean
up litter. Pack
out more than you pack in. Encourage
others to respect the path. Place
all litter in its proper receptacle. 10.Limitations
for transportation. Most
paths were not designed for high-speed, high volume traffic. Use
paths keeping in mind their recreational nature. It
might be faster to use roads and avoid the traffic on the paths during heavy
use. |
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA, 2000) includes standard “Share the Road” and “Share the Trail” signs, and guidelines for the design of advisory signs. The following factors should be considered when developing information materials:
· Accuracy - it reflects current rules and laws.
· Clarity - the important concepts easy to understand and apply.
· Accessibility – it attractive and easily available to the intended audience.
|
Trail
Etiquette (From
the Seattle Bicycling Guide Map (www.seattle.gov/transportation/bikemaps.htm) All Users
Bicyclists
Pedestrians
(This
map also includes the text of state and local traffic laws related to
bicycling, and other helpful cycling information.) |
|
Multi-Use Trail Etiquette (www.crd.bc.ca/parks/pdf/galgoos2.pdf) The following text is included in maps and brochures for the
Galloping Goose trail in The
key word is multi-use. Share the trail. Keep right except to pass. Motorized
vehicles are prohibited (except for motorized wheelchairs). Respect private
property adjacent to the trail. ·
If you’re on foot or on wheels, pass horseback riders with caution –
horses can spook at startling noises or motions. ·
If you’re on horseback, let other trail user know when your horse is
safe to pass. ·
If you’re cycling, yield to pedestrians, control your speed, and warn
– call out or use a bell – other trail users before passing. ·
If you’re walking your dog, keep it under control or on a leash, and
please pick up its droppings. |
The report Conflicts
on Multiple-Use Trails: Synthesis of the Literature and State of the Practice
(
1. Recognize
Conflict as Goal Interference - Do not treat conflict as an inherent
incompatibility among different trail activities, but goal interference
attributed to another's behavior.
2. Provide
Adequate Trail Opportunities - Offer adequate trail mileage and provide
opportunities for a variety of trail experiences. This will help reduce
congestion and allow users to choose the conditions that are best suited to the
experiences they desire.
3. Minimize
Number of Contacts in Problem Areas - Each contact among trail users (as
well as contact with evidence of others) has the potential to result in
conflict. So, as a general rule, reduce the number of user contacts whenever
possible. This is especially true in congested areas and at trailheads.
Disperse use and provide separate trails where necessary after careful
consideration of the additional environmental impact and lost opportunities for
positive interactions this may cause.
4. Involve
Users as Early as Possible - Identify the present and likely future users
of each trail and involve them in the process of avoiding and resolving
conflicts as early as possible, preferably before conflicts occur. For proposed
trails, possible conflicts and their solutions should be addressed during the
planning and design stage with the involvement of prospective users. New and
emerging uses should be anticipated and addressed as early as possible with the
involvement of participants. Likewise, existing and developing conflicts on
present trails need to be faced quickly and addressed with the participation of
those affected.
5. Understand
User Needs - Determine the motivations, desired experiences, norms, setting
preferences, and other needs of the present and likely future users of each
trail. This "customer" information is critical for anticipating and
managing conflicts.
6. Identify
the Actual Sources of Conflict - Help users to identify the specific
tangible causes of any conflicts they are experiencing. In other words, get
beyond emotions and stereotypes as quickly as possible, and get to the roots of
any problems that exist.
7. Work
with Affected Users - Work with all parties involved to reach mutually
agreeable solutions to these specific issues. Users who are not involved as
part of the solution are more likely to be part of the problem now and in the
future.
8. Promote
Trail Etiquette - Minimize the possibility that any particular trail
contact will result in conflict by actively and aggressively promoting
responsible trail behavior. Use existing educational materials or modify them
to better meet local needs. Target these educational efforts, get the
information into users' hands as early as possible, and present it in
interesting and understandable ways.
9. Encourage
Positive Interaction Among Different Users - Trail users are usually not as
different from one another as they believe. Providing positive interactions
both on and off the trail will help break down barriers and stereotypes, and
build understanding, good will, and cooperation. This can be accomplished
through a variety of strategies such as sponsoring "user swaps,"
joint trail-building or maintenance projects, filming trail-sharing videos, and
forming Trail Advisory Councils.
10.
Favor "Light-Handed" Management - Use the most "light-handed
approaches" that will achieve area objectives. This is essential in order
to provide the freedom of choice and natural environments that are so important
to trail-based recreation. Intrusive design and coercive management are not
compatible with high-quality trail experiences.
11.
Plan and Act Locally - Whenever possible, address issues regarding
multiple-use trails at the local level. This allows greater sensitivity to
local needs and provides better flexibility for addressing difficult issues on
a case-by-case basis. Local action also facilitates involvement of the people
who will be most affected by the decisions and most able to assist in their
successful implementation.
12.
