CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE

CITY WIDE-ON CALL ENGINEERING SERVICES

(TRANSPORTATION & STORM DRAINAGE)
5015.00

TASK 3
MULTI-USE TRAIL BOLLARD ASSESSMENT

Prepared For:

Prepared By:

September 5, 2013
 CoA Project Number 5015.00 Multi-Use Trail Bollard Assessment

Table of Contents  Page 
1.  Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 
2.  AASHTO Criteria ...................................................................................................................................... 1 
2.1  Multi‐Use Trails and Bollards ........................................................................................................... 1 
2.2  AASHTO and MUTCD Bollard Guidelines ......................................................................................... 2 
3.  City of Albuquerque Bollard Installations............................................................................................... 3 
4.  National Guidance .................................................................................................................................. 9 
5.  Summary and Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 10 
 
 
List of Figures Page
Figure 1: Bear Canyon Arroyo (East Entrance) .............................................................................................. 5 
Figure 2: Bear Canyon Arroyo (West Entrance) ............................................................................................ 6 
Figure 3: Bear Canyon Arroyo Trail ............................................................................................................... 7 
Figure 4: Gail Ryba Bridge ............................................................................................................................. 8 
Figure 5: Recommended Practice for Bollard Placement ........................................................................... 11 
 
 
List of Tables  Page 
Table 1: Multi‐Use Trail Design Criteria Summary ........................................................................................ 4 
 
 
List of Appendices 
Appendix A: City of Albuquerque Standard Detail 
Appendix B: Agency Bollard Standard Details 
Appendix C: GARTC Draft Bollard Policy 
 

September 5, 2013 i
 CoA Project No. 5015.00 Multi-Use Trail Bollard Assessment

1. INTRODUCTION 
The purpose of this report is to identify relevant design criteria for bollards on multi‐use trail facilities, 
review  the  installation  of  bollards  on  multi‐use  trails  at  several  locations  identified  by  the  City,  and 
develop best practices for implementation by the City of Albuquerque. 
Common  problems  associated  with  bollards  and  multi‐use  trail  facilities  in  Albuquerque  include  the 
following: 
 Bollards present a collision hazard when placed on a multi‐use trail. 
 Inconsistent installations lead to user confusion and do not meet a consistent user expectation. 
 Inadequate spacing between bollards results in users being unable to access facilities and  don 
not comply with ADA requirements. 
 Removable bollards are illegally removed from their locations when not locked. 
 When not in place, removable bollards have a 1‐inch high collar that becomes a trip hazard. 
 When bollards are not in place, unauthorized motorized vehicles may utilize multi‐use facilities. 

2. AASHTO CRITERIA 
2.1 Multi‐Use Trails and Bollards 
Bollards are a commonly used method of controlling vehicular access to multi‐use trails.  However, per 
the  American  Association  of  State  Highway  and  Transportation  Officials  (AASHTO)  Guide  for  the 
Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012 (Fourth Edition): 
“The  routine  use  of  bollards  and  other  similar  barriers  to  restrict  motor  vehicle  traffic  is  not 
recommended.    Bollards  should  not  be  used  unless  there  is  a  documented  history  of 
unauthorized  intrusion  by  motor  vehicles.    Barriers  such  as  bollards,  fences,  or  other  similar 
devices create permanent obstacles to path users.” 
“Furthermore, physical barriers are often ineffective at the job they were intended for – keeping 
out motorized traffic.  People who are determined to use the path illegally will often find a way 
around  the  physical  barrier,  damaging  path  structures  and  adjacent  vegetation.    A  three‐step 
approach may be used to prevent unauthorized motor vehicle entry to shared use paths: 
1. Post  signs  identifying  the  entry  as  a  shared  use  path  and  regulatory  signs  prohibiting 
motor vehicle entry. 
2. Design the path entry locations so that it does not look like a vehicle access and make 
intentional  access  by  unauthorized  users  difficult.    A  preferred  method  of  restricting 
entry  of  motor  vehicles  is  to  split  the  entry  way  into  two  sections  separated  by  low 
landscaping. 
3. Assess whether signing and path entry design prevents or reduces unauthorized traffic to 
tolerable  levels.    If  motor  vehicle  incursion  is  isolated  to  a  specific  location,  consider 
targeted surveillance and enforcement.” 
There are no standards or recommended guidelines that have been established to identify a threshold 
for what constitutes a history of unauthorized motorized vehicular use on a multi‐use trail, and the City 
of Albuquerque does not have a policy for when bollards should be considered. 

September 5, 2013 1
 CoA Project No. 5015.00 Multi-Use Trail Bollard Assessment

2.2 AASHTO and MUTCD Bollard Guidelines 
If  a  need  for  the  implementation  of  bollards  for  a  multi‐use  trail  is  identified,  AASHTO  has  set  forth 
several  guidelines  for  the  design  of  vertical  barriers  to  make  them  as  compatible  as  possible  with  the 
needs  of  path  users  and  bicyclists.    It  should  be  noted  that  the  parameters  listed  below  are 
recommended practices and not design standards. 
 Bollards should be marked with a retroreflectorized material on both sides or with appropriate 
object markers, per Section 9B.26 of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). 
o MUTCD Section 9B.26 Object Markers 
Fixed objects adjacent to shared‐use paths may be marked with Type 1, Type 2, or Type 
3  object  markers.    If  the  object  maker  is  not  intended  to  also  be  seen  by  motorists,  a 
small version of the Type 3 object marker may be used. 
Standard: 
 Obstructions  in  the  traveled  way  of  a  shared‐use  path  shall  be  marked  with 
retroreflectorized material or appropriate object markers. 
 All object markers shall be retroreflective. 
 On Type 3 object markers, the alternating black and retroreflective yellow stripes 
shall be sloped down at an angle of 45 degrees toward the side of which traffic is 
to pass the obstruction. 

 
 

September 5, 2013 2
 CoA Project No. 5015.00 Multi-Use Trail Bollard Assessment

 Bollards should permit passage, without dismounting, for adult tricycles, bicycles towing trailers, 
and tandem bicycles.  Bollards should not restrict access for people with disabilities. 
o Outdoor Developed Areas Accessibility Guidelines: 3 feet for clear tread width 
o Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board): 5‐feet is the 
minimum clear width for shared use paths 
 Bollard placement should provide adequate sight distance to allow users to adjust their speed to 
avoid hitting them. 
 Bollards should be a minimum height of 40 inches and minimum diameter of 4 inches. 
 Striping  an  envelope  around  the  approach  to  the  post  is  recommended  as  shown  below,  to 
guide users around the object. 

 
Source: AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012 (Fourth Edition): 

 One  strategy  is  to  use  flexible  delineators,  which  may  reduce  unauthorized  vehicle  access 
without causing the injuries that are common with rigid bollards. 
 Bollards should be installed in locations where vehicles cannot easily bypass the bollard.  Use of 
one bollard in the center of the path is preferred.  When more  than one post is used, an odd 
number  of  posts  spaced  at  6  feet  is  desirable.    However,  two  posts  are  not recommended,  as 
they  direct  opposing  path  users  towards  the  middle,  creating  conflicts  and  the  possibility  of  a 
head‐on  collision.    Wider  spacing  can  allow  entry  to  motor  vehicles,  while  narrower  spacing 
might prevent entry by adult tricycles, wheelchairs users, and bicycles with trailers. 
 Bollards should be set back from the roadway a minimum of 30 feet.  Bollards set back from the 
intersection allow path users to navigate around the bollard before approaching the roadway. 
 Hardware installed in the ground to hold a bollard or post should be flush with the surface to 
avoid creating an additional obstacle. 
 Lockable, removable (or reclining) bollards allow entrance by authorized vehicles. 

3. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE BOLLARD INSTALLATIONS 
The City of Albuquerque has installed bollards at numerous locations throughout the City’s trail system 
to  control  vehicular  access  on  trails.    Currently,  standards  or  recommended  practices  to  ensure 
consistent  application  are  not  fully  established  by  the  City  of  Albuquerque  to  govern  the  design  and 
installation of trail bollards.  The only City Standard Drawing established for bollard installation pertains 
to an installation for access to a drainage facility (see Appendix A).  As part of this assessment, the City 

September 5, 2013 3
 CoA Project No. 5015.00 Multi-Use Trail Bollard Assessment

of  Albuquerque  requested  that  bollards  at  the  following  locations  be  reviewed  and  compared  to 
AASHTO design guidelines: 
 Bear Canyon Arroyo Bridge (East Entrance), at the north end of Brentwood Lane (Figure 1) 
 Bear Canyon Arroyo Bridge (West Entrance), adjacent to the east side of Jefferson Street, north 
of Balloon Park Road (Figure 2) 
 Bear  Canyon  Arroyo  Trail,  adjacent  to  the  west  side  of  Jefferson  Street,  north  of  Balloon  Park 
Road (Figure 3) 
 Gail  Ryba  Bridge  (East  Entrance),  which  crosses  over  the  Rio  Grande,  adjacent  to  the  Bosque 
Trail (Figure 4) 
It should be noted that during the development of this assessment, changes were made to the bollard 
installations  at  the  Bear  Canyon  Arroyo  Bridge  (East  Entrance)  and  at  the  Bear  Canyon  Arroyo  Bridge 
(West Entrance).  For the purpose of this assessment, only the new installations were documented and 
evaluated as compared to AASHTO design guidelines.  Table 1 summarizes the relevant design criteria 
for the each of the installations and indicates if the criteria meet or exceed AASHTO criteria. 
Table 1: Multi‐Use Trail Design Criteria Summary 

Bear Canyon Arroyo Bridge

Bear Canyon Arroyo Bridge

Bear Canyon Arroyo Trail
(West Jefferson)

Gail Ryba Bridge
(West Entrance)
(East Entrance)

(East Entrance)
Retroreflectorized Material    
Visibility
Appropriate Object Markers   ‐ ‐
ADA Accessible
   
(3 feet)
Permit Passage
Clear Width
   
(5 feet)
Adequate Sight Distance    
Height
   
(40 inches)
Bollard Dimensions
Width
   
(4 inches)
Striped Envelope    
Flexible Delineators    
One Bollard in Center    
Placement Odd Number of Posts with 6 
‐ ‐  
foot Spacing
Setback(30 foot)minimum    ‐
Flush Mounting Hardware    
Removable Bollards for Access    
  ‐ Criteria Met
 ‐ Criteria Not Met

September 5, 2013 4
 CoA Project No. 5015.00 Multi-Use Trail Bollard Assessment

Figure 1: Bear Canyon Arroyo (East Entrance) 

September 5, 2013 5
 CoA Project No. 5015.00 Multi-Use Trail Bollard Assessment

Figure 2: Bear Canyon Arroyo (West Entrance) 

September 5, 2013 6
 CoA Project No. 5015.00 Multi-Use Trail Bollard Assessment

Figure 3: Bear Canyon Arroyo Trail 

September 5, 2013 7
 CoA Project No. 5015.00 Multi-Use Trail Bollard Assessment

Figure 4: Gail Ryba Bridge 

September 5, 2013 8
 CoA Project No. 5015.00 Multi-Use Trail Bollard Assessment

The evaluation findings show that the bollard installations reviewed are not in compliance with AASHTO 
and  MUTCD  recommendations.    In  conjunction  with  a  cursory  review  of  additional  locations,  the 
following issues are consistent throughout the City of Albuquerque: 
 Bollards are rarely retroreflectorized or emblazoned with retroreflectorized tape. 
 Bollards are not 40 inches in height and were always much shorter. 
 Striping is inconsistent between sites and even within a given trail segment. 
 Bollard placement (number and spacing) is inconsistent throughout the City. 
 Bollards are often placed too close to the roadway, frequently at the back of the entrance ramp 
to the trail. 
The  proposed  modifications  to  the  existing  installations  maintain  existing  equipment  and  enhance 
conditions with retroreflective paint and tape and optimization of bollard placement.  Retractable, 40‐
inch bollards were not specified unless a new bollard was required. 

4. NATIONAL GUIDANCE 
Since national standards governing the placement of bollards on multi‐use trails do not currently exist, 
different agencies, committees and coalitions have developed best practices or suggested guidance for 
bollard  types,  placement,  and  locations.    The  common  thought  is  that  bollards  should  be  utilized  to 
increase  trail  safety  by  providing  separation  between  motorized  vehicles  and  trail  users.    A  trail  entry 
point should provide safe access to users and keep unauthorized vehicles out. 
The  following  are  a  summary  of  best  practices  and  guidelines,  including  a  summary  of  recommended 
revisions  to  the  MUTCD  (California),  Section  9C‐101,  for  the  implementation  of  bollards  on  multi‐use 
trails developed in California by the City of Sacramento and California Department of Transportation: 
 The  first  steps  to  control  entry  at  a  trail  approach  should  be  to  install  signs  that  state  vehicle 
entry is prohibited, and to design the entry to discourage vehicle access. 
 Barriers should be placed out of the path of travel.  Place bollards on the centerline or lane line 
of a trail. 
 Bollards should be permanently reflective for nighttime visibility and coated with a bright color 
for daytime visibility. 
 Bollards should be placed so that there is sufficient sight distance to allow users to adjust speed. 
 Bollards should permit passage, without dismounting, for adult tricycles, bicycles towing trailers, 
and tandem bicycles.  Five feet of clearance should be measured face to face and not center to 
center. 
o When placed off the pavement, bollards should be placed a minimum of 2‐feet from the 
edge of the trail or outer lane line. 
 Fold down and sleeve bollards should not be used on trails because when they are not in use, 
they are a hazard to users. 
o If removable bollards are used, the foundation shall be flush with the surface. 
 Use special advance warning signs or pavement markings where sight distance is a concern. 
 Develop a separate access for authorized vehicles when warranted on shared facilities. 

September 5, 2013 9
 CoA Project No. 5015.00 Multi-Use Trail Bollard Assessment

These guidelines are largely consistent with other agency practices and recommendations.  A summary 
of agency and organization guidelines and standard drawings are included in Appendix B. 

