In order for the four "Es" to be successfully implemented, the first step is citizen participation in the basic decisions that shape the road, and thus the bicycle, infrastructure in the region. Whether it is called public involvement, citizen participation, or community involvement, the concept hinges on opening up the transportation planning process to all who have an interest.

The theory of public involvement has evolved over the past 25 years, since the passage of the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act, from one of simply collecting comments, to an interactive process of individual citizens suggesting creative ways to solve problems. When put into practice the activity is not unlike an approach being taken in many successful businesses, that of de-centralizing decision-making and actively involving all employees in making those decisions that in reality affect them all.

What is new to the transportation planning process is that with the passage of ISTEA in 1991, state and local governments were thereby directed to solicit more public involvement than ever before in development and approval of their short and long-range planning documents. The key aspect of this new direction is the inclusion of local governments as well as state governments. While New York State government is now beginning to formalize its procedures for encouraging and ensuring public involvement in the transportation planning process (NYSDOT 1994), a similar procedure at the local level has yet to begin.

Specific directives in the ISTEA legislation pertaining to citizen involvement in New York include the following (among others):

One of the most common approaches for involving the public in selecting projects for funding under the Transportation Enhancements Program is the creation of special advisory committees. However, a recent analysis of project selection advisory committees in the 50 states found that citizen participation is relatively rare, with only 36 states having adopted some type of advisory committee, and only 17 of those including citizen representatives. Fortunately, New York is one of the states that includes citizens on the advisory committee (Patten and Hiemstra 1993). According to a February, 1994 update, 23 of 41 states now have citizens on their advisory committees.

The dilemma for bicycle planning in the North Country is how to coordinate citizen involvement in a regional planning effort for a region larger than Vermont and New Hampshire combined, and with political entities numbering 14 counties and 256 towns. It is here suggested, and included as one of the primary recommendations of this planning effort, that ANCA and the NYSDOT assist in the formation of a North Country Bicycle and Pedestrian Regional Advisory Committee. ANCA and NYSDOT should work closely with the Tug Hill Commission, the St. Lawrence-Lake Ontario Commission, Lake Champlain Bikeways Committee, Seaway Trails, The New York State County Highway Superintendent's Association, and others to develop a list of potential committee members, and to establish and maintain the Committee.

The success of ISTEA in effectively changing the way transportation planning is carried out in the United States hinges on its recommendations and directives being institutionalized directly into the transportation planning process. That is starting to occur at the New York State level and is reflected in the many ISTEA enhancement projects and the bicycle-friendly nature of state highway improvements around the region. Similarly, effective bicycle/pedestrian planning at the local level, planning that allows children to safely ride their bikes to school, or the family to safely bicycle out to their favorite park, depends on institutionalizing public involvement in the county, town, and village transportation planning process. The bicycle/ pedestrian advisory committees describe above will not have any regulatory power or voting privileges, rather, they will carry out some of the public participation directives of ISTEA and will contribute to community-based local transportation planning.

One important aspect in developing bicycle friendliness is recognizing that bicyclists have different skill levels, from the racer and daily bicyclist, to the child who is learning to bicycle, to the adult who is becoming re-acquainted with bicycling. The goal for North Country regional bicycle planning is to accommodate all levels of bicyclists and all age groups: from 5 to 95. This section relays the most recent, detailed description of bicyclists based on ability, and is drawn from Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicyclists (Wilkinson, et. al. 1994).

Nearly 100 million people in the United States own bicycles, however, the Bicycle Federation of America estimates that fewer than 5 percent would qualify as experienced or highly skilled bicyclists. Since the bicycle policy goal is to accommodate existing bicyclists and encourage increased bicycle use throughout the region, there will be more novice riders than advanced bicyclists using the Byways and other roads. Therefore, any roadway treatments intended to accommodate bicycle use must address the needs of both experienced and less experienced riders. One solution to this challenge is to develop the concept of a "design cyclist" and adopt a classification system for bicycle users such as the following:

While other distinctions can be added, these lists support combining groups B and C bicyclists in most situations. Therefore, a "design cyclist" concept is proposed that recognizes two broad classes of bicyclists: group A riders and group B/C riders.

