Bicycle / Pedestrian

Design Treatments & Criteria:

At Grade and Separated Pedestrian Crossings &
On-Street Bicycle Lane Configurations

Prepared for:
Hillsborough County’s
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
601 E. Kennedy Boulevard
Tampa, Florida

Prepared By:
Volkert & Associates, Inc.
Angelo Rao, P.E.
3409 W. Lemon Street
Tampa, Florida 33607
(813) 875 – 1365

May 17, 2004

Hillsborough County MPO Page 1 of 21

Bicycle / Pedestrian Crossings & Lane Configurations
May 17, 2004
 Table of Contents

Page No.

A. INTRODUCTION ….....................................................................................4

B. PEDESTRIAN CROSSING GUIDELINES...............................................5

1. Methodology..........................................................................................5
2. Study Analysis.......................................................................................5
a. Pedestrian Grade Separated Crossings...................................5
b. Pedestrian At Grade Crossings ................................................6
3. Proposed Warrant/Criteria Model .....................................................9
4. Innovative Pedestrian Solutions......................................................10

C. BICYCLE LANE RESTRIPING GUIDELINES ......................................12

1. Methodology........................................................................................12
2. Study Analysis.....................................................................................12
a. Current Minimum Travel Lane Widths................................12
3. Proposed Criteria for Determination of Minimum
Acceptable Travel Lane Widths .......................................................15

D. CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................................................19

E. RECOMMENDATION ...............................................................................19

Hillsborough County MPO Page 2 of 21

Bicycle / Pedestrian Crossings & Lane Configurations
May 17, 2004
 List of Tables
Page No.

1. Summary of Minimum Pedestrian Crossings for Warranting

Crosswalks ..................................................................................................11
2. Summary of Minimum Standards Travel Lane Widths.......................13
3. Minimum Travel Lane Widths Urban Section w/o On-street
Parking …………........................................................................................16
3a. Remaining Roadway Treatment Urban Section w/o On-street
Parking ………............................................................................................16
4. Minimum Travel Lane Widths Urban Section w/ On-street
Parking …………........................................................................................17
4a. Remaining Roadway Treatment Urban Section w/ On-street
Parking ………............................................................................................17
5. Minimum Travel Lane Widths Rural Section
……………………………….......................................................................18
5a. Remaining Roadway Treatment Rural
Section……………………………..............................................................18

List of Figures

1. Probability of Pedestrian Fatality with Increasing Vehicle

SPEED ............................................................................................................4

List of Appendices ................................................................................................21

Hillsborough County MPO Page 3 of 21

Bicycle / Pedestrian Crossings & Lane Configurations
May 17, 2004
A. INTRODUCTION

The Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)

considers the safety of its citizens paramount. Figure No. 1 demonstrates
the danger pedestrians [and bicyclists] face as traffic speeds increase.

In response to these safety concerns and the need to provide more efficient
use of existing roadway rights-of-way, the MPO strives to provide an
environment that encourages balance between conventional (single
occupant private vehicles and other transportation modes) and non-
conventional (walking, bicycling and transit patronage) modes of
transportation

The MPO, using engineering consultant resources, has developed

guidelines for overall safe pedestrian crossing treatments for at-grade,
overpass and underpass crossings; and developed of a policy and
guidelines for institutionalizing the inclusion of bicycle lanes during the
resurfacing of local government roadways. This report details the results
of these investigations and provides matrices and background
documentation that should encourage transportation professionals to
consider the implementation of appropriate pedestrian crossings and
bicycle lanes on existing roadways.

Figure No. 1
Probability of Pedestrian Fatality with Increasing Vehicle Speed

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
20 MPH 30 MPH 40 MPH

Publication No. FHWA-SA-00-010

Hillsborough County MPO Page 4 of 21

Bicycle / Pedestrian Crossings & Lane Configurations
May 17, 2004
B. PEDESTRIAN CROSSING GUIDELINES

1. Methodology

The consultant conducted an international literature review of

pedestrian crossing treatments currently in practice. (see Appendix
“B”) These treatments have been adopted by State and local
governments or have been implemented on experimental bases
requiring further review. Considering the applications of these
treatments and their effectiveness in enhancing pedestrian/motorist
interaction, matrices have been developed, demonstrating suitable
pedestrian treatments for various roadway configurations.