5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
The Albuquerque metropolitan area has more than 175 miles of paved multi‐use trails.  While bollards 
are  commonly  used  on  these  facilities,  the  City  of  Albuquerque  does  not  have  established  standards 
defining  the  appropriate  installation  of  bollards  on  a  multi‐use  trail  and  the  applications  are 
inconsistent.    AASHTO  together  with  the  MUTCD,  has  developed  recommended  criteria  for  the 
installation of bollards on multi‐use trails, which are not design standards, but have been established as 
best practices. 
The goal of bollards should be to balance the need to discourage unauthorized motorized vehicle access 
on a trail with the need to provide the trail users a facility without unnecessary obstructions.  Therefore, 
developing  a  series  of  best  practices  for  the  installation  of  bollards  on  the  City  of  Albuquerque  trail 
system  is  critical  for  the  purpose  of  not  only  providing  consistency  within  the  trail  system,  but  also 
establishing a level of expectancy with the trail users that will result in less confusion and improvements 
in accessibility for all types of users. 
Following is a list of best practices that should be consistent when installing bollards at any trail facility 
by the City of Albuquerque (Figure 5): 
 Only apply bollards if the need is demonstrated, or if the trail entrance cannot be designed or 
modified to discourage use by unauthorized motor vehicles.  Bollard use should be reserved for 
problematic locations. 
o Bollards  should  not  be  installed  on  trail  facilities  that  parallel  a  roadway  unless  it  is 
identified as a problematic location. 
o Bollards should be considered along obscured facilities that are not readily visible and at 
other problematic locations. 
 All  bollards  should  be  made  of  a  retroreflectorized  material  or  have  retroreflectorized  tape 
affixed to them for easy visibility from both approaches to the bollard. 
o Where  possible,  retractable  bollards  should  be  implemented.    Appropriate  usage 
ensures that the bollards will remain in place and cannot be removed from the site and 
when retracted, the bollard will not be a hazard. 
 Bollards should be 40 inches in height (minimum) and 4 inches (minimum) in diameter to ensure 
visibility. 
 In  most  instances,  a  single  bollard  should  be  placed  at  the  centerline  of  the  trail,  where 
adequate sight distance is available. 
o Two  bollards  should  not  be  used  as  they  typically  will  be  placed  in  the  center  of  the 
travel way for each travel direction. 
o If  it  is  necessary  to  restrict  access  adjacent  to  the  multi‐use  trail  to  restrict  motorized 
traffic, bollards should be placed a minimum of 2‐feet off of the edge of the trail. 
 A minimum clear width of 5 feet should be provided between the edge of trail and the bollard. 

September 5, 2013 10
 CoA Project No. 5015.00 Multi-Use Trail Bollard Assessment

 A  striped  envelope  (4  inch,  retroreflective  yellow)  should  be  striped  around  the  bollard  to 
provide guidance to divert users around the bollard.  A striped yellow centerline should also be 
provided along the trail for 25‐feet on either side of the bollard. 
 Bollards  should  be  set  back  30‐feet  from  the  roadway  to  separate  the  conflict  point  for  users 
between the roadway and bollards, or as far back as is practical based on site conditions. 
 
Figure 5: Recommended Practice for Bollard Placement 

 
 
These recommendations are consistent with a draft policy being developed by the Greater Albuquerque 
Recreational Trails Committee  (GARTC) (Appendix C) and current practices of the City of Albuquerque 
Parks  and  Recreation  Department  (coordination  meeting  held  July  22,  2013).    Standards  to  ensure 
consistent application should be implemented by all departments of the City of Albuquerque.  Every trail 
and entrance are unique and special consideration will need to be given to each site to determine how 
best to place bollards, if the need for bollards is demonstrated. 
 

September 5, 2013 11
 Appendices

September 5, 2013
 Appendix A: City of Albuquerque Standard Detail

September 5, 2013
 Appendix B: Agency Bollard Standard Details

September 5, 2013
American Association of State Highway
Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

Guide to Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition

Bicycling Info.org

Design Details (web)

 
bicyclinginfo.org: Design Details Page 1 of 6

Home > Engineer Bicycle Facilities > Shared Use Paths > Design Details

Design Details
Width and clearance
Ten feet or 3 meters is the recommended minimum width for a two-way, shared use path on a
separate right of way. Other critical measurements include:

• 8 feet (2.4m) may be used where bicycle traffic is expected to be low at all times, pedestrian
use is only occasional, sightlines are good, passing opportunities are provided, and
maintenance vehicles will not destroy the edge of the trail.
• 12 feet is recommended where substantial use by bicycles, joggers, skaters, and pedestrians is
expected, and where grades are steep (see later).
• 2 feet of graded area should be maintained adjacent to both sides of the path.
• 3 feet of clear distance should be maintained between the edge of the trail and trees, poles,
walls, fences, guardrails or other lateral obstructions.
• 8 feet of vertical clearance to obstructions should be maintained; rising to 10 feet in tunnels
and where maintenance and emergency vehicles must operate.

Design speed, horizontal and vertical alignment

The design of a shared use path should take into account the likely speed of users, the ability of
bicyclists to turn corners without falling over, skidding, or hitting their pedal on the ground as they
lean over. The AASHTO Guide for the Design of Bicycle Facilities has a number of tables, and
equations to help designers meet the tolerances of a bicyclist based on the following key numbers:

• 20 miles per hour (30 km/h ) is the minimum design speed to use in designing a trail
• 30 miles per hour (50 km/h) should be used where downgrades exceed 4 percent
• 15 miles per hour (25 km/h) should be used on unpaved paths where bicyclists tend to ride
more slowly (and cannot stop as fast without skidding or sliding on a loose surface)

The result is a series of recommended desirable minimum curve radii for corners that should be safe
for bicyclists.

http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/engineering/paths-details.cfm 9/4/2013
bicyclinginfo.org: Design Details Page 5 of 6

Lighting
Shared use paths in urban and suburban areas often serve travel needs both day and night, for
example commuter routes and trails accessing college campuses. Fixed source lighting improves
visibility along trails and at intersections, and is critical for lighting tunnels and underpasses. The
AASHTO guide recommends using average maintained illumination levels of between 5 and 22 lux,
and the Florida DOT recommends 25 as the average initial lux. Also, there needs to be a periodic
monitoring of the lights and a maintenance program.

Preventing motor vehicle use of paths

In some locations, shared use paths may be mistaken for motor vehicle roads or may suffer from
illegal or unauthorized motorized use. At intersections with roadways, therefore, the path should be
clearly signed, marked and/or designed to discourage or prevent unauthorized motorized access. A
variety of alternatives exist to achieve this:

a. bollards. Probably the most common device is the bollard, often lockable, collapsible or
removable to allow for authorized access to the trail. Great care should be used in locating the
bollard to ensure that they are visible, allow trail users through, and are not placed so as to
channel both directions of trail users towards the same point in the trail. If bollards are to be
used, they should be retro-reflective, brightly colored, and have pavement markings around
them. On a ten foot trail, one bollard should be used in the center of the trail. If more than one
bollard is necessary, there should be five feet between them.
b. splitting the trail in two. Many manuals suggest the option of splitting a ten foot trail into two
five foot approaches to an intersection, with a planted triangle between them. This may
increase maintenance costs.
c. medians. The Florida DOT manual notes that "curbing with tight radii leading up to the
roadway can often prevent motorists from attempting to enter the path. Medians should be set
back from the intersection 25 feet (8m) to allow bicyclists to exit the roadway fully before
navigating the reduced pathway width."