Monitor Progress - Monitor the ongoing effectiveness of the decisions
made and programs implemented. Conscious, deliberate monitoring is the only way
to determine if conflicts are indeed being reduced and what changes in programs
might be needed. This is only possible within the context of clearly understood
and agreed upon objectives for each trail area.
|
Using Bike Lanes The following are guidelines for cyclists on how to use bike lanes, from the League of American Bicyclists’ “How To Ride in Bike Lanes Better Bicycling Fact Sheet” (www.bikeleague.org/educenter/factsheets/bikelanes.htm). 1.Safety
considerations. Bikes
are not required to travel in bike lanes when preparing for turns. Never
ride within three feet of parked cars; beware of the door zone. Avoid
bike lanes that you think are poorly designed or unsafe; alert your local
government. 2.Intersections
Avoid
riding in lanes that position you on the right side of a right turn lane. Bike
lanes should stop before an intersection to allow for bikes to make left
turns. Always
signal as you move out of a bike lane into another traffic lane. 3.Debris
Report
obstructions and poor maintenance to your local government. Avoid
riding immediately adjacent to curbs where trash collects. If
debris forces you out of the bike lane, signal your move out into traffic. 4.Parked
cars Never
ride within three feet of parked cars. Watch
for brake lights, front wheels, signals and driver movements. Position
yourself in the field of vision of a motorist pulling out of a parking space. 5.Right
turns Avoid
riding in lanes that position you on the right side of a right turning
motorist. Move
out of the right turn lane if you are not turning right. Ride
in the rightmost lane that goes in the direction that you are travelling. 6.Left
turns Move
out of the bike lane well in advance of the intersection; signal every move. Position
yourself in the rightmost left-turning lane. Reposition
yourself after executing the turn; remain clear of parked cars. |
Pedestrian and bicycle safety training can reduce conflicts and increase Security, particularly for children. A number of resources are now available to assist parents, teachers, and traffic agencies develop suitable programs based on a realistic appreciation of children’s learning and behavior comprehension.
Pedestrian Education for Children
Children on the Move (www.ecoplan.org/children) is a website that provides information on children’s transportation safety.
Kerbcraft; Smart Strategies for Pedestrian Safety (1998), UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (www.roads.detr.gov.uk/roadsafety/rs2/kerb.pdf). A curriculum for teaching children how to cross streets where there is no traffic signal.
NHTSA (1999), Pedestrian Safety Toolkit, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (www.nhtsa.gov).
Perils for Pedestrians (www.pedestrian.org) is a cable television series promoting awareness of issues affecting pedestrian safety. Their website includes advocacy tips and links to other pedestrian organizations.
Problems of Attention and Visual Search in the Context of Child Pedestrian, Behaviour, UK DETR, (www.roads.detr.gov.uk/roadsafety/rscdr/no8/index.htm), 1999.
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Resource Kit, FHWA (www.ota.fhwa.dot.gov/walk).
Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool, FHWA-RD-99-192, FHWA (202-493-3315; www.tfhrc.gov).
Speed Kills, The Benefits of Slower Speeds, and Why Reduce Speeds, UK Anti-speed Campaign (www.speed-campaign-info.fsnet.co.uk).
Study Addresses Safety Of Children On Their Way To And From School, CUTR, (www.cutr.eng.usf.edu/new/news_let/articles/winterB98/winterB98-1.htm), 1998.
Bicycle Safety Education
BTS, Pedestrian and Cycling Publications, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, USDOT, (www.bts.gov).
The
Canadian Cycling Association (www.canadian-cycling.com) manages the Can-Bike cycling education program.
Anne Fritzel (2000), Smart Moves for Washington Schools, Climate Solutions (www.climatesolutions.org).
League of American Bicyclists Education Programs (www.bikeleague.org) provides a variety of resources.
Way To Go! School Program (www.waytogo.icbc.bc.ca) provides a variety of safety education strategies and materials, and information on increasing walking and cycling to school.
|
Planning
for Large Pedestrian Crowds Experience from the 2000 Olympics in Up
to half a million pedestrians were moved in, out or through the Homebush Bay
site on the busier days of competition and from my observation and others
reports it worked very well. The lessons from it were: ·
Avoid, where possible, two-way pedestrian routes. (The main flows
were organised in huge one-way converging and diverging loops and where
necessary temporary overpasses had been put in so that the conflicting flows
could cross.) ·
Keep people moving where possible. This of course has its limits.
People will start to resent being moved just for the sake of it especially if
they know the territory and are aware that they are being sent the long way
round. Generally there is the reassurance however that one is making
progress. ·
Keep people informed at all times. The information is in a number of
forms the fixed signs using internationally recognisable symbols wherever
possible, -large programmable message screens (more familiar as warning signs
for roadworks on highways), - people with loud hailers on raised positions
able to direct and inform the crowds, easily identified staff (in this case
usually volunteers) able to monitor progress and answer questions at ground
level. fixed and clearly identified information booths. ·
Keep people amused/entertained- here we were blessed with an army
(not THE army, although they were in the background if needed) of good
natured, tolerant, and often very amusing, volunteers who have been hailed as
the secret of ·
Provide escape routes and eddy spaces so that people don’t feel
trapped in crowds ·
Provide shady and sheltered places that people can rest and relax
between events. ·
Provide diversions for children of all ages. ·
Build in sufficient flexibility to cope with varying numbers and
unexpected eventualities. For example, queuing races (barriers used to shape
lines) can be short circuited when the crowds are smaller. ·
Raising (or lowering as the case may be) expectations in order to
modify behaviour. By the time the Olympics arrived no one in their right mind
expected that they could drive all the way to events. They expected queues
and long walks and in the end seemed to accept that with good humour. |
Appropriate traffic law enforcement can prevent conflicts and collisions, and help instill lifelong traffic safety habits in young people. A teenager who has spent years violating bicycle traffic laws with impunity is being poorly prepared to become a responsible car driver. Safety experts recommend targeting the following cycle traffic violations: