Noteworthy Local Policies 

That Support Safe and 

Complete Pedestrian 

and Bicycle Networks 

November 2016 
15. Supplementary Notes 

Conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
 
 

1. Report No. FHWA-SA-17-006 2. Government Accession No. N/A 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. N/A 

4. Title and Subtitle 

Noteworthy Local Policies that Support Safe and Complete Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Networks 

5. Report Date 

November 2016 

6. Performing Organization Code 

N/A 

7. Author(s) Hugh Louch, Dara O’Byrne, Catrine Machi, Kristen O’Toole, Matthew 

VanOosten, Hannah Twaddell, Lindsay Martin 

8. Performing Organization Report No. 

N/A 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 

ICF, 9300 Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA 22031 

Alta Planning + Design (Alta), 711 SE Grand Ave, Portland, OR 97214 

Sprinkle Consulting, Inc. (Sprinkle), 18115 U.S. Hwy 41 North, Suite 600, Lutz, FL 33549 

10. Work Unit No. 

N/A 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

DTFH61-11-D-00033, Task 5015 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

Office of Safety, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, 

Washington DC 20590 

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

Research Result and Conclusion 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

FHWA/HEPH-10 

Conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. The contract manager for 

this report was Tamara Redmon (FHWA Office of Safety). 

16. Abstract Noteworthy Local Policies That Support Safe and Complete Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks provides local and state 

agencies with tools to develop policies that support the development of safe and complete bicycle and pedestrian networks for users of 

all ages and abilities. The guide is accompanied by case studies that showcase examples from across the country of how policies can 

support safe and complete street networks. 

17. Key Words 

Bicycle, pedestrian, policy, networks, connectivity, safety, 

livability 

18. Distribution Statement 

No restrictions. This document is available through the 

National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 

22161. 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (of this 

page) Unclassified 

21. No. of Pages 

106 

22. Price 

$0 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized 

ii 
Foreword 

Noteworthy Local Policies That Support Safe and Complete Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks 

provides local and state agencies with the tools to create a solid policy platform to support the 

creation of multimodal transportation networks for users of all ages and abilities. The guidebook 

is intended to assist local and state governmental agencies in developing and applying policies 

and provide evidence to support policy adoption. 

The guidebook showcases opportunities to make street networks more complete, more livable, 

and safer for all users. The guidebook first defines a safe and complete pedestrian and bicycle 

network. The guidebook then identifies six key elements of a successful policy framework to 

achieve a complete network and provides suggestions for implementation. The accompanying 

case studies, organized by the six key element categories, showcase noteworthy examples from 

across the country of how policies can support safe and complete street networks. Sections 

within each case study describe the policy of note with characteristics of the municipality in 

which it was enacted and examples of similar case studies if they exist. 

Notice 

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 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-SA-17-006 

iii 
Acknowledgements 

FHWA 

• Tamara Redmon 

• Christopher Douwes 

Technical Advisory Committee 

• Whit Blanton, Pinellas MPO (FL) 

• Jason Burdette, Town of Davidson (NC) 

• Ann Cheng, TransForm (CA) 

• Bill Keyrouze, AMPO 

• Kris Krider, Arlington County (VA) 

• Peter Koonce, Portland (OR) 

• Rosa Kozub, New Mexico Department of Transportation (NM) 

• Josh Mello, City of Palo Alto (CA) 

• Tracy Newsome, Charlotte Department of Transportation (NC) 

• Dr. David Ragland, University of California-Berkeley SAFETREC 

• Kyle Wagenschutz, PeopleforBikes 

• Julie Walcoff, Ohio Department of Transportation 

• Sean Wiedel, Chicago Department of Transportation (IL) 

• Norm Steinman, Charlotte Department of Transportation (NC) 

• Jill Cooper, University of California-Berkeley SAFETREC 

iv 
v 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 


1. INTRODUCTION ..................1



Audience..................................................3
 

Organization of Guidebook .....................3
 

1.2 What is a Complete Network?..........4
 

Cohesion .................................................5
 

Directness................................................5
 

Accessibility ............................................5
 

Alternatives .............................................6
 

Safety and Security..................................6
 

Comfort ...................................................6
 

2. POLICY ELEMENTS OF
 


CREATING A COMPLETE 
 

NETWORK ..............................7



2.1 Define Success....................................8
 

Establishing Vision, Goals, Objectives, 

and Performance Measures .....................9
 

2.2 Protect Nonmotorized Travelers....10
 

How Can Policies Help Improve Network 

Safety? ...................................................10
 

State Level Policy: Liability ..................11
 

Ensure Policies and Ordinances Promote 

Safety.....................................................14
 

Implement Law Enforcement 

Countermeasures for Bicycle and 

Pedestrian Safety ...................................17
 

2.3 Promote Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Supportive Development .................20
 

Smart Growth and Efficient Land Use 

Management ..........................................20
 

Mixed Use Zoning.................................21
 

Design Standards and Form-Based 

Codes .....................................................22
 

Parking Quantity ...................................23
 

Other Development Standards...............24
 

2.4 Design the Network.........................25
 

Complete Streets Policies ......................25
 

Connectivity Policies.............................26
 

Policy Tools to Support Complete 

Streets ....................................................26
 

2.5 Make It Last ....................................30
 

Funding Maintenance Activities............33
 

2.6 Pay for It ..........................................35
 

USDOT Funding Sources......................35
 

Fixing America’s Surface Transportation 

(FAST) Act ............................................35
 

State and Local Funding Sources ..........37
 

3. IMPLEMENTATION.......... 41



3.1 Implementation................................42
 

Understanding the Strengths and
 

Weaknesses of Existing Policy ..............42
 

Building a Policy Agenda......................45
 

APPENDIX A: BICYCLE AND 

PEDESTRIAN POLICY CASE 

STUDIES 
vi 
Chapter 1 

INTRODUCTION
 

This policy guidebook provides local and state agencies 

with the tools to create a solid policy platform to support 

the creation of multimodal transportation networks for users 

of all ages and abilities. The accompanying case studies 

showcase noteworthy examples from across the country of 

how policies can support safe and complete street networks. 

Effective policy shapes long-term planning efforts, as well as more 

immediate decisionmaking. It informs infrastructure planning, 

design, construction and maintenance and shapes decisionmaking 

related to investments in infrastructure and capital improvements. 

Policy informs and shapes an agency’s work in engineering, 

education, enforcement, emergency response, encouragement, and 

evaluation efforts. This multidisciplinary approach, embodied in 

both required Federal safety planning and best practices in bicycle 

and pedestrian planning and design, is important in establishing a 

safe and complete pedestrian and bicycle network. 

The terms bicycling, walking, bicyclist and pedestrian are used 

throughout this document and are intended to be inclusive of people 

of all ages and ability levels, including people with disabilities. 

1


	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

This guidebook and 

accompanying case 

studies showcase 

opportunities to 

make street networks 

more complete, more 

livable, and safer for all 

users. 

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE 

GUIDEBOOK 

Assist Local and State Agencies 

There is a strong correlation between robust, 

high functioning bicycle and pedestrian 

networks and strong public sector leadership 

from elected officials and agency staff. Strong 

political will may be needed to redesign 

streets from car-exclusive thoroughfares to 

multimodal complete streets. This guidebook 

aims to present information about relevant 

policies and policy examples that agencies 

can use to institutionalize network-supportive 

policies in their own communities. 

Provide Evidence to Support Policy 

Adoption 

Providing case studies and evidence to 

support the benefits of policy adoption is 

critical to achieving the goal of complete and 

safe networks. The case studies in Appendix 

A were compiled based on a literature 

review pinpointing evidence of successful 

policy initiatives across the country. The 

literature review grounded the study by 

collecting examples of how communities, 

professional associations, research 

institutions, and others collect evidence 

about policies’ effectiveness and outcomes. 

Some policies selected for review have 

been in effect long enough that their 

impacts have been evaluated and measured. 

Newer policies that show promise have 

also been reviewed, even though their 

impact has not yet been measured. 

Six Policy Elements for Creating 

Complete Networks 

This guidebook identifies six areas for 

transportation agencies and stakeholders to 

develop effective policies to help create safe 

and complete bicycle and pedestrian networks. 

•	 Define Success: Discusses setting 

visions, goals, objectives, and 

performance measures and how 

to gain stakeholder buy-in. 

•	 Protect Nonmotorized Travelers: 

Discusses policies that help 

prevent crashes and maintain 

safe and complete networks. 

•	 Promote Supportive Development: 

Discusses land use, site design, 

and zoning that encourage bike and 

pedestrian network development. 

•	 Design the Network: Discusses the 

policy tools to support the design of a safe 

and comfortable pedestrian and bicycle 

network, including design guidance. 

•	 Make it Last: Discusses the 

maintenance of safe and complete 

pedestrian and bicycle networks. 

•	 Pay for It: Discusses strategies 

to pay for policy implementation 

through a variety of sources. 

2


3 

Audience 

The guidebook is intended to assist local and 

state governmental agencies in developing 

and applying policies to create safe and 

comfortable bicycle and pedestrian networks. 

These policies involve a broad range of 

agency departments including planning, 

transportation, police, public works, as 

well as elected officials and their staff. 

Advocates, grassroots/nonprofit organizations, 

and concerned citizens may also benefit 

from the guidebook’s contents. Citizen 

advisory committees, for instance, can 

use the best practices discussed here 

to augment their experiences directing 

a public policy’s development. 

Organization of Guidebook 

The guide is organized into 

the following chapters: 

Chapter One: Introduction provides 

an overview of the guidebook and 

defines a complete network. 

Chapter Two: Policy Elements of Creating 

A Complete Network provides policy 

guidance on implementing a network’s 

main components, such as safety, supportive 

land uses, and design as well as providing 

policy guidance on how to maintain 

the network and how to pay for it. 

Chapter Three: Implementation provides 

guidance on how to assess existing policy and 

how to create a strategy to improve policy. 

Appendix A: Bicycle and Pedestrian Policy 

Case Studies provides case studies that are 

categorized according to the guidebook’s 

main elements. Each case study represents 

a policy change that supports at least one of 

the six policy areas discussed in this guide. 

The United States Department of 

Transportation (USDOT) 2010 Policy 

Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Accommodation Regulations and 

Recommendations states: “The DOT policy is 

to incorporate safe and convenient walking 

and bicycling facilities into transportation 

projects. Every transportation agency, 

including DOT, has the responsibility to 

improve conditions and opportunities for 

walking and bicycling and to integrate 

walking and bicycling into their transportation 

systems. Because of the numerous 

individual and community benefits that 

walking and bicycling provide—including 

health, safety, environmental, transportation, 

and quality of life—transportation 

agencies are encouraged to go beyond 

minimum standards to provide safe and 

convenient facilities for these modes.” 

Previous Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) products identified solutions to help 

build safe and complete bicycle and pedestrian 

networks. Case Studies in Delivering Safe, 

Comfortable, and Connected Pedestrian and 

Bicycle Networks focuses on how policy 

can support and guide infrastructure and 

program recommendations. Delivering Safe, 

Comfortable, and Connected Pedestrian and 

Bicycle Networks: A Review of International 

Practices provides domestic and international 

best practices for developing infrastructure 

to create complete and safe networks. 

Figure 1. Photo. FHWA guidelines aimed at building 

safe and complete bicycle and pedestrian networks. 
4 

-

-

-

To help evaluate the 

quality of a pedestrian 

and bicycle network, 

it is useful to examine 

how the network 

meets a variety of 

network principles. 

1.2 WHAT IS A COMPLETE 

NETWORK? 

By definition, a network is an interconnected 

or interrelated chain, group, or system. A 

network is made up of segments and nodes, 

and, in the world of transportation, these are 

roadways, pathways, and intersections. While 

the overall transportation network is typically 

complete for vehicular traffic, there are often 

gaps in bicycle and pedestrian networks. A key 

intersection or roadway linkage for a vehicle 

may be a major barrier for a bicyclist or 

pedestrian, especially those with disabilities. 

A complete network is achieved through 

coordination and cooperation. Policy 

can institutionalize these processes by 

defining selection of projects for funding, 

interdepartmental coordination and review, 

and design of bicycle network or facility. 

Before updating or adopting policy, it is 

critical to understand what makes up a 

complete network. FHWA has adopted six 

principles (listed to the right), adapted from 

the Dutch CROW (Centre for Research 

and Contract Standardization in Civil 

and Traffic Engineering) manual that 

provide a useful method and definition for 

assessing how well a pedestrian and bicycle 

network meets its intended purpose. 

The remainder of this section illustrates how 

policies may support each of these principles. 

PRINCIPLES OF A COMPLETE 

NETWORK(1) 

The FHWA defines a network as “A 

pedestrian and bicycle transportation 

network consists of a series of interconnected 

facilities that allow nonmotorized road 

users of all ages and abilities to safely and 

conveniently get where they need to go.”(2) 

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 or ability? 

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? 

1 Network Report on Case Studies in Delivering Safe, Comfortable and Con 

nected Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environ 

ment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/network_report/page09.cfm#ftn4 

2 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/net 

work_report/network_report.pd 
5 

Figure 2. A cohesive network connects 

sidewalks to front walks 

Cohesion 

A connected, cohesive network provides 

continuous bicycle and pedestrian facilities 

between destinations. Policies that support 

network cohesion, such as high level 

policies that explicitly state support for a 

connected network as well as policies that 

guide the design of the network, ensure that 

facilities will operate as a transportation 

system rather than standalone facilities. 

Policies related to design guidelines and 

complete streets can promote cohesion and 

can help prioritize filling gaps within the 

network and connecting facilities. When 

a set of projects is being evaluated and 

prioritized for implementation, policies 

should be in place to support a project that 

provides a linkage in a disconnected network 

over a stand-alone, disconnected facility. 

Figure 3. Pedestrian and bicycle networks should 

welcome users of all ages and abilities. 

Directness 

A complete network minimizes the distance 

that pedestrians and bicyclists need to travel 

to reach destinations. Create and support 

policies that provides direct and convenient 

access to all destinations in the network. 

Street standards and subdivision ordinances 

that require through streets can help ensure 

directness. These policies also provide a 

reduction in emergency response time. 

Policies related to design guidelines and 

complete streets promote directness. Providing 

equitable and direct access to bicycle 

and pedestrian facilities in all parts of a 

municipality is an important equity policy. 

Accessibility 

A complete network accommodates travel 

for all users, regardless of age or ability. 

Policies calling for universal design and 

complete streets create networks that are 

designed for all users. Policies should also 

provide design guidance for facility types to 

ensure safe and comfortable facilities for all 

users. Meeting accessibility requirements is 

not only in a community’s best interest—it is 

also a requirement. Transportation facilities 

must comply with the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Communities 

can strengthen their network planning effort 

tie-in with their ADA Transition Plan and 

Self-Evaluation to ensure an integrated 

approach. Thinking about a transportation 

network’s ability to serve all populations from 

the earliest point of planning and design can 

ensure that it will meet the needs of all users. 
Figure 4. Adequate lighting and other amenities 

enhance feelings of safety and security. 

Alternatives 

A complete network provides route 

choices. Alternatives provide route options 

to different types of users, who may 

be traveling for different purposes. 

Alternatives also make using multiple modes 

of travel possible. It is common for users 

to walk or ride a bike to and from a transit 

station, so focusing network improvements 

that increase access to transit hubs will 

increase the likelihood that a person can 

travel long distances without using an 

automobile. Policies related to design 

guidelines can promote alternatives. 

Safety and Security 

Policies that promote safety and security 

are important to minimize the risk of 

injury, danger, and crime. Pedestrians and 

bicyclists are some of the most vulnerable 

users of the road. Unsafe locations such 

as high speed, high traffic roadways or 

intersections can serve as barriers in the 

network for pedestrians and bicyclists. 

Section 2.2 Protect Nonmotorized Travelers 

discusses safety and security issues in 

further detail. Policies related to design 

of the network are also important for 

safety and security, including policies that 

provide design guidance for safe crossings, 

Crime Prevention Through Environmental 

Design (CPTED), and complete streets. 

Comfort 

A complete network appeals to a broad range 

of age and ability levels with consideration 

given to user amenities. Comfort is an 

important influence on a person’s decision to 

walk or bike and is thus an important design 

consideration. Creating more welcoming 

environments, for example through streetscape 

improvements, landscaping and amenities 

such as bike parking, benches, water and 

seating, can improve the overall comfort of a 

route. Promoting human scale development 

and pedestrian-oriented streetscapes can 

transform a network so that users aren’t 

required to traverse large parking lots to 

reach the front door, as discussed in more 

detail in Section 2.3 Promote Bicycle and 

Pedestrian Supportive Development. Design 

guides that tie bicycle facility types to user 

types can also help improve comfort. 

HOW THE SIX POLICY ELEMENTS 

ADDRESS THE PRINCIPLES OF A 

COMPLETE NETWORK Cohesion

DirectnessAccessibilityAlternativesSafety and SecurityComfort 

2.1 Define Success      

2.2 Protect Nonmotorized Travelers 

 

2.3 Promote Supportive Development 

    

2.4 Design the 

Network 

     

2.5 Make it Last   

2.6 Pay for It      

6


Chapter 2 

POLICY ELEMENTS OF 

CREATING A COMPLETE 

NETWORK 

Chapter 2 lays out the following six key elements 

of a successful policy framework for a safe and 

complete pedestrian and bicycle network: 

• Defining success. 

• Protecting nonmotorized travelers. 

• Promoting bicycle and pedestrian supportive development. 

• Designing networks. 

• Maintaining the network. 

• Paying for new investments and ongoing maintenance. 

7


8 

Although the 

definition of success 

will differ from agency 

to agency, defining 

success is a critical 

first step to making 

policy decisions. 

2.1 DEFINE SUCCESS 

In creating a policy framework, success must 

be defined in order to measure the extent to 

which certain policy goals and objectives 

are accomplished over time. Connected 

networks provide access to destinations 

and provide additional transportation 

options that can enable people to be more 

productive, save money, and be healthier. 

These larger economic, equity, community 

and environmental goals and outcomes 

provide a broad framework of societal benefits 

that motivate investment in bicycle and 

pedestrian networks and changes to policies, 

which is the focus of this guidebook. 

This section mainly focuses on defining 

visions, goals, and performance measures 

related to successfully implementing 

policies. Agencies typically develop a 

policy framework that includes a vision 

that captures the direction they want to 

go, goals that describe the elements of 

that vision, and objectives that define the 

specific outcomes that the agency expects 

to achieve over time. These elements are 

defined not only in transportation plans, but 

also through general or comprehensive plans, 

and in other supporting planning efforts. 

There are two levels of success to define when 

discussing performance measures and project 

outcomes. First of all, practitioners can define 

the outcomes of successfully implementing a 

given policy framework. Second, practitioners 

can define the shorter term steps of 

Defining Vision, Goal, Objectives, 

and Performance Measures 

The FHWA Performance Based Planning and 

Programming Guidebook (PBPP) recommends 

clearly defining the terms: vision, goal, 

and performance measure, in order to 

foster stakeholders’ and public agencies’ 

understanding of success, particularly related 

to a performance based planning initiative. 

Vision. A concise expression of what the 

plan is expected to accomplish.A policy or 

planning project’s vision helps establish the 

initiative’s strategic direction. This vision 

often encompasses broad community factors 

such as quality of life, economic vitality, and 

environmental quality.” (FHWA Statewide 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning Handbook) 

Goal. “A broad statement that describes a 

desired end state....stemming from a state or 

region’s vision, goals address key desired 

outcomes.” (FHWA PBPP guidebook) 

Objectives. “Supporting objectives 

(specific, measurable statements 

that support achievement of goals) 

play a key role in shaping planning 

priorities.” (FHWA PBPP guidebook) 

Performance Measures. “Performance 

measures support objectives and serve as a 

basis for comparing alternative improvement 

strategies (investment and policy 

approaches) and for tracking performance 

over time.” (FHWA PBPP guidebook) 
9 

	 

	 

	 

	 

successfully implementing their jurisdiction’s 

pedestrian and bicycle network. As discussed 

throughout this guidebook, the latter is 

partially a result of sound policy decisions. 

MAP-21 and the FAST Act have set 

a new direction towards performance 

management that includes requirements 

for states and MPOs to set targets for a 

set of national performance measures. 

Targets setting provides clear definition 

of agency priorities, highlighting the 

important of understanding community 

or state vision, goals, and objectives. 

Establishing Vision, Goals, 

Objectives, and Performance 

Measures 

Creating a vision for a safe and 

complete bicycle and pedestrian network 

supplemented by goals, objectives, and 

performance measures is important to 

shape a policy platform. After defining the 

vision upfront, a community can lay out 

a logical process for achieving that vision 

over time, including those required for 

key policy reforms to ensure success. 

In establishing an overall vision and the policy 

platform to support that vision, it is critical 

to collaborate with stakeholders, city staff, 

and elected officials. Early and continuous 

collaboration and communication among 

city staff, elected officials, and relevant 

city departments are critical to ensure longterm support, particularly when it comes 

to long term, ongoing implementation 

actions such as maintenance or enforcement. 

Additionally, as performance measures 

and actionable objectives are written, 

it will be key to have the responsible 

parties involved from the beginning. 

Seattle Bicycle Master Plan 

Inclusion of Equity 

The Seattle Bicycle Master Plan(3)

 (2014) 

establishes the plan’s equity related 

initiatives by analyzing and prioritizing 

the bicycle network for an equitable 

distribution of bicycle facilities throughout 

the city. Relating these goals to other 

initiatives creates a strong policy foundation 

for institutionalizing these goals and 

objectives throughout the City’s work. 

3	 Seattle Bicycle Master Plan. http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/ 

docs/bmp/apr14/SBMP_21March_FINAL_full%20doc.pdf 

Several of the case studies associated with 

this guidebook offer examples of effective 

objectives and performance measures. 

When carefully worded and subsequently 

enacted, performance measures help keep 

projects on track. They can also help create 

measurable outcomes when the time comes 

to evaluate a given policy. The following, 

ongoing activities from the FHWA PBPP 

guidebook support an iterative approach 

to evaluating performance measures: 

•	 Monitoring: Gathering information 

on actual conditions. 

•	 Evaluation: Conducting analysis to 

understand to what extent implemented 

strategies have been effective. 

•	 Reporting: Communicating information 

about system performance and the 

effectiveness of plans and programs to 

policymakers, stakeholders, and the public. 
2.2 PROTECT NONMOTORIZED 

TRAVELERS 

Enforcing all roadway 

users’ rights and 

responsibilities 

can help improve a 

network’s comfort and 

overall performance. 

Policies support safer networks by defining 

rights and responsibilities for all users and 

ensuring those rights and responsibilities 

are enforced. This can improve a network’s 

overall comfort and performance. 

Safe and comfortable nonmotorized 

networks encourage residents and visitors 

to use active transportation. There are many 

ways to improve the safety and comfort 

of pedestrian and bike networks, such as 

ensuring the network seamlessly connects, 

improving the design and location of 

facilities, and establishing and enforcing 

laws and policies to encourage safe 

behavior and to prevent risky behavior. 

How Can Policies Help Improve 

Network Safety? 

Safety laws and enforcement policies help 

improve network safety by rewarding safer 

roadway behaviors and discouraging risky 

behaviors. When people driving, walking, and 

bicycling follow these laws, and when they 

are enforced through positive interactions 

with the public, network safety increases. 

Governmental agencies throughout the 

country—from the United States Department 

of Transportation to individual state and 

local jurisdictions—support mandates to 

reduce traffic-related injuries and deaths. 

Federal initiatives such as Vision Zero, 

Smart City Challenge, Road to Zero, 

and Safer People, Safer Streets call upon 

local leaders to enact countermeasures 

to reduce traffic injuries and fatalities. 

Law enforcement officers play an important 

role in creating and maintaining safe and 

complete networks for people bicycling 

and walking. Strong relationships between 

law enforcement officers, policy makers, 

and the public can result in successful 

programs that create safe and comfortable 

pedestrian and bicycle networks. 

Sample Criteria for Determining if 

Laws and Ordinances are Bicycle 

and Pedestrian Friendly 

• Is the policy likely to reduce risk or 

harm to bicyclists and pedestrians? 

• Does the policy improve efforts to 

promote bicycling and walking? 

• Does the policy make it easier to obtain or 

operate a nonmotorized vehicle or to walk? 

• Does the policy follow current 

engineering, planning, and 

design terminology? 

• Does the policy encourage 

innovation and evolution? 

• Is the policy especially arduous or 

time consuming to enforce? 

10


11 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

This section discusses opportunities for 

community members, decision makers, 

and law enforcement agencies to create 

policies that work to achieve safer active 

transportation networks, including: 

•	 Ensuring that policies and 

ordinances promote safety. 

•	 Establishing collaborative relationships 

between law enforcement, policy 

makers, and community members. 

•	 Supporting policy and infrastructure 

efforts with appropriate law enforcement. 

•	 Designing and implementing effective 

law enforcement training and education. 

•	 Defining rights and 

responsibilities of all users. 

State Level Policy: Liability 

One of the most basic ways that states 

shape safety through policy is by defining 

liability in traffic crashes. States approach 

liability, including for people traveling 

by foot or bicycle, in different ways. In 

some cases, liability provisions apply to 

bicycle users as motor vehicle drivers. In 

others, presumptions of fault are applied 

to motor vehicle drivers when crashes 

with vulnerable road users occur. 

Active Transportation-Focused Ordinance 

The City of Chicago updated the Chicago 

Municipal Code to include a Bicycle and 

Pedestrian Safety Ordinance. Among other 

changes, opening a motor vehicle door 

into the path of a person bicycling now 

carries a mandatory $300 fine. Dooring that 

results in a collision would now result in a 

mandatory $1,000 fine. While punitive, the 

fine serves to draw attention to behavior 

that is high risk for injury crashes. 

Two common approaches to liability include: 

•	 Comparative negligence allows injured 

parties to recover damages proportionately 

to their fault in the collision. This 

approach is used in most states. 

•	 Contributory negligence prohibits 

a person involved in a collision 

from recovering damages if they are 

partially at fault (even 1 percent). North 

Carolina follows this approach. 

Some states also have provisions which 

establish the ability for bicyclists to collect 

compensation for property damage as a result 

of a collision with a motor vehicle. Michigan’s 

No Fault automobile law provides for property 

protection insurance, requiring motor vehicle 

owners to compensate bicyclists whose 

property (bicycle) is damaged as a result of a 

collision with that motor vehicle, regardless of 

fault (MCL 500.3121(1) and MCL 500.3125). 

In addition, some states allow municipalities 

to establish liability provisions. In 

Washington, for example, the Seattle 

Municipal Code contains several provisions 

outlining rights of way and responsibilities 

for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. 

While none currently establish strict liability 

in any cases, the delineations can assist with 

establishing duties of care for all road users. 