Signing and marking

While fewer signs may be needed on paths compared to on-street facilities, adequate signing and
marking are essential on shared use paths, just as they are on streets and highways. Trail users need
to know about potential conflicts, regulatory information, destinations, cross streets etc. The Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) provides some minimum traffic control measures that
should be applied and a range of options.

http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/engineering/paths-details.cfm 9/4/2013
bicyclinginfo.org: Design Details Page 6 of 6

Striping: a yellow center line stripe is recommended where trails are busy, where sight distances
are restricted, and on some unlit trails where night time riding is expected. The line should be
dashed when adequate passing sight distance exists, and solid when no passing is recommended.

A solid white line may be used to separate pedestrians from bicycle/blading traffic, and solid white
edge stripes may also be useful where nighttime riding is expected.

Warning signs: a range of warning signs can be used to inform users that recommended design
criteria cannot be met, for example curve radii or grades or where unexpected conditions may exist.

Informational signs: trail users need to know where they are, where they are going, what cross
streets they are crossing, how far destinations are away, and what services are available close to the
trail. The MUTCD has information on the appropriate signs to use in these instances. Although not
in the MUTCD, many trails post signs encouraging uniform trail user etiquette (e.g. "give audible
signal when passing" or which type of trail user has the right-of-way).

Intersection markings and signs: pavement marking and signs at intersections should channel
users to cross at clearly defined locations and indicate that crossing traffic is to be expected. Similar
devices to those used on roadways (STOP and YIELD signs, stop bars etc) should be used on trails as
appropriate.

The AASHTO Guide notes that in addition to traditional warning signs in advance of intersections,
motorists can be alerted to the presence of a trail crossing through flashing warning lights, zebra-
style or colored pavement crosswalks, raised crosswalks, signals, and neck-downs/curb-bulbs.
However, some devices such as flashing warning lights are expensive to install and maintain and
should be kept to a minimum.

This site is funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and maintained by the Pedestrian
and Bicycle Information Center within the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center. Please read our Usage
Guidelines

http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/engineering/paths-details.cfm 9/4/2013
Caltrans

Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000

 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-1
May 7, 2012

(e) Section 888.2 -- Incorporation of non motorized

CHAPTER 1000 facilities in the design of freeways.
BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION (f) Section 888.4 -- Requires Caltrans to budget not
DESIGN less than $360,000 annually for non motorized
facilities used in conjunction with the State
Topic 1001 - Introduction highway system.
(g) Section 890.4 -- Class I, II, and III bikeway
Index 1001.1 – Bicycle Transportation definitions.
The needs of non motorized transportation are an (h) Section 890.6 - 890.8 -- Caltrans and local
essential part of all highway projects. Mobility for agencies to develop design criteria and symbols
all travel modes is recognized as an integral element for signs, markers, and traffic control devices
of the transportation system. Therefore, the for bikeways and roadways where bicycle travel
guidance provided in this manual complies with is permitted.
Deputy Directive 64-Revision #1: Complete Streets:
Integrating the Transportation System. See (i) Section 891 -- Local agencies must comply with
AASHTO, “Guide For The Development Of design criteria and uniform symbols.
Bicycle Facilities”. (j) Section 892 -- Use of abandoned right-of-way
Design guidance for Class I bikeways (bike paths), as a nonmotorized facility.
Class III bikeways (bike routes) and Trails are 1001.3 Vehicle Code References
provided in this chapter. Design guidance that
addresses the mobility needs of bicyclists on all (a) Section 21200 -- Bicyclist's rights and
roads as well as on Class II bikeways (bike lanes) is responsibilities for traveling on highways.
distributed throughout this manual where (b) Section 21202 -- Bicyclist's position on
appropriate. roadways when traveling slower than the
See Topic 116 for guidance regarding bikes on normal traffic speed.
freeways. (c) Section 21206 -- Allows local agencies to
1001.2 Streets and Highways Code regulate operation of bicycles on pedestrian or
References bicycle facilities.

The Streets and Highways Code Section 890.4 (d) Section 21207 -- Allows local agencies to
defines a “bikeway” as a facility that is provided establish bike lanes on non-State highways.
primarily for bicycle travel. Following are other (e) Section 21207.5 -- Prohibits motorized bicycles
related definitions, found in Chapter 8 on bike paths or bike lanes.
Nonmotorized Transportation, from the Streets and
Highway Code: (f) Section 21208 -- Specifies permitted
movements by bicyclists from bike lanes.
(a) Section 887 -- Definition of nonmotorized
facility. (g) Section 21209 -- Specifies permitted
movements by vehicles in bike lanes.
(b) Section 887.6 -- Agreements with local agencies
to construct and maintain nonmotorized (h) Section 21210 -- Prohibits bicycle parking on
facilities. sidewalks unless pedestrians have an adequate
path.
(c) Section 887.8 -- Payment for construction and
maintenance of nonmotorized facilities (i) Section 21211 -- Prohibits impeding or
approximately paralleling State highways. obstruction of bicyclists on bike paths.

(d) Section 888 -- Severance of existing major non (j) Section 21400 – Adopt rules and regulations for
motorized route by freeway construction. signs, markings, and traffic control devices for
roadways user.
 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-9
May 7, 2012

with adequate stopping sight distances. The maintain a smooth, well drained, all-weather
minimum stopping sight distance based on riding surface with skid resistant qualities, free
design speed shall be 125 feet for 20 miles per of vegetation growth. Principal loads will
hour, 175 feet for 25 miles per hour and 230 normally be from maintenance and emergency
feet for 30 miles per hour. The distance vehicles.
required to bring a bicycle to a full controlled
(15) Drainage. For proper drainage, the surface of
stop is a function of the bicyclist’s perception
a bike path should have a minimum cross slope
and brake reaction time, the initial speed of the
of 1 percent to reduce ponding and maximum of
bicycle, the coefficient of friction between the
2 percent Per DIB 82. Sloping of the traveled
tires and the pavement, and the braking ability
way in one direction usually simplifies
of the bicycle.
longitudinal drainage design and surface
Stopping sight distance is measured from a construction, and accordingly is the preferred
bicyclist’s eyes, which are assumed to be practice. However, the unpaved shoulders slope
4 ½ feet above the pavement surface to an away from the path at 2 percent. Ordinarily,
object ½-foot high on the pavement surface. surface drainage from the path will be
adequately dissipated as it flows down the
(11) Length of Crest Vertical Curves. Figure
gently sloping shoulder. However, when a bike
1003.1C indicates the minimum lengths of crest
path is constructed on the side of a hill, a
vertical curves for varying design speeds.
drainage ditch of suitable dimensions may be
(12) Lateral Clearance on Horizontal Curves. necessary on the uphill side to intercept the
Figure 1003.1D indicates the minimum hillside drainage. Where necessary, catch
clearances to line of sight obstructions, m, for basins with drains should be provided to carry
horizontal curves. It is assumed that the intercepted water across the path. Such ditches
bicyclist’s eyes are 4 ½ feet above the pavement should be designed in such a way that no undue
surface to an object ½-foot high on the obstacle is presented to bicyclists.
pavement surface.
Culverts or bridges are necessary where a bike
Bicyclists frequently ride abreast of each other path crosses a drainage channel.
on bicycle paths, and on narrow bicycle paths,
(16) Entry Control for Bicycle Paths. Obstacle
bicyclists have a tendency to ride near the
posts and gates are fixed objects and placement
middle of the path. For these reasons, lateral
within the bicycle path traveled way can cause
clearances on horizontal curves should be
them to be an obstruction to bicyclists.
calculated based on the sum of the stopping
Obstacles such as posts or gates may be
sight distances for bicyclists traveling in
considered only when other measures have
opposite directions around the curve. Where
failed to stop unauthorized motor vehicle entry.
this is not possible or feasible, the following or
Also, these obstacles may be considered only
combination thereof should be provided: (a) the
where safety and other issues posed by actual
path through the curve should be widened to a
unauthorized vehicle entry are more serious
minimum paved width of 14 feet; and (b) a
than the safety and access issues posed to
yellow center line curve warning sign and
bicyclists, pedestrians and other authorized path
advisory speed limit signs should be installed.
users by the obstacles.
(13) Grades. Bike path grades must meet DIB 82.
The 3-step approach to prevent unauthorized
The maximum grade rate recommended for bike
vehicle entry is:
paths should be 5 percent. Sustained grades
should be limited to 2 percent. (a) Post signs identifying the entry as a bicycle
path with regulatory signs prohibiting motor
(14) Pavement Structure. The pavement material
vehicle entry where roads and bicycle paths
and structure of a bike path should be designed
cross and at other path entry points.
in the same manner as a highway, with a
recommendation from the District Materials (b) Design the path entry so it does not look
Branch. It is important to construct and like a vehicle access and makes intentional
1000-10 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
May 7, 2012

