HomeMy WebLinkAboutBowen Standards MemoStandards Memo
Bowen Street
To:
City of Oshkosh
215 Church Avenue
P.O. Box 1130
Oshkosh, WI 54903-1130
CC:
File
AECOM
1555 N. RiverCenter Drive
Suite 214Milwaukee, WI 53212
T: +1-414-944-6080aecom.com
Project name:
Bowen Street
Project ref:
From:
AECOM
Date:
May 30, 2024
Memo
Subject: Standards Memo
The purpose of this memorandum is to outline existing conditions, current standards, and recommendations for
the Bowen Street typical section in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Current facility usage, existing accommodations, new
bicycle facility consideration, and input from the locals has all been reviewed. While the corridor is constrained,
there are a few options to investigate to best fit the right of way conditions and provide new facilities in the
design.
Existing Conditions
Bowen Street is a minor arterial, locally maintained, and locally designated as a truck route running through the
City of Oshkosh. It’s anticipated to be reconstructed due to the life of the facility and major utility improvement
needs. The existing roadway section consists of 2-12 ft lanes, 1-10 ft parking lane with integral curb to the west,
2-2 ft grass terraces, 2-5 ft sidewalks, and a 49.5 ft existing right of way width. There is no signed speed limit,
but assumed 25 MPH with a 30 MPH design speed with approximately 6,040 AADT and 3% truck traffic. This
project is currently designated to receive state funding to include bicycle accommodations during reconstruction.
Meeting with residents have revealed a higher use of the facility in the summer, more truck and trailer traffic, a
need for parking, and safety concerns at certain locations. Camera data collected during a speed study noted
higher rates of speed at an average 31.74 MPH along the corridor. Parking study noted 12-17% usage between
Merritt Avenue and Washington Avenue, while Merritt Avenue to E Parkway Avenue showed 32-39% usage.
Facility Standards
In evaluating corridor options, the minimum and desirable facility standards are needed to determine a final
cross section. These values can be based on facility type, speeds, traffic volumes, vehicle type usage, and
various laws. Many of these values include ranges depending on the above criteria. On new corridors with
unrestricted right of way, there are more options to investigate. Some of the wider features provide more room
for ease of travel, comfort, separation for safety. Narrower facilities can decrease speeds, provide shorter
Standards Memo
Bowen Street
crossing distances, or decrease cost. However while some of these seem like advantages, without due
consideration and combining options appropriately can have adverse affects. Due to the constrained urban
environment along the corridor, narrow right of way, and additions that the City would like to make, below are
some of the design considerations.
Lane Width
Widths are determined by facility type, speed, and typically are 11-12 ft with 9-10 ft as a minimum. Truck routes
typically use wider lane widths as the truck size is greater and loads can be wider. However local facilities more
often provide a narrower lane due to more residential traffic use. Lane width can vary for urban conditions but
are generally 10-11 ft wide with industrial areas using 12 ft lane widths.1
Narrower lanes allow less lateral room for vehicles adjacent to nearby bikes, parking lanes, and opposing traffic.
Speeds are generally lowered due to the constricted environment, but could be an issue as larger vehicles
infringe on those facilities to gain room.
Narrower lanes can be used in more constrained environments, on lower speed facilities, and with low truck
percentages.
Parking
Parking lanes are allowable as narrow as 7 ft in residential areas with the gutter pan included.2 Some cities use
parallel parking lanes up to 12 ft wide. See Figure 2 below for discussion on parking lanes adjacent to bike
facilities.
While 7 ft is an allowable minimum, existing parking on Bowen Street is 10 ft wide. With vehicles getting larger in
recent years, the standard width of a Ford F-150 cab without mirrors is 6.7 ft, with mirrors is 8.0 ft. Even if parked
with tires flush to the curb, the driver side mirror would be overhanging the bicycle lane.
Based on the Wisconsin Bicycle Handbook, a narrowed 7ft lane should only be used to give more room to an
adjacent 6 foot bicycle lane.3
Bike Lanes
WisDOT allows various bike and lane configurations with 15 acceptable variations to be considered a bicycle
accommodation. These range from a 2 ft gutter, 5 ft marked bike lane, and 11-12 ft travel lane as the preferred
down to a 1 ft gutter and 14 ft wide outside lane as a minimum accommodation.4
Sharrows, markings indicating bicycles are allowed to use the existing lane with vehicle traffic, are not
considered an accommodation and would not fulfill the requirements in the State Municipal Agreement.
Studies show that providing bike lanes and additionally increasing buffer space to vehicle traffic (marked, vertical
delineation, or use of other barriers) significantly reduces bike/vehicle crashes.5
Standards Memo
Bowen Street
Figure 1 – Bicycle Accommodations6
FDM 11-46-15.3, Figure 15.2 illustrates a constrained environment option for combined parking and bike
facilities. It notes a variable 13-16 foot lane with a conditional 12 foot option in very constrained environments.
This is essentially the 7 ft minimum parking lane with 5 ft bike lane option.
