DECEMBER 2016

Small Town 

and Rural 

Multimodal 

Networks
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

II

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2. REPORT DATE

December 2016

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

Final Report

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks

5a. FUNDING NUMBERS

NA

6. AUTHORS

Consultant Team

Alta Planning + Design: Dana Dickman, Nick Falbo, Steve Durrant,

Joe Gilpin, Gena Gastaldi, Collin Chesston, Prescott Morrill,

Chloe Ward, Wade Walker, Bryan Jones, Cat Cheng, Jillian Portelance

Small Urban and Rural Livability Center – Western Transportation

Institute: David Kack, Rebecca Gleason, Taylor Lonsdale

National Association of Counties: Kathy Nothstine, Jack Morgan,

Rob Pressly

5b. CONTRACT NUMBER

DTFH6115H00023

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S)

AND ADDRESS(ES)

Alta Planning + Design (Alta)

711 SE Grand Avenue, Portland, OR 97214

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

NA

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S)

AND ADDRESS(ES)

Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty

Federal Highway Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE

Washington DC 20590

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY

REPORT NUMBER

FHWA-HEP-17-024

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

This document is available to the public on the FHWA website at: 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

NA

13. ABSTRACT

The Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks report is a resource and idea book intended to help small towns and rural

communities support safe, accessible, comfortable, and active travel for people of all ages and abilities. It provides a bridge

between existing guidance on bicycle and pedestrian design and rural practice, encourage innovation in the development

of safe and appealing networks for bicycling and walking in small towns and rural areas, and show examples of peer

communities and project implementation that is appropriate for rural communities.

14. SUBJECT TERMS

Bicycle, bike, pedestrian, safety, networks, activity, rural, small town,

multimodal, nonmotorized, planning, bridge, school

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

134

16. PRICE CODE

NA

17. SECURITY

CLASSIFICATION

OF REPORT

Unclassified

18. SECURITY

CLASSIFICATION

OF THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19. SECURITY

CLASSIFICATION

OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified

20. LIMITATION OF

ABSTRACT

Unlimited
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

III

DISCLAIMER

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest 

of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of information contained in 

this document.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names 

appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of this document.

The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of 

the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the U.S. Department 

of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

Publication Number: FHWA-HEP-17-024

This document is intended to be a resource for 

transportation practitioners in small towns and 

rural communities. It applies existing national design 

guidelines in a rural setting and highlights small 

town and rural case studies. It addresses challenges 

specific to rural areas, recognizes how many rural 

roadways are operating today, and focuses on 

opportunities to make incremental improvements 

despite the geographic, fiscal, and other challenges 

that many rural communities face. 

It provides information on maintaining accessibility 

and MUTCD compliance, while at the same 

time encouraging innovation. For example, this 

document highlights two innovative facility types: 

Yield Roadways and Advisory Shoulders. Regarding 

Yield Roadways, this document references AASHTO 

resources such as the Guidelines for Very Lowvolume Local Roads 2001, which includes discussion 

of Two- Way Single-Lane Roads, and the A Policy on 

Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, which 

notes that "on residential streets the level of user 

inconvenience occasioned by the lack of two moving 

lanes is remarkably low”. It also notes that when 

faced with two-way traffic in a single lane “opposing 

conflicting traffic will yield and pause on the parking 

lane area until there is sufficient width to pass" (2011, 

p. 5-13). This document notes that Yield Roadways

are a common form for low-volume local rural and 

urban roads, but recognizes that additional research 

on this facility type will be helpful. It will also be 

helpful to learn from the experience of states such as 

Oregon that recommend similar street types in their 

Oregon Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines. 

Similarly, the document notes that as of 2016, an 

approved Request to Experiment is required to 

implement Advisory Shoulders. Called “dashed 

bicycle lanes” in the FHWA experimentation 

process, at least five such experiments are 

currently ongoing. Beyond local experimentation, 

the guidance in this document incorporates 

lessons learned from installations in the UK, 

where speed and crash reduction benefits were 

noted after facility implementation. Refer to 

FHWA's Bicycle and Pedestrian Program website 

for the current approval status of these and other 

treatments before implementation. 

By including these facilities in this document, 

FHWA is fostering innovation and encouraging 

participation in the formal experimentation 

process. This will help to ensure that conversations 

about design flexibility and multimodal networks 

also address rural conditions and meet the needs 

of everyone. In doing so, this document is intended 

to foster an ongoing dialogue about multimodal 

transportation infrastructure needs in small towns 

and rural areas.
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

IV

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

Project Managers and Technical Leads

Dan Goodman

Christopher Douwes

Wesley Blount

Elizabeth Hilton

Gabe Rousseau

Bruce Friedman

Dave Kirschner

Shari Schaftlein

Funding Partners

Funding for this project is provided in part by the 

Center for Prevention at Blue Cross and Blue Shield 

of Minnesota

Technical Advisory Committee

Bill Nesper – League of American Bicyclists

Talia Jacobson – Oregon Department 

of Transportation

Rich Crossler-Laird – Oregon Department 

of Transportation

Jenna Stanke Marmon - Jackson County Oregon Roads 

and Parks

Robert Ping – WALC Institute (Walkable and Livable 

Communities)

James Rosenow – Minnesota Department of Transportation

Peter Furth – Northeastern University 

Gary Toth – Project for Public Spaces

Susan Law – FHWA Western Federal Lands Representative

Cindy Bobbitt – Grant County Oklahoma Commissioner

Claire Collins – Bath County, Virginia Board of Supervisors

Lynn Padgett – Ouray County Colorado Commissioner

Wayne Emington – FHWA Maine Division

Special Thanks

Peter Kulbacki, Hanover, New Hampshire

R. Charles “Doby” Class, Arcata, California

Dan Weitzel, Manzanita, Oregon

Nicholas Meltzer, Lyndonville, Vermont

Christine Pavoni, Detroit, Oregon

Eric Fredericks, Capay, California

Stephen Steese, Easley, South Carolina

Bruce Evilsizor, Pickens, South Carolina

Michael Edwards, Connellsville, Pennsylvania

Becky Vujovich, Ennis, Montana

Tara Andrews, Miles City, Montana

Cover Photo: Diane Banta, National Park Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

V

TABLE OF

Contents

Chapter 1–Introduction

1-5 Why a Rural and Small Town 

Focused Guide?

1-7 Building a Rural and Small Town 

Multimodal Network

1-8 Who Uses the Rural Network? 

1-9 How to Use this Guide

1-11 Creating Networks

1-13 Common Challenges in Small Town 

and Rural Areas

1-15 Reference Guide

1-16 Accessibility Standards

Chapter 2–Mixed Traffic Facilities

2-3 Yield Roadway

2-9 Bicycle Boulevard

2-17 Advisory Shoulder

Chapter 3–Visually Separated Facilities

3-3 Paved Shoulder

3-11 Bike Lane

Chapter 4–Physically Separated Facilities

4-3 Shared Use Path

4-11 Sidepath

4-19 Sidewalk

4-25 Separated Bike Lane

Chapter 5–Key Network Opportunities

5-3 Speed Management

5-7 Pedestrian Lane

5-9 School Connections

5-15 Multimodal Main Streets

5-21 Bridges

5-27 Access to Public Lands

Chapter 6–Planning and 

Project Development

6-3 The Transportation Planning Process

6-4 Steps in the Transportation 

Planning Process

6-5 Key Products in the Transportation 

Planning Process

6-6 What are the Key Products of the 

Transportation Planning Process? 
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

1-1
CHAPTER 1

1-2SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

Introduction

1-5 Why a Rural and Small Town Focused Guide?

1-7 Building a Rural and Small Town Multimodal Network

1-8 Who Uses the Rural Network? 

1-9 How to Use this Guide

1-11 Creating Networks

1-13 Common Challenges in Small Town and Rural Areas

1-15 Reference Guide

1-16 Accessibility Standards
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

1-3

Allendale, South Carolina–Population 3,264
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

1-4

The Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks guide is a 

design resource and idea book to help small towns and rural 

communities support safe, accessible, comfortable, and active 

travel for people of all ages and abilities.

In many small towns and rural communities, active 

transportation is even more common than it is in urban areas. 

However, infrastructure to support active transportation is 

often limited or absent. Many small and rural communities 

are located on State and county roadways that were built 

to design standards that favor high-speed motorized traffic, 

resulting in a system that makes walking and bicycling less 

safe and uncomfortable. These roadways can be retrofitted 

and redesigned over time to provide a transportation network 

that better serves the safety, health, and economic interests 

of the community.

This guide is a resource for practitioners developing 

and promoting multimodal networks in small and rural 

communities. The opportunities for road design highlighted 

in this document build on a broad range of existing national 

design guidelines and references. This guide translates 

existing street design guidance and best practices for bicycle 

and pedestrian safety and comfort to the rural context, 

and provides examples of how to interpret and apply these 

design practices to create safe, accessible, and comfortable 

multimodal networks.

Introduction

 Rushford, Minnesota–Population 1,720

The guide is intended to:

• Provide a bridge between 

existing guidance on bicycle 

and pedestrian design and 

rural practice.

• Encourage innovation in 

the development of safe 

and appealing networks for 

bicycling and walking in small 

towns and rural areas.

• Provide examples of peer 

communities and project 

implementation that is 

appropriate for rural 

communities.
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

1-5

Rural and small town America is diverse 

and varied throughout the country. 

According to the FHWA's Planning 

for Transportation in Rural Areas, 

75 percent of America’s 3,000 counties 

qualify as rural and cover 81 percent of 

the land area. Approximately 19 percent 

of the population live in rural areas.

For more information on official 

designations of urban and rural areas, 

refer to FHWA's website on Census 

Urbanized Areas and MPO/TMA 

Designation, available at https://www.

fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/

urbanized_areas_and_mpo_tma/faq/

page01.cfm

Why a Rural and Small Town

 Focused Guide?

The field of planning and design for 

walking and bicycling is advancing 

rapidly, as more communities across 

America value incorporating active 

transportation into their daily lives. 

Much of the research and analysis of 

infrastructure design has been focused 

on larger cities, such as New York City, 

Portland, and Chicago. This guide is 

intended to provide design information 

on bicycle and pedestrian facilities 

specifically applicable to small towns 

and rural communities.

DEVELOPED RURAL CORE

Rural towns or regional centers with 

concentrations of residents, 

businesses and community destinations.

OUTER DEVELOPED RURAL

Communities from which many

people travel to Rural Core towns

for work, shopping, services or school

BASIC RURAL

Communities without strong

economic and social links to a

developed rural area.

Figure 1-1. Rural town definitions adapted from FHWA Planning for 

Transportation in Rural Areas 2001.
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

1-6

Higher Crash Rates

While only 19 percent of the 

population lives in rural areas, 

58 percent of all fatal crashes 

and 60 percent of traffic 

fatalities were recorded in 

rural regions.(iii)

Health Disparities

Rural areas have higher 

rates of physical inactivity 

and chronic disease than 

urbanized areas.(ii)

Income Disparities

Urban households earn 

32 percent more in yearly 

income than rural 

households.(iv)

Longer Non-local 

Trip Distances 

Rural trip distances 

have been increasing.(i)

While rural places vary 

considerably in geographic 

scale and character, 

there are common issues 

that prevail: 

There is a need and desire to make travel safer 

and more active in small and rural communities. 

Though in many rural 

communities, residents live 

long distances from 

services, most small towns 

provide a compact center 

well-suited for walking and 

bicycling trips. 

1 MILE WALK = 20 MINUTES (3 MPH)

1 MILE BIKE RIDE = 6 MINUTES (10 MPH)

Allendale, SC

Population 3,328

2 miles

Rushford, MN

Population 2,102

1.3 miles

Ukiah, CA

Population 15,956

2.3 miles

2 miles

Palmer, AK

Population 6,250

Why a Rural and Small Town

 Focused Guide?
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

1-7

Main Street or

commercial area 

with high demand 

for all modes

Need for connections 

from residential areas 

to main street

Connections between 

communities (high 

speed corridors and 

long distances)

Local connections to 

schools (low speed 

and short distances)

AURORA, MN BIWABIK, MN

Many communities have invested in 

good places to walk or ride a bicycle. 

However, few smaller communities 

have a complete network that supports 

people comfortably walking and 

bicycling throughout the community. 

A complete network creates 

safe, comfortable, and accessible 

multimodal routes for people walking 

and bicycling. The network may be 

comprised of varying facilities that 

appeal to a range of ages and abilities, 

such as shared use paths, sidewalks, 

and bike lanes. These facilities also 

provide equitable transportation for 

people of all income levels.

Building a Rural and Small Town 

Multimodal Network

Figure 2-2. Network Connections for Rural Communities and Small Towns

A safe and direct network provides 

convenient access to key destinations, 

while minimizing exposure to motor 

vehicle traffic. In addition to physical 

safety, user comfort is an important 

aspect of a multimodal network. 

Typically, additional separation between 

motor vehicles and those walking or 

bicycling, or slowing motor vehicles 

to walking and bicycling compatible 

speeds, is desired to create a more 

comfortable network.

Small and rural towns have great 

potential for creating viable networks 

that serve residents and visitors. 

Common attributes of a small 

town network include connections 

between communities that are located 

along highways and access to retail 

businesses and schools in a relatively 

small area within the community core. 

Communities with strong ties to public 

lands may also prioritize connections to 

natural areas, and tribal communities 

may desire access to ceremonial sites 

outside of the core.
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

1-8

Who Uses the Rural Network?

Most small towns across America 

were established prior to the post-war 

era, in which most children walked to 

school and people could navigate their 

communities without a car. Vehicles 

served farms and industry but were not 

necessary to travel the short distances 

within the community. Over time, as 

roads were widened and changed to 

accommodate travel by car, the ability 

of people to walk and bike diminished. 

The rural active transportation network 

is designed for a range of ages, abilities, 

incomes, and skill levels. It is designed 

for people to move independently within 

their community—such as families 

walking to the nearby school—and also 

to experience the landscape between 

communities, for travel, recreation, or in 

the context of bicycle tourism.

Practitioners should consider the 

expected “Design User” of the facility 

to determine not only physical 

dimensions, but the characteristics and 

physical abilities that influence user 

comfort. Practitioners should design 

pedestrian and bicycle facilities along 

roadways, as well as roadway crossings 

with these factors in mind or they will 

not be utilized to their full potential.

Current policy is to incorporate safe 

and convenient walking and bicycling 

facilities into transportation projects 

and encourage transportation agencies 

to go beyond minimum standards to 

provide safe and convenient facilities 

for these modes (USDOT Policy 

Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Accommodation Regulations and 

Recommendations 2010).

A walkable and 

bikeable community 

is one in which active 

transportation trips are 

safe and comfortable 

for people of all ages 

and abilities.

All ages means that 

children as young as 

eight can walk and bike 

independently from 

their parents. It means 

that older adults can 

get around comfortably 

without a car. Facility 

needs vary by age, and 

there is no “one size fits 

all” solution.

All abilities means that 

people using mobility 

devices or people with 

limited vision are not 

faced with barriers. 

The American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials' 

(AASHTO) AASHTO Guide for the 

Development of Bicycle Facilities 

2012 discusses bicycle user type in 

terms of comfort and rider skill level. 

Adult riders can be classified into two 

general categories: 1) Experienced 

and Confident; and 2) Casual and Less 

Confident. Casual riders are often not 

comfortable traveling in traffic on busy 

roads, and prefer low-traffic conditions, 

or paths separated from busy roads. 

The AASHTO Bike Guide states the 

Casual group “includes a majority of the 

population” (2012, p. 2-5).

In some communities horse drawn 

buggy accommodations are important 

and should also be addressed as a part 

of the transportation planning process.
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

1-9

EXAMPLE APPLICATION

Most appropriate on streets with low to 

moderate volumes and moderate speed 

motor vehicles.(iii)

For use outside, between and within 

built-up areas with bicycle and 

pedestrian demand and limited 

available paved roadway surface.

Land Use

Speed and Volume

OUTSIDE OF 

BUILT-UP 

AREAS

WITHIN 

BUILT-UP 

AREAS

ADVISORY SHOULDER

4k

2k

6k

8k

10k

12k

10 20 30 40 50

MOTOR VEHICLE

OPERATING SPEED (MI/H)

MOTOR VEHICLE VOLUME (ADT)

Applies to constrained connections 

between built-up areas.

Network

HIGHWAY

LOCAL

COLLECTOR

This guide provides design 

information for a variety of 

facility types applicable to 

small town and rural settings. 

Within the design chapters, 

the application context of 

each facility is identified within 

the sidebar graphics shown to 

the right. Refer to the following 

page for a description of each 

context area.

How to Use this Guide

FACILITIES AND DESIGN CONTEXT

Speed and Volume 

Where is the facility 

type most appropriate, 

based on typical speed 

and volume of motor 

vehicles?

Network 

On which part of a 

roadway network is 

the facility type likely 

to be applicable?

Land Use 

Is this facility type 

most appropriate in 

built up developed 

rural areas, or lessdeveloped basic 

rural areas?

A

B

C
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

1-10

BENEFITS AND CONSIDERATIONS

A Speed and Volume

Motor vehicle operating speeds and 

the volumes on a roadway are key 

considerations in selecting the most 

appropriate bicycle and pedestrian 

facilities along a particular roadway. 

Generally speaking, the greater the 

speed and volume of motor vehicle 

traffic, the greater the amount of 

separation is desired for comfortable 

biking and walking facilities. Where 

streets have low volumes and low 

speeds, the need for separation is 

less critical, and mixing modes may 

be appropriate. 

The speed and volume chart 

summarizes how speed and volume 

affect possible facility options.

• Preferred Application Range:

identifies roadway conditions where 

a facility functions particularly well. 

This range is intended to set a high 

bar for facility application.

• Potential Application Range: refers 

to conditions where the facility type 

has also been shown to function 

and may be provide an appropriate 

context for using the facility. 

B Network

The collection of roadways and 

multimodal facilities in a community 

creates a network. Networks are 

interconnected pedestrian and/or 

bicycle transportation facilities that 

allow people of all ages and abilities 

to safely and conveniently get to 

where they want to go. The network 

not only connects to destinations 

within a community, but also creates 

connections between communities 

and to external destinations. There are 

varying levels of comfort associated 

with roadways within the network, 

ranging from low-volume, low-speed 

local streets to high-speed, highvolume arterial roadways. Successful 

networks also provide equitable access 

regardless of income level. 

C Land Use

Land use describes the manner and 

intensity in which land is developed or 

modified from its natural state. Built-up 

areas, such as commercial districts in a 

small town, contain a higher density of 

attractions, destinations, and people, 

and may support a greater diversity 

of bicycle and pedestrian amenities. 

Outside of built-up areas, the land use 

patterns are much less dense, with 

more space between destinations.

How to Use this Guide

For each facility type, the summary lists some key benefits and considerations. 

In addition to benefits related to transportation, the summary addresses other 

factors, such as compatibility with a rural aesthetic, and potential environmental 

impacts caused by road widening. 
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

1-11

Creating Networks

COHESION

How connected is the network 

in terms of its concentration of 

destinations and routes?

DIRECTNESS

Does the network provide direct and 

convenient access to destinations?

ACCESSIBILITY

How well does the network 

accommodate travel for all users, 

regardless of age , income level, 

or ability?

Networks are interconnected 

pedestrian and/or bicycle 

transportation facilities that allow 

people of all ages and abilities to safely 

and conveniently get where they want 

to go. They provide equitable access for 

all people.

Developing interconnected networks 

of bicycling and walking facilities 

in rural and small town settings 

can be challenging due to a lack of 

alternate through roadways and the 

concentration of motor vehicle traffic 

on major roads. Planners and engineers 

must think creatively to establish 

connected facilities within communities, 

and consider how all roadway types 

and independent connections can be 

used to create access to key locations. 

A connected network is not developed 

by a single trail, sidewalk, or bike lane 

but is comprised of many facilities 

that support walking and bicycling 

throughout the community.

The Federal Highway Administration's 

(FHWA) Case Studies in Delivering 

Safe, Comfortable and Connected 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks 2016

lists principles of exemplary multimodal 

network creation. These principles are 

listed below, and the following images 

illustrate these concepts in a variety of 

network scenarios.

Use the facilities shown in this guide 

to form a cohesive network to allow for 

uninterrupted travel to destinations. 

The specific facility type will change 

in response on the traffic and 

community context.

ALTERNATIVES

Are there a number of different route 

choices available within the network?

SAFETY AND SECURITY

Does the network provide routes 

that minimize risk of injury, danger, 

and crime?

COMFORT

Does the network appeal to a 

broad range of age and ability levels 

and is consideration given to user 

amenities? 

Town

Center

Neighborhood

SHOULDER

SIDEPATH
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

1-12

SIDEPATH

High School

Population

Centers

Bus Stop

ENHANCED SHOULDER

Bus Stop Bus Stop

Rural Core

BIKE LANE ENHANCED SHOULDER State Highway

BICYCLE BOULEVARD

Crossing

Improvement

Shared Use Path Connections

BICYCLE BOULEVARD

State Road

Cul-de-Sac

Cul-de-Sac

Grocery

Store

SHARED USE PATH

Crossing

Improvement

Crossing

Improvement

Shared Use Path Connections

BICYCLE BOULEVARD

BICYCLE BOULEVARD

SIDEPATH LINKAGE

State Road

Cul-de-Sa

Cul-de-Sac

Grocery

Store

SHARED USE PATH

SIDEPATH

High School

Population

Centers

Bus Stop

ENHANCED SHOULDER

Bus Stop Bus Stop

Rural Core

BIKE LANE ENHANCED SHOULDER State Highway

BICYCLE BOULEVARD

Creating Networks

Rural cores should support walking and 

biking on main commercial corridors and 

main streets. As the street transitions 

out of the core area, the facility design 

that accommodates people walking and 

biking should change.

Some facilities may only 

span short distances 

to provide connections 

and fill gaps along a 

greater network or facility 

corridor. Transitions 

between facility types are 

important and should not 

be overlooked.

Adjacent roadways or shared use paths 

may complement the transportation 

function of a primary roadway.

Connections near 

schools should provide 

increased separation 

of walking and biking 

facilities that are 

more appropriate for 

younger users.
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

1-13

Common Challenges in 

 Small Town and Rural Areas

Many small town and rural communities are located near 

public lands that serve as popular destinations. Creating 

comfortable linkages, in effect, extends these public lands 

into their surrounding communities. 

Small towns and rural areas near agricultural operations 

need to consider the needs of wide and slow moving 

special equipment.

With lower densities and greater distances, many small towns 

and rural areas have developed in a more auto-oriented 

fashion than urban areas. 

A singular focus on automobile mobility results in a lack of 

facilities for people walking and bicycling, making travel by 

these modes difficult and less safe.

AGRICULTURAL USES

AUTO ORIENTED ROADWAYS

PUBLIC LANDS ACCESS

LACK OF TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

1-14

Common Challenges in 

 Small Town and Rural Areas

Rural highways often have physical constraints that make 

the provision of cost-effective facilities for bicycling and 

walking difficult.

Pedestrian crossings are often not defined and may be 

difficult to warrant based on low existing use; however, not 

providing pedestrian crossings makes streets act as barriers 

that divide communities.

State highways often pass through the heart of small 

towns and may prioritize through traffic over local 

access. Some may be wide and over designed, and 

some may be constrained and hard to change. 

Winter maintenance is a significant constraint in much of 

the country. Many small towns and counties do not have 

adequate resources to pay for special equipment to clear 

certain types of active transportation facilities.

CONSTRAINED TERRAIN SAFETY

HIGHWAY AS A MAIN STREET CLIMATE AND MAINTENANCE
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

1-15

AASHTO Flexibility Guide 2004 American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials, A Guide for Achieving Flexibility in Highway Design, 2004.

AASHTO Bike Guide 2012 American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials, Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012. 

AASHTO Pedestrian Guide 2004 American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials, Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian 

Facilities, 2004.

AASHTO Pedestrian Guide 2017 American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials, Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian 

Facilities, 2nd Edition, 2017.

AASHTO Green Book 2011 American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2011.

AASHTO Low Volume Roads 2001 American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials, Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Roads, 

1st Edition, 2001.

AASHTO Low Volume Roads 2017 American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials, Guidelines for Geometric Design of Low-Volume Roads, 2nd 

Edition, 2017.

FHWA Achieving Multimodal Networks 

2016

Federal Highway Administration, Achieving Multimodal Networks: 

Applying Design Flexibility and Reducing Conflict, 2016.

FHWA Resurfacing Guide 2016 Federal Highway Administration, Incorporating On-Road Bicycle 

Networks into Resurfacing Projects, 2016.

FHWA MUTCD 2009 Federal Highway Administration, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices for Streets and Highways, 2009.

FHWA Separated Bike Lane Guide 2015 Federal Highway Administration, Separated Bike Lane Planning and 

Design Guide, 2015.

PROWAG 2011 United States Access Board, Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian 

Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way, 2011.

Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Shared Use Paths, 

2013.

PEDSAFE 2013 Federal Highway Administration. Pedestrian Safety Guide and 

Countermeasure Selection System, 2013.

BIKESAFE 2014 Federal Highway Administration. Bicycle Safety Guide and 

Countermeasure Selection System, 2014.

Several design resources are referenced frequently throughout this document. The table below includes both the 

abbreviated title used in this document and full document title..

Reference Guide
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

1-16

The U.S. Access Board is the Federal agency responsible for 

developing and updating accessibility guidelines under the 

Americans with Disabilities (ADA) of 1990. The Access Board 

published its Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in 

the Public Right-of-Way (PROWAG) in 2011. At the time of 

publication of this document, the Board had not issued a 

final PROWAG rule.

The PROWAG will become an enforceable standard only 

after the Board publishes a final rule and only after the U.S. 

Department of Justice (USDOJ) and/or the U.S. Department 

of Transportation (USDOT) adopt the final guidelines into 

their respective ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation 

Act regulations. Until that time, the USDOJ 2010 ADA 

Standards and the USDOT 2006 ADA and Section 504 

Standards provide enforceable standards applicable to the 

public right-of-way. Where the 2010 ADA Standards or the 

2006 ADA and Section 504 Standards do not address a 

specific issue in the public right-of- way, the Federal Highway 

Administration encourages public entities to look to the 

draft PROWAG for best practices. Several jurisdictions have 

chosen to apply the draft PROWAG as an alternative to, or 

equivalent facilitation for, the ADA Standards because they 

provide more specific coverage of accessibility issues in the 

public-right-of-way. Jurisdictions that have adopted the draft 

PROWAG as their standard should consistently apply all 

provisions of the draft PROWAG.

