BTS Navigation Bar

NTL Menu

Wisconsin Bicycle Planning Guidance - Guidelines for Metropolitan Planning Organizations & Communities in Planning & Developing Bicycle Facilities - Wisconsin TransLinks 21

Click HERE for graphic.


Wisconsin's 21st century transportation plan - will outline a
comprehensive transportation system that will move people and goods
efficiently, strengthens our economy, protects our environment, and
supports our quality of life. Working with DOT, the public will
identify Wisconsin's transportation needs - and help to make
tomorrow's transportation choices.

Tommy G. Thompson,

Charles H. Thompson,

                          Wisconsin Bicycle
                          Planning Guidance

       Guidelines for Metropolitan Planning Organizations and
      Communities in Planning and Developing Bicycle Facilities

               Wisconsin Department of Transportation
                           September, 1993


This report was prepared by the Wisconsin Department of
Transportation, Division of Planning and Budget.  The report was
written by Tom Huber of the Bureau of System Planning.  Beneficial
comments were provided by the WisDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian
Committee, the Governor's Bicycle Advisory Council, the WisDOT
Urban System Planning Team, the WisDOT Division of Highways Central
Design Office and Districts, the Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin,
Doug Dalton, Charles Thiede, and David Trowbridge of the Bureau of
System Planning, Lynne Judd of the Bureau of Strategic Planning,
Catherine Ratte' of the WisDOT Office of Transportation Safety,
several Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and Arthur Ross and
Tom Walsh of the City of Madison Department of Transportation.


Bicycling is an important mode of transportation, used separately
or with other modes of transportation.  The Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) places increased importance
on the use of the bicycle from a transportation standpoint and
calls on each state Department of Transportation to encourage its
use.  But even before the passage of ISTEA, the Wisconsin
Legislature prescribed a "bicycling role" for the Wisconsin
Department of Transportation (WisDOT).  According to Wisconsin
State Statute 85.023, WisDOT is to provide assistance in the
development of bicycle facilities: "The department (WisDOT) shall
assist any regional or municipal agency or commission in the
planning, promotion, and development of bikeways".  The focus of
these guidelines is on the utilitarian and transportation aspect of
bicycling and less so on the recreational need for bicycle

The purpose of this document is to provide assistance in the form
of a general set of guidelines that can be used by Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPOs), communities, and counties as they
plan and develop bicycle facilities.  Although the emphasis of the
guidelines is on planning for bicycle transportation, general
design information on the different types of bicycle facilities
(bike lanes, wide curb lanes, bicycle paths, paved shoulders) has
been provided.  Often the consideration of the different types of
bicycle facilities is necessary when alternative bicycle route
options are being evaluated.

There are several bicycle planning models currently in use in the
United States.  The process described here was developed by
Wisconsin Department of Transportation as a guide for communities
and Metropolitan Planning Organizations.  Models prepared by the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO), the Bicycle Federation of America, and the Florida DOT,
as well as Wisconsin's Planning- Guide for Development of
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities (Governor's Office of Highway
Safety, 1977) were consulted in developing these guidelines.  Any
organization preparing a bicycle plan or designing bicycle
facilities should consult AASHTO!s Guide for the Development of
Bicycle Facilities, 1991.

The planning process, as presented in these guidelines,
incorporates a combined approach (planning and design) to the
development of a bicycle plan.  The planning component involves the
identification of potential bicycle travel corridors and
recommendation of bicycle facility types on selected routes through
these corridors.  The design component would include the
establishment of minimum standards for all streets and highways
where bicyclists are permitted.  This would ensure that even the
streets not designated as bicycle routes, would have minimum
accommodation for bicyclists.  Those street segments needing
improvement should be identified in the bicycle plan along with the
proposed bicycle route system.  Section 5 of these guidelines
discusses this approach in detail.

                        Major Bicycle Groups

These guidelines recommend that plans consider the range of
bicyclists by grouping them into two broad categories - Groups A
and B. Group A bicyclists are generally adults capable of operating
under most traffic conditions, while B riders are casual or novice
adults or teenagers who are less confident and capable of operating
in traffic on arterial streets.

Unlike motor vehicle operators, no mandatory education is necessary
for people to begin bicycling.  However, the laws governing bicycle
operation are essentially the same as for motor vehicle operation. 
Bicycle operational skills are typically learned through experience
gained on the bicycle.

There is a wide range of abilities and skills among bicyclists.  No
other vehicle is operated by such a disparate group of users.  For
the purposes of these guidelines, the planner is asked to consider
the range of cyclists by examining the nature of two general
bicycle groups.  These two general groups of bicyclists represent
the majority of all cyclists, based on their bicycling skills and
riding habits.

Group A bicyclists (advanced or experienced riders) are adult
bicyclists capable of operating under most traffic conditions. 
Group B bicyclists are casual or novice adult or teenage bicyclists
who are less confident in their ability to operale plan.  The 
planning component involves the identification of potential bicycle
travel corridors and recommendation of bicycle facility types on
selected routes through these corridors.  The design component would
include the establishment of minimum standards for all streets and 
highways where bicyclists are permitted.  This would ensure that 
even the streets not designated as bicycle routes, would have minimum
accommodation for bicyclists.  Those street segments needing
improvement should be ideldren by the age of 10 or 11
(especially if they have been given proper bicycle education) will
behave like Group B cyclists and thus are considered a subgroup of
the Group B cyclist for the purposes of these guidelines.  The
guidelines suggest a combined planning and design approach to
accommodate the range of bicyclists.

Group A bicyclists would be best served by making an effort to make
every street minimally "bicycle friendly" by adopting roadway
design standards that include wide curb lanes and paved shoulders. 
This design practice will be of benefit to both motor vehicle and
bicycle users, allowing adequate space for street sharing with
minimum need for changing lanes or lane position.

Group B bicyclists, and Group A bicyclists to a lesser degree, will
be best served through the development of a bicycle route system
that serves key travel corridors (typically arterial street
corridors) and by providing designated bicycle facilities for these
bicyclists on these routes.  These key travel corridors will be
identified through the planning process described in these
guidelines and could include treatments on the arterial itself
(i.e. bicycle lane) or make use of a side street or a nearby
bicycle path.  When side streets or bicycle paths are being


directness and minimizing delays is still of major importance to

The Federal Highway Administration and ISTEA have made it clear
that bicycle use should be encouraged.  Surveys have indicated
there is a large number of occasional bicycle riders (primarily
Group B bicyclists) who have indicated an interest in bicycle
commuting if provided an improved bicycling environment.  Planning
of bicycle facilities to encourage more use among this group of
adult casual users appears to have the best opportunity for
increasing overall bicycle usage.  A planning and design approach
will encourage the use of bicycling among the Group B riders
through a planned system of bicycle facilities while design
considerations of wide curb lanes will bring about minimum
accommodations for the Group A bicyclists, and at the same time
improving accessibility for both groups.

AASHTO Bicycle Guidelines

AASHTO's Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities is the
basic reference for bicycle facility designers.  It has been
adopted, in part or in its entirety, by many state and local
governments.  WisDOT is currently incorporating the guide into its
Facilities Development ManuAl.  In conjunction with the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices, it is often the primary reference
publication used to plan And design facilities.

The Planning Process

Bicycle plans should include an inventory and analysis of existing
street and bikeway conditions, goals objectives, a bicycle route
and facilities improvement strategy, and a bicycle education and
enforcement element.

The primary emphasis of these planning guidelines is on the
establishment of a bicycle facilities system.  When developing
facility plans, communities and MPOs should consider how they are
going to educate bicyclists and how the "rules of the road" for
both bicyclists and those motorists not used to sharing the road
with bicyclists, will be enforced.  A comprehensive bicycle plan
and program should contain goals and some discussion relevant to
the education of both bicyclists and motorists as to their
respective rights and responsibilities, as well as to the
enforcement of both bicyclists' and motorists' rules of the road. 
Additionally, since there is clearly an emphasis in ISTEA to
promote the use of the bicycle, an encouragement element is also
recommended.  These components are fairly straight forward and can
probably be summarized in one section of the plan.

Public participation in the planning process is essential and
should begin early in the process.  Community input can be obtained
and citizen interest in the plan piqued by conducting public
meetings or forming an advisory committee.  The creation of an
advisory committee is the most effective means of gaining input
from bicyclists and other interested organizations.  Two major
bicycle groups - the League of American Wheelmen and the Wisconsin
Bicycle Federation - 


have members located in most metropolitan areas of the state. 
Additionally, most metropolitan areas have bicycle riding clubs. 
Besides bicycle organizations, other interested parties who may be
interested in participating include educational institutions,
enforcement agencies and safety councils or committees.

A "kick-off' meeting should be conducted to inform the public
and/or the citizen advisory committee of the proposed process for
the development of the plan.  This will also provide an excellent
opportunity to learn of the major concerns that bicyclists have. 
Additional meetings should be scheduled as part of the planning
process.  The entire citizen participation process should culminate
with at least one final public hearing. (A more thorough discussion
of public participation techniques is included in another WisDOT
MPO guidance publication entitled "Public Participation Process").

A complete planning process can be broken into seven steps and

1. Development of goals, objectives, and policies.

2. Establishment/refinement of planning criteria for the bicycle
transportation system.

3. Inventory of bicycle usage, crashes, and existing bikeway and
roadway characteristics.

4. Identification of bicycle travel corridors.

5. Evaluation and selection of specific route alternatives and
design treatments.

6. Preparation of a safety component.

7. Evaluation of the finished plan against pre-established planning
criteria and goals and objectives.

                       Bicycling on Arterials

Many planners and traffic engineers become uneasy when considering
the possibility of accommodating bicyclists on urban arterials or
highways.  A basic level of accommodation on arterials is necessary
for a variety of reasons.  First, cyclists, especially experienced
cyclists, have the same desire for directness as motorists.  Their
destinations are going to mirror that of the motoring public. 
Secondly, arterials get people across major physical barriers such
as rivers, rail lines and freeways.  These critical crossing points
for cyclists are often at higher volume motor vehicle locations. 
Thus minimum Accommodations for cyclists on these Facilities is
necessary for ensuring safe mobility.  Lastly, arterials provide
direct access to major destination points.  Access to places on
these streets is essential for all bicycle groups.  Imagine,  as a
motorist, routinely not having access to your place of work or a
shopping mall because the streets serving these places do not
accommodate motor vehicles.

The use of wide curb lanes (14 to 15 feet lanes for through vehicle
use where no parking is provided) is a means of providing a Basic
level of accommodation on arterial streets.  If the arterial has
been identified as the preferred bicycle route in a plan, then
bicycle lanes should be considered.


1. Development of Goals, Objectives, & Policies

The establishment of planning criteria should be an interactive
process with the establishment of goals and objectives and the
consideration of alternatives.

The goals, objectives, and policies of a plan form the framework
for action.  They profess the mission of the organization in the
context of the service they are to provide.  Although the
development of the goals, objectives, and policies can be guided by
MPO or community planning staffs, representation of policy makers
and users (bicyclists) is important.  In general, goals should
address the needs of the different groups of bicyclists,
integration of the bicycle with other modes, funding and
prioritization of funding, facility development, public
participation, education, encouragement, and enforcement.  This
section should also state the MPO's or community's policies on
minimum road width standards and options necessary to accommodate
bicyclists on all streets.  WisDOT will eventually be providing
state goals and objectives as part of its statewide transportation
plan, but local goals may be established in advance or as a
complementary addition to the state goals.

2. Establishment/Refinement of Bicycle Planning Criteria

Planning criteria should be used when evaluating and considering
bicycle routes and facilities that will become part of an urban
bicycle network.  The consideration of these criteria in the
planning process will help ensure the development of a desirable,
effective and safe bicycle network.

The consideration of the placement of bicycle routes should be done
in accordance with three general sets of planning criteria in three
distinct steps.  The first set of planning criteria addresses
bicycle user demand and the general corridor locations of proposed
routes.  Included in this set are usage (including trip length),
directness, accessibility/spacing, system continuity, barriers,
security, and aesthetics.  The second set of criteria can be used
in the siting of bicycle facilities within identified bicycle
corridors, and include directness, cost, funding, delays to
bicyclists, safety (both real and perceived), and ease of
implementation.  In the third step, these same factors are also
used to select the appropriate facility type on a specific street
segment.  Ultimately, these criteria will help determine and test
the desirability and effectiveness of a bicycle facility system. 
These criteria share a strong similarity with what motorists expect
in a highway system.  A complete explanation of the planning
criteria organized into the three-step process is included in
Appendix A.  MPOs and communities may wish to refine these

The establishment of planning criteria should be an interactive
process with the establishment of goals and objectives and the
consideration of project alternatives.  For instance, if a goal is
to improve route accessibility, then the standards for
accessibility should be tightened to ensure that, if the standards
were met when alternative projects are considered, there would be
an improvement in accessibility.


3. Inventory of Bicycle Usage, Crashes, and Bikeway and Roadway
Systems Characteristics

A bicycle plan's inventory section should include data and the
appropriate analysis as it relates to the physical conditions of
roadways, existing bicycle facilities and bicycle crashes.

The inventory step provides a description of a data base that can
be used in the evaluation of existing physical conditions of
roadways and any existing bike facilities.  A bicycle plan's
inventory should include data and analysis of that data as it
relates to the physical conditions of roadways, existing bicycle
facilities, and bicycle crashes.  Additionally, an examination of
the number and percent of people using the bicycle for
transportation purposes will establish a baseline for monitoring
changes in usage.

The inventory of the roadway system should include all arterials
and collectors.  Some time may be saved, especially in larger
communities and metropolitan areas, by inventorying just those
streets/roads that are being considered as options for designated
bicycle facilities.  Data should be initially collected on the
average daily traffic (ADTs), pavement width, the adjacent land use
(commercial, residential, mixed-use, etc), and the number of lanes. 
Traffic volumes are available on all classified roads under
WisDOT's coverage count program and roadway geometries are
available from various WisDOT data bases.  Land use information can
be obtained from community land use plans and inventories.  Land
usage along streets will often provide a good indication of the
amount of potential side friction that could be expected.  More
detailed data, such as pavement condition, speed limits, sight
lines, grades, railroad crossings, etc., can be collected and
examined for the alternatives at a later stage in the planning

Current bicycle usage is difficult to obtain, especially by bicycle
trip purpose.  Routinely these data have not been collected. 
WisDOT surveyed licensed drivers in July, 1980 and found that
bicycle commuting ranged from a low of two percent for Milwaukee
County to 11 percent for Madison.  Work trip commutes by bicycle
averaged six and seven percent for all of the other metropolitan
areas in Wisconsin that were surveyed.

More recent comprehensive surveys of bicycle and pedestrian use
need to be conducted of current and potential use.  WisDOT may be
conducting a statewide survey as part of its multimodal planning
process.  WisDOT encourages MPOs and communities to conduct local

This is also the appropriate time in the planning process to review
available bicycle crash data to locate crash locations and to get a
cursory idea of the types of crashes.  Bicycle crash data are
available from local police authorities or WisDOT.  Crash data are
reported universally for Wisconsin on Form MV4000.  It is important
to highlight two shortcomings of crash evaluations.  First, bicycle
crashes reported through the MV4000 reporting process comprise a
minority of all crashes.  Some studies have indicated that as few
as only 10% of all bicycle crashes are reported.  Secondly, it is
important to consider the exposure rate of bicyclists when
reviewing these data.  Some of the streets and intersections with a
higher frequency of bicycle


crashes may be related to higher bicycle usage.  Ultimately, these
data may help identify problem areas that need immediate remedial

4. Identification of Bicycle Travel Corridors

To a large degree, unitarian bicycle travel is going to mirror
motor vehicle travel since bicyclists have the same origins and
destinations as motorists.

The identification of bicycle travel corridors is not the same as
simply plotting existing cycling corridors and/or assuming an
increase in that travel.  Estimating trip traffic is generally one
of a transportation planner's most complex and sophisticated tasks,
but does not have to be necessarily so for estimating bicycle trip

To a large degree destinational bicycle travel is going to mirror
motor vehicle movements.  When cyclists' origin and destinations
are paired (desire lines) the travel habits of cyclists are much
the same as motorists.  In the morning, travel is most common
between residential areas and places of employment.  The increase
is true in the late afternoon.  Since most motor vehicle work trips
are less than five miles, the potential for a shift to bicycling is
considerable. (Currently, most bicycle commute and utilitarian
trips are also less than five miles).  By basing future bicycle
travel on existing patterns alone, more direct linkages between
ongoing and destination pairs will probably be underestimated,
since current direct usage is being restricted by negative features
of that cycling environment.  The real question that should be
posed is "Where would cyclists be going if they could go exactly
where they preferred?" and not "Where are the cyclists now?"
Certainly, if part of the objective of encouraging bicycle usage is
to reduce single-occupant in other vehicle (SOV) traffic, then
focusing on existing vehicle traffic patterns is essential.

Another means of identifying higher bicycle use corridors is to
plot major trip generating centers such as schools, universities,
commercial areas and major employers and then connecting these
generators with anticipated high use residential areas.

An appropriate way to identify desire lines for bicyclists is to
plot trip-generating features such as schools, universities,
commercial areas (downtowns, shopping centers, neighborhood
shopping areas, malls, etc.), major employers, and
industrial/business areas.  Drawing connection lines between
traffic-generating sites and residential areas should give a
general idea of the desire lines of cyclists.  Survey information,
be it community or employer-based, can aid in determining desire
lines.  Another method is to apply a projected bicycle mode split
for the community to existing origin-destination data for specific
corridors. (For the first time, the 1990 census will provide
bicycle mode splits for census tracts.  However, it should be
cautioned that this census data was collected for the last week of
March, 1990, not a high bicycle usage month in Wisconsin).


The resulting bicycle corridor map(s) will give a strong indication
of where cyclists want to go and not necessarily where they are
today.  Census or other specially collected data on trip length can
be used to augment this analysis.

Some generators of bicycle travel will produce an inordinately high
number of bicyclists.

Whether the choice of bicycle forecasting methods is through the
plotting of traffic generators and the resulting desire lines or by
estimating bicycle volumes as a modal split, a few special
situations may require some adjustments.  First, educational
institutions of all types generate an extraordinary number of
bicycle trips.  Elementary and middle schools generate child
bicycle trips that may need special planning attention.  University
campuses typically generate bicycle trips in excess of 10% of all
trips and remain high often through the winter months.  Secondly,
parks, beaches, trails, parkways, scenic roads and other
recreational facilities attract a higher percentage of bike trips
than the community average.  Finally, multi-mode connection points
should also be considered.  Bicycling to transit hubs, park-and-
ride lots, and train stations represents one of the highest
potential uses of the bicycle, especially in suburban locations. 
Combining transit with bicycle trip-making merges the best
attributes of each mode - local penetration for bicycles and longer
distance speed for transit.

5. Evaluation and Selection of Specific Route & Facility Types

A plan should consider the development of a bicycle route system
and the identification of arterial and collector streets that are
currently unsuitable for bicycle travel that could be upgraded when
the street is reconstructed.

The previous section prescribed two ways of identifying bicycle
corridors.  The two planning criteria - usage and directness - were
the primary factors used in determining the general location of
these corridors.  This phase of the planning process involves two
steps - the consideration and identification of a bicycle route
system and minimum design treatments on all streets.  While the
first step focuses on the bicycle route system for Group B
bicyclists, the second step entails the identification of street
segments that do not safely accommodate bicyclists.  Most of these
unsuitable streets are arterials, many of which can be improved at
the time of street reconstruction to better accommodate bicyclists. 
These arterials may never become part of a bicycle route system,
but some form of minimum accommodation for bicyclists should be
provided on these streets where reasonably feasible. (See side box
on page 4 "Bicycling on Arterials")

Step one involves the planning of a bicycle route system for the
Group B bicyclist through the interaction of two steps -
identification of route alternatives and the consideration and
selection of appropriate bicycle facility type.  The practicality
of adapting a particular route to accommodate the Group B bicyclist
may vary depending upon the type of bicycle design treatment
selected.  The compromising or enhancement of certain planning
criteria must then be


considered in the context of the different design treatment
options.  For instance, a bicycle lane on a busy arterial may be
evaluated against a parallel side-street that is less expensive,
but is less direct, has more delays, and requires the removal of
parking on one side of the street. (Appendix G includes definitions
of bicycle facility terms).

The most important factors in the evaluation and selection of
bicycle routes and bicycle facility types are directness,
accessibility, connectivity, safety, costs, and usage.

The planning criteria are included in Appendix A. The most
important factors are usage, directness, accessibility,
connectivity, safety, and costs.  The selection of a specific route
alternative using the cited planning criteria can be best
summarized by the following:

*The degree to which a specific route meets the needs of the
anticipated users as opposed to other routes.

*The possible cost, and the extent and timing of construction
required to implement the proposed bicycle facility treatment.

*The comparative ease and cost of implementing the proposed design
treatment.  For example, one option may entail the often unpopular
decision to alter or eliminate on-street parking while another does

There are essentially two options for serving the needs of the
Group B bicyclist in an identified corridor - direct integration on
the arterial (or collector) or the use of a side-street parallel
facility.  Separated bicycle paths are options primarily along
river grades, to connect subdivisions and cul-de-sacs, or along
abandoned or shared rail corridors.  However, separated paths are
generally considered unsafe and of little merit placed directly
along urban arterials, because of the numerous cross traffic
conflict points (side friction) and transition problems from on-
road facilities to separated off-road facilities.  If the chosen
corridor treatment is to be one of integration with the arterial,
the likely recommended facility type is a bike lane.  Table AP-1,
included in Appendix A, supports this recommendation.  The table
was developed as part of an FHWA study entitled "Selecting Roadway
Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles" and takes into account
most of the traffic operation factors considered in the safety of
the cyclist traffic volume, average motor vehicle speeds, street
grades, traffic mix, on-street parking, and sight distance.  This
specific alternative does serve both the A and B bicycle groups.

One other consideration may influence the design treatment type, at
least in the short-term, and that is the scheduling of construction
or reconstruction work on the selected route.  The roadway may be
scheduled for 3-R (resurfacing, reconditioning, reconstruction)
work (including the bike facility improvements) or bike facility
improvements may have to be retrofitted into the existing
geometries or right-of-way widths.

The next step in the process requires the planner to evaluate those
arterial street segments (and 


some collectors) which are currently undesirable for most bicycle
travel.  Even though these segments may not be part of the
recommended "route system", their use by Group A bicyclists for
through-travel and all bicyclists for accessibility will not
diminish.  Actually, it is quite probable once significant portions
of the bike route system are improved, ridership on the arterial
streets may even increase as bicycling on the rest of the system
creates more bicycle trip making community-wide.  Thus, for
improved bicycle access, better overall bicycle accommodation, and
improved motor vehicle movement (when bicyclists and motor vehicles
are sharing the same lane) all new arterials should be designed to
provide appropriate bicycle accommodation, and all existing
arterials should be evaluated for their bicycle suitability and
accommodation.  For those existing arterials that need to be
improved and can be practically improved (i.e., have sufficient R-
O-W), the plan should reflect the costs of minimally bringing the
arterial up to a basic level of accommodation (i.e. a 14 to 15 foot
outside curb lane excluding the curb flag).  Keep in mind that the
plan is a long-range plan.  As such, bringing existing arterials
and bridges up to a basic level of accommodation may only be
accomplished over a 20-30 year period.

6. Safety Component

While the major thrust of most bicycle plans is on enhancing safety
through the construction of bicycle-friendly facilities, other
measures related to education and enforcement should also be
included in a plan.

The major focus of these guidelines centers on the planning of
bicycle facilities and the overall improvement in bicycle
accommodation.  The ultimate construction of bicycle facilities
with a commensurate increase in the promotion of bicycle riding,
will encourage increased bicycle usage.  A major goal of most
bicycle plans is to increase bicycle ridership while decreasing the
number of bicycle crashes and fatalities.  While the development of
bicycle facilities or bicycle friendly street improvements are ways
to enhance bicycle safety, other measures can and should be taken
to encourage bicycle safety.  In the preparation of a safety
component planners should gain a good understanding of the laws
affecting the safe operation of bicycles and relevant motor vehicle
laws.  For instance, few planners realize that 346.075 of the
Wisconsin State Statutes requires motor vehicles to pass bicycles
with a minimum of three feet clearance.  Appendix F includes
Wisconsin statutes governing bicycle use and their equipment.

An evaluation of bicycle crashes may identify certain locations and
crash types that may be abated through planning and design.  Other
crashes can be best countermeasured through education and
enforcement activities.  A "3-E" approach (education, enforcement,
engineering) has been used by bicycle practitioners for quite some
time as a comprehensive and integrated approach to safe bicycle
usage.  This certainly recognizes the importance of design in the
engineering of facilities with safety in mind.  A comprehensive
bicycle plan and approach creates benefits and outcomes which are
much greater than the sum total of each of the separate elements.


This component should consider education and enforcement in the
context of an overall bicycle plan.  Certain strategies can be
identified that targets educational and enforcement activities that
benefit specific bicycle groups and to countermeasure known major
bicycle crash types.  To do so, an evaluation of the bicycle crash
types should be made to learn more of the crash typology and the
age of the bicyclists involved.  Recommendations on strategies, how
they can be implemented, and who should implement them, should be
made.  Appendix C provides supplementary information on how to
develop a safety component of a bicycle plan.  WisDOT's Bicycle and
Pedestrian Safety Program Manager can also provide specific program
information and funding, as well as assist communities and MPOs
implementing this safety component.

7. Evaluation of the Finished Plan Against the Planning Criteria
and Goals/Objectives

The bicycle plan should be evaluated in the context of the goals,
objectives, and planning criteria.

The final step in the development.of a bicycle system plan
represents the reality check of the planning process.  The planner
must ask - Will the proposed network meet the planning criteria
established in step one and also the goals and objectives of the

If the criteria are significantly compromised or the goals unmet,
then the proposed system will have to be refined or the criteria
and goals modified.  If the criteria or goals are modified, the
planning process as a whole should be reviewed to determine if
previously discarded routes should be reconsidered.  There may be
more preferred options in light of the newly modified criteria
and/or goals.


Every bicycle plan should include recommendations for implementing
the plan.  The implementation section should provide a guide for
funding as well as a sequential picture of how the preferred plan
can be implemented.  The implementation component should include a
schedule, as well as a discussion of funding opportunities,
signing, mapping, design, and land use/site plan considerations.

Most every program of ISTEA is a potential source of bicycle funds. 
However bicycle projects often have to compete with other modes for
these funds.  Several programs have made bicycle projects a
priority funding category.