access by unauthorized users more difficult. • Provide special advance warning signs or
Dividing a path into two one-way paths painted pavement markings if sight distance
prior to the intersection, separated by low is limited.
plantings or other features not conducive to
motor vehicle use, can discourage motorist • Placed 10 to 30 feet back from an
from entering and reduce driver error. intersection, and 5 to 10 feet from a bridge,
so bicyclists approach the obstacle straight-
(c) Assess whether signing and path entry on and maintenance vehicles can pull off
design prevents or minimizes unauthorized the road.
entry to tolerable levels. If there are
documented issues caused by unauthorized • Placed beyond the clear zone on the
motor vehicle entry, and other methods crossing highway, otherwise breakaway.
have proven ineffective, assess whether the When physical obstacles are needed to control
issues posed by unauthorized vehicle entry unauthorized vehicle access, a single non-
exceed the crash risks and access issues removable, flexible, post on the path centerline
posed by obstacles. with a separate gate for emergency/maintenance
If the decision is made to add bollards, plantings vehicle access next to the path, is preferred.
or similar obstacles, they should be: The gate should swinging away from the path,

• Yielding to minimize injury to bicyclists Fold-down obstacle posts or bollards shall

and pedestrians who may strike them. not be used within the paved area of bicycle
paths. They are often left in the folded down
• Removable or moveable (such as gates) for position, which presents a crash hazard to
emergency and maintenance access must bicyclists and pedestrians. When vehicles drive
leave a flush surface when removed. across fold-down obstacles, they can be broken
from their hinges, leaving twisted and jagged
• Reflectorized for nighttime visibility and
obstructions that project a few inches from the
painted, coated, or manufactured of material
path surface.
in a bright color to enhanced daytime
visibility. Obstacle posts or gates must not be used to
force bicyclists to slow down, stop or dismount.
• Illuminated when necessary.
Treatments used to reduce vehicle speeds may
• Spaced to leave a minimum of 5 feet of be used where it is desirable to reduce bicycle
clearance of paved area between obstacles speeds.
(measured from face of obstacle to face of For obstacle post visibility marking, and
adjacent obstacle). Symmetrically about the pavement markings, see the California
center line of the path. MUTCD, Section 9C.101(CA).
• Positioned so an even number of bicycle (17) Lighting. Fixed-source lighting raises
travel lanes are created, with a minimum of awareness of conflicts along paths and at
two paths. Odd number of openings intersections. In addition, lighting allows the
increases the risk of head-on collisions if bicyclist to see the bicycle path direction,
traffic in both directions tries to use the surface conditions, and obstacles. Lighting for
same opening. bicycle paths is important and should be
• Placed so additional, non-centerline/lane considered where nighttime use is not
line posts are located a minimum of 2 feet prohibited, in sag curves (see Index 201.5), at
from the edge of pavement. intersections, at locations where nighttime
security could be a problem, and where
• Delineated as shown in California MUTCD obstacles deter unauthorized vehicle entry to
Figure 9C-2. bicycle paths. See Index 1003.1(16). Daytime
lighting should also be considered through
underpasses or tunnels.
City of Bellevue (WA)

Standard Details
City of Fremont (CA)

Retractable Bollard Standard Detail

 FLAT TOP
5" DIAMETER
12' COVER

RETRACTABLE
BOLLARD
WHEN IN CONCRETE, ADD
DEEP JOINT TO CONTROL

9"
FINISH GRADE LOCK
CRACKING
ADJACENT
PAVING

PLAN VIEW

KEY HOLE

BOLLARD CASING -
INSTALL PER LAYOUT PLAN

GAS JACK, TYP.

26 1/2"

LOCK BAR. TYP.

CONCRETE FOOTING
SEE SPECIFICATIONS

COMPACTED SUBGRADE
10" 10"
4" SOLID DRAIN PIPE

CONNECT SOLID DRAIN PIPE TO

STORM DRAIN. SEE GRADING
AND DRAINAGE PLAN.

ACCEPTABLE MANUFACTURER, OR APPROVED EQUAL:

URBACO
CHATEAUNEUF SEMI-AUTOMATIC RETRACTABLE BOLLARD
MODEL #9240, 26" HEIGHT ABOVE GROUND LEVEL
PHONE #: (888) 987-2220

NOTES:
1. COLOR: BLACK; SEE SPECIFICATIONS
2. SUBMIT COLOR SAMPLE TO CITY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO ORDERING.
3. INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.
4. WHERE STORM DRAIN IS NOT AVAILABLE INSTALL DRAIN SUMP WITH CITY APPROVAL. SUMP TO BE CLASS II
WASHED DRAIN ROCK WRAPPED IN MIRAFI 140 FABRIC, OR APPROVED EQUAL. SEE PSD SF-4.

December 13, 2011

PARK STANDARD DETAILS 2011-65

RETRACTABLE BOLLARD

PSD SF-2.DWG N.T.S. EL/TB RER 05/06/0211 PSD SF-2 1 OF 1

City of Oakland (CA)

Bollard Placement and Markings Standard Drawings

 
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
– Trail Program

Bollards, Gates, and other Barriers (web)

Bollards, Gates, and other Barriers - Accessibility Guidance - Guidance - Recreational Tr... Page 1 of 3

About Programs Resources Briefing Room Contact Search FHWA

Overview

Legislation
Bollards, Gates, and other Barriers
Thank you to information sources and
Guidance
reviewers: John Ciccarelli, Bicycle
Solutions; Jakob Helmboldt, Virginia
• Accessibility Department of Transportation;
Guidance
Richard Moeur, Arizona Department of
• Financial Transportation; Mark Plotz, National
Management Center for Bicycling and Walking and
• State Practices NCBW Forum; John Williams, Tracy-
Williams Consulting; Trails for the
Twenty-First Century, 2nd Edition,
Funding Rails-to-Trails Conservancy; Jennifer
Toole, Toole Design Group; Jim Lazar,
Publications
Olympia (WA) Safe Streets Campaign;
Meetings & Events Maggie O'Mara, Bicycle Design
Photo of bollards on the Delaware and Hudson Rail Trail in
Reviewer, California Department of Pawlet VT. Trail users created a new trail to get around the
Resources Transportation, John F. Cinatl, bollards.
Associate Transportation Planner - Photo by Jon Kaplan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Program
RTP & TE Update Bike Facilities, California Department Manager, Vermont Agency of Transportation.
of Transportation.