This document cites the draft PROWAG in anticipation of 

final PROWAG being adopted as the enforceable standard in 

the near future. Public entities and/or recipients of Federal 

financial assistance are responsible for complying with the 

current ADA and Section 504 accessibility standards and/or 

demonstrating equivalent facilitation.

Accessibility Standards

GUIDELINES FOR PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY

Frisco, CO–Population 2,782
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

1-17

Leland, North Carolina–Population 16,022
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

1-18

PHOTO CREDIT

Page1-1. Mr. Tin D.C. via Flickr (CC BY NC-ND 2.0).

Page 1-3. Alta Planning + Design

Page 1-4. Alta Planning + Design

Page 1-8. Alta Planning + Design

Page 1-13 (Agricultural Uses). William Lovell via Wikimedia 

Commons (CC By SA 2.0)

Page 1-13 (Public Lands). David Clow via Flickr (CC By NC-ND 2.0)

Page 1-13 (Auto Oriented Roadways). Stephen Lee Davis, 

Transportation for America via Flickr (CC By NC-ND 2.0)

Page 1-13 (Lack of Transportation Options). Dr. Scott Crawford via 

Flickr (CC By NC-ND 2.0)

Page 1-14 (Constrained Terrain). Public Domain

Page 1-14 (Safety). Frank Warnock, Bike Delaware

Page 1-14 (Highway as a Main Street). Emmett Anderson via Flickr 

(CC By NC 2.0)

Page 1-14 (Climate and Maintenance). North Dakota Department 

of Transportation

Page 1-16. Federal Highway Administration

Page 1-17. Alta Planning + Design

FOOTNOTES 

i 2009 National Household Travel Survey, Summary of Travel 

Trends. http://nhts.ornl.gov/2009/pub/stt.pdf

ii http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16092298

iii NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts. 2013. https://crashstats.nhtsa.

dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812181

iv Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/

volume-2/expenditures-of-urban-and-rural-householdsin-2011.htm

WORKS CITED

Federal Highway Administration. Planning for Transportation in 

Rural Areas. 2001.

Federal Highway Administration. Case Studies in Delivering Safe, 

Comfortable and Connected Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks. 2016.

US Department of Transportation. United States Department 

of Transportation Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations. 2010.

Introduction
2-1CHAPTER 2 | MIXED TRAFFIC FACILITIES
2-3 Yield Roadway

2-9 Bicycle Boulevard

2-17 Advisory Shoulder

Mixed Traffic

Facilities

CHAPTER 2

2-2SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS
2-3CHAPTER 2 | MIXED TRAFFIC FACILITIES

A yield roadway is designed to serve pedestrians, 

bicyclists, and motor vehicle traffic in the same slowspeed travel area. Yield roadways serve bidirectional 

motor vehicle traffic without lane markings in the 

roadway travel area. 

Yield Roadway

Local Residential Context

Low volumes and familiar users 

encourage slow speeds and 

respectful meeting and passing 

events within a narrow roadway.

Shared Space

Pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists 

all share a slow-speed, low-volume 

roadway space.
2-4SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

• Less costly to build and/or maintain 

than fully paved cross sections.

• Connects local residential areas to 

destinations on the network.

• Limits impermeable surface area and 

minimizes stormwater runoff.

• Maintains aesthetic of narrow roads 

and uncurbed road edges.

• Encourages slow travel speed when 

narrower than 20 ft (6.0 m). 

• Can support a larger tree canopy 

when located within wide unpaved 

roadside areas. 

• Supports on-street or shoulder 

parking for property access.

• Low maintenance needs over time. 

BENEFITS

Narrow Two-Way Street

A limited-width paved roadway surface 

with no center line markings.

Gravel/Turf/Earth Roadside

Limiting paved surfacing encourages 

natural stormwater management.

Parking/Pull-Out/Furnishings

Multipurpose roadside visually and 

physically constrains the roadway.

APPLICATION MOTOR VEHICLE VOLUME (ADT)

UNLANED ROAD

4k

2k

6k

8k

10k

12k

10 20 30 40 50

MOTOR VEHICLE 

OPERATING SPEED (MI/H)

Within built-up areas, particularly 

near residential land uses where 

most traffic is familiar with 

prevailing road conditions.

Land Use

Appropriate on roads with very low 

volumes(i) and low speed.

Speed and Volume

Local residential roadways. Not for 

through motor vehicle travel.

Network

HIGHWAY

LOCAL

COLLECTOR
2-5CHAPTER 2 | MIXED TRAFFIC FACILITIES

GEOMETRIC DESIGN

Yield Roadway

Figure 2-1. When vehicles travelling in opposite directions meet, the two vehicles may 

not have enough room to pass within the travel area. One vehicle may need to pull into a 

parking lane, pull-out, or driveway area to let the other pass.

A When width is 15 ft (4.5 m) or 

narrower, provide pull-out areas 

every 200–300 ft to allow for 

infrequent meeting and passing 

events between motor vehicles. 

Pull-out areas may be established 

in the parking lane or roadside 

area.(iii)

• Access for emergency vehicles 

should be provided.(iv) There is no 

single fire code standard for local 

roads; however, a range of clear 

widths for parking and deploying fire 

department apparatus is between 

16–20 ft (5.0–6.0 m). Designers should 

provide an opening of this width every 

200–300 ft (600–91 m).v

ROADSIDE

If desired, parking may be located on 

the paved roadway surface or on gravel 

or soil shoulders outside of the paved 

roadway. The parking lane may also 

serve as a pull-out area while yielding.

• When possible, the parking lane 

should be constructed with a 

contrasting material to differentiate 

the lane from the travel area. 

Bituminous, crushed stone, gravel, 

and turf shoulders can be used as 

contrasting materials to the travel 

area (AASHTO Green Book 2011, 

p. 4-13). 

• Trees may be planted within the 

roadside area at regular intervals 

to visually and physically narrow 

the corridor, add to the aesthetic 

environment, and encourage 

slow speeds.

Figure 2-2. A travel area width of 16–18 ft (4.8–5.5 m) is appropriate for low volumes of twoway traffic and may require slowing when vehicles traveling in opposite directions meet. A travel 

area of 12–15 ft (3.6–4.5 m) is too narrow for two motor vehicles to pass, and one vehicle may 

need to pull into a parking lane, pull-out, or driveway area to let the other proceed. 

TWO-WAY TRAVEL LANE

The paved two-way travel lane should 

be narrow to encourage slow travel 

speeds and require courtesy yielding 

when vehicles traveling in opposite 

directions meet.

• Total traveled way width may vary 

from 12 ft (3.6 m)–20 ft (6.0 m).(ii)

• Traveled way width below 15 ft (4.5 m) 

or below function as a two-way singlelane roadway and should follow the 

guidance of the AASHTO Low Volume 

Roads 2001.

Yield roadways can effectively serve 

local travel needs, maintain aesthetic 

preferences, and is a common form 

for low-volume local rural roads. When 

operating at very-low volumes and at 

low speeds, pedestrians and bicyclists 

are comfortable walking within the travel 

area of the roadway.(i) Yield roadways 

are designed with narrow roadway 

dimensions to prioritize local access and 

community livability.

For more information on related roadway 

types, refer to sections on Slow Streets 

and Shared Streets in FHWA Achieving 

Multimodal Networks 2016.

A

Travel Area

12–20 ft (3.6–6.0 m)

Roadside/Parking/

Queuing

Varies
2-6SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

MARKINGS

IMPLEMENTATION ACCESSIBILITY

SIGNS

INTERSECTIONS

Yield Roadway

Figure 2-3. Pair a W11-1, W1-2, or W11-15 W6-3

warning sign with a custom legend plaque 

to inform road users that shared use by 

pedestrians and/or bicyclists might occur. 

At uncontrolled crossings of local 

streets, no special treatment is 

necessary. The additional space within 

the intersection area offers queuing 

opportunities when vehicles traveling in 

opposite directions meet.

• Consider parking prohibitions of 

20–50 ft (6.0–15.0 m) in advance of 

intersections. This is particularly 

helpful to accommodate large vehicle 

turning movements.

• Provide adequate stopping sight 

distance around curves and at 

uncontrolled intersections. Values of 

stopping sight distance for two-way 

single-lane roads should be twice 

the stopping sight distance for a 

comparable two-lane road.

In rural communities with a disconnected street network, 

local streets are the only viable connection to a scene of an 

emergency. Implementing agencies should work closely with 

emergency response stakeholders.

Yield roadways allow motor vehicles, bicyclists, and 

pedestrians to share the same space. On very low-volume 

and low-speed streets, pedestrians and bicyclists may be 

comfortable using the roadway with the occasional vehicle. If 

this facility is intended for use by pedestrians, it must meet 

accessibility guidelines for walkways.

No markings are necessary to 

implement a yield roadway.

• Do not mark a center line within the 

travel area. The single two-way lane 

introduces helpful traffic friction and 

ambiguity, contributing to a slowspeed operating environment.(vi)

Use signs to warn road users of the 

special characteristics of the street. 

Potential signs include:

• A PEDESTRIAN (W11-2) warning sign 

with ON ROADWAY legend plaque. 

See Figure 2-3.(vii)

• Use a Two-Way Traffic warning sign 

(W6-3) to clarify two-way operation of 

the road if any confusion exists.

W11-2

W6-3

Sisters, OR–Population 2,170
2-7CHAPTER 2 | MIXED TRAFFIC FACILITIES

The residents of Manzanita cherish their small town and have outlined 

ways to maintain this character. One of the goals identified in the town’s 

Comprehensive Plan is “to maintain and create residential living areas 

which are safe and convenient, which make a positive contribution to the 

quality of life, and which are harmonious with the coastal environment.” 

Toward this end they have a network of local streets that create peaceful 

conditions for people walking, bicycling, and driving.

In addition, there is a recognition that even on collector streets bicycle 

and pedestrian travel should be safe. The plan states that “Sufficient 

pavement width should be included on all major streets or roads to 

accommodate bicycle traffic.”

Where a visually or physically separated facility is not provided, speeds 

will be slowed to create bicycle-friendly conditions. The plan states, 

“Efforts to reduce speeding on Laneda Avenue should be carried out 

by the city. This should take the form of maintaining a low speed (20 

Mi/h), requesting that the City police and Tillamook County Sheriff’s 

Department maintain a high level of enforcement and installing 

appropriate warning signs.” Efforts such as these enable Manzanita’s 

local streets to be shared roadways where people driving, walking, and 

biking can all safely share the street.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION DETAILS

Manzanita, Oregon

COMMUNITY CONTEXT

Manzanita is a quiet, peaceful village 

surrounded by the natural beauty 

of the Pacific Ocean, Neah-Kah-Nie 

Mountain, and State and private 

forests. The Manzanita area is home 

to 725 full time residents. In the 

summer the population swells to 

2,500 to 3,000.

KEY DESIGN ELEMENTS

The standard City residential street 

is 20 ft wide paved with asphalt and 

with a concrete gutter along one side.

ROLE IN THE NETWORK

Manzanita’s local streets connect 

residences with the ocean, parks, and 

downtown. The ability to use these 

shared local streets allow people 

walking or on bikes to access all parts 

of the community.

FUNDING

The key aspect of this treatment is 

that it requires funding beyond what 

is currently used to maintain the 

local streets. The City maintains the 

streets that have been brought up 

to city standards. Graveled streets 

that have not been brought up to 

City standards are maintained by the 

adjacent property owners. There are 

some roads within the City that are 

County roads maintained by Tillamook 

County.

For more information refer to the City 

of Manzanita website: 

http://ci.manzanita.or.us/

CASE STUDY | YIELD ROADWAY
2-8SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

Ennis, MT–Population 850

Yield Roadway

WORKS CITED

American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials. Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian 

Facilities. 2004.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 2011.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials. Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local 

Roads. 2001.

Burden, Dan, and Zykofsky, Paul. Emergency Response: Traffic 

Calming and Traditional Neighborhood Streets. 2000.

Federal Highway Administration. Achieving Multimodal Networks. 

2016.

Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices. 2009. 

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Neighborhood 

Street Design Guidelines: An Oregon Guide for Reducing Street Widths. 

2000.

PHOTO CREDIT

Page 2-1. Western Transportation Institute

Page 2-6. Western Transportation Institute

Page 2-7. Alta Planning + Design

Page 2-8. Western Transportation Institute

FOOTNOTES

 i Very low-volume local roads are typically used by people who 

are familiar with the roads. These roads are used by such 

lowvolumes of traffic that crashes are rare, as vehicles hardly 

encounter other vehicles. AASHTO defines a very low-volume 

street as one that is functionally classified as a local road and 

has 400 cars per day or less (AASHTO Green Book 2011, p. 

5-34).

On local streets with less than 400 vehicles per day, no 

separated pedestrian infrastructure may be necessary 

(AASHTO Pedestrian Guide 2004). 

ii The AASHTO Green Book notes that, on narrow, unlaned 

roads, “random intermittent parking on both sides of the 

street usually results in areas where two-way movement can 

be accommodated” (2011, p. 4-74). Additionally, “The level 

of user inconvenience occasioned by the lack of two moving 

lanes is remarkably low in areas where single-family units 

prevail” (2011, p. 5-13). 

 iii When two vehicles do encounter one another on a narrow, 

unlaned street, “opposing conflicting traffic will yield and 

pause on the parking lane area until there is sufficient width to 

pass” (AASHTO Green Book 2011, p. 5-13).

iv On the subject of emergency response, the AASHTO Green 

Book states that a “curb face-to-curb face width of 8 m [26 

ft] provides a 3.6-m [12-ft] center travel lane that provides for 

the passage of fire trucks and two 2.2-m [7-ft] parking lanes” 

(2011, p.5-13).

v The Oregon DOT Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines

support local street configurations with a clear travel area 

of 14 ft (2000, p.20). Dan Burden’s Emergency Response 

Handbook calls for an “operations area for emergency 

responders every 200–300 ft” (Burden 2000, p.32).

vi The FHWA MUTCD does not recommend center line markings 

on paved two-way streets that are narrower than 16 ft wide, or 

operating below 3,000 ADT (2009, p.349).

vi The FHWA MUTCD permits local highway agencies to “develop 

special word message signs in situations where roadway 

conditions make it necessary to provide road users with 

additional regulatory, warning, or guidance information...” 

These “new word message signs may be used without the need 

for experimentation.” (2009, p.28).
2-9CHAPTER 2 | MIXED TRAFFIC FACILITIES

A bicycle boulevard is a low-stress shared roadway 

bicycle facility, designed to offer priority for bicyclists 

operating within a roadway shared with motor 

vehicle traffic.

Bicycle Boulevard

Sidewalk

Separated pedestrian accomodations 

may be necessary as roadway speeds 

and volumes increase.

Traffic Calming

Horizontal and vertical deflection 

manages motorist speeds.

Bicyclist and 

Pedestrian Priority

Traffic control at minor 

intersections favor through 

travel by bicyclists.

Route Signs

Signs clearly identify 

and guide users 

along the local street 

bikeway alignment.
2-10SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

•Increases comfort for people 

bicycling by reducing motor vehicle 

operating speeds and volumes, if 

diversion is included. 

• Connects local residential roads to 

commercial corridors and community 

services such as schools.

•Improves conditions for pedestrians 

when implemented with sidewalks 

and enhanced pedestrian crossings. 

• May reduce the incidence of serious 

injuries through reduced travel 

speeds.

•Improves the quality of life for 

residents through calmer traffic 

and safer crossings.

• Less visually impactful than 

separated facilities.

BENEFITS

CONSIDERATIONS

Shared Roadway

Bicyclists and motorists share the 

same roadway space and operate at 

similar speeds.

Route Markings

Markings identify proper 

positioning within the 

roadway and alert all users to 

bicyclist presence. 

• May require additional paved 

surface to provide sidewalk 

space for pedestrians.

MOTOR VEHICLE VOLUME 

(ADT)

MOTOR VEHICLE 

OPERATING SPEED (MI/H)

For use inside of built-up areas to 

connect biking and walking routes in 

small town street networks.

Land Use

Appropriate on local streets with 

low volumes and low speed. Speed 

and volume management may 

be necessary to create desired 

operating conditions.

Speed and Volume

Local residential roadways. Not for 

through motor vehicle travel.

Network

BICYCLE BOULEVARD

4k

2k

6k

8k

10k

12k

10 20 30 40 50

HIGHWAY

LOCAL

COLLECTOR

APPLICATION
2-11CHAPTER 2 | MIXED TRAFFIC FACILITIES

Bicycle Boulevard

Figure 2-4. Common elements of a bicycle boulevard

GEOMETRIC DESIGN

Figure 2-5. Bicycle boulevards combine road markings, traffic-calming measures, and crossing improvements designed to enhance the comfort 

and priority of bicyclists traveling along the route.

Bicycle boulevards provide a 

bicycle-priority route designed to 

offer convenient, low-stress access 

to local destinations and through 

neighborhoods. Combinations of access 

management, traffic calming, and 

crossing treatments work in concert to 

enhance the bicycling experience.

The AASHTO Bike Guide describes 

bicycle boulevards as streets “that 

have been modified to accommodate 

through bicycle traffic and minimize 

motor traffic” (2012, p. 1-2).

Many small town or rural local streets 

may have existing low-speed and lowvolume traffic conditions that are ideal 

for bicycle boulevard implementation. 

In cases where speeds and volumes 

do not meet preferred values, trafficcalming techniques may be used to 

improve conditions. Even in curvilinear 

local street networks without cutthrough traffic, speeding can be a 

problem on long, wide streets. 

Speed reduction measures can help 

maintain vehicle speeds below 25 mi/h 

(40 km/h) and greatly improve bicyclists’ 

comfort on a roadway by reducing the 

overtaking speed differential between 

motor vehicles and bicyclists. 

For more information on speed 

reduction measures, refer to the 

section on Traffic Calming in this guide.

Shared Roadway

12–22 ft (3.6–6.7 m)

Parking

7 ft (2.1 m)

Traffic Calming
2-12SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

Bicycle Boulevard

D Decision Signs. Decision sign 

assemblies are a combination of 

D11-1c and D1-3a signs used to 

mark the junction of two or more 

bikeways and inform bicyclists 

of the designated bike route to 

access key destinations. 

Figure 2-6. MUTCD guide signs for bicycle 

route navigation. The use of the D11-1c sign 

is preferred over D11-1 whenever practical, 

as it provides the reader with more useful 

information regarding the destination or route. 

MARKINGS

Ennis, MT–Population 850

SIGNS

Route wayfinding is critical on 

bicycle boulevards when located 

along local routes with circuitous 

network connections. There are three 

functional types of wayfinding signs, 

illustrated in Figure 2-6:

B 	 Confirmation Signs. Bike Route 

Guide (D11-1c) signs indicate 

to bicyclists that they are on a 

designated bikeway and make 

motorists aware of the bicycle 

route. 

C 	 Turn Signs. A Bicycle Destination 

Sign (D1-1) with one or more 

destinations in a single direction 

indicates where a bike route 

turns from one street onto 

another street. 

Use markings to encourage motorists 

to pass bicyclists at a safe distance.

• Do not mark a center line on bicycle 

boulevard facilities unless it serves 

as a short channelization device. 

Clear identification of the bicycle 

boulevard is important for road user 

awareness of the facility.

• Shared lane markings (SLMs) are 

the standard marking for indicating 

shared roadway bicycle operations. 

• Place SLMs in the center of the 

travel lane to minimize wear and 

encourage riding a safe distance 

from parked cars.

D11-1/D1-3a

D11-1c

D1-1

D11-1c

D1-1

D11-1c; D1-3a

C

D

B
2-13CHAPTER 2 | MIXED TRAFFIC FACILITIES

Bicycle Boulevard

INTERSECTIONS

IMPLEMENTATION

Development of bicycle boulevards in rural settings can often 

be challenging due to a lack of alternate through roadways 

and the concentration of motor vehicle traffic on arterials. 

Disconnected road networks may maintain low traffic speeds 

and discourage through traffic on local roads, but these 

benefits often sacrifice connectivity.

ACCESSIBILITY

Bicycle boulevards are designed to prioritize use by 

bicyclists and are not intended for use by pedestrians. On 

bicycle boulevards, the appropriate pedestrian facility is 

generally a sidewalk. If the bicycle boulevard is intended 

to facilitate pedestrian travel within the roadway it must 

be accessible.

Comfortable and intuitive intersection 

accommodations on bicycle 

boulevards are required to make 

the route attractive and functional 

for bicyclists of all ages and abilities. 

While crossings of local and minor 

collector streets may be comfortable 

with minimal modification, most local 

streets lack appropriate traffic control 

to safely and comfortably cross large 

streets. Crossing improvements should 

safely and comfortably accommodate 

pedestrians as well as bicyclists.

MINOR INTERSECTION 

CROSSINGS

Design treatments at minor roadway 

intersections to offer priority for 

bicyclists over cross-street traffic. 

• Stops or yield signs should be

oriented to favor the bicycle

boulevard.

MAJOR INTERSECTION 

CROSSINGS

The quality of treatments at major 

street crossings significantly affect the 

utility of a bicycle boulevard route. 

Design crossing treatments to enhance 

safety and comfort for crossing users. 

Refer to the National Cooperative 

Highway Research Program’s NCHRP 

562 Improving Pedestrian Safety at 

Unsignalized Crossings Appendix A for 

0 300 600 900 1200 1,500 1,800 2,100 

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

PEDESTRIAN VOLUME 

CROSSING MAJOR ROAD (PED/H)

MAJOR ROAD VOLUME - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES (VEH/H)

CROSSWALK

MARKINGS

NO TREATMENT

ENHANCED

 /ACTIVE

TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL

CIRCULAR RED 

SIGNAL OR BEACON

Figure 2-7. Example Guidelines for Pedestrian Crossing Treatments adapted from NCHRP 562 

(Fig. A-5). Calculations assume 34 ft (10.4 m) Pavement,35 mi/h (55 km/h), 3.5 ft/s (1.1 m/s) 

Walking Speed. 

a method to analyze an appropriate 

crossing treatments for a given roadway 

context. Evaluate the calculation 

assuming moderate bicycle and 

pedestrian activity to reflect the 

anticipated activity-level at the future 

enhanced crossing.

Figure 2-7 provides an example graph 

of crossing guidelines following NCHRP

562 methodology. This should only be 

used when the major-road speed, the 

pedestrian walking speed, and the 

crossing distance are matched to the 

value presented at the top of the 

graph. For other situations, the reader 

should use the equations listed in the 

Appendix A worksheets.
2-14SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

Bicycle Boulevard

CROSSING ENHANCEMENT TOOLS 

Crossing enhancements can use a 

variety of engineering tools to address 

user comfort, provide additional gap 

acceptance opportunities, and increase 

yield to pedestrian rates.

For more information on crossing 

enhancements for bicycle boulevards, 

refer to BIKESAFE 2014.

Median Islands

Divide crossings into multiple stages 

with a median safety island. This allows 

crossing bicyclists and/or pedestrians 

to accept gaps in traffic one direction at 

a time. Median safety island for bicycle 

boulevards should be at least 8 ft (2.4 

m) deep to accommodate crossing 

bicyclists.

Median islands are an FHWA Proven 

Safety Countermeasure.

Crosswalk Markings and 

Crossing Warning Signs

Crosswalk markings and warning signage 

raise awareness of the crossing by 

motorists. Use a combined bicycle and 

pedestrian W11-15 sign to indicate the 

potential of bicyclists and pedestrians 

crossing at specific locations.

Curb Extensions

Curb extensions reduce traffic exposure 

and increase visibility of crossing users. 

Curb extensions should not be used 

within shoulders where they interfere 

with bicycle travel along the major 

roadway.

Active Warning Beacons

At locations with poor yield-topedestrian compliance, install active 

warning beacons such as rectangular 

rapid flashing beacons to supplement 

crossing warning signs and remind 

motorists of the obligation to yield. 

Refer to FHWA Interim Approval 

11 for more information on the use 

and application of rectangular rapid 

flashing beacons.

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons

At locations with multiple lanes of traffic, 

high-speed traffic, and/or no opportunity 

for a median safety island, a full traffic 

signal or pedestrian hybrid beacon may 

be effective in creating safe crossing 

conditions. Pedestrian hybrid beacons are 

an FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure. 

Refer to the FHWA Pedestrian Hybrid 

Beacon Guide 2014 and MUTCD Chapter 

4F for more information. 

Figure 2-8. The following images illustrate 

some potential crossing enhancements for 

increasing the safety and comfort of bicycle 

boulevard crossings of other roadways.
2-15CHAPTER 2 | MIXED TRAFFIC FACILITIES

The objective of the Arcata Bicycle Boulevard project was to create a 

more balanced and multimodal transportation system that provided 

facilities for walking and biking. Bicycle boulevards play an important 

role in a bicycle network, by providing a traffic calmed street for 

bicyclists of all ages and abilities. 

The Arcata Bicycle Boulevards were implemented roadways with low 

traffic volumes (fewer than 2,000 cars per day), which run parallel to 

high-volume roadways (11th and H Streets). The boulevards connect 

critical destinations throughout the community, including connecting 

Aracta High School to downtown Arcata and the Arcata Marsh and 

Wildlife Sanctuary. The facilities also connect to public transportation 

at the Arcata Intermodal Transit Facility on 10th Street. The boulevard 

connects to Q and 11th Streets, where a future pedestrian and bicycle 

shared use trail is planned along south Q Street, leading toward the 

Arcata Marsh. 

Special attention was given to bicyclists at intersections, where it is 

important to give bicyclists priority to maintain free-flow travel. Mini 

traffic circles slow motor vehicle traffic at minor intersections, while 

allowing bicyclists to continue through the intersection. Traffic calming 

at intersections also included public art to slow motor vehicle speeds, as 

seen at the intersection of 10th and I Streets. 

A project video can be found at: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K8j3lKQjGM

PROJECT DESCRIPTION DETAILS

Arcata, California

COMMUNITY CONTEXT

Arcata is a university town located along 

Arcata Bay in northern California. The 

2010 population was 17,231, with many 

visitors in the summer. 

KEY DESIGN ELEMENTS

Custom wayfinding signs, pavement 

markings, and landscaped curb 

extensions, which act as a trafficcalming element, were used in this 

project. Traffic controls were put in 

place at intersections to help bicyclists 

cross major intersections at 10th and K 

Streets, 11th and I Streets, and 11th and 

Q Streets. Additional bike parking was 

also installed along the bike boulevard 

at popular destinations. 