Some European countries have national 

policies providing legal protections for 

bicyclists and pedestrians. Article 185 of 

the Road Law in the Netherlands assigns 

“strict liability” to motor vehicle drivers in 

crashes with bicyclists. Article 185 recognizes 

the vulnerable position of bicyclists in 

crashes with motor vehicles and provides 

protections for bicyclists from financial 

damage as a result of motor vehicle crashes, 

unless motor vehicle driver can prove that 

the cause of the collision was out of his 

or her control. Article 185 provides that 
State Liability Law Examples 

Implementation of liability policy occurs through a variety of laws that establish 

requirements for how different types of users must yield to others in varying contexts. 

The Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC), created by the nonprofit National Committee on 

Uniform Traffic Laws, provides a framework that many states use, in whole or in part, to 

standardize traffic laws throughout the United States. While many states have adopted most 

provisions of the UVC, the areas relevant to bicycling are adopted with far less regularity. 

Accordingly, the laws applicable to bicyclists as road users are far from uniform. Examples 

of relevant laws from the UVC and other state specific laws are provided below. 

Law State Examples 

Uniform Vehicle Code §11-1202, 

adopted in all states but Kentucky and 

South Dakota. 

Traffic laws apply to people on bicycles and other 

human powered vehicles 

California Vehicle Code § 42001 

North Carolina General Statute §5.5.(c) 

20-154 

Additional penalties for moving violations which 

cause injury to vulnerable road users (including 

bicyclists and pedestrians) 

Uniform Vehicle Code §11-1205, 

adopted in 43 states 

Ride as far to the right as practicable except: when 

passing, preparing for a left turn, avoiding hazards, 

if the lane is too narrow to share, or if approaching a 

place where a right turn is authorized 

On a roadway with a bike lane, bicyclists traveling 

slower than traffic must use the bike lane except 

when (CA) making a left turn, passing, avoiding 

hazardous conditions, or approaching a place where 

a right turn is authorized (NY) turning left or when 

reasonably necessary to avoid unsafe conditions 

California Vehicle Code § 21008

New York Vehicle & Traffic Law 

Article 34 Section 1234 

California Vehicle Code §21950 

North Carolina General Statute § 20-173 

Pedestrians have the right-of-way in marked or 

unmarked crosswalks. Although pedestrians have 

the right-of-way, they also must abide by the rules of 

the road. 

Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point North Carolina General Statute § 20-174 

other than within a marked crosswalk or within an 

unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the 

right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. 

12


13 

 

the motor vehicle driver is responsible for 

50 percent of monetary damages even if 

the bicyclist is at fault in the collision. 

Changing policy around liability is a 

significant undertaking and many states 

have begun to enact laws that shape the 

rules of the road as applied to different 

types of users. Even if changing the basis 

of liability is not possible, refining the ways 

in which bicyclists and pedestrians are 

considered within state law (or local law, 

where permitted) can provide protection for 

vulnerable road users and help in efforts to 

educate all road users about appropriately 

sharing the road. Establishing laws to redefine 

or clarify rules of the road is important, but 

it is equally important to provide education 

and enforcement of these laws to ensure 

awareness of appropriate behavior by 

motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. 

Safe Passing Laws 

According to the National Conference of State 

Legislatures (NCSL), State legislatures have 

shown significant interest in adopting safe 

passing laws, many requiring a 3 foot passing 

distance. “These laws seek to ensure that, 

when passing bicycles, motor vehicles allow 

adequate space to avoid sideswiping bicyclists 

or causing them to overcorrect to avoid 

a vehicle.” While challenging to enforce, 

passing laws at least create a legal framework 

to protect bicyclists who are hit from behind, 

create a less arbitrary standard and raise 

awareness of the importance of safe passing. 

As of December 2015, twenty-six states and 

the District of Columbia have enacted 3 foot 

passing laws.(4) Two states have laws that go 

beyond a 3 foot passing law. In nine other 

states, there are general laws that provide that 

motorists must pass at a “safe distance.” 

National Conference of State Legislatures. 

http://www.ncsl.org/portation/safely-passing-bicyclists.aspx
 

Off-Peak Freight 

Freight delivery in dense, urban environments 

is necessary to deliver goods to the people 

and businesses, but can cause numerous 

issues, including contributing to congestion, 

pollution, loss in revenues for businesses, 

and pedestrian and bicycle conflicts. About 

350 pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists 

are killed each year by large trucks in the US. 

Large freight trucks in urban environments 

often block bike lanes and pedestrian access 

and have significant blind spots, putting 

pedestrians and bicyclists particularly at risk. 

New York City, with support from the FHWA 

in the form of grant funding, launched a pilot 

program to shift freight delivery and pickups 

to nighttime and off-peak hours.(5) Twenty 

participants in New York agreed to shift their 

delivery windows to between 7 pm and 6 am. 

Carriers found that their trucks could make 

more deliveries in the same amount of time; 

they saved money on fuel costs and could 

use a smaller fleet by balancing daytime and 

nighttime deliveries, and that legal parking 

was more readily available. Their drivers 

reported feeling safer and less stressed. 

This off-peak delivery also has the 

positive benefit of reducing potential 

conflicts with bicyclists and pedestrians 

during peak travel times. 

5 http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot//html/pr2010/pr10_028.shtml 

Figure 5. Freight traffic can decrease 

comfort for bicyclists and pedestrians. 4 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Ensure Policies and Ordinances 

Promote Safety 

The FHWA Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Information Center(6)

 states, “For many 

communities, the first step for building 

an enforcement program lies in reviewing 

and modifying laws and policies 

affecting pedestrians and bicyclists.” 

Existing policies and laws should be reviewed 

and modified to ensure a communities’ 

existing policies and regulations are working 

to protect the rights and responsibilities of all 

road users. Elements of ordinances needed to 

ensure network safety include the following: 

•	 Reduce conflicts: Promote access 

management policies and regulations to 

prevent conflicts between motor vehicles 

exiting a driveway and passing bicyclists 

and pedestrians. Driveway spacing 

requirements help accomplish this goal. 

•	 Provide appropriate space for each mode: 

Space for each mode includes policies 

that promote nonmotorized modes in 

infrastructure projects, such as Complete 

Streets ordinances, as well as laws that 

require safe passing distances for motor 

vehicles when overtaking bicyclists. 

•	 Slow motor vehicles: Implement policies 

and laws that enable traffic calming 

techniques and speed limit reduction on 

roadways where the posted speed limit is 

not sensitive to the surrounding land use 

context. 

•	 Improve real and perceived personal 

safety: Implement policies and laws that 

utilize CPTED(7)

 and promote 

the design of environments that 

encourage “eyes on the street.” 

Vision Zero Policy 

Vision Zero is a strategy to eliminate all 

traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while 

increasing safe, healthy, equitable mobility 

for all. First implemented in Sweden in the 

1990s, Vision Zero has been implemented 

across much of Europe and is gaining 

momentum in several major American cities. 

The Vision Zero philosophy says that keeping 

people alive and healthy ought to be the 

number one priority in how city roadways are 

designed, outranking concerns about vehicle 

speeds, convenience and other objectives. 

Vision Zero policies set a timeline and a 

commitment and bring stakeholders together 

to ensure a basic right of safety for all people 

as they move about their communities. 

Vision Zero is a significant departure 

from the status quo in two major ways: 

•	 Vision Zero acknowledges that 

traffic deaths and severe injuries 

are preventable and sets the goal of 

eliminating both in a set time frame 

with clear, measurable strategies. 

•	 Vision Zero is a multidisciplinary 

approach, bringing together diverse 

and necessary stakeholders to address 

this complex problem, acknowledging 

that there are many factors that 

contribute to safe mobility, including 

roadway design, speeds, enforcement, 

behaviors, technology, and policies. 

US Cities that have adopted Vision Zero 

Policies include: Chicago, San Francisco, 

New York City, Boston, Los Angeles, 

Austin, San Mateo, Portland, Seattle, 

San Jose, Santa Barbara, San Diego, 

Washington, D.C., and Fort Lauderdale. 

6 http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/programs/enforcement.cfm 

7 http://www.cpted.net/ 

14


15 

9 Components of a Strong Vision Zero Commitment 

Based on the experiences of early-adopter cities in the United States, these nine components have proven to be 

an effective high-level framework for communities considering a Vision Zero commitment. While these are not 

the only factors to consider, they are critical aspects to ensure a strong and lasting commitment to Vision Zero. 

POLITICAL COMMITMENT 

The highest-ranking local officials (Mayor, City Council, 

City Manager) make an official and public commitment 

to a Vision Zero goal to achieve zero traffic fatalities 

and severe injuries among all road users (including 

people walking, biking, using transit, 

and driving) within a set timeframe. This 

should include passage of a local policy 

laying out goals, timeline, stakeholders, 

and a commitment to community 

engagement, transparency, & 

equitable outcomes. 

MULTI-DISCIPLINARY LEADERSHIP 

An official city Vision Zero Taskforce (or Leadership 

Committee) is created and charged with leading the 

planning effort for Vision Zero. The Taskforce should 

include, at a minimum, high-ranking representatives 

from the Office of the Mayor, Police, Transportation 

(or equivalent), and Public Health. Other departments 

to involve include Planning, Fire, Emergency Services, 

Public Works, District 

Attorney, Office of Senior 

Services, Disability, and 

the School District. 

ACTION PLAN 

Vision Zero Action Plan (or 

Strategy) is created within 1 

year of initial commitment 

and is implemented with clear 

strategies, owners of each 

strategy, interim targets, 

timelines, & performance 

measures. 

EQUITY 

City stakeholders commit to both 

an equitable approach to Vision 

Zero by establishing inclusive and 

representative processes, as well 

as equitable outcomes by ensuring 

measurable benchmarks to provide 

safe transportation 

options for all road 

users in all parts of 

the city. 

COOPERATION & 

COLLABORATION 

A commitment is 

made to encourage 

meaningful cooperation 

and collaboration among relevant 

governmental agencies & community 

stakeholders to establish a 

framework for multiple stakeholders 

to set shared goals and focus on 

coordination and accountability. 

SYSTEMS-BASED APPROACH 

City leaders commit to and prioritize a systems-based 

approach to Vision Zero — focusing on the built 

environment, systems, and policies that influence 

behavior — as well as adopting messaging that 

emphasizes that these traffic losses are preventable. 

DATA-DRIVEN 

City stakeholders commit to gather, 

analyze, utilize, and share reliable data 

to understand traffic safety issues and 

prioritize resources based on evidence of 

the greatest needs and impact. 

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 

Opportunities are created to invite meaningful 

community engagement, such as select community 

representation on the Taskforce, broader community 

input through public meetings or 

workshops, online surveys, and other 

feedback opportunities. 

TRANSPARENCY 

The city’s process is transparent to city stakeholders 

and the community, including regular 

updates on the progress on the Action 

Plan and performance measures, and a 

yearly report (at minimum) to the local 

governing board (e.g., City Council). 

For more visit the Vision Zero Network at visionzeronetwork.org. 

Questions or ideas? Contact leah@visionzeronetwork.org. 

Figure 6. The Vision Zero Network has published nine components of a strong 

Vision Zero commitment (source: Vision Zero Network). 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Establish Collaborative Relationships 

Between Law Enforcement, Policy 

Makers, and Community Members 

Collaboration between civic leaders, public 

sector agency staff, residents, and law 

enforcement agencies can help improve 

communication and understanding of 

key active transportation issues between 

the parties and can set the stage for longterm relationships and champions. 

These types of collaborations can foster 

programs such as pedestrian crosswalk 

enforcement operations (or details), Safe 

Routes to School programming (walk 

and roll to school programs, school zone 

speed enforcement, and others), and 

police department involvement in bicycle 

and pedestrian planning committees. 

Collaboration can also involve discussions 

of enforcement protocol and activities 

such as photo enforcement and fines in 

special interest areas with high volumes 

of school children or older adults. 

Champions within the law enforcement 

community, particularly high-ranking 

decision makers, are needed to support 

all programming to improve the 

network. Sustaining law enforcement 

programs requires setting compliance 

targets, measuring effectiveness, and 

comparing before/after outcomes. 

Police Officer Involvement in Bicycle and 

Pedestrian Network Planning 

Involving officers in pedestrian and bicycle 

network planning gives a platform for them 

to provide feedback about specific areas 

and behaviors of concern and to share their 

insight of how people use the roads and 

what countermeasures are most effective to 

decrease the livelihood of crashes between 

motorists and bicyclists and pedestrians. 

Examples of Law Enforcement 


Education Opportunities 


The following states, cities, and counties are 

examples of agencies who have engaged local 

police departments in educational programs 

about bicycle and pedestrian enforcement. 

•	 Louisiana Department of Transportation 

hosted a two-day workshop to review laws, 

common crash types, and enforcement 

methods. Training materials were developed 

and included a “Train the Trainer” module. 

•	 North Carolina Department of Transportation 

created a police education program and 

a public-facing media campaign called 

Watch for Me NC. The course was also 

open to university police officers. 

•	 Albany, NY, utilized a self-paced 

computer-based training originally 

produced by the NHTSA. 

•	 Washington Area Bicyclists Association 

provided a webinar series to explain 

bicycling issues, laws, and crash reporting 

to police officers. The educational module 

started from an investigation into crash 

reports and misguided citations. 

•	 San Francisco Police Department and the 

San Francisco Bicycle Coalition partnered 

on a video to educate law enforcement 

officers about bicycles in traffic. 

•	 Wichita, KS, launched the Street Safety 

Education Initiative, which analyzed 

existing pedestrian and bicycle ordinances 

and suggested elements for a public-facing 

media campaign. The project included 

League Cycling Instruction training for 

Wichita citizens and City staff, including 

Police Department representatives. 

•	 The State of New York is launching a 

pedestrian safety campaign focused on twenty 

areas in the state with the greatest problems. 

Officers at these locations will receive inperson training on NY pedestrian and bicycle 

laws and enforcement crosswalk operations. 

16

Harassment of Bicyclists 

Harassment of bicyclists is a real problem and 

can discourage people from bicycling more. It 

can be difficult for law enforcement officials 

to target bicyclist harassment without a 

specific law defining harassment of bicyclists. 

Even though offenders can be charged under 

a variety of existing laws, it is difficult to get 

convictions, and, in many cases, the penalties 

and burden of proof make law enforcement 

officers reluctant to pursue convictions. 

Columbia, MO, passed an ordinance 

designed to specifically address bicyclist 

harassment and later expanded it to 

include pedestrians and wheelchair users. 

The language of the ordinance reads: 

Sec. 16-145. - Harassment of a bicyclist, 

pedestrian or person in a wheelchair. 

(a) A person commits the offense of 

harassment of a bicyclist, pedestrian or 

person in a wheelchair if the person: 

(1) Knowingly throws an object at or 

in the direction of any person riding a 

Implement Law Enforcement 

Countermeasures for Bicycle and 

Pedestrian Safety 

Law enforcement countermeasures can 

help educate motorists, bicyclists, and 

pedestrians about safety issues. 

Several examples of enforcement practices 

are described on the following page, 

including progressive ticketing, community 

collaboration with law enforcement, and 

police officer training. The success of these 

enforcement practices depends on local 

government policies that provide for staff 

resources and allocate appropriate funding. 

bicycle, walking, running or operating a 

wheelchair for the purpose of frightening, 

disturbing or injuring that person; or 

(2) Threatens any person riding a 

bicycle, walking, running or operating a 

wheelchair for the purpose of frightening 

or disturbing that person; or 

(3) Sounds a horn, shouts or otherwise 

directs sound toward any person riding a 

bicycle, walking, running or operating a 

wheelchair for the purpose of frightening 

or disturbing that person; or 

(4) Knowingly places a person riding a 

bicycle, walking, running or operating 

a wheelchair in apprehension of 

immediate physical injury; or 

(5) Knowingly engages in conduct that 

creates a risk of death or serious physical 

injury to a person riding a bicycle, walking, 

running or operating a wheelchair. 

The harassment is a Class A misdemeanor 

punishable by a fine of as much as $1,000 

and/or up to a year imprisonment. 

Progressive Ticketing 

Progressive ticketing uses a three-step method 

to issue citations for traffic infractions.(8) 

Step One, Educate: Officers pull over 

the offenders and educate them about the 

infraction, sometimes using tools such 

as “palm card” flyers with tips and basic 

information about desired safe traffic 

safety behaviors between all road users, 

i.e., motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. 

Education also means positive interactions 

with the public. Creating policies to support 

and fund programs such as bicycle light 

distribution to nighttime riders can educate 

members of the public about roadway safety 

while encouraging positive interactions 

between law enforcement officers and citizens. 

8 http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/programs/enforcement_enforcelaws.cfm 

17


	 

	 

	 

Step Two, Warn: Officers 

issue offenders warnings. 

of key issues and relevant countermeasures 

to help improve the network. Training 

can take a variety of forms: Step Three, Ticket: Officers issue 

offenders a written citation. 

Progressive ticketing can reach up to twenty 

times as many noncompliant motorists, 

bicyclists, and pedestrians as ticketing 

alone. Note that progressive ticketing is 

typically done in waves, such that first time 

offenders in the “ticket” phase will still 

receive a ticket, even if it is a first offense. 

Law enforcement agencies’ prioritization 

of and ticketing of behaviors that are 

most likely to lead to severe crashes can 

help protect the rights and responsibilities 

of vulnerable roadway users. 

Design and Implement Law Enforcement 

Officer Training and Education 

Structured training for law enforcement 

officers is designed to increase knowledge 

•	 Web-Based Training: Online training 

provides interactive capabilities 

for officers to learn about common 

cause of crashes and associated laws 

from a national perspective. 

•	 Bulletins: Bulletins are used by some 

jurisdictions as a training resource to 

provide a quick reference to officers about 

pedestrian and bicycle related laws. 

•	 Roll Call Videos: Videos offer short 

format instruction during officer roll call, 

which is normally scheduled within the 

workday. These can be 5 to 15 minutes in 

length. An example video from NHTSA 

can be found at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/ 

Driving-Safety/Bicycles/EnhancingBicycle-Safety:-Law-Enforcement’s-Role 

Bicycle Friendly Community 

Program and Law Enforcement 

The League of American Bicyclists’ Bicycle 

Friendly Communities (BFC) program, 

an optional certification program for 

communities, provides a roadmap to improve 

conditions for cyclists at the state and local 

level. The BFC program uses the following 

questions to evaluate communities related to 

enforcement: 

• Do law enforcement officers receive 

training on the rights and responsibilities 

of all road users? 

• Does your community have law 

enforcement or other public safety officers 

on bikes? 

• Do local ordinances treat bicyclists 

equitably? 

RESPONSIBILITY

This initiative is provided as an educational tool to foster 

public awareness about pedestrian safety and ultimately 

reduce injuries and deaths. 

• 2 POINTS 

• $200 FINE 

(plus court costs) 

• 15 DAYS COMMUNITY SERVICE 

• INSURANCE SURCHARGES 

YOU HAVE JUST FAILED TO USE 

DUE CARE AS A PEDESTRIAN 

The law is clear, pedestrians must obey 

pedestrian signals and use crosswalks 

at signalized intersections. Both carry a 

$54.00 fine for failure to observe the law. 

(C.39:4-32 and 33) 

YOU HAVE JUST FAILED TO 

STOP FOR A PEDESTRIAN 

IN A MARKED CROSSWALK 

The law is clear (see reverse side). 

Motorists in New Jersey MUST stop 

for pedestrians in a marked crosswalk. 

Failure to observe the law may subject you 

to one or more of the following: 

WWW.NJSAFEROADS.COM

NEW JERSEY STATUTE 39:4-36 

Driver to stop for pedestrian: 

exceptions, violations, penalties. 

A. The driver of a vehicle must stop and 

stay stopped for a pedestrian crossing the 

roadway within any marked crosswalk, but 

shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian 

crossing the roadway within an unmarked 

crosswalk at an intersection, except at 

crosswalks when the movement of traffic 

is being regulated by police officers or 

traffic control signals, or where otherwise 

prohibited by municipal, county, or State 

regulation, and except where a pedestrian 

tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing 

has been provided, but no pedestrian shall 

suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety 

and walk or run into the path of a vehicle 

which is so close that it is impossible for the 

driver to stop or yield. Nothing contained 

herein shall relieve a pedestrian from using 

due care for his safety. 

Whenever any vehicle is stopped to permit 

a pedestrian to cross the roadway, the 

driver of any other vehicle approaching 

from the rear shall not overtake and pass 

such stopped vehicle. 

Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any 

point other than within a marked crosswalk 

or within an unmarked crosswalk at an 

intersection shall yield the right-of-way to 

all vehicles upon the roadway. 

B. A person violating this section shall, 

upon conviction thereof, pay a fine to be 

imposed by the court in the amount of 

$200. The court may also impose a term of 

community service not to exceed 15 days. 

C. Of each fine imposed and collected 

pursuant to subsection B. of the section, 

$100 shall be forwarded to the State Treasurer who shall annually deposit the moneys 

into the “Pedestrian Safety Enforcement 

and Education Fund” created by section 1 

of PL 2005, c 84 (C.39:4-36.2) 

MP032013

Figure 7. New Jersey police officers distribute these 

small flyers (palm cards) to drivers who fail to stop for 

pedestrians in marked crosswalks. These palm cards also 

provide relevant citation information for officers. (Image 

source: New Jersey Department of Transportation) 

18

•	 Classroom-Based Training: Classroom 

training is best done as a officer-toofficer training, including discussion 

about nuances and interpretations of state 

and jurisdictional laws associated with 

pedestrian and bicycle safety targeting 

behaviors of motorists, pedestrians, and 

bicyclists. Classroom-based training for 

pedestrian safety should include discussion 

and ideally hands on-learning of setting 

up for a pedestrian operation. Classroombased training for bicycle safety can 

include on-bicycle training to give 

officers a perspective and appreciation 

of the challenges faced with bicycling 

in traffic and law enforcement needs. 

On-Bike Training 

Several organizations offer training that 

officers may take to give them the hands on 

perspective by actually riding the bicycle. 

• The League of American Bicyclists 

(LAB) offers League Cycling Instructor 

(LCI) training(9)

 to community members 

interested in teaching others about safe 

bicycling through the LAB Traffic Safety 

101 course and beyond. Some 

communities send law enforcement 

officers and other staff members to these 

trainings to increase their understanding 

of safe bicycle riding and how to teach 

these skills to others in the community. 

• The International Police Mountain Bike 

Association (IPMBA)(10)

 also provides 

on-bike training to officers, focused more 

on enforcement while on a bicycle. 

• Cycling Savvy(11)

 also provides 

bicycle training courses, including online 

and in-person courses. 

9 http://bikeleague.org/content/find-take-class 

10 http://ipmba.org/training 

11 https://register.cyclingsavvy.org/home 

How to Develop a 

Pedestrian Safety Action Plan 

FHWA-SA-05-12 

Revised March 2009 

Figure 8. Cover of NHTSA Pedestrian Safety 

Enforcement Operations: A How-To Guide. 

Federal Safety Measure Resources 

The NHTSA created the resource guide 

Pedestrian Safety Enforcement Operations: 

A How-To Guide to provide tips and 

guidance on how States and communities 

can effectively deploy pedestrian safety 

enforcement operations to reduce pedestrian 

injuries and fatalities. The guide includes a 

summary of promising practices, guidance 

on planning and implementing an operation, 

a discussion of several considerations and 

variations, recommendations regarding 

the evaluation of pedestrian safety 

programs, and a series of case studies. 

FHWA’s Countermeasures That Work is a 

resource to identify appropriate evidencebased countermeasures to address a variety 

of common safety challenges. Chapters 8 

and 9 provide countermeasures specific to 

bicycle and pedestrian safety concerns. 

19


20 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Effective land use 

policies, zoning, and 

other development 

standards can help 

create complete 

pedestrian and bike 

networks. 

2.3 PROMOTE BICYCLE AND 

PEDESTRIAN SUPPORTIVE 

DEVELOPMENT 

Land use policies, zoning regulations, and 

developer requirements set the stage for 

developing complete bicycle and pedestrian 

networks by establishing principles for walkable 

and bikeable communities, ensuring the built 

environment supports the network, and by 

creating requirements and incentives for building 

infrastructure. Land use policies and regulations 

can create bicycle and pedestrian supportive 

development. This section is intended to inform 

policy makers about the following tools that 

ensure private development supports larger goals 

for active transportation: 

•	 Smart growth and efficient 

land use management. 

•	 Mixed use zoning. 

•	 Design standards and form-based code. 

•	 Parking requirements. 

•	 Other development standards. 

Smart Growth 

FHWA defines smart growth as “a set of 

policies and programs design to protect, 

preserve, and economically develop 

established communities and valuable 

natural and cultural resources.”(12) 

12 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/glossary/ 

Smart Growth and Efficient Land 

Use Management 

Smart growth policies assist in the creation of 

complete networks by establishing development 

patterns designed to shorten trip distances and 

encourage active transportation. 

There are numerous existing resources available 

to help communities implement smart growth 

policies, including the following: 

•	 Smart Growth America: Smart Growth 

America is a national coalition of 

practitioners working to use smart growth 

to develop neighborhoods as vital, 

economically rich places. It provides 

research and guidance on implementing 

smart growth in varying contexts. 

•	 Smart Growth Online: The Smart 

Growth Online Clearinghouse is a 

project of the Maryland Department of 

Planning and is funded by the U.S. EPA 

Office of Sustainable Communities. 

The office gathers resources and 

information about funding sources and 

awards from across the United States. 

•	 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Smart Growth Program: In addition to 

webinars, videos, and podcasts, the EPA 

hosts resources for grants and funding, 

compiles a “Newsroom” with recent 

publications, describes the agency’s 

technical assistance program, and more. 
21 

	 

	 

	 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts 	 

The Massachusetts Housing and Economic 

Development website provides Smart Growth 

Resources, including materials related to 

parking, land use, and transportation and tools 

for increasing synergy between these topics.(13) 

13 http://www.mass.gov/hed/community/planning/smart-growth.html 

•	 National Center for Smart Growth 

Research and Education is a 

nonpartisan center for research and 

leadership training on smart growth 

and related land use issues. 

Many states host their own 

websites with local resources for 

accomplishing smart growth goals. 

Mixed Use Zoning 

Mixed use zoning promotes walkable 

and bikeable communities by creating 

communities that are vibrant places to live, 

work, and play both day and night. Mixed 

use zones generally allow for a higher density 

development and a mix of uses, making active 

transportation options more doable for more 

trips. Mixed use zoning may be applied at 

all levels of planning from comprehensive 

Unified Development Ordinances to 

individual zoning changes on a site-by-site 

basis. Resources for mixed use zoning include: 

•	 New Designs for Growth offers a 

General Best Practices Guide for 

implementing mixed-use zoning through 

smart growth. The website separates 

resources according to best practice 

examples for a variety of code types. 

•	 Municipal Research and Services Center 

provides numerous resources on mixed 

use and transit supportive development. 