WisDOT, in partnership with MPOS, communities and counties, has a
significant role in the financing of bicycle-related improvements
and specific projects.  Almost every ISTEA program National Highway
System, Surface Transportation Program, Transportation Enhancement,
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement - can be used to
fund bicycle and pedestrian


facilities.  WisDOT currently uses state and federal safety funds
for a variety of safety education and safety promotion programs as
well as to make grants to local communities for safety programs.

For facility development, the 1993-95 state budget has established
a Bicycle and Pedestrian Assistance Program which is directed at
funding bicycle transportation projects and programs, specifically
activities related to planning, promotion, mapping, bicycle racks,
and perhaps very low cost facility projects.  The newly established
Surface Transportation Discretionary Grant Program provides $4
million annually to such priority activities as bicycle/pedestrian
projects, transit projects, and van and auto pools.  More
importantly, if a bicycle project, as part of a larger roadway
improvement, has been included in a bicycle plan, then that bicycle
project will be financed as an integral part of that roadway
improvement, incidental to the entire project cost.  WisDOT
financing of all projects requires the preparation of a bicycle
transportation plan and inclusion in a Transportation Improvement
Program MP).

WisDOT's funding of either enhancement-type or incidental-type
projects is largely dependent on a community's and MPO's own
commitment to funding bicycle projects as part of its
implementation of the bicycle plan.  Bicycle facility opportunities
will present themselves on and off state highway routes.  The
design and funding of projects on the state highway system and
within an urban area will be one of partnership with local
officials.  Most bicycle projects within urban areas, as identified
in the plan, will be located off the state highway system.  Bicycle
facilities should be integrated into street reconstruction projects
if identified in the plan.  Funding for these projects may not
involve any federal or state funds.

Communities and MPOs should identify those bicycle projects that
should receive priority for funding.  Generally, this's would
involve prioritizing stand-alone bicycle projects (bicycle paths,
bicycle/pedestrian overpasses/underpasses) and retrofit projects
(those that cannot be held over until a specific street section is
reconstructed).  Because of the cost implications, funding of
bicycle projects that are incidental to a street reconstruction,
such as a bike lane, will probably be delayed until the street is
reconstructed.  This does not preclude the possibility of
implementing some interim accommodation measures, such as
restriping to gain additional width in the curb lane to better
accommodate bicyclists.

The following are situations where bicycle facility implementation
opportunities may present themselves within a community: new
construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, sewer and gas line
reconstruction, major planned unit developments, and
industrial/commercial/business park developments.  These
opportunities should be used to implement bicycle-related
recommendations of the plan.

Bicycle Signing and Mapping 
Mapping bicycle routes for cyclists is typically a cost-efficient
means of informing cyclists where the most suitable (safe) routes
are located.  Care must be taken to provide direct and continuous
routing for cyclists.


Some segments of a community's or MPO's bike route system will be
suitable for bicycle transportation with little or no improvements. 
These segments can be mapped, and in many cases, signed as a
"bicycle route".  Other segments of the proposed system must first
be improved to make them suitable for bicycle transportation. 
Mapping is a relatively inexpensive form of guidance for
bicyclists.  Providing maps of the community together with
information on local routes, major destinations, points of
interest, etc., allows the user to travel more comfortably within a
community and between communities.

Another low-cost action is to construct signs identifying bicycle
routes, (again taking care that only suitable routes are signed). 
This technique involves little cost (signs and installation) and,
when properly used, will guide the bicyclist along a route.  In
many cases, bike route signing is used as a first or interim step
toward providing a system of more advanced facilities.  For
example, a community may delay a bicycle project several years
until the reconstruction of an arterial street provides an
opportunity to also construct a bicycle lane.

Both signing and mapping are generally targeted to the average
adult bicyclist.  Mapping products should state this in the
accompanying text.

One of the main objectives of a plan should be to eventually ensure
that as many streets and highways as possible can be safely
"shared" by motorists and bicyclists.

Final design and construction are major functions in the
implementation of a bicycle plan.  The details of bikeway design
should be considered at this juncture. (Appendix B includes some
general information on bikeways, but the designing engineer would
likely need to consult more detailed resources).

Another round of bicycle considerations should be made by relating
the plan to other roadway opportunities.  One of the main
objectives of a bicycle plan should be to help ensure that streets
and highways can be safely "shared" by motorists and bicyclists. 
Bicyclists have the same destinations as motorists and are equally
concerned about directness.  As the AASHTO bicycle guidelines state
"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".  To ensure that streets and
highways are constructed with the bicyclist in mind, a community
should adopt a street/highway policy and design standards for
creating wider curb lanes and/or paved shoulders on collector and
arterial streets.  WisDOT's own warrants, soon to be included in
the Facilities Development Manual, state that when WisDOT
constructs, reconstructs, or finances any street/highway
facilities, it will include suitable space for bicycling wherever
ROW permits and bicycle use or anticipated use on a roadway exceeds
25 bicyclists per day (combined from both directions) or the
street/highway has been included as part of a designated bikeway


Bicycle Parking -
Bicycle accessibility, and often use, depends on adequate and safe
bicycle storage at trip ends - even minor trip generators and
transit hubs.

The increase in both the popularity of bicycling and the overall
appeal to thieves of lighter weight performance bicycles has
contributed to a commensurate increase in bicycle thievery.  Not
only are the bicycles themselves stolen as an entire unit, but
often if only part of a bicycle is locked, components of the
bicycle are stolen, such as the wheels or seat.  The lock-up
facilities that were adequate 20 years ago are no longer sufficient
to meet the needs of current day cyclists demanding bicycle racks
that are designed to permit the lock-up of an entire bicycle and
its parts or the safe storage of the bicycle.

Bicycle parking is often overlooked in the design of new buildings
and their attendant parking facilities.  Additionally, most
existing commercial or public facilities have unsuitable bicycle
lock-up or storage facilities.  Bicycle accessibility, and often
use, depends on adequate and safe bicycle storage at even minor
trip generators and mode transfer points.  Local zoning ordinances
can require the inclusion of bicycle racks.  Many ordinances, such
as Madison's, require a certain number of bicycle parking spots
based on the number of total motor vehicle spots and/or the type of
land use/establishment to be served.

Bicycle parking facilities range in their sophistication and theft
deterrence.  At one end of the spectrum are the old style bicycle
racks which are good at only securing the front or rear wheel,
unless bicyclists have very long cables.  These racks are not
designed to work with the most popular and theft-resistant type of
bicycle locks in use now, designed as U-shaped locks.  More modem
racks are designed to allow the lock-up of two wheels and the frame
with a single lock.  The best form of bicycle parking is provided
by a bicycle locker.  These are individual storage units just large
enough to permit the sheltering of entire bicycles.  Bicyclists are
given a key to lock and unlock the individual compartment doors.

When planning for bicycle parking, consider the same locations as
those currently available for motor vehicle parking or being
considered for additional motor vehicle parking.  Higher use
destinations will be schools, colleges and university campuses,
shopping centers, downtown areas, mode transfer points, parks and
public places.  Bicycle parking facilities should be placed as near
building entrances as possible and in high visibility areas for
security and maximum use.  All racks should be capable of accepting
U-shaped locks to secure the frame of the bicycle.

Education regarding bicycle theft and the measures the cyclists can
take to reduce the risk of theft should be integrated. into bicycle
safety education programs.  Information should be routinely
disseminated on appropriate lock-up measures and should be
coordinated with bicycle registration programs.  Mandatory bicycle
registration programs will help enforcement agencies identify the
rightful owners of recovered bicycles.


Interim Measures -
Bicycle plans, as advocated in these guidelines, must be viewed as
long-term in scope.  Many of the larger and expensive improvements
will not be completed for years, but many interim measures should
be taken including drainage grate replacement, improving rail
crossings, restriping and alternative routing.

Many of the improvements to a bicycle route system (especially
those recommended for arterial streets) will occur as opportunities
arise for reconstruction.  Some improvements will be accomplished
as a matter of retrofitting existing facilities.  For those
improvements that must wait, interim measures may have to taken to
complete portions of a bicycle route.  There are several major
measures that can improve the accommodation of bicyclists in an
interim period restriping, alternative routing, drainage grate
replacement, and railroad crossings.  Appendix E includes a short
guide published by Bike Centennial's Bicycle Forum entitled
"Improving Conditions for Bicycling".  This includes a short
description of many of the short-term and interim measures that can
be taken.

AASHTO and the National Advisory Committee on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices have commented in favor of reducing existing inside
vehicle lanes from 12 feet to 11 feet for the purpose of widening
the right-hand lane for bicycle use.  The City of Madison has made
these improvements on several of its arterial streets.  This should
be performed after careful review of present and projected traffic
characteristics along a corridor.

The AASHTO bicycle guidelines recommend a wide curb lane of 14 feet
or wider, but there is some benefit when travel lanes are widened
to 13 feet.  On a four-lane arterial street with 12 foot travel
lanes, simply narrowing the inside lanes to 11 feet and widening
the outside to 13 feet is worth the effort, according to a study
done by the Maryland DOT.  And unless the speeds are very high, the
loss of capacity for the narrowed inside lanes is negligible -
approximately three percent, according to the Highway Capacity

If a bicycle lane or wide curb lane has been recommended for an
arterial, but the improvement is some time off, an alternative
route should be designated and mapped and/or signed.  Again,
directness and the minimizing of delays will be necessary in order
for it to be an attractive alternative to bicyclists.

Drainage grates can pose a serious problem for bicyclists.  Many
old designs can actually trap a bicyclist's wheel throwing the
cyclist over the handlebars.  The best approach is to replace these
grates with "bicycle-safe" grates.  It should be noted that even
"bicycle-safe" grates will still give a bicyclist a jolt if the
wheel is caught the wrong-way by the grates.  Installation of such
grates is equally important.  Grates should be installed level to
the pavement and readjusted with future paving overlays.

Another measure that can significantly improve the "rideability" of
streets is the improvement of railroad track crossings.  Repair of
road and track mismatches are ways to improve all


crossings.  Where railroad crossings intersect roadways at angles
two additional considerations should be considered.  First, the
paving of tapered approaches on either side of the crossing will
allow bicyclists to cross the tracks closer to a right angle. 
Secondly, in higher bicycle use areas the use of a rubberized
railroad crossing mat improves the problem significantly. 
Rubberized crossings are used by some communities in the curb lanes
of many track crossings, regardless of the tracks' angles.

Land Use and Site Planning

As an important means of promoting the bicycle as a distant-
suitable alternative to the auto, bicycle plans can call for local
policies, plat reviews, site design review processes, and
subdivision ordinances that require that now development have
proper street and neighborhood connection points and access to
services provided by mixing land uses.

The manner in which land is developed can have a profound effect on
the feasibility and accommodation of bicycling.  Land use plans and
zoning, developed with the attention to bicyclists, will likely
include neighborhood commercial and mixed-used development
districts that are in closer proximity to residential areas.  This
will make bicycle and pedestrian trip making that much more
attractive.  On the other hand, the intensification of commercial
land uses in malls or strip developments is normally not a bicycle-
friendly development because of the high motor vehicle volumes
generated by such places and the lack of bicycle accommodations
leading there.

It is important that the needs of bicyclists are considered along
with major developments, such as subdivisions, commercial
developments, and planned unit developments.  Some of the most
relevant documents to be considering the needs of bicyclists are in
comprehensive community plans or land use plans.  Therefore, just
as a transportation plan must be consistent with area land use
plans, the bicycle element of a transportation plan must also be
compatible and integrated with local land use and comprehensive

Bicycle plans can call for local policies, plat reviews, site
design review processes, and subdivision ordinances that require
that new development have the proper connections to neighborhood
and community circulation systems.  Bicycle and pedestrian cross
connections can be made between adjoining subdivisions and connect
cul-de-sacs or commercial areas without the need for bicyclists and
pedestrians to take a more circuitous route along arterials.  On a
larger scale, this can occur when major transportation projects are
being designed.  Bicycle facilities can be incorporated into the
design of facilities or provisions made to allow for later
accommodation.  For example, a freeway may incorporate box culverts
in urban and suburbanizing areas for future bicycle and pedestrian
underpasses or highways may incorporate the needed right-of-way for
any planned bike paths.

More specifically, bicycle plans should include recommendations on
bicycle parking.  Bicycle accessibility to places and buildings is
rooted in accommodating bicycles with adequate and


sufficient parking.  One sure means of ensuring bicycle parking at
new locations is through the incorporation of bicycle parking
provisions into local ordinances, including zoning ordinances.

Other Beneficial Practices

There are a number of other beneficial practices that can be
employed to encourage bicycle use.  Some of these are outside the
purview of the local and state government.  One of the most
important employer-provided improvements is the availability of
showering facilities and workplace lockers.  Secondly, businesses
should provide bicycle racks, but if additional encouragement is
desired, bicycle storage facilities should be provided as close to
building entrances as possible.


                           Appendix Items

1.Appendix A - Bicycle Planning Criteria

2.Appendix B - Bicycle Facilities
     Table AP- 1

3.Appendix C - Developing the Safety Component of a Bicycle Plan

4.Appendix D - Rerouting Hazards

5.Appendix E - Improving Conditions for Bicycling

6.Appendix F - Wisconsin Statutes on Bicycle Equipment and Use 

7.Appendix G - Definitions

8.Reference Bibliography


                Appendix A: BICYCLE PLANNING CRITERIA

The factors to be considered in choosing the location for bicycle
facilities vary depending on the situation.  The most important
variables are described below.  Typically, the following criteria
will be used to first identify a general bicycle corridor, then to
site the bicycle facility within that corridor, and finally to
choose the desired facility type on a specific street segment.  The
same criteria will be used to choose the bicycle facility treatment
type for a street segment as is used to select a street segment
within a corridor.