ROLE IN THE NETWORK

Bicycle boulevards were identified as 

key projects in the Arcata Pedestrian 

and Bicycle Master Plan in 2005 and 

2010. This project provides connections 

between important community 

destinations, as well as future or 

planned projects. 

FUNDING

In December 2006, the Public Works 

Department received a Caltrans Bicycle 

Transportation Account (BTA) grant 

for $173,612. The grant funded the 

bicycle boulevard improvements, as 

well as an intersection study, education 

and awareness programs, and bicycle 

parking in downtown Arcata. 

For more information refer to:

http://www.cityofarcata.org/298/

Arcata-Bicycle-Boulevard

CASE STUDY | BIKE BOULEVARD
2-16SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

Bicycle Boulevard

PHOTO CREDIT

Page 2-12. Alta Planning + Design

Page 2-15. City of Arcata

Page 2-16. Adam Fukushima, City of San Luis Obispo

WORKS CITED

Ewing, R., Steven, J. U.S. Traffic Calming Manual. 2009.

Federal Highway Administration. Bicycle Safety Guide and 

Countermeasure Selection System. 2014. 

Federal Highway Administration. Interim Approval for Optional 

Use of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (IA-11). 2008.

Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices. 2009.

Federal Highway Administration. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon 

Guide. 2014.

Federal Highway Administration. Proven Safety Countermeasures. 

2012.

NCHRP Report 562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized 

Crossings. 2007.

San Luis Obispo, CA–Population 45,911
2-17CHAPTER 2 | MIXED TRAFFIC FACILITIES

Advisory shoulders create usable shoulders for bicyclists on 

a roadway that is otherwise too narrow to accommodate one. 

The shoulder is delineated by pavement marking and optional 

pavement color. Motorists may only enter the shoulder when 

no bicyclists are present and must overtake these users with 

caution due to potential oncoming traffic. 

Advisory Shoulder

Yield to Bicyclists

Motorists must yield to 

bicyclists and pedestrians if 

present when vehicles traveling 

in opposite directions meet.

Advisory shoulders are a new treatment type in 

the United States and no performance data has yet 

been collected to compare to a substantial body of 

international experience. In order to install advisory 

shoulders, an approved Request to Experiment is

required as detailed in Section 1A.10 of the MUTCD. 

FHWA is also accepting requests for experimentation 

with a similar treatment called “dashed bicycle lanes.”
2-18SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

• Provides a delineated but

nonexclusive space available for

biking on a roadway otherwise too

narrow for dedicated shoulders.

• May reduce some types of crashes

due to reduced motor vehicle travel

speeds.(i)

• Minimizes potential impacts to

visual or natural resources through

efficient use of existing space.

• Functions well within a rural and small

town traffic and land use context.

•Increases predictability and

clarifies desired lateral positioning

between people bicycling or

walking and people driving in a

narrow roadway.

• May function as an interim

measure where plans include

shoulder widening in the future.

• Supports the natural environment

through reduced paved surface

requirements.

BENEFITS

Two-Way Center Travel Lane

Motorists can travel in both directions 

and share a center lane, encroaching 

into the advisory shoulders as needed 

to facilitate passing movements. Advisory Shoulder

Prioritizes shared space for bicyclists 

and occasional pedestrian travel.

Contrasting Paving Materials

Visually differentiates the shoulder 

from the roadway and discourages 

unnecessary encroachment.

MOTOR VEHICLE VOLUME 

(ADT)

MOTOR VEHICLE 

OPERATING SPEED (MI/H)

For use outside, between, and within 

built-up areas with bicycle and 

pedestrian demand and limited 

available paved roadway surface.

Land Use

Most appropriate on streets with low 

to moderate volumes and moderate 

speed motor vehicles. (ii)

Speed and Volume

Applies to constrained connections 

between built-up areas.

Network

ADVISORY SHOULDER

4k

2k

6k

8k

10k

12k

10 20 30 40 50

HIGHWAY

LOCAL

COLLECTOR

APPLICATION
2-19CHAPTER 2 | MIXED TRAFFIC FACILITIES

GEOMETRIC DESIGN

Advisory Shoulder

Roads with advisory shoulders 

accommodate low to moderate 

volumes of two-way motor vehicle 

traffic and provide a prioritized space 

for bicyclists with little or no widening 

of the paved roadway surface. 

A When vehicles traveling in 

opposite directions meet, 

motorists may need to enter 

the advisory shoulder for 

clear passage. 

Figure 2-10. Motorists travel in the center two-way travel lane. When 

passing a bicyclist, no lane change is necessary.

Figure 2-11. When two motor vehicles meet, motorists may need to 

encroach into the advisory shoulder space.

Figure 2-9. Advisory shoulders clarify positioning and yield priority on roads too narrow to 

provide exclusive travel space. When pedestrians or bicyclists are present, motorists may need 

to yield to users present in the advisory shoulder before passing.

Unlike a conventional shoulder, an 

advisory shoulder is a part of the 

traveled way, and it is expected that 

vehicles will regularly encounter 

meeting or passing situations where 

driving in the advisory shoulder is 

necessary and safe, as illustrated in 

Figure 2-9.

ADVISORY SHOULDER

The advisory shoulder space is a 

visually distinct area on the edge of the 

roadway, offering a prioritized space for 

people to bicycle and walk. 

• The preferred width of the advisory 

shoulder space is 6 ft (2.0 m). Absolute 

minimum width is 4 ft (1.2 m) when no 

curb and gutter is present.

TWO-WAY CENTER TRAVEL LANE

The two-way center travel lane is 

created from the remaining paved 

roadway space after the advisory 

shoulder has been accounted for. 

• Preferred two-way center travel 

lane width is 13.5–16 ft (4.1–4.9 m) 

although may function with widths 

of 10–18 ft (3.0–5.5 m). Table 2-2

describes the impacts of various 

center lane widths on roadway 

operations.

Advisory Shoulder Center Two-Way Travel Lane 

6 ft (1.8 m) preferred 10–18 ft (3.0–5.5 m)

A

An approved Request to Experiment is required to implement 

Advisory Shoulders, called “dashed bicycle lanes” in the 

FHWA experimentation process. For more information on the 

experimentation process, visit http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/

condexper.htm.

• Consider using contrasting paving 

materials between the advisory 

shoulder and center travel lane to 

differentiate the advisory shoulder 

from the center two-way travel lane 

in order to minimize unnecessary 

encroachment and reduce regular 

straddling of the advisory shoulder 

striping.
2-20SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

MARKINGS

Advisory Shoulder

Figure 2-12. Total roadway width affects the number of road users that can meet and pass simultaneously. Wider roadways allow for more 

simultaneous interactions and can support higher volumes of motor vehicles.

Two-Way Center 

Travel Lane Width

Impact on Advisory Shoulder Encroachment When Vehicles Traveling 

in Opposite Directions Meet

B Practical minimum width 10 ft (3.0 m) Requires vehicle encroachment into the advisory shoulder space when 

vehicles traveling in opposite directions meet.

C Preferred minimum 

width

13.5 ft (4.5 m) Two passenger cars are physically able to meet each other within the 

center lane at very low speed. In practice, vehicles will encroach into the 

advisory shoulder.

Preferred maximum 

width

16 ft (4.9 m) Permits two passenger cars to pass within the center lane at modest 

speeds without encroaching into the advisory shoulder.

D Absolute maximum 

width

18 ft (5.5 m) This width is equivalent to two 9 ft (2.7 m) travel lanes and regular 

encroachment into the advisory shoulder space may not be necessary. 

Table 2-2. Interactions when vehicles traveling in opposite directions meet by two-way center turn lane width.

• A broken lane line used to delineate 

the advisory shoulder should consist 

of 3 ft (1.0 m) line segments and 6 ft 

(2.0 m) gaps.iii

• Where additional edge definition is 

desired, stripe a normal solid white 

edge line in addition to the broken 

advisory shoulder line.

•In general, do not mark a center line 

on the roadway. Short sections may 

be marked with center line pavement 

markings to separate opposing 

traffic flows at specific locations, 

such as around curves, over hills, on 

approaches to at-grade crossings, 

and at bridges.

At these locations, widen the paved 

roadway surface to provide space for 

paved bicycle-accessible shoulders 

and conventional width travel lanes. 

See Table 2-3 for sight distance 

requirements.

B C D

85th-Percentile 

or Posted or 

Statutory Speed 

Limit

Minimum 

Passing Sight 

Distance

25 mi/h 450 ft (137 m)

30 mi/h 500 ft (152 m)

35 mi/h 550 ft (167 m)

40 mi/h 600 ft (182 m)

45 mi/h 700 ft (213 m)

50 mi/h 800 ft (243 m)

55 mi/h 900 ft (274 m)

Table 2-3. Minimum Passing Sight Distances 

for No-Passing Zone Markings. Adapted from 

MUTCD Table 3B-1.

10 ft (3.0 m) Center Travel Lane 13.5 ft (4.5 m) Center Travel Lane 18 ft (15.5 m) Center Travel Lane

Implementing agencies should be advised that the above dimensional guidance is intended to facilitate implementation on common roadway 

widths in the U.S. As with most treatments, more overall width is preferable to constrained circumstances.
2-21CHAPTER 2 | MIXED TRAFFIC FACILITIES

Advisory Shoulder

Figure 2-14. At crossings of minor intersections and driveways, maintain the striping and construction material (if used) of the advisory shoulder.

Figure 2-13. The W6-3 two-Way traffic warning 

sign can clarify undivided two-way operation 

of the advisory shoulder configuration.

SIGNS

Use signs to warn road users of the 

special characteristics of the street. 

Potential signs for use with advisory 

shoulders include:

• As illustrated in Figure 2-12. Use

an unmodified Two-Way Traffic

warning sign (W6-3) to clarify two-way

operation of the road.

• Use a NO CENTER LINE warning sign

(W8-12) to help clarify the unique

striping pattern.

• Use a NO PARKING ON PAVEMENT

(R8-1) to discourage parking within

the advisory shoulder.

W6-3

Hanover, NH–Pop 11,250

An approved Request to Experiment is required to implement 

Advisory Shoulders, called “dashed bicycle lanes” in the 

FHWA experimentation process. For more information on the 

experimentation process, visit http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/

condexper.htm.
2-22SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

Advisory Shoulder

Advisory shoulder designs work best 

on road segments without frequent 

stop or signal controlled intersections 

that require vehicles to stop within the 

roadway. The designer should strive 

to maintain the visual definition of the 

advisory shoulder through all driveways 

and street crossings, and provide a 

conventional shoulder at controlled 

intersections.

IMPLEMENTATION

In order to install advisory shoulders, an approved Request 

to Experiment is required as detailed in the MUTCD 

2009, Sec. 1A.10. FHWA is also accepting requests for 

experimentation with a similar treatment called “dashed 

bicycle lanes.”(iv)

ACCESSIBILITY

Advisory shoulders as described here are not intended for 

use by pedestrians. When advisory shoulders are intended 

for use by pedestrians, they must meet accessibility 

guidelines.

INTERSECTIONS

• At minor street crossings, use a

dotted line extension on both sides

of the advisory shoulder to maintain

delineation of the advisory shoulder

space (Figure 2-14).

•If contrasting pavement material is

used, maintain the material through

driveway crossings and minor

intersections.

• Where the road is controlled by a

stop sign or traffic signal, discontinue

the advisory shoulder 50 ft (15 m) in

advance of the intersection.

• At these locations, provide a bicycle

accessible paved shoulder outside

of the travel lanes or design for

operation as a shared roadway.

Edina, MN–Population 49,300
2-23CHAPTER 2 | MIXED TRAFFIC FACILITIES

In 2012, Hanover completed a bicycle and pedestrian planning effort. 

This plan identified Valley Road as a local bicycle connection in the 

overall network. In 2013, Hanover completed a Safe Routes to School 

(SRTS) Plan, which introduced the idea of using advisory shoulders 

(called advisory bike lanes for this project) on Valley Road. Hanover’s 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee (HBPC) advocated to use Valley Road 

as a pilot project for advisory shoulders. The HBPC surveyed the Valley 

Road neighbors and built support for a pilot project. While there was 

some resistance, the neighborhood was generally supportive of the 

idea. Hanover’s Department of Public Works was open to the idea and 

it was presented to the town select board who approved installation 

of advisory shoulders unit on Valley Rd. The advisory shoulders were 

painted on about 400 meters of Valley road in the summer of 2014. 

In 2016 an evaluation report was produced with traffic counts and 

results from a follow up survey. Based on the success of the Valley Road 

advisory shoulders, Hanover is currently evaluating adding advisory 

shoulders to another important bicycle and pedestrian connection 

between schools and neighborhoods. 

Factors in the success of the advisory shoulders were the leadership 

of the HBPC, support from the adjacent neighbors, the willingness 

to pilot them by the Department of Public Works and inclusion of 

Valley Road and advisory shoulders in both the SRTS and Bicycle and 

Pedestrian Plans. 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION DETAILS

Hanover, New Hampshire

COMMUNITY CONTEXT

Hanover, NH, is a town of approximately 

11,000 with 8,000 living in the town 

center. Hanover is home to Dartmouth 

College with a student population 

of 6,300. Hanover is located on the 

Connecticut River and has a dense builtup area surrounded by small suburban 

neighborhoods that transition quickly to 

a very rural setting.

KEY DESIGN ELEMENTS

The advisory shoulders project was built 

on a low-volume, low-speed, residential 

road. Implementation included 

pavement markings and signs.

ROLE IN THE NETWORK

Valley Road is a local bicycle connection 

between neighborhoods with schools, 

the downtown, and the Dartmouth 

College campus. Sidewalks were 

removed due to root damage and were 

not replaced because the neighborhood 

preferred the rural look of streets 

without sidewalks. Advisory shoulders 

use existing pavement to provide space 

prioritized for bicycles and pedestrians 

at very low cost. 

FUNDING

The Hanover Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Plan and the advisory shoulders project 

were both accomplished with funding 

from the HBPC, which is funded by a $5 

local fee on vehicle registration that was 

passed by the select board to support 

alternative transportation and generates 

approximately $30,000 annually.

For more information, refer to the City 

of Hanover Public Works Department:

http://www.hanovernh.org/publicworks

CASE STUDY | ADVISORY SHOULDERS
2-24SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

FOOTNOTES

i Trials conducted by Transport for London (TfL) show a 

statistically significant speed reduction effect of 5.4mi/h–8.6 

mi/h as a result of removing center line markings on the 

roadway (TfL 2014).

A four-year study from Wiltshire County (England) showed a 35 

percent drop in motor vehicle crashes along 30 mi/h roadways 

where the center line was removed (Wiltshire County Council 

2014).

 ii Volume criteria listed here are based on FHWA guidance on 

center line provision. The FHWA MUTCD recommends center 

lines on roadways with motor vehicle traffic volumes above 

3,000 ADT, and requires them on streets above 6,000 ADT

(2009, Sec. 3B.01).

Installations in England have functioned well on streets with 

volumes as high as 10,000 ADT, and an existing installation 

carries nearly 14,000 ADT according to Department for 

Transport estimates (Cardiff Council 2011).

 iii FHWA MTUCD application of broken line markings is to 

indicate a permissive conditions (Sec. 3A.06). The MUTCD 

allows use of “dimensions in a similar ratio of line segments 

to gaps as appropriate for traffic speeds and need for 

delineation.” (2009, p. 348). 

 iv The FHWA is conducting experimentation with dashed bicycle 

lane treatments in at least 5 locations across the US. Guidance 

related to experimentation is available from the FHWA online 

resource Bicycle Facilities and the Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices 2015.

WORKS CITED

Cardiff Council. Cardiff Cycle Design Guide. 2011.

Federal Highway Administration. Bicycle Facilities and the Manual 

on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2015.

Retrieved from: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/

bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/mutcd/dashed_bike_lanes.cfm

Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices. 2009.

Transport for London (TfL). Centreline Removal Trial. 2014.

Wiltshire County Council. White Line Carriageway Markings. 

April 2014.

PHOTO CREDIT

Page 2-21. Western Transportation Institute

Page 2-22. Alta Planning + Design

Page 2-23. Western Transportation Institute

Page 2-24. City of Bloomington Planning and 

Transportation Department

Advisory Shoulder

Bloomington, IN–Population 82,000
CHAPTER 3 | VISUALLY SEPARATED FACILITIES

3-1
Visually Separated 

Facilities

3-3 Paved Shoulder

3-11 Bike Lane

3-2SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

CHAPTER 3
CHAPTER 3 | VISUALLY SEPARATED FACILITIES

3-3

Paved shoulders on the edge of roadways can be 

enhanced to serve as a functional space for bicyclists 

and pedestrians to travel in the absence of other 

facilities with more separation.

Paved Shoulder

Contrasting Pavement

As an aesthetic treatment, 

colored or contrasting pavement 

increases contrast between the 

shoulder and the roadway.

Enhanced Longitudinal Markings

Wide solid white lines or buffer areas 

enhance the visual separation.
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

3-4

•Improves bicyclist experiences on 

roadways with higher speeds or 

traffic volumes. 

• Provides a stable surface off the 

roadway for pedestrians and 

bicyclists to use when sidewalks 

are not provided.

• Reduces pedestrian “walking along 

roadway” crashes.

• Can reduce “bicyclist struck from 

behind” crashes, which represent 

a significant portion of rural road 

crashes.

BENEFITS

• Provides advantages for all 

roadway users, by providing space 

for bicyclists, pedestrians, and 

motor vehicles.

Bicycle Accommodation

Bicyclists travel in the same 

direction as the adjacent lane.

Edge Line Rumble Strips

If used, bicycle-tolerable 

designs can minimize 

impacts to bicyclists.

CONSIDERATIONS

• Enhancements with increased 

levels of striping and signs may 

interfere with the low-clutter 

character of a rural environment.

• Requires a wider roadway to provide 

an accessible shoulder space.

MOTOR VEHICLE VOLUME 

(ADT)

MOTOR VEHICLE 

OPERATING SPEED (MI/H)

Appropriate outside and within 

built-up areas, near school zones 

and transit locations, and where 

there is expected pedestrian and 

bicycle activity. Walkable shoulders 

should be provided along both 

sides of county roads and highways 

routinely used by pedestrians. 

Land Use

Appropriate on roads with moderate 

to high volumes and speeds and 

on roadways with a large amount 

of truck traffic. May function on 

multilane roads with heavy traffic 

but fails to provide a low-stress 

experience in this condition. 

Speed and Volume

Serves long-distance and regional 

travel.

Network

ENHANCED SHOULDER

4k

2k

6k

8k

10k

12k

10 20 30 40 50

HIGHWAY

LOCAL

COLLECTOR

APPLICATION
CHAPTER 3 | VISUALLY SEPARATED FACILITIES

3-5

GEOMETRIC DESIGN

Paved Shoulder

Shoulders can improve bicyclist 

comfort and safety when traveling in 

higher speed and/or volume situations 

but only when adequate width is 

provided. If used, locate rumble strips 

on the edge line or within a buffer 

area that will not reduce usable space 

for bicyclists.

Figure 3-1. When adequate width is provided, shoulders can serve bicycle trips along roads too 

busy for comfortable shared roadway travel.

CLEAR PAVED SHOULDER AREA

Any amount of clear paved shoulder 

width can benefit pedestrians and 

bicyclists, however, to be fully functional 

for their use, the paved shoulder 

area should be wide enough to 

accommodate the horizontal operating 

envelope of these users. 

A To accommodate bicyclists and 

pedestrian use of the shoulder, 

provide a minimum width of 4 ft 

(1.2 m) adjacent to a road edge 

or curb, exclusive of any buffer or 

rumble strip.

• Where possible, provide greater 

width for added comfort, user 

passing, and side-by-side riding.(ii)

Functional 

classification Volume (AADT) Speed (Mi/h) Recommended Minimum Paved Shoulder Width 

Minor Collector up to 1,100 35 (55 km/h) 5 ft (1.5 m)

Major Collector up to 2,600 45 (70 km/h) 6.5 ft (2.0 m)

Minor Arterial up to 6,000 55 (90 km/h) 7 ft (2.1 m)

Principal Arterial up to 8,500 65 (100 km/h) 8 ft (2.4 m)

Table 3-1. Recommended Minimum Paved Shoulder Widths by Roadway Conditions(iii)

Paved Shoulder Buffer (Optional)

4 ft (1.2 m) min. 1.5–4 ft (0.5–1.2 m) or wider A

D’Iberville, MS–Population 10,390

B
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

3-6

GEOMETRIC DESIGN

Paved Shoulder

RUMBLE STRIPS 

Rumble strips are an FHWA Proven 

Safety Countermeasure for reducing 

roadway departure crashes. Research 

has shown that installing rumble strips 

can reduce severe crashes but may 

negatively impact bicycle travel if they 

are poorly constructed.

Additional information on rumble strip 

design can be found in FHWA Technical 

Advisory 5040.39 and on the FHWA 

Rumble Strips and Rumble Stripes 

Website.

B If rumble strips are desired on

bicycle network routes optimize

the dimension, design, and 

placement of rumble strips to be 

more tolerable to bicyclists.iv

> 12 inch spacing center-to-center

> 6–8 inches long, perpendicular to 

roadway

> 6 inch wide, measured parallel to 

roadway

> 3/8 inch deep

• Place rumble strips to overlap with

the roadway edgeline, also known

as edgeline rumble strips or rumble

stripes.v

• Provide a bicycle gap pattern to

allow access into and out of the

shoulder area by bicyclists. The

gap pattern consists of a 12 ft (3.3

m) clear gap followed by rumbles,

typical 40–60 ft (12.1–18.2 m) 

(NCHRP Synthesis 490, 2016).

PAVEMENT CONTRAST 

AND COLOR

Contrasting or colored pavement 

materials may be used to differentiate 

the shoulder from the adjacent travel 

lanes (AASHTO Green Book 2011, 

p. 4-13).

• Colored pavement in a paved

shoulder is an aesthetic treatment

to enhance awareness and is

not intended to communicate a

regulatory, warning, or guidance

message to road users.

Highway 2, Nebraska

Figure 3-2. Preferred rumble strip dimensions 

and placement. Figure from FHWA Achieving 

Multimodal Networks 2016.

12 FT. (MIN)

> 5 FT. (PREF)

4 FT. (MIN)
CHAPTER 3 | VISUALLY SEPARATED FACILITIES

3-7

Paved Shoulder

MARKINGS SIGNS

INTERSECTIONS

At intersections, the shoulder area is often narrowed to provide room for or completely replaced by turning, receiving or 

bypass lanes. It is important to minimize the impacts of these designs to bicyclists using the shoulder for bicycle travel.

Figure 3-4. At bypass lanes, widen the roadway to provide a clear shoulder area outside of the 

travel area. (Based on Figure 4-7 in the AASHTO Bike Guide, 2012.)

No signs are required on paved 

shoulders, but signs may be used to 

identify a road as a bicycle route.

• Bike Route Guide (D11-1c) signs are 

used to Indicate to bicyclists that 

they are on a designated bikeway and 

make motorists aware of the bicycle 

route.

On shoulders designed for bicycle and 

pedestrian accessibility, the edge should 

be clearly delineated and defined to 

discourage unnecessary encroachment 

by motor vehicles. Options beyond a 

normal white line include:

C A wide 8 in (200 mm) white line.

D A narrow buffer space–two 

normal 4 in (100 mm) solid white 

lines separated by an 18 in (0.45 

m) or greater space.

E A wide buffer space–two normal 

solid white lines, separated by a 

4 ft (1.2 m) or greater space and 

optional crosshatch markings.

Discontinue the edge line at 

intersections and major driveways. On 

a bicycle accessible shoulder, additional 

definition of the shoulder alignment 

may be desired. In these conditions, 

consider:

• A dotted white line to extend the 

edge line through intersections and 

major driveways.

• A second normal width dotted 

white line may be used to define the 

outside edge of the shoulder, defining 

both sides of the bicycle travel area.

AT BYPASS AND TURN LANES

At intersections with heavy left-turn 

volumes, an auxiliary bypass lane, or 

center turn lane may be provided for 

motor vehicles. While this lane may 

encroach into the shoulder space, 6 

ft (1.8 m) of the shoulder should be 

preserved for bicyclist travel. Absolute 

minimum width of the shoulder is 4 ft 

(1.2 m) to maintain bicycle accessibility.

Figure 3-3. Longitudinal markings along shoulders should be selected in response to shoulder width, and the desire to discourage encroachment 

by motor vehicles. 

C D E
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

3-8

Paved Shoulder

CONFIGURE AS AN 

ON-STREET BIKE LANE

F A right turn lane should be added 

to the right of the bike lane. 

Dotted line extensions should 

be used to define the tapered 

entrance into the right-turn lane,

and signs should direct motorists 

to yield to bicyclists. For more 

information, refer to the guidance 

on bike lanes and FHWA MUTCD 

Figure 9C-4. 

CONFIGURE AS A SEPARATED 

BIKE LANE OR SHARED USE PATH

G Where a high degree of user 

comfort is desired, the shoulder 

may transition into a one-way 

separated bike lane or shared use 

path in advance of intersections. 

Once established, the separated 

facility may maintain separation 

up to the crossing. This 

increased separation provides 

an opportunity for motorists 

to slow in advance of the turn 

and yield to bicyclists. For more 

information, refer to the guidance 

on separated bike lanes.

Figure 3-5. In this scenario, the shoulder is designated as a bike lane and a right turn lane is 

introduced to the right of the bike lane. Drivers must yield to through bicyclists before entering 

the turn lane. 

Figure 3-6. In this scenario, the shoulder is designated as a separated bike lane. Bicyclists are 

shifted laterally away from the roadway and separated from the travel or turn lanes by an 

unpaved buffer space.

IMPLEMENTATION

When shoulders are intended for use by pedestrians, they 

must meet accessibility guidelines.

Include or upgrade shoulders during roadway resurfacing, 

rehabilitation, and reconstruction in new construction 

projects. For more information on implementation 

strategies, refer to the FHWA Resurfacing Guide 2016.

ACCESSIBILITY

INTERSECTIONS

Paved shoulders are typically located immediately to the right of right turn lanes. This may lead to right-hook conflicts 

between through bicyclists and turning vehicles. At intersections with right turn only lanes, bicycle accessible shoulders 

should be classified as bike lanes or separated bike lanes, and appropriate intersection designs should be used to 

encourage safe interactions.