•	 The American Planning Association 

developed model Smart Growth Codes 

to guide land use decisions and cover a 

variety of land uses including a model 

Mixed Use Zoning District Ordinance. 

Arlington, VA, TOD 

Transit-oriented development (TOD) is a 

development approach that focuses land and 

densities around a transit station or within 

a transit corridor. TOD generally combines 

mixed-use zoning with design standards 

or form-based code to create pedestrianoriented development. With a mix of uses, 

higher density development, bicycle and 

pedestrian connectivity, and reduced parking 

standards, TOD can decrease motor-vehicle 

trips, and increase walking and biking trips 

When the Washington D.C. metropolitan 

area was building a new regional rail 

system in the 1960s, Arlington County 

officials created the General Land Use 

Plan to focus development around the five 

new transit stations. They called this the 

“bull’s eye concept” with the center target 

as the densest part of the station area and 

less dense development on the outskirts. 
Chapter 2 Block Frontages & Urban Design Framework 7

2.1 Downtown Urban Design Framework Map

Below is the Downtown Urban Design Framework Map, which designates the type of block frontage 

standards that apply to each block within the Downtown planning area. The map also indicates areas where 

future internal connections are required in conjunction with future redevelopment, and special gateway 

sites and high visibility street corner sites which are subject to special design standards described in Section 

3.5. Section 2.2 includes design standards for the applicable block frontage designation.

Fig. 2-1. Downtown urban design framework map.

Design Standards and Form-Based 

Codes 

A building’s siting and design has a significant 

impact on the pedestrian and bicycle network. 

Site design elements such as the location of 

building entrances, the location of parking, 

setbacks, walkways, and presence of bike 

parking all contribute to creating a connected 

network. Building design elements, such 

as window locations and transparency, 

can also create a more pedestrian oriented 

environment by encouraging “eyes on 

the street” and providing more engaging 

spaces for pedestrians and bicyclists. 

Site Design for Walkability 

Bringing buildings to the street, rather 

than separating them from the street with 

large setbacks or parking, helps improve 

bicycle and pedestrian connections. An 

accessible building entrance facing the 

street provides a seamless connection to 

the building for nonmotorized travelers. 

If on site parking is needed, placing parking 

in the back or sides of the development 

helps link new development with the 

street fabric. Pedestrians and bicyclists 

experience fewer hazards associated with 

curb cuts and motor vehicle ingress and 

egress. Creating pedestrian oriented setback 

and parking location standards can result 

in placemaking and safety benefits. 

Form-Based Code 

Going beyond site design requirements, 

form-based code can provide additional 

design guidance to create a desirable 

pedestrian and bicycle network, such as 

transparency requirements or the ratio 

between the height of the buildings and the 

width of the street. Form-based codes can 

respond to different street types, creating 

development standards that support the 

Austin, Texas Development Standards 

The City of Austin specifically calls for 

bicycle and pedestrian accommodation in 

the City’s Site Development Standards, part 

of Title 25 of their Code of Ordinances. 

It includes standards to ensure that site 

design promotes efficient pedestrian, 

bicycle, and vehicle circulation patterns, 

streetscapes support a human scaled 

environment, and that streets support 

pedestrian, bicycle, and transit mobility. 

https://www.municode.com/library/tx/austin/codes/ 

code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT25LADE_CH25-

2ZO_SUBCHAPTER_EDESTMIUS_ART2SIDEST 

Boise, Idaho Design Standards 

The City of Boise created downtown design 

standards and guidelines that encourage 

high quality urban design and promote 

compact, walkable development patterns 

with a focus on creating a comfortable 

walking environment downtown. A detailed 

Downtown Streetscape Standards and 

Specifications Manual lays out all of the 

streetscape improvement requirements for 

new development, The combination of the 

design standards for development and for 

streetscapes provides a coordinated approach 

to creating a pedestrian-oriented downtown. 

http://pds.cityofboise.org/media/215767/downtowndesign-guidelines-revised-6-23-16.pdf 

9TH

5TH

FRONT

13TH

STATE

FORT

IDAHO

8TH

MAIN

15TH

JEFFERSON

3RD

HAYS

LATAH

11TH

RIVER

GARDEN

MYRTLE

ALPINE

16TH

CAPITOL

4TH

6TH

27TH

BOISE

FAIRVIEW

ROOSEVELT

RESSEGUIE

25TH

24TH

ROSE HILL

23RD

BEACON

INTERSTATE 184

GROVE

BROADWAY

10TH

UNIVERSITY

22ND

34TH

AMERICANA

IRVING

ALBION

CLAY

BROAD

19TH

1ST

30TH

35TH

14TH

PUEBLO

28TH

29TH

EMERALD

GAGE

OFARRELL

CRESCENT RIM 26TH

UNION

36TH

VISTA

KIPLING

33RD

CESAR CHAVEZ

PLEASANTON

OWYHEE

PARK 17TH

7TH

LUSK

SHORELINE ROYAL

THATCHER

BETHEL

GROVER

32ND

HOLMES

AGATE

DENTON

LIBBY

21ST

OSAGE

FEDERAL

EARLE

BROWN

GRANT

GRAND

WASHINGTON

CARR

EUCLID

MILLER

RIM

ISLAND

JEWELL

DALE

MORRIS HILL

LINCOLN

LONGMONT

LEADVILLE

JUANITA

PEASLEY

MANITOU

COLLINS

ASH

GEM

2ND

FREEMONT

CLINTON

18TH

31ST

WARM SPRINGS

HOUSTON

POTTER

FRANKLIN

SPA

MICHIGAN

MARSHALL

EIDEN

YALE

KENDALL

FULTON

ROBBINS

NEEL

GARRISON

BRADY

OAKLAND

JULIA DAVIS

HOOVER

LEE

ARCHER

GLENN

LA POINTE

DENVER

SHOSHONE

CHRISWAY

THEATRE

MARK

RANDALL

SIERRA

EDGEMONT

WALLACE

RUBY

12TH

MICHAEL

TULARA

PARKCENTER

JACKSON

EAST

LOIS

BALSAM

PIONEER

CHINDEN

JOYCE

BRONCO

PACIFIC

MEADOW

SHERWOOD

AVENUE C

HOLLY

RESERVE

VA HOSPITAL

OPAL

BANNOCK

CLEVELAND

HANAN

VERMONT

BASS

ANN MORRISON PARK

VAUGHN

EASTOVER

DOT

AVENUE D

AVENUE B

GAIL

MASON

HORIZON

CAMROSE ROGER

VINSON

DAY

FAIRMONT

PEARL

WILSON

ATLANTIC

PIKE

GOURLEY

CORAL

CHALET

LAKE

INTERSTATE 84

MADISON

FERGUSON

BELMONT

AVENUE A

MARTHA

MANVILLE

BORAH

PEG

WHEELER

BRENNEN

COLORADO

ABBS

CYPRESS

HARDING

CORPORAL

20TH

WINDSOR

HAPPY

BRUCE

STAPLETON

MIKE

PURDUE

LEONA

REDWOOD

ARCADIA

FLETCHER

WILLOWAY

TABITHA

MESA VISTA

VICTORIA

DONALD

COOPER

DOUGLAS

CUNNINGHAM

HULBE

BERKELEY

PARKVIEW

FRANKLIN

GLENN

17TH

HARDING

CLINTON

29TH

4TH

5TH

GLENN

MORRIS HILL

10TH

WILSON

MAIN

31ST

8TH

3RD

12TH

VINSON

GROVER

MADISON

4TH

WILSON

GROVER

30TH

AVENUE B

JOYCE

FRANKLIN

GLENN

OPAL

ATLANTIC

2ND

OWYHEE

JACKSON

ALBION

ARCHER

14TH

BANNOCK

WILSON

10TH

HARDING

RUBY

12TH

FAIRMONT

10TH

FORT

GAIL

CORAL

WASHINGTON

6TH

7TH

11TH

MANVILLE

LUSK

IDAHO

30TH

GARDEN

INTERSTATE 184

5TH

AGATE

GEM

WILSON

ROSE HILL

GROVE

GROVER

18TH

PEARL

30TH

LEE

17TH

FAIRVIEW

ANN MORRISON PARK

BOISE 

DEPOT

KATHRYNN 

ALBERTSON PARK

JULIA DAVIS PARK

FORT BOISE PARK

CAPITOL

FAIRVIEW 

PARK

MCCAULEY PARK

Campus Master Plan 

guides frontage design.

Designations subject 

to change via future 

master planning

Block frontage provisions 

to be determined by 

existing Capitol Blvd 

Design District Standards

0 1,000 2,000 500 [ Feet

Downtown Planning Area 

Storefront

Planning area boundary 

Commercial/mixed-use

Landscaped

Other

Future internal connection 

with redevelopment 

(conceptual location) 

(no color) 

Street Corners 

Gateway and high visibility 

street corners (includes special 

design guidelines) 

Preliminary block frontage designations based on goals 

and policies of Blueprint Boise and various adopted 

downtown plans. 

Block Frontage Designation 

22


  

 

­

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

A form-based code is a “regulation that 

fosters predictable built results and a highquality public realm by using physical 

form (rather than the separation of uses) as 

the organizing principle for the code.”(14) 

14 formbasedcodes.org 

bicycle and pedestrian network. Resources 

for developing form-based codes include: 

•	 Form-Based Codes Institute: The 

Form-Based Codes Institute maintains 

a library of examples form-based 

codes and other resources. 

•	 Form-based Codes: A Step-by-step Guide 

for Communities acts as a workbook to 

support communities’ FBC efforts, which 

includes policies to influence site design. 

•	 PlannersWeb: The blog discusses 

typical elements of a form-based 

code and the difference between FBC 

and conventional zoning code. 

•	 Codes that Support Smart Growth 

Development EPA: This website 

provides examples of several types of 

municipal codes, design guidelines, 

and street design standards. 

•	 Form-Based Codes | Planetizen: 

Planetizen’s searchable archives contain 

a multitude of posts related to form-based 

code examples from around the country. 

Parking Quantity 

Parking management is integral to 

successfully creating robust pedestrian and 

bicycle networks. Smart growth and mixed 

use developments typically demand fewer 

parking spaces than lower-density, singleuse developments. Reducing or eliminating 

parking minimums and providing parking 

maximums across certain zoning districts 

or across a municipality helps support the 

overall pedestrian and bicycle networks. 

Dedicating less area for parking cars allows 

T4 Neighborhood Small 

Footprint (T4N.SF) 

Table: 1703 P.70.A The Cincinnati Transect: Summary Table (continued) 

T5 Neighborhood Large 

Setback (T5N.LS) T5 Main Street (T5MS) 

 

Cincinnati Form-Based Code 

The City of Cincinnati adopted a formbased code(15)

 in 2013 based on the vision 

laid out in its 2012 comprehensive plan 

called Plan Cincinnati. The form-based code 

works to reinforce a pattern of walkable 

urban neighborhoods by supporting existing 

walkable neighborhoods and providing a 

tool to retrofit those that are not walkable 

or have been compromised. The code 

also works to provide context-sensitive 

design of thoroughfares that will reinforce 

walkable urban neighborhoods. Planners 

developed the section of the transect shown 

above according to these principles. 

15 http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/assets/File/CFBC_1703_ 

FBC_FinalDraft_021513_web(1).pdf 

23


	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

New York City Bicycle Parking	 	 Other Development Standards 

The City of New York has implemented 

ordinances to mandate bicycle parking in 

licensed parking lots and in commercial 

buildings. The City’s Bikes in Buildings 

law(16) was created to provide a process for 

tenants of commercial office buildings with 

a freight elevator to request bicycle access 

to their workspaces. Three indoor bicycle 

parking lots are provided for free for all City 

employees. New York City Administrative 

Code section 20-327.1 has created over 

16,000 secure bike parking spaces since 2011. 

16	 http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/bikesinbuildings. 

shtml 

for higher density, more cohesive districts, 

creating a more connected pedestrian and 

bicycle network with fewer conflicts with 

driveways and surface parking lots. It can also 

reduce construction costs and remove barriers 

for redevelopment or new development. 

Resources for reducing parking include: 

•	 “Smart Growth Alternatives to Minimum 

Parking Requirements” by Christopher 

V. Forinash, et al., describes various 

tactics for managing parking besides 

minimum parking requirements. 

•	 “Reduced Parking Footprint,” Leadership 

in Energy and Environmental DesignNeighborhood Development (LEEDND): One point is available toward 

LEED-ND accreditation for sites that 

reduce vehicular parking footprints. 

There are many ways municipalities and 

developers work together to create complete 

network improvements such as sidewalks, 

pedestrian amenities, bike lanes, bicycle 

parking, signage, and wayfinding. Developer 

requirements can be included as part of 

design standards in zoning or other city codes, 

part of design guidelines and incorporated 

into a design review process, or part of 

a negotiated development agreement. 

Whatever the mechanism, it is important 

to establish the expectations for developers 

and design criteria early to effectively 

guide the process. The following resources 

help municipalities establish requirements 

and guidance for private developers. Due 

to legal differences between jurisdictions, 

individual states, counties, and municipalities 

should check best practice recommendations 

against their own legislative setting. 

•	 Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly 

Policies, Practices, and Ordinances: 

The Delaware Valley Regional Planning 

Commission (DVRPC) reviewed 

practices, policies, and ordinances from 

communities across the country. 

•	 Using Local Land Use Laws to Facilitate 

Physical Activity is a policy brief from 

the Bridging the Gap Program at the 

University of Illinois at Chicago. 

•	 ChangeLab Solutions report “Move 

This Way: Making Neighborhoods 

More Walkable and Bikeable” identifies 

common local codes that can be adjusted 

to promote active transportation. 

24


	 

	 

	 

Policy helps shape how 

networks are designed 

and provides tools to 

ensure consistency for 

users. 

2.4 DESIGN THE NETWORK
 

Developing a network of connected facilities 

occurs primarily through the application 

of the six principles of a complete network 

throughout the planning and design process. 

Using available analysis tools and public 

engagement, planners can help evaluate 

available bicycling and walking routes 

and identify and prioritize investments. 

This section focuses on how policies shape 

and guide the planning and design process. 

Before reviewing relevant policies and 

tools, key questions to consider include: 

•	 What existing policies and plans are 

in place that impact the design of the 

pedestrian and bicycle network? 

•	 When was the last time these 

policies or plans were updated? 

•	 How well have these policies 

and plans been implemented 

and evaluated over time? 

Once the policy context is understood it 

can be updated and changed to advance 

safety, comfort, and convenience 

for nonmotorized travelers. 

Complete Streets Policies 

A municipality can adopt complete streets 

policies to formalize and institutionalize 

their intent to plan, design, implement 

and maintain streets that are safe for users 

of all ages and abilities. All users are 

considered, including pedestrians, bicyclists, 

transportation users, and motorists. 

The National Complete Streets Coalition has 

identified critical elements of a comprehensive 

complete streets policy. It provides workshops 

and best-of examples to aid municipalities 

in the creation of their own policies. 

As of October 2016, thirty-two state 

governments or agencies, 76 regional 

organizations, and 663 individual 

municipalities had adopted complete 

streets policies recognized by the 

National Complete Streets Coalition. 

The Reading, Pennsylvania, complete 

streets policy was considered the nation’s 

best in 2015. The city received funding 

from a local foundation to hold a complete 

streets workshop for a cross-section 

of the community. The outcome of the 

workshop was the city adopting what 

would become an award-winning policy. 

Like Reading, many cities start their 

complete streets policy development with a 

visioning process or workshop during which 

community members express a shared desire 

to serve all types of users. Sometimes these 

facilities are referred to as 8-80, meaning 

they will work well for users aged 8 to 80 

years old. This can be formalized thorough 

an 8-80 or complete streets policy. 

25


Network Design 

Network design happens through planning. 

The following steps provide a structured 

process for applying the principles of a 

connected network: 

Evaluate the existing network for 

opportunities and constraints. Where are 

current facilities? How are they used? 

Determine primary origins and 

destinations. Where can people get by biking 

and walking? What are the key points of 

interest that might attract them? 

Establish a reasonably spaced network. The 

definition of “reasonable” spacing may vary 

from place to place, but it generally means 

making nonmotorized routes efficient and 

straightforward through strategies such as 

providing frequent and varied opportunities to 

safely cross major streets, rather than forcing 

pedestrians and bicyclists to use a handful of 

widely spaced intersections. 

Connectivity Policies 

Policies are not only focused on the type 

of facilities on the roadway network, 

connectivity is also important. New Urbanism 

development practices and complete street 

policies also emphasize a high degree 

of street connectivity as important. 

Connectivity standards and goals can set a 

maximum distance between intersections 

for different roadway types and determine 

whether cul-de-sacs or street stubs are 

allowed and how long they can be. 

Connectivity standards should also 

consider the quality of crossings as those 

are critical locations where bicyclists and 

pedestrians must interact with automobiles. 

A connected network does not disappear 

at the areas of greatest potential conflict 

between modes. The Portland Regional 

Define facility types. Defining bicycle facility 

types and linking them to roadway types can 

ensure they work for all users. Many agencies 

set policies to help determine the appropriate 

facility type. 

Evaluate and Prioritize Improvements. 

Understanding the benefits of new bicycle 

and pedestrian investments is critical to help 

ensure that they meet user needs. Connectivity 

is one of several criteria, along with safety and 

others, that may inform investment decisions. 

Implementation. Implementing new 

networks requires funding, but many projects 

can be implemented by integrating bicycle 

and pedestrian facilities into routine roadway 

resurfacing, rehabilitation, and reconstruction 

activities. Because many of these investments 

rely on signage and striping, policies to 

encourage this integration can help achieve 

network improvements at minimal additional 

cost. 

Transportation Plan includes specific policies 

to increase roadway connectivity in new 

developments, as well as various strategies 

to improve the connectivity of nonmotorized 

networks in existing urbanized areas. 

Policy Tools to Support Complete 

Streets 

Roadway Typologies 

Roadway typologies define the purpose 

and intended use of different types of roads 

under an agency’s jurisdiction. As a matter 

of policy, roadway typologies help determine 

who the primary users are. The Federal 

functional classification system is among 

the most commonly used roadway typology, 

providing a basic standard for roadway design 

and expectations, but many cities have gone 

further to define how the street network 

26


27 

Figure 10. A rendering of roadway types as 

they differ from an Urban Core to Rural 

is used by bicyclists, pedestrians, transit 

vehicles, and what the preferred priority for 

those users is in different parts of the City. 

The Great Streets and Corridors Plan and 

Policy for the City of El Paso, Texas, provides 

roadway typologies and design standards 

with a focus towards multimodal streets. 

The Pennsylvania and New Jersey 

Departments of Transportation partnered 

on a Smart Transportation guidebook and 

one of their concepts promoted is that a 

roadway typology should not be based 

solely on functional classification, but also 

take land use and place into account. This 

allows for flexibility and the ability to plan 

for alternative transportation modes. 

Design Guidelines 

Design guidelines are one of the most 

important tools that cities and states use 

to determine how streets, roads, trails, 

and other facilities are used. Design 

guidelines identify the shape and function 

of the network for various users. 

The AASHTO Green Book defines standard 

design guidelines for the National Highway 

System (NHS). States may develop their own 

standards for the design of non-NHS projects. 

There are several state design manuals as well. 

Typically municipalities also set their own 

design guidelines for their local roads to fit 

their local needs. The National Association 

of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) 

provide design guides for cities looking 

for examples and precedents from cities on 

emerging facility design. 

The City of San Francisco adopted a policy 

called “Better Streets” that highlights the 

need for balancing the needs for all street 

Figure 9. A before and after rendering of a proposed road diet and bike lane installation in Lombard, IL. 
users, with a particular focus on pedestrian 

and public spaces. The policy was followed 

with a plan that provides a unified set of 

standards, guidelines and implementation 

strategies, which was followed with a onestop website that resulted form several 

city agencies collaborating to simplify 

the process for street improvements. The 

City of Chicago took a similar pedestrian 

focused approach to its design guidelines. 

Planning Checklists 

A city can create a checklist to help determine 

whether and how bicycle and pedestrian 

facilities can be addressed in proposed 

projects. Checklists can be a simple tools, 

but can effectively ensure that pedestrian and 

bicycle needs are conservatively addressed 

in planning for streets and roads. They may 

consider elements like roadway speeds, 

volumes and facility types. They may be 

simple checks on the process: were bicycle 

and pedestrian advocacy groups included 

in the planning process? Or they may be 

more sophisticated tools that consider how 

existing and proposed roadway infrastructure 

may impact pedestrians and bicyclists. 

Level of Service Thresholds 

One of the most basic policy tools that 

states and cities have used to determine 

how roadways function is through Level 

of Service (LOS). LOS has evolved over 

Pennsylvania DOT Bicycle 

and Pedestrian Checklist 

The Pennsylvania DOT provides a Bicycle 

and Pedestrian Checklist divided into three 

sections for each stage of the development 

process: planning, scoping, and design. It 

also breaks the checklist into evaluating 

several aspects of roadway design including: 

pedestrian and bicycle facilities, planning 

and programming and right-of-way design. 

City of Chicago Complete 

Streets Design Guidelines 

The Chicago Complete Streets Design 

Guidelines reframed the city’s transportation 

planning, design, and engineering focus by 

prioritizing pedestrian needs. New projects 

developed since the guidelines’ publication 

must abide by a modal hierarchy that focuses 

on pedestrians. 

many years, but at its most basic, LOS 

provides a simple letter grade that measures 

the user experience of the roads, typically 

from a motor vehicle driver’s perspective. 

More recently, the Transportation Research 

Board Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 

has moved in the direction of establishing 

Multimodal Level of Service, providing 

grades for all types of facilities, including 

transit, bicycle and pedestrian. 

For bicyclists and pedestrians, the standards 

or thresholds that cities set for LOS can 

significantly impact how the road space is 

used. By setting a threshold for automobile 

delay, cities may unintentionally limit 

what types of bicycle and pedestrian 

infrastructure can be provided. This can 

be especially challenging at intersections, 

where turn lanes and through traffic lanes 

often squeeze out or merge with bicycle 

lanes, creating potential safety risks. 

Some states and cities are beginning to 

reevaluate the use of LOS as a guiding 

metric for street design, based on metrics 

other than vehicular throughput. 

The City of Charlotte developed a 

methodology to evaluate how signalized 

intersections meet the needs of pedestrians 

and bicyclists and use that methodology to 

determine if a project should be expanded 

to improve bicycle or pedestrian facilities 

or if a roadway project will make travel 

28


29 

residents, stakeholder and the plan steering 

committee or any other related committee. 

worse for cyclists and pedestrians. While 

they utilize the term LOS, in this case, 

(17) it is one that evaluates all modes.

Project Prioritization 

Bicycle network projects and programs 

must compete with other capital 

improvements and municipal services, 

as well as with one another, for limited 

budget. In order to maximize investment 

and provide the greatest benefit, a logical 

and systematic approach should be used 

to prioritize infrastructure investments for 

implementation. Criteria for prioritization 

should reflect the goals and objectives 

established for the approach to the network 

and incorporate any input from community 

17 http://www.trb.org/Main/Public/Blurbs/160228.aspx 

Figure 11. A level of traffic stress (LTS) analysis 

map for a group of western Chicago suburbs. 

This and other analyses assist with network 

design and implementation prioritization. 

City of Charlotte LOS 

In 2007, the City of Charlotte developed 

a methodology to evaluate how signalized 

intersections meet the needs of pedestrians 

and bicyclists. The results of the methodology 

inform the preferred design and operation 

features that can help achieve desired levels 

of service for pedestrians and bicyclists. 

A multimodal Level of Service approach 

was intended to reflect the goals inherent 

in Charlotte’s Urban Street Design 

Guidelines (USDG), specifically the desire 

to increase transportation choices by 

making travel by pedestrians, cyclists, and 

transit users safer and more convenient. 

California Switch from LOS 

For many years, Level of Service (LOS) has 

been the standard metric used to measure 

transportation impacts from developments 

and road changes through the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). LOS 

measures how many vehicles can pass 

through an intersection in a given time. 

If a project going through CEQA review 

reduced a road or intersection’s LOS, it 

was considered a negative environmental 

impact. Defining LOS as an environmental 

impact limited how the state and its cities 

could address other competing needs, such 

as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, 

developing multimodal transportation, 

or promoting infill development. 

In September 2013, Governor Jerry Brown 

signed Senate Bill 743, which removed 

the requirement to use LOS in CEQA 

review. The state is expected to establish 

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per capita 

as a replacement metric. VMT measures a 

project’s overall impact on travel, not just the 

delay caused to cars at key intersections. 
After planning, design, 

and construction of 

facilities, now what? 

Maintenance will make 

the project last. 

2.5 MAKE IT LAST
 

Maintenance is the final piece in creating 

successful bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 

Maintenance programs make facilities last 

and allow for continued usage over time. 

Because ongoing maintenance is often not 

included in funding of the initial project, 

strategic planning is required to determine 

future maintenance needs and to identify 

effective policies, programs, and budgets to 

address these needs. This section identities the 

role of policy in defining future maintenance 

needs and how to fund those needs. 

Maintenance Needs 

Internal policies and procedures must 

support the maintenance needs of the active 

transportation network. Interdepartmental 

coordination and communication are 

needed to provide maintenance to new 

or updated elements of the network, 

especially if new equipment is needed or 

a new approach is required. Setting the 

policies and priorities for maintenance at the 

beginning of a planning or implementation 

project will help ensure success over time. 

Below is a list of maintenance needs for 

both bicycles and pedestrians and policy 

recommendations to help jurisdictions 

reach their maintenance goals. 

Accessibility and Sidewalk Inspection 

Communities should develop and adopt 

sidewalk maintenance and inspection 

criteria. This criteria ensures that programs 

not only following ADA guidelines but 

also respond to accessibility issues when 

they arise. The goal of ADA is to create an 

accessible path of travel and this applies 

to sidewalks, curbs, and crosswalks. The 

FHWA Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian 

Facilities for Enhanced Safety describes 

this minimum criteria to consider, including 

“displacements (heaving, faults, changes 

in level), changes in grade, cross-slopes 

(including cross slopes at driveways), vertical 

clearances, sidewalk displacements, grade 

Figure 12. The buffered bike lane pictured above 

would benefit from street sweeping. Operations 

and maintenance policies should specify that 

crews sweep streets from curb to curb, including 

bike lanes. Special equipment may be needed to 

adequately maintain barrier separated bike lanes. 

30


31 

changes, cross-slopes, vertical clearances, 

maximum running grades, minimum 

clear width and the distance protruding 

objects extend into the pedestrian path.” 

Sweeping, Litter Collection, 

Mowing, and Trimming 

Many local governments set policies 

and procedures for street sweeping, litter 

collection, and other maintenance tasks. 

Trails, on-street bikeways, and sidewalks 

require regular maintenance. Facilities 

accumulate glass, leaves, sand, and trash that 

must be removed in order to keep them safe. 

Glass is a major issue for bicycles because 

it is a flat tire hazard. Bicyclists often avoid 

routes that are not maintained regularly. 

