See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235360400

Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning: A Guide to Best Practices

Article · January 2002

CITATIONS READS
68 17,333

8 authors, including:

Todd Litman Robin Blair

Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Canada San Jose State University
198 PUBLICATIONS 9,836 CITATIONS 2 PUBLICATIONS 92 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Todd Litman on 20 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Victoria Transport Policy Institute
Website: www.vtpi.org Email: info@vtpi.org
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
Phone & Fax 250­360­1560
“Efficiency ­ Equity ­ Clarity”

Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning

Guide to Best Practices
Appendices

18 April, 2009

by
Todd Litman, Robin Blair, Bill Demopoulos, Nils Eddy, Anne
Fritzel, Danelle Laidlaw, Heath Maddox, Katherine Forster

Abstract
This guide covers all aspects of pedestrian and bicycle planning. It is intended for policy makers,
planners and advocates who want the best current information on ways to make their
communities better places for walking and cycling. It provides basic information on various
planning and design concepts, and offers extensive references to help implement them. It
describes general nonmotorized planning practices, how to measure and predict nonmotorized
travel, how to evaluate and prioritize projects, and how to implement various programs that
support nonmotorized transportation. It covers planning for paths, sidewalks, bikelanes, street
improvements, road and path maintenance, road safety, personal security, universal access
(including features to accommodate people with disabilities), nonmotorized traffic law
enforcement, education and encouragement programs, and integration with a community’s
strategic plans and various other programs. There are also appendices that provide more detailed
information on planning, design and evaluation.

This is an ongoing project. We welcome your feedback.

 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

Appendix 1 Model Pedestrian And Bicycle Plan

This section describes a typical municipal pedestrian and bicycle plan.

Planning Tip
Typical Plan Components

1. Goals and objectives. Define the outcomes that are to be achieved.

2. Bicycle network plan. Identifies infrastructure (trails, bike lanes, bike routes) that
provides cycling access to major destinations (schools, commercial centers, intermodal
terminals, and recreational areas), and connections to regional and provincial bicycle
routes.
3. Design guidelines. This identifies specific dimensions, clearances, safety features,
materials, surface treatments, signage, and pavement markings, etc., for facilities, usually
based on published standards recommended by a major professional or government
organization.
4. Maintenance policies and procedures. This includes maintenance standards and priorities,
and indicates who is responsible for implementation.
5. End­of­trip bicycle facilities (bicycle storage racks or lockers, showers, and clothes
changing facilities).
6. Capital expenditure plan. Identifies project costs and timing of implementation.
7. Support programs. Includes safety education, law enforcement, and promotion activities.
8. Evaluation. This includes on­going monitoring of facility use, condition, and problems.

Purpose:
• To identify needed improvements to enable and enhance walking and cycling.
• To provide standards for planning, designing and maintaining bikeways and walkways.
• To fulfill the requirements of the Growth Strategies Act.

Introduction
The development of Bicycle and Pedestrian plans is an essential component of building cycling
and walking communities. This plan outlines the policies for adoption to support cycling and
walking in communities. It identifies goals, objectives, and evaluation criteria for pedestrian and
bicycle planning, design, education, enforcement, and encouragement. It identifies actions for
municipal agencies to implement these objectives. It provides a prioritized list of bicycle and
pedestrian network programs and projects, and a recommended budget to ensure the plan’s
implementation.

2
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

Vision:
• Walking and bicycling provide safe and convenient access to all destinations within the City.
• People can walk or ride to and from their transit stops and have a comfortable and
convenient place to wait or transfer.
• Highways, streets, roads, paths, sidewalk, transportation terminals, and land use patterns
are designed to accommodate and encourage bicycling and walking.
• Nonmotorized travel becomes increasingly common for transportation and recreation.
• Appropriate transportation choices are available to all, including people who do not own or
drive an automobile.

BACKGROUND TO THE PLAN

Bicycling and walking are increasingly recognized as a viable means of transportation in North
America. Nonmotorized transport provides many benefits to users and non­users alike, including
travel choice and mobility, affordability, reduced road congestion, infrastructure savings,
improved health, recreation and enjoyment, environmental protection, and economic
development. Walking and cycling improvements are critical for creating more livable
communities.

According to name travel survey X.X% of trips in the City are currently made by walking, and
X.X% are made by cycling. Market surveys indicate that the use of nonmotorized travel could
increase significantly if given appropriate community support. Walking and cycling are key
forms of transportation through neighborhoods, around schools, and in business districts. They
are also popular forms of recreation. Walking in particular is expected to gain in importance as
our population ages for recreation, exercise, and transportation.

Actions that support cycling and walking include:

• Language in the Official Community Plan supporting increased cycling and walking.
• Establishment of a Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee.
• Establishment of a bicycle and pedestrian coordinator position.
• Development of a trails or bikeway map.
• Directives in the Growth Strategies Act requiring consideration of bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure.
• Inclusion of bicycle specific training in new driver education materials.

BICYCLING AND WALKING GOALS

1. The City recognizes that approximately one­third of its residents do not drive and seeks to
enable those residents to travel more safely throughout the City on foot, by bicycle, and by
wheelchair. The City seeks to accommodate nonmotorized travel in order to provide

3
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

equitable opportunity to all residents.

2. The City recognizes that nonmotorized travel can help develop a sense of community,
encourage the patronage of local business, reduce noise and pollution, and improve the health
of its residents. To realize these benefits, the City seeks to encourage nonmotorized travel,
both functional and recreational.
3. The City recognizes that walking, jogging, hiking, and bicycling are popular forms of
recreation and therefore it seeks to encourage and enhance those activities.
4. The City recognizes that walking and cycling are currently more dangerous than necessary,
which causes unnecessary death and injuries, discourages nonmotorized travel, and imposes
economic costs on the community. The City therefore seeks to make walking and cycling
safer.

4
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES

A Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee shall be established to oversee the development
and implementation of a Pedestrian and Bicycle Network Plan. The Committee should include
representatives of cyclists, pedestrians, parents, the physically challenged and appropriate
government agencies. This Committee will:
1. Establish a planning process outline and schedule to indicate who is responsible for each
task, when it should be accomplished, and opportunities for public involvement.
2. Develop a scoping document that outlines what issues are to be considered, summarizes
available data on walking and cycling in the City, and identifies what would be required to
obtain additional data that might be needed for planning purposes.
3. Survey users and potential users to identify existing problems and barriers to nonmotorized
travel in the City, and opportunities for improving conditions. This should identify potential
facility improvements and other activities, including education, law enforcement, and
encouragement programs, that help achieve nonmotorized transport goals.
4. Develop preliminary estimates of the costs of implementing potential programs and projects.
5. Develop a framework for evaluating and prioritizing potential improvements.
6. Develop a recommended plan and overall budget. This could include a target for completion,
for example, that all priority improvements be implemented within 10 years.
7. Seek pedestrian and cycling network program funding, including federal, provincial, and
regional grants, and funding from local foundations, service clubs, and private individuals.
8. Establish design and maintenance standards for pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and review
standards used by City departments that affect walking and cycling conditions.
9. Establish requirements for bicycle parking facilities as part of municipal parking codes, and
educate city officials and builders concerning appropriate bicycle rack and locker design.
10. Recommend changes to other municipal policies to support nonmotorized transportation,
including roadway design and maintenance standards, changes to zoning codes, municipal
traffic bylaws and law enforcement practices, and other appropriate changes.
11. Work with Transit agencies to integrate bicycling into the local transit system, including
bicycle racks on buses, bicycle lockers and racks at park and ride lots and bus terminals.
12. Recommend standards for new development to create more pedestrian and bicycle friendly
communities, such as a modified grid street system with minimal cul de sacs, and the
provision of trail connections between cul de sac or dead end streets where possible.
13. Develop recommendations for any actions needed to coordinate pedestrian and bicycle
planning with other jurisdictions, including regional and provincial agencies.
14. Develop bicycle education program in coordination with community partners which may
include bicycle clubs, police agencies, service clubs, and other groups.

5
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

15. Prepare and distribute information about traffic laws, bicycle safety, bicycle theft, major
collision types through bicycle and sport shops, and public information sites.
16. Support bicycle encouragement programs, such as Bicycle Commuter Week and bicycle
tourism promotion efforts.
17. Establish policies for evaluation and updating pedestrian and bicycle plans in the future.