F

G
CHAPTER 3 | VISUALLY SEPARATED FACILITIES

3-9

State Route (SR) 16 through the Capay Valley has a wide variety of users 

including commuters, recreational travelers, freight truck drivers, and 

farm equipment operators. Capay Valley contains farmland, several 

small communities, and the Cache Creek Casino Resort. This part of SR 

16 is designated as a local Scenic Highway, and is also eligible to become 

a State Scenic Highway. As SR 16 approaches Interstate 505, the route 

goes through the unincorporated communities of Esparto and Madison, 

which are expected to grow in population over the next 20 years from 

planned development. 

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has identified 

SR 16 corridor safety needs through several studies including a 2012 

Transportation Corridor Concept Report (http://www.dot.ca.gov/

hq/tpp/corridor-mobility/documents/d_3_docs/SR16_TCCR_FINAL.

pdf). The paved shoulders were installed as part of a Caltrans Traffic 

Calming project within the community of Capay which was completed in 

December 2011. The enhancements included pigmented and textured 

shoulders, restriping, improved signage, and architectural, landscaping, 

and lighting improvements. The improvements along SR 16 have been 

a partnership effort among Caltrans, Yolo County, the Sacramento Area 

Council of Governments, a Native American Tribal Government, and the 

community.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION DETAILS

Capay, California

COMMUNITY CONTEXT

Capay is a small, unincorporated 

community in northern California’s 

Yolo County, with an estimated 

population of 133. Yolo County’s 2010 

population was 200,000, including 

Davis, with a population of 65,000. 

Yolo County is in the Sacramento 

Valley and remains largely a rural 

agricultural region.

KEY DESIGN ELEMENTS

The existing highway through Capay 

had wide shoulders that were used by 

people walking and on bikes to access 

the businesses along SR 16. The 

paved shoulders were created using 

pigmented, stamped asphalt which 

is a relatively inexpensive treatment 

with low maintenance costs.

ROLE IN THE NETWORK

SR 16 connects the rural communities 

of Yolo County with Woodland and the 

I-5 corridor. This road is the only road 

that connects through the town and 

is regularly used by people walking 

and biking. It links homes with local 

businesses. The enhanced shoulders 

provide critical accommodation for 

people walking and biking.

FUNDING

The paved shoulders were installed as 

part of a Caltrans project.

For more information, refer to California Department of Transportation 

District 3:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/d3/ 

CASE STUDY | PAVED SHOULDER
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

3-10

Paved Shoulder

FOOTNOTES

i NCHRP Report 600 states that the addition of paved 

shoulders may improve safety of all roadway users and have 

been shown to significantly reduce run-off-road crash rates by 

80 percent on some rural highways (2012, p. 16-6).

ii The AASHTO Bike Guide states, “Additional shoulder width 

is also desirable if motor vehicle speeds exceed 50 mi/h (80 

km/h); if use by heavy trucks, buses, or recreational vehicles is 

considerable; or if static obstructions exist at the right side of 

the roadway” (2012, p.4-7).

iii Functional classification volumes are based on Table 3-6 in 

FHWA’s Highway Functional Classification Concepts, Criteria 

and Procedures 2013. Desirable shoulder widths based on 

achieving LOS A using the Bicycle Level of Service Calculator 

2007. Calculations assume 1 travel lane per direction; outside 

lane width of 11 ft.; 2 percent heavy vehicle mix; average 

pavement quality and no on-street parking. 

iv General physical dimensions of rumble strips are based on 

common designs described in NCHRP Synthesis 490, with 

bicycle specific enhancements to improve maneuvering by 

bicyclists identified in FHWA Technical Advisory on Shoulder 

and Edge Line Rumble Strips 2011.

The decision to use adjusted rumble strip dimensions should 

be made with the understanding that reducing the dimensions 

can significantly reduce the alerting noise and associated 

safety effectiveness of the rumble strip for motorists. 

v NCHRP Report 641 indicates that there may not be a practical 

difference in the effectiveness of rumble strips placed on the 

edge line or 2 ft or more beyond the edge line on two-lane 

rural roads (2016).

WORKS CITED

American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 

2011. 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials. A Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.

Federal Highway Administration. Highway Functional Classification 

Concepts, Criteria and Procedures. 2013. 

Federal Highway Administration. Incorporating On-Road Bicycle 

Networks into Resurfacing Projects. 2016.

Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices. 2009. 

Federal Highway Administration. Proven Safety Countermeasures. 

2012.

Federal Highway Administration. Technical Advisory T 5040.39: 

Shoulder and Edge Line Rumble Strips. 2011.

Federal Highway Administration. Rumble Strips and Rumble 

Stripes Website. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/

pavement/rumble_strips/

NCHRP. Report 600: Human Factors Guidelines for Road Systems. 2012. 

NCHRP. Report 641: Guidance for the Design and Application of 

Shoulder and Centerline Rumble Strips. 2009.

NCHRP. Synthesis 490: Practice of Rumble Strips and Rumble Stripes. 

2016.

Sprinkle Consulting Inc. Bicycle Level of Service Calculator. 2007.

PHOTO CREDIT

Page 3-1. Western Transportation Institute

Page 3-5. Alta Planning + Design

Page 3-6 Bob Boyce via Ped Bike

Page 3-9. Alta Planning + Design

Page 3-10. Western Transportation Institute

Montpelier, VT–Population 7,760
CHAPTER 3 | VISUALLY SEPARATED FACILITIES

3-11

Bike lanes designate an exclusive space for bicyclists 

through the use of pavement markings and optional 

signs. A bike lane is located directly adjacent to motor 

vehicle travel lanes and follows the same direction as 

motor vehicle traffic. 

Bike Lane

Signs

Identify the bike lane and 

prohibit on street parking.

Bike Lane Marking

Identifies exclusive 

use by bicyclists.
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

3-12

• Provides additional separation 

distance between the sidewalk 

and motor vehicle travel area, if a 

sidewalk is present.

• Connects and completes bikeway 

networks through built-up areas.

• Provides a designated space on 

the roadway suitable for many 

skilled bicyclists within built-up 

areas of small communities.

BENEFITS

Bike Lane

Bicyclists travel in the same 

direction of the adjacent lane.

Bike Lane Line

Wide solid line or buffer area separates 

the bike lane from the roadway. Dotted 

lines at crossings maintain a clear path 

for bicyclists.

• Can support school access by 

bicycle when configured as a wide 

bike lane on lower-speed, lowervolume streets.

• Provides additional visual cues to 

drivers that they should expect 

bicyclists on the roadway. This 

can be particularly useful when 

transitioning to a built-up area 

from a highway context.

CONSIDERATIONS

• Reflects a more urban visual 

atmosphere than an unmarked 

shoulder.

MOTOR VEHICLE VOLUME 

(ADT)

MOTOR VEHICLE 

OPERATING SPEED (MI/H)

For use inside or between, built-up 

areas where increased pedestrian 

and/or bicycle activity is present 

or expected.

Land Use

Appropriate on streets with moderate 

volumes and moderate speed. May 

function on multilane streets with 

heavy traffic but fails to provide 

a low-stress experience in this 

condition, which would appeal to 

larger numbers of bicyclists.

Speed and Volume

Serves moderate distance trips 

connecting local bikeway routes to 

regional corridors.

Network

ON-STREET BIKE LANE

4k

2k

6k

8k

10k

12k

10 20 30 40 50

HIGHWAY

LOCAL

COLLECTOR

APPLICATION
CHAPTER 3 | VISUALLY SEPARATED FACILITIES

3-13

GEOMETRIC DESIGN MARKINGS

Bike Lane

Within built-up areas, increased 

pedestrian activity and curbside uses 

degrade the experience of nonexclusive 

bicycling accommodations such as 

shoulders. Providing a designated bike 

lane can provide a consistent area for 

bicyclists to travel outside the path of 

motor vehicles. When space is available, 

add a buffer area, distancing the bike 

lane from the adjacent motor vehicle 

travel lane. Figure 3-7. Bike lanes establish an area for exclusive bicycle use outside the path of 

motor vehicles.

BIKE LANES

Design bike lanes to separate road 

users and reduce the stress of motor 

vehicle passing events.

• The preferred minimum width of a 

bike lane is 6.5 ft (2.0 m) to allow 

for bicyclists to ride side-by-side or 

pass each other without leaving the 

bike lane.

• Absolute minimum bike lane width 

is 4 ft (1.2 m) when no curb and 

gutter is present or 5 ft (1.5 m) when 

adjacent to a curbface, guardrail, 

other vertical surface or on-street 

parking stalls (AASHTO Bike Guide 

2012).

• Widths 7 ft (2.1 m) or greater may 

encourage motor vehicle use of 

bike lane for parking or driving. If 

extra width is available or desired, 

configure with a buffer zone to 

delineate space. 

Mark a bike lane line with a normal 

solid white line and a standard bike 

lane symbol marking. Standards and 

guidance for applying these elements 

can be found in the MUTCD 2009.

Lane markings should remain solid and 

not dotted at driveway crossing. The 

MUTCD does not recognize a driveway 

as an intersection (MUTCD 2009, 

AASHTO Bike Guide 2012).

BUFFER ZONE

Bike lanes may be enhanced with 

a longitudinal marked buffer area 

for more separation distance. This 

treatment is appropriate for bike lanes 

on roadways with high motor vehicle 

traffic volumes and speed, adjacent to 

parking lanes, or a high volume of truck 

or oversized vehicle traffic.i

• A minimum width buffer of 1.5 ft (0.5 

m) may be bound by two solid lines, 

without interior markings.

A If the buffer is 4 ft (1.2 m) or wider, 

mark with diagonal or chevron 

hatching. 

For more information on buffer zone 

striping and application, refer to 

NCHRP 766–Recommended Bicycle 

Lane Widths for Various Roadway 

Characteristics 2014.

Figure 3-8. Helmeted bicyclist symbol inside a 

bike lane with a painted buffer area.

Bike Lane Buffer (Optional)

6 ft (1.8 m) 1.5–4 ft (0.5–1.2 m) or wider

A
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

3-14

SIGNS

INTERSECTIONS

Bike Lane

ACCESSIBILITY

Bike lanes are designed for the exclusive use of bicyclists 

and are not intended for use by pedestrians. For information 

on appropriate pedestrian facilities, refer to the guidance on 

Sidewalk orSidepath in this guide.

IMPLEMENTATION

Include or upgrade shoulders during roadway resurfacing, 

rehabilitation, and reconstruction and in new construction 

projects. For more information on implementation 

strategies, refer to FHWA Resurfacing Guide 2016.

An optional bike lane sign may be used 

to supplement the bike lane pavement 

markings. Standards and guidance for 

applying these elements can be found 

in the FHWA MUTCD.

Design strategies for bike lanes at 

intersections emphasize reducing 

speeds, minimizing exposure, raising 

awareness, and communicating rightof-way priority.

• Under most conditions, bicyclists 

have priority over turning traffic. 

Markings and signs should support 

this priority and remind motorists of 

the obligation to yield.

B Adjacent to a through-right lane, 

use a modified R10-15 Turning 

Vehicles Yield to Bikes sign to 

clarify user priority.

C Where a right-turn lane is 

established to the right of a 

bike lane, R4-4 Begin Right Turn 

Lane Yield to Bikes sign reminds 

motorists to yield to bicyclists 

before entering the lane.

• Where special emphasis is desired, 

green pavement color may be used 

within bike lanes and at merging or 

weaving areas where motor vehicles 

may cross bike lanes. For more 

information on the use of color, refer 

to FHWA Interim Approval 14 2011.

Figure 3-10. A variety of design treatments exist depending on the roadway configuration, available curb-to-curb width, traffic volumes and desire 

to provided a dedicated turn lane. All designs should strive to reduce speeds of turning vehicles, remind users of bicycle priority, and clarify user 

positioning approaching and through the intersection. Common signs at intersections include R4-4 Begin Right Turn Lane Yield to Bikes and a 

modified R10-15 Turning Vehicles Yield to Bikes sign.(ii)

Figure 3-9. An optional R3-17 

Bike Lane sign may be used to 

supplement bike lane markings. 

An R7-9 sign may be used if 

parked vehicles frequently bock 

the bike lane.

Intersection Crossing Markings Added Right Turn-Only Lane

B C
CHAPTER 3 | VISUALLY SEPARATED FACILITIES

3-15

The Lyndonville planner worked with the Vermont Agency of 

Transportation (VTrans) during the construction of a large repaving 

project through Lyndonville to incorporate bike lanes into the project. 

Bike lanes were incorporated on Main Street, Broad Street, and Center 

Street. Along Depot Street, shared lane markings are the preferred 

option given on-street parking. On the Main Street section of the 

project, the existing roadway had no parking and wide shoulders. This 

combination allowed VTrans to design painted buffered bike lanes.

The addition of buffered bike lanes to the already under construction 

paving project was possible through the use of painted buffers. 

In addition, green paint was added at the bike lane through the 

intersections to highlight the areas of potential conflict. Because of 

variable shoulder widths, the painted buffer has a constant width of 2 ft 

while the bike lane width varies between 5 and 8 ft.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION DETAILS

Lyndonville, Vermont

COMMUNITY CONTEXT

Lyndonville, population 1,207, is a 

village within the town of Lyndon, 

VT. Located in Vermont’s rural 

Northeast Kingdom, Lyndonville 

is home to Lyndon State College 

with approximately 1,400 students. 

Nearby Burke Mountain offers lift 

access downhill mountain biking, and 

Kingdom Trails anchors a growing 

network of mountain bike trails in 

the region.

KEY DESIGN ELEMENTS

Painted buffered bike lane with 

additional pavement markings. 

ROLE IN THE NETWORK

The buffered bike lanes on Main 

Street are part of the network of 

on-street bike lanes and shared 

streets that connect the downtown 

businesses with residential streets 

and Lyndon State College.

FUNDING

The bike lanes were included as 

part of the paving project which was 

funded with 81 percent Federal funds 

and 19 percent State funds. Being 

incorporated into a planned and 

funded paving project meant that the 

additional costs for the buffered bike 

lanes were minimal.

For more information, refer to the 

Vermont Agency of Transportation:

http://vtrans.vermont.gov/ 

CASE STUDY | BIKE LANE
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

3-16

Bike Lane

FOOTNOTES

i The AASHTO Bike Guide states that “striped buffers may be 

used to provide increased separation between a bike lane and 

another adjacent lane that may present conflicts, such as a 

parking lane with high turnover or a higher speed travel lane” 

(2012, p. 4-18).

ii The FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide

recommends the use of a modified R10-15 with a bicycle 

symbol in place of the pedestrian symbol (2012, p. 127). 

WORKS CITED

American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.

Federal Highway Administration. Incorporating On-road Bicycle 

Networks into Resurfacing Projects. 2016.

Federal Highway Administration. Interim Approval for Optional Use 

of Green Colored Pavement for Bike Lanes (IA-14). 2011.

Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices (MUTCD). 2009.

Federal Highway Administration. Separated Bike Lane Planning and 

Design Guide. 2015.

NCHRP. Report 766 - Recommended Bicycle Lane Widths for Various 

Roadway Characteristics. 2014. 

PHOTO CREDIT

Page 3-15. Western Transportation Institute

Page 3-16. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA)

South Lake Tahoe, CA–Population 21,380
CHAPTER 4 | PHYSICALLY SEPARATED FACILITIES

4-1
Physically 

Separated 

Facilities

4-3 Shared Use Path

4-11 Sidepath

4-19 Sidewalk

4-25 Separated Bike Lane

CHAPTER 4

4-2SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS
CHAPTER 4 | PHYSICALLY SEPARATED FACILITIES

4-3

A shared use path provides a travel area separate from 

motorized traffic for bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, 

wheelchair users, joggers, and other users. Shared use 

paths can provide a low-stress experience for a variety of 

users using the network for transportation or recreation. 

Shared Use Path

Network Connection 

Opportunities

When constructed outside of a 

roadway corridor, a shared use path 

offers a low-stress experience away 

from motor vehicles.

Intersection Crossings

Enhancements such as median crossing 

islands or raised crossings can increase 

comfort and safety for path users.
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

4-4

• Provides a dedicated facility for users 

of all ages and abilities.

• Provides, in some cases, a short-cut 

between cities or neighborhoods.

• Provides, in some cases, access to 

areas that are otherwise served only 

by limited-access roadways.

• Supports tourism through 

convenient access to natural areas 

or as an enjoyable recreational 

opportunity itself.

• Provides nonmotorized 

transportation access to natural 

and recreational areas, which can 

especially help low-income people 

obtain access to recreation.

• Paths have a small footprint 

and can display a distinctly rural 

character. 

BENEFITS

Shared Use Path

The single path combines 

bicyclists and pedestrians in 

both directions.

Roadway Crossings

Where paths intersect roads, enhancements 

should improve conditions for path users.

Generally appropriate outside of 

built-up areas, and also as a corridor 

connection within built-up areas.

Land Use

Paths operating in independent 

corridors are fully separated from 

traffic. Facility provision is based on 

opportunity and connectivity rather 

than roadway context. In some 

cases, an independent corridor may 

offer similar connectivity and access 

to destinations as a nearby roadway. 

Speed and Volume

Serves connections independently of 

the street network. May function as a 

network alternative road and highway 

connections.

Network

APPLICATION
CHAPTER 4 | PHYSICALLY SEPARATED FACILITIES

4-5

Horizontal Clearance Shared Use Path Shoulder

2 ft (0.6 m) 10–12 ft (3.0-3.6 m) 2 ft (0.6 m)

GEOMETRIC DESIGN

Shared Use Path

Figure 4-1. Shared Use Path Dimensions

WIDTH

The geometric design of shared use 

paths should support the speed and 

volume of expected user types. 

• 10 ft (3.0 m) width is recommended in 

most situations and will be adequate 

for moderate to heavy use.

• A 2 ft (0.6 m) shoulder should be 

provided on each side of the path, 

kept clear of vertical elements or 

obstructions.

Shared use paths offer network 

connectivity opportunities beyond that 

of the roadway network. These facilities 

are often located in parks, along rivers, 

beaches, and in greenbelts or utility 

corridors where there are few conflicts 

with motorized vehicles. For paths 

adjacent to roadways, see Sidepath.

Volume and User Mix Recommended Minimum 

Pathway Width 

Low volume (less than 50 users in one direction per 

hour), low mix (75 percent bicyclists, 25 percent 

pedestrians).

8–10 ft (2.4–3.0 m)

Low volume (less than 50 users in one direction per 

hour), heavy user mix (50 percent bicyclists, 50 percent 

pedestrians).

12 ft (3.6 m)

High volume (150 or more users in one direction 

per hour), low mix (75 percent bicyclists, 25 percent 

pedestrians).

 12–14 ft (3.6–4.2 m)

Table 4-1. Pathway Volume and User Mix(i)

Yacolt, WA–Population 1,600
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

4-6

GEOMETRIC DESIGN

MARKINGS SIGNS

Shared Use Path

STRIPING

Under most conditions, center line 

markings are not necessary, and path 

users will naturally keep right except to 

pass. 

On shared use paths with heavy peak 

hour and/or seasonal volumes, the 

use of a center line stripe may help 

organize pathway traffic.

• When striping is required, use a 4 

inch broken yellow center line stripe 

with 4 inch solid white edge lines. 

• Solid center lines can be provided 

on tight or blind corners and on the 

approaches to roadway crossings.

• Mark edge lines on paths expecting 

evening use.

In a mixed user environment, Yield 

etiquette signs may be used. An 

example is shown in Figure 4-2. Many 

communities have created customized 

signage to reflect local user groups and 

conditions. 

• Bikes Yield to Peds (R9-6) signs may 

be used at the entrances of path 

segments to remind bicyclists of the 

requirement to yield. Figure 4-2. Signs can clarify yielding rules in 

shared-use environments may be modified 

based on expected user types.

• 8 ft (2.4 m) is the minimum allowed 

for a two-way bicycle path and is 

only recommended for low traffic 

situations or for short lengths.

• 12-14 ft (3.6–4.3 m) is recommended 

for heavy use situations with high 

concentrations of multiple users. 

• Wider paths are useful to 

accommodate maintenance 

vehicles; on steep grade to allow for 

comfortable passing and meeting; 

and through curves to provide more 

operating space.

Springdale, AR –Population 75,000
CHAPTER 4 | PHYSICALLY SEPARATED FACILITIES

4-7

Shared Use Path

INTERSECTIONS

Motorists should yield right-of-way 

to pedestrians within crosswalks. 

Depending on State or local laws, 

motorists may also yield to bicyclists 

within crosswalks.(ii) 

Figure 4-3 identifies 

recommendations related to 

marked crosswalk installation and 

enhancement by speed and volume 

on two-lane streets.

FHWA Safety Effects of Marked 

Crosswalks at Uncontrolled 

Locations 2005 recommends 

crossing enhancements on highspeed and high-volumes roadways 

where crosswalk markings alone are 

not a viable safety measure. 

For additional information on marked 

crosswalks, refer to the Enhanced 

Crossing Treatments section of FHWA 

Achieving Multimodal Networks 

2016 and BIKESAFE 2014.

Marked Crosswalks

A basic marked shared use path 

crossing consists of a marked 

crosswalk, plus signs and other 

markings to slow or stop traffic. 

• Crosswalk markings establish a

legal crosswalk at areas away from

intersections.

• Crossing sign assemblies and

advance crossing sign assemblies

using W11-15 and W16-7P signs 

should be used to warn users of 

the crossing location.

High-visibility crosswalk markings 

are the preferred marking type at 

uncontrolled marked crossings. 

Transverse lines are “essentially not 

visible” when viewed from a standard 

approaching vehicle (ITE 2010).

Figure 4-4. A simple marked crosswalk may be appropriate at crossings with low motor vehicle 

speeds and volumes.

Figure 4-3. Conditions unsuitable for a marked crosswalk alone are candidates for additional 

enhancements such as curb extensions, median islands and/or active warning beacons. Chart 

adapted from FHWA Safety Effects of Marked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations 2005 

Table 2-11 (data for two-lane roadway at non school crossings).

30 35 40 

9000

12000

15000

18000

VOLUME (ADT)

SPEED (MPH)

LEGEND

Candidate for marked crosswalks

Probable candidate for marked 

crosswalks. May benefit from 

additional crossing enhancements.

Marked crosswalks alone are 

insufficient. Requires crossing 

enhancements.

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

10

20

30

40

85TH PERCENTILE SPEED AT MIDPOINT (MPH)

SPACING OF SLOW POINTS (FEET)
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

4-8

MEDIAN ENHANCED CROSSWALKS

Median islands are beneficial on 

roadways with high volumes and/or 

high speeds, and on roadways with 

three or more travel lanes. Median 

islands particularly benefit people 

who may travel slower, such as 

children, older adults, and people 

with disabilities.

Median islands are an FHWA Proven 

Safety Countermeasure.

ACTIVE ENHANCED CROSSWALKS

Where greater visibility or traffic control 

is desired, a rectangular rapid flash 

beacon (RRFB) or pedestrian hybrid 

beacon (PHB) may be used.

• RRFBs are a yield enhancement

device for use at uncontrolled

crossings. They may be configured

with solar power where it is the

most cost-effective option. See

FHWA Interim Approval 11 2008 for

guidance on the application of RRFBs.

• PHB’s provide a red signal indication

to drivers, and create yielding rates

similar to that of a conventional

traffic signal. PHBs are particularly

useful on undivided roadways with

multiple lanes in any one direction.

PHBs are an FHWA Proven Safety

Countermeasure. See FHWA

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Guide

2015 for more information.

Shared Use Path

INTERSECTIONS

IMPLEMENTATION

Asphalt is the most common surface for shared use paths. 

The use of concrete for paths has proven to be more durable 

and significantly reduces maintenance costs over the long 

term. Saw-cut concrete joints rather than troweled improve 

the experience for wheeled path users.

A shared use path is a separated facility intended for use 

by pedestrians and must meet accessibility guidelines for 

walkways and curb transitions. Shared use paths are required 

to be accessible by all users, including those with mobility 

devices and vision disabilities.

ACCESSIBILITY

Figure 4-5. A median safety island should allow path users to cross one lane of traffic at a time. 

The bicycle waiting area should be at least 8 ft deep to allow for a variety of bicycle types. To 

promote yielding to bicyclists the median safety island should be designed to require horizontal 

deflection of the motor vehicle travel lanes.

Figure 4-7. On multilane streets with high volumes and few gaps for crossing, a pedestrian 

hybrid beacon may be used to increase yielding rates.

Figure 4-6. Where yield compliance is low, rectangular rapid flash beacons can be used to draw 

attention to crossing path users and signal their intent to cross.
CHAPTER 4 | PHYSICALLY SEPARATED FACILITIES

4-9

PROJECT DESCRIPTION DETAILS

Pickens and Easley, South Carolina

CASE STUDY | SHARED USE PATH

The Pickens “Doodle Line” Railway is a 7.4-mile railroad that previously 

connected the cities of Pickens and Easley for lumber and other freight 

travel. As freight and manufacturing in Pickens declined in the late 

1990s, the private owner of the railway decided to explore options to sell 

the ownership rights and promote a rail to trail conversion. The Doodle 

Trail, a 7.4 mile rails-to-trails partnership between the City of Easley and 

the City of Pickens opened Memorial Day Weekend 2015.

The shared-use asphalt path provides a vital recreation and 

transportation corridor for visitors and residents alike, as well as major 

economic and regional impacts. Residents and governmental leaders 

saw the economic impacts of the Swamp Rabbit Trail, an over 20-mile 

rail-trail in neighboring Greenville and wanted to create a similar regional 

attraction, that also benefited the local community. 

The City of Easley and City of Pickens jointly purchased the railway 

corridor, creating a cooperative partnership between the two cities. 

Soon after the trail was completed in Spring 2015, residents of Easley 

saw the economic development potential of the shared use path 

and wanted it to extend to their businesses in downtown Easley, 

approximately 1 mile from the Doodle Trailhead. An extension of the 

path, from the trailhead to downtown, is currently in the design phase 

and construction is set to begin in Winter 2016.

COMMUNITY CONTEXT

The City of Easley has a population of 

20,300. The City of Pickens, located to the 

northwest, has a population of 3,150. Both 

cities are located within Pickens County.