Corridor Identification

Usage - Bikeways (bike lanes, paths, routes) should be located in
areas where use can be maximized.  Generally, bikeways should be
located within the same corridors as arterials and collectors since
bicyclists have the same origins and destinations as do motorists. 
The following factors may be considered in the examination of
potential usage of a bicycle facility and should provide some
additional direction as to the destinations of bicycle trips:

*Location of employment centers Individual large employers or
concentrations of employment. 
*Location of commercial facilities - Including shopping centers,
malls, large retailers, etc. *Location of mode transfer - Major
points of mode transfer such as transit hubs, railroad stations,
connections of inter-city bike routes.
*Location of parks, stadiums, fairgrounds, and other recreational
*Location of educational facilities.
*Area demographics - Population density and age, household size and
type (single family, multifamily).
*Trip Length - Most utilitarian bike trips are less than five
miles, as are most motor vehicle trips.  In considering the scope
and priority of a project, trip lengths between likely origins and
destinations should be evaluated.

In the consideration of bicycle facilities, WisDOT will use as a
general warrant 25 bicyclists per day that are either currently
using a particular roadway or likely to use it once a facility has
been constructed.  More specifically, when the state constructs,
reconstructs, or finances any roadway, it will include suitable
space for bicyclists wherever the existing ROW permits, as long as
bicycle use or anticipated use on a roadway exceeds 25 bicyclists
per day (combined from both directions) or the street or highway
has been designated as part of a bikeway system.

Accessibility/Spacing - In locating a bicycle route, consideration
should be given to the provision for frequent and convenient
bicycle access.  This criterion establishes a distance that a
bicycle route is from a specified trip origin or destination.  Most
bike plans try to ensure that each urban home is no farther than a
quarter to one-half mile from a designated bicycle route facility. 
Mobility and accessibility can be hampered by physical or traffic
barriers and any required bicycle "detours" to gain access.


Bicycle facilities should be provided within all urban arterial and
collector corridors.  Generally, this includes the provision of a
bike lane on the arterial itself or the provision of a side-street
facility (in some cases, a bicycle path) in combination with a wide
curb lane on the arterial itself.  If side-street facilities or
bicycle paths are favored, route directness and system continuity
should not be compromised.

Many communities which have already developed bicycle plans require
that the accessibility criterion be met by stating that every
residence be within a certain distance to the designated bicycle
route.  Others just ensure that certain destinations such as
schools, downtowns, shopping centers, major employment centers,
major employers, community parks, industrial and business parks,
etc., are served directly by bicycle facilities.  Other
communities, such as Eugene and Corvalis, Oregon just require that
all arterials be constructed with a bike lane.

Directness - For utilitarian bicycle trips, facilities should
connect traffic generators and should be located along a direct
line convenient for users.  Cyclists, like motorists, prefer a
direct route (if not in distance, in time).  Bikeways should
connect origin and destination pairs (desire lines) for
destinational cycling.  This is less of a factor for recreational
cycling when often there is no specific destination.  A cyclist's
willingness to use a designated route depends on the amount of
indirectness involved, how superior the bikeway option is to the
more direct route, how long the cyclist will use the designated
bikeway, and how much of a hurry the cyclist is in.  Over the
course of two miles, most cyclists will not deviate more than two
blocks off a direct route just to use a designated bike route.

Continuity - A planned bicycle route system should be free of
missing links or gaps.  If barriers exist that will impede system
continuity, then improvements should be planned that will alleviate
those system barriers.

Barriers - In most urban areas, there are physical barriers to
bicycle travel, caused by freeways, rail lines, rivers, and
topographical features such as steep grades.  Bicycle facilities
should be integrated into the design of street and bridge
improvements to eliminate barriers.

Aesthetics - The scenic value of a bicycle route should not be of
primary importance, but should be considered in the evaluation of
alternatives when the other criteria are considered of equal

Security - The potential for criminal acts against bicyclists,
especially along remote bicycle paths or higher crime
neighborhoods, and the possibility of theft or vandalism at parking
locations should be considered in the selection of a corridor.

Siting a Bicycle Facility within a Corridor

Directness - Although this has been listed as a criterion in
identifying the general location of a bicycle corridor, it also has
applicability for locating a facility within a corridor. 


bicyclists have a destination, and as such, will not detour more
than several blocks within a bicycle corridor.  Appendix D is an
excerpt from the Oregon DOT Bicycle Plan which illustrates the
hazards of routing cyclists from street to street within a

Delays - Bicyclists have a strong inherent desire to maintain
momentum.  If bicyclists are required to make frequent stops, they
may tend to avoid the route or disregard the traffic controls.  If
the choice is to route cyclists on side-streets within a corridor
instead of on an arterial, efforts should be made to reduce the
number of delays through reducing the number of stop signs along
the side-street facility.  This should be done without increasing
motor vehicle through-traffic.  If motor vehicle traffic does
increase, traffic calming techniques, such as bicycle boulevards,
speed control devices, curb extensions, and traffic circles on
lower volume neighborhood streets may be appropriate

Safety (Traffic Operational Factors): Inherent in the consideration
of any bike route alternative is the issue of safety.  In a perfect
and cash-limitless transportation network, there could be complete
separation among bicyclists, motorists and pedestrians.  Because
separation is only practical and feasible in a limited number of
situations, design criteria must be used to identify the
appropriate bicycle facility treatment type and the design
standards for that facility.  The most significant traffic
operational factors for selecting a bicycle facility within a
corridor are: traffic volumes, average motor vehicle speeds,
traffic mix (auto, truck, bus), on-street parking (frequency of
turnover, average number of parked vehicles), sight distance, and
number of intersections and driveways.

Cost/Funding - Location selection will normally involve a cost
analysis of alternatives.  Every recommended bicycle route will
have a set of necessary improvements.  Funding limitations may
limit the choice of alternatives.  However, it is important that a
lack of funds not result in a poorly designed or constructed
facility.  The cost of maintenance should also be considered in
this analysis.

Ease of Implementation: Based on existing traffic
operations/conditions, presence of parking, neighborhood politics,
and the amount of space and right-of-way available (tied
inextricably to costs), bicycle facilities will be considered by
their ease of implementation.  Trade-offs with the other criteria
can make projects perceived as difficult to implement, actually
easier to do, especially as an interim measure.  For instance, a
project with a high cost but a source of funds, becomes that much
more implementable.

1 A bicycle boulevard is created when there is a need to designate
a side-street bicycle route but still reduce the amount of through
motor vehicle traffic.  Motor vehicle traffic may have been induced
on the side-street by treatments made to the street designed to
decrease delays for bicycles (i.e. reduction in the number of stop
signs).  Access to any use along the boulevard can be made by any
mode, but only bicycles are given priority for through traffic. 
This is accomplished by turning streets into dead-ends or limiting
access for motor vehicles, but creating continuous passageways for


     Selection of Bicycle Facility Treatment Facility

Most of the same criteria used to select a street segment within a
corridor will be used to determine the appropriate treatment on a
street segment.  The appropriate treatment will again depend on the
group of cyclists for which the facility is designed.  Generally,
if an arterial is chosen as the preferred alternative, then the
most likely treatment type will be a bicycle lane.  If a side-
street route is chosen, then typically no street improvements have
to implemented, but signage, sidewalks, delay reduction measures,
and the possible selective removal of parking may be necessary.  If
a side-street is chosen, then the arterial will most often still
need to be widened to better accommodate bicyclists.  A bike lane
will not generally be necessary, but a slightly wider curb lane
will allow effective lane sharing between bicyclists and motorists.



The following presents a brief description of the major types of
bicycle facilities and the characteristics attributable to each. 
Graphics have been provided for each type of bicycle facility. 
Under Wisconsin statute 346.02 "every person riding a bicycle upon
a roadway is granted all the rights and is subject to all the
duties which this chapter grants or applies to the operator of a
vehicle".  Therefore, bicycle facilities must be designed to allow
bicyclists to ride in a manner consistent with motor vehicle

Shared Roadway - On a shared roadway, bicyclists and motorists are
sometimes accommodated in the same travel lane or because of narrow
widths or parked vehicles, motorists may find it necessary to
overtake bicyclists by switching into the oncoming travel lane. 
Shared roadway facilities are common on city street systems and on
narrow town roads and county trunk highways.  This facility type
will continue to provide a very common form of bicycle
accommodation.  Because of the low volume of traffic, most of these
roadways are currently suitable for bicycling with no additional
improvements necessary.

Wide Curb Lanes - On multi-lane arterials and collectors with
higher motor vehicle volumes and/or significant truck/bus traffic,
a right (curb) lane wider than 12 feet is desirable to better
accommodate both bicyclists and motor vehicles in the same travel
lane.  This should allow motorists to overtake bicyclists without
changing lanes.  The four generally accepted advantages of wide
curb lanes are that they:

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

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

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

*Assist turning vehicles in entering the roadway without
encroaching into another lane and better accommodating buses and
other wider vehicles.

AASHTO guidelines consider a lane width of 14 feet of usable width
as being desirable on road segments where parking is not permitted
in the curb lane.  Usable width generally cannot be measured from
curb face to lane stripe, because adjustments must be made for
drainage grates (even the "bicycle safe" ones) and longitudinal
joints between pavement and gutter sections.  For instance, on
those road segments where no parking is allowed but drainage grates
and the


longitudinal joints are located 18 inches from the curb face, the
travel lane (from joint line to lane stripe) should be 14 feet in
width reflecting the unsuitability of bicycle riding on the outside
18 inches of the roadway in the curb flag (gutter section). 
Because of the presence of drainage grates, road debris in gutters
and longitudinal joints, the minimum curb face-to-lane stripe width
is 15 1/2 feet, assuming that the longitudinal joint is 18 inches
or less from the curb face.

If parking is permitted in the curb lane, then the minimum width of
the curb lane, from curb face to through travel lane is 14 feet,
with 15 feet being the desirable width.  In this design situation,
the lane width can be measured from the curb face since parked
motor vehicles can occupy the curb flag (gutter section). 
Conversely, when bicycles travel directly adjacent to a curb, they
cannot safely operate in the gutter section.

Wide curb lanes are not striped or generally promoted as "bicycle
routes", but are often all that is needed to accommodate bicycle
travel.  Where a wide curb lane may be considered for future
restriping as a bike lane, a 17 foot curb lane is recommended. 
Where bicycle travel is to be encouraged, the use of a bicycle lane
is typically most effective.

Click HERE for graphic.

Some bicycle friendly practices that can be employed in the
construction of a wide curb lane are:

*Inclusion of 18" or narrower storm sewer inlet drains that are
"bicycle safe" (all major manufacturers of drainage grates offer
bicycle safe models).
*The curb and gutter section (curb pan or flag) of a street
constructed as an integral section of the travel lane eliminating
the longitudinal joint between the roadway and gutter, providing
more usable space for bicyclists.  This can only be done when
concrete is the chosen paving


material type for the driving lane.  WisDOT District 3 is currently
using integral construction on many or most of its urban state
highway routes with no additional costs.  Where the paving material
for the travel lane is asphalt, the gutter section could be
narrowed to less than the typical two feet to push the longitudinal
joint closer to the curb face.

Bike Lanes

Bicycle lanes can be considered when it is desirable to delineate
available road space for preferential use by bicyclists and
motorists and to provide for more predictable movements by each. 
Bicycle lanes markings can increase a bicyclist's confidence in
motorists not straying into his/her path of travel.  Likewise,
passing motorists are less likely to swerve to the left out of
their lane to avoid bicyclists on their right.  Bike lanes are
generally established on urban arterials and sometimes on urban
collector streets.

Bicycle lanes are delineated by painted lane markings and should
always be one-way facilities and carry traffic in the same
direction as adjacent motor vehicle traffic.  Two-way bicycle lanes
on one side of the roadway are unacceptable because they promote
riding against the flow o motor vehicle traffic.  Wrong-way riding
is a major cause of bicycle accidents and violates the Rules of the
Road stated in the Uniform Vehicle Code.  Bicycle lanes on one-way
streets should be on the right of the street except in areas where
a bicycle lane on the left will decrease the number of conflicts
(e.g., those caused by heavy bus traffic).

The use of bike lanes does require an additional commitment to
maintenance.  Bike lanes must be kept free of debris and gravel -
the sweeping motion of passing motor vehicles will not keep the
bike lanes clean.  Additionally, the bike lane stripes themselves
must be maintained on a regular basis.

Click HERE for graphic.

The minimum width for a bike lane is 4 feet to the left of parked
motor vehicles, or 5 feet from the curb face.  The recommended bike
lane width is 5 feet.  There must be a clear riding zone of 4 feet
if there is a longitudinal joint between the travel lane and the
curb and gutter section.  Where parking is permitted, the bike lane
must be placed between the parking area and the travel lane, the
recommended bike lane width is 5 feet, and the combination lane
(including parking and bike lane segments) should have a minimum
width of 14 feet.