The Engineering Department Will:

1. Identify specific bicycle and pedestrian projects in its annual Capital and Current Budgets.
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory committee will have the opportunity to comment on
these budgets before their consideration by City Council.
2. Implement pedestrian and bicycle facility design and maintenance standards, and modify
roadway design and maintenance standards as needed to improve the cycling environment.
3. Collect information on walking and bicycle travel patterns in all future travel surveys.
4. Revise existing subdivision design standards and conditions to ensure that subdivisions are
designed with direct pedestrian and bicycle connections and suitable transit access.
5. Organize bicycle and pedestrian planning workshops for Engineering staff, members of the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory committee, and other appropriate stakeholders.
6. Coordinate efforts with the Parks and Recreation Department to ensure that connections
between on­street and off­street facilities are well designed.
7. Notify the Advisory Committee about all major road works and sewer projects where wide
curb lanes, sidewalks, or pathways can be established.
8. Initiate a “Spot Improvement Program” to reduce hazards along popular cycling routes and
major pedestrian routes through small­scale, low cost improvements. Bicycle hazards include
dangerous potholes, sewer grates, and railway crossings. Pedestrian hazards include missing
curb cuts, missing links, uneven and cracked sidewalks. Priority should be given to
improvements along the routes identified on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Maps. It is
recommended that funds from the existing road maintenance budget be used. A telephone
“hotline” or postcard program should be established to provide cyclists and pedestrians with
the convenient opportunity to suggest improvements.
9. Revise its design standards and specifications to ensure bicycle and pedestrian access across
and beneath new and renovated bridges and overpasses.
10. Revise the standard tender specifications so that only bicycle­safe sewer grates are
purchased.
11. Establish standards to ensure access and safety to pedestrians and cyclists during construction
projects.
12. Ensure that all bicycle and pedestrian projects comply with recognized design standards,

6
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

such as the Guide for the Development of Bicycling Facilities prepared by the America
Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO).

7
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

The Parks and Recreation Department Will:

1. Identify specific bicycle and pedestrian projects in its annual capital and current budgets.
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee will have the opportunity to comment on
these budgets before their consideration by City Council.
2. Develop path and trail maintenance and repair programs, which should include maintenance
standards, a well publicized method for users to report problems, scheduled maintenance,
and, if appropriate, use of volunteers to help perform maintenance tasks.
3. Ensure that trails and path accommodate an appropriate range of users. This recognizes that
many cyclists prefer to ride on separated paths instead of roads and that the development of
pathways will attract walkers, dog walkers, in­line skaters, joggers, and cyclists. It also
means that users with special needs, including people with disabilities, children, and elderly
will be accommodated on such facilities whenever possible.
4. Provide appropriate signage to identify paths and trails, encourage appropriate trail
behaviour, and warn of hazards.
5. Monitor rail­related, utility, or natural area actions to ensure that opportunities to develop
pathways within abandoned rail corridors are not missed.
6. Monitor conflicts on trails and paths and take appropriate actions to minimize conflicts.
7. Develop a city or regional bicycle map.
8. Identify priority locations for pathway improvements. This includes pathways that are too
narrow, in poor repair, and poorly designed.
9. Prior to the City’s selling or otherwise disposing of public rights of way, the City consider
the use of those lands as part of the overall paths/trails system or as informal walkways for
nearby residents.
10. When deciding whether to accept lands proffered, either for purchase or otherwise, the City
consider the possible use of those lands for off­road travel on foot or by bicycle.

Law Enforcement Agencies Will:

1. Establish policies for the enforcement of bicycle traffic laws. This should include education
for traffic officers concerning bicycle laws and cyclists rights, education and outreach
programs to cyclists and motorists, prioritization of violations that will be cited, policies for
citing and fining cyclists (including children and other cyclists who do not have a drivers
license), and development of a “diversion” program, by which cyclists who violate traffic
laws can take a bicycling safety class as an alternative to paying a fine.
2. Provide an advanced bicycle skills course to all staff using bicycles for policing, to ensure
safe and appropriate riding skills for safest riding, and to provide model examples for other
cyclists.

8
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

3. Compile and analyze reported bicycle and pedestrian collision statistics on an annual basis.
This information will be reviewed by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee and
Engineering Department staff to determine ways to reduce road hazards.

Public Involvement
Public involvement is essential to good pedestrian and bicycle planning. Public involvement can
help educate stakeholders, gather information, identify public opinions and priorities, and
develop new ideas and plans. The following techniques can make public involvement effective.

1. Visioning
It can be useful to begin a planning process with open­ended discussion of what might constitute
optimal pedestrian and cycling conditions in a community’s future. This sort of visioning can
involve any interested citizens. It looks for common ground among participants and produces a
broadly based statement on what the community should strive to achieve.

2. Brainstorming
Brainstorming involves freethinking for solutions to a particular problem or set of problems.
Issues should be carefully defined prior to the brainstorming session. Generally, as many ideas as
possible are listed without comment, then the ideas are evaluated, and finally prioritized. All
participants are fully invited to give ideas and no one person is allowed to dominate. In this type
of creative and non­critical environment, contentious issues can be viewed in a new light.
Brainstorming requires a facilitator who must be sensitive to group dynamics and be able to draw
statements and positions for participants.

3. Charrette
A charrette is a special meeting involving all stakeholders and resource people to develop a plan
or resolve a particular problem. It is typically a day or multi­day event. The objective is to have a
basic plan completed by the end of the meeting.

4. Public Meetings
A public meeting is held to present information and obtain feedback from citizens. It provides for
a presentation from the agency with opportunities for questions and public comment. Anyone
may attend a public meeting. They should be well publicized, particularly to appropriate interest
groups. Public meetings should be held in locations that are accessible to all users, and people
with special needs should be accommodated as much as possible.

9
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

5. Publicity
Publicity can be used to inform stakeholders about issues and events through newspapers, radio,
TV and videos, billboards, posters, direct mail, or flyers. Media strategies should be incorporated
into any project that needs public focus, consensus, and understanding for it to move forward.

6. Advisory Committee
Many communities establish temporary or permanent pedestrian and bicycle advisory
committees with representation from various stakeholder groups as part of nonmotorized
transportation planning. The role of an advisory committee is to review and comment on
transportation policies and plans from a pedestrian and cyclist perspective and to recommend
policies and actions. In addition to helping develop a plan, an advisory committee can help solve
future problems, negotiate solutions to conflicts, and support specific projects, such as field
surveys, and safety education programs.

10
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

Planning Tip
Recipe For Developing And Maintaining An Effective Committee.

Recruitment – Recruit members with a range of perspectives and abilities, and who can make
a significant contribution to the work involved.

Orientation – Provide new appointees with a solid orientation which may include the
committee’s role including duties and responsibilities, how the committee is organized, how
the committee works, a review of the committee’s structure, policies and bylaws, and a
review of the committee’s relationship with citizens, staff, and the governing body.

Training – Organize field trips, send members to conferences, arrange presentations, and
provide committee members with material relevant to bicycle and pedestrian planning, and
group and advocacy processes.

Work Plan – Encourage your committee to determine its priority projects once a year to focus
energies. Committee members may also be assigned responsibility for individual projects.

Organizing Meetings – Make sure that the important issues are brought to the committee.
Schedule priority items early in the agenda and provide background material to help deal with
difficult questions.

Committee Credibility – The committee members must understand their role as advisory
member bodies providing vision, direction, and assistance to programs. Staff members can
help committees by identifying decision­makers and how to expedite (or delay) initiatives.

Recognition – Committee members are volunteers and need appreciation for the contribution
of their time and energy.