KEY DESIGN ELEMENTS

Fencing, landscaping, and roadway 

crossings were all designed and 

constructed to ensure a safe, attractive 

path between the two communities. 

ROLE IN THE NETWORK

The shared use path serves as 

a transportation and recreation 

corridor for residents and visitors, and 

enhances connectivity between the 

two communities. The City of Pickens 

developed bike lanes to connect to 

downtown Pickens. The City of Easley is 

extending the trail into downtown and 

has provided bike lanes for alternate 

connections to Baptist Easley Hospital 

and cultural amenities.

FUNDING

Both cities used separate General 

Obligation Hospitality Tax Bonds to 

fund the acquisition and construction of 

the trail. The City of Easley is currently 

using a General Obligation Bond to fund 

acquisition, design, and construction 

of the shared use path extension 

into Downtown. The federally-funded 

Recreational Trails Program administered 

through the South Carolina Department 

of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism funded 

the extension to Highway 8.

For more information, refer to the City of 

Easley and the City of Pickens:

http://www.cityofeasley.com/

http://www.cityofpickens.com/
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

4-10

FOOTNOTES

i Table calculated based on a target level of service of “B” the

FHWA Shared-Use Path Level of Service Calculator 2006.

ii The Uniform Vehicle Code UVC is clear in the priority of 

pedestrians over motor vehicles in marked or unmarked 

crosswalks and through driveways. 

UVC § 11- 502(a) Pedestrians’ right of way in crosswalks: When 

traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation, the 

driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way, slowing down or 

stopping if need be to yield to a pedestrian crossing the roadway 

within a crosswalk.

UVC § 11-509 Pedestrians’ right of way on sidewalks: The driver 

of a vehicle crossing a sidewalk shall yield the right of way to any 

pedestrian and all other traffic on the sidewalk.

Additionally, bicycles on sidewalks receive the same rights as 

pedestrians, such as priority over other traffic, and must fulfill the 

same duties, and shall not “enter the intersection in disregard of 

approaching traffic” (Sec. 46.2-924)

UVC § 11-1209(c), Bicycles and human powered vehicles on 

sidewalks: A person propelling a vehicle by human power upon 

and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a 

crosswalk, shall have all the rights and duties applicable to a 

pedestrian under the same circumstances.

WORKS CITED

Federal Highway Administration. Achieving Multimodal Networks. 

2016.

Federal Highway Administration. Bicycle Safety Guide and 

Countermeasure Selection System. 2014.

Federal Highway Administration. Interim Approval for Optional Use 

of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (IA-11). 2008.

Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices (MUTCD). 2009.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). An Overview and 

Recommendations of High-Visibility Crosswalk Markings Styles. 2013.

Federal Highway Administration. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Guide.

2015.

Federal Highway Administration. Proven Safety Countermeasures. 

2012.

Federal Highway Administration. Safety Effects of Marked Versus 

Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations. 2005. 

Federal Highway Administration. Shared-use Path Level of Service 

Calculator. 2006.

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Technical Committee 

109-01. Pavement Marking Patterns Used at Uncontrolled Pedestrian 

Crossings. 2010.

Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC). 2000.

United States Access Board. Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian 

Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way. 2011.

Shared Use Path

Bentonville, AR–Population 40,000

PHOTO CREDIT

Page 4-1. Western Transportation Institute

Page 4-5. Alta Planning + Design

Page 4-6. Alta Planning + Design

Page 4-9. Alta Planning + Design

Page 4-10. Alta Planning + Design
CHAPTER 4 | PHYSICALLY SEPARATED FACILITIES

4-11

A sidepath is a bidirectional shared use path located 

immediately adjacent and parallel to a roadway. Sidepaths 

can offer a high-quality experience for users of all ages and 

abilities as compared to on-roadway facilities in heavy traffic 

environments, allow for reduced roadway crossing distances, 

and maintain rural and small town community character.

Sidepath Sidepath

Sidepaths serve 

bidirectional pedestrian 

and bicyclist travel.

Roadway Separation

An unpaved separated 

space from the roadway 

enhances comfort and 

promotes visibility at 

crossings.

Intersection Treatments

Geometric design at intersections 

slows motorists and prioritizes 

bicyclists and pedestrians.
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

4-12

• Completes networks where highspeed roads provide the only 

corridors available.

• Fills gaps in networks of low-stress 

local routes such as shared use 

paths and bicycle boulevards.

• Provides a more appropriate facility 

for users of all ages and abilities than 

shoulders or mixed traffic facilities 

on roads with moderate or high 

traffic intensity.(i)

• Encourages bicycling and walking in 

areas where high-volume and highspeed motor vehicle traffic would 

otherwise discourage it.(ii)

• Maintains rural character through 

reduced paved roadway width 

compared to a visually separated 

facility.(iii)

• Very supportive of rural character 

when combined with vegetation 

to visually and physically separate 

the sidepath from the roadway.

BENEFITS

CONSIDERATIONS

• Requires a wide roadside 

environment to provide for 

separation and pathway area 

outside of the adjacent roadway.

MOTOR VEHICLE VOLUME 

(ADT)

MOTOR VEHICLE 

OPERATING SPEED (MI/H)

For use inside of built-up areas 

to provide a dedicated space for 

pedestrians.

Land Use

For use on roads with high volumes, 

and moderate-to high-speed motor 

vehicle traffic. 

Speed and Volume

For use on arterial links on the 

regional or local biking and 

walking network

Network

2k

4k

6k

8k

10k

12k

10 20 30 40 50

SIDEPATH

HIGHWAY

LOCAL

COLLECTOR

APPLICATION
CHAPTER 4 | PHYSICALLY SEPARATED FACILITIES

4-13

Widths and design details of sidepath 

elements may vary in response to the 

desire for increased user comfort and 

functionality, the available right-ofway, and the need to preserve natural 

resources. 

PATHWAY

Sidepath width impacts user comfort 

and path capacity. As user volumes or 

the mix of modes increases, additional 

path width is necessary to maintain 

comfort and functionality.

• Minimum recommended pathway

width is 10 ft (3.0 m). In lowvolume situations and constrained

conditions, the absolute minimum

sidepath width is 8 ft (2.4 m)

• Provide a minimum of 2 ft (0.6 m)

clearance to signposts or vertical

elements.

GEOMETRIC DESIGN

Sidepaths offer a low-stress experience 

for bicyclists and pedestrians on network 

routes otherwise inhospitable to walking 

and bicycling due to high-speed or highvolume traffic. 

ROADWAY SEPARATION 

Separation from the roadway should 

be informed by the speed and 

configuration of the adjacent roadway 

and by available right-of-way as 

illustrated in Figure 4-9. 

• Preferred minimum separation width

is 6.5 ft (2.0 m). Minimum separation

distance is 5 ft (1.5 m).

• Separation narrower than 5 ft is

not recommended, although may

be accommodated with the use

of a physical barrier between the

sidepath and the roadway. The

barrier and end treatments should

be crashworthy which may introduce

additional complexity if there are

frequent driveways and intersections.

Refer to the AASHTO Roadside

Design Guide 2011 for additional

information.

Figure 4-9. Where a minimum of 5 ft (1.5 m) 

unpaved separation cannot be provided (top), 

A physical barrier may be used between the 

sidepath and the roadway (center). In extremely 

constrained conditions for short distances, onroadway rumble strips may be used as a form 

of separation (bottom).

Figure 4-8. Recommended dimensions for 

sidepath width and unpaved separation distance. 

Pathway Roadway Separation

8–12 ft (2.4–3.6 m) 5 ft (1.5 m) min

5 ft (1.5 m) min

< 5 ft (1.5 m) 

Rumble Strips

Sidepath

• On high-speed roadways, a separation

width of 16.5–20 ft (5–6 m) is

recommended for proper positioning

at crossings and intersections.
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

4-14

GEOMETRIC DESIGN

MARKINGS SIGNS

LANDSCAPING 

Trees and landscaping can maintain 

community character and add value 

to the experience of using a sidepath. 

They provide shade for users during 

hot weather and help to absorb 

stormwater runoff.

• Provide a 3 ft (0.9 m) horizontal 

clearance between trees and the 

pathway to minimize pavement 

cracking and heaving of the paved 

surface. Consult a local arborist in the 

selection and placement of trees. Figure 4-10. Even small trees can provide an 

additional feeling of separation between the 

sidepath and the roadway.

• When trees are desired within the 

roadway separation area, consider 

planting small caliper trees with a 

maximum diameter of 4 inches 

(100 mm) to alleviate concerns 

about fixed objects or visual 

obstructions between the roadway 

and the pathway.(iv)

Sidepaths may include edgelines or 

centerlines or be unmarked.

• Edge lines should be marked on 

paths expecting evening use.

• Paths with a high volume of 

bidirectional traffic should 

include a centerline. This can help 

communicate that users should 

expect traffic in both directions and 

encourage users to travel on the 

right and pass on the left (Flink and 

Searns 1993).

• Shared use paths are bidirectional 

facilities and signs should be posted 

for path users traveling in both 

directions.

•It is important for signs that 

only apply to the path to not be 

interpreted as a guidance for 

roadway travel lanes.

Lateral Offset

From Roadway

Horizontal Clearance

From Path

3 ft (0.9 m) min 4 ft (1.2 m) min

South Lake Tahoe, CA–Population 21,380

Sidepath
CHAPTER 4 | PHYSICALLY SEPARATED FACILITIES

4-15

INTERSECTIONS

Operational and safety concerns exist 

where sidepaths cross driveways and 

intersections. Refer to section 5.2.2 

of the AASHTO Bike Guide 2012 for an

identification of potential design issues. 

Design crossings to promote awareness 

of conflict points, and facilitate proper 

yielding of motorists to bicyclists and 

pedestrians.

DESIGN STRATEGIES

Collision risk increases as the speed 

and volume of the parallel roadway 

increase. The AASHTO Bike Guide 

2012 lists a variety of design strategies 

for enhancing sidepath crossings 

including:

• Reduce the frequency of driveways.

• Design intersections to reduce driver

speeds and heighten awareness of

path users.

• Encourage low speeds on pathway

approaches.

• Maintain visibility for all users.

• Provide clear assignment of rightof-way with signs and markings and

elevation change.

DESIGN DETAILS

A Maintain physical separation of 

the sidepath through the crossing. 

Sidepath separation distance may 

vary from 5 ft–24 ft (1.5–7.0 m). 

Refer to Table 4-2.

• Use small roadway corner radii

to enforce slow turning speeds of

20 mi/h or less. On a high-speed

roadway, a deceleration lane may be

necessary to achieve desired slow

turning speeds.

Sidepath

Adjacent Road Speed Limit (Mi/h) Recommended Sidepath Separation 

Distance at Crossings

< 25 mi/h 6.5 ft (2.0 m)

35–45 mi/h 6.5–16.5 ft (2.0–5.0 m)

≥ 55 mi/h 16.5–24 ft (5.0–7.0 m)

Table 4-2. Sidepath Separation Distance at Road Crossings(vii)

*Separation distance may vary in response to available right of way, visibility constraints and the

provision of a right turn deceleration lane.

Figure 4-11. Separation distance should be selected in response to speed and traffic intensity. 

The pathway may need a shift in horizontal alignment in advance of the crossing to achieve 

desired separation distance. As speeds on the parallel roadway increase, so does the preference 

for wider separation distance. 

B The roadway and path 

approaches to an intersection 

should always provide enough 

stopping sight distance to obey 

the established traffic control, and 

execute a stop before entering 

the intersection (AASHTO Bike 

Guide 2012).

• Configure crossings with raised

speed table or “dustpan” style

driveway geometry to create vertical

deflection of turning vehicles. This

physically indicates priority of path

travel over turning or crossing traffic

and helps reduce the risk associated

with bidirectional sidepath use.(v)

C Where possible, include raised 

median island on the cross street 

to provide additional safety and 

speed management benefits.

• Use crosswalk markings to indicate

the through crossing along the

pathway. Continental crosswalk

markings are preferred for

increased visibility. At low-volume

residential driveways, crosswalk

markings may be omitted.vi

• Use stop or yield line markings

in advance of the crossing to

discourage encroachment into the

crosswalk area.

B A

C
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

4-16

IMPLEMENTATION

Where sufficient roadway width or right 

of way is available, designers should 

consider the simultaneous provision of 

both sidepaths and bicycle accessible 

shoulders to serve a diverse range of 

user types. 

ACCESSIBILITY

Figure 4-12. Transition from a sidepath on one side to shoulders on each side of the road.

A sidepath is intended for use 

by pedestrians and must meet 

accessibility guidelines for walkways 

and curb transitions. Sidepaths are 

required to be accessible by all users, 

including those with mobility devices 

and visually-impaired pedestrians. 

D

Minor Street Crossings

Give sidepaths the same priority as 

the parallel roadway at all crossings. 

Attempts to require path users to yield 

or stop at each cross-street or driveway 

promote noncompliance and confusion, 

and are not effective. Geometric 

design in these cases should promote 

a high degree of yielding to path users 

through geometric design.

• Landscaping, barriers, or other 

visual obstructions should be low to 

provide unobstructed sight of the 

crossing from the major street. Both 

motorists and path users should 

have a clear and unobstructed view 

of each other at intersections and 

driveways.

• Consider using a R10-15 RIGHT TURN 

YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS at street 

crossings with right turn interactions. 

Connections with On-Street Bikeways

Where a sidepath terminates, it may be 

necessary for path users to transition to a 

facility on the opposite side of the road. 

D Designs should consider the desire 

for natural directional flows, and 

the potential for conflicts with 

adjacent traffic. Use median islands 

and horizontal deflection of the 

roadway travel lanes to slow motor 

vehicle traffic and offer improved 

crossing conditions for path users.

Sidepath
CHAPTER 4 | PHYSICALLY SEPARATED FACILITIES

4-17

The Ennis schools are located in the heart of town, though there were 

few pedestrian and bicycle facilities connecting to them. In 2010, local 

nonprofit Madison Byways organized a program to identify safer routes 

to school. 

The project resulted in a network of walking and biking facilities 

including a sidepath, sidewalks, and bicycle boulevards on residential 

streets. This network of facilities is called the Mustang Trail, named for 

the Ennis school mascot. 

The central location of the schools means the bike and pedestrian 

network benefits the entire community, connecting neighborhoods to 

schools, businesses, and other services. 

Critical factors for success included strong leadership by Madison 

Byways and a collaboration effort that engaged schools, residents, 

businesses, and public agency representatives. Numerous activities 

were held to increase awareness of the Mustang Trail, including monthly 

Farmer’s Markets, the 4th of July parade, and annual 5K run/walk.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION DETAILS

Ennis, Montana

COMMUNITY CONTEXT

Rural destination community, 

especially in the summer, with a 

population of 880 in the town limits 

and 3,291 within the school district. 

KEY DESIGN ELEMENTS

Sidepaths and sidewalks were 

constructed where previously 

there were no pedestrian facilities. 

The sidepath transitions from a 

concrete path in central Ennis to an 

asphalt path further west, toward a 

subdivision.

ROLE IN THE NETWORK

The facilities connect neighborhoods 

to school and businesses 

throughout the community. In this 

small town, residential streets that 

connect neighborhoods to schools 

can be shared by people walking, 

biking, and driving. 

FUNDING

Funded by grants from three Federal 

funding programs: Safe Routes to 

School (SRTS), Recreational Trails 

Program (RTP), and allocated 

through Madison County from 

the Community Transportation 

Enhancement Program (CTEP). Local 

fundraising provided matching funds 

for the grants.

For more information, refer to the 

City of Ennis:

http://www.ennismontana.org/

CASE STUDY | SIDEPATH
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

4-18

Sidepath

FOOTNOTES

i The AASHTO Bike Guide states that “children often prefer 

and/or are encouraged to ride on sidepaths because they 

provide an element of separation from motor vehicles” (2012, 

p.1-4). Some researchers have found that young riders on 

sidepaths or sidewalks have a lower crash rate than that 

of older riders. The researchers speculate that this may be 

related to lower speeds, group travel or heightened awareness 

by motor vehicle operators. Wachtel, Alan., Lewiston, Diana, 

1994).

ii The AASHTO Bike Guide notes that roadways with highvolume and high-speed motor vehicle traffic “might discourage 

many bicyclists from riding on the roadway...” (2012, p. 

5-10). This idea is supported by the “Four Types of Types of 

Transportation Cyclists” concept, which estimates 60 percent 

of the population is interested in riding but concerned about 

the safety risk of high-speed and high-volume roadways 

(FHWA Separated Bike Lane Guide, 2015).

iii A visual preference survey in rural Maine found that narrow 

roads were positively contributing to perceptions of rural 

character and that it was “somewhat” important to conserve 

this landscape characteristic. (Walker, A., Ryan, R. 2008.) 

iv The AASHTO Green Book does not classify trees that will grow 

to below 4 inches (100 mm) diameter as a fixed object, and 

trees of this width may be placed within the clear zone (2011, 

p. 7-6). Trees should be placed outside of the lateral offset of 

roadways. 

On roadways with a curb and gutter, a minimum lateral 

offset of 18 inches (0.5 m) should be provided. On facilities 

without a curb and with a shoulder width less than 1.2 m 

[4 ft], a minimum lateral offset of 1.2 m [4 ft] from the edge 

of the traveled way should be provided. (AASHTO Green 

Book). Trees should be placed carefully as to not cause visual 

obstructions for turning motorists.

v Researchers have found that raised crossings of sidepaths 

reduces bicyclist crash risk by 51 percent (Schepers 2011).

vi An FHWA study of crosswalk marking styles find that highvisibility crosswalk markings are the preferred marking type at 

uncontrolled marked crossings (FHWA, 2013). Other research 

indicates that simple transverse lines markings are “essentially 

not visible” when viewed from a standard approaching vehicle 

(ITE, 2010).

vii This table is based off of statements from the AASHTO Bike 

Guide and research from the State of Florida, which indicate 

that separation distance should increase as speeds increase. 

Values are based on safety research related to roadway 

separation distances and, design standards from the Dutch 

CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic 2006. 

The AASHTO Bike Guide states that “... in locations where 

the sidepath parallels a high-speed roadway and crosses a 

minor road, it is advisable to move the crossing away from the 

intersection to a mid-block location. By moving the crossing 

away from the intersection, motorists are able to exit the 

high-speed roadway first, and then turn their attention to 

the pathway crossing.” (2012, p.5-11). The phrase “mid-block 

location” may imply a separation distance of at least one car 

length, 19.5 ft (6.0 m), from the parallel roadway.

WORKS CITED

American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials. Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design 

Specifications. 2014. 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 2011.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials. Roadside Design Guide. 2011. 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.

CROW. Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic. 2006.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). An Overview and 

Recommendations of High-Visibility Crosswalk Markings Styles. 2013. 

Flink, Charles, and Searns, Robert. Greenways: A Guide To Planning 

Design And Development. 1993. 

Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Sidepath Facility 

Selection and Design. 2005.

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Technical Committee 

109-01. Pavement Marking Patterns Used at Uncontrolled 

Pedestrian Crossings. 2010.

Schepers et al. Road factors and bicycle—motor vehicle crashes at 

unsignalized priority intersections. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 

Volume 43, Issue 2, 2011.

Walker, A., Ryan, R. Place attachment and landscape preservation in 

rural New England: A Maine case study. 2008.

Wachtel, Alan., Lewiston, Diana. Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor 

Vehicle Collisions at Intersections. 1994.

PHOTO CREDIT

Page 4-14. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Page 4-17. Western Transportation Institute

Research conducted for the Florida Department of 

Transportation indicates that, to maximize safety, separation 

of the sidepath from a roadway should increase as road 

speeds increase. The Florida data suggest that at lower 

adjacent road speeds, a smaller separation produces crash 

rates lower than those of the adjacent road, while that 

threshold is reached at greater separations for high-speed 

facilities (Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). 

Sidepath Facility Selection and Design. 2005).

Safety research conducted on crash history at separated bike 

lanes (which function similarly to sidepaths) identify 6.5–16.5 

ft (2.0–5.0 m) as the optimal roadway separation distance for 

safe interactions (Schepers 2011).

The Dutch design manual for bicycle facilities prefers a wide 

separation of 19.5–23 ft (6.0–7.0 m) for use outside of builtup areas and on roads operating above 35 mi/h (60 km/h) 

(CROW 2006, p. 231-232).
CHAPTER 4 | PHYSICALLY SEPARATED FACILITIES

4-19

Sidewalks provide dedicated space intended for use by 

pedestrians that is safe, comfortable, and accessible 

to all. Sidewalks are physically separated from the 

roadway by a curb or unpaved buffer space.

Sidewalk
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

4-20

• Provides a dedicated place 

within the public right-of-way for 

pedestrians to safely travel and 

reduces pedestrian collisions in 

rural areas.

• Reduces “walking along roadway” 

crashes.

• May notably increase levels of 

walking in areas with high traffic 

speeds and/or volumes.(i)

BENEFITS

Sidewalk

Separated pedestrian accommodations 

may be necessary as roadway speeds 

and volumes increase.

Roadway Separation

A curb or unpaved 

separation separates the 

sidewalk from the roadway.

• Sidewalks may not support a rural 

visual character when configured 

with curb and gutter and no 

landscaped separation.

• Requires a moderate-width 

roadside environment to provide 

for separation and sidewalk area 

outside of the adjacent roadway.

CONSIDERATIONS

MOTOR VEHICLE VOLUME 

(ADT)

MOTOR VEHICLE 

OPERATING SPEED (MI/H)

Appropriate inside of built-up areas. 

May serve short distance travel 

between built-up areas, e.g., along or 

near highways in rural areas near 

pedestrian-generating development, 

such as neighborhoods, schools, 

and businesses.

Land Use

Sidewalks are recommended on all 

but the most low-speed and lowvolume roadways.

Speed and Volume

Sidewalks are appropriate on all types 

of roadways where pedestrian activity 

is likely.

Network

2k

4k

6k

8k

10k

12k

10 20 30 40 50

SIDEWALK

HIGHWAY

LOCAL

COLLECTOR

APPLICATION
CHAPTER 4 | PHYSICALLY SEPARATED FACILITIES

4-21

GEOMETRIC DESIGN

Volume And 

User Mix

Frontage 

Zone 

Pedestrian 

Through Zone Furnishing Zone Total Width

Constrained 

Minimum

1 ft (0.3 m) 5 ft (1.2 m) 2 ft (0.6 m) 8 ft (2.4 m)

Recommended 

Minimum

2 ft (0.6 m) 6 ft (1.5 m) 4 ft (1.2 m) 12 ft (3.6 m)

Table 4-3. Minimum recommended dimensions for sidewalks

Sidewalk

Sidewalks are desirable to support 

pedestrian safety and comfort in 

areas with a mix of land uses and 

also in areas of the community where 

the roadway network connections 

have generally high traffic volumes or 

speeds.

Figure 4-14. Sidewalks should be physically separated from the roadway by an unpaved buffer 

separation, barrier or curb edge.

Figure 4-15. Sidewalks on roads with curbs may feature an unpaved or paved furnishing zone separation (left), or may be constructed with curb a 

gutter, immediately adjacent to the roadway (right). Offering separation from the roadway is preferred in most areas for user comfort and design 

flexibility at intersections.

Sidewalks serve multiple important 

functions and should be designed with 

three distinct zones to accommodate 

these uses. Table 4-3 provides 

recommended and constrained minimum 

dimensions for a sidewalk elements.

FRONTAGE ZONE

The frontage zone is a shy zone adjacent 

to the property line and provides space 

for people to enter and exit buildings.

• Next to buildings with active ground

floor uses, the frontage zone may be

widened to 4–6 ft to provide room

for door swing, café seating, product

display, and window shopping.

• On most sidewalks, a frontage zone

of 1–2 ft (0.3–0.6 m) allows for shy

distance to fences and building walls.

No frontage zone is necessary

adjacent to parks or open space.

PEDESTRIAN THROUGH ZONE

The pedestrian through zone is the 

clear width needed for pedestrian 

travel activity and should be wide 

enough for two people to walk side-byside.

• The pedestrian through zone should

be at least 5 ft (1.5 m) wide. This

permits side-by-side walking and

meets accessibility guidelines for

turning and maneuvering.(ii)

FURNISHING ZONE

The furnishing zone is closest to the 

street and provides space for mailboxes, 

signs, street lighting, and other utilities. 

This area serves as snow storage areas in 

winter climates and protects pedestrians 

from splash during rain events.

• A furnishing zone of 4–6 ft (1.2–1.8 m) is

preferred for comfort and aesthetics.

This width allows for trees, benches,

and other large furnishing items.(iii)

Pedestrian Through 

Zone

Frontage

Zone

Furnishing

Zone

5 ft (1.5 m) min.
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

4-22

INTERSECTIONS MARKINGS IMPLEMENTATION

Sidewalk

Legal crosswalks often exist at all 

intersections, whether marked or not. A 

crosswalk at an intersection is defined 

as the extension of the sidewalk across 

the intersection.

UNMARKED CROSSWALKS

Lane markings, stop lines, yield lines, 

or other traffic control markings 

should be placed outside of the 

unmarked crosswalk area. The only 

way a crosswalk can exist at a midblock 

location is if it is marked.

MARKED CROSSWALKS

Marked crosswalks are at intersections 

or midblock crossings based on 

engineering judgement. They are not 

to be used indiscriminately. For more 

information on evaluating locations 

for crosswalk markings, refer to FHWA 

Safety Effects of Marked Crosswalks 

at Uncontrolled Locations 2005.

• The minimum width for a marked

crosswalk is 6 ft (1.8 m).

• For improved visibility, the preferred

crosswalk marking pattern at

uncontrolled and midblock locations

is the high-visibility “continental”

crosswalk marking. If placed to avoid

the wheel track, these markings

may last significantly longer than

transverse line crosswalks.

• Use of transverse line crosswalk

markings should be limited to

signalized intersections, or crossings

of side streets controlled by stop

signs.(iv)

• Minor crossings of local streets may

be unmarked.

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

A furnishing zone is often configured as 

an open ditch for stormwater catchment 

and infiltration. Ditches can be 

retrofitted into bioswales or raingardens 

for filtration and water purification.

CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

While sidewalks are commonly 

constructed with concrete, less 

expensive walkways constructed 

of asphalt, crushed stone, or other 

stabilized surfaces may be appropriate. 

Ensure accessibility and properly 

maintain all surfaces regularly.

ACCESSIBILITY

A sidewalk is a separated facility 

intended for use by pedestrians and 

must meet accessibility guidelines 

for walkways and curb transitions. 