Paved Shoulders

Wide curb lanes and bike lanes are usually preferred in restrictive
urban conditions and the widened shoulder will generally be more
accommodating in rural circumstances.  Where it is intended that
bicyclists ride on shoulders, smooth paved shoulders should be
provided and maintained.  Rumble strips and grooved travel lane
indicators can be a deterrent to bicycling on shoulders and their
benefits should be weighed against the probability that bicyclists
will ride in the motor vehicle lanes to avoid them.  Many states
construct rumble strips with smooth short bypasses" in the strips
themselves to allow bicyclist shock-free passage.

Click HERE for graphic.

Paved shoulders are generally established on rural arterial and
collector highways.  Shoulder width should be a minimum of 4 feet
when intended to accommodate bicycle travel.  Arterial highways
with shoulders less than 4 feet wide normally should not be signed
as bikeways or bike routes.

Bike Path

A bike path is a bikeway that is physically separated from motor
vehicle traffic by an open space or barrier, and may be within the
roadway right-of-way or within an open space.  Bike paths are
normally two-way facilities.  Bike paths may be appropriate in
corridors not served by other bikeways, if there are few
intersecting roadways and driveways.

Bike paths can provide good bicycle mobility under certain
circumstances, especially where the bike path is truly isolated
from motor vehicles, such as along rivers grades, greenways,
abandoned rail lines, and connections between subdivisions and cul-
de-sacs.  Special care must be taken to limit the number of at-
grade crossings with streets and driveways.  Two-way bike paths
should not be placed on or adjacent to roadways.  Otherwise, a
portion of the bicycle traffic rides against the normal flow of
motor vehicle traffic, which is contrary to the rules of the road. 
Page 22 of the AASHTO bicycle guidelines provides eight problems
associated with bike paths located immediately adjacent to


According to AASHTO bicycle guidelines, under most conditions, a
recommended all paved width for two-directional bicycle path is 10
feet.  Eight feet is considered the minimum width but this width
should only be used when there is low bicycle usage, little
expected pedestrian use, and no anticipated maintenance vehicle
loading conditions causing damage to the pavement edges.  Many
communities and states have gone to a 10 feet minimum width for
bike paths and 12 feet in high use areas.

Bicycle paths, especially those in urban areas, attract a multitude
of different users including bicyclists, pedestrians, runners,
skate-boarders, skaters (in-line and traditional), and people
walking their pets.  When path use is high, conflicts always arise
between the different user groups.  For this reason, it is
impractical to expect that an urban path will be used solely by
bicyclists.  Under congested conditions, faster moving bicyclists
(15 mph or greater) should not be using the facility without
reducing their speed.  The very popular Burke-Gilman trail in
Seattle, Washington actually is signed as to direct "fast
bicyclists" to alternate street routes instead of encouraging them
to speed along on the trail.  When designing bike paths in urban
areas, the assumption should be that the paths will be used by
almost all of the above user groups, thus making a 10 foot path
width a minimum.  Twelve feet or greater should be considered a
desirable width.

The minimum width of a one-directional bicycle path is 5 feet. 
One-directional paths are seldom used in the United States, in
part, because they are almost always used in a two directional
fashion by bicyclists.  One-directional paths should be signed and
designed to limit counter-flow riding.

Where a bike path must be parallel and near to a roadway, there
must be a 5-foot minimum width separation, or a physical barrier of
sufficient height must be installed.

A minimum of a 2-foot "shy" or clear zone should be maintained
adjacent to both sides of a bike path.  The recommended width of
two-way bike path structures (overpasses, underpasses, long
bridges) is 12 feet (8 feet minimum width and 2 feet of shy
distances on each side).  Greater widths will be necessary where
there is significant bicycle and pedestrian use and/or there are
long grades.  Widths of less than 12 feet should apply under less
demanding conditions [low pedestrian and bicycle use, a relatively
flat or short bridge deck, or bicyclists are permitted to use the
motor vehicle section of the bridge deck (i.e. shoulder area, bike
lane)].  The vertical clearance to obstructions should be a minimum
of 8 feet.  However, vertical clearance may need to be greater to
permit passage of maintenance vehicles.

As stated earlier, abandoned rail corridors are generally regarded
as providing good opportunities for bike paths.  A small number of
trails in the United States have even been constructed along active
urban spur or branch lines after a portion of the rail corridor had
been sold to the local community by the rail line owner.  For
instance, the City of Madison purchased and constructed a bike
trail along an active rail line in the eastern portion of the city. 
Typically, rail line owners and operators have major concerns with
joint uses within the corridor because of liability reasons and the
fear that by so allowing the public closer proximity to the rail


more people would trespass on the actual rail line putting the
trespasser at risk and the company at increased exposure.  These
concerns are mollified if an actual land transaction takes place
between the rail line owner and community (bike path sponsor).  If
local communities are unable or unwilling to purchase rail corridor
property for shared corridor use, like Madison has done, co-use
through an agreement with the rail line owner/operator is unlikely
or would at least result in lengthy negotiations and agreements.

For more discussion on design criteria, such as grades, speeds, and
alignment see the AASHTO bicycle guidelines referenced in this
planning guide.

Click HERE for graphic.

Click HERE for graphic.



Each year in Wisconsin approximately 1,700 bicyclists are injured
or killed in traffic crashes1 involving motor vehicles.  It is
estimated that an additional 17,000 bicyclists are injured in
crashes not involving a motor vehicle.2  Slightly more than half of
the bicyclists injured or killed in Wisconsin (59%) are children
aged 15 and younger.

Research shows that bicyclist crashes are not random, unrelated
events.  They are situations that occur over and over--situations
in which the motor vehicle operator, the bicyclist, or both make
errors that threaten the bicyclist's life and safety.  These are
situations that could be avoided. A study of bicyclist/motor
vehicle crashes conducted by Ken Cross and Gary Fisher in 1976
found that the following recurring events account for the majority
of bicyclist crashes.3

*Midblock or stop sign rideout (by bicyclist). 
*Bicyclist makes an unexpected left turn. 
*Motorist stops and goes.
*Motorist makes a left or right turn in front of bicyclist.
*Wrong Way riding (by bicyclist).

In the Cross-Fisher study two-thirds of the sample were children. 
In 1992 the WisDOT Office of Transportation Safety funded a bicycle
crash analysis project designed to study three years of bicycle
crash data in Madison, Wisconsin.  Approximately 90% of the sample
involved adults in crashes and the study revealed that different
events account for adult bicyclist crashes.  It is important to
keep this in mind when one is developing countermeasure programs. 
In the Madison study the majority of crashes were caused by:

*Motorist left turn/merge into a bicyclists' path. 
*Motorist drive-out from a stop sign.
*Motorist drive-out from an alley.
*Bicyclist turn/merge into motor vehicle.

Analyzing records of bicyclist crashes has allowed researchers to
develop a number of programs

1. Throughout this narrative the term 'crash' is used instead of the
term 'accident' to refer to bicyclist/motor vehicle collisions.  A
'crash' is a counter measurable event whereas an accident sounds
like an inevitable event.

2. Estimate based on research conducted by the North Carolina
Highway Safety Research Center found that only 10% of bicycle
injury crashes are reported on police accident report forms.

3. from Bicycle-Safety Education, Facts and Issues, by Kenneth
Cross.  Published by AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, August


designed to promote bicyclist safety.  These programs are designed
to teach bicyclists the skills necessary to avoid the "critical
efforts" most commonly associated with bicycle/motor vehicle

While the development of bicycle facilities is one way to enhance
bicyclists' safety, clearly there are some bicycle crashes that can
only be countermeasured through education and enforcement programs. 
Thus a comprehensive bicycle plan must include components covering
bicyclists' education and enforcement of rules of the road for both
bicyclists and motor vehicle operators.

Target Audience

Bicycle safety programs may be developed for all three types of
bicyclists previously identified, the child bicyclist, the average
adult bicyclist and the experienced rider.  The bulk of research
completed to date has been focused on developing educational
programs targeted for child Bicyclists.  However, there are some
programs in existence designed to educate adult cyclists to become
"effective cyclists"4.  General educational materials designed to
promote safe bicycling for adults also exist.

Child Cyclists

The ideal program to educate children about bicyclist safety is one
that is integrated through the school system and which is supported
by children's parents.  The Wisconsin Department of Transportation
is working to promote a comprehensive bicycle safety curriculum
targeted f&r children in fourth and fifth grade.  Research shows
that school-based curriculums often show results in terms of a
positive change in children's knowledge, as measured on pre and
post tests.  However, when children's bicycling behavior is
measured (i.e. wearing helmets, obeying traffic laws), there is
often only a short-term improvement immediately following the
safety program.5

However, if the school curriculum is supplemented with parents'
follow-up messages to children, then studies show that children's
behavior does change.  It is extremely important that children be
taught about bicycle safety while riding on a bicycle.  In-class
presentations can provide children with knowledge about traffic
rules and regulations, but until they are given the opportunity to
apply that knowledge, it is unlikely that their bicycle riding
behavior will change.

Other child education programs include community bicycle safety
events, bike rodeos, and bike safety fairs.  A bike rodeo is a
popular community event, often sponsored by local Kiwanis,
Optimists, or other civic groups.  Children are invited to bring
their bikes to a park or large parking lot where they are run
through a series of bike safety skills tests.  These are excellent

4. Effective Cycling is a program fun by the League of American
Wheelmen, a bicycling advocacy organization.  It is a type of
driver's education for bicyclists.  Individuals who complete the
program would be termed Class A bicyclists.

5. Seattle Harborview research.


opportunities to teach children and their parents about bicycle
safety and to introduce safe riding behaviors, such as helmet use
and using bike lights, etc.

Experienced (Advanced) Bicyclists (Group A)

For the most part, this group of bicyclists understands the rules
of the road and is capable of functioning efficiently in traffic. 
However, experienced bicyclists, like many vehicle operators, may
disobey traffic laws because they find them "inconvenient". 
Educational programs will probably have little effect on this type
of rider because of their disinterest in going through this
training.  However, their behavior may be changed through
enforcement programs.  Many communities with large populations of
adult bicyclists implement bicycle monitor programs or bicycle law
enforcement programs--designating civilians or trained law
enforcement officers as specifically responsible to make sure that
bicyclists obey traffic laws.

In addition, this type of bicyclist could benefit from public
information programs designed to educate motorists about their
responsibilities in "sharing the road" with bicyclists.  As noted
from the Madison study, a majority of adult bicyclists crashes are
"caused" by a critical error on the part of a motorist and not the

Casual or Novice Bicyclist (Group B)

This type of bicyclist, representing the majority of average adult
cyclists, will benefit from comprehensive public information and
education programs.  This includes promoting safe bicycling
practices through the use of public service announcements (PSA's)
on television and radio, brochures and articles in local newspapers
and journals.  Many good educational resources are produced by
WisDOT (brochures, PSA'S, manuals), but unless these materials are
promoted at the local level, their message will be lost.  In
addition, this type of bicyclist will benefit from general efforts
to include information on bicyclist safety in all traffic safety
materials, including driver's ed training, driver licensing exams,

Some bicycle safety advocates believe that all individuals applying
for a driver's license should be required to complete an "Effective
Cycling" training course so that they will understand bicyclists
rights to the roadway.  Certainly, the Novice/Casual (average
adult) bicyclist could benefit from this training program.

The Novice/Casual bicyclist may also benefit from selective
enforcement programs promoted through the media.  If these
bicyclists, assumed to be law-abiding citizens, are educated about
their responsibilities to obey the rules of the road, and if this
education is reinforced through some high visibility law
enforcement then, as these people begin to bicycle more and more,
they will be more likely to bicycle in a safe manner.


The Motor Vehicle Operator

In any bicycle safety program it is very important to include both
educational and enforcement programs targeted at motor vehicle
operators.  Research shows that one-third to two-thirds of all
bicycle-motor vehicle crashes are caused by critical efforts on the
part of motor vehicle operators.  Motor vehicle operators must be
educated about bicyclists' rights to the road.  An educational
campaign promoting the idea of 'sharing the road with bicyclists'
is recommended.  Wisconsin law defines a bicycle as a vehicle, and
as such is subject to all the same rights and duties of motor
vehicle operators6.  Highly publicized selective enforcement
programs aimed at citing motor vehicle operators for violating
bicyclists' rights may be an effective way of communicating to your
motoring public that they must 9 share the road' with bicyclists.


When a safety program involving education, enforcement, and
engineering becomes part of an overall transportation plan,
integrated with other programs (e.g. employee commute option
programs) or within an overall traffic safety plan, supported by
organizations and promoted through the media, bicyclist safety can
become institutionalized in the community.  This should, in turn,
modify the behavior of drivers and bicyclists and lead to a
reduction in the number of bicyclist-motorist collisions.

Historically, the most effective bicyclist crash countermeasures
have been instituted at the local level rather than the State or
Federal level.  Bicycle safety programs can be introduced
systematically involving all segments of the community in
strategies designed to take into account the unique values and
needs of the community.  To have a long-term and sustained effect
on the community, this comprehensive, integrated effort will
require that bicyclist safety leadership involve city and county
planners, law enforcement personnel, teachers, business people,
parents, members of civic organizations, traffic safety
professionals, and many others.

6 Wisconsin Statute 346.02(4)




Planners and engineers unfamiliar with bicyclists' needs will often
try to route them off from a busy thoroughfare, onto what are
perceived as more desirable, less-travelled streets, rather than
face the more challenging task of providing bike lanes on the
thoroughfare.  This diagram, and the discussion points, illustrate
the problems with this approach.

Click HERE for graphic.