11
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

Appendix 2 Quick Facility Design Guidelines

Pedestrian Planning Guidelines

Topic Required or Recommended Reference
Access for In general, accessible design requires the elimination of obstacles within WSDOT 33­47
People with the route of travel, 0.9 m minimum width of travel route, 1.5 m passing
Disabilities areas every 60 m on accessible routes less that 1.5 m in width, maximum
grade of 1:20, steeper grades of up to 1:12 may have ramps and 1.5 m
level landing areas for every 0.8 m in elevations change along 1:12 ramps.
Crosswalks A marked crosswalk includes the use of pavement markings and either
signs or signals. Pavement markings should not be used alone to indicate
a pedestrian crossing, and signs should be supplemented by pavement
markings. Crosswalk signs should not be where pedestrian or full vehicle
signals are in place (MoTh, 94, 1­3). Stop bars, or twin lines for pedestrian
crossings, are suitable only where the approach is controlled by means of a
signal or stop sign. Zebra markings are recommended where there are no
signal controls as they are more visible to drivers. The length of the zebra
stripe differs according to traffic speed (3.0 m where speed is 60 km/h or
less, 4.0 where speed is 70 km/h and greater.
Special Special crosswalks include pavement markings, internally illuminated
Crosswalks overhead signs, down lighting of crosswalk, push buttons, timers, and
overhead flashing beacons. These devices can be used in combination to
make a crosswalk safer and more effective. Where traffic speeds and
volumes are very high, grade separated crossings provide the best
protection and ease in crossing to pedestrians.
Curbs and Curbs are useful to provide a physical separation between pedestrians and
Edge traffic. They stop vehicles from mounting the curb for parking, and the
markings gutter acts as a path for storm water drainage. In rural areas, a curb may
seem too urban, and a ditch or swales provide separation. An extruded
(asphalt) curb is not recommended where there are bicycle lanes, and may
interfere with drainage. Raised pavement markings are strongly
discouraged as a hazard for cyclists.
Drainage Drainage Grates are best if located outside the route of pedestrian travel, if WSDOT 90
Grates not possible, the openings should be less than 13 mm in width and should
be mounted flush with the surrounding sidewalk surface.
Hand Rails In steep areas, continuous handrails are to be provided at a height of 865 STEPS , 41
to 920 mm to help people in danger of slipping and falling.
Grades An accessible route of travel should not exceed a grade of 1:20 or 5
Building
percent. If the grade must exceed this maximum, a ramp of not greater
Access
than 1:12 or 8.33 percent may be constructed. Landings of 1.5 metres in
Handbook:
length are required for every 9.1 metres of vertical height and must have
1998.
handrails and railings. There are exceptions where the distance is minimal,
though a slope of greater than 12 percent is difficult for many users.

12
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

Sidewalks The minimum acceptable width for sidewalks is 1.5 metres on local streets WSDOT 37
and 1.8 metres elsewhere, and wider where there are greater numbers of
pedestrians. Where a walkway is less than 1.5 metres wide, passing areas
must be installed. Vertical clearance must be a minimum of 2 metres,
AASHTO recommends a minimum of 2.4 metres. A cross slope must not
be greater than 2 percent but must allow for adequate drainage. Sidewalks
must not tilt where driveways cross the street as this adds difficulty to
walking for people who may be mobility impaired. There are acceptable
designs requiring an extension of a level sidewalk into the driveway;
dipping the entire sidewalk where crossed by a driveway may result in
drainage problems and add complications to sidewalk travel.
Sidewalk Ramps are useful for all people, baby strollers, luggage wheels, in­line WSDOT39
Ramps (Curb skaters, bicyclists, and people in wheelchairs. They provide accessibility at
Cuts) intersections, building entrances, and other areas where elevated
walkways are edged with curbing. It is recommended that curb ramps have
a detectable warning surface for people who are visually impaired. A
warning surface is required at transit ramps. Ramps must be included on
two sides of a corner to point pedestrians across to the other curb and
must be 0.9 metres wide with a maximum grade of 1:12 and 1:10 on side
aprons. Curb cuts for multi­use paths should be the full width of the
pathway.
Street Street furniture signs, trash cans, and utility boxes may pose hazards to the
Furniture visually impaired person. In general, it is suggested that street furniture be Scott, 46
grouped together to be more noticeable than they would individually and
take up less room. Add contrast with a brighter color, maintain a clear
height of pedestrian walkways, and place grouped objects in an area with a
different surface, and/or mark with a tactile strip.
Street Trees A minimum planting strip is about six feet in width from the edge of the curb
to the edge of the sidewalk. This provides adequate space for the tree to
develop, although as little as four feet may be adequate. Trees may be
planted in 20, 30, 40 or 50­foot intervals and should form a canopy
overhead. Trimming trees to about 9 feet in height preserves sight lines for
drivers and pedestrians. Tree species should be carefully chosen for good
performance.
Tree Roots Potential hazards from tree roots can be controlled by laying a good base
of crushed gravel above the tree roots and below concrete sidewalks so STEPS 41
they can grow without causing cracks in the sidewalk. (Scott 41). Tree
roots that may be a hazard to pedestrians can be painted yellow as a
warning.
Surface Smooth surfaces such as cement concrete or asphalt are firm and stable
enough to support wheelchair wheels, crutch tips, and other mobility aids.
Smoothed gravel screenings may be acceptable in recreational settings,
however loose gravel and wood chips generally do not provide for an
accessible surface.

13
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines

Topic Required and Recommended Reference
Bicycle Parking Secure short term and long­term parking must be provided at all AASHTO 38
destinations. Class I, II and III parking can be required by bylaw; careful CIP C21
design and placement criteria are recommended for best results.
Bridges and Special attention is needed to ensure adequate protection from traffic,
over­passes adequate railing height and materials, and adequate width for sharing AASHTO 33
with pedestrians. A railing at handlebar height and one at shoulder height
should be provided, do not use vertical railings or chain link fences that CIP 20.1.8­9
can easily snag a handle bar and cause a crash.
Construction Bicycle lanes are to be rerouted for construction; adequate signage, and
zones lighting must be in place. Where metal plates provide temporary road
surfaces, they must meet the road at right angles and a ramp of asphalt
provides a feathered edge for cyclists.
Extruded Curbs Extruded curbs should not be used to separate a bike lane from traffic as
they present a hazard to the safe operation of the bicycle, make left hand AASHTO 12
turns impossible, and present cleaning difficulties
Drainage / Drainage and utility grates should be flush with the roadway surface and
Utility covers long openings should be placed at right angles to the wheel’s travel. AASHTO, 12
Ideally, grates and utility covers should not be placed in the bike lane, 35
and curb inlets should be used instead.
Intersections Intersections (including driveways) are the most likely place for car­bike
collisions. Intersections should be carefully designed to reduce the AASHTO 18,
chance of conflict. Driveways should have adequate sight lines to see all 31
traffic on the road. Bike lanes at intersections and bike paths where they
connect with streets should be carefully designed. Intersections with
freeways should be grade­separated.
Lighting Bicycle facilities should be adequately lit. Street lighting is usually
sufficient for wide curb lanes and bike lanes; separated paths and bike AASHTO 35
parking areas require appropriate­scale lighting where evening walking
and cycling is expected. Intersections of paths with roads must be well
lit.
Maintenance Regular maintenance is essential to ensure that the facilities are safe
and comfortable to use. Road and path surfaces should be swept AASHTO 41
regularly to remove glass and other debris. They should be given the
same or greater maintenance standard as motor vehicle travel ways due
to the absence of the “sweeping action” from regular car travel.

14
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

All roads should be thought of forming the bicycle network. On major

On Road urban roads, bike lanes can increase safety and reduce conflicts with AASHTO 18 ­
Facilities other vehicles. Bike lanes should always be one­way facilities carrying 20
traffic in the same direction as adjacent motor vehicle traffic. The
Bike Lanes minimum width for a bike lane should be 1.2 m excluding curb and FHWA 16­21
gutter, 1.5m when next to a parking lane). Bike lanes should end well in
advance of intersections, with dashed lines adjacent to right turn lanes to MUTCD
encourage traffic to merge into the bike lane before turning. Bike lanes 9C2­9C3
should be located to the far right of the road, or between the parking lane
and the travel lane. CIP20.2­3
Wide Curb Curb lanes should be between 12 and 14 feet, or 3.7­4.3m. Wider curb AASHTO 14,
Lanes lanes may encourage two motor vehicles to operate in one lane. 15
Wide shoulders are preferred for accommodating cyclists in rural areas
Shoulder Width and should be a minimum of 1.2 m when intended to accommodate AASHTO 14,
bicycle travel. Where shoulders are narrower, they should not be signed 15
as bikeways. Wider width is desirable when speeds are higher than
55km/h, there is a large percentage of truck traffic or if obstructions exist.
Bicycle boulevards are streets that encourage cycling and discourage
Bicycle motor vehicle traffic by means of traffic calming devices. On local
Boulevards and streets, bicycle route signs may be desired where they form part of the
Local Streets bicycle network.
On­street parking can pose risks to cyclists who ride past, and people
On–street with disabilities as they exit their vehicles. Where cars are parallel
parking parked, a bike lane may be provided between the road and parked cars if
the bike lane is wide enough and far enough from the vehicles to avoid
car doors opening into the bike lane. A bike lane should never be place
to the right of parallel parking. Diagonal or perpendicular parking is very
dangerous and bike facilities should be avoided in these areas.
(WSDOT, 1995)
Pavement A bike facility may be cement, asphalt, or fine gravel screenings.
Structure However, the surface should be at least as smooth as that provided for AASHTO 13,
vehicles and tree roots should be prevented from disrupting the smooth 32
surface.
Railroad Railroad crossings should be at right angles to the rails as acute angles
Crossings may trap the wheels and cause crashes. The travel way should be AASHTO 12
widened if the crossing angle is less than 45 degrees to permit a wider MUTCD 9C­4
crossing angle. Warning signs and pavement markings should be
posted before the crossing. Road surfaces should be flush with the rails.
Rubberized flanges around the rails or removal of unused track can
minimize the danger for cyclists.
Intermodal Airports, rail, buses, and ferries permit cyclists to reach distant
Linkages destinations. All trains should be designed to permit bicycles as checked AASHTO 38
baggage, or in the passenger car. Terminals should provide for secure
bicycle parking, and areas may be provided for bicycle set up, and clear
access to the station should be provided. Transit buses should be
equipped with racks to carry at least two bicycles.