Sidewalks are required to be accessible 

by all users.

No roadway markings are required on 

sidewalk installation. At intersections, 

stop lines, yield lines, and crosswalks 

may be used to clarify pedestrian 

crosswalk area.

No signs are required on sidewalk 

installation. Signs may be used to 

enhance the awareness of crosswalk 

locations, to remind drivers of 

the obligation to yield to crossing 

pedestrians, such as the R10-15 sign 

shown in Figure 4-16.

Figure 4-16.

R10-15 sign for 

use at potential 

right turn conflict 

locations.

Denmark, SC–Population 3,400

SIGNS
CHAPTER 4 | PHYSICALLY SEPARATED FACILITIES

4-23

The Miles City Active Living Taskforce is an involved group working to 

encourage residents of Miles City to be more physically active. It was 

the catalyst for starting a Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program in Miles 

City. With support from the Montana Department of Transportation’s 

SRTS program, a bicycle and pedestrian safety program was started 

at Garfield Elementary school. The program is taught by the health 

enhancement staff and the school resource officer.

The Garfield School sidewalk project was identified through SRTS effort 

in Miles City and included the installation of approximately 1/2 mile of 

sidewalk. The northeast portion of Miles City is an area of mostly low 

income residential development. While most streets in this part of town 

lack accommodation for bicycles and pedestrians, many children in the 

area walk or bike to Garfield Elementary. Garfield is the largest of four 

elementary schools in Miles City with 67 percent of students eligible for 

free or reduced lunch.

The sidewalks were installed along Lincoln Street, North Lake Avenue, 

and Riverside Street. This route functions as a collector for a number of 

neighborhood streets and is the connection to the school. In addition 

to providing a walking route to the school, the sidewalk project provides 

access from these neighborhoods to the park along the south side of 

Lincoln Street.

COMMUNITY CONTEXT

Miles City is located at the confluence 

of the Tongue and Yellowstone rivers in 

southeastern Montana. It is the county 

seat for Custer County with a population 

of 8,400. Miles City is a medical and 

financial hub in eastern Montana with a 

strong agricultural economy.

KEY DESIGN ELEMENTS

Concrete sidewalk was installed behind 

a gravel shoulder that also serves as 

parking for the homes and park along 

Lincoln Street.

ROLE IN THE NETWORK

The sidewalk installed under this project 

connects the low-speed, low-volume 

neighborhood streets to a network of 

existing sidewalks in the area around 

Garfield School. It provides a critical 

network link between home, school, and 

the park.

FUNDING

The project was funded with Federal 

SRTS funds, as well as Community 

Transportation Enhancement Program 

(CTEP) funds and local matching funds 

from Miles City. While constructed at 

the same time, funding for the project 

was applied for in phases and received 

funding in two different SRTS funding 

cycles.

For more information, refer to the City 

of Miles City:

http://milescity-mt.org/ 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION DETAILS

Miles City, Montana

CASE STUDY | SIDEWALK
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

4-24

Sidewalk

Altamont, NY–Population 1,609

FOOTNOTES

i The AASHTO Pedestrian Guide states, “even in areas where 

there may not be an initial demand for pedestrian facilities, 

walking can almost always be expected to increase when 

adequate facilities are provided” (2004, p. 54).

“Wherever there is developed frontage along a road or street, 

there will be people walking for exercise, visiting neighbors, 

accessing bus stops, or walking for pure enjoyment. Sidewalks 

or pathways are needed to safely accommodate these 

activities” (2004, p. 25).

ii Absolute minimum width of an accessible aisle is 4 ft (1.2 m) 

(PROWAG 2011). This lacks space for comfortable movement 

and maneuvering, and these conditions should only exist 

around point obstructions, driveways, and curb ramps.

iii Plant only small caliper trees (4 inch diameter when mature) in 

4-foot tree wells.

iv An ITE study of pavement marking patterns at uncontrolled 

pedestrians crossings found that Transverse lines are 

“essentially not visible” when viewed from a standard 

approaching vehicle (ITE Pavement Marking Patterns 2010).

Because of the increased performance of high-visibility 

markings over transverse lines markings, The 2010 FHWA. 

Crosswalk Marking Field Visibility Study recommends 

making continental markings the default for all crosswalks at 

uncontrolled locations, with exceptions allowing transverse 

lines where engineering judgment determines that such 

markings would be adequate, such as a location with lowspeed residential streets.

WORKS CITED

American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials. Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian 

Facilities. 2004.

Federal Highway Administration. Crosswalk Marking Field Visibility 

Study. 2010. 

Federal Highway Administration. Safety Effects of Marked Versus 

Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations. 2005. 

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Technical Committee 

109-01. Pavement Marking Patterns Used at Uncontrolled Pedestrian 

Crossings. 2010.

United States Access Board. Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian 

Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way (PROWAG). 2011.

PHOTO CREDIT

Page 4-22. Alta Planning + Design

Page 4-23. Western Transportation Institute

Page 4-24. Alta Planning + Design
CHAPTER 4 | PHYSICALLY SEPARATED FACILITIES

4-25

Exclusively for Bicyclists

The bike lane provides space 

to ride, free of encroachment 

by motor vehicles.

A separated bike lane is a facility for exclusive use by 

bicyclists that is located within or directly adjacent to 

the roadway and is physically separated from motor 

vehicle traffic with a vertical element. 

Separated Bike Lane
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

4-26

Pedestrian Separation

The separated bike lane should be distinct 

from the sidewalks, with contrasting 

materials, a curb, or other detectable edge.

• Provides a more comfortable 

experience on high-speed and 

high-volume roadways than on-road 

shoulders.

• Separated bike lanes offer bicyclists 

a similar riding experience to 

sidepaths but with fewer operational 

and safety concerns over 

bidirectional sidepath facilities.

• Offers an increased level of service 

over sidepaths in areas with highvolumes of pedestrians, when 

paired with sidewalks.

• Can reduce the incidence of 

sidewalk riding and potential 

user conflicts.

BENEFITS

Sidewalk

A sidewalk provides space for 

pedestrians to walk, outside of 

the separated bike lane.

•Increases the degree of 

connectivity over a sidepath, 

when configured as a one-way 

directional facility on both sides 

of the street.

• Reflects a more urban visual 

atmosphere than a sidepath. Use 

of a wide landscaped buffer may 

lessen visual impact concerns.

• Requires a wide roadside 

environment to provide for 

separation, sidewalks, and bike 

lane areas.

CONSIDERATIONS

MOTOR VEHICLE VOLUME 

(ADT)

MOTOR VEHICLE 

OPERATING SPEED (MI/H)

For use inside built-up areas 

where a moderate to high volume 

of bicyclists and pedestrians is 

expected. 

Land Use

For use on roads with high motor 

vehicle volumes, and moderate to 

high-speed motor vehicle traffic. 

Speed and Volume

Serves primary connections on 

major roads through and across 

communities.

Network

SEPARATED BIKE LANE

4k

2k

6k

8k

10k

12k

10 20 30 40 50

HIGHWAY

LOCAL

COLLECTOR

APPLICATION
CHAPTER 4 | PHYSICALLY SEPARATED FACILITIES

4-27

DESIGN GUIDANCE

GEOMETRIC DESIGN

Separated Bike Lane

Separated bike lanes can offer a similar 

experience as sidepaths for bicyclists 

and pedestrians but with increased 

functionality and safety where increased 

numbers of pedestrians and potential 

conflicts with motor vehicles are 

present. The guidance in this section 

focuses on one-way separated bike 

lanes. For two-way separated bike lanes, 

refer to the FHWA Separated Bike Lane 

Planning and Design Guide 2015.

Separated bike lanes are made up of 

three interrelated zones, illustrated in 

Figure 4-17.

SEPARATED BIKE LANE

The separated bike lane zone offers a 

clear operating area for bicyclist travel. 

Because of the physical separation 

between the bike lane and the adjacent 

travel lanes, the design may be more 

sensitive to debris accumulation, 

maintenance access, and operating 

space impacts than conventional onstreet bike lanes.

• Preferred minimum width of a oneway separated bike lane is 7 ft (2.1 

m). This width allows for side-by-side 

riding or passing. 

• Absolute minimum bike lane width 

is 5 ft (1.5 m). At this width, bicyclists 

will not be able to pass slower users 

until there is a break in the facility 

and an opportunity to overtake.

• A clear through area of 10 ft (3.0 m) is 

beneficial for allowing access by snow 

plows and street sweepers.

Figure 4-17. Separated bike lanes are exclusive facilities for bicyclists that are distinct from the 

sidewalk and physically separated from motor vehicle traffic with a vertical element.

Pedestrian 

Separation

Separated 

Bike Lane

Roadway 

Separation

5–7 ft (1.5–2.1 m)

Jackson Hole, WY–Population 9,500
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

4-28

MARKING SIGNING

Separated Bike Lane

Figure 4-18. Separated bike lanes may be separated by an unpaved roadway separation, 

and a vertical element. When configured as directional facilities, separated bike lanes 

should be provided on both sides of the roadway.

Figure 4-19. Separated bike lanes may be configured on an existing roadway surface 

by using a physical barrier such as a curb or median to separate the bikeway from the 

roadway.

Figure 4-20. Separation from the sidewalk is valuable for reducing unwanted pedestrian 

encroachment into the bike lane. The use of physical separation with vertical elements, 

unpaved separation, or detectable edges may be more effective than visual delineation. 

Separated bike lanes use markings 

to clarify intended users and travel 

direction.

• Standard Bike Lane symbol markings

clarify that the lanes are for the

exclusive use of bicyclists. Figure 4-21. MUTCD signing options for 

specifying user types and path positioning 

can be used to indicate which users belong on 

the separate parts of a separated bike lane 

corridor (D11-1a, D11-2).

ROADWAY SEPARATION

The roadway separation is the vertical 

element between the bike lane and the 

adjacent roadway. Separation width will 

vary based on separation type.

• A separation width of 3 ft (0.9 m)

allows for a variety of separation

methods and provides space

adjacent to a parking lane to

accommodate door swing and

passenger unloading.

• A minimum width roadway

separation of 1 ft (0.3 m) may be

possible with a mountable or

vertical curb face.

PEDESTRIAN SEPARATION

Separation from pedestrians is 

particularly important when a 

separated bike lane is located 

immediately adjacent and at the same 

level as a sidewalk.

• Design and construct separated bike

lanes as clearly distinct from the

sidewalk. This is accomplished with

the use of a curb, separation buffer

space, different pavement or other

surface treatments, or detectable

tactile guidance strips.

An optional Bike Lane (R3-17) sign may 

be used to supplement the bike lane 

pavement markings. Standards and 

guidance can be found in the MUTCD 

2009.

Guide signs may be used to indicate 

which users belong on the separate 

parts of a separated bike lane corridor, 

as illustrated in Figure 4-21.
CHAPTER 4 | PHYSICALLY SEPARATED FACILITIES

4-29

Separated Bike Lane

Separated bike lanes may operate 

similar to sidepaths at intersections, 

but the one-way directional alignment 

of the facility allows for additional 

design treatments and mitigates some 

of the operational and safety concerns 

associated with sidepath facilities.

Pedestrians should not travel within 

the separated bike lane. Accommodate 

pedestrians on a separate pedestrian 

facility such as a sidewalk.

Table 4-4 summarizes four approaches 

to treatments at intersections with 

separated bike lanes. For details on 

intersection treatments, refer to the

FHWA Separated Bike Lane Guide 2015.

Under all conditions parking, if present, 

should be prohibited within 20 ft (6.0 m) 

of the intersection to improve visibility. 

Treatment Advantages Disadvantages Design Details

Bend-In

Position bicyclists closer to 

turning vehicles to increase 

visibility prior to the turn.

Motorists on a side street can see 

bicycles and vehicles in a similar field of 

vision. 

Requires less space than bending out.

Bicyclists may perceive less 

separation due to proximity 

of through vehicles.

Align the bike lane 

immediately adjacent to 

the roadway, at least 20 

ft (6.0 m) in advance of 

the intersection.

Bend-Out 

Provide space for rightturning vehicles to yield to 

bicyclists.

Allows vehicle traffic turning across 

separated bike lane to queue out of the 

way of through traffic and before the 

separated bike lane. 

Allows a queuing location for bicyclists 

wanting to turn left. Raised crossing 

provides traffic calming for automobiles 

and can also slow bicyclists.

Requires more space than 

the bend-in approach.

Adequate sight distance 

may be difficult for vehicles 

approaching on the side 

street depending on 

vegetation, grading, and 

property boundaries. 

Position the bike lane 

6.5–16.5 ft (2.0–5.0 

m) from the adjacent

roadway (Schepers 

2011). 

Mixing Zone

Shared turn lane with 

motor vehicles and 

bicyclists.

Requires less space.

Organize conflicts; reduce right-hook 

risk by negotiating conflict upstream of 

the intersection. 

Greater traffic stress. Only appropriate in

areas with low speed 

differentials between 

bicyclists and motor 

vehicles.

Protected Signal Phase

Separate conflicting 

movements in time.

Elimination of turn conflict through 

exclusive bicycle signal phase.

Increased signal cycle length, 

possibly with increased delay.

May be appropriate at 

signalized intersections 

with high turn volumes.

Table 4-4. Intersection Treatments for Separated Bike Lanes (i)

Missoula, MT–Population 69,100

INTERSECTIONS
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

4-30

Separated Bike Lane

INTERSECTIONS

IMPLEMENTATION ACCESSIBILITY

With new roadway construction a raised separated bike lane 

can be less expensive to construct than adding an enhanced 

shoulder by building the separated bike lane to support 

reduced vehicle load requirements.

On streets with existing curb and gutter, it may be possible 

to implement a protected bike lane outside of the curb, 

between the curb and the sidewalk.

Separated bike lanes may be implemented during 

roadway resurfacing, rehabilitation, and reconstruction 

or new construction projects. For more information on 

implementation strategies, see the FHWA Resurfacing 

Guide 2016.

Separated bike lanes are not intended for use by 

pedestrians. On roadways with separated bike lanes, the 

appropriate pedestrian facility is a sidewalk. 

The design of separated bike lanes must consider 

driveway conflicts, accessible parking and parking access 

aisles, transit stop access and egress, and loading zone 

accommodation (FHWA Separated Bike Lane Guide 2015).

Figure 4-22. A variety of design treatments exist depending on the roadway configuration, available curb-to-curb width, traffic volumes and desire 

to provided a dedicated turn lane. All designs should strive to reduce speeds of turning vehicles, remind users of bicycle priority, and clarify user 

positioning up to and through the intersection.

Mixing Zone

Bend In

Protected Signal Phase

Bend Out
CHAPTER 4 | PHYSICALLY SEPARATED FACILITIES

4-31

The Great Allegheny Passage (GAP) is a long-distance trail network that 

connects Pittsburgh, PA with Washington, DC. The development of this 

network has taken grand vision and many years, with the first section 

of the trail being completed in 1986, and the final piece completed in 

2013. The 150-mile trail connects defunct corridors of the four different 

railways. The Youghiogheny River Trail, as the section of the GAP through 

Connellsville is known, was constructed in the mid-1990s. During that 

time, Connellsville decided to route the trail along four blocks of South 

3rd Street.

The roadway was widened without the need for additional right of way 

and the separated bike lane was created. The landscaped buffers are 

maintained by social groups and clubs in the community.

Because South 3rd Street is the connection of the GAP bike route 

through Connellsville, a critical aspect of the design is that the bike lane 

is bidirectional. Additionally, as this is the only section of the Passage 

that routes on city streets, the bike lane was separated to maintain 

the rider experience of being separated from motor vehicles. The 

landscaped buffer maintains this separation and encourages slowspeeds. Where the bike lane crosses West Crawford Avenue (State Route 

711), a traffic signal was installed to improve safety at the intersection.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION DETAILS

Connellsville, Pennsylvania

COMMUNITY CONTEXT

Connellsville is a community of 

approximately 7,000, straddling 

the Youghiogheny River in western 

Pennsylvania’s Fayette County. 

Connellsville is located in the heart 

of coal country and was once a top 

producer of coke, the fuel for iron 

smelting furnaces. At one time, five 

different railways served Connellsville. 

KEY DESIGN ELEMENTS

Vertically separated bike lane with 

curbs and planters providing physical 

separation. 

ROLE IN THE NETWORK

The separated bike lane is the 

connection of the GAP through 

Connellsville. Connellsville’s Bicycle 

Master Plan builds off of this key 

element in establishing a broader 

network that will connect people on 

bikes from the trail with businesses 

across the city and Connellsville 

residents with the GAP.

FUNDING

The South 3rd Street improvements 

were made through a local project 

with Federal funding for the signal 

improvement at West Crawford.

For more information, refer to 

the Connellsville Redevelopment 

Authority:

www.connellsvilleredevelopment.org

CASE STUDY | SEPARATED BIKE LANE
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

4-32

Separated Bike Lane

FOOTNOTES

i Table contents adapted from Table 3 and Table 4 from the 

FHWA Separated Bike Lane Guide 2015.

WORKS CITED:

Federal Highway Administration. Incorporating On-Road Bicycle 

Networks into Resurfacing Projects. 2016. 

Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices (MUTCD). Department of Transportation. 2009.

Federal Highway Administration. Separated Bike Lane Planning 

and Design Guide. 2015.

Schepers, J.P., et al. Road factors and bicycle—motor vehicle 

crashes at unsignalized priority intersections. Accident Analysis and 

Prevention. Volume 43, Issue 2, 2011. 

PHOTO CREDIT

Page 4-27. Wyoming Pathways

Page 4-29. Federal Highway Administration

Page 4-31. Saara Snow, Adventure Cycling Association

Page 4-32. Alta Planning + Design

Russellville, AR–Population 28,581
CHAPTER 5 | KEY NETWORK OPPORTUNITIES

5-1
5-2SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

Key Network 

Opportunities

5-3 Speed Management

5-7 Pedestrian Lane

5-9 School Connections

5-15 Multimodal Main Streets

5-21 Bridges

5-27 Access to Public Lands
CHAPTER 5 | KEY NETWORK OPPORTUNITIES

CRITICAL LINKS: SPEED MANAGEMENT

Speed Management

The ITE publication Traffic Calming: 

State of the Practice defines traffic 

calming as “the combination of mainly 

physical measures that reduce the 

negative effects of motor vehicle use, 

alter driver behavior and improve 

conditions for nonmotorized street 

users” (1999, p. 2).

The FHWA Office of Safety Traffic 

Calming Website note that traffic 

calming includes physical changes to 

the roadway, signage, or operation 

changes and can be thought of as 

a “silent policeman” enforcing speed 

limits where no law enforcement 

is present. 

For more information on traffic calming, 

refer to the FHWA Speed Management 

Safety Website.

0

10

20 40

50

60

30

SURVIVABILITY SURVIVABILITY

10% 50% 70% 90% 30%

25 MPH

SURVIVABILITY

A pedestrian hit by a 

 vehicle traveling at 

0

10

20 40

50

60

30

10% 50% 70% 90% 30%

35 MPH

A pedestrian hit by a 

vehicle traveling at 

0

10

20 40

50

60

30

10% 50% 70% 90% 30%

45 MPH

A pedestrian hit by a 

vehicle traveling at 

Tefft, B. C. Impact speed and a pedestrian's risk of severe injury or death. Accident Analysis & Prevention 50 (2013) 871-878.

CHANCE OF SURVIVAL

HAS AN 89%

CHANCE OF SURVIVAL

HAS A 68%

CHANCE OF SURVIVAL

HAS A 35%

TRAFFIC-CALMING MEASURES

There are three general types of speed 

reduction measures:

• Physical measures, such as vertical

deflections, horizontal shifts, and

roadway narrowings, intended to

reduce speed and enhance the street

environment for nonmotorists.

• Nonphysical measures using signs

and markings are intended to

raise awareness and reduce speed

through visual indications.

• Diversion treatments reduce

cut-through traffic by obstructing

or otherwise preventing traffic

movements in one or more

directions.

Due to small community populations 

and limited roadway connectivity, 

traffic-calming efforts in small town 

and rural areas tend to emphasize 

speed reduction measures rather than 

volume reduction.

Figure 5-1. Impact speed and a pedestrian’s risk of severe injury or death (Tefft 2011).

BENEFITS OF REDUCING SPEED 

Speeding is a major contributing factor 

in crashes of all types, and increases 

severity in the event of a crash. Faster 

speeds also increase the likelihood of 

a pedestrian being hit as reaction time 

and the higher speed of the vehicle 

increase stopping distance. At higher 

speeds, motorists are less likely to see 

and react to a pedestrian and are even 

less likely to be able to stop in time to 

avoid hitting one.

APPLICATION

Speed management can play an 

important part of creating multimodal 

networks in rural areas. Speed 

reduction measures are common as 

part of Bicycle Boulevards to create 

and enforce desired operating speeds. 

Speed management can also enhance 

pedestrian safety in Main Street areas. 

Refer to the Transitions to Main 

Streets section in FHWA Achieving 

Multimodal Networks 2016 for more 

information on applying traffic calming 

in advance of built-up areas.

5-3
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

APPLYING SPEED REDUCTION MEASURES

Speed Management

Figure 5-2. Managing travel behavior through speed management techniques

max. 35 mi/h 

(50 km/h)

max. 20 mi/h 

(30 km/h)

MEASUREMEASUREMEASUREMEASURE

Road Section Road Section Road Section

Measures should generally be applied 

frequently and in concert to create 

continuous slow conditions along the 

road. Figure 5-2 illustrates desired 

speed behavior in managed roadway 

environments.

Infrequent use of speed reduction 

measures will fail to effectively manage 

speed along a roadway corridor. Based 

on recorded observations displayed 

in Figure 5-3, slow points should be 

no more than 300 to 400 ft apart to 

maintain midpoint speeds of 25 mi/h. 

Details on the effectiveness and 

application of various speed reduction 

measures can be found in FHWA 

reference A Desktop Reference of 

Potential Effectiveness in Reducing 

Speed 2014. Detailed design drawings 

for physical traffic-calming measures 

can be found in U.S. Traffic Calming 

Manual 2009.

More information on speed 

management can also be found in 

BIKESAFE 2014 and PEDSAFE 2013.

Figure 5-3. Effect of slow point spacing on motor vehicle speed – this figure 

illustrates measured 85th percentile speeds and spacing of speed reduction 

measures, as observed in the UK, Australia and Denmark. Adapted from R. Ewing, 

Best Development Practices, American Planning Association (in cooperation with 

the Urban Land Institute), Chicago, 1996, p.64.

30 35 

9000

12000

15000

18000

VOLUME (ADT)

SPEED (MPH)

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 

10

20

30

40

85TH PERCENTILE SPEED AT MIDPOINT (MPH)

SPACING OF SLOW POINTS (FEET)

5-4
CHAPTER 5 | KEY NETWORK OPPORTUNITIES

Speed Management

Figure 5-4. The following images 

illustrate physical speed reduction 

measures.

Median Island

Median island are raised islands located 

along the centerline of a street that 

narrow the travel lanes and require 

deflection of an otherwise straight 

travel path.

Median islands are an FHWA Proven 

Safety Countermeasure.

Speed Humps and Speed Tables 

Speed humps and tables apply vertical 

deflection in the roadway that is 

designed to limit the speed of traffic. 

The main difference between humps 

and tables are length and profile. For 

more information on speed humps 

refer to the MUTCD 2009.

Mini Roundabout

Mini roundabouts are roundabouts 

with a small footprint and fully 

traversable central island. For more 

information on mini roundabouts refer 

to the MUTCD 2009, and NCHRP 672.

Lateral Shift 

Lateral shifts are realignments of an 

otherwise straight travel path. When 

multiple lateral shifts are applied to form 

an S-shaped curve it is called a chicane. 

For traffic calming, the taper lengths may 

be as much as half of what is suggested 

in traditional highway engineering. 

Pinch Point 

Pinch points, also called chokers, are 

curb extensions or edge islands at 

midblock locations which narrows the 

road for a short distance, forcing all 

motorists to merge into a single lane.

This page presents concepts 

for speed management in rural 

settings. See reference materials 

for contextual guidance in 

selecting the appropriate 

measures for implementation. 

Traffic calming should use a 

context sensitive approach 

to roadway modifications. 

On roadways with no curb 

and gutter, speed reduction 

measures constructed with traffic 

islands to deflect and channelize 

traffic can be constructed with 

minimal impacts to drainage 

and reduce construction and 

maintenance costs. 

5-5
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

Speed Management

Figure 5-5. The following images 

illustrate nonphysical speed 

reduction measures.

Generally appropriate on higher 

speed roadways and high-to-lowspeed transition areas, nonphysical 

speed reduction measures use signs 

and markings to warn, regulate, and 

influence driver behavior.

SLOW or Speed Limit 

Pavement Legends 

Use SLOW or speed limit pavement 

markings as a supplement to speedlimit signs and reinforce the lawful 

speed limit.

Speed Reduction Markings

Speed reduction markings are a 

series of white rectangular markings 

typically 1 foot wide placed just inside 

both edges of the lane and spaced 

progressively closer to create the 

illusion of traveling faster as well as the 

impression of narrower lane.

Speed Feedback Sign

Police departments and transportation 

agencies use speed feedback signs as 

educational tools that can enhance 

enforcement efforts directed at speed 

compliance. Speed feedback signs 

educate drivers as to their operating 

speed, and remind them of the posted 

speed limit on the roadway.

5-6
CHAPTER 5 | KEY NETWORK OPPORTUNITIES

MARKINGS

GEOMETRIC DESIGN

Pedestrian Lane

• The grade of pedestrian access 

routes shall not exceed the general 

grade established for the adjacent 

street or highway.

• The cross slope of pedestrian access 

routes shall be 2 percent maximum.

• The surface of pedestrian access 

routes shall be firm, stable, and 

slip resistant.

Lane Markings

Separate a pedestrian lane from the 

adjacent travel lanes with some form 

of longitudinal marking.(ii)

• Use a double white line for extra 

emphasis and to discourage motor 

vehicle encroachment.

•If additional comfort is desired, mark a 

buffer to increase separation between 

pedestrians and motor vehicles.

A pedestrian lane is an interim or 

temporary pedestrian facility that 

may be appropriate on roads with low 

to moderate speeds and volumes. A 

pedestrian lane is a designated space 

on the roadway for exclusive use of 

pedestrians. The lane may be on one or 

both sides of the roadway and can fill 

gaps between important destinations 

in a community.

