Te 156
Te 156
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: In the past, the primary focus of the transportation industry was safety and emission. At present, the focus
Received 9 March 2016 is much broader and includes social sustainability in transportation equity, environmental justice, and
Received in revised form 30 May 2016 public health. Hence, the emphasis is on increasing physical activities and expanding access to essential
Accepted 31 May 2016
goods and services through non-motorized modes. Non-motorized transportation increases mobility
Available online 9 June 2016
choices, relieves congestion, promotes local economy, reduces greenhouse gas emission, promotes a
healthy lifestyle, and improves quality of life. However, a majority of highway bridges on planned or
Keywords:
existing non-motorized paths have become bottle-necks, and discourages efficient use of such facilities.
Nonmotorized
Bridges
At present, highway agencies evaluate bridge sites on a case-by-case basis to identify alternatives to
Planning provide non-motorized access across the bridges. Later, these alternatives with cost estimates are used
for funding proposals. Hence, the need is to have a methodological process to evaluate a bridge site for the
best possible alternatives and to develop cost estimates for funding proposals. This article presents safe
passage alternatives for non-motorized traffic across an existing bridge, alternative analysis methodology,
and an implementation example.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.05.018
2210-6707/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
162 L. Lopez, U. Attanayake / Sustainable Cities and Society 26 (2016) 161–169
improving non-driver access to public transportation and enhanced cific data and relevant specifications to evaluate a site to identify the
mobility, community improvement activities, and environmen- most suitable alternative(s) and to develop corresponding cost esti-
tal mitigation; recreational trail projects; safe routes to school mates. The specifications used in this study are the AASHTO Guide
projects; and projects for planning, designing, or constructing for Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (2004),
boulevards and other roadways largely in the right-of-way of for- the AASHTO Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (2011a), the
mer divided highways. The national total reserved for the TAP is AASHTO Roadside Design Guide (2011b), and the AASHTO Guide for
equal to 2 percent of the total amount authorized from the Highway the Development of Bicycles Facilities (2012). However, highway
Account of the Highway Trust Fund for Federal-aid highways each agencies can customize the process by incorporating agency spe-
fiscal year. Thus, non-motorized plans have been develop by states, cific guidelines and specifications to adopt this into their business
counties, regions and cities as efforts to allocate these funds and practice.
expand travel choices and enhance the transportation experience
(FHWA, 2015).
Bridges are an integral part of an every road or path. A major- 2. Safe passage alternatives
ity of highway bridges that are located on planned or existing
non-motorized paths have become bottle-necks for non-motorized A passage for non-motorized traffic across an existing highway
traffic. Consequently, cycling and walking appear much less appeal- bridge can be provided within or outside the bridge. Typical fea-
ing. At the local level, trails and sidewalks that are disconnected tures of a bridge with non-motorized passages within a bridge
make such networks less attractive for those who would have cho- are shown in Fig. 1. Accommodation of one or more of these fea-
sen to walk or bike to work or school; the inconvenience or safety tures depending on several site and bridge specific parameters, the
concerns are more than enough to make them feel obligated to specification requirements, and user comfort levels will be further
use other modes of transport. At regional levels, non-motorized discussed.
facilities, which are not properly integrated, are less attractive to
long-distance cyclists or trail hikers. In addition to direct impacts
2.1. Terminology and definitions
on mobility, such improperly integrated facilities are detrimental
to the tourism and economy of such regions.
In order to help understand the content of this article, the fol-
At present, highway agencies evaluate bridge sites on a case-by-
lowing list of terminology and the definitions are presented:
case basis to identify alternatives to provide non-motorized access
across the bridges. Later, these alternatives with cost estimates are
used for funding proposals. With the typical funding mechanism • Bicycle lane: a portion of the roadway designated for bicyclists.
implemented in the U.S., if a proposed project is selected and the • Barrier: a reinforced concrete member used for crash protection.
cost is underestimated, interagency funding agreements may allow • Inside lane(s): lanes other than the outside lanes.
requesting an additional funding which cannot exceed more than • Non-motorized zone: a portion of the roadway designated for
20 percent of the initial request. If the underestimate is excessive, bicyclists and pedestrians.