Generally, group A bicyclists will be best served by designing all roadways to accommodate shared use by bicycles and motor vehicles. This can be accomplished by the following:

Generally, group B/C bicyclists (i.e., basic riders and children) will be best served by a network of neighborhood streets and designated bicycle facilities, which can be provided by the following:

Given these two types of design bicyclists, a two-tiered approach to meeting their needs is proposed.

Group A riders will be best served by making every street "bicycle-friendly." This may be accomplished by adopting highway design standards that include wide curb lanes and paved shoulders to accommodate shared use by bicycles and motor vehicles. This approach will provide adequate space for bicycles and motor vehicles to share the roadway with minimum need for changing lanes or lane position. The desired outcome is to have sufficient space to accommodate shared use by bicycles and motor vehicles with minimum delays and maximum safety for all users.

Group B/C riders will be best served by identifying key travel corridors (typically served by arterial and collector streets) and by providing designated bicycle facilities on selected routes through these corridors. These key travel corridors can be identified through the type of planning process described in section 2 of this manual.

Ideally, full implementation of this approach will result in a condition where every street on which bicycles are permitted to operate will incorporate at least the design treatments recommended for group A bicyclists. In addition, a network of primary routes in each community linking schools, libraries, shopping, and parks will be enhanced by incorporating the designated bicycle facilities recommended for group B/C bicyclists (i.e., inexperienced adults and children).

Five basic types of facilities are used to accommodate bicyclists:

Shared lane: shared motor vehicle/bicycle use of a "standard"-width travel lane.

Wide outside lane: an outside travel lane with a width of at least 14 ft (4.2 m).

Shoulder: a paved portion of the roadway to the right of the edge stripe designed to serve bicyclists.

Bike lane: a portion of the roadway designated by striping, signing, and/or pavement markings for preferential or exclusive use of bicycles.

Separate bike path: a facility physically separated from the roadway and intended for bicycle use.

An important consideration regarding the five types of facilities designs is whether or not they should be designated, by pavement markings and/or signs, as bicycle facilities. Relatively inexperienced adult riders and children, referred to as group B and C bicyclists (i.e., beginners and children), prefer designated facilities for bicycle use. Therefore, when bike lanes or shoulders are provided to serve group B/C riders, some designation should be included.

When design treatments are provided primarily to serve experienced bicyclists (i.e., group A riders) designation is optional. In some cases, it may be more desirable not to designate the facility for bicycle use. For instance, if bicycle use is permitted on the shoulder of a controlled access freeway, it is usually not appropriate to designate this roadway as a bicycle facility unless this route serves as the only link between two points.

Another consideration involves minor or marginal roadway improvements for bicyclists, such as providing a narrow (less than 4-ft [1.2-m]) shoulder. This can significantly improve riding conditions for group A bicyclists and should be considered if no better treatment is possible. However, this width is less than the minimum called for in virtually all design specifications and therefore should not be designated as a bicycle facility. Where a facility is intended to be designated as a "bicycle facility" it is essential the design conform to the State standard or American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines.

Shared lanes are streets and highways with no special provision for bicyclists. Shared lanes typically feature 12-ft (3.6-m) lane widths or less with no shoulders, allowing cars to safely pass bicyclists only by crossing the center line or moving into another traffic lane.

In residential areas with low motor vehicle traffic volumes and average motor vehicle speeds of less than 30 mi/h (48.3 km/h), this should present no problem for experienced riders, and will normally be adequate for inexperienced bicyclists to use as well if the lane width is at least 12 ft (3.6 m). Where existing lane width is less than 12 ft (3.6 m), additional lane width or lower operating speed is called for.

With higher speeds and traffic volumes, shared lanes become less attractive routes, especially to inexperienced riders. As the AASHTO Guide (1991) notes, however:

To varying extents bicycles will be ridden on all highways where they are permitted. All new highways, except those where bicyclists will be legally prohibited, should be designed and constructed under the assumption that they will be used by bicyclists. Bicycle safe design practices should be followed to avoid the necessity for costly subsequent improvements.