A pedestrian lane may be considered 

to operate similarly to a sidewalk. 

Consult State and local vehicle code 

for implications in a situation where 

pedestrians are walking along a roadway 

with no sidewalk or shoulder available.

Figure 5-6. Pedestrian lanes provide an exclusive space for pedestrians to walk outside of 

the travel area.

Pedestrian Lane Buffer (Optional)

5–8 ft (1.5–2.4 m) 0–4 ft (0–1.2 m)

Figure 5-7. PED ONLY legend marking and/

or Pedestrian symbol marking to identify the 

pedestrian lane to all users.

Double 

White 

Line

PED 

ONLY 

Pavement 

legend

and 

pedestrian 

stencil

Flexible 

delineator

(Optional)

40 inches A

Pedestrian lanes should be designed 

to support and promote side-by-side 

walking within the lane. Because of the 

lack of physical separation, additional 

width beyond this should be included 

for added comfort.

• 8 ft (2.4 m) width is preferred 

• 5 ft (1.5 m) width is the minimum 

to allow for side-by-side walking 

and maneuverability by users of 

mobility devices.

Pedestrian lanes are intended for 

use by pedestrians and must meet 

accessibility guidelines for a pedestrian 

access route. This includes:

5-7

Pedestrian lanes provide interim or temporary pedestrian accommodation 

on roadways lacking sidewalks. They are not intended to be an alternative 

to sidewalks and often will fill short gaps between other higher quality 

facilities. As part of the planning process, agencies should explore issues 

and the potential challenges a pedestrian lane may face, including: 

• Detectability by people with vision disabilities

• Undesired use by bicyclists

• Accessible cross-slope requirements

• Maintenance strategies, such as sweeping and snow removal
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

IMPLEMENTATION ACCESSIBILITY

INTERSECTIONS

Sufficient space to provide a pedestrian lane may already 

exist or may be created through configuration changes, 

including removing or consolidating on-street parking, or 

narrowing of travel lanes. Implementing pedestrian lanes may 

share some strategies with the implementation of bike lanes. 

For more information on potential implementation strategies, 

refer to the FHWA Resurfacing Guide 2016.

Pedestrian Lane

Configure pedestrian lanes with 

treatments to provide for a safe, clear, 

and accessible passage at street 

crossings.

B Define the corner at intersections 

with a double solid white 

line to reduce motor vehicle 

encroachment into the pedestrian 

areas. Use flexible delineators 

where a more robust treatment 

is desired.

A pedestrian lane is an on-roadway facility intended for use 

by pedestrians and must meet accessibility guidelines for 

walkways. Any deficiencies in meeting ADA guidelines during 

implementation as a restriping project should be identified 

in the ADA transition plan and be corrected in the next 

resurfacing.

Pedestrian lanes are a interim facility, and a full sidewalk 

construction should be planned for future implementation.

Signs

Figure 5-8. A W11-2 warning sign may be 

paired with a legend plaque to inform road 

users that shared use by pedestrians and/or 

bicyclists might occur. 

Figure 5-9. Where clarity of street crossings for persons with vision impairments are a concern, 

detectable warning strips may be used in advance of the intersection area. This transition 

can indicate a crosswalk, or a transition out of the pedestrian lane into a shared roadway 

environment.

• Place stop lines or yield lines outside

of the crosswalk area.

• Crosswalks may be marked to clearly

delineate the crossing paths of

pedestrians.

C Provide detectable warning 

surfaces advance crosswalks, 

following accessibility guidelines 

for blended transitions.

B

C

Pedestrian Warning Sign (W11-2) paired 

with an “ON ROADWAY” legend plaque 

may be used to indicate to drivers to 

expect pedestrians within the paved 

road surface.

R8-1 W11-2

Legends and Symbols

Mark pedestrian lanes with the 

appropriate pavement word markings.(iii)

A Use a PED ONLY legend marking 

to designate exclusive pedestrian 

use of the lane.

• For additional conspicuity, use a

pedestrian symbol to communicate

exclusive pedestrian use.

• Markings should be visible to

“approaching traffic for all available

departures” (MUTCD 2009, p. 415).

5-8
CHAPTER 5 | KEY NETWORK OPPORTUNITIES

Schools are key destinations in 

communities of all sizes. This is 

particularly true in small and rural 

places, where they often play a 

prominent role in the community as 

centers of activity for people of all 

ages and abilities. Since children will 

be present each day, it is essential to 

provide separation from motorized 

traffic, controlled crossings, and 

wayfinding to and throughout the 

school campus. 

Design for children

When developing facilities for children, 

increased separation from motorized 

traffic is preferred. Clearly defined 

facilities for walking and bicycling 

should be provided, with vertical and 

horizontal separation from motor 

vehicle traffic (AASHTO Pedestrian 

Guide p. 35). Children have a wide 

range of skills and abilities when 

navigating traffic. Walking and bicycling 

skills can be learned, and development 

characteristics can change as children 

mature. The planning and design 

of routes that serve schools should 

consider that children tend to react 

slowly, have a narrow field of vision, 

have difficulties judging the speed and 

distance of approaching vehicles, have 

difficulty concentrating on more than 

one thing at a time, and have difficulty 

determining direction of auditory input 

(AASHTO Bike Guide 2012).

Opportunity for activity

In 1969, almost half of all elementary 

and middle school students walked 

or bicycled to school. Today only 13 

percent walk or bike.(iii) In rural areas, 12 

percent of students on the West Coast 

and 1.1 percent in the South Atlantic 

region bike and walk to school.(iv) Lack 

of physical activity contributes to high 

rates of unhealthy weight for American 

children nationwide, but rates are even 

higher in rural communities where 40 

to 50 percent of children are overweight 

or obese.(v) In fact, rural children are 25 

percent more likely to be overweight 

than urban children.(vi, vii)

School location

School siting plays a large role in 

whether or not students can walk 

and bike to school. Schools placed 

further away from residential areas, 

or sited outside of town along highspeed roadways, create difficult and 

dangerous routes for students using 

active transportation. School siting 

should focus on locating schools 

near the households they will serve 

and minimizing required crossings of 

highways and multilane roads. Properly 

siting new schools creates more 

opportunities for cost effective walking 

and biking facilities as compared 

to road expansion and increased 

congestion.

Multimodal network 

When planning walking and biking 

infrastructure to for access to school, 

consider both the school site and bus 

stop locations. In rural communities, 

many children will live in locations 

that are too far to walk or bicycle. 

Developing walking and bicycles 

facilities that serve school bus stops 

or the provision of satellite drop-off 

locations where children who are 

bussed can still safely walk a short 

distance to school.

Centers of community

For many rural communities, schools 

serve as centers of community life. Safe 

walking and biking access to schools not 

only benefits the children and families 

that are attending the schools but also 

all community members that attend 

events and use the school grounds and 

amenities. It is important to plan on a 

network scale, balancing new segments 

of sidewalk, low-stress streets, bike 

lanes, and crosswalks with filling in gaps 

and repairing broken stretches.

School Connections

5-9
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

St Charles, Minnesota 

POPULATION 3,695 

St. Charles is located in southeastern 

Minnesota. In an effort to better 

connect destinations within the city, 

the Public Works department painted 

a network of on-street walk and bike 

lanes. This nonmotorized network 

connects the elementary school with 

the middle and high school and other 

civic destinations. Where the walk/

bike lanes cross an intersection, the 

lane widths are maintained and are 

complemented with a crosswalk-style 

marking.

Arlee, Montana 

POPULATION 602 

A pathway connecting the north side of 

Arlee to the schools was completed in 

2012. This pathway provides a critical 

connection that enables students and 

parents from the neighborhood north 

of the school to walk and bike to and 

from school. The pathway connection 

also provides an additional link from 

the neighborhood to the businesses 

in town. The project was funded 

through the Montana Department of 

Transportation’s Safe Routes to School 

Program.

School Connections

Mt Shasta, California

POPULATION 3,292

Completed in 2014, this street 

reconstruction project eliminated 

parking from the side of the street 

opposite the school, removed a 

midblock crossing, added bike lanes 

and improved sidewalks. Removal of 

the parking lane eliminated the practice 

of students crossing the street to/from 

their parent’s vehicle. The bike lanes 

and sidewalks provide a comfortable 

route to and from school as well as 

completing an important link in this 

town’s bicycle route network. This 

project was funded with money from 

the State Transportation Improvement 

Program.

“Rural arterials often provide the only direct connection between populated 

areas and locations to which the public wishes to travel. Schools, parks, and 

rural housing developments are usually located to be readily accessible by 

automobile. However, pedestrians and bicyclists may also wish to travel to the 

same destination points. Where demands for pedestrian and bicycle travel 

exist, the designer should consider the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists 

and provide facilities where appropriate” (AASHTO Green Book p. 10-13).

5-10
CHAPTER 5 | KEY NETWORK OPPORTUNITIES

The preferred facilities near schools 

should provide as much separation as 

possible between children and motor 

vehicles. Facilities such as sidepaths 

and paved shoulders should also be 

wider than typical facilities when highvolumes of children are expected to 

be present. Traffic-calming measures 

that reduce motor vehicle operating 

speeds, as well as the volume of 

motor vehicles near schools, may also 

be appropriate. 

School Connections

SEPARATION PREFERRED OVER 

MIXED TRAFFIC

Even in low-speed and low-volume 

conditions, parents and children 

may prefer walking in an exclusive 

pedestrian use space.

For more information, refer to the 

guidance in this chapter on interim 

pedestrian lanes.

Before

After

8 ft

Pedestrian 

Lane

Figure 5-6. The following images illustrate 

potential facility designs appropriate for 

school areas.

5-11
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

School Connections

SIDEWALKS PREFERRED OVER 

SHOULDERS

Paved shoulders do not offer protection 

for children walking along the roadway. 

It may be possible to construct a 

sidewalk within the same paved 

roadway area in order to create a safe 

place to walk.

For more information, refer to the 

guidance on sidewalks.

SIDEPATHS PREFERRED ON 

HEAVY TRAFFIC STREETS

On higher speed and volume streets, 

even wide shoulders may not offer 

adequate security for children to 

be comfortable walking to school. A 

separated path may be a good facility in 

these conditions.

For more information, refer to the 

guidance on sidepaths.

Before

Before

After

After

Sidewalk

Sidepath Roadway 

Separation

3 ft (0.9 m) 3 ft (0.9 m)

5 ft (1.5 m) min.

10 ft

5 ft (1.5 m) min.

5-12
CHAPTER 5 | KEY NETWORK OPPORTUNITIES

A traditional “main street” is designed 

with street-fronting land uses, slow 

travel speeds, and pedestrianoriented design features. Running 

through a built-up, commercial 

area, a main street may only be a 

few blocks long and is important 

for a community’s commercial, 

civic, and sometimes historical 

identity. These streets are often the 

most “urban” part of a small town 

or rural community and may feel 

similar to commercial areas in larger 

communities. Main streets are often 

a small portion of a larger, county 

road or State-owned highway and 

may need to balance competing 

needs and objectives. Many main 

streets were established prior to 

the wide spread adoption of motor 

vehicles. Some have limited width, 

while others are overly wide. In 

many cases these main streets have 

evolved and transformed over their 

history as transportation priorities 

and technologies have changed.

Flexible Design

Main streets can be constrained 

spaces, with more demand for roadway 

design features than there is typically 

space to accommodate. Decisions 

should be informed by local context 

and reflect the community vision.

Placemaking

Main streets can strengthen 

community identity by creating 

enhanced aesthetics, spaces for civic 

activities, and creating conditions to 

attract and retain business. Successful 

places foster improved community 

cohesion and participation in public life.

Incrementalism

Small projects can make a big 

difference. Opportunities such as 

roadway resurfacing or enhancements 

associated with individual development 

projects can be the first step in a 

gradual transformation.

Multimodal Design

Multimodal networks provide mobility 

and access for all users and modes 

of travel. Main streets become 

connections between modes, as 

motorists become pedestrians and 

pedestrians become transit users.

Environmental Sustainability

Street trees and other vegetation can 

support a pleasant environment and 

are a key component of stormwater 

management strategies. Trees and other 

vegetation intercept rainfall and can help 

regulate the flow of stormwater.

Compactness

No one mode or use should dominate 

the street. Providing compact, well 

delineated zones for each user of the 

main street creates a sense of belonging.

Multimodal Main Streets

5-13
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

Imbler, Oregon 

POPULATION 305

Located in rural Eastern Oregon, Imbler 

is bisected by State Highway 82. The 

highway, which serves as an important 

freight route for the area, also functions 

as the town’s main street. In 2007, the 

existing roadway, which included two 

travel lanes with wide shoulders, was 

redesigned to add pedestrian and 

bicycle facilities. Sidewalks and bike 

lanes were constructed on both sides 

of the street and pedestrian scale 

lighting, street trees, and planters were 

added. Crosswalks were marked at key 

intersections to connect residents with 

schools and other destinations.

Multimodal Main Streets

Los Molinos, California

POPULATION 2,037

Los Molinos has a busy State highway 

as its main street. The street features 

high levels of pedestrian and bicyclist 

use, as well as high-volumes of through 

vehicular traffic. Prior to reconstruction, 

vehicle speeds and crash rates were 

high. Reconstruction of the highway 

through the downtown corridor 

added buffered bike lanes, sidewalks, 

and crosswalk signal treatments. 

Improvements included stamped 

colored concrete buffers, in-pavement 

flashers at crosswalks, islands, lighting, 

street trees, and speed feedback signs.

Willow Creek, California

POPULATION 1,710

Prior to implementing roadway 

improvements, Highway 299 in Willow 

Creek was a four-lane road through 

downtown that also functioned as the 

town’s main street. Lacking pedestrian 

and bicycle facilities, people had to 

walk and bike along the street. By 

reconfiguring the roadway from four 

lanes to three lanes (one lane in each 

direction with a center turn lane), 

additional space was made available for 

sidewalks, bike lanes, and landscaping. 

5-14
CHAPTER 5 | KEY NETWORK OPPORTUNITIES

Galena, IL–Population 3,429

Hull, IA–Population 2,175

Multimodal Main Streets

The ITE Walkable Urban Thoroughfares 

Guide 2010 recommends the following 

design details for walkable and bikeable 

commercial main streets:

• Minimum sidewalk width: 

6 ft (1.8 m)

• Furnishing zone:

6 ft (1.8 m)

• Target travel speed:

25 mi/h (40 km/h)

• Number of through lanes:

2

• Lane Width: 

10–11 ft (3.0–3.3 m)

• Parallel On-Street Parking Width: 

7–8 ft (2.1–2.4 m)

• Bike facility: 

5–6 ft (1.5–1.8 m) min

5-15
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

TWO-LANE STREET SCENARIOS

EXISTING CONDITIONS TWO-LANE

A typical two-lane main street often has 

wider than necessary lane widths. Wide 

lanes encourage higher travel speeds 

and should be avoided on main streets 

where lower speeds are desired. By 

narrowing lanes with excess width, the 

additional space can be reallocated for 

other uses. 

MEDIAN ISLAND

Providing curb extensions and 

median islands can enhance crossing 

experience for pedestrians.

For more information, refer 

to the FHWA Proven Safety 

Countermeasures on medians and 

pedestrian crossing islands.

ANGLED PARKING CHICANE

Where through traffic volumes are 

low, a slow-speed street design 

may maximize comfort and use by 

pedestrians and bicyclists.

For more information on creating slowspeed conditions, refer to the guidance 

on Traffic Calming.

BIKE LANE

Narrowing wide travel lanes may provide 

room to establish on street bike lanes. 

Pay attention to on street parking by 

adding a parking side buffer or other 

mitigation to reduce door zone conflicts.

Refer to the FHWA Resurfacing Guide 

2016 for more information.

Multimodal Main Streets

Figure 5-7. The following concepts illustrate 

potential design options for wide 2-lane 

main streets.

5-16
CHAPTER 5 | KEY NETWORK OPPORTUNITIES

FOUR-LANE STREET SCENARIOS

Multimodal Main Streets

STREETSCAPE EXPANSION WITH 

BIKE LANES

Narrowing and consolidating excess 

space dedicated to motor vehicles can 

provide room to expand sidewalk areas. 

Road diets are an FHWA Proven Safety 

Countermeasure. For more information 

on roadway reconfigurations, refer 

to the FHWA Road Diet Guide 2014. 

Refer to the ITE Walkable Urban 

Thoroughfares Guide 2010 for more 

information on sidewalk configuration. 

EXISTING CONDITIONS 

FOUR-LANE

Rural highways are often widened 

through town centers, providing 

multiple travel lanes to reduce 

impediments to through traffic. 

These configurations may encourage 

inappropriately high-speed travel 

and erratic behavior in the vicinity of 

pedestrian and bicycle activity.

ROAD DIET

A four-lane to three-lane road diet can 

balance the needs of through travel 

and local community access, while 

increasing safety.

Road diets are an FHWA Proven Safety 

Countermeasure. For more information 

on road diets, refer to the FHWA 

Resurfacing Guide 2016 and the FHWA 

Road Diet Guide 2014.

Figure 5-8. The following concepts illustrate 

potential design options for main streets with 

multiple travel lanes in each direction.

5-17
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

FIVE-LANE STREET SCENARIOS

Multimodal Main Streets

ROAD DIET WITH BIKE LANES

Where high quality bicycling experience 

is desired, provide a buffered bike lane.

For more information, refer to the 

guidance on Separated Bike Lanes

and the FHWA Separated Bike Lane 

Planning and Design Guide 2015.

MEDIAN AND SEPARATED 

BIKE LANES

A continuous center median may take 

up less space than a center turn lane, 

providing additional room to establish 

separated bike lanes and landscaping.

For more information, refer to the 

FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning 

and Design Guide 2015.

EXISTING CONDITIONS: 

FIVE-LANE

Some small towns have five-lane main 

streets. This configuration may have 

arisen from a more intensive highway 

use that may no longer be relevant due 

to decline in attractors, or the addition of 

a bypass over the years. Five-lane main 

streets with excess capacity represent 

dramatic opportunities to create high 

quality experiences for all users. 

STREETSCAPE EXPANSION

WITH BIKE LANES

Removing over-capacity lanes creates 

opportunities for not only bike lanes, but 

streetscape expansion as well. 

Refer to the FHWA Road Diet Guide 

2014 for more information on roadway 

reconfiguration, and the ITE Walkable Urban 

Thoroughfares Guide 2010 for more 

information on sidewalk configuration.

Figure 5-9. The following concepts illustrate potential design options for under capacity 5-lane main streets.

5-18
CHAPTER 5 | KEY NETWORK OPPORTUNITIES

Separation

Bridges are constrained areas where 

pedestrians and bicyclists have 

less flexibility to operate. As such, 

separation becomes more important 

than along roadway segments.

Prioritize

A single major barrier such as a narrow 

bridge can render an otherwise 

attractive bikeway or pedestrian route 

undesirable.

Future Proof

People bicycling and walking should 

be assumed users of any new or 

replacement bridge structure. A bridge 

replacement or rehabilitation project 

may create an opportunity to provide 

a new pedestrian and/or bicycle facility 

that does not necessarily connect to 

existing facilities. Provide temporary 

connections from the roadway to the 

new bridge facilities until the roadway 

can be permanently upgraded. Providing 

facilities during construction is less 

expensive than retrofitting them later. 

Awareness

Signing, marking and active warnings 

can alert all users to a change in 

condition or of an active condition 

needing heightened attention.

Continuity

Facilities should maintain a consistent 

alignment across the bridge. Solutions 

that require users to transition from 

one side of the road to the other are 

unlikely to be embraced.

Flexibility

Retrofitting pedestrian and bicycle 

facilities on bridges presents special 

challenges because it may be 

impractical to widen an existing bridge. 

Evaluate options that can provide 

space for people walking and/or 

bicycling without roadway widening.

Bridges

Bridges are critical connections in 

any transportation network. Due to 

the high cost of bridge replacement 

or upgrades and the various existing 

and constrained bridge designs that 

exist, it is not always possible to have 

continuity in design approaches for 

multimodal facilities on bridges. It may 

take decades for older bridges to be 

replaced with a design that supports 

walking and bicycling. Rehabilitation 

existing bridges presents opportunities 

for reconfiguring bridge decks and 

structures to better accommodate 

all the modes that need to use the 

connection in the network. The overall 

strategy for accommodating people 

walking and bicycling on bridges may 

vary depending on whether the bridge 

is being reconfigured, retrofitted, or 

replaced.

REQUIREMENTS

“In any case where a highway bridge 

deck being replaced or rehabilitated 

with Federal financial participation 

is located on a highway on which 

bicycles are permitted to operate 

at each end of such bridge, and the 

Secretary determines that the safe 

accommodation of bicycles can be 

provided at reasonable cost as part 

of such replacement or rehabilitation, 

then such bridge shall be so replaced 

or rehabilitated as to provide such 

safe accommodations” (23 U.S.C. 

217(e)). Although this requirement only 

mentions bicycles, DOT encourages 

States and local governments to apply 

this same policy to pedestrian facilities 

as well.

5-19
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

Ferndale, California 

POPULATION 1,362

Fernbridge is a historic, two-way 

vehicle bridge with no shoulder 

space for bicyclists. The California 

Department of Transportation added a 

push button, which bicyclists activate 

prior to crossing the bridge. The push 

button activates a flashing beacon 

notifying motorists that a bicyclist is 

using the bridge and occupying the 

vehicle lane. The buttons and beacons 

are solar powered which reduced 

installation costs.

Boonville, Missouri 

POPULATION 8,370

The Boonslick Bridge, located on 

State Highway 40, features a sidepath 

separated from motor vehicle traffic by 

a concrete barrier. The bridge crosses 

the Missouri River, connecting Boonville 

on its southern bank with Franklin (pop 

97) and New Franklin (pop 1,100) on its 

northern bank. 

Bridges

Centerville, California. 

POPULATION 362 

Constructed at a cost of $369,000, 

the Clear Creek Bridge provides a 

cantilevered bridge connection between 

two trail networks for equestrians, 

hikers, and mountain bikers as well 

as providing a secure crossing for 

commuting bicyclists. This project was a 

joint effort by Western Shasta Resource 

Conservation District, the Bureau of 

Land Management, and Shasta County. 

The project was funded by the California 

Natural Resources Agency.

While pedestrian facilities on bridges are more difficult to design due to 

space limitations, “provisions should always be made to include some 

type of walking facility as part of vehicular bridges” (AASHTO, Guide 

for the Planning and Design of Pedestrian Facilities, 2004, p. 63).

Additional case studies and policy recommendations can be found in FHWA’s Pedestrian and 

Bicycle Information Center white paper: “Improving Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity 

during Rehabilitation of Existing Bridges” 2016.

5-20
CHAPTER 5 | KEY NETWORK OPPORTUNITIES

Bridges

BRIDGE RECONFIGURATION

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Candidate bridges have travel lanes 

greater than 11 ft (3.3 m), or some 

form of existing but substandard 

pedestrian facility or shoulder 

space. Many older bridges have 

narrow, 2 or 3 foot wide curbs 

where pedestrians may be walking. 

Rehabilitation generally fall into 

one of two categories, bridges 

that have some potential for space 

reconfiguration, and those that are 

so constrained that there is little to 

no potential to achieve separated 

pedestrian and/or bicycle space 

without widening the bridge.

Scotia, NY–Population 7,793

This sidewalk was installed over the existing bridge deck during a rehabilitation project.

Figure 5-10. The following concepts 

illustrate potential design options for 

retrofitting existing bridges for increased 

multimodal accommodations.

5-21
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

Bridges

WIDEN SHOULDERS

Remove narrow or substandard 

sidewalks in favor of widened shoulder 

space. This may add flexibility and 

functionality for users. Shoulder space 

must meet accessibility guidelines if 

intended for pedestrian use. 

WIDEN SIDEWALKS

Where additional width is available, 

extend or replace sidewalks into the 

shoulder, or wide travel lane space 

to create adequate width. Sidewalks 

should be 5 ft minimum and be as 

wide as possible. Ramps at the ends 

of the bridge facilitate pedestrian and 

bicycle access. 

ON DECK SIDEPATH

Where a sidepath or sidewalk exists 

that focuses all bicycle and pedestrian 

traffic on one side of the roadway 

it may be possible to reduce lane 

width and shift the travel lanes to 

create enough space for a shared 

use path on one side of the bridge 

deck. Provide a barrier if possible 

between the travel lanes and the 

sidepath. Bicyclists riding with traffic 

on the opposite side of the road from 

the sidepath may not be able to be 

accommodated with this scenario 

without creating a shared lane.

5-22
CHAPTER 5 | KEY NETWORK OPPORTUNITIES

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Some bridges may be so narrow (26 ft 

or less) as to make any reconfiguration 

option impossible or too narrow to be 

of value. Sufficient existing space is only 

provided for a single travel lane in each 

direction. No functional sidewalks or 

shoulders are present.

Bridges

CONSTRAINED BRIDGE

ADVISORY SHOULDERS

Establishing advisory shoulders on the 

bridge creates dedicated pedestrian 

and/or bicycle space within the same 

roadway width. Refer to the guidance 

on advisory shoulders for additional 

context.

ONE LANE BRIDGE

Along roadways with low motor vehicle 

volumes and adequate sight distance, 

configuring the structure as a onelane bridge can provide an exclusive 

separated space for pedestrians and 

bicyclists. Refer to the FHWA MUTCD 

section 2C.21.

Figure 5-11. The following concepts 

illustrate potential design options for 

retrofitting highly constrained bridges.

MARKINGS, SIGNS, AND 

BEACONS

Active warning beacons, R4-11 signs 

and SLMs may be used to alert bridge 

users to the likely presence of bicyclists 

on the roadway. For increased bicyclist 

comfort, consider reduced or advisory 

speed limits on the bridge.

ON BRIDGE

WHEN LIGHTS FLASH

W5-3 R1-2 R1-2aP

R1-2 R1-2aP

5-23
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

Bridges

CANTILEVERED SIDEPATH

Where other on-deck retrofit strategies 

are impractical, it may be possible to 

cantilever a path on one or both sides 

of the bridge structure. 

Refer to the AASHTO Bike Guide 2012

Section 4.12.3

Cottonwood, CA–Population 3,316

Farmington, UT–Population 21,599

This bridge, being too narrow to 

provide dedicated facilities, was given 

sharrows and “bikes may use full lane” 

signage in Farmington, UT.

