(A) General.
(1) Shared use paths (also referred to as “multi-use trails” and “multi-use paths”) accommodate various non-motorized users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, in-line skaters and runners. Shared use paths are typically paved (asphalt or concrete) but may also consist of an unpaved smooth surface as long as it meets ADA standards. Although shared use paths currently do not exist in the city, previous planning efforts have identified several potential path development opportunities.
(2) The recommended cross-section for shared use paths in the city is a 12-foot minimum width with two-foot minimum shoulders. AASHTO and the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan recommend a 12-foot width, although narrower widths may be allowed (eight feet minimum) in physically constrained areas. Wider path widths are recommended in areas where user volumes are expected to be high and a wider shoulder should be provided to accommodate runners and joggers where space permits. Soft shoulders may consist of bark or wood chips. For paths in outlying areas of town, the city should consider providing a parallel soft surface equestrian trail.
(3) The following table summarizes design recommendations for the city’s shared use path network. The recommendations are based on experience in other communities, as well as guidelines prescribed by AASHTO and the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
Shared Use Path Design Recommendations | |
Element | Recommendation |
Shared Use Path Design Recommendations | |
Element | Recommendation |
Bollards | 5’ minimum between bollards |
Cross-slope | 2% maximum |
Fence height | 60 inches2 |
Grade/running slope | 5% maximum |
Lateral clearance between path and adjacent signs | 3’-6’ |
Overhead clearance | 8’ minimum |
Paved width | 12’ (8’ in constrained areas) |
Separation from parallel roadway | 5’ minimum |
Shoulder width1 | 2’ minimum |
Soft surface width | 6’ minimum |
NOTES TO TABLE: Source: AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities; ODOT Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 1 A soft surface path paralleling the paved path can take the place of a shoulder on one side 2 Although bicycle/pedestrian design guidance documents typically recommend fence heights of 42 to 54 inches, the 60-inch height reflects current city requirements | |
(B) Shared use paths along roadways.
(1) Shared use paths should not be placed directly adjacent to roadways (e.g., with minimal or no separation) for a variety of reasons:
(a) Half of bicycle traffic would ride against the normal flow of vehicle traffic, contrary to the rules of the road;
(b) When the path ends, cyclists riding against traffic tend to continue to travel on the wrong side of the street, as do cyclists making their way to the path. Wrong-way bicycle travel is a major cause of vehicle/bicycle crashes;
(c) At intersections, motorists crossing the path often do not notice bicyclists approaching from certain directions, especially where sight distances are poor;
(d) Bicyclists on the path are required to stop or yield at cross-streets and driveways, unless otherwise posted;
(e) Stopped vehicles on a cross-street or driveway may block the path;
(f) Because of the closeness of vehicle traffic to opposing bicycle traffic, barriers are often necessary to separate motorists from cyclists. These barriers serve as obstructions, complicate facility maintenance and waste available right-of-way; and
(g) Paths directly adjacent to high-volume roadways diminish users’ experience by placing them in an uncomfortable environment. This could lead to a path’s underutilization.
(2) Shared use paths can successfully be placed along roadways; provided, several design considerations are met:
(a) A minimum five-foot buffer should be provided between the path and roadway to address potential conflicts between motorists and path users;
(b) There are few vehicle/path user conflict points (e.g., cross-streets and driveways);
(c) There is a commitment to provide path continuity along the corridor;
(d) The path can be terminated at each end onto streets with good bicycle and pedestrian facilities or onto another safe, well-designed path though appropriate street crossing treatments; and
(e) The path should not take the place of bicycle/pedestrian facilities (e.g., sidewalks and bike lanes) on the parallel street.
(C) Sidewalks as shared use paths.
(1) Utilizing or providing a sidewalk as a shared use path is unsatisfactory for several reasons. Sidewalks are typically designed for pedestrian speeds and maneuverability and are not safe for higher bicycle speeds. Conflicts are common between pedestrians traveling at low speeds (e.g., exiting stores, parked cars and the like) and bicyclists, as are conflicts with fixed objects (e.g., utility poles, mailboxes, parked cars extending into the sidewalk from a driveway). Walkers, joggers, skateboarders and in-line skaters can (and often do) change their speed and direction almost instantaneously, leaving bicyclists insufficient reaction time to avoid collisions.
(2) Similarly, pedestrians often have difficulty predicting the direction an oncoming cyclist will take. At intersections, motorists are often not looking for bicyclists (who are traveling at higher speeds than pedestrians) entering a crosswalk area, particularly when motorists are making a turn. Sight distance is often impaired by buildings, walls, fences and shrubs along sidewalks, especially at driveways. In addition, bicyclists and pedestrians often prefer to ride or walk side-by-side when traveling in pairs. Sidewalks are typically too narrow to enable this to occur without serious conflict between users.
