All Member Forum

Thank you for your comment.
ITE believes the guide embraces the various roles that transportation improvements seek to fulfill by providing inviting and functional people-oriented spaces that are attractive and contribute toward the revitalization of the urban environment by providing for multiple non-transportation purposes. We are aware that some treatments are not directly referenced in the current versions of the AASHTO Guide to Bikeway Facilities or the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). However, FHWA has recently provided interim approval of various bicycle related treatments not covered in the MUTCD. As such, ITE has pledged to work with NACTO and others to refine and integrate these emerging principles and practices into the state of the practice for transportation planning and engineering by including them in the standards and references of the profession.

Is the Institute explicitly endorsing* the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide and Urban Bikeway Design Guide?
The reason I ask is because the second edition of the Urban Bikeway Design Guide contains useful information on application of bicycle facility treatments; however it also contains recommendations that are not yet recognized by the MUTCD or other authoritative consensus-based design references - and in some cases conflicts with the recommendations of these other references. Given ITE's strong and long-standing interest in the MUTCD through participation in NCUTCD, I would find it surprising that the Institute would formally endorse a manual that takes an advocacy-focused approach to engineering issues and doesn't conform to the MUTCD and other references.
*"Endorse" seems to be the terminology preferred by NACTO.