Bikeways on arterial roads require special 

attention because of the additional traffic, 

increased potential for litter, and the 

importance of preserving key connections. 

Along with sweeping, consistent trash 

removal makes facilities more safe and 

aesthetically pleasing. Accessible trash 

receptacles and regularly scheduled trash 

Figure 13. Winter bicycling depends on 

high-quality maintenance programs. 

pick-up can reduce the impact of litter. 

When building new facilities, consider costs 

per mile associated with trash receptacles 

and regular pick-up activities to ensure 

future maintenance needs are met. 

Debris from automobile crashes should be 

removed as soon as possible so it does not 

impact bike facilities. If the collision requires 

a towing company, the towing company is 

often responsible for site cleanup. If a tow 

truck is not involved, the municipality may 

need a 311 system or a similarly responsive 

program to ensure quick and thorough 

cleanup of noted roadway hazards. 

Because sidewalks and trails often abut 

natural and landscaped areas, mowing and 

tree trimming are important maintenance 

practices that keep grass and weeds off 

the trail and prevent taller vegetation 

from creating obstructions and visibility 

issues. More harmful weeds are also kept 

from pollinating and reproducing through 

regular mowing making it a preventative 

practice as well. While keeping a sidewalk 

and trail clear and safe is imperative, 

vegetation plays a substantial role in an 

City of Minneapolis 

Maintenance Guidelines 

The City of Minneapolis uses a 

comprehensive Street and Sidewalk Design 

Guidelines document which includes a 

chapter on Bicycle Facility Design. This 

chapter has a section devoted specifically 

to maintenance of bicycle facilities. 

The maintenance guidelines are used by 

the City’s Public Works staff as a best 

practices document for their maintenance 

activities. Providing a thorough outline of 

maintenance needs in one document also helps 

the City better understand its maintenance 

needs and how to budget for them. 
area’s character and appearance as well 

as natural systems so thought should be 

given to the uniqueness of each area when 

developing a maintenance program. 

Restriping, Signage and Graffiti Removal 

Use, the proposed weather and maintenance 

activities (such as sweeping or snow 

removal) can degrade the surface of the 

facilities and signage over time. To keep 

pedestrian and bicycle facilities legible and 

safe, regular restriping and signage upkeep 

is needed. It is common for trails to be 

restriped approximately every 5 years and 

for signage to be replaced approximately 

every 10 years. On-street markings for 

bicycle facilities and pedestrian crosswalks 

are typically painted on an annual basis. 

Municipalities also set standards for the 

removal of graffiti on public and private 

property, including walls, fences, and 

signs. Graffiti on walls and fences can be 

unappealing aesthetically and decrease 

user comfort while graffiti on signage 

can also threaten the safe operation of 

the facility. Municipalities should assess 

the costs of graffiti removal and create 

a program to successfully respond to 

graffiti. Code enforcement efforts can help 

address graffiti on private property. 

Plowing and Ice Removal in Winter 

Denver, CO, provides information on 

where and when snow plowing will occur 

and works to include all bike lanes in this 

plowing.(18)

 Denver also has policies 

related to plowing separated bike lanes 

(with special small plow vehicle) and trail 

plowing. The City provides tips on winter 

biking, how to avoid certain conditions, 

and points citizens to its 311 system when 

plowing has not succeeded for bicyclists. 

18 http://www.denversnowplan.com/bicycling-winter 

FHWA’s Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian 

Facilities for Enhanced Safety 

FHWA provides guidance(19)

 for maintaining 

pedestrian facilities to improve safety and 

mobility. The Guide covers pedestrian 

facility maintenance needs including: 

common maintenance issues; inspection, 

accessibility, and compliance; maintenance 

measurers; funding; and construction 

techniques to reduce future maintenance. The 

guide includes examples from jurisdictions 

of varying sizes and geographies to 

address many maintenance contexts.” 

The guide includes a funding chapter that 

discusses opportunities for cities to fund 

sidewalk repair and maintenance instead 

of charging individual property owners 

for repairs. Corvallis, OR, includes a 

sidewalk maintenance fee as part of a 

monthly sewer and water bill. The fee was 

determined by taking the average monthly 

cost to repair defective sidewalks divided 

by the number of utility customers. 

19 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/fhwasa13037/ 

Plowing and Ice Treatment 

In areas that receive regular snowfall, plowing 

is critical, routine maintenance to ensure safe 

year-round bicycling and walking. Programs 

should provide on-street bikeways with the 

same level of winter maintenance as the rest 

of the street surface and also have smaller 

vehicles available for plowing separated 

cycle tracks and trails soon after snowfall. 

Ice, even the smallest patches, poses a 

greater hazard for bicyclists and pedestrians 

and sometimes typical plowing and 

maintenance methods do not sufficiently 

remove ice. Programs that identify and 

address problem-areas prone to be icier 

due to poor drainage, shading, or other 

circumstances can improve safety. 

32


33 


 

Policies must also be in place to ensure 

private property is plowed and free of ice. 

Property owners need to be informed and 

diligent about their maintenance obligations. 

Sidewalks, walkways, and bike rack areas 

should be accessible and clear of snow 

and ice in the winter months to guarantee 

use and minimize safety concerns. 

Preventive Maintenance 

Routine maintenance prolongs the life of 

bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure while 

also making it more safe and comfortable. 

On-street repairs like crack sealing, 

pothole patching, and others can reduce 

asphalt wear without having to replace 

all of the infrastructure. Entire roadway 

surfaces are milled and overlaid on a 

regular basis to ensure a smooth surface 

while the existing base stays intact. 

As for pedestrians, there are numerous best 

practices for the maintenance of sidewalks. 

The most frequent type of sidewalk 

maintenance activity is to repair uneven slabs 

caused by tree roots lifting a concrete slab 

Figure 14. Ann Arbor, MI uses a voter-approved 

sidewalk mileage tax for sidewalk repair and 

replacement. Voters viewed the measure as 

more equitable and effective than the code 

requirements that made adjacent property owners 

responsible for sidewalk maintenance (source: 

http://www.a2gov.org/departments/engineering/
 

pages/street-and-sidewalk-millage.aspx) 

or the settling of earth causing a slab to sink. 

Other issues besides slab displacement include 

cracks, holes and surface deterioration. Each 

municipality should have a program in place 

to address these types of common problems 

that impair pedestrian safety and accessibility. 

Funding Maintenance Activities 

Policies are needed across departments 

that prioritize maintenance activities 

to support safe and complete 

pedestrian and bicycle networks. 

Municipal General Fund 

Most communities treat bicycle and 

pedestrian facilities as community assets 

for which maintenance is funded through a 

municipality’s general fund or transportation 

fund. Revenues for these types of programs 

typically come from local property and sales 

taxes. Sidewalk, trail, and street maintenance 

of nonmotorized routes programs are often 

managed separately, sometimes by different 

departments, requiring funds to be allocated 

separately to each program. A best practice 

is to lump together sidewalk, trail, and street 

maintenance into one capital improvement 

program to ensure that one program’s 

budget is not a lower priority than others. 

Piggyback Funding 

Piggyback funding refers to policies that 

requires that pedestrian and bicycle facilities 

within a certain distance of other public 

right-of-way improvements also receive 

maintenance as needed. Thus, the small costs 

of pedestrian and bicycle facility maintenance 

can be wrapped into larger projects. Many 

communities have found piggyback funding 

programs to be successful and popular. 
	 -

Property Owner Assessment 

for Maintenance 

Regarding sidewalks specifically, some 

municipalities require the adjacent property 

owner to pay for all or a portion of sidewalk 

maintenance costs. While an assessed cost 

to repair a sidewalk allows property owners 

to see direct benefit from payment, there are 

political and equity concerns in using this 

method for maintaining public facilities with 

private monies from individual households. 

A more equitable approach treats sidewalks 

as public facilities, similar to roadways. This 

approach distributes the financial burden 

among all property owners and facilitates 

more comprehensive, systematic maintenance. 

Special Districts and 

Homeowners Associations 

Special districts play a key role in 

maintenance, especially in regards to 

sidewalks and crosswalks. 

Communities commonly set up an 

improvement district (such as Downtown 

Associations, Business Improvement 

Districts, Community Improvement Districts, 

Transportation Policy Areas) to assume 

some or all maintenance responsibility for 

pedestrian facilities and sometimes bicycle 

facilities. 

Bicycle Parking Guidelines 

In addition to facilities like bicycle lanes and 

sidewalks, end of trip facilities are 

an important component of any active 

transportation network. The Association of 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Professionals has 

published several resources on bicycle parking 

including a set of guidelines updated in 2010(20) 

and a more recent short summary titled 

“Essentials of Bicycle Parking” that provide 

guidance on bicycle parking siting and design. 

20	 http://www.apbp.org/resource/resmgr/Bicycle_Parking/Essentialsof 

BikeParking_FINA.pdf 

Homeowner associations are formal legal 

entities that play a key role in maintaining 

common areas, which often include sidewalks 

and paths. The amount of services provided by 

homeowners associations generally depends 

on the fees assessed to property owners in a 

given association but pedestrian facilities are 

nearly always covered through these fees. 

Special Communitywide 

Assessments, Taxes, and Bonds 

Special communitywide assessments like 

term-limited voter-approved levies or special 

property tax assessments can also fund bicycle 

and pedestrian facilities and their maintenance. 

Sales tax often indirectly funds facility 

maintenance because it goes towards 

the general fund but in many places, 

municipalities raise sales tax rates 

for specific purposes like bicycle and 

pedestrian facility maintenance. 

Bonds allow municipalities to fund 

large capital expenditures by leveraging 

existing revenues. In doing so, they 

can quickly address funding gaps for a 

variety of capital improvements including 

pedestrian and bicycle facilities and their 

maintenance. Like assessments and sales 

tax increases, bonds are generally approved 

by residents through a referendum. 

Utility Fees, Vehicle Licenses, 

Parking Fees, and Fines 

Utility fees can be a small but consistent 

funding source that communities can use 

to fund maintenance pedestrian facilities 

especially. While not common, funding 

sources for bicycle and pedestrian facility 

maintenance can also come from vehicle 

license fees, parking fees, and revenue 

received from red light enforcement cameras. 

34


Local agencies should 

remain flexible and 

creative to capitalize 

on partnerships, inkind matches, and 

other non-traditional 

opportunities. 

2.6 PAY FOR IT
 

Funding programs to establish safe and 

complete bicycle and pedestrian networks 

require a diverse and creative approach. 

While federally funded grants are critical 

for implementing big capital projects, local 

agencies should remain flexible and creative 

to capitalize on partnerships, in-kind matches, 

and other non-traditional opportunities to 

implement their respective visions, goals, 

and objectives. The following sections of 

this chapter provide an overview of potential 

funding sources enabling local, regional, and 

state projects for nonmotorized transportation. 

USDOT Funding Sources 

States and MPOs are using creative 

approaches to apply Federal sources to bicycle 

and pedestrian projects, including using 

Transportation Alternatives funds, as well 

as flexible funding from other programs, as 

described below. The Federal government 

has numerous programs and funding 

mechanisms to support bicycle and pedestrian 

projects, most of which are administered 

by the U.S. Department of Transportation 

in cooperation with state and regional 

entities. The following Federal programs 

are made available to local communities 

through state and regional entities, including 

Departments of Transportation (DOTs), local 

parks and wildlife departments, and regional 

metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). 

Fixing America’s Surface Transportation 

(FAST) Act 

Congress passed a five year transportation bill 

in 2015 called the Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation (FAST) Act. The FAST Act 

provides funding for eligible bicycle projects 

through multiple funding programs already in 

existence in prior Federal transportation bills. 

Surface Transportation Block Grant 

Program 

The FAST Act replaced the Transportation 

Alternatives Program (TAP) funding 

established in previous legislation with 

a set-aside of funds under the Surface 

Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG). 

The FHWA will refer to these funds as the TA 

Set-Aside.(21) 

21 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/funding/funding_opportunities.cfm 

Figure 15. Pennsylvania Avenue bike 

lanes in Washington D.C. (Photo by Elvert 

Barnes from pedbikeimages.org) 

35

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 

Improvement (CMAQ) 

pedestrian safety programs for older adults, 

and community information and awareness 

programs. CMAQ funds transportation projects to 

reduce ozone and carbon monoxide pollution 

and meet national ambient area air quality 

standards in Clean Air Act non-attainment 

areas. The construction of pedestrian and 

bicycle facilities using CMAQ funding must 

explicitly provide a transportation function. 

Nonconstruction projects such as printed 

materials related to safe bicycling are also 

eligible for CMAQ funds. These projects 

must be geared towards transportation rather 

than recreation and must be included in a plan 

developed by the State and each MPO. 

USDOT Highway Safety Improvement 

Program (HSIP) 

NHTSA Section 405 National Priority 

Safety Programs 

NHTSA Section 405 National Priority 

Safety Program provides funding related 

to laws to enhance the safety of bicyclists 

and pedestrians. Funding may be used to 

train law enforcement on associated laws, 

enforcement of bicycle and pedestrian safety 

laws, or public education of these laws. These 

funds are available to states where bicycle 

and pedestrian fatalities exceed 15 percent 

of traffic fatalities based on the final Fatality 

Analysis Reporting System numbers, for each 

of the five years under the FAST Act. 

The Federal Highway Safety Improvement 

Program (HSIP) is intended to achieve 

significant reduction in traffic fatalities 

and serious injuries on all public roads by 

funding projects, strategies and activities 

consistent with a state’s Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP). The HSIP requires a 

data-driven, strategic approach to improving 

highway safety on all public roads that focuses 

on performance. The specific provisions 

pertaining to the HSIP are defined in Section 

1112 of MAP-21, which amended Section 148 

of Title 23, United States Code (23 USC 148). 

NHTSA Section 402 State and 

Community Highway Safety Grant 

Program 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) Federal Section 

402 funds can be used to develop education, 

enforcement and research programs designed 

to reduce traffic crashes, deaths, severity of 

crashes, and property damage. Examples of 

bicycle and pedestrian safety programs funded 

by Section 402 are comprehensive schoolbased pedestrian and bike safety education 

programs, helmet distribution programs, 

USDOT TIGER Discretionary Grants 

Program 

The USDOT’s Transportation Investment 

Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) 

Discretionary Grants Program was created 

as part of the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 with the purpose of 

funding road, rail, transit and port projects that 

achieve critical national objectives, including 

livability, economic competitiveness, 

environmental sustainability, and safety. 

More than $500 million was made available 

in FY 2014. Seventy-two applications 

were funded, many of which focused or 

incorporated active transportation elements. 

One grant recipient was the Razorback 

Regional Greenway in Northwest Arkansas. 

This project is a 36-mile, primarily off-road, 

shared-use trail that extends through 

several jurisdictions and links dozens of 

popular community destinations. While the 

majority of funds came from a TIGER grant 

and the Walton Family Foundation, local 

municipalities also dedicated significant 

resources to the project. 

36


37 

	 

	 

	 

Land and Water Conservation Fund 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

(LWCF) creates and maintains high quality 

recreation resources through the acquisition 

and development of public outdoor recreation 

areas and facilities. The program operates 

on a reimbursing basis. The local sponsor 

matches 50 percent of the project cost 

prior to applying for the grant. After the 

project is approved, the sponsoring park and 

recreation board receives a reimbursement 

of 50 percent of the actual project costs. 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development Community Development 

Block Grant Program (CDBG) 

While not traditionally viewed as a source 

of funding for bicycle and pedestrian 

projects, the CDBG program provides 

money for streetscape revitalization 

and other improvements that can 

enhance walking and bicycling. 

U.S. Department of Defense Office 

(DoD) of Economic Adjustment 

Community Investment 

The DoD Office of Economic Adjustment 

has a Community Investment program that 

provides funding for programs and projects 

that support public schools on military 

bases and the roads surrounding them. 

State and Local Funding Sources 

Although funding sources vary locally, 

this section highlights common funding 

sources at the state and local level. State 

and Federal funding sources for bicycle and 

pedestrian projects and programs continue 

to be in short supply and high demand. 

Local funds can often be easier to obtain 

for small projects and is often required as 

a match for external funding sources. 

Parks and Recreation Grants 

Most states have grant programs 

specifically for parks and recreation. 

Aside from parks, these grants can also 

fund trails, a key element in planning for 

active and connected communities. 

State Constitutional Amendments 

States constitutions typically outline the 

types of projects to which specific funding 

sources can go towards. Some states have 

passed constitutional amendments that allow 

for highways funds to be spent on bicycle 

and pedestrian projects. It is most common 

for states to pass amendments that set a 

certain percentage of state transportation 

funds that are to be spend on bicycle 

and pedestrian facilities. Other options 

include adding bicycle and pedestrian 

projects to the list of projects that existing 

sources of funding can go towards. 

Seattle’s Bridging the Gap Tax Levy 

In 2006, Seattle voters approved Bridging 

the Gap (BTG), a proposition creating a 

nine-year, $365 million tax levy in order 

to address twenty years of deferred street 

and infrastructure maintenance. BTG 

authorized regular property taxes higher than 

legislated limits, allowing collection of up to 

$36,650,000 in additional taxes in 2007 and 

up to $365,000,000 over nine years. When 

voters approved the tax levy in 2006, they 

also stipulated the percentages that should 

be spent on selected project categories: 

•	 Maintenance would receive no less 

than 67 percent of tax levy spending 

•	 Pedestrian/Bike Safety would receive no 

less than 18 percent of tax levy spending 

•	 Transit and Major Projects would receive 

no more than 15 percent of tax levy 

spending 
Vehicle Tolls and Fuel Taxes 

State’s revenues from roadway tolls and 

vehicle fuel taxes can also fund bicycle 

and pedestrian facilities. This type of 

funding is typically based on policy 

that allocates a percentage of revenues 

toward active transportation projects. 

Special Districts 

State legislation may allow counties and 

municipalities to levy and collect special 

assessments in order to finance public 

infrastructure to promote economic growth 

and development. Seattle’s approved Bridging 

the Gap proposition is an example of a tax 

levy to fund transportation improvements 

including bicycle and pedestrian projects. 

A Public Improvement District can be 

established for the construction of street and 

sidewalk improvements; park, recreation 

and cultural improvements; the creation of 

pedestrian malls; public safety and security; 

landscaping and aesthetic improvements; 

and a host of other capital projects. 

Additionally a city can create special 

districts called Municipal Management 

Districts, Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones, 

Parking Benefit Districts and Transportation 

Reinvestment Zone. Each of these districts 

can serve as a financing tool to support 

improvements through bonds, taxes, 

assessments, impact fees or other funds. 

Another example of a special district would 

be the restriction on the number of single 

occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips that can 

be made to certain areas in Silicon Valley, 

notably in Mountain View’s North Bayshore 

Precise Plan area. These SOV trip caps 

require new development to provide green 

transportation alternative in order to not 

exceed this cap. In doing so, these special 

districts promote greater private investments 

in transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities. 

Tallahassee, FL Significant 
 

Benefits Developer Program
 


The Significant Benefits Program gathers 

funds from Tallahassee developers who 

“pay their proportionate fair share” to 

discourage the creation of new single 

occupancy motor vehicle trips and sprawl 

creation. Money is eventually spent within 

the Multimodal Transportation District 

(MMTD) of Tallahassee, where 100 

percent of funds will be spent on projects to 

improve transit, walking, and bicycling. 

http://www.walkfriendly.org/communities/community.cfm?ID=196 

http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/planning/funding.cfm 

Impact Fees 

Local governments in certain states may adopt 

local ordinances imposing an impact fee on 

new development within their jurisdictions 

to fund infrastructure improvements that 

support development and the community 

at large. Although requirements vary 

according to state, these may include bicycle 

and pedestrian facilities, as well as other 

transportation and infrastructure needs like 

parks, recreational facilities, and others. 

Foundations 

Foundations supporting health, wellbeing, or 

quality of life issues are important sources of 

funding, especially for smaller programmatic 

funding which a can be harder to obtain 

through traditional grant funding mechanisms. 

Over 80,000 foundations exist throughout the 

United States. 

38


39 

Foundations and nonprofit organizations 

that provide support for bicycle and 

pedestrian networks, including planning and 

implementation include: 

• Surdna Foundation 

• Kresge Foundation 

• Robert Wood Johnson Foundation 

• W.K. Kellogg Foundation 

• People for Bikes 

• Advocacy Advance 

Local community foundations can fund 

active transportation programs and 

projects. Examples include the California 

Endowment, the James Irvine Foundation, 

and the Walton Family Foundation. 

Figure 16. The Razorback Regional 

Greenway in northwest Arkansas was funded 

through TIGER grants, the Walton Family 

Foundation, and local municipalities. 

Detroit Greenways Initiative 

The Detroit Greenways organization raised 

$10 million from Kresge Foundation, 

W.K. Kellogg Foundation, General Motors 

and the City of Detroit and leveraged $70 

million in State and Federal funding for 

greenway development. The organization 

is responsible for the construction, 

operations, maintenance, programming and 

security of these popular public spaces. 

Atlanta Regional Commission’s Livability 

Initiative Awards 

The Atlanta Regional Commission’s Livability 

Centers Initiative(22)

 awards competitive 

planning grants to local governments and 

nonprofits to prepare and implement plans that 

enhance existing centers and corridors 

consistent with regional development policies. 

This approach can be useful to help focus 

available resources from multiple sources into 

a concerted planning effort that address 

bicycle, pedestrian, and placemaking issues. 

22 http://www.atlantaregional.com/land-use/livable-centers-initiative 
40


Chapter 3 

IMPLEMENTATION 

All agencies have existing policies that shape how people use 

the transportation system. From laws and ordinances to standard 

operating procedures, the policies described in the prior chapter 

can help improve conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians. 

To determine where and how to begin implementing policy 

reform, evaluating the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, 

and threats of an agency’s existing policy framework will help 

prioritize implementation steps. This chapter outlines an analysis 

method to evaluate the policy and implementation environment 

of a department or whole agency and identifies considerations to 

better understand how a policy platform can be strengthened. 

41


	 

3.1 IMPLEMENTATION 

Evaluating a policy’s 

strengths, weaknesses, 

opportunities, and 

threats will help 

prioritize the policy’s 

implementation steps. 

Understanding the Strengths and 

Weaknesses of Existing Policy 

Before investing time or resources into 

implementation, communities should first 

understand the strengths, weaknesses, 

opportunities, and threats (SWOT) of their 

existing policy platforms to support safe and 

complete pedestrian and bicycle networks. 

Below are some questionsthat can help 

communities to assess issues and develop 

ideas for strengthening their policy platforms. 

Education and Training 

It is important to assess the level to 

which stakeholders are informed about 

the essential elements of creating, 

maintaining, and promoting safe and 

complete nonmotorized networks. 

•	 Are policy, planning, and engineering 

staff trained and well-informed about 

active transportation? What about staff 

in other departments or agencies that 

are involved in implementation? 

Figure 17. The chapter header image on this page and the photo above show projects shortly after 

implementation in Wichita, KS. The chapter header image shows a new bike lane and bike box on Market 

Street. The image above shows a diverter on Woodchuck Boulevard bicycle boulevard to allow for 

bicycle access. The new pedestrian hybrid beacons help people on foot cross a busy arterial street. 

42


43 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

•	 Are elected officials well informed about 

key issues related to safe and complete 

pedestrian and bicycle networks? 

•	 How well informed is the public about 

active transportation best practices? Is a 

lack of understanding among stakeholders 

about key issues holding back policy 

goals? Is a well-informed constituency 

helping to advance policy goals? 

Coalition Building and Collaboration 

It is important to have strong working 

relationships both internally and 

externally to help move the policy 

platform forward. Strong, supportive 

coalitions can help ensure the longevity 

and sustainability of policy goals. 

•	 Does the department or agency have good 

relationships with outside organizations, 

stakeholders, or community members 

that support this work? Will these 

stakeholders advocate for the policy goals? 

•	 Does the department or agency collaborate 

closely with other departments or agencies 

that have influence over the policy goals 

(political officials, City Manager, Capital 

Improvement Department, Economic 

Development, Information Technology, 

Parks and Recreation, Planning, 

Engineering, Police, Public Health, and 

Streets and Maintenance Departments)? 

Political Will/Leadership 

At the end of the day, support of elected 

officials and key community leaders 

is critical to the success of achieving 

a safe and connected network. 

•	 Are the elected officials well informed 

and supportive of the network? 

•	 Is there a champion on Council 

or in the Administration? 

Policy Context 

•	 What is the larger policy context the 

department or agency is operating in? 

How does state policy influence the 

work? Are there other agencies that 

have jurisdiction within the network 

that strengthen or weaken the work? 

•	 Are there appropriate plans and policies 

in place? Can they be strengthened 

or better utilized? Are they being 

appropriately implemented? 

Existing Assessment Tools 

When performing a SWOT analysis, 

existing assessment tools and checklists 

can assess a community, particularly 

related to its existing policy platform. 

Walk Friendly Communities Community 

Assessment Tool: This tool serves to both 

recognize existing walkable communities 

and to provide a framework for communities 

seeking to improve their walkability. 

It recognizes communities that have 

achieved high levels of walking and low 

rates of pedestrian crashes while also 

recognizing communities that are making 

progress in achieving these two goals 

through policies, projects and programs. 

Recognizing that there are many ways 

to achieve these outcomes, the range of 

questions in the tool attempts to capture the 

variety of factors that affect walkability. 

Bicycle Friendly Community Assessment 

Tool: The Bicycle Friendly America 

program provides an assessment for local 

governments, provides customized feedback, 

and provides technical assistance. This 

quick assessment to see where a community 

stands, and the full application process can 

be completed in the spring or in the fall. 
	 

- Safety. Are there appropriate policies 

in place to support enforcement? 

- Supportive development. Are 

there recommended land use 

and design policies, guidelines, 

and standards in place? 

- Design. Are there policies in 

place that facilitate the design of 

a safe and complete pedestrian 

and bicycle network? 

- Maintenance. Are there policies 

in place that ensure appropriate 

maintenance of the network over time? 

- Funding. Are there policies that enable 

sustainable funding for the network? 

Evaluation 

•	 How does the department or agency 

evaluate success? How is this 

evaluation communicated? 

Example SWOT Analysis 

Each department or agency that performs a SWOT analysis of its policy framework will have 

different results and will therefore have a unique policy agenda. Below is an example of a 

fictional agency with strong policies in place, but not a lot of support from other departments or 

elected officials. 