Figure 2 – Combined Facilities7
Standards Memo
Bowen Street
Sidewalks
Sidewalk facilities should be provided on both sides in residential and commercial areas, where possible. The
corridor currently has existing sidewalk on both sides. Due to businesses along the corridor and the
urban/residential environment, it would be advantageous to maintain sidewalks on both sides. A width of 5-ft is
typical for sidewalk facilities. Four-foot-wide sidewalks are an allowable minimum, but require a designated
passing area of 5-ft for every 200 ft of sidewalk as per ADA requirements.8
Figure 3 – Passing Space9
Wider sidewalks should be used in areas where terraces are not provided and signing or utilities could impact
user flow. An argument can be made for wider sidewalks near parked cars with overhanging mirrors as well.
“Minimum sidewalk width is 6 feet back of curb if adjacent to a terrace that is less than
3-feet wide. In this case, there will not be enough room within the terrace to place signs,
utility poles, light poles, hydrants, or other fixed objects.”10
Existing terraces are substandard based on this requirement as they are only 2 ft adjacent to 5
ft sidewalks. Narrow terraces also leave less room for utility placement, signage, and snow
storage. Lateral clearance from the face of curb to poles should be 2 feet minimum from face
of curb in urban, constrained environments. Larger widths are preferred for door swing near
parking lanes, mirrors, or wider loads.11
Alternatives
Discussions with the City and local residents has brought to light the need for parking on this corridor, especially
in the summer, need to maintain sidewalks, and interest in adding bike lanes for safety purposes. Various
configurations have been investigated including:
A Existing ROW Condition (substandard):2-12 ft travel lanes, 1-10 ft parking lane, integral curb, 2.5 ft
terraces, and 5 ft sidewalks, maintain right of way (49 ft total facility width)
B Reconstruct to Standard Terrace Width with Parking:2-12 ft travel lanes, 1-8 ft parking lane, integral curb,
3 ft terraces, and 5 ft sidewalks, maintain right of way (49 ft total facility width)
C Reconstruct with Bikes, No Parking: 2-11 ft travel lanes, 2-6 ft bicycle lanes, integral curb, 3 ft terrace, 5 ft
sidewalk, and 6 ft sidewalk at back of curb to the east, maintain right of way (49 ft total facility width)
D Reconstruct with Substandard or Minimum Values to Accommodate All Users (substandard):2-15 ft
combined travel lanes and bicycle lanes,1-7 ft parking lane, integral curb, 2 ft terraces, and 4 ft sidewalks.
Standards Memo
Bowen Street
E Reconstruct with Minimum Widths to Accommodate All Users (requires ROW):2-15 ft combined travel
lanes and bicycle lanes, 1-8 ft parking lane, integral curb, and 6 ft sidewalks at back of curb, terrace at back of
walk for utility poles, requires FEE right of way (54.5 ft total facility width)
F Reconstruct with Standard Widths to Accommodate All Users (requires ROW): 2-11 ft travel lanes, 2-5 ft
bicycle lanes, 30-inch curb and gutter to the east, 1-8 ft parking lane with integral curb, 2-3 ft+ terraces, and 5 ft
sidewalks, requires FEE right of way (60.5 ft total facility width)
While minimums are allowed in certain situations and constrained environments, these options must be
evaluated carefully before being implemented. Inclusive facilities for all types of users is desirable. There can
also be drawbacks if using the minimums for all aspects of the facility and some minimums can only be applied
to certain situations. Considerations here include:
─ Truck, bus, and trailer usage along the corridor.
─ Room for vehicle veering and driver error
─ User comfort across all facilities; drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists
─ ADA requirements and user delay
─ Parked vehicle door swing, mirror widths, and driver error
─ Room for utilities, signage, and lighting
The corridor is constrained and purchasing right of way is not anticipated nor feasible. The proposed facilities
should meet standard width requirements. Based on this, Alternative B or C is recommended.
References
1. AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (GDHS),7th Edition, 2018, Section
5.3.2, Local Streets in Urban Areas
2.AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (GDHS),7th Edition, 2018, Section
5.3.2.3.
3. Wisconsin Department of Transportation,Wisconsin Bicycle Facility Design Handbook, January 2004,
Chapter 3, p.3-11, https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/multimodal/bike/facility-3.pdf
4. Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Facilities Development Manual (FDM), 2024, FDM 11-46-15
5. (FHWA)https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures/bicycle-lanes
6. Wisconsin Department of Transportation,Facilities Development Manual (FDM),2024, FDM 11-46-15.3
Figure 15.1
7. Wisconsin Department of Transportation,Facilities Development Manual (FDM), 2024, FDM 11-46-15.3
Figure 15.2
8. AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (GDHS), 7th Edition, 2018, Section
5.3.2.9
9. Colorado Department of Transportation,Accessible Pedestrian Design, P.10,
https://www.codot.gov/business/designsupport/bulletins_manuals/roadway-design-guide/final-rdg-ch12-
ad-07-27-18
10. Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Facilities Development Manual (FDM),2024, FDM 11-45-5.2.1
11. Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Facilities Development Manual (FDM), 2024, FDM 11-20
Table1.5