U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000
Federal Highway Administration Research and Technology
Coordinating, Developing, and Delivering Highway Transportation Innovations
 |
| This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information |
|
Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-04-103
Date: October 2004 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Characteristics of Emerging Road and Trail Users and Their SafetyPDF Version (1.33 MB)
PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader® View Table of Contents Federal Highway Administration Research and Development Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center 6300 Georgetown Pike McLean, VA 22101 FOREWORDThroughout the United States, there has been a dramatic increase in the varieties and numbers of nonmotorized users on trail and roadway facilities. Kick scooters, inline skates, hand cycles, recumbent bicycles, and other emerging users are now commonly seen sharing space with bicycles and pedestrians on roadways and shared use paths. Urban trail operators are reporting operational and safety problems associated with the increasing number of emerging users and their operational needs. User groups are petitioning State legislatures and local governments to legally operate their nonmotorized vehicles on roadways. The guidelines provided in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide to the Development of Bicycle Facilities are based on the physical dimensions and operating characteristics of bicycles only and may not meet the needs of emerging trail users. To address these issues, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) sponsored this study to better understand the physical dimensions and operational characteristics of an increasingly diverse group of nonmotorized trail and roadway users. The results of this study can be used to help design professionals adequately design roadway and shared use path facilities to meet the operational and safety needs of a more diverse group of users. Michael Trentacoste Director, Office of Safety Research and Development Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the
U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The
U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. The
U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document. Quality Assurance Statement The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement. Technical Report Documentation Page
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized SI* (Modern Metric) Conversion Factors TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARYSafety/Crash Data Availability Vertical Alignment-Crest Vertical Curves Pedestrian Clearance Intervals DEFINITIONS AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ROAD AND TRAIL USERS Hand Cycle Wheelchair Attachment Other Road and Shared Use Path Users with Disabilities Individuals with Partial or Total Vision Loss Individuals with Hearing Impairments or Deafness SAFETY/CRASH DATA AVAILABILITY REDUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA Design of Shared Use Paths, Street Intersections, and Midblock Crossings LIST OF FIGURESFigure 2. Nonmotorized kick scooters Figure 3. Jogging stroller for two Figure 8. Another manual wheelchair Figure 10. Assistive powered scooter Figure 14. Off-road racing wheelchair Figure 15 Another off-road racing wheelchair Figure 16. Pinellas Trail, St. Petersburg, FL Figure 17. Paint Branch Trail, College Park, MD Figure 18. San Lorenzo River Trail, Santa Cruz, CA Figure 19. Typical layout of data collection stations (San Lorenzo River Trail) Figure 20. Trail users consisted of both active and in situ participants Figure 21. Trail user intercept signage Figure 22. Video cameras were setup to record participant movements at Stations 3 through 7 Figure 23. Equipment testing at data collection stations Figure 24. Temporary pavement markings were tested Figure 26. Physical measurements Figure 28. Participant within turning radii station Figure 29. Turning radius layout (not to scale) Figure 30. The participants were briefed at the turning radius station Figure 32. A participant traveling through the largest radius path Figure 33. Participants traveling through progressively smaller turning radii Figure 34. Participants accelerated along a 60-m (200-ft) section of the course Figure 35. Participants were asked to accelerate to their normal speed Figure 36. A skateboarder starting to accelerate Figure 37. Sweep width station Figure 38. Sweep width and speed Figure 39. Speed (and sweep width) station Figure 40. Stopping sight distance Figure 41. Several video cameras were positioned at strategic points around the braking area Figure 42. STOP sign controller signaling a bicyclist to stop Figure 43. The study reveals important information on various users now common on shared use paths Figure 44. Thirty-two hand cyclists were active participants in this study Figure 45. Two tandem riders negotiating a curve at the turning radius station Figure 46. Trail users have diverse operating characteristics Figure 47. AASHTO's design bicyclist travels at 30 km/h (20 mi/h) Figure 50. Segway users at the physical measurements station Figure 51. A Segway user on the Paint Branch Trail in Maryland Figure 52. Segway in the turning radius station Figure 53. Many users of various ages and abilities participated in each "Ride for Science" Figure 54. Two "Ride for Science" participants Figure 55. Many volunteers assisted with the "Ride for Science" events Figure 56. Many volunteers participated in the "Ride for Science" events LIST OF TABLESTable 1. Characteristics of Segway users vs. AASHTO (bicycle) values Table 2. Design criteria and potential design users Table 3. User types that can be identified in State motor vehicle crash files Table 4. Summary of advantages and disadvantages to the data sources reviewed Table 5. Active and in situ participants at each event Table 6. Gender distribution and ages of active participants Table 10. 85th percentile acceleration rates (m/sec2) Table 11. 85th percentile elapsed time (sec) Table 13. Speed-active vs. in situ participants Table 14. Perception-reaction time Table 15. Braking distance and friction factor Table 17. Sweep width (lateral operating space) Table 18. Three-point turn widths Table 19. Friction factors for different radii, based on 85th percentile speeds Table 20. Minimum length of crest vertical curve Table 21. 85th percentile clearance intervals (sec) Table of Contents | Next |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