FHWA RTP Some trail managers install bollards, gates, or other barriers to restrict unauthorized use. Trail
Contact managers should question whether bollards, gates, fences, or other barriers are needed at all.
For the purpose of the bullets below, "bollard" includes bollards, gates, fences, or any other
Christopher barrier constructed or installed next to, within, or across a trail presumably to restrict
Douwes unauthorized access.
Trails and
Enhancements
Program Manager • Even "properly" installed bollards constitute a serious and potentially fatal safety
Federal Highway hazard to unwary trail users. In addition, no bollard layout that admits bicycles,
Administration tricycles, and bicycle trailers can exclude single-track motor vehicles such as
FHWA HEPH-10 Rm motorcycles and mopeds. For these reasons, bollards should never be a default
E74-474
treatment, and should not be used unless there is a documented history of intrusion
1200 New Jersey Ave
SE by unauthorized cars, trucks, or other unauthorized vehicles.
Washington DC • A landscaped median may be an appropriate method to reduce the likelihood that
20590-0001
somebody might think the shared use path is a public street or driveway. See "What
Phone: 202-366-5013
Fax: 202-366-3409 kind of barrier will keep cars off a bike path?" by John Williams and Kathleen
McLaughlin, originally published in Bicycle Forum (Issue 30, August 1992), now
NCBW Forum. See Article.
State RTP • Bollards are often ineffective: a determined person is likely to go around or go
Contacts through. This may result in additional maintenance costs for the trail, either to
Contact your State repair or replace the bollards, or to repair trail or landscaping damage where
RTP Administrator to vehicles go around the bollards.
ask about policies and
funding in your State. • Bollards are often a hazard to trail users, who can crash into them, possibly
resulting in serious injury or death. Poorly installed bollards can lead to head-on
See also: Federal collisions. Bollards are involved in "second user" crashes, where the first user hides
Agency Contacts the bollard until it is too late to avoid it, even if the first user has adequate sight
distance. These crashes can produce serious or incapacitating injuries. This can
happen to pedestrians as well as bicyclists or other higher speed users.
• Unjustified bollards can create liability exposure. Trail managers should consider
whether or not they increase their liability if they install bollards, gates, fences, or
other barriers.
• Bollards, gates, fences, or other barriers can slow access for emergency response.

If installed, bollard, gates, fences, or other barriers:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/guidance/accessibility_guidance/b... 9/4/2013
Bollards, Gates, and other Barriers - Accessibility Guidance - Guidance - Recreational Tr... Page 2 of 3

• Must not restrict access for people with disabilities (ABA, Rehabilitation Act, and
ADA: cited above).
• Must be easily visible, especially in low light conditions. Section 9C.03 of the Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) requires retroreflectorization of any
obstruction in the traveled way of a shared-use path. This includes posts along the
edge of a path (within a path's "shoulder"). In addition, MUTCD Figure 9C-2 defines
a diamond-shaped marking that should be used around bollards or other
obstructions within a path.
• Should have sufficient sight distance to allow users to adjust speed. This is
especially important on paths that have traffic calming features such as curves or
landscaping near the bollards. Insufficient sight distance increases the likelihood
that bollards will be dangerous hazards.
• Should permit passage, without dismounting, for adult tricycles, bicycles towing
trailers, and tandem bicycles. All users legally permitted to use the facility should be
accommodated; failure to do so increases the likelihood that the bollards will be
dangerous hazards.

According to Trails for the Twenty-First Century, 2nd Edition (April 2001), published by the
Rails-to-Trails Conservancy:

If you determine that a traffic barrier is necessary, ensure that barriers are well marked and
visible to bicyclists, day or night... Bollards must be at least 3 feet tall and should be placed at
least 10 feet from the intersection. This will allow trail users to cross the intersection before
negotiating the barrier posts...

One bollard is generally sufficient to indicate that a path is not open to motorized vehicles.
The post should be placed in the center of the trail tread. Where more than one post is
necessary, a 5-foot spacing is used to permit passage of bicycle trailers, adult tricycles, and
wheelchairs. Always use one or three bollards, never two. Two bollards, both placed in the
paved portion of the trail, will channel trail users into the center of the trail, causing possible
head-on collisions. Bollards should be designed to be removable or hinged to permit entrance
by emergency and service vehicles... (Pages 85-86).

Additional Notes:

• Spacing between bollards should permit passage of bicycle trailers and adult
tricycles without dismounting, and manual and motorized wheelchairs. A "5-foot
spacing" means 5-foot gaps between bollards, not a 5-foot center-to-center
placement.
• Bollards should be designed to be knock-down, removable, or hinged to permit
entrance by emergency and service vehicles. A knocked-down bollard must be
reinstalled or removed immediately to avoid having an additional safety hazard.
• Hardware installed in the ground to hold bollard or posts must be flush with the
surface to avoid having an additional safety hazard.
• Bollards, gates, fences, or other barriers outside the trail tread (on each side) may
be acceptable if there is sufficient clear trail tread to avoid head-on collisions and to
ensure accessibility. But the purpose of the bollards, gates, fences, or other barriers
should be questioned.

Additional Resources:

• Presentation: Bicycle Path Entry Control. (Ed Cox, Bicycle and Pedestrian
Coordinator, City of Sacramento, CA and Maggie O'Mara, Senior Transportation
Engineer, California Department of Transportation)
This presentation discusses methods to control entry to shared use paths. It
considers issues related to bollards, gates, and other barriers. It looks at examples
and discusses what works well and what doesn't.
Disclaimer: This presentation is provided in the interest of information exchange,

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/guidance/accessibility_guidance/b... 9/4/2013
Bollards, Gates, and other Barriers - Accessibility Guidance - Guidance - Recreational Tr... Page 3 of 3

and reflects the views of the authors. Providing this resource does not necessarily
represent endorsement by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Privacy Policy | Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) | Accessibility | Web Policies & Notices | No Fear Act |
Report Waste, Fraud and Abuse
U.S. DOT Home | USA.gov | WhiteHouse.gov

Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/guidance/accessibility_guidance/b... 9/4/2013
Maricopa Association of Governments
(AZ)

Standard Detail
Minnesota Department of Transportation
(Mn/DOT)

Mn/DOT Bikeway Facility Design Manual

Chapter 5: Shared-Use Paths

Chapter 5 Shared-Use Paths

5-1.0 Introduction
This chapter provides guidelines for design of bicycle transportation facilities that are
separated from the roadway. In most cases, a path separated from the roadway may be
used by bicyclists, pedestrians, roller skaters, and individuals in wheel chairs, as well as
other users, and the path must be designed for shared use. This manual does not provide
guidance on design or construction of recreational off-road mountain biking paths. The 2006
Department of Natural Resources, Trail Planning Design, and Development Guidelines,
provides detailed guidance on shared use paved trails, natural surface trails, winter use trails
and bikeways.