Strengths 

• Department staff is well informed

and trained on active transportation 

• Department staff works well with bike

and pedestrian advocacy groups 

• Have bike and pedestrian plan,

supportive development policies,

and maintenance policies 

Weaknesses 

• Other departments are not as well

informed about active transportation 

• Have never worked collaboratively

with the police department 

• Do not have policies to support enforcement 

• Lacking key funding to implement plans 

Opportunities 

• Bike advocacy group leads

trainings and workshops 

• Community stakeholders are

eager to be engaged 

Threats 

• Elected officials are not well-informed 

and have not received training 

• Do not have elected official champion 

This sample department’s hypothetical policy agenda might focus on: 

• Create a coalition of advocacy groups, community stakeholders, and department 

representatives to improve education and collaboration 

• Work with elected officials, provide educational and training opportunities, and use 

coalition to foster political will to better support funding needs. Try to get an elected official 

champion, 

• Improve collaboration with the police department and provide trainings to improve 

enforcement 

44


	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Building a Policy Agenda 

Once a department understands its context 

and issues, it can create a policy agenda to 

advance its priorities. The agenda should build 

on strengths, take advantage of opportunities, 

and address weaknesses and threats. To begin 

the agenda, the agency should understand: 

•	 What is a logical sequencing of 

activities to ensure success? 

•	 What is controlled within the department 

or agency, and what support/buy-in from 

others is needed in order to achieve? 

•	 Who are the key stakeholders and policy 

makers that need to be engaged in creating 

and implementing this policy agenda? 

•	 What funding or other resources 

exist currently to immediately initiate 

certain policy items? What needs 

additional funding support? 

The policy agenda may be an internal 

document that is used to guide internal goals 

to support safe and complete pedestrian and 

bicycle networks, perhaps created with a 

stakeholder group to guide the work, or it 

might be a public document that informs 

the community about the agency’s priorities 

for the coming years. While the content 

of the policy agenda will depend on its 

goals, each policy agenda should include: 

•	 Workflow with a logical sequencing 

of activities with key milestones and 

objectives, including timeline, responsible 

parties, and identified funding sources; 

•	 Approach for engaging key 

stakeholders, departments, agencies 

on ongoing implementation; and 

•	 Communication plan for how the 

policy agenda will be communicated 

internally and/ or externally. 

Each policy maker, department head, or 

community leader faces a unique set of 

strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and 

threats related to active transportation 

policies. Creating a tailored policy 

agenda will help ensure success. 

Atlanta Regional Commission 

The Atlanta Regional Commission used 

a SWOT Assessment to guide and inform 

the development of recommendations and 

strategies for the Regional Transportation 

Demand Management Plan (TDM). 

A similar process could be followed 

used for active transportation. The key 

objectives of the SWOT assessment are: 

•	 Document existing conditions 

as they relate to strengths and 

weaknesses in the region’s TDM 

programs, services and policies. 

•	 Document future and external factors 

that may influence threats and 

opportunities to the region’s TDM 

programs, services and policies. 

•	 Assess and evaluate the needs and gaps 

to improve the program and the existing 

strengths to leverage for success. 

•	 Inform the development of 

recommendations for TDM programs. 

www.atlantaregional.com 

45


BICYCLE AND 

PEDESTRIAN POLICY 

CASE STUDIES 

Detailed 

Case Studies 

The guidebook showcases opportunities to make street networks 

more complete, more livable, and safer for all users. In addition 

to providing guidance to create network-supportive policies, the 

guidebook includes these case studies, which were compiled based 

on a literature review and provide evidence of successful policy 

initiatives across the country. The intended use of the guidebook 

is to provide policy ideas and contacts for policy makers to utilize 

as precedent and best practice examples. Sections within each case 

study describe the policy of note along with characteristics of the 

municipality in which it was enacted and examples of similar case 

studies if they exist. 

The case studies are organized based on the guidebook’s six 

themes of effective policies: Define Success, Protect Nonmotorized 

Travelers, Promote Supportive Development, Design the Network, 

Make It Last, and Pay for It. The table on the following pages 

identifies how the guidebook’s case studies relate to each section 

of the guidebook document. Use this guide to pinpoint examples of 

policy work that speak to certain themes or topics of interest. 

A-1
 

Case 

Study 

Number 

Case Study Name Page 

Define Success

Protect Nonmotorized Travelers

Promote Supportive 

Development

Design the Network

Make It Last

Pay for It 

1 Equity Analysis within a Bicycle Master 

Plan, Seattle, WA A-4 X 

2 Design Standards Ordinance and Healthy 

Eating and Active Living, Hernando, MS A-6 X X X 

3 

Long-Range Transportation Plan 

Performance Measures, Champaign 

County, IL 

A-8 X 

4 Multimodal Level of Service, 

Jacksonville, FL A-10 X X 

5 Senate Bill No. 743, Environmental 

Quality, California A-12 X 

6 Adult Bicycle Safety Program, 

Huntington Beach, CA A-14 X 

7 Crosswalk Safety Policies, Boulder, CO A-16 X 

8 "Stop and Stay Stopped" Crosswalk Law, 

State of New Jersey A-18 X 

9 Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Ordinance, 

Chicago, IL A-20 X 

10 Bicycle Parking in Garages and Parking 

Lots, New York, NY A-22 X 

11 Downtown Design Standards and 

Guidelines, Boise, ID A-24 X 

12 Eliminating Parking Minimums in 

Transit-Friendly Areas, Seattle, WA A-26 X 

13 Form-Based Code, Cincinnati, OH A-28 X 

14 Form-Based Code, Miami, FL A-30 X 

Red boxes represent the primary guidebook element for the case study; grey boxes indicate 

another relevant guidebook element. 

A-2 
Case 

Study 

Number 

Case Study Name Page 

Define Success

Protect Nonmotorized Travelers

Promote Supportive 

Development

Design the Network

Make It Last

Pay for It 

15 

Model Ordinances for the Enhancement 

of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access to 

Transportation Facilities, State of 

Maryland 

A-32 X X X 

16 Multimodal Development and Parking 

Minimum Elimination, Fargo, ND A-34 X X X 

17 Transit-Oriented Development, 

Arlington, VA A-36 X X 

18 Bicycle and Pedestrian Checklist, 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania A-38 X 

19 Complete Streets Design Guidelines, 

Chicago, IL A-40 X X 

20 Downtown Urban Design Guidelines, 

Boulder, CO A-42 X X 

21 Healthy Design Ordinance, Los Angeles, 

CA A-44 X X 

22 Pedestrian and Bicycle LOS, Charlotte, 

NC A-46 X X 

23 Memphis Sidewalk Ordinances, 

Memphis, TN A-48 X X 

24 Bicycle Facility Maintenance Guidelines, 

Minneapolis, MN A-50 X X 

25 Bridging the Gap, Seattle, WA A-52 X 

26 Precise Plan Caps on Single Occupant 

Vehicle (SOV) Trips, Mountain View, CA A-54 X X 

A-3
 

CASE STUDY 1 

EQUITY ANALYSIS WITHIN A BICYCLE MASTER PLAN 

Seattle, WA 

The map shows areas with high concentrations of equity indicator demographics and 

low bicycle service. THE IMAGE SOURCE: SEATTLE.GOV 

Project Partners 

• City Commissions and Advisory Boards (i.e., the Freight Advisory 

Board, the Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board, the Pedestrian 

Advisory Board, Planning Commission, Design Commission, and 

the Bridging the Gap Oversight Committee). 

Define Success 

Protect Nonmotorized 

Travelers 

Promote Supportive 

Development 

Design the Network 

Make It Last 

Pay for It 

Key Elements 

The Seattle Bicycle Master Plan (2014) defines 

“equity” as follows: “Provide equal bicycling 

access for all; through public engagement, 

program delivery, and capital investment.” The 

plan helps decision makers situate the document 

within a larger governmental equity initiative and 

provides policy analysis tools to support analysis 

of equity concerns. The Racial Equity Toolkit to 

Assess Policies, Initiatives, Programs, and Budget 

Issues is part of the interagency Race and Social 

Justice Initiative, which aims to end individual, 

institutional, and structural racism. The Initiative’s 

toolkit “lays out a process and a set of questions 

to guide the development, implementation and 

evaluation of policies, initiatives, programs, and 

budget issues to address the impacts on racial 

equity” (Racial Equity Toolkit, 1). 

Seattle makes the case for investing in bicycle 

infrastructure by stating, “Policies that increase 

the number of people walking and biking appear 

to be an effective route to improving the safety 

of all roadway users. Greater safety for all road 

users may result from reaching a threshold of 

bicyclist volumes that compels motorists to drive 

more carefully.” By carefully investigating the 

distribution of infrastructure options across the 

city, the City’s policies further support the safety 

of all roadway users. 

The bicycle master plan’s policy chapter 

establishes the plan’s relation to policy initiatives 

from previously published reports. Accompanying 

documents conceived after the citywide plan’s 

2014 publication, including the Seattle Bike 

Master Plan: 2016-2020 Implementation Plan fall 

within the same policy context as Seattle’s Vision 

Zero initiative and the tax levy, Move Seattle. 

The City’s Equity Analysis identified service 

gaps within the city’s existing bicycle network. 

The maps identified the availability of bicycle 

facilities per Census tract as well as the percentage 

of households without a private car available for 

daily use. The maps also show concentrations of 

indicator demographics related to racial equity. 

The map included above shows a composite of the 

indicator demographics analyzed and highlights 

areas with low bicycle service. 

A-4
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

EQUITY ANALYSIS WITHIN A BICYCLE MASTER PLAN 

CONTINUED

Key Elements (continued)
 

The plan’s inclusion of geographic equity goals 

follows the City’s and King County’s pilot 

policies, programs, and strategic plans to foster 

racial equity and social justice. The plan shows 

the confluence of policy initiatives, evidencebased research, strong political leadership, 

and infrastructure planning, design, and 

implementation. 

Additionally, the Seattle Bike Plan emphasizes 

stakeholder and public engagement to accomplish 

equity-based objectives. 

Data 

Location Seattle, WA 

Population 608,660 (2010 Census) 

Area 83.87 sq mi 

Similar Case Studies
 


The Seattle Bike Master Plan equity analysis was 

featured in the Advocacy Advance report, Active 

Transportation Equity: A Scan of Existing Master 

Plans (2015). The report researched a variety of 

master plans to understand current definitions, 

analyses, and policy/planning initiatives related to 

geographic and/or racial equity. Practitioners can 

use the report as a touchstone when understanding 

tools, outreach efforts, performance measure 

creation, and other elements to incorporate within 

master planning and policy creation or amendment 

initiatives. 

Density 7,969 residents/sq mi 

Geography Western U.S. 

Climate Temperate marine 

Name and Year Location Agency Page 

Bridging the Gap, 2006 to 2015 Seattle, WA Seattle Department of 

Transportation 

A-52 

More information 

•	 Seattle Bicycle Master Plan: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/bmp/apr14/ 

SBMP_21March_FINAL_full%20doc.pdf 

•	 2015 Bicycle Master Plan Progress Report: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/ 

docs/2015BMPProgressReport.pdf 

•	 Active Transportation Equity: A Scan of Existing Master Plans: http://www.advocacyadvance.org/ 

docs/ActiveTransportationEquityScan.pdf 

•	 King County: Building Equity and Opportunity: http://www.kingcounty.gov/elected/executive/~/ 

media/B102A4C8AAE440F1A79BCE76986E80F5.ashx?la=en 

A-5
 

CASE STUDY 2 

DESIGN STANDARDS ORDINANCE AND 

HEALTHY EATING AND LIVING PROGRAM 

Hernando, MS 

THE IMAGE SOURCE: HOTTYTODDY.COM 

Define Success 

Protect Nonmotorized 

Travelers 

Promote Supportive 

Development 

Pay for It 

Project Partners 

• Mayor of Hernando

• Hernando City Parks Department

Key Elements 

When Hernando, Mississippi Mayor Chip Johnson 

took office in 2005, he sought to create a city 

that could defy Mississippi’s status as the State 

with the highest obesity rate in the nation. Mayor 

Johnson led a multi-pronged policy approach 

to create healthy environments for the city’s 

residents. The City of Hernando’s health initiatives 

included a smoking ban ordinance, a youth helmet 

ordinance, a new farmers market, a community 

garden, and city employee wellness program. 

Complementing these activities, the City placed 

a strong emphasis on developing policies to help 

people include physical activity into everyday 

routines. Under the umbrella of the City’s health 

initiative, policies to promote more walking and 

bicycling (e.g., Complete Streets) became more 

appealing to the community. 

To increase the number of people walking, the City 

amended its design standards to require sidewalks 

with all new development and redevelopment 

projects. As the City focused its public dollars on 

repairing downtown sidewalks that were in poor 

condition, the new design standards facilitated 

the development of miles of new sidewalks in 

suburban developments that were previously 

disconnected from their surroundings. Today, 

City staff collaborate with the local Community 

Foundation to train local planning and elected 

officials in healthy eating and active living policy 

development. 

In 2006, the Mayor helped create a new City 

Parks Department to refurbish existing city parks 

and to encourage more residents of all ages to 

play outside. In 2010, the City passed their first 

Complete Streets policy, which requires the City 

to consider the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians 

on roadway projects. The Complete Streets Policy 

has led to miles of new bike lanes, sidewalks and 

trails. The Complete Streets Policy was marketed 

to appeal to the City’s businesses and residents. 

Aldermen concerned with economic development 

played a key role in promoting the policy by 

explaining its potential to help the City attract new 

residents and businesses by creating a safer and 

more pleasant street environment. 

The City has received more than $800,000 in 

funding to promote activity and healthy eating 

and in 2010, Hernando was name the “Healthiest 

Hometown in Mississippi” by the Blue Cross 

& Blue Shield of Mississippi Foundation for its 

ongoing health and wellness efforts. 

A-6
 


Design the Network 

Make It Last 
DESIGN STANDARDS ORDINANCE AND 

HEALTHY EATING AND LIVING PROGRAM 

CONTINUED

Data 

Location Hernando, MS 

Population 14,090 (2010 Census) 

Area 25.8 sq mi 

Density 548 residents/sq mi 

Geography Southern U.S. 

Climate Humid subtropical 

Similar Case Studies 

Name and Year Location Agency Page 

Healthy Design Ordinance, 2013 Los Angeles County, 

California 

Los Angeles County A-44 

More information 

• http://healthyamericans.org/assets/files/Hernando%20Miss%202.pdf 

• http://cityofhernando.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Healthy-hometown-flyer.pdf 

• http://cityofhernando.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Design-Standards-Ordinance.pdf 

• http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/2010/04/14/mississippi-on-the-map/ 

A-7
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

CASE STUDY 3 

LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES 

Champaign County, IL 

IMAGE SOURCE: LRTP.CUUATS.ORG/ 

Project Partners 

•	 Champaign County Regional Planning Commission 

• Champaign County Economic Development Corporation 

•	 Champaign Park District 

•	 Village of Rantoul 

Key Elements 

The Champaign-Urbana Area Transportation Study 

(CUUATS) Long Range Transportation Plan 

included specific performance measures “to help 

CUUATS staff track the progress of each objective 

during the five year period between LRTP updates 

according to relevant and obtainable data” 

(2040 LRTP, page 5). CUUATS tracks the plan’s 

progress through annual reports in which each 

Measure of Effectiveness (MOE) is scored with 

a good, neutral or negative rating. This process 

helps staff to consider specific concerns associated 

with each MOE, as well as overall “strengths, 

weaknesses, and difficulties in achieving LRTP 

goals and planning for the future” (2). 

MOEs within the Multimodal Connectivity 

“planning pillar” include the following: 

•	 Miles of existing non-ADA compliant 

sidewalks 

•	 Miles of trail infrastructure 

•	 Miles of bike infrastructure 

Define Success 

Protect Nonmotorized 

Travelers 

Promote Supportive 

Development 

Design the Network 

Make It Last 

Pay for It 

•	 Urbanized area contained inside the 

Metropolitan Transportation District (MTD) 

service area 

•	 Percent increase in enplanements at Willard 

Airport 

•	 Number of new rural transit connections and 

number of rural transit trips 

•	 Number of new partners identified 

•	 Number of public events with materials 

available 

The public can easily access each of the plan’s 

performance measures via the Sustainable Choices 

2040: Long Range Transportation Plan Report 

Card website (www.reportcard.cuuats.org). Each 

MOE’s respective web page contains detailed 

information about what the MOE is designed to 

measure. Each page also includes information 

about the agency’s work over time to assess 

historical trends. 

A-8
 

LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES 

CONTINUED

Data
 


Location Champaign County, IL 

Population 204,897 (2013 Census) 

Area 998 sq mi 

Density 202 residents/sq mi 

Geography Midwestern U.S. 

Climate Humid continental 

Similar Case Studies
 


Name and Year Location Agency Page 

Design Standards Ordinance and 

Healthy Eating and Active Living, 

2005 to 2010 

Hernando, MS City of Hernando, MS A-6 

Complete Streets Design 

Guidelines, 2013 

Chicago, IL Chicago Department of 

Transportation 

A-40 

Pedestrian and Bicycle LOS, 2007 Charlotte, NC City of Charlotte A-46 

More information 

• CUUATS online report card: http://reportcard.cuuats.org/summary/ 

• CUUATS LRTP Full Document: http://lrtp.cuuats.org/documents/ 

• CUUATS LRTP Chapter 9: http://lrtp.cuuats.org/lrtp-main_011615_reduced_9-goals-etc/ 

A-9
 

CASE STUDY 4 

MULTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE (MMLOS)
 


Jacksonville, FL 

IMAGE SOURCE: METROJACKSONVILLE.COM / CITY OF JACKSONVILLE 

Project Partners 

• City of Jacksonville Planning and Development Department 

Define Success 

Protect Nonmotorized 

Travelers 

Promote Supportive 

Development 

Design the Network 

Make It Last 

Pay for It 

Key Elements 

The City of Jacksonville first used multimodal 

level of service (MMLOS) analysis during the 

City’s 2030 Mobility Plan development. The local 

project evolved from the Florida Department of 

Transportation’s (FDOT) 2009 MMLOS tool, 

which was developed to support transportation 

planning, cost estimation, project design, and 

engineering. 

FDOT developed the MMLOS evaluation method 

based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual 

(HCM), Transit Capacity and Quality of Service 

Manual (TCQSM), and the 1997 Landis Bicycle 

and Pedestrian level of service (LOS) models. 

FDOT’s MMLOS calculations are designed to 

function in a variety of land use settings, from 

rural to urban environments. 

MMLOS standards are used to review regionally 

significant FDOT projects. Therefore, the City 

of Jacksonville may be distinguishing itself from 

peer cities by incorporating MMLOS analyses 

in local projects. Jacksonville’s Mobility Plan 

used pedestrian and bicycling LOS ratings to 

prioritize recommended walking and bicycling 

improvements. The plan shows pedestrian and 

bicycle networks before and after the plan’s 

proposed improvements. 

MMLOS produces LOS scores for each mode 

based, primarily, on the available space for that 

mode relative to its use. Like Auto LOS, bicycle 

and pedestrian LOS consider elements like bicycle 

lane presence, sidewalk width, and other factors 

to determine the quality of the network. One 

general challenge with the MMLOS analysis is 

the comparability of LOS grades by mode. While 

these are generally intended to convey the same 

concept, the uniqueness of each mode makes a 

one-to-one relationship challenging to implement. 

A-10
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

MULTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE (MMLOS)
 


CONTINUED

Data 

Location Jacksonville, FL 

Population 821,784 (2010 Census) 

Area 885 sq mi 

Density 928.6 residents/sq mi 

Geography Southeastern U.S. 

Climate Humid subtropical 

Similar Case Studies
 


Name and Year Location Agency Page 

Pedestrian and Bicycle LOS, 2007 Charlotte, NC City of Charlotte A-46 

Senate Bill No. 743, Environmental 

Quality, 2013 

California California State Legislature A-12 

More Information 

•	 2030 Mobility Plan: http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/transportationplanning/mobility-plan 

•	 2030 Mobility Plan Presentation: http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/docs/ 

community-planning-division/2030-mobility-plan-presentation-4-15-10.aspx 

•	 Fehr and Peers Multimodal Level of Service Toolkit: Florida DOT MMLOS: http://asap. 

fehrandpeers.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/MMLOS-Tool-Florida-DOT-MMLOS.pdf 

•	 Multimodal Level of Service Goes Mainstream: Chickens can Finally Cross Roads: http://www. 

planetizen.com/node/46112 

A-11
 

CASE STUDY 5 

SENATE BILL NO. 743, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
 


State of California 

IMAGE SOURCE: ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 

Project Partners 

• California Governor’s Office 

• California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) 

Key Elements 

Define Success 

Protect Nonmotorized 

Travelers 

Promote Supportive 

Development 

Design the Network 

Make It Last 

Pay for It 

Level of Service (LOS) was the standard metric 

used to measure transportation impacts from 

developments and road changes through the 

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 

LOS measures how many vehicles can pass 

through an intersection in a given time. If a 

project going through CEQA review reduced a 

road or intersection’s LOS, it was considered 

a negative impact. This measurement favored 

automobile travel over other modes of travel and 

conflicted with other state goals—such as reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions, developing multimodal 

transportation, and promoting infill development. 

In September 2013, Governor Brown signed 

Senate Bill 743 (SB743), which removed the 

LOS element from CEQA review and required 

the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 

(OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines with an 

alternative method for evaluating transportation 

impacts. Particularly within areas served by 

transit, SB743 called for alternative criteria that 

would “promote the reduction of greenhouse 

gas emissions, the development of multimodal 

transportation networks, and a diversity of land 

uses.” (New Public Resources Code Section 

21099(b)(1).) 

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is one of the 

alternative metrics supported. VMT measures a 

project’s overall impact on travel demand, rather 

than congestion measures such as intersection 

delay. Projects that offer the potential to decrease 

VMT by providing access to transit or by altering 

networks and land uses in ways that decrease trip 

distances will automatically be considered to have 

a “less than significant” impact under CEQA. 

Projects that have the potential to increase VMT 

score less favorably, but the negative effect can be 

offset by mitigation strategies such as improving 

pedestrian and bike facilities, funding transit 

service, or improving overall access to multimodal 

transportation options. All of these mitigation 

options help to support other state environmental 

and public health goals. 

In highly urbanized areas, new development 

is less likely to impact transportation, which 

could result in the loss of potential impact fees. 

Local governments can compensate for this 

loss by revising the purpose and application of 

transportation impact fees, including funding 

multimodal improvements. Local governments 

will have to update several types of plans and 

A-12
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

SENATE BILL NO. 743, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
 


CONTINUED

Key Elements (continued) 

policies in order to apply VMT to CEQA analyses, 

including general plans, climate action plans, 

VMT thresholds, and transportation plans. 

The California Office of Planning and Research 

(OPR) released a draft proposal for implementing 

SB 743 on January 20, 2016, with the intention 

Data 

Location State of California 

Population 37.25 million (2010 Census) 

Area 163,696 sq mi 

Similar Case Studies
 


of publishing a final rule by early 2017. In the 

meantime, a few local governments have begun 

to move forward with applying the new metrics 

to their plans and projects. For example, San 

Francisco began using the VMT threshold for all 

CEQA environmental determinations as of March 

2016. 

Density 251.30 residents/sq mi 

Geography Western U.S. 

Climate Mediterranean, continental, 

and semi-arid 

Name and Year Location Agency Page 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Level of 

Service (LOS), 2007 

Charlotte, NC City of Charlotte A-46 

Multimodal Level of Service 

(MMLOS), 2009 

Jacksonville, FL City of Jacksonville, Florida 

Department of Transportation 

(FDOT) 

A-10 

More information 

•	 California Legislative Information. Full-text of Senate Bill No. 743: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/ 

faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB743 

•	 “Revised Proposal on Updates to the CEQA Guidelines on Evaluating Transportation Impacts 

in CEQA”: https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/Revised_VMT_CEQA_Guidelines_Proposal_ 

January_20_2016.pdf 

•	 SB 743 Implementation: https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/pc-mobility-workshop-part2. 

pdf 

•	 “California Has Officially Ditched Car-Centric ‘Level of Service’,” Streetsblog LA: http:// 

la.streetsblog.org/2014/08/07/california-has-officially-ditched-car-centric-level-of-service/ 

A-13
 

CASE STUDY 6 

ADULT BICYCLE SAFETY PROGRAM 

Huntington Beach, CA 

IMAGE SOURCE: LA.STREETSBLOG.ORG 

Project Partners 

• Huntington Beach Police Department 

• The Superior Court of California: County of Orange 

Define Success 

Protect Nonmotorized 

Travelers 

Promote Supportive 

Development 

Design the Network 

Make It Last 

Pay for It 

Key Elements 

On May 20, 2011, an Adult Bicycle Safety 

Program was instituted in Huntington Beach to 

provide a traffic school alternative for bicyclists 

caught breaking traffic rules rather than having 

offenders go to court or pay high fines. Because 

state law treats drivers and bicyclists the same 

when they break the law, each could both receive 

a $233 fine for not stopping at a stop sign. Under 

the new program, the offending bicyclist could opt 

to enroll in the two hour long Adult Bicycle Safety 

Program for $50 (to cover costs of the class) 

instead. 

This program was created after a study conducted 

in Huntington Beach between 2008 and 2010 

showed bicyclists to be at fault in two-thirds 

of traffic crashes between bicyclists and motor 

vehicles. Rather than simply fining people, the 

program provides a way of educating bicyclists 

to increase safety. The Huntington Beach Police 

Department has praised the program as providing 

a solution that is more likely to change bicyclist 

behaviors than ticketing alone. 

Since the 1970s, Huntington Beach Police 

Department had been using an educational 

diversion program for minors caught breaking 

traffic laws. Parents of the children had to attend 

these meetings, so it was not difficult for the City 

to extend services to adults as well. Facilities and 

educators were already in place. The City posted 

messages on the city website and on Facebook to 

educate the city about the change. 

Cooperation between the police department 

and the court system is an important factor in 

successful implementation of a diversion program. 

In Huntington Beach’s case, officers would still 

issue regular citations to offending bicyclists and 

so it would be up to the courts to ensure those 

cited are informed of the diversion program option 

rather than pay. 

While the Huntington Beach program was 

immediately popular among police and residents, 

it did not initially conform to California State 

Vehicle Code. The Huntington Beach program 

had to be shut due to restrictions on diversion 

A-14
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

ADULT BICYCLE SAFETY PROGRAM 

CONTINUED

Key Elements (continued)
 

programs in the code. A state amendment to 

address the vehicle code issue was passed on 

September 21, 2015, to allow Adult Bicycle Safety 

Programs to be used as diversion programs by any 

jurisdiction in California who choose to institute 

them. 

Data 

Location Huntington Beach, CA 

Population 189,992 (2010 Census) 

Area 31.90 sq mi 

Similar Case Studies
 


Huntington Beach resumed its original program 

in early 2016. There is not yet data available 

regarding the impact of the program, but both 

residents and the Police Department support the 

program. 

Density 6,000 residents/sq mi 

Geography Western U.S. 