Source: 1992 Oregon Bicycle Plan. Printed with permission from the 
Oregon Department of Transportation

1. It is the shortest distance from 'A" to "B" (The less-travelled
street adds a distance of at least twice "n" feet, more if it

2. There may be destination points along the thoroughfare (e.g. at
"C'), such as businesses, stores, schools or employment centers.

3. The less-travelled street will often have many stop signs;
traffic on the thoroughfare will have the right of way, and
signals-that favor through traffic over side streets.

4. Potential conflict points are increased with rerouting, espe-
cially for cyclists who are required to cross the thoroughfare
twice (bicyclist #2).


1.  Because of the above reasons, many cyclists will choose to stay
on the thoroughfare, even with no bike lanes, causing possible
safety problems and reduced capacity (Bicyclists riding slowly in a
narrow travel lane can cause traffic delays).

2. Circuitous bike route signing that is ignored breeds disrespect
for other bicycle signing.

3. Some motorists will not respect bicyclists who are perceived to
be "riding where they don't belong".



Click HERE for graphic.

Here are some simple ways to improve the bicycling situation in
your community. For the most part, these improvements are
inexpensive and require only a minimal amount of specialized
bicycle planning expertise. They can help ease conflicts and
congestion for all modes of transportation, cars, bikes and even

     by John Williams, Editor of Bikecentennial's bicycle Forum,
                  the Journal of Bicycle Programs.

Why Encourage Bicycling
Bicycling is one of the most popular forms of recreation in America
- in fact, it's number two over all. It's also one of the best
types of aerobic exercise. According to the Bicycle Federation of
America, more than 80 million Americans ride bicycles. Further, the
bicycle is an economical non-polluting energy efficient means of
transportation. Some communities have worked hard to support bike
use and, as a result, significant percentages of their work forces
commute by bike.
     For example, more than 10% of the commute trips in Madison,
Wisconsin are made by bike. Other big bicycle cities around the
country include Palo Alto, California, Eugene, Oregon, Boulder,
Colorado, Missoula, Montana and Gainesville, Florida. By
encouraging bicycle use, these cities have reaped benefits, such as
improved air quality, reduced traffic congestion, and a healthier
citizenry. While some projects they have completed have been
expensive, others have not. This brochure is about those mostly
inexpensive - but good - ideas.

Approaches for All Streets
     Studies have shown that bicycle users can be found in all
parts of a city. They share destinations and trip purposes common
to other road users and , as a result, use all types of streets.
For this reason, it's best to add some bicycle improvements to all
streets where bikes are allowed.
     different types of users, however, generally prefer different
types of streets. Children and casual adult riders often ride on
quiet neighborhood streets or paths. On the other hand, serious
commuting and recreational riders can generally be found on major
streets and highways.

fix or replace dangerous drain grates
     Drainage grates can be the bane of the bicyclists existence.
The worst ones are parallel-bar grates which can trap a bicyclist's
wheel, causing a serious crash.
     Replacing such grates with bicycle safe models is the best
approach. There are numerous designs that are both bicycle safe and
hydraulically efficient. The best design is the curb face inlet.
These present no obstacle at all to the bicycle, as long as slopes
to the inlet are not excessive.
     Other safe designs include steel grates that resemble
honeycombs, and cast iron grates with short, angled slots. Most
grate manufacturers produce bike-safe models.
     The installation is also important. Make sure that grates are
installed level with the pavement and that they are adjusted flush
with future pavement overlays.

Click HERE for graphic.


     Short of replacing drain grates, retrofitting is a viable
approach, particularly in the short-term.  Some agencies weld flat
steel bars across the grate perpendicular to the flow of traffic. 
This approach works reasonably well if you don't have to worry
about snow plows.  Other agencies use covers, of one sort or
another.  These, however, can sometimes collect debris that
restricts the flow of water if not cleaned frequently.
     Retrofitting can solve the immediate problem and reduce an
agency's potential exposure to liability.  But replacing dangerous
grates is the long term solution with the least associated
maintenance costs.

Patch and sweep the roads carefully

Since bicycles have relatively narrow tires no shock absorbers. -
good surface conditions are essential.  And paying extra attention
to the condition of the roadway and patching can do a lot of good.

     For example, a Palo Alto. California, ordinance requires
utility companies to patch their roadway, excavation to a very high
standard, with no big gaps or ridges.  Further, if the patch fails
within one year, the company must re-do the job.

Click HERE for graphic.

     Sweeping is also an important consideration for bicyclists. 
Passing motor traffic moves debris off to the side of the roadway,
here bicyclists often ride.  As a result, sweepers should pay
special attention to the right edge and to places in intersections 
where debris builds up.

Modify diagonal railroad crossings for safety.
Angled railroad crossings can cause bicyclists to crash,
particularly if the tracks and roadway don't meet smoothly.  Right
angle crossings are best, since they aren't likely to divert the
bicycle's front wheel.  But re-routing a railroad line to
accommodate bicyclists certainly isn't feasible.
     Instead, there are several workable approaches to improving
the situation.
     First, if right-of-way considerations allow, pave tapered
approaches on either side of the crossing. This allows bicyclists
to cross the tracks at a right angle.

Click HERE for graphic.

     Second, if cost considerations allow, providing smooth
rubberized railroad crossings eliminates the problem entirely.  
While these are expensive to install, they have the advantage of
significantly reducing long-term maintenance costs.  Some cities,
such as Seattle, Washington, install sections of rubberized
crossing in the outside lanes, where bicyclists are likely to ride. 
This can save costs for installations that solely benefit the
     On slow-speed rail lines, an even less expensive alternative
can work well.  Several cities have installed flangeway filler,
which provides a smooth crossing at reduced cost.  However, this
approach isn't recommended on high speed railroad lines: the 
filler will not compress fast enough when a train wheel hits it and
derailments can occur.
References: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (1976);l
Traffic Control Devices Handbook (1983).  USDOT/FHWA

Make sure all bicycle facilities meet the 1981 AASHTO Guide op
other current guidelines.
     Since the late 1960s, bicycle facility, designers have learned
much about how bikes perform and what riders need.  Some common
facilities mistakes still exist, however, - and some are being re-
created even today.  These mistakes have led to numerous
multimillion dollar judgements against agencies. Here are a few
basic tips from the current AASHTO Guide:
     Don't put two-way bikeways on one side of a street. Such
facilities cause serious conflicts at intersections and driveways. 
Two way bike lane use has led to a number of fatal  head-on
collisions.  And it encourages wrong-way riding.

Click HERE for graphic.

     Don't designate sidewalk bikeways.   These also cause serious
car-bike conflicts at intersections and driveways, as well as
conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians.  Eugene, Oregon, and
other cities have found that sidewalk bikeways have extremely high
accident rates.

Click HERE for graphic.

     Use a realistic design speed on separate trails.  Twenty,
miles per hour is a reasonable design speed on level ground.  On
hills increase it to 30 mph or more.

Click HERE for graphic.

Be especially careful in designing bike path curves and
intersections.   Curve radius is a critically important factor. as
is intersection design.  Sight restrictions must be eliminated as
much as possible.
     Shared trail use is generally unsatisfactory.   While it's
sometimes impossible to avoid, mixing bikes and pedestrians on a
trail often leads to serious conflicts, especially if either bike
volumes or pedestrian volumes are high.  When shared use is
unavoidable, add width and increase sight distance on curves and at
Reference: Guide for Development of New Bicycle Facilities 1981,
American Assn. of State Highway & Transportation Officials.

Improving Major Streets
     For the experienced bicyclist, cycling on major roads, while
not always pleasant, has important benefits.  These benefits are
the same ones that motorists appreciate.  Major roads tend to be
more direct than quiet neighborhood streets.  They are often
protected by stop signs and signals at intersections.  And, those
intersections often have good sight distance.  Skilled bicyclists
have very little trouble riding safety and cooperatively on major
     Historically, improving major roads for bicyclists meant
adding special bicycle facilities, such as bike lanes and
sidepaths.  While these options are still considered in some
situations, in many cases cheaper alternatives are available that
can make a big difference for cycling.
     Here are some of the most important:

Create wide-curb lanes to reduce conflicts.   
     One of the best options for improving cycling conditions  on
major roads is to add width to the curb lanes.  This approach gives
motorists and bicyclists enough room to co-exist in comfort.
     Further, wide curb lanes can reduce conflicts between cars on
the roadway and cars waiting to exit from driveways.

Click HERE for graphic.

     According to the American Association of State Highway &
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), "On highway sections without
bicycle lanes, a right lane wider than 12 feet can better
accommodate both bicycles and motor vehicles in the same lane and
thus is beneficial to both bicyclists and motorists."

Click HERE for graphic.

     Tom Walsh, Assistant Traffic Engineer for the City of Madison,
Wisconsin, says "The wide curb lane is one of the most effective
bicycle accommodation techniques available.  It goes the furthest
to integrate the bicycle into the normal traffic flow, allowing the
bicyclist to use the existing street system as a vehicle without
adversely interfering with other vehicles passing in the same
lane."  He adds that "As a result, overall curb lane utilization
can be improved."
     How wide is wide enough? There is some benefit when lanes are
wider than 12 feet.  On a four-lane arterial street with 12 foot
lanes, simply narrowing the inside lanes to 11 feet and widening
the outside lanes to 13 feet is worth the effort, according to a
study done by the Maryland DOT.  And, unless the speeds are very
high, the loss in capacity for the narrowed inside lanes is
negligible-approximately three percent, according to the Highway
Capacity Manual.
     The consensus, however, seems to be that 14 to 15 feet of
usable lane width is the best.  This doesn't include the curb and
gutter section unless the transition is very smooth.  Some agencies
find that extra-wide curb lanes encourage motorists to share side-
by-side; they use 14 feet as their standard.  However, this problem
varies regionally, other cities report no problems with 16-foot or
even I 9-foot lanes.
References: Evaluation of Wide Curb Lanes as Shared Lane Bicycle
Facilities, 1985.  Maryland Department of Transportation: Highway
Capacity Manual, 1985, Transportation Research Board.

Install bicycle-sensitive traffic signals.
     Demand-actuated signals are known for being unresponsive to
bicycles.  Bikes generally don't have enough, metal to trip the
actuators.  And, as a result, many bicyclists have poor attitudes
regarding signals.
     But times are changing.  Modem detection systems can and do
detect bicycles.  The best design currently available is a modified
quadruple loop (CalTrans Type D). This loop (shown in the
illustration) is sensitive over its entire width but the sensi-
tivity falls off rapidly outside.  Whenever possible, this 
design should be used on all new intersection loop installations.

Click HERE for graphic.

     However, most signals can detect bicycles, if the cyclists
know where to position themselves.  At intersections with standard
square or rectangular loops, for example, the right edge of the
loop is often sensitive enough to detect bikes and can be marked
with a special pavement marking.  A number of cities have
experimented with various designs; the San Diego design is shown
References: Bicycle Forum Tech Note F-2, "Bicycles and Traffic
Detectors."  Traffic Signal Bicycle Detection Study: Final Report,
1985, City of San Diego.

Click HERE for graphic.

Improving Neighborhood Streets
     Many bicyclists prefer riding on quiet neighborhood streets. 
These bicyclists are often less skilled than those who ride on
major roads.  Quiet streets, however. are not necessarily safer
than business streets.  Several Federally-sponsored accident stud-
ies have shown that the majority of car-bike accidents happen on
residential streets and that residential streets may have higher
accident rates than do busier road-ways.  Here are some things to

Increase sight distance at crossings.
     Visibility at intersections is crucial to everyone's safety. 
This is especially true of bicyclists since they are so much 
smaller and often harder to see than the typical car.
     Many car-bike crashes result from motorists' and bicyclists'
inability to see each other due to sight obstructions like large
bushes, fences, and parked cars.
     Keeping sight lines clear at intersections can do much to
improve bicycle safety. While such improvements aren't exotic, they
can be very effective.

Click HERE for graphic.

Click HERE for graphic.

Add effective intersection controls.
     In the West, many residential street intersections are
uncontrolled.  Unfortunately, experience suggests that motorists
(and bicyclists) often misunderstand the traffic laws governing
such intersections.
     Consider installing traffic controls on low-volume streets
which meet popular bicycle routes.  These can be stop or yield
signs, depending on local preference.

Improving Rural Roads
     Rural roads offer miles of quiet and enjoyable cycling.  Many
cyclists consider this type of riding to be the very best
recreation available.  What can be done to improve rural roadways?

Pave shoulders on busy rural roads.
     Some states, such as Wisconsin, add paved shoulders to rural
highways when they reconstruct.  They do this to encourage
bicycling-they have a very active tourism program-and to improve
conditions for motorists as well.
     On narrow rural roads without paved shoulders, cars and trucks
occasionally drop a wheel off the pavement edge.  When the driver
corrects. the wheels tend to tear up that edge.  This damage can
lead to continuing maintenance problems.  Paved shoulders can cut
down on maintenance costs by giving the motorists more room to
correct steering errors.  Further, paved shoulders can cut down on
the incidence of run-off-the-road accidents.

Click HERE for graphic.

     How wide is wide enough?  Consider paving at least three- to
four-feet to a reasonably high standard with adequate subbase.  The
Maryland Department of Transportation, for example, covers their
previously-paved shoulders with a slurry seal for smoothness.  They
find that cyclists appreciate and use the smooth shoulders.

For more information, contact Bicycle Forum.  P. O. Box 8308,
Missoula MT 59807; or call (406) 721-1776.  A free sample copy of
Bicycle Forum is available for the asking.