the highway agency may self-fund the amount over the 20 per- • Outside lane: the lane closest to the edge of the road.
cent threshold, or may resubmit the application with a revised cost • Railing: a structure provided for protection of the facility users.
estimate for the next meeting of the corresponding bridge council. • Shared lane: a lane where bicyclists and vehicles share the road-
Hence, the need is to have a methodological process to evaluate way without any portion of the lane specially designated for the
a bridge site for the best possible alternatives and to develop cost bicycle use. For a low volume of bicycle traffic, shared lane width
estimates for funding proposals. Addressing the need, this article is maintained at the same width as a typical traffic lane (i.e., no
presents a rational process that incorporates site and bridge spe- special provisions). If the expected bicycle volume is high, shared
lane width is increased allowing the motorists to overtake the 2.2. Passage alternatives within an existing bridge
bicyclists without encroaching into an adjacent lane.
• Shared use path: a wide pathway shared by bicyclists and pedes- A large number of case studies were reviewed to identify non-
trians. motorized passage alternatives. One of the following 5 alternatives
• Shy distance: a space that pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists can be considered for providing a safe passage within a bridge:
naturally keep between themselves and a vertical obstruction
such as a wall, curb, or a barrier. • A shared use path and shared lanes with no special provisions
• Sidewalk: a portion of the roadway width designated for prefer- • A sidewalk and wider shared lanes
ential use by pedestrians. • A sidewalk and bike lanes
• Vehicle lane: portion of the roadway designated for vehicles.
164 L. Lopez, U. Attanayake / Sustainable Cities and Society 26 (2016) 161–169
• A shared use path and wider shared lanes tion is also recommended in urban neighborhoods or local streets
• A shared use path and bike lanes. with a speed limit between 20–30 mph.
laws and local ordinances should be considered when implement- a bridge. Use of a cantilevered or hanging structure requires condi-
ing bike lanes, as they may have an impact on bike lane design, such tion assessment and detailed analysis of the existing structure.
as the placement of dashed lane lines. Children and less experienced
bicyclists are expected on the sidewalk. 3. Alternative analysis methodology
allows reducing the number of traffic lanes of a road segment, 4. Implementation example
including a bridge, to provide additional space for non-motorized
traffic (Rosales, 2006). Knowing the bridge geometry and the space Implementation of the alternative analysis methodology is
needed for traffic, the space available for non-motorized traffic demonstrated through the following example. The site is located
within the bridge is calculated. Out of the five alternatives listed in Kent County, Michigan, USA. The bridge carries traffic on the
above, Alternative 1 requires the minimum space to provide access 44th Street over I-196. The bridge was built in 1972 and located
within a bridge. Therefore, the space required for incorporating in an urban area. The bridge is the connection between residential
Alternative 1 is calculated based on the bridge superstructure areas on the west and the businesses and a high school on the east
configuration, traffic speed, non-motorized traffic volume, and of I-196 (Fig. 5a). The high school is home to over 1800 students
AASHTO specifications and guidelines related to non-motorized annually (Grandville High School, 2015). The location of residential
traffic. Then, the minimum space required to accommodate non- areas, businesses, and high school demands non-motorized access
motorized traffic within the bridge is compared with the space across the bridge. However, the bridge does not include designated
available for non-motorized traffic. If the available space for non- non-motorized facilities (Fig. 5b).
motorized traffic is greater than or equal to the minimum space The bridge has six 3.66 m (12 ft) wide lanes: four traffic lanes,
required for non-motorized traffic, safe passage alternatives to one left-turn lane, and one on-ramp lane. It also has two 2.43 m
accommodate non-motorized traffic on the bridge are evaluated. (8 ft) wide shoulders (Fig. 5b). Hence, the total width of the bridge is
All the possible alternatives to accommodate non-motorized traffic 26.82 m (88 ft). The length of the bridge is 73.15 m (240 ft). In 2007,
within the bridge are identified using specifications and guide- the bridge carried an average annual daily traffic volume of 24,200
lines for non-motorized traffic and site information such as road vehicles. The designated speed limit is 72.42 kmph (45 mph).