15
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

Ferries Ferries sometimes represent a vital link in the transportation system.

Provide for bicycle traffic on vehicle and passenger ferries and at ferry
terminals by dedicating bicycle routes through the terminal to boarding
areas and providing secure and protected parking at the terminal and on
the ferry to prevent damage, theft, and weather exposure.
Separated Separated bicycle facilities should NOT be thought of as a substitute for
Facilities accommodating bicycles on nearby roads. These paths should be AASHTO 15 ­
considered extensions to the street system and meet an important 36
recreational need. Two­way paths need careful attention to detail where
they intersect with traffic. Twinned paths on each side of a road provide
more safety, especially at intersections. The minimum width for a one­
way path is 1.5 m, and a wider (4m+) path with markings down the
center of the path may minimize conflicts where there is heavy traffic.
Converting rail lines to trails provide good facilities with good sight lines
and shallow grades. Good access including motor vehicle parking,
water, toilets, and telephones make for a successful facility.
Sidewalks and Cycling on the sidewalk is generally not recommended for safety
Ramps reasons, as there is a high potential for collisions at driveways and
intersections.
Traffic Control As bicycles are legal vehicles on the road, they do not require special
Devices traffic control devices. The same standards which apply to street signs AASHTO 13
and highways also apply to bicycle facilities. High­traction, non­skid paint paint 32
should be used on road surfaces. signals 13
Traffic Control Bollards should be placed where vehicles may enter a bike path; one
Devices should be placed in the center, with bollards to the side, each providing AASHTO 63
Bollards 1.5 m clearance. They should be painted white and have reflectors.
Traffic Signals All traffic signals should be adjusted to detect bicycles. Quadrapole loop
detectors are more sensitive to bicycles and may be more effective than AASHTO, 13
standard loop detectors. The most sensitive area of the detector should
be stenciled with a bicycle symbol. The right­most and left turning lane
should be stenciled in this way. The clearance interval for intersections
should be at a bicycle speed of 16km/h with 2.5 second braking time
Traffic Signs Standard signs are adequate for most bicycle facilities. Signs specifically
directed at cyclists should be smaller and lower than normal street signs. AASHTO 32
Signs should be between 1.2 and 3.0 meters in height and should be 1.0
metres from the edge of the bicycle path to provide adequate clearance MUTCD 2A­9,
for cyclists who may veer off the path to pass. Consideration should be
given to adequate stopping distance to heed the warning or information CIP,47
on the sign.
BIKE ROUTE signs should be used in conjunction with sub­plates
indicating destinations (with distances) to be found along the signed
route. In addition, BIKE ROUTE signs must be part of a comprehensive
system. At junctions of separated trails with roadways, the name of the
road should be clearly visible to trail users.

16
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

Traffic Calming Traffic calming measures usually benefit cyclists by removing or slowing
Devices traffic. Some measures need to be carefully designed to accommodate
cyclists. For example, where speed bumps or diverters are used, a by­ CIP 20.1.11
pass area for cyclists should be included. Where pinch­points are used,
rolled curbs reduce the danger of being squeezed. Traffic calming
devices can also be used as refuges for cyclists crossing two­way busy
roads. Refuges should be 3 metres wide, by two metres across and
provide handrails and bollards.
User Conflict Design features and user policies should be used to minimize conflicts
between cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians. AASHTO 37
Vegetation It is important that vegetation near roadways and paths be maintained.
All vegetation above .3 meters in height should be trimmed back a least AASHTO 41
1­m on each side of all paths. Vegetation at intersections should be
trimmed to provide adequate sight lines. Tree and shrub roots may
cause disruption in a path surface, removal of trees within 1 m of the
path and the use of root barriers may help to reduce problems.
Workplace Many people say that they would try commuting by bike but feel they
Facilities need a shower and a place to change clothes once they arrive at work.
Some jurisdictions are requiring that such facilities be provided when a
building is built or remodeled. Clothes lockers, large enough to
accommodate a week’s worth of clothes and toilet articles, can be
provided. A bathroom may be remodeled providing a shower stall.

17
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

Appendix 3 Evaluating Nonmotorized Travel

It is generally a mistake to simply use kilometres of paths or bike lanes as an indicator of cycling
network effectiveness, since this encourages the development of facilities where they are
cheapest to build rather than where they provide the greatest benefits. Quantity (indicated by
facility kilometres) must be balanced against quality (removing significant physical barriers). It is
therefore important to use techniques that identify the most cost­effective improvements. This
section describes various techniques that can be used to evaluate walking and cycling conditions
and potential improvements.

Surveys
It is often useful to survey the public to identify the problems they perceive with current
pedestrian and cycling conditions, and opportunities and priorities for improvements. Public
survey forms can be distributed throughout a region, or be targeted at a particular area. Survey
forms can be handed out along a sidewalk, path or roadway, can be attached to bicycles and
automobiles parked at a study site, or can be distributed through local newsletters and employers.

Special consideration should be given to pedestrian and bicycle planning along urban and
suburban arterials, highways near urban areas, and highways that connect to parks, schools,
residential neighborhoods, employment centres, and other trip generators.

18
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

Example

Nonmotorized Transport Survey Questions1

1. Are your neighbourhoods designed to promote walking and cycling to get to school,
work, recreation, transit, and retail outlets? Are these facilities used?
2. If these facilities are not used, what improvements might be made to make them more
accessible?
3. Is street lighting adequate?
4. Are sidewalks maintained, repaired, and cleared of snow in the winter?
5. Are bike lanes part of the roads?
6. Does your community master plan include facilities for cycling and walking?
7. Are there cycling organizations in your community promoting the use of bicycles?
8. Are there bicycle racks at transit stations and outside municipal facilities?
9. Do school organizations promote walking, cycling, and safety programs for both?
10. Do schools and workplaces provide secure bicycle parking?
11. Are local government officials aware of the walking and cycling needs of
neighbourhoods?
12. What measures could be taken to calm traffic in your residential neighbourhoods?
13. Can community groups be encouraged to organize bicycle safety workshops?
14. Do local businesses support walking and cycling to their stores?
15. What groups might be involved in forming partnerships to promote active transportation
in your community?
16. Are residents in your community encouraged to keep sidewalks clear of snow for those
who want to walk?
17. Is there bicycle parking near shopping areas and other destinations?

Crash Data
Pedestrian and bicycle collision data can help identify barriers and hazards to nonmotorized
travel. Locations with frequent pedestrian or cycling crashes indicate some combination of high
risk or heavy use, both of which can justify facility improvements. Crash analysis can be used to
identify a variety of possible safety interventions, including pedestrian and bicycle facility
improvements, traffic management and traffic calming to reduce vehicle speeds and volumes,

1
Developing Communities for Active Transportation, Go For Green (www.goforgreen.ca), 1998.

19
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

and increased traffic safety education and law enforcement for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists.
Pedestrian and cycling collisions tend to be underreported, so a variety of data collection
methods may be needed.2

Crash data should be evaluated by type of crash and contributing factors, pedestrian and cyclist
demographics, location type (for example, pedestrian crashes can be categorized by intersection
crosswalk, midblock crosswalk, midblock no crosswalk, driveways, etc.) to identify possible
patterns. Smaller communities may only have few pedestrian/cyclist crash reports to work with.
Larger communities may find it valuable to establish an ongoing program to analyze
pedestrian/cyclist crash data, and integrate it into a municipal mapping program.

Field Surveys
Some transportation agencies use volunteers or hired college students to perform field surveys of
pedestrian and cycling conditions. If possible, surveys should include special user groups, such as
people in wheelchairs and elderly pedestrians, particularly in areas they frequent.

When evaluating facilities it is important to clearly maintain the distinction between nominal (“in
name”) and functional (“working condition”) dimensions. For example, many sidewalks and
paths are nominally 1.8 to 2 metres wide, but functionally they may be much narrower, due to
objects such as telephone poles and signposts located in their right of way, and due to surface
failures, such as cracks and potholes. As a result, a walkway that meets technical specifications
may be inadequate for some potential users. Similarly, a bike lane may be useless if it has poor
surface conditions or is frequently used for vehicle parking.