5-1.1 Types of Off-Roadway Bicycle Facilities

In addition to shared-use paths, several other types of off-roadway facilities may meet the
needs of various users, as described below.

5-1.1.1 Shared-Use Paths

Shared-use path is a term adopted by the 1999 AASHTO Guide for the Development of
Bicycle Facilities in recognition that
paths are seldom, if ever, used
only by bicycles. As shown in
Figure 5-1, a shared-use path is
typically located on exclusive right-
of-way, with no fixed objects in the
pathway and minimal cross flow by
motor vehicles. Portions of a
shared-use path may be within the
road right-of-way but physically
separated from the roadway by a
barrier or landscaping. Users
typically include bicyclists, in-line
skaters, wheelchair users (both
non-motorized and motorized) and
pedestrians, including walkers, Figure 5-1:
runners, people with baby strollers Example of typical shared-use path
or dogs with people.
Shared-use paths are a valuable element of bicycle networks and serve both a transportation
and recreation function, providing route continuity for commuting and recreation trips, access
to destinations not otherwise available to bicyclists on the street and road system, and
access between buildings and other discontinuities in the street network. Where shared-use
paths have been added to the transportation network, they have proven to be significant

Mn/DOT Bikeway Facility Design Manual 123

154 Chapter 5: Shared-Use Paths

5-4.3.3 Curb Ramp Design and Arrangements

Use curb ramps at every intersection between a shared-use path and a roadway. If the
approaching path is perpendicular to the curb, the width of the curb ramp should be at least as
wide as the average width of the shared-use path. If the path is parallel to the curb, the width of
the curb ramp should equal the path width or 2.7 m (9 ft), whichever is greater.
If a crossing or crosswalk is intended for bicyclists, the curb ramp or sloping pavement should be
flush with the street. The slope of the curb ramp shall be no greater than 8.3 percent (12:1), and
the slope of the curb ramp flares should be no greater than 10 percent (10:1).
Curb ramps shall include a 0.6 m (2.0 ft) wide strip of
detectable warnings at their base to ensure that path users
with vision impairments are aware of the intersection,
according to the Americans with Disabilities Act
Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). According to ADAAG
and Mn/DOT Standard Plate 7036, detectable warnings
should consist of raised truncated domes that meet the
following specifications:
● Bottom diameter 23 mm (0.9 in) to 36 mm
(1.4 in)
● Top diameter 50 to 65 percent of base diameter
● Height of 5 mm (0.2 in)
● Center-to-center spacing of 41 to 61 mm (1.6 to
Example of swing-down
2.4 in)
bollard to allow emergency
● A color contrasting with adjacent pavement, either and maintenance vehicle
light on dark or dark on light, which can help all access
path users to locate the curb on the opposite corner
as well as provide visual cue of the truncated dome
strip.
Other detectable surfaces, such as aggregate and grooves,
are less detectable and less easily understood by people
with vision impairments. ADAAG specifies truncated domes
over rounded domes because they provide greater access
to people with mobility impairments.

5-4.3.4 Controlling Motor Vehicle Access

A good method of controlling access onto a path by motor
vehicles is to split the entry into two one-way sections of Too many bollards inhibit
path, each 1.5 m (5 ft) wide, separated by low path access.
landscaping or other material. Emergency vehicles can
still enter if necessary by straddling the landscaping. In Figure 5-20:
most situations, this is preferable to bollards, chicanes, or Bollards
other methods.

Mn/DOT Bikeway Facility Design Manual March 2007

Chapter 5: Shared-Use Paths 155

A bollard may also be used at the entrance to a bicycle path. See Figure 5-20. When used, a
single bollard may be installed in the
middle of the path to deny access to
motor vehicles. Removable or hinged
flexible bollards are recommended so
service vehicles can use the path.
When more than one bollard is used,
there should always be one in the center
of the path, and bollards on both edges,
1.5 m (5 ft) from the center bollard.
This spacing will accommodate any type
of bicycle or wheelchair.
Gates and other devices that require
path users to maneuver around objects Figure 5-21:
are strongly discouraged. See Figure Gates across a bicycle path (not recommended)
5-21.

5-4.3.5 One-Way Paths and Signalized Intersections

One-way paths have the advantage of increased visibility and safety at signalized intersections.
Where there are substantial numbers of right-turning motorists and through bicyclists, the one-
way path intersection design shown in Figure 5-22 should be considered. End the one-way path
20 to 30 m (65 to 100 ft) before the intersection and let bicyclists continue on a bicycle lane in
the roadway.
LANE

LANE
BIKE

BIKE

path

> 1.5 m (> 5 ft)

< 20 m (65 ft)

< 30 m (100 ft)

Figure 5-22:
One-Way Path Approaching Intersection

March 2007 Mn/DOT Bikeway Facility Design Manual

New York City Department of Parks and
Recreation (NYC DPR)

NYC Bicycle Master Plan

Oregon Department of Transportation

Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guide (2011)

 CHAPTER 7: SHARED USE PATHS

3’
400’ *
5%
2:1 17’ **
FILL STICKER
MONTH STICKER
YEAR
STICKER
MONTH STICKER
YEAR

STICKER
MONTH STICKER
YEAR
STICKER
MONTH STICKER
YEAR
FILL
* not to scale

3’
200’ *

5%
2:1 17’ **

3’

2 :1
17’ **

40’
** 23’ req’d over RR tracks
17’.4” over NHS Highways routes
17.0’ over NHS (Non Highway Routes)
16.0’ over non - NHS Routes

Figure 7-19: Path overcrossings, various configurations

Preventing Motor-Vehicle Access

Geometric Design
detectable short curb
The most effective way to discourage motor warning radius

vehicle access to paths is to make it physically

difficult to do so. One method branches the path
into two narrower one-way paths just before it
reaches the roadway, making it difficult for a
motor vehicle to gain access to the path.

Figure 7-21: Tight curb radii prevent motor

vehicle access

Bollards
Bollards may be used to limit vehicle traffic
on paths. However, they are often hard to see,
cyclists may not expect them and injuries result
when cyclists hit them. Overuse of bollards is
a serious hazard to bicyclists and may prevent
Figure 7-20: Path splits to prevent it
path use by trailers, wheelchairs and other
appearing like a driveway legitimate path users. In a group of riders,
the riders in front block the visibility of those
Another method is to create very tight curb behind, setting up cyclists in the back of the
returns to make it difficult for motorists to enter pack for a crash.
a path from the roadway.

