Chapter 4—Engineering
4.1 Complete Streets and Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS)
Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) and Complete Streets are not conflicting attitudes or
goals. They are related to each other. Complete Streets projects should be designed
with CSS in mind.
Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) is also known as Context Sensitive Design (CSD).
Both acronyms refer to the concept of taking into account the physical and social
context of the project. Much of the CSS work focuses on encouraging public
involvement during transportation projects.
“CSS is a highly effective approach to planning and designing streets, roads and
highways so that they are more sensitive to the communities and lands through
which they travel. CSS recognizes that transportation projects can be an asset for
communities and enhance the environment.” (CSS, “About” page)
The National Complete Streets Coalition suggests that: “While Context-Sensitive
Solutions involve stakeholders in considering a transportation facility in its entire
social, environmental and aesthetic context, complete streets policies are a
reminder that providing for safe travel by users of all modes is the primary function
of the corridor.” (NCSC, “FAQ” page)
Many of the stated benefits of CSS are the same as the benefits of Complete
Streets. Of the 22 stated benefits of CSS, the following are similar to Complete
Streets. (CSS, “Benefits” page)
Improved mobility for users
Improved walkability and bikeability
Improved safety (vehicles, pedestrians, and bikes)
Improved multi-modal options (including transit)
Improved speed management
Sources
Context Sensitive Solutions (n.d.). “About this Site.” Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS)
website. http://contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/topics/misc/about/
(Retrieved on Nov. 5, 2010.)
Context Sensitive Solutions (n.d.). “Benefits of CSS.” Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS)
website. http://contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/topics/what_is_css/benefits
-of-css/ (Retrieved on Nov. 5, 2010.)
National Complete Streets Coalition (n.d.). “Implementation FAQ.” National Complete
Streets Coalition website. http://www.completestreets.org/changing-policy/
implementation-faq/ (Retrieved on Nov. 5, 2010.)
1
Chapter 4—Engineering
4.2 Existing Standards and Guidelines
When designing for Complete Streets, creativity in the use of roadway elements is
encouraged. Using different design elements in an innovative way can create a costefficient project that enhances safety for all users and results in a greener
infrastructure. It is, therefore, important to allow for some flexibility when writing and
applying standards or guidelines.
There are various plans focused on statewide, regional, and local levels. While these
should be consulted, the standards and guidelines for engineering proper facilities are
most important. These provide the technical details necessary for good design. While
policy statements are helpful, they do not provide the detail required for engineering.
Links to the online documents have been provided where possible. In most cases
hard copies of the documents are available for viewing at MORPC. In some
instances they may be borrowed from MORPC as well.
Common acronyms you will encounter include AASHTO (American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials) and MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices).
As always, good engineering judgment is necessary when designing facilities.
None of the following documents can be followed blindly. The context of the
situation must always be considered.
Federal Standards and Guidelines
Compliance with federal standards and guidelines is the first step in ensuring design
meets minimal requirements. Many local and state standards may not specifically
address requirements such as ADA, since they will be covered by the federal
standards.
The AASHTO “Green Book” (Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets)
provides standards for “highway geometric design.” In practice it is used to design
roadways, including non-highway roads. The Green Book can be especially useful
when working on road diet projects. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are
mentioned briefly. The current 5th Edition AASHTO Green Book is dated 2004.
https://bookstore.transportation.org/Item_details.aspx?id=110
For bicycle facilities, the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities is
the primary reference document. The current 3rd Edition AASHTO Bicycle Facilities
document is dated 1999. An updated version is scheduled for release in 2011.
https://bookstore.transportation.org/item_details.aspx?ID=104
▲Examples of Federal Standards and Guidelines
2
Chapter 4—Engineering
4.2 Existing Standards and Guidelines
For pedestrian facilities, the AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and
Operation of Pedestrian Facilities is the primary reference document. The current
1st Edition AASHTO Pedestrian Facilities document is dated 2004. https://
bookstore.transportation.org/item_details.aspx?ID=119
The MUTCD provides standards for traffic control devices on roads and multi-use
paths. This document includes information on traffic signals, pedestrian signals,
signage, and lane markings (paint). The current MUTCD is dated 2009. It is
available online: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
The Americans with Disabilities Act has ramifications for projects, particularly for
pedestrian facilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines
(ADAAG) include information on curb ramps, parking and passenger loading zones,
and detectable warnings. The current ADAAG is dated 2004. ADAAG can be found
online. http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/final.cfm
Another useful accessibility-related document is commonly known as “PROWAG.”
The Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines look at public rights-of-way in
more detail, whereas ADAAG is more focused on buildings and building entrances.
The current PROWAG is dated 1999. It can be found online: http://
www.access-board.gov/prowac/guide/prowguide.htm.
An updated draft PROWAG was released in 2005. The final version is
scheduled to be released in late 2011. Draft PROWAG is recommended by
FHWA as a best practice, but it is not a legally binding document at this
time. Draft PROWAG includes information on Accessible Pedestrian
Signals. It can be found online: http://www.access-board.gov/prowac/
alterations/guide.htm.
Yet another accessibility-related document is the FHWA Best Practices Design
Guide titled: “Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access.” This report was
published in 2001. It can be found online: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/
sidewalk2/index.htm.
State of Ohio Standards and Guidelines
Many of the federal standards have supplements at the state level. The state
standards do not contradict federal guidance; rather they usually provide more
information.
All ODOT design standards can be found free online: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/
drrc/Pages/default.aspx. Selected relevant ODOT standards are listed below.
The complements to the AASHTO Green Book are the ODOT Location and Design
(L&D) Manuals. These provide information important in road diet projects.
Section 306 includes information on pedestrian facilities. http://
www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/ProdMgt/Roadway/roadwaystandards/Pages/
locationanddesignmanuals.aspx
The complement to the AASHTO Bicycle Facilities document is the ODOT Design
Guidelines for Bicycle Facilities. There are two separate documents, one for
Roadway-Based Bicycle Facilities, and one for Independent Bicycle Facilities,
meaning MUPs. (Full URLs are: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/
TransSysDev/MultiModalPlanning/bicycle/Design%20Guidelines/
RoadwayBasedFacilities.pdf and http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/
TransSysDev/MultiModalPlanning/bicycle/Design%20Guidelines/Independent%
20Facilities.pdf)
3
Chapter 4—Engineering
4.2 Existing Standards and Guidelines
View all ODOT Design Guidelines related to Bicycling and ADA online: http://
www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/TransSysDev/MultiModalPlanning/bicycle/Design%
20Guidelines/Forms/AllItems.aspx
The complement to the Federal MUTCD is the Ohio MUTCD, commonly known as
the OMUTCD. It is available free online: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/
HighwayOps/Traffic/publications2/OhioMUTCD/Pages/default.aspx
Other relevant ODOT standards include: Bridge Design Manual and the Traffic
Engineering Manual (especially Part 9 – Bicycle Facilities). It is available free
online: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/HighwayOps/Traffic/publications2/
TEM/Pages/default.aspx
▲ The ODOT Design Guidelines for Bicycle Facilities and The Ohio MUTCD
Regional/Local Standards and
Guidelines
Some guidelines are created at a
more local level. These are
supplements to the federal and state
guidelines.
Transit facilities are a key
component of Complete Streets.
A helpful document is the COTA
handbook: Planning and
▲ Planning and Development Guidelines For
Development Guidelines for
Public Transit. COTA is the transit Public Transit
authority for central Ohio. This
handbook includes information on roadway design, bus stops, and land use
considerations.
The current version of the COTA handbook is dated 1999. It is available online:
http://www.morpc.org/trans/COTA_1999_Guidelines.pdf
As more communities in our region adopt Complete Streets policies, information
will be posted on the Complete Streets Toolkit website. You may want to check
with the individual communities about their own standards and guidelines.
4
Chapter 4—Engineering
4.2 Existing Standards and Guidelines
Other Topic-Specific Standards and Guidelines
These guidelines are created by different organizations or companies. They may not
have the authority of the other guidelines, but they are very helpful resources. They
supplement existing federal and state guidelines.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) has published a recommended
practice on Designing Urban Corridors titled: “ITE-RP-036A-E Designing Walkable
Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach.” It would be especially useful
for road diet projects. ITE RP 36 is dated 2010. It is available for free online:
http://www.ite.org/emodules/scriptcontent/Orders/ProductDetail.cfm?pc=RP036A-E.
The Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) has published
Bicycle Parking Guidelines. These are recommendations. The current 2nd Edition
of APBP Bicycle Parking Guidelines is dated 2010. It is available for a fee from the
APBP website: http://www.apbp.org/?page=Publications. The previous 1st Edition
APBP Bicycle Parking Guidelines is dated 2002. It is available for free online:
http://www.apbp.org/resource/resmgr/publications/
bicycle_parking_guidelines.pdf.
The consulting firm ALTA Planning and Portland State University have published a
report on Bicycle Boulevards titled “Fundamentals of Bicycle Boulevard Planning
and Design.” The report was published in 2009. It is available for free online:
http://www.ibpi.usp.pdx.edu/guidebook.php.
The consulting firm Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) has published a report on Road Diets
titled: “Road Diet Handbook: Setting Trends for Livable Streets.” The current 2nd
Edition PB Road Diet Handbook is dated 2007. It is also available for purchase
online: http://www.ite.org/emodules/scriptcontent/Orders/ProductDetail.cfm?
pc=LP-670
Although older, there are two useful reports from ITE/FHWA on Traffic Calming.
“Traffic Calming: State of the Practice” includes a review of 20 different
communities. “State of the Art: Residential Traffic Management” discusses
different measures and technical evaluation elements. The State of the Practice
report was published in 1999. The State of the Art report was published in 1980.
Both are available for free online: http://www.ite.org/traffic/tcstate.asp.
▲ Examples of Topic Specific Standards and Guidelines
5
Chapter 4—Engineering
4.2 Existing Standards and Guidelines
Sources
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (1999). Guide for
the Development of Bicycle Facilities. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (2004). A Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (2004). Guide for
the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities. Washington, DC:
AASHTO.
Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (2010). Bicycle Parking Guidelines,
Second Edition. Cedarburg, WI: APBP.
Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (2002). Bicycle Parking Guidelines,
First Edition. Cedarburg, WI: APBP.
COTA (Central Ohio Transit Authority). (1999). Planning and Development Guidelines
For Public Transit. Columbus, OH: COTA. http://www.morpc.org/trans/
COTA_1999_Guidelines.pdf (Retrieved on Nov. 23, 2010.)
Federal Highway Administration (2001). Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access.
Part II of II: Best Practices Design Guide. Washington DC: FHWA.
Initiative for Bicycle and Pedestrian innovation (2009). Fundamentals of Bicycle
Boulevard Planning and Design. Portland, OR: IBPI.
Institute of Transportation Engineers (2010). Designing Walkable Urban
Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach, an ITE Recommended Practice.
Washington, DC: ITE.
Institute of Transportation Engineers (1999). Traffic Calming: State of the Practice.
Washington, DC: ITE.
Institute of Transportation Engineers (1980). State of the Art: Residential Traffic
Management. Washington, DC: ITE.
ODOT (Ohio Department of Transportation). (2010). Location and Design Manual.
Columbus, OH: ODOT. http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/ProdMgt/Roadway/
roadwaystandards/Pages/locationanddesignmanuals.aspx (Retrieved on Nov. 5,
2010.)
ODOT (Ohio Department of Transportation). (2007). Bridge Design Manual. Columbus,
OH: ODOT. http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/HighwayOps/Structures/
standard/Bridges/Pages/BDM2007.aspx (Retrieved on Nov. 5, 2010.)
ODOT (Ohio Department of Transportation). (2010). Traffic Engineering Manual.
Columbus, OH: ODOT. http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/HighwayOps/Traffic/
publications2/TEM/Pages/default.aspx (Retrieved on Nov. 5, 2010.)
ODOT (Ohio Department of Transportation). (2010). Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic
Control Devices. Columbus, OH: ODOT. http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/
HighwayOps/Traffic/publications2/OhioMUTCD/Pages/default.aspx (Retrieved on
Nov. 5, 2010.)