Example
Field Survey Data to Collect (as appropriate)
• Roadway vehicle traffic volumes and speeds.
• Intersection design, roadway and road shoulder widths, and pavement conditions.
• Nonmotorized traffic volumes and speeds, and available accident data.
• Special hazards to walking and cycling (potholes, dangerous drain grates on road
shoulders and curb lanes, etc.).
• Crosswalk, sidewalk, and path conditions (width, surface condition, sight distance, etc.).
• Curb cuts, ramps and other universal access facilities.
• Lighting along streets and paths.
• Presence of parked cars adjacent to the traffic lane.
• Bicycle parking facilities, public washrooms, and other services along trails and bike
routes.

2
Helen James, “Under­reporting of Road Traffic Collisions,” Traffic Eng+Con, Dec. 1991, pp. 574­583.

20
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

• Security, cleanliness, vandalism, litter, and aesthetic conditions.

• Community demographics (age, income, etc.)
• Presence of activity centers that attract nonmotorized travel (schools, colleges, resorts,
etc.)
• Land use factors, including density and mix, street connectivity, and building site design.
• Topography and climate.

It may be difficult to obtain consistent evaluations of roadway conditions by different surveyors.

Some cyclists are comfortable riding on roads with heavy, high­speed traffic, and are critical of
paths that restrict cycling riding speed due to design limitations. Other cyclists have the opposite
preferences. This problem can be minimized by establishing clear evaluation criteria. For
example, rather than simply rating a highway condition as “good” or “bad” for cycling it may be
better to record traffic volumes, shoulder width, shoulder condition, and “special problems for
cyclists.” Training and supervision can help guarantee consistency between survey teams.

The Barrier Effect

Roads are usually considered transportation links, but they can also be barriers, especially to
nonmotorized travel.3 The “barrier effect” reduces walking and cycling mobility, and increases
driving.4 This is not to imply that drivers intentionally cause harm, but rather that such impacts
are unavoidable when fast, heavy vehicles share space with more vulnerable road users. These
impacts tend to be inequitable because disadvantaged populations who depend on nonmotorized
transport bear a disproportionate share of the costs.

Cycling Condition Evaluation Techniques

Table A3­1 shows one method for evaluating cyclist stress levels, taking into account traffic
speed, volume, type, operating space, and number of hindrances (intersections and commercial
driveways) on a specific stretch of roadway.5

3
J.M. Clark and B.J. Hutton, The Appraisal of Community Severance, U.K. DoT, Transport Research
Laboratory (Crowthorne, UK), Report #135, 1991.
4
Todd Litman, Transportation Cost Analysis; Techniques, Estimates and Implications, VTPI
(www.vtpi.org), 2000; Dr. Peter Bein, Monetization of Environmental Impacts of Roads, and Social Cost
of Transverse Barrier Effects, Planning Services Branch, B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Highways
(Victoria; www.th.gov.bc.ca/bchighways), 1997, 1995.
5
David L. Harkey, Donald W. Reinfurt, J. Richard Stewart, Matthew Knuiman and Alex Sorton, The
Bicycle Compatibility Index: A Level of Service Concept, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA­
RD­98­072 (www.hsrc.unc.edu/oldhsrc/research/pedbike/bci/bcitech.pdf), 1998.

21
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

Table A3­1 Cyclist Stress Level Values

Stress Rating Speed Volume Trucks Curb Lane Hindrances
Posted speed Vehicles/hr per Percentage of Curb lane Commercial driveways
limit (km/hr) traffic lane truck traffic width (m) and intersections per km
1 <40 <50 <2% >4.6 <6
2 50 51­150 4% 4.3 13
3 60 151­250 6% 4.0 19
4 65 251­350 8% 3.7 25
5 >75 351­450 >10% <3.3 >31
These values are used to calculate Cycling Suitability Rating in Table A3­2.

Table A3­2 Cycling Suitability Rating

Summed Average Stress Road Suitability for Cycling
Values Level
<7 1 Road is reasonably safe for all types of cyclists.
Road accommodates casual and experienced cyclists, but needs
7­12 2 improvement to accommodate child cyclist.

Road accommodates experienced cyclists, but needs improvement

13­17 3 to accommodate casual and child cyclists.

Needs improvements to accommodate experienced cyclists, not

18­22 4 recommended for casual and child cyclists.

>22 5 May be unsuitable for all cycling.

A more detailed system called the Bicycle Compatibility Index can also be used.6 It incorporates
the following factors:
• Presence of bicycle lane or paved shoulder.
• Bicycle lane or paved shoulder width.
• Curb lane width.
• Curb lane volume.
• Other lane volume.
• Average traffic speed.
• Presence of parking lane with more than 30% occupancy.

6
David L. Harkey, Donald W. Reinfurt, J. Richard Stewart, Matthew Knuiman and Alex Sorton, The
Bicycle Compatibility Index: A Level of Service Concept, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA­
RD­98­072 (www.hsrc.unc.edu/oldhsrc/research/pedbike/bci/bcitech.pdf), 1998; David L. Harkey, Donald
W. Reinfurt, Matthew Knuiman, “Development of the Bicycle Compatibility Index,” Transportation
Research Record 1636, 1998, pp. 13­20.

22
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

• Type of roadside development.

• Truck volumes.
• Parking turnover.
• Right turn lanes.

Pedestrian Condition Evaluation Techniques

Generally available demographic, land use, and transportation planning data can be used to
estimate pedestrian travel demand.7 Traffic engineers often use Level of Service (LOS) to
evaluate roadway performance for motor vehicle traffic. Pedestrian LOS for street crossings has
been defined based on pedestrian delay, as shown in Table A3­3. Crosswalk walking speeds are
estimated at 1.2 metres per second for most areas, and 1.0 m/s for crosswalks serving large
numbers of older pedestrians.

Table A3­3 Pedestrian Road Crossing Level of Service (LOS)8

Level of Signalized Unsignalized Likelihood of Pedestrian
Service Intersection* Intersection* Noncompliance
A <10 <5 Low
B 10­20 5­10
C 20­30 10­20 Moderate
D 30­40 20­30
E 40­60 30­45 High
F ≥ 60 ≥ 45 Very High
* Average Delay Per Pedestrian in Seconds

A more sophisticated model, called the Walking Security Index (WSI), takes into account a wide
range of variables that affect pedestrian safety, comfort, and convenience at roadway
intersections, as summarized in Table A3­4.

Table A3­4 Walking Security Index Variables9

Infrastructure Vehicle Traffic Pedestrian Performance Behavior
1. Number of 8. Peak vehicle 12. Pedestrian 14. Right­turn­ 17. Pedestrian­
lanes. volumes. volumes. on­red. vehicle
2. Speed 9. Vehicle types. 13. Pedestrian 15. Signage. collisions.
3. Grade (incline). 10. Trip purpose. age. 16. 18. Pedestrian­

7
Julie Mercer Matlick, If We Build It, Will They Come?, Washington State DOT (Olympia;
www.wsdot.wa.gov), undated.
8
Joseph Milazzo, et al., Quality of Service for Interrupted Pedestrian Facilities in the 2000 Highway
Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, 1999.
9
Barry Wellar, Walking Security Index; Final Report, Geography Department, University of Ottawa
(Ottawa; 613­562­5725; wellarb@uottawa.ca), 1998.

23
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

4. Turning lanes. 11. Turning vehicle

5. Curb cut at movements. Ice/snow/slush conflicts.
intersections. removal. 19. Vehicle
6. Stop bar moving
distance from violations.
crosswalk.
7. Sight lines

The four criteria below are each rated on a scale from 1­3, the total of which represents the
Pedestrian Environmental Factor (PEF).10 The results were found to correlate well with the use of
non­automobile travel in an urban area. Urban neighborhoods with a high PEF tend to have twice
the walk/bicycle mode share as the overall average, as much as five times greater than areas with
the lowest PEF.
• Ease of street crossings. This is based on street width, traffic volumes, and speeds.
• Sidewalk continuity. Sidewalks that do not connect create barriers to pedestrian travel. A
pedestrian network is only as good as its weakest link, particularly for people with physical
disabilities. Even problems that appear minor to able­bodied pedestrians may be a major
barrier to people with significant mobility constraints.
• Local street characteristics (grid vs. cul de sac). A grid street system provides continuity,
allowing more direct access to destinations.
• Topography. Steep slopes create barriers to pedestrians.