Land use, facilities, and traffic characteristics such as the number of

pedestrians and vehicles have been considered in the development of
these matrices.

2. Study Analysis

a. Pedestrian Grade Separated Crossings:

The effectiveness of grade separated crossings depends on the

user’s perception of accessibility and ease of crossing. Often times
it is perceived to be more efficient to cross at grade than to use an
overpass. Users weigh the perceived safety benefits against effort
and time issues. To maximize the use of grade separated crossings,
they should be located in the normal or expected path of major
pedestrian movements. Guidance design (bushes, fences, medians)
is sometimes needed to funnel pedestrians along a path directing
them to the structure. The basic types of such crossings are noted
below.

i) Pedestrian Overpasses/Bridges

Typically designed for non-motorized users over roadways

with stairs or ramps provided. Depending on topography,
the road may be depressed and the bridge is at ground level.

Hillsborough County MPO Page 5 of 21

Bicycle / Pedestrian Crossings & Lane Configurations
May 17, 2004
 ii) Skywalks/Skyways

Connecting buildings at mid-block usually at the second or

third level.

iii) Pedestrian Tunnels/Underpasses

Stairs or ramps lead down to a below-grade passageway.

Depending on topography, the road may be elevated and
the underpass is at ground level.

iv) Below-Grade Pedestrian Networks

These consist of extensive underground walkways usually

accessible from downtown buildings and often subway
stations. “Underground Cities” can be developed with
shops, restaurants, offices and in limited capacities –
residences.

Underpasses and overpasses normally require about a 10 and 20

feet of vertical clearance respectively. Also, underpasses may
create some security problems as well as topographical or water
table problems. Overpasses are very expensive to build and
require side and top fencing to prevent throwing of objects.

Determining the need for a grade separated crossing can be

facilitated by the adoption of warrants or criteria for their
installation. Appendix “G” provides qualitative and quantitative
analysis and criteria associated with the decision requirements to
install pedestrian overpasses or underpasses.

b. Pedestrian At Grade Crossings

Land use plays a crucial role in the opportunities and propensity of

pedestrians to cross streets at specific points. Corridors with
scattered land use such as in rural locations make it difficult to
predict where pedestrians will cross. Conversely, concentrated

Hillsborough County MPO Page 6 of 21

Bicycle / Pedestrian Crossings & Lane Configurations
May 17, 2004
 urban environments provide logical crossing points where
expectation is high for pedestrians to cross (shopping areas,
schools, parks, and government institutions to name a few).
Transit stops in terms of locations and transfer points as well as
traffic signal spacing play a role in providing a degree of comfort,
appropriate walking distances, and security to pedestrians
(patrons).

Our research has revealed that there are no clear industry-wide

warrants or criteria for the installation of uncontrolled and mid-
block crossings. However, we note below some guidelines that
have been developed.

i) Guidelines for installing crosswalks at uncontrolled and mid-block

crossings. (Source: C.V. Zegeer, Chapel Hill, as presented in the
Institute of Transportation Engineer’s compilation:
“Alternative Treatments for At-Grade Pedestrian Crossings”,
(2001). This guideline is shown in Appendix “A”; it provides
for quick analysis on an “Install / Do Not Install” approach for
crosswalks based on traffic volume, pedestrian volume, speed
limit, roadway configuration, and other characteristics.

ii) Guidelines for the installation of Marked Crosswalks Used in San

Luis Obispo, California, as presented in the Institute of
Transportation Engineer’s compilation: “Alternative Treatments for
At-Grade Pedestrian Crossings”, (2001). Notwithstanding other
details associated with their local design, the basic guidelines
for installation are as follows.