classification, traffic speed, number of lanes, traffic lane dimen- The alternative analysis process with relevant data is presented
sions, expected non-motorized volume, and the space available in Fig. 6. According to year 2012 NBI (the National Bridge Inven-
for non-motorized traffic. When the minimum required space is tory) data, rating of the deck and superstructure was 7 (good)
greater than the available space, design exceptions are requested. and the substructure was 6 (satisfactory). The sufficiency rating
If the approval is not granted, providing access using a structure was 90.3% (NBI, 2012). Therefore, the bridge is not scheduled for
attached to the bridge (cantilevered or hanging) or a sepa- replacement in near future. Based on road classification, ADT, traf-
rate free standing structure adjacent to the existing structure is fic speed, and specification/guideline requirements the minimum
considered. lane width required is 3.35 m (11 ft). Road diet is not considered
L. Lopez, U. Attanayake / Sustainable Cities and Society 26 (2016) 161–169 167
Fig. 6. Safe passage alternative analysis for the 44th Street bridge over I-196.
Fig. 7. GUI of the alternative analysis tool with the 44th Street Bridge over I-196 results.
for this site. Hence, the space available on the bridge for non- accommodate non-motorized traffic is 4.88 m (16 ft). Hence, there
motorized traffic is 6.71 m (22 ft). Similarly, based on the volume is an adequate space to accommodate non-motorized traffic within
of non-motorized traffic, vehicular traffic speed, and the speci- the bridge. Further evaluations showed that the space required to
fication/guideline requirement, the minimum space required to implement Alternative 1, 2, and 3 is 4.88 m (16 ft), 5.18 m (17 ft),
168 L. Lopez, U. Attanayake / Sustainable Cities and Society 26 (2016) 161–169
Table 1
Cost estimates for the 44th Street Bridge over I-196 safe passage alternatives.
Description Units of measure Unit price ($) Alternative 1 ($) Alternative 2 ($) Alternative 3 ($)
and 5.79 m (19 ft), respectively. As a result, accommodating Alter- traffic safety studies to determine the number of non-motorized
natives 1, 2 or 3 within the bridge is possible. traffic conflict points to evaluate risks and develop recommenda-
Since three alternatives are possible for this site, another deter- tions to improve safety.
mining factor is the cost of implementation. Hence, the cost
estimates are prepared using data from past project documents Disclaimer
and the cost data obtained from the Michigan Department of Trans-
portation (MDOT) and local engineering firms. Cost data obtained The contents of this article reflect the views of the authors, who
from past projects are adjusted to reflect fiscal year 2015 values. are solely responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the infor-
Pre-design, design, bidding, construction administration fees, and mation presented herein. This publication is disseminated under
contingencies are not included in the cost estimates. Table 1 shows the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Univer-
the cost for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. When there is not much dif- sity Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information
ference in the cost, the alternative selection is based on safety and exchange. This article does not necessarily reflect the official views
user’s comfort level. When such programs like Safe Routes to School or policies of the U.S. government, or the Transportation Research
(SRTS) are implemented, children are encouraged to walk or bicy- Center for Livable Communities, who assume no liability for the
cle to and from school. Having a high school with a large student contents or use thereof. This article does not represent standards,
population, it is desirable to implement Alternative 1 at this site. specifications, or regulations.
Alternative 1 allows students to walk or bicycle within the shared
use path, which is protected from vehicular traffic. Even though
Acknowledgments
the methodology presented here can be used to identify all possi-
ble alternatives to provide non-motorized access within the bridge,
This research was funded by the US Department of Trans-
selection of a context sensitive solution is the responsibility of the
portation through the Transportation Research Center for Livable
Engineer of Record (EoR).
Communities (TRC-LC), a Tier 1 University Transportation Center.