Prioritizing Improvements and Selecting Preferred Options

There are four factors to consider when evaluating barriers and gaps in pedestrian and cycling
networks, and when prioritizing improvements:
1. Level of demand. How many people would use a facility if it were improved. In general, this
increases around higher density areas, such as business districts and higher­density
residential areas, and around attractions, such as schools and parks.
2. Degree of barrier. This can range from minor difficulties (such as requiring pedestrians to
use a longer route than would be the case if a proposed improvement is made) to a total
barrier (“you can’t get there from here by walking or bicycling”). The degree of barrier also
depends on who is traveling, and under what conditions. People with physical disabilities are
more vulnerable to such barriers.
3. Potential benefits. This refers to the benefits that could result from increased walking and
cycling on that corridor. For example, improvements that encourage more nonmotorized

10
PBQD, The Pedestrian Environment, 1000 Friends of Oregon (www.friends.org) 1993.

24
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

travel which replaces automobile use may provide more value to a community than
improvements that are used primarily for recreational cycling and walking.
4. Cost and ease of improvement. This includes the incremental financial costs of the project,
and any increase in future maintenance costs.

A useful way to summarize this information is to create an evaluation matrix, such as the one
below. Note that the concept of “cost” is inverted into “affordability” so all criteria can be ranked
from high (best) to low.

Table A3­5 Project Evaluation Matrix Example

Barrier Social Affordability
Demand Reduction Benefit (low cost)
Proposal 1 High High Medium High
Proposal 2 Medium Low High Medium
Proposal 3 High Medium High Low
Proposal 4 Low High Medium Low

It may be desirable to develop a more quantitative evaluation process. For example, each
proposal could be ranked from zero (worst) to 5 (best) for each criterion. The criteria can also be
given a weight. These are then multiplied to create total points for each project. Rankings can be
done by a small group of technical experts, a technical/public committee, or through a public
survey.

Table A3­6 Project Evaluation Matrix Example

Barrier Social Affordability Total
Demand Reduction Benefit (low cost) Points
Weight 4 3 2 2
Proposal 1 4 5 3 4 45
Proposal 2 3 2 5 3 34
Proposal 3 5 3 4 1 39
Proposal 4 2 4 3 1 28
Each criteria value is multiplied times the criteria weight factor.

Another approach is to develop a cost value that incorporates various criteria. For example, it
may be possible to calculate dollars per additional bicycle commuter, or dollars per
pedestrian/cyclist­kilometre using a new facility. This can be calculated by dividing the
annualized project cost by the number of projected users.

25
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

A more sophisticated investment analysis technique uses net present values. This involves
estimating all future costs and benefits, depreciating these based on a discount rate, and using a
spreadsheet to calculate their net present value. The figure below demonstrates this with the
example of a new pathway that has $1,300,000 in construction costs during the first three years,
$20,000 annual maintenance costs, 200,000 annual trips the first year that increases by 3%
annually, with an estimated benefit of $1.00 per trip. Figure 1 illustrates this with a graph. Note
that the values decline over time due the discount rate. In this particular example, the net present
value of costs is $1.4 million, while the net present value of benefits is $2.4 million.

Figure 1 Net Present Value Investment Analysis

Costs and Benefits

Benefits Costs

Years ==>

However, such “condensed” values may exclude important factors. For example, two projects
may have the same cost per additional bicycle commuter, but one provides far more recreational
bicycling. Or, perhaps one provides more environmental, aesthetic, or equity benefits. Such
differences should be described in evaluation reports.

The city of Portland uses two factors to prioritize pedestrian improvements. The “Pedestrian
Potential Index” measure the potential demand for pedestrian travel, based on the areas PEF
(described above), proximity to activity centers (such as schools, housing [especially senior
housing] parks, transit, neighborhood shops), and policy factors, such as whether improvements
to the pedestrian environment on that street are part of the regional strategic plan. The
“Deficiency Index” measures how critically pedestrian improvements are needed. The highest
priority for pedestrian improvements are projects which rank high on both the Potential and
Deficiency indices.11 The same method could be used to prioritize cycling projects.

11
Pedestrian Master Plan, Pedestrian Transportation Program, City of Portland (503­823­7004;
pedprogram@syseng.ci.portland.or.us), 1998.

26
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

Resource s
Evaluating Nonmotorized Transportation Conditions

AASHTO, Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 3rd Edition, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (Washington DC; 888­227­4860;
www.aashto.org), 1999; available online at www.bikefed.org.
Ronald Eash, “Destination and Mode Choice Models for Nonmotorized Travel,”
Transportation Research Record 1674, 1999, pp. 1­8.
David L. Harkey, Donald W. Reinfurt, J. Richard Stewart, Matthew Knuiman and Alex
Sorton, The Bicycle Compatibility Index: A Level of Service Concept, Federal Highway
Administration, FHWA­RD­98­072
(www.hsrc.unc.edu/oldhsrc/research/pedbike/bci/bcitech.pdf), 1998
Bruce Landis, Russell Ottenberg, and Venkat Vattikuti, The Roadside Pedestrian
Environment: Toward A Comprehensive Level of Service, Paper 990570, Transportation
Research Board Annual Meeting (www4.nationalacademies.org/trb/homepage.nsf), 1999.
Yael M. Levitte, Bicycle Demand Analysis – A Toronto Case Study, Transportation Research
Board Annual Meeting (www4.nationalacademies.org/trb/homepage.nsf), 1999.
William Moritz, Bicycle Facilities and Use, Washington State Department of Transportation,
(Olympia; www.wsdot.wa.gov/ppsc/research/onepages/WA­RD3701.HTM), 1995.

PBQD, The Pedestrian Environment, 1000 Friends of Oregon

(www.friends.org) 1993.
Christopher Porter, John Suhrbier and William Schwartz, “Forecasting Bicycle and Pedestrian
Travel,” Transportation Research Record 1674, 1999, pp. 94­101.
Project for Public Spaces, Effects of Environmental Design on the Amount and Type of
Bicycling and Walking, National Bicycling and Walking Study No. 20, FHWA, USDOT
(available through www.bikefed.org), 1993.
Schwartz, W.L., C.D. Porter, G.C. Payne, J.H. Suhbier, P.C. Moe, and W.L. Wilkinson III.
Guidebook on Methods to Estimate NonMotorized Travel: Overview of Methods. Turner­
Fairbank Highway Research Center (www.tfhrc.org), Federal Highway Administration,
FHWA­RD­98­165, 1999.
Alex Sorton and Thomas Walsh, “Bicycle Stress Level as a Tool to Evaluate Urban and
Suburban Bicycle Computability,” Transportation Research Record 1438, TRB,
(www4.nationalacademies.org/trb/homepage.nsf), 1995, pp. 17­24.
University of North Carolina, A Compendium of Available Bicycle and Pedestrian Trip
Generation Data in the United States, Supplement to the National Bicycling and Walking
Study, FHWA, USDOT (available through www.bikefed.org), 1994.

27
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center (www.hsrc.unc.edu).

Ellen Vanderslice, Portland Pedestrian Design Guide and Pedestrian Master Plan, City of
Portland (www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Sidewalks_and_Pedestrians.html), 1998.
Barry Wellar, Walking Security Index; Final Report, Geography Department, University of
Ottawa (Ottawa; 613­562­5725; wellarb@uottawa.ca), 1998.

28
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

Appendix 4 Exemplary Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans

Bicycle Plans
City of Santa Barbara
A comprehensive plan for integrating bicycling infrastructure into the city's street network,
including on­ and off­road facilities, and ancillary facilities such as bicycle parking, signing and
other amenities. www.ci.santa­barbara.ca.us/pworks/transp/bike_plan/bmp_toc.html.

City of Portland, Ore.

During the 1990's the City of Portland has developed an extensive bicycling infrastructure
including on­ and off­street routes, bicycle parking, and other facilities. A Master Plan is at:
www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/traffic_management/bicycle_program/BikeMasterPlan/Default.htm.
Contact: City of Portland, 1120 SW Fifth Ave, Room 730, Portland, OR 97204. (503) 823­7671.

City of Philadelphia, Pa
The City was awarded more than $3 million of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program
funds to plan and implement a city­wide bicycle network featuring bike lanes, trails, and bicycle
parking facilities. www.phila.gov/departments/street/html/the_bicycle_network.html.
Contact: City of Philadelphia Streets Department, (215) 686­5514,

City of Chicago, Ill.