• Pedestrian volume: 40 or more per hour during peak hour

pedestrian use, or 30 groupings of two or more pedestrians
for a continuous 2-hour period twice/day; and
• The 85th percentile approach speed is below 40 mph; and
• The roadway has fewer than three travel lanes per
direction; and
• The location has (or will be installed) adequate street
lighting; and

Hillsborough County MPO Page 7 of 21

Bicycle / Pedestrian Crossings & Lane Configurations
May 17, 2004
 • There is unrestricted visibility for specific distances, for
example, at a 35 mph design speed, the minimum sight
distance would be 250 feet; and
• For residential streets, an ADT of 2,700 or more is required;
and
• No controlled crosswalk (signal or “Stop” sign) is within
656 feet of the proposed location.

iii) Installation Criteria: Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations as

presented in the City of St. Petersburg, Florida “CITY TRAILS
Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan”, (2003). Crosswalks must meet
the following five criteria for the installation of a marked
crosswalk.

• High pedestrian locations: more than 24 pedestrians per

hour during peak periods (should exceed 24 for at least
two hours per day) or regular use by children, seniors or
persons with reduced mobility). Numbers of crossing by
vulnerable pedestrians should exceed 12 crossings a day.
• Two way traffic counts of over 300 vehicles per hour
during times when most pedestrians are present and /or
pedestrian-motor vehicle conflicts (Pedestrian motor
vehicle conflicts are defined as: 1. instances when the
driver of a vehicle has to engage in abrupt braking, has to
swerve to avoid striking a pedestrian, or if a pedestrian has
to take sudden evasive action to avoid being struck. This
type of conflict has been shown to be highly correlated
with crash frequency (Lord, 1996). 2. The pedestrian being
rapped [“trapped”] in the roadway with vehicles passing
ahead and behind him/her for a period greater than 15
seconds), or a history of events at an unmarked crosswalk
plotted using GIS software and analyzed using PBCAT
crash typing tools).
• Locations where the next crossing is more than 300 feet
away.
• The stopping distance for vehicles traveling at mean or
mode vehicle speed should be no greater than 234 feet.
This distance should be calculated using the signal timing
formula. This corresponds to a mean or mode speed of 40

Hillsborough County MPO Page 8 of 21

Bicycle / Pedestrian Crossings & Lane Configurations
May 17, 2004
 mph with no grade. Crosswalks should not be installed at
uncontrolled locations if the stopping distance for vehicles
traveling at the mean or mode speed is greater than 234 ft.
If the stopping distance for vehicles traveling the mode
speed is greater than 234 ft, a crosswalk should not be
installed unless the stopping distance for vehicles traveling
at the mode speed can be reduced through traffic calming
measures or speed enforcement.
• The 85th percentile speed should not exceed 45 mph.

It is clear that each jurisdiction takes a local approach to managing

the installation of uncontrolled crosswalks. However, in general
terms, the principles are very similar: pedestrian volumes, traffic
volumes, sight distance, roadway configuration, and vehicle speeds
are common elements. It appears that the San Luis Obispo,
California and the City of St. Petersburg, Florida criteria are
somewhat less restrictive.

3. Proposed Warrant/Criteria Model

There is a downside to using pedestrian volume as a way to

measure pedestrian activity. For example when a location is near a
logical demand based on land use such as the proximity of schools,
places of employment, transit routes, and parks to name a few, yet
the crossing is hazardous and therefore avoided.

The MPO’s Pedestrian Demand Assessment methodology predicts the

greatest potential for pedestrian activity and is more realistic than
using pedestrian volume for the development of pedestrian
crossing warrant/criteria charts.

Taking best practices from the research and the MPO Pedestrian
Plan, enhanced pedestrian at-grade crossings are recommended
under these conditions:

• Latent demand score of 4 or greater or if the corridor is

identified as a Pedestrian Improvement Corridor in the
Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan.