(3) It should also be noted that developing extremely wide sidewalks does not necessarily add to the safety of sidewalk bicycle travel. Wide sidewalks might encourage higher speed bicycle use and can increase the potential for conflicts with motorists at intersections.
(D) Path/roadway crossings.
(1) Like most bicycle and pedestrian systems in built urban areas, non-motorized users in the city must cross roadways at certain points. While at-grade crossings create a potentially high level of conflict between bicyclists and pedestrians and motorists, well-designed crossings have not historically posed a safety problem. In most cases, intersection crossings can be properly designed at-grade to a reasonable degree of safety and meet existing traffic and safety standards.
(2) Evaluation of intersections involves analysis of vehicular and anticipated path user traffic patterns, including vehicle speeds, traffic volumes (e.g., average daily traffic and peak hour traffic), street width, sight distance and user profile (e.g., age distribution, destinations served). Crossing features for all roadways include warning signs both for vehicles and path users. The type, location and other criteria are identified in AASHTO’s Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and the MUTCD. Consideration must be given for adequate warning distance based on vehicle speeds and line of sight, with visibility of any signing absolutely critical. Catching the attention of motorists jaded to roadway signs may require additional alerting devices such as a flashing light, roadway striping or changes in pavement texture. Care must be taken not to place too many signs at crossings lest they begin to lose their impact.
(3) The following section identifies several roadway crossing treatments that should be considered for the city’s bicycle and pedestrian system.
(a) Roadway crossing prototypes.
1. The proposed intersection approach that follows is based on established standards, published technical reports (Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Report, “Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations”) and experiences from cities around the country (in particular, the recommendations in this report are based in part on experiences in cities like Portland (OR), Seattle (WA), Tucson (AZ) and Sacramento (CA), among others). Intersection crossings generally will fit into one of four basic categories:
a. Type 1: Marked/Unsignalized; Type 1+: Marked/Enhanced;
b. Type 2: Route Users to Existing Signalized Intersection;
c. Type 3: Signalized/Controlled; and
d. Type 4: Grade-Separated Crossings.
2. Although the city’s predominantly rural character may not create the need for some of the more intensive crossing treatments described below, their inclusion in this plan is intended to provide additional guidance on path/roadway crossing design.
(b) Type 1. Marked/Unsignalized Crossings.
1. A marked/unsignalized crossing (Type 1) consists of a crosswalk, signage, and often no other devices to slow or stop traffic. The approach to designing crossings at mid-block locations depends on an evaluation of vehicular traffic, line of sight, use patterns, vehicle speed, road type and width and other safety issues such as proximity to schools. The following thresholds recommend where unsignalized crossings may be acceptable:
a. Maximum traffic volumes:
i. <9,000-12,000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes;
ii. Up to 15,000 ADT on two-lane roads, preferably with a median; and
iii. Up to 12,000 ADT on four-lane roads with median.
b. Maximum travel speed: 35 mph; and
c. Minimum line of sight:
i. 25 MPH zone: 155 feet;
ii. 35 MPH zone: 250 feet; and
iii. 45 MPH zone: 360 feet.
2. On two-lane Local and Collector streets below 15,000 ADT with average vehicle speeds of 35 mph or less, crosswalks and warning signs (“Path Xing”) should be provided to warn motorists, with engineering judgment used to determine the appropriate level of traffic control and design.
(c) Type 1 Enhanced (Type 1+).
1. If well-designed, crossings of multi-lane higher-volume arterials over 15,000 ADT may be unsignalized with features such as a combination of some or all of the following: excellent sight distance, sufficient crossing gaps (more than 60 per hour), median refuges, and/or active warning devices like flashing beacons or in-pavement flashers. These are referred to as “Type 1 Enhanced” (Type 1+). Such crossings would not be appropriate however, if a significant number of school children used the identified route. Furthermore, both existing and potential future non-motorized traffic volumes should be taken into consideration.
2. On roadways with low to moderate traffic volumes (<12,000 ADT) and a need to control traffic speeds, a raised crosswalk may be the most appropriate crossing design to improve pedestrian visibility and safety. These crosswalks are raised 75 millimeters above the roadway pavement (similar to speed humps) to an elevation matching the adjacent sidewalk. The top of the crosswalk is flat and typically made of asphalt, patterned concrete or brick pavers. Brick or unit pavers should be used sparingly due to potential problems related to pedestrians, bicyclists and ADA requirements for a continuous, smooth, vibration-free surface. Detectable warning strips are needed at the sidewalk/street boundary so that visually-impaired pedestrians can identify the edge of the street.