ODOT (Ohio Department of Transportation). (2005). ODOT Design Guidance for
Roadway-Based Bicycle Facilities (e.g,., Bike Routes, Bike Lanes, Shoulders).
Columbus, OH: ODOT. http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/TransSysDev/
MultiModalPlanning/bicycle/Design%20Guidelines/RoadwayBasedFacilities.pdf
(Retrieved on Nov. 5, 2010.)
6
Chapter 4—Engineering
4.2 Existing Standards and Guidelines
Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc. (2007). Road Diet Handbook: Setting Trends for Livable
Streets, Second Edition. New York, NY: PB.
Public Rights-of-Way Access Advisory Committee (2005). Special Report: Accessible
Public Rights-of-Way, Planning and Designing for Alterations, commonly known as
Draft PROWAG. Washington, DC: Public Rights-of-Way Access Advisory Committee.
United States Access Board (2005). Americans with Disabilities Act and Architectural
Barriers Act Accessibility Guidelines, commonly known as ADAAG. Washington, DC:
United State Access Board.
United States Access Board (1999). Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines,
commonly known as PROWAG. Washington, DC: United State Access Board.
USDOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). Federal Highway Administration (2009).
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. 2009 edition.
Washington, DC: FHWA.
7
Chapter 4—Engineering
4.3 Some issues not addressed by existing standards
Some issues are not addressed in the existing standards. These issues include access
to parking meters for disabled persons and ADA-accessible railroad crossings. A brief
review of some of these issues and some potential resources are below. More
discussion of different facility types can be found in sections 4.4 through 4.6. Please
refer to those sections for details about facility types. Note that existing standards and
guidelines are constantly being reviewed and are frequently updated. Future versions
may include guidance on “newer” facilities/treatments. It is suggested that the links/
sources be checked to ensure the most recent version of the document is being
referenced.
Door Zones
“Dooring” is a potential danger to bicyclists. The door zone is the zone parallel to a
line of parked cars into which the car doors open.
Bike facilities should be installed outside the door zone in order to avoid bicyclists
colliding with opening car doors.
This issue has not been fully explored in existing standards and guidelines. Welldesigned sharrows and bike lanes, such as those which avoid problems like the
door zone, are less susceptible to negative public comment.
When there is no on-street parking or standing, door zone collisions are generally
not a concern.
See Section 4.4 Bicycle Facilities for more information on Door Zones.
“Experimental” bike facilities
Newer facilities and treatments
like cycle tracks and bike boxes
are often not covered in existing
standards and guidelines. These
facilities/treatments are
considered “experimental” by
FHWA. Special permission must
be requested and received to use
such “experimental” facilities/
treatments.
See Section 4.4 Bicycle Facilities
for more information on other
“experimental” facilities/
treatments.
▲ The Milton Avenue bicycle box.
(Source: MORPC, Columbus, Ohio)
A local example of an experimental project is the City of Columbus Milton Avenue
bike boxes.
The bike box has green pavement.
The bicycle marking indicates where bicyclists should position themselves to
activate the traffic signal. A sign is posted to inform bicyclists of this meaning.
Communities wishing to use these “newer” facilities may want to investigate the
use of them in other places. FHWA requires that evaluation data be collected,
which could be helpful as well.
8
Chapter 4—Engineering
4.3 Some issues not addressed by existing standards
▲ An “experimental” cycletrack facility.
(Source: NACTO, Copenhagen, Denmark)
An excellent clearinghouse of resources for the “newer” facilities is the National
Associational of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Cities for Cycling project (see
NACTO, Cities for Cycling page).
Note the grade separation between the sidewalk and the cycletrack.
The cycletrack has a different colored pavement and bicycle pavement markings.
Among the resources available on the NACTO website are several Best Practice
Sheets for different facilities/treatments: http://www.nacto.org/
citiesforcycling.html.
NACTO plans to release a comprehensive Urban Bikeway Design Guide in the
future.
Sources
National Association of City Transportation Officials (n.d.). “Cities for Cycling.” National
Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) website. http://
www.nacto.org/citiesforcycling.html (Retrieved on Nov. 5, 2010.)
9