Hillsborough County MPO Page 9 of 21

Bicycle / Pedestrian Crossings & Lane Configurations
May 17, 2004
 • The next nearest controlled crossing (traffic signal or “stop”
sign) is more than 300 feet away.
• The 85th percentile approach speed should not exceed 45 mph.
• The roadway has no more than four travel lanes per direction
with a median for pedestrian refuge
• The location has or will have adequate street lighting.
• There is unrestricted visibility for specific distances (for
example, at a 35 mph design speed, the minimum sight distance
would be 250 feet).

Table No.1 provides criteria for Overpass/Underpass

considerations.

4. Innovative Pedestrian Solutions

Several “communication” methods enhancing the crossing safety of

pedestrians and bicyclists are available. These have been
successfully used in other communities. A short list is noted below
supplemented by a more detailed list in Appendices “D”, “E”, and
“F”.

• In-Pavement Lighting
• Raised medians with staggered pedestrian approaches
• Raised intersections
• Raised crosswalks
• Curb extensions (reduced crossing exposure)
• Count-down pedestrian signals
• In-Street “Yield to Pedestrian Signs”
• “Yield” Pavement Markings w/ “Yield” Signs

Hillsborough County MPO Page 10 of 21

Bicycle / Pedestrian Crossings & Lane Configurations
May 17, 2004
 Table No. 1
Pedestrian Overpasses and Underpasses
Warrants/Criteria

CRITERIA – Overpasses/Underpasses
OVERPASSES QUALITATIVE CONSIDERATIONS
High Volume of pedestrian and vehicle traffic, virtual lack of gaps for
pedestrians, crime concerns that dissuade pedestrians from using a • The at-grade latent demand score for pedestrian
crossing point. traffic is 7 or greater
• Greater than 10,000 vehicles in same 4 hour
period or ADT > 35,000 for speeds over 40 mph in
Across roads with high speeds even if gaps are more available, urban areas. If not met, the vehicle volume
particularly near schools, sporting or entertainment centers. should be > 7,500 in 4 hours or ADT > 25,000.
The connection of two activity centers where highways separate them; it • Maintain 600 feet between safe (signal, controlled
is preferred to cross at the second floor level. grade crossing, O/P U/P) crossings.
Bridges should be at least 10 feet wide, open and well lit with minimal • Barrier to discourage at-grade crossing at O/P
use of stairs or ramps. U/P location.
• Topographical changes should be minimal to keep
Engage commercial kiosks to minimize crime. costs down.
Highly desirable when used in conjunction with a multi-use trail. In this
case, stairs/ramps will most likely be used as this effort is minimal • Land use may dictate the need for grade
relative to the overall trail use. separation.
• Funding should be in place prior to construction
ADA standards must be met. commitment.
Tunnels must be well lit with vandal resistant walls (artwork or glazing is
UNDERPASSES best). • Formal Benefit/Cost analysis should be applied.
Best to have each end visible by altering the elevation accordingly.
Commercial kiosks, entertainment complexes or other activity centers
should be encouraged, particularly for long tunnels.
Drainage issues must be considered to provide a dry environment for its
users.
ADA standards must be met.

Source: Florida Pedestrian Planning and Design Handbook, April 1999 – Modified for Pedestrian Latent Demand Score

Hillsborough County MPO Page 11 of 21

Bicycle / Pedestrian Crossings & Lane Configurations
May 17, 2004
C. BICYCLE LANE RESTRIPING GUIDELINES

1. Methodology

This study includes the development of a policy that provides for the
safe inclusion of bicycle lanes as part of the normal resurfacing
process. To effectively develop guidelines suitable for transportation
practitioners to use on a day-to-day basis, a thorough review of the
existing national and state acceptable roadway lane widths was
conducted.

A series of matrices have been developed articulating acceptable

roadway lane widths that would provide space for designated or
undesignated bicycle lanes. It should be pointed out that land use,
facilities, traffic characteristics and roadway configurations were also
considered in the development of these matrices.

To further assist the practitioner in quantifying the costs of

implementing bicycle lanes on resurfacing projects, estimates of per
mile costs of the various restriping configurations have been made.
These cost estimates (2004 rates) include restriping by grinding and re-
painting; and milling, resurfacing and re-painting methods.