(d) Type 2: Route Users to Existing Signalized Intersection. Where paths intersect roadways within 250 feet of an existing signalized intersection with pedestrian crosswalks, users are typically diverted to the signalized intersection for safety purposes. For this option to be effective, barriers and signing may be needed to direct trail users to the signalized crossing. In most cases, signal modifications would be made to add pedestrian detection and to comply with ADA requirements. The following figure shows an example Type 2 crossing treatment.
(e) Type 3: Signalized/Controlled Crossings.
1. New signalized crossings may be recommended for crossings that meet pedestrian, school or modified warrants, are located more than 250 feet from an existing signalized intersection and where 85th percentile travel speeds are 40 mph and above, and/or ADT exceeds 15,000 vehicles.
2. Each crossing, regardless of traffic speed or volume, requires additional review by a registered engineer to identify sight lines, potential impacts on traffic progression, timing with adjacent signals.
3. The maximum delay for activation of the signal should be two minutes, with minimum crossing times determined by the width of the street.
4. As described in the “Half Signalized Crossings” section earlier in this chapter, various types of pedestrian signals exist and can be used at Type 3 crossings.
(f) Type 4: Grade-Separated Crossings.
1. Grade-separated crossings may be needed where existing bicycle/pedestrian crossings do not exist, where ADT exceeds 25,000 vehicles, and where 85th percentile speeds exceed 45 mph.
2. Grade-separated crossings are expensive and create additional concerns, including safety, ADA accessibility, drainage and maintenance.
(E) Soft surface trails.
(1) (a) Soft surface trails typically serve walkers and joggers, and may also accommodate equestrians and cross-country skiers.
(b) Soft surface trails can be considered when a trail is desired next to a natural resource or if the expected use will be minimal.
(c) They are also appropriate where a paved trail would be incompatible with the surroundings.
(d) Soft surface trails should take into account issues such as drainage, erosion, compaction/impaction from anticipated use, presence of waterways and sensitive riparian areas and habitat areas.
(e) They should be designed to minimize illegal activity and trash dumping.
(2) (a) Trail width will depend on the number and characteristics of intended users and the width of available right-of-way.
(b) For example, narrower paths intended only for walking use may be necessary in constrained areas.
(c) Larger areas with natural trails (e.g., natural parks and green spaces) should have a complimentary accessible route that meets or exceeds ADA standards in addition to the natural trail.
(d) A soft surface trail should have a five- to eight-foot trail width, and can be as narrow as three feet if constraints exist.
(3) (a) The trail width should include two-foot shoulders where possible, which can be planted with a bio-swale or low shrubbery.
(b) This area is meant to prevent the tunnel effect that can occur if fences directly abut the trail’s edge.
(c) Clearance to overhead obstructions should be eight feet minimum, with ten feet of clearance recommended.
(F) Path amenities. A variety of amenities can make a path inviting to the user. The following sections highlight some common items that make path systems stand out. Costs vary depending on the design and materials selected for each amenity.
(1) Interpretive installations.
(a) Interpretive installations and signs can enhance users’ experience by providing information about the history of Joseph and the surrounding area.
(b) Installations can also discuss local ecology, environmental concerns, and other educational information.
(2) Water fountains and bike parking. Water fountains provide water for people (and pets, in some cases) and bike racks allow recreational users to safely park their bikes if they wish to stop along the way, particularly at parks and other desirable destinations.
(3) Pedestrian-scale lighting and furniture. Pedestrian-scale lighting improves safety and enables the facility to be used year-round. It also enhances the aesthetics of the path. Lighting fixtures should be consistent with other light fixtures in the city, possibly emulating a historic theme. Providing benches at key rest areas and viewpoints encourages people of all ages to use the path by ensuring that they have a place to rest along the way. Benches can be simple (e.g., wood slates) or more ornate (e.g., stone, wrought iron or concrete).
(4) Maps and signage. A comprehensive signing system makes a path system stand out. Informational kiosks with maps at trailheads and other pedestrian generators can provide enough information for someone to use the network with little introduction - perfect for areas with high out-of-area visitation rates.
(5) Art installations. Local artists can be commissioned to provide art for the path system, making it uniquely distinct. Many path art installations are functional as well as aesthetic, as they may provide places to sit and play on.
(6) Landscaping. Landscape features, including street trees or trees along paths, can enhance the visual environment and improve the path user experience. Trees can also provide shade from heat and also provide protection from rain and snow.
(7) Restrooms. Restrooms benefit path users, especially in more remote areas where other facilities do not exist. Restrooms can be sited at major trailheads or at other strategic locations along the path system.
(G) Path safety and security.
(1) Various design and programmatic measures can be taken to address safety issues on a shared use path.
(2) The following table summarizes key safety issues and strategies for minimizing impacts.