Mayor Daley announced in the early 1990’s that Chicago would become a bicycle­friendly city
by the year 2000. A simple seven­page plan launched a series of improvements to existing
facilities and the striping of several miles of bike lane each year. The plan has spawned more
detailed bicycle plans: www.cityofchicago.org/Transportation/Bikes/bicycle.htm.
Contact: Bicycle Program, 30 N. LaSalle Street, #400, Chicago, IL 60602. 312­744­8093

City of Tucson, Ariz.

With a network of more than 240 miles of bikeway already on the ground, the Tucson Bikeway
Improvement Plan identifies more than 50 additional miles of striped bike lanes which will be
added to the system by 2001. www.ci.tucson.az.us/transport/planning/overview.html.
Contact: City of Tucson, 201 North Stone ­ 6th Floor, Tucson, AZ 85726. (520) 791­4372

New York City, NY

This award­winning plan identifies more than 900 miles of on­ and off­street facilities and
recommends a series of policies and programs which would promote bicycle use, encourage
integration with transit, and link to the City's greenway system.
www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/dcp/html/bndprods.html#b

Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Adopted in December, 1998, the Wisconsin Bicycle Transportation Plan 2020 provides a

29
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

blueprint for more and safer bicycle trips with recommendations and roles for a variety of
government agencies and groups. www.dot.state.wi.us/dtim/bop/finalbike.html.
Contact: Tom Huber, Wisconsin DOT, P.O.Box 7913, Madison, WI 53707. 608­267­7757

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

One of the first ISTEA­generated statewide bicycle plans. The PennDOT plan included extensive
public outreach and an intensive "in­reach" program for PennDOT staff and agencies. The plan
incorporates an extensive design manual. Contact: PennDOT, 717­783­8444

Pedestrian plans
City of West Palm Beach, Fla.
The Transportation Element of the city's 1998 Comprehensive Plan establishes a new traffic
hierarchy in which traffic calming is a key strategy in promoting walking and pedestrian safety.
Contact: Tim Stillings, Planning Department, P.O. Box 3366, West Palm Beach,
FL 33402. (561) 659­8031.

City of Portland, Ore.

The City has adopted a two­part plan: Part One outlines the policies and plans for improving
conditions for walking and Part Two is a detailed design manual for pedestrian facilities.
www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Sidewalks_and_Pedestrians.html.
Contact: Pedestrian Coordinator, City of Portland, 1120 SW Fifth Ave, Portland, OR 97204.

City of Madison, Wis.

Adopted in September 1997, Madison's visionary plan for walking incorporates planning, design,
maintenance, and long­term goals and objectives. Madison was one of the first communities to
adopt a separate plan for walking. www.ci.madison.wi.us/reports/execsum2.pdf.
Contact: Arthur Ross, City of Madison, P.O. Box 2986, Madison, WI 53701. 608­266­6225.

City of Tucson, Ariz.

Closely matching the City's bicycling plan, Tucson has adopted an ambitious plan to improve
conditions for walking that is clearly identifiable in the City's annual workplan.
Contact: Tom Fisher, City of Tucson, 201 North Stone, Tucson, AZ 85726. 520­791­4372

Arlington County, Va.

Arlington County is one of the nation's densest urban areas and has developed a pedestrian plan
that builds on the accessibility of two major transit corridors in the County. An extensive
sidewalk building program is complemented by a neighborhood traffic calming program, all
directed by citizen task forces. www.co.arlington.va.us/dpw/planning/ped/ped.htm.
Contact: Arlington County DPW, 2100 Clarendon Blvd ­ Suite 717, Arlington, VA 22201

30
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

North Central Texas Council of Governments

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Planning and Design Guidelines, developed in December 1995
provides guidance on planning and designing facilities which improve bicycle and pedestrian
mobility. www.nctcog.dst.tx.us/envir/bikeped/plandesign/execsumm.html.
Contact: Mike Sims, NCTCOG, P.O. 5888, Arlington, TX 76005. 817­695­9226

Washington State Department of Transportation

Washington State DOT adopted a Pedestrian Policy Plan in 1993 that focused on local and
regional planning for pedestrians, necessary pedestrian facility types and locations, and who
should pay for them. www.wsdot.wa.gov/hlrd/sub­defaults/pedestrian­default.htm
Contact: Julie Mercer Matlick, WSDOT, P.O. Box 47393, Olympia, WA 98504. (360) 705­7505

Oregon Department of Transportation

A comprehensive pedestrian (and bicycle) planning and design document.
www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk.
Contact: Michael Ronkin, Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Manager, ODOT, Room
210­Transportation Building, Salem, OR 97310. (503) 986­3555.

31
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

Appendix 5 Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Resources

Roadway Design Resources

A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 1994 (The Green Book). American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), P.O. Box 96716,
Washington, DC, 20090­6716, Phone: (888) 227­4860.
Stephen Burrington & Veronika Thiebach, Take Back Your Streets; How to Protect Communities
from Asphalt and Traffic, Conservation Law Foundation (Boston; www.clf.org), 1995.
Wolfgang Homburger, et al., Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, Institute of
Transportation Engineers (Washington DC; www.ite.org), 1989.
Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, 1994. Transportation Research Board, Box 289,
Washington, DC 20055, Phone: (202) 334­3214. Next Edition: FHWA Research Program project
has identified changes to HCM related to bicycle and pedestrian design.
LMN Architects, Model Code Provisions; Urban Streets and Subdivisions, Washington State
Community, Trade and Economic Development (www.wsdot.wa.gov/hldr/pdf/cted.pdf ).
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 1988. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
Superintendent of Documents. P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250­7954. Includes standards
for signing and marking both on­road and off­road bicycle facilities. Year 2000 edition will
incorporate more bicycle and pedestrian standards.
Flexibility in Highway Design, 1997. FHWA. HEPH 10, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington,
DC 20590.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning Publications

Improving Conditions for Bicyclists and Pedestrians, A Best Practices Report, 1998. FHWA,
HEP 10, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20590.
Making Streets That Work; Neighborhood Planning Tool, Engineering Dept., City of Seattle
(www.ci.seattle.wa.us/npo/tblis.htm), 1996.
National Bicycle and Walking Study (24 volumes), FHWA, (Washington DC; www.bikefed.org),
1991­95.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's “Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety and
Accommodation” course, (NHI Course NO. 38061, (www.ota.fhwa.dot.gov/walk). The course
workbook is Publication No. FHWA­HI­96­028.
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Resource Kit, FHWA (www.ota.fhwa.dot.gov/walk).
Rails to Trails Conservancy, Improving Conditions for Bicycling and Walking; A Best Practices
Report, U.S. Federal highway Administration (www.fhwa.doc.gov) and Rails to Trails
Conservancy (www.railtrails.org), 1999.

32
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

University of North Carolina, A Compendium of Available Bicycle and Pedestrian Trip

Generation Data in the United States, Supplement to the National Bicycling and Walking Study,
FHWA, USDOT (available through www.bikefed.org), 1994.

Pedestrian Planning Publications

Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities, A Recommended Practice, Institute of Transportation

Engineers (202­554­8050; www.ite.org), 1998.
Implementing Pedestrian Improvements at the Local Level, FHWA, HSR 20, 6300 Georgetown
Pike, McLean, VA, 1999.
Improving Pedestrian Access to Transit: An Advocacy Handbook, 1998. Federal Transit
Administration / WalkBoston. NTIS, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
Planning and Implementing Pedestrian Facilities in Suburban and Developing Rural Areas,
Report No. 294A, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, Phone: (202) 334­3214.
Pedestrian Crossing Control Manual, Transportation Association of Canada (Ottawa;
613­736­1350; www.tac­atc.ca), 1998.
Pedestrian Facilities Guidebook: Incorporating Pedestrians Into Washington’s Transportation
System, Washington State DOT (www.wsdot.wa.gov/ta/t2/t2pubs.htm), 1997.
Rhys Roth, Getting People Walking: Municipal Strategies to Increase Pedestrian Travel,
WSDOT (Olympia; www.wsdot.wa.gov/ta/t2/t2pubs.htm), 1994.
Joseph P. Savage, et al., A Guidebook for Student Pedestrian Safety, Washington State
Department of Transportation (Olympia; www.wsdot.wa.gov/ta/t2/t2pubs.htm) 1996.
Social Research Associates, Personal Security Issues in Pedestrian Journeys, UK Department of
the Environment, Transport and the Regions (London; www.mobility­unit.detr.gov.uk/psi), 1999.
Ellen Vanderslice, Portland Pedestrian Design Guide and Pedestrian Master Plan, City of
Portland (www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Sidewalks_and_Pedestrians.html), 1998.
Walk Tall; A Citizen’s Guide to Walkable Communities, Rodale Press (Emmaus) and Pedestrian
Federation of America (Washington DC; www.bikefed.org), 1995.