This bridge was reduced to one lane for 

structural loading reasons; however, 

this one-lane bridge does offer space 

for pedestrians to cross the bridge 

where no space existed. 

5-24
CHAPTER 5 | KEY NETWORK OPPORTUNITIES

SEPARATED BIKE LANES AND 

SIDEWALKS

Bridges in built-up areas that 

experience significant numbers of 

bicyclists and pedestrians may benefit 

from separating user types through 

the use of a separated bike lanes and 

sidewalks. 

Bridges

BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION

WIDE SHOULDERS

Bridges in areas with little or no 

pedestrian activity should have wide 

shoulders maintained across the 

bridge, even if the roadway is currently 

lacking them. Wide shoulders should 

be designed with cross-slopes less 

than 2 percent if pedestrians are 

to be accommodated, and 8 ft (2.4 

m) is the desirable minimum for 

comfortable shoulder use by bicyclists 

and pedestrians. Consider marking the 

shoulder as a bike lane with buffers if 

sufficient width is available. 

SIDEWALKS AND SHOULDERS

New bridge decks in areas that 

experience pedestrian use should 

be given sidewalks with a desired 

minimum of 6 ft (1.8 m) in width. 

Shoulders serving bicyclists should 

follow AASHTO guidance and be 5 ft 

(1.5 m) in width minimum.

New bridges or bridge reconstruction 

projects offer an opportunity to integrate 

high-quality and comfortable facilities 

for people walking and bicycling. 

Figure 5-12. The following concepts illustrate potential design options to consider when 

reconstructing bridges.

5-25
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

SHARED USE PATHS

Bridges along roadways with sidepaths, 

or roadways with planned sidepaths 

should be designed to maintain 

continuity. This configuration may 

also be desirable to provide greater 

separation from vehicle traffic for 

people bicycling over the bridge even if 

there is no sidepath along the corridor. 

This may be advantageous in builtup areas where bicyclists will have a 

greater variety of skills and comfort 

tolerances. 

Bridges

Decorah, IA–Population 8,127

Unincorporated Tehama County, CA–Population 63,463

The Bowman Bridge is a new bridge 

that integrates wide shoulders with 

designs from the Nomkaki tribe.

5-26
CHAPTER 5 | KEY NETWORK OPPORTUNITIES

Access to Public Lands

Public lands make up a significant 

portion of the nation’s land area. 

Federal lands alone make up almost 30 

percent of the land in the United States. 

National parks, forests, wildlife refuges, 

and the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) lands, State and County parks, 

and other forms of public lands play 

important roles in the economies of 

many rural communities and small 

towns across America. Improved 

walking and bicycling access to public 

lands can also provide opportunities for 

physical activity in communities. There 

is increasing interest from public land 

managers and gateway communities in 

providing more options for people to 

access and experience public lands by 

foot and bike—creating more seamless 

multimodal transportation networks. 

WHAT MAKES PUBLIC 

LANDS UNIQUE? 

Public lands: 

• Are often scenic places where 

people may be more motivated 

to walk and bike. 

• May draw many visitors from 

other places, creating more 

support and opportunities for 

partnerships. 

• Offer opportunities for different 

funding sources, such as the 

Federal Lands Access Program. 

Federal Lands Transportation 

Program

The Federal Lands Transportation 

Program (FLTP) was established under 

the Moving Ahead for Progress in 

the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and 

continued under the Fixing America’s 

Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (23 

U.S.C. § 203), to improve transportation 

facilities for the following Federal Land 

Management Agency (FLMA) partners:

• National Park Service (NPS)

• Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

• USDA Forest Service (USFS)

• Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

• US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

• Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), and

•Independent Federal Agencies 

with natural resource and land 

management responsibilities (IFAs)

Federal Lands Access Program 

The Federal Lands Access Program 

(FLAP) was established in 23 U.S.C. 204 

to improve transportation facilities that 

provide access to, are adjacent to, or 

are located within Federal lands. The 

Access Program supplements State and 

local resources for public roads, transit 

systems, and other transportation 

facilities, with an emphasis on highuse recreation sites and economic 

generators.

FLAP funded projects have to contain title 

or maintenance responsibilities vested 

in a State, county, town, township, tribal, 

or local government. This requirement 

leverages partnerships and recognizes 

the mutual benefit of the projects. 

Funds are allocated among the States 

using a statutory formula based on road 

mileage, number of bridges, land area, 

and visitation. Projects are selected by a 

Programming Decision Committee (PDC) 

established in each State. The PDCs 

request project applications through a 

call for projects. The frequency of the 

calls is established by the PDCs.

Gateway National Recreation Area

5-27
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

Colorado Riverway Path near Moab

Access to Public Lands

North Moab Recreation 

Area Alternative 

Transportation System 

Moab, Utah 

POPULATION 5,000

This community has evolved from a 

mining town to a recreation-based 

economy attracting 2.5 million visitors 

annually. In 1999, a coalition of 

public and private agencies initiated 

the North Moab Recreation Area 

Alternative Transportation System 

project in response to congestion 

and safety concerns due to growing 

visitation. This project expands the 

walking and biking network, enabling 

transportation by nonmotorized 

modes. The entire project is just 

under $12 million and has resulted in 

about 12 miles of shared use paths, 

a bike and pedestrian bridge over 

the Colorado River, transit hubs, 

and 14 miles of wide shoulders. This 

infrastructure connects Moab to the 

Colorado River way, Arches National 

Park, Deadhorse Point State Park, 

Canyonlands National Park, and 

popular trailheads and campgrounds 

on BLM lands.

Colorado Riverway Path near Moab

Moab Canyon Wayfinding

MORE INFORMATION AT: 

Partnership Case Study: North 

Moab Recreation Area Alternative 

Transportation Project, 2010

http://www.fedlandsinstitute.

org/ResourceLibrarySearch/

Repository.aspx

North Moab Recreation Area 

Connections, 2013.

5-28
CHAPTER 5 | KEY NETWORK OPPORTUNITIES

Access to Public Lands

Leelanau County, Michigan

SLEEPING BEAR HERITAGE TRAIL

The Sleeping Bear Heritage Trail will 

provide a 27-mile nonmotorized 

multi-use route through the National 

Park Service Sleeping Bear Dunes 

National Lakeshore that will connect 

the Lakeshore’s primary visitor 

destinations with the small gateway 

communities of Glen Arbor and 

Empire. The trail will measure 10 ft 

wide and have 2-foot shoulders, and 

the surface will alternate between 

asphalt and smoothly compacted 

crushed limestone. The Sleeping 

Bear Heritage Trail was conceived by 

the Leelanau Scenic Heritage Route 

(LHRS) Committee, which is made up 

of representatives from NWMCOG, 

all the townships, villages, and cities 

along the Leelanau County portion 

of M-22, M-204, M-109 that makes up 

the Heritage Route. Trail development 

is a partnership between the LSHR 

Committee, the Michigan Department 

of Transportation, Sleeping Bear Dunes 

National Lakeshore, Friends of Sleeping 

Bear Dunes, and TART Trails. Funding 

for trail development comes from 

Federal and State grants, foundations, 

and individual donations. 

Boulder County, Colorado

RURAL ROAD STANDARDS

Boulder County in Colorado has ten 

incorporated towns and is mostly rural. 

Forest Service lands in the mountains 

nearby are popular destinations. The 

County’s paved road standard has 

been widened from 24 ft to 30 ft for 

collectors or 32 ft for minor arterials. 

That allows the County to stripe 11-foot 

lanes on rural roads, leaving 4 ft or 5 

ft for shoulders to be used by all types 

of users, including people biking and 

walking. A key to success for Boulder 

County is emphasizing flexible-use 

facilities that respond to local context 

and needs, rather than labeling them 

as bike facilities or another specific 

user group. “Multimodal Mobility 

Transportation facilities shall be 

designed and constructed so as to 

maximize the mobility of people, goods, 

and services by multiple transportation 

modes, including motorized 

vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and 

transit.” (Boulder County Multimodal 

Transportation Standards 2012). 

Three Forks, Montana

HEADWATERS TRAILS SYSTEM

The City of Three Forks is located in 

Gallatin County and has a population 

of 1,869 (2010 Census). Two of Three 

Forks’ unique assets are the historic 

Sacajawea Hotel and the Missouri 

Headwaters State Park. The former 

Mayor Gene Townsend and the City 

of Three Forks have worked over the 

years to create the Headwaters Trail 

System to connect to these and other 

key destinations within the community. 

Thus far, 8.5 miles of paved shared use 

path have been built, including two 

bicycle and pedestrian bridges. Details 

on how this small town developed 

an exceptional trail system, including 

installation of a recycled bridge may be 

found in the 2012 Montana Complete 

Streets Toolkit. 

5-29
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

5-30
CHAPTER 5 | KEY NETWORK OPPORTUNITIES

FOOTNOTES 

i In the MUTCD, pedestrian lanes may be considered a type of 

preferential lane. “Preferential lanes are established for one 

or more of a wide variety of special uses, including but not 

limited to, high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, ETC lanes, 

high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, bicycle lanes, bus only lanes, 

taxi only lanes, and light rail transit only lanes” (2009, p. 415).

ii Section 3B.20 in the MUTCD states that “Word, symbol, and 

arrow markings on the pavement are used for the purpose 

of guiding, warning, or regulating traffic” (2009, p. 389). 

Preferential lane word markings are specifically identified for 

use, and PED ONLY word markings may qualify.

The MUTCD also states that “Symbol messages are preferable 

to word messages,” although pedestrian markings are not 

specifically included in the “Standard Highway Signs and 

Markings” book. 

iii The National Center for Safe Routes to School (2011). How 

Children Get to School: School Travel Patterns from 1969 to 2009. 

Retrieved from http://saferoutesinfo.org/sites/default/files/

resources/NHTS_school_travel_report_2011_0.pdf.

iv Active Living Research. Walking & Biking to School. http://

activelivingresearch.org/sites/default/files/Infographic_

WalkBikeToSchool_Regional.pdf.

v Gordon, Serena. Child Obesity Soaring in Rural America. U.S. 

News & World Report. April 9, 2010. Retrieved from http://

health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/childrenshealth/articles/2010/04/09/child-obesity-soaring-in-ruralamerica.

vi Lutfiyya, M.N., et al. Is rural residency a risk factor for overweight 

and obesity for U.S. children? Obesity. 2007. Retrieved from 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2007.278/

epdf.

vii McMurray, Robert G, et al. Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors 

and Obesity of Rural and Urban Elementary School Children. 

Journal of Rural Health. September 1999. 

WORKS CITED

Active Living Research. Walking & Biking to School. http://

activelivingresearch.org/sites/default/files/Infographic_

WalkBikeToSchool_Regional.pdf. 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials. Guide for Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian 

Facilities. 2004. 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 2011.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials. A Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.

American Planning Association. U.S. Traffic Calming Manual. 2009. 

Bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways. 23 U.S.C. § 217(e).

Boulder County. Boulder County Multimodal Transportation 

Standards. 2012.

Cohn, Jesse, and Sperling, Elliot. Improving Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Connectivity During Rehabilitation of Existing Bridges. Pedestrian and 

Bicycle Information Center. November 2016.

Ewing, Reid. Best Development Practices: Doing the Right Thing and 

Making Money at the Same Time. APA Planners Press. 1996.

Federal Highway Administration, Achieving Multimodal Networks: 

Applying Design Flexibility and Reducing Conflict. 2016.

Federal Highway Administration. Bicycle Safety Guide and 

Countermeasure Selection System. 2014.

Federal Highway Administration. Engineering Speed Management 

Countermeasures: A Desktop Reference of Potential Effectiveness in 

Reducing Speed. 2014.

Federal Highway Administration. Incorporating On-Road Bicycle 

Networks into Resurfacing Projects. 2016. 

Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices. 2009. 

Federal Highway Administration. Office of Safety Traffic Calming 

Website. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/traffic_calm.cfm

Federal Highway Administration. Pedestrian Safety Guide and 

Countermeasure Selection System. 2013.

Federal Highway Administration. Proven Safety Countermeasures. 2012.

References

5-31
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

PHOTO CREDIT

Page 5-1. Phil Goff, Alta Planning + Design.

Page 5-10. Alta Planning + Design.

Page 5-10. Western Transportation Institute.

Page 5-10. Michael Williams (CC BY 2.0)

Page 5-14. Wikimedia.org: Visitor7, CC BY-SA 3.0

Page 5-14. California Department of Transportation.

Page 5-14. California Department of Transportation.

Page 5-15. Richie Diesterheft via Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

Page 5-15. flickr: Don Graham (CC BY-SA 2.0).

Page 5-20. Jason Price, Caltrans District 1.

Page 5-20. Alta Planning + Design.

Page 5-20. Shasta County Department of Public Works.

Page 5-21. David Giacalone.

Page 5-23. William C. Parson.

Page 5-24. Ensign Engineering.

Page 5-26. Hugaboom via Federal Highway Administration.

Page 5-26. Saara Snow, Adventure Cycling Association

Page 5-27. Chris Jaeschke via Federal Highway Administration.

Page 5-28. All photos Alta Planning + Design.

Page 5-29. flickr.com: Sleeping_Bear_Heritage_Trail (CC BY 2.0).

Page 5-29. flickr.com: Let Ideas Compete (CC BY 2.0).

Page 5-29. flickr.com: LightHeart (CC BY 2.0).

References

WORKS CITED (CONTINUED) 

Federal Highway Administration. Road Diet Informational Guide. 2014.

Federal Highway Administration. Separated Bike Lane Planning and 

Design Guide. 2015.

Federal Highway Administration. Speed Management Safety.

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt

Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Update of Florida 

Crash Reduction Factors and Countermeasures to improve the 

Development of District Safety Improvement Projects. 2005.

Gordon, Serena. “Child Obesity Soaring in Rural America.” U.S. News 

& World Report. April 9, 2010. http://health.usnews.com/healthnews/family-health/childrens-health/articles/2010/04/09/childobesity-soaring-in-rural-america.

Institute of Transportation Engineers. Designing Walkable Urban 

Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach. 2010.

Institute of Transportation Engineers. Traffic Calming: State of the 

Practice. 1999. 

Lutfiyya, M.N., et al. Is rural residency a risk factor for overweight 

and obesity for U.S. children? Obesity. 2007. Retrieved from http://

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2007.278/epdf.

McMurray, Robert G, et al. Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors and 

Obesity of Rural and Urban Elementary School Children. Journal of 

Rural Health. September 1999.

Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services. 

Montana Complete Streets Toolkit. 2012.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. Improving Pedestrian and 

Bicycle Connectivity during Rehabilitation of Existing Bridges. 2016.

Tefft, B. C. Impact speed and a pedestrian’s risk of severe injury or death. 

Accident Analysis & Prevention. 50. 2013.

The National Center for Safe Routes to School. How Children Get to 

School: School Travel Patterns from 1969 to 2009. 2011. Retrieved from 

http://saferoutesinfo.org/sites/default/files/resources/NHTS_

school_travel_report_2011_0.pdf.

NCHRP. Report 672: Roundabouts an Informational Guide. 2010.

5-32
CHAPTER 6 | PLANNING AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

Photo by Tom Robertson, Adventure Cycling Association

6-1
6-2SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

Planning 

and Project 

Development

6-3 The Transportation Planning Process

6-4 Steps in the Transportation Planning Process

6-5 Key Products of the Transportation Planning Process 

6-6 What are the Key Products of the Transportation 

Planning Process?
PLANNING AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

6-3

general population includes residents 

that are too young or old to drive, are 

disabled, traditionally underserved, or 

don’t have access to a vehicle. It is critical 

that transportation planning efforts pay 

significant attention to these populations 

and tailor public involvement strategies 

to involve these groups, even though 

they may be difficult to reach through 

traditional public involvement strategies. 

Flexibility requires consideration of all 

transportation users; in some unique 

rural regions user consideration may 

include safe access for horse-drawn 

buggies. Other considerations may 

include providing safe passage for 

school students, addressing the needs 

of tourists, and ensuring access for 

people with disabilities.

The Transportation 

Planning Process

This chapter is intended to ecourage 

the reader to understand their local, 

regional, and state process is and what 

the entry points are for improvements. 

It is also intended to emphasize the 

ultimate goal of “mainstreaming” 

bike and pedestrian planning so that 

these projects can be systematically 

and integrally considered alongside 

motorized enhancements.

Transportation planning is a continuing, 

cooperative, and comprehensive 

process that uses a performancedriven approach for decision making. 

Public agencies that are responsible 

for the operation, maintenance, and 

development of transportation systems 

and facilities work cooperatively to 

determine long and short-range 

investments. Public agencies at all 

scales, from small towns, transit 

authorities, Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations (MPOs) to State 

Departments of Transportation, carry 

out planning, with active involvement 

from the traveling public, the business 

community, community groups, 

environmental organizations, and 

freight operators. Figure 6-1 illustrates 

the development of products and 

activities within the transportation 

planning process. 

Transportation planning is critical to 

creating multimodal networks for all 

users. Jurisdictions employ a system 

for categorizing roads by function, 

and the number of vehicles it can 

accommodate. However, this approach 

may not always consider the need for 

active transportation facilities that 

provide multimodal connections to jobs 

and essential services. The planning 

and design of the transportation 

network should take a comprehensive 

Figure 6-1. The Transportation Planning Process

approach to the various roadway types 

of arterial, collector, and local roads 

and associated active transportation 

facilities that can be implemented with 

them. The State is required to consult 

with affected nonmetropolitan local 

officials to determine projects that may 

be of regional significance.

This document includes a number of 

strategies tailored for small town and 

rural contexts, for consideration during 

the transportation planning process. 

The process itself should address 

local conditions, regional connections, 

opportunities, and challenges, and 

consider the needs of the all people in 

the study area. Gathering demographics 

of the study area can provide essential 

information about the travel needs of 

the community. Nearly one-third of the 
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

Figure 6-2. The Transportation Planning 

Process Briefing Book

6-4

Steps in the Transportation 

Planning Process

• Engaging the public and stakeholders 

to establish shared goals and visions 

for the community. 

• Monitoring existing conditions 

and comparing them against 

transportation performance goals. 

• Forecasting future population 

and employment growth, including 

assessing projected land uses 

in the region and identifying 

major corridors of growth or 

redevelopment. 

•Identifying current and projected 

transportation needs by developing 

performance measures and targets. 

• Analyzing various transportation 

improvement strategies and their 

related tradeoffs using detailed 

planning studies. 

• Developing long-range plans and 

short-range programs of alternative 

capital improvement, management, 

and operational strategies for moving 

people and goods. 

• Estimating how recommended 

improvements to the transportation 

system will impact achievement of 

performance goals, as well as impacts 

on the economy and environmental 

quality, including air quality. 

• Developing a financial plan to 

secure sufficient revenues that cover 

the costs of implementing strategies 

and ensure ongoing maintenance and 

operation. 

Within the transportation planning 

process it is critical to provide a wellvetted strategy for addressing mobility 

for all users of the transportation 

system. Performance measures and 

targets should be identified to track 

this progress and monitored over 

time. Connected networks should be 

defined that service key destinations 

whether someone is driving, walking, 

bicycling, or taking transit (if available). 

Through flexibility in design a variety 

of ages and abilities should be 

accommodated.

PLANWORKS: BETTER 

PLANNING. BETTER PROJECTS.

PlanWorks is a web resource that 

supports collaborative decisionmaking in transportation planning 

and project development. PlanWorks 

is built around key decision points in 

long-range planning, programming, 

corridor planning, and environmental 

review. PlanWorks suggests when 

and how to engage cross-disciplinary 

partners and stakeholder groups. 

This system can help build consensus 

throughout these processes. Featured 

in PlanWorks is an application focused 

on Bicycles and Pedestrians, available 

at https://fhwaapps.fhwa.dot.gov/

planworks/Application/Show/17. 

This application is intended to help 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations, 

State Departments of Transportation, 

and other partners fully integrate 

pedestrian and bicycle planning and 

design into the formal transportation 

planning and project development 

processes. It provides detailed 

information on how agencies can 

incorporate multimodal transportation 

into specific key decisions. It identifies 

how the user can incorporate 

information on multimodal 

transportation into specific key 

decisions.
CHAPTER 6 | PLANNING AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

6-5

Key Products in the Transportation 

Planning Process 

Planning for multimodal small 

town and rural networks should 

be integrated into every level of 

transportation planning. Plans should 

be as consistent as possible with 

clear policies to reference local plans 

before implementing a project. Project 

descriptions should be detailed enough 

to glean the full intended roadway 

configuration and character and not 

limited to functional classification or 

lane configuration. The presence of 

sidewalks, sidepaths, shoulders, or 

other active transportation facilities 

should be clearly highlighted. Potentially 

relevant planning processes include:

• The Unified Planning Work

Program: The UPWP lists the

transportation studies and tasks that

MPO staff and member agencies will

perform to support the metropolitan

transportation planning process.

It must identify the funding source

for each project, the schedule

of activities, and the agency or

agencies responsible for each task

or study. UPWPs reflect issues and

strategic priorities unique to each

metropolitan area and will differ by

MPO.

• The Metropolitan Transportation

Plan: In metropolitan areas, the MTP

identifies how the region intends to

invest in the transportation system.

Federal law requires the plan,

include both long-range and shortrange program strategies or actions

that lead to the development of an

integrated intermodal transportation

system that facilitates the efficient

movement of people and goods.

• Transportation Improvement

Program: MPOs use a TIP to

identify transportation projects

and strategies they will pursue over

the next four years. These projects

reflect the investment priorities

detailed in the MTP. TIPs list the

immediate program of investments

that, once implemented, will go

toward achieving the performance

targets established by the MPO and

documented in the MTP. In short, a

TIP is a region’s means of allocating

its transportation resources among

the various capital, management,

and operating investment needs

of the area, based on a clear set of

short-term transportation priorities

prepared through a performancedriven process. All projects receiving

Federal funding must be in the TIP.

• The Long-Range Statewide

Transportation Plan: State DOTs

cooperate with nonmetropolitan area

local officials to develop an LRSTP

using a performance-driven process

based on an agreed upon set of

performance measures and targets.

Plans are prepared with active

engagement with the public and

stakeholders and will vary by State.

LRSTPs may be either policy-oriented

strategic plans, or project–focused

investment plans that include lists of

recommended projects.

• Statewide Transportation

Improvement Program: The STIP is

similar to the TIP in that it identifies

the immediate short-range priorities

for transportation investments

statewide and must be fiscally

constrained. Through an established

process, State DOTs work with local

officials to identify projects across

rural areas, small urban areas

called urban clusters (with 2,500

to 49,999 people), and urbanized

areas. Projects are selected for the

STIP based on adopted procedures

and criteria. As noted above, TIPs

developed by MPOs must be

incorporated, directly or by reference

and without change, into the STIP.

• Public Involvement Process (PIP)

and Public Participation Plans (PPP):

States must involve the general public

and all other affected constituencies

in the essential functions listed

above. MPOs and States engage the

public and stakeholder communities

as they prepare procedures that

outline how the public will be advised,

engaged, and consulted throughout

the planning process. MPOs prepare

public participation plans (PPPs),

which describe how the MPO

involves the public and stakeholder

communities in transportation

planning. The MPO also must

periodically evaluate whether its

public involvement process (PIP) is

still effective. Similarly, States prepare

documented public involvement

processes that describe the

occasions, procedures, and intended

outcomes of public engagement

in statewide and nonmetropolitan

transportation planning.
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

6-6

What are the Key Products of the 

Transportation Planning Process?

Federal requirements call for agencies to 

deliver several key groups of documents 

as part of the transportation planning 

process, including (1) Planning Work 

Programs, which include Unified Planning 

Work Programs (UPWPs) prepared by 

MPOs and State Planning and Research 

Work Programs prepared by States; 

(2) Transportation Plans, which include 

MTPs prepared by MPOs and Long 

Range Statewide Transportation Plans 

(LRSTPs) prepared by States; and (3) 

Transportation Improvement Programs 

(TIPs), which include Metropolitan TIPs 

prepared by MPOs and Statewide TIPs 

prepared by States.

Regional Planning Organizations (RPO)

and Regional Transportation Planning

Organizations (RTPO) are organizations

that identify local transportation 

needs, conduct planning, assist 

local governments, and support the 

statewide transportation planning 

process in nonmetropolitan regions of 

a State.

RPOs and RTPOs may carry out the 

following planning tasks:

• Preparation of a Regional Long-Range

Transportation Plan (LRTP)

• Preparation of a Regional

Transportation Improvement

Program (TIP)

• Coordination of local planning, land

use, and economic development

• Provision of technical assistance to

local officials

• Participation in national, multiState, and State policy and planning

development processes

Who 

Develops? 

Who 

Approves?

Time 

Horizon Content Update Requirements

UPWP FHWA/FTA/

MPO MPO 1 or 2 Years Planning Studies and Tasks

At Least Once 

Every 2 Years

MTP MPO MPO 20 Years

Future Goals, 

Strategies, and 

Projects

Every 5 Years 4 years for nonattainment 

and maintenance areas

TIP MPO MPO/

Governor 4 Years TransportationInvestments Every 4 Years

LRSTP State DOT State DOT 20 Years

Future Goals, 

Strategies, and 

Projects

Not Specified

STIP State DOT FHWA/

FTA 20 Years TransportationInvestments Every 4 Years

PIP State DOT State DOT Not Specified

Public Engagement 

Strategies and Goals, 

Incorporating Input, 

Responding to 

Comments

Periodic Review

and Update

PPP MPO MPO Not Specified

Public Engagement 

Strategies and Goals, 

Incorporating Input, 

Responding to 

Comments

Periodic Review

and Update

Table 6-1. The key transportation planning products.

• Facilitation of a forum for public

participation in regional and

Statewide planning

• Coordination of plans and

programs with neighboring RPOs

and RTPOs and Metropolitan

Planning Organizations and tribal

organizations

Benefits that can be achieved by 

coordination with RPOs and RTPOs

• Conducting duties that support and

enhance the Statewide planning

process

• Providing a forum for public

participation in nonmetropolitan

areas

•Insuring the regional and local input

of nonmetropolitan areas

• Fostering coordination of

local planning, land use, and

economic development plans with 

transportation plans and programs at 

the State, regional, and local levels

• Cooperating on the development of

the Statewide Transportation Plan

• Consulting on the development

of the Statewide Transportation

Improvement Program in the nonmetropolitan areas of the State

For more information, visit 

www.planning.dot.gov/focus_rural.

asp and www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/

processes/rural