Path Safety and Security Recommendations | |
Safety Issue | Recommended Improvements |
Path Safety and Security Recommendations | |
Safety Issue | Recommended Improvements |
Crime | • Manage vegetation so that the corridor can be visually surveyed from adjacent streets and residences • Select shrubs that grow below 3’ in height and trees that branch out greater than 6’ in height • Place lights strategically and as necessary • Place benches and other path amenities at locations with good visual surveillance and high activity • Provide mileage markers at quarter-mile increments and clear directional signage for orientation • Create a Path Watch Program involving local residents • Proactive law enforcement; utilize the corridor for mounted patrol training |
Litter and dumping | • Post path rules encouraging pack-it-in/pack-it-out etiquette • Place garbage receptacles at trailheads • Strategically-placed lighting, utilizing light shields to minimize unwanted light in adjacent homes • Manage vegetation within the right-of-way to allow good visual surveillance of the path from adjacent properties and from roadway/path intersections • Encourage local residents to report incidents as soon as they occur • Remove dumpsites as soon as possible |
Local on-street parking | • Post local residential streets as parking for local residents only to discourage path user parking. Place “no outlet” and “no parking” signs prior to path access points |
Privacy of adjacent property owners | • Encourage the use of neighborhood friendly fencing and also planting of landscape buffers • Clearly mark path access points • Post path rules that encourage respect for private property • Strategically placed lighting |
Trailhead safety | • Clearly identify trailhead access areas |
Trespassing | • Clearly distinguish public path right-of-way from private property through the use of vegetative buffers and the use of good neighbor type fencing • Post path rules that encourage respect for private property |
Unwanted vehicle access on the path | • Utilize landscaping to define the corridor edge and path, including earth berms and large boulders • Use bollards at intersections • Pass a motorized vehicle prohibited ordinance and sign the path • Create a Path Watch Program and encourage citizens to report illegal vehicle use of the corridor • Lay the trail out with curves that allow bike/ped passage, but are uncomfortably tight for automobile passage |
Vandalism | • Select benches, bollards, signage and other site amenities that are durable, low maintenance and vandal resistant • Respond through removal or replacement in rapid manner • Keep a photo record of all vandalism and turn over to local law enforcement • Encourage local residents to report vandalism • Create a Path Watch Program; maintain good surveillance of the corridor • Involve neighbors in path projects to build a sense of ownership • Place amenities (benches, etc.) in well used and highly visible areas |
(H) Community involvement with safety on the path. Creating a safe path environment goes beyond design and law enforcement and should involve the entire community. The most effective and most visible deterrent to illegal activity on the city’s path system will be the presence of legitimate path users. Getting as many “eyes on the corridor” as possible is a key deterrent to undesirable activity. There are several components to accomplishing this as outlined below.
(1) Provide good access to the path. Access ranges from providing conveniently located trailheads along the path, to encouraging the construction of sidewalks to accommodate access from private developments adjacent to the path. Access points should be inviting and signed so as to welcome the public onto the path.
(2) Good visibility from adjacent neighbors. Neighbors adjacent to the path can potentially provide 24-hour surveillance of the path and can become the city’s biggest ally. Though some screening and setback of the path is needed for privacy of adjacent neighbors, complete blocking out of the path from neighborhood view should be discouraged. This eliminates the potential of neighbors’ “eyes on the path” and could result in a “tunnel effect” for users on the path.
(3) High level of maintenance. A well-maintained path sends a message that the community cares about the public space. This message alone will discourage undesirable activity along the path.
(4) Programmed events. Community events along the path will help increase public awareness and thereby attract more people to use the path. Neighbors and residents can help organize numerous public events, which will increase support for the path. Events might include a day-long path clean up or a series of short interpretive walks led by long time residents or a park naturalist.
(5) Community projects. The support generated by community groups could be further capitalized by involving neighbors and friends of the path in a community project. Ideas for community projects include volunteer planting events, art projects, interpretive research projects, or even bridge building events. These community projects are the strongest means of creating a sense of ownership along the path that is perhaps the strongest single deterrent to undesirable activity along the path.
(6) Adopt-a-Path Program. Nearby businesses, community institutions, and residential neighbors often see the benefit of their involvement in path development and maintenance. Businesses and developers may view the path as an integral piece of their site planning and be willing to take on some level of responsibility for the path. Creation of an adopt-a-path program should be explored to capitalize on this opportunity and build civic pride.
(7) Path Watch Program. Partnering with local and county law enforcement, a path watch program would provide an opportunity for local residents to become actively involved in crime prevention along the city’s path system. Similar to neighborhood watch programs, residents are brought together to get to know their neighbors, and are educated on how to recognize and report suspicious activity.
(Ord. passed 6- -2009)