     The statutes shown In this material have been generated from
     the original data base of the 1989-90 Wisconsin Statutes, but
     may not be an exact duplication.  Please refer to the 1989-90
     Wisconsin Statutes for the official text.

85.07     Highway safety coordination.
(4)  BICYCLE RULES.  The department shall publish literature
setting forth the state rules governing bicycles and their
operation and shall distribute and make such literature available
without charge to local enforcement agencies, safety organizations,
and schools and to any other person upon request.

340.01    Words and phrases defined. In s.23.33 and chs.340 to 349
and 351, the following words and phrases have the designated
meanings unless a different meaning is expressly provided or the
context clearly indicates a different meaning:
(5)  "Bicycle" means every device propelled by the feet acting upon
pedals and having wheels any 2 of which are not less than 14 inches
in diameter.
(5e) "Bicycle lane" means that portion of a roadway set aside by
the governing body of any city, town, village or county for the
exclusive use of bicycles or other modes of travel where permitted
under s.349.23 (2) (a) and so designated by appropriate signs and
(5m) "Bike route" means any bicycle lane, bicycle way or highway
which has been duly designated by the governing body of any city,
town, village or county and which is identified by appropriate
signs and markings.
(5s) "Bicycle way" means any path or sidewalk or portion thereof
designated for the use of bicycles by the governing body of any
city, town, village or county.  
(74) "Vehicle" means every device in, upon or by which
any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a
highway, except railroad trains.  A snowmobile shall not be
considered a vehicle except for purposes made specifically
applicable by statute.

346.02    Applicability of chapter.
BICYCLES. (a) Subject to the special provisions applicable to
bicycles, every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway is granted
all the rights and is subject to all the duties which this chapter
grants or applies to the operator of a vehicle, except those
provisions which by their express terms apply only to motor
vehicles or which by their very nature would have no application to
bicycles.  For purposes of this chapter, provisions which apply to
bicycles also apply to motor bicycles, except as otherwise
expressly provided.
(b)  Provisions which apply to the operation of bicycles in
crosswalks under ss. 346.23, 346.24, 346.37 (1) (a) 2, (c) 2 and
(d) 2 and 346.38 do not apply to motor bicycles.

346.075   Overtaking and passing bicycles and motor buses. (1) The
operator of a motor vehicle overtaking a bicycle proceeding in the
same direction shall exercise due care, leaving a safe distance,
but in no case less than 3 feet clearance when passing the bicycle
and shall maintain clearance until safely past the overtaken

346.16 Use of controlled-access highways, expressways and freeways.
(1) No person shall drive a vehicle onto or from a controlled-
access highway, expressway or freeway except through an opening
provided for that purpose.
(2)(a)    Except as provided in par. (b), no pedestrian or person 
riding a bicycle or other non-motorized vehicle and no person
operating a moped or motor bicycle may go upon any expressway or
freeway when official signs have been erected prohibiting such
person from using the expressway or freeway.
     (b)  A pedestrian or other person under par. (a) may go upon a
portion of a hiking trail, cross-country ski trail, bridle trail or
bicycle trail incorporated into the highway right-of-way and
crossing the highway if the portion of the trail is constructed
under s. 84.06 (I 1).

346.17 Penalty for violating sections 346.04 to 346.16.  (2) Any
person violating ss. 346.05, 346.07 (2) or (3), 346.08 to 346.11,
346.13 (2) or 346.14 to 346.16 may be required to forfeit not less
than $30 nor more than $300.
     (4)  Any person violating s. 346.075 may be required to
forfeit not less than $25 nor more than $200 for the first offense
and not less than $50 nor more than $500 for the 2nd or subsequent
violation within 4 years.

346.23 Crossing controlled Intersection or crosswalk. (1) At an
intersection or crosswalk where traffic is controlled by traffic
control signals or by a traffic officer, the operator of a vehicle
shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian, or to a person who is
riding a bicycle in a manner which is consistent with the safe use
of the crosswalk by pedestrians, who has started to cross the
highway on a green or "Walk" signal and in all other cases
pedestrians and bicyclists shall yield the right-of-way to vehicles
lawfully proceeding directly ahead on a green signal.  No operator
of a vehicle proceeding ahead on a green signal may begin a turn at
a controlled intersection or crosswalk when a pedestrian or
bicyclist crossing in the crosswalk on a green or "Walk" signal
would be endangered or interfered with in any way.  The rules
stated in this subsection are modified at intersections or
crosswalks on divided highways or highways provided with safety
zones in the manner and to the extent stated in sub. (2).
     (2)  At intersections or crosswalks on divided highways or
highways provided with safety zones where traffic is controlled by
traffic control signals or by a traffic officer, the operator of a
vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian or bicyclist
who has started to cross the roadway either from the near curb or
shoulder or from the center dividing strip or a safety zone with
the green or "Walk" signal in the pedestrian's or bicyclist's

346.24 Crossing at uncontrolled Intersection or crosswalk. (1) At
an intersection or crosswalk where traffic is not controlled by
traffic control signals or by a traffic officer, the operator of a
vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian, or to a
person riding a bicycle in a manner which is consistent with the
safe use of the crosswalk by pedestrians, who is crossing the
highway within a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
     (2)  No pedestrian or bicyclist shall suddenly leave a curb or
other place of safety and walk, run or ride into the path of a
vehicle which is so close that it is difficult for the operator of
the vehicle to yield.
     (3)  Whenever any vehicle is stopped at an intersection or
crosswalk to permit a pedestrian or bicyclist to cross the roadway,
the operator of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall
not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle.


346.25 Crossing at place other than crosswalk.  Every pedestrian or
bicyclist crossing a roadway at any point other than within a
marked or unmarked crosswalk shall yield the right-of-way to all
vehicles upon the roadway.

346.30 Penalty for violating sections 346.23 to 346.29. (1) 2. Any
operator of a bicycle violating s. 346,23, 346.24 or 346.25 may be
required to forfeit not more than $20.

346.34 Turning movements and required signals on turning and
stopping. (1) TURNING. (a) No person may:
1. Turn a vehicle at an intersection unless the vehicle is in
proper position upon the roadway as required in s. 346.31.
2. Turn a vehicle to enter a private road or driveway unless the
vehicle is in proper position on the roadway as required in s.
3. Turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a
roadway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable
(b) In the event any other traffic may be affected by such
movement, no person may so turn any vehicle without giving an
appropriate signal in the manner provided in s. 346.35. When given
by the operator of a vehicle other than a bicycle, such signal
shall be given continuously during not less than the last 100 feet
traveled by the vehicle before turning.  The operator of a bicycle
shall give such signal continuously during not less than the last
50 feet traveled before turning.
(2) STOPPING.  No person may stop or suddenly decrease the speed of
a vehicle without first giving an appropriate signal in the manner
provided in s. 346.35 to the operator of any vehicle immediately to
the rear when there is opportunity to give such signal.  This
subsection does not apply to the operator of a bicycle approaching
an official stop sign or traffic control signal.

346.35 Method of giving signals on turning and stopping.   Whenever
a stop or turn signal is required by s. 346.34, such signal may in
any event be given by a signal lamp or lamps of a type meeting the
specifications set forth in s. 347.15. Except as provided in s.
347.15 (3m), such signals also may be given by the hand and arm in
lieu of or in addition to signals by signal lamp.  When given by
hand and arm, such signals shall be given from the left side of the
vehicle in the following manner and shall indicate as follows:
     (1)  Left turn-Hand and arm extended horizontally.

     (2)  Right turn-Hand and arm extended upward.

     (3)  Stop or decrease speed-Hand and arm extended

346.36 Penalty for violating sections 346.31 to 346.35.

     (2)  Any operator of a bicycle violating ss. 346.31 to 346.35
may be required to forfeit not more than $20.

346.37 Traffic-control signal legend. (1) Whenever traffic is
controlled by traffic control signals exhibiting different colored
lights successively, or with arrows, the following colors shall be
used and shall indicate and apply to operators of vehicles and
pedestrians as follows:
     (a)  Green. 1. Vehicular traffic facing a green signal may
proceed straight through or turn right or left unless a sign at
such place prohibits either such turn, but vehicular traffic shall
yield the right of way to other vehicles and to pedestrians
lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk at the
time such signal is exhibited.
     2.   Pedestrians, and persons who are riding bicycles in a
manner which is consistent with the safe use of the crosswalk by
pedestrians, facing the signal may proceed across the roadway
within any marked or unmarked crosswalk.
     (b)  Yellow.  When shown with or following the green, traffic
facing a yellow signal shall stop before entering the intersection
unless so close to it that a stop may not be made in safety.
     (c)  Red. 1. Vehicular traffic facing a red signal shall stop
before entering the crosswalk on the near side of an intersection,
or if none, then before entering the intersection or at such other
point as may be indicated by a clearly visible sign or marking and
shall remain standing until green or other signal permitting
movement is shown.
     2.   No pedestrian or bicyclist facing such signal shall enter
the roadway unless he or she can do so safely and without
interfering with any vehicular traffic.
     3.   Vehicular traffic facing a red signal at an intersection
may, after stopping as required under subd. 1, cautiously enter the
intersection to make a right turn into the nearest lawfully
available lane for traffic moving to the right or to turn left from
a one-way highway into the nearest lawfully available lane of a
one-way highway on which vehicular traffic travels to the left.  No
turn may be made on a red signal if lanes of moving traffic are
crossed or if a sign at the intersection prohibits a turn.  In
making a turn on a red signal vehicular traffic shall yield the
right-of-way to pedestrians and bicyclists lawfully within a
crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection.
     (d)  Green arrow. 1. Vehicular traffic facing a green arrow
signal may enter the intersection only to make the movement
indicated by the arrow but shall yield the right-of-way to
pedestrians and bicyclists lawfully within a crosswalk and to other
traffic lawfully using the intersection.  When the green arrow
signal indicates a right or left turn traffic shall cautiously
enter the intersection.
     2.   No pedestrian or bicyclist facing such signal shall enter
the roadway unless he or she can do so safely and without
interfering with any vehicular traffic.
     (2)  In the event an official traffic signal is erected and
maintained at a place other than an intersection, the provisions of
this section are applicable except as to those provisions which by
their nature can have no application.  Any stop required shall be
made at a sign or marking on the pavement indicating where the stop
shall be made, but in the absence of any such sign or marking the
stop shall be made at the signal.

346.38 Pedestrian control signals.  Whenever special pedestrian
control signals exhibiting the words "Walk" or "Don't Walk" are in
place, such signals indicate as follows:
     (1)  WALK. A pedestrian, or a person riding a bicycle in a
manner which is consistent with the safe use of the crossing by
pedestrians, facing a "Walk" signal may proceed across the roadway
or other vehicular crossing in the direction of the signal and the
operators of all vehicles shall yield the right-of-way to the
pedestrian or bicyclist.
     (2)  DON'T WALK. No pedestrian or bicyclist may start to
cross the roadway or other vehicular crossing in the direction of a
"Don't Walk" signal, but any pedestrian or bicyclist who has
partially completed crossing on the "Walk" signal may proceed to a
sidewalk or safety zone while a "Don't Walk" signal is showing.

346.43 Penalty for violating sections 346.37 to 346.42. (1)

(b)  2. Any operator of a bicycle violating s. 346.37, 346.38 or
346.39 (duty to obey traffic lights) may be required to forfeit not
more than $20.

346.47 When vehicles using alley or non-highway access to stop. (1)
The operator of a vehicle emerging from an alley or about to cross
or enter a highway from any point of access other than another
highway shall stop such vehicle immediately prior to moving on to
the sidewalk or on to the sidewalk area extending across the path
of such vehicle and shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian
or bicyclist and upon crossing or entering the roadway shall yield
the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching on such roadway.


346.49 Penalty for violating ss. 346." to 346.485. (1) (b) Any
operator of a bicycle violating s. 346.46 (duty to obey stop signs)
may be required to forfeit not more than $20.
(2)  (b) Any operator of a bicycle violating s. 346.44 (duty to
stop at signals indicating approach of train) may be required to
forfeit not more than $20.

346.59 Minimum speed regulation.
     (2)  The operator of a vehicle moving at a speed so slow as to
impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic shall, if
practicable, yield the roadway to an overtaking vehicle whenever
the operator of the overtaking vehicle gives audible warning with a
warning device and shall move at a reasonably increased speed or
yield the roadway to overtaking vehicles when directed to do so by
a traffic officer.

346.60 Penalty for violating sections 346.57 to 346.595
     (5) (a) Any operator of a bicycle who violates s. 346.57
(speed limits) may be required to forfeit not more than $20.
     (b) Any operator of a bicycle who violates s. 346.59 may be
required to forfeit not more than $10.

346.77 Responsibility of parent or guardian for violation of
bicycle and play vehicle regulations.  No parent or guardian of any
child shall authorize or knowingly permit such child to violate any
of the provisions of ss. 346.78 to 346.804 and 347.489.

346.78 Play vehicles not to be used on roadway.  No person riding
upon any play vehicle may attach the same or himself or herself to
any vehicle upon a roadway or go upon any roadway except while
crossing a roadway at a crosswalk.