Climate Semi-arid, Mediterranean 

Name and Year Location Agency Page 

“Stop and Stay Stopped” Crosswalk 

Law, 2010 

New Jersey New Jersey Division of 

Highway Traffic Safety 

A-18 

More information 

•	 “City Debuts Traffic School for Bike Violations,” Los Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/tnhbi-0602-biking-20110601-story.html 

•	 “Huntington Beach Offers Traffic School for Bicycle Lawbreakers,” Los Angeles Times: http:// 

articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/03/local/la-me-0603-bike-etiquette-20110603 

•	 “California Assembly: Bill Would Allow “Traffic School for Bicycle Violations,” Streetsblog 

Chicago: http://la.streetsblog.org/2015/03/30/bill-would-allow-traffic-school-for-bicycle-violations/ 

•	 Huntington Beach Ticket Diversion Program: http://gohumansocal.org/Documents/Tools/CaseStudy_ 

HuntingtonBeach.pdf 

A-15
 

	 

	 

	 

CASE STUDY 7 

CROSSWALK SAFETY POLICIES
 


Boulder, CO 

IMAGE SOURCE: NACTO.ORG 

Project Partners 

•	 City of Boulder Transportation Division 

•	 City of Boulder Police Department 

•	 University of Colorado Boulder 

Define Success 

Protect Nonmotorized 

Travelers 

Promote Supportive 

Development 

Design the Network 

Make It Last 

Pay for It 

Key Elements 

In 2012, Boulder passed three new traffic 

ordinances aimed at pedestrian safety. These 

laws were passed in response to a comprehensive 

3-year traffic collision study (2012 Safe Streets 

Boulder Report) completed by the City of Boulder 

Transportation Division. Based on the collision 

data, the City determined that intersections 

were the most dangerous areas for automobiles, 

while crosswalks were the most dangerous for 

pedestrians and bicyclists. To better protect 

nonmotorized travelers, the City enacted three new 

laws: 

•	 Stop at crosswalk required: When one 

vehicle stops for a person in a crosswalk, 

another vehicle cannot overtake and pass that 

vehicle ($125 fine for violation). 

•	 8 mph speed limit: Speed limit established 

for bicyclists during the immediate approach, 

entry and traversal of any crosswalk ($50 fine 

for violation). 

•	 Pedestrians obey traffic signals: A person 

entering a flashing crosswalk must activate 

the warning signal ($50 fine for violation). 

The City of Boulder complemented the policy 

changes with education and enforcement 

campaigns, including a well-publicized, planned 

week during which police would ramp up 

efforts to ticket violators. During this week, 

officers focused on the fifteen most dangerous 

intersections identified in the Safe Streets Report. 

The report is now updated regularly, followed by 

repeated enforcement campaigns during which 

law enforcement rolls out patrols specifically 

targeting the city’s most dangerous intersections 

for pedestrian/motorist interaction. 

Recently, the City of Boulder approved a Vision 

Zero program that emphasizes education and 

enforcement to support these relatively new 

laws. In 2015, the City created a campaign called 

Heads Up Boulder that sponsors collaborative 

events such as week-long programs during 

which officers and volunteers hand out education 

material, coupons, and small gifts to reinforce the 

campaign’s safety messages. 

During the three years following the program’s 

2012 onset, crashes involving bicycles declined 

A-16
 

	 

	 

	 

CROSSWALK SAFETY POLICIES
 


CONTINUED

Key Elements (continued) 

slightly while crashes involving pedestrians 

remained about the same. Over those same three 

years, there was only one fatality involving a 

pedestrian or bicyclist, compared to an average of 

two fatalities per year previously. 

Consistently evaluating traffic data over many 

years is an important tool for cities to use to create 

Data 

Location Boulder, CO 

Population 97,385 (2010 Census) 

Area 24.7 sq mi 

Similar Case Studies
 


safety programs and eventually demonstrate their 

successes. A majority of pedestrian and bicycle 

crashes occur at crosswalks so cities should 

focus on those areas for improving safety. At the 

same time, automobile only crashes make up the 

vast majority of crashes, so enforcement of laws 

directed at pedestrian and bicyclist safety takes 

additional effort and funding prioritization. 

Density 3,943 residents/sq mi 

Geography Western U.S. 

Climate Semi-arid 

Name and Year Location Agency Page 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety 

Ordinance, 2013 

Chicago, IL City of Chicago A-20 

More Information 

•	 City of Boulder, Safe Streets Boulder: https://bouldercolorado.gov/transportation/safe-streets-boulder 

•	 “Boulder study sheds light on bicycle, pedestrian accidents,” Heath Urie, Boulder Daily Camera, 

February 4, 2012: http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_19895363?source=pkg 

•	 “Boulder steps up crosswalk enforcement to ensure awareness of new laws,” Jennifer Kleinman, 

Boulder Daily Camera, April 6, 2012: http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20343982/boulder-steps-upcrosswalk-enforcement-ensure-awareness-new 

A-17
 

This initiative is provided as an educational tool to foster

public awareness about pedestrian safety and ultimately 

reduce injuries and deaths.

• 2 POINTS

• $200 FINE 

(plus court costs)

• 15 DAYS COMMUNITY SERVICE

• INSURANCE SURCHARGES

The law is clear, pedestrians must obey 

RESPONSIBILITY

YOU HAVE JUST FAILED TO USE 

DUE CARE AS A PEDESTRIAN 

pedestrian signals and use crosswalks

at signalized intersections. Both carry a

$54.00 fine for failure to observe the law. 

(C.39:4-32 and 33)

y 

p 

for pedestrians in a marked crosswalk.

Failure to observe the law may subject you

to one or more of the following:

WWW.NJSAFEROADS.COM

 CASE STUDY 8 

“STOP AND STAY STOPPED” CROSSWALK LAW 

State of New Jersey 

IMAGE SOURCE: NJSAFEROADS.COM 

Project Partners 

• New Jersey Division of Highway Traffic Safety 

• North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority 

Key Elements 

New Jersey’s “Stop and Stay Stopped” law (April 

1, 2010) requires that “the driver of a vehicle must 

stop and stay stopped for a pedestrian crossing the 

roadway within any marked crosswalk, but shall 

yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing 

the roadway within an unmarked crosswalk 

at an intersection...” Prior to this legislative 

change, motorists were simply required to yield 

to pedestrians in the crosswalk. Motorists who 

violate the law are subject to a $200 fine, court 

costs, two points on their driver’s license, 15 days 

of community service, and insurance surcharges. 

Pedestrians are required by the law to obey 

pedestrian signals and use crosswalks at signalized 

intersections and to yield to traffic if they are not 

crossing within a crosswalk or at an intersection. 

Pedestrians who violate the law are subject to a 

$54 fine, plus court costs. 

Half of the motorist fine ($100) goes into the 

Pedestrian Safety, Enforcement and Education 

Fund, a revolving fund administered by the Office 

of Highway Traffic Safety. Municipalities and 

counties may apply for grants for pedestrian safety 

initiatives. 

Define Success 

Protect Nonmotorized 

Travelers 

Promote Supportive 

Development 

Design the Network 

Make It Last 

Pay for It 

To educate motorists about the law change, the 

Division of Traffic Safety developed an oversized 

palm card, similar in size to a traffic ticket that 

outlines the law and penalties for failing to 

comply. The card was distributed to all police 

departments in the state, and made available 

to high school driver education teachers and 

defensive driving program providers. 

A pedestrian decoy safety program called “Cops 

in Crosswalks” was implemented in thirteen 

municipalities. Law enforcement officers in 

plainclothes walked in crosswalks and observed 

behavior of drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists 

at selected locations. Observing officers noted 

violations and called ahead to waiting officers 

who would stop and warn or ticket all offenders, 

regardless of mode. Because the intent of the 

program was to educate and improve behavior, 

initially, enforcement officers provided the 

education palm card to educate drivers and 

pedestrians about the changes to the crosswalk law 

and issued citations only when another violation 

also occurred. However, they began to enforce the 

law more strictly over time. 

A-18
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

“STOP AND STAY STOPPED” CROSSWALK LAW” 

CONTINUED

Key Elements (continued)
 

Cops in Crosswalks was also part of Street Smart 

NJ, a public education, awareness, and behavioral 

change campaign that piloted in 2013 in four cities 

(Newark, Hackettstown, Jersey City, Woodbridge). 

Street Smart NJ is managed by the North Jersey 

Transportation Planning Authority, and funded 

through the Highway Safety Improvement 

Program (HSIP) and Pedestrian Safety Education 

and Enforcement Fund. 

Five pilot locations were chosen for the first year 

of the campaign. Locations represented a mix of 

varying roadway characteristics and pedestrian and 

motor vehicle traffic volumes. The pilot locations 

also represented varying land uses: Woodridge 

(suburban), Jersey City and Newark (urban), 

Hackettstown (rural), and Long Beach Island 

(shore). 

Data 

Location State of New Jersey 

Population 8,791,894 (2010 Census) 

Area 8,722.58 sq mi 

Similar Case Studies
 


During the first year of the program, New 

Jersey saw a 19 percent decrease in pedestrian 

fatalities between 2009 and 2010, exceeding the 

state goal of 1 percent. A 2013 pre- and postprogram evaluation of Street Smart NJ shows 

that overall, the campaign was successful in 

changing pedestrian and motorist behaviors and 

raising awareness of pedestrian safety messages. 

Observational analysis showed a statistically 

significant reduction in the rate of pedestrians 

walking outside of a marked crosswalk or 

unmarked crosswalk (intersection) and crossing 

against the pedestrian signal in two of the five 

pilot areas: Woodbridge (26 percent decrease) 

and Jersey City (8 percent decrease). Statewide, 

pre- and post-program surveys showed an 18 

percent increase in awareness of the campaign 

and/or pedestrian safety, and a 10 percent increase 

in awareness of educational and enforcement 

initiatives. 

Density 1,210.1 residents/sq mi 

Geography Eastern U.S. 

Climate Humid subtropical and 

humid continental 

Name and Year Location Agency Page 

Adult Bicycle Safety Program, 

2011 

Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach Police 

Department 

A-14 

More information
 


•	 State of New Jersey Office of the Attorney General Division of Highway Traffic Safety: Pedestrian 

safety laws modified April 2010: http://www.nj.gov/oag/hts/pedestrian.html 

•	 Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center: ‘Cops in Crosswalks’: Pedestrian Decoy Enforcement in 

New Jersey: http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/library/details.cfm?id=4649 

•	 “Motorists Must Stop—and Stay Stopped—for Pedestrians in Crosswalks,” State of New Jersey 

Office of the Attorney General Division of Highway Traffic Safety: http://www.nj.gov/oag/ 

newsreleases10/pr20100331a.html 

•	 Street Smart NJ Report and Campaign Results: http://www.njtpa.org/getmedia/2dc31a68-d1ce-43f2-

bfbf-88ee096ca5a3/Final-Street-Smart-NJ-Report.pdf.aspx 

A-19
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

CASE STUDY 9 

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ORDINANCE 

Chicago, IL 

IMAGE SOURCE: ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 

Project Partners 

•	 Chicago Department of Transportation 

•	 Streets for Cycling Community Advisory Groups (CAGs) 

•	 Mayor’s Bicycle Advisory Council (MBAC) 

Key Elements 

In 2013, the City of Chicago updated its Municipal 

Code to include a Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety 

Ordinance. The Ordinance updates the traffic 

code to comply with state laws, increases reckless 

driving fines, and helps to prevent “dooring” 

crashes that occur when bicyclists cannot safely 

avoid a door opening from a parked car. 

Among other changes, updated elements include: 

•	 Dooring that interferes with a bicycle carries 

a mandatory fine of $300, causing a collision 

would result in a mandatory fine of $1,000. 

Previously, the ordinance included lower 

fines. 

•	 Language was added to clarify the rules about 

driving, standing, or parking in bike lanes, 

and to define rights of way between buses and 

bicyclists. 

•	 Fines are increased for bicyclists who violate 

the Chicago Municipal Code. 

Define Success 

Protect Nonmotorized 

Travelers 

Promote Supportive 

Development 

Design the Network 

Make It Last 

Pay for It 

•	 Language related to bicycle riding on 

sidewalks is updated. 

•	 Bicycle lane placement and yielding rightof-way language is updated to elaborate the 

meaning of riding as “near as is practicable 

AND safe to the right side” as a bicycle user. 

Chicago joined the Vision Zero Network in 

2016, which may lead to additional policy items 

regarding active transportation promotion and 

safety. 

Although bicycle crash data exists since 2013, 

the short time frame and lack of exposure data 

limits an immediate assessment of the ordinance 

changes’ impacts. However, the State of Illinois 

maintains a crash data file. Chicagocrashes. 

org, routinely publishes crash data to the public 

via an online, interactive map as it becomes 

available. The City continues to collect bicycle 

and pedestrian data to understand roadway users’ 

exposure data over time. 

A-20
 

	 

	 

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ORDINANCE 

CONTINUED

Data
 


Location Chicago, IL 

Population 2.72 million (2014 Census) 

Area 227.80 sq mi 

Density 11,952.60 residents/sq mi 

Geography Central U.S. 

Climate Humid continental 

Similar Case Studies
 


Name and Year Location Agency Page 

Equity Analysis within a Bicycle 

Master Plan, 2014 

Seattle, WA Seattle Department of 

Transportation (SDOT) 

A-4 

Healthy Design Ordinance, 2013 Los Angeles County, CA Los Angeles County 

Department of Public Health 

A-44 

More information 

•	 Chicago Complete Streets: http://chicagocompletestreets.org/ 

•	 Chicago Complete Streets: Enforcement: http://chicagocompletestreets.org/your-safety/enforcementlaws/ 

A-21
 

CASE STUDY 10 

BICYCLE PARKING IN GARAGES AND PARKING LOTS 

New York, NY 

Define Success 

Protect Nonmotorized 

Travelers 

Promote Supportive 

Development 

Design the Network 

Make It Last 

Pay for It 

IMAGE SOURCE: NYDOT, MAP DATA (C) 2016 GOOGLE 

Project Partners 

• NYC Department of Transportation 

• New York City Council 

Key Elements 

With an increasing rate of bicycle commuting, 

investments in bicycle facilities throughout the 

city, adverse weather conditions, and issues 

with bicycle theft, secure indoor bicycle parking 

spaces are needed to maintain bicycling as viable 

transportation alternative for New Yorkers. The 

Bicycle Access to Garages Law and the Bicycle 

Access to Buildings Law are two policy examples 

that address these potential barriers. 

Local Law 51 (2009), Bicycle Access to Garages, 

requires all licensed parking lots or garages with 

capacity for 51 or more vehicles to create and 

maintain parking spaces for bicycles. For every 

ten vehicle parking spaces, at least one bicycle 

parking space is required, up to 200 motor vehicle 

parking spaces. After this mark, one bicycle 

parking space is required for every additional 100 

automobile parking spaces. 

The law requires bicycle storage units to 

accommodate a volume of at least 2 by 3 by 6 feet 

in volume for each bicycle. Parking garages that 

permit car owners to access their vehicles must 

also provide such access to bicycle owners. Local 

Law 51 requires operators to provide secure and 

locked parking for all bicycles, unless the spaces 

are located in an area not accessible to the public. 

The law has created over 16,000 secure parking 

spaces as of 2011. New York has since amended 

the law to increase flexibility in how the spaces are 

designed and provided. 

There is no regulation on the amount parking 

garage operators can charge for bicycle parking. 

With some parking garages charging prices nearly 

equal amounts for bicycle and vehicle parking 

spaces, the benefits and incentives for bicycling 

may be diminished. 

The City’s Bikes in Buildings law was created to 

provide a process for tenants of commercial office 

buildings with a freight elevator to request bicycle 

access to their work spaces. Additionally, access 

to three indoor bicycle parking lots is provided for 

free to all City employees. Five months after the 

law took effect, 176 buildings across Manhattan 

and Brooklyn had created bicycle access plans. 

An additional 300 tenants filed requests within 

this period. During the same time frame, the 

City Council estimated that over 1,700 bicycle 

commuters gained end-of-trip storage for the work 

commute. 

A-22
 

	 

	 

	 

BICYCLE PARKING IN GARAGES AND PARKING LOTS 

CONTINUED

Data
 


Location New York, NY 

Population 8.17 million (2010 Census) 

Area 304.80 sq mi 

Density 28,052.50 residents/sq mi 

Geography Eastern U.S. 

Climate Warm temperate 

Similar Case Studies
 


Name and Year Location Agency Page 

Model Ordinances for the 

Enhancement of Bicycle and 

Pedestrian Access to Transportation 

Facilities, 2014 

Maryland Maryland Department of 

Transportation 

A-32 

More information 

•	 New York City Bicycle Parking Information: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/ 

bicycleparking.shtml#indoor 

•	 “For a Reasonable Price on Bike Parking, Try Brooklyn,” Streetsblog NYC: http://www.streetsblog. 

org/2010/07/01/for-a-reasonable-price-on-bike-parking-try-brooklyn/ 

•	 Five Months On, Bike Access to Buildings Law Showing Results,” Streetsblog NYC: http://www. 

streetsblog.org/2010/05/20/five-months-on-bike-access-to-buildings-law-showing-results/ 

A-23
 

14 Downtown Boise Design Review Guidelines

Commercial/Mixed-Use Block Frontages 

Fig. 2-9. Storefront vision, key standards, and examples. Fig. 2-10. Landscaped frontage vision, key standards and examples. 	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

CASE STUDY 11 

DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 

Boise, ID 

Description/Intent: 

The Commercial/Mixed-Use designation serves areas that accommodate a mixture of ground floor uses and allows a diversity of development frontages provided 

they contribute to the visual character of the street and enhance the pedestrian environment. 

Vision: 

STOREFRONT -or- LANDSCAPED FRONTAGE 

Street 

Weather protection: Entry: Weather protection 

At least 5’ average depth facing street over entries: Entry: 

along 50% of facades Residential 5’ minimum depth facing street 

facing south or west 

30” 

12’ 

Sidewalk: 

16’ minimum 

(or per established 

historic pattern) 

windows/ 

transparency: 

At least 15% of 

entire facade 

Non-residential 

windows/ 

Windows/ transparency: 

transparency: 25 to 40% of 

At least 60% ground level of facade facade between 30” 

and 12’ Ground floor 

elevated 2’ to 5’ 

from sidewalk level 

(encouraged) 

5’ 

2’ 

Landscaped 

setbacks 

IMAGE SOURCE: BOISE DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 

Define Success 

Protect Nonmotorized 

Travelers 

Promote Supportive 

Development 

Design the Network 

Make It Last 

Pay for It 

Project Partners 

•	 City of Boise 

•	 Capital City Development Corporation 

Key Elements 

The City of Boise created design standards and 

guidelines for its downtown that encourage 

high-quality urban design and promote compact, 

walkable development patterns. Site design 

standards are provided that promote a pedestrianoriented environment, including standards for 

nonmotorized circulation and connections. A 

detailed Downtown Streetscape Standards and 

Specifications Manual lays out the streetscape 

improvement requirements for new development. 

Specific requirements include specifications for 

sidewalk width and material, landscaping, green 

stormwater infrastructure, street lighting, and 

pedestrian furniture including bike racks, bike 

corrals, benches, and litter receptacles. 

All new nonresidential and multifamily 

development proposals, building additions, and 

remodels in the Downtown Planning Area must 

comply with the design standards and guidelines 

related to building location and orientation, 

internal circulation, site design elements, and 

building design. Projects must also comply with 

the streetscape standards and specifications. 

The downtown design standards followed 

the completion of Blueprint Boise, the city’s 

comprehensive plan in coordination with a 

citywide land use code update. Features include: 

•	 Integration of form-based code elements, 

including block frontage standards and maps 

covering downtown 

•	 Downtown provisions including distinct 

building character, materials, details, and 

massing standards and guidelines to enhance 

the skyline, identity, and downtown livability 

•	 Design approach for infill in historic areas 

•	 A design review approach that emphasizes 

design objectives, clear minimum standards, 

a toolbox of options, and departure provisions 

that allow for flexibility 

The streetscape standards are being implemented 

gradually, as the City relies upon on private 

property owners to update piece of the street 

network during redevelopment projects. The 

City has streamlined the streetscape review and 

approval processes, but costs to property owners 

are still a deterrent to a faster, more comprehensive 

implementation of the overall vision. 

A-24
 

	 

DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 

CONTINUED

Data
 


Location Downtown Boise, ID 

Population 205,671; downtown: 6,364 

(2010 Census) 

Area 80.5 sq mi 

Density 3,978 residents/sq mi 

Geography Western U.S. 

Climate Temperate 

Similar Case Studies
 


Name and Year Location Agency Page 

Multimodal Development and 

Parking Minimum Elimination, 1999 

Fargo, ND City of Fargo A-34 

Design Standards Ordinance and 

Healthy Eating and Active Living, 

2006 to 2010 

Hernando, MS City of Hernando A-6 

Complete Streets Design 

Guidelines, 2013 

Chicago, IL Chicago Department of 

Transportation (CDOT) 

A-40 

More information 

•	 Boise Downtown Design Standards and Guidelines: http://pds.cityofboise.org/media/215767/ 

downtown-design-guidelines-revised-6-23-16.pdf 

A-25
 

CASE STUDY 12 

ELIMINATING PARKING MINIMUMS 

IN TRANSIT-FRIENDLY AREAS 

Seattle, WA 

Define Success 

Protect Nonmotorized 

Travelers 

Promote Supportive 

Development 

Design the Network 

Make It Last 

Pay for It 

IMAGE SOURCE: SEATTLE.GOV/DPD 

Project Partners 

• Seattle Department of Planning and Development 

• Seattle Department of Transportation 

Key Elements 

In early 2012, the City of Seattle’s Department 

of Planning and Development (DPD) eliminated 

motor vehicle parking requirements for all new 

development within a 1/4 mile of frequent transit 

service including Seattle’s urban centers, light rail 

station areas, and most of its Urban Villages. 

Frequent transit service is defined as at least 

15-minute service for at least 12 hours per day 

and at least 30-minute service 18 hours per day. 

DPD determined that requiring developers to 

provide parking in places that are well-served by 

transit is inconsistent with single-occupant vehicle 

(SOV) trip reduction goals set by the City. The 

policy enabled developers to spend less money 

on constructing parking spaces (saving $10,000 

to as much as $50,000 per space), and provided 

opportunities for them to add elements that made 

their sites more accessible to transit, bicycling, and 

walking options. 

A DPD assessment of development projects 

over the three years prior to 2015 indicated 

nearly 25 percent of residential developments 

were built with no off-street parking, while nine 

percent provided more than one space per unit. 

Total average spaces provided for residential 

developments during this three-year period was 

0.55 spaces per unit, which was less than the levels 

reported in previous years. 

After a program review conducted by DPD in 

2015, the policy was found to be successful and 

that the elimination of parking minimums would 

remain. DPD used several guiding principles 

when considering whether to recommend the 

program’s continuation. These principles are 

consistent with other City policies. Guiding 

principles related to the program’s success are 

paraphrased from the DPD report as follows: 

encouraging residential and employment growth 

within Urban Centers and Villages, retaining 

and enhancing Seattle neighborhoods’ walkable 

and livable urban qualities, prioritizing housing 

affordability, ensuring the consideration of racial 

and socio-economic equity, ensuring integrated 

and accessible transportation options, managing 

on- and off-street parking more efficiently, 

achieving better quality bicycle storage facilities, 

aiding availability of bicycling options, achieving 

local and regional environmental objectives. 

A-26
 

	 

	 

	 

ELIMINATING PARKING MINIMUMS 

IN TRANSIT-FRIENDLY AREAS 

CONTINUED

Key Elements (continued)
 

To increase the policy’s effectiveness, the DPD 

study recommended that developers provide 

transportation demand management measures to 

lessen the potential impact on parking demand. 

Programs could include providing transit passes 

to residents and providing other mobility options 

such as on site car share services. 

Data 

Location Seattle, WA 

Population 608,660 (2010 Census) 

Area 142.5 sq mi 

Similar Case Studies
 


In addition, the DPD proposed updating the City’s 

parking codes to allow more flexibility with shared 

parking spaces. By cutting the red tape involved 

in code compliance, Seattle could increase the 

influence of the parking reduction program. 

Density 8,161 residents/sq mi 

Geography Western U.S. 

Climate Temperate marine 

Name and Year Location Agency Page 

Multimodal Development and 

Parking Minimum Elimination, 1999 

Fargo, ND City of Fargo A-34 

More information 

•	 City of Seattle Parking Review: Report to Council plus Committee: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/ 

cityplanning/2015parkingreport.pdf 

•	 “Seattle to Buildings: Give Tenants Transit Passes, Not Parking Spots,” City Lab from the Atlantic: 

http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2015/05/seattle-to-buildings-give-tenants-transit-passes-notparking-spots/392756/ 

•	 “The Flexibility at the Local Level,” Seattle Met: http://www.seattlemet.com/articles/2012/2/29/theflexibility-at-the-local-level 

A-27
 

Sub-Zone: T4N.SF-Open

Desired form

Detached or Attached

Narrow-to-Medium Lot Width

Small-to-Medium Footprint

Building at or Close to ROW

Small to No Side Setbacks

Up to 21⁄2 Stories

Elevated Ground Floor

Primarily with Stoops and Porches 

General Use

Primarily residential with smaller 

neighborhood-supporting uses in 

ancillary buildings, existing corner

store buildings, and in the open subzone.

Intent

To provide variety of urban 

housing choices, in small-tomedium footprint, medium-tohigh density building types, which 

reinforce the walkable nature 

of the neighborhood, support 

neighborhood-serving retail and 

service uses adjacent to this Zone, 

and support public transportation

alternatives. 

The open sub-zone provides the 

same building form but allows for a 

more diverse mix of uses.

Sub-Zone: T5N.LS-Open

Desired form

Attached or Detached

Medium-to-Large Footprint

Simple Wall Plane setback from the 

Street

Medium-to-Large Front Setback

Small to Medium Side Setbacks

Up to 4 Stories

Diverse Mix of Frontages

General Use

Primarily multi-unit residential with 

smaller neighborhood-supporting

uses on the ground floor of the 

open sub-zone.

Intent

To provide a variety of urban 

housing choices, in medium-to-large 

footprint, medium-to-high density

building types, which reinforce the 

neighborhood's walkable nature, 

support neighborhood-serving 

retail and service uses adjacent 

to this Zone, and support public 

transportation alternatives.

The open sub-zone provides the 

same building form but allows for a 

more diverse mix of uses.

Sub-Zone: T5MS-Open

Desired form

Attached

Small-to-Medium Footprint

Simple Wall Plane along Street

Buildings at the ROW

Small to No Side Setbacks

Up to 4 Stories

Diverse Mix of Frontages

General Use

Primarily ground floor commercial

uses with a mix of commercial and 

residential uses on the floors above. 

In the open sub-zone, the ground 

floor can be a combination of 

commercial and residential uses.

Intent

To provide a focal point for 

neighborhoods that accommodates 

neighborhood serving retail, service, 

and residential uses in compact, 

walkable urban form.

The open sub-zone provides the 

same building form but allows for 

a more diverse mix of uses on the 

ground floor, including residential, 

thus enabling the retail and service 

area to mature over time.