The alternative analysis process can be automated using
Authors would like to thank TRC-LC at Western Michigan Univer-
Excel/Visual Basic. Fig. 7 shows the graphical user interface (GUI)
sity for funding this study through a grant received from the United
with non-motorized passage alternatives for the 44th Street Bridge
States Department of Transportation (USDOT) under the Univer-
over I-196. The user is expected to provide the site characteristics
sity Transportation Centers (UTC) program. The authors would also
such as bridge width, bridge length, vehicle lane width, number of
like to thank all the Departments of Transportation (DOTs), coun-
lanes, etc., and click on the Analyze button. When the space avail-
ties, and consultants who provided access to case studies and other
able on the bridge is greater than or equal to the minimum space
relevant documents to make this study a success.
required to provide access, all possible alternatives are displayed
with cost estimates.
References
5. Summary and conclusions AASHTO. (2004). Guide for planning, design, and operation of pedestrian facilities.
Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials.
There has been an emphasis on developing non-motorized
AASHTO. (2011a). Geometric design of highways and streets. Washington, DC:
transportation systems in order to provide sustainable living condi- American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
tions. A majority of highway bridges that are located on the planned AASHTO. (2011b). Roadside design guide. Washington, DC: American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials.
or existing non-motorized paths have become bottle-necks for non-
AASHTO. (2012). Guide for the development of bicycles facilities. Washington, DC:
motorized traffic. Hence, the owner agencies need to have access to American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
a methodological process to evaluate the bridges on non-motorized APTA. (2008). Public transportation reduces greenhouse gases and conserves energy.
paths to identify safe passage alternatives for non-motorized traf- American Public Transportation Association. file:///G:/Journal/greenhouse
brochure.pdf Accessed 29.12.15
fic and develop cost estimates for funding proposals. The following EEA. (2013). What are the current trends in global greenhouse gas emissions?
conclusions are derived from this study: European Environment Agency. http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/climate/
faq Accessed 07.12.15
EPA. (2013). Global greenhouse gas emission data Unites States. Environmental
• Five different alternatives are available to provide non-motorized Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions
access across a highway bridge. Accessed 07.12.15
• A structured process that incorporates site specific data and FHWA. (2015). Transportation alternatives program (TAP). Federal Highway
Administration. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/transportation
specifications can be developed to evaluate all possible non- alternatives/ Accessed 30.12.15
motorized access alternatives across an existing bridge. Fietsberaad. (2009). Cycling in the Netherlands. Ministry of Transport, Public Works
• Cost differential between the safe passage alternatives within the and Water Management and Fietsberaad (Expertise Centre for Cycling Policy).
www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/
bridge is not significant. Therefore, when multiple alternatives CyclingintheNetherlands2009.pdf Accessed 29.1215
are available, the alternative that provides the greatest level of (2015). Grandville high school. http://hs.gpsbulldogs.org/apps/pages/index.
user’s comfort is selected. jsp?uREC ID=272675&type=d&pREC ID=628582 Accessed 06.06.15
IPCC. (2007). Climate change 2007: working group III: mitigation of climate
• The study presented in this article is limited to evaluating safe- change. In IPCC fourth assessment report: climate change 2007.
passage alternatives across a bridge. It is necessary to perform Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
L. Lopez, U. Attanayake / Sustainable Cities and Society 26 (2016) 161–169 169
Kim, S., & Ulfarsson, G. F. (2008). Curbing automobile use for sustainable UCSUSA. (2012). State of charge: electric vehicles’ global warming emissions and
transportation: analysis of mode choice on short home-based trips. fuel-cost savings across the United States.. http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/
Transportation, 35, 723–737. files/legacy/assets/documents/clean vehicles/electric-car-global-warming-
NBI. (2012). National bridge inventory. Washington, DC: Federal Highway emissions-report.pdf Accessed 29.12.15
Administration. (2013). United States census bureau. http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/
Rosales, J. (2006). Road diet handbook: setting trends for livable streets. Washington, tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS 13 5YR
DC: Institute of Transportation Engineers. B08006&prodType=table Accessed 26.03.15
TRB. (2015). Public health and transportation: innovation, intervention, and WRI. (2014). Climate analysis indicators tool (CAIT) 2.0: WRI’s climate data explorer..
improvements. TR news, No. 299. Washington, D.C. 20001: Transportation http://cait.wri.org Accessed 29.12.15
Research Board. Accessed September–October 2015.