346.79 Special rules applicable to bicycles.  Whenever a bicycle is
operated upon a highway, bicycle lane or bicycle way the following
rules apply:
(1) A person propelling a bicycle shall not ride other than upon or
astride a permanent and regular seat attached thereto.
(2) (a) Except as provided in par. (b) no bicycle may be used to
carry or transport more persons at one time than the number for
which it is designed.
(b) In addition to the operator, a bicycle otherwise designed to
carry only the operator may be used to carry or transport a child
seated in an auxiliary child's seat or trailer designed for
attachment to a bicycle if the seat or trailer is securely attached
to the bicycle according to the directions of the manufacturer of
the seat or trailer.
(3) No person operating a bicycle shall carry any package, bundle
or article which prevents the operator from keeping at least one
hand upon the handle bars.
(4) No person riding a bicycle shall attach himself or his bicycle
to any vehicle upon a roadway.
(5) No person may ride a moped or motor bicycle with the power unit
in operation upon a bicycle way.
346.80 Riding bicycle on roadway. (1) Unless preparing to make a
left turn, every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway carrying
2-way traffic shall ride as near as practicable to the right edge
of the unobstructed traveled roadway, including operators who are
riding 2 abreast where permitted under sub. (2).  On one-way
roadways, the operator of the bicycle shall ride as near as
practicable to the right edge or left edge of the unobstructed
traveled roadway, including operators who are riding 2 abreast
where permitted under sub. (2).  Every person operating a bicycle
upon a roadway shall exercise due care when passing a standing
vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction, allowing a minimum
of 3 feet between the bicycle and the vehicle.
(2)  Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall ride single file
on all roadways which have center lines or lane lines indicated by
painting or other markings and in all unincorporated areas.  On
roadways not divided by painted or other marked center lines or
lane lines, bicycle operators may ride 2 abreast in incorporated
(4)  No person may operate a bicycle or moped upon a roadway where
a sign is erected indicating that bicycle or moped riding is
(5)  Except as provided in ss. 346.23, 346.24, 346.37 and 346.38,
every rider of a bicycle shall, upon entering on a highway, yield
the right-of-way to motor vehicles.

346.802 Riding bicycle on bicycle lane. (1) (a) Unless 2-way
traffic is authorized under par. (b), every person operating a
bicycle upon a bicycle lane shall ride in the same direction in
which vehicular traffic on the lane of the roadway nearest the
bicycle lane is traveling.
(b)  The governing body of any city, town, village or county may
authorize 2-way traffic on any portion of a roadway which it has
set aside as a bicycle lane.  Appropriate traffic signs shall be
installed on all bicycle lanes open to 2-way traffic.
(2)  (a) Unless otherwise provided under par. (b), a person
operating a bicycle may enter or leave a bicycle lane only at
intersections or at driveways adjoining the bicycle lane.
(b)  A person may leave a bicycle lane at any point by dismounting
from the bicycle and walking it out of the lane.  A person may
enter a bicycle lane at any point by walking his bicycle into the
lane and then mounting it.
(3)  Every person operating a bicycle upon a bicycle lane shall
exercise due care and give an audible signal when passing a bicycle
rider proceeding in the same direction.
(4)  Every operator of a bicycle entering a bicycle lane shall
yield the right-of-way to all bicycles in the bicycle lane.  Upon
leaving a bicycle lane, the operator of a bicycle shall yield the
right-of-way to all vehicles and pedestrians.

346.803 Riding bicycle on bicycle way. (1) Every person operating a
bicycle upon a bicycle way shall:
     (a) Exercise due care and give an audible signal when passing
a bicycle rider or a pedestrian proceeding in the same direction.
     (b) Obey each traffic signal or sign facing a roadway which
runs parallel and adjacent to a bicycle way.
(2)  Every person operating a bicycle upon a bicycle way open to 2-
way traffic shall ride on the right side of the bicycle way.
(3)  Every operator of a bicycle entering a bicycle way shall yield
the right-of-way to all bicycles and pedestrians in the bicycle

346.804 Riding bicycle on sidewalk.  When local authorities under
s. 346.94 (1) permit bicycles on the sidewalk, every person
operating a bicycle upon a sidewalk shall yield the right-of-way to
any pedestrian and shall exercise due care and give an audible
signal when passing a bicycle rider or pedestrian proceeding in the
same direction.


346.82 Penalty for violating sections 346.77 to 346.804. (1)
Any person violating ss. 346.77, 346.79 (1) to (3) or 346.80 to
346.804 may be required to forfeit not more than $20.
(2)  Any person violating s. 346.78 or 346.79 (4) may be required
to forfeit not less than $10 nor more than $20 for the first
offense and not less than $25 nor more than $50 for the 2nd or
subsequent conviction within a year.

346.94 Miscellaneous prohibited acts. (1) DRIVING ON SIDEWALK.  The
operator of a vehicle shall not drive upon any sidewalk area except
at a permanent or temporarily established driveway unless permitted
to do so by the local authorities.
(11) TOWING SLEDS, ETC.  No person shall operate any vehicle or
combination of vehicles upon a highway when such vehicle or
combination of vehicles is towing any toboggan, sled, skis,
bicycle, skates or toy vehicle bearing any person.
motor vehicle may drive upon a bicycle lane or bicycle way except
to enter a driveway or to enter or leave a parking space located
adjacent to the bicycle lane or bicycle way.  Persons operating a
motor vehicle upon a bicycle lane or bicycle way shall yield the
right-of-way to all bicycles within the bicycle lane or bicycle

346.95 Penalty for violating sections 346.87 to 346.94. (1) Any
person violating s. 346.87, 346.88, 346.89 (2), 346.90 to 346.92 or
346.94 (1), (9), (10), (11), (12) or (I 5) may be required to
forfeit not less than $20 nor more than $40 for the first offense
and not less than $50 nor more than $I 00 for the 2nd or subsequent
conviction within a year.

347.489 Lamps and other equipment on bicycles and motor bicycles.
(1) No person may operate a bicycle or motor bicycle upon a
highway, bicycle lane or bicycle way during hours of darkness
unless the bicycle or motor bicycle is equipped with or the
operator is wearing a lamp emitting a white light visible from a
distance of at least 500 feet to the front of the bicycle or motor
bicycle.  A bicycle or motor bicycle shall also be equipped with a
red reflector that has a diameter of at least 2 inches of surface
area on the rear so mounted and maintained as to be visible from
all distances from 50 to 500 feet to the rear when directly in
front of lawful upper beams of headlamps on a motor vehicle.  A
lamp emitting a red light visible from a distance of 500 feet to
the rear may be used in addition to but not in lieu of the red

(2)  No person may operate a bicycle or motor bicycle upon a
highway, bicycle lane or bicycle way unless it is equipped with a
brake in good working condition, adequate to control the movement
of and to stop the bicycle or motor bicycle whenever necessary.
(3)  No bicycle or motor bicycle may be equipped with nor may any
person riding upon a bicycle or motor bicycle use any siren or
compression whistle.

347.50 Penalties.
(5)  Any person violating s. 347.489 may be required to forfeit not
more than $20.

349.105 Authority to prohibit certain traffic on expressways and
freeways.  The authority in charge of maintenance of an expressway
or freeway may, by order, ordinance or resolution, prohibit the use
of such expressway or freeway by pedestrians, persons riding
bicycles or other non-motorized traffic or by persons operating
mopeds or motor bicycles.  The state or local authority adopting
any such prohibitory regulation shall erect and maintain official
signs giving notice thereof on the expressway or freeway to which
such prohibition applies.

349.18 Additional traffic-control authority of counties and
(2)  (a) Except as provided in par. (b), any city, town or village
may by ordinance regulate the operation of bicycles and motor
bicycles and require registration of any bicycle or motor bicycle
owned by a resident of the city, town or village, including the
payment of a registration fee.
     (b)  A city, town or village may not prohibit the use of a
bicycle equipped as provided in s. 346.79 (2) (b) to carry or
transport a child in addition to the operator of the bicycle.
(3)  Any county, by ordinance, may require the registration of any
bicycle or motor bicycle owned by a resident of the county if the
bicycle or motor bicycle is not subject to registration under sub.
(2).  Such ordinance does not apply to any bicycle or motor bicycle
subject to registration under sub. (2), even if the effective date
of the ordinance under sub. (2) is later than the effective date of
the county ordinance.  A county may charge a fee for the

349.23 Authority to designate bicycle lanes and bicycle ways. (1)
The governing body of any city, town, village or county may by
     (a)  Designate any roadway or portion thereof under its
jurisdiction as a bicycle lane.
     (b)  Designate any sidewalk or portion thereof in its juris-
diction as a bicycle way.
(2)  A governing body designating a sidewalk or portion thereof as
a bicycle way or a highway or portion thereof as a bicycle lane
under this section may:
     (a)  Designate the type and character of vehicles or other
modes of travel which may be operated on a bicycle lane or bicycle
way, provided that the operation of such vehicle or other mode of
travel is not inconsistent with the safe use and enjoyment, of the
bicycle lane or bicycle way by bicycle traffic.

     (b)  Establish priority of right-of-way on the bicycle lane or
bicycle way and otherwise regulate the use of the bicycle lane or
bicycle way as it deems necessary.  The designating

governing body may, after public hearing, prohibit through traffic
on any highway or portion thereof designated as a bicycle lane,
except that through traffic may not be prohibited on any state
highway.  The designating governing body shall erect and maintain
official signs giving notice of the regulations and priorities
established under this paragraph, and shall mark all bicycle lanes
and bicycle ways with appropriate signs.
     (c)  Paint lines or construct curbs or establish other
physical separations to exclude the use of the bicycle lane or
bicycle way by vehicles other than those specifically permitted to
operate thereon. 
(3)  The governing body of any city, town, village or county may by
ordinance prohibit the use of bicycles and motor bicycles on a
roadway over which they have jurisdiction, after holding a public
hearing on the proposal.


                       Appendix G: DEFINITIONS

BICYCLE - A vehicle having two tandem wheels, either of which is
more than 16" in diameter or having three wheels in contact with
the ground any of which is more than 16" in diameter, propelled
solely by human power, upon which any person or persons may ride
Source: AAHSTO Bicycle Guidelines.

BICYCLE FACILITIES - A general term denoting improvements and
provisions made by public agencies to accommodate or encourage
bicycling, including parking facilities, mapping all bikeways, and
shared roadways not specifically designated for bicycle use. 
Source: AASHTO Bicycle Guidelines.

BICYCLE LANE - A portion of a roadway which has been designated by
striping, signing and pavement markings for the preferential or
exclusive use of bicyclists.  Source: AASHTO Bicycle Guidelines.

BICYCLE PATH - A bikeway physically separated from motorized
vehicular traffic by an open space or barrier and either within the
highway right of way or within an independent right of way.

BICYCLE ROUTE - A segment of a system of bikeways designated by the
jurisdiction having authority with appropriate directional and
informational markers, with or without specific bicycle route
number.  Source: AASHTO Bicycle Guidelines.

BIKEWAY - Any road, path, or way which in some manner is
specifically designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to
be shared with other transportation modes.  Source: AASHTO Bicycle

HIGHWAY - A general term denoting a public way for purposes of
travel, including the area within the right of way.  Used primarily
in reference to public ways in rural settings.

ROADWAY - The portion of the highway or street, including
shoulders, typically used for vehicle use.  Source: AASHTO Bicycle

SHARED ROADWAY - Any roadway upon which a bicycle lane is not
designated and which may be legally used by bicycles regardless of
whether such facility is specifically designated as a bikeway. 
Source: AASHTO Bicycle Guidelines.

SIDEWALK - The portion of a highway or street designed for
preferential or exclusive use by pedestrians.  Source: AASHTO
Bicycle Guidelines.

STREET - A general term denoting a public way for purposes of
travel in an urban setting.


Reference Bibliography

Bicycle Forum Technical Note Series - Improving Local Conditions
for Bicycling.  John Williams, Bikecentennial.  Missoula, Montana.

Bikeway Planning and Design, July 1990, California Department of
Transportation.  Sacramento, CA.

Bicycle Compatible Roadways: - Planning and Design Guidelines. 
December, 1982, New Jersey Department of Transportation.  Trenton,
New Jersey.

Plan B: The Comprehensive State Bicycle Plan.  February 1992,
Minnesota Department of Transportation.  St. Paul, Minnesota.

Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Manual.  October 1982. 
Florida Department of Transportation.  Tallahassee, Florida.

The Effects of Bicycle Accommodation on Bicycle Safety and Traffic
May, 1992, Bill Wilkinson, Andy Clarke, Bruce Epperson, Dick
Knoblauch, FHWA Contract DTFH61-89-C-00088.

Guide for Development of Bicycle. August, 1991.  American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 
Washington, D.C.

Guidelines for Developing Rural Bike Routes.  March, 1975. 
Wisconsin Departments of Transportation and Natural Resources. 
Madison, Wisconsin.

Guidelines for Developing Urban Bikes.  May, 1974.  Wisconsin
Departments of Transportation and Natural Resources.  Madison,

Facilities Development Manual Wisconsin Department of
Transportation.  Madison, Wisconsin.

Planning- Guide for the Development of Pedestrian and Bicycle
Facilities.  August, 1977, Wisconsin Governor's Office of Highway
Safety (currently Wisconsin Department of Transportation Office of
Transportation Safety).  Madison, Wisconsin.

Oregon Bicycle Plan.  July, 1992, Oregon Bikeway/Pedestrian Office. 
Salem, Oregon.

Selecting Roadway Design Treatments To Accommodate Bicycles
(Draft).  November, 1992, Bill Wilkinson, Andy Clarke, Bruce
Epperson, Dick Knoblauch, FHWA Contract DTFH61-89C-"88.

Jump To Top