City of Cincinnati Form-Based Code Final Draft 2/15/13 2-3

 Specific to Transect Zones 1703-2.30

Table: 1703 2.30.A The Cincinnati Transect: Summary Table (continued) -

More Urban 

T4N.SF T5MS T5N.LS 

Zone(s) Zone(s) Zone(s) 

T4 Neighborhood Small Footprint T5 Main Street T5 Neighborhood Large Setback 

CASE STUDY 13 

FORM-BASED CODE 

Cincinnati, OH 

IMAGE SOURCE: CINCINNATI FORM BASED CODE 

Project Partners 

• Cincinnati City Planning Department 

• Consultant: Opticos Design, Inc. 

Key Elements 

The City of Cincinnati adopted a form-based 

code in 2013 based on the vision laid out in 

Plan Cincinnati, its 2012 comprehensive plan. 

Form-based codes set requirements based 

on the physical form of buildings rather than 

usage. The form-based code works to reinforce 

a pattern of walkable urban neighborhoods by 

supporting existing walkable neighborhoods 

and providing a tool to retrofit those that are not 

walkable or have been compromised. The code 

also provides context-sensitive design guidance 

for thoroughfares that connect walkable urban 

neighborhoods. 

One of the major contributions of the code is the 

walkable neighborhood standards that span a 

spectrum of transects (geographical cross sections 

of distinct natural and built environments) and that 

specify allocation of transect zones, pedestrian 

sheds, neighborhood centers, thoroughfare 

connectivity, open space, and civic space 

standards. 

In parallel, the City developed a Complete Streets 

Manual that takes a context driven approach 

to designing and planning thoroughfares. The 

Manual designates places as a starting point for 

thoroughfare design. It uses the rural-to-urban 

transect zones as the organizing principal that 

further define how the intensity and character of 

the built environment influences decisions related 

to street design. 

The Complete Streets Manual is intended to 

help revitalize formerly walkable areas that 

have been compromised by automobile-centric 

thoroughfare design. Developing high quality, 

multimodal thoroughfares will help improve the 

quality, character, and economic viability of these 

neighborhoods, and in particular their main streets. 

The form-based code allowed neighborhoods to 

opt in through a neighborhood planning process. 

This allows for a community-informed approach 

to designing the code, but has also slowed 

implementation. The process of customizing 

the code for each neighborhood has also been 

hampered by changes in City staff and leadership 

that reduced the resources available to complete 

the required neighborhood planning efforts. As of 

2016, only four neighborhoods in Cincinnati had 

adopted the new code. 

Define Success 

Protect Nonmotorized 

Travelers 

Promote Supportive 

Development 

Design the Network 

Make It Last 

Pay for It 

A-28
 

	 

FORM-BASED CODE 

CONTINUED

Data
 


Location Cincinnati, OH 

Population 296,943 (2010 Census) 

Area 79.54 sq mi 

Density 3,810 residents/sq mi 

Geography Midwestern U.S. 

Climate Temperate 

Similar Case Studies
 


Name and Year Location Agency Page 

Form-Based Code, 2010 Miami, FL City of Miami Planning and 

Zoning Department 

A-30 

More information 

•	 City of Cincinnati Form-based Code: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/assets/File/CFBC%20 

Full%20Document%20Amended%202-10-14.pdf 

A-29
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

CASE STUDY 14 

FORM-BASED CODE
 


Miami, FL 

IMAGE SOURCE: PLUSURBIA.COM 

Project Partners 

•	 City of Miami 

•	 Planning Advisory Board 

•	 City of Miami Planning Commission 

Miami 21, the City of Miami’s form-based code 

(FBC), went into effect in May 2010, making 

Miami the nation’s first large city to adopt this 

type of zoning policy. Form-based codes set 

requirements based on the physical form of 

buildings rather than usage. The City of Miami 

received the American Planning Association 2011 

National Planning Excellence Award for Best 

Practice. 

During the ten years prior to adopting Miami 

21, the city had experienced rapid growth. City 

leaders were concerned about issues such as 

sprawl, automobile-dependency, and a lack of 

compact, mixed-use communities. The new zoning 

code focused on context-sensitive development, 

walkable streets, and sustainable building 

practices. Miami 21 created a holistic tool for 

the City of Miami to manage zoning, economic 

development, transportation, historic preservation, 

parks, and open space. 

Miami’s form-based code is built upon 

dividing the city into transects, a term used in 

environmental sciences to describe geographical 

cross sections that have distinct natural 

environments. Various features are regulated 

Define Success 

Protect Nonmotorized 

Travelers 

Promote Supportive 

Development 

Design the Network 

Make It Last 

Pay for It 

within each transect zone, including: 

•	 Function and intensity: the level to which 

various types of uses are permitted throughout 

the area and within the buildings of each 

district. 

•	 Parking standards: Required minimum or 

maximum parking spaces per unit. 

•	 Integration of private and public realms: 

standards regarding elements such as 

pedestrian orientation, landscape standards, 

parking liners, and building frontages. 

•	 Succession: design treatments that ensure 

sequential, smooth transitions between each 

transect zone. 

Calle Ocho, a major commercial corridor in 

Miami, provides an example of the form-based 

code in action. Miami 21 requires active ground 

floor uses with regularly spaced doors and 

windows in order to activate streets and create 

interesting places to walk. The former code lacked 

design criteria, which resulted in blank walls along 

many of Miami’s main corridors. The picture at 

the top of this page shows the transit, pedestrian, 

and bicycle potential of a Calle Ocho redesign. 

A-30
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

FORM-BASED CODE
 

CONTINUED

Key Elements (continued) 

Unlike other cities, such as Cincinnati and 

Nashville, that have adopted form-based codes 

neighborhood by neighborhood, Miami’s new 

zoning code applies to the entire city. The two 

main reasons for this decision were the city’s 

status as a regional municipality and to avoid the 

lengthy amount of time that would have been 

required to approve individual neighborhood 

codes. 

Data 

Location Miami, FL 

Population 399,457 (2010 Census) 

Area 35.68 sq mi 

Similar Case Studies
 


Though the development of Miami 21 involved 

extensive planning and stakeholder and public 

engagement, the final adoption was stalled in 

2009 during the transition to a new mayor and 

two newly elected commissioners, all of whom 

opposed the new code. Despite this opposition, 

additional public and elected official input led 

to the new code being adopted in May 2010. 

One key to achieving adoption was to build an 

understanding that Miami 21 is a living document 

that will be updated over time. The most recent 

amendment came in May 2015. 

Density 11,135.90 residents/sq mi 

Geography Southeastern U.S. 

Climate Humid subtropical 

Name and Year Location Agency Page 

Form-Based Code, 2013 Cincinnati, OH City of Cincinnati A-28 

Healthy Design Ordinance, 2013 Los Angeles County, CA Los Angeles County A-44 

More information 

•	 City of Miami project website: http://www.miami21.org/ 

•	 Form-based Code: Miami 21 Case Study by Duany-Plater-Zyberk & Co.: http:// 

montgomeryplanningboard.org/planning_board_live/excellence_series/khoury.pdf 

•	 “Miami 21 Implementation Delayed,” South Florida Business Journal: http://www.miami21.org/ 

Media_Headlines/BizJournal121809.pdf 

•	 “Miami 21: The Blueprint for Miami’s Future,” Florida Chapter of the American Planning 

Association: http://www.miami21.org/Media_Headlines/FloridaPlanning-Jan2010.pdf 

A-31
 

	 

	 

	 

CASE STUDY 15 

MODEL ORDINANCES FOR THE ENHANCEMENT 

OF BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS 

TO TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES 

State of Maryland 

IMAGE SOURCE: BALTIMOREMAGAZINE.NET 

Project Partners 

• Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) 

• Various State departments contributing to land use management 

powers 

•	 Maryland communities 

Define Success 

Protect Nonmotorized 

Travelers 

Promote Supportive 

Development 

Design the Network 

Make It Last 

Pay for It 

Key Elements 

In 2002, MDOT developed a technical 

memorandum of model ordinances that require 

or encourage local development of bicycle and 

pedestrian facilities. The memo did not provide 

an exhaustive list of design treatments, but rather 

illustrated ways in which local land use regulations 

can encourage development proposals to include 

bicycle and pedestrian access in site design. 

The land use regulations cited within the model 

ordinances are based around Maryland’s smart 

growth program, which is focused on developing 

mixed-use, pedestrian-scaled environments. 

The model ordinance guide presents a bulleted 

list of broad guidelines to help municipalities to 

revise and update regulations that provide for 

more robust bicycle- and pedestrian-supportive 

developments. Key guidelines include: 

•	 “Provide for higher density residential 

development and mixed-use zones to create 

new village centers and foster neighborhoods” 

•	 “Discourage gated access and perimeter walls 

around subdivisions” 

•	 “Require that sidewalks and bicycle lanes or 

paths be incorporated into new residential and 

commercial subdivisions.” 

Zoning guidelines make up the majority of the 

examples in the document. MDOT encourages 

localities to cross-reference bicycle and pedestrian 

plans and policies as well as other planning or 

community development documents, in order to 

ensure consistency among community policies and 

programs. 

The guide includes an “Other Considerations 

and Issues” section with planning and regulatory 

considerations. Several of the challenges relate to 

conditions such as the separation of existing land 

uses and the different demand for bicycle facilities 

in rural, suburban, and urban areas. 

A-32
 

	 

MODEL ORDINANCES FOR THE ENHANCEMENT 

OF BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS 

TO TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES 

CONTINUED

Data
 


Location State of Maryland 

Population 5,773,552 (2010 Census) 

Area 12,407 sq mi 

Density 465.35 residents/sq mi 

Geography Eastern U.S. 

Climate Humid subtropical 

Similar Case Studies
 


Name and Year Location Agency Page 

Multimodal Development and 

Parking Minimum Elimination, 1999 

Fargo, ND City of Fargo A-34 

Bicycle Parking in Garages and 

Parking Lots, 2009 

New York, NY New York City A-22 

More information 

•	 Model Ordinances for the Enhancement of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access to Transportation 

Facilities: http://www.remlinedigital.com/M5144%20MDOT%20Bicycle%20and%20Pedestrian%20 

Master%20Plan/links/Model%20Ordinance%20Report.pdf 

A-33
 

	 

	 

	 

CASE STUDY 16 

MULTIMODAL DEVELOPMENT AND 

PARKING MINIMUM ELIMINATION 

Fargo, ND 

Define Success 

Protect Nonmotorized 

Travelers 

Promote Supportive 

Development 

Design the Network 

Make It Last 

Pay for It 

IMAGE SOURCE: PBIC IMAGE LIBRARY/ DAN BURDEN 

Project Partners 

• Fargo Renaissance Zone Authority 

• City of Fargo Planning Department 

• City of Moorhead, Minnesota 

• North Dakota Division of Community Services (DCS) 

•	 North Dakota State University (NDSU) 

•	 Metro Area Transit (MATbus) 

Key Elements 

After the City of Fargo eliminated parking 

minimums from the city’s downtown district, 

the region thrived with new development 

and multimodal investments. Fargo realized 

that parking requirements were discouraging 

developers from building downtown. Parking 

minimums were eliminated in a new zoning 

district for the downtown area, known as the 

Renaissance Zone. The City’s Legislative 

Assembly approved the Renaissance Zone 

Development Plan in 1999. Updates were 

completed in 2001 and 2003. 

Since the change, North Dakota State University 

(NDSU), home to over 4,000 students and faculty, 

moved downtown. Former surface parking lots 

were repurposed as housing, including new, 

mixed-use building, with 104 housing units. New 

development allowed Fargo’s local bus service, 

Metro Area Transit (MATbus) to increase service 

along a circulator route between downtown Fargo 

and NDSU. Between 2004 and 2013, MATbus 

ridership increased from 700,000 riders to two 

million riders, with over 50 percent of riders in 

college. Other supporting elements included: 

•	 Classifying a section of Broadway, a 

downtown street, as a Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Safety Zone and prioritizing bicycle and 

pedestrian investment in that corridor 

•	 Developing a hierarchy downtown streetscape 

elements to “define pedestrian-friendly 

linkages among all districts, parks, landmarks, 

and neighborhoods” through the Downtown 

Fargo Redevelopment Framework Plan 

(2002). 

•	 Launching a bike share program in March 2015. 

In 1993, the assessed value within the Renaissance 

Zone was $190 million. Twenty years after 

the change to the parking code, a 2014 study 

quantified the value of new development at $600 

million. The American Planning Association 

recognized the area as one of “10 Neighborhoods 

for 2009.” 

A-34
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

MULTIMODAL DEVELOPMENT AND
 


PARKING MINIMUM ELIMINATION
 


CONTINUED

Key Elements (continued) 

Successful elements of the policy changes include: 

•	 Substantial increases in bus ridership has 

reduced the need for the City and University 

to mitigate increased traffic to and from the 

NDSU residential facility. 

•	 Partnerships within the City of Fargo 

government, including the police department 

and maintenance district. The Renaissance 

Zone program was established through a 

Memorandum of Understanding with the 

North Dakota Division of Community 

Services and City of Fargo. 

•	 Consideration of historic buildings, including 

the creation of a historic district. The district 

includes opportunities to use a variety of state 

and Federal funding sources for rehabilitation 

of certified historic structures, allowing the 

City to reuse existing buildings that conform 

to walkability guidelines instead of relying 

Data 

Location Fargo, ND 

Population 31,771 (2014 Census) 

Area 14.44 sq mi 

Similar Case Studies
 


entirely on developers to construct new 

structures. 

•	 A Storefront Rehabilitation program that has 

worked with 46 business owners and has 

totaled $1.2 million, with 50 percent matching 

grants originating from federal funding 

through the Community Development Block 

Grant program. 

•	 Constructing a sidewalk-grade, shared-use 

path for bicyclists and pedestrians required 

changing a City ordinance that prohibited 

bicyclists from riding on sidewalks. State 

legislators later removed the ordinance from 

statewide legislation. 

•	 New ordinances were added to the 

municipal code to enable outdoor dining and 

various uses for sidewalks including street 

performance space and sidewalk marketing. 

Density 1,789.9 residents/sq mi 

Geography Northern U.S. 

Climate Humid continental 

Name and Year Location Agency Page 

Transit-Oriented Development, 

1960s to present 

Arlington, VA Arlington County A-36 

More information 

•	 http://files.cityoffargo.com/content/b0fa4675ebc5ab19e7ef75e861c944615843edea/FINAL%20 

2014%20RZ%20Plan_Approved%2012.8.14.pdf 

•	 http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/11/18/a-map-of-cities-that-got-rid-of-parking-minimums 

http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/11/23/robust-growth-and-development-without-mandatingparking 

•	 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/livability/case_studies/guidebook/appendix/app08.cfm 

•	 https://www.planning.org/greatplaces/neighborhoods/2009/downtownfargo.htm 

A-35
 
 

CASE STUDY 17 

TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
 

Arlington, VA 

Define Success 

Protect Nonmotorized 

Travelers 

Promote Supportive 

Development 

Design the Network 

Make It Last 

Pay for It 

IMAGE SOURCE: ARLINGTON, VA 

Project Partners 

• National Capital Transportation Agency 

• Washington, Metropolitan Transit Authority 

Key Elements 

Transit-oriented development (TOD) is a 

development approach that focuses land and 

densities around a transit station or within a transit 

corridor. Featuring a mix of uses, higher density 

development, bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, 

and reduced parking standards, a TOD can 

decrease driving trips, and increase walking 

and biking trips. When the Washington, D.C., 

metropolitan area was building a new regional rail 

system in the 1960s, Arlington County officials 

created the General Land Use Plan (GLUP) to 

focus development around the five new transit 

stations. They called this the “bulls-eye approach” 

with the center target as the densest part of the 

station area and less dense development on the 

outskirts. Each station had an Individual Sector 

Plan that guided streetscape standards, open space 

guidelines, and zoning. The corridor has thrived 

and has become known as the Rosslyn-Ballston 

Corridor. 

The Metro line was originally planned to run 

above ground along the median of Interstate 66. 

County officials and planners recognized that 

highway stations would be less appealing to users, 

and pushed for the Metro stations to be located in 

more attractive locations. The early investment 

paid off. 

Today, the corridor has 26 million square feet 

of retail and office space, 32,000 housing units, 

and 3,700 hotel rooms.1

 Forty-four percent of 

Arlington County’s growth from 1990-2010 

was within a quarter-mile radius of the RosslynBallston metro stations. Ninety percent of new 

development in the County has been located near 

a Metro station. As a result, 41 percent of residents 

within the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor commute to 

work by public transit,2 and most (77 percent) of 

the riders on the five stations in the corridor access 

the station by walking.3 

1 Arlington County, CPHD, Planning Division, Center for Urban 

Design and Research

2 American Community Survey 2006-2010 Tabulated by the Arlington County Department of Community Planning

3 WMATA May 2005 weekday Metrorail ridership and access data 

A-36
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
 


CONTINUED

Key Elements (continued) 

The County’s chief motivation for developing 

the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor was to stimulate 

economic growth. As such, the increase in walking 

and biking generated by the TOD design was an 

additional benefit but not necessarily a planned 

one. After the initial phases of development, the 

TOD plans were successful from a development 

perspective but not always from a “place making” 

Data 

Location Arlington, VA 

Population 207,627 (2010 Census) 

Area 26 sq mi 

Similar Case Studies
 


perspective of creating walkable, pedestrian scaled 

communities. To improve this element, the County 

then focused efforts on updating sector plans and 

urban design guidelines to improve the pedestrian 

environment of the station areas. The sector plan 

updates focused more on the built form than on 

density, yielding more attractive and functional 

pedestrian environments. 

Density 8,048 residents/sq mi 

Geography Southeastern U.S. 

Climate Humid subtropical 

Name and Year Location Agency Page 

None 

More information 

•	 http://projects.arlingtonva.us/planning/smart-growth/rosslyn-ballston-corridor/ 

•	 http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/tysonscorner/nofind/arlingdoc.pdf 

•	 http://planitmetro.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Metrorail-Bicycle-Pedestrian-AccessImprovements-Study-_Final.pdf 

•	 http://ww2.cityofpasadena.net/councilagendas/2007%20agendas/Feb_26_07/Appendix_A_Case%20 

Studies%2012-1-2006%20DRAFT.PDF 

•	 http://ccap.org/assets/CCAP-Booklet_USArlington.pdf 

•	 http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/mason/seven_corners_special_working_group/arlington_countys_40_ 

years_of_smart_growth_presentation.pdf 

A-37
 

CASE STUDY 18 

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CHECKLIST 

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 

IMAGE SOURCE: BICYCLECOALITION.ORG 

Project Partners 

• PennDOT Bureau of Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering 

Define Success 

Protect Nonmotorized 

Travelers 

Promote Supportive 

Development 

Design the Network 

Make It Last 

Pay for It • PennDOT Bureau of Design 

Key Elements 

As part of its Smart Transportation policy, the 

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 

(PennDOT) developed a Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Checklist to ensure bicycle and pedestrian 

accommodations are considered from the 

beginning stages of a project. In 2007, PennDOT 

mandated the evaluation of pedestrian and bicycle 

access and mobility for every highway and bridge 

project. The Checklist was created as an official 

part of PennDOT’s project development process. 

In the Planning and Programming phase, the 

checklist is divided into three sections for each 

stage of the development process: the planning, 

scoping, and design. 

In the Planning and Programming phase, the 

checklist is used to ensure consistency with 

existing bicycle and pedestrian planning 

documents, to evaluate current and future usage 

by bicyclists and pedestrians, to consider safety 

needs, and to take into account community 

development and land-use patterns as well as the 

availability of transit. PennDOT suggests that 

the District Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator 

and the District Planning and Programming 

Manager complete this section of the checklist 

collaboratively. 

In the Scoping phase, the checklist provides 

design specifications to determine what pedestrian 

and bicycle features will be necessary based on 

Planning and Programming findings and guides 

field-checking to note any site constraints. 

PennDOT suggests that the Project Manager 

complete this section, in coordination with the 

District Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator, the 

MPO/RPO, the project sponsor, and other agencies 

or organizations who participate in the field view. 

In the Final Design phase, the checklist provides 

a “cookbook-style” matrix of various bicycle and 

pedestrian design elements to assist in creating 

project plans. This section applies throughout the 

Preliminary Engineering and the Final Design 

Engineering phases of a project. The Project 

Manager is responsible for the completion of this 

section. 

A-38
 

	 

	 

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CHECKLIST 

CONTINUED

Key Elements (continued) 

Mandatory use of the checklist has had a positive 

impact. Bicycle and pedestrian accommodation 

needs are now identified early in the development 

process, and design solutions can be engineered 

from the beginning of a project. The checklist also 

enables PennDOT to include local communities 

and transportation users in the process, which 

helps the agency to build relationships and to 

better understand their needs. That said, the 

effectiveness of the Checklist can vary depending 

upon the relevant skills, knowledge, and interest 

of the DOT project managers responsible for 

applying it. Limited agency resources and 

oversight mean the thoroughness of the Checklist 

can go unchecked. 

The checklist acts as a data-gathering tool, 

helping staff to pull together all of the necessary 

information early in the planning process so that 

proper design treatments can be applied to ensure 

Data 

the inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities as 

well as full compliance with the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA). When multimodal needs 

are considered early in the process, the costs are 

incorporated into PennDOT’s project budget from 

the beginning and are not as much of an obstacle. 

However, if bicycle and pedestrian improvements 

are added to a project already in progress, the local 

municipality may be asked to contribute funding, 

which may present challenges. 

Sidewalks can be another challenge. In 

Pennsylvania, responsibility for sidewalk 

maintenance is delegated to municipalities, so 

while PennDOT will build sidewalks if they are 

incorporated into the project design early in the 

process, the municipality must sign a maintenance 

agreement. Local political will and support for 

complete streets improvements may vary by 

municipality. 

Location Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania 

Population 12,702,379 (2010 Census) 

Area 46,055 sq mi 

Density 284 residents/sq mi 

Geography Eastern U.S. 

Climate Humid continental 

Similar Case Studies 

Name and Year Location Agency Page 

None 

More information 

•	 PennDOT Design Manual Part 10X: http://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/PubsForms/Publications/ 

PUB%2010/Pub10X_Cover.pdf 

•	 Complete Streets: Best Policy and Implementation Practices: http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/ 

documents/cs/resources/cs-bestpractices-chapter5.pdf 

A-39
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

CASE STUDY 19 

COMPLETE STREETS DESIGN GUIDELINES
 


Chicago, IL 

Define Success 

IMAGE SOURCE: PBIC IMAGE LIBRARY/ DAN BURDEN 

Project Partners 

•	 Chicago Department of Transportation 

Key Elements 

The Chicago Complete Streets Design Guidelines 

reframed the City’s transportation planning, 

design, and engineering focus by prioritizing 

pedestrian needs. 

The document provides four policy tools to help 

develop connected bicycle and pedestrian 

networks: 

•	 Modal Hierarchy: “Transportation projects 

and programs will favor pedestrians first, 

then transit riders, cyclists, and automobiles” 

(figure above). 

•	 Typology: Streets are classified by function 

and land use context. Intersections and 

crossings are included within these 

typologies, as are overlays such as the 

existing Historic Boulevard System. 

•	 Design Values: The guide’s design trees help 

City staff weigh street design options, street 

typology, and available right-of-way. 

•	 Procedures: Internal project delivery 

processes identify the policies and procedures 

the department will use to reduce bicycle and 

Protect Nonmotorized 

Travelers 

Promote Supportive 

Development 

Design the Network 

Make It Last 

Pay for It 

pedestrian injuries by 50 percent by 2017 and 

to eliminate all traffic fatalities by 2022. 

The recommendations are grounded in 

assessments of crashes, existing traffic volumes, 

vehicle speeds, intersection survey, community 

engagement, and direct observation. 

The Chicago Complete Streets Design Guidelines 

are part of a suite of documents intended to 

implement the City’s bicycle and pedestrian 

planning initiatives. Other documents within the 

series include People Spots Design Guidelines and 

Sustainable Urban Infrastructure: Policies and 

Guidelines (Volume 1). 

Data collection and analysis have proven 

important aspects of the agency’s policy 

implementation. The agency began collecting 

quarterly pedestrian counts in high-crash locations 

after the legislation’s adoption. The quarterly 

counts help estimate travel volumes near key 

intersections and help with prioritization of 

elements. 

The guidelines call for the following performance 

measures to evaluate success over time: 

A-40
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

COMPLETE STREETS DESIGN GUIDELINES
 


CONTINUED

Key Elements (continued) 

•	 Eliminate all pedestrian, bicycle, and overall 

traffic crash fatalities within 10 years. 

•	 Reduce pedestrian and bicycle crash injuries, 

each by 50 percent within 5 years. 

•	 Reduce total roadway crashes and injuries 

from all roadway crashes, each by 10 percent 

every year. 

•	 Increase the share of people bicycling, 

walking, and taking transit to work and 

working from home to 50 percent by 2040. 

•	 Increase the share of all trips under five miles 

made by cycling to at least 5 percent. 

Data 

Location Chicago, IL 

Population 2,722,407 (2014 Census) 

Area 227.8 sq mi 

Similar Case Studies
 


The City is discussing how to better incorporate 

equity goals and strategies within the department’s 

work. The Complete Streets Design Guidelines 

discuss the following in relation to the document’s 

“pedestrian-first” policy: “This inversion of the 

dominant, auto-based paradigm will allow the 

city’s transportation network to grow safely, 

sustainably, and equitably into the 21st Century.” 

The City’s advocacy groups, including Slow Roll 

Chicago, which focuses on the city’s underserved 

neighborhoods and neighborhoods whose residents 

are predominately people of color, have helped 

expand this dialogue. 

Density 11,952.6 residents/sq mi 

Geography Midwestern U.S. 

Climate Humid continental 

Name and Year Location Agency Page 

Pedestrian and Bicycle LOS, 2007 Charlotte, NC City of Charlotte A-46 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Checklist, 

2007 

Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation 

A-38 

Downtown Urban Design 

Guidelines, 2016 

Boulder, CO City and County of Boulder A-42 

More information 

•	 http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/cdot/Complete%20Streets/ 

CompleteStreetsGuidelines.pdf 

•	 http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/04/chicago-commits-put-pedestrians-first-transportationplanning/5256/ 

•	 http://chi.streetsblog.org/2013/04/11/cdots-new-complete-streets-guidelines-put-people-first-notcars/ 

A-41
 

CASE STUDY 20 

DOWNTOWN URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES
 


Boulder, CO 

IMAGE SOURCE: CITY OF BOULDER 

Define Success 

Protect Nonmotorized 

Travelers 

Promote Supportive 

Development 

Design the Network 

Make It Last 

Pay for It 

Project Partners 

• City of Boulder 

• Boulder Planning Board, Design Advisory Boards, Landmarks Board 

• Downtown Management Commission 

Key Elements 

The City of Boulder updated its Downtown Design 

Guidelines in 2016 after a year-long outreach 

process. The City worked with members of the 

city’s Planning Board, Design Advisory Board, 

Landmarks Board, Downtown Management 

Commission, and the community to produce a 

document that is easy to use but detailed enough to 

generate desired outcomes. 