Bicycle Planning Publications

Suzan Anderson Pinsof and Terri Musser, Bicycle Facility Planning, Planners Advisory Service,
American Planning Association (Chicago; 312­786­6344), 1995.
AASHTO, Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 3rd Edition, American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (Washington DC; 888­227­4860; www.aashto.org),

33
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

1999; available online at www.bikefed.org.

Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicyclists, 1993. FHWA, R&T Report
Center, 9701 Philadelphia Ct, Unit Q; Lanham, MD 20706. (301) 577­1421 (fax only)
Bicycle Facility Design Standards, 1998. City of Philadelphia Streets Department, 1401 JFK
Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines, Transportation Association of Canada (Ottawa;
613­736­1350; www.tac­atc.ca), 1999.
CIP, Community Cycling Manual, Canadian Institute of Planners (www.cip­icu.ca), March 1999.
Evaluation of Shared­use Facilities for Bicycles and Motor Vehicles, 1996. Florida DOT,
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Office, 605 Suwannee Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399.
Florida Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Manual, 1994. Florida DOT, Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety Office, 605 Suwannee Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399.
John Forester, Bicycle Transportation: A Handbook for Cycling Transportation Engineers, MIT
Press, 1994.
David L. Harkey, Donald W. Reinfurt, J. Richard Stewart, Matthew Knuiman and Alex Sorton,
The Bicycle Compatibility Index: A Level of Service Concept, Federal Highway Administration
(www.hsrc.unc.edu/research/pedbike/bci), 1998.
Implementing Bicycle Improvements at the Local Level, Federal Highway Administration,
FHWA, HSR 20, 6300, (available online at www.bikefed.org/local.htm), 1998.
William Moritz, Bicycle Facilities and Use, Washington State Department of Transportation,
(Olympia; www.wsdot.wa.gov/ta/t2/t2pubs.htm), 1995.
North Carolina Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Guidelines, 1994. North Carolina DOT,
P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611. (919) 733­2804.
John Pucher, “Bicycling Renaissance in North America” Transportation Research A, Vol. 33,
Nos. 7/8, September/November 1999, pp. 625­254.
John Williams, Bruce Burgess, Peter Moe and Bill Wilkinson, Implementing Bicycle
Improvements at the Local Level, FHWA, Report FHWA­RD­98­105, 1998.

Useful Organizations

America WALKs (www.webwalking.com/amwalks) is a coalition of walking advocacy groups.

American Planning Association (www.planning.org) is a professional society for planners

which sponsors a “Growing Smart” initiative and provides many extensive resources.
American Trails (www.outdoorlink.com/amtrails) fosters communication among trail users.

34
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

Association for Commuter Transportation (Washington DC; 202­393­3497;

http://tmi.cob.fsu.edu/act/act.htm) is a non­profit organization supporting TDM programs.
Bicycle Information Center (1­877­925­5245; www.bicyclinginfo.org) is a comprehensive
clearninghouse of bicycle planning and safety information supported by the U.S. Federal
Highway Administration.
Bicycle Federation of America (Washington DC; 202.463.6625; www.bikefed.org) provides
extensive resources for bicycle and pedestrian planning.
Canadian Cycling Association (Gloucester, Ontario; www.canadian­cycling.com) manages the
Can­Bike cycling education program.
Carfree.com (www.carfree.com) explores carfree cities past, present, and future, and provides
practical solutions to the problems of urban automobile use.
Center for Livable Communities (www.lgc.org/clc) helps local governments and community
leaders be proactive in their land use and transportation planning.
Children on the Move site on children and transport: www.ecoplan.org/children.

Community Transportation Association of America (www.ctaa.org) provides resources for

improving mobility for disadvantaged populations.
Commuter Choice Program (www.epa.gov/oms/traq) provides information, materials and
incentives for developing employee commute trip reduction programs.
Congress for New Urbanism (www.cnu.org) is a movement to develop urban communities built
to a human scale.
David Engwicht Communications (www.lesstraffic.com.) provides information on “street
reclaiming.”
The U.S. Federal Highway Administration’s Pedestrian Program
(www.ota.fhwa.dot.gov/walk) provides pedestrian safety information and resources.
Green Lane Program, Environment Canada (www.ec.gc.ca/emission/5­1e.html) promotes TDM
and other strategies for reducing transportation environmental impacts.
Go For Green, The Active Living & Environment Program (www.goforgree.ca) provides
resources to promote nonmotorized transportation.
ICBC Road Sense (www.icbc.com) provides a variety of pedestrian and bicycle safety
information including Safe Cycle Program material.
The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (www.iclei.org) provides
planning resources to help communities become healthier and more environmentally responsible.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (Washington DC; www.ite.org) has extensive
technical resources on pedestrian and bicycle planning, traffic calming and TDM.

35
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

League of American Bicyclists (www.bikeleague.org/ec2/education.htm) provides a variety of

bicycle education and encouragement resources.
The Local Government Commission (www.lgc.org/clc/pubinfo) provides a variety of useful
resources, including pedestrian and bicycle planning publications.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (www.nhtsa.dot.gov) provides pedestrian
and bicycle safety resources.
National Transportation Week Pedestrian Website (www.ota.fhwa.dot.gov/ntw/bikeped.htm)
provides information and links to pedestrian planning websites.
Northwestern University Traffic Institute (Evanston, Illinois; 800­323­4011;
www.nwu.edu/traffic) offers professional development workshops on bicycle planning and
facility design, and other related subjects.
Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning (www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk) is an
example of nonmotorized planning at its best.
Partnership for a Walkable America (http://nsc.org/walk/wkabout.htm) promotes the benefits
of walking and supports efforts to make communities more pedestrian friendly.
The Pedestrian Association (http://web.ukonline.co.uk/walkhf) has been campaigning since
1929 to make walking safer, more convenient, and easier.
The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (1­877­WALKBIKE; www.bicyclinginfo.org)
provides a variety of technical information on nonmotorized transport planning and programs.
Pedestrian Information Center (1­877­925­5245; www.walkinginfo.org) is a comprehensive
clearninghouse of pedestrian planning and safety information supported by the U.S. Federal
Highway Administration.
Pednet’s International Pedestrian Lexicon (glossary) http://user.itl.net/~wordcraf/lexicon.html

The City of Portland (www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Traffic_Management/trafficcalming)

provides excellent information and materials on traffic calming and pedestrian planning.
Project for Public Spaces (www.pps.org) is a non­profit organization that offers resources and
technical support to help create special places that build community life.
The Rails­To­Trails Conservancy (www.railtrails.org) provides information and resources on
public trail development.
The Smart Growth Network (www.smartgrowth.org) includes planners, govt. officials, lenders,
community developers, architects, environmentalists and activists.
Sustainable Communities Network (www.sustainable.org) provides tools for community
sustainability planning.
Rodney Tolley, The Greening of Urban Transport, John Wiley (New York), 1997.

36
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices

Transportation Association of Canada (Ottawa; www.tac­atc.ca)provides a variety of

resources related to transportation planning and TDM.
TAC, Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for Canada, Transportation Association of Canada
(www.tac­atc.ca), 1998
Transportation for Livable Communities (www.tlcnetwork.org) is a resource centre for people
working to create more livable communities by improving transportation.
Turner­Fairbank Highway Research Center (www.tfhrc.gov), has extensive resources for
pedestrian and bicycle planning.
UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
(www.roads.detr.gov.uk/roadsafety/rs/index.htm) publishes Road Safety Education in Schools ­
Good Practice Guidelines that describe how to create a safer pedestrian environment.
UK Health Education Authority (www.hea.org.uk) has excellent material to promote “transport
exercise” and better integration of nonmotorized transport in public health programs.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) provides resources for planning and
evaluating TDM, bicycling and walking programs.
Walkable Communities, Inc. (www.walkable.org) works with communities to create more
people­oriented environments.
Washington Department of Transportation, TDM Resource Center (Seattle; 206­464­6145;
www.wsdot.wa.gov) and Northwest Technology Transfer Center (Olympia;
www.wsdot.wa.gov/TA/T2/publications.html) offer a variety of resources for TDM planning.
Way To Go! School Program (Vancouver; 1­877­325­3636; www.waytogo.icbc.bc.ca) provides
resources and support for school traffic reduction programs.
World Health Organization Healthy Cities Project (www.who.dk/london99) provides
information on international efforts to create healthy cities.
The WSDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Websites (www.wsdot.wa.gov) provide extensive
reference information for nonmotorized transport planning.

37

View publication stats