(It should be pointed out that agencies such as the Florida Department
of Transportation (FDOT), City of Tampa, and the Hillsborough
County Public Works Department have specific programs that
consider and implement bicycle lanes where feasible.)

2. Study Analysis

a. Current Minimum Travel Lane Widths

Several documents have been published by various authorities

providing, among other things, standard minimum travel lane
widths. Table No. 2 summarizes these features.

Hillsborough County MPO Page 12 of 21

Bicycle / Pedestrian Crossings & Lane Configurations
May 17, 2004
 Table No. 2
Summary of Minimum Standards
Travel Lane Widths

Standard Roadway Type (Minimum Lane Width in Feet) *

Major Minor Collectors Local Bike
Arterials Arterials lanes
Manual of Uniform
Minimum Standards for 11 11 11 10 4/5
Design, Construction and
Maintenance for Streets
and Highways – “Florida
Greenbook”(May 2002)
Plans Preparation Manual,
Volume I (Jan.2003) 11 11 11 N/A 4/5
Plans Preparation Manual,
(Transportation Design for 10 10 10 10 4/5
Livable Communities -
2003)
American Association of
State Highway and 11 11 10 10 4/5
Transportation Officials,
Policy on Geometric
Design of Highways and
Streets (2001)
Manual of Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (2003) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Hillsborough County –
Transportation Technical 12 12 10 10 4/5
Manual (2003)
Florida Intersection
Design Guide (2002) 12 11 11 10 4/5

* Minimum from charts and respective notes such as design speeds under 40 mph, truck
volume 10% or less, and interrupted flow conditions. See appendices for detailed charts.

Clearly, a variety of minimum lane widths have been adopted by these

authorities. Further, it is obvious that the use and purpose of the
specific bicycle lane installation (balancing the needs of through traffic)
Hillsborough County MPO Page 13 of 21
Bicycle / Pedestrian Crossings & Lane Configurations
May 17, 2004
 and its resultant travel lane alterations will assist the practitioner in
deciding on an ultimate overall lane configuration

3. Proposed Criteria for Determination of Minimum Acceptable Travel

Lane Widths

In determining appropriate travel lane and bicycle lane design

treatments, it is generally accepted that six factors are most often cited.
a. Traffic Volume:
Higher motor vehicle traffic volumes represent a greater risk to
bicyclists resulting in less comfortable driving experiences. Based
on the typical minimum lane width in the appendices and
engineering experience, the traffic volumes have been sub-divided
into three groups:
• Under 2,000 (Average Annual Daily Traffic) AADT
• 2,000 to 10,000 AADT
• 10,000 to 20,000 AADT
• Over 20,000 AADT.
b. Speed Limit:
The posted speed limit and more importantly the roadway’s
operating speed, plays an important role on risk and comfort. The
speed profile has been grouped as follows.
• 25 mph or lower
• 30, 35, or 40 mph
• 45 mph
• 50 mph and over.
c. Traffic Mix:
The degree of concentration of large vehicles can also increase the
risk and reduce comfort level of bicyclists. Accordingly, if the
quantity of large vehicles approaches and/or exceeds 10% of
AADT, in most cases, minimum travel lane widths should be
increased to the next level.
d. On-Street Parking:
The presence of on-street parallel parking increases the need for
separation between the bicyclist and through traffic. Where space
for bike lanes can be accommodated, the designated bike lane must

Hillsborough County MPO Page 14 of 21

Bicycle / Pedestrian Crossings & Lane Configurations
May 17, 2004
 be at least 5.0 feet wide. Further, it may be necessary to increase
the width of a travel lane adjacent to a bike lane. This increase is
particularly necessary with increasing speeds and traffic volume.
e. Sight Distance:
Care should be taken to ensure that adequate sight distance
between the motorist and the bicyclist exists.
f. Number of Intersections:
Generally, the number and frequency of intersections should be
taken into account when considering bike treatments. Transitional
issues such as relating to right turning vehicles and congestion at
signalized intersections may increase risk and discomfort levels.