There are three sections of the guidelines: The 

Historic District, The Non-Historic & Interface 

Areas, and The Public Realm. The first two 

sections focus on how private development shapes 

the look and feel of the city. It also pays special 

attention to preserving the historic character that is 

important to many community members. 

Many communities have adopted guidelines 

related to buildings and historic character, but 

relatively few have also defined their goals for the 

public realm of streets and civic space. Boulder’s 

Public Realm guidelines stress the importance 

of designing downtown corridors for pedestrians 

rather than just for automobiles. The street 

hierarchy in the guidelines does call for two major 

thoroughfares to be more oriented to moving 

automobiles, but the other streets in the guideline 

area are considered “Pedestrian Connectors” or 

“General Pedestrian Oriented Streets.” Alleyways 

and walkways are also shown in the street 

hierarchy as potential pedestrian connections. 

The Public Realm section of the guidelines is 

also unique in that it clearly identifies pedestrian 

zones for both sidewalks and corner/intersection 

areas. The design guidelines feature two graphics 

that denote the various zones to consider when 

designing a good public realm. For sidewalks, one 

must consider the frontage zone, the pedestrian 

zone, and the curb zone. Intersections include 

corner zones, corner amenity areas, crosswalks, 

intersection squares, pedestrian zones, and curb 

zones. The detailed definition of these areas gives 

planners, stakeholders, and the general public 

a better understanding of what makes a great 

public realm and how a street should function for 

pedestrians. 

Providing agency staff and private developers with 

clear guidance for creating a safe, comfortable, 

engaging pedestrian experience is essential to 

creating a successful downtown. 

A-42
 

	 

	 

DOWNTOWN URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES
 


CONTINUED

Data 

Location Boulder, CO 

Population 97,385 (2010 Census) 

Area 24.7 sq. mi 

Density 3,943 residents/sq mi 

Geography Western U.S. 

Climate Semi-arid 

Similar Case Studies 


Name and Year Location Agency Page 

Healthy Design Ordinance, 2013 Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles County A-44 

More Information 

•	 City of Boulder Downtown Urban Design Guidelines Update Process: https://bouldercolorado.gov/ 

planning/downtown-urban-design-guidelines-update 

•	 City of Boulder Downtown Urban Design Guidelines: https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/ 

docs/2016_Downtown_Design_Guidelines_Book_26May2016-1-201606061634.pdf 

A-43
 

	 

	 

	 


 


 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

CASE STUDY 21 

HEALTHY DESIGN ORDINANCE
 


Los Angeles County, CA 

IMAGE SOURCE: ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 

Project Partners 

•	 Renew Los Angeles County 

•	 Department of Health and Human Services through the Los 

Angeles County Department of Public Health 

•	 Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning 

Define Success 

Protect Nonmotorized 

Travelers 

Promote Supportive 

Development 

Design the Network 

Make It Last 

Pay for It 

Key Elements 

The Los Angeles Healthy Design Ordinance
 

(HDO) was adopted February 5, 2013. The goal 

of the ordinance is to, “improve public health 

through changes in the built environment.” Los 

Angeles amended sections of the County Code to 

follow the Healthy Design Principles of “Safety, 

Convenience, and Pleasantness,” while providing 

better walking environments, encouraging more 

bicycling, improving access to healthy foods, and 

enhancing project review requirements.
 

Several policy revisions aim to accomplish 

HDO goals by creating safer and more complete 

multimodal networks throughout the county. 

Specific pedestrian and bicycle revisions included:
 

•	 Increase minimum public sidewalk width 

from 4 to 5 feet. 

•	 When applicable, require shade trees in 

new development projects. 

•	 Require front yard trees next to the 

sidewalk and at more regular intervals. 

•	 Allow an exemption from more stringent 

drought-tolerant landscaping requirements 

to provide better shade trees in areas with 

people walking and bicycling. 

•	 Add pedestrian paths to cul-de-sacs that 

connect residential areas to destinations. 

•	 Require bicycle parking (short- and longterm) in easily-accessible locations. 

•	 Allow an automatic 5 percent car parking 

reduction to development projects that 

include bike parking and are located 

near public transit or along a County bike 

master plan route. 

•	 Require detailed street sections on 

tentative plans in order to depict healthy 

design features such as landscaping, 

lighting, street furniture, and bike parking 

spots. 

A-44
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

HEALTHY DESIGN ORDINANCE 
 

CONTINUED

Key Elements (continued) 

•	 Require higher justification when sidewalk 

and bicycle facilities are proposed to be 

reduced or waived. 

•	 Create standardized block designs and 

maximum perimeter lengths, including 

small blocks, streets at more frequent 

intervals, rear alleys for vehicle access to 

urban block designs, minimal curb cuts on 

street. 

•	 Use traffic calming devices where 

appropriate. 

The Los Angeles County Healthy Design 

Workgroup (HDW) was formed as a result of the 

HDO. The group works to implement the HDO by 

Data 

Location Los Angeles, CA 

Population 10.02 million (2010 Census) 

Area 4,057.88 sq mi 

Similar Case Studies
 


bringing together high-level representatives from 

County departments to improve interdepartmental 

coordination. Since 2013, the HDW has received 

fourteen grants worth a total of $16.4 million to 

support their initiatives. In 2015, the HDW Grants 

Committee was recognized with LA County’s 

highest award for departmental productivity 

and quality improvement. HDO implementation 

achievements include the publication of new 

documents, including “Bicycle Parking Guidelines 

for County Facilities,” “Soil and Water Testing 

Considerations for Home and Community 

Gardens,” and the inclusion of healthy design 

elements within the Community Development 

Commission’s Notice of Funding Availability 

(NOFA) for affordable multi-family housing. 

Density 2,506.31 residents/sq mi 

Geography Western U.S. 

Climate Mediterranean, subtropical 

Name and Year Location Agency Page 

Senate Bill No. 743, Environmental 

Quality, 2013 

California State of California A-12 

Design Standards Ordinance and 

Healthy Eating and Active Living, 

2005 to 2010 

Hernando, MS City of Hernando, MS A-6 

More Information 

•	 Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning: http://planning.lacounty.gov/hdo 

•	 HDO: http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/data/ord_healthy-design_guidelines.pdf 

•	 HDO Summary: http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/data/hdo_two-minute-summary20111121. 

pdf 

•	 “Zoning a Healthier Los Angeles?,” Mark Vallianatos, Streetsblog LA, February 22, 2013: http:// 

la.streetsblog.org/2013/02/22/zoning-a-healthier-los-angeles/ 

•	 Model Street Design Manual: http://www.modelstreetdesignmanual.com/ 

A-45
 

CASE STUDY 22 

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
 


CHARLOTTE, NC 

Define Success 

Protect Nonmotorized 

Travelers 

Promote Supportive 

Development 

Design the Network IMAGE SOURCE: CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Project Partners 

• City of Charlotte 

Key Elements 

In 2007, as part of the City’s Urban Street 

Design Guidelines (USDG), Charlotte developed 

a methodology to evaluate how signalized 

intersections meet the needs of pedestrians and 

bicyclists. The results of the evaluation inform 

the preferred design and operation features of 

proposed intersection investments. A multimodal 

Level of Service (LOS) approach was intended 

to reflect the goals of the USDG, specifically 

the desire to increase transportation choices by 

making travel by walking, bicycling, and transit 

safer and more convenient. The methodology 

evaluates key features of intersections according 

to their influence on the comfort and safety of 

pedestrians and bicyclists. 

A major difference from the previous LOS method 

is that thresholds for auto volume to capacity 

Bicycle and Pedestrian LOS Features 

Make It Last 

Pay for It 

(V/C) ratios are higher and are measured for two 

hours, rather than the peak hour, which could 

result in overestimation of needed capacity. This 

approach makes it less likely that intersections 

will need improvements for automobile travel, 

which could create opportunities to improve 

conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians. The 

LOS methodology can also be used to improve 

the design for bicyclists and pedestrians when 

capacity for motorists needs to be improved. 

LOS for pedestrians and bicyclists is calculated 

based on a point system established in Charlotte’s 

USDG and assesses the intersection features 

shown in the table below. 

The LOS is determined by the sum of points 

accumulated for each mode. The relative 

expectations for each mode’s LOS varies 

Pedestrian LOS Bicycle LOS 

Crossing distance Width of bicycle travel way 

Signal phasing and timing Speed of adjacent traffic 

Corner radius Signal features (left turn phasing, stop bar location) 

Right turns on red Right turn traffic conflict 

Crosswalk treatment Right turns on red 

Adjustment for one-way street crossings Crossing distance 

A-46
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
 


CONTINUED

Key Elements (continued) 

according to the planned function and context of 

each intersection. LOS thresholds and the point 

system are described in the appendices of the 

USDG. 

The City calculates bicycle and pedestrian LOS 

for intersections where auto improvements have 

been identified, focused on arterials and collectors, 

not local or main street corridors, where it is 

reasonable for users to share space. If two or more 

nearby intersections are identified for possible 

changes, the scope of the analysis is broadened to 

include the appropriate corridor or area. 

The LOS assessment method has some limitations 

recognized by local staff, including: 

•	 The multimodal assessment does not 

address transit LOS. 

Data 

Location Charlotte, NC 

Population 731,424 (2010 Census) 

Area 297.7 sq mi 

Similar Case Studies
 


•	 The process only considers travel at 

intersections, not along roadways. 

•	 The methodology focuses on the 

functionality, not the quality of the 

environment. Elements that make an area 

more inviting and attractive to pedestrians 

and bicyclists, such as visual stimuli, 

convenience, security and noise are not 

considered. 

•	 The process does not consider other 

features that affect the comfort and safety 

of pedestrians and bicyclists, including: 

sight lines, street lighting, pavement 

condition, signing, pedestrian and bike 

detection, curb extensions, and ADA 

features. 

Density 2,720.7 residents/sq mi 

Geography Southeastern U.S. 

Climate Humid subtropical 

Name and Year Location Agency Page 

Multimodal Level of Service 

Toolkit, 2009 

Jacksonville, FL Florida Department of 

Transportation 

A-10 

Crosswalk Safety Policies, 2012 Boulder, CO Boulder Transportation 

Division 

A-16 

More information 

•	 http://asap.fehrandpeers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/MMLOS-Tool-Charlotte.pdf 

•	 http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/Transportation/PlansProjects/Documents/ 

ALOSStandardsAppendixApril05.pdf 

•	 http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/Transportation/PlansProjects/Documents/ 

RevUSDGChapter5KHO23.pdf 

A-47
 

	 

	 

CASE STUDY 23 

MEMPHIS SIDEWALK ORDINANCE 

Memphis, TN 

IMAGE SOURCE: MEMPHISFLYER.COM 

Project Partners 

• City of Memphis, Division of Engineering 

• Property Owners 

• Memphis Pedestrian and School Safety Action Plan Technical 

Advisory Committee 

Define Success 

Protect Nonmotorized 

Travelers 

Promote Supportive 

Development 

Design the Network 

Make It Last 

Pay for It 

Key Elements 

The Memphis Sidewalk Ordinances (2013) 

represent a proactive approach to sidewalk 

maintenance. A 1967 city law makes property 

owners, including businesses and homeowners, 

responsible for maintenance and repair of 

sidewalks adjacent to their property. Many of 

the city’s sidewalks are in poor condition after 

50 to 60 years of wear and tear, creating unsafe 

conditions for those who use them. The City 

determined that nearly all of the sidewalks in its 

3,400 mile network require repair, with one third 

of the system demanding immediate attention. The 

City also found that an additional 13 percent of 

sidewalks, or 446 miles, are less than the standard 

width allowed for proper wheelchair access. The 

City estimates that it would cost $19 million per 

year to properly maintain sidewalks. At that rate, it 

would take over 24 years to fix just the 30 percent 

of sidewalks in need of urgent repair. 

Based on the research and planning process, 

the City has applied a number of strategies to 

implement the Safety Action plan, as shown in the 

table on the next page. 

The staff conducted a review of sidewalk 

maintenance practices in peer cities (Atlanta, 

Austin, Charlotte, Nashville, and New Orleans), 

and identified the following creative strategies 

for improving sidewalks with limited public 

resources: 

•	 Multiple models exist for increasing public 

investment in, and responsibility for, 

sidewalk maintenance. There is precedent 

for a complete shift to public responsibility 

of walkways in the public right-of-way, but 

cost-sharing models and strategic public 

investments in the sidewalk network allow 

for property owners and local government 

agencies to share maintenance costs. 

•	 Packaging flexible funds for new sidewalk 

construction in conjunction with other 

infrastructure investments, such as sewer 

construction, can lead to significant cost 

savings. Clayton, MO, for instance, has 

developed a program with dedicated flexible 

funding. 

A-48
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

MEMPHIS SIDEWALK ORDINANCES 

CONTINUED

Key Elements (continued) 

•	 Equitable policies to assist low-income 

property owners with sidewalk maintenance 

may be politically challenging to implement 

if some residents feel that others are receiving 

preferential treatment. 

The first three recommendations are 

currently being implemented, while the final 

recommendation is under consideration. 

Recommendations 

Develop a sidewalk maintenance program to ensure that the City’s efforts to enhance the sidewalk network do 

not place an unfair burden on disadvantaged property owners. 

Develop a property owner’s guide to sidewalk maintenance that explains property owner responsibilities in 

simple language and informs property owners of special programs available to assist with fulfilling their 

obligations, such as cost sharing incentives and financial hardship programs. 

Provide financial incentives to encourage property owners to repair adjacent sidewalks in disrepair. These 

incentives commonly include providing low- or no-interest loans, or an offer by the city to match property owner 

funds put toward sidewalk repair and replacement. 

Develop a Fast Fix Sidewalk Repair program. This is a proposed (not implemented) program that would provide 

property owners with a list of insured, City-approved contractors that provide prompt, low-cost sidewalk repair 

services. After the repair is completed, the City inspects the work and a one-year warranty is issued by the 

contractor if the repair passes the inspection. Contractor are pre-approved and receive training on Memphis’s 

sidewalk standards, eliminating the need for a building permit. This recommendation is largely based on the 

Dallas, TX, Fast Fix Program. 

Data
 


Location Memphis, TN 

Population 646,889 (2010 Census) 

Area 315.10 sq mi 

Density 2,000 residents/sq mi 

Geography Southeastern U.S. 

Climate Humid subtropical 

Similar Case Studies
 


Name and Year Location Agency Page 

None 

More information 

•	 City of Memphis Sidewalks page within the Engineering Division: http://www.memphistn.gov/ 

Government/EngineeringDivision/Sidewalks.aspx 

•	 Memphis Pedestrian and School Safety Action Plan: https://bikepedmemphis.files.wordpress. 

com/2015/06/mpss_action_plan_final_optimized.pdf 

•	 “Can the Bid for Walkability Make More Cities Take Responsibility for Sidewalks?,” Next City: 

https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/walkability-cities-sidewalk-upkeep-homeowner-responsibility 

•	 “Sidewalk Struggle,” Memphis Flyer: http://www.memphisflyer.com/memphis/sidewalk-struggle/ 

Content?oid=3685284 

•	 “Property Owner’s Guide to Sidewalk Maintenance and Repair,” City of Memphis http://memphistn. 

gov/Portals/0/pdf_forms/SidewalkRepairGuide.pdf 

A-49
 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

CASE STUDY 24 

BICYCLE FACILITY MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES
 


Minneapolis, MN 

Define Success 

Protect Nonmotorized 

Travelers 

Promote Supportive 

Development 

Design the Network 

Make It Last 

Pay for It 

IMAGE SOURCE: STARTRIBUNE.COM 

Project Partners 

•	 City of Minneapolis Public Works Department 

Key Elements 

In May, 2010, the City of Minneapolis published a 

Bicycle Facility Manual, which was subsequently 

incorporated into the City’s Street and Sidewalk 

Design Guidelines. Chapter 8 of the Bicycle 

Facility Design section contains design guidelines 

for bicycle facility maintenance. While many 

cities have bicycle plan and design guidelines, 

Minneapolis is unique in that it gives specific 

direction on the maintenance of bicycle facilities. 

These guidelines are comprehensive and discuss 

basic levels of service that should be provided 

through routine maintenance as well as additional 

levels of services that can be added as needed. 

The guidelines outline a number of maintenance 

practices, including: 

•	 Mowing and vegetation 

•	 Plowing 

•	 Preventative maintenance (i.e., patching and 

sealing) 

•	 Signage and striping 

•	 Sweeping, graffiti, and trash removal 

•	 Snow and ice removal 

The Minneapolis Bicycle Facility Design 

Guidelines maintenance chapter contains 

recommended practices and precise policies. 

Example policies include: 

•	 Bikeways need to be plowed once by the end 

of the next business day after a snow fall. 

•	 On street facilities receive the same level of 

winter maintenance as the rest of the street 

surface. 

•	 Trails will be mowed regularly to maintain a 

clear zone, with mowing taking place at least 

twice a year. 

Because the guidelines set levels of service, they 

can help the City to evaluate the costs of each 

maintenance program and set priorities as needed. 

Maintenance programs targeted at bicycle and 

pedestrian facilities require coordination among 

city staff (public works, transportation, and parks/ 

rec) and with a variety of stakeholders including 

community groups and advocacy organizations. 

Maintenance issues can be unique to each city, 

as well as each facility, so an ideal maintenance 

A-50
 

	 

	 

	 

BICYCLE FACILITY MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES 

CONTINUED

Key Elements (continued) 

program is one that is tailored to each setting. various activities (i.e. trail and bike lane sweeping 

Additionally, bicycle and pedestrian facility or plowing). 

maintenance can require specific vehicles for 

Data 

Location Minneapolis, MN 

Population 382,599 (2010 Census) 

Area 53.97 sq mi 

Density 7,088.30 residents/sq mi 

Geography Midwestern U.S. 

Climate Humid continental 

Similar Case Studies 

Name and Year Location Agency Page 

None 

More information 

•	 City of Minneapolis Street and Sidewalk Design Guidelines: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/ 

publicworks/transplan/comp/public-works_trans-plan_designguidelines 

•	 City of Minneapolis Public Works Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines: http://www.minneapolismn. 

gov/www/groups/public/@publicworks/documents/webcontent/convert_261656.pdf 

•	 City of Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@ 

publicworks/documents/webcontent/convert_275983.pdf 

A-51
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

CASE STUDY 25 

BRIDGING THE GAP
 


Seattle, WA 

IMAGE SOURCE: PBIC IMAGE LIBRARY/ DAN BURDEN 

Project Partners 

•	 Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) 

•	 Bridging the Gap (BTG) Oversight Committee (appointed) 

Key Elements 

Define Success 

Protect Nonmotorized 

Travelers 

Promote Supportive 

Development 

Design the Network 

Make It Last 

Pay for It 

Bridging the Gap (BTG) was a nine-year, $365 

million levy from 2006 to 2015 that addressed 

twenty years of deferred street and infrastructure 

maintenance. The proposition that was passed in 

2006, authorized regular property taxes higher 

than legislated limits, allowing collection of up 

to $36,650,000 in additional taxes in 2007 and up 

to $365,000,000 over nine years. The 2007 total 

regular tax limit would be $3.69/$1,000 assessed 

value, including approximately $0.36 additional 

taxes generated by the levy. When voters approved 

the tax levy in 2006, they also stipulated the 

percentages SDOT should spend on selected 

project categories: 

•	 Maintenance would receive no less than 67 

percent of tax levy spending 

•	 Pedestrian and bicycle safety would receive 

no less than 18 percent of tax levy spending 

•	 Transit and major projects would receive no 

more than 15 percent of tax levy spending 

The tax levy supported safe bicycle and pedestrian 

networks by financing a variety of physical 

infrastructure projects. SDOT developed an annual 

Work Plan with a list of projects to complete 

over the coming year. The bicycle and pedestrian 

projects were pulled from the Bicycle Master Plan 

and the Pedestrian Master Plan. An annual End of 

Year Accomplishments list was created to track the 

proposed projects, quarterly spending and yearend results. 

The 2006 tax levy was the largest in the City’s 

history and the importance of accountability was 

paramount. Throughout the length of the tax 

levy period, an Oversight Committee composed 

of citizens and transportation professionals 

met quarterly to monitor spending and project 

progress. The Oversight Committee also reviewed 

SDOT’s work plan and made recommendations 

to the Mayor and the City Council regarding levy 

expenditures. The Oversight Committee was made 

up of 15 individuals, who were appointed by the 

following authorities: 

A-52
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

BRIDGING THE GAP 

CONTINUED

Key Elements (continued) 

•	 Five appointed by Mayor 

•	 Five appointed by City Council 

•	 One Bicycle Advisory Board Representative 

•	 One Pedestrian Advisory Board Representative 

•	 One Freight Mobility Advisory Board 

Representative 

•	 One City Council member 

•	 The City Budget Director 

Data
 

Location Seattle, WA 

Population 608,660 (2010 Census) 

Area 83.87 sq mi 

Similar Case Studies
 


In May, 2015, the Oversight Committee drafted a 

letter to the Mayor of Seattle and the Seattle City 

Council President stating that, in their opinion, 

the City of Seattle met the Bridging the Gap 

legislation’s requirements for success through, 

“project implementation; ability to manage and 

control costs; and the ability to identify alternative 

revenue sources and leverage levy funds.” The 

image above illustrates program goals and the 

status as of 2014. A new tax levy, Move Seattle, 

was passed in 2015. 

Density 7,969 residents/sq mi 

Geography Western U.S. 

Climate Temperate marine 

Name and Year Location Agency Page 

Complete Streets Design Guidelines, 

2013 

Chicago, IL Chicago Department of 

Transportation 

A-40 

More information 

•	 http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/BridgingtheGap.htm 

•	 http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/btg_accomplishments.htm 

•	 http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/btg/BTGAnnualReport2014.pdf 

•	 http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/library/docLib/Pishue-Bridging-the-Gap-Levy-failed-to-reducecity-street-backlog.pdf 

A-53
 

CASE STUDY 26 

PRECISE PLAN CAPS ON SINGLEOCCUPANT VEHICLE (SOV) TRIPS 

North Bayshore, Mountain View, CA 

IMAGE SOURCE: MOUNTAINVIEW.GOV 

Project Partners 

• Mountain View, CA 

• Similar programs in several cities in the San Francisco Bay Area 

Define Success 

Protect Nonmotorized 

Travelers 

Promote Supportive 

Development 

Design the Network 

Make It Last 

Pay for It 

• Private employers 

Key Elements 

In 2014, the City of Mountain View adopted the 

North Bayshore Precise Plan to create the potential 

for additional office and housing growth in 

Mountain View’s North Bayshore area (currently 

home to technology companies including Google 

and LinkedIn). Given the current automobile 

congestion and limited infrastructure capacity 

available, it was determined that any growth in 

this area would have to be controlled in some 

way. While there are urban design guidelines that 

regulate floor area ratios, the Plan does not set 

growth limits. Instead, it sets a cap on the number 

of new net single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips a 

development can generate with a maximum of 45 

percent, and may be as low as 30 percent for more 

dense employment development. Employers could 

face a $100,000 fine for each 1 percent over the 

cap. 

Because only three roads access the North 

Bayshore area, the City devised a system of 

trip counting to enforce a maximum number 

of SOV trips that enter the Plan area each day. 

Capital improvements to increase the network’s 

capacity to serve SOV trips beyond the capped 

amount would be provided solely by North 

Bayshore private developers. In lieu of funding 

expanded infrastructure, every new development 

proposal would have to provide a transportation 

demand management (TDM) program that 

details how it will meet the trip cap. After the 

plan was approved, over 7 million square feet of 

development permits were filed with the City. 

North Bayshore companies have made significant 

investments in active transportation programs, bus 

transport, and other TDM measures to meet the 

Plan’s targets. 

SOV trip plans are not new to Silicon Valley. 

In 1989, Santa Clara County issued a permit to 

Stanford University allowing the campus to grow 

by 2 million square feet with a condition that the 

expansion would not generate a net increase in 

automobile commute trips. Stanford bolstered 

alternative transportation options while making 

driving alone less convenient by charging parking 

fees. The fees collected from parking went 

directly into green commute programs. Stanford 

currently has a SOV commute rate of 48 percent 

and calculates that $107 million dollars have 

been saved by not building additional parking 

structures. 

A-54
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

PRECISE PLAN CAPS ON SINGLEOCCUPANT VEHICLE (SOV) TRIPS 

CONTINUED

Key Elements (continued)
 


Other communities across Silicon Valley have 

incorporated trip caps into specific plans to 

minimize the impact of new development in 

congested job centers, including: 

•	 Sunnyvale’s Central and Wolfe Transportation 

Demand Management (TDM) area has a trip 

cap of 50 percent SOV, which represents a 25 

percent reduction from the existing rates at 

the time of program commencement. 

•	 Menlo Park’s East of 101 Plan (the location of 

Facebook) has a trip cap of 56 percent SOV, 

which, like Sunnyvale, also represents a 25 

percent reduction. Penalties under this plan 

are a $50 fine per additional trip per day. 

•	 Cupertino approved a new campus 

development for Apple with a trip cap of 66 

percent SOV, down from the current cap of 72 

percent. 

Data 

Location Mountain View, CA 

Population 74,066 (2010 Census) 

Area 12.30 sq mi 

Similar Case Studies
 


Silicon Valley trip caps require businesses to 

either pay large fines or invest in alternative 

transportation modes. Most companies have 

chosen the route of investing in green commuting 

options (including active transportation, shuttles, 

ferries, and others). 

Investments in TDM programs alone are not 

always enough to meet the trip cap threshold, 

potentially requiring new infrastructure; 

sometimes infrastructure must also be expanded. 

Determining who pays for what adds complexity 

to the development process. Mountain View’s 

North Bayshore Plan’s regional trip cap means 

that companies like Google and LinkedIn must 

work together to reduce SOV commuting. If the 

cap is exceeded, they have to agree on who funds 

infrastructure improvements. Trip caps may be 

easier to implement for specific new developments 

than they are at the regional level. 

Density 6,000 residents/sq mi 

Geography Western U.S. 

Climate Mediterranean 

Name and Year Location Agency Page 

None 

More information
 


•	 North Bayshore Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan Guidelines: http://www. 

mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=15164 

•	 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Public Comment, Cities21: http://www.cities21.org/ 

cms/PA_Transp_Elem_C21.pdf 

•	 “Going Nowhere Fast: Traffic Issues Could Stall Tech Growth,” Silicon Valley Business Journal: 

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/print-edition/2015/11/13/going-nowhere-fast-traffic-issuescould-stall-tech.html 

A-55
 

For More Information Visit: 

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

Publication Number: FHWA-SA-17-006