OREGON BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GUIDE 7-15

 CHAPTER: 7 SHARED USE PATHS

Bollards should only be used when absolutely Offset Fencing

necessary. When used, they must be spaced wide
Placing railing or other barrier part way across
enough (min. 5 feet) for easy passage by cyclists,
a trail makes it possible for intended users
bicycle trailers and adult tricycles as well as
to accesses the trail; maintenance vehicle
wheelchair users. A single bollard is preferred,
operators are provided with keys to unlock the
as two may channelize bicyclists to the middle
fences when they need access. The fences, like
opening, with a potential for collisions. They
bollards, can be hazards to bicyclists and can
should not be placed right at the intersection,
restrict certain trail users from gaining access
but set back 20 feet or more, so users can
to the trail. They should be coated with retro-
concentrate on motor vehicle traffic conflicts
reflective material and well-lit.
rather than on avoiding the bollard. They should
be painted with bright, light colors for visibility,
illuminated and/or retro-reflectorized. A striped Short curb
Detectable radius
envelope around the bollard will direct path warning

users away from the fixed object hazard. Flexible

delineators, that collapse when struck by a Offset must
be sufficient
bicyclist, should be considered. for tandems
Offset fencing and trailers
must have
reflective coating

Figure 7-22: Offset gates prevent motor

vehicle access

Bollards are overused and can cause injury

Split path entry eliminates need for bollards

Offset fencing

7-16 OREGON BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GUIDE

Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT)

WSDOT Design Manual Chapter 1515

WSDOT Standard Plans

Chapter 1515 Shared-Use Paths

1515.01 General
1515.02 References
1515.03 Definitions
1515.04 Shared-Use Path Design – The Basics
1515.05 Intersections and Crossings Design
1515.06 Grade Separation Structures
1515.07 Signing, Pavement Markings, and Illumination
1515.08 Restricted Use Controls
1515.09 Documentation

1515.01 General
Shared-use paths are designed for both transportation and recreation purposes and are
used by pedestrians, bicyclists, skaters, equestrians, and other users. Some common
locations for shared-use paths are along rivers, streams, ocean beachfronts, canals, utility
rights of way, and abandoned railroad rights of way; within college campuses; and within
and between parks as well as within existing roadway corridors. A common application is
to use shared-use paths to close gaps in bicycle networks. There might also be situations
where such facilities can be provided as part of planned developments. Where a shared-
use path is designed to parallel a roadway, provide a separation between the path and the
vehicular traveled way in accordance with this chapter.
As with any roadway project, shared-use path projects need to fit into the context of
a multimodal community. Exhibits are provided throughout this chapter to illustrate
possible design solutions, which should be treated with appropriate flexibility as long as
doing so complies with corresponding laws, regulations, standards, and guidance. Engage
various discipline experts, including landscape architects, soil and pavement engineers,
maintenance staff, traffic control experts, ADA and bicycle coordinators, and others.
Additionally, when designing such facilities, consider way-finding.
This chapter includes technical provisions for making shared-use paths accessible to
persons with disabilities. Design shared-use paths and roadway crossings in consultation
with your region’s ADA Coordinator, Bicycle Coordinator, and State Bicycle and
Pedestrian Coordinator. For additional information on pedestrian and bicycle facilities,
see Chapters 1510 and 1520, respectively.

1515.02 References
(1) Federal/State Laws and Codes
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)
ADA (28 CFR Part 35, as revised September 15, 2010)
23 CFR Part 652, Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations and Projects
49 CFR Part 27, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Programs or Activities
Receiving Federal Financial Assistance (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
implementing regulations)

WSDOT Design Manual M 22-01.09 Page 1515-1

July 2012
Shared-Use Paths Chapter 1515

(1) Fencing
Limited access highways often require fencing or other forms of controlling access.
Shared-use paths constructed within these corridors, such as shown in Exhibit 1515-13,
likely require fencing. For guidance on fencing, limited access controls, and right of way,
refer to Division 5 of the Design Manual. Evaluate the impacts of fencing on sight
distances.

Shared-Use Path in Limited Access Corridor

Exhibit 1515-13

(2) Restriction of Motor Vehicle Traffic

Shared-use paths often need some form of physical barrier at roadway intersections to
prevent unauthorized motor vehicles from entering.
Bollards have been used by many path owners to prevent unauthorized vehicle access.
However, bollards should not be applied indiscriminately, and there are other
considerations to bollard installation.
(a) Landscaped Islands
A preferred method of restricting entry of motor vehicles is to split the entry way into
two sections separated by low landscaping, thereby splitting a path into two channels
at roadway intersections. This method essentially creates an island in the middle of
the path rather than installing a bollard. Such an island could be planted with low-
growing, hardy vegetation capable of withstanding the occasional authorized vehicle
traveling over it. When splitting a path, employ MUTCD pavement markings and
signing, such as is used for bollards and obstructions.
(b) Bollard Considerations
Typically, one bollard located in the center of the path is sufficient to control motor
vehicle access to the path. If more than one bollard is needed, the additional bollards
should be placed at the edge of the shared-use path.

Page 1515-18 WSDOT Design Manual M 22-01.09

July 2012
Chapter 1515 Shared-Use Paths

Install bollards at entrances to shared-use paths to discourage motor vehicles from

entering. Do not use bollards to divert or slow path traffic. When locating such
installations, stripe an envelope around the bollards and paint and reflectorize them to
be visible to path users both day and night. Bollards located on or adjacent to shared-
use paths represent an object that needs to be avoided by bicyclists and pedestrians.
To increase the potential for appropriate maneuvering to occur, provide designs
where the post is clearly visible and recognizable.
When designing bollards, the following apply:
• The desirable design is to provide a single bollard, installed in the middle of the
path to reduce confusion.
• When multiple bollard posts are used in wide path sections, use a minimum
5-foot spacing between the edge of concrete footings to permit passage of
bicycle-towed trailers, wheelchairs, and adult tricycles, with room for bicycle
passage without dismounting.
• Provide 4 feet minimum (5 feet desirable) clear width between the edge of
concrete footing and edge of path.
• At a minimum, provide stopping sight distance to bollards. An ideal location
for bollard placement is in a relatively straight area of the path where the post
placement has the stopping sight distance given in Exhibit 1515-14a and 14b.
Do not place bollards in difficult-to-see locations (for example, immediately
upon entering a tunnel).
• For cases where multiple posts are used longitudinally along the path, locate
them at least 20 feet apart, with the first post in line from each direction having
stopping sight distance.
• Use a contrasting striping pattern on the post.
• Use reflective materials on the post, such as a band at the top and at the base.
• Design all bollards along a corridor to be uniform in appearance. Frequent
cyclists can become familiar with the posts and recognize them easily.
• Provide pavement markings in accordance with the Standard Plans and MUTCD
at all bollards on paved paths.
• Use removable bollards (Bollard Type 1) to permit access by emergency and
service vehicles.
• Nonremovable bollards (Bollard Type 2) may be used where access is not
needed.
Refer to the Standard Plans for bollard designs and the Standard Plans and MUTCD
for pavement markings at bollards.
When bollards need to be placed near the roadway, see Chapter 1600 for clear zone
requirements.

1515.09 Documentation
For the list of documents required to be preserved in the Design Documentation Package
and the Project File, see the Design Documentation Checklist:
 www.wsdot.wa.gov/design/projectdev/

WSDOT Design Manual M 22-01.09 Page 1515-19

July 2012
 Appendix C: GARTC Draft Bollard Policy

September 5, 2013
 6100 Uptown Boulevard
Suite 700
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110