The AASHTO Guide goes on to note other actions by which bicycle use of shared roadways - regardless of lane widths or type of user - can be improved. Bicycle-safe drainage grates, smooth pavement, bicycle-safe railroad crossings, and traffic signals that respond to bicycles are all listed as examples.

Shared lanes do not usually require any special signing for bicyclists. One exception to requiring signage is when specific destinations or potential alternate routes for bicyclists need to be shown. Another exception is when a short gap exists between special bicycle facilities, such as between two trails, and bicyclists require signing to lead them to the next facility.

There four remaining types of bicycle facilities can improve upon shared roadways where traffic volumes or speeds make it prudent to do so. The the first three facilities allow bicyclists and motorists to operate parallel to each other in the same lane without coming too close, and without

motorists having to change lanes to pass the bicyclists.

Wide curb lanes, or wide outside lanes, can be defined as right-most through traffic lanes that are substantially wider than 12 ft (3.6 m). Most practitioners agree that 14 ft (4.2 m) is the minimum width necessary to allow a bicyclist and motorist to share the same lane without coming into conflict, changing lanes, or potentially reducing the motor vehicle capacity of the lane. Where traffic speeds exceed 40 mi/h (64.4 km/h), and when annual average daily traffic exceeds 10,000, 15- or 16 ft (4.5- or 4.8-m) lanes are considered desirable.

Wide curb lanes have three widely accepted advantages. They can:

Accommodate shared bicycle/motor vehicle use without reducing the roadway capacity for motor vehicle traffic.

Minimize both the real and perceived operating conflicts between bicycles and motor vehicles.

Increase the roadway capacity by the number of bicyclists capable of being accommodated.

Many other benefits are claimed for wide outside lanes ranging from assisting turning vehicles in entering the roadway without encroaching into another lane to better accommodating buses and other wider vehicles.

Wide outside lane require the least amount of additional maintenance of the different facilities. The sweeping effect of passing motor vehicles and routine highway maintenance is usually enough to keep the lane free of debris and in good condition for bicycling.

Wide outside lanes are especially valuable for, and often favored by, experienced riders who are not easily intimidated by high traffic volumes and speeds. These riders do not require a designated space in which to ride or designation of the street as a bike route. The same is not true for inexperienced riders and children. Except on residential or low-volume streets, wide outside lanes are not generally sufficient to provide the degree of comfort and safety required by less skilled bicyclists or children and will do little to encourage them to ride.

Wide curb lanes will be most applicable, therefore, in urban areas on major streets where group A riders will likely be operating. If no alternative route exists for group B/C riders, a bike lane or shoulder should typically be used. The Florida Department of Transportation has recently amended its policy of always providing wide curb lanes on State highways in urban areas to that of providing bike lanes.

Shoulders are also useful as places for bicyclists to ride. AASHTO and many States explicitly recognize that adding or improving shoulders is often the best way to accommodate bicyclists - especially in rural areas.

Shoulders should be a minimum of 4 ft (1.2 m) wide when designed to accommodate bicycle travel. While group A (and even some group B/C cyclists) will benefit from shoulder widths as narrow as 1 or 2 ft (.3 to .6 m), these facilities should not be signed for bicyclists if they fail to meet prevailing State and/or AASHTO guidelines (1991).

As traffic speeds increase, traffic mix includes heavier vehicles and trucks, and traffic volumes rise, added width is desirable. For example, once vehicle speeds exceed 40 mi/h (64.4 km/h) and AADT is 2,000 or more, shoulder widths should usually be increased to 6 ft (1.8 m).

In urban areas, wide curb lanes are usually preferable to shoulders for group A riders and bike lanes are usually preferable for group B/C riders. One exception will be on high-speed urban arterials (more than 50 mi/h [80 km/h]) where 6-ft (1.8-m) shoulders will serve group A riders better than wide curb lanes. Bike lanes, if used along these routes, should also be at least 6 ft (1.8 m) wide.

Bicyclists will use shoulders where they are paved and maintained to the same surface standard as regular travel lanes. Where shoulders are designated as bike facilities, it is essential to keep them in good repair and free of debris, which often means a regular inspection and maintenance program.