Considering each of these factors and the minimum travel lane widths
as noted in Table No. 2 and detailed in the appendices, tables have
been developed to assist practitioners in determining the appropriate
bicycle treatments. Tables Number 3, 4, and 5 provide minimum
travel lane widths and their companion Tables Numbered. 3a, 4a, and
5a, indicate the relative remaining roadway treatments.

Hillsborough County MPO Page 15 of 21

Bicycle / Pedestrian Crossings & Lane Configurations
May 17, 2004
 Table No.3
Minimum Travel Lane Widths
Urban Section w/o On-street Parking

Average Annual Daily Traffic Volume

< 2,000 2,000-10,000 10,000-20,000 >20,000
Speed Limit Min. Travel Min. Travel Min. Travel Min. Travel
(mph) Lane Lane Lane (ft) Lane
(ft) (ft) (ft)
25 and lower 10 10 11 11
30-40 10 11 11 12
45 11 11 12 12
50 and over 12 12 12 12

For Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation (RRR) projects, a minimum

of 10 feet (11 feet if trucks 10% or more) may be used for all traffic volumes
and all design speeds; for multi-lane use 11 foot lane adjacent to portion in
Table 3a. Note January 1, 2004 Plans Preparation Manual, Section 25.4.5 for
details.

Table No. 3a
Remaining Roadway Treatment
Urban Section w/o On-street Parking

Remaining Roadway (per direction) Treatment

0 – 1.9 feet Paint Line at Edge of Pavement (EOP)
**
2.0 – 3.9 feet Paint Line Left of EOP
4.0 or more + Paint/Sign Designated Bike Lane
** Optional for traffic calming purposes, paint a continuous white line left of
Edge of Pavement.
+ Not including gutter.

Note: “Bike Route” and/or “Share the Road” signs may be installed if such
routes have been adopted and mapped by the local jurisdiction.

Hillsborough County MPO Page 16 of 21

Bicycle / Pedestrian Crossings & Lane Configurations
May 17, 2004
 Table No. 4
Minimum Travel Lane Widths
Urban Section w/ On-street Parking

Average Annual Daily Traffic Volume

< 2,000 2,000-10,000 10,000-20,000 >20,000
Speed Limit Min. Travel Min. Travel Min. Travel Min. Travel
(mph) Lane Lane Lane (ft) Lane
(ft) (ft) (ft)
25 and lower 10 10 11 12
30-40 10 11 12 12
45 11 12 12 12
50 and over 12 12 12 12

For RRR projects, a minimum of 10 feet (11 feet if trucks 10% or more) may be
used for all traffic volumes and all design speeds; for multi-lane use 11 foot
lane adjacent to portion in Table 4a. Note January 1, 2004 Plans Preparation
Manual, Section 25.4.5 for details.

Table No. 4a
Remaining Roadway Treatment
Urban Section w/ On-street Parking

Remaining Roadway (per direction) Treatment

0 – 1.9 feet Do Not Paint Line (Wider outside lane
results)
2.0 – 4.9 feet Paint Line Left of Parking Stall (PS)
5.0 or more + Paint/Sign Designated Bike Lane Lt of
PS
+ Not including gutter.

Note: “Bike Route” and/or “Share the Road” signs may be installed if such
routes have been adopted and mapped by the local jurisdiction.

Hillsborough County MPO Page 17 of 21

Bicycle / Pedestrian Crossings & Lane Configurations
May 17, 2004
 Table No. 5
Minimum Travel Lane Widths
Rural Section

Average Annual Daily Traffic Volume

< 2,000 2,000-10,000 10,000 – 20,000 >20,000

Speed Limit Min. Travel Lane Min. Travel Min. Travel Min. Travel
(mph) (ft) Lane Lane Lane
(ft) (ft) (ft)
25 and lower 10 10 11 11
30-40 10 11 11 12
45 11 12 12 12
50 and over 12 12 12 12

For RRR projects, please refer to January 1, 2004 Plans Preparation Manual,
Section 25.4.5 for details.