Other surface irregularities, such as rumble strips, textured paving, and raised lane markers and reflectors, should be avoided on routes explicitly intended for bicyclists as they can cause fall or force bicyclists to ride in the traffic lane. Where the use of rumble strips is necessary, they should be located so as to leave a portion of the shoulder free for bicyclists.

The AASHTO Guide (1991) defines a bicycle lane as:

The recommended width for a bike lane is 5 ft (1.5 m). However, the Florida DOT is currently experimenting with slightly narrower undesignated lanes in some urban areas.

Bike lane strips are intended to promote the orderly flow of traffic, by establishing specific lines of demarcation between areas reserved for bicycles and lanes to be occupied by motor vehicles. This effect is supported by bike lane signs and pavement markings. Bike lane stripes can increase bicyclists' confidence that motorists will not stray into their path of travel if they remain in the bike lane. Likewise, with more certainty as to where bicyclists will be, passing motorists are less apt to swerve towards opposing traffic in making certain they will not hit bicyclists.

The impact of marked bike lanes is particularly important for inexperienced riders. The lanes offer a designated and visible space for bicyclists and can be a significant factor in route choice. Motorists also benefit from the channeling effect of bike lanes.

Use of bike lanes does require an additional commitment to maintenance. Bike lanes must be kept free of debris and loose gravel to remain useful and safe, which may require routine sweeping beyond that necessary for streets with no bike lanes. As motor vehicles are not allowed in the lanes, they cannot sweep the debris aside as they do in ordinary (12-ft [3.6-m]) traffic lanes. The bike lane strips themselves must be maintained on a regular basis.

Bicycle lanes can complicate turning movements at intersections if they encourage bicyclists to keep right and motorists to keep left, regardless of their turning intentions. Some jurisdictions have addressed this issue by ending bike lanes in advance of intersections, or by striping the lane with a broken, rather than a solid, white line in advance of the intersection to encourage merging.

It is the conclusion the current study that bike lanes do have wide applicability, especially for group B/C riders in urban areas. When average daily traffic flows exceed 10,000 or average motor vehicle speeds exceed 30 mi/h (48.3 km/h), 5-ft (1.5-m) bike lanes will attract and serve group B/C riders better than wide outside lanes or other design treatments.

The AASHTO Guide (1991) defines a bicycle path or bike path as:

Separate bike paths may be referred to as "multi-use trails" or "greenways," even though they are slightly different facilities. A trail typically runs along an independent right of way such as an abandoned railroad corridor, and a greenway is a park-type corridor of land that may or may not incorporate a trail within its boundaries.

Two-way bike paths should be at least 10 ft (3 m) wide. Where possible, especially if a bicycle or pedestrian traffic is expected to be high, path should be a minimum of 12 ft (3.6 m) wide. Given the variety of users of most bike paths, 8-ft (2.4 m) widths will generally not be adequate. One-way bike paths have a limited application as without strict enforcement, they will be used as two-way facilities. If they are provided, however, they should be at least 5 ft (1.5 m) wide.

Bike paths are a valuable addition to the highway system and to the range of facilities available to planners and engineers seeking to improve conditions for all categories of bicyclist. They can serve both a transportation and recreation function and have proven to be significant generators of bicycle use. Both groups A and B/C riders, as well as other nonmotorized users (e.g., walker, joggers, roller bladers) can benefit from the absence of motor vehicle traffic on these paths.

Bike paths are not inherently more dangerous than other bicycle facilities if they are well designed, thoughtfully applied, and adequately maintained. For example, paths should not have their continuity destroyed by frequent motor vehicle cross flows and intersections with highways. These increase potential conflicts and are likely to make the route less popular with riders seeking to maintain momentum, particularly group A (i.e., advanced) riders.

Where adequate, uninterrupted right of way is available, separate bike paths can be used to good effect in providing long, continuous routes for commuting or recreation trips, access to destinations not otherwise available to bicyclists, and as cut-throughs between buildings and other breaks in the street network. Of special significance to the North Country is the appeal of bicycle paths as tourist destinations, currently benefiting communities around the country by attracting visitors and increasing length of visits.