Table No. 5a
Remaining Roadway Treatment
Rural Section

Remaining Roadway (per direction) Treatment

0 – 1.9 feet Paint Line at Edge of Pavement
(EOP)**
2.0 – 3.9 feet Paint Line Left of EOP
4.0 or more + Paint/Sign Designated Bike Lane
** Optional for traffic calming purposes, paint a continuous white line left of
Edge of Pavement.
+ Not including gutter.

Note: “Bike Route” and/or “Share the Road” signs may be installed if such
routes have been adopted and mapped by the local jurisdiction.

Hillsborough County MPO Page 18 of 21

Bicycle / Pedestrian Crossings & Lane Configurations
May 17, 2004
D. CONCLUSION

The lack of specific implementation guidelines associated with providing

designated or undesignated bicycle lanes during resurfacing projects while
maintaining minimum travel lane widths often results in designers
maintaining the status quo configuration. Similarly, the lack of specific
pedestrian crossing criterion often results in designers not providing for mid-
block or unsignalized intersection crossings.

This report concludes that after considering the various documented

standards and guidelines in the transportation industry, that it is feasible to
develop guidelines and criteria to establish clear opportunities for the
installation of designated/undesignated bicycle lanes and pedestrian
crossings respectively. In this regard, tables have been developed to assist the
practitioner in providing suitable combinations of travel and bicycle lanes
depending on operating speed, traffic volume, parking, and land use
characteristics. Further, criteria have been identified to also assist the
practitioner in formulating clear methods to decide on the implementation of
pedestrian mid-block crossings.

These methods should be reviewed by end users and practitioners to ensure

that these recommended policies and practices are appropriate and
complement the existing policies and practices of their respective agencies.

The Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization considers the

safety of its citizens paramount. Providing additional pedestrian crossing
opportunities in association with innovative crossing treatments coupled
with the provision of appropriate combinations of travel and bicycle lanes
will go a long way to meeting this mission.

E. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That the MPO endorse the proposed criteria associated with the
installation of mid-block at-grade and grade separated pedestrian
crossings as noted in this report;

Hillsborough County MPO Page 19 of 21

Bicycle / Pedestrian Crossings & Lane Configurations
May 17, 2004
 2. That the MPO endorse the proposed matrices associated with the
application of designated and undesignated bicycle lanes as shown in
Table Nos. 3/3a, 4/4a, and 5/5a; and

3. That the MPO incorporate the criteria in the report into the update of
the 2025 LRTP. In addition, direct staff to work with the applicable
implementing agencies to formulate appropriate language, for addition to
the local government’s Comprehensive Plans and Technical Manuals, to
institutionalize these guidelines for consideration during resurfacing and
reconstruction projects throughout Hillsborough County.

Hillsborough County MPO Page 20 of 21

Bicycle / Pedestrian Crossings & Lane Configurations
May 17, 2004
 List of Appendices

A. Pedestrian Crossing Installation Guidelines

B. Pedestrian Treatments – Literature Review
C. Bicycle Treatments – Literature Review
D. Summary of Pedestrian treatments at Uncontrolled
Crossings
E. Summary of Pedestrian treatments at Signal controlled
Crossings
F. Summary of Pedestrian treatments at Signal controlled Intersection
Crossings
G. Warrants/Criteria for Overpasses and Underpasses
H. Summary of Bicycle Treatments
I. Minimum lane Widths for Bike Lanes (Florida Green Book – cross-
section)
J. Minimum lane Widths for Bike Lanes (Florida Green Book - table)
K. Minimum Lane Widths (Plans Preparation Manual)
L. Minimum Lane Widths - Special (PPM)
M. Minimum Lane Widths – TDLC (PPM)
N. Minimum Lane and Shoulder widths (PPM)
O. Minimum Lane Widths - Multi-lanes (PPM)
P. Minimum Lane Widths (Florida Intersection Design Guide)

Hillsborough County MPO Page 21 of 21

Bicycle / Pedestrian Crossings & Lane Configurations
May 17, 2004