The AASHTO Guide states quite simply that "Sidewalks are generally not acceptable for bicycling."

This statement is qualified by a recognition that in a few, specific instances, such as on long, narrow bridges, the designation of a sidewalk as a bicycle facility may be beneficial. Many States share this view.

Sidewalks are generally inappropriate for use by adults because they put the adult bicyclist in conflict with motorists using driveways, and with pedestrians, utility poles and signposts.

Also, the cyclists is generally not visible or noticed by the motorist so that the cyclist suddenly emerges at intersections, surprising the motorist and creating a hazardous condition.

Still relatively new to the United States, widespread neighborhood traffic calming aims to reduce the dominance and speed of motor vehicles. Measures employed to achieve this include physical alterations to the horizontal and vertical alignment of the road and changes in priority. For example, speed humps, diverters, traffic throttles, traffic islands, sidewalk extensions, and mini-traffic circles have all been utilized to calm or tame traffic. Low speed zones - for example, 20 mi/h (32.2 km/h) or lower - are often introduced along with a package of these physical changes.

In addition, other techniques such as play streets, school safety zones, mid-block medians and refuge islands, corner 'bulbouts", sidewalk widening, introducing alternative parking layouts, roundabouts/traffic circles, planters, and other designs have been developed to increase pedestrian and bicycle priority in identified "traffic calming" zones.

Traffic calming was started as a means to reduce the impact of traffic in residential neighborhoods and around schools. During the 1980's, the principles of traffic calming were extended and are now being applied to major roads in urban areas.

Four key benefits have been attributed to traffic calming:

An average one-third reduction in road accidents.

A greater feeling of security, particularly among vulnerable road users such as bicyclists and pedestrians.

Reclamation of roadway space for nontraffic activities such as play and social interaction.

Environmental improvements through landscaping and a reduction in the intrusive presence of motor vehicles.

Much of the pioneering work in this field has been in Europe, particularly Germany and the Netherlands. In areas of traffic calming in both countries it is rare to see special facilities for bicyclists since many of the benefits of traffic calming - slower vehicle speeds, better driver discipline, less traffic, environmental improvement - directly benefit bicyclists, especially group B/C riders.

Nevertheless, according to the Cyclists Touring Club in the United Kingdom:

Ill-designed traffic-calming schemes can inconvenience or even endanger cyclists. Balanced on two wheels and without the benefit of suspension, cyclists are particularly susceptible to changes in surface height and texture or may be put at risk by poorly considered road narrowing.

Careful design of traffic-calming schemes can overcome these potential pitfalls and ensure that the benefits of such work encourage bicycling and make the activity safer.

Some U.S. cities, such as Seattle, have developed traffic-calming techniques similar to those found in European countries, but not to the same geographic extent.

In the North Country, the more benign traffic calming schemes would be most easily and quickly applied. Communities should explore the use of lower speed limits on designated bicycle routes as the major traffic calming technique. If communities take the initiate to designate bicycle routes, and then along those routes: provide bicycle lanes, lower speeds, limit parking, and provide bicycle racks, the four key benefits of traffic calming will result.

Reducing speed limits is a relatively simple process if there is support in the community. On state highways, the community leaders make a request for speed reduction to the NYSDOT. On local streets and highways, the request would go to local highway officials. Small towns located on main highway routes can especially suffer from high speed traffic. The small community of Olmsteadville in Essex County, current has a 45 mph speed limit through the middle of its business district. As is often the case, 45 mph results in 50 or 55 mph traffic only a narrow shoulder away from restaurants, stores, churches, and homes.

It is possible to marginally improve some roadways for bicyclists - particularly group A riders - by providing as little as 2 ft (0.6 m) of usable riding surface to the right of the edge strip. While this will not meet the design specification necessary for a designated bicycle facility, it can provide an improved operating environment for both bicyclists and motor vehicles and will reduce the impact of bicycles on highway capacity.

Small shoulders and other marginal roadway improvements should be considered when the opportunity arises and there is no other option - such as wider shoulders, a bike lane, or wide curb